Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Environmental Impact Statement (10/16/1991) DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
City of Renton
Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space
Master Plan and Trails Master Plan.
October 16, 1991
Prepared for public review and comment in accordance with
RCW 43.21C,the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971
FACT SHEET
Title: City of Ren'on Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space
Master Plan, d Trails Master Plan.
Proposal
Description: The City of Renton has prepared, and intends to adopt, a new
Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan and a
Trails Masteij Plan, both of which will provide substantial guidance in
the development and enhancement of park and recreation services
throughout the city in the coming years. The plans include potential
new park sites, open space areas, pedestrian and bicycle trails,
bikeways, indoor facilities, recreation programs, administration and
implementing actions.
The draft plans were prepared following analysis of existing recreation
facilities, pop.elation trends, and recreation demand and needs in the
city. The public has been involved in the development of these plans
through parOcipation in public meetings and workshops, random
household su eys, and advisory committees.
Proponent: City of Rentol , Renton Washington
Date of Plan
Adoption: , 1 91.
Lead Agency: City of Renton, Department of Community Development
Responsible
Official: Environmental Review Committee, SEPA Official, City of
Renton
Contact Donald K. Erickson, ACIP, Zoning Administrator (Telephone
Person: 235-2550) Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
Required Agency Renton City Council
Approval:
Scoping: A determination of significance was issued on September 17, 1990 and
a notice of scoping for this EIS was published in the local newspaper.
EIS Authors: JC Draggoo & Associates
Jerry Draggoo
Kevin Apperson
Osprey Environmental Services
Ken Wilcox
Date of Issue: October 16, 1991.
Comments Due: November 19,1991.
Hearing Date: November 7, 1991.
Location: City of Renton
Final Action: Adoption of the plans by the Renton City Council.
Subsequent Projects discussed in the park and trails plans may be subject to
further
Review: environmental review prior to development.
Location of Renton Community Development Office
Background 200 Mill Avenue South
Information: Renton, WA 98055
Cost of Draft Copies of this EIS have been printed for public distribution
EIS free of charge. When this supply is exhausted, additional
copies may be purchased for the cost of printing plus tax.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Federal Agencies: Washington Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
Environmental Protection Agency Olympia, WA 98504
Environmental Evaluation Branch
1200-6th Avenue Washington Department of Fisheries-
Seattle, WA 98101 Natural Production Division
115 General Administration Bldg.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Olympia, WA 98504
Seattle District Office Attn: Joe Roble
Engineering Division-Planning
P.O. Box C-3755 Washington Department of Ecology
Seattle, WA 98124 Northwest Regional Office
4350-150th
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Redmond, WA 98052
Development Attn: EIS Review
Arcade Plaza Building
1321 2nd Avenue Office of Program Planning & Fiscal
Seattle, WA 98101 Review
Attn: Mr. Nishimura 101 House Office Building
Olympia, WA 98504
B.P.A. - U.S. D.O.E. Attn: EIS Review
Terrace G. Esfelt, Mgr.
Puget Sound Area Office Washington Department of Transportation
P.O. Box C-10030 Highway Administration Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98109-1030 . Olympia, WA 98504
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Washington Department of Energy
Soil Conservation Service Richard H. Watson, Director
Renton Field Office 809 Legion Way SE
935 Powell SW Olympia, WA 98504
Renton, WA 98055 •
Interagency Committee for Outdoor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department Recreation
121 107th NE 4800 Capitol Blvd.
Bellevue, WA Tumwater, Washington
Washington State Parks and Recreation
State Agencies: Commission
7150 Cleanwater Lane
Washington Department of Wildlife Olympia, WA 98504
Ecological Services Office Attn: David Heiser, Environmental
2625 Parkmont Lane Review
Olympia, WA 98504 .
Office of Archaeology and Historic
• Washington Department of Social & Preservation
Health Services 111 W 21st
1112 So. Quince Olympia, WA 98504
Olympia, WA 98504
Attn: Office of Environmental Health
Programs
Regional Agencies:
EIS Review Coordinator
Metro King County Courthouse
Water Quality Division Room 400 516 Third Avenue
821 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104
Seattle, WA 98104-1598 Attn: EIS Review
Metro
Transit Division City of Renton:
821 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104-1598 Mayor's Office
Metro City Council
Environmental Planning Division
821 Second Avenue, MS-63 Hearing Examiner's Office
Seattle, WA 98104
Planning,Commission
Seattle-King County Dept. of Public
Health Parks Board
400 Yesler Building
Seattle, WA 98101 Department of Planning/Building/Public
Works
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
200 West Mercer St. - Rm. 205 Community Services Department
Seattle,WA 98119-3958
Police Department
Puget Sound Council of Government
126 First Avenue South Fire Department
Seattle, WA 98104
City Attorney
County Agencies: SEPA Information Center
King County Parks, Planning and Natural
Resources Department Other:
1108 Smith Tower
506 Second Avenue Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce
Seattle, WA 98104 300 Rainier N.
Renton, WA 98055
King County Planning Division Renton School District #403
6th Floor, Smith Tower 435 Main Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98104 Renton, WA 98055
Building and Land Development- Office Seattle Times -Eastside Edition
of Zoning and Subdivision Examiner 31620 23rd S Suite 312
(SEPA Information Center) Federal Way, WA 98003
3600 136th P1. SE
Bellevue, WA 98006-1400 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
101 Elliott Avenue W
King County Soil Conservation Service Seattle, WA
935 Powell Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055
Attn: Jack Davis
Daily Journal of Commerce Nature Conservancy
83 Columbia 1601 2nd Avenue
Seattle, WA Seattle, WA 98101
Valley Daily News Seattle Audobon Society
212 Wells S Suite 101 619 Joshua Green Building
Renton, WA Seattle, WA 98101
Journal American Friends of the Earth
1705 23rd Ave NE NW Office
Bellevue, WA 4512 University Way N.E.
Seattle, WA 98105
Renton Public Library
100 Mill South
Renton, WA-
King County Public Library (Skyway)
7614 S 126th
Seattle, WA
King County Public Library (Fairw•od)
17009 140th SE
Renton, WA
Puget Sound Power & Light Co.
South Central Division Office
620 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Attn: EIS Review
City of Kent
Planning Department
220-4th Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Muckleshoot Tribe Council
39015 - 172 Ave. SE
Auburn, WA 98002
City of Tukwila
Planning & Bldg. Department
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
City of Seattle
Planning Department
600 4th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
City of Bellvue
11511 Main Street
PO Box 90012
Bellevue, WA 98009
T LE OF CONTENTS
Distribution List
1. Summary
1.1 Description of Pro osed Action I-1
1.2 Alternatives Considered I-1
1.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures I-1
2. Detailed Description of Proposed Action
2.1 Comprehensive P k, Recreation and Open Space Plan 11-1
2.2 Trails Master Plan 11-8
• 3. Description of Alternative Actions
3.1 Minimum Development of Identified Sites III-5
3.2 Reduced Number of Sites III-7
3.3 No Action 111-7
4. Affected Environment
4.1 Elements of the Natural Environi�nent
4.1.1 Soils and topography IV-3
4.1.2 Air quality IV-10
4.1.3 Surface water, aquifer recharge areas and wetlands IV-14
4.1.4 Plants and animals IV-19
4.1.5 Scenic and a8sthetic quality IV-25
4.2 Elements of the Bi.ilt Environment
4.2.1 Environmental health IV-29
4.2.2 Noise IV-34
4.23 Land and shoreline use IV-36
4.2.4 Housing IV-42
4.2.5 Commercial nd Industrial Development IV-44
4.2.6 Light and glare IV-46
4.2.7 Recreation IV-49
4.2.8 Historic preservation IV-51
4.2.9 Traffic and parking IV-52
4.2.10Maintenance IV-56
4.2.11 Waste disposal IV-57
5. Appendices
A. List of References and Documents A
B. Summary of the SEPA Process B
C. Scoping Comments C
D. Soil Data on Recreation 1)
E. Report on Electromagnetic Radiation E
SECTION ONE
SUMMARY
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Description of Proposed Action
The City of Renton intends to dopt a new Comprehensive Park and Recreation
Master Plan and a Trails Master Plan. If adopted, the plans will guide future
acquisition, development and enhancement of parks, trails and recreation services
throughout the Renton area. These plans include recommendations for new park sites,
open space areas, trails, bikeways, indoor facilities, specialized facilities as well as
changes in recreation programs.
The draft plans were prepared following the analysis of existing recreation facilities,
population trends, and recreation demand and needs in the city. The public has been
involved in the development of these plans through participation in public meetings and
workshops, random household surveys, and advisory committees.
The purpose of the two plans is to provide guidance to the Park and Recreation
Department on the future decision affecting park and recreation services. To achieve
this, the Parks Department has established several goal and objectives. The following
alternatives, to a varying degree, provide different approaches to reaching these goals.
1.2 Alternatives
The proposed plans identified above constitute Alternative A, the preferred alternative.
In addition, three other alternative's are discussed in this EIS. Alternative B assumes
minimum development of identified sites and shifts the planning emphasis away from
development and toward preservation of selected sites for public open space.
Alternative C maintains the proposed development concepts, but for a reduced number
of sites and facilities. Alternative D,I the no action alternative, assumes that no plan will
be adopted. Under this alternative, future programs and facilities will be provided
according to the 1984 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. Each of these
alternatives is fully described in Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3.
1.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures
The adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan and
Trails Master Plan do not result in direct impacts to the environment. However, the
gradual implementation of various recommendations in the plan may result in some
impacts on the natural and human environments. Potential impacts and mitigating
measures are fully described in Section 4. These are summarized below:
Soils and Topography - Minor soil, slope and topography disturbances will result from
park and trail development under the two plans. Steep slopes could be destabilized
during construction by cuts or fills, Idrainage modifications, disturbance to vegetation,
and other factors. Increased runoff over new impervious surfacing can lead to soil
erosion and stream sedimentation! Landslide hazards are a senous concern and
present a potential danger to parks, trails and adjacent properties.
All trail corridors include areas where problem soils on moderate to very steep slopes
are likely to be encountered. Bicycle routes tend to avoid steep areas. Bicycles can also
impact soils and induce erosion on trails if not designed for their use.
I - 1
To minimize impacts the plans recommend a variety of design criteria and development
standards which along with normal construction practices should adequately mitigate
against unnecessary soil disturbances, and weakening of slopes. Soil limitations will
require site specific engineering in some areas. Road and utility planning and
improvement projects should be coordinated with bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
particularly where steep slopes exist above or below a proposed grade.
Air Quality - New air emissions will be generated by construction and users of new
parks and trails who access these areas by automobile. Some vehicle emissions will
simply be redistributed, since a portion of the use could be expected to visit other
existing facilities if new sites were not developed. Emissions may be offset or possibly
reduced if a significant number of commuters were to turn to the non-motorized trail
system for at least a portion of their daily travel needs.
Dust from construction and vehicle movement over unpaved surfaces require some
mitigation. As a rule, accepted techniques for dust control during construction,
operation and maintenance of facilities would be routinely implemented. Hard
surfacing of access roads and parking areas is planned for all parks and most trail heads
accessible by car. Bike lanes and bikeways would be paved as well. i
Surface water and wetlands - Some disturbance to streams, water bodies and wetlands
would occur resulting in minor water quality impacts from erosion and sedimentation.
Trails involve minor water crossings that could affect surface drainage and ground
water. Many trails encounter wetland areas or parallel stream corridors or lake
shorelines producing a potential for impacts on water quality and movement, as well as
plants and animals.
Despite the variety of problems that can arise, no specific project-related effects have -been identified. Accepted design standards, construction practices and regular
maintenance will be crucial to the protection of water resources. The plans contain
standards that address these issues.
Groundwater - Groundwater impacts will be minimal as a result of trail .and park
development under the new plans. The primary issue related to groundwater is the
potential contamination from the aquifer recharge areas, which supplies 95% of the
city's drinking water. Impacts could potentially occur as a result of the over use and
storage of chemicals in aquifer recharge areas.
These substances should be used in strict compliance,to 'application quantity and
methods. Fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides used in the recharge areas should be
selected to minimize the potential for contamination of groundwater by considering
factors such as biodegradability, persistence, mobility, application base, time of
application, concentration, and quantity applied. Alternatives to the use of chemicals
and fertilizers should also be encouraged. Storage of these types of chemicals should be
located outside the aquifer recharge areas. In addition,'a monitoring system should be
set up to check water quality and pesticide, herbicides and fertilizers levels.
Plants and animals - Impacts to existing plant communities will be minimal as a result
of trail and park development under the proposed plans. However, the loss'of some
existing wildlife habitat and foraging opportunities can be expected from both
development of facilities and increased human use of areas that are presently
inaccessible. A few wetland and riparian areas could be altered slightly by boardwalks
or nature trails. Full development of the city-wide park plan could amount to a loss of
I -2
approximately 180 acres of existing habitat.
Clearing of trees and potential impacts to the Black River heron rookery is a major
concern although no development is planned within the immediate area. A 600
hundred foot buffer is recommended around the rookery. The proposed Black River
Trail could lead the public via observation trails into a portion of the recommended 600
foot buffer area. The effects of people observing the rookery from this location are
uncertain. The main trails and structures should be located outside the recommended
heron buffer, with human activity in the buffer area restricted during the breeding
season. Under no circumstances are park or trail facilities planned, nor should they be
allowed,within the heron colony itself.
Buffer areas should also be maintained along the perimeter of wetlands and around
sensitive habitat areas. Trees and vegetation should be planted in disturbed areas,
along trails or parks that are adjacent to neighborhoods, around parking area and -4:- A
around vehicle access areas. The landscaping will maintain privacy for the adjacent
residents and provide a screen from adjacent roads and properties. Areas that do not
require clearing of vegetation should be retained in their natural condition. Timing of
construction activity should be coordinated to avoid disturbances to fish and wildlife
during critical spawning, nesting and rearing periods. Application of pesticides,
herbicides and chemical fertilizers should be avoided or carefully controlled to prevent
harmful effects to water quality and wildlife.
Undisturbed native ecosystems, s ch as the Oregon Ash forest on the Black River,
small areas of old growth along tie Cedar River and elsewhere should be protected
from development through land acquisition and the planning review process.
Scenic and aesthetic quality - Aesthetic impacts from trail development are limited to a
linear disturbance of vegetation and soils, and the placement of parking areas or small
structures (bridges, culverts, stairs) etc.) in undeveloped areas. Some trails might be
visible from a distance or from adjacent properties. However, this impact should be
minimal.
By default, trails tend to enhance scenic and aesthetic opportunities by providing public
access to open space areas, natural features and views that may not otherwise exist.
Careful routing of trails, adherence to accepted design standards and construction
techniques can help to avoid adverse impacts.
Environmental health - Park and trail development under the plans could result in
public health and safety related impacts if not adequately mitigated. The plans contain
policy statements and design standards intended to minimize these impacts. These
include, in part, separation between foot and bicycle traffic and motorized and non-
motorized traffic. Site specific safety issues need to be addressed at the design stage.
Property owners adjacent to proposed projects may have concerns with vandalism, •
littering, invasion of privacy, and reduced property values. A study of similar issues
along the Burke-Gilman trail in Seattle suggests these impacts are not significant.
Studies suggest that long term exposure to electromagnetic fields along transmission
lines may adversely affect human health. Trails proposed in the plan along power line
corridors pose a much shorter term exposure than for people who live or work near
them, thus the concern is substantially diminished. Although exposure to
electromagnetic fields would be minimal under the plan, trails should be located
outside the immediate area of the power lines whenever possible. Appropriate safety
and security measures such as design, fencing and signage should be used deter
I 3
climbing and vandalism near towers. Electric power surveyors should be consulted to
determine appropriate locations and improvements. City staff should stay current with
research by BPA and others and keep informed on E/MF policy development in King
County. If necessary, facilities or routes should be altered to assure public safety.
Noise - New trail development will not produce significant noise levels. All will be
managed for non-motorized use. Some traffic noise will emanate from new trail heads
although most are located in existing or proposed parks. Increased traffic or trail user
noise in quiet residential areas is not anticipated to be significant. Parking areas should
be designed, located and or buffered to minimize noise impacts for nearby residents.
Trails should be located far enough away from residences to avoid disturbances caused
by trail users.
Land and shoreline use - Full implementation over ten years or more would
dramatically enhance city-wide park and trail systems. In most areas, trails should be
compatible with adjacent uses, although potential conflicts could occur in some areas.
The privacy and security of private property owners must be carefully considered during
the design and construction of facilities. The City must decide, case by case, whether a
particular project is appropriate under the circumstances. If a purchase or easement is
required but cannot be achieved, facilities may need to be redesigned, postponed or
eliminated. Adoption of the plan does not imply that all projects must be developed.
Light and glare - Development will not produce any significant adverse impacts from
light and glare, with the possible exception of car lights at some locations and overall
lighting levels at the proposed sports field complex. Lighting should be directed
downward and shielded to prevent glare for traffic or neighboring properties.
Vegetative screening and other design techniques can also help mitigate potential
impacts. Outdoor lighting should be installed at trail heads as needed to discourage
vandalism and assure user safety.
Housing - Some disturbances to housing would occur resulting in loss of privacy and
security, noise and visual impacts. This primarily occurs as a result of park and trail
development. Trails follow linear corridors that are located relatively close to or abut
residential areas. Likewise, park development may also occur in close proximity or
even abut residential uses. Landscaping can be used to improve the aesthetic
appearance of parks and trails and to buffer the views of these facilities from adjacent'
residential development. The only significant adverse impact on housing would be as
result of impact mitigation fees. This would most likely raise the cost of housing.
Commercial and Industrial Development - Park and trail development under the plans
could result in security and safety related impacts if not adequately mitigated.
Increased lighting, accessibility and security would help mitigate potential impacts. Site
specific safety issues need to be addressed at the design stage. Property owners
adjacent to proposed projects may have concerns with vandalism, littering, trespassing
and increased security.
Recreation -Adoption of the Plans will essentially enhance recreation opportunities for
the public. No significant adverse impacts have been identified in connection with the
Plans. If new sites are not developed, use of existing facilities will increase with the
population, resulting in an increase in maintenance responsibilities, crowding and
potential degradation of existing facilities. Trails interconnecting with adjacent cities or
the King County network have been carefully planned to assure a coordinated regional
system of trails.
I -4
{
Historic preservation - No known historical or archaeological sites would be adversely
impacted by the plans. If discovered during construction, such sites could be damaged
if not immediately recognized. Sites that could be considered as having a high potential
for historical or archaeological significance may require an archaeologist to be on-site
during the construction phase. Upon the discovery of any artifacts, work should be
stopped and city officials or the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation would be notified.
Traffic and parking - Potential conflicts between trail users and motorized traffic exist.
The Plan suggests that these issues should be considered during long and short term
transportation planning efforts. A Trail Standards Matrix offering facility and
dimensional standards will help resolve many public safety concerns. Bike lanes are
proposed where necessary to minimize hazardous conditions for bicycles that must
share the streets with automobiles. The:need for additional right of way varies a great
deal throughout the City and will be addressed on a project by project basis.
Maintenance - New park and trail development will increase the need for maintenance
within the park system, and for city streets where bike lanes are provided. Construction
activity within utility corridors may interfere with trails or present a safety concern to be
addressed. Conversely, trail development may impact maintenance operations within
the utility corridor. Design of trails should include features that will help minimize
maintenance costs over the long term. Trails and bridges should be wide enough for
maintenance vehicles to access and be designed by a professional engineer. Separate
easements are needed along utility corridors.
Waste disposal -As parks and trail heads develop under the proposed plans, the volume
of waste to be managed will likely increase slightly. Litter along trails can be expected
but volumes are expected to b small and not beyond the means of the Park
Department to manage. Trash containers will be provided in appropriate locations.
Regular maintenance will be providded with all new park and trail development. Litter
control personnel presently help collect litter discarded on streets and trails throughout
the city. This effort should continue and be expanded if the need becomes apparent.
Well maintained parks and trails tend to foster a greater appreciation of facilities and a
concern for the natural environment.
I -5
•
F'`
J • •
.
•
SECTION TWO
•
`: DETAILED PROPOSAL
DESCRIPTION
•
1
2. DETAILED PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
The proposed action is the adoption by the City of Renton of the new Comprehensive Park
and Recreation Master Plan, and the Trails Master Plan. These plans are described in some
detail in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 belovy. Consult the plans directly for additional information.
Existing and proposed sites and facilities that were identified in the two plans are illustrated
in Figures 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4. Drafts of both documents are available for public review by
contacting Bill Hutsinpillar, Recreation Superintendent at 235-2568.
Over the past several years, the City of Renton has experienced a rapid increase in
population growth. This is a result of increased development and building activity in the local
area. Consequently, the amount of available land suitable for park and recreation facilities is
rapidly diminishing. The trail and open space corridors are particularly vulnerable to
fragmentation from land subdivision and other development.
The residents of Renton as well as the City Council have recognized the need to acquire and
preserve park land and trail corridors while they are still available. In response to this
urgency, the City has authorized the development of a new Comprehensive Park and
Recreation Plan that reflects the growing needs of the community. The plan identifies
potential new park sites that would adequately serve the growing population into the next
decade.
The City of Renton has developed a,City Wide Master Trails Plan that identifies those bicycle
pedestrian edestrian routes that are considered most valuable to the City and regional population.
2.1 Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan
The current Park and Recreation Plan was developed in 1984. Since that time, the greater
Renton Area has experienced rapid increase in population, which has resulted in a greater
demand for recreational services and facilities in the area. In order to maintain the present
level of recreational programs and services, the need for new parks, trails and recreational
services was evident.
A new or updated version of the plan was needed in order to meet future demands for
growing population. With a new plan, the city would be eligible for state funding of projects
through the Washington Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC).
The new Renton Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan provides a complete
inventory and analysis of existing city park facilities and recreation programs. At the present
time, the city offers a fairly extensive park system. It encompasses thirty-nine park sites,
which accounts for a total of 645 acres of land. The present system offers the traditional
neighborhood and community parks and several specialized facilities, such the Maplewood
Golf Course, Renton Senior Center and Renton Community Center. On the next page, is a •
breakdown of existing park land (1990) in the greater Renton area. Based on a population of
69,200, the Renton area has roughly 12.1 acres per 1000 population. The current standard is
10 acres per 1000 population.
II - 1
Summary of Existing Park
and Open Space Areas in
the Greater Renton Area
City Facilities
Neighborhood Parks 74.46
Community Parks 21.29
Regional Parks 55.33
Open Space Areas 214.32
Linear Parks 25.15
Special Use Parks 255.20
TOTAL 645.75
County Facilities
Neighborhood Parks 27.50
Community Parks 19.70
Open Space 145.70
TOTAL 192.90
TOTAL 838.65 Acres
The new plan also recognizes those organizations that provide private recreational facilities
and programs, such as health and fitness clubs, sports organizations and other service groups.
The plan also identifies gaps and/or overlaps in present recreation service levels. Presently,
overlaps occur in neighborhood and community park functions, open space, sports fields and
indoor swimming. Gaps exist primarily in the area of trails.
The Plan provides a quantifiable means of assessing demand through the year 2000. Demand
figures are based on a number of different sources including the random household survey,
national trends and current participation levels. Based on the input from these sources,
walking/hiking trails, an indoor swim facility and sports fields received strong support among
the community.
The new plan emphasizes a diverse and unique system of services and facilities for specialized
recreational needs while still maintaining the present services at the neighborhood and -
community park level. Proposed facilities such as the Nature Center and industrial recreation
park are unique facilities that cater to special interests and needs. The plan also recommends
the addition of five neighborhood and three community park sites. In either case, it is
suggested that the City acquire land for future sites while the land is still available.
In terms of recreation programs, the park and recreation plan suggests that the City move out
of the traditional role of offering limited sports and recreation classes and begin to offer
unique programs and services found in larger communities. The plan recommends expanding
the services as new facilities and opportunities become available. This would include
programs in outdoor recreation, special events, aquatics, creative arts and programs for the
developmentally disabled.
II -2
r
In order to ensure future park and recreational needs, site selection and development criteria
were established to guide future park acquisition and development of parks, open space areas
and special use areas. Neighborhood park facilities would most likely include children's
playgrounds, picnic facilities, trails, open play areas and tennis courts. Community park
facilities would generally contain (similar facilities but would also include sport fields,
restrooms and other active recreation facilities, such as basketball courts,volleyball, etc.
The new plan consists of fifty-nine park sites and facilities, which includes thirty-four new or
expanded sites. Many of these new sites are proposed as open space areas. In addition, the
proposed new Cedar River Regional Park contains many active recreational areas. Overall,
this plan represents a substantial increase from the present park inventory. A detailed
description of each site can be found in the new Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master
Plan.
Summary of Proposed Sites
Site No. Name Acres Type Ownership
3 North Kennydale Park Site 30.0 Community Private
4 Hazelwood Open Space Site 200.0 Open Space Private
5 Lake Washington Vista Park Site 2.0 Neighborhood Private
7 May Creek Open Space Site 650.0 Open Space Private
8 Honey Creek Open Space Site 100.0 Open Space Private
9 Coal Creek Park Site 17.0 Specialized State
12 W. Kennydale Open Space Site 60.0 Open Space Private
16 Duvall/Glencoe Park Site 8.0 Neighborhood Private
17 Sierra Heights Wetlands Site 30.0 Open Space Private
18 Honeydew East Park Site 25.0 Community Private
22 Puget Power Park Site 20.0 Lineal Private
26 Cedar River Regional Park Regional
26-B Cultural/Recreation Site 11.0 Private
• 26-C North Slope Open Space Site 280.0 Private.
26-D Interpretive Facility Site 8.0 City
26-E South Slope Open Space Site 600.0 Private
26-G Royal Hills Park Site 62.0 Private
27 Satori School 3.3 Specialized Private
36 West Hill Open Space Site 30.0 Open Space Private
37 West Hills Park Site 6.0 Neighborhood Private
38 Rainier Open Space Site 25.0 Open Space Private
40 Empire Ridge Open Space Site 86.0 Open Space Private
41 Black River Open Space Site 60.0 Open Space Private
42 Springbrook Creek Park Site . 13.0 Lineal Private
43 Cascade Waterline Park Site 17.0 Lineal Private
44 Industrial Recreation Site 20.0 Specialized Private
48 Spring Glen Open Space Site 20.0 Open Space Private
49 Rolling Hills Park Site 13.0 Neighborhood Private
50 Lake Youngs Park Site 30.0 Lineal Private
54 Benson Hill Park Site 25.0 Community Private
55 Panther Creek Wetlands Site 85.3 Open Space Private
56 Farmstead Site 18.0 Specialized Private
57 Panther Creek Park Site 7.0 Neighborhood Private
58 Springbrook Open Space Site 52.0 Open Space Private
II -3
The new and expanded parkland standards reflect an increase in the total amount of
parkland. The new Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan would increase the current
standard from 10.0 acres per 1000 to 27.8 acres per 1000.
Neighborhood Park Standard: 1.2 acres/1,000 Population r
Community Park Standard: 1.1 acres/1,000 population
Regional Park Standard: 11.1 acres/1,000 population
Lineal Park Standard: .9 acres/1,000 Population
Open Space Standard: 12.7 acres/1,000 Population
Special Use Areas Standard: .8 acres/1,000 population
Total Parkland Standard: 27.8 acres/1,000 Population
Each of the six parkland categories is defined as follows:
Neighborhood parks are a combination playground and park designed primarily for non-
supervised, non-organized recreation activities. They are generally small m size (5-10 acres)
and usually serve a radius of approximately one half mile. At average residential densities,
this amounts to about 5,000-7,500 residents. Since these parks are located within walking and
bicycling distance of most users, the activities they offer become a daily pastime for the
neighborhood children. While it is not necessarily the rule, neighborhood parks sometimes
provide space for organized community events. Often neighborhood parks are located
adjacent to or on school property. In these cases, a smaller park site will be adequate,
assuming a joint use agreement is obtained from the school district.
In general, facilities recommended for a neighborhood park include a children's playground,
picnic facilities, trails, open space and nature areas, tennis courts and a multi-use open field
for soccer, little league, etc. While restrooms are often located in neighborhood parks, it is
recommended that they only be provided in the larger parks where users may come from an
area beyond the immediate neighborhood. In many instances, single-occupancy restroom
units should be considered.
Community parks are planned to primarily provide active and structured recreation
opportunities for young people and adults. In general, community park facilities are designed
for organized activities and sports, although individual and family activities are also
encouraged. Community parks can also provide indoor facilities to meet a wider range of
recreation interests. Where there are no neighborhood parks, the community park can also
serve this function. A community park service area is about a one mile radius and will
support a population of approximately 12,000-15,000 persons depending upon its size and
nature of its facilities. As a result, they require more in terms of support facilities such as
parking, restrooms, covered play areas, etc. than neighborhood parks. They usually exceed 20
acres in size and often have sport fields or similar facilities as the central focus of the park.
