PRHSPSC PKT 12-16-1996 • •
::::>::>:>::;::>::;:;::>>::>::::>::»:»:::<:::>::>: : >:;: :: >:: >:: >:: >:: :: »:: >::
: ; >:of: Federal >Wa::: > >< > > > > ><< > > > > > >; > < > > >< > ? >< > > >
• Caty Iran.
.;::.;.
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC FORUM
3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
A. Proposed Impacts of S. 356th Project Action Miller
on Blueberry Farm and Park
B. Lake Killarney Master Plan Action Jainga
C. Take Grove Elementary Field Status Wilbrecht
Volunteer Campaign
D. Department Restructuring Public Meeting Update Schroder
4. NEXT MEETING - January 13, 1997
5. ADJOURNMENT
Committee Members: Staff:
Jack Dovey, Chair Jennifer Schroder, Director
Hope Elder David Wilbrecht, Deputy Director
Mary Gates Sue Floyd, Administrative Assistant
661 -4041
CITY CIVIL PARKS AND RECREATIO•OMMITTEE Item 3A
DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1996
FROM: KEN MILLER, STREETS SYSTEM MANAGER
SUBJECT: PROPOSED IMPACTS OF SOUTH 356TH PROJECT ON THE
BLUE BERRY FARM AND PARK
BACKGROUND
In 1987, King County did the original planning for the widening of S 356th Street form 1st
Ave South to SR -99. This original plan included building a fill across the West Hylebos
Wetland. After a Value Engineering Study determined that there were better alternates
than were discussed in the 1987 EIS, the City re- evaluated the design and in 1992
prepared a Supplemental EIS that presented additional alternatives that lessened the
impact of the project on the wetlands by constructing a 320 foot long bridge across the
wetland. The bridge also reconnects the wetlands north and south of the road providing
fish, wildlife and pedestrian passage. As a part of this SEIS, an investigation was done to
determine how to mitigate the wetland impacts of the project. That study identified 4
areas that could be "developed" for mitigation. These areas are each bank of West
Hylebos Creek north and south of S 356th Street. The study also identified the east
stream bank north of S 356th as the area that has the best chance of becoming a
productive wetland.(Please see the attached excerpts from the SEIS for additional
information on this decision.)
The area of wetland mitigation needed to satisfy the Federal Way Code for this project is
based upon a 2 to 1 ratio. Since the preferred alternative impacts 0.62 acres of existing
wetland, a total of 1.24 acres of wetland has to be created, restored or enhanced. Under
the direction of the Streets Department, the Consultant hired by the City to prepare these
final plans has used information and input provided by the Federal Way Parks Staff, the
Washington State Department of Fisheries, the Puyallup Tribal Fishery Biologist, and
Soils and Landscape Consultants. Based on this input, the wetland and fisheries biologist
Consultants have prepared a balanced plan.
IMPACT ON PARK PROPERTY
1. Along each side of existing S 356th Street a 12 foot wide strip will be needed for
the construction of the roadway and sidewalks.
2. An area of approximately 60,000 S.F. north of S 356th will be needed for the
construction of the wetland mitigation. This land will be open and "usable"
much as the wetland in the park is now being used. An area of blueberries
along the stream will be removed, however the viable plants will be replaced as
shown on the plans.
• •
•
•
3. An area of approximately 120,000 S.F. will be required south of S 356th in two
• locations to provide for drainage swales. These will be placed along the east and
west edges of the Park property. These swales will be grass and shrub lined
"ditches" that will blend in with the surrounding areas.
4. The new bridge will raise the roadway above the level of the wetlands. This will
allow the culverts that currently carry West Hylebos Creek under the roadway to
be removed and an open channel constructed. This will enhance the stream for fish
life. Additionally, by raising the roadway a natural path or corridor will be
developed under the roadway allowing for the passage of animal life and providing
a route for a trail connection between the north and south park properties.
5. Because of the open space moneys used for the purchase of this property, the
Parks Department will be compensated for the land used for the construction of
the roadway. Since this land will remain usable for passive park use the amount of
compensation will be adjusted accordingly. The Streets Department is currently
investigating purchasing a piece of property owned by Puget Power immediately
west of the park as a possible replacement land for this taking.
ACTION REQUESTED
Recommend to the City Council to approve this use of Park Property for the S 356th
Street Project in accordance with the attached preliminary designs and direct the Parks
Staff to work with the Streets Department during the preparatin of the final contract plans.
Final plans will be brought back to the Commission. At this time the project is not funded
for construction.
• •
•
5.0 NIITIGATION PLAN
5.1 Conceptual Elements
Mitigation, as defined under SEPA rules, includes six different types of action. These are:
(1) avoidance of the impact; (2) minimizing the impact; (3) rectifying (repairing,
rehabilitation, restoring) the affected environment; (4) reducing or eliminating the impacts
over time; (5) compensating for the impact; and (6) monitoring the impact and taking
appropriate corrective action.
Avoidance and minimization of impacts is primarily accomplished through modification of the
proposed actions and their implementation. Compensation for adverse impacts which cannot
be avoided or minimized includes creation of replacement resources, and /or enhancement of
equivalent resources of a lower value.
This mitigation plan was developed to address the impacts identified in Section 4.0 above for
the action alternatives. Alternative S -1, the no- action alternative, was not considered in the
Mitigation Plan because "no- action" requires no mitigation. Because of the similarities in the
impacts of all of the action alternatives, common mitigation elements were developed for the
following project related impacts.
1. Alteration and removal of existing wetland vegetation along the proposed roadway
corridor.
