CITY OF KENMORE WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 13-0368
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KENMORE, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING ANNUAL AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; REPEALING THE EXISTING PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; ADOPTING THE PARK, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN AS THE NEW PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DESIGN SUB- ELEMENT Of THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the City’s Comprehensive Plan shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a process for reviewing annually amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, certain amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, including the Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, were proposed for the 2013 amendment process; and
WHEREAS, throughout the Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan process, a concerted effort has been made to generate public involvement, including a public open house, the 2013 Parks Citizen Survey, the 2013 National Citizen Survey, online community surveys, community intercept surveys, a Recreation Provider/User questionnaire, and an updated web page devoted to the Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan: and
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2013, the City provided notice of the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (“proposed amendments”) to the Department of Commerce as required by RCW 36.70A.106; and
WHEREAS, on October 31, 2013, the City’s Responsible Official under the State Environmental Policy Act issued a Determination of Nonsignificance for the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2013, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments and held a public hearing; and
-1- WHEREAS, on October 21, 2013, the Planning Commission presented its final recommendations on the Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, having considered the mandates and requirements of the Growth Management Act, as well as the Planning Commission recommendation, the City Council desires to amend the Comprehensive Plan as set forth in this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to repeal the existing Parks. Recreation and Open Space Element of the City of Kenmore Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the proposed Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan as the new Patks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the City of Kenmore Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS. the City Council desires to amend the Commitnity Design Sub-Element of the City of Kenmore Comprehensive Plan to incorporate two objectives and associated tables from the existing Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt Appendix D — Capital Improvement Progtarn of the proposed Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan as an amendment to the Capital facilities Element of the City of Kenmore Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Of KENMORE, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings Adopted. The City Council adopts the foregoing recitals as findings, which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
Section 2. Repealer. The City Council hereby repeals the Parks. Recreation and Open Space Element of the City of Kenmore Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 07-0272.
Section 3. Adoption of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is adopted as the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the City of Kenmore Comprehensive Plan.
Section 4. Amendments to the Community Design Sub-Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Objectives and Policies under Goal 10 of the Community Design Sub-Element of the City of Kenmore Comprehensive Plan are amended as shown in Exhibit 3, attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
Section 5. Amendments to the Capital Facilities Element of the Cornrehensive Plan. Appendix D — Capital Improvement, of the Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan adopted by Section 3 of this Ordinance, as set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is adopted as an amendment to the Capital Facilities Element of the City of Kenmore Comprehensive Plan.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication.
-2- PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT A REGULAR MEETFNG ON THE 25TH DAY Of NOVEMBER, 2013.
CITY
Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Patty SafinityOClerk Approvd-1as/ to form; ‘od P. Kasegurna, ç’, Attorney
filed with the City Clerk: November 15, 2013 Passed by the City Council: November 25, 2013 Ordinance No.: 13-0368 Date of Publication: November 29, 2013 Effective Date: December 4, 2013
-3-
November
The
TO
BE
City
INSERTED
of
25,
Kenmore
2013,
is INTO
Park,
the
City’s
Recreation
THE
Parks,
COMPREHENSIVE
and
Recreation
Open
Space
and
PLAN:
Plan,
Open
adopted
Space
Element.
by
Ordinance
See
associated
13-03
68
on
document.
EXHIBIT A
and
Plan
November
Park, City
Open
of
Recreation
Kenmore
2013 Space Open
Kenmore
Table Contents i•:•:..::z: Space Park, Plan
Recreation of i Page and Section Title Page (s) I Acknowledgements City of Kenmore Vision Statement ii Section One Executive Summary 1-5 Cover Page 1 Executive Summary 2-4 Section Two Plan Context, Land Use, 1-6 Geography, Demographics Cover Page 1 Planning Area 2 Current Land Use and 3 Development Geography and 3-5 Natural Environment Demographics 6 Section Three Classifications, Inventory and Level 1-20 of Service Guidelines Cover Page 1 Park Classifications 2 Neighborhood Parks 3-4 Community Parks 5-6 Waterfront Parks 7-8 Nature Parks 9-10 Linear Parks 11 Open Space 12-13 School Lands 13-16 Regional Parks 17 Level of Service Guidelines 17-19 Section Four Guiding Fundamentals and Policy 1-16 Support Cover Page 1 Principal Condition 2 Key Values 3 Major Issues 3-4 Opportunities 4-6 Policy Support 6-15
21 Page Section 5 Recommendations 1-48 Cover Page 1 Capital Recommendations 2-37 Acquisition Project 7-17 Development Projects 18-35 Renovation Projects 36-37 Operational Recommendations 38-40 Recreation Programs 38 Management and Maintenance 39-40 Financing Options 41-47
Appendices I Cover Sheet Appendix A (Park Master Plans) AA1-7 Appendix B (Public Involvement) AB1-87 Appendix C (Habitat Conservation AC1-3 Element) Appendix D (Capital Improvement AD1 Program) Appendix E(Prototype Facility Cost AE1 Estimates/Project Cost Estimates Figures and Tables
List of Figures Section One Description Page 1.1 Photo: Example “WaterWalk” 2 1.2 Photo: Example “WaterWalk” 2
List of Figures Section Two Description Page 2.1 Map: City Limits 2 2.2 Map: City Zoning 3 2.3 Map: City Shorelines/Wetlands 4 2.4 Photo: Squire’s Landing Habitat Restoration 5 2.5 Map: Squire’s Landing Habitat Restoration 5
List of Tables Section Two Description Page 2.1 City Population 6
31 Page r 3.17 3.16 3.15 3.14 3.11 3.13.6 3.13.5 3.12.2 3.13.1 3.13 3.10 3.13.4 3.13.3 3.12 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6.3 3.8.2 3.8.1 3.6.2 3.6.1 3.6 3.5 3.4.1 3.4 3.3 3.2.3 3.2.1 3.2 3.2.2 3.1 Section List of Figures Three Parks Map: Photo: Map: Photo: Photo: Map: Map: Map: Squire’s Map: Map: Photo: Map: Map: Map: Photo: Map: Map: Map: Map: Photo: Map: Map: Photo: Map: Map: Moorlands Photo: Northshore Linwood Map: Photo: Description Arrowhead Geographic School Open Wallace Squire’s Bastyr Inglemoor Ken Waterfront Kenmore Moorlands Linear Nature Rhododendron Community Log Rhododendron Neighborhood Swamp St. Wallace Heron Kenmore Burke-Gilman Rhododendron Log Linwood Landing Park more Boom Edward Park Boom Summit Space Parks University Lands Parks Rookery Swamp Landing Creek Junior Elementary Swamp Park Park Park High Elementary Elementary Elementary Parks Park LOS, Parks State Park Corridor Parks Park Trail Park School High Creek Park Neighborhood Park Creek Park School School Park School School School
Park I Page 13 19 17 16 15 14 12 11 10 10 18 18 15 15 15 14 11 10 8 8 9 8 8 4 4 4 7 6 4 6 5 3 41P age List of Tables Section Three Description Page I 3.1 Inventory: City Park Acreage 2 3.2 Inventory: Neighborhood Parks 3 3.3 Inventory: Community Parks 5 3.4 Inventory: Waterfront Parks 7 3.5 Inventory: Nature Parks 9 3.6 Inventory: Linear Parks 11 3.7 Inventory: Open Space 12 3.8 Level of Service Guidelines: Existing and 19 Desired
List of Figures Section Four Description Page I 4.1 Photo: “WaterWalk” 4 4.2 Photo: Dog Park 5 4.3 Photo: Civic Plaza 10 4.4 Photo: Recreation Opportunity 11 4.5 Photo: Bastyr University Ballfields 14
List of Tables Section Four Description Page I None
List of Figures Section Five Description Page 5.1.1 Map: Capital Recommendations, Acquisitions 4 5.1.2 Map: Capital Recommendations, Development 4 5.1.3 Map: Capital Recommendations, Renovation 5 5.2 Photo: WaterWalk 18 5.3 Photo: Civic Plaza 23 5.4 Photo: Picnic Shelter 27 5.5 Photo: Boardwalk 34 List of Tables Section Five Description Page 5.1 List: Capital Recommendations summary 6 5.2 List: Financing Options 46-47
51 Page AcknQwlecigernents
City Council David Baker, Mayor Bob Hensel, Deputy Mayor Milton Curtis Glenn Rogers Brent Smith Laurie Sperry Allan VanNess
Planning Commission Douglas Nugent, Chair Angela Kugler, Vice Chair Jim Howard Doug Huxtable Dennis Mendrey Mark Ohrenschall Mike Vanderlinde
Staff
Rob Karlinsey, City Manager Debbie Bent, Director of Community Development Marc Connelly, Parks Planning and Development Manager Lauri Anderson, Senior Planner Jennifer Gordon, Public Works Operations Manager Nancy Meehan, Administrative Assistant
ii Page
To
share
As
life
Kenmore businesses
• •
•
• •
• •
•
• •
•
•
•
•
achieve
we
as
that A A
A
A
of A
A A
A
provides resources education A A
streets, A
providing destinations
buildings civic, significant A
A
choice
citizens, A
neighborhoods,
and
and
look
community
community
community
community
community
community a
community
community
community community
community
all
community
community
community
as...
place
is
seeks
support
its
cultural
and
this
into
open
of
citizens
and
transit
quality
and
attractive
for
visitors
vision,
opportunities
out
to
open
the
to
this
promotes
passive
that
and
that
places
that
with
that
live,
with
with
that
and
with
with
with
and
future,
that
that
employment
space,
that
which
vision
routes,
City
responsible
park find
is
is
fosters
integrates manages
an
values
raise
is
clear
an
living
clear
an a
a
supports
attentive
and
family
actively
good attractive,
special
has twenty
network
informed
spaces,
offers volunteerism
and
for
of
economic
children,
public
active
accommodations,
sidewalks,
diversity
design
a
Kenmore.
trees
preserved
partner sense Kenmore
friendly
its
public
opportunities
a
with
commitments
years
to,
and
integrated
traffic
protects
range
recreation,
priorities
of
vital,
citizenry
standards
and
of
shop,
welcoming,
base
parks,
encourages
with
input from
with
belonging
and
well,
seeks
of
pedestrian-friendly
the
that
citizens
housing
work,
natural
with
that
a
now,
Vision
working
trails,
trails,
and
and
small
and
to
creating
character
in
provides
higher
efficiently
courteous
provide and
we
planning
is
waterfront
recreate,
promotes
quality
and
open
town
types
united
and
linking
see
with
pride,
Statement
governments
attractive,
density
Kenmore
for,
feeling,
spaces,
for
environmentally
and
of
an
schools,
and
by
and
people,
makes
city
and
compatible
significant
access
the
the
open,
its
a
prices
housing
resources
safe
effectively
center
socialize.
health,
that
and
needs
single
functional,
use
as
offering
diverse
responsive
and
to
throughout
a
recognizes
recreational
of
offering
place
ensure
housing
regional
safety,
effective
of
the
family
will
In
utilizes
sensitive
a
its
and
vast
that
high
2020,
be
and
an
citizens
commercial,
government
and
the
continuing
made.
residential
its
skills
and
ii
system
residents,
adequate
quality
its
enduring
facilities
I
welfare
we
history, region
P
public
areas,
a
of
local
and
g
We
see
its
of
e of
Open
Section
Kenmore
Summary
Executive
Space
Park,
1
Plan Recreation i
Page and Since Sammamish distinct attracting significant The be public accomplish give Given key (Linear by donations, six-year and The priority. not access. by dreams and public Using
Kenmore. provides Executive the the a strategy known capital appraisals 2013 reflects significant component 2003, the local moorage waterfront year public, Parks). Figure benefit big However, capital Given goals Park, importance business portion In voter until guidelines investment and the many 2035, 1.1 the of River. general levels Photo: are and this While consideration the to improvement Recreation city and sets community’s a
of Summary approved of plus specific access Kenmore the conducted. is this and magnitude objectives Water Example plan has of these non-motorized lofty, largely the Kenmore for of plan 2.12 service is plan. new invested is public for estimated plan service “ project yet access Water to recommended and capital does miles as inaccessible the residents. acquire to program changing for achievable is guidelines Walk” of parks Further, Open enjoys access additional community. updated not over levels the facilities, of the is bond designed trails boating at have limit and potential Space development $4 to over between (CIP) (Trust the needs. Washington the waterfront the and access recommends master Linear issues to the million have goals at the develop and a projects. funding including the city positive for 8,000 city’s City (PROS) least facilities, is determines city’s city or Public approximately more Parks been corridor and costs toward public Heavily will plan Council $40 specific in every central from lineal more Land, waterfront other park-related options, on Plan of need economic suitable that developed and and and identified beaches, developing need for parks, 2006). Lake creating based pursuing six along feet through waterfront the represents property the $48 Waterfront would approximately creative environmental years to including funding of for recreation 2,900 million. upon value and in publicly for more include projects. public opportunities to its the a or methods Figure trail waterfront “WaterWalk” lineal ensure the public that adoption for strategy properties Parks plan, active reliance More 1.2 access. connections owned city’s and a homes 54 is reasons. Photo: feet chain This input, central the forming it additional to accurate open park remains vision, and of Example of finance on parks city investment as waterfront, This and of are a waterfront this and spaces they grants, project spaces budget to open Therefore will for a identified plan “ identified and and Water the PROS public costs waterfront current park and 21 arise. need spaces, and also City trails Walk” in and Page has are plan a acres to a
This
Open
Six
oriented Wetlands
Public
identified
business 2003
partnership
Park
•
• •
• significant
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Plan
projects
Space
include
Proposes
Facilities forecasts
estimates facilities
establishes
recommends involvement
implement
recommends
improvements and
inventories
The
The
development The
Improved opportunities open
The
The
enhance
programs,
Staff
questionnaire,
Public
National
Information
Direction
establishes
organizations,
strategy
as
(3
desire
desire
desire
programs; desire
desire
planning
with
input;
spaces,
parcels).
part
acquisition
themes
hearings
included
the
Citizen
and
demand
an
and
and
Plan,
the Bastyr
of
a
to
to
will
to
to
for
the
goals
and
balanced was
gathered
image
this
implementation
a public
park,
enhance
create
have
create
desired
of
and: (e.g.
programs;
vision
value
increasing
more
These
emerged
need
framework
and
to
Plan
the
and
support
Survey,
government,
including
essential
evaluates
University
Plan.
and
meet
and
non-motorized
more
and
public
of
renovation
facilities
adoption.
recreation
to
public
from
a
a
of
projects
through
transfer
park
the
from
central
level
network
the
be
proposed
objectives
the
needs
during
ongoing
facilities
local
awareness
the
continued
hearings;
city
to
park
for
access
system,
to
projected
public
funding
of
existing
the
and
were
civic
City
outside
opportunities
guiding
utilizing
construct
from
service
for
program
the
of
of
the
user
and
development
community
the
(e.g.
Rhododendron,
capital
non-motorized
along
for
Council
workshops,
future
boat
gathering
year
public
made
streetscapes,
King
and
experience
open
to
public
Kenmore
opportunities
park,
funding
the
guidelines;
needs
restrooms,
unifying
achieve
launch
the
2035.
athletic
satisfaction
County
concurrent
possible
park,
involvement
future
improvements; and
space
Ken
for
park,
recreation
place
on-line
identified;
agencies,
the
the
of
waterfront.
and
themes
the
active
more
at
fields.
recreation
of
capital
for
and
this
connections
Linwood,
picnic
through
2013
Planning
(town
public
recreation,
Squire’s
kayak
goals
that
Kenmore surveys,
with
with
public
waterfront. Plan
and
process:
such
Park
Parks
and
and
facilities)
and
square)
and
park
could
facilities).
the
and
passive
and,
grants
the
and
Commission;
Landing
and
art.
citizens.
properties
as
open
Recreation
recommendations
Citizen
Kenmore
operational
and
facilities
Parks,
included:
and
City’s
signage,
Log
be
open
in
and
and
linkages
recreation.
space;
considered
downtown
open
Park,
Boom
Recreation
Survey,
This
adopted
partnerships
new
space
through
acquired
park
beautification
Provider/User
and
space
partnership-
Parks
to
recreation
system.
facilities
the
parks,
Inglewood
3f
Capital
and
to
the
and
and
since
2013
Page
with
to a
city the This
acreage,
2006, The
document
Significant
be
consistent
great
limits.
2013
plan
2007
miles
acknowledges
recession.
Plan
that
and
with
or
replaces
is
Changes
2009.
shoreline
simple,
common
Finally,
This
the
new
readable,
plan
lineal
2003
terms
the
Included
or
revised
recognizes
plan
Park
feet,
and
clear
updates
Master
and
definitions.
Comprehensive
and
in
focuses
a
this
trend concise.
the
Plan.
land
Plan
on
in
New
The
slower
facilities
New
inventory
Plan
goal
level
park
supporting
population
of
of
and
the
land
service
to
services
2013
reflect
classifications
guidelines
policies
growth
plan
accurate
located
was
adopted
as
to
a are
are
within
property
result
provide
41P
adopted.
used
in
the
age
of
to a
Space
Section Ken
Demographics
Geography,
Land Plan
•
more
Plan Park,
•••,•
2
Context:
Use,
Recreation
and
lip
Open age
The
The
and conditions, Space
contains This
background geography,
contributors and
Kenmore
Planning
Context
other
city’s
planning
proposed
section
Plan
detailed
Parks
adopted
land
is
city
current
regarding
contains Area
to
defined
area
delivery use
this
history,
Recreation
information
for
Comprehensive
related land
perspective
a
by
the
environmental
of
discussion
transportation,
the
use,
park,
City
issues.
and
city
people
and
of
open Open
are
limits.
of Plan
history
the
and
space
various
partners. and Figure (see Legend Land fl
— — recreation
2.1 elements SDms y By Use Map: Element ñ H City,
Limits
that services — pgs PaOMC
4A-3-5 provide C
2009 to City
— Kenmore
Kenmore context 5O — of Kenmore Comprehensive
3O
to
residents.
±
the
existing 2IPage -
Plan), Key The Washington
environment, Current multi-family Figure Mded.Jeme2OI2b04 MDbb4yto11 — — — — P current *gIW thes. 2.2 E-G’ Map: es
eesese Land — land TI waterfront, residential City £ GC+ 12.03e including Zoning Official tobe use
P.bsabetthee54tesgth Use and Zoning the R-12q,. development R4
R. and along Reae IR development 15’S.I Sammamish Map
DgpA Development
with I City wetlands — — G are #2 -t of pattern River concentrated Feet Kenmore and 4.000 and are steep Swamp strongly along ravines. Creek influenced the - stream Commercial 5R522 the SR522 feet) feet with The Washington
6.15 Sammamish Geography Club. space with
lnglewood
lineal Natural Bastyr Edward public Kenmore Environment land by key majority corridors, corridor of square the use roughly and feet) the land and and University, shoreline intersection State exception is activities along is city’s 68 th private single tracts Golf approximately miles (21,000 River and 39,000 of Park Lake Avenue
the and natural and remaining on family, surround at and
in 31 (18,000 open and and of St. Country Lake of area, lineal lineal Page large the NE. _____
Identifying Kenmore’s natural resources is an important component of the Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan. The natural environment provides habitat for fish and wildlife, enhances water, air and soil quality, and provides areas for passive recreation. Many of the city’s existing parks are located beside or Figure 2.3 Map: CityShoreline/Wetland Areas contain a creek, river, or —I- freshwater shoreline, wetlands or significant forested areas. The City of Kenmore is unique in the abundance of natural systems that weave in and around the city, connecting the different neighborhoods through stream corridors, sensitive areas, and ravines to the Sammamish River and Lake Washington as illustrated in Figure 2.3. These natural elements have defined and continue to affect Kenmore’s community setting. These geographical issues provide both opportunities and constraints for meeting park and recreation demands of the city.
While limited opportunity exists for assembling parcels large enough for use as Community Park land, this is offset by the presence of unique environmentally sensitive areas, which can provide significant Shoreline Master Program Update City of Kenmore wildlife habitat and
N M2 opportunities for appropriate ShoefmePanaigAra5 A. public access and educational W II 2T. opportunities.
41 Page
Figure
and Critical
habitat
of which
animal overall
Kenmore. communities. The
In connections
provides diverse
wetlands,
areas, and
habitat Wildlife
2006 both •
2.5
in
other natural
Map:
contributes
that
2012
upland shoreline.
left
corridors
Swamp communities
Areas
health
areas
for
the
the
plant
Habitat
essential sensitive
Squire’s
undeveloped
in
Kenmore’s
provide
plant
city
systems
adopted
and the
Ordinance
and
including:
and
conifer
Creating
Creek adopted
Landing/Swamp
contains
corridors
city
and
animal
St.
to
viability
habitat
critical
areas
in
in
the
the
Edward
of
Corridor
forest
Kenmore
just
its
Shoreline approximately
Creek
over
in State Figure
- the
Habitat
This
include .56
2.4
city.
Master
Park area
Restoration
miles. Photo:
has
woodlands,
2.4 and
Squire’s
Program
St.
the miles
Plan
its Edward
Landing longest
(2012)
associated
of
noting
ravines, streams.
Park
Park undeveloped
Restoration
three
wetland,
also
The
vegetation from
westward the
of
corridors associated
development,
miles
Kenmore. Kenmore
Lake ripärian
linear
•
Sammamish primary
Project
contains
river
contributes
Lake
and
Sammamish
Lake
ravines
corridors,
stretch shoreline
2013
also
and
contains
4
into Sammamish
As
wetlands,
remains
miles
wildlife
Washington
the
a
floodplain.
contains
very
Lake
and
result
of
River
largest
about
of
shorelines,
within
about
lake
little
along
riparian
Washington.
and
River
shoreline
riparian
of
as
its
generally
shoreline
3.4
acreage
shoreline
urban
natural
SI it
-
1.5
the
The
flows miles
Page
river
on of
to
terms
Age/Cultural
was According
park
possible
It percent The
2000 Table
in
18,678 projection
Financial
Population
Demographics
is
the projecting
2.1
important
city’s
37.1,
and
(US of
City
PROS
of
provide
population, recreation
Population
Census) Management
with
2013
to
the
for
plan
the future
Background
Kenmore
to
population
78.6
population
balance
2010
need
plan
percent
park
services
20,460 2010
but
for
census,
to
(OFM).
is
and
in
in
consider
the
(US
28,901
aged
is
terms
park
of
should
presently
recreation
needs
Census)
the
the
The
18
and
persons.
of
median
and and
population
Puget
acknowledge
of
age
recreation
all
over. 21,170
reflect
needs
and
21,170
2013
residents
Sound
age
Demographic
cultural
In
those
the
est.
according
of
and
the
opportunities.
est.
Regional
Kenmore
demographic
age
level
and
same
changes.
background
of
all
of
to
18
and
year,
Council’s
age
service
residents
the
and
population
groups,
the
Washington
Planning
change
over.
28,901 2035
and
standards.
median
draft
was
that
(PSRC
and
over
for
projections
2035
39.5
the
to
age
future
State
time
draft)
the
years
regular
population
for
not
Office
extent
delivery
King
with
are just
61
updates
County
of
useful 77.2
Page
in of
Space
Section
Kenmore
Service
Level
Inventory
Classifications,
Plan
Park,
3
Recreation
of
and
and
Open
i Page The of
park
Park Kenmore Classifications facilities • • • • • • following
classifications. Classifications Open Waterfront Community Linear Nature Neighborhood classifies o o o o o o o o o available. Space pages Parks Squire’s Wallace Squire’s Rhododendron Log Rhododendron Linwood Northshore Moorlands Parks Boom its Parks Parks identify The A parks Parks Swamp Landing Landing Park
park and classifications Park Park Summit based the may Park Park Creek Park
Park Inventory inventory be upon Park classified Park used the of size, in city-owned i1 in this ______Total Wallace Squire’s Rhododendron Park Log Linwood Northshore Moorlands Table population more Plan Boom 3.1 Name than Inventory Swamp Landing include: parks Summit one served City Creek and Park category. open Acreage and ______Waterfront Corn Classification Nature Nature Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood the spaces. There m function unity are and
six 21 Acreage city type Page
92.5
40.4 25.5 12.5 5.5 3.6 3.6 1.4 ,i -
Arrowhead
Contributing
(Elementary
Kenmore
Moorlands Table
Northshore Linwood Park
Moorlands for
Neighborhood
Neighborhood nearby
3.2 Name
Neighborhood
Park
Elementary residents.
Figure
Elementary
Park
Elementary
Summit
Schools)
Acres
Parks Parks 3.1 Parks:
Photo:
Park
Subtotal Subtotal
Acreage
are Neighborhood
Linwood usually Inventory
Park
Address
5601
6200 10
6725
15115
19121
15221
acres
Parks
NE
NE
NE
85th
71st 84 th or 193 rd
193 td
Arrowhead
typically
less,
Avenue
Avenue Avenue
Dr. functions
geographic
contribution
service
walking
Consequently
activities, play,
Street hours,
Street
located
NE NE
NE NE
feature
open
public
provision
and
Acres
within
similar
and
lawn
location.
jogging,
facilities
of
elementary
the
sport
school
areas
safe
to
in
Plan
4.4
8.4 8.7
3.7
3.3 3.6
1.4
terms
Neighborhood
.7
courts.
playgrounds
walking
such
for
land
acknowledges
Acres
School
Acres
Contributing
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
schools
informal
of
as
to
During
acreage
paths
and
the
of
@40%
Land
Total
provide
for
biking
level
3.4
1.3 1.8
recreation
Parks.
or
non-school
.3
and
children’s
a
trails
31
of
partial
Total
Neighborhood
Park distance
Page
for
Acres
12.1
8.7
3.7
3.6
1.8 1.4
1.3 .3 a) bD (3
0 0 E E LI,
0 0 0 L’L
0 ii 0 0. 0
cv,
0 0 a 0 0 0 0 -Q -: II 0 U 0 0
0. 0 . i
cli cli .. 1
L* Community Parks Community Parks usually range in size from 12-30 acres, provide more diverse recreation activities serving a city-wide population. Facilities include, but are not limited to, active recreation such as sports fields, pools, and community centers. Community Parks can also function as Neighborhood Parks because, due to their size, they often contain similar facilities. A Community Park could be smaller than 12 acres, depending upon function. For example, a smaller Community Park could be a civic plaza. Level of service guidelines for Community Parks consider secondary school sites,
Figure 3.3 Photo: Rhododendron Pork although at a reduced contribution rate, and the contribution of St. Edward State Park. The level-of- service standard includes the athletic fields at Bastyr University. The term for the city’s lease agreement with Bastyr University for the use and maintenance for the athletic fields is until December 31, 2020. The agreement provides for the option to extend the agreement upon mutual agreement, provided the request is made in accordance with the lease on or before September 1, 2019.
Table 3.3 Community Parks: Acreage Inventory Park Name Address Acres Contributing Total Acres Community Park Acres Rhododendron Park 6910 NE170th St 12.5 12.5 Subtotal 12.5 12.5 Contributing Acres Contributing Acres @40% Kenmore Middle School 4.5 1.8 1.8 Inglemoor High School 16.1 6.5 6. 5 Bastyr University’ 8.2 8.2 8.2 St. Edward State 2Park 16.7 16.7 16.7 Subtotal 33.2 Total 45.7
1Lease expires December 31, 2020, includes option for renewal. 2Portion of St. Edward State Park exclusive of buildings, woodlands 3Contribution calculated at 100% as no use restrictions exist as found at public school sites
SIP a ge Community Parks
LOCt)Ofl NJSU1eS.5Otst Address: 6911)NE 170th St Legend Status: Developed N - Size’ 12.5 acres &ss.s Facrlities:Basketball Court (1), chi)rtrens playgrounds (2), palllvuays, - — C5 I Preore. C,.resFvv parkieg, actsrlres burlding, hododendron gardens, resrrooers, 1) intormal recreation areas (1.3 acres), Sammamrsb River shoreline (671 II.), I picioictables (9), benches (8), covered area (486sq. ft.)
Figure 3.4.1 Map: Figure 3.4 Map: CityCommunity Parks Rhododendron Park
6Page Waterfront Parks Waterfront Parks are uniquely valuable public resources, serving a regional demand for public access to the water. Kenmore’s Waterfront Parks vary in character, size, location and facilities, and serve a range of needs. Some Waterfront Parks (Rhododendron Park and Squire’s Landing Park) are inventoried in more than one classification.
Figure 3.5 Photo: Log Boom Pork
Table 3.4 Waterfront Parks: Shoreline Inventory Park Name Address Shoreline Feet Log Boom Park (15.8 acres) 17415 st61 Avenue 1921 NE 170 Rhododendron Park 6910 NE th Street 594 Squire’s Landing Park 7515 NE th175 Street 2287 Subtotal 4802 Contributing Acres (State of Washington) St. Edward State Park 14445 Juanita Drive 3000 NE Washington State 17150 68th Ave NE 207 Department of Fish and Wildlife Boat Ramp Subtotal 3207 Total 8009
71 Page Log Boom Park
Address. 17415 6lstAve NE Statua: Deusloped N Size: 5.5 acres a Facrhttes:Ch;Idren’splaygtouzds (21,pathways (1.500 icearreet), carkiny, greed small beat launch, restroomsnturmal rececatlce acres (09 acles I LakeWash’erglonshoreline (1.875 It.).picncctables (8), benches(S), L educabonal signage Figure 3.6 Map: City Waterfront Parks Figure 3.6.1 Map: LogBoom Park
4848(7tO.’ yi,5 En0(0’)(((0 Rhododendron Park Squire’s Landing Park
I1::H I
.8 St. Location: South Cenbal BusIness beIrut Status: Decinoged N Addoeso. 7515NEt78lh5l Scat. t2bacras Statue: Renosate/cndeedeueloped Faceldies BasketballCourt(1),clildrsrr’eplaygrounds(21.padr’eays. parteing. Scza 404ecees senabr actreties bsubkng, trtadodendron gardens, restenmns, Fauilaies: Satnmamish Rteet Shoreline 12.351 lieearfeet), acesso areas 11.3acres). Sanrnamistt Rrcetshorehne (671II.) to Swanrp Creek wand doles(S), benches (8). ccset.d area (488 sq. 1)
Figure 3.6.2 Map: Rhododendron Park Figure 3.6.3 Map: Squire’s Landing Park
8IPage park St. ‘St. of agencies) Contributing Wallace Squire’s Table Park Nature Washington) Edward Edward land), 3.5 Name Nature Parks land Swamp Landing Park . State Parks: in total Acres Kirkland Acreage Creek Kenmore Park Park(State (other -
not Subtotal Subtotal Inventory Park included. acres less Address contributing 7515 14445 19819 • forests. educational and use sensitive provide Natural NE Juanita including 73 ,d riparian 175 th Community Parks opportunity These Avenue areas. Street Drive programs, corridors, walking, NE NE preserve Park lands In lands. Acreage Kenmore, for provide bird wetlands, interpretive and
291 Total appropriate 40.4 65.9 25.5 291 acres watching, protect these important (GIS Contributing rivers, calculation)-17 sites signs, unique passive interpretive wildlife streams include and environmentally recreational trails. Acres
acres 339.9 274’
habitat 274 shoreline
and 91 (community Page and
I I Figure
Figure
IE 5 E;::arramucaitoarait. Legend 3.8
rr050r (1,704 Wallace 3.8.2 cr4 Map: iorarra.t(. racyuucg Map: te nec. City
recaroccOs p.coo Swamp ta04s Wallace
Nature Nature r’eeo.Q,esu. 14), SuawpCraak 6 Parks
Swamp
Parks Creek access. perEo9,
Creek Park ‘I
Park
A j Figure Address. Facilities: Size: Status: Location: 3.8.1 South 40.4 Saeimamish Renovate(underdeueloped 7515 to Swamp acres NE CerEal Map: 175th Creek Ricer Busine St Shoreline Squire’s Orsinict (2351 Landing linear teeti, acesss
Park
10
I
P
a
g e Linear Parks Linear Parks are off-street recreational trails for bicycling, walking and in some instances equestrian use. In Kenmore these park facilities are provided currently by KingCounty (Burke Gilman Trail) and in partnership between the city and Seattle Public Utilities for a portion of the Tolt Pipeline trail. These off-street trails are augmented by the network of city sidewalks and designated on-street bike routes to provide key linkages and connections throughout the city and to areas beyond Kenmore’s boundaries. In 2014, phase one of the Tolt Pipeline trail is expected to be complete and will then add approximately .25 miles of contributing miles to the Linear Park inventory.
Figure 3.9 Photo: Burke-Gilman Trail
Table 3.6 Linear Parks: Miles Inventory Park Name Address Miles LinearParks No City owned miles Subtotal E: Contributing Miles (King County) Burke Gilman Trail N/A 2.5 Subtotal Total 2.5 ‘In 2014 Phase 1 of the Tolt Pipeline trail will be complete contributing approximately 0.25miles of new Linear Park Inventory.
Figure 3.10 Map: CityLinear Parks
11 I P a g e
2 Estimated 1 Total Seattle
private property.
(Swamp King Contributing
County) Swamp
Control
Heron parcels)’ Site
lnglewood lnglewood
Inglewood Table
73rd
and
environmentally
inventoried
Inglewood presently Open Public County
3.7
the Name
all Avenue
property Space
Open
Rookery 2 Open parcels
Note
Audubon
Creek
Properties
wetland Sammamish Creek
surplus accessible
Space:
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland Wetlands
- public could
if
Space
Acres NE
sold.
Flood Corridor) area. Acreage/Shoreline
public associated
become
sensitive
Property
Subtotal
Subtotal
open (17
Currently
(King
includes
(B)
(C)
(A)
or
River
located
serves
space
areas. and
Inventory
with
property
along
Address
to
16607
in
multiple
17125
flood
protect
Kenmore
Examples
Parcel
Lake
that
lnglewood control
68 th
parcels
Washington
habitat
1126049174
is
include
Avenue
of
not
efforts.
Various
along
Rd
or
the
NE NE
Shoreline Feet
Figure
N/A N/A
3.11
Total
Shoreline Feet
Photo:
Total
1862 1862
Swamp
N/A N/A j
Creek Acreage
Corridor
36.10
29.36
18.94
12
4.16 4.65
4.42
2.58
1.35 I
P
a
g e I OpenSpace
Leend D7OO1.4OO28OOFfl +-
Figure 3.12 Map: Open Space
School Lands School Lands provide partial contribution to available inventory in Kenmore for public recreation. Public School Land in Kenmore is owned and managed by the Northshore School District. Schools make contributions to the Neighborhood and Community Park lands inventory. Their contribution is prorated based upon the availability of after school hours. Contributory rates are described in the Neighborhood and Community Park classifications, and inventory tables (pages 3 and 5). Bastyr University presently contributes to the Community Park land inventory. The following map illustrates the locations of Kenmore Public School Lands.
13 P a g I e School Lands
Address: 6725NEArrowheadDrive Status: Developed Legend Size: TotalAcres12.52RecreationLands4.37 acres LJ—’—’—’ — pe . Fachtieo:FoursquareCourts(4),BasketballCourts(1),parking, — aeres Children’sPlayAreas(3),RunningTracts(1) A
Figure 3.13 Map: School Lands Figure 3.13.1 Map: Arrowhead Elementary
14 I P a g e Address Status: Fanlitres: Size Figure Figure Addlesu- FecrIlties Size Statue. SoccerFietd TotalAcres Davetoped 19121 3.13.2 7lstAve Tense Runrcrrglract(1(,Partrrrg 20323 TotalAoes Denelopad
3.13.4 Kenmore 17.29 (1), ililthAuenus Courts NE Children’s Map: Recreation 15 Map: (3).
r2RecreanonLendo4Ol Kenmore Soccer NE PlayAreaS, Kenmore Lands Fold Kenmore 3.34
(I) Elementary Patlung acres Baseball Elementary
acres Jr. Jr. Diamond(S),
High High ______
______
A 1
N 1 Address: Sndun: Facaties: See: Figure Figure Ad&ess. FacSlies: So.- Status Foursquare ToralAcoes4.N5rtectaatiorrLands0.t8acrss — Teltrerbali l5ll584thAue 3.13.3 3.13.5 Tense ToraIAcresu9EgRecre.OosLasdsr7e2acres Running
Deunlopod 15500 Moorlands Courts Courts Cowls Silnands NE (3) track Map: Map: (4), (6), gaskMbea (I). Rd
Football Inglemoor ParSing NE Moorlands Inglemoor Courts
Field Elementary (1), (I). BasebaN patting, High Elementary
Diamonds High
(2. 15
______
P
a g
N e Bastyr University I
Address: 4500 Juanrla DriveNE Starus Developed Size: TotalAcres 50.68 Recreation Lands 6.15 acres Facilities: Tennis Courts (2), Baseball/Softball Fields (2), Parking, Soccer Fields (2) A
Figure 3.13.6 Map: Bastyr University
16 P I a g e ______
Regional Parks These parks serve a regional population because of location, size, or unique facilities. They serve users beyond the geographic limits of communities. In Kenmore, St. Edward State Park at 291 acres (Kenmore acres only) is a significant Regional Park. Other notable Regional Park facilities include the Kenmore Boat Launch owned by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Burke Gilman Trail (KingCounty). City classified Waterfront Parks also serve as a Regional resource. Regional Parks are not a classification of park facility provided by the city and no inventory table is provided as part of this Plan. Portions of Regional Parks do, however, contribute to park land inventory listed in classifications for Waterfront Parks, Community Parks, and Nature Parks noted previously in this section. Figure 3.14 Photo: St Edward State Park Level of service Guidelines
Overview Level of service guidelines guide the planning for park and recreation services. However, future opportunities and/or unforeseen constraints can affect level of service. Kenmore’s level-of- service guidelines are based upon the community’s unique characteristics, including need for park acreage, need for specific types of parks, and the need for specific park features.and facilities. Level of service guidelines are established on a per capita basis and are compared with population projections in order to determine future demands. The guidelines also acknowledge constraints to achieving certain service levels.
The new level of service guidelines (LOS)reflect the new park classification system. Levels of service projections utilize a 2035 planning horizon for population estimates. Existing Level of Service (ELOS)is defined as the level of service as of the year 2013 on a per 1,000 population basis. The Desired Level of Service (DLOS)is described as the level of service projected and needed for the community the year 2035. The DLOScan be achieved sooner if resources permit. Desired Level of Service can also be exceeded as well as it is a “floor” not a “ceiling” in terms of service delivery.
Many options exist for determining or establishing local park and recreation requirements. Ratio standards used were similar to those methods used by NRPA(National Recreation and Park Association), Recreation Conservation Office (RCO),neighboring cities, and were also used in the 2003 Parks Master Plan. Level of service in most instances is expressed in terms of a ratio of supply (acres), to population (per 1000 persons). The city also utilizes a geographic level of service for Neighborhood Parks to illustrate gaps in service. This recognizes that these parks are intended to be primarily accessed by foot or by bicycle, and as a consequence need to be in
17 I P a g e
This
There
Services.
36
even
contributory contribute
acres
multiple
acres which The
State
In residents. Springs
level
University Northshore include
Land acres/1000
2003
close Neighborhood
Figure
2013
acres.
City
results
though
of
and
of
inventory
of
per proximity
3.16
are
time
these
service
property
contributing
Washington,
St.
small of
Photo:
Table
facilities
1000
These
other
and
The
313.47
Kenmore
Edward
it
in
persons
School
some
park
will
other a
Heron
drainage
Seattle
other
persons.
Parks.
provided
3.6 total of
to
publicly-owned
properties
scheduled
contribute
and
six
acres
owned users.
Rookery
properties
District,
does,
State
public
in
properties
existing owns
agencies
parks
King
open
Public
2003
tracts
(including
to
however,
Park)
Accordingly,
by
County,
agencies
seven
are
totaling
Kenmore
Bastyr
for
space
and
to
other
Utilities.
LOS
are
and
include
of
also
the
transfer
from
lands
4.88
parks
of
designated
two
land.
274
agencies
city’s
inventory
63.4
not
14.89
other
acres/1000
that
the
the
open
totaling
included
from
acres.
level
city
are
agencies,
contribute
space
as King
city-classified
of
utilizes not
Figure
This
102.8
parks
service.
as
persons
County
included tracts
3.15
part
results
nor
acres
a on
Photo:
significantly
Y4
of
does
owned
the
in
to mile
the
open
in
as (2013).
Kenmore
2013.
the
city’s
a
part
it
geographic
LOS
level
include
city
by space,
Elementary
zoning
However,
of
calculation.
King
to
This
in
of
the
the
late
service
totaling
the
County
is park
School
map.
park service
compared
2014
26-acre
this
land
of
inventory
These
Property
approximately
or
ratio
3.3
area
inventory,
2015
Twin
18
with
does
include
for
at
p
and
a
a
not
g e ______
The following table documents existing levels-of service (ELOS) and desired levels-of-service (DLOS).
