Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment

Prepared by: D.H. Strongheart

Prepared for:The City of Gates, Or.

June 2014

City of Gates, Oregon

The City of Gates is one of a number of small and growing communities in the Willamette Valley. Planning for adequate parks and recreation facilities will be key to maintaining and preserving a high quality of life in these areas. However, providing adequate park facilities is a challenge for many small communities like Gates. Lack of resources – both staff and funding – limits many communities’ ability to develop and maintain adequate parksystems. Identifying system priorities and matching them with available resources requires careful planning, and communities are typically required to develop and adopt park system master plans to guide development of their parks system and justify fees associated with development and maintenance.

Parks can provide a variety of resources and opportunities for communities. These include passive and active recreation opportunities, preservation of open space and wildlife habitat that may include environmentally sensitive land such as wetlands or coastlines, and preservation of historic, cultural and natural resources. In addition, parks may serve as informal meeting places in a community – drawing residents together and creating a sense of cohesiveness and community.

This report was produced as part of Portland State University’s Urban and Regional Planning course, USP 531 GIS for Planners, Spring 2014. It provides a background and analysis of City of Gates' park needs and

desires, as well as preliminary recommendations for future improvements. This report is also intended to serve as the basis for Gates' broader effort to

develop a parks master plan.

The research and analysis in this report was carried out with guidance and support from the Mid-Willamette Council of Governments (MWVCOG).

Report prepared by:Dependable Hickory (D.H.) Strongheart

Executive Summary

Chapter 1 : BackgroundChapter 2 : Existing Parks and Recreation FacilitiesChapter 3 : Current Parks and Recreation Needs in GatesChapter 4 : Possibilities for Future Parks and Recreation PlanningConclusion

Appendix A: Prioritization Matrix for Recommended Park Improvements

Appendix B: Planned Regional Trail Projects

Appendix C: Compilation of Figures

17101219

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 : BackgroundSummary of Data UsedGIS shapefile data was downloaded from the Marion County website - this spatial data provided us with roads, water features, tax lots, city boundaries, and the urban growth boundary. The Oregon Spatial Data Library provided block group shapefiles and some 2010 demographic data (population density and race). Using Social Explorer, we were able to further understand the population and demographics for the City of Gates based off of the 1990, 2000, and 2010 Census data. Data used included, population density, race, sex, median household income, and household types. It is impossible to conduct detailed analysis of current population density and trends as we only have access to 2010 census data. This data may not accurately reflect the current demographic changes (or lack thereof) that are occurring in the City of Gates.

Interviews with local officials - Mayor Mike Higgs, City Recorder Traci Archer, and Public Works manager Greg Benthin - provided insight into the city and the population’s expected needs. Interviews also lead to identification of potential park improvements.

MethodologyResearch methodology for this assessment included both quantitative and qualitative methods. Research combined data analysis; spatial data and map analysis; fieldwork, including site visits, informal interviews, and non-participant observation. Short, informal telephone and email conversations with key information holders were also an important source of information. Maps created using ArcGIS software served as the basis for spatial analysis of demographical and geophysical parameters relevant to the scope of this report.

Preliminary research began with the review of population and demographic data of Gates, Oregon, which was accessed from Social Explorer on U.S. Census data. The Comprehensive Plan of Gates, Oregon was also reviewed for basic background information. Field research was then conducted during a one-day visit to Gates. The author met with the two city employees and the Mayor of Gates. An informal interview was conducted using both prepared and unprepared questions. The primary goals of the interview were: a) to learn of existing and past parks-related planning in Gates; b) what the most likely scenarios forfuture parks planning might be; and, c) what barriers exist in siting, financing and maintaining park and recreation facilities in Gates.

1

After a short walking tour of the area around Gates City Park with the city officials, a windshield survey and driving tour of Gates was conducted. This survey lasted about one hour, and was conducted to explore some specific areas mentioned by Gates’ city officials, as well as to gain an understanding of the neighborhoods, streets, and on-the-ground conditions in Gates.

The findings from these stages of research were examined in light of the goals, issue areas, and strategic actions outlined in the 2013-17 SCORP document. Through an essentially heuristic and iterative process, the most salient research findings and recommendations were organized into a final report.

Population and Demographic BackgroundThe city of Gates, Oregon lies in Marion County, east of Salem on the Santiam River (See Figure 1.1). Gates contains about 0.65 square miles, and, as of 2010, was home to 222 households, with a population of 471. The Santiam State Forest lies just to the south, and the Detroit Lake State Park and Willamette National Forest are just to the east.

Figure 1.1: City of Gates - Site Map

2

3

Population and AgeThe population of Gates has hovered near 500 for several decades, with a slight decline of approximately 6% since 1990. The share of residents under 34 has steadily declined in that time, with marked increases in residents over 35. The sharpest increase has been in residents between 35 and 64 years, whose share of overall population has increased 14% since 1990. From the perspective of parks and recreation provisioning, this age group is likely to share a number of similar health and activity concerns, which might differ greatly from younger populations and those over 65. Figure 1.2 shows concentration of residents by census block; a large number of residents surround the single existing city park.