2. Alteration and removal of wildlife habitats within the existing wetland area.
3. Reduction in wetland plant species diversity.
• i
4. Alteration of flood storage and surface water control within the existing wetland area.
5. Filling within the existing wetland area.
6. Potential alteration of existing wetland hydrology.
Rehabilitation and enhancement opportunities targeted by the mitigation program include:
1. Rehabilitation and enhanced anadromous and resident fish passage within and through
the roadway project area.
2. Rehabilitation and enhanced wildlife passage within the roadway project area.
3. Removal of non - native vegetation within the wetland and buffer project area.
4. Establishment of a native wetland plant community within the mitigation area.
5. Development of a monitoring program which evaluates both the project area and the
potential for mitigation success.
5 -1
• •
1 1
•
6. Providing passive recreational opportunities.
Key elements of the mitigation program include: r'1
1. Minimization of project related impacts through the selection of an alternative designed
5
to both meet development needs and environmental concerns.
2. Selection of an area for mitigation project development which provides the greatest
benefit to the environment and the greatest potential to meet, or exceed, the
environmental objective and goal of the program. Potential mitigation areas are
described below in Section 5.3 Potential Mitigation Locations.
3. Excavation of upland area within the selected mitigation area. Such excavation would
allow for removal of non -hydric soils and replacement with hydric soils at an elevation
selected to maintain wetland hydrology. Such hydric soils may become available from
the selected roadway development alternative. Such excavation also allows for removal
of inappropriate plant communities.
4. Revegetate the mitigation area with a selected diversity of native trees, shrubs, and
emergent plants which maximize plant and animal habitat opportunities.
5. Establishment of a selected plant community at a somewhat advanced seral stage,
thereby allowing enhancement of the normal progress of the plant community.
6. Re- establishment of viable fish and wildlife habitats and migration opportunities.
performance and plant community established.
7. Monitor mitigation program pe P
8. Monitor downstream water quality to ensure that the project has no long -term water
quality effects.
9. Removal of non -native invasive plant species over the life of the monitoring program.
The compensatory mitigation program targets the planting and establishment of native shrub
and tree vegetation within the created and rehabilitated wetland and associated buffer areas.
Such planting will increase plant diversity, wildlife habitats (cover, nesting, roosting,
brooding, and feeding), and local water quality. In addition, the mitigation program also
allows for the establishment of stream bank stability and increases in instream habitats (cover,
detritus, temperature controls, and direct prey inputs).
5.2 Wetlands Impacted and Replacement Ratios
Each of the action alternatives evaluated in the SEIS is unique with regard to the amount of
wetland impacted by the construction activities. The FWCC requires the replacement of
scrub /shrub wetlands at a ratio of 2:1 and replacement of emergent wetlands at a ratio of
1.5:1. The proposed wetland mitigation ratio of 2:1 exceeds the required replacement ratios
since scrub /shrub and emergent wetlands will be impacted by the S. 356th Street Bridge
5 -2
•
•
Roadway Widening Project. Impacted and replacement acreages for each action alternative
are shown on Table 3.
•
TABLE 3
WETLANDS IMPACTED AND REPLACEMENT RATIOS
Cxeato < estored on Enhageeiti::::
S -2 0.69 acre 1.38 acres
S -3 0.68 acre 1.36 acres
S -4 0.62 acre 1.24 acres
S -5 0.45 acre 0.90 acre 1
Although the majority of the alternatives evaluated have similar impacts and mitigation
opportunities, Alternatives S -4 and S -5 are unique in that they include bridging the wetland
and abandoning the existing roadway. The existing roadway would continue to act as a dike
but would be modified to include a weir structure. This weir would control high water flows
to maintain the existing wetland hydrology and allow fish passage at low flows. Very little
wetland fill would be required for installation of the weir structure.
As discussed in Section 4.0 of this Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan, Alternative S was
selected as the preferred alternative. Therefore, .62 acre will be impacted by construction of
the bridge road widening project and 1.24 acres of wetland area will be created, restored or
enhanced.
5.3 Potential Mitigation Locations
Several areas were considered during field reviews as potential sites for the development of
compensatory mitigation. Such compensatory mitigation would be required to adequately
reduce the adverse environmental impacts associated with construction of the bridge project.
Four specific locations were identified for analysis as potential mitigation sites (Figure 8).
These four areas are adjacent to the project and contain adequate area to meet or exceed the
City's mitigation ratio requirements. The advantages and disadvantages of the four mitigation
areas are summarized on Table 4.
Mitigation area 4 was selected as the preferred option. This area has the least disadvantages
and the greatest chance of success. A detailed mitigation plan will be prepared for this area
during project design.
5 -3
•
• •
I .
r
-s 1 >_
J /, a o
ZEE) c \ 0 I., j
add om ¢m
/- w
W Z J J-
W W W Et ' \ U
Q
' // — _ J
I N
t W
c0 O M
la D
Q M to
m W
.S- \ cc
6 Y N O Z I '
• cc O ZO Q O CO
O
z %Ice % U w 0
Q , j -J 5 CC
t> Q
■
.. I I N:s■ --.9.
--. \ I 0
Bos CREEK
WEST J
/ a
La
o
a
CO
CE
r W ] ).:D° N z 0
o o
LL
/ N
u-) n
1
N I. - --
N
■
/ 35 N N M
N
• S 3AV TSl
I
N
t
N I
L.
t •
1,
TABLE 4
RELATIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF MITIGATION AREAS
Mitigation Optcons Advantages Disadvantages .