Table 3.8 Summary of Existing and Desired Levelof Service Guidelines Classification (Park Type) 4ELOS 5DLOS eedgraphi
Neighborhood Parks’ .57 .52 2.97 acres /4 mile radius (acres/1000 pop.) Community 2Parks 2.17 2.17 17.04 acres City-wide (acres/1000 pop.) Waterfront 9Parks 380 380 2987 lineal feet City-wide (lineal_feet/1000_pop.) Nature 6Parks 8.6% 9.5% acres34.O2 9.5% of City (percent of city land area) 8 Land area Linear 7Parks .12 jj miles City-wide (Miles/1000 pop.) j Open 3Space No Guideline (no guideline)
2035 Need Summary
Neighborhood, Community, and Nature Park Land 54 acres Neighborhood Park Geographic Level of Service Waterfront Parks 2,987 lineal feet LinearParks 3.86 miles
Portions of elementary school sites are included at contributory lands. School lands contributions are proportionally reduced according to their availability. 2 Portions of secondary schools and portions of the St. Edward State Park and Bastyr Universityare included as contributory lands. 3Open Spaces inventoried only; no applicable standard is adopted as part of this plan. Existing LOSmethodology total units (acres, or lineal feet, miles)/2013 4 Level population/1000 providing of service per capita Desired LOSmethodology units (acres, lineal feet, miles)/2035 population/1000 5 LOS 6Less waterfront parks as calculated in lineal feet Original LOSwas in acres, new LOSis calculated in miles, Burke-Gilman Trail 7included in ELOS. Recognizes pending and likelyfuture acquisitions 8Significant portions of publicly owned waterfront are largely passive. Portions are 9also inaccessible due to environmental reasons. The DLOSwill create opportunity for more accessible Kenmore waterfront.
legend
Figure 3.16 Map: Neighborhood Park Geographic Levelof Service
19 P a g I e 2:
Di CD 5. CD
0 Di
CD
Di
0
-D w
(D
Open City
Section
and
Support
Fundamentals, Guiding of Space Ken
more
4 Policy Plan Park, Recreation ii and Page The Washington. There as corridors, intrinsically
Key Kenmore recreation the The
Key
Principal actions
Guiding relate Renovation; aspects Guiding common • • • • values results city’s
four Values, are to Opportunities Major Key Principal to of Guiding attaining the natural ravines, Guiding accomplish park and are Kenmore Values valuable
themes Condition 2) natural
Issues
Fundamentals. Fundamentals what open Stewardship;
and Issues Condition Fundamentals environment woodlands, Fundamentals: the throughout recreation Kenmore or space. strives environment the goals
desirable. and goals. to leading It 3) residents
also Opportunities wetlands, attain service Financial is the provide Four the The consists affects to public and “Principal distinct
development and following a identify the viable Considerations; streams the the involvement of overarching
related Policy a activities: city’s and system Condition” as key (such qualities balanced economic and values, objective of as
process: Support policy 1) delivery. and, interconnected the Acquisition, affecting for issues park 4) Sammamish and and direction, its Planning and community The residential and policy the recreation seven opportunities Development delivery as and actions wildlife River), they Goals development. Partnerships that affect of system. provide habitat and are represent parks, surfaced and 21 Lake all Page and the In
Major
Key
3.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
for
services.
services expressed
represents recreation of facilities,
pedestrian Desire Desire the
in limited, directional
issue desirable a enhanced Community
Desire prominent
utilizing
Balance adjacent character conservation,
Stewardship
public development
parks
of Values
lands
In
Finding
source
1998,
shoreline
addition,
resources.
Issues
indoor
needs
to
through
and
for assets.
for
for
efficient
especially
address.
the
unifying this
-
of
residents.
a
A
services.
A
of
completing
local facilities
improved
and
of
pools, a
services,
and
a areas.
balance
and
key positive
park
promoting
city desire
on
Image
need
frustration
Kenmore. different
-
of
This
preservation,
Stewardship
seeking
improved
Stewardship
park
bicycle
Lake
issue interpretive
can
interpretive
themes and
and
more
Providing
for
within
concept
for
- is
of
but identity.
public
and
reasonably Washington
Positive
cost
vital
is
recreation
public
opportunities
linkages
age
more
grant
trails
athletic
habitat
assessing
Further,
also
of
recreation
by
in
the
effective
to
groups,
local
access
applies
design also
public is
maintaining
signs,
and
water
funding
local
and other
ensuring
community
education
city’s
Community
a
and
and
fields
value
implies
system
residents
provide.
providing
rehabilitation
linkages
options
and
services.
to
banners,
art
of
abilities,
services
access
central
not
methods
connections
natural
services
for
the
assistance
and public
embodying
the
in
the
only
programs
should a
both
appropriate
and
Kenmore
image
for
to
local
“good
Sammamish
image
protection
has
having
consistent
downtown
resource
such
These
streets
and
to
spaces, form
-
for
beautifying
delivery
passive
Throughout
been
of
physical
recreation
provide
and
is
- the
interests.
neighbor”
is
as
to
important
responsible
Facilities
a
a is
comments
also
Waterfront
and
shopping
source
network
identified
such
travel
critical
partnering
acquisition
conservation,
locations
and
of
ongoing
of
core.
River.
affected
but
landscape
a
parks
service
public
as,
diversity
active
programs
the
outside
that
of
relationship
to
also
natural
Since
but
between
and
were
Public civic
planning
and
by
preserving
high
public throughout
-
is
and
provide
and
financial
The
as
recreation
by
not
the
a
restaurants.
facilities
design
the
of
the
the
pride
through
quality
the
not
key
other
areas
development
access
and
city
limited
community
process
park
city’s
parks,
city
city
and
availability value
limited
between
additional
that
has
services
resources.
the
can
visually
and
and
to maintenance
the
grows
as
and
to
management
acquisition,
incorporation
to,
over
open
can
of
natural
receive residents contribute
essential
this
recreation
to
city,
The
entry,
that
the
as
31
often
parks
be
and
7
of
asset
safe of
spaces,
desire
and
miles
a
plan. meets
Page
park
key
what
and
is
of to
Op
4.
1.
port
facilities,
travel,
recreational and
benches,
design
Improving
neighborhoods
that
gathering for
canoes. waterfront
opportunities
Completing environment waterfront
improve city
Ken
Recognizing
chain
Create
u
improving
small
more’s
should n civic
Figure
promote
such
of
it
of a
space
should
I
and
a
es
At
open waterfront
4.1
watercraft; Kenmore and
successful
spaces
as
opportunities
Sammamish
the
pursue Photo:
redevelop.
parcels,
existing
picnic
that
for
major
customer
diversifying
boating
and
and
spaces,
be same
example
sail
the
for
provided
assets
the
shelters
opportunities
“WaterWalk”
as
arterials
waterfront
access.
network.
paddlers
boating,
especially
majority
time
access, Waterfront
“
waterfront a
Water
In
service
River,
strategy
that
at
park
addition,
Kenmore’s in
Walk”,
as
existing
and
new
wind-surfing
the
including
and of
funding
with
experiences
and hand
and
parks
the
to
topography,
to
for
are
City
and
and/or
boaters.
the
park
its provide
completing
waterfront
public
city’s
powered
vital.
according position
I
can
slow
Linear
allows.
city
moorage,
user
existing
capitalize
central
and
Enhancing
access
should
current
Recognizing
local
convenience.
Parks
is
on
boats
kite
this
parks
an
transform
to
to
waterfront
component
and Sammamish
image highest core
recreational
“WaterWalk”
plan
residents
and
Lake
waterfront
parks,
when
also
important
their
ensuring
along
and
boarding.
vision.
on
development.
such
and
on
such
and
boat
Washington
and
pursue
by
protection
barriers
priority
adopted
key
Lake
as
the
a
as
diversifying
working
as
access
not
Facilities
vision
storage,
opportunities
well
access
its
of
properties
kayaks,
access,
River. city’s
non-motorized
is aspect
Washington
These
and
only
public
economic
reality
not
as
of
and
master
for
to
Waterfront
this
facilities
is
central
from
to
publicly the
provides
Creating
launch
such
the
to
paddle but
are
essential
constraints
this
acquisition
provide
and
park
plan.
planning
on
community
water
the
outstanding is
plans
concept
revitalization
for
as
should
and
waterfront
the
also
access,
experiences
expanding
owned,
boards,
restrooms,
wind
a
a boating
Public
facilities
to
the
wind-rich master
central
forming
will
4IPage
a
and to
of
vital
be
is
is
also
and
key
the
ideal vital
and
the a
4.
3.
2.
of
parks plays
Nevertheless,
mutual
and Coordinating
communities’
Public
Kenmore. Forest recognized Continuing
residents
connects
are the
a
Pipeline
and
north-south
develop
mix
gathering
Developing
enhance
passive Create
vital
active
critical
waterfront
Figure
neighboring
of
to
efficient
a
or
Utilities,
connection.
Park
off-street
significant
aid
a
use
and
when
4.2 could
an
recreational
Central
the
Kenmore
in
place
in
Developing
connections
Photo:
and
by
and
and
interconnected
a
Kenmore
active
route,
the
travel
vitality
planning
pedestrian
Kenmore
residents
those
land
create
King
and
Developing
development
Mountlake for
Off-Leash
cities
(Linear
continued
Civic
role
forms
residents
perhaps
is
Similarly,
between
residents,
neighboring
County,
of
residents
acquired
pursuits, an
might
Area
limiting
and
efforts
new
Area
the
to
should
might
Parks),
east-west
and
of
existing
other
city.
and
and
Terrace
Partnerships network establishment
recreation
utilizing
travel
Northshore
to
key
utilizing
bicycle
of
with
and
visit
participating
this
including
(e.g.
continue
and
enhance
enhancing its
cities.
park
public,
places
retaining
to
facilities
neighbors
opportunity,
route
Lake Kenmore
for
Twin
on-street
portions
of
network
our
for they and the
gardens.
gathering
additional community games,
areas, courts
developing
active
in
The
pedestrian
recreation
within
Forest
commercial,
to athletic
—
School
the
on
land
Springs)
public
5. neighboring
Seattle
recreation
of
City
are
existing
examine
such
planning
in
a
the
such
recreation
where
as
attractiveness
civic
Providing
to
of
as small
-
(sidewalks,
sufficient various
larger
Kenmore
There
Park,
boundaries
they
A
places
the the
spaces
District,
well
as
north
Community
fields.
as
Public
land
big
as
building
to
identity
and
and
does
partnerships
the
town
youth
Swamp
east
off-leash
seek
opportunities
Northshore
assemble
facilities and
as
challenge central
and
is
forms
cities
to
side
park
that
bicycle
within
and
activities
Burke-Gilman
an
providing
Utilities
Kenmore’s
in
the
Bastyr
including
and
provide
development
“feel.”
to
bike
non-profit
and
and
is
size
opportunity
of
are
and
developing
promote
services.
in
Creek
lack
enjoy
of
also
civic
Park
west.
SR522.
dog
should
the
facilities
Bothell,
adults lanes)
image,
to
enough
not
recreation.
for
University,
visual
corridor
should Providing
-
of
Utility
important,
open
accommodate
places
that space
downtown
parks Acquiring
corridor
parks,
the
within
necessarily
Kenmore
vacant
natural
agencies
that
a
can
continue.
And
Crossings
trail
creating
character
services
provides
sense Kirkland,
areas
property
that
to
of
more
District,
be
for
or
or
along
the
play
provide
its
a
plan
likewise
which
for
State
land.
community
continued.
could
environment
smaller
Consequently
social
continuous
contain
and
whether
current is
downtown,
of
or
land
core
in
both
informal
the
a
the for
SjPage
unique
of
a sport
Seattle
Lake
the
of
for
central
Parks
an
create
variety
safe
for
SR522
and
those
need helps
Tolt
the
one
a to
These
Park objectives. Objectives
Four direction
policy Goals: the The
strategies
Fundamentals,
Goals,
Policy
•
•
•
•
Plan.
Goals,
and
distinct
activities
actions
The
Stewardship
Planning Acquisition
Financial
Accomplishing
local” accommodate
more
Objectives
Recreation
related
Goals
of
o
o
o
o
S
Objectives
and seven
upport
activities the
community
for
are
These
appropriate These
These
These
implementation
accomplish
requirements.
public
Plan
while
are Policy
continue
and
Considerations
Plan.
to
park
goals
the
and
and
specifically
the
(S)
system
Partnerships
activities
activities
activities
activities
park
the
specific
and
Actions:
and
occur
the
this
Development
represent
the
delivery
and
Objectives
to
park
facilities.
capital
facilities
Policy
recreation
opportunity
partnership
associated
for
provide
within
Policy
activities
ensure or
make
generally
relate
related
Objectives
of
Ken
(FC)
of
Actions
partner
the
projects
projects (PP)
park,
that
the
more,
and
the
certain
to
(A/D)
services.
results
that
Actions
to
mechanisms
opportunities.
context
would
identified
the
would
represent
“broad
recreation the
continue
with
the
and
are
and
or financial
conduct
appropriate
Policy
that
services,
implementation
the
help
another
include:
their
be
of
direction”
to
Kenmore
commonly
means
all
the
the
Actions
address
and
resources
and
associated
accomplish
of
Goals,
path
and
capital
agency
care,
open
methods
planning
to
represented
efficiencies
describe
to
strives
Kenmore
Objectives
accomplishing
renovation
placed
space
investment the
are
of
to
ongoing
the
a
provide
for
available
is Recommendations
to
healthy,
within
goals
the
in
undertaken
attain
residents’
accomplishment.
a
are
and
by
operational
and detail
community
the
and
component
the
gained the
the
viable
Policy
and
and
management
land
their
Guiding
or
broad city.
desire
identified
provide
prior
implementing
Actions.
and
by
necessary
associated
park.
goals.
section
to
to
balanced
6f
to
broad
the
the
“stay
Page
to
of
The
to of
opportunities
identification
Goal
development, Objective
properties
•
Kenmore
•
•
• the
•
Objective
(PP)
incentives
P-i
waterfront
(FC)
“WaterWalk”.
P-i.2
P-i.i
and
and
with
Policy
Policy city’s
Park and
to and
Policy
in
Policy Lake Policy between
adopted
spaces
Policy
identify
Policy
Create
the
provide
partnership
development
other
connections
integrates
to
and
and
Washington
waterfront
P4.2.2
P-1.2.1
P-1.1.4
city’s 1.1.5 P-1.1.3
P-1.1.2
1.1.1
for
Identify
a
Establish
Rhododendron
the
Waterfront
further
shoreline
the Kenmore
options
recreation
more
potential
central
marina
(A/D)(FC)
Adopt
Identify
Inventory
Identify
Reconnect
Retain
Adopt, consistently
and
and
the
to
public
parks
and
and
of
for
Waterfront
in
the
core
prioritize
other
a
implementation
Master
and
development
implement
consistent
conjunction
location
consulting
implementing the
“Kenmore
and
specific
that
and
Park.
waterfront
access;
(PP)
and
for
Log
Sammamish
public
mechanisms
regularly
retain
define
with
consideration
Plan.
(PP)
identify
Boom
undeveloped
for
opportunities
Strategy
retain
with
access
assistance
city’s
plans,
WaterWalk”
the
important
with
public
and
regulations
Park.
update
the
of
public
public
WaterWalk
views
River.
economic
shoreline.
via
private
development
essential the
and
“WaterWalk”.
access
(A/D)
replacement
of
and
and
Waterfront
waterfront
or
and
and
public
Master
(S)
for
public
and
underdeveloped
and
and
conduct
and
(PP)
implement
private
joint
recreational
development
and
to
(A/D)
access
other
incentives
public
the
recreational
Plan
acquisition,
development,
a
policies,
use,
chain
Master
(PP)
parcels
of
a
creation
recreational
that
and
public
development.
the
master
resulting
of
opportunities
that
view
includes
pedestrian
regulations
from
plans.
Plan
waterfront waterfront
process
joint
experiences
of
are
plans
corridors
a
partnership
Log
in
continuous
(PP)
consistent
7IPage
an
to
for
Boom
(A/D)
bridge
and
to
the to
opportunities
Goal
safe
spaces Goal
Objective
• public
•
• •
•
• waterfront,
Objective
•
crossings
P-3
P-2
access opportunities.
trail
Policy Policy
within
neighboring
Policy
access.
network
P-3.1.1
P-2.1.3
P-3.1
P-2.1.2
to,
P-2.1
for
Trail
Kenmore
Protect
along
when to
incentives utilizing
Policy
development linking
Policy Policy Policy
Policy
Create
parks
environmentally linkages
restoration,
(5)
linking
cities.
these
looking
connecting
P-2.1.2.5 P-2.1.2.4
P-2.1.2.3
Seek P-2.1.2.2
P-2.1.2.1
Provide
(5)
and
an
Prepare and Identify
Identify
environmentally
the
and
(FC)
as interconnected
in
(PP)
improving
external
to
public
corridors
Swamp
allowable
adjoining
proposals.
for
with
adjoining
a
enhancement
a
and
opportunities
connections
balance
sidewalk,
downtown,
spaces.
neighboring
sensitive
Creek
prioritize
funding
to
Acquire
Consider
Establish
Plan Identify
access
cities.
by
provide
cities.
(PP)
sensitive
between
corridor
law
system
(PP)
and
trail,
sources
areas,
to
the
(A/D)
and
key
to
easements
and
for
and
(A/D)
develop
viewpoints,
and
cities.
the
these
and
provide
waterfront,
new
connections
of
linkages
create
areas,
public as
and habitat
implement
(PP)
downtown,
bicycle
to
(FC)(PP) Linear
appropriate.
(A/D)
links.
development
support
an
provide
scenic
opportunities
including to
access.
off-road
when
view
restoration,
Parks,
plan
(A/D)
extend
(PP)
parks
between
development
views
public
educational
waterfront,
corridors,
that
reviewing
(5)
(5)
sidewalks,
(AID)
Nature
and
north-south
and
to
(FC)
creates
of,
access
provide
to
public
enhancement
develop
the
(PP)
or
(PP)
provide
easements,
Parks,
public
appropriate
information.
downtown,
parks,
regulations
and
a bike
facilities
non-motorized
public
trail
the
and
recreational
and
connections
routes
and
Tolt
connection
access
provide
private
and bikeways
8!
and
public
public
and
Pipeline
(S) and Page
where
Goal
provide
and consideration
Objective
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
P-4
needed
funding
Policy
and
Policy
access.
parks
Policy
visual
a
balance
public
that
P-4.1.1
P-3.1.3
P-4.1
P-3.1.2
character
development
Policy other
environmentally
Policy
Policy Swamp
master (PP)
restoration.
Policy
Policy
public
protection
incentives Policy
(A/D)
and
Preserve,
allows.
of
define
access.
between
appropriate
volunteer
public
P-4.1.1.i
P-3.1.3.2
P-3.1.3.1
P-3.1.2.2 (5)
P-3.1.2.1
P-3.1.1.1
development.
Complete
Identify
Adopt,
plan
Seek
Creek
(A/D)
of
the
develop,
as
(S)
to
(A/D)
for
the
acquisition
funding
passive
allowable
of
environmentally
balance
Master
(FC)
(FC)
regularly
and
Squire’s
groups
Log
city.
sensitive
development
and
(PP)(S)
and
prioritize
Boom
(A/D)
sources
(A/D
and
when
Plan
Update
Develop
Update
Update,
Establish
between
Identify
who
by
update
enhance
Landing
and
active
areas.
law
including
(FC)
Park
(5)
resources
can
seek
to
the
undeveloped
and
to
(FC)
adopt
sensitive
a
resource
(PP)
of
and
and
habitat
support
(A/D)
recreation city-wide
partner
(5)
Park
provide
existing
adopted
city
opportunities
complete
(PP)
(FC)
implement
implement
stream
and
and
park
(PP) are
restoration,
areas
management
efforts
in
complete
responsible
continue
parks
habitat
available.
Master
providing
sites
opportunities,
bank
or
implementation
in
underdeveloped
development
master
for
and
with
conjunction
to
and
conservation
Plan
restoration,
habitat
enhance
implementation
enhancement
similar
(AID)
stewardship
approved
levels
habitat
agencies,
plans
and
acquire
and
(S)
of
complete
city
the
with
for
of
regulations
restoration.
(FC)
public
master
riparian
plan.
the
enhancement
citizens
properties
the
properties
attractiveness
private
of
and
new
Wallace
of
city’s
(5)
access
the
public
plans
9IPage
corridor
and
parks
(PP)
and
and
(A/D)
nature
for
to
and as
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
consider
funding
features
acquisition. furniture,
Village
Policy renovation. (AID)
Policy
center
signature
Neighborhood
Policy
(PP)
P-4.1.4 P-4.1.3
P-4.1.2
spaces
fields.
as,
locating
and
Policy
Policy (Portal
(PP)
adopt,
development
Policy
development
Policy Master
development
Policy
development
Policy
Policy
sources
such
utilizing
“town
play
but
City
(A/D)
(FC)
P-4.1.4.1
P-4.1.4.2
(A/D)
P-4.1.1.6
as P-4.1.1.5
P-4.1.1.4
P-4.1.1.3
P-4.1.1.2
and
not
Park)
Acquire
and
Establish
areas,
Develop
and
Plan.
athletic
Hall
to
(PP)
green”
open
mechanisms
(FC)
limited
a
implement
determine
Community
(PP)
site
high
Park
(A/D)(PP)
of
and of
of
of
space,
(PP)
a
downtown
fields,
at Moorlands Wallace
and
Northshore
Rhododendron
for
(FC) parcel(s)
quality,
to
public
to,
Kenmore
community
include
regularly
site
community Assess
Consider
Upon Update
Update
Update
Update
park
a
a identified
Park-like
master
“community
art.
Swamp
sufficient
civic
and
Park.
acquisition
Summit
the
the
the the
the
review
acquisition
open
plan
Park.
park-type
Creek
feasibility
in
(A/D)
gardens,
adopted
adopted
adopted
adopted
policy
and
Park
and
space
and
building”
(A/D)
Park.
of (PP)
Figure
suitable
complete
in
P-4.1.6, update
the
purposes
of
Master
Master Master
Master
“Town
of
acquisition,
(PP) accordance
4.3
(A/D)(S)
property
developing Twin
Photo:
or
for
a
social
Green”, in
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
development
Springs priority
example-civic
including
addition
Community
(PP)
for
and
and
and
and
development
gathering
with
the
the
and
property,
list
complete
complete
Complete complete
Twin the
to plaza
an
purposes
and
a
fee
dog
Park
athletic
of adopted
place(s)
Springs
possible
the
simple
park.
develop,
uses
and/or
10
park.
of
I
field
P
(AID)
such
and
a
g
or e
affordable
Kenmore Goal
providing
•
•
•
• support
utilize
Objective
•
•
•
•
P-5
assume
provision
Policy lands with
Policy
uses
Policy newsletter, available
Policy
enhance
unified
Policy
master
alternatives
Policy
development
Policy
parks.
properties
Policy
residents
a
existing
recreation
diverse
the
are
Kenmore’s
to
P-5.1.4
P-5.1.3
P-5.1.2
P-5.1.1
P-5.1
P-4.1.8
P-4.1.7
P-4.1.6
P-4.1.5
(A/D)
Support
design
plan
in
support
allowed
efforts
through
key
of
the
that
public,
web-page,
recreational
of
to
range
process
(FC)
city
process
agreements,
Support
Consider
Promote
Publish
theme.
Encourage
Develop
programs
Utilize
all
Acquire
Use
fee
desired
and provide
organizations
new
in
entrances
existing
ages
non-profit,
of
simple
tools
the
leverage
for
or
quality,
a
to
(A/D)
and
and
and
and
zoning
lands
programmatic
“gateways”
private
providing
the
levels
existing
all
opportunities
such
respond
and
Kenmore
public,
acquisition
display
future
other
planned
enable
abilities.
consistent
greatest
that
activities
opportunities
accessible
as
of
that
and
code,
recreational
recreation
transfer
service
marketing
non-profit,
to abut
city
new
information
the
private
provide
that
residents
unit
encouraged
deficiencies.
value
(FC)
of
park
approach
with
marketplace
facilities
existing
and
to
park
visually
for developments,
and
of
(PP)
recreational in
land
define
opportunities
a
additional
development
parks
materials
facilities
for
and
augmenting
lands
to
regarding
city
and
development.
and
and
private
(FC)
and
what
and
or
to
facility
public
within are
Figure
other
as
(PP)
recreation
identify
opportunities.
open
programs
easements,
role
appropriate.
organizations
recreation
consistent
rights,
where and
4.4
engagement
upgrades
the
publicly-owned the
Photo:
space.
enhancing
(PP)
potential
city
clustering
City
appropriate. services.
Recreation
and
(A/D)
opportunities and
and
and
of
to
(PP)
(FC)
resources,
in
Kenmore
existing
during public
gaps ensure
complimentary existing
opportunity
city
(FC)
(FC)
development,
park
11
in
(A/D)
(PP)
giving
(PP)
the
such
the
park
should
city
and
p
a
g
as e
spaces
Goal
•
•
•
• quality
•
Objective
•
•
•
•
Objective
consistent
P-6
Kenmore
Policy
the
Ken
Policy
to
community
Policy
Policy use, furniture
Policy
that
reaching Policy
inform
more
park
Kenmore
trends,
are
P-6.2.2
P-6.2.1
P-6.1.4
P-6.1.3
P-6.2
P-6.1.2
P-6.1.1
P-6.1
care term
(5)
correct
Policy
Policy
Policy
with
Provide
system. also
the
Park
Park
and
and
(FC)
of
history.
impacts
maintenance
respect
end
P-6.2.1.3
Police
P-6.2.1.2
P-6.2.1.1 safe
other
facilities.
educate
System.
Establish
Kenmore
Provide Conduct
any Develop
Revise
Develop
Evaluate
Establish
high
(5)
of
and
safety
(A/D)
similar
their
Department.
(FC)
or
to
quality
master
attractive
about
(S)
procedures,
demands.
safety
and
a
an
(5)
appropriate
existing
parks
and
park
expected
issues.
(5)
costs
equipment
recreational
install
maintenance
adopt
the
Ensure Conduct
Use plans
regulations
are security
and
parks
(5)
to
value
equipment,
(5)
consistent
interpretive
as
life
park
practices
use.
(FC)
increase
new
that
(PP)
necessary
replacement
regular
on
cycle.
review
and
equipment
maintenance
(S)
policies
interagency
a
and
and
function
regular
(S)
with
safety
and
landscaping
safety
during
service
signage
stewardship
to
(FC)
governing
resources
adopted
accommodate
and
schedule
basis
for
of
inspections
the
maintenance
standards
trends.
where
environmentally
park
facilities
master
to
and
city
operations of
ensure
to
users.
for
appropriate
(S)
design Kenmore
maintain
maintenance
play
and
and
of
plan
change
(5)
park
that
agreements
replace
practices
equipment
process
that
(FC)
and
sensitive
facilities
they
parks
and
in
in
reduce
use
recreational
city
prior
standards.
operate
12
are
involving
for
and
of
for
I
and
parks
and
areas,
P
the
long
to
open
the
a
g
site
a e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
and
delivery.
Objective
•
•
•
•
•
other facilities.
Policy
Policy plan
Policy Policy
recreation
Policy regarding
Policy
available
Policy
park
Policy
appropriate
Policy
Policy
conduct
including
maintenance
city
(5)
P-6.3.7
P-6.3.6
P-6.3.5
P-6.3.4
P-6.3.3
P-6.3.2
P-6.3.1
P-6.3
P-6.2.5
P-6.2.4
P-6.2.3
approved
use
Policy
Policy
(PP)
(FC)
for
other
strategic
park
needs
of
use
public
(PP)
P-6.2.5.2
P-6.2.5.1
volunteers.
goals,
Ensure
Prepare
Identify
Prepare Conduct
Conduct
Conduct
Maintain
and
Use
Install
Review
appropriate
and
in
volunteer
levels,
plans.
neighborhood
recreation
recreation
Kenmore.
objectives
conduct
park
integration
potential
and
a
level
and
a
and
and
six-year
public
where
(PP)
rules
update
efforts.
prepare
prepare
of
master
update
within
Provide
Develop,
(PP)
needs
inside
(S)
service
and
involvement
and
funding
appropriate.
Capital
of
and
the
(FC)
policy
the planning
a regulation
an
Kenmore
the the
and
sufficient
demand-and-needs
other
guidelines
city’s
adopt
inventory
Park,
(5)
Improvement
sources
Kenmore
city
opportunities
actions.
organizational
park
process
Parks,
for
and
(FC)
Recreation
city
signs
resources
and
Kenmore
for
use
of
implement
parks.
city
(FC)
Recreation
public,
to
Kenmore
to
strategies
ordinance.
limits.
Plan
(PP)
inform
in
assess
(5)
and
to
Kenmore.
analysis
park
volunteers
non-profit,
for
support
(PP)
a
Open
park
and
community
city-wide
parks
and
for
and
(S)
for
educate
implementing
lands.
Space
Open
(PP)
recreation
and
and
public
to
and
policy
supplement
manage
recreation
Space
(PP)
plan
attitudes
private
park
parks
13
with
for
service
I
plan
users
the
P
the
and
lands
a
g
of e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
facilities
government,
•
Objective
beautification
•
character
(A/D)
are
Policy and
Policy
Kenmore existing
Policy
Policy
facilities.
municipalities,
appropriate
University,
King use
Policy
Policy
consistent
implement
and
County,
for
(FC)
P-6.4.5
P-6.4.4
P-6.4.3
P-6.4.2
P-6.4.1
P-6.3.8
P-6.4
facility,
such
need
Policy athletic
Public
Policy
lease
Policy
public
maintenance
civic,
Park
(FC)
of
(PP)
non-profit
Northshore activities.
the
a
with
and
or
State
P-6.4.1.3
P-6.4.1.2
P-6.4.1.1
Utilities
facility
(PP)
Seek with
master
Cooperate
Seek
Invite
property
recreational,
as
Develop
Encourage
and
Update
fields
park
inquire
city
the
the
Kenmore
of
the
others
partnerships
partnerships
including
master
other
financial
on and
located
Northshore
Washington,
(FC)
plans.
agreements
property
the
City
about
Parks
and
(A/D)
its
with
other
(PP)
multi-purpose
to
local
PROS
own.
does
of
execute
plans
cultural
(PP)
maximize
on
and
Work
Secure
Work
the
ability
landscaping
(FC)
Kenmore
the
for
similar
public
the
plan
not
(PP)
and
to
School
Recreation
potential
for
state when
(PP)
the
Bastyr
cooperatively
cooperatively
enhance
joint
Bastyr
to and
easement
have
cooperation
their
(FC)
a
agencies
Tolt
agency
public
minimum
construct
Vision
and
District,
and/or
facility
the
for
facilities
University
for
Pipeline
other
opportunities
Service
use
street financial
Statement
acquisition
for
to
joint
and
of
to
with
of
to
regional
participate
public
that,
Trail.
every
extend
existing
medians,
Area
enhance
operate
site.
use
local
Figure
capacity
to
(A/D) recreational
and
District,
five
for
of
(PP)
for
park
4.5
the
jurisdictions
and/or public
_____
school,
community
the
Photo:
in
Comprehensive
landscape an
years.
public
(FC)
greatest
(FC)
to
providers
the
indoor
visual
adjacent
develop
Bastyr
and make
_____
(PP)
preparation
special
recreation
use
or
University
beauty
extent public
to
strips,
permanent
use
of
similar
to
and
evaluate
district,
Seattle
establish
14
of
Plan.
bailfields
pool
operate
possible,
and
on
the
I
of
P
a
the
g
the e
Goal
•
•
•
•
•
•
sustain Objective
developing
P-7
share
Policy and
coordinating,
Kenmore Policy
Policy initiate
new
Policy
capital
Policy
of
expanding
Create
public
private
the
city-sponsored
of
P-7.1.5
P-7.1.4
P-7.1.3
P-7.1.2
P-7.1.1
P-7.1
(A/D) costs
Programs
Policy
and
the
resulting
or
a
park
art
financially
renovating
hanging
sources
implement
costs
of
in
(S)
and/or
P-7.1.1.1
Require lands.(A/D)
Identify,
Utilize
Identify
Consider
Ensure
appropriate
park
(FC)
for
of Kenmore
basket
for
recreational
providing projects
parks
partnering
(PP)
funding
sustainable
sufficient
park
new
and
any
and
habitat
long-term
(5)
programs,
identifying
secure
new
development park
actively
locations.
property
prior
Develop
opportunities,
(FC)
new
restoration,
with
programs.
resources
programs
and
park
appropriate
(PP)
to
maintenance
park
seek
recreation
special
proceeding
or
City’s
(A/D)
priorities,
and
and
implementing
and
potential
impacting
prepare
are
or
(FC)
beautification
acquisition,
recreation
(FC)
emphasizing
service
recreation
facilities
available
levels
(PP)
specific system.
and
(PP)
with
grant
6-year
park
districts.
operational
of
plans.
prior
system.
new
development
funding
facilities.
projects,
funding prior
(A/D)
service
a
programs
Capital
regional
to
programs
(S)
(FC)
to
making
(FC)
(FC)
to (FC)
delivery acquiring
costs
assistance
(AID)
and
Improvement
(PP)
operate,
(PP)
approach,
and
(PP)
and
capital
and
commitments
in
(FC)
the
addition
to
renovation
events
new
from
or
pay
installation
costs.
15
support
such
land,
its
public
P
to
to
fair
a
as
the
to
g
of e -1 Cr,
0) CD 5. CD D 0 0)
CD
0) 1
Section Kenmore
and
Recommendations
Park
5
Financing
Recreation
and
Open
Space
i
Plan Page
The
opportunity
definitive
sufficient Acquisition
A
public
recreation
levels. the The
available
Project the
needs available community
Priorities
The
of
preparation some Acquisition,
project, table
renovation.
development
plans
purpose. determined
waterfront The
if of
purposes demands
million.
Capital
Capital
goal
available
these
natural
six-year
next
City
priorities
three
projects
located
and
instances
providers
and
is
There
implementation
such
should
to
categories
six
Cost
funding;
through
resources.
will
size.
level
areas.
only.
Estimated
construction
categories
facilities
resources
access,
acquire
more
Recommendations
needs
years,
short
will
contained
of
after
A
and.
change
as
is
for
estimates
in
and
healthy
of
Development
the
Consequently,
also
limited
the
Acquisition
the
Appendix
present
The
with
the
acquiring,
service
recent
and
linkages
the
support
and renovations
longer
City’s
and
such
will
planning
Waterfront
continue
Operational
estimated
The
year
development
change,
as
of
underdeveloped
preparation
within
long
demands,
and
opportunity
documents.
preserve usually
opportunities capital
is contained
actual
itself
as
six
need,
identified
2035.
tem
and
affected
E
for
term
mature
ballfields,
developing,
costs
year
and
the
component
the
to
connections,
the
to the
projects
costs
improvement
sales
contain
cost
The
but
and
PROS
Master
any
identify
(2035)
acquire
Capital
properties
by
are
priorities
City
project;
of
within
costs
park
by
list
highest
represents
for
for
the
prior
will
comparisons.
appraisals
Renovation
derived
plan
due
a
arise
should
property
of
have
a the
a
planning
Plan.
number
and
year
system
are
be
Improvement
potential
a
new planning Recommendations
will
the
recommended
are
more
master
to
and
emphasis
unique
and
PROS
and
determined
that
derived
also
renovating
the
2035
Kenmore’s
be
projects utilizing
following
examine
This
Community
long-term
an
opportunities
project
prior
includes
for
needs
a
of
lack
been
enable
horizon.
plan
plan
opportunity
stand-alone
property component
properties
is
planning
factors
More
active
should
utilizing
consistent
to
of
2012
include
capital
cost
change, identified
opportunities
Program
recommendations
project
any priorities
parks
available
following
the
a
projects
accurate
operation
recreation,
When
Park
balance
be
including:
estimates.
King
that
purchase
horizon.
City for
the
given
for
recommendations
are
acquisition,
for
connected
project
and
descriptions
(12k
with
active
(CIP).
County
does for
to
to
Prototype
acquisition.
new
vacant
reflects
intended
the
design
acquisition
to
of
meet
must address
meeting
and
acres),
the
to
those
all
of recreation
new
not particularly opportunities
preparation
in
While
More
partner Assessed
three
maintenance
real
approach
developable
preparation
be
or
its
current
with
necessarily
development,
should
opportunities;
projects
to
providing
Development
service
expected engineering.
are
weighed
desired
property
accurate
the
Occasionally,
costs
be
categories.
community
and
for
with
is
CIP
dynamic.
be
Valuations
priorities
athletic
of
$40-48
utilized
deliver
that
planning
will
preservation
arise,
service
revised.
is
master
other
against
active
of
address
land
for
costs.
2Page
a
deliver
be
a
tool
and
In
cost
future public
fields.
or
of
in
Each
for
the
or
a
for a
form
original
Key
playground
recreation
Parks
Renovation for
for
and Swamp the
opportunities
partially
Moorlands
Rhododendron,
Development property values
desire
Public
resources.
•
•
•
•
determining
•
• •
• Kenmore
•
factors
improvements
linear
of
and
feedback
to
Safety Age
Increasing Changing
Will Will
Will such
Will
Does
development. an
Creek
developed
acquisition
preserve
their
parks,
to
overlay
to
and
Park
replacement
it
it
it
park
as
the
residents.
the
make
increase help
arid
consider
for
Park
but
facilities
condition
timing
was Log
continues
development
operation
use
in
community.
public
maintenance
liability
achieve
or
critical
not
contemplated
Master
addition
the
consistent
Boom,
patterns that
adopted
even
the
that
limited
for
site
Amending
have
access
or
furthers
of
issues
natural
recreational
park
to
a
widening,
plans
and
Wallace
the
more
influence
to
facilities
balance
reinforce
life
or in
Just
to
respond with
neighborhood
and
costs
development maintenance
development
2006,
to
changes
“image”,
cycles.
accessible,
in
areas
this
the
as
reflect
recreation.
master
Swamp
the
among
associated
parks
streets
the
yet
goal.
proposed
the
opportunities
to
of
master
Parks
in
need
an
no
Kenmore.
community
preservation,
desire
will
plans
Creek
recreational
park
interesting,
will
opportunity
resources
development
of
include:
and
and
for too,
plans
Key
new
with
Squire’s
periodically prepared
types?
for
community
and
renovation
facilities
development
such
facilities
The
more
overuse,
available
will
demand
Northshore
be
access,
trends
or
as
create
Landing
City
or
available
in
access
activity
safer
landscape
are
demand?
require
2006.
not should
parks.
include:
and/or
to
would
the
or
more
for
Kenmore
should
contemplated
Park
to
Summit
simple
has
infrastructure
A
after
public the
continue
renovation
Essential
age.
also
master
recreation
rehabilitation,
and
occurred.
water
include
development?
expansion
increase
Parks
the
residents?
use?
plan
to
considerations
adopted
and
at
either
water
have
opportunities
explore
Completing
for
for
the
also
of
providing
3
been
time
existing
in access,
the
Wallace
Page
the of ______
Priorities Priorities for Kenmore parks through the year 2035 include recommendations for Acquisition, Development and Renovation. Figures 5.1.1,2,3 and Table 5.1 summarize the capital recommendations. A description of each project is contained within this section.
Figure 5.1.1 Map: Capital Recommendations, Acquisitions Figure 5.1.2 Map: Capital Recommendations, Development
Capital Projects: AcquisWons Capital Projects: Development
aa ‘aaessr - -
0 700 1400 700 1400 2800 Feel 2.800Feel Legend — — Leend — — KenmoreBoondary Parks Schools [Capitai Kenmore Boordary Parks Schools rcaptai Proect Proiect — bireets ITS City Hail Post 010cc Renoinmendaboo Recommendation • 4 N — Streets City HaI• Post Office N Streams S Library .. Poise — Streams tS Library .. Poise A ihese locations do ootdeflote a opeciftc propertyoipropenios A These locations do not denote a specific property orproperfies
41 Page ______
Figure 5.1.3 Maps: Capital Recommendations, Renovation
Capital Projects: Renovations
0 700 1400 2800 Feel Leend- Ken,eele Bo,edo Fa8cs ScIlOON çpel pe0 Reconirrtendaboo — Streets fl[ COyHall I Post Ofilce N — Streams l Ljbrary .‘ Folios A
51 Page Table: 5.1 Capital recommendations summary Acquisition Development Renovation Natural Areas/Open Space Natural Areas/Open Space (A-7) Swamp Creek (D-18) Squires Landing Park (A-5) Sammamish River (D-5) Wallace Swamp Creek Park (A-8) Sheriff Precinct Property (D-7)Entry Gateways (heron rookery) Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood Parks (A-2) Twin Springs (Portal (D-9)Twin Springs Park (R-1) Moorlands Park Park) (A-b) Moorlands Park (0-2) Northshore Summit Park (R-2) Linwood Park Expansion (D-8) City Hall Park
Waterfront Parks Waterfront Parks Waterfront Parks (A-4) Sammamish River (D-4) Rhododendron Park (A-3) Lake Washington (D-18) Squire’s Landing Park (D-1) Kenmore “WaterWalk” and Waterfront Master Plan (D-) Log Boom Park Community Parks Community Parks Community Parks (A-li) Indoor Recreation (0-14) Skate Park Space (Partnership Community Center (A-9) Community Park land (D-8)City Hall Park (D-6) Kenmore Village Public Square/civic plaza (0-13) Off-leash_area Linear Parks Linear Parks Linear Parks (A-i) Kenmore Water Walk (0-16) Tolt Pipeline Trail Phase and Waterfront Master Plan 1 (A-6) Tolt Pipeline Trail Phase (0-17) Tolt Pipeline Trail Phase 1 2 (A-12) Tolt Pipeline Trail (D-i) Kenmore “WaterWalk” Phase 2 and Waterfront Master Plan (0-li) Swamp Creek Nature Trail Recreation Facilities (0-15) Partnership Community Center (0-10) Picnic Facilities (D-l2) Sport Courts 6IPage
cost
Estimated
waterfront Washington.
waterfront the
be approved complete
Policy Waterfront A-i Acquisition
lineal
taken
city’s
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection Major
Kenmore
Key
estimate
feet).
Support:
Community
Active
Park
Values
Pedestrian/Bike
to
central
new
Commercial
Cost:
Issues
Local
access
access
Public
ensure
Master
Projects
This
Partnerships
Stewardship
Experiences
WaterWalk
“WaterWalk”
is
Lake
Recreation
waterfront
Civic
provided.
Network
Services
N/A.
site
waterfront.