School-aged children (5-17) comprise 15% of Gates’ population, with an additional 4% being under 5 years of age. With the recent closure of the Gates Elementary School, elementary school students now commute to school in Mill City. (This has always been the case for middle and high school students). The 2013-17 SCORP document suggests that, statewide, children are getting an increasingly higher percentage of their overall outdoor activities at school, and much less from activities outside of school. If this trend holds true in Gates, it suggests that the bulk of outdoor activity among Gates’ school-age students transpires outside of Gates.

Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) were identified as a key focus group for outdoor recreation in both the 2008-12 and 2013-17 SCORP documents. According to 2010 U.S. Census data, Baby Boomer-aged citizens comprise over 32% of the population in Gates. The provision of ample and easily accessible park, green space and walking areas that are appropriate for this age group is therefore a primary concern in future parks planning. This should also inform the specific type of park and outdoor recreation amenities that are provided in Gates, as trails, urban walkways and greenways, for instance, would provide more exercise opportunities for Baby Boomers than a traditional park.

RacePeople of different racial and cultural backgrounds have different cultural understandings of parks and outdoor recreation. Participation and utilization of outdoor recreation can also vary by race, as research has shown that, in the U.S., minorities are generally less likely than Whites to recreate outdoors (2013-17 SCORP).

The share of non-white residents in Gates has declined from 12.5% (59) in 2000 to 7.6% (36) in 2010. The share of Hispanic, Native American and other race groups has all declined in this time, while the Asian population of Gates has increased slightly.

Zoning and Land OwnershipOut of 294 tax lots, the City of Gates owns two lots, and Marion County owns five lots. See Figure 1.3 on the facing page for zoning information, and Figure 3.1 for a map of public land ownership.

4

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.05Miles ¯

Population0 - 3

4 - 11

12 - 24

25 - 46

47 - 118

Figure 1.2: Population by Block

Figure 1.3: Zoning

5

Environmental Context

TrafficRoute 22 is a popular thoroughfare for travelers, particularly sightseers moving from Interstate 5 into the Willamette National Forest. An automatic traffic recorder station is situated in Gates, and ODOT data from 2002-2011 show that an average of about 5,000 vehicles pass by Gates on Route 22 daily.

Topography and GeologyMost of the city of Gates has a fairly uniform topography. The bulk of the geology in this mostly flat portion of Gates is alluvium deposits from the historical meanderings and floodplains of the Santiam River. The geology of this portion of Gates suggests that rainwater will infiltrate into the ground more rapidly here than anywhere else in the city.

The north end of Gates climbs rather quickly into a hillside. The steepness of these hills has contributed to historic landslides, and the footprint of one such historic event borders on the north end of Gates. Much of the land to the south, where Gates interfaces with the Santiam River, has experienced dramatic erosion, resulting in a near-vertical escarpment there (See Figure 1.4). This escarpment sets safety limitations on, for instance, the possibilities for a riverside trail or greenway.

Natural HazardsWhile analysis shows that the natural hazards vulnerabilities of Gates do not present dire considerations with regard to the possible placement of parks, their existence is nonetheless worth considering. The Mount Angel fault straddles Marion County at the north, and in 1993 registered a magnitude 5.6 earthquake. While the Oregon Department of Minerals and Natural Resources does not list Gates as having significant vulnerabilities in the event of an earthquake, the fact that the Detroit dam lies just 10 miles upstream is cause for extra precaution.

Flooding hazards are not an exigent issue in Gates, due mostly to the fact that the Santiam River runs at the bottom of a deep channel through most of Gates. At the western end of town, the river comes much closer to ground level, and a 100-year flood event would likely inundate some of the private land there. In the event of a failure of the Detroit dam, the extensiveness of the flooding would depend on the rate of discharge from the failed dam. The most recent flood event occurred in 1996; the water did not reach properties on this occasion.

6

NorthSantiam

River

North SantiamRiver

FEMA-Defined 100-Year Flood Zone for Gates, Oregon

LegendGates City Boundary

FEMA 100-Year Flood Zone

North Santiam River

Parks

«Map created by D.H. Strongheart, 5/31/2014Data sources: FEMA, GIS Data Feeds,available at: http://gis.fema.gov/DataFeeds.htmlMarion County, Oregon GIS Data Download,available at: http://gis.co.marion.or.us/GISDownload/gisdownload.aspx

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.05Miles

Figure 1.4: Slope Conditions

Figure 1.5: FEMA-Defined 100-Year Flood Zone

Chapter 2 : Existing Parks and Recreation FacilitiesGates City ParkGates City Park (see facing page), near the center of town, is currently the only public park in Gates, and comprises .15 acres. According to the level of service guidelines advanced in the SCORP document, the size of Gates City Park would classify it as a “pocket park”, though its use appears to be more closely aligned with a “neighborhood park”. The guidelines suggest that a pocket park service a population within a ¼ mile radius, while neighborhood parks should service those within a ½ mile radius. Current amenities at Gates City Park include parking, swing sets and a playground for children, three picnic tables, a small basketball court, and a dog waste station.