Mitigation Area 1 • Sufficient area available • Loss of upland and riparian habitat
(Northwest) • Adjacent to project • Not in City ownership
• Large degree of excavation
required
Mitigation Area 2 • Sufficient area available • Mature cedar impacts likely
(Southwest) • Adjacent to project • Loss of upland habitat
• Hydrology requirements difficult to
obtain
• Majority of property not in City
ownership
• Minor degree of excavation
Mitigation Area 3 • Sufficient area available • Loss of mature douglas fir
(Southeast) • Adjacent to project • Loss of upland habitat
• Hydrology requirements difficult to
obtain
• Not in city ownership
• Minor degree of excavation
Mitigation Area 4 • Sufficient area available • Moderate degree of excavation
(Northeast) • Adjacent to project
(Preferred Option) • Hydrology requirements
• Easily obtainable
• Adjacent stream provides
potential for stream and fish
habitat improvements
• Owned by City
Each of the potential mitigation areas, shown on Figure 8, that were considered are described
below.
Mitigation Area 1: Located on the north side of the roadway on the west side of Hylebos
Wetland #18. This site has been altered by past land use activities and includes sufficient area
necessary for wetland mitigation. However, a large amount of material would have to be
excavated and extensive clearing and grading performed.
Creation of new wetland and restoration of a presently altered area could be accomplished but
would cause some riparian and associated upland habitat to be lost due to construction access
and excavation.
Mitigation Area 2: Located along the southwest edge of the 356th Street roadway project
area. This area is dominated by mature Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) trees and would
require extensive grading to facilitate adequate elevations for wetland creation and
establishment of wetland hydrology. The establishment of this hydrological requirement could
be difficult to obtain.
5 -5
•
•
•
The benefits to the existing wetland area may be offset by the loss of these mature trees.
Although it may be possible to contour around these trees such activities would more than
likely damage or kill these trees.
Mitigation Area 3: Located along the southeast edge of the 356th Street roadway project area.
This area is dominated by mature Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesiz) trees and would require
specific excavation along the narrow edge of the existing wetland area.
As with Mitigation Area 2, the benefits to the existing wetland through selection of this area
for mitigation activities may be offset by the loss of these mature coniferous forest and
associated upland habitat. Required excavation along this edge would more than likely
damage or kill these trees.
In addition, even with extensive grading, the hydrology necessary to create a wetland
community may be absent due to the impacts of the existing road fill on groundwater
hydrology. Also, the loss of this quality of upland habitat may not be the most beneficial
approach in the long term. Not only does this upland area provide high quality habitat, it's
function as a buffer to the wetland could be significantly reduced if it were altered to create
wetland.
ed
Option): Located along 4 (Preferred ) g the northeast edge of the S. 356th Street
Mitigation Area Op
g �
roadway project area. This area is presently an active commercial blueberry farm.
Management activities include regular mowing and clearing of vegetation to allow blueberry
plant growth and crop harvest. Field drains are evident throughout the area adjacent the
existing roadway.
The western (lower) portion of this area exhibits farmed wetland characteristics. The wetland
community could be enhanced by removal of field drains and selected plant placements.
Wetland creation would require some excavation on the eastern edge of this area. Within this
excavated area, hydric soils may be added and the area planted with selected wetland trees,
shrubs, and emergents. The present blueberry field extends to approximately the edge of the
existing on -site stream. Rehabilitation of this farmed wetland area would also restore instream
and streamside habitats and plant communities. Such rehabilitation would provide positive
benefits to the fish and wildlife of the project area.
An upland buffer could also be planted with selected trees, shrubs, and emergents to provide
a wide diversity of vegetation and wildlife habitats.
This mitigation area provides the opportunity to rehabilitate present wetland area, create new
wetland area and associated buffers to compensate for the S. 356th Street preferred action
alternative.
5 -6
G AR • 0
I! I c31 '' \
1 ,
L 3 y «V Q 3 Y .
1
• I i
,I
, 1 : •10. ________
iiik..._____--------,_„„..„ , .2
o
n II
o 1 . • O a
n R $ 4
F
3 j 1 I N
1 k�p
. p s
1i O
I�u 5% 1 .
• O L
..% �.
3
;,< p 14.
•
el p 1 >.
. 1 i hit ,••
`.° ` � °' , \: � \\ \•;0000 y Ai
m t• gt. N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \N\ \\ �� \� ,v\ I I 4y v - -- ; 0
Vii' .�. ‘r ,- 1 ,4 �. ..
�_ ! � '� ` - _ -_ - --, \� %%j am . f \ \� � ..
• � '�� ...sec -� ?�T.1.21 �: \ i, �\� .. � � �� \•
. ��. 000 � � ;, .:�- � �\
��� M . .
0000 � . ►. \\ \ \, \��\ tot).
� ::::..„....0.,4730. ..,,,■_, ,.,„,,„ , 0) 1 ..', —
IBS G . =s _ • ' . � ` .. / � � �' .
• ...,,, �000 - : =. :: \\ \•\
0 i i _ .00(50. • I . ' �p ; . �_:.�:! � �
I
ce'- 6
- asP000O000 e �oL..- � . ,a
i - - -- o.on 0004o - s .:� _ v � o s ' • �T9 :. fig'
I t�- . ---... : „.„,00 -... �+F` mac— 7 4 \ o ` 1� c- �ole:.'�I .
• (n 14 j la `M - - - L� l b a .••i . - \ � '� 4 .,.. 1iI �
D= 1 \ 1
rn
O d 1 I.1
I
•
0 Z I
`°Z 1 I.
o 1
•
g i $
a i
0
"t[ S656o ^nw C•t >LOT SCA‘C I , :•'t• 00 /}) /16 tK •67Sw• ..0, - \0..600051
G G • • •
• �
¶ fl '
.