Regional parks are large recreational areas that serve an entire city or region. They can be
large and often include one specific use or feature that makes the park unique. If possible,
they should be developed around a unique or significant resource to emphasize regional
recreation interest. They also can serve as a buffer or separation between communities or
other large urban areas. They should be designed to accommodate large numbers of people.
Linear parks are land areas that generally follow a stream corridor, ravine or some other
elongated feature, such as a powerline or railroad right-of-way. This type of park area often
II -4
contains various levels or types of trail systems. Most generally they remain in their natural
state as generalized open space but can be highly developed.
General open space is land left in its natural state that may or may not be used by the public.
In western Washington, open space generally contains heavy vegetation. In many cases,
environmentally sensitive areas are considered as open space and include wetlands, wildlife
habitats, stream and creek corridor ' steep hillsides, forested areas or unique or endangered
plant species.
Specialized areas are public recreation land occupied by a specialized activity that do not fit
into any of the other categories. Some of the present facilities that fall into this classification
include special landscaped area, tot lots, golf courses and senior centers.
•
•
•
•
II -5
[Figure 2.1]
[Existing Parks and Facilities Map]
II -6
- fff., - - 6" ' r..•`` - -- 7--- - r.71,-t L -,..
r r, ....,......_ ,__
•
IIN •
/ •
MERC •
R
, •
• E •
0
..!/ • . • .
ISLAND . 4 /
(/ / 7/4•' ii. .1(7.4vIL'i• ' •• MIN 1 4(
....•,,
.,.
. . .,
l'•,)'1' /:•..,, ,, ji..1.,.i,•I'.,!•.•,1•1•-v',I4.•',•
••?1'f:''.•.a.---.!'.-..i..-.',.:.•s.;III.'Tt'-aa
.•1f.i C',-.).I--..1Ir.o.•I.X.„::o.T'•1.
1`,I.. , ,•
.. H
az.iew.ood
Park•
•
•
• • •• •
• •, •I 1 I'• •.' ..•.•. • • • • . 1
). - I.4. 'F. 117 4.7.:1:: •:•:I•••. • • • • 1 f
. . .. . . .. • . . , . .. .4....:.•g ,11, - 11; ". •.! . ., l• .. i 4:
•
• 7 4.f, U;;; .. •• "; "•• • • • •V•• '
' /i':'.i•••••••••`"0 1,F:,I14: qaaal••• I ir,' i•,,, .• • •f •.•v.• • • ..• • . •
( 'I: 0:4i.,t1:1'li.I1F • i:.:A••• I Mi. „Twik••• •....... . ......•' .. 1,•....,.•,..I
1, •• ii Kennydaie Beach Park:
May Cr ..0:4::•,:i.:0 - ••••"
... .. , ..,
%, , •;'11,3.:3:1.4!110.••3" I !WY:.•-'3 • - • ...."•'".:! '' [?....)- , 3
• //. , e ,..i :A...0,10[0.T; ..1.i . -.,'' - - • "...... •
. .,:.• ,i...4,1‘AIRItg:II1?1..1.'.1 1 .A .! . L. .• eek Park , • •••• ••-;- • .
•v
, i 1..,kfal.,./.;:,::-::,:.:::14,11•:..;..1: ' • 1 • • .- •
-r-
••...
. 0, i.14....omuliTvm:.4, . ,., .1. -' yr. •:. .. .
:c- i..;:•11:::ii:inviviviiiiri••.,•:7. lc: I .
-S- . ‘'•:.7:9;iii4Iligr. •.- yr-‘• . ,
. • . . - . ..i, ., . ..i . •
‘••-:vizilig:10141.-.-.- •;74•;11.7fLi:ti• -'''.6:: • Pi- 11.1 4 4- \‘. .i.,-.. ,•.,.!..*: is 5.;11 .12- ..; , . .. .: • 1,40.7..,,. Sierra Heights.Park
• •
4.1.4,-1,.• .• • • i. I \
C`
... :.' ...1..!- .4. , •
. • • ••:4111B: Ar..3.--,,, it:,•1 N .
,-
I %-:•••‘\t ft 14: ...' .,i '0 ••f --• • ' • 1.---
\I-.- • - --. . 0 . •• \ •••T 1 ' LI ; 1Kennydale Lions Park _ ,,,,,•• y:ItirtoD
•mai:°.:•.4,11.1••1•11.14:0.,. .•...--,-3 --"--!-----`• r•
I • -----•----:--\- , . . 4,
• % \. I I ••1-,. 44i..,' .. .. ... , lk k• fr,,,,,liort?,g,.-4.::.-.•;pi--,,..lit•tyr, 1: :k•
_ ‘• .-.) • . .. _,.1.„,i ri.,„D r,.1.... 4„. 1 Attele:::i.kilfiWe' '•••' ' ' ..Y?"I : : L.,
' ` -. • -_7'T'7f.7.ir" ...L. _14i,•. 1,tyA ..” ..1 .0.21.,..%....);34.,,.c.1.,.. •f, i . ..,,,.:
•...‘(''S V •^.;":.,i!. ....it: • I. ‘ -. • • 4 itirif l''.;1;' i 1404.)71.1'...<ffiLl .i. r:g'V i I::I ., „ .4
, i z,o.,,.....;...4..Ny./N\ ‘.....\,, •• .,„-tt. :..: i ;04•••• ;.•41' 1...,'i.''.•••.•%U.: li ' 1••• • j•1:11....i. ,••••I..:• 07,44•F.; ••i•' t I
I 11•1:.40•••••••1,,,..:\...::::::;0:-.`... .?" .' N.... 1- 0 • ..II- a' 1 •''lai '."1 0 ' -1..04_,
•• • : : fie .i! og .": , . W...7171,.. I '
i )litrni#2.i:S;;;::N (.&, ' ‘ , \ I.... .iliij, .,' ..:II: :.::Aki?3•11?,North Highlands Park440 • •;Y!**'<::,..-,,,I.1..1;;;....,'::%":•fii.MA.. , •, '1. ` . , 6-4,- . 01,..........,•..'4•••,••••',„....)...i..: iff---.-•:.•1.01, .4.--,-,.-... . ,...,•-•.r. .., • ....
(4,'..i,.V,..z.,N,4:::,:;;r:..‘,,,t.s?.)Q.:\;•%: -.‘ .. ,,, 1.plt .tit..II..:ii. 10):1."aii:2 • ..,..t.ar,r. ..... . I %,....,
. .
. ./....,#.1.)))y,\.:..„:.........?i,:.:.......,,t..c.:....•:::.!„;.. ......".,,,,,, .„,..:441 % Gene Coulon Memorial Reach Parkl.t.•.,
c/fi)WK.: 4•••'••!..,..,,•,•',..4::;', 1•;;P,' N ,,
ii-
, ,i t• ,\‘,.;.,;•••.: ',:.....„N 4.::. i..,...f"'ir •L7) s•
.:. • '' -.i 1 t.1 t . JI:'. ,1...1'IM'i.'•'; .
1 0 Vd... 74.7,111.1;1497111:-....•t:T. A Vi II 1' ' ..•" . ,. ' _ I 1.1.,_i_i I [
1 rtt--•, .t, hi)/*,I,,L4f1T1. •....: .N____ _ .•
••,:y li 1-,..-..„13itt • • ‘ - ,,*--,-
! sc f ;;;:i;l7.111. ,!_'•'7':'-i. :\'' •;`f•Td.. ...41::32,3. I ; 1,..:,...„0:'El II 1 ' in - =Lt.,
;I . -' ''*-,1 1 i.11,,t.1.1 1 •,..4.;:!..fi. .. % .4.tit ......Pli .Illa .; .i • Ri
.}.s...., . '• • Sunset Court Parkr lirtt-W ;A _.,).:...ii\-- • . .../ -..: .. :cif. ..,„ . „.„,„.. 4,4,-• ,I,'it 1'4: . .
0 e,,,,, .. \'.1- • ../...AP 7:04!. ii•••!):Iiii.Pt."1-.1:"Ps.iii. ... 4...kiP7:::•7!7-1.A. ::'..4li :. 1:1.1.'74: ' •• •I C
' ;•iii i. i fl'itic!,'; ')Ii )41:,1 i ILII I I I 1 t*;,•••.%.411113t
/'.....‘ IN, , V:1;:l i 1.0t;:i.'41 kilc.'• 41111,111.: • 11k • .St• ''''.* • fik" '4 .j
, /.! % i • i.4 ' • . • mi P.F.I' d•Walk. A i ..1:-.• • • , . •
II • 1"i.i...v,..41•'''''g;'‘iTliF 1 41 ift;•.1' r*.'ili4•Pt4litli '
.
r.'''111111 44.1,4,1 •••.4oll tfil 1 i I • tiinrilifili•r••••1.. \-1 ,.•," ;,' "'' '• \ 1 ''1:'• 'Ail'-' .1k411111!li r 46 Tat-1111 Kiwanis Park I I
. .
• 4(4':•••;:.", Ill •11I rifigiliff:44.4181FIL.......:,
t \t.',1 t 111 l'''. \1 )44 ••:%.1 Hlti'hia"nds" Pa'ik IA-•' •"TT- ' ' ly,14.;iii I:: i • :::
1 lir:1'1,1V • 0,...;...- ,,,,,l',,. Ittor.„..,...,v.1.,..,..„7,1,1,;./ ,,I,. , • . ' tri,a,rt.h.,:)ir. i. .. .
. 145 1 .tiii:id,. vf..: 1 Bryn Mawr p. r.4. , Ceaar iver Trail 4- ‘ ,"17'._` ,...14A,t.",i11.71.;,•irikiit ‘Iii ir,;,,i,,, • . ...1.1,1. / i it
1 .
"0\ y.e. ‘ . • 11 ' !L.If- .iiit'ilr.:-MiEtil.1111,14:.,,-) ,. 1!I 1 N 1.1.1.1 1 t.',.?..,4,,,,,;1..',11:j., .r....,,..'ii Iii.1,:4.1%ok..,,..1.,:.,,%..,A,,•41/...5)18A,cc.it• .I,,,, , 1 , ..111 .1 II ,_
,ji 11111 II,L,, . , Ntlf.;! , "...:1.... ..,:t211:7•1'.;j,r4‘0,1 0411:I.A.•4.• ' . .). • 0 . il .k if. .w...4..s,,, . 101 ,....1.,1, c......,7, ! ! , , ,
1 .., - ' -.:,: - I, . • I
,1 CI,ow.4.41,k ."Iti:A111111.-." .,i'i.::!Vr•,...iilitillt.." iiii 'IN Id •tziervp Avsvilov,w,9 101, . II ; .• 1-14 . , . . ,,0.i..':I l'i , .1 I. . 1 "
ji! h If 1 . 21-- ,ft.',....e. ,../"„•::• tt kli:iii(44;',4, 4.e.•V ':' 'kill-H.:: ..•; 1;: ,:;,:i Rill:i 1 I : 1
,ti(Cillri;tieiii6ft,'M..i-,.46.4:;',.;::11 ; ili;;;_:12pi,i!::,•.! 11::Aff!. . n:„.=3,10 it in, .. MOIL, h.i b,..i.o....kIlliit Windsor Hill:Park :1 ; '1* . i .'",.i.1---V• i ''' ' I e
41 iis••,:it$1.II tii51.1.1!;11.U.., '''k'l:fri •c,1.11`T----1:''');;;10.0,1 .,4• 4 . • 171J.7 041111 ;111111111R,VrtifIhriiti \\ -,.- 1......, . :;),•p•1,:.„.,.,,,; ,i';',J 1, 1 ., ; ..4.91, i; I I.Oi.ifilitr,,Ii.;,..11 ...C11•1!•!•,(1,;.',41:1•,1,,•4...,:iii.:'.v.i.,..i..olf:RITA'hr-k,15.11.4:,,,igilt.4:,t, 1 ___ fi, Renton Senior Center". ....: ,.../ I,-,..,1,,..r, L.,I, .criii ,..
I 41 l•. • :i Heather Downs Park I
i•.;:,v+p L. __I.:r:LE"c417'•:$'1.1.11•11.1:.,...ir.,4'....1:_i!Pziri4 i-.7.•.••••-..--"' 1 •111 ili liiiiiiatwirA-A. .,•••-. . . 1 .,, 1•J• . ..,;• ., 1 • . • 1 .. ,,,.,. .pwi..
4
1:::,...t.... ,..,....0....1 „.if ; r1.,.iii.1,410.k.t.::v..,rq,.4,.,,:,: ,......m. , :, . ,, 4;:i,lo„, -,Iv 'Liberty Park .s••••••• ,i; .--, . , • : !I .i :I
. i Tr 1 ,',Tilt'1•,:•!:;,,krrilSty,:...fi•.•ii• ••ov.. :' ..4 .,...41'-. ,• .... i;•%lie .. 4 ' - ,-,K
,.,• , f A .::4•;•,••••,1, 1.„eif.),:••till.iv •• 1
4, .,,,,.,. . .111.6.441.1.1.1.111 ...),4,1,,,......... ):,,I.)....,...;,,r.r.;••- Ji one!. i;sr , ' iNig•c..,:i1 1, I g'''
j. ,...._
: . . .,
!1 : •;••'•••.A.P.0.• 4 i Maplewood
. i : 1-.• •,'1: id. •:: !.,•1.1:;.•,....p. :.,/ ./..i0.74.,,,.,-..,.„...a."...‘4.1,:: .' • '.• .' t . ...; - -- • .., ,.J•• • .+''',"•:•::•,Y, L, ,-. •• - •
•' ..1 - I I • 1 • .) Earlington Park ift ''• ••I - N-- . : ••,.... •
..• •
. lit.Iiiq•ii'•:••••'. Heights Park
i.•I 11. 1'••'.,•.1;..„......v-.:--------,,.4•••0414,4.124/p"Ftr-leg,',7,,.. • • ilimi) • T n-, Ts ,,,.474.4 -. ...,.... . - ' .. '.1 I.: ; . i 11.t..ric'A`Votlf,...... •
,:.1.4..a:!:4*...,...
. \ 1..7'-'1-.!..I :0....,:i'...T. 1--''''1/4:4,;;‘...-...••,".."7,,,,,,:zt.::4,..:74.•-•,•i,,,' v,4"4.7:v..\,,....' ."11:.13.,;:l.-t to toniiirt.s PSrk •••••••• • •••2',.‘,..... .1,,,,,,,,,r ,,,,64,.. L.; • - ,---4•••:--41-,2-.-- •
• ..17.•-.,....•••,,•c;:e\-.1.- ,
r
. ,. ,„,„,,, ,..„....:::.„.• ,.•, ,...,,• , N1.1141.1. . •••••. crrt two.,
• _I.
\ " "••,'\•., . •: I. •.; . ''0...1. 519.•,•••<' ir A .. , .1,2: :•• '1 ,•*Ma lewood Park ]
,,, .. .,;• •
P •A•,,1 ,IL. -••--.1 -,.- -•J.
....-iii,,f. . , kt,110f.?,/, , .- . ::,::..: 1 WI 1 1 piintiv tit :!I. :-.., • -,,„-17....i....1". - ••• .)0;
ss'‘.\'7, '..t.:.::':•:.2:•....1•:., \ e t*." : . ••..::' ...,''Vr.'.•••••• • • i BUrnett Llnear Park . :•
E Maplewood G.9.1!.Course= -
: •••. •\ • .1 111 If •^; ..' '411 Pir el-L--- ....
\‘ ......-- ;. '7.1` ‘`-"•- --- -i-t• • -- .7.)4 r- ii:- - I-• 's'1.1• i • • ' '1 ,1,.•:1!,if,Vg:: '••.. -1-.1
•\
(
1 !,,,-.._..i•.,._ \ .. -..• •••\ I. . l• ..__ . !!. , ..i .,
1 --\\1 •... 4.• 1 i
I• !I r----1 , % : ,. ,, , ri It ..1. .. u • 4 0‘., . 1
.. .: i ..,.. ..t„, ..I ) lit h - . .....4.1• ...„.•••• Mapisw,_cod_ • •
. v.:0:.:... . Roadside Park
.• ...- : ;,,,e• I ••••/%419c/it.;: • .
Ir,..(4,i.- • T
r. i Cedar River
i ...,,•" I mr , „ 1, ,-., , ..••• ....... : ..,...., . ••••.\:•4•••4 ri- .%' ..
1,„,,,,,,.010. _ :1 1 i. I /........,•: . •-Philip Arnold Park ;lee::...;Nbs."-...„,,,.. r ---'Property
I ,. .„-.•;;•--••\-t• -: • 1 .t...,...-,.;''- 4
,.• •
..,, ,-.... . , .
1 .1/4 1...,4,..41 •,. N.,.- .•• . 07.0 , .1 .
‘. A-.....1,..--- ,.:,..4... )\... - .,. ,-1.f 1 .. . ...... .....-.':••••••:....... s... I 61'.''''''' •
\ ?,/, ;.i.. •••1• ''r •- '..- •.-•. ., ),•,-.24.gilligicl,.1. ill••• •
.... N..7:::...,....,,g•i ..3 1.1..tri, ;,,.(1.Lake Street i-,t-0-•.....--.• I.
..7\....j - •
-.,.. . i'lla.' -...!;;,b,(4...„'•-1::: $to,%, ,,. . .-,.
, W..."-...
. .. /..4,?..4•44';' .s'• .t.1•411.);..!i. ••,•••:,;•.,•.i. ,t.
' ' 1:',A.1`..4.• . ,A.R3r...,
•-...!ic.I.A.A.??, r r. ..... . .4.. .....
.. , .1.
1
'W I 1 ) il'..\••••. ‘ 4!: vo-•••• $:i7... ) .1 N, .,z4,4;c4•Ii.a.-1,• 10.:,!1- • "' •
.'c .r... •••14 , -;•••. ., v,.. • .,
il'i• t‘. .,. .-d i If i ')'1 : i'•iY I.: L.1 \‘',Op s tglig.,.::' \f. ,::••,..... ,;:•••- .•'. . .*.ir'.. 11;ik'...li;•,..7..eii.tjt?•A.; .\•.'"k.,.: Cedar River Natural Area
i•le ...---k..1•.4...!;... iil 1 ..1.....0-,...:.; ' Lower .1,;tvr- ,. . .........A. ,..,. • 4, --Iptr ••;4. rAX ..1
) I ?
I: '.;1 .::Talbot Hill Reservoir 1 ; i f iTi IL•k9.. ,
••••-q,-,IITiffanv.Park I
t ; \,.. '4 .- !,:I .. ! .i ' • ii,11.1 Ii• i -I -tip 1, tv't.'4'' ' 'I'"''. ' .'14. -'- . i
r• .. Ne•''..•it i 41121404P1/4\ •'' ) I• . •-..,, 0.
, • I‘, IT iliq 1 1 1 ; 1 I I" ' • : : ,.:. v'
11 j II \\ II 4(.1..!. ' .' lk.43.11' •• .• • •': i. 4 . k.'' 'N.. ' A.' .2 it.S. 1.... .... • I ' .
1 1 1 .. .....-r- .... ,........);.\C.,•34.$.0.ii9rrfirn" ,• ...•:.,...:.....:::$,, '0 ........
, ‘.. '. '•' ' ,:) I. A. I. .. • ,..t'' • ......,. N\..1. ••'I. I L.1. ..,• i ' ., .'F.V'0,11.,..,''I. ‘::‘. I
I .i *-...1! ' .1 r---1 i ' 6.7.- .Thomas Teasdaie Park."t.: 'ay. .:I ' 1. •411 ‘..;, • .
.T.111.a.1' \ 111 '1.:.:...rill.1,. ‘...ro.,,,, „. .....„.• E:414". .1....,,,,' iq,:,t:.ii,.."Aili,i• ligoViit:4,,,:•J I :ill •Cascade Park
I: '• ' `.--------- !
- . 1.•1--. I. .„,.., . . 4 i \ ,..43,./•\1...N\Sit'-',.,-.4,k4,' "..,:.4 .7. : :4:1;1.•'? ."..',..::,I4•I k.y...0:Li."-24;;4. ,...!,-,...v... +..,T3 ,F), 11-1.
ii . • .: _,,,:. . . . .. . ..,...,..,,,,,,,,,,,A; ..„,.. • ..,, • i. ....„:. : - ::,. •.: ii ill-.
. ..;.. -7. 1. -i• 1 Renton Wetlands 2.:141..?4,. ,..i.i,.,...)-, A....4 ,,„. ... .. •• ,..;; .;..41,.1.(1.•,• : ..0 s,1;••:.ft: •
. • . ...E.:.• ,i- ; ;-• 1 34,1itt,•?4,1,16A: l'si•'...:•4./4:.: . ., • 0 . :0(: .., • "'...tki,; 1!
• •i , ' '..r".1.41:i4•,...vd. •„•,,, :.,1.. .,. 1 .1.• . 8. .,.,:•., •1,-,,,, ...,.•„:. ..1.,,.0 ,
?:'.1 . :I , .;;,,, .,. , .1 1 • , •••.k.,..:4•11..!•11 .;: .....?......;1, ::: i: ........1,.* ..y.f..jiii„:„.4:::: ..1.4L.0..A...74.1,..,,.: ..1,..,.•:%:‘,.:.-1.:3,:,,.„7,a.,..41.,„,. . .
j-7.- •-• 1.1,..'• '. t ., ,r, :: ;.1.-. ; . !, ; -1 .:,,,,,,..2„:„.: •,,,..J.,-.... 1.. .• . ,,,,: ,i.,... . ,st,:',,„0,.,k:,..1:li,iol•IlfAys":::4....':',1":;•••.
I i: l'::: li . !":' ). ;, ', . • ': ; I.' ...: \ ••••!. i : -1• L:,;....4,0. 40,,,ii',.:01.4,...: ::::1::;i: '11...-...:3:
1 .1 Ci ! • . .,,. , .i. • .i:
. ' i.,.....i '.1,..: 1,..,, . ,1 .. i I . 1 1.p'l i :3 • NH i'N ...,.01 Il::i HIV MV-TW;:II• • '. •'1i1L!::I;1,ij.._.._.',,i rj_..',_..tc,,...,1.i1,,A;L r..::Jli,
.,'.I;.th.r.i1t,..f,l/Lt iI i.it,.q,fii,;'1t1:,l i!f.il•1 I:l;,I.Ii11.If•.1,c%j:!,r...-•'..;,Ic„...;i.,l.1I1;....._.•.....c.!i.._....ti,...,)....•._.'.11_..,,•-1ki•i1,11\1,..-.".....',,\.:..:iiI::o,M,
.,•'.,O.•.•I.8.Lli,s.•.„,._•,.-.i..,.'. ,,.I.•'.-.,r,i ; ..1..i.1,1....• I..:I...\i.,,I,,...•.,...'';,!•i'Vi0•':.•..•.•.i.!•i:rt7Pg;.il'..f,,.I.I:i
n i.Ji'ii,io1.'4.•,
-'•'•'1,',I'
.;.. •
..(0i..
t•.
...1.:-.::•....1;I,.
.:.
: .
- _•••• •• •- .- 4II;4. 4.
Ii-.7-•'•?•-.'4•---;:„U.. V•,.EI.
•
R en.
ton Park
1I , . .44 / I• .I. .1 . .1 ' • .
•• •
. .
•
. • I. ••••••••••••••••••••
1 II III;. .,... . . . •
. . , ..._ . .
i
, . I . 1- .d! i..!.. .
f-1-1-1-...1---L-1 41111N . I I • I I ..
• .• ice /SOW MO. MC 4000. I .II. I
•
'CALI IM PM. 'i II i 1 I 11111
ir ' '/i.Spring,brook Watershed •: • .3 •
JC MA0000E16 ASSOCIATES I ' THili . • •
II
1:111:iY .I ik U • •
' il 1.1ztlyil 11.1, •:. Springbrook Park • • • .
I IIIt:1.1..11, II ill IL. ' itil
1
•
C • , . • •
EXISTING PARKS
• 1 .
.
.
)
r7
•
•
r-
C„
[Figure 2.2]
[Recommended Parks and Facilities Map]
•
II - 7
•
."'1 ,f, d kick.= `,' .'. ~'• r.' F-77,11 t.r - "i ] r.._~~• r --t-
t
• L i '.ftiq ` A`,/ y �v ��
i' 1 ;. ‘, r\-\J--'-'
• •,•1 4•ch is m{. .$0 yr I 1 I?i,i)\ 4c \\ 1 N
r MEMOIR ISIAMO .'y'i,..1! j. "• I I\ \,)\\
;%',2. .i• ']:{�. i.$0.?:,.0". .1i.,.I,a l'• 1 .//''' 1•. i \\Uf ,\ ,� III 1I • \
( r, \ \
V \ A\\ \-, s‘. 6.\(
c...4.,• ' •• .... h:,. ,.. r• ;/ I, r'Ana • .- I {f([� I. ��I -).)��
i - •• •t. •I' ay..;,,,:.,•::;
�l�i.�T,f.}1Nr 1v� iY .t(�. � ~ /a/'('�,�•.iF ,/1AiO 1 1 t .9
• • ..1,: •1'00 �/t lJ� . 'J' / ttYn' :�•4A,'YY�•�, •` ♦E nl
`�„��1its // ' Q )II ` r (;t.Ss• ��,i,4 1 '{ �
'{F. 'it koiNktitiirf,,g.
�` • \yLstl� ,?' ni.6„ = ��,�'S'{; '•4S `•
... .,„,10,..,,,,..„.it it, ..,,0,-*e'..44 .'
.:..•:,`Yr !y�j;�r, M1Tr: AA a wASNO,DToe, ,`yr7i. ;'T, ,`• `*t• I '- 1 ._ •...__ ,`b
.. .',., '''.7.i'..g.31,'S:i.:. ''..?4,ftf;•,. *PO ' .//‘
2 :1•'
'� i ? i,t yi 1r� r `�
ii.
,:. ,6.g. -klyi ,
111
, ' 41q1 — gri, 1
sic , r:
:2
_„r'� \:„\ .'� ail `�� ;kill
Ilia. i1 l•h0a1--1 a 'io I �--� ll
\ s'J 4 0;‘)
/ i • ,. ,111 i.i.,-- firif-e-i iii.
lir
.' .‘ 1 PIA/1 'ti.Nt'*/ "Ail-IAA 11.1 - 1 IN -6-C1."-' — ,z-
•
' .-- -_,ItL.. Q Rr;.: j1w,e -'1' T'1 4.-I .6 I i#0/i411111111111i‘11/PL 41)
� L.' co
aD-- Q- rr y,�,11� r • r I,
•
,� III►
:, .14 f I• { r r1
•:' / 1 L l,yy j+ I�iJ. Nr.,:• R, 0.... tt�t, ,•, 'y� `�
.�,i"" •. ,r: :J-' t•. ..,r j• ,R� d,.{t»;c;;de cQ;.'�''1!e. , •. Yt•
c,,t ��,�4.14' 000_•• •• Il, Q. n,,�, •_,i:.C�4,�:,�, •-�-;g"i e©C-tt' • rPi'
,�.,�\,.• !.• WA III i rl kf S�..t� °G 4 , • ly.,'hs»� *`. >• ,_/ !!!..'
y �� �, 1 � `- .,tt i_ gal: �,^�w.�. .�•�„ y,,• r�,�t'���r/te�(r� •(.�i���:�;�y....•�, ,
/^$r III • r' :)'W I o' ��js�P� • �•"• R,;. .•��+s'.�; r��3.•,psi+ °' � �
+'' .Ih er l` _ _\ „ 1:!•In i ''O(D% ^,.:_i(iii!, �•e1Q •�� "'k•;~. ::•••-.,'t; �
f f• i! _ . S -ts �° •vT �� r F `: al; 0.�( , F:.. .M�1y� �J'1 +A
Allkr' �'a a �`'' •'' • /; Q c:v�t �°..aa
� Yit11 1i*� ��Vt" - - • �4/41 • s 1�• �t {., �..fir-+
•GFY y e :{L r 1l ..
• �Q wNo ` • �! < Y1, .,. �� moo
0 ---.4.......... •••
s:r,
+ "tt —2-1. is.
• ,......_ . L1 - .e O •
I titi. O • it
,
. ,.:,,,
• 1 , • r... .
I
__. .
;*} '' .
t.) I r� '�j I { r ;f
• ',, J: irr , kf % ,t/..,,,_ t;3?•'.:91 Yfri i ' (-:. . .\
j ,i
I I j I �: a\
. 1 .r ,
t .
