The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES 4123CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. AI ?^ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE NOVEMBER 2011 PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL AREAS PLAN. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act encourages planning for open space and recreational needs of a community to be integrated with planning for other needs; and WHEREAS, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan (the "Plan") is compatible with the intent of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City began the process of updating the Plan in September of 2010; and WHEREAS, the Plan has been developed with extensive community outreach in conjunction with residents, property owners, business owners and operators, stakeholders, community partners, public and private agencies and institutions, and non-profit organizations; and WHEREAS, parks create opportunities for recreation, connecting people and building community, protecting natural resources and habitat, offering places for quiet reflection, and experiencing nature in a natural setting; and WHEREAS, the November 2011 Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan (the "November 2011 Plan") is a comprehensive update of the City of Renton Long Range Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, adopted in 2003. It represents a collaborative effort between the Community Services and Community and Economic Development Departments with support from all City departments, and reflects the public's desire to provide the opportunity for the community to connect to, participate in, support and encourage a healthy environment and active lifestyle; and 1 RESOLUTION NO. 4123 WHEREAS, the November 2011 Plan creates a twenty (20) year vision for parks, indoor and outdoor recreation facilities and programming and natural areas; describes current and future needs; and identifies policies, implementation strategies and an investment program to enhance and sustain parks, recreation and natural areas as critical of a livable community; and WHEREAS, updating and adopting this plan maintains the City's eligibility for State and Federal grant funding for a six (6)-year time frame; and WHEREAS, the November 2011 Plan was developed in conjunction with a citizen body Steering Committee; and WHEREAS, this matter was duly referred to the Parks Commission and Planning Commission for investigation, study, and review; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 7, 2011, having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support or opposition; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The City Council hereby adopts the November 2011 Plan and asks that the Administration draw up a work program to begin implementing the plan. The November 2011 Plan shall remain in full force and effect until further revised, amended, and modified as provided by law. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 4123 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 7th day of November , 2011. Jpon A. Seth, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 7th day of November # 2011. Approved as to form: >v Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES:1533:9/22/ll:scr 3 A d o p t e d : N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 1 parks , recreation and natural areas plan 815 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon 97204 503-297-1005 | www.migcom.com Acknowledgements p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | i mayor Denis Law chief Administrative officer Jay Covington Administrative and Judicial services Marty Wine, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Bonnie Walton, City Clerk city council Terri Briere, Council President King Parker, Council President Pro-Tem Randy Corman Marcie Palmer Don Persson Greg Taylor Rich Zwicker plan co-leads Leslie Betlach, Community Services Department, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director Vanessa Dolbee, Community & Economic Development Department, Senior Planner steering committee Julio Amador, Renton Citizen Marge Cochran-Reep, Renton Senior Citizens Chris Hanis, Renton Little League, President Gwendolyn High, Renton Planning Commission Pete Maas, Renton Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Committee Britt McKenzie, Renton Arts Commission Kirk Merrill, Renton Chamber of Commerce Larry Reymann, Renton Parks Commission Tim Searing, Renton Parks Commission Al Talley, Renton School District, School Board Member Rich Turner, Greater Renton Junior Soccer Association Bo Woo, Renton Youth Council acknowledgements planning commission Michael Chen Michael Drollinger Ray Giometti Gwendolyn High Michael O’Halloran Nancy Osborn Kevin Poole Ed Prince Martin Regge parks commission Cynthia Burns Al Dieckman Michael O’Donin Ron Regis, Ex-Officio Larry Reymann Tim Searing Troy Wigestrand Marlene Winter II | CITY OF RENTON ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Stakeholders Jeff Adelson, The Boeing Company, Project Manager, Real Property, DisposiƟ ons and AcquisiƟ ons Mark Arnold, Skate Park Advocate Mike Hamilton, Herons Forever, Member Suzanne Krom, Herons Forever, President Joe Lamborn, Renton School District, FaciliƟ es and OperaƟ ons Manager Kevin Poole, Renton’s Unleashed Furry Friends (RUFF), Advocate Linda Scholl, The Boeing Company, Environment, Health and Safety Rick Stracke, Renton School District, ExecuƟ ve Director of FaciliƟ es, Maintenance, OperaƟ ons, Safety and Security Jesse Uman, The Boeing Company, Manager, State and Local Government OperaƟ ons Environmental Focus Group Chris Anderson, WDFW Region 4, Wildlife Biologist Karen Bergeron, WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Recovery Team, Habitat Projects Coordinator Holly Coccoli, Muckleshoot Fisheries Department Gerry Edlund, CiƟ zen Marilyn Edlund, CiƟ zen Judy Fillips, Cedar River Council/River Safety Council, CR Council/Mainstem 2 RepresentaƟ ve Mike Hamilton, Herons Forever Sara Hemphill, King County ConservaƟ on District, AcƟ ng ExecuƟ ve Director Mary Jorgensen, WRIA 8 CoordinaƟ on Team, WRIA 8 Projects & Funding Coordinator Suzanne Krom, Herons Forever Keith Lioneƫ , Discovering Open Spaces Joe Miles, Friends of Soos Creek Park, President Jeff Neuner, Cedar River Council, CR Council/Mainstem 2 RepresentaƟ ve Martha Parker, Cedar River Council, CR Council/Peterson Creek RepresentaƟ ve Larry Reymann, Renton Parks Commission Kate Stenberg, Herons Forever Carol Stoner, Rainier Audubon Society Dan Streiff ert, Sierra Club Cascade Chapter, South King County Group, Chairperson Jean White, WRIA 8 CoordinaƟ on Team, WRIA 8 Watershed Coordinator Marilyn Whitley, CiƟ zen Recreation Service Providers Focus Group Steve Beck, Starﬁ re Sports, Owner Kim Blakeley, Valley Medical Center, Public RelaƟ ons Manager/Public InformaƟ on Offi cer Sharon Claussen, King County Parks, Program Manager Lori Hogan, City of Kent, RecreaƟ on & Cultural Services Superintendent Joe Lamborn, Renton School District, FaciliƟ es and OperaƟ ons Manager Judy Smith, YMCA/Coal Creek Family YMCA in Newcastle, Associate ExecuƟ ve Rick SƟ ll, City of Tukwila, Parks and RecreaƟ on Director Rick Stracke, Renton School District, FaciliƟ es Planning Organized Outdoor Active Recreation Focus Group Chris Hanis, Renton LiƩ le League, President Lisa Holliday, Renton School District, AdministraƟ ve Assistant, AthleƟ cs and AcƟ viƟ es Brian Kaelin, Renton School District, Director of AthleƟ cs Gerald Kaiser, Highlands Soccer Club, President Kevin Masterson, St. Anthony CYO, Soccer Coordinator Anita Parker, Greater SeaƩ le Soccer League, GSSL President Huw Salmon, Cascade Soccer Club Exequiel Soltero, Liga Hispana del Noroeste Michelle Tachiyama, Five Star Youth AthleƟ cs Rich Turner, Greater Renton Junior Soccer AssociaƟ on & Greater Renton Football Club p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | iii Acknowledgements city Attorney Larry Warren communications Preeti Shridhar, Communications Director Kelley Balcomb-Bartok, Communications Specialist Susie Bressan, Communications Specialist Lisa Garvich, Communications Specialist Beth Haglund, Form/Graphics Technician Karl Hurst, Communications, Print & Mail Coordinator community & economic development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Adriana Abromovich, Technical Services, Planning Technician Suzanne Dale Estey, Economic Development Director Jennifer Davis Hayes, Community Development Project Manager Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Bob MacOnie, Planning, Mapping Coordinator Judith Subia, Planning Administration, Administrative Secretary Chip Vincent, Planning Director community services Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator Shirley Anderson, Recreation Supervisor Margie Beitner, Community Services Administration, Secretary II Karen Bergsvik, Human Services Manager Kelly Beymer, Parks and Golf Course Director Todd Black, Capital Project Coordinator Kevin Bradley, Custodian Services Supervisor Sean Claggett, Recreation Coordinator Dennis Conte, Facilities Maintenance Supervisor Shawn Daly, Recreation Supervisor Donna Eken, Recreation Coordinator Terry Flatley, Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager Jennifer Jorgenson, Community Services Administration, Secretary II Tracy Kelly, Recreation Systems Technician Wendy Kirchner, Neighborhood Program Assistant Debbie Little, Recreation Coordinator Norma McQuiller, Neighborhood Program Coordinator Sonja Mejlaender, Community Relations & Events Coordinator Teresa Nishi, Recreation Coordinator Michael Nolan, Facilities Coordinator Andy O’Brien, Recreation Supervisor Vincent Orduna, Cultural Arts Coordinator David Perkins, Recreation Coordinator Sandra Pilat, Community Services Administration, Administrative Assistant Tom Puthoff, Recreation Coordinator Peter Renner, Facilities Director Bonnie Rerecich, Neighborhoods, Resources and Events Manager Jennifer Spencer, Recreation Coordinator Elizabeth Stewart, Museum Manager Kris Stimpson, Recreation Manager Greg Stroh, Facilities Manager Tania Thomas, Renton Community Center, Secretary II Dianne Utecht, Human Services, Community Development Block Grant Specialist Tim Williams, Recreation Director fire and emergency services Mark Peterson, Fire Chief finance & information technology Iwen Wang, Finance & IT Administrator Shawn Fenn, Business Systems Analyst Tina Hemphill, Finance Analyst Gina Jarvis, Fiscal Services Director Tim Moore, GIS Coordinator Mehdi Sadri, IT Director Nizar Salih, GIS Analyst Donna Visneski, Engineering Specialist police Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police Kent Curry, Acting Deputy Chief public works Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Dan Hasty, Transportation Planner Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director Ron Straka, Utility Engineering Supervisor Helen Weagraff, Utility Systems, Program Specialist A special “Thank You” to everyone who attended a community workshop and participated in the planning process, via the on-line questionnaire, on-line Interactive Map, project website, telephone survey, or direct contact to the City by email or telephone. We appreciate your comments and Plan support. iv | city of renton tA ble of contents a cknowledgements i t able of c ontents iv e xecutive s ummary vi i ntroduction xv purpose of the plan xvi relationship to other planning efforts xvi plan development xvii i . t he f uture of r enton’s Park s ystem 1 vision 2 goals and objectives 3 ii . e xisting c onditions 11 renton today 12 providing parks, recreation and natural Areas 15 park land and recreation facilities 17 park land summary 23 sports fields summary 23 recreational opportunities 25 natural Areas and resources 28 recreation programming 33 iii . c ommunity i nvolvement 39 public involvement Activities 40 key themes 46 iv . c ommunity n eeds 53 washington’s recreation conservation office guidelines 54 park needs 57 recreation facility needs 63 natural Area and resource needs 70 recreation programming needs 72 v . r ecommendations 75 system-wide recommendations 76 recommendations by community planning Area 83 vi . i m P lementation Plan 119 decision making tools 120 capital projects list 128 program projects list 136 implementation strategies 137 funding strategies 140 monitoring, reviewing and updating 150 vii . c once P t Plans 151 benson community park 154 kennydale lions park 156 sunset planned Action eis park 158 edlund property 160 may creek park 162 black river riparian forest 164 cleveland richardson property 166 p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | v tA ble of contents east plateau community park 168 tiffany park/cascade park connection 170 Highlands park and neighborhood center 172 b ibliogra P hy 175 m a P s existing parks and natural Areas map 21 developed park Access map 59 developed park Access & residential density map 61 sports field Access 65 natural Area Access map 71 t ables and f igures table 2.1: race and ethnicity 2000-2014 city of renton 14 table 2.2: park land by classification city of renton 23 table 2.3: city of renton sports fields by scale 24 table 4.1: recreation and conservation office los tool 55 table 4.2: proposed park Acreage standards 62 table 6.1: ranked project list 130 table 6.2: capital cost summary 135 table 6.3: inflation projections 135 table 6.4: operating cost summary 136 table 6.5: program projects 137 figure 3-1: most desired recreation facilities in renton 47 figure 3-2: popular recreation Activities in renton 48 figure 4-1: preferred park type in renton 60 figure 4-2: preferences for providing sports fields in renton 63 figure 5-1: community planning Areas 83 aPP endices Appendix A: park and facility inventory 177 A-1:renton park system inventory 179 A-2: renton school district facilties 181 Appendix b: decision making tools 183 Appendix c: project list and cost model 211 c-1: ranked project list and cost model 213 c-2: cost model support material 217 c-3: project list and cost model by park category 219 c-4: project list and cost model by community planning Area 223 Appendix d: connecting with the community 227 Appendix e: trails map 231 e-1: trails and bicycle improvements plan 233 e-2: trails and bicycle improvements plan: downtown 235 Appendix f: Adopting resolution 237 u nder se P arate cover community needs Assessment, may 2011 community-wide telephone survey final summary, may 2011 existing conditions, march 2011 planning context, march 2011 public input reports/summaries project list scoring detail vi | city of renton executive summary Developed through a collaborative and interactive process, this Plan builds on the unique character of Renton and the opportunities created by Lake Washington, the Cedar and other rivers that flow through the City. The City’s location is at a crossroads in the Puget Sound region. For the first time, this plan integrates evaluation of and planning for recreation programming, as well as the many acres of natural area lands that augment the City’s long-standing developed park system, to create a path forward that reflects the community’s ambitions and potential. This plan presents a 20-year vision for parks, recreation facilities and programming and natural areas; describes current and future needs; and identifies policies, implementation strategies and an investment program to enhance and sustain parks, recreation and natural areas as critical elements of a livable community. One of the important roles of this plan is to fulfill the Washington Recreation and Conservation Office requirements, maintaining eligibility for State and Federal grant funding for a six- year period. parks, recreation and natural resource Areas provide the opportunity for the community to connect to, participate in, support and encourage a healthy environment and active lifestyle. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | vii Planning Process The Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan was developed through the active participation of more than 1,500 people, including Renton residents, businesses, interest groups, focus groups, stakeholders, park users, City staff and public and non-profit agency representatives. The planning process included use of many different types of public involvement activities to ensure that different cultural groups, ages and interests all provided valuable feedback. The Visioning Workshop, project website and email blasts, focus group meetings, community workshops, community-wide questionnaire and telephone survey all aided in the development of this Plan. The layering of results and the analysis of key themes ensures that this plan reflects the diverse priorities and interests of the Renton community. In addition to the outreach events and activities, several key groups met regularly during the planning process to provide direction and multiple perspectives as the plan was being developed. These groups included a project Steering Committee, an Interdepartmental Team (with representation from all of the related City departments), the Parks Commission, Planning Commission and the Renton City Council Committee of the Whole. The final version of this plan was adopted on November 7, 2011. recommendations The Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan includes recommendations for parks and facilities across the entire City, as well as details for each of the ten Community Planning Areas established by the Renton City Council. These ten areas reflect distinct communities, in terms of identity, character, physical features, existing infrastructure, services and access. Consequently, community needs for viii | city of renton executive summ A ry parks, recreation opportunities and natural areas also vary within these areas. The Plan also draws from existing adopted plans for related systems, such as the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, Shoreline Master Plan and the Arts and Culture Master Plan, and master plans for specific sites, such as the Tri-Park Master Plan, the Renton History Museum Master Plan, the Sunset Planned Action EIS and the City Center Plan. Park land Parks create opportunities for recreation, connecting people and building community, protecting natural resources, and offering places for quiet reflection and experiencing nature. The City of Renton strives to provide access to developed parks within a half-mile of home—the distance most pedestrians are willing to walk to reach a destination. This Plan refines how that half-mile is measured and targets providing parks within a quarter-mile within higher-density residential areas to recognize the increased demand for facilities created by the increased population. In addition, recommendations and conceptual designs highlight how to make the most out of several key publicly owned park sites, some in need of renovation and others as yet undeveloped. Based on the results of the analysis, the Plan recommends adding several new neighborhood and community parks to distribute the benefits of the system to Renton residents who have limited access to parks, including those in areas added to the community through annexation. recreation facilities Renton’s parks offer a wide range of outdoor recreation facilities, adding recreational variety to the park system and supporting the vision for healthy and active lifestyles. The Plan recommends more recreation facilities, including additional sports fields, trails, indoor programmable space and other specialized features, p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | ix executive summ A ry especially within existing parks. Children’s play areas, a staple of neighborhood and community parks, need increased variety to include traditional and thematic playgrounds, along with creative play and nature play areas. To support user groups and ongoing initiatives, the Plan discusses amenities such as water access facilities, skate parks, dog parks, community gardens, large group venues and interpretive facilities. The focus on developing unique and varied facilities will help parks support the distinct character of each community planning area. At the same time, upgrades to the City’s most popular parks, such as Cedar River Park, are also recommended to increase site capacity and use, while supporting Renton’s most valued park assets. natural areas Natural areas provide a variety of public benefits including natural resource education and volunteer opportunities. City residents feel strongly about balancing public access to natural areas with the need to protect and conserve natural resources. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan recommends continuing to protect natural areas to enhance salmon habitat, the urban tree canopy and other natural resources, while improving access to these areas. Fundamentally, the community expressed a desire to have access to natural areas wherever environmentally appropriate. Renton’s natural areas are a critical link between people and their environment, building a stewardship ethic and attracting residents and businesses. Some natural areas are protected based on the underlying resources, such as salmon habitat or steep hillsides, and others are important because they are within walking distance of residents. Adding to existing corridors, such as the Cedar River Natural Area, May Creek Greenway and Panther Creek Wetlands, as well as reserving or creating natural areas within new and existing parks, are executive summ A ry x | city of renton recommendations. Enhanced natural area management, with updated natural resource inventories and new management plans, will address invasive species, dumping, encroachments, vandalism and other challenges that natural areas in Renton now face. Programs and PartnershiPs Renton has a long history of providing a full-service recreation program to the community. Recreation programming connects people, builds community, fosters volunteerism and creates long term partnerships. Collaborations with public and private entities have allowed Renton to expand and enhance recreation services and programming. The Plan recommends building and strengthening these relationships to sustain existing facilities and expand recreational opportunities. A key element of this strategy includes expanding the agreement with the Renton School District to increase facility use and maximize the resources available for maintenance. In the spirit of continuous improvement, Community Services can use the Plan’s Recreation Program Evaluation tool to develop recreational programming for activities that support the Plan’s vision and goals. executive summ A ry p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | xi Plan of action Each of the recommended projects in this Plan will play an important role in creating the parks, recreation and natural areas system envisioned by the community. To successfully carry out these recommendations, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan includes a series of implementation tools and strategies to help focus and prioritize City efforts while allowing Renton to be flexible in responding to opportunities as they emerge. decision making tools Several decision making tools were included in the Plan to provide guidance for parks and recreation services and programming, the design of new parks and renovations, the prioritization of projects and the cost of building and maintaining improvements. These tools include: • Recreation Program Evaluation Tool: Built around nine target outcomes for programming, this worksheet can be used to evaluate new and existing programs and determine where community resources should be invested. • Design Guidelines: The Plan includes new park design guidelines that update and expand the descriptions of what should, what could and what should not be included in the design and development of parks in the city. executive summ A ry xii | city of renton • Prioritization Criteria: Drawing from the extensive public input, seven criteria have been developed to evaluate how well a specific project supports the Plan’s vision and goals. • Capital Project and Operating Cost Model: The Capital and Operations Cost Model presents “planning level” costs to be identified for each project recommended in this Plan. Applying per-unit or per-acre cost assumptions, the model identifies both capital and operations costs to develop a new project and operate and maintain it in the future. caPital Projects and costs Looking at the system as a whole, the total capital investment needed to implement all of the recommended projects is estimated at nearly $214,000,000 (in 2011 dollars). Of this total, 16% of funds are for land acquisition totaling $34 million, 18% is for the development of new parks totaling $39 million and 11% of funds are for new recreation buildings totaling $24 million. These are very large, long-term investments and it is important to create methods to break this cost down into more manageable pieces. Recommended projects in this Plan are summarized by park site; planning level costs have been rolled up by park classification and community planning area. Additionally, each of the projects has been evaluated against the seven prioritization criteria. By applying the Prioritization Criteria tool, the Plan includes a ranked list of projects as they align with the plan goals, providing an order of priority for projects that can help determine what projects to pursue first. The prioritization is dynamic, intended to be revisited periodically to reflect changing circumstances and conditions. As improvements are made, the cost of operating the park system will also increase. The cost model created for this Plan includes an operating cost element that estimates the additional operating funds needed for each additional project. The impact of individual executive summ A ry p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | xiii recommendations varies, but the complete system build out will require approximately $6,000,000 in additional operating investment. Over half of this additional total will be the result of new or expanded major recreation facilities, such as a multi- generational community center and an expanded aquatic center. Programming Projects The programs and services recommended in the Plan were prioritized separately based on the same set of prioritization criteria used for capital projects. Rather than developing an exhaustive list of ongoing Renton recreation programs, these projects represent areas of programming that received special interest from the community and that represent promising future directions. Recreation programs are a driving force underpinning the recreation facility recommendations. As new facilities are developed, new or additional programs may need to be added to maximize their use. Support for and increased participation in recreation programs leads to increased use of park facilities which is a major community goal. The primary programming emphasis outlined in this Plan is to evaluate existing and future recreation program offerings against the outcomes and benefits. Through this assessment, the City of Renton can focus on recreation programs that provide the greatest benefit to the community, while meeting identified need. imPlementation strategies The Plan notes specific strategies to ensure that new development contributes their fair share to improvements in the park system and that future initiatives are supported by the community. Additional strategies discuss ways in which park projects can be combined with other public services or development projects, such as transportation and stormwater, to maximize community benefits. Additionally, recreation programming serves as a xiv | city of renton executive summ A ry community-building resource. Similarly, programs build City partnerships, especially with other major community resources such as the School District. As a final part of its action plan, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan includes a series of concept plans to illustrate how recommended facilities can fit into existing and proposed parks. These concepts were created to show one vision of how these parks can be designed, informed by the general community input of this plan. next stePs The community’s vision for the future of parks, recreation facilities and programs and natural areas has been the foundation for this entire planning effort. Consequently, the recommendations, tools and strategies built on the vision should serve Renton well, providing guidance to the end of this decade and beyond. The document is designed to be an informative guide to the park system, a reference for future projects and a tool box for implementing recommendations and taking advantage of unique opportunities as they arise. These projects will help the City to renew the investment in these critical community assets, and achieve the vision laid out by the community. i ntroduction xvi | city of renton i ntroduction The Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan is the result of a collaborative effort between community members, staff, agency representatives and elected officials with the goal of creating a unified community vision for the future of Renton’s parks, recreation resources and natural areas. PurPose of the Plan Initiated in September 2010, the Plan: • Presents a long-term vision and goals for the City and community for the next 20 years; • Describes current and future needs, interests and community preferences for parks, recreation facilities and programs and natural resources; • Identifies system-based policies, implementation strategies and an investment program to enhance and sustain parks, recreation and natural areas as critical elements of a livable community; • Provides a framework to guide the City in setting priorities, making decisions and funding improvements and operations for Renton’s parks, recreation facilities and natural areas; and • Responds to the needs of the community as well as the requirements of the State of Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) for grant funding eligibility. The plan will maintain this eligibility for six years from the date of adoption. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | xvii relationshiP to other Planning efforts This document is structured to align with three levels of planning: the city-wide system, the community planning areas and individual park sites. This Plan reinforces the policies presented in the Renton Comprehensive Plan and provides specific guidance for individual Community Plans. While the City’s Comprehensive Plan presents overarching guidance and direction for city-wide planning including environmental protection and land use, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan provides specific strategies and actions to enhance, program and maintain City parks, recreation facilities and natural areas. In turn, these system-wide actions and implementation strategies will guide the individual community planning efforts. Each Community Plan will create a finer level of detail about the specific needs, priorities and character of each of the ten individual community planning areas. The City has other system and site specific plans in place and in progress. System-wide plans with a strong tie to the parks system include the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, the Urban and Community Forestry Development Plan, the Arts and Culture Master Plan and the Museum Master Plan. Overall, this document provides similar system-level guidance as these plans. Plan develoPment The Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan was developed through the active participation of residents, interest groups, park users, City staff and agency representatives who provided feedback through a variety of meetings, workshops, surveys, questionnaires and an interactive online mapping exercise. These diverse outreach activities were designed to collect feedback from a variety of people, xviii | city of renton including different cultural groups, ages and interests. Over 1,500 people participated in the development of this plan. In addition to the many public involvement activities, several key groups met regularly during the planning process to provide direction and coordination with other City policies and goals. These committees and commissions included: • A 16-member Steering Committee, a citizen group consisting of demographically-diverse members representing a range of interests and backgrounds; • An 18-member Interdepartmental Team, promoting a high degree of coordination among City departments; • The 7-member Parks Commission, overseeing park and recreation facility operations; • The 9-member Planning Commission, responsible for the oversight of land use policies and regulations; • The Community Services Department staff, representing the front lines of implementing recreation programs and services; and • The council committee, Committee of the Whole, meeting to provide additional and in-depth discussion. The resulting plan reflects the many different priorities and interests of the Renton community. It also provides the City with the flexibility to respond to changing community demographics and needs. 1. t he future of renton’s Park system 2 | city of renton t he future of renton’s P ark system The City of Renton is poised to renew its commitment to and investment in city parks, recreation facilities, natural areas and recreation programming. This desire is based on the community’s love and enthusiasm for the places that support Renton’s identity as a sustainable, interconnected community, with people who are willing to work together to promote its health and vitality, protect its natural resources, celebrate its character and ensure its long-term dedication to a higher quality of life. The vision and goals presented in the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Plan are intended to illustrate this desired future for the community, while giving the Community Services Department the flexibility it needs to achieve these goals. vision The community’s vision for Renton’s parks, recreation and natural areas is: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource Areas provide the opportunity for the community to connect to, participate in, support and encourage a healthy environment and active lifestyle. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 3 goals and objectives Seven goals have emerged from this vision. These goals direct the long-term improvement, maintenance and programming of the parks and recreation system. These goals recognize the many benefits that park land, recreation facilities and programs and natural areas offer the community. Each goal includes several objectives—also known as action statements that will help the City and community together achieve their vision for the future. Objectives describe specific implementable directions that can be used to measure the progress made towards achieving these goals. Each goal and associated objectives have grown out of the public feedback described in Chapter 3 of this plan. 4 | city of renton future of renton’s pA rk system Objective A.1. Expand recreation opportunities to meet future growth needs and planned density. Objective A.2. Develop parks that provide service to residences within ½-mile of low density residential land uses and within ¼-mile of the areas planned for high residential density. Objective A.3. Design indoor and outdoor spaces for flexible use. Objective A.4. Where possible, increase capacity at existing parks and recreation facilities. Objective A.5. Utilize Decision Making Tools for future planning, acquisition, development and programming decisions to create a safe and enjoyable experience. Objective A.6. Provide easily accessible information about the park system, expanding knowledge and awareness of recreation opportunities. Objective A.7. Park master plans shall be completed in conjunction with public participation to guide all major park development and achieve cohesive design and efficient phasing of projects. Objective A.8. Utilize partner organization strengths and facilities to provide recreation opportunities in areas where there are shortfalls in parks or programmable space. expand parks and recreational opportunities in new and existing locations with an identified need, in order to fill gaps in service and keep pace with future growth. Goal A: Filling gaps in service p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 5 g o A ls A nd ob J ectives create a connected system of parks, corridors, trails and natural areas that provides nearby and accessible opportunities for recreation and non-motorized transportation. Goal B: Creating a connected system Objective B.1. Link parks to other destinations in the community and region such as schools, parks, trails, natural areas, commercial areas and business districts. Objective B.2. Minimize barriers to create safe and convenient non-motorized park access including busy streets, railways, topography and waterways. Objective B.3. Complete transportation, recreation and habitat connections across the system. Objective B.4. Enhance the connection between local food production and the community through education, awareness and community events. Objective B.5. Develop and implement accessible parks, facilities and programs for all ages and abilities. Objective B.6. Encourage use of non-motorized transportation modes to access recreation opportunities. 6 | city of renton future of renton’s pA rk system Objective C.1. Develop, strengthen and facilitate strong partnerships with individuals, service groups, non-profits and other agencies and organizations to allow for expanded public use of facilities. Objective C.2. Increase internal coordination between City departments to maximize the public’s access to recreation opportunities. Objective C.3. Coordinate planning, programming and operations between government agencies, local school districts and community groups to increase the availability and accessibility of recreation resources. Objective C.4. Formalize partnerships and agreements with agencies, businesses and other organizations to increase access to recreation opportunities. cultivate strong, positive partnerships at the local and regional level with public, private and non-profit organizations in order to unite community efforts to develop and sustain the park system. Goal C: Building partnerships p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 7 g o A ls A nd ob J ectives create a distinct identity that celebrates the natural, historic and diverse character of the community through park and facility design, recreation programming, interpretation and education. Goal D: Creating identity Objective D.1. Offer programs and events that celebrate the unique features of Renton. Objective D.2. Expand water access to the community through acquisition, facility design and programming. Objective D.3. Integrate cultural and historic resources and interpretation within the park system. Objective D.4. Create a system of parks that incorporates unique features and contributes to community identity. Objective D.5. Provide opportunities to create and appreciate art throughout the park system. Objective D.6. Showcase Renton as a regional trail hub that connects non-motorized transportation throughout the region. 8 | city of renton future of renton’s pA rk system Objective E.1. Consider long-term management, operations and maintenance needs in projects and programs. Objective E.2. Consider the full operating cost of new park sites and features prior to their development. Objective E.3. Cost recovery should be considered when developing and implementing projects and programs. Objective E.4. Create community partnerships and encourage volunteerism that contribute to the maintenance and sustainability of the system. Objective E.5 Balance new acquisition and development with the sustained maintenance of existing parks and facilities. Objective E.6. Identify funding from a wide variety of sources for park acquisition, development and maintenance. Objective E.7. Minimize impacts to the environment by incorporating green infrastructure and promoting water and energy efficiency and storm water management in parks and facilities. Objective E.8. Enhance community awareness and involvement in natural resource area management. Objective E.9. Set an example in environmental awareness by employing best management practices. ensure long-term economic and environmental sustainability in system planning, design, operation, maintenance and decision making. Goal E: Ensuring a sustainable system p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 9 g o A ls A nd ob J ectives promote healthy and active lifestyles and build community through programs that are inclusive, fun and accessible for a diverse population. Goal F: Promoting health and community through programming Objective F.1. Provide flexible recreation programming that is constantly improving and responding to current trends and community desires. Objective F.2. Expand the community’s access to fitness and health through education, awareness and involvement. Objective F.3. Provide programs and community events that encourage interaction between neighbors and celebrate the diversity of Renton. Objective F.4. Increase awareness of the full range of program offerings and recreation opportunities. Objective F.5. Create and expand program opportunities through enhanced partnerships and volunteerism. 10 | city of renton future of renton’s pA rk system Objective G.1. Inform the management of Renton’s natural areas through complete inventories and management plans. Objective G.2. Facilitate healthy stream and river corridors to protect water quality, provide wildlife habitat and connect people to nature. Objective G.3. New development needs to be sensitive to surrounding natural systems. Objective G.4. Monitor and maintain natural areas to minimize invasive species and improve forest health. Objective G.5. Manage encroachments on public property and minimize degradation to the ecosystem. Objective G.6. Utilize Renton’s diverse natural areas to provide environmental education and facilitate stewardship in the community. Objective G.7. Restore native forests to maximize ecosystem services such as stormwater management, air quality, aquifer recharge, other ecosystem services and wildlife habitat. Goal G: Protecting and conserving natural resources protect, conserve and enhance the area’s diverse natural resources for the long-term health of ecosystems, and for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. 2. existing conditions 12 | city of renton existing conditions Renton, Washington is at the center of the Puget Sound region, located at the south end of Lake Washington and containing 23.3 square miles within its city limits.1 Bordered by unincorporated King County, and the cities of Kent, Tukwila and Newcastle. Renton is situated at a key point in the regional transportation network. renton today Renton, historically, was a small town located between the lake and the forest. In many ways it still retains that character. At the physical and economic core of the City, Renton’s historic downtown offers shopping and year-round community events and activities. Uphill from Downtown Renton, the landscape is characterized by residential development and natural areas. The city is crossed by rivers and creeks, and its landscape is defined by riparian woodlands. The Cedar River, containing the largest run of sockeye salmon in the continental United States, runs through the heart of Renton’s historic downtown. The City’s rivers and Lake Washington are home to runs of chinook, sockeye and coho salmon. But several factors place Renton on the threshold of change: the continuing transition of Renton’s industrial sector and economy; continuing regional and local population growth; and the City’s location at the crossroads of local, regional, national and international transportation. These factors foreshadow a new role for Renton as an important metropolitan center in the region, and in keeping with downtown Renton’s designation as a Regional Growth Center. 1 Study planning area calculation from King County GIS Center (KCGIS). p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 13 transitioning economy Renton’s industrial sector is undergoing a transition away from heavy industrial/manufacturing toward medium and light industrial uses. Although manufacturing is expected to remain stable, the number of light and medium industrial jobs in wholesale/transportation/communications/utilities is projected to nearly double in the Renton area between today and the year 2020. In addition, Renton has been experiencing an increase in professional and service jobs. As an example, Boeing’s related research and development facilities in and around Renton spurred the development of office parks south of the downtown and at the north end of the Green River Valley. At the same time, Renton has seen a growth in the number and types of commercial businesses in the city due to an increased demand for goods and services. growing and diversifying PoPulation Growth patterns and demographic characteristics of Renton’s residents strongly influence recreation interests and levels of participation, affecting the future need for parks, recreation and natural areas. As of 2011, Renton has a population of 92,590, making it the eighth most populous city in Washington State and the fourth most populous in King County. From 1990 to 2000, the city gained 11,419 residents; an overall increase of 18.9%. In comparison, during the same time period the population in King County grew 15.2% (1990 – 2000). Since 2000, the City’s population has increased 19.9%, with a higher average annual growth rate of 1.84%. By 2017, the population of the City of Renton is expected to grow by over 11,000 people; a 13.6% increase from 14 | city of renton existing conditions 2010. Based on the same average annual growth rate (1.84%), the total population will be 124,106 by 2030. In particular, Renton’s downtown is expected to experience considerable growth and change because a significant portion of the area has been designated a Regional Growth Center, by the Puget Sound Regional Council. Renton has become increasingly more diverse since 2000, as Table 2.1 indicates. Populations identifying as Asian, African American and Hispanic Origin increased between 2000 and 2009. This trend of diversification is expected to continue. transPortation crossroads Renton was originally located on Lake Washington for access to water transportation. Today, the city’s location as a hub of regional, national and international transportation is driving growth and change. The city is four miles from the Seattle Tacoma International Airport (SeaTac) and has easy access to I-5, a key West Coast freight route. Additionally, I-405 and State Routes 167, 169, 515 and 900 all intersect in Renton. In addition to positioning Renton for economic growth, these transportation routes create both transportation and access opportunities. However, as the hub of the regional trail system, Renton’s major transportation routes also serve as barriers to non-motorized transportation. table 2.1: race and ethnicity 2000-2010 city of renton Race and Ethnicity 2000 Population 2010 Population Percent Change 2000-2010 White 69.4% 49.4% -20.0% Asian 13.2% 21.1%7.9% African American 7.9% 10.4%2.5% Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 6.8% 13.1%6.3% Two or More Races 4.5% 4.7%0.2% Other Race 3.7% 0.2% -3.5% American Indian 0.7% 0.5% -0.2% Pacific Islander 0.5% 0.7% 0.2% Source: US Census Bureau p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 15 providing pA rks, recre Ation A nd n Atur A l A re A s “i love living here. so close to nature, the river, the lake... folks are friendly and [it] has a small town charm!” - online questionnaire open ended responses Providing Parks, recreation and natural areas The City of Renton acquires, builds, maintains and manages an extensive inventory of parks and natural area lands. Organizationally, the City is divided into nine departments, each of which reports to the Chief Administrative Officer who in turn reports to the Mayor, City Council and ultimately the citizens of Renton. The Community Services Department is the primary manager of the park and natural area system and is responsible for maintaining parks, trails, building structures, recreational programs, events, and volunteer activities. The Community and Economic Development (CED) department is responsible for economic development, business partnered events, development services, planning (including maintenance of the Comprehensive Plan) and government relations. A third department, Public Works, has its own long-term planning processes including the six-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) that supports trails and non-motorized transportation resulting in some overlap with planning for the park system. The Community Services Department is composed of eight divisions, providing the following services as defined by the city’s website (www.rentonwa.gov). • Administration: Provides management and direction for the entire department. • Recreation: Provides opportunities for the public to participate in diversified programs of recreational activities designed to meet the needs of all Renton area citizens. • Parks & Golf Course: Provides a safe, healthful, pleasant and well-maintained environment for the public’s enjoyment of leisure time activities. 