I 11 �� it H ' ' m
0
o y _ p x s
^ A 7 4 t i $
F g F 8
T. o c m
3 I
i I
o • •
•
c , , /y
o? ( 1
•
•
1 i . ,,. . .. It "I' I4 . . - / /• .,. �: $ j ' � ' I y I 1. •
•
�: r i.
. •
Y I {g l — — • ' '� x £SJ „.,. 05 C0.E r /
: h Y • • / y ' • 1
1 8 1 `
i ,,, - . 1.1: il ,/ / ... 4( i j:
I :,�1 • / l ,y / ( t 1 6
1, , .i I (• / / . 1 %. r '
I ` I• � 1' I oan B BIOCE \ 1 i I I j i q I
- , � , • - cal ) d._ i • 5 6FI -F-$'� - — - — - — - — - — - — - ... •
1 I »I 1 2 EE:i _ _ _ _ _ _ ._. --- _— __II J _4 !al. _ — _ _ _ __ - f —
m
®
:I
; o
1:_‘ ,
1 „
: 1 1 i a I 9
At V F,.- . - ,
WI
VI I
F4 A m I I �
N
y r Nx 1 I • : i t :: .
•
zX �o
�m I
(0 i
Cn z
z
0 I ------------------------------------L------------------------------
•
of
m
-- aI
i
T''
i I
• • • I
ti,' o
•
___ h
N 4 p V) X Z
/ i a
a s
•
1 L 0
, N !_ii
- ---- --- -- - - �I w
- - -- � 1i
I 1 a toN
I! th
1 cc) w W : /:ii : . iii II I -6i
>1 .
II�� ________________t___11 �I
V:III ) :®I i •
I:
-,, I I !
, -- ,,,,,,
1 t.,
1 K 6 R ,, A s '
,/,‘., , ; , : .......... , . 5 / 70 1
; • 1
. 9:rn ®iIi'� – -- .. -' \ ' r!\ = arra!rv9m / - - - -•1
I ... 1 i I 1 a
, �� ( 3 00186 w9OI ` I
;'..,I A` / / • A � • ,i 1 • l i
,/ e:
/ , . N ' / ' / w''. , • •
"'/ I g / / rte. . • • 1 /
;l l 1 I l
/ 1 %/ ' I, •.9 / / ' . . // ; / i / 1 / / ' /i / / ..r / / I i
/ is % r • i �/✓ i
Kr i
/ % J
1 1 d r. � � I i
•
2 1
1
R
F
f 1';' 1 x e a Y
I < 4 Y asx
52 W
W .II $III 1 .
0 I I
. UW�
\(oo 09r[O \gin 099 '•'^6( 0. .)w 96/(L/60 .L,C ■•. 31,05 1Ok 0. rr9s9:CS iL
• •
Item 3B
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
Date: December 10, 1996
From: Jon Jainga, Parks Development Planner 9(?
Subject: Lake Killarney Master Plan
Background:
Lake Killarney Open Space is 10.8 acres and dedicated for a passive park development. This site
originated from the 1989 King County Open Space Bond Projects. The City of Federal Way
Parks ,Recreation and Cultural Services Department scheduled the master planning for Lake
Killarney as one of its 1996 CIP Projects.
May 1, 1996, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department hired the Seattle
landscape architecture firm, Hough -Beck and Baird, to create the master plan for the park.
June 14, Hough -Beck and Baird meet with Parks staff, two representatives from the Lake
Killarney Homeowners Association, and a representative from World Vision. The meeting was
to introduce the consultants and discuss the master planning process with other lake
representatives.
July 22, Earth Tech and Michael Williams Consulting, Inc., (subcontractors to Hough -Beck and
Baird) completed the site survey and wetland delineation.
August 14, the first public meeting /workshop was held at City Hall. Twenty -five lake residents,
one Councilmember, three Park Commissioners, and three Parks staff attended the meeting. The
community commented on the future plans for the park. They added suggestions and marked
on the survey maps the types of activities they would prefer at the park.
October 29, the second public meeting was held at City Hall. Thirty -one residents and
neighbors attended the meeting as well as representative from World Vision. Fred Beck from
HH &B presented alternative plan-A , (Lake Killarney Wildlife Preserve) and alternative plan -B,
(Lake Killarney Neighborhood Park). Mr. Beck described the differences between the two
plans. Alternative A and B are based on public comment and input from the first public
meeting. The public participated in the group discussions and commented on the two plans.
HH &B will now complete the final draft of the master plan.
On December 16, 1996, Hough -Beck and Baird will present the final master plan to the Parks
Committee for approval and forward to full Council for approval.
1 •
Page Two
Parks and Recreation Council Committee
December 10, 1996
the
two
reports
from p ublic meetings.
Attached are the summary p
Lake Killarney master planning process has been a very good process. We we will be
The Lak Y
public involvement and participation during the public meetings. I e
ni
od community participation.
good om
g p came about from c tY
k that ca
develo
developing a unique neighborhood park
Committee Recommendation:
To approve the Lake Killarney master plan A, and authorize � aPP move fo with the
construction documents and forward to the full Council
• •
CITY OF
•
EO
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department
Lake Killarney
Summary Report
Background:
Lake Killarney Open Space is 10.8 acres and dedicated for a passive park
development. This site originated from the 1989 King County Open Space Bond
Projects.
• The City of Federal Way Parks ,Recreation and Cultural Services Department
scheduled the master planning for Lake Killarney as one of its 1996 CIP Projects.
May 1, 1996, the Parks, Recreation hired , R creation and Cultural Services Department hlr d th e
landscape architecture firm, Hough -Beck and Baird from Seattle, to create the master
plan for the park.
June 14, Hough -Beck and Baird meet with Parks Staff, two representatives from the
Lake Killarney Homeowner's Association, and a representative from World Vision.