Gates Elementary SchoolTechnically outside of the city limits, the Gates Elementary School is situated on about 18 acres of land, 7 of which are currently developed. Before its recent closure, the school served elementary students from Gates. The school and its accompanying lands are currently on the market, and the city has no resources to procure the real estate. The closure of the Gates Elementary School deprives the community of a large swath of contiguous public open space.

Minto County ParkThe Minto County Park abuts Gates on the east end, between the Santiam River and Route 22. It is a day-use park of nearly 72 acres, offering picnic tables, hiking trails, fishing and access to the Santiam River. The park does not continue into Gates; however, the land adjacent to the border with Minto Park does provide an opportunity to expand Minto Park, or for the City to take advantage this existing recreation opportunity. The county owns the adjacent land located in the city limits. This provides an ideal space for expansion and the creation of other recreational opportunities, such as a campground. Furthermore, the City and the North Santiam Canyon Economic Development Corporation have identified an abandoned railway within the county-owned parcel that extends from Mill City to Big Cliff Damn. This provides an excellent opportunity to explore a rails-to-trails project.

7

8

Minto Park

Gates City Park

°0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.05

Miles

Figure 2.1: Existing Parks Inventory

Gates City Park contains several play structures in a gravel lot, as well as a lawn with picnic benches.

9

Trails, Greenways and WalkwaysGates currently has no established urban trails or greenways. A somewhat popular walking route does exist along West Central Street, though there is no trail, and protruding vegetation along the small shoulder may inhibit safe walking. Traffic volume can be high, as many residents opt to take Central Street in order to bypass traffic on Route 22, which it parallels. Furthermore, some southern portions of the street abut closely to the escarpment on the Santiam River’s north bank, making this side of the road unsuitable for walking.

In 1996, ODOT identified a small sliver of ROW along Route 22 as “abandoned”. This land was allocated to the City of Gates to maintain. Since then, the City has created a small unofficial linear park with ample open green space, a gazebo, ADA accessible parking and walkway to the gazebo, and a dog waste station. Located within close proximity of the gazebo is a bus shelter that provides transit from Gates to Salem, and a park-and-ride lot has been established directly to the east of the bus stop.

Gates School

Gates City Park

Gazebo in ODOT ROW

10

Chapter 3 : Current Parks and Recreation Needs in GatesNeeds and BarriersAccording to even the minimum level of service standards set forth in the 2013-17 SCORP document, Gates is severely under-serviced vis-à-vis the quantitative provisioning of park acreage. These minimum guidelines suggest that Gates has a park acreage deficit of at least 3.13 acres.

In speaking with Gates City officials and conducting walking and driving tours, a number of potential sites for future park provision were identified (see Figure 4.1). Also identified were a number of barriers, which cumulatively make the attainment of the minimum SCORP acreage guidelines a major challenge. While Gates’ association with the Mid-Willamette Council of Governments can help to assuage these barriers, they remain a foremost consideration. As with many small, rural communities in Oregon, Gates experiences a chronic and severe shortage of public funds. The time, capacity and technology resources of the City’s employees are usually maxed-out, and larger-scale capital investments with considerable up-front costs are thus very difficult to realize. A second constraint pertains to the shortage of publicly owned land in Gates. As seen in Figure 3.1, the availability of land to expand park facilities is quite limited. To meet the needs described in the SCORP document, the city would have to work with the county to create park space on the county owned lots or purchase private lands. Regardless of whether Gates will be able to achieve the quantitative levels of service for park acreage, some clear qualitative guidelines for future park space can be identified that might help to ensure that future park space is of the utmost utility to residents of Gates.

Figure 3.1: Public Lands Inventory

11

Needs of Different Age GroupsThe existing amenities at Gates City Park are most suitable only for the play of young children. The small basketball court offers the only activity suitable for older children or adolescents, while no element of the park—other than, perhaps, the picnic table—is conducive to adult and/or senior use. It is thus clear that Gates’ only park is not adequately serving the entirety of its population.

As mentioned above, the 2013-17 SCORP document suggests that children are likely to get the majority of their outdoor recreation time at school. This may not be true, however, for many of the older residents who are retired or commute outside of Gates for work. Because health and exercise considerations for middle-aged and elderly people might be more exigent than for younger individuals, it seems clear that the outdoor recreation needs of the adult and elderly populations should have foremost consideration in future park provisioning in Gates. While no one age group’s outdoor recreation needs are more important than any other’s, the adult, Baby Boomer and elderly populations of Gates should nonetheless be considered a critical population for future parks planning. Amenities that encourage physical exercise will thus be an important element of future parks provisioning in Gates. Amenities such as walking/jogging trails, sports courts and perhaps outdoor exercise equipment or an integrated system of trail and exercise benches could ensure utilization by multiple age groups, while also directly addressing the needs of Gates’ most critical population.

