Loading...
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