Balance
Access
to
on
Pointe
Image
that
Plan,
Area
Lake
is
Lake
No
Site
critical
public
consider
contains
specific
Washington
facilities
See
Washington
Development
and
V
V V V V
V V
V
V V
V
V
A
to
access
project
key
Waterfront
the
property
property
approximately
and
component
City’s
is
Goal
P-5 P-4
P-i
P-2
D-1.
and
the
(2,200
a
Permit
component
ability
the
concept
or
acquisition
Master
lineal
properties
Sammamish
to
(CSDP)on
to
4,200
this
Plan-Upon
of
feet)
provide
to
a
project
and
Objective
P-4.1
P-2.1 P-1.1
lineal
continuous
LakePoint’s
identified.
and
the
partnerships
River
sufficient
the
feet
Lake
is
adoption
implementation
and
Sammamish
of
Pointe
public
future
Accordingly
potential
every
waterfront
of
to
site
access
a
development.
initiate,
opportunity
P4.1.3
P-5.1.3 P-4.1.6 P-4.1.1.3 P4.1.1
P-5.1.2 P-S P-2.1.3 P-2.1.2.S Policy
“WaterWalk
on
River
public
1
no
of
corridor
Lake
park
1
Action
sustain
the
acquisition
(2,000
7IPage
land
should
and
along
or and
Estimated Twin
feasibility this A-2
from
developable
Policy
Twin
site
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection Major
Key
Springs
King
Support:
Community
Active
is
Park
Values
Springs-In
Pedestrian/Bike
as
County
Cost:
currently
Issues
Local
Public
Partnerships
land
a
Stewardship
for
Experiences
WaterWalk
Recreation
community
Civic
$0.
more
Network
Services
Balance
(12k
to
Access
Image
late
defined
Area
the
Property
acres)
active
2014
City
park.
for
V
V V
V V
V
V
V
with
type
of
or
to
Kenmore
neighborhood
2015
The
be
the
uses.
transferred
city
cost
the
Goal
P-5
P-4 P-3
could
for
majority
of
the
developing
park
compare
from
purpose
of
uses,
King the
the
a
consideration
26
of
County.
Objective
P-3.1
challenging
providing
acre
cost
of
site
acquiring
is
public
site
could
scheduled
such
park
be
enough
P-4.6.4.3 P-4.1.1
P-4.1.4.2 P4.1.4 P-4.1.6
P-4.1.4.1 Policy
as
given
land.
for
the
Action transfer
81
26
to
While
Page its acre
estimate
easement,
acquisition
Estimated
A-3
suitable
include easements
Policy project
:
Opportunities
Major
Linkages/Connection
Key
Lake
Support:
Community
Active
does
stand
Park
Values
and
Pedestrian/Bike
is
Washington
Cost:
fee
Issues
Local
could
provided.
on
Public
Partnerships
Stewardship
appropriate
Experiences
not
WaterWalk
alone
Recreation
simple
private
Civic
Network
Services
N/A.
currently
Balance
be
Access
Image
Area
parcels
accomplished
acquisition
See
(Waterfront
No
property
access
specific
project
identify
V or
V
V V
V V
V V
V
V
V
parcels
on
to
or
parcel
D-1.
Park)-Consider
through
Lake
the
any
some
adjacent
lake,
specific
Washington
or
other
parcels
Goal
P-5 P-4
P-3
P-i
partnership
such
property
to
similar
as
opportunities
city
are
the
as
or
identified.
part
instrument.
with
LakePointe
or
other
properties.
of
redevelopment
Objective
P-4.1 P-3.i
P-i.2 P-1.1
project
publicly
to
When
acquire
property.
Accordingly
A-i
owned
an
or
property
opportunity
activities,
where
Acquisitions
property.
no
P-5.1.3
P-4.1.5 P-1.2.i.3 P4.1.1
P-4.i.6 P-3.i.1 P-i.i.3 Policy
acquisition
or
it
creates
9IPage
Action
arises,
This may A-4/5 Sammamish River (Waterfront Parks)-Consider opportunities to acquire property or easements on the Sammamish River as part of project A-i or where it creates suitable and appropriate access to the river, including properties adjacent to Squire’s Landing Park if and when they become available. Acquisitions may include stand alone parcels or parcels adjacent to city or other publicly owned property. This project does not currently identify any specific property or properties.
Policy Support
Key Values Goal Objective Policy Action Stewardship V P-i P-1.i P-1.i.3 Balance V P-1.2 P-1.2.i Community Image V P-3 P-3.i P-3.1.i P-3.1.i.1 Major Issues P-4.1.5 Public Access V P-4.1.6 Local Services V P-5.1.3 Linkages/Connection V Park Experiences V
Opportunities WaterWalk V CivicArea Partnerships V Pedestrian/Bike V Network Active Recreation V
Estimated cost: $3.3 Million. (Assumes approximatelyi4 acres)
10 I P a g e A-6 Tolt Pipeline Trail Phase 1 (Linear Parks)-This project is included within the 2013-14 CIP, completing a pedestrian and bicycle trail between th68 Avenue NEand rd73 Avenue NE. This “acquisition” is to be secured as permission to utilize property owned by Seattle Public Utilities for use as part of a network of connecting trails within the city.
Policy Support:
Key Values Goal Objective Policy Action
Stewardship P P-2 P-2.1 P-2.1.2 Balance V P-2.1.2.2 Community Image P-2.1.2.4 P-3 P-3.1 P-3.1.1.1 Major Issues P-5.1.3 Public Access V P-6.4 P-6.4.1 Local Services V P-6.4.1.2 Linkages/Connection V Park Experiences V
Opportunities WaterWalk CivicArea Partnerships V Pedestrian/Bike V Network Active Recreation V
Estimated acquisition cost: $0. (Permission for use granted as part of easement agreement with City of Seattle Public Utilities).
11 P a I g e ______
A-7 Swamp Creek (Natural Parks/Open Space)-Consider opportunities to acquire property and/or easements along the Swamp Creek corridor for the purposes of conservation, habitat preservation and restoration, and appropriate public access in the form of the Swamp Creek Nature Trail (project D-11). Flood control and the city’s ability to improve water quality are additional reasons to acquire property along Swamp Creek. This project does not currently denote any specific property or properties.
Policy Support:
Key Values Goal Objective Policy Action Stewardship V P-2 P-2.1 P-2.1.2.1 Balance V P-2.1.2.3 Community Image V P-2.1.2.5 P-3 P-3.1 P-3.1.3 Major Issues P-4 P-4.1 P-4.1.3 Public Access V P-4.1.5 Local Services V P-4.1.6 Linkages/Connection V P-5.1.3 Park Experiences V
Opportunities WaterWalk CivicArea Partnerships V Pedestrian/Bike V Network Active Recreation V
Estimated acquisition/easement cost: $1.06 million or less. Assumes approximately 24 acres.
12 I P a g e
Estimated
A-8
Policy
property portion
Heron
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
Support:
Community
Active
of
Park
Values
Pedestrian/Bike
habitat
Cost:
the
Rookery
Issues
Local
Public
Partnerships
Stewardship
Experiences
WaterWalk
Recreation
former
Civic
$0.
Network
Services
conservation
Balance
Access
Image
The (Nature
Area
King site
--
County
V
V
V
V
V
Parks/Open contains
-- - purposes
-
Sheriff
a
conservation
Goal
P-4 P-3
to
Space
precinct
protect
and
property
the
Community
easement.
existing
Objective
P-1.1
or
former
heron
Parks)
rookery.
Northshore
Acquiring
P-4
Policy
P-4.1.6
the
1
Fire
5
wetland
Action
13
District
p
a
g e
million.
Estimated
service
determine assessment
Policy A-9
property athletic
projects
passive
Opportunities
Major
Linkages/Connection
Key
Community
Community
Support:
Active
accordingly.
Park
Values
uses
fields,
See
Pedestrian/Bike
a
is
Issues
cost
need
Local
that
Public
necessary.
Partnerships
of
Stewardship
appendix
Experiences
commonly
WaterWalk
Recreation
Civic
sport
the
to
Network
additional
of
Services
Park
Balance
Access
acquire
Image
feasibility
approximately
Area
courts,
Land-(See
E
In
for
found
the
approximately
community
V
V
V
basis
V
V
V V
trails
of
event
in
developing
project
community
and
and
17
that
acres.
assumptions
support
park
Goal
P-4
A-2)-To
insufficient
17
the
land
A
acres
parks,
city-wide
facilities
Twin
successfully
is
of
not
a
property
Springs
developable
minimum
available
such
assessment
Objective
P-4.1
contain
as
site
exists,
parking
of
and
for
land
12
of
that
a
scale
the
acres
variety
suitable
in
and
city
purpose
Kenmore:
back
is
restrooms.
could
suggested
of
P-4.1.1.5
P-4.1.4.2 P-4.1.4.1 P-4.1.4 Policy
and
its
active
or
level
conduct
available
$10-is
could
Action
14
and
of
The
for
p
a
an
plan
g e
Estimated
A-b
properties. expand
Policy Northshore
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection Major
Key
Moorlands
Support:
Community
Active
Moorlands
Park
Values
Pedestrian/Bike
cost:
Issues
Local
Public
School
Partnerships
Stewardship
Experiences
WaterWalk
Recreation
Civic
Network
$624,000-$1.0
Park
Services
Balance
Access
Image
District.
Park
Area
Expansion-Consider
and
V
V
V
V ‘I This
create
million.
project
a
block
Goal
Assumes
does
opportunities
of
publicly
not
approximately
currently
owned
Objective
P-4.1
to
acquire
denote
property
1.03
adjacent
any
acres.
between
specific
P-4.1.1.5 P-4.1.
Policy
properties
property
the
Action
city
15
to
I
and or
P
a
g
the e
Estimated
A-il
other
public, acquiring
Policy
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
Partnership
agencies
Support:
Community
Active
private
Park
Values
Pedestria
property
cost:
Issues
Local
Public
Partnerships
Stewardship
Experiences
WaterWalk
Recreation
or
Civic
(see
Network
$1.3
Services
Balance
Community
non-profit
Access
n/Bike
Image
for
Area
project
Million.
developing
V V
V
V V D-15).
V V
agencies.
Center
Assumes
an
Pursue
(Community
indoor
Goal
P-5
P-4
approximately
possible
community
Parks)
partnerships
1.5
Objective
P-6.4
P-4.l
center
Assess
acres.
exploring
the
with
feasibility
King
partnerships
county
Policy
P-6.4.2
P-5.1.3 P-4.1.4.2
and
or
consider
Action
other
16
with
P
a
g e
Estimated
connect A-12
Policy
portions
Tolt
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major Support:
Key
to
Community
of
Active
Pipeline
Park
cost:
Values
Pedestrian/Bike
adjoining
the
Issues
Local
Public
Partnerships
Stewardship
Experiences
ToIt
WaterWa
Recreation
$0.
Civic
Trail
Network
Services
Balance
Pipeline
Access
Utilizes
cities
Image
Area
Phase
1k
to
Seattle
to
the
2-
V V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
expand
Developing west
;
Public
and
the
Goal
P-3
P-2
Utilities
network
east.
a
master
property.
of
plan
connecting
to
Objective
P-6.4 P-3.1
P2.1
extend
(assumes
trails
the
an
within
trail
acquired
along
the
P-6.4.
P-6.4.1 P-5.1.3
P-3.1.1.1 P-2.1.2.5 P-2.1.2.2 Policy
P-2.1.2.4 P2.1.2
city
remaining
easement)
17
1.2
Action
and
p
a
g e
from
Estimated
Policy
defining
Development
D-1
Kenmore Master
Figure
Support:
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
the
Community
Active
Park cost:
5.2
Values
Pedestrian/Bike
Plan. concept
Photo:
Issues
Local
“WaterWalk”
Public
Partnerships
Projects
Stewardship
Experiences
WaterWalk
$200,000
Recreation Civic
example
Network
Services
Balance
Access
Image
of
Area the
#WaterWalk
Master
and
Kenmore
V
V
V V
V
V V
V
V
V
V
V
Waterfront
Plan;
WaterWalk,
Design
Goal
P-5
P-4
P-2
Master
and
a
creation This
other the
access
corridor
leveraging and
Parks
Construction
chain Plan-Develop
development
connected
plan
forming
boaters
facilities
of
Objective
along
P-4.1
P-2.1
of
should
open
Kenmore’s
a
watercraft
and
a
the
cost
and
to
for
spaces,
continuous
contain
and
the
promote
city’s
paddlers,
estimates
implement
Burke-Gilman
building
unique
Linear
center
central
opportunities
the
public
sailors,
P-5.1.2 P-2.1.3
P-5.1.3 P-5.1.1 P-4.1.3 P-4.1.1.3 P-1.1.1
P-4.1.6 Policy
waterfront
would
and
of
a
in
vision
waterfront
master
water
Ken
access
Waterfront
18
Action
Trail.
result
and
more.
I
and
P
for
a
plan
for
g e
Estimated
site
Policy
begun
Park.
D-2
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
furniture,
Northshore
Community
Completed
Support:
Active
in
Park
Values
Pedestrian/Bike
2013
Issues
development
Local
Public
Partnerships
Stewardship
Experiences
WaterWalk
Recreation
Civic
picnicking,
with
Network
Services
Summit
Balance
Access
improvements
Image
Area
an
expected
cost:
Park-Complete
landscaping,
V
V
V
V
V
V
$660,000
2014 will
-
Goal
P-4
include
completion
and
the
(engineers
open
development
loop
lawn
trails,
date.
estimate).
areas
Objective
P-4.1
ADA
of
for
the
access,
informal
3.6
acre
children’s
plan.
Northshore
P-5.1.3
P-4.1.1.4 Policy
P-4.1.1
This
play
Action
project
equipment,
19
Summit
j
P
was
a
g e
(master
Estimated
dock
Policy by
2006.
D-3
environmental
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
Log
and
Community
Support:
Active
Remaining
Park
Values
plan
Boom
Pedestrian/Bike
pier.
Issues
cost:
Local
Public
Partnerships
Stewardship
Experiences
estimate
WaterWalk
Recreation
Civic
Park-Updating
Planning,
Network
Services
$340,000
Balance
Access
improvements
issues
Image
Area
and
and
development
construction
prototype
V
V
V
V
V V
V
V
V
V
constraints.
and
include
completing
cost
Goal
P-5
P-3
P-4
P-2 P-i
and
documents/permitting;
expanding
estimates).
cost
of
estimates
the
the
master
beach
Objective
P-5.i P-4.1
P-3.1
P-2.i
should
plan
area
$2.3
for
reflect
and
Log
million
renovating
Boom
the
construction
challenges
P-4.1.1.2 P-3.i.i Policy
P-5.i.3 P-4.i.i
P-1.i.4
P-i.i.2
Park
the
Action
adopted
20
existing
posed
f
P
a
g
in e
plan
Estimated
center)
Policy
interpretive boardwalks,
D-4
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection Major
Key
Rhododendron
estimate).
Support:
Community
Active
Park
identified
Values
Pedestrian/Bike
cost:
Issues
Local
Public
Partnerships
Stewardship
signs,
canoe/kayak/small
Experiences
WaterWal
Recreation
Civic
Network
$50,000
Services
Balance
Access
in
non-motorized
Image
Area Park-Updating
the
k
master
construction
V
V
V
V
V
V V
V
plan
boat
boat
and
adopted
shed,
documents/permitting;
completing
Goal access,
P-4
P-5 P-3
in
public
2006.
beaches
improvements
river
Remaining
Objective
P-5.1
access,
along
$335,000
the
(excluding
improvements
and
river,
parking
construction
nature
the
P-4.1.1.1 P-3. Policy
P-3.1.2 P-1.1.4
P-5.1.3
P-1.1.3
improvements.
community
include
1.
trails,
1.1
Action
21
(master
I
P
a
g e 0-5 Wallace Swamp Creek Park-Update and complete the master plan to include the remaining planned improvements, excluding the athletic field. Improvements include a picnic shelter, restroom, open meadow area, woodland play area, picnic area, wetland and stream enhancement and restoration, and interpretive education.
Policy Support:
Key Values Goal Objective Policy Action Stewardship V P-3 P-3.1 P-3.1.1.1 Balance V P-3.1.2 Community Image V P-3.1.2.1 P-3.1.3 Major Issues P-4 P-4.1 P-4.1.1.3 Public Access V P-5.1.3 Local Services V Linkages/Connection Park Experiences V
Opportunities WaterWalk CivicArea Partnerships V Pedestrian/Bike Network Active Recreation
Estimated cost: $94,000 construction documents/permitting; $627,000 construction (master plan estimate).
22 p a g e
$950,000
Estimated
Policy
D-6
Figure
Opportunities
Linkages/Con
Major
Key
Kenmore
Support:
Community
Active
Park
Values
5.3
Pedestria
construction
costs:
Issues
Local
Public
Photo:
Partnerships
Stewardship
Experiences
WaterWalk
Recreation
Village
Civic
Network
Services
master
Balance
nection
Access
n/Bike
example
Image
Area
Public
costs
plan,
“civic
V
V
V
V
‘I
‘I
‘I
‘I
Sguare/”Town
(place
construction
plaza”
holding
Goal
P-4
Green”-This
cost).
documents
and
Community
community
social
design Green”
development
Ken
Objective
P-4.1
permitting
more
and
and
envisioned
Village
recreational
Park
development
gathering
project,
costs
project
project.
as
$142,000;
part
place
for
Policy
P-5.1.4
P-4. P-4.1.2
activities.
is
to
a
The
a
of
1.4.2
“Town
design
for
create
23
the
Action
intent
various
I
P
a
and
a
g
is e
5
Estimated
those
of
Policy
D-Z
gateways
those
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
City
along
Support:
Community
Active
Park
Values
Entry
entries
Pedestrian/Bike
costs:
Issues
Local
at
Public
Partnerships
the
Stewardship
Experiences
WaterWalk
approximately Recreation
Gateways-Complete
Civic
Network
through
Burke
Services
Balance
$37,500
Access
Image
Area
Gilman
landscaping,
master
V
V
V
$50,000
Trail.
L
plan
an
In
Goal
each.
and
inventory
and
addition,
signage.
construction
create
identifying
Objective
a
documents,
plan
key
for
entries
improving
$250,000 into
.
the
Policy
P-4.1.8
P-6.4.5
the
construction
city
visual
Action including
.
24
character
I
P
a
for
g e
construction
Estimated
skate
courts
Policy City
D4
City
Hall
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
court,
Support:
such
Community
Active
Hall
site
Park
Values
Pedestrian/Bike
costs:
Issues
Local
as
community
Public
cost.
including
Park-Develop
Partnerships
Stewardship
Experiences
WaterWalk
pickleball
Recreation
Civic
Network
$62,400
Services
Balance
Access
Image
Area
the
garden,
and
master
north
a
V
V
V
master
V
V
ii
f
basketball,
and
and
plan,
plan
landscaping. south
construction
Goal
P-4
children’s
for
plaza
neighborhood/community
areas.
play
documents
area,
Improvements
Objective
P-4.1
P-6.4
picnic
and
areas
permitting;
could
park
and
purposes
include
site
P-5.1.3 Policy
P-4.1.2
$414,000
furniture,
25
Action
sport
on
I
P
the
a
g e
documents
Estimated documents
Estimated
Policy
restoration.
Nature park, areas
improvements
improvements
Park.
D-9
Opportunities Linkages/Con
Major
Key
Twin
picnic
Community
for
The
Support:
Active
Park
Park
Values
Pedestrian/Bike
informal Springs
Issues
Community
Neighborhood
Local
site
Public
and
and
Partnerships
Stewardship
shelters
Experiences
type
WaterWalk
Recreation
Civic
would
could
could
N
permitting;
permitting;
Services
Balance
nection
etwork
Access Park-Develop
improvements
Image
play,
Area
or
consider
include
also
Park
an
pathways,
Park
contain
off-leash
V
V V
V V
V
V
V
$2.1
$1.1
costs:
parking,
the
costs:
a
million. million
could
master
Nature
potential
and
$330,000
dog
sport
$165,000
include
restroom
areas
construction.
P-3
plan
Park
courts,
for
master
for
if
features.
interpretive
one
feasible
master
and
either
children’s
multipurpose
planning
site
a
planning
given
Neighborhood
furniture.
Neighborhood
P-4.1
P-3.1
trails,
play
and environmental
and
education,
field
equipment,
design,
Community
design,
(soccer
Park
Park
construction
and
type
construction
constraints.
or
and
P-5.1.3 P-4.1.4.1
P-4.1.4.2 P-4.1.1.6 Policy
P-4.1.4 P-4.1.1
sized
Community
Park
habitat
open
field) Action
26
type
I lawn
P
skate
a
g e
preparation.
Estimated
character
Policy existing
appropriate.
availability
Ken
Rhododendron D-1O
,
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
more.
Picnic
Community
Support:
Active
Park
Values
parks,
Pedestrian/Bike
and
Issues
cost:
Local
Picnic
Public
of
Partnerships
Facilities-
Stewardship
Experiences
WaterWalk
Recreation
These
the
Civic
scale
and
Network
Park
Services
determined
Balance
facilities
Access
only
Image
new
Area
of
facilities
and
Increased
the
picnic
park
Log
should
specific
V
V
V
V
V
as
should
development shelter Boom
.
part
use
be
park.
Park
at
of also
added
facilities
Goal
P-4
master
limits
be
where
to
in
in
the
planning
Objective
P-4.1
and
Figure
construction
5.4
Photo:
document
Picnic
P-4.1.2 P-4. Policy
P-5.1.3 P-4.1.1.6 P-4.1.1.3
P-4. P-4.1.1.1
1. 1.1.2
Shelter
1.5
Action
27
P
a
g e
million
Estimated
Policy
Swamp
D-11
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
Swamp
Community Support:
Figure
Active
for
Park
Values
Creek
Pedestrian/Bike
Issues
construction
costs: Local
5.5
Public
Partnerships
Stewardship
Experiences
WaterWalk Creek
Photo:
Recreation
(see
Civic
Network
Services
Balance
$150,000 Access
Boardwalk
Image
project
Area
Nature cost.
Example
A-7)
Trail-This for
‘I,
‘I
‘I ‘I
‘I ‘I
‘I
‘I
(assumes
master
corridor
project
plan,
Goal
P-4 P-3
P-2
approximately
creates
construction
is
a
the
master
Wallace
stream
Park nature appropriate continuous
provides
opportunity
and
5,000
trail
planning
habitat
Objective
P-4.1 P-3.1
Swamp
P-2.1
documents
significant
the
could north-south
lineal
public
Burke
for
to
Creek
and
provide
feet
form
interpretive
access
Gilman
opportunity
and
development
Park
of
a
pedestrian
permitting;
boardwalk).
nearly
within
connection
Trail.
to
P-4.1.6 P-3.1.1 Policy
P-5.1.3 P-3.1.3 P-2.
P-2.1.2.3 P-2.1.2
Squire’s
education.
for
mile
wetland
1.2.5
project.
Action
link.
28
$1.0
long
from
Landing
p
It
and
a
This
also
The
g e
preparation.
Estimated
Policy
pickleball,
new neighborhood
D-12
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
parks.
Sport
Community
Support:
Active
Park
Values
Pedestria
cost:
Issues
or
Local
Public
Courts-Sport
Partnerships
Stewardship
Experiences
WaterWalk
tennis)
Recreation
Civic
parks.
Network
determined
Services
Balance
Access
n/Bike
Image
Area
where
This
courts
project
V
V
V
V
appropriate
as
are
part
recommends
typically of
-
Goal
P-4
master
in
existing
a
feature
planning
addition
community
found
Objective
P-4.1
and
of
sport
construction
within
and
courts
neighborhood
community
(e.g.
document
P-4.1.2 Policy
P-4.1.1.6
basketball,
and
parks
Action
29
and
I
P
a
any
g e
construction
Estimated
Policy park” D-13
;
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
Dog
or
Community Support:
Active
Park
Values
Pedestrian/Bike
including
Park-
cost:
Issues
Local
Public
Partnerships
Stewardship
documents;
Experiences
WaterWalk
Recreation
Civic
Identify
Network
acquisition:
Services
Balance
Access
an
Image
Area
“off-leash
potential
$100,000
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
$624,000
area”
sites
construction.
Goal
P-4
as
and
for
part
1
plan
acre.
of
for
a
Community
$15,000
development
Objective
P-4.1
for
Park.
master
of
either
planning
a
P-6.4.1.2 Policy
P-5
P-4.1.4.2
P-4.1.4
stand
and
1
3
alone
Action
30
“dog
p
a
g e
$37,500
Estimated
Policy of
bowls
recommends D-14
,
the
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
Skate
Support:
and
existing
Community
Active
master
Park
Values
Pedestrian/Bike
cost
other
Park-This
Issues
Local
Public
Partnerships
Stewardship
identifying
Experiences
WaterWalk
skate
Recreation
relocation:
planning
Civic
skate
Network
Services
Balance
Access
Image
park
Area
is
features
a
two
potential
and
to
$15,000
a
V
V
V
V
construction
part
suitable
to
:
i
project.
be
sites
(CIP).
located
(potentially
and
Goal
P-4
Estimated
documents;
This
developing
in
first
an
City
existing
part
cost
Hall
$250,000
a
of
more
Objective
P-4.1
of
or
the
site)
a
new
new
traditional
project
site.
construction.
Community
facility
The
includes
second
skate
in
an
P-4.1.1.6
P-5.1.3 Policy
Park.
existing
the
park
part
relocation
31
Action
including
park:
p
a
g e
$1.3
Estimated
and
Policy development
recreation D-15
.
consider
million Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
Partnership
Support:
Community
Active
Park
Values
Pedestrian/Bike
costs:
and
Issues
construction
Local
Public
Partnerships
Stewardship
potential
Experiences
associated
WaterWalk
Recreation
social
Civic
Network
$199,000
Services
Community
Balance
Access
Image
Area
service
sites
cost
with
master
and
V
V
V
V
V
V
needs
assumes
Center-This
project
design
plan
in
A-8.
Ken
12,000
a
Goal
and P-4
facility
more.
project
The
design;
square
master
to
is
accommodate
the
construction
feet.
plan
creation
Objective
P-6.4 P-4.1
(prototype
and
development
of
documents
delivery
a
master
cost
of
estimate)
plan
and
some
would
Policy
P.6.4.2 P-4.1.4.2
P-5.1.3
and
permitting;
local
Action
32
inventory
p
a
g e
$31,500
Estimated
This
Policy area
D-16
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key project
could
Tolt
Support:
Community
Active
or
Park
Values
Pedestrian/Bike
Pipeline
costs:
$132,000
be
Issues
Local
Public
is
Partnerships
Stewardship
Experiences
WaterWalk
assessed
contained
Recreation
Civic
Network
$4,700
Services
Balance
Trail
Access
Image
Area
(assume
Phase
during
for
within
master V
V
V
V
V
V
$100,000
1-This
project
the
2013-18
plan
project
design.
Goal
P-2
for
and
dog
is
CIP.
design;
the
park
The
development
if
construction
feasibility
included)
Objective
P-6.4
P-2.1
of
activity
for
documents
including
construction
associated
an
P-6.4.2
P-2.1.2.4
P-6.4.1.2 P-5.1.3 P-2.1.3 P-2.1.2.2
Policy
P-2.1.2
P-2.1.2.1
and
off-leash
cost.
permitting;
with
Action
33
1
A-6.
dog
P
a
g e
to
$347,000
Estimated
connecting
Policy
associated
D-17
Bothell
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
Tolt
Support:
Community
Active
Park
Values
Pedestrian/Bike
for
City
Pipeline
costs:
Issues
Local
with
trails
Public
Partnerships
Stewardship
construction
Experiences
WaterWalk
Recreation
limit
Civic
Network
project
Services
Balance
within
$52,000
Access
Trail
Image
along
Area
Phase
A-il
the
Seattle
for
cost.
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
city
extending
master
2-
Assumes
and
This
Public
to
project
plan
the
the
Utilities
Goal
P-2
combination
and
City
trail
is
design;
a
limits
Tolt
along
master
Pipeline
with
this
construction
of
planning
boardwalk
P-6.4 Objective
P-2.i
route
Bothell
property.
as
and
from
part
documents
and development
73 rd
of
paved
network
Avenue
P-6.4.2
P-6.4. P-2.1.3 P-2.1.2.4
P-5.1.3 P-2.1.2.5
P-2.1.2.1 P-2.1.2 Policy
P-2.1.2.2
and
trail
of
action
permitting;
1.2
from
NE.
Action
34
I P
73 rd
a
g e
construction
$12
Estimated
Policy interpretive
2010,
D-18 k
.
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
million
Major
Key
Squire’s
proposed
Support:
Community
Active
Park
Values
Pedestrian/Bike
cost:
Issues
Local
construction
Public
Partnerships
Stewardship
education,
documents;
Experiences
WaterWalk
Recreation
Landing
Civic
Network
Public habitat,
Services
Balance
Access
Image
Area
Park-Update
access
parking,
(draft
stream
$1.3
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
improvements:
million master
.
I.
1
I
I
and
restrooms,
and
riverbank
construction.
plan).
Goal
P-4
P-3
adopt
and
a
$205,000
restoration,
master
site
Habitat
furniture.
plan.
master
Objective
P-4.1 P-3.1
P-2.1
appropriate
Restoration:
A
draft
plan
revision,
plan
public
$1.8
was
P-3.1.2
P-5.1.3 P-3.1.3 P-3.1.2.2
Policy
P-1.1.3
P-1.1.4
million
design access,
developed
Action
35
and
design;
I
P
in
a
g e
for
Estimated
children’s
Policy
entry
plan
R-1 Renovation
construction
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
Moorlands
for
improvements,
Support:
Community
Active
Park
Values
Moorlands
Pedestria
play
costs:
Issues
Local
Public
Partnerships
Stewardship
Projects
Experiences
WaterWalk
Recreation
Civic
area
Park-This
Network
(master
Services
Balance
$121,000
Access
n/Bike
Image
Area
Park
and
landscaping,
open
plan
including
project
for
V
V
V
estimates).
lawn
master
completes
restrooms,
upgrading
area
Goal
P-6
P-4
plan,
for
development
informal
construction
the
improvement
existing
play.
Objective
P-6.1
P-4.1
documents
ball
of
to
the
field,
existing
adopted
improvement
and
parking,
renovation
permitting;
P-6.1.2 P-5.1.3
Policy
P-4.1.1.4 P-4.1.1
picnic
to
Action
the
36 master
$808,000
shelter,
p
a
g e
$511,000
Estimated
facilities,
typical
Policy
playground
neighborhood R-2
Linwood
•
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
Support:
features
Community
Active
Park
Values
for
site
Pedestrian/Bike
costs:
Issues
and
Local
Public
construction.
Partnerships
Park-This
Stewardship
furniture,
Experiences
WaterWalk
Recreation
park.
Civic
found
open
$76,000
Network
Services
Balance
Access
Image
Area
Presently
space
in
would
landscaping,
a
for
neighborhood
for
V
V V
V
V
V
V
renovation
develop
the
informal
r
park
sport
a
P-6 Goal
P-4
is
renovation
play.
master
park
“underdeveloped”
court,
This
including
plan,
and
project
plan
pathways.
construction
improved
to
P-6.1 Objective
P-4.1
could
update
and
include
contains
open
the
documents
existing
lawn
placement
a
children’s
areas,
P-6.1.2 P-4.1.1.4
P-5.1.3 Policy
P-4.1.1
1.4
and
acre
permitting;
Action
of
picnic
37
more
1
P
a
g e
Policy
Recreation Operational
There
community
The
enhancing certain
provision
The
City
private
cities
programs
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
city
should City
Support:
Community
and
Active
is
Park
Values
local
agencies
Pedestrian/Bike
should
an
should
of
Issues
Local
other
including
Public
economic
Partnerships
additional
Stewardship
also
building.
Experiences
special
WaterWalk
recreation
Recreation
Civic
Programs
Network
consider
Services
continue
Balance
public
avoid
have
Access
Image
Recommendations
Area
events.
athletic
development,
opportunity
already
duplication
or
and
a
its
private
partnership
V
V
V
V
V
leagues
social
Special
policy
successfully
organizations
of
service
for
to
providing
events
and
service
coordinate
Goal
P-5
the
with
sports,
needs
City
developed
offer
an
and
local
to
agency
for
serving
in
unique
unnecessary
with
provide
the
Kenmore
prospects
recreational
the
or
operation
Objective
P-5.1
all
opportunity
other
recreation
Northshore
ages
in
for
expense
an
provider
and
recreation,
and
indoor
programs.
needs
services
for
delivery
School
where
creating
for
community
within
the
P-S.1.4 Policy
P-5.1.3 P-5.1.1
P-5.1.2
and
through
District,
other
of
delivery
recreation
promote
partnerships,
the
Action
public
38
center.
city.
the
adjacent
of
p
a
and
The
g e
Policy
Management
facilities. The
management
practices
outside
In
addition,
Opportunities
Linkages/Connection
Major
Key
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
city
Support:
Community
Active
Create
Park
Create
resources
Develop
Develop
Develop
Develop
Develop
Develop
Update
Values
Pedestrian/Bike contracting
should
for
Issues This
Local
Public
Partnerships
Stewardship
the
Experiences
WaterWalk
park
Recreation
tools:
Civic
a
Park
should
Network
Kenmore
assess
development
Services
and
and
a
policies policies
Park
and
Balance
Access
Memorials
Image
and
and
Area
Maintenance
services.
Implement
Implement
implement
Enhancement
include
recreation
the
for
for
Maintenance
ordinance
resources
V
V
V V ‘I
‘4’
Park
park
and
of
an
a
a
policies
clear
Special
use,
evaluation
Manual
operations
Donations
capital
Park
Grant
on
needed
facility
Goal
P-6
and
sign
Prk
on
Events
improvement
Program
concise
posting
use
and
of
Policy
rentals,
is
to
the
important.
of
manage
Recreation
volunteers
written
current
(see
policy
and
grant
Objective
P-6.2
P-6.1
description
and
fees
management
organization
The
Rules
maintain
program
following
and
below)
Regulations
park
to
structure,
policy,
are
leverage
services
P-6.1.3 P-6.1.1
P-6.2.5.2 P-6.2.5 P-6.2.3 P-6.2.1.2 P-6.2.1 P-6.1.2 Policy
P-6.2.5.1 P-6.2.4 P-6.2.2 P-6.2.1.3 P-6.2.1.1
recommended
procedures
staffing,
local
Action
and
39
I
P
a
and
and
g e
ability all
upon
maintenance Some
For As The
current
services
critical. Successful for
maintenance facilities
The
Forest
maintenance
matching
Enhancement
local
city
the
3.
activities
2.
any 1.
continued
City
funds
economic
options
to
parks.
city’s
Park.
Outsource
Continue
Bring
of
partners
Currently,
in
could
to
plan
funds
the
c.
a. applicants
b.
partnership
for
be
park
within
all
Not
manual
practices,
services.
This
for
to
options
Grant
Maintenance
maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
located
alsoconsider
development
improving
conditions,
Kenmore
encouraging
consider:
all
and
only
financial
system
to
manual
the
existing
Kenmore.
the
(PEG)
consider
defining
would
does
noted
on
city
with
City
it
private
matures
park
affects
recreation
publicly
and
should
conducts
program.
aid
increase
residents
park
outside
of
partnership
partnership
partnership
be
establishing
of
above,
outside
the
reassessing
The
maintenance
resource
with Moorlands
the
required
sector
our
maintenance
provide
types and
accessible
grant
City’s
management
the agencies
in
some
opportunities
partners
organizations
Funding
desire
use
use
of
city
constraints.
with
with to
with
program
and
park
the
the
Park
increases,
park
maintenance
and
provide
that
should
operations
property
implementing
such
the
the
Bastyr
would
basis
as
mix
system
partnerships
new
maintenance
well.
their
City
Northshore
decisions would
of
as
for
and
for
develop a
development
University be
response
Kenmore
the
50
of
places
and
parks
Kenmore
The
adjusting
individuals
included
in-house
percent
practices
Lake
be
Northshore
available
City
its
competitive
regarding
including:
‘be
and
an
in-house
School
Forest
time
own
Park
for
maintained
should
increased
residents
adopt,
as
match
maintenance
impact
and
the
to
part
grant
for
for
maintenance
Park.
District
School
create
budgeting,
the
and
university
be
maintenance
public
of
by
of
and
the
program
work
in
demand
city
level
policy,
the
contracts
to
the
new
District
for
require
city’s
use
high
funding.
levels
CIP
closely
of
form
the
athletic
opportunities
and
providers.
a
at
service
to
to
standards.
on
park
40
and
no
for
any
based
services
provide
leverage
of
the
with
f
cost.
other a
P
Lake
new
fields.
for
a
Park
g
e is
fund The
sales funds
The
City reserves General found The
unless primary supplement Conservation The
Reserves and This
Reserves by
Funding”. consider
Within
obligation The
Federal, plan estate Growth
projects
Financing
the
general
following
Council
principal
non-profit
list
City’s
represents
with
capital
will
to
in
the
excise
Recreation
the
of
sources
Management
the
be comes
can
financing
are
be
current
biennial
recommended
City
These
voter
CIP,
Fund
State
eligible
designates
fund
projects
dedicated.
its
categories
be
accumulated
public tax,
District,
describes
Council
organizations.
funding
the
from park
a
made
of
approved
may
provides
significant
grants,
resources
and
a
budget
revenue
for
and
funding
significant
capital
through
a
Plan
include
US
either
Act
Conservation
determines
grant variety
by
General
resources.
of
a
Army
private
Local
capital
list
also
local,
resolution
the
over
includes
bonds.
for
projects
is
sources
investment.
from
funding
of
interfund
but
Grants
not
of
operating
requires
this Corps
portion
a
funding
purpose
state
sector
projects
sources
Funding
period
are
donations,
possible.
that
a
fund
Office
applicable
and
six
assistance.
the
for
of
and
not
of
that
transfer.
support,
they
sources
year
Engineers,
of
funding
are
capital
reserves
funding
purposes such
Consequently
represents
limited
this
federal
(RCO)
years
The
the
property
be Assistance
Capital
property
plan
as
to
utilized
for
City
for
City
limited
general
sources
for Grants
for to
park
programs
the
are
for
utilizing
and
day-to-day
capital
funding
adopt
specific
the
Improvement
and
roughly
not
parks
and
projects
which
sales
other
the
for
general
enable
State
funds,
its
are
available
sales
a
projects
a
voter
ability
commonly
and
Programs
residents
assistance
or
projects. six
specific $40-48
reserve
identified.
agencies
of
generally
operations
unspent
the
taxes.
year
reserve
recreation obligation
Washington,
approved
for
Program
to
City
and
million
Capital
contribution
project.
the
fund
will
Contributions
The
including
programs
referred
yearend
funds,
to
operations.
Financing
require
city
(Grants)
likely
of
leverage
and
capital
general
development
bonds.
in
(CIP).
Facilities
the
to
current
King
impact
general
need
to
accomplish
public,
matching
resources.
City.
administered
or
projects
The
capital
as
fund County
or
from property
41
to
“Statutory
Plan.
fees,
The
dollars.
State
private
can are
P
City
a
real
The
this
g e
year,
can
and of These
for
maintenance rate additional
Proposition. These
Proposition
Under
Levy This
Limited life are General
percent maturity Act
Facilities purposes,
only
Real
Impact Impact
Impact
revenue
at
of
voter-approved
•
•
•
•
be stipulates
the
would
is
be
can
least
the
bonds
bonds
State
Referendum a
Estate
asked
are
are
do
reasonably
fees
fees
resulting
collected
voter
tax
period
Element
be
improvement.
property
including
Fees
Term
not
the
40
be
used
not
Obligation
747,
levied
The
waived for
law
are
are
to
are
and/or
that
approval
subject
percent
exceed
city
for
approve
parks
Excise
of
authorized
repayment
to
adjusted the
general
proposed
property
for
of
on
General
the existing
bonds
can
relate
reasonably
taxes
bonds
park
by
the
statutory
operations
system
the
to
were
a
of
City
referendum
generate.
as
proportionate
Comprehensive
the
a
obligation Tax
acquisition,
the
to
is
For
can
sale
rate
well
tax resetting
Bonds
typically
level
by
must
adopted
normally
only
of
the
same
improvements
number
a
be
a
of
Obligation
rate
(REET)
provision
these
and
as
benefit
general
County
new
of
projects.
for
use
levied
real
The
pass
1.0%
service
would
revenue
bonds repaid
approval
roads,
of
in
the
bonds
development,
15
renovation,
property
voting
new
the
a
the
share
2001
obligation
to
or
to
limitation,
validation
limiting
REET
Plan.
start
support
City
issued
deficiencies.
through
total new
property parks,
20
must
would
which:
to
as
of
of
(COUNCILMANIC)
years
primarily
within
Council
to
a
have
the
development,
a
revenue
the
source
be fire
by
and
simple
decline
bond
related
finance
requirement.
however,
an
costs
and
tax
the
financed
growth
also
protection
the
development.
annual
for
to
for
levy
for
generally
City
that (50%)
related
voted
City.
again
acquisition
debt
pass
specific
projects
funding
of
rate
Council
and
from
can
excess
and
It
regular
majority
it
service
in
in
and
is
The
to
that
must
the
be
corresponds
the
accordance
legally
capital
general
the
parks
contained
without
The schools.
generated
property
validation
total
or
would
previous
Bonds
property
receive
payments.
new
of
development.
Growth
restricted
capital
improvement,
amount
ballots
revenues
development,
adjust
voter
These
tax
with
in
at
to
general
requirement
by
taxes
the
projects.
Management
least
the
levy.
cast.
resetting
approval.
of
the
the
for
fees
42 since
Capital
expected
revenue
to
60
Voters
amount
capital
election.
These
The
1%
can
P
no
a
the
per
g
is e
This
the
authorized
enabled
Conservation
through
sewer
or
Cities
project
as
Revenue cities
Revenue among
Woodland trails.