The meeting was to introduce the consultants and discuss the master planning process
with other lake representatives.
July 22, Earth Tech and Michael Williams Consulting Inc, (sub- contractors to Hough-
Beck and Baird) completed the site survey and wetland delineation.
August 14, The first public meeting / workshop was held at City Hall. 25 lake
residence, one councilmember, three park commissioners, and three parks staff
attended the meeting. The community commented on the future plans for the park.
They added suggestion and marked on the survey maps on what types of activities they
would prefer at the park.
October 29, The second public meeting was held at City Hall. 31 residence and
neighbors attended the meeting as well as representative from World Vision.
Fred Beck from HH &B presented alternative plan -A , (Lake Killarney Wildlife Preserve)
and alternative plan -B, (Lake Killarney Neighborhood Park). Mr. Beck described the
differences between the two plan. Alternative A and B are based on public comment
and input from the first public meeting. The public participated in the group discussions
and commented on the two plans. HH &B will now the final draft of the master plan.
Attached is a summary report from the August 14 public meeting.
• •
CITY OF G
•
ECIEIRRL-
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department
Lake Killarney Public Meeting
August 14, 1996 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Summary Report
Meeting Attendance:
A total of 35 people attended the public meeting.
25 Lake Residence, John Spurgin from World Vision, Councilmemeber Hope Elder,
Park Commissioners; Dave Kaplan, Bob Kellogg, Dini Duclos, Jenny Shroder, PARCS
Director, Dave Wilbrecht, Deputy Director, Jon Jainga, Parks Planner, Kurt Peck,
Hough -Beck and Baird and Fred Beck, Hough -Beck and Baird.
Meeting Dialog and Public Comments:
Fred Beck, HB &B, explained how import the public process and involvement is to the
project especially if the city plans to go after any future IAC grants for the project.
He orientated the group to the site using the latest survey maps.
There was good public involvement at the meeting. The public asked questions and
voiced their comments and concerns.
The following questions were asked:
Q: "What is the jog in the property lines to the west and do you plan to build a road ?"
A: Possible street R.O.W. , we need to check to see if it has been vacated or if it is still
R.O.W.
Q
"What is the time andTlate for construction ?" •
A: Our goal this year is the develop the park master plan with public input.
Q: "What are the existing concrete slabs ?"
A: The slabs were part of the old Lutherland camp structures.
Comment: "These old slabs would be good for picnic shelters or volleyball could be
played on the old slabs."
Q: "What about using the existing trails in the park , the tiny trail are used for fishing
access ?"
A: The survey map show the existing trail in the park and the trails could be enhanced
with wood mulch or gravel.
Comment: "It would be nice to connect the trails to a boardwalk or raised area for
fishing, and wildlife interpretation."
"Let keep the park semi - developed to low amount of development and preserve the
natural open space."
Q: "What about parking ?" "Will there be parking on site or will World Vision or the
church across the street be willing to let us use their parking lots for park user ?"
A: These are items the city will have to discuss with the neighbors. World Vision has
already express their concerns about letting the public use their property. World Vision
will follow up with a letter to the city.
Q: "Can the park be used as an outdoor education site for school groups ?"
A: This would be a great opportunity for school groups, another good example of this is
Dumas Bay Wildlife Sanctuary.
Q: " Can the name of the park be changed to Wildlife preserve ?"
A: Sure, this could be a part of the master plan recommendations to the city.
Q: "Does the survey report talk about the wildlife ?"
A: Yes, under the environmentally sensitive areas it talks about the fish and wildlife
habitat and animal species.
Q: "If the majority of the community doesn't want a large developed park or any
development will the city consider it ?"
A: The Open Space Grant dictates what type of passive use can be developed at the
site. An it will be a passive park.
Q: "Can there be some kind of shoreline enhancement and what about the 100' wetland
setback ?"
A: We can plan some demo gardens per the plant management plan thru SWM and
there are type of park amenities that can be developed into the 100' wetland
boundaries like soft trails and boardwalks.
Comment: "We can direct the different types of park users to certain parts of the parks.
"Direct picnickers to picnic areas and walkers/joggers to other parts."
Q: "Restrooms, who • •
Q s, ho will maintain the park restrooms
A: The parks maintenance crew will maintain the park and its facilities.
Q: "Trail Access, will World Vision allow the park trails the be connected to their trails
and to the existing trails to the north ?"
A: World Vision needs to check with their legal department on letting the public use
their trails, World Vision has some liability concerns.
Comment: "We understood as a part of their permitting process the public would be
allowed to use their trails.'
Q: "What about Weyerhaeuser ?" "What is going on with Weyerhaeuser's property to
the north ?"
A: Staff will continue to invite Weyerhaeuser to this meeting and will send them a copy
of the comments from tonights meeting.
Workshop Participation:
The public spent the remainder of the meeting talking to the city officials and the
consultants as they added suggestions to site maps that where located around the
council chambers.
The following are the suggestions the public marked on the maps:
• No Motor Vehicles.
• Parking for (6) cars next to World Vision.
• South tip of park is a neighborhood "Party Place."
• Reforestation plan.
• Passive open space and preservation.
• Keep picnic sites to be natural type e.g..logs and rocks placed in such a way that
are usable.
• Neighborhood park concept sounds good!
• Not a destination park.
• Restrooms if necessary at park entrance near road. Solar type like state boat
access.
• Garbage is a problem - visitors leave trash and don't pack out.
• Install coated chain link fence on west property line.
• Control night use and security.
• No parking and no restrooms.
• Fence set back 100' ft. from lake.
• Plant irises along lake shore.
• I encourage development of a few maintainable trails and restrooms.
• Restrooms near park entrance and road.