0
,\ •...t ,
11
..="... Velr ....\...... .
Aim
- IF ' 1 ( / 1 \\. , r'4-1.1
TRAILS/ - • ,.1-- \..: ‘ MI...--...‘,
ill".”j‘
'%(i'Cli'+'4'""""-.1).-"sThi. (.• ‘---\.' "..- ........-.
REY •
J.QR MILS IIIEQN MILS 114111111 1411111111N114E Ild'il'IW'11:1
I'I ' I I .l illti!f•d l
A. LAKE WASHINGTON TRAIL N. PACIFIC RAILROAD TRAIL
B. MAY CREEK TRAIL 0. KENNYDALE CREEK-TRAIL PO 0 N1 Au.. ,AM, LOOM,
C. HONEY CREEK TRAIL P. DEVIL'S ELBOW.TRAIL - NORTH
D. UNION TRAIL Q. BONNEVILLE TRAIL
E. CEDAR CREST TRAIL SYSTEM R. GRANT CREEK TRAIL
F. CEDAR RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM S. PANTHER CREEK TRAIL
• C. LAKE YOUNGS TRAIL T. SPRINOBROOK WETLANDS(TRAIL •
N. CASCADE TRAIL U. P-1 CHANNEL TRAIL 000 MAJOR TRAILS 000 MINOR TRAILS
I. SPR3NOBROOK TRAIL V. EMPIRE TRAIL
J. INTERURBAN TRAIL
K. BLACK RIVER TRAIL -
L. BURNETT TRAIL •
M. PUCET POWER SUNSET TRAIL .
I
Oti�Y O� CITY OF RENTON PEDESTRIAN MASTER TRAILS PLAN
+• f; © + • I• DEPARTMENT ,QF PARKS AND RECREATION
.41Y r •O JOHN E. MEDLEY, DIRECTOR
- -
„-, • . • ..,
- -
I ,i . --•,:litf, A 1111111L Ct —_.,
r
C.
\ , -, ___ ....,.
--'-
eiVro."
k.•"4.., MEAGER ISLAND I:
/ 4014: 'a" i , ‘,•
.^••:2, ,.
1.;11:'•;,.... .
•
...'• ,.4.,i '•, , •:1, ?. it.i. i ........j))11"..
•....of.,,,
..; .1 .,,A il 1 it \ \ •,,ci. (
I I JO
.,
' '1;" • . 1
',1,';•.,,,.:44.2.r..: I \S p Ji) .1I \i, P,1
..„. •,,.-••••, , I )1\\-'1
•. 11,t,i 7 •-\)
t., ,' ' ,. l'i"..: ') ;: if
, r:f 1,'.::••"I'l ,''• \' I.'1;4 !*12.:/ ‘:,V.', 5 If (/
'4•"0:41rkeittirC I ; :•.40w, 4•4r,/,,,,,__ _ • , •
• e.... ,c-.•-• I ,/ Pi , \ , ---,,„1,\) 1ii?, 0 ,,,
,.,•,I. ----,,,
., i• $1.4t,.... 'il. P. `.' \ \ sO \'-z --- _,,ti3
kr..., _ .. •-• i'j) n - '' 1 0 \ik:' , '-N. ' ':•;.
...„,,,,,,.,",, •.••''•,k,\, );,. 'r ..,- of.. .., . . ‘•,.
. '."•Crl`P.....' t....,1 ? ' `,"•' -.1 , -"
' ,,f •,ti, • '•=•;- '' 2 . ..?
1, Tfkis 4 •• --- ;-1-1.k4,-,...z,k,..'".; '
....' ,•••,:..:4°1"/".4! kj,,,q ,i.W.--, / 4),?..`4Y''.Wt.,t- '.'\--..,„4 .
c.,p110,. _ -•:•• - .. , "t - -444•,i - . .
1'•'"'" '`''' ,•-e•-e•• • fii,'s.60, ;.: 'f' ,...111'!------- 1 ' '‘...' ''' -, . `,ih- ''J 1::' .0
.,,...4.,... t'k.11,-, .-----f- it'.-4'''' ;,,-,At.' * Nr------•-',""'k5. - - .- ''h•--- '.' 'li ,14•68-..
,. ' .•,.,1 e..1./ 1 ._ _-..-.1,iiivo,ax,„,t.,.. „x.,„m_,t. • ,_-_--. -- - ..,.e. it.ii.„5`,;.,: --7,1';;.,..'k-7---•
•••.• 1•40 <, l'!"- . v a.,: iiii...%.1,imii:,'„:,-• t..•,7ai.g,-..eif ,-• -
• .4 .I '''III.--or :._ 41'• ''''' ,„,-1:.-".......-------\"- . 0',:VA. '.'Vo?.
, • 'NV', ..2 '14'44i1,;*- '"."-'41:19.1.1/§!4',.-11 ''. 4tT I ''-‘2"t!.41'' 1.'7.
,1$ •-••••••"7 ''' ,,IF 3).' :\
k;,. .....t ‘
... .
v,„,„,...,.. Y.s.:',2.:.14.::11,4,4.-1:',:,'"•...::."''"'!°. 4, 1,lic _ (:I) -.40,,M,".' , 41)
11.11-41,' '4','. -•. .1.,• ' ''.'' 'I L% '2•4L. • i \
'' ''''•.'.',..114:14‘1'7,''',‘•71(1.1W,t7L 11:0 .i'l: -- ' 4,{..,4",';.., i _. ,„, NI IN '.
LAME
I' 'I (; ,/r4•4„1,.. .\ I
IRA 'Nii•,. \4,\ AA; l'i *'‘.d ..91'.' '
k", '" '' • 111 AT" j''tj'"'s..
s'I. ••, t.‘. ,',"...P,4'..,..'• A'?..•'t1,.;:.i1.','•.l,.A,
I'4i',•', 0a_.,1‘••-1t7. •
I
(
.-
j .I:- : , • ...,,•7 e/ I. . - 'CI'll' i•l, (!),-,'" I
1 fr N \,„, \.,. ..,..4. ,, , ..,„ .4'•••••
44 'IK‘Aer'1"::11it•'' . 4 .alli •:?•'2Jr\', 1:si'''.1"• P
I,/ • *l_
It lith... ii.. ;•1 .
/A, \-:. , .„,!.....,,....,. .p.otiVi.w ,6,, .,31,1,,...1 _ - -::".-.V.; '1.'„' f', ''', If,', '-',..!,-,-,!1,-.77,z-, ••-,,:w17,Ei\ ,/-•i ' /e•-;1' .''' ''..- 11% \ 1 ® 4 o
•,.
4 „
MINIM r
\--\\\\>r .••••• , 1111 ,.,' k s.,....„, ,...:
..„__ , ir, 0- 4411.) 1 •
ii
lt, i' ', •
\ litt• ';t, 0, t. ii
•,,.______ '\ I "'Lit' A
, c',: I I \S', k•—'2 e• I.1
•0\1
J \ . -,,,..1,::', (I,. ,7 •f""••• •1‘i .1 5
a -WI
-,,....., il $'., Pt•?,, • , . 't,I TR' ILJU!I 0 I I'7/1: 4'7- /-
1.1
, / .1. ..-....,-...r. ...- !,1:- , ''•
, -
. ..,--
, 11 1k I r 11 1 001011Pv--
_asp ,—._...: /re !' I -4N, 4••i• - L'' (.'; j'" I . a
::_-,•••-_-_,_-_..... \.,.... ....'ei.•--; i a ,..., 1,11/.4:::':
va• 1 @
I•..:7-...13- ••••11 ',,4 -0 rt A II t a 0 wr---,...-.•I'' • __
i __-_-4: • /1 6-1 —*oh,' %lilt / \ 1 .30
s'--"\gi)--)----------z-.1:-. ' ;. `..11 7 ',1(4/1(:,F•71!I-J....). • 01--t
,- •
4°0L,
48(I 111C4-.\4..Ar 1'&'' .S,k i 1, I 1 . ._
,
.;i1 ---?'"-': -. 6 A J.-. .9 5,1.):.'' '! xi4, ‘‘'i2,•k, i j 01)11,
, • 1,k .itoe, ,,,-..- 1-71111, - "--•• • -- 1 , - ''t\. \\
„:0' : 7.01 a 4:_lit.1 4 1 ..t 5 f ,7,4 •
44
f".... .' 4.'. .14'4 1'''. ' .1.,,A,44., I V\ 111,=k••• e•• 1 -:L'..;•' . • -•,....c..1•4„ 1 •••• Cq8>"''''' '' '.4 ts,,-... . A ,,,.. . -4...g, ,-, ,444--,__.• - • .,. RI p-,..:ii Rt.4'11(.11i'li...i.7.1.,..q. q:AdV, ,,•;.-1..,-,1„. • „,. •• .4,
r )---.4k,' ' • ' .' .--*y. '-^i.-qt.4,4,',..rt';',t•t''P .. . ,.‘ I IPA'. 5'. '
,,-
.1'. n..'. p ,._._....... . .,„,,,.„. 040-). `'-,•;:_,.; ,T.-4,4 rkl-,.• 1 ,,,,,la ji.T,,,„.i
.-- (1)1- . . •alvA.1 -c,k-,. .,..,,,cir-•:,•. .1...A , kw- •4•.-: r . ,
,. .1,,, it.,..,,.. ,,,F,.!..,,,,,..i.t.r,. • ,.,,,,,,,. t ci, _.- i„,,;,,,,, .. , \ -••7„.„ ,,,:,, ,/,,,,,..4,1",-,,,,,,,....,65.;it..1.-,1,..,.53-,* . e ,,. CO : ., ':... •
\ C 1 C",t.I- N„„, •' ''''' . , ..r? c 3/13 .
‘)11,0•1-1:-: . ..4‘t'''':°'fri'''''' **..."..--;"'••••• ..* I'"',0,0110111 i?..11,i_ ". I \ A•,_'414:r- .:.•'''.13'..z* '''‘ct,'--4.••••••:';'^',112 h*'1'1 ;
1 '''' -z. .,1, •:',N4N-1--,-A'
-/'/.., - ' .0',..r.'...,'"'-. )--.•`.Ai&.,,,._.."' r+_.,','.si',•''Tili,. •`•-..J'':if, (,' I * '414''ill-P'A;;;: f>.1.14:' 1‘.-Z.,‘? ,' ;.'\I.::!•-,- '( ;,--"n„„,14 ... •,., .1,, ;
• 4,,,i, • .. z,-,.,. •-•'.-w -' 1c b--- • 1piP•si e' ...,, .i3O. , _ t.• v 1 •,.• • -1.....7t-,....,,reL,,,,,,,,:tz, :,...A 4 ,., ''z -,,,s1,
1pkil.tsV. "...-4:-...'
".- IV ••••"*. , ye:ct' 0: ' ,VA ",: .".ltr,',d ''',Y W.r, ' - I‘4
• • • • \\ *.- •••:•••-'- e .,... ,, ••••• ,4
„,.,-.' ,,,.,•:,•,,,, 1 '40,-- ...--- ) '.1.., ;..). .„,„, ._,„' .,,,,,„e. ,, c..:•„., --...,,j-.Ori.,f..„.,.. A.....,
(,;,,,.% •,-- , ;,, ,,,-„,,,,,,,_ _.../,''''''. ... . I 1 i t..'aln' , / /)1•,,lp.4.,rnN,' ,‘\ ® ‘, ;.41.,,417,1V si_.....' •74.1.t§S;I._ ,.
• 1 _...... 11111., 1111110....
,02% ,...1.., .,d . 0. g.II R.I._ ......,, . '; ' -.3M-t c „, •• ...•,..s. , t . • - r'•-":,','•-•.-t,j7
N,4411,1‘.• Vgrt,"1.1,-r ,..1,719!‘.. (-P' 1 r- 1. ), A... ,--.--1, ,, l'e,,..11..... . r'''-"7"...- 'n\,,,, -.; • w
1: ', .`T',
e' N f"'II' 11,. V, .V, ;..?..•.
+2 \\ .,,, .10.` ,I3A- ,'. .,i744•4 .-4,_ :_--.,/--70.
,-, 11: "..1, ., 6
1.' L I
9 i •
: \„.
: .r.'
. ®'• 1..1.
-
- , - , -
%.1 •,,_
. - -, • ..I.,:.
,.\
'1 1 ,,:,' r•-/ •:= = ----:-. iiN
...
S••••••'.\
• •
„ ---1
.. - ,.
N , :...;- ...:•-
,
1. _m: 41) 1,,7 • ' " ""'"et . 1
i :'' rIl mil 1,
-1t!, *IP**7',,V-..•,jr--- ' 1 ':• k i.,
'11s
.t tyk 1
41),''' ,.:f r, ••X•
i i VII ..• • k, 4-.3ja I
0.4iiir •\ s',\ i
• I 411100.00'''' ?,' • ! •1 • . i 4 lql ''. .;.-::-: ::. I e)II*
' II 00
.. 1, di,'
,:, ,,,,,
,. , , r, . . , . . ,
,.:., ,,, .,,, , ,,,,,,,,„
, .„,. . .,„,„ ,. , ...
.. ,.,. .,2, _.„, .. . ,
.,,,. .0-r- ii , ,, ., ,, ,, .d•../
igi 11 110 1 ';'''• 14 ".-%''''f, ,:, (Pr .
'4 a It . \
1) . S. r.-
' - ,,J .3•4'-..t.0 • ,, 4..' ,ift
• , "A - _. - ----- a-- \\
c 1
.v. - •.. .• • /
wuri r, e.. e • • ,.,
I .4. II'..1„,..:i...:1•44,‘: it
\,..
te,f....,.
General , •••
.e 1 .4 . g ** I., '.#.41,,'A / \ •-•.....,...$>,.
• ., . Haim.. i •Ii •
— ) opium/ 1 ._
.....
/ (4,I,0Iv.44, hilio qt, \
C -N,I, I
,.fv •
.:,--
. z.
....,. , 1
,:. i 1. `•
1\I i
i
i 1
\ ,,,,, (1c
.
... . i ,
s,
_ 4 t.:, a a \ I
, 1..,
1 \ •
ift4ts,*mum s.„,...------i I , . i ,
..
) — ' \ 1 ,)
. _./. .4: .,.. •• N
. T' , i ! --- ---\-1
) /
4
a li
• ..,
TRAILS AZY
111111,1, 11111111,111111111 IlltililiMIIIii 1111
KAIDR MU .I=MILS 1111111111 111111111111111111
( )
1
A. LAKE WASHINGTON TRAIL L. NORTHRIDGE TRAIL
0/41 .8141 .40wt
B. DUVALL-COAL CREEK TRAIL N. DEVIL'S ELBOW TR 0 .0 41.41 IS IL A NORTH
C. SUNSET BYPASS TRAIL N. EDMONDS AVENUE
D. CEDAR RIVER TRAIL O. ABERDEEN AVENUE
E. BURNET?TRAIL P. UNION AVENUE
F. EARLINOTON TRAIL Q. PUGET TRAIL
G. SPRINGBROOM TRAIL R. BENSON TRAIL 41/11P@MAJOR TRAILS See MINOR TRAILS
H. INTERURBAN TRAIL S. TALBOT TRAIL •
I. RAINIER AVENUE T. P-1 CHANNEL: •
3. SW 16TH ST. •U. EMPIRE TRAIL
K. SW 27TH ST.
I
, I
1
V '
1
. . ecy ....
CITY OF 6 RENTON BICYCLE MASTER TRAILS PLAN 1
1 IOW
• ,.....„,,Ati,,
74AiXit
? .11 DEPARTMINT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
•
Y-1.1 i
1.70FI E. WERLEY. DIRECTOR •
Among the numerous park site recommendations, the plan recommends the creation of a
regional park along the Cedar River drainage corridor east of the 405 Freeway. This site has
the potential to become a premier regional park. With the wooded steep hillsides on both
sides of the valley, the Cedar River, existing park sites and the proposed Cedar River Trail,
this area offers a unique park and open space opportunities.
The park and recreation plan recommends the addition of three community parks sites
including Honey Dew Park, North Kennydale Park and Benson Hill Park. These sites would
contain softball fields, soccer fields playgrounds, tennis courts etc. In addition to the
community parks, the plan also recommends five additional neighborhood parks. One site in
each of the following areas: 1) Glencoe/Duvall, 2) Rolling
Kennydale and 5) West Hills neighborhoods. Hills, 3) S Pringbrook, 4) West
Open space was also identified as an important issue. The plan identifies a number of sites
that should be preserved. Honey Creek, May Creek, the north and south slopes of the Maple
Valley and some of the wetlands account for major open space areas. In total, the plan
recommends 2,280 acres of open space land. Many of these areas would be developed with
nature and hiking trails.
2.2 Trails Master Plan
With. the upswing in growth and development activity throughout'western Washington over
the past several years, cities and counties have increasingly recognized the need for
preserving or enhancing park and recreation opportunities for the public, while sites are still
available and affordable. Trail and open space corridors are particularly vulnerable to
fragmentation from land subdivisions and other development.
Consistent with this trend, the City of Renton has developed a City Wide Master Trails Plan
that identifies bicycle and pedestrian'routes considered most valuable to the City from a local
and regional point. The plan responds to strong public demand for new trails in the city. This
demand was expressed in surveys conducted m 1984 and 1990 in conjunction with the
development of the Park and Recreation Plans. Trails have consistently been rated by
citizens as a top priority. The overatl goal of the plan is to "improve the quality of urban life
in Renton in terms of personal and environmental health, recreation and leisure, open space
accessibility, land stewardship, and sgnse of community"
This goal would be achieved through six objectives: (1) integration of recreational and
functional needs in a comprehensive' trail system; (2) public involvement in trail planning; (3)
conservation of recreational and cultural opportunities; (4) maximize public access to open
space; (5) enhance circulation within the city; and (6)in trail development. promote public and private
In developing the trails plan, nine important trail corridors were identified. These tend to
follow streams, linear open space areas, roads, highways, and utility lines corridors. These
corridors were considered to have-/significant trail potential for the various user activities,
including recreation and commuting. They were designed to link neighborhoods with activity
centers (e.g. shopping, employment, recreation, etc.), and also with the regional trail network
and other destinations.These trail corridors are listed on the following page.
•
•
II-8
Trail Corridors:
East Shore Lake Washington
May Creek/Honey Creek
Renton-Issaquah
Cedar River
Seattle&Mercer Is.Water Pipelines
Orillia-Petrovitsky
Green River Valley
Black River
West Shore Lake Washington
The proposed trail system is comprised of 24 pedestrian and 28 bicycle routes, five of the 28
are proposed for multi-use by pedestrians and bicycles (Table 3-2). Of the more than 50 total
miles of trails identified only 1.5 miles presently exist (Figure 2-3 and 2-4). Foot trails would
generally be mineral surfaced, while many multi-use trails would be paved. On-street
bikelanes are proposed for several arterial routes. Full descriptions of each are contained in
the trails plan.
Please refer to the draft trail plan for a description of all major and minor routes being
proposed. The information provided includes recommended routes, trail development
opportunities and constraints, and feasibility for each trail.
Summary of Proposed Trials
Name Type Ownership
Lake Washington Multi-use Private
Duvall-Coal Creek Multi-use Private
Sunset Multi-use Private
Sunset Bypass Multi-use Private
Cedar River Multi-use Private
Burnett Multi-use Private
Earlington Multi-use , Private
Springbrook Multi-use Private
Rainier Multi-use Private
S.W. 16th Multi-use Private
Petrovitsky Multi-use Private
Northridge Multi-use Private
Devil's Elbow Multi-use Private
Edmonds Multi-use Private
Aberdeen Multi-use Private
Union Multi-use Private
Puget Multi-use Private
Benson Multi-use Private
Talbot Multi-use Private
Cascade Trail Multi-use Private
Lake Youngs Waterline Multi-use Private
P-1 Channel Multi-use Private
Empire Multi-use Private
II -9
I
i
1
Name i Type Ownership
1
Lake Washington Blvd. Pedestrian Private
South Lake Connector Pedestrian Private
Park/Bronson Connector Pedestrian Private
Garden/6th/Bronson Conn. I Pedestrian Private
May Creek j Pedestrian Private
Honey Creek Pedestrian Private
Airport Perimeter Road Area Pedestrian Private
Union Pedestrian Private
Cedar Crest Pedestrian Private
Cedar River Pedestrian Private
Renton Civic Center Pedestrian Private
Lake Youngs Waterline Pedestrian Private
Cascade Pedestrian Private
Springbrook Valley Pedestrian Private
Interurban Pedestrian Private
Black River Pedestrian Private
Burnett Pedestrian Private
Puget Power/Sunset Pedestrian Private
Pacific Railroad Pedestrian Private
Lake Washington Vista Pedestrian Private
Devil's Elbow Pedestrian Private
Bonneville Pedestrian Private
Grant Creek Pedestrian Private
Panther Creek Wetlands Pedestrian Private
Springbrook Wetlands Pedestrian Private
P-1 Channel - Pedestrian Private
Empire I Pedestrian Private
r-
1
I
I
1
F
1
I
1
1
i
1
i
II - 10
I •
r
[Figure 2.4]
• [Proposed Trails Plan]
•
r i
II - 11
• r
MERCER ' • . I\ .
•
0 •
I
•
• ISLAND 0 / �,. .
` ...�'�.....I...
Y" ,•T•1(t�IIE w*slRNOJgNTIWL) I
•
•
+ 1 b• I. ,
i • µ A/ I;I rt � ••. :
mot. I { L • l I r i.
•
tf• i'I fy( 4�,•1i;•'!J'!':.'d• • .'.1' • - • ,. '" Y `:� ) x f r f f °,y.
tes
y.g Via, rx
\ -.....,-•WL,E EEKT/I14.. • ➢ `
`*'• 1 ,�, q•:•�... 5 � - x T17(OEVIL6 F1sOW TIWLd '` • i .
\ 'w v+Rz \•.ty1 ,z(Is :�``i•• ..5!:••• %4 a ,, * •M
d-' iS,r ' "'''Yro: :};::,> .; . x:.'i:' '4 t:it�'`:.;4 v.'i ,�'..i:<.:: :'.•.•<Ei:rKv:x,i`i,
•
•^'
• '!• gQ-1 � ,fsos 10N� fi 'fi '/%_.
I i-•{
•
.
•
^ ° • y. • \ i ° i% Ii 1 . • � i.?) .7,C11 k i 4 ' .1rl x ;i::i�(sax ?.(•.::. !,Y: ••J:':, ,}i.t, _-.__L__ .C, ' V • , ••
; :"'•':.i'' • •.'.• ip".?•1,1 •
t•• Y�_. 1 9)i . ? . y iy Y4(O FXT ALv • t�� ! _ ' a 4.iy.:. l.,.., ? iL.. '..4` t, T^ca r c Ax,w.la^ h ' r i ; !;rl 1, V' .(.'I:i, h .,;.. I .•'Y^i':ii':1 16N) ..x :e;s +t ¢VAcriccOAYTAIROADRAL .i!P 1 � R ' t. . {?j: ra: . t , `Yr ,w. !\
1p
•
s.e
+ . *\^,'^•''t;4, ',.;)Sr • ` i ' ,:'<: ,. ti °. i••,_ 'y; , i;r'X'. . '` ) e R' Ill , �III
, ::•il 1•y; :°:... 'F,r.i ♦ I , ,;+•'A, :Y'w.• i,
•
•
�'` he
,
°
•
rye %... a ..
: .��r
<' • •
-....,,V.:.:.:. .a ..Y..,,.... ,f•: ,.. :..: • t 'I .4: 16.9 t. ;Jn2
;5<. .r1., • 'AI,. ''^', :;1'� I. !�•� ,t .j�51UN�ON!1VENUF TIWt) I. ..,{C•:
' ...14 s;i I 1; ......._/, .,/O' {'1' ��,... i♦ A,i is Y 1 • ':J<!.. •�(•,'t i:. t ... • '
:•'.5 I OEr IX' .`I'.'';.','.1 $,:Y ;v''Yc:: ..lr.ac,:..... T.'.: k
z: :•
•
,
u
`. . a:._ [i"ilt,�r"4•;." :r II 41: •....!:„.....•,;.,.�I..S-. • N 0 • ,/ •: { . •a: - 1...1Y. .'1.: ..
.N.'ss'.
!!'"::'j�lix�,•.,r L.. L I�.i,P .r...:.:�.^5!' 1' .� r•'la I r' •''1� N Y { •;;, ,f �'fr:i•;:';�ijLi(c F;;:�:p,?i� .t'��d::� ^6��i',< ,r.:,':'�TS•" ..14N ,.
• 1 I 4. a,t x r.
•,T. : t
.'t L; ' '• ''Y't„•(I.••:! ! „I ''' T•7(CEDAR RIVEIITIWL9Y9TEM j(ii .:r"i�i:}1'_
• �...,r s. :j! '";d :A. a"' ,n: :f`b.1. 'k •:z";iif�E" $0-0• �:s' .rm::; ,tJ:i,.•, •
...)✓- tf'K (( 44 !•i F4,;.r.q:,...i �.'.'" • :.lr.r:.:.'
Y'l.., }: ''..t2A! 'T., R, :.1•.i .•£:.•i f. .78.08. !i. t{ 1...;-1. .. • .,,1! •
d'y' ,4
:1 .,! a ..., a •.„T. K . ,..,:..^.,.:is. .. r—' .I: , °
1:f! I CD z;$', 59 + 07•L 1 • is •:. 1 3 ({ fy,r, ,., / • "t:�'' %:y i; '$.I., :'
• ` 1% pia ( + •
..::«:;4tr ' ,. ': . t+'E. ,.., k ,.a: I!L. t ,:.:..�:.::;r'` :,(;....awl 1e!1.
• Q<S ,.r�' ^u t i '•li • • • 1 -., i. '',�� `1{f(.%tit'�a ;k'•Li.•;:R':pq.:' '1� ':'3.;. � ..
F.
.t.:P fix.4),. . .�T" '!•. {1 • 1 •.!�•A:y:4t'•,. '!1.J1 ,
;•::.
t' Ifn: y 1, <i' •
`{y •. •'E"",''` ..
i by-:' ,`•y,,.i•: '.'''j''� 7 'I • y« ♦ f ,..* YIPJt .,,'' IL• 1! .
.(, Zi I ,,,t.,: } ,i1 i• i .T•1�(Pua•Tro ,T(Wt.,• ...
:;N,E,,: :l.' ..: t.••��,,�,!. , }}f y T•:'ij Fi' it',:t::. y :i �,u.,'r:::
•
r.:C:`diT+n<I)' i�)','.'n• .Ti. "il•i ::I•
4 •a. ,A?. •,1: .'1.1' '
y 'I•. ,AIRPORT' yTERTR4.,. i
;
•
^� . i
ss '
- 4,!1<. i r....,,:] •Qr.-• ,•... �Ii.....7,T, . , :• }S. )`iJ :E, (r' tot j YIN
'i 'I ! ,•EEj Nt,.,,j fil • • y?"-'rt` :?'xh4�. iL' t 1�1l it;' . x•I
..i .. .Lr...:.a o
:,I:. : . ••:•1•:y ..5�..;.. , ,xi '"'� �.' j7! � z"=•��i:rirfi!'src:
( 1•
•
ii�'! •'%% • •L.� .I�'etlft�• '. ;:i 1lx� '� �Y ,:r •° :rc r. ..Y.
a,;
,
r.
•
•
♦' ., e'l::,C .:r:` ':u•: -,ia - II
((: r 'i`: -' iT , •. ....... • /� :!'r.'
•
�'�r;'k'x .. ;®:e*. */?•5� .w 1•,ti liil.•:iir, f Ji f }. Yt \ 3rtir +• `+ (' '
y. - 7 PUIE 1 iiDir J.-i •• 9
C}
... ( .. ,• :,�i, 1, •.A.`'*J jll:;.. i',' q,!,i{Y < t ' r,.'
• • r i ,� .: r•:!(3:>g 1%••, :�. I: CJ �,<a(a_.d '�. - �_AtF v •i�:i-• •.•
,�SFH7 .k��K ! � .
• ,3•'...r_, •ID . '� • r`T•:S}I•"j`� ter,;.,IS',•�:af! 30L h 'fj ,+a 1 • V+ ..•v �.''ry;"'t•!:,r;,`. g '3, a' . . '{
.} • ^IIE't � %'d •• 11,1410 BURN 41 N� �NY',
N •may i ., ,<.N',:.!ifi,'� ! tu... i":J ' .