Replacement expiring trail This
replaced
King
Proposition
based
match
•
•
•
•
purpose •
•
tax
system,
levy
County
are
also
service,
forms
concessions family
Operating Funding
operations
Land
Concession
Land
pageants
development commercial
Land
Land
King
development,
is
counties
this
2008-2013
on
bonds
was
two
for
designated
based
have
by
Park
of
leasehold
County’s
lease/development
lease/development
lease/development
funding
lease/development
Bonds
parks,
paying
local,
of
the
health
Levy approved
expiring
refuse
acquiring
targeted
authority
joint
encompass
Zoo.
on
or
1
to
and
State
Futures
of
state
or
is
King
trails
the recreation.
cultural
and
levy
Open for
and
method:
expected
a
and
development for
Commensurate
and
operating
39
concession
revenue-bonding
values
levies.
sports
Washington
and
critical
other
by
and
a
various
keeping
cities,
parks
and
fitness
operations
to
storm
County
Space
tax
voters
a
events.
has
issue
federal
habitat
of
Funds(CFT) broad
complex
The
of
retail
to
and
repairs
based
collected
agreements
land,
centers,
water
and
types agreements
or
agreements agreements
up
parks
provide
agreements
in
revenue
levy
recreation
projects.
co-development
to
sales
category
August,
State’s
Parks
grants.
Trails
of
and
with
facilities
upon
and
6.25
of
supports
and
drainage.
clean
special
procedures
water
water
open venues
an
the
the
maintenance,
Levy,
bonds
sports
assessed
cents
Current
2013
for
Levy
estimated
and
for
with with
of
tax
capital
for
level
and
events
space.
slide
quality,
mechanisms
promotion
more
the
community
linked
safe,
The
since
for
per
merchandising,
tournament
and
public private
operating
of
may
Use
King
agreements
parks
value
utility
purposes
$1,000
following
than
King
and
support pays
completing
1987.
$4.2
to
along
Taxation
be
and
and
County
corporations
recreation
entertainment
corporation
and
County
200
for
purposes
and
used
million
recreation
of for
entities
funding
private
with
center.
provided
maintenance
in
population.
are parks
assessed
administration
financing.
for
Parks,
based
their
Law food
missing
has
the
agreements
per
development
entities
that
such
and
activities.
local
passed
Woodland
levied communities,
and
picnic
for
Trails,
year
and
on
to
property
facilities.
create
175
as
links
city
the
local
authorizing
Levy
beverage
For
aquatics
for
and
forthe
water
the
centers,
in
and
miles
development
parks
of
the
in
possible
distribution
cities
1970
proceeds
a
operations
full
festivals,
Park
the
valuation
Open
and
cash
purposes
service,
of
43 and
amount center,
including
which
from
county
and
regional
Zoo.
statues
flow.
I
Space
P
for
other
a
the
It
for
of
of
g
of e
oversee following
Commission district
or
including
development,
own
metropolitan county,
district’s special
PRSA, those
In
Metropolitan a
statute
Northshore voters,
Recreation
debt
approval
recreation cities
Section
passage
recreation authority.
State
Park City
Gifts
Park
Donations
city
operation 2002,
independent
resources
incurred,
and
through
within
that
statutes
and
metropolitan
may
Districts
units
PRSAs
allows
or
the
36.68
the
of
boundaries
all
by
hearings
donations
any
will
facilities.
service
Recreation
a
Service
coincide
park
PRSA
provisions
voters
state
if
their
of
costs.
county
park
operation
a
may
an Revised
a
other
serve following allow
for
government
District’s
Park
county
district,
interlocal
may
legislature
taxing
boundaries,
district the
on
areas,
The
Area
issue
within
park
from
resolution
the the
in
with local
PRSAs
feasibility
District
improvement
be
Code
relating
return
proposal
to
that
formation
District
voter
entire
and bonds
authority
districts
although
which
boundaries
used
city
individuals,
must public the
assign
agreement.
are
that
of
authorized
maintenance encompasses
for
proposed
boundaries.
approval, although
Washington
to
to
or
PRSA
or
considered
be
can
and
agency
must
may
operational
Service
the
may
help
by
any
enact
as
an
initiated
of
consist
cost
of
3/13/08
boundary.
are
a
district
two
foundations,
be
existing
special
provide
ultimately
fund
municipal
its
There
this
service
special
or
the
does
wholly
contiguous
studies
facilities.
types
Areas
A
costs
jurisdiction.
the
to
of
(RCW)
by
parks,
is
establishment
Board
residents’
responsibility
financing
65
be
not
all
is
City
not
recreational
local
Northshore
levies
area
currently
independent
of
utilizing
petition.
of
or
taxing
be
corporation
(PRSA)
count
a
provides
Council
recreation
Park
and
of
the
a
government
requirement.
submitted
with
is
portion
for
Commissioners
required.
agreements.
business
proposed
agreement
Metropolitan
authorities
District’s
against
special
the
the
a
In
may
School
facilities of
for
for
PRSA,
either
construction
of
and
of
City’s.
metropolitan
in
facilities
the
for
take
a
a
any
financing
the
can
If
resolution
each
district’s
county.
city
open the
PRSAs
District
voter
approved
case,
to
creation
in
that
the
State
involvement
The
also
Park their
pay
may
or
Northshore
with
space
developed
place
simple
approval county’s
may
are
boundaries
be
PRSAs
the
of
devices.
boundary.
and
Districts
be
facility
own
differing
or park
of
used
Washington.
specific
by
be
elected
facilities,
special
of
citizen
park
maintenance
majority
60%
right,
may
initiated
a districts
with
to
debt
development
Parks
(50%+1)
separate
A
by
have
and
supplement
taxing
of
to
44 of
include
The
petition
to
and
a
a
limit.
the
but
the
the
PRSA
and
I
city,
their
as
P
by
any
Like
a
only
park
The
of
g
to
e a
funding
Contributions
facility Joint
example While
Philanthropy
in
sports Joint
recreation
recreation economics
infrastructure
Public/private
operations
parks schedules schedule
effect
activity Additionally,
such The
fees.
charges
User
reducing
fee
as
This
and
not
on
centers,
value,
Use
Development
Fees
as
fees,
league
structure
while
wouldbe
the
is
actually
reflects
recreation
well
should
services. such
of
the
and
a
there
function at
such
amount
joint
from
development,
or allowing
theater
as sports.
effective
maintenance
other
as
public/public
consider
potential
typically
the
considered
the
as
miniature
development
may
private
joint
and,
facilities
of
common
of
Bastyr
or
the
be
user
cost
policy
performing
thus,
use
preferred
“market
donors
entrance
City
leverage
joint
golf
of
fees
expenses.
University
joint
parking
such
partnerships
and
desire
to
should
the
in
or
use
charged.
defray
may
development, areas
values”
may
as
new
standard
fees
for
by
arts
parking/drainage,
to
from sports
be
provide
recreation
ball
attaining
be
facility
offset
of
for
operating
considered
facilities,
for
User
subject
acquisition,
an
designed
fields.
“special
parks
golf
recreation
adjacent
certain
an
(parking,
fees
there
matching
courses,
excellent
agencies
and
to
costs
arenas
typically
use”
to
an
annual
traditional
recreation
operations
may
public
etc. leverage
offset
and
surface
services,
park
aquatic
and
funding.
is
source
be
Examples
review.
expenses
do
a
or
of
facilities
other
opportunities
system
water
not
each
private
some
activities
centers.
centers,
which
and
of
forms offset
Adoption
capital
include
dollar
for
of
maintenance,
retention,
recreation
and
facility
have
individual
intensive
free
amusement
The
all
of
entrance
through
and
for
enterprise
public
commercial
a
of
of
actual
that
modifying
maximizing
user
operation
etc.)
any
program
activity
activities
45
costs
will
the
fees,
fees
fee
fee
An
I
parks,
P
tied
result
added
a for
or
plus
g
to e
fund
Aquatic
US
Federal Other Vehicle
Land (ALEA)
(NOVA)’
Non-Highway Washington State
Fund* Joint
National
Recreation Grant Joint
Firearms
Recreation
Boating
Philanthropy
User Park Conservation
Impact (King
Donation
approved)
Revenue
Levy (Councilmanic, approved)
General
annual
Limited
Real
Reserves General
Local
Table5.2
Army
(LWCF) 1
and
Districts
Fees Estate
Referendum
Use
Development
County)
Funding
State
Funding
Funding
DNR’
Financing
Activities
Fees
REET)
Funding
Lands
Facilities Tax
Obligation
Corps
Recreation
Fund
and
Water
Bonds
Program Program
programs
Excise
Obligation Wildlife
‘
Archery
and
Futures
Enhancement
Programs
Options
Assistance
of
Interfund
non-voter
Conservation
Programs
Programs
Program (BFP)’
Engineers
Off-Road
Tax
Bonds
Trails
(FAR)’
(WWRP)’
and
Property
Range
as
Funds
(1/2
Bonds
enacted Sales
Transfer
Act
(voter
Tax
Tax
Capital
Capital
Projects
Projects
V V
V
V ‘.1
V V
V V
V
V V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Operations
Operations
and
and
V
‘I V
‘I
V
Maintenance
Maintenance
46
1
P
a
g e
‘Distributed Other
are
(NexTEA)
Enhancement Federal
Next
1135
enacted
Surface
program
Federal
Funding
through
Transportation
Activities
Programs
Programs
the
Program
as
Washington
they
Capital
State
Recreation
Projects
V
V
and
Conservation
Operations
Funding
Board
and
V
Maintenance
47
I
P
a
g e
Kenmore
Development
Project
Appendix
Improvement
Appendix
Conservation
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendices
Park
Costs
E-Prototype
D-
Recreation
C-Habitat
B-Public
A-Park
Capital
Element
Program
Cost,
Master
and
Estimated
Involvement
Open
Space
Plans
i
Page Plan Appendix A-Park Master Plans
AA1 P I a g e
LOG Tracy City Final POTENTIAL of
Kenniore Master
Log
Owen S CCL-
PHASING L
Plan
BOOM
Station Boom /
PRIORITIES At MATRIX
PHASE
Park PARK 2 June -, - L 6, 2005 — — — — PHASE LAKE 1.—.- - -
WA:.HICN * J PHASE 3
SR /‘ E22
ou:_f
AA2
I
P
a
g
O e Rhododendron j,,si !iW.L’N :r (‘IS. 5(•
INIS.
flH
4. Park
II
F-
L] I COMMUNIT/ ALTETINATIVE SENIOR SCHEME
CENTER
iiJ
AA3
Ph
‘I
P
a
g e 0 0 0) ci ‘I, -D I 0)
(0 Northshore
City
Final
Northshore
of
Plan
Kenmore Summit
NE Summit j94TH
PL
July
Park
Park
2013
AA5
I
P
a
g e 0) 0) C, (D
0)
(D (D -o 0)
-Q cro (1, Squire’s Wetland 0 • • • • • Wetland Oil IcLeIpletlan Enhancement In 80 Stream Restoratlon/ Channel 80100
Rrhabiliintiun L Habitat 160’ ea RearinRHnbltat •.atb
FeaiLAnm Landing pEnn Piantffiq • 4. .i. nttiomit Wetland • . . .120 intetpretine Habitat Oil in Habitat Stream Channel •- NORTH Planting CreatlctArea. Habitat •. Features Rearing
a - Park • - . interpretive Piantinp Fetiures
Bor
‘1 F Trail approttithate; WeLl 1 ndBuffe i; AA7 un
- I
P a oCDc g cUJ g LJO ci) ______JANUARY
HanLndntp e -‘ 8 (I, 0) (D 5. (D 0 0) (D 0) 00 . (D This The within formats. organizations meeting distributed This Kenmore workshops. Provider/User • • • • • • questionnaire appendix appendix the On-line Open 2013 Intercept National Provider/User rooms, residents city. and Telephone House either also contains Survey five The indoor Communities Survey was contains between were questionnaires providing Questionnaire used the swimming Survey Questionnaire returned. summary copies to 1/5% Survey recreation update pool and of indicated The results the information 50%. and questionnaire questions opportunities athletic of Facilities that the these following collected fields. utilized considered collected or organizations used Appendix Involvement in questionnaires, in each 2003. facilities basic needed of the Over information had provided public included a 27 B-Public membership surveys surveys outreach for about community AB1 and recreation were I P of a g e The A were Satisfaction the survey city’s goal only access, Facebook Community improving. Rhododendron, services Services various lower the 2013 benchmark. economic group they Recreation Recreation recycling “excellent” Most National total attractiveness City city of 1.4% participated distributed parks residents than or of this activities found an posted was related deserving Telephone attending and 300 page. of development opportunities use programs and The or indoor research rates a citizens Resident visiting residents “good” good Cities in that an reported final recreation to 78 at Log in with comparison in and on-line the parks a the the individuals pool, various place Intercept report unable meeting evaluated residents parks; and Boom by use accessibility most park Bastyr community of and and experiencing 76% Survey in classes to and survey of the offerings. Survey the is while activities and to attention preservation live. Kenmore recreation. and of included jurisdictions of City University chose name restrooms City the overall respondents. local recreation The received through the Wallace of of were attitudes of and to (NCS) Awareness a in Kenmore overall those elected least according a parks Kenmore as single Ken good respond are City lower Herb of part Survey the were used popular services more. On-line Swamp services. natural and quality parks visiting park officials. quality and lowest of and Respondents were than in were to to recreation of this identified Monkey, opinions the The (down Food were the this activities all areas. were of in randomly Creek of Recreation appendix. rating rated Kenmore study. Kenmore other most life Generally, study’s life survey. Fair rated survey from identified in and in of facilities and Parks somewhat as were popular and were the communities. the Kenmore similar benchmark interviewed on 12.4%in services Community were City program City Parks Northshore City asked participation its participating as as tells parks activities results web-site of to lower of being positively moderately more Kenmore to residents 2006). the Kenmore needed its use comparisons is rate in than own intercept benchmark. up Fire the in May via included frequently, rates how from in Kenmore story the In as for Department was links a regarding most and of AB2 high. addition were club frequently in national 2006, 2013. adding surveys rated on about believed the I were or visited. P Water was its a civic with with as The g the the or e Open House in June 2013, and at the Kenmore Summer Concert series at St. Edward State Park during July and August 2013. Over 28 surveys were returned. Community Intercept Survey Summary Survey respondents were asked a series of 6 questions. The survey attempted to gauge satisfaction, frequency of visits, determine priorities, and identify facilities or services considered missing related to parks and recreation. Overall satisfaction with parks and recreation services was rated extremely to moderately high in over 85% of responses. Community events such as concerts, walking, dog parks and a pool were identified as the types of activities respondents would most likely participate in. Participation rates in activities in the city were low. Respondents identified Nature Parks, Water Access and Trails as services the city should do more of. LogBoom and Rhododendron Park were the city’s most visited parks. The survey asked these six questions: 1. Are you satisfied with the parks in the city, neither satisfied, nor dissatisfied with them, or dissatisfied with them? 2. What types of activities would you participate in if they were available in the city? 3. How often do you participate in activities in the city? 4. What would you like the city to do more? 5. Which parks do you visit most often? 6. What parks and recreation services or facilities are missing? AB3 I P a g e The The The a attendees outside open access approximately fields and responding included pool, city and of Respondents Community Rhododendron in opinion Survey On-line respondents Parks desire Kenmore dissatisfaction, transcribed forum participation survey farmers a house athletic and dog to respondents the Survey to of good the Forum more park. were the find and result to city rather had Intercept markets. would water fields identified different waterfront park 20 open opportunities and Summary for water satisfied results great rates report residents. the than those and system. and most Log were house and on-line Survey respect There access were of the questions community Boom having linkages is with services. likely the asked access, included was top Those However reasonable was Open (CIS). was for survey Open the for Parks. to participate four conducted the between indoor a the athletic travel city’s also about attending prevailing They Generally at center. House things same identified The natural in the mentioned. House care to and with contrast city also fields, facilities/activities general its end in are the neighboring on The of outdoor parks were included waterfront wanted 75 attitude environment 60 Wednesday, of listed a city its Community most percent fair percent this to facilities. questions and tasked should Of the amount at the active appendix. frequently to family the recreation the cities. CIS and reporting have of city with activities do found end May where the recreation that most Center/Pool/recreation oriented the (35%). to more more The visiting of respondents invest 22 nd downtown. visited were within services. this often there frequent desire as that recreation The 2013 water activities appendix. S in without posed identified parks the are stations was types creating for and Those participation. available city; access, had a no Open as were of pool, was classes having like identified part and they a activities more attending as favorable AB4 attended festivals, house an athletic classes, of missing within also to available indoor the public I go P level that had a the the g by e Total Age willing What Your etc) Address i.e. estimate)? Are If appropriate Agency Mem User Both Provider 2013 Sample: you 3-5 you Range official bershi is have to years, the Name: City a share? provider (list demographic p/Participa membership name, box)? 6-8 of User/Provider If Ken or yes address # participants user of nts please more of information of and your % park note Kenmore contact Recreation organization and below: (check box) Male about recreation Phone Questionnaire: Residents information your and (check box) Female User/Provider membership services what for your proportion within Programs organization detailed the is E-mail Available City Kenmore Survey by of is....? age Address Kenmore for and residents age gender (please group, (feel would AB5 please check free I you P to a list g be e Type list) Facility Kenmore. to Brief What Establishment 20 and History words is Used a location brief or (please (20 history less). words of facility of activities) games, community recreation meetings, Primary or your less) or organization facilities practices, Use (ie El El you El El (please Facility and either its provide El El El Provided El purpose list) or (date use founded, located games, community activities) recreation purpose meetings, recreation Primary within and practices, (ie reason the City for limits existence, AB6 of I P a 15 g e Comments: services. Please Primary Facilities Primary comment recreation User Provided Please (i.e., on games, (please purpose list your perception practices, list) (i.e., games community of facility practices, needs meetings, community in Kenmore recreation meetings, and who activities) recreation you think activities) should AB7 provide I P age the z 0) r. 0 0) CD (I) C CD C D C CD ‘it, 0 0) 1 CD Id) C 3 3 0) 1 C CD Vt, C ‘-I. ‘it, Co a) crC (C W a 0 cc -Q TQ (D 2013 Telephone City Awareness Survey of Cynthia Kenmore © Tyler www. 2013, Office: Report: Jim 13629 Bellevue, Fax: and Scott, Hebert, HEBERT HebertResearch.com 4 Hebert, Hebert May (425) dvancing (425) NE Satisfaction Parks Research Research Bel-Red WA 2013 270-0856 Research, RESEARCH, President 643-1337 98005 and Knmi’Iedge Analyst Rd. Director Recreation Inc. Research INC. AB1O I P a g e Table Appendices Awareness Summary Satisfaction Methodology Volunteering Map Respondent Parks Frequency Linear Multivari Research Recreational, Recreational of Facilities Discriminant of Kenmore ate Objectives of Contents of of with Profile Findings Analysis at Programming Visits Kenmore Cultural, Kenmore City Parks to Analysis Parks Parks and City Parks Special Parks Events AB11 f P 29 24 35 33 17 36 11 15 14 10 a .2 8 5 9 3 g e sets awareness providing Furthermore, reference, Each The sought regarding Research 9. 13. 12. 8. 11. 4. 10. 7. 6. 5. 3. 2. 1. presented goal of Gauge special Determine Measure Identify Determine residents. Measure Determine Identify Measure Determine Gauge to these Measure Measure iii. ii. a I. of respond the the and baseline. this Objectives this objectives overall survey awareness event Quality city’s Progress Number in use top most overall awareness interest overall Kenmore the research research citizens’ most which most to of recreation parks Where programs corresponding important perception is these Kenmore of and included, quality in common desired satisfaction were city in parks of, improving residents’ and prioritization involved was improving primary variety and applicable, and parks. addressed providers in facilities of recreation city parks types use to of interest Ken source precisely recreation of evaluate availabilities parks, objectives: with a of charts and awareness more. and tracking city of or recreational comparisons are in regarding of land expanding directly regards investing in, parks. recreation with offerings. Ken as and information in volunteering the programs for it most analysis, more. tables. data was and or in potential to attitudes budgeting in recreational one events various need the: fielded, from use In facilities are parks and order comparing or regarding of made of opportunities a more future and city and and classes similar parks attention. in future to to Appendix other and parks. recreation. and opinions survey Kenmore achieve parks facilities. recreational, variables research in analyzed, cultural recreational offerings Kenmore. additions questions. at A this of residents. city on done regarding events. Kenmore with goal, page among parks. cultural, programs. or in AB12 both For 36. the expansions. 2006 Kenmore overall residents research data and P a g e them Statistical of Research critical study within and project-specific Hebert Internal case, Statistical Research Research stratified and The Hebert can who Research necessary. range in A Assistants Hebert Research households each home Methodology total this error. be competent analysis response were resident weights throughout meets of and study the feedback provided of Research Research Research Peer both Assistant Assistants Assistant Analysts, sampling Controls 300 weighting Weighting willing sample of cell that to or include Review Hebert were the rate had residents phone help exceeds training staff within designed qualified uses uses applies to the 2006 were an for the quotas is Training applied are ensure participate, the is are Research trained equal data numbers experienced the a a Research the survey supervised “CERA” found of at rigorous technique following: involved a survey, for to and variety the the collection to research that chance and when reduce the the to in City beginning and compensate was process—similar Supervision was the Director May quality be study which in of distribution of the that Research they of by used all within research error budget. controls 65.97%. process. Kenmore of being a most phases by is highly measures begin control 2013. for of and commonly and living range for each selected Controls all recent Assistants The The during and the Additionally, by working A of heighten experienced were possible attempted standards. in probability to study. the primary age of incidence CEO analysis the Kenmore, academic available actual the for randomly used project, and carefully percentage with to This sampling the process an research gender, conduct offered in calls, values, Through all interview. research rate, sampling the generalizability helps survey was census thereby peer data interviewed evaluate firm which of measuring 89.08%. and to to and of is telephone controls review—to collection data research this of data. and be supervisor ensure adults frame reducing response A were weighting the within list collection, process, each they Other highest that comprised by initially of the was made that to activities interviews. receive analysis the ensure Research representative the error. adjust who percentage were variables used experienced was Senior AB13 research. at quality probability processing contacted oversees random. not. additional that employed so In for and of are I this that Each listed P that each offer a of g e various for appropriate advanced association according greater frequency Multivariate The In Multivariate dispersion. As others processing. Univariate Data unconscious by being overseen incoming Director, questions Senior another which • • • • • • • data Collection gathered within Voting Age Gender Home values Standard distribution distribution. Kurtosis: Mean: points than was and multiple data by statistical to Research distribution: Analysis These between precaution tests where Analysis analysis the specific bias 100%, analyzed Ownership the CEO in Statistical History in to Bias in A equal the Director Deviation: does of ensure firm variables a measure apprised responses lie and multiple Analysts, technique This manner independence Controls analysis pre- variables. was to remain regard. not designed using only average indicates that the and of conducted have are The of of Operations that responses the generally mode as Directors were they post-classified the “blind” “peaked-ness,” used It reported independent “distance an to most is of involves how status are accepted consistent and effect prevent (most a in in set (i.e., frequently the accurate accepted and were order “spread association. who with of of on common Chi from testing unaware) the data error, numbers, the segments, will keeps indicated, to variables: their Square with that CEO. the out” to examine univariate collection. project be stated of Research the describes quality the descriptive value). mean,” The identified This hypotheses responses to analysis, which best Senior the or hypotheses following responses during helps differences groupings. control totals of measures or A Assistants, gives how Research the throughout deviation, Research analysis statistics, ensure were. data-collection and in firm’s the closely measures standards. may that the among measuring of Multivariate “overall” that of Junior Analyst Analyst, graphs be central knowledge have of which the variance, the reported. conscious values were respondents values Analysts, been summary. and or describe reviews value, tendency the Research charts used within AB14 analysis and data developed and degree of Questions and with a and at are I the may the P and is all a of g an be e The the of any the them solely statistical thematically. connections to in synthesized technique Evaluations Margin Hebert Content is when The A responses In continuous between level, segments meaning In (less statistical level Interpretations difficult Note the the short, addition an results. agreed statistical maximum p than for overall to a the techniques they value sampling, Research measurement of on come Analysis Content estimating that the techniques responsibility or 5% of perspective. Error was is Correlations are specifications to Statistical scale and with is between applied variables. greater impossible variables, possibility differences process measures a to margin significant not and statistical interpretations within has quantitative a between Analysis used. deeper simply values inferences in depth made which, research these of of is A The its the and of and to of a of association error 0.05 and were and to qualitative possibility measure is the 0 understanding and/or significance uncover the of statistical every parameters a open-ended a and Measures in count measurement budget. analysis. significance systematic results, meaningful, for client differences can its set only of 1: effort this opinion, providing statistical forth responses predict a used if considered will of and measurement form: procedures one the The survey The of in error, of to in to also responses not reading which Association findings of relies the level client produce are the being are reactions goal as quantify of significant the research Hebert be of which (as a project, indicated analysis the 1 was means significant exclusively with differences 300 reported. quantitative understands means due is utilized of of most the done and of used text. the must adults Research. and the the to findings 0 and by are inferences. highest there to random means significance accurate at content Content with were external as In which be These when organize within the intended is on the the have taken ±5.6% analysis that is other statistical and end applied The quality that case criterion a chance). to the measurements analysis been Analysis possible. the perfect conditions Hebert decisions gain of into conclusions, them at there questions) of to of p and margin each the value research with determined differences this provide account insight analysis. to correlation. Multivariate are in Research uncover is of 95% However, section. analysis, test a a no was based verbatim only of presented 0.95 way that confidence but correlation an error product summaries hypotheses, in vary less To as AB1S that independent confidence insight evaluating between on rather at uses contributes the of illustrate inherent than on inherent the findings, them the can I within a those P 0.05 which to 0.05 level. time a be and are use g in e their subsequently and interpretations are viability not to nor taken. be provided assumes construed by responsibility Hebert as recommendations; Research for the are success based therefore, on or the failure Hebert analysis of any Research of client the data actions neither AB16 gathered, warrants I P a g e both children U.S. ensure respondents. Presented During Respondent Census the the no in demographics bias here the survey, data. These Number Ownership Census home. by are Profile Age either Adult several the classifications 45-54 25-34 55-64 35-44 18-24 Sample Own Rent Data Mean 65÷ All Group of 4+ 0 2 3 1 Number post-weight measured the Children demographic Population Status is pieces calculated respondent Size of of 2006: Survey in were Children Survey Home distributions, key only 26.2% 21.0% the Survey 15.1% 16.7% 17.0% of 3.9% 28.0% 72.0% information Kenmore: 306 Respondent 62.3% 15.6% 15.4% demographic made 4.9% on 1.8% or 2006 0.71 2006 Ownership 2006 the the under 2006 portion research, by research age, which Survey 15,787 18 was Survey Age Sample of Survey 26.2% 21.8% 16.1% 16.3% 14.7% Living 4.9% Status information likelihood the 88.9% 11.1% taken as 72.5% were 13.1% 11.0% assistant. 2.4% 1.0% 0.48 2013 (2010 population well 2013 in 2013 Size at weighted the as Census to the 2013: 2010 the Home were vote, age 2010 end 2010 21.2% 20.2% 19.6% 12.3% 17.0% most 9.7% Census* 18 300 Data) 73.6% 26.4% to requested 66.5% 33.5% of level Census N/A or Census be the recent older. representative of survey, education, AB17 available of to I P a and g of e Respondent Gender Gender Survey 2006 Survey 2013 2010 Census Male 48.6% 49.5% I 49.6% Female 51.4% 50.5% 50.4% I I Level of Education Highest Completed Survey 2006 Survey 2013 Less than High School 0.3% 0.4% High School or Equivalent 10.3% 3.6% Some College 20.5% 11.9% Community College! Technical College 12.9% 10.3% Bachelor’s or 4-year Degree 38.5% 44.1% Higher Degree (Masters, Ph.D.) 17.3% 29.7% Propensity to Vote 1’iIL1’lII’I. ‘1IIITLAV1’I1K Frequent (4 or More Times) 75.8% 79.9% Infrequent (Less Than 4 Times) 24.2% 20.1% AB18 I P a g e Map of Kenmore Parks — — Parks, Wthc0$ iMth WaikI,, sldewafl9 sdewaSS ______Open City NI Spaces 038 of Ill Kenmore 8 flails & ______lI% Walking 555 — Map M.flal 10551115581 855.15 11550$ - AB19 P a g e objectives. Presented Summary • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The There The The The The School Overall categories, activities. Citizens programming activities. with volunteered Most and combination Satisfaction investments to and Only and high, Awareness parks not Rhododendron, More name here o o o been 18-24 most highest 5.68 most Kenmore of also strong 31.4% at citizens once people were of that districts The The Parks’ satisfaction 7.13 rate are the a for to popular important Findings age single while a opportunities quality of group, of no support primary with priority a recreational the at in most and of month are believe restrooms. to Reporter park all group respondents significant city all and passive Log opportunities citizens, Kenmore park number 7.66 the visiting recreational in perceived less of at parks with the for for or facilities Boom, results the gives 25-34 the recreational all (down out than more. future is leisure YMCA an the in last parks, is city with activities the for and differences of significantly City the indoor and lower, were group of 17% quality year. to 10, from to recreational primary has variety, the land over are last activities for and parks be and Wallace add respectively. (that aware the swimming research gives the at programs special 12.4% within 12 active purchases half doing of and 6.42% is greatest found source years, as city’s is, parks up higher significantly of of Swamp are improve well approximately in walking recreation, events activities. so from volunteering respondents as average. 2006). most youth between while offered. was pool more of as Satisfaction was they ratings responsibility 2006, information quality, Creek fairly found are popular distance as for 3.7% athletics often. apply lower well. followed restrooms for genders with lands Parks low to ranking opportunities more 5% of to all Fewer with providers be ratings. of — city only the that of leagues three for to are 5.02 residents’ largely of for total by improvements parks provide specified special it 1.4% people the and the can for first waterfront any satisfaction population) and of most population waterfront be dependent was cultural of variable. in out recreational events. recreational used homes. reported citizens indoor Kenmore research moderately often of AB2O five. for land. activities, and pool visited, visits actually unable access, on: a I having P Parks, a g e Tracking As consistently no other Awareness referenced not In order is answer, L_2013 prompted seen than 30.0% 10.0% 20.0% 40.0% 50.0% 70.0% 60.0% 80.0% to 0.0% and 2006 in St. develop St. down higher the Comparison Edward with Edwards Note: 63 749% of above from park a 4% than Kenmore baseline Totals State Index 150 State names, table 12.2% 6 7 5 4 2 9 8 3 1 442% in sum Analysis: Park 4% 2006. Park, Overall profile and to allowing in Wallace - they more Northshore as 2006 City 291% Squire’s This bar Rhododendron of well None/ 7% Moorlands Log were than Linwood awareness, graph, to is for Swamp Parks Awareness as also Boom Other only Park Don’t 100% Landing 12 an aware several 9 Summit 0% 2% unaided current reflected Park 7.5%. Creek Park because Park Know _____ of. Kenmore Park mentions Park 74% 7 Park When 0%+ Park response. overall multiple in the of residents asking of 0 27% 20.5% 29.1% 44.2% 63.4% 12.2% awareness 7.0% 0.5% 2006 9.0% Tracy 5% significant N/A — responses Parks Most -] the were Owen 54% question, of 0 27.7% 31.7% 74.9% 50.4% 12.2% were the 2013 7.5% 7.4% 2.7% 5.4% of asked drop Station “Other” city-owned allowed. 122% ___ 75% respondents which in at those - responses Log AB21 city 27 205% Boom who parks 7% parks I were P had Park. a is — g e There Tracking to categories mean percentage Overall year Overall In Frequency only order 20.0% 30.0% 25.0% 10.0% 15.0% 35.0% •2013j_ ::: they 2OO6 of was 16.7%. frequency Frequency to approximately Analysis had also of assess of 18 23 16.7% citizens visited Furthermore, of a 0 or 7% drop total of Visits greater of visits Kenmore’s Use in who usage 14.5 both . 25.8% 33 to 1 36orMore to Number visits have 24to35 18to23 to 12to17 6toll visits the 3% Mean Visits 1 city-owned of the 5 City to 0 city — not mean city 5 “1 per of the Parks parks, been to parks. 6 year. 16.6% 14 group number to 5” iJ... 1 2% parks 11 to and Survey respondents visiting 23.7% a 33.3% 14.2% 10.1% 10.64 5.1% 4.2% 9.4% --—-—-----—— “6 Kenmore is of significantly 2006 to 12 visits 12.4% 9 to 11” 4% 2 to 17 per were groupings, park 3 times Survey —..- year 25.8% higher at 16.6% 12.4% 16.7% 11.5% 18 14.48 asked 7.2% 9.9% 4 7.2% i to all 2% increased a 2013 23 month dropped with how than .iz. a many in 24 nearly marked nearly 9.9% 5 from 2006. to 1% 35 times doubled 23.7% 50%, The AB22 increase 36 in 11.5% 10 or with the I in . More P 1% in 2006 a in last — a g all e As Summit The We Rhododendron multiple opposed respondents size. Parks before, 25.0% 30.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% • also distribution 5.0% This 2013 Most and inquired answers, to shift most infrequent Often 27 Squire’s were indicates 1 6% (27.6%) of of as in Used asked the parks j J to order Landing 25 “other” which or and 2 a 4% to most Parks move casual - to pick 6 3 7 5 4 2 8 Log 9 1 create particular Parks used 13 responses among Boom the parks 3 9% Visited Wallace the is one a Northshore Squire’s almost more use. (25.4%) Rhododendron those least None! parks park Moorlands 9 Log referenced Linwood 4 3% Swamp precise visited, Boom Other who identical they respondents Don’t Most Landing Parks ____ Summit Park 32%J Creek do frequent Park Park Know 5 model both being Park St. use Park Frequently to Park Edwards Park 1 that carrying parks of used the 0 — the 8% 6 use of most to most, most 25.4% 27.6% 17.4% 13.9% 19.5% awareness 3.2% 0.8% 0.4% 9.3% by Park. less more priority. popular, 04% often. with 7 than frequent no of 1% In with 17 allowances parks, this of 4% use, responses. AB23 Northshore case, with as 19.5% I P for a g e 0.865. walking As areas walking probability. Comparing this Since Parks hypothesized, 10.0% 30.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% .2013 research 0.0% 5.0% easily “walkability” Within That distance, distance perceived Therefore, is, accessible 249% also Walking those 1 of there and sought — j their parks the walking 15,8% the Distance by to was 2 Parks ease homes. to foot increase overall Index with a 2 identify 7 5 3 8 6 4 9 1 high of distance traffic 18.2% higher access frequency Within correlation the Wallace which Northshore from Squire’s use Rhododendron “walkability” to None/ by 13.0% Moorlands Log Linwood overall the foot rate parks Swamp of Walking Boom Other Park Don’t Landing between neighboring use. — of Summit Kenmore of use parks, Park 4.6% Creek Park Park Know a are Park of park Park Park a each visited it Park park’s Distance is is residents communities. 1.3% strongly often park more perception 25.3% 24.9% 18.2% 15.1% 13.0% 15.8% 2013 4.6% 0.7% 1.3% gave an believed 07% often, advised important a Pearson as with 25.3% to to being 8 be place factor very Coefficient AB24 within within high parks 15.1% in 9 P use, a in g of e Over the knew Of volunteering through Frequency volunteering As inquired Awareness Volunteering those a 4-2.9% highest community the 2- 0-83.1% of 86% opportunities volunteering as who entire to count opportunities. opportunities indicated how Frequency sample, 45-1.3% asset, 3- being 1-3.O% at many 0.7% efforts. Kenmore to parks they the five times volunteer, at average times were are To Kenmore in of this Awareness a the — aware great Parks Volunteering over less Yes person No end, last city than place of 83% year we the parks. volunteered sought once had to they ability contribute not Less every Percent had 31.4% 68.6% to to volunteered than identify volunteered. over at volunteer two city directly a months. third parks awareness 12 once at were to Months .12 Even Kenmore one’s in times aware among the and home last in use parks, of the AB25 those these year, community of last we I who with P year. a g e Tracking The categories, only To meaning Compared 7.13. number well Number 5 Ken Satisfaction uses 013 being measure 30.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 70.0% 20.0% 50.0% 10.0% more p42006 first 0,0% as a a difference rating provides completely of inquiry Analysis and that — to near-identical with are “overall scale Variety the there there Satisfaction was a a with of values move numerical from neutral. is 0.06 Low(0-3) satisfaction” made enough a 63% 3.6% 76.2% City 0 away in from parks). to 2006, as This io. basis parks, to Parks from the chance On satisfaction scale Overall, we Satisfaction with current for - the this and Std. Number see statistical of allows a Kurtosis moderate scale, Mean do a good, this Deviation satisfaction mean slight they t with - difference for Number Moderate(4-6) 0 service, evaluations is increase value. give proper the 34.4% 225% and range. the I enough was number & lowest This or only groupings Variety Variety However, in generally another 7.13 2.26 1.35 both difference and being variety possible and descriptions the j variety variable, — a the high, high, factor of (as “high” score, has prior -- opposed Parks with of moderate, a of Hebert and High(7-10) p-value city average 10 of chance. 62.1% a the opinions. mean “low” F parks to AB26 Research highest, of having low was rating in 0.762, A I — P 7.07, as a any and of g e for just Tracking This Compared with last question Quality In this fu2006 40.0% 30.0% 90.0% 60.0% 80.0% 20.0% 50.0% a 70.0% 10.0% •2013 seven quantify 0.0% research the change regard, Analysis parks sought -- years. to that opinions the also ratings quality to This 2006 extreme sought separate Low is were 3.3% 3.0% at on mean a (0-3) a statistically the Overall resident happening 7 still or from quality rating Overall higher, higher. prior opinions of Std. of significant Satisfaction by 7.11, Satisfaction while Over Kurtosis current opinions Mean Deviation chance, regarding there 80% only Moderate parks difference, on 28.7% given 14.3% of 3% — has Parks citizens number gave offerings. (4-6) the been the - Quality quality Quality a sample as a surveyed low and change there 7.66 1.38 1.76 rating variety of size. available is of ranked only of 0.55 of 3 High parks, a or 67.9% 82.8% out 0.02% their city less. (7-10) of and parks. AB27 satisfaction 10 probability instead over This I P a the g e The third mentions were Under In Parks Facilities Index order 25,0% 35.0% 40.0% 30.0% 15.0% 20.0% 10.0,<) most •2O13 p42006 4 3 2 5 1 of asked “other,” respondents, Facilities to for common Most effectively Type to Play Picnic 9 9.6% improved Landscaping choose Restrooms Note: 4% the in Trails Equipment of - Facilities Facilities Need concerns vast Facility Totals 204% 18.7% each. from identify 2 lighting. - majority sum - a were 24.1% 204% to list and more Most 2006 which of 27.2% 20.4% 20.4% ‘1— 9.4% 6.7% restrooms prioritize responses than 33.8%i7.9% 27 facilities 2% in 100% 2013 24.1% 33.8% 17.9% 18.7% 9.6% facilities Need and because were 6 -i 7% were Index water/ “none” 10 for multiple 71 9 8 of “most i8.5%26.5% 14 improvement, 6% beach Improvement Water! or Type Other! responses in Athletic Maintenance “don’t 13 need access, Parking Beach 4% of Don’t I Facility Fields of were know,” Access Know 12 14.i%t35.2%j33.2% on improvement.” citizens 8_9I 5% allowed. the with minds 24 of 2006 24.5% 27.5% 12.5% 14.6% 13.4% 5% several Kenmore AB28 of 27 over I P 10 2013 5% 35.2% 33.2% 26.5% 14.1% 18.5% a g 4 a e The The 2013 point parks, Compared types average 5.23, To sample mean added, Ratings The order The fields, improvement” Tracking Compared obtain facilities lowest following most at 5.25, of of ratings with ranking whose and population the of their ratings. facilities Analysis a drastic to Facilities and priorities to a expanded, more 95% with t-value for 2006, previous importance 2006, table for 4.35 Water! is Other! confidence each for detailed increases playgrounds. the 2006, — Play Picnic Athletic Type of Maintenance Landscaping the Facilities for lists out almost Restrooms of their were 300 highest Parking facility Equipment ratings. respondents Trails -2.264 Beach priorities Improvement Don’t of and of facilities Facilities Kenmore doubled. “interest view Facility in 10, Fields were all the level. in sports category, Access Know interest (a facilities respectively. One Need of percent significant seen are in what The significant in order fields, citizens. were largely of seeing were in saw which only facilities Improvement change picnic also of courts, shift an restrooms Most unchanged, “need facility improved represent asked shift increase facilities, Rank: from in residents facilities and for the 10 is to 8 4 9 6 7 5 3 2 1 to 2013 a 2006 off-leash see improvement” and negative or decline rank, in the which with expanded.” need were a most waterfront to decrease average Rank: from most 2013. almost in for dog direction), in wanted 10 4 9 8 4 6 7 3 2 1 support 0 2006 the improvement. facilities parks, to rating in in Presented tripled, “neutral” access, 10, 2013, “need to for Percent with each comparing see across being + off-leash + + + + + + + both + and along - for 167.1% improved, 43.7% 97.8% 26.7% 12.8% 24.3% 20.7% 18.1% mean 8.3% of 2.1% range here Change the within AB29 the athletic at with ratings nearly entire are following 2006 of dog I half 5 P their the to a to g 7.5 of a 6. e .iTra There community restrooms We pools extended Included respondents Most Community then •2013 10.00 3 2 1 0.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Important (35.6%), 2006 was in asked Walking/Biking list Off-Leash and also H Appendix parks, Athletic Gardens selecting of Playgrounds 670 6.92 as waterfront significantly respondents 1 20 T1lI’ Facilities well with items. Dog Facilities Fields B were as it on smaller Paths Park in 435 5.06 picnic Walking 2 access page their not more to areas an pick parks 43 ‘I’Ii top 5.77 5.06 6.34 6.92 as - support to option and 6.34 655 is - the four. the 3 the —- (25.0%) gaining be biking top “most 4.35 5.23 6.55 6.70 list in There for Improved ____ four 2006, of approximately 523 trails 5.77 smaller 4 IETi important “other” — was most but pulled 8 6 7 5 also neighborhood — in important responses, 5.73 525 2013 Waterfront Restroom strong facilities.” the or Picnic Sport twice 1 highest had Expanded support facilities parks Courts facilities an as 6.06 680 which Access parks, much average importance, facilities for IJ_Z1j primarily as support. indoor 7.49 opposed rating 7.53 6.06 7.49 5.73 from AB3O with named swimming J of an 7.48 6.80 5.25 7.47 iI 5.65. to 7.53 56.2% I 8 P large a g of e •rTra 10 9 8 7 6 4 2 5 3 1 V A to current verbatim Overall Other Respondents Off-Leash OutdoorTennis Street Small Playgrounds Indoor Walking Indoor Picnic Large :;, final 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% any Community Neighborhood Areas Suggestions Trees/City other benchmark Swimming Fitness! Satisfaction progress and VVVVVVVVVVVVV in Dog 1 VV Appendix and V BikingTrails facilities V were Park Ii VV__V 2 Exercise Courts Note: Shelters the Beautification Pool Parks V•VV•VVVVVVVVV_ in VVVV 3 also Parks with Totals city regards they V C: Facilities 4 offered V Other Most is Improvements sum would 1[ir 1 z1;1ij,i VVVVVVVVV making V 5 VVVVVVVVVVVVVV_VVV VV to to Parks 6 theV improving more Important like VVVVVVVVV •a in opportunity 7 than Facilities 20.1% 21 25.9% 35.6% 25.0% 56.2% 17.3% 12.7% to “improving VV 3.7% 8.3% __V_V V .2% 8 see 100% parks VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 9 added irTri V to because 10 to facilities Add 20 19 17 16 14 18 15 12 13 11 and Parks V give or 11 Youth Adult Youth Community multiple or Other Skate Synthetic Outdoor Indoor Pickleball investing expanded. an Improve 12 was open-ended, Facilities Multipurpose Parks Baseball/Softball Multipurpose Sports 13 responses Basketball to Surface Courts in V Gardens measure These 14 (page parks Courts V VV 15 were V Sports 44). responses __VVVVVVV and Courts Fields unguided Fields (Basketball! 