HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 4539 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 4539
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE
NORTHEAST RENTON PARK MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS,the City began the process of developing a plan for the Northeast Renton Park
in the fall of 2023; and
WHEREAS, much of the land comprising the Northeast Renton Park site was acquired with
grants from the State Recreation and Conservation Office in the early 1990s,which require timely
development of outdoor recreation facilities; and
WHEREAS, the plan was developed with extensive public outreach and in conjunction
with residents and other stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, the plan identifies implementation strategies to facilitate the redevelopment
of the site to support outdoor recreation; and
WHEREAS, the plan aligns with the goals of the May Creek Basin Action Plan which aims
to conserve and restore habitat and to provide passive trail access along the May Creek Greenway
between Lake Washington and Coungar Mountain Wildlands Park; and
WHEREAS, the plan aligns with the May Valley Urban Separator purpose and intent as
further described in RMC 4-3-110; and
WHEREAS, the plan is in alignment with the recommendations of the Parks, Recreation,
and Natural Areas Plan adopted by City Council through Resolution No. 4398;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1
RESOLUTION NO. 4539
SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The Northeast Renton Park Master Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is
adopted by the City of Renton.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL the 28th day of October, 2024.
Jason A. Seth, Ci Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 28th day of October, 2024.
Armon Pavone, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Shane Moloney, City Attorney ,•ma OF
`RES- P&R:24RE5020:08/28/2024 =
* = SEAL =
SEQ`
2
RESOLUTION NO. 4539
EXHIBIT A
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan
3
August 2024
Northeast Renton
Park Master Plan
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan August 2024
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of Renton gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following individuals and groups
who have made this Master Plan possible:
City of Renton
Parks and Recreation
Maryjane Van Cleave, Parks and Recreation
Administrator
Cailín Hunsaker, Parks and Trails Director
Jennifer Spencer, Acting Recreation Director
Jason Lederer, Parks Planning Manager and
Project Manager
Betsy Severtsen, Capital Project Coordinator
Ian Gray, Urban Forestry and Natural Resources
Manager
Steve Brown, Parks Maintenance Manager
Bryce Goldmann, Parks Maintenance Supervisor
David Peterson, Parks Maintenance Supervisor
Rhemy King, Neighborhood Programs
Coordinator
Gabriela Golzarian, Inspecting Arborist
Mikaela Goodwin, Community Engagement
Leader
Claire Wilkinson, Community Engagement
Leader
Community and Economic Development
Alex Morganroth, Principal Planner
Nathan Janders, Development Engineering
Manager
Samuel Stolmeier, Construction Engineer
Public Works
Joe Farah, Surface Water Engineering Manager
Joe Stowell, Wastewater Utility Manager
Ellen Talbo, Transportation Planning Manager
Executive Services
Angel Laycock, Communications Manager
Samuel Severson, Communications Specialist
Master Planning Consultant Team
Anchor QEA (Prime Consultant)
Anna Spooner, Principal Landscape Architect
and Project Manager
Rachel Andersen, Landscape Architect
Zheng Fang, Senior Graphic Designer
Ann Costanza, Principal Planner
Reid Farnsworth, Landscape Designer
Cat Wallace, Technical Editor
Colleen Burner, Technical Editor
Clearway Environmental
Chad Durand, Environmental Manager
Rachel Crowley, Environmental Scientist
Jim Hearsey, Environmental Scientist
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan i August 2024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the last 30 years, the City of Renton has acquired an 18.5-acre assemblage of parcels with the
intent to develop a new park in Northeast Renton. Located along May Creek and within the May
Valley Urban Separator, this new park will support the broader May Creek Greenway vision and
action plan, which aims to conserve and restore habitat, and create a trail corridor extending from
the mouth of May Creek at Lake Washington eastward to King County’s Cougar Mountain Regional
Wildland Park. Situated within the City’s East Plateau planning area, this new park will fill a notable
gap in a community currently underserved by parks, where many residents lack easy access to
recreational spaces within a quarter-mile or even half-mile of their homes. The new Northeast
Renton Park offers the City a unique opportunity to act on its mission to provide exceptional parks
and recreational opportunities that enrich the health, wellness, and quality of life for all Renton
residents while ensuring equitable access and the preservation of its natural resources and history.
The master planning process, which initiated in the fall of 2023, was strategically timed following the
recent acquisition of a new park parcel. Initial outreach and engagement efforts aimed to a refine a
park vision and develop a design to meet a variety of goals and needs. The effort also aligned with
both new and longstanding obligations, including those tied to grants from the Washington State
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan ii August 2024
Recreation and Conservation Office dating back to the early 1990s, which require timely
development of outdoor recreation facilities.
The master planning process also drew upon the 2020 Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan,
which had outlined an early concept for the park featuring conserved forested upland, riparian, and
wetland areas, winding trails, and a central amenity space.
From fall of 2023 through spring of 2024, the
City engaged stakeholders and the community
to gather input on opportunities and design
concepts for the new Northeast Renton Park. The
result is a park Master Plan and concept design
that honors the unique landscape and offers a
blend of active and passive recreation, including
a comprehensive trail network through restored
and enhanced habitats.
The Master Plan not only advances goals for
habitat conservation and trail connectivity but
also addresses the broader needs of the community and fulfills long-term grant obligations. Guided
by Renton Parks and Recreation’s commitment to sustainability, the plan balances three core
priorities: enhancing community health and wellness, fostering environmental resilience, and
promoting social equity. These principles are woven into the park’s design and development,
ensuring it meets today’s recreational needs while contributing to a sustainable and inclusive future
for all Renton residents. Furthermore, it aligns with key goals from the 2020 Parks, Recreation, and
Natural Area Plan, including Filling Gaps in Service, Creating a Connected System, and Protecting and
Conserving Natural Resources.
The design concept includes parking for vehicles, accessible pedestrians and cyclist access points,
restrooms, picnic shelters and seating, and a large nature play area. A network of paths and trails –
featuring paved, soft surface, and raised boardwalks – will guide visitors through diverse landscapes
and habitat areas, including forested slopes, wetlands, and scenic viewpoints of May Creek. Future
parcel acquisition may allow for additional amenities such as sports courts, an off-leash dog area,
and environmental education opportunities.
The estimated total project cost for the design, permitting, and implementation ranges between
$5,200,000 and $6,700,000. The low-end cost reflects the installation of portable toilets with a
custom enclosure structure and does not include park improvements on the future parcel. The
high-end cost reflects the installation of a restroom with a sewer connection and a full build out of
the future parcel.
Trail concept at the Northeast Renton’s new park
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan iii August 2024
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... i
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1
1 VISION .......................................................................................................................................... 5
2 ENGAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Community and Stakeholder Groups .......................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Community Engagement ................................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 City Stakeholder Engagement ..................................................................................................................... 11
3 PARK ELEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Access ................................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Trails, Boardwalks, and Nodes ..................................................................................................................... 17
3.3 Public Safety ....................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.4 Habitat Enhancement ..................................................................................................................................... 21
3.5 Recreation and Amenity Areas .................................................................................................................... 22
3.6 Additional Park Features ............................................................................................................................... 23
3.7 Future Potential Expansion Area ................................................................................................................ 25
4 COST SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 26
4.1 Construction Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 26
4.2 Design, Permit, and Management Fees ................................................................................................... 29
4.3 Cost Escalation .................................................................................................................................................. 29
5 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................. 31
5.1 Permit Feasibility .............................................................................................................................................. 31
5.2 Phasing Considerations ................................................................................................................................. 34
5.3 Funding Opportunities ................................................................................................................................... 35
6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 37
TABLES
Table 1 Key Stakeholders, Community Groups, and Staff ......................................................................... 8
Table 2 Master Plan OPCC Summary ............................................................................................................... 27
Table 3 Park Development and Habitat Enhancement OPCC Summary ......................................... 27
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan iv August 2024
Table 4 Design, Permit, and Management Fee Summary ...................................................................... 29
Table 5 Total Master Plan Cost with Escalation Summary ...................................................................... 30
Table 6 Environmental Permitting Requirements ...................................................................................... 32
Table 7 Potential Grant Funding Sources ....................................................................................................... 35
FIGURES
Figure 1 Future Park Location .................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2 Park Planning Area Boundary and Adjacent Properties ............................................................. 3
Figure 3 Community Engagement Summary .................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4 Community Engagement Summary ................................................................................................. 10
Figure 5 Preferred Concept Plan .......................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 6 Preferred Concept Sections ................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 7 Trail Map ....................................................................................................................................................... 18
APPENDICES
Appendix A Existing Information Summary Report
Appendix B Conceptual Design Alternatives
Appendix C Community Engagement Data
Appendix D City Stakeholder Meeting Notes
Appendix E Opinion of Probable Costs
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan v August 2024
ABBREVIATIONS
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
City City of Renton
CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DAHP Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Department City of Renton Parks and Recreation Department
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
Greenway May Creek Greenway
JARPA Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application
LID Low-Impact Development
Master Plan Northeast Renton Park Master Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OPCC Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Park Northeast Renton Park
PEM palustrine emergent marsh
PFO palustrine forested wetland
PSS palustrine scrub shrub
RCO Recreation and Conservation Office
RCW Revised Code of Washington
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 1 August 2024
INTRODUCTION
The City of Renton (City) intends to develop a new park in Northeast Renton. Led by the City’s Parks
and Recreation Department (Department), which has facilitated acquisition of the land comprising
the planning area since the early 1990s, the Northeast Renton Park (Park) Master Plan (Master Plan)
is an early step to develop a vision and concept design for the future Park. Nestled between May
Creek to the north, Duvall Avenue NE to the southwest, and Renton’s East Plateau neighborhood to
the south and east (see Figure 1), the proposed Park presents a unique blend of landscapes—forests
and clearings, wetlands and streams, two previously developed home sites, and rolling topography—
and the Master Plan presents an opportunity to restore and enhance these landscapes while also
expanding Northeast Renton’s recreation options.
The City’s 1978 Comprehensive Park & Recreation Plan identified the May Creek Greenway (Greenway),
extending from the mouth of May Creek at Lake Washington east to King County’s Cougar Mountain
Regional Wildland Park. The Greenway includes May Creek and its adjacent riparian setback. Over the
last nearly 40 years, the cities of Renton and Newcastle, as well as King County, have acquired lands
along the Greenway with a vision to conserve and enhance the corridor’s ecological function, develop
a pervious trail system to connect communities with nature and provide opportunities for
Photograph 1
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 2 August 2024
environmental access and education, and support the broader water quality and conservation goals of
the May Creek Basin Action Plan. Portions of the Greenway’s trail have been developed, and there are
plans to connect this trail to the to the Eastside Rail Corridor (City of Renton 2024).
The Master Plan offers a distinct opportunity to support the Greenway vision in Renton with outdoor
recreation and to create a stronger connection between the Renton community and the surrounding
ecosystem. Notably, the future Park is located in an area of Renton that is currently underserved by
parks and open space (City of Renton 2020), and the Master Plan provides the City the opportunity
to support its growing and diverse population through the development of a new park.
Figure 1
Future Park Location
Immediately to the north and west of the Park and along Duvall Avenue NE and Coal Creek Parkway SE
is the City of Newcastle boundary and its May Creek Park (Figure 2). This existing park encompasses
3,100 acres and includes a trail system within the Greenway. Both Newcastle’s May Creek Park and the
planned City of Renton Park fall within the Lake Washington/Cedar River/Sammamish River watersheds
and Water Resource Inventory Area 8. May Creek is the third largest tributary to Lake Washington,
draining the area west of Issaquah Creek and north of Cedar River, flowing through both Newcastle
and Renton. The Park is located approximately 4 miles from Lake Washington.
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 3 August 2024
The Master Plan considers the entire 18.5 acres identified for a future park. As shown in Figure 2,
most of this area is owned by the City of Renton, with a 1.7-acre parcel in the northwest corner still in
private ownership. The City is discussing a future acquisition with the current owner of the parcel.
The City also owns the parcel to the northwest of the future Park. Managed by the City’s Surface
Water department, this 6.4-acre parcel includes a stormwater pond, access road, and open space.
Figure 2
Park Planning Area Boundary and Adjacent Properties
Note: Map provided by the City of Renton
This Master Plan defines the future Park’s vision (Section 2). Heavily informed by community and City
stakeholder input (Section 3), the Master Plan describes proposed Park elements (Section 4); provides a
comprehensive summary of the Park’s construction costs (Section 5); and outlines an implementation
strategy including permit feasibility, phasing considerations, and funding opportunities (Section 6).
The Master Plan is supported by five appendices capturing specific input and technical
documentation, including the following:
• Appendix A: Existing Information Summary Report summarizes the existing information
gathered to inform the Master Plan and to identify data gaps. This includes data layers for the
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 4 August 2024
Park basemap at neighborhood and site scales, desktop geotechnical and cultural resource
technical assessments, and a natural resource inventory.
• Appendix B: Conceptual Design Alternatives provides an overview of the Park’s opportunities
and constraints analysis and reviews, describes the design criteria matrix used for
decision-making, and reviews two design alternatives considered during master planning.
• Appendix C: Community Engagement Data summarizes methods used to reach out to the
community to hear input on the future Park design.
• Appendix D: City Stakeholder Meeting Notes provides a summary of the discussion between the
Master Plan team and City stakeholders that informed decision-making and the ultimate design.
• Appendix E: Opinion of Probable Costs provides a breakdown of the probable costs as shown
on the current preferred design.
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 5 August 2024
1 VISION
The planned new Park in Northeast Renton provides an opportunity to contribute to the
Department’s vision to foster a vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable community through the
enhancement of Renton's parks and recreational services, promoting history, health, equity,
and environmental stewardship. Located within the defined Greenway and along May Creek’s
riparian corridor, adjacent forest canopy, and wetland resources, there is a unique opportunity to
harmoniously conserve, enhance, and steward these natural resources while thoughtfully balancing
development of an accessible, inclusive, and safe park with defined recreation facilities and trails that
provide a connection with nature for all Park goers.
The future Park’s location in the East Plateau planning area is underserved by parks; residents do not
have a park within a quarter mile or even half mile of their homes that is easily accessible (City of
Renton 2020). Through a continuous engagement process focused on supporting design and
programming for a new Park, the Department actively listened to stakeholders, partners, and,
notably, Renton residents and future Park users, in support of the Department’s mission to provide
exceptional parks and recreational opportunities that enrich the health, wellness, and quality
Photograph 2
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 6 August 2024
of life for all Renton residents while ensuring equitable access and the preservation of its
natural resources and history.
In addition to the new Park in Northeast
Renton, the City is currently planning park
expansion and renovation projects in other
neighborhoods, including a new park in
south Renton. The neighboring City of
Newcastle is also considering new
recreation amenities near its border with
Renton, including a new recreational sport
court facility and athletic fields along
SE 95th Way, just a half mile from the
Master Plan’s Park site.
City Neighborhood Program coordinator, Rhemy King, presents
design concepts to the community.
Photograph 3
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 7 August 2024
2 ENGAGEMENT
During early stages of the master planning process, the City sought to develop a plan to equitably
engage stakeholders, staff, and the community in order to incorporate feedback into the design
process and inform the Park design. The City developed an adaptable communications framework
for reaching stakeholders, staff, and community members who are invested in the Master Plan
process. This section reviews the engagement strategy and summarizes what the City heard from the
community and stakeholders.
2.1 Community and Stakeholder Groups
The Master Plan team identified stakeholder and community groups who may be invested in the
future Northeast Renton Park (Table 1). For each identified group, the City identified a method for
outreach: stakeholder group meetings, community outreach through participation in local events
and gatherings, and staff-to-staff engagement.
Photograph 4
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 8 August 2024
Table 1 Key Stakeholders, Community Groups, and Staff
Group
Stakeholder
Engagement
Community
Outreach
Staff-to-Staff
Engagement
City of Newcastle
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Funding
Local sporting groups
Environmental Science Center
Naturalist/environmental groups
Water Resource Inventory Area 8
Renton School District
Renton Senior Citizens Advisory Board
Renton Community Services Committee
Renton Parks Commission
Renton Adaptive Recreation Program
East Plateau neighborhood groups
Renton City Council members and Mayor
Coal Creek Utility District
Renton Urban Forestry and Natural Resource
Renton Public Works
Renton Community and Economic Development
Renton Police Department
Regional Fire Authority
The City then identified a three-touchpoint approach to structure the engagement. Each touchpoint is
defined by a design milestone. At each touchpoint, the City planned to participate in community
events, to attend a stakeholder meeting, and to engage with committees and groups to provide Master
Plan information and review Master Plan developments. The three touchpoints included the following:
• Touchpoint 1 – Review Site Analysis and Site Opportunities and Constraints – February 2024
• Touchpoint 2 – Review Conceptual Design Alternatives – March and April 2024
• Touchpoint 3 – Review Draft Preferred Design Concept – June 2024
2.2 Community Engagement
To provide equitable engagement, the City utilized a multipronged approach to engage a wide and
representative cross section of the community. All messaging directed the community to a dedicated
project website serving as a central information sharing and community engagement platform with
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 9 August 2024
surveys, message boards, polls, and other tools to communicate directly with City project staff. As an
initial engagement approach, direct mailings were sent to over 4,000 addresses within a quarter mile
of the future Park site. The City identified key community events to attend and share Master Plan
information. Master Plan representatives from the City set up tables and Master Plan information
boards at local events. This included setting up at the Renton Community Center on Saturdays
during Youth Basketball season and participating in Adaptive Recreation meetings on Thursdays at
the Senior Center. The City was present on weekends at the Highland Neighborhood Center, set up a
Master Plan booth at the City’s Sustainability Event, and was present at two farmers markets.
Throughout the Master Plan, the City has also maintained a consistent online presence, posting
updated Master Plan information such as conceptual design alternatives and polls for regular
feedback on a dedicated project website, shared information in City newsletters and utility billings,
and posted to City social media platforms. Figure 3 graphs the engagement over time, noting spikes
during each touchpoint (a larger version of this figure is included in Appendix C). Between
February 2023 and June 2024, the City’s project website received more than 7,000 page views (each
time the website was visited including repeat views) and recorded over 3,000 unique visitors.
Figure 3 Community Engagement Summary
Community engagement during Touchpoint 2 presented two design options. Design Option 1
maximized ecological enhancements such as wetland and wetland buffer enhancements and provided
trails and a central recreation node. Design Option 2 proposed more recreation including sport courts,
more trails, and a larger central recreation area. During this Touchpoint, the City asked the community
how much value they placed on a variety of Park elements, on a scale of “strongly agree” to “strongly
disagree.” Figure 4 summarizes the feedback (a larger version of this figure is included in Appendix C).
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 10 August 2024
The public overwhelmingly supported additions such as trails and boardwalks, neighborhood and
regional trail connections, access and views to May Creek, rain gardens and native plantings, and
open lawn space. The responses were more neutral for elements such as an environmental education
shelter, amphitheater, public art, cultural garden, and the addition of traditional park facilities.
Responses were variable for elements such as tennis, pickleball, and basketball courts.
Figure 4
Community Engagement Summary
2.2.1 Summary of Public Comments
Throughout community engagement, participants commented on key themes. The following
provides a high-level summary of the comments received. Appendix C provides a comprehensive
summary of the engagement feedback.
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 11 August 2024
2.2.1.1 Nature and Trails
Engagement results indicate the public overwhelmingly supports trails and access to nature as a
focus of the Park. Participants commented on the desire for green spaces and natural areas to be
preserved and for the development of walking trails and boardwalks connecting the new Park to City
of Newcastle trails and other nearby trails. Participants also favorably commented on stewardship
and environmental education, in the form of an environmental education center, outdoor classroom,
and educational signs. This theme extended to a nature play area for children, as well. However,
there was some concern expressed about the nearby stormwater pond attracting mosquitoes, built
trails affecting wetlands, and some expressed concern that introducing lighting to the Park may
disturb the existing wildlife along the adjacent Greenway corridor.
2.2.1.2 Recreation Facilities
Engagement results yielded mixed opinions for what recreation facilities should be included in the
Park. The public expressed that they would prefer a permanent restroom over portable toilets, picnic
shelters, grills, outdoor exercise equipment, and public art. They also wanted a children’s nature play
area with swings, rock climbing, and a zipline. Sports facilities, including pickleball and basketball
courts, a skatepark, disc golf, pump track, and an open sports field were also requested. The idea of
an off-leash dog park was met with both approval and concern, with some expressing that this was
an important necessity and amenity for the community, and others were concerned about pet feces
accumulating and the fear that a dog park would attract additional dogs to an otherwise sensitive
natura area.
2.2.1.3 Parking and Access
The public had some concerns about the proposed parking and access and requested additional
parking spaces, as well as safe crossings along Coal Creek Parkway. They expressed the importance
of being able to connect new Park trails to the existing network of trails east and west of the Park.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant trail access was an important element to the public,
as well as public transit access and bicycle access including bicycle parking.
2.2.1.4 Safety
Safety concerns were brought up frequently and were of high importance to the public. Concerns
about vandalism and the potential for homeless encampments were expressed, as well as fear about
car break-ins, graffiti, and other crime. The public had a strong desire to make sure the Park was
welcoming, maintained, and safe for their families and children.
2.3 City Stakeholder Engagement
As discussed previously in this section, the City created a stakeholder group and held a meeting at
each touchpoint to review the Master Plan and seek input. Stakeholders included City representatives
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 12 August 2024
from Renton Parks and Recreation, Neighborhood Programs and Urban Forestry, Community and
Economic Development, and Public Works. At each of the stakeholder group meetings, Anchor QEA
led with a presentation including updates to the Park master planning process along with details on
Park elements, programming, and design criteria and included a summary of collected data from
community outreach events. A discussion followed with time for questions and concerns. Appendix D
provides meetings notes summarizing each meeting and discussion.
In addition to the City stakeholder meetings, there were also presentations to the Parks Commission
and Community Services Committee throughout the Master Plan process. All meetings were open to
the public. Parks Commission presentations occurred on October 17, 2023; March 12, 2024; and
June 11, 2024. Community Services Committee presentations occurred on January 8, 2023, and
June 10, 2024.
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 13 August 2024
3 PARK ELEMENTS
The proposed Park conceptual design combines a large network of trails through forests, wetlands,
and along view corridors, while being careful to minimize disturbances to wetland and stream buffers
as much as possible. Future trail connections are identified to the east. Areas for habitat restoration
and enhancement are called out along May Creek, throughout wetlands and buffers, and throughout
forested and riparian areas. A large central area contains all active recreation, including a large nature
play area, portable toilets, a picnic shelter, parking for 20 vehicles in a paved lot, along with up to
12 parallel-parking spaces along the Park access road. The current privately-owned parcel contains a
potential off-leash dog park and an open space that could be developed with additional Park
amenities in the future. The design also includes lighting in the parking area, public art, wayfinding,
trailhead kiosks and educational signage, and rain gardens.