Economic NeedsGates is embedded in a region that is strongly connected to outdoor recreation-related tourism activities like fishing, camping, hiking and scenic driving. While Marion County and some nearby communities have leveraged local facilities to capitalize on these tourism activities, Gates has yet to do so. Focusing on parks and recreation outcomes that have potential to attract more day-use or overnight tourist activities would benefit Gates both financially and culturally. The ability to add these new streams of income would also ensure that Gates has a more robust capacity to maintain existing parks and facilities.

Needs for Public ParticipationThere is currently no data regarding the self-reported parks and recreation needs of Gates’ residents. Conducting a short survey of local residents as to their own priorities for future parks planning in Gates would have immense benefit. The resulting data would help to refine the allocation of parks and recreation resources, while also strengthening Gates’ ability to attract state funding for the future development of parks.

12

Chapter 4 : Possibilities for Future Parks and Recreation PlanningExpansion and Redevelopment of Gates City ParkThe expansion of the size and amenities available at Gates City Park is a strategic option for a number of reasons. Because of the existing capital investment in the park, the city would not have to “start from scratch” in expanding the existing facilities. This is important given the serious financial limitations that Gates confronts. Furthermore, the parking lot on the north side of Gates City Park is currently much larger than needed, so there is already a source of publicly owned land that could be used for the expansion. An expansion and redevelopment scenario could include a number of important improvements, such as:

• Converting the existing gravel playground area, and some portion of the gravel parking lot, into grass;• Creation of a large, covered outdoor space for community events;• Construction of permanent restrooms;• The addition of more recreation amenities appropriate for young adults and adolescents, like

tetherball, a small soccer field and the improvement of the existing basketball court;• The addition of exercise benches and/or equipment;• Additional benches and picnic tables.

Still, expanding or redeveloping Gates City Park by itself would leave Gates with only one park. Though Gates is a small town, it is reasonable to assume that the residents who live farthest away from the park will be less likely to visit than those within close walking distance. Thus, there are important considerations regarding the equitable spatial distribution of park facilities that would not be addressed by the expansion and redevelopment of Gates City Park. Furthermore, the possible scale of this expansion is not likely to produce a facility that would meet the outdoor recreation needs of all of Gates’ residents. As mentioned, the middle-aged and elderly residents of Gates can be considered a critical population in Gates with regard to outdoor recreation needs. One of the most obvious amenities for this demographic would be walking and jogging trails, which would require more extensive land or right-of-way resources than could be attained in the expansion or redevelopment of Gates City Park. Given the needs of this critical population, the inclusion of exercise benches and/or equipment appropriate for Baby Boomers and the elderly should be considered a priority in any plans to redevelop Gates City Park.

13

Land Acquisition for New Parks and Recreation FacilitiesThe procurement of additional lands for new park space could help to create a more equitable spatial distribution of park and outdoor recreation facilities, given, of course, that the new park space were located so as to provide easy walking access in a currently underserved part of the city. City officials identified a number of sites that could potentially be suitable for new park facilities. A range of different parks provisioning scenarios would be possible, depending largely on the lot size and location of each potential new space.

Neighborhood-scale ParksLots in the 2-20 acre range would coincide with the scale of a “neighborhood park” in the 2013-17 SCORP document. A park of this size would be much more likely to address the full scale of outdoor recreation needs for all of Gates’ residents, and could also help to attract tourist dollars to Gates. A larger park space could sustain several amenities that would not be possible in smaller spaces. Such amenities include,

• Small-scale walking/jogging paths;• Large soccer or playing fields;• Exercise benches and/or equipment integrated into trail system;• Tourist-attracting facilities such as a Frisbee golf course or day-use picnic area.

In a town as small as Gates, there are very few possibilities for the acquisition of large swaths of land that are appropriate for park and outdoor recreation use. This means that plans to pursue a larger neighborhood park could not be very selective as to where to locate the park. For instance, the recently

Figure 4.1: Areas of Opportunity for Parks and Open Spaces

14

closed Gates Elementary School was identified as one possibility for a larger park. Given its location outside of the city limits and across the Santiam River, however, it is possible that far fewer residents would regularly utilize such a facility than one that were more centrally located.

Planning for a larger neighborhood park would also make public participation a primary consideration. In a town as small as Gates, residents’ needs and opinions should be deeply considered before committing resources to a large-scale investment of this sort. City officials, for instance, specifically mentioned the possibility of a Frisbee golf course as an attractive option in attempting to attract more tourist activity to Gates. It is not clear, however, to what extent Gates’ residents would utilize such a facility, or what alternate ideas for attracting tourism might be generated in a participatory planning forum for parks and recreation.

Pocket Parks and Urban Plaza ParksThere would undoubtedly be many more potential sites available in Gates that coincide with “pocket” or “urban plaza” scale parks. The 2013-17 SCORP document defines these parks as ranging from ¼ acre to 3 acres in size, with the inclusion of amenities such as,

• Benches and tables;• Drinking fountains;• Paved walkways;• Playgrounds;• Trees and shrubs.

