The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES 45761 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 4576 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN. WHEREAS, the City began the process of developing a plan for the Cleveland- Richardson Park in the spring of 2025; and WHEREAS, much of the land comprising the Cleveland-Richardson 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 habitat restoration; and WHEREAS, the plan is in alignment with the recommendations of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan adopted by City Council through Resolution No. 4572; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is adopted. 3 Exhibit A Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT1 CLEVELAND-RICHARDSONPARK MASTER PLAN FEBRUARY 4, 2026 BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III PARK MASTER PLAN IV OTHER CONSIDERATIONS V APPENDIX A. PHASE 1 ENGAGEMENT B. PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT C. CULTURAL RESOURCES LITERATURE REVIEW D. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY E. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT F. FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT G. REFERENCES PROJECT OVERVIEW PRIMARY OBJECTIVES MASTER PLANNING PROCESS KEY THEMES MASTER PLAN DRAWING LOCATION HISTORY SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DESIGN PROCESS PREFERRED CONCEPT PROBABLE COST REGULATORY FRAMEWORK & PERMITTING PLANNING INFORMATION FUNDING & GRANTS BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT3 PARTI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Following a collaborative and community focused planning process was an overarching goal and guiding principle throughout the master planning of the Cleveland-Richardson Park. The City of Renton would like to acknowledge the following groups and individuals who contributed to the effort: CITY OF RENTON • Mayor Armondo Pavone CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS • Ruth Pérez - Council President • Ryan McIrvin - Council President Pro Tem • Carmen Rivera • Ed Prince • James Alberson, Jr. • Kim-Khánh Văn • Valerie O'Halloran COMMISSIONS & BOARDS • Parks Commission • Senior Advisory Board COLLABORATING DEPARTMENTS • Parks & Recreation • Public Works • Executive Services • Community and Economic Development • Police • City Attorney CONSULTANTS • Bruce Dees & Associates - Landscape Architect • Grette Associates - Environmental Consultant • PRR - Community Engagement Specialist • ARC Architects - Architects • Environmental Science Associates (ESA) - Cultural Resources • GeoEngineers - Geotechnical Engineering We gratefully acknowledge the community members whose thoughtful input and participation helped shape the development of this Master Plan. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT5 PARTII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT OVERVIEW PRIMARY OBJECTIVES MASTER PLANNING PROCESS KEY THEMES MASTER PLAN DRAWING BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT6 PROJECT OVERVIEW Cleveland-Richardson Park is a 24-acre City-owned former homestead and agricultural property in Southwest Renton characterized by open pastures, mature trees, streams, and wetlands that form part of the Springbrook Creek watershed. The City of Renton initiated a park master planning and community outreach process to identify opportunities for future investment and establish a vision for a neighborhood park that balances recreation, community gathering, and natural resource protection. Located within the Talbot planning area—one of Renton’s most diverse neighborhoods and an area identified as having limited walkable park access—the site provides an opportunity to expand equitable recreation in a growing part of the city. Its diverse landscape supports wildlife habitat and water quality functions while preserving a tangible link to Renton’s agricultural heritage. As the surrounding community continues to evolve, Cleveland-Richardson Park will serve as both a recreational amenity and an ecological refuge that connects people to the city’s natural and cultural history. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES • Advance equitable access and fill a park-service gap in Southwest Renton — responding to the park-and-trail shortfall in the Talbot planning area by delivering a high-quality, accessible park that supports health, wellness, and social connection for nearby residents. • Create an inclusive neighborhood park for recreation, connection, and community — providing flexible play areas, gathering lawns, trails, event spaces, and spaces to interact with nature while maintaining accessible design elements that reflect the neighborhood’s diversity and evolving needs. • Protect and restore the site’s natural and cultural systems — preserving streams, wetlands, forested slopes, and open field habitats; enhancing water quality and wildlife functions; and honoring the property’s agricultural homestead legacy through thoughtful design and interpretation. MASTER PLANNING PROCESS The recommended master plan was shaped through an integrated process that combined technical research, community input, and iterative design. Initial work included on-site studies of wetlands, streams, soils, cultural resources, and structures—establishing a clear understanding of the site’s opportunities, constraints, and regulatory context. Building on this foundation, the design team collaborated with City staff, stakeholders, and community members to explore ideas, needs, and concerns related to access, programming, and environmental stewardship. Then, preliminary concepts were developed to test different approaches to balancing recreation and conservation. Finally, feedback gathered through meetings, surveys, and open houses directly informed the refinements that led to a unified master plan—one that reflects site realities, community priorities, and environmental responsibility. The following key themes were shaped by the stakeholder and community outreach through the three phases of the master planning process. KEY THEMES • Preserve & Restore Natural Areas • Foster Ecological Stewardship • Ensure Welcoming & Walkable Access • Design for All Ages & Abilities • Celebrate Culture & Community Identity • Incorporate Edible & Educational Landscapes • Plan for Safety & Long-Term Care CLEVELANDͳ RICHARDSON PARK PART II | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER REPORT7 CLEVELANDͳ RICHARDSON ͳ MASTER PLAN 1 2 3 4 S 5 BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT8 PARTIII PARK MASTER PLAN LOCATION HISTORY SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DESIGN PROCESS PREFERRED CONCEPT PROBABLE COST BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT9 LOCATION Ho q u i a m A v e N E Talbot Rd S S P u g e t D r Lin d A v e S W Mo n r o e A v e N E Ed m o n d s A v e N E S 7th St N e w ca stle W ay 11 6 t h A v e S E 87 t h A v e S NE 7th St Lo g a n A v e S 14 8 t h A v e S E 12 8 t h A v e S E SE 216th St B e n s o n R d S SE 183rd St SW 41st St SE Jones Rd SE 168th St Un i o n A v e N E SW 7th St LakeWas PugetDrSE SW 16th St H a r d i e A v e S W SW 34th St Ea s t V a l l e y R d SW 27th St E V a l l e y H w y 84 t h A v e S 154thPlSE S 132nd St N 3rd St SE Pet r o v i t s k y R d a Pkwy 68 t h A v e S Duvall Ave NE N 4th St b a n A v e S 12 4 t h A v e S E Ra i n i e r A v e S Rain i e r A v e N S212thWay NE 3rd St E M e r c e r W a Oa k e s d a l e A v e S W N Park Dr e n t e r Blv d SW 43rd St SE C arr R d NE 4th St SE 128th St Logan AveN S G ra d y W a y SE 208th St Pa r k A v e N 156th Ave SE S 124th S t 14 8 t h A v e S E SE 192nd St 11 6 t h A v e S E S180th St 16 4 t h A v e S E Airport Way S W G r a d y Way RentonAveS S E 2 0 4 t h W a y W M ercer W ay M o n s t e r R d S W 13 2 n d A v e S E SEMayValleyRd 14 0 t h A v e S E 1 4 0th W aySE NewcastleGolfClubRd 68thAve S S 133rd St UV900 UV900 UV515 UV169 UV181 UV167 UV900 UV167 ¥405 ¥405 RHD CMU RHD RMD RHD CMU CMU RHD RHD COR COR CMU RLD RMD CMU CMU RHD RLD EA RHD CMU RMD RHD RHD RHD RHD RMD RHD CMU CMU RHD RMD RHD RHD RHD RMD RMD RMD RLD RLD RHD RMD EA CMU RHD RMD RHD RHD RMD CMU EA EA CMU RHD RHD RLD RLD RHD RHD RHD RHD RHD RMD COR RLD RHD RLD RMD D RMD RMD EA RLD RMD CMU RLD RMD RHD RHD RHD RHD RLD RHD RMD RMD RMD NE 20th St S 7th St Quincy A v e N E S C ar rRd Sun s e tBlvd N NE23rd Pl NE2ndSt Burnet tA v e S La k e Ave S N E SunsetBlvd SE 160th St Fa c t o r y A v e N Sea h a w k s W a y NE 6 t h St NE 19th St Re n t o n A v e S S Tobin St N 30th St NE 10th St NE27thSt Bu r n e t t A v e S SE 164th St Jo n e s A v e N E Pa r k A v e N Ma i n A v e S NE 24th St Je r i c h o A v e N E NE 10th St SE 182nd St Sh a t t u c k A v e S T a lb otR d S NE 6th St NE 7th St Bu r n e t t A v e N Mon t e r e y Av e NE SE 172nd St 12 5 t h A v e S E N 8th St NE 10th St S 3rd St NE 4th St SE 184th St NE9th S t Be aco n W a y S NE 2nd St Re n t onAve S Sunse tBlvd N E Ga r d e n A v e N Sout h port D rN Ni l e A v e N E G r ant Ave S SE 164th St 10 8 t h A v e S E Ha rri n g t o n Ave NE NE 12th St Kir k l a n d A v e N E B e n s o n D r S SE Petrovitsky Rd Lake W ashingtonBl v d N Ta l b o t R d S Land Use Designations RLD - Residential Low Density RMD - Residential Medium Density RHD - Residential High Density EA - Employment Area CMU - Commercial Mixed Use COR - Commercial Office Residential Renton City Limits Lake Washington ¯ Source: City of Renton, 2023 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Updated by Ordinance #6116 Effective as of 8/21/2023 e attle King County ukwila Kent Kent King County King County King County Mercer Island King County Newcastle Bellevue CedarRiver Gree n River Project Site LAND USE REGULATIONS MAP The project site lies within a low-density residential area bordered by established neighborhoods. Just north of the site on Talbot Road S, the Land Use Map identifies high-density residential and commercial mixed-use zones that include apartments, condominiums, and senior living. To the west, the Kent Valley industrial corridor is a highly developed, vehicle-dominated employment center. The Cleveland-Richardson property provides valuable open-space within this mix of land uses, adding balance and ecological relief within an urbanized landscape. SITE LOCATION Cleveland-Richardson Park sits within the Talbot planning area of southwest Renton, directly across from the Springbrook Creek headwaters. Positioned between diverse and growing neighborhoods and the Kent Valley industrial corridor, the park will provide a much-needed natural refuge and gathering place for nearby residents. Its development will strengthen equitable access to recreation in an area where park and open-space opportunities have been limited, enhancing overall neighborhood livability. HYDROLOGY & WATERSHEDS MAP The hydrology and watershed map highlights the park’s critical position within the Springbrook Creek watershed, as creeks and wetlands on the site drain into this system. The Springbrook Headwaters, located east of the site across Talbot Road S, are an important component of Renton’s drinking water supply, underscoring the need to protect and enhance on-site natural resources. Springbrook Creek is a designated fish-bearing stream that historically supported coho salmon, cutthroat trout, and steelhead. Protecting and restoring these aquatic and riparian systems is essential to improving water quality, supporting fish and wildlife habitat, and sustaining long- term ecological health throughout the watershed. Project Site BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT10 PARK ACCESS MAP The City of Renton Park Access Map highlights the value of developing Cleveland- Richardson Park for the Southwest Renton community. Cleveland-Richardson Park is located in an area that currently lacks both passive and active recreational opportunities, emphasizing the importance of this project. Directly across the street, the Springbrook headwaters serve as a protected drinking water source and therefore does not allow public access. Developing Cleveland-Richardson Park offers a unique opportunity to provide needed recreational amenities for Southwest Renton residents while also promoting ecological stewardship and enhancing the quality of the site’s critical ecosystems. NEIGHBORHOOD MAP The neighborhood map identifies the park’s location within the Talbot neighborhood. As shown in the park access map, establishing this park will provide residents of both the Talbot and Benson neighborhoods with improved access to recreational opportunities while also creating a space that reflects and shares the broader history of Renton. LOCATION Project Site BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT11 HISTORY CLEVELANDͳRICHARDSON PARK Originally part of the traditional homelands of Coast Salish peoples—including the Duwamish, Muckleshoot, Snoqualmie, and other Lushootseed- speaking communities—the lands surrounding present-day Cleveland-Richardson Park supported salmon fishing, shellfish gathering, and seasonal harvesting of plants and game. These cultural traditions and practices continue today. The site transitioned to agricultural use in the early 20th century, beginning as a small family farm. By the mid-1900s, Edwin and Virginia Cleveland established their family home and raised eight children on the property. They managed orchards of apples, cherries, plums, pears, and walnuts, while raising cows, pigs, sheep, horses, and chickens. Supporting outbuildings included barns, sheds, chicken coops, and hired men’s quarters. A root cellar and basement canning room were used for preserving harvests from the large family garden. Through the latter half of the century, neighboring farms gave way to subdivisions, yet the Clevelands resisted selling. In 1995, the property was sold to the City of Renton with the intention of preserving the site as open space. Edwin and Virginia retained a life estate, remaining in the family home until their passing. Today, the primary residence, root cellar, and shed endure as physical reminders of the family’s stewardship. The evolution of Cleveland-Richardson Park mirrors the broader transformation of the Kent and Renton valleys—from Indigenous homelands, to agricultural settlement, to suburban development. Its preservation as a public park ensures that both its tribal and farming heritage remain integral to the community’s history. EXISTING STRUCTURES Cleveland-Richardson Park retains several historic structures and landscape features that reflect its long agricultural past. The primary farmhouse, constructed in 1936, remains in moderately good condition and has the potential for adaptive reuse as a ranger residence, workshop, or visitor center. The adjacent outbuilding, dating to the late 19th century, is in severe disrepair and would require extensive rehabilitation if preserved. Other remnants of the property’s farming history, including a root cellar and cultivated fields, provide additional opportunities to interpret the site’s cultural legacy. Collectively, these features highlight the property’s evolution from family farm to public park and offer a foundation for preservation, adaptive programming, and outdoor education. 1936 HISTORICAL AERIAL OF THE SITE BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT12 ACCESS Vehicular access to the property is currently limited to informal, unpaved entry points along Talbot Road S that are not suitable for public use. Pedestrian access is similarly constrained, with no defined public entry points or established circulation routes through the site. Future improvements will focus on creating safe, welcoming, and identifiable vehicular and pedestrian access points. Over time, the park could be served by accessible pedestrian pathways that establish public access to and through the site, enhancing community connectivity and enabling the property to function as a fully accessible public park. UTILITIES The site is minimally served by existing utilities, with limited water and electrical connections suitable only for low- intensity residential use. Utility upgrades and extensions will be required to support future park programming, including public restrooms, pavilions, pedestrian-level park lighting, and irrigation. If the farmhouse is retained as a ranger residence (no change of use), utility work would likely be limited to targeted upgrades to meet current residential code requirements. Any change of use, would likely require increased utility capacity, electrical upgrades, fire and life-safety systems, and full ADA accessibility improvements. Soos Creek Water & Sewer District provides water and sewer service in the area, with existing lines along Talbot Road S and 92nd Avenue S. As future improvements are evaluated, the City will determine whether to connect to Soos Creek utilities or extend City-owned services along Talbot Road S. SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS Sa n i t a r y S e w e r UTILITY AVAILABILITY ALONG TALBOT ROAD S ACCESS TO THE SITE Storm D r a i n Storm Drain S t o r m F l o w L i n e Pond Spri n g b r o o k C r e e k BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT13 SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS STREAMS & WETLANDS ON SITE HYDROLOGY The Cleveland-Richardson Park property contains a network of streams and wetlands that drain to Springbrook Creek, which flows along the northeastern edge of the site. The site also receives stormwater from beyond its property boundaries— runoff from Talbot Road S, upper areas of the Springbrook watershed, and residential development south of the park is directed onto the property. Varied topography creates multiple, interconnected drainage patterns: the west fields occupy higher ground and primarily drain north and northeast toward the central field areas and Stream C, which eventually flows into Springbrook Creek. The central fields, bordered by wetlands and smaller tributaries, collect runoff from both the east and west portions of the site and convey it northward, serving as an important intermediary in the overall hydrologic system. Together, these flow patterns demonstrate a connected hydrologic system where all fields and slopes ultimately contribute to the wetlands and streams on site, which feed into Springbrook Creek. Beyond these fields, a steep, forested slope along the Kent–Renton boundary drains away from Springbrook Creek toward SR 167. This section of the site contains two identified wetlands that receive and manage runoff from the slope, providing localized water storage and ecological function. While portions of the site are underlain by stratified drift that may allow limited infiltration—particularly in the northeast field—the majority of the property has low infiltration potential due to shallow groundwater, seasonal ponding, and dense glacial till soils. These conditions constrain the feasibility of large-scale stormwater infiltration systems. Instead, the site is better suited to small-scale sustainable drainage features such as rain gardens, bioswales, and vegetated swales, which can slow, filter, and disperse runoff before it enters nearby waterways. Incorporating such features will help protect sensitive wetlands and tributary streams onsite, maintain hydrologic connectivity, and safeguard the quality of Renton’s drinking water supply. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT14 CRITICAL AREAS The site contains two primary categories of critical areas: wetlands and streams and geologically hazardous areas. These features are regulated under the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-050) and have implications for future development and site planning. Wetlands and Streams A total of six wetlands (A–F) were delineated onsite, along with an additional wetland (Wetland X) identified along the western parcel boundary. Wetlands A, B, and F were classified as Category II wetlands, requiring protective buffers ranging from 75 to 110 feet, while Wetlands C, D, and E were rated as Category III wetlands, requiring buffers of 60 feet based on habitat scores. Wetland X was preliminarily rated as a Category IV wetland with a 40-foot buffer. In addition, multiple streams traverse the property, including Springbrook Creek, which flows along the northern portion of the site and is classified as a Type F fish-bearing stream. Several smaller tributaries (Streams A–E) are also present and include a mix of Type F and Type Np classifications. Type F (fish- bearing) streams, including Springbrook Creek, require 115-foot buffers, while Type Np (non-fish-bearing) streams require 75-foot buffers. These aquatic systems are part of the Springbrook Creek watershed and have historically supported salmonid species, including coho, Chinook, steelhead, chum, and cutthroat trout. While downstream fish- passage barriers currently limit access to upstream reaches, Springbrook Creek and connected Type F streams remain regulated Habitat Conservation Areas (HCAs) under City of Renton code. Geologically Hazardous Areas The site includes topography regulated as Geologically Hazardous Areas. The steepest slopes, including Protected slopes and areas of High Erosion Hazard, occur primarily along the western edge of the property adjacent to SR 167 and near the intersection of Springbrook Creek and Talbot Road S. Any improvements in these locations will require careful consideration and coordination with a geotechnical engineer. Within the primary areas of park development, slopes are generally less than 25 percent and are not classified as Sensitive or Protected slopes. Portions of the site do include areas mapped as Sensitive slopes (less than 40 percent), which may influence trail alignment. Minor grading associated with trails, boardwalks, or ADA-compliant pathways are feasible within Sensitive slope areas with careful alignment and assessment. For planning purposes, minimum setbacks of 10 feet from Sensitive slopes and 15 feet from Protected slopes should be maintained. SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS >40% >25% >40%>25% >25% >25% >25% >15% >15% >15% >15% 92 nd Av e S Ke n t Re n t o n S SLOPE STUDY ON SITE BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT15 FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT The Cleveland-Richardson farmhouse, constructed in 1936, is the most prominent built feature on the site and a key physical reminder of the property’s agricultural heritage. A facility assessment completed by ARC Architects found the structure to be in moderately good condiƟ on, with no immediate life- safety concerns. However, the assessment idenƟ ﬁ ed the need for targeted maintenance, accessibility improvements, and upgrades to building systems to support future use. The level of required improvements would vary depending on the selected use. Accessibility upgrades would be required for any public or quasi-public funcƟ on, and addiƟ onal engineering studies are recommended to further evaluate structural capacity, uƟ liƟ es, and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems prior to reuse. PotenƟ al adapƟ ve reuse scenarios for the farmhouse include OpƟ on A: Ranger Residence, OpƟ on B: Day Use Workshop / Maintenance Facility, and OpƟ on C: Visitor / InterpreƟ ve Center. OpƟ on A would generally not consƟ tute a change of use and would therefore require fewer code-related upgrades. In contrast, OpƟ ons B and C, as public or assembly-type uses, would likely trigger a change of use and require more substanƟ al improvements, potenƟ ally including full ADA compliance, upgraded building systems, ﬁ re and life-safety improvements, and verƟ cal accessibility (such as an elevator or liŌ ), depending on ﬁ nal programming. An adjacent outbuilding, daƟ ng to the late 19th century, was also evaluated and found to be in severe disrepair. Any future use of this structure would require signiﬁ cant rehabilitaƟ on. AlternaƟ vely, removal and replacement may be considered, depending on the City’s preservaƟ on goals, budget, and long-term operaƟ ons strategy. While this report does not prescribe a speciﬁ c program for the farmhouse or outbuilding, the facility assessment establishes a clear baseline for future decision-making. As the City of Renton considers next steps, balancing historic preservaƟ on with funcƟ onal, operaƟ onal, and ﬁ nancial realiƟ es will be essenƟ al. Further evaluaƟ on will be required to reﬁ ne cost esƟ mates, conﬁ rm structural feasibility, and determine the appropriate level of investment needed to support long-term, community-serving uses of these faciliƟ es. *Please see Appendix F: Facility Assessment Report. FARMHOUSE BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT16 OPPORTUNITIES Cleveland-Richardson Park presents a rare opportunity to establish public open space in Southwest Renton—an area with limited park access and few large undeveloped parcels. The property’s natural systems and cultural history, provide a strong foundation for environmental restoration, education, and equitable community access. Understanding these existing assets is essential to shaping a master plan that protects the site’s existing assets while creating inclusive, meaningful connections to the surrounding community. • Community Connectivity - The park will help close a documented access gap in southwest Renton, strengthen pedestrian safety and walkability along Talbot Road S, and serve as a neighborhood destination for both the Talbot and Benson communities. • Cultural & Historic Resources - The farmhouse and surrounding property provide tangible links to Renton’s agricultural heritage and may offer opportunities for adaptive reuse, interpretation, or stewardship partnerships that celebrate the site’s history. • Cultural Identity & Community Gathering - Once part of the Duwamish homeland and later an agricultural landscape, the area has evolved into one of Renton’s most diverse neighborhoods. The park can serve as a unifying space that acknowledges this layered history while celebrating the cultures that shape the community today—welcoming residents of all backgrounds to connect and belong. • Open Space & Natural Features - At 23.7 acres, the property represents one of the largest remaining open spaces in southwest Renton, including former grazing fields interwoven with streams and wetlands—creating opportunities to enhance habitat, utilize green infrastructure, and provide outdoor recreation within a highly developed urban context. • Water Resources & Critical Areas - Existing wetlands, streams, and riparian areas offer opportunities for ecological restoration, habitat enhancement, and nature-based education. • Topography & Views - With nearly 100 feet of elevation change from east to west, the site provides opportunities for diverse outdoor experiences and views of Renton’s foothills. SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS POND AND HOUSE VIEW FROM EAST FIELD TO FARMHOUSE LOWER EAST FIELD LOOKING WEST WEST FIELD LOOKING EAST BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT17 CONSTRAINTS Cleveland-Richardson Park presents a range of site and regulatory constraints that will influence future design, permitting, and implementation. Addressing these considerations thoughtfully will be essential to balancing public access, environmental protection, and long-term park functionality. • Critical Areas & Buffers - The site contains multiple wetlands, streams, and fish-bearing waters that require protective buffers. Work within these areas must comply with municipal and state regulations. Early coordination with the City of Renton and long-term planning will be essential for balancing access, restoration, and environmental protection. • Geotechnical Limitations - Steep slopes, organic-rich soils, and shallow groundwater present challenges for grading, drainage, and construction. Development within slopes exceeding 25% is regulated under the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance and will require geotechnical review and special permitting. • Aging Structures - The farmhouse may have potential for adaptive reuse depending on its future function, but upgrades may be required to meet modern building and accessibility codes. Other structures on the site, including the shed and root cellar, appear structurally compromised and likely unsuitable for reuse. • Access & Circulation - Access to the site is currently limited, with no defined parking or pedestrian access. Usable land along Talbot Road S is constrained by the location of the pond, and during wet months, saturated soils further restrict access and usability. Future improvements will need to provide safe, accessible connections while responding to the site’s environmental constraints. • Vegetation Management - Invasive species are widespread throughout the property, complicating restoration efforts and suppressing native vegetation. Future management will need to focus on invasive species control, re-establishment of native plant communities, and long-term maintenance planning. • Regulatory Compliance - Future development will be subject to local, state, and federal permitting requirements related to wetlands, streams, slopes, and cultural resources. Early coordination and proactive environmental review will help streamline approvals and ensure compliance with all applicable regulations. SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS S TALBOT ROAD AND EXISTING FARMHOUSE ON SITETALBOT ROAD S SITE ACCESS AND FARMHOUSE AREA OFF TALBOT ROAD S BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT18 AERIAL LOOKING NORTHEAST HOUSE POND WETLAND SPRINGBROOK CREEK HEADWATERS WEST FIELD EAST FIELDS CENTRAL FIELDS WETLAND SITE INVENTORY & ANALYSIS AERIAL LOOKING WEST AERIAL LOOKING SOUTH POND HOUSE HOUSE POND WEST FIELD SOUTHEAST FIELD WETLAND TALBOT ROA D S CENTRAL FIELDS WETLAND 92ND AVE S SOUTHEAST FIELD CENTRAL FIELDS WETLAND NORTHEAST FIELD WETLAND NORTHEAST FIELD WETLAND SPRINGBROOK CREEK S P R I N G B R O O K C REEK SPRINGBROOK C R E E K TAL B O T R O A D S TALBOT ROA D S BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT19 FRAMEWORK The master planning process was shaped through meaningful engagement that prioritized in-person outreach with residents of Southwest Renton’s Talbot and Benson neighborhoods, ensuring that those most closely connected to the site had a direct voice in shaping the park’s future. Guided by the Community Engagement Plan, the process emphasized meeting people where they are—through school events, neighborhood pop-ups, and culturally responsive outreach—while also providing opportunities for broader community input through online engagement and participation at citywide events such as the Renton Farmers Market and River Days. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT GUIDING GOALS • Inclusive Participation – Create multiple, accessible opportunities for involvement through in-person and online engagement, multilingual materials, and culturally responsive outreach. • Equitable Representation – Center the perspectives of historically marginalized and underrepresented groups, including renters, immigrants, older adults, people with disabilities, and those who speak languages other than English. • Trusted Partnerships – Strengthen existing relationships with local schools, faith-based organizations, community-based organizations, and neighborhood groups to build long-term trust. • Transparent Process – Share project updates at key milestones and demonstrate how public input directly informed planning and design decisions. • Community-Centered Vision – Develop a park plan that reflects community values, balances recreation and preservation, and serves as a gathering place for current and future generations. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE The engagement process progressed through three phases—listening, exploring ideas, and refining a preferred concept. Each phase built on the efforts and feedback from the prior one, moving the project forward—toward a master plan that reflects community priorities. TEASDALE PARK POP-UP PHASE 1: LISTENING & LEARNING PHASE 2: EXPLORING IDEAS WINTER 2025 FALL 2025 SUMMER 2025 PHASE 3: CONFIRMING THE VISION BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT20 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ͳ PHASE 1 PHASE 1: LISTENING & LEARNING The initial phase of engagement focused on building awareness, sharing background information, and listening to nearby residents and City stakeholders. The team sought to understand community hopes, concerns, and aspirations while beginning to build relationships with the surrounding community. Through an array of outreach methods, the team introduced the project and early site analysis and gathered initial feedback that helped establish the program and criteria informing the first round of design concepts. Collectively, these efforts helped forge stronger connections with the future park users. CITY STAKEHOLDER MEETING The project team met with City staff and leadership to review the property’s context, environmental conditions, and potential role within Renton’s park system. Discussions emphasized the importance of cross-department coordination, opportunities for restoration and community gardening, and the need to align future planning with transportation, safety, and utility considerations. COMMUNITY OUTREACH Pop-up events were held at nearby apartments, schools, neighborhoods, and community gatherings within the Talbot and Benson communities. These sessions reached seniors, families, and multilingual residents, helping build early awareness and trust in the process. Participants shared concerns about safety, traffic, and site access, alongside strong interest in walking paths, playgrounds, and gathering spaces. Many also expressed a desire to keep the park natural while improving overall safety and accessibility. ONLINE ENGAGEMENT An online survey hosted on YourVoice Renton provided an accessible platform for residents to share their ideas, priorities, and concerns about the park’s future. The survey asked residents about their hopes for the site, the features and activities they would like to see, and any questions or considerations they wanted addressed as the project progressed. Participants expressed strong interest in walking paths, play areas, gardens, and gathering spaces, while emphasizing the importance of preserving open space, protecting natural resources, and reflecting the diversity of the surrounding community. WHAT WE HEARD Across all engagement activities, community feedback reflected a shared vision for a park that is: • Safe & Welcoming – A place for all ages, abilities, and backgrounds to comfortably enjoy the outdoors. • Connected & Accessible – Safe sidewalks, crossings, and walking routes along Talbot Road S that enhance access to the park. • Park Access & Safety – Traffic calming and safe vehicle access at the Talbot Road S entry, with restricted access at 92nd Avenue S. • Rooted in Nature – Preserving habitat, wetlands, tree canopy, and the natural character of the site. • Culturally Inclusive – Celebrating community diversity and history, including interpretation of the Cleveland-Richardson property. • Multi-functional – Offering spaces for outdoor recreation, community gathering, and quiet reflection. 92ND AVENUE S - NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT21 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ͳ PHASE 2 PHASE 2: EXPLORING IDEAS The second phase of engagement focused on sharing early design ideas and gathering community feedback to refine the park’s vision. Building on Phase 1 priorities, two preliminary concepts were developed to explore different approaches to balancing recreation, access, and environmental restoration. Through coordination with City departments, neighborhood briefings, pop-ups, and online engagement, the team presented these ideas, answered questions, and gathered input that shaped the preferred concept. CITY STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION The project team met regularly with City staff—including Parks, Planning, Utilities, and Transportation—to review concepts and discuss feasibility, operations, and code requirements. Coordination included online and in- person meetings and site walkthroughs focused on access, critical areas, frontage improvements, utilities, habitat restoration, and maintenance. This feedback helped align concepts with City priorities and regulatory pathways. COMMUNITY OUTREACH Phase 2 built on the neighborhood-based outreach strategy from Phase 1, with a continued focus on in-person engagement in the Talbot and Benson neighborhoods. The team hosted pop-ups at nearby elementary schools and local parks, along with briefings at a senior living facility and the Sikh Temple. At each location, residents reviewed design concepts, explored engagement boards, and provided feedback on park features. This phase continued to prioritize meeting people where they already spend time, creating accessible, low-barrier opportunities for participation. Following nearby neighborhood engagement events, City staff hosted project pop-ups at citywide events including the Farmer's Market and Renton River Days. ONLINE ENGAGEMENT To complement in-person outreach and expand participation, the project team also provided online engagement options. An online presentation, survey, and live webinar with a Q&A session allowed community members to review concepts, compare program elements, ask questions, and share preferences remotely. The YourVoice platform broadened participation beyond in-person events and captured feedback on amenities, circulation, programming, and overall park character.BENSON HILL ELEMENTARY WHAT WE HEARD Across all engagement activities, several themes consistently emerged: • Strong Preference for Nature-Forward Design – Residents favored concept elements that preserved streams, wetlands, and tree canopy while creating opportunities to explore nature. • Enthusiasm for Walking Loops & Trail Connections – Continuous walking paths, ADA- accessible routes, and connections to Talbot Road S remained top priorities. • Support for Select Recreation Features – Interest in playgrounds, community gardens, loop trails, and open lawn areas was balanced with a desire to avoid over-programming the site. • Access & Safety Remained Key Concerns – Feedback emphasized improving sidewalk access and crossings on Talbot Road S and designing a safe, clear entry into the park. • Cultural Visibility & Community Identity – Many residents supported incorporating cultural interpretation, community art, and opportunities to reflect the area’s diverse neighborhoods. • Desire for Gathering Space Without Major Events – Communities favored small and medium gathering spaces over large event venues, prioritizing day-to-day use by nearby residents. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT22 CONCEPTUAL PLANS The program options informed two contrasting conceptual directions: a Community Park focused on recreation amenities and gathering spaces, and a Nature Park emphasizing habitat, trails, and environmental restoration. This approach allowed the team to test whether residents prioritized active recreation, nature- based experiences, or a blend of both. While the concepts differ in character, several core elements appear in both—including park access, sidewalks, trails, pavilions, restrooms, habitat restoration and an on-site ranger residence—reflecting consistent themes heard throughout engagement. The conceptual plans shown on the following pages illustrate how these program elements could be organized on the site. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ͳ PHASE 2 CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT Building upon the Phase 1 efforts, the project team developed and shared program and layout options for the park. These materials were presented through community outreach, allowing residents to react to program elements, compare alternatives, and help shape the preferred concept. The intent was to spark dialogue and help the community imagine what is possible for the site. By using approachable graphics and meeting residents where they already gather, the team worked to demystify the design process and make it more accessible. This approach helped future park users understand the site, respond to ideas, and engage in meaningful conversations—an essential step in shaping concepts that reflect community needs and values. PROGRAM EXPLORATION BOARDS The program sketches were developed to present program options—shaped by early community input— in an accessible, engaging, and easy-to-understand illustrated format. The hand-drawn style created a cohesive, approachable look that invited participation from all ages. Graphics were translated into Spanish and Punjabi, and interpreters were available at several events to support multilingual engagement. The boards served as a visual menu of potential park features and were paired with dot-exercise activities that helped identify which elements resonated most with the community. This approach provided clear insight into the amenities residents valued most and directly informed the program and direction of the design concepts. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT23 CONCEPT A ͳ COMMUNITY PARK PARKWIDE FEATURES: • Bird Watching • Boardwalk Trail • Information Station • Interpretive Signage • Trail • Food Truck Staging • Public Art • Orchard • Community Garden • Zipline • Pump Track • Ranger Residence • Parking • Restroom • Sidewalks COMMUNITY PARK A lively, activity-rich community park brings people together through recreation and shared outdoor spaces. The design includes popular amenities—such as a pump track, sports courts, playground, a zipline, and a spacious community lawn—intended to create a highly usable park for daily visits and neighborhood gatherings. Enhanced pedestrian connectivity along Talbot Road S, and a welcoming park entry respond directly to community priorities around access and safety. A network of ADA-accessible paths and boardwalks supports exploration of the site’s natural areas, while the orchard and community garden connect visitors to the property’s homestead history and create opportunities for cultural expression. Overall, this approach emphasizes flexible outdoor spaces for small and medium-sized groups, reflecting community preferences while integrating environmentally conscious design suited to the site’s natural systems. GRAPHIC SCALE ˯̫̔̀ ̒ˣ˿̇ˣ̔́̍˥˿˸́̍̒̀˝̗˶̓˹ˤ̖̉˪ ̀ˡ ́̎˯̀̏˱ ˣ̖˹̘˴̓˶̓ˣ̓˽̍Ʌ˿̔˦̍ ˣ̖˹̘˴̓˶̓ˣ̓˽̍Ʌ˿̔˦̍ ˻̍˧ȶ˺ ̀ ̍ ̗́̍̀̍ȷ ˯̫̔̀ȳ˿ˣ˴̍ ̒ˬ˹̀ ̍ ˡ ˸ ˺̊˱˯˿̘˥ : ˬ̍˳˥̍˿̓˥̗̔˶˿ ˹̖˫̓˶̔˦˳˶̓˵̗̍ ̒́˝̒˦˝˴˽˥ˣ̖˥̔˴ ˥ˣ˿˴˶̍ˣ˯̔̃˸ ˿̎ˣ˯˿̊˽ ˿̕ˬ˿ ˶ ̍ ̒ ˸ ́ ̍ ˣ ˹˿̖˹˿̍˧˴˦̔˱˶̓˵̗̍ ˹̖˹˯˿̎˥ ˻̍ˣ˥̔˯˻̍̀ȳ ̇̉˯ˣ̀˥̋˿˯ ˝˿˯ȶ˥̀̍ȷ ˣ˽̊˶̍ˠ˻̍˧ ˭̓̀ ̒˹˥̒˸˥̃̎˱ ˣ˽̉˶̍ˠ̀ˡ˨̍ˤ˶̍ ˽̎˶̍˸ ˣ˯̫̓˽ • Enhanced Pond • Picnic Pavilion • Community Lawn • Exercise Stations • Traditional Playground • Pump Track • Tennis / Pickleball Court • Basketball / Futsol Court UNIQUE FEATURES: BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT24 CONCEPT B ͳ NATURE PARK NATURE PARK A nature-forward vision restores the site’s ecological systems and provides immersive opportunities for visitors to engage with the natural world. A rich trail network—featuring ADA-accessible routes, boardwalks, forest loops, interpretive stations, and elevated viewpoints—encourages exploration and environmental learning while protecting sensitive habitats. Playful elements such as a nature playground, zipline, and themed trail are integrated in ways that respect surrounding ecological functions. Meadow areas replace traditional lawn, offering seasonal beauty, habitat value, and quiet places for reflection. Enhanced pedestrian access and a welcoming park entry alleviate community concerns about connectivity and safety. Community gardens, orchards, and opportunities for cultural storytelling reinforce the site’s agricultural history and diverse neighborhood identity. Together, these features foster stewardship, outdoor education, and a deeper connection between residents and the natural systems that define Cleveland-Richardson Park. • Constructed Wetland • Native Plant Garden • Meadow Restoration • Viewing Platform • Event Center • Outdoor Classroom • Nature Playground • Themed Trail Loop GRAPHIC SCALE ̒́˝̒˦˝˴˽˥ ˣ ̖˥̔˴ ̒ˣ˿̇ˣ̔́̍˥˿˸́̍̒̀˝̗˶̓˹ˤ̖̉˪ ̀ˡ ́̎˯̀̏˱ ˣ˯̫̓˽ ˣ̖˹̘˴̓˶̓ˣ̓˽̍Ʌ˿̔˦̍ ˣ̖˹̘˴̓˶̓ˣ̓˽̍Ʌ˿̔˦̍ ˝˿˯ȶ˥̀̍ȷ ˹ ̖˫ ̓ ˶ ̔˦ ˳ ˶ ̓ ˵ ̍ ̗ ˻̍˧ ȶ ˺ ̀ ̍ ̗́̍̀ ̍ ȷ ˺̊˱˯˿̘˥ ̒ˬ ˹ ̀ ̍ ˡ ˸ ˯̫̔̀ȳ˿ˣ˴̍ ˿̎ˣ˯˿̊˽ ˿̕ˬ˿ ˶ ̍ ̒ ˸ ́ ̍ ˣ ˵̓˽˱˯̫̔̀ ˥̉˶˿˴̓˦̔˱˶̓˵̗̍ ˯̫̔̀̒˸˿̓˦˳˽̖˪ ˶̔ˣ̓˹̐̒˶˝̗˶̍˻̍˧ ˻̍ˤ˿̓˥̀̍ˣ˿̊˽̊ ˠ́̏˯ˣ̏˯˿˯̫̔̀ȳ˿ˣ˴̍ ́ ̎˯ ̀ ̏˱ : ˬ̍˳˥̍˿̓ ˥̗̔˶˿ ˹̖˫̓ ˶̔˦˳ ˶̓ ˵̗̍ ˝˿˯ȶ˥̀̍ȷ ˣ˽̊˶̍ˠ ˻̍˧ PARKWIDE FEATURES: • Bird Watching • Boardwalk Trail • Information Station • Interpretive Signage • Trail • Food Truck Staging • Public Art • Orchard • Community Garden • Zipline • Pump Track • Ranger Residence • Parking • Restroom • Sidewalks UNIQUE FEATURES: BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT25 PHASE 2 DOTS EXERCISE VOTES Orchard Community Garden Outdoor Classroom Community Lawn Information Station Interpretive Signage Picnic Pavilion Event Center Food Truck Art Viewing Platform Pond Exercise Stations Traditional Playground Nature Playground Zipline Bird Watching Boardwalk Trail Pump Track Tennis / Pickleball Court Basketball / Futsol Court Themed Trail Trail Native Plant Garden Dog Area COLLECTING FEEDBACK Throughout the community outreach process, the project team tracked feedback to help guide the development of the design concepts and the preferred concept. Community members were invited to react to potential park amenities, programming, and the two preliminary concepts, and to share their thoughts directly with the project team. The goal was to understand which elements resonated most with residents across all ages, backgrounds, and engagement formats. The intention was not to select a single concept, but to identify community priorities that would shape a final plan reflecting local needs and expectations. HOW FEEDBACK WAS COLLECTED Community input was gathered through a combination of in-person and online methods: • Dot-exercise voting at community events and pop- ups • Written comments collected during in-person engagement • A public webinar and Q&A • An online survey via the City’s YourVoice platform • Additional comments submitted by email and through the project webpage Concept A Concept B Votes COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ͳ PHASE 2 BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT26 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ͳ PHASE 2 PHASE 2 ONLINE VOTES Community Garden Outdoor Classroom Community Lawn Information Station Interpretive Signage Picnic Pavilion Event Center Food Truck Art Viewing Platform Pond Exercise Stations Traditional Playground Nature Playground Zipline Bird Watching Boardwalk Trail Pump Track Tennis / Pickleball Court Basketball / Futsol Court Themed Trail Trail Native Plant Garden Security Improvements Water Feature Dog Area Park Ranger Fencing Votes Concept A Concept B Both WORD CLOUD — A VISUAL SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNITY’S TOP PRIORITIES. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT27 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ͳ PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS Phase 2 generated the strongest engagement response of the entire process, demonstrating that the outreach approach successfully reached the surrounding community. Across in-person events, school-based activities, pop-ups, and the online questionnaire, the project team received hundreds of comments, over a thousand dot votes, and dozens of online responses and emails. This volume of feedback affirmed that residents were deeply invested in shaping the future of the park. In-person engagement proved especially impactful, allowing the project team to connect directly with families, students, seniors, and neighbors. These conversations provided valuable context behind people’s choices, reinforced community needs, and helped clarify priorities across all demographics. Together, this feedback provided a strong foundation for refining the initial concepts into a preferred concept that reflects community values, supports cultural identity, and aligns with the City’s long-term stewardship goals. Public engagement efforts collected a total of 320 Post-It Notes, 41 Online Responses, and 1,072 Dots. The community consensus of desired park elements are ranked as follows: • Traditional Playground (138) • Zipline (133) • Trail (94) • Food Truck (90) • Pond (77) • Pump Track (76) • Nature Playground (72) • Art (70) • Community Garden (65) • Tennis / Pickleball Court (59) • Event Center (58) • Boardwalk Trail (53) • Native Plant Garden (51) • Basketball / Futsol Court (48) • Community Lawn (46) • Picnic Pavilion (44) • Security Improvements (43) • Themed Trail (40) • Bird Watching (38) • Orchard (38) • Interpretive Signage (37) • Viewing Platform (35) • Exercise Stations (32) • Outdoor Classroom (29) • Road Improvements (27) • Information Station (15) • Dog Area (13) • Sidewalks (12) Concept Votes • Concept A (19) • Concept B (42) • Both Concepts (2) TALBOT HILL ELEMENTARY BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT28 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ͳ PHASE 3 PHASE 3: CONFIRMING THE VISION Phase 3 focused on transforming the broad community input collected in Phase 2 into a refined preferred concept that is both community-driven and technically feasible. This stage involved synthesizing community priorities with the City’s operational, regulatory, and long-term stewardship requirements to shape a concept that is realistic, safe, and buildable. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Feedback from Phase 2 highlighted strong community preferences for: • Nature-forward design and habitat protection • Trails and accessible connections • Safe and welcoming park access • Play areas and gathering spaces • Visibility, safety and inclusive amenities This feedback guided the refinement of each major design component. CITY PRIORITIES & REQUIREMENTS To ensure long-term functionality and safety, the City identified several key priorities: • Adequate parking for daily use and special events • Safe, intuitive site access along Talbot Road S • Frontage improvements and sidewalks • Clear sightlines and eyes on the park • Maintenance and utility access • ADA-compliant circulation throughout the site • Minimizing impacts within critical area buffers These requirements helped shape decisions on placement, scale, and feasibility. CONCEPT FEASIBILITY DISCUSSIONS As the preferred concept took shape, City staff reviewed early sketches and layouts to provide input on safety, operations, and long-term maintenance. The project team also evaluated the full range of community and stakeholder feedback to determine how best to meet community needs while protecting the site’s natural systems. Through this process, the team identified where community preferences aligned with site conditions and City requirements, and where adjustments were needed to ensure the plan was feasible and sustainable. STAKEHOLDER SITE VISIT The Parks & Recreation team walked the site with the design team to: • Review conceptual sketches • Understand terrain, slopes, hydrology, and buffer conditions • Discuss operations and maintenance needs • Test ADA routes and potential grading adjustments The design team also conducted additional site walks to refine alignments and confirm spatial relationships with on-the-ground conditions. MULTIͳDEPARTMENT COORDINATION Meetings with Utilities, Planning, and Transportation Divisions provided critical technical guidance on: • Frontage improvements and sidewalks • Traffic calming and access locations • Utility extensions • Critical area buffers and regulatory compliance • Stormwater management considerations This coordination ensured the preferred concept aligns with City standards and long-term operational needs. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT29 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ͳ PHASE 3 NEXT STEPS IN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT The preferred concept will be presented to the community through the project website, advertised through multiple-channels, and at future engagement events. Throughout the engagement procress, the City Council's Community Services Committee has been briefed on the project progress. The Final Master Plan will ultimately be adopted by this Council Committee. These touchpoints will give residents and stakeholders an opportunity to review the refined concept and provide additional input as the project moves from concept toward documentation. The plan will also be shared with grant agencies and potential partners to support future funding and collaboration. While this master plan primarily focuses on the physical design and built elements of the park, community engagement eff orts also highlighted strong interest in a range of future programs and acƟ viƟ es. Feedback emphasized opportuniƟ es such as aŌ er-school nature clubs, a tool-lending library, ﬁ eld trips, and hands-on nature and gardening educaƟ on. Although these programmaƟ c ideas are not prescribed within the scope of the master plan, the proposed design framework is intended to support and enable such uses over Ɵ me by providing ﬂ exible spaces, access to natural areas, and infrastructure that can accommodate evolving City Parks Department and community-led programming. FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INPUT Additional opportunities for feedback will continue as the project advances into construction documents and detailed design, particularly for key elements such as the playground and gathering spaces. The community will also be engaged as the City coordinates permitting, utility extensions, and engineering work to ensure the design reflects both community priorities and technical requirements. PROJECT SITE VISIT BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT30 OVERVIEW The Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan was developed through an iteraƟ ve design process integraƟ ng community prioriƟ es, site constraints, and coordinaƟ on with City stakeholders. Community feedback gathered during Phase 1 and Phase 2 informed each design iteraƟ on, shaping overall program direcƟ on, park character, and user experience. Phase 3 builds on this work and focuses on reﬁ ning the concepts into a single preferred concept. Concept Reﬁ nement Guided by community feedback, the design team reﬁ ned the design concepts into a single preferred approach. Layout opƟ ons were evaluated against environmental constraints, access and circulaƟ on needs, grading, drainage, uƟ liƟ es, and long-term maintenance consideraƟ ons, with the goal of minimizing environmental impacts, preserving the site’s natural character, and supporƟ ng community use and gathering. Access & Technical Studies Through coordinaƟ on with the City’s Parks, Planning, TransportaƟ on, and Fire departments, the design team evaluated park access, circulaƟ on, parking, emergency access, and service needs. This coordinaƟ on helped conﬁ rm feasible access locaƟ ons and informed how infrastructure and operaƟ onal requirements inﬂ uenced the overall park layout. Grading & ADA TesƟ ng Technical studies were undertaken to evaluate grading, ADA accessibility, and circulaƟ on across the site’s varied topography. These studies informed pathway alignments, amenity placement, and verƟ cal relaƟ onships between the entry, parking areas, and lower ﬁ elds, ensuring accessible connecƟ ons while minimizing grading and environmental disturbance. Program Reﬁ nements Park ameniƟ es and program elements were further reﬁ ned to balance nature-based recreaƟ on with community-serving features. Elements from both design concepts were incorporated where they improved funcƟ onality, access, or community beneﬁ t. Reﬁ nements focused on visibility, proximity to parking, operaƟ onal needs, and long-term maintenance consideraƟ ons. Preferred Concept The preferred concept represents a synthesis of community input, site condiƟ ons, and technical evaluaƟ on developed through ongoing City coordinaƟ on. Together, these steps informed a master plan that responds to the site’s natural character, history, and context, supports inclusive access, and balances environmental stewardship with meaningful public use, as illustrated in the following pages. CONCEPT REFINEMENT ACCESS & TECHNICAL STUDIES GRADING & ADA TESTING PROGRAM REFINEMENTS PREFERRED CONCEPT SITE ANALYSIS OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROGRAMMING DESIGN CONCEPTS 1. COMMUNITY PARK 2. NATURE PARK COMMUNITY FEEDBACK PH A S E 1 PH A S E 2 PH A S E 3 DESIGN PROCESS BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT31 Extents of grading Pond removal and ﬁ ll; re-rouƟ ng of Stream AExtents of grading ADA-compliant pathways ADA-compliant boardwalk Proposed park layout Wetlands and streams Stormwater management areas ADA-compliant pathways Pathways and trails Permeable paving UƟ liƟ es and frontage Property Line SITEͳ SPECIFIC DESIGN RESPONSE The layout of Cleveland-Richardson Park is fundamentally shaped by the site’s natural systems and physical constraints. Wetlands, streams, and topography deﬁ ne where development can occur and where it should be avoided, resulƟ ng in a design approach that minimizes disturbance and concentrates improvements in areas best suited to accommodate use. Pathways and trails follow the natural contours of the land, reducing disturbance while allowing visitors to move comfortably through the site. Accessibility was a primary design driver, resulƟ ng in a network of ADA-compliant pathways and boardwalks that provide access across much of the park, including through the weƩ er core of the property. Safe vehicular and pedestrian access from Talbot Road S is another key consideraƟ on, supporƟ ng parking, uƟ liƟ es, sidewalks, and traffi c-calming improvements needed for long-term park funcƟ onality. Stormwater management is integrated into the landscape using a low-impact development approach that emphasizes dispersion, treatment, and reduced runoff volumes. Grading is limited to what is necessary to support accessibility, circulaƟ on, and key ameniƟ es, while permeable paving and green infrastructure manage water onsite. Together, these elements reﬂ ect a site-speciﬁ c design response that works with the land—allowing the site’s natural character to guide the park’s form, layout, and visitor experience. DESIGN PROCESS BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT32 PARK AMENITY LAYOUTS & RELATIONSHIPS A series of diagrams was used to test and reﬁ ne the locaƟ on and relaƟ onships of key park ameniƟ es— including the playground, picnic pavilion, restroom, community garden, and orchard—throughout development of the master plan. These studies helped evaluate how grading, circulaƟ on, and access funcƟ on together, parƟ cularly at the park entry where the site drops from the upper parking and house area to the ﬁ elds below. This verƟ cal relaƟ onship informed how visitors enter the park, move between levels, and access ameniƟ es while maintaining ADA-compliant routes and accommodaƟ ng maintenance vehicles. The diagrams also guided decisions about amenity placement by prioriƟ zing visibility, safety, and ease of access. Key ameniƟ es are clustered near the house and primary parking area to maintain clear sightlines from the park entry and simplify uƟ lity connecƟ ons and long-term maintenance. The restroom, playground, and picnic pavilion are located in close proximity to support shared use and event funcƟ onality, while the community garden, orchard, naƟ ve plant areas, pollinator habitat, and beehive staging are grouped together to support shared infrastructure, stewardship, and educaƟ onal opportuniƟ es. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS Frontage improvements along Talbot Road S are a key consideraƟ on for long-term park access, safety, and connecƟ vity. CoordinaƟ on with the City of Renton to date has idenƟ ﬁ ed a preferred concept that includes a sidewalk, planƟ ng strip, and bike lane, with the sidewalk recognized as the highest priority improvement. These elements are intended to improve pedestrian safety and access to the park while responding to community concerns about speeding and walkability. The proposed design aligns with the 2019 Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan. Tra ffi c calming measures—such as enhanced crossings or other intersecƟ on treatments—have also been discussed at a conceptual level; however, the feasibility, scope, and Ɵ ming of these improvements will depend on available funding and further coordinaƟ on with the Public Works - TransportaƟ on Division. Talbot Road S also funcƟ ons as a primary uƟ lity corridor for the park, with potenƟ al extensions of water, sewer, power, and communicaƟ ons infrastructure required to serve proposed ameniƟ es. UƟ lity rouƟ ng and provider coordinaƟ on, including potenƟ al involvement of Soos Creek Water & Sewer District, will be evaluated during future design phases. AddiƟ onal consideraƟ ons include stormwater management associated with roadway and frontage improvements. Preliminary discussions have idenƟ ﬁ ed the northeast corner of the property as a potenƟ al locaƟ on for roadway-related stormwater infrastructure, subject to further study and regulatory coordinaƟ on. DESIGN PROCESS Developable Area Grading Study at East Fields Amenity Layout - Study A Amenity Layout - Study B Playground, Pavilion & Restroom Community Garden & Orchard Ta l b o t R o a d S Parking & Entry Community Garden & Orchard Playground, Pavilion & Restroom BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT33 SAFETY Safety consideraƟ ons guided the organizaƟ on of park access, circulaƟ on, and ameniƟ es and are aligned with Crime PrevenƟ on Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. The potenƟ al conƟ nued use of the exisƟ ng farmhouse as a ranger residence is a key component of both safety and maintenance, providing an on-site presence that supports stewardship, monitoring, and community conﬁ dence. AcƟ ve uses and gathering areas are clustered near the park entry and parking area to maintain visibility and natural surveillance, while pathways are designed to be intuiƟ ve and avoid isolated condiƟ ons where possible. Boardwalks, trail crossings, and access points are aligned to safely navigate wetlands and streams while maintaining clear sightlines. AddiƟ onal safety consideraƟ ons include pedestrian- scale lighƟ ng, emergency call staƟ ons, a gate located at the main parking lot, and controlled access at the 92nd Avenue S entry, which is intended to remain limited to pedestrian, service, and emergency use. Ongoing coordinaƟ on with neighbors and City staff will be important to ensure this access point is secure, monitored, and responsive to neighborhood concerns. MAINTENANCE Maintenance consideraƟ ons were integrated early to support long-term stewardship of the park given its size, ecological sensiƟ vity, and variety of ameniƟ es. Overall, park durability, vandal-resistance, and ease of maintenance – and long-term maintenance will be key consideraƟ ons. Management of invasive species—parƟ cularly blackberry—will be a signiﬁ cant ongoing challenge and opportunity. The master plan anƟ cipates a combinaƟ on of approaches, including phased removal, reestablishment of naƟ ve vegetaƟ on, and potenƟ al partnerships with community groups or environmental organizaƟ ons to support stewardship and restoraƟ on eff orts. Durable, vandal-resistant materials and low- maintenance ameniƟ es are prioriƟ zed throughout the park to reduce long-term repair and replacement needs. PlanƟ ng strategies emphasize naƟ ve and adapƟ ve species suited to site condiƟ ons to minimize irrigaƟ on, mowing, and ongoing landscape maintenance. Access for maintenance vehicles was a key driver, with primary circulaƟ on routes and boardwalks designed to accommodate small maintenance equipment where feasible. Clustering of ameniƟ es near the primary entry and parking area further supports effi cient access for operaƟ ons, uƟ liƟ es, and servicing. On-site storage for community garden tools, light park maintenance equipment, and a small tractor is also a consideraƟ on, with potenƟ al use of the exisƟ ng farmhouse garage or a separate maintenance shed. PHASING The Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan is intended to be implemented in phases to align with available funding, permiƫ ng requirements, and operaƟ onal capacity. An iniƟ al phase will focus on safely opening the site for public use, consistent with prior grant commitments, and is anƟ cipated to prioriƟ ze primary vehicular and pedestrian access, the parking area, core pathways, and essenƟ al ameniƟ es such as restrooms. Subsequent phases may include the playground, picnic shelter, and supporƟ ng gathering spaces, followed by community-focused ameniƟ es such as the community garden, orchard, pavilion, and community lawn as funding allows. Trail improvements will be phased over Ɵ me, with iniƟ al emphasis on establishing site access and circulaƟ on, and later phases allowing for expansion of the hiking trail, themed woodland trail, and addiƟ onal interpreƟ ve elements. This phased approach provides ﬂ exibility to respond to funding opportuniƟ es while ensuring each phase funcƟ ons independently and supports the park’s long-term vision. DESIGN PROCESS BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT34 PRIMARY PARK ACCESS & ACTIVITY AREA The Primary Park Access & AcƟ vity Area funcƟ ons as the central organizing hub of Cleveland-Richardson Park, bringing together the park’s primary arrival, circulaƟ on, and acƟ vity spaces. This area concentrates the most acƟ ve uses—including parking and access, the playground, community garden and orchard, community lawn, and supporƟ ng ameniƟ es—within a cohesive framework that balances accessibility, recreaƟ on, learning, and environmental stewardship. Arrival from Talbot Road S is marked by a clear park entry and overlook that provides orientaƟ on and a visual connecƟ on to the landscape beyond. From this point, a network of accessible pathways distributes visitors throughout the park, connecƟ ng the parking area to the playground and support faciliƟ es, as well as to the community lawn, orchard, and garden areas. Pathways are arranged to support intuiƟ ve circulaƟ on while also creaƟ ng opportuniƟ es to slow down, pause, and engage with views, planƟ ng, and natural features. The preferred concept replaces the exisƟ ng pond with a constructed wetland, improving site circulaƟ on, safety, and ecological funcƟ on while reinforcing the park’s idenƟ ty as a landscape shaped by water and seasonal change. Adjacent seaƟ ng areas, informal gathering spaces, and nature-based play features are integrated into this area to support observaƟ on, exploraƟ on, and everyday use without compromising sensiƟ ve resources. Overall, this area of the park is envisioned as a ﬂ exible, welcoming, and highly visible part of the park— capable of supporƟ ng daily neighborhood use as well as larger community gatherings. The design works with the site’s natural topography and agricultural history to create a place where movement, play, learning, and stewardship are closely connected to the surrounding Paciﬁ c Northwest landscape. PREFERRED CONCEPT Community Lawn Orchard Community Garden Overﬂ ow Parking Parking Playground Constructed Wetland Spring b r o o k Creek Ta l b o t R o a d S Fr o n t a g e I m p r o v e m e n t s Open Field BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT35 PLAYGROUND The master plan proposes a hillside playground that takes advantage of the site’s natural topography to create a dynamic, mulƟ -level play experience. The lower Ɵ er accommodates the primary play area, including the zipline, while an upper terrace provides a picnic pavilion, restrooms, seaƟ ng, and access to embankment slides that connect directly to the play zone below. The playground is designed to serve a range of ages and abiliƟ es and is framed by seaƟ ng and informal gathering areas that support supervision, social interacƟ on, and ﬂ exible use by caregivers and families. PARKING LOT & SITE ACCESS The master plan proposes site enhancements for pedestrians and vehicles to improve accessibility, safety, and visitor experience. Access along Talbot Road S will be improved through coordinaƟ on with the City of Renton’s TransportaƟ on Department, including sidewalks that provide safe pedestrian routes to the park. Vehicular access is located adjacent to the exisƟ ng farmhouse, while access from the 92nd Avenue S neighborhood will be limited to pedestrians, service vehicles, and emergency access to prioriƟ ze neighborhood safety and minimize traffi c impacts. An ADA-accessible parking lot with approximately 67 spaces is proposed to serve daily use and special events. The parking area is designed to accommodate school buses, service vehicles, and food trucks, while providing access to the park’s interior and primary gathering areas. A reinforced turf overﬂ ow parking area is also proposed to support larger events. Early design studies explored retaining the exisƟ ng pond adjacent to the parking area; however, this conﬁ guraƟ on constrained vehicle circulaƟ on, reduced parking capacity, and resulted in substandard turning radii. Pedestrian access also required visitors to walk around the pond to enter the park, creaƟ ng poor sightlines and safety concerns. The master plan proposes replacing the pond with a constructed wetland to resolve these issues and allow for a funcƟ onal parking layout, appropriate vehicle circulaƟ on, and clear visibility into the park, while enhancing habitat funcƟ on. PREFERRED CONCEPT Zipline Em b a n k m e n t Slid e s Pavi l i o n R e s t r o o m Playground Overﬂ ow Parking Parking Ranger Reside n c e Park Entry & Overlook O n e W a y Ga t e Gat e Vi s i b i l i t y T r i a n g l e Fr o n t a g e Im p r o v e m e n t s Food Trucks Nature Play Ta l b o t R o a d S SeaƟ ng & AcƟ vity Node Pedestr i a n Access BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT36 BOARDWALK TRAIL The center of the site contains a network of wetlands and seasonally saturated pastures that present both ecological value and access challenges. The master plan proposes a boardwalk trail to provide an elevated, ADA-accessible route through this area, allowing visitors to experience the landscape while avoiding impacts to wetlands and streams. The boardwalk creates a durable, all- season pathway that maintains natural hydrology and protects vegetaƟ on and soils, while also off ering opportuniƟ es to step off the main trail to pause, gather, reﬂ ect, and connect with the surrounding natural environment. COMMUNITY GARDEN, ORCHARD & LAWN The master plan introduces a community garden, orchard, and ﬂ exible community lawn as complementary features that reﬂ ect the site’s agricultural history while supporƟ ng a wide range of contemporary uses. The community garden and orchard provide opportuniƟ es for gardening, orchard culƟ vaƟ on, beehive staging, and naƟ ve plant propagaƟ on—off ering residents a safe, accessible place to grow food, learn, and build long-term stewardship within a shared park seƫ ng. The adjacent ﬁ eld is envisioned as a ﬂ exible community lawn that accommodates large gatherings, community events, informal recreaƟ on, or quiet relaxaƟ on. Framed by a walking loop, this open space maintains a ﬁ eld- like character that references the site’s agricultural past while adapƟ ng it for shared public use. Together, these spaces balance acƟ ve parƟ cipaƟ on and open-ended use, connecƟ ng visitors to both the land’s history and its evolving role as a community resource. PREFERRED CONCEPT Orchard Community Lawn Community Garden NaƟ ve Plant Garden Pavilion Gathering Circle Boardwalk Res t o r e d Wet l a n d Str e a m St r e a m Restored Wetland BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT37 WEST FIELD Situated on a high plateau, the West Field off ers views toward the Renton foothills and is envisioned as a simple, open landscape with a light design touch. The master plan proposes maintaining this area as a largely naturalisƟ c pasture with a soŌ -surface crushed rock trail and minimal, unobtrusive ameniƟ es that allow visitors to enjoy the views without interrupƟ ng the character of the landscape. Adjacent to the ﬁ eld, the evergreen forest provides an opportunity for a themed woodland trail, designed as a quiet, immersive experience and a unique desƟ naƟ on within the park. The West Field is accessed from 92nd Avenue S; however, as noted previously, this connecƟ on will be limited to pedestrian, service, and emergency access to avoid negaƟ ve impacts to the adjacent neighborhood. HIKING TRAIL A hiking trail is proposed from the upper West Field that descends the hillside to a former pasture that has been largely disconnected from the rest of the site. This new connecƟ on reopens access to a quieter, more remote porƟ on of the property and creates opportuniƟ es for environmental restoraƟ on, observaƟ on, and study in an area buff ered from higher park use. As the trail passes through the former pasture, it will cross two small streams using footbridges to avoid impacts to wetlands and stream channels. The trail then connects to a viewpoint overlooking Springbrook Creek and a small pasture with remnant fruit and walnut trees, before linking directly to the community lawn and orchard area. Together, this hiking trail expands access to previously underuƟ lized areas of the site and serves as a key segment in establishing a conƟ nuous, walkable loop around the park. PREFERRED CONCEPT Themed Trail SoŌ Surface Trail SeaƟ ng & AcƟ vity Node SeaƟ ng & AcƟ vity Node Viewpoint Shelter 92nd Ave S Gate Viewpoint Shelter Hiking Trail Habitat RestoraƟ on & Study Area Stre a m Bridge Bridge SeaƟ ng & AcƟ vity Node Open Field Open Field PART II | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER REPORT38 CLEVELANDͳ RICHARDSON ͳ MASTER PLAN 1 2 3 4 S 5 BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT39 DEMOLITION • Stripping, Clear & Grub • Structure Removal • Pond Removal EARTHWORK • Site Grading • Cut & Fill • Pond Fill • Constructed Wetland • Bioswales / Bioretention • Import & Export TEMPORARY FACILITIES & EROSION CONTROL • Construction Fencing • Construction Entrances • Silt Fence, Straw Waddles, Sediment Barriers DRAINAGE • Storm Pipe • Underdrainage • Culverts • Catch Basins UTILITIES • Sanitary Sewer • Domestic Water • Water Meter • Storm Sewer • Electrical Connection • Electrical Pedestal • Communication Line PAVING • Paved Pathways • Gravel Pathways • Trails • Permeable Paving • Curbs BOARDWALK • Fiberglass Grating • Pile Supports • Safety Border SITE FEATURES • Retaining Walls • Fencing & Gates • Stream Crossings • Railings STRUCTURES • Picnic Pavilions • Restrooms • Shade Canopy PLAYGROUND • Play Equipment • Play Surfacing • Embankment Treatment • Nature Playground PARK LIGHTING • Light Poles • Pavilion Lighting • Junction Boxes • Wire & Conduit • Emergency Call Box SITE FURNISHINGS • Park Benches & Tables • Bicycle Racks • Waste Receptacles • Park Signage • Interpretive Signage • Bollards LANDSCAPING • Trees • Revegetation Planting • Park Landscaping • Forest / Invasive Species Management • Lawn Area • Reinforced Turf • Mulch • Soil Import IRRIGATION • Irrigation Meter & Controller • Lawn Irrigation • Planter Bed Irrigation • Temporary Irrigation SUBͳTOTAL 10% MOBILIZATION 20% DE SIGN & CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY 10.5% SALES TAX CONSTRUCTION TOTAL *Note: Permit, design, and inspection fees not included. $473,709.00 $6,029,085.00 $602,908.50 $1,205,817.00 $822,970.10 PARK CONSTRUCTION ͳ PROBABLE COST $220,810.00 $60,360.00 $326,840.00 $183,000.00 $866,283.00 $702,240.00 $236,250.00 $960,000.00 $743,100.00 $239,000.00 $212,750.00 $690,875.00 $113,868.00 $8,660,780.60 Cost estimates are presented in Q1 2026 dollars. For planning purposes, future construction costs are assumed to escalate at an average annual inflation rate of 5 percent beyond 2026. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT40 ARCHITECTURE ͳ PROBABLE COST OPTIONS FARMHOUSE RENOVATION ͳ OPTION A • Ranger Residence SUBͳTOTAL 10% MOBILIZATION 20% DE SIGN & CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY 10.5% SALES TAX CONSTRUCTION TOTAL *Note: Sales tax, permits and design fees not included. $845,425.00 $845,425.00 $84,542.50 $169,085.00 $115,400.51 $1,214,453.01 FARMHOUSE RENOVATION ͳ OPTION B • Day Use Workshop / Maintenance Facility SUBͳTOTAL 10% MOBILIZATION 20% DE SIGN & CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY 10.5% SALES TAX CONSTRUCTION TOTAL *Note: Sales tax, permits and design fees not included. $1,570,075.00 $1,570,075.00 $157,007.50 $314,015.00 $214,315.24 $2,255,412.74 FARMHOUSE RENOVATION ͳ OPTION C • Visitor / Interpretive Center SUBͳTOTAL 10% MOBILIZATION 20% DE SIGN & CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY 10.5% SALES TAX CONSTRUCTION TOTAL *Note: Sales tax, permits and design fees not included. $2,573,550.00 $2,573,550.00 $257,355.00 $514,710.00 $351,289.58 $3,696,904.58 CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY Based on preliminary cost estimating, total construction costs for Cleveland-Richardson Park are currently estimated at approximately $8.7 million for park improvements. Renovation of the existing farmhouse is estimated separately and varies depending on the selected reuse option, with costs ranging from approximately $1.2 million to $3.7 million. Combined, the total project cost is therefore anticipated to range from approximately $9.9 million to $12.4 million. The project is anticipated to be implemented in phases, allowing construction to proceed incrementally as funding becomes available. All cost estimates are based on Q1 2026 construction pricing and assume an average annual construction cost inflation rate of approximately 5 percent beyond 2026. Costs should be updated as design advances to reflect current market conditions. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT41 PARTIV OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REGULATORY FRAMEWORK & PERMITTING PLANNING INFORMATION FUNDING & GRANTS BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT42 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK & PERMITTING OVERVIEW Future development of Cleveland-Richardson Park will require compliance with local, state, and—if triggered—federal permitting requirements. Because the site contains wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (HCAs), steep slopes, and archaeological sensitivity, early coordination with City of Renton staff and regulatory agencies will be essential as design progresses. The following summarizes anticipated approvals based on current data, including the Critical Areas Report, preliminary geotechnical study, and master plan concepts. CRITICAL AREAS (CITY OF RENTON) The site contains regulated critical areas, including wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (HCAs), and geologically hazardous areas such as steep slopes and erosion hazard areas. All critical areas are regulated under the City of Renton’s Critical Areas Ordinance (RMC 4-3-050), and proposed site work will be subject to City review. Activities that avoid impacts to wetlands, streams, buffers, HCAs, and geologically hazardous areas may qualify for a Critical Areas Exemption. Work within or adjacent to regulated critical areas will require Critical Areas Review and, where applicable, mitigation and avoidance or minimization measures. The City of Renton is currently updating the Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordinance No. 6179). A design- level critical areas evaluation will be completed early in the design process and will be consistent with the ordinance in effect at that time. Key requirements / considerations: • Critical Area Review is required for any buffer encroachments (e.g., trails, utilities, boardwalks) • Mitigation will be required for unavoidable impacts (restoration, enhancement, or buffer averaging) • No work is proposed within the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Type F streams; activities at or below the OHWM would trigger additional state-level permitting, including Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), and potentially federal review. FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS (CITY OF RENTON) Springbrook Creek and other fish-bearing (Type F) streams on the site are designated Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas under RMC 4-3-050 and are subject to protective buffer requirements. Key requirements / considerations: • Work within HCA buffers—including trails, bridges, restoration, utilities, or limited site furnishings— will require City review and mitigation where impacts cannot be avoided. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (CITY OF RENTON & WASHINGTON STATE) Springbrook Creek, within the limits of the project area, is not designated as a shoreline of the state under the Washington Shoreline Management Act (streams must have a mean annual flow ≥ 20 cfs to qualify). GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS (CITY OF RENTON) Por Ɵ ons of the site are regulated as Geologically Hazardous Areas under Renton’s CriƟ cal Areas Ordinance (RMC 4-3-050), including mapped SensiƟ ve and Protected steep slopes and High Erosion Hazard areas. Work within or adjacent to these areas may require geotechnical review and City approval. The Preliminary Geotechnical Study provides planning- level guidance; site-speciﬁ c recommendaƟ ons and setbacks will be reﬁ ned during design. Key requirements / considerations: • Development, grading, or trail construction near steep slopes or erosion hazard areas may require geotechnical review to address slope stability, erosion control, and constructability. • Trails may be permitted within steep slope areas where supported by geotechnical recommendations for alignment, grading, and drainage. • Structures near steep slopes must comply with applicable setback requirements and may require specialized foundation or slope protection measures. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT43 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK & PERMITTING ARCHAEOLOGICAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES (WASHINGTON STATE) The property lies within the traditional lands of Southern Coast Salish peoples and contains structures over 50 years old. Ground-disturbing work may require archaeological oversight and must comply with state requirements for archaeological sites, burial grounds, and historic cemeteries. Review will occur in coordination with the Washington Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP) and affected Tribes. Requirements: • Preparation and implementation of an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) • Coordination with DAHP • Early consultation with affected Tribes during design • Targeted subsurface testing prior to construction, if warranted by funding or design A Section 106 review is required only if federal permits or federal funding create a federal nexus. BUILDING, ACCESSIBILITY, AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (CITY OF RENTON) Future buildings or significant renovations at Cleveland- Richardson Park—such as upgrades to the existing farmhouse or construction of restrooms, shelters, or maintenance facilities—will require review under the City of Renton’s Building, Fire, and Accessibility Codes. These regulations, adopted through Title IV of the Renton Municipal Code, implement the International Building Code (IBC), International Existing Building Code (IEBC), International Fire Code (IFC), Washington State Energy Code, and associated mechanical, plumbing, and electrical standards. These reviews occur within the broader permitting framework of Title IV, which governs all development, land use, and construction activity within the City of Renton to ensure public health, safety, accessibility, and structural performance. Anticipated permits and reviews include: • Building Permit – Required for new construction, additions, renovations, adaptive reuse, or structural modifications. • Fire and Life-Safety Review – Evaluation of fire protection systems, emergency access, and egress requirements in coordination with Renton Fire Prevention. • Accessibility Compliance – Accessible routes, entrances, restrooms, ramps, and other ADA- aligned features as required by State and City codes. Triggered when the function of a building changes or when improvements affect zoning or site development standards. Option A: Ranger Residence would generally not constitute a change of use. Option B: Day Use Workshop / Maintenance Facility and Option C: Visitor / Interpretive Center, as public or assembly-type uses, would likely be considered changes of use and require additional building, fire, accessibility, and life-safety review. • Energy Code Compliance – Buildings must meet applicable provisions of the Washington State Energy Code. CONSTRUCTION, GRADING, AND ROW PERMITS (CITY OF RENTON) In addition to building and accessibility permits, construction associated with the park will require City permits for grading, site development, demolition, utilities, and work within the public right-of-way. Anticipated permits include: • Demolition Permit – Required for removal of existing structures; may involve asbestos reporting, tree protection, and utility coordination. • Civil Construction Permit – Required for site work such as clearing, grading, pathways, utilities, stormwater facilities, and hard-surface installation. Typically applies when more than 50 cubic yards of grading, 500 square feet of disturbance, or 500 square feet of new hard surface is proposed. • Utility Permits – Required for new or modified water, sewer, stormwater, or electrical connections. • Right-of-Way (ROW) Permit – Required for frontage improvements, sidewalk work, excavation, or any construction activity within the public ROW, including associated stormwater improvements. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT44 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK & PERMITTING UTILITIES & INFRASTRUCTURE (CITY OF RENTON & UTILITY PROVIDERS) Development of the park will require coordination with the City of Renton and applicable utility providers to confirm service availability, connection requirements, and infrastructure standards for water, sewer, stormwater, and electrical systems. Key coordination considerations include: • Confirmation of utility connection locations, capacities, and extension requirements. • Coordination with Renton Public Works, including the Transportation Systems Division and Stormwater Utility, for any required frontage or roadway improvements related to park access. • Avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands, streams, HCAs, and steep slopes when locating utilities and infrastructure. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT – SEPA (WASHINGTON STATE) The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires local governments to evaluate potential environmental impacts before approving public projects. A SEPA Environmental Checklist will be required, supported by technical memos at 30% design. Determination of Significance/Non-Significance will depend on impacts to critical areas, traffic, noise, and cultural resources. Downstream reaches of Springbrook Creek are 303(d)- listed for certain impairments; this may influence how Ecology evaluates stormwater quality in SEPA review. WATER QUALITY & WETLAND/STREAM REVIEW (WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY) Future work involving removal of the existing pond (a regulated wetland) and re-routing of Stream A (a non– fish-bearing Type Np stream) may require coordination with the Washington Department of Ecology. Ecology’s role focuses on construction stormwater, water quality protection, and wetland/stream impacts when state or federal thresholds are met. Possible approvals include: • NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit – Required when ≥1 acre of soil is disturbed. Includes a SWPPP, erosion and sediment control, and turbidity monitoring. • Section 401 Water Quality Certification – Required only if a federal permit (typically USACE Section 404) is triggered. If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers declines jurisdiction—a likely scenario for isolated headwater wetlands and non-fish-bearing streams—Section 401 certification would not apply, but Ecology may still require state-level review or authorization for actions affecting wetland hydrology or water quality. HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL – HPA (WDFW – WASHINGTON STATE) An HPA from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) is required for any project that uses, diverts, obstructs, or changes the natural flow or bed of waters of the state, regardless of federal permitting. Potential triggers for this project include: • Realignment or modification of Stream A • Installation or replacement of culverts • Bank stabilization or channel shaping • Any trail crossing or structure that places work below the OHWM FEDERAL PERMITTING (IF TRIGGERED) Federal permits would be required only if impacts meet federal jurisdiction thresholds or if federal funding introduces a federal nexus. Possible triggers: • Clean Water Act Section 404 (USACE) – if any wetland or stream is determined to be a Water of the U.S. • Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (administered by Ecology) – accompanies Section 404. • ESA Section 7 consultation – if federally listed species may be affected and a federal permit is used • NEPA / Section 106 – only if a federal nexus (funding or permits) occurs BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT45 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK & PERMITTING CITY OF KENT COORDINATION (LIMITED SCOPE) A small portion of the Cleveland–Richardson Park property extends into the City of Kent. Proposed improvements within Kent city limits are limited to a low-impact forest trail segment. As design advances, limited coordination with the City of Kent may be required to confirm applicable permitting requirements for trail construction within Kent jurisdiction. PLANNING INFORMATION OVERVIEW The master planning of Cleveland-Richardson Park is informed by a coordinated set of Citywide policies and plans that address transportaƟ on, parks and recreaƟ on, trails, and neighborhood connecƟ vity. Together, these documents help guide how the City of Renton plans for mulƟ modal transportaƟ on systems, expands access to parks and open space, improves pedestrian and bicycle connecƟ vity, and prioriƟ zes equitable investments in underserved areas of the city. As the park evolves over Ɵ me, these planning eff orts will conƟ nue to serve as reference documents to ensure that future park improvements remain consistent with the City’s broader goals and coordinated planning iniƟ aƟ ves, while responding to changing community needs and opportuniƟ es. PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND TRAILS ΈPROS PLANΉ The PROS Plan is Renton’s long-range strategy for parks, recreaƟ on, natural areas, open space, and trails, updated every six years to respond to changing community needs. It begins with an assessment of the exisƟ ng park system, recreaƟ on programs, funding sources, and service gaps, informed by both a comprehensive faciliƟ es inventory and extensive community engagement—including surveys, interacƟ ve mapping tools, and outreach events. The plan’s mission is to ensure equitable access to high- quality parks and recreaƟ on opportuniƟ es while protecƟ ng natural and cultural resources. Key prioriƟ es include addressing service gaps, improving and maintaining exisƟ ng faciliƟ es, expanding trails and open space, and updaƟ ng the Tri-Park area (Liberty Park, Cedar River Park, and the adjacent natural area) to beƩ er support community use. The plan also evaluates funding strategies—including a potenƟ al parks bond—and establishes a prioriƟ zed list of capital improvements to guide future investment. The City ﬁ nalized the 2026 PROS Plan in January 2026, this PROS Plan will build on these prioriƟ es and further guide long-term decision-making for Renton’s parks and recreaƟ on system. Ongoing informaƟ on and updates are available through the City’s public engagement website: hƩ ps://yourvoice.rentonwa.gov/pros TRAILS & BICYCLE MASTER PLAN The Trails and Bicycle Master Plan establishes a long- term vision for an integrated, citywide network that serves both recreational and transportation purposes. The plan focuses on connecting neighborhoods to key destinations such as parks, schools, transit centers, employment areas, and regional trail systems. It evaluates existing facilities, identifies gaps— particularly in low-traffic-stress routes—and proposes expansion of the network from approximately 30 miles of existing trails and bikeways to roughly 127 miles within the city limits, with additional regional connections beyond Renton. The plan includes system goals, facility typologies and design guidance, and project prioritization criteria that emphasize connectivity, safety, equity, and feasibility. Recommended improvements include neighborhood greenways, shared-use paths, protected or separated facilities where appropriate, and targeted investments in underserved areas. Implementation is intended to occur through phased project delivery, coordinated funding strategies, interagency partnerships, and continued community engagement. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT46 PLANNING INFORMATION CITY OF RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ͳ TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The TransportaƟ on Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan establishes a vision for a safe, connected, and sustainable mulƟ modal transportaƟ on system that supports future growth and community needs. It is prepared in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act and coordinated with regional planning eff orts through the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). The element addresses planning, design, operaƟ on, and maintenance of the City’s transportaƟ on system, including streets, sidewalks, trails, transit faciliƟ es, and freight routes, and emphasizes coordinaƟ on between transportaƟ on investments and land use growth. Key objecƟ ves include improving safety, addressing congesƟ on, closing gaps in pedestrian and bicycle networks, and expanding mulƟ modal access for residents, employees, and visitors. The TransportaƟ on Element also outlines strategies related to transportaƟ on demand management, system preservaƟ on, and long-term funding, including projects programmed through the City’s Six-Year TransportaƟ on Improvement Program (TIP). The City is currently updaƟ ng this element to address modeling and policy requirements associated with PSRC review, with ﬁ nal cerƟ ﬁ caƟ on anƟ cipated by the end of 2025. SOUTH RENTON / TALBOT AREA TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Planning for transportaƟ on improvements in South Renton and along the Talbot Road corridor is occurring through a combinaƟ on of corridor-speciﬁ c capital projects, comprehensive planning policies, and site- related improvements, rather than through a single consolidated corridor plan. This area serves as an important connecƟ on between downtown Renton, major arterials, and surrounding neighborhoods and has been idenƟ ﬁ ed as a focus area for improving safety, accessibility, and mulƟ modal connecƟ vity. Key eff orts include projects such as the South 7th Street Corridor Improvements, which support enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connecƟ ons into downtown Renton, as well as planned sidewalk, crossing, and frontage improvements along Talbot Road South associated with adjacent development and park planning eff orts. These projects typically include new or upgraded sidewalks, ADA-compliant faciliƟ es, improved crossings, and associated stormwater and drainage upgrades. Planning and design in this area also account for environmental constraints, including steep slopes and creek corridors, while seeking to improve neighborhood livability and equitable access to transportaƟ on infrastructure. CollecƟ vely, these improvements are intended to balance traffi c operaƟ ons with safety, sustainability, and improved walking and biking condiƟ ons for the surrounding community. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT47 FUNDING AND GRANTS OVERVIEW Future implementaƟ on of the Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan will beneﬁ t from a diversiﬁ ed funding strategy. Given the site includes important natural resources—wetlands, streams, and cultural landscapes—while also providing opportuniƟ es for trails, passive recreaƟ on, environmental educaƟ on, and community gathering, the project aligns well with a range of compeƟ Ɵ ve grant programs. Furthermore, the park’s emphasis on habitat restoraƟ on, nature- forward recreaƟ on, community health, and equitable access for the surrounding underserved Talbot and Benson neighborhoods posiƟ ons it strongly for local and regional grant funding. In parƟ cular, programs that support passive recreaƟ on, trail development, habitat, stewardship, community agriculture, and water-quality align directly the master plan. The following secƟ on summarizes the most applicable funding opportuniƟ es. LOCAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES King County Parks Levy – Healthy CommuniƟ es & Parks Fund (HCPF) Supports projects that improve equitable access to parks, trails, nature, and community health. King County Water Quality (WaterWorks) Grant Supports projects that improve water quality and restore habitat within King County watersheds. A strong ﬁ t for wetland, stream, and riparian restoraƟ on. King County CooperaƟ ve Watershed Management (CWM) Grants Funds habitat restoraƟ on in riparian, wetland, and buff er areas. Strong ﬁ t for invasive removal, naƟ ve planƟ ng, and buff er-level restoraƟ on along Springbrook Creek and its tributary streams. 4Culture (King County) Supports cultural interpretaƟ on, historic building preservaƟ on, and public art. Applicable if the City retains or adapƟ vely reuses the farmhouse or incorporates interpreƟ ve storytelling into the park. City of Kent Partnership Funding (If Applicable) Depending on the jurisdicƟ onal boundary, improvements within Kent may qualify for cost-sharing or partnership funding. King ConservaƟ on District (KCD) KCD off ers grants that support community agriculture, naƟ ve habitat restoraƟ on, invasive species removal, and community-led stewardship—acƟ viƟ es well aligned with the park’s orchard concept, buff er restoraƟ on, and long-term ecological care. Several programs apply: • Community Agriculture Program – supports community gardens, orchards, food-resiliency iniƟ aƟ ves. • Stewardship & Habitat Funding – supports volunteer stewardship, invasive species management, and naƟ ve habitat restoraƟ on. • Member JurisdicƟ on Grants – ﬂ exible funding for community-driven open space and environmental projects. STATE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ΈWASHINGTON STATE RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OFFICE ͳ RCOΉ Local Parks - Washington Wildlife & RecreaƟ on Program (WWRP) Supports park development, passive recreaƟ on, play areas, trails, and community-serving ameniƟ es. Trails - WWRP Applicable to boardwalks, nature trails, and mulƟ - surface pathways. Natural Areas / CriƟ cal Habitat - WWRP Funding may apply to buff er enhancement, restoraƟ on, and ecological protecƟ on outside the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). AquaƟ c Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) Funding may apply to buff er enhancement, restoraƟ on, and ecological protecƟ on outside OHWM. RecreaƟ onal Trails Program (RTP) Federal pass-through funds for trail construcƟ on, bridges, boardwalks, and ADA trail upgrades. Ecology - Terry Husseman Account Supports locally sponsored projects that restore or enhance water quality, stream buff ers, and riparian vegetaƟ on. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT48 FUNDING AND GRANTS FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES America the BeauƟ ful Challenge - NaƟ onal Fish and Wildlife FoundaƟ on (NFWF) Supports community access, habitat, and resiliency projects. NFWF Stewardship Programs Supports invasive species management, naƟ ve planƟ ngs, and community-led habitat enhancement. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) – North American Wetlands ConservaƟ on Act (NAWCA) CompeƟ Ɵ ve; supports wetland enhancement and associated habitat restoraƟ on. Possible but less aligned unless hydrologic modiﬁ caƟ on or signiﬁ cant wetland restoraƟ on occurs. NaƟ onal Wildlife FederaƟ on – WaterSMART AquaƟ c Ecosystem RestoraƟ on Typically supports large-scale hydrologic restoraƟ on; low likelihood unless project evolves to include major stream realignment or ﬂ oodplain work. Note: Federal funding can trigger NEPA/SecƟ on 106 review. PERIPHERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES These programs may become relevant if future phases of the project expand to include hydrologic, cultural, or large-scale ecological restoraƟ on components. While not a primary ﬁ t for the current scope, they are worthwhile to monitor as the project evolves. Land and Water ConservaƟ on Fund (LWCF) Eligible for park development but carries federal nexus and long-term use restricƟ ons that require careful consideraƟ on. King County ConservaƟ on Futures (CFT) Funds land acquisiƟ on and long-term open space protecƟ on only. Not applicable to park development. Relevant only if the City pursues addiƟ onal property acquisiƟ on adjacent to the park, making it a peripheral opportunity for this project. Puget Sound AcquisiƟ on & RestoraƟ on (PSAR) / Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) Strong alignment with in-channel salmon habitat restoraƟ on, which is not currently proposed but could become relevant if stream enhancement expands. WaterSMART (Bureau of ReclamaƟ on) Supports watershed-scale restoraƟ on or hydrologic improvements; applicability depends on future stream or ﬂ oodplain modiﬁ caƟ ons. North American Wetlands ConservaƟ on (USFWS) Most compeƟ Ɵ ve when wetland enhancement includes hydrologic modiﬁ caƟ on or large-scale habitat restoraƟ on. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT PARTV APPENDIX APPENDIX A. PHASE 1 ENGAGEMENT APPENDIX B. PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT APPENDIX C. CULTURAL RESOURCES LITERATURE REVIEW APPENDIX D. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY APPENDIX E. CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX F. FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX G. REFERENCES BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT PHASE 1 ENGAGEMENT CITY STAKEHOLDER MEETING SPRINGBROOK APARTMENTS BRIEFING WEATHERLY INN BRIEFING SPRINGBROOK ELEMENTARY PUBLIC BRIEFING NEIGHBORHOOD POP UP EVENT TALBOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BENSON HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SURVEY #1 NEEDS & CONCERNS EMAILS APPENDIX A. DĞĞƟŶŐDŝŶƵƚĞƐ ůĞǀĞůĂŶĚ-ZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐŽŶWĂƌŬDĂƐƚĞƌWůĂŶ–^ƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌDĞĞƟŶŐ ĂƚĞ͗ 03-06-24 >ŽĐĂƟŽŶ͗ Renton City Hall ƩĞŶĚĞĞƐ͗ Jason Lederer, Cailin Hunsaker, Joe Farah, Ellen Talbo, Joe Stowell, Abdoul Gafour, Steve Brown, Sandra ,ĂǀůŝŬ͕ZŚĞŵǇ<ŝŶŐ͕:ĞīƌĞǇDŝŶŝƐĐŝ͕ůŝǌĂďĞƚŚ^ƚĞǁĂƌƚ͕ĂƌƌŝĞOlƐŽŶ͕<ĂƟĞDĞĚŝŶĂ͕ůĞǆDŽƌŐĂŶƌŽƚŚ͕ 'ĂďƌŝĞůůĂ'ŽůǌĂƌŝĂŶ ϭ͘ tĞůĐŽŵĞΘ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶƐ x DĞĞƟŶŐŽƉĞŶĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶƐŽĨĂůůĂƩĞŶĚĞĞƐ͘ x Overview of the Cleveland-ZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ƐŝƚĞ͕ƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞ͕ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͕ĂŶĚŶĞǆƚ ƐƚĞƉƐ͘ Ϯ͘ 'ƌĂŶƚKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐΘ&ƵŶĚŝŶŐ x WŽƚĞŶƟĂůĨƵŶĚŝŶŐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ͗ o EZWKƌĐŚĂƌĚdƌĞĞƐ'ƌĂŶƚ– ĐŽƵůĚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŽƌĐŚĂƌĚĂŶĚĨŽŽĚ-ƉƌŽĚƵĐŝŶŐƚƌĞĞƐ͘ o ^ŝĚĞǁĂůŬ&ƵŶĚŝŶŐĂƐ'ƌĂŶƚDĂƚĐŚ– ZĞŶƚŽŶ͛ƐƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƉƌŽũĞĐƚŽŶdĂůďŽƚĐŽƵůĚďĞ ůĞǀĞƌĂŐĞĚĂƐĂĨƵŶĚŝŶŐŵĂƚĐŚĨŽƌƉĂƌŬŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ ϯ͘ ŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůΘŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ'ĂƌĚĞŶKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐ x ĂƌƌŝĞKůƐŽŶŚŝŐŚůŝŐŚƚĞĚƚŚĞĂƌĞĂΖƐĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůŚŝƐƚŽƌǇĂŶĚƐƚƌŽŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŝŶ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇgardens and farmable land ǁŚŝĐŚŚĂǀĞůŽŶŐǁĂŝƚůŝƐƚƐ͘ x ,ŽƌƐĞŶĞĐŬ&ĂƌŵƐDŽĚĞů͗KƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚǇĨŽƌƐŵĂůů-ƐĐĂůĞĨĂƌŵŝŶŐǁŚĞƌĞůŽĐĂůĨĂƌŵĞƌƐůĞĂƐĞůĂŶĚ ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŝƚǇƚŽŐƌŽǁĐƵůƚƵƌĂůůǇƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚĨŽŽĚƐ͘ x KƌĐŚĂƌĚ&ƌƵŝƚĞŵĂŶĚ͗^ƚƌŽŶŐŶĞĞĚĨŽƌůŽĐĂůĨƌƵŝƚƉƌŽĚƵĐƟŽŶ͘ x ůŝǌĂďĞƚŚ^ƚĞǁĂƌƚĞŵƉŚĂƐŝǌĞĚƚŚĞƵŶŝƋƵĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚǇĨŽƌŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚĂƟŽŶƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐRenton's ĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƉĂƐƚ͘ ϰ͘ /ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞΘhƟůŝƚǇŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ x tĂƚĞƌΘ^ĞǁĞƌ͗ o Availability via ^ŽŽƌĞĞŬtĂƚĞƌĂŶĚ^ĞǁĞƌŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ o 'ƌĂǀŝƚǇŇŽǁĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐŵĂǇŶĞĐĞƐƐŝƚĂƚĞĂƐŵĂůůŐƌŝŶĚĞƌƉƵŵƉǁŝƚŚƐƚŽƌŵĂŶĚͬŽƌ sanitary sewer ĂƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ͘ Note: This is not possible because of acquisition grant encumbrances for public recreation-only use Cleveland-Richardson Park City Stakeholder Meeting x tĂƚĞƌWƌĞƐƐƵƌĞŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͗ o A high-ƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞůŝŶĞĞǆƚĞŶƐŝŽŶŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞĮƌĞŚǇĚƌĂŶƚƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞ͘ o ƐĞŶŝŽƌůŝǀŝŶŐĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇƉƌŽũĞĐƚ;WƌĞ-ƉƉηϮϰϬϬϭϮϱͿŶŽƌƚŚŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŚĂĚƉůĂŶŶĞĚƚŽ ĞǆƚĞŶĚƚŚĞŚŝŐŚ-ƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŝŶ͕ďƵƚŝƚŝƐŶŽůŽŶŐĞƌŵŽǀŝŶŐĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘ ϱ͘ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůΘZĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌǇŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐ x tĞƚůĂŶĚƵīĞƌZĞŐƵůĂƟŽŶƐ͗ o City of Renton wetland ďƵīĞƌƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞďǇƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨƚŚĞǇĞĂƌƉĞƌK ŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ͘ ^ƚƌĞĂŵďƵīĞƌƐǁŝůůƌĞŵĂŝŶƵŶĐŚĂŶŐĞĚ͘ o ƵƌƌĞŶƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŵĂǇŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůůǇ͘ o ZĞŶƚŽŶĂůůŽǁƐďƵīĞƌĂǀĞƌĂŐŝŶŐƵƉƚŽϮϱй͘ o ^ƉƌŝŶŐďƌŽŽŬƌĞĞŬƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐĂϰϬ͛ďƵīĞƌ͘ x dƌĞĞWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ͗'ĂďƌŝĞůůĂ'ŽůǌĂƌŝĂŶŝĚĞŶƟĮĞĚƚŚĞŵŽƐƚǀĂůƵĂďůĞƚƌĞĞƐŶĞĂƌƚŚĞƉŽŶĚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚ ƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚ͘ ϲ͘ ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚǇΘWƵďůŝĐ^ĂĨĞƚǇ x ^ƉƌŝŶŐďƌŽŽŬƌĞĞŬ,ĞĂĚǁĂƚĞƌƐŝƐĂƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚĚƌŝŶŬŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌƐŽƵƌĐĞ͘ o ^ĞĐƵƌŝƚǇĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐǁŝƚŚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƉĂƌŬƵƐĂŐĞ͖ŐĂƚĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞŵĂŝŶĐůŽƐĞĚǁŚĞŶŶŽƚŝŶ ƵƐĞ͘ x WdŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ͗ o ^ĂŶĚǇ,ĂǀůŝŬĞŵƉŚĂƐŝǌĞĚƌŝŵĞWƌĞǀĞŶƟŽŶdŚƌŽƵŐŚŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĞƐŝŐŶ;WdͿ ƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ͘ o ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚĨŽƌƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐ͕ĐĂƌĞƚĂŬĞƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞ͕ǀŽůƵŶƚĞĞƌƐ͕ŐĂƚŚĞƌŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŐĂƌĚĞŶƐƚŽĞŶŚĂŶĐĞŶĂƚƵƌĂůƐƵƌǀĞŝůůĂŶĐĞ͘ o EĞĞĚĨŽƌďŽůůĂƌĚƐĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚǀĞŚŝĐůĞĞŶĐƌŽĂĐŚŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŽ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĂƌĞĂƐ͘ o Pedestrian-ƐĐĂůĞůŝŐŚƟŶŐĂŶĚďůƵĞůŝŐŚƚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇƉŚŽŶĞƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚ͘ ϳ͘ dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶΘŽŶŶĞĐƟǀŝƚǇ x ^ŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐΘŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƟŽŶǁŝƚŚZĞŶƚŽŶ͛ƐdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶWůĂŶ͗ o ZĞŶƚŽŶĂƐƐƵŵĞƐƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐŽŶďŽƚŚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨdĂůďŽƚZĚĂŶĚŚĂƐŝĚĞŶƟĮĞĚƚŚŝƐĂƐĂƉƌŝŽƌŝƚǇ ƐĞŐŵĞŶƚ͘ o dŝŵĞůŝŶĞĨŽƌĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶŶŽƚǇĞƚĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ͖ůůĞŶdĂůďŽŚŽƉĞƐƚŽĂůŝŐŶǁŝƚŚ ƉĂƌŬĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞ͘ o ŽŶĐĞƌŶƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬĂŶĚďƵīĞƌŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ͕ƉĞƌŵŝƫŶŐ͕ĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ ŝŵƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶƐ͘ x WĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶΘdƌĂŝůŽŶŶĞĐƟǀŝƚǇ͗ o WĂŶƚŚĞƌƌĞĞŬdƌĂŝů͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐďŝŬĞůĂŶĞƐ͕ĐŽƵůĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĐŽŶŶĞĐƟǀŝƚǇ͘ o WƌĞǀŝŽƵƐƚƌĂŝůƉůĂŶƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ^ƉƌŝŶŐďƌŽŽŬ,ĞĂĚǁĂƚĞƌƐĂƌĞŶŽůŽŶŐĞƌĨĞĂƐŝďůĞĚƵĞƚŽ ƐĞĐƵƌŝƚǇĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͘ ϴ͘WĂƌŬhƐĞ͕WƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐΘĞƐŝŐŶŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ x WĂƐƐŝǀĞhƐĞWĂƌŬĞƐŝŐŶ͗ o 'ĞŶĞƌĂůĐŽŶƐĞŶƐƵƐĨĂǀŽƌƐĂŵŽƌĞŶĂƚƵƌĂůƉĂƌŬŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨƐƉŽƌƚƐĮĞůĚƐ͘ ǆĐŝƟŶŐ ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐĨŽƌƌĞƐƚŽƌĂƟŽŶ͕ĞĚƵĐĂƟŽŶ͕ĂŶĚŶĂƚƵƌĞĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͘ o ^ŽŌ-ƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƚƌĂŝůƐŽƌĂůŽŽƉŽŶƚŚĞ<ĞŶƚƉŽƌƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŵĂǇďĞĨĞĂƐŝďůĞ͘ x sŽůƵŶƚĞĞƌKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐ͗WŽƚĞŶƟĂůĨŽƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŝŶǀŽůǀĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŝŶǀĂƐŝǀĞƐƉĞĐŝĞƐƌĞŵŽǀĂůĂŶĚ ŚĂďŝƚĂƚƌĞƐƚŽƌĂƟŽŶ͘ x ZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞ͗EŽŵĂũŽƌĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐƌĂŝƐĞĚǁŝƚŚƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůƵƐĞĂƐĂĐĂƌĞƚĂŬĞƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞ͕ŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ ƐŚŽƉ͕ŽƌŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƟǀĞĐĞŶƚĞƌ͘ŽĚĞ-ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚƵƉŐƌĂĚĞƐĂŶĚĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďŝůŝƚǇŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐǁŽƵůĚďĞ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞŽƌŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƟǀĞĐĞŶƚĞƌĨƵŶĐƟŽŶƐ͘ x WĂƌŬŚŽƵƌƐǁŝůůďĞĨƌŽŵĚƵƐŬƟůĚĂǁŶ͘ x >ŝŐŚƟŶŐŶĞĞĚƐǁŝůůďĞĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚŽŶƚŚĞƵůƟŵĂƚĞƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘ ϵ͘WĂƌŬŝŶŐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ x ZĞŶƚŽŶ͛ƐƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞŶŽƚŽǀĞƌůǇƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƟǀĞ͘ x ZĞŶƚŽŶ͛ƐƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞŶŽƚŽǀĞƌůǇƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƟǀĞ͕ĂŶĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞ ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞůǇƐŝǌĞĚďĂƐĞĚŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚƉĂƌŬƵƐĞĂŶĚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŵŝŶŐ͘ x EŽƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂƚďŽƚŚǁĞƐƚĂŶĚĞĂƐƚĞŶĚƐŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͘ ϭϬ͘ĐƟŽŶ/ƚĞŵƐ x ZĞĮŶĞŐƌĂŶƚƐƚƌĂƚĞŐǇ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐEZWKƌĐŚĂƌĚdƌĞĞƐ'ƌĂŶƚĂŶĚƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬŐƌĂŶƚŵĂƚĐŚ͘ x ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞǁŝƚŚĞǆƚĞƌŶĂůƐƚĂŬĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐ͗ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ&ŝƐŚΘtŝůĚůŝĨĞ͕dƌŝďĞƐ͕<ŝŶŐŽƵŶƚǇ ŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ x ŽŶƟŶƵĞƚŽĞǀĂůƵĂƚĞƵƟůŝƚǇŶĞĞĚƐĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůŐƌĂǀŝƚǇŇŽǁĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞ ĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐ͘ƐƐĞƐƐƚŚĞĨĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚǇŽĨĂŐƌŝŶĚĞƌƉƵŵƉĨŽƌƐĞǁĞƌƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ͕ĐŽŶĮƌŵĮƌĞŚǇĚƌĂŶƚ ƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂŶĚĐůĂƌŝĨǇĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďǇ^ŽŽƌĞĞk Water and Sewer ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ x Work with dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶ ƚŽĂůŝŐŶƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶǁŝƚŚƉĂƌŬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ and ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ͘ Cleveland-Richardson Park Springbrook ŕÍŘťıôĲťŜϙŘĖôƱĲČ Feedback: x My daughters attend Talbot Elementary and many families in neighborhood attend Benson. I think this ſĺŪīîϙæôϙÍϙČŘôÍťϙīĺèÍťĖĺĲϙċĺŘϙôĲŽĖŘĺĲıôĲťÍīϙôîŪèÍťĖĺĲϙÍĲîϙƱôīîϙťŘĖŕŜϙċĺŘϙťēôŜôϙŜèēĺĺīŜϟ x Really like the idea of a boardwalk over the wetlands and the opportunities for kids to understand the îĖƯôŘôĲťϙſôťīÍĲîϯċĺŘôŜťϙīÍƅôŘŜϙ– èĺŪīîϙťēôŘôϙæôϙĺŕŕĺŘťŪĲĖťĖôŜϙťĺϙťĺŪèēϯċôôīϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙŘÍťēôŘϙťēÍĲϙĤŪŜťϙŜôôϦ x [ĺťŜϙĺċϙîĺČϙſÍīħôŘŜϙĖĲϙťēĖŜϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϠϙŕŘĺæÍæīƅϙīĺťŜϙĺċϙĖĲťôŘôŜťϙĖĲϙÍϙċôĲèôîϙĺƯ-leash area x I really like how family-oriented this neighborhood is: lots of multigenerational families. It would be good to have a loop path or other recreation amenities around a playground, so caregivers can walk, sit, picnic, etc while kids play. Highly support makĖĲČϙťēôϙŕÍŘħϙÍıôĲĖťĖôŜϙŽôŘƅϙċÍıĖīƅϯıŪīťĖ-generational focused. x Thank you for explaining ADA access issues: why slopes of paths are important for instance. I think signage that communicates these issues in the park would help to teach kindness. x ĺŪīîϙťēôŘôϙæôϙĺŕŕĺŘťŪĲĖťĖôŜϙċĺŘϙħĖîŜϙťĺϙèŘôÍťôϙÍŘťϙťēÍťϙèĺŪīîϙæôϙĖĲťôČŘÍťôîϙĖĲťĺϙŕÍŘħϦϙÍĖĲťôîϙťĖīôŜϙċĺŘ ôƄÍıŕīôϟϙaÍƅæôϙťēŘĺŪČēϙťēôϙôīôıôĲťÍŘƅϙŜèēĺĺīŜϦ This could help the kids feel more ĺſĲôŘŜēĖŕϯŜťôſÍŘîŜēĖŕϙĺċϙŕÍŘħϟ x I called animal control for a dog at property on Carr Road (Edlund – future park property) but it was a fox! There is lots of wildlife and birds here: woodpecker, osprey. Opportunities for bird watching ϯĖĲťôŘŕŘôťÍťĖĺĲϯôîŪèÍťĖĺĲϙſĺŪīîϙæôϙČŘôÍťϟ x Maybe there could be walking tours by RangersϦ Cleveland-Richardson Park Weatherly Inn ŘĖôƱĲČϡϙôŜĖîôĲťŜϠϙťÍƯϠϙÍĲîϙĲôÍŘæƅϙĲôĖČēæĺŘŜ Feedback: x ®ÍīħĖĲČϙŕÍťēſÍƅŜϠϙŕŘôċôŘÍæīƅϙÍťϙīôÍŜťϙĺĲôϙīĺĺŕϙťēÍťϙĖŜϙŕÍŽôîϙÍĲîϙēÍŜϙŕīôĲťƅϙĺċϙŜôÍťĖĲČϙÍĲîϙæÍťēŘĺĺıŜ ſĺŪīîϙæôϙſôīèĺıôϟ x ôŕÍŘÍťôϙèƅèīĖŜťŜϙċŘĺıϙſÍīħôŘŜϙĺĲϙŕÍťēſÍƅŜ x ĖŘîϙſÍťèēĖĲČ x īôÍŜôϙĖĲèīŪîôϙĺĲôϙæÍŜħôťæÍīīϙèĺŪŘť x IĲèīŪîôϙŜſĖĲČŜϠϙıÍƅæôϙôŽôĲϙŜſĖĲČŜϙċĺŘϙÍîŪīťŜϙťĺϙēÍĲČϙĺŪťϡϙôƄÍıŕīôϙŕÍŘħϙŜĖťôŜϙċŘĺıϙôīīôŽŪôϙſĖťēϙČĺĺî ŜôÍťĖĲČ x ĺŪīîϙťēôŘôϙæôϙÍϙèĺĲèôŜŜĖĺĲϙēôŘôϙċĺŘϙċĺĺîϙīĖħôϙťēôŘôϙĖŜϙÍϙĺŪīĺĲϦ x aÍħôϙŜŪŘôϙťēôϙſÍƅƱĲîĖĲČϙċĺŘϙīĺĺŕϯīĺĲČϙťŘÍĖīŜϙĖŜϙèīôÍŘ x @ÍŘîôĲĖĲČϙĖŜϙĺċϙČŘôÍťϙĖĲťôŘôŜťϙťĺϙ®ôÍťēôŘīƅϙŘôŜĖîôĲťŜϙ– ĖċϙťēôŘôϙſÍŜϙèĺŽôŘôîϙŜŕÍèôϙÍĲîϙŜôĲĖĺŘ-ċŘĖôĲîīƅ ČÍŘîôĲϙťÍæīôŜϯŕīĺťŜϙťēÍťϙſĺŪīîϙæôϙČŘôÍťϟ x ϙŘôŜôŘŽÍæīôϙŜēôīťôŘϙſĺŪīîϙæôϙſĺĲîôŘċŪīϙċĺŘϙôŽôĲťŜϠϙĲĺťϙĤŪŜťϙŕÍŘťĖôŜϙæŪťϙċĺŘϙèīÍŜŜôŜϠϙıŪŜĖèϙÍĲîϙĺťēôŘ ôĲťôŘťÍĖĲıôĲťϟ x īôÍŜôϙĖĲèīŪîôϙŕīÍƅČŘĺŪĲî x aÍĲƅϙôıŕēÍŜĖƏôîϙĖĲťôŘôŜťϙĖĲϙſÍīħĖĲČϙťŘÍĖīŜϟ Cleveland-Richardson Park ŕŘĖĲČæŘĺĺħϙ(īôıôĲťÍŘƅϙŪæīĖèϙŘĖôƱĲČ Q+A Many parts of the park property are not very visible from the road. Does the City have any plans for preventing encampments? x Likely will have a ranger or caretaker with eyes on the site, potentially living on the site x The City is also going to have an encampment removal team that deals with the issue Is there any possibility of adding cameras on the site? x Yes, that’s one of the possible security considerations. x Other security considerations include installing a 911 call box Do you plan to keep the pond on the property? x That’s one of our design considerations- it attracts a lot of wildlife, but we need to consider safety, maintenance, and the need for parking at that east part of the park. How would you keep the pond safe for kids, etc.? x Need to check the depth of the pond and what safety measures are possible. FĺſϙĖŜϙťēôϙŕÍŘħϙÍƯôèťôîϙæƅϙťēôϙſôŜťôŘĲϙŕÍŘèôīϙæôĖĲČϙŕÍŘťϙĺċϙXôĲťЍŜϙĖťƅϙ[ĖıĖťŜϦ x There’s a possibility that Renton may need to get permits for some work from Kent. Are there any adjacent properties that are available for purchase? Is there a possibility that the park expands in the future? x ®ĺŪīîϙĲôôîϙťĺϙèēôèħϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŕīÍĲĲĖĲČϙîôŕÍŘťıôĲťϙťĺϙèĺĲƱŘıϙťēÍťϙĖĲċĺϟ When will construction of sidewalks start on Talbot? x We will coordinate with Transportation to see if the work can happen in tandem with our construction. Overall comments: x Desire for park to have some sort of shelter/covered area x Concern about mosquitoes at the park with the pond x Confusion about whether or not this property is the trout pond property x Concerns about safety on Talbot- park access point is very steep x Interest in a zipline x ôŽôŘÍīϙÍîîĖťĖĺĲÍīϙèĺııôĲťŜϙÍæĺŪťϙĲôôîϙċĺŘϙŕÍŘħĖĲČϠϙŜĖîôſÍīħŜϠϙťŘÍƯĖèϙèĺĲťŘĺīϠϙÍĲîϙŜŕôôîϙèŪŜēĖĺĲŜϠ concern about kids crossing Talbot to access the park. x One person commented that Renton has the best parks, including a shout out to Dawn Pearson Senior Activity Center x There are a lot of pedestrians and cyclists in the area. It would be nice to install graded switchback/trail access at 192nd or 196th street, similar to the switchback that exists on the south side of 277th street. /FJHICPSIPPE1PQ6Q&WFOU Cleveland-Richardson Park Neighborhood Pop Up Event 5BMCPUElementary School Engagement Cleveland-Richardson Park Talbot Elementary School #FOTPO)JMMElementary School Engagement Cleveland-Richardson Park Benson Hill Elementary School CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject: Date: ;; completed Survey #1 - Needs and ConcernsFriday, April 18, 2025 3:43:50 PM ;;just submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with the responsesbelow. What are your hopes or concerns for the future Cleveland-Richardson Park? (Is there anything you’re excited or worried about?) I'm really happy that the neighborhood kids will have a place to play. Im also looking forward to having a place I can go to as an adult to walk and get out of the house. I hope the park continues to be safe and well maintained over the years. What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) Walking path, unique art and landscapes, variety of plants and trees, playground equipment, places to sit. In the next phase, we’ll share design ideas and ask for feedback. What questions do you have about the project that we can answer then? How will you insure the park remains safe? How would you like to stay updated or get involved as the project moves forward? (Check all that apply) Email updates 4VSWFZ/FFET$PODFSOT Cleveland-Richardson Park Survey #1 Needs & Concerns CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject:neighborhoodprogram completed Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 7:32:45 PM neighborhoodprogram just submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with the responses below. What are your hopes or concerns for the future Cleveland-Richardson Park? (Is there anything you’re excited or worried about?) Excited for a new open park area to hopefully walk around. Worried about parking or walkable access. What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) a connecting path or circular trail where you could do a loop. Space for education on loal fauna and flora In the next phase, we’ll share design ideas and ask for feedback. What questions do you have about the project that we can answer then? when will it be done. How would you like to stay updated or get involved as the project moves forward? (Check all that apply) Pop-up events Online surveys If this is a test response, click here to discard it. (The discard option is available only for admin) Cleveland-Richardson Park Emails CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject: Date: ;;completed Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns Thursday, April 24, 2025 10:20:14 AM ;; just submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with the responsesbelow. What are your hopes or concerns for the future Cleveland-Richardson Park? (Is there anything you’re excited or worried about?) I live on Talbot Rd. so I'm excited that there will be a park we can access within walking distance. It would be nice if there were sidewalks so families can walk there safely What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) A playground for kids. I think the property used to be a trout farm where you could catch and release. It would be cool if they added a little dock that you can stand by the water and possibly fish from if that's allowed. Or just look at the wildlife. Maybe an undercover area with a table and benches for an outdoor picnic/ party area. There could be an off-leash dog park in the back. It would be nice to have a walking trail winding through the different "areas", keeping that botanical garden vibe. You can walk around and get your steps in, enjoy the nature, and still have areas that serve your family whether it's a playground for your kids or space for your dog to run freely. In the next phase, we’ll share design ideas and ask for feedback. What questions do you have about the project that we can answer then? I will just have to wait and see all the ideas! I'm excited about this How would you like to stay updated or get involved as the project moves forward? (Check all that apply) Email updates CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject:Anonymous User completed Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns Date:Monday, June 9, 2025 9:16:48 AM Anonymous User just submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with the responses below. What are your hopes or concerns for the future Cleveland-Richardson Park? (Is there anything you’re excited or worried about?) I hope that the park will be properly maintained and will not become a place where the homeless hang out. What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) A well thought out playground would be good. A trail loop would also be nice but I would definitely consider not allowing dogs at the park as we already have a dog park at cedar river. In the next phase, we’ll share design ideas and ask for feedback. What questions do you have about the project that we can answer then? How long do you think the construction would take approximately? How would you like to stay updated or get involved as the project moves forward? (Check all that apply) Email updates CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject:Anonymous User completed Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns Date:Friday, June 6, 2025 7:54:57 PM Anonymous User just submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with the responses below. What are your hopes or concerns for the future Cleveland-Richardson Park? (Is there anything you’re excited or worried about?) I am very worried. My house is within Cleveland park. On a daily basis we experience wildlife including deer, coyotes, snakes, rabbits, etc. For years we have watched the wildlife grow. By creating a park you increase human traffic which will heavily affect the wildlife and increase the possibility of littering and pollution. I am very supportive of parks and recreation, however, the land would be better used as a wildlife conservation than a park. I'm begging you to please reconsider. What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) As mentioned, for years we have watched the wildlife grow. By creating a park you increase human traffic which will heavily affect the wildlife and increase the possibility of littering and pollution. I am very supportive of parks and recreation, however, the land would be better used as a wildlife conservation than a park. I'm begging you to please reconsider using this space just as a wildlife conservation and keep humans out. In the next phase, we’ll share design ideas and ask for feedback. What questions do you have about the project that we can answer then? We want to know what recreational ideas you have for this space. What steps are being taken to preserve wildlife? Will there be security since this is a high crime area? How would you like to stay updated or get involved as the project moves forward? (Check all that apply) Email updates Community meetings Pop-up events Online surveys Other (please specify) - I believe us, and our neighbors would like to be notified of all things involving this project since it directly affects us, the wildlife, and our homes. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject:Anonymous User completed Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns Date:Friday, June 6, 2025 10:40:03 AM Anonymous User just submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with the responses below. What are your hopes or concerns for the future Cleveland-Richardson Park? (Is there anything you’re excited or worried about?) It's exciting to have a new park coming to the area. What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) This area is really lacking turf fields for playing sports. It would be awesome to have a turf field for playing sports. We'd also love to see a futsol court. It would also be cool to have a nice nature path through the natural habitat for walking that is shaded. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject:Anonymous User completed Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns Date:Wednesday, June 4, 2025 9:46:49 PM Anonymous User just submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with the responses below. What are your hopes or concerns for the future Cleveland-Richardson Park? (Is there anything you’re excited or worried about?) More recreational activities. Hoping good security What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) Pickle ball courts , running track area . Splash pad for the summer months In the next phase, we’ll share design ideas and ask for feedback. What questions do you have about the project that we can answer then? What amenities will be there How would you like to stay updated or get involved as the project moves forward? (Check all that apply) Email updates Pop-up events CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject:Anonymous User completed Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns Date:Wednesday, June 4, 2025 4:09:29 PM Anonymous User just submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with the responses below. What are your hopes or concerns for the future Cleveland-Richardson Park? (Is there anything you’re excited or worried about?) Hope this will be a place where the community can gather and enjoy greenspace and that all of the property will be utalized. Want to make sure any future park improvements helps protect and or enhance fish habitat on Upper Springbrook Creek. What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) Would like to see walking/hiking trails around property. Singletrack mtb trails and/or a pumptrack would be really cool. A disc golf course may also be a good fit for the property. Playground and community garden area? Existing house as a community event center/rental for events? In the next phase, we’ll share design ideas and ask for feedback. What questions do you have about the project that we can answer then? Will invasive species of plants/animals be removed from property/site? Will there be frontage improvements along Talbot RD S? How would you like to stay updated or get involved as the project moves forward? (Check all that apply) Online surveys Community meetings Other (please specify) - Online/website updates Email updates Pop-up events CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject:Anonymous User completed Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns Date:Friday, May 30, 2025 6:21:22 PM Anonymous User just submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with the responses below. What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) Could you stock pond so it could be fished? 1 From: Sent: To: Subject:;; completed Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns ³³ϙjust submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with the responses below. What are your hopes or concerns for the future Cleveland-Richardson Park? (Is there anything you’re excited or worried about?) Probably should sell it to Kent and let them pay the expenses. What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) Include a trout fishing pond operated by a concessionaire as I believe that was its history for decades. In the next phase, we’ll share design ideas and ask for feedback. What questions do you have about the project that we can answer then? Why would the City take on a continuing expense in another city? CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject: Date: ;completed Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns Monday, May 5, 2025 7:46:51 PM ;; just submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with the responses below. What are your hopes or concerns for the future Cleveland-Richardson Park? (Is there anything you’re excited or worried about?) Walking Trails, Park Benches, etc. What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) Walking Trails, Park Benches, etc. In the next phase, we’ll share design ideas and ask for feedback. What questions do you have about the project that we can answer then? None How would you like to stay updated or get involved as the project moves forward? (Check all that apply) Email updates Community meetings Pop-up events Online surveys CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject:Anonymous User completed Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns Date:Saturday, May 3, 2025 10:11:58 AM Anonymous User just submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with the responses below. What are your hopes or concerns for the future Cleveland-Richardson Park? (Is there anything you’re excited or worried about?) I am excited to have a place close to my home. What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) I would love a space for yoga and other classes. In the next phase, we’ll share design ideas and ask for feedback. What questions do you have about the project that we can answer then? The possible construction of a community center. Maybe as a renovation of existing home. How would you like to stay updated or get involved as the project moves forward? (Check all that apply) Email updates Community meetings CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject:Anonymous User completed Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns Date:Friday, May 2, 2025 4:22:24 PM Anonymous User just submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with the responses below. What are your hopes or concerns for the future Cleveland-Richardson Park? (Is there anything you’re excited or worried about?) Excited about possible public space for community classes like yoga and arts. Concerned about lack walkable side walk down 55th (snake road) What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) Community gathering spaces for Yoga classes, arts classes , community meetings etc.. walking trails, playground ... In the next phase, we’ll share design ideas and ask for feedback. What questions do you have about the project that we can answer then? Will there be public meeting facilities How would you like to stay updated or get involved as the project moves forward? (Check all that apply) Email updates Community meetings CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject:Anonymous User completed Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 4:53:03 PM Anonymous User just submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with the responses below. What are your hopes or concerns for the future Cleveland-Richardson Park? (Is there anything you’re excited or worried about?) Excited to have a large green space opportunity. Concerned about the narrowness and lack of sidewalks on Talbot Rd. S. What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) Walking trails for people only, no dogs. A separate area for dogs. A native planted botanical garden. A play area for children. Sanitary toilets facilities. Preserve but make the wetlands accessible to walking. No swimming. No courts please. In the next phase, we’ll share design ideas and ask for feedback. What questions do you have about the project that we can answer then? What scope of visitor uses do you envisage? How would you like to stay updated or get involved as the project moves forward? (Check all that apply) Email updates Pop-up events Community meetings Online surveys CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject: Date: ;completed Survey #1 - Needs and ConcernsTuesday, April 29, 2025 9:46:31 AM ;;just submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with the responsesbelow. What are your hopes or concerns for the future Cleveland-Richardson Park? (Is there anything you’re excited or worried about?) I would love an entry walking point at the end of my community (off of 92nd) My main concern would be making the end of 92nd the vehicle entry point which will ruin my quiet neighborhood. Worried about increased crime. What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) I would love a walking/running trailer with nice greenery. There isn’t a lot of space to walk or safely run here that’s not super hilly. Would also be a great place for a separated large and small fenced dog park. Idea to make it covered to prevent muddy animals. Will the new apartment complexes going up I think this would be some great additions. Just as long as the dog parks aren’t up against someone’s back yard and can smell the poop . In the next phase, we’ll share design ideas and ask for feedback. What questions do you have about the project that we can answer then? Where the entry of park will be and if any pedestrian entries only entries will be available. Surrounding construction and maintenance of roads. Additional side walks etc. How would you like to stay updated or get involved as the project moves forward? (Check all that apply) Online surveys Email updates Other (please specify) - Text updates CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject: Date: ; completed Survey #1 - Needs and ConcernsTuesday, April 22, 2025 12:30:19 PM ;;just submitted the survey Survey #1 - Needs and Concerns with theresponses below. What are your hopes or concerns for the future Cleveland-Richardson Park? (Is there anything you’re excited or worried about?) I definitely would appreciate a safe and secure park where neighbors can Move around without fear of Safety. What kind of features, spaces, or activities would you like to see in the new park? (Think about who will use the park—yourself, your family, your neighbors, and the community.) Gene Coulon Park is such a great asset to our Renton community. I would like the new Park to be modeled after that with activities that will bless all ages of population. In the next phase, we’ll share design ideas and ask for feedback. What questions do you have about the project that we can answer then? None at this time. How would you like to stay updated or get involved as the project moves forward? (Check all that apply) Email updates Online surveys Community meetings CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject: Date: Cleveland Richardson Park Monday, April 21, 2025 7:07:58 PM Hi Betsy, I think you may have spoken to my husband when you were driving at the end of our street, checking out the Park area. We ;;;;. We will actually, I'm sure,be moved before this happens. However our daughter and her husband are buying our house.Our daughter is going to try and come to your tent but, unfortunately, ;; and I will be out oftown. It would be wonderful to have a park down there and to be able to walk to it from ourneighborhood. However, as ;; mentioned to you, our main concern is cars racing down andparking at the end of the Street to get to it. So our question would be what would be done toencourage that only access for cars be off of Talbot Road. But I have another question. Whatwill be done to the current residents of the park? By which I mean the one and probably twocoyote dens that are there. We've lost a cat to them so I can't say I'm totally thrilled with thembeing there but it is there home and urban sprawl is just pushing animals out of their homesand if they were pushed out of that area, where would they go? I know I've researched a littleand it was said that if they were relocated to another place they just try to find their way backto their original home. I don't know but I think you're going to have to talk to some specialistsin this area. Thanks, ; &NBJMT CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject:Cleveland-Richardson Park project Date:Friday, April 18, 2025 9:45:52 AM Betsy Severtsen, I hope this message finds you well. My name is ;; owner of ;;, a working initiative rooted in Renton, focused on cultivating stronger families, engaged youth, and unified communities through cultural, educational, and outdoor programming. I’m writing to formally express my interest in becoming an active collaborator in the Cleveland-Richardson Park project—both in the development phase and through ongoing maintenance, communitypartnerships, and engagement. I had the pleasure of attending your presentation at ;;and left inspired by the vision and heart behind the park’s development. Whatstood out to me was the intentionality to create a space that uplifts thecommunity it’s meant to serve. That intention is at the core of everything weare honored to have with ;;. I would love to be considered not only as a community collaborator, but also as a groundskeeper for Cleveland-Richardson Park. This hands-on role would allow me to ensure the space is maintained with care and pride, while also opening doors to involve volunteers and potentially create paid opportunitiesfor others who share this same commitment. My hope is to help foster an environment that is clean, safe, beautiful, and regularly activated with programming that encourages outdoor exploration, cultural celebration, and community connection. ;;s mission aligns closely with the goals of Cleveland-Richardson Park. While our long-term vision includes securing land in EasternWashington to host seasonal camps and retreats, establishing a local hub righthere in Renton— where I live and am raising my three daughters—speaks to theheart of my commitment. This park represents more than just green space; itcan be a gathering ground for intergenerational healing, learning, joyfulconnection and community collaboration. I believe that together, we can create something that will not only honor the legacy the park is named after, but also inspire and support the generations to come. I would be honored to meet and further discuss how ;; can play a role in this important work. Thank you for your time and consideration. ;; CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject:Cleveland-Richardson Parl -- Sidewalk Date:Monday, April 21, 2025 12:22:29 PM Talbot Road is busy and needs sidewalks, full length, both sides.ഩ CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject:FW: Designing Parks That Bring Generations Together Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 9:00:22 AM I think this park is super cool—a similar design may be a way to incorporate some of the water ϙ “features” of the Cleveland Richardson property? I have no idea how any of that works though, soϙ please ignore this if it’s not applicable. https://architizer.com/idea/4105855/ ³³ From: Parks & Recreation Magazine <customerservice@nrpa.