16 satisfaction allowed. Fields recreation.” Fields 17 (Soccer! (Soccer! 18 are response A831 Volleyball) reported Football) with 19 Football) I V P 20 the a as g e 21.1% 22.6% 14.0% i 10.2% 0.9% 4.6% 8.0% 8.2% 33% 1 .2% ______ 60.0% - 50.0% — 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% I.- —- 1 0.0% I Low (0-3) Moderate (4-6) High (7-10) r.2006 10.7% 39.2% 50.1% •2013 12.7% 33.4% 53.9% J Overall Satisfaction - Improvements Mean 6.45 Std. Deviation 2.67 Kurtosis -0.14 Of the three satisfaction ratings taken (number and variety of parks, quality of parks, and improvements), this variable is consistently the lowest, with a mean of 6.42. 12.7% of respondents gave a low rating of 3 or less, while the high end (rating of 7 to 10) was just under 54%. Tracking Analysis Compared to 2006, the only category to drop was the “moderate” ratings level, indicating a general shift away from disinterest or neutrality. This is most likely related to the increase in parks awareness, in that people with little familiarity with a subject are much more likelyto give neutral/ moderate ratings, while people with knowledge of the parks and their facilities are going to have more developed and stronger opinions. Priorities for Future Land Purchases Concerning future purchases, Kenmore citizens were inquired as to their priority for future parks purchases from a list of five types of land. These options were ranked in order from first priority to last (fifth priority) by each respondent. AB32 I P a g ______D First Choice: The top-ranked priorities were chosen as follows: Top Priority for Future Land Purchases 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20,0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% [ C E I2013 22.7% 35.3% 24.9% 9.6% -- Index Type of Land Proportion A Natural Areas for Passive Recreation 22.7% B Combination: Land for Passive and Active Recreation 35.3% C Waterfront Land 24.9% D Neighborhood Parks 9.6% E Corridors for Trails 7.4% Over a third of respondents gave “a combination of natural areas that can be preserved and used for passive recreation, as well as areas that can be developed for more active use” as their top pick for future parks development and purchases. Waterfront land was a second top pick, at nearly one-quarter support. One significant inconsistency discovered in this research is that, although walking and biking trails were the top priority for adding or expanding park facilities, it was the lowest priority (only 7.4% picked it first) for future land purchases. The most likely explanation is that people want more trails at current parks, with future parks purchases being dedicated to other types of facilities. Total Support: To analyze all the rankings as a whole, we used a point evaluation system that assigned each AB33 P a g e category a number of points based on how highly it was ranked by each respondent, and summed, and evaluated using the following equations: — 2n)tF,(x)) Where T is the total score for option x (such that E (A, 8 C, D, Ej), n is the ranking value (“first” being 1, “fifth” being 5), and F(x) is the frequency with which option x was ranked “n.” That is — each ranking (first through fifth) is worth an allotment of “points,” ten for each “first” ranking, eight for a “second” ranking, and so on. Then, total points for each category are tallied as T, and percentage of the total number of points (“7,480) is calculated. Total Prioritization for Land Purchases 30.0% 25.0% ‘ - 20,0% 15.0% —I 10.0% —‘I I’ I 5.0% 0.0% A B C D E [ Li •2013 19A%j 24.9% 23.2% 16.9% 15.6% -- J-- •11.]IWTT A Natural Areas for Passive Recreation 1,450 19.4% B Combination: Land for Passive and ActiveRecreation 1,864 24.9% C Waterfront Land 1,736 23.2% D Neighborhood Parks 1,263 16.9% E Corridors for Trails 1,164 15.6% Here, the total prioritization is highly congruent with the top priority by land category, with a Pearson Coefficient of 0.96, with the values being slightly less extreme (mitigated by the above equation). Still,,land that can be kept as passive recreation space (24.9%) has a slight edge over waterfront land (23.2%). Corridors for trails is the lowest overall priority, now carrying 15.6% of the total allotment of points. AB34 I P a g e ______ Recreational, Cultural, and Special Events The second set of research objectives in this survey were to evaluate use of and opinions regarding the “recreation” sector of Kenmore Parks and Recreation Department — measuring the popularity of recreational programs, determining primary sources for recreational events, and evaluating community opinion regarding the availability and quality of special events. Sources of Information The first objective of this section of the research was to identify primary sources of information regarding community events. Respondents were asked to choose from a list the sources from which they obtain information about “recreational, cultural, and special events” in Kenmore. Source of Information 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% I — 20.0% ------I— 10.0% 0.0% I I Kenmore Parks Online Search Kenmore I Seattle Times Other Website Engine Reporter 2013 — - 18 - 20 2% 10 3% 64.1% - i 39.6% Note: Totals sum to greater than 100% because multiple responses were allowed. The primary source of community information for these types of events was overwhelmingly found to be the Kenmore Reporter, a bi-weekly local publication for the Kenmore Area. The Seattle Times was used the least often, listed by only 10.3% of citizens as a source. Under “other,” the most referenced sources of information were word of mouth, city newsletter! bulletin! circulars, and street banners. The full list of responses is reported verbatim in Appendix D: Sources of Information for Community Events (page 47). AB35 P a I g e opportunities The spread with To negative Overall, approximately Opiortunities (dissatisfied) respondents evaluate 40.0% 35.0% 45.0% 25.0% 30.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% U2013 total 0.0% 5.0% just of the kurtosis slightly rating the 4 satisfaction community were ranking distribution; at for within was a more (-0.51) 5 Cultural asked (neither Low(0-3) fairly Opportunites is 28.9% the sitting within opinion levels and again 30% spread almost Activities satisfied relatively I— in 2 are - to the 40% percentage regarding —- out, rate every effectively moderate Std. -—-—- range. Descriptive nor with the high Kurtosis rating Mean Deviation dissatisfied), for city’s the all The standard points neutral, Moderate(4-6) — three range. opportunities on Cultural proportion recreational Statistics 40.5% the of categories deviation the with scale with I—- proportion 20% -0.51 received of 2.68 5.02 — a Activities for offerings total citizens (low, (2.68) of cultural citizens — average ---- 8% moderate, who further who on - events 13% a gave surveyed High gave 0 of 30.6% to express 5.02. representation. (7-10) a and in 10 a high low Kenmore, AB36 scale. The ranking high) I— the ranking, I P overall being a the — g e -1 2: Di CD CD 0 Di CD -h Di -v 0) CD Index 2 7 4 6 3 8 5 1 r.2o13 35.0% 30.0% 40.0% 10.0% 15.0% The 20.0% 25.0% Among classes Under leagues Another classes. utilized Frequency Teen Adult Youth Adult! Senior Before! Summer Preschool most : “other,” also 7.5% those Recreational over and Respondents objective Athletic Activities Use Senior Athletic common Activities After-School of Note: saw Programs indoor 15.3%i8.2% the Day who Use the of Day Leagues regular previous Leagues Totals Programs — was did most response, pooi Recreational Recreation Care Program were Sum utilize Programs to use. 7.1% activities. common identify 12 to asked greater recreational month at 6.1%O.9% Activities almost to frequency response Summer than choose 24.7% period. 15.3% 18.2% 0.9% 7.1% 9.8% 6.1% Use 40% Activities 100% .24.7% activities, programs, from was of of because Index 10 respondents, 15 14 12 16 13 11 9.8% use 9 summer a of list the 24.2% multiple Technology Art! Other Sailing! Fitness None Performing Indoor various fitness which Over most Graphic concerts. 10.0% Pool responses Classes Rowing! was Recreational of common classes, recreational Last 16.9% arts the Activities education Design! none. classes following Kayaking were 17.4% and 12 were Sculpting allowed. and Program performing programs Months 15.2% youth options programs 11.3% AB38 sports and they arts 13.8%373;. I P have a g Use e 24.2% 37.3% 13.8% 17.4% 10.0% 11.3% 15.2% 16.9% — Those All fireworks attended. assistants. The surveyed Considering number Frequency responses rate who of of households displays, The households of responded attendance the are Use most same Household reported — or common Special Christmas having variable in from for the verbatim special Events which attended affirmative responses for tree special events Attendance a (Last in lighting! member at Appendix were were least was events 12 Christmas seasonal attended a asked one near Months) in E on special Kenmore, to even of page or identify a ships. Special special holiday event split, 48, this as which with in event events, recorded research the approximately Events special 43% last Yes in the such year. inquired by events last our as 4 th 12 AB39 research 43% as they of months. to July I of P the had a g e As This 5.68, and categorized Similar Overall, and Opportunities such, 30.0% 40.0% 20,0% 35.0% 45.0% 25.0% 50.0% 10.0% 15.0% 12013 00% opportunities moderate 5.0% category while to however, the “Opportunities the as mean has ratings for “high.” standard Opportunities a the for Recreational was slightly Low(0-3) 21.5% recreational being responses The only deviation for most higher slightly at Cultural just Activities common were overall activities and over higher Std. Descriptive Activities,” fairly kurtosis Kurtosis for one-third Mean Deviation rating, rating than evenly on Recreational Moderate the remain that was with respondents Statistics 34.7% of distributed, same of the a 43.8% 7 (4-6) “opportunities effectively out total. scale. I— -0.24 2.36 5.68 of of were 10, respondents with Activities unchanged. carrying asked the for low cultural to I 21.2% High giving ratings rate (7-10) the of events,” A840 a at rating responses. availability 21.5%, P at a g e A significant “some Girls Otherwise, with mentions programming the last Over area A First, Frequency Recreational crosstab Index secondary 40.00% 35.00% 20.00% 30.00% 15,00% 25 10.00% 0.00% 5.00% 2 3 .2013 year. 1 Ken .00% the Club. by a the college” third more asking previously YMCA School Boys Recreational research being There differences and of the of goal Primary area. to Use and citizens 2.05% citizens ANOVA YMCA education for District Kenmore 1 were was Programming Girls sought church reported and to ______were Program few to chose analysis Club identify pick to Provider are School residents, activities consistent found 18.80% identify 37% no more their was provider other District who between Proportion primary likely run or top 20.32% while 18.80% 2.05% responses had private sources of comparing providers both to for 20.32% almost not provider groups, Recreational us 3 recreational carried fitness the attended of Index fielded recreational 6 4 5 none of Boys these except of recreational clubs. just recreational Recreational Other Northshore None of under I and 9.08% _____ any results activities, about those 4 that Girls recreational I facilities, “other,” home Programming to surveyed one-fifth club. offerings Senior demographic which programming Program renters with events, Center activities of chose is in the the highly the and and L most recreational the data Kenmore AB41 from those congruent within Proportion programs Boys 34.61% 15.14% 9.08% common — 63 a I no with P list. and the a g e in As Otherwise, were respectively. Overwhelmingly, programs were Kenmore Role Following in 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 50.0% 60.0% 10.0% S 0.0% in the chosen most 2013 Providing previous Top residents.” and this, important the Almost as functions 53.4% respondents school having Priority the Recreational ranking Index I C A B 0 E nobody F organization in districts “first was taking YMCA School City Boys Recreational Private Non-Profit question, 15.8% were for the priority,” felt B of and on Programming and City the Kenmore Agencies District Providing asked a citizens YMCA Girls “primary Organizations j evaluated Boys of as Provider Kenmore, to Club a 0.9% were and felt and C proportion rank, role Girls Organizations had first the in Recreation in with the order were closest Club providing 13.5% of highest over 0 ought respondents. from the behind, half “top recreation “first,” priority to of be providers,” Proportion Programs at respondents 8.2% the E 53.4% 15.8% 13.5% 8.3% 8.2% 0.9% to 15.8% in “sixth,” primary providing programming and or 8.3% picking those who 13.5%, provider. AB42 recreational they that for it I P first. felt a g e Total Support As before, total support for an order ranking is calculated by summation, given by: T. = Z(1L8 — 1.8’nHF(x)) Where T is the total score for option x (such that x (A. B, C, D, E, F)), n is the ranking value (“first” being 1, “sixth” being 6), and F(x) is the frequency with which option x was ranked “n.” Total Prioritization for Recreational Programs 30.0% 25.0% 20,0% 15.0% 1 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%’ ._:..,...,..J..,.....______,..,,,,...,..,.,,,,A C D E F .2013[ 28.0% 20.6% 8.1% 17.5% 14.3% 11.6% •rTr LiA2.I’]ItTI A Cityof Kenmore 28.0% B School District 20.6% C Boys and GirlsClub, 8.1% D YMCA 17.5% E Non-ProfitOrganizations 14.3% F Private Agencies and Organizations 11.6% As is to be expected, the overall prioritization is highly correlated with the “first priority” ranking by agency, with the City of Kenmore carrying the majority of total priority at 28.0%, followed more closely by the school districts (20.6%) and the YMCA(17.5%) Other Recreational Programs Finally, all respondents were offered the opportunity to give any other suggestions for other AB43 I P a g e top The 67.6%. future verbatim In Priority recreational addition, 20.0% 70.0% 90.0% 10.0% 80.0% • • • • choice, U20131 results 0.0% recreational Increase Increase Increase Reduce for in -. - were while Funding Method Appendix respondents programs the tax user user fairly “reducing 67,6% number programs, revenues. 1 and Index fees fees G close 4 2 3 1 or on - for Budgeting were activities for for page ———‘----— of the overall, everyone. non-residents. Budgeting if programs asked Increase Reduce number there 48. Increase Increase ..... Method they Recreational with how 77.9% is Number Fees: would of 2 not offered. “increasing they Fees: Tax of programs enough I-.. - Budgeting Non-Residents Revenues Recreational like would of Everyone — —.--—... Programs Programs to budget. offered” user see prioritize - offered. fees 83.9% The was for several Selected four . All everyone” 77.9% 75.8% 67.6% 83.9% the Programs responses options least options by preferred, at were: 75.8% for 83.9% are AB44 funding reported - with being I P for a the g e p-value Age 0.13 Research concerned sensitive group As have improving In By measured relation Multivariate 25-34 55-64 45-54 35-44 This 18-24 Total 65+ Group all described Age children, is three children gave Age likely to to 25-34 45-54 35-44 55-64 18-24 also 65+ at and with Group each “overall the perceived the a in showed in on p-value investing lowest the - minor the question result average). Analysis Number satisfaction” introduction, home safety that issues. ratings. of of 8.74 Most in 0.05. simple and 7.07 7.31 7.07 7.13 7.46 6.12 and Baseball! than parks), the Parents Walking/ Walking! Restroom Restroom Restroom Waterfront Waterfront and Basketball Important objective. Picnic Soccer VcL, 35-44 Playgrounds the categories Facility lifestyle this cleanliness the Softball Biking Biking of Facilities 18-24 Facilities Facilities Fields Facilities age research Access Access children, Courts 18-24 9_9Q_3 Facilities Presented Paths Paths differences Fields group age (number group I issues, group also younger is by significantly gave here sought Age as (1.09 — and Quality opposed the 7.88 7.65 8.02 7.55 6.84 8.93 7.66 the kids Group are variety children to 25-34 the highest especially, identify Mean less to statistically of age !QQi 7.1 8.40 8.49 7.52 6.66 7.59 6.61 8.84 7.85 6.72 9.13 7.19 young likely per parks, Rating ratings, 1 group significant household, are to — adults, quality attend generally is significant while more Improvements variables who of the AB45 special compared likely parks, 6.19 4.77 7.37 6.24 8.10 p 6.42 6.23 <.0.001 <0.00 more <0.00 are 25-34 value 0.0 0.034 0.0 0.086 0.009 0.009 findings, I 19 19 to P less with 1 1 a g <0.001 to e events. This is largely a schedule issue — this age group is also consistently the busiest, with less time for recreational and special events. Phi: 0.026; Cramer’s V:0.207 By Gender No significant correlation was found between genders of respondents with respect to any of the research objectives. Results were found to be almost identical between males and females on all objectives, signifying that parks and recreation activities are in no way separated by gender By Satisfaction The primary variable this research sought to investigate was satisfaction with parks in Kenmore. This was achieved by evaluating satisfaction of several different aspects, as has been described. To gain further insight into these factors, respondents’ satisfaction ratings were evaluated against their responses to each and every other variable, to identify significant drivers of satisfaction, or other correlations. Satisfaction with Quality of City-Owned Parks: (eta Variable Satisfaction Category Mean Rating p-value ‘1 squared) Importance: Youth! 5.59 EP 0.031 0.017 Adult Tennis Courts Low 4.59 Rating: Recreational High 6.03 < o.oc 0.081 Opportunities Low 4.25 Rating: Qualityof High 5.68 0.00 1 0.073 Recreation Programs Low 3.99 Children under 18 in High 0.88 0.043 0.016 Home Low 1.26 Satisfaction with Improvements and Investments: qZ (eta Variable Satisfaction Category Mean Rating p-value squared) Rating: Number and High 6.66 < 0.001 0.399 Varietyof Parks Low 3.56 Importance: Walking! High 5.88 0.021 0.039 Biking Paths Low 6.75 Rating: Opportunities High 4.56 0.001 0.071 for Cultural Events Low 3.48 Rating: Recreational High 5.19 < 0.001 0.091 Opprtunities Low 4.21 Rating: Quality of High 5.25 0.001 0.098 Recreational Programs Low 3.24 AB46 P a g I e Eta squared is a correlation and regression figure that describes causality. An eta squared value of 0.235, for example, indicates that the variable in question is responsible for 23.5% of the satisfaction rating in question. Linear Discriminant Analysis A linear discriminant is an analysis method that describes a “dependent” variable as a linear sum of other “independent” variables. It describes a number of factors (the independent variables) as they affect the dependent variable in question. It describes the main factors affecting the outcome of the dependent variable, as well as their respective impacts. A linear discriminant is of the form: Y = a + 1ax + 2a,x + Where V is the variable to be measured (dependent variable), which in this case will be overall satisfaction with the quality of Kenmore parks. Each x1 is an independent variable, one of the factors that affects the overall satisfaction, where n variables are evaluated. Each a1 is a correlation coefficient describing the level of impact each x value has, on a scale from 0 to 1. The following table describes the linear discriminant for overall satisfaction with parks quality: ‘Trn[: Rating: Quality of Recreation Programs 0.700 Rating: Recreational Opportunities 0.662 Importance: Restroom Facilities 0.615 Importance: Picnic Facilities 0.566 Rating: Opportunities for Cultural Activities 0.422 This function correctly groups 66.0% of cases for rating of overall satisfaction with quality of city-owned parks in Kenmore. AB47 P a g I Parks Appendix 4. 3. 2. 1. and Are where Which Number] How Which G. A. F. C. E. D. B. G. A. Facilities H. F. C. E. D. B. H. G. you A. F. E. C. D. B. many A you Squire’s Wallace Kenmore Rhododendron Northshore Wallace Log Squire’s Linwood Moorland Other[Record] Log Rhododendron Kenmore Northshore Moorland Linwood Other Wallace Squire’s Log Rhododendron Northshore Moorland Linwood aware live? Boom times Boom Boom 2013 [Record] of Swamp Landing Swamp Landing Swamp Landing Park Park parks Park parks in any Park Park Park Park Park Park Survey Summit Summit Summit the parks do are Park Park Park Creek Creek past Creek Park Park Park you you that Park Park Park 12 Questionnaire Park visit Park Park aware months you regularly? would of? have consider you visited to be Kenmore within walking city parks? distance AB48 [Record f P of a g e 9. 11. 8. 10. 7. 6. 5. improved On Which Interested,” improvement On parks how On how Number: On how [Record Are [Record In the a i. a A. a G. A. a I. E. C. H. F. D. B. A.Yes B. H. you satisfied satisfied satisfied scale scale scale scale and past of Walking/biking Trails Water Athletic Other[Record] Picnic Maintenance Parking Restrooms Play Landscaping No[SkiptoQ7j Other[Record] aware Number: Number] the 0-10] or recreation? of from from from 12 equipment how added? 0 following Facilities are are are or or months, to of Fields 0 0 0 beach attention? interested you you you 10, opportunities to to to 0-10] 10, 10, [For 10, with with with with [Record paths how aspects access where where where Each 0 the the the many are being V - progress quality number Number: 0 0 0 of to you Record is is is Kenmore’s times “Not volunteer “not “not “not in of seeing and at the Number: at at at have 0-10] city-owned all all all all variety city in existing interested” satisfied” satisfied” you satisfied” these Kenmore is 0-101 volunteered making of types parks city city-owned and and and and parks? parks of in in 10 10 10 improving recreation Kenmore? 10 in is is is are being “extremely “extremely “extremely Kenmore parks most “Extremely and facilities in [Record in Kenmore? AB49 Parks? investing need satisfied,” satisfied,” satisfied,” I of P a in g e 13. 12. Verbatim] facilities Are From T. J. S. Q. 0. R. P. G. A. M. K. N. L. I. C. J. H. F. D. E. B. G. K. L. I. H. F. C. D. E. B. there the Skate Adult Youth Others Youth Synthetic Street Outdoor Outdoor Community Off-leash Small Indoor Walking Pickleball Playgrounds Indoor In Picnic Large Waterfront Youth/Adult Youth/Adult Youth/Adult Youth/Adult Restroom Pickleball Community Picnic Off-leash Playgrounds that door following any courts multipurpose neighborhood Community are areas baseball/softball multipurpose facilities Trees other fitness basketball/volleyball/soccer/tennis/pickleball swimming [Record] and tennis basketball dog surface courts dog most courts facilities access/improvements Gardens and list gardens (city tennis facilities biking basketball soccer baseball park park and important of courts shelters beautification) sport pools/leisure Parks 19 exercise trails courts courts fields fields fields parks park you and fields fields courts (soccer/football) would softball to and (soccer/football) facilities you: recreation pool like fields to have facilities, expanded please courts or added? identify [Record the AB5O four I P a g e Recreation 17. 16. 15. 14. opportunities,” On participated? [Record During Kenmore? How When how a g. f. c. e. h. d. a. i. b. A. C. E. D. B. C. A. E. D. B. Programs, would scale do the Teen the Youth Adult Adult/Senior Activities, Senior Summer Indoor Other Before/After Seattle Online Waterfront Ken Ken Corridors A Neighborhood picnicking recreation, nature Natural you Number: combination from City past more more you get Activities indoor/outdoor [Record] indoor/outdoor Activities pool Search Times hikes, considers Activities, areas Please 12 0 rank programs information Reporter Parks for playrooms, to and 0-101 months, as park activities day school trails. 10, walks, each that well Engine athletic parks. of rate Website where land. care purchasing natural and can of as (sports the programs in interpretive about the (water areas day athletic athletic which Special be fields. 0 opportunity following areas is preserved programs and that “no recreational, exercise additional of for leagues Events leagues day that the opportunities” can education, school camps) types following for can to be and etc.) attend developed park preschool be used age cultural, of preserved parks etc. land children recreation for cultural and and passive in and for 10 level open and more special activities is activities “extensive of recreation used space active importance event for in for have Kenmore. use passive AB51 programs such the such you to future, as P you?” as a g in e 22. 21. 20. 19. 18. would opportunities,” role Number: On How Number: On Have facilities months? From a f. a e. d. c. a. b. A. B. A. C. j. E. D. B. o. n. m. I. k. to would scale scale any the you provide YMCA School City Non-profit Boys Yes:Continue Private YMCA No. Others School Technology Northshore Boys Other Sailing, Art, Fitness Performing most 0-10] 0-10] following household from from i. rate you graphic and and What [Record] District frequently Agencies District [Record] classes rowing, recreation the how 0 rank 0 Girls Girls to to organizations arts Senior quality programs, list, events design, would 10, 10, members the Club Club Environmental kayaking, please (drama, where where and importance used programming Center of were you sculpting Organizations recreation such identify by attended 0 0 rate music, those? is is etc., your “lowest “no as the of education classes gaming the household: dance) opportunities” the [Record] recreational for programs any top quality” following Kenmore special and or classes recreation classes software rentals or and event opportunities classes agencies residents? and 10 providers education in 10 is in Ken “highest is in Kenmore? “extensive more taking in or Kenmore? quality,” recreation in on the [Record AB52 a primary past how [Record f 12 P a g e 29. 28. 27. 26. 25. Demographics What How Do How In 24. 23. what you f. g. c. e. a. b. b. a.Own to in Are If many many Four-Year Some Graduate Two-Year Some it is High Rent what see A. C. 0. own B. requires the there year offered? times School Increase Increase children Reduce Increase College highest order High or were any rent Degree (Undergraduate) Degree more have School would recreational or you the [Record level your under tax user user Equivalent you money born? number or or revenues you fees fees of home? Trade higher the voted education Verbatim] prioritize [Record for for than age programs of School everyone in Degree non-residents programs of can the 18 Year] you’ve the be past reside or budgeted following activities offered 4 received? years? in your methods to unavailable [Record home? provide of Number] [Record future paying in Kenmore recreation Number] for them? that AB53 programs, you’d I P a like g e Appendix Question Included Tennis. Safety. Restrooms Reduce Off Restrooms. Playgrounds. Parks Parking Just Parking. None, Nothing Nature None None. Multipurpose expand More Lake Lake where Indoor I I Frisbee Create Fishing Ditch Community All Boat Boat Bigger Better don’t haven’t the leash walking Washington access. launch recreation with to trimming adults I’m x12 we have sidewalks. tennis launch. waterfront sports x4 park. for rates and Golf it me been dog here in 13 too live. beach and kids. x4 boat the due center. a trails stakes and in —“Please to A park. courts. for community old. preference. B around are north park on place kenmore Senior area. to Seniors — launch. access kids. water with access residential the the in Other benches. end to a to Center. no identify costs responses existing sport go on activities. all of for residents center/restrooms. They bikes. and the the Lake of rowing, Responses access. properties lake commune maintaining are park. the parks Washington. recorded to all four or small so pool important. improving facing facilities I don’t with boating, in them for to new nature. the know respondents the “Most is pool that common etc. such one what in are a at bothell burden all Important most Log roads is who out Boom with important for similar there. chose the ID. Park. to older Facilities” Install “other,” what to people you.” exercise King in V County who response AB54 equipment live I used P here. a to g to e & do Appendix to Included walking, built I Covered Community Control think I Have Community or Athletic Frisbee Fix Fitness. Educate helpful. Community Additional Free At Add Add and Add Bring Brightwater Access A A Boat A Bike parking River on Waterfront Waterfront think like have community park bird Woodinville. Log the the so more more in this lanes parking the Iaunches/ a there Trail. in watching an Boom bocce on. light by to waterfront restroom golf. expanded flooding. lot new field, people and picnic old modern here environmental trails. City sidewalks. parking bike parks, There and is Transit at Center, Access. restaurants. pool Park Rhododendron and should restaurants, Park ball actually baseball, pool C Hall. Simons are areas trails. access. we about I boardwalk — at and would more improvements, I’d cover. courts. is it spaces in the would or couldn’t Other going Linwood. a x14 hub is be love for Kenmore. barrier rec added?” anywhere gross dog Rd x4 garbage soccer. responses educated. like with gatherings The education center. to In to and movie because be poop, near get Bellingham see to since the cover. for nice Facilities older activities, Juanita see in cans Brightwater parks theaters the where Swamp opening. it - too as the an to indoor one needs The facility. i.e. rest a at Drive overpass Question many might last result parties. was along Log community people park Creek. of otherwise to pool. time Security. the since Boom. weeds more be made help of had the can community. over that Off picked I 12 went it an trail older classy. into exist swim. leash has — activities. Kenmore fact. 522 older “Are they to up, a a citizens for to funny dog park the covered bikers have there provide swimming Rhododendron park. has or setting. getting a ball any are nothing little picnic pedestrian field. not other at to coffee present area courteous facilities compared Recreation facilities Park shop. and access (May ______ it they so was to to That that for to you older 2013) Lake tore full Sammamish ABS5 family, would would would in it people Forest so out the I I P be kids, be don’t like a and Park nice g e should Off Redevelop Public Pool, Playgrounds would Redevelop Property Parks Parking. No Park Number Just More More More More More More More More More Maybe Marina. Lightings. Keep to Lacrosse Kayaking It Invest Improvement Indoor pool concentrate Improve I I’m Kenmore. I main I would think want would me developing leash very at by at indoor the thoroughfare like trails walking athletic playgrounds parking businesses. activities parks. barbeque pool. prime in be to just that the community concessions, St. Kenmore be of disappointed be water fields. on public dog from Kenmore know a St the Tracey Edwards concrete opposed parks. buy and ideal the nice the Edwards. the basketball. on real park. at fields divided for concrete the of for access St swimming what development bike building slough. sites. Log health if place estate air Northshore crossing Owen Edwards the the and new x4 area center, there for Park to plant. paths. Boom. like and happened from for parks in A to Senior walking any the of large green. plant. to Park, little in up the open. cement put are kayaks. the Bothell pool. the indoor build fee and kids biking the would Kenmore reservoir ball of bars Heights. wilderness, Center. water the summer. charges trails have waterfront. to in Kenmore up. plant. fields. waterfront, sports, paths. Way the and the offer ways. north it I city. City totem No that lower went done and on different Walking But rock the should commercial the council of There is improvement There’s there with! Kenmore standard pole being ability Bothell if climbing parks. they concentrate or things is in that to created. a a to biking Rhododendron could play Highway. I’m chance restaurant or businesses. doesn’t go it wall. toward handicap wasn’t very, for Bridge by only do the more now on something seem very trails. more different that’s that water and with parking They park opposed. Park. to there is assertive going care the and no features should or age I’d there. longer were Brightwater sit about a like on groups little and build in Bothell to only by Keep there keeping kids watch, bit see City that not four more. it at sidewalks project and Way. Hall. ABS6 natural. just all. up trails. the people that and little In swimming I where P the They seems in there. a kids. g e it Work Work Wetland, Trails Wild We are We Water The boating We Waterpark/ Walking Tracy for The The there The official is plans Center/Housing/Stores Swimming St. Some Skateboard Sidewalks. Bothell by Restore a the Edwards dioxins. being skate need need need water roads City pool life, accessible on and Owens better is of access. slough skate is and a the paths has the the wetlands at a restrooms more 3. forced park doing peninsula it to needs pool. x2 public St. 91 spray should park. we parks landmark with bought square public the park. water and with by acre Edward’s and don’t right for to x2 parks; to school City beach. park. should have use be boat access better no wetland wheel be on footage in about now have Hall chimney readdressed Linwood bikes. tested. the common population area. an district State launch. be (circa and sidewalks. chairs and access 5-6 enough edge of free I’d Park acres I the the parking. they Park. see May of like areas. and We to trail quality control. park facilities Lake should at the kids tore in to 2013). need scooters. When this through the see public. could Washington there down. time. of be more Downtown something there for Where the reopened. be all there it. beach water added. the are the that to time. no area start access. in provide cement A Well, restrooms the has BMX It’s that on fallen lake there just that Kenmore trail nature company was here a which by people are for bunch supposed the walks. is kids planning is terrible. and would wayside of a have with primary concrete the to to be on hills be gravel It for go similar needs doing built area and somewhere. development blocks. company AB57 into jumps. for work to to be family what a A I Business P down tested more There a is They g e Kenmore?” Appendix Included “Where YMCA. The The Word Woodinville The The School Observation Radio, Northshore Notices Neighbors. My Local Kenmore Kenmore From I I Flyer Facebook Craze City Facebook. City E-mails Direct City Church Anything City Chamber Banners don’t. used Homeowner Senior Council bulletin Bothell-Kenmore council hall newsletter! Hall from merchants. my of magazine. to the mailings district. x3 from and or do mouth. e-mails. and over get wife. here Community that Library. of pages; flyers public x3 the Center you Senior has board neighbors. paper. meetings. of Commerce the the the the D comes city. are x2 what from information get x22 Association put throw bulletin. channels city. Community boards — road. in at Center, the x7 Sources information up Kenmore. the is the Coupon in Club. in away responses x15 at the website. at City gym. the x36 Starbucks usually; at St. mail. on x2 flyer of the neighborhood. organizations; Magazine. Edward’s that, Kenmore. of Rhododendron about on for and Information and flyers, NE those channel State recreational, 204th I love something Kenmore who Park. the P1. 7 Park news. but chose concerts Heritage also we for in cultural, the “other,” don’t has Community in mail the a Society get Senior and and parks in it anymore. special response email. online Center in the using event Events there summer. Just to Question URLs. TV. programs as well. AB58 15 in P — a g e household Appendix Included Tree Veterans Town Volunteer The The Something Softball School Small School Sammamish Open Parade, Parks Night My Last Kenmore Kids Kenmore Kenmore Halloween, City Hydroplane City Fishing Concerts Events City Christmas Christmas Art 4th Christmas Attended Beer wife opening show. open of summer hall academy. day; Hall lighting. fest. carnival. business beautification. Out house July choral programs. at derby fire leagues volunteered event Meetings. Day here Midsummer. at senior house the Heritage Historical against appreciation a x4 x7 tree Ship. Lighting. at fireworks. members arts station the computer at at Slough of by display. Rhododendron City concerts. at E City functions. in City are the lighting. - x8 park. for and City fitness Logboom. — April. soccer Crime. Hall Society. the library. Hall. x3 Affirmative opening. Hall. Society the Race. crafts Hall Open at x33 x33 attended class in dinner, responses program library school. x14 leagues which ,a x3 fair house x2 meeting meetings at Park Northshore and parade, I any - participated authorized at nature through for the City about special at Responses those Christmas fireworks. the Hall. hikes. Senior developing the community by event in who School Group a Center. Small Tree answered in to Health. Kenmore District. the lighting. Business center Special land “Yes.” for nearby in Meetup special the Events To those past Question with events. 12 offices the Attended months?” legislative 19 of — the ABS9 “Have City. candidates I any P a g e activities Appendix Included Gymnastics Golf I Good Horses Free dogs Cooking Continuing Figure Community Classes Fields photography Community City City Boys Anything motocross Boys where As Better Anything An Better An Beach Adult! Adult Access A A that An shared A Kirkland always YMCA. swimming good far overall arts indoor sponsored basketball; programs, up stranded in and and driving for league as out walks, walking clean trails. the youth the to for some by center; want swimming classes, backed I youth to Girls Girls here related unavailable the know how increase Kenmore, specialists pool and activity. education city. classes center center do restaurants. range. pool/indoor activity sports; athletic naturalist to green waterfront. clubs us Club, F areas sailing are to Garage dirt with more softball sports. geared there see More out — to in get program. classes. for class all biking Other in Kenmore children. belt is indoor more nature. of baseball, for groups. Bothell, will retail fields. the classes etc. opportunities isn’t Teen badly responses children/youth. in sale paying more available leagues. similar seniors. areas take Kenmore swimming track. things pool. any such swimming, or activities. needed. Recreational towards and with in softball, swap you a for in to art x26 share as to provided Kenmore. Kirkland given just Kirkland. no through Trader and walk that meet. for pool A more senior on natural free soccer, movie photography. sports to the you’d it back Joe’s until for the Question anymore pool helmets The citizens beaches. theatre kids. areas. etc. and and woods recently like and Y access. Programs and more find However, a to and would and casino; Maybe 23 or the and Something see an and pads skate parks. — Bothell Senior off show offered?” “Are be many some a they for leash appreciated. park bakery and there what’s had Center skaters. with seniors have adult is area their needed Activities with any a edible, been is marine for groups Extreme used own in an recreational We all Bothell. doing especially old-time tell of high it used or environment. for the dune you activity well school exercise. to people how community for go buggy in AB6OP programs this groups to pool teenage to who a track, sustain When area. Something pool to age own and use, feel. boys. or it. More More More More More More More More More had Maybe access. Making Make Letting LaCrosse, launch, wine Kenmore be Inform I’m taken I’d I’d I’d I’d I available. I for available I parks. I Not I I I I should I I I would would would would would would would would want wish don’t good like like like like not it. a everybody and off classical musical involvement classes. arts active, beach adults Parks better away there to to Like to to the the more rental I believe aware a your also love like like like like like like like to couldn’t leash little has see a in see see see indoor programs I community people have. will good a Department. to and to to Kenmore. to to access. to be meeting more to was use citizenry in senior small waterfront the events more sailboats. kayak kayak music of for dog see see see see see see there’s parks gladly off have can there of swimming swimming meal find an YMCA letting classes in know sports more leash more community areas. kid’s an a the join restaurants. exercise rentals, rentals and indoor programs. an at Boys the groups. and any attend. more area was Can and water of waterfront Bastyr. actual the recreational closer classes. areas when handicapped culture your beautification property. fields times rec-- on when and you a for it swimming and activities aware pool, YMCA. or options. promise technology, doesn’t safety dog Girls teens, for indoor to art and canoe center name built of a I More in Not looked. Kenmore. rock swimming dogs. classes the run of and There’s Kenmore. where, Club. training. It where classes. cost a what one? indoor in from rentals. would swimming for creative pool. recreation climbing. Christmas into really more of Kenmore. gardening, kids. you self Kenmore. more Please the Ron no the the activities beach. be high use We Anything I a improvments We area can’t City music water. I’d Sims piping fortune. nice pool. advertising. ship and of live let priced There like also for has think St. to and to More me next programs the passing for for more The swiming have like have Edwards develop to Something is one. current know teens. arts. of water offer to no planting dance, waterfront classes the information one an a Somewhere Logboom indoor lake, if I’m as for ice available. it. treatment slew I’d Park. cultural a events. sports, I cultural It a skating the like that have of like so borders parapalegic. but soccer flowers. property it’s kids. to Park an are on opportunity, not we so see important where ring. activity Anthony’s was. how affordable, I There’s in in don’t on been don’t an Kenmore Kenmore The needs Bothell I indoor you could aware in have have red just to Kenmore Home can as to and have music. volunteer the recreation crane you to and AB61 a Reporter. that have have little go boats Kenmore. Port. worded some. that Kenmore was out more becomes I a for P glass would for a for of just center. a g There boat town it, it. the e of Youth elsewhere Waterfront We’ve Waterfront Water Volleyball, The Walking Swimming Summer recreational recreational Sports Something nature Some at Small Skiing Skate Sailing. Rowing Rowing. Public Preschool Outdoor Pool access Parade. Offer Offer pool, Offer Off Off can’t Music Move More More More More More that city leash leash and etc. believe type neighborhood soccer, small some Park more buses youth activities, waterfront been sports summer golf. forward parks, programs in area. site. publically or spent only day tennis the community; dog dog for schoolage arts crew. pool and of about activities, activities boat children’s kids’ here programs. programs for camp. activities. trails, parks, picnic fields development preschool Kenmore music, parks park. $14 and youth with music and courts. kids rowing for access programs available 8 conserving areas million or no in photography, areas free and programs. developing Waterfront retired or parks. i.e. museums, activity. adult the 9 leagues. events. more activities bikes. are ice does years Everything! They for i.e. or age movies pool. boat and city. for more currently. skating. sailing. similar sports walking. sailing, at people. community soccer. not Indoor the wasted a and rentals basketball the My Don’t City i.e. the etc. activities, in important have nature martial we QFC kids leagues. to the rowing, baseball beach Hall Community swimming. in buy what money or see It one! parks. would the site. is activities. that kayak areas courts. arts. more too it front. like area. Kirkland etc. than as A or and is be limited lot being around kayaking, rentals. basketball just open as center a using of they classes big too us has devoid spaces in City don’t here. those here with big. i.e. private stand for but hall. cooking, in of They need do classes A instead the with Kenmore up any volunteer facilities the kids to need paddle the ongoing pool for day come of and understanding going to the would currently. camp instead. group board, figure an to kids. cultural indoor to us for like that Bothell. for windsurfing. out I the grew to more, experiences. works swimming ways see there summer, up AB62 something to even to in is fund Seattle conserve no pool. I though swimming P quality We these a g done and go e the I the Those Summary: identified Thank We Gilman Great Good Maintenance (Keep Good view Good Parks Park. collect I native Not Combining Pleased Summer Playful Bastyr The Prioritizing collection Overall What Biotech Station Parks appreciate city’s have 3) 2) 1) having Playgrounds the are passive coordination The start maintenance seeking attending you Parks plants ball my city Trail Park that Pending One Logboom Rhododendron bypass, some native concerts efforts maintained significant other Forum at thought, for field to designation a natural play the and and Wallace management pond big but seems use a improving all nice park species partnership and nice park by boat were park utilizing boat voices, Recreation cottonwood, are parks. Park at with park OTAK. of parks and good friendly recreation St. general appreciation great that Swamp well. and launch. and launch playgrounds general that Basketball Edward watch space state not the A partnerships with on I rec Provide a nice pass Doing were just plus. Services city. boat Open upkeep west upgrade Creek program (boat Keep with walking well wild knotweed place thru familiar better launch planted Unique A side for Courts anticipated and active satisfied life. thinking Park launch, few that of to are nature House and to trails. (Area generally our relax job It exception, is faces being and is increase park resources will concerns remaining focusing (currently) bailfields nicely of parks with Im and alders parks. Parks soon fish or space publicizing, done more good those Transcribed enjoy maintenance maintained and passage and for be seem me on many have Attendees at well a familiar shaded main build open wasted Nature enhance infrastructure whose that Bastyr) nature. to self-seeded by cities seeking thru of time neighborhood be space! Kenmore? is with) out. views Park. money them to maintained. sediment of also don’t Logboom recreation and enhance parks public acknowledged I match and money enjoy, use Results: at Wallace in comment pond from it Park. park-Wallace park Kenmore. yours. opportunities every water, were my enhance system Park day spent uninformed and state and as and They locally incorporating appreciated sediment Swamp a putting park, AB63 in attempted place also Kenmore Burke point I to Creek in P a g of it. e How inviting Make well maybe Art Keep horrendously Need “Kid I walking looking high can More Make support I Quality shortfall), court-more 4) Limited! 