• The fishermen will go to the lake using the maintainable trails, this will reduce
erosion.
• There must be trash can near main fishing areas.
• I think you should keep the wildlife and as many of the plants as possible and
add some hiking trails.
• Play area for kids.
• Plant natural plants to remove grass down to lake.
• Add fishing areaslth small dock or platform. •
• Where do homeowners on the lake tie up if they row down to the park, without
encouraging mass boat activity.
• I would like to see this developed as habitat with interpretation center.
• One restroom is OK near entrance.
• Security of the site - how to control after hour users.
• Picnic tables out of large rocks and fallen trees.
• No tables - rocks and trees or stumps OK.
• South point - this could easily become a possible swimming area, the island
could be reached by wading out to it. This is not something I would like to see.
•
crrr of G
• `` ErZFIL—
VV
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department
Lake Killarney Public Meeting
October 29, 1996 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Summary Report
Meeting Attendance:
A total of 31 people attended the public meeting.
Which included, John Spurgin and Ken Rohul from World Vision, Park Commissioners;
Dave Kaplan, Bob Kellogg, Barbara Reed, Karl Grogch and "Coach" Bob Roach,
Jenny Shroder, PARCS Director, Dave Wilbrecht, Deputy Director, Jon Jainga, Parks
Planner, Kurt Peck, Hough -Beck and Baird and Fred Beck, Hough -Beck and Baird.
Meeting Dialog and Public Comments:
Mr. Beck, HB &B, reviewed and summarized the project to date and explained how
HB &B created Alternative Plan -A and Plan -B. Mr. Beck presented the two plan.
Alternative Plan -A is titled Lake Killarney Wildlife Preserve and Alternative Plan -B is
titled Lake Killarney Neighborhood Park. Mr. Beck continued to described the
difference between the two plans. Alternative A and B are based on public comment
and input from the first public meeting. The public participated in group discussions
and commented on the two plans. The second public meeting gave the community the
opportunity to select the plan they preferred for the Lake Killarney site.
There was good public involvement at the meeting. The public asked questions and
voiced their comments and concerns.
Mr. Beck resented a su ary of the site evaluation completb Urban Forestry
by rY
Services Inc. The summary is as follows:
The Urban Forestry Services Inc., completed the site evaluation and identified the
significant and potentially hazardous trees on site. The Urban Forestry Services
described the ten acres of park land to be a rich diversity of Pacific Northwest native
trees, shrubs and ground covers with a few remnant old growth Douglas -fir trees.
Overall the trees and associated plants are healthy with the exception of root rot
evidence in the middle of the western property line. Caution and annual inspection in
the area is recommended after creating snags of those few trees found to be a high risk
of failure.
The following questions were asked:
Q: "The point is nice area for swimming ?"
A: The point is proposed as a demonstration garden with restoration, board walk and
boat access.
Q: "What about restrooms, garbage on plan - A ?"
A: The park would have a restroom facility close to the parking area for easy access for
maintenance and there will be trash receptacles located in the park.
Mr. Beck, HB &B, proceeded to described the difference between Alternative A and B:
Plan - A, Lake Killarney Wildlife Preserve
Plan -A, A paved park entrance would be off Weyehauser Way, with 5-6 parking stalls,
small restroom facilit From the facility. Fr m th parking lot a view point looking out across p g p g toss the open
meadow with the lake in the background. Play structures, tables and benches would
be constructed with the timbers that would have to be cut down in the park, giving the
park a more natural appearance and theme. The park trail system would support
maintenance and emergency vehicles. The park would allow school groups to walk
along the trails and boardwalks, using the interpretation signs in the parks describing
the wetlands, forest, and wildlife in this outdoor classroom. The main trails would ADA
accessible. The boardwalk would be constructed with a post and rail system.
The boardwalk trail would be able to go into the wetland boundary area and along the
shoreline. Mr. Beck indicated that the green area on the plan is the forest area, which
would remain untouch. The lighter areas are the meadows with windflowers, bordered
with native plants. Mr. Beck went on to described the flood areas and pointed out the
area of shoreline that could introduce some of the demonstration gardens
recommended by the King County Surface water Management, Plant Aquatics Plan for
Lake Killarney.
Plan - B, Lake Killarney Neiqhborhood Park
Plan -B, A paved park entrance would also come off Weyehauser Way, with 5-6 parking
stalls, small restroom facility. From the parking lot , you would still see the view point
looking out across a large more maintained grass field, with the lake in the background.
Play structures, tables and benches would be constructed with more of the traditional
•
park material sold by the industry. The park trail system would support maintenance
and emergency vehicles. The park would allow park users to walk along the trails and
boardwalks. Trails would ADA accessible. The boardwalk would be constructed with a
post and rail system. At this time no interpretation signs would be posted along the
trails.
At the lake's edge, two - three Piers could be constructed for fishing and small boat to
tie up to. An informal swimming area could be possible at the "point ", which is located
in the southwest section of the park's shoreline.
Several picnic sites would be placed in the park using the traditional aluminum tables.
The public made the following comments at the meeting:
• "I would like to see chain link fencing between the park and the Feroy Property."
Mr. and Mrs Harris.
• "I like Plan A, Federal Way has an opportunity to preserve nature trails because
we are at the beginning of our community development." I am concerned that
immediate neighbors would prefer a private preserve and we need to keep the
public in mind."
• "I'm very much in favor of Alternative A. Please preserve the ecology." Please
keep park maintenance staff strong well- funded. They do great work /and its
great that they do so without chemicals." "It's important to educate fisherman to
keep area free of fishing lines, beer bottles and other debris." Law enforcement
is vital and frequent monitoring of the area would be great." "Thanks for a good
set of ideas," Liz Marshall.
