DOCSLIB.ORG

Regional Trails Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regional Trails Plan Chapter 7.1: Regional Trails Plan C HAPTER 7.1: R EGIONAL T RAILS P LAN Regional Trails Plan In the summer of 2008, Pierce County began a planning process to improve its existing trail system and prepare for future population growth, implementing a key recommendation and project identified in the PROS Plan. Following the recommendations of the PROS planning process, the intent of the regional trail system is to provide recreational opportunities, promote healthier lifestyles, create connections to major developed areas and destinations, and enhance non-motorized transportation options throughout the County. Pierce County P&RS plans for and develops the regional trails system throughout Pierce County. P&RS seeks partnerships with other agencies such as, Pierce County Public Works, Pierce County Water Management, and other cities and towns within the County. The regional trails element of the PROS Plan takes into account the issues, needs and opportunities identified during the planning process regarding on- and off-street trails. It also presents a set of goals and policies, a regional trail concept and a set of trail design guidelines that will assist the County and its departments, as well as other jurisdictions within the County, in creating a regional trails system; improving connectivity between major destinations and throughout the County’s extensive park and recreation system. This section provides an overview of the regional trails planning process. Trails Planning Process The trails planning process involved a four-step approach for developing the plan and was guided by input from the project team and the technical working group in research, analysis and development of individual plan elements. This approach, along with the review and refinement of the inventory, maps and reports ultimately resulted in the final plan. Summarized below is an overview of the four phased planning process. Phase I: Trails Planning Context. The first phase of the planning process included a review of existing County policies and planning documents that address trails. The Planning Context Report (November 2008) summarizes the trail planning efforts conducted by multiple jurisdictions and organizations within the County as well as the planning efforts of neighboring counties. This phase of also involved a review of federal, state and local regulations that relate to trail planning, design and construction of trails. Pierce County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 101 C HAPTER 7.1: R EGIONAL T RAILS P LAN . Phase II: Trails Inventory and Analysis. Using information and data collected from the previous phase, the planning team created and refined a countywide regional trails inventory, analyzed the existing and planned trails network for gaps, presented alternative trail alignments to close the gaps, classified alignments into a regional trails classification and presented a regional trails system concept. The Needs Assessment Summary Report (May 2009) documents the inventory and analysis phase of the project. Phase III: Trails Plan Development. Based on the first two phases, the planning team developed the core elements of the administrative draft regional trails plan. This included the draft regional trail network, trail goals and policies, trail design guidelines and amenities and costs for development. This phase also included the development of trail project prioritization criteria and the development of a public involvement model that will provide guidance for future trail project implementation. Phase IV: Trails Plan Refinement and Adoption. After the County’s initial review of the Administrative Draft, the final phase of the planning process involved the County’s formal review of the revised Draft Plan. This includes Technical Working Group (TWG) meetings and, a meeting of the Parks & Recreation Citizen Advisory Board. The Draft Plan was then forwarded to the County Council for inclusion in the PROS Plan. The final Regional Trails Plan was adopted by Council as Chapter 7 of the PROS Plan on October 27, 2009. Trails Public Involvement The planning team gathered public input for the plan from the following primary sources. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan (PROS), 2008. The Regional Trails Plan is a continuation of the PROS Plan process. Through the PROS planning effort, the public indicated a need for trail facilities for both recreation and transportation purposes. Key findings from the recreation questionnaire indicate that trails are popular among Pierce County residents. The Regional Trails Plan has incorporated several of the findings from the PROS Plan public involvement process. Pierce County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 102 C HAPTER 7.1: R EGIONAL T RAILS P LAN . Technical Working Group. The TWG was formed to review project materials, provide guidance for the Plan’s direction and to provide technical trails information. This group included County staff and representatives of other agencies including: Parks & Recreation staff, Planning and Land Services, Public Works Transportation, Public Works Water Program, Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, City of Tacoma Transportation Planning, the National Park Service, the Foothills Trail Coalition, the Tacoma Wheelmen, the Washington Water Trails Association and other trail advocates and community leaders. The TWG members provided first hand information regarding the existing and proposed trail alignments, as well as desired linkages to meet existing deficiencies in the trail system. The TWG met at key project milestones to provide review, technical advice and input on plan directions. Project Website. A project website was developed using MIG’s Townsquare™ software for use by the planning team and public. The Pierce Regional Trails Plan website (www.piercetrailsplan.org) served as a resource for information about the Plan and was specifically