5) overpass 3) start City 2) and source 1) cannot Expand Our What (Kirkland, Station would only Kenmore Connect Look Lakefront Ballfields partnerships, flourish. as friendly should river school about city going but a sure attractive speak sure would off-leash keeping permanent trails, of greatly currently). of for play distance with Two parks. No is more of otter the pride Life- Bothell, you surprisingly Kenmore a with cooperation the kids, Outside use needed. 522 of are has on city” access park simple you over signage, citizens Wallace remember like In needed. activity them downtown most opportunity for and extremely gentle virtually areas, but and of especially Kenmore, at like Least run Woodinville parks the our my should funding. appropriate plans should. the Lanes families city at the not “features” when void art city development Swamp home. citizens. bay. opportunities options Lake no manager fields. the the City into etc. and deficient- stays to be with of a n to you The and vital If Point make on-school budget value improved ball to wetland I’d significantly etc.), Kenmore Creek More the for We’re viable!! eye (right look do are city seniors. love field with retail city’s site? organized a of more? to 465 little of very trail should Park plan needs beyond to to nature-not plant, in #3, our and experience natural tennis and core village provide children projected It see Maybe need connections. league important for because 91 is planet upgrade soccer to maximized not should right an knotweed, acres the removing sports. courts set of spaces to inexpensive some be swim have expanding play parking everything (love lake place) fields. an and that income by tapped existing be to example. and to baseball (eg limited facilities. nice front. willingness the the the — is invasive scotch for supplement Log Especially the only lot. Squires for well top to trails blue assets existing planting and has City Boom only fill observation parks Rhododendron in priority. broom, Wallace being tree non vital at the to Kenmore has Landing park to like the when and be is resources. gap. native on project) with listen hub not of not Moorlands. developed etc. Brightwater I Swamp boat Bothell Generated all visit compared considered for fields points, and met on and ages. removed plants because launch people inadequate has Portal), ( This Way be Creek outside ie video with non in not creative taxes Portal will to improvements all with (sod so a it Park grants, with school structures our pedestrian city native monitor is of become AB64f then dried disabilities, fields. within site. Kenmore. neighbors with is trails, parks basketball revenue could plants up ideas. Page a Soccer as views, a drive Splash As opportunities Need A am) parks Often/have Downtown An What Highlight mouth Station the appearance, Boat Summary Open utilize apartments/theater More Community ave interpretive improve Develop Consider bailfields Interest possibilities) Work I past Do Lit, roadway feel good a open a city turf Are single NE. load to a marked “curb and we parks house waterfront with schools park. of park? fish Three Burke to other balifields in park No flow) previous the may what swamp this and recreation person its ballfields play Snohomish production appeal” found and need events education, attendees provide creeks, area waterfront Do bike abound could not Gilman unload parks to parks/rec area. recreation we add creek. access, to the LakePointe my be routes that to assessment be also duplicate watersheds, etc. provide and activities. “advertising” more balifields. access view trail in parking remove program a County allows suggested primary the great locale: active neighborhood facilities with Sustainable better. to point opportunity service greater a bike, site for lot variety if signs, invasives, meeting to use of emphasis unnecessary. coupled do is either gate and natural boat-activities. are that the but our probably or park the Seattle/east marked emphasis just of natural facilities locked parks. need parks the place get parks, discourage for visual space. add with space, beyond being city opened active more much visually. on plants for What to areas state raised experiences? are do too. Let’s outdoors, roads Log (right the side. Kenmore’s safe recreation more different missing? biking feeling and for when around Boom community. acquire nature (ie plant Kenmore neighborhood native tribal to driver they along looking park does the improve from right trails, (Water, and city and agencies habitat should? city. in education 6 l someone does develop place limits most a the outward another vital ave the open (shade bike not morning at citizens, and (le ne/locust community’s downtown one a get need —safety N. routes. space, full even native) downtown for of when of court (I’m to but NE slough, the though active or supply for bike/walk 205 th never I driving best core basketball develop feel bicyclists). image park boulders and there and that locations all as AB6S there or with forms well passive and W trails, a walking would safe court, before of P as People to of S5the at a link g be e 7 active Things Summary: perhaps them community A In Consider Hand Dog the The Frisbee Water Ballfields!!! Heron Frisbee Dog the people Ditto Swimming I informational I and We More These area. in Kenmore! Need would hope disc the Kenmore focus only 3) 2) outdoor- 1) need park park parking) too, carry golf 2003 walkable community recreation, Gas viewing access that that need would golf golf like Kenmore Pedestrian Dog an thing some maybe on more I course costs is boat Squash, recommend St off-leash orgs are plan to Soccer, to drive the Park very ed Ed signs. never people see area be involvement missing trails access too launch have is at future partnership is would should to important better a recreation the a Wallace not overpass — yoga, community baseball, park much. hike Bothell, area at deck budget can decision to future sites generation in Wallace we be and contract or with get fun doo for Kenmore fantastic. consider Swamp (Quiet see in for and to proposed canoes Lynnwood, facility increase social issues softball, dogs. developed an and rec to connect service a all Swamp articulated emphasis forest for partner programming and that ages, and Creek exercise too. according at in providing or Relatively Lacrosse, opportunity St clean to awhile the (ie gets Creek, downtown if provide, Mt. classes except Edward the We or not with affordable, great on them classes, and gym Lake new slough can for back to native a more existing etc for become cheap, city (eg maintained park natural the and that. like Terrace portal do out would for with using toddler basketball esp rec interpretive levies/grants, flora Open Lynwood or unlike (MS and water So providers. regional site waterfront downtown. area social and assets!! the for be protect recreation for and House play private water the these? reasonable swim (like access example) venues fauna, for not draw space lake education that!! Lynwood teens attendees Given large etc. access and classes for Everything I programs/classes (w/reasonable education/signage/pathway do for at seminary boating, loud (and development. budget but St seniors, and signs eg), Ed, are I’d stinky adults), the drop the is rather constraints swimming, opportunities too. buildings 20 sometimes Y), state like distance minutes in gym, how as stay b-ball private Then AB66 and city better. swimming. many here for And to etc. from other grows. pools keeping gyms) all I for carry P in people with of Some a local the are g e Ballfields Urban Frisbee Open Pier Indoor transportation the Limited What Station might Properly 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 premier 1 Developed 3 2 1 Area Parks would be courts Golf All Lake/Slough Multi-use Ballfields Swim Maintain Disc Remove Figure Maintaining Viable Lakefront Ballfields Reduced Trails Public resources. Better Water Four done, available. weather, (not b. a. c. golf b. a. spender be facilities that out safety retail fees. use access at cluttered enhancing Support Indoor Wading/swimming View Hand invasive your tax our add sport Logboom public as go of The lit as park core burden on current much indoor somewhere-connect top more corridors carry sportfields much fields playspace “wealth” parks access programming non with access three fish water and launch Park on facilities of parks (thing natives tennis among production improvements the Kenmore priorities? improve of restarted access points move natural Kenmore’s downtown courts, from in neighboring at winter as existing gym citizens forward facilities the parks at possible native play and St. parks. and citizens Woodinville) and equipment Edward cities green with senior at connectivity downtown Swamp is Log as space center not gym it Boom has etc) bottomless. Creek in with been park phase Park,. downtown/Kenmore doing as 2 possible significant The w/storm city should outside water AB67 not Village and funding try f P to a be g e Thing 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 that Water Safe LakePoint Enhance ParkatLakePointe Soccer/baseball/etc. Ensure Squires More Water Boat Legal affect center. bike accessible dog Water access-canoe, access neighborhoods Landing the existing trail area/downtown park most access! system (where open boardwalks, parks people clean sport park stick have with lst: area fields swimming with notes nice parks waterfront neighborhood emphasis trails are area next and access on to signs stuff active parking large last outdoors/natural/native enough lot at Swamp to walk Creek around/picnic and community AB68 P a g rec e On-line 2. dissatisfied I. Parks Iher What Are you types Recreation Mode Survey bsile3 UoderateIr satisfied ExteneIy with IQirj 5lIht1 IleIy81ti!3ed ot nor activities them? dlosetisfled essousflee setlsff.d s.I5fled oo8I$fled with & Open the Summary would ILf ‘‘ padis Space you in participate ttw Plan city, I neither Survey Results: in it they satisfied were nor available 4’% dissatisfied answered aneesred 1kIpd sbJPv.d SurveyMonkej ii Response the question questIon questIon questIon Perasot 41.4% 55.4% 1.i% 133% 16.5% city? 5.1% with them, Respeese Respeese Count Count or 71 78 21 11 I 0 8 AB69 P a g e a How often do yot participaleI activities in city? Repos Peroevt Er.!-eme a?ten verj o1tn Mc.dar&4sI ait.n I’,hI BIIQlf Dffl 17.7% Nat at Otfl q,u.*tlon 79 cbipped qj.ctton 9 2 or 4 AB7O I P a g e & What would you like the city to do more? Priortty (Glint top (lire•) RatI•g Count r€Sure Parts ioe.n (sq 3port Courts 101.1% (14) waterfront accesa 101.1% (10) 40 eoeabonat loin 11 Pogrounes 1011% (19) Canmwrftj gardens 100.0% (5) 0 OrrIeman 009 pare l0&I% (10) Open areas ta rtlarrnal way 100.0% (41 5 AsileUc teJos 101.0% (29) 29 Gymnactirns 100.0% C1 1 Doantoen part 101.0% (16) Picnic neters 100.0% (1) 1 Skate part t;0% DI C Neiptiocitood Parts 100.0% (0) 0 Doentoen teattlcaban 100.0% (16) 15 PUblic Mt 100,0% (2) Ocx 1.awicties 100.0% (7) Ccnunit center 101.1% (27) indoor pool 100.0% (92) 12 Other please cost , asewered qutetion 79 flipped question 0 3 cr4 AB71 P I a g C 5. WNch pks do you visit most in the city? Pl.ai. ChICO tao DddenCr P?1 101.0% 4604 50 Lrwood Pal 100.0% (41 Ioc mp Cia Pat 101.0% (204 Log 0on Pat 101.0% (424 42 Na1h8ace 3uflfl’t Pat ioo.0% (1) 1 Mooflan Pat 101.0% (141 14 3qure’ .andh0 PaR 100.0% C21 2 3hr pleas oet amtwer4 qa.thon 7$ tRIpped qu+ti1oi I 6. What parks and recreation services or lacihlies are missing? •nwtrt4 quet11oi 7$ GRipped quettlon U 4 of4 AB72 I P a g e The following focused together. than target with included develop it population/demographic effort Soccer, children. Off a around, even I Pitbulls!) park Swamp dog watch people Rhododendron my working parks Jogging, baseball Please Walking they Open-Ended would running, city? What wish wanted safe leash kids table park. household 100k) (even were Kenmore made types a there in youth situation you bring establish specific Creek, baseball, off-leash. end and (ex, out, Kenmore, parks, tennis, dogs, and and to biking, dog Quite contains available and participate Rotts grow by was of to young sports I their Sports soccer let Response are park activities the kayaking, end then Elementary, was income Park for often swimmimng swimming, them a and an and at playground This dogs focused council esp. small families in plan, the city off-leash in put a fields and when new in run the is to more open if that that not the to ended field young This center. say gymnasium could above. solution comment ymca,more eat the What Major (other, city a is depends community would be clothing families responses better List)? to Each but a mentioned do great places a or you for more of on outlet, athletic than these like the from to the focus off the Off-Leash but great walking soccer area The What More services Its Please!!!:) need Open-Ended missing? Dog More not leash on-line more “downtown” parks park good focus baseball nature or parks a fields trails strategy. matter or dog of dog in baseball facilities survey: should an and parks kenmore in park!:) Response fields. park issues of Kenmore recreation kenmore facilities with be please. are and AB73 on on are I P a g e Swimming pool , athletic fields , sport courts, Waterfront use such as attractive waterfront access, beaches, open grassy areas, classes for kids and adults picnic tables near the water to learn new skills (hobbies, and walking paths to stroll sports, exercise, dance etc). the area. More baseball Would love the opportunity fields! Kenmore is so limited to learn how to sail or take a and kenmore families have rowing class. More athletic to travel out of the city to use fields (with lights) and a baseball field. basketball courts. Athletic fields are my We need more places to Baseball, soccer, playground main and only play baseball and soccer in activities concern, the area , baseball fields, would like to see a baseball complex for our youth to use and can be rented out for tournaments baseball and adultplaytoo A baseball facility on par with what Kirkland,Bothell and Woodinville have. A community center with a pool on par with what Kirkland has and Bothell will have and as nice as the ridiculous Kenmore city hall/palace that makes me Swimming, tennis angry every time i pass it. Swimming (for lap Baseball, soccer, running, swimming) We need a cycling, swimming (I want a higher quantity and quality lap pool) of baseball fields. Youth baseball, softball, soccer Soccer and baseball fields Baseball Don’t know Baseball/Softball Baseball/Softball fields Athletic. Fields, community Sports , youth sports beach Need more quality baseball fields for our NLLLteams. AB74 I P a g e More athletic fields, primarily baseball. We have to rely on other cities willingness to let our kids play there. Moorlands is a great location, but the fields are terrible, not a park at all. And the baseball fields there and other schools like Sports, for both adults and Arrowhead are barely children jlavable. Better beach/water access for families. We live along this beautiful lake, and it Activities that involved water would be greatto have a access. public beach to play at. Baseball, Tennis, Basketball, sports fields that are up to Walking Trails, Biking, Play, standard and maintained - Picnic, Swimming Finn Hillis a good example. Safe, playable sports fields Baseball, Softball, Soccer, for baseball, soccer, and Lacrosse softball. walking, frisbee, picnics, sports fields, neighborhood sports, soccer parks We need turf fields (2 baseball, 1 soccer), so that our kids can play through Baseball typical Seattle weather. Kenmore needs a baseball/soccer facility. There is not remotely Baseball fields! Soccer enough space for the current Fields! We have to go to activities requiring families to other cities to enjoy their travel quite a distance for facilities as Kenmore has their childrens sporting zero space adopted for activities. childrens activities. More grass and more trees in front of City Farmers Market, Car Show, Hall instead of gravel. Dahlia Festival, Parade, Dog More grass area on The city needs a walking Day (A special day for dogs the North side of City bridge (like Bothell’s) from once a year at one of the Hall instead of the Burke Gilman trail to parks) pavement. Rhododendron Park. AB75 P I a g e We are in critical need of adding dedicated team- sports fields, particularly Baseball &Soccer. Maintaining open natural spaces for hiking/birding/kite 1. Dedicated Baseball, flying is also vital to the soccer Fields; 2. community (such as St. Community Center (pool, Edwards and Swamp sport courts, theater for Creek). stage &musical arts). quality baseball &soccer fields - the recent work at . Bastyr is a joke - the fields do not drain, the grass is very bumpy, parking / access is poor, gravel is difficultto walk in for watching baseball. Good to Kirkland or Woodinville and you willfind more quality Baseball, Soccer, Tennis sport fields AB76 P I a g e Adult sports/activities golf A activities, Gilman connecting know. popular biking, Soccer, park sports near hiking, Trail, with baseball, water to the leagues me would the etc. waterfront, and and Burke boating, be Frisbee those & very I water access/park Johnson functional. athletic adequate Waterfront Woodinville etc. community value Downtown, to Open accessible Logboom) providing of boarding boating need the points plan. make users information NYSA) and agreement on Kenmore groups, plan There that not Youth that for Bastyr leagues, make 465 has are budget, Moorlands specific accommodate There Lake resources service level-set that the facilities getting inadequate addressed. partners are make members needs to Little the access resource. beach (Northlake it to is Soccer are fields 445 With and plan fields a find more and on to part a Field that Lake passengers docks has reality. launch ballfields. and inadequate up (ball master our In the and park League Park. hold by and soccer park to state-of-the-art from determine Sports ways only and the and (more spaces of was in addition can and accessible the a Association. be the which Washington, should in city. value the Northshore A more community fields) resources unique update We and for for sports like The the quickly overall Kirkland; area (5) LL reviewed 2 central, a The execute waterfront to city, plan, The players North than and clubs Field; great on/off need and for access Lee make active or is There city we seek AB77 city to more how but and the level it’s and just by is to P a g e More Invasive the basketball, kayaking, brush Kenmore resides restore blackberry, Squires (garbage, Community Earth I Pool localfair would land park Day invasion) the in participate Landing species and acquisition. canoeing, this cleanups. homeless cleanup tennis, natural and Center, wildlife under-served to non-native removal, Park further hiking value in of Indoor that crew; camps another to . focus. their to Would or of area branches. pick encourage Crazy but night. park new be plants. gym, Discourage Squires 175th. programming ways Fund development. Terrace. start Shoreline community This other programming me I notsure think use pesticides competition. necessary city to up plants. own has a city looking crew, clean-up of cities So utilize anywhere, near Kenmore Maybe logboom like Watering Drought owned pine community Landing drug lacks does area. Kenmore and Make to kids better give aspect water. trash. cones other into and see of except and not users Mountlake the property. little Program efforts Kids to resistance St needs like it should Park. developing chemicals. but reduction swimming a Rhodie a clean activities. cities Native that and Eds forces park park game at can for insane for AB78 to not to up off - I P a g e family volleyball writers fun-runs swimming, exercise Zumba, sports Organized racquetball there instead, downtown. businesses lanes winter businesses covered fitness a lwould would classes). arts/interests/hobby Organized large were cause events leagues. be & conference, classes lighted ride yoga, to off classes, foul tournaments, really sports Off outdoor support more The recreational courts leash in in my me weather. racquet Kirkland Kenmore leash & (and Art biketo lack nice to out bike adult leagues, area ride festivals, causes, movies, of to park! door lanes ball, for bike have to if It Very downtown that businesses, Bike classes), classes arts/interests/hobby Organized Edmonds recreational Kirkland lanes difficult (and like offer. Kenmore. in fitness to & the access ones we while:) would enough going things Any done sports beautiful but all An community. oppurtunity the besides Swimming Community my Raquetball recreational recreation great! winter covered missing fitness Off classes)), arts/interests/hobby large be Organized Kirkland recreation really off-leash haven’t own. think leash most organized in lighted to And much leagues. & classes other to the is the off foul & and Kenmore significant nice park! like have bike service as pool. Edmonds lived recreational courts to leash center. Jogging burk parks, classes. rather area & weather. plan has cities to stated take the sporting out lanes! It (and Aside an Walkable have here gilman. would to would area and ones to that door is support almost opinion and The be trails above, stay offer. long AB79 a from adult is for that type also I be a P a g e • younger children’s community Specifically kids Splash Recreation they picnics, a water flea (see nature Maybe poverty-level market. or make nearby aerobics; trails; hiking a park sports kids craft classes, Kenmore center, classes day cities’ adult pool at groups market of municipality.) St. walking camps all classes agendas; Edwards. as at sorts, look for or well a for a like as Teen programs. programming!!!!! More center youth or teen would A a A A activities. would Youth program providing indoor center; missing. That too, vacant recreation trail path property other property (Copper without right Safeway like could which the There’s place. the 182nd some Ave new parking for playing of neighborhood near There parks great community city park 182nd kids Public kids it’s from since and fire or though would the people’s with also kids be programming; in be would pool seems with St but That example an public a cutting in to a lots. station in the to to and Lantern city 73rd from City park. a great NE would a St, vacant the people Also, indoor or an Storage play cross all the playing turn the great lot waterfront are be way our downtown between be hall, community a 185th center I identity. fenced of property. to streets Aye, recreational 182nd are a also property. teen through West at. big Thanks! into parking a a be shoreline property good of be over idea. Homes) people lot pool. just teen and good always in things building great I sort Stto see a center a next and live of a the up. St or lack AB8O to cut public 68th all area us of The lot. in off NE A an to of of is is I P a g e children sort out large Trader a because company, more some quality farmers developed great Market, of PCC, the frequently. addition that were resources was main the make it downtown walk 68th on people I would children’s never which NE the Burke road of were improved, Ave. from public options draw amenities if other Met this water Joe’s, grocery l9lstStreetto one we walking Whole feels love market, can to are it (me appealing a Gilman walk Market, NE to my is these, skate had on is Currently in sporting museum park quality play fantastic feature to fantastic!) the the for safe. included), an always Olympia sidewalks. neighborhood Foods and store a be more on downtown a good city. REI with park, library weekly in. it trail, more able Central the If gym, would there that goods I access like the or (check In would some has or food, side a both to and and and be of a what the the weddings there would (both could great and water, parks central do to front. Marymoor pagoda rented Some eating, of sandy very reunions. business Kenmore playing are to makes child residential you and Beach Park By no of downtown It the but design accomplished tough Log ever Washington Kenmore no mixing businesses it’s Kenmore I would also spend direct say, actual that swimming comparison, doubt frontage area closest central it unsightly paddle trash manage Boom nice expanding is in play for were 30mm is Our draw are to random be features beaches it out the Park walking city I firm. plant, in beinq at Kirkland not or love would would access especially hosting do the lakefront or this great were alternatives our always currently take family strewn or in the and kayaks, pavilion and drive areas Park some to parks park lots central Off-leash boards. considering city in and the away). on family - to day to and concrete own done can retail area. parks; it’s the with thoughts: What advantage be never to Magnuson the to see a around find of Lake and service water Juanita to is highway, on to are regularly Marina events with shopping, sort muddy fun beach are likely create be derelict be visitors nice way city. decent is the to would canoes, amount Kirkland to a has and the since Suffice parking plenty both it minute. able good and let dog I of that 522 clean AB81 A water here. love but if and a at that with like the my a bit be to to if of If it I P a g e frisbee swimming continuing community such obstacle Classes Off city, Bothell camps expanded lessons, Recreation programs. program I would leash but as for golf, or love crafts having for & course offering dog Kirkland at kids, recreation We education youth parties, is parents dog to swim not park, or have see to swimming park, cooking, soccer summer ideal. go beach for an waterway and a to great kids Recreation programs trails Youth Off swimming camps, sport summer park, pool filled from Pool could to trail and by easy Gilman drive the with A Kenmore. further itwould place crosswalks, strips with be speed great wires street road, ban bike making fantastic leash city to it the the and through Ballard destination. for frisbee through. leagues. to take pedestrian to would and in trees recreation on access limit the and art/drama to feel take really other the be camps, buried bikers community areas, billboards get the Lot’s lessons. advantage Kenmore trail through instead have but more center and and be to golf this wetlands, on sidewalks ideas, amenities heipto in on Kenmore electric of great it Make community sport combined a programs, and planting a would its like camps, folks the reduced of step Youth of the would entirety a center. I off if the AB82 make just a of think Burke fun- it we like city. dog be this the and in I P a g e concerts, activities, the Kid activities. and boating. house, Pool, connected park, Kirkland, Boat Lake races, other ride, community better kayaking, potlucks wine water jet family Better to lake ski, shopping walks, sports view friendly access open children’s rowing park and like to front the There across a would sidewalks would town no north activities woodinville, recreation bridges destination downtown There’s meeting to Lake More shopping... attract Water having shop Safeway Kirkland Shopping restaurents, kenmore MAJOR neighboring good street. of would access like side playgrounds. is love beverycool. activities, other to whole the over nothing crossing between not . . nothing the has bothell .. Should concern. is and of services a library, .parking, pedestrian for be a Kirkland good everyone bad areas the 522. and other foods best lot walkability moms great, comm in where highway other and of water else, to able Also, bothell, park the there place. like side A on Even parks kind get too. areas a pool to AB83 the to goes than no in of is of in is or — P a g e walks. farmer’s center, Playgrounds, Splash gardening, Tai Beach sustainable my teens with could Recreation and employee, The City there because the trees, gravel. projects the volunteer there cool meadow discrimination work not trash income people sand, We net. logboom grandchildren, Chi, same river afford Park volunteer of need lack All off. on. from and be trees, is wheelbarrow area. float Seattle spray Park, There would CHEAP. fruit residents no market, infuriates from done of I on Wecandoa It Department park. way. a gravel Aquaclub adults. know play past I classes place is a these education... beach know the haul picking, Wading park debris picnics, 100% is bridge volunteer labor. cheaply Engineering against Trim Get ground dredging. riverfront as a community footpath All in for CHEAP that BOTH huge me at a for some rid in things catching the that them 5015 former Pool, nature the can of low- youth, and with to the to to this community. fundraising Spray contribution pool such children. happy make is playground the Kenmore I at extra launchers. out school use I believe think a Plywood their riverfront committee. beautiful it as cash week-ends. a park to Lakeside would wonderful this the launch volunteer and Ithinka They by or project at Supply to would I’d tribute for LOVE wading renting it’s Bastyr our be spot local don’t on on to tennis splash Waterfront or see gardens. Terrace, Community what Nature_trails http://sacgardens.org/ Please while The Edmonds, Recreation business NOTHING. kids volunteers neighborhood crime demand You have being community See be outdoor happy more Summit, down can above is a all that spent or park go nice, offered the if see Lynnwood badminton district about to to you one here pool Mountlake I for classis please. website. I center, for beach low-income organize safe this the wading where the to read penny in a in edible have play huge website park Shoreline, the beach. I similar indoor I etc. our kids pool would It’s pool is in, AB84 in a I to to I P a g e Center children’s exercise North karate, Family farmers office I parking street there available, also roadway running Tai Tai pay toddlerarea. A mornings a Boom. Also would with Wish basketball/racquetball/etc. (dreaming basketball kayak/canoe paddle More Disc would splash splash Chi Chi. a like better golf. aren’t we Kirkland fee fair, water be class and I love board instructor lot track market would I to classes for pad! pad! had would to classes great! at Ultimate food next big) court see waterfront sports. sidewalks to based attend. running Wallace like or rental. a and and PLEASE Community see be a fair, a covered in to lines love - those and rec public in the willing even. like the a such adult Frisbee, art the pool where to center or on I HUGE dance, post access would at fair see early Log make . as the to with a there’s ______ to We don’t park, influence Kenmore, has Edward’s see would since know but the hope? it Kenmore reopen. it’s so pool really is how maybe in a state at much love St. I tremendous facilities fees. city, water! sharing Terrace weather Covered curretly the as through needed. Community a it’s city trails over A Indoor Family have could city. Kirkland Also, Green Indoor linking groups/meeting pool:) Things need Waterfront fields. recreational nice real LFP. Disc BEACH! splash stated a parks by especially downtown I gathering 20 bit golf to through teenagers healthy, grew Also, go spaces stuff Pool biking all classes!!! that use pay use of miles parks. have for is and Kayak to picnic pad course. earlier. are the a bad. activities up any an for clubs make classes. access so would non-resident Kirkland’s, drive asset outlets! Mountlake or and disconnected. parks. them, parks of active in and indoor spot very when In rowing. hub areas and part walking friends. in extended a Athletic our and and a a to city this be trails to for like toddler in park rowing much and of You and this the city, I pool AB85 the the public we know with the area but we a a I P a g e sporting more Community activities Concerts community events fairs movies celebrations, fairs kid-friendly you what way bbq question this bathroom. understanding What Linwood are public An during missing toddlers/young be wade Magnuson at shore (similar Matthews Swimming Log fantastic! outdoor you desire. question? pits that is is in facilities? (not boom). the missing to asking the on or the allows park is Beach beach summer off cooking area this Park not water true lake the A needs I’m the worded what survey children for from place Your off meaning in and areas and docks park confused, outcome Seattle). areas the would is a our play AB86 where or in lake like can like a of I — - P a g e —1 2: Di CD 5. CD 0 D Di CD -1 r1- Di D considered areas objectives information on ensures Accordingly, information activities accomplish the 2012 The In vitality Recreation Goals enhancement management is effects Existing part recognizes Purpose one 2006 cooperation notion “Principal of adopted in of of broader upon the habitat Kenmore. the and including the and of that and part this city City on including a city’s those stewardship community. of of Kenmore set Condition” policy listed Open Objectives and goal. systems adopted natural protection, of resources environmentally of seven this of acquisition, Much who coordination objectives actions Federal Space In plants Kenmore plan. areas, visit Final summary that a major of for which Critical including These restoration, these Plan. and and The are affect Kenmore Comprehensive and and development, and goals. is wildlife presented work three areas with State sensitive The Areas those habitat open an our policy those Natural ethic successful County, inside is not habitat neighbors Endangered, enhancement, spaces Ordinance actions expected its areas actions within areas only that and natural the maintenance Plan State areas are exist discussed advocate affect embodies city. implementation including natural Resources have as Natural in essential that environment, and well. Threatened, these within found Further, city and been noted Federal systems. providing within One residents, responsible the Environment Appendix Conservation three and public in Kenmore’s to adopted Kenmore three city’s these the of stewardship agencies. the habitat Sensitive the of consequently access Protection, health, a these three primary they City’s natural balance key establishing planning 6.15 include: sub-element areas, and values also major strategies quality Comprehensive Species square C-Habitat practices areas wildlife education. of conservation, have provides the and management for habitat Element of the are and AC1 miles. city the profound habitat life also contains that means often is I city and areas These P relies The a Park is g the to e that Two feet The continued and awareness which The Park Swamp Squire’s The Wallace Within Inglewood another Public • • • following following 2006. largest of overall statistically (on contains shoreline the Kenmore acreage flows shoreline the corridors Sammamish Kenmore. Lake corridors Swamp Creek Swamp Landing 288 the Attitudes to Wallace Wetlands of shoreline. Sammamish publicly awareness Washington Sammamish acres be into Kenmore is Corridor is 274 Creek of a a popular valid Creek on Park there and contain left list list Lake As upland managed Swamp acres owned Lake River-Kenmore in of a of floodplain. surveys Corridor-This St. Park are Washington. and result City the City City River as Washington. -The approximately River) of Edwards conifer over well. natural Creek impressions city parks, nature owned owned publicly of 40.4 10.4 25.5 18.9 were as Lake of were 131 urban it forest Park, just open acres acres acres acres flows State area contributes area park undertaken open contains Nature acres The by the development, over Log King in about spaces in 2.4 (3 (17 from and Park within river spaces: most of the Kenmore parcels) Parks: Boom .56 miles parcels) City County its about has Lake city. also these visited miles. the and about associated in administered the of Park 2013 contains Sammamish city 1.5 recreation is streams. or services very longest 3.4 St. city contained (on river the and to Edwards miles little parks. assess wetland, Lake State contains its miles undeveloped improved services. associated parks natural of generally Washington), of within public St and linear Park Washington. Edward ravines approximately and 4 vegetation measurable also St. attitudes miles shoreline The open westward wetlands, stretch Edward and contains State surveys of and spaces riparian shoreline and remains within Park Rhodendron of State AC2 since 3,000 until riparian revealed the lake and I Park, largest is P 2003 lineal on along a g e The woodlands education master provide understanding planning Education this priority Conservation Wallace inclusion of in On three The Kenmore Open to Restoration It Currently Management appropriate On-going works Squire’s funding, preserve, • an • • • city work city’s Spaces. distinct on-going Areas Areas Areas Areas other, hydrologic planning for volunteer recognizes Swamp cooperatively efforts into regularly include the approach center Landing and acquisition labor mix maintain that that of which the city existing strategies Techniques and for other basis scenic for Creek effort of and and riparian existing uses are benefit docent the management, evaluates the Park. conservation, its are to the Future continuing environmentally contemplates culturally and natural need park quality. Park. with for include: habitat a value intrinsically in system city the programs corridor network Squire’s restore its facilities local, to Future and of works management community areas protection protect significant. public Habitat of monitoring and education regularly state environmentally restoration of Landing best and within to work at a appropriate erosion parks partnership education Wallace natural restore sensitive and management biologically is may in the reviews federal Park approach and a Protection and the of control. strategic areas along include degraded City the Swamp open form areas. includes public interpretive regarding with success agencies sensitive parcels critical such Swamp related spaces. of practices, restoration method access. Creek local Accordingly, habitat habitat the as of of by natural wetlands, Creek schools. and areas. opportunity to Park those education land virtue Land balanced the and quality areas seeks along as is in systems considered Currently efforts. care as best underway. of they Squire’s within riparian partnerships part their and the is to of available for become included. its ensure of water enabling Sammamish Recent continuity an its the Landing its Natural corridors, as Nature interpretive A master city possible quality, preliminary technologies available the AC3 examples in Effort a employs Park the Parks better with Parks. I River and P form to and a for and g of e This page intentionally left blank. AC4 I P a g e Natural INTRODUCTION waterways smaller, from processes provide be Purpose and The environment areas Sensitive valued Growth Under natural natural manner air and supply, including preserve Countywide The drainage Jurisdictions shared of management Under hazard Flood Plan must major and implement 5) carefully 04D_NatEnv_Sub_AmendO6 fish and to purpose sustain diversity impervious are King policies, property effectively by the Hazard systems the and water ecosystems river constraints that habitat unnamed basins and reduction important and areas Management systems while City provide flood Growth CPP, wildlife County the reviewed respects environmental hydropower. of promote and quality. flooding, practices. are of regulations, Planning residents. such damage. Reduction are for the Puget also play and the cities surfaces prevent also creeks including the activities recreational because NATURAL Natural to and Management fish resources through as Countywide Puget providing fish an erosion to opportunities Sound Natural built directed wetlands, coordinate are erosion, Local important - protect and prevent Act perform and Other after Policies new Use Plan to and Sound to of quality. riparian Environment within environment comprehensive Ap wildlife Water wildlife hazard the work Requirements with governments the resources of development opportunities habitat. programs to sensitive (FHRP) C.doc sensitive open and undue Act Sammamish Basin. Planning water an risk maintain part regulations affected with the ENVIRONMENT for quality and reduction, important Local Amended habitat natural and to spaces, (GMA) other in major adverse Future resources policies. shoreline and the lives areas, of Sub-Element defining and features. the state are the Policies or waterways Management or County as the plans uses. in fish and resources river all River December tree-covered to to enhance such well development other required role City conjunction fish impacts agencies built jurisdictions manage property secure habitat and for Each the and Land as basins as in of to and (CPP) actions and/or environment one wildlife visual character land surface Kenmore plan is are policies, water jurisdiction’s to outside that 2006 wildlife to and a to Plan use purpose the coordinate posed (including to prone with be balanced and hillsides require SUB-ELEMENT will clarify Lake from would amenities federally quality and be habitat water maintained to basins are coordinate of natural must and its by impact habitat, to restore managed causing Washington. are development should, the Natural required the jurisdiction. lead developing flooding all management to protect contain through land approach policies, the be to and recognized City for relationship jurisdictions features develop the to be and consistent agriculture, Sammamish). and the significant Environment use to the implementation for degradation managed of to natural and Final protect the much the community. control enhanced. planning regulations, Kenmore. multiple natural protect them. to and is All geologically regulations Streams slopes fullest Tribes. by Comprehensive to future with of systems between functions, the jurisdictions to to channeling adverse open of the be City Sub-Element and drainage and protect, of the biological extent from beneficial identify runoff Comprehensive Jurisdictions regulated natural and The development. critical of and Some of space, enhance management King and that the Kenmore hazardous impacts their erosional wetlands different including possible, programs improve and natural should system. wealth runoff of County natural reflect areas Plan water are health uses, flood in the 4D-l best the on in a to All EXISTING quality. Puget Earth topography, Much depositional the uplands. to well series, Soil drained, Predominant Alderwood-Kitsap-Indianola have somewhat In This urban the Avenue results west greater associated of Geologic Geologic City hazard 30% Inglewood The design, These deposits they area 5) O4DNatEnv_Sub_AmendO6 Kenmore, 40 soil jurisdictions river U.S. Types drained, identification classification of exhibit very slopes south limits, Sound inches, of and Everett types areas by areas, 68tI detail housing NE empties Drift the gravelly, are Department hazard excessively slowly Hazards with have soil neighborhood of that with and Street that City slopes Regional highly processes. soil west along fall CONDITIONS undulating and identified NE series, plains in type wetlands are been may areas density, into are associations one under areas of permeable the of is of due is gently l7O greater to susceptible 61st and Kenmore unmapped found 68th experience old Lake areas and major and of subject King coordinate drained, south Council to in - the in to Avenue Street, Agriculture’s after and Avenue location. and and Stream and dense alternating Alderwood-Kitsap-Indianola Kenmore undulating Washington. than the susceptible on hilly Sensitive east-west County of Ap soils glacial sensitive other may found to St. is uplands to rolling, 1990 Bothell C.doc to due 15% development and soils much severe comprised with Edward NE, erosion, develop NE, are landslides. not land The to in till the King include Washington and Amended valleys that moderately Areas soil lowland the the the soils accurately to areas. deep land grading Soil Way and to or development descriptions lnglewood/St. are landsliding Park. small Puget policies, very City types have County subsequent glacial terraces. Service of sandy south underlain were Ordinance composed lands create Landslide and Additionally, December bisecting undulating of severe and Erosion dense, size. recorded Sound represent Kenmore well the Soil surveyed lake soils, Sensitive with of methodologies, filling, a Department, is of resulting The regulations. erosion north-south NE very to drained, by Air Survey, deposits necessary series. of Edward hazard hazard definition found erosion, Kenmore 2006 the in glaciation, gravelly uplands Everett sand Pollution 170th there existing thus and again slowly 1952 Areas soil hazards. on alterations areas Alderwood areas found Joint including at State altering or types may Street, landslide, to indicate Table uplands in — series of a formed soils. and Steeply Map permeable Natural trending soil gravel, the support 1973 depth are Control are Study carved a be on Park are standards hazardous Sammamish Folio, characteristics found those LU-D and native inclusions soils nearly a and (the of the as Environment of is sloping general, Areas area and predominance and grading, “ridge native Agency gullies associated a along glacial 16 terraces. Final are soil presence 1973 along occur result outlines soils. seismic level along to are to include somewhat types landslide unconsolidated soils). of and Comprehensive 40 promote and survey the River and building, 61st (PSAPCA) till along found to of other Areas Sub-Element Lake that inches. City valley” steep with hazards. the different are of occurring shoreline at Avenue the ravines of Conducted Valley a omitted the are organic smaller of on area described regional 1973 Washington. Alderwood. depth excessively Alderwood east moderately slopes foundation Kenmore These northwest primarily terraces. regional and Erosion because glacial NE, of in survey where glacial on in of areas areas Plan soils that 4D-2 68th the the air are 20 the 15- the by in 5) 04D_NatEnv_Sub_AmendO6 SOIL Source: Bellingham Alderwood Indianola Everett (AgC) Ragnar (AgD) (AgB) Norma Kitsap (KpD) (EvC) (EvB) (KpB) (mA) (RdC) (Bh) (No) TYPE County, King County 1973 - Alderwood material slopes within northeastern The and State Issued and along after the Everett 5-15%. The near River Indianola Kenmore on from Kitsap This Place dark, off alluvial Sammamish RdC course fast class terrace Ap Alderwood into SOIL 80t1 is soil Bellingham percolation. 