• "for the people who don't live on the lake can't enjoy the lake until you your park
is developed." "1 like to fish, Plan B is better." Plan B has a couple of docks,
grass meadow, I think your parking plan is just right!" "Don't like Plan A, there is
no place to fish or swim." "I'm concerned for the people that don't live on the
lake that would like Plan B." "The people who live on the lake don't need it
because they have that access already." "You keep all the other parks clean,
think Plan B is a great Idea!" "Think there should be small area for row boats to
go in, would like to see basketball court if feasible." Would like to have
swimming areas, if more people on the out skirts of the lake knew of your project
they would all be happy about Plan B." "People who live on the lake don't
probably want your park, please pay attention to people who don't live on the
lake! Advertise!!"
• "I definitely prefer Plan A over Plan B." 1 -Park needs to be fenced. 2 -If play
ground equipment is put in - what provisions will be made to keep kids out of the
sensitive areas and wetlands ?" 3- Public leaves a lot of trash around lake at
present time." "How will you discourage this ?"
• "1 like alternative A best." Alternative B will attract more people in my opinion,
therefor the 6 -7 parking spots are not likely to be enough." Also the traditional
swimming, fishing and canoeing activities are probably going to continue
whether they are provided for or not, so we might as well provide for them.
don't think the play ground area is appropriate for the site." I would like to see
the "point" by the osprey roost, left as is - no restoration of plants," Keep it as a
clear area."
• "Park area for the people." "More people in area, potential fire hazard... I put a
fire out on the W hauser ro ert north of the Lakes summer." Keep P Y p area
as natural as possible!!!!"
• "I really like the concept of Alternative A, in that it utilizes this rich space as a
natural reserve." "I would hate to see this developed as an open park." "I am
from World Vision and very concerned about spill over parking from this project
into are parking lot." "We have already had our share of clean up from the public
using our lot." "Because of the corner access which is tricky and limited parking
on site, I hope that you will design plan A very low impact development." "I like
the care you have been using to identify the biology of this land!"
• "I like Alternative A best, the property for several years has been a mini urban
forest for people on the lake." Alternate A would continue that use." South end
point has always been an area where local children can wade into the lake and
swim." "It has a natural gravel bottom, excellent for that purpose." "Would like
boat and canoe access." "Would like limited swimming access off the south
point, which is currently identified for shoreline restoration, demonstration
shoreline planting." "It is a natural swimming /wading area."
• Alternative A would best survive the area, plan A preserve is best for education."
"Trash in and near the lake." "No docks or swimming beach."
• Alternative A is my choice, please keep it as a wildlife preserve." "Its nice to see
a plan that addresses such a sensitive area." "Trash in the lake, usually only
visible by boat, not everyone helps on the lake clean up." "I'd like to see the
point left as gravel w /maybe some vegetation."
• • •
Item 3C
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
Date: December 10, 1996
From: David Wilbrecht , Deputy De ut Director
Vd
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department
Subject: Lake Grove Elementary Field Volunteer Campaign
For the past several months, members from CPAC, the Parks Commission and city staff have
been coordinating the improvement of Lake Grove Elementry School Athletic Field. Part of
their effort included several successful work parties to clear brush and trees from the perimeter
of the area, saving the project approximately $12,000. The committee is now anticipating
additional savings and opportunities to include more volunteers in this project.
To increase the number of volunteers and financial support to the project, the committee has
developed a presentation package with handouts. The primary goal of the committee is to
increase community involvement by presenting information to local groups and clubs that may
have members who have an interest in volunteering or supporting this type of project. The
groups would include but not be limited to: Chamber of Commerce, boy and girl scout troops,
Youth Sports Network, Lions Club, Kiwanis Club, PTA and other groups.
Members of the committee would like to begin calling club presidents and coordinators to
schedule presentations, but would like the Parks Committee to preview the presentation first.
After the presentation, the committee would like comments from Park Committee members prior
to scheduling and making presentations as proposed.
• •
Item 3D
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL PARKS AND RECREATION COMMLTTEE
Date: December 10, 1996
From: Jennifer Schroder, Director
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Cy
Subject: PRCS Reorganization Status
g
Part of the PRCS Department's reorganization involves relocating all Recreation Division staff
to Klahanee Lake Community /Senior Center. Klahanee currently houses four staff positions
and two volunteer programs:
Staff Volunteer
Recreation Manager Korean Elders Program
Senior Coordinator Community Pathways Program
Special Populations Coordinator
Administrative Assistant I
The facility will need to accommodate a total of 12 positions:
Recreation Managers (2)
Coordinators (4)
Administrative Assistant I (1)
Office Technician II (2)
Korean Elders Program (1) (volunteer)
CARES Program (1)
Community Pathways Program (1) (Highline Community College)
The Recreation Division staff have reviewed several plans of the building's reconfiguration.
In addition, we asked the Risk Manager to review the plans from a building security
perspective and have incorporated that review in the preferred plan to date.
The draft plan included with this memo will be presented to the public for review and
comment on December 12, 1996 at Klahanee Lake Community /Senior Center at 7:00 p.m.
Staff will be prepared to bring forward to Council a summary of the public's comments along
with a staff recommendation of a preferred renovation plan of the building.
` I
•
Parks and Recreation Council Committee Page Two
December 10, 1996
The criteria used to develop the plan include the following:
1. Meet the office support needs of staff and volunteer programs authorized by Council;
2. Retain senior services programs;
3. Retain special populations services and programs;
4. Address registration and customer services;
5. Retain community center services and programs.
It is clear from the restriction of space available that not all uses of the current building
configuration will remain the same. Staff will explain the building's current use patterns and
how the proposed changes impact future use.