The following sections provide an overview of the proposed design elements including specific design
criteria for each element, an important tool for decision making during the master planning process.
Refer to Appendix B for details on the design process that led to the proposed conceptual design.
Photograph 5
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 14 August 2024
Figure 5 Preferred Concept Plan
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 15 August 2024
Figure 6 Preferred Concept Sections
Note: Figure shows section cuts.
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 16 August 2024
3.1 Access
Future trail connections to the east and west are proposed as separate potential developments,
with hope for access to Newcastle’s May Creek Park and associated trail network. This connection
would likely consist of a trail connection to the west under the Coal Creek Parkway SE bridge. A trail
connection to the east via a series of land tracts associated with the Langley Ridge subdivision, all
having a 15-foot-wide easement specifically for the development of a public trail (refer to Langley
Ridge at May Creek Plat – Recording No. 20080212000465), provides additional options for access
and routes to the nearby King County trail network. These trail connections encourage regional
access in alignment with the 2019 Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (City of Renton 2019) by
connecting the Park to the Greenway and offering users the opportunity to access trails that stretch
from Lake Washington to Cougar Mountain. The Master Plan provides direct access to the
neighborhood just south of the Park site, adjacent to Duvall Avenue NE using a walkable route from
the dense residential area to the Park. In addition, the Master Plan identifies the need for a new safe
crossing at 24th Street and Duvall Avenue NE to improve safety and allow pedestrians to access the
existing sidewalk on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE as they walk north to the Park entry.
Vehicular access is provided in the Master Plan through an improved access road and a new parking
area with space for 20 vehicles, including two ADA stalls, and a firetruck turnaround. The access road
includes a crushed gravel shoulder wide enough to accommodate 12 additional parallel-parking
spots during peak visiting time. In addition, bike parking is provided near where the access road
terminates near the Park’s proposed trailhead.
Access Design Criteria
• Connect to existing May Creek Greenway trails
• Provide trail connections to Renton neighborhoods
• Provide parking
• Avoid impact to adjacent properties
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 17 August 2024
To treat stormwater generated within the
Park, Low-Impact Development (LID)
elements are proposed. Rain gardens and
vegetated swales run along the proposed
access road and the Park area to intercept,
convey, and treat stormwater runoff from
the proposed impervious surfaces. The LID
features will also reduce flooding and
erosion during large rain events. There is
also the opportunity to use permeable
paving such as permeable pavers or
permeable asphalt as the surfacing for
trails and the parking area.
3.2 Trails, Boardwalks, and Nodes
In addition to increasing access to the Park, an extensive trail system is proposed within the Park. The
trail system includes a mile of trail loops and segments with access to the site’s wetlands, riparian
forest and down to the May Creek floodplain (Figure 7).
Rain gardens along parking area
Photograph 6
Trail Design Criteria
• Maximize trail development within the Park
• Consider permit feasibility
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 18 August 2024
Figure 7
Trail Map
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 19 August 2024
The Wetland Loop Trail is approximately
0.4 mile long. It begins near the active
recreation area at the trailhead kiosk and
loops along and through a series of wetland
complexes. The trail alternates between a
5-foot-wide crushed gravel trail and a raised
5-foot-wide composite boardwalk in
wetland areas, both ADA-accessible. The
boardwalk would be built on enclosed
floatation-filled recycled tires and treated
timber sleepers and joists to minimize
impacts to the sensitive habitat. The trail
design is intended to maximize views of the
wetland’s reeds, cattails, and native animals and birds.
The May Creek Access Trail begins near the active recreation area and is approximately 0.08 mile
long. This trail is a 5-foot-wide permeable gravel trail with sections of stairs where slopes are too
steep to accommodate a gravel trail. The trail loops away from the active area along a section of
historical roadway, alongside a steep slope, eventually declining into a flat floodplain of mossy trees,
ferns, and skunk cabbage. The trail terminates at a large viewing area oriented toward May Creek.
Though this trail is not ADA-accessible due to existing steep terrain, all efforts would be made to
make it as user-friendly as possible.
The Forest Trail starts at the alternative Park
entrance at the southwest corner of the Park
and ends at the main trailhead near the
parking area. This trail is approximately
0.23 mile long with an elevation change of
approximately 60 feet. This trail is also a
50-foot-wide gravel trail with sections of
stairs. It loops through a forest of mixed
deciduous and conifer trees with a native
understory of ferns, salmonberry, and vine
maple. Similar to the May Creek Access Trail,
the Forest Trail is not ADA-accessible due to
existing steep terrain; all efforts would be
made to make it as user-friendly as possible. Paved Park trails provide ADA connections between
the Park entry and parking area to all active areas including the play area, trailhead kiosk, picnic
shelter, and future development area. These trails are hard-surface trails and 5 feet wide.
Example of wetland boardwalk
Example of permeable trail through a restored habitat
Photograph 7
Photograph 8
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 20 August 2024
Trail nodes are widened gathering spaces that have been placed
at regular intervals and at intersections of the proposed trails.
These nodes provide a place to rest on a bench, take in the views,
reorient, or read through cultural or environmental information
provided by interpretive signage. Nodes take the form of both
surface-level, gravel spaces and elevated boardwalk viewing
platforms.
Trailhead and wayfinding signage will be placed strategically
along the trail system. A large entry trailhead kiosk is proposed
near the parking area. This kiosk may include a map of the Park
with distances and directional information, along with relevant
information about the history and ecology of the Park. Smaller
trailhead portal post signs will be placed at the beginning of each
trail loop or section and at junction points along the trails. These
portal posts will provide wayfinding for visitors to use to orient themselves and select a walking
route. Interpretive signage will be placed at nodes and viewpoints to give visitors a deeper
understanding of and appreciation for the history and ecology of the site.
All trails have been proposed to
provide access to a variety of
habitats and views while minimizing
negative impacts to critical wetlands,
streams, slopes, and buffers. This will
also increase permit feasibility and
decrease costs. In addition, all trails
proposed within buffers are pervious
or natural surfacing such as crushed
stone or wood chips.
Example of a trailhead kiosk
Sketch of potential portal post in the Park
Photograph 9
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 21 August 2024
3.3 Public Safety
Several safety elements are proposed including the use of Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED). This concept is based in the idea that crime can be prevented through the use of
strategic design of buildings and public spaces. It involves simple, preventive steps that designers
can take to reduce crime in parks and neighborhoods. These steps include guiding how people enter
and leave a space to decrease opportunities for criminal activity, natural surveillance and clear sight
lines, defined property lines and clear distinctions between private and public spaces, regular
maintenance to encourage the appearance that the Park is valued, and regular activity to keep the
Park activated and in use (CPTED 2024).
In addition to CPTED design integration, the design for the Park includes safety lighting and
emergency beacons. Timed or motion-sensor light poles are placed in each of the eight corners of
the parking area to discourage crime and increase safety. The lighting will be cast down to minimize
light pollution impacts to neighbors and wildlife. Two solar-powered alert beacons are also proposed
for high-traffic areas near the parking area. These beacons allow Park visitors to easily connect to
emergency services. When someone presses the beacon’s large red button, the visitor is
automatically connected to an emergency dispatch center. At the same time, the beacon’s strobe
light activates, which helps emergency responders locate the visitor in need.
3.4 Habitat Enhancement
In-stream and riparian enhancement and restoration is proposed along 280 linear feet of May
Creek. In the early 2000s, as part of the May Creek Drainage and Restoration Plan recommendations,
King County consulted with Anchor QEA to develop the May Creek Erosion Stabilization Report to
identify conceptual stabilization actions within a portion of the ravine reach of May Creek between Coal
Creek Parkway and 148th Avenue SE. The plan included a detailed site observation and evaluation to
identify conceptual project sites and actions to reduce erosion and restore habitat (Anchor QEA 2010).
Based off the recommendations made in this report, large woody debris will be placed along the
creek edges to increase bank stability and create varied habitats within the creek for spawning
Public Safety Design Criterion
• Maximize public safety
Habitat Enhancement Design Criteria
• Maximize restoration and habitat enhancement
• Maximize forest and habitat preservation
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 22 August 2024
salmon. Invasive species will be selectively
removed and replaced with appropriate
native riparian species such as willow,
dogwood, and salmonberry.
Nearly 7 acres of wetland and wetland
buffer enhancement and restoration is
proposed. This will take the form of invasive
species removal and the installation of
appropriate native species to improve habitat
function and value. Habitat enhancement
techniques and plantings will be informed by
the types of wetlands including palustrine emergent marsh (PEM), palustrine scrub shrub (PSS), and
palustrine forested wetland (PFO). Buffer plantings will include native shrubs, groundcovers, and trees.
Approximately 6.1 acres of upland
forest and understory enhancement and
restoration is proposed along the site’s
forested areas. Mature and desirable trees
will be protected, and invasive species,
primarily Himalayan blackberry and English
ivy, will be removed. Native species will be
installed to increase habitat and improve
resiliency, including a diverse palette of
deciduous and conifer trees and shrubs.
3.5 Recreation and Amenity Areas
A proposed large nature play area will include play spaces to encourage exploration and adventure
for a variety of ages. Climbing, swinging, and spinning equipment, along with a large zipline and
sand pit, are proposed for a mix of activity types. Weather-resistant and easy to maintain materials
such as metal, concrete, and robinia wood are proposed. The play area design also includes parent
Example of nearby May Creek instream habitat
Example of nearby May Creek trail naturalization
Photograph 10
Photograph 11
Recreation and Amenity Area Design Criteria
• Provide Park development for families
• Provide Park facilities
• Maximize open space for unprogrammed recreation
• Consider value to cost
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 23 August 2024
seating around the perimeter. Engineered wood fiber
surfacing will protect children from falls while a selection
of trees placed around the playground will provide shade
from the sun.
A large picnic
shelter with
room for
several picnic
tables and
ample
gathering is
proposed close to the play area and parking. This shelter
will be designed with open walls and a rustic style to fit the
intended natural Park aesthetic. Picnic tables and seating
will be provided in and adjacent to the shelter along with
grills and trash receptacles (see “Site Furnishings” in the
next subsection).
A large open lawn space is provided near the entry,
parking, and play area. This unprogrammed space could
be used for picnics, gathering, parties, frisbee, or just
relaxing and exploring. It is relatively flat, with a perimeter of native trees and shrubs to provide
shade and privacy from the neighborhood. Future active recreation has been considered and may
take place on the adjacent parcel when it is acquired. This may be in the form of sports courts,
including tennis, pickleball, and basketball courts. A cultural propagation garden or outdoor
classroom were also considered.
3.6 Additional Park Features
Example of nature play area
Large rustic picnic shelter
Photograph 12
Photograph 13
Design Criteria for Additional Park Features
• Provide environmental education and stewardship
• Provide public art and placemaking
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 24 August 2024
Durable environmental education and interpretive
signage is proposed with a trailhead kiosk,
interpretive and educational signage, and portal
posts. Interpretive signage could speak to the area’s
history and culture and placed in areas of historical
significance. Educational signage on the plant and
animal species found in the Park could be placed at
nodes and viewing decks. These signs could include
QR codes to find additional information online.
Public art throughout
the Park will add a sense of place. The City could commission local and
Tribal artist to create site specific art work. Potential art themes could
focus on the site’s long ecological, cultural, and historic timeline. There
is a potential for an art walk program in the Park where permanent
plinths provide a foundation for temporary sculptural displays.
Site furnishings will be provided throughout the Park in a variety of
settings. Benches made from durable, appropriate materials will be
placed along trails and at nodes to allow for resting spots at regular
intervals. Picnic tables and grills will be provided in and adjacent to
the picnic shelter and open lawn space for gatherings and picnicking.
Trash cans and dog waste receptacles will be provided at the parking
area, trailheads, dog park enclosure, and at the picnic shelter to
encourage disposal of waste and for the convenience of visitors.
A proposed comfort
station may take the
form of two portable toilets within a toilet enclosure.
Although this feature is not a fully plumbed
restroom, it increases convenience and comfort for
visitors, and the enclosure shields the toilets from
view while improving the appearance with a sense of
permanence.
Example of Interpretive signage
Public art
Portable toilet with toilet enclosure
Photograph 14
Photograph 15
Photograph 16
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 25 August 2024
3.7 Future Potential Expansion Area
A potential sewer connection and Portland Loo may take the place of a portable comfort station.
This option would provide greater convenience for visitors but would require additional clearing of
vegetated and forested areas (including the removal of mature trees) for the installation of a sewer
line that would connect to the existing system south of the Park. A lateral line routed along the steep
slope would provide an opportunity to provide a new permanent restroom facility. The Portland Loo is
an easy to clean, stand-alone bathroom designed to prevent problems that are commonly experienced
with public toilets. The design discourages crime with graffiti-proof wall panels and open grating.
A 1/3-acre enclosed off-leash dog area is proposed for the site on the future acquisition parcel.
This location was chosen to provide separation from other site programming and environmentally
sensitive areas while still maintaining close proximity to the entry and parking lot. This location is
also flat and previously disturbed, making it a preferred location within the planning area. Secure
double gated entry and dog waste receptacles along with seating will be provided. Trees and shrubs
will provide areas of shade and exploration while open grassy areas will be provided to allow access
to large sunny areas for running.
Sports courts are an amenity that could be included in the future expansion area. The public has
expressed interest in tennis, pickleball, and basketball courts. These courts may be individual, but the
pickleball and tennis courts could be a combined feature. They would be placed in a flat, previously
developed area to avoid further disturbance to environmentally sensitive areas.
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 26 August 2024
4 COST SUMMARY
The total project cost to implement the Master Plan ranges from $6,820,000 to $8,130,000
(rounded and in 2024 dollars). This total project cost includes the construction costs to implement
the Master Plan vision and the fees to design, permit, and manage the work. The low end of the
range assumes that a portable toilet enclosure is provided and a sewer connection is not installed.
The low end of the range also assumes that proposed improvements on the future parcel are not
included. The following provides additional details on the total project cost including a summary of
the City’s escalation planning.
4.1 Construction Costs
The Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPCC) provides rough order of magnitude costs for the
construction of proposed Master Plan elements. Table 2 summarizes the costs based on the
following categories: Park development and habitat enhancement costs are for all proposed design
elements within the currently-owned City boundary; the custom toilet enclosure cost includes the
cost to construct a structural enclosure to accommodate two portable toilets (and assumes there is
no sewer connection); the sewer connection and restrooms costs assume that a new sewer
DRAFT
Photograph 20 Photograph 17
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 27 August 2024
connection is provided to the Park site with a connection to the existing mainline south of the Park
(it also includes the construction of a Portland Loo); finally, the Park expansion area presents a
construction costs that accommodate future potential uses on this parcel as described in Section 4.
See Appendix E for cost details.
Table 2 Master Plan OPCC Summary
Master Plan Design Elements OPCC
1 Park Development and Forest Enhancement $5,195,660
2. Potential Custom Toilet Enclosure $243,353
3. Potential Sewer Connection and Portland Loo $959,432
4. Future Potential Park Expansion Area $592,112
Total OPCC Low (Items 1 and 2) $5,439,013
Total OPCC High (Items 1, 3 and 4) $6,747,204
Table 3 provides a summary of the cost items included in the Park Development and Forest
Enhancement OPCC. This does not include a restroom option (a custom toilet enclosure or
Portland Loo).
Table 3
Park Development and Habitat Enhancement OPCC Summary
Element Cost
Site Demolition and Clearing in Park Development Area $68,740
Temporary Facilities During Construction (e.g., Access, Fencing) $134,050
Earthwork $267,610
Utility Improvements (Stormwater, Electrical, Lighting and Communications) $343,920
Asphalt Paving and Pavement Markings $148,196
Trails, Bridges, and Viewing Areas $520,677
Site Furnishings and Signage $401,187
Play Area Surfacing and Equipment $229,982
Planting in Park Development Area $209,009
Irrigation in Park Development Area $165,000
In-Stream and Riparian Habitat Enhancement $105,084
Wetland and Wetland Buffer Enhancement $434,999
Forest Enhancement $85,914
Park Development and Habitat Enhancement Subtotal $3,114,367
Mobilization (10%)1 $311,437
Design Contingency (25%)2 $856,451
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 28 August 2024
Element Cost
Construction Contingency (10%)3 $428,225
Sales Tax (10.3%)4 $485,179
Total Park Development and Habitat Enhancement OPCC $5,195,660
Notes:
1. Mobilization is applied to the subtotal. 2. Design contingency is applied to the subtotal with mobilization.
3. Construction contingency is applied to the subtotal with mobilization and design contingency. 4. Sales tax is applied to the subtotal with mobilization, design contingency and construction contingency. The sales tax rate is the City of Renton’s 2024 sales tax rate.
The OPCC for the Future Potential Park Expansion Area costs the multiple opportunities that could
be constructed on the 1.7-acre parcel. This includes a new dog park, trail connection, open lawn area,
and Park plantings, as well as two tennis courts (accommodating four pickleball courts). The ultimate
cost for the Future Potential Park Expansion Area will depend on which Park amenities and features
are included.
The OPCC assumes 2024 dollars and does not include future inflation. The OPCC does include the
following markups:
• 10% Contractor mobilization
• 25% design contingency
• 10% construction contingency
• 10.3% sales tax
The design contingency reflects the early level of design and level of uncertainty. For example, a site
survey has not yet been completed, and the design may need to be revised to adapt to actual site
conditions based on a survey. These changes could result in additional construction costs. During
design development and final design, the design contingency will go down. At the time of bidding,
the design contingency will be at zero.
The construction contingency reflects that certain changes or refinements to the design may need to
be completed during construction to reflect new information identified by the Contractor in the field.
For example, the Contractor could uncover buried debris that needs to be removed and hauled off
site. It is recommended that the City retain sufficient budget as a construction contingency for the
duration of the Master Plan’s design.
The OPCC does not include costs related to design/engineering, design phase Master Plan
management, survey, planning and design review, bidding, construction phase Master Plan
management and administration, construction inspection, environmental permitting, permit related
monitoring, and property purchase. These fees are summarized in the following Section 4.2. The
current OPCC also does not include water connection utility connections, portable restroom toilet
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 29 August 2024
units, public art, signage design, demolition of the existing houses and accessory buildings, or
demolition of existing foundations. The OPCC assumes no contamination is encountered on the site
and does not include costs for environmental cleanup.
In providing OPCCs, the Client (City of Renton) understands that the Consultant (Anchor QEA, Inc.)
has no control over the cost or availability of labor, equipment, or materials, or over market condition
or the Contractor's method of pricing, and the Consultant's opinions of probable construction costs
are made on the basis of the Consultant's professional judgment and experience. The Consultant
makes no warranty, expressed or implied, that the bids or the negotiated cost of the Work will not
vary from the Consultant's opinion of probable construction cost.
4.2 Design, Permit, and Management Fees
In order to develop the Master Plan to a bid-ready project, the City will need to design, permit, and
manage the work. Table 4 summarizes the expected fees for planning purposes.
Table 4 Design, Permit, and Management Fee Summary
Service Estimated Fee
Survey and Investigations $105,000
Design and Engineering $600,000
Environmental and Construction Permitting $200,000
Master Plan Management $150,000
Bidding and Construction Management $325,000
Total Fees $1,380,000
Note: Costs are rounded to nearest 1,000.
4.3 Cost Escalation
As noted above, the total project cost is in 2024 dollars and does not account for future inflation.
Inflation is variable based on external economic factors. Over the past 5 years, inflation has ranged
considerably; between October 2022 and October 2023, inflation in the construction industry was
7.76% in the Seattle region (Basnet 2024). Since that time of high inflation, rates are more moderate,
ranging between 4% and 5% (Minnick 2024). The City is budgeting for moderate cost escalation in
the near term, with a 5% escalation rate per year to account for inflation. Table 5 applies a 5%
escalation rate to the total project cost over the next 5 years.
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 30 August 2024
Table 5 Total Master Plan Cost with Escalation Summary
Year
Total Master Plan Cost with 5% Inflation per Year
Low End High End
2024 $6,820,000 $8,130,000
2025 $7,160,000 $8,540,000
2026 $7,520,000 $8,970,000
2027 $7,900,000 $9,420,000
2028 $8,300,000 $9,890,000
Note:
Costs are rounded to nearest 1,000.
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 31 August 2024
5 IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 Permit Feasibility
This section summarizes anticipated Master Plan environmental permitting requirements. Table 6
lists environmental permits anticipated to be required, along with the trigger for each. In addition to
the environmental permits, the Master Plan would need to go through the City’s Site Plan Review
process, including a pre-application, application, and application review to identify required
construction permits such as the following:
• Building permits
• Trade permits (i.e., electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or fire suppression)
• Street use or right-of-way permits
• Utility, demolition, or air quality permits
• Permits for geotechnical, potholing, or excavation work that is performed in support of the
design process prior to construction
• Additional permits for off-site staging associated with the future Master Plan
Photograph 18
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 32 August 2024
Table 6 Environmental Permitting Requirements
Permit or
Approval and
Lead Agency Trigger
Estimated
Permit
Timeframe Notes
SEPA Review
City of Renton
Any proposal that requires a state or local agency decision to license, fund, or
undertake a project, or
the proposed adoption
of a policy, plan, or program can trigger environmental review under SEPA.
Schematic Design (30% design)
A SEPA checklist is anticipated to be prepared by the City for public review and comment. The checklist will include Master Plan background information and an evaluation of impacts to
environmental elements including earth, air, water,
plants, animals, energy and natural resources,
environmental health, land and shoreline use, housing, aesthetics, light and glare, recreation, historical and cultural preservation, transportation, public services, and utilities.
The SEPA checklist may need to be supported by additional technical reports and/or technical memoranda to address specific disciplines.
NEPA Review
Federal Funding
Agency1 and
USACE
Projects that receive
federal funding
Schematic
Design
The Master Plan will likely meet requirements for a
Documented Categorical Exclusion. It may
potentially instead require an Environmental
Assessment.
Note that USACE will also complete their own internal NEPA review during the Section 404 Individual Permit process for elements of the Master Plan under their jurisdiction—for example, filling of waters of the United States (wetlands).
The Categorical Exclusion form may need to be supported by additional technical reports and/or technical memoranda to address specific disciplines.