16 | city of renton existing conditions • Parks Planning & Natural Resources: Provides a comprehensive and interrelated system of parks, recreation, open spaces and trails that responds to locally- based needs, values and conditions, provides an appealing and harmonious environment, and protects the integrity and quality of the surrounding natural systems; creates a sustainable and exemplary urban forest. • Facilities: Operates and maintains City buildings and Park facility buildings and manages the Capital Improvement Program which provides planning, design and construction management services for City building projects. • Human Services: The focal point for information and referral for City of Renton residents and agencies. The Division coordinates and collaborates with service providers to deliver services to low and moderate income households. Human Services also works with other City Departments and divisions to improve the quality of life for City residents. • Neighborhoods, Resources & Events: Connects neighborhoods, people, businesses, and civic groups to opportunities which foster community. This includes recognized neighborhood associations, Sister Cities programs, city celebrations and other special events as well as matching volunteers with projects. • Museum: Operates the Renton History Museum, the center for the history of greater Renton. The museum offers education exhibits, programs, events, volunteer opportunities and a small research library that is open to the public. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 17 pA rk l A nd A nd recre Ation f A cilities Renton Community Services is one of only two park agencies in the state of Washington accredited by the National Recreation and Parks Association’s Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA). This distinction recognizes park and recreation agencies for excellence in operation and service. The five year cycle of the accreditation process certifies the compliance with national standards and implements a self assessment process to ensure continued compliance and improvements. The Department was the first in the state to be accredited and is currently working toward its second (2012) re- accreditation. Park land and recreation facilities Renton’s parks, recreation and natural area system is comprised of distinctive parks and popular recreation facilities, providing for a wide range of opportunities and benefits for the community. Parks are also a key gathering point, creating space for building community and providing exposure to history, arts and culture. In addition, many parks in Renton play a critical role in preserving natural areas, protecting wildlife and riparian habitat, conserving natural resources and contributing to clean water and a healthy environment for city residents. Park classification The City’s park system is composed of various types of parks, each providing unique recreation and environmental opportunities. City parks are classified by their size, function and features. While park sites function differently, they collectively meet a variety of community and natural resources needs. The Renton parks and recreation system has six different park land categories:2 2 The park classification system has been modified from prior planning efforts to better reflect the realities and uses of the Renton system. 18 | city of renton existing conditions neigHborHood pArks Neighborhood parks are small park areas (usually 2-10 acres in size) utilized for passive use and unstructured play. They often contain open lawn areas and non-programmed field space, a children’s playground, sports courts and a picnic area. Neighborhood parks provide close-to-home recreation opportunities for nearby residents, who typically live within walking and bicycling distance of the park. Some larger neighborhood parks incorporate natural areas, such as heavily wooded areas, which reduces the amount of active use acreage at the site. The City’s current inventory of neighborhood parks range in size from 0.5 acres (Glencoe Park) to 23.8 acres (the undeveloped Cleveland/Richardson Property). At one end of the spectrum, seven of the smallest sites are below the City’s minimum size threshold of two acres. These sites are provisionally classified as neighborhood parks but only have space to provide basic recreation opportunities, such as a playground, open lawn and an internal pathway (e.g., Glencoe Park and Sunset Court Park). At the other end of the spectrum, some sites provide these facilities plus multiple sport courts, multi-use sports fields, picnic shelters, permanent restrooms and even an indoor activity center (e.g., Phillip Arnold Park and Tiffany Park). Five neighborhood parks are larger than 10 acres in size. community pArks Community parks are larger sites that can accommodate organized play and contain a wider range of facilities than neighborhood parks. They usually have programmable sports fields or other major use facilities as the central focus of the park. In many cases, they will also serve the neighborhood park function for nearby residents. Community parks generally average 10-25 acres in size with a substantial portion of them devoted to active use. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 19 pA rk l A nd A nd recre Ation f A cilities Renton’s community parks range in size from 10.8 acres (Highlands Community Park and Neighborhood Center) to 43.4 acres (Ron Regis Park). Some, such as Cedar River Park, are highly developed with specialized facilities, such as the Renton Community Center, Carco Theatre and the Henry Moses Aquatic Center. Others, such as Ron Regis Park, balance natural features with sports fields and less intense park uses. regionAl pArks Regional parks are large park areas (50 acres or more) that may serve a single purpose or offer a wide range of facilities and activities. In many cases, they also contain large portions of undeveloped natural areas. Many regional parks are acquired because of unique features found or developed on the site. In Renton, Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park functions as the only park in Renton that meets the size and unique character of a regional park. Coulon Park, 51.3 acres in size, is a specialized waterfront park with a variety of recreation opportunities, including restaurants, boating facilities and a guarded beach for swimming. speciAl use AreAs Specialized parks and facilities include areas that generally restrict public access to certain times of the day or to specific recreational activities. With the exception of the Maplewood Golf Course (192.3 acres) and the Senior Activity Center Property (3.1 acres), special use parks in Renton are approximately one acre in size or less. These include the Piazza, Veterans Memorial, Tonkin Park (with its bandstand), Sit-In Park, the Green House and the Community Garden. 20 | city of renton existing conditions THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK nAturAl AreAs Natural areas in Renton preserve land for a variety of reasons. Some natural areas preserve habitat or include environmentally sensitive lands, including streams, ravines, steep hillsides and wetlands. In other cases, these may be wooded areas that contribute to the tree canopy and scenic views across Renton. In Renton, natural areas range in size from 0.3 to 250.8 acres. The vast majority of these sites are focused on water resources (rivers, streams and wetlands) and the forested lands surrounding them. While four sites include trails or trail access, most do not have recreational access. corridors This category of park captures narrow swaths of land that serve as connections between parks or to other destinations. A corridor site can be the location of a trail or can provide a habitat linkage between two larger areas. These sites do not typically include many park amenities. The City owns several narrow pieces of property that extend between park sites, creating connections within or beyond the City’s system to other destinations in the region. All of the corridor lands that are owned outright by the City are associated with the Cedar River Trail and are located between Cedar River Trail Park, Jones Park and Liberty Park. The Cedar River Trail Corridor lands owned by the City total 12.9 acres. In addition to these properties, the City owns easements to corridors in several areas including the Springbrook Trail between the Black River Riparian Forest and the Renton Wetlands. Some of these areas are developed and maintained by the City and some are managed by other entities. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 23 pA rk l A nd summ A ry THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Park land summary The City of Renton provides over 1,200 acres of parks, natural areas and corridors (Table 2.2). The Existing Parks and Natural Areas Map illustrates the location of these parks within Renton. sPorts fields summary table 2.2: park land by classification city of renton Park Classification Developed Park Sites* Undeveloped Sites/ Natural Areas Total # of Sites Acreage # of Sites Acreage Total Acreage % of System Neighborhood Park 18 92.8 5 52.0 145.5 12.1% Community Park 5 102.2 1**24.1 126.2 10.5% Regional Park 1 51.3 --51.3 4.3% Special Use Area 8 199.3 --199.3 16.5% Natural Area --9 686.5 686.5 55.6% Corridor 1 12.9 --12.9 1.1% Total 33 458.5 15 762.6 1221.7 100% * Some developed park sites include natural areas and/or undeveloped areas. **Reflects the undeveloped flat area of the NARCO Property. Renton has 60 sports fields, located at 11 park sites and 22 schools (Appendix A-1 and A-2). The school sites add considerably to the City’s inventory and sports groups rely on these fields for practice and games. The school district also operates a stadium used primarily for school events that also have been scheduled by the City for Special Olympics and track. Most of the City’s fields are designed as multi-purpose; typically a rectangular field with one or more backstops and infields at the field corners. These fields offer the possibility of sharing the same space between different user groups, used for baseball or softball in one season and soccer or rugby in another. However, in nearly all cases only one sport can play at a time. Specialized diamond shaped (baseball/softball) and rectangular (soccer, football, rugby etc.) fields also exist, mainly at school sites and community parks. 24 | city of renton existing conditions Three field scales serve to describe the character of Renton’s existing sports fields, helping to plan for their maintenance and development. Table 2.3 summarizes existing sports fields by field scale, showing the total number of individual fields owned by the City of Renton and the Renton School District. The scales account for field size, quality and type of programming, and include: • Competitive: Competitive fields are heavily scheduled and tightly controlled for designated uses. These fields are reserved and used solely for organized and programmed games and events, and feature lighting for extended play; • Recreation: Recreation fields are primarily reserved for scheduled games and activities during peak times. These generally occur after school hours for sports play by the City, School District or community sports leagues. At this scale, recreation scale fields can be used for informal field use; and • Neighborhood: Neighborhood fields have minimal or no scheduling for sports play. These fields are not designed nor maintained for formal game play and are not ideal for programming sports and games. table 2.3: city of renton sports fields by scale Field Scale Field Type Totals Total FieldsDiamondRectangularMulti- Purpose City of Renton Competitive 2 --2 Recreation 2 1 5 8 Neighborhood --6 6 Subtotal 4 1 11 16 School District Competitive 3 3 2 8 Recreation 4 2 14 20 Neighborhood 2 2 12 16 Sub-Total 9 7 28 44 Total 13 8 39 60 p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 25 recre Ation A l opportunities Photo: Denis Law recreational oPPortunities Renton’s parks offer a wide range of outdoor recreation facilities, adding recreational variety to the park system. A complete inventory of these facilities by park is provided in Appendix A. Playgrounds There are 20 parks in Renton that provide playground play equipment. Almost all neighborhood parks feature playgrounds; three are available in community parks and a large playground exists in Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, a regional park. When considering Renton School District elementary schools, an additional 14 sites could be added to the inventory for a total of 34 playgrounds. indoor Programmable sPaces The City of Renton has invested in several indoor recreation facilities, which provide local, community and regional-scale recreation opportunities. Many of the same park sites that offer rentable space also provide indoor recreation programming space. The Renton School District also provides indoor facilities that support recreation as well as education. swimming Pools/aquatic facilities Swimming and water access are one of the most popular seasonal activities in Renton. Two sites - Kennydale Beach Park and Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park - provide seasonal guarded public access to outdoor beach swimming and water play in Lake Washington. Cedar River Park houses Renton’s aquatic facility, the Henry Moses Aquatic Center featuring an extensive leisure pool and a separate lap pool. Additional indoor pools are owned and operated at two area high schools and are programmed by the school district. 26 | city of renton existing conditions skate Parks Skateboarding has experienced rapid growth across the state over the past several years and is also popular in Renton. Renton’s community-scale skate park is centrally located in Liberty Park, at the site of the former Henry Moses Pool. The 8,400 squarefoot facility features artwork funded by the Renton Municipal Arts Commission 1% for Art, and includes obstacles for varying degrees of ability. water access facilities Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park and Cedar River Trail Park provide water access for boating, rowing, sailing, canoeing and kayaking. Additional opportunities are offered for canoeing and kayaking at the Lake Washington Boathouse. For motorized boating, the only facility in Renton is the eight-lane boat launch at Coulon Park providing access to Lake Washington. The facility provides 123 stalls to support boat trailer parking and is over capacity on warm summer days. Non-motorized boat access is available at Coulon Park, Cedar River Trail Park and Riverview Park. dog Parks The NARCO Property has been serving as the site of a temporary dog park developed by a local advocacy group (RUFF) in partnership with the City. This facility is the only formal dog park in Renton and is heavily used. In addition, Renton and other South King County Cities developed and help to maintain Grandview Park through a multi-agency agreement to provide an additional off-leash area. This facility is located in the City of SeaTac. golf course The City operates the Maplewood Golf Course, an 18-hole par 72 facility. The amenities include a 30-stall covered heated driving range, a fleet of 50 gas powered golf carts and a 15,500 sq. ft. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 27 recre Ation A l opportunities clubhouse that has a full service pro shop, restaurant, lounge, patio and banquet facilities. The course was certified as an Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Golf Course in 2009, the twelfth golf course in the state to achieve this recognition. outdoor courts The City of Renton provides 17 tennis courts, 11 full basketball courts and three half courts located throughout the City. There are also two sand volleyball courts located at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. The Renton School District adds 15 tennis courts to this inventory. community gardens Renton has developed a community garden site near the Senior Activity Center. Garden plots (10-foot x 20-foot) can be reserved for a fee and are reservable through the Renton Senior Activity Center. trails Renton has several miles of trails, including the popular Cedar River Trail, Honey Creek Trail and Springbrook Trail. Multiple regional trails are also part of the trail system, including the Lake to Sound Trail, the Interurban Trail, the Green River Trail, the Soos Creek Trail and Lake Washington Loop. As a partner in the regional trail system, Renton collaborates in trail planning and development with King County, and the neighboring cities of Kent, Newcastle and Tukwila. This partnership includes trails that cross Renton city limits such as the May Creek Trail which connects to Newcastle. Eight Renton parks and the Maplewood Golf Course also have trails or trail access points to the adjacent Cedar River Regional Trail. Outside of City-owned park land, trails are also provided on easements owned by the City or other public entities. 28 | city of renton existing conditions interPretive facilities Interpretive facilities such as kiosks and signs that convey the historic, cultural and environmental context of a site can be found at varying locations throughout the park system. natural areas and resources Natural resources can be found within existing parks of any type: at neighborhood and community parks, special use areas and natural areas. The City’s natural area lands, in particular, contain important local and regional natural resources—including creek and river floodplains, extensive wetlands, riparian woodlands and upland forests. For the purposes of this Plan, the term natural area is used as a category of park land (generally kept in a less developed state) and natural resource refers to the features of any land such as habitat, water resources and tree canopy. Many parks and natural area lands protect these sensitive areas. existing Portfolio Renton’s parks play various roles in natural resource conservation. While some developed parks are not thought of for their natural resources, some heavily developed parks serve to protect aquifer recharge. Other areas are primarily undeveloped and have limited trail access (Black River Riparian Forest and Cedar River Natural Area). Within this range are a number of sites that include both developed and natural features. Additional properties owned by the City (some managed by other departments) also serve natural resource functions, whether they are heavily forested or contain wetlands to help manage surface and storm water such as the Cedar River Natural Area or the Renton Wetlands Mitigation Bank. King County is also a major natural area property owner in and around Renton; the City continues to coordinate property acquisitions to create connected systems. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 29 n Atur A l A re A s A nd resources public rights-of-way include 8% of renton’s canopy cover. other public property lands comprise 23% of the total canopy cover. - renton urban tree canopy Assessment 2011 Most of the natural area lands, and the associated natural resources, in Renton are concentrated along river/stream valleys, including the Cedar River, May, Honey, Soos, Springbrook and Panther Creeks. The Cedar River is the most prominent of these waterways in Renton, providing some of the best salmon habitat in King County and recharging the aquifers that are the primary source of Renton drinking water. The Green River corridor is west of Renton’s border, and is hydrologically connected to remnants of the Black River. These two river systems are managed as Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) 8 (Lake Washington/Cedar/ Sammamish) and 9 (Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound). Soos Creek flows along the southeastern edge the city. With the exception of Springbrook Creek and the Green River, all of these creeks and rivers drain into Lake Washington and eventually Puget Sound. Along the way, many of these streams have been modified by manmade structures. Renton’s greenways are not continuous, and are often interrupted by privately-owned land. Soos Creek, Cedar River, Honey Creek, May Creek and the Springbrook watershed are important aquifer recharge areas. wetlAnds, ripAriAn corridors And floodplAins A sizeable portion of the natural acreage in Renton is classified as wetlands, riparian corridors or floodplains. Local streams are low to moderate gradient, with low lying floodplains that include wetlands. Some of these wetlands are open and grassy, while other areas have woodlands dominated by maple, cottonwood and alder (with ash trees present, particularly at the Black River Riparian Forest area). Renton has fairly extensive floodplains, some of which have been developed. Floodplains are concentrated along Cedar River, May Creek, Soos Creek and the Green River. The Black River area has experienced extensive flooding and is managed by the King County Flood Control District. Riparian corridors within Renton 30 | city of renton existing conditions 69% of renton’s urban forest is on private land; 31% is on public properties - renton urban tree canopy Assessment 2011 are mostly discontinuous. However, undeveloped stretches cut through the city and provide green space near many homes and neighborhoods. The Green River, May Creek and Soos Creek form greenbelts that roughly follow the west, northeast and south east city boundaries respectively. The Cedar River bisects the city, especially through the downtown area. A network of freshwater marshes and forested wetlands exists in the southwestern part of Renton, including the Black River Riparian Forest area. There are over 500 acres of riparian woodland (North Pacific Lowland Riparian Forest and Shrubland) within Renton, and over 120 acres of Temperate Pacific Freshwater Emergent Marsh.3 Within Renton’s park system, there are 172 acres of riparian woodland and 31 acres of Temperate Pacific Emergent Marsh. uplAnd forests In addition to the forested areas of wetland and riparian corridors, nearly 3,000 acres of additional public and private land in Renton is classified as upland forests.4 The upland forest lands across the city are concentrated along steep bluffs and river corridors. Within Renton park lands, approximately 775 acres is forested, approximately 65% of all park land. The dominant trees noted in the City’s Tree Inventory are big leaf maple, cottonwood, red alder and Douglas fir. All of Renton’s forests have been logged in the past and are in varying stages of recovery from this initial disturbance. There is no true old growth forest within the city, though there may be individual old growth trees. 3 2010 USGS Gap Analysis http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/ 4 USGS Gap Analysis - this includes forest on private property and may include areas outside of the city limits due to the margin of error in the analysis. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 31 n Atur A l A re A s A nd resources street trees Street trees, defined as trees growing in Renton’s rights-of-way, are an important part of the urban forest, supplementing the larger forested lands. These trees provide the general benefits of larger stands of trees and contribute directly to the beautification of the city. In 2007, the City completed a public property tree inventory and assessment that individually counted all trees in rights-of-way and parks. In addition to the location, type and number of trees, the assessment provides information on management issues and health of the trees. The inventory and assessment identifies 5,897 street trees, 20,370 park trees. In addition to these trees, which exist in more developed environments, the inventory also estimates the number of trees within Renton’s natural area lands at over 106,069. tree cAnopy The sum total of the area covered by trees in the forested land, street trees and trees on private property is the urban tree canopy. Renton completed the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment in July 2011. This assessment involves mapping the tree canopy based on satellite imagery with the express purpose of quantifying the environmental benefits of the canopy and to establish data points to measure change over time. Results indicate total canopy coverage of 4,804 acres, or 28.6% of the area of the City. environmental resources The City of Renton has several unique areas of habitat, many of which coincide with its wetlands and water resources. While the Cedar River supports major fish runs, Springbrook Creek, Honey Creek and May Creek also provide habitat for salmonids. The Black River Riparian Forest provides habitat for over 50 species of birds, including herons, eagles and many small mammals. The Cedar River, May Creek and Panther Creek corridors have 32 | city of renton existing conditions forest, meadow and shrub habitats that provide shelter and food for many species. In the Environment Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, policies that preserve these areas are noted, not only to preserve their unique features, but also to enhance the quality of life and provide recreational opportunities for Renton residents. Beyond watersheds, salmon and wildlife habitat, Renton’s history is steeped in forestry. From its early naming after Captain William Renton (a lumberman) to its present-day recognition as Tree City USA (2008, 2009 and 2010), the City of Renton values its trees. Renton has managed trees for many years and in 2008 embarked upon a formal urban forestry program. In 2009, City Council approved the 2009 Urban and Community Forestry Development Plan, a legacy program to guide the City’s urban forestry efforts over the next ten years. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 33 recre Ation progr A mming recreation Programming Recreation programming is a major service the City of Renton provides. The diverse set of programs is the responsibility of the Recreation Division of Community Services, which also collaborates with a variety of community partners who use City facilities and advertise within the recreation program guide. Renton’s recreation programs and services can be organized into ten major program areas: • Aquatics: The Henry Moses Aquatic Center provides public swims, lap swimming, youth group swimming lessons (ages 9 months to 12 years), water walking, water aerobics and facility rentals during summer months. Lifeguards are provided at Kennydale Beach Park and Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park during the summer months. • Camps: There are a variety of camps offered by the City including summer day camps, spring and winter art camps, tennis camps and other sports camps. • Crafts and Visual Arts: This includes senior, adult, youth and pre-school art classes, as well as Renton History Museum and Carco Theatre programs. • Health and Fitness: This program area includes fitness, martial arts classes and drop-in exercise opportunities for seniors, adults and youth. • Outdoor Recreation: A variety of outdoor programs, such as sailing, rowing, kayaking, cross-country skiing, snowboarding, snowshoeing, golfing and gardening are provided for all youth, adults and seniors. • Performing Arts: This area includes classes and recitals for dance, music and theatre/drama for all ages. 34 | city of renton existing conditions • Special Events: Special events include a variety of celebrations, festivals and activities that support community interaction, recreation, fitness and fun. These events are targeted to, and enjoyed by, all ages. • Special Interest: This program area includes miscellaneous classes, such as computers, photography, dog obedience, etc. for adults and seniors, and to a lesser degree classes for preschool, youth, and teens. • Specialized Recreation: The Specialized Recreation program provides a variety of recreational opportunities, group leisure/social programs and adaptive programs for youth and adults with disabilities. • Sports: This program area supports tennis (in partnership with Aces Tennis) and youth and adult athletics (softball, soccer, cricket, baseball, basketball, volleyball, and flag football), including leagues and instructional classes. PoPulations served The Recreation Division provides programs and events for a wide variety of people of all ages and abilities. These programs include preschool, youth, teen and adult leisure programs; youth, teen and adult athletics; and social and recreational programs for seniors and those with special needs. Specific groups served are noted below, along with examples of related programming and activities. • Multi-generational: A variety of parent/child recreation opportunities are provided through the Parent & Me Programs (toddler activities). In addition, special trips are provided for preschoolers and their favorite adults, such as the Theo Chocolate Factory Tour, Tower Lanes Entertainment Center, Spring Fair in Puyallup and Jim’s U Fish at Old McDebbie’s Farm. Special events target multiple ages as well. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 35 recre Ation progr A mming • Preschool: Arts, crafts, movement, music, dance, preschool, sports and play opportunities are provided. Examples include Pee Wee Picassos, Baby Dance, Creation Station, Alphabet Adventures, Musical Tots, Eco Kids Camp, Terrific Tots Playground, Creative Kids Preschool, Bounce Around Birthday Party Package and Renton Rookies (basketball, multi-sport, indoor soccer). • Youth: The City’s youth programs include youth basketball and softball, as well as Club Highlands and Club North Highlands which offer drop-in programs for ages 6 and up. Aside from youth sports, dance and art classes, there are also a few specialty classes, such as D&D All Day Long, Marauding Miniatures and Magic and the Fantasy Game Club. • Teens: A variety of programs, classes and clubs are offered specifically for teens. The Teen Scene includes free drop- in programs and free Friday Late Nights for grades 6-12 at the Highlands Neighborhood Center. Examples of classes that target teens include Beginning Guitar, Fantasy Game evenings and the Youth Dodgeball League. Transportation to some off-site activities is provided for teens by the Renton Recreation Division and leaves from and returns to the North Highlands Neighborhood Center. Also, the Renton Youth Council (RYC) provides opportunities for middle and high-school youth to help organize activities, provide education concerning youth issues and volunteer at community events. • Adults: Programs are provided for adults through sports leagues, fitness classes, outdoor recreation programs and some specialized classes, such as Organizing 101 and art classes. 36 | city of renton existing conditions • Seniors: Senior programs are offered at the Renton Senior Activity Center that provides free social, health and recreational activities and services for citizens age 50 and over. • Specialized: The City also provides inclusive recreational opportunities, group leisure/social programs and adaptive programs for youth and adults with disabilities. Examples of programs include Club Thursday (with BINGO Night, Movie Night, Karaoke Night, Sweetheart Dance, Pizza and Games, Cinco de Mayo Party), Exciting Excursions, Special Olympics (Basketball, Track & Field, Soccer, Bowling, Softball and Cycling), 360 Art, Golf, Flag Football and the Bowling Club. In addition to these programs, the City directly provides partnerships with youth and adult sports organizations where Renton provides facilities and field scheduling services, expanding the recreation opportunities available in the community. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 37 rentA ls rentals Facility rentals are an important service area within the Community Services Department. Picnic shelters, sports fields, aquatic center and indoor facilities are all available for rental. Permits can be purchased for the boat launch. Like program fees, rental fees rates increase for non-residents. The complete 2011 fee schedule is provided under separate cover by the City in the Existing Conditions report, March 2011. • Picnic Shelter Rentals: Ten picnic shelters are available for rental for non-profit events on a first-paid, first-served basis. • Field Rentals: Sports field rentals are available for softball, baseball, soccer, football and other sport activities. • Indoor Facility Rentals: Banquet rooms, meeting rooms, classrooms and gyms are available for rental at indoor recreation buildings, such as the Renton Community Center and Senior Activity Center. • Henry Moses Aquatic Center: Two party tents are available for rental, with variable rates. The entire pool can be rented on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings for a maximum of 500 guests. • Carco Theatre: This 287-seat facility is a popular venue for plays, dances and musicals. The theater has many amenities and flexible hours, making it suitable for business meetings, seminars, receptions and other activities. The facility is available for rent Monday through Sunday from 6:00 am to 12:00 am. The auditorium and lobby are both available for use with rates based on function and need. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3. c ommunity involvement 40 | city of renton community involvement Connecting our community to the environment and promoting healthy lifestyles is critical to Renton’s vision for parks, recreation and natural resources. Similarly, linking our community to our park resources, and understanding our community’s recreation needs, has been critical to this planning process. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan is grounded in an extensive public involvement effort. This chapter summarizes the themes that emerged from community input, which in turn helped shape the vision, goals and recommendations for this plan. Public involvement activities To better understand the priorities and needs of the entire community, many types of community outreach activities were planned. Activities ranging from a quantitative, statistically valid survey to friendly community workshops were conducted in an effort to engage as many people as possible in the planning process; more than 1,500 people participated. While some forums engaged more participants than others, each planning activity was important in capturing feedback from community members who otherwise may not have been represented. This “layering” of activities ensured that a variety of interests and priorities would be represented in this plan. Feedback obtained through the community outreach events was used to interpret the demand for parks, facilities and programs. This section summarizes the public involvement activities conducted for the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 41 • Steering Committee: The 16 member Steering Committee met four times during the planning process (October 2010, February 2011, May 2011 and July 2011) to advise and provide direction. The committee consisted of a demographically diverse group, representing a range of interests, ages and backgrounds. • Focus Groups: Three Focus Group meetings (Environmental, Organized Outdoor Active Recreation and Recreation Service Providers) provided a more in-depth discussion of specific topics important to Renton. Held in late October and early November 2010, the meetings provided participants with a forum to discuss opportunities and perceived needs for Renton, as well as to provide feedback on specific interest areas. The Environmental Focus Group meeting was held at the Renton Community Center and consisted of 28 participants and City staff. The Organized Outdoor Active Recreation Focus Group meeting was held at the Highlands Neighborhood Center and consisted of 16 participants plus City staff. The Recreation Service Providers Focus Group meeting was held at the Renton Community Center and consisted of 19 participants and City staff. • Stakeholder Interviews: The project team interviewed stakeholders about their perception of parks, recreation and natural areas issues as well as key challenges facing the City. The interviews served to identify topics and ideas that should be explored in other public input opportunities and integrated into the planning analysis. These stakeholders were drawn from a 42 | city of renton community involvement activity Participants steering committee ......................16 focus groups ..................63 stakeholder interviews ..........................9 community Questionnaire ..............661 community interactive workshops 1 & 2 (signed in) .........................60 community visioning workshop (signed in) ....87 community survey ............................509 interactive map ...............66 community interactive workshops 3 & 4 (signed in) .........................64 total ..................1,535 list of interested parties based on their understanding of a particular issue or representation of a major interest. The planning team conducted the interviews during the month of October (2010) with nine stakeholders during five interviews. Individuals that participated in the interviews represented: • RUFF – Renton Unleashed Furry Friends • Renton School District • Herons Forever • Renton Skatepark Advocate • The Boeing Company • Community Questionnaire: The project team and the City of Renton administered an online and paper questionnaire to allow all interested participants an opportunity to provide feedback on existing park facilities, desired activities, future park improvements, recreation facilities, programs, natural areas and services. The questionnaire was available from the last week of October 2010 through the first week of December 2010, and was advertised in City publications and through multiple electronic mail lists. Similar questions were available in paper format in three languages (English, Spanish and Vietnamese), with copies provided at several community facilities and available from the project website. A total of 661 people completed the questionnaire. • Community Interactive Workshops 1 & 2: Two Interactive Community Workshops were held on October 27 and November 4, 2010, to collect information from the public related to community needs and issues, publicize the community questionnaire and market the year-long p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 43 public involvement A ctivities planning process. The workshops were both informative and interactive, allowing participants to hear about the project and provide their input on the plan. The workshops were held at two geographic locations: Cascade Elementary School and the Renton Community Center. • Community Visioning Workshop: Over 100 participants attended a Community Visioning Workshop (87 signed in) held at the Renton Community Center on March 29, 2011. The workshop consisted of the Visual Preference Survey, which measured public opinion on images related to the park system, and a Breakout Group Exercise with discussions on the following topics: Fitness and Health, Building Community, Natural Resources and the Environment, Neighborhood Identity and Youth. • Community Survey: A random-sample telephone survey was conducted during April and May 2011, using both land lines and cell phones to validate some of the emerging themes from the public involvement process with a representative sample of Renton residents. Interviewers were prepared to complete the survey in three languages: English, Spanish and Vietnamese (the largest language groups in the Renton School District). A total of 509 interviews were completed with 375 of the respondents located within City boundaries. The error for a sample size of this size ranges from + 2.2% to + 5.0% at the 95% confidence level. • Community Interactive Workshops 3 & 4: Two more interactive workshops were held late in the planning process to update the general public on the planning analysis results, collect feedback on the decision making tools, review and comment on the draft prioritized project list and review and comment on the draft concept plans. 44 | city of renton community involvement These two meetings were held June 28th and 29th at Cascade Elementary and the Renton Community Center. • Additional Outreach: City staff extended the reach of this process by attending meetings with the Community Liaisons and the Refugee Forum, and targeting communications to a broad range of internal and external stakeholders. A full listing of the outreach targets and contacts is provided in Appendix D. • Project Website: Throughout the process, the City’s website has served as a one-stop online portal for information related to the planning process, updating and educating the community about the Plan. The website includes a library of all planning documents, a calendar of events and opportunities to provide feedback and comments. • Interactive Mapping Tool: The project website also included an interactive map that allowed the public to view and comment on parks, recreation and natural resource opportunities in Renton. • Comment Cards: The public had the opportunity to comment on the draft plan through an online comment card, as well as hard copy planning documents and comment cards located at both King County libraries located in Renton and at Renton City Hall. city meetings and coordination In addition to the activities noted above, the planning process has also drawn guidance from a broader group of City staff and commissions. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 45 public involvement A ctivities • Interdepartmental Team Meetings: The Interdepartmental Team meetings promoted a high degree of coordination among City departments, gathering feedback and identifying key issues facing the city. The eighteen member team met five times during the planning process, to discuss key documents and concepts, such as the Community Needs Assessment. • Commission Meetings: In addition to two separate meetings each, two joint meetings of the Parks Commission and Planning Commission were held in February and June 2011 to update commissioners on key findings of the planning process. These meetings also provided commissioners the opportunity to discuss and comment on key findings. • Committee of the Whole (COW) Briefings: In addition to the Plan kick-off briefing, the Committee of the Whole met three times during the planning process to be briefed on the project’s status, public involvement findings, the Community Needs Assessment report and the Prioritized Project List and Capital and Operations Costs. Meetings were held on March 28, June 20 and August 1, 2011 at City Hall, providing committee members the opportunity to discuss the project direction and provide comments related to parks and recreation needs and issues. • Review and Adoption Meetings: Each of the ongoing review groups, the Project Steering Committee, the Interdepartmental Team, the Parks and Planning Commissions and the City Council had an opportunity to review and provide feedback on the draft plan in advance of a recommendation to adopt the document. 46 | city of renton community involvement “it is amazingly wonderful to be able to see beaver, otters, eagles, osprey, mink, raccoons and more within a mile of my house. the parks are a big part of why i love renton and what most surprises visitors.” - community Questionnaire respondent key themes Comments and feedback helped identify seven key themes: sustainability, new parks and facilities, connectivity, partnerships, community identity, healthy community programming and resource protection/conservation. sustainability In various community workshops, participants placed an emphasis on the long-term needs of the parks, recreation and natural areas system. Whether parks are natural or developed, an important part of protecting these places is reinvesting in existing facilities to pass along a high quality park system to a new generation of park users. Services must also be sustainable and cost recovery and affordability both need to be considered in recreation programming and services. Decision-making should consider the long-term impacts over short-term needs when establishing priorities for parks and recreation services. The City will need to consider a variety of funding opportunities as well as the use of volunteers and partners to most effectively sustain natural and built assets now and in the future. Of Community Survey respondents, 91% indicated that the most important improvement for Renton’s park system is improving existing facilities. This desire to take care of existing City assets was also noted in the Community Questionnaire, where respondents indicated that the repair and maintenance of existing parks and facilities is a priority. In several activities, residents noted that they prefer to improve the sports fields that are now distributed across the City before building new ones. In addition, the maintenance and management of park resources could be strategic and involve other partners. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 47 k ey t H emes new Parks and facilities A variety of new parks and recreation facilities are desired by residents, as noted in nearly all of the meetings and public involvement venues. Many community members noted a demand for new parks and identified gaps in park land coverage. Land acquisition for new parks and natural areas is highly supported by many members of the community. Participants also indicated areas where park and recreation development could focus, such as parks in the Cedar River Corridor and natural area land and trails around May Creek. The shortfall of developed parks in south Renton (Benson and Talbot planning areas) was identified as an obvious gap in services. In general, the community wants to ensure that the City is able to provide opportunities where needs exist based on demographics and planned growth, so that parks and recreation facilities are distributed equitably across neighborhoods and throughout the city. According to public involvement comments, new recreation facilities are also desired. Specific ideas include a sports complex (for soccer, baseball, cricket and rugby fields), water access facilities, a working farm, art center, a larger skatepark, more dog parks and community gardens. Facilities to support children’s play are a priority, including traditional sports facilities and playground equipment, in addition to nature access and nature play facilities. In part because of the closure of existing recreation buildings, many residents felt that indoor programming space is also needed. 3% 3% 3% 5% 7% 8% 0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9% Soccer Fields Dog Park Playgrounds Indoor Rec Pool Bike Trails Walk/Jog/Run Trails figure 3-1: most desired recreation facilities* in renton (survey, 2011) *Of the 74% of the residents who responded to this question. Priorities below 3% make up the 100% total. 