designed for communication between the project team and the TWG. Trails Plan Framework The Trails Plan Framework serves as a guide for the future development of the Pierce County’s regional trails system. This framework is centered on the Regional Trails Plan’s vision which is carried-out by goals and specific policies that will be used to develop a successful and well planned regional trails system. Trails Vision The desired future of the regional trails system has been condensed into a statement that summarizes the vision for the preferred regional trails system. The vision reflects the preferences of Pierce County residents and decision makers, and builds on the efforts of the State of Washington Trails Plan, Goal 2 of Chapter 5 and the strategies outlined in Chapter 6. Pierce County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 103 C HAPTER 7.1: R EGIONAL T RAILS P LAN The Regional Trail Vision The Pierce County Regional Trails System will be an accessible and seamless trails network used by people of all ages and abilities for recreation and transportation. Pierce County trails will provide users with the opportunity to experience recreation, solitude or companionship, and provide a practical transportation option. It will offer connections to major developed areas and attractions within the County, provide opportunities for appreciation of nature, and connect the County to the greater region. Trail Goals & Policies Goals and policies implement the Plan’s vision and are primarily directed towards the development of the off-street trails network, but in order to develop a comprehensive and seamless trail system on- street trails are included. While goals describe the ultimate outcome of for the regional trails system, policies are more specific and measureable statements designed to achieve the goals. Goals and policies are based on needs and trends discussed throughout this Plan, as well as the direction of the trails planning Technical Working Group. Along with local desires, trail policies must comply with Washington State guidelines. Goal 2A: Healthy Communities Create healthy communities throughout the County by promoting active lifestyles, reducing reliance on personal motor vehicle travel and offering free opportunities for recreation and physical activity. 2A.1. Accommodate all non-motorized transportation modes safely and comfortably. 2A.2. Improve transportation demand management by encouraging use of the regional trails system for commuting. 2A.3. Encourage other County agencies to develop “Complete Streets” that incorporate regional trail routes. Pierce County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan 104 C HAPTER 7.1: R EGIONAL T RAILS P LAN Goal 2B: Accessibility Develop regional trail routes, crossings and trail facilities that are accessible to all. 2B.1. Follow or exceed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) guidelines to ensure equal accessibility for all users. 2B.2. Reduce accessibility barriers and provide safe crossing of the I-5 corridor, railways and other busy transportation routes. Goal 2C: Safety Develop a trail system that is safe for users through the provision of well maintained, visible and open trail corridors and adequate emergency access. 2C.1. Ensure safe trail intersection design based on AASHTO, WSDOT, ADA and ABA guidelines and requirements that takes into consideration visibility, pavement markings, signage, intersection angle, pavement texture, use of color and lighting. 2C.2. Incorporate Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and techniques through the design of open and visible corridors for both users and public safety services and personnel.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2014 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan October 2013 Prepared By: Pierce County Parks and Recreation BERK HBB Landscape Architecture
    DRAFT Pierce County Parks and Recreation Services 2014 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan October 2013 Prepared by: Pierce County Parks and Recreation BERK HBB Landscape Architecture PREFACE Overview This document is a Public Review Draft copy of the 2014 Pierce County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan. This 2014 PROS Plan will guide the Pierce County parks and recreation system through the year 2030. It is an update of the 2008 PROS Plan. This update is required every six years to maintain eligibility for grants administered by the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). The adopted Plan is also designed to meet the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act (GMA), which is codified as Chapter 36.70A Revised Code of Washington. Compared to the 2008 PROS Plan, the 2014 PROS Plan: . Provides revised inventories, demographic conditions, growth projections, needs analysis, revenue forecasts, and capital project phasing. Updates parks and recreation conditions and strategies. Proposes to add a new habitat component using the foundation of Pierce County’s extensive work on critical areas, shorelines, watersheds, and biodiversity plans over the last decade. Summarizes outreach efforts in 2013-2014 and links the input to the PROS Plan needs assessment and PROS Plan proposals. Even with such updates, the 2014 PROS Plan affirms fundamental vision, plan concepts, and policies of the 2008 PROS Plan. As part of the revisions described above, some elements were not retained in the Public Review Draft 2014 PROS Plan: . Executive Summary – with an Introduction and an overall reader-friendly format, an Executive Summary was not included in the Public Review Draft 2014 PROS Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan
    Comprehensive Plan 2015 DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Updated – 2015 CONTRIBUTORS Mayor Joachim Pestinger City Council Planning Commission William Birkes Kelly Cochran Sam Colorossi Arlene Dannat Scott Drennen Greg Hogan Barbara Ford Brandon Hoyt Tod Gunther Jami Moeller Dave Harman Jennifer Sargent Josh Penner Aaron Willits City Staff Consultants Mark Bethune, City Administrator Roger Wagoner, BHC Consultants Ken Wolfe, Building Official Abby Weber, BHC Consultants Dean Kaelin, Public Works Director JC Hungerford, Parametrix Beckie Meek, Parks & Recreation Director Margaret O’Harra Buttz, Planning Commission Secretary Photos courtesy of The Gazette ORTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTRIBUTORS 2015 I Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................... I-1 Elements Land Use ............................................................................... LU-1 Housing ................................................................................... H-1 Transportation ..................................................................... T-1 Economic Development ................................................... ED-1 Shoreline Management ................................................... SM-1 Capital Facilities .............................................................. CF-1 Utilities ................................................................................... U-1 Appendices Land Use ....................................................................... LU.App-1 Housing ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Section 5 Mitigation Strategy Requirements
    Section 5 Mitigation Strategy Requirements Mitigation Strategy---Requirement §201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. Local Hazard Mitigation Goals---Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long- term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. Does the new or updated plan include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions---Requirement §201.6(c)(3) (ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance-- -Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. Does the new or updated plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard? Do the identified actions
    [Show full text]
  • Orting, Washington
    Orting, Washington MZEC Consulting Geographic Location and Physical Site ● Orting is a city in Pierce County, Washington State. ● The city has a total area of 7.25 km2. ● Located 60km South of Seattle and 30km southeast of Tacoma. ● Elevation: 60m ● Population census 2014: 7,266 (84% increase since 2000). Subduction ❖ Movement between tectonic plates where one moves (subducts) under the other. ❖ Cascadia Subduction Zone: ➢ A convergent plate boundary from Vancouver Island to California. Orting is situated along the boundary. Tectonic processes in the zone include accretion, subduction, earthquakes, and active volcanism. ❖ Cascade Volcanos: ➢ Dangerous due to eruptive history and potential. ➢ Past landslides from Cascade volcanoes have affected areas hundreds of kilometers from their point of origin. Volcanic History of Mt. Ranier Volcano Type: Stratovolcano Started to grow 500,000 years ● ago on eroded remains of an earlier ancestral Mt. Ranier that was active 1-2 million years ago Last Eruption: early 19th century, but last truly large eruption over 1000 years ago Hazards of Mt. Ranier ● Lava Flows - primary hazard to people is low, but contact with snow and ice will generate floods and lahars ● Ash/Tephra Fall - explosive magma and rocks ● Pyroclastic Flows - mix of hot lava blocks, pumice, ash and volcanic gas; destroys everything in its path ● Lahars - hot and cold mixture of rack fragments; acts like wet concrete Risks to the Town of Orting ● Puyallup River and Carbon River flow off of the Mountain and surround Orting converging North of the city ● The town is built on a previous Lahar that is 9 meters deep ● Without prior warning, citizens would have 45 minutes to evacuate with only one main highway heading north out of the city Recommendations ● At this point there is an insufficient evacuation plan for the Orting School District which poses further risk if a College is built in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • SR 162: SR 410 Jct (Sumner) to SR 165 Jct This 17-Mile Long East-West Corridor Is Located Southeast of the Cities of Tacoma and Puyallup
    Corridor Sketch Summary Printed at: 1:42 PM 8/20/2018 WSDOT's Corridor Sketch Initiative is a collaborative planning process with agency partners to identify performance gaps and select high-level strategies to address them on the 304 corridors statewide. This Corridor Sketch Summary acts as an executive summary for one corridor. Please review the User Guide for Corridor Sketch Summaries prior to using information on this corridor: SR 162: SR 410 Jct (Sumner) to SR 165 Jct This 17-mile long east-west corridor is located southeast of the cities of Tacoma and Puyallup. The corridor travels between the State Route 410 interchange in Sumner and the SR 165 junction in South Prairie. This corridor runs through the cities of Sumner, Orting, and town of South Prairie. The corridor’s character is suburban with residential and agricultural land uses. Between Sumner and Orting, there are large residential subdivisions with connections to the plateau located northeast of Orting. Between Orting and the SR 165 junction in South Prairie, the character of the corridor is primarily rural with natural areas; few residences are scattered throughout the vicinity. The Puyallup River runs parallel with the corridor until passing under the McMillin Bridge. The Carbon River splits off from the Puyallup River, resulting in both rivers running parallel to the highway for a short stretch. Vegetation along the corridor is primarily farmland and a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees. The corridor passes through flat terrain throughout its length. Current Function SR 162 is an important north-south link for the Orting communit y and surrounding area of southeast Pierce County.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. PUBLIC HEARING A. AB18-92-2019 Budget-Ordinance No