,4 .,1:•4. ' ;; •• -1z(9LAOKRIv�TWuly� :...: II: �_ / -' •'•.( •ray.. >+,Y"v�'p'r �,'#t!1..y •
T c�'Ci a� �. ?i
oG �!! ; ;!; r: fI� 14)^ �csa`t� Via!;:C:9 •
' :lb,.� N C 1 R L . . I I f•'Yli(i 1:t.1 ,'I:'f:'�::•: • t r14 ` I'ti•,• `yp C 3'�
it::�ix, ,.�f•'-<.I1. L(1,i 1r O,N T.En'uN9�,V�!.T.W!!.y••„k7dr.
/
;`,• ,,;4
•,,,,v•
. t
-(',,7J . :.'
s
,',1•4. • • ;..k....C›,$••••... ,,,..:-. V.,"
•
•
rYER I ,\ • — 'i °:. J �+ ...l am • L ! <%i:. •. a
•
11A
•
•
�T�; .1: . • .. x•I • i ':'" �''* B:Afv:: 'i'' °Y',f, • r' i AI ,xF„i, N:M - .Y N, .- ...•.:.:::.,'.,'..,. ♦v',. .. , •, t I.` •i � t :. �t.:�.\!`;.=`1 ;,'�ft • ' : , r' {(• f cti <••:• ® ; °�' ,: >, •Y. ' k.�F r�:a,r- '/ ,, i 's � :;.Jy,t,' I} .
': \. I T E .u;i7' ( 7: ' •'3,* , <i r.H •r,
•
< ';i it • 77 `T•19IapAx Nu• i i: 111.'
•
1.
'I.: i - "'I:. ;.,; , J " sagvry,i , y Ii r ;
• :•i • • t:' ( RULdi":iF11 l rJ <I \. . •:�. I'.i B lk. ......
. ra • , O•Y �.� ri ?al--_) --11 •6. �j .11 .. s •r
• i w,I a +0-08 C'_r.. 1„ ;yhsi.r k -B LAKE YOUN09WATERLNETRAL1S « . L
... 3E t':..
' ..a
Y • .I; .. t. ��•201P411THFR 4REE1(TiWL .i.'.�• tix�. !f"9' 'i'. •';i:''i i:.:;:L•.r�ly;H:.':YxI i,'•r,•4�4:..•�L'k
I
r'
I t 7 • • •}!:"( • fit..:,•,.:...:. ::;�:..,..: ,
•
••(( �� �I " T•10(SPPINOSR00KTMlld ` I:-:r: \1•;n+.:•; Yy,�p+' ..
', t•T-zz(RICNANNE17:44 , I ) 'G • ,r,'.: .'•>�j.':+ `e•),I::�:s
l •I. •
n,
•
•
i
xserfe
«I• • _.,.....___,•5B s' Syr•* � . �. �� i;
.
•
,
•
•
...1� • �� •WL• •.......'• ...( oL 11
•
LEGEND
' !; * ,• j9PR" I( INOBROOK WETLAN09 THANit r,
'i,-':,.r',' ! P.AFIKS.AAEAS9NQEACILLIIES
•
,r.•^ EXISTING PROPOSED
tT,, ,t I
A.' ;`,,.... '• .1':'7 N NEIGHBORHOOD PARK•----
•
i .. E•I
C COMMUNITY PARK —
,' R REGIONAL PARK
� c`^.3'd x i 1 i:' • S SPECIALIZED ----rld""Th.....r.'"..L.,...i icitsk • -� ^
Eu ,,.4. I ; L LINEAR PARK (.!•t.rre- 'Ala
A' SOW la,w' 74 W WOO' aoW' r ,E,.F. • ' ' I ! OS OPEN SPACE
SCALE IM PIET .'�'.• _ \:.:^'' '
I '•• 69.OP .. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE4.,,,,
I
>>"H, `�",'� I GENERAL
JI;I II{(i(;(Mf�•1„�K:\h!dN ar\'I'li`; a ''`1"^'< - T TRAILS
[IA .s ^�, PAVED •• • •. • ••
I r:NJs s. f•• UNPAVED • •• • • • • • • •
} r'.' '`: • UNDEVELOPED SITES
I `• ,;,r„ r: .: 1,: i 59•N m�PARK SERVICE AREAS
3i J
•
( cITYOF RENTON x p
PARK, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN
•
r
•
•
•
SECTION THREE
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
f
•
3. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
In accordance with SEPA regulation WAC 197-11-400 (2) and 197-11-402 (1), the EIS is
required to evaluate reasonable alternatives, including the proposed action and the no action
alternatives. The following alternatives were derived by varying the number of facilities and
level of development, yet at the same time maintaining the goals and objectives established
by the Department of Parks and Recreation. The proposed plans discussed in the previous
section constitute Alternative A,f the preferred alternative. In addition, three other
alternatives are discussed in this EIS. Alternative B assumes minimum development of
identified sites and shifts the planning emphasis away from development and towards
preservation of selected sites for public open space. Alternative C maintains the proposed
development concepts, but for a reduced number of sites and facilities. Alternative D,
action, is simply not to adopt the Plan and proceed according to the 1984 Comprehensive
Park and Recreation Plan. Each is ihore fully described in Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 below.
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 provid
e e a co parson of the proposed plans with the three other
alternatives.
A fifth alternative that might have been considered is a more ambitious plan for increased
. development of a greater number of sites. However, this was dismissed as impractical due to
funding constraints and the limited scope of the planning project. If expanded sites or
— facilities become desirable in the future, a subsequent planning project could be undertaken.
Below is a comparison of the various sites under each the alternatives. Alternative A is the
-- preferred alternative. A plus (+) represents the acquisition, development or enhancement of
a particular site. A circle (o) under each alternative represents no change. A minus (-)
. represents the elimination of the site from the overall inventory. It is important to note the
1984 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan does not specifically identify sites. However,
for comparative purposes, sites have been selected that satisfy the general needs identified in
the 1984. As a practical point, location and site specifics are likely to change based on
availability of land and community needs at the time of acquisition.
- Table 3.1
Comparison of Alternatives of the Park
and Recreation Plan Actions
•
City of Federal Way
Alternatives Impacts of
•
# Site A B C D Alternatives
1 Hazelwood Park (County) * o o o 0
2 Kennydale Beach Park* + 0 0 0
3 North Kennydale Park Site + + - + 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 4.2.2,
4 Hazelwood Open Space Site + + - 4.2.6, 4.2.11
5 Lake Wash.Vista Park Site • + + - + 4.1.1
6 Kennydale Lion Park* + o o o
7 May Creek Open Space Site + + - -
8 Honey Creek Open Space Site + + +
9 Coal Creek Park Site + + - -
10 Sierra Heights Park(County) o o o +
III - 1
i
Alternatives Impacts of 1j
# Site A B C D Alternatives
11 Glencoe Park* o o o o
12 W.Kennydale Open Space Site + + - -
13 Gene Coulon Beach Park* + o o 0
14 North Highlands Park* + o o 0
15 Sunset Court Park* o 0 o 0
16 Duvall/Glencoe Park Site + + + -
17 Sierra Heights Wetlands Site + + - -
18 . Honeydew East Park Site + + + - 4.1.2, 4.1.4,4.2.2,
4.2.6, 4.2.11
19 Kiwanis Park* + 0 0 0
20 Highland Park* + o o o
21 Windsor Hills Park* + o o 0
22 Puget Power Park Site + + - - 4.2.1
23 Heather Downs Park* + o + +
24 Maplewood Heights Park (Co.) 0 0 0 0
25 Maplewood Park* + o 0 0
26 Cedar River Regional Park + + -
26-A Cedar River Park* + o o 0 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.2.9,
4.2.11
26-B Cultural/Recreation Complex + + - - 4.1.2,4.2.2, 4.2.9,
4.2.10, 4.2.11
26-C North Slope Open Space Site + + - -
26-D Nature Center Site + + - - 4.1.3, 4.2.3
26-E South Slope Open Space Site + + - + 4.2.1
26-F Maplewood Roadside Park* + o 0 0
26-G Royal Hills Park Site + + - - 4.1.1, 4.1.4, 4.2.1,
4.2.2, 4.2.6, 4.2.11
26-H Maplewood Golf Course* + o 0 0
26-I Cedar River Sports Complex* + o + + 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4,
4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3,
4.3.6, 4.2.9, 4.2.10,
4.2.11
27 Satori School + + - -
28 Liberty Park * + 0 0 0
29 Tonkins Park* + 0 0 0
30 Burnett Park * + 0 0 0
31 Jones Park* + 0 0 0
32 Senior Center* + 0 0 0
33 Cedar River Trail* + + + +
34 Bryn Mawr Open Space (Co.) * + + - -
35 Skyway Park (County) * o o o o
36 West Hill Open Space Site + + - -
III -2
r
Alternatives Impacts of
# Site A B C D Alternatives
37 West Hills Park Site + + - + 4.1.1
38 Rainier Open Space Site + + - -
39 Earlington Park* + o o o
40 Empire Ridge Open Space Site + + - -
41 Black River Open Space Site + + + +
42 Springbrook Creek Park Site + + - -
43 Cascade Waterline Park Site + + - -
44 Industrial Recreation Site + + + + 4.1.3
45 Philip Arnold Park* + 0 0 0
46 Talbot Hill Reservoir Park + o 0 0
47 Thomas Teesdale Park* + 0 0 0
48 Spring Glen Open Space Site + + - -
49 Rolling Hills Park Site + + + +
50 Lake Youngs Park Site + + - -
51 Tiffany Park* + 0 0 0
52 Cascade Park (County) * 0 0 0 +
53 Renton Park (County) * 0 0 0 0
54 Benson Hill Park Site + + - - 4.1.2,4.2.2,4.2.6,
4.2.11
55 Panther Creek Open Space Site + + - -
56 Farmstead Site + + + -
57 Panther Creek Park Site + + + +
58 Springbrook Open Space Site + + + -
59 Springbrook Park* + o o o
* Existing Parks or Trails
+ Acquisition, Development or Upgrade of Site
o No Change
- Elimination from Inventory
— I
a I
III -3
Table 3.1
Comparison of Alternatives for Trails
City of Renton
Alternatives Impacts of
# Site A B C D Alternatives
Bicycle Routes:
Lake Washington + o o + 4.1.1,4.2.3
Duvall-Coal Creek + + + +
Sunset + - - -
Sunset Bypass + - + -
Cedar River + + + + 4.2.3
Burnett + - - +
Earlington + - - -
Springbrook + + + - 4.1.1
Interurban (Tukwila)
Rainier + + + +
Christianson (Tukwila)
S.W. 16th + - + -
Soos Creek (King County)
Petrovitsky + - - -
Northridge + - - -
Devil's Elbow + + + - 4.1.1
Edmonds + - - -
Aberdeen + - - -
Union + - - -
Puget + - - -
Benson + - - -
Talbot + - - -
Cascade Trail + - + - 4.1.1
Lake Youngs Waterline + - + -
P-1 Channel + - - - 4.1.1
Fairwood (King County)
Empire + - - - 4.1.1
Pedestrian Routes
Lake Washington Blvd. + + + + 4.1.1, 4.2.3
South Lake Connector + + + -
Park/Bronson Connector + - - -
Garden/6th/Bronson Conn. + - - -
May Creek + - - + 4.1.1,4.2.3
Honey Creek + + + + 4.1.1,4.2.3
Airport Perimeter Road Area + + + - 4.1.1
Union + - - -
Cedar Crest + + + - 4.1.1
Cedar River + + + + 4.2.3
III -4
,
Alternatives , Impacts of
• # Site A .. B C D Alternatives
Renton Civic Center _ (Misc.)
} \ Lake Youngs Waterline +. + + - 4.1.1
Cascade + + + - 4.1.1
Springbrook Valley + + + +
Interurban (Tukwila)
Black River . + + + - .4.1.1, 4.1.4
Burnett + - - -
Puget Power/Sunset + + - + 4.1.1,4.2.1
Pacific Railroad + - + -
Lake Washington Vista + + + - 4.1.1
Devil's Elbow + + + - 4.1.1
Bonneville + + - - 4.1.1, 4.2.1
Grant Creek + + - - 4.1.1
Panther Creek Wetlands + - - - 4.1.1
Springbrook Wetlands + + + - 4.1.1
P-1 Channel + - - - 4.1.1
Empire + - -
4.1.1
3.1 Alternative B: Minimum Development of Identified Sites
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan
Alternative B is a modified version of the new Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan that
would alter the philosophy towards Park acquisitor and development. The plan would adopt
the same inventory of sites as the pieferred alternative, however the emphasis would be on
acquisition, rather than development. The sites identified for development would be
developed at a reduced or minimum level. This would result in none of the parks being
developed for-active recreational uses. The focus of this alternative would be on providing
open space areas and programs that would support this type of development.
Development of parks would genes ly be for less intensive recreational use and contain
more natural and undisturbed areas. No facilities, such as ballfields, tennis courts, restrooms,
etc, would be developed. Instead, the neighborhood and community parks would only be
developed with picnic areas, trails, aid in some instances small open lawn areas. Open space
would receive minimal or no improvements. Preservation of wildlife habitat areas, the
protection of steep hillsides and conservation of wetland areas would have high priorities.
More attention would be given to sites that are environmentally sensitive. This would include
the preservation of wildlife habitat areas, the protection of steep hillsides and conservation of
wetland areas. -
III -5
This alternative would have the least impact on the environment. Since a majority of the sites
would receive little or no improvements, the affects on the natural environment would be
primarily beneficial. However, this alternative would have severe impacts on recreation
opportunities, and would likely have indirect impacts on public safety, parking and
maintenance. Specifically, this alternative would have a serious impact on recreation, traffic,
and maintenance. Under this alternative, a majority of the sites would be left undeveloped
and preserved for open space. As a result, there would be increased pressure on existing park
sites.
Funding requirements for this alternative would be less than the preferred alternative, due to
the absence of any significant development. Much of this land is already designated as open
space and sensitive in the Comprehensive Plan and could possibly be obtained through the
subdivision process or through dedication or acquisition.
Recommended Park Site Acquisitions
Under Alternative B
North Kennydale Park Site West Hills Park Site
Hazelwood Open Space Site Rainier Open Space Site
Lake Washington Vista Park Site Empire Ridge Open Space Site
May Creek Open Space Site Black River Open Space Site
Honey Creek Open Space Site Springbrook Creek Park Site
Coal Creek Park Site Cascade Waterline Park Site
W. Kennydale Open Space Site Industrial Recreation Site
Duvall/Glencoe Park Site Spring Glen Open Space Site
Sierra Heights Wetlands Site Rolling Hills Park Site
Honeydew East Park Site Lake Youngs Park Site !
Puget Power Park Site Benson Hill Park Site
Cultural/Recreation Site Panther Creek Open Space Site
North Slope Open Space Site Farmstead Site
Interpretive Facility Site Panther Creek Park Site
South Slope Open Space Site Springbrook Open Space Site
Royal Hills Park Site Satori School
Trails Master Plan
Alternative B essentially converts the multi-use trails to pedestrian use only (unpaved). Bike
Lanes would not be provided and instead they would share the driving lanes with motor
vehicles along a signed bike route. In some instances, minimum development of trails would
also involve the use of more primitive design standards. This would result in most routes
being built or maintained for foot traffic only. Fewer facilities, such as trailheads parking,
restrooms, signage, viewing platforms, stairs, bridges, etc., would be developed. Access for
bicyclists would be restricted due to the reduction in hard surfacing (packed gravel or paving).
Off street bikeways would also be unpaved or relocated on-street.
III - 6
3.2 Alternative C: Reduced Number of Sites and Facilities
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan
Alternative C is the adoption of the new Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan,
but limiting park land acquisition and development to those sites that have been identified
with the highest need. Under this alternative, all types of recreation facilities would be
reduced in terms of both acreage and number of sites.
This alternative would result in few r environmental impacts than the preferred alternative
due to fewer number of sites. Impacts for selected sites would be identical. Likewise, funding
needed would also be reduced. Belo'v is a list of sites identified as having the highest priority.
It should also be noted that the City needs to work closely with King County in order to
ensure that residents within the unincorporated are adequately served.
Recommended Park Site Acquisitions
Under Alternative C
Honey Creek Open Space Site Industrial Recreation Site
Duvall/Glencoe Park Site Rolling Hills Park Site
Honeydew East Park Site Panther Creek Open Space Site
Cedar River Sports Complex Panther Creek Park Site
Cedar River Trail Springbrook Open Space Site
3.3 Alternative D: No Action
Alternative D is the no action alternative, which would preclude adoption of either plan.
L_ Existing facilities would _be maintained and new sites considered on a case by case basis
without the benefit of coordinated planning. The existing parks plan would likely remain in
effect while the city would be without a Master Trails Plan. With no new plan, policy
decisions on new park sites, programs and services would be made according based on
citizens needs. The 1984 Comprehensive Plan does not specifically identify sites but does
identify needs based on neighborhood areas.
Under this alternative, environmental impacts would be extremely difficult to assess, because
there is no way of identifying specific sites or impacts due to the loss of potential park sites.
�-= Funding requirements under this alternative would be difficult to determine because each,site
will considered on a case by case basis. Without adopting a new or revised plan, the city
would not be eligible for state funding for park projects.
Below is a partial list of sites that satisfy the 1984 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan
recommendations. Since the plan does not identify specific open space or wetland areas, or
identify site outside the city limits, it is assumed that acquisition of these sites will proceed
according to the Comprehensive Plan.
q ,
III -7
Recommended Park Site Acquisitions
Under Alternative D
North Kennydale Park Site Sierra Heights
Lake Washington Vista Park Site Heather Downs Park
Cedar River Trail South Slope Maple Valley
West Hills Park Site Cedar River Sports Complex
Black River Open Space Industrial Recreation Site
Rolling Hills Park Site Cascade Park
Panther Creek Park Site
III - 8
r � r
1
SECTION FOUR
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS
4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
This section presents information on existing environmental conditions necessary for the
understanding of potential impacts that could occur with the adoption of the new
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan and Trails Master Plan or with any of their
alternatives. Under each element of the environment, the park plan and the trails plan are
discussed generally with regard to existing conditions, impacts and mitigation. Also, specific
proposals that may have potential significant adverse impact are discussed under appropriate
element headings (see also Tables 3.1 and 3-2). Each element contains a chart illustrating
the level of severity of each alternative's impacts on the environment (see example below).
The severity of the impact is either assessed as high, moderate, low or none. Each of the
alternatives lists the number of sites and trails that are severely impacted under that element.
•
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
IMPACT LEVEL • I 0 0
NO. SITES IMPACTED 4 2 0 0
NO. TRAILS IMPACT ED 6 3 1 0
0 NONE 0 LOW I MODERATE • HIGH
It may be presumed that a site or facility that is not mentioned specifically was not considered
to have likely significant adverse impact for that element. Because this is a programmatic
EIS, it is understood that most of the impacts will be a result of the implementation of the
plan. Therefore, possible impacts may be indirect rather than direct and may be cumulative.
- Issues addressed in this DEIS include likely or potential impacts associated with soils and
topography, air quality, surface water, plants and animals, scenic and aesthetic quality,
environmental health, noise, land and shoreline use, light and glare, recreation, historic
preservation, traffic and parking, maintenance, and waste disposal. These categories are
derived from the elements of the natural and built environments outlined in WAC 197-10-444
(Table 4-1). They were identified by City staff and the public through the scoping process.
Sometimes information in this docl ument pertains to several related elements. For
expediency, many are presented under combined headings. In each instance, appropriate
mitigation measures are suggested to prevent or minimize adverse affects that might result
from the proposal. Unavoidable adverse impacts are identified where mitigation measures
cannot be practically implemented.
I
IV- 1
ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Public Services and Utilities
* Parks and Other Recreation Facilities
Earth ! Maintenance
* Soils
• Topography SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS I i
' Unique Physical Features
* Erosion/Enlargement of Land Areas * Economic Impacts on Funding
Implications
Air
• Air Quality
' Climate
Water
• Surface Water Movement
* Runoff/Absorption
* Floods
* Public Water Supply
Plants and Animals
' Habitat,Numbers and Diversity of Species
* Unique Species *Elements identified by the City of Renton in the
* Fish and Wildlife Species scoping process that require impact assessment
Energy and Natural Resources
• Scenic Resources .
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Environmental Health
* Noise
• Releases Toxic or Hazardous Materials
Land and Shoreline Use
• Existing land use plans and Population
• Housing
' Light and Glare
' Aesthetics
* Historic and Cultural Preservation
* Commercial and Industrial Development
Transportation
* Transportation Systems
* Vehicular Traffic
' Parking
' Movement/Circulation i N
' Traffic Hazards
• IV-2
4.1 ELEMENTS OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
4.1.1 Soils, Geology and Topography
Existing Conditions:
Topography:
A concise description of the Cityrs geologic history is contained in a City document
entitled "Community Profile" (October, 1989):
'The geologic characteristics of Renton's natural landscape were fundamentally shaped
by the forces of glaciation during the last million years. As the glaciers advanced and
retreated, they deposited compressed, and leveled the soils that formed the plateau
areas to the east and west of the city, gouged out Lake Washington and the wide fiat
floodplain of the Green River Valley, and determined the original routes of the Cedar
and Green Rivers.
Renton lies in a broad lowland where the terrain is dominated by a broad glacially
formed plain that stands several hundred feet above the floors of valleys cut into it."
The King County Soil Survey (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1973) describes four general
soil types that naturally occur in the City of Renton (Figure 4-1). The largest is the
Alderwood Association, moderately well drained soils found on rolling or hilly
topography. The Oridia-Seattle-Woodinville Association tends to be poorly drained
and is found in the Green and lower Cedar River valleys. The Beausite-Alderwood
Association is found on rolling terrain and is a well drained soil. The Everett
Association, is found on terraces,which are gravelly soils that are excessively drained.
Soil limitations relevant to park and trail development are also provided in the soils
survey. These are summarized in Table 4-1 (the full text of the recreation portion of
the soil survey is contained in Appendix A). Severe to moderate constraints exist
because of slopes, gravelly or organic soil conditions, poor drainage or flood hazards.
These conditions do not preclude development, but point to some of the concerns that
would need to be addressed in the design and construction of facilities.
Table 41
Soil Limitations for Recreational Development
Soil Association: Limitations:
Alderwood Playgrounds, picnic areas and trails:severe limitations
due to gravelly conditions and slopes;
Oridia-Seattle-Woodinville Playgrounds, picnic areas:severe limitations due to poor
drainage, flood hazards and, in the Seattle series, organic
soils;Trails: moderate limitations due to poor drainage
a1nd organic soils
Beausite-Alderwood Playgrounds, picnic areas,trails:moderate to severe
limitations due to slopes and gravelly soils;
IV-3
Everett association Playgrounds, picnic areas,trails: moderate to severe
limitations due to slopes and gravelly soils.
The terrain in the City of Renton is complex, determined in large part by the effects of
glaciation, stream erosion, and deposition of sediments over a very long period of time.
Steep slopes exceeding 40% are common along major stream corridors and glacial
terraces. An equivalent area of steep slopes in the 25-40% range exist adjacent to the
steeper areas. A good share of the city slopes at 5% or less.
In areas like Renton where unconsolidated glacial deposits underlay much of the
landscape, slope stability often correlates closely with steepness. Landslide hazard
areas more or less coincide with slopes greater than 15 percent where permeable soils
are underlain by impermeable soils. Where clay layers are exposed, the risk is much
greater. Disturbances to soils or vegetation can exacerbate this hazard. These
conditions are of particular concern along the Maple Valley hillsides. (Steep slopes and
landslide hazard areas are illustrated in the Community Profile published by the City's
Planning Department.)
Topography and soil conditions play an extremely important role in the selection and
development of parks and trails. For the most part, parks and other active use areas
require relatively flat terrain in order to accommodate facilities, such as ballfields,
soccer fields, tennis courts, etc.. Otherwise, these types of facilities require extensive
grading which would ultimately increase the cost in developing the project. Sites that
contain steep slopes and other environmentally sensitive areas are ideal for open space
because of the difficulty in development. By preserving these areas and maintaining
their vegetative cover, they help reduce slope instability and erosion.
In accordance with the city's greenbelt ordinance, development cannot occur on slopes
greater than 40%. This provision protects land that is unstable or has the potential for
landslides. However, there are still many areas, particularly between 25-40% slopes
that are subject to periodic instability and erosion.
As the City developed, innumerable changes to natural topography and surface soils
have occurred as a result of cuts, fills, clearing, and grading for development, mining
activity and other forces. Undeveloped lands tend to be those areas that are left over
from earlier development patterns. Because of physical constraints, they often are less
desirable for conventional development and may be better suited for park, recreation
and open space use. The park and trail plans recognize this and seek to optimize the
public use and enjoyment of some of these areas as parks, open space and trail
corridors.
Impacts:
Soil and slope disturbances will result from park and trail development on most sites.
However, these are expected to be insignificant for the majority of proposed parks and
trails. Steep slopes can be destabilized during construction by cuts or fills, drainage
modifications, disturbance to vegetation, and other factors. Changes in topography
could occur, although except for ballfields, grading will be relatively minor. Increased
runoff over new impervious surfacing can lead to soil erosion and stream sedimentation
if not designed and managed properly.
IV-4
— ez
Landslide hazards and slope instability are serious concerns, particularly in areas of
exposed clay soils. Without proper design and construction sensitivity to specific soil
and slope conditions, subsidence, sl{oughing or sliding could occur. This would present a
significant danger to adjacent lands and development, both above and below potential
shde areas. Presently, the City's greenbelt ordinance protects lands that have slopes
greater than 40% from development. However, there still remains significant amount
of land that is susceptible to landslides. Alternative A recommends the acquisition of
several of these sites for open space. Land along the bluffs of Maple Valley, West Hills,
Green River Valley and West Kennydale are specific examples. By preserving these
lands, it results in a beneficial impact on the environment. Impacts from trails would be
minimal. This is because trails in general tend to avoid excessively steep areas and
areas that have the potential for landslides.
Alternative B would result in fewer impacts due to a reduction in the level of
development. In fact, out of thirty-four new park sites, only nine sites would receive any
improvements. The focus of this alternative is on the acquisition of potential parks,
open space and trails. Trails would have a slight impact as a result of the reduced
development standard. Without proper design and surfacing, unimproved trails would
increase the likelihood of sliding or destablization. However, overall this alternative
would result in the greatest beneficial impacts. Under alternative C, the impacts on
unstable slopes and landslide could potentially be greater than alternatives A or B, due
to a reduction in the number of sites that would be obtained for open space. Several of
the sites that would be preserved for open space or trail development under alternatives
i; A and B would be eliminated from the inventory. This could potentially result in the
loss of ten open space opportunities to other land uses. Alternative D has similar
impacts to Alternative C, in that several opportunities may be lost to other land uses.The 1984 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan does not specifically identify sites
that should be acquired, so it is assumed that any protection of land under this
alternative would occur under the C ty's greenbelt ordinance.
L_ Topographic changes will occur primarily as a result of grading and slope modification.
Ballfields and soccer fields require roughly 1-2 acres of level area. Unless the potential
site is relatively level, it would require a fair amount of grading in order to
accommodate facilities of this nature. Likewise, areas that would be used for more
unstructured use would require some level areas but at a much smaller scale. Under
Alternative A, three site will require extensive grading due to the steep topography.
One of these sites will contain four soccer fields. The remainder of the proposed
athletic fields, which includes both soccer and ball fields, will require minimal if any
grading due to the exiting topography. All totaled, there will be 14 soccer fields and 13
ballfields developed under this alternative.
Alternative B would result in minimal topographic changes. This alternative focuses on
the acquisition of sites for purposes of open space. Minor changes in topography will
4•• occur as a result of developing picnic areas, informal parking areas and trails.
Alternative C would result in sinular-impacts as alternative A, but on a reduced scale.
Under this alternative, four soccer fields and four ballfields would be developed. This
affects five sites, none of which will{ require any excessive grading. Under Alternative
D, it is difficult to determine the full extent of the development. The 1984 Park and
Recreation Plan does not identify specific park and trail development standards. Based
on existing park and trail development, it is assumed that some regrading would occur
to accommodate ballfield development.
IV- 5
Construction of structures and parking facilities will result in the overcovering of soils.
This would result in the increase of surface water runoff and erosion, if not managed
correctly. Under the preferred alternative, nearly all sites, with the possible exception
of open space areas, will require some overcovering of soils, such as parking areas or
structures. Parking requirements alone are estimated at roughly 1130 spaces, which
translates into about 10.5 acres of paving, if all of the sites under alternative A are fully
developed.
Alternative B would have fewer impacts on runoff and erosion, due to the reduced
development level. Under this alternative, no formal parking or indoor facilities would
be developed, thus eliminating these impervious surfaces. Under alternative C, only
1.5 acres of parking would be developed. However these sites would be more intensely
developed with other types of facilities, such restrooms and paved walkways. Under -.