This parks planning option has several advantages for Gates. First, given the financial constraints inherent to the situation, it would be more immediately financially feasible to create a smaller quality park than a larger one. Furthermore, because a greater number of smaller sized potential sites could be identified in Gates, it is more likely that a park could be located in careful consideration of the needs and preferences of Gates’ citizens. For instance, a potential site was identified near the recently developed fire station, which is currently a center for regular community activity. Locating a park near already existing community centers would ensure maximum use by Gates’ residents.

A newly developed pocket or urban plaza park, however, would carry many of the same constraints as would the expansion/redevelopment of Gates City Park. Smaller parks like these are likely to be single-use or limited-use, rather than multi-use facilities. Their scale limits what amenities can be provided, and thus the range of needs of different citizens that can be met. Amenities that serve the critical exercise and outdoor recreation needs of Gates’ older residents are difficult to incorporate into a park of this scale.

Trail-Related Projects The inclusion of trails, greenways and/or walking paths could be considered one of the most important elements of future parks planning in Gates. Some amenities that a system of walking/jogging trails should likely include are:

15

• Clear markings to indicate trail location for both walkers and driving traffic;• Safe (6 foot) easement from car traffic;• Ample width for two-way traffic;• Benches and ample shade for rest;• Access to drinking water.

City officials indicated that some residents currently walk or jog along a stretch of West Central Street. This stretch of road, however, has inadequate shoulder space for pedestrians, and other safety considerations like brush, debris accumulation, and steep escarpments along the shoulder in some places. Thus, the provision of safe and adequately maintained trails is an issue of public safety.

The knowledge that some residents already walk or jog along West Central Street indicates that a demand for these activities does currently exist in Gates. This observation directly indicates the importance of prioritizing walking and jogging trails in Gates. Importantly, this observation indicates that some of Gates’ residents are willing to take personal safety risks in order to have an opportunity to walk and/or jog. It is likely that another group of residents in Gates has similar needs and preferences for walking/jogging trails, but is dissuaded by acting upon this preference due to concerns for personal safety.

To be sure, there are other stretches of road in Gates that might be appropriate for walking and jogging, with perhaps less safety concerns than West Central Street. An ideal trail system in Gates would provide an opportunity for a lengthy jog or walk. This could be accomplished by a closed-loop trail, either fully contained in a larger park, or else along existing roads. If a loop trail were not feasible, a long and contiguous stretch of trail of ample width for two-way pedestrian traffic would be needed. Such a trail could be more extensive by planning in conjunction with officials from Marion County and/or Mill City, such that it continue beyond the Gates city limits.

Tourist-centered Parks and RecreationThe overarching concern of limited financial capacity makes parks and recreation strategies focused on attracting tourism an appealing option for Gates. Amenities requirements for such facilities would include:

• Ample parking for park capacity;• Restrooms and drinking water facilities;• Tables, fire pits and other day-use amenities;• Signage and informational resources.

Minto County Park adjoins the demarcation of Gates city limits, and is currently a county-run day-use park of 72 acres. The park’s location along Route 22 and the Santiam River, and the extensive Minto Trail originating there offer recreation opportunities for travelers, though there is currently no day-use fee associated with the park.

16

The Gates land that abuts Minto County Park is owned by Marion County, and could potentially be developed into a fee-based day-use or overnight camping facility. It is difficult, however, to gauge what scale of demand there might be for a fee-based camping and/or recreation facility that is so close to both Salem (35 miles) and many other free county and National Forest camping and recreation facilities. Also, given the minimal financial resources of Gates, it is important to weigh these types of tourist-centered possibilities against the parks and recreation needs of Gates’ full-time residents.

Relevant Goals and Priorities from SCORP 2013-17

The Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) outlines the 5-year statewide recreation planning priorities of the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD). SCORP fulfills a requirement that allows states to qualify for federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grants for the planning, development, acquisition and conservation of state and local parks and recreation areas. If a town such as Gates wishes to apply for LWCF grants distributed to Oregon, it must demonstrate, “that the project satisfies high priority needs identified within their jurisdiction through the SCORP needs assessment or local planning efforts” (SCORP, pg. 125).

Figure 4.3: Envisioning Recommended Future Park Improvements

17

The SCORP 2013-17 plan identified a number of priorities for parks planning in Oregon as a whole, and in Marion County in particular. The priorities identified for Marion County are shown in the table below:

The most recent SCORP plan also identifies a number of statewide parks planning issues, and strategic goals to address them. Drawing from the parks and recreation needs assessment for Gates given above, the clearest connection between Gates’ parks needs and the planning issues identified in SCORP relate to the provision of trails for recreation and physical activity. These are,

• Statewide Issue 3: Add more recreational trails and better trail connectivity between parks andcommunities;

• Statewide Issue 4: Recognize and strengthen park and recreation’s role in increasing physical activityin Oregon’s population.