48 | city of renton community involvement connectivity Desires for trail-related recreation opportunities and an enhanced trail system were noted in every public involvement activity. Most residents in the City support the creation of an interconnected trails system, linking parks to other key destinations. Not surprisingly, trails are the most frequently used type of recreation facility in the City. Feedback as well as recreation trends show that trail use appeals to a variety of ages and user groups. Public comments indicated that access and connections to facilities city- wide by a variety of means other than the automobile (transit, trail, bicycle and foot) is in high demand. The popularity of trails and trail related activities matches the findings of the 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Public involvement findings also included many specific comments about ways to enhance trail connectivity and use in Renton. For example, Boeing is interested in encouraging trail use to get to and from work, recreate during the day, and move around the work site. Respondents identified gaps in trail networks and the need to complete planned trail projects such as the Sam Chastain Trail. Development of new trail corridors such as the Lake to Sound Trail, the trail extending from Lake Washington to Cougar Mountain along May Creek and the paved/ boardwalk trail along Soos Creek are also a priority. At the statewide level, walking and hiking, nature based activities, team and individual sports, picnicking and indoor facility activities are the most popular activities. - statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan (washington state recreation conservation office, 2008) 11% 12% 14% 17% 18% 32% 75% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% Skate Park Boating Adult Ball Leagues Dog Park Youth Ball Leagues Pool Swimming Trails Usefigure 3-2: popular recreation activities in renton* (survey, 2011) *Percent of Renton’s population participating in these seven activities over the past year. Note that youth ball league participation is close to the total percentage of Renton’s population under 18 (24%). p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 49 k ey t H emes PartnershiPs The need to establish and coordinate partnerships with a variety of groups was noted throughout the public involvement process. There were many general comments about the need to continue or expand partnerships for programming or facility use with service groups, medical centers, hospitals, environmental groups, ecumenical organizations, and educational institutions such as local school districts and nearby universities and technical schools. Some participants noted that the City could coordinate with multiple partners on regional projects, such as salmon habitat restoration. In addition, stakeholders recognized that volunteers and active community members, with more guidance from the City, represent a considerable potential to provide enhanced programs and events. Public involvement feedback also revealed several opportunities for partnerships. For example, the partnership and matching funds model that was utilized to develop the dog park is replicable at other locations. Participants suggested that the City might want to consider enhancing the existing Renton School District partnership and centralize scheduling of recreation facilities. community identity Renton residents are proud of their City and feel that the park system can be used to strengthen neighborhood identity, economic vitality, and the City as a regional attraction. The majority of respondents believe that parks, recreation programs, facilities and natural areas strongly contribute to Renton’s quality of life. For example, Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park and the Cedar River complex of parks and trails are highly valued by residents, and many public involvement participants would like to have greater access to natural areas, the river and Lake Washington. Results of the Visual Preference Survey revealed 50 | city of renton community involvement a strong connection between residents and outdoor activities. The most popular images and elements related to water access, trails and young children playing in the natural environment. This environmental connection extends beyond a desire for outdoor recreation to the stewardship of natural resources, including salmon habitat, the tree canopy and natural areas. Participants noted that interpretive signage should be provided in all of Renton’s parks to describe the City’s unique history and natural environment. Trail connections, temporary art exhibits, and community gardens would create spaces for residents and visitors to gather, recreate and learn about Renton. City development of unique regional facilities, such as a salmon- focused research and education facility, could increase the number of visitors to the City. healthy, community-oriented Programming The fitness and health benefits of parks, facilities and natural areas were ranked as top priorities among respondents, in line with national trends favoring healthy activities for all ages. Concerns over the lack of physical activity as a public health issue prompted many comments about expanding opportunities for physical exercise for all ages. For example, participants noted that improving the quality or increasing the quantity of sports facilities is one way to make these facilities more accessible and increase activity among residents. Sports could also be programmed differently for games and practices to stretch the playable space for all ages, including youth and adults. This desire also closely matches the top activities identified in the Washington SCORP. Other types of facilities, including swimming pools, community gardens and indoor programmable space, were noted as valuable assets for fitness and health. [parks in the portland metro region are] responsible for the avoided weight gain of 17 million pounds per year among metro region residents. in healthcare dollars, this is the equivalent of $155 million in averted healthcare costs every year - physical Activity and the intertwine (metro 2011) p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 51 k ey t H emes In addition to programs and facilities that support activity and health, many public involvement comments reflected a need for recreation opportunities that build community and/or reflect the needs of the entire community. Popular activities in Renton included arts/cultural programming and community-wide special events. Respondents also noted that the City should periodically evaluate its recreation programming to ensure that City services match changes in the community’s demographics and preferred recreation activities. resource Protection & conservation A strong interest in the protection and conservation of natural areas or natural resources was noted in many of the public involvement activities and meetings. There is a strong desire to protect, conserve and restore our natural environment as an extension of our own health and well-being. According to public feedback, natural area access is highly valued for outdoor recreation and for the opportunities it creates to instill a stewardship ethic and sense of ownership among residents. Improving access to natural areas through improved trails and trail head facilities is important, both for recreation and facilitation of volunteer maintenance activities. Stakeholders expressed interest in protecting and restoring the Black River Riparian Forest for bird and wildlife habitat as well as for year-round viewing and education. Salmon recovery and environmental education are also important projects to carry forward as components of the City’s identity. Critical challenges for resource protection include identifying and obtaining funding for acquisition and restoration, removing invasive species, supporting salmon habitat, sustaining the tree canopy, addressing light pollution, ensuring safety within remote places, providing ongoing monitoring and maintenance. According 52 | city of renton to respondents, the City’s natural areas should be improved through increased habitat connectivity and the provision of interpretive signage, demonstration gardens utilizing native plantings to educate the public about these lands. The City should also build partnerships with private entities to leverage funding for the protection and acquisition of these important resources. 4. c ommunity needs 54 | city of renton c ommunity needs The assessment of community needs for park land, recreation facilities, natural areas and programs is a customized analysis that identifies the amount of land, number and types of facilities and variety of programs that are needed now and in the future. This chapter describes the analysis process and summarizes key findings. washington’s recreation conservation office guidelines At the statewide level, Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA) recommends that communities provide an adequate level of parks and recreation service for the public, and to address existing and future needs. However, the GMA goals do not provide definition of an adequate level of service, nor do the goals provide specific requirements for identifying needs. Instead, communities have flexibility in determining appropriate service levels and methods for identifying needs. As the primary provider of state funding for parks, recreation and natural resources, the state’s Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) provides guidance for determining needs. While many communities rely solely on numerical level of service (LOS) standards for identifying a specific ratio of needed park land to population, there is increasing emphasis on promoting quality of and access to parkland, as well as gauging public satisfaction. The RCO has developed a LOS tool that assists agencies in evaluating their level of service at a city-wide level or within a smaller area. This tool is based on three sets of criteria: quantity, quality and distribution and access. The RCO tools are designed to allow agencies to use them as provided or to modify them to suit local needs. Table 4.1 includes the suggested criteria and potential indicators that are recommended for periodic evaluation of the City’s level of service. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 55 table 4.1: recreation and conservation office los tool RCO Proposed Indicator Quantity Criteria Number of Parks and Recreation Facilities % difference between existing and desired quantity or per capita average Facilities that Support Active Recreation Opportunities % of facilities that support or encourage active (muscle-powered) recreation Facility Capacity Percent of demand met by existing facilities Quality Criteria Agency-Based Assessment % of facilities fully functional per agency guidelines Public Satisfaction % of population satisfied Distribution and Access Criteria Population within Service Areas % of population within 0.5 mi of a neighborhood park/trail; 5 mi of a community park/trail; and 25 mi of a regional park/trail Access % of facilities that can be accessed safely by foot, bike or public transportation Source: Statewide Level of Service Recommendation, Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (November, 2010) 56 | city of renton community needs For each indicator, the tool suggests rankings from A (highest level) to E based on a range of results. For example, if the percent of the population satisfied is over 65%, the RCO tool recommends an “A” level of service. The level of service may vary from area to area but a city-wide average LOS ranking can be used as a standard to evaluate conditions within a smaller area. Building from the RCO recommendations, this Plan establishes need based on the three sets of criteria considering quantity, quality and with emphasis on distribution. To identify needs across Renton’s multifaceted park system, the community needs analysis evaluated existing park land, recreation facilities and programs, natural areas and partnerships. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 57 pA rk needs Park needs Renton residents desire a quality park system that provides a variety of recreation experiences across the city. However, existing park land is not equally distributed and all residents do not have equal access to developed parks, recreation facilities, programs and natural areas. To help determine park land needs, a GIS analysis evaluated access to existing park sites, based on the routes people must travel to reach these parks. The analysis was based on the assumption that most residents should have access to developed parks and natural areas within one-quarter to one-half-mile (walking/biking distance) from their home or place of employment. By examining the gaps in service, the City can see where additional park land, facilities, programs and natural area land is needed. Land needs were identified city-wide and within each community planning area. The quantity of land is derived from the number of parks needed to fill the geographic gaps in service and the recommended size of parks, by category (as established by the City’s design guidelines). According to the survey, 88% of residents are satisfied with the distribution of recreation opportunities. of those dissatisfied, 32% feel that parks and recreation facilities are too far away. - community-wide survey 58 | city of renton community needs access to develoPed Parks Most cities strive for a park system that provides access to basic recreation amenities within at least one half-mile of home or work. In Renton, as in most communities, the half-mile walking distance is the greatest distance most pedestrians are willing to walk to reach a destination. Some residents in Renton are served by one or more parks within a half- mile, while others must travel further from home. As illustrated by the map, some community planning areas contain multiple parks in close proximity and other areas are underserved, even when counting parks provided by other jurisdictions where future development is pending. Gaps in service can be seen in some residential areas in the Kennydale, East Plateau, Benson, Fairwood, Talbot and West Hill Community Planning Areas. Having a park within walking distance from one’s home was the strongest predictor that a middle-age or older person would use a park. - godby and mowen, The Benefits of Physical Activity Provided by Park and Recreation Services: The Scientific Evidence (2010) p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 59 pA rk needs 60 | city of renton community needs access to develoPed Parks by Planned density Higher density development creates a greater demand for parks and public facilities. Parks in these areas must have a capacity to serve a large number of people. For this reason, the assessment crosschecked park access with zoning designations to indicate areas where existing or planned high density residential5 and commercial6 uses could draw a high concentration of people. As illustrated by the Developed Park Access & Residential Density Map, most high density residential zones coincide with underserved areas—community areas that do not have local parks within a half-mile of potential park users. To maintain a quality park experience high density areas will need additional parks, distributing them at a closer one quarter-mile service area. 5 Residential zoning categories: R-10 and higher. 6 Commercial zoning categories: Urban Center – North 1 and 2; Center Village; Commercial/Office/Retail; Commercial Arterial; and Center Downtown. 7% 9% 40% 44% 0%10%20%30%40%50% No Preference Mini-Park Neighborhood Park Community Park figure 4-1: preferred park type in renton (survey, 2011) p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 61 pA rk needs 62 | city of renton community needs Park land system-wide Building out the system within the existing city limits to the distribution standards described above requires twelve new neighborhood and community park site land acquisitions (not including land already in public ownership). A park system acreage standard helps relate system-wide park land need to the quantity criteria. This standard is calculated from the current existing park and natural area land inventory plus the additional acreage needed for the twelve new park sites. Table 4.2 summarizes the resulting proposed standard for the total park and natural area system, as well as the subset of developed parks (neighborhood, community, regional, special use and corridors). table 4.2: proposed park Acreage standards7 Type Standard Developed Parks 5.07 acres/1000 population or 1 acre of park land per 200 people Natural Areas Minimum of 6.14 acres/1000 population Total Park and Natural Areas System Minimum of 11.21 acres/1000 population These standards are a reduction from the prior adopted standard, which totaled 18.58 acres per thousand population (Total Park and Natural Areas System), recognizing that most of the largest natural area sites are already within public ownership and additional acquisitions within the city limits are likely to be smaller targeted purchases. The total park system standard is set as a minimum. Land can be added beyond this standard, particularly in the case of large natural area or regional park sites which are based on unique opportunities rather than the growth of population. 7 The standard above is based on the following assumptions: 2030 population of 124,106; 95 additional acres of neighborhood and community parks; a minimum of 75 additional acres of natural areas. creation of or enhanced access to places for physical activity combined with informational outreach produced a 48.4 percent increase in frequency of physical activity. - American Journal of preventative medicine (2002) p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 63 recre Ation fAcility needs Public input also revealed that several popular city parks receive the majority of use in Renton. This is especially true for parks with water access such as Gene Coulon Memorial Park, as well as other signature parks such as Liberty Park, Cedar River Trail Park and Cedar River Park. There is a need to enhance and renovate facilities and increase the level of maintenance at these sites to handle current park use and ensure a quality user experience. Improvements proposed for these locations as outlined in the Project List will help meet these demands and needs. recreation facility needs The planning process identified needs for a variety of park and recreation facilities. The recreation facilities assessment incorporated the use of four tools to determine recreation facility needs. This included a review of statewide recreation trends, a sports field level of service (LOS) analysis, a geographic analysis and a demand analysis for facilities including but not limited to sports fields, playgrounds, community gathering spaces, indoor programmable spaces, water access facilities, skate parks, dog parks and other facilities. In each case, the analysis evaluated Renton School District sites and facilities for their potential in meeting community needs. 9% 18% 73% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% No Preference Build Complex Improve Existing figure 4-2: preferences for providing sports fields in renton (survey, 2011) 64 | city of renton community needs sPorts fields The analysis of sports fields includes a review of the number of fields by population and their geographic distribution. This analysis examines closely the potential of School District owned facilities to provide additional service. When including both City-and school-owned fields, the service area analysis shows that most areas of Renton are close to an existing sports field, with the exception of portions of the East Plateau, Benson and Talbot planning areas and the potential annexation areas within Fairwood, East Plateau and West Hill. Public feedback indicated that there is a need for competitive- scale and recreation-scale facilities. Currently, the City of Renton provides one baseball/softball field per 21,588 residents and one soccer field per 86,230 residents.8 If School District fields are added to the existing City-owned fields, the ratio of fields to population is increased to one baseball/softball field per 6,663 residents and one soccer field per 10,779 residents. There are limitations to the use of School District facilities. District athletic programs and school events take priority for use of these facilities even after school hours and on weekends. Outside these scheduled uses and regularly scheduled school hours, the public can access the school fields for reserved or casual play. However, many of the school fields are maintained for non-competitive use and do not meet recreation or competitive sports needs. Based on the input from sports groups, the number of fields in the system (without differentiating between City and School District fields) is adequate. However, the actual amount of field time available and the level of play possible (determined by maintenance) are constraining factors. The configuration of fields also limits their use for competition. With most of Renton’s fields distributed one to a park across the city, efficiency in maintenance or tournament play is more challenging. 8 Level of service calculations developed earlier in the planning process based on the available population figure 86,230 sports field scale competitive: heavily scheduled and tightly controlled for designed uses. recreation: primarily reserved for scheduled games and activities during peak times. neighborhood: minimal or no scheduling for sports play. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 65 recre Ation fAcility needs 66 | city of renton community needs At a minimum, the City needs to establish a sports field level of service of 1/6,663 for baseball/softball fields and 1/10,779 for soccer fields. The improvement of some existing fields in the City inventory and additional fields at new parks will help to increase the playable time available. As fields are added to meet this standard, the City also needs to take advantage of opportunities to locate multiple fields in one park site and add a special sports field complex. Even with new fields it is unlikely the City can meet the standard alone, therefore reaching the community’s needed level of service is reliant on the use of School District facilities. Playgrounds According to recreation participation and public involvement findings, playground use is a popular seasonal activity with one of the highest participation rates. The City provides playground equipment at approximately 75% of its neighborhood parks and just less than half of its community parks. The playgrounds analysis relied on a one-quarter to one-half-mile service area. Renton’s playgrounds contain a very similar set of play amenities in all parks and lack diversity. As a result, there is a need for specialized play opportunities, such as inclusive playgrounds, nature play or other thematic or creative play opportunities. The Benson and East Plateau community planning areas have substantial gaps in service. While residents in these areas have access to several School District playgrounds after regular school hours, additional playgrounds are recommended. Based on the location of existing playgrounds, the community planning areas of Fairwood, Talbot and Valley are also short on nearby access to City and/or school playgrounds. Additional playgrounds should be considered here as well. Lastly, the Valley area is primarily commercial/industrial and therefore has a limited need for children’s playgrounds. “city parks offer children the daily benefits of direct experience with nature - the motivation to explore, discover and learn about their world and to engage in health-promoting, physical activity.” - city parks forum, American planning Association (2003) p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 67 recre Ation fAcility needs indoor Programmable sPaces Indoor programmable spaces include public facilities available to serve large or small events and programs. Larger facilities typically include multiple specialized spaces (such as banquet rooms, gymnasiums or fitness studios) while smaller facilities may have one gym, general classroom space or special purpose spaces. Renton currently has one large indoor programmable space (the Renton Community Center) and 10 smaller scale facilities, which range from neighborhood centers to the Renton History Museum and Senior Activity Center. A basic evaluation of the quantity of facilities by population results in a ratio of one facility per 8,417 residents or 1.1 square feet/person. The quantity of buildings is one factor but the quality and distribution of facilities rounds out the picture of indoor space needs. Some sites have permanent fixtures or facilities that relate to their primary purpose, such as the exhibits at the Renton History Museum, but also have the potential for other programming. The smallest recreation buildings, the activity centers in a number of neighborhood parks, have been closed due to operating costs, reducing both the quality and distribution of service. A system with a distribution of larger facilities, providing a more complete range of programming opportunities, would extend programming benefits to more of the population. Geographic analysis of indoor programmable spaces focused on a travel distance of two miles. This analysis indicated that the City would need to add two large scale facilities to serve the city, one in the Highlands/East Plateau and a second in either Talbot or Benson. Indoor space is expensive to build and maintain and the City also needs to ensure that the existing indoor facilities are maximized. The City’s facilities could also be augmented by school buildings if adequate public access is secured. 68 | city of renton community needs sPecialized facilities Specialized facilities serve the entire city or at a minimum, a substantial portion of the city. Due to the nature of these facilities, the geographic distribution of specialized facilities is not necessarily as important as their quality and existing capacity. Residents feel that Renton’s recreation facilities are important assets. As such, adequate repair and maintenance is needed to sustain these resources and extend their lifespan. The following provides a summary of needs for specialized facilities. • Swimming Pools/Aquatic Facilities: The City of Renton owns and operates the Henry Moses Aquatic Facility which offers outdoor swimming and water play, including lessons and fitness classes. On warm days, the demand can far exceed the capacity. The Renton School District currently owns, manages and maintains two existing indoor pools. These facilities meet the existing demand for indoor pool use. • Skate Parks: There is a demand for additional skate parks, which could be filled by additional facilities located elsewhere in the park system and similar to the existing skate park at Liberty Park. • Water Access Facilities: Access to Lake Washington for swimming, motorized and non-motorized boating (including sailing, canoeing, kayaking and rowing) is provided at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. Additional water access facilities are included at Kennydale Beach Park (swimming), Cedar River Trail Park (non-motorized boat launch) and the Cedar River Boathouse (canoe and kayak rentals, lessons and access) as well as Riverview Park on the Cedar River (non-motorized boat access). Demand for water access facilities is very high, and additional p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 69 recre Ation fAcility needs facilities are needed to support rowing, sailing and other small craft. Improved maintenance at some of these locations will also enhance public access. • Dog Parks: At least one large and/or several smaller permanent off-leash areas are desired, according to public involvement findings. New facilities should be geographically dispersed and could be provided in areas with high or increasing residential density (where yard space for dogs is limited). • Outdoor Courts: Renton has 17 tennis courts and 13 basketball courts (including the recently refurbished basketball court at Liberty Park by the Jamal Crawford Foundation) located mostly in neighborhood and community parks. Additional outdoor courts for basketball, tennis and volleyball are needed as part of park construction, filling gaps in service throughout the park system. • Community Gardens: The public has expressed a desire for more community gardens (in addition to the community garden located at the Senior Activity Center), especially in areas near higher density residential development. • Interpretive Facilities: The City has a limited number of interpretive facilities which currently include signage and educational kiosks within the park system. The public expressed an interest in providing more of these education-based amenities throughout the park system. Interpretive facilities should focus on unique or readily accessible natural elements such as the Cedar River and the Black River Riparian Forest. 70 | city of renton community needs natural area and resource needs Through site visits and off-site analyses, the evaluation of the City’s natural areas and resources included an evaluation of public access to these lands, as well as an assessment of overall value and condition (level of maintenance). access to natural areas Because of the importance of having nearby access to natural areas in Renton, the natural areas assessment used a half-mile travel distance as well. (Natural Area Access Map) As indicated by the map, there are many natural areas managed by other jurisdictions that are located along the periphery of Renton. However, all community planning areas within the city have areas that are unserved by natural areas within a half-mile distance. Existing trails in natural areas are generally short, discontinuous and designed for foot traffic only. The shortage of trails makes site management more challenging. In the absence of formal trails, users are more likely to create their own trails for cut-through travel or recreation purposes. Based on these conditions, there is a need for improved system-wide management of Renton’s natural areas, basing decisions on future site improvements and restoration efforts on well informed data and planning. management of natural areas Management of Renton’s natural areas is an important need. Findings from the public involvement process indicate that residents feel strongly about balancing public access to natural resource areas with the need to protect and conserve these important assets. The City’s salmon habitat, tree canopy and natural areas are all important components of the community’s identity. For this reason, there is a need to manage, maintain and restore natural areas to support environmental and community health. “renton has many areas of important wildlife habitat that should be better protected and shared.” - community Questionnaire respondent p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 71 n Atur A l A re A A nd resource needs 72 | city of renton community needs The future management and maintenance of natural areas within the city will require coordination to ensure efficient and strategic use of resources. Many urban natural areas in the Pacific Northwest face similar management challenges, in that they contain degraded ecosystems that are relatively small and fragmented. Invasive species often overcome native ones, and these areas can be subject to dumping, encroachments, vandalism and homeless camping. Many, if not most, urban natural areas have been left undeveloped because they are very steep, unstable, wet or subject to flooding. Access to these areas, for recreation or for maintenance is often difficult. Heightened management and maintenance of natural resources is needed with special attention toward addressing invasive species. The presence of non-native plants is the single greatest threat to the ecological integrity of Renton’s natural lands. recreation Programming needs The analysis of recreation programming outlines the range of existing and desired program types, identifies providers in the community and nearby areas and applies a set of desired outcomes to identify service gaps. The gaps in programming present opportunities for the City to improve and modify program offerings or identify partners to take the lead. The recreation programs and partnerships analysis included four parts: a review of the range of existing and desired recreation programs; a description of providers in the community and nearby areas; a comparison of desired programs against existing programs/available facilities; and an identification of program service gaps. Findings include a summary of program and participant focus areas. spending time in green environments can relieve not only anxiety and stress, but also sadness and depression. - parks and other green environments: essential components of a Healthy Human Habitat (2010) p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 73 recre Ation progr A mming needs Program area gaPs Based on public input, the analysis of the competitive sports environment and the proposed target outcomes, the following program areas could be added or enhanced within the mix of the City of Renton’s offerings. The City should continue to serve or provide additional opportunities in the following areas: • Special Events • Crafts and visual arts • Gardening (classes) • Environmental education • Outdoor recreation (e.g. boating, snow sports classes and events) • Volunteer opportunities Program areas with opportunities to develop partnerships with other providers in expanding or complementing City of Renton programming include:9 • Sports and School District partnership • Emergency preparedness and first aid • Environmental education • Performing arts focus PoPulations The type and extent to which recreation programming is available to different ages and demographic characteristics is another important factor. The programming assessment revealed five population groups in need of improved programs and services: • Preschool (up to age 5): The primary need in this age group is for early childhood education, which can take many forms. The City currently provides programming in this 9 These additional program or program development needs do not immediately supersede the existing range of programming offered by the City. 74 | city of renton community needs area and should regularly revisit the level of investment and type of programs to ensure that the programs are meeting the desired goals. • Elementary School Age (5-11): Health and Fitness, Outdoor Recreation, Specialized Recreation and Gardening (new) programs should be added or targeted more specifically to this age group. • Middle School (12-14): Additional programs in Health and Fitness, Outdoor Recreation and Specialized recreation are needed for this age group. • High School Age (15-18): High school students should have additional or new opportunities for programs in Crafts and Visual Arts, Outdoor Recreation, Environmental Programming(new) and Gardening(new). • People with Disabilities: People with disabilities need additional or new programs in the following areas: Camps, Sports Classes, Environmental Programming (new), Gardening (new) and Family Support Services. • People from Diverse Cultures: Renton’s program offerings are open to all; however language and cultural differences can create unintentional hurdles. Using alternative outreach methods and providing outreach in different languages could increase accessibility. Public agencies such as Renton Community Services have a unique opportunity to be a cross-cultural gathering point in the community, a role that is not typically a focus of private recreation providers. Needs for this population include programs in Outdoor Recreation, Performing Arts, Specialized Recreation, Sports Classes, Environmental Programming, Gardening, Youth Services, Family Support Services and Senior Support Services. there is a natural biological tendency for adolescents to seek out opportunities for risk- taking, novelty-seeking, and sensation-seeking behaviors. park and recreation departments can provide important and safe outlets for these high-intensity experiences. - the rationale for recreation services for youth: An evidenced based Approach (2010) 5. r ecommendations 76 | city of renton recommendations Meeting community needs for parks, recreation facilities, natural areas and programs will require a strategic approach to park system investment. This chapter presents both system-wide recommendations for the entire City, as well as specific projects and park improvements for each community planning area. system-wide recommendations The system-wide recommendations respond directly to the goals presented in Chapter 1. At the system-wide scale, there are seven overarching recommendations. Provide nearby Parks, recreation facilities, Programming and natural areas According to the needs assessment, many areas are not served by existing parks, recreation facilities and natural areas. Some neighborhoods lack parks altogether, while barriers such as busy streets limit safe access to other park sites. System-wide recommendations for addressing parks needs include the following: • Implement a ½-mile service area to developed parks: The City should continue to provide developed parks and natural areas within a ½-mile service distance. Removing barriers to existing parks and acquiring and/or developing new parks in underserved neighborhoods will increase access to parks and natural areas. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 77 • Implement a ¼-mile service area to developed parks in higher density areas: In areas zoned high density residential, the service distance to developed parks and natural areas should be decreased and new facilities should be added to serve the population within one-quarter mile. Currently, most high density residential areas are underserved by local parks within a ¼-mile service area. • Maintain a developed park land level of service of 5.07 acres per 1,000 residents: To meet existing and future needs, the City should continue to provide adequate developed parks to residents (particularly neighborhood and community parks). Based on the existing park acreage, the future population and the number of acres needed to provide parks within a desired service area, maintaining this standard will meet community needs when combined with additional quality, access and distribution criteria. • Develop new parks and improve existing parks according to updated design guidelines: In order to fully address park needs, all parks should meet updated design guidelines, including the minimum size guideline and recommended features at each park. increase Park caPacity and use A few parks receive the majority of use in Renton, such as Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park and Liberty Park, which provide water access and sports fields respectively. Specific recommendations to 78 | city of renton recommendAtions increase the potential capacity and use of frequently-used parks include the following: • Reinvest in Renton’s community assets: Redevelop recreational facilities and supporting infrastructure at popular existing sites to accommodate a greater number of users. This may be accomplished by expanding facilities (such as the Henry Moses Aquatic Center) to larger, more flexible facilities that can fulfill unmet demand. • Increase awareness of Renton’s parks, recreation programs and natural areas: Communicate the range of recreation opportunities in Renton. Use high traffic sites such as Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park and the Cedar River Trail to inform users about other park sites and recreation programs. Create a comprehensive signage and wayfinding system in all new and existing parks and natural areas. Signs should be both informative (e.g., directional signage) and interpretive (e.g., describing history, culture and the environment), with a consistent design style. • Incorporate unique features that contribute to community identity: Recognize elements of Renton that are important to residents such as water access and salmon. Elements that proudly represent Renton’s character and community values can be carried forward into the park system through interpretive displays, public art and integration into play structures and environments. imProve management of natural areas Enhanced management is needed in natural areas, balancing public use with protection and conservation. Through individual management plans, the City can determine long- and short- term goals and priorities for natural areas. System-wide recommendations include the following: p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 79 s ystem-wide recommendAtions • Conduct natural area inventories: The City should conduct natural area inventories to inform management decisions for these areas. Inventories should specify site characteristics and identify threats to sensitive areas, as well as impacts from and suitability for public use. • Develop natural area management plans: Following development of inventories, the City should conduct individual management plans for each natural area. Management plans should help establish goals, measurable objectives and costs associated with overall site management. imProve access to sPorts fields The sports field needs assessment revealed a significant demand and need for additional and improved sports fields. System-wide recommendations include the following: • Revise sports field level of service standard: The sports field level of service for baseball/softball fields (1/6,663) and soccer fields (1/10,779) is the minimum service level that is required to meet community needs. To meet this need, the community needs access to City fields and Renton School District fields. • Collaborate on sport field scheduling and maintenance: Develop a partnership model with the Renton School District that equalizes the quality of surfaces and maintenance efforts to a standard based on the intended level of play. • New and improved fields at existing locations: Organized sports benefit from concentrations of fields and Renton residents indicated a preference for improving existing, distributed fields. Renton should combine these ideas and look to improve local sport fields in collaboration with the 80 | city of renton recommendAtions school district, targeting sites where there is potential for a concentration of fields (Ron Regis, the NARCO property and potential new parks) augmenting school facilities. • Establish sports field use standards. Establish standards for the amount of game and practice time each type of field can support, as well as standards for field maintenance. Because there is high demand for field use and limited supply, Renton should adopt standards to ensure that fields are not overused and are available for reservable practices and games. increase recreational variety A variety of recreation facilities are needed. Specific recommendations at the system-wide level include: • Introduce variety in the opportunities for children’s play: Provide new playgrounds in underserved areas and integrate nature play areas in parks and natural areas where possible. Consider other specialized play spaces, such as thematic playgrounds and barrier-free play areas. • Provide more facilities to support community events and family activities: Provide spaces and reservable facilities (e.g., picnic shelters) in underserved areas of the City. Existing smaller and underused spaces can be redesigned to include amenities for events and picnics. • Develop new skate park facilities: Provide additional skate facilities in underserved areas. • Design and build off-leash dog facilities: Develop new off- leash dog areas in new or existing park sites. • Provide opportunities for gardening: Provide community gardens in areas near high density residential p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 81 s ystem-wide recommend Ations the presence of a greenbelt in a boulder colorado neighborhood was found to add approximately $500,000 in property tax revenue annually. - American planning Association (2004) development. Garden sites can potentially be located at existing neighborhood parks, community parks and schools or at small stand-alone locations. • Increase opportunities for swimming and water play: Expand the Henry Moses Aquatic Center to create increased capacity for programming and open swim/water play. Add interactive fountains or spray parks to larger sites to provide closer-to-home opportunities for water play. • Improve water access: Prioritize waterfront property for acquisition due to the rarity and multiple values it provides the system. Continue partnerships that offer opportunities for rowing, sailing, kayaking and canoeing. Provide enhanced boating storage and support facilities. Also seek partnerships with established groups or organizations for increased programming opportunities. connect the Park and natural area system Trail related activities are the most popular and needed amenity in Renton. Securing the corridors that link parks and connect neighborhoods and community destinations are critical to providing non-motorized transportation options and natural system benefits. The City of Renton recently adopted the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan in May 2009. The plan reflects the desire to create an interconnected pedestrian, water and non- motorized transportation network to accommodate recreation and commuter uses. Based on the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, as well as community input generated for the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan, system-wide recommendations include the following: • Implement trails plan priorities: Continue to implement priorities identified in the City’s Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (trail map included in Appendix E). 82 | city of renton recommendAtions • Increase system-wide connectivity: Increase connectivity between downtown and the river valley and surrounding neighborhoods. • Remove barriers: Address barriers facing bicycle and pedestrian travel, such as disconnected streets and limited crossing points due to major roadways and highways. build PartnershiPs through Programming The City of Renton has successfully collaborated with other partners to enhance recreation services and programming. These relationships can be strengthened and new partnerships can be developed to extend recreational opportunities. System-wide recommendations include: • Build and strengthen partnerships: Collaborative partnerships can help sustain existing facilities. • Further develop partnership with the Renton School District: Increase use of school facilities through the development of a strong interlocal agreement with the Renton School District. Many Renton neighborhoods rely on use of local schools for recreation and play. • Focus recreational programming: Evaluate existing and future recreation program offerings against the outcomes and benefits. • Base programming decisions on recreation data: The City should rely on data collected from recreation program registration to help evaluate future offerings and scheduling. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 83 recommendAtions by community pl A nning A re A renton community planning Areas Page Benson ...........85 Cedar River ......89 City Center ......93 East Plateau .....97 Highlands ......101 Kennydale ......105 Talbot .............109 Valley .............112 West Hill .........115 Fairwood ........117 recommendations by community Planning area Recommendations for the City’s ten community planning areas are noted below. Each section includes a description of the community planning area, a list of recommended projects and bulleted recommendations. community Planning areas Ten Community Planning Areas were established by the Renton City Council in 2009 to reflect unique factors such as community identity, physical features, schools, data collection units, existing infrastructure, service areas, districts, boundaries and community access. The ten Community Planning Areas were utilized through this process and are illustrated in Figure 5-1: figure 5-1: community planning Areas THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 85 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK d escription Projects benson • Benson Community Park • Tiffany Park • Cascade Park • SE 186th Place Properties • Soos Creek Greenway: Boulevard Lane • Parkwood South Div #3 Park • Soos Creek Greenway: Renton Park • Benson Neighborhood Park 1 • Benson Neighborhood Park 2 The Benson community planning area was annexed into the City by an election in 2007 (effective 2008). The area includes over four square miles of land in southeast Renton. This large area currently includes two developed neighborhood parks owned by Renton (Tiffany Park and Cascade Park) and one additional developed park which remains under King County’s management (Boulevard Lane Park). It is bordered by the Cedar River Natural Area to the north and the King County managed and maintained Soos Creek Corridor to the east. The Renton School District operates seven facilities in this area, including four elementary, one middle and one high school and one alternative program. The area is primarily composed of single family homes, with a denser cluster of residences and commercial activity centered near the intersection of SE 168th and Edmonds Avenue SE. The area is crossed by several major utility corridors, many of which have been used as informal transportation and recreation links. The majority of the Benson area has little or no access to developed parks and no public land. Expanding park service in this area will be a challenge. While both large and small parks are needed to provide local access, the priority expressed by 86 | city of renton recommendAtions 1 2 the community is to start with a larger, multi-purpose site. Until more parks can be added, connections and other facilities will be critical. Acquire and Develop a New Community Park: Renton should acquire, plan and develop a large-centrally located community park. A multi-generational center could provide a wide variety of indoor recreation opportunities as well as a central gathering place for this community. Because this will be the only community park south-east of Interstate 405 and the Cedar River, the City should aim for a larger site of approximately 15 acres or greater. Enhance and Connect Tiffany and Cascade Parks: The City should acquire additional land to connect these two park sites with a natural area and trail. The City should also monitor property adjacent to Cascade Park for additional acquisition, increasing visibility and creating a welcoming entrance into the site. Both sites should be renovated to update, add and reorganize facilities. Cascade Park should be considered for an off-leash dog area. As part of the improvements to these sites, formal connections should be made to the access utility corridors that are currently used as trails, also necessitating formalized agreements with utility companies. When the two parks are connected and linked to these long pedestrian routes, the Cascade/Tiffany Park complex will become a hub for trail activity. Add and Develop Park Land: To increase access to basic park features, a number of additional neighborhood parks are needed in the Benson Community Planning Area. Two small sites are owned by the City (one recently transferred from King County) but neither come close to the minimum size needed to provide the desired features of a neighborhood park. At both the SE 186th Properties and the Parkwood South Div #3 Park sites, the City should attempt to add property or identify alternative sites recommend A tions p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 87 b enson 1 2 4 3 park recommendation location# 43 for parks. Currently, both of these small sites offer the opportunity for community gardens or a tree farm. In the Benson planning area, augmenting Renton School District sites will be a key strategy to providing park service. The City should work with the School District to secure increased access to indoor facilities for programming through negotiated agreements. The City should also work with the district to acquire small park sites adjacent to schools to provide access to play opportunities. Beyond the existing parks and school sites, two additional neighborhood park sites should be identified. Both areas are hilly and isolated from other parks by distance and topography. Partner with Schools for Indoor Programming Space: As noted above, schools will be important assets to expanding park and recreation access into Benson. In the short to medium term, prior to the completion of a community park for the area, the City could extend programming to multiple school sites in the Benson community planning area. Youth and after-school programming will be important services, but the City can linkage 88 | city of renton recommendAtions also offer adult programming to build support for the future multi- generational center and promote healthy activity levels among Benson residents. Complete Soos Creek Corridor: The City should continue collaborating with King County to expand and connect the Soos Creek properties to protect the creek and surrounding habitat and provide a regional trail connection which also will connect with the Cedar River Trail. With the completion of the Soos Creek Trail, one park and one natural area (Boulevard Lane Park and Renton Park) will be transferred to the City for operation and management. Renton Park should be developed to connect with the adjacent Renton Park Elementary and Lindberg High School serving as an outdoor learning environment. Integrate Utility Corridors: The City should actively pursue agreements with the utility companies that maintain corridors through the Benson community planning area and other parts of Renton. These corridors currently provide informal access to pedestrians, hikers and cyclists. However, because of their informal status, the City has no authority to improve trails or provide better access. Agreements should outline roles and responsibilities as well as the limitations and requirements of the utility use. strong evidence shows that when people have access to parks, they exercise more. - the benefits of parks: why America needs more city parks and open space (2006) p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 89 Projects d escription • Cedar River Park • Ron Regis Park • Cedar River Natural Area • NARCO Property • Cedar River Trail Corridor • Maplewood Golf Course • Riverview Park • Maplewood Roadside Park • Maplewood Park c ed A r river The Cedar River Community Planning Area follows the Cedar River and the Maple Valley Highway from Interstate 405 to the Renton city limits. Many of the well known, most-used parks in the system are located within this community planning area, along with the largest natural area. There are several small developments of high and low density housing along the highway corridor that are relatively isolated from each other and the remainder of the city. The Cedar River Community Planning Area contains the largest portion of a recreation corridor that extends from Lake Washington to Renton’s eastern city limits. Most of the community’s signature natural areas, recreation sites and facilities are located within this region. The focus for improvements to the system in this area is the enhancement of existing sites and facilities to increase capacity and quality. recommend A tions Implement the Tri-Park Master Plan: This community planning area includes two of the three Tri-Park Master Plan sites, Cedar River Park and the NARCO property that have been planned for significant improvements connected to reconfiguring Interstate 405. The long-term plan for these three sites remains relevant 90 | city of renton recommendAtions 1 2 to the community. In the future, as the park is designed the City may want to consider including a small off-leash dog area for the NARCO site. Provide Additional Sport Fields: Two sites in this community planning area offer the best existing opportunity to provide clusters of sports fields for recreational and competitive play in Renton. The fields planned as part of the Tri-Park Plan adjacent to Cedar River Park and the NARCO property will provide a central home for field sports. Fields should be designed to maximize the flexibility of field layout for different sizes of fields and alternate combined configurations (such as a cricket pitch). Existing and additional planned fields at Ron Regis Park should receive playing surface and equipment improvements to include synthetic turf as well as utility connections to provide potable water service to this site. Manage Cedar River Natural Area: As the largest of the City’s major natural areas, and associated with the most significant waterway, the Cedar River Natural Area should be a priority for inventory and management plan development. As part of this effort, the City should identify and formalize access points for stewardship activities as well as trail use. Invasive species treatment should emphasize areas that have the greatest risk for further spread, both within the site and beyond, such as the river edge, streams and creeks. The management plan should be coordinated between Renton, King County and other organizations involved in improving this watershed which provides regional recreation. Managing and maintaining the transition zones, between the natural area, developed features planned at the NARCO property and the regional trail, will be critical to the health of the natural systems and visitor safety. The role of this natural area in protecting the Cedar River, the site’s accessibility and the proximity to existing programming locations, makes this site a 3 p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 91 Linkage 2 Park Recommendation Location # 1 prime opportunity for enhanced environmental programming and interpretation. Balance Indoor Programming Space: The Renton Community Center, at Cedar River Park, is the largest indoor recreation facility provided by the City of Renton. Specific programs will be subject to additional analysis based on recreation program registration data, with important consideration given to the availability of indoor spaces for programming that reaches all age groups. In partnership with the Renton School District, youth programming could have increased availability across the city. The City should explore program time blocks that provide a mix of adult, youth and senior focused activities to add convenience for adults trying to work recreation into their schedules around youth activities. This clustering would also create more opportunities for informal multi-generational interaction at the community center. research on the brain demonstrates that play is a scaffold for development, a vehicle for increasing neural structures, and a means by which all children practice skills they will need in later life - Association for childhood education international 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 93 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK d escription Projects • Senior Activity Center Property • Liberty Park • Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park • Corridor Acquisition • Cedar River Trail Park • Burnett Linear Park • Philip Arnold Park • Community Garden/Greenhouse • Piazza & Gateway • City Center Neighborhood Park 1 • Boeing EIS Waterfront Park • Veterans Memorial Park • Tonkin Park • Jones Park • Sit In Park city center The core of Renton, the City Center Planning Area includes the historic downtown as well as the transitioning and industrial lands north to the edge of Lake Washington. Several signature Renton parks are located within City Center, including Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, the Piazza and Cedar River Trail Park. The area also includes many community facilities, including those owned by the City and two sites owned by the Renton School District. The character of this area varies greatly from industrial and airport uses to single family homes near downtown main streets to a new destination mixed-use center at the Landing. The current and planned density of this area, and the diversity of activities require a range of sites as well as flexible use. With the City Center Plan in place, the area is poised for population and economic growth that will increase the demands on the relatively limited existing park spaces. Key improvements to increase access and capacity will improve the City Center’s ability to serve as the heart of Renton. 94 | city of renton recommendAtions recommend A tions 1 2 Expand and Redevelop Senior Activity Center Site: The City should relocate the shop facilities located between the Senior Activity Center and the Community Garden (including the greenhouse) to allow for expansion of this site and a broader set of activities. A new master plan for this park should be developed for integration with the Renton Senior Activity Center and the adjacent neighborhood. With no name existing for this entire site, it is identified as City Center Neighborhood Park 1 in this plan. This site should be designed for neighborhood scale activity, but recognizing that this will be in the heart of the city, near downtown and on the Cedar River Trail. As a result, this park should be designed for higher intensity use. Enlarge and Enhance Existing Sites: The City should seek opportunities to expand several sites within the City Center community planning area. Additional land should be acquired to provide overflow parking for Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, with an improved connection between the park and residential and commercial development at The Landing. Burnett Linear Park should be expanded north to the area currently used as Cedar River Trail Section from City Center Community Plan, 2010 p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 95 c ity center 1 2 5 4 # 3 Park Recommendation Location Linkage 4 3 parking, strengthening the link between this park, Tonkin Park, the Piazza and the Cedar River Trail. Redevelopment around the Piazza and Gateway park site should be encouraged to include a plaza and other complementary outdoor spaces allowing activities to extend beyond the existing park, creating a civic center. Relocate the Cedar River Trail: The City should consider acquiring additional property above the river bank along the Cedar River and relocate the trail out of the 100 year flood zone and as outlined in the Shoreline Master Program and the City Center Community Plan. This proposed relocation will provide better access and allow for riverbank restoration, improving water quality and salmon habitat. The relocated trail needs to maintain the strong connection between the Senior Center and Liberty Park. Secure Land for Future New Parks: In addition to the master plan for the site adjacent to the Senior Activity Center, the 2003 Boeing Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS identifies a 75 acre park providing a potential connection to Gene Coulon 96 | city of renton recommendAtions 5 Memorial Beach Park and the Cedar River Trail. This improvement will only occur if the Boeing Company should decide to surplus the existing manufacturing facilities. This will be a truly rare opportunity for future park development, shaping the future of central Renton. Based on the priorities of the community in 2011, the most important land to secure within the current Boeing properties would be the waterfront between Cedar River Trail Park and Gene Coulon Regional Park. The exact configuration of this new site should be carefully planned to further economic and community development and improve connectivity between Coulon Park and the Cedar River Trail. Enhance the Cedar River: The Cedar River is the major natural feature in the City Center Planning Area and the river and salmon run are closely tied to Renton’s identity. The City should develop an enhancement and stabilization program along the Cedar River. Stabilization should improve and protect the health of the trees that anchor the bank as well as control invasive species. Invasive species control will likely involve removal and treatments beyond this community planning area. Explore Creative Partnerships: The businesses and organizations that are located in City Center offer a wide range of programming possibilities. As part of the Recreation Programming Plan, the City should explore how to involve additional local businesses and community organizations. One opportunity identified during the planning process involves collaborating with the Boeing Company’s employee health program to identify walks and fitness opportunities in proximity to Boeing facilities for employees to participate in during lunch breaks or before/after work. Implement Tri-Park Master Plan: See Cedar River Community Planning Area recommendations. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 97 d escription Projects e A st pl A te A u • East Plateau Community Park • May Creek/McAskill • East Plateau Neighborhood Park 1 • East Plateau Neighborhood Park 2 The East Plateau makes up the eastern edge of the City of Renton, north of the Cedar River. Much of this planning area is outside of the current city limits. The East Plateau has no developed City-owned parks and nearly the entire planning area is outside the ½ mile range of developed parks. Five school sites are located within the planning area, including schools in both the Renton and Issaquah districts. The character of this area is primarily residential with a high density commercial and residential corridor along NE 4th Street. There are many disconnected streets due to topography, stream corridors and development patterns. The most notable need in East Plateau is for designated park land to accommodate the recreation opportunities most desired by the community. The population in this area benefits from some access to natural areas, primarily those owned by King County. Residents of this area use school facilities and travel to other parts of the city for gathering places and indoor programming. 98 | city of renton recommendAtions “please preserve and maintain the natural habitats we still have so our children and grandchildren can learn about all the wonderful areas of nature in renton.” - Questionnaire response from east plateau Add a New Community Park: The City should acquire the Maplewood Community Park and Maplewood Neighborhood Park sites from King County with the intention of developing a unified community park connecting to the adjacent Maplewood Heights Elementary School. Following acquisition, the site should be master planned with input from the community about the specific features and design elements. Key features for a community park in this area are a concentration of sports fields (adding to existing fields at the elementary school), creating a community gathering space and maintaining the forested area with trails. Improve Access to May Creek Park: In the north end of the planning area is a City-owned, undeveloped site known as the May Creek/McAskill property. Access to this property is limited and should be expanded by acquiring additional property and connecting local trails. The concept plan (in chapter 7) can be used as a starting point to identify potential elements and the relationships between features. Identify and Develop Two New Neighborhood Parks: Within the current city limits, at least two additional neighborhood parks are needed to provide basic recreation amenities within ½ mile of residents. The first of these, East Plateau Neighborhood Park 1, should be located in the area south of Sunset Boulevard and east of Duvall, near Oliver Hazen High School. The high school campus has the potential to augment a future public park. The second additional park site (East Plateau Neighborhood Park 2) should be near NE 4th Street, close to the planned higher residential and commercial density. This area has no existing publicly owned land and will require acquiring between 5 and 10 acres of park land that should be connected to bike and pedestrian routes. New neighborhood parks should be master planned and developed according to the design guidelines. recommend A tions 1 2 4 3 p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 99 e A st pl Ate A u 1 2 4 3 #Park Recommendation Location Linkage Plan for Annexation Areas: If the City expands into the remaining parts of the potential annexation area, additional park sites will need to be located, potentially including the King County owned Maplewood Heights Park property. Provide Key Connections: The following trail and bicycle routes are particularly important to improving access to and from this community planning area as well as within it. • The May Creek corridor crosses the north edge of the planning area and additional protected land would provide habitat and serve recreation and non-motorized transportation needs. • King County’s planned Cedar to Sammamish Regional Trail connects this area to the Cedar River Planning Area to the south and exits the city to the north east. • The east-west bicycle routes planned along Sunset Boulevard and NE 4th/SE 128th Street. • Shared streets connecting to Highlands and extending east out of the City. 100 | city of renton recommendAtions Enhancing Existing Natural Areas: The City should support King County and City of Newcastle efforts to complete habitat restoration projects utilizing volunteers and partnerships such as the Mountain to Sound Greenway. Residents of this area who participated in the planning process indicated a desire to maintain natural elements within park sites. Acquire Natural Areas: The City should support King County and City of Newcastle efforts to identify and acquire natural area land that connects creek corridors such as May Creek. Natural area acquisitions in this community planning area should have the potential to serve as habitat or trail corridors, or expand existing protected areas. Programming and Facility Partnerships: Partnering with both the Renton and Issaquah School Districts will be important to providing programming options in the East Plateau. As the City of Renton expands into the Potential Annexation Area, a school partnership within the Issaquah District should be considered. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 101 d escription Projects H ig H l A nds • Highlands Park and Neighborhood Center • Honey Creek Greenway • Highlands Neighborhood Park 3: Sunset Park (EIS) • North Highlands Park and Neighborhood Center • Highlands Neighborhood Park 1 • Highlands Neighborhood Park 2 • Glencoe Park • Kiwanis Park • Heritage Park • Windsor Hills Park • Sunset Court Park The Highlands Community Planning Area is located on a plateau above the City Center Community Planning Area and the Cedar River in northwest Renton. This area includes a wide range of park lands from very small neighborhood parks to large natural area properties along Honey and May Creeks. The Renton School District operates five elementary and middle schools in or immediately adjacent to the Highlands Planning Area. There are two corridors of higher density residential and commercial development along the major east-west routes, following Sunset Boulevard and NE 3rd/4th Streets. The hills descending from the plateau, Interstate 405 and limited street connections isolate this area for pedestrians and cyclists. The City should focus on maximizing the use of the extensive community investment in park land and facilities in this area. Some of the older parks in Highlands need design updates and new features which could better serve this area’s population. In addition, while this community planning area has the best overall coverage of parks (minimal gaps in service), some parks do not meet size recommendations and/or the ½ mile service area access distance. Linking the park system to institutional partners, including the Renton School District, Renton Technical College and King County Libraries may enhance access to programs and decrease facility gaps in the system. 102 | city of renton 3 Rendering from Sunset Planned Action EIS recommendAtions 1 2 Maximize Highlands Park: Located geographically at the center of the Highlands Planning Area, this site serves as the only community park for most of east Renton. Additional land to the south has been added to the site which has yet to be integrated into the overall design. The park also shares a property line with Highlands Elementary School. Increasing density also places increased demand on park sites. To better serve this community, the City should begin a long-term process of planning and designing a completely reconfigured Highlands Park. This site should retain current park amenities but reconfigure them to accommodate a larger, multi-generational indoor facility with additional features to include a community garden and a skateboarding area. The reconfigured park should also maintain the designated Safe Route to School. Create a shared play area in North Highlands: The City and the Renton School District should jointly develop a children’s play area between the Hillcrest Early Education Center and North Highlands Neighborhood Center. A shared facility offers the unique opportunity to create a signature facility that removes barriers to inclusive play regardless of physical abilities. Implement Sunset Planned Action EIS: The City should implement the adopted Sunset Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement. This project is a collaborative redevelopment involving Housing Authority property, a new library and a park to replace the undersized Sunset Court Park. This proposed park, Highlands Neighborhood Park 3, is provisionally known as Sunset Park. Chapter 7 includes a concept design that advances the thinking from the environmental impact statement development to provide an idea for this future park. As the redevelopment moves forward, the City should develop a master plan that recognizes the expected high level of use and the relationships to other recommend A tions p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 103 H ig H l A nds 1 2 3 4 #Park Recommendation Location Linkage features in the redevelopment plan, especially the library. The park site should be developed concurrently with the housing redevelopment to maximize construction efficiency. Other improvements tied to the redevelopment include integrated stormwater management approaches that will include trail connections to the site. Add New Park Sites: The Highlands Community Planning Area is well served by parks within ½ mile of residents. However, two areas remain underserved. The first gap, a new proposed Highlands Neighborhood Park 1, should be north of Sunset Boulevard and west of Duvall. This area has a neighborhood park which currently does not meet acreage recommendations to serve this area. Opportunities to acquire land as it becomes available should be considered. A second proposed park, Highlands Neighborhood Park 2, would serve the residential area in the southern most portion of the community planning area. This park would serve the higher density residential area. 5 4 5 104 | city of renton Expand Existing Sites: Glencoe Park is a very small site that offers less variety than does a standard neighborhood park. Property surrounding this site should be monitored for acquisition opportunities to expand the park to the minimum 2 acre guideline. A second park, Windsor Hills Park should also be monitored for adjacent property acquisitions to open up park access, visibility, and increase functionality. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 105 d escription Projects • May Creek Greenway • Kennydale Beach Park • Kennydale Lions Park • Kennydale Neighborhood Park 1 • Kennydale Neighborhood Park 2 kennyd A le The northern most tip of Renton, includes Kennydale neighborhoods on both the east and west sides of Interstate 405. This area includes two developed parks and portions of the May Creek Greenway. The Renton School District has one elementary school in the area. The majority of this area is low density residential, with mixed use commercial and residential property at the far north edge. Connections across Interstate 405 are limited. The May Creek Greenway also isolates a pocket of housing near the Newcastle border. The area encompasses substantial natural areas but does not necessarily provide access. The City of Renton, in partnership with King County and the City of Newcastle, has been acquiring property along the greenway since 1990 in order to make a connection from Lake Washington to Cougar Mountain Regional Park. Expand Access to the May Creek Greenway: Acquisitions by Renton and King County in the Kennydale Community Planning Area has resulted in a nearly continuous swath of greenway across Renton’s northern border. Approximately fifty percent of the May Creek Greenway in Kennydale is owned by King County. recommend A tions 106 | city of renton recommendAtions renton has very well- maintained, beautiful parks! i plan on kayaking next summer so i’m happy to have the boat house... well done!!! -kennydale Questionnaire respondent 1 2 The City should work with King County to create a management plan that includes identifying appropriate access points to the greenway and developing trails that allow for stewardship and recreation in a natural setting. Enhance Existing Park Sites: The two developed parks in the community planning area are key to local identity and community gathering. Kennydale Beach Park is a summertime staple but is severely constrained by neighboring property and the railroad track. Renton should capitalize on water access and the associated natural areas. The City should monitor adjacent properties for opportunities to purchase land to expand this park. Kennydale Lions Park is an under-developed asset. A full redesign of this site should be completed using community input and the City’s park design guidelines. Chapter 7 includes a concept for this park that provides one idea for the future of this expanded site. Provide Two Additional Neighborhood Parks: The City should add park sites to the isolated pockets of this area, although the availability of appropriate land will be a major challenge. On the west side of Interstate 405 in Kennydale, the only developed park is the small Kennydale Beach Park. While a highly valued site, the size and waterfront location of this park limit its use for some types of park activities. If the site cannot be expanded, an additional neighborhood park should be added to this area. A second neighborhood park should also be added east of the freeway and north of the May Creek Greenway. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 107 kennydA le 1 2 #Park Recommendation Location Linkage THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 109 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK d escription Projects t A lbot • Panther Creek Wetlands • Edlund Property • Cleveland/Richardson Property • Thomas Teasdale Park • Talbot Hill Reservoir Park • Springbrook Watershed • Lake Street Open Space • Panther Creek 4A Parcel The Talbot Community planning area is located in southwest Renton extending south from Interstate 405 between SR-167 and SR-515/108th Avenue SE and south to the city limits. The Talbot planning area includes two developed parks and substantial natural area acreage. In addition, two properties have been acquired for future neighborhood parks in the southern half of the area. Talbot is primarily residential with a commercial corridor connecting the Valley and Benson Community Planning Areas along SW 43rd Street/S Carr Road. This corridor includes Valley Medical Center. A cluster of high density residential property extends south from SW 43rd on either side of 96th Avenue South. Connections within this area and beyond are challenging due to the hills, a disconnected street pattern and freeway barrier to the west. Developing existing park land in the south and the management and maintenance of natural areas should be a focus for the City. The properties acquired for new neighborhood parks have development constraints due to wetlands. There are also opportunities for integrating and interpreting the natural features and historic landscapes and structures. 110 | city of renton recommendAtions 1 2 4 3 not only may natural settings enable and encourage regular physical activity, but exposure to nature seems to directly stimulate immune functioning. -parks and other green environments: essential components of a Healthy Human Habitat (2010) Expand/Connect Panther Creek Wetlands: The City has acquired substantial natural area land extending from the intersection of SR 167 and Interstate 405 to just north of the Valley Medical Center campus at S.W. 43rd Street. The City should continue to expand the protected acreage along Panther Creek and develop trail connections that provide access for enjoyment of nature and stewardship activities. The expansion of this natural area should include a connection via acquisition or easement east to the developed portion of the Edlund Property and west to the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. Design and Develop Undeveloped Sites: The two undeveloped neighborhood park sites should be master planned and designed to integrate the natural and historic elements as well as features that support gatherings, recreation and fitness. Chapter 7 includes a concept designs that provide ideas for the future of these two sites. Access to each site should be maximized by creating trail connections to the neighboring residential areas and to nearby parks and natural areas. Partner to Foster Health and Wellness: In partnership with Valley Medical Center there could be increased opportunities to develop healthy lifestyle programming for residents, employers/employees and visitors that utilize both City facilities and the medical center campus. Valley Medical will also have access to a future trail connecting to the Panther Creek Wetlands and the Edlund property. A partnership between the City and Valley Medical Center could be pursued to develop a trailhead. recommend A tions p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 111 tA lbot 1 24 3 #Park Recommendation Location Linkage Strategic Reinvestment in Existing Parks: Two additional parks, Thomas Teasdale Park and Talbot Hill Reservoir Park are located close together in the north portion of Talbot. As reinvestment is required, these two sites should be planned together to differentiate the opportunities provided and maximize the use of the available park land. Consolidate Properties: For future reference and inventory purposes, the properties known as the Lake Street Open Space and the Panther Creek 4A parcel should be considered as part of the Panther Creek Wetlands and Edlund Property, respectively. 112 | city of renton 1 recommend A tions d escription Projects • Black River Riparian Forest • Environmental Education Programs • Renton Wetlands v A lley The Valley Community Planning Area makes up the west edge of Renton in the low lands immediately east of the Green River. The area is a contrast of light industrial, commercial and office park development against preserved and restored wetlands and green spaces. In addition to the two Renton owned sites, King County owns the Waterworks Garden site incorporated in the regional water treatment plant. With the excellent access and a history of office park and other industrial and commercial uses, this area is focused on employment. Park and recreation services in this area should focus on facilities that are useful to employees, attractive to employers and add to natural systems and green infrastructure. Provide Improved Access and Interpret the Black River Riparian Forest: As a unique site that provides habitat and floodwater control, the Black River Riparian Forest has a multi-layered story for visitors, in addition to being a beautiful and calm place within an urban environment. Renton should formalize public p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 113 3 access to this site, including trails and an interpretive facility. A boardwalk section of trail should be considered in site master planning. It will be important to balance the access and level of habitat and wildlife protection necessary for this specific site. Create an Environmental Education Hub: The combination of unique natural areas, local and regional trail routes and the King County Waterworks Garden creates a destination for environmental education within Renton. The City should develop interpretive elements at key sites, including the Black River Riparian Area, along the Springbrook Trail corridor and at the Renton Wetlands. The City could also contribute to developing curriculum for visiting school and tour groups to explain the importance of these natural areas as habitat and a part of the City’s green infrastructure. Add Trails and Seating Areas: The City should continue to build trail connections within and connecting to the Valley as well as continue partnering with King County and South King County cities to complete the Lake to Sound Trail. The segment of this regional trail under design in vA lley 1 2 3 2 3 #Park Recommendation Location Linkage 114 | city of renton recommendAtions 2011 will link the existing Springbrook Trail to the regional system, ultimately including the Lake to Sound Trail the Cedar River Trail, the Green River Trail and the Interurban Trail. Trails in this community planning area would increase access to healthy activity to the area’s employment base. Convenient trails in attractive settings, such as the existing boardwalk in the Renton Wetlands, provide walking opportunities for stress relief and fitness, while regional trails, bike lanes and freeway pedestrian connections create active transportation options for commuters. Seating areas along trail corridors and adjacent to natural areas, should be designed to accommodate outdoor eating and informal gathering. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 115 West Hill is located to the west of the Renton airport and north of Martin Luther King Jr. Way/SW Sunset Boulevard. The majority of this community planning area is currently outside of the existing city limits. The City of Renton owns one neighborhood park in West Hill and there are also two King County owned park properties (one developed park and one natural area site) located in the potential annexation area. Renton School District extends through West Hill and five school sites are located in this planning area. With only a small portion of the community planning area within the current City limits, the primary focus is serving that area. Expand Earlington Park: The existing neighborhood park in West Hill is slightly under the minimum size for this type of park. While the park should continue to be maintained and treated as a neighborhood park, the City should monitor opportunities to purchase adjacent land to expand the park to a minimum of two acres and add features to match the intent of the guidelines. • Earlington Park • West Hills Neighborhood Park d escription Projects w est H ill recommend A tions 116 | city of renton 1 2 1 2 #Park Recommendation Location Linkage in greener settings we find that people are more generous and more desirous of connections with others; we find stronger neighborhood social ties and greater sense of community, more mutual trust and willingness to help others; and we find evidence of healthier social functioning in neighborhood common spaces—more (positive) social interaction in those spaces, greater shared use of spaces by adults and children. -parks and other green environments: essential components of a Healthy Human Habitat (2010) Provide One New Neighborhood Park: Within the current city limits, one additional neighborhood park should be located in West Hill. The hills and barriers (such as the airport) make it difficult for residents to access parks within or outside of the community planning area on foot or by bicycle. Acquire Waterfront Areas: If the Lake Washington waterfront is annexed, the City should carefully monitor opportunities to acquire additional waterfront property for habitat improvement and water access. Plan for Annexation Areas: If the City expands into the potential annexation area, additional park sites will need to be located. Skyway Park, currently owned by King County, will be an important resource. Partnership opportunities with the Renton School District could increase access to recreation whether annexation occurs now or in the future. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 117 The Fairwood Community Planning Area is located east of the current city limits south of State Route 169, and borders the Lake Youngs Watershed on three sides. This Potential Annexation Area, if annexed, would become the south east corner of Renton. This area is largely developed, with single family homes and contains a commercial center with higher density multi-family housing centered at SE Petrovitsky Road and 140th Avenue SE. The City of Renton owns no parks in this community planning area but King County owns and manages the large sports field focused Petrovitsky Park at Parkside Way and Petrovitsky Road. Plan for Annexation Areas: If the City expands into the potential annexation area, additional park sites will need to be located, including neighborhood parks and a community park. As with other areas in the City, partnerships with the Renton and Kent School Districts will be important to providing park and recreation services to this area. Connections: The majority of the connections within this community planning area will be on-street bike routes and sidewalks. Future planning for this area should take advantage of the existing trail on Petrovitsky Road and large publicly owned natural areas along Soos Creek and Lake Youngs with associated trails. Projects d escription recommend A tions f A irwood • No projects identified Linkage THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 6. i m P lemenation Plan 120 | city of renton im P lementation P lan Implementating this Plan advances the community-wide vision and guides long-term decision making. The critical balance is to provide enough direction to create action toward the community’s vision while retaining a high degree of flexibility to adapt to opportunities created by development and redevelopment, changes in political priorities, new partnerships and the availability of outside resources. decision making tools The goals of this plan offer direction for long-term change in the park system. The objectives provide additional clarity by describing the outcomes of these changes. Clear connection to the goals and objectives ensures that future development will be consistent with the desires of the community. The decision making tools further the community wide vision, goals and objectives by providing guidance for the provision of parks and recreation services and programming, the design of new parks and renovations, the prioritization of projects and the cost of building and maintaining improvements. This section explains these tools and how they can be applied to Renton’s future projects and opportunities. recreation Program evaluation tool This tool focuses attention on the recreation programming options offered by the City or in partnership with other agencies, non-profit organizations, the School District, businesses, volunteers and others. Every program requires a commitment of community resources. As the City proceeds with evaluating existing programming, the Recreation Programming Evaluation Tool will provide a basis for making decisions about where community resources should be invested. The tool can also be used to evaluate new project ideas as they arise. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 121 The Recreation Program Evaluation Tool utilizes a worksheet format (included in Appendix B) that is built around nine target programming outcomes. These target outcomes were developed by the project team based on the input from the community and City staff. These outcomes do not need to be ranked or scored, but each should be a consideration in the process of evaluating new and existing programs. The end result of this evaluation is a recommendation by staff to continue the program (ongoing or on a trial basis) or to adjust/discontinue City support. tArget outcomes • Encouraging people to try new things, develop new skills and/or maintain existing skills. • Adding healthy activities to participant lifestyles. • Fostering a connection to the natural environment. • Creating positive activities and fun environments for youth. • Facilitating gatherings and bringing the community together. • Promoting individual and community development. • Offering a range of options for different income levels and different abilities. • Adapting to new demographics and preferences. • Offering programs that are responsive to community demands or interest. Each program can be assessed against these outcomes to highlight the range of benefits the particular offering is achieving. 122 | city of renton i mplementAtion p l A n design guidelines This Plan recommends new design guidelines that revise the park classification system and update and expand the descriptions of what should, what could and what should not be included in the design and development of each park type. This tool also informs decision making about size and locations for future parks orgAnizAtion The guidelines are organized by park classification. For each park classification, there are five design guidelines topics: • Size and Access: The size of a park, and particularly the developable area, determines the type of park and uses possible at the site. Access addresses the frontages, preferred modes of transportation and entrances to the site. • Recommended Resources: There is a minimum set of park resources needed for a park location to meet the objectives developed from community input and analyzed in the Community Needs Assessment. Items listed in this sub-heading are intended to be the minimum elements for the given park classification. • Additional Resources: The park resources identified in this sub-heading are additional resources for consideration. If site size allows, other resources can be incorporated into the park as long as the impacts of the resource do not exceed the capacity of the size and scale of the intended park site classification. • Structures: If a structure is identified for the park site, additional review and standards will come into play. This section also calls out what non-recreation structures need additional consideration before being located within park sites. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 123 d ecision m A king tools • Incompatible Resources: In some cases, there are park resources that conflict with the purpose and character of a particular park classification. The basic guidelines, by park category are provided below, the remaining guideline topics are detailed in Appendix B: Decision Making Tools. neigHborHood pArk Intent: Provide close-to-home recreation opportunities for nearby residents, who typically live within walking and bicycling distance (.25-.5 miles) of the park in a residential setting. Size and Access: • Minimum developable park size 2 acres. • Property faces front facades of adjacent development. • Access from local street or trail. community pArk Intent: Provide opportunities for active recreation and organized play in a location that can accommodate increased traffic and demand, while also serving the neighborhood park function for nearby residents. Size and Access: • Minimum developable park size 10 acres. • Access from a higher order public street on at least one side for main park entry. • Main park entry should front a street with transit or bicycle route when applicable. • Secondary access to the park from a public local access street or trail preferred. 124 | city of renton i mplementAtion p l A n regionAl pArks Intent: Provide destination park locations that can accommodate communitywide and regional demand, while also fulfilling the function of a community and neighborhood park for nearby residents. Size and Access: • Minimum developable park size 50 acres. • Access from a higher order public street on at least one side for main park entry. • Park may have multiple main entries which should front a street with a transit or bicycle route when possible. • Secondary access points to the park from a public local access street or trail is encouraged. speciAl use pArks Intent: Provide space for unique features or places that create variety in the park system but cannot be accommodated within other park sites due to size or location requirements. Size and Access: • Size depends on the type of use proposed. • Access from a higher order public street on at least one side for main park entry. • Main park entry should front a street with a transit or bicycle route when applicable. • Access may be limited during certain times of the day or to specific recreation activities. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 125 d ecision m A king tools regular physical activity reduces the risk for [conditions such as] dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in the elderly. - physical Activity and the intertwine: A public Health method of reducing obesity and Healthcare costs (2011) nAturAl AreA pArk Intent: Provide opportunities for users to interact with local nature or protect natural resources and systems within the standards of the existing natural resource regulatory environment. Size and Access: • Size of the natural area is variable, depending primarily on the extent of the natural resource being protected. • Access is dependent on size of property and type of natural area. Generally, natural areas should have at least one identified entrance accessible from a public street. • Public access may be limited or excluded if the natural resource is deemed too fragile for interaction. However maintenance access should be provided via trail or service road. corridor Intent: Narrow swaths of land that serve as connections between parks or to other destinations. Lands can include public land, private partnerships and/or easements. A corridor site can be the location of a trail or can provide a habitat linkage between two larger areas. Size and Access: • Size is dependent on corridor length and right-of-way or easement width and connectivity. Prioritization criteria The wide range of projects, from new fitness programs to a new play feature to natural area enhancement require criteria to evaluate how a specific program or project relates to the plan 126 | city of renton i mplementAtion p l A n vision. Drawing from the extensive public input, the project team developed and refined seven criteria to apply to parks, recreation programming and natural area projects: • Advance programming objectives: Project or program supports the ‘Programming Target Outcomes’. • Provide multiple planning objectives: Project or program is aligned with other adopted planning efforts of the City of Renton, King County or other aligned jurisdictions. • Fill identified gaps in service: Project or program adds park sites, recreation facilities, natural areas or recreation programs to identified underserved populations or areas of the city. • Enhance partnerships or volunteerism: Project or program creates new partnerships or strengthens existing partnerships. • Enhance (or improves use of) existing facilities: Project or program makes the best possible use of the existing investments in land and facilities. • Contribute to system sustainability: Project or program contributes to the long-term environmental and financial sustainability of the system. • Strengthen identity: Project or program celebrates the unique features of Renton’s neighborhoods or the city as a whole. Scoring a project against these criteria allows for the sorting of disparate projects into an ordered list that focuses community resources. As part of the planning process, the consultant team scored each project against each criterion, on a scale of 0-5. This preliminary list was then reviewed by the public, project Steering Committee, Parks and Planning Commissions and the City Council’s Committee of the Whole. by incorporating trees into a city’s infrastructure, managers can build a smaller, less expensive stormwater management system. – American forests urban resource center p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 127 d ecision m A king tools six cApitAl proJect types: • Planning and Design • Acquisition • Development • Renovation • Stewardship Projects • Major Maintenance and Reinvestment This ranking should be considered a snapshot view of priorities. As time passes, this list should not be considered fixed. The factors that feed into prioritizing based on these criteria are subject to change and should be reconsidered periodically. Additionally, while this ranking can be used to look at all projects in the system, it can also be broken down to examine the ranking by park type, community planning area or by specific types of improvements. caPital and oPerations cost model The Prioritization Criteria intentionally avoids making decisions based on cost. However, the cost of improvements at a park (and at the system-wide level) is an important consideration as the plan moves from this decision making stage into implementation planning. Critical cost considerations include both one-time capital costs and on-going operations and maintenance costs. The Capital and Operations Cost Model allows broad “planning level” costs to be identified based on the recommended improvements. These costs are based on a series of assumptions based on recent park construction and operations experience of the project team as well as past project and operating costs in Renton. Six major project categories are identified in the model, along with a number of specific facilities, each of which has specific capital or operating cost implications. For each park in the system, the recommended projects and individual facilities are selected and added to the total project cost based on a per-unit or per-acre cost assumption specific to the type of park. The result is a total capital cost by park location, which can be rolled up to a park type, community planning area or system-wide total. One additional function added to the model is an inflation factor that illustrates the capital cost projected 5, 10 and 20 years into the future, illustrating the value of completing projects sooner rather than later. 