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 8:07 AM Sponsored by CivicPlus View email in mobile format Parks & Recreation Magazine Good Read This email is brought to you by: Civic Plus CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: To: Subject:RE: Cleveland-Richardson Park: Progress and Public Engagement Beginning Date:Thursday, April 24, 2025 7:23:10 PM I cannot tell you how thrilled I am to get this information. I will be passing this on to family. I will be there that evening and I know some other family will be as well. The comments about possible nature education and field trips hits close to home as I was a nationally board certified science teacher for 30 years getting my interest in nature from growing up at our farm. I would love to be a part of any of the discussions about education. Thanks again for keeping me in the loop! ;;&OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ )DPLO\PHPEHU On 04/24/2025 4:18 PM PDT <bsevertsen@rentonwa.gov>wrote: Hi ;; Please see the attached invitation for an upcoming public Neighborhood Briefing for Cleveland-Richardson Park. We are also having some ad hoc meetings with nearby neighbors and have reached out to about 15 community-based organizations (e.g., schools, houses of worship, etc.) and hope to table at some of these organization's existing events (we're scheduled for Benson Elementary's multicultural dinner for example). These early briefings are aiming to introduce the overall project to the community and get early feedback. We'll be coming back out to the community again in the summer with design options for feedback. Early feedback so far has been positive/excited about the new park: interest in preserving nature and providing nature-education (e.g. field trips), adding a playground, having trails, and ideas about nature-education (e.g., student field trips). Talk with you soon, ;; BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT WEATHERLY INN KARAOKE POP UP & VINE MAPLE EVENT GURUDWARA COMMITTEE AT TEASEDALE RENTON FARMERS MARKET TEASEDALE PARK POPͳUP GURUDWARA COMMUNITY POPͳUP TALBOT ELEMENTARY DOTS EXERCISE BENSON HILL ELEMENTARY DOTS EXERCISE GURUDWARA TEMPLE DOTS EXERCISE SURVEY #2 DESIGN CONCEPT FEEDBACK WEBINAR NOTES APPENDIX B. 8FBUIFSMZ*OO,BSBPLF1PQVQBOE&WFOJOH$PNNVOJUZ#SJFGJOH +VMZ BOE7JOF.BQMF1MBDF +VMZ 1PTU*UT >ôôîæÍèħϙĖĲϙîĖŜèŪŜŜĖĺĲŜ Walking Dog walking Tennis Track Like activities shown Things for elders Like community gardens Like ranger onsite Like gate at night Like sidewalks on Talbot Cleveland-Richardson Park Weatherly Inn Karaoke Pop-Up & Vine Maple Event (VSVEXBSB$PNNJUUFFBU5FBTEBMF1BSL +VMZ Cleveland-Richardson Park Gurudwara Committee at Teasedale 3FOUPO'BSNFST.BSLFU +VMZ Cleveland-Richardson Park Renton Farmer's Market 5FBTEBMF1BSL1PQVQ+VOF Cleveland-Richardson Park Teasedale Park Pop-Up (VSVEXBSB$PNNVOJUZ1PQVQ "VHVTU Cleveland-Richardson Park Gurudwara Community Pop-Up 5BMCPU&MFNFOUBSZ%PUT&YFSDJTF Cleveland-Richardson Park Talbot Elementary Dots Exercise & /0+!4 " 1#4 ),*-4 $.2%'(3 #FOTPO)JMM&MFNFOUBSZ%PUT&YFSDJTFCleveland-Richardson Park Benson Hill Elementary Dots Exercise (VSVEXBSB5FNQMF%PUT&YFSDJTF Cleveland-Richardson Park Gurudwara Temple Dots Exercise &ƌŽŵ͗ŝƚǇŽĨZĞŶƚŽŶфŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐΛĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŚƋ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂǇ͕:ƵůǇϮϴ͕ϮϬϮϱϮ͗ϮϬWD dŽ͗ĞƚƐǇ^ĞǀĞƌƚƐĞŶ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŶŽŶǇŵŽƵƐhƐĞƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽŶĐĞƉƚƐ&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬ ĲĺĲƅıĺŪŜϙŜôŘϙĤŪŜťϙŜŪæıĖťťôîϙťēôϙŜŪŘŽôƅϙ"ôŜĖČĲϙĺĲèôŕťŜϙ>ôôîæÍèħϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŘôŜŕĺĲŜôŜϙ æôīĺſϟϙϙ ®ēĖèēϙèĺĲèôŕťϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙŕŘôċôŘϙĺŽôŘÍīīϦϙ īÍĲϙϙϳϙbÍťŪŘôϙÍŘħϙϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙbÍťŪŘôϙÍŘħϦϙ ŘĖĺŘĖťĖƏÍťĖĺĲϙĺċϙĲÍťŪŘôϯôèĺīĺČĖèÍīϙèĺıŕĺĲôĲťŜϙÍĲîϙīôÍŘĲĖĲČϠϙŘôŜťĺŘÍťĖĺĲϙĺċϙŕĺĲîϙ ®ēĖèēϙæôŜťϙîôŜèŘĖæôŜϙƅĺŪϦϙ IϙŽĖŜĖťϙťēôϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙĺċťôĲϙ ´ĺŪŘϙ¾Iϙèĺîôϡϙ ͗͘͏͔͔ϙϙ &$87,217KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI5HQWRQ'RQRWFOLFNOLQNVUHSO\RURSHQ DWWDFKPHQWVXQOHVV\RXNQRZWKHFRQWHQWLVVDIH 4VSWFZ3FOUPO%FTJHO$PODFQU'FFECBDL2VFTUJPOOBJSF Cleveland-Richardson Park Survey #2 Design Concept Feedback &ƌŽŵ͗ŝƚǇŽĨZĞŶƚŽŶфŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐΛĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŚƋ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂǇ͕:ƵůǇϮϴ͕ϮϬϮϱϭ͗ϱϵWD dŽ͗ĞƚƐǇ^ĞǀĞƌƚƐĞŶ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŶŽŶǇŵŽƵƐhƐĞƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽŶĐĞƉƚƐ&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬ ϙ ĲĺĲƅıĺŪŜϙŜôŘϙĤŪŜťϙŜŪæıĖťťôîϙťēôϙŜŪŘŽôƅϙ"ôŜĖČĲϙĺĲèôŕťŜϙ>ôôîæÍèħϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŘôŜŕĺĲŜôŜϙ æôīĺſϟϙϙ ®ēĖèēϙèĺĲèôŕťϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙŕŘôċôŘϙĺŽôŘÍīīϦϙ īÍĲϙϙϳϙbÍťŪŘôϙÍŘħϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϦϙ ĺĲîϠϙèĺııŪĲĖťƅϙČÍŘîôĲϠϙÍŘťϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙbÍťŪŘôϙÍŘħϦϙ (ŽôĲťϙèôĲťôŘϠϙæĺÍŘîſÍīħϠϙĲÍťĖŽôϙČÍŘîôĲϠϙťŘÍĖīϙϙ ϙ ŘôϙťēôŘôϙÍĲƅϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙƅĺŪϙſĺŪīîϙbiϙſÍĲťϙťĺϙŜôôϙĖĲϙťēôϙċĖĲÍīϙŕÍŘħϙîôŜĖČĲϦϙ bĺťϙŜŪŘôϙIϙīĖħôϙťēôϙŕŪıŕϙťŘÍèħϠϙŜôôıŜϙĺĲīƅϙŜĖĲČīôϙŪŜôϙÍĲîϙĲĺťϙŜŪĖťÍæīôϙċĺŘϙťēĺŜôϙſĖťēϙ îĖŜÍæĖīĖťĖôŜϙĺŘϙťēĺŜôϙſēĺϙîĺϙĲĺťϙæĖħôϟϙ«ĖŜĖæĖīĖťƅϠϙ("ϙĖŜŜŪôŜϟϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙôīŜôϙſĺŪīîϙıÍħôϙťēĖŜϙŕÍŘħϙċôôīϙſôīèĺıĖĲČϙÍĲîϙŪŜôċŪīϙťĺϙƅĺŪϙÍĲîϙƅĺŪŘϙċÍıĖīƅϦϙ aŪīťĖīĖĲČŪÍīϙŜĖČĲÍČôϠϙĖĲèīŪŜĖŽôϙÍŘťϟϙ>ĺĺîϙťŘŪèħŜϙĺċϙŽÍŘĖĺŪŜϙèŪīťŪŘôŜϟϙĺĲèŘôťôϙŕÍĖĲťϠϙ ſÍīħſÍƅϙîôŜĖČĲŜϙſĖťēϙÍŘťϙϙ ϙ ®ēĖèēϙæôŜťϙîôŜèŘĖæôŜϙƅĺŪϦϙ IϙīĖŽôϙĺŘϙſĺŘħϙĖĲϙťēôϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙϙ ϙ &$87,217KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI5HQWRQ'RQRWFOLFNOLQNVUHSO\RURSHQ DWWDFKPHQWVXQOHVV\RXNQRZWKHFRQWHQWLVVDIHϙ ϙ ´ĺŪŘϙ¾Iϙèĺîôϡϙ ͗͘͏͔͔ϙϙ ϙ ϙ &ƌŽŵ͗ŝƚǇŽĨZĞŶƚŽŶфŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐΛĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŚƋ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂǇ͕:ƵůǇϮϴ͕ϮϬϮϱϭϮ͗ϮϭD dŽ͗ĞƚƐǇ^ĞǀĞƌƚƐĞŶ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŶŽŶǇŵŽƵƐhƐĞƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽŶĐĞƉƚƐ&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬ ϙ ĲĺĲƅıĺŪŜϙŜôŘϙĤŪŜťϙŜŪæıĖťťôîϙťēôϙŜŪŘŽôƅϙ"ôŜĖČĲϙĺĲèôŕťŜϙ>ôôîæÍèħϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŘôŜŕĺĲŜôŜϙ æôīĺſϟϙϙ ®ēĖèēϙèĺĲèôŕťϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙŕŘôċôŘϙĺŽôŘÍīīϦϙ īÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϦϙ IϙŘôÍīīƅϙīĺŽôϙťēôϙĖîôÍϙĺċϙÍϙŕīÍƅČŘĺŪĲîϙÍĲîϙťēôϙťŘÍĖīϙſĺŪīîϙæôϙČŘôÍťϟϙIϙÍīŜĺϙīĖħôϙťēôϙıĺſôîϙ īÍſĲϟϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙbÍťŪŘôϙÍŘħϦϙ IϙīĖħôϙťēôϙĖîôÍϙĺċϙÍϙīÍŘČôϙīĺĺŕϙťŘÍĖīϙÍĲîϙťēôϙĲÍťĖŽôϙŕīÍĲťϙČÍŘîôĲϟϙϙ ϙ ŘôϙťēôŘôϙÍĲƅϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙƅĺŪϙſĺŪīîϙbiϙſÍĲťϙťĺϙŜôôϙĖĲϙťēôϙċĖĲÍīϙŕÍŘħϙîôŜĖČĲϦϙ IϙîĺĲЍťϙſÍĲťϙťĺϙŜôôϙÍϙæĺÍŘîſÍīħϟϙIťϙīĺĺħŜϙĲĖèôϙæŪťϙIϙîĺĲЍťϙťēĖĲħϙťēôϙſĺĺîϙſĺŪīîϙīĺĺħϙĲĖèôϙ ĺŽôŘϙťĖıôϙÍĲîϙĖťϙèĺŪīîϙČôťϙŜīĖŕŕôŘƅϟϙIЍîϙŘÍťēôŘϙēÍŽôϙÍϙĲÍťŪŘÍīϙťŘÍĖīϟϙIϙîĺĲЍťϙīĖħôϙťēôϙĖîôÍϙĺċϙÍϙ ŕŪıŕϙťŘÍèħϟϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙôīŜôϙſĺŪīîϙıÍħôϙťēĖŜϙŕÍŘħϙċôôīϙſôīèĺıĖĲČϙÍĲîϙŪŜôċŪīϙťĺϙƅĺŪϙÍĲîϙƅĺŪŘϙċÍıĖīƅϦϙ IťϙſĺŪīîϙæôϙèĺĺīϙĖċϙſôϙēÍîϙÍĲϙÍŘôÍϙċĺŘϙÍϙŜŕīÍŜēϙŕÍîϤϙĺϙıÍħôϙĖťϙċôôīϙſôīèĺıĖĲČϠϙťēôŘôϙèĺŪīîϙ æôϙÍŘťϙťĺϙŘôŕŘôŜôĲťϙťēôϙîĖŽôŘŜĖťƅϙĺċϙĺŪŘϙèĖťƅϟϙϙ ϙ ®ēĖèēϙæôŜťϙîôŜèŘĖæôŜϙƅĺŪϦϙ ϙ &$87,217KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI5HQWRQ'RQRWFOLFNOLQNVUHSO\RURSHQ DWWDFKPHQWVXQOHVV\RXNQRZWKHFRQWHQWLVVDIHϙ IϙīĖŽôϙĺŘϙſĺŘħϙĖĲϙťēôϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙϙ ϙ ´ĺŪŘϙ¾Iϙèĺîôϡϙ ͗͘͏͔͔ϙϙ ϙ ϙ &ƌŽŵ͗ŝƚǇŽĨZĞŶƚŽŶфŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐΛĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŚƋ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂǇ͕:ƵůǇϮϱ͕ϮϬϮϱϰ͗ϱϳWD dŽ͗ĞƚƐǇ^ĞǀĞƌƚƐĞŶ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŶŽŶǇŵŽƵƐhƐĞƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽŶĐĞƉƚƐ&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬ ϙ ĲĺĲƅıĺŪŜϙŜôŘϙĤŪŜťϙŜŪæıĖťťôîϙťēôϙŜŪŘŽôƅϙ"ôŜĖČĲϙĺĲèôŕťŜϙ>ôôîæÍèħϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŘôŜŕĺĲŜôŜϙ æôīĺſϟϙϙ ®ēĖèēϙèĺĲèôŕťϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙŕŘôċôŘϙĺŽôŘÍīīϦϙ īÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϦϙ ĖèħīôæÍīīϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙbÍťŪŘôϙÍŘħϦϙ (èĺīĺČĖèÍīϙŜťôſÍŘîŜēĖŕϙϙ ϙ ŘôϙťēôŘôϙÍĲƅϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙƅĺŪϙſĺŪīîϙbiϙſÍĲťϙťĺϙŜôôϙĖĲϙťēôϙċĖĲÍīϙŕÍŘħϙîôŜĖČĲϦϙ bϯÍϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙôīŜôϙſĺŪīîϙıÍħôϙťēĖŜϙŕÍŘħϙċôôīϙſôīèĺıĖĲČϙÍĲîϙŪŜôċŪīϙťĺϙƅĺŪϙÍĲîϙƅĺŪŘϙċÍıĖīƅϦϙ "ôîĖèÍťôîϙŕĖèħīôæÍīīϙèĺŪŘťŜϟϙ[ĺťŜϙĺċϙťŘôôϙŜēÍîôϟϙϙ ϙ ®ēĖèēϙæôŜťϙîôŜèŘĖæôŜϙƅĺŪϦϙ IϙīĖŽôϙĺŘϙſĺŘħϙĖĲϙťēôϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙϙ ϙ ϙ &$87,217KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI5HQWRQ'RQRWFOLFNOLQNVUHSO\RURSHQ DWWDFKPHQWVXQOHVV\RXNQRZWKHFRQWHQWLVVDIHϙ ´ĺŪŘϙ¾Iϙèĺîôϡϙ ͗͘͏͔͔ϙϙ ϙ ϙ &ƌŽŵ͗ŝƚǇŽĨZĞŶƚŽŶфŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐΛĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŚƋ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂǇ͕:ƵůǇϮϱ͕ϮϬϮϱϭϭ͗ϱϲD dŽ͗ĞƚƐǇ^ĞǀĞƌƚƐĞŶ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŶŽŶǇŵŽƵƐhƐĞƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽŶĐĞƉƚƐ&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬ ϙ ĲĺĲƅıĺŪŜϙŜôŘϙĤŪŜťϙŜŪæıĖťťôîϙťēôϙŜŪŘŽôƅϙ"ôŜĖČĲϙĺĲèôŕťŜϙ>ôôîæÍèħϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŘôŜŕĺĲŜôŜϙ æôīĺſϟϙϙ ®ēĖèēϙèĺĲèôŕťϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙŕŘôċôŘϙĺŽôŘÍīīϦϙ īÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϦϙ ŕĺŘťŜϙèĺŪŘťϠϙŕŪıŕϙťŘÍèħϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙbÍťŪŘôϙÍŘħϦϙ æĺÍŘîſÍīħϙÍĲîϙĺŪťîĺĺŘϙèīÍŜŜŘĺĺıϠϙϙ ϙ ŘôϙťēôŘôϙÍĲƅϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙƅĺŪϙſĺŪīîϙbiϙſÍĲťϙťĺϙŜôôϙĖĲϙťēôϙċĖĲÍīϙŕÍŘħϙîôŜĖČĲϦϙ ÍϙŘôŜĖîôĲèôϙċĺŘϙÍϙŕÍŘħϙŜťÍċċϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙôīŜôϙſĺŪīîϙıÍħôϙťēĖŜϙŕÍŘħϙċôôīϙſôīèĺıĖĲČϙÍĲîϙŪŜôċŪīϙťĺϙƅĺŪϙÍĲîϙƅĺŪŘϙċÍıĖīƅϦϙ ıÍħôϙŜŪŘôϙťēôŘôϙÍŘôϙŜĺıôϙŜēÍîôîϙÍŘôÍϙċĺŘϙŜŪııôŘťĖıôϙϙ ϙ ®ēĖèēϙæôŜťϙîôŜèŘĖæôŜϙƅĺŪϦϙ IϙīĖŽôϙĺŘϙſĺŘħϙĖĲϙťēôϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙϙ ϙ ϙ &$87,217KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI5HQWRQ'RQRWFOLFNOLQNVUHSO\RURSHQ DWWDFKPHQWVXQOHVV\RXNQRZWKHFRQWHQWLVVDIHϙ ´ĺŪŘϙ¾Iϙèĺîôϡϙ ͗͘͏͔͔ϙϙ ϙ ϙ &ƌŽŵ͗ŝƚǇŽĨZĞŶƚŽŶфŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐΛĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŚƋ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂǇ͕:ƵůǇϮϱ͕ϮϬϮϱϭϬ͗ϮϭD dŽ͗ĞƚƐǇ^ĞǀĞƌƚƐĞŶ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŶŽŶǇŵŽƵƐhƐĞƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽŶĐĞƉƚƐ&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬ ϙ ĲĺĲƅıĺŪŜϙŜôŘϙĤŪŜťϙŜŪæıĖťťôîϙťēôϙŜŪŘŽôƅϙ"ôŜĖČĲϙĺĲèôŕťŜϙ>ôôîæÍèħϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŘôŜŕĺĲŜôŜϙ æôīĺſϟϙϙ ®ēĖèēϙèĺĲèôŕťϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙŕŘôċôŘϙĺŽôŘÍīīϦϙ īÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϦϙ ôôıŜϙıĺŘôϙÍèťĖŽôϙĖĲŜťôÍîϙĺċϙŕÍŜŜĖŽôϟϙôťÍĖĲŜϙēĖŜťĺŘĖèϙŕĺĲîϟϙ"ĺôŜϙĲĺťϙæŪĖīîϙÍϙŽÍĲîÍīĖŜıϙ ŕŘĺĲôϙôŽôĲťϙæŪĖīîĖĲČϟϙϙ ϙ ŘôϙťēôŘôϙÍĲƅϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙƅĺŪϙſĺŪīîϙbiϙſÍĲťϙťĺϙŜôôϙĖĲϙťēôϙċĖĲÍīϙŕÍŘħϙîôŜĖČĲϦϙ ϙŕĺĺŘϙŜƅŜťôıϙċĺŘϙŜôīôèťĖĲČϙſēĺϙČôťŜϙťĺϙæôϙÍϙèÍŘôťÍħôŘϙŘôŜĖîôĲťϟϙIŜϙťēĖŜϙČĺĖĲČϙťĺϙæôϙÍϙŕôŘħϙ ċĺŘϙèĖťƅϙôıŕīĺƅôôŜϦϙīŜĺϠϙĲĺϙГīĺſϙĖĲèĺıôГϙĲĺĲŜôĲŜôϟϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙôīŜôϙſĺŪīîϙıÍħôϙťēĖŜϙŕÍŘħϙċôôīϙſôīèĺıĖĲČϙÍĲîϙŪŜôċŪīϙťĺϙƅĺŪϙÍĲîϙƅĺŪŘϙċÍıĖīƅϦϙ ħĖŕϙťēôϙæÍŜħôťæÍīīϙèĺŪŘťϠϙŕŪťϙĖĲϙŜÍĲîϙŽĺīīôƅæÍīīϙèĺŪŘťϙſĖťēϙŗŪÍīĖťƅϙŜÍĲîϟϙϙ ϙ ®ēĖèēϙæôŜťϙîôŜèŘĖæôŜϙƅĺŪϦϙ iťēôŘϙϼŕīôÍŜôϙŜŕôèĖċƅϽϙϱϙôĲťĺĲϙŘôŜĖîôĲťϙſēĺϙîĺôŜĲДťϙſÍĲťϙĤŪŜťϙÍĲĺťēôŘϙГĲÍťŪŘôГϙťŘÍĖīϙťƅŕôϙ ŕÍŘħϟϙϙ ϙ ´ĺŪŘϙ¾Iϙèĺîôϡϙ ϙ &$87,217KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI5HQWRQ'RQRWFOLFNOLQNVUHSO\RURSHQ DWWDFKPHQWVXQOHVV\RXNQRZWKHFRQWHQWLVVDIHϙ ͗͘͏͔͖ϙϙ ϙ ϙ &ƌŽŵ͗ŝƚǇŽĨZĞŶƚŽŶфŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐΛĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŚƋ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗^ĂƚƵƌĚĂǇ͕:ƵůǇϭϵ͕ϮϬϮϱϳ͗ϮϮWD dŽ͗ĞƚƐǇ^ĞǀĞƌƚƐĞŶ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŶŽŶǇŵŽƵƐhƐĞƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽŶĐĞƉƚƐ&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬ ϙ ĲĺĲƅıĺŪŜϙŜôŘϙĤŪŜťϙŜŪæıĖťťôîϙťēôϙŜŪŘŽôƅϙ"ôŜĖČĲϙĺĲèôŕťŜϙ>ôôîæÍèħϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŘôŜŕĺĲŜôŜϙ æôīĺſϟϙϙ ®ēĖèēϙèĺĲèôŕťϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙŕŘôċôŘϙĺŽôŘÍīīϦϙ īÍĲϙϙϳϙbÍťŪŘôϙÍŘħϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϦϙ ŘôċôŘϙϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙbÍťŪŘôϙÍŘħϦϙ bÍťŪŘôϙĖııôŘŜĖĺĲϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙôīŜôϙſĺŪīîϙıÍħôϙťēĖŜϙŕÍŘħϙċôôīϙſôīèĺıĖĲČϙÍĲîϙŪŜôċŪīϙťĺϙƅĺŪϙÍĲîϙƅĺŪŘϙċÍıĖīƅϦϙ bĺťϙıÍħĖĲČϙťŘÍċċĖèϙÍĲƅϙıĺŘôϙîĖċċĖèŪīťϙťēÍĲϙĖťϙÍīŘôÍîƅϙĖŜϙϙ ϙ ®ēĖèēϙæôŜťϙîôŜèŘĖæôŜϙƅĺŪϦϙ IϙīĖŽôϙĺŘϙſĺŘħϙĖĲϙťēôϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙϙ ϙ ´ĺŪŘϙ¾Iϙèĺîôϡϙ ͗͘͏͔͔ϙϙ ϙ ϙ &$87,217KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI5HQWRQ'RQRWFOLFNOLQNVUHSO\RURSHQ DWWDFKPHQWVXQOHVV\RXNQRZWKHFRQWHQWLVVDIHϙ ϙ &ƌŽŵ͗ŝƚǇŽĨZĞŶƚŽŶфŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐΛĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŚƋ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂǇ͕:ƵůǇϭϳ͕ϮϬϮϱϴ͗ϮϯD dŽ͗ĞƚƐǇ^ĞǀĞƌƚƐĞŶ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŶŽŶǇŵŽƵƐhƐĞƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽŶĐĞƉƚƐ&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬ ϙ ĲĺĲƅıĺŪŜϙŜôŘϙĤŪŜťϙŜŪæıĖťťôîϙťēôϙŜŪŘŽôƅϙ"ôŜĖČĲϙĺĲèôŕťŜϙ>ôôîæÍèħϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŘôŜŕĺĲŜôŜϙ æôīĺſϟϙϙ ®ēĖèēϙèĺĲèôŕťϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙŕŘôċôŘϙĺŽôŘÍīīϦϙ īÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϦϙ ĺııŪĲĖťƅϙèôĲťôŘϙϙ ϙ ®ēĖèēϙæôŜťϙîôŜèŘĖæôŜϙƅĺŪϦϙ IϙīĖŽôϙĺŘϙſĺŘħϙĖĲϙťēôϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙϙ ϙ ´ĺŪŘϙ¾Iϙèĺîôϡϙ ͗͘͏͒͐ϙϙ ϙ ϙ ϙ &$87,217KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI5HQWRQ'RQRWFOLFNOLQNVUHSO\RURSHQ DWWDFKPHQWVXQOHVV\RXNQRZWKHFRQWHQWLVVDIHϙ &ƌŽŵ͗ŝƚǇŽĨZĞŶƚŽŶфŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐΛĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŚƋ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂǇ͕:ƵůǇϭϲ͕ϮϬϮϱϵ͗ϯϭWD dŽ͗ĞƚƐǇ^ĞǀĞƌƚƐĞŶ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŶŽŶǇŵŽƵƐhƐĞƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽŶĐĞƉƚƐ&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬ ϙ ĲĺĲƅıĺŪŜϙŜôŘϙĤŪŜťϙŜŪæıĖťťôîϙťēôϙŜŪŘŽôƅϙ"ôŜĖČĲϙĺĲèôŕťŜϙ>ôôîæÍèħϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŘôŜŕĺĲŜôŜϙ æôīĺſϟϙϙ ®ēĖèēϙèĺĲèôŕťϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙŕŘôċôŘϙĺŽôŘÍīīϦϙ īÍĲϙϙϳϙbÍťŪŘôϙÍŘħϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϦϙ IДıϙĲĺťϙÍťťÍèēôîϙťĺϙıŪèēϙĖĲϙŕīÍĲϙϟϙaÍƅæôϙťēôϙèĺııŪĲĖťƅϙČÍŘîôĲϟϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙbÍťŪŘôϙÍŘħϦϙ ®ĖťēĺŪťϙÍϙîĺŪæťϙťēôϙīĺĲČôŘϙťŘÍĖīŜϙÍĲîϙċĺèŪŜϙĺĲϙôèĺīĺČĖèÍīϙŘôŜťĺŘÍťĖĺĲϟϙϙ ϙ ŘôϙťēôŘôϙÍĲƅϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙƅĺŪϙſĺŪīîϙbiϙſÍĲťϙťĺϙŜôôϙĖĲϙťēôϙċĖĲÍīϙŕÍŘħϙîôŜĖČĲϦϙ IϙıôÍĲϠϙIДîϙīĖħôϙťĺϙĤŪŜťϙēÍŽôϙŕīÍĲϙϟϙŪťϙĲĺťēĖĲČϙĖĲϙŕīÍĲϙϙĖŜϙťôŘŘĖæīôϙϡϽϟϙIДîϙæôϙŜÍîϙťĺϙıĖŜŜϙĺŪťϙ ĺĲϙťēôϙīĺĲČôŘϙťŘÍĖīŜϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙôīŜôϙſĺŪīîϙıÍħôϙťēĖŜϙŕÍŘħϙċôôīϙſôīèĺıĖĲČϙÍĲîϙŪŜôċŪīϙťĺϙƅĺŪϙÍĲîϙƅĺŪŘϙċÍıĖīƅϦϙ ®ÍīħĖĲČϙôĲťŘÍĲèôϙĺċċϙ͐͘͘ϯ͐͗͘ťēϙŜťϟϙĖħôϙīÍĲôŜϙĺĲϙÍīæĺťϙŘĺÍîϙϙ ϙ ®ēĖèēϙæôŜťϙîôŜèŘĖæôŜϙƅĺŪϦϙ IϙīĖŽôϙĺŘϙſĺŘħϙĖĲϙťēôϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙϙ ϙ &$87,217KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI5HQWRQ'RQRWFOLFNOLQNVUHSO\RURSHQ DWWDFKPHQWVXQOHVV\RXNQRZWKHFRQWHQWLVVDIHϙ ϙ ´ĺŪŘϙ¾Iϙèĺîôϡϙ ͗͘͏͔͔ϙϙ ϙ ϙ &ƌŽŵ͗ŝƚǇŽĨZĞŶƚŽŶфŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐΛĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŚƋ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂǇ͕:ƵůǇϭϲ͕ϮϬϮϱϲ͗ϭϴWD dŽ͗ĞƚƐǇ^ĞǀĞƌƚƐĞŶ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŶŽŶǇŵŽƵƐhƐĞƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽŶĐĞƉƚƐ&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬ ϙ ĲĺĲƅıĺŪŜϙŜôŘϙĤŪŜťϙŜŪæıĖťťôîϙťēôϙŜŪŘŽôƅϙ"ôŜĖČĲϙĺĲèôŕťŜϙ>ôôîæÍèħϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŘôŜŕĺĲŜôŜϙ æôīĺſϟϙϙ ®ēĖèēϙèĺĲèôŕťϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙŕŘôċôŘϙĺŽôŘÍīīϦϙ IϙīĖħôϙôīôıôĲťŜϙċŘĺıϙæĺťēϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϦϙ IϙīĖħôϙťēôϙŜôĲŜôϙĺċϙèĺııŪĲĖťƅϙťēÍťϙŜÍƅϙÍϙèĺııŪĲĖťƅϙČÍŘîôĲϙĺŘϙıÍƅæôϙôŽôĲϙÍϙŜıÍīīϙèĺŽôŘôîϙ ÍŘôÍϙċĺŘϙīĺèÍīϙôŽôĲťŜϙèĺŪīîϙŕŘĺŽĖîôϟϙIϙťēĖĲħϙēÍŽĖĲČϙÍϙŜŕÍèôϙċĺŘϙæĺťēϙèēĖīîŘôĲϙÍĲîϙÍîŪīťŜϙ ſĺŪīîϙæôϙÍϙſĺĲîôŘċŪīϙÍîîĖťĖĺĲϙťĺϙťēôϙīĺèÍīϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϟϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙbÍťŪŘôϙÍŘħϦϙ IϙæôīĖôŽôϙťŘÍĖīŜϙÍĲîϙŜĖıŕīôϙČŘôôĲϙŜŕÍèôϙſĺŪīîϙÍīŜĺϙæôϙæôĲôċĖèĖÍīϙċĺŘϙťēôϙĺŽôŘÍīīϙēôÍīťēϙĺċϙťēôϙ èĺııŪĲĖťƅϟϙīÍèôŜϙťēÍťϙÍīīĺſϙƅĺŪϙťĺϙŘôťŘôÍťϙċŘĺıϙŜĺèĖôťÍīϙæŪŘîôĲŜϙÍĲîϙĖĲŜťôÍîϙÍīīĺſϙƅĺŪϙ ťĺϙŘôèĺĲĲôèťϙſĖťēϙĲÍťŪŘôϟϙIϙťēĖĲħϙæĺťēϙīÍĲϙϙÍĲîϙϙēÍŽôϙıôŘĖťŜϠϙÍĲîϙſôϙŜēĺŪīîϙıÍƅæôϙ ŜťŘĖŽôϙċĺŘϙÍϙċŪŜĖĺĲϙĺċϙťēôϙťſĺϙèĺĲŜĖîôŘĖĲČϙťēôϙÍıĺŪĲťϙĺċϙŜŕÍèôϙſôДŘôϙſĺŘħĖĲČϙſĖťēϟϙϙ ϙ ŘôϙťēôŘôϙÍĲƅϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙƅĺŪϙſĺŪīîϙbiϙſÍĲťϙťĺϙŜôôϙĖĲϙťēôϙċĖĲÍīϙŕÍŘħϙîôŜĖČĲϦϙ IϙîĺĲДťϙſÍĲťϙťĺϙŜôôϙÍĲƅϙæÍŜħôťæÍīīϙĺŘϙťôĲĲĖŜϙèĺŪŘťŜϟϙiŕôĲϙċĖôīîϙſĺŪīîϙŕŘĺæÍæīƅϙæôϙċÍŘϙıĺŘôϙ ŽôŘŜÍťĖīôϙŪŜôϙĺċϙŜŕÍèôϙŘÍťēôŘϙťēÍĲϙèŪťťĖĲČϙĺŪťϙŜŕÍèôϙċĺŘϙŜĺıôϙèĺĲèŘôťôϙŕīÍťċĺŘıŜϟϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙôīŜôϙſĺŪīîϙıÍħôϙťēĖŜϙŕÍŘħϙċôôīϙſôīèĺıĖĲČϙÍĲîϙŪŜôċŪīϙťĺϙƅĺŪϙÍĲîϙƅĺŪŘϙċÍıĖīƅϦϙ IċϙſôϙēÍîϙÍϙŽĺīŪĲťôôŘϙŕŘĺČŘÍıϙťĺϙÍŜŜĖŜťϙĖĲϙťēôϙĺŘČÍĲĖƏÍťĖĺĲϙĺċϙèôŘťÍĖĲϙīĺèÍīϙôŽôĲťŜϠϙIДîϙċĖĲîϙ ťēÍťϙťĺϙæôϙÍϙſôīèĺıĖĲČϙſÍƅϙťĺϙċŪŘťēôŘϙĖĲŽĺīŽôϙťēôϙèĺııŪĲĖťƅϟϙaÍƅæôϙĺŪťîĺĺŘϙıĺŽĖôϙĲĖČēťŜϠϙ ťēôϙèĺııŪĲĖťƅϙČÍŘîôĲϙIϙŕŘôŽĖĺŪŜīƅϙıôĲťĖĺĲôîϠϙæÍŘæôèŪôŜϠϙĺŘϙŜĖıŕīƅϙēôīŕĖĲČϙıÍĖĲťÍĖĲϙťēôϙ ϙ &$87,217KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI5HQWRQ'RQRWFOLFNOLQNVUHSO\RURSHQ DWWDFKPHQWVXQOHVV\RXNQRZWKHFRQWHQWLVVDIHϙ ŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϟϙIϙħĲĺſϙťēÍťϙŕôŘēÍŕŜϙÍϙīĺťϙĺċϙťēôŜôϙſĺŪīîϙæôϙĺŪťϙĺċϙťēôϙŗŪôŜťĖĺĲϙîŪôϙťĺϙċŪĲîĖĲČϠϙ ſēĖèēϙĖŜϙſēƅϙIϙťēĖĲħϙÍϙŽĺīŪĲťôôŘϙŕŘĺČŘÍıϙèĺŪīîϙæôϙŪŜôċŪīϙϙ ϙ ®ēĖèēϙæôŜťϙîôŜèŘĖæôŜϙƅĺŪϦϙ IϙīĖŽôϙĺŘϙſĺŘħϙĖĲϙťēôϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙϙ ϙ ´ĺŪŘϙ¾Iϙèĺîôϡϙ ͗͘͏͔͔ϙϙ ϙ ϙ &ƌŽŵ͗ŝƚǇŽĨZĞŶƚŽŶфŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐΛĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŚƋ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂǇ͕:ƵůǇϭϲ͕ϮϬϮϱϱ͗ϰϳWD dŽ͗ĞƚƐǇ^ĞǀĞƌƚƐĞŶ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŶŽŶǇŵŽƵƐhƐĞƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽŶĐĞƉƚƐ&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬ ϙ ĲĺĲƅıĺŪŜϙŜôŘϙĤŪŜťϙŜŪæıĖťťôîϙťēôϙŜŪŘŽôƅϙ"ôŜĖČĲϙĺĲèôŕťŜϙ>ôôîæÍèħϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŘôŜŕĺĲŜôŜϙ æôīĺſϟϙϙ ®ēĖèēϙèĺĲèôŕťϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙŕŘôċôŘϙĺŽôŘÍīīϦϙ IϙīĖħôϙôīôıôĲťŜϙċŘĺıϙæĺťēϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϦϙ FÍŽĖĲČϙÍϙŕīÍƅϙÍŘôÍϙċĺŘϙħĖîŜϟϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙbÍťŪŘôϙÍŘħϦϙ IϙīĖħôϙťēôϙĲÍťŪŘÍīϙæôÍŪťƅϠϙèĺĲŜôŘŽÍťĖĺĲϠϙÍĲîϙťēôϙċôôīϙĺċϙîĖŜèĺŽôŘƅϟϙϙ ϙ ŘôϙťēôŘôϙÍĲƅϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙƅĺŪϙſĺŪīîϙbiϙſÍĲťϙťĺϙŜôôϙĖĲϙťēôϙċĖĲÍīϙŕÍŘħϙîôŜĖČĲϦϙ IЍıϙĲĺťϙĺŽôŘīƅϙŕÍŘťĖèŪīÍŘϟϙĺϙīĺĲČϙÍŜϙťēôŘôϙĖŜϙÍϙſôīīϙæŪĖīťϠϙŜÍċôϙŕīÍèôϙťĺϙæŘĖĲČϙıƅϙèēĖīîϙťĺϙŕīÍƅϠϙ ÍĲîϙÍϙæôÍŪťĖċŪīϙĲÍťŪŘÍīϙÍŘôÍϙťĺϙſÍīħϯæĖħôϠϙIЍıϙŜÍťĖŜċĖôîϟϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙôīŜôϙſĺŪīîϙıÍħôϙťēĖŜϙŕÍŘħϙċôôīϙſôīèĺıĖĲČϙÍĲîϙŪŜôċŪīϙťĺϙƅĺŪϙÍĲîϙƅĺŪŘϙċÍıĖīƅϦϙ ĺĲŽôĲĖôĲťϠϙſôīīϙīĖťϙŕÍŘħĖĲČϟϙϙŕÍŽĖīĖĺĲϙſĖťēϙŕôŘēÍŕŜϙĺĲϙŜĖťôϙæÍťēŘĺĺıŜϟϙϙ ϙ ®ēĖèēϙæôŜťϙîôŜèŘĖæôŜϙƅĺŪϦϙ IϙīĖŽôϙĺŘϙſĺŘħϙĖĲϙťēôϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙϙ ϙ &$87,217KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI5HQWRQ'RQRWFOLFNOLQNVUHSO\RURSHQ DWWDFKPHQWVXQOHVV\RXNQRZWKHFRQWHQWLVVDIHϙ ϙ ´ĺŪŘϙ¾Iϙèĺîôϡϙ ͗͘͏͔͔ϙϙ ϙ ϙ &ƌŽŵ͗ŝƚǇŽĨZĞŶƚŽŶфŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐΛĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŚƋ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂǇ͕:ƵůǇϭϲ͕ϮϬϮϱϱ͗ϯϴWD dŽ͗ĞƚƐǇ^ĞǀĞƌƚƐĞŶ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŶŽŶǇŵŽƵƐhƐĞƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽŶĐĞƉƚƐ&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬ ϙ ĲĺĲƅıĺŪŜϙŜôŘϙĤŪŜťϙŜŪæıĖťťôîϙťēôϙŜŪŘŽôƅϙ"ôŜĖČĲϙĺĲèôŕťŜϙ>ôôîæÍèħϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŘôŜŕĺĲŜôŜϙ æôīĺſϟϙϙ ®ēĖèēϙèĺĲèôŕťϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙŕŘôċôŘϙĺŽôŘÍīīϦϙ īÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϦϙ ŜϙÍϙīĺèÍīϙŕÍŘôĲťϙſĖťēϙèēĖīîŘôĲϙIϙīĖħôϙīÍĲϙϙıĺŘôϙîŪôϙťĺϙťēôϙťŘÍîĖťĖĺĲÍīϙŕīÍƅČŘĺŪĲîϙſĖťēϙÍϙ ĲôÍŘæƅϙæÍťēŘĺĺıϠϙċĖôīîϠϙſÍīħĖĲČϙťŘÍĖīϠϙÍĲîϙæĺÍŘîſÍīħϟϙIϙÍīŜĺϙīĺŽôϙťēôϙĖîôÍϙĺċϙÍŘťϙĖĲŜťÍīīıôĲťŜϙ ťēÍťϙÍŘôϙċÍıĖīƅϙċŘĖôĲîīƅϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙbÍťŪŘôϙÍŘħϦϙ ēôϙôŽôĲťϙèôĲťôŘϙĖŜϙŕŘôťťƅϙèĺĺīϟϙϙ ϙ ŘôϙťēôŘôϙÍĲƅϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙƅĺŪϙſĺŪīîϙbiϙſÍĲťϙťĺϙŜôôϙĖĲϙťēôϙċĖĲÍīϙŕÍŘħϙîôŜĖČĲϦϙ bĺϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙôīŜôϙſĺŪīîϙıÍħôϙťēĖŜϙŕÍŘħϙċôôīϙſôīèĺıĖĲČϙÍĲîϙŪŜôċŪīϙťĺϙƅĺŪϙÍĲîϙƅĺŪŘϙċÍıĖīƅϦϙ IЍŽôϙŜôôĲϙŜĺıôϙŕÍŘħŜϙĖĲèīŪîôϙĺŪťîĺĺŘϙôƄôŘèĖŜôϙôŗŪĖŕıôĲťϙÍīĺĲČϙťēôϙŜĖîôϙĺċϙÍϙſÍīħĖĲČϙťŘÍĖīϟϙ ēĖŜϙſĺŪīîϙæôϙÍĲϙÍıÍƏĖĲČϙċôÍťŪŘôϙÍīĺĲČŜĖîôϙťēôϙťŘÍĖīϙťĺϙèŘôÍťôϙÍĲϙĖĲèīŪŜĖŽôϙŜŕÍèôϙċĺŘϙċĖťĲôŜŜϙϙ ϙ ®ēĖèēϙæôŜťϙîôŜèŘĖæôŜϙƅĺŪϦϙ ϙ &$87,217KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI5HQWRQ'RQRWFOLFNOLQNVUHSO\RURSHQ DWWDFKPHQWVXQOHVV\RXNQRZWKHFRQWHQWLVVDIHϙ IϙīĖŽôϙĺŘϙſĺŘħϙĖĲϙťēôϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙϙ ϙ ´ĺŪŘϙ¾Iϙèĺîôϡϙ ͗͘͏͔͔ϙϙ ϙ ϙ CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From:City of Renton To:Betsy Severtsen Subject:Anonymous User completed Design Concepts Feedback Date:Monday, September 1, 2025 5:46:12 PM Anonymous User just submitted the survey Design Concepts Feedback with the responses below. Which concept do you prefer overall? Plan A – Community Park What features do you most like in Plan A – Community Park? Many of the homes along Talbot south of Petrovitski/180th/43rd are townhouses, condos, or apartments. This means no "yards" or play areas for the kids that live there. A playground, sport courts, grass areas, and trails allow for these people to enjoy what kids and residents in other parts of the city get to enjoy. What features do you most like in Plan B – Nature Park? Trails throughout the park. Are there any features you would NOT want to see in the final park design? The outdoor classroom, while good intentioned, is not useful as it is not near any schools. The nearest school is actually a Kent elementary school and not a Renton school. What else would make this park feel welcoming and useful to you and your family? loop trails (figure 8 or something similar) that allows access to some of the more remote or western parts of the park Which best describes you? I live or work in the neighborhood Your ZIP code: 98055 &ƌŽŵ͗ŝƚǇŽĨZĞŶƚŽŶфŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐΛĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŚƋ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗^ƵŶĚĂǇ͕ƵŐƵƐƚϯ͕ϮϬϮϱϳ͗ϱϬWD dŽ͗ĞƚƐǇ^ĞǀĞƌƚƐĞŶ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŶŽŶǇŵŽƵƐhƐĞƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŽŶĐĞƉƚƐ&ĞĞĚďĂĐŬ ϙ ĲĺĲƅıĺŪŜϙŜôŘϙĤŪŜťϙŜŪæıĖťťôîϙťēôϙŜŪŘŽôƅϙ"ôŜĖČĲϙĺĲèôŕťŜϙ>ôôîæÍèħϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŘôŜŕĺĲŜôŜϙ æôīĺſϟϙϙ ®ēĖèēϙèĺĲèôŕťϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙŕŘôċôŘϙĺŽôŘÍīīϦϙ īÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙĺııŪĲĖťƅϙÍŘħϦϙ ŪıŕϙťŘÍèħϠϙôƄŕÍĲîϙťĺϙŜĺıôťēĖĲČϙťēÍťϙſĺŘħŜϙſĖťēϙÍϙċôſϙťƅŕôŜϙĺċϙſēôôīŜϟϙ(ƄôŘèĖŜôϙŜťÍťĖĺĲŜϙ ÍťϙıĖƄôîϙīôŽôīϙĖĲèīŪîôϙıôîĖŪıϙťĺϙēÍŘîϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙîĺϙƅĺŪϙıĺŜťϙīĖħôϙĖĲϙīÍĲϙϙϳϙbÍťŪŘôϙÍŘħϦϙ (ŽôĲťϙèôĲťôŘϙϙ ϙ ŘôϙťēôŘôϙÍĲƅϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙƅĺŪϙſĺŪīîϙbiϙſÍĲťϙťĺϙŜôôϙĖĲϙťēôϙċĖĲÍīϙŕÍŘħϙîôŜĖČĲϦϙ IĲċĺŘıÍťĖĺĲϙæŪĖīîĖĲČϠϙſôϙÍīīϙħĲĺſϙĖťϙſĺĲДťϙæôϙŜťÍċċôîϟϙôĲĲĖŜϙèĺŪŘťϙϙ ϙ ®ēÍťϙôīŜôϙſĺŪīîϙıÍħôϙťēĖŜϙŕÍŘħϙċôôīϙſôīèĺıĖĲČϙÍĲîϙŪŜôċŪīϙťĺϙƅĺŪϙÍĲîϙƅĺŪŘϙċÍıĖīƅϦϙ ēôϙæĖČČôŜťϙèēÍīīôĲČôϙĺċϙťēĖŜϙīĺèÍťĖĺĲϙĖŜϙťēÍťϙôŽôŘƅĺĲôϙſĖīīϙĲôôîϙťĺϙîŘĖŽôϟϙēôŘôϙÍŘôϙĲĺťϙ ŜĖîôſÍīħŜϙťĺϙťēôϙŘôŜĖîôĲťĖÍīϙÍŘôÍŜϙĖĲϙÍĲƅϙĺċϙťēôϙťēŘôôϙîĖŘôèťĖĺĲŜϟϙϙ ϙ ®ēĖèēϙæôŜťϙîôŜèŘĖæôŜϙƅĺŪϦϙ ϙ &$87,217KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI5HQWRQ'RQRWFOLFNOLQNVUHSO\RURSHQ DWWDFKPHQWVXQOHVV\RXNQRZWKHFRQWHQWLVVDIHϙ IϙīĖŽôϙĺŘϙſĺŘħϙĖĲϙťēôϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙ IϙŽĖŜĖťϙťēôϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙĺċťôĲϙϙ ´ĺŪŘϙ¾Iϙèĺîôϡϙ ͗͘͏͔͔ϙϙ Cleveland Richardson 7/7 WebinarϙbĺťôŜ: ťÍƯϡ x Mike Faulkner (Consultant) x Betsy Seversten x Rhemy King x Casey King Meeting notes: x BS starteî the meeting anî shareî staƯ roles x BS shared background of project x B.S. shared what is currently on property o Q received: What is being done to protect wildlife BS reassured folks that areas fall within critical area, is it is not possible to fully develop area. There will be pockets of parks development. x BS shared site photos o Q: Will invasive species be removed? BS: The city is planning to do restoration for those areas. Possible opportunities to do volunteer restoration o Q: How will the city keep the park safe when it is open? B.S.: A portion of the house will be used as a ranger or caretaker residence; many other cities have adopted ranger residences. Also consulting with police to construct this park safety. o BS is trying to collect lots of feedback so there is shared ownership on the property. Through engagement, people will have investment though keeping site safe. x BS Shared what they learned from engagement o Importance of safe access o Transportation department plans to add sidewalks on Talbot South o Working with Utilities and transportation closely to see if there are other needs to keep this area safe. Want to keep this area welcoming and usable. o Lots of interest for security and ongoing care Potential for gating site at night Police to have call boxes Clearly stated hours Ranger on site o Interest in interactive elements (e.g., community gardens and fruit trees) x Design ideas o MF shared that they are looking at 2 design options based on community feedback and on the opportunities and constraints of the site o 2 diƯerent themes o Community Park Concepts Looking at traditional park amenities Activation of park and blending park uses with natural character of site o Nature Park Cleveland-Richardson Park Webinar Notes Focus on immersing visitors in nature Prioritizing ecological restoration and education learning Create a park rooted in discovery and environmental stewardship Instead of traditional features, but opportunities for outdoor learning o Design Option (Community Park) MF shared about the traditional features of the design option. Thinking of ways to include natural topography at the park x Forested slope acts as natural buƯer to the site Parking access would be nearby Shared about the community garden, community lawn, pond, and an playground with climbing features and opportunities for an orchard (speak to heritage and providing buƯer to neighbors) Boardwalk through the environmentally sensitive areas o Design Option (Nature Park) MF shared that the nature park will include nature playground, boardwalk trail, outdoor classroom to immerse visitors in nature and bring environmental education opportunities to park and incorporate natural meadow to the playground. MF walked participants through design features x Parking and entry through Talbot x Reworking pond to natural wetland to give more Ʋexibility for parking and widen park entry x Lower Ʊeld for recreational development x Hillside with opportunities to engage with the wetlands x Concept has more intensive trail system x Community Garden x Event Center x Opportunity to restore native meadow x Hidden Ʊeld (hiking trail or themed trail) o Inspiration from Gnome trail, trail that incorporates rotating exhibits for users to engage with the forest MF shared both concepts side by side o Participants shared their preference and thoughts on the design Jen: Both layouts and designs are great, like nature base better (personally it Ʊts the needs of the family and age group better and it protects the space of the land that is being used as residents of the neighborhood, they see lots of animals a lot of the time and it is important to live harmoniously with animals than pushing them out. Having more space within the park to co- exists is appealing. Likes the idea of lots of hiking trails and native plant aspect is appealing. Daniel: Loves both, prefers the nature concept. Knows how residents walk and active at the site, the site would get lots of use. Any walking trails would get great use, housemates will drive to other trails to get walking in. Having a nearby trail would be cool. Acknowledges that kids who would use the zip line, but he would not personally Rebecca: Also likes the nature component. Idea on how to incorporate kids more into the nature concept, oƯering movie nights and lawn space for kid – community involvement. Lives closely and see lots of animals in the yard Terri : Agree that nature concept is preferred, it would keep quietness of the neighborhood. One of the concerns is traƯic and parking when people are trying to access walking trails, what will be done to counteract that x BS: The city has heard diƯerent things from neighborhoods (people want to block oƯ access completely because they are worried about people using the alterative access) Concerned about completely blocking oƯ access especially for emergency access since it would be diƯicult for an ambulance to get to the Western Ʊeld from Talbot entrance. x Question: public access from the city, not from neighborhood. How would the city deal with this. BS and the team are thinking over this issue and want to hear from other neighbors Marko: People are concerned about access point and cars parking. Have the city considered gating it oƯ and providing the neighborhood with the code. x BS shared about a park with ADA access code in Snohomish County, will look into this. Q: could the parking issue be resolved with permit parking on streets only (permit allowed to neighbors) x BS: Will follow up with the Transportation team. Not sure if such parking exists in Renton currently, if not, likely require Code update. Lori: Does not live in area but loves park and interested in what the city will do with this area. If she lived in area, would pick the nature, assuming that people would bring the dogs. BS conƱrmed that most people would bring dogs, noted no oƯ-leash dog park area. Looks like great concept and people from other areas will want to visit the new park as well. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT CLEVELANDͳ RICHARDSON PARK CULTURAL RESOURCES LITERATURE REPORT APPENDIX C. REVISED FINAL CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Cultural Resources Literature Review Prepared for February 2025 City of Renton REVISED FINAL CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Cultural Resources Literature Review Submitted to: Bruce Dees & Associates Prepared for City of Renton Prepared by Meagan Scott, M.U.P., and Sam Larson This report is exempt from public distribution and disclosure (RCW 42.56.300) ESA Project Number: D202400423.00 2801 Alaskan Way Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98121 206.789.9658 esassoc.com Atlanta Bend Irvine Los Angeles Mobile Oakland Orlando Palm Beach County Pasadena Pensacola Petaluma Portland Rancho Cucamonga Sacramento San Diego San Francisco San Jose Sarasota Seattle Tampa Thousand Oaks Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan i ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL ABSTRACT Environmental Science Associates (ESA) was retained by Bruce Dees & Associates, on behalf of the City of Renton, to conduct a Cultural Resources Literature Review to support the development of a new Master Plan for the Cleveland-Richardson Park (Project). The City of Renton’s Parks and Recreation Department is in the process of developing a new park on land sold to the City with the purpose of conserving open space. For many decades, the land was a family farm, and the primary residence and some ancillary structures are extant; the City will keep the primary residence (and possibly some of the nonnatural features). The primary residence is located at 19415 Talbot Road S in King County on parcel numbers 7931000005, 7931000007, and 0622059128. Parcel 0622059128 is located in the City of Kent, while other two parcels are within the City of Renton. This phase of the Project does not include ground disturbance, and this Cultural Resources Literature Review has been conducted for due diligence. Later phases of the work, however, may include ground disturbance. The Project is located near the historic locations of the Black, Cedar, and White/Green rivers, and as such ESA considers the Project Area to have a moderate to high risk for precontact-era archaeological resources, and a high risk for post-contact-era archaeological resources, given the historic use of the land as a family farm. ESA also suggests possible uses for the extant resources that include use as a caretaker’s cottage, space for an artist- in-residence program, a farmers market space, and interpretive center. The authors of this report meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology and Architectural History. Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan ii ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract .................................................................................................................................. i 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Proposed Project .................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Regulatory Environment ....................................................................................... 1 1.4 Project Area .......................................................................................................... 2 2. Project Setting ............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Research Methodology ......................................................................................... 5 2.2 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Geomorphology ......................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 Soils ........................................................................................................... 6 2.2.3 Flora and Fauna ......................................................................................... 7 2.3 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................... 10 2.3.1 Precontact Setting .................................................................................... 10 2.3.2 Post-contact and Historic Setting ............................................................. 11 2.4 Previous Cultural Resources Work ..................................................................... 25 2.4.1 Cultural Resources Assessments ............................................................ 25 2.4.2 Archaeological Resources ....................................................................... 26 2.4.3 Cemeteries ............................................................................................... 26 2.4.4 Traditional Cultural Places ....................................................................... 27 2.4.5 Historic Resources ................................................................................... 27 3. Expectations .............................................................................................................. 28 3.1 Historic Resources .............................................................................................. 28 3.2 Archaeological Resources .................................................................................. 28 4. Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 29 4.1 Historic Resources .............................................................................................. 29 4.2 Archaeological Resources .................................................................................. 29 5. References Cited ....................................................................................................... 32 Figures Figure 1. Project Area and Study Area ................................................................................ 3 Figure 2. Project Area on aerial photograph ........................................................................ 4 Figure 3. Geology of the Project Area .................................................................................. 8 Figure 4. Soils in the Project Area ....................................................................................... 9 Figure 5. An undated (but likely ca. 1938) photo of the primary residence ........................ 17 Figure 6. An undated photo (likely ca. 1938) of one of the chicken coops ......................... 18 Figure 7. 1964 photos of the primary residence ................................................................. 19 Figure 8. Looking north at the primary residence ............................................................... 20 Table of Contents Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan iii ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL Figure 9. Looking east at the primary residence (right) and remaining outbuilding (left) .................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 10. Looking east; the former root cellar is center background .................................. 21 Figure 11. The Project Area in 1936 .................................................................................... 22 Figure 12. The Project Area in 1977 .................................................................................... 23 Figure 13. The Project Area in 1991 .................................................................................... 24 Figure 14. Looking west, near the northwest corner of parcel 7931000007 ........................ 30 Tables Table 1. Precontact Periods ............................................................................................. 10 Table 2. Cultural Resources Assessments within 1 Mile of the Project Area .................... 25 Appendices Appendix A. Historic Property Record Cards Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 1 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL 1. INTRODUCTION Environmental Science Associates (ESA) was retained by Bruce Dees & Associates, on behalf of the City of Renton, to conduct a Cultural Resources Literature Review for the Cleveland- Richardson Park Master Plan (Project). The City of Renton is planning to convert a former family farm into a park, and in addition to the Cultural Resources Literature Review, Bruce Dees & Associates has requested recommendations regarding the potential for incorporating the extant resources into the park. 1.1 Project Location The Project is generally located at 19415 Talbot Road S in Section 6 of Township 22 North, Range 5 East, on the Renton, WA 7.5’ series topographic map (Figure 1). It is located on King County tax assessor parcel numbers 7931000005, 7931000007, and 0622059128. The western portion of the Project Area (parcel 0622059128) is located in the City of Kent, while the balance of the Project Area is in the City of Renton. 1.2 Proposed Project The City of Renton’s Parks and Recreation Department is in the process of developing a future park (the Cleveland-Richardson Park); the land was sold to the City by the Cleveland family with the purpose of conserving open space. The associated Master Plan will detail and map proposed site elements for recreation, trails, special features/interpretation, wayfinding, services (e.g., restrooms), a caretaker/maintenance facility (potentially using existing buildings), and protection and appreciation of natural/critical areas. Overall, the Master Plan will create a tangible vision and implementation strategy the City can use to: (1) develop the property into a recreational parkland consistent with current and future community needs; (2) steward and invest public funds; (3) apply for grant funding from local, state, and federal sources; and (4) balance developed recreation with environmental sustainability. 1.3 Regulatory Environment This Cultural Resources Literature Review is being undertaken as a part of due diligence to assist Bruce Dees & Associates, and the City of Renton Parks and Recreation Department, in better understanding the cultural context. This will help inform the Project and later development of the park. The Project is not currently subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), or Washington State Governor’s Executive Order 21-02 (GEO 21-02). However, the eventual development of the park could be subject to these depending on permitting and/or funding. Additional laws that apply to archaeological projects conducted within the State of Washington include: Archaeological Sites and Resources (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 27.53), Indian 1. Introduction Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 2 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL Graves and Records (RCW 27.44), Human Remains (RCW 68.50), and Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves (RCW 68.60). 1.4 Project Area The Project Area encompasses 23.7 acres across King County tax parcels 7931000005, 7931000007, and 0622059128, which is the assumed future location of the Cleveland-Richardson Park (Figure 2). The Project Area is accessed from Talbot Road S, and State Route (SR) 167 runs along the western border. Springbrook Creek runs through the northeast corner of the Project Area. The western portion (parcel 0622059128) is part of the City of Kent, while the balance is within the City of Renton. With the exception of the northwest corner, the Project Area has never been developed and was a small family farm for several decades. The surrounding area also once had multiple small farms, but the land was sold off and much of it subsequently turned into residential developments. 1. Introduction Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 3 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL Prepared by ESA 2024 Figure 1. Project Area and Study Area 1. Introduction Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 4 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL Prepared by ESA 2024 Figure 2. Project Area on aerial photograph Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 5 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL 2. PROJECT SETTING 2.1 Research Methodology This Project Setting was prepared using a 1-mile radius Study Area from the Project Area (Figure 1). ESA reviewed past cultural resources assessments, recorded archaeological sites, ethnographic studies, inventoried historic resources (buildings, districts, structures, objects, and sites), archival records (historical maps, aerial imagery, landowner records and census data, published histories), geological maps, soils surveys, and other environmental reports. These sources were reviewed to identify any cultural resources, including archaeological sites, cemeteries, and properties identified by tribes as having traditional religious and cultural importance or significance (also referred to as Traditional Cultural Places by the National Park Service), within the Project Area, and the probability for unrecorded resources, along with the area’s context of historic architecture. The following specific repositories were consulted: the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database maintained by the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), historic maps, records on file with the Washington Secretary of State, archival newspapers, and census records. ESA Architectural Historian Meagan Scott conducted a site visit on November 6, 2024, and conducted a brief reconnaissance of the Project Area to identify the presence of or potential for cultural resources. The visit also provided ESA with a better understanding of the site and its context to help provide recommendations for integrating the extant built environment resources into the Master Plan and future park. Multiple members of the Cleveland family were present during the site visit, and provided information about the area’s history and their memories. 2.2 Environmental Setting 2.2.1 Geomorphology The Project Area is located within the Puget Lowland physiographic province, a low-lying structural basin formed by the advance and retreat of glaciers during the Pleistocene epoch (2.58 million to 11,700 years ago). At least six times within the last two million years, glacial ice from Canada entered and then retreated from the Puget Lowland. During the most recent glacial period – the Vashon Stade (19,000 to 16,000 years ago) of the Fraser glaciation – the Puget lobe of the Cordilleran ice sheet overran the Puget Lowland and entered the Seattle area around 17,400 years ago (Booth et al. 2004). Meltwater shed from the prograding (advancing) glacial front eroded sediments laid down by earlier glaciations, redepositing these materials as advance outwash deposits. These typically sandy deposits were subsequently overridden and compacted by ice up to 2,500 feet thick (Thorson 1980), making them dense to very dense As the Cordilleran ice sheet subsequently retreated, meltwater inundated low-lying portions, depositing recessional outwash across much of the region. This resulted in the formation of 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 6 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL extensive glacial lakes and deposition of lacustrine silts, until the retreating ice thinned enough to allow the meltwater to drain into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In addition to isostatic rebound (tectonic uplift resulting from the removal of the massive weight of glacial ice), glacial till and recessional outwash plains were subject to other geomorphic changes following the retreat of glacial ice. These changes included stream incision, infilling of depressions, and mass movement events, such as landslides. The underlying geology of the Project Area consists of Fraser-age glacial deposits, including glacial outwash (Qgo on Figure 3) within the eastern portion of the Project Area, and glacial till (Qgt on Figure 3) within the western portion. Till material consists of poorly mixed sediment deposited as glaciers retreated, while the outwash consists primarily of stratified sand and gravel deposited by glacial meltwaters. Based on their ages and depositional environments, these geologic units have a very low sensitivity to contain buried archaeological deposits. The landform has not experienced substantial deposition since the end of the ice age. 2.2.2 Soils The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps soils within the Project Area as belonging predominantly to Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD and AgC on Figure 4), with a small area along SR 167 as belonging to Urban Land (Ur on Figure 4), and a pocket of mixed alluvial land (Ma on Figure 4) along the northern edge. The Alderwood series soil type consists of moderately deep, moderately well-drained soil that formed in glacial drift and outwash over dense glaciomarine deposits, on slopes between 0 and 65 percent (NRCS 2018). As this soil type forms within glacial deposits, archaeological materials would only be likely within the A horizon. The typical pedon (profile) of the Alderwood series consists of: • A horizon (0 to 7 inches/0 to 18 cm): Gravelly sandy loam (10YR 5/3) dry, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) moist; moderate fine granular structure; slightly hard, very friable, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; many fine roots; 20 percent gravel; abrupt smooth boundary. • Bw1 horizon (7 to 21 inches/18 to 53 cm): Very gravelly sandy loam, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) dry, dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) moist; weak medium subangular blocky structure; slightly hard, very friable, nonsticky and nonplastic; many fine roots; 35 percent gravel; clear wavy boundary. • Bw2 horizon (21 to 30 inches/53 to 76 cm): Very gravelly sandy loam, pale brown (10YR 6/3) dry, brown (10YR 4/3) moist; weak medium subangular blocky structure; slightly hard, very friable, nonsticky and nonplastic; common fine roots; 40 percent gravel; clear wavy boundary. • Bg horizon (30 to 35 inches/76 to 89 cm): Very gravelly sandy loam, light yellowish brown (2.5YR 6/4) dry, olive brown (10YR 5/2) moist; massive; slightly hard, very friable, nonsticky and nonplastic; few fine roots; masses of oxidized iron around rock fragments; 45 percent gravel; abrupt wavy boundary. 