Some of the strategic actions associated with these statewide issues are, for instance,

• Action 3.1: OPRD will provide additional priority for trail-related grant requests satisfying priority needsidentified through a local trails or park planning process;

• Action 4.2: OPRD will provide additional priority for close-to-home non-motorized trail acquisition anddevelopment grant requests…trails provide an important opportunity for people to be physically active.Accessibility is one of the primary attributes of trails, including distance from home… (see Figure 4.2)

The SCORP plan also identifies other possible funding sources for trail-related projects:

• Action 4.3: Park and recreation providers are encouraged to apply for trail-related projects withinpublic rights-of-way through the Oregon Department of Transportation’s Bicycle and Pedestrian GrantProgram and to work with grant staff to strengthen project applications.

Public Recreation Provider survey

Close-To-Home Priorities

Public restrooms

Children’s playgrounds

Trails connecting communities/parks

Dirt/other soft surface walking trails and paths

Picnic areas and shelters for small visitor groups

Paved/hard surface walking trails and paths

Nature and other wildlife viewing areas

Off-leash dog areas

Off-street bicycle trails and pathways

Children’s playgrounds and play areas made of natural materials (Natural Play Areas).

Public access sites to waterways

Score

3.9 4.7 3.7

3.8 4.3 3.4

3.7 4.3 3.3

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.1

Score ScoreDispersed-Area Priorities

RV/trailer campgrounds & facilities

Tent campgrounds & facilties

Group campgrounds & facilities

Oregon Resident Survey

Marion County Need

18

While the most strategic basis for Gates to access LWCF grant money pertains to trail-based projects, there is nonetheless opportunity to reframe non-trail-focused projects according to the priorities outlined in the SCORP plan. For instance, in Statewide Issue 2, SCORP suggests that, “changing recreation needs (e.g., changes in demographics within the service area) dictate a change in the type of recreation area or facility provided”. Thus, if the redevelopment and expansion of Gates City Park becomes a prioritized project, it could be framed in conjunction with these priorities identified in the SCORP plan.

Finally, “sustainable parks practices” and “sustainable park systems” are identified as an overarching aim of OPRD. Numerous goals and objectives pertaining to sustainable parks are outlined in Chapter 7 of SCORP 2013-17. To the extent that the parks and recreation proposals of Gates can be made to coincide with these goals, they will be more likely to qualify for LWCF grant dollars.

Figure 4.2: 1/2 and 1/4 Mile Walking Radii

1/4 mi

1/2 mi

Conclusion and RecommendationsThe City of Gates is clearly a community with exigent parks and recreation needs. In terms of sheer quantity, Gates has critically low levels of park acreage for a town of its size. The existence of only one small park means that not all residents enjoy equal access to local park and outdoor recreation facilities, nor could the varying needs of different age groups within Gates possibly be met by a single park of this size.

An ideal scenario for the parks and recreation future of Gates would likely be a large, neighborhood-scale (2-20 acres) park with sufficient acreage to accommodate multi-use amenities and serve the diverse needs of Gates’ different age groups. Amenities in the existing park are most appropriate for younger children (0-10), which currently comprise only around 10% of Gates’ population. A larger park space that included trails and large sports fields would better serve the needs of the older population in Gates as well as the young adult and adolescent populations.

As mentioned, however, there are serious challenges associated with identifying and procuring a contiguous lot of that size in Gates. Few large lots of that size are on the market at any given time, and the ability of Gates City to pay for them is extremely low. If it proves impossible to identify and/or pay for a large lot for a multi-use park of this kind, a secondary option would be to pursue a more easily attainable project which, if it could not serve everyone in, would at least address the most parks and outdoor recreation needs in Gates.

Based on this analysis, it seems clear that the most pressing parks and outdoor recreation needs in Gates relate to the older adult populations, and, perhaps, in particular Gates’ Baby Boomers. This is simply due to the fact that the health and recreation needs of human beings become more critical as we age, and the absence of regular exercise can lead to dire and ongoing health concerns. Given that all students in Gates currently go to Mill City for classes, and since there is evidence that students in Oregon get the bulk of their outdoor recreation time at school, it is likely that many of Gates’ younger residents currently do most of their outdoor recreating in Mill City.

Baby Boomers (50-68) comprise 32% of the population of Gates. Given their unique outdoor recreation needs, it seems that the provision of a trail-based projects, and/or outdoor exercise amenities should be considered a foremost priority in future parks planning in Gates. Trails could be provided either as a city-wide trail system (which might also extend into Marion County and Mill City) or else as a closed-loop trail.

19

The latter could be a key element in a larger, neighborhood-scale park or as a loop along street shoulders and public right-of-ways.

Focusing on the outdoor activity needs of Gates’ adult and aging populations would also likely promote beneficial secondary recreation effects among Gates’ younger population. Children who observe their parents regularly engaging in exercise will be more likely to do it themselves, and, even though trail-based project might be initially constructed with Gates’ older population in mind, such a system could be enjoyed by citizens of all ages. Because the provision of trails and the increasing of physical activity have been identified as statewide goals in SCORP 2013-17, a trail-based project would also have strategic advantages in terms of qualifying for LWCF grant funds. Baby Boomers were also identified as a priority demographic in the past two SCORP documents, lending further strategic advantage to a trail-based project focused on older adults.