Alternative D, it is difficult to determine the full extent of the development. The 1984
Park and Recreation Plan does not -identify specific park and trail development
standards. Based on existing park and trail development, it is assumed that a fair
amount of parking and other surfacing will occur.
Soil limitations involve specific site conditions that need to be examined on a site by site
basis. Potential problems that might occur include gravelly or organic soil conditions,
poor drainage or flood hazards. These conditions do not preclude development, but
point to some of the concerns that would need to be addressed in the design and
construction of facilities. However, if another use such as residential or commercial
were to be developed, those impacts would be greater than any of the Alternatives.
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A
IMPACT LEVEL • Q 0
NO. SITES IMPACTED 3 0 0 2
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 19 14 11 1
O NONE O LOW MODERATE • HIGH
Specific areas of concern include the following:
Several park areas, especially the open space areas contain land with problem soils or
moderate to very steep slopes (25% or greater). The acquisition of these areas result in
beneficial impacts on the environment. Active use areas,such as ballfields, tend to
avoid steep sites due to the problems associated with grading and drainage. However,
based on site availability and specific site conditions, it may be necessary to do more
grading.
There are fewer problems with soils and slope stability along the proposed bicycle
routes. These routes often follow existing streets and generally avoid steep areas. In
some cases, where bike lanes along existing roads are proposed, adjacent banks may
need to be cut or filled for road widening purposes. Examples are the proposed Lake
Washington, Devil's Elbow, and Empire Way Trails. This also applies to mountain
bikes where a particular route is planned as a multi-use trail. Bicycles can also impact
IV- 6
soils and induce erosion on trails that are not designed for their use.
All trail corridors include a number of areas where problem soils or moderate to very
steep slopes (25% or greater) are likely to be encountered. Bicycle routes tend to avoid
steep areas.
Parks:
Lake Washington Vista Park Site ; Most neighborhood parks require only a minimal
amount of grading. However, the West Kennydale Neighborhood site is extremely hilly.
This will require more extensive grading in development of active use areas.
Cedar River Regional Park - This pi oposed regional park contains several different park
types ranging from active recreation uses such as the Royal Hills Park Site to passive
undeveloped open space. Ballfields and active use areas will require more grading and
as a result have more impact on soil conditions and topography.
West Hills Park Site - Most neighborhood parks only require a minimal amount of
grading. However, the West Hills Neighborhood site is extremely hilly. This will
require more extensive grading in development of active use areas.
Trails:
Lake Washington Trail- This trail '11 negotiate several steep and narrow sections.along
Lake Washington Boulevard.
May Creek and Honey Creek Trai - These trails will encounter steep.slopes that rise
directly above the stream beds in lsome areas. Where the slope is set back from the
stream,wet organic soils may be encountered.
Airport Road Area -A small bluff exists adjacent to Kiwanis Bicentennial Air Park.
Cedar Crest Trail - Access to the top of a bluff will require trail con=:ruction across
several very steep slopes. This maS+ require the construction of bridges or some other
means of negotiating the ravines.
Cedar River Trail- The lower route is essentially flat. Foot trails leading into the forest
south of the river will encounter numerous short steep slopes. A path around the
perched marsh will likely encounter organic soils. Some existing user trails are very
steep and eroded and will need to ble re-routed.
Lake Youngs Waterline Trail-.There' is one very steep section below 116th Place.
Cascade Trail - Trail segments at Victoria Hills and between Panther Creek wetlands
and Talbot Hill will traverse very step slopes and may require stairs to negotiate.
Black River Trail - Several wetland areas exist along this route although they can
generally be avoided by proper trail location and construction.
Puget Power Sunset Trail-A few steep sections will be encountered.
Pacific Coast Railroad Trail - much of the old grade is in good condition, however
IV- 7
several steep slopes must be crossed,possibly requiring stairs.
Lake Washington Vista Trail - This route ascends steep slopes above Lake Washington
Boulevard.
Devil's Elbow Trail - Maintenance problems will occur with the steep, unstable slopes
along the old paved road (now closed).
Bonneville Trail-This route crosses a very steep ravine,possibly requiring stairs.
Grant Creek Trail- Where the creek enters a culvert under I-405, the route encounters a
box canyon with very steep slopes on three sides; stairs may be required.
Panther Creek Trail - This trail parallels very extensive wetlands where soils and
vegetation present serious design and construction difficulties.
Springbrook Wetlands Trail- This trail will pass through several wetland areas along the
route to the Panther Creek Trail.
P-I Channel Trail - the route follows a proposed drainage channel in an area of
wetlands and organic soils.
Empire Ridge Trail - High steep slopes will need to be traversed by this route, raising
concerns with erosion and maintenance problems.
Mitigating Measures:
The park and recreation plan provides a variety of site selection and development
standards to guide park acquisition and development. However, more analysis will be
needed to be done at the site master planning phase of park development. At that
time, more specific mitigating measures can be addressed on a site by site basis. Some
potential mitigating measures for reducing slope destabilization and topographic
changes include retention of natural vegetation, revegetation of disturbed areas,
minimizing cuts and fills, avoidance of steep areas and. avoidance of environmentally
sensitive areas. Specific measures may include the use of retaining walls for some
slopes, cuts or fills, where it is impossible to match grades. Along streams, riprap or
other techniques may be necessary to stabilize stream banks against erosion.
Cuts and fills along roads planned for bike lanes should be coordinated with road
widening and other improvement projects. Planning and implementation of city street
and utility infrastructure should address bicycle and pedestrian facilities early in the
process, particularly where steep slopes exist above or below a proposed grade. Higher
development standards (improved surfacing, drainage, increased tread width and
turning radius, etc.) are required for mountain bikes due to their potential impacts on
soils and erosion.
Mitigating measures for trails include revegetation of disturbed areas, minimizing cuts
and fills, avoidance of steep areas, locating trails away from tree roots and wet areas,
proper maintenance, and other more technical standards that govern grades and
surfacing. Where feasible, design of the trail tread should incorporate 2% cross slopes,
compacted or structural subgrades, appropriate wearing surface, and include drainage
- swales and culverts adjacent to the trail as needed. Timber retaining walls should be
considered. High risk landslide hazard areas should be avoided.
IV-8
If possible, trails should follow, natural grades and contours. Transition grading
between adjacent side slopes and trail tread should be provided. Finish grades should
generally correspond to natural grades that existed prior to construction and disturbed
vegetation should be replaced witi plant species native to the area.
These standards along with sensible construction practices should adequately mitigate
unnecessary slope disturbances and erosion. From an aesthetic point, proposed grades
should be designed to match natural topography that existed prior to construction.
Disturbed areas not intended for recreation use should be revegetated and replaced
with native plant species. This will help minimize erosion and excess runoff. These
measures would be applicable under Alternative A and proportionately reduced under
C and D. Alternative B would require more mitigating measures for slope instability or
increased erosion, due to the reduction in development levels.
It is important to note that the preferred alternative and Alternatives B actually results
in a beneficial impacts. The net+ Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan
recommends the acquisition of sieveral areas for open space that are susceptible to
erosion and landslides and that are environmentally sensitive.
Mitigating measures for reducing runoff caused by the covering of soils include
development of water retention areas that collects the surface water runoff and helps
replenish the groundwater through the use of permeable surfaces that allow seepage of
water back into the ground. These measures would be applicable under Alternative A,
C, and D. Alternative B would not require any mitigating measures for increased
runoff from impervious surfaces.
Soil limitations caused by steep slopes, poor drainage, gravelly or organic soils, flood
hazards, etc. may require site spgcific engineering practices to prevent or minimize
impacts. In addition, impacts to these areas can be mitigated through preservation and
conservation practices. Open space and non-development tend to have a positive
impact on the environment. Pri r to park and trail development, planners should
consult available references, such as the King County Soil Survey, for information on
soil constraints, in addition to veri ; 'rig soil, slope and drainage conditions on each site.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
Some soil and slope disturbances cannot be entirely mitigated. Minor changes in
topography from park and trail development .will occur. In general, disturbances are
proportionate to the level of development and number of sites under each alternative.
For the most part, the amount of adverse impacts will be proportionate to amount of
people using the park and trails if properly mitigated. Under each alternative, some
soil erosion and Increased sedimentation from Increased runoff and park usage are
inevitable.
IV-9
4.1.2 Air Quality
Existing Conditions:
Renton has a relatively mild and temperate climate, which is heavily influenced by its
proximity to Puget Sound. The abundance of moist marine air keeps the temperature
mild year round. The average summer temperatures ranges in the seventies and during
the winter are mostly in the mid-forties. Annual precipitation is moderate and
averages about 40 inches a year. Because of the marine influence and low elevation,
snowfall rarely occurs in the Renton area.
The Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE), the Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency (PSAPCA), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
have established ambient air quality standards for several emissions including carbon
monoxide (CO), the only pollutant identified that may be of significance to parks and
recreation development under the proposed plans. The 1 hour CO standard is 35 parts
per million (ppm) and the 8 hour standard is 9 ppm.
PSAPCA is responsible for controlling stationary sources of air pollution in the central
Puget Sound region while WDOE is responsible for monitoring CO levels. These two
agencies operate 39 gaseous and particulate air monitoring stations in the central Puget
Sound region. CO is monitored at 13 separate stations: eight are in Seattle, two are in
Tacoma and one each is in Everett, Bellevue, and Bremerton. None of the 13 CO
monitoring stations are close enough to Renton to be considered representative of CO
concentrations in the area.
The primary sources of pollutants in the Renton area are from industry and automobile -
traffic. Motor vehicles in Renton have been identified by PSAPCA as the primary !,
source of existing CO emissions. According to Washington Department of Ecology,
96% of the CO emissions in the Puget Sound area were transportation related. The
highest levels of CO occur mainly during the autumn and winter months. This is the
result of two factors:
Vehicle CO emissions rates increase at lower temperatures;and
Meteorological factors, such as wind and temperature inversion,result in
limited dispersion and are more prevalent during the winter than other times
of the year.
Park and recreation facilities do not in themselves involve point source emissions. Non-
point vehicle emissions are the primary concern. It can be assumed that air quality
plays a critical role in recreation activities. Health affects such as shortness of breath,
fatigue and exhaustion have been attributed to poor air quality. In fact many major
illness can be linked .to this phenomena. Air quality was identified as the number one
environmental concern for the State of Washington in the recent Washington
Environment 2010 Report (1990).
No specific air quality information concerning existing parks in Renton is available.
However, it is assumed that the concentration of vehicle emissions is higher in close
proximity to freeways and the heavy industrial areas. Higher concentrations of CO in
park, recreation and trail related activities are expected to occur at the larger
community and regional parks as well as some of the specialized facilities. This is
primarily due to the larger number of vehicles that visit these sites. Based on this
Iv- 10
assumption, there are three existing parks that produce high concentrations of vehicles.
These are Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, Liberty Park, and Cedar River Park.. It
is assumed that these sites produce a higher than average concentration of CO
emissions than for other park sites. However, these increases are not typically singled
out as problem areas and contribute very little to the overall amount.
As with parks, no specific air quality information concerning existing trails in Renton is
available. However, it may be useful to point out that the proposed trail network would
serve both recreationalists and commuters. The latter group has the potential to reduce
emissions in the City by turning to the non-motorized transportation system laid out in
the trails plan.
Impacts:
The facilities proposed in the two plans are, by themselves, considered non-polluting
except during the construction phase. Increased air emissions will be generated by
users of, new parks and trails who access these areas by the conventional gasoline
1.
powered automobile. However, some emissions will simply be redistributed, since a
portion of the use could be expected to visit other existing facilities if new sites were not
developed. The actual net increase in emissions correlates with the distance traveled to
a particular site and the number of visitors who would not have made the trip to an
-
alternative site.
For example: assuming 100 visitors per day, each using an automobile and traveling five
miles round trip, a given site would be responsible for 500 user miles each day. Carbon
emission averaged at 0.5 pounds per mile would produce 250 pounds of carbon released
into the atmosphere. To determine the actual increase over,present urban emission
levels, this sum would need to be reduced to the number of visitors who visit only this
site and no other, even if an alterrnative site was 'available. As it is not possible to
estimate the number of people not driving to alternative existing facilities, it can be
assumed for purposes of this EIS !that a small increase in carbon emissions levels will
occur as a result of people driving to the new recreation facilities. The net increase in
emissions would be of greater concern in low traffic areas of the city, and negligible
near streets and highways with high traffic volumes. For instance, a park in the
unincorporated areas of the city is likely to experience a greater net increase than a site
adjacent to I-405.
Under Alternative A, the preferred alternative, air quality impacts would be minimal in
comparison to the net overall increase in the emission level. It is assumed with the
acquisition and development of new parks and trails, that present users of existing parks
and trails would be distributed to ether parts of the community. This could potentially
reduce the concentrations of emissions at parks that receive high usage. Under this
alternative, six site have been identified as having the potential of producing an
increase in the concentration of emissions. However, if air quality were to be examined
on a local scale, areas with low traffic volumes are likely to experience a higher
percentage of emission compared to those areas with a higher traffic volume. Out of
the six sites, four have the potential to draw a significant amount of users that are
located in relatively low traffic volume areas. Air quality impacts from dust would be
primarily from construction and be temporary in nature.
With respect to trails, air quality }ssues are minimal and limited to dust and exhaust
emissions generated by construction and by users who reach the trail system by car.
This activity will produce new emissions in some areas. The above discussion for park
IV- 11
sites is relevant for trails in the sense that parks often serve as the most convenient
trailhead. However, the emissions associated with trail use is expected to be much less
than with park use, and would only be a small fraction of the amount produced by
current traffic volumes in Renton. Dust raised by bicycles and pedestrians on trails
would be negligible.
Under alternative B, no sites would be intensively developed. It is assumed that parks
with fewer facilities would attract less users. Based on this assumption, this would
result in reduction in the number of trips, which in turn would reduce the concentration
of vehicle emissions. However, by limiting the level of development and recreational
opportunities at new park and trail facilities, it could indirectly increase the usage at
existing developed park and trails as population growth occurs. This could potentially
increase the concentration of emissions. On a local scale, parks sites that are in low
volume areas would not likely experience a significant increase in emissions. Dust from
construction and developments would be reduced proportionately to the level of
development. However, because parking facilities will be unimproved, some dust will
occur from daily user activity. Nine out of the thirty-four sites will be developed with
informal parking facilities. ,
Under alternative C, air quality impacts would be similar to alternative A. However,
under this alternative, the distribution of park facilities is not a widespread. Under this
alternative, only six sites would be intensely developed. By reducing the number of new
park and trail facilities, it could indirectly increase the dependance on existing park
sites for recreational opportunities as the population growths. Sites that are located in
relatively low traffic areas are more likely to experience an higher net increase in the
overall percentage of emissions. Air quality impacts from dust during the construction
phase would be reduced proportionately depending on the number of sites. Under
alternative D, .park development would occur on a case by case basis without the
benefit of a plan. It is unlikely that new emissions will significantly affect the overall
emission levels because it is assumed that the area is fairly well developed by the time
development occurs.
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A
IMPACT LEVEL 0 0 0 0
NO.SITES IMPACTED 5 0 2 2
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 0 0 0 0
0 NONE O LOW I MODERATE • HIGH
Areas of specific concern include the following:
In general, air quality issues are minimal and are limited to dust and exhaust emissions
generated by construction and users who access the parks by car. This activity will
produce new emissions in some areas. However it is important to note that the increase ;^�
m emissions is only a small fraction of the amount produced by current traffic volumes
in Renton. The impact will be greater on those areas which have very little traffic
volume. This impact will be reduced as population increases and growth occurs in the
IV- 12
low traffic volume areas.
Dust from construction and maintenance activity would occur over brief periods, and
vehicle use of unpaved areas could produce dust over the life of the facility, unless
adequately controlled.
Parks:
North Kennydale Park Site - Currently, this portion of the planning area is relatively
undeveloped. With the eventual development of a community park in this area,
vehicular traffic will be the primary means of accessing the site. This will result in a
higher concentration of automobile traffic and as a result, a higher concentration of
automobile emissions. The percentage of emission resulting from park development
will decrease over time as the population increases.
Honey Dew Park Site - Currently, this part of the planning area is rapidly developing. A
1111 community park in this location will result in increase vehicular traffic. The percentage
of emission resulting from park development will decrease over time as the population
increases.
Cedar River Regional Park - This proposed regional park is located in the Cedar River
._. Valley. Currently, 27,000 vehicles daily use State Route 163 which travels through this
corridor. The Park and Recreation Plan recommends several new recreation facilities in
this area. With new recreation sites such as the proposed sports complex, fine arts
E� center and cultural/recreation complex, additional traffic will be generated. High
concentrations of vehicles are expected to increase the carbon dioxide emissions.
Benson Hill Park Site - Currently, this part of the planning area is rapidly developing. Acommunity park in this area will result in an increase vehicular traffic. This will create
a higher concentration of automobile traffic and emissions. The percentage of emission
resulting from park development will decrease over time as the population increases.
Trails:
There are no site specific concerns regarding trails and air quality.
Mitigating Measures:
Construction and vehicle access are the only significant impacts that require mitigation.
Accepted techniques for dust control during construction, operation and maintenance
of facilities will be implemented. Hard surfacing of access roads and parking areas is
planned for all parks and most trailheads accessible by car. This will effectively
mitigate adverse impacts caused by dust in those areas. Bike lanes and bikeways would
be paved and a number of downtown pedestrian routes hard surfaced as well.
Emissions may be offset or possibly reduced if a significant number of commuters turn
to car pooling, mass transit, etc. as a means of transportation. The major park and
recreation facilities are located along major arterials and collectors within the City.
Coordinating scheduling to accommodate commuter demands would reduce the
dependance on other vehicles. Further emissions could be offset or possibly reduced if
a significant number of commuters were to turn to the non-motorized.trail system for at
least a portion of their daily travel routine. Each commuter bicycle trip is equivalent to
one motor vehicle trip. Thus, an attractive and functional pedestrian and bicycle
network as envisioned by the master trail plan could produce substantial benefits in
IV- 13
reducing pollutant emissions in the City, while producing none itself beyond initial
construction.
It is important to note that the park and recreation plan emphasizes neighborhood
parks within a half mile of most neighborhoods. This is intended to encourage
pedestrian and bicycle travel to these parks, which reduces the dependance on the
motor vehicle as a means of transportation. This would have some effect in reducing
the amount of CO emissions from further park development.
Under Alternative B,very few mitigation measures would be needed as a direct impact
due to the low intensity use of the sites. Twenty-five out of the 34 sites recommended
for acquisition would remain undeveloped. It is assumed that the remaining nine sites
would not attract enough user to significantly increase the overall vehicular emission
levels. Techniques for dust control during construction, operation and maintenance of
facilities will be implemented. This would especially apply to unimproved parking
areas. Alternative C and D would require fewer mitigation than Alternative A due to
the reduced number of sites. The same mitigation measures would apply under both
alternatives.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
Some dust and exhaust emissions from construction and maintenance activities are
inevitable. It is assumed that emissions from vehicles will also increase where higher
concentrations of vehicles occur. The most noteworthy impacts will occur in low traffic
volume areas. This will primarily be from new sites. However, as new population
growth occurs, this increase will be negligible. Alternative B will not result in any
significant impacts. Alternative C and D will have some increased emissions as a result
of new park development. Again, these are expected to be negligible as new population
growth occurs in these areas.
4.1.3 Surface Water,Aquifer Recharge Areas and Wetlands
Existing Conditions:
Surface Water
The City of Renton encompasses over 22 miles of freshwater shoreline, which includes
both lake and river frontage. It provides a focal point for recreation as well as valuable
wildlife habitats. Lake Washington is the primary source of many of these recreational
opportunities. Gene Coulon and Kennydale Beach Parks provide lake access and a
variety of water related activities. Another significant water resource is the Cedar
River, which provides many opportunities for fishing, rafting and swimming. Liberty
Park,Jones Park, Cedar River Trail and the Maplewood Golf Course are all sources of
significant recreational opportunities. It can be expected that the use of some of these
areas, including informal trails, are contributing to minor erosion problems along
streams and water bodies.
The Renton area contains portions of two major drainage basins, which flow into the
Cedar River and Green River valleys. Within each drainage system are several minor
tributaries. The most noteworthy are May Creek, Honey Creek, Springbrook Creek,
Panther Creek, and the P-1 Channel. All present unique opportunities for additional
IV- 14
recreational activities.
• Wetlands
Wetlands represent a wide diversity of environments and in recent years have come
be recognized for their important ecological and hydrologic functions. Wetlands are
areas where natural vegetation is dominated by aquatic plants, where hydric soils are
present, and/or where the water table is at or near the surface for prolonged periods.
They are also important as flood land erosion control, water qquality enhancement and
groundwater recharge. In addition to these natural benefits, they also have a value for
recreation, open space and aesthetic enjoyment.
Many of the City's wetlands have been filled or drained over the years and developed
for commercial and industrial uses. Several large wetlands do exist, including land
along Panther Creek, Black River, Cedar River and Springbrook. Each covers more
than thirty acres. (Wetland Areas are Illustrated in the Community Profile).
Floodplains/Floodways
Flooding of lowland areas is a result of excessive storm runoff and snow melt,which
exceeds normal channel capacity. The 100•year floodplain is that area that is expected
to be covered by flood water at least once in a 100 year period (a one percent probable
occurrence). The location and probability of floods is information which is regulated by
the Federal Emergency Management Act. Portions of the floodplain may be flooded
- more frequently.
Because of the topography and flow currents, floodplains are divided into floodways,
_ characterized by higher velocity flow, and floodway fringes, comprising the remaining
portion of the floodplain. Two areas in Renton are affected by flooding. These are the
Green and Cedar River corridors. Both have been designated by King County as flood
hazard areas. Development in or near surface water resources are regulated at the
local, state and/or federal levels, depending on the location and nature of the work
involved. Streams with a mean annual flow of 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) or greater
and lakes of 20 or more acres in size are within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program. This pn:gram controls development in streams and lakes
within 200 feet of their shorelinies and associated wetlands. They include Lake
Washington, Cedar, Green and Black Rivers, and Springbrook and May Creeks.
Any development below the high water mark of all streams, lakes and wetlands are
subject to hydraulic project approval by Washington Departments of Wildlife or
Fisheries. The Washington Department of Ecology has additional responsibilities for
water resources including water quality issues, water rights and appropriations. At the
Federal level, the Army Corps of Engineers administers regulations concerning
development within waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Many other agencies share
some related responsibilities as well. •
Aquifer Recharge Areas
Aquifer recharge areas are especially important to the public water supply.
Groundwater is contained in underground formations of porous rock or earth called
aquifers. The water stored in aquifers is recharged through springs or wells or by
seepage from water bodies and wetlands.
•
IV- 15
The City of Renton is unique in that local groundwater aquifers are capable of
providing nearly all of the City's potable water supply. Currently, 95% of the water is
provided by the Cedar River Aquifer and 2% from the Springbrook Aquifer. The
remaining 3% is supplied by the Seattle Water Department. The p groundwater aquifer
recharge area extends over 2700 acres. The aquifer recharge areas are divided into two
zones. Zone 1 represents the area within which water entering the ground will require
a year to travel to the City's wells and zone 2 corresponds to the remainder of the
aquifer within the City limits.
Impacts:
Impacts to surface water and wetlands will occur primarily from two sources. The first
will be.a result of the implementation of specific park and trail projects. During the
construction period, increased runoff, sedimentation, and erosion will occur. Most of
these types of impacts from construction are assumed to be temporary in nature. The
second source of potential impacts will result directly and indirectly from users of the
parks and trails. These impacts will have a long-term impact. These will primarily
involve erosion, infiltration of toxic or other harmful materials, and off-site impacts,
such as sedimentation. The Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan
recommends the development of several park sites that could potentially impact surface 1
waters. Once individual site master plans have been completed, specific site impacts
can be evaluated. However, these impacts are expected to be minimal and can be
controlled.
Most, if not all trails involve one or more minor water crossings and all could affect
surface drainage and ground water conditions. Many trails also encounter wetland
areas or parallel stream corridors or lake shorelines. Thus, the potential for impacts on
water quality and groundwater movement is high. Specific problems that could occur as
a result of trail construction without mitigation include: erosion or destabilization of
slopes, stream banks and shoreline areas; siltation or sedimentation of streams which
can be harmful to fish habitat; construction of stream channels, disturbances to
wetlands; impacts to stream flow and flood dynamics; introduction of toxic or other
harmful materials into the aquatic environment; and water caused damage to trails or
adjacent properties.
Despite the variety of problems that can arise, no specific project related effects have
been identified. The Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan and Trails Master Plan
do not contain the level of detailed information necessary to determine site specific
impacts. Instead, these are more general concerns that need to be addressed as
individual parks and trails are designed and constructed. As a rule, parks and trails that
approach, cross or parallel streams, wetlands or water bodies would have greater
potential for impacts. Alternative A would most likely have the greatest impacts on
surface water and wetlands. This alternative would have the highest number of people
using the facilities. As a result, increased occurrences of erosion, sedimentation, and
stream bank, river bank and wetland disturbances are to be expected.
Under alternative B, the sites will have a lower percentage of disturbance, thus
reducing sedimentation and runoff. Long term impacts by increased users will be
reduced by the less intensive uses. Alternative C will have fewer impact due to the
reduced number of sites. It is assumed that Alternative D would have similar impacts
to the other Alternatives. No direct impacts would occur with Alternative D, although
unmaintained user trails would continue to contribute to erosion and sedimentation
problems that may currently exist.
IV- 16
Impacts to floodplain and floodway will occur primarily from facilities developed along
the Cedar River. These are arias subject to flooding. However, construction and
development permits regulated byl the City of Renton, require projects in the floodplain
to meet certain regulations regarding floodwater displacement. Under Alternative A,
several facilities would be developed along the Cedar River corridor. The Cedar River
cultural/recreation complex and the Nature Center could potentially impact
floodwaters. Under Alternative Bi and C, no significant floodplain or floodway impacts
will occur. Alternative D recommends the development of a softball/soccer complex
and extension of the Cedar Rive Trail. Depending upon how they are developed,
these facilities could potentially impact the floodplain.
Ground water related impacts nay occur as result of park development in aquifer
recharge areas. Under alternative A, roughly 19 acres of land will be affected by new
park development in zone 1. An additional 184 acres of land would be developed in
zone 2 aquifer recharge areas. This does not include the preservation of several
hundred acres open space land along the Cedar River and along Springbrook Creek.
Potential impacts would occur from the application of pesticides, herbicides and
fertilizers, such as Round-Up, Diazinon and Caseron. Nearly all active use areas, such
as ballfields, soccer fields and picnic areas require some use of chemicals in order to
maintain the high standard of maintenance. These areas would also contain parking
areas. In addition, ground water impacts will occur as a result of the overcovering of
soils with structures and parking facilities which reduces the soil's ability to replenish
the aquifer. The hard surface prevents water from seeping back into the soil. Siltation
and sedimentation created by erosion during construction could tend to decrease the
groundwater infiltration rate. However, in most cases this is relatively insignificant due
to the small percentage of hard surfacing. In comparison to other types of potential
land uses, park, recreation and trails are generally regarded as having a positive effect
for protecting aquifers.
Under Alternative A, the development of new park and recreation facilities would
increase the demand on the present water needs. Most developed active use parks
would require water for irrigation as well as drinking fountains and restrooms.
Under Alternative B, sites would be developed to a minimum level. The less intense
developments would proportionately reduce the use of chemicals and the potential for
groundwater contamination. In fact, none of the park sites that are intended for
minimal improvements under this alternative, are located in the aquifer recharge areas.
The amount of permeable surfaces covered by hard surfacing would be reduced by the
lack of improved parkin* facilities. However, hard surfacing in itself is a means of
reducing erosion and sedimentation. Under this alternative, some increase in erosion
and sedimentation would occur, especially in areas of steeper terrain. Alterative C
would have similar impacts as Alternative A but at a reduced scale. Only seven sites
would impact the aquifer recharge area.
IV- 17
I
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A
IMPACT LEVEL 0 0 0
NO. SITES IMPACTED 5 0 3 3
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 0 0 0 . 0
0 NONE O LOW O MODERATE • HIGH
Specific areas of concern are discussed below: I i
Parks:
Industrial Recreation Site - This site is located in the valley wetland area. The primary
purpose of this site is to provide recreational opportunities for the daytime employee.
Impacts to wetland areas will be primarily from increased usage.
Cedar River Regional Park- This site has the widest range of proposed activities ranging
from active to passive uses. With the eventual development of a regional park, this area
will experience a significant increase in human intrusion. Runoff from facilities such as
the sports field complex, fine arts center, the cultural/recreation complex and the
nature center may impact surface water and water qualitydue to additional park users.