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 7 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL • 2Cd1 horizon (35 to 43 inches/89 to 109 cm): Very gravelly sandy loam, light brownish gray (2.5YR 6/2) dry, dark grayish brown (2.5YR 4/2) moist; massive; extremely hard; extremely firm, nonsticky and nonplastic; few fine roots; iron-manganese masses and masses of oxidized iron in cracks; 40 percent gravel; abrupt irregular boundary. • 2Cd2 horizon (43 to 59 inches/109 to 150 cm): Dense glacial till that breaks to very gravelly sandy loam, light gray (2.5YR 7/2) dry, grayish brown (2.5YR 5/2) moist; massive; extremely hard; extremely firm, nonsticky and nonplastic; 40 percent gravel. Urban Land indicates that prior anthropogenic ground disturbance has disturbed or removed the natural soil sequence (NRCS 2019). Within the Project Area, this designation is associated with the massive amount of ground disturbance resulting from the construction of SR 167 located to the west. Due to the degree of ground disturbance, intact archaeological deposits are not expected within soils designated as Urban Land. Mixed alluvial land consists of various layers of alluvium that have been deposited by stream or river action (NRCS 2024). Within the Project Area, this soil designation is associated with the Springbrook Creek stream drainage, a marginally incised drainage located within the northern portion of the Project Area (Figure 4). Alluvial action has the potential to both erode and bury archaeological deposits. As such, there is an increased potential for deeply buried archaeological deposits within this portion of the Project Area. 2.2.3 Flora and Fauna The Project Area is situated within the Tsuga heterophylla vegetation zone, which encompasses much of Western Washington (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Climax species within this vegetation zone are western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata). Other tree species common in this zone include Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), grand fir (Abies grandis), and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), as well as western white pine (Pinus monitcola) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), red alder (Alnus rubra), and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) occur in areas prone to disturbance, such as river and stream edges, and logged mature forests. In precontact times, the region contained faunal resources vital to native people, including terrestrial mammals, birds and waterfowl, fish, and shellfish. Native mammals include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus canadensis), beaver (Castor canadensis), river otter (Lutra canadensis), black bear (Ursus americanus), coyote (Canis latrans), cougar (Puma concolor), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), weasel (Mustela spp.), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Fish observed spawning in Springbrook Creek and its tributaries include coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), cutthroat trout (O. clarkii), and winter steelhead (O. mykiss) (King County 2016). 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 8 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL Prepared by ESA 2024 Figure 3. Geology of the Project Area 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 9 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL Prepared by ESA 2024 Figure 4. Soils in the Project Area 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 10 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL 2.3 Cultural Setting 2.3.1 Precontact Setting Overview The precontact cultural chronology of the Pacific Northwest and Puget Sound from the Late Pleistocene onward has been previously summarized (Ames and Maschner 1999; Blukis Onat et al. 2001; Kidd 1964; Kopperl et al. 2016; Matson and Coupland 1995; Nelson 1990). The various chronological systems generally agree on broad patterns in culture but may differ regarding the timing and significance of changes in specific aspects of culture, such as subsistence, technology, and social organization. The following discussion of cultural-historical sequence draws broadly on the various chronologies, but follows Kopperl et al. (2016) by recognizing five periods, which are summarized in Table 1. The Late Pacific period overlaps slightly with the post-contact era as described below. TABLE 1. PRECONTACT PERIODS Period King County Analytic Period Approximate Date Range Characteristics Late Pacific 5 2,500 cal BP – 200 cal BP Represented by seasonal habitation areas associated with resource procurement and increased variability in burial methods. Site types include winter villages, base temporary habitation areas, field temporary habitation areas, resource gathering sites for hunting, fishing, plants, and quarry sources. Middle Pacific 4 5,000 cal BP – 2,500 cal BP Represented by large plank houses, increase in decorative items, woodworking tools (adzes, mauls, wedges). Site types include possible villages, base and field seasonal habitation areas, resource gathering sites for hunting, fishing, plants, and quarry sources. Early Pacific 3 8,000 cal BP – 5,000 cal BP Located in marine and estuary settings; represented by large shell middens and decorative artifacts such as labrets and bracelets. Site types include base and field seasonal habitation areas, and various resource gathering and non- residential sites. Archaic 2 12,000 cal BP – 8,000 cal BP Often referred to as Olcott culture and located in riverine and lake settings; represented by cobble tools and lanceolate projectile points. Site types include small base and field seasonal habitation areas, resource gathering, and quarry sites. Paleoindian 1 14,000 cal BP – 12,000 cal BP Often referred to as Clovis culture, represented by projectile points. This period represents post-glacial entry of humans into the Puget Sound basin. Site types include small seasonal habitation areas, resource gathering near those areas, and isolate finds. cal BP = calibrated years before the present; Source: Kopperl et al. 2016 Study Area No precontact-era archaeological sites have been recorded within the Study Area. There are, however, multiple named places between two and three miles from the Project Area along the Green River (formerly the White River; see Section 2.3.2), demonstrating the presence of Coast 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 11 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL Salish people in the vicinity, which is also supported by archaeological evidence within the region. Beyond the Study Area, multiple Coast Salish settlements were once located near the confluences of the Green (White), Black, and Cedar rivers. Three precontact-era archaeological sites (approximately 3.5 miles from the Project Area) are associated with ethnographic villages along the Green River and the former channel of the Black River. These sites include 45KI51 (Sbabadid), 45KI59 (Tualdad Altu), and 45KI438 (Sqoa’lqo) (DAHP 2024a). 2.3.2 Post-contact and Historic Setting Overview Tribes hold complete knowledge of their history. The following section references published materials by Native scholars during the 20th and 21st centuries as available and non-Native people from the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. The latter materials often do not present the full and accurate understanding of Tribal history and knowledge. The authors acknowledge that these sources inherently contain deficiencies, and use of them is not intended to substitute or supersede historic knowledge held within Tribes. This discussion presents a brief summary of cultural practices for the purposes of informing expectations regarding the presence of archaeological and other cultural resources within the Project Area. The Study Area and its vicinity are within the traditional lands of the Southern Coast Salish (Suttles and Lane 1990). Within the White and Green River valleys from the Cascades to present- day Kent, the Southern Coast Salish include: the stqábš / Stkamish (Lower White River people), the sbalxqʷuʔábš / Smulkamish (Upper White River people), the sqʷəpábš / Skopamish (Green River people), and the yilálqʷuʔabš / Yilalkoamish (near the confluence of the White and Green rivers) (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Spier 1936; Suttles and Lane 1990). The Green River flows into the Duwamish River within the territory of the neighboring dxʷdəwʔábš Duwamish (“people of the inside”) (Duwamish Tribe 2024; Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Lane 1975; Spier 1936; Suttles and Lane 1990). While settlements tended to be independent, kinship relations existed and facilitated shared access to resources, such as fishing areas. Descendants of these groups at the time of Treaty signing are members of today’s non-federally recognized Duwamish Tribe, which is pursuing Federal recognition (Duwamish Tribe 2025a, 2025b), and the federally recognized bəqəlšuɬ Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, Suquamish Tribe, and Tulalip Tribes, as well as other groups throughout the region through intermarriage (Miller 2014; Lane 1972a, 1972b, 1974, 1975a, 1975b, 1975c, 1988; Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 2024; Snoqualmie Indian Tribe 2025; Suttles and Lane 1990). The Study Area would have been used by above-mentioned groups, and likely nearby spuyaləpabš (Puyallup) and dxʷsqʷə’liabš (Nisqually) for seasonal resource gathering, all of whom share a common dialect of the Southern Lushootseed language (Suttles and Lane 1990:485). The traditional diet of Southern Coast Salish groups relies heavily on salmon for subsistence. Traditional village structures were typically cedar plank houses where communities aggregated at the close of the growing season. Traditional subsistence patterns are described as follows, and many of these are still carried out today as part of continued cultural practices. Local hunting and fishing are traditionally practiced during the lean winter months, at which time groups would share supplies of preserved food, including smoked fish and shellfish and dried berries. 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 12 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL Traditionally, smaller groups moved seasonally during the warmer months, providing a broad subsistence base including shellfish, marine and freshwater fish, land game, waterfowl, sprouts, roots and bulbs, berries, and nuts (Suttles and Lane 1990). Food resources acquired during the spring, summer, and fall would traditionally be used for winter supplies and trade, as well as immediate consumption. A wide variety of plant resources are used for medicinal and other cultural uses. Western redcedar is an important resource for rope, baskets, and numerous household items; tules and cattails, often found near streams and marshes, are used for making mats (Suttles and Lane 1990:490). There is one location within the 1-mile Study Area with a recorded Lushootseed name. To the north of the Project Area is Sp3a’kwûlcuL, “’white stuff which comes upon water,’ for a ‘spring brook’ flowing into Panther Lake and emptying into a lake” (Hilbert et al. 2001:133, no. 207a). There are several locations with recorded Lushootseed names located between two to three miles from the Project Area, situated along today’s Green River, which was the course of the White River prior to the rerouting of the White River south to Tacoma and the lowering of Lake Washington in the early 1900s. Approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the Project Area was the confluence of several important rivers and the locations of multiple Indigenous villages. Coll Thrush describes the importance of this area: “The valley where the Black, Cedar, and White- Green rivers came together to form the Duwamish was a center of Indigenous settlement. There were towns here named Meeting of the Rivers, Crags, Little Cedar River, and Confluence, and the area also became an important refuge for local Native people during Seattle’s urban development” (Thrush 2007:244 no. 89). Non-Indigenous settlement of the Study Area began in the mid-1800s when settlers started to arrive and reconfigure the land toward their ends. With the passage of the 1850 Donation Land Claim Act, settlers began to claim homestead lands throughout the Pacific Northwest. These early settlements and land claims were focused on key routes of access and areas rich in resources. Within Puget Sound, the Duwamish, White, and Green River Valleys offered excellent agricultural opportunities for settlers. The traditional mobile subsistence strategies of hunter- fisher-gatherers were increasingly disrupted as settlement progressed. These impacts on Native American groups within the Puget Sound are documented by the treaties that were signed and the reservations that were established where these groups were forced to relocate from their traditional lands (Suttles and Lane 1990). The U.S. Government negotiated the 1854 Treaty of Medicine Creek with the Puyallup, Nisqually, and Squaxin and the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott with the Duwamish and allied Tribes (Marino 1990). As successors to the Duwamish and Upper Puyallup, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe was recognized as a party to both treaties (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 2024). The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe reservation lands were established in 1857 after the 1854–1855 Treaty Wars and treaty renegotiation at the Fox Island Council; the reservation was later expanded in 1874 (Lane 1972a:10; Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 2024). Under the provisions of the Treaty of Point Elliott, ratified in 1859, the U.S. Government established four reservations within the Puget Sound region, although no reservation was established specifically for the Duwamish (Duwamish Tribe 2024; Lane 1975b; U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 2015). Not all Coast Salish 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 13 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL relocated to reservations; some individuals remained in their traditional lands (Lane 1972a, 1972b, 1974, 1975a, 1975b, 1975c, 1988). Prior to 1906, the Green and White rivers merged at a confluence east of present-day downtown Auburn. After merging, they continued to flow north as the Green River, eventually joining the Duwamish River. In 1906, engineers diverted the White River away from the Green River and into the Stuck River located south of Auburn (Bagley 1929). Today, the Green River flows north into the Duwamish River following the former channel of the White River north of Auburn, while the White River flows south into the Puyallup River following the channel of the former Stuck River. Extensive farming has been conducted along the Green River and its tributaries. The focus of this agricultural activity has varied through time, switching from potatoes and other root crops to a booming hops industry, then later dominated by dairy farming (Valentino et al. 2017). The Green and Duwamish rivers provided farmers with desirable water access, and Indigenous people would ferry the settlers’ crops to Seattle along the river (Bagley 1929:692; Valentino et al. 2017). Coal mining was also an important industry in the area through the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As Renton (incorporated 1901) developed, major infrastructure projects followed including road construction. Today’s SR 167, which connects Renton to Puyallup, was established as a section of the Pacific Highway in 1913. The section from Orillia to Renton was approved for construction in 1916 (Artifacts Architectural Consulting 2014). In 1884, the Puget Sound Shore Railroad was constructed from Seattle to Puyallup through Orillia approximately 0.8 mile west of the Project Area; this became part of the Northern Pacific Railroad in 1889 and currently operates as the BNSF (Robertson 1995:255; USGS 1897). By 1907, two other railroads were constructed adjacent to the Northern Pacific, further connecting the Study Area to surrounding communities. These included the Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound Railroad, and the Puget Sound Electric Railway (also known as the Interurban) (Anderson Map Company 1907). The Interurban operated from 1902 to 1928, transporting passengers and goods between Seattle and Tacoma (Slauson 1976). The alignment of the Interurban is now paved as a pedestrian and bicycle path known as the Interurban Trail (Heideman 2016). The aviation industry and World War II efforts helped spur urban growth in Renton in the 1940s. By the 1950s, Boeing was producing the Dash 80 in Renton, the predecessor of the 707 that was the first commercial airplane to open up international travel (Boeing 2020, 2024). By the 1960s, the 727 and 737 airplanes were being manufactured at the facility (Boeing 2020, 2024). All of this production resulted in a need for suburban housing. Residential subdivisions as well as commercial and shopping centers developed on the outskirts of Renton. The City expanded through annexation following World War II, a process that has continued into the 21 century (City of Renton 2014). Project Area An 1867 land survey mapped Springbrook Creek, which passes through the northeast corner of the Project Area (Figure 2). Other early surveys from 1863 and 1965 showed a marsh in the southwest portion of the Project Area (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1863, 1865 1867). The 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 14 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL first land patent, for approximately the eastern two-thirds of the Project Area, was issued to John Krumm in 1873 (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1873). By 1897, there were several buildings near the Project Area, including two directly north and five to the east across Talbot Road. Although the 1897 map (USGS 1897) shows the Project Area as vacant, Cleveland et al. (2024) identified one extant shed (Figure 9) on the parcel as “original,” and dating to ca. 1890. At the time, the Project Area was generally equidistant between the cities of Kent (to the south) and Renton (to the north). While the road alignments have changed somewhat since that date, SE 192nd Street, SE 200th Street, and Talbot Road S were constructed by then. According to Cleveland et al. (2024), a school was built in the Project Area (generally where the extant primary residence is located) in ca. 1890. While research has not identified additional details, the Greater Kent Historical Society (2020) does list “Springbrook School” with operating dates of 1878 – 1905.1 In 1907, the Project Area was owned by Silas G. Hardin, M.M. Winters, Daniel Winters, and Levant Brannan (Anderson Map Company 1907), although an ad placed the previous year stated that Forester & Co had “secured the famous Spring Brook Farm,” which included a portion of the Project Area (Seattle Daily Times 1906). A 1912 map identifies it as the Spring Brook Acre Tracts with a small eastern portion owned by Agnes Bridges; John Krumm still owned some land nearby, directly north of the Project Area (Kroll Map Company 1912). An ad for the subdivision (Seattle Post-Intelligencer 1906) describes the land: We have secured the famous Spring Brook Farm in the valley south of Seattle and 1½ miles from Orillia. Have subdivided into 10 and 20-acre tracts. Some of these tracts have buildings; all have some improvements, fruit and spring water. Prices $150 to $175 per acre. […] We are selling these tracts on very good terms. Small amount down and easy payments. Spring Brook acre tracts have much to recommend them to one who desires a little farm home within easy reach of Seattle. […] For dairy and chicken farms, there is nothing finer. Spring water, some timber and close to market. In 1936, the general land ownership remained the same, with no owners identified withing the Spring Brook Acre Tracts. Bridges’ land, however, was subdivided, and all of the new owners, save one, had the same last name. It appears that John Bridges owned the land within the Project Area (Kroll Map Company 1926; Metsker Map Company 1936). The Project Area, specifically the northeast section, had seen notable construction by this time (Figure 11) – unlike the surrounding Study Area, which was minimally developed and primarily used for agriculture. King County records note the construction date of the primary residence in the Project Area as 1937, but it is visible in an aerial image from the previous year (Figure 11; King County 1938; King County Assessor 1936, 2024; NETROnline 2024).The aerial image also shows multiple outbuildings to the south and west of the primary residence, and an orchard farther to the west. At this time, the land (or at least the westernmost parcel) was noted as being owned by Roy L. Allen, 1 USGS maps from 1897 and 1900 do not show any buildings in the Project Area. 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 15 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL according to the historic property record cards (copies of the record cards are included in Appendix A; King County 1938). There does appear to be some discrepancy about the landowner(s) during the 1930s. Cleveland et al. (2024) note that the Project Area was owned by the Church family prior to 1951. The 1930 census lists a Church family as living in Orillia, with Roy L. Allen as a lodger. The Church family included Horatio (noted as the owner) and his wife Mary O. (nee Smith), children Ray and Mary E., and parents in-law Donohue and Elizabeth Alexander (U.S. Census Bureau 1930).2 Horatio was listed as a cleaner in the dock (ship) industry, and Allen as an electrician. However, newspapers from around the time list a Roy L. Allen as a Washington State deputy assessor; he ran for county commissioner in 1928 and 1934 and was defeated both times (Seattle Daily Times 1928, 1934; Seattle Post-Intelligencer 1928, 1934). The 1940 census lists the four Churches, Allen (noted as an employee), three boarders (Lucile Lester, age 15 and enrolled in high school, Robert Willis, age 8, and Joseph Willis, age 5), and a friend Ralph Coxon. It may be that the children boarders were foster children, as Mary O. has a listed occupation/industry as “Housewife/Boarding Mother” (U.S. Census Bureau 1940). In 1950, Horatio, Mary, and Ray were residents, along with brother and sister in-law Carl and Sara Backer, boarder Hans Schefnat (not a child), and hired man Albert Johnson (U.S. Census Bureau 1950b). Mary Elizabeth died at the age of 18 in 1940 (Washington Secretary of State 1940). According to Cleveland et al. (2024), the front mass of the house (facing the road/east; center right in Figure 5) was moved to “the top of 192nd” at an unknown date and the front portion rebuilt.3 In 1951, Edwin and Virginia (nee Richardson) Cleveland purchased 24 acres for $17,000 (King County 1938).4 Mary Church reportedly took a dislike to Edwin, who had to then negotiate the sale exclusively through a realtor (Cleveland et al. 2024). The family moved in 1952 from West Seattle with their five children (Nancy, Sally, Daniel, Craig, and Jane; another child, Clyde, died shortly after his birth in 1950). The couple wanted to farm and also have room for their children – they would eventually have three more (Marilyn, Carol, and Heidi). Edwin worked as a milkman and Virginia was a homemaker (Cleveland et al. 2024; Ossorio 2012; The News Tribune 2011; U.S. Census Bureau 1950a). When the family moved into the house, it was outside of the Kent school district, but the district moved the boundary to accommodate the Clevelands, and all eight children attended Kent district schools (Cleveland et al. 2024). When the Cleveland family moved in, there was an extensive orchard; although the precise location of some trees changed over the decades, the Clevelands had a variety of fruiting trees, including pear, black walnut, King and Gravenstein apple, Bing and pie cherry, and plum, along with rhubarb (Cleveland et al. 2024; King County Assessor 1936; NETROnline 2024; USGS EarthExplorer 2024). The family also had a variety of animals during the 1950s, including sheep, horses, pigs, and chickens, but from the 1960s on only had cows. (For a brief time, there were about 500 chickens, but according to Cleveland et al. [2004], “that didn’t last long.”) As with 2 The first identified reference to the Churches at the location was a Seattle Daily Times article from 1924, when Mrs. Mary Church of Springbrook Farm, Kent-Auburn, hosted the Kansas Women’s Club (the census records do note that she was born in Kansas). 3 Additional research has not identified the precise location near SE 192nd Street, or any other records related to the move. 4 Slightly under $200,000 in 2024 dollars (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2024). 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 16 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL many family farms, the Cleveland children helped with chores, such as milking cows and collecting, candling, and cleaning eggs. The garden and orchard produced a significant amount of food, and the family “canned all summer” (Cleveland et al. 2004). Some of the food (primarily apples) was shared with neighbors, but generally it was kept and eaten by the Cleveland family; it was stored in the basement in the canning room. The Project Area had several outbuildings in the early 1950s, most of which were removed over the following years. These included two chicken coops to the west of the primary residence (Figure 6), two large barns (one south of the primary residence), at least three sheds (Figure 9), outhouses, a granary southwest of the primary residence, and two hired men’s houses. The houses for the hired men were north and south of the primary residence; the one to the north – only the foundation currently remains – was two rooms. A root cellar (Figure 10) was converted to a shed for cows (Cleveland et al. 2024; King County 1938; King County Assessor 1936). The family established a pet cemetery in one of the clearings near the southern edge of their land and buried their cows in the first clearing (near the root cellar). They also used the far west clearing for softball (Cleveland et al. 2024). At an unknown point, the Clevelands lost the key to the front door (then on the east façade) and, in response, relocated the front door to the south façade (a side door became the primary entry) and built a fireplace on the east façade. In the early 1960s, they enclosed the southern porch (Figure 8). Additionally, to accommodate the family, the back (west) porch was enclosed, resulting in an expanded kitchen and additional living space on the ground floor, and an additional bedroom and bathroom upstairs (Figure 7; Cleveland et al. 2024; King County 1938). An undated photo (Figure 5) shows a one-story mass on the south that is no longer extant and was likely demolished around the same time as the entry relocation. In 1963 or 1964, Edwin Cleveland replaced the natural pond, located southwest of the primary residence that was fed by nearby streams, with a concrete-lined pond (Figure 12). The family used the new pond for watering the land and swimming; it was stocked with carp to control the algae. Despite this, it still needed to be drained annually and cleaned – the fish would be flushed out with the water and gathered at the pipe’s outfall, cleaned, and put into kiddie pools until they could be returned to the clean pond. The family, and neighbors, swam in the pool throughout the summer. They (the Clevelands) also instituted a birthday party celebration, which in later years grew to include the grandchildren (Cleveland et al. 2024). Several of the outbuildings present in the Project Area, particularly those to the south of the primary residence, were removed by the end of the 1960s. In addition, the orchard, while still present, was not as formally cultivated (compare Figure 11 to Figure 12). In 1969, visible buildings included the primary residence, ca.1890 shed, and a large barn to the northwest. By 1991, the barn was demolished (NETROnline 2024; USGS EarthExplorer 2024). Beyond these changes, however, the Project Area remained overwhelmingly the same. By the early 1990s, the surrounding farms had been sold and many of them converted to subdivisions (Figure 13). According to Heidi Cleveland (in Ossorio [2012]), “it seemed like everyday building contractors with nice, fat checks would show up on our doorsteps asking us to 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 17 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL sell. Mom [Virginia] would cry because she didn’t want to sell the place.” The City of Renton also approached the family – also in the early 1990s – about “selling three acres to create a walking trail by the Springbrook Stream” (Ossorio 2012). This conservation option was of interest to the Clevelands, who offered the entirety of the land to the City. The City purchased the land for $1.2 million in 1995,5 and also established a life estate, allowing Edwin and Virginia to remain in the house and maintain the acreage. They remained until their deaths – Edwin in October 2003 and Virginia in November 2011 – after which the land reverted to the City (Cleveland et al. 2024; Ossorio 2012). Currently, only the primary residence, root cellar, and a single shed (built ca. 1890) remain (Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10). SOURCE: King County 1938 Figure 5. An undated (but likely ca. 1938) photo of the primary residence 5 Approximately $2.46 million in 2024 dollars (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2024). 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 18 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL SOURCE: King County 1938 Figure 6. An undated photo (likely ca. 1938) of one of the chicken coops 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 19 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL SOURCE: King County 1938 Figure 7. 1964 photos of the primary residence 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 20 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL Photo by ESA 2024 Figure 8. Looking north at the primary residence Photo by ESA 2024 Figure 9. Looking east at the primary residence (right) and remaining outbuilding (left) 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 21 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL Photo by ESA 2024 Figure 10. Looking east; the former root cellar is center background 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 22 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL SOURCE: King County Assessor 1936 Figure 11. The Project Area in 1936 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 23 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL SOURCE: USGS EarthExplorer 2024 Figure 12. The Project Area in 1977 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 24 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL SOURCE: USGS EarthExplorer 2024 Figure 13. The Project Area in 1991 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 25 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL 2.4 Previous Cultural Resources Work ESA conducted a records search of DAHP’s WISAARD system on December 3, 2024 (DAHP 2024a). 2.4.1 Cultural Resources Assessments There has been one cultural resources assessment (a historic structures survey) that encompasses roughly the western 25 percent of the Project Area. An additional 16 prior cultural resources assessments have been carried out within the 1-mile Study Area (Table 2). They were prepared in advance of stream restoration, telecommunications towers, development of new residential subdevelopments, widening of SE 208th Street, improvements to Carr Road and Interstate 405, and development of bus rapid ride lines; there was also an additional historic structures survey. TABLE 2. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENTS WITHIN 1 MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA Approximate Distance from Project Resources Identified in Study Area Project Citation NADB Number Overlaps Multiple built environment resources Historic Resources Survey & Inventory Scott 2008 1352086 0.15 mile N None Cultural Resources Report for the Upper Springbrook Creek Channel Realignment and Rehabilitation Project Naumann 2010 1680175 0.15 mile N 11 isolates (none recorded) Monitoring Report for the Upper Springbrook Creek Channel Realignment and Rehabilitation Project Naumann 2011 1681754 0.20 mile E One building SD2385 SE 192nd & 104th Pl. SE, 10321 SE 192nd Street Borth and Keeney 2014 1684938 0.45 mile N/NE None Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Proposed AT&T Mobility Project: SD2385 SE 192nd St. and 104th Pl. SE Poole and Amell 2014a 1684937 0.70 mile W Multiple built environment resources RapidRide I Line Cultural Resources Technical Report Addendum #2 Gray and Yellin 2023 1697991 0.70 mile N None Cultural Resources Survey Interstate 405 Corridor Survey: Phase 1 Interstate 5 to State Route 169 Improvements Project Bundy 2008 1352447 0.75 mile E None An Archaeological Reconnaissance of SR 515 SE 196th St to Carr Road Robinson 1982b 1331813 0.75 mile S One building Cultural Resources Assessment for the Hillcrest Project Kleinschmidt et al. 2019 1692394 0.75 mile S None Proposed AT&T Mobility Project: SD2384 Kent Chestnut Ridge Park Poole and Amell 2014b 1684924 0.75 mile S None An Archaeological Reconnaissance of S.E. 208th Street: SR 515 to 132nd Avenue Southeast Robinson 1984, 1985 1330689 0.80 mile N None Carr Road Improvements (CIP#400898) Cultural Resources Assessment Forsman et al. 2003 1343241 0.80 mile N None Cultural Resources Survey for the WSDOT's I- 405/SR 167 Direct Connector Project Smith et al. 2014 1686391 0.95 mile SE Isolates (none recorded) Letter to Colin Lund Regarding Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed Vila Real Subdivision Near Panther Lake Cooper 2005 1346492 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 26 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL Approximate Distance from Project Resources Identified in Study Area Project Citation NADB Number 1.0 mile S None A Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of SR 167: South 212th Street Interchange Robinson 1982a 1330665 1.0 mile S None Archaeological Monitoring SE 208th Street Forrest 1986 1331214 NADB: National Archeological Database; Source: DAHP 2024a During construction monitoring of the realignment and rehabilitation of Upper Springbrook Creek, near S 55th Street and SR 167, Naumann (2011) identified 11 isolated artifacts, “including six historic bottles dating to between 1880–1920 from the project area along with more modern materials such as an ironstone cup with a missing handle from the mid-1900s, the basal portion of a late 1900s glass cup, and four late 1900s bottles. A pile of modern historic construction debris was also observed in the project area. Early historic maps clearly indicate the Upper Springbrook Creek was channelized by the early 1900s, and it is believed that these historic bottles were transported into the project area via flooding events along this newly channeled waterway shortly after channelization.” None of the resources were recorded in WISAARD. In preparation for a residential development Cooper (2005) also identified several isolated artifacts near SE 200th Street, but noted an opinion “that the bone, charcoal, and the assorted modem refuse do not constitute a historic period archaeological site because the assemblage lacks any diagnostic artifacts that would date the material to pre-1955” and they were not recorded in WISAARD. 2.4.2 Archaeological Resources There is one recorded archaeological site within the 1-mile Study Area: 45KI1254, the Puget Sound Electric Railway Grade. The site is approximately 1.0 mile west of the Project Area. It consists of two segments of the 1909–1928 Puget Sound Electric Railway Grid and is now a part of the Interurban Trail. The site’s “rails and sleepers have all been removed from the grade and no other remnants of the railroad were noted” in 2016 (Heideman 2016). 2.4.3 Cemeteries According to available historical maps and records at DAHP, there is one recorded cemetery within 1 mile (Anderson Map Company 1907; DAHP 2024a; Kroll Map Company 1912, 1926; Metsker Map Company 1936; USGS 1897, 1900, 1949). The Saar Pioneer Cemetery (45KI872) is located approximately 0.9 mile south of the Project Area, at 9100 S 212th Street, Kent. Individuals buried here appear to have been non-Indigenous, with death dates ranging from 1873– 1930, although it may have been active later (Kent UMC [2024] lists active dates from 1873– 1949). The cemetery index lists 82 names. It is a City of Kent Historical Landmark (Greater Kent Historical Society 2024; Kent UMC 2024; Washington Secretary of State 2011). 2. Project Setting Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 27 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL 2.4.4 Traditional Cultural Places No recorded cultural resources, or places identified by Tribes as having traditional religious and cultural importance or significance (also referred to as Traditional Cultural Places) are known to exist within the Project Area (DAHP 2024a). 2.4.5 Historic Resources There are no historic resources within the Project Area that have previously been recorded in WISAARD. The King County Assessor (2024) identifies one building within the Project Area (not inventoried in WISAARD) – the residence at 19415 Talbot Road S. The King County Assessor lists a construction date of 1937, although aerial imagery shows it was built by 1936. In addition, there are (and have been) outbuildings within the Project Area that are not identified by the King County Assessor; extant resources include the pond (built in the 1960s), ca. 1890 shed, and root cellar (built prior to 1951). Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 28 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL 3. EXPECTATIONS 3.1 Historic Resources Based on the setting discussed above, ESA understands that all four of the extant historic resources in the Project Area are more than 50 years in age. If future phases of the Project are subject to Section 106 or GEO 21-02, additional documentation will be required. Both Section 106 and GEO 21-02 require that potential project impacts on historic resources be identified, and in some cases, mitigated. 3.2 Archaeological Resources The Project Area is classified as Moderate, High, and Very High Risk in DAHP’s Statewide Predictive Model for containing precontact-era archaeological sites (DAHP 2010).6 As discussed in the setting above, the northeast area of the Project Area has seen the construction and demolition of several outbuildings, along with small agricultural efforts (Figure 11).ESA expects this portion of the Project Area to have a low to moderate potential for containing intact precontact-era archaeological resources, due to the degree of previous ground disturbance. Likewise, the western portion of the Project Area designated as Urban Land has also been subjected to a high degree of ground disturbance, and the potential for intact archaeological deposits has likely been diminished. ESA expects the balance of the Project Area to have a moderate to high potential for containing intact precontact-era archaeological resources. The archaeological and ethnographic context of the Project Area indicates that the location was the focus of precontact-era land use patterns and resource procurement activities. However, none of the Cleveland family members noted finding archaeological resources during their ownership and exploration of the Project Area (Cleveland et al. 2024). ESA expects the Project Area to have a high potential for containing historic-era archaeological resources, due to the construction and demolition of the outbuildings and sustained use of the land by a large family. Cleveland et al. (2024) also noted two locations in the Project Area where animals are buried. Cows were generally buried in the eastern field (Figure 10), and pets were buried near the southern boundary of the Project Area, directly south of the pond. If future phases are subject to Section 106 or GEO 21-02, the Project will require additional archaeological investigation. ESA recommends a subsurface survey of areas that will be subject to ground disturbance and in accordance with the relevant regulatory nexus (see following section for additional details). 6 The Statewide Predictive Model is a tool used by archaeologists and planners to evaluate potential archaeological risks on a broad scale. The model was developed to statistically evaluate multiple environmental factors (e.g., elevation, slope percent, aspect, distance to water, soils, and landforms) in order to predict where archaeological resources might be found (Kauhi 2013). It is not a substitute for conducting site-specific subsurface investigations. Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 29 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Historic Resources The proposed Project includes converting the Project Area into a park, which will primarily be used for passive purposes. Although precise plans have not yet been determined, the City intends to keep the primary residence and possibly other existing built resources. Bruce Dees & Associates has requested recommendations for incorporating the extant resources into the new park. ESA’s recommendations include, but are not necessarily limited to: • Converting the primary residence into a caretaker’s cottage. • Establishing an artist-in-residency program on the site. Some examples of similar programs include Mary Olson Farm in the City of Auburn; the Good Shepherd Center in the Wallingford neighborhood of Seattle, maintained by Historic Seattle; and at multiple national parks, through the National Park Service’s Arts in the Parks program (City of Auburn 2024; Historic Seattle 2024; National Park Service 2024). • Using the primary residence as an interpretation center. It could present a variety of applicable topics, including a history of agriculture and small family farms in the area. It could also include the need/desire to modify buildings over time to respond to new needs (a growing family, etc.). In addition to discussing changes – whether specific to this location or in general – to the primary residence, it could also incorporate changes to outbuildings. Related discussion could also include the need for hired hands and to bring on lodgers, and how small farms and Renton have changed over time. ESA recommends the implementation of participatory activities, as these often tend to be more engaging and welcoming to the general public (Vagnone and Ryan 2016). • Establishing a small farmers market space, possibly in partnership with a local farm(s). The aforementioned options also could be combined; they need not be standalone uses. 4.2 Archaeological Resources The November 6, 2024 site visit did not identify any archaeological resources, although it should be noted the western half of the Project Area was not accessed due to vegetation. Approximately half of the Project Area is densely vegetated with little ground visibility (Figure 14). Based on this, and results of this Cultural Resources Literature Review indicating a high potential for archaeological resources, ESA recommends that subsurface survey occur to confirm the presence or absence of archaeological resources within the Project Area. The subsurface survey should occur once the project design and regulatory nexus (if any) is determined and include any areas of ground disturbance planned as a part of the park development. 4. Recommendations Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 30 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL Photo by ESA 2024 Figure 14. Looking west, near the northwest corner of parcel 7931000007 The DAHP provides the following recommended language pursuant to RCWs 68.50.645, 27.44.055, and 68.60.055 regarding protocols for the inadvertent discovery of human skeletal remains on non-federal and non-Tribal land in Washington (DAHP 2024b): If ground-disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of construction, then all activity will cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains. The area of the find will be secured and protected from further disturbance. The finding of human skeletal remains will be reported to the county medical examiner/coroner and local law enforcement in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains will not be touched, moved, or further disturbed. The county medical examiner/coroner will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non-forensic. If the county medical examiner/coroner determines the remains are non-forensic, then they will report that finding to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) who will then take jurisdiction over the remains. DAHP will notify any appropriate cemeteries and all affected tribes of the find. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non-Indian and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the affected tribes. DAHP will then 4. Recommendations Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 31 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains. Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 32 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL 5. REFERENCES CITED Ames, Kenneth M., and Herbert G. Maschner 1999 Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames & Hudson, New York. Anderson Map Company 1907 Anderson’s Atlas of King County. Electronic document, https://historicmapworks.com/Map/US/1250015/Page+15+++Township+21+North+ +Range+5+East/King+County+1907/Washington/, accessed December 9, 2024. Artifacts Architectural Consulting 2014 Washington State’s Historic State Roads: Historic Context for Island, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Kitsap Counties. Prepared for the Puget Sound Regional Council and Island Regional Transportation Planning Organization by Artifacts Architectural Consulting, Tacoma. Bagley, Clarence Booth 1929 History of King County. Chicago: S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., Seattle. Blukis Onat, Astrida R., Maury E. Morgenstein, Philippe D. LeTourneau, Robert P. Stone, Jerre Kosta, and Paula Johnson 2001 Archaeological Investigations at stuwe’yuq – Site 45KI464, Tolt River, King County, WA. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities by BOAS, Seattle. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Boeing 2020 Boeing History Chronology. Electronic document, https://www.boeing.com/content/ dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/history/pdf/Boeing-Chronology.pdf, accessed December 10, 2024. 2024 Renton Production Facility. Electronic document, https://www.boeing.com/ company/about-bca/renton-production-facility#anchor1, accessed December 10, 2024. Booth, Derek B., Kathy Goetz Troost, John J. Clague, and Richard B. Waitt 2004 The Cordilleran Ice Sheet. Developments of Quaternary Science, 2004(1):17-43. Borth, Holly, and Roz Keeney 2014 SD2385 SE 192nd & 104th Pl. SE, 10321 SE 192nd Street. Prepared for AT&T by Adapt Engineering, Portland, Oregon. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Bundy, Barbara E. 2008 Cultural Resources Survey Interstate 405 Corridor Survey: Phase 1 Interstate 5 to State Route 169 Improvements Project. Prepared for and by the Washington State Department of Transportation. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 5. References Cited Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 33 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL City of Auburn 2024 Artist in Residence. Electronic document, https://www.auburnwa.gov/city_hall/parks_arts_recreation/arts_and_entertainment/ar tist_in_residence, accessed December 13, 2024. City of Renton 2014 City of Renton Annexation History. Electronic document, https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7922657/File/City%20Hall/Administr ative%20Services/Information%20Technology/GIS/AnnexationHistory.pdf, accessed December 10, 2024. Cleveland, Heidi, Marilyn Cleveland, Carol Lavalle, Sally Cleveland, and Craig Cleaveland 2024 Personal interview with Betsy Severtsen, City of Renton; Michael Faulkner, Bruce Dees & Associates; and Meagan Scott; ESA. November 6. Cooper, Jason 2005 Letter to Colin Lund Regarding Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed Vila Real Subdivision Near Panther Lake. Prepared for Yarrow Bay Development by Jones & Stokes, Bellevue, WA. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Duwamish Tribe 2024 Duwamish Tribe. Electronic document, https://www.duwamishtribe.org/, accessed December 10, 2024. 2025a Lawsuit for Federal Recognition. February. Electronic document, https://www.duwamishtribe.org/lawsuit-for-federal-recognition, accessed February 19, 2025. 2025b We Are Still Here. Electronic document, https://www.duwamishtribe.org/federal- recognition, accessed February 19, 2025. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) 2010 Statewide Predictive Model. Last updated 2010. Electronic document, http://www.dahp.wa.gov/, accessed December 3, 2024. 2024a Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database. Secure database, http://www.dahp.wa.gov/, accessed December 3, 2024. 2024b Recommended Inadvertent Human Remains Discovery Language. Electronic document, https://dahp.wa.gov/archaeology/human-remains/recommended- inadvertent-human-remains-discovery-language, accessed December 13, 2024. Forrest, James E. 1986 Archaeological Monitoring SE 208th Street. Prepared for Scoccolo Construction by BOAS. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 5. References Cited Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 34 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL Forsman, Leonard A., Kurt W. Roedel, Dennis E. Lewarch, and Lynn L. Larson 2003 Carr Road Improvements (CIP#400898) Cultural Resources Assessment. Prepared for Parsons Brinkerhoff by Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services, Gig Harbor, WA. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Franklin, Jerry F., and C.T. Dyrness 1988 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. Gray, Connie, and Michelle Yellin 2023 RapidRide I Line Cultural Resources Technical Report Addendum #2. Prepared for Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, submitted by the Federal Transit Administration. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Haeberlin, Hermann, and Erna Gunther 1930 Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Heideman, Eileen 2016 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form: 45KI1254. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Hilbert, Vi, Jay Miller, and Zalmai Zahir 2001 Puget Sound Geography: Original Manuscript from T.T. Waterman. Lushootseed Press, Federal Way, Washington. Historic Seattle 2024 Good Shepherd Center. Electronic document, https://historicseattle.org/project/good- shepherd/, accessed December 13, 2024. Kauhi, Tonya C. 2013 Statewide Predictive Model. Prepared for the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation by GeoEngineers, Tacoma. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Greater Kent Historical Society 2020 Growth After Cityhood. October 21. The Greater Kent Historical Society and Museum. Electronic document, https://kenthistoricalmuseum.org/f/growth-after- cityhood, accessed December 12, 2024. 2024 Historical Sites. The Greater Kent Historical Society and Museum. Electronic document, https://kenthistoricalmuseum.org/historical-sites, accessed December 3, 2024. Kent United Methodist Church (UMC) 2024 Saar Pioneer Cemetery. Electronic document, https://kentmethodist.com/ saarpioneercemetery, accessed December 3, 2024. 5. References Cited Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 35 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL Kidd, Robert 1964 A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the Perspective of Three Occupation Sites. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. King County 1938 Historic property record cards for parcel 793100-0005. On file, Washington State Archives, Puget Sound Regional Branch, Bellevue. 2016 Stream Report: Springbrook Creek-0317. Electronic document, https://green2.kingcounty.gov/streamsdata/watershedinfo.aspx?locator=0317, accessed December 6, 2024. King County Assessor 1936 iMap; 1936 aerial imagery. Electronic document, https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/ iMap/, accessed December 9, 2024. 2024 Details for parcel 793100-0005. Electronic document, https://blue.kingcounty.com/ Assessor/eRealProperty/Detail.aspx?ParcelNbr=7931000005, accessed December 9, 2024. Kleinschmidt, Sonja, Ashley Pickard, and Doug Beyers 2019 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Hillcrest Project. Prepared for Harbour Homes by Cultural Resources Consultants, Seattle. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Kopperl, Robert, Charles Hodges, Christian Miss, Johonna Shea, and Alecia Spooner 2016 Archaeology of King County, Washington: A Context Statement for Native American Archaeological Resources. Prepared for King County Historic Preservation Program by SWCA Environmental Consultants, Seattle. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Kroll Map Company 1912 Kroll’s Atlas of King County. Electronic document, https://historicmapworks.com/ Map/US/503553/Township+22+N+Range+5+E/King+County+1912/Washington/, accessed December 9, 2024. 1926 Kroll’s Atlas of King County. Electronic document, https://historicmapworks.com/ Map/US/1610885/Plate+016+++T++22+N+++R++5+E+++Cow+Lake++ Lake+Young++Covington/King+County+1926/Washington/, accessed December 9, 2024. Lane, Barbara 1972a Anthropological Report on the Identity and Treaty Status of the Muckleshoot Indians. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. On file, ESA, Seattle. 1972b Anthropological Report on the Identity, Treaty Status and Fisheries of the Squaxin Tribe of Indians. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Squaxin Indian Tribe. On file, ESA, Seattle. 1974 Identity, Treaty Status and Fisheries of the Suquamish Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Suquamish Indian Tribe. On file, ESA, Seattle. 5. References Cited Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 36 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL 1975a Anthropological Report on the Identity, Treaty Status and Fisheries of the Snoqualmie Tribe of Indians. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe. On file, ESA, Seattle. 1975b Identity, Treaty Status and Fisheries of the Duwamish Tribe of Indians. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Snohomish Tribe of Indians. On file, ESA, Seattle. 1975c Identity, Treaty Status and Fisheries of the Tulalip Tribes. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Tulalip Tribe of Indians. On file, ESA, Seattle. 1988 The Duwamish Indians and the Muckleshoot and Port Madison Indian Reservations. Prepared for the Suquamish Indian Tribe and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. On file, ESA, Seattle. Marino, Cesare 1990 History of Western Washington Since 1846. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 169-179. Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Matson, R.G., and Gary Coupland 1995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, San Diego. Metsker Map Company 1936 Metsker’s Atlas of King County. Electronic document, https://historicmapworks.com/Map/US/1260022/Township+22+N+++Range+5+E++ +Kent++Thomas++Lake+Youngs/King+County+1936/Washington/http://www.histo ricmapworks.com/Map/US/1260032/Township+23+N+++Range+5+E+++Renton++ Lake+Washington++Elliott/, accessed December 9, 2024. Miller, Jay 2014 Elders Dialog: Ed Davis and Vi Hilbert Discuss Native Puget Sound Language, Culture, and Heritage. Lushootseed Press, Federal Way, Washington. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 2024 About Muckleshoot Heritage & Culture. Electronic document, https://www.muckleshoot.nsn.us/about, accessed December 10, 2024. National Park Service 1990 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin No. 15, U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service Cultural Resources. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 2024 “Artist-in-Residence,” Arts in the Parks. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/arts/air.htm, accessed December 13, 2024. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2018 Alderwood Series. Electronic document, https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/ OSD_Docs/A/ALDERWOOD.html, accessed December 1, 2024. 2019 Urban Soils Fact Sheet. Electronic document, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/2022-11/Urban-Soils-Fact-Sheet.pdf, accessed December 3, 2024. 5. References Cited Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 37 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL 2024 Web Soil Survey. Electronic database, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed April 3, 2024. Naumann, Aaron J. 2010 Cultural Resources Report for the Upper Springbrook Creek Channel Realignment and Rehabilitation Project. Prepared for and by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 2011 Monitoring Report for the Upper Springbrook Creek Channel Realignment and Rehabilitation Project. Prepared for and by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Nelson, Charles M. 1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region in Northwest Coast. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 481-484. Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. NETROnline 2024 1936, 1940, 1964, 1968, 1969, 1977, 1980, 1981, 1990, 1998, 2002 Aerial Coverage. Electronic document, www.HistoricAerials.com, accessed December 12, 2024. The News Tribune 2011 “Virginia Richardson Cleveland” (obituary). November 27, p. B5. Ossorio, Carolyn 2012 “Community use for 24-acre property,” Renton Reporter. December 14. Poole, David, and Sarah J. Amell 2014a Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Proposed AT&T Mobility Project: SD2385 SE 192nd St. and 104th Pl. SE. Prepared for Adapt Engineering by Aqua Terra Cultural Resources Consultants, Tumwater, WA. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 2014b Proposed AT&T Mobility Project: SD2384 Kent Chestnut Ridge Park. Prepared for Adapt Engineering by Aqua Terra Cultural Resources Consultants, Tumwater, WA. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Robertson, Donald B. 1995 Encyclopedia of Western Railroad History: Oregon, Washington, vol. III. The Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho. Robinson, Joan M. 1982a A Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of SR 167: South 212th Street Interchange. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation by Archaeological and Historical Services at Eastern Washington University. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 5. References Cited Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 38 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL 1982b An Archaeological Reconnaissance of SR 515 SE 196th St to Carr Road. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation by Archaeological and Historical Services at Eastern Washington University. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 1984 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of S.E. 208th Street: SR 515 to 132nd Avenue Southeast. Prepared for the King County Department of Public Works by Archaeological and Historical Services at Eastern Washington University. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 1985 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of S.E. 208th Street: SR 515 to 132nd Avenue Southeast. Prepared for the King County Department of Public Works and the Washington State Department of Transportation by Archaeological and Historical Services at Eastern Washington University. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Scott, Todd 2008 Historic Resources Survey & Inventory. Prepared for the City of Kent and Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation by the King County Historic Preservation Program. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Seattle Daily Times 1906 “Spring Brook Acre Tracts.” August 2, p. 15. 1924 “Weekly Calendar of Club Events.” July 6, p. 60. 1928 “Roy L. Allen out for Commissioner.” July 11, p. 15. 1934 “Roy L. Allen to Run for County Commissioner.” June 1, p. 9. Seattle Post-Intelligencer 1906 “Spring Brook Acre Tracts.” July 17, p. 8. 1928 “Allen Swings Aid to Brinton.” October 4, p. 17. 1934 “Commissioner, South District.” September 12, p. 2. Slauson, Morda C. 1976 Renton – From Coal to Jets. Renton Historical Society, Renton, Washington. Smith, Timothy, Stephen Emerson, Stan Gough, and Rebecca Stevens 2014 Cultural Resources Survey for the WSDOT's I-405/SR 167 Direct Connector Project. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation, Northwest Region by Archaeological and Historical Services at Eastern Washington University. On file, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Snoqualmie Indian Tribe 2025 Home. Electronic document, https://snoqualmietribe.us/, accessed February 19, 2025. Spier, Leslie 1936 Tribal Distribution in Washington. American Anthropological Association General Series in Anthropology No. 3. George Banta, Menasha, Wisconsin. 5. References Cited Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 39 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL Suttles, Wayne, and Barbara Lane 1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 485-502. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Thorson, R.M. 1980 Ice-Sheet Glaciation of the Puget Lowland, Washington, During the Vashon Stade (Late Pleistocene). Quaternary Research 13:303-321. Thrush, Coll P. 2007 Native Seattle: Histories from the Crossing-Over Place. University of Washington Press, Seattle. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 2015 Summary under the Criteria and Evidence for Final Decision on Judicial Remand Against Acknowledgement of the Duwamish Tribal Organization: Reconsideration of September 2001 Final Determination, Approved July 24, 2015. Electronic document, https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/assets/as-ia/ofa/petition/ 025_duwami_WA/025_fdr2.pdf, accessed December 10, 2024. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2024 CPI Inflation Calculator. Electronic document, https://www.bls.gov/data/ inflation_calculator.htm, accessed December 11, 2024. U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1863 Township 22 North, Range 4 East – Original Survey. Electronic document, https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=398122&sid=ehvgfqbt .2yp#surveyDetailsTabIndex=1, accessed December 4, 2024. 1865 Township 23 North, Range 5 East – Original Survey. Electronic document, https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=321064&sid=lft4gwh m.i0u#surveyDetailsTabIndex=1, accessed December 4, 2024. 1867 Township 22 North, Range 5 East – Original Survey. Electronic document, https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/survey/default.aspx?dm_id=321050&sid=o5ilxxs3. 1mt#surveyDetailsTabIndex=1, accessed December 4, 2024. 1873 Patent Details, John Krumm, Accession No. WAOAA 067580. Electronic document, https://glorecords.blm.gov/details/patent/default.aspx?accession=WAOAA%20%200 67580&docClass=SER&sid=jzmhl12p.zds, accessed December 9, 2024. U.S. Census Bureau 1930 Fifteenth Census of the United States: Orillia, King, Washington. Page 5B, Enumeration District 17-344. 1940 Sixteenth Census of the United States: Orillia, King, Washington. Page 7A, Enumeration District 17-151. 1950a Seventeenth Census of the United States: Seattle, King, Washington. Page 3, Enumeration District 40-918. 1950b Seventeenth Census of the United States: Other Places, King, Washington. Page 6, Enumeration District 17-58. 5. References Cited Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan 40 ESA / D202400423.00 Cultural Resources Literature Review February 2025 REVISED FINAL U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1897 Tacoma, WA. 7.5’ Series Quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 1900 Tacoma, WA. 7.5’ Series Quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 1949 Renton, WA. 7.5’ Series Quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey Earth Explorer (USGS Earth Explorer) 2024 1977, 1991 Aerial Imagery. Electronic database, https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/, accessed December 9, 2024. Vagnone, Franklin D., and Deborah E. Ryan 2016 Anarchist’s Guide to Historic House Museums. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. Valentino, Alicia, Katherine Wilson, and Chanda R. Schneider 2017 Duwamish Gardens Project, Tukwila. King County Washington. Historic Context. Prepared for the City of Tukwila by Environmental Science Associates, Seattle. On file, Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Washington Secretary of State 1940 Department of Health, Death Certificates, July 1, 1907-1999 - Mary Elizabeth - Horatio Church - Mary Smith. Office of Secretary of State, Washington State Archives, Digital Archives. Electronic document, https://digitalarchives.wa.gov/Record/View/AC0B12FF64D8385C65D0BF0D376A AECE, accessed December 12, 2024. 2011 Saar Pioneer Cemetery Index, Office of Secretary of State, Washington State Archives, Digital Archives. Electronic document, https://digitalarchives.wa.gov/ Collections/TitleInfo/1566, accessed December 3, 2024. Appendix A. Historic Property Record Cards BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT CLEVELANDͳ RICHARDSON PARK PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY APPENDIX D. Preliminary Geotechnical Study City of Renton- Southwest Renton Park Master Plan Renton, Washington for Bruce Dees and Associates December 16, 2024 1101 Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, Washington 98402 253.383.4940 Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page i File No. 0693-097-00 Contents 1.0 Introduction and Project Description .............................................................................. 1 2.0 Scope of Services .......................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Site Conditions ............................................................................................................. 1 3.1 Site Limits and Vicinity .................................................................................................................. 1 3.2 Historic Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 2 3.3 Site Topography ............................................................................................................................ 2 3.4 Site Reconnaissance .................................................................................................................... 2 3.4.1 Homesite Area ................................................................................................................... 2 3.4.2 Pasture Areas .................................................................................................................... 2 3.4.3 Forested Areas ................................................................................................................... 3 3.5 Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 3 3.5.1 Geologic Mapping .............................................................................................................. 3 3.5.2 Natural Resources Conservation Service Description .................................................... 3 3.5.3 Geologically Hazardous Areas .......................................................................................... 4 3.6 Anticipated Soil and Groundater Conditions ............................................................................... 5 3.6.1 Soil Conditions ................................................................................................................... 5 3.6.2 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................... 5 4.0 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation ............................................................................. 6 4.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 6 4.2 Seismic Site Class ......................................................................................................................... 6 4.3 Foundation Support ...................................................................................................................... 6 4.4 Conventional Retaining Walls and Below-Grade Structures ...................................................... 7 4.5 Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility Assessment ........................................................................... 7 4.6 Earthwork Considerations ............................................................................................................ 8 4.6.1 Stripping, Clearing and Subgrade Preparation ................................................................ 8 4.6.2 Wet Weather Considerations ............................................................................................ 9 4.6.3 Cut and Fill Slopes ............................................................................................................. 9 4.6.4 Groundwater Handling ...................................................................................................... 9 4.6.5 Fill Materials .................................................................................................................... 10 4.7 Other Site Development Considerations ................................................................................... 10 4.7.1 Development within Geologically Hazardous Areas ...................................................... 10 4.7.2 Homesite Pond Area ........................................................................................................ 11 5.0 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 11 Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page ii File No. 0693-097-00 List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. Topography Site Plan Figure 4 through 6. Site Photographs Figure 7. Geologic Map Figure 8. Regulated Slopes Critical Area Map Appendices Appendix A. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page 1 File No. 0693-097-00 1.0 Introduction and Project Description GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) is pleased to present this preliminary geotechnical study for the City of Renton (City) Southwest Renton Park Master Plan project. The project site is located near 19415 Talbot Road South in Renton, Washington. Our understanding of the project is based on review of the project Statement of Qualifications document and our discussions with Bruce Dees and Associates (project landscape architect). The overall project consists of preparing a master plan for City-owned property towards future development and use for public recreation activities. The project site is comprised of three parcels totaling approximately 24 acres in size. The site is currently largely undeveloped and vegetated. The master planning process will include a review and analysis of the existing site, public engagement to gather input and preparing the master plan concepts. The scope of improvements associated with the master plan are not currently known but we expect that geotechnical-related project elements could include: one story at-grade structures, playfield areas, site grading, new pavement areas, stormwater facilities and underground utility installation. 2.0 Scope of Services As part of this study, we reviewed existing information in the project vicinity and completed a visual site reconnaissance to develop an understanding of surface and subsurface conditions in the area. Based on this information we have prepared this report providing our preliminary opinion on the suitability of the site for future development with regards to geotechnical considerations. The results of our services are intended to support decisions regarding site usage, preliminary project engineering and future planning. This is a preliminary geotechnical study and is not intended to support final design of site improvements. Additional geotechnical services, including site specific explorations and other engineering analysis for design should be completed to support final design of future development. Our services have been provided in accordance with our agreement with Bruce Dees and Associates dated October 10, 2024. 3.0 Site Conditions 3.1 SITE LIMITS AND VICINITY The project site (site) consists of three parcels totaling approximately 24 acres. An overview of the site and surrounding area is shown in the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. A detailed view of the site is shown in the Site Plan, Figure 2. The site is generally bound by State Route 167 (west), Talbot Road South (east), and partially developed residential properties (north and south). The site is currently accessed via Talbot Road South where an existing single family homesite is located. Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page 2 File No. 0693-097-00 3.2 HISTORIC CONDITIONS We reviewed historic aerial photographs of the project site available online from the King County iMap website and Google Earth, which provide intermittent imagery of the site dating as early as 1936. Review of the historic photographs indicates that the site has remained largely unchanged since 1990. We understand that the existing single family home site was built in 1937, and the property was historically used for light agricultural purposes. 3.3 SITE TOPOGRAPHY The site is located near the toe of the eastern slope of the Green River Valley. As such, the majority of the site is on sloping terrain that trends downward to the west towards the valley floor. Figure 3 shows the approximate topographic contours of the site (source King County iMap). Figure 3 also illustrates the general downslope directions. The eastern two-thirds of the site slopes downward from southeast to the north as the topography funnels towards Springbrook Creek. The change in elevation between the southeast corner of the site and the northern site boundary is on the order of 70 feet. The western third of the site slopes to the west towards the Green River Valley and State Route 167. The change in elevation between the top and bottom of the West Slope Area is on the order of 100 feet. The gradient of topography within the site boundary varies across the site and is undulating. In areas of flatter topography, trees and low lying vegetation have been cleared creating a series of pastures. Areas of steeper topography are densely vegetated with trees and understory. 3.4 SITE RECONNAISSANCE We completed a visual site reconnaissance of the site on October 24, 2024. For the purposes of this report, we have separated the site into three general areas based on current use and features: Homesite Area, Pasture Areas, Forested Areas. 3.4.1 Homesite Area The existing homesite is located along the eastern site boundary and is accessed via Talbot Road South. The homesite consists of a single family residence, a detached outbuilding, garden areas, gravel surfaced driveway and a small pond. The pond appears to be man-made and is retained by earthen embankments on the west, south and north sides. An overflow culvert is located on the west side of the pond (see Figure 4). 3.4.2 Pasture Areas A series of 5 interconnected pastures are located between the homesite and the crest of the West Slope Area (See Figure 2). The pasture areas are generally located in portions of the site with flatter topography. The pasture areas are surfaced with sod and are interconnected by cleared and mowed corridors. The North Pasture area is located immediately to the west of the homesite and slopes downward from east to west. The northern boundary of the pasture area is formed by the Springbrook Creek Ravine. Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page 3 File No. 0693-097-00 The Southeast Pasture is located to the south and southwest of the pond and homesite. The Southeast Pasture has the steepest topography (on the order of 10 Horizontal to 1 Vertical) of the five pastures grading downward from the southeast to the northwest. The Central Pastures are relatively small compared to the North, Southeast and West Pastures. The Central Pastures are situated between tributaries of Springbrook creek and are in a slight depression. We observed areas of standing water and saturated ground within the Central Pastures, especially in the immediate proximity to the creek tributaries (see Figure 5). The West Pasture is the largest of the cleared areas at the site totaling roughly 2 acres in size. The West Pasture is relatively flat compared to other areas but slopes gently downward from south to north (see Figure 6). The West Pasture borders the West Slope Area (to the west) and other densely vegetated slope areas to the north and east. 3.4.3 Forested Areas Forested and uncleared areas are present throughout the site. We were not able to walk through or investigate most of the forested areas during our site reconnaissance due to the dense vegetation and steeper topography. Vegetation within forested areas includes mature and young deciduous and coniferous trees and dense understory which includes blackberry bushes and native ground cover vegetation. The West Slope Area is the largest forested area at the site. The eastern half of this area is moderately sloping and undulating. The steepest topography within the West Slope Area is near the western site boundary which is at the toe of the slope leading to the Green River Valley. 3.5 LITERATURE REVIEW 3.5.1 Geologic Mapping We reviewed published geologic maps of the project vicinity including the Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle (Mullineaux, D.R., 1965). For reference, a portion of the reviewed geologic map is provided as Figure 7. According to the reviewed map, the site is underlain by two primary geologic units: ɵ Stratified Drift: Mapped below the eastern half of the site, stratified drift is described in the literature as sand and fine gravel deposited during a period of glacial recession. Recessional drift soils are typically loose to medium dense as they were not consolidated by the weight of the source glacier after deposition. ɵ Glacial Till: Mapped below the western half of the site, glacial till is typically comprised of a mixture of sand, gravel and cobbles in a silt matrix. Glacial till soils were consolidated by the weight of the overriding glacier and are typically dense to very dense. 3.5.2 Natural Resources Conservation Service Description The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS) includes soil data and information for general engineering and planning applications. Mapped WSS soil types in the project vicinity are primarily Alderwood gravely sandy loam. These soil types are derived from glacial outwash or glacial drift which is consistent with the geologic mapping described above. Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page 4 File No. 0693-097-00 3.5.3 Geologically Hazardous Areas A general discussion of geologic hazards and Geologically Hazardous Areas is provided in the sections below. GeoEngineers did not complete a detailed critical areas assessment as part of preparing this report. Our interpretation of critical areas at this site is based on our review of published information and conditions observed during our site reconnaissance. A more detailed critical areas assessment should be completed as part of future phases of this project in coordination with King County, City of Renton and other jurisdictional requirements. In Section 4.7.1 of this report, we discuss considerations for site development in and around mapped Geologically Hazardous Areas 3.5.3.1 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS According to the City of Renton published critical area s maps (accessed via City of Renton COR Maps), there are no designated landslide hazard areas within the site boundaries. We did not observe any obvious indications of recent or historic landslide activity during our site reconnaissance, and we are in general agreement with the landslide hazard mapping we reviewed. However, the site does contain steep slope areas and some areas of significant vertical relief, especially within the West Slope Area. Our ability to observe and access steep slope areas was limited and further investigation into the potential for Landslide Hazard areas should be considered as part of future phases of this project. 3.5.3.2 REGULATED “STEEP” SLOPES According to the City of Renton published critical areas maps (accessed via City of Renton COR Maps) portions of the project site are designated “sensitive” or “protected” steep slope areas. The City of Renton Regulated Slope Map is shown in Figure 8 for reference. The sensitive and protected steep slope designation is based on overall slope height and gradient as determined by available topographic mapping. Based on our observations, we are in general agreement with the steep slope area mapping we reviewed. Sensitive and protected slope areas qualify as Geologically Hazadous Areas and will require further evaluation during design development. 3.5.3.3 EROSION HAZARDS According to the City of Renton published critical areas maps (accessed via City of Renton COR Maps), portions of the West Slope Area are mapped as having a High Erosion Hazard. The High Erosion Hazard designation is determined based on the soil types identified on USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service maps (see Section 3.5.2). Based on our site observations and review of the NRCS maps we are in general agreement with the erosion hazard mapping we reviewed. High Erosion Hazard areas qualify as Geologically Hazadous Areas and will require further evaluation during design development. 3.5.3.4 SEISMIC HAZARDS According to the City of Renton published critical areas maps (access via City of Renton COR Maps), there are no designated seismic hazard areas within the project boundaries. Seismic Hazard designation is determined based on the anticipated underlying soil conditions. Low seismic hazard areas are areas underlain by dense soils or bedrock. High Seismic Hazard areas are areas underlain by soft or loose, saturated soils. Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page 5 File No. 0693-097-00 Based on our understanding of the site geology and experience in the area, we are in general agreement with the seismic hazard mapping we reviewed. 3.6 ANTICIPATED SOIL AND GROUNDATER CONDITIONS 3.6.1 Soil Conditions Based on our review of published information and our experience in the project vicinity, we anticipate that the site is predominantly underlain by sand and gravel soils with variable silt content. In areas mapped as Stratified Drift (eastern half of the site) we anticipate that near surface soils (those within about 10 feet of the ground surface) will range between loose and medium dense. In areas mapped as Glacial Till (western half of the site), we anticipate that near surface soils will range from medium dense to dense. We expect that the density of soils at the site will generally increase with depth. A surficial layer of reworked or weathered soils likely overlies the native site soils (drift and till). Within pasture areas that were historically used for agricultural purposes, we anticipate that the thickness of reworked or weathered soils could be on the order of a few feet thick and could contain a high percentage of organics. In forested and undeveloped areas, the thickness of weathered soil is likely less. In areas surrounding creeks, localized deposits of loose alluvial soils could be present. 3.6.2 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater is expected to be present at shallow and deeper depths at the site. In our opinion shallow and deeper groundwater tables at the site are not indicative of separate groundwater aquafers but are the result of different groundwater sources. Shallow groundwater (water encountered within 50 feet of the ground surface) at the site will most likely be associated with surface water flow in Springbrook Creek and its tributaries and perched groundwater flowing down the regional hillside towards the Green River Valley. We expect that shallow groundwater will be present at the site year-round especially in areas immediately surrounding Springbrook Creek and other sources of surface water flow. Groundwater levels near creeks could be at or within a few feet of the ground surface. During dry weather months, groundwater levels may lower and areas of wet or saturated surficial soil may dry out. Deeper groundwater (water encountered more than 50 feet below ground surface) at the site will most likely be associated with static groundwater levels in the Green River Valley. Groundwater levels within the Green River Valley are influenced by water levels in the Green River and the volume of water discharging into the valley from the surrounding hillsides. We expect that zones of near surface saturated soils may be separated from saturated soils at depth by zones of moist or non-saturated soil. Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page 6 File No. 0693-097-00 4.0 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 4.1 OVERVIEW Based on our review of available subsurface information and our completed visual reconnaissance, it is our opinion that the considered project site is generally suitable for development with regards to geotechnical considerations. The project layout and design should incorporate geotechnical considerations as discussed herein. In our opinion, these geotechnical considerations can be managed through appropriate site layout, engineering design and construction methods. Our primary geotechnical considerations are summarized below and are discussed in more detail in the subsequent sections. Preliminary recommendations provided in this report are intended to support initial design development, preliminary engineering, cost estimating and future site planning. These recommendations are not intended to support final project design. Ultimately, we recommend site and project specific geotechnical explorations and analysis be completed as a part of final design of future improvements. ɵ Soils at the site are expected to consist primarily of sand and gravel with variable silt content. These soils are expected to range from loose to very dense. ɵ We anticipate that a relatively thick layer of reworked and higher organic content soils could be present within pasture areas of the site. These soils would likely need to be removed to construct structural improvements (buildings, roadways, sidewalks etc.). ɵ Shallow groundwater could be present across the site and should be expected within a few feet of the ground surface in areas around creeks or flowing surface water. Drainage systems may be needed around structures or below at grade improvements (e.g. playfields) to help control groundwater flow and maintain dry surface conditions. ɵ Topography at the project site is undulating and areas of steep slopes are present. Grading and development in steep slope areas may not be feasible or practical. Structures will likely need to be setback from areas with steeper terrain. ɵ Due to shallow groundwater levels, anticipated soil types and the presence of steep terrain, in our opinion the project site has a low suitability for infiltrating stormwater. 4.2 SEISMIC SITE CLASS We assume improvements will be designed in accordance with the International Building Code (IBC). The 2018 and 2021 editions of the IBC state structures shall resist the effects of earthquake motions in accordance with American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-16 “Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures”. In accordance with IBC and ASCE 7-16, we recommend seismic Site Class D be considered for preliminary simplified code-based seismic design and analysis. 4.3 FOUNDATION SUPPORT We envision that structures at this site can be adequately supported on shallow foundations and slab-on- grade floors bearing on existing site soils. Recompaction or removal and replacement of existing soils beneath foundations may be required to provide adequate bearing support. Soils with high organic content will need to be removed from below foundations areas. Within pasture areas the upper 1 to 2 feet of existing soil may need to be removed to expose competent bearing soils. Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page 7 File No. 0693-097-00 Final foundation support recommendations will depend on structure loads, foundation elevations and performance requirements and should be evaluated as part of future geotechnical studies. For preliminary design, we estimate allowable soil bearing resistance of near surface soils will be on the order of 2,000 to 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). For the bearing conditions and resistances presented above, we anticipate that total and differential foundations settlement can be limited to 1 inch and 0.5 inches, respectively. Higher bearing pressure can be achieved but will require special consideration of bearing surface preparation and location of the structure relative to site slopes. Lateral resistance of foundations can be evaluated assuming a passive equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf and an allowable frictional resistance of 0.4 (these values include a factor of safety of about 1.5). These values must be confirmed as part of final design. 4.4 CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS AND BELOW-GRADE STRUCTURES We anticipate retaining walls may be required to mainta in or create desired site grades and construct below grade elements. The specific retaining wall type used will depend in part on the application and wall height. For this site we expect that modular block walls, cast-in-place walls, structural earth walls, soil nail walls and soldier piles walls are all feasible for use. Modular block walls will likely be most effective for relatively short walls (less than about 6 feet tall) used in cut and fill grading applications. Cast-in place walls could be used in cut or fill applications and are typically most efficient for intermediate wall heights, (walls taller than about 5 feet but less than about 8 feet). Structural earth walls are best suited for use in fill applications and can be used to retain grade differentials in excess of 20 feet. Soil nail and soldier pile walls are best suited for cut wall applications and are most often used to retain or reinforce tall slopes or construct below grade building elements. For preliminary planning purposes, we recommend evaluating walls using an active equivalent fluid density of 36 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) (triangular distribution). This assumes that the walls will not be restrained against rotation when backfill is placed and the backfill behind the wall is level. For sloping backfill conditions up to 2H:1V, this value should be increased by 50 percent. Preliminary design of retaining wall foundations can use the parameters in the Foundation Support section. Retaining walls should be designed with a drainage system to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind the wall. 4.5 STORMWATER INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT We anticipate that stormwater facilities at this site will be designed in accordance with the King County Stormwater Design Manual (KCSDM) that has been adopted by the City of Renton. The ability and feasibility to infiltrate stormwater is the product of a combination of site suitability criteria including soil type and density, groundwater conditions and topography. Generally, normally consolidated sand and gravel soils containing a low percentage of silt and clay size particles have higher infiltration potential than predominantly fine grained soils or soils that are highly over consolidated. Accordingly, we expect areas of the site mapped as Stratified Drift (eastern half of site) will likely have soils more favorable for infiltration than areas of the site mapped as Glacial Till. Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page 8 File No. 0693-097-00 The base of stormwater infiltration facilities typically must maintain a separation distance of around 5 feet from seasonal high groundwater levels. As discussed, we expect that near surface groundwater could be present year-round in areas surrounding creeks. The design of infiltration facilities must consider site topography and the potential for infiltrating water into steep slope areas. In accordance with the KCSDM, infiltration facilities are not allowed on slopes greater than 25 percent (4H:1V) and must be setback between 50 and 200 feet from steep slope or landslide hazard areas. Based on the factors discussed above, it is our opinion this site has a relatively low suitability for infiltrating stormwater. For planning purposes, we expect that areas of the North Pasture and Southeast Pasture have a relatively higher potential for accommodating stormwater infiltration. Stormwater infiltration may be feasible in portions of The West Pasture Area provided setbacks from steep slope areas can be maintained, however we except that the soils underlying the West Pasture will have a very low infiltration rate. In our opinion large volume and concentrated stormwater infiltration facilities such as stormwater ponds, infiltration galleries or infiltration trenches are likely not feasible for use at this site. For planning purposes, we recommend that if infiltration facilities are included in conceptual design, they be limited to small scale facilities such as rain gardens, bioswales and permeable sidewalks. If infiltration is included in project design, additional studies will need to be completed to evaluate stormwater infiltration feasibility. At a minimum this should include groundwater monitoring, field infiltration testing and a more detailed assessment of steep slope areas. 4.6 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS 4.6.1 Stripping, Clearing and Subgrade Preparation Existing surfaces within proposed development areas of structures and hardscape improvements should be cleared and stripped of all vegetation and organics prior to development. In forested areas we expect that stripping depths could exceed 6 inches. In pasture areas we expect that stripping depths could be on the order of 6 to 24 inches. In areas of prior development, stripping depths will likely be around 2 to 4 inches. Subgrades that will support structural elements and pavements should be thoroughly compacted to a uniformly firm and unyielding condition on completion of stripping/excavation and before placing structural fill. If soft or otherwise unsuitable subgrade areas are observed and cannot be compacted to a stable and uniformly firm condition, we recommend that: (1) the unsuitable soils be scarified (e.g., with a ripper or farmer’s disc), aerated and recompacted, if practical; or (2) the unsuitable soils be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill, as needed Existing structural improvements (e.g., pavements, hardscaping and foundations) within proposed development areas should be demolished and removed prior to redeveloping the site. Recycling or incorporating old foundation or pavement elements into fill areas can be considered but must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page 9 File No. 0693-097-00 4.6.2 Wet Weather Considerations We expect that the majority of the soils at the site will contain a significant percentage of fines (materials smaller than the No. 200 U.S. sieve) and will be sensitive to small changes in moisture content. If these moisture sensitive soils become wet, they will be very difficult or impossible to work with and highly susceptible to disturbance. We recommend that earthwork activities at this site be completed during periods of predominantly dry weather. During dry weather, site soils will be less susceptible to disturbance, provide better support for construction equipment and be more likely to meet the required compaction criteria. If earthwork must occur during wet weather, we recommend that additional contingencies be added to account for over-excavation and replacement of saturated and disturbed soils. Additionally, if wet weather construction is proposed or required, we recommend planning for a “net cut” site rather than a balanced cut and fill site. During wet weather, earthwork costs could be lower with a net cut site because disturbed and saturated soils that cannot be compacted can be removed and there is no need to replace them with import. 4.6.3 Cut and Fill Slopes To maintain site grading and provide safe working conditions, we recommend temporary excavations and cut slopes be inclined no steeper than about 1.5H:1V. Flatter cut slopes will be necessary where seepage occurs or if surface surcharge loads are anticipated. We recommend permanent slopes with maximum inclination of about 2H:1V be considered for preliminary planning purposes. Where 2H:1V permanent slopes are not feasible, protective facings and/or retaining structures should be considered. Where access for landscape maintenance is desired, we recommend a maximum inclination of 3H:1V. Flatter cut slopes or additional drainage measures could be necessary where seepage occurs or if surface surcharge loads are anticipated. 4.6.4 Groundwater Handling The level of effort required for groundwater management during construction will depend to a great extent on the time of year during which construction is completed. Groundwater handling needs will typically be lower during the late summer and early fall months. We recommend earthwork be completed in the late summer or early autumn months when the groundwater level is typically at its lowest elevation and to take advantage of generally dry prevailing conditions. Shallow perched groundwater should be expected to be present around existing creeks or areas with surficial water flow. Low to moderate groundwater seepage should be expected, particularly during the wet season. We anticipate that shallow perched groundwater, if encountered, can be handled adequately with sumps, pumps and/or diversion ditches, as necessary. Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page 10 File No. 0693-097-00 4.6.5 Fill Materials 4.6.5.1 REUSE OF ON-SITE SOILS AS STRUCTURAL FILL We anticipate the majority of site soils will consist of a mixture of silt, sand, gravel and cobbles. Native soils can be considered for reuse as structural fill provided, they can be adequately moisture conditioned, placed and compacted as recommended and do not contain organic or other deleterious material. Site soils will likely be very difficult or impossible to properly compact when wet and we recommend they be avoided for reuse if earthwork is planned during wet weather months. In addition, it is possible that existing soils will be generated at moisture contents above what is optimum for compaction. In this case, the soils would need to be moisture conditioned (dried) prior to re-use. Space for drying out material during dryer weather or covering on-site materials generated during wet weather should be considered and incorporated into schedules and budgets. During wetter or even slightly colder times of year, accommodations to cover stockpiled material generated on site that will be used as structural fill should be planned. If earthwork occurs during a typical wet season, or if the soils are persistently wet and cannot be dried back due to prevailing wet weather conditions, we recommend project budgets include contingencies for using imported materials as structural fill. 4.6.5.2 IMPORT STRUCTURAL FILL Imported structural fill should be free of debris, organic contaminants and rock fragments larger than 6 inches. For most applications, we recommend that structural fill consist of material similar to “Select Borrow” or “Gravel Borrow” as described in Section 9-03.14 of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications. If imported fill is needed during wet weather conditions, we recommend using fill consisting of well-graded sand and gravel or crushed rock with a maximum particle size of 6 inches and less than 5 percent fines by weight based on the minus ¾-inch fraction. In our opinion, material conforming to WSDOT Standard Specifications 9-03.9 (Aggregates for Ballast and Crushed Surfacing), 9-03.10 (Aggregate for Gravel Base) and 9-03.14 (Borrow) are suitable for use as imported fill material during wet weather with the exception that the fines content should be 5 percent or less. 4.6.5.3 TOPSOIL AND STRIPPINGS Topsoil and strippings (e.g., sod and forest duff) may be placed on site provided they are placed in non- structural areas that can tolerate some long-term total and differential settlements. Settlements of organic- rich soils are highly variable and difficult to quantify. Settlement could continue for several years after construction is completed as the organics break down and decompose. Alternatively, topsoil strippings can be hauled off site. 4.7 OTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS 4.7.1 Development within Geologically Hazardous Areas The locations and descriptions of Geologically Hazardous Areas at the site are discussed in Section 3.5.3. Based on our understanding of the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations (CARs), our observations at the site and our experience, we have developed recommendations that should be considered as part of the mater planning process. Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page 11 File No. 0693-097-00 ɵ Grading and site development activities should be avoided within the West Slope Area. As discussed in the City of Renton CARs, construction of new foot trails is an exempt activity within Geologically Hazardous Areas and could be considered within the West Slope Area. We expect that new trails could be located within the eastern half of the west slope area without increasing the geologic hazard or impacting other critical areas. For planning purposes, we recommend that trails not be included within the western half of the West Slope area unless a more detailed assessment of the slope is completed. ɵ Grading and site development activities should be limited within areas identified as Sensitive or Protected Slopes outside of the West Slope Area (see Figure 8). We expect that minor grading activities, such as those associated with the construction of foot trails, small, elevated boardwalks and ADA compliant pathways will still be feasible in most of the Sensitive or Protected Slope areas. ɵ For planning purposes, the locations of structures, roadways, parking areas and grading activities should be planned such that they maintain a minimum 15 foot setback from Protected Slope areas. Ultimately, this buffer may be extended or reduced depending on the planned development and the conditions with the Geologically Hazardous Area. ɵ For planning purposes, the locations of structures, roadways, parking areas and grading activities should be planned such that they maintain a minimum 10 foot setback from Sensitive Slope areas. Ultimately this buffer may be extended or reduced depending on the planned development and the conditions with the Geologically Hazardous Areas. The recommendations provided above are for planning purposes only. If modifications are propsed within Geologically Hazardous Areas, a more detailed assessment should be made to confirm that they can be constructed without negatively impacting the Geologically Hazardous Areas. The setbacks and development restrictions provided are based on our interpretation of the City of Renton CARs and our experience and may need to be modified as project planning progresses. 4.7.2 Homesite Pond Area The existing pond at the homesite along the eastern site boundary appears to be a man-made feature. Due to the age and character of the pond, we do not expect that engineering controls were in place during its construction. As such, it is unclear if the pond embankments, overflow structure and other features meet current design standards. If the pond is to remain, additional investigation of the embankments would be prudent to further evaluate the pond area. As part of the master planning process, we recommend that grading activities, specifically cuts in the topography be avoided or be setback at least 10 feet from the toe of pond embankments. 5.0 Limitations We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Bruce Dees and Associates and the City of Renton (City) for the Southwest Renton Park Master Plan project in Renton, Washington. Bruce Dees and the City may distribute copies of this report to authorized agents and regulatory agencies as may be required for the project. Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page 12 File No. 0693-097-00 Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices for geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. The conclusions, recommendations and opinions presented in this report are based on our professional knowledge, judgment and experience. No warranty, express or implied, applies to the services or this report. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Please refer to Appendix A titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for additional information pertaining to use of this report. Figures M i l l C r e ek 167 Ta l b o t R d S SW 4 1 s t S t 72 n d Av e S S 1 9 2 n dSt 80 t h A v e S SW 3 9 t h St 80 th P l S EV a l l e yH wy Springbrook Greenbelt Valley Medical Center 167 S 208th S t S216th St 92 n d A v e S 8 7t h A v e S S 196th St 72 n d A v e S S 200th St 80 t h A v e S 7 7 t h A v e S 89 t h A v e S 84 t h A ve S S 2 1 2 t h S t S 2 1 2 th W ay St a t e R o u t e 1 6 7 P an th e r C r e e k 515 Ta l b o SE 1 9 2 n 10 2 n d A v eS E 11 2 th A v e S E SE 1 8 6 t h St10 8 t hA v e SE SE Ca rr R d Panth Lake SE 2 1 6 th S t SE 1 9 6 t h St 10 0 t h A ve S E 98 t h P l S S E200th S t S E204th S t 10 8 t h A v e S E SE 2 0 8 SITE Vicinity Map Figure 1 Southwest Renton Park Master Plan Renton, Washington 101 Kent Tacoma Seattle 0 2,000 Feet P: \ 0 \ 0 6 9 3 0 9 7 \ G I S \ 0 6 9 3 0 9 7 _ P r o j e c t \ 0 6 9 3 0 9 7 _ P r o j e c t . a p r x \ 0 6 9 3 0 9 7 0 0 _ F 0 1 _ V i c i n i t y M a p D a t e E x p o r t e d : 1 2 / 0 5 / 2 4 b y J f e l l o w s Source(s): • ESRI Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figure for any other project or purpose shall be at the user's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers. The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data contained therein. The file containing this figure is a copy of a master document, the original of which is retained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record. 06 9 3 - 0 9 7 - 0 0 D a t e E x p o r t e d : 1 2 / 5 / 2 4 Not to Scale Figure 2 Site Plan Southwest Renton Park Master Plan Renton, Washington Note(s): 1. This figure has been reproduced from mapping available online by the King County. GeoEngineers cannot warrant or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information provided or compiled by others. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Source(s): King County iMap Legend 1Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figure for any other project or purpose shall be at the user's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers. The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data contained therein. The file containing this figure is a copy of a master document, the original of which is retained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record. Approximate site boundary Homesite and Pond Springbrook Creek and Ravine West Pasture Southeast Pasture Central Pasture West Slope Area Creek Tributaries 06 9 3 - 0 9 7 - 0 0 D a t e E x p o r t e d : 1 2 / 5 / 2 4 Not to Scale Figure 3 Topography Site Plan Southwest Renton Park Master Plan Renton, Washington Note(s): 1. This figure has been reproduced from mapping available online by the King County. GeoEngineers cannot warrant or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information provided or compiled by others. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Source(s): King County iMap Legend 1Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figure for any other project or purpose shall be at the user's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers. The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data contained therein. The file containing this figure is a copy of a master document, the original of which is retained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record. Approximate Downslope Direction Approximate site boundary West Slope Area Springbrook Creek and Ravine Figure 4 Site Photo – Outfall from homesite pond (looking east) 0693-097-00 Date Exported: 12/5/24 Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figure for any other project or purpose shall be at the user's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers. The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data contained therein. The file containing this figure is a copy of a master document, the original of which is retained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record. Southwest Renton Park Master Plan Renton, Washington Data Source: Photo by GeoEngineers 10/24/24 Figure 5 Site Photo – Saturated ground at creek tributary crossing near Central Pastures 0693-097-00 Date Exported: 12/5/24 Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figure for any other project or purpose shall be at the user's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers. The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data contained therein. The file containing this figure is a copy of a master document, the original of which is retained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record. Southwest Renton Park Master Plan Renton, Washington Data Source: Photo by GeoEngineers 10/24/24 Figure 6 Site Photo – West Pasture, looking north 0693-097-00 Date Exported: 12/5/24 Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figure for any other project or purpose shall be at the user's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers. The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data contained therein. The file containing this figure is a copy of a master document, the original of which is retained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record. Southwest Renton Park Master Plan Renton, Washington Data Source: Photo by GeoEngineers 10/24/24 Note(s): 1. This drawing has been reproduced from mapping available online by the United States Geological Survey. GeoEngineers cannot warrant or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information provided or compiled by others. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Figure 7 Geologic Map 0693-097-00 Date Exported: 12/5/24 Not to Scale 1 Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figure for any other project or purpose shall be at the user's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers. The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data contained therein. The file containing this figure is a copy of a master document, the original of which is retained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record. Southwest Renton Park Master Plan Renton, Washington Geologic Unit Name Map Symbol Stratified DriftQsr Glacial TillQgt AlluviumQaw General Site Vicinity Qaw Qgt Qsr Data Source: Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County WA (Mullineaux, D.R., 1965) 06 9 3 - 0 9 7 - 0 0 D a t e E x p o r t e d : 1 2 / 5 / 2 4 Not to Scale Figure 8 Regulated Slopes Critical Area Map Southwest Renton Park Master Plan Renton, Washington Note(s): 1. This figure has been reproduced from mapping available online by the King County. GeoEngineers cannot warrant or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information provided or compiled by others. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Source(s): City of Renton COR Maps Legend 1Disclaimer: This figure was created for a specific purpose and project. Any use of this figure for any other project or purpose shall be at the user's sole risk and without liability to GeoEngineers. The locations of features shown may be approximate. GeoEngineers makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the figure, or data contained therein. The file containing this figure is a copy of a master document, the original of which is retained by GeoEngineers and is the official document of record. City of Renton Regulated Slopes Classification Approximate site boundary Appendices Appendix A Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page A1 File No. 0693-097-00 Appendix A Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use 1 This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. Read These Provisions Closely It is important to recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology and environmental science) rely on professional judgment and opinion to a greater extent than other engineering and natural science disciplines, where more precise and/or readily observable data may exist. To help clients better understand how this difference pertains to our services, GeoEngineers includes the following explanatory “limitations” provisions in its reports. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you need to know more how these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” apply to your project or site. Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects This report has been prepared for Bruce Dees and Associates and for the Project(s) specifically identified in the report. The information contained herein is not applicable to other sites or projects. GeoEngineers structures its services to meet the specific needs of its clients. No party other than the party to whom this report is addressed may rely on the product of our services unless we agree to such reliance in advance and in writing. Within the limitations of the agreed scope of services for the Project, and its schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our signed agreement for this project dated October 10, 2024and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. We do not authorize, and will not be responsible for, the use of this report for any purposes or projects other than those identified in the report. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report is based on a Unique Set of Project- Specific Factors This report has been prepared for Bruce Dees and Associates for the Sity of Renton – Southwest Renton Park Master Plan Project. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, it is important not to rely on this report if it was: ɵ Not prepared for you, ɵ Not prepared for your project, ɵ Not prepared for the specific site explored, or ɵ Completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: 1 Developed based on material provided by GBA, GeoProfessional Business Association; www.geoprofessional.org. Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page A2 File No. 0693-097-00 ɵ The function of the proposed structure; ɵ Elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure, ɵ Composition of the design team; or ɵ Project ownership. If changes occur after the date of this report, GeoEngineers cannot be responsible for any consequences of such changes in relation to this report unless we have been given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations. Based on that review, we can provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Environmental Concerns are Not Covered Unless environmental services were specifically included in our scope of services, this report does not provide any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations, including but not limited to, the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by man-made events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, new information or technology that becomes available subsequent to the report date, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. If more than a few months have passed since issuance of our report or work product, or if any of the described events may have occurred, please contact GeoEngineers before applying this report for its intended purpose so that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the continued reliability or applicability of our conclusions and recommendations. Geotechnical and Geologic Findings are Professional Opinions Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies the specific subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied its professional judgment to render an informed opinion about subsurface conditions at other locations. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from the opinions presented in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations are not a warranty of the actual subsurface conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations are Not Final We have developed the following recommendations based on data gathered from subsurface investigation(s). These investigations sample just a small percentage of a site to create a snapshot of the subsurface conditions elsewhere on the site. Such sampling on its own cannot provide a complete and accurate view of subsurface conditions for the entire site. Therefore, the recommendations included in this report are preliminary and should not be considered final. GeoEngineers’ recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for the recommendations in this report if we do not perform construction observation. Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page A3 File No. 0693-097-00 We recommend that you allow sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation during construction by GeoEngineers to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes if the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective means of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. If another party performs field observation and confirms our expectations, the other party must take full responsibility for both the observations and recommendations. Please note, however, that another party would lack our project- specific knowledge and resources. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by members of the design team or by contractors can result in costly problems. GeoEngineers can help reduce the risks of misinterpretation by conferring with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report, reviewing pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications, participating in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. The logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable but separating logs from the report can create a risk of misinterpretation. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance To help reduce the risk of problems associated with unanticipated subsurface conditions, GeoEngineers recommends giving contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, including these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use.” When providing the report, you should preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal that: ɵ Advises contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that its accuracy is limited; and ɵ Encourages contractors to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. Contractors are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor’s procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and adjacent properties. Bruce Dees and Associates | December 16, 2024 Page A4 File No. 0693-097-00 Biological Pollutants GeoEngineers’ Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants, and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants as they may relate to this project. The term “Biological Pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. A Client that desires these specialized services is advised to obtain them from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field. Information Provided by Others GeoEngineers has relied upon certain data or information provided or compiled by others in the performance of our services. Although we use sources that we reasonably believe to be trustworthy, GeoEngineers cannot warrant or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information provided or compiled by others. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT CLEVELANDͳ RICHARDSON PARK CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX E. NOTE Since compleƟ on of the CriƟ cal Areas Report, the City of Renton has adopted updates to the CriƟ cal Areas Code. The CriƟ cal Areas Report included in this Master Plan was prepared in accordance with the code provisions in eff ect at the Ɵ me of analysis and is intended to support planning-level decision-making. As the project advances toward design and permiƫ ng, applicable criƟ cal area standards—including buff er requirements and miƟ gaƟ on provisions—will be reviewed and conﬁ rmed for compliance with the codes in eff ect at the Ɵ me of permit applicaƟ on. CITY OF RENTON &/(9(/$1'5,&+$5'6213$5.0$67(53/$1 &5,7,&$/$5($65(3257 CITY OF RENTON &/(9(/$1'5,&+$5'6213$5.0$67(53/$1 &5,7,&$/$5($65(3257 35(3$5(')25 BRUCE DEES &ASSOCIATES,LLC 6287+7+675((768,7( 7$&20$:$ 35(3$5('%< FARALLON CONSULTING,L.L.C.DBA GRETTE ASSOCIATES -$+1$9(1:67(+ *,*+$5%25:$ $35,/ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5$&+(/48,1'/(1'$7( 67$))%,2/2*,67 $35,/ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB &+$':$//,13:6 '$7( 352-(&76&,(17,67 %UXFH'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//& L $SULO &OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ3DUN&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV TABLE OF CONTENTS ,1752'8&7,21 )($785(6800$5< %$&.*5281' ([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV /RFDO&ULWLFDO$UHDV,QYHQWRU\ 1DWLRQDO:HWODQGV,QYHQWRU\ 6HQVLWLYH:LOGOLIHDQG3ODQWV 6WDWH:DWHU&ODVVLILFDWLRQ6\VWHP 6RLO,QIRUPDWLRQ 0(7+2'6 :HWODQGV +\GURSK\WLF9HJHWDWLRQ :HWODQG+\GURORJ\ +\GULF6RLOV 6WUHDPV 35(&,3,7$7,21$1$/<6,6 :(7/$1'5(68/76 :HWODQG$ 9HJHWDWLRQ +\GURORJ\ 6RLOV :HWODQG% 9HJHWDWLRQ +\GURORJ\ 6RLOV :HWODQG& 9HJHWDWLRQ +\GURORJ\ 6RLOV :HWODQG' 9HJHWDWLRQ +\GURORJ\ 6RLOV :HWODQG( 9HJHWDWLRQ +\GURORJ\ 6RLOV :HWODQG) 9HJHWDWLRQ +\GURORJ\ 6RLOV :HWODQG; 9HJHWDWLRQ +\GURORJ\ 6RLOV :HWODQG&DWHJRUL]DWLRQ 685)$&(:$7(5)($785(6 %UXFH'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//& LL $SULO &OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ3DUN&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV +$%,7$7&216(59$7,21$5($6 5(*8/$725<&216,'(5$7,216 ',6&/$,0(5 %,2/2*,6748$/,),&$7,216 &KDG:DOOLQ 5DFKHO4XLQGOHQ 5()(5(1&(6 %UXFH'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//& LLL $SULO &OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ3DUN&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity map .........................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Wetland delineation summary ...............................................................................5 Table 2. Streams and Habitat Conservation Areas summary ..............................................6 Table 3. Definitions for USFWS plant indicator status .......................................................9 Table 4. WETS precipitation analysis ...............................................................................10 Table 5. Wetland rating and categorization summary .......................................................13 Table 6. Surface Water Features Summary .......................................................................14 LIST OF APPENDICES $SSHQGL[$&ULWLFDO$UHDV0DS $SSHQGL[%:HWODQG6XPPDU\7DEOHV $SSHQGL[&:HWODQG'DWDVKHHWV $SSHQGL[':HWODQG5DWLQJ)RUPVDQG)LJXUHV $SSHQGL[(4XHULHG'DWDEDVH)LJXUHV %UXFH'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//& $SULO &OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ3DUN&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV 1INTRODUCTION )DUDOORQ&RQVXOWLQJ//&GED*UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV*UHWWHLVXQGHUFRQWUDFWZLWK%UXFH 'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//&WRSUHSDUHD&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW&$5WKDWVXPPDUL]HVWKH FULWLFDODUHDVUHFRQQDLVVDQFHSHUIRUPHGDWWKHSURSHUW\6LWHORFDWHGDW7DOERW5RDG 6RXWK.LQJ&RXQW\WD[SDUFHOVDQGLQWKH&LW\ RI5HQWRQ)LJXUH&ULWLFDODUHDVREVHUYHGRQWKH6LWHDUHVXEMHFWWRUHJXODWLRQXQGHU &KDSWHUWKH5HQWRQ0XQLFLSDO&RGH50& 7KHSXUSRVHRIWKLV&$5LVWRGRFXPHQWDOOZHWODQGVVWUHDPVDQGKDELWDWFRQVHUYDWLRQ DUHDV+&$VWKDWDUHORFDWHGZLWKLQIHHWRIWKH6LWHLQVXSSRUWRIPDVWHUSODQQLQJIRU WKH6LWHDQGIRUFRPSOLDQFHZLWK&KDSWHURIWKH50& Figure 1. Vicinity map 2FEATURE SUMMARY *UHWWHELRORJLVWVYLVLWHGWKH6LWHRQ2FWREHUDQG0DUFKDQGWR FRQGXFWDQDVVHVVPHQWWRLGHQWLI\DQ\FULWLFDODUHDVRQRUZLWKLQIHHWRIWKH6LWH *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHVFROOHFWHGZHWODQGGHOLQHDWLRQGDWDDQGGHOLQHDWHGVL[ZHWODQGIHDWXUHV :HWODQGV$)$SSHQGL[$WKDWFRQWDLQHGDOOWKUHHZHWODQGFULWHULDGHILQHGLQWKH86 $UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV86$&()HGHUDO:HWODQG'HOLQHDWLRQ0DQXDODQGWKH 86$&(¶V5HJLRQDO6XSSOHPHQWWRWKH&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV:HWODQG'HOLQHDWLRQ0DQXDO :HVWHUQ0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW5HJLRQ9HUVLRQ7KHZHWODQGVZHUH UDWHGDFFRUGLQJWR50&*DQGWKH:DVKLQJWRQ6WDWH'HSDUWPHQWRI(FRORJ\¶V (FRORJ\:DVKLQJWRQ6WDWH:HWODQG5DWLQJ6\VWHPIRU:HVWHUQ:$ ±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able 1. Wetland delineation summary Feature Size in Square Feet (Approximate)1 Cowardin Class2 Hydrology Modifier HGM Class Wetland Category Buffer Width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¶VERXQGDU\ ZDVHVWLPDWHGXVLQJ/L'$5DQGDHULDOLPDJHU\DQGLWDSSHDUVWRH[WHQGRIIVLWHWRWKHVRXWKRIWKH6LWHERXQGDU\ ,QDGGLWLRQWRZHWODQGVVHYHUDOVWUHDPVLQFOXGLQJ6SULQJEURRN&UHHNZHUHLGHQWLILHG GXULQJ*UHWWH¶VDVVHVVPHQW$QRUGLQDU\KLJKZDWHUPDUN2+:0GHWHUPLQDWLRQXVLQJ WKH JXLGDQFH LQ (FRORJ\¶V'HWHUPLQLQJ2+:0 IRU 6KRUHOLQH 0DQDJHPHQW $FW &RPSOLDQFHLQ:DVKLQJWRQ6WDWH$QGHUVRQHWDOZDVSHUIRUPHGIRUHDFKVHJPHQW RIVWUHDPVLWXDWHGZLWKLQWKH6LWH (DFKVWUHDPZDVW\SHGDFFRUGLQJWRFULWHULDLQ:$&DQGFODVVLILHGSHU50& *D7DEOH 6SULQJEURRN&UHHNLVQRWFRQVLGHUHGD6KRUHOLQHRI6WDWHZLGH6LJQLILFDQFHEHFDXVHWKH VHFWLRQRI6SULQJEURRN&UHHNVLWXDWHGZLWKLQWKH6LWHLVVRXWKRIWKHORZHUUHDFKWKDWLV %UXFH'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//& $SULO &OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ3DUN&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV VXEMHFWWRWKH&LW\RI5HQWRQ¶V6KRUHOLQH0DVWHU3URJUDP603SHU&KDSWHU%RI WKH50&DQGWKXVQRWVXEMHFWWRUHJXODWLRQVRIWKH&LW\RI5HQWRQ603 6SULQJEURRN&UHHNDQGDOORWKHU7\SH)VWUHDPVRQVLWHDOVRPHHWWKHGHILQLWLRQRIDQ+&$ SHU50&*LQWKDWLWLVGRFXPHQWHGE\:DVKLQJWRQ'HSDUWPHQWRI)LVKDQG :LOGOLIH:'):WRSURYLGHKDELWDWIRUPXOWLSOHVDOPRQLGVSHFLHV $VXPPDU\RIWKHVXUIDFHZDWHUIHDWXUHVLGHQWLILHGRQRUZLWKLQIHHWRIWKH6LWHLV SURYLGHGEHORZLQ7DEOH Table 2. Streams and Habitat Conservation Areas summary Feature Length Onsite (feet)/ (Approximate)1 Stream Type Buffer Width (RMC 4-3-050G.2)2 6SULQJEURRN&UHHN7\SH)IW 6WUHDP$7\SH1SIW 6WUHDP%XSVWUHDP RIFRQIOXHQFHZLWK 6WUHDP$ 7\SH1SIW 6WUHDP% GRZQVWUHDPRI FRQIOXHQFHZLWK 6WUHDP$ 7\SH)IW 6WUHDP&XSVWUHDP UHDFK7\SH1SIW 6WUHDP& GRZQVWUHDPUHDFK7\SH)IW 6WUHDP'7\SH)IW 6WUHDP(7\SH1SIW /HQJWKRIVWUHDPVEDVHGRQ*36SRLQWVFROOHFWHGLQWKHILHOGIRURQVLWHIHDWXUHVDQGRQDHULDOLPDJHU\IRULQDFFHVVLEOH DUHDV %XIIHUZLGWKVDUHEDVHGRQ50&* 1RRWKHUFULWLFDODUHDVLQFOXGLQJ+&$VZHUHLGHQWLILHGRQRUZLWKLQIHHWRIWKH6LWH 3BACKGROUND 3.1Existing Conditions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ocal Critical Areas Inventory 7KH&LW\RI5HQWRQ¶V*,6PDSSLQJWRROZDVH[SORUHGWRGHWHUPLQHLIDQ\FULWLFDODUHDV ZHUHPDSSHGZLWKLQRUQHDUWKH6LWH&LW\RI5HQWRQ$FFRUGLQJWRWKHPDSSHUWRRO RQHZHWODQGLVPDSSHGRQVLWHLQWKHQRUWKHUQSRUWLRQRIWKH6LWHHQFRPSDVVHGZLWKLQ :HWODQG)¶VERXQGDU\$SSHQGL[( 3.3National Wetlands Inventory 7KH86)LVKDQG:LOGOLIH6HUYLFH¶V1DWLRQDO:HWODQGV,QYHQWRU\1:,ZDVTXHULHGWR GHWHUPLQHLISUHYLRXVO\LGHQWLILHGZHWODQGVDUHSUHVHQWZLWKLQIHHWRIWKH6LWH86):6 $FFRUGLQJWRWKH1:,,QWHUDFWLYH2QOLQH0DSSHUWKHUHLVIUHVKZDWHUSRQGPDSSHG LQWKHHDVWHUQSRUWLRQRIWKH6LWH:HWODQG$DQGGLYHUVHIUHVKZDWHUZHWODQGLQWKHFHQWUDO SRUWLRQRIWKH6LWH:HWODQG%$SSHQGL[($ULYHULQHIHDWXUHLVPDSSHGDORQJWKH QRUWKHUQSRUWLRQRIWKH6LWHZKHUH6SULQJEURRN&UHHNLVORFDWHG 3.4Sensitive Wildlife and Plants 7KH:'):3ULRULW\+DELWDWVDQG6SHFLHV3+6GDWDEDVHRQOLQHPDSSHUZDVTXHULHGWR GHWHUPLQHLIVWDWHRUIHGHUDOO\OLVWHGILVKDQGZLOGOLIHVSHFLHVRFFXUQHDUWKH6LWH:'): D$FFRUGLQJWRWKH3+6GDWDEDVH6SULQJEURRN&UHHNLVPDSSHGWRSURYLGHKDELWDW IRURQO\FRKRVDOPRQ2NLVXWFK :'):LGHQWLILHVJUHDWEOXHKHURQ$UGHDKHURGLDVQHVWLQJDWWKHIRUPHU6SULQJEURRN 7URXW)DUPORFDWHGQRUWKRIWKH6SULQJEURRN&UHHNUDYLQHQRUWKRIWKH6LWH:'):QRWHG WKHSUHVHQFHRIIRXUWRILYHQHVWVZLWKDWOHDVWRQHDFWLYHLQ $GGLWLRQDOO\:'):¶V6DOPRQ6FDSHRQOLQHPDSSHUZDVTXHULHGWRGHWHUPLQHLIOLVWHG 6DOPRQ6FDSHVSHFLHVDUHLGHQWLILHGE\:'):WRRFFXUZLWKLQWKH6LWH:'):E $FFRUGLQJWR6DOPRQ6FDSHIDOO&KLQRRN2QFRUK\QFKXVWVKDZ\WVFKDZLQWHUVWHHOKHDG 2P\NLVVFRKR2NLVXWFKIDOOFKXP2NHWDDQGUHVLGHQWFRDVWDOFXWWKURDWWURXW2 FODUNLLFODUNLLDUHPDSSHGWRRFFXUZLWKLQWKHVHJPHQWRI6SULQJEURRN&UHHNVLWXDWHG RQVLWH 7KH:DVKLQJWRQ'HSDUWPHQWRI1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV¶:'155DUH3ODQWDQG(FRV\VWHP PDSSHUZDVTXHULHGWRGHWHUPLQHLIWKH6LWHLVORFDWHGLQDQDUHDWKDWFRQWDLQVKLJKTXDOLW\ QDWXUDOKHULWDJHZHWODQGVRURFFXUUHQFHVRIQDWXUDOKHULWDJHIHDWXUHVFRPPRQO\DVVRFLDWHG ZLWKZHWODQGV:'15D$FFRUGLQJWR:'15¶VPDSSHUWKHUHDUHQRUHFRUGVRIUDUH SODQWVRUKLJKTXDOLW\QDWLYHHFRV\VWHPVRFFXUULQJRQRULQWKHYLFLQLW\RIWKH6LWH 7KH 86 )LVK DQG :LOGOLIH 6HUYLFH¶V 86):6 &ULWLFDO +DELWDW IRU7KUHDWHQHG (QGDQJHUHG6SHFLHVPDSSHUZDVTXHULHGWRGHWHUPLQHLIDQ\VSHFLHVXQGHUWKH(QGDQJHUHG 6SHFLHV$FWDUHIRXQGLQWKHYLFLQLW\RIWKH6LWH86):6$FFRUGLQJWRWKLVPDSSHU QRHQGDQJHUHGVSHFLHVRUKDELWDWLVNQRZQWRRFFXULQRUQHDUWKH6LWH 3.5State Water Classification System 7KH:DVKLQJWRQ'HSDUWPHQWRI1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV¶:'15)RUHVW3UDFWLFH$SSOLFDWLRQ 0DSSLQJ7RRORQOLQHPDSSHUZDVTXHULHGWRLGHQWLI\WKHZDWHUW\SLQJRIDQ\VWUHDPV PDSSHGE\:'15:'15E$FFRUGLQJWR:'15WKHRQO\VWUHDPPDSSHGRQVLWH LV6SULQJEURRN&UHHNZKLFKLVFODVVLILHGDVD7\SH)ILVKEHDULQJVWUHDP$GGLWLRQDOO\ :'15PDSVWKHSRQGHGDUHDRQVLWHZLWKLQ:HWODQG$DVDQRQILVKKDELWDWIHDWXUH7\SH %UXFH'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//& $SULO &OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ3DUN&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV 1$IRUHVWHGZHWODQGLVDOVRPDSSHGZLWKLQWKHFHQWUDODUHDRIWKH6LWHZKHUH:HWODQG %LVORFDWHG 3.6Soil Information $FFRUGLQJWRWKH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH¶V15&6:HE6RLO6XUYH\ 15&6WKHVRLOVZLWKLQWKH6LWHFRQVLVWRI$OGHUZRRGJUDYHOO\VDQG\ORDPWR SHUFHQWVORSHV$J&$OGHUZRRGJUDYHOO\VDQG\ORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHV$J' 0L[HGDOOXYLDOODQG0DDQG8UEDQODQG8U3HUWKH15&6VRLOUHSRUW0L[HGDOOXYLDO ODQGDQG8UEDQODQGDUHQRWUDWHGDVK\GULF 4METHODS 4.1Wetlands *UHWWH%LRORJLVWVWUDYHUVHGWKH6LWHDQGFROOHFWHGGDWDWRFRQILUPWKHERXQGDULHVRIWKH LGHQWLILHG ZHWODQG IHDWXUHV :HWODQGV ZHUH GHOLQHDWHG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH SURFHGXUHV GHVFULEHGLQWKH86$&(¶V)HGHUDO:HWODQG'HOLQHDWLRQ0DQXDODQGWKH86$&(¶V 5HJLRQDO6XSSOHPHQWWRWKH&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV:HWODQG'HOLQHDWLRQ0DQXDO:HVWHUQ 0RXQWDLQV9DOOH\VDQG&RDVW5HJLRQ9HUVLRQ3DLUHGGDWDSORWVDQGVRLOWHVW SLWV ZHUH H[FDYDWHG WR HYDOXDWH ZHWODQG DQG XSODQG FRQGLWLRQV*XLGDQFH IURP WKH 86$&(¶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more thanSHUFHQWRIWKHGRPLQDQWVSHFLHVLQWKHSODQWFRPPXQLW\DUH)$&RUZHWWHU7KH 86$&(¶V1DWLRQDO:HWODQG3ODQW/LVW86$&(ZDVXVHGWRGHWHUPLQHYHJHWDWLRQ LQGLFDWRUVWDWXV %UXFH'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//& $SULO &OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ3DUN&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV Table 3. Definitions for USFWS plant indicator status Plant Indicator Status Category Indicator Status Abbreviation Definition (Estimated Probability of Occurrence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¶5HJLRQDO6XSSOHPHQW 4.2Streams 7KH 2+:0 RI DOO VXUIDFH ZDWHU IHDWXUHV VLWXDWHG ZLWKLQ WKH 6LWH ZHUH GHWHUPLQHG DFFRUGLQJWRPHWKRGVLQ(FRORJ\¶VPDQXDO'HWHUPLQLQJWKH2UGLQDU\+LJK:DWHU0DUN IRU6KRUHOLQH0DQDJHPHQW$FW&RPSOLDQFHLQ:DVKLQJWRQ6WDWH$QGHUVRQHWDO 6WUHDPFODVVLILFDWLRQVZHUHGHWHUPLQHGXVLQJWKHGHILQLWLRQVLQ50&*DQG DFFRUGLQJWRFULWHULDLQ:$&7KH2+:0IRUHDFKIHDWXUHZDVIODJJHGZLWK EOXHIODJJLQJWDSHDQGODEHOHGDOSKDQXPHULFDOO\ 4.3PRECIPITATION ANALYSIS 7DEOHSUHVHQWVDQDQDO\VLVRIWKHDSSURSULDWH:(76WDEOHIRUWKHWKUHHPRQWKVSUHFHGLQJ WKH ILHOG LQYHVWLJDWLRQ XVLQJ WKH 86$&(¶V $QWHFHGHQW 3UHFLSLWDWLRQ 7RRO $37 $SSHQGL[(7KH$37XWLOL]HGGDWDIURPWKUHHGLIIHUHQWQHDUE\ZHDWKHUVWDWLRQV6HDWWOH 7DFRPD$3%XULHQ11:DQG.HQWIRUWKLVWDEOH:LWKDWRWDOYDOXHRIWKHFOLPDWH FRQGLWLRQVRIWKHVLWHDWWKHWLPHRIDVVHVVPHQWZHUHFRQVLGHUHGQRUPDO %UXFH'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//& $SULO &OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ3DUN&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV Table 4. WETS precipitation analysis Preceding Month WETS Rainfall Percentile (inches) Measured Rainfall1 (inches) Conditions2 Condition Value3 Month Weight Value 0DUFK1RUPDO )HEUXDU\'U\ -DQXDU\1RUPDO 6XP 2EVHUYHGUDLQIDOOIRUWKHPRQWK86$&( 'U\FRQGLWLRQVDUHEHORZ:(76WDEOHYDOXH1RUPDOFRQGLWLRQVDUHEHWZHHQDQGRIWKH:(76WDEOH YDOXHV:HWFRQGLWLRQVDUHDERYHRIWKH:(76WDEOHYDOXH 7KHFRQGLWLRQYDOXHIRUDGU\QRUPDORUZHWPRQWKLVRUUHVSHFWLYHO\ ,IWKHVXPLVWKHFRQGLWLRQVDUHGULHUWKDQQRUPDO,IWKHVXPLVFRQGLWLRQVDUHQRUPDO,IWKHVXPLV FRQGLWLRQVDUHZHWWHUWKDQQRUPDO 5WETLAND RESULTS 5.1Wetland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etland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etland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etland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etland E 9HJHWDWLRQ :HWODQG(LVGRPLQDWHGE\EODFNFRWWRQZRRG3RSXOXVEDOVDPLIHUD)$&UHGDOGHU )$&EHDNHGKD]HOQXW)$&8DQGVORXJKVHGJH&DUH[REQXSWD2%/86$&( 7KHYHJHWDWLRQPHWWKHGRPLQDQFHWHVWFULWHULDIRUK\GURSK\WLFYHJHWDWLRQ86$&( +\GURORJ\ :HWODQG(PHWVHYHUDOSULPDU\ZHWODQGK\GURORJ\LQGLFDWRUVLQFOXGLQJVDWXUDWLRQWR VXUIDFHKLJKZDWHUWDEOHREVHUYHGDWLQFKEJVDQGVXUIDFHZDWHULQFKGHHS86$&( 7KHK\GURORJLFUHJLPHVSUHVHQWDUHVDWXUDWLRQDQGVHDVRQDOSRQGLQJ 6RLOV 7KHWRSVRLOOD\HUREVHUYHGLQ:HWODQG(LQFKHVZDVDEODFNGDUNEURZQFOD\OD\HU <57KHORZHUVRLOOD\HULQFKHVZDVDOLJKWJUD\ORDP\VDQGPDWUL[<5 ZLWKSHUFHQWUHGEURZQUHGR[FRQFHQWUDWLRQVRIWKHPDWUL[<5%DVHGRQ WKHWH[WXUHRIWKHVRLOWKHFRORUVRIWKHPDWUL[DQGWKHUHGR[FRQFHQWUDWLRQVWKLVOD\HUPHW WKH'HSOHWHG%HORZ'DUN6XUIDFHK\GULFVRLOLQGLFDWRU86$&( 5.6Wetland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etland X :HWODQG;FRXOGQRWEHDFFHVVHGGXULQJWKH6LWHDVVHVVPHQWGXHWRLWVLVRODWHGORFDWLRQRQ WKHIDUZHVWHUQERXQGDU\RIWKH6LWHDGMDFHQWWR65DQGGHQVH+LPDOD\DQEODFNEHUU\ EORFNLQJ DFFHVV WR WKDW DUHD :HWODQG ;¶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etland Categorization 7R GHWHUPLQH WKH FDWHJRUL]DWLRQ RI WKH ZHWODQGV EDVHG RQ IXQFWLRQ WKH ZHWODQG FODVVLILFDWLRQJXLGHOLQHVLQ(FRORJ\¶VZHWODQGUDWLQJV\VWHP+UXE\ZHUHDSSOLHG %DVHGRQWKLVJXLGDQFHWKHZHWODQGVZHUHJLYHQDVFRUHIRUHDFKRIWKHWKUHHIXQFWLRQV :DWHU4XDOLW\+\GURORJ\DQG+DELWDW7DEOH Table 5. Wetland rating and categorization summary Feature Cowardin Class1 HGM Class Water Quality Hydrology Habitat Total Category :HWODQG$3)2(0$%'HSUHVVLRQDO ,, :HWODQG%3)266(0 6ORSH 'HSUHVVLRQDO 5LYHULQH5DWHGDV 'HSUHVVLRQDO ,, :HWODQG&3)2(06ORSH ,,, :HWODQG'366(0'HSUHVVLRQDO ,,, :HWODQG(3(0'HSUHVVLRQDO ,,, :HWODQG)3)266(06ORSH5LYHULQH 5DWHGDV5LYHULQH ,, &ODVVLILFDWLRQEDVHGRQ&RZDUGLQHWDO 3HU50&*ZHWODQGVDUHVXEMHFWWRDEXIIHUWRSURWHFWWKHLQWHJULW\DQGIXQFWLRQ RIVDLGIHDWXUH)RUWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLVUHSRUWZHDVVXPHDPRGHUDWHOHYHORISURSRVHG ODQGXVHLQWHQVLW\WKHUHIRUHWKHEXIIHUVDUHWKRVHLQWKH³$OO2WKHU/DQG8VHV´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able 6. Surface Water Features Summary Feature Length Onsite (feet)/ (Approximate)1 Stream Type Buffer Width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¶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¶V+\GUDXOLF&RGH:$&WKURXJKWKH+\GUDXOLF3URMHFW$SSURYDO+3$ SURJUDP $WWKHIHGHUDOOHYHOLPSDFWVVSHFLILFDOO\GUHGJLQJRUILOOLQJWRZHWODQGVDUHUHJXODWHGE\ WKH(QYLURQPHQWDO3URWHFWLRQ$JHQF\WKURXJKWKH86$&(7KH86$&(DGPLQLVWHUVWKH IHGHUDO&OHDQ:DWHU$FW6HFWLRQIRUSURMHFWVLQYROYLQJGUHGJLQJRUILOOLQJLQ:DWHUV RIWKH86ODNHVVWUHDPVPDULQHZDWHUVDQGPRVWQRQLVRODWHGZHWODQGV :KLOH LW LV WKH UHJXODWRU\ DJHQFLHV WKDW PDNH WKH ILQDO GHWHUPLQDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ MXULVGLFWLRQDOVWDWXVSURMHFWSURSRQHQWVFDQLQIHUMXULVGLFWLRQXVLQJWKHJXLGDQFHSURYLGHG E\HDFKDJHQF\RUORFDOJRYHUQPHQW7KLVLQIHUHQFHFDQEHXVHGWRGHVLJQDSURMHFWEDVHG RQ WKH DQWLFLSDWHG UHJXODWRU\ FRQVWUDLQWV ZLWKLQ WKH 6LWH +RZHYHU LW LV WKH SURMHFW %UXFH'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//& $SULO &OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ3DUN&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV SURSRQHQW¶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had Wallin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achel Quindlen 5DFKHO 4XLQGOHQLV D%LRORJLVWZLWK H[SHULHQFHLQ ZHWODQGV VWUHDPV VKRUHOLQHV DQG SHUPLWWLQJ 5DFKHO DOVR KDV H[SHULHQFH LQ ILVK DQG ZLOGOLIH DVVHVVPHQWV PLWLJDWLRQ PRQLWRULQJDQGUHVWRUDWLRQ 5DFKHOKDVHDUQHGD%DFKHORU¶VRI6FLHQFHVGHJUHHIURPWKH8QLYHUVLW\RI1RUWK&DUROLQD DW&KDSHO+LOODORQJZLWKDPLQRULQ0DULQH6FLHQFHV %UXFH'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//& $SULO &OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ3DUN&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV )RUDOLVWRIUHSUHVHQWDWLYHSURMHFWVSOHDVHFRQWDFWKHUDW*UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV 11REFERENCES &LW\ RI 5HQWRQ &LW\ RI 5HQWRQ¶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³:HWODQGV´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pproximate Size (sq. ft.): Cowardin Classification1:3)2(0$% HGM Classification2: /DNH)ULQJH 5LYHULQH 'HSUHVVLRQDO5DWHG DV'HSUHVVLRQDO Wetland Category3:,, Wetland Buffer Width4:IW Sample Plot Total5: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present (Y/N)? <HV Hydric Soil Indicator? 6DQG\0XFN\ 0LQHUDO Wetland Hydrology Present? <HV Summary of Findings Dominant Vegetation::HWODQG$LVGRPLQDWHGE\UHGDOGHU+LPDOD\DQEODFNEHUU\DQGUHHGFDQDU\JUDVV Soil Profile: 7KHWRSVRLOOD\HUREVHUYHGLQ:HWODQG$LQFKHVZDVDGDUNEURZQJUD\VDQG\ ORDP\PXFN<57KHORZHUVRLOOD\HUREVHUYHGLQFKHVFRQVLVWHGRID EODFNVDQG\PXFNPDWUL[<5ZLWKDJUHDV\WH[WXUH Primary Hydrological Support: :HWODQG$PHWVHYHUDOZHWODQGK\GURORJ\LQGLFDWRUVLQFOXGLQJDKLJKZDWHUWDEOH REVHUYHGDWLQFKHVEJVVDWXUDWLRQWRVXUIDFHLURQGHSRVLWVDQGK\GURJHQVXOILGH RGRU86$&(7KHK\GURORJLFUHJLPHVSUHVHQWDWWKLVZHWODQGDUHVHDVRQDOO\ IORRGHGVDWXUDWHGDQGSHUPDQHQWO\IORRGHG:HWODQG$DOVRUHFHLYHVLQSXWVIURP 6WUHDP$D7\SH1SVWUHDPDQGLQFOXGHVWKHSRQGHGDUHDWKDWDEXWV Wetland Data Plot:Upland Data Plot: 1RWHV &ODVVLILFDWLRQEDVHGRQ&RZDUGLQHWDO +*0FODVVLILFDWLRQEDVHGRQ%ULQVRQ00 :HWODQGUDWLQJZDVGHWHUPLQHGEDVHGRQWKHJXLGHOLQHVGHILQHGLQWKHORFDOPXQLFLSDOFRGH :HWODQGEXIIHUZDVGHWHUPLQHGEDVHGRQWKHORFDOPXQLFLSDOFRGH 6DPSOHSORWWRWDOLQFOXGHVWKHFROOHFWLYHDPRXQWRIZHWODQGDQGXSODQGVDPSOHVSORWVH[DPLQHGWRGHILQHWKHZHWODQGERXQGDU\ %UXFH'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//& $SULO &OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ3DUN&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV :(7/$1'%6800$5< Approximate Size (sq. ft.): Cowardin Classification1:3)266(0 HGM Classification2: 5LYHULQH 'HSUHVVLRQDO6ORSH 5DWHGDV 'HSUHVVLRQDO Wetland Category3:,, Wetland Buffer Width4:IW Sample Plot Total5: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present (Y/N)? <HV Hydric Soil Indicator? 