    REVISED 11.10.18 Councilmembers Orting City Council Position No. Special Meeting & Special Study 1. Tod Gunther Session Meeting Agenda 2. John Kelly Orting Multi-Purpose Center 3. Michelle Gehring 202 Washington Ave. S, Orting, WA 4. Dave Harman November 14th, 2018 5. Nicola McDonald 6p.m. 6. Greg Hogan 7. Scott Drennen Mayor Joshua Penner, Chair - Special Meeting Deputy Mayor Dave Harman- Chair -Special Study Session Meeting *The Special Meeting Starts at 6:00pm, followed by the Special Study Session Meeting. SPECIAL MEETING 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND ROLL CALL. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons wishing to address the City Council regarding items that are not on the agenda are encouraged to do so at this time. In the case of a question, the chair willrefer the matter to the appropriateadministrative staffmember or committee. 3. PUBLIC HEARING A. AB18-92-2019 Budget-Ordinance No. 2018-1037, An Ordinance Of The City Of Orting, Washington Relating To The Annual Budget For Fiscal Year 2019; Adopting The City Of Orting2019 Budget; Adopting The Job Classification And Pay Range For Employees. • Scott Larson Open the Hearing and Announce the Title, Read the Rules. Briefing by Staff, Public Comments Taken, Council Comments or Questions, Close Hearing. Requests for Consent Agenda Items to Be Pulled For Discussion. 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. Study Session Minutes of October 17th, 2018. B. Special Meeting Minutes of October 30, 2018. C. Payroll and Claims Warrants. Motion: Move to approve Consent Agenda as prepared. OR Motion: To approve Consent Agenda with the exception of agenda item(s) #___ _ Consent Agenda Items Pulled For Discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitigation Strategy Requirements
    Section 5 Mitigation Strategy Requirements Mitigation Strategy---Requirement §201.6(c)(3): The plan shall include a strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools. Local Hazard Mitigation Goals---Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long- term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. Does the new or updated plan include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions---Requirement §201.6(c)(3) (ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions: National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Compliance-- -Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy] must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate. Does the new or updated plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects for each hazard? Do the identified actions
    [Show full text]
  • Mount Rainier Lahar Survey
    BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE Davis, M; Johnston, D.; Becker, J.; Leonard, G.; Coomer, M. and Gregg, C. 2006. Risk perceptions and preparedness: Mt Rainier 2006 community assessment tabulated results, GNS Science Report 2006/17 43p. M. Davis, Dominican University of California, San Rafael, California D. Johnston, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt J. Becker, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt G. Leonard, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt M. Coomer, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt C. Gregg, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hawaii © Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited, 2006 ISSN 1177-2425 ISBN -0478-09938-X i CONTENTS ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................................II KEYWORDS ............................................................................................................................II 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1 2.0 SURVEY INSTRUMENT ..............................................................................................3 3.0 PROCEDURE...............................................................................................................3 4.0 RESULTS.....................................................................................................................5 5.0 KEY FINDINGS ..........................................................................................................20 6.0 REFERENCES
    [Show full text]
  • Fostering Participation of Local Actors in Volcanic Disaster Risk Reduction
    Fostering Participation of Local Actors in Volcanic Disaster Risk Reduction Jake Rom Cadag , Carolyn Driedger, Carolina Garcia, Melanie Duncan, J.C. Gaillard, Jan Lindsay and Katharine Haynes Abstract Studies of recent volcanic crises have revealed that official evacuation and contingency plans are often not followed by communities at risk. This is primarily attributable to a lack of long-term coordination and planning among concerned stakeholders, and in particular, a lack of participation of local populations in disaster risk reduction (DRR). A lack of participation suggests the prevalence of top-down approaches, wherein local people are disengaged or even excluded in the development of DRR plans. It is not surprising, therefore, that existing plans are often non-operational, nor acceptable to the people for whom they are intended. Through an investigation of case studies at Mount Rainier (USA) and Bulusan (Philippines), and references to volcanoes elsewhere, this chapter aims to determine the key principles and important considerations to ensure peoples’ participation in volcanic DRR. The chapter discusses key factors that encourage local empowerment, engagement, influence, and control in development of plans and actions. It adds information to the existing literature about how participatory approaches can encourage contributions by both local and outside actors, the latter providing knowledge, resources and skills when unavailable at local levels. Such approaches promote dialogue and co-production of knowledge between the community and outside actors. Contributions from multiple and diverse stakeholders M. Duncan J.R. Cadag (&) UCL/CAFOD, London, UK University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines J.C. Gaillard Á J. Lindsay e-mail: [email protected] The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand C.