These areas will be lamed together through an elaborate trail system that follows the
course of the Cedar River.
A majority of these proposed park facilities lie within the aquifer recharge area.
Through extensive paving and building construction, some parts of the aquifer recharge
will be impacted. However, it is important to note that these sites provide vast areas of
lawn and open space that can help induce water to the aquifer. Park areas are
considered more beneficial than other types of urban uses for recharging underground
aquifers.
Trails:
There are no specific concerns regarding trails.
Mitigation Measures:
To help mitigate the impacts on surface water and wetland resources, standard design
and construction practices will be used to reduce the amount of soil erosion and runoff
created by developments and increased use. The development itself, creates
impervious surfaces. However, mitigation measures could include alternative paving
materials that allow the seepage of water or the construction of water
retention/detention areas that collect runoff.
This does not obviate the need to carefully investigate site drainage conditions or
unique circumstances that can arise adjacent to water areas prior to designing or
building parks and trails. Site-specific design and construction techniques for mitigation
will be determined as individual projects are pursued.
IV- 18
• In general, mitigation in aquifer recharge areas should include alternatives to the use of
chemicals and fertilizers. In addition, a monitoring system should be set up to check
water quality and pesticide, herbicides and fertilizers levels. These substances should
- be used in strict compliance to application quantity and methods. Fertilizers, herbicides
and pesticides used in the recharge areas should be selected to minimize the potential
for contamination of groundwater by considering factors such as biodegradability,
persistence, mobility, application base, time of application, concentration, and quantity
applied.
To mitigate the increase in runoff and sedimentation, the creation of artificial wetlands
or drainage swales could serve as a means of filtering storm water before entering
streams or other water channels.' This would help replenish the ground water aquifer as
well act as a purification mechanism. Currently the city is in the process of adopting an
aquifer protection ordinance that would require a permit to apply pesticides, herbicides
and fertilizers in the aquifer protection area. The quantity and type of chemicals would
be regulated within the aquifer protection area. If the proposed aquifer protection
ordinance is adopted, surface impoundments, such as artificial wetlands, will be
prohibited in zone 1. Zone 2 wild allow surface impoundments as long as monitoring
data shows that there is no degradation of groundwater quality.
Adherence to present city standards and other agencies should effectively mitigate any
significant impacts. In some instances, park and trail development will be subject to
review and approval of various federal, state and local agencies, particularly in
floodway/floodplains, wetlands and aquifer recharge areas. They will be concerned
with many of the same issues further ensuring that appropriate mitigating measures are
implemented. Mitigation will be nearly identical under Alternatives B, C and D.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
Some increase in sedimentation and erosion is inevitable. Park and trail impacts to
streams, wetland and waterbodies cannot be entirely mitigated. Trail related activities
will have some adverse impacts on water resources, due to the increased number of
people accessing new sites. Theses impacts are not considered to be significant. Under
Alternative B, no new park sites will be developed that will impact wetlands or water
bodies. However, unavoidable impacts will occur as a result of erosion on existing
unimproved trails. Alternative C and D will have similar impacts as Alternative A but
at a reduced scale.
4.1.4 Plant and Animals
Existing Conditions:
Much of the land area within the city limits of Renton was cleared of natural vegetation
during the last century. Native ecosystems (undisturbed by humans) are relatively rare
in Renton. The city is now substantially developed,with the exception of several stream
and river corridors, steep hillsides, large wetlands and some lake shoreline segments.
All but open water areas tend to be forested with a diversity of young and maturing
deciduous and conifer species. In these and other open space areas of the city, a wide
• variety of plant communities are represented, including riparian, wetland, aquatic,
forest and meadow habitats for wildlife. Meadows predominate within power and
pipeline corridors and adjacent to wetlands. A few old growth Douglas Fir and
Western Red Cedar trees have been observed in existing wooded areas along the Cedar
i •
IV- 19
River. An unusual old growth forest of Oregon Ash is reported in the Black River area.
These and other forest, riparian and wetland habitats appear to be of greatest
importance to wildlife in Renton.
Many birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals are likely to use or inhabit some of
these areas on a transient, migratory or year-round basis. Forested areas support j
mostly birds, invertebrates, and mammals, however one can expect to find few of the -_
larger mammals adjacent to populated areas. Animal species likely to occur in Renton
include:
opossum shrew(several)
mole (several) bat (several)
cottontail rabbit mouse (several)
vole (several) red fox
Squirrel rat
porcupine coyote
chipmunk raccoon
otter ermine
weasel mink
skunk bobcat
black-tailed deer salamander
frog (several) garter snake
river otter several bird species
No rare, threatened or endangered species are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in the greater Renton area. However, the Washington State Department of
Wildlife has listed the blue heron as a species of concern.
Wetland areas are vital to many native species of plants and wildlife. Many birds,
reptiles, amphibians and large and small mammals rely on wetlands for nesting,
breeding, hiding and feeding activities.
Aquatic and wetland habitats are among the most highly productive ecosystems in the
Northwest and trees and understory are valuable forage and shelter to many birds and
mammals. Food sources available here include seeds, nuts, berries, bark, buds, twigs,
needles, leaves, herbs, grass, moss, mushrooms, roots, bulbs, tubers, eggs, invertebrates
and other animals and vegetation.
A wildlife area of particular importance is the Great Blue Heron rookery located on a
small island in the Black River channel, near the city's western limits. The rookery is
located within a mature forest of Black Cottonwoods and contains about 25 nests, most
of which have been observed to be occupied during the nesting season. A full
discussion of the history, ecology and buffer requirements of the heron rookery is found
in a report prepared for the Black River Corporate Park Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, Appendix B (City of Renton, April 1990). The following discussion is a
summary of that report.
The age of the rookery is unclear but is known to have existed since 1984, with the
number of nesting birds varying over the years. Significant disturbances have occurred
in the vicinity, including the construction of the nearby P-1 Ponds in 1984, logging
activity in 1987 within 200 feet of the rookery, and recent construction at the Metro __1
wastewater treatment facility located about 1,500 feet from the rookery. A Burlington
Northern rail line is located within 1,000 feet and the Black River quarry is 2,400 feet
from the rookery.
IV-20
Typically, herons require at least an acre of suitable forest close to a shallow, fishable
water body. Impacts from human'rise and development activity have been studied over
the last fifteen years, recognizing that such impacts are sometimes tolerated and
sometimes detrimental to heron populations. As forest areas are continually cleared
for development in the region, habitat opportunities are decreased. Thus, a concern for
the heron's welfare has led to a set of management guidelines issued by the Washington
Department of Wildlife in 1988. The guidelines suggest that an 800-1,300' wide natural
buffer area be maintained around a rookery during the breeding season (February 1 to
August 1) and a permanent 750 foot wide buffer be closed to human activity year round.
A minimum of ten acres of forest should be preserved as well.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1987 recommended a 660 foot wide buffer of
native vegetation around the Black River rookery. This buffer should be closed to all
construction or other human activity on a year round basis. However, based on an
extensive analysis of this site and other heron nesting habitats in the region, the Black
River DEIS recommends a 600 foot building setback and the planting of native
vegetation between the P-1 pond and the nearest structure. Human access to the pond
should be closed from February 15 to June 15th. For a portion of the proposed
corporate park (Tract B), a 400 foot setback may be considered if it is verified later that
the 600 foot setback is functionally adequate. Also, two "heron flight zones",
approximately 200 feet wide,were 'recommended in the report, where native vegetation
would be conserved or enhanced and kept free of development.
Specific trail locations having contiguous open space and higher wildlife habitat values
include: East Shore Lake Washington (waterfowl), May Creek/Honey Creek (birds,
mammals), Cedar and Green Rivers (birds, mammals), Black River (rookery, unique
stand of old growth Oregon Ash), Pacific Railroad (small mammals), and Panther
�� Creek (birds, amphibians, mammal).
Habitats for fish and wildlife are afforded some protection in existing land use policies
and regulatory programs administe ed by the City. The Shoreline Master Plan (SMP)
contains several policy statements intended to protect aquatic habitats and spawning
areas, wildlife habitats, and uniqu natural areas (SMP 4.02.02.A). Public access to
shorelines should be consistent with preservation and conservation of natural amenities
" 4.04.02.0 & L). Effects on wildlife must .be considered in the design of projects
6.02.01) and fragile areas must be protected from development and encroachment
6.07).
The Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan contains environmental and specific
greenbelt policies for development that generally echo those of the Shoreline Plan. The
1984 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan further supports the preservation of
wildlife and habitat opportunities and seeks to improve public access to natural areas,
including a city-wide network of open space and greenbelts. This plan also promotes
increased public awareness and appreciation of natural features through education and
interpretive facilities.
The City's SEPA ordinance and land clearing/tree-cutting ordinance contain additional
.�: provisions applicable to vegetation and wildlife management issues. Numerous
additional programs exist at the county, state and federal levels as well as for the
benefit of fish and wildlife habitat and open space preservation. These are briefly
described in the draft park and recreation plan and master trails plan presently under
consideration.
IV- 21
Impacts:
Alteration of natural topography will not be extensive and impacts to existing plant
communities will be minimal as a result of trail and park development under the
proposed plans. However, the loss of some existing wildlife habitat and foraging
opportunities can be expected from both development of facilities and increased human
use of areas that are presently inaccessible. A few wetland and riparian areas could be
altered slightly by boardwalks or nature trails.
Full development of the park plan could amount tto a loss of existing habitat. Clearing
of trees and other vegetation, construction of trails and park facilities will be
accomplished by conventional methods including the use of hand and power tools, and
heavy equipment for larger projects. Development under the two plans will be
consistent with all applicable policies and regulations at local, state and federal levels of
government. Specific projects/sites will be assessed when development of the site is
proposed.
Alternative A, the preferred alternative, recommends the preservation of 184 acres of
park land for active recreation, such as neighborhood and community parks. As a
practical point, roughly 30-50% of this acreage would be left in an undeveloped state.
Open space areas which constitutes another proposed 2,180 acres of land would receive
little or no improvements. In some cases, trails would be developed which would result
in some minor impacts.
r -.
Under Alternative B, impacts would be minimal. Only nine sites would require any
clearing or grading at all. In each case only a small percentage of the site would need to
be cleared in order to accommodate picnicking and trail related activities. Alternative
C would have similar impact as to Alternative A, but at a reduced scale. Under this
alternative, only seven sites would be developed. An indirect impact of this alternative,
as well as Alternative D, is the loss of potential park sites. Park and trail activities
generally impact plant and wildlife less than other types of urban land uses. Under
Alternative D, it difficult to determine the impacts because no specific development
standards are available. However based on an analysis of existing parks, a higher
percentage of the site is devoted to active recreation use. No specific information is
available on trails.
It is important to note that all alternatives, except for Alternative D specifically identify
sites for the preservation of open space and environmentally sensitive areas. This
results in beneficial impact on plant and wildlife habitats. Alternative D suggests the
acquisition of such areas, but does not identify specific sites.
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
IMPACT LEVEL O 0 0 0
NO. SITES IMPACTED 5 0 1 1
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 1 1 1 0
O NONE 0 LOW O MODERATE 0 HIGH
IV-22 •
Specific areas of concern include the following:
The loss of some existing wildlife habitat and foraging opportunities can be expected
from both development of facilities and increased human use of areas that are presently
inaccessible. Full development of the park and recreation plan could amount to a loss
of existing habitat. Clearing of trees and other vegetation for the construction of trails
and park facilities will occur. Although this eliminates vegetation and foraging
opportunities for some species, it does provide opportunities for introduction of new
species.
Parks:
North Kennydale Park Site - Pres ntly, this area is relatively undeveloped and contains
large areas of undisturbed woodland areas. The site will require grading and vegetation
removal in order to accommodate sports facilities. Loss of plant and animal species
would occur as a result of development.
Honey Dew Park Site - The surriounding area is in the process of being developed.
However, there are still large areas of undeveloped land that contain undisturbed
woodlands. The site will require extensive grading and vegetation removal in order to
accommodate sports facilities. Loss of plant and animal species would occur as a result
of development.
Cedar River Regional Park - This site is an accumulation of several facilities, which
includes both active and passive activities. Proposed uses such as the sports field
complex and the Royal Hills community park area contain relatively sparse vegetation.
These facilities are not expected to impact plant life, however, some impacts will occur
on wildlife. The protection of the passive use areas present a positive effect on both
plant and wildlife species.
Benson Hill Park Site - This neighborhood area is rapidly being developed. There are
very few locations that contain large areas of undeveloped land. A proposed park site
will require extensive grading andl vegetation removal in order to accommodate sports
facilities. The recommended are contains a wetland, but it is not anticipated it would
be disturbed. Loss of plant and animal species would occur in other areas as a result of
development.
Trails:
Black River Trail - This site requires special attention because of sensitive habitat and
surroundings. Noise, light and human intrusion are of particular concern during the
heron nesting and breeding seasons.
Mitigation Measures:
The following measures will help to avoid or minimize the impacts identified above. A
minimum buffer area of 25' and 'preferably 50'-100' of natural vegetation should be
maintained along the perimeter of wetlands and around other sensitive habitat areas.
(The heron rookery is addressed below.) Trees and vegetation should be planted along
trails or parks that are adjacent to neighborhoods and around parking and vehicle
access areas to maintain privacy and provide an effective visual screen from adjacent
roads and properties.
IV-23
?_I
' Areas that do not require clearing of vegetation should be retained in their natural
condition. Removal of understory should be avoided in such areas, in order to protect -
remaining habitat for birds, small mammals and other wildlife. In addition, a nest box
program should be implemented for cavity nesters such as swallows, Screech Owls,
Downing Woodpeckers and Kestrels.
Grading in buffer areas should be limited to construction of access roads only. Specific L -4
locations of access roads and trails will be determined during the planning and design
phase. Timing of construction activity should be coordinated so as to avoid
disturbances to fish and wildlife during critical spawning, nesting and rearing periods.
Replacement of topsoils and the reestablishment of native vegetation in disturbed areas
is recommended. Undeveloped buffer areas should be maintained in their natural
condition. Application of pesticides and chemical fertilizers should be carefully
controlled to prevent harmful effects to water quality and indigenous plant and animal
life. (See also the trail standards in Appendix C.)
Impacts to the heron colony should also be mitigated by avoiding the placement of
substantial structures within any established buffer areas. Locating trails outside the
buffer, and controlling human use in the area during the breeding season will also be a
positive step. A buffer similar to that required of other developments in the area
should be maintained. If the 600 foot buffer is made a requirement by city officials for
the proposed corporate park, then it would seem reasonable to apply a similar buffer to
trails or interpretive facilities.
To discourage people from walking along the slope found on the south side of the river,
plantings of trees or shrubs are suggested in a configuration that directs trail users to an
appropriate viewing area above a small bank outside the buffer. If this effort is
unsuccessful, a more drastic measure such as a fence should be considered. However,
the natural character of the area should be preserved as much as possible. Final trail
design and location is somewhat dependent on development of adjacent lands and
funding and acquisition of right-of-way for the trail. Therefore, specific mitigation
measures should be determined at the time the trail and/or corporate park are
reviewed by the City. No park or trail facilities are planned, nor should they be
allowed,within the heron colony itself.
Native ecosystems that have remained undisturbed by humans, such as the Oregon Ash
forest on the Black River, small areas of old growth Douglas fir and Cedar on the
Cedar River, and possibly a few isolated bogs or swamps, are becoming scarce in the
Puget Sound Basin (rare in Renton) and should be preserved as open space. Native
ecosystems can take centuries to develop and contain habitat, recreation and aesthetic
values not found in non-native areas. Thus impacts are of greater concern. To a large
degree, the two plans will accomplish this objective as a result of the emphasis on
preserving valuable open space areas.
Mitigation measures would be similar under Alternatives B and C although the
emphasis on open space would benefit plants and animals more under Alternative B.
Alternative B and C would have fewer impacts than the proposed action due to reduced
development and fewer sites. However, it is important to note that under Alternative C
and D those sites excluded from the inventory risk the possibility of being developed
with an alternative use. This may result in the destruction of plant and wildlife habitat.
IV-24 i_
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
The removal of existing vegetative cover will reduce wildlife habitat and foraging
opportunities. This could result ' the destruction or displacement of species intolerant
of human activity or dependent on large areas of undisturbed forest. If adjacent
habitats are at their carrying cap city or intensely developed in the future, dislaced
wildlife may perish.
Some removal of vegetation will occur as parks are developed, thus affecting habitat
areas. Due to the nature of park and recreation facilities, loss of plant and wildlife is
inevitable. Alternative A, which is the full development of the plan would result in the
loss of vegetation and wildlife habitats; primarily as a result of clearing and grading.
The remaining alternative would have fewer adverse affects, which would be
proportionately reduced under each alternative. Alternative B would result in the
fewest losses of plant and wildlife!opportunities. Alternatives C and D would result in
some loss of vegetation and wildlife habitats, however this would be less than
Alternative A.
4.1.5 Scenic and Aesthetic Quality
Existing Conditions:
Because of the high plateaus and steep hillsides, Renton has many aesthetic and scenic
�J
opportunities. For purposes of discussion, aesthetic and scenic quality is equated to
open space,, vistas, views and non-development. A majority of these qualities are
attributed to Renton's setting. Due..to the topographic conditions, many areas remain
in an undeveloped state. This enhances the overall scenic and visual quality of the area.
Along with the variety of open space and vacant lands, Renton's park system adds to the
overall aesthetic quality.
However, there are several areas, such as the downtown for example, that lack open
space. The City of Renton also has a large industrial area, which occupies a substantial
amount of land in the valley basin in which open spaces and scenic views are limited. In
addition, utility and powerline easements also detract from the overall scenic quality of
the City.
With the increase in urbanization, open space, parks, and viewpoint opportunities
diminish. The aesthetic quality may be perceived to decrease as urbanization
continues. However, in urbanized areas, aesthetic quality can be recognized to some
extent through parks, open space and undeveloped land.
The trail corridors identified in the Trails Master Plan tend to follow existing greenbelts
and serve to connect parks and ope space areas, all of which contribute significantly to
the scenic and aesthetic character 1.of the city. From the standpoint of the trail user,
views and natural character are critical to most trail experiences.
Ir-_
! - IV-25
Impacts:
Aesthetic impacts associated with park development are limited to the loss of
vegetation, and the development of structure, such as indoor facilities, parking areas
and ballfields in areas that are presently undeveloped. In certain cases the adjacent
land owner become more visible and a loss off"isolation" is perceived. This is primarily
a concern among residential areas.
The provision of natural open space, landscaping and a general emphasis on natural
character will have a positive impact on scenic and aesthetic quality. The new
Comprehensive.Park and Recreation Plan would preserve and protect some lands from
future development. This would insure that visual scenic and aesthetic qualities are
preserved in the developing areas of the City.
The new Park and Recreation Master Plan recommends several areas that should be
preserved as open space. These act both as a community buffer and as a means of
preserving visual quality. Many of these areas may not be immediately impacted as
development pressures increase but these areas need to be preserved at this time to
ensure their availability when the adjacent areas are developed. Open space can serve
as means of relief from urban sprawl. Loss of open space due to increased
development will result in a substantial impact to the aesthetic appearance of the area.
Powerline easements and right of ways could be developed to provide open space
opportunities, such as hiking trails. The plan identifies several utility right of ways that
could be developed to provide some open space opportunities.
Aesthetic impacts associated with trail development are generally limited to the linear
disturbance of vegetation and soils, and the placement of parking areas or small
structures (bridges, culverts, stairs, etc.) in areas that are presently undeveloped. In
some open areas where routes are planned to traverse steeper slopes, the trail might be
visible from a distance or from adjacent properties. This impact should be minimal
however. Although no site specific impacts have been identified, there is potential for
some impact to trail users, adjacent residents and those visiting parks or other public
areas. If site specific routing and design of trails fail to consider aesthetic quality for an
area, then some impact might be perceived. This is of particular concern for trails
located in parks, neighborhoods or other developed areas, and less of a concern within
greenbelts.
Alternative A identifies sixteen sites for the preservation of open space lands. Under
Alternative B, thirty-four sites would be preserved for open space. Of the thirty-four
sites, nine would receive minimal development. However, because alternative B
emphasizes less development, aesthetic and scenic. quality impacts decrease
proportionately under this alternative. Alternative C recommends fewer sites be
preserved for open space. The impacts on aesthetic quality would be fewer due to the
reduced number of sites. However, an indirect impact would be the loss of these sites
due to the development of an alternative land use. Alternative D, no action,would have . -
the most significant impacts in the event that sites are unmaintained or are converted to
more intensive development.
IV-26
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
IMPACT LEVEL 0 0 0 0
NO. SITES IMPACTED 0 0 0 0
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 0 0 0 0
0 NONE Q LOW MODERATE HIGH
Park and Trails: There are no specific areas of concern regarding scenic and aesthetic
quality. The following areas re considered to be a beneficial impact on the
community.
Hazelwood Open Space Site - This is a large open space area that is located north of
r J May Creek. This area is sparsely populated and presents many open space
opportunities. The effect of preserving open space will not be felt until increased
development occurs nearby.
Honey Creek Open Space Site - The surrounding area is already well developed and
except for the Honey Creek corridor itself, offers very few opportunities for open space.
Cedar River Regional Park -This area comprises most of the Cedar River Valley, east of
I-405. It encompasses several smaller active use park sites, but is predominantly open
space. The proposed park consists of over 1,200 acres of hillside and nparian
vegetation areas.
May Creek Open Space Site -This is a large open space area that is located along of May
Creek. This area is sparsely populated and presents many opportunities for open space
opportunities. King County presently owns about 122 acres along this corridor. The
effect of preserving open space will not be felt until increased development occurs
nearby.
West Kennydale Open Space Site - This is a large open space area that is located along
the bluffs overlooking Lake Washington. This area is already fairly well developed.
_ The The effect of preserving open space will be felt immediately because development
pressures are increasing as land availability decreases.
Mitigation Measures:
By default, park and trail facilities tend to enhance scenic and aesthetic opportunities
since they are intended to provide public access to open space areas, natural features
and views that may not otherwise exist. Thus, impacts of park and trail development
are more or less compensated by the benefit of access to these areas. Careful
placement of parks and routing' of trails can help to avoid impacts to scenic and
aesthetic quality. The use of accepted design standards and construction techiniques
can improve the aesthetic appearance of these facilities.
The Trails Master Plan describes a number of mitigating measures that would be
implemented to prevent or reduce the impacts discussed above. These include
IV-27
appropriate design of facilities in natural areas, greenbelts, and steeply sloped areas;
the use of terrain and vegetation to screen objectionable views; orientation to landscape
features such as water, rock, landforms, or other interesting structures; planting of trees
for shade and framing of views; location of trail corridors through a variety of j
environments; use of smooth and rhythmic curves in both horizontal and vertical
alignments to avoid repetition and discontinuity; and use of terrain and vegetation
enhancement to provide gateways to mark transitions.
Other minor measures for mitigating the loss of open space is to strengthen the
landscaping requirements for all land uses, parking lot buffering, burial of utility power
lines and city beautification programs. It is important to note that park, recreation
facilities and trail by them selves are often used as mitigating measures.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
Disturbances to some natural areas are unavoidable. Some parks, recreational facilities
and trails may be visible from adjacent properties, however this is not anticipated to
cause a significant impact.
Loss of open space due to increased development within the City will be the most
substantial impact on the existing aesthetic quality. Under Alternative B, impacts will
be low because of the reduced level of development. Under this alternative, parks will
primarily be open space areas left in an undeveloped state. Alternatives C and D will i I
have greater impact. Under these alternatives, most of the existing open space areas,
that would be obtained by the City for parks and open space under alternatives A and
B,would be available for development.
• I
IV-28
4.2 ELEMENTS OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
4.2.1 Environmental Health and Public Safety
Existing Conditions:
In general, environmental health issues are somewhat limited for parks and trails. Sites
and facilities are generally benign in terms of toxic materials produced or potentially
hazardous conditions that mightpose a threat to people, wildlife or the environment.
Health and safety risks in the par and along trails are more limited to some forms of
bacteria that occasionally, occur ' open water, the dangers associated with electrical
power lines and accidents associate' with the recreation facility users.
Giardiasis is a gastrointestinal disease caused by the organism. Giardiasis is often
present in untreated water. Lake Washington, the Cedar River and some of the minor
streams have the potential of carrying this.bacteria. However one must swallow the
_ water by drinking or swimming to introduce the disease. Giardiasis is a relatively
common problem and can be controlled by proper diagnosis and medication. Since
most city parks provide municipal treated drinking water, this problem should not occur
anyway.
An issue currently receiving much publicity concerns the potential health effects from
exposure to high power electrical transmission lines. Several corridors containing high
voltage lines traverse the City, including the Puget Power and Bonneville Power lines.
Both have trails planned under them (Puget Power/Sunset Trail, Bonneville Trail,
portions of the Cedar River Trail and other segments). Despite numerous studies
conducted by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), universities, health
professions and other organizations world-wide, the health effects resulting from long
term exposure to electromagnetic fields (E/MF) remain uncertain.
A recent update of a BPA publication entitled "Electrical and Biological Effects of
Transmission Lines: A Review (June 1989)" provides an overview of electric and
magnetic fields and their potential effects on plants and animals, including humans. A
long list of studies are referenced and summanzed. Research is ongoing but remains, to
some extent, inconclusive. The report explains that electric fields associated with AC
current become weaker with distance from the source and that the strength of these
fields is greatly, reduced by trees and buildings. However, magnetic fields are not
reduced by trees and buildings, although they decrease with distance from the source.
Electric fields induce voltages and currents (measured in volts per meter or V/m) so
that a shock can occur if a person uninsulated from the ground touches a grounded
object. The shock is rarely noticeable along power lines. If the person is grounded but
the object touched is not, a more powerful and painful shock can occur. As a safety
precaution, all such objects are routinely grounded by BPA.
Affects associated with electromagnetic fields along high power transmission lines are
difficult to assess with any certainty. Studies suggest that long term exposure to these
fields may adversely affect human health. While it is speculative to assign an energy
value in V/m to the level of risk, it may be helpful to understand a few numbers. At the
edge of a 500 kV right-of-way, energy field strength is about 2 or 3 kV/m. This is
comparable to the field next to an electric blanket. Wiring and appliances in a home
vary a great deal but are generally two or three hundred times more than the 2-3 kV/m
factor.
f IV-29
I '
Based on disease/environment patterns observed among human populations and
laboratory animal research, some scientists have argued that long term exposure to
these fields may be unhealthy. An increased risk of cancer, leukemia and brain tumors
due to environmental factors (e.g. electromagnetic fields, chemical exposure) has been
suggested in various studies. Recent studies, such as those conducted by the University of
Southern California, and the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratorics, have shown that
magnetic fields can have an effect on laboratory animals and humans. Magnetic fields
have clearly been shown to affect the secretion of pineal melatonin which: is a
neuroendocrine transducer. Pineal melatonin is a neuroendocrine transducer, it translates
an electric signal from a nerve cell into a hormonal Cor endocrine secretion. As the
secretion of melatonin is a night time activity, the use of trails and recreation facilities near
utility lines should not affect the users. Other studies have shown a higher than normal rate
of certain types of cancer in electric field workers. (1)
Although no direct hazard has been confirmed, it is generally agreed that the exposure
should be minimized as a precaution. It is possible that the electromagnetic fields could
affect cardiac pacemakers, or that a spark could ignite flammable materials near the
power line, although no record of this kind of occurrence near a power line exists.
Nuisance level noise and radio interference are other common effects associated with
power lines. An Executive Summary and two Appendices from this report are included
m Appendix E.
Public safety issues related to parks, open space and trail use are generally limited to
accidents to the user while visiting a site or personal injury created by someone else.
Some examples include injuries from children's play equipment, stepping in holes or
tripping over objects and injuries occurring while participating in active recreation
activities. Public safety issues related to trail use include the potential for personal
attack in secluded areas and conflicts between the various user groups such as collisions
between bicyclists and hikers and collisions between bicyclists and automobiles. In
Renton, areas along the south slope of the Maple Valley are particularly dangerous
because of old abandoned coal mines. This poses an extreme safety risk to users of
informal trails in the area.
(1) Material supplied by Don Erickson,Principal Planner,City of Renton
Impacts:
Under the proposed action, additional park sites, open space areas and trails will be
developed for public use. Opening up additional recreational areas will attract more
visitors which in turn exposes more people to potential environmental health and public
safety issues.
Parks and open space along the Cedar River and some of the other minor streams
proposes a possible but unlikely increased risk of contacting Giargiasis from accidently
swallowing water. Under Alternative A, seven new park sites and nine trail systems are
located along streams. The most likely stream where swimming would occur is the
Cedar River. Several new park sites including the Cedar River Sports Complex, the
Nature Center and the Cultural Recreation Complex are located along this stream.