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance
DAHP and Native American Tribes
Activities that may affect archaeological, cultural, or historic resources or sites
Concurrent with NEPA or CWA Section 404 review
A qualified archaeologist will be required to prepare a cultural resources memorandum that will support NEPA documentation and be provided to USACE as part of the Section 404 permit package. Preparation of the memorandum will require a review of the Master Plan plans, areas, and
depth/extent of ground-disturbing activities.
ESA compliance
NMFS and
USFWS
Section 7 review is
required for federal actions (funding, permit, or approval) that may affect any ESA-listed species or their critical habitat.
Concurrent
with NEPA or CWA Section 404 review
Federal funding or permits will require compliance
with Section 7 of the ESA. ESA-listed aquatic species are known to use downstream portions of May Creek. The Master Plan will require either a no-effect letter or a biological evaluation.
If the Master Plan has federal funding, the funding agency will be the lead agency for ESA compliance. If the Master Plan does not have federal funding, USACE would be the lead agency for ESA compliance if a CWA Section 404 permit is
required.
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 33 August 2024
Permit or Approval and Lead Agency Trigger
Estimated Permit Timeframe Notes
Critical Areas
Exemption and
Other Permits
City of Renton
Alteration of a site with
a critical area or buffer
(RMC 4-3-050)
Concurrent
with SEPA
review
A Critical Areas Exemption authorizes work in
streams, wetlands, and buffers. A Land Use Permit
Master Application is submitted to City of Renton
Community and Economic Development. The same application will also be used to obtain a Flood Hazard Permit. A completed tree retention work sheet must be included in the application.
Note: The Master Plan is not within shoreline jurisdiction or aquifer protection areas.
CWA Section
404 Individual Permit or Nationwide Permit
USACE
A discharge of dredged
or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands
Schematic
Design
If the Master Plan has 0.5 acre or less of fill in
wetlands, it will likely require coverage under Nationwide Permit 42 Recreational Facilities. If a larger amount of fill in wetlands is required, a 404 Individual permit will be required.
A JARPA form would be submitted to USACE.
CWA Section 401 Water
Quality
Certification
Ecology
A 401 Water Quality Certification is required
for all projects that
require a USACE
Section 404 permit.
Schematic Design For work within federally regulated wetlands (i.e., adjacent to May Creek or within its floodplain),
issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification
demonstrates that the Master Plan will comply with
state water quality standards and other aquatic resource protection under Ecology’s regulatory authority. Procedurally, Ecology issues the 401 Certification before USACE can issue the Section 404 Individual Permit.
Administrative
Order
Ecology
An Administrative Order
is required for work within non-federally regulated waters.
Schematic
Design
For work within non-federally regulated wetlands
(i.e., at wetlands not adjacent to May Creek and without a surface water connection to May Creek), an Administrative Order is required. Ecology determines whether the proposed work, as conditioned by the Administrative Order, will comply with the applicable provisions of 90.48 RCW and other applicable requirements of
state law.
CZMA Consistency Determination
Ecology
Triggered by projects that contain a federal nexus proposed within any of Washington's 15 coastal counties.
Schematic Design Issuance of the CZMA Consistency Determination occurs as part of coordination with USACE and Ecology for the CWA Sections 404 and 401 processes described above. No separate application is required.
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 34 August 2024
Permit or Approval and Lead Agency Trigger
Estimated Permit Timeframe Notes
Section 402
NPDES
Construction
Stormwater
General Permit
Ecology
Soil disturbance of
1 acre or more during
construction
Issued for Bid
contract
documents
An NPDES Construction Stormwater General permit
is required for construction activities with any soil
disturbance of 1 acre or more of total land and
have a discharge of stormwater into surface waters or into storm drainage systems that discharge to a surface water.
The permit will trigger need for a construction stormwater pollution prevention plan with a Best Management Practices plan that is linked to erosion and sediment control drawings and specifications in the construction Contract Documents.
Hydraulic Permit
Approval
WDFW
Work that uses, diverts, obstructs, or changes the natural flow or bed of state waters (i.e., work waterward of the ordinary high water
mark)
45 days from SEPA determination issuance
Note:
1. Federal funding agency (if any) has not been determined yet.
5.2 Phasing Considerations
The City has considered phasing strategies to implement the Master Plan. Based on current
ownership, the City has identified proposed Park development on the currently privately-owned
1.7 acre parcel as a future phase. This allows the City flexibility in the design approach for that future
parcel as well as the opportunity to phase design and construction costs.
The comfort station could also be phased. The City could provide a lower cost portable toilet
restroom facility to the public in the Park’s first phase and then plan a future sewer connection and
Portland Loo construction project in order to phase design and construction costs.
Within the proposed Park Development and Habitat Enhancement areas, there could be
opportunities to phase implementation if needed. This could include:
• Trail Development – develop a phased strategy to build out the trail network within the Park
and connections beyond the Park boundary.
• Habitat Enhancement – implement habitat mitigation to offset Master Plan impacts and then
phase future habitat stewardship such as invasive vegetation removal, native planting, and
streambank and in-stream enhancements. Stewardship activities could be implemented on a
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 35 August 2024
separate schedule by a local organization such as the Washington Conservation Corps or with
volunteers.
5.3 Funding Opportunities
The City utilized the State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO; formerly the Interagency
Committee for Outdoor Recreation) to acquire much of the land composing the future Park. The RCO
administers numerous grant funding programs that may be appropriate for supporting future
development and/or parcel acquisition within the Park boundary.
The City has successfully utilized grant funding from the King County Conservation Futures grant
program on nearby parcels elsewhere along the Greenway. This grant has funded the protection of
nearly 100,000 acres of land in the county, including lands at Cougar Mountain Regional Wildlands
Park. The City’s focus on restoring and protecting the sensitive stream, riparian, wetland, and buffer
habitats while also providing passive-use recreation in an underserved community has been considered
and maintained throughout the master planning process to be consistent with the funding source.
Looking to the future, King County Parks Levy funding source may be an option for design and
implementation funding. Additionally, the Master Plan’s unique opportunity to improve the
environment while also improving public access to the outdoors and public health will position it well
for other local, state, and federal funding. Table 7 outlines funding mechanisms that could be
applicable to various aspects of the Master Plan design and implementation.
Table 7 Potential Grant Funding Sources
Agency and Grant Program Eligible Project Types and Summary of Program
Local King
County
Cooperative Watershed
Management Grant
The grant supports projects targeting salmon recovery
and watershed health that can be focused on
restoration, research, or education and outreach.
Conservation Futures This funding program could support site stabilization costs including fencing, signage, and structure
demolition implemented shortly after acquisition.
2020–2025 Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Levy
The voter-approved program includes funding for capital and open space, open space and river corridors, and healthy communities funds.
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 36 August 2024
Agency and Grant Program Eligible Project Types and Summary of Program
State
RCO
Aquatic Lands Enhancement Grants may be used for acquisition, improvement,
conservation, and stewardship in Washington for
protection of aquatic lands, natural areas, and wildlife habitats as well as promoting recreational opportunities for public purposes. Project types include conservation planning, habitat enhancement, shoreline restoration, water quality improvement, trail development, and stewardship opportunities.
Land and Water Conservation
Wildlife and Recreation Program
Recreational Trails Program
Salmon Recovery and Puget
Sound Acquisition and
Restoration
Ecology Terry Husseman Account Grants support locally sponsored projects that restore or enhance the environment.
Federal
FEMA Building Resilient Infrastructure
and Communities Program
The program aims to shift funding to proactive investment in community resilience and pre-disaster mitigation activities.
NFWF America the Beautiful Challenge
The program supports expanding access to the
outdoors, particularly in underserved communities, in
conservation and resiliency projects.
EPA Puget Sound Action Agenda – Climate Resilient Riparian Systems Lead
The program supports protection and restoration of riparian areas, including those supporting salmon recovery, to promote climate resiliency.
NFWF National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation
The program supports projects that sustain, restore
and enhance our nation's fish, wildlife and plants, and
their habitats.
USFWS North American Wetlands Conservation Act
The program supports projects that protect, restore and enhance wetlands and associated uplands habitats for the benefit of all wetlands-associated migratory birds.
National Wildlife Federation
WaterSMART Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration The program supports aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects west of the Mississippi River.
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 37 August 2024
6 REFERENCES
Anchor QEA, 2010. May Creek Erosion Stabilization Draft Report. Prepared for King County.
January 2010.
Basnet, N., 2024. “Construction Costs in Seattle Outpace Rest of the Country.” Puget Sound Business
Journal. January 17, 2024. Accessed August 7, 2024. Available at:
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2024/01/17/construction-costs-seattle.html.
City of Renton, 2019, Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan. Adopted January 28, 2019.
City of Renton, 2020. Renton Parks Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan. Adopted January 27, 2020.
City of Renton, 2024. May Creek Greenway. City Website. Accessed July 2, 2024. Available at:
https://www.rentonwa.gov/city_hall/parks_and_recreation/parks_and_trails/find_a_park_or_tra
il/may_creek_greenway.
CPTED (The International Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Association), 2024. Primer
in CPTED. Accessed July 8, 2024. Available at: https://www.cpted.net/Primer-in-CPTED.
Photograph 19
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 38 August 2024
King County and City of Renton, 2001. May Creek Basin Action Plan. Adopted April 2001.
Minnick, B., 2024. “Skanska Shares Its Outlook on Construction Cost Escalation.” Daily Journal of
Commerce. February 27, 2023. Accessed August 7, 2024. Available at:
https://www.djc.com/news/co/12154881.html.
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan 39 August 2024
PHOTOGRAPHS
Cover Photograph – Northeast Renton Park, summer 2023. Source: Anchor QEA.
Photograph 1 – May Creek tributary, spring 2024. Source: Anchor QEA.
Photograph 2 – Northeast Renton Park foliage, summer 2023. Source: Anchor QEA.
Photograph 3 – Public engagement, spring 2024. Source: Jason Lederer.
Photograph 4 – Public engagement, spring 2024. Source: Jason Lederer.
Photograph 5 – May Creek, early spring 2024. Source: Jason Lederer.
Photograph 6 – Rain gardens along parking area. Source: Anchor QEA.
Photograph 7 – Example of wetland boardwalk. Source: Anchor QEA.
Photograph 8 – Barbee Mill – May Creek Trail outfall to Lake Washington. Source: Jason Lederer.
Photograph 9 – Example of trailhead kiosk. Source: Anchor QEA.
Photograph 10 – Example of nearby May Creek instream habitat. Source: Jason Lederer.
Photograph 11 – Example of nearby May Creek trail naturalization. Source: Jason Lederer.
Photograph 12 – Philip Arnold Park in Renton, Washington. Source: Jason Lederer.
Photograph 13 – Large rustic picnic shelter. Source: Anchor QEA.
Photograph 14 – Example of interpretive signage. Source: South Australian History Network; https://www.flickr.com/photos/communityhistorysa/21271092130.
Photograph 15 – Public art. Source: Anchor QEA.
Photograph 16 – Portable toilet with toilet enclosure. Source: Anchor QEA.
Photograph 17 – Northeast Renton Park, early spring 2024. Source: Clearway Environmental.
Photograph 18 – May Creek, early spring 2024. Source: Jason Lederer.
Photograph 19 – Northeast Renton Park foliage, summer 2023. Source: Anchor QEA.
APPENDIX A
EXISTING INFORMATION SUMMARY
REPORT
January 2024
May Creek Park Master Planning Project
Existing Information Summary
Prepared for City of Renton
January 2024
May Creek Park Master Planning Project
Existing Information Summary
Prepared for City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, Washington 98057
Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 2600
Seattle, Washington 98101
Existing Information Summary i January 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2 Project Location ......................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Basemap ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 May Creek Greenway ......................................................................................................................................... 6
3 Summary of Existing Documents ........................................................................................... 9
3.1 Ownership .............................................................................................................................................................. 9
3.2 Grant Funding ....................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3 City Planning Documents .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.4 Regional Planning Documents .................................................................................................................... 15
4 Geotechnical Technical Assessment .................................................................................... 17
4.1 Existing Geological Conditions ................................................................................................................... 17
4.2 City Geological Critical Areas ....................................................................................................................... 17
5 Cultural Resources Technical Assessment ......................................................................... 19
5.1 Environmental and Cultural Context ......................................................................................................... 19
5.2 Archaeology ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
5.3 Historic Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 22
5.4 Traditional Cultural Properties and Cultural Landscapes .................................................................. 22
6 Site Reconnaissance and Natural Resource Inventory .................................................. 23
6.1 FLAT Assessment .............................................................................................................................................. 23
6.2 Wetland Reconnaissance .............................................................................................................................. 26
6.3 May Creek Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 27
6.4 Landmark Trees ................................................................................................................................................. 27
6.5 Land Cover and Site Features ...................................................................................................................... 28
7 Data Gaps .................................................................................................................................. 30
8 References ................................................................................................................................. 31
Existing Information Summary ii January 2024
TABLES
Table 1 Vicinity Map Data Sources ...................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2 Parcel Acquisitions ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Table 3 Critical Area Buffer Widths ................................................................................................................... 15
Table 4 Landmark Tree Inventory ...................................................................................................................... 28
FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Project Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3 Project Basemap .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4 City of Newcastle’s May Creek Park and Trail................................................................................. 7
Figure 5 Trail Locations for Cougar Mountain Regional Wildlife Park................................................... 8
Figure 6 2020 Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan Concept ...................................................... 11
Figure 7 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map ................................................................................................ 12
Figure 8 Statewide Predictive Model for Precontact Archaeological Potential .............................. 21
Figure 9 Forest Landscape Assessment Tool (FLAT) Analysis ................................................................. 24
Figure 10 Forest Landscape Assessment Tool (FLAT) Map ........................................................................ 25
APPENDIX
Appendix A Site Photographs
Existing Information Summary 1 January 2024
1 Introduction
This report summarizes existing information that will be used to support the May Creek Park Master
Planning Project (Project). The Project is an initial step taken by the City of Renton (City) to develop a
new neighborhood park. The information summarized in this report will be used to support site
planning, the development of conceptual design alternatives, and the selection of a preferred
conceptual design alternative.
To inform a baseline understanding of the Project’s context and site conditions, the Project team has
reviewed all existing documents provided by the City and known documents gathered from other
publicly available sources, including a review of Project site ownership, grant funding, City planning
documentation, and regional planning documentation. The report provides a narrative summary as
well as a vicinity and site basemapping. As part of the existing information review, the Project team
also conducted technical assessments to document geotechnical and cultural resources conditions
and considerations.
In addition, this report summarizes a site reconnaissance and natural resources inventory conducted
in December 2023. The site reconnaissance focused on identifying and characterizing existing natural
resources present at the sites including wetlands, May Creek, buffers, forest canopy, and other land
covers. In addition to a narrative summary, the site reconnaissance findings are also presented in a
site analysis and Project opportunities graphic.
Finally, this report identifies data gaps that will need to be filled in future phases of May Creek Park
design, permitting, and implementation.
Existing Information Summary 2 January 2024
2 Project Location
May Creek Park (Park), located in Renton, King County, Washington, within the City’s East Plateau
neighborhood, is an 18.5-acre assemblage of parcels acquired by the City over the last three decades
(Figure 1). It is bordered by May Creek to the north, Duvall Avenue NE to the west, and residential
neighborhoods to the south. To the northwest is the City’s Surface Water Utility Facility. The current
Park boundary includes the most recently acquired property, a 1.8-acre parcel with an existing home,
but does not include the adjacent 1.7-acre parcel with a single-family home that is immediately to
the west. The City has plans to acquire the single-family home and property when it is available and
to include that area within the future Park.
Figure 1
Project Location
Immediately to the north and west of the Park is the boundary of the City of Newcastle (Figure 2).
Just across Coal Creek Parkway SE in Newcastle is a 3,100-acre park and trail system also called
May Creek Park (City of Newcastle 2019). Both Newcastle’s May Creek Park and the new Park fall
within the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed and Water Resource Inventory Area
(WRIA) 8. May Creek is the third largest tributary to Lake Washington, draining the area west of
Issaquah Creek and north of Cedar River, flowing through both Newcastle and Renton. The Park is
located approximately 4 miles from Lake Washington.
Figure 2 maps the Park boundary and vicinity and is at the neighborhood scale. Following Figure 2,
Table 1 provides the data sources for the Project vicinity map.
Existing Information Summary 3 January 2024
Figure 2
Project Vicinity Map
Note: Map elements provided by the City of Renton.
Existing Information Summary 4 January 2024
Table 1 Vicinity Map Data Sources
Data Layer Data Source
Aerial imagery Esri World Imagery (Bing Maps 2023)
Parcels King County Parcel Viewer (King County 2023)
Site boundary
City of Renton COR Maps (City of Renton 2023a)
City boundary
Property
Districts and boundaries
Parks and Recreation
Land Use and Zoning
Critical Areas
Telecommunications
Transportation Elements
Utilities
Trees
Erosion Hazard
Floodway
Regulated slopes
Streams
Wetlands
Topography
Site Survey Record of Survey for City of Renton (Pace 2023)
2.1 Basemap
Figure 3 presents a Project basemap. The data compiled for this map were taken from Esri World
Imagery (Bing Maps 2023), City COR Parcel Data, City COR Maps (City of Renton 2023a), the Record
of Survey for City of Renton (Pace 2023), and many of the same data sources as summarized in
Table 1. The map also includes the following data collected by Clearway Environmental (Clearway)
during the site reconnaissance in December 2023 (Section 6):
• Photo points
• Wetland
• Paved surfaces
• Landscaped surfaces
• Landmark trees
• Trails
• Invasive species threat (low, medium, high)
• Tree composition (low, medium, high)
• Tributaries and ditches
• Points of interest
The basemap will be used for master planning and conceptual design. In future phases of Project
design and permitting, a site boundary and topography survey will need to be completed. Specific
survey needs are noted as data gaps in Section 7.
Existing Information Summary 5 January 2024
Figure 3 Project Basemap
Note: Map elements provided by the City of Renton.
Existing Information Summary 6 January 2024
2.2 May Creek Greenway
The 1978 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan recognized May Creek Greenway as a valuable
natural corridor. This corridor stretches across 8 miles from Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park
and west to creek mouth on Lake Washington. Beginning in 1980, the cities of Renton and
Newcastle, along with King County, began to acquire land along the May Creek Corridor in hopes of
eventually creating a multijurisdictional soft-surface trail system. The vision is to create a large
greenway system with an uninterrupted network of pervious trails, interpretive and educational
opportunities, and habitat for spawning salmon and other native species. The greenway would also
serve as flood and slope protection (City of Renton 2023d; Washington Trails Association 2023).
2.2.1 City of Newcastle’s May Creek Park
May Creek Trail is located in May Creek Park in the City of Newcastle immediately west of the Park. It
stretches from I-405 to Coal Creek Parkway and will share a border with the future section of the
Park. The parkland surrounding the trail spans more than 3,100 acres (Figure 4). May Creek Trail is a
3.5-mile, roundtrip, soft-surface trail winding through a historical woodland that was once the
workplace of coalminers. The trail follows the historical footprint of the Seattle-Walla Walla Railroad.
The trail follows along the northern bank of May Creek, falling and gaining more than 585 feet in
elevation and occasionally looping through clearings, crossing bridges, and even passing by a
vintage rusted out van, but primarily staying within dense wooded areas. Terrace Trail and a
greenbelt network of other trails can be accessed by crossing Coal Creek Parkway from May Creek
Trail, which allows hikers to continue into Cougar Mountain Park (City of Newcastle 2019;
Washington Trails Association 2023).
Existing Information Summary 7 January 2024
Figure 4 City of Newcastle’s May Creek Park and Trail
Source: https://data-newcastlewa.opendata.arcgis.com
2.2.2 Cougar Mountain Regional Wildlife Park
The King County-owned, 3,000-plus acre Cougar Mountain Regional Wildlife Park is located in an
area known as the Issaquah Alps in Renton. It is a short hike or bike ride from May Creek Park.
Cougar Mountain Regional Wildlife Park is home to more than 35 miles of trails that wind through
dense second-growth forests and wetlands, along streams, and include landmarks such as cliffs and
caves. The park boundary and trail locations are identified in Figure 5. Many of the trails feature
viewpoints of nearby lakes, mountain ranges, and city skylines, while others are deep in the
wilderness with no hint of nearby urban living (King County 2023a). The trails closest to the Park are
Terrace Trail and Newcastle Highlands Trail, the De Leo Wall Loop and De Leo Wall Trail, Indian Trail,
and Ballybunion Trail (AllTrails 2023). Cougar Mountain Regional Wildlife Park is connected to
Squak Mountain and Tiger Mountain, which adds up to more than 5,000 acres of protected public
land. These trails and natural areas can be reached from May Creek Park by hiking or bicycling along
the Crosstown Trail and Terrace Trail in conjunction with short distances on city streets.
Existing Information Summary 8 January 2024
Figure 5 Trail Locations for Cougar Mountain Regional Wildlife Park
Source: AllTrails 2023
Existing Information Summary 9 January 2024
3 Summary of Existing Documents
The Project team reviewed relevant background materials provided by City staff, which are publicly
available. This section provides a summary of these materials.
3.1 Ownership
Table 2 summarizes parcels acquired by the City for the future Park. The list totals 18.22 acres of land
currently acquired and a trail easement connecting to the parcel assemblage across privately owned
adjacent parcels to the east.
Table 2 Parcel Acquisitions
Parcel Name Parcel/Recording Number Year Acquired Acreage
McAskill Parcel 032305-9287 1994 10
Langley Ridge Trail Easement 20080212000465 2008 15-foot easement area undefined
Property Exchange Conversion N/A 2012 0.06
Donated parcel 3424059164 2013 2.5
Donated parcel 0323059005 2015 4
2718 Duvall Avenue NE Parcel 032305-9164 2023 1.66
Note: N/A: not available
3.2 Grant Funding
The City has applied for and won several grants to acquire land for and complete improvements to
the Park. The following grants were awarded:
• RCO Grant, 1991, May Creek Trail (RCO Project No. 91-259): $169,200 (50% of total cost)
through the State of Washington for the acquisition of approximately 19 acres of land (six
separate parcels) to adjoin the May Creek/Honey Creek Green Belt in North Renton
(May Creek Trail 1991)
• RCO Grant,1994, May Creek Trail (RCO Project No. 92-298): $90,573.96 (50% of total cost)
through the State of Washington for the acquisition of 10 acres of land (six separate parcels)
to adjoin the May Creek/Honey Creek Green Belt in North Renton (May Creek Trail 1994)
These grants came with long-term obligations that the projects be completed in a timely manner
and for outdoor recreation purposes (Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office 2023).
For acquisition grants, property must be obtained within a required period of time. For recreation
Existing Information Summary 10 January 2024
projects, grant recipients must maintain public outdoor recreation opportunities in a safe and
attractive manner and at reasonable hours and times of the year.