128 | city of renton i mplementAtion p l A n Operating cost modeling includes the resources needed to maintain, staff and program park sites and facilities. These costs are driven by the size of a park site and the presence of key facilities, such as restrooms, sport fields and buildings. Operating costs are calculated for the existing park system as well as the facilities recommended to be added to the system. The final total (including both existing and proposed) removes the duplication of facilities that would be replaced by a recommended improvement, to avoid double counting. The model is both a snapshot of the total costs based on the recommended improvements, and a live spreadsheet model that allows staff to change the assumptions about cost and specific facilities to adjust for changes over time. This flexibility allows the City to model different packages of projects that result in more, less or simply different investments in the park system. The totals reported from this tool are based on all of the recommendations in the plan, and are summarized following the Capital Projects List. caPital Projects list Table 6.1 presents a ranked list of all capital improvements recommended in the Plan. The Capital Projects List ranking utilizes the prioritization criteria and process described on pages 126-127 to apply public priorities to the wide range of potential projects. This scoring was based on achieving the vision of this plan and community needs and was completed prior to the development of project costs and funding options, which are applied later. The list includes the project title, defining the specific site or type of improvement; a project description summarizing the full extent of the project over the 20-year Plan vision; and the total score out of 35 possible points, where a higher score means a higher priority. Where projects have the same score, they are sorted in alphabetical order within the list position (for example, all projects p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 129 c A pitA l pro J ects list scoring 28 points are in list position number one but there is no implied preference for Cedar River Park it falls alphabetically before Ron Regis Park). use of this list The Capital Projects List as presented on the following pages should be considered a snapshot of prioritization based on 2011-2012 conditions. As a 20-year plan, the implementation of these projects will be spread out over many years and this ranking will help to focus City efforts. Breaking down this list by time-frame, the top ten list positions (which include 28 projects) are the focus of the first six-years of plan implementation. The projects following position 10 will be considered long-term efforts but should be considered even in the short-term if special opportunities arise. This list is intended to be used as a dynamic tool. The total ranking will always need to be considered against practical realities and be reevaluated periodically to account for changing circumstances and conditions. In addition, the list can be filtered and sorted to identify priority order based on park category or community planning area, as shown in Appendix C. The Capital Projects List, and the prioritization tool that informed it, is intended to feed into the City’s Capital Improvement Plan process. Through the City’s CIP process, the public’s priorities for parks, recreation and natural areas will be matched with specific funding sources and amounts, and phased (if necessary) as the next step towards implementation. 130 | city of renton i mplementAtion p l A n table 6.1: ranked project list Priority #Project Project Description Total Ranking 1 Cedar River Park Existing major building facilities include RCC and Carco Theatre. Expand Henry Moses Aquatic Center, potential field reconfiguration. Renovate fields and add lighting. (Phased Tri-Park Plan). Also included in the Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8 and the Cedar River Basin Plan. 28 Ron Regis Park Improve existing and undeveloped fields to competitive level; extend water service to the park; add a permanent restroom, playground, and picnic shelter(s). Park included in the Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8 and the Cedar River Basin Plan. Potential for habitat improvements to stabilize shoreline. 28 2 Black River Riparian Forest Develop according to concept plan (interpretive center, soft surface trails, limited parking, signage, Lake to Sound Trail), complete site inventory/ management plan, implement management plan. Site is in the Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 9, Green/Duwamish Watershed Management Plan and the Black River Water Quality Management Plan. 27 Cedar River Natural Area Complete site inventory and management plan, implement management plan. Included in the Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8, Cedar River Basin Plan. Continue to acquire properties as they become available. 27 Highlands Park and Neighborhood Center Re-develop according to concept plan (multi-generational facility, internal paths, sport fields, skate area, parking, sport courts, picnic shelter, etc.). Existing property is under utilized as configured. Located within the larger Sunset Planned Action EIS area. 27 May Creek Greenway Complete site inventory and management plan, acquire additional land along creek corridor, install soft surface trail, trailhead, creek crossings and partner w/Newcastle. Included in the Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8 and the May Creek Basin Plan. 27 NARCO Property Develop according to Tri-Park Master Plan to include 4 "field turf" soccer fields, relocated trail, parking, picnic facilities, play area, restrooms, bike park/bmx and climbing wall. Park included in the Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8 and the Cedar River Basin Plan. 27 Panther Creek Wetlands Complete site inventory and management plan, acquire additional land along creek corridor. Managed by Surface Water Utility.27 Senior Activity Center Property Phase out existing shop buildings. Redevelop site as a neighborhood park with future multi-generational spaces. Acquistion, planning and design included in City Center NP. Included in the City Center Plan, Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8 and the Cedar River Basin Plan. 27 3 Honey Creek Greenway Complete site inventory and management plan, implement management plan. Develop soft surface trail. Located in the Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8 and the May Creek Basin Plan. Continue to acquire properties as they become available. 26 Trail Expansion & Development Trail connection projects from the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan that are connected to parks and natural areas 26 p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 131 c A pitA l pro J ect s list Priority #Project Project Description Total Ranking 4 Liberty Park Re-develop according to Tri-Park Plan. Improve ballfields in the short term. Included in the City Center Plan, Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8 and the Cedar River Basin Plan. 25 5 "Benson Planning Area Community Park" Acquire and develop new community park with Community Center 24 East Plateau Planning Area Community Park Acquire and develop new community park with Community Center 24 Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park Develop facility for non-motorized boating, acquire land for additional parking, expand technology, renovate S. beach restrooms & bathhouse. High level of ongoing reinvestment due to intensive use. Included in the City Center Plan, Shoreline Master Program and WRIA 8. 24 6 Renton Wetlands Continue to manage as required by Mitigation Banking Agreements. Portion managed by Surface Water Utility. Included in the Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 9, Green/Duwamish Watershed Plan. 23 7 Community Gardens Acquire land and/or develop additional community gardens, potentially as part of new neighborhood or community parks 22 Corridor Acquisition Acquire or secure new properties providing important linkages between parks and natural areas. Included in the City Center Plan.22 8 Edlund Property Develop park according to concept plan (parking, small active area near barn, future connection to Panther Creek Wetlands), create and implement management plan addressing class 1 wetland. Continue acquistions to make connection to the Panther Creek Wetland. 21 Kennydale Beach Park*Reconfigure dock for improved life guarding, renovate restroom/lifeguard facility. Acquire land to enhance usability. Park included in the Shoreline Master Program and WRIA 8. 21 9 Cedar River Trail Park Included in City Center Plan, Shoreline Master Program, WRIA and the Cedar River Basin Plan. Invasive species removal, add utilities for Boathouse.20 Dog Parks Acquire land and/or develop off-leash areas in four neighborhood or community parks 20 May Creek/McAskill Develop park according to concept plan (pkg., picnic, play area, hard surface court, open turf area, restrooms, trail connections), create/implement mgt. plan addressing possible wetlands. Potential acquisition to increase park usability. 20 Tiffany Park Renovate according to concept plan (play area close to activity building, outfield is short, parking configuration). Expand to connect to Cascade Park. Potential addition to Activity building. 20 10 Cascade Park Renovate according to concept plan by expanding to connect Cascade Park to Tiffany Park, improve road access and increase visibility. Potential for off leash area within park. 19 132 | city of renton i mplementAtion p l A n Priority #Project Project Description Total Ranking 10 Cleveland/Richardson Property Develop park according to concept plan (trails, play area, picnic tables/benches, open turf area and possible sport field), create and implement management plan. 19 Non-motorized Boating Facility Develop non-motorized boating facility.19 Sports Complex Acquire plan and develop a 4 field (or more) sports complex to centralize competitive play.19 11 Interpretive/Education Centers Develop interpretive/education center.18 Kennydale Lions Park Renovate according to concept plan. Park acreage is not fully developed and current configuration of facilities limits usage. Potentially re-purpose activity building. 18 12 Burnett Linear Park*Included in the South Renton Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan and the City Center Plan. Improvements identify expanding park to the north. 17 Community Garden/Greenhouse Continue to maintain and operate, expand garden. Potential to be larger neighborhood Park - Planning and acquisition included in City Center NP. Included in the City Center Plan, Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8, and the Cedar River Basin Plan. Operations of this site are included in the Enterprise Fund 17 Highlands Planning Area NP 3: Sunset Park Develop new park according to concept plan and Planned Action EIS 17 Philip Arnold Park Potential partnership with neighboring landowner to enhance usability. Improve ballfield. Potential re-purpose of activity building. Renovate restrooms. Included in the City Center Plan. 17 13 North Highlands Park and Neighborhood Center Potential re-purpose of Activity building. Design and construct inclusive playground. Potential for partnerships. Located within the larger Sunset Planned Action EIS area. 16 Piazza & Gateway Continue to maintain and operate. Potential future re-development as Big 5 is acquired and expanded. Included in the City Center Plan.16 SE 186th Place Properties*Undersized and surrounded by private property - potential for community garden and/or tree nursery. If not used for neighborhood park functions, replace with an additional park east of SR 515. 16 Thomas Teasdale Park Improve outfield drainage. Potential re-purpose of activity building. 16 Trailheads and Parking Identify and develop appropriate access points to natural areas 16 14 "Cedar River Trail Corridor (City Owned)" Secure ownership of remaining railbanked corridor land, include acquired land in the surrounding parks and natural areas; maintain corridor as a regional trail linkage 15 Earlington Park*Potential acquisitions to expand park usability. 15 "Soos Creek Greenway: Boulevard Lane" A portion of the King County owned Soos Creek Greenway, within the Renton City Limits. This property will be transferred to the City and developed as a neighborhood park with a substantial natural area. 15 p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 133 c A pitA l pro J ect s list Priority #Project Project Description Total Ranking 15 Parkwood South Div #3 Park*Acquire adjacent land to bring this site up to minimum size of 2 acres of developable land; master plan and develop a neighborhood park according to design guidelines. 14 Skate Parks Develop new skate park within a community park.14 Soos Creek Greenway: Renton Park A portion of the King County owned Soos Creek Greenway, within the Renton City Limits. This property will be transferred to the City and developed as a natural area once Soos Creek Trail is complete. 14 16 Benson Planning Area NP 1 Acquire and develop one neighborhood park east of S Benson Rd and north of SE Puget Drive lack 13 Benson Planning Area NP 2 Acquire and develop one neighborhood park west of SR 515 around SE 192nd Street 13 City Center Planning Area NP 1 Develop neighborhood park amenities at existing Senior Activity Center site after phasing out existing maintenance buildings. Included in the City Center Plan, Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8 and the Cedar River Basin Plan. (See Senior Activity Center property). 13 East Plateau Planning Area NP 1 Acquire and develop a neighborhood park south of Sunset Boulevard and east of Duvall 13 East Plateau Planning Area NP 2 Acquire and develop a neighborhood park north of SE 128th Street 13 Highlands Planning Area NP 1 Acquire and develop a neighborhood park north of Sunset Boulevard, west of Duvall 13 Highlands Planning Area NP 2 Acquire and develop a neighborhood park south of NE 3rd Street 13 Kennydale Planning Area NP 1 Acquire and develop a neighborhood park west of I-405 13 Kennydale Planning Area NP 2 Acquire and develop a neighborhood park east of I-405 and north of the May Creek Greenway 13 West Hills Planning Area NP Acquire and develop one neighborhood park north of Renton Ave. 13 17 Boeing EIS Waterfront Park**A new park with lakefront access as noted in the Boeing Comprehensive Plan Amendment EIS dated 10/21/03 12 Glencoe Park*Acquire land to expand usability.12 Kiwanis Park Potential acquisition to expand park to increase usability. Improve field and install ADA walk from Union Avenue. Potentially re-purpose activity building. 12 Maplewood Golf Course Continue to maintain and operate, acquire property as it becomes available. See adopted Master Plan, included in the Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8, and the Cedar River Basin Plan. Capital and operations costs are outside of the Community Services budget, within an enterprise fund 12 Talbot Hill Reservoir Park Renovate site with features that differentiate it from nearby Thomas Teasedale Park. Potential community garden site with raised beds.12 18 Heritage Park Increase on-site drainage capacity. 10 Windsor Hills Park Potential acquisitions to enhance park usability and visibility from street. 10 134 | city of renton i mplementAtion p l A n Priority #Project Project Description Total Ranking 19 Riverview Park Park in Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8 and the Cedar River Basin Plan. Continue to maintain facilities 9 Springbrook Watershed Managed by Water Utility, not accessible to the public. Capital and operations costs are outside of Community Services budget.9 20 Veterans Memorial Park Continue to maintain and operate, tile refurbishment. Included in the City Center Plan.8 21 Tonkin Park Continue to maintain and operate. Potential picnic shelter. Included in the City Center Plan.7 22 Jones Park Included in the City Center Plan. Adjacent trail corridor adds enough size to serve as a full neighborhood park. Park in the Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8 and Cedar River Basin Plan. 6 Maplewood Roadside Park Continue to maintain and operate. Included in the Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8 and the Cedar River Basin Plan.6 23 Maplewood Park Renovate restrooms.5 24 Sit In Park Continue to maintain and operate. Included in the City Center Plan.4 25 Lake Street Open Space Inventory and manage as part of the Panther Creek Wetlands, potential for tree nursery.1 25 Panther Creek 4A Parcel Included in Edlund Property concept plan and management plan. Continue connection to the Panther Creek Wetlands.1 26 Sunset Court Park*No additional improvements, maintain until replaced by Sunset Planned Action EIS Park 0 * Provisionally categorized parks that do not meet the minimum size guideline summary of caPital costs Each new or existing project park site has a set of recommended projects, and may include specific facilities recommendations. The details of these recommendations are provided in Appendix C along with the capital costs per project. The total amount of capital investment identified in the cost model is $213,237,000. Table 6.2 on the following page breaks this total down by major project and additional facilities with percentages of the total cost. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 135 c A pitA l pro J ect list table 6.2: capital cost summary Major Project Type Total Cost % of Total Cost Planning and Design $10,950,000 5% Acquisition $34,303,706 16% Development $38,871,244 18% Renovation $9,372,943 4% Stewardship Projects $2,643,717 1% Major Maintenance and Reinvestment $19,293,458 9% Subtotal: Capital Project Types $115,435,068 54% Additional Facilities Total Cost % of Total Cost Play Area - Small $7,000,000 3% Play Area - Large $3,000,000 1% Picnic Shelter - Small $4,025,000 2% Picnic Shelter - Large $1,500,000 1% Trails (Miles) $13,500,000 6% Multi Purpose Sport Field $7,200,000 3% Sport Field with Artificial Turf/Lights $11,000,000 5% Sport Courts $2,550,000 1% Restroom $6,250,000 3% Building $24,000,000 11% Other Major Capital $18,330,000 9% Subtotal: Additional Facilities $98,355,000 46% Total Capital Costs $213,789,000 100% inflAtion of costs The projected inflation of the total capital cost is based on a 5% annual inflation factor. Over the long-term the costs of the recommended investment in the park system will increase greatly. Table 6.3 at the bottom of this page shows the projected cost for five, ten and twenty years in the future. In twenty years the cost of developing the improvements recommended here would more than double. Appendix C includes further breakdown of these numbers by project. table 6.3: inflation projections Total Capital Cost 2011 $213,789,000 Total Capital Cost Projection 5 Years $286,502,000 Total Capital Cost Projection 10 Years $348,245,000 Total Capital Cost Projection 20 Years $567,259,000 136 | city of renton i mplementAtion p l A n summary of oPerations costs Operations costs are modeled on a per acre basic maintenance cost that is based on Renton’s actual costs of providing maintenance, equipment, supplies and support services. In addition facilities that require additional maintenance or staffing such as sports fields, include operating cost allocations on a per unit (bonus) basis. Special facilities, such as the aquatic center and recreation staffing at swimming beaches and the aquatic center were added to the total as Other Operations costs. Program Projects list In addition to the capital projects, a series of program areas were identified for exploration and growth. These program projects have been separated from the capital projects due to the different funding needs and implementation process. These projects are not an exhaustive list of ongoing Renton recreation programs, but rather areas that received special interest from the community and should be a focus of development. It is important to note that recreation programming and park and recreation facilities are closely tied together. As facilities are developed or redeveloped, new or additional programs should be added to maximize their use. The program recommendations do not have associated costs, as the scale of programming and the table 6.4: operating cost summary Operating Type Existing Proposed Total (Existing and Proposed) Basic Maintenance $2,641,100 $1,750,200 $4,391,300 Bonus Sport Fields $325,000 $725,000 $1,050,000 Bonus: Restrooms $875,000 $875,000 $1,750,000 Bonus: Picnic Shelter $55,000 $115,000 $170,000 Staffing: Building $3,750,000 $2,700,000 $5,400,000 Other Operations $2,113,000 $1,040,000 $3,153,000 Total Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) $9,758,600 $7,205,700 $15,914,300 Note: The total is less than existing plus proposed cost due to some facilities being replaced. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 137 progr A m pro J ects lists cost recovery goals are yet to be developed. These details will be clarified as the Recreation Programming Plan and Cost Recovery Model are completed. imPlementation strategies There are several strategies that can move the community vision forward. Ensuring that new development contributes a fair share to park system improvements and pursuing a strategy to build community support for future initiatives, are two of the most critical paths to success. Park related projects that combine with other public services such as transportation and stormwater, may be able to utilize alternative sources of funding and maximize community benefits. Additionally, leveraging recreation table 6.5: program projects Priority #Project Project Description Total Ranking 1 Renton School District Partnership Identify and explore improvements to school facilities to serve community recreation needs. 27 2 Environmental Education Develop and pilot hands-on environmental programs that focus on the natural resources found in the Renton park system. 25 3 Special Events Expand the number and variety of special events.23 4 Performing Arts Expand partnerships to maximize use of existing community performing arts facilities. Included in the Arts and Culture Master Plan. 22 5 Athletics Expand partnerships for enhanced programming.21 Recreation Programming Plan Develop detailed Recreation Programming Plan to address specific actions for each program offering. 21 Special Populations Enhancing programming aimed at special populations groups in Renton, building on successful Special Olympics and other activities. Integrate opportunities into other program areas as well. 21 6 Outdoor Recreation Identify and develop programs that make appropriate use of outdoor recreation resources within the Renton system. 18 Crafts and Visual Arts Expand crafts and visual arts offerings to enhance variety and explore options that could appeal to teens and young adults. Included in the Arts and Culture Master Plan. 18 7 Gardening Programs Create programs that appeal to both community and home gardeners.16 [parks] bolstered the collective wealth of seattleites—by more than $80 million in total property value…. which translates to $14,771,258 per year in additional tax receipts. - the economic benefits of seattle’s park and recreation system (2011) 138 | city of renton i mplementAtion p l A n programming as a community building strategy can extend additional support for the City’s offerings: • Development/Redevelopment Partnerships: Efforts to build the envisioned park system will require substantial financial investment. While tax payers will ultimately share in some of these costs, private development should be responsible for contributing toward the related increased impacts on the parks and recreation system. The City should rely on a system of regulations and rewards that ensure new development and redevelopment pays a portion of public improvements. Incentives such as density bonuses, reductions in required parking and system development credits can attract private development to directly contribute to park projects in redevelopment areas. Beyond the incentives, feedback about recreation elements and access as well as education about the financial benefits to developer projects (especially increased property values) can increase the overall contribution individual projects make to the system. • Building Community Support: All new mechanisms to fund public improvements will require the will of voters. It will be important to employ public input, education, outreach and polling before any specific funding mechanism is attempted. • Integrating Parks, Natural Areas and Infrastructure: Combining the community benefits of infrastructure investment with the recreational benefits of park land has considerable potential to enhance the use of natural systems in Renton as well as meeting the plan goals. The desired result of this integration is reducing the amount of land reserved for the exclusive use of infrastructure p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 139 implementAtion str Ategies and maximizing recreational value. In an environment of limited public resources (including land and operating funding) the City and the community should explore integrating compatible infrastructure into parks and using infrastructure land for park and natural area purposes. The design guidelines provided in Appendix B include considerations for both infrastructure additions to park and natural area sites and the addition of park and natural features to infrastructure sites. One of the opportunities presented by combining sites and functions is the potential for stormwater fees to help fund enhancements that provide multiple benefits and natural area management. • Recreation Program Positioning: The Recreation Division has built an extensive set of program offerings and developed an informative guide to both City operated and partner programs. Renton should continue to build on this to ensure that the What’s Happening brochure is the “go to” guide for all events occurring in Renton. One of the things that Renton can offer to potential programming partners is the opportunity for inexpensive exposure. Each major program area should be discussed as an investment in the community, directly related to the City’s goals. Parks, recreation programming, trails and natural areas provide opportunities for physical activity resulting in the long term investment in public health. 140 | city of renton i mplementAtion p l A n • Building School District Partnership: The City has long had a working relationship with the Renton School District that has allowed City recreation and community organizations to use indoor and outdoor facilities. The future will require closer integration of the parks, recreation and natural areas system with the public school buildings and sport facilities. The City has a unique opportunity to revisit the structure of the existing partnership. Potential changes could enhance the public’s access to sport fields, indoor spaces, gyms and classrooms, particularly in Benson and East Plateau. In addition as annexations in these Community Planning Areas occur, building new partnerships with the Issaquah and Kent School Districts is recommended. funding strategies A variety of funding sources are available for park construction and operation. The following pages present existing and potential financing and funding sources for acquiring, developing and maintaining parks, natural areas, trails and recreational programs. current and recent funding sources generAl fund This is the City’s primary source for operating revenue. Most of this revenue comes from taxes levied on property, the sale of merchandise and utilities within the City’s boundary. Fees collected through the park and recreation system, such as recreation program fees, boat launch fees, picnic shelter or other facilities rental fees, are also returned to the general fund. These revenues are generally thought to return to the Community Services budget, but in practice the revenue number is only a point of justification of the annual budget and has no direct connection to the level of funding. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 141 funding str Ategies reAl estAte excise tAx (reet) Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) is a tax on all real estate sales and is levied against the full value of the property. The City is allowed under the statutes to levy 0.5% in addition to the State of Washington tax. These funds can only be used for projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City projected approximately $400,000 per year of REET expenditures for the next two years. Since this funding is dependent on real estate tranfers, the current slow economic recovery will constrain resources. pArk impAct fees Park Impact Fees are fees imposed on new development to pay for capital projects required to accommodate the impacts of development on the City’s infrastructure. Renton’s existing park impact fee is $530 per single family home and $354 per multi- family unit. These fees are currently under review to determine if they adequately reflect the incremental costs to provide park facilities to serve the growing community. The current review is also transitioning the fee from SEPA based to a Growth Management Act (GMA) based fee. exActions Costs of necessary public improvements are passed onto designated landowners through the development agreement process. 142 | city of renton i mplementAtion p l A n recent grAnt sources The City of Renton has had success competing for grant funding from a wide range of programs. Recognizing and facilitating this, the City sets aside funding each year to match grant funds to ensure that if proposals are accepted for funding, the City is prepared with the matching funds: • King County Conservation District; • King County Conservation Futures; and • Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program otHer recent funding sources • Charles L. Custer/Renton Park Department Memorial Fund: The City’s park system benefits from an estate gift managed by the Renton Community Foundation, which funds small enhancements to the park system. other funding oPtions There are a number of additional options Renton could consider for funding parks, recreation and natural area improvements. The list below represents both capital and operations funding sources. king county proposition 2 pArks expAnsion levy In August of 2007, King County voters approved Proposition 2, funding open space acquisition and trail development. Twenty percent of the funding raised will be distributed among cities in King County to fund the acquisition of open space and natural lands or the acquisition and development of trails. Funding will be distributed through 2013 and must be used by the end of 2014. King County is considering a similar levy to extend funding that may go to voters in 2012. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 143 funding str Ategies unlimited generAl obligAtion bond These are voter-approved bonds paid off by an assessment placed on real property. The money may only be used for capital improvements. This property tax is levied for a specified period of time (usually 15-20 years). Passage requires approval by 60%. Major disadvantages of this funding option are the voter approval requirement and the interest costs. limited tAx generAl obligAtion bonds Also known as councilmanic bonds, these bonds are paid directly out of the general fund and require no additional taxation. Therefore no authorizing vote is necessary, however the City must have the ability to repay the bonds prior to bond issuance. These bonds may be used for any purpose (not only capital). certificAtes of pArticipAtion This is a lease-purchase approach where the City sells Certificates of Participation (COPs) to a lending institution. The City then pays the loan off from revenue produced by the facility or from its general operating budget. The lending institution holds title to the property until the COPs are repaid. This procedure does not require a vote of the public. revenue bonds These bonds are sold to investors and are paid back from the revenue generated from the facility operation. metropolitAn pArk district A special tax district, authorized under RCW 35.61.210, with a board of park commissioners could take over part or all of park ownership and operations. If the boundaries of the district match the city limits, the City Council can serve as the commissioners. Metropolitan Park Districts are funded by a levy, with the total rate allowed up to $0.75/1000 of property value. 144 | city of renton i mplementAtion p l A n pArk And recreAtion service AreA A type of special tax district that can levy regular property tax up to $0.60 / 1,000 property value. Authorized under RCW36.68.400.620, when voter approved by special levy. A PRSA is typically used for facilities that serve an unincorporated area. donAtions The donation of labor, land or cash by service agencies, private groups or individuals is a popular way to raise small amounts of money for specific projects. One common example is a service club, such as Kiwanis, Lions or Rotary, funding playground improvements. excHAnge of property If the City has an excess parcel of land with some development value, it could be traded for private land more suitable for park use. Joint public/privAte pArtnersHip This concept has become increasingly popular for park and recreation agencies. The basic approach is for a public agency to enter into a working agreement with a private corporation to help fund, build and/or operate a public facility. Generally, the three primary incentives a public agency can offer are free land to place a facility (usually a park or other parcel of public land), certain tax advantages, and access to the facility. While the public agency may have to give up certain responsibilities or control, it is one way of obtaining public facilities at a lower cost. estAte giving A variety of arrangements to accept donations for park and recreation as an element of an estate. One example of this would be a Lifetime Estate: an agreement between the City and a land owner, where the City acquires the property but gives the owner p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 145 funding str Ategies the right to live on the site after the property transfer in exchange for the estate maintaining the property or for other agreed upon services. pArtnersHips The City could consider developing partnerships with other jurisdictions, agencies or non-profit service providers to implement projects identified in the plan. Some potential partners include the YMCA, Boys and Girls Club, private sport groups, neighborhood organizations, the County and neighboring city governments. privAte lAnd trusts Private land trusts, such as the Trust for Public Land, Inc. and the Nature Conservancy will acquire and hold land for eventual acquisition by a public agency. sHAred fAcilities In some situations other services provided in the city, or in private utilities, may be able to share the cost of improvements that would benefit the parks, recreation and natural areas system. One example is utility corridors; in many cases land used for sanitary sewer, water or power lines may make an excellent trail corridor, such as the City’s Honey Creek Trail. In this situation, the utility may pay to develop a service road that can also serve as a trail. grant Programs Following the City’s own resources, the largest funding source for park and recreation projects are grants from the State of Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). The RCO is responsible for administering a wide variety of public funds and provides technical assistance and policy development in addition to preparing statewide plans on trails, boating facilities, habitat preservation and off-road vehicles. This section outlines 146 | city of renton i mplementAtion p l A n the major RCO programs as well as several other relevant granting agencies. It is important to note that most grant programs require a portion of the project cost to be provided by a local partner as match funding. In most cases granting agencies will not fund more than 75 percent of a project’s cost. These programs also require training, tracking and other staff attention throughout the year to maximize success. boAting fAcilities progrAm (bfp) This grant program is funded by boaters’ gasoline taxes and administered by the RCO. Projects eligible under this program include acquisition, development, planning and renovation projects associated with launching ramps, transient moorage and upland support facilities. RCO allocates up to $200,000 for planning projects and up to $1,000,000 for acquisition, development or projects that combine planning with acquisition or development. Grants are distributed on an annual basis and require a minimum of 25 percent matching funds by a local agency. lAnd And wAter conservAtion fund (lwcf) This is a federal grant program that receives its money from offshore oil leases. The money is distributed through the National Park Service and is administered locally by the RCO. In the past, this was one of the major sources of grant money for local agencies. In the 1990s, funding at the federal level was severely cut, and now funding varies from budget to budget. The funds can be used for acquisition and development of outdoor facilities and require a 50 percent match. wAsHington wildlife And recreAtion progrAm (wwrp) This program is administered by the RCO. There are two accounts under this program: 1) Habitat Conservation; and 2) Outdoor Recreation. Projects eligible under this program include p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 147 funding str Ategies acquisition and development of parks, water access sites, trails, critical wildlife habitat, natural areas and urban wildlife habitat. Applicants must provide a minimum of a 50 percent non-RCO match. Local park projects have maximum requests of $300,000 for development and $500,000 for acquisition costs. There are no maximum request levels in the following categories: urban wildlife habitat, trails and water access. youtH AtHletic fAcilities (yAf) The Youth Athletic Facilities is a grant program designed to provide funding for new, improved and better maintained outdoor athletic facilities serving youth and communities. This program was established by State Statute (RCW 79A.25.800-830) as part of the State Referendum 48, which provided funding for the Seattle Seahawks Stadium. The program is administered by the RCO and applicants must provide matching funds of at least 50 percent. The grant amounts vary by use from a minimum of $5,000 for maintaining existing facilities to a maximum of $150,000 for developing new facilities. AQuAtic lAnd enHAncement Account (AleA) This program is administered by the RCO and supports the purchase, improvement or protection of and access to aquatic lands for public purposes. Grant applications are reviewed once every two years for this program. Applicants must provide a minimum of a 50 percent match. sAlmon recovery funding boArd (srfb) Salmon recovery grants are awarded by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, from state and federal sources, to protect and restore salmon habitat. The board funds projects that protect existing, high quality habitats for salmon and that restore degraded habitat to increase overall habitat health and biological productivity. The board also awards grants for feasibility assessments to determine future projects and for other salmon 148 | city of renton i mplementAtion p l A n releated activities. Projects may include the actual habitat used by salmon and the land and water that support ecosystem functions and processes important to salmon. The program funds acquisition, restoration, design and non-capital projects with no project limit. Local agencies are required to match 15% of grant funds. boAting infrAstructure grAnt progrAm (big) The Boating Infrastructure Grant Program provides funding to develop and renovate boating facilities targeting recreational boats 26 feet and larger. Grants also may be used for boater education. This program is funded by the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund and administered by the RCO. The local agency match requirement is 25% and projects are split into two categories for projects under $95,000 and over $100,000. community development block grAnts (cdbg) These grants from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development are available for a wide variety of projects. Most are used for projects in lower income areas of the community because of funding rules. Grants can cover up to 100 percent of project costs. surfAce trAnsportAtion extension Act of 2011 Through the years, Washington has received considerable revenue for trail-related projects from this source. Originally called the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), this six-year program funded a wide variety of transportation-related projects. The act was reauthorized in 2005 under the name Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act — a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and then extended in 2011 with similar provisions. In addition to bicycle, pedestrian and trail- related projects, these funds can generally be used for landscape and amenity improvements related to trail and transportation projects. The future of this source is unclear with the current p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 149 funding str Ategies transportation equity act set to expire in September of 2011. The Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) administers the transportation enhancement (TE) funding through the Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO). The Puget Sound Regional Council is Renton’s RTPO. recreAtionAl trAils progrAm (rtp) The Recreational Trails Program, funded by federal gas taxes and administered by RCO, provides funds to rehabilitate and maintain recreational trails and facilities. These grants support a backcountry experience, which means that the trail’s physical setting, not its distance from a city or road, should be predominately natural. For example, a backcountry trail can provide views of cities or towns. Backcountry also means that the user will experience nature as opposed to seeing or hearing evidence of human development and activity. Under limited circumstances, new “linking” trails, relocations, and education proposals are also eligible. Grants top out at $75,000 per project and require a 20% match for local agencies. u.s. fisH And wildlife service (usfw) USFW may provide technical assistance and administer funding for projects related to water quality improvement through debris and habitat/vegetation management, watershed management and stream bank erosion, and sediment deposition projects. privAte grAnts And foundAtions Private corporations and foundations provide money for a wide range of projects, targeted to the organizations’ mission. Some foundations do not provide grants to governments, but will often grant to partner organizations. Private grants can be difficult to secure because of the open competition and the up-front investment in research and relationship building. 150 | city of renton i mplementAtion p l A n monitoring, reviewing and uPdating The vision, goals and objectives of this plan should serve this community to the end of this decade and beyond. However, it will be important to check in with the community and validate or adjust the plan for any major shifts in priorities or project opportunities. The six-year period defined by the Recreation and Conservation Office presents a good time for this check in. The implementation of this plan will continue well past the six- year update cycle mandated by the state. Following the adoption of this plan, the staff and the Parks Commission could develop a work plan. This work plan should recognize that there are factors that may limit the ability to move forward on any one project but each high priority site could have recommendation elements that can be moved forward. This work plan can be revisited biannually, ahead of the budgeting process, to reevaluate progress and priorities (making use of the prioritization criteria and other decision making tools) and adjust for new opportunities. NE 24TH ST NE 26TH PL BLAINE AVE NECAMAS AVE NEMONTEREY AVE NEPRIVATE RDCAMAS AVE NEABERDEEN AVE NENE 27TH ST 2: Kennydale Lions Park Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 125 feet 0 100 20050 Feet Turf Area With Walking Paths Reduce Parking Lot Size to 20 Spaces Picnic Area New Play Area With equipment for ages 2-5 and 5-12 Play Turf Mound Improve Existing Neighborhood Softball Field Informal Rectangular Field Reclocate Basketball Court Eliminate Portion of Parking & Enhance Connection to Park Area to the North Planting Area Tall Fence at Property Line LEGEND Park Limit Line Pedestrian Paths Picnic Area Seating Area Shaded Seating/Arbor Play Area Group Picnic Pavilion With BBQs N 7. c once P t Plans 152 | city of renton conce P t P lans As a part of the planning process, the consulting team created a series of concept plans to illustrate some of the recommended types of facilities and how these facilities can fit into existing and proposed parks. These concepts were created as one vision of how these parks can be designed, and utilized community input from the parks, recreation and natural areas planning process. The Draft Concept Plans were reviewed and commented on by the public, the project Steering Committee, Parks Commission, Planning Commission and the Council Committee of the Whole. While the concepts were well received as presented, the recommendations for each of these park locations include developing a formal park master plan. The park master plan process provides the opportunity for more detailed discussion with the community to learn about their ideas and desires for future park development, as well as discuss opportunities and constraints the site may have. These concept plans create a starting point for these discussions. The selected sites for the concept plans provide a range of park types, sizes and settings to give a broad view of possibilities. The concepts are illustrated over an air photo of the existing site, with two exceptions: The Benson Community Park concept plan is drawn over a hypothetical 11 acre site and the Sunset Planned Action EIS concept plan is utilizing the redevelopment plan created for the Sunset Planned Action EIS. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 153 The concept plans include: • Benson Community Park • Kennydale Lions Neighborhood Park • Sunset Planned Action EIS Park • Edlund Property • May Creek Park • Black River Riparian Forest • Cleveland Richardson Property • East Plateau Community Park • Tiffany Park/Cascade Park • Highlands Park and Neighborhood Center 154 | city of renton 1: New Community Park Benson Hill Planning Area Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 200 feet 0 200 400100 Feet Restroom Open Turf Area [2] Baseball & Soccer Fields(230’x360’) Group Picnic Area With Common Grill Between Small Picnic Pavilions Perimeter Walking Paths Parking Lot (40-45 Spaces) Tot Play Area (2-5) Vehicular Entry Skate Area 12,000 sf Sports Court Basketball or Tennis School Age Play Area (5-12) Courtyard with Seating & Table Games Multi-generationalCenter [2] Gyms LEGEND Park Limit Line Pedestrian Paths Vehicular Circulation Group Picnic Pavilion Picnic Area Seating Area Tables, Benches & Game Tables Shaded Seating/Arbor School Age Play Area (5-12 yrs.) Tot Play Area (2-5 yrs.) N concept pl A ns Data Sources: City of Renton GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1: benson community pArk concept plAn Feet 100 200 4000N p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 155 1: New Community Park Benson Hill Planning Area Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 200 feet 0 200 400100 Feet Restroom Open Turf Area [2] Baseball & Soccer Fields(230’x360’) Group Picnic Area With Common Grill Between Small Picnic Pavilions Perimeter Walking Paths Parking Lot (40-45 Spaces) Tot Play Area (2-5) Vehicular Entry Skate Area 12,000 sf Sports Court Basketball or Tennis School Age Play Area (5-12) Courtyard with Seating & Table Games Multi-generationalCenter [2] Gyms LEGEND Park Limit Line Pedestrian Paths Vehicular Circulation Group Picnic Pavilion Picnic Area Seating Area Tables, Benches & Game Tables Shaded Seating/Arbor School Age Play Area (5-12 yrs.) Tot Play Area (2-5 yrs.) N benson community pA rk 1: benson community pArk concept plAn 156 | city of renton NE 24TH ST NE 26TH PL BLAINE AVE NECAMAS AVE NEMONTEREY AVE NEPRIVATE RDCAMAS AVE NEABERDEEN AVE NENE 27TH ST 2: Kennydale Lions Park Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 125 feet 0 100 20050 Feet Turf Area With Walking Paths Reduce Parking Lot Size to 20 Spaces Picnic Area New Play Area With equipment for ages 2-5 and 5-12 Play Turf Mound Improve Existing Neighborhood Softball Field Informal Rectangular Field Reclocate Basketball Court Eliminate Portion of Parking & Enhance Connection to Park Area to the North Planting Area Tall Fence at Property Line LEGEND Park Limit Line Pedestrian Paths Picnic Area Seating Area Shaded Seating/Arbor Play Area Group Picnic Pavilion With BBQs N concept pl A ns Data Sources: City of Renton GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 2: kennydAle lions pArk concept plAn Feet 50 100 2000N p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 157 NE 24TH ST NE 26TH PL BLAINE AVE NECAMAS AVE NEMONTEREY AVE NEPRIVATE RDCAMAS AVE NEABERDEEN AVE NENE 27TH ST 2: Kennydale Lions Park Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 125 feet 0 100 20050 Feet Turf Area With Walking Paths Reduce Parking Lot Size to 20 Spaces Picnic Area New Play Area With equipment for ages 2-5 and 5-12 Play Turf Mound Improve Existing Neighborhood Softball Field Informal Rectangular Field Reclocate Basketball CourtEliminate Portion of Parking & Enhance Connection to Park Area to the North Planting Area Tall Fence at Property Line LEGEND Park Limit Line Pedestrian Paths Picnic Area Seating Area Shaded Seating/Arbor Play Area Group Picnic Pavilion With BBQs N kennydA le lions pA rk 2: kennydAle lions pArk concept plAn 158 | city of renton concept pl A ns NENE 1 1010t0th0thh S t St.t. StorStorm raingarderaaingardraingarrd woonerf/sharedwowoooononenererf/rf/srf/sf/shshaharared strearereded sd ststreetstrestretreeeteetetSuSu n u n s n s e s e t e t L t L n L n . 3: Sunset Planned Action Park Concept Plan Data Sources: Sunset Area Planned Action EIS FEIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area MITCHUN June 2011 1 inch = 100 feet 0 100 20050 Feet LEGEND Pedestrian Paths Plaza Area/Hardscape Seatwalls Shaded Tables Community Garden Planting Beds Play Area Net Climbing Structure/ Multi-Age Performance Stage N ormwrmwmw ardenrdardrdenen mwaterwamwaeterr denddenen ter/eterr//r/ Sunset Blvd. Stormwater/ raingarden Play Area Open Lawn Concert Seating Stage/Shaded Pergola Community Garden Outdoor Reading Room - Fountain - Seatwalls Restroom Seatwalls Plaza Area - Shaded Seating - Eating Areas Library Data Sources: Sunset Area Planned Action EIS FEIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area, MITHUN 3: sunset plAnned Action eis pArk concept plAn Feet 50 100 2000N p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 159 sunset pl A nned A ction eis pA rk NENE 1 1010t0th0thh S t St.t. StorStorm raingarderaaingardraingarrd woonerf/sharedwowoooononenererf/rf/srf/sf/shshaharared strearereded sd ststreetstrestretreeeteetetSuSu n u n s n s e s e t e t L t L n L n . 3: Sunset Planned Action Park Concept Plan Data Sources: Sunset Area Planned Action EIS FEIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area MITCHUN June 2011 1 inch = 100 feet 0 100 20050 Feet LEGEND Pedestrian Paths Plaza Area/Hardscape Seatwalls Shaded Tables Community Garden Planting Beds Play Area Net Climbing Structure/ Multi-Age Performance Stage N ormwrmwmw ardenrdardrdenen mwaterwamwaeterr denddenen ter/eterr//r/ Sunset Blvd. Stormwater/ raingarden Play Area Open Lawn Concert Seating Stage/Shaded Pergola Community Garden Outdoor Reading Room - Fountain - Seatwalls Restroom Seatwalls Plaza Area - Shaded Seating - Eating Areas Library 3: sunset plAnned Action eis pArk concept plAn 160 | city of renton concept pl A ns S 38TH CT 103RD AVE SES 37TH PL MILL AVE SE98TH AVE S PRIVATE RD S 178TH S T96TH AVE S S 177TH ST SMITHERS AVE SBURNETT CT S97TH AVE SMORRIS AVE SSMITHERS AVE SSE CARR RD S CARR R D 4: Edlund Property Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 200 feet 0 200 400100 Feet School Age Play Area Net Climbing Course PicnicPavilions Restroom/Kiosk Garden & Patio PedestrianVehicular & Trail Entry & Connections Existing Barn (Future use to be determined) Tot Play Area Seating/Picnic Area Future Connection to Panther Creek Wetland Drop-off Entry Turf Turf Parking Lot(15 Spaces) Meadow Area or Restore Wetland Restore Covered Bridge LEGEND Park Limit Line Pedestrian Paths Trail Vehicular Circulation Group Picnic Pavilion Picnic Area Seating Area Perimeter/Buffer Planting Shaded Seating/Arbor School Age Play Area (5-12) Tot Play Area (2-5) Pedestrian Bridge Creek N Data Sources: City of Renton GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 4: edlund property concept plAn Feet 100 200 4000N p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 161 edlund property S 38TH CT 103RD AVE SES 37TH PL MILL AVE SE98TH AVE S PRIVATE RD S 178TH S T96TH AVE S S 177TH STSMITHERS AVE SBURNETT CT S97TH AVE SMORRIS AVE SSMITHERS AVE SSE CARR RD S CARR R D 4: Edlund Property Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 200 feet 0 200 400100 Feet School Age Play Area Net Climbing Course PicnicPavilions Restroom/Kiosk Garden & Patio PedestrianVehicular & Trail Entry & Connections Existing Barn (Future use to be determined) Tot Play Area Seating/Picnic Area Future Connection to Panther Creek Wetland Drop-off Entry Turf Turf Parking Lot(15 Spaces) Meadow Area or Restore Wetland Restore Covered Bridge LEGEND Park Limit Line Pedestrian Paths Trail Vehicular Circulation Group Picnic Pavilion Picnic Area Seating Area Perimeter/Buffer Planting Shaded Seating/Arbor School Age Play Area (5-12) Tot Play Area (2-5) Pedestrian Bridge Creek N 4: edlund property concept plAn 162 | city of renton concept pl A ns PRIVATE RD NE 25TH ST NE 24TH ST SE 9 5 T H W A Y NE 25TH CT ANACORTES AVE NENE 26TH CT SE MAY V A L L E Y R D COAL CREEK PKWY SE5: May Creek Park Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 200 feet 0 200 400100 Feet ATETE RDEATEATETE RRDRDDDRDRRD BaseballField Park Entry Basketball Court PracticeField(230’ x 360’) CentralGreen Restroom Picnic Area Parking Lot(15 Spaces) NeighborhoodTrail Connection School Age Play Area Entry Courtyard Sand & Water Play Tot Play Area Natural Play - Secret Bamboo Forest- Boulder Circle & Music Area Small Picnic Areas Potential Future Park Expansion Area: Group Picnic, Informal Turf Area Climbing Boulders LEGEND Park Limit Line Pedestrian Paths Vehicular Circulation Picnic Area Seating Area Perimeter Planting Shaded Seating/Arbor School Age Play Area (5-12 yrs.) Tot Play Area (2-5 yrs.) Picnic Pavilion N Data Sources: City of Renton GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 5: mAy creek pArk concept plAn Feet 100 200 4000N p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 163 mAy c reek pA rk PRIVATE RD NE 25TH ST NE 24TH ST SE 9 5 T H W A Y NE 25TH CT ANACORTES AVE NENE 26TH CT SE MAY V A L L E Y R D COAL CREEK PKWY SE5: May Creek Park Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 200 feet 0 200 400100 Feet ATETE RDEATEATETE RRDRDDDRDRRDBaseballField Park Entry Basketball Court PracticeField(230’ x 360’) CentralGreen Restroom Picnic Area Parking Lot(15 Spaces) NeighborhoodTrail Connection School Age Play Area Entry Courtyard Sand & Water Play Tot Play Area Natural Play - Secret Bamboo Forest- Boulder Circle & Music Area Small Picnic Areas Potential Future Park Expansion Area: Group Picnic, Informal Turf Area Climbing Boulders LEGEND Park Limit Line Pedestrian Paths Vehicular Circulation Picnic Area Seating Area Perimeter Planting Shaded Seating/Arbor School Age Play Area (5-12 yrs.) Tot Play Area (2-5 yrs.) Picnic Pavilion N 5: mAy creek pArk concept plAn 164 | city of renton concept pl A ns BN INC RDACCESS RDWY ACCESS RDPOWELL AVE SWS 13 5 T H S T NACHES AVE SW81ST AVE S80TH AVE SSW 3R D P L SW 4 T H P L OAKSDALE AVE S W BN INC R D ACCESS RD ACCESS RD BN INC RD ACCESS RD POWELL AVE SWMONSTER RD SW68TH AVE SSW 7TH ST SR 9 0 0 MO N S T E R R D S W OAKESDALE AVE SW6: Black River Riparian Forest Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 500 feet 0 500 1,000250 Feet LEGEND Park Limit Line Regional Trail Connection Pedestrian Paths - Soft/Natural Paving Paved Trail/Sidewalk Picnic Area Seating Area Overlook/Viewing Area Kiosk Informational and/or Interpretive Signage Boardwalk Tail Bridge Point of Interest Entry/Gateway N i i i i k k k i i Lake to Sound Regional Trail ExistingSpringbrook Trail Boardwalk Through Wetland Area With Interpretive Signage & Overlook King County WaterworksGarden RestoredHabitat Area Adjacent to InterpretiveCenter Entry Gateway Lake to Sound Regional Trail Connection SmallInterpretive/EducationalCenter with 12-15 space parking lot Data Sources: City of Renton GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 6: blAck river ripAriAn forest concept plAn Feet25050010000N p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 165 bl A ck river ripA ri A n forest BN INC RDACCESS RDWY ACCESS RDPOWELL AVE SWS 13 5 T H S T NACHES AVE SW81ST AVE S80TH AVE SSW 3 R D P L SW 4 T H P L OAKSDALE AVE S W BN INC RD ACCESS RD ACCESS RD BN INC RD ACCESS RD POWELL AVE SWMONSTER RD SW68TH AVE SSW 7TH ST SR 9 0 0 MO N S T E R R D S W OAKESDALE AVE SW6: Black River Riparian Forest Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 500 feet 0 500 1,000250 Feet LEGEND Park Limit Line Regional Trail Connection Pedestrian Paths - Soft/Natural Paving Paved Trail/Sidewalk Picnic Area Seating Area Overlook/Viewing Area Kiosk Informational and/or Interpretive Signage Boardwalk Tail Bridge Point of Interest Entry/Gateway N i i i i k k k i i Lake to Sound Regional Trail ExistingSpringbrook Trail Boardwalk Through Wetland Area With Interpretive Signage & Overlook King County WaterworksGarden RestoredHabitat Area Adjacent to InterpretiveCenter Entry Gateway Lake to Sound Regional Trail Connection SmallInterpretive/EducationalCenter with 12-15 space parking lot 6: blAck river ripAriAn forest concept plAn 166 | city of renton concept pl A ns 7: Cleveland Richardson Property Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 300 feet 0 300 600150 Feet Non-Programmed Multi-Use Sport Fields (230’x 360’) Play Area Observation Deck & Overlook Meadow Picnic Group Picnic Area Existing House Parking Lot (25 Spaces) Event Lawn Pond LEGEND Park Limit Line Pedestrian Paths - Soft/Natural Paving Picnic Area Play Area (with areas for 2-5 yrs and 5-12 yrs) Bridge Deck at Pond Edge Creek N Data Sources: City of Renton GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 7: clevelAnd ricHArdson property concept plAn 150 300 6000 FeetN p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 167 clevel A nd r ic HA rdson property 7: Cleveland Richardson Property Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 300 feet 0 300 600150 Feet Non-Programmed Multi-Use Sport Fields (230’x 360’) Play Area Observation Deck & Overlook Meadow Picnic Group Picnic Area Existing House Parking Lot (25 Spaces) Event Lawn Pond LEGEND Park Limit Line Pedestrian Paths - Soft/Natural Paving Picnic Area Play Area (with areas for 2-5 yrs and 5-12 yrs) Bridge Deck at Pond Edge Creek N 7: clevelAnd ricHArdson property concept plAn 168 | city of renton concept pl A ns MaplewoodHeightsElementary SE 138TH PL SE 2ND ST 152ND AVE SESE 136TH ST SE 2ND CT 147TH PL SESE 139TH PL 149TH PL SE146TH AVE SE145TH AVE SEILWACO PL SENE 1ST PLSE 1 4 1 S T S T SE 140TH PL143RD AVE SE148TH PL SESE 140TH ST 150TH PL SEHOQUIAM PL SEORCAS AVE NESE 1ST PL SE 136 LN NE 1ST ST PRIVATE RD SHADOW AVE NE146TH PL SESE 137TH PL SE 133RD CT 153RD PL SEROSARIO AVE SESE 2ND PL ROSARIO PL SESE 1ST ST SE 141ST PL 144TH AVE SESHADOW PL SEQUINCY PL SEORCAS PL NE SE 138TH ST SE 139TH CTSE 139TH PL 143RD AVE SE146TH AVE SESE 136TH ST SE 2ND ST NE 1ST PL143RD AVE SENE 1ST PL SE 140TH PL SE 2ND CT 148TH PL SESE 142ND ST144TH AVE SESE 1 4 1 S T S T 8: New Community Park - East Renton Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 350 feet 0 350 700175 FeetEEEEPPH PLH P H SE 136TH STSE 136TH EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKing County Cedar to SammamishTrail Natural Park Area With Trails & Seating Areas Open Turf Area Small Picnic Area Practice Field (230’x360’) [2] Group Picnic Pavilions Parking Lot (70 Spaces) BaseballField PedestrianConnection Restroom Baseball Field Tot Play Area School Age Play Area [2] Basketball Courts SeatingArea PedestrianEntry PedestrianEntry, Typical Meadow LEGEND Park Limit Line Trail Connection Pedestrian Paths - Soft/Natural Paving Group Picnic Pavilions Picnic Area Seating Area School Age Play Area (5-12yrs) Tot Play Area (2-5 yrs.) N Data Sources: City of Renton GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 8: eAst plAteAu community pArk concept plAn 175 350 7000 FeetN p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 169 e A st pl Ate A u community pA rk MaplewoodHeightsElementary SE 138TH PL SE 2ND ST 152ND AVE SESE 136TH ST SE 2ND CT 147TH PL SESE 139TH PL 149TH PL SE146TH AVE SE145TH AVE SEILWACO PL SENE 1ST PLSE 1 4 1 S T S T SE 140TH PL143RD AVE SE148TH PL SESE 140TH ST 150TH PL SEHOQUIAM PL SEORCAS AVE NESE 1ST PL SE 136 LN NE 1ST ST PRIVATE RD SHADOW AVE NE146TH PL SESE 137TH PL SE 133RD CT 153RD PL SEROSARIO AVE SESE 2ND PL ROSARIO PL SESE 1ST ST SE 141ST PL 144TH AVE SESHADOW PL SEQUINCY PL SEORCAS PL NE SE 138TH ST SE 139TH CTSE 139TH PL 143RD AVE SE146TH AVE SESE 136TH ST SE 2ND ST NE 1ST PL143RD AVE SENE 1ST PL SE 140TH PL SE 2ND CT 148TH PL SESE 142ND ST144TH AVE SESE 1 4 1 S T S T 8: New Community Park - East Renton Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 350 feet 0 350 700175 FeetEEEEPPH PLH P H SE 136TH STSE 1 3 6 T H EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKing County Cedar to SammamishTrail Natural Park Area With Trails & Seating Areas Open Turf Area Small Picnic Area Practice Field (230’x360’) [2] Group Picnic Pavilions Parking Lot (70 Spaces) BaseballField PedestrianConnection Restroom Baseball Field Tot Play Area School Age Play Area [2] Basketball Courts SeatingArea PedestrianEntry PedestrianEntry, Typical Meadow LEGEND Park Limit Line Trail Connection Pedestrian Paths - Soft/Natural Paving Group Picnic Pavilions Picnic Area Seating Area School Age Play Area (5-12yrs) Tot Play Area (2-5 yrs.) N 8: eAst plAteAu community pArk concept plAn 170 | city of renton concept pl A ns Cascade Elementary School PEDESTRIA N W A L K SE 164TH ST 120TH AVE SESE 158TH S T SE 160TH ST 12 6 T H A V E S E SE 161ST ST 121ST AVE SE118TH PL SEB E A CO N W A Y S E 122ND AVE SES E 1 5 7 T H P L 119TH AVE SE128TH AVE SE12 9 T H P L S E 118TH AVE SE117TH AVE SESE 163RD ST KIRKLAND AVE SE128TH PL SESE 165TH ST S E 1 8 T H S T SE 157TH ST SE 162ND ST119TH PL SEF E R N D A L E A V E S E LAKE YOUN GS WAY SE SE 20TH C T PI E R C E A V E S E SE 19T H C T E D M O N D S W A Y S E 129TH AVE SE127TH AVE SESE 16 4 T H P L G L E N W O O D A V E S E 129TH CT SE123RD AVE SE124TH AVE SEMONROE AVE SE126TH PL SE125TH AVE SESE 161ST PL 123RD PL SE127TH PL SE124TH PL SECASCADE PARK ACRD PEDESTRIAN WALK SE 16 2 N D S T128TH PL SESE 165TH ST SE 160TH ST121ST AVE SESE 160TH S TSE 18TH STSE 19TH CT SE 161ST ST SE 163RD ST SE 164TH ST SE 162ND ST 123RD AVE SESE 164TH ST 128TH AVE SE9: Tiffany/Cascade Park Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 400 feet 0 400 800200 Feet CACC HHHHHHHHHHHH SCCCACCCCAS LEGEND Park Limit Line Trail Connection Pedestrian Paths - Soft/Natural Paving Picnic Area Seating Area Fenced Dog Park Area Play Area (2-12 yrs) CASCADE PARK TIFFANY PARK Off-Leash Dog Park Connection trail between Tiffany & Cascade Park Improve Existing Field Turf Mound Utility Corridors/Trails Pedestrian Access Group Picnic Area Planting Area With Walking Paths Potential Future Park Expansion Area to Create a Formal Entry with Restroom, Improve Visibility & Provide Parking Pedestrian Access Small Picnic Area Relocate Basketball Court Next to Tennis Enhance Existing Activity Building Existing Parking Relocated Play Area Turf Play Mound Renovate Play Area - Sand + Water - Composite Structure for 2-5 & 5-12 - Play Village Seating Areas Natural Trail Area Potential Future Park Expansion Area to Improve Trail Linkage, Improve Visibility & Provide Parking Tiffany Park Elementary School Data Sources: City of Renton GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 9: tiffAny/c Asc Ade pArk concept plAn 200 400 8000 FeetN p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 171 tiffA ny /c A sc A de pA rk Cascade Elementary School PEDESTRIA N W A L K SE 164TH ST120TH AVE SESE 158TH S T SE 160TH ST 12 6 T H A V E S E SE 161ST ST 121ST AVE SE118TH PL SEB E A C O N W A Y S E 122ND AVE SES E 1 5 7 T H P L 119TH AVE SE128TH AVE SE12 9 T H P L S E 118TH AVE SE117TH AVE SESE 163RD STKIRKLAND AVE SE128TH PL SESE 165TH ST S E 1 8 T H S T SE 157TH ST SE 162ND ST119TH PL SEF E R N D A L E A V E S E LAKE YOUN GS WAY SE SE 20TH C T PI E R C E A V E S E SE 19T H C T E D MO N D S W A Y S E 129TH AVE SE127TH AVE SESE 1 6 4 T H P L G L E N W O O D A V E S E 129TH CT SE123RD AVE SE124TH AVE SEMONROE AVE SE126TH PL SE125TH AVE SESE 161ST PL123RD PL SE127TH PL SE124TH PL SECASCADE PARK ACRD PEDESTRIAN WALK SE 16 2 N D S T128TH PL SESE 165TH ST SE 160TH ST121ST AVE SESE 160TH S TSE 18TH STSE 19TH CT SE 161ST ST SE 163RD ST SE 164TH ST SE 162ND ST123RD AVE SESE 164TH ST 128TH AVE SE9: Tiffany/Cascade Park Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 400 feet 0 400 800200 Feet CACC HHHHHHHHHHHH SCCCACCCCAS LEGEND Park Limit Line Trail Connection Pedestrian Paths - Soft/Natural Paving Picnic Area Seating Area Fenced Dog Park Area Play Area (2-12 yrs) CASCADE PARK TIFFANY PARK Off-Leash Dog Park Connection trail between Tiffany & Cascade Park Improve Existing Field Turf Mound Utility Corridors/Trails Pedestrian Access Group Picnic Area Planting Area With Walking Paths Potential Future Park Expansion Area to Create a Formal Entry with Restroom, Improve Visibility & Provide Parking Pedestrian Access Small Picnic Area Relocate Basketball Court Next to Tennis Enhance Existing Activity Building Existing Parking Relocated Play Area Turf Play Mound Renovate Play Area - Sand + Water - Composite Structure for 2-5 & 5-12 - Play Village Seating Areas Natural Trail Area Potential Future Park Expansion Area to Improve Trail Linkage, Improve Visibility & Provide Parking Tiffany Park Elementary School 9: tiffAny/c Asc Ade pArk concept plAn 172 | city of renton concept pl A ns NE 9TH ST DAYTON AVE NEHARRINGTON AVE NEDAYTON ALY NEEDMONDS ALY NENE 6TH P L NE 8TH ST NE 8TH PLGLENWOOD ALY NEFERNDALE CT NENE 7 T H A L Y GLENWOOD AVE NEFERNDALE CIR NEFERNDALE ALY NEEDMONDS ALY NENE 7TH STEDMONDS AVE NE10: Highlands Park and Neighborhood Center Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 150 feet 0 150 30075 Feet Plaza Area with Benches and Tables SkateArea (14,000sf) Restroom Parking Lot (50 Spaces) CommunityCenter[2] Gyms(31,500 sf) SoftballField [2] Tennis Courts [2] Basketball Courts Improve Field (Drainage) Orchard With Fruit Trees Perimeter Path Group Picnic Area-Common Grills Small Picnic Area Open Turf Area Open Turf HIGHLANDSELEMENTARYSCHOOL CommunityGarden “Outdoor Kitchen”-Prep. Sink-Grill-Tables Tot Play Area (2-5) School Age Play Area (5-12) Practice Field(230’x 360’) LEGEND Park Limit Line Pedestrian Paths Vehicular Circulation Group Picnic Pavilion Picnic Area Seating Area Shaded Seating/Arbor School Age Area (5-12) Tot Play Area (2-5) Community Garden Planting Beds Skate Area N Data Sources: City of Renton GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 10: HigHlAnds pArk And neigHborHood center concept plAn 75 150 3000 FeetN p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 173 H ig H l A nds pA rk A nd neig H bor H ood center NE 9TH ST DAYTON AVE NEHARRINGTON AVE NEDAYTON ALY NEEDMONDS ALY NENE 6TH P L NE 8TH ST NE 8TH PLGLENWOOD ALY NEFERNDALE CT NENE 7 T H A L YGLENWOOD AVE NEFERNDALE CIR NEFERNDALE ALY NEEDMONDS ALY NENE 7TH STEDMONDS AVE NE10: Highlands Park and Neighborhood Center Concept Plan Data Sources: City of Renton, GIS and King County GIS NAD83 HARN State Plane Washington North FIPS 4601 June 2011 1 inch = 150 feet 0 150 30075 Feet Plaza Area with Benches and Tables SkateArea (14,000sf) Restroom Parking Lot (50 Spaces) CommunityCenter[2] Gyms(31,500 sf) SoftballField [2] Tennis Courts [2] Basketball Courts Improve Field (Drainage) Orchard With Fruit Trees Perimeter Path Group Picnic Area-Common Grills Small Picnic Area Open Turf Area Open Turf HIGHLANDSELEMENTARYSCHOOL CommunityGarden “Outdoor Kitchen”-Prep. Sink-Grill-Tables Tot Play Area (2-5) School Age Play Area (5-12) Practice Field(230’x 360’) LEGEND Park Limit Line Pedestrian Paths Vehicular Circulation Group Picnic Pavilion Picnic Area Seating Area Shaded Seating/Arbor School Age Area (5-12) Tot Play Area (2-5) Community Garden Planting Beds Skate Area N 10: HigHlAnds pArk And neigHborHood center concept plAn THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 175 bibliogr A p H y THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK bibliograPhy AMEC Environment & Infrastructure. July, 2011. Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Report. Renton, WA: CIty of Renton City of Renton. Alex Pietsch, Community and Economic Development. 2009. Community Planning Areas Map. City of Renton. Comprehensive Plan: Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Element – Policy, Goals & Objectives. http://rentonwa.gov/. City of Renton. Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan and Guide Map. City of Renton. 2003. Long-Range Park, Recreation, and Open Space Implementation Plan. City of Renton. 1993. Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan. City of Renton. The Changing Face of Renton, http://rentonwa.gov. City of Renton. 2006. Tri-Park Master Plan (Liberty Park, Cedar River Park & NARCO Site). City of Renton. Sam Chastain Waterfront Trail-Connecting an Important Regional Trail System. City of Renton. 2010. Experimental History Project: Renton History Museum Master Plan. Davey Resource Group. December 2009. Benson Hill Public Property Tree Inventory and Assessment Report. King County, Washington. Communities Count 2008 -Social and Health Indicators Across King County. King County, Washington. Communities Count 2008 - Recap of 2009 Data Updates. King County agencies. 2008. Communities Count 2008 - Recap of 2009 Data Updates. King County, WA MacLeod Reckord Landscape Architects, Transportation Engineering Northwest, Andrew R. Golding AIA SEGD. City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan. Adopted May 11, 2009. MITHUN, Inc. 2009. Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy. Renton, WA: City of Renton MAKERS Architecture, Planning, Urban Design. 2010. City of Renton/City Center Community Plan. Northwest Salmon Discovery Center (Concept Paper) Version 2. April 22, 2010. Paramatrix. June 2009. Lake to Sound Trail-Feasibility Study. Renton, WA: King County, WA SB and Associates, Inc. March 2007. Public Property Tree Inventory and Assessment Report. Renton, WA: City of Renton U.S. Census Bureau. 2006-2008: ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: Renton City, WA. Worthy and Associates, LLC. August 2009. Renton Urban and Community Forestry Development Plan. Renton, WA: City of Renton THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK a PP endix a P ark and facility inventory THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK parks, recreation and natural areas plan | 179 a ppendix a: renton park system inventory table a-1 renton park system inventory Appendix A1: Inventory ‐ Renton Parks Park Acres Status Diamond Shaped Fields Rectangular Fields Multi‐ Purpose Fields Tennis Courts Basketball Courts Play Eqpt. Open Lawn Trail/ Access Picnic Shelter Swimming Outdoor Restrooms Indoor Restrooms Rentable Space Programmable Space Parking Spaces Parking Area (SF)Misc. Facilities Recreation Center Building Type** NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Burnett Linear Park*1.1 Developed Yes Yes Trail, Plaza Cascade Park 10.8 Developed Yes Yes Trails Cleveland/Richardson Property 23.8 Undeveloped Earlington Park*1.5 Developed 1 Yes Yes Edlund Property 17.7 Undeveloped Glencoe Park*0.5 Developed Yes Yes Heritage Park 9.2 Developed 1 0.5 Yes Yes 1 1 5 3,000 Soft‐surface loop trail Jones Park 1.1 Developed Yes Yes 1 Trail Kennydale Beach Park*1.3 Developed Yes Beach 1 12 2,700 Kennydale Lions Park 5.5 Developed 1 1 Yes Yes 1 38 26,000 Activity Kiwanis Park 9.2 Developed 1 2 1 Yes Yes 1 53 25,000 Activity Maplewood Park 2.0 Developed 1 1 Yes 1  May Creek/McAskill 9.9 Undeveloped North Highlands Park and Neighborhood Center 2.6 Developed 1 Yes Yes 1 16 12,600 Neighborhood Parkwood South Div #3 Park*0.6 Undeveloped Philip Arnold Park 11.1 Developed 1 2 1 Yes Yes 1 1 1 55 27,000 Activity Riverview Park 12.4 Developed Yes 1 1 32 21,500 Canoe launch, Interpretive trail SE 186th Place Properties*0.6 Undeveloped Sunset Court Park*0.8 Developed 0.5 Yes Yes Talbot Hill Reservoir Park 2.6 Developed 3 Yes Portable 14 8,500 Tennis practice board Thomas Teasdale Park 9.7 Developed 1 1 Yes Yes 1 1 47 23,000 Activity Tiffany Park 6.7 Developed 1 2 1 Yes Yes 1 33 10,700 Activity Windsor Hills Park 4.6 Developed 0.5 Yes Yes 145.5 0 0 7 10 8.5 16 16 4 5 1 8 4 9 6 305 160,000 COMMUNITY PARK Cedar River Park 20.1 Developed 1 Yes  Aquatic Center 2 373 150,000 Community Center, Theatre Cedar River Trail Park 16.7 Developed Yes 1 1 127 86,750 Small boat launch, Boathouse Highlands Park and Neighborhood Center 10.8 Developed 1 1 2 2 Yes 1 25 33,000 Neighborhood Liberty Park 11.1 Developed 2 3 1 Yes Yes 1 2 168 50,000 Skatepark, Grandstand Administration Building NARCO Property 24.1 Undeveloped Dog Park (Temporary) Ron Regis Park 43.4 Developed 1 1 2 1 Yes Portables 115 50,000 Two undeveloped field spaces are currently used, one as a practice field and one as a temporary cricket pitch 126.2 4 1 4 5 4 3 3 5 2 1 6 1 3 2 808 369,750 REGIONAL PARK Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park 51.3 Developed 2 0 Yes Yes 4 Beach 4 390 275,000 Two restaurants (one with separate restrooms); Eight lane boat launch; boat launch parking ‐ 123 stalls; Day moorage with six finger piers; Waterwalk with two floating picnic pads; Swimming beach with waterwalk; Picnic pavilion; Bathhouse with concession stand, restrooms; Five wooden bridges; Fishing pier with shelter; Canoe launch with wooden float; Sailing club; Two sand volleyball courts; Horseshoe court. 51.3 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 4 1 4 0 1 0 390 275,000 SPECIAL USE PARK Community Garden/Greenhouse 0.6 Developed Maplewood Golf Course 192.3 Developed 1 191 70,000 Maplewood Roadside Park 1.1 Developed Piazza & Gateway 1.2 Developed  Senior Activity Center Property 3.1 Developed 1 100 26,700 Patio, Fountain Senior Center Sit In Park 0.5 Developed  Tonkin Park 0.2 Developed Bandstand Veterans Memorial Park 0.2 Developed 199.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 3 1 291 96,700 NATURAL AREA Black River Riparian Forest 94.3 Natural Area 3 660 Cedar River Natural Area 250.8 Natural Area  Honey Creek Greenway 42.6 Natural Area  Lake Street Open Space 0.3 Natural Area May Creek Greenway 34.2 Natural Area Panther Creek 4A Parcel 3.7 Natural Area Panther Creek Wetlands 53.2 Natural Area Renton Wetlands 139.2 Natural Area Boardwalk Springbrook Watershed 52.2 Natural Area 670.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 660 CORRIDOR Cedar River Trail Corridor (City Owned)12.9 Developed  12.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total All Parks and Natural Areas 1,205.8 4 1 11 17 12.5 20 20 15 11 3 18 7 16 9 1,797 902,110 Subtotal Neighborhood Park Subtotal Community Park Subtotal Open Space Park Subtotal Special Use Park Subtotal Corridors Subtotal Regional Park * Parks that have been provisionally classified even thought they do not meet minimum size or other design guidelines Properties not owned outright by Renton are not included in total acreages ** In 2010 All activity buildings were closed due to budget cuts AppendixA_Final_ParkInventory_120511.xls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL AREAS PLAN | 181Table A-2: Renton School District FacilitiesAPPENDIX A: RENTON PARK SYSTEM INVENTORYSiteAcreage BuildingSFDiamondShapedFields RectangularFieldsMultiͲUseFieldsTennisCourtBasketballCourt PlayEqpt. Gym* IndoorPoolTheatre/Auditorium FacilitiesELEMENTARYSCHOOLSBensonHillElementary 15.1 64,898 1 1BrynMawrElementary 5.7 47,9241CampbellHillElementary9.0 55,62411CascadeElementary 14.9 57,121 2 1HazelwoodElementary 15.0 63,451 1 1HighlandsElementary 6.8 58,966 1 1HoneydewElementary12.4 54,620 3 1KennydaleElementary 7.0 64,733 2 1LakeridgeElementary 8.0 52,9581MaplewoodElementary 8.7 54,634 1 1RentonParkElementary 9.6 63,826 21SierraHeightsElementary 15.4 53,992 1 1TalbotHillElementary 11.2 56,845 1 1TiffanyParkElementary 9.7 58,758 1 1148.5 808,35020150001400MIDDLESCHOOLSDimmittMiddleSchool 15.1 109,070 1 1McknightMiddleSchool 20.2 126,706 3 1 4 2NelsenMiddleSchool 21.1 124,234 1 4 2 156.4 360,0103 2 5 6 ND ND 4 0 0HIGHSCHOOLSNelsenMiddleSchool 12.1 65,000SecondaryLearningCenter(Future) 33.8 299,495 1 1 2 4 1 1HazenHighSchool 37.3 229,006 2 1 1 1 1LindberghHighSchool 25.8 311,081 1 3 5109.0 904,5824 2 5 9 ND ND 1 2 2Facilities,Ops.&MaintenanceCenter 6.4 25,668HillcrestEarlyChildhoodCenter 7.4 41,558 1 1KholwesEducationCenter4.7 57,200RentonAcademy(FormerHazelwoodES) 10.0 52,924 2RentonStadium 16.8 N/A 1SartoriLearningCenter(ReͲEntry) 3.3 39,345SpringGlen(H.O.M.E.Program) 10.0 31,843 1NewTransportationCenterN/A 18,441RentonIkeaPerformingArtsCenter ND ND158.6 266,9790 3 3 0 ND ND 0 0 1TotalAllParks 372.5 2,339,921 9 7 28 15 NoData NoData 19 2 3*OnlygymsavailabletotheCityofRentonforrecreationprogrammingarelisted.SubtotalOtherSchoolsSubtotalHighSchoolsSchoolOTHERSCHOOLS/FACILITIESSubtotalElementarySubtotalMiddleSchools THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK a PP endix b d ecision making tools 184 | city of renton A ppendix b : d ecision m A king tools tools for decision making This appendix introduces four tools used to assist in decision making during the development of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan. These tools will also assist in Plan implementation. The tools draw on analysis of the park system guided by the project committees and informed by the community. These tools are developed with the understanding that Renton will have a wide variety of projects to complete to achieve the vision of the plan. Some projects were identified during the planning process and others will arise during the implementation of the plan. These tools will assist staff, the Parks Commission and elected officials make the difficult decisions about which projects should move forward first. Four tools are described below. 1. recreation Program evaluation tool This tool elaborates on the proposed target outcomes from the Community Needs Assessment and walks evaluating staff through a discussion about alignment with the objectives and resources. While this plan process does not include evaluation of each and every program offered by the City, this tool will help staff evaluate the success of an existing program or potential of a new idea. When evaluating existing programs actual performance measures could also be integrated into the discussion, but for flexibility this tool refers to general ratings of the return on the community’s investment in the program. New programming suggestions will be evaluated to assist in the overall prioritization criteria ranking. 2. design guidelines This tool updates and expands prior plan descriptions of what should, what could and what should not be included in the development of each park type. This tool also helps to make decisions about size and locations for future parks. Design guidelines deal with the physical features of a park. The management, maintenance and operations of the sites are addressed separately. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 185 A ppendix b : decision m A king tools 3. Prioritization criteria The wide range of projects, from natural area enhancement to new fitness programs to a new play feature require a set of criteria that evaluate how a specific project relates to the plan vision. Scoring a project against these criteria allows for the sorting of disparate projects into an ordered list that focuses community resources. The criteria scoring intentionally avoids the question of funding, focusing instead on the projects that most directly address the vision and leaving funding availability as an over-arching discussion in the implementation portion of the plan. 4. caPital and oPerations cost model This tool facilitates cost figure development for the capital and operations of park sites. The costs are based on the existing recreation amenities and additional features in the project list. These recommended projects come from the community’s ideas (as well as previously identified projects) filtered and added to during the needs assessment. The discussion of the decision making tools will also help refine this list as ideas are tested and design guidelines are agreed on. To develop a “planning level” idea of the costs associated with these projects a series of assumptions need to be reviewed. The development of this tool begins with identifying the major cost drivers of park development, adding features, maintaining and operating parks in Renton. 186 | city of renton A ppendix b : d ecision m A king tools 1. recreation Program evaluation tool The City of Renton Community Services Department provides a wide variety of classes, activities and events referred to here generically as “programs.” This tool is designed to help the City evaluate existing recreation programs and proposed new programs to see how well they achieve the target outcomes identified in the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan. recreation Programming target outcomes In the box below, write the program or event being evaluated. Check off each planning outcome that is supported by this program or event. Questions for consideration are included below each outcome along with a space for your thoughts or comment on the particular outcome. Program/Event:ü Outcome: Encouraging people to try new things, develop new skills, and/or maintain existing skills. • Is the class structured to teach beginners/novices or a mix of skill levels? • Is this a unique program that users cannot find elsewhere? • Is the program associated with a current or new trend in recreation? Outcome: Adding healthy activities to participant lifestyles. • Does the class involve healthy food (garden, prep, shop) or health education? • Does the class or event engage participants in fitness or exercise? Outcome: Fostering a connection to the natural environment. • Does the program support environmental education or nature interpretation? • Do participants interact with natural areas or observe wildlife? Outcome: Creating positive activities and fun environments for youth. • Does the class promote positive self-esteem and team building for youth? • Does the class engage youth in fitness or social activities? Outcome: Facilitating gatherings and bringing the community together. • Does the event have a community-wide, city-wide or regional audience? • Does this program/event appeal to diverse groups? • Does the program/event provide opportunities for multiple generations or families? p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 187 A ppendix b : decision m A king tools Program/Event:ü Outcome: Promoting individual and community development. • Does the program provide or support life skills? • Does the program/event provide opportunities for interactions with other community members? • Does the program/event provide opportunities to connect with City officials? Outcome: Offering a range of options for different income levels and different abilities. • Does the event/program serve seniors, special needs, or other targeted vulnerable populations? • Is the program affordable for the people it is designed to serve? • Is this program offered where/when the users who need it can attend? Outcome: Adapting to new demographics and preferences. • Does the event/program support diverse demographic and cultural groups in Renton? • Does this program support underserved demographic or cultural groups? • Is the program associated with a current or new trend in recreation? Outcome: Offering programs that are responsive to community demands or interest. • Do surveys or public input indicate the demand? • Does current program demand exceed availability? return on investment In addition to supporting program outcomes, each program/event should maximize the impact of community resources invested in it. For each category, circle the appropriate response. Number of people served (or who benefit from program/event)Some Many Most Amount/Cost of Community Investment (Net of any user fees)Low Med High Facilities/Equipment Needed to Support Program/Event Existing New 188 | city of renton A ppendix b : d ecision m A king tools evaluation results Fill in the blanks below based on your responses above: This program/event supports __________ of nine outcomes identified in the PROSNR System Plan. It serves ______________________ people, and has a ______________________cost. It would require __________________ facilities and equipment to continue or begin. recommendation ___ Continue/begin this program. ___ Expand this program. ___ Reevaluate this program in six months or one year. ___ Discontinue or do not offer this program. other comments p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 189 A ppendix b : decision m A king tools 2. design guidelines intent These guidelines provide direction for the development and modification of City of Renton parks. For each of the five park classifications the guidelines describe the purpose of the park type along with the features that are appropriate to that purpose. The City of Renton recognizes that development must comply with county, state and federal regulations that may result in conflicts with the guidelines presented in this document. In such a case, the final design of any facility must comply with the existing regulatory requirements. In addition, some parks and facilities that are currently owned and managed by the city may not meet these design guidelines. Parks and facilities that do not meet these new guidelines have been provisionally classified into the closest park category. The intent of the design guidelines is to: • Uphold the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan; • Protect and enhance the City’s quality of life and community image; and • Encourage functional, safe and aesthetically pleasing development while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding environment. • Ensure the distribution of park facilities and experiences consistent with the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan. organization The guidelines are organized by park classification. For each park classification, there are five design guidelines categories: • Size and Access: The size of a park, and particularly the developable area, determines the type of park and uses possible at the site. Access addresses the frontages, preferred modes of transportation and entrances to the site. • Recommended Resources: There is a minimum set of park resources needed for a park location to meet the objectives developed from community input and analyzed in the Community Needs Assessment. Items listed in this sub-heading are intended to be required elements for the given park classification. 190 | city of renton A ppendix b : d ecision m A king tools • Additional Resources: The park resources identified in this sub-heading are additional resources for consideration. If site size allows, other resources can be incorporated into the park as long as the impacts of the resource do not exceed the capacity of the size and scale of the intended park site classification. • Structures: If a structure is identified for the park site, additional review and standards will come into play. This section also calls out what non-recreation structures need additional consideration before being located within park sites. • Incompatible Resources: In some cases, there are park resources that conflict with the purpose and character of a particular park classification. neighborhood Parks intent Provide close-to-home recreation opportunities for nearby residents, who typically live within walking and bicycling distance (.25-.5miles) of the park in a residential setting. size And Access • Minimum developable park size: 2 acres • Property faces front facades of adjacent development • Access from local street or trail recommended outdoor recreAtion resources • Children’s play area • At least one picnic table, one bench and grill • Internal pathway system • Perimeter path or sidewalks • Open turf area • Trees (for shade and to preserve urban canopy cover) • Park identification sign • Site furnishings (trash receptacles, bike rack, etc.) p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 191 A ppendix b : decision m A king tools AdditionAl resources • Neighborhood or Recreation scale sport fields • Sport courts • Other small-scale active recreation resources (skate spot, horseshoe pits, etc.) • Natural areas • Water • Court Lights • Limited off street parking • Community garden • Shelter, shade structure or gazebo • Pedestrian-scale lighting • Lights • Kiosks • Signage • Public art or historic element compAtible buildings • Restroom • Other small building • Buildings and immediate landscaping should follow Low Impact Development practices (EN-31) • Buildings constructed within parks should be built to LEED Silver standard or better (EN-32) incompAtible resources • Destination facilities or resources with community wide draw • Sport field lighting • Sport field complexes • Full-service recreation centers • Swimming pools (indoor or outdoor) 192 | city of renton A ppendix b : d ecision m A king tools community Parks intent Provide opportunities for active recreation and organized play in a location that can accommodate increased traffic and demand, while also serving the neighborhood park function for nearby residents. size And Access • Minimum developable park size: 10 acres • Access from a higher order public street on at least one side for main park entry • Main park entry should front a street with transit or bicycle route when applicable • Secondary access to the park from a public local access street or trail preferred recommended resources • Children’s play area, medium to large-scale • Picnic tables, benches, and grills • Enclosed or open picnic shelter with grill (capacity of 40-100) • Pathway system connecting internal park facilities • Recreational or Competitive sport fields (minimum of 2 diamond or rectangular) • Sports court • Permanent restrooms • Off-street parking • Open turf area for sitting and informal play • Trees (for shade and to preserve urban canopy cover) • Park identification sign • Site furnishings (trash receptacles, bike rack, etc.) • Water p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 193 A ppendix b : decision m A king tools AdditionAl resources • Swimming pools/aquatic facilities • Spray park • Sports complex • Community garden • Upgraded utility service to support special events • Water access • Skatepark, BMX park • Flower beds • Off-leash dog area • Natural areas • Public art or historic element • Field, court, or pedestrian lights • Trails • Skate spots, bocce court, etc. • Kiosks • Signage compAtible buildings • Community building • Special facilities such as a boathouse, theater or interpretive center • Maintenance/storage facilities • Restrooms (preferably integrated into other buildings) • Concession • Buildings and immediate landscaping should follow Low Impact Development practices (EN-31) • Buildings constructed within parks should be built to LEED Silver standard or better (EN-32) incompAtible resources • Regional-scale facilities (arboretum, botanical garden, regional sports complex) 194 | city of renton A ppendix b : d ecision m A king tools regional Parks intent Provide destination park locations that can accommodate communitywide and regional traffic and demand, while also fulfilling the function of a community and neighborhood park for nearby residents. size And Access • Minimum developable park size: 50 acres • Access from a higher order public street on at least one side for main park entry • Park may have multiple main entries which should front a street with transit or bicycle route when possible • Secondary access points to the park from a public local access street or trail is encouraged recommended resources • Regional-scale facilities or resources with a regional draw • Children’s play area with unique features themed to reflect site character • Picnic tables, benches, and grills • Multiple enclosed or open picnic shelters with grill (capacity of 40- 100) • Pathway system connecting site amenities • Site furnishings (trash receptacles, bike rack, etc.) • Water • Infrastructure to support large community events • Restrooms • Off-street parking • Large open turf area for events, sitting and informal play • Trees (for shade and to preserve urban canopy cover) • Park identification sign • Pedestrian lighting p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 195 A ppendix b : decision m A king tools AdditionAl resources • Swimming pools/aquatic facilities • Spray park • Individual competitive sports fields (baseball, cricket, football, rugby, soccer, softball, multi-purpose) • Regional sports complex • Community garden • Off-leash dog area • Natural areas • Public art or memorials • Field or court lighting • Flower beds • Upgraded utility service to support special events • Stage/amphitheatre • Trails • Public art or historic element • Wayfinding and interpretive signage • Specialized sport courts (tennis court, sand volleyball, handball) • Water access (boat ramp, docks) • Kiosks • Signage compAtible buildings • Concessions, including restaurants • Rentable event venues • Community Building • Maintenance facilities • Unique or regional scale special facilities such as a regional aquatics center, water sports center or interpretive center • Buildings and immediate landscaping should follow Low Impact Development practices (EN-31) • Buildings constructed within parks should be built to LEED Silver standard or better (EN-32) incompAtible resources • No conflicting resources identified 196 | city of renton A ppendix b : d ecision m A king tools sPecial use Parks intent Provide space for unique features or places that create variety in the park system but cannot be accommodated within other park sites due to size or location requirements. size And Access • Size depends on the type of use proposed. • Access from a higher order public street on at least one side for main park entry. • Main park entry should front a street with transit or bicycle route when applicable. • Access may be limited during certain times of the day or to specific recreation activities. recommended resources • Special use resource or facility • Internal pathway system • Park identification sign • Site furnishings (trash receptacles, bike rack, etc.) AdditionAl resources • Parking • Water • Lighting • Public art or historic element • Trails • Kiosk • Signage • Outdoor Courts • Children’s play areas • Picnic shelters Examples of potential special use facilities: • Swimming pools/aquatic facilities • Dog Parks • Skate parks/skate spots • Boating facilities • Community gardens p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 197 A ppendix b : decision m A king tools compAtible buildings • Restrooms • Interpretive facilities • Programmable spaces • Community Building • Rentable spaces • Unique facilities that do not fit in other parks in the system • Buildings and immediate landscaping should follow Low Impact Development practices (EN-31) • Buildings constructed within parks should be built to LEED Silver standard or better (EN-32) incompAtible resources • Any resource that would conflict with the intended special purpose of the park. 198 | city of renton A ppendix b : d ecision m A king tools natural area Park intent Provide opportunities for users to interact with local nature or protect natural resources and systems within the standards of the existing natural resource regulatory environment. size And Access • Size of the natural area is variable, depending primarily on the extent of the natural resource being protected. • Access is dependent on size of property and type of natural area. Generally natural areas should have at least one identified entrance accessible from a public street. • Public access may be limited or excluded if the natural resource is deemed too fragile for interaction. However maintenance access should be provided via trail or service road. recommended resources • Park identification sign • Site furnishings (trash receptacles, bike rack, etc.) • Internal pathway system (if feasible) AdditionAl resources Natural area parks with developable portions could incorporate elements of neighborhood, community and special use parks, and corridors. • Kiosk • Signage • Trail head and trail • Water access • Off-street parking (if site is accessible) compAtible buildings • Restroom • Interpretive center • Buildings and immediate landscaping should follow Low Impact Development practices (EN-31) • Buildings constructed within parks should be built to LEED Silver standard or better (EN-32) incompAtible resources Conflicting resources will depend on the character and quality of the natural area. If available, refer to the relevant natural area management plan for this site for additional guidance on the appropriate character and uses with the natural area. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 199 A ppendix b : decision m A king tools corridor intent Narrow swaths of land that serve as connections between parks or to other destinations. Lands can include public land, private partnerships and/or easements. A corridor site can be the location of a trail or can provide a habitat linkage between two larger areas. size And Access Size is dependent on corridor length and right-of-way or easement width and connectivity recommended resources • Corridor identification signage • Site furnishings (trash receptacles, bike rack, etc.) AdditionAl resources • Trailhead • Information kiosk • Interpretive signage • Off-street parking compAtible buildings • Restroom • Generally corridors are not compatible with larger buildings due to their relatively small sites. incompAtible resources • Any resource that conflicts with linkage. 200 | city of renton Parks, natural areas and infrastructure intent To combine community benefits of infrastructure investment with the recreational benefits of park land. The desired result is reducing the amount of land reserved for the exclusive use of infrastructure and maximizing recreational value. definitions Grey Infrastructure: The physical framework of the city, commonly thought of as the system of streets, pipes, facilities, bridges, towers and power lines that provide essential services. Green Infrastructure: Natural systems that perform some of the same essential services such as cleaning water, and retaining stormwater run-off as well as many additional functions such as cleaning the air, cooling our streets, and processing and storing carbon that would otherwise contribute to atmospheric warming. Green infrastructure is often thought of in terms of multifunctional green infrastructure, where one piece of land or natural system can provide multiple benefits to the community. Green Infrastructure can exist in natural forms or be engineered for a particular purpose. infrAstructure in pArks And nAturAl AreAs The following considerations are critical to understanding how infrastructure can be integrated into park sites and natural areas: • Any infrastructure designed and scaled for serving park/natural area needs should be allowed. • Additional capacity for needed or existing pipes, lines or facilities where the footprint within the site remains the same as necessary for park services. • Encourage the addition of green infrastructure designed to beautify areas that are not required for the primary functions of a park or to enhance the capacity of systems within natural areas. • Consider green or grey infrastructure that substitutes for standard elements (such as pervious paving or reinforced turf substituting for traditional parking lot paving). • If facilities such as pump stations are included, they should be designed to add to the park experience through interpretation of the system or by including needed features such as restrooms. • In natural areas, consult the relevant management plan, if any, for more specifics about compatible infrastructure uses. A ppendix b : d ecision m A king tools p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 201 • Avoid any infrastructure that interferes with the primary purpose or character of a park site. • Carefully locate vaults, towers or other structures that could impact park user safety, displace existing park amenities (unless adequately replaced) or interfere with planned expansion of a park or feature. pArk And nAturAl AreA feAtures in infrAstructure sites Recreation and natural features can be added to existing and new sites that are primarily intended for infrastructure. If there is adequate developable area, meeting the appropriate design guideline, infrastructure sites can serve as neighborhood or community parks. Infrastructure sites of any size can be considered natural area parks if they contribute to protecting a natural resource or provide an opportunity to interact with nature: • Detention basins or other facilities should be designed to expand park opportunities when not in use or at full capacity. • Access to existing or new infrastructure sites (such as detention basins) or utility easements (such as power, water or sewer lines) should be pursued for expanded trail opportunities, creating habitat linkages and create local recreational and natural experiences. • In areas lacking local park access, consider underground reservoirs or other required infrastructure designed to accommodate recreation facilities above. • Constructing, protecting or restoring habitat areas, (such as nesting platforms on utility poles or natural resource enhancement in watershed recharge areas) particularly where public access is limited by the infrastructure function of the site. • Within infrastructure sites the issue of compliance with the existing regulatory framework is a critical consideration as many additional jurisdictions may come into play. Projects that become delayed or sidelined by safety or other access concerns at infrastructure sites could continue to be considered for the future, as the regulations and practices are slowly shifting toward shared use of facilities. A ppendix b : decision m A king tools 202 | city of renton A ppendix b : d ecision m A king tools 3. Prioritization criteria The set of criteria in this document will assist the Department in making decisions about which projects and programs should move forward first in alignment with the community values and visions. The criteria intentionally does not address funding, focusing instead on the vision and the types of projects that will be required to achieve it. The additional screen of potential and actual funding will be applied to the prioritized project list (and reapplied as the funding situation will change year-to-year). This will allow the funding options to focus on high priority projects. aPPlication of criteria Table B-1 provides details of the scoring. Fewer points indicate that a project is less likely to meet the criterion, while greater points indicate that the project is more likely to meet the criterion. After analyzing the project against the criteria, projects can then be compared to the current list of projects competing for City resources based on the total points. table b-1: prioritization criteria scoring Points Description 0 Does not meet criterion or is not applicable. 1 Has potential to meet criterion 2 Minimally meets criterion 3 Basically meets criterion 4 Mostly meets criterion 5 Greatly meets criterion p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 203 A ppendix b : decision m A king tools Prioritization Criteria: Projects or programs advance the community values and vision of Renton if they:0-5 Advance programming objectives: Project or program supports the ‘Programming Target Outcomes’. • If a program, does the program meet a majority of the target outcomes? • If a program, is the program evaluation outcome to continue/begin/expand program? • Does the project contribute to available space for recreation programming? • Does the project improve flexibility in providing recreation programming? Provide multiple planning objectives: Project or program is aligned with other adopted planning efforts of the City of Renton, King County or other aligned jurisdictions. • Does the project or program advance the goals of previous planning efforts by the City? • Does the project or program support regional planning objectives? • Does the project or program support the vision for the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan? Fill identified gaps in service: Project or program adds park sites, recreation facilities, natural areas or recreation programs to identified underserved populations or areas of the city. • Does the project or program fill a geographic gap identified during the Community Needs Assessment, May 2011? • Does the project add or enhance recreation facilities identified in the Community Needs Assessment? Enhance partnerships or volunteerism: Project or program creates new partnerships or strengthens existing partnerships. • Does the project or program incorporate cost-sharing, joint development or programmatic collaborations? • Does the project or program involve volunteers in planning, construction or programming? • Does the project include a friends group or other resources for ongoing stewardship of the improvements? 204 | city of renton A ppendix b : d ecision m A king tools Prioritization Criteria: Projects or programs advance the community values and vision of Renton if they:0-5 Enhance (or improves use of) existing facilities: Project or program makes the best possible use of the existing investments in land and facilities. • Does the project or program have enough interest or drawing power to increase recreational use of the location? • Does the project or program work in tandem with other City project work (i.e. trail development or maintenance during other utility maintenance projects) Contribute to system sustainability: Project or program contributes to the long-term environmental and financial sustainability of the system. • Does the project or program stabilize, enhance or restore habitat or other ecological functions? • Does the project or program encourage stewardship of the City’s natural systems and recreation areas through hands-on interaction or education? • Does the program or project provide a direct return on the investment of community resources? • Does the program or project have indirect financial impacts such as economic development or tourism spending? • Have long-term maintenance resources been identified for the project or program? Strengthen identity: Project or program celebrates the unique features of Renton’s neighborhoods or the city as a whole. • Does the project or program celebrate cultural, ethnic or historical elements of Renton? • Is the project associated with the Cedar River or Lake Washington (two natural features the community identifies with)? • Is the project or program associated with the Cedar River salmon run? • Does the project or program enhance the sense of Renton as a unique place (such as community gateways) or create a place where the community comes together? As new projects and programs are brought before the City the prioritization criteria can be applied. By adopting this practice the City would be assessing it’s projects and programs on an ongoing basis, so anytime there are new proposals a critical assessment can be made for later benchmarking. p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 205 A ppendix b : decision m A king tools exAmple proJects To further explain project scoring, two projects (identified in the Community Visioning Workshop) are offered as examples. Prioritization Criteria Project Advances Programming ObjectivesMultiple Planning ObjectivesFills Identified Gaps in ServiceEnhances partnerships or volunteerismEnhances (or Improves Use of) Existing FacilitiesContributes to System SustainabilityStrengthens IdentityTotal Score Range 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 Cedar River Park 5 5 0 4 5 4 5 28 Black River Riparian Forest 3 5 3 4 4 4 4 27 Following the scoring of all projects, a prioritized list has been created by sorting projects based on total scores. Further sorting of the project list could include project type (such as acquisition, development or renovation) or by park type. This allows projects to be highlighted based on funding applicability. It is important to note that all projects identified in this plan are important to achieving the vision and even those that score low do advance the system toward the plan vision. 206 | city of renton A ppendix b : d ecision m A king tools 4. caPital and oPerations cost model The Prioritization Criteria intentionally avoids making decisions based on cost. However, the cost of improvements at a park (and at the system-wide level) is an important consideration as the plan moves from this decision making stage into implementation planning. Critical cost considerations include both one-time capital costs and ongoing operations and maintenance costs. This tool will allow broad “planning level” costs to be identified based on the improvements recommended in the plan. The model is a flexible excel document that allows both the major improvements and cost assumptions to be modified to adjust for changing project decisions or refined cost figures. In addition to providing a snap-shot of the total costs the model can be used to create alternate scenarios, different packages of projects that result in different investments in the park system. It is important to understand the function of the model (including the assumptions) and how to modify it. The first section of the print-out includes the selections and data about the existing and future park system on which the calculations are based. site acreage The first input in the model is the current and proposed site acreage. These values are used to calculate per-acre costs of improvements based on existing acres, new acres or the total future size of a site. major Project tyPes Six categories of projects were identified to reflect the major types of enhancements that are needed in Renton’s Parks and Natural Areas. In this model, an “X” indicates that the project type has been selected for the park in the same row. The planning cost assumptions for each of these are either per site or per acre and vary based on the category of park. A matrix showing the cost assumptions for each major project type and park category is included at the end of this appendix. These costs were developed based on Renton’s current expenditures and the experience of the planning team: Planning and Design: An allocation for a variety of possible planning and design needs, from site master planning to natural resource inventory and management plans. Acquisition: New land required to build or expand the site, this value is calculated based on the difference between the existing acres and proposed acres indicated in the model. Development: Ground-up development of a new site from vacant land or the complete redevelopment p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 207 A ppendix b : decision m A king tools of an existing site. This per-acre amount is based on Renton park development projects and other recent experience of the planning team. Renovation: Major enhancement or rebuilding of nearly all existing features at a site. Renovation would not require stripping the site to bare ground but would involve substantial investment (estimated at 40% of the cost of development). Stewardship Projects: The projects required in natural areas (or natural sections of otherwise developed parks) to stabilize the natural systems and reduce the required effort to a maintenance level. Initially, it is assumed that this would primarily involve invasive species treatment, removal and monitoring but individual management plans may require additional projects. Major habitat restoration efforts will likely be above and beyond this per-acre cost assumption. Major Maintenance and Reinvestment: Most sites in the system will require maintenance and reinvestment beyond the general operating costs over the 20 year timeline of this plan. This will include replacement of individual features such as playgrounds, trail/pathway repairs, roof replacements etc. The cost of these investments is estimated at 25% of the development cost. facilities Following these major categories are individual features that represent a significant capital investment in the site. Each of these facilities has an associated cost assumption. In addition to the identified items, space is left for “other” items that are generally one-off or unique to the site. oPerations costs Other Operating Costs: Immediately adjacent to the “other” capital items is a space to recognize extra operational cost for future facilities. These are often, but not always, tied to unique features in the site. Existing Features: The final portion of the input section of the model is a summary of existing features that have operations implications in the model. Existing Sport Fields, Restrooms, Picnic Shelters and existing buildings are all assigned an additional “bonus” of operation resources reflecting of their impact on the system. There is also an “other” existing operations input here to capture major expenses such as the aquatic center that are unique in the system. 208 | city of renton A ppendix b : d ecision m A king tools results The next section of the model includes the results of the capital and operating cost calculations. For Total Capital Cost per-acre and per-site costs of the selected major project categories are added to the per-unit costs of other selected features. The total is then projected forward based on an inflation factor (currently set at 5%) to illustrate the cost of the individual projects (and totals) 5, 10 and 20 years into the future. It is important to note that this model does not include capital or operating costs that may result from partnership projects with the Renton School District. Operating costs are calculated based on a per-acre basic maintenance cost and added to the relevant bonuses for existing and future operations-heavy facilities. This cost is split between the operating costs of existing features and those added to the system by new parks and features. The total operating cost is the sum of these two, removing any duplication of facilities that are being replaced. cost assumPtions Planning and DesignAcquisitionDevelopmentRenovationStewardship ProjectsMajor Maintenance and ReinvestmentBasic MaintenanceNeighborhood Park $200,000 $130,000 $125,000 $50,000 $4,000 $31,250 $6,500 Community Park $400,000 $230,000 $100,000 $40,000 $4,000 $25,000 $6,500 Regional Park $400,000 $250,000 $100,000 $40,000 $4,000 $25,000 $6,500 Special Use $200,000 $250,000 $100,000 $40,000 $4,000 $25,000 $6,500 Natural Area $150,000 $72,000 $20,000 $0 $4,000 $5,000 $750 Corridor $50,000 $200,000 $50,000 $5,000 $4,000 $12,500 $2,000 p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 209 A ppendix b : decision m A king tools Capital Costs Notes Play Area Small $350,000 Each, includes areas for tots and school age play Large $750,000 Each, includes more specialized and custom equipment, areas for tots and school age play Picnic Shelter Small $175,000 Each (4 Tables) Large $500,000 Each (20 Tables) Trails $300,000 Per Mile, assumes minimum 8’ wide asphalt path for developed parks and soft surface trails with remediation in Natural Areas Sports Fields Multi-Purpose $400,000 Each With Artificial Turf and Lights $1,000,000 Each Sports Courts $75,000 Each, cost built based on either a tennis or basketball court Park Buildings Interpretive Center $2,000,000 Small, new building Multi-Generational Center $10,000,000 Next generation of community facility, slightly larger than existing neighborhood center Restroom $250,000 Each, assumes utilities in place. Other As Specified Major capital costs that are unique to the site Capital Cost Inflation 5%Inflation Factor for projection Operations Costs Notes Basic Maintenance $6,500 Per Acre, grounds and facilities and related expenses in Neighborhood, Community, Regional and Special Use Parks Natural Area Maintenance $750 Per Acre, natural areas Bonuses Additional operations allocations for facilities that increase overall costs Sports Field $25,000 Each Restroom $35,000 Each Picnic Shelter $5,000 Each Recreation Staffing FTE $150,000 Per FTE/year (fully loaded), to reflect additional staffing needs of new buildings Small Building 2 $300,000 Interpretive Center, activity center Medium Building 7 $1,050,000 Multi-generational center/neighborhood center Large Building 11 $1,650,000 Renton Community Center Other As Specified Other operating costs for major unique facilities THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK a PP endix c : P roject list and cost model 212 | city of renton THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK introduction This appendix includes the capital cost model, supporting documentation and additional presentations of the model. Table C-1 is sorted by total ranked score. Table C-2 includes the supporting material that serves as the inputs to the cost model. This list is also sorted by ranked score. Table C-3 is sorted by park category, with parks in each category sorted by ranked score. Table C-4 is sorted by Community Planning Area, with parks in each area sorted by total ranked score. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL AREAS PLAN | 213APPENDIX C: PROJECT LIST AND COST MODELTable C-1 Ranked Project List and Cost ModelPriority#PROJECT PROJECTDESCRIPTIONTOTALRANKINGTotal Capital Cost Total Capital Cost Projection5 Years Total Capital Cost Projection10 Years Total Capital Cost Projection20 Years Total Existing Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Proposed Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Operating Cost(Existing + Proposed 2011 Dollars) CedarRiverParkExistingmajorbuildingfacilitiesincludeRCCandCarcoTheatre.ExpandHenryMosesAquaticCenter,potentialfieldreconfiguration.Renovatefieldsandaddlighting.(PhasedTriͲParkPlan).AlsoincludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.2813,897,000$ 18,623,000$ 22,636,000$ 36,872,000$ 3,875,900$ 1,106,300$ 4,982,200$ RonRegisParkImproveexistingandundevelopedfieldstocompetitivelevel;extendwaterservicetothepark;addapermanentrestroom,playground,andpicnicshelter(s).ParkincludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.Potentialforhabitatimprovementstostabilizeshoreline.287,596,000$ 10,179,000$ 12,373,000$ 20,154,000$ 367,200$ 95,000$ 462,200$ BlackRiverRiparianForest Developaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference,completesiteinventory/managementplan,implementmanagementplan.SiteisintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA9,Green/DuwamishWatershedManagementPlanandtheBlackRiverWaterQualityManagementPlan.275,486,000$ 7,352,000$ 8,936,000$ 14,556,000$ 70,800$ 300,000$ 370,800$ CedarRiverNaturalArea Completesiteinventoryandmanagementplan,implementmanagementplan.IncludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8,CedarRiverBasinPlan.Continuetoacquirepropertiesastheybecomeavailable.273,908,000$ 5,237,000$ 6,366,000$ 10,370,000$ 188,100$ -$ 188,100$ HighlandsParkandNeighborhoodCenterReͲdevelopaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference.Existingpropertyisunderutilizedasconfigured.LocatedwithinthelargerSunsetPlannedActionEISarea.2714,597,000$ 19,561,000$ 23,777,000$ 38,730,000$ 1,180,000$ 1,110,000$ 1,240,000$ MayCreekGreenway Completesiteinventoryandmanagementplan,acquireadditionallandalongcreekcorridor,installsoftsurfacetrail,trailhead,creekcrossingsandpartnerw/Newcastle.IncludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheMayCreekBasinPlan.272,643,000$ 3,542,000$ 4,305,000$ 7,012,000$ 25,700$ -$ 25,700$ NARCOProperty DevelopaccordingtoTriͲParkMasterPlantoinclude4"fieldturf"soccerfields,relocatedtrail,parking,picnicfacilities,playarea,restrooms,bikepark/bmxandclimbingwall.ParkincludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.2710,158,000$ 13,613,000$ 16,547,000$ 26,953,000$ 156,400$ 170,000$ 326,400$ PantherCreekWetlands Completesiteinventoryandmanagementplan,acquireadditionallandalongcreekcorridor.ManagedbySurfaceWaterUtility.273,654,000$ 4,897,000$ 5,952,000$ 9,695,000$ 51,800$ -$ 51,800$ SeniorActivityCenterProperty Phaseoutexistingshopbuildings.RedevelopsiteasaneighborhoodparkwithfuturemultiͲgenerationalspaces.Acquistion,planninganddesignincludedinCityCenterNeighborhoodPark.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.2778,000$ 105,000$ 128,000$ 208,000$ 1,105,300$ -$ 1,105,300$ HoneyCreekGreenway Completesiteinventoryandmanagementplan,implementmanagementplan.Developsoftsurfacetrail.LocatedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheMayCreekBasinPlan.Continuetoacquirepropertiesastheybecomeavailable.262,886,000$ 3,868,000$ 4,702,000$ 7,659,000$ 32,000$ -$ 32,000$ TrailExpansion&Development TrailconnectionprojectsfromtheTrailsandBicycleMasterPlanthatareconnectedtoparksandnaturalareas.26200,000$ 268,000$ 326,000$ 531,000$ -$ -$ -$ 4LibertyParkReͲdevelopaccordingtoTriͲParkPlan.Improveballfieldsintheshortterm.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.253,862,000$ 5,175,000$ 6,290,000$ 10,246,000$ 197,100$ 35,000$ 232,100$ BensonCommunityPark AcquireanddevelopnewcommunityparkwithCommunityCenter.2417,180,000$ 23,023,000$ 27,985,000$ 45,585,000$ -$ 1,216,500$ 1,216,500$ EastPlateauCommunityParkAcquireanddevelopnewcommunityparkwithCommunityCenter.2417,988,000$ 24,106,000$ 29,301,000$ 47,728,000$ -$ 371,300$ 371,300$ GeneCoulonMemorialBeachPark DevelopfacilityfornonͲmotorizedboating,acquirelandforadditionalparking,expandtechnology,renovateS.beachrestrooms&bathhouse.Highlevelofongoingreinvestmentduetointensiveuse.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgramandWRIA8.244,012,000$ 5,376,000$ 6,535,000$ 10,645,000$ 565,700$ 6,500$ 572,200$ 6RentonWetlands ContinuetomanageasrequiredbyMitigationBankingAgreements.PortionmanagedbySurfaceWaterUtility.IncludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA9,Green/DuwamishWatershedPlan.23696,000$ 933,000$ 1,134,000$ 1,847,000$ 104,400$ -$ 104,400$ CommunityGardens Acquirelandand/ordevelopadditionalcommunitygardens,potentiallyaspartofnewneighborhoodorcommunityparks.22437,000$ 586,000$ 712,000$ 1,160,000$ -$ 700$ 700$ CorridorAcquisition Acquireorsecurenewpropertiesprovidingimportantlinkagesbetweenparksandnaturalareas.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.224,000,000$ 5,360,000$ 6,515,000$ 10,612,000$ -$ 40,000$ 40,000$ EdlundProperty Developparkaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference,createandimplementmanagementplanaddressingclass1wetland.ContinueacquistionstomakeconnectiontothePantherCreekWetland.216,123,000$ 8,206,000$ 9,974,000$ 16,247,000$ 115,400$ 64,600$ 180,000$ KennydaleBeachPark* Reconfiguredockforimprovedlifeguarding,renovaterestroom/lifeguardfacility.Acquirelandtoenhanceusability.ParkincludedintheShorelineMasterProgramandWRIA8.21416,000$ 558,000$ 678,000$ 1,104,000$ 84,300$ 4,600$ 88,900$ 321875 214 | CITY OF RENTONAPPENDIX C: PROJECT LIST AND COST MODELTable C-1 Ranked Project List and Cost ModelPriority#PROJECT PROJECTDESCRIPTIONTOTALRANKINGTotal Capital Cost Total Capital Cost Projection5 Years Total Capital Cost Projection10 Years Total Capital Cost Projection20 Years Total Existing Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Proposed Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Operating Cost(Existing + Proposed 2011 Dollars) CedarRiverTrailPark IncludedinCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgram,WRIAandtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.Invasivespeciesremoval,addutilitiesforBoathouse.201,153,000$ 1,545,000$ 1,878,000$ 3,059,000$ 148,600$ -$ 148,600$ DogParks Acquirelandand/ordevelopoffͲleashareasinfourneighborhoodorcommunityparks.20393,000$ 527,000$ 641,000$ 1,044,000$ -$ 12,000$ 12,000$ MayCreek/McAskill Developparkaccordingtodesignguidelines(pkg.,picnic,playarea,hardsurfacecourt,openturfarea,restrooms,trailconnections),create/implementmgt.planaddressingpossiblewetlands.Potentialacquisitiontoincreaseparkusability.204,668,000$ 6,256,000$ 7,604,000$ 12,386,000$ 64,400$ 87,000$ 151,400$ TiffanyPark Renovateaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference.ExpandtoconnecttoCascadePark.PotentialadditiontoActivitybuilding.20743,000$ 995,000$ 1,209,000$ 1,969,000$ 103,400$ -$ 103,400$ CascadePark Renovateaccordingtodesignguildelinesusingtheconceptplanasareference.ExpandparktoconnectCascadeParktoTiffanyPark,improveroadaccessandincreasevisibility.Potentialforoffleashareawithinpark.192,418,000$ 3,240,000$ 3,938,000$ 6,415,000$ 70,500$ 66,700$ 137,200$ Cleveland/RichardsonProperty Developparkaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference,createandimplementmanagementplan.195,991,000$ 8,028,000$ 9,758,000$ 15,895,000$ 154,800$ 65,000$ 219,800$ NonͲmotorizedBoatingFacility DevelopnonͲmotorizedboatingfacility.193,050,000$ 4,087,000$ 4,968,000$ 8,092,000$ -$ -$ -$ SportsComplex Acquireplananddevelopa4field(ormore)sportscomplextocentralizecompetitiveplay.1910,800,000$ 14,473,000$ 17,592,000$ 28,656,000$ -$ 267,500$ 267,500$ Interpretive/EducationCenters Developinterpretive/educationcenter.182,050,000$ 2,747,000$ 3,339,000$ 5,439,000$ -$ 300,000$ 300,000$ KennydaleLionsPark Renovateaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference.Parkacreageisnotfullydevelopedandcurrentconfigurationoffacilitieslimitsusage.PotentiallyreͲpurposeactivitybuilding.181,448,000$ 1,940,000$ 2,358,000$ 3,841,000$ 95,900$ 40,000$ 135,900$ BurnettLinearPark* IncludedintheSouthRentonNeighborhoodRedevelopmentPlanandtheCityCenterPlan.Improvementsidentifyexpandingparktothenorth.17433,000$ 581,000$ 706,000$ 1,150,000$ 7,200$ 5,800$ 13,000$ CommunityGarden/Greenhouse Continuetomaintainandoperate,expandgarden.PotentialtobelargerneighborhoodParkͲPlanningandacquisitionincludedinCityCenterNeighborhoodPark.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8,andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.OperationsofthissiteareincludedintheEnterpriseFund.1715,000$ 20,000$ 24,000$ 39,000$ 4,000$ -$ 4,000$ HighlandsNeighborhoodPark3:SunsetParkDevelopnewparkaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanandPlannedActionEISasareference.172,231,000$ 2,989,000$ 3,633,000$ 5,918,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ PhilipArnoldParkPotentialpartnershipwithneighboringlandownertoenhanceusability.Improveballfield.PotentialreͲpurposeofactivitybuilding.Renovaterestrooms.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.171,101,000$ 1,475,000$ 1,793,000$ 2,921,000$ 172,100$ -$ 172,100$ NorthHighlandsParkandNeighborhoodCenterPotentialreͲpurposeofActivitybuilding.Designandconstructinclusiveplayground.Potentialforpartnerships.LocatedwithinthelargerSunsetPlannedActionEISarea.161,033,000$ 1,384,000$ 1,682,000$ 2,740,000$ 52,200$ -$ 52,200$ Piazza&Gateway Continuetomaintainandoperate.PotentialfuturereͲdevelopmentasBig5isacquiredandexpanded.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.16543,000$ 728,000$ 885,000$ 1,442,000$ 8,100$ 3,300$ 11,400$ SE186thPlaceProperties* UndersizedandsurroundedbyprivatepropertyͲpotentialforcommunitygardenand/ortreenursery.Ifnotusedforneighborhoodparkfunctions,replacewithanadditionalparkeastofSR515.16632,000$ 847,000$ 1,030,000$ 1,678,000$ 3,900$ 9,100$ 13,000$ ThomasTeasdalePark Improveoutfielddrainage.PotentialreͲpurposeofactivitybuilding.16502,000$ 673,000$ 818,000$ 1,332,000$ 127,800$ -$ 127,800$ TrailheadsandParking Identifyanddevelopappropriateaccesspointstonaturalareas.16200,000$ 268,000$ 326,000$ 531,000$ -$ -$ -$ CedarRiverTrailCorridor(CityOwned)Secureownershipofremainingrailbankedcorridorland,includeacquiredlandinthesurroundingparksandnaturalareas;maintaincorridorasaregionaltraillinkage.152,741,000$ 3,673,000$ 4,465,000$ 7,273,000$ -$ 25,800$ 25,800$ EarlingtonPark* Potentialacquisitionstoexpandparkusability.15199,000$ 267,000$ 325,000$ 529,000$ 10,000$ 3,000$ 13,000$ SoosCreekGreenway:BoulevardLaneAportionoftheKingCountyownedSoosCreekGreenway,withintheRentonCityLimits.ThispropertywillbetransferredtotheCityanddevelopedasaneighborhoodparkwithasubstantialnaturalarea.153,833,000$ 5,137,000$ 6,244,000$ 10,171,000$ 35,000$ 222,000$ 257,000$ ParkwoodSouthDiv#3Park* Acquireadjacentlandtobringthissiteuptominimumsizeof2acresofdevelopableland;masterplananddevelopaneighborhoodparkaccordingtodesignguidelines.14691,000$ 926,000$ 1,126,000$ 1,834,000$ 3,800$ 9,100$ 12,900$ SkateParks Developnewskateparkwithinacommunitypark.14400,000$ 536,000$ 652,000$ 1,062,000$ -$ -$ -$ SoosCreekGreenway:RentonPark AportionoftheKingCountyownedSoosCreekGreenway,withintheRentonCityLimits.ThispropertywillbetransferredtotheCityanddevelopedasanaturalareaonceSoosCreekTrailiscomplete.141,589,000$ 2,129,000$ 2,588,000$ 4,216,000$ -$ 14,000$ 14,000$ 9131211101514 PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL AREAS PLAN | 215APPENDIX C: PROJECT LIST AND COST MODELTable C-1 Ranked Project List and Cost ModelPriority#PROJECT PROJECTDESCRIPTIONTOTALRANKINGTotal Capital Cost Total Capital Cost Projection5 Years Total Capital Cost Projection10 Years Total Capital Cost Projection20 Years Total Existing Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Proposed Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Operating Cost(Existing + Proposed 2011 Dollars) BensonNeighborhoodPark1 AcquireanddeveloponeneighborhoodparkeastofSBensonRdandnorthofSEPugetDrive.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ BensonNeighborhoodPark2 AcquireanddeveloponeneighborhoodparkwestofSR515aroundSE192ndStreet.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ CityCenterNeighborhoodPark1 DevelopneighborhoodparkamenitiesatexistingSeniorActivityCentersiteafterphasingoutexistingmaintenancebuildings.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.(SeeSeniorActivityCenterproperty).132,606,000$ 3,492,000$ 4,245,000$ 6,915,000$ 20,200$ 77,400$ 97,600$ EastPlateauNeighborhoodPark1 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparksouthofSunsetBoulevardandeastofDuvall.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ EastPlateauNeighborhoodPark2 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparknorthofSE128thStreet.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ HighlandsNeighborhoodPark1 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparknorthofSunsetBoulevard,westofDuvall.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ HighlandsNeighborhoodPark2 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparksouthofNE3rdStreet.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ KennydaleNeighborhoodPark1 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparkwestofIͲ405.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ KennydaleNeighborhoodPark2 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparkeastofIͲ405andnorthoftheMayCreekGreenway.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ WestHillsNeighborhoodPark AcquireanddeveloponeneighborhoodparknorthofRentonAve.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ BoeingEISWaterfrontPark AnewparkwithlakefrontaccessasnotedintheBoeingComprehensivePlanAmendmentEISdated10/21/03.129,775,000$ 13,099,000$ 15,922,000$ 25,935,000$ -$ 487,500$ 487,500$ GlencoePark* Acquirelandtoexpandusability.12258,000$ 345,000$ 419,000$ 683,000$ 3,400$ 9,800$ 13,200$ KiwanisPark Potentialacquisitiontoexpandparktoincreaseusability.ImprovefieldandinstallADAwalkfromUnionAvenue.PotentiallyreͲpurposeactivitybuilding.12951,000$ 1,275,000$ 1,550,000$ 2,525,000$ 120,100$ -$ 120,100$ MaplewoodGolfCourse Continuetomaintainandoperate,acquirepropertyasitbecomesavailable.SeeadoptedMasterPlan,includedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8,andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.CapitalandoperationscostsareoutsideoftheCommunityServicesbudget,withinanenterprisefund.12-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TalbotHillReservoirPark RenovatesitewithfeaturesthatdifferentiateitfromnearbyThomasTeasedalePark.Potentialcommunitygardensitewithraisedbeds.12408,000$ 547,000$ 665,000$ 1,083,000$ 51,700$ -$ 51,700$ HeritagePark IncreaseonͲsitedrainagecapacity.10487,000$ 653,000$ 794,000$ 1,293,000$ 124,600$ -$ 124,600$ WindsorHillsPark Potentialacquisitionstoenhanceparkusabilityandvisibilityfromstreet.10283,000$ 379,000$ 461,000$ 751,000$ 30,200$ 5,600$ 35,800$ RiverviewPark ParkinShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.Continuetomaintainfacilities.9388,000$ 520,000$ 632,000$ 1,029,000$ 120,600$ -$ 120,600$ SpringbrookWatershed ManagedbyWaterUtility,notaccessibletothepublic.CapitalandoperationscostsareoutsideofCommunityServicesbudget.9-$ 20VeteransMemorialPark Continuetomaintainandoperate,tilerefurbishment.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.86,000$ 8,000$ 10,000$ 16,000$ 1,500$ -$ 1,500$ 21TonkinPark Continuetomaintainandoperate.Potentialpicnicshelter.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.7179,000$ 240,000$ 292,000$ 476,000$ 1,100$ 5,000$ 6,100$ JonesPark IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.Adjacenttrailcorridoraddsenoughsizetoserveasafullneighborhoodpark.ParkintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andCedarRiverBasinPlan.634,000$ 45,000$ 55,000$ 90,000$ 42,000$ -$ 42,000$ MaplewoodRoadsidePark Continuetomaintainandoperate.IncludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.627,000$ 36,000$ 44,000$ 72,000$ 7,000$ -$ 7,000$ 23MaplewoodPark Renovaterestrooms.5362,000$ 485,000$ 590,000$ 961,000$ 42,900$ -$ 42,900$ 24SitInPark Continuetomaintainandoperate.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.412,000$ 16,000$ 19,000$ 31,000$ 3,200$ -$ 3,200$ LakeStreetOpenSpace InventoryandmanageaspartofthePantherCreekWetlands,potentialfortreenursery.12,000$ 3,000$ 4,000$ 7,000$ 200$ -$ 200$ PantherCreek4AParcel IncludedinEdlundPropertyconceptplanandmanagementplan.ContinueconnectiontothePantherCreekWetlands.133,000$ 44,000$ 53,000$ 86,000$ 2,700$ -$ 2,700$ 26SunsetCourtPark* Noadditionalimprovements,maintainuntilreplacedbySunsetPlannedActionEISPark0-$ -$ -$ -$ 5,400$ (5,400)$ -$ TOTAL213,789,000$ 286,502,000$ 348,245,000$ 567,259,000$ 9,758,600$ 7,205,700$ 15,914,300$ Note:TotalsdonotincludeimprovementstoSchoolDistrictfacilitiesthatmayresultfromnewpartnershipopportunities.*Parksthathavebeenprovisionallyclassifiedeventhoughtheydonotmeetminimumsizeorotherdesignguidelines.**BoeingEISWaterfrontParkdevelopmentwouldonlyoccuriftheBoeingCompanysurplusedtheRentonfacilities.171625221918 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK parks, recreation and natural areas plan | 217 appendix c: project list and cost model table c-2 cost model support material Capital and Operations Cost Model - By Total Ranking Priority #PROJECT Park Type PROJECT TYPE Current AcresProposed AcresPlanning and DesignAcquisitionDevelopmentRenovationStewardship ProjectsMajor Maintenance and ReinvestmentAdditional Play Area ‐ SmallAdditional Play Area ‐ LargeAdditional Picnic Shelter ‐ SmallAdditional Picnic Shelter ‐ LargeAdditional Trails (Miles)Additional Multi Purpose Sport FieldAdditional Sport Field with Artificial Turf/LightsAdditional Sport CourtsAdditional RestroomNew BuildingOther Major Additional CapitalDescription Other Additional OperationsDescription Existing Sport Fields (Total)Total RestroomsExisting Picnic SheltersExisting BuildingExisting Other Major Operations Maintenance CostsOther Operation Costs ExplanationCedar River Park COMMUNITY PARK EXISTING 20.1 32.6 X X X X 1 8,000,000$ Pool expansion 1,000,000$ Expanded pool operations 1 2 0 Large 2,000,000$ Pool and Theatre Ron Regis Park COMMUNITY PARK EXISTING 43.4 43.4 X X X X X 1 2 2 1 1,250,000$ 2 Artificial Turf Upgrades (to existing fields that have lights) 2 1 0 Black River Riparian Forest NATURAL AREA EXISTING 94.3 94.3 X X X X X 2 Interpretive Center 0 0 0 Cedar River Natural Area NATURAL AREA EXISTING 250.8 250.8 X X X X 5 0 0 0 Highlands Park and Neighborhood Center COMMUNITY PARK EXISTING 10.8 10.8 X X X 1 1 1 1 4 1 Multi‐ Generational Center 350,000$ Skate area 1 1 0 Medium May Creek Greenway NATURAL AREA EXISTING 34.2 34.2 X X X X X 5 0 0 0 NARCO Property COMMUNITY PARK EXISTING 24.1 24.1 X X X X 1 1 4 2 1,400,000$ Grant buy‐back for Open Space Funds 0 0 0 Panther Creek Wetlands NATURAL AREA EXISTING 69.1 69.1 X X X X X 5 0 0 0 Senior Activity Center Property SPECIAL USE EXISTING 3.1 3.1 X 0 1 0 Medium Honey Creek Greenway NATURAL AREA EXISTING 42.6 42.6 X X X X X 5 0 0 0 Trail Expansion & Development TRAIL PROPOSED X X X X 0 0 4 Liberty Park COMMUNITY PARK EXISTING 11.1 11.1 X X 1 5 1 1,500,000$ Skate park, rennovated building 2 2 1 Benson Community Park COMMUNITY PARK PROPOSED 0.0 11.0 X X X X 1 2 1 2 1 1 Multi‐ Generational Center 350,000$ Skate area 0 0 0 East Plateau Community Park COMMUNITY PARK PROPOSED 0.0 42.5 X X X X 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park REGIONAL PARK EXISTING 51.3 52.3 X X X X 0 4 4 72,000$ 5000 hours of Lifeguards 6 Renton Wetlands NATURAL AREA EXISTING 139.2 139.2 X 0 0 0 Community Gardens FACILITY PROPOSED 0.0 0.3 X X X X 300,000$ 15,000 sf raised beds 0 0 0 Corridor Acquisition CORRIDOR PROPOSED 0.0 20.0 X 0 0 0 Edlund Property NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 17.7 20.0 X X X X X 1 3 1 1 1,000,000$ Barn and bridge restoration 0 0 0 Kennydale Beach Park*NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 1.3 2.0 X X X X 0 1 0 41,000$ 3,000 hours of Lifeguards Cedar River Trail Park COMMUNITY PARK EXISTING 16.7 16.7 X X X 0 1 1 Dog Parks FACILITY PROPOSED 0.0 1.0 X X X X 80,000$ Per facility 10,000$ Additional Maintenance 0 0 0 May Creek/McAskill NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 9.9 13.3 X X X X X 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Tiffany Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 6.7 6.7 X X X 1 1 0 Cascade Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 10.8 15.7 X X X X 1 1 0 0 0 Cleveland/Richardson Property NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 23.8 23.8 X X X X 1 1 1 1 1 500,000$ Farmhouse repurposing 0 0 0 Non‐motorized Boating Facility FACILITY PROPOSED X X 3,000,000$ Non‐motorized boat facility Assume operation by partners 0 0 0 Sports Complex SPECIAL USE PROPOSED 0.0 15.0 X X X 1 1 4 2 0 0 0 Interpretive/Education Centers FACILITY PROPOSED X X Interpretive Center 0 0 0 Kennydale Lions Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 5.5 5.5 X X X 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 2 1 9 8 7 5 11 10 AppendixC_FINAL_Cost Model_120511.xls 218 | city o F renton appendix c: project list and cost model table c-2 cost model support material Capital and Operations Cost Model - By Total Ranking Priority #PROJECT Park Type PROJECT TYPE Current AcresProposed AcresPlanning and DesignAcquisitionDevelopmentRenovationStewardship ProjectsMajor Maintenance and ReinvestmentAdditional Play Area ‐ SmallAdditional Play Area ‐ LargeAdditional Picnic Shelter ‐ SmallAdditional Picnic Shelter ‐ LargeAdditional Trails (Miles)Additional Multi Purpose Sport FieldAdditional Sport Field with Artificial Turf/LightsAdditional Sport CourtsAdditional RestroomNew BuildingOther Major Additional CapitalDescription Other Additional OperationsDescription Existing Sport Fields (Total)Total RestroomsExisting Picnic SheltersExisting BuildingExisting Other Major Operations Maintenance CostsOther Operation Costs ExplanationBurnett Linear Park*NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 1.1 2.0 X X X X 0 0 0 Community Garden/Greenhouse SPECIAL USE EXISTING 0.6 0.6 X 0 0 0 Highlands Neighborhood Park 3: Sunset Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROPOSED 0.0 5.0 X X X 1 1 250,000$ Fountain, plaza 30,000$ Fountain, heavy use 0 0 0 Philip Arnold Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 11.1 11.1 X X X X 1 2 1 North Highlands Park and Neighborhood Center NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 2.6 2.6 X X 1 0 1 0 Piazza & Gateway SPECIAL USE EXISTING 1.2 1.7 X X X X 0 0 0 SE 186th Place Properties*NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 0.6 2.0 X X X 0 0 0 Thomas Teasdale Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 9.7 9.7 X X 1 1 1 Trailheads and Parking TRAIL PROPOSED X X X 0 0 0 Cedar River Trail Corridor (City Owned) CORRIDOR EXISTING 0.0 12.9 X X 0 0 0 Earlington Park*NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 1.5 2.0 X X X 0 0 0 Soos Creek Greenway: Boulevard Lane NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROPOSED 0.0 30.3 X X X X 1 1 1 0 1 0 Parkwood South Div #3 Park* NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 0.6 2.0 X X X X 0 0 0 Skate Parks FACILITY PROPOSED X X 350,000$ Each smaller skate area 0 0 0 Soos Creek Greenway: Renton Park NATURAL AREA PROPOSED 0.0 18.6 X X X X 3 0 0 0 Benson Neighborhood Park 1 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROPOSED 0.0 5.0 X X X X 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 Benson Neighborhood Park 2 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROPOSED 0.0 5.0 X X X X 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 City Center Neighborhood Park 1 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROPOSED 3.1 5.0 X X X 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 East Plateau Neighborhood Park 1 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROPOSED 0.0 5.0 X X X X 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 East Plateau Neighborhood Park 2 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROPOSED 0.0 5.0 X X X X 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 Highlands Neighborhood Park 1 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROPOSED 0.0 5.0 X X X X 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 Highlands Neighborhood Park 2 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROPOSED 0.0 5.0 X X X X 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 Kennydale Neighborhood Park 1 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROPOSED 0.0 5.0 X X X X 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 Kennydale Neighborhood Park 2 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROPOSED 0.0 5.0 X X X X 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 West Hills Neighborhood Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROPOSED 0.0 5.0 X X X X 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 Boeing EIS Waterfront Park REGIONAL PARK PROPOSED 0.0 75.0 X X X 0 0 0 Glencoe Park*NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 0.5 2.0 X X 0 0 0 Kiwanis Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 9.2 9.2 X X X X 1 1 0 Maplewood Golf Course SPECIAL USE EXISTING 192.3 202.3 X X 0 1 0 Talbot Hill Reservoir Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 2.6 2.6 X X X 0 1 0 Heritage Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 9.2 9.2 X X 1 1 1 Windsor Hills Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 4.6 5.5 X X 0 0 0 Riverview Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 12.4 12.4 X 0 1 1 Springbrook Watershed NATURAL AREA EXISTING 52.2 52.2 0 0 0 20 Veterans Memorial Park SPECIAL USE EXISTING 0.2 0.2 X 0 0 0 21 Tonkin Park SPECIAL USE EXISTING 0.2 0.2 X 1 0 0 0 Jones Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 1.1 1.1 X 0 1 0 Maplewood Roadside Park SPECIAL USE EXISTING 1.1 1.1 X 0 0 0 23 Maplewood Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 2.0 2.0 X X X 1 0 1 24 Sit In Park SPECIAL USE EXISTING 0.5 0.5 X 0 0 0 Lake Street Open Space NATURAL AREA EXISTING 0.3 0.3 X 0 0 0 Panther Creek 4A Parcel NATURAL AREA EXISTING 3.7 3.7 X X X 0 0 0 26 Sunset Court Park*NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EXISTING 0.8 0.0 X 0 0 0 TOTAL 1,211.9 1,531.3 Note: Totals do not include improvements to School District facilities that may result from new partnership opportunities. * Parks that have been provisionally classified even though they do not meet minimum size or other design guidelines **Boeing EIS Waterfront Park development would only occur if the Boeing Company surplused the Renton facilities. 