However, none of these sites are anticipated to have swimming areas as a feature of the
park. Under Alternative B, six park sites and,eight trails are located adjacent to
streams and in Alternative C, two park sites and six trails are effected. No park sites or
trails are located near streams in Alternative D.
IV- 30
- •
Considerable amounts of open space and trail areas are proposed under or in close
proximity to high power transmission lines. Parks and trails proposed in the plan along
power line corridors pose a much shorter term exposure than for people who live or
work near them. Brief, occasional visits would likely typify park and trail use in these
areas. Thus, the potential exposure subsequent to park and trail development along
these power lines may be negligible. While the risk does not seem to warrant
elimination of these parks and trail routes from the Comprehensive Park and
Recreation and Trail Master Plans,.precautions are advised nonetheless. Under
alternatives A and B three park sites and two trail systems are located adjacent to or
under major power lines. These include Royal Hills Park, North Kennydale
Community Park, Puget Power Lineal Park, the Bonneville Trail and the Puget
Power/Sunset Trail. Under Alternatives C and D no park sites or trails are effected.
Concern has been expressed that parks, recreation facilities and open space areas may
be used for loitering or transient sleeping areas. The end result can be littering,violent
acts upon park visitors, vandalism or other unacceptable behavior. These types of
problems will occur in all of the alternatives although reducing the number of sites and
trails would in theory decrease this problem. However, it could also be argued that
reducing the number of park sites would increase the amount of use at existing park
sites. This would probably increase the risk of conflicts between various user groups.
Nonetheless, the end result may be an overall increase in aid calls for fire and police
protection.
Under the preferred alternative, several hundred acres of maintained park areas and 27
trails will be developed. Mainte ance of these areas will require the application of
• fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides other chemicals. For trails, it is anticipated that
herbicides would be the only cherpical used and that it would be limited to controlling
vegetation along pathways. While the application of these chemicals is strictly
controlled, it does increase the risk of buildup and contamination of the surrounding -
soils. However, the application rates are low and if the manufacturers instructions are
followed, this should not occur. If large quantities of chemicals are stored in one
location it increases the potential for contamination and concentration in case of a spill.
This could be a problem if they were to contaminate the city's water supply. Since
Renton receives 97% of its water from local aquifers, the contamination of these
aquifers would have a significant impact on water supply.
Under Alternative A, 19 new park sites and 27 trails would be developed where the
application of chemicals and fertilizers can be anticipated. The sites most apt to receive
the most chemicals would be the large community parks and the sports complex. This
includes North Kennydale, Honeydew East, Royal Hills, Benson Hill parks and the
Cedar River Sports Complex. The Cedar River Sports Complex is of the most concern
because it is located in a major groundwater recharge area. Under Alternative B,which
1 , proposes to acquire land only, ono sites but 16 trails would be effected. Under
Alternative C, 5 park sites and 16 trails would be effected and in Alternative D only one
park site and no trails would be effected.
•
IV-31
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS L
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
IMPACT LEVEL 0 0 0
NO. SITE IMPACTED 4 0 1 2
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 2 2 0 0
r-
0 NONE O LOW MODERATE HIGH
Specific areas of concern include the following:
Parks:
Puget Power Park Site - The primarily environmental health effect is from exposure to
electromagnetic fields from overhead transmission lines.
Cedar River Regional Park Site - This site has several health concerns. First of all, the
location of Royal Hills Park is beneath BPA power lines. The primarily environmental
health effect is exposure to electromagnetic fields from overhead transmission lines. A
second concern is for the potential contamination of the Cedar River aquifer. The
application and storage of chemicals and fertilizers at the Maplewood Golf Course and
the proposed Cedar River Sports Complex could potentially contaminate the water
supply.. The south slope of Maple Valley is of particular concern due to the presence of
abandoned coal mines.
Trails:
Bonneville Trail - The primarily environmental health effect is exposure to
electromagnetic fields from overhead transmission lines.
Puget Power Trail - The primarily environmental health effect is exposure to
electromagnetic fields from overhead transmission lines.
Mitigation Measures:
The Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan and Trails Master Plan
acknowledge the need to provide safe facilities for all user groups. The trails plan
suggests a separation between pedestrian and bicyclists and motorized and non-
motorized traffic. In many instances, the plan describes only a corridor within which a
trail would be located. Site specific safety issues are intended to be addressed at the
design stage. Park and trail standards and design criteria are included in the plans
which will provide guidance in the planning and development of individual parks and
trails (refer to Appendix C). Any other regulatory provisions applicable to park and
trail development, such as handicap facilities and guard rails would be addressed.
It is recommended that when feasible, off-street trails be at least eight feet wide and
surfaced to accommodate emergency and patrol vehicles. This would likely be the case
for multi-use trails. However, many footpaths encounter environmentally sensitive
areas or steep terrain where such width is not practical or feasible. In those cases, the
IV- 32
innovative use of mountain bikes might be considered as a possible vehicle for police
enforcement. All trails should be clearly marked with an identification marker every
quarter mile with points of reference.
In parks and trails that receive significant use during hours of darkness, security lighting
should be considered. At trailheads and all restrooms, pay phones should be installed,
but should be restricted to outgoing calls only. Emergency, 9-1-1 calls do not require a
fee to be placed. This will help to discourage potential problems with drug trafficking.
This suggestion needs to be weighed against an emergency situation where a return call
may be required. This issue can be examined on a case by case basis.
Where public restrooms are proposed, they should be easily visible from public streets.
Along trails, sitting rails are recommended in place of benches to reduce vandalism and
discourage long stays. In open space areas and other park areas found in remote
locations, occasional inspections should be made to check for transient sleeping areas.
Loitering and other unacceptable actions in parks can be reduced by occasional patrols
by the police. To help in this matter, internal pathways should be at least 8-10' wide to
accommodate a patrol car. Other city agencies, such as the Police and Fire
departments, should be involved in the design process to ensure adequate safety and
access issues are met.
Although exposure to electromagnetic fields would be minimal, several mitigating
measures are suggested as a precaution. Trails should be located outside the
immediate area of the transmission lines whenever possible. Electrical engineers
should be consulted to determine the best location for a trail and the kind of
improvements that might be appro'priate for a specific area. Factors such as low energy
field measurements, groundingof signs
gns or other structures should be considered
City staff should stay current with research on electromagnetic fields along power lines
and keep informed on E/MF policy development in King County. If necessary,
facilities or routes should be altered to achieve a reasonable safety margin.
The concentration of chemicals in any one location should be avoided. Currently, this
is the procedure followed by the maintenance division of the Parks and Recreation
Department. In addition, chemicals should be stored outside of the aquifer recharge
areas. The application of chemicals should follow the manufacturers recommendations.
Where possible alternative methods of weed control should be utilized. The city should
continue to train its personnel on the application of chemicals and check to see that all
are certified by the State of Washington.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
Public safety is a continuing concern to the City and for all park and trail users.
Increased park and trail usage could increase the number of accidents. This can be
somewhat mitigated by applying good design standards, checking on the condition of
facilities and continuing to patrol the parks and trails.
IV-33
4.2.2 Noise
Existing Conditions:
Li
Parks, other specialized recreation areas and trails throughout the City are subject to
significant background noise levels particularly those in close proximity to freeways,
arterial streets or the Renton Airport. May and Honey Creek valleys tend to be
substantially quieter, as are some of the hillsides facing away from busier streets and
highways. The Lake Youngs area is also quieter than most because it is still relatively
undeveloped. All trail corridors and most pedestrian and bicycle trails include
segments that travel near busy streets.
Most activities in parks and trail areas generate very little, if any, noise. The exceptions
are recreational activities from active park uses, such sports fields, summer concerts,
etc. Motor boats on Lake Washington also generate some noise.
The Environmental Protection Agency has established noise levels which provide a
means of evaluating'noise impacts. Maximum acceptable noise levels have also been
set by the State Department of Ecology(WAC Chapter 173-60) which can be applied to
recreation facilities.
Noise levels are typically measured on a logarithmic scale called the decibel (dB) scale.
To approximate the response of the human hearing system, noise levels are measured
on the "A-weighted curve", which de-emphasizes the importance of low and extremely
high frequencies that are not readily heard by humans. An A-weighted noise level is
expressed as "dBA". As a point of reference, the decibel chart below lists the level of —
noise for some common activities.
Sound Source Decibels
Jet Plane (100') 130
Amplified Music 110
Jackhammer 90
Heavy Tru..k(50') 90
Power Lawn Mower 80
Passenger Car(50') 80
Department Store 70
Business Office 50
Whisper(15') 30
Sports fields generate some noise depending upon the type of play and number of
fields. (Tournament vs. League play and the use of a P.A. system.) As a point in
reference, a noise study for a proposed 6-field softball complex in Redding, California
anticipated the following noise levels:
o 60 dBA measured at the property line (League Play)
o 65 dBA measured at the property line (Tournament Play)
o 58 dBA measured 450'from property line (League Play)
o 61 dBA measured 450'from property line (Tournament Play)
The City currently has a noise ordinance that controls noise levels at the source and
receiving points.
fi-
IV-34
Impacts:
•
The Comprehensive Park and Recreation.,Plan proposes the development of several
park sites that will generate measurable noise levels. Most are centered around
outdoor sport activities or ones hosting a single major outdoor event. The proposed
Cedar River Sports Complex will probably generate the most noise of all park sites
because it will contain four or more softball fields. The community parks will generate
less noise because they will have less fields in total.
Under the preferred alternative, six park sites are expected to generate measurable
amounts of noise. These include North Kennydale, Honeydew East, Benson Hill and
Royal Hills community parks, the sports complex and the Cultural Recreation Complex.
This latter park site will generate poise primarily from outdoor concerts. No noise is
expected from the trails because motorized vehicles will be excluded from use. Under
Alternative B, no sites will generate any measurable amounts of noise and in
Alternative C this number is reduced to two sites. The Cedar River Sports Complex
and one park site are suggested under alternative D.
t_
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
IMPACT LEVEL 0 0 0
NO. SITES IMPACTED 6 0 2 2
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 0 0 0 0
0 NONE 0 LOW MODERATE HIGH
Specific areas of concern include the following:
Parks:
North Kennydale Park Site - With the development of several ballfields and soccer fields,
there may a measurable amount of noise generated by these facilities. Presently, this
area is relatively undeveloped acid sparsely populated. Consequently, the noise
generation would be less of an impact in the surrounding area.
Honey Dew Park Site - The surrounding area is in the process of being developed.
However, there are still large areas of undeveloped land that contain undisturbed
woodlands. With the development lid several ballfields and soccer fields, there may be
t,: a measurable amount of noise generated by these facilities. Noise generation would be
more of an impact in the surrounding area,because this area is more developed.
Cedar River Regional Park -This complex is an accumulation of several park sites,which
include both active and passive activities. Proposed sites such as the sports field
complex, the Royal Hills Park and Cultural/Recreation Complex could generate
measurable amounts of noise. However, these areas are relatively isolated from most
other types of developments. Royal Hills park would have more of an impact due to
the proximity of residential housing.
IV-35
Benson Hill Park Site - The neighborhood area is rapidly being developed. Noise
generation from the one ballfield and three soccer fields would have a measurable
impact on the surrounding land uses.
Trails:
No trails are expected to significantly affect noise levels.
Mitigation Measures:
• f
All park sites should be designed to locate activities that generate noise away from
residential areas. The use of vegetation and topographic features can also be used to
buffer residential areas from activity from noise generated from activity areas within
parks.
The best mitigating measure for ballfield noise is to place them near the center of the
site. Where possible, the infields of softball fields should be located in the interior of
the site rather than on the perimeter. It is recommended that all ballfields including
softball, soccer and baseball maintain a 50' buffer from the edge of the site.
Eliminating P.A. systems should also be considered when the park site is located in a
dense residential neighborhood.
Currently permits are required for special events. Each of the permits should be
evaluated in terms of the potential noise the event will generate and the impact it will
have on the surrounding area.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
No significant adverse noise impacts are expected to occur in most of the parks. The
exception could be a concert held at one of the park sites. This can be controlled by the
permit process. It is also inevitable that some generation of noise will occur as a result
of increased usage and traffic. No significant adverse noise impacts are expected under
each alternative.
4.2.3 Land and Shoreline Use
Existing Conditions:
Land uses in the City of Renton are designated by the Renton Comprehensive Plan and •
regulated by the zoning ordinance. Zoning codes are used to implement the various
land use categories dictated by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. A breakdown of
existing land uses is contained in a City document titled Community Profile (October,
1989):
IV-36
Table 4-3
Land Use by Acres
City of Renton
Single Family 2,069 Heavy Industry 551
Multiple Family 326 Manufacturing 616
Mobile Home Park 103 Community Utility 153
Neighborhood Commercial 3 Schools 223
General Commercial 238 Hospital 34
Community Commercial 256 Parks 481
Recreational Commercial 190 Open Space 51
Office Park 166 Civic/Community 207
• Light Industry 180 Water 124
Freeways/Arterials/Street 2,039 Vacant Land 2,294
l ^ The major land use category in the city is residential (24% of the city's total land)
followed by vacant land (22%) and streets (21%). Commercial and industrial land uses
account for about 7% and 15% respectfully.
While the relationship between recreation demand and commercial/industrial land is
not as strong as residential, there is growing evidence of the need for recreation
facilities and activities for employees. This is demonstrated by the growing number of
L. sport leagues sponsored by employers and by the interest for places to relax and play
during break periods of the working day. The relationship between other land uses and
parks and trails has not been fully defined. However, it is understood that the parks
and recreational opportunities are considered amenities and often improve the quality
�- of life in the surrounding area.
The City's land use ordinances and Comprehensive Land Use Plan contain separate
elements for parks and recreation. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan occasionally
mentions bicycle and pedestrian trails, generally in the context of encouraging their
development as .a service to the public. Their importance for commuting and
i recreation purposes is supported by these documents and the need for easements and
acquisition is acknowledged.
The Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan is currently undergoing a major update to
bring it into compliance with the new State Growth Management Act. The
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan and Trails Master Plan are expected
to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.
The City contains two major shoreline areas including Lake Washington and the Cedar
River. Lesser streams include Honey Creek, May Creek and the P-1 Channel. All of
these streams and the Lake are controlled by policies in the city's adopted Shoreline
Master Plan.
Impacts:
Implementation of the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan and the
Master Trails Plan would mean that parks, open space and trail systems would become
a major land use in the city.
IV- 37
Development of active park areas could impact surrounding land uses depending upon
the type of park, the amount of use and the type of adjacent land uses. For example,
community parks would attract more use and generally contain facilities that generate
more activity. These community parks include North Kennydale, Honeydew East,
Benson Hill and Royal Hills parks. In addition, the Cedar River Sports Complex and
the Cultural/Recreational Complex will also generate substantial activity. However, in
all cases, the type and amount of activity is controlled by scheduling and permits.
Under Alternative A, six new park sites are proposed that can be expected to generate
substantial activity. Substantial activity is defined as attracting more than 200 people in
any given peak hour. Under Alternative B, five active park sites are proposed and for
Alternatives C and D, none of the sites would be developed.
Trail use could have some impacts upon surrounding land uses depending upon the type
of land use, the trail activity and the location of the trail itself. These could include
noise, loss of privacy and security. Most of the bicycle trail routes are located on public
streets which do not substantially impact surrounding land uses. A major portion of the
pedestrian routes, however, are not located in street right of ways and utilize existing
public easements that are located behind other land uses. In the cases where the
pedestrian routes are located behind other land uses, such as residential developments
concern is raised over increased noise, loss of privacy and security problems. Some
trails are located off street right of ways within commercial and industrial areas where
security problems would be a concern. These include portions of the Cascade
Waterline Trail, the Springbrook Trail,the Black River trail, and the P-1 Channel Trail.
In residential areas, trails that are located behind the property lines often are criticized
for generating vandalism, litter , noise and security problems. In many cases these
charges are not valid. In May, 1987, the Seattle Engineering Department published a
report titled "Evaluation of the Burke-Gilman Trail's Effect on Property Values and
Crime." City staff worked with 350 residents, 75 Realtors and a number of police
officers in conducting a public survey to determine what effect, if any, the trail had on
property values and crime along the 12.1 mile trail corridor. The Burke-Gilman Trail
(formerly a railroad right of way) is a highly popular urban thoroughfare for bicycles
and pedestrians that passes through many residential neighborhoods, business and
industrial areas, the University of Washington and a number of public parks. The area
between the trail and private property ranges from being open and exposed to buffered
with vegetation. This variation may be one reason for the trails overwhelming
popularity. Over 250,000 people use the trail annually with upwards of 5,000 on a busy
day. Most use is bicycling.
Analyzing the survey results, the City found that the trail did not affect property values
homes directly adjacent to the trail but that property values were substantially higher
than average if located near the trail. Real Estate professionals estimated a six percent
increase for homes near the trail over similar homes located some distance away from
the trail. (See Appendix F.)
Police noted there was no indication of a higher incidence of burglaries or vandalism
along the trail. They attributed this to the absence of motor vehicles. An average of
two incidents per year of burglary or vandalism were recorded by the Police
Department. They observed that such problems most often occurred in areas with easy
motor vehicle access. None of the residents felt that development of the trail had
worsened problems with crime or uncivilized behavior and two thirds of those surveyed
felt the trail had increased the quality of life in their neighborhoods. Some people who
opposed the trail when it was initially constructed in 1978 now view it as a positive asset
to the community. Only a few (three percent) noted any major concerns with an
IV-38
interruption of privacy. (The full report is available for review at the Seattle
Engineering Department.)
Under Alternative A, 27 trails consisting of bicycle and pedestrian routes are proposed
of which 14 are located behind property lines. Under Alternative B, 13 trails are
proposed of which 8 are behind property lines within street right of ways. Under
Alternative C, 14 trails are proposed of which 7 are behind property lines. Under
Alternative D, no trails are proposed.
Many of the parks, open space areas and trails are located adjacent to streams and
other shorelines. These include:
May Creek
May Creek Open Space Site
Coal Creek Park Site
May Creek Trail
Honey Creek
Honey Creek Trail
Honey Creek Open Space
- Cedar River
Cedar River Trail
Cedar Crest Trail
Cedar River Sports Complex
South Slope Open Space Area
North Slope Open Space Area
Interpretative Facility Site
Cultural/Recreation Complex
Lake Washington
Portion of Lake Washington Trail
Several streams and especially the Cedar River contain Steelhead and Salmon during
spawning periods. Activities in or near these streams during spawning periods would
have a significant impact upon the fishery. Construction and other recreation activities
would need to be carefully reviewed during these periods to ensure that they do not
adversely impact the spawning. Other potential impacts upon streams and other
shorelines from adjacent park and trail use could include erosion, sedimentation, the
disposal of trash, etc. During construction of trails some bridges would need to be built.
While minor, these crossings could impact streams during construction (ie. erosion and
sedimentation).
Under Alternative B, four trails and seven park and open space sites are proposed.
However, under this alternative, park and open space sites would be acquired only and
would not have an impact on shoreline use. The portion of Lake Washington Trail is
currently under construction. Under Alternative C, four trails and one open space area
are proposed. Alternative D proposes no trail development and park sites are not
defined aside from the Cedar River Sports Complex and Cedar River Trail Extension.
IV-39
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
IMPACT LEVEL 0 Q Q Q
NO. SITES IMPACTED 3 0 0 1
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 4 4 2 1
0 NONE C LOW O MODERATE • HIGH
Specific areas of concern include the following:
Parks:
Cedar River Regional Park Site - This complex is an accumulation of several park areas,
which includes both active and passive activities. The Cultural/Recreation Complex,
Nature Center and Cedar River Sports Complex could all potentially impact the
shoreline of the Cedar River.
Trails:
Honey Creek Trail - This trail which follows the Honey Creek Basin could potentially
impact the shoreline by erosion and sedimentation.
May Creek Trail- This trail follows the May Creek corridor for several miles. Potential
impacts could include increased sedimentation and erosion as well as additional litter.
Cedar River Trail - A portion of this trail is already developed. By extending this trail
upstream, additional erosion and sedimentation is possible.
Lake Washington Trail - This trail, in some cases, would follow along the shoreline of
Lake Washington. Impacts could include erosion, sedimentation anJ potential
disturbances to abutting land use.
Mitigation Measures:
Impacts upon surrounding land uses that are created by park development can be
mitigated through proper design and management procedures. As an example, during
the park design process, activities that have the potential of impacting adjacent land
uses can be properly located or eliminated entirely. Other management options to help
minimize impacts include limiting the hours of use, constructing fences and gates
around the park and limiting the location and hours of lighting.
Parks and trails that are developed adjacent to streams will most likely come under the
review process of city, state and federal agencies. Some mitigating measures that
should be considered is limiting the number of access points to streams, requiring
setbacks from streams for trails and active recreation areas, requiring special
construction techniques adjacent to or in streams, the prevention of erosion material to
reach the streams, controlling light in close proximity of the streams and routine
maintenance to keep streams clear of debris and other material.
IV- 40
During the trail planning and design process, the City will evaluate the conditions and
determine if a particular trail is appropriate under the circumstances that exist at the
time of development. A trail project confronted with difficulties in acquisition, for
example, may become available at a later date. The Maplewood Heights area, where
the Cedar River Trail has been proposed, will, like many others, be investigated and
rights-of-way negotiated on a project by project basis. If a purchase or other suitable
arrangement for trail development cannot be achieved, the trail may need to be re-
routed, a right-of-way condemned j or the project postponed or eliminated. Adoption of
the plan does not imply that all projects will be developed.
Adjacent land use conflicts, particularly affecting private land owners, can generally be
mitigated through careful design and location, planting of vegetative buffers, visual
screening, construction of fences and barriers, provision of adequate parking,
installation of directional signs, lighting, the installation of trash receptacles and
restrooms, adoption of a regular trail maintenance program, and institution of an
education program to inform users of their legal and ethical responsibilities. In
addition, preventing motor vehicles from using the trails through design and
6` enforcement will also reduce conflicts. Many of these measures are contained in the
proposed Trail Plan.
Actual design and location of specific trails are not provided in the Trails Plan, nor is
the level of detail in the plan intended to resolve all potential land use conflicts that
might arise. Therefore, these issues need to be carefully addressed as projects are
proposed for development.
Relationship to other plans:
1. Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) -This environmental impact
statement was prepared in compliance with SEPA.
2. Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan - The Renton Comprehensive Land Use
Plan identifies several areas and greenbelt/open space areas that are reflected in
the new Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. Utility corridors and steep
slope areas correspond syith trails, lineal parks and open space area.
Neighborhood and community parks have been sited in similar locations.
However, there are a number of sites identified in the new Comprehensive Park
and Recreation Plan that are have been designated as an alternative land use in
the generalized comprehensive land use plan. These sites are either designated
as public/quasi-public or single family.
3. King County Park and Recreation Plan - The new Comprehensive park and
recreation plan identifies existing county sites. It recommends the development
or upgrade of these sites ini order to meet the needs of the local residents. In
many cases, the plan identifies additional park land that is located in the county's
jurisdiction. It is important the city and county coordinate planning efforts in
providing park and recreational facilities.
4. Tukwila Park and Recreation Plan - The new Comprehensive Park and
Recreation Plan and Trails Master Plan acknowledge connections to Tukwila,
primarily through trails. The Interurban Trail•and Christianson Trail are major
links in the regional trail system. It important to note the presence of Fort Dent
Park,which is located fairly close to the western edge of the City of Renton.
- Iv-41 •
5. Kent Park and Recreation Plan-The new plans acknowledge connection to Kent,
primarily through trails. The Soos Creek Trail and the Lake Youngs Waterline
Trail are major links in the regional trail system.
6. Renton Wetlands Study(1981) -This study identified and evaluated the quality of
wetland sites in the Renton area. However, this study was limited to the
incorporated area of the city. The new Comprehensive land use plan identifies
sites m the unincorporated area as well as recommends the acquisition of several
of the highly ranked wetland for preservation. This includes the Black River
Riparian Forest, Renton Wetlands, Panther Creek Wetlands and areas along the
Cedar River March.
7. Renton Slope Ordinance -The Renton slope ordinance prohibits development on
slopes greater than 40%. The new Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan
recommends the acquisition of these areas for open space.
8. Sole Source Aquifer Study - The sole source aquifer is located along the Cedar
River and is the major source of water for the City. Since parks and open space
require very little hard surfacing, they allow surface water to replenish
groundwater supplies. By preserving the land within this area for parks and open
space, it will protect the land from development, thus ensuring that aquifer
recharge will be replenished.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
Some minor conflicts including impacts on privacy and security, noise and visual
impacts can be expected where parks and trails are located close to private residences.
Alternative A, which is the full implementation of the plan is likely to experience the
most adverse impacts. However, these are expected to be minimal. Each of the
alternative would have proportionately fewer impacts relative to the level of
development.
4.2.4 Housing
Existing Conditions:
Except for vacant land, housing makes up the predominant land use in the city of
Renton. It is estimated that there are a total of 18,722 housing units in the city. Of that
number it is almost equally split between single family and multi-family units. Single
family housing account for 51% of the housing stock but 62% of the population.
IV- 42
•
Table 4-2
Housing Types-City of Renton
1990
Housing 1990 Estimated Persons Per 1990 Est.
Tyne Housing Units Household Population
1 Unit 9,490 2.6 24,166
2 Unit 470 2.4 1,094
3-4 Unit 867 1.9 1,581
5+ Unit 7,285 1.7 10,856
Mobile Home 610 1.6 987
Recently, several areas have received considerable growth, particularly in the south and
east areas of the city. The fastest growing areas are Sierra Heights/Glencoe and
t.. Rolling Hills/Benson Hill neighborhoods, As population increases, so does the
demand for park and recreational facilities. The development of housing units places
an additional demand for new park sites, open space areas and trail systems.
Impacts:
Impacts on housing from park d trail activities is difficult to determine. These
can expected to occur where parks and trails are located close to private
residences. Impacbet on housing is limited to loss of privacy and security, noise and visual
impacts. While parks, open space and trails can have some minor impacts upon
housing as previously described, most can be mitigated.
Alternative A would result in greater impact on housing due to the full implementation
of the plan. Under this alternatives 34 additional sites are recommended for acquisition
and development. Some of these sites would receive minimal development such as
trails and small parking areas. It is assumed that the more active use areas, such a
• ballfields would increase the likelihood of impacts on surrounding housing.
Under Alternative B, the number,, of sites impacted is significantly lower due to the
E : reduced development level. Alternative C and D would be similar to the preferred
alternative but reduced proportionately to the number or sites.
Conversely, housing has a direct impact on parks and recreation. The development of
housing units places an additional demand for new park sites, open space areas and
trail systems. Alternative A initiates a development impact fee which would have an
affect on the price of homes. Once this provision is adopted as an ordinance, it will
indirectly raise the cost of housing in Renton. Under Alternative B, C and D no impact
fee would be imposed.
As a practical point, recreation areas have a much more positive impact on housing by
increasing the quality of life and livability of the city. Alternative A and B result in the
most beneficial impacts.
�, IV-43
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
IMPACT LEVEL 0 0 0 0
NO.SITES IMPACTED 0 0 0 0
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 0 :0 0 0
0 NONE O LOW MODERATE • HIGH
Mitigation Measures:
Impact on privacy, security and visual impacts can be,mitigated through careful design
and placement of recreational facilities. In places where vegetation is cleared or is non-
existent a landscape buffer should be.provided in order to maintain privacy and
security.
To offset the demand on park, recreation and trail facilities, alternative A recommends
the implementation of a development fee. Under the fee provision, developers would
pay either a fee, dedicate land or provide recreational facilities within their own
development to the satisfaction of Community Services Department. The basis for
developing the fee schedule is found in the appendix of the Park and Recreation Plan.
While the exact amount is yet to be defined, it is anticipated that the fee per household
will be in the $200-300 range.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
The impact fee is unavoidable unless the city chooses to pay for all of the recreation
improvements. In this case, the city would not have the financial resources to complete
either Alternatives A or B. Alternative A would result in the most impact fee
assessments. Each of the other alternative would be proportionately reduced based on
the level of development.
4.2.5 Commercial and Industrial Development
Existing Conditions:
Commercial and Industrial land make up about 22% of the land in the city. One of the
important items that a potential employer looks at when considering a location is park
and recreation facilities in the area. In Renton, where most recreation sites are not
close to commercial and industrial development, some employers have provided
facilities on their own. Recognizing the positive values that recreation can have on •
employees, the Park and Recreation Plan recommends passive park areas and trails
near many of the major employee centers. Some of these park and trail areas will be
designed to specifically meet the needs of the employee. The intent of these areas is to
provide a passive play area for employee during their daytime breaks.