Once a plan is accepted, we can develop cost estimates for reconfiguration, telephone, data
processing and furnishings. The plan includes existing desks, computers, copy machines, etc.,
wherever possible.
12/ @x/1996 16:19 2 @666141 r CITY OF FEDERAL l�. PAGE @2
'__ IS'4RCHITECl' .. 5 ... TEL NIF2G5-822 -5490 Dec 5 1$:20 No
.� EW + �
•
•
1 : I 4 •••• '
[t ri § i . , _ . , .
_._ ___ ____.
f
il t C3 _...... I
•
j 1
L _ _. d ,4
ili 1 ''',,!
„ 4 ' 6 ----- :
t ill
'1 i Z , o
MIL
• , 2 ' t ,
, .
,,
w .rrrs tiS , ,.
s 'll
q
II
... i 1
1
r_
_.,..)
4
,, . ,6,..„ : ,.., , a , .
1111.M1 ._ A " I; iY', .)
ie:1 )--...,
. %EMI ' E i i ,.._ ,
■ t- 1 4 -.%
ii, . R i , ii. 1 41. Ce; i .- W
0 S i II 1
• rV. a '
IP - ' il''' al
1 Z.3 IN/
i i_ 1 illi :
1 i
.
12/.06/1996 8 16:19 20666141k CITY OF FEDERAL ii PAGE 03
"HE' E1J;I3'PRCHITECTS TEL I IF 2O6- 822 -54SO Dec 6 18 :20 No.O0 4
■
1 , r! 4 - . 11 E - \-\ i \
MIN ) 114
Fr 4 M
ri
-.. i ct .
, 1
11 * . , a „,-: imi _....,. i' i
..._
1 I I 1 ,
, _______
, , 1
, l' ,.; . . t
, ..,
t ,,,,, t g . IIIIILIIII Pr S i 0
1
; ': 1 ;
i Mil=
I t t 1
."
� •
4., � � �
li i , . ...
1 Al
• I U
f .44%
11 ,
•
,..
c 5 i
LT.4 i t . i .. :4
(. . ;i ,...a:
..
. . . 1I 1
12/Q6/1996 16:19 2066614150 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PAGE 04
7HEctEtS^ARCHITECTS TEL 0206-$22-5490 Dec 5410 18;20 No. (.)uk r. . Li 4
Eal 54-A.7r., i 1.4..zgm IN pi-as; i
&TIES. L..*K •IM
STATION INVENTORY onrir
ZEI an f ee 7 . 4 r . ' ' 2 "
. tor cgr■ A fiffi rT•bL._u_ii , ;
.." 40, ' , ,-- - • ,
1 A 7 .61; 1 1
or / 1=1
Jer, 1 Tifia_i r-azi 66 mg]
pe, z
no Cal
*ISM. 4.44E ANNA
INVENTORY
eanggalpiallA 0■1•1111...
EiMa (11;)
i
74,4 23.affera Li .,. .
......
ii...._..,
; AIR py,
r Ariz ME _, .,:/;; r _ 4r
402 r F(7i. 1..J • "
,ore arie
* ee r .r42 r rz-4.41.4 7 4 ,
i" Ar Ay
CE El i ---7- 1 Di
GC4-LitNila
LC AAP-A
....... ........--............. 41=■••••
. .-
, 1131 a:211
• CEO ki
0 •
* .
. r....„.. ..
. '
---, ,
,
, , . .
o 0
- - \
1 ItA01-
4 . :
p
,.....,,y..., . .
-du- .14,-RA04.- -1
'i' * t.,, s-5...41411,0-, tri_.., 00•1/41, 10 V1/4. *..A.,1U1., la- ti ;
. „ ,
, . ,4
JuKt,
• i, p Ari Jc.Klut .A..b- 0--Huru.41_, jcruN-4--1■-- . ...
toirl \AL-tz..t-tiNlAGA4-71--.
do
, k)1 , - AA-v6t, UL-tfrt
, t.)
■.11.14r tr.v... ,a JkAkk.- 44-14\- tk
::
_ 7\t,
•
i ,,
'I , 0..i,,u\AA., M\& , ,_,F c i dr , At i. 1 4-. ) ,, in te ir a ,
'. •
,AA-N., JA--tr . V, JA-kArc.,
OP
, ...
.1L/JvCii or4 fel, Qv..4._, it-tu •AA--__ . _ °
k-7
• , 41-inak * 4 11(,), •
,
• r ( --)\..,k),.. a \ LALA.-tsikd \i, 4..t.u, , Alt- sionar ,,,
00014),V$A.:18k-tV8t4COPOWAV4, ,
9 •*4' atAA-:- ,: ' I i,
, .
v ... io...t., ,Ats-t ,A1.4-- Ahiutit:UOLtikill
k '
ki
, i• ...tt_i_k. lir-IN-&)'41-' , ut,ro-tru.t..,r,. 0 1/4-th---1 st.
*,, ,
I i \
,.. , ,,,,,,,' Jo .A.4-k..1,r.01., ,•.y,„t(_.. .
- ski. ,
)
.
,.
1 •.,
i . -,... „ -- ,.,„ a
si .
‘u ,
v„
.‘ ,...:_•.:.:;::.:..,.;,,,.._......:,-.=L.:::,4;:;„7:,_.:!:...„.:._;_: ii
,7 : 7,3 r rA -7,7 , 7 1F - Z:n " LAC P.,,,,,,,i. ....,1...:. it - "'-•-, :---- ..-- ..` :. ,. ),
: 7
•
--A -
I.: • --- ----• -- .. ,
.....".1-i HALLMARK CARDS, INC
.t.