    [Show full text]
  • Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan
    WORKING DRAFT October 2008 Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan October 2008 Pierce County Department of Emergency Management Page 1 of 111 Mount Rainier Volcanic Hazards Plan WORKING DRAFT October 2008 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. 2 CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 2: WORK GROUP APPROACH AND PLAN MAINTENANCE ................................... 5 CHAPTER 3: SYNOPSIS OF MOUNT RAINIER VOLCANIC HAZARDS .................................... 9 CHAPTER 4: SITUATION ................................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER 5: MONITORING AND EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION .......................................... 27 CHAPTER 6: COMMAND AND EVACUATION.............................................................................. 49 CHAPTER 7: COLLECTION AND SHELTERING .......................................................................... 62 CHAPTER 8: MITIGATION ................................................................................................................ 70 CHAPTER 9: EMERGENCY INFORMATION ................................................................................. 74 CHAPTER 10: PUBLIC EDUCATION/LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC AWARENESS & PREPAREDNESS .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • General Election Pierce County November 7, 2017 Official Local Edition 2 - East and South Pierce County Voters’ Pamphlet
    General Election Pierce County November 7, 2017 Official Local Edition 2 - East and South Pierce County Voters’ Pamphlet Look for Your Ballot October 20 MessageMessage from from the the Auditor Auditor Dear Pierce County Voter - Leaves are turning. The Seahawks are playing. And voter registration events are in full swing. All signs that fall has arrived! There’s always a big push to register voters before the November Election. It’s no accident that National Voter Registration Day is September 26th, 2017. And now through October, the Pierce County Auditor’s Offi ce is mounting a “500,000 Voters” campaign. We’re determined to break the half-million mark for active registered voters. Washington State’s voter registration rate is quite healthy, regularly in the top quarter of the nation. During the 2016 General Election we ranked 10th in the nation for voter turnout, with a registration rate of 77.1%. Pierce County followed very closely with 76.8% voter registration. We shouldn’t rest on our laurels. Making voter registration easy is the fi rst necessary step to- ward voting and it deserves our attention. If we narrow our focus to the voting eligible population, you’ll fi nd that we’ve registered rough- ly 83% of the eligible population. That leaves just 17% eligible adults to register. The low hang- ing fruit has been harvested. We’re going to need a ladder to reach the rest! The legislature and election administrators are considering several different solutions: • Automatic Registration – individuals with an enhanced driver’s license, commercial license, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan Appendices
    FINAL Pierce County Parks and Recreation 2014 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan Appendices B-I Adopted February 2014 Prepared by: Pierce County Parks and Recreation BERK Consulting HBB Landscape Architecture B. Park & Facility Inventory APPENDIX B: PARK AND FACILITY INVENTORY Table B-1: PCPR Park and Facility Inventory by Classification 1 Outdoor Recreation Amenities Site Amenities Park Structures Park Total Acreage Comments Playgrounds Courts: Paved Basketball Tennis Courts: Paved Fields Soccer Fields Baseball Fields Softball Sport Fields Other Boat Ramp or (Swimming Beach Access) Waterfront Pathways/Trails Benches Picnic Tables Fountains Drinking Parking Areas Restrooms Picnic Shelters Recreation Center Residence Caretaker's Other REGIONAL PARKS Spanaway Regional Park Bresemann Forest 65.85 Y 18 hole course, driving range, putting green, clubhouse with pro shop, café, and Lake Spanaway Golf Course 128.80 -------- - YYNNY2 0 NYYrestrooms. Spanaway Park 88.87 1 2 - - 1 - 4 1 Y Y Y Y Y Y 45NNY Pavilion with boat/canoe rentals and bait sales. 2 swimming areas. 2 climbing rocks, skate park. Restroom/concession building. SRC contains an ice rink, 4 tennis courts, 5 racquetball courts, concessions, tennis pro shop, locker Sprinker Recreation Center 43.76 1267171- - YYYYY1 0 YNYrooms, sheriff substation, 3 classrooms, restrooms. Chambers Creek Regional Park Chambers Bay Golf Course 340.45 Chambers Creek Canyon 204.63 Y Part of Regional Park. Previously categorized as Undeveloped in 2008. Chambers Creek Canyon - Davis (28.10) Chambers Creek Canyon - Dyer (86.70) Chambers Creek Canyon - Hartley (8.60) Chambers Creek Canyon - Lakewood (43.50) Chambers Creek Canyon Park-Baldwin (1.30) Chambers Creek Canyon (Park) (43.90) Chambers Creek Canyon (WH) (1.30) Acreage for wastewater treatment plant and treatment plant expansion (160 acres) is not counted.
    [Show full text]