3.3 City Planning Documents
3.3.1 2020 Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan
The City’s Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan is a 6-year plan, adopted in January 2020. This
report is an update of the previous plan that was adopted in 2011. The purpose of the plan is to
provide a long-term vision and goals for the City’s parks, recreation, and natural areas over the next
20 years. The plan lays out current and future needs and community interest for parks and
recreation, identifies policies and strategies to enhance and sustain parks, provides a framework to
guide priorities and funding sources, and responds to the needs of the community as well as state
requirements for grant eligibility (Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office 2023). This
plan ties in with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, and the
Downtown Civic Core Vision and Action Plan. This document includes recommended park amenities
that were created using community input regarding recreation and valuable natural areas. The draft
plans were reviewed by the public, the Project Steering Committee, Parks Commission, Planning
Commission, and the Council Committee of the Whole. These concept plans were well-received and
are intended to be a vision of possibilities to use as a starting point and inspiration for future
planning and design work. Specifically for the Park, this plan includes a concept that maintains much
of the natural forested areas, with a long winding interpretive loop trail along the creek and through
the wetlands, trail connections on both sides of the park, parking, play areas, and sports courts
grouped into a cohesive active recreation area. This plan is based on the distinct identity and
character of the surrounding community and considers existing recreation opportunities as well as
natural features (City of Renton 2020).
Existing Information Summary 11 January 2024
Figure 6 2020 Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan Concept
Source: City of Renton 2020
3.3.2 Comprehensive Plan
The City’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2015 and must be updated by 2024. This long-term
plan focuses on goals for growth and development within the City of Renton. This plan is a guide for
land use, transportation, housing, economic development, parks and recreation, community
planning, utilities, capital facilities, environment, climate change, and resiliency. These are all
requirements of Washington’s Growth Management Act. The updated plan will take into
consideration feedback from all stakeholders, including residents, business owners, property owners,
City staff, City Council, and the planning commission. This input will be essential to creating a plan
that reflects the vision and needs of those who live in Renton.
Existing Information Summary 12 January 2024
3.3.2.1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (Figure 7) shows that the Park falls within the designations
for Residential Low Density (RLD) and Residential Medium Density (RMD). All adjacent properties to
the north and south fall within these same designations (City of Renton 2018b).
Figure 7 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
Source: City of Renton 2018b
3.3.3 Trails and Bicycle Master Plan
The 2019 Trails and Bicycle Master Plan was developed through a joint effort between Renton Parks
and Recreation, the Parks Planning and Natural Resources Division, the Public Works Department,
the Transportation Systems Division, the Community and Economic Development Department, and
the Long Range Planning Division. This plan lays out a vision for a nonmotorized bike and walking
path network for the next 20 years and is a requirement for grant funding eligibility. The plan
includes a brief introduction describing the benefits of walking and cycling, the relationship to other
plans, the planning process, and the master plan of trails. It then lays out a framework of how the
final plan comes to be—from vision, goals, and objectives to community involvement, demand and
needs analysis, guiding principles, plan elements, and implementation. Because the Park is intended
to be part of this large network of soft-surface trails, this plan and the concepts within are relevant.
Existing Information Summary 13 January 2024
This plan is a framework that can help guide the City in establishing priorities during the planning
and design process of the Project (City of Renton 2019).
3.3.4 Renton Downtown Civic Core Vision and Action Plan
The City’s Downtown Civic Core Vision and Action Plan was adopted in January 2018. This plan
provides a descriptive vision, with relevant photographs and graphics, of future opportunities for
Renton’s downtown and civic core. Active civic core projects include The Renton Connector, Pavilion
Market & Food Hall, Downtown Streetscapes, Arts & Culture Space, and Downtown Wayfinding. The
plan includes an introduction of the downtown civic core and necessary context, followed by
solutions and visions suggested by the community. The plan also includes themes, strategies, and
ideas for implementation. Though May Creek is not part of the downtown civic core, the strategies
and concepts for improving urban design and encouraging the use of urban outdoor spaces can be
applied to this Project (City of Renton 2018A; MIG 2018).
3.3.5 Urban Forest Management Plan 2022-2033
Rooted in Renton is the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan (City of Renton 2022). The plan is a
10-year update to the previous plan and includes a brief introduction and description of the history
and benefits of urban forests, followed by a description of the current state of Renton’s urban
forests. The 10-year plan describes the City’s Urban Forestry Program, and the program’s current
needs and challenges, as well as an implementation schedule. As the City grows and becomes
denser, the importance of maintaining and enhancing tree canopy throughout the city limits
becomes a greater priority. Established forests, such as those in the May Creek greenbelt, are a
valuable asset, providing habitat, beauty, and physical and emotional wellbeing to residents. May
Creek and the surrounding areas are a vital part of the City’s mission to proactively manage public
trees, grow and expand a healthy tree canopy, maintain public safety, and optimize urban forest
benefits (City of Renton 2022).
3.3.6 Development Regulations
Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title IV – Development Regulations is a set of compiled and revised City
ordinances related to development regulations. It consists of 11 chapters, including Administration and
Enforcement, Zoning Districts, Environmental Regulations, City-Wide Property Development Standards,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, Street and Utility Standards, Subdivision Regulations, Legal
Nonconforming Structures, Uses and Lots, and Definitions (City of Renton 2023f).
3.3.6.1 City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations
RMC 4-3-050 is the City’s chapter on Critical Areas Regulations. Its purpose is to protect riparian
habitat, which in turn protects the stability of banks and channels and decreases erosion. It also
addresses maintaining a clean water supply, flood storage, and sediment and pollutant filtering.
Existing Information Summary 14 January 2024
Other functions that are important to fish and wildlife, such as recruitment of woody debris and
nutrients, shade, shelter, and other habitat elements, are discussed and provided for in this section
(City of Renton 2023b).
3.3.7 Zoning
The City zoning map shows that the Park falls primarily within zoning designation R-1, with the
surrounding areas zoned R-4 and R-6 (City of Renton 2023g). According to the RMC, these zones are
described as follows (City of Renton 2023e):
• R-1 (Residential 1 DU/Acre): Established to provide and protect suitable environments for
residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas where limited
residential development will not compromise critical areas. The R-1 zone designation
provides for suburban estate single family and clustered single family residential dwellings at
a maximum density of one dwelling unit per net acre and allows for small-scale farming
associated with residential use.
• R-4 (Residential 4 DU/Acre): Established to promote urban single family residential
neighborhoods serviceable by urban utilities and containing open-space amenities. It is
intended to implement the RLD Comprehensive Plan designation. The R-4 zone designation
allows for a maximum density of four dwelling units per net acre and serves as a transition
between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an
intermediate lower density residential zone.
• R-6 (Residential 6 DU/Acre): Established for single family dwellings and is intended to
implement the RMD Comprehensive Plan designation. The R-6 zone designation allows for a
range of three to six dwelling units per net acre. Development in the R-6 zone is intended to
be single family residential at moderate density.
Preliminary review of the RMC shows that only wetlands of 1,000 square feet (sf) or less (and their
buffers) may be exempt from impact mitigation and/or some permitting obligations if they meet
certain conditions. The City follows the 2014 updated Washington State Department of Ecology
wetland rating system.
Under RMC 4-3-050-G.2, exempt activities permitted within wetlands and streams (and associated
buffers) include construction of new trails and temporary wetland impacts (see Section 6 for wetland
and buffer descriptions).
For buffer analysis, it was presumed that the Project would be considered Low Intensity Land Use,
which is defined in RMC 4-3-050G as: “unpaved trails, low intensity open space (hiking,
bird-watching, preservation of natural resources, etc.) and utility corridor without a maintenance road
and little or no vegetation management.”
Existing Information Summary 15 January 2024
Under RMC 4-3-050G.2, the following critical area buffer widths are defined (see Section 4 for
descriptions of geologic critical areas). These areas are based on habitat function and low impact
land uses:
Table 3
Critical Area Buffer Widths
Source: City of Renton 2023f
In defining landmark trees for inventory, RMC 4-11-200 defines them as: “A tree with a caliper of
twenty-four inches (24") or greater, except for big leaf maples, black cottonwoods, and red alder
trees, which qualify as landmark trees with a caliper of thirty inches (30") or greater.”
3.4 Regional Planning Documents
3.4.1 2001 May Creek Action Plan
The May Creek Action Plan is an outline and plan for the steps that can be taken to reduce and
correct adverse conditions in the May Creek Basin resulting from urban growth and development in
the surrounding areas. The outline includes background information on the historical conditions of
the May Creek Basin, potential funding sources for improvements, and possible solutions for
mitigation. These details are followed by a list of both near- and long-term recommendations for
Existing Information Summary 16 January 2024
four subareas of May Creek Basin. Because of the urban location of the creek, planning and
recommendations focus on improving the quality of surface and groundwater, protecting habitat for
salmon and other species, reducing flooding and flood damage, stabilizing banks and preventing
erosion, and preventing existing problems from becoming worse (Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 2023).
3.4.2 May Creek Drainage and Restoration Plan
King County Water and Land Resources Division and the Mid-Puget Sound Fisheries Enhancement
Group completed the May Creek Drainage and Restoration Plan in 2008. In this plan, consultants
GeoEngineers and OTAK developed a Conceptual Restoration Plan for the May Valley Subarea
located within the May Creek Basin near Renton. The Conceptual Restoration Plan is a study of this
long, narrow floodplain consisting of rural and agricultural land, which has been flooding more
frequently and severely in recent years. This plan summarizes the past, current, and projected
conditions of the May Creek Basin and provides 33 recommendations for conceptual projects to
address flood control issues, degraded habitat, and other associated issues (King County 2023b).
3.4.3 May Creek Erosion Stabilization Report
As part of the May Creek Drainage and Restoration Plan recommendations, King County consulted
with Anchor QEA to develop the May Creek Erosion Stabilization Report to identify conceptual
stabilization actions within a portion of the ravine reach of May Creek between Coal Creek Parkway and
148th Avenue SE. The Plan included a detailed site observation and evaluation to identify conceptual
project sites and actions to reduce erosion and restore habitat. This report describes the site setting,
approach, assessments, findings, and the resulting list of potential projects (Anchor QEA 2010).
3.4.4 Park at 95th Master Plan
The Park at 95th Master Plan is a plan for a new park in Newcastle with a focus on athletic fields. It
was prepared for the City of Newcastle in 2009 by a local landscape architecture firm and a team of
subconsultants. The desire for new athletic fields was first recognized in the City of Newcastle
Comprehensive Plan update adopted in 2003. The master plan seeks to guide future development in
a 13.5-acre portion of Newcastle’s May Creek Park at SE 95th Way, which is three-quarters of a mile
from the Park. The plan walks through the steps taken to determine a possible design solution, from
describing existing conditions, opportunities, and constraints to developing a preliminary program
and collecting results from public outreach. Four alternatives were worked through and revised,
along with a cost estimate for each. The end result was a conceptual plan with a focus on soccer and
baseball fields, a large natural area, parking, picnicking areas, restrooms, and viewpoints (MacLeod
Reckord 2009). The future Park at 95th is in close proximity to the Park and has the potential to serve
residents of both Newcastle and Renton.
Existing Information Summary 17 January 2024
4 Geotechnical Technical Assessment
4.1 Existing Geological Conditions
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS; 2003)
classifies the surface soils in the site as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with 8% to 30% slopes, along
with a small portion of Everett very gravelly sandy loam with 8% to 15% slopes, likely silty sands, and
silty gravels. The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) provides a classification of
Pleistocene till and outwash clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders deposited by or originating
from continental glaciers locally and includes peat, nonglacial sediments, modified land, and artificial fill.
No subsurface explorations were made available for analysis.
4.2 City Geological Critical Areas
This section describes the Park’s mapped geologic hazards in accordance with the definitions
provided in the RMC 4-3-050G.
4.2.1 Flood Hazard Assessment
Flood hazard areas are defined as the land in the floodplain subject to a 1% or greater chance of
flooding in any given year by the RMC. The northernmost portion of the Park site is located in an
area mapped as a Zone AE FEMA regulatory floodway. By definition in the RMC, the portion of the
site within the floodway is classified as a high flood hazard area.
4.2.2 Steep Slope Hazard Assessment
The City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas displays both sensitive slopes and protected slopes on the Park
site. Sensitive slopes (a slope defined as having an average slope lying between 25% and 40% or
greater than 40% with a rise below 15 feet) lie on the southern edge of the site, adjacent to Duvall
Avenue NE, and the northern portion of the site, surrounding the protected slope. The protected
slope (defined as having an average slope of 40% or greater for a minimum vertical rise of 15 feet) is
located on the northern portion of the site, south of May Creek.
4.2.3 Erosion Hazard Assessment
All surface soils in the Project area are characterized by the USDA NRCS (2023) as having slight
erosion potential; therefore, as defined by the RMC, the site is considered a low erosion hazard in
areas where the slope grade is under 15%. Erosion control measures should be considered in areas
where the slope grade is over 15%, including the areas surrounding the protected slope on the
northern edge and the area adjacent to Duvall Avenue NE on the southern edge of the site.
Existing Information Summary 18 January 2024
4.2.4 Landslide Hazard Assessment
The protected slope is in a high landslide hazard area. Sensitive slopes and surrounding areas are
likely medium landslide hazards as they are anticipated to be underlain by competent soils.
Geotechnical investigation of the site may reveal the sensitive slopes and surrounding areas to be
high landslide hazard areas. Most of the site falls outside these two critical areas and is therefore
classified as a low landslide hazard.
There have been no historical landslides identified by WDNR (2023); therefore, no portion of the site
should be classified as very high landslide hazard. If evidence of previous landslides is discovered in
any future geological investigation, the landslide hazard assessment classification may change.
4.2.5 Seismic Hazard Assessment
The Park is in a high seismic region. The seismic hazard analysis defined by the RMC is based on the
International Building Code classification system. Based on available data, the site is expected to
behave as a low seismic hazard area. Geotechnical investigation may potentially reveal less
competent soils, resulting in a change to the site rating.
4.2.6 Coal Mine Hazard Assessment
The Park has a low coal mine hazard designation by RMC definition. No mines have been identified
by the WDNR (2023) in the Project area. Although no mines have been identified in the Project area,
undocumented mining is known to have occurred. Any discovery of or evidence of a mine in or
surrounding the site may affect the coal mine hazard rating.
Existing Information Summary 19 January 2024
5 Cultural Resources Technical Assessment
Cultural resources are defined as archaeological, historic, and culturally meaningful sites, structures,
objects, or districts, generally those that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places or state or local preservation registers. Inventory and evaluation of cultural resources, and
assessment of impacts, is required by state and federal law. This section describes recorded and
potential cultural resources in the Project area.
5.1 Environmental and Cultural Context
The Park is located in the Puget Trough physiographic province, a valley system that extends from
Puget Sound south through the Willamette Valley and separates the Olympic Mountains from the
Western Cascades (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). During the last glacial advance, glaciers extended as
far as Centralia. Glaciers began to recede about 15,000 years ago, leaving behind a rapidly changing
landscape of proglacial lakes, meltwater streams, and other alluvial features. This process created the
thick layer of Pleistocene glacial outwash underlying Holocene sediments across much of the Puget
Sound region. Land formerly depressed by the weight of the ice began to rebound (Dragovich et al.
1994) forming the distinctive north-south trending hills and valleys of the Puget Trough
physiographic province. Numerous sites have been identified across the region dating to the period
after 5,000 BP. The planned Project area is in an upland that slopes to the north toward May Creek.
The Park vicinity is in the traditional territory of the Sammamish (sćabábš) and Stkehlmish (sacakałəbš)
Tribes that occupied the area around Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and the Sammamish River;
and the Snohomish (sduhúbš) and Kwehtlmamish (dxwkwíỴəbabš) tribes, whose territory included the
Snohomish and Pilchuck Rivers (Suttles and Lane 1990; Ruby and Brown 1986). The Tribes are
Lutshootseed-speaking Southern Coast Salish peoples. At the time of Euroamerican contact, Southern
Coast Salish tribes occupied the Puget Sound area from the Skagit River in the north to the Deschutes
River near Olympia in the south, reaching inland to the Cascade Range crest. Salish peoples lived in
winter villages of cedar plank houses and seasonally harvested shellfish and anadromous fish runs,
supplemented by upland game hunting and plant gathering (Suttles and Lane 1990).
The Washington Territory was organized in 1853 by its first governor, Isaac Stevens, who assisted with
Euroamerican settlement and the creation of a Northern Pacific Railway route by displacing regional
Native American tribes and relocating them to reservations under a series of treaties in 1855.
Washington eventually achieved statehood on November 11, 1889 (Kirk and Alexander 1990). Stevens
negotiated several treaties with Native American groups between 1854 and 1856. Upon the signing of
the Point Elliott Treaty in 1855, tribes in the Lake Washington area were assigned to the Port Madison
Reservation on the Kitsap Peninsula; however, many returned to their homeland. Some tribal members
settled on the Muckleshoot Reservation, while others chose not to live on a reservation (Ruby and
Brown 1986). Today their descendants belong to the Snoqualmie Tribe, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe,
Existing Information Summary 20 January 2024
Suquamish Tribe, and Tulalip Tribes, among others. Native American populations fell victim to
epidemics of malaria, tuberculosis, and smallpox carried by Euroamericans in the late 1700s through
the middle 1800s (Cole and Darling 1990). Shortly thereafter, settlers expanded across the Oregon
Territory, spurred by the Donation Land Act of 1850. King County grew quickly after the passage of the
Homestead Act in 1862, as Euroamericans began farming and logging.
The discovery of coal at Newcastle in 1863 accelerated growth in the area east of Lake Washington
(Lange 1998) and coal fields were located both north and south of May Creek. Mining and associated
railroads joined logging as the region’s primary economic activities and drew workers from Europe and
Asia.
According to historical aerial photographs and maps, the park planning area was undeveloped until
the early twentieth century and was probably logged several times. By 1907, maps show property
owned by private individuals and lumber companies. In 1936, an aerial photograph shows two
farmsteads just north of the park planning area in the area of current residential development.
Associated cleared fields extend into the northern part of the Park planning area. Subdividing of the
farmsteads appears to have begun in the 1960s. The two structures in the southwestern portion of
the Park planning area were constructed at that time. The retention pond in the Park planning area
was constructed in 2006. Most of the Park planning area has been undeveloped and forested
throughout the historical and modern periods.
Native vegetation in the vicinity consists of Douglas fir, Western red cedar, Western hemlock, red
alder, and big-leaf maple, with an understory of bracken fern, sword fern, Oregon grape, salal, and
berry vines (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Historically, deer, elk, black bear, cougar, and coyote lived in
the Project vicinity. Riverine and upland habitats in the vicinity also supported a diverse array of
smaller mammals, fish, shellfish, and birds (Eder 2002).
5.2 Archaeology
There are no recorded archaeological sites or isolates in the Park planning area. There are three sites
within a mile, as follows:
• 45KI821 is a historic cesspool structure located about 0.5-mile northwest of the Project planning
area, along Coal Creek parkway. It has not been evaluated for listing on preservation registers.
• 45KI1330 is a collapsed wood shelter and portable sawmill remains located about 0.7-mile
west of the Project planning area, along an unnamed intermittent tributary to May Creek. It
has been determined not eligible for listing on preservation registers.
• 45KI1557 is the remains of a mobile home and garage located 0.9-mile south of the Project
planning area, along Coal Creek Parkway. It has been determined not eligible for listing on
preservation registers.
Existing Information Summary 21 January 2024
There has been one archaeological survey that included a portion of the Park planning area, for a
roadway widening project along Coal Creek Parkway SE that constructed the existing retention pond
(Chambers 2006). Subsurface tests conducted in the retention pond area revealed Alderwood soils
over glacial till. The soils appeared to have been disturbed by logging and land-clearing.
The Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation’s statewide predictive model for
precontact archaeological potential shows that the Project planning area contains Low Risk,
Moderately Low Risk, and Moderate Risk areas for archaeological resources (Figure 8).
In general, for planning purposes ground-disturbing work in the Moderate Risk area, closer to
May Creek, should be considered more likely to impact archaeological resources. Any planned
ground-disturbing work would likely require archaeological survey.
Figure 8
Statewide Predictive Model for Precontact Archaeological Potential
Source: Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Existing Information Summary 22 January 2024
5.3 Historic Resources
There are two structures older than 45 years in the Project planning area, both residences. A single
family residence at 2718 Duvall Avenue NE was built in 1963 and a single family residence at 2712
Duvall Avenue NE was built in 1964. Neither has been evaluated for listing on preservation registers.
None of the other Project parcels have structures listed in the King County Assessor’s records. There
is one structure within a mile that has been determined eligible for preservation registers: the Red
Barn/Colasurdo Barn (DAHP Resource ID 48530), which is located about 0.9-mile east of the Project
planning area.
5.4 Traditional Cultural Properties and Cultural Landscapes
There are no recorded Traditional Cultural Properties or Cultural Landscapes in the vicinity. Generally,
the process of identifying and evaluating cultural resources requires consultation with Native
American tribes and other consulting parties.
Existing Information Summary 23 January 2024
6 Site Reconnaissance and Natural Resource Inventory
Anchor QEA’s partner, Clearway, conducted a site reconnaissance on December 14 and 15, 2023.
Clearway completed a natural resource inventory documenting forested conditions using the Forest
Landscape Assessment Tool (FLAT), potential wetland conditions and locations, stream conditions,
landmark trees, land cover, and other site features including trails and ditches. The field crew
documented field notes with site observations, captured photographs, and collected GIS data. Field
data, including numbered photo points, are shown the basemap (Figure 3). The following provides a
summary of the site reconnaissance. Site photographs are included as Appendix A.
6.1 FLAT Assessment
A FLAT assessment was performed to characterize forest health based on the presence of native,
coniferous, and deciduous trees (value) as well as the presence of invasive vegetation (threat). The
FLAT is a tool used to assess landscape conditions (values and threats) that can help identify
site-specific stewardship and restoration actions. Developed by Green Cities Research Alliance (in
coordination with the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station and in partnership with
King County, Forterra, and the University of Washington), the FLAT provides a “rapid, systematic,
flexible, and inexpensive environmental evaluation” (Ciecko et al. 2016).
During the assessment, field staff identified forest values and threats, using the Green Seattle
Partnership Tree-iage Matrix. As shown in Figure 9, the Tree-iage Matrix defines forest value by tree
composition, including native canopy, conifer canopy, and opportunity for new canopy. Threats are
defined by invasive vegetation cover.