13 12 17 16 15 14 25 22 19 18 AppendixC_FINAL_Cost Model_120511.xls PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL AREAS PLAN | 219APPENDIX C: PROJECT LIST AND COST MODELTable C-3 Project List and Cost Model by Park CategoryPROJECT PROJECTDESCRIPTIONTOTALRANKING Total Capital Cost Total Capital Cost Projection5 Years Total Capital Cost Projection10 Years Total Capital Cost Projection20 Years Total Existing Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Proposed Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Operating Cost(Existing + Proposed 2011 Dollars) NeighborhoodParksEdlundProperty Developparkaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference,createandimplementmanagementplanaddressingclass1wetland.ContinueacquistionstomakeconnectiontothePantherCreekWetland.216,123,000$ 8,206,000$ 9,974,000$ 16,247,000$ 115,400$ 64,600$ 180,000$ KennydaleBeachPark* Reconfiguredockforimprovedlifeguarding,renovaterestroom/lifeguardfacility.Acquirelandtoenhanceusability.ParkincludedintheShorelineMasterProgramandWRIA8.21416,000$ 558,000$ 678,000$ 1,104,000$ 84,300$ 4,600$ 88,900$ MayCreek/McAskill Developparkaccordingtodesignguidelines(pkg.,picnic,playarea,hardsurfacecourt,openturfarea,restrooms,trailconnections),create/implementmgt.planaddressingpossiblewetlands.Potentialacquisitiontoincreaseparkusability.204,668,000$ 6,256,000$ 7,604,000$ 12,386,000$ 64,400$ 87,000$ 151,400$ TiffanyPark Renovateaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference.ExpandtoconnecttoCascadePark.PotentialadditiontoActivitybuilding.20743,000$ 995,000$ 1,209,000$ 1,969,000$ 103,400$ -$ 103,400$ CascadePark Renovateaccordingtodesignguildelinesusingtheconceptplanasareference.ExpandparktoconnectCascadeParktoTiffanyPark,improveroadaccessandincreasevisibility.Potentialforoffleashareawithinpark.192,418,000$ 3,240,000$ 3,938,000$ 6,415,000$ 70,500$ 66,700$ 137,200$ Cleveland/RichardsonProperty Developparkaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference,createandimplementmanagementplan.195,991,000$ 8,028,000$ 9,758,000$ 15,895,000$ 154,800$ 65,000$ 219,800$ KennydaleLionsPark Renovateaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference.Parkacreageisnotfullydevelopedandcurrentconfigurationoffacilitieslimitsusage.PotentiallyreͲpurposeactivitybuilding.181,448,000$ 1,940,000$ 2,358,000$ 3,841,000$ 95,900$ 40,000$ 135,900$ BurnettLinearPark* IncludedintheSouthRentonNeighborhoodRedevelopmentPlanandtheCityCenterPlan.Improvementsidentifyexpandingparktothenorth.17433,000$ 581,000$ 706,000$ 1,150,000$ 7,200$ 5,800$ 13,000$ PhilipArnoldParkPotentialpartnershipwithneighboringlandownertoenhanceusability.Improveballfield.PotentialreͲpurposeofactivitybuilding.Renovaterestrooms.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.171,101,000$ 1,475,000$ 1,793,000$ 2,921,000$ 172,100$ -$ 172,100$ HighlandsNeighborhoodPark3:SunsetParkDevelopnewparkaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanandPlannedActionEISasareference.172,231,000$ 2,989,000$ 3,633,000$ 5,918,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ NorthHighlandsParkandNeighborhoodCenterPotentialreͲpurposeofActivitybuilding.Designandconstructinclusiveplayground.Potentialforpartnerships.LocatedwithinthelargerSunsetPlannedActionEISarea.161,033,000$ 1,384,000$ 1,682,000$ 2,740,000$ 52,200$ -$ 52,200$ SE186thPlaceProperties* UndersizedandsurroundedbyprivatepropertyͲpotentialforcommunitygardenand/ortreenursery.Ifnotusedforneighborhoodparkfunctions,replacewithanadditionalparkeastofSR515.16632,000$ 847,000$ 1,030,000$ 1,678,000$ 3,900$ 9,100$ 13,000$ ThomasTeasdalePark Improveoutfielddrainage.PotentialreͲpurposeofactivitybuilding.16502,000$ 673,000$ 818,000$ 1,332,000$ 127,800$ -$ 127,800$ EarlingtonPark* Potentialacquisitionstoexpandparkusability.15199,000$ 267,000$ 325,000$ 529,000$ 10,000$ 3,000$ 13,000$ SoosCreekGreenway:BoulevardLaneAportionoftheKingCountyownedSoosCreekGreenway,withintheRentonCityLimits.ThispropertywillbetransferredtotheCityanddevelopedasaneighborhoodparkwithasubstantialnaturalarea.153,833,000$ 5,137,000$ 6,244,000$ 10,171,000$ 35,000$ 222,000$ 257,000$ ParkwoodSouthDiv#3Park* Acquireadjacentlandtobringthissiteuptominimumsizeof2acresofdevelopableland;masterplananddevelopaneighborhoodparkaccordingtodesignguidelines.14691,000$ 926,000$ 1,126,000$ 1,834,000$ 3,800$ 9,100$ 12,900$ BensonNeighborhoodPark1 AcquireanddeveloponeneighborhoodparkeastofSBensonRdandnorthofSEPugetDrive.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ BensonNeighborhoodPark2 AcquireanddeveloponeneighborhoodparkwestofSR515aroundSE192ndStreet.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ CityCenterNeighborhoodPark1 DevelopneighborhoodparkamenitiesatexistingSeniorActivityCentersiteafterphasingoutexistingmaintenancebuildings.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.(SeeSeniorActivityCenterproperty).132,606,000$ 3,492,000$ 4,245,000$ 6,915,000$ 20,200$ 77,400$ 97,600$ EastPlateauNeighborhoodPark1 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparksouthofSunsetBoulevardandeastofDuvall.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ EastPlateauNeighborhoodPark2 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparknorthofSE128thStreet.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ HighlandsNeighborhoodPark1 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparknorthofSunsetBoulevard,westofDuvall.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ HighlandsNeighborhoodPark2 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparksouthofNE3rdStreet.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ KennydaleNeighborhoodPark1 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparkwestofIͲ405.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ KennydaleNeighborhoodPark2 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparkeastofIͲ405andnorthoftheMayCreekGreenway.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ WestHillsNeighborhoodPark AcquireanddeveloponeneighborhoodparknorthofRentonAve.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ GlencoePark* Acquirelandtoexpandusability.12258,000$ 345,000$ 419,000$ 683,000$ 3,400$ 9,800$ 13,200$ KiwanisPark Potentialacquisitiontoexpandparktoincreaseusability.ImprovefieldandinstallADAwalkfromUnionAvenue.PotentiallyreͲpurposeactivitybuilding.12951,000$ 1,275,000$ 1,550,000$ 2,525,000$ 120,100$ -$ 120,100$ TalbotHillReservoirPark RenovatesitewithfeaturesthatdifferentiateitfromnearbyThomasTeasedalePark.Potentialcommunitygardensitewithraisedbeds.12408,000$ 547,000$ 665,000$ 1,083,000$ 51,700$ -$ 51,700$ HeritagePark IncreaseonͲsitedrainagecapacity.10487,000$ 653,000$ 794,000$ 1,293,000$ 124,600$ -$ 124,600$ WindsorHillsPark Potentialacquisitionstoenhanceparkusabilityandvisibilityfromstreet.10283,000$ 379,000$ 461,000$ 751,000$ 30,200$ 5,600$ 35,800$ RiverviewPark ParkinShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.Continuetomaintainfacilities9388,000$ 520,000$ 632,000$ 1,029,000$ 120,600$ -$ 120,600$ JonesPark IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.Adjacenttrailcorridoraddsenoughsizetoserveasafullneighborhoodpark.ParkintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andCedarRiverBasinPlan.634,000$ 45,000$ 55,000$ 90,000$ 42,000$ -$ 42,000$ MaplewoodPark Renovaterestrooms.5362,000$ 485,000$ 590,000$ 961,000$ 42,900$ -$ 42,900$ SunsetCourtPark* Noadditionalimprovements,maintainuntilreplacedbySunsetPlannedActionEISPark.0-$ -$ -$ -$ 5,400$ (5,400)$ -$ SubtotalNeighborhoodParks67,543,000$ 90,519,000$ 110,023,000$ 179,220,000$ 1,661,800$ 1,639,300$ 3,301,100$ 220 | CITY OF RENTONAPPENDIX C: PROJECT LIST AND COST MODELPROJECT PROJECTDESCRIPTIONTOTALRANKING Total Capital Cost Total Capital Cost Projection5 Years Total Capital Cost Projection10 Years Total Capital Cost Projection20 Years Total Existing Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Proposed Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Operating Cost(Existing + Proposed 2011 Dollars) CommunityParks-$ CedarRiverParkExistingmajorbuildingfacilitiesincludeRCCandCarcoTheatre.ExpandHenryMosesAquaticCenter,potentialfieldreconfiguration.Renovatefieldsandaddlighting.(PhasedTriͲParkPlan).AlsoincludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.2813,897,000$ 18,623,000$ 22,636,000$ 36,872,000$ 3,875,900$ 1,106,300$ 4,982,200$ RonRegisParkImproveexistingandundevelopedfieldstocompetitivelevel;extendwaterservicetothepark;addapermanentrestroom,playground,andpicnicshelter(s).ParkincludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.Potentialforhabitatimprovementstostabilizeshoreline.287,596,000$ 10,179,000$ 12,373,000$ 20,154,000$ 367,200$ 95,000$ 462,200$ HighlandsParkandNeighborhoodCenterReͲdevelopaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference.Existingpropertyisunderutilizedasconfigured.LocatedwithinthelargerSunsetPlannedActionEISarea.2714,597,000$ 19,561,000$ 23,777,000$ 38,730,000$ 1,180,000$ 1,110,000$ 1,240,000$ NARCOProperty DevelopaccordingtoTriͲParkMasterPlantoinclude4"fieldturf"soccerfields,relocatedtrail,parking,picnicfacilities,playarea,restrooms,bikepark/bmxandclimbingwall.ParkincludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.2710,158,000$ 13,613,000$ 16,547,000$ 26,953,000$ 156,400$ 170,000$ 326,400$ LibertyParkReͲdevelopaccordingtoTriͲParkPlan.Improveballfieldsintheshortterm.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.253,862,000$ 5,175,000$ 6,290,000$ 10,246,000$ 197,100$ 35,000$ 232,100$ EastPlateauCommunityParkAcquireanddevelopnewcommunityparkwithCommunityCenter.2417,988,000$ 24,106,000$ 29,301,000$ 47,728,000$ -$ 371,300$ 371,300$ BensonCommunityPark AcquireanddevelopnewcommunityparkwithCommunityCenter.2417,180,000$ 23,023,000$ 27,985,000$ 45,585,000$ -$ 1,216,500$ 1,216,500$ CedarRiverTrailPark IncludedinCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgram,WRIAandtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.Invasivespeciesremoval,addutilitiesforBoathouse.201,153,000$ 1,545,000$ 1,878,000$ 3,059,000$ 148,600$ -$ 148,600$ SubtotalCommunityParks86,431,000$ 115,825,000$ 140,787,000$ 229,327,000$ 5,925,200$ 4,104,100$ 8,979,300$ RegionalPark-$ GeneCoulonMemorialBeachPark DevelopfacilityfornonͲmotorizedboating,acquirelandforadditionalparking,expandtechnology,renovateS.beachrestrooms&bathhouse.Highlevelofongoingreinvestmentduetointensiveuse.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgramandWRIA8.244,012,000$ 5,376,000$ 6,535,000$ 10,645,000$ 565,700$ 6,500$ 572,200$ BoeingEISWaterfrontPark AnewparkwithlakefrontaccessasnotedintheBoeingComprehensivePlanAmendmentEISdated10/21/03.129,775,000$ 13,099,000$ 15,922,000$ 25,935,000$ -$ 487,500$ 487,500$ SubtotalRegionalParks13,787,000$ 18,475,000$ 22,457,000$ 36,580,000$ 565,700$ 494,000$ 1,059,700$ SpecialUseParks-$ SeniorActivityCenterProperty Phaseoutexistingshopbuildings.RedevelopsiteasaneighborhoodparkwithfuturemultiͲgenerationalspaces.Acquistion,planninganddesignincludedinCityCenterNeighborhoodPark.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.2778,000$ 105,000$ 128,000$ 208,000$ 1,105,300$ -$ 1,105,300$ SportsComplex Acquireplananddevelopa4field(ormore)sportscomplextocentralizecompetitiveplay.1910,800,000$ 14,473,000$ 17,592,000$ 28,656,000$ -$ 267,500$ 267,500$ CommunityGarden/Greenhouse Continuetomaintainandoperate,expandgarden.PotentialtobelargerneighborhoodParkͲPlanningandacquisitionincludedinCityCenterNeighborhoodPark.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8,andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.OperationsofthissiteareincludedintheEnterpriseFund.1715,000$ 20,000$ 24,000$ 39,000$ 4,000$ -$ 4,000$ Piazza&Gateway Continuetomaintainandoperate.PotentialfuturereͲdevelopmentasBig5isacquiredandexpanded.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.16543,000$ 728,000$ 885,000$ 1,442,000$ 8,100$ 3,300$ 11,400$ MaplewoodGolfCourse Continuetomaintainandoperate,acquirepropertyasitbecomesavailable.SeeadoptedMasterPlan,includedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8,andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.CapitalandoperationscostsareoutsideoftheCommunityServicesbudget,withinanenterprisefund12-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ VeteransMemorialPark Continuetomaintainandoperate,tilerefurbishment.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.86,000$ 8,000$ 10,000$ 16,000$ 1,500$ -$ 1,500$ TonkinPark Continuetomaintainandoperate.Potentialpicnicshelter.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.7179,000$ 240,000$ 292,000$ 476,000$ 1,100$ 5,000$ 6,100$ MaplewoodRoadsidePark Continuetomaintainandoperate.IncludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.627,000$ 36,000$ 44,000$ 72,000$ 7,000$ -$ 7,000$ SitInPark Continuetomaintainandoperate.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.412,000$ 16,000$ 19,000$ 31,000$ 3,200$ -$ 3,200$ SubtotalSpecialUseParks11,660,000$ 15,626,000$ 18,994,000$ 30,940,000$ 1,130,200$ 275,800$ 1,406,000$ Table C-3 Project List and Cost Model by Park Category PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL AREAS PLAN | 221APPENDIX C: PROJECT LIST AND COST MODELPROJECT PROJECTDESCRIPTIONTOTALRANKING Total Capital Cost Total Capital Cost Projection5 Years Total Capital Cost Projection10 Years Total Capital Cost Projection20 Years Total Existing Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Proposed Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Operating Cost(Existing + Proposed 2011 Dollars) NaturalAreas-$ BlackRiverRiparianForest Developaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference,completesiteinventory/managementplan,implementmanagementplan.SiteisintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA9,Green/DuwamishWatershedManagementPlanandtheBlackRiverWaterQualityManagementPlan.275,486,000$ 7,352,000$ 8,936,000$ 14,556,000$ 70,800$ 300,000$ 370,800$ CedarRiverNaturalArea Completesiteinventoryandmanagementplan,implementmanagementplan.IncludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8,CedarRiverBasinPlan.Continuetoacquirepropertiesastheybecomeavailable.273,908,000$ 5,237,000$ 6,366,000$ 10,370,000$ 188,100$ -$ 188,100$ MayCreekGreenway Completesiteinventoryandmanagementplan,acquireadditionallandalongcreekcorridor,installsoftsurfacetrail,trailhead,creekcrossingsandpartnerw/Newcastle.IncludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheMayCreekBasinPlan.272,643,000$ 3,542,000$ 4,305,000$ 7,012,000$ 25,700$ -$ 25,700$ PantherCreekWetlands Completesiteinventoryandmanagementplan,acquireadditionallandalongcreekcorridor.ManagedbySurfaceWaterUtility.273,654,000$ 4,897,000$ 5,952,000$ 9,695,000$ 51,800$ -$ 51,800$ HoneyCreekGreenway Completesiteinventoryandmanagementplan,implementmanagementplan.Developsoftsurfacetrail.LocatedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheMayCreekBasinPlan.Continuetoacquirepropertiesastheybecomeavailable.262,886,000$ 3,868,000$ 4,702,000$ 7,659,000$ 32,000$ -$ 32,000$ RentonWetlands ContinuetomanageasrequiredbyMitigationBankingAgreements.PortionmanagedbySurfaceWaterUtility.IncludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA9,Green/DuwamishWatershedPlan.23696,000$ 933,000$ 1,134,000$ 1,847,000$ 104,400$ -$ 104,400$ SoosCreekGreenway:RentonPark AportionoftheKingCountyownedSoosCreekGreenway,withintheRentonCityLimits.ThispropertywillbetransferredtotheCityanddevelopedasanaturalareaonceSoosCreekTrailiscomplete.141,589,000$ 2,129,000$ 2,588,000$ 4,216,000$ -$ 14,000$ 14,000$ SpringbrookWatershed ManagedbyWaterUtility,notaccessibletothepublic.CapitalandoperationscostsareoutsideofCommunityServicesbudget.9-$ LakeStreetOpenSpace InventoryandmanageaspartofthePantherCreekWetlands,potentialfortreenursery.12,000$ 3,000$ 4,000$ 7,000$ 200$ -$ 200$ PantherCreek4AParcel IncludedinEdlundPropertyconceptplanandmanagementplan.ContinueconnectiontothePantherCreekWetlands.133,000$ 44,000$ 53,000$ 86,000$ 2,700$ -$ 2,700$ SubtotalNaturalAreaParks20,897,000$ 28,005,000$ 34,040,000$ 55,448,000$ 475,700$ 314,000$ 789,700$ Corridors-$ CorridorAcquisition Acquireorsecurenewpropertiesprovidingimportantlinkagesbetweenparksandnaturalareas.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.224,000,000$ 5,360,000$ 6,515,000$ 10,612,000$ -$ 40,000$ 40,000$ CedarRiverTrailCorridor(CityOwned)Secureownershipofremainingrailbankedcorridorland,includeacquiredlandinthesurroundingparksandnaturalareas;maintaincorridorasaregionaltraillinkage.152,741,000$ 3,673,000$ 4,465,000$ 7,273,000$ -$ 25,800$ 25,800$ SubtotalCorridors6,741,000$ 9,033,000$ 10,980,000$ 17,885,000$ -$ 65,800$ 65,800$ RecreationFacilities(nolocationidentified)-$ CommunityGardens Acquirelandand/ordevelopadditionalcommunitygardens,potentiallyaspartofnewneighborhoodorcommunityparks.22437,000$ 586,000$ 712,000$ 1,160,000$ -$ 700$ 700$ DogParks Acquirelandand/ordevelopoffͲleashareasinfourneighborhoodorcommunityparks.20393,000$ 527,000$ 641,000$ 1,044,000$ -$ 12,000$ 12,000$ NonͲmotorizedBoatingFacility DevelopnonͲmotorizedboatingfacility.193,050,000$ 4,087,000$ 4,968,000$ 8,092,000$ -$ -$ -$ Interpretive/EducationCenters Developinterpretive/educationcenter.182,050,000$ 2,747,000$ 3,339,000$ 5,439,000$ -$ 300,000$ 300,000$ SkateParks Developnewskateparkwithinacommunitypark.14400,000$ 536,000$ 652,000$ 1,062,000$ -$ -$ -$ SubtotalFacilities6,330,000$ 8,483,000$ 10,312,000$ 16,797,000$ -$ 312,700$ 312,700$ Trails-$ TrailExpansion&Development TrailconnectionprojectsfromtheTrailsandBicycleMasterPlanthatareconnectedtoparksandnaturalareas.26200,000$ 268,000$ 326,000$ 531,000$ -$ -$ -$ TrailheadsandParking Identifyanddevelopappropriateaccesspointstonaturalareas.16200,000$ 268,000$ 326,000$ 531,000$ -$ -$ -$ SubtotalTrails400,000$ 536,000$ 652,000$ 1,062,000$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL213,789,000$ 286,502,000$ 348,245,000$ 567,259,000$ 9,758,600$ 7,205,700$ 15,914,300$ Note:TotalsdonotincludeimprovementstoSchoolDistrictfacilitiesthatmayresultfromnewpartnershipopportunities.*Parksthathavebeenprovisionallyclassifiedeventhoughtheydonotmeetminimumsizeorotherdesignguidelines.**BoeingEISWaterfrontParkdevelopmentwouldonlyoccuriftheBoeingCompanysurplusedtheRentonfacilities.Table C-3 Project List and Cost Model by Park Category THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL AREAS PLAN | 223APPENDIX C: PROJECT LIST AND COST MODELTable C-4 Project List and Cost Model by Community Planning AreaPROJECTPROJECTDESCRIPTIONTOTALRANKING Total Capital Cost Total Capital Cost Projection5 Years Total Capital Cost Projection10 Years Total Capital Cost Projection20 Years Total Existing Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Proposed Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Operating Cost(Existing + Proposed 2011 Dollars) BENSONPLANNINGAREATOTALBensonCommunityPark AcquireanddevelopnewcommunityparkwithCommunityCenter.2417,180,000$ 23,023,000$ 27,985,000$ 45,585,000$ -$ 1,216,500$ 1,216,500$ TiffanyPark Renovateaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference.ExpandtoconnecttoCascadePark.PotentialadditiontoActivitybuilding.20743,000$ 995,000$ 1,209,000$ 1,969,000$ 103,400$ -$ 103,400$ CascadePark Renovateaccordingtodesignguildelinesusingtheconceptplanasareference.ExpandparktoconnectCascadeParktoTiffanyPark,improveroadaccessandincreasevisibility.Potentialforoffleashareawithinpark.192,418,000$ 3,240,000$ 3,938,000$ 6,415,000$ 70,500$ 66,700$ 137,200$ SE186thPlaceProperties* UndersizedandsurroundedbyprivatepropertyͲpotentialforcommunitygardenand/ortreenursery.Ifnotusedforneighborhoodparkfunctions,replacewithanadditionalparkeastofSR515.16632,000$ 847,000$ 1,030,000$ 1,678,000$ 3,900$ 9,100$ 13,000$ SoosCreekGreenway:BoulevardLaneAportionoftheKingCountyownedSoosCreekGreenway,withintheRentonCityLimits.ThispropertywillbetransferredtotheCityanddevelopedasaneighborhoodparkwithasubstantialnaturalarea.153,833,000$ 5,137,000$ 6,244,000$ 10,171,000$ 35,000$ 222,000$ 257,000$ ParkwoodSouthDiv#3Park* Acquireadjacentlandtobringthissiteuptominimumsizeof2acresofdevelopableland;masterplananddevelopaneighborhoodparkaccordingtodesignguidelines.14691,000$ 926,000$ 1,126,000$ 1,834,000$ 3,800$ 9,100$ 12,900$ SoosCreekGreenway:RentonPark AportionoftheKingCountyownedSoosCreekGreenway,withintheRentonCityLimits.ThispropertywillbetransferredtotheCityanddevelopedasanaturalareaonceSoosCreekTrailiscomplete.141,589,000$ 2,129,000$ 2,588,000$ 4,216,000$ -$ 14,000$ 14,000$ BensonNeighborhoodPark1 AcquireanddeveloponeneighborhoodparkeastofSBensonRdandnorthofSEPugetDrivelack.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ BensonNeighborhoodPark2 AcquireanddeveloponeneighborhoodparkwestofSR515aroundSE192ndStreet.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ SubtotalBensonPlanningArea33,598,000$ 45,025,000$ 54,728,000$ 89,148,000$ 216,600$ 1,732,400$ 1,949,000$ CEDARRIVERPLANNINGAREACedarRiverParkExistingmajorbuildingfacilitiesincludeRCCandCarcoTheatre.ExpandHenryMosesAquaticCenter,potentialfieldreconfiguration.Renovatefieldsandaddlighting.(PhasedTriͲParkPlan).AlsoincludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.2813,897,000$ 18,623,000$ 22,636,000$ 36,872,000$ 3,875,900$ 1,106,300$ 4,982,200$ RonRegisParkImproveexistingandundevelopedfieldstocompetitivelevel;extendwaterservicetothepark;addapermanentrestroom,playground,andpicnicshelter(s).ParkincludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.Potentialforhabitatimprovementstostabilizeshoreline.287,596,000$ 10,179,000$ 12,373,000$ 20,154,000$ 367,200$ 95,000$ 462,200$ CedarRiverNaturalArea Completesiteinventoryandmanagementplan,implementmanagementplan.IncludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8,CedarRiverBasinPlan.Continuetoacquirepropertiesastheybecomeavailable.273,908,000$ 5,237,000$ 6,366,000$ 10,370,000$ 188,100$ -$ 188,100$ NARCOProperty DevelopaccordingtoTriͲParkMasterPlantoinclude4"fieldturf"soccerfields,relocatedtrail,parking,picnicfacilities,playarea,restrooms,bikepark/bmxandclimbingwall.ParkincludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.2710,158,000$ 13,613,000$ 16,547,000$ 26,953,000$ 156,400$ 170,000$ 326,400$ CedarRiverTrailCorridor(CityOwned)Secureownershipofremainingrailbankedcorridorland,includeacquiredlandinthesurroundingparksandnaturalareas;maintaincorridorasaregionaltraillinkage.152,741,000$ 3,673,000$ 4,465,000$ 7,273,000$ -$ 25,800$ 25,800$ MaplewoodGolfCourse Continuetomaintainandoperate,acquirepropertyasitbecomesavailable.SeeadoptedMasterPlan,includedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8,andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.CapitalandoperationscostsareoutsideoftheCommunityServicesbudget,withinanenterprisefund.12-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ RiverviewPark ParkinShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.Continuetomaintainfacilities.9388,000$ 520,000$ 632,000$ 1,029,000$ 120,600$ -$ 120,600$ MaplewoodRoadsidePark Continuetomaintainandoperate.IncludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.627,000$ 36,000$ 44,000$ 72,000$ 7,000$ -$ 7,000$ MaplewoodPark Renovaterestrooms.5362,000$ 485,000$ 590,000$ 961,000$ 42,900$ -$ 42,900$ SubtotalCedarRiverPlanningArea39,077,000$ 52,366,000$ 63,653,000$ 103,684,000$ 4,758,100$ 1,397,100$ 6,155,200$ CITYCENTERPLANNINGAREASeniorActivityCenterProperty Phaseoutexistingshopbuildings.RedevelopsiteasaneighborhoodparkwithfuturemultiͲgenerationalspaces.Acquistion,planninganddesignincludedinCityCenterNeighborhoodPark.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.2778,000$ 105,000$ 128,000$ 208,000$ 1,105,300$ -$ 1,105,300$ LibertyParkReͲdevelopaccordingtoTriͲParkPlan.Improveballfieldsintheshortterm.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.253,862,000$ 5,175,000$ 6,290,000$ 10,246,000$ 197,100$ 35,000$ 232,100$ GeneCoulonMemorialBeachPark DevelopfacilityfornonͲmotorizedboating,acquirelandforadditionalparking,expandtechnology,renovateS.beachrestrooms&bathhouse.Highlevelofongoingreinvestmentduetointensiveuse.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgramandWRIA8.244,012,000$ 5,376,000$ 6,535,000$ 10,645,000$ 565,700$ 6,500$ 572,200$ 224 | CITY OF RENTONAPPENDIX C: PROJECT LIST AND COST MODELPROJECTPROJECTDESCRIPTIONTOTALRANKING Total Capital Cost Total Capital Cost Projection5 Years Total Capital Cost Projection10 Years Total Capital Cost Projection20 Years Total Existing Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Proposed Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Operating Cost(Existing + Proposed 2011 Dollars) CITYCENTERPLANNINGAREACedarRiverTrailPark IncludedinCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgram,WRIAandtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.Invasivespeciesremoval,addutilitiesforBoathouse.201,153,000$ 1,545,000$ 1,878,000$ 3,059,000$ 148,600$ -$ 148,600$ BurnettLinearPark* IncludedintheSouthRentonNeighborhoodRedevelopmentPlanandtheCityCenterPlan.Improvementsidentifyexpandingparktothenorth.17433,000$ 581,000$ 706,000$ 1,150,000$ 7,200$ 5,800$ 13,000$ PhilipArnoldParkPotentialpartnershipwithneighboringlandownertoenhanceusability.Improveballfield.PotentialreͲpurposeofactivitybuilding.Renovaterestrooms.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.171,101,000$ 1,475,000$ 1,793,000$ 2,921,000$ 172,100$ -$ 172,100$ CommunityGarden/Greenhouse Continuetomaintainandoperate,expandgarden.PotentialtobelargerneighborhoodParkͲPlanningandacquisitionincludedinCityCenterNeighborhoodPark.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8,andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.OperationsofthissiteareincludedintheEnterpriseFund.1715,000$ 20,000$ 24,000$ 39,000$ 4,000$ -$ 4,000$ Piazza&Gateway Continuetomaintainandoperate.PotentialfuturereͲdevelopmentasBig5isacquiredandexpanded.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.16543,000$ 728,000$ 885,000$ 1,442,000$ 8,100$ 3,300$ 11,400$ CityCenterNeighborhoodPark1 DevelopneighborhoodparkamenitiesatexistingSeniorActivityCentersiteafterphasingoutexistingmaintenancebuildings.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan,ShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheCedarRiverBasinPlan.(SeeSeniorActivityCenterproperty).132,606,000$ 3,492,000$ 4,245,000$ 6,915,000$ 20,200$ 77,400$ 97,600$ BoeingEISWaterfrontPark AnewparkwithlakefrontaccessasnotedintheBoeingComprehensivePlanAmendmentEISdated10/21/03.129,775,000$ 13,099,000$ 15,922,000$ 25,935,000$ -$ 487,500$ 487,500$ VeteransMemorialPark Continuetomaintainandoperate,tilerefurbishment.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.86,000$ 8,000$ 10,000$ 16,000$ 1,500$ -$ 1,500$ TonkinPark Continuetomaintainandoperate.Potentialpicnicshelter.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.7179,000$ 240,000$ 292,000$ 476,000$ 1,100$ 5,000$ 6,100$ JonesPark IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.Adjacenttrailcorridoraddsenoughsizetoserveasafullneighborhoodpark.ParkintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andCedarRiverBasinPlan.634,000$ 45,000$ 55,000$ 90,000$ 42,000$ -$ 42,000$ SitInPark Continuetomaintainandoperate.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.412,000$ 16,000$ 19,000$ 31,000$ 3,200$ -$ 3,200$ SubtotalCityCenterPlanningArea23,809,000$ 31,905,000$ 38,782,000$ 63,173,000$ 2,276,100$ 620,500$ 2,896,600$ EASTPLATEAUPLANNINGAREAEastPlateauCommunityParkAcquireanddevelopnewcommunityparkwithCommunityCenter.2417,988,000$ 24,106,000$ 29,301,000$ 47,728,000$ -$ 371,300$ 371,300$ MayCreek/McAskill Developparkaccordingtodesignguidelines(pkg.,picnic,playarea,hardsurfacecourt,openturfarea,restrooms,trailconnections),create/implementmgt.planaddressingpossiblewetlands.Potentialacquisitiontoincreaseparkusability.204,668,000$ 6,256,000$ 7,604,000$ 12,386,000$ 64,400$ 87,000$ 151,400$ EastPlateauNeighborhoodPark1 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparksouthofSunsetBoulevardandeastofDuvall.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ EastPlateauNeighborhoodPark2 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparknorthofSE128thStreet.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ SubtotalEastPlateauPlanningArea29,168,000$ 39,090,000$ 47,513,000$ 77,394,000$ 64,400$ 653,300$ 717,700$ HIGHLANDSPLANNINGAREAHighlandsParkandNeighborhoodCenterReͲdevelopaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference.Existingpropertyisunderutilizedasconfigured.LocatedwithinthelargerSunsetPlannedActionEISarea.2714,597,000$ 19,561,000$ 23,777,000$ 38,730,000$ 1,180,000$ 1,110,000$ 1,240,000$ HoneyCreekGreenway Completesiteinventoryandmanagementplan,implementmanagementplan.Developsoftsurfacetrail.LocatedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheMayCreekBasinPlan.Continuetoacquirepropertiesastheybecomeavailable.262,886,000$ 3,868,000$ 4,702,000$ 7,659,000$ 32,000$ -$ 32,000$ HighlandsNeighborhoodPark3:SunsetParkDevelopnewparkaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanandPlannedActionEISasareference.172,231,000$ 2,989,000$ 3,633,000$ 5,918,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ NorthHighlandsParkandNeighborhoodCenterPotentialreͲpurposeofActivitybuilding.Designandconstructinclusiveplayground.Potentialforpartnerships.LocatedwithinthelargerSunsetPlannedActionEISarea.161,033,000$ 1,384,000$ 1,682,000$ 2,740,000$ 52,200$ -$ 52,200$ HighlandsNeighborhoodPark1 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparknorthofSunsetBoulevard,westofDuvall.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ HighlandsNeighborhoodPark2 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparksouthofNE3rdStreet.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ GlencoePark* Acquirelandtoexpandusability.12258,000$ 345,000$ 419,000$ 683,000$ 3,400$ 9,800$ 13,200$ KiwanisPark Potentialacquisitiontoexpandparktoincreaseusability.ImprovefieldandinstallADAwalkfromUnionAvenue.PotentiallyreͲpurposeactivitybuilding.12951,000$ 1,275,000$ 1,550,000$ 2,525,000$ 120,100$ -$ 120,100$ HeritagePark IncreaseonͲsitedrainagecapacity.10487,000$ 653,000$ 794,000$ 1,293,000$ 124,600$ -$ 124,600$ WindsorHillsPark Potentialacquisitionstoenhanceparkusabilityandvisibilityfromstreet.10283,000$ 379,000$ 461,000$ 751,000$ 30,200$ 5,600$ 35,800$ SunsetCourtPark* Noadditionalimprovements,maintainuntilreplacedbySunsetPlannedActionEISPark.0-$ -$ -$ -$ 5,400$ (5,400)$ -$ SubtotalHighlandsPlanningArea29,238,000$ 39,182,000$ 47,626,000$ 77,579,000$ 1,547,900$ 1,412,500$ 1,910,400$ KENNYDALEPLANNINGAREAMayCreekGreenway Completesiteinventoryandmanagementplan,acquireadditionallandalongcreekcorridor,installsoftsurfacetrail,trailhead,creekcrossingsandpartnerw/Newcastle.IncludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA8andtheMayCreekBasinPlan.272,643,000$ 3,542,000$ 4,305,000$ 7,012,000$ 25,700$ -$ 25,700$ KennydaleBeachPark* Reconfiguredockforimprovedlifeguarding,renovaterestroom/lifeguardfacility.Acquirelandtoenhanceusability.ParkincludedintheShorelineMasterProgramandWRIA8.21416,000$ 558,000$ 678,000$ 1,104,000$ 84,300$ 4,600$ 88,900$ Table C-4 Project List and Cost Model by Community Planning Area PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL AREAS PLAN | 225PROJECTPROJECTDESCRIPTIONTOTALRANKING Total Capital Cost Total Capital Cost Projection5 Years Total Capital Cost Projection10 Years Total Capital Cost Projection20 Years Total Existing Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Proposed Annual Operating Cost (2011 Dollars) Total Operating Cost(Existing + Proposed 2011 Dollars) KENNYDALEPLANNINGAREAKennydaleLionsPark Renovateaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference.Parkacreageisnotfullydevelopedandcurrentconfigurationoffacilitieslimitsusage.PotentiallyreͲpurposeactivitybuilding.181,448,000$ 1,940,000$ 2,358,000$ 3,841,000$ 95,900$ 40,000$ 135,900$ KennydaleNeighborhoodPark1 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparkwestofIͲ405.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ KennydaleNeighborhoodPark2 AcquireanddevelopaneighborhoodparkeastofIͲ405andnorthoftheMayCreekGreenway.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ SubtotalKennydalePlanningArea11,019,000$ 14,768,000$ 17,949,000$ 29,237,000$ 205,900$ 239,600$ 445,500$ TALBOTPLANNINGAREAPantherCreekWetlands Completesiteinventoryandmanagementplan,acquireadditionallandalongcreekcorridor.ManagedbySurfaceWaterUtility.273,654,000$ 4,897,000$ 5,952,000$ 9,695,000$ 51,800$ -$ 51,800$ EdlundProperty Developparkaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference,createandimplementmanagementplanaddressingclass1wetland.ContinueacquistionstomakeconnectiontothePantherCreekWetland.216,123,000$ 8,206,000$ 9,974,000$ 16,247,000$ 115,400$ 64,600$ 180,000$ Cleveland/RichardsonProperty Developparkaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference,createandimplementmanagementplan.195,991,000$ 8,028,000$ 9,758,000$ 15,895,000$ 154,800$ 65,000$ 219,800$ ThomasTeasdalePark Improveoutfielddrainage.PotentialreͲpurposeofactivitybuilding.16502,000$ 673,000$ 818,000$ 1,332,000$ 127,800$ -$ 127,800$ TalbotHillReservoirPark RenovatesitewithfeaturesthatdifferentiateitfromnearbyThomasTeasedalePark.Potentialcommunitygardensitewithraisedbeds.12408,000$ 547,000$ 665,000$ 1,083,000$ 51,700$ -$ 51,700$ SpringbrookWatershed ManagedbyWaterUtility,notaccessibletothepublic.CapitalandoperationscostsareoutsideofCommunityServicesbudget.9-$ LakeStreetOpenSpace InventoryandmanageaspartofthePantherCreekWetlands,potentialfortreenursery.12,000$ 3,000$ 4,000$ 7,000$ 200$ -$ 200$ PantherCreek4AParcel IncludedinEdlundPropertyconceptplanandmanagementplan.ContinueconnectiontothePantherCreekWetlands.133,000$ 44,000$ 53,000$ 86,000$ 2,700$ -$ 2,700$ SubtotalTalbotPlanningArea16,713,000$ 22,398,000$ 27,224,000$ 44,345,000$ 504,400$ 129,600$ 634,000$ VALLEYPLANNINGAREABlackRiverRiparianForest Developaccordingtodesignguidelinesusingconceptplanasareference,completesiteinventory/managementplan,implementmanagementplan.SiteisintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA9,Green/DuwamishWatershedManagementPlanandtheBlackRiverWaterQualityManagementPlan.275,486,000$ 7,352,000$ 8,936,000$ 14,556,000$ 70,800$ 300,000$ 370,800$ RentonWetlands ContinuetomanageasrequiredbyMitigationBankingAgreements.PortionmanagedbySurfaceWaterUtility.IncludedintheShorelineMasterProgram,WRIA9,Green/DuwamishWatershedPlan.23696,000$ 933,000$ 1,134,000$ 1,847,000$ 104,400$ -$ 104,400$ SubtotalValleyPlanningArea6,182,000$ 8,285,000$ 10,070,000$ 16,403,000$ 175,200$ 300,000$ 475,200$ WESTHILLPLANNINGAREAEarlingtonPark* Potentialacquisitionstoexpandparkusability.15199,000$ 267,000$ 325,000$ 529,000$ 10,000$ 3,000$ 13,000$ WestHillsNeighborhoodPark AcquireanddeveloponeneighborhoodparknorthofRentonAve.133,256,000$ 4,364,000$ 5,304,000$ 8,640,000$ -$ 97,500$ 97,500$ SubtotalWestHillPlanningArea3,455,000$ 4,631,000$ 5,629,000$ 9,169,000$ 10,000$ 100,500$ 110,500$ NOSPECIFIEDLOCATIONTrailExpansion&Development TrailconnectionprojectsfromtheTrailsandBicycleMasterPlanthatareconnectedtoparksandnaturalareas.26200,000$ 268,000$ 326,000$ 531,000$ -$ -$ -$ CorridorAcquisition Acquireorsecurenewpropertiesprovidingimportantlinkagesbetweenparksandnaturalareas.IncludedintheCityCenterPlan.224,000,000$ 5,360,000$ 6,515,000$ 10,612,000$ -$ 40,000$ 40,000$ CommunityGardens Acquirelandand/ordevelopadditionalcommunitygardens,potentiallyaspartofnewneighborhoodorcommunityparks.22437,000$ 586,000$ 712,000$ 1,160,000$ -$ 700$ 700$ DogParks Acquirelandand/ordevelopoffͲleashareasinfourneighborhoodorcommunityparks.20393,000$ 527,000$ 641,000$ 1,044,000$ -$ 12,000$ 12,000$ SportsComplex Acquireplananddevelopa4field(ormore)sportscomplextocentralizecompetitiveplay.1910,800,000$ 14,473,000$ 17,592,000$ 28,656,000$ -$ 267,500$ 267,500$ NonͲmotorizedBoatingFacility DevelopnonͲmotorizedboatingfacility.193,050,000$ 4,087,000$ 4,968,000$ 8,092,000$ -$ -$ -$ Interpretive/EducationCenters Developinterpretive/educationcenter.182,050,000$ 2,747,000$ 3,339,000$ 5,439,000$ -$ 300,000$ 300,000$ TrailheadsandParking Identifyanddevelopappropriateaccesspointstonaturalareas.16200,000$ 268,000$ 326,000$ 531,000$ -$ -$ -$ SkateParks Developnewskateparkwithinacommunitypark.14400,000$ 536,000$ 652,000$ 1,062,000$ -$ -$ -$ SubtotalNoSpecifiedLocation21,530,000$ 28,852,000$ 35,071,000$ 57,127,000$ -$ 620,200$ 620,200$ TOTAL213,789,000$286,502,000$348,245,000$567,259,000$9,758,600$7,205,700$15,914,300$Parksthatoverlapmultipleplanningareasareincludedwiththeareathatmostoftheacreageiswithin.*Parksthathavebeenprovisionallyclassifiedeventhoughtheydonotmeetminimumsizeorotherdesignguidelines.**BoeingEISWaterfrontParkdevelopmentwouldonlyoccuriftheBoeingCompanysurplusedtheRentonfacilities.Table C-4 Project List and Cost Model by Community Planning Area THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Renton Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan Hemos escuchado tus opiniones! Te invitamos una vez más para que revises nuestro trabajo y nos ayudes a perfeccionar la dirección y futuro de los parques, espacios abiertos, de recreación y recursos naturales de Renton: Martes, 28 de Junio Cafetería de la Cascade Elementary School 16022 116th Ave SE Renton WA 98058 6 PM – 8 PM Se servirán refrescos. Habrá una mesa con actividades para entretener a los niños. Disponemos de servicio de traducción al español Preguntas: Llama por teléfono al Departamento de Servicio Comunitario 425.430.6600 O por email mbeitner@rentonwa.gov Para ponerte al corriente del Plan Visita el sitio web rentonwa.gov y clic en la página Renew the Legacy...Fulfill the Vision . Miércoles, 29 de Junio Sala de Banquete de Renton Community center 1715 SE Maple Valley Highway Renton WA 98057 6 PM – 8 PM o a PP endix d : connecting with the community 228 | city of renton A ppendix d : connecting wit H t H e community making the connection The foundation of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan is based on community outreach and feedback. In an effort to reach out to the widest possible audience, the Plan used several different methods. Communication and guidance from City staff, committees and community stakeholders also formed the basis for developing the Plan. A summary of this feedback is provided in Chapter 3, Community Involvement. advertising methods • Press Release for Renton Reporter • Press Release posted on City Web Site • Reader board • Channel 21 • City’s Web Site • “What’s Happening” brochure • Post Cards for identified mailing list • E-Grapevine • Facebook • City Calendar/Renton Reporter Calendar • Renton Patch Notification • Public Meeting Notice • Flyer Distribution • Administrative Report • Project Website • Renton River Days Flyers • E-mail Blasts Primary contacts city of renton boArds And commissions • Airport Advisory Committee • Civil Service Commission • Cuautla Sister City Advisory Committee • Firemen’s Pension Board • Human Services Advisory Committee • LEOFF Board • Municipal Arts Commission • Nishiwaki Sister City Advisory Committee • Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Committee • Parks Commission • Planning Commission • Renton Historical Society Board • Renton Housing Authority • Renton River Days Board • Senior Citizens Advisory Committee p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 229 A ppendix d : connecting wit H t H e community speciAlized groups • Neighborhood Associations • Community Liaisons • Mens & Ladies Club - Golf Course • Friends of Black River • King Conservation District • Highlands Task Force Members • Trout Unlimited • Remote Control Airplanes • Skateboarding • Cricket • Rugby • Football (League) • Soccer • Softball • Renton Rotary • Greater Renton ESL • Refugee Forum city stAff And elected officiAls • Mayor Law, Jay Covington, Marty Wine • City Council Members • All Administrators plAn committees • Interdepartmental Team • Steering Committee • Stakeholder Group • Environmental Focus Group • Organized Outdoor Active Recreation Focus Group • Recreation Service Provider Focus Group clAss system dAtAbAse Recreation Class System Registration Database stAkeHolders • Herons Forever • RUFF • The Boeing Company • Renton School District • Skate Park Advocates THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK aPP endix e : t rails m a P THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL AREAS PLAN | 233APPENDIX E: TRAILS MAP NEWCASTLEMERCERISLANDKENTBELLEVUETUKWILASEATTLESouthcenter Pkwy51st Ave SNE 44th StLake Washington Blvd NN 30th StNE Park Dr112th Ave SE108th Ave SENEwcas123rd Ave SEIsland Crest WayS 240th StE James St164th Ave SE4th Ave NS 151st StSE Jones RdTalbot Rd SSW 16th StWilson Ave 144th Ave SESE 141st StWells Ave SSE 142nd StS 143rd StWilliams Ave S154th Ave SES 196th StS 134th StPark Ave NSE 128th StBronson Way NS 2nd StS Lake Ridge DrNE Sunset Blvd80th Ave SS 112th StMonroe Ave NENE 12th StStrander BlvdSW 27th StSE Fairwood BlvdSE 164th StSE 80th StCoal Creek Pkwy SE138th Ave SE112th Pl SESE Renton Issaquah RdBeacon Ave SM L King Jr Way SSW Langston Rd168th Ave SES 3rd StHardie Ave SWSE 136th St175th Ave SESE 136th StRainier Ave S178th Ave SESE 137th StWhitworth Ave SMorris Ave SMain Ave SSW Sunset Blvd169th Ave SEUnion Ave SEMacadam Rd S68th Ave SShattuck Ave S156th Ave SEN 1st StAirport WayS 132nd StNE 3rd StS 133rd StFactory Ave NTaylor Ave NWMeadow Ave NGarden Ave NSouthcenter BlvdInterurban Ave S61st Ave SN 40th StRainier Ave S57th Ave SN Park DrLake Washington Blvd NCornell Ave S196th Ave SE62nd Ave S64th Ave SS Prentice St148th Ave SESE 204th WayS 208th St108th Way SEBenson Dr SS 212th StNE Sunset BlvdNE 10th StRainier Ave SAberdeen Ave NEPark Ave NKennewick Pl Waters Ave SBurnett Ave N132nd Ave SERenton Ave SNE 27th St51st Ave SSE 192nd St116th Ave SE116th Ave SESE Renton Maple Valley Rd149th Ave SE154th Pl SE128th Ave SESE Petrovitsky RdBenson Dr SESE 176th StSW 41st St65th Ave SS 21st St140th Way SE140th Ave SE51st Ave S53rd Ave STalbot Rd SSW 7th StS 7th StSE 142nd Pl74th Ave SGarden Ave NHouser Way NN 8th St148th Ave SEayCoal Creek Pkwy SEForest Dr SESE 68th S 224th StSE 224th St84th Ave S83rd Ave SUnion Ave NES 129th StWilliams Ave NN 4th StWells Ave N84th Ave S64th Ave STaylor Pl NWNE 4th StEdmonds Ave NEDuvall Ave NENE 4th StNile Ave NES 196th StRenton Ave SMaple Valley HwySE 168th StRainier Ave N124th Ave SESE 208th St196th Ave SE116th Ave SE87th Ave SNE 7th St68th Ave SS 124th StStevens Ave NWN 6th StMonroe Ave NERenton Ave SSunset Blvd NELakemont Blvd SENEwcastle Golf Club RdSE 240th St148th Ave SEAndover Park EAndover Park WS 180th StOakesdale Ave SWSW 43rd StLind Ave SWS 180th StE Valley RdS 43rd StSE Carr RdS Bangor StNE 16th StSE May Valley RdS 228th StS 228th StE Mercer Way132nd Ave SE164th Ave SE78th Ave SN 3rd StLogan Ave NS 130th StBronson Way NESunset Blvd NS Langston Rdr SHouser Way N108th Ave SESW 34th StMinkler Blvd116th Ave SESeward Park Ave SSE 216th St98th Ave SS 218th StSW Grady WayMonster Rd SW68th Ave SAndover Park EMacadam Rd SBurnett Ave S88th Ave SS 212th WayW Valley HwySE 72nd StSE 68th StW Mercer WayUnion Ave NESE 88th Pl124th Ave SEPeter Grubb Rd SE84th Ave SEBenson Rd SS 200th St148th Ave SESE Petrovitsky Rd84th Ave S68th Ave S132nd Ave SEEast Valley Hwy STalbot Rd S177th Ave SESE 144th St58th Ave SS 147th StS Grady Way60th Ave S62nd Ave STukwila PkwyPuget Dr SPuget Dr SEMonterey Pl NESE 192nd StSE 88th StSE 89th Pl192n114thAve SESE May Valley RdBenson Rd SERussell Rd SLincoln Ave NES 178th St108th Ave SE.%ND3TSE 171st WaySE 176th St92nd Ave S106th Ave SENE 10th St3%TH3T160th Ave SE169Maplewood RoadsideParkRiverview ParkCoalCreek ParkKennydaleBeachParkMay CreekGreenwayHazelwoodParkGlencoeParkSierraHeights ParkMayValley ParkKennydaleLions ParkSunsetCourt ParkBrynMawrParkLakeridgeParkHoney CreekGreenwayMaplewoodParkEarlingtonParkRonRegisParkThomasTeasdaleParkTalbotHill Reservoir& ParkMaplewoodGolf CoursePhilipArnoldParkKiwanisParkCougar MountainRegional WildlandParkLakeYoungsParkRentonParkDNRPropertySpringbrookCreekMetroWaterworksParkRentonWetlandsCedar RiverNaturalAreaCedarRiver ParkHeritageParkBlack RiverRiparianForestWatershedPark(undevel)SpringbrookWatershedCleveland/RichardsonPropertyPantherCreekWetlandsMaplewoodParkCountyParkSkywayParkMayCreekGreenwayMayCreekParkMayCreek ParkLakeBorenParkCascadeParkGeneCoulonParkFortDentParkFoster GolfCourseTiffanyParkLakeYoungsWatershedNo PublicAccessNorth HighlandsPark & CommunityCtrBriscoe MeanderParkMacadamWetlandsParkMinklerPond ParkRiverfrontPark57th Ave. S.Mini ParkHazelnutParkIkawaParkTukwilaPondBicentennialParkSoosCreek Parkand TrailSoos CreekPark and TrailSoos CreekPark and TrailSoosCreek Parkand TrailGleneaglesParkBallybunionParkHighlandsTrailsHeritageMorganParkForestViewParkChinaCreek OpenSpaceWindtreeParkTractA ParkClarkeBeach ParkPioneerParkDonegalParkThomas Rouse RoadHistoricalParkChina Falls ParkRedmanParkChinaCreek ParkTraleeParkCougar RidgeEast OpenSpaceLake YoungsTrailheadPetrovitskyParkLake Desire2 NaturalAreaMcGarveyPark OpenSpaceLake StreetParkMay Valley164thNatural AreaCoalfield ParkPark OrchardParkNorthMeridianParkLake YoungsConnectorTrailGreenTreeParkGarrisonCreek ParkSoos Creek140th OpenSpaceLake YoungsTrailBeerShevaParkPritchardIslandBeachAtlanticCity NurserySouthMercerPlayfieldInterurbanTrailInterurbanTrailFredHutchinsonPlaygroundKubotaGardensParkAndersonParkGreenRiverTrail SiteLibertyParkWindsorHills ParkCedarRiverTrailCedarRiver ParkVan DorensLandingParkHighlands Park & N’hood CtrCedarRiver ParkGreenwood Memorial ParkMt. OlivetCemeteryPed. only pathGreen RiverTrailParkCVACBallfieldEdlundFarmMaplewoodHeights ParkCedar RiverBoat HouseLakeBorenGreen RiverShady Lake (Mud Lake)Lake DesireLake YoungsLake WashingtonPanther LakeGreen RiverCedar RiverHighlandsLibraryTukwilaLibraryFairwoodLibrarySkywayLibrarySeahawksTrainingFacilityF.S.Valley Med.CtrN. BensonCtrF.S.Dept. of LicensingF.S.FredMeyerRenton CtrCityHallSam’sClubFairwoodSquareGreaterHighlandCtrSTSounderSta.PostOfficeThomson EarlyChildhoodCenterSartoriEducationCenterHillcrest SpecialServices CenterHighlandsElementaryEmersonElementaryRentonChristianAcademyBrynMawrElementaryTukwilaElementaryRidgewoodElementaryNewcastleElementaryCarriageCrestElementaryRainier ViewElementaryKennydaleElementaryMeekerMiddleSchoolBenson HillElementaryTalbotHillElementaryNelsenMiddleSchoolHazelwoodElementaryRenton ParkElementaryCascadeElementaryFairwoodElementaryMaple ValleyChristianBlackRiver HighSchoolTiffanyParkElementarySaintPaulSchoolLakeridgeElementaryCampbellHillElementaryHoneydewElementarySunriseElementaryEmeraldParkElementarySoos CreekElementaryMaplewoodHeightsElementaryPanther LakeElementaryRentonMemorialStadiumApolloElementarySpringbrookElementarySierraHeightsElementaryMcknightMiddleSchoolLakeYoungsElementarySouth LakeHigh SchoolRainierBeach HighSchoolOliver MHazen HighSchoolRentonTechnicalCollegeRentonHighSchoolLibertyHighSchoolCharles ALindberghHigh SchoolKentridgeHigh SchoolMaywoodMiddleSchoolBriarwoodElementarySchool-ULTI USETRAIL2EGIONAL-ULTI USETRAIL,OCAL"ICYCLE,ANE3IGNEDSHAREDROADWAY0EDESTRIAN ONLYTRAIL&UTURERAILS TRAILSCORRIDOR02/0/3%$2/54%3%8)34).'2/54%3-ULTI USETRAIL2EGIONAL-ULTI USETRAIL,OCAL"ICYCLE,ANE3IGNEDSHAREDROADWAY0EDESTRIAN ONLYTRAIL,EGEND&REEWAY!RTERIAL3TREET,OCAL3TREET0ARK3CHOOL3TATE(WY)NTERSTATE&WY!MENITY/PPORTUNITY,OCATION-!03#!,% MILE©³¬ MILE KILOMETER.7%33/52#%#ITYOF2ENTON+ING#OUNTY')3#ENTER-AY 3EE$OWNTOWN)MPROVEMENTS0LAN7ATER4RAIL,AUNCH,ANDING3ITE4RAILSAND"ICYCLE)MPROVEMENTS0LAN-!94RAILSAND"ICYCLE-ASTER0LAN THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 235 Appendix e : tr A ils m A p Tal bot Rd SWells Ave SWilliams Ave SBronson W ay N S 2nd St S 3rd St Har d i e Av e SWRainier Ave SWhitworth Ave SMorris Ave SMain Ave SShattuck Ave SN 1st St Airport Way Factory Ave NTaylor Ave NWMeadow Ave NGarden Ave NS. 7th St Williams Ave NN 4th StWells Ave NN 6th St N 3rd StLogan Ave NSunset Blvd NHouser Way NBurnett Ave SS G r a d y W a y ONE WAY ONE WAYONE WAYONE WAYONE WAYONE WAY ONE WAY S. 6th St Smithers Ave SHouser N Riv ersid e Dr S. Tillilcum S. Tobin St Lake Ave SS. 5th StS. 4th Pl S . 3 r d P l S. 4th St N 2nd St ONE WAY SW 7th St Shattuck Ave S405 405 GatewayPark PiazzaPark Cedar River ParkPedestrianParkRentonSeniorCenter Cedar River Trail VeteransPark Jones Park Liberty Park Burnett Linear Park Tonkin Park Ced a r R i v e r T r a i l Cedar River RentonMainLibrary Fred Meyer Renton Ctr RentonCityHall Sam’sClub RentonHistoricalMuseum RentonIKEAPerf. ArtsCtr Safeway City CtrParking OldCity HallFireStation PostOfficeSt.AnthonySchool Sartori Education Center Renton Memorial Stadium RentonHighSchool Renton Christian Academy SOURCE: City of Renton, King County GIS Center, May 2007 MAP SCALE 0 1 mile.5.1 ¼½¾0 1 mile 0 1.0 kilometer.5.1 N W E S Multi-use trail, regional Multi-use trail, local Bicycle Lane Signed shared roadway Pedestrian only trail Future rails-trails corridor PROPOSED ROUTESEXISTING ROUTES Paved trail, regional Paved trail, local Bicycle Lane Signed shared roadway Pedestrian only trail Legend Trails and Bicycle Improvements Plan: Downtown MAY 2009 Trails and Bicycle Master Plan THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK aPP endix f: ado P ting r esolution THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 239 A ppendix f: A dopting resolution THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 240 | city of renton A ppendix f: A dopting resolution p A rks, recre A tion A nd n A tur A l A re A s pl A n | 241 A ppendix f: A dopting resolution