80th Park. 2 is Washington in along NE, small soil C.doc November organic the 0-30%, subject silt to soils a is Avenue valleys. Kenmore. soil is on Everett Avenue soil the 30%. soils southwest SURVEY designated fronts and suitable type loams soils Amended 73 streams. top. located edge are River Indianola found to are St. top are soils, NE. Avenue In are series that gravelly silt is flooding. have The 1973 NE Edwards of Significant moderately Soil TABLE for Kenmore and sandy layer found on on a portion loam OF December face the are In as between gravelly southeastern urban soils silty, 6-15% loamy Swamp 0-3% Survey, Kenmore, NE THE RdC less City that sandy major soils soil State along LU-D It of and are development. platy they slopes productive well deposits fine is with continuing slopes. is CITY the 2006 sandy has LOCATION NE found Creek. barns, valleys found Issued 68th Park. commonly highly are Kenmore’s lake Inglewood sand this drained, a portion 1 this and 85th Avenue silty OF found loam on It in of soil sediment usually It and September soil being produced is productive agriculturally, Street terraces, KENMORE Natural Kenmore is west Alderwood substratum a typically of type along and drainage a found type fine NE. Country fine Inglewood the low-lying occupy until (extended) have is in Environment sandy is the sandy as with exclusive in found the found north 1952; Final occurring agriculturally. about ways. glacial depressions Sammamish a that Club, soils lower substratum loam and thin slopes loam Country near of areas on Comprehensive Soil impedes and 80t1 exhibit Slopes occur and ravines layer the site with slopes Sub-Element elevations City with Swamp of in Survey Bothell Avenue such Sammamish St. for uplands 0-30%. or Clubs’ of moderately of River, along and can slopes a Edwards drainage of sloughed terraces Kenmore organic this It 10-inch as Creek 0-4%, occur range of Way. is than NE, 76th golf the soil on the Plan of an King In 4D-3 The to risk County and maps Air than quality, Air (Ecology) stations King for Standards attainment. maintenance the set development factors. Carbon Carbon sources. maintenance Sound carbon Of (1998) million Dispersion concentration exceeded. control requirements Ozone nitrogen Ozone County designation concentration “attainment” as 5) the 04D_NatEnv_SubAmendO6 by an the quality the particulate King continued of Quality ambient indicating potential County “attainment” agencies earthquake region shows various monoxide northern Sensitive throughout (ppm) the is monoxide inspection exceeded Monoxide County oxides Air (NAAQS) Typical and a is These modeling Washington In of highly include measures plan generally area. for and quality air 1997 resulted one-hour federal was dependence King of a limit vehicular controlling air geologic end “non-attainment (NOx) cleaner Sensitive Areas quality maintenance soil King levels that damage is sources and area the pollutants. the peak In designated reactive of are County vehicular for conducted a standards liquefaction (EPA) 1996 in supports Puget as by-product assessed Lake County maintenance National - subject limit. Map being were and State hazard one-hour burning after three emissions, standards some outlined ambient Areas as on of EPA Ap and volatile form Washington agencies Folio Sound expected a met. However, Department traffic, plan motor air continuous attained C.doc instances to for result areas as as the Attainment in fuels. the Ordinance area.” granted Standard an concentrations during part of of terms pollutants carbon in a air area identifies regions’ set carbon region. Puget approved programs, Amended organic in oxygen existing nonattainment incomplete vehicles the of designate quality, of to to compliance Kenmore. boundaries. King converting seismically when of times north the King improve State protect of monoxide years Sound for monoxide concentrations defines is “attainment” Based LakePointe the compounds Ecology County created December industrial in air or the County’s will of of a ozone increasing Implementation regions at region to Kenmore combustion and quality NE measure seismic Region, human by eight-hour, with intersections on one-hour seismic maintain affect induced area are the subsequently by 166th is was and monitoring emissions 2006 sources, as of EPA the application Mixed maintenance year set sunlight-activated (VOC) designation health activity. there efficiencies Kenrnore’s in of PSAPCA being of Swamp Place allowed hazard as air by concentration “attainment” settlement carbon air-borne and 2000 nine 1989. whether reported pollutant Use EPA. has analyzed and Plan and “attainment” as in several information is Natural Refer areas recorded ppm Creek, and a the for been Master to residential monoxide largely maintain (SIP) welfare. seismic also plan. This air in It pollutants petition National redesignation 2010 or ambient limit as to in emitted is were much vehicular Environment times, status. quality the includes results soil those Figures Plan only to chemical Kenmore designation no generated studies Final due at hazard collected or a Sammamish To bring far standards. wood exceedances liquefaction. effort study for network Final areas air. recently Population “nonattainment” thus in Ambient to being to below more measure Comprehensive engines, Kenmore LU-li the continuing represent redesignation of the area burning and transformations is to Sub-Element Historically, intersections Supplemental City subject earning by higher over largest the located than meet the brought area of that primarily it transportation The of and Air River existing is of growth monitoring 35 LakePointe and time, The devices. Kenmore within any eight-hour back to now standards the approved or the quantity. emission the parts within Quality ha severe federal lower about basin jjj.g Puget areas other ozone as Plan state listed were King due into EPA and 4D-4 for EIS air the per an of City of Kenmore Final Comprehensive Plan Figure LU-li Critical Areas — King County Sensitive Areas Folio 5) 04D_NatEnvSubAmendO6 - after Ap C.doc AmendedDecember2006 Natural Environment Sub-Element 4D-5 City of Kenmore Final Comprehensive Plan 5) O4QNatEnv_SubAmendO6 - after Ap C.doc Amended December 2006 Natural Environment Sub-Element 4D-6 Figure 5) 04D_NatEnvSub_AmendO6 ha. Geologic Hazards - after Ap Cdoc Amended December 2006 Natural Environment Final Comprehensive Sub-Element City of Kenmore Plan 4D-7 5) 04D_NatEnv_Sub_ArriendO6 - after Ap C.doc Amended December 2006 Natural Environment Final Comprehensive Sub-Element City of Kenmore Plan 4D-8 quality an Particulate Total generated of other particulate currently Future Kenmore. Air continuation that dependence complete air with Additionally, development higher benefits land number Predominant people. Water lands, water quality Washington from all compromised temperatures, possibly aquatic Swamp Wetland characteristics Water storm 5) 04D_NatEnvSub_AmendO6 ozone TSP quality uses. quality there 68th use suspended the sources. the plan. bodies, events density quality (King does Conditions of are: insects. The patterns, Creek due Avenue meets Countywide Marymoor 3 maintenance the by will standards Sammamish There matter in cars (as on Matter is industrial to not water particulate patterns Sammamish of Kenmore LakePointe County implementation be due listed by sufficient designated typical wood development these in numerous failing on particulate EPA is are the violate NE/NE Little improvements air low less Swamp to the a features Park but no in standards. pollutant as inspection that stream Parks, standards erosion of and activities, septic area the dissolved road. than River, is PM Swamp - are a requirements matter after streams dissolved Bridge 175thi Mixed predicted primary result River Lake small King Creek (TSP) regionally. expected 2.5 in and or Planning Ap systems, allows that Although and the and of Street, emissions C.doc monitoring equal Class Creek County is has by in less are to Lake residential Use and that unnamed oxygen, zoning is is City Lake heating supports therefore a sediment to Kenmore 2010 oxygen, the been transit being set reduction to Amended than Master drain and to and remain and lack for monitoring Forest include flows total do regional Washington Sensitive for 2.5 Decreased to would responsive designated all Resources SR-522/SR-104. is high so source of or stations impacted urban wood to streams carbon amount both subject sufficient considered acceptable micrometers transport or by Park by Plan much from riparian equal December serve Swamp in fecal significantly the still 2010. or vehicle and Areas burning, as anadromous is program Final near the monoxide as Countywide Washington to of newer to (see the occur Department as drain air people to by cover, coliform agricultural it Creek and northeast food, particulate the a the 2006 Map air of 10 is nearest levels growth Supplemental pollution Figures miles Class in today and a in to regulations houses City low These micrometers quality and for more quality all Folio). as clean diameter more levels these motor of counts traveled. AA and well PM of oxygen State uses. emissions stormwater or in vehicle to 1994) 11 watersheds: matter intersections particulate efficiently replace Natural Kenmore. to can populated join water concerns gravel the that at 10 resident and as features. vehicle improve Department Water and 68th (PM EIS in monitoring its watershed. be levels Swamp exceeds in 1 in Concentrated emissions (extraordinary) effect Environment Ib). tributaries older can for Avenue high ambient support expected runoff. diameter 2.5). engines can Final quality areas fish, and high matter slightly. In spawning, be are during ones. Water under Creek nutrient requirements addition result of reduced generally currently turbidity station Particulate Comprehensive based and NE/SR-522 the air. It and Ecology and and in and (PMIO) from Sub-Element summer the City Data currently development in This quality may above the Two in tires associated along the concentrations, and to to on King Swamp with approved air of City levels zoning not collected reduces affect the these is as categories as Kenmore decreased low statement matter for riffles and based pollution its low-flow together efficient meeting in its County City well is exhibits nearly length during Creek major water Plan more being water Lake fine wet 4D-9 and and air the on of as for to is periods yard that including watershed Flooding flood Fish in and of In Wetlands the parameters: • Wetlands • Ecology, • the which degree and Wetlands continuity immediate 5) Kenmore Kenmore Swamp 04D_NatEnvSub_AmendO6 site, Presence wildlife methods used prolonged A Unique waste, complexity and at dominance a it due 720 wetland its to has 1997). parking in are provide Wildlife Creek that with vicinity. pet size, flood hydrology, are and soils to habitat cubic Swamp of in been transitional or waste, extends decay shown other water the the presence and will Under of frequent (hydric with lot of habitat feet fragmented found Joint the plants Washington (Sheldon the and Creek provide wetland failing of (hydrology) on a per soils out normal - different Sammamish frequency large after highway Study soils) Figure areas in of for saturation second adapted of has and Kenmore. septic Ap habitat wildlife a systems. the by amounts 1994) circumstances, C.doc variety between Areas, that vegetation. become LU-li. State urbanization habitat or runoff, (cfs) study systems, of to features or differ an Amended River, The growing habitat once fish flooding; of Wetland See is of indication aquatic area more types excessive aquatic greater ability from and organic in Figure and and (e.g. Wetlands will and 100 wetlands December and in wildlife frequent within Lake poor upland and and Identification of wet than depend open and north years of LU-Nc the material. a lawn upland at business conditions wetland Washington. terrestrial the are level habitat water, the least include soils now into 2006 as and upon formally historic for wetland, of a habitats the Pollutants Snohomish flood due garden dead to housekeeping result a disruption is several and the (hydrophytic seasonal map plant found provide to 100-year Natural every following identified snags, This Delineation anaerobic and of of and chemical and features in come wetlands urbanization section County. habitat presence are other of wetlands, the islands animal Environment flood the practices. identified three and vegetation). Final from surrounding use, year. conditions including hydrology describes Manual can in delineated or of species. of The components: improper Comprehensive Kenmore. the a perches), also 624 water; Flood variety in Sub-Element based stream City current (Department its the cfs. be the resulting and habitat The hazard of according linked 15,687-acre condition disposal major of upon the Properties corridors Kenmore vegetative two-year extent sources variety in areas to three Plan 4D- from fish the the of of to to of 10 City of Kenmore Final Comprehensive Plan Figure lib. Streams (with Typing) 5)04D_NatEnv_Sub_AmendO6- after Ap C.doc AmendedDecember 2006 Natural Environment Sub-Element 4D-11 5) 04D_NatEnv_Sub_AmendO6 - after Ap C.doe Amended December 2006 Natural Environment Final Comprehensive Sub-Element City of Kenmore 4D- Plan 12 Figure 5) O4DNatEnv_Sub_AmendO6 lic. Wetlands - after Ap C.doc Amended December 2006 Natural Environment Final Comprehensive Sub-Element City of Kenmore Plan 4D-13 5) 04D_NatEnv_SubAmendO6- after Ap Cdoc Amended December 2006 Natural Environment Final Comprehensive Sub-Element City of Kenmore 4D-I Plan 4 Creek • • Several the • there Kenmore Wetland possibility of Activities channel City Within Streams • • • Shoreline • streams The would The “associated” include Master Conservancy, development conditions. Environment. the Swamp County. Swamp Kenmore. counties. 5) wetland 04D_NatEnv_Sub_AmendO6 same Class Class3—60feet CIass2—l00feet Type Type Type Type basin of Shoreline 1990 is Park, have the Kenmore wetlands Program. wetland are: or Lake Creek drainage avoidance has Creek 2 3 — 4 I I (King King Master is Flooding of or bed. functions various — Stream: Stream: Stream: Stream: new The General a within adopted wetland with 150 developments Washington, standards 100-foot Rural Master lies On County Figure creation, County basin Swamp and or feet Program. The basin. drainage State all within Snohomish 25 50 100 150 portions is and or Joint and wetland alteration water is Program Shoreline buffer. feet feet a values Sensitive LU-lic - feet feet Department than Creek approximately Shorelines, after protection chronic restoration However, Natural. a Study the basins 24.1-square The bodies, proposed Ap of the classifications in Park, County. Sammamish C.doc if wetlands applies (and each buffer Master Areas Areas. and other certain of the the of The are and or such Amended SW-i the drainage often Natural within Map requirements to enhancement result designations. designations 11 Program The mile promoted Inglemoor criteria are City Urban Class as miles in River, Folio severe and located lower drainage Swamp of the are 200 December basin Resources I buffers wetland environment are long regulations stream Surface streams shows and feet 2.4 in Wetlands. problem met, (see within in of change Creek and the basin The stream the Swamp wetlands of 2006 at courses Lake Policy mitigation/compensation such 1997; Water the and 2.5 regulations. City’s Shorelines public most No. located based in include time is as miles Washington miles other Creek. LU-15.l.3). Kato many Element) where more minimizing on 3, restrictive sensitive open Natural of upon are another are north State wide. environment and this reaches of permissive surface In located spaces also The environmental Warren writing: State show Shorelines. of Environment addition, as area Approximately portion Environment the Seattle regulated a Final regulations of Class waters such the within regulations are area 1999) Swamp designations projects in Comprehensive stream reviewed of wetlands between as to I terms Sub-Element produce In Kenmore, the water City by Wallace and be Kenmore allow Creek is courses site is altered the 93 applicable of development of no-net-loss the body Everett considered Kenmore under percent or a of Shoreline uses Swamp defined for Natural in in within Urban, and that in 4D- these Plan King both the and the the and to if of 1 5 the sloping course watershed Swamp County impervious Fish watershed. Surface migrate Both Coho Swamp anadromous in spine Department bass, Resident Characteristics oxygen, of spawning Overharvesting (King in Salmonid provides Wildlife Table reptiles Swamp To interest Wildlife River open Sammamish coyotes. 5) 04D_NatEnvSub_AmendO6 these saltwater Swamp creek. prevent Habitat and anadromous space stickleback, and County varies includes hillsides LU-E Creek. Department Creek downstream in characteristics Water and sufficient Creek Habitat fish excellent species smalimouth (King and populations upstream The Wetland Creek chinook surfaces, and development salmonids and small of from River, species for rearing Department (King is gradient Wetland of songbirds, Element, of passive and County Fish then are Wetland typical a good food, and adult mammals. forage sculpin, 450 #3 salmon list from the of eventually to inadequate County concentrated in habitat bass. and return in is have resident found feet Lake Natural of fish clean of - King Department recreation. fish Swamp #3 the the after of Kenmore, in and which #3, of the waterfowl, plant (King Wildlife speckled above (Listed been are the habitat Great Puget Ap in Swamp Department upstream Washington Natural in in County gravel nesting and stream Ponded flows C.doc Lake the fish Resources the broad the storm Creek addresses and adversely County sea urbanization Blue in creek. Sound creek in Wildlife include have of are primary for releases Creek Washington, Resources Amended animal dace, through habitat small Parks is river level and the areas Natural detention to include Heron spawning, gradual, found of Department are increased and the (King King lowland the flat 1997). impacted redside watershed otters, Natural at forested clear and in in species for sockeye anadromous a creek out coho the December Swamp rookery, floodplain Resources in freshwater the wetland broad in 1997) County Recreation birds County and less water to Swamp headwaters the severe raccoons, poois wetland Site flood shiner, Streams. Resources to and Puget and found in other than of salmon, valley and upper have Creek spawn. described Swamp with areas Natural and 2006 Department Sensitive for chinook wetland predation frequencies of 1997) good one Creek. cutthroat species Sound factors, largescale in provide decreased Department rearing, to watershed vegetation the moderate basin between steelhead to It percent, Swamp 1997) the Creek, Resident forage Resources originates 20 Swamp further where areas Areas mouth. Anadromous fingerlings in Natural and particularly by feet trout, resting and of and the muskrats, sucker, significantly Swamp river leading and Creek temperatures, averaging have Natural the trout, clearing of above purchased riffles young Creek below. Map fish severity. creek. rainbow Environment Topography shelter the 1997) effects in sites otters, resulted and Wetland Final spend yellow upland Creek to Folio; from sea for Swamp watershed spend with Resources weasels, fish for and decreased 40 sea-run The habitat aquatic of a trout, level several since Comprehensive Refer waterfowl. debris their development feet and hatch sufficient hatcheries. in urbanization grading, see most perch, areas Sub-Element #3. Washington City Creek along fewer at kokanee, per the the porcupines, for Figure cutthroat to entire adjacent insects. 1997) lots the jam quality in of of Of with Chapter Sammamish amphibians, late mile largemouth the salmonids. their the watershed. Kenmore increased mouth dissolved for particular blockage lives Refer stream LU-il) 1970’s. gently creek, (King in in three- Other Many of use trout. to lives Plan 4D-l Sate the the and the of the 8, in to as 6 Red Cedar Oregon Douglas Sitka Black Hemlock Coho Coastal Rainbow Three-spined Coastrange Kokanee Sockeye Peamouth Largemouth Squaw Longnose Speckled Notes: Source: The Sammamish floor. floodplain regularly Washington. deeper Lake in 5) Plant 04D_NatEnv_SubAmendO6 1966, alder spruce species Sammamish salmon cottonwood Sammamish, fish ash cutthroat Prior fir and salmon King Personal salmon trout dace was dace caused in sculpin historically sucker straighter Trees stickleback italics to Fish County designed The River channelization, Communication, are extensive PLANTS River River non-native the Department channel to covered U.S. - begins after contain has damage to AND Ap Army the been in C.doc land of at Teresa Pacific a Red Nootka Indian Douglas Ninebark Willow Nettles Twinberry Hazelnut Bittersweet Salmonberry Himalayan Black Pacific Red-legged Northwesterh Pacific Northern the a Natural ANIMALS very the 40-year altered Corps to use osier Amended 1 Northwest. seed 960s, Amphibian/Reptiles hawthorne Vanderburg, outlet plum treefrog giant rose large in spirea Resources, alligator dogwood of ANIMALS overtime the PLANTS’ crops. blackberry nightshade springtime frog filling TABLE Shrubs salamander Engineers, of garter area December OF valley Lake lizard Adolfson To SWAMP as in snake 1997 to LU-E the was reduce the Sammamish flood control 2006 with former river predominately Associates, event CREEK this King flooding. meandered meanders. damage Lady Dagger-leaved Water Reed Slough Iris Skunk Knotweed Creeping Red Bald Great Downy Common Common Cedar Canada Mallard Belted Pileated Raccoon Goldfinches Wilson’s Long-tailed Beaver Coyote (roughly Natural and County Sedges/Rushes/G WETLAND tail Inc. canarygrass eagles fern blue ends parsley waxwing cabbage kingfisher sedge woodpecker agricultural Geese Birds/Mammals hawk and woodpecker February The Environment buttercup warbler crow coot equivalent as extensively heron The at weasel to Final a natural rush its help local new 2001 confluence #3 Comprehensive rass/Ferns regulate and channel, sponsor, to Sub-Element Sammamish City across a spring 10-year of the Kenmore with completed the dredged flooding level winter valley 4D-l River Plan Lake of a 7 flood) vegetation. maximize larger and riparian Consequences Division associated Fish reduced The Surface sockeye provides nonanadromous majority County Sammamish Historically, Cottage meanders along animals river The Mammals Management presence. yellowlegs, Wi1d1fe areas Birds blackbirds. rufous-sided include nuthatches, have Division Shrubs 5) 04D_NatEnv_Sub_AmendO6 to more Sammamish Habitat otter, than also are the in include conduct Department Water and flooding habitat, salmon, Lake in 1993) order osprey, Habitat of rearing 1993; the (King river provided the that adaptive maintenance four been shrews, Under general the creepers, thickets kingfishers the River Agricultural/grassland most towhees Division flood Management Creeks. grebes, of to continue today personal spawning inches occasional County Sammamish kokanee and and observed habitat events, address red the River an visible and prime of of mice, has protection support steelhead, elimination flycatchers, as historical flood tail cormorants, Development and the 1993). in Lake - Both Surface and to they practices communication declined for basin after additional local habitat diameter and salmon form voles, mammals, hawk, flying live sparrows. minor Division control salmonids Ap dippers. California Sammamish, River did natural Fragmentation rearing agricultural C.doc supports agreement of along area. and Water moles, for historically, of Stellar’s overhead wildlife due and has kilideer, dredging with from herons, cutthroat areas projects urban and extensive a Amended 1993) and coyotes, the Where activity Miles Less wide resulted to Management adluvial and quail, its Teresa rabbits, Environmental stream several river reductions artificial support jays, with including along development broad, concerns. bitterns, water-dependent is variety woodpeckers, along in include of of trees trout. the common December a of squirrels wetland include the some in Vanderburg, habitat wrens, banks, streambank cutthroat migration the opossums, anadromous migrating diversity shallow smaller the significantly occur, Corps, salmon of The river. Division Issaquah, Canada reduced in areas. Levees animal river. kinglets deer, may bush to Services areas. and 2006 has habitat Sammamish trout. they remove channels King birds Birds corridor of swallows, production salmon also skunks, (King occurred raccoons, were Adolfson tits, coyotes, geese, (King species species. 1993) the were frequency North, salmonids and support The County impaired diversity. have and commonly 1998) wrens, The wildlife large lined Natural County typically juncos. and and for County mallards, ermines, combination act found River raccoons, Swamp, affected in Associates, crows, Although mouth for occurs adult numerous is songbirds, woody trout with warbiers, the of as including community fish required example, Environment (King Surface system found Bald in overbank hunting Surface floodplains. placed and occurs rip-rap weasels, Final of wildlife mergansers, Big wrens, in the habitat. debris beavers, many the eagles County Issaquah juvenile of backwater Inc. American in Bear, riparian/wetland to woodpeckers, also Comprehensive on Water exhibit chinook, grounds the in Water channelization and Sammamish remove and from flooding, yellowthroats Sub-Element diversity. February of and the City tributaries supports and Because riparian/wetland muskrats, Little the Surface (King are the salmon. riverbanks coots, Creek. Management possibly the the of Management other sloughs goldfinches, species for vegetation coho, number devoid Kenmore Bear, channel, strongest 2001) reduced County runs raptors. grouse, of snipes, raptors to (King Water River mink, 4D- Plan areas The and and fox. live and and the and the of to of of I 8 Sammamish The Reach Enhancement of vegetation dredging Washington, this Reach cover. Bird in Swamp wildlife low Sammamish wetlands Lake due 3,000 Kenmore’s Despite The shorebirds development observed American Lake mallardJdomestic A snipe, site, Sammamish Environmental fish year The Lake they River Washington 5) Development the the 04D_NatEnv_Sub_AmendO6 beaver to Sammamish reach dissolved Island thought smaller area migrate and about Washington Washington feet main Washington Bird river great urbanization. 1 and 2 habitat Creek, — _68th the (rated and was two of during in has here crow, Mouth and and Island are shoreline channel five blue in River to the River and length around River proposal. between Opportunities wetland minimal and oxygen, observed been channelization Ave bald this than be along particularly Services breeding, is which Class million lake River black-capped heron, ultimately environmental cross is more present of Environmental shorelines in supports Segments confluence and NE area especially eagles most widened is An River this along the Bird at the 2) offers limited bisects has and habitat, breeds, Two the to - diverse cormorant, swimming the salmon exception 1997) are after southern in reach. of and in Pacific Western Island. were longest the report to declining lack to vulnerable mouth salmonid the Swamp Lake Ap Class given breeding and provide the foraging in by than Kenmore 68th noted chickadees, during common C.doc north other than wildlife fry of Fish surveys Kenmore observed Ocean warm Services ocean. prepared Washington. deepened, bank would 2 Ave. undeveloped in of belted below instream and elsewhere. Bothell Although wetlands for Creek, on Amended end reaches. habitat the fish and perch the fisheries to habitat habitat near water its most from merganser, and NE.: smolts be conducted is They inner of king predation Sammamish and nonsalmonid 1998) runs waterfowl song by perched this the sites Lake present, the City their the cover. in east other (0.25 the temperatures, December The there are fisher, for for become harbor. surveys. the travel waterfront stretch Inglewood due sparrow, section banks The and spawning King Limits/Wayne Washington to based amphibians. waterfowl river main acres reaches greater Because along during on west to is habitat. as bald down limited river River County of very are Bald 2006 fish the industrial urbanization of channel channel (King reported and on bush Lake and the along eagle, scaup, Golf relatively the this grounds due site low concentrated the species. splits the of eagles is 1.5 shade. and flows has Lake Surface tits, River Washington County a the migration. to Sammamish Course Trees dissolved in St. in is acres) 1993 western Golf critical gadwall, development little Natural passerine extensive in this in limited swallow’s extensive 1996: were Edward in to Washington low in has Table Different the two Course: the along Sammamish Water Lake reach are Department natural (Class its point reported at gull, more so Environment oxygen, Lake analyses by western found (King American channels the shoreline. upper State Washington. LU-F wetlands birds, River the the Final has Management emergent warm nest, rock 2 for vegetation mouth Although species diverse Washington on wetlands). river Sammamish on been shoreline Park, County flying millions watershed, Comprehensive and grebe, on shows dove, beaver, foraging of River the water the of as coot, Sub-Element of in their is City Development less which lack and of plant the LakePointe northern over the the it highly Bewicks the Canada Department or temperatures, a Corridor Key wildlife Division. impacted of and of south way nears mallard Fish scrub-shrub of summary Sammamish basin. LakePointe vicinity habitat habitat channel the cover Kenmore is River joins salmon instream features muskrat. roughly visible. to habitat project goose, bank, of wren, Lake Plan 4D-1 were Each Lake and site. and and and the left and by for the of in of as of 9 Coho considered Development-related Federal Endangered, Environmental throughout The Threatened species 5) 1532(20)) 04D_NatEnv_SubAmendO6 Federal and or population chinook An all or a Endangered Threatened, Endangered. Cutthroat Chinook Coho Sockeye or Rocky Peamouth Large-scale Steelhead Squawfish Prickly Coastrange primary Brook River Pacific Three-spined Riffle Longfin Large Redside Black Services Brown Yellow Common Endangered White Small Bluegill Tench Atlantic Goldfish been Pumpkinseed 1The of Source: a Development officially pelagic significant salmon salmon, lamprey sculpin mouthed mouthed crappie crappie Mountain lamprey bullhead lamprey sculpin activities perch is smelt shiner salmon salmon salmon - trout carp trout 1998) chub cause Wydoski after sculpin “likely sculpin1 sucker COMMON identified Species stickleback Sensitive listing sunfish Ap “Endangered” and bass bass as and whitefish portion frequently C.doc of and rainbow resulting well to but kokanee and triggers their Act LAKE become might Environmental Amended Species NAME as Whitney of found trout (ESA) be its decline. steelhead the in a WASHINGTON means in TABLE subspecies endangered range.”(16 association December full habitat 1979 designates that protection Services, trout of (King reported LU-F with the degradation a U.S.C. 2006 population within coast sockeye populations two County range of FISH 1998 in Sec. salmon the the King levels sculpin. Natural Act in or foreseeable 1532(6)) Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced ORIGIN Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Department and County Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native species are the of while long-fin Environment protection at Puget Final Department a “Threatened” historically is smelt Threatened future.” “in of Comprehensive Sound has danger Development for Sub-Element not City (16 listed low lowlands of listing of means U.S.C. Kenmore extinction numbers. species: allows Plan that 4D-20 Sec. and are a the The prohibits takes.” shoot, Service otherwise variety and The otherwise National consultation, proposed federal 1532 federal federal and threatened Chinook the Bald Study successful Kenmore State Other herring Priority The the great vulnerable. Priority Program. Great inclination Threatened, Great aggregate 5) 04D_NatEnv_Sub_AmendO6 regulatory Habitat colony, Bald Wildlife federal ESA (19)) State eagles blue wound, Area. species Blue blue agency agency agency of and for Habitat Species: “taking” salmon Marine The and area action be lawful listings voluntary (Perkins herons, and recovery. during of herons Based Conservation terrestrial Heron the to a are regulatory Service or Many the prohibited number agency kill, Washington Golden considered as ESA may determines endangered aggregate, finds great listed Sensitive and are federal may described activity” an the Fisheries affect and are trap, on Vulnerable Cole also species Species allows that agreements listed recently blue Even endangered (e.g. of as breeding species) included State adversely Eagle several agency - capture, propose species where agency Endangered 1998). after the there Plans heron candidates Species. that or National as if species, Department (16 above. on for Program laws Ap Service the development Protection Species listed Threatened salmonid no Aggregations will the more C.doc (HCPs) it as U.S.C. season, “incidental may species of or would conservation such U.S. or affect jeopardy is a and rockfish. State’s the collect, bull be Marine threatened Priority In “incidental Amended for latitude by issue (NMFS) of Fish as significant the bird Sec. addition with making issue of trout is a and Act. the listing Recreational, Candidate by addressed listed lists Fish permit or or PHS and species-specific Fisheries would takes” Species non-salmonid Implementing USFWS, 1539(a)(1)(B)). the as a of in recommendations. modification to December There species. biological occur or Wildlife in them Threatened. to and there how attempt NMFS species species, program, negative still process the and where US Conservation by below. Wildlife Service have the vulnerable but in are Puget be the not Commercial, Fish To in 2006 to the that Service the protected the species opinion an two fish Agreements. the effects, and the is engage been State “take” [for] regulations Study Sound Both for likely, are species applicant and Incidental permitting has Puget species. other State local (Perkins marine of several to the removes susceptible is species means regarding Agreements, a alternatives Wildlife in Natural Area. by Washington significant area then protected Priority Sound. purpose criteria government lists is any and/or the (Perkins proposed may Due species that takes sightings include the agency Coie to such are the Migratory Examples designated Environment “harass, to Service the action commit that may Habitat Additionally, to Tribal thought Final of, bald and 1998) are the must conduct” population Safeharbor or due decline Coie proposed coho must the for result capital allow importance US authorized of eagle recovered. Comprehensive may to be Importance harm, Bird include de-listing carrying (USFWS). and a to bald 1998) State Sub-Element Fish salmon their City consult proposed. take occur proceed, (1 in by from for Treaty projects. Species action. declines. 6 pursue, the eagles a and Agreements, of virtue inclination Endangered, U.S.C. that bald “incidental listing through and within out Kenmore as the U.S. due The with Wildlife Act that well but would eagles, size in of (PHS) list If If of hunt, After to Plan 4D-2 Sec. They Fish law If as and the the the the the the an the are its of as a of a to a I most (State are one animals Great A usually colonies, The Park season because The future harassed between as example, winter, The immediate Colonies 1996. the fledglings/nesting The and The Department 900 rookery. SR-522 require referenced Following GOALS, (e.g., 5) GOAL heron 04D_NatEnv_Sub_AmendO6 flooding), found needs to colony birds herons feet State birds City and types blue Policy of include three The in the built approval found it 13. right rookery Washington the by and of Ride, on Between throughout of of 1999. are is Department usually herons such OBJECTIVES, area are established of in may birds rookery the bald of successful rodents. all miles SW-42.3.1). reduction lot Kenmore’s their in colonial of more bald in fresh Fish the within speëies, but rookery AND the PRACTICE ENHANCING, relocate and as Other way has shallow of eagles will are use herons) of natural January exist eagle a eagles, and separate than tallest and is the been Department habitat Washington the colonial (Norman is of switch during Swamp AROUND of in than and considered itself - and or Wildlife exempt unless their colony after Critical habitat. saltwater waters. intrusion, foraging one at Fish colony. established colony environment may trees increasing 1 declines was encroaching into Ap after management the and AND the from Element colonies breeders and Creek C.doc 1999) approved be which from ENVIRONMENTAL the (State 1999) available. smaller Area breeding of July same Although the site-specific areas, but Food AND Wildlife large wetlands THE positively damage foraging POLICIES Fish .only in Amended wetlands. Kenmore the in near 31, are in or Regulations of that may food goals, location size. availability and by and development, CITY groups. response colony by Washington PROMOTING plan buffer). Sub-Element, no most season the they nest to recommends urban The create other the including in Wildlife clear availability, related (Thompson December nesting management objectives by King Park common wetland OFKENMORE. It in forage Washington in herons the but for The has factors. to or standards. a Permits a urbanized require and strongly County variety increased grading to sense State are 1999) trees Department many grown winter factors seashores, up 2006 the and areas Ride feed in comprehensive noncolonial and 1999) or to STEWARDSHIP (Norman and for a (trees plans. of the THE number of Sheriff’s this affects 18 or State years, from roosting human King buffer lot policies. on to It which safety. predation deciduous activities City. lowlands. land miles is was is upland a can rivers, of NA Natural about Department County also noted wide of of 1999) heron and disturbing may Fish developed. disturbance. office in be from areas TURAL It In years 900 considered the land within on areas damaged 24 swamps, is and variety Great some by and cause productivity Environment survival, to a one eggs winter have substation feet nests a colony, colonies use evergreen have Final Wildlife where policy of activity the cases, Blue the of ENVIRONMENT radius BY and There of not planning in Fish (State by marshes when a the Comprehensive extremely heron birds the aquatic successful young 1990 most been Herons the they reference Sub-Element have policies and PROTECTING, 1999) few City and is is (the around trees. spacing they of nesting to a allowed rookery to forage that identified. will the water and colonies Wildlife by of been move and Washington 35 number occur stay Kenmöre important Nests Kenmore mammals are considers an breeding feed, ditches. in nests of marine as within barrier in within in buffer active in cross- italics 4D-22 their Plan near well use. (the are not the the for IN in In of OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE 5) 04D_NatEnv_Sub.AmendO6 Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy LU-13.l.1 LU-13.1.2 LU-13.2.2 LU-13.2.l LU-13.2.3 LU-13.3.l LU-13.3.2 LU-l3.3.3 13.1 13.2 13.3 - a. Protect Cooperate c. b. d. Through construction e. to could Encourage Implement require constructed Require vicinity Encourage situation. fencing, in environmental Through community. Encourage numbers building Require lighting not Encourage after submit noise-impacted unduly Ap expose C.doc air cessation Encourage automobile Promote could Downtown, due Require fireplaces. Work Work standards new of of appropriate materials an design landscaping, quality development residential regionally Noise residents noise impact a motorists with the to and analysis Amended a developments people reduction adversely with with review. vehicular air Air reduction land mixed-use or materials standards and from along impacted their alternative other other as or mitigation quality to areas to to Harbor, of clearing or the December nuisance or illumination and help signage adverse provide substantial or potential impact neighbors. in surrounding streets, other agencies agencies primary standards, travel to strive that overall reduce impact other or and which areas in be activities. or modes noise-sensitive of educational the materials impacts will ordinances exterior 2006 and compact light and noise noise. locally other oriented to to method the noise-reducing air may noise levels analysis could levels maximize in monitor educate neighborhoods. of due quality need reduce public impacts through and areas lighting transportation include to levels that of development generate of to Natural and to away for improve opportunities, for noise transportation. air the levels open improper glare development address cause that noise automobile air and throughout major the light quality for public the from from Environment features, spaces substantial may propose following security in pollution reductions, glare air vicinity impacts shields, Final new various the to forms, within about existing use noise quality. be reduce and vicinity. discourage use. impacts developments, proposed Comprehensive the mitigation. purposes determined of appropriate measures: air of parks. Sub-Element particularly the noise levels and source, throughout emissions City community. woodstoves or noise SR-522, quality reliance planning to to direction of sources for of incorporate which the generators substantial Kenmore or noise location impacts through on to which use or in to 4D-23 area. from Plan does and and the the the the the for be or of OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE 5) 04D_NatEnv_Sub_AmendO6 Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy LU-13.3.4 LU-13.4.1 LU-13.4.2 LU-13.4.3 LU-13.4.4 LU-13.5.l LU-13.5.2 LU-13.6.1 LU-13.6.3 LU-13.6.2 13.4 13.5 13.6 Restrict Cooperate Actively quality Kenmore. surface their (rivers, Use implement - Allow to erosion opportunities ground adverse functioning resource Participate Adopt Adopt planting Through protection Protect the to economic water-oriented In Creek. Allow resources, critical promotes resources access Balance after the the provide planting incentives, Ap multiple fullest City’s Cdoc development to water, and streams, areas lights an water impact development an control, the management. of urban private work shorelines. visual of aspects and appropriate for regionally traditional in urban trees quantity urban of of extent natural, Amended trees Shoreline should and pointing drinking so the shoreline street beneficial uses on regulations water forestry, ecology with lakes, water property and on as scenic water on development forestry practicable, of and forestry within take to public trees public from communities environmental, December Lake physical and resources. up, cultural surface that wetlands water Element minimize supply, economic quality protection, beauty. of street priority uses throughout affecting rights strive and degradation. designated and Washington, and strategy the supports and strategy water preserve design resources, access programs including or 2006 energy and private private Use water and of over locally with wastewater the development. water Development the and watershed upstream Shoreline regulations of ground the which adverse visual standards to Shoreline ecological, view the continued and properties. public water opportunities production, to quantity. property. City. to to the fish and the Natural need protect encourage manage of shorelines, values water) encourages planning water resources from Master Sammamish effects access, the navigation and plans to and Environments should for Environment public night ecological adequately and wildlife surface and and Kenmore’s transportation, Kenmore parks public for Final integrating Program, upon with to physical for sky. the avoids to not preserves other provide access, the rights. Comprehensive programs, protect the one the River, and physical habitat, have preservation Sub-Element uses. preservation retain City that to need and balance purpose water environment natural access. ground surface efficient aesthetic, develop a and Protection archeological of preserves and recreational to and hydrologic significant flood and Kenmore encourage resources allow enhance the hazards, should, Swamp water detain water, water visual 4D-24 Plan need and and and and and the for in of City of Kenmore Final Comprehensive Plan GOAL 14. PROTECT LIFE AND PR OPERTYINAREAS OF NA TURAL HAZARDS. OBJECTIVE 14.1 Strive to protect lives and public and private property from flooding. Policy LU-14.1.l Implement the Surface Water Element goals, objectives and policies and the Kenmore Surface Water Management Plan to minimize flood hazards in the community. Policy LU-14.l.2 Recognize the Swamp Creek basin as an environmentally sensitive area that has sustained repeated flooding impacts. Densities and services should reflect the environmental sensitivity of the Swamp Creek basin. OBJECTIVE 14.2 Strive to protect slopes from erosion and sliding. Policy LU-14.2.1 Require land uses permitted in mapped Erosion Hazard Areas to minimize soil disturbance and maximize retention and replacement of native vegetative cover. Policy LU-14.2.2 Require new development to protect natural vegetation coverage at levels sufficient to moderate surface water runoff and erosion and to protect the integrity of stream channels. When revegetation is required, appropriate native vegetation should be used. Policy LU-14.2.3 Require grading and construction activities to be conducted with erosion control Best Management Practices and other de’ielopment controls as necessary to reduce sediment discharge from construction sites to minimal levels. Policy LU-14.2.4 Require increased surface water requirements in areas draining over steep and erosive slopes. (see SW-42.3.]) Policy LU-14.2.5 Limit development on slopes with a grade of 40 percent or more to be developed unless the risks and adverse impacts associated with such development can be reduced to a non-significant level. Policy LU-14.2.6 Limit development in Landslide Hazard Areas unless the risks and adverse impacts associated with such development can be reduced