IV-44
Impacts:
The impacts of parks, open space and trails on commercial and industrial land is mostly
positive. Many studies have been made that demonstrate increased work production if
workers are permitted to relax land participate in some type of recreation activity.
Under each of the alternatives, the City should encourage commercial and industrial
developments to provide recreational opportunities.
Some trails in Renton are proposed in somewhat remote industrial areas. Where these
trails are located behind industrial and commercial buildings, increased access can
promote security risks. This is especially true where sites are not fenced. Trails where
this problem may exist are portions of the Cascade Waterline Trail, the Black River
Trail, the P-1 Channel Trail and the Empire Ridge Trail. Under Alternatives B and C,
only two of these trails would lie constructed. Only one of these trails would be
constructed under Alternative D.
The proposed .Park and Recreation Plan also recommends a development impact fee
for commercial and industrial d4velopment. Once this provision is adopted as an
ordinance, it will increase the cost of commercial and industrial land development.
Indirectly -this could effect the lease rates. While the exact amount is not yet
t_ determined, it is anticipated that it will range between $50 and $200 per 1,000 square
feet of building space depending upon the type of activity proposed.
I
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
IMPACT LEVEL ' 0 0 0 0
NO. SITES IMPACTED 0 0 0 0
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 0 0 0 0
0 NONE 0 , LOW Q MODERATE HIGH
4.. Specific area of concern include the following:
g
The impacts of parks, open space and trails on commercial and industrial land is mostly
positive. Increased worker production is linked to employee relaxation and
participation in some type of recreation activity.
Parks and Trails:
ir.•
If located and designed properly, no site specific park or trail impacts are expected to
affect commercial and industrial development.
i�.
IV- 45
•
Mitigation Measures:
The greatest impact will be the increased cost of developing commercial and industrial
land. To help keep the fees to a manageable level, recreation improvements should be
kept to the minimum and the city should pay its share of the costs. Where trails are
proposed behind industrial or commercial buildings, they should be fenced and in some
instances lighted. These trails should also be wide enough to accommodate patrol
vehicles.
•
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
The impact fee is unavoidable unless the city chooses to pay for all of the recreation
improvements. In this case, the city would not have the financial resources to complete
either Alternative A. Under Alternatives B, C, and D there are no adverse impacts.
4.2.6 Light and Glare
Existing Conditions: '
Park and recreation areas and trails throughout the City are subject to sources of light
from streets, particularly those in close proximity to the downtown, Interstate 405 and
the Maple Valley Highway. Sources of artificial illumination in the vicinity of many
parks include the surrounding residential areas, street, freeway and intersection
lighting.
Light and glare from park and recreation facilities will come primarily from parking
areas, on-site security lighting and ballfield lighting. The greatest amount of
illumination will come from the.lighting of sport fields. The effects of lighting sports
fields can be described in terms of off-site illumination and glare. Off-site illumination
occurs when light is cast on the ground and building surfaces as well as windows and
other openings. These often cause some level of annoyance depending on the ambient
light levels within the area. This off-site illumination is sometimes called "light spill".
A unit of illumination is described as a "footcandle" which is the equivalent to the
illumination produced by one candle at a distance of one foot striking a one square foot
surface. Below is a list of typical illumination levels:
Exterior, Day:Clear sky 10,000
Overcast Sky 1,000
Moderate Shade 650
Dense Shade 150
Interior. Near Window 1,000
Office 75-100
Libraries 50-100
Classrooms 50-100
Kitchen 50
Auditorium 20
Living room 5
Corridors 5
Exterior, Full Moonlight .02
Moonless, Distant Light .007
IV-46
• Impacts:
The greatest impacts from recreation activity relating to light and glare primarily
•
involve sports field lighting. A light impact study conducted for the City of Redding,
California, on a 6-field softball complex revealed that approximately 0.5 footcandle (f.c)
of light and glare was expected at,the property line with home plate being roughly 400'
away. Illumination was to be 1500W Metal Halide lamps mounted on 50' poles. The
desired light level on the playing field was to be 25-30 f.c. By increasing the height of
the pole and utilizing some of the new technology on the market, the amount of "light
spillover" can now be even less.
•
Development under all the alternatives will not produce significant adverse impacts
from light and glare, with the possible exception of car lights at some park sites and
lighting of sport fields. Those parks expected to have the most lighting are the
community parks that have sport fields. They include North Kennydale, Honeydew
East, Benson Hill and Royal Hills Park. The proposed Cedar River Sports Complex
will have the most lighting and will reach levels described in the Redding complex. It is
also expected that the proposed Cultural/Recreation complex will have occasional
lighting reaching 10-15 f.c. for evening concerts and other events.
Under Alternative B, none of the above sites would be developed and thereby no
lighting would occur. Under Alternative C, only one park site (Honeydew East) would :::
be developed. Impacts under alternative D is difficult to assess. The 1984
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan identifies the Cedar River Sports Complex as
a potential site for ballfield constriction.
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
IMPACT LEVEL 0 Q Q
NO. SITES IMPACTED 6 0 2 2
i.,
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 0 0 0 0
..r 0 NONE Ci LOW 60 MODERATE HIGH
L; Specific areas of concern include the following:
Parks:
North Kennydale Park Site - With the development of two ballfields and three soccer
fields, there may be some light generated by these facilities. Presently, this area is
relatively undeveloped and sparsely populated. Consequently, the light and glare
impacts would be less in the surrounding area. However, the City may choose to not
light these fields.
Honey Dew Park Site - The surrounding area is in the process of being developed.
However, there are still large areas of undeveloped land that contain undisturbed
woodlands. With the development) of several one ballfield and two soccer fields, there
may a considerable amount of light and glare generated by these facilities.
IV-47
Cedar River Regional Park This site is an accumulation of several facilities, which
includes both active and passive activities. Proposed uses such as the sports field
complex and the Royal Hills Park could generate a some light and glare However,
these areas are relatively isolated from any other land uses and should be able to
properly mitigated.
Benson Hill Park Site - The neighborhood area is rapidly being developed. Light and
glare from the one baIlfield and three soccer fields would have a significant impact on
the surrounding land uses if not properly mitigated.
Trails:
No specific areas of concern are expected as a result of light and glare. •
Mitigation Measures:
Sports Field lighting should be designed to minimize the affect on adjacent land uses.
Lighting should be directed downward and shielded to prevent glare for traffic or
neighboring properties. It is interesting to note that taller light poles will actually
decrease the amount of light spillover. To achieve this desired result, where possible,
light poles should be in the 70' range. Vegetative or structural screening and
appropriate access and parking area design techniques should be used to effectively
mitigate potential impacts from light and glare.
Outdoor lighting should.be installed at trail heads as needed to discourage vandalism
and assure user safety. Lighting should be directed downward and shielded to prevent ;
glare for traffic or neighboring properties. Vegetative or structural screemng and
appropriate access and parking area design techniques should be used to effectively
mitigate potential impacts from light and glare.
Other mitigating measures that should be considered are planting vegetative screens to
block light and glare on abutting residences, utilize time clocks to insure that sports _)
lighting is turned off at a reasonable hour and install time clocks with manual timer
switches on tennis court lighting. This will insure that lights are on only on demand and ,--'
that they cannot be used past a set time.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
Some light and glare from sports field lighting is inevitable. The greatest impact will be
from the Cedar River Sports Complex. However, very little housing is nearby and light
spillover can be controlled. Under Alternative B, there are no adverse impacts because
no projects are built that will be lighted. Alternatives C and D will result in some light
and glare, however this amount are less than Alternative A.
j-_
IV-48
4.2.7 Recreation
Existing Conditions:
The City of Renton has a fairly extensive park and recreation program,which includes a
wide variety of parks, open space areas, specialized indoor recreational facilities, and
programs serving a wide range of ages and interests. The city's recreation programs
include adult classes, senior programs, outdoor recreation programs, sports, programs
for people with special needs and youth programs. It is anticipated that additional
programs will be added as the city grows in size.
Currently, the city has very few trails. The most heavily used is the Cedar River Trail
• which begins at Liberty Park and terminates at Lake Washington. However, the city
plans to connect to some of the existing and proposed regional trails to help supplement
the intra-city trail system. Some of these regional trails include the Lake Washington
and Fairwood Trails and the Duvall-Coal Creek, Empire Way Bicycle Route, Rainier
Avenue Bike Route and the Christianson Trail. Other regional trail systems that will be
i 3 funded from the King County Open Space Program include the Lake Washington Trail,
May Creek Trail (planned for extension to the Cougar Mountain area), Cedar River
Trail (planned by the County to extend as far as Black Diamond), and portions of the
t_. Interurban trail.
Impacts:
No significant adverse impacts to recreation have been identified in connection with the
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan or its alternatives. Implementing the plan
will significantly improve recreation services in the city. Under Alternative B, the parks
element of the plan is significantly reduced because the effort will basically be to land
bank park land for development at some future undisclosed date. However, these sites
•
will not be useable for recreation purposes which will place further demand on the
existing park sites. Under Alternative C, only three open space areas, seven parks,
seven bicycle routes and 16 trails are proposed. This alternative will not satisfy the
ty need of future residents but comes closer than alternative B. Under Alternative D,
specific impacts are difficult to assess. Under the 1984 Comprehensive Park and
Recreation Plan, several areas have been identified as needing parks but were not
specifically identified.
No significant impacts to recreation has been identified from trail development and use.
Under the preferred plan, significant trail systems are proposed which will satisfy trail
interests and needs for many years into the future. Under alternative B, significant (16)
trail routes are proposed but only, the access would be secured. Development would
not be included. This option would not satisfy any of the trail needs but would secure
land for a development program at a later date. Under Alternative C, seven bicycle
i' routes and 16 trail systems would be constructed. This would satisfy about 75% of the
total trail needs. Under Alternative D, two trails are proposed and would have the
same immediate impact as alternative B except the land for trails would not even be secured.
L:
IV- 49
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
II
IMPACT LEVEL 0 • 4
NO. SITES IMPACTED 0 34 23 21
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 0 27 12 22
0 NONE 0 LOW I MODERATE • HIGH
Specific areas of concern include the following:
Parks and Trails:
No specific impacts on recreation are expected to occur under the preferred alternative.
Mitigation Measures:
Adoption of the Park and Trail Plans will enhance recreation opportunities for the
pubhc. Trails connecting to trail systems of adjacent cities or the rest of King County
have been carefully planned to assure a coordinated network of trails in the region.
The trail system is intended to benefit the citizens of Renton and surrounding
communities.
Park sites proposed outside the present city limits will require the coordinated efforts of
both the City of Renton and King County in selecting future locations. This is of
particular concern in those areas identified in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
If these areas are annexed or determined to need service under the Growth
Management Act, then an update of the Park and Recreation Plan must be completed
in order to determine future needs.
To ensure that the plans remain consistent with ongoing park and trail planning efforts
in King County and neighboring cities, park department staff should maintain regular
communications with those jurisdictions.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
No such impacts have been identified.
j
IV- 50
• - 4.2.8 Historic Preservation
Existing Conditions:
There are several historic buildings and sites in the Renton area. Most of them have
been preserved through city ordinances and in some cases, land acquisition. The
following is a partial list of historic buildings and sites:
Historic Renton Coal Mines
Renton Fire Static'?
Renton High School
Henry Ford School,
The Melrose Tavern
These sites were compiled under the Historic Preservation Program within the Cultural
Resources Division of the King County Parks and Recreation Division.
= No historic or archaeological sites have been identified that would be impacted by park
or trail development.
Impacts:
t� Impacts would be primarily from loss of historic areas through development. Unknown
sites of historical or archaeological significance could be discovered during park
development and trails construction and possibly damaged if their value and
importance is not immediately recognized. Potential site specific impacts could involve
- the open space areas along the hillsides of the Cedar River Valley. Scattered
throughout the hillsides are abandoned coal mines. These are remnants of coal mining
operations that occurred during the late 19th century. Some of the potential park and
open space projects in this area include the South Slope Open Space Site and the
Bonneville Trail. Other projects in the area that possibly might be impacted by the
mines include the Nature Center, the Cultural Recreation Complex and the Cedar
River Trail. All of the land for these projects would be acquired in Alternative B. Only
the Cedar River Trail would be developed in Alternative C.
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
L
IMPACT LEVEL 0 0 0 0
NO. SITES IMPACTED 0 0 0 0
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 0 0 0 0
0 NONE 0 LOW MODERATE HIGH
Areas of specific concern include the following:
Cedar River Regional Park - Scattered along the south slope of the Maple Valley is the
coal mines that were in operation during the late 19th century.
IV- 51
Farmstead Site - This site is located off Petrovitsky Road. The barn and farm house
have some historical significance.
Mitigation Measures:
Upon discovery of any potential works of historical significance, the city should stop
work and notify the City of Renton and the Washington State Office of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be expected.
4.2.9 Traffic and Parking
Existing Conditions:
Because of its location and major employment centers, Renton receives considerable
volumes of traffic either passing through the City or terminating from outside the
region. Interstate 405 has become one of the major sources of traffic congestion in
Renton. The infamous "Renton Curves" has been a bottleneck for many years. Major
construction and widening of this freeway is an ongoing process. -
Interstate 405 has nearly 100,000 cars passing through Renton each.day. Highway 167,
The Valley Freeway, has roughly 90,000 cars per day. Other major arterials include
Airport Way, with over 30,000 vehicles per day; Rainier Avenue, with 50,000 vehicles
per day; Maple Valley, with roughly 30,00 per day and N.E.4th Street, with over 20,000
per day. Due to the peak hour congestion and large volume of'pass-through' traffic on
Interstate 405, Highway 167 and the Maple Valley Highway, local arterials become
congested at peak traffic hours.
Park and other recreation facilities can generate traffic congestion depending upon the
type of facility and their location. While no traffic counts are available, some of the
local parks that generate a fair amount traffic include Liberty Park, Cedar River Park
and Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. This latter park generates over a million
visitors annually.
Renton's present transportation system is geared almost exclusively towards motorized
transportation. The dominance of the automobile belies the fact that non-motorized
travel represents an integral component of 'Renton's overall transportation needs.
Furthermore, walking, running, and cycling also form a basis for the city's recreation
system. Though pedestrians and bicyclists exist in Renton from every age group and
ability level, the prevailing transportation infrastructure lacks adequate facilities to
provide for these growing user groups. It is the intent of the Master Trails Plan to
respond to this need by creating a transportation system that is more functionally
integrated.
The prevailing transportation infrastructure lacks adequate facilities to provide for trail
users. The number of trail users is growing, not only because the city's population is on
the rise, but also due to the fact that trail-oriented recreation and commuting by bicycle
IV- 52
- s
are becoming increasingly popular. The Master Plan provides for a system of trails to
be constructed for this recreation group.
Trails are linear developments requiring extensive uninterrupted rights-of-way that, like
roads, must be threaded through a highly urbanized environment. Their routes
encounter a myriad of obstacles.and opportunities along the way. Like most cities in
western Washington, the existing -street and highway network poses significant
challenges to trail development for non-motorized users. Bicycles, m particular, are
faced with innumerable difficultie's and safety issues when they are forced to share the
driving lanes with motor vehicles. Most arterial streets in Renton are no exception. A
few marked bike lanes are available, although an acceptable grid of suitable bike routes
is clearly lacking.
Pedestrians have few off-street opportunities as well. The Cedar River Trail is a classic
exception. Where open space or off-street routes are unavailable, sidewalks have
offered a suitable form of pedestrian access in urban areas.
Several arterial streets are laid out in radial fashion to carry traffic through the City.
The Trail Plan views these as logical routes for pedestrians and bicycles. They are:
._ Lake Washington Boulevard V
SR 900 (N.E.Park Dr.,
Sunset Blvd.N.E.,L11(eRenton Issaquah Rd.)
�� N.E. 3rd St.and N.E.4th Streets
SR 169 (Maple Valley Highway)
Benson Road.S.
SR 515(Talbot Rd., Benson.Dr.)
East Valley Road -
Und Ave.S.W.
S.W. Grady Way
SR 900 (Sunset Boulevard W.)
Renton Avenue S.
SR 167(Rainier Avenue)
For specific trails to be developed within these corridors, it is necessary to coordinate
planning with the motorized transportation system. Long term transportation planning
occurs in conjunction with the comprehensive planning process administered in the City
of Renton Community Development office. A medium range planning process is the
Transportation Improvement Program, a six year outlook that is updated annually. The
actual funding and implementation of this plan is accomplished through the Capital
Improvement Program, an annual program.
Traffic Safety V
Traffic safety is an especially important concern to the bicyclists. Accident records in
the City of Renton are maintained by the Public Works Department in a computerized
statistical inventory containing over 8,000 records. Accidents involving bicycles or
pedestrians are combined into one category called "ped/cyclist".
Several sites were examined that might represent some of the more dangerous
intersections in the Plan. The Trail Plan recognizes these intersections as problem
areas and the statistics support those assumptions. In areas where bike lanes are
provided, accident rates would likely be reduced.
• IV-53
Impacts:
No significant impacts to traffic and parking have been identified in connection with
development of the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan or the Master
Trails Plan. As each specific project is implemented, a more detailed analysis will be
prepared in order to determine mitigating measures.
Existing and potential conflicts with motorized traffic are far too numerous to list or
describe route by route. The Trails Plan applies to the entire city and covers more than
fifty miles of trails with as many as several hundred street crossings. Bicycle routes also
parallel a large number of streets where the concern for user safety and enjoyment is
often quite similar from one location to the next.
The Airport Perimeter Road Area was the subject of a lengthy memorandum from the
Renton Municipal Airport Manager in response to the scoping notice. The letter
pointed out the steep bank above the airport along Rainier Avenue increased litter
potential; maintenance problems; insufficient area for a trail at the southeast stretch of
the road,due to a fence, permanence of the road, and lack of room on the Airport Way
side where a plant strip and sidewalk/curb exist; public viewing of airport activities
(expected to occur behind and adjacent to Perimeter Road Area); the road is not a
public right of way; vehicles and equipment use this road at all hours, creating a
potential hazard; pedestrian crossings should be limited to Airport Way not Perimeter
Road Area or in the interior of the airport; the roadway is too narrow to accommodate
bikes; sharp curves and blind corners are unsafe; bicyclists have bad habits of not
stopping or yielding to cars; and security for Boeing and airport operations.
Under Alternative B, no traffic or parking 'impacts are anticipated. Impacts under
Alternatives C would be limited to one site, which is Honey Dew East. Some increase
in traffic may occur, however this should minor. No impacts are generated by
Alternative D, no action, although the opportunity to rectify some of the traffic safety
issues that presently exist in the City would be diminished.
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
IMPACT LEVEL 0 0 0 0
NO. SITES IMPACTED 3 0 2 2
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 0 0 0 0
O NONE 0 LOW MODERATE HIGH
Specific areas of concern include the following:
Parks:
Cedar River Regional Park - The more active use areas and indoor facilities will
produce a greater impact on traffic and parking including Cedar River Park, the
Cultural/Recreation Complex, and the Sports Complex. Each specific element in these
parks should be evaluated individually in order to determine the potential impacts.
IV- 54
r
Trails:
Specific areas of concern include aiea where trails intersect with major traffic corridors.
However, if properly designed and coordinated, impacts are expected to:be minimal.
Mitigation Measures:
Although the issues outlined above are not specifically addressed in the proposed Trail
Plan, general comments in the plan suggest that if these issues are considered from an
integrated transportation planning perspective, many of them can be resolved to the
mutual benefit of both the motonzed and non-motorized sectors of the travelling
public. The Trail Standards Matrix in Appendix C offers a variety of facility and ,.
dimensional standards that can res lve many of the public safety concerns.
Bike lanes are ro osed in the
p plan where necessary to minimize hazardous conditions
for bicycles that otherwise must share the driving lanes with automobiles. Wherever
`,` possible, non-arterial streets will be' utilized for bicycle routes. However, some arterials
must be used to assure continuity in some bike routes, such as the on Rainier Avenue.
E Many factors determine how much right of way is needed or what an appropriate width
for a bike lane is. Right of way widths vary substantially throughout the city. The width
of driving lanes, shoulders and remaining undeveloped portions of right of way are not
always constant, thus the need for:additional right of way varies a great deal, even along
the same street. Dedication of additional right-of-way may be required in some
instances. The planning and acquisition of additional right-of-way should coordinated
between the various departments to ensure that the future needs are met. The Police
Department suggested a curb-or other physical separation between motorized and non-
motorized traffic to help ensure safety. Solution will be determined case by case and
depends on which standard the city elects to pursue for a particular project.
Solving conflicts between motonzed and non-motorized traffic require greater
coordination of short and long term planning for trails and roads. Specifically, on-street
bike paths and trails should be integrated with the Transportation and Capital
Improvement Programs for road development. This can be further encouraged Through
the adoption of appropriate policies in the updated Comprehensive Plan. In addition,
the Trails Plan should compliment the School Walkway Program, wherever possible.
The Trail Plan recognizes the need for this level of coordination. For example,
connections from the home to shopping areas, schools and employment centers are
emphasized in the plan.
Public Works officials have indicated a receptiveness to facilities for bikes and
pedestrians, but they depend on the Parks Department to provide the initiative on
specific proposals in addition to funding. Coordination between the variousdepartments is essential during tlereview process. If major re-routing of planned
routes is needed, the various agencies involved should work together to ensure that
integrity of the plan is maintained.
Recent projects include the Duvall Avenue widening which is conducive to bikes (as yet
unmarked) and Sunset Blvd NE. In response to the Airport Perimeter Road Area
concerns, it may be feasible to develop the trail with some modifications in order to
address the issues raised (right-of-way width, safety, security, etc.). The route described
in the Plan is approximate. When and if the route is.pursued bythe City (it is lowest on
the list of twenty priority trails), these concerns shold be seriusly adrssed, relative
Iv- 55
to the conditions existing at that time.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
Integration of the non-motorized and motorized transportation systems could result in
an increase in the number of accidents due to more bicyclists and pedestrians mingling
with motor vehicle traffic. However, if new routes are built to standards recommended
in the Plan, overall safety should improve under each of the action alternatives.
4.2.10 Maintenance
Existing Conditions:
Park and trail facilities are routinely maintained by the Park Department. Historically,
park sites in Renton have benefitted from an aggressive maintenance program.
Impacts:
New park and trail development including tread, stairs, benches, trash receptacles,
culverts, restrooms, and other structures will increase the need for maintenance within
the park system. New on- street facilities (bike lanes) will increase the surface area
subject to road maintenance. The Airport Manager expressed concern for increased
maintenance needs of the Airport Perimeter Trail. Construction activity within utility
corridors or other rights-of- way may interfere with trails or present a safety concern to
be addressed. Conversely, trail development may impact maintenance operations
within the utility corridor.
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
IMPACT LEVEL Q 0 Q r
NO. PARKS IMPACTED 2 0 1 1
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 0 0 0 0
0 NONE Q LOW o MEDIUM I HIGH
Specific areas of concern include the following:
Cedar River Regional Park Site - This site is an accumulation of several different park
types and uses. The Cultural/Recreation Complex and the Sports Complex are likely to
draw large crowds of people. This could potentially require additional maintenance.
Mitigation Measures:
For safety and efficiency, design of the trail tread should include a two percent cross
slope, drainage swales and culverts adjacent to the trail, a structural cross section with a
IV- 56
compacted subgrade, structural subgrade, and wearing surface.
The City should assess all maintenance requirements and resolve any maintenance and
repair responsibilities among the various parties prior to development. Maintenance
costs can be minimized by providing tread widths and curves sufficient for maintenance
vehicle use. Bridges should be wide enough for maintenance vehicles and be engineer
designed. Footbndges, stairs, guard rails, etc need to constructed and maintained in a
safe condition at all times.
Maintenance practices in the aquifer recharge areas is of particular concern. The
concentration of chemicals in any one location within the aquifer recharge area should
be avoided. The storage of chemicals and fertilizers for maintenance purposes should
be stored outside of the aquifer recharge areas. The application of chemicals should
follow the manufacturers recommendations and where possible alternative methods
utilized. The city should continue to train its personnel on the application of chemicals
• and check to see that all are certified by the State of Washington.
Separate easements are needed along utility corridors which should be acquired and
maintained the Parks Department. Park related improvements and repairs will be the
responsibility of the Parks Department
Request for water service will be made during the design review process or prior to
development. Water will be needed for minor maintenance purposes, irrigation and
public facilities such as restrooms and drinking fountains.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be expected
4.2.11 Waste Disposal
Existing Conditions:
Solid waste generated in the City, of Renton is collected by a private hauler under
contract with the City. The waste is currently hauled to Cedar Hills landfill.
Approximately 7,000 tons of residential and 28,000 tons of commercial waste were
handled in the year ending June 1990. This volume may be on the decline as a result of
a new curbside recycling program instituted in 1989. It is a source separated system
that captures about.34 percent of the waste stream. The City considers this program to
be quite successful.
No statistics are available with respect to the volume of waste generated by City park or
trail facilities. This waste is also handled under contract along with that generated by
city offices and other public buildings. The total waste volume collected at individual
park facilities does not appear to represent a significant percentage of the waste stream.
Although recycling has not been implemented at outdoor sites, in-house recycling does
occur.
Renton has been described by city officials as a fairly clean city due, in part, to an
aggressive Parks maintenance program. Existing parks and trails are generally well
kept, although some littering has been observed along unmaintained user trails.
IV- 57
Unlawful dumping was noted at several undeveloped locations during field
investigations. These problems tend to decline when trails are maintained for the
public and trash receptacles are provided.
Waste disposal is assumed to be more of a problem at the .larger community and
regional park than at the smaller residential parks. This is primarily due to the high
volume of people attending the larger park sites.
Impacts:
As parks and trail heads develop under the proposed plans, the volume of waste to be
managed will likely increase incrementally. However, this increase will not be
substantial in terms of the total waste stream in the City.
Additional litter along trails can be expected but volumes are expected to be small,and
not beyond the means of the Park Department to effectively manage. City officials
report that littering by park or trail users has not been a serious problem where trash
receptacles are conveniently located. If trash cans are absent or routine maintenance is
not provided, littering along trails and around parking and access areas can be a more
serious problem.
Under Alternative B, impacts would be reduced due to the reduced level of
development and the smaller volumes of people. Only nine additional sites would
require regular maintenance. Under alternative C, seven sites under this alternative
would special maintenance requirements. This alternative would have similar impacts
although the volume of waste would be reduced due to the reduction in the number of
sites. Alternative D, would also have similar impact to alternative A but at a reduced
scale. Under the no action alternative, unmaintained user trails could be expected to
continue experiencing problems with littering or dumping.
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
IMPACT LEVEL I 0 Q Q
NO. SITE IMPACTED 7 0 2 2
NO.TRAILS IMPACTED 0 0 0 0 f -
0 NONE Q LOW I MODERATE • HIGH
Specific areas of concern include the following:
Parks:
Cedar River Regional Park Site - This site is an accumulation of several different park
types and uses. The Cultural/Recreation Complex, Royal Hills Park site, Cedar River
Park and the Sports Complex are likely to draw large crowds of people. This could
potentially increase waste.
IV- 58 1
North Kennydale Park Site - This site contains soccer and ballfields which are likely to
draw large amounts of people to one site. " This will increase the amount of waste
disposal.
Honeydew East Park Site - This sit contains soccer and ballfields which are likely to
draw large amounts of people to one site. This will increase the amount of waste
disposal.
Benson Hill Park Site - This site cotains soccer and ballfields which are likely to.draw
large amounts of people to one site! This will increase the amount of waste disposal.
Trails:
No specific trails are expected to h ve a significant impact on solid waste.
Mitigation Measures:
Both plans acknowledge the need to include trash containers in the design of facilities.
Public trail heads should provide trash receptacles in appropriate locations for the
user's convenience. Regular maintenance should be planned for and provided with all
new park and trail development.
'; Two part time litter control personnel and one park employee presently help collect
litter discarded on streets and trails throughout the city. This effort should continue
and be expanded if the need becomes apparent. During special events, additional waste
hauling contracts are routinely implemented to provide any extra waste hauling
services that might be necessary.
Increasing public awareness and appreciation of the environment can help to counter
any additional waste that might be produced by larger numbers of people using an area.
Slogans like "pack it out"and "leave only footprints"have been helpful educational tools
for a variety of state and federal resource agencies who manage lands for recreation.
As specific projects are developed, the City should pursue similar educational efforts
along nature/interpretive trails or along trails located in remote areas where frequent
trash receptacles are not feasible.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
Although minor littering is inevitable, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would
be expected.
IV-59