'HSOHWHG%HORZ 'DUN6XUIDFH Wetland Hydrology Present? <HV Summary of Findings Dominant Vegetation:'RPLQDQWYHJHWDWLRQZLWKLQ:HWODQG%FRQVLVWVRIUHGDOGHU+LPDOD\DQEODFNEHUU\ DQGVRIWUXVK Soil Profile: 7KHWRSVRLOOD\HUREVHUYHGLQ:HWODQG%LQFKHVZDVDEODFNGDUNEURZQVDQG\ VLOWOD\HU<57KHORZHUVRLOOD\HULQFKHVFRQVLVWHGRIDOLJKWJUD\ ORDP\VDQGPDWUL[<5ZLWKSHUFHQWGDUNUHGEURZQUHGR[FRQFHQWUDWLRQVRI WKHPDWUL[<5 Primary Hydrological Support: :HWODQG%PHWVHYHUDOZHWODQGK\GURORJ\LQGLFDWRUVLQFOXGLQJVDWXUDWLRQREVHUYHGWR VXUIDFH JHRPRUSKLF SRVLWLRQ DQG WKH )$&QHXWUDO WHVW 7KH K\GURORJLF UHJLPHV SUHVHQWDUHDOVRVHDVRQDOO\IORRGHGDQGVDWXUDWHG:HWODQG%FRQWDLQVERWKVHDVRQDO DQGSHUPDQHQWVWUHDPVZLWKLQLWVERXQGDU\ZKLFKSURYLGHK\GURORJLFLQSXWVLQVRPH DUHDV Wetland Data Plot:Upland Data Plots: 1RWHV &ODVVLILFDWLRQEDVHGRQ&RZDUGLQHWDO +*0FODVVLILFDWLRQEDVHGRQ%ULQVRQ00 :HWODQGUDWLQJZDVGHWHUPLQHGEDVHGRQWKHJXLGHOLQHVGHILQHGLQWKHORFDOPXQLFLSDOFRGH :HWODQGEXIIHUZDVGHWHUPLQHGEDVHGRQWKHORFDOPXQLFLSDOFRGH 6DPSOHSORWWRWDOLQFOXGHVWKHFROOHFWLYHDPRXQWRIZHWODQGDQGXSODQGVDPSOHVSORWVH[DPLQHGWRGHILQHWKHZHWODQGERXQGDU\ %UXFH'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//& $SULO &OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ3DUN&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV :(7/$1'&6800$5< Approximate Size (sq. ft.): Cowardin Classification1:3)2(0 HGM Classification2:6ORSH Wetland Category3:,,, Wetland Buffer Width4:IW Sample Plot Total5: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present (Y/N)? <HV Hydric Soil Indicator? 'HSOHWHG%HORZ 'DUN6XUIDFH Wetland Hydrology Present? <HV Summary of Findings Dominant Vegetation:'RPLQDQWYHJHWDWLRQZLWKLQ:HWODQG&FRQVLVWVRIUHGDOGHUUHGHOGHUEHUU\ +LPDOD\DQEODFNEHUU\VDOPRQEHUU\DQGFUHHSLQJEXWWHUFXS Soil Profile: 7KHWRSVRLOOD\HUREVHUYHGLQ:HWODQG&LQFKHVZDVDGDUNJUD\EURZQVLOWOD\HU <57KHORZHUVRLOOD\HULQFKHVFRQVLVWHGRIDJUD\VDQGPDWUL[<5 ZLWKSHUFHQWGDUNUHGEURZQUHGR[FRQFHQWUDWLRQVSUHVHQWZLWKLQWKHPDWUL[DV ZHOODVZLWKLQSRUHOLQLQJVDORQJOLYLQJURRWV<5 Primary Hydrological Support: :HWODQG&PHWRQHZHWODQGK\GURORJ\LQGLFDWRUVDWXUDWLRQREVHUYHGDWLQFKHV EJV:HWODQG'FRQWDLQVDVLQJOHK\GURORJLFUHJLPHVDWXUDWHG6WUHDP'IORZV QRUWKSDUWLDOO\LQFOXGHGLQWKHHDVWHUQSRUWLRQRIWKHZHWODQGDWWKHERWWRPRIWKH KLOOVORSH Wetland Data Plot:Upland Data Plot: 1RWHV &ODVVLILFDWLRQEDVHGRQ&RZDUGLQHWDO +*0FODVVLILFDWLRQEDVHGRQ%ULQVRQ00 :HWODQGUDWLQJZDVGHWHUPLQHGEDVHGRQWKHJXLGHOLQHVGHILQHGLQWKHORFDOPXQLFLSDOFRGH :HWODQGEXIIHUZDVGHWHUPLQHGEDVHGRQWKHORFDOPXQLFLSDOFRGH 6DPSOHSORWWRWDOLQFOXGHVWKHFROOHFWLYHDPRXQWRIZHWODQGDQGXSODQGVDPSOHVSORWVH[DPLQHGWRGHILQHWKHZHWODQGERXQGDU\ %UXFH'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//& $SULO &OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ3DUN&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV :(7/$1''6800$5< Approximate Size (sq. ft.): Cowardin Classification1:366(0 HGM Classification2:'HSUHVVLRQDO Wetland Category3:,,, Wetland Buffer Width4:IW Sample Plot Total5: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present (Y/N)? <HV Hydric Soil Indicator? 'HSOHWHG%HORZ 'DUN6XUIDFH Wetland Hydrology Present? <HV Summary of Findings Dominant Vegetation:'RPLQDQWYHJHWDWLRQZLWKLQ:HWODQG'FRQVLVWVRIUHGDOGHU+LPDOD\DQEODFNEHUU\ DQGVNXQNFDEEDJH Soil Profile: 7KHWRSVRLOOD\HUREVHUYHGLQ:HWODQG'LQFKHVZDVDEODFNGDUNEURZQVDQG\ VLOWOD\HU<5ZLWKQRUHGR[SUHVHQW7KHORZHUVRLOOD\HUSUHVHQW LQFKHVZDVDJUD\VDQG\VLOWPDWUL[<5ZLWKSHUFHQWUHGEURZQUHGR[ FRQFHQWUDWLRQVSUHVHQWZLWKLQWKHPDWUL[<5 Primary Hydrological Support: :HWODQG'PHWRQHZHWODQGK\GURORJ\LQGLFDWRUVDWXUDWLRQREVHUYHGDWLQFKHVEJV 86$&(:HWODQG'FRQWDLQVDVLQJOHK\GURORJLFUHJLPHVDWXUDWLRQ:HWODQG' UHFHLYHVK\GURORJLFLQSXWVIURPVXUIDFHUXQRIIDQGJURXQGZDWHU Wetland Data Plot:Upland Data Plot: 1RWHV &ODVVLILFDWLRQEDVHGRQ&RZDUGLQHWDO +*0FODVVLILFDWLRQEDVHGRQ%ULQVRQ00 :HWODQGUDWLQJZDVGHWHUPLQHGEDVHGRQWKHJXLGHOLQHVGHILQHGLQWKHORFDOPXQLFLSDOFRGH :HWODQGEXIIHUZDVGHWHUPLQHGEDVHGRQWKHORFDOPXQLFLSDOFRGH 6DPSOHSORWWRWDOLQFOXGHVWKHFROOHFWLYHDPRXQWRIZHWODQGDQGXSODQGVDPSOHVSORWVH[DPLQHGWRGHILQHWKHZHWODQGERXQGDU\ %UXFH'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//& $SULO &OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ3DUN&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV :(7/$1'(6800$5< Approximate Size (sq. ft.): Cowardin Classification1:3(0 HGM Classification2:'HSUHVVLRQDO Wetland Category3:,,, Wetland Buffer Width4:IW Sample Plot Total5: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present (Y/N)? <HV Hydric Soil Indicator? 'HSOHWHG%HORZ 'DUN6XUIDFH Wetland Hydrology Present? <HV Summary of Findings Dominant Vegetation:'RPLQDQWYHJHWDWLRQZLWKLQ:HWODQG'FRQVLVWVRIEODFNFRWWRQZRRGUHGDOGHUEHDNHG KD]HOQXWDQGVORXJKVHGJH Soil Profile: 7KHWRSVRLOOD\HUREVHUYHGLQ:HWODQG(LQFKHVZDVDEODFNGDUNEURZQFOD\ OD\HU<57KHORZHUVRLOOD\HULQFKHVZDVDOLJKWJUD\ORDP\VDQG PDWUL[ <5 ZLWK SHUFHQW UHGEURZQ UHGR[ FRQFHQWUDWLRQV RI WKHPDWUL[ <5 Primary Hydrological Support: :HWODQG(PHWVHYHUDOSULPDU\ZHWODQGK\GURORJ\LQGLFDWRUVLQFOXGLQJVDWXUDWLRQ REVHUYHGWRVXUIDFHZDWHUWDEOHWRLQFKEJVDQGVXUIDFHZDWHULQFKGHHS 86$&(7KHK\GURORJLFUHJLPHVSUHVHQWDUHVDWXUDWLRQDQGVHDVRQDOSRQGLQJ Wetland Data Plot:Upland Data Plot: 1RWHV &ODVVLILFDWLRQEDVHGRQ&RZDUGLQHWDO +*0FODVVLILFDWLRQEDVHGRQ%ULQVRQ00 :HWODQGUDWLQJZDVGHWHUPLQHGEDVHGRQWKHJXLGHOLQHVGHILQHGLQWKHORFDOPXQLFLSDOFRGH :HWODQGEXIIHUZDVGHWHUPLQHGEDVHGRQWKHORFDOPXQLFLSDOFRGH 6DPSOHSORWWRWDOLQFOXGHVWKHFROOHFWLYHDPRXQWRIZHWODQGDQGXSODQGVDPSOHVSORWVH[DPLQHGWRGHILQHWKHZHWODQGERXQGDU\ %UXFH'HHV $VVRFLDWHV//& $SULO &OHYHODQG5LFKDUGVRQ3DUN&ULWLFDO$UHDV5HSRUW *UHWWH$VVRFLDWHV :(7/$1')6800$5< Approximate Size (sq. ft.): Cowardin Classification1:3)266(0 HGM Classification2: 6ORSH5LYHULQH 5DWHGDV5LYHULQH Wetland Category3:,, Wetland Buffer Width4:IW Sample Plot Total5: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present (Y/N)? <HV Hydric Soil Indicator? 'HSOHWHG%HORZ 'DUN6XUIDFH Wetland Hydrology Present? <HV Summary of Findings Dominant Vegetation:'RPLQDQWYHJHWDWLRQZLWKLQ:HWODQG)FRQVLVWVRIUHGDOGHU+LPDOD\DQEODFNEHUU\ VDOPRQEHUU\DQGVNXQNFDEEDJH Soil Profile: 7KHWRSVRLOOD\HUREVHUYHGLQ:HWODQG)LQFKHVZDVDEODFNGDUNEURZQVDQG\ ORDPOD\HU<57KHORZHUVRLOOD\HULQFKHVFRQVLVWHGRIDOLJKWJUD\ ORDP\VDQGPDWUL[<5ZLWKSHUFHQWGDUNUHGEURZQUHGR[FRQFHQWUDWLRQVRI WKHPDWUL[<5 Primary Hydrological Support: :HWODQG)PHWVHYHUDOZHWODQGK\GURORJ\LQGLFDWRUVLQFOXGLQJVDWXUDWLRQWRVXUIDFH DQGKLJKZDWHU WDEOH REVHUYHG DW LQFKHV EJV 86$&( 7KH K\GURORJLF UHJLPHV SUHVHQW DUH DOVR VHDVRQDOO\ IORRGHG DQG VDWXUDWHG :HWODQG ) FRQWDLQV D VHDVRQDO6WUHDP(ZLWKLQLWVERXQGDU\DQGERUGHUVDSHUPDQHQWVWUHDPWRWKHQRUWK 6SULQJEURRN&UHHNZKLFKSURYLGHK\GURORJLFLQSXWV Wetland Data Plot:Upland Data Plot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eb_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Map Title Notes None Legend 511 0 255 511 Feet All data, information, and maps are provided "as is" without warranty or any representation of accuracy, timeliness of completeness. The burden for determining accuracy, completeness, timeliness, merchantability and fitness for or the appropriateness for use rests solely on the user. City and County Labels Addresses Parcels City and County Boundary Renton <all other values> Environment Designations Natural Shoreline High Intensity Shoreline Isolated High Intensity Shoreline Residential Urban Conservancy Jurisdictions Streams (Classified) S - Shoreline F - Fish Np - Non-Fish Ns - Non-Fish Seasonal Unclassfied Wetlands 5' Primary 5' Intermediate Network Structures Public Access Riser Private Access Riser Public Inlet Private Inlet Public Manhole Private Manhole Public Utility Vault Private Utility Vault Public Clean Out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ncorhynchus tshawytscha 3ULRULW\$UHD 2FFXUUHQFH0LJUDWLRQ $FFXUDF\ 1$ 1RWHV //,')LVK1DPH&KLQRRN6DOPRQ5XQ7LPH)DOO /LIH+LVWRU\$QDGURPRXV 6RXUFH5HFRUG 6RXUFH'DWDVHW 6:,)' )HGHUDO6WDWXV 1$ 6WDWH6WDWXV 1$ 3+6/LVWLQJ6WDWXV 3+6/LVWHG2FFXUUHQFH 6HQVLWLYH 1 6*&1 1 'LVSOD\5HVROXWLRQ $60$33(' 0RUH,QIR KWWSZGIZZDJRYZOPGLYHUVW\VRFVRFKWP *HRPHWU\7\SH /LQHV 3+66SHFLHV+DELWDWV'HWDLOV :LQWHU6WHHOKHDG 6FLHQWLILF1DPH Oncorhynchus mykiss 3ULRULW\$UHD 2FFXUUHQFH0LJUDWLRQ $FFXUDF\ 1$ 1RWHV //,')LVK1DPH6WHHOKHDG7URXW5XQ7LPH :LQWHU/LIH+LVWRU\$QDGURPRXV 6RXUFH5HFRUG 6RXUFH'DWDVHW 6:,)' )HGHUDO6WDWXV 1$ 6WDWH6WDWXV 1$ 3+6/LVWLQJ6WDWXV 3+6/LVWHG2FFXUUHQFH 6HQVLWLYH 1 6*&1 1 'LVSOD\5HVROXWLRQ $60$33(' 0RUH,QIR KWWSZGIZZDJRYZOPGLYHUVW\VRFVRFKWP *HRPHWU\7\SH /LQHV &RKR 6FLHQWLILF1DPH Oncorhynchus kisutch 3ULRULW\$UHD 2FFXUUHQFH $FFXUDF\ 1$ 1RWHV //,'6WRFN1DPH*UHHQ5LYHU6RRV&UHHN&RKR 5XQ8QVSHFLILHG6WDWXV+HDOWK\ 6RXUFH5HFRUG 6RXUFH'DWDVHW 6$6, 6RXUFH1DPH 1RW*LYHQ 6RXUFH(QWLW\ :'):)LVK3URJUDP )HGHUDO6WDWXV &DQGLGDWH 6WDWH6WDWXV 1$ 3+6/LVWLQJ6WDWXV 3+6/LVWHG2FFXUUHQFH 6HQVLWLYH 1 6*&1 1 'LVSOD\5HVROXWLRQ $60$33(' 0RUH,QIR KWWSZGIZZDJRYZOPGLYHUVW\VRFVRFKWP *HRPHWU\7\SH /LQHV &RKR 6FLHQWLILF1DPH Oncorhynchus kisutch 3ULRULW\$UHD %UHHGLQJ$UHD $FFXUDF\ 1$ 1RWHV //,')LVK1DPH&RKR6DOPRQ5XQ7LPH 8QNQRZQRUQRW$SSOLFDEOH/LIH+LVWRU\$QDGURPRXV 6RXUFH5HFRUG 6RXUFH'DWDVHW 6:,)' )HGHUDO6WDWXV 1$ 6WDWH6WDWXV 1$ 3+6/LVWLQJ6WDWXV 3+6/LVWHG2FFXUUHQFH 6HQVLWLYH 1 6*&1 1 'LVSOD\5HVROXWLRQ $60$33(' 0RUH,QIR KWWSZGIZZDJRYZOPGLYHUVW\VRFVRFKWP *HRPHWU\7\SH /LQHV 5HVLGHQW&RDVWDO&XWWKURDW 6FLHQWLILF1DPH Oncorhynchus clarki 3ULRULW\$UHD 2FFXUUHQFH0LJUDWLRQ $FFXUDF\ 1$ 1RWHV //,')LVK1DPH&XWWKURDW7URXW5XQ7LPH 8QNQRZQRUQRW$SSOLFDEOH/LIH+LVWRU\8QNQRZQ 6RXUFH5HFRUG 6RXUFH'DWDVHW 6:,)' )HGHUDO6WDWXV 1$ 6WDWH6WDWXV 1$ 3+6/LVWLQJ6WDWXV 3+6/LVWHG2FFXUUHQFH 6HQVLWLYH 1 6*&1 1 'LVSOD\5HVROXWLRQ $60$33(' 0RUH,QIR KWWSZGIZZDJRYZOPGLYHUVW\VRFVRFKWP *HRPHWU\7\SH /LQHV 5HVLGHQW&RDVWDO&XWWKURDW 6FLHQWLILF1DPH Oncorhynchus clarki 3ULRULW\$UHD 2FFXUUHQFH0LJUDWLRQ $FFXUDF\ 1$ 1RWHV //,')LVK1DPH&XWWKURDW7URXW5XQ7LPH 8QNQRZQRUQRW$SSOLFDEOH/LIH+LVWRU\8QNQRZQ 6RXUFH5HFRUG 6RXUFH'DWDVHW 6:,)' )HGHUDO6WDWXV 1$ 6WDWH6WDWXV 1$ 3+6/LVWLQJ6WDWXV 3+6/LVWHG2FFXUUHQFH 6HQVLWLYH 1 6*&1 1 'LVSOD\5HVROXWLRQ $60$33(' 0RUH,QIR KWWSZGIZZDJRYZOPGLYHUVW\VRFVRFKWP *HRPHWU\7\SH /LQHV 5HVLGHQW&RDVWDO&XWWKURDW 6FLHQWLILF1DPH Oncorhynchus clarki 3ULRULW\$UHD 2FFXUUHQFH0LJUDWLRQ $FFXUDF\ 1$ 1RWHV //,')LVK1DPH&XWWKURDW7URXW5XQ7LPH 8QNQRZQRUQRW$SSOLFDEOH/LIH+LVWRU\8QNQRZQ 6RXUFH5HFRUG 6RXUFH'DWDVHW 6:,)' )HGHUDO6WDWXV 1$ 6WDWH6WDWXV 1$ 3+6/LVWLQJ6WDWXV 3+6/LVWHG2FFXUUHQFH 6HQVLWLYH 1 6*&1 1 'LVSOD\5HVROXWLRQ $60$33(' 0RUH,QIR KWWSZGIZZDJRYZOPGLYHUVW\VRFVRFKWP *HRPHWU\7\SH /LQHV &RKR 6FLHQWLILF1DPH Oncorhynchus kisutch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rdea herodias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ow e r G a rr i s o n C r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sri Community Maps Contributors, WSU Facilities Services GIS, King County, WA State Parks GIS, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species [USFWS] A specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Final Polygon Features Final Linear Features Proposed Polygon Features Proposed Linear Features 600ft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k $SSUR[LPDWH6FDOH )HHW /HJHQG 7\SH6 7\SH) 7\SH11S1V 8XQNQRZQ ;QRQW\SHGSHU:$& :DWHU%RGLHV5HPRYHG )3 7\SH$:HWODQG 7\SH%:HWODQG )RUHVWHG:HWODQG 2WKHU:HWODQG &RXQW\7D[3DUFHOV &RXQW\%RXQGDULHV 2WKHU,PSRXQGPHQWV 2SHQ)UHVKZDWHU 6XEMHFWWR,QXQGDWLRQ *ODFLHU6QRZILHOG :HW$UHD 2SHQ6DOWZDWHU $UWLILFLDO)HDWXUH IW&RQWRXUV 7UDLO 5DLOURDG 5DLOURDG*UDGH $EDQGRQHG 2USKDQHG :DWHU7\SH%UHDNV)3 3DYHG5RDG 8QSDYHG5RDG6XUIDFH 8QNQRZQ +\GULF5DWLQJE\0DS8QLW²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²$XJ 7KHRUWKRSKRWRRURWKHUEDVHPDSRQZKLFKWKHVRLOOLQHVZHUH FRPSLOHGDQGGLJLWL]HGSUREDEO\GLIIHUVIURPWKHEDFNJURXQG LPDJHU\GLVSOD\HGRQWKHVHPDSV$VDUHVXOWVRPHPLQRU VKLIWLQJRIPDSXQLWERXQGDULHVPD\EHHYLGHQW +\GULF5DWLQJE\0DS8QLW².LQJ&RXQW\$UHD:DVKLQJWRQ 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV &RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH :HE6RLO6XUYH\ 1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\ 3DJHRI +\GULF5DWLQJE\0DS8QLW 0DSXQLWV\PERO 0DSXQLWQDPH 5DWLQJ $FUHVLQ$2, 3HUFHQWRI$2, $J& $OGHUZRRGJUDYHOO\ VDQG\ORDPWR SHUFHQWVORSHV $J' $OGHUZRRGJUDYHOO\ VDQG\ORDPWR SHUFHQWVORSHV $N) $OGHUZRRGDQG.LWVDS VRLOVYHU\VWHHS 0D 0L[HGDOOXYLDOODQG 3X 3XJHWVLOW\FOD\ORDP 5H 5HQWRQVLOWORDP 6R 6QRKRPLVKVLOWORDP 8U 8UEDQODQG 7RWDOVIRU$UHDRI,QWHUHVW +\GULF5DWLQJE\0DS8QLW²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²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².LQJ&RXQW\$UHD:DVKLQJWRQ 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV &RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH :HE6RLO6XUYH\ 1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\ 3DJHRI BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT CLEVELANDͳ RICHARDSON PARK FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX F. CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT Prepared by ARC Architects 19415 Talbot Rd S, Renton, WA 98055 FEBURARY 2025 CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 ii OWNER City of Renton Parks & Recreation Department Betsy Severtsen Capital Projects Coordinator 1119 Bronson Way N, Renton, WA, 98057 (t) 425.430.6611 (e) bsevertsen@rentonwa.gov LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bruce Dees and Associates Michael Faulkner, PLA, ASLA 221 South 28th Street, STE 100, Tacoma, WA, 98402 (t) 253.627.7947 (e) mfaulkner@bdassociates.com ARCHITECT ARC Architects Paul Curtis, Principal Zoe Kuo, Designer 119 S Main St, STE 200, Seattle, WA 98104 (t) 206.322.3322 (e) curtis@arcarchitects.com (e) kuo@arcarchitects.com CULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Science Associates Meagan Scott, MUP Sam Larson 2801 Alaskan Way, STE 200, Seattle, WA, 98121 (t) 206.789.9658 (w) www.esassoc.com Geotechnical Engineering GeoEngineers Brett Larabee, PE, Senior Geotechnical Engineer 1101 Fawcett Avenue, STE 200, Tacoma, WA, 98402 (t) 253.383.4940 (w) www.geoengineers.com PROJECT TEAM CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS B FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENTS OVERVIEW, METHODOLOGY AND IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS FACILITY ASSESSMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ZONING CODE ANALYSIS BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS HISTORICAL ANALYSIS PHOTO DOCUMENTATION FLOOR PLAN AND SQUARE FOOTAGE C OPERATIONAL PROGRAM PLANNING D COST ANALYSIS TBD OVERVIEW AND EXPLANATIONS FUTURE USE OPTIONS CARETAKER’S HOUSE DAY USE WORKSHOP / MAINTENANCE BUILDING VISITOR’S / INTERPRETIVE CENTER E APPENDIX 01 - TBD SITE A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 2 A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of Renton Parks and Recreation Department, having recently acquired a 24-acre property near the Talbot neighborhood in the southwest part of the city, is currently pursuing plans to develop the land into a new community park. The new park, which will be named the Cleveland-Richardson Park after the family that called the property home for several generations, is envisioned to fi ll a gap in park access within the Talbot neighborhood and southwest Renton in general and will help to fulfi ll the department’s stated goal of providing access to developed parks and trails within a ten-minute walk, or about half a mile, from every resident’s home in the city. In support of these eff orts, the City of Renton has contracted with Bruce Dees & Associates to provide master planning and design services to identify potential park uses and opportunities. One of the important considerations that will inform the overall park master plan is what role the existing built structures will play in the future uses of the park. The built structures include the original farm’s homestead built in 1937 and an out- building constructed to support the operations of the farm sometime later. ARC Architects is an Architecture fi rm based in Seattle, WA and is a sub-consultant on the Bruce Dees design team. ARC’s role is to assess the opportunities and challenges of off ered by the existing structures in a variety of potential scenarios being considered for their future use. In assessing the condition and opportunities of the existing facilities present at the Cleveland-Richardson Park, ARC’s team considered the structures from two perspectives: the physical condition of the existing buildings and their ability to accommodate potential alternate programmatic uses in support of park functions. ARC participated in a site walk on November 6th, 2024, the purpose of which was to become familiar with the site and facilities, document the existing structures through photos and site measurements, visually examine the buildings interiors and exteriors to assess their condition, and meet the Cleveland-Richardson family to hear fi rst-person accounts of the property’s history. On January 9th, 2025, ARC participated in a virtual meeting to discuss the potential future uses being considered for adaptive reuse renovations of the existing buildings. Potential future uses discussed, a caretaker’s residence, a day-use workshop/maintenance building, and a visitor’s/interpretive center. Subsequently, ARC conducted code research and conceptual space planning to determine the adaptability and suitability of the potential future uses to the existing structures. CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 3 A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINDINGS OVERVIEW CONDITION’S ASSESSMENT ARC found the existing farmhouse to be in moderately good condition having been continuously occupied and well cared for over the years. Setting aside code-required upgrades, improvements to the structure’s existing systems would be necessitated by preemptive and ongoing maintenance or historic preservation rather than concerns of imminent failure. By contrast, the existing out-building is currently in a state of severe disrepair and would require replacement or robust repairs to all major systems including structure and building envelope in order to be salvaged for future use. ZONING CODE While a caretaker’s residence is a use that is permitted outright by the property’s existing zoning code designation (Residential 1), a change of use to either a day-use maintenance building or a visitor’s/interpretive center would require jurisdictional approval. The closest match for a day-use maintenance building in the zoning code is either government maintenance facility or government offi ces, neither are permitted outright or conditionally. If the Parks Department wishes to pursue this use, we advise discussions with the City to determine if the use could be considered an accessory use to the park - and therefore allowed. A visitor’s center is a conditional use which can be approved via a hearing examiner action. BUILDING CODE Given the existing farmhouse’s age, it is clearly grandfathered into code compliance in its current state. If Parks were to use the building as a caretaker’s residence it would stay a residential use and therefore retain its grandfathered code compliance status. In this scenario it would not be required to be brought into code compliance with current codes. It should be discussed with the authority having jurisdiction what level of improvements could be undertaken before full code compliance is required on the grounds of exceeding thresholds of substantial alteration. Both of the other future use options being considered (day-use maintenance building and visitor’s/interpretive center) are clearly changes of use and would require the building being brought into code compliance with all currently adopted codes including: structural, energy, and accessibility codes. HISTORIC VALUE A review of the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation’s (DAHP) WISAARD database indicates that the building is not currently listed or identifi ed as a historic resource. As a result, the property is not subject to preservation-related restrictions, meaning that modifi cations, renovations, or adaptive reuse projects can be undertaken without regulatory constraints tied to historic designation. Whether or not potential building improvements or modifi cations follow good practices of historic preservation would be at the owner’s discretion. CONCEPTUAL OPTIONS FOR FUTURE USES In general, the construction and layout of the existing farmhouse is most easily adapted into a caretaker’s residence with few to no structural or layout changes required. Accommodating the programmatic needs of either the day-use maintenance building or a visitor’s center would likely result in more structural, layout, and openings changes in order to allow for the unique functions of those building programs. LIVING KITCHEN BEDROOM DINING BATH FRONT ROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM CLOSET STORAGE BATH CL O S E T BEDROOM OPTION A : CARETAKERS HOUSE Electric Vehicle Charging Station B FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 5 B FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY In assessing the condition and opportunities of the existing facilities present at the Cleveland-Richardson Park in Renton, WA, ARC’s team considered the structures from two perspectives: the physical condition of the existing buildings and their ability to accommodate potential alternate programmatic uses. For the former, ARC participated in a site walk on November 6th, 2024. The purpose of which was to familiarize ourselves with the site and facilities, take as-built measurements of the structures, and visually examine the buildings interiors and exteriors to assess their condition. For the latter, ARC participated in a virtual meeting on January 9th, 2025 to discuss the potential future uses being considered for adaptive reuse renovations. Subsequently, ARC conducted code research and conceptual space planning to determine the adaptability and suitability of potential future uses. There are two existing structures remaining on the property: the farmhouse building and an out building. The fi ndings related to the physical condition of these two structures can be found immediately below: In the Fall of 20242, ARC conducted facility conditions assessment of the following properties: Cleveland-Richardson existing farmhouse Cleveland-Richardson existing out building Site and building elements were grouped into components. Components fi ndings include the following: Site Visual examination of the hardscape and landscape features will primarily be undertaken by others. The grade and primary pedestrian and vehicular surfaces would not be considered accessible in many areas and would need to be replaced in order to serve public visitors. In addition, there are several areas, particularly on the northern side of the out building where vegetation has grown over parts of the building structure and mass clearing is required. Farmhouse Exterior and Interior (architectural and limited structural elements) Visual examination of roof material, fl ashing, penetrations, other appurtenances on the roof. Exterior walls, windows and doors were examined for irregularities, wear and damage. Visual evaluation of the building envelope included roofi ng, exterior skin, signs of water intrusions, and windows. Interior fi nishes were observed for defi ciencies and wear. In general, the building envelope was well kept and did not show obvious signs of moisture or water intrusion. While neither the asphalt shingle sloped roof nor the fl at roof over the garage addition appears to be new, they remain in moderately good shape without obvious signs of leaking. It is recommended that any future renovation include roof replacement given the age of the existing installations and the inherent challenges of fl at roofs in general. Windows and doors appear to fall into two categories: aluminum windows at the 1964 garage addition (presumably original to that work) and vinyl windows at all original building locations. The vinyl windows are not original and it is unknown when they were added to the existing building. Interior fi nishes appear to be well kept and exhibit no obvious signs of severe deterioration such as from water or fi re damage. Due to normal wear and tear, depending on the desired future use, interior fi nishes should be upgraded to match the functionality required by the future use. Out Building Exterior and Interior (architectural and limited structural elements) A visual examination of the roof, exterior envelope, and building interiors show this structure to be in severe decay. Virtually no building components are usable or salvageable into the future. It is advisable that if it is desired to keep the structure on site, a few short term corrections be undertaken immediately: remove all of the encroaching vegetation within at least 10’, replace the roof, scrape and repaint the building exteriors, install a working gutter and downspout system for directing water away from the base of the building, and grade the soils away from the building base. These mitigating steps are necessary in the short term to preserve the building in its current state. Long term improvements would be determined by the master plan and type of use the structure would serve on the site. ADA Compliance If an accessible path were created, through grading and resurfacing, to connect parking areas to the existing farmhouse the basement level of the facility could provide an at-grade access point to that level. Neither the main entry level nor the top level are accessible at this time. Creating an accessible path to the level of the main entry could be accomplished with an accessible ramp at the front door. Creating an accessible path to the top level would require the addition of an interior or exterior lift or ramp. Depending on the desired future use of the buildings, diff erent levels of accessible upgrades would be recommended. See future use concepts in ‘Chapter C - Future Program Planning’. Structural Elements A detailed structural evaluation was not part of this assessment. Given the age of the building and construction practices from that era, it is unlikely that the building would be compliant with current structural codes. CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 6 B FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT ZONING CODE ANALYSIS Use Designation: Residential Low Density Zone: Residential-1 (R-1) The Residential-1 Zone (R-1) is 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. It is intended to implement the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation. The zone 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. Density bonus provisions, of up to eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, are intended to allow assisted living to develop with higher densities within the zone. It is further intended to protect critical areas, provide separation between neighboring jurisdictions through designation of urban separators as adopted by the County-wide Policies, and prohibit the development of incompatible uses that may be detrimental to the residential or natural environment. Permitted Uses (of those that have been discussed as possible uses for the site, others may also be permitted): OUTDOOR PARK • Parks, Neighborhood: Permitted • Parks, Regional/Community, Existing: Permitted • Parks, Regional/Community, New: Conditional Use (Administrative) • Recreational Facilities, Outdoor: Not Permitted CARETAKER’S HOUSE • Detached Dwelling: Permitted • Accessory Dwelling Unit: Permitted Conditionally as an Accessory Use per item 7, RMC 4-2-080) • Home Occupations as defi ned by RMC 4-9-090: Accessory Use DAY USE WORKSHOP / MAINTENANCE BUILDING* • Other Government Facilities: Not Permitted • Other Government Maintenance Facilities: Not Permitted • Other Government Offi ces: Not Permitted * Would need to be considered as an accessory use of the park and discussed with the City of Renton Planning Department VISITOR’S /INTERPRETIVE CENTER • Cultural Facilities: Conditional Use (Hearing Examiner) OTHER • Recreational Facilities, Indoor, Existing: Not Permitted • Recreational Facilities, Indoor, New: Not Permitted CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 7 B FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT ZONING CODE ANALYSIS (CONT) Minimum Net Density per Net Acre (R-1): None Maximum Number of Dwellings: 1 Dwelling Unit with 1 Accessory Dwelling Unit Minimum Lot Size: 1 Acre Minimum Lot Width: 100 ft Minimum Lot Depth: 200 ft Minimum Front Yard: 30 ft Minimum Rear Yard: 30 ft Minimum Side Yard: 15 ft Maximum Building Coverage (Including Primary and Accessory): 20% Maximum Impervious Surface Area: 25% Maximum Number of Stories: 3 Maximum Number of Units per Building: Not Applicable Design Standards: See RMC 4-2-115 Residential Design and Open Space Standards Landscaping: See RMC 4-4-070 Landscaping Exterior Lighting: See RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site Screening: See RMC 4-4-095 Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations Exception for Pre-Existing Legal Lots: See RMC 4-10-010 Nonconforming Lots CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 8 B FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT: 20 FT EXISTING BUILDING AREA: 2,800 SF EXISTING # OF STORIES: 2 CHAPTER 3 - USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302 - PROPOSED BUILDING OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION - OPTION A: CARE TAKERS HOUSE - RESIDENTIAL GROUP R-3 (NO CHANGE) - OPTION B: DAY USE WORKSHOP AND MAINTENANCE - GROUP B OR UTILITY GROUP U - OPTION C: VISITORS AND INTERPRETIVE CENTER - ASSEMBLY GROUP A-3 Per the above, options B and C are considered changes of use/occupancy and therefore the existing building must be brought into compliance with the adopted versions of all codes including structural, energy, and accessibility improvements. CHAPTER 5 - BUILDING HEIGHTS AND AREAS TABLE 504.3 - ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE PLANE FOR TYPE V-B CONSTRUCTION (CURRENT CONSTRUCTION TYPE) - OPTION A: GROUP R, NON-SPRINKLERED 40 FT (20FT EXIST) COMPLIANT - OPTION B: GROUP U, NON-SPRINKLERED 40 FT COMPLIANT - OPTION B: GROUP B, NON-SPRINKLERED 40 FT COMPLIANT - OPTION C: GROUP A, NON-SPRINKLERED 40 FT COMPLIANT TABLE 504.4 - ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF STORIES ABOVE GRADE PLANE FOR TYPE V-B CONSTRUCTION (CURRENT CONSTRUCTION TYPE) - OPTION A: GROUP R-3, NON-SPRINKLERED 3 STORIES (2 EX) COMPLIANT - OPTION B: GROUP U, NON-SPRINKLERED 1 STORIES NON-COMPLIANT, SPRINKLER BONUS REQ’D - OPTION B: GROUP B, NON-SPRINKLERED 2 STORIES COMPLIANT - OPTION C: GROUP A-3, NON-SPRINKLERED 1 STORIES NON-COMPLIANT, SPRINKLER BONUS REQ’D TABLE 506.2 - ALLOWABLE AREA FACTOR FOR TYPE V-B CONSTRUCTION (CURRENT CONSTRUCTION TYPE) - OPTION A: GROUP R-3, NON-SPRINKLERED UNLIMITED (2,800 SF EXIST) COMPLIANT - OPTION B: GROUP U, NON-SPRINKLERED 5,500 SF COMPLIANT - OPTION B: GROUP B, NON-SPRINKLERED 9,000 SF COMPLIANT - OPTION C: GROUP A-3, NON-SPRINKLERED 6,000 SF COMPLIANT Per the above, the farmhouse’s existing construction type V-B would still comply with code required maximum height above grade, maximum number of stories, and maximum area for all of the change of use scenarios except for number of stories above grade plane in the Group U and Group A-3 scenarios. In those cases, the building would either need to be fi re sprinkled have a fi re barrier added so that the building is considered separate structures. CHAPTER 6 - TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION SECTION 602.5 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AS TYPE V-B TABLE 601 - FIRE RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS (HOURS) FOR TYPE V-B PRIMARY STRUCTURAL FRAME 0-HR BEARING WALLS, EXTERIOR 0-HR BEARING WALLS, INTERIOR 0-HR NON-BEARING WALLS, INTERIOR 0-HR FLOOR CONSTRUCTION 0-HR ROOF CONSTRUCTION 0-HR CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 9 B FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT HISTORICAL ANALYSIS The Cleveland Richardson House is a two-story, 2,800 square-foot farmhouse-style residence constructed in 1937. Originally serving as the primary residence for a once-extensive orchard, the home has received a major renovation and addition in the early 1960’s and has since remained largely unaltered and intact over the following years. A review of the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation’s (DAHP) WISAARD database indicates that the building is not currently listed or identifi ed as a historic resource. As a result, the property is not subject to preservation-related restrictions, meaning that modifi cations, renovations, or adaptive reuse projects can be undertaken without regulatory constraints tied to historic designation. This lack of formal historical status provides an opportunity for the project team and community stakeholders to assess and determine the most practical and benefi cial future use of the space without limitations imposed by preservation guidelines. Potential future changes of use for the property would be allowed from an historic designation standpoint, including continued residential occupancy as a caretakers house, conversion into a community gathering space, a local history or agricultural education center, or a mixed-use facility integrating both residential and commercial elements. When considering the future functions that may be housed in the Cleveland-Richardson house, one consideration is whether the future use would be compatible with incorporating elements of the house’s original character with any renovation eff orts -- blending preservation with modern functionality -- or whether the use would require more robust alterations and improvements . Future programming alterations to the existing house and any additions should carefully balance functional needs with the preservation of its historic character, prioritizing the retention of as much of the original 1937 structure as possible. To minimize impact, modifi cations should be strategically placed on less prominent elevations, ensuring that the size, scale, and massing remain in keeping with the historic home. Additions and alterations should be visually distinct yet take design cues from the original building, avoiding direct replication to maintain the integrity and authenticity of the historic structure. The existing 1960s addition does not follow these preservation strategies. If alterations are planned for this area, emphasis should be placed on visually separating the two volumes through scale, setbacks, and materials. Additionally, incorporating design cues from the original farmhouse —such as roof forms, fenestration, and trim details will help create a cohesive relation between these two forms while still having a clear distinction between the original and addition. An undated (but likely ca. 1938) photo of the primary residence An undated photo (likely ca. 1938) of one of the chicken coops 1964 photos of the primary residence 1964 photos of the primary residence CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 10 PHOTO DOCUMENTATION (EXISTING) B FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 11 B FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT FLOOR PLAN (EXISTING) FLOOR 01 FLOOR 02 DINING FRONT ROOM FOYER BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BATH BATH KITCHEN LIVING STORAGE CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 12 B FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT FLOOR PLAN (EXISTING) BASEMENT GARAGE STORAGE UTILITY STORAGE CANNING STORAGE BATH CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 13 Electric Vehicle Charging Station C POTENTIAL PROGRAM PLANNING CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 14 C POTENTIAL PROGRAM PLANNING FUTURE USE FARMHOUSE OPTIONS On January 9th, 2025, ARC Architects participated in a on-line meeting with representatives from the City of Renton Parks Department and Bruce Dees and Associates in attendance. Discussed in that meeting were the potential future uses that the existing farmhouse could become with the development of a new city park at this location. ARC has focussed on three potential renovation options which are organized from least to most intensive. They include: a caretaker’s residence, featuring primarily historic preservation upgrades, maintenance improvements, systems upgrades, select new fi nishes, and targeted architectural improvements to support modest changes in program; a day-use workshop and maintenance building, with large, open workshop maintenance areas, classrooms, meeting space, and a tech- focused learning space; and a visitor and interpretive center, including exhibit spaces, a gift shop, an AV/Theater, and a café with library and seating area. The day-use workshop and maintenance building option and the visitor and interpretive center option are both changes of use and would require code-driven upgrades, including bringing the building into compliance with the latest adopted structural, energy, and accessibility codes. Coordination and confi rmation with the authority having jurisdiction is recommended in the form of a pre-application meeting once plans are formulated. From a historic preservation perspective, there would certainly be more visible changes to the farmhouse with the visitor center or maintenance building options then the caretaker’s residence option. In any case it would be important for design changes to be implemented in a way that enhances and modernizes the existing building while preserving as much of the existing character as possible while accommodating the new use. While this assessment did not include engineering consultants such as mechanical, electrical, or plumbing, engineers, it is assumed that all utilities would be suffi cient for the caretaker residence option due to its close alignment with current use. If the preferred direction is to pursue one of the change of use options, it is recommended that engineers are brought on to determine existing utility capacities and improvements are designed with those in mind to limit the need for increased service capacity. FUTURE USE OUT BUILDING OPTIONS Located due west of the existing farmhouse is a small out building which is the only other remaining structure on the site other than the farmhouse building. The structure is split level construction with a person-door access point at the upper level and a large, equipment-sized access door at the lower level. The entire area is approximately 250 SF in size with about half of that accessible at-grade from each level. The out building has not been maintained to the level of the main house and has been severely eroded by weather and encroaching vegetation. If retained on site, it would require signifi cant eff ort to bring the structure into compliance with current code. Keeping the structure as either a materials and equipment storage building (no change of use) or preserved solely as a historic piece of the original farm (unoccupied) may allow for more modest upgrades and would likely not require compliance with current structural, energy and accessibility codes. Parks could focus on maintenance improvements, historic preservation, and exterior and interior fi nishes. If the building were to be repurposed into another use, and particularly an occupied use, more robust regulatory compliance should be expected. There is a high probability that any upgrades undertaken would uncover currently unforeseen conditions including non-structurally sound materials. CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 15 C POTENTIAL PROGRAM PLANNING OPTION A : CARETAKERS HOUSE One potential future use of the existing farmhouse would be a caretaker’s residence. This use would provide for a permanent, day and night, presence at the park to keep an eye on things, assess maintenance concerns as they arise, and interact with park visitor ’s. This option has the fewest regulatory hurdles as it would likely not result in a change of use categorization thus avoiding the accessibility, structural and energy upgrades that can otherwise be triggered. Updates for this option could therefore be focused on historic preservation, maintenance concerns, systems improvements, fi nishes, and targeted architectural improvements to support modest changes in program. The fact that the basement level of the existing structure is currently at-grade via the garage entrance presents an interesting opportunity for consideration: the garage and main basement room are spaces where the public could potentially have access even in the ‘Caretaker House’ option. Possible uses for this area could include public restrooms, outdoor equipment storage, a medical station, a meeting room, or a small visitor center focused on the house’s history. We recommend a conversation with the AHJ to understand what level of access would be allowed before use-change related improvements become required. Alternatively, public restrooms could be added as an addition or standalone building that is designed to fi t the character of the existing farmhouse and site. Because this option’s use is staying a residential use, the garage functions would likely be limited to the functions typically found in a residential garage: light maintenance, arts & crafts, storage, game or bonus room, etc. OPTION A : CARETAKERS HOUSE - FLOOR 01 LIVING KITCHEN BEDROOM DINING BATH FRONT ROOM OPTION A : CARETAKERS HOUSE - FLOOR 02OPTION A : CARETAKERS HOUSE - BASEMENT BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM CLOSET STORAGE BATH CL O S E T BEDROOM GARAGE / WORKSHOP COMMUNITY ROOM STORAGE UTILITY ROOM BOILER STORAGE BATH CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 16 C POTENTIAL PROGRAM PLANNING OPTION B : DAY USE WORKSHOP / MAINTENANCE BUILDING - FLOOR 01 OPTION B : DAY USE WORKSHOP / MAINTENANCE BUILDING Another potential future use for the existing farmhouse is conversion into a day-use workshop and maintenance building to provide support for not just this park’s functions but broader Park’s Department functions as well. This type of use-change would trigger more robust, code-driven upgrades, including bringing the building into compliance with the latest adopted structural, energy, and accessibility codes. Functions that could be accommodated with approach are a variety of hands-on activities and skill-based learning, maintenance and on-going operations of the park, and offi ce or administrative areas designed as either permanent or ‘hoteling’ stations. In the plan option shown below, the basement features two large open workshop areas, providing ample space for woodworking, repairs, and other maintenance projects which can be accessed via the existing garage level. A dedicated tool room is included to store and organize equipment effi ciently. On the top level, bedrooms can be converted to a variety of specialized classrooms to support Park’s Department training sessions, as well as break-out and meeting rooms. By including a large classroom or computer room on the main level, accessibility concerns can be mitigated through a ramp at the primary entrance -- avoiding the need for an elevator to the top level. This fl exible multi-purpose space, complete with an adjoining kitchen for communal use, could be used for technology- focused workshops such as 3D printing, laser cutting, or digital fabrication to support either Park or Parks Department needs. This option prioritizes adaptability and engagement, off ering a dynamic space for a variety of functions. CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOMSTORAGE BATH OPT B : DAY-USE WORKSHOP / MAINTENANCE - FLOOR 02OPT B : DAY-USE WORKSHOP / MAINTENANCE - BASEMENT STORAGE TOOL ROOM BOILERBATH WORKSHOP #2 WORKSHOP #1 BATH OFFICE KITCHEN / LOUNGEMEETING / OPEN OFFICE COMPUTER / LARGE CLASS ACCESSIBLE RAMP CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT - FEB 2025 17 C POTENTIAL PROGRAM PLANNING OPTION C : VISITORS / INTERPRETIVE CENTER - FLOOR 01 OPTION C : VISITORS / INTERPRETIVE CENTER A third option potential future use for the existing farmhouse is to renovate it into a visitor and interpretive center, designed to provide an engaging and complementary experience for park guests. This type of use-change would trigger more robust, code-driven upgrades, including bringing the building into compliance with the latest adopted structural, energy, and accessibility codes. Given the public nature of this type of building use, it is recommended that the upgrades include an elevator and emphasize universal design principals. In the plan option shown below, visitor’s would enter the main building level through the current front door where a reception desk would be located for inquiries and assistance. The spaces are organized around a central, vertical circulation core where a new elevator would be added. Program spaces would encircle this core allowing them access to daylight and views and include a gift shop, cafe, library/ seating area and administrative functions. The basement and top level of the building would primarily house a variety of exhibit spaces which would showcase interactive displays and educational content. If this option were selected for additional study, a programming eff ort would need to be undertaken to better understand the use needs, but the concept shown below includes a linear exhibit layout, guiding guests through a curated sequence of displays that lead to an AV/Theater space at the end, where a short video presentation would conclude the experience. This design creates a welcoming and versatile environment for learning, relaxation, and community. OPTION C : VISITORS / INTERPRETIVE CENTER - FLOOR 02OPTION C : VISITORS / INTERPRETIVE CENTER - BASEMENT EXHIBITION AV EXPERIENCE STORAGESTORAGE STORAGE BATH ELEV EXHIBITIONPOSSIBLE ROOF DECK ACCESS RE C E P T I O N GIFT SHOP / CAFE BATH ELEV ACCESSIBLE RAMP LOBBY / EXHIBIT OFFICE CAFE COUNTER LIBRARY LOBBY/EXHIBIT STORAGE BATH STORAGE STORAGE ELEV EXHIBITION / INDOOR- OUTDOOR GATHERING BOILER BUILDING SUPPORT BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT CLEVELANDͳ RICHARDSON PARK REFERENCES APPENDIX G. BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON CLEVELAND-RICHARDSON PARK MASTER PLAN REPORT The following documents represent key City of Renton planning policies, codes, and technical guidance referenced at a planning level in the development of the Cleveland-Richardson Park Master Plan: • City of Renton Parks, RecreaƟ on, and Open Space (PROS) Plan (2026) • City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan • City of Renton Comprehensive Plan • City of Renton CriƟ cal Areas Ordinance • City of Renton Municipal Code • City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual • King County Surface Water Design Manual These documents provide citywide policy direcƟ on, regulatory context, and technical guidance relevant to park planning, environmental consideraƟ ons, and mulƟ modal access. DISCLAIMER The references listed above are not intended to be comprehensive. The Master Plan also relies on project- speciﬁ c studies, background materials, and technical reports, which are included in the appendices and referenced throughout the document. Final design and permiƫ ng will be subject to the codes, standards, and policies in eff ect at the Ɵ me of permit applicaƟ on. REFERENCES B D A R E S U E S C S O E & CIATES 222 East 26th Street, No. 202, Tacoma, WA 98421 (253) 627-7947 www.bdassociates.com