to a non-significant level. OBJECTIVE 14.3 Minimize the potential for damage due to liquefaction and seismic hazards. Policy LU-14.3.1 In areas with severe seismic hazards, apply Uniform Building Code, and any other necessary special building design and construction measures to minimize the risk of structural damage, fire and injury to occupants and to prevent post- seismic collapse. GOAL 15. PROTECT AND ENHANCE UNIQUE, VALUABLE, AND CRITICAL PLANTS AND WILDLIFE. OBJECTIVE 15.1 Protect wetlands from encroachment and degradation, and encourage wetland restoration. Sub-Element 4D-25 5) O4QNatEnv_Sub_AmendO6- after Ap C.doc AmendedDecember2006 Natural Environment City of Kenmore Final Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-15.i.l Determine wetland boundaries using the procedures provided in the following manual: Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Washington State Department of Ecology, March 1997, Ecology Publication #96-94 or the scientifically accepted replacement methodology based on better technical criteria and field indicators. Policy LU-i 5.1.2 Provide a classification system for wetlands that allows for the designation of both regionally and locally unique wetlands. Policy LU-15.l.3 Strive to achieve no-net-loss of wetland functions or values within each drainage basin. Acquisition, enhancement, regulations, and incentive programs may be used independently or in combination with one another to protect and enhance wetlands functions. Policy LU-15.l .4 Require development adjacent to wetlands to be sited such that wetland functions are protected, an adequate buffer around the wetlands is provided, and significant adverse impacts to wetlands are prevented. Policy LU-15.1.5 Protect areas of native vegetation that connect wetland systems. Whenever effective, incentive programs such as buffer averaging, density credit transfers, or appropriate non-regulatory mechanisms should be used. Policy LU-15.I.6 Protect the unique hydrologic cycles, soil and water chemistries, and vegetation communities of bogs, fens and other legislatively designated unique through the use of Best Management Practices to control and/or treat stormwater within the wetland watershed. Policy LU-15.1.7 Allow public access to wetlands for scientific, recreational use, and traditional cultural use where public access trails are carefully sited, sensitive habitats and species are protected, and hydrologic continuity is maintained. Policy LU-15.l .8 Allow enhancement or restoration of degraded wetlands to maintain or improve wetland functions, provided that all wetland functions are evaluated in a wetland management plan, and adequate monitoring, code enforcement and evaluation is provided and assured by responsible parties. Restoration or enhancement must result in a net improvement to the functions of the wetland system. Technical assistance to small property owners should be considered. Policy LU-15.1.9 Alterations to wetlands may be allowed, only after all wetland functions are evaluated, the least harmful and reasonable alternatives are identified, and affected significant functions are appropriately mitigated, in order to: a. Accomplish a public agency or utility development; b. Provide necessary utility and road crossings; c. Maintain and improve a wetland; or, d. Avoid a denial of all reasonable use of the property. Policy LU-I 5.1.10 Approve wetland mitigation proposals if they would result in improved overall wetland functions within a drainage basin. All wetland functions should be 5) 04D_NatEnv_Sub_AmendO6- after Ap C.doc AmendedDecember2006 Natural EnvironmentSub-Element 4D-26 OBJECTWE OBJECTWE 5)04D_NatEnv_Sub_AmendO6 Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy LU-15.1.l1 LU-15.l.13 LIJ-15.l.12 LU-15.l.14 LU-15.3.1 LU-15.2.2 LU-15.2.l LU-15.3.3 LU-15.3.2 LU-15.3.4 LU-15.3.6 LU-15.3.5 15.2 15.3 - Promote be restore considered. establishment maintenance projects located Apply violations, Support Protect stricter Preserve River filled. stream restoration. quality hydraulic, Maintain non-native Encourage control. Actively methods Protect In projects, threatened, of air, Provide Areas Maintain Designate Preserve after biomass. partnership lost and Ap and found C.doc appropriate and an strategically as standards and aquatic native streams is incentives Herbicide of a mitigation and land fish encourage and stream no habitats ecological a area such and the fish cooperative vegetation or Ensure invasive result Amended river should in net in of and sensitive with promote plant use Kenmore: used and that habitats. protect as the a from loss channels for wetland wildlife channels of requiring for penalties use mitigation of for to be wildlife other restoration projects was and communities plants, the of for development December the native control alleviate using provided encroachment should by the wetland a species multi-jurisdictional aesthetic historically jurisdictions wetland use project diversity the mitigation should through habitat following and native wetland including for plants that should state be sites of habitat of 2006 until functions current minimized. which surrounding proposal. environmentally be contribute stream functions. by mitigation on or replace plants, and in of conservation be preserved, the banking a restoration, federal and species encouraging landscaping fragmentation. sites and Fish wetland. aquatic to used success as have banks, mitigate per Natural mature degradation, or interested well where and Further, effort to to government. program. drainage augment and riparian in been control plants. protected an of lakes, as through Wildlife and The Environment perpetuity. plantings, flooding habitat wetlands requirements, the safe to management existing previous mitigation identified Final enhancement parties, goal basin. site develop noxious shorelines, the areas Environmentally and methods and code within Habitat is functions Comprehensive and for and wetland have established. encourage wetland Sub-Element to continue enhanced City enforcement weeds. these Monitoring erosion. a sites as higher enhance erosion and the been of and plan Conservation of of endangered, that system mitigation should vegetation control City. Kenmore terrestrial, alteration wetlands. restoring densities illegally for for stream control would sound water 4D-27 Plan their and and the be or of 5) O4QNatEnv_Sub_AmendO6 Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy LU-15.3.7 LU-l5.3.8 LU-i LU-15.3.ll LU-15.3.lO LU-l5.3.14 LU-l5.3.13 LU-15.3.12 LU-15.3.15 LU-15.3.16 5.3.9 - b. a. e. c. d. Conduct and/or (transportation, Threatened, Identify enhancement conservation Stream importance, and/or facilities. Protect habitat Work Integrate land feasible. Actively and Encourage efforts Promote Council trout. to endangered, development of Regularly after ensure the businesses Ap use with buffer C.doc state networks regarding and tribal Project Habitats considered Habitat Habitat Riparian Urban Habitat species watershed salmonid to a plan voluntary fish consistency participate review adjacent incorporating local wetland and ensure and and Amended threatened, measures averaging regulations importance and development facilities natural through by for for water, for which address and corridors. Priority at federal process surface the the wildlife jurisdictional federal Herons vulnerable; habitats wildlife State that jurisdictions, planning buffer Species with in December City’s State open sewer, need developed educational should these should or the agencies. native wildlife the to are Sensitive, and that or requirements of the sensitive habitats Department spaces protection and habitat determine List. capital City’s state by consistent Local electricity, Watershed in and groundwater, Federal are be and plant 2006 consider site Policy boundaries. state ensuring allowed. species. by listed designated vulnerable implementation those and Development Importance: enhancement and planning, into projects, species development the communities during 4(d) and fish, LU-15.3.6. incentive of with Endangered, may Candidate capital County, gas) species Resource significant Fish Natural federal rule. Whenever that environmentally such wildlife, be regional the and include in as implementation, and increased great improvement the development of programs. identified cities, land as within planning projects Environment review governments into species; Wildlife; recreational, should Priority the Inventory or blue riparian and adverse Final efforts. possible, development use Threatened tribes, chinook basins to to plant heron; by and Comprehensive in animal be protect Habitat identify and and, sensitive private and Sub-Element projects review the service A impacts Area regulatory City and and density that the species salmon commercial, central facility stream State species; aggregations tribes Endangered, of proposals. enforcement and contain recovery and process. (WRIA) individuals providers, areas, Kenmore whenever to transfers of and Priority Species purpose habitat protect during efforts those plans 4D-28 local Plan fish bull and or of 8 New resources IMPLEMENTATION programs, The • • • • • • A • • • including: Additional • • participate • • • REFERENCES Bucher, City City 5) 04D_NatEnv_Sub_AmendO6 review Native Design Air Urban Designated Habitat Control regulations. Erosion Sufficiency Increased Working Participating Restoring Establishing Natural programs, of of quality Renton, Kenmore Cindy City Draft Prepared Willis to of or forestry vegetation in standards or enhancement of control prepare existing Environment coordinate of with regional surface Southport stream air continuing Stahl, and and fish rules, Kenmore Economic of a in by (November emissions adjacent, wetland strategies noise Ratliff the and wetland, Best new Huckell/Weinrnan Bucher, for programs, channels. or water requirements programs, development - with wildlife regulations Development building after Management analyses educational and regulations, STRATEGIES efforts Development/Neighborhoods Sub-Element Corporation mitigation requirements upstream from Ap adjacent habitat, 23, Willis Lisa C.doc rules habitat including: materials, construction 1999). would for Grueter, would & of Amended and jurisdictions. communities major and banking review/amend flood Practices Planned Ratliff Associates, watershed (November conservation Personal policies on need incentive regulations be Bucher, signage new steep hazard, needed Corporation December program and Action to developments would Communication, plans and be land on programs. Inc. 23, Willis and existing areas to steep made would water erosive Supplemental clearing address: 1999). 2006 light Renton, require and & to slope, quality to Strategic be Ratliff regulations, standards Larry slopes coordinate Personal activities needed new WA. landslide meeting, Natural and Altose, Corporation. Environmental or Planning flooding to increased communication, create Environment ensure with PSAPCA. Debbie hazard, Final Department adjacent educational issues they commitments Impact Comprehensive Bent, and Sub-Element meet City jurisdictions phone erosion Senior Statement. (June of the or Kenmore incentive call policies, Planner, of 1999). hazard 4D-29 Plan City from or City of Kenmore Final Comprehensive Plan Clifford, Peggy (February 26, 1997). Personal Communication, Peggy Clifford, State of Washington Department of Ecology, to Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner, City of Renton. Goldsmith, Mark (November 28, 2000). Letter from Mark Goldsmith, State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, to Bob Sokol, Community Development Services Director, City of Kenmore. Jensen, K.E., and P.D. Boersma (1993). “Land Development and Human Disturbances as Factors in Determining Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) Colony Size and Location in the Puget Sound Region.” Unpublished Report, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. King County (May 1978). King County Shoreline Master Program, Ordinance 3692. Seattle, WA. King County (December 1990). Sensitive Areas Map Folio. Seattle, WA. King County (1990). Wetlands Inventory. Seattle, WA. King County (December 21, 1999). Zoning Code. Seattle, WA. King County, Department of Development and Environmental Services (November1997). LakePointe Mixed Use Master Plan, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. Seattle, WA. King County, Department of Development and Environmental Services (July 1998). LakePoirite Mixed Use Master Plan, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by E-luckell/WeinmanAssociates, Inc. Seattle, WA. King County, Department of Natural Resources (February 1997). Swamp Creek Action Plan: Final Plan. Seattle, WA. King County, Department of Parks Planning & Resources (1993). Northshore Community Plan Update and Area Zoning. Seattle, WA. King County, Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division (December 1993). Sammamish River Corridor Conditions and Enhancement Opportunities. Seattle, WA. King County, Parks, Planning & Resources Department (June 1994). Draft King County Comprehensive Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. Seattle, WA. King County, Surface Water Management Division (1993). King County Flood Hazard Reduction Plan. Seattle, WA. King County Growth Management Planning Council (December 31, 1995). Countywide Planning Policies. Seattle, WA. Norman, Don (November 23, 1999). Personal Communication, phone call from Don Norman, consulting biologist to Lisa Grueter, Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation. Northeast Lake Washington Sewer and Water District (September 1990). Comprehensive Sewer Plan: 1990 Update. Prepared by ST Engineering Inc., P.S. Kenmore, WA. 5) 04D_NatEnv_Sub_AmendO6- after Ap C.doc AmendedDecember2006 Natural EnvironmentSub-Element 4D-30 City of Kenmore Final Comprehensive Plan Perkins Coie (1998). “The Endangered Species Act — A Primer.” By Patrick W. Ryan and Galen Schuler. Seattle, WA. Puget Sound Regional Water Quality Authority (1994). 1994 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Olympia, WA. Sheldon, Dyanne M. (November 1994). “Planning for Wetlands Workshop.” Prepared for American Planning Association. Seattle, WA. State of Washington (1988). “State of the Environment.” Environment 2010 program. State of Washington, Department of Ecology (March 1997). Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Ecology Publication #96-94. Olympia, WA. State of Washington, Department of Fish and Wildlife (1999). “Great Blue Herons” in the Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Authors Timothy Quinn and Ruth Mimer. Olympia, WA. Stofel, Julie (November 16, 1999). Personal Communication, phone call and facsimile from Julie Stofel, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, to Lisa Grueter, Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation. Thompson, Trisha (November 12, 1999). Personal Communication, phone call from Trisha Thompson, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, to Lisa Grueter, Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation. U.S. Department of Agriculture (September 1952). Soil Survey, King County, Washington, Series 1938, No. 31. King County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1973). King County Area Soil Survey. King County, Washington. Vanderburg, Teresa (February 8, 2001). Personal Communication, transmittal from Teresa Vanderburg, Wetlands Program Manager, Adolfson Associates, Inc. to Lisa Grueter, Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation. Vanderburg, Teresa (February 16, 2001). Personal Communication, facsimile from Teresa Vanderburg, Wetlands Program Manager, Adolfson Associates, Inc. to Lisa Grueter, Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation. 5) 04D_NatEnv_Sub_AmendO6- after Ap C.doc Amended December 2006 Natural Environment Sub-Element 4D-3 I P2 P P P P23 P22 P9 P6 Total P21 P P P24 P P13 Project 1 11 10 17 l9LogfloomParkWatufront 18 Northahore Taft Twin Moorlands City Park Sammamish Skate q Kenmore Rhododendron Squires Tolt Project Pipeline Descrip(tón Boom Springs(Pcirtal Pipeline Hall Land Park Landing Costs Plaza Village Park Summit Acquisition Park Rdocaiion Trail River Trail Balifield Park Improvements Pedestrian Trail Public Phase Phase Design Boat 44) Waterfront & Improvements One Launch Square Improvements Two Phase Bridge Restroom One Replacement PARK CITY CAPITAL Ameaded $44,0W 659,000 120,000 FOR OF 20,000 30,000 65.000 50,000 2*13 $0 KENMORE, 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 THE IMPROVEMENT :M* $IEO,10 YEARS 100,000 40,000 20,000 2*14 $0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 WASHINGTON 2013-2018 $1,700,000 300,000 $45,000 250,000 gCX000 150,000 20,000 30,000 30,000 75,000 2015 Program Appendix Improvement PROGRAM 0 0 0 0 0 S1,62S,000 Projected $360,000 800,000 200,000 1),000 75,000 2416 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Projected $115,000 D-Capital 75,000 40,000 2*17 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 AD1 $1,200,000 Projected 1.000,000 200,000 I 3*18 P $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a g e $5,744,000 2013-2*18 1, $405,000 659,000 270,000 320,000 220,000 830,000 220,000 950,000 240,000 120,000 190,000 Totali 65,000 10,000 75,000 This page intentionally left blank. AD2 I P a g e Appendix E Prototype Development Cost Tables, Estimated Project Costs AE1 I P a g e Appendix D. Prototype Facility Development Costs Playground - uncovered, 10 child capacity unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a clear playground acre $5,920.00 0.5 $2,960 b earthwork for playground cu yard $10.00 746 $7,460 c site preparation, 12” sand or bark @1 00’diameter sq ft $2.00 388 $776 d medium play structure w/ curbing & drainage (range 2000-5000 SF) each $165,000.00 1 $165,000 Total construction cost per playground $176,196 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $16,739 b design/engineehng fees (const) 15.0% $26,429 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $21,936 Total development cost per playground $241,300 Grassy playfield - I acre unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a clear field and structures acre $5,920.00 1 $5,920 b earthwork for field and structures cu yard $10.00 1,613 $16,130 c playfield, grass seed w/subdrain & topsoil (6” depth) sq ft $2.50 43,560 $108,900 d irngation system-quick coupler sq ft $1.50 43,560 $65,340 Total construction cost per playfield $196,290 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $18,648 b design/engineering fees (const) 15.0% $29,444 d contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $24,438 Total development cost per field $268,819 Site furniture Avondale typical (all or concrete bases) unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a 6’ park bench-black steel each $ 1,099.00 1 $1,099 b ADA picnic table each $ 960.00 1 $960 c recycle rack each $ 969.00 1 $969 d picnic table each $ 901.00 1 $901 e drinking fountain each $ 4,615.00 1 $4,615 trash receptacle each $ 818.00 1 $818 g pet waste container each $ 468.00 1 $468 h park entry signs each $ 1,060.00 1 $1,060 Total development cost $10,890 Outdoor basketball full court uncovered 70’ x 114’ . unit unit cost qnty qnty cost earthwork a for court, parking, access road cu yard $10.00 460 $4,600 b 3”asphalti 4”aggregi 6”gravel sq ft $3.30 7,980 $26,334 c standards w/hoop and net, 6”steel poles (exclude installation cost of $1,863) each $2,220.00 2 $4,440 Total construction cost per court $35,374 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $3,361 b design/engineering fees (const) 15.0% $5,306 d contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $4,404 Total development cost per court $48,445 Outdoor basketball half court uncovered 70’ x 57’ unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a earthwork for court, parking, access road cu yard $10.00 230 $2,300 b 3”asphalt/4”aggreg/6”gravel sq ft $3.30 3,990 $13,167 c standards w/hoop and net, 6”steel poles (exclude installation cost of $930) each $2,270.00 1 $2,270 Total construction cost per court $17,737 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $1,685 b design/engineering fees (const) 15.0% $2,661 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $2,208 Total development cost per court $24,291 Parking (Pavement) unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a 5 stalls, striping, signs, 3’ asphalt concrete/ 6” crushed rock each $5.20 1500 $7,800 b 10 stalls,striping, signs,3u asphalt concrete/ 6’ crushed rock each $4.80 3,000 $14,400 c 20 stalls, striping, signs,3” asphalt concrete! 6” crushed rock each $4.70 6,000 $28,200 d 50 stalls, striping, signs,3” asphalt concrete! 6” crushed rock each $4.50 15,000 $67,500 e 100 stalls, striping, signs,3” asphalt concrete! 6” crushed rock each $4.50 30000 $135,000 Total average development cost per stall $1,367 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $130 b design/engineering fees (const) 15.0% $205 contingency Ic (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $170 I Average development cost per stall $1,872 *parking estimate does not include drainage, lighting or utilites Outdoor tennis - 6O’xlZO’ without lights unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a earthwork for court Cu yd $10.00 320 $3,200 b colorcoatll “asphaftl2”asphaltl4”crushed rock sq ft $4.00 7,200 $28,800 c pehmeter fencing, 12’ w/1 .75”fabc and black vinyl coat Ir ft $34.80 360 $12,528 d net and anchors, 3.5”galvanized pipe posts each $1,375.00 1 $1,375 Total construction cost per court $45,903 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $4,361 b design/engineedng fees (const) 15.0% $6,885 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $5,715 Total development cost per court $62,864 Football field - unlighted 150’x300’ unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a clear field and structures acre $5,920.00 2 $1 1,840 b earthwork, 1’ depth cu yd $10.00 1,667 $16,670 c playing surface, grass turf/i 2M sand w/ subdrain sq ft $5.00 45,000 $225,000 d irngation system-quick coupler sq ft $1.50 45,000 $67,500 e spectator stands, movable metal (40 seats) each $2,834.00 4 $11,336 f water service, 8” service line lr ft $39.00 500 $19,500 g water meter, 2” size each $17,550.00 1 $17,550 Total construction cost per field $369,396 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $35,093 b design/engineering fees (const) 15.0% $55,409 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $45,990 Total development cost per field $505,888 Outdoor sand volleyball - 42’x72’ unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a earthwork for court cu yd $10.00 276 $2,760 b playing surface, 6’ sand/compacted subgrade cu yd $39.00 56 $2,184 c boundary lines, imbedded 4”x4”cedar Ir ft $3.40 180 $612 d net and anchors, 6”x6” treated wood posts (exclude installation cost $625) each $1,650.00 1 $1,650 e line judges stand, galvanized pipe wI 2”x4” frame each $890.00 2 $1,780 players bench, 8”x8”xlO’wood beams w/conc support (exclude installation cost of $800) each $240.00 4 $960 Total construction cost per court $9,946 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $945 b design/engineering tees (const) 15.0% $1,492 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $1,238 Total development cost per court $13,621 Pickleball courts - 20’x44’ unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a clear playground acre $5,920.00 0.25 $1,480 b earthwork for playground cu yard $10.00 76 $756 c colorcoat, 3”asphaltl4”crushed rock sq ft $4.00 2,040 $8,160 d net and anchors, 3.5”galvanized pipe posts each $1,375.00 1 $1,375 Total construction cost per court $11,771 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $1,118 b design/engineering fees (const) 15.0% $1,766 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $1,465 Total development cost per court $16,120 Lighting unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a Arca (parking) each $5,500.00 1 $5,500 b Baseball field (200’, 275’, 300’) each $117,200.00 1 $117,200 c Footbalsoccer field (regulation) each $117,200.00 1 $117,200 d Tennis/Basketball Court, 8 poles each $19,400.00 1 $19,400 e Pickleball court each $2,660.00 1 $2,660 t Pathway (bollard) Ir ft $73.00 1 $73 Soccer field - 240’ x 330’ with grass turf unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a clear field and structures acre $5,920.00 2.1 $12,432 b earthwork for field and structures cu yd $10.00 5,094 $50,940 c playing surface, grass turf/i 2”sand w/subdrain sq ft $5.00 79,200 $396,000 d irrigation system-quick coupler sq ft $1.50 79,200 $118,800 e spectator stands, movable metal (50 seats) each $2,534.00 2 $5,068 I water service, 8” service line Ir ft $39.00 500 $19,500 water meter, 2” size each $17,550.00 1 $17,550] Total construction cost per field $620,290 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $58,928 b design/engineenng fees (const) 15.0% $93,044 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $77,226 Total development cost per field $849,487 Soccer field - 240’ x 330’ with grass seed unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a clear field and structures acre $5,920.00 2.1 $12,432 b earthwork for field and structures cu yd $10.00 5,094 $50,940 c playing surface, grass seed/i 2’ sand w/ subdrain sq ft $3.00 79,200 $237,600 d irngation system-quick coupler sq ft $1.50 79,200 $118,800 e spectator stands, movable metal (50 seats) each $2,534.00 2 $5,068 80 f water service, service line lrft $39.00 500 $19,500 g water meter, 2’ size each $17,550.00 1 $17,550 Total construction cost per field $461,890 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $43,880 b design/engineering fees (const) 15.0% $69,284 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $57,505 Total development cost per field $632,558 Baseball field - 200’ with skinned infield unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a clear field and structures acre $5,920.00 1.2 $7,104 b earthwork for field cu yd $10.00 2,586 $25,860 c infield mix wlsubdrain cu yd $45.30 100 $4,530 d outfield, grass turf/i 2” sand w/subdrain sq ft $4.70 42,400 $199,280 e irrigation system- full irrigation sq ft $1.50 42,400 $63,600 f backstop, 40’ wide, 12’ high each $7,800.00 I $7,800 g players bench w/conc support each $799.00 4 $3,196 h spectator stands, movable metal (50 seats) each $2,534.00 2 $5,068 Total construction cost per field $316,438 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $30,062 b design/engineering fees (const) 15.0% $47,466 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $39,397 Total development cost per field $433,362 Baseball field - 75’ with skinned infield unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a clear field acre $5,920.00 3.1 $18,352 b earthwork for field cu yd $10.00 3,700 $37,000 c infield mix w/subdrain cu yd $45.30 100 $4,530 d outfield, grass turf/i 2” sand w/subdrain sq ft $4.70 67,200 $315,840 e irrigation system- complete auto sq ft $1.50 67,200 $100,800 f backstop, 3”pipe posts w/supports, 2 chain link-black vinyl c.c. each $7,800.00 1 $7,800 g players bench each $799.00 4 $3,196 h spectator stands, movable metal (50 seats) each $2,534.00 2 $5,068 8U i water service, service line lrft $39.00 500 $19,500 j water meter, 2 size each $17,550.00 1 $17,550 Total construction cost per field $492,586 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $46,796 b design/engineering fees (const) 15.0% $73,888 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $61,327 Total development cost per field $674,597 Buildings/structures unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a concession facilities- warming! refrigeration 250 sq ft sq ft $130.00 250 $32,500 b restrooms- unisex (NP) 1 room each $100,000.00 1 $100,000 c restrooms- non-unisex 4 rooms each $200,000.00 1 $200,000 d picnic shelter (steel) w/ pad- small 16’x16’ each $34,685.00 1 $34,685 e picnic shelter (steel) w! pad- medium i6’x24’ each $34,855.00 1 $34,855 f picnic shelter (steel) w/ pad- large 24’x34’ each $56,235.00 1 $56,235 Boat launch -25 boat capacity unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a clear site improvements acre $5,920.00 0.4 $2,368 b earthwork for site improvements cu yd $10.00 2,400 $24,000 c boat access ramp, precast concrete ramp units each $63,500.00 1 $63,500 d mooring platform, treated wood/styrofoam sq ft $100.00 400 $40,000 e bank stabilization/landscape plantings each $9,140.00 1 $9,140 f marker buoys and signage each $320.00 4 $1,280 1g car/trailer parking, 2”asphalt concrete/4’crushed rock sq ft $4.00 12,500 $50,000 h wheel stops, 10”x6”x8’precast concrete each $200.00 25 $5,000 I access road, 3”asphalt concrete/6”crushed rock, 24’x200’ sq ft $3.00 4,800 $14,400 j trash receptacles each $818.00 2 $1,636 Total construction cost per boat launch $195,288 construction a sales tax (const) 9.5% $18,552 b design/engineering tees (const) 15.0% $29,293 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $24,313 Total development cost per boat launch $267,447 Hand-carry boat launch -10 car capacity unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a clear site improvements acre $5,920.00 0.2 $1,184 b earthwork for site improvements/launching ramp Cu yd $10.00 1,200 $12,000 c concrete launching ramps each $44,500.00 1 $44,500 d launching platform, treated wood/styrofoam 10’x20’ sq ft $100.00 200 $20,000 e landscape/bank stabilization plantings each $9,140.00 1 $9,140 f parking, 2”asphalt concrete/4”crushed rock - 10 spaces sq ft $4.00 3,000 $12,000 g wheel stops, 1 0”x6”x8’precast concrete each $200.00 10 $2,000 h access road, 3”asphalt concrete/6”crushed rock, 24’xl 00’ sq ft $3.00 2,400 $7,200 i restroom facility, sanican w/concrete platform each $1,330.00 2 $2,660 j trash receptacles w/ concrete support each $818.00 2 $1,636 Total construction cost per boat launch $108,024 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $10,262 b design/engineering fees (const) 15.0% $16,204 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $13,449 Total development cost per boat launch $147,939 Swimming beach unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a clear site for improvements acre $5,920.00 0.5 $2,960 b earthwork for site improvements Cu yard $10.00 511 $5,110 c beach sand, 6”depth of area 200’x50’ cu yard $34.00 200 $6,800 d exterior shower facilities each $1,530.00 1 $1,530 Total construction cost per beach $16,400 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $1,558 b design/engineering fees (const) 15.0% $2,460 C contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $2,042 Total development cost per beach $22,460 Indoor swimming pool - 75’x42’=3,150 sf of 294 person capacity unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a Substructure sq ft $31.30 10,000 $313,000 b Shell sq ft $56.35 10,000 $563,500 c Interiors sq ft $20.00 10,000 $200,000 d Services sq ft $51.20 10,000 $512,000 e Equipment & Furnishings sq ft $1.45 10,000 $14,500 m bike rack, prefab galvanized pipe (exclude installation cost of $200 each) each $890.00 3 $2,670 n parking, 3”asphalt concrete/6”crushed rock, 128 spaces sq ft $3.00 38,400 $1 15,200 o wheel stops, 10”x6”x8’precast concrete each $200.00 128 $25,600 p access road, 3”asphalt concrete/6”cwshed rock, 24’x250’ sq ft $3.00 6,000 $18,000 q water service, 8”service line lrft $39.00 400 $15,600 s fire hydrant each $3,400.00 1 $3,400 water meter, 8”size each $24,780.00 1 $24,780 u chainlink perimeter fence, 6’ lrft $22.00 317 $6,974 v seed grass over 4”topsoil sq ft $1.00 1,564 $1,564 Total construction cost for 294 swimmers $1,816,788 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $172,595 b design/engineering fees (const) 15.0% $272,518 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $226,190 Total development cost for 294 swimmers/3,150 sq ft pool $2,488,091 Prorated per sq ft of total pool $790 Community center - 250 person capacity unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a clear building site, parking, access road acre $5,920.00 3 $17,760 b earthwork for structure, parking, access road cu yd $10.00 1,613 $16,130 c gymnasium, 2 full basketball courts sq ft $130.00 11,280 $1,466,400 d racquetball courts sq ft $121.00 3,680 $445,280 e kitchen facility sq ft $96.00 360 $34,560 game/classroom sq ft $83.00 960 $79,680 g exercise/aerobics room, 50 persons sq ft $83.00 5,000 $415,000 h physical conditioning/hydro/wellness facility sq ft $83.00 2,745 $227,835 office and reception area sq ft $83.00 1,000 $83,000 multipurpose, restroom, locker room, showers sq ft $140.00 3,400 $476,000 k bike rack (exclude Installation cost of $200) each $830 $830 I parking, 3”asphalt concretel6”crushed rock, 175 cars sq ft $3.00 52,500 $157,500 m wheel stops, 1 0”x6’x8’precast concrete each $198.00 75 $14,850 n access road, 2”asphalt concrete/4”crushed rock, 24’x250’ sq ft $3.00 6,000 $18,000 o water service, 8”service line Ir ft $39.00 400 $15,600 p sewage disposal, 8”service line Ir ft $22.00 400 $8,800 q fire hydrant each $3,395.00 $3,395 water meter, 2”size each $4,000.00 $4,000 s parking lot lighting, 10 poles system $127,408.00 $127,408 art sculpture each $6,200.00 $6,200 Total construction cost per center $3,618,228 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $343,732 b design/engineering fees (const) 15.0% $542,734 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $450,469 Total development cost for 294 swimmers/3,150 sq ft pool $4,955,163 Prorated per sq ft $174 Habitat Restoration - 1 acre unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a clearing (includes fencing, mobilization, survey) acre $5,920.00 1 $5,920 b cut/excavation cu yd $10.00 2,500 $25,000 c grading sq ft $0.80 43,560 $34,848 d demolition (variable) each $20,000.00 1 $20,000 e non-native plant removal sq ft $0.50 43,560 $21,780 f planning soil (6” deep) cu yd $41.00 32 $1,312 g mulch (2” deep) cu yd $45.00 16 $720 h soil prep/tertilizer sq ft $0.20 43,560 $8,712 i low shrubs/groundcover sq ft $5.40 43,560 $235,224 Total construction cost per acre $353,516 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $33,584 b design/engineering fees (const) 15.0% $53,027 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $44,013 Total development cost per acre habitat restoration $484,140 Baseball field - 300’ w/skinned/concession unit unit cost qnty qnty cost Ia clear field acre $5,920.00 3.5 $20,720 b earthwork for field Cu yd $10.00 4,000 $40,000 c infield mix w/subdrain Cu yd $45.30 100 $4,530 d outfield, grass turf/i 2” sand w/subdrain sq ft $4.70 75,000 $352,500 e irñgation system- Complete auto sq ft $1.50 75,000 $112,500 f backstop, 3”pipe posts w/supports, 2” Chain link-black vinyl c.c. each $7,800.00 1 $7,800 players g bench each $799.00 4 $3,196 h spectator stands, movable metal (50 seats) each $2,534.00 2 $5,068 i water service, 8” service line Ir ft $39.00 500 $19,500 water j meter, 2” size each $17,550.00 1 $17,550 Total construction cost per playground $546,314 a construction sales tax (const) 9.5% $51,900 b design/engineeng fees (const) 15.0% $81,947 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $68,016 Total development cost per field $748,177 Pier improvements -1 medium pier unit unit cost qnty qnty cost a special hand rail lrft $260.00 700 $182,000 b gates each $1,120.00 2 $2,240 c gangway-aluminum lrft $700.00 120 $84,000 d moorage system - wooden, linear Ir ft $510.00 300 $153,000 e pilings - steel each $3,620.00 22 $79,640 t bollard lighting each $930.00 12 $11,160 g integrated lighting each $1,530.00 37 $56,610 h drinking fountain at entrance of pier each $4,615.00 1 $4,615 i pier lump $196,700.00 1 $196,700 j benches at nodes & end each $1,099.00 4 $4,396 k ADA picnic table each $960.00 - 2 $1,920 I fire hydrant (stand pipes) each $870.00 2 $1,740 m building/structures - other lump $14,000.00 1 $14,000 n bull rail removal & pressure cleaning lump $23,000.00 1 $23,000 o new bull rail (one side only) lump $77,000.00 1 $77,000 p fenders/bumpers for existing slips lump $115,000.00 1 $115,000 q piling/overwater debris removal lump $229,000.00 1 $229,000 r utilities (electrical, fire, & water) lump $102,000.00 1 $102,000 Total construction cost per pier $1,338,021 a construction sales tax (const) $127,112 b design/engineering fees (const) 15.0% $200,703 c contingency (const, tax, design, financing) 10.0% $166,584 Total development cost per pier $1,832,420 ______ Estimated Project Costs (Appendix E) Project# Acquisition Acquisition Design and (low) (medium) Acquisition (high) Development Renovation engineering Kenmmore WaterWalk and Waterfront Al Master Plan N/A Twin Springs $ A2 Park - Lake A3 Washington N/A Sammamish $ A4/5 River 3,300,000.00 Tolt Pipeline $ A6 Phase 1 - $ A7 Swamp Creek 1,066,000.00 $ A8 Heron Rookery - Community $ $ $ A9 Park Land 1,746,302.98 9,768,382.27 15,396,116.47 Moorlands Park $ $ $ AlO Expansion 623,779.20 794,000.00 1,012,643.68 Partnership Community $ All Center 1,300,000.00 I Acquisition Acquisition Design and Project# (low) (medium) Acquisition (high) Development Renovation engineering Tolt Pipeline $ $ $ - A12 Phase 2 - - Kenmmore WaterWalk and Waterfront $ Dl Master Plan 200,000.00 Northshore Summit Park (Engineer’s Bid $ D2 Estimate) 660,000.00 complete Rhododendron Park (Master $ $ D3 Plan Estimate) 335,000.00 50,250.00 Log Boom Park (Hybrid estimate, Prototype costs/master $ $ D4 plan estimates 3,801,937.00 255,500.00 $ $ D5 Squire’s Landing 1,358,252.00 203,737.80 $ $ habitat 11,941,269.00 1,791,190.35 Wallace Swamp $ $ D6 Creek 626,500.00 93,975.00 $ $ D7 Civic Plaza 950,000.00 142,500.00 $ $ D8 Gateways 250,000.00 37,500.00 Acquisition Acquisition Design and Project# (low) (medium) Acquisition (high) Development Renovation engineering $ $ D9 City Hall Park 414,000.00 62,100.00 $ $ D10 Twin Springs 1,100,000.00 165,000.00 Community $ $ Park 2,200,000.00 330,000.00 Dli Picnic Shelters N/A D12 Sport Courts N/A $ $ $ D13 Dog Park 623,779.20 100,000.00 15,000.00 $ D14 Skate Park 15,000.00 $ $ New 250,000.00 37,500.00 Partnership Community Center (prototype $ $ D15 costs) N/A 1,330,000.00 199,500.00 Tolt Pipeline $ $ D16 Trail Phase 1 52,500.00 7,875.00 bit Pipeline $ $ D17 Phase 2 347,300.00 52,095.00 Acquisition Acquisition Design and Project# (low) (medium) Acquisition (high) Development Renovation engineering $ $ Ri Moorlands Park 808,000.00 121,200.00 $ $ R2 Linwood Park 511,300.00 76,695.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 8,659,861.38 10,562,382.27 16,408,760.15 26,731,758.00 1,319,300.00 3,991,618.15 $ Low Range: 40,702,537.53 $ Medium Range 42,605,058.42 $ High Range 48,451,436.30 Assumptions: Acquisition cost estimates are based upon: Current assessed valuation or recent similar or comparable sales on a per square foot cost basis (A-7)Swamp Creek acquisitions assume approximately 24 acres (A-4/5)Sammamish River acquisitions assumes approximately 14 acres (A-10)Acquisition assumes 1.03 acres (A-9)Assumes 15.66 acres Development cost estimates are based upon: Adopted master plan cost estimates, cost estimates from those plans may have been applied in other project estimates Prototype cost estimates prepared by Osborn Consulting, Inc. Hybrid cost estimates including master plan cost estimates and Prototype cost estimates (Osborn Consulting, 2013) Staff prepared estimates (D-4) Log Boom Beach restoration assumes 6:1 mitigation for .5 acre beach restoration (D-5)Assumes development of the master plan without a bailfield (D-13)Assumes 1 acre for acquisition if necessary (D-15)Assumes 12,000 square feet (D-17)Assumes eastward connection to Bothell (D-18) Assumes 5,000 lineal feet of board walk OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE GOAL Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy 10. LU-10.3.l LU LU-10.1.4 LU-10.1 LU-10.l.2 LU-10.1 LU-10.2.3 LU LU-l0.2.2 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1.5 PROVIDE VEGETATION. 10.2.1 .3 .1 In materials bonuses, proposals consistent Encourage Require providing Include flexible Continue should sensitive efficient biomass Integrate with Promote recreation surface Promote 39.4 renewable During indigenous hazard to Through habitat Through vegetation, environmentally Protect the development and the FOR environment. areas. include value development requirements development ratios, setback preservation to in 39.5 service natural areas to development Parks, the with in to perimeter uses landscaping density resources, provide the landscaping natural achieve Kenmore. cluster require and ENVIRONMENTAL and adequate development in or that community. and regulations Recreation, requirements, delivery sensitive flood new their to and and additional when noticeable terrain, landscaping, other water achieve review, tree residential to of in development, standards, associated control. environmentally into provision retain existing to development development and these retention areas and techniques. minimize surrounding consider streetscapes and and encourage greater usable greater substantial biomass. and energy. Ensure techniques and such drainage. parking protect policies. Open development of other plans including landscaped provision neighborhood allowing erosion regulations peripheral environmental as QUALITY, development the guidelines, use Space Consider wetlands, trees techniques stall/tree and landslide, sensitive for site. are of trails and development developments, lot and of used, Element, natural areas. along and to new size promote ratios, include compatibility. and incentives, streams minimize areas, is increase erosion, the to OPEN protection. view internal designed terrain averaging, parks. protect with particularly development maximum substantial corridors, the open and and vegetation seismic and and open SPACE, open development such to efficient environmentally lakes, redevelopment lot drainage, be space, Requirements increase EXHIBIT impervious as Objectives space responsive space clustering, and consistent landscape should retaining such density use AND trees, flood and and the for be as of in B OBJECTIVE 10.4 Maintain and enhance view corridors to Lake Washington and the Sammamish River. ‘PolicyLU-lO.4.l Identify important public view corridors to Lake Washington and the Samrnamish River. Existing views are illustrated on Figure LU1O.5a. Methods to retain existing views include, but are not limited to: • Retain existing views currently in areas of public ownership, such as on City- owned lands. View corridors and pedestrian linkages can be used to form a skeleton of open spaces surrounded by buildings of future development plans for those areas. • Retain view corridors in existing road rights of way, recreational areas and regional trail corridors such as Tracy Owen Station at Log Boom Park, Rhododendron Park, the Burke-Gilman Trail, SR-522. and along th68 Avenue NE, by requiring adjacent new developments toprovide visual access. Policy LU-lO.4.2 Evaluate alternative development regulations and tools to maintain and enhance public view corridors to Lake Washington and the Sammamish River. Existing and potential views to be preserved or enhanced are illustrated in Figure LU 10.5b. Methods to maintain and enhance view corridors include, but are not limited to: • Create potential for view corridors in master planned areas by requiring them in the design and permitting of private property development proposals. • Require future Downtown master plans to exploit potential water views through design and development regulations such as design guidelines. These design and development regulations would address massing of buildings, percent of width, building heights, setbacks, signage, and scale of the built and pedestrian environment. 75 • Address potential interference in visual access such as the NE 1th Street pedestrian bridge connection over SR-522 in Downtown through appropriate design. ,&flM4 1:IA&W LAq 2 L1W- ;ç.. \JLW’I’ -r&(L ;ep LE4c VIuAL Ls1&’$I Not f 2 I 4 only This Source: measurement. VIkir’ ft 4%1t) Jc..’AI(14 and to map 44fl kc 4)t Arai/Jackson Scale is •r;’’ .; is ‘ not TO4t intended . L- guaranteed V(I,%1? :- VEE 4(U- “2Z .. Architects for I4UL, ‘oM Vt ;f” planning to 44 l oFFc5 show & Planners purposes accurate ,: CRtt Ij 4:, ( 1 Lf1As.4 o’i (7t? L . 9ET ‘: —1 I , • —‘,- -- Existing Views k *ew1F — March ÷ Downtown 2001 : Vicinity JI. I LiEF fcr-m-’ —-I /.. LAV4 /E feasibility potential Legend: /ftLA.I; pedestrian A review. question — access/connection mark I - (7) T identifies 4AM ,WER f jL1 requires that ‘ IF’ / a rL..)r IjE t’&E VLW” ‘:*oP CEE JUfl_(L .. E:2.oLJ 17’’ W rcitT 9fri fIF IaAI Figure ARAVIKscN AItgI4 Ii Ii .t t1I1I44 I:Ir I LU1O.5a I LH1R Wills &iON & ATLIFF _ t%:.vEtc%: VItM r c-€”i c2t: qa VE.W” c Js41 MLL- AV Pl.f (th F ? 7 \/LLX?’ JL - I— . ‘ - . -.M FLC*’ ,1’WAL UI4M V . lb cvrv 12E1iLli . IN.c4 cy: : 9ZOM ‘7 iZ: ,p z’M % — —VtAJ 4W’7 ¶‘orEt(AL TC’ : 14Y T 1OTL? ‘ ( •f-r // Dt¼t V’’L’Ai- 1z, ?IvEE2 Ii k—I-- (_1 J- -3r ‘74: T4 LJ1’M1LT ThI4 Oi7T ‘ITAflON .. +V—fr I: (_- /ILAjt:, .!. w. ,-, ‘ - •i I’ •“i;wc : - - ‘:4’4’—’(-d$t icc: ‘J E14t C- taczc:, 4 . . !z, [ F Et]to LE tE C . 1 vE;’4; 1? ‘- WT’ frrf* E1 O(LVlpif 1 4. fP\/4t(O4 o 4 rr9,4- VIE ::p cNfr(o4: fN%ic - ti7KErf v1’ P-bt4 2 c4 A.Vt 1_1c’p; -vo UsE - LvER_ Preservation of Existing and Potential Views — Downtown Vicinity This map is intended for planning purposes I.;!j’\. • • only and is not guaranteed to show accurate Legend: A question mark (7) identifies that a Ii measurement. potential pedestrian access/connection requires ARAscN Source: Arai/Jackson Architects & Planners feasibility review. l.ItkIII * fl ULICH1 WILLIS& RATUFF I:. c(J1I :&TION Not to Scale March 2001 Figure LU1O.5b P21 P2 P22 P18 P1 P24 P23 P P Total P P9 P6 P17 P13 PctDeseripdón 19 Ii tO Tok Northahore Moortands Twui bIt City Squires Log Skate Sammarnish Park Rhododendron Kenmoic Log Project Pipeline Boom Springs(Portal Boom Pipeline Hall land Park Landing Coats Plaza Village Park Summit Acquisition Park Park Relocation Trail River Trail Bailfield Park Improvements Walerftont Pedestrian Trail Public Phase Phase Design Boat 44) Wattfront & ln’eprovcmcnts Launch One Square Tvbv Improvements Phase Bridgc Restroom One Raplacemenl PARK CITY esdad CAPITAL sii4,ow 659,000 120,000 FOR OF 20,000 65000 30,000 50,000 2013 $0 KENMORE, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THE qe4I IMPROVEMENT - $160,001 YEARS 100,000 40,000 20,000 2014 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WASHINGTON Z013-2018 siioo,00o $45,000 250,000 300,000 800,000 150,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 75,000 PROGRAM 0 0 0 0 0 si,2s,ooi $360,000 800,000 200,000 190,000 75,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Projected $115,000 40,000 75,000 2111 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‘ - si,zoo,ooo Pro)ected EXHIBIT 1,000,000 200,000 2118 $0 0 0 (1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . SS,7W 2013-2018 1,180,000 $405,000 270,000 659,000 830,000 220,000 240,000 950,000 220,000 320,000 120,000 190,000 65.000 75,000 Totals C