Existing Information Summary 24 January 2024
Figure 9 Forest Landscape Assessment Tool (FLAT) Analysis
Note: Original version was developed by Green Seattle Partnership showing City of Seattle acreages (Ciecko et al. 2016).
Figure 10 maps the values and threats identified during the site reconnaissance. Tree composition
value is based on native tree canopy cover, with emphasis on percent cover of conifers within the
native canopy. The majority of the site was mapped as medium cover. Areas of high value were
mapped where the topography changes and the site slopes up on the south side of the site and
where it slopes down towards May Creek. The lawns of the two residential properties on site were
mapped as low canopy cover.
Threat is based on invasive cover and the areas of highest threat mostly overlapped with the medium
tree composition cover in the middle of the site (Photographs 4 and 15). Invasive vegetation was
composed primarily of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), with some cut-leaf blackberry
(Rubus lacinatus). Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) was also present and most prominent in
open wetland areas but did extend under the tree canopy at times. Areas of low invasive cover
mostly overlapped with high and low tree composition value.
Existing Information Summary 25 January 2024
Figure 10 Forest Landscape Assessment Tool (FLAT) Map
Existing Information Summary 26 January 2024
6.2 Wetland Reconnaissance
Field staff identified three potential wetlands through visual assessment. Field staff did not collect
soil or hydrology data. The following summarizes the potential wetlands (refer to Figure 3 for
locations).
Potential Wetland 1
Potential Wetland 1 is presumed to be a palustrine, forested, depressional wetland (Photographs
1 and 17). It is the only wetland collected in this field effort that is mapped in the City GIS data. Its
boundary starts roughly in the middle of the site and continues eastward, out of the study area
(Photograph 2) and connects to the larger wetland shown on the City’s GIS data. Within the study
area, it is approximately 2.7 acres in size, and has a mix of open field and forested areas. Combined
with portions of the City-mapped wetland outside of the study area, the total area of this wetland is
roughly 6 to 8 acres. The preliminary rating is Category III, with a moderate habitat score of 7. With
Low Impact Land Use, this wetland would be assigned a 75-foot buffer by RMC 4-3-050G.2.
Within potential Wetland 1, near Photo Point 1, plant species identified included reed canary grass,
creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), sedge (Carex species), small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus
microcarpus), Himalayan blackberry, red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus tricocarpa),
and willow (Salix sp). Near Photo Point 2, salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), American skunk cabbage
(Lysichiton americanus), lady fern (Athyrium felix-femina), and horsetail (Equisetum species) were
identified. No conifers were identified within the wetland near this location. One inch of surface
ponding was noted. The soil had possible hydrogen sulfide odor. At the toe of slope on the southern
side of the site, a patch of reduced iron at the surface was observed. Within the study area, near the
wetland’s northern border, there is an excavated, artificial drainage ditch that drains the wetland,
likely flowing to the east.
Potential Wetland 2
Potential Wetland 2 is presumed to be a small, palustrine emergent, slope wetland, approximately
1,600 sf (0.04 acre) in size (Photograph 5). It is densely covered in reed canary grass, with some
Himalayan blackberry. The soil showed strong, shallow redoximorphic features, indicative of a
depleted matrix. Its preliminary rating is Category III, with a moderate habitat score of 5. With Low
Impact Land Use, this wetland would be assigned a 75-foot buffer by RMC. The canopy directly above
it and nearby is composed mostly of black cottonwood and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum).
Potential Wetland 3
Potential Wetland 3 is presumed to be an approximately 0.41-acre, palustrine emergent (PEM),
depressional wetland. It is covered primarily in creeping buttercup and field grasses (Photographs
7 and 18), with salmonberry along its borders. Its preliminary rating is Category III, with a moderate
Existing Information Summary 27 January 2024
habitat score of 6. With Low Impact Land Use, this wetland would be assigned a 75-foot buffer by
RMC. Several natural and artificial drainages and short bridges are situated throughout the wetland.
6.3 May Creek Conditions
May Creek is Stream Type F. It has a 115-foot critical areas buffer width and a 15-foot structure
setback beyond buffer.
The northern lobe of the study area encompasses May Creek on both sides of the channel. Between
the southern side of the creek and the slope up to the main area of the site lies a broad, relatively flat
area (Photograph 11). It has abandoned, relic river channel features, such as oxbows and gravel
deposits. It is lightly forested, with mature, second-growth, deciduous trees such as red alder,
big-leaf maple, and black cottonwood, with an understory of salmonberry, sword fern, blackberry,
and reed canary grass, and includes many downed trees. The topography is hummocky, and the
underlying soil is mostly well-drained rock, gravel, and sand over clay.
Riparian vegetation at the site does not provide much direct, low-lying cover, though the
surrounding canopy provides adequate shade and leaf/organic detritus input.
Within view of the study area, the channel is fairly well incised. At the western end, there is a sharp
bend to river-right (Photographs 8 and 9), which has exposed a vertical, mostly clay, cliff face about
10 to 15 feet tall. To the north (across the creek) is a steep slope up to residences, mostly covered in
Himalayan blackberry and English ivy (Hedera helix; Photograph 10).
The gradient at the site is fairly constant and the creek has no large woody debris or large rocks within
the study area. This may be the reason no pools have formed, and the creek within the site is mostly
one long run. At lower flows, small pools may appear, particularly near the sharp right bend at the
western end of the study area. Again, likely due to constant flow, little deposition appears to occur and
when exposed, the shore shows only minor signs of erosion. When the creekbed or shore is exposed, it
appears to be composed mostly of clay, which may be controlling erosion. The substrate is cobble and
large gravel, with little to no fines or appropriately sized salmon spawning gravel.
At the time of the field efforts, water depth in the thalweg upstream of the deeper section near the
sharp bend appeared to average approximately 10 to 12 inches.
6.4 Landmark Trees
While not intended to be a comprehensive survey, Clearway staff identified 21 landmark trees within
the study area to help the City update its current landmark tree inventory of the site. Of these,
15 were coniferous and six were deciduous (Photograph 14). Table 1 provides tree data collected
including common name, diameter at breast height (dbh), and general condition.
Existing Information Summary 28 January 2024
Table 4 Landmark Tree Inventory
Tree No. Species Common Name DBH Condition Notes
1 Western red cedar 40 Good No ivy
2 Western red cedar 42 Good No ivy
3* Western red cedar 30 Good No ivy; *mislabeled as second Tree No. 4
4 Western red cedar 30 Good No ivy
5 Western red cedar 40* Good No ivy; *two stems about 30 inches dbh each
6 Western red cedar 26 Good No ivy
7 Douglas fir 31 Good No ivy
8 Western red cedar 35 Good No ivy
9 Western red cedar 29 Good No ivy
10 Douglas fir 32 Good No ivy
11 Big-leaf maple 34 Fair Dense moss on trunk
12 Big-leaf maple 30 Fair Dense moss on trunk
13 Douglas fir 37 Good No ivy
14 Douglas fir 30 Good No ivy
15 Douglas fir 34 Good No ivy
16 Big-leaf maple 33 Fair No ivy, dense moss on trunk
17 Big-leaf maple 67 Fair No ivy, dense moss on trunk
18 Big-leaf maple 82 Fair Moss on trunk, multistemmed
19 Douglas fir 48 Good No ivy
20 Western red cedar 40 Good No ivy
21 Big-leaf maple 45 Fair Dense moss on trunk
6.5 Land Cover and Site Features
Vegetation Types
Across the study area in general, the vegetation ranges from managed lawns near residences to the
west (Photograph 19), and north across May Creek, to a mix of sparsely treed herbaceous patches
(Photograph 16) and more densely forested areas in the more steeply sloped areas (Photograph 3).
In general, most mature trees appear in good condition, except for big-leaf maple, which are
generally performing poorly and are densely covered in moss. The most predominant invasive plant
species identified on the site included cut-leaf and Himalayan blackberry, reed canary grass, English
ivy, and English holly (Ilex aquifolium). English ivy was present on trees only on the north side of
May Creek and holly was mostly confined to sloped areas at the south side of the site.
Existing Information Summary 29 January 2024
Hardscaping
An approximately 6,800-sf (0.16-acre) area to the south of the driveway at 2718 Duvall Avenue NE
(Photograph 5) has been mapped and contains compacted gravel under the duff layer, which is not
obvious without close inspection. Removal of the gravel would help restore plant communities and
natural hydrology. It may provide a location for staging during construction, reducing the need to
create further compacted surfaces. Near the southeastern end of this relic gravel pad, there is a
roughly 400-sf by 600-sf artificially excavated pit (Photograph 6), which displays some wetland
indicators but would likely be exempt from City regulations due to its size and the fact that it may
have been the gravel/fill source or a livestock watering hole.
Existing Trails
Trail 1
A wide, semi-maintained trail (Photograph 13) provides access east to west, roughly from the parking
area of 2718 Duvall Avenue NE to the eastern end of the study area. It was fairly saturated during the
site visit near its western terminus, and a large, downed tree obstructed the trail about one-third of
the way eastward from 2718 Duvall Avenue NE. Several small bridges provide egress across the
drainage ditch that runs along its southern edge. Their condition and safety vary.
Trail 2
Leading northward from the adjacent residence at 2718 Duvall Avenue NE, starting near a fire pit, a
wide, steep trail leads to the largest bridge on the site (footbridge No. 2; see Figure 3 for location).
The bridge crosses a tributary flowing north to May Creek. This tributary becomes steeper and more
incised until it reaches the flat area on the south side of the creek. The trail meanders eastward,
mostly staying close to the top of the slope. It becomes less defined as it goes downhill
(Photograph 12) and heads north, following contours down to the open, flat area adjacent to the
south side of May Creek. It is mostly easy to follow and traverse, except for one short section that is
very steep.
Ditches
Several artificially excavated ditches are located within the site. Often, the source, outlet, or
continuous path was not observable. When accessible, the centerlines of visible ditches were
mapped.
Existing Information Summary 30 January 2024
7 Data Gaps
As discussed previously, the background information summarized in this report will inform the
development of the Project’s master plan for the Park. The information will be used to develop and
analyze alternatives and ultimately select a preferred alternative concept design. Following this
master planning phase, there are multiple data gaps that will need to be closed prior to the
development of a complete construction-ready and permit-approved design. The following provides
a summary of identified data gaps. Other data gaps may be identified during the alternative analysis
and preferred alternative selection.
• Topography and Boundary Survey
‒ Survey in Washington State Plane coordinates
‒ Survey provided in international feet
‒ Boundary survey reflecting all City acquisitions and easements
‒ Site topography (1-foot contours)
‒ Utilities (surface and buried)
‒ Surface conditions (gravel, hardscape, soil)
‒ Vegetation limits and tree locations
‒ May Creek ordinary high water mark (OHWM)
‒ Wetland boundaries
• Geotechnical investigation for work within geologically critical areas and to inform potential
structural design elements such as footings and foundations
• Wetland delineation with functional ratings and buffer analysis
• OHWM delineation
• Landmark tree survey
Existing Information Summary 31 January 2024
8 References
AllTrails, 2023. Best Trails in Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park. Accessed December 22, 2023.
Available at: www.alltrails.com/parks/us/washington/cougar-mountain-regional-wildland-
park--2.
Ames, K.M., and H.D.G. Maschner, 1999. Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and
Prehistory. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
Anchor QEA, 2010. May Creek Erosion Stabilization Draft Report. Prepared for King County. January
2010.
Bing Maps, 2023. World_imagery. Accessed December 22, 2023. Available at:
https://services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/World_Imagery/MapServer.
Ciecko, L., D. Kimmett, J. Saunders, R. Katz, K.L. Wolf, O. Bazinet, J. Richardson, W. Brinkley, and
D.J. Blahna, 2016. Forest Landscape Assessment Tool (FLAT): Rapid Assessment for Land
Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture. September 2016.
City of Newcastle, 2019. Newcastle GIS Pedestrian Routes 2019. Accessed December 22, 2023.
Available at: https://data-newcastlewa.opendata.arcgis.com/.
City of Renton, 2018a. Civic Core Vision & Action Plan. Accessed December 18, 2023. Available at:
https://rentondowntown.com/wp-content/uploads/Final-Renton-Plan-011718.pdf.
City of Renton, 2018b. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Accessed December 13, 2023. Available at:
https://gismaps.rentonwa.gov/GISIMAGES/STATICMAPS/Comprehensive%20Landuse%20Pla
n.pdf.
City of Renton, 2019. Renton Trails and Bikeways Map. Accessed December 18, 2023. Available at:
https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7922657/File/City%20Hall/Community%20Servi
ces/Parks%20Planning%20and%20Natural%20Resources/Trails%20and%20Bicycle%20Master
%20Plan/Renton%20Trails%20Plan_may19.pdf.
City of Renton, 2020. Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan. Accessed December 26, 2023.
Available at:
www.rentonwa.gov/city_hall/parks_and_recreation/parks_planning_and_development/parks__
recreation__and_natural_areas_plan.
Existing Information Summary 32 January 2024
City of Renton, 2022. Rooted in Renton Urban Forest Management Plan 2022–2032. January 2022.
Accessed December 13, 2023. Available at: https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7922657/File/City%20Hall/Community%20Servi
ces/Parks%20Planning%20and%20Natural%20Resources/Urban%20Forestry/Urban%20Fores
t%20Management%20Plan/Renton%20WA%20Urban%20Forest%20Management%20Plan%2
01-31-22.pdf.
City of Renton, 2023a. City of Renton COR Maps. Accessed December 15, 2023. Available at:
https://maps.rentonwa.gov/Html5viewer/Index.html?viewer=cormaps.
City of Renton, 2023b. Critical Areas Regulations - Section 4-3-050. Accessed December 21, 2023.
Available at:
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/html/Renton04/Renton0403/Renton0403050.h
tml.
City of Renton, 2023c. Maps & GIS Data. Accessed December 15, 2023. Available at:
https://www.rentonwa.gov/city_hall/executive_services/Information_technology/maps___g_i_s_
data.
City of Renton, 2023d. May Creek Greenway. Accessed December 18, 2023. Available at:
www.rentonwa.gov/city_hall/parks_and_recreation/parks_and_trails/find_a_park_or_trail/may_
creek_greenway.
City of Renton, 2023e. Section 4-2-020. Accessed December 22, 2023. Available at:
www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/html/Renton04/Renton0402/Renton0402020.html.
City of Renton, 2023f. Title IVDEVELOPMENT Regulations. Accessed December 21, 2023. Available at:
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/html/Renton04/Renton04.html.
City of Renton, 2023g. Zoning Map. Accessed December 18, 2023. Available at:
https://gismaps.rentonwa.gov/GISIMAGES/STATICMAPS/Zoning.pdf.
Cole, D., and D. Darling, 1990. “History of the Early Period.” Chapter in Northwest Coast, Handbook of
North American Indians, Vol. 7, edited by Wayne Suttles. Washington DC: Smithsonian
Institution,119-134.
Dragovich, J.D., P.T. Pringle, and T.J. Walsh, 1994. “Extent and Geometry of the Mid-Holocene Osceola
Mudflow in the Puget Lowland-Implications for Holocene Sedimentation and
Paleogeography.” Washington Geology 22(3):3-26.
Eder, T., 2002. Mammals of Washington and Oregon. Edmonton: Lone Pine Publishing.
Existing Information Summary 33 January 2024
Ficken, R.E., and C.P. LeWarne, 1988. Washington: A Centennial History. Seattle: University of
Washington Press.
Franklin, J.F., and C.T. Dyrness, 1988. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department
of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-8.
Galster, R.L., and W.T. Laprade, 1991. “Geology of Seattle, Washington, USA.” Bulletin of the
Association of Engineering Geologists 28(3):235-302.
Gustafson, C.E., and C. Manis, 1984. The Manis Mastodon Site: An Adventure in Prehistory. Sequim,
Washington: Manis Enterprises.
King County, 2023. King County Parcel Viewer, Accessed January 2, 2024. Available at:
https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/parcelviewer2/.
King County, 2023a. Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park. Accessed December 20, 2023.
Available at: https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/dnrp/nature-recreation/parks-recreation/king-
county-parks/parks/cougar-mountain.
King County, Washington, 2023b. May Creek Sub-Basin Environment. Accessed January 3, 2024.
Available at: https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/dnrp/nature-recreation/environment-ecology-
conservation/stormwater-surface-water-management/capital-services-unit/may-
creek#:~:text=Plan%20adopted%20in%202001%20to,and%20wildlife%20habitat%20and%20
water.
Kirk, R., and C. Alexander, 1990. Exploring Washington's Past. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Lange, G., 1998. Surveyors discover coal at Newcastle (east King County) in October 1863. Updated:
November 3, 1998. Cited: March 2009. Available at:
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=149.
MacLeod Reckord, 2009. Park at 95th Master Plan. Prepared for the City of Newcastle.
MIG, 2018. Renton Downtown Civic Core Vision and Action Plan. Prepared for City of Renton.
Accessed December 21, 2023. Available at: https://www.rentondowntown.com/wp-
content/uploads/Final-Renton-Plan-011718.pdf .
Pace, 2023. Record of Survey for City of Renton. Prepared for City of Renton. Portion of: NW Quarter
Section 3, T23N, R5E & SW Quarter Section 34, T24N, R5E, W.M.
Ruby, R.H., and J.A. Brown, 1986. A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Norman,
Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.
Existing Information Summary 34 January 2024
Shapiro and Associates, Inc., 2023. Proposed May Creek Basin Action Plan. Prepared for King County
Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division. Accessed December
21, 2023. Available at: https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2001/kcr726/Plan.pdf.
Sletten, R.S., D. Snyder, L.C. Lee, D. Booth, and D.J. Marrett, 2008. Soils and Land Use in the Puget
Sound Basin. Presentation at the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of
America, Soil Science Society of 86th America Annual Meeting. Seattle. 1994.
Suttles, W., and B. Lane, 1990. Southern Coast Salish. Chapter in Northwest Coast, Handbook of North
American Indians, Vol. 7, edited by Wayne Suttles. Washington: Smithsonian Institution,
485-502.
Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, 2023. Grant Requirements. Accessed
December 21, 2023. Available at: https://rco.wa.gov/recreation-and-conservation-office-
grants/grant-requirements/.
Washington Trails Association, 2023. May Creek Trail. Accessed December 21, 2023. Available at:
https://www.wta.org/go-hiking/hikes/may-creek-trail.
Wildlife Recreation and Coalition, 2023. May Creek Trail, 1991. Accessed December 21, 2023.
Available at: https://wildliferecreation.org/projects/may-creek-trail-1991/.
Wildlife Recreation and Coalition, 2023. May Creek Trail, 1994., Accessed December 21, 2023.
Available at: https://wildliferecreation.org/projects/may-creek-trail-1994/.
Appendix A
Site Photographs
Photograph 1
Potential Wetland 1, Facing West
Photo Point 1: Toward potential Wetland 1. Creeping buttercup groundcover,
approximately 1 inch of standing water.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 2
Potential Wetland 1, Facing East
Photo Point 1a: Toward potential Wetland 1 and continuing off site to
adjacent property to the east. Dense reed canary grass. Himalayan blackberry
in foreground.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 3
Forested Area, Facing North
Photo Point 2: Positioned from upland forested area at southeast corner of
site. Open area of Wetland 1 is visible downhill through brush. Low invasive
cover in forested area.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 4
Forested Area, Facing South
Photo Point 3: Typical habitat and vegetation for triangular area at west side
of site. Dense Himalayan blackberry throughout. Some conifers toward Coal
Creek Parkway at concrete wall.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 5
Potential Wetland 2, Facing North
Photo Point 4: Potential Wetland 2. Small emergent wetland with reed canary
grass.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 6
Depression with Perched Water, Facing East
Photo Point 5: At edge of vegetation-covered gravel pad area. Possible
human-made depression with perched water, approximately 20 by 30 feet.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 7
Potential Wetland 3, Facing East
Photo Point 6: Looking toward potential Wetland 3 near parking area. Start of
Trail 1 in background.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 8
May Creek, Facing East
Photo Point 7: From overlook down to May Creek. At left side of photograph
is a residential lawn on the north side of the creek.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 9
May Creek, Facing West
Photo Point 8: Looking from the left bank of May Creek. Erosion present at
curve of creek.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 10
May Creek, Run Section, Facing North
Photo Point 9: Looking across May Creek in “run” section of the creek. No
large woody debris present.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 11
May Creek Floodplain, Facing Northwest
Photo Point 10: Representative of low area/floodplain on south side of May
Creek. Some invasives such as Himalayan blackberry and reed canary grass
throughout.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 12
Embankment, Trail 2, Facing South
Photo Point 10a: From low area/floodplain looking uphill to landscape
surrounding Trail 2.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 13
Trail 1, Facing East
Photo Point 11: Trail 1 is a semi-maintained trail running east to west from
parking area to east border of study area.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 14
Landmark Tree
Photo Point 12: Example of landmark tree – very large, big-leaf maple.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 15
Medium Canopy Cover, Facing North
Photo Point 13: Example of Forest Landscape Assessment Tool (FLAT)
designation – medium canopy cover, high threat level.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 16
Potential Wetland 1, Facing West
Photo Point 14: More open/emergent area of potential Wetland 1. Rushes,
juncus species, small-fruited bullrush, alder saplings.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 17
Potential Wetland 1, Facing North
Photo Point 14a: Looking toward edge of potential Wetland 1. Red alder
saplings and Himalayan blackberry on the border.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 18
Park Border, Trail 2, Facing Northeast
Photo Point 15: Lawn/grass near 2718 Duvall Avenue NE property and
parking area. Edge of potential Wetland 3. Trail 2 to May Creek past structure
is seen on left side of photo.
Source: Clearway Environmental
Photograph 19
Park Border 2, Facing West
Photo Point 17: Lawn/grass in front of 2718 Duvall Avenue NE property.
Source: Clearway Environmental
APPENDIX B
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Appendix B Conceptual Design Alternatives 1 July 2024
DESIGN PROCESS
The Project team developed two conceptual design alternatives to communicate different
approaches to developing the Park. The following sections provide a summary of the design process
and the alternatives developed for the City of Renton’s (City) May Creek Park Master Plan Project
(Project). First, the site was thoroughly explored and analyzed, both in person and through reviewing
currently available literature, documentation, and GIS data. Project opportunities and constraints
were identified, and a list of criteria was developed to support the alternative analysis and
decision-making. Next, two preliminary alternatives were developed following this initial research and
initial community and stakeholder feedback. The first alternative focused on passive recreation and
limited access. The second alternative focused on park recreation and trail access. The two concepts
were scored against each other and each Park element ranked on how well it met the criteria. Both
conceptual design alternatives were presented to shareholders and at public events, received
feedback, and were then honed to ultimately lead to a final preferred design.
Appendix B Conceptual Design Alternatives 2 July 2024
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
The Project team developed identified the opportunities present on the site, and also any constraints.
The site provides many opportunities, including access to nature and views, including May Creek,
wetlands, and forested areas, which also allowed for restoration stewardship opportunities for the
creek, wetlands, forests, and riparian habitats (Figure 1). The current habitats include a creek with
stable banks that can support salmon migration and forests with an abundance of large, mature
heritage trees. The site has existing access and safe crossings at the entrance, as well as nearby public
transportation. It also has opportunities to connect in the future to nearby trails in Newcastle to the
west and a network of neighborhood trails to the east, completing a connection of trails from lake
Washington to Cougar Mountain. An additional parcel is potentially available in the future. Acquiring
this parcel would provide the opportunity for additional upland open space that could be developed
near the entrance of the Park.
On the other hand, the site also comes with some challenges and constraining factors (Figure 2). The
wetland and stream habitats, their buffers, and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
flood zones take up a large portion of the site, limiting development in these areas. Steep forested
slopes also limit what can be developed and prevent easy access to large portions of the Park. A
busy street and private property surround the Park, and sewer and other utility access is limited.
Existing structures and old concrete pads, fences, and debris must be removed prior to development.
Appendix B Conceptual Design Alternatives 3 July 2024
Figure 1 Project Site Opportunities
Appendix B Conceptual Design Alternatives 4 July 2024
Figure 2 Project Site Constraints
Appendix B Conceptual Design Alternatives 5 July 2024
DESIGN CRITERIA
The design criteria are based on the discussions with the City, stakeholders, and the community, as well
as information gathered during the Project’s existing information review task. The following preliminary
criteria were used to compare the alternatives and will guide the development of a preferred
alternative. These criteria are preliminary and likely to be refined as the Project progresses.
Maximize Trail Development Within the Park
•Maximize trail connections to the diverse landscapes within the Park.
•Maximize trail loops and opportunities for hiking/walking/running within the Park.
•Provide a trail connection to May Creek.
Connect to Existing May Creek Greenway Trails
•Connect the Park to adjacent trail corridors along May Creek.
Provide Trail Connections to Renton Neighborhoods
•Connect the Park to adjacent neighborhoods with safe Duvall Avenue NE crossings and a safe
route to the Park entrance.
•Connect existing bus stops to the Park entrance with a safe route.
•Provide bike pathways and bike parking in the Park.
Provide Park Development for Families
•Provide a play area.
•Provide picnicking areas.
•Provide sport courts (pickleball, tennis, and basketball courts).
Provide Park Facilities
•Provide a restroom facility.
•Provide a heated restroom facility with sewer connection.
•Provide drinking fountains (water bottle fill stations, dog drinking fountains).
•Provide trash receptacles.
Maximize Open Space for Unprogrammed Recreation
•Maximize lawn space for picnicking, informal gathering, and unprogrammed play.
Appendix B Conceptual Design Alternatives 6 July 2024
Maximize Restoration and Habitat Enhancement
•Remove invasive vegetation.
•Install appropriate native vegetation.
•Maximize improvements to May Creek riparian area.
•Improve May Creek stream habitat with the placement of wood to provide interstitial habitat
niches for migrating salmon use.
•Restore wetland and wetland buffer habitat function.
Maximize Forest and Habitat Preservation
•Protect existing landmark trees.
•Protect existing canopy.
•Protect existing wetland habitat.
Provide Environmental Education and Stewardship
•Provide areas to assist with future stewardship programs (trails, gathering areas, signage).
•Provide an indoor gathering area for a larger environmental education facility.
•Provide interpretive signs and kiosks.
•Provide a native plant nursery for hands on education opportunities.
Provide Public Art and Placemaking
•Identify prominent areas to integrate public art.
•Provide trailhead kiosk for Renton’s May Creek Greenway.
•Locate entry signage at key location to identify Park location and entry prominent.
Provide Parking
•Provide sufficient parking for visitors.
Avoid Impacts to Neighbors
•Avoid locating high-use area directly adjacent to residential neighbors.
•Protect secured access point for City to access the stormwater pond.
•Maintain offset from the stormwater pond fence to deter users from trying to access the pond.
Maximize Safety and Accessibility
•Provide open sightlines between all Park development areas.
•Maximize Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access to Park development areas.
Appendix B Conceptual Design Alternatives 7 July 2024
Consider Value to Cost
•Maximize value gained for construction cost.
Consider Permit Feasibility
•Avoid impacts to regulated wetland, stream, and buffer habitats.
•Avoid code variances for proposed work.
•Design a self-mitigating project with overall net ecological benefit.
Appendix B Conceptual Design Alternatives 8 July 2024
DESIGN PROGRAM
This preliminary design program is the starting point for the Project design and consists of a list of
the design assumptions and elements and that are included in the Project’s alternative designs.
Park Development Facilities
•Restroom (indoor plumbed or portable toilet enclosure)
•Environmental education center (building)
•Play area
•Sport courts
•Open lawn
Trails
•Pervious trails
•Impervious trails
Recreation Amenities
•Drinking fountain
•Outdoor water filling station
•Interpretive signage
•Benches
•Picnic tables
•Trash and recycling receptacles in the Project area
Art and Placemaking
•Environmental education signage and kiosks
•Public art integration
•Entry signage
Parking and Access
•Vehicle parking
•Bike parking
•Fire truck access and turnaround
•Gate for secured stormwater pond access
Appendix B Conceptual Design Alternatives 9 July 2024
Utilities
•Water
•Electrical
•Sewer
•Stormwater
Restoration and Habitat Enhancement
•Invasive plant removal
•Native planting
•In-stream wood placement
Forest and Habitat Preservation
•Tree protection
•Understory planting (for diversity, vegetated strata, habitat)
Design Considerations
•50-year design life
•Potential future acquisition property to the west is likely.
Appendix B Conceptual Design Alternatives 10 July 2024
SUMMARY OF CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 has a focus on passive recreation and limited access. This design includes just a few
traditional park elements; a small footprint for active recreation, and a large area dedicated to
habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement activities. The existing access driveway has been
used and improved upon, with a parking lot at the end for 18 cars. A small comfort station and
trailhead kiosk are included along with a large natural play area and open lawn. A small picnic shelter
is included as well as a small amphitheater/stage on the future parcel. The trail corridors for this
alternative are simplistic, allowing for many areas to remain protected. Pervious trails loop from the
active recreation area through wilder parts of the Park, providing views of May Creek and wetlands
while minimizing disturbances to creek and wetland buffers. Access to future trail connections exist
on the east side of the Park, as well as areas for interpretive signage along the trails, public art, and
opportunities for placemaking. This alternative includes a crosswalk south of the Park at NE 24th
Street and Duvall Avenue NE to increase foot traffic to the Park as well as safety. See Figure 3 for
plan graphic.
Appendix B Conceptual Design Alternatives 11 July 2024
Figure 3 Alternative 1 – Focus on Passive Recreation and Limited Access
Appendix B Conceptual Design Alternatives 12 July 2024
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 has a focus on park recreation and trail access. The existing access was used and
expanded upon. Various Park amenities are centralized in an existing flat, clear opening outside of
wetland buffers and wooded areas. Because a portion of this area is currently privately owned, this
alternative design may need to take place in phases, with a second development phase starting
when the additional parcel is acquired by the City. At the end of the access road is a parking lot with
space for 24 cars, as well as an additional small lot with 4 ADA parking stalls off the large
environmental education building (open air rustic shelter). Nearby is a small comfort station and trail
head, along with a picnic shelter, seating, and a natural play space. In addition to these features, a
basketball court and tennis/pickleball court are part of this alternative, along with a native
propagation nursery area and a small, enclosed dog park. This design also includes two large open
lawn spaces and a pervious trail network connecting all active recreation and amenities with the
wilder areas of the Park. These pathways wind through woods and wetlands to viewpoints and to the
creek. At trail intersections, wide nodes accommodate benches for resting and interpretive signage.
A switchback trail leads up the hill to the nearby neighborhood to the south and another leads down
the hill to provide creek access to the north. These trails would be as accessible as possible and may
include stairs but would not likely be ADA-accessible. An opportunity exists for stormwater treatment
from the parking lot in the form of raingardens, and there is an ongoing need for invasive species
removal and stewardship throughout the park. A crosswalk south of the Park at NE 24th Street and
Duvall Avenue NE is recommended for this alternative to allow for safer neighborhood access to the
trailheads. See Figure 4 for plan graphic.
Appendix B Conceptual Design Alternatives 13 July 2024
Figure 4 Alternative 2 – Focus on Park Recreation and Trail Access
Appendix B Conceptual Design Alternatives 14 July 2024
DESIGN CRITERIA COMPARISON MATRIX
The below matrix ranks each criterion on a scale of low to high for each alternative, with “low”
meaning that the alternative least meets the criterion and “high” meaning that it most meets the
criterion.
High Most meets criterion Medium Moderately meets criterion Low Least meets criterion
Criterion Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Maximize Trail Development Within the Park Low High
Connect to Existing May Creek Greenway Trails Medium High
Provide Trail Connections to Renton Neighborhoods Medium High
Provide Park Development for Families Medium High
Provide Park Facilities Medium High
Maximize Open Space for Unprogrammed Recreation Medium High
Maximize Restoration and Habitat Enhancement High Medium
Maximize Forest and Habitat Preservation High Medium
Provide Environmental Education and Stewardship Medium High
Provide Public Art and Placemaking High Low
Provide Parking Low High
Avoid Impacts to Neighbors High Medium
Maximize Safety and Accessibility Medium High
Consider Value to Cost High Medium
Consider Permit Feasibility High Medium
APPENDIX C
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DATA
1
City of Renton
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan
Community Engagement Results
2
•Touchpoint #1
February 2024
Input on site opportunities and constraints
•Touchpoint #2
March to April 2024
Input on design concepts
•Touchpoint #3
June 2024
Input on draft preferred design
Engagement Results
Community Engagement – Touchpoint #1
February 2024
44
Community Outreach
Postcard Mailer – Sent over 4,000 postcards to
all mailing addresses within 1/2 mile of site
(Feb. 20, 2024)
Display Boards – Posted community
engagement boards on rotation at Renton
Facilities (Feb. 16, 2024 – present)
City Newsletter – Distributed project
information in “This Week in Renton” Newsletter
(Feb. 28, 2024)
Utility Billings – Distributed project
information in monthly utility bill mailings
(Feb. 2024)
Social Media – Posted project information on
City social media (Feb. 2024 – present)
Website – Created a website to serve as a
central engagement hub to share information and
gather feedback (Feb. 2024)
5
Community Outreach: Online Engagement
6
What Kinds of New Features/Facilities Do You Want? Here’s What We Heard:
Sports
Facilities
Requests for
pickleball courts,
including dedicated
courts, multiple
courts, permanent
nets, and lighting
Desire for basketball
and tennis courts
Suggestion for a
disc golf course
Mention of turf
sports fields
with lights
Nature
Preservation
Concerns and
requests to protect
wildlife habitats and
May Creek
Desire for walking
trails through
forested areas
Suggestions to
eradicate invasive
plants and preserve
surrounding
environment
Playground
and Amenities
Requests for a
revamped
playground with
facilities for various
age groups
Desire for covered
bench seating,
restrooms, a paved
walking loop, and
parking
Mention of an
obstacle course,
RC course, and
water activities
Connection to
Trail Networks
Requests for
sidewalks and
infrastructure
improvements to
enhance access to
the new park
Dog Park
Requests for an
off-leash dog park
Suggestions for a
dedicated area for
dogs
Community Engagement – Touchpoint #2
March and April 2024
9
Community Outreach: Online Engagement
10
Community Outreach: In-Person Engagement
11
Community Outreach: Online Engagement
OFF-LEASH DOG AREA?
12
Open Ideas
13
We need a splash park or water
park for kids to run through!
-Shannon
I want to make sure this park is
ADA accessible. Disabled people
deserve to enjoy the outdoors and
be a part of the experience as well.
Especially disabled children. I hope
all walkways, playgrounds, and
amenities are wheelchair
accessible.
-Manisha
I'm concerned with the access to
the park, along with pedestrian
safety. That curve on Coal Creek
Parkway that the park is proposed
to sit adjacent to is a known danger
zone, where speeds routinely
exceed 45-50 mph, and accidents
are common. By what method are
pedestrians to safely cross Coal
Creek Pkwy to access the trail
connection on the west side of the
road?
-BL
great space to build a park and
allow the public to access a green
space area. My hope is that it is a
park that reflects and retains the
natural space while also providing
the aspects of a park where people
can gather and play in nature.
-JS
Beautiful location and I really LOVE the idea of the trail connection to sidwalk near
the adjacent neighborhood.
I am disappointed that the sport courts (pickleball specifically) did not make it into
this design.
I am disappointed that there is not a plan to include the connection to the Newcastle
trail network from the outset. I have concerns about traffic and safety at the sidwalk
connection to the Newcastle trail network instead. Coal Creek Parkway was originally
a county road and had a speed limit of 50mph. Since the City of Renton has had the
road, it's speed limit has been reduced to 35mph, but no design elements of the
road were changed to reflect that. The road still feels like one you can go 50mph on
and people do + much faster. Right now, almost no one uses that intersection
crosswalk on foot and that is good because the folks ripping down Coal Creek Pkwy
approaching from the south are coming around a nearly blind curve. If the park
results in increased foot traffic at that intersection, I have serious concerns about
folks getting hit by these cars as well as the affect that will have on North/South
traffic. That section of Coal Creek Pkwy already backs up significantly at certain times
of day. Adding delays to the movement of N/S traffic (longer and more frequent red
lights due to foot traffic between new park and Newcastle trail network) may
significantly worsen the problem. Could we not include the connector trail from the
outset of the project and/or design the part of the connect that crosses Coal Creek
as an underground passage or overhead walkway (my strong preference being the
underground option).
This concept includes a future outdoor environmental education area. Without a
specific plan for its use, I worry that it will go unused. I have seen those structures sit
mostly unused in many parks. I would much prefer to have a sport court of some
kind over this.
Please engage the Langley Ridge Community about the potential use of the trail
easement on the tracts north of their development. I am sure residents there will be
keen to understand the likelihood that the easement will be used and what measures
will be taken to ensure that those using them do not venture off the trails and onto
their properties.
I'd love to see at least one bike rack incorporated into the parking lot or elsewhere.
There are a lot of neighborhoods at a medium distance from the park and I could
easily imagine folks wanting to have the option to ride their bikes there instead of
walking or driving.
-Stephen LaPlante
I see deer and bobcats in this area
frequently. How does this project
ensure that these animals will
continue to have sufficient habitat
to survive?
-Stephen LaPlante
Why in the world would we put in
portable toilets?
-Bourbonisgood
The image shows side walk on the
west side of coalcreek as
"existing"; that sidewalk doesn't
exist today. As a lot of people
point out, there needs to be
imporovements on being able to
access this Park. People do like to
speed down Duvall, there needs to
be safe side walks. I have seen
atleast a dozen accidents.
-Dags Hi! Please leave park bathrooms
open year round! Child and senior
residents need them. It was a
challenge with them closed 2023-
2024. Revise your toileting plan! It's
tacky at best to close them. They
are an essential service.
-DMR
Provide trail access from the south
or east for people and kids in
Summerwind and Newcastle
terrace.
-Ryan
Please add a dog park, pickleball,
and basketball.
-Tony
The radio control hobby has
grown immensely. My son and I
have gotten involved with this fun
past time in the rock crawling part
of it, but it has been difficult to
find courses. We live very close to
where this park will be developed
and would love for it to include a
1/10th scale rc crawler course with
varying terrain, bridges, ramps, off
camber obstacles and the like. The
closest course I know of is at
Remote Control Hobbies in
Covington. Please consider this as
part of the development. My son
and I would greatly appreciate it.
Renton citizen since 1996.
-Patrick
14
Hello,
Me and several friends would love to see that or part of
that be a disc golf course. It’s so much fun and
afterward we usually go out somewhere to eat. I hope
you would consider making it a disc golf course because
I know there would be a lot of people that would use it
and enjoy it.
Thank you,
Maxine Nagel
-Maxine
1. Would love to see dedicated pickleball courts
with lights for the evening time. The demand is
very, very high and the number of public courts
in Renton is few.
2. An off leash dog park is a much needed space
that Renton also doesn't have very many of.
3. Walking trails through shaded forest areas to
connect with nature.
The PB courts and dog park can be further away
from housing and the creek, closer to the road.
-PhilT
Lit up tennis courts please! Coulon Park and
Liberty Park fill up so quickly on nice days.
-Maria
Please do not allow access to May Creek. Foot
traffic would disrupt both the residents and
wildlife. Also, there were numerous bear sightings
last year. Have you considered the potential
encounters between wildlife and people/dogs if
you add trails?
-Karissa_alana
I feel it would be a great place for a disc golf course. It’s
a fun sport that will bring a lot of people to this area to
play and to visit local restaurants and stores. It will also
help keep people who live here playing here and not
having to travel 15 plus miles to spend money in other
areas. Renton deserves the economical boost from this
park. Being a resident who lives in the near the park site.
I would love to see a place for our community members
to congregate and play and have fun.
-WoodyB
The idea of open spaces are needed but worry
about tax dollars being spent on outlay and
upkeep. Where is funding coming from?
-Connected Neighbor
Lighted pickleball courts in this neighborhood park?
I do not think so.
Play area for kids? YES
Sheltered picnic area? YES.
Soft trails? YES.
Pickleball? NO!
It's a semi-rural area; part of the May creek Greenway;
home to loads of wildlife.
Which means subdued & minimal lighting.
-MB I think a new park is a nice idea. Parks are
important. But what about finishing the sidewalk
refresh project in Maplewood Glen? Our
driveway entrances are sunken and get flooded
everytime it rains. But 2 doors down is fresh,
new, non -flooding.
-Astreiss
No off leash dog area. There is
enough noise in this area already.
There are deer and bear who
frequent the area and it would not
be good for them.
-Sue
Basketball court
Obstacle course
Soccer field
-Ali Gil
Maybe a dog park would be good.
-MA
The city of Renton needs to put in turf sports
fields with lights.-Thersident
More trails that are NOT paved! Soft surface!
Hiking/jogging forested
–Shannon Gifford
We need pickleball courts with lights please! As
many courts as possible ! There is a huge
demand in Renton
-Scott
More pickleball courts please. At least 6
-Joy
Basketball and tennis courts dog park walking
trails are what are needed inthis area
-Yasmin Ali
Please don't allow physical access
to may Creek.
-Sue
Please include access to creek and
some water activities.
-MA
Having a basketball court is a must.
-MA
Pickle ball court with lights. Disc
golf baskets.
-Hellopeanutpoms
Pickleball courts with lights
-Susan
Pickleball! Four courts would be awesome. These
tennis courts get built and get no use. We play
year round and there's a huge community of
players
-SeyiA91
Please install dedicated pickleball courts with
lights
-David
15
Renton desperately needs PICKLEBALL courts!!
There are times where the wait is HOURS to play
at the current parks. A great option is to build
tennis court with pickleball lines so community
members can bring their own nets or for the city
to provide nets (similar to Seattle).
-hellorosiedoodle
Please add at least 3 Pickleball courts. Currently
we have 250 pickleball players for one court.
Thank you
-Fernando
Can we please get tennis and basketball courts
here? :)
-Joyce
What is your plan to protect the wildlife that
currently frequents those properties? Their
current habitat has already been shrunk
significantly by housing projects.
-Karen
I would love to have more pickleball courts with
permanent nets & lights so we can play after
work. I see many empty tennis courts that are not
being used. Please create more pickleball courts
for us. Thank you!
-PBFanatic
I’d love to see more pickleball courts with decent
lighting for the evenings.
-PD
3 more dedicated pickleball courts
-Kofucious
Please have lots of covered bench seating, and a
play area that can be used for many different
age groups of children, restrooms, a paved
walking loop, and a parking lot.
-Blackberry
Pickleball courts would be so appreciated.
Please consider putting in several courts as
there is a shortage in the Renton highlands.
-Joyful
It would be great to have a disc golf course.
-Beelaroo
This is an incredibly exciting project! We live
closer to Jay Berrys and there are hardly any
sidewalks or good biking trails. Quality parks are
needed in this community. Selfishly, I would love
to see pickleball courts. However, I know wildlife
continues to be pushed out as humans develop
more. In an ideal world, it would be great to
have the majority of this area used for nature
trails, preserve the surrounding environment for
plants and animals, eradicate invasive plants like
blackberries, and maybe squeeze some
pickleball courts in closer to the road where
human impact already exists. I would be open
to volunteer opportunities to help. I am hesitant
about allowing dogs due to their potential
impact on wildlife, and irresponsible owners
who may not clean up after them.
–ewebbwilson
Wonderful to hear about this park!! We are
right across Duvall Ave., but don’t have a
sidewalk on our side of the Duvall Ave bend to
get safely to the new crosswalk for the park,
please add one!!
Also +1 to off leash dog park!
-Laura
May Creek is an important wildlife corridor.
Please save as much of the trees/vegetation as
possible. A viewpoint would be nice, so we can
see May Creek down below.
-Maria Wolcott
It would be great if there was an off leash
dog park included. The nearest one is
downtown (I only went once because it was
dismal) and the nearest good dog park is on
Mercer Island. In contrast, the nearest park
with a play area and sport courts is at Lske
Boren, a couple miles down the road.
-MuttsRule
I would love to see New PICKLEBALL COURTS
on this community with Renton have very few
areas to play I think it would really build the
community and help develop strong
relationships. Also a revamped playground
with fun for kids. My family is walking
distance to this park and would to see it be
followed through!
-Jrichartz14
Connecting to the Terrace and Highland
trains will be a fantastic feature!.
-eytrenton
Dedicated pickleball courts would be amazing
to have and an efficient use of space since you
can fit 4 in the same space as 1 tennis court.
Nearby Lake Boren Park has blended courts
that are poor for pickleball because the net is a
different height for tennis and the courts have
faint red lines for pickleball on a green surface
that are difficult to see even for non-colorblind
people.
An area of the park sectioned off for an off-
leash dog area would also be welcome.
-PicklelessinRenton
16
Ideas Votes
A lot of parking spots in Concept #1 0
Make parking space sizes generous in size so cars
can fit well 0
More parking is better - Definitely ADA 0
A structure to picnic or gather, a paved loop or
boardwalk to walk. No pool, no art work it will
just get tagged, pls working bathrooms
0
Keep it simple 0
ADA Accessible trails/bridges (and they don't
need to be paved)2
Art installations throughout the park - use
natural or plants to create beautiful moments
along trail
0
Public Art is great ideas 0
Big playground 3
Little house for baby and kid and a big house for
older kids 0
Metal slide so people don't get electric charge 0
Play house 0
Seesaw / Swing / Soccerfield 0
Slide 0
Tube Slide 0
Two swings 0
Yes, playground 0
Zipline, Swing, Garden 0
Climbing Wall 5
Climbing wall with various difficulties and ability to
use ropes and protection.5
Great idea!0
Ideas Votes
Pool 1
Dog park area 0
The closest true fenced in dog park is in downtown
Renton. So many people end up going to the
baseball field at Honey Dew elementary to run their
dogs. Would be nice to have a dog area.
0
Emergency/safety pillars or some alert in the
park to ensure safety of visitors 3
Emergency alert pillars - see Bellevue Park trails 0
Security & safety gate keeping cars out & drug
users 0
Signage needs to be by the road & visible when
people drive by 0
Signs of what to do if you see a bear, unhoused,
other animals, etc 0
It would be great to add some open paved
spaces embedded throughout the park for
rollerskating
0
It’s a great activity for kids & adults both, but a
learning curve. So having paved areas in open
space is nice. People use tennis courts to learn but
we don’t want to ruin those courts. There’s indoor
courts but people get nervous about learning with
more experienced skaters :)
0
Large playground, with covered area and splash
pool. Both examples do not look like there is
enough interaction for children and families
1
More areas for families 1
More trails - the better 0
Ideas Votes
Concept #2 is the version that seems to invite
more interaction!1
Love this. Can be used by any age group 0
Move some trail connections & loops from
concept 2 to concept 1 and boardwalk 0
Combine the Viewshed Loop w/the access to creek 0
I really like #2 for the trails (seems to be more than
#1) Also - future connection to Newcastle trail
network. I love that!
0
Need access from Glencoe neighborhood to
park without having to backtrack on sidewalks
& crosswalks @ 24th & Duvall
2
Crosswalks w/light on Duvall 0
Need crosswalk @ 24th & Duvall | Sidewalks!0
Off leash dog area, and dog leash walking trails
please!4
A big dog park 0
Cat park/Dog park/ Nature trail/ ziplines / Thanks!0
Dog Park 0
Yes Dog Park!0
Outside class 0
Education center w/outdoor classroom (example,
Tiny Trees outdoor preschool)0
Nature club, meets on Saturdays at 1pm for wild
animals and plants to help the environment 0
Wi-Fi 0
Please visit the Lewis & Creek park in Newcastle
area Bellevue. That park has wetlands, steep
areas and it’s got trails. Emulate that park.
0
May I suggest the perfect park? 0
17
Ideas Sum of Votes
We need an amazing destination
playground.
Water features for splash play. Bouncy
flooring not wood chips. Covered picnic
area.
3
Playground ideas 3
Yes to bouncy flooring!0
Working telescope 0
Yes! Love telescope! Goes along with
Darksky.org principles and keeping a
natural space
0
Zipline 3
Yes, zipline 0
Zipline!0
Grand Total 40
Ideas Sum of Votes
Provide some covered play area (like in
NM for example)7
Covered play areas are so important -
Kids can use in rain & when really hot too!0
Kids need a place to play in the rain and
very hot weather. Something that works
with the log play ground idea. Thanks!
7
Sand pit / digging area.0
There is a sand pit at the Lake
Sammamish park and also one in a park
in capitol hill. Really huge. Kids love to dig
and it would be great to have an area
where they can just go do that.
0
Skate park / Face painting 0
Ball pit 0
Skate park!0
Snack area, tent for sunny days 1
A nice bbq place 0
A picnic area where the sun hits 0
A place to do birthday parties 0
Sport general running, soccer 1
I like concept 2 WITHOUT sport fields 0
No pickleball we have in other parks. No
to basketball.0
No playing field. For wild animals and
plants 0
Soccer field / basketball court / Garden 0
Sunset viewing opportunities 1
Trails that connect under the bridge
from May Valley to Newcastle Highlands 2
One long trail system!2
Community Engagement – Touchpoint #3
June 2024
19
https://intheloop.rentonwa.gov/northeastrentonpark?
tool=guest_book#tool_tab
20
https://intheloop.rentonwa.gov/northeastrentonpark?to
ol=guest_book#tool_tab
21
https://intheloop.rentonwa.gov/northeastrenton
park?tool=guest_book#tool_tab
22
Community Engagement Summary
Community Touchpoint 1 Community Touchpoint 2 Community Touchpoint 3
23
Survey Results
24
Survey Results – How does the Preliminary Final
Park Design make you feel?
Ranking Bellevue Issaquah Kent Renton Seattle Grand
Total980069802798030980559805698057980589805998116981789818898198
Very Happy 1 1 1 4 13 5 3 11 1 1 1 42
Happy 8 8 10 4 15 1 46
Neutral 1 2 1 1 9 14
Unhappy 2 1 2 10 15
Very Unhappy 1 1 1 3 6
Grand Total 1 1 1 14 26 18 10 48 1 1 1 1 123
Survey Results: How Does the Preliminary Final Park
Design Make You Feel?
25
Nature and Trails
•Beautiful boardwalks, views, green
and natural spaces, and
environmental stewardship
•Desire for environmental education
and clear signage
•Some concerns about mosquitos in
stormwater ponds; suggestion for
bat houses/natural repellent
Recreation Facilities
•Desire for dog parks (potentially
off-leash); playgrounds with a
variety of activities; sports facilities
such as skateparks, disc golf
course, and volleyball; and picnic
and exercise areas with public art
displays
Parking and Accessibility
•More parking spaces
•Provide access including
ADA-accessible pathways and
transit access
•Need for pedestrian bridge or
tunnel across Coal Creek Parkway
Community and Safety
•Desire for the park to be a
welcoming and safe place for
families and kids
•Concerns about vandalism and the
potential for parks becoming
homeless encampments
General Feedback
•Excitement about a new park
•Appreciation for features like picnic
areas, emergency beacons, and
trailhead kiosks with wayfinding
•Maintain natural landscape: balance
natural areas with new access
Summary of Favorite Things
26
Nature and Trails
•Concerns on trails affecting
existing wetlands
•Opposition to park lightning that
may disrupt wildlife
•Uncertainty on how stormwater
ponds will affect mosquitos
Recreation Facilities
•Disappointment that pickleball
courts were removed
•Feel there is a lack of sports courts
•Desire for playgrounds, splash
parks, and permanent restrooms
•Suggestion for sports facilities and
a pump track for bikes
Parking and Accessibility
•Concerns about car break-ins and
increase in crime
•Site is difficult to access without car
•Need additional parking due to
potential park expansion
•Suggestion of adding bike racks
•Concerns for safe crossing across
Coal Creek Parkway
•Important to connect to other trailsCommunity and Safety
•Concerns about vandalism and the
potential for parks becoming
homeless encampments
•Concerns about park to becoming
an attractive nuisance
Dog Park Specific
•Mixed opinions on including an
off-leash dog area
•Concerns on pet feces
•Requests for a larger (separate?)
dog park for pet owners rather
than in the park
Summary of Least Favorite Things
27
•“An exciting concept for the new Northeast Renton Park. Numerous opportunities for recreation
proposed for the new park.Congratulations to the Renton Parks and Recreation, consultants,
stakeholders, and the public for an amazing new park for the Renton community.”—Alan Wyatt
•“How about fixing what's broken, and paying off some debt before buying a new set of rims for our
car?”—Robert Henderson
•“How about some nice soccer fields in Renton or fixing up the horrible ones at Ron Regis.”—Julie K.
•“Looks great. What address is this near”
Response was provided
“The city re built the Kiwanis park next to Honeydew elem. It's beautifully done. The ball field behind Honeydew was
relandscaped nicely and gets a lot of use. When will the huge new Sunset project apts open? I hope Joannes will
stay open. And who will move in the old Dicks bldg? We want trader Joes! Renton rocks!”—Nora Williams Cottrill
Reply to above: “In talking with the mayor of another city, I learned it's the stores/company people need to talk
to when they want a store in a certain area if they hear a lot of voices saying they want their brand in a certain
spot, they're more likely to want to move there.”—Angela Noon
Social Media Comments: June 16, 2024
28
Social Media
Comments,
June 23, 2024
29
Social Media Comments: June 23, 2024 (cont.)
Overall, public opinion was very positive, especially about keeping the forested and
natural aspects of the site
•Liked paths, especially ADA paths
•Liked signage, interpretive information
•How many miles of pathways will there be?
•Will unleashed dogs be allowed on the
paths?
•Will there be garbage and recycling cans
on paths and educational signs?
•Liked preserving heritage trees
•Liked erosion and lighting mitigation
•Do want good lighting on paths
•Liked plan to connect to other existing
trails outside the park
•The kids’ play area was also well received
•Liked zip line
•What about a splash pad?
•Would like baby swings
•Liked more natural climbing structures—
like the ones that look like logs
•Monkey bars
30
Social Media Comments: June 23, 2024 (cont.)
One of the most popular features was the dog park—lots of excitement about that!
•Want to make sure it is enclosed
•How will rules be enforced?
Infrastructure questions
•Plumbed bathrooms vs. porta-potties?
•Picnic benches in the shelter?
•Fireplace in the shelter?
Community gardens were popular
•Covered classroom area? Picnic shelter as option?
•Just demonstration or also available for residents to rent garden plots?
Safety issues
•Really busy road with lots of speeders
•Dangerous to cross
•Parking is not visible from street
31*This information has been added to slide 5 as well
Social Media Comments: June 23, 2024 (cont.)
•“Dog park would be great. Boardwalks and viewpoints are beautiful.”
•“More parking! Connection to nearby neighborhoods. Love nature.”
•“Bathrooms or access to are needed”
•“[Smiley face]”
•“Outdoor exercise equipment (stretching, etc)”
•“Public art displays. Educational signs about nature during walk.”
•“Love the trails. More enviro areas.”
•“Love the dog park – not enough in Renton. Trails [checkmark]”
•“Keep it natural, excited to see more parks in Renton”
•“Always love parks”
•“Skatepark”
•“Nature [smiley face]”
•“Love the trails/nature. Too many parks/places are concrete.”
•“It seems like a nice addition to the nearby neighborhoods. Since it is a wetland area, what is the
mosquito population like? It’s hard to enjoy the park if you’re too busy slapping at them. Maybe an
addition of bat houses in the trees or natural spray or plants to ward off mosquitos, no-see-ums, etc.”
•“Feedback from kid: Rock climbing, swings”
APPENDIX D
CITY STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES
Meeting Notes
Stakeholder Meeting #1, Community Outreach Series 1
Northeast Renton Park Master Planning Project
2:00 to 3:00 p.m., January 24, 2024, Renton City Hall
Attendees
Name Organization Title
Jason Lederer Renton Parks and Recreation Parks Planning Manager
Anna Spooner Anchor QEA Project Manager
Rachel Andersen Anchor QEA Landscape Architect
Betsy Severtsen Renton Parks and Recreation Capital Projects Coordinator
Samuel Stolmeier City of Renton Water System Engineer
Joe Stowell City of Renton Wastewater Utility Manager
Ellen Talbo City of Renton Transportation Planning Manager
Alex Morganroth City of Renton City Planner
Joe Farah City of Renton Surface Water Engineering Manager
Meeting Notes
Representatives from the City of Renton (City) and Anchor QEA gathered on Wednesday,
January 24, 2024, for the first of a series of stakeholder meetings for the Northeast Renton Park (Park)
Master Planning Project (Project). Anna Spooner, Anchor QEA Project Manager, provided a short
presentation to review the findings of the site inventory and analysis and to present known
opportunities and constraints. The meeting participants then had an open forum to discuss the Project
and to review additional opportunities and constraints relevant to the Project. The participants
discussed how the design concepts could address these items in the next stages of Project
development. The following provides a summary of the meeting discussion.
Neighborhood Park Through a Natural Lens
The discussion started with the Parks Planning Manager emphasizing that we would like to approach
the design of this Park as a neighborhood park but through a natural lens, integrating access to
nature and restoration and working with the constraints of the site.
Meeting Notes
January 24, 2024 Page 2
Urban Separator Overlay
Alex Morganroth brought to the attention of the group that a portion of the Project site is within an
area with Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. This designation provides a distinction between
permanent low-density lands that protect resources and environmentally sensitive areas and the
surrounding communities. Details on this can be found here: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/
Renton/#!/Renton04/Renton0403/Renton0403110.html.
Wetland and Stream Buffers
Alex Morganroth also discussed with the group how the Park wetland and stream buffers, though
serving an important role in protecting critical habitats, generally allow for passive recreation and
pathways. He offered his assistance with permitting for these types of additions when the time comes.
Meeting Sewer Requirements
During the presentation, one of the constraints listed was the lack of sewer services to the site, which
would be necessary in the future if the Project includes restroom facilities. Joe Stowell, Wastewater
Utility Manager, led an in-depth conversation on the complexities of bringing City sewer lines to the
site, with the assumption that King County would not allow a septic system to be used as an
alternative. He presented two potential options:
1. The first would be to extend the City sewer line to the most suitable location in the Park, which
would require that it extend the full frontage of the Park and travel a long distance uphill. This
would require a grinder system with a pump.
2. A second solution would be to tie into the sewer lines at the subdivision, Crystal Ridge, just
south of the Park; however, this system was installed with a temporary sewer agreement with
Coal Creek. The City would need to modify that service agreement with Coal Creek.
Jason Lederer suggested a third possibility: to phase the sewer connection, waiting to take on that
work when the adjacent private property potentially becomes available. Other options would be to
not include restroom facilities at the site at all or to consider portable restrooms.
Park Access
The discussion then turned to the subject of access, led by Ellen Talbo. She pointed out that the
intersection at SE 95th Way and Coal Creek Parkway is within the City of Newcastle. It is owned by
King County with a contract with Newcastle, who maintains it. The City of Renton owns and
maintains the lighting on Coal Creek Parkway/Duvall Avenue starting at the City’s sign. There may be
a maintenance agreement between the Cities of Newcastle and Renton.
When the Project gets underway, signal modifications may be necessary. The protected left turns on
Duvall Avenue will improve safety and be a desirable feature at the entrance of the Park, as well as
planned/striped bike lanes. However, the bike lane on Duvall Avenue is currently just a narrow
Meeting Notes
January 24, 2024 Page 3
shoulder as Duvall Avenue travels southbound. Moving south toward NE 24th Street, the shoulder
becomes narrower on the west side of Duvall Avenue. There is no sidewalk on the west side of
Duvall Avenue at this location.
Improving these bike lanes sooner may be a nice addition to the plan. The topic of site entry prompted
Anna Spooner to describe the reasons why the intersection it Duvall Ave NE and SE 95th Way would
make a desirable main entry, including its proximity to the intersection, relatively flat topography, open
clearing with few trees, existing gravel driveway, and lack of critical/protected spaces.
Secondary Access
Both the discussion on restrooms and access prompted the question of whether a secondary access
point, presumably at the southwest corner of the Park, would be desirable. This would reduce the
distance that sewer lines would be required to travel and offer an additional access point for users.
However, this corner of the site includes surface water facilities and is surrounded by steep slopes
and wetland buffers, separating it from the rest of the Park. It would be a challenging place for a Park
entry or Park development including a restroom. However, this is a possibility that may be
considered the concept development phase of the Project.
Adjacent Stormwater Facility
The next topic was led by Joe Farah, Surface Water Engineering Manager. The group posed
questions on how the adjacent stormwater facility could potentially be used or incorporated into the
Project, if at all. Joe emphasized that the preference would be for this facility to be off-limits and
avoided by Park users. It will remain fenced for safety; however, the main drive could potentially
serve as a dual entrance into the Park. Screening the stormwater facility from the Park could be a
possibility, but any other use or access would be unlikely. Attempting to treat the water from the
stormwater facilities by introducing it into the wetlands would not be a possibility.
Self-Mitigating
The discussion moved on to the topic of mitigation and treating other stormwater and runoff. The
discussion revolved around the benefits of the Project being self-mitigating and how the treatment
of on-site stormwater may offset the installation of any impervious surfaces or other low-impact
development. Restoring and enhancing the site’s natural resources, specifically wetlands and buffers,
may also provide an opportunity for banking credits.
Other Considerations
Betsy Severtsen mentioned that she has seen school buses stopping near the Park recently and
mentioned that as a consideration because of the possibility of parents wanting to use the future
parking lot as a pick-up area.
Meeting Notes
January 24, 2024 Page 4
Ellen Talbo followed up by email expressing an interest in potentially incorporating educational or
demonstrative areas throughout the Park, such as a native medicinal garden or native foraging
gardens, that could possibly be managed by local scouts or community groups.
Closing
The meeting ended with an overview of the next steps, including the plan for completing and
presenting initial concept alternatives in March.
Meeting Notes
Stakeholder Meeting #2, Community Outreach Series 2
Northeast Renton Park Master Planning Project
3:00 to 4:00 p.m., March 12, 2024, Renton City Hall
Attendees
Name Organization Title
Jason Lederer Renton Parks and Recreation Parks Planning Manager
Ian Gray Renton Parks and Recreation Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager
Rhemy King Renton Parks and Recreation Neighborhood Programs Coordinator
Steve Brown Renton Parks and Recreation Parks Maintenance Manager
Samuel Stolmeier Community and Economic Development Civil Engineer
Alex Morganroth Community and Economic Development Senior Planner
Ellen Talbo Public Works Transportation Planning Manager
Joe Farrah Public Works Surface Water Engineering Manager
Anna Spooner Anchor QEA Project Manager
Rachel Andersen Anchor QEA Landscape Architect
Meeting Notes
Representatives from the City of Renton (City) and Anchor QEA gathered on Tuesday, March 12, 2024,
for the second of a series of stakeholder meetings for the Northeast Renton Park (Park) Master
Planning Project (Project). Jason Lederer and Rhemy King provided an overview on the community
outreach results, and Anna Spooner provided a PowerPoint presentation to go over the two alternative
designs and their features, as well as the criteria used to guide the designs. The meeting participants
then had an open forum to discuss the alternatives and ask questions. The following provides a
summary of the meeting discussion.
Community Outreach
The discussion started with the Neighborhood Programs Coordinator, Rhemy King, emphasizing how
well the public outreach process worked and how much feedback and information had been
provided by those who participated. She gave a brief description of the online engagement app,
multiple widgets, a video introducing the Project, maps, photographs, a timeline for the Project, and
an option to subscribe to receive additional information on the Project in the future. All of these
items were meant to familiarize the public with the Project and encourage their involvement.
Meeting Notes
March 12, 2024
Page 2
Jason Lederer, the Parks Planning Manager, went on to describe the large postcard mailer that went
out and how it drove a tremendous amount of traffic to the website. In addition, the City’s social
media post was shared on the “I Love Renton” Facebook page, which also increased traffic to the
Project website. He described how the display boards were posted in community centers and the
senior center for community members to view in person, as well as in the Highlands Neighborhood
Center during basketball weekend and after-school events. All of these boards and interaction
opportunities directed viewers to the website and an online poll.
Design Criteria
Anna Spooner, Anchor QEA Project Manager, started the discussion on design criteria by reiterating
that community feedback consistently pointed to an interest in environmental restoration,
interpretive and nature trails, and recreation development. This feedback helped to develop the
following list of criteria:
1. Maximize trail development within the Park.
2. Connect to existing May Creek Greenway trails.
3. Provide trail connections to Renton neighborhoods.
4. Provide Park development for families.
5. Provide Park facilities.
6. Maximize open space for unprogrammed recreation.
7. Maximize restoration and habitat enhancement.
8. Maximize forest and habitat preservation.
9. Provide environmental education and stewardship.
10. Provide public art and placemaking.
11. Provide parking.
12. Avoid impacts to neighbors.
13. Maximize access.
14. Consider value to cost.
15. Consider permit feasibility.
Conceptual Plan Alternatives
The discussion then moved on to a slideshow of the alternatives, with Anna Spooner presenting.
Two alternatives were presented, with the first one focusing on recreation and Park development and
the second focusing on natural resource protection, restoration, and enhancement. Anna pointed out
Meeting Notes
March 12, 2024
Page 3
that they both had overlapping program elements despite these very different themes and that the
final design would likely be a combination of elements for both alternatives. She went on to present
the alternatives, as follows:
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 had a focus on recreation development. The existing access was used and expanded
upon. Various Park amenities were centralized in an existing, flat, clear opening outside of wetland
buffers and wooded areas. Because a portion of this area is currently privately owned, she pointed
out how the design may need to take place in phases, with a second development phase taking
place when the additional parcel is acquired by the City. At the end of the access road was a parking
lot with space for 24 cars, as well as an additional small lot with four Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA)-accessible parking stalls off the large environmental education building (open air rustic
shelter). Nearby would be a small comfort station and trail head, along with a picnic shelter, seating,
and a natural play space. In addition to these features, a basketball court and tennis/pickleball court
were part of this alternative, along with a native propagation nursery area and a small, enclosed dog
park. The design also included two large open lawn spaces and a pervious trail network connecting
all active recreation and amenities with more wild areas of the Park. These trails winded through the
woods and wetlands to viewpoints and to the creek. At trail intersections, wide nodes accommodated
benches for resting and interpretive signage. A switchback trail led up the hill to the nearby
neighborhood to the south, and another led down the hill to provide creek access to the north.
These trails would be as accessible as possible and may include stairs but would not likely be
ADA-accessible. Anna also discussed the opportunity for stormwater treatment from the parking lot
in the form of raingardens and the need for ongoing invasive species removal and stewardship
throughout the Park. A crosswalk south of the Park at NE 24th Street and Duvall Avenue was also
recommended to allow for safer neighborhood access to the trailheads.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 had a focus on restoration, habitat enhancement, and protection. This design included
fewer traditional park elements, a smaller footprint for active recreation, and more square footage of
protection, restoration, and enhancement activities. The same access driveway was used and
improved upon, with a parking lot at the end for 18 cars. A small comfort station and trailhead kiosk
were included along with a large natural play area and open lawn. A picnic shelter was included, as
well as a small amphitheater/stage on the future parcel. The trail corridors for this alternative were
more simplistic, allowing for more areas to remain protected. Pervious trails looped from the active
recreation area through wilder parts of the Park, providing views of May Creek and wetlands while
minimizing disturbances to creek and wetland buffers. Access to future trail connections on the east
were discussed, as well as areas for interpretive signage along the trails, public art, and opportunities
Meeting Notes
March 12, 2024
Page 4
for placemaking. This alternative also included a crosswalk south of the Park at NE 24th Street and
Duvall Avenue to increase foot traffic to the Park as well as safety.
Comparison Matrix
Anna reminded the group of the list of 15 criteria items and presented a matrix, which ranked each
criteria item (low, medium, high) for each alternative side by side to use as a comparison. The end
goal would be to develop a final design where every criterion was met. Alternative 1 scored higher
for trail development, connections to existing trails, neighborhood access, Park development, Park
facilities, lighting, open space, environmental education and stewardship, parking, and access.
Alternative 2 scored higher for maximizing restoration and habitat enhancement, maximizing forest
and habitat preservation, public art and placemaking, avoidance of impact to neighbors, cost
efficiency, and permit feasibility.
Next Steps
Anna reminded the group of where we were on the process, with site inventory and analysis and
opportunities and constraints completed and community outreach ongoing. The next step of the
process will be crafting a preferred alternative to present in April and then moving on to the final
master plan in the summer.
Group Discussion
Following the presentation, there was an open group discussion. The following summarizes key
topics discussed:
• A question was asked on how the value was determined, and Anna responded that a holistic
approach was used, based off of the perceived value of each element by the community, rather
than a quantified approach. Anna added that a rough order of magnitude costs would be
developed later in the process.
• The discussion moved on to how to balance pleasing the greatest number of community
members while balancing the cost of maintenance, system gaps, utilities, and stormwater. Jason
pointed out that the uncertainty of whether water would be able to be brought to the site limited
being able to offer restrooms and drinking fountains. Portable toilets might be the best option.
Anna pointed out that these could include an enclosure to make them more appealing.
• Jason questioned whether we should utilize existing trails and potentially historic access roads
for future trail systems.
• The group discussed taking another trip to the site to walk along existing paths and slopes to
determine the most appropriate trail alignment and location for some of the Park features.
• Another attendee brought up a concern with lighting, stating that we should be very careful
about how we approach lighting to prevent light pollution.
Meeting Notes
March 12, 2024
Page 5
• The interpretive shelter was the next item of discussion. The group talked about what this might
look like, how large it might be, and if it would have walls or just a roof. Options for precedents
were discussed, such as the shelters at Seward Park and Lincoln Park in Seattle.
• This was followed by questions about the amphitheater and if it was an item that the City and
community members valued and would use. It was agreed that it would be unlikely that this
would be a suitable location for large events like weddings, but a smaller informal stage might
be useful for smaller informal gatherings or educational opportunities.
• The attendees were in favor of keeping the sports courts in the design for the moment to attract
a variety of visitors, and one attendee mentioned that if there was limited space, pickleball might
be the best option since it required less room. It was pointed out by another attendee that a
combination court that allowed for pickleball and tennis might be a good option.
• Another group member threw out the idea of having an environmental science center on the
site. The stewardship garden was discussed as well, including questions on what type of garden
this would be (a P-patch, demonstration garden, foraging garden, cultural garden, medicinal
garden, or something else). Anna clarified that the intent was for it to be demonstration or native
plant propagation garden, with opportunities for signage or education. In the future, it may also
be possible to use these native species elsewhere in the Park for restoration work.
• One attendee expressed surprise that Alternative 2, which focused on a more natural approach
and restoration efforts, did not have a more expansive trail network, and they would appreciate
the more natural approach but with more trail opportunities.
• A comment was made on the crosswalk and how it would probably need to be a signalized
crosswalk with potentially a median refuge, but this could be discussed at a later date.
• Lastly, Jason pointed out that we needed to remember how this future Park was part of a trail
network and consider how it would fit into the rest of the system but also how it could be used
to provide Park elements that were not easily found elsewhere in Renton. It was decided on that
the group should take a while to consider the designs and provide additional feedback or
questions at their leisure.
Next Steps and Closing
The meeting ended with an overview of the next steps, including the plan for completing and
presenting the preferred alternative in April.
Meeting Notes
Stakeholder Meeting #3, Community Outreach Series 3
Northeast Renton Park Master Planning Project
1:00 to 2:00 p.m., May 21, 2024, Renton City Hall
Attendees
Name Organization Title
Jason Lederer Renton Parks and Recreation Parks Planning Manager
Rhemy King Renton Parks and Recreation Neighborhood Programs Coordinator
Ian Gray Renton Parks and Recreation Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager
Cailín Hunsaker Renton Parks and Recreation Parks and Trails Director
Betsy Severtsen Renton Parks and Recreation Acting Capital Project Manager
Steve Brown Renton Parks and Recreation Parks Maintenance Manager
Alex Morganroth Community and Economic Development Senior Planner
Anna Spooner Anchor QEA Project Manager
Rachel Andersen Anchor QEA Landscape Architect
Meeting Notes
Representatives from the City of Renton (City) and Anchor QEA gathered on Tuesday, May 21, 2024,
for the third of a series of stakeholder meetings for the Northeast Renton Park (Park) Master
Planning Project (Project). Jason Lederer and Rhemy King provided an overview on the community
outreach results, and Anna Spooner provided a PowerPoint presentation to go over the preliminary
Draft Preferred Concept design and its features. The meeting participants then had an open forum to
discuss the design and ask questions. The following provides a summary of the meeting discussion.
Community Outreach
The meeting started with Anna Spooner presenting an overview of community outreach efforts,
along with a timeline of public events and traffic surges to the Project website. She also presented a
series of succinct visuals of the results of all public outreach up to date, showing that the public was
most interested in new Park facilities, followed by biking and walking trails and access to wetlands,
trees, and forests. Environmental education, art and culture, and sports courts received less interest,
and people were generally neutral when it came to an off-leash dog park. She followed with a brief
overview of the previous two alternatives.
Meeting Notes
May 21, 2024
Page 2
Preliminary Design Program
Anna presented the following list of design program features and relevant details:
• Trails
‒ Loops through diverse habitats
‒ Boardwalks and viewing areas
‒ Access to May Creek corridor
‒ Connections outside of Park
‒ Trailhead kiosk
• Open lawn space
• Play area with the following:
‒ Climbing structure
‒ Swings
‒ Shelter
• Large shelter for environmental education and outdoor classroom
• Ecological restoration areas
• Rain gardens
• Public art
• Stewardship/cultural gardens
• Environmental educational and wayfinding signage
• Sport courts
‒ Pickleball
‒ Tennis
‒ Basketball
• Park infrastructure
‒ Access road and parking
‒ Fire turnaround
‒ Portable toilet enclosure
‒ Lighting
• Park maintenance facility/storage
Meeting Notes
May 21, 2024
Page 3
Preliminary Draft Preferred Concept
Anna continued on to present the preliminary Draft Preferred Concept. This concept was a
combination of the previous two design alternatives, edited to reflect the needs and wants of the
community. It combined a large network of paths through forests and wetlands and along view
corridors, while being careful to minimize disturbances to buffers as much as possible. Future trail
connections were highlighted to the east and west and adjacent to neighborhoods. Areas for
restoration and habitat enhancement were called out along May Creek throughout wetlands and
buffers and throughout forested and riparian areas. A large central area contained all active
recreation, including a large nature play area, stewardship and cultural gardens, a covered outdoor
classroom, portable toilets, a picnic shelter, and parking for 20 vehicles. The private parcel contained
potential Phase 2 amenities, including an off-leash dog park, a City maintenance shed, and sports
courts. This option also included minimal lighting, public art, wayfinding, trailhead kiosks and
signage, and swales/raingardens around the parking lot.
Three section graphics followed, depicting a more detailed view of the active recreation area, a
section of wetlands and buffers, and the forested slope and floodplain leading down to May Creek.
These graphics included indications of where paths, boardwalks, viewing decks, and other amenities
would be located within the landscape.
Anna presented a series of precedent imagery to give a feel for the scale and materials of structures
and amenities that may be found in the design. The precedent photographs covered subjects such as
amenities, play areas, low-impact development features, trails and boardwalks, habitat restoration,
signage, and public art.
Group Discussion
Following the presentation, there was an open group discussion. The following summarizes key
topics discussed:
• Betsy Severtsen asked for clarity on Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access. Anna described
the different types of trail surfaces and routes. The paved trails within the active recreation would
be ADA accessible along with the gravel loop trails and boardwalks throughout the wooded and
riparian areas. However, the trail leading south to the adjacent neighborhood and north to the
May Creek neighborhood would likely not be ADA accessible and would include stretches of stairs.
However, efforts could be made to make these paths as user friendly and walkable as possible.
• A question was asked about trail access to the east and if it was possible to create a future
connection to other nearby trails and possibly up to Cougar Mountain. Jason Lederer elaborated on
the fact that the City has an access easement to the east, which allows for a future trail connection.
Meeting Notes
May 21, 2024
Page 4
• Derek expressed his excitement at seeing the option of a zipline in the play area, knowing that
this is a popular feature in other parks. However, when it came to the cultural gardens and dog
park, he had a question of where these would be most appropriate. He mentioned that the
privately-owned parcel is already flat and disturbed, making it the perfect location for these
amenities, but it may be many years before the City could purchase and develop these spaces. If
an amenity like a dog park is in high demand, it might be wiser to plan it for a parcel that the
City already owns.
• The discussion of signage came up, with Derek suggesting signage similar to Newcastle’s but with
Renton’s color palette. In addition, small signs with distances and trail names such as “wetland
loop” at trail nodes were something that might be useful. An attendee asked about the trailheads
and if the signage at the south neighborhood trailhead would be large and attention-getting or
subtle because they did not want traffic stopping along Duvall Avenue NE and parking on the side
of the road to access this trail. Anna clarified that only one entrance and trailhead would have
larger signage, with all other trailheads and trails having more subtle signage.
Next Steps and Closing
The meeting ended with an overview of the next steps, including the plan for further community
outreach and completing the preferred alternative concept design and master plan development in
June and July, followed by Community Services Committee, Parks Commission, and City Council
engagement, and grant funding and implementation in the future.
APPENDIX E
OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan
July 2024
Qty. Unit Unit Cost Subtotal
a.Clear and grub site vegetation 9,000 SF 0.30$ 2,700$
b.Estimated tree removal 52 EA 770.00$ 40,040$
c.Remove asphalt paving 15,000 SF 1.40$ 21,000$
d.Miscellaneous demolition and debris removal 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000$
Subtotal Demolition & Clearing 68,740$
2. Temporary Facilities
a.
Temporary construction fencing (chainlink) for site
security, tree protection, and native plant protection 3,500 LF 15.00$ 52,500$
b.Temporary access and staging 1 LS 11,550.00$ 11,550$
c.Temporary erosion and sediment control 1 LS 70,000.00$ 70,000$
Subtotal Temporary Facilities 134,050$
3. Earthwork
a.
Excavate to subgrade and stockpile for trails and park
development area 6,200 CY 13.00$ 80,600$
b.Place and compact on-site stockpiled fill 6,200 CY 16.00$ 99,200$
c.Haul excess and unsuitable excavated fill material 725 CY 43.00$ 31,157$
d.
Place import topsoil (6" average depth, all new
planting bed areas)725 CY 55.00$ 39,853$
e.Finish grading (3-inch depth)168,000 SF 0.10$ 16,800$
Subtotal Earthwork 267,610$
4. Utility Improvements
a.Stormwater (incl LID elements, rain gardens)1 LS 200,000.00$ 200,000$
b.Electrical 1 LS 42,400.00$ 42,400$
c.Site Lighting (25' light poles with concrete bases)8 EA 9,750.00$ 78,000$
d.Communications including emergency beacons 2 EA 11,760.00$ 23,520$
Subtotal Utility Improvements 343,920$
5. Asphalt Paving and Pavement Markings
a.Install asphalt paving (2" on crushed aggregate base)23,340 SF 5.00$ 116,700$
b.Install crushed gravel shoulder (6" depth)60 CY 163.00$ 9,780$
c.Thickened asphalt edge 450 LF 16.00$ 7,200$
d.Install parking stall striping 32 EA 28.00$ 896$
e.Install cross hatching (firetruck turnaround)2,500 SF 3.40$ 8,500$
f.Install concrete wheel stops in parking area 20 EA 256.00$ 5,120$
Subtotal Asphalt Paving and Pavement Markings 148,196$
6. Trails, Bridges, and Viewing Areas
a.
Install 5' wide boardwalk composite decking, bullrail,
substructure, and pre-cast concrete pier blocks and
attachment hardware 1 LS 125,760.00$ 125,760$
b.Install 5' wide concrete paving for pathways 764 SY 210.00$ 160,347$
c.Install 5' wide crushed gravel for pathways (6" depth)510 CY 163.00$ 83,130$
d.
Install trail steps (pressure-treated 6- × 6-foot posts
secured with rebar stakes)66 EA 1,400.00$ 92,400$
e.
Install 5x12' footbridge with composite decking,
framing, foundations, supports, guardrail, and
concrete abutment 1 LS 59,040.00$ 59,040$
Subtotal Trails, Bridges, and Viewing Areas 520,677$
Item
1. Site Demolition and Clearing
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) - Concept Design
PA
R
K
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan
July 2024
7. Site Furnishings and Signage
a.Furnish and install benches 12 EA 3,418.00$ 41,016$
b.Furnish and install grill 4 EA 1,800.00$ 7,200$
c.Furnish and install picnic tables 6 EA 8,159.00$ 48,954$
d.Furnish and install trash receptacles 4 EA 2,800.00$ 11,200$
e.Furnish and install bike racks 4 EA 6,300.00$ 25,200$
f.24' x 34' custom wooden picnic shelter 1 EA 170,000.00$ 170,000$
g.Park entry signage 1 EA 12,000.00$ 12,000$
h.Trail wayfinding portal post 8 EA 2,820.00$ 22,560$
i.Primary trailhead kiosk 1 EA 21,000.00$ 21,000$
j.Interpretive signs and supports 5 EA 5,000.00$ 25,000$
k.Split rail fencing 461 LF 37.00$ 17,057$
Subtotal Site Furnishings 401,187$
8. Play Area Surfacing and Equipment
a.Furnish Robinia"Jungle Dome" large climber 1 EA 70,430.00$ 70,430$
b.Furnish Robinia"Crawling Pyramid" small climber 1 EA 5,610.00$ 5,610$
c.Furnish "Spinner Plate" spinner seats 3 EA 1,380.00$ 4,140$
d.Furnish Robinia Up and Over Net 1 EA 3,240.00$ 3,240$
e.Furnish Carousel with seats 1 EA 10,730.00$ 10,730$
f.Furnish Robinia Entry Seesaw for 4 persons 1 EA 4,080.00$ 4,080$
g.Furnish Robinia Zip Line for Flat surroundings, 82'1 EA 15,090.00$ 15,090$
h.Install play area equipment 1 LS 60,000.00$ 60,000$
i.Furnish and install sand pit (24" depth)57 CY 114.00$ 6,443$
j.Furnish and install engineered wood fiber (12" depth)7,136 SF 3.05$ 21,765$
l.Furnish and install play area underdrain pipe 1 LS 17,510.00$ 17,510$
m.Install concrete curb 180 LF 60.80$ 10,944$
Subtotal Play Area Surfacing and Equipment 229,982$
9. Planting
a.Import and place topsoil (average 12" depth)2,000 CY 55.00$ 110,000$
b.Park plantings 15,000 SF 3.00$ 45,000$
c.Lawn hydroseed 40,000 SF 0.65$ 26,000$
d.Mulch (3" depth)509 CY 55.00$ 28,009$
Subtotal Planting 209,009$
10. Irrigation
a.Irrigation 55,000 SF 3.00$ 165,000$
Subtotal Irrigation 165,000$
Park Development Subtotal 2,488,371$
PA
R
K
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan
July 2024
11. In-stream and Riparian Habitat Enhancement
a.Remove invasives 17,208 SF 2.45$ 42,158$
b.
Large woody debris - place salvaged on-site logs with
rootwads 15 EA 436.00$ 6,540$
c.Soil preparation (6" amendment)319 CY 58.00$ 18,482$
d.Planting - trees (5 gallon)70 EA 142.00$ 9,940$
e.Planting - shrub (1 gallon)400 EA 48.00$ 19,200$
f.Install mulch (3" depth)159 CY 55.00$ 8,763$
Subtotal In-stream and Riparian Habitat Enhancement 105,084$
12. Wetland and Wetland Buffer Enhancement
a.Remove invasives 128,510 SF 0.26$ 33,734$
b.Soil preparation (6" amendment)2,380 EA 58.00$ 138,029$
c.Jute fabric in planting areas with 4:1 or steeper slope 860 SF 5.25$ 4,515$
d.Planting - trees (5 gallon)260 EA 142.00$ 36,920$
e.Planting - trees (2 gallon)600 EA 78.00$ 46,800$
f.Planting - shrub (1 gallon)1,650 EA 48.00$ 79,200$
g.Planting emergent plug 4,130 EA 7.35$ 30,356$
h.Install mulch (3" depth)1,190 CY 55.00$ 65,445$
Subtotal Wetland and Wetland Buffer Enhancement 434,999$
13. Forest Enhancement
a.Remove invasives 14,993 SF 0.26$ 3,936$
b.Soil preparation (6" amendment)278 EA 58.00$ 16,103$
c.Jute fabric in planting areas with 4:1 or steeper slope 6,000 SF 5.25$ 31,500$
d.Planting - trees (5 gallon)70 EA 142.00$ 9,940$
e.Planting - shrub (1 gallon)350 EA 48.00$ 16,800$
f.Install mulch (3" depth)139 CY 55.00$ 7,635$
Subtotal Forest Enhancement 85,914$
Habitat Enhancement Subtotal 625,996$
HA
B
I
T
A
T
E
N
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan
July 2024
14. Potential Custom Toilet Enclosure
a.8' x 14' custom toilet enclosure 1 EA 145,870.00$ 145,870$
Potential Sewer Connection and Restroom Subtotal 145,870$
15. Potential Sewer Connection and Restroom
a.
Clear and grub vegetation at proposed sewer
conveyance (assumes 10-ft wide corridor)6700 SF 0.30$ 2,010$
b.
Estimated tree removal within proposed sewer
conveyance (assumes 10-ft wide corridor)17 EA 770.00$ 13,090$
c.Grinder pump station 1 EA 16,000.00$ 16,000$
d.Force main (to existing sewer)820 LF 30.00$ 24,600$
e.Directional drilling 820 LF 20.00$ 16,400$
f.Connection to existing system 1 LS 3,000.00$ 3,000$
d.Install Portland Loo 1 LS 500,000.00$ 500,000$
Potential Sewer Connection and Restroom Subtotal 575,100$
16. Potential Park Expansion Area
a.Clear and grub site vegetation 68,000 SF 0.30$ 20,400$
b.Estimated tree removal 10 EA 770.00$ 7,700$
c.Remove asphalt paving 910 SF 1.40$ 1,274$
d.
5' wide crushed gravel trail within park expansion
parcel only 62 CY 163.00$ 10,106$
e.Dog park area fencing (5' tall chain link)492 LF 53.00$ 26,076$
f.Pea gravel at dog park area (6" depth)260 CY 74.00$ 19,240$
g.Sport courts (2 tennis courts/4 pickleball courts)1 LS 96,000.00$ 96,000$
h.Sport courts fencing (5' tall chainlink)600 LF 53.00$ 31,800$
i.Hydroseed mix for lawn 40000 SF 1.05$ 42,000$
j.Park plantings 15280 SF 2.00$ 30,560$
k.Irrigation 15280 SF 3.00$ 45,840$
Future Potential Park Expansion Area Subtotal 330,996$
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan
July 2024
Subtotal Park Development and Habitat Enhancement 3,114,367$
Mobilization (10%) 311,437$
Subtotal Construction + Mobilization 3,425,804$
Design Contingency (25%) 856,451$
Subtotal Const. + Mob. + Design Cont. 4,282,255$
Construction Contingency (10%) 428,225$
Subtotal Const. + Mob. + Design Cont. +Const. Cont.4,710,480$
Sales Tax (10.3%) 485,179$
TOTAL OPCC FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT (2024 Dollars)* 5,195,660$
Subtotal Toilet Enclosure 145,870$
Mobilization (10%) 14,587$
Subtotal Construction + Mobilization 160,457$
Design Contingency (25%) 40,114$
Subtotal Const. + Mob. + Design Cont. 200,571$
Construction Contingency (10%) 20,057$
Subtotal Const. + Mob. + Design Cont. +Const. Cont.220,628$
Sales Tax (10.3%) 22,725$
TOTAL OPCC FOR TOILET ENCLOSURE OPTION (2024 Dollars)* 243,353$
Subtotal Sewer Connection and Portland Loo 575,100$
Mobilization (10%) 57,510$
Subtotal Construction + Mobilization 632,610$
Design Contingency (25%) 158,153$
Subtotal Const. + Mob. + Design Cont. 790,763$
Construction Contingency (10%) 79,076$
Subtotal Const. + Mob. + Design Cont. +Const. Cont.869,839$
Sales Tax (10.3%) 89,593$
TOTAL OPCC FOR SEWER CONNECTION AND RESTROOM OPTION (2024 Dollars)* 959,432$
Sutotal Future Potential Park Expansion Area 330,996$
Mobilization (10%) 33,100$
Subtotal Construction + Mobilization 364,096$
Design Contingency (25%) 91,024$
Subtotal Const. + Mob. + Design Cont. 455,120$
Construction Contingency (10%) 45,512$
Subtotal Const. + Mob. + Design Cont. +Const. Cont.500,631$
Sales Tax (10.3%) 51,565$
TOTAL OPCC FOR FUTURE POTENTIAL PARK EXPANSION AREA (2024 Dollars)* 552,196$
Northeast Renton Park Master Plan
July 2024
NOTES:
2) In providing opinions of probable construction cost, the Client (City of Renton) understands that the Consultant (Anchor QEA
L.L.C.) has no control over the cost or availability of labor, equipment or materials, or over market condition or the Contractor's
method of pricing, and the consultant's opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of the Consultant's
professional judgment and experience. The Consultant makes no warranty, expressed or implied, that the bids or the negotiated
cost of the Work will not vary from the Consultant's opinion of probable construction cost.
4) Not Included (Construction Items): Environmental Cleanup, Portable Restroom Units, Public Art, Signage, Demolition of Existing
House and Accessory Buildings, and Demolition of the Foundations Associated with Site Buildings.
3) Not Included (Construction Related): Design/Engineering Fees, Project Management, Survey, Planning & Design Review, Bidding,
Construction Phase Project Management & Administration, Construction Inspection, Environmental Permitting, Property Purchase,
Water Connection Utilities, and Permit Related Monitoring.
1) All costs are in 2024 dollars.