In terms of feasibility, trail improvements are an attractive option because larger county trail projects are already underway (see Appendix B for a map of planned trail improvements). In particulary, a rails-to-trails project has already begun in Mill City. The ODOT right-of-way in Gates is in alignment with the continuation of this planned trail. This provides an exciting opportunity to plan ahead for the possibility of a trail in this area. For a menu of other project options, see Appendix A, a prioritization matrix of potential park improvements weighted by possible benefits, detriments, and by relevance to SCORP guidelines.

SourcesCity of Gates Comprehensive Plan. Gates, Or.: Gates City Council, 2009. Print.

Marion County Oregon GIS. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 May 2014. <http://www.co.marion.or.us/IT/GIS/>.

Oregon Spatial Data Library. Department of Administrative Services Geospatial Enterprise Office, n.d. Web. 25 May 2014. <http://spatialdata.oregonexplorer.info/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page>.

Outdoor Recreation in Oregon the Changing Face of the Future: The 2008-2012 Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Feb. 2008. Web. 25 May 2014. <http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/PLANS/docs/scorp/2008-2012_SCORP/2008_Scorp_Final_Web.pdf>.

Social Explorer. Social Explorer, n.d. Web. 25 May 2014. <http://www.socialexplorer.com/>.

20

Appendix A: Prioritization Matrix for Recommended Park Improvements

Park

Con

cept

Sc

ale

Serv

ice

Rad

ius

Som

e

Ass

ocia

ted

Am

eniti

es

Pros

C

ons

Rel

evan

t G

oals

from

SC

OR

P Fe

asib

ility

Expa

nsio

n an

d/or

re

deve

lopm

ent o

f Gat

es

City

Par

k

Exi

stin

g:

.15

acre

s

Futu

re

Pos

sibl

e:

.4 a

cres

¼ m

ile

Exp

ansi

on o

f exi

stin

g ba

sket

ball

cour

t;

Per

man

ent t

oile

ts;

Spo

rts fi

eld;

Exe

rcis

e eq

uipm

ent

Land

alre

ady

allo

cate

d an

d in

pub

lic o

wne

rshi

p;

Fact

of e

xist

ing

park

fa

cilit

ies

may

redu

ce c

ots

Not

am

enab

le to

mul

ti-us

e pa

rk;

Wou

ld n

ot in

crea

se p

ark

acce

ss fo

r Gat

es re

side

nts

that

cur

rent

ly li

ve b

eyon

d w

alki

ng ra

dius

of p

ark

Act

ion

2.2;

Act

ion

4.4;

Pos

sibl

e:

Act

ions

5.1

–

5.4

Hig

h to

m

ediu

m

New

mul

ti-us

e ne

ighb

orho

od-s

cale

pa

rk

2-20

acr

es ¼

mile

– ½

mile

Wal

king

/jogg

ing

path

s;

Larg

e sp

orts

fiel

d;

Exe

rcis

e be

nche

s an

d/or

eq

uipm

ent;

Pic

nic

area

;

Res

troom

s

Cou

ld a

ccom

mod

ate

mul

tiple

use

s;

Wou

ld m

eet d

iver

se

recr

eatio

n an

d he

alth

ne

eds

of m

any

grou

ps;

Doe

s no

t req

uire

trad

e-of

f de

cisi

ons

betw

een

diffe

rent

gr

oups

’ nee

ds

Larg

e tra

cts

of la

nd n

ot

read

ily a

vaila

ble

in G

ates

;

Larg

er p

ark

and

mor

e am

eniti

es h

ave

high

er c

osts

;

Sub

stan

tive

mai

nten

ance

re

quire

men

ts

Act

ion

2.2;

Act

ions

3.1

, 3.

5, 3

.7 a

nd

3.8;

Act

ions

4.1

-4.

4 an

d 4.

8;

Pos

sibl

e:

Act

ions

5.1

–

5.4

Low

New

lim

ited-

use

pock

et

park

or u

rban

pla

za

park

¼

- 3

acre

s ¼

mile

w

alki

ng

Ben

ches

and

tabl

es;

Drin

king

foun

tain

s;

Pav

ed w

alkw

ays;

Pla

ygro

unds

;

Sm

all s

ports

fiel

ds

Feas

ibili

ty li

kely

hig

h du

e to

av

aila

bilit

y of

man

y po

tent

ial l

ots;

Cou

ld b

e lo

cate

d so

as

to

impr

ove

park

acc

ess

for

curr

ently

und

erse

rved

re

side

nts

Not

am

enab

le to

mul

ti-us

e pa

rk;

Doe

s no

t mee

t rec

reat

ion

and

activ

ity n

eeds

of o

lder

po

pula

tions

;

Act

ion

2.2;

Act

ion

4.4;

Pos

sibl

e:

Act

ions

5.1

–

5.4

Hig

h to

m

ediu

m

Trai

l-rel

ated

pro

ject

s V

aria

ble

Ent

ire

Com

mun

ity

Trai

l mar

king

s / s

igna

ge;

Saf

e ea

sem

ent f

rom

car

tra

ffic;

Ben

ches

and

sha

de;

Drin

king

wat

er a

cces

s

Dire

ctly

ben

efits

crit

ical

re

crea

tion

need

s of

Gat

es’

olde

r res

iden

ts;

Cre

ates

saf

e tra

ils fo

r ex

istin

g ru

nner

s/jo

gger

s;

Pot

entia

l for

fam

ily-w

ide

heal

th im

pact

s

Fairl

y hi

gh c

ompl

exity

of

plan

ning

and

im

plem

enta

tion;

May

hav

e hi

gh u

p-fro

nt

cost

s;

Mor

e ex

tens

ive

trails

may

re

quire

cou

nty-

wid

e pl

anni

ng

Act

ions

3.1

, 3.

5, 3

.7 a

nd

3.8;

Act

ions

4.1

-4.

4 an

d 4.

8;

Pos

sibl

e:

Act

ions

5.1

–

5.4

Hig

h to

m

ediu

m

Tour

ism

-rel

ated

par

ks

and

recr

eatio

n pr

ojec

ts

Var

iabl

e;

min

imum

ac

reag

e ne

cess

ary

for p

arki

ng

and

amen

ities

Like

ly to

m

ostly

se

rve

driv

ing

traffi

c al

ong

Rou

te 2

2

Par

king

;

Res

troom

s an

d dr

inki

ng

wat

er;

Tabl

es, f

ire p

its a

nd tr

ash

Sig

nage

Pos

itive

eco

nom

ic im

pact

;

Attr

act v

isito

rs to

Gat

es;

Incr

ease

d di

vers

ity a

nd

reco

gniti

on o

f Gat

es

Sca

le o

f pot

entia

l dem

and

and/

or e

cono

mic

impa

ct is

un

clea

r;

Cou

ld d

ispl

ace

impo

rtant

pa

rks

and

recr

eatio

n ne

eds

of G

ates

’ exi

stin

g re

side

nts

Act

ion

3.8;

Pos

sibl

e:

Act

ions

5.1

–

5.4

Med

ium

to

low

Appendix B: Planned Regional Trail Projects

Figu

re 2

. Tr

ail S

yste

mC

AN

YO

N J

OU

RN

EY

S

Appendix C: Compilation of Figures

Figu

re 1

.1: C

ity o

f Gat

es -

Site

Map

00.

10.

20.

30.

40.

05M

iles¯

Popu

latio

n0

- 3

4 - 1

1

12 -

24

25 -

46

47 -

118

Figu

re 1

.2: P

opul

atio

n by

Blo

ck

Figu

re 1

.3: Z

onin

g

Figu

re 1

.4: S

lope

Con

ditio

ns

Figu

re 1

.5: F

EMA-

Defi

ned

100-

Year

Flo

od Z

one

Nor

thSa

ntia

mR

iver

Nor

th S

antia

mR

iver

FEM

A-D

efin

ed 1

00-Y

ear F

lood

Zon

e fo

r Gat

es, O

rego

n

Lege

nd Gat

es C

ity B

ound

ary

FEM

A 10

0-Ye

ar F

lood

Zon

e

Nor

th S

antia

m R

iver

Park

s

«M

ap c

reat

ed b

y D

.H. S

tron

ghea

rt, 5

/31/

2014

Dat

a so

urce

s: F

EMA

, GIS

Dat

a Fe

eds,

av

aila

ble

at: h

ttp://

gis.

fem

a.go

v/D

ataF

eeds

.htm

lM

ario

n C

ount

y, O

rego

n G

IS D

ata

Dow

nloa

d,av

aila

ble

at: h

ttp://

gis.

co.m

ario

n.or

.us/

GIS

Dow

nloa

d/gi

sdow

nloa

d.as

px

00.

10.

20.

30.

40.

05M

iles

Min

to P

ark

Gat

es C

ity P

ark

° 00.

10.

20.

30.

40.

05M

iles

Figu

re 2

.1: E

xist

ing

Park

s In

vent

ory

Figu

re 3

.1: P

ublic

ly O

wne

d La

nds

Inve

ntor

y

Figu

re 4

.1: A

reas

of O

ppor

tuni

ty fo

r Par

ks a

nd O

pen

Spac

es

Figu

re 4

.2: E

nvis

ioni

ng R

ecom

men

ded

Futu

re P

ark

Impr

ovem

ents

Figu

re 4

.3: 1

/4 a

nd 1

/2 M

ile W

alki

ng R

adii

This page intentionally left blank.

City of GatesMike Higgs, Mayor

Traci Archer, City Recorder

Greg Benthin, Director of Public Works

Mid-Willamette ValleyCouncil of Governments (MWVCOG)Suzanne Dufner, Community Development Director

Portland State UniversityYiping Fang, Assistant Professor,

Urban Studies & Planning

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS