Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
976
Resolution NO. 9 7 6,> A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting a comprehensive Kent Parks and Recreation Plan - 1982, for the Kent Park Planning area, and policy relating thereto; providing for future amendments to the Plan and providing for filing of a copy of the Plan with the Kent City Clerk. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. There is hereby adopted a POLICY STATEMENT, attached hereto as APPENDEX A, establishing a policy relating to the Kent Parks and Recation Plan - 1982. Section 2 . There is hereby adopted the Kent Park and Recreation Plan - 1982, for the Kent Park Planning Area by the filing of the Plan with the Kent City Clerk . Section 3 . Future amendments to or changes of the Plan may be made by motion of the City Council at any Regular or Special City Council Meeting. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, at its regular meeting held >[a, tie.;'- Concurrence by the Mayor of the City of Kent , this /V'22e day of � ISABEL HOGAN, MAYNR STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF KING ) I , mhpoe, T"-�'e'agcd , City Clerk of the City of Kent, Washington hereby ce ify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of a Resolution adopted by the Council of the City of Kent, Washington at a meeting held according to law at Kent, Washington on the Ik day of , 1982, as the same appears on file and of record in this office. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said City this Z2 day of , 1982 . City Cl k of the City of Kent, Was ington ATTEST: MARIE JENSE CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: P. STEP EN DiJULIO, CITY ATTORNEY 3332-94A 2 APPENDIX A POLICY STATEMENT Purpose. To establish a policy relating to the adoption of the Kent Parks and Recreation Plan - 1982 as prepared by Jones and Jones. Organizations Affected. Parks and Recreation. References. Kent Parks and Recreation Plan - 1982. Policy. The Kent Parks and Recreation Plan - 1982, prepared by Jones and Jones, shall be the official City document which identi- fies the needs for park and recreation areas, facilities, and services; establishes standards, sets goals and priorities, and outlines course of action for implementation. The plan will be evaluated annually for accomplishments and modified to reflect current and/or changing conditions, resources, etc. The plan includes in its appendices a prototype for a systematic approach to the establishment of priorities within the action plan. This system is subject to modification over time as the City' s needs and goals change. It provides a means to measure the desirability of certain types of parks in certain areas depending on the factors of identified needs, physical features, cost considerations, and unique opportunities and/or timing. The plan shall be adopted with the understanding that it is a long range goal and a flexible guide for future park -acquisition, development and may need to be modified to take •advantage of unforseen opportunities. The basic philosophy of the plan, how- ever, is recognized as a guide to accomplish long range goals for the community needs, active , passive and cultural activities . The Parks Committee of the City Council recognizes that certain elements of the plan are dependent upon the type of financing available, including City budgets, grants from various government agencies, private donations, etc. It is recognized that some of the elements in the 1972 ORB Comprehensive Park Plan have not been totally implemented because of certain mitigating conditions, i .e. , availability of funds, donations, shift in population, shift in perception of needs, and revised C. I .P. plans, as approved by City Council. However, the elements have been considered in light of changing needs, goals and are an integral part of this developing process. 3333-106A RESOLUTION 976 • Review Draft (book) Kent Parks & Recreation Plan 1982 (dated August 1, 1982) • Adopted on 10/18/1982 by Resolution #976 • See CONO 118, Parks & Rec. Plan 1982 KENT TABLES & FIGURES PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 City of Kent,Washington TABLE PAGE FIGURE PAGE III-i Employment/Resident Population Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 II-1 Regional Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 IV-1 Full-Time Park Dept. Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 II-2 Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 IV-2 Park Lands Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 III-1 Study Subareas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 IV-3 Existing Park Lands Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 III-2 Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 V-1 Summary of Needs Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 III-3 Natural Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 V-2 Park Needs as Assessed By Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 III-4 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 V-3 Facility Needs As Assessed By Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 III-5 School Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 VI-1 Proposed Acquisition & Development, 1982-1987 . . . . . . . . 84 III-6 Vehicular and Transit Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 VI-2 Proposed Acquisition & Development, 1987-2000 . . . . . . . . 85 III-7 Historic Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 VII-1 1982-87 Land Acquisition Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 IV-1 Departmental Organization Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 VII-2 1982-87 Development Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 IV-2 Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities . . . . . . . . . 46a (Fold Out) VII-3 Capital Improvement Projects Funding Breakdown . . . . . . . 103 V-1 The Needs Analysis Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 VII-4 Kent OF--rational Budgets & Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 VI-1 Park System Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80a VII-5 Potential Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 (Fold Out) VII-6 Action Plan: 1982-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 V KENT PREFACE PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 city of Kent,Washington The City of Kent is rapidly becoming a major urban center, with a significant portion of the region's employment and population. By the year 2000 (just over 15 years from now) the study area will be home to over 75,000 people and will employ 50,000 or more workers. The impact of this growth on Kent's quality of life will be very great. The Kent Valley may be as densely developed as Seattle's Duwamish Industrial Area by the year 2000. Without major new provisions for parks and open space, Kent will not be a city of choice for future generations. On the other hand, the influx of new industry and residents represents a major opportunity for Kent. These financial and human resources can help create an unparalleled range of environmental, recreational, and cultural choices. The Parks & Recreation Master Plan looks to this potential in its approach and recommendations for the City of Kent. To develop a meaningful picture of Kent's future potential, we start from the basic premise that the people of Kent have the will and the ability to control the future of their community. This plan demonstrates that the ability to control Kent's future exists. The willingness to exercise this ability will be demonstrated over time as the City first adopts this plan as a long-range goal, and then begins to implement it through the recommended action plan. For a concise statement of city policy in regard to the following plan, please see Appendix A, Policy Statement. vii INTRODUCTION PARKS & RECREATION PLAN - 1982 City of Kent,washington The purpose of this plan is to recommend an orderly sequence of park acquisition and development projects which meet projected mid-term and long-term park and recreation needs in the Kent Park service area. By its very nature, the park master plan must look beyond the near-term problems of economic boom and bust. The plan aims to provide a long-term perspective to guide day-to-day park acquistion and development decisions. Without this long-term perspective, the park system may not be expected to keep step with a dynamic community such as Kent. There are a number of important uses of the master plan: (1) The master plan provides a great deal of valuable data on the Kent community in terms of its physical setting and demographic make-up. (2) The plan provides a concise summary of City policy with regard to parks and recreation. As a policy statement, the plan provides guidance to developers and land owners as well as to City, County and State agencies. (3) The plan provides guidance on lands to be acquired and the most desirable sequence for this acquisition. This guidance is important in regard to City acceptance of park donations by land developers as well as for land purchases. (4) The plan establishes a 6-year CIP for parks development projects that is consistent with the priorities of the plan and the needs of the people served by the system. Because of its strategic importance to the City of Kent, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan should be updated at least every 5 years. Kent's first master plan was completed in 1972. This update of the 1972 plan comes 10 years later. Hopefully, the 1982 plan will be updated no later than 1987 and a complete reassessment will occur in 1992, when 1990 census figures will be available. 1. SUMMARY of FINDINGS KENT PARKS & RECREATION & RECOMMENDATIONS PLAN 1982 city of Kent,Washington The following sections summarize the major findings and recommendations of this plan. Also described are the key assumptions upon which many of the findings and recommendations rest. For further elaboration of certain findings and recommenda- tions, please see the pages referenced. 1.0 KEY ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THE MASTER PLAN 1.1 The "service area" for Kent Parks & Recreation facility planning extends to the city limits on the west, 277th Street on the south, 148th Avenue on the east, and 208th Street and the Renton and Tukwila City Limits on the north (page 13). 1.2 The overall study contains three geographic subareas: West Hill, Valley Floor, and East Hill (page 19). 1.3 There will be continued population growth in the study area at or above the levels projected by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (P.S.C.O.G.) (Appendix E). 1.4 The distribution of population will shift eastward within the study area over the next 15 years, with more growth occurring in the Valley Floor and the East Hill area. 1.5 Industrial growth will continue in the Valley Floor at or above projected levels. This growth threatens a major portion of all open lands east and north of the Green River. 1.6 There will be a higher proportion of older people in the population. 1.7 The demand for recreational facilities will increase at an equal or greater rate than the population growth rate. There are several reasons for this, including shorter work weeks and the increase in the perceived importance of recreation and physical g fitness in society. KENT 1.8 The automobile will continue its dominance as the primary means of transporta- PARKS & tion in Kent and vicinity. RECREATION - PLAN • 1982 .1.9 Green and open spaces within urban areas are important to the physical and mental well-being of the population. The demand for protected open space within Kent City of will continue to increase as residents become increasingly aware of the rapid rate at Kent,Washington which farmlands and other traditional open areas within the study area are being consumed. 1.10 Federal and state funding for local communities will greatly diminish over the near term (page 109). 1.11 Recreation costs will contribute to a renewed interest in recreational opportun- ities closer to horne. 2.0 MAJOR FINDINGS 2.1 EXISTING FACILITIES & PROGRAMS 2.1.1 Most community park facilities are located in the Valley Floor, which is centrally located between the West Hill and East Hill population concentrations (page 43). 2.1.2 Sixty-three percent (63%) of park lands & facilities within the service area are owned by King County and thirty-seven percent (37%) by the City of Kent. Population distribution is fifty-seven percent (57%) for the County and forty-three percent (43%) for the city. The County has taken major responsibility for Greenbelt & Special Resource Parks (Soos Creek & Green River) and the city has taken major responsibility for community parks & facilities. Neither the City nor the County has developed adequate neighborhood facilities. 2.1.3 The City of Kent's facilities are very well maintained. 2.1.4 School facilities at the elementary level are typically substandard for league play. Jr. and Sr. High facilities are generally acceptable, although not always up to preferred standards. 2.1.5 Recreation programming for the planning area is the responsibility of the City of - Kent Parks Department. Programming has generally responded well to changing recrea- 4 tional demands. 2.1.6 Approximately sixty percent (60%) of the existing service area is over a mile KENT I from any neighborhood or community park facility. Most of these "unserved" areas PARKS & are in the industrial portion of the Valley Floor and the lower density parts of East RECREATION1982 F Hill. M 2.1.7 There is very poor provision for pedestrian and bicycle access between parks and City of Kent,Washington schools and the residential areas which these facilities serve. Most park users must drive to facilities. 2.1.8 Access to a computer system would (a) simplify program registration procedures, b allow the collection and tabulation of information about the populations being served, and (c) help reduce scheduling conflicts at Parks Department and School District facilities. 2.2 DEMAND & NEEDS 2.2.1 There are not enough Neighborhood Parks and Greenbelt/Special Resource Parks, even for present needs (page 75). 2.2.2 Community Park facilities are relatively adequate but will require expansion to accommodate future community growth (page 78). 2.2.3 Opportunities for water-oriented activities are needed both now and for the future (page 67). 2.2.4 There is a very strong desire on the part of people living within all parts of the study area to see expansion of the Green River Park & Trails System (page 69). 2.2.5 Overall, residents of the study area consider parks, facilities, and programs to be important City services, are satisfied with the job the Parks and Recreation Department has done in the past, and are willing to pay to ensure the continued quality of the park system (page 69). 2.2.6 The City Parks & Recreation Department plays a regionally important role in providing parks and recreation opportunities. 2.2.7 In addition to the resident population, an unusually large employment population uses Kent's Park and Recreation Programs (page 78). 2.2.8 Demand for cultural activities is growing rapidly, as indicated by the very strong support for the Senior Center, the Kent Commons, and the relatively new Cultural Arts Division of the Parks Department. 5 KENT 2.3 POTENTIAL FOR MEETING EXISTING & FUTURE NEEDS: ACQUISITION AND PARKS & DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES RECREATION PLAN • 1982 2.3.1 The Green River Corridor that runs through Kent is a critical link in a regional park, trail and open space system stretching from the Green River Gorge downriver to City of the Duwamish Waterway. In spite of rapid urbanization, major opportunities still exist Kent,Washington for the creation of a Green River Park system through Kent. 2.3.2 Kent School District lands and facilities offer the main opportunity for neighbor- hood and community park development in the East Hill area (page 87). 2.3.3 Four major environmental zones provide the backbone for Kent's greenbelt and open space system. They are: 1) the West Valley Wall, 2) the Green River Corridor and its associated wetlands, (3) the East Valley Wall (including Mill Creek Canyon and Garrison Creek Canyon), and 4) Soos Creek and its associated Wetlands and steep wooded slopes (page 80). 2.3.4 Potential exists for important consolidation of, and additions to, existing park facilities at Riverfront Park and Lake Fenwick Park (page 80). 2.4. FUNDING 2.4.1 To maintain the existing level of parks and recreation service, the City of Kent must assume a greater share of funding and/or devise more innovative methods of acquiring, operating, and maintaining park lands and facilities (page 106). 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 GENERAL 3.1.1 Adopt this plan as the guide to park and recreation acquisition and development, and as the parks and open space element of the City of Kent's comprehensive plan. 3.2 FACILITY PLANNING & DESIGN 3.2.1 Adopt the following standards as a guide for minimum provision of parks: Neighborhood & District Parks: o Residential Areas: 2.5 Acres/1,000 people o Commercial/Industrial Areas: 5% of Gross Area or 6 3% of lot area. Community Parks: 2.5 Acres/1,000 people KENT PARKS & Major Urban Parks: 5.0 Acres/1,000 people RECREATION PLAN • 1982 Greenbelt and Special Resource Parks: of As required. Kent,Washington 3.2.2 Enhance opportunities for park system use by all people within the service area by linking parks with trails, greenbelts, and boulevards wherever possible. The Green River, Mill Creek Canyon, Garrison Creek Canyon, and the Soos Creek Corridor should all serve as the basic framework for such a system. Creating public access to these features should be a city priority. 3.2.3 Adopt a City policy requiring all City roads of collector size or larger to have sidewalks. Work cooperatively with the County to ensure sidewalks on the County roads in the Soos Creek Community. 3.2.4 Make school sites the focal point of neighborhood park locations wherever possible. 3.3 PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE LANDS 3.3.1 Develop and adopt a Sensitive Lands Ordinance to reduce the impacts of development on steep slopes and wetlands. 3.3.2 Develop a Wetland Management Program in conjunction with the Planning and Public Works Departments. The basis of this program should be the information provided in the Jones & Jones "Unique and Fragile Areas Study" prepared for the City of Kent (July 1980), and the findings and recommendations forthcoming in the City's "Water Quality Management Program." 3.4 THE GREEN RIVER CORRIDOR 3.4.1 Amend Subdivision and Zoning Codes and the Shoreline Master Program to better regulate open space, building setbacks, landscape amenities, pedestrian areas, and visual and auditory intrusion of development on riverfront lots. (as recommended by the Green River Corridor Plan of 1980* and subsequent amendments to that plan). 3.4.2 Continue Inter-Governmental Cooperation with the City of Tukwila, the City of Auburn, and King County and other governments and agencies interested in establish- ing a regional system of parks and trails along the Green River. 7 ^m Sri., �:; �`• j a >��. a' `� r .. �' ��� � � �.� w , 7"' •:g:. x t'�*j 1 ^'�. '�•� �J e b(5 Ptr..'i4�..�, �F: ,y� q �,�1 t Y,yi,Fa'. M 7t �e. KO `& a^a ��',s�•" ' r ,- n r�{$�' +r,"i} ;F�� � fir' o ��'�rt !� `� s17 x � INS, m :�. :,�} :++ rCREATI N ;-� .Fa: a�e., �` �' fix;_ �ki•� ` " �,, ,x. `� '�' � ;,n, .��r � pZ ����s �:1. 3s t' ,r''rau}: ;;g' ■ Ytl '•" .;,�: e � k f^i�i§ .5Y •=�• -'ay 2' ) ar 'Y5 'j 'i J \?Ly. "''� �� -h. ' '.�s n�. '- � � �+ .,,: r$}'-,ys.. :„ar�Ttc, ar X? r,;.`�; i a �'�i"e 'S°'qe• '�.��=�?o�t„ fh ��"t, �' .y _ AN 1982 �4.a,�.,"'�lots; �,'.,'.�',c r.! $e sL ��• F 'y'�, Y- A }��� .r. ,, '�"��"e•3�'� -�'"Sss.Jr f r s �•t�. t`,t,.yv't y', �":k'`,q� �,�`' ''n.. .:�y , .; r ar;.,� -'Sf" a �y :��. r� '�:. '��ra� --r.•:`4�*r?\'_" ,,�.. :.�3cR�"++.?F4�Fif' u.-ate � ,C '° $,,- ;a�- (.� `�i' .:'a•�'x{.�,�4�k�C J ;,� � �y � t ui .r. ;'. •p ,r�•..,,, a� y i,F �, a,1 h{�� "�t� � 3.���� �r''r ��'�'"±' �'�s a� �xk r'�v j�.�s �. _ J.��'7 S` 't,�na' `, ,' ° s•+'dh xn ex �f 7,ni' t .t, t ff,�br , ry*ft : :'�k z-S.t _ x�, �,,� _ '"1b YFr�( f.. }.Vi t . t`1r-t .. 4'q`�gt. L�'�r�..�l�x. '$;.� � � �L<�t ...n•, f k;: �� .. y� �� ��y�5 a�� - �� � as 4 ..�v. �^a. " �'� �" k• L r ,���`� '.T S Y^ ... �� 4i t � A a.0 .....; �'..x_.:. Fein •�'F + .v;. 'tn..ate'• .'. cy^. .;�',_ .,czxp,A t.- . `" .?fig', r,^!"4ro ,a""' `3: °. �.if . wkS r��"'Fydy�tr �J• r, = r .a•. ,3� ",�°g; f at,a ,SSE t'. as k\ < r ` `,°�'•''�„y �su� t:s s." ,.4 •t`S � y+ No ,'Y:_S4u'� ta ,.,�K'3 t 4 !,a, 4`+34P,s�' ' f,: � ;, ;;f• 1 w J ,t...::; t t r L., ,y -.. z '' J7f''r�s s y� '""- x p YY••::``''''.aS '!Mal G s�tr•�s�` � r°�;`t� t a•�y�1u`+� y � rF a,1, .t ° z �� �4r f < 1j�yb"iLx. ,_. t4 1• y>a'�'>#v"*L`7,'. ; .�skY$r. " t,S�•. yx�'jtC' •,1 �dm;,,,rfs^ t :n,.,°4` .� 1 _Liµ r ro! i, .. �.. .'•','id .r.s4.'•'•s„ ,tic°..ji - t�E�f y z" - x1+ �h 'M IWO pt � .. - �,s�,,,, sln _; y i INN gr y. j( R ufi� Mee k ` �y�. `S d'� J & J7 �• s .�.w ar , �•' ,''> `�� q � h -.5 b y v City of Kent,Washington n lw 4 City of R KENT Kent,Washington PARKS & RECREATION - PLAN - 1982 JA N 2 1983 e MAYOR Isabel Hogan CITY COUNCIL PARKS DEPARTMENT: I -A"' Tom Bailey Barney Wilson, Director Berne Biteman Helen Adams, Administrative Assistant Billie Johnson Jon Johnson Dan Kelleher CITY COUNCIL PARKS COMMITTEE: Tim Leahy Dave Mooney Tom Bailey, Chairman Jon Johnson CITY ADMINISTRATOR Dave Mooney Richard Cushing PREPARED BY: Photos Courtesy of Fournier Newspapers JONES �- & JONES ARCH11 E:CI'S e LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC-I'S 105 SOU"rH MAIN STREET SEAMS.WASHINGTON 98104 TELEPHONE (206)624-5702 _A PR0P4SSIONAL SI RV"ICE:CORPORATION KENT PARKS & CONTENTS ` RECREATION PLAN - 1982 City of ",lAN 2 4 "'1983 ic�,t,w�n��to� PAGE VI. PARK & RECREATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN PAGE PREFACE 79 INTRODUCTION 1 1.0 Introduction . 2.0 Plan Process and Major Features . . . . . . . . . . . 79 3.0 Description of Proposed Park Acquisition . . . . . I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 3 and Development Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 � I II. BACKGROUND TO THE PLAN VII. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1.0 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.0 Elements of Parks & Recreation System Master Plan . . . 12 1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 3.0 Study Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.0 Establishing Priorities within the Action Plan: 95 4.0 Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A Systematic Approach 3.0 Cost Estimates for Priority Projects . . . . . . . . 99 4.0 Funding Priority Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 THE KENT SETTING 5.0 Cooperation and Coordination with Other Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 1.0 History of the City's Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.0 Action Plan .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 2.0 Overall Population Trends and Development Patterns . . . 18 3.0 Planning Subareas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.0 Physical Features of the Kent Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 APPENDICES }` A. Policy Statement IV. INVENTORY OF EXISTING PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES B. 1980 Recreational Programs and �- Participation Rates 1.0 The Kent Parks and Recreation Department . . . . . . . . . . 39 P 2.0 Park Lands and Facilities Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 C. Kent Park & Recreation Opinion Survey - 1981. V. NEEDS ANALYSIS D. Prototype for a Systematic Approach to the establishment of priorities -3 1.0 The Process of Needs Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 within the Action Plan 2.0 Findings of Preference/Use Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 3.0 Recreation Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 E. Population Projections 4.0 Facility Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 KENT 3.5 ADMINISTRATION AND PROGRAMMING PARKS & - RECREATION 3.5.1 Establish formal agreements with the Athletic and Facility Planning Departments PLAN • 1982 of the Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and King County Parks and Community Planning Departments, to create opportunities for cooperative planning and possible City of joint-funding for design and operation of some public spaces and facilities. Kent,Washington 3.5.2 Increase planning staff manpower and budget allocations to provide adequate on- site enforcement of development regulations relating to open space, parks and landscape amenities. 3.6 FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION 3.6.1 Adopt a systematic approach to evaluating park proposals and prioritizing them in the Capital Improvements Plan. The evaluation system shall include physical features, needs, cost and special timing considerations. 3.6.2 Adopt a system of graduated user fees. This would require non-residents who use the City's facilities and programs to contribute more financial support than they do now. 3.6.3 Require the dedication of land specifically for public open space where subdivision for development takes place--or assess a fee in lieu of such dedication. 3.6.4 Adopt guidelines to determine the acceptability of land offered for dedication to the City by developers. These guidelines should be based on the criteria suggested in this plan that establish priorities for park purchase and development. 3.6.5 Make every effort to purchase park properties before an area becomes heavily developed, particularly in areas not currently within the City's jurisdiction. This is desirable economically as well as for planning purposes. 3.7 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS 3.7.1 Cooperate with other City departments to create the maximum amount of urban open space and enforce the various city regulations related to surface water manage- ment, landscape amenity requirements, protection of significant stands of trees, farmland preservation, retention of certain unique and fragile natural areas, and required or allowed open space dedications. _. 8 3.7.2 Coordinate with other agencies to meet multiple objectives affecting the same KENT resources. For example, work with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Citywide PARKS & Drainage Utility, both of which may include recreational amenities as part of their RREEAC�REATION programs. City of 3.7.3 Check and update the demographic information presented in this plan as more Kent,Washington complete 1980 Census information becomes available. 3.7.4 Include review and comment on plat approval by the Parks and Recreation Department in the official city permit process. 3.7.5 Establish a Parks and Recreation Technical Advisory Committee to provide the coordination required to carry out these recommendations. This committee should include representatives of the School Districts (Kent and Federal Way); the City of Kent's Parks, Planning and Public Works Departments; and King County's Transporta- tion, Community, Parks, and Resource Planning Divisions. 9 KENT PARKS & RECREATION ' PLAN • 1982 NORTH rU� City of MERCER i 0 -1/2 1 2 Kent,Washington ISLAND ; MiLES I I � I i I I i I � � OG.:;.\\ \` SEATTLE � � I Y�J \1`5 05 RE ON 9 � I I 1-5 II I � � I � � I i � I � I � I i DES MOINES �. , I . I I 99 i --------------- Figure II-1 10 REGIONAL LOCATION II. BACKGROUND to the PLAN PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 City of Kent,Washington 1.0 GENERAL The City of Kent is situated in a high growth area. The State of Washington is perceived as a desirable place to live, and the Puget Sound region as particularly desirable. We can expect recent growth to resume and continue. As the existing open spaces in and around the City are consumed by develop- ment, several things happen: less land is available for purchase by all levels of government for public purposes; the price of the remaining land increases; and higher densities of both residential and work force populations require ever-increasing levels of all city services. Kent has experienced the effects of growth for some time. The City has undergone constant change during the twenty years since the Howard Hanson Dam was completed and valley flooding by the Green River was substantially reduced. Recent- ly, however, citizen concern has increased because development has accelerated to the point where it threatens to completely eliminate Kent's most valuable natural resources. Fortunately, the City of Kent has had the foresight over the past ten years to provide significant support to its Parks Department. With this support the Department has acquired and developed some major sites, particularly for active recreation facilities. In spite of these gains, however, much remains to be accomplished. Without increased commitment to parks and open space acquisition and protection, the fast pace of urbanization will overtake and overwhelm the City's efforts to preserve and enhance its quality of life. 11 KENT 2.0 ELEMENTS OF THE PARKS & RECREATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN PARKS & RECREATION 2_1 Plan Process PLAN • 1982 This plan has identified and completed the following tasks in the Parks and City of Recreation planning process: Kent,Washington (1) Determine the geographic area that best reflects the Kent Parks & Recreation Department's Service Area. (Section 3.0 of this chapter). (2) Prepare a list of goals and objectives for the Plan. (Section 4.0 of this chapter). (3) Develop a detailed understanding of the history of the city's growth and projections for future growth and change (Chapter III). (4) Inventory the existing physical features of the Kent study area, including access, sensitive lands, school facilities, etc. (Chapter III). (5) Prepare a detailed inventory of existing park and recreation programs and facilities (Chapter IV). (6) Analyze current and future park and recreation facility needs, based on projected demands for recreation vs. the supply of existing facilities (Chapter V). (7) Develop a master plan for the allocation of needed park and recreation facilities through the year 2000 (Chapter VI). (8) Develop a system that prioritizes park acquisition and development projects. (Section 2.0, Chapter VII). (9) Prepare an implementation plan with special emphasis on the near-term capital improvement program. (Section 4.0, Chapter VII). 2.2 Community Involvement The process by which this plan was generated was an open one. The primary mechanism by which the attitudes of the general public were obtained was a statistically valid random telephone survey of over 400 registered voters in the planning area. This procedure insured that a cross-section of people was heard from and not just specific user groups interested only in increased opportunities for their specific 12 recreational activities. Members of the consultant's project team made presentations at six public KENT meetings and City Council Workshop sessions throughout the course of the planning PARKS & effort. Through this forum, City Council Members and the general public were given RECREATION "progress reports" on the plan and were able to make their attitudes and concerns PLAN • 1982 known throughout the planning process. The presentations at these workshop sessions City of and the survey itself were well covered in the local press. Kent,Washington 3.0 STUDY PLANNING AREA 3.1 Primary Planning Area Figure II-2 depicts the primary planning area for which future recreation demands are projected in this study. The area contains the incorporated City of Kent and a large portion of King County's Soos Creek Community Planning Area. The exact boundaries of the planning area resulted from consideration of a number of factors. The eastern boundary of the study area is Soos Creek which provides a logical natural boundary and coincides with the eastern edge of the City's East Hill Planning Area. The northern boundary of the East Hill area is S. 208th Street. While the population north of that line is not included in this study's calculation of future needs, many of the maps provide information for that area since Kent has a very strong secondary interest in the area's future. The northern boundary on the valley floor is the Tukwila city line. To the west, much of the study area boundary is formed by the combined natural and manmade edge created by the West Valley bluffs and Interstate 5. To the southwest the study area boundary and the Kent city limits are the same. To the south, the boundary is South 277th Street. This is the existing and agreed-upon future boundary between the cities of Kent and Auburn. 3.2 Secondary Areas of Influence The City of Kent's recreation programs are influenced by the populations working and residing in areas well beyond the primary planning area. While these areas have not been used statistically in determining future facility demand and need, they must be considered as important secondary influences upon Kent's recreation planning. Currently the City of Kent, contracting with King County, has responsibility for recreation programs in the unincorporated areas of the Kent School District (See Figure II-0. These programs, serving 77,000 people, are conducted through first- 13 priority use of Kent schools and King County Parks facilities. PARKKEN & r LEGEND RP ECCRNEA1 82 City Limits ir'-- , I Planning Area Boundary City of •••••• • 1I ISecondary Sphere Kwt,VVashington .. .::.`:::;.:.: <.. , : ; 1 I 1 ....... of Interest �� —"`' "` rr•'T•T•r.--J Lake I Kent School District ISO ' I ounos . ''• 1 �:k or: Federal Way •.. —1 School District . I 1 . . 41 �AMA b asas�asa,asa,ass, --- go . 1 1 1 . I •1 . I • ' 1 1' 1 j ■. • ,:.`:: �I Lek .♦ M.rwMn I I10,IL 1 1 ���!��asasass,asas�•• . 61 r- ---------I I I 1 1 —— Lske 1 I sawy*r I Lako iI Morton 1 14 Figure 11-2 PLANNING AREAI- - I 1 In addition to the program services in the school district, many of the City of KENT Kent's recreational activities and facilities are attracting a regional user group from PARKS & an area well beyond the planning area boundaries. This is particularly true for RECREATION activities provided at Kent Commons and the Senior Center as well as the various PLAN • 1982 cultural art programs and classes. It is assumed in this study that King County and City of other municipalities will assist Kent in meeting this regional user demand in the Kent,Washington future. 4.0 THE PARKS DEPARTMENT'S MISSION AND GOALS MISSION STATEMENT: To provide the opportunity and encourage local citizenry to participate in life enrichment activities through parkland and facility development, professional pro- , gramming, and the optimum utilization of community resources. GOAL 1: Renovate, modernize and utilize existing facilities to provide for optimum usage. GOAL 2: Plan, design and develop additional facilities and properties to meet and needs of a growing and maturing community. GOAL 3: Obtain select property through purchase, donation or easement to accom- modate present and future needs. GOAL 4: Employ a sufficient number of qualified personnel and where appropriate provide them with education, training, motivation and modern equipment and supplies to increase personal productivity, efficiency and pride. GOAL 5: Review all areas of operation for legal sufficiency. GOAL 6: Disseminate information about, educate as to the value of and gain support for all functions and concerns of the department. GOAL 7: Analyze, evaluate and update past, current and potential programming to assure a wide variety of quality leisure opportunities and experiences for all segments of the community. GOAL 8: Secure adequate funding through public and private monies to support the mission of the department. 15 KENT Ill. THE KENT SETTING PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 City of Kerrt,Washington 1.0 HISTORY OF THE CITY'S GROWTH Like much of the Puget Sound Region of the Pacific Northwest, the area that is now the incorporated City of Kent was once -- not so many years ago -- a wilderness of conifer forests. White settlement began only in 1853 and for many years thereafter the primary activity of the new settlers was subsistence farming, despite substantial damage each year from flooding by the Duwamish River system. Commercial farming of hops became popular in the late nineteenth Century, but that activity lasted only a few years. Kent was a good location for supplying both dairy products and produce to the growing urban area to the north and by 1900 the number of dairy operations had increased dramatically. By the late 1880's, the Northern Pacific Railroad had reached Puget Sound and a depot was located in the area that became incorporated as the City of Kent in 1890. Kent then became the business center for the surrounding agricultural area. In the early 1900's, the focus of agricultural activity shifted once again. As more European and Japanese immigrants moved to the area, vegetable farming increased. Some dairy activity continued -- as it still does today -- but more and more acreage was put into crops such as peas, beans and broccoli. Agricultural activity had also spread out of the valley and into the East Hill area, where orchards and chicken, dairy, and horse farms were prevalent. As recently as 1950, Kent still had a primarily rural and agricultural character. The population was only 3,278 with the vast majority of those people living in the slightly more than one square mile that was incorporated at that time. Change was imminent, however, for in the late forties the Corps of Engineers investigated possible solutions to the frequent valley flooding and poor drainage. As a result of its studies, the Howard Hanson Darn was authorized in 1955. In the late 1950's a great 17 KENT deal of land speculation took place in the vicinity of Kent. At the same time a record PARKS & number of annexation requests were made by new landowners; valley cities interested in - RECREATION increasing their tax bases and their spheres of influence and control complied with PLAN • 1982 these requests. The City of Kent grew from one square mile in 1953 to 12.7 square City of miles in 1960. With the completion of the dam in 1961, the stage was set for rapid Kent,Washington urbanization. Industrial development had been edging its way towards Kent from the north, but arrived suddenly when the Boeing Company located two major facilities in Kent and Auburn. At the time of its construction, the Kent Aerospace Center was far removed from other centers of urban development, but other industrial development followed soon after. With the increasing cost of land and assessments for urban services, farming activities declined rapidly. In the latter half of the 19601s, better access to the area was afforded by the construction of Interstate Routes 5 and 405 and the Valley Freeway (SR167). With their completion, urbanization was assured. Though not all of the farm land has yet been converted to other uses, much of it lies fallow awaiting development, and constitutes a significant portion of Kent's existing open space resources. Even with economic slowdowns of varying durations and severity, the trend towards complete urbanization will continue. For this reason, in Kent and other cities which were rural until the recent past, development of regulatory and funding mechanisms to preserve portions of the remaining public and private open space has become a major community concern. This concern can be expected to continue and to escalate, as increasingly sophisticated engineering solutons make development possible even in what would seem to be the most naturally constrained areas. 2.0 OVERALL POPULATION TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS The City of Kent has grown from a population of 3,278 in 1950 to 23,152 in 1980. A great deal of that increase resulted from annexation in the East and West Hill areas in the 1950's and 19601s. While annexation continued through the 70's, the 30.7 percent increase in population between 1970 and 1980 (17,711 to 23,152) was as much a product of the greater number of multi-family developments in the city as it was a result of that continued annexation. Housing units totaled 6,750 in 1970 and 11,006 in 1980, a 63.1 percent increase. Compared to the percent change in overall population figure, this increase reflects both the trend towards more multi-family housing units and decreasing family size. The diminished rate of annexation activity during the past few years can be expected to continue. According to City policy any future annexation should be an attempt to incorporate unincorporated "islands" in the West Hill areas and to eliminate fingers of annexation along all city boundaries. 18 3.0 PLANNING SUBAREAS KENT PARKS & INTRODUCTION RECREATION The steep-sided configuration of the Green River Valley walls provides an PLAN - 1982 obvious distinction between the east, west, and valley bottom portions of the study City of area. (See Figure III-0. The division of the study area into these three physical sub- Kent,Washington units is reinforced by differences in development types and patterns, transportation patterns, population, and jurisdictional considerations. 3.1 West Hill Situated on a ridge along the west edge of the Green River Valley, the West Hill subarea comprises only a small portion of the total population of the study area. The area has been developed with single-family homes in low-density cul-de-sac patterns. Commercial nodes are located at major highway intersections. Some heavy commer- cial development exists along Pacific Highway South on the western edge of the subarea. There is potential for substantial additional residential development in the subarea: two major land fills (Midway and Highlands) are near completion and will be redeveloped for multi-family housing. The limited east-west roadways and the steepness of the West Valley side slopes contribute to the physical separation between this subarea and the rest of the City of Kent. In addition, portions of the area slope to the west, giving them a strong orientation to Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. School service to the subarea is split between the Kent School District and the Federal Way School District, though neither district has many facilities within the area. (See Figure II-1 for school district boundaries in and near the study area.) Unlike the East Hill and the Valley Floor areas, the West Hill does not yet have a "neighborhood plan", though one will be prepared in the near future. In light of increasing multi-family development in the other sectors of the Service Area and the limited amount of developable land in the West Hill, the relative portion of the population of the entire Service Area that is found in the West Hill area will be reduced in the future. Even so, the area is projected to gain almost 5,000 people within the next 20 years, placing considerable pressures on park facilities. (See Appendix E). 3.2 Valley Floor This is the oldest section of the study area, and the location of the original City of Kent. Its population is generally older and poorer than the residents of the East and West Hill areas. The housing stock is also older and comprised primarily of single- family houses together with low density multi-family units (duplexes and fourplexes). 19 KENT However, medium-density and townhouse developments have taken place recently on - - - — - -- ---- PARKS & and near the river in the southwest section of the subarea. TABLE III-1 RECREATION EMPLOYMENT/RESIDENT PLAN • 1982 The Valley Floor area was once an agricultural district surrounding the old City of POPULATION RATIOS Kent. It is now primarily industrial in use or is fallow agricultural land awaiting Kent,Washingto�n commercial, industrial, or multi-family residential development. Most of the antici- pated residential development will be located east of the river and west of the existing EMPLOYMENT RESIDENT RATIO downtown area. It is difficult to know what the future holds for development of the POP• valley floor south of the Green River. While presently primarily agricultural, it is unlikely to remain that way. The completion of SR 516, the uncertain status of the County's farmlands preservation program, the proximity to the rapidly developing KENT 29,000 23,152 1.25 northern portions of the City of Auburn, the ultimate decisions made regarding a Mill Creek Basin program, the Kent Public Works Department's city-wide drainage plans, the RENTON 41,000 30,612 1.35 availability of services from Kent or any other community or special district, and changes in the Corps of Engineers diking program are all factors which will ultimately AUBURN 19,000 25,822 .75 determine the area's future. REDMOND 12,000 23,318 .51 Great changes in land use and population over the next 10-20 years can be expected to occur in the Valley portion of the Service Area. Most of the existing open BELLEVUE 38,500 73,903 .52 space in the Valley is agricultural land zoned either for industrial or multi-family residential development. Both the number of permanent residents and the day-time KING CO. 546,946 1,269,749 .43 work-face can be expected to increase appreciably. The Valley's relative share of the total population of the planning area will therefore increase proportionately. (See Appendix E). An important characteristic of the City of Kent in general, and the Valley Floor in particular, is the very large concentration of day-time employment population. The Puget Sound Council of Governments currently estimates this population at over 27,000 people. Kent's ratio of employment population to resident population compares with that of Renton, a major regional employment center. Table III-1 clearly shows that Kent has an unusually large employment to resident population ratio compared with the King County average. With a projected average growth rate of 83 acres of new industrial and warehouse development each year through the year 2000*, Kent's already disproportionate employment concentration can be expected to significantly increase. The effects of unusually large employment populations on recreational facilities are difficult to assess. Based on informal observation, by Parks Department program administrators and on systematic address checks of recreation program rosters by the 20 *Williams Kubelbeck, 1980 Valley Studies. r' KENT RECREATION City of ��a� —��' --ems ii. il�i„D�r� ? F W _ - 11 ravii oil; i .�MAN MMI LANDSCAPE AMMECTURE M --- _ SEATTLE , �. ✓D ��� �.� far' -i�>/ ���a IF7 �• ��� _ �\.s1 ��1 r•�, —���•! ` +•w,wwill�u•� .sawnwWY.#��wp—• };77C ' �� � �➢6��fft•��Irrii�lldS��gilf i1— _ — - N KENT present Fire Department, it is estimated that an unusually high number of program PARKS & participants (up to 75%) are non-city residents. A recent structured survey of Kent RECREATION Commons racquetball facility users* indicated 40% originated their recreational trip PLAN • 1982 from their place of employment in the Kent Valley. City of Kent,Washington 3.3 East H il 1 This recreation planning subarea coincides with the City of Kent's East Hill planning area. It is bounded on the north by S.E. 208th Street and to the south by an extension of So. 277th Street. It includes Big Soos Creek and Lake Meridian to the east and the east valley wall of the Green River Valley on the west. It is part of the larger Enumclaw plateau and more of this subarea is within unincorporated King County than in the incorporated City of Kent. Growth within the East Hill subarea has been characterized by large multi-family developments interspersed with suburban single-family housing development. Com- mercial development is primarily in the form of strip and or shopping center development along the main arterials. The area has many transportation problems, congestion at peak flow being the chief among them. These problems were generally perceived as the least desirable aspect of living in the East Hill area by those surveyed in the City's East Hill planning effort. Approximately 32,725 of the planning area population live in East Hill, as of the 1980 census. This represents 60.5% of the total population of the planning area. This proportional relationship can be expected to persist for many years. (See Appendix E). The population for the East Hill area has grown faster than anticipated; a comparision of the U.S. Census Bureau advance count figures with the Puget Sound Council of Governments 1980 projections for the East Hill area shows the actual population to be almost 50 percent higher than projected. Large parts of this subarea are visually oriented towards the Cascades and these broad vistas contribute to a feeling of remoteness and a sense that urban development is minimal. The area is still dotted with farms; although little crop farming is taking place, some animal grazing continues, with small-to medium-size horse farms being the most prevalent. 22 * Bill Munday Associates. KENT PARKS & RECREATION _ PLAN • 1982 City of 3l► s� -- Kerrt,lNashington 1 Expanding industry on the Valley Floor, j43M, It k:8ia. • N The steep wooded slopes of the east and west valley walls form the boundaries for Kent's three subareas: West Hill, East Hill, and the Valley Floor (above). +'~ 23 4.0 PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE KENT SETTING KENT PARKS & Many existing physical features of the study area have important implications RECREATION for park and open space planning. These features are both natural and manmade and PLAN • 1982 include: City of Topography Kent,Washington Natural Features Land Cover/Land Use Schools Access Historic Features The following discussions and illustrations describe each of these physical features. 25 KENT 4.1 Topography (See Figure III-2) PARKS & RECREATION Topography provides both opportunities and constraints for siting parks and PLAN • 1982 facilities. Analysis of the topography allows identification of natural linkages --both physical and visual. Topography also contributes to the overall sense of open space; for City of example, steep areas present greater limitations for development and are more likely to Kent,Washington remain as open space. The study area is divided into three distinct geographic parts by topography. The steep-sided valley walls serve as obvious lines of demarcation between the Valley Floor and both the East and West Hills. These valley walls are traversed by many streams and the canyons created by these streams offer opportunities for pedestrian linkages between the hill tops and valley floor. 26 A B IC E F G H KENT PARKS & RECREATION ' PLAN • 1982 w, Q ry.. F City f Kent,Wash'I ngton , , 2 2 y j m_ 6 - r • a 2�K I Y _ m .M1 s „ v - ..n s • i 4 0 x: s waa i ' t � 1— a r w° g x O F 8 � - _ f c, •�� I i "p 5 x r. ,€ ^ „ FIGURE III-2 / N -f 1. - .•_ ... / J ::. , - I J •, �, ,_ i 6 , ;. . „•e . •^° .:. � i t1 1 F.' ' �:: •, ••I-- LANDSCAPEI1NpifECFUPE J s" a O N & JO ES ARCHITECTURE ,os sourF,MAIN ET s o N : o I. s I 0 fE � , F ,. H z A B C ' D E F G F I „,.GCOUF- KENT 4.2 Natural Features (See Figure III-3) PARKS & RECREATION The areas mapped in Figure III-3 represent a mix of opportunities and contraints. PLAN • 1982 If natural features are retained in relatively unaltered form, natural processes can be maintained, wildlife habitat can be preserved, and potential green-space linkages can be City of created between activity centers or parks. Kent,Washington Certain natural features such as steep slopes are self-protecting to some degree because they are relatively difficult to develop. Their development also increases potential flood or slide damage to downstream or downslope properties. Although these effects are expensive to mitigate at present, increasingly sophisticated engineering solutions will probably make the future development of these areas feasible. The most obvious natural features of the study area are the steep sides of the Green River Valley and the major side canyons that are part of that same drainage system. These slopes and the water bodies that shaped them should serve as the framework for the development of a park and open space system. The features include the Mill Creek (West) drainage system on the West Hill and Valley Floor, the Green River itself on the Valley Floor, and Mill (East), Garrison, and Soos Creeks on the East Hill. In addition to flowing water features, there are a number of lakes and wetland areas that are important to the overall system. These include Lake Fenwick and Star Lake on the West Hill; a number of ponds and permanent and seasonal wetland areas on the Valley Floor; and Lake Meridian and Star Lake, plus some ponds, marshes, and swamps on the East Hill. 28 � ��� �'%, if• - :9 I y�, /� // / KENT n RECREATIPARKS & yam, • b iCity of A Wetlands Open Water Body RIM 0 i� '�ry 'a�� ����i�% ®i �` �� •.,� �� Jai % , if von, •.:" � � d� r \ /o/� / I s/i 'i���, OE . low FIGURE 111-3 LANDSCAPE ARCHrFECTURIE �� '�� o ���s%icy� _ /Y•�• �C�II�� �� � �, '� ,� ' ' � 1 / IN SOUTH MAM STREET SEATTLE �' ARCHnECTURE Rol., M. - ..... Elm A— tool F"Mw Eve KENT 4.3 Land Use & Land Cover (See Figure III-4) PARKS & _ RECREATION Land use and land cover are combined here, because for park planning purposes PLAN - 1982 the two are inextricably linked. Combined with topography and natural features they comprise the open space structure of the study area. City of Kent,Washington Any land not currently developed for industrial, commercial, or residential uses would theoretically be available for use as parks. It is important to discuss both land use and land cover, because not only must land be available (i.e. not in some other more intensive and permanent use) but it must also be in an appropriate location. Most of the brow of the West Hill is developed for single-family residential use. The dominant land features to the west of Interstate 5 and north of the Kent-DesMoines Road are the landfills (Midway and Kent-Highlands) Other than the Kent-Highlands landfill area, the West Valley side slopes remain relatively undeveloped and are covered with vegetation. The Valley Floor contains more of a mix of land uses and land cover. The Central Business District (CBD) is located here along with low-density residential and commer- cial development. Areas to the north and northwest of the CBD are now developed for commercial and light-industrial use, including a great deal of warehousing. Much of the Valley Floor is still open space, however. West of the River, the land is primarily in pasture (cows and horses), while agricultural land to the south of the river is a mix of still-active pastures, vegetable farms, and nursery plantings. Little of this open space is publicly owned at present. The open space on the Valley Floor to the north and east of the river is generally fallow agricultural property awaiting development either as residences or warehouses. Much open space still remains in the East Hill areas but development as single-family and multi-family residential housing is occurring rapidly with interspersed commercial use (retail and some office). The western portions of this area still contain many pastures, primarily for horses, and some small farming operations. The steep East Valley side slope remains relatively undeveloped and tree covered. 30 r-- RECREATIONHIM KENT PARKS & I �1 • • . I Im r ! LEGEND Multi-Family ITNI i •� - � Residential 111 � '®® � E 11�� d�'�� . � •� 1 � � � � '� i 1lot �l NEFF MIM ..I I ld= VA II Figure W4 AFAMECTURE I 1 �; ■ WS SOUTH MAN STREET 1 KENT 4.4 School Sites (See Figure III-5) PARKS & — RECREATION Conveniently, and not so surprisingly, various schools and parks have similar sized PLAN • 1982 service areas. This fact provides support for the establishment of park sites adjacent to or near school sites. Where parks are contiguous with school sites, the school grounds City of and the facilities thereon are often able to satisfy some of the spatial requirements of Kent,Mshington the parks. This is a well established principle among school and park planners and administrators and where co-development can be accomplished, the total acreage requirements for parks can be halved. Several of the school sites within the study area already have parks nearby (See Figure IV-1 for the location of existing parks). The greatest opportunity for implement- ing this practice in the future will be in the East Hill subarea. This is the portion of the study area where there will be the greatest increase in school-age children and where undeveloped land is still available adjacent to many of the existing school sites. 32 A Q KENT PARKS & M P RECREATION A PLAN 1982 1E City of Kent,Washington V 2 IL 7 % 77 7, 3 E 5 P. V, 1% 4 4 R MAN J1.1.41i"i -"A T L:L, ''R 1-4 5 a 33 Vi TAE f SE FIGURE III o —5 U 6 —111431 v\_ LANDSCAPE ARCH"EMME JONES&JONES ARCHn1SCTWE 105 SOUTH MAIN STREET SEAT7LE QSIM IT. nil LEME u R G UIW 7& I I - A KENT 4.5 Access (See Figure III-6) PARKS & RECREATION Use of a park is not only a function of the facilities it offers and the people who PLAN • 1982 live close to it, but also how well it is linked to other more distant locations. It is certain that the automobile will continue as the primary means of travel in the study City of area. Thus, auto access is crucial to recreational facilities, particularly for community Kent,Washington parks which serve large portions of the planning area. There is little public transportation available. METRO serves the area but all routes except one are commuter runs offering only early morning and late evening service. All of the subareas experience some traffic flow problems at peak hours, but travel conditions in the East Hill subarea are particularly bad. Levels of use on many roads in this area exceed intended capacities and as growth continues in this part of the City and County, these problems will increase. 34 B C E .f` i� jJ ^.,. KENT PARKS & RECREATION ' PLAN • 1982 r.� \_ /�• (` t; 5'�" r `5 St c i i�% € �; S'\�, ;,,;\" S \ \ •( i i � �g i \�,- /.' -\��y' /� s I!� 1-7 13a 1 ,'+ r• ., 15 .^ 1 `` City of F V5 ' tf` ` v5 Kent,Washington LEGEND iJ -� --� \\l1 '\ •8- '8f .:,}(, �;,� ,...q € w5 ( ��'i f'� 6 i r\ < {a." \ \ I e , _.,` Z-3V 1., 2 eAting Freeway ��_;v � 1. \ F ` ��� � � \�� •' )� �^ � ^,f�^ v ���, A,� � � (� ■....... Proposed Freeway WV •-- \ € , Y r - 1 - r �i S >/_ ^ r'A5 9 Existing Expressway J <4 Proposed Expressway \ ) 1 `'r, " { §f f $„m �. 1 \ _ ,,II - •f ,� �' ;w\i; f ,, - ° - r ., iii iiiii. Pri nary Arterial t ' S • �` !r/i / "o„ �'I _ ,..P 1✓t - "j ai" ,.` \ F' 3 ,\ t l .+ ,;% �� ----- $@COfldBfy Arterial 4 5 "s, - 'it ;�. F, •a \\ '� �_ Collector �.. ""tom. s J� t\\\ .,.�. ; t\+i\t` ,;"'• - \ '.,. \\a 1 i \ 1 �� S ....... Bus Route Interchange 'fF€_• 'MO NE \ f ig F `t\/ J.. fI i +irci• �I-,. !1 \ �y�'1\ 1\� ' 1\ \ `� i, k• o r 1(\ 5 � ,tom 77 r, r ; \ �:ms "• S ���v r,��= � a. 8' �F ,��, � � ��+�� j�� � �" 5-.t€.^ -, `• I .,a, i `\ � i` a �u € 4 f _ir\r ',f %,-• '�\�c F E, ;�� 1 "�� / \,\ ',,\\ � 4 € _ a A �' - ._ ` 3 e•"3 '•- 5 � ��; ��� \...,.§1. \ � -, .3' „r r' ;§ \`\ �;. , yr_ ' 5 � t t 1 a". '� �'.t'4'" s� F an � - �, _ �� e t r-- ��1r `k. 7 .,, i =v.•\,.", �'° F Jh Pp E-A L / 3 `n • � o • I §' � € ^\. - � �`/ 5 '�' �,\�\1\- 3^ 5' \�`• �. `�,�`'ts. L \ �' r FIGURE III-6 5 • �> .�€5 r -. ,_ s° ,, ` �5\\;\ c i l�c�� Y t .� - ` uross.5we AaCWrEC7U15E 6 JONES&JONES ARCMECTIM 5 \\ \ sEATME 9e w sr55essr 4 � t � `J •,, r^1 i 11i .; � .ram^€ ��c._ �.\�` < <\-' � I '� ' �\\, ,. i '` € \1 _��� 'o sw,Ciao F zs „ A B D E :. Fu" G Fi r qMG��N r KENT 4.6 Historic Features (See Figure III-7) PARKS & RECREATION Where at all feasible, it is desirable to preserve historically or culturally PLAN • 1982 significant buildings or sites as part of the park, recreation and open space system. Such features lend interest and character to a park site as well as offering opportunities City of for interpretive facilities. While the study area has no known historic or cultural Kent,Washington features on the State or Federal Registers of historic places, the locations depicted in Figure III-7 have been surveyed and inventoried by the King County Historic Preserva- tion Office. They include sites, such as river crossings and cemeteries; buildings, such as homes and farmsteads; and districts, usually a mixture of sites and buildings. There are many such sites scattered throughout the study area, most of them located in the Valley Floor and East Hill subareas. The many historic sites located in the Kent Central Business District are not relevant for park planning purposes and are not shown in Figure III-7. 36 A B CD E. F � �� �; �J �. � - ,�° � ' ; r y_ /;=, , .,•a. a , \ � �` .� �E�`;�' �� F �. _ ,%"� `Y- � � Y� KENT rnconn , i i"is " `� i !! stl "�,• fi �' �,t, \- '\ ' t_ - .t� C- 3 " `- - �� ` � �'' :.,•�I � ,,' I r u ,I �.x.0 - , Jf �'� ,;:�® Y ~�. ,' � .'"w c 1 a� `�, PARKS & 1 ,aTEaNxnoN0l NaPoaf - \; ` �j w i ,.," .,.,. 5'ts i r rc.W, s \ s `s { P •s \" ;a7 L1 - o _ R, RECREATION PLAN • 1982 . ' /+. t r ' --# `�' 1 I s:® ti J f.s��4; Y �• ^g -s 'r \ \� , 'F \i". ""\� \ Q ` .3, >i i "� City of .a Y i Ec�» I ax I t , r ,,1 \ ,,'i` • 1 +� °,:r " Kent,Washington LEGEND 2 2l [: \\Y \ FE ea f r }1 /G `� i / s I i', i € { .a� ti, ❑ HistoricB.Udit " t ` ❑ . .a.i \ o-- � f � ..gi �� � � � �\\� 1 _ ,\ ( g 1+1 � �\ t ' a �� �t 1�� •:r Historic Site "s` ,\` s - ' H s i/ °�, '3 _F. `. z ;!,Y _ 1,.�Y '\ .�s .st 1...1\. �Y\ \�i_': \�' ❑° Historic District \\ sg, a \'y \, - e � ' I � \\ .'` ` , -, �,• t , 7 � •'S El N\ .! I (\\� A � l 1., CT.I 5 \ y A aC< \ �` 3 ice, i 3 ,. xrA ii '�;:'I>FV,o• . six y \ M1 5 A `jl � ' I ,� Y I \ -� \ t\�' ��,' 4 s.s s IA Fk isarsl j �.: ,. � Y f eat v' h .s: _€'- -W Y { :. �` -. x F ,. ',.7' ,� � .: ,. ,. :al'�/ � �f,::.--" \ FF• � '©� \J;��\ ( El -.._,\A �F l f- ^ -, .. k �.,: x `�� ^ Er-,. �e .::•6 / '.. F' + -i 'fir. � � ` � '' \ '»t• ; � �-� I I I�€ I A � F a5 F �'� $�, S � c� ,( \\f,s s 1` � ��.1 a N= � + h 2 - I• ,I �F . �� „}^—� '—}_.. 1 i� � gat � •8 \ � \ L'r°H \ _,\ W 3� •"x , • FIGURE III-7 , , F• " ° a Y F ,I `tic c A \n 4 wnecAwenxA.res.'rtm � �F i, � � I''^ �• °! Y t � �` i � � JONES&JONES ARCAaAECTM i 9DM MAM SMET sEArnE seas vi ® g "= I— 'o sro, zoxo [ a t'"_ .t ": id '4- 1 1... ^ .� ....,. ♦ a 'i,? F �.,,\ 3 „":..o...., mnc courvn p ,G I� KENT IV. INVENTORY of EXISTING PARKS & PROGRAMS and FACILITIES RECREATION PLAN • 1982 City of Kent,Washington 1.0. THE KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1_1 History For many years the City of Kent was surrounded by fields and trees and its citizens saw no need to establish a park, recreation and open space system. In the 1930's, the City Council took its first step toward creating a park system with the establishment of a three-person Park Board. This Board was charged with the development of a park system, but little planning, design, or implementation was actually carried out. Not until 1957 were more effective measures taken. At that time, the Kent City Council and the King County Council agreed to share the cost of one full-time park employee. Barney Wilson, the present Director of the Parks and Recreation Department, was hired as Director for Recreation, and the City of Kent's Parks and Recreation Department officially began. The Department remained a one-man operation until 1962; since then it has grown in size and responsibility in response to the substantial growth of the City itself. Today the De artment employs 38 full-time and 440 part-time staff. Its annual budget for 1981 was g 1,873,418.00. 1.2 Organizational Structure Table IV-1 lists the Department's 38 full-time positions, and Figure IV-1 describes the Department's internal organizational structure, and its relation to the rest of the City administration. There are four Divisions responsible to the Director. Two of the Divisions -- Recreation and Cultural Arts -- are directly responsible for recreation programming. These responsibilities are described below. 39 KENT RECREATION DIVISION PARKS & TABLE IV-1 RECREATION The Recreation Division is responsible for the administration of Kent Commons, PLAN - 1982 the Senior Center, and the Golf Course. Four Recreation Program Supervisors report to FULL-TIME PARK DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES the Head of the Division. Staff at the three activity centers develop and supervise City of programs for their particular facility. Kent,Washington The duties of the four Recreation Program Supervisors vary according to each individual's program responsibilities and expertise, and the season of the year. Most of Director I the programs relate to sports and general conditioning. These programs are very well- received and continue to grow in popularity. Administrative Assistant I Appendix B depicts recreational program types and levels of participation for Superintendent of Recreation 1 1980. Cultural Arts Coordinator I CULTURAL ARTS DIVISION Kent Commons Facility Coordinator 1 The Recreation Division employed a Cultural Arts Coordinator for several years; Senior Center Facility Coordinator 1 however, in 1981 The Parks and Recreation Department created a separate Cultural Municipal Golf Course Facility Coordinator 1 Arts Division. Recreation Supervisors 5 The Cultural Arts Division is responsible for all arts, crafts, and general Program Specialist 1 community-education programs. Though sponsored by the Parks and Recreation Superintendent of Parks I Department, these programs support themselves by the collection of registration fees. During the first quarter of 1981, 1,076 participants registered in over 20 different Full Time Maintenance 15 programs, generating revenues of $ 12,276.00, while expenses totaled $ 8,354.00 Secretaries 9 The Cultural Arts Division also coordinates the programs and projects of the Kent Arts Commission. Total 38 Appendix A lists the programs that were offered in 1980. RECREATION PROGRAMMING The term "programs" is used here in its broadest sense and includes all comp- etitive, cultural, and educational activities planned, scheduled, and supervised by the Park and Recreation Department. The Recreation and Cultural Arts Divisions are together directly responsible for program development. . The programs offered by these Divisions are conducted at a number of facilities. The City has its own system of outdoor recreation facilities, and because of a 40 cooperative arrangement with the Kent School District, has been able to further enhance its scheduling capabilities. Figure IV-1 DEPARD,IE\"I' OF PARKS AND ITCREATION ORG:ANI--AT1 ONAI. CHART KENT PARKS & RECREATION PLAN - 1982 City of Kent,Washington CITY COUNCIL --------------------------- --Policy CIS, --Policy ADMINISTRATOR COUti'CI L ___________ DIRECTOR KENIT ARTS COINMITTEE PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION ---, ; --Program RECREATION MAIN:LNA.ti'CE ADMINISTRATI11 CULTURAL ARTS -Division Head � - Div. Head - Div. Head COORDI\ATOR -Div. SUPERI NTE\IDEN7. �UPERI\TENDENT ASS I STA:\T Head Iv\T SE\IOR RECREATION GR1\TS CLERICAL ] I CAPITAL ADMIN'IS- PROGRk1LS ` BUDGET I PROJECT TRATION C0 L\10NS CE\TER GROUNDS NURSERYMAN BLDG. ' MAIN7. L.A:\DSCaPE INIAI\T. COINMISSIOti ART a D i I CULTURAL I CO\TRaCTU.\I I STAFF I � AXIS , GRA 'TS I PROGR-VLS PROGR , i I � 41 KENT The opening of the Kent Commons early in 1980 has provided the recreation staff PARKS & with an even greater opportunity to expand and diversify the programs offered. The _ RECREATION Commons contains a variety of meeting rooms, athletic courts, rooms for arts and PLAN - 1982 crafts, and large multi-purpose spaces. Although it is City-owned, the Commons is operationally self-supporting. City of Kent,Washington As well as coordinating and accommodating programs offered by the Recreation and Cultural Arts/Divisions of the Department, the Commons' staff has developed and scheduled some of its own programs in racquetball, basketball, volleyball, badminton and open gyms. The Commons rents office space to several social service agencies and many of its facilities are available for rental by the general public for meetings, seminars, and receptions. The recent opening of the Golf Course and Driving Range has further diversified Kent's public recreation programs and facilities. Although it provides more specialized recreational opportunities, the Golf Course will operate in much the same way as the Kent Commons. It may be scheduled by department recreation program supervisors, rented by private individuals or parties or -- as interest, staffing and budgets allow -- it may generate its own recreational programs. Facilities available at the Kent Senior Citizens Center are used mainly for the Center's own programs. It offers health care services, meal programs, education classes, and a variety of recreational and social activities for persons age 55 and,older. 1.4 Cooperative Arrangements with Others Regarding the Provision of Recreational Services. The Kent Parks & Recreation Department has historically provided service to an area much greater than that contained within the municipal boundaries. The City has established "recreation services agreements" with both King County and the Kent -- School District regarding priorities for facility use and responsibilities for programming those facilities. Those agreements are described below. 1.4.1 King County A contract is signed annually between the City of Kent and King County giving the City responsibility for the provision of recreation programming for the rural area of the Kent School District. What those recreation programs are to be is not specified, but the amount of money that the County is to pay the City is fixed. The amount is 42 normally about twenty-five thousand dollars. The contract is re-negotiated annually. In order to facilitate recreational programming, the agreement states that the KENT Kent Department of Parks and Recreation shall have second priority (next after the PARKS & P RECREATION County) on all King County facilities located within the boundaries of the Kent School PLAN • 1982 District. City of 1.4.2 Kent School District Kent,Washington Similar to the arrangements between the City and the County, there is a formal agreement between the Kent School District and the City of Kent signed by the President of the Board and the Mayor, respectively. This agreement is basically an agreement to cooperate to the greatest degree possible for the joint use of both the School District's and the City's recreation facilities. The specifics of the cooperative arrangements are worked out between the School District Director of Athletics and the various Kent Recreation Program Directors, with approval by the School District Director of Operations and the City Director of Parks and Recreation. Because of these agreements allowing scheduling of school facilities for com- munity recreation activities, Kent School District facilities at Senior and Junior High Schools are included in this plan's facility inventory. 1.4.3 Federal Way School District There have been arrangements made between the Federal Way School District and the City concerning the cooperative use of school facilities. The Federal Way School District overlaps the southwest corner of the study area (See Figure II-1) and serves most of the West Hill subarea. For various reasons, the existing agreement, dating back to 1969, has not been utilized for a number of years. There is a cooperative agreement between the Federal Way School District and King County that is much like the agreement between King County and the City of Kent, in that it deals with responsibilities for recreational programming and delineates priorities for the scheduling of facilities. 2.0 PARK LANDS AND FACILITIES INVENTORY The following section describes the parks and their facilities in the study area. Both Kent and King County parks and facilities are included, and they are grouped according to the subarea in which they occur. The outdoor recreation facilities available at Kent School District's Junior and Senior High Schools, located primarily in the East Hill area, are also included as part of this inventory. 43 KENT Tables IV-2 and IV-3 summarize the Park Lands and Facilities Inventory. Table PARKS & IV-2 gives total acreages and acres per 1,000 population by park type and planning RECREATION subarea. Table IV-3 gives a more detailed breakdown of park lands by subarea and park PLAN • 1982 type. Brief descriptions of key park facilities follow, including those at Junior and Senior High School sites as well as those of the Kent and King County park systems. City of These are grouped for the West Hill Valle Floor, and East Hill subareas. Kent,Washington g P , y , The Park Lands inventory organizes park lands by certain categories, i.e., it parks", "community parks", etc. For a detailed description of these park types, see section 4.2 (Standards For Parks) of Chapter V. The City of Kent Parks and Recreation Department has developed facilities on several "Permissive Use Properties". All these properties are located on the Valley Floor. The agreements between the Department and the various land owners do not guarantee the continued operation of such facilities. Therefore, they have been inventoried but not included in the analysis of the adequacy of the existing system or in the assessment of future needs. 44 TABLE IV-2 PARK LANDS SUMMARY 1981 WEST VALLEY EAST HILL FLOOR HILL TOTAL KENT PARKS & NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION PARKS ACRES 14.2 11.8 37.8 63.8 PLAN • 1982 ARIM ,. 1:•2 lft} 1.1 .. 1. City of E� 1 Kent,Washington 1000 COMMUNITY ACRES 77 54 58 189 PARKS 6,5 fF. 1.7 3.3 W. MAJOR ACRES 0 169 0 169 ........................................................................................................................................................................... RBAN .................................................... U ..........................................................................................................................................................................................::.............. . .. ...................................................... ....................................................... .. . .................................................. �.. .................................. . PARKS `.�'��:. .. . . � _..... _.... .._ ....::.... .... . .... .... . .. .... ... GREENBELT ACRES 0 31.5 382.5 414.0 & NATURAL N RESOURCE . ..:.:.:................ .. . ........ .._.. ... . _:.:,::.::::.....:.... .. ::::, . PARKS _._ .. __. _.� �... .. .. . i C. POCKET ACRES 0 3.1 1.7 4.8 PARKS owo GOLF COURSE ACRES 0 39.5 0 39.5 :s>;...:. ....:.:::.::.. Public » __....... : . ....>..: ... i. UNDEVELOPED PARKS ACRES 36.8 40 89.5 166.3 45 TOTAL ACRES 1046.4 y3 TABLE IV-3 EXISTING PARK LANDS INVENTORY WEST HILL VALLEY FLOOR EAST HILL Area Area Area Park (Owner) (In Acres) Park (Owner) (In Acres) Park (Owner) (In Acres) Totals Neighborhood Glen Nelson (Kent) 10.0 Kent Memorial (Kent) 11.8 Scenic Hill (Kent) 4,1I I Park Lands Linda Heights (Kent) 4.241 East Hill (County) 5,6 Park Orchard (County) 6,3 j Garrison Creek (Kent) 5.61 Pine Tree (County) 9.8 Campus Park (Kent) 7,0 .....:::.:.:.:.:::::.... Community Grandview (County) 30.0 Commons (Kent) 20.0 Lake Meridian (County) 58.0 Park Lands Lake Fenwick (Kent) 47.0 Russell Road (Kent) 34.0 . •;. : Major Urban Park Lands 0 North Green River (County)169.0 0 16...,. f Greenbelt/Resource 0 Briscoe Park (Kent) 7.0 Mill Creek Canyon (Kent) 95.5- Natural Area Anderson Greenbelt (Kent) 3.9 Soos Creek (County) 287.0 Park Lands Boeing (Kent) 4.5 Cottonwood Grove (Kent) ,8 Anderson Park (Kent) .3 Uplands (Kent) 7.2 Alvord (Kent) 1.1 Russell Woods (Kent) 6.7 < ; x :::tt:t::::::.;;:6:�ii' .......................:............. is *�::::;%.............. %" :5:::� :��i�::::::::::�::%::i::::::�::r: Pocket Park Lands 0 Kiwanis - 4 Parks (Kent) 2.1 Kiwanis - 1 Park (I<ent) 1.7 Naden (Kent) ,7 Old CitX Hall (Kent) .3 : >: ... ..... .. :.. .:..::.. x. Specialized Recreation Kent Commons 3.0 Facilities 0 Senior Center .5 .0 Golf Course 36.0 _ - & Driving Range Undeveloped Parks Midway (Kent) 14.8 Riverfront (Kent) 35.0 Campus Park (Kent) 9.5 West Canyon (Kent) 22.0 East Ori,llia 5 North Meridian (County) 80.0 KENT WEST HILL PARKS PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 City of Kent,Washington NOTES TO TABLE IV-3 "ice" " # - General Note: This inventory does not include recreational or open ace P P - • ease- ments that may be held by the city or county. ,c ���Y �� 4•°�s�fry'f Footnotes: 1. Water Departmentg rr y property. Jr, 2. Combined Water r, :�Y � r, w• r „} . >'` ! , " �.�` Department and Park Department , property. rr d 3. The entire Soos Creek Greenbelt is 382.3 acres. Of this, r ` approximately 75% •" _ of 287 acres are in the study area. 413 ,w 4. Combined Sewer ' . Department andf' # , Park property. 47 Lake Fenwick. KENT PARKS 8, 2_1 WEST HILL RECREATION PLAN • 1982 City of GLEN NELSON PARK (CITY OF KENT) Kent,Washington Location Key: 32nd and S. 268th 10.00 Barbeque, Children's Glen Nelson Park is a prototypical neighborhood park in its C-6 Acres Play Area, Soccer size, location and the facilities it contains. Located in the extreme Field, Grass Area, southwestern corner of the service area, it serves an area of Restrooms, Shelters, primarily single-family development. It serves a community func- Baseball Fields, tion in some respects in that it is located along a major road, Tables, Lighted Military Rd. So., and does offer off-street parking. Tennis Courts LAKE FENWICK PARK (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: 26015 Ld. Fenwick Rd. 46.74 Grass Area, Lake Fenwick Park is a community park with 1,000 feet of C-7 (basically undeveloped) Acres Hiking, Picnic Area, lake frontage. The areas to the north, west, and south are low- Tables, Lake, density single-family residential. The site is accessible from Parking Fenwick Rd. and public off-street parking is provided. LINDA HEIGHTS PARK (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: Adjacent to I-5, north 4.20 Children's Play Linda Heights Park is located immediately adjacent to Inter- C-5 of 248th & south Acres Area, Grass Area, state 5 within an area of older single-family residential develop- of 242nd Picnic Area, Tables, ment. It contains children's play areas and picnic areas and an Outdoor Basketball outdoor basketball court, but the topography of the site precludes its development for other types of courts or athletic facilities. 48 KENT MIDWAY PARK (CITY OF KENT) PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 Location Key: 252nd & 1-5 14.80 Undeveloped This park site is currently undeveloped. It is located adjacent B-5 Acres to and immediately west of Interstate 5 and is on an area presently City of used as a sanitary landfill. Eventual plans for this site include its Kent,Washington development for multi-family residential housing. At that time, Midway Park can be developed to serve the multi-family develop- ment as well as the existing single-family development located immediately to the south. WEST CANYON PARK (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: 42nd Ave. S. & Kent- 22.00 Undeveloped Like Midway Park, West Canyon Park is undeveloped and C-4 Des Moines Rd. (Kent Acres located on an area presently used as sanitary landfill. The recently Highlands Landfill) proposed use for the entire Kent Highlands Landfill site is a mix of commercial and single-family and multi-family residential. That development would be phased in over the next several years, but would eventually contain a population of approximately 7,000 peo- ple. As the landfill is developed, the City's park site could be developed as a neighborhood park to serve the residential develop- ment or be maintained as a open green space along its western edge. GRANDVIEW PARK (KING COUNTY) Location Key: S. 228th & Military 30 Football/Soccer While Grandview Park functions as a community park because C-4 Rd. S. Acres Field,Picnic Tables, of size, access from Military Rd. So., the availability of parking, Children s Play and its facilities, it has been under-used in the past. Located at the area, Restrooms, very edge of the steep West Hill slope, and bounded by Interstate 5 Parking immediately to the west, only minimal single-family residential development exists immediately adjacent to it to the north and south. As the Kent Highlands commercial and residential develop- ment takes place, this park could be expected to function more in a community park capacity. 49 KENT KING COUNTY ARTS COMMISSION EARTHWORK SCULP- PARKS & TURE (KING COUNTY) RECREATION PLAN • 1982 - Location Key: 41 St. Ave. 4 Earth Sculpture, Located on the West Valley Slope, this earthworks site serves City of C-3 & 37th P1. Acres Parking primarily as a view area. Other than a parking lot, there are no Wa Kent, shington facilities nor is there a nearby resident population which uses the site. I 50 J I� J VALLEY FLOOR PARKS KE R PARKS &REC REATION PLAN • 1982 - ing n fill QIl O � � p r. 4- -. `'• _ _ ...- kltt}dS{lµEl#11tt112i1I W1lit" L � Commons Playfield. y � ` a � Vill ' s _ ems. r Russell Road Park and Riverfront Park with Green River in foreground. Horsehead Bend/North Green River Park. 51 KENT 2,2 VALLEY FLOOR PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 ALVORD PARK (CITY OF KENT) City of Kent,Washington Location Key: Located between State 1.10 Pocket Park This park contains no facilities, but functions simply as a open E-5 Ave. & Scenic Way, Acres area on the east side of the downtown area. East of S. Central HORSEHEAD BEND/NORTH GREEN RIVER PARK (KING COUNTY) Location Key: Green River Road 169.0 Soccer, Parking This park is located along both sides of the Green River in the E-6 & 94 P1. S. Acres Trails, Beach south central portion of the service area. It is presently part of a future regional trail system and greenway. While primarily green open space, the City of Kent Parks Department has developed some athletic fields on the most easterly portion of the site. This development was the result of a cooperative arrangement with the King County Parks Department, which actually owns the site. It can also be expected to function increasingly as a community park as greater residential development takes place to the south, and/or a bridge across the Green River at the northern end allows access from several new multi-family developments within the incorpor- ated City of Kent. RUSSELL ROAD PARK (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: 24400 Russell Road 34.00 Grass Area, Picnic This park, together with River Front Park across Russell Road, D-5 Acres Area, Restrooms, serves as a community park for the entire Valley Floor and to a Lighted Softball, lesser degree for the West Hill area. Russell Road Park itself is Baseball, and Soccer developed for intense active recreation with lighted softball, base- Fields, Tables, Hiking ball and soccer fields. It has good access from the Kent-Des Moines Road via Russell Road. 52 KENT UPLANDS GREENBELT (CITY OF KENT) PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 Location Key: 50 foot wide strip 7.2 Jogging, Walking, Like the Boeing Greenbelt, the Uplands Greenbelt is a grassed D-1 located along the Acres Fishing, Greenbelt area between the road and the river along its eastern edge. City of eastern shore of the Kent,Washington Green River from approx. S. 220th St. to S. 187th St. COMMONS PLAYFIELD (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: North of James 20.0 Children's Play This playfield is a community park serving primarily the E-4 Street, West of Acres Area, 6 Soccer residents of the valley floor. Because of its facilities, it also Fifth Avenue Fields, Grass functions as a neighborhood park for the older single-family resi- Area, Hiking, dential development located immediately to the east. Restrooms, 6 Softball Fields COTTONWOOD GROVE (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: 239th & Frager Rd., .75 Grass Area, Picnic Cottonwood Grove is a small passive park located along the C-4 west of the Green River Acres Area, Tables, Green River. Adjacent to Frager Road, it serves mainly as a rest River stop for joggers, bicyclists, and motorists. There are only scattered homes in the area and there is no nearby access to the other side of the river. ANDERSON GREENBELT (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: Located where Van de 3.92 Greenbelt The Anderson Greenbelt is an open green space located along F-6 Vanter & Green River Acres the western bluff of the Scenic Hill neighborhood. It could Rd. would intersect eventually serve as part of a trail system connecting Scenic Hill to if Van de Vanter the River Corridor. continued south 53 KENT BOEING GREENBELT (CITY OF KENT) PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 Location Key: Located west of Russell 4.50 Greenbelt, River This greenbelt is a strip of land between Russell Road and the City of R., east of the Green Acres Green River along Boeing property on the Valley Floor. Kent,Washington River, north of 212th St. KENT MEMORIAL PARK (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: 850 N. Central 11.75 Barbeque, Children's This is a large neighborhood park located on the northern edge E-4 Acres Play Area, Grass of the downtown area of the City of Kent. It serves a community Area, Picnic Area, function for the City's entire central business district area and to a Recreation Bldg., lesser degree for the residents of lower East Hill. Because of its Restrooms, Shel- location and facilities, it serves as a neighborhood park for the older ter, Lighted Soft- single-family residential areas immediately to the south. ball and Baseball fields,Tables,Light- ed Tennis Courts, Creek, Outdoor Basketball Court, Parking KIWANIS PARK #1 (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: First and Crow .60 Barbeque, Children's Kiwanis Park #1 is a pocket park in the south section of town E-5 Acres Play Area, Grass and serves the older single-family residential neighborhood im- Area, Tables mediately adjacent to it on the north, west, and south. KIWANIS PARK #2 (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: Second and Cloudy .41 Barbeque, Children's Kiwanis Park #2 is also a pocket park and serves as a E-4 Acres Play Area, Grass children's play area and picnic area for the older single-family Area, Tables residential neighborhood on the north side of James St. in the downtown area. 54 KIWANIS PARK #3 (CITY OF KENT) KENT PARKS & RECREATION Location Key: On Alexander, between .75 Children's Play This park is located in the Scenic Hill neighborhood and serves PLAN • 1982 E-5 Chicago & Seattle St. Acres Area, Tables primarily as a children's play area. City of Kent,Washington KIWANIS PARK #5 (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: Fifth and Crow .35 Barbeque, Children's This park is located on the south edge of the downtown area a E-5 Acres Play Area, Grass few blocks from Kiwanis Park #1 and serves many of the same Area, Tables functions; it is primarily a picnic area and a children's play area for nearby single-family residential development. RIVERFRONT PARK (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: 24401 Russell Road 35.00 Barbeque, Grass This park is located along the eastern shore of the Green River D-5 (basically undeveloped) Acres Area, Picnic Area, immediately adjacent to the existing Russell Rd. Park. While Tables, River Russell Rd. Park offers more active athletic activities, River-front Park was developed for more passive recreational activities. Open grassed areas and picnic areas as well as off-street parking are provided. Together, the two parks function as a large community park. RUSSELL WOODS (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: 228th at the 6.7 Undeveloped Natural wooded area along riverfront. C-4 Green River Acres ANDERSON PARK (CITY OF KENT) Location.-Key: Approx. 620 feet south .31 Grass Area, Picnic Anderson Park is a very small park located along Russell Road. D-3 of S. 212th on the Acres Area, Restroom, It contains picnic facilities and a pit toilet. Like Cottonwood Grove east side of Russell Rd. Tables Park, it serves primarily as a rest stop for joggers, bicyclists, and motorists along the Green River. 55 KENT NADEN PARK (CITY OF KENT) PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 Location Key: Located on S. Naden .72 Grass Area Naden Park is a open grassed area of .72 acres located on the City of E-5 Ave. one block south Acres western edge of the downtown area south of Meeker St.Kent,Washington of Meeker THE OLD CITY HALL SITE (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: Second and Gowe .30 Grass Area, Picnic Located close to the center of the old (central) business E-5 Acres Area, Tables district, this open grassed area serves as a resting and picknicking site. BRISCOE PARK (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: Oxbow-shaped area 6.97 Greenbelt, Trails, Located along the east side of .the river in the northwest D-1 located on the east Acres Fishing, Wildlife section of the service area, this park is undeveloped. In the future, shore of Green River Observation this area will serve primarily as a spot for fishing and wildlife observation, and as a rest area along the trail system. 56 it fir- ` �'� � � ,� � '• � � 1 � 'tr mold Ys - _ • - t Nit , �Y A »r r' 9inIke i y y . KENT 2.3 EAST HILL PARKS RECREATIONN GARRISON CREEK PARK (CITY OF KENT) - PLAN • 1982 Location Key: 218 St. & 98th S.E. 5.00 Barbeque, Children's This park is outside the city limits of the City of Kent, but is City of F-3 Acres Play Area, Grass owned by the City Water Department and has been developed by the Kent,Washington Area, Hiking, Picnic City Park and Recreation Department. It is located on the south Area, Restrooms, side of 218th Street mid-way up the East Hill slope and it serves as Tables, Lighted Ten- a neighborhood park for the single-family residential development to nis Courts, Outdoor the north and to the east. Handball Courts, Outdoor Basketball Court LAKE MERIDIAN (KING COUNTY) Location Key: East End of 58 Restrooms, Parking, Lake Meridian is a special resource park by reason of the I-6 Lake Meridian Acres Boat Launch, Picnic- Lake, but as more and more multi-family residential and single- ing, Swimming Area, family residential is developed to the south and to the east, it will Grassed Areas, Care- function as a neighborhood park in many ways. taker Facilities MILL CREEK CANYON (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: 742 East Titus 95.47 Greenbelt, Hiking, This is a large, relatively undeveloped greenbelt park that runs F-5 (undeveloped) Acres Creek, (future from the Kent Valley floor into the East Hill area. An earthworks 40.08 Water location Earthworks- development is in progress in the valley floor section of this park. Dept. Prop. early 1982) This developed area will serve some functions of a neighborhood 55.39 Park park for the downtown area and the northwest section of the Scenic Dept. Hills neighborhood. SCENIC HILL PARK (CITY OF KENT) Location Key: 25826 Woodland 4.10 Grass Area, Picnic This open space park is located in the Scenic Hill neighborhood F-6 Way S. Acres Area, Tables of the City, adjacent both to Mill Creek Park and to the Scenic Hill Elementary School. It contains a stand of Douglas fir trees and a limited development of trails and picnic area. It currently serves as an extension of Mill Creek Park but its size does not preclude its 58 eventual development as more of a neighborhood park. CAMPUS PARK (CITY OF KENT) KENT PARKS & RECREATION Location Key: 9600 Kent-Kangley 16.5 Grass Area, Picnic Campus Park is located on Kent-Kangley Road across the road PLAN • 1982 F-6 Rd. Acres Area, Table, Rest- from Mill Creek Park and adjacent to the western edge of Kent City of rooms Meridian Sr. High School. Because of its location on the East Hill Kent,Washington slope, it has been underused in the past, but as multi-family development continues to expand north of the site, it will function more and more as a neighborhood park. KIWANIS PARK #4 (CITY OF KENT) Location Key; 98th Ave. & 240th 1.70 Children's Play Area, This is the largest of the Kiwanis parks. It is located north of F-4 Acres Grass Area James St. near East Hill Elementary School. It is adjacent to Water Dept. properties and is developed for a children's play area and a picnic area. PINE TREE PARK (KING COUNTY) Location Key: End of 114th Ave. 9.8 Picnic Facilities, This park is located. adjacent to and west of the Pine Tree G-7 S.E. Acres Play Equipment, Elementary School in the extreme southeastern section of the Trails service area. Together with the facilities available at the Element- ary School, it serves as a neighborhood park for the single-family residential area to the north and east. Land to the south-east and to the west of the site is currently undeveloped but higher density single-family and multi-family housing is expected over the next few years. EAST HILL PARK (KING COUNTY) Location Key: 233 Rd. & 100th 5.6 2 Tennis Courts, This park is also known as Kent Park. It is located just outside G-4 Ave. S.E. Acres Children's Play Area, of the incorporated City of Kent. It serves as a neighborhood park Trails, Benches for a large population because the areas to the north and to the west are developed as single-family residential, the area to the east is multi-family residential, and to the south there is a good deal of new, higher density multi-family development. 59 KENT PARK ORCHARD PARK (KING COUNTY) PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 Location Key: North of Park 6.3 Children's Play Located adjacent to the City of Kent city limits, it is also City of G-4 Orchard Elementary Acres Equipment, Trails, next to Park Orchard Elementary School and, with the facilities avail- Kent,Washington School Picnic Shelter able at the elementary school, serves as a neighborhood park for an area of primarily single-family residential development. There has been a great deal of such development to the west and north over the years and similar development has recently taken place to the east and to the south. SOOS CREEK (KING COUNTY) Location Key: From Lake Meridian 382.3 Acres Undeveloped This park is a county regional facility, a major portion of H do I, 1-6 to Boulevard Lane 287 Acres which is within the Kent service area or, more correctly, serves as Park (Kent Portion) the eastern boundary of that area. It serves as open, green space within what will eventually be more intensely developed residential areas. Low-density single-family residential is scattered along it, both to the east and west. This park also provides a green-space connection between other parks, including Boulevard Lane Park to the north, which is a Renton facility, and Lake 'Meridian Park to the south, which is a King County facility. 40 KENT SPECIAL FACILITIES PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 City of Kent,Washington e i t b New J, *00 1 y-. a... . 10 . .: t ' - fR - ' a Ag— Ae s ��_, +ic«.�� �' g'•a.`.=J._r- '.i sus . r r w • Kent Commons. Golf Course and Driving Range. 61 KENT 4. SPECIAL RECREATION FEATURES PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE City of Kent,Washington 5621 Kent-Des 28.00 3 par, 9 Hole Course, Moines Rd. + 8.00 River Dike Walking, Acre Jogging Trail, driving mini put-put, range Pro Shop KENT COMMONS 520 N. 4th 3.00 Meeting Rooms, (Multi-Service Center Acres Kitchen, Multi- & Physical Recreation Purpose Rooms, Complex) Arts & Crafts Room, Complete Athletic Complex (handball/rac quetball courts, conditioning room, game room, gymnasium), Social Service Agencies SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER 315 E. Meeker St. .30 Recreation Building, Acres Meeting Rooms, Kitchen, Services and Social Programs for Seniors 62 V. NEEDS ANALYSIS KENT PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 City of Kent,Washington 1.0 INTRODUCTION: THE PROCESS OF NEEDS ANALYSIS FIGURE V-1 ii THE NEEDS ANALYSIS PROCESS Figure V-1 illustrates the basic process used to arrive at an estimate of existing and future park and recreation needs. The first two steps of this process, the recreation resource inventory and the description of Kent's particular demographic �—RECREATION RESOURCES INVENTORY and physical features, are discussed in previous sections of this plan. The last three o Areas o Facilities o Programs o Leadership steps are discussed in this section. o Finances : As Figure V-1 illustrates, several approaches have been used to analyze demand. The reason for this is that no single approach can give us a complete understanding of demand. For example, preference surveys report what park users say they prefer, but INVENTORY OF they do not tell us whether people's actual behavior follows their expressed prefer- THE KENT SETTING o Demographics o Growth Projection ences. On the other hand, trend analysis is based on actual behavior patterns but o Physical Features cannot tell us what these patterns would be if different choices were available. "' Combining surveys and trend analysis gives us a better picture of total demand and need. DEkAAND ANALYSIS o Surveys o Trends Park and recreation standards are another important set of indicators. They provide a guide to the quantity of facilities typically provided in a community such as Kent. For example, if 2.5 acres of neighborhood parks per 1,000 persons provides a "standard" level of service for neighborhood park facilities based on many years of STANDARDS experience by park and recreation planners and managers, then we can reasonably o Land Acquisition And Development assume that this number of acres is well-related to observed utilization rates and thus is a good indicator of demand and need. The problem with standards, however, is that they are almost impossible to NEEDS ANALYSIS: establish for certain types of facilities. The appropriate size and number of Greenbelt UNMET DEMAND FOR PARKS and Natural Resource parks, for example, depends almost completely on the individual AND FACILITIES communitysetting and on the character of the natural resources. Even if these o Land Acquisition And Develo ment se g factors are known, there may be no reduction in the marginal value of each additional 63 KENT acre over what has been established as a "minimum" amount. In other words, the PARKS & needed quantity may relate more to how much Kent citizens can afford to spend, than RECREATION to a standard number of acres per increment of population. In this situation we must PLAN • 1982 P P P rely on opinion survey results, which in Kent have indicated a high level of perceived City of need and a willingness to pay. Kent,Washington One of the best indications of need occurs when a parlic:ular- tacilily ur lype of park shows up in two or more different need analyses. Table V-1 summarizes the relative level of demand for a number of different facilities based on surveys, trends, and comparison with standards. The table indicates that two types of parks have the strongest indication of demand and need. These are 1) Neighborhood Parks and 2) Greenbelt and Special Resource Parks. Community Parks, on the other hand, have the least indicatipn of need for additional facilities. These findings are central to decisions on Kent's park acquisition and development program. 4 .1 .4 B �& ..fy, $ (r5 4: ` 64 Cultural activities at Kent Commons. Kent Commons Playfield. TABLE V-1 SUMMARY OF NEEDS ANALYSIS GREENBELT NEIGHBOR- & SPECIAL BASEBALL- SWIMMING HOOD COMMUNITY RESOURCE CULTURAL SOFTBALL SOCCER FOOTBALL TENNIS POOLS PARKS PARKS PARKS FACILITIES FIELDS FIELDS FIELDS COURTS (INDOOR) TRAILS (ACRES) (ACRES) (ACRES) TOTAL EXISTING UNITS 63.8 189 404.3 COM. Cntr. 23 18 6 28 2 2.9 Senior Cntr. I miles NUMBER 1982-1987 45- 20- 180- 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A OF NEW 75 35 20 Acre UNITS 45- 20- 50- 30,000 18 13 4 10 3 30 NEEDED 90 35 75 S.F. 55- 0 125- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1987-1990 95 150 55- 20- 25- 24 17 6 13 3 2 110 40 50 110- 0-30 80- 10 N/A N/A N/A Xl N/A N/A 1990-2000 205 125 Acre 110- 30- 10- 50,000 /35 // 28 8 4 8 220 60 30 S.F. NEED STATE SUPPORTED SURVEY N/A N/A •+ N/A • • • • N/A • BY: REGIONAL • •+ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A • SURVEY KENT SURVEY • + •+ •+ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A • TRENDS • • •+ •+ • • N/A • N/A • COMPAR- ISON WITH • + • N/A N/A • • • • • STANDARDS KEY: ACQUISITION • = STRONG SUPPORT 65 EVELOPMENT 0 + = VERY STRONG SUPPORT KENT 2,0 FINDINGS OF PREFERENCE/USE SURVEYS: PARKS & - RECREATION 2.1 INTRODUCTION PLAN • 1982 The results of the recreation user/opinion surveys conducted locally and regionally City of provide a very useful measurement of recent trends and future preferences. The "City Kent,Washington of Kent, Park and Recreation Opinion Survey, 1981" was conducted specifically for this plan; "PRO/Parks Citizen Survey, 1981" was conducted by King County as a guide in developing a possible County-wide bond issue; and "IAC's Outdoor Recreation Survey, 1975/76" was conducted as part of the Statewide outdoor recreation planning. Each of the surveys offers insight into recreation patterns and preferences. 2.2 IAC's OUTDOOR RECREATION SURVEY This survey was utilized in the development of the 1979 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The IAC uses this information to analyze comparative needs from planning district to planning district. Kent is part of planning district 4, which includes all of King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. While it is invalid to disaggregate the results of this survey specifically for the Kent area, the survey is helpful in providing a summary of present recreation activity in Washington State, what people would prefer to do, and which agencies should provide those opportunities. Findings Regarding Recreation Uses & Preferences The statewide survey on activity participation showed that the activities that were the most popular in terms of the number of different people who participated in them included: 66 i Rank Activity - KENT R. PARKS & 1 Driving for pleasure/sightseeing RECREATION 2 Camping PLAN • 1982 3 Gardening 4 Fishing City of 5 Picnicking Kent,Washington { The recreation activities that people most often engaged in were: Rank Activity 1 Jogging u 2 Bicycling 3 Gardening 4 Swimming 5 Golf The top five activities in which the survey respondents wanted to participate more often were: Public Boat Launch at Star Lake. Rank Activity I Camping 2 Fishing 3 Boating 4 Swimming 5 Snow Activities The prevalence of water-oriented activities is evident and it is not surprising that when the IAC analyzed all the factors involved in establishing facility needs, it was shown "that water-related facilities and activities are presently the poorest served, with less than 75 percent of the current demand being met by existing facilities." 2.3 PRO/PARKS CITIZEN SURVEY This survey was conducted in the Spring of 1981 for the County Joint Citizens' Committee on Parks, Recreation, and Open Space. (PRO/Parks Committee). The survey results are a statistically valid indication of County-wide recreation attitudes and preferences and provide another perspective on recreation needs in Kent. Since the results of the PRO/Parks and Kent surveys are very similar, the validity of each is reinforced. 67 KENT The PRO/Parks survey differed from the IAC survey in a number of ways. One of PARKS & the primary differences was that the IAC survey was interested in specific recreational RECREATION activities and people's real and desired- rates of participation, while the PRO/Parks PLAN - 1982 survey was directed toward discovering the type of park facilities that survey City of respondents believed most important, how adequate existing facility levels were, and Kent,Washington how money should be expended in the future. Findings Regarding Recreation Preferences The survey had people rate the importance of "Drop-in Activities", "Special Trip or Point of Destination Activities", and "Scheduled Activities." The vast majority of respondents (79.6%) rated "drop-in" activities as the most important. In further subdividing and rating that category, the most important item was "Open areas for picnicking, jogging, etc." and the second most important item was "water-related parks for fishing, beach-walking, etc." Generally, respondents were satisfied with the existing availability of most types of parks and recreation programs both within their neighborhoods and across the county. An exception to this satisfaction was with natural areas, where 46% of the sample indicated that there were too few such areas near them. Tabulating the survey results in a slightly different aggregation of the categories and subcategories, the PRO/Parks Committee found that 52.7% of the respondents felt Local Parks with open space and recreational equipment were most important, while 29.8% thought Waterfront Parks and Natural Areas were most important. It is easy to see that natural, open areas near water would be very popular. 2.4 CITY OF KENT, PARK RECREATION OPINION SURVEY This survey evaluated the importance of various types of recreation activities, assessed the level of current satisfaction with the recreation system, and gauged the public's willingness to pay for maintaining and improving that system. Unlike the State and County surveys,it asked specific questions about Kent and particular components of the Kent system. This survey required a random sample of 400 registered voters within the study area to rate specific activities on a scale of importance. Findings Regarding Recreation Use And Preferences The two classes of recreation facilities that were rated as "very important" by the 68 highest percentage of people were Open Space and Neighborhood Parks. Water-related activities were given a relatively high rating with 29.8% of respondents rating them as KENT very important. In rating how well the City of Kent currently provides for these PARKS & activities, however, water-related activities received the lowest rating of the six RECREATION s ' categories with 24.9% rating service as poor. These importance and adequacy ratings PLAN . 1982 are consistent with the findings of both the County and IAC. They are also consistent r with the public opinion survey conducted for Kent's East Hill Plan where it was found City of that residents considered lakes as the most important natural feature in the East Hill Kent,Washington area. When Kent residents rated the importance of recreation features for future acquisition and/or development, they again rated many water-related items highly. Preservation of a greenbelt/natural area along the Green River received the highest rating: 54.1% rated it as very important. Next in importance was the establishment of a Green River trail system, rated by 36.8% as very important. Neighborhood Parks and additional Senior Citizen Centers also received high ratings -- 34.1% and 32.6% -x, respectively. Interestingly, Senior Citizen Centers received the most consistently high ratings across age groups, with even the youngest age group (18-35) giving it a 33.8% very important rating. For a copy of the survey and a tabulation of the results see Appendix C. Differences In Recreation Use and Preferences Among The Kent Subareas r "�7 Differences among the three subareas regarding the frequency of use were ,- minor, the only difference being that a slightly higher percentage (15%) of East Hill residents responded that they never used the Park and Recreation System. This is probably because, in the easternmost section of East Hill, these residents are visually and geographically distant from the actual City of Kent. ,R Residents of the West Hill considered Neighborhood Parks slightly more import- ant than residents of the other two subareas, and only 32% of West Hill residents rated Kent as doing a very good job in providing such facilities. Residents of all subareas _ strongly agreed on the importance of a Green River trail system. While all subareas ' also rated a Green River greenbelt/natural area as very important, it was slightly more important to Valley and East J-Iill residents. Generally, Valley residents were most satisfied with facilities offered by the Kent Parks Department. Residents of the three subareas rated the importance of other more specific park �* proposals such as Mill Creek, Lake Fenwick, and Garrison Creek quite differently, Nature walk in Mill Creek Canyon. however this was expected in light of greater familiarity with more local recreational features. 69 KENT 360 RECREATION TRENDS PARKS & — RECREATION 3.1 National PLAN • 1982 While it is not possible to know what people will do or would prefer to do for City of recreation in the future, there are some ways of anticipating those future recreation Kent,Wa ington activities. Expected future social, economic., and demographic conditions, coupled with knowledge of recent patterns in people's recreation pursuits, allow some trends to be identified. 5 The increasing importance of leisure activities is a clearly identifiable attitudinal �� ` trend. Whereas such activities were once viewed as secondary to "more important" things, leisure activities are now viewed as important components of life. Recreation is now perceived as more of a necessity and less of a luxury, something more consciously scheduled. The increased amount of available free time is a major factor in the new attitude towards leisure. The length of the average work week has dropped appreciably during this century and is now at 35.3 hours per week. Not only will people have more leisure time but they will also have more total years for recreational time, because the life expectancy of the average American has increased by almost 20 years over the last 60 years. In other words, the national population is also growing older. As this happens, the concern with physical fitness that has become evident in recent years will continue to increase. The forms in which this increased concern with physical fitness has evidenced itself have been varied and changing, part of a more general trend towards ..,. diversity in recreation activity. The diversification of American recreational interests is a trend that can be expected to continue. It is also a trend that will demand flexibility on the part of facility administrators and designers and of program supervisors and planners. O 1 t While the trend towards more active recreation activities can be expected to continue, there is also a great increase in more sedentary activities. The importance of Y this trend is difficult to judge at this time, but is is evidenced by the recent proliferation of video games, the growing availability of cable television, and television Racquetball at Kent Commons. subscription options. No matter what the eventual outcome of the distribution of leisure time between the more active and passive types of activities might be, it is evident that Americans tend to spend recreation time closer to home and are trying to reduce the cost. Local park and program attendance and facility use is increasing nationally. ' Use of passive, open space parks for more individual kinds of activities is on the increase, as is attendance at free attractions offered by all levels of government. Most experts agree 70 that the trend towards stay-at-home or stay-close-to-home use of leisure time will continue. The higher price of gasoline is being given as the primary reason. As people use local parks and facilities more often they will become more KENT supportive of such facilities but will also expect more from local systems in both the PARKS & quantity and variety of recreational opportunities. While most professional recreation RECREATION managers agree that some local and long-popular recreation activities such as softball PLAN • 1982 and court games will continue to be popular, they also foresee increased local support for relatively new leisure pursuits such as craft facilities and programs and the City of Kent,Washington cultural arts. 3.2 Local Trends in recreation within the Kent Study Area parallel closely those identified for the nation generally. Though there continues to be a great deal of support for active recreation facilities and programs, there is also a growing demand for passive open space and neighborhood parks -- two needs which have received little attention in the past. The results of the Kent Recreation Opinion Survey (which correlated well with similar findings of the County-wide PRO/Parks survey), substantiate this trend, as do the observations by Kent Parks Department personnel. Providing open, green space for individual activities and less organized group activities would also help maintain flexibility within the park system for accommodating modified or unexpected recreation demands in the future. 4.0 FACILITY STANDARDS 4.1 INTRODUCTION One way to estimate both the existing and future adequacy of the park and recreation system is to compare an inventory of the existing parks and recreation facilities with accepted standards of service. These standards are normally estab- lished by consensus of experienced municipal planners and park administrators, with adjustments for local conditions. These standards should serve as goals and they should provide a general guide to planning and decision making regarding future park and recreation facilities. There are several types of standards. Some are related to total population, some to percentage of area developed, and some to distance from the population a particular facility is to serve. Those presented here are basically related to total population, though the definitions of the various parks also include an element of distance from the population to be served. These standards are also used by King County and are adapted from the latest standards recommended by the National Recreation and Park Association. The standards differ somewhat from those used in developing the 1973 Kent Park 71 and Recreation Plan, but conform better to commonly employed definitions of certain KENT park types. Adoption of the King County Standards appears appropriate, particularly in PARKS & light of the large portion of the Service Area that is within unincorporated King g RECREATION PLAN • 1982 County. Cooperation and common recreational goals will enhance Kent and King County's efforts to provide an adequate level of recreational service for the area. City of Kent,Washington 4.2 STANDARDS FOR PARKS This Plan defines the following types of parks and describes standards, where applicable: o Neighborhood Parks o Community Parks o Major Urban Parks o Greenbelt and Special Resource Parks o Pocket Parks In all cases definition of the areas to be served by these parks, the facilities to be provided and the size of the park represent desired goals; few existing parks will fit perfectly into any particular category. Neighborhood & District Parks Residential Areas This type of park should be approximately 5-10 acres in size and serve less than a square mile area. It should provide some space for both informal, leisure activities utilizing passive open space and picnic facilities and more active pursuits involving sports fields and courts. Ideally, a Neighborhood and District Park should be developed next to elementary school sites. It should serve a population of between 2-10,000 people depending on its exact size and neighborhood population densities, and it does not normally require off-street parking. Standard For Residential Neighborhood Parks: 2.5 A/1,000 people Commercial & Industrial Districts These parks should be 10 acres or more in size and serve less than a square mile in area. The basic purpose of these parks is to provide a minimal amount of publically accessible open space for recreational prograrns within commercial and industrial areas. Ideally, these parks should be adjacent to Greenbelt and/or trail systems to maximize pedestrian access. There should be provision for both active and passive recreational activities. Examples might include areas for lunching and sunbathing, 72 jogging trails, court games and open play fields with landscape buffers between the - park and the surrounding commercial/industrial land use. Minimal parking should be KENT provided. Developers should be encouraged to coordinate utility corridors and surface PARKS & water drainage and storage facilities with the commercial and industrial park areas. RECREATION PLAN • 1982 Standards for Neighborhood/District Parks within Commercial and Industrial Areas: City of Kent,Washington j 5% of gross area* or ... 3% of lot area Community Parks A Community Park should be 20-40 acres in size and serve a 2-3 mile service radius. It should provide space for those types of activities that have greater spatial requirements than can normally be accommodated at the more local level. Facilities such as community centers, swimming pools, and court complexes can be included at such parks. Ideally, community parks should be developed adjacent to junior or senior high schools, and where they are not, off-street parking should be provided. Space for informal activities such as picnicking, walking and running should also be included at the site. The population served will vary, but should ideally be 10,000-15,000. Standard For Community Parks: 2.5 A/1,000 people Major Urban Parks Major Urban Parks should be a minimum of 100 acres and can range up to 1,000 acres. It should have a 6-10 mile service area, but for some types of activities and events it may serve a much greater area. Such parks are normally sized and sited to accommodate large groups of users and a variety of activities. Sports fields will normally be less formalized than at the Community and Neighborhood level, for the primary function of this type of park is to provide a large expanse of green space within or close to urban areas. Such parks should serve a minimum population of 20,000 people, and can serve up to 100,000. Standard For Community Parks: 5.0 A/1,000 people * Kent's existing industrial and commercial areas average approximately 9.3 employ- ees per gross acre of development. This equals approximately 6,000 employees per 73 Sq.miles. Using 5 acres per 1,000 employees, we get 30 acre/sq. mile or 5% of the gross area of 640 acres. KENT Greenbelt And Special Resource Parks PARKS & RECREATION These parks are recommended where a natural resource is to be protected, a PLAN • 1982 special recreation feature is available, or urban design considerations warrant. These parks typically range in size from 1 acre to 100 acres but can be considerably larger Kent,yy ington When linked in a continuous open space system. While such parks will sometimes serve some functions of the neighborhood and community parks, they often serve a more regional function by reason of the special recreation feature around which they are developed. Standard For Greenbelt And Special Resource Parks: The nature of this particular type of park facility precludes the application of a uniform standard. The location of such parks will depend on the location of special features or unique resources. "Pocket" Parks This is another special category of park. Normally not exceeding a couple of acres in size, it is not large enough to accommodate all the facilities associated with a neighborhood park, but it can serve a particular recreation function or a particular segment of the neighborhood's population. Often such parks are vacant or underutilized parcels of land developed for recreation by local public service organizations or by the neighbors themselves. Standard For Pocket Parks: None Applicable 4.3 FACILITY STANDARDS The following facilities are contained within the various park types described previously: Facility Standard - Softball Field 1/2,000 people , Baseball Field 1/6,000 people Soccer Field 1/2,000 people Football Field 1/6,000 people Tennis Court 1/2,000 people TRAIL SYSTEMS o Hiking & Jogging 25 miles/50,000 people o Bicycle Trails 25 miles/50,000 people 74 o Min. Length of Trail System 3-5 miles 4.4 MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS KENT Where neighborhood, community and major urban parks are developed in conjunc- PARKS & tion with or adjacent to school facilities, some of the facility requirements normally RECREATIONPLAN • 1982 1 associated with those parks could be filled by the schools. Where that is the case, the acreage requirements for these parks could be halved. City of Kent,Washington Standards For Parks Adjacent to Schools: Neighborhood Parks 1.25 acres/1,000 people Community Parks 1.25 Acres/1,000 people 4.5 USE OF STANDARDS Adjustments may be required when in using the previously described standards. No two communities are exactly alike and while these standards serve as a good preliminary guide to future park acquisition and development, other factors need to be considered. These include the degree and nature of the existing open space structure, recreation opportunities presented by the physical differences among the 3 subareas, the political setting, and the recreation habits and preferences of the local population. 4.6 SUMMARY OF NEEDS ANALYSIS BASED ON STANDARDS Tables V-2 and V-3 summarize needs as assessed by recommended standards applied to projected residential population. The population figures used to generate the needs are taken from Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) estimates for 1990 and 2000 (See Table III-2). Straight-line interpolation between the 1980 census and the 1990 projections was used to arrive at the 1982 and 1987 estimates. Based on these population figures and the recommended park standards, a number of notable deficiencies appear: Neighborhood Parks There is an immediate shortage of neighborhood parks in all three of Kent's subareas. Currently, only about 50% of neighborhood park needs are being met in each of the subareas. This shortage is even more dramatic considering the relatively high degree of importance given to neighborhood parks in the opinion survey. This deficiency also becomes more severe as 1987, 1990 and 2000 population 75 growth projections are added to the park service area. TABLE V-2 PARK NEEDS AS ASSESSED BY STANDARDS 1982 1987 2000 West Valley East West Valley East West Valley East Hill Floor Hill Total Hill Floor Hill Total hill Floor Hill Total Neighborhood Residential 3 $ & District Neighborhoods 29 25 85 139 33 37 94 152 40 53 120 213 Parks 5 13 44 72 19 25 56 99 26 41 83 150 Commercial/ Industrial Districts 0 21 3 24 0 76 6 82 N/A1 N/Al N/Al N/A1 0 21 3 24 0 76 6 82 Total 29 25 85 139 32.7 58 97 176 40 129 126 295 5 13 47 75 8.5 46 59 123 26 117 89 232 ...::.....:.:..... Community ` :� fl:. . . .1 :. . . .:1 .} .................................................. Parks 29 25 8�27 139 33 ZO 94 152 40ZO ZO 120 21 0 0 27 0 36 36 62 62 KEY TO TABLE: FOOTNOTES: Acres or Facilities 1 Since there has been no standard for Commercial/industrial district parks in the << Existing at End<> past, the standards established in this plan have been applied to future of 1981 PP commercial/industrial development only. Total Acres or Facilities Needed to Required Increase Meet Standards In Acres or Facilities to Meet Standards 76 TABLE V-3 FACILITY NEEDS AS ASSESSED BY STANDARDS 1982 1987 2000 West Valley East West Valley East West Valley East Hill Floor Hill Total Hill Floor Hill Total Hill Floor Hill Total Baseball Fields 2 2 6 10 2 2 6 10 2 4 8 14 2 0 2 4 2 0 Softball Fields 6 5,,,-0' 1 >12 11 5 0 15 14 7 0 28 6 6 1 31 8 11 24 21 � --� 20 27 .......... ........... ........... ......... .......... - Soccer Fields . .......... ....... ....... .......... 6 17 28 10 6 9 11 28 1� 31 :T 51��l j'>O 3 0 18 0 ��2 3 �,--�3 0 16 101 Football Fields 2 2 6 10 2 2 6 to 2 4 8 14 2 2 1 4 3 Tennis Courts V 31 17 28 6 6 1 8 11 24 43 4 0 0 4 6 0 10 6 11 0 17 Swimming Pools ....... 2 4 1 1 2 4 3 1 1 2 2 3 6 4 2 1 1 1 - _� 4 -, l 0 Community Centers N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 0 Trails (Miles) N/A N/A N/A 30 N/A N/A N/A 33 N/A N/A N/A 43 27 _,��3 0 77 FOR KEY TO TABLE (See Table V-2) KENT Community Parks PARKS & RECREATION Based on resident population, there is a shortage of community parks in the East PLAN • 1982 Hill subarea, but not in the other two subareas. City of It should be noted however, that the very high level of daytime non-resident Kent,Washington ernpluyMeut pupulatiun in the valley floor (approximately 27,000 people*) creates a considerable demand for park facilities which is not reflected in Table V-2. Section III discussed the impacts resulting from Kent's large employment population. It is estimated that as much as 30% of recreation program demand results from non-resident employment population. This is two to three times the level of employment-related demand assumed for the "prototypical" community for which the standards have been developed.** Special Facilities Table V-3 indicates both an existing and projected shortage of key recreational facilities in various subareas. East and West Hills are in greatest need of athletic fields (except for football). West Hill and the Valley floor are most deficient in tennis and swimming facilities. Looking at the service area in total, the existing number of every type of recreational facility must be doubled within the next 5 years, 1982-1987 if standards are to be met. The exceptions are football and tennis facilities which are more adequately provided for but still require 50% increases by 1987. The previous comments on the effects of Kent's very large employment population apply to key recreational facilities, as well as park space, i.e., the unmet demand indicated by Tables V-2 & V-3, probably underestimates actual needs in Kent, particularly in the Valley Floor. * PSCOG estimates ** We assume that there is a direct positive relationship between the ratio of employment to resident population and the percent of recreational demand that is - employment-related. 78 KENT VI. PARK and RECREATION SYSTEM PARKS & MASTERPLAN RECREATION PLAN • 1982 City of Kent,Washington 1.0 INTRODUCTION Previous chapters of this document have presented the basic facts necessary to develop a park and recreation system plan; these are (1) the goals and objectives for the system, (2) the demographics and physical features of the Kent area, (3) an inventory of existing facilities and programs, and (4) an assessment of the existing and future unmet need for parks and recreation facilities in the Kent area. Having established the total number of facilities and acres necessary to meet Kent's park and recreation needs through the year 2000, it is necessary to develop a plan for spatially allocating these facilities within the planning area. Figure VI-1 illustrates the master plan for park facilities which has been developed to meet Kent's recreation needs. Tables VI-1 and VI-2 summarize each proposed acquisition and development project in two phases: (1) 1982-1987 and (2) 1987-2000. The process by which this plan was formulated and the plan's key features are summarized in the following paragraphs. 2.0 PLAN PROCESS AND MAJOR FEATURES 2.1 Plan Process The spatial allocation of park and recreation facilities has been accomplished in a series of steps which reflect the basic rationale behind the plan. These steps are: (1) Kent's unique natural geographic features are utilized to created a greenbelt and open space framework that forms the backbone for the entire plan. (2) Preferred sites for larger-scale recreational facilities such as community parks and cultural facilities are located, based on their particular site location requirements. (3) Future neighborhood and district parks are identified based primarily on a concept of one-square-mile service areas with combined school/park complexes as near as possible to the center of 79 KENT these service areas. (4) The entire system is linked together with a series of pedestrian PARKS & and bicycle trails. RECREATION PLAN • 1982 Sections 2.2 through 2.7 describe in greater detail the plan components City of which have resulted from this planning process. These are: Kent,Washington o Greenbelts and special features parks. o Major community parks. o Cultural facilities. o Residential neighborhood parks. o District parks in the industrial valley. o Trail systems, boulevards and landscape corridors. 2.2 The Framework of Greenbelts and Special Features Parks The framework consists of four major elements: (1) the wooded slopes of the West Valley Wall, (2) the Green River and associated wetlands and farmlands west and south of the River, (3) the wooded slopes of the East Valley Wall and the associated canyons of Mill Creek and Garrison Creek, and (4) Soos Creek and its associated wetlands and steep slopes. The largest portion of these greenbelt systems can be protected by regulations prohibiting development on steep slopes and wetlands. - The Green River Corridor is somewhat more difficult to protect, as industrial and residential growth has already begun to line the rivers edge. Following the adopted recommendations of Kent's 1980 Green River Corridor Plan, this plan shows a 500-foot open green corridor along the entire length of the river. Continuous public access along both sides of the Green River can be achieved through -_ the acquisition of easements and/or through public purchase of the river frontage. The plan also envisions expanded public ownership at major meander points such as "Nursery Bend", "Goodnews Bay" and south of "Briscoe Meander." Other greenbelt expansions in meander areas include the "T-Bridge", "Valley Freeway" and "Van Doren's Landing" parks. Clark Lake will be a major new special resource park located centrally in the East Hill planning area. 2.3 Major Community Parks 80 There are four major community park complexes envisioned in the plan; two of these are in the East Hill area and one each is located in the West Hill and Valley Floor areas. ii 1 _ PARKS & } RECREATION 7 � PLAN • 1982 City of 1 Kent,Washington l d� x The Green River At Horsehead Bend (left). Westside Wetlands with migrating waterfowl - - (lower left). , r. The Green River at Mill Woods (below). Mimiw ...v WWI 83 } - ..:F (♦ '�` .oaf .. _ •.. � > e Tim - f s µ ,- _, TABLE VI-1 PROPOSED ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT 1982-1987 Neighborhood & Community Parks Special Resource & District Parks Acres & Cultural Facilities Acres Greenbelt Parks & Trails Acres Acqui- Devel- Acqui- Devel- Acqui- Devel- sition o prn en t sition opment sition opment WEST o Star Lake 10 10 o Lake Fenwick 15-30 HILL o Sunnycrest 5 5 .. ...... .. ...... ..... .... ....... .. ............ . MEOW: .... .... VALLEY o Horseshoe Bend 5 o Senior Center 5 5 Green River Corridor: FLOOR o South of Willis 5 5 to Neely Farmstead I I o Mill Creek 6 o Goodnews Bay 7 o T-Bridge 4 o River Flats 10 o Riverfront Park 30 (Additions) o Orillia 5 o West Side Wetlands o Van Doren's Landing 12 & Ponds 60-85 o Central Valley 5 o Green River Frontage & Trails 50-60 15 o O'Brien 5 o North Interurban 5 o Riverf ront Park 30 ....... ... Wiv . ........ .... ................ EAST o North Scenic Hill 5 5 o Campus Park 9 15 o Clark Lake 35 HILL o South Scenic Hill 5 o South Meridian 35 j o Mill Creek 5 Trail System o Sequoia 5 5 o Lower East Hill 10 10 o Central East Hill 10 10 o Springbrook 5 5 o Panther Lake 5 5 ........ . .. ....... 40 35 5 .............. TOTALS 114 65 50 21 200-250 50 84 TABLE VI-2 PROPOSED ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT 1987-2000 Neighborhood & Community Parks Special Resource & District Parks Acres & Cultural Facilities Acres Greenbelt Parks & Trails Acres Acqui- Devel- Acqui- Devel- Acqui- Devel- sition opment sition opment sition opment 1 WEST o Midway 15 HILL Q 1'S `0 0 VALLEY o Goodnews Bay 7 o Performing Arts 2-5 o Green River Corridor FLOOR o Neely Farmstead 5 o Valley Freeway 5 o Orillia 5 0 516 Ponds 7 o Van Doren's Landing 12 o Nursery Bend 33 o Valley Center 5 o West Frager Rd Greenbelt 5 o O'Brien 5 o South Frager Rd. Greenbelt 13 o North Interurban 5 o South Horseshoe Bend Greenbelt 10 o River Flats 10 o Bikeways :. o South Interurban 5 5 73 IRA,01 EAST o North 116th 10 10 o Meridian 30 o Garrison Creek 50 HILL (North Fork) o Kentridge 5 5 o South Meridian 30 o Garrison Creek 30 (South Fork) o Glencarin 5 5 o East Hill 10 o Garrison Creek 10 Community Cntr. Trail System o Upper Lake Meridian 10 10 o Clark Lake- 10 Meridian Trail o Springwood 10 10 System o Misty Meadows 10 10 o Lake Young 5 o Soos Creek 10 o N. Lake Meridian 10 o Meridian Valley 10 1 70 20 TOTALS 90 124 0 72-75 153 20 KENT PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 City of Kent,Washington s.. Schools such as Soos Creek Elementary on East Hill Schools will provide the focal point for new Neighborhood Parks (right). The plan aims to protect and consolidate the Russell Road, Riverfront Park, and Golf Course Lands through acquisitions on both sides of the Green River (below right). Dike trail along the Green River. P � JkLI 5 i d I MIS -f9 F — n i s. .w 86 The West Hill complex is made up of the existing Lake Fenwick Park along with PARKS & KENT certain additions which will allow Lake Fenwick to function effectively as a RECREATION community park: (1) the park is expanded to incorporate land suitable for active PLAN • 1982 recreation fields and (2) the remaining shoreline and lake-facing slopes of Lake Fenwick are acquired to allow continuous public access around the lake, and to protect City of its natural character. Kent,Washington The Valley Floor's existing community park facilities at Russell Road and Riverfront Park are consolidated with the existing Golf Course Property and the future Nursery Bend Park area to form a major community park complex. The key to consolidating these properties is the acquisition of the lands south and west of Riverfront Park. Once this consolidation has occurred, the Riverfront Park area becomes the City's largest park facility and will serve a regional as well as community function. This is consistent with its location along the Green River Corridor, an important regional recreational feature, and with its location at the "gateway" to Kent from Interstate 5. A new East Hill community park and recreation complex is proposed at Kent- Meridian Jr. High School. The City will be responsible for developing the passive recreational components of the park on its lands to the west and north of the High School. The School District's contribution will be public access to its very substantial facilities for active recreation, including swimming, tennis, baseball and football. A second East Hill community park complex is needed to accommodate projected growth in that area. The plan proposes that a site suitable for active recreational development be acquired in the block south of Meridian High School and north of Clark Lake. This would be linked via trails with the High School, the passive park lands of Clark Lake, and the woods and wetlands of the County's 80-acre park property immediately north of the High School. 2.4 Cultural Facilities The master plan proposes three major new cultural facility projects. These are: (1) a new Senior Center facility on a site at or near the current Senior Center location, (2) a Cultural Arts Center in the downtown area, and (3) an East Hill Community Center which could be located on 240th at the site of the previously discussed South Meridian Community Park. 2.5 Residential Neighborhood Parks Residential neighborhood parks in the master plan are related to school sites wherever possible. Passive park space is added to school sites and existing school athletic facilities are upgraded and/or expanded to make them suitable for league play. 87 KENT The schools are generally well distributed throughout the residential communities at a PARKS & frequency of approximately one per square mile. This "service area" size (one square RECREATION mile) conforms to that recommended for neighborhood parks. Combining park and PLAN • 1982 school facilities provides cost and amenity advantages to both the Parks Department City of and the Kent and Federal Way School Districts. Kent,Washington 2_6 District Parks in the Industrial Valley The master plan identifies a number of sites for development of commercial and industrial district parks. These sites are distributed throughout the Valley Floor at approximately-one per square mile. The sites have been located along the Interurban "Trail and the Green River Corridor Trail System and also are tied to proposed east-west bikeway/pedestrian routes to maximize pedestrian access by workers. The sites are at Orillia, North Interurban, Briscoe, O'Brien, Van Doren's Landing, Valley Center and South Interurban. 2.7 Trail Systems, Boulevards and Landscape Corridors Making all parks more accessible to foot and bicycle traffic is a primary goal of this plan. The master plan incorporates three basic types of facilities for increasing pedestrian access: (1) paved trails primarily or exclusively for the use of non-motorized traffic (foot and bicycle), (2) shared-R.O.W, trails that are paved pathways for non- motorized traffic but share R.O.W. with vehicular traffic, and (3) nature trails exclusively for foot traffic. There is only one exclusively pedestrian trail system in the plan; the Interurban Trail. This trail runs along an abandoned railroad line and is an important regional link between Fort Dent on the north and Pacific on the south. The primary needs of this trail are completion of the currently unpaved areas between 228th and 285th streets, and visual enhancement through plantings. The Green River Trail System is a combination of exclusive pedestrian/bicycle trails on dike tops and shared-R.O.W. trails on riverfront roads and scenic drives (See resolution 923 designating Russell Road and Frager Road as Scenic Routes). The proposed system is continuous on both sides of the river with bridge connections and underpasses provided at key locations to enhance access and create a series of shorter loop trails along the river (see the 1980 Green River Corridor Plan, approved January 12, 1981, for detailed trail recommendation). The Soos Creek, East Valley Wall, and Lake Fenwick trail systems are nature trails exclusively for foot traffic. _ 88 The Green River and Soos Creek trail systems are part of a larger regional trail loop system (See Figure VI-2). Shared-R.O.W. trails are proposed for a number of east-west streets in the Valley KENT and serve a very important function in linking the Interurban and Green River systems. PARKS & On East Hill shared-R.O.W. trails are used extensively p to link arks in both the east- RECREATION west and north-south directions and occur at approximately one mile intervals. PLAN • 1982 City of 3.0 DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPOSED PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT Kent,Washington PROJECTS Tables VI-1 and VI-2 list all proposed acquisition and development projects in two phases: Near-Term (1982-1987), and Long-Term (1987-2000). A more detailed narrative description of each project (1982-1987) is contained in the following paragraphs. 89 KENT PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 - City of Kent,Washington 3.1 West Hill Neighborhood & District Parks 3.2 West Hill Special Resources & Greenbelt Parks & Trails Star Lake Lake Fenwick Located near Star Lake Elementary and Totem Junior High The additional of 15-30 acres at this existing special resource School, this park would primarily provide passive recreation space park would enable incorporation of community facilities into the and picnicking facilities for the surrounding single-family residential site. Because of its size and topography, the existing site is not community. appropriate for the development of play fields and courts. Future inclusion of Highway Department property to the west would Sunnycrest accommodate such facilities as well as provide better community access to the site from Reith Road. The Sunnycrest area of West Hill is currently not well served with neighborhood park facilities. Linda Heights is a small park with little room for expansion due to the proximity of Interstate 5 to the west and developed residential areas on all others sides. A Sunnycrest neighborhood park should contain all of the standard neighborhood facilities (see Chapter V, Section 4.2) except for athletic fields, which are provided by Sunnycrest Elementary School. If the Washington National Guard Armory becomes available for this park, the existing structures would provide additional facilities for future expansion of many of Kent's cultural and educational programs. 90 KENT PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 City of Kent,Washington 3.3 Valley Floor Neighborhood & District Parks River Flats Horseshoe Bend As residential development continues in the area between Kent and Auburn, the farmlands south and east of the County's This proposed park would serve many functions besides provid- North Green River Park will require more neighborhood services. A ing a neighborhood park for the relatively recent medium-density park located in the "River Flats" area would serve that function and residential development to the east and west along the river. It should contain the standard neighborhood facilities. It would also should also serve as a way-stop along the Green River Trail System serve as a rest stop/picnic area along the south side of the River and and, in addition to the standard features of a neighborhood park, the the provision of parking would facilitate increased community site should have more trees, a bridge to North Green River Park access. (County), and off-street parking to facilitate community access to the river trail system. Van Doren's Landing South of Willis This park will provide a trail head and rest stop for the Green River Trail System. It will also serve the needs of developing A park site on the River south of the Willis neighborhood residential and commercial areas surrounding the site. The park would serve that existing single-family residential area and would should contain standard neighborhood park facilities. also provide increased access to the River System for the entire valley community and serve as a way-stop along that system. In addition to the standard neighborhood park facilities, it should also include tree Orillia plantings, parking for the Green River Trail System, and a bank cut for This park would provide a rest stop/picnic area for both the increased access to the river. Green River Trail System and the Interurban Trail. Located in a rapidly expanding commercial and industrial area between Tukwila Goodnews Bay and Kent, it would also serve the recreation needs of that daytime The area immediately adjacent to this proposed site is zoned population. It should contain the standard facilities for commer- multi-family residential and will be developed in the near future. cial/industrial district parks. This site would serve that additional population and, like other neighborhood parks located along the river, would provide increased access to the River System for the entire community. This park should include all standard neighborhood park facilities, as well as off- 91 street parking and additional plantings. KENT Central Valley 3.5 Valley Floor Special Resource & Greenbelt Parks & Trails PARKS & This park would be a standard commercial/industrial neighbor- Mill Creek RECREATION hood park. Located along the Interurban Trail it would serve as a PLAN • 1982 rest stop/picnic area for users of that trail system and the proposed One of the last remaining riparian woods is located at the cross valley trail on S. 228th St. intersection of Mill Creek (West Hill) and the Green River. It should City of become a natural area aloe the Green River 'frail System and Kent,Washington g y provide a rest stop along the nearby Interurban Trail. Development O'Brien would be minimal. Short trails and picnic facilities should be Similar to the proposed Valley Center Park to the south, this provided with some parking just off West Valley Road. park would be a standard commercial/industrial neighborhood park serving as a rest stop/picnic area for people using the Interurban T-Bridge Trail and the proposed cross-valley trail on S. 212th St. The park This section of river has some mature riparian vegetation. site lies adjacent to O'Brien school and allows development of the The area would serve as a stopping point along the Green River Trail school's play areas and equipment for joint use. System and a rest area for travelers on the nearby Interurban Trail. Some open meadows should be provided, as well as restrooms, picnic - North Interurban facilities, trails and some off-street parking. Like Valley Center, O'Brien, and Orillia, this would be a commercial/industrial neighborhood park and would be located to Riverfront Park (Additions) provide a rest stop and picnic area along the Interurban Trail. Expansion of the Russell Road/Riverfront Park in the area between the existing Park and the Golf Course would allow that 3.4 Valley Floor Community Parks & Cultural Facilities area to function as a community park for the valley floor and as a regional park for south King County. Senior Center The Center serves people 55 years of age and older from a Green River Trail System wide geographical area. Location in the downtown area is logical Implementation of the entire system will require close coor- for many reasons, accessibility and proximity to shopping being dination and cooperation between many jurisdictions. (See discus- primary among them. The center has outgrown its space, however, sion under "Cooperative Arrangements with Others" under Chapter and relocation to a larger site or expansion of the existing III). The development of the system of roads and dikes into a viable structure is required. Expanded facilities would include meeting bike, hiking, and jogging trail will depend primarily on the clarifica- rooms, game rooms, dining facilities, and social service offices. tion of property ownership and easernent rights along the river; as the system comes into being-- no matter how incrementally -- some Neely Farmstead of the facilities to be added should include benches, viewpoints, This park should serve primarily as a historic site related to fencing and underpasses where required, and fishing and boating the Neely Home. Development of the park should preserve the access points. historic character of the Home. Westside Wetlands & Ponds 92 Regulation and acquisition of this section of land along the west side of the Green River would proivde a greenbelt along the KENT PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 City of Kent,Washington Green River Trail System and act as a buffer between the trail and Lower East Hill proposed multi-family residential development to the west. Devel- This park should contain all standard neighborhood facilities and opment of this site would be minimal, but should include access would serve an established single-family neighborhood between S. trails, some open meadows, and some wildlife viewing and picnicking 240th St. and Kent-Kangley Road in the western-most portion of the facilities. East Hill subarea. 3.6 East Hill Neighborhood & District Parks Central East Hill North Scenic Hill This park would serve the neighborhood park needs of a rapidly growing residential area just east of the current Kent City bound- This neighborhood is currently somewhat physically removed ary. It should contain all of the standard neighborhood facilities from many City facilities because the East Hill side slopes to the with special emphasis on the provision of informal play meadows and west and south, and the Mill Creek Canyon to the north and east. A walking trails. park located here should include all of the standard neighborhood facilities. A joint-use potential similar to Garrison Creek Park exists Springbrook on the reservoir property owned by the City Water Department. Located in another area of increased residential development, South Scenic Hill this park, in conjunction with the Springbrook Elementary School site, should accommodate all of the neighborhood recreational needs The City of Kent currently owns and has minimally developed a of that expanding population. Since it is within King County's park site (Scenic Hill Park) adjacent to Scenic Hill Elementary jurisdiction and both Kent and Renton's sphere of influence, this site School. The combination Park/School site should be developed to is likely to be developed as a cooperative effort. provide all of the standard facilities of a neighborhood park. Panther Lake Sequoia Panther Lake is another rapidly growing section in the East Located next to Sequoia Junior High School, a neighborhood Hill subarea and this neighborhood park would serve an increasing park in this location should contain all of the standard neighborhood population. In conjunction with Panther Lake Elementary School it park facilities. It would serve existing and proposed single-family should provide all standard neighborhood facilities. It would also and multi-family development on all sides. provide a rest stop/picnic area on the proposed trail along S. 208th 93 Street. KENT 3.7 East Hill Community Parks & Cultural Facilities PARKS & RECREATION Campus Park PLAN • 1982 The majority of this site will remain wooded to form a buffer City of between the active recreation fields at Kent-Meridian Senior High Kent,Washington and the residential development to the west. It should, however, be developed for parking and picnicking with trail connections to the school site, Triangle Park, and the proposed trail to Garrison Creek. South Meridian This 35 acre site is to provide active recreation facilities for the growing East Hill area. The site is physically related to the Meridian Jr. High School and to the proposed Clark Lake Natural Resource Park. The site is also well suited for the location a future East Hill Community Center facility to include a pool, gumnasium/auditorium, meeting rooms, etc. 3.8 East Hill Special Resource & Greenbelt Parks & Trails Clark Lake Though rapid residential development is taking place on the East Hill generally, a good deal of open space still exists around and near Clark Lake. This special resource site could be linked by trail to Meridian Junior High School and King County woodlands property both to the north. The recreational opportunities afforded by this combination of park types would serve as a community center for the central and western portions of the East Hill subarea. _ Mill Creek Trail System This system would link the Green River Trail System with the proposed Community Park at Lake Fenwick. It would provide an interesting side trip from the Green River Trail and would facilitate movement between the Nest Hill and Valley Floor subareas. Devel- opment of the trail would be minimal but it should be signed, portions fenced where necessary, and benches and tables provided. 94 - V NT VII. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ARKS & RECREATION PLAN - 1982 City of Kent,Washington 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Implementation Plan is to outline a set of actions which will result in the accomplishment of the Park and Recreation Master Plan presented in the previous section. Ideally, the Implementation Plan will involve the application of all possible resources in an orderly sequence of actions which reflect needs and priorities in the Kent Service Area. The implementation plan presented here consists of four segments: The first is a discussion of a systematic approach to the establishment of priorities within the plan, the second is a discussion of funding opportunities and projections, the third is an analysis of the special opportunities offered by cooperative agreements between the Kent Parks Department and other agencies, and finally, the fourth section of this chapter brings all of these considerations together in an Action Plan for the 1982 through 1987 period. 2.0 ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN: A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH One of the most important aspects of planning is the process of setting priorities. The Master Plan shown in Figure VI-1 illustrates many park acquisition and development projects which will significantly benefit the Kent service area. Imple- menting the plan requires the ability to identify the parks projects which are most critical to the park system's immediate needs. Because of the importance of the priority setting process, it is strongly recommended that a systematic evaluation process be utilized to establish priorities. The evaluation should involve the assessment of four basic sets of factors for each potential park project: 95 KENT (1) The physical features of the park site; PARKS & RECREATION (2) The degree to which the project meets identified needs; PLAN • 1982 City of (3) The degree to which the project meets cost considerations; and Kent,Washington (4) The unique opportunities and/or special timing considerations inherent in the project. It is recommended that a detailed list of criteria be developed under each of the four categories and that a numerical point system be developed to reflect the importance of each category and each criterion within each category. Utilizing a numerical point system, each project's performance is reflected in its overall "score". A systematic approach to priority-setting has significant advantages over the more informal, unstructured approaches which are often employed. First of all, a systematic approach insures that each project is thoroughly assessed according to a mutually agreed-upon group of factors which comprehensively reflect the city's needs and desires. Second, a systematic approach makes it possible to very clearly explain the reasoning behind the ranking of park projects. This is very important in helping the public and its elected officials to make informed decisions in regard to parks and recreation expenditures. Appendix D presents in detail a possible numerical evaluation system for prioritizing Kent's park and recreation projects. This system is presented here as an example only. It is anticipated that the Kent Parks and Recreation Staff will carefully review and amend the system on an annual basis to insure its continued applicability to changing circumstances. Numerical evaluation systems such as the one presented in Appendix D are ideally suited to computerization. Utilizing the Kent Park and Recreation Department's computers to store critical information on each park project and automatically calculate the "scores" of each project will make the logistics of the prioritization system much more feasible. If the system is not computerized and if manual applications of the system become too cumbersome, the City may want to utilize the criteria presented in Appendix D as a simple check list of important considerations and drop the numerical scoring aspect of the system. 96 Regardless of the procedures by which the system is applied, certain basic values KENT that reflect the goals and objectives of the Kent Parks and Recreation Plan PARKS & must be maintained. Projects that have the following characteristics should achieve RREEAC�REATION a high priority rating: City of o Projects that rank high in the needs analysis. Kent,Washington o Projects that are located centrally to unserved populations and are adjacent to a school site and/or greenbelt trail system. o Projects that minimize costs through joint use, 'outside" funding sources, and/or creative funding mechanisms. o Projects that have strong user group and/or political support and where development pressures threaten the desired site. 97 3.0 COST ESTIMATES FOR PRIORITY PROJECTS Once a prioritized list of projects has been established it is necessary to develop cost estimates as a first step towards identifying funding needs and sources. Tables VII-7 and VII-8 summarize these estimated costs for the 1982-1987 period. 1 Several things are worth noting in regard to the cost estimates presented here: (1) The estimates utilize prototypical unit cost factors to arrive at dollar amounts. Actual project costs may vary considerably based on special site _ conditions and other factors. Therefore, the figures presented here should not be used for detailed project planning, (2) While the specific numbers for each project may not be highly accurate, the overall totals for acquisition and development probably do give a good indication of total costs since inaccuracies in individual projects will tend to range both above and below actual costs, thus cancelling themselves out within the overall totals. (3) The numbers presented here are in 1981 dollars. Any use of the numbers in subsequent years must be accompanied by the appropriate adjustment in land acquisition and development costs. 99 TABLE VII-1 KENT 1982-87 PARKS & LAND ACQUISITION RECREATION PLAN • 1982 COST ESTIMATES (1981 $Is) City of Kent,Washington COST/ TOTAL ACRES ACRE COST West Hill - 15 $ 65,000/Acre $ 975,000.00 Various Neighborhood Acres Park Sites Valley Floor - 30-50 $ 65,000/Acre $ 1,950,000.00 Various Neighborhood & District Acres 3,250,000.00 Park Sites East Hill - 40 $ 65,000/Acre Various Neighborhood & District Acres $ 2,600,000.00 Park Sites Lake Fenwick - 15-30 $ 55,000/Acre $ 825,000.00- Acres 1,650,000.00 Green River - 150-185 $ 25,000/Acre $ 3,750,000.00- Natural Resource Acres 4,625,000.00 & Greenbelt Parks Clark Lake 35 $ 25,000/Acre $ 875,000.00 Acres Senior Center Site 5 $ 90,000/Acre $ 450,000.00 Acres South Meridian 35 $ 50,000/Acre $ 1,750,000.00 Community Park Acres TOTAL 325 - $ 13,175,000.00- 395 Acres 16,175,000.00 100 TABLE VII-2 1982-87 KENT DEVELOPMENT PARKS & COST ESTIMATES (1981 $'s) RECREATION PLAN • 1982 Total Cost/ Total City of Units Unit Cost Kent,Washington West Hill 15 $ 60,000/ 900,000.00 Neighborhood Parks Acres Acre Valley Floor 10 $ 60,000/ $ 600,000.00 Neighborhood Parks Acres Acre East Hill 45 $ 60,000/ 2,700,000.00 Neighborhood Parks Acres Acre Green River Special 45 $ 6,000/ 270,000.00 Resource & Greenbelt Acres Acre Parks Green River N/A N/A $ 1,267,000.00* Trail System Mill Creek Trail System N/A N/A 50,000.00 East Hill 15 $ 60,000/ 900,000.00 Community Park (Campus Park) Acres Acre Senior Center 30,000 S.F. $65/S.F. 1,950,000.00 TOTAL N/A $ 8,637,000.00 * including landscape restoration, signs, footbridges, etc. for 9 miles of trail system (70% of 13.2 miles proposed in Green River Corridor Plan). 101 KENT 4.0 FUNDING PRIORITY PROJECTS PARKS & RECREATION 4.1 Introduction - PLAN - 1982 The uncertainties of economic projections present serious problems in developing City of an implementation plan. On the one hand, there are continued optimistic projections Kent,Washington of economic and population growth for the Kent Valley. At the same time, there is near record unemployment dnd the possibility of further layoffs in the state and throughout the nation. When added to the decreasing federal government role in funding local needs and the serious fiscal problems facing our State Government, these factors provide a very difficult atmosphere in which to predict supportable funding options to meet the projected $ 22-25 million dollars required for Kent's park and recreation needs through 1987. It is critical that we look beyond the present uncertainty and assume that longer-range growth, both economic and human, will justify bold planning goals and programs that will allow public needs to be met in an orderly and efficient manner. The cycles of growth in the Green River Valley make it even more mandatory that options be addressed now, during a lull, rather than later in the frenzy of rapid economic development. 4_2 Past Funding The history of funding parks and recreation in the Kent area indicates both creativity and commitment -- creativity in the utilization of all available tools and funding sources to augment local funds, and commitment by the City of Kent in appropriating the local tax resources necessary to meet increasing needs and demands. Table VII-3 summarizes funding sources for capital purposes during the period of 1970- 81. The significant aspects of this table are: o An increase in funding of 377% between the periods of 1970-75 and 1976- 81. o A decrease in proportionate funding from federal, state, and county sources that has been offset by increases in local funding. o During the most recent five-year period of funding, an approximately 50150 split between localized funding vs. federal and state sources. o Significant reliance upon categorical grant programs for non-local sources. 4.3 Future Projections of Needs Tables VII-1 and VII-2 list projected park and recreation capital needs through 1987 102 of $ 22-25 million (1981 dollars). This capital budget projection (at the high level) TABLE VII-3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS KENT PARKS & RECREATION FUNDING BREAKDOWN PLAN • 1982 City of 1970-75 % 1976-81 % 1982-87 % Kent,Washington (Projected) FEDERAL 907,125 51% 3,770,506 44% 3,272,000/3,722,000 15% STATE 307,115 17% 763,450 9% 3,272,000/3,722,000 15% COUNTY 118,604 7% 163,961 2% 2,181,000/2,481,000 10% DONATIONS 200,000 11% 887,288 10% 2,181,000/2,481,000 10% CITY OF KENT 256,952 14% 2,945,087 35% 10,906,000/12,406,000 50% TOTAL 1,789,796 100% 8,530,292 100% 21,812,000- 100% 24,812,000 103 TABLE VII-4 KENT OPERATIONAL-BUDGETS_ ___ KENT & REVENUE PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 City of % Kent,Washington Year Budget Revenue Rev/Budget Difference 1979 1,282,000 1980 1,481,000 634,000 42% 847,000 1981 1,909,000 935,000 49% 974,000 1982 Estimate 2,083,000 1,054,000 51% 1,029,000 *1983 2,250,000 1,125,000 50% 1,125,000 *1984 2,510,000 1,255,000 50% 1,255,000 *1985 2,832,000 1,414,000 50% 1,414,000 *1986 3,104,000 1,552,000 50% 1,552,000 *1987 3,520,000 1,760,000 50% 1,760,000 1) Increase between '82-87 = 1,437,000 2) Increase in General Fund Support '82-87 = 731,000 * Projected in 1981 Dollars 105 KENT represents a 191% increase over the preceding five years and a significant downward trend PARKS & from the 377% increase between 1970-75 and 1976-81. RECREATION PLAN • 1982 During the 1970-81 period, park land owned by the City of Kent increased from approximately 52 acres to 253 acres (a 386% increase). Future proposals through 1987 City of would add between 325 and 395 acres, over two-thirds of which would be greenbelt land. Kent,Washington Additional development of existing and proposed park land would iliclude various facilities i.e., senior centers, athletic facilities, trails and commons. Correlated to the proposed increases in park land and facilities is a correspond- ing increase in the cost of operation and maintenance. In 1981 these costs totaled $ 1,256,000 (or an average of $ 5,374 per acre of land). Table VII-4 provides some historic comparisons of these costs and projects them into 1987. 4.4 Potential Funding Sources Given the uncertainty in our current economy, the identification of potential funding sources to meet Kent's park and recreation needs through 1987 is a most challenging endeavor. The best guides are historic patterns of Kent's capital and operational funding together with future growth projections and the respective park and recreation requirements identified in correlation to that projected growth. Table VII-3 summarizes this data and in general reflects a five-year need to almost double resources for both capital and operational requirements. Table VII-5 lists the broad range of funding sources by jurisdiction and includes both historic as well as untapped future sources. Those programs that appear to be potentially more favorable as future sources have been identified with a (+) and those that appear to be diminishing as sources with a W. It is obvious that the projected trend in funding sources is shifting dramatically from federal and state to local responsibility and initiative. If current federal proposals to transfer responsibility to the state for some of the categorical grant and revenue sharing programs include reasonable levels of funding, it is possible, though not probable, that state sources of funding might show increased potential for Kent. To evaluate the options in greater detail, we have divided them into "capital" and "operational" categories. Capital Funding Table VII-3 represents a reasonable estimate of projected capital funding by general source (federal-state-county-donation-local). This reflects a substantial in- crease in reliance upon local funding (70% vs. 50% in the preceding five years), and a corresponding drop in the federal and state percentage share of the program. 106 KENT These projections are based upon the following assumptions: PARKS & j RECREATION 1. Federal Block Grant and Revenue Sharing programs will continue (even if PLAN - 1982 at lower levels). City 2. Federal Land and Water Conservation funds will not be available. Kent�Washington 3. Some form of public works or employment program will be available through federal or state sources. 4. State programs of matching local funds for recreation acquisition or development will continue on a limited basis. 5. Increased county-wide funding for parks will occur through a bond issue, service area, or park district actions. 6. Kent's Environmental Excise Tax will be utilized primarily for park purposes. Assuming a continuation of past building trends and projections of residential growth, the Excise Tax will bring in $ 1-1.5 million annually or $ 6-9 million over the 1982-87 period.* 7. Continued high priority will be given to recreation by the City of Kent in allocating resources. 8. Cooperative agreements and creative acquisition will be increasingly util- ized with private sector, schools, county, state, and federal agencies to meet capital requirements. 9. The program will continue to receive strong administrative direction essential to public and political support. * This assumption is currently in some doubt. The 1982 Washington State legislature passed and sent to the Governor the so called Local-Option Tax Package (SB 4972). This bill will prohibit development charges such as Kent's Environ- mental Excise Tax, but the bill does authorize additional local sales taxes and real estate excise taxes to help offset the loss of development charges. The details of SB4972 were not available as the time this study was prepared. 107 KENT 4.6 Operational Funding PARKS & RECREATION Table VII-4 sets forth actual and projected total Park budgets for operations during PLAN • 1982 the years of 1979-1987. Projections for 1983-1987 are based upon estimated additions of parks and facilities by year in accordance with this Plan calculated at Kent's 1981 average City of maintenance and operating cost of $ 5,300 per acre. Kent,Washington The total projected increase in operating budget from 1982 to 1987 is $ 1,437,000. However, increased revenue from operations should offset the effect on the general fund budget by approximately one-half. Kent's recent innovative and aggressive approach to revenue generating programs and facilities has provided a broad range of recreation programs and facilities at a relatively low net cost to the City's general fund. In 1982, over 50% of the total Park budget will be offset by revenue. Should this revenue policy continue, the increase in other sources of operating funds (i.e., general fund) needed to support the added recreation facilities envisioned by this plan would be $ 731,000 by 1987 (in 1981 $'s). 5.0 COOPERATION & COORDINATION WITH OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES 5.1 Introduction There are plans, programs, and projects that are carried out by agencies other than the Kent Parks and Recreation Department that have direct and indirect impacts on the parks, recreation, and open space system of the City. Some of these agencies would have a direct interest in recreation while others would have none. An example of the former would be the school districts and an example of the latter would be the drainage districts. School districts provide for a range of recreational opportunities as a necessary component of the complete education and socialization of the student. Drainage districts do not have recreation or open space enhancement as a component of their programs, but there are opportunities, where engineering projects are properly designed,for accomplish- ing some recreational goal or protecting some environmental amenity with little or no additional expenditure of public funds. The practicality of multi-use and joint-use public projects is self-evident in these times of tightly constained goverment budgets. It is important that the City Parks Department not only be aware of other agency actions which might either diminish or increase recreational opportunities, but be in a position to do something about it. The department should be more formally tied into the process by which such programs or actions are administered, so that where appropriate it can be involved in the planning and implementation of these recreation components. To this end, it is recommended that a Parks and Recreation "Technical Advisory 108 Committee" be formed to provide necessary coordination in the development of facilities. TABLE VII-5 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES LOCAL COUNTY STATE FEDERAL KENT --- ---- PARKS & RECREATION { (+) o Kent General Fund o General Funds (-) o IAC (State portion) (-) o IAC (Land & Water PLAN • 1982 Conservation Fund) ; City of o Bond Issues (+) o County-Wide o Outdoor Recreation o Corps of Engineers Kent,Washington (Councilmanic, General) Bond Issue (Pro-Parks) Grants (Dike-related improvements & Revenue on Green River) o Cooperative Agreements o King County Arts (-) o Arts Commission o Soil Conservation with other local Service Drainage Projects Agencies (e.g. Schools) o Boating Grants (joint use of canals & retention areas). (+) o User charges: o Programming money o ORV Grants (Cooperative Agreement) - Fees o Snowmobile Grants - Mandatory dedication of land or fee in lieu (+) o Service Area Act o Cooperative Agreements (-) o Housing & Urban Develop- for Subdivisions -ment Block Grants - Environmental o Park District Exise Tax (-) o Urban Park & Recreation (+) o Donations Recovery Program (+) o Volunteers (+) o Cooperative Agreements o Community Development with Local Improvement Block Grant Districts (e.g. use of storm water retention areas) (+) o Revenue Sharing o Park District o Economic Development Grants o Service Area Act (-) o CETA (-) o YCC o Pittman - Robertson Grants o Dingell - Johnson Grants 109 (+) = anticipated increases (-) = anticipated decreases KENT The Committee should include representatives of the School Districts (Kent and PARKS & Federal Way); the City of Kent's Parks, Planning, and Public Works Departments, and RECREATION King County's Transportation, Community, Parks, and Resource Planning Divisions. In PLAN • 1982 addition, representatives from agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Soil Conservation Service should be invited to explain any special projects or studies Kent,Washington that would have recreation potential. 5.2 School Districts Both the Kent and Federal Way School Districts have sites within the study area. In the past, strong ties have been established with the Kent District but not with Federal Way. This should be rectified as an important first step towards better utilization of recreational facilities. As mentioned previously, the school districts have an interest in providing recreational opportunities. The school districts provide for students while the City Parks and Recreation Department provides for the community-at-large. As school budgets come under closer scrutiny, objections to certain types of school activities may be raised on the basis of their not being essential to a basic education. As the City's budget comes under closer scrutiny, services that are seemingly provided by others, such as the athletic facilities available at school sites, will come into question as a possible "redundancy" of public spending. Rather than a threat to both, this situation should be perceived as a desirable opportunity for improved cost savings, community relations, and delivery of public services. City/School District arrangements have been established in the past for coopera- tive uses of the school facilities. Such arrangements could be enhanced in the future by the City and District agreeing to cooperative facility planning, design, and funding. Where school sites are properly designed, they can contribute significantly to the surrounding neighborhood, both aesthetically and functionally. They can be enhanced even further where they are able to be designed in conjunction with existing or planned adjacent park properties. Properly designed and operated school facilities can serve the community not only as a day-time education center, but as a night-time recreation center also. They can also serve as a cultural arts facility during non-school hours or non-school times of the year. Active recreational facilities, indoor and out, could serve the school population and the surrounding community. All of this would require early planning, cooperative arrangements for design and funding, and formalized agreements to clarify responsibilities regarding any increased operating and main- tenance costs. These would include additional personnel, energy costs associated with increased hours of operation, and increased wear on the facilities by reason of more 111 intense use. KENT 5.3 Kent Public Works Department PARKS & Drainage Utility RECREATION PLAN • 1982 Where drainage ditches and/or holding ponds are to be engineered as part of a proposed drainage system, these could be designed so as to provide some public amenities Kent,Washington such as accessible/usable rights-of-way and the planting of vegetation. These rights-of- way could provide a critical portion of the overall recreation trail system. Transportation Planning and Implementation The greatest deterrent to movement around Kent in anything other than an automobile is the lack of safe travelways for other modes of travel. Outside of the Central Business District, sidewalks along major roadways are rare. If this situation were to be rectified, pedestrian and bike movement throughout the study area would be substantially enhanced. King County is responsible for the roads in a large part of the study area and the City of Kent should work with the County to accomplish mutual transportation goals. The trails designated as part of this plan should serve as a guide for the future development of shared, paved facilities in both the City and the County. 5_4 Kent Planning Department The Planning Department is responsible for administering a number of ordinances affecting development. With the strict enforcement of these codes during the building permit process, there is the potential for preserving some features of the natural environment with little or no cost to the general public. _ Appropriate members of both the Park and Planning staff should meet with the Park Committee of the City Council and with the City Administrator. The Planning Staff should brief the City leadership on the type and degree of protection afforded any particular feature of the natural environment. The Master Plan Map should be used as a guide to those natural features. The regulatory mechanisms that would need to be discussed would include: o Storm water retention ordinances o Steep slope ordinances o Tree Preservation ordinance o Unique & fragile areas mapping o Shoreline Master Plan o Shoreline "Special Interest Zone" 112 5.5 Green River Basin Program KENT PARKS & The Green River Basin Program is an ongoing, long-term program concerned with RECREATION all plans and programs that could affect the Green River Valley. it is coordinated by PLAN • 1982 the Resource Planning Section of the King County Planning Department and involves all of the River Valley communities -- Auburn, Kent, Renton and Tukwila -- as well as City of King County. Participation in the Program is intended to provide a single forum in Kent,Washington which to address all of the issues arising from the actions of each community or from Green River Corridor Policies the actions of outside agencies. There are many studies, programs, plans, and projects that are ostensibly part of the Basin Program. The major ones involving or impacting j Adopted by City Council January, 1981. Kent are discussed below. 1., Continued inter-governmental cooperation with the City of Tuk- wila, the City of Auburn, and King County and other govern- Army Corps of Engineers Flood Damage Reduction Study ments and agencies interested in establishing a regional system of parks and trails along the Green River. This study involves an engineering evaluation of the Green River diking system 2. Adopt the Green River Corridor Plan (1980) as the approved for the level of flood protection afforded by that system and an analysis of the master plan for parks and recreation in the Corridor. structural integrity of the dikes. The ultimate result of this study could be a 3. Adopt a resolution designating Frager Road and Russell Road as recommendation for increasing dike heights in some sections of the river, reconstruct- Scenic and Recreation Drives not to provide access to new ing the dike in other sections and/or constructing dikes in undiked sections. development. This designation to be in effect until either street is closed to vehicular traffic at which time they shall be used for pedestrian and bicycle purposes. Where the Corps proposes that areas be diked or that existing dikes be raised, 4. Adopt policy for joint use of flood control facilities for public there would be opportunities for cost-sharing on some recreation improvements recreation and wildlife habitat areas. adjacent to the dikes. Those improvements that the Federal Government will help 5. Support implementation of the Green River Park and Recreation fund is limited (see Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965 - PL. 89-72), but System through bonds and/or development fees. some access roads, parking areas, and water and sanitation facilities would be eligible. 6. Amend Subdivision and Zoning Codes to better regulate open The Kent Parks Department, through Kent's representation on the Green River Basin space, building setbacks, landscaping, pedestrian areas, and vis- Executive Committee (BEC) should work with the Corps of Engineers in identifying ual and auditory intrusion of development on riverfront lots. opportunities for such cost-sharing. 7. Prohibit new parallel through-traffic arterial streets closer than 1,000 feet to the Green River. The BEC has adopted A River of Green - a planning report done by Jones & Jones S. Update the Shoreline Master Program to strengthen and clarify and King County Resource Planning in 1979 - as the guide for further Corps levee shoreline development regulations and to expand the "conser- alignment and design studies. This committee also endorsed the concept of setback vancy" zone to better reflect and protect the extent of unique and fragile environmental and recreational resources along the levees/riverside parks along the Green River and to help implement that concept the Green River. BEC recommended that King County and the Cities of Auburn and Kent take action 9. Amend landscape ordinance to include Green River Corridor officially recognizing the setback levee sites identified in A River of Green. Those planting guidelines. Cities and the County have since adopted such resolutions. The Kent Parks Department, again through representation on the BEC, should continue to monitor the Corps activities in this regard. City of Kent, Water Quality Management Ordinance Study This study is to provide the framework for Kent's involvement in the Green River 113 KENT Basin Program, and it is a further elaboration of the work previously undertaken as part of PARKS & the City's critical drainage study. It is a City-wide study and is being conducted by the RECREATION Planning Department with the assistance of some additional temporary water-quality PLAN - 1982 technical staff. There are two primary components of this effort. One is the assessment City of of the physical and chemical parameters of the waterbodies and watersheds under study, Kent,Weshington and the other is an evaluation of the legal and planning mechanisms by which activities that impact water quality are (or could be)regulated. Any resulting proposed development regulations and/or design standards should be reviewed by the Parks Department and that Department's comments and recommendations should be incorporated wherever possible. *Mill Creek Basin Plan/Eastside Watershed Project (The two very distinct projects are considered together here because they are similar in scope and in their current status.) The Eastside Project involves Renton, Tukwila, Kent, King County, and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. It is an extensive engineering plan concerned chiefly with solving the surface water drainage problems on the entire eastside of the valley floor. The alternatives all involve varying degrees of channelization, temporary storage, and pumping. Among these alternatives, some have even involved temporary water storage on the westside of the river. The Mill Creek Basin Plan is in earlier stages of planning. It has been undertaken by the King County Resource Planning Section and would need the involvement of a wider range of agencies to proceed beyond the preliminary planning stages. Currently when the river is running full, the valley floor portion of Mill Creek floods. The land on either side of the Creek serves as a natural retention area. Of course, any solution to this problem would have tremendous ramifications for the open space system. Like the areas to the north and east of the river (the area to be drained by the Eastside Watershed Project), the intensity of subsequent urban development is directly proportional to the degree of actual or expected relief from surface water problems. The Parks Department should monitor these programs. Presently, both are in states of limbo with future sponsorship uncertain. If and when more definite actions are proposed, however, the City's Parks and Planning Departments should be prepared to voice their comments and concerns. * Confusingly, there are two Mill Creeks in Kent - the one under discussion here is on the south side of the Green River and drains a substantial portion of the west slope and valley floor sections of both Auburn and Kent. 11A KENT 6.0 ACTION PLAN PARKS & I Table VII-6 summarizes the action plan that is recommended as a guide to PLANEA982N { capital improvements over the next six-year period. The projects are listed in order of priority based on the prioritization system discussed in Section 2.0 of this chapter. City of Where projects are scored equally in the evaluation, they are listed in alphabetical Kent,Washington order. An important feature of Table VII-6 is the indication of other public agencies that should be involved along with the Parks Department in project implementation. In many cases, the cooperation of these agencies will be critical to the successful completion of a project. Their cooperation may also result in substantial cost savings for the City of Kent. In reviewing Table VII-6, the reader should bear in mind that the prioritization listed here is a product of one evaluation at one point in time. It is essential that projects be re-evaluated at least once each year. This will allow more detailed information to be incorporated as it becomes available. Re-evaluation will also provide an opportunity to review and update the criteria which make up the evaluation system. A very important by-product of this review process will be a continuous updating of the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Kent Parks & Recreation Master Plan. 115 TABLE VII-6 ACTION PLAN: 1982-87 KENT PARKS & COOPERATIVE ACTION WITH ... RECREATION PLAN • 1982 Kent,Washington PROJECT v u +; i M o n. o av u o: q U 'aC�o °L' c% ° o f o + � >, c U U aq L L v� C ► E W - 'V) CCO ` Sunny Crest • • 1 • • 1 Lake Fenwick • • 2 • • • 2 Clark Lake • 3 • • Mill Creek Woods • 4 • • • • Panther Lake • • 4 • • • Campus Park • • 5 • • • Green River • • 5 • • • • Frontage & Trails Senior Center • • 5 Goodnews Bay • 6 • • • Horsehoe Bend • 6 • • • Westside Ponds • 6 • • • • 3 & Wetlands 116 TABLE VII-6 (Continued) ACTION PLAN: 1982-87 KENT COOPERATIVE ACTION WITH ... PARKS RECREATION PLAN • 1982 City of PROJECT } �, (a >, Kent,Washington C: Ua ° E � (U oc (U0 Ca d C1 a, Z vvi (1 aG3 d0 2ca aGa. aG 'c 0 Neely Farmstead • 7 0 0 I Sequoia 0 0 8 0 0 Lower East Hill 40 0 9 0 0 Riverfront Park 9 (Additions) Springbrook 0 0 9 0 0 T-Bridge 0 9 0 0 South of Willis 0 40 10 0 South Meridian 40 10 0 40 Star Lake • • 10 0 River Flats 0 11 0 0 0 North Scenic Hill 0 0 12 0 117 O'Brien 0 12 0 0 TABLE VII-6 (Continued) ACTION PLAN: 1982-87 KENT PARKS & COOPERATIVE ACTION WITH ... RECREATION PLAN • 1982 Kent,Wash ngton PROJECT U } ro E aai o ° o c +� CJ L ..Q O L ++ >. U O U y Q L wz ci 0 aG3 d0 Sao aGO�, 0 Orillia • 12 • Riverfront Park • 13 Central East Hill Park • • 14 • North Interurban • 15 • • South Scenic Hill • 15 - Valley Center • 15 • • • Footnotes: 1 Washington National Guard 2 State Dept. of Transportation 3 Kent Highlands Development Company 118 I APPENDIX A CITY OF KENT POLICY STATEMENT Purpose. To establish a policy relating to the adoption of the Kent Parks and Recreation Plan - i 982 as prepared by Jones and Jones. 1` J Organizations Affected. Parks and Recreation. C ' ) References. Kent Parks and Recreation Plan - 1982. Policy. The Kent Parks and Recreation Plan - 1982, prepared by Jones and Jones, shall be the official City document which identifies the needs for park and recreation areas, facilities, and services; establishes standards, sets goals and priorities, and outlines course of action for implementation. The plan will be evaluated annually for accomplishments and modified to reflect current and/or changing conditions, resources, etc. The plan includes in its appendices r, a prototype for a systematic approach to the establishment of priorities within the action plan. This system is subject to modification over time as the City's needs and .� � goals change. It provides a means to measure the desirability of certain types of parks in certain areas depending on the factors of identified needs, physical features, cost considerations, and unique opportunities and/or timing. `i The plan shall be adopted with the understanding that it is a long range goal and a J flexible guide for future park acquisition, development and may need to be modified to take advantage of unforseen opportunities. The basic philosophy of the plan, however, is recognized as a guide to accomplish long range goals for the community needs, active, passive and cultural activities. -� The Parks Committee of the City Council recognizes that certain elements of the plan are dependent upon the type of financing available, including City budgets, grants from various government agencies, private donations, etc. It is recognized that some of the elements in the 1972 ORB Comprehensive Park Plan have not been totally implemented because of certain mitigating conditions, i.e., availability of funds, donations, shift in population, shift in perception of needs, and revised C.I.P. plans, as approved by City Council. However, the elements have been considered in light of changing needs, goals and are an integral part of this developing process. �� J 1 I APPENDIX B I�I 1980 KENT RECREATION PROGRAMS No. of No. of PROGRAM Teams (where known) 1980 Participants Baseball , Boys 6 1, 210 Baseball, 16 & Under Tourney 60 Basketball, Boys 627 Basketball , Boys Jr. High 107 Basketball, Boys Sr. High 97 Basketball , Elementary Girls 189 Basketball, Sr. High Girls 90 Basketball , Men 465 Conditioning, Men 1, 141 (1979) Dog Obedience 10 Flag Football 8 182 Gymnastics, Elementary 402 Gymnastics, Jr. /Sr. High 125 Handicap Arts and crafts 52 Handicap Bowling 15 Handicap Swimming 8 Handicap Track 17 1980 KENT RECREATION PROGRAMS No. of No. of PROGRAM Teams (where Known) 1980 Participants Hoop Shoot 250 Hot Shot 55 Judo 225 Karate 70 Men ' s "B" Tourney 500 Open Gym 1, 104 Physical Fitness, Women 118 Pool League 125 Punt, Pass, Kick 249 Ski, Youth 247 Slowpitch, 'A' Tourney 84 1 , 260 Soccer, Men 22 182 Soccer, Women 6 81 Soccer, Youth 1 , 207 Girls 32 Boys 53 Softball , Elementary Girls 48 742 Softball , Jr. High Girls 12 184 Softball , Men/Women 105 1, 578 �- 1980 KENT RECREATION PROGRAMS i No. of No. of PROGRAM Teams (where Known) 1980 Participants Softball, Mixed 15 187 Softball , Sr. High Girls 20 138 Summer Track 80 T-Ball 776 Tennis 314 Tennis League 420 Tennis League Tournament 198 Tennis Tournament (City) 74 Track, After School 601 Volleyball Tournament 64 Volleyball, Women 120 Women Is Fitness 35 1981 KENT PARKS AND RECREATION CULTURAL ARTS PROGRAM STATISTICS PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS Art Gallery Tour of Seattle 7 Acting/Theatre 10 After School Arts and Crafts 11 Belly Dance 57 Cake Decorating 7 Folk Dance 1,106 Flower Arranging 24 Jazz Dance 70 Microwave Cooking 31 Show Style Jazz (Children) 18 Cooking With Kids 16 Jazz Exercise 168 Creative Cupcakes 9 Tap Dance 38 Calligraphy 67 Rock Aerobics 29 Drawing 15 Aerobics and More 110 Silkscreen 10 Dance Fitness 762 Halloween Face Painting 120 Clog Dancing 40 Oil Painting 154 Social Dance 20 Stained Glass 10 Balkan/Israelie Line Dance 34 Watercolor Z8 Holiday Candies 8 Mime 16 Fiddle Contest 18 Paper Sculpture 11 Talent Show 16 Decorator Dolls 17 Photography 11 TOTAL 1981 CULTURAL ARTS PARTICIPANTS 3,219 Coil Basketry 9 Applehead Dolls 12 Ballet 130 APPENDIX C CITY OF KENT PARK AND RECREATION OPINION SURVEY 1 Jones & Jones commissioned Leonard Guss Associates, Inc. to conduct a tele- phone survey to determine attitudes of Kent residents about proposed parks and recreation developments. Four hundred and five telephone interviews were completed with registered voters chosen at random from lists provided by the City of Kent. These interviews were conducted during the period of September 18 - 22, 1981. The approximate distribution of those voters among the three sub-areas of the overall planning area was: West side 19 per cent Valley floor 16 per cent East side 65 per cent Demographics (1) Male 224 (55%) ; female 180 (45%) (5) Income (2) Age Under $15,000 11% 15-25,000 28 18-35 157 39% 26-35,000 28 36-50 128 32 35,000 plus 23 51-65 85 21 refused 10 65 plus 31 8 405 100% (6) Degree of Kent Parks Facilities Use (3) Owners 85%; renters 15% frequently 26.7% occasionally 59.5% (4) Residence in Kent never 13.6% 5 or more years 64% 2-4 30 one or less 6 0 c I I 0 v >` ro n +• c N N 3 c c L ^ 04 0 o Q a o I o o > c ro SJ N c L 0 C �CI. EA CO c Ou4i 00 a v ,u w � Q Q) v ° ! i U a N 1] N v u o v I v ro W� >, 3 F- ao v c -0 a v N c +�. a) 79 N c c (U v o m roO v uro I � v a c L .0 c a; c a) o a upno a `n AY o ro 3 E I >, � > a � W V) L 4 r N N O p Cr v O (UN a 0 L V O L I p v L .0 h E- U �- u v v o - CL c 0 0 a ~ � +� ro L 3 V N w w cr3 � o L WO W `0 "0 a W + N E 'er, o a aco v=i O a (10 >% >" o .v r -o O a0 -� [� L +� ro '> v C O L C U O d p N l ro v C u > rn E -. .� O [� 0 . cc cc N � uao � o ro � v L -p -@ = v N � o3: E v o v a c +- o a N L u -Y E aov Q CL 3 ro 3 C o' b a.�v c `� o N u ro ) v -" b ° 'c Z V) =3 0 c L a c c ro v w u E ro Q y. ^ W-' o + 3 > > ,n D rov a EvO -0 -• +� c vc o No_ oro M V) F c N ` O a' o °• ro N u c N a) ro 3 v v a cro " Cl c +� ro v v W U +� v v �. c E u o 3 +, +, «, > v c N c > u a v u 0.L +, 0 0 o N ro N c c ro X w w Ca W c +; ro N ro N ro +� c N + ro ° v s ro ro o 3 �? o +� L ro N rb L C D C C E p v v o C O v w u C +� v ro N ro s N u 1] T7 ° cp u +� o ro a O ° C p _.0 `" + L v ro N ro u ro N - 0 � ro L � � c u u +, V N N a) aou u c � 'Ln ro � F- �, ? ro L c Q. v ro N _ L v o a o u c c ro a m +, ro o E" C p� v .x L G ' ��, 4+ -p +Ln C ro +� C a 0 v N O ° -Y " 0 O CV �. ro ° v ++ N v v L L C v E a =, v N N N N TJ L ° L O ro p a0 O ra -0 + a c Cl. a) + V) N L + v ro L ro ° v v ro a) > +' Y >, 0] N L +� v ro .0 L L C v 7 ro O n ° C L v ° L a; N `° N = c +, N u oA o r� ro o O .c o v > 'S V +c v + bC0 O > u p L v U v O ro 0 V) C V + V + v a w ro v U C C 10 ° b0 a N_ O v b 4% a to v v a N U p w v U + V ro C C'. .� >� O L _h C b0 U C C N C Y_ U = ) V C ro % ' a N N b b Hro v 7 Q -r E b0 v OQ --- ° E Q) ro ro N N ++ L. L O ++ O N •C ro (J L N •"' E _ o N O C L. O -5 ro ro -C p C- L- • S L C °a G + b ro Q v ro ro L rri Y a C v >' 7 a °N ° Z ro o .. '� Oro O +� d U rn uv ro O ° v � ? a � � c ro L u — a v N rn vro � 3u Gro ON d U v) .avo < � ,� (V — M 3 0 c c 00 0 [] N O b O C aJ +, 0 ° L c v CI. L E u° • _° a a _N N m N N c Q. L ° a'VI cb L d o a n aJ o Cl. °, ° o ° c v o a) ) ° a o c Y L a) .L M Q) o s +� V) cu w a) a b�0 cUd CL o > +L+ a) Z N Z Z c c O L (V S Q) b w cd -� o Cl. > Ero 3 N cv � 30 BEN E v •« b w o a) O L C Q) 7 L LO u L fb a) Q1 C rd = a Z C cl. b Z O C O rti a) a) E ca. CI- cu >. E O w ,� U V, a, o a; s cd � t L L Y d Q) v v N Ln 003 v N ° c °' � c ;� ° - a') x L 'v 3 '^ a ro U 0 U "" a c *' °' a c ° � Cl. � Ln L T o � a) ca O L y y L +J o N C o O � Q O O >. Q o ° C >,_• CC a, + V) 3 c () a) v s L v +• ti V) C ° + n' X a) ro m 'D 0 1-' +1 'D ° L ° a) o f v C o a) x x L V) 0- a) s a) a. a) v ° O [�. >,. }' ao >_ a, o U - ? N °N' _° s L * w ° b o a a °' c o ++--� w O (� E L ° -p u O N N aJ +O v C o4 O O « > O c H o c ro h d 'v w N c 0 u u aco o v 3 o > o o � a) +� v > a b0 a) U N N U L cU L ti cd L O ti O L O O . >�17 E � V � ,� a � 'u v D u ° v � ° a c a) °c° o 0 ,Y °, >, d M rn c m a C V) c0 X cd O b -a c o O O p• cti L E c U L. U O O U U ca o d w e w a d d U� t- ro >, co V) d U- a) a •v m d n. Ca C1 u, ° ca o ca �.D klD r; 0 0 C N M I a 3 00 o >` D O ,�o o, (o (10 > � C C f�- rd C • Q 7 •~ .ti �1� > >% L Ql C C� ° = O L. N O O 3 .? > > c ° —. o rd +, T Co0 v s rd �o O 0 0 (a O —. O ° r r(d ° rrdd cd rd 4J 41 QJ �n IV o ° o N _ � °, � ti: °ccE U � �, ZGIZ — �. x aZ > l l SUMMARY Q ,SURVEY RESULT'S OF A `'IZED SPORT.,S PROGFtMrA L FACILITIZS SUCIi LE SOFTBbLL SOCCER-, STD ^1 IE i, :E Computer analysis was used to tabulate survey results and to compare responses between different demographic groups. The Table 1 . 2 results of this analysis are summarized in the following ImY>ortanc� paragraphs. The computer-generated tables to which the summaries refer are included at the end of this appendix. Not surprisingly, the importance of this item diminished � i with age, with 32. 3% of those in the 65+ category actually rating it as very unimportant. OPEN SPACE, GREEN BELTS, AND NATURAL AREAS Table 2. 2 Table 1.1 A-decf u-�Cy Among those identifying themseles as frequent users, 84 .1% Importance rated these programs and facilities as adequate or very good. The 65+ 1s, as expected, had a very high percentage of Open Space, Green Belts and Natural Areas ranked high even "Don' t know/Not reported" at 35% . among those who professed to "never" use the Park and Recre- ation system. This item was also ranked consistently high by all age groups. As with many items, women ranked this higher than men. NEIGIIBOEEDQD 2ARKS Table 2 .1 Table 1 .4 Adeauacy ImportancQ The city' s report card was good with the vast majority in Generally considered an important part of the park and all groups rating it adequate or very good. recreation system by all ages with this importance diminish- ing somewhat in the 65 and over age group. Interestingly, 75.8% of those in the 18-35 age group rated this item 1 or 2 and more than half (52 .2%) of the women rated this very important. Table 2.4 WA CER-RLLATED PARKS AW2 FACIj, T Adequacy 14 'LIVERS AIM LAKES The number of people rating the Table 1 .6 P P g provision of neighborhood parks as very good decreased with increasing age. Conversely- Importance and not suprisingly - reporting "Don' t I:now/Not Reported" increased with age. Another feature of the park and recreation system that was ranked important by most age groups. (The 38.7% of the 65+ age group that rated it 1 or 2 was substantially below all BPORT FACILITIES other croups. ) Even among the "never" users, 57 .1% rated SUCH A� �E�i.l� COURTS, this as 1 or 2. BASKETBA COURTS. AM CONDTTI NING EQUIPMENT Table 1 .5 Table 2.6 Importance Adequacy Generally rated as being important with the 1 or 2 ratingb The results of this questions were distributed over the y range of possible responses more than any other. This might 60.9% of the 36-50 year olds being the highest and the 35.5% be due to uncertainty as to how to rate this item, with a of 65+ being the lowest. resulting hesitancy to rate it either very good or poor. Table 2 .5 Adeauacv EXPEIIDITURE QE IjUT3ICjyAL F I C Received a higher poor rating than many other items, with a Table 3 17 .0% average. This item probably would have an even lower rating but the 65+ age group rated it adequate, most likely Few surprises in the response to this in light of their greatly diminished desire for such facili- �p question, with users being far more willing {43 .5� rating it very ties. important) to see the expenditure of funds than are those who profess to never use the system (25.00 of those rating it very unimportant) . f II l BILL CREEK P -QU EAST HILL GREEN RIVER BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEL Table 4 .4 Table 4 .1 ' Mill Creek Park is bigger, paralleled by a major road, and Another component of the system that averaged a high rating has received some publicity by reason of the earthworks in importance; understandably, the 65+ group again rated it currently being constructed within it. It is no surprise, substantially lower in importance. Interestingly, though, then, that it seems to be better known and that ratings of the next oldest age group (51-65) gave it a 40% "very impor- its importance are more evenly spread across the scale. tant" rating, the highest of any of the age groups. LAKE FENWICK PARE PRESERVATION Qf GREE BELTZNATURAL AREAS ALONG THE GREEN RIVER Table 4 .5 Table 4.2 As in the case of the Garrison Creek faclity, this park elicited a relatively high "Don' t Know/Not Reported" response. The Green River has a high recreational value to the com- On the other hand, a higher average percentage (34.1%) rated munity with an average 75.6% rating it either 1 or 2 in it 1 to 2 in importance. importance. Even 46 .4% of those identifying themselves as never using the Park and Recreation System rate it as very important. COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES CENTERS Table 4 .6 ESTABLISHMENT QP $ GARRISON CREEK. NATURAL AREA Response to this item was rather evenly spread over the Table 4 .3 range of possible responses, but with a very noticeable decrease in importance with increasing age. Interestingly, The very high percentage of "Don' t Know/Not Reported" re- almost twice as many women as men (28.3% to 14.7%) rated sponses to this question indicated a lack of knowledge about this very important. what or where Garrison Creek is. It can be safely assumed that those most inerested in any of these specific items are those who live closest to them. L-MUM CITIZEN 1; TE FACILITIES seem to be desirable, maintaining existing facilities and Table 4 .7 using existing facilities scored especially high (95 .3`s and 95 .8% respectively) . These facilities were rated consistently high by all age groups and exhibited the least deviation of average responses from age group to age group with a low average of 54 .1% in FPEC�UEI C1 ,Y OF USE the 51-65 age group to a high average of 62.4% in the 18-35 age group. Table 7 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Again not surprisingly, use decreased with age, with 38 .2% Table 4 .8 of those between 18 and 35 claiming to be frequent users and 41 . 9% of the 6 group: claiming to never use Kent Parks Again rated a rather important component of the Department facilities. P p park system, with 70.7% of the 18-35 age group rating it 1 or 2 and even 45.2% of the 65+ age group rating it 1 or 2. LOCAT IOIJ WILLINGNESS TQ PAY ADDITIONAL TAXES Table 8 Table 5A/B An average of 91 .8% of the respondents considered it impor- tant to keep facilities within the City of Kent. Emphatically yes; though not so surprisingly, with a sharp increase in the "no' s" as age increases (over 65, 64.5% said "no") tRE A7'1QT QP S IiE ELEMENTS OF THE SURVEY 2Q PiAJOR GEOGRAPHIC AREAS _ THE CITY = EAST HILL, WEST ILTLI,• PLANPJIPJG EMPHASIS GEOGRAPHIC VILLLEY FLOOR, Table 6A Differences amonq the three areas regarding frequency of use were minor, with the only evident difference being that a The degree of your willingness to see money spent on slightly higher them- assuringan adequate supply of g Y g percentage (150 ) of Eastsiders rated q pp y parks for future use is selves as never using the Park and Recreation System. inversely proportional to the number of years remain- ing in your future. Though generally ail these items E Valley Floor residents are significantly more satisfiea with the park system than either the West or East Hill residents. There were some major differences in the way residents of the three different locations rated the importance of specific facilities. These differences were to be expected and may have been due to lack of familiarity with the area under question and not simply a blatant expression of area self-interest. A trail along the Green Fiver was very important to those surveyed and it was important regardless of location (East Hill, West Hill, or Valley Floor) . # 1 O a m r UN O 10 O N 10 m - 1 I W 1 co.r P N .r • N • O N VH 1 O m r m Ln O N OO aa %�nD 10 W J Ln 14 N I m .4 O 1 w 1 r 1n O C:WWI '4 • I W J I a N .4 .-• O .D -4 N x LL Q 1 .4 to 1 a D M1 a ON O• Ln O M m M1 z W f • ( W I N • • • • • • • • • .-• .-. •# N 1 S m N a, m m to O 10 N J I N O M .-� a m O a M • W I W I N • • • • • • • • M w * I a N N O �O .^. N ., Y 1 J I N a r r ; P O N C• • F- N 1 Q I M N .4 O .D .4 N p 1 1 w l In • • • i i 1 O in .D .p 1.., V W 1 1 > 1 M m m in M O N m • Q w # # m 1 ID N 10 .4 O• 10 .O O U UN O O w 1 1 W I �n '+ p 2 1 1 w l Ln • • • • • • • • . O to W } 1 Z I N O �O N N V W 1-- 1 1 > 1 M O� .O m m M O N r • N O V { O of I W 14I N r4 4 N O S M M v1 w p z W < J ( O S O� P O m O a O� N V) p Z V I W to Q Q 1 a • • • • • • • • • O Q Q Z w N J 1 O Z O� J 7 V G 1 N a N a N Ln 0 10 1- �1 w 0 1 d • • • • N O O V O 1 a N N O .D N M Z 7 7 V Z I N m S Ol m r .-1 O N 1D • 17 U w 0 o I .4 N O m Q V 0 1 M N r. O .D r4 N OC O W w 1 ►- 1 m a r a P .D 1 O ,� ,..• O U w w 0 O �-. 1 .-+ 40 m 1 1 1 Z ( o • . . . . • V w V ILL OI F- I m a r O1 in Ln ( o 14 O O� Q p 1 1 C O 1 14 ,l O 'y a O M D • p ap O 1 I 1 Z 1 O • • • • • • • • O Z J # # CL O I N O r .4 K N 1 1 W W 1 .-� m M to z O S N • O O -4 Q p 1 1 0 t a N 14 o r 14 W o # ( �+ a a a { m 1 O ap tD z J • # # IL O I r+ J V •1 D.' ( M • • • O D J I W Ln 1 m 10 O • • a W O J # 1 r �n .-• N M N O N Ul M = I > 1D 1 a .4 a • J V Q 1 ce 1 M • • • • • • • m _V 1 0 1 N O u1 N N [D 1 Li ul 1 m �D .O MN M O Ln kn • 1 } 1" F- 1 > 10 I M .4 M O S M N p = t u, I Ln Ol Ull Ln r o in V EL 1 0 1 r4 a 1 a .4 F 3 1 10 ( m • • • • • • • O p S N 1 L1 1 �n N O� N O M S O r4 a S w 3 1 O 1 m Ln LA 14 14O .O '-• N M1 to 1 1 1 m In .1 r Ln N O S N • p l7 14 V Q I •+ 1 N N N -4 N N m N .-• �D O� .D �O O M �11 J W w ul 1 .4 O `O O 2 l7 u� 1 N • • • • • • • • •0 Ln Z ►- V Q O 1 1 m M �O m r. O r a Ln N . . • . • O w 1 M I a N 1 N O M1 r4 V J to 1 1 ( in N m a r m .4 - Go lL Q I V to 1 M I a N r4 O 10 N 1 to 1 r m O .O O\ r o m 10 r 1-4 ''• O J 1 M I kn • • • • • • • Ol W +U 1 1 r N O O• m .4 1 O N O, Ln r• P • H I M 1 in • • • • • • • • • z Q 1 m l S N N O .D .-• p 1 1 1 .r m ul O �n O O m �fl a * N I '� •' Z J 1 m l M M .-• ,4 O .D •4 N co V)W Q •. * .4 I r4 1-- J I Ln O• r �n O 4 �n O r a .4 W V MQ a 1 O • • • • • • • • w ►- Z 1- 1 1 m m .4 M r O r O O• f W tai a 1 O M : m O .� N O O O N a ; Z 0 i a N O %p N ►-- F- p O I a M N .4 r �O ~ O .D .-•� N W w Q a •4 w > Q Q v� J '- J F Y Q .•4 N M a in p Q Q J m W J 4' Q -• N M a Ul. z a m * • • • • • N m O N o z a Ix u z1 w o aO uj • v1 v1 w .... l7 . . . . . F- Ir ly a o ix v w .. O w Q> w . . � a V O U Q v1 1L Q • w W > p p O a F • I-- Ix O -. . W z ,q z a w v1 _ • t- Q l7 W O N ui p O N ►- tr a z `+ z O N tn Y W u Ix QU Z w U. F- a o z o o # z Q p w 0! Ix a ce # to W z O z Q Q o a F- Q z aC z z ~ W r Q a z 0 U a W 3 — Q ~ 0 ►- O z Z J W O 1 w £ O 1- F- Ix Z Q > O /- O d Z Q Q J W O Y- ''• Y- Z Y J !Y m W W lL . O m Q Y Q F- > 0- ... Z Q Q O .• N F- O M Z Y J 0r I(ifW Q F H F-• F- Q IL • O to Q l7 W >• >- - O Z 7 tY O .-4 1- Q F 1- F- F- Q -- F- J p Of Ix Z F- W W w �- Y- >- O Z Z Ix_ m W W W W } W p elfK z F W W W V Q N ~ > > p ir K Q /-- J W W W W O V V > aD_' a a * U Q Q Q > > 0 W W # * 1 O P d 10 d r 1 O M r+ .0 * 1 O N P in N N 1 I ap • • • • • • • • S ( ( co • • • • • • • • P - W J I N N M a. 00 M �0 • * I W I -• N m .1 r r O •� d • Ln 14 N • W J i Ln V XLL ¢ I 14 U XLL ¢ I '� W W 1: Co 14 m M O O P m .... to N• 111 Q I • • N 1 OD PN Mm-1 MO� S\ N • • • • • w I Nw N OD • m N J N d N OO rd - M N O M N ►S� Nd O `O I-- Q # * Q 1 10 m r r P S co -a s r Q # # of 1 `0 °; . - . %O m O • • • • • • • • • O p 1 1 W 1 V W ( ( > 1 N P U1 m 4 4 O N O • .. LLI N S �0 Ul P -� O r � • O w ( 1 W I M N O M M M p M 1 1 W I S 11 -4 14 O Ln N N I tow > 1 Z I + to W ¢ Z W N -11 -4 N in N S Ln N O 1- cor� q Z W to J 1 N (Cl O 14 U1 co O • • O N W to ¢ Q I S • • • • • • • • r N W VI) ¢¢ I S • • • • • • • m M to z 7 7 V Z I N O z M M r O N N • N z 7 7 V z l N M � r P Q O • V) O O V O 1 �-+ N M -• O S N N N O O V O 1 S N '4 O N 7 V W LL Q — 1 -1 7 V la)LL O— I '� t9 fr 0 �O W LL 1 F- 1 t0 r �o .0 N r P O M N M V W LL I ►- 1 m M r N m P O .? O N o 03 1 I I z ( O • • • • • • • • • `0 O m 1 1 1 Z 1 O • • • • • • • • • P of I I W W I 10 P O m M O �O N • Of 1 1 W W 1 -+ P 4 M O � -+ O O N • ¢ O I I tY 7 ( -4 N M -• O S N N ¢ p 1 1 ce 7 1 14 ^� "� '' O r z J * * LL O I -4 Z J * * LL 0 1 O 7 O 7 W O * 1 -4 10 m O u1 P N O S S O W O * 1 m N P N O m ''• r M • • • • • • • • • �D J V 1 w 1 M M P M M N M O S `0 • 1 4) Ln 1 N U1 P %0 N M O m P • ( W UN 1 S N O Ul 14 N >- 2 ( > 10 i N N N .-� O S •-+ N )- 2 1 > 1 .-4 to v 1 0 i m N 1 0 1 O 2 1 Ln 1 U\ .� co Go P ( O P r cop = 1 I U\ O : d S 1 O °; Ln W 3 * 1 10 1 m • • • • • • • • r W 3 I 10 I m • • • • M m -• 0' -4 N O Ln ItO M r P P - O U to W 14 1 14 M N -• .1 O S N N V N ( -4 I S N .-a O 10 -4 N 7 W V W U\ 1 r+ 7 W W Ln 1 O «+ Z O '. Z ►- ¢ ¢ O 1 co z 1- ¢ O I CIOr M LnN : 10 O • • • • • • • • • r O Ln 1 -4 M O P O d' • • • • • U J 1 t l --t 10 N r S U) N O P • V J 1 I i * O 1 10 1 14 N M .4 O M N N * .-� ( .0 1 S N .r .-t O �0 .-1 N --t v LL 1 M 1 -4 -+ U 1 M I m m r m 4 1 P LL W 1 to l r - 10 s P -� s %0 O O U\ U\� P LL I m 1 r O m -+ Cl) m M O • • m � 4. I M 1 U\ • • • • • • • • • r -+ 1 M 1 --i Ln m O 0 1 1 1 --t ` S r P 0 O N to • 0 1 1 1 r z p 1 m 1 -'t N M -4 O d N N • Z 1 UO I It N 1-4 O� ¢ z * 1 .-t K ¢ w < w m to J I cos Go M s M o N r s m to J I m r r .0 P P N o s m OD O N D o o O • O W L O M ' H F — ..O 1 14 N M .4 O S N N t-- ~ O 1 O N a ao 1- i -+ 0- f- I w > w V) 2 V W W } V O Q J p ¢ J 7 J ¢ -t N M S U\ 7 ¢ N M S in U ¢ 7 * • • • • • z 0_ 0z a ►- N 7 ►- D ¢ �- ¢ o a •a o w W . . . . . . tY p rr to w > LL o cc w � > oz w r ti- Of Ln - O O V 1-- - K p O O 1-- z Z O N U\ Z m z O ¢ 2 w a Q O w W a WOf of �L F- z • H M O O # If Z • z Of # 1 w O • Z ix w O • U. Of w IW- Q cr z l7 U .Z.. Q. fY * w Q o z z ►- F- O a z 0_ ¢ z 3 «. ... OfU. 3 W J W O f O h t- m W J W O H z ~ ~ elf O f Z �c J w Cif W S F- O .2. Z ]L J w LL • Q co -+ 7 Q l7 LL • O m f- r !- F ¢ O .� F- Q f- ) )- t- ¢ O -t H ¢ } } O Z z ix Z 7_ } W v p tY Z F W U.) LL) >- W p of Z t- W w w 1- -j W W W W O V V > /" J W W W w O V U > .. m > >to t- O of Of ¢ "' co to a F > > p w w ¢ ¢ a ¢ a Lli M * F¢-- m ** O : Ln co O r .O O Co : o. * 1 O LO m Ol ao N N O O• O .-a Z 1 I co *• Wf 1I S • . # 11 I 1 co h O W Ln 0 • r• 1W1 WA 11 N N N O m Ln N N W J I m N O.-L .O -It N U a X w ¢ t o Ln N N v w X LL Z Z W W N F 1 S �O r .� m .--� m vl i � o Ln .o o C7 1 I • . . . N o N h m -1Ln. . S 1 W 1 N • . . . . . . J W 1 J I N S � S O r 1 Q I N m N + o In .a N N 1 Q I N m N o n + N _ I--- "• p Z 1 1 w l In . • • oL W s o Ln r Ol ¢ * * Lr l ,o r s m N s 1 0 14 .o r • O o 1 1 Lu 1 Ln • • . • . • • • n v w O 1 1 > I .o !-4 00 .O Ln o r n v w I I > O w 1 I w l L N N N O m m M O ly 1 I W t M N '+ N O m N N Ln W 1-- >- I Z I -1 N W >- 1 a 1 .-. O «+ V I Ln w V Q O L W Ln J 1 .--� O N Ln S r Q I lLl Ln J M .O 1-4 OP S r O O• In m Ln W �n ¢ Q t S • • • • • M. - N In lL Ln R Q I Y • • • • • to N z o z l N N M .O o r o Ln r Ln z � D v z I IN n m o r n + o m m N O V O V O 1 N M N In 14 N Ln O O V O 1 N m N o Ln .-1 N V w LL O 1 + > V a O w lL O I + V p w Z w 1 ► 1 ao Ol WILL W I IO 1- 1 co Ln o o m n a o m [A coo m Q l l l Z l O • • • • • • • . • N p m 1 1 I z 1 0 • • • • • • • • . N I l w w l s m Ln o Ln o r In • re l w w l + m Ln n a, n o w S < O I 1 2' I m N Ln .4 N Q O 1 1 L✓_ J 1 M N N O In .4 N Z J * * tip 1 a z J * * LL O I O w iy O o # 1 M o s o 1 o n rn o w o # 1 + m h D n o h n o J V O 1 tY 1 m • • • • • • • • .-� J V # 1 O' I m • • • • • • • • • O O 1 W Ln 1 Ol .O N (` N O n L • v) 1 W Ln 1 N .O D` of Ln coO O Ln 1 > 10 1 �-+ N .r N O M S M ?- = w 1 > 14 O m M m c0 V_ 1 0 1 rr [tJ V x 1 0 1 -. O S J ( Ln ( Ln N Ln Ln .O h Ln O r N -11 11 ( Ln n CIO OL LD IO In O S m Ln LL) z Q I 1 ao w 1 10 I m M v m i 1� I + m M o r m o s m F - p 1 1 1 In 10 ao s o m o N n J W W W W Ln N V Ln Z 1 " 1 N m O .O 1-4 N D W Q W Ln 1 .� O ^� Q[O 11 N • • • S O O .~. � Q O i 00 S O .O D n I O J 1 O • • 1 n I N • . • • • • • M V J m I 1 I �-+ O S .-ti O. .O .--L O O In V J W 1 I I i-L O tp .O � Ln O U S 11 N m IN O .O N # > M N N O Ln N -+ V •w 1 Cl) 1 -+ v 1 m l L Ln Q Ln J I A Q 1 O• W 1-- 1 Ln I r .O N M N .O O r Ln .-� OL U- I Ln 1 r N OL 4 m N 1 O .-+ In N m ( Ln • • • • • • • • • M Z 1 m t Ln • • • • • • • N p D w 1 1 1 -1 o .-+ ao m o .o �-, . p o 1 1 1 -1 1+ rn r• z O S 1 ao 1 N m m O Ln .-4 N Z 1 OD I Ln N N O 10 a vv * t + c Q w Ln w W [fl Ln Ln Z J I Ln S O� h .-a S : O m Ln O co Ln J I in P �O S N r N O Ln co Ln w '-'O Q 1 O • • • • • • • Ln w F- Q I O • • • • • • • • M w Z - I I Q s Lb Ln o m .r o m cz . w 1- 1 S b rn S ao r ., o w Ln H .: Z Z O i N N N Ln -1 N H H J O t N N N O Ln 14 N a w Q I- a w I-- w > v Q I- LL > v a w v w 0 Q LO J p Q p -1 _ -i N m m S Ln F- Y V co F- Y Q V Ln of Q Ln Ln a� Q Ln.J-. * • • • • z a z a x > o w o c Ln w > Ln Q F- =1 ;- a Q o a o W .-•w . . . . . W O a' of J m a w V Q • • • • %J Q I- • • • w > V p O w > Q p a' Q J • W lY J _ W tL LL O • h w W N • • F- p O O F- p O a 1 lY Z Ln 3 O N N Ln Z 1 z O Ln Q O I- W a Q V a W a z X F- p . W OC z t1i p • w lY a x O Q z r- a O O * Y I._tY F- a S O • Z * F- Q O • Z Q Q Ln F- a E F- Q ►- rr S l7 Q Q 3 a F- Q F- -4 S l7 a a # V) w z F- o z OL c # Ln w z ► o z w F _ Q c z 0 (D w ►- Q z o c F- o -, z z_ F- a -• I- o z z F _ Z OC a 3 •+ Q Z Of a 3 Q W J w O y O F- F- W ... J W O f O Y ., Q Q x Q > a z a Q Q > a z — Ln F- o M Z ]C J a a w 10 F- O f Z Y J tY Of W FL • O m O Q 0 U- O cD O Q i7 .. O 1- Q F- !- F-- f- Q O Q 1--- H ►- F- Q } w >- N - O Z Z Of z w w w tY e cr > w V p c c z H w w w F-- -� W w W W O V V' > F- J W W W W O V V > > m v) F- > O lY 2 Q -- In Ln F- > > p c (Y Q Q Q Q W LLJ * v Q Q a w w # * I- 00 cr Cl- a * * F- (n K a a * �_ # 1 0 0 rn s r o O m cc J o 0 co 1 I m • • • # I l w l r r J o o * 1 0 0 + N o r * I W J I N J .� .-� O • I wX I, J l J N N O 1 ( 10 ,.-• ,-• V X W Q I '� Z w F 1 • 1 ij J I N Z W � .-. * N 1 3 co 10 O o O V X I,_ Q I 'r V) 11 J O co �+ : O • • • • W S_ 1 w l N • • • • Y J rNIJ —1 N to 1 J 3 J r n O 1 J I N a r 0 r o 1 Q I m oLd IN to 1 Q I N .1 '4 cm) -1J # E I -1 1 J I N i W # x 1 ,.y h 1 Q ~ Q W * * tY 1 �0 •O : U J O w # XOf I 1 '� 1 w 1 ul • • V h 1 1 > I co N m O O Q * # a l D N n N o V 1 > I J N O O I I IaJ 1 N Cl) Cl) o .. 1 1 w l ,n • • • ' O i w t �-+ I I > 1 m N ry N O } 1 I I + to 0 >- I 7_ 1 V 1 1 w l N m + m o V I q Q I 'il 0 J I •+ Ol LA a, - O V) Q Z W to J 1 W U) Q Q I J O• : �• : O. W n ¢ ¢ 1 J � � N m O N zbi c7J I -+ m r ,n in O � 7 J V 1 N O a0 N a0 O to • J J V Z 1 N V) Ci tl O 1 N J o w Ow li_ O j Cl) ,n > > V a I N n O r O Wlx. p - t r' O Vp 1 N J N O C) aY O V V IL II F- 1 W J U '0 .-• O tL I I- 1 w �o .� �0 0 • . • • . p 0 11 1 z_ 1 O . • 0 O 1 1 1 Z 1 o r J o V w l f- i co') r `o °p 0 lr I t w W I r-4 00 J � o Q I l r Lij i N t o p 1 1 I z 1 Q I I a J l N "� O Z * * IL O 1 W w I .� T_ * * La_ O 1 Q I i 1, D 1 N O O W J # 1 n 71 N Il O Z # LL C7 1 W # I 'A N 0P m O J ¢ 1 a' i m • • • • • O J 1 of I m • • • • • m 1 W u� I ,n ,n m ,r o w # I r+ m r ,n ,n o I W u'\ I n N O } f 1 > 10 1 N m m o J I K 1 Cl) > 1 > 10 I � J + N o m tL I O 1 -+ 1 IU LC) 1 rn co ,o n o m 1 0 1 '" O 1 >- I > .0 1 'A m Cl) O c] j n 1 0 r rn m o 0 n 1 n t n 10 J : n o m 1 0 14 lal (Y 1 z 1 oD to r c0 N Cl) O 1- O 1 1 1 r J N �n O ~ O N 1 ,� N N O til a # I 10 I co V tL I r+ I N J V w ¢ 1 O W LAI ''"1 h O N 1 1 1 J m oo co O 7 W ,n I / 7 O N � 0 � 1: 0 V W W O 1 �-+ i N m N Z W Q O I cp N r .O ,fl O Z W V Q O I CO O� r r r O V W in 1 "' O 0 # 1 kn 1 N • • • • • O 0 7 I I N • • • • • p 7_ t7 V I 1 1 .-, r LA Ln O V "' 1 1 1 '� �n N J p Z W Q ¢ O i N : U : .p O * > Q 1 .p I m '-' O .-+ O to 1 m l O 0 a 1 11 1-4 .-a N + p w 1 In l m M 1 * > O I .0 1 m m N O aD a a: I o� a I ,n 1 r- of o ,n .0 0 ., p W 1 cn i r' rn a ¢ 1 n I r rn r o .-4 F- 1 m l tr% o0 a Ck� 1 m i ,n • • • h 1 1 1 r+ o to O- P o rn a w 1 ,n 1 r J ,n o co o z J 1 w l in m O 14 a 1 m l � ' • • ' ' z Q 1 co I N u o w a w * -+ 1LLI z o 1 c,04 o W Y J m Y Q J I ,n W Z +R I '� 07 F- J I In J m •-+ O S !L lL ¢ I O • • • • w Y Q f 0. Q Q I O • • • • W p h ! J O O J to O co O J I to N : Cn : w o z F- 1 J r m rn o h O I N J r, o F' o O I ,n m '�' W O t- f- I to of O J o a } 0 h l J a > Z ! h O W h Z N I-- ¢ a >- m I- I '� >- 0 W Q * V X 0 w to J S Of >- w S h F- F- 0 n W h F- 1 p p S J W J a F-- F' Q J m Z W a N 0_ Z W p w J O w Z IL L 7_ W 1- LL W F- I- O w J h W Q J a LL J ¢ J W O O F- V Ll.l o a } a Q D w } V ,n w O v w 0 0 a } o 0C 0 V -- UJ C] 0uj � Fw- W O lhi p Q to F" L] J N h a0 a 0 < W J a f- a ,� F- z J to z O a w z w a o v h a ¢ w w a 3 ¢ 0 w 7_ J Z O 3 Z 0 W Y l7 Z a Q W W a NZ z cc: or� 3 a. O 3 ") w Of 3 a O ¢ O O a . h NZF-- ¢ O O a • F' a = * to • O tY 3 (ifO a = # to O w z ¢ O ¢ a h h Of z z w • z Z w 3 w J > 0 O F- a Z W J > O O Y ¢ .. p W Z Z ILI Y Q O W Z V O I- Y J w J .>-. O I t7 O I- Y -1 Z tL O o Q ¢ ¢ O W O N 0 Z J F- 1- 0 N O Z V J ~ ~' Y m I- t7 �- O >- p 0. - O O } p K - O LL • O �7 Q ¢ } w LY W O Z I- h J W 7_ LaJ 0 0 O to > Q a 0 Cl) .-. > ¢ Cl. 0 } W a lal O Z F-- v ¢ ¢ a # h m O m w w 0 O O 0 * h m O V Q V Q V) a > Q a O �` # f- 03 0 O O P O O to r- r .4 0 1 I co • • # Z 1 1 O • • • •w 1 I W #I .4 �n .� p p O • 1 W J I .r 14 m N N O • x I W J 1 N O .+ .+ O U X u_ ¢ 1 .r a XILQ I .l z w f z j w f 0 1 P co o m o .r O 1 W 1 N • • O. • = w 1 N • • • • • 1n W J I N P• m r P O N 1 Q I N N m N -4 O W Q I (v d .r LL) ~ * * I o m .o O 14 0 K 1 `0 1 m Ln co 0 1 1 w 1 to • . • • Z 1 1 W I Ln . • . . • V 1 1 > t 4 m Ln N 1;V O 1 1 > 1 .a rn N o 0 O 1 1 w t -+ N N m O - O ^+ 1 1 W I N m .+ tv O to ►- > 1 z l .r 0 U < L WN J 1 14 10 r to N O < O Z WtoJ 1 r+ 10 to O P O Ld0 < < 1 4 • • • • • Z wtoQQ I Q • • • • . N » Vz 1 N -4 r a 10 O O > > V Z t N m .. r N O O U O I N m N 14 O V O V O 1 N 1 1-4 14 p 7 W tL O — 1 .a V 0 UJ LL- o — Z LA- I ►- I co r N in 10 O a1 1 1 Z I O CC) P O O O < I I I Z I O • • • • I I W W I co r P A O Q I ( w O 1 N m N 14 O O 1� * * tL O I .4 O W W O J # 1 L+' 1 m • • • • -> > 1 1 m • • • • to_ I W Ln 1 o N o Ln O } O 1 W in 1 O� W �O i1 p >- W 1 > 10 1 '+ J N O V 1 > O 1 •� d N O m Y 1 0 1 -4m J ; O 1 .-4 0 Q 1 to N to 10 J O w (if -11 10 1 co i : UN O w K < 1 1 1 co • • • • O 0 1 1 1 N to co m O 1- O co # 1 1 m . r• N 0 V u. z 1 -+ I N N N N o O W W W W t l 1 N m N O O Q W to I 0 X to V Z W V ¢ 0 1 m N .-# m d O Z w Lo< Q O I w r 10 N In O O 0 w 1 to f N • • • • • O O ¢ m 1 to I N • • • • v �-. w U m 1 1 f P O r N O # > > m N .+ O - - co Of u)J m l "'• rn d 1 to 1 r m 4 10 r O o' a f-7 1 M I r -4 m to o '� z 1 m l to ,4 0 I m l to • • • • 1-- O t 1 1 .+ N 14 m N O ~' D w 1 I I .4 z O P S O '' z t co 1 N O d' W V V # .-t t N Ln .4 O W W to # .-4 I .1 ul w Y 03 Y J I to to O P 10 O m to Z J I to r r O 10 O F w ►- Q I O U. O } M NO r• • r OW O 4 O 1- O ; m N pI-- Z Z O 1 N O a 0. W i- - Q r 1 'r � 1 ~ Q # u to o } V tL -- w <W t7 u' 0 - 1'- X a J to J Z W .• O w_ K O w to Q W < IL W> I.- t1 1-- D W p -w W O 0 J m V } F V .. W 0 < 0 W O U O 0 Q: O J w D O Q J � F- W J to 1- O J ox I- w 0 J O ►-. cr Z J 1 z O Z J to 3 O Q W o: - W d Q W I.- IL w 3c w l w 3 W ZOf D. a x Z < 0 Q a Q O V) 1-- x O < 3 2 • 0= * °' ' a * to to o w z 1 cc N cc z ' z z Z W w w W J .>. 0 _ O Q •+ O W z Y � ! O O H X J F O O 1- X J u_ • IL • O V Q Q O N Z O 1- 1- O N ~} O } O ~ p > W O } O w O Z 1- w to O V ^� C W o'O ~. -1W Z W O O O w Z W 0 O O m 0 > Q Q 0 N u Q 0 > Q a o Q Q a ,. - # , Q a * 1-- m o a m 0 F- J .. p m Ln O Rl N N O c'n O N Q * 1 O cn N O� .-4 m N O �O O� N 1 1 • • y d 1 1 ao • • • • • • • • • N m • � I�l .-� �D O lY1 • # 1- 1 w f 1 W J .1 ~ tn 14 N • W J J 14 .-1 .-• O 'd U W X lL Q I N N N r1 .-1 V Z X lL Q I '� .Z. LLJ v) ( y d N in .Q. cn 1 ? • • �n .� d N O m O N O ao m �tl N O N Rl M 1 W 1 N • • • • • • • • • cn 1 W 1 N • • • • • • • �n • F- 1 J I N � N m P N N O 10 N • In O 1 Q I N N N N N O Ln .4 N cn to ( Q I Rl N .4 .-. O to N N w O # f l 14 W w H — < in y a Q w # # � I �p m �n .a y O N O m y `� rQ-. W # # Q' 1 Ln m N O� N N N O Q 1 1 W 1 L11 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .1 • • .+ 2 1 1 w l � V > 1 1 > ; y N N Ln Ln O O.+ o O O • Li1 1 > 1 O O m O to N O N `O • O 1 1 .+ .� cn N N (n In O lb1 1 W I N .r Rl O Rl y to cn w > 1 ZI �+ N >- I z ! N 2 V I W V I -4 O. N co ._4 O in in O ,.� Rl cn O y N cn O •-� O Q J Z w N J I �+ • • • • • • • • (n Q i-- ZW tnJ 1 • y V W N4Q 1 �? W N Q Q I y • • • • • • • • y to )- � �V Z I N y y P m O N O � N Z D D V Z 1 N �n O N �n m to O 14 N cn O U O 1 cn N .-i .1 O N 14 N N O O v 0 1 N cn N o 'n w U- 02 1 cr 0 1 '� � O w 0 O m O �n N o% p It. 1 F- ( m `� t� ! F 1 co N (n cn �O .D 1 O �n m ,o �o N m O � rn o a I I I Z I O • o, 0 Z 1 1 I Z I O • • • • • • • r ,..� y p m O • K J 1 I W w 1 24 tcl 1D N Ln cn N O O O� • W I I w W l 1 N Of LL. 1 1 L" ( O N '"� Q .>-. ( I O 1 N N O 10 14 •� N •+ ' Z # # LL. Z * # U-O 1 � O Ix W Q * 1 LU .. to .� .� �n m N o d m N �..� N O. co r- Ln .t O • N J Z 1 D! 1 cn • • • • • • • • N J d ( O ( cn • • • • • • N 10 10 .o to to O m N • 1 W in 1 O� N LA O� N y cn >- W 1 >10 1 m .4 .-4 N O d' M N > Z; 1 > 10 I .4 N (n to OF: 1 O 1 m 1 O 0 z 1 co o 1 1 to 1 Ln o m m y m N o m N cn tn N 10 m Ln �1l P o y O co • r • • • • . • • �n W E 1 1 1 m • • • • • • • • • �O W 1 1 `0 1 O 1 pl co m 1 .-, 1 y N .-c R1 .O �n O N O • L) 1 V IL i N ._4 cq .-/ O �n N N d N N V 1- O W �n 1 O z W UN 1 W l7 m cn .1 0 < .i N N m co O �n �n Z f Q O I m Ln to in N N cn O Z W Q i I co N • • N O d 1 1 N • • • r • • • • • cn • • • . • • N N • V O 1 1 1 �-4 N O O� O O N O. N O O ( I ( .-1 .7 m 10 •O pO .D r4 N .#-� W I c��l I cn N .-c .+ .i O m N N coco 1 cn 1 CID > 1 0 ( 10 N O• �n N .-4 O cn `O '4 of W 1 Ln 1 N �D N O d Cl) ( O � � � O� Z 1 1 N • • • • • • • • N .-4 W 1 cn 1 Ul • • • • • in O y N 1 1 1 14 cn m .� �D m O d y • Q. .a O cn N to m N Z I m t c•1 N N O 'O .� N x I m 1 m ccl N oc O # I •r 1; w * '+ 1 w .+ w ;D ., co in H J I in cocn co .+ .O N o cnN N co W J I cn N Ol N Q' 1O N O • • cn f Q 1 O • • • • • W • • • cal = Q 1 O • Z • • • • • ,.y m m N N O co O • F- 1- 1 y m cn �n O� y O M N • W to F- 1 y `� 1-- 0 1 N N N O �n .-1 N 0. j O ' cal N 14 .-� O to N N F- a_ IL I- 1 w O w 0 * a # * r w > W J O O Y 0 > J Q rl N fn y cn D Q Q r4 N cn d cn F- Q V 1- LL V v) 2 cn z * z o • . . . . O LLJ . • . • • Q = W O • • • • • V = • • • • V �) • • • I 3 0 � • W _ • W IL LO • F-- U- N • 0 O ►"' N Ln O I N cn Z Z z a a w a Ir w o w o o # Y z ►- w o o z I- * ►- O z • Z J V Q Q a L I- Q a ►- z Lin w z IQ- o C) 0 a w F Q z (D V �- a � a z a J w O0 1- F- K W J W O Z 1- F- Q > 2 Z Q Q )zQ > Q Q W O CO «. O Q li • O m O F � Q F- Q 1.. ♦- F- F- Q O y F-- Qcc Y r _ o } _ O z z 0 d. Z 0 w w W Y W O CK w Z I- w W W W W W W O U V > F-- J W W W W O V V > to h- > > 0 Of of Q «+ m N F- > .> Ll LY d' Q J Q Q w W # V Q Q Q W w w Q # 1 O r N CO (Ij m m O P 10 tn 1 I m • • • • • • • • . .o * J 1 I w l .-+ r+ r N N m N O co N • # co N .O �D a P m O m m .D 1 m • • • • • • • • • v X ILL ¢ i o r * e- o o s m m o r 1n W X IL Q I O N -4N F V) I N O m m m a O N .O W W S Q 1 W 1 N Z 1 P y) P O N, .0 OJ N 19 m 'n Ln O 4 1: • V 1 La N • • . . • • N \ 1 Q I a N -4O r • -j t N O N m W 1-- # F I '"• to Z Q I .-� •'+ N m O N 14 n1 1- J w O * S 1 -4Q W # # ccI 10 4 Ln r 14 .-• N O CPI N P � N m 1 1 w> 1 1n • m m •• N M .. # * w 1 .o P •14 in r- .4 r0 14 V I i I O N O r O r O 1 1 w 1 Lr% • • • • • •; N O Z 1 1 W I a ti O n N N V a: i 1 > I m r N O 10 a O 10 .0 •V) W >- 1 Z I "'w O Q 1 1 W I �4 14 .4 O .--4 N co V I N O > 1 Z Q 0: z w N -11 14 N r .4 N r- 14 O a, P m N v l . l7 WIn4 4 I • • • • • • m Q Q : wN J 1 •+ N O P N m m O O OVz l N O �n J 3 m N O 1: • wNQQ l a • • • • • • • m a10 N IL Q' O V O 1 Ln N N IL 7 V z 1 N P IT m a O N N • J O W W IL O ^� 1 O O V O I + 14 -4 � O N .1 N t� > a O w IL O -• 1 .r z IL 1 F- 1 co o r o m P 1 o cn r n O F Ld O O O 1 I 1 Z 1 O • . . • • . kn I l w w I o o m N 1; m m • z < I+- 1 ►- 1 m m m Ln .r ,n Q 1- z 1 1 x O 1 10 14 .-4 O m ''"� � � (L' ( 1 w w 1 -4 .-. • • • m I l I z l o • • • • • Z a m r m a O p •Q W # * lL Q 1 14 Q S Q 1 1 cr 1 N .1 .4 m O m .-4 N O > w z N * # IL 0 1 -4W Of w * 1 r+ � N r+ P N a N O m 1D m J W O 1 a I m • • • • • • • • • m V) I W �n 1 m �O N m P m O .-+ N • J m Ix * 1 a in r P O in O P P O W W 1 > 10 I a -4 �. O 10 N N co 1 1 m In a 1 0 1 CD V7 Q >O.p i -4 N m O .• a m p t uI 1 Ln a, N m r r r- o .+ a w Z 1 w 1 1 10 1 co • • • • • • • • • °D 1 1 Ln m .o O �n r a O H t 1 I I N .-+ r. a a a o s P w i 10 1 m • • • • • • • N m -+ 1 in N .-. O Ih 14 m 0, N m !- 1 1 1 14 O O a O •O Z W Ln I r' V F- I -11 4 1 14 '+ N O N N p W (9 W Ln z f Q o f co m o cn Ln m .0 o m m P p W O o a 1 tn 1 N 1` z Q o f co r N Ln �n N .+ o r r o ixo m r # J 1 10 I N O 1 1 1 .4 1-4 m N m P P o ,n m .� LU m ao > 1 w 1 m l • r N m O ry ,i N ON W I �n 1 r 10 a O N : %0 O O a .-4 m �+ p 1 m i u� • • • • • r 1 14 m o a m m o P 0 • a j ccn I � c. . • • . . ; . a Z 1 co 1 Ln N .-4 O Z N • W '4 I 14 Z 1 m l 14 N .-t N co F- J I Ln O w # r 1 ,� E • Q 1 O . • . . . . . • . m w ►- 1 a a .+ (n a -4 N o in co m ¢ 1 0 : ONo o w V)_ N Ln r d w O d ] O ; .4 .-c 14 N .--4 ry V) V w o * Q # a v > w * Q Y J y w d' Q .-4 N m a Ln p Y J H Q V O Q .-a N m a �n �n a �n ki z p w a ,n o w z 0 * • 1- O w Q w ~- ►- w w � Q 0r w V D CK w V) p v ., w w v1 p U- N . ►- z uj O L O N Ln p LL • • F Q w a Ir Z p • W IY ce Q t7 Z O N �n w n. Y .... z • 1- o o * z p . w IY IY►- o z # Q a a s f- Q ►- -4 s O z ►- o o # a vl w z F- o z Q Q o z - w -. Q z -- a Ir a f- Q ►- .• a ►- oc cr o \ w t-LU a cr z � o z o a 3 Q W J W O f O F- I- !Y Z d' F- O \ _ Y Q > 0- �+ Z Q Q w tY a 3 Q N F- O ZE z Y J IY Of w Y Q > 0 x O 1- F- Of - - -. O a �O Q .. ' ►- 1- 1- 1- Q >L ►- O z z Y J IY w w O co 1. Q w V O tY !Y Z O W W W O 1" Q Q } w IY W z I- w w W a~. J W W w W O V V > >- O z z Of ~ > > p Q- p Q F- J W w W w O V V > V * ►a- m a a * v co a a > > p � w a * w w a.- # m ly a a # Y # 1 O N N N -Q r 14 O 1 N 14 # 1 • • • • • • • • O. I W LLJ-1I 14 .4 N t- Ln N 10 O M N N • w t W -1l .-1 14 i1 -4 -4 M O M .-1 N V X LL. Q I .• U W X u Q Z w E .-4 0 10 1 1 0D co P a0 .D w Lo 1 1 Ln co co 1n P Ln o 1 1 r 1 w IN r- • Nw W w • • • • r o '- cli • N• Q N O J 1 U -+ N 14 rq O M M N w # F I 14 � W # f t ''• 1- LL M 1- 10 10 M Ln O O P �` Q J * # a l 10 a, 1n 10 N P P o 1 -4 1 .Q-. O w j Ln • • • • • • • • • aD Lo u1 W I 1 O P M 1 r O M r -i .J .-• M .-1 O N 1 M .-i 11 M O N •-• N w ri zi a r1 zI �. to p U 1 a0 N 00 ! Q H u w V)J I -4 1 P �n Ln m P o M M o Q < w w Q a i m o N P P o • . r W N Q Q 1 1 • • • • • • • • • O N '"� • t/1 W 7 V'I_ 1 N tf1 P P P O 1 O M O • l7 O O V Z 1 N 14 r P 1 O N = O VO 1 N 14 O M M M V) � WILO 0 I N '"• N O M N N ►- w U. O-� 1 ' V Of OOf r r S V IL .J LL. 10 1- 1 00 .-� r+ N N M -4 O N 1 N p O J o 1 { I Z I P m N M o • • S p O J 1 1 1 Z I O r Z l Z -1 N r C O O It M N O P � O r in . a Ww -4 N N O _ m O N LL O d `1+ 'i N• ra _ W to N # 1 .-� 1 r ao �n P r O .-� 1 10 W N � * 1 .-• r Q` 00 1 1n r O 10 P O • • • • • • • • • 14 J Z Q 1 a ( M • • _ • • • • • • • 1n _J Z W 1 a ( M �O c: • Q W 1 W M ( P N �n .Q Ln P O N 14 • Q 3 1 W �n 1 -0 O� u1 -O N a0 O .-1 r-1 M >- n. 1 > 10 1 r+ N cn O N 1 M m X Z 1 0 10 1 N •� M 14 O m IX ZO I O 1 W O I N I in r O 10 1 N r1 O .0 10LCI p 1 P P ao m o 1 10 m a I I -Q 1 co • . • . . • • • . � w 1 1 Q 1 w • M t- I Y I I r r N 10 1 In .-4 to O P r • V 1- a = .-1 1 � N O P m m 0 M .-• N r+ M .� o N M M D Z a w u� I '� D Z W Ln 1 p w 0 a W l9 : O 1 c0 N Z X: Q O 1 a0 r O M r O M O r r 0 a ( o 1 N • • • z O LA • • ao O a 1 1n 1 N • • • • • • • P V p I 1 1 + ' u0 00 O 14 00 M O 10 P • N -4 N 14 1-4 14 O M N N # J 1 1 ( 14 .-• N 1-4 14 -1 O M N N r1 W I M 1 � 1 I .r � > 1 CO > co W M 1 ,n 1 r � P aD r M P o P w I 1n 1 r •-4 P P N N r O P 1 M P W I • • • •, • • • • ui \ 1 ( 1 P 1 N O C N O M O • p I 1 1 .� O to 1 �n 0D 1 O ' • Z 1 c0 1 r• N N ..--1 .-1 .-1 O 1 N N " z I a0 I N .-a N N O M .-1 N W — W Ln M 10 N 1 P d O m H J I u� m 0o N S 1n M o �n P 1 � ~. Q I O • • • • • • 1' Q i O • • • • • • • • • P 00 M 14 m O �n C 1 P ' W M ►- 1 S 10 P O P P 1 O -Q OD W H 1 S 14 -4N .-1 .-a O M N N CL •-• O I r1 .� N .i N 14 O M .-1 N a O r l '' o r- 1 LLl (3 an v v) v * Q * Q * } ul >- w p Y J O 0: Q �4 N M S Ln d a Q -4N M 1 �n LO a v) Z O w o w 1- f- w • Q w Q w w v W 0 Of 0 V . . . • V D • • • • w 0 p w vl p ix u; a ., w IL • I-- • H a Ln p O a Z O z O N z z Q p o YQ w w w W a a 0 W. o oz a z ra 1 l7 1 Q a 1- Q 1- Q Q O a i 1-Z a w 1W- ¢ z v v a a w M a o z z r O \ z z 1- - cr a W- 1 3 a w -j w o 0 1 ►- a J w O f O ►- ►- NZQ > a Z Q Q F- E Z J a a W Z Y -1 tr a O V W • O '�-' 0 l7 O co .. O Q LL m ¢ Q 0 S ~ Q ~ 0 Z z a O Z Z > > - a } Y p a a z F- W W W W 0 a a Z 1- W W w W w W w O v V > ~. m w � w > Op V V > ~ > '> p W W * a a Q Q Q V Q Q Q W W < a a a * * ►- ® a a a tr w r * I o m 4 co co r. D o w O N Z 1 1 w • # 1 O O .. m s o r m N # w I I w l + ro U N r D N o r m # I l w l + o . D m P P p . N V 1 W J I N .r N .r p .7 N N I to J I 1 N .-+ V X LI- Q I .-+ V X 11 Q I •-4 Z W E L W W �-+ W V) I 3 r Cl) co U .--+ N C) P �D r V) 1 W J 1 N N • • • • • O Z 1 W I N H s 1 I s N N r p N O r r W 1 J I N m w In p m r V) � I Q I •� N N r-1 N O m m m LLI Q r # * cY 1 10 CO m s 3 3 r O .--+ r 00 Q W # # (Y. 1 10 V I I I�] 1 • • • • .-a -- N 1 1 W I �n v Q t 1 > I r -4 o p C) N n V I t > I m D m o r O 1 1 uJ l •-+ -1 N m r- o m m m O t- 1 1 w l N JA -1 N Q z U-1 U) J I .-1 co P O N O D Q I 1-11 U) -1I -1 ~' l+J U) Q 1 I Q' • • • • • • • • : cc W � Q Q 1 s • • • • • • • • • cn V) D -D V Z I N O N P r .D N O m 1 V) O Q -7 V G I N !-+ -+ .D P• ,O O D •D V) 01 ,-) 0 1 O s m N V) O V O 1 m N N t7 Q r O V tL 1 t- 1 m N m .� m cx> m o �n .-. m v) tL t t- 1 ao C! •-+ .-� N C3 I I 1 z 1 C) • • r o I I I Z I o Cr J 1 1 LLLJ W O\ CO V) 1 I W W I -+ W m -r to �D O .� -1Q Q ( I CCD Q Q W LL O ( '+ z Z — * # tL O 1 O O O c r W 3+ I P D O• r O O• O r N W J /- 1 CY 1 m • • N J �- J # '"M _ _ 1 I1 m 1 11J I N N N O� O, N O to m 1 W In I OD �D N m .p N C) s O� N •-+ O Cl) m m } C. V I > D 1 m �-+ •a � .� O In •-1 N m 0 t 0 I .1 m C, Q 1 0 I Q t a tL { 1 1 n l u-N (n N m o s r o n P a O t I L, I Lr) m s a N N o . .-+ w m r 1 1 1 1 N -+ m O N .t o m N • 1- 1 1 1 1 + N m n LL u O s m N v p � .-• ry I W N 1 .--+ J I W V7 I C7 W 0 W 0 Z f Q O I co N O r+ .D O •1 O N .D O+ Q O I cD m s m O r m O r o0 O 2 1 I N • • • • • • • P O LL I +n i N v O 1 I I r 1 r Co m u w m o wn m V O I 1 1 1 m o r r. D o s ao r-4 m Cl) N * J i D t m N N •-i p +11 •-i N -+ W 1 m l rl --+ W { m l •+ m > 1 m > { rn w 1 n I r m o m o o o s r C, w I n l r ca r p r + r o s ao n -1 m N J m .-+ o m r t I I •-+ m m .-+ +n In N o N o Z I CD 1 N N N .--+. .--1 O .Y N N z 1 CO I m N N O 10 •-+ N W w co LW t J n O r m m O O r 'D r _ I in • in in• O\ -•+ • O• O • P .z Q O r p V F- 1 O ' N m N 3 O W -4 +n r• N O 1 N N N .-+ O s m N 1-- O I m w O w Q V) V V > Lu } W O Y J p Y J (Y Q N m N cr h- Q V F Q V In a In +n a vl Z Q # O W • • • • • O W < e _ _ e t- N r In w Q w W l7 . . . to L7 cr� Q w L O w V) p tY ,� • W CY • w u- in r W w n O )- (if C) O It- tY Z Z O N 'n L Z O N u\ Q l7 LLJ Q- Q 0 w o- z n w lr z_ o w Of K Z • t- Cr O O * Y .. Z • 1 O O O z * t- O • Z a a n- F ¢ h s a a Q- R U) L:J z t- O z t1 Ir U) W z r O W t- Q lY z W h- Q CY z l7 l7 L- �- h- p \ z z r r lY •-• 1- O 11 Z z z cr a z -- -- a z CK a W J W O y O r t- 2 w J W O E O r ' Y Q > Q. Z Q Q Y Q > Cl Z Q - �D h- O ?_- z Y J Cr of W r h- O x z Y J lY w O m D Q 0 w . O m :D Q F- t- t-- F- Q O r QF- } > - O Z z cl:� > } - O z } w C) CY K z F- w W W ]- W O (r w Z t' J W W W LtJ Q V V > r J W W W W O V to V) t- > > CY w Q m l/J F-- > > p Q' V Q 4 Q W W # V Q Q Q lit # t CO It a a * # r m W- a # 1 O N N .4 O r OD O r o` tl 1 1 co • • • • • • • • • .-� U N N 1O Ln .4 N O 3 �O • .z. 0 O O O 00 N O `O rl N O l7 1 I ao LL I w • • • U X ¢ 1 .+ • w • • * Z N ' ' .+ N N O O N N r O .� d' r . W J r N r O d N N 1 3 r m N N o 1 W 1 N • • • • • • • • • d V U_ O X u_ ¢ I J 1 N r Ln r 10 .1 N O m N z 7- w lL J N y l J m r O 10 It tq 1 Q I N N N 0 p IL 1 W I N • • • • • • W * f l 1 J I N N r O m �O O ►- �A w Y 1 ¢ 1 r N o Q ; ; W ; 1 4 N 1D OD o, .-4 O 10 10 O v 1 1 > 1 o m o .-I r r o m o • I ¢ Q 10 o a o 1 1 W I m N .+ .+ O to .+ N a S a # # 1 -aO O � N 1 1 W I �n • • • • • • N } 1 Z I O m O o4 o O N U I .-I O J O 1 1 w l 'n O '� co o i Q Z W to U N J 1 '� O d co Z Y Win Q Q 1 4 . P . . : . . . • d to Q >- ( N J D Z 1 • LI) O O O U N V I O O O ul Q O VO 1 m N N .• N O %n 14 N Q on zw to J I 14 O•1 • JO wNQ ¢ N a ulW O + 1 N I 0 CM 14 O- O m 1000• OO ad r N O lL t r N m in oP O Ol of • . • • • • • • • • .-4 7 W W w u_ O — 1 '"• ' p O I I I Z I O • U m d [C O 1 I W W I N O a0 Ln O m m . P O Q = I I a 0 1 d N N o o r+ N ►- V_ 1 1- 1 O • • Z * * u d 1 14 p W 1 1 1 Z 1 O • • • O.' w J 1 I W W I 14 N r O d �n O 14 W m # 1 O .--4 OD 1 'o Ln O N 10 O, ¢ 0 m 11 cc 0 1 O• O N r O i 0 1 uJ Ln 1 of 10 • O > Of O O O } r+ 1 > 'o I N .4 N N O d .n 1n �11 O�n N �o O m m W 1 0 1 N N J w i Of 1 m • • • • • • Z I 11 W I w in 1 t!1 S O O• .i O O 1 1 Ln 1 ul O kn r Un Ol O d N of >- O I > O 1 m O O N r O w i 1 10 1 00 • • • • • • • • • Ln m O 1 O 1 r N m J 10 • !-w I m 1 m co N O N m O N N N 14 O 1 N N w V ¢ tIn W O I pp • • • • • J Z w tn 1 'i z .� O 00 � 0 O W U' 14 O ,-.� V X J i �-+ 1 to d O N r O Z E Q O I co p �n lA N OD O O O 1 Un 1 N • • • • • • • • • J Q W W Ln 1 U O 1 1 1 • O I-W U ,n N 0 m rn ao r o o m o 0 0 # J 1 �O ( m rr N .-� O �n .� N Z IL Q O 1 Qo • • • .-a W 1 m 1 .-+ .N •00 • U Q J 1 1 1 O O P O o. Li �n I r '+ o n r r m O r to Ln * z O 1 0 1 ao 1+ O m o O in • • O •+ O Y I m t 1-4• • • . • • • t 1 1 r+ o o .o tn to r+ o o •• • co 1 1 r %o O Ln z 1 co1 a m .-. 0 r .4 N ~ Q I m 1 Ln . . • • • • w �n • p 1 c i a0 1 co 14 0 N r m >- J I Ln 1+ o• N r d r O o o ra 1 ,� f Q I o . . . . . . • • m � Q w J N v) ►- 1 a m �n .+ N o ao r w N ,. rn o F- «� O I m N N .� O Ln -4 N CD W Z J I 0 m r O • • • CO — m o 0 N V 1- Q r O ; r N 0 N r O * 14 a * a z vl > W w o uJ O Y J m U 1- w a v } < V O • • • • • N .-. w I-- d u • • Q w • • • • • O O v N 1-W w t9 w 1- Q u D W H'� a w v► p > e- • w w • p o If w o J.¢ ¢ z z Q t7 w a N �n p 3 Fes- O O p f- o o * z o w z '" F Z z * Q o x w � I- O >- 1- p . a w z z '� z N p o w Q z z Ir w w a a O 1- Q Ofa! O a 3 .. .. Q 0- ¢ Q LnN J W O f O 1- F- K w } _ ¢ ¢ Q Q U IQ- O f Z Y J cr tY w ZLLI O- •-• Q O z Z 2 Y m 0 ~ J Q w w w �- ¢ Q v p z 1- ►- wuj F- v v > o 'n ►- z n. o V)i H > > 2 Q ... v) O N N F- w w * } w w O m uwi M >w- zz } } Z N Q z * r¢- m 3 ¢ o 49 z_ 3 * 1 O m .4.40 P 41- 0 to%0r4O mtoP0 O 1 I m • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * J I w l �-• I- .+.-a o m P.:o m .:O N m Kl 0 1 I m • • . • • J W J I P o m O P O h N 0 Z lL W x I W J 1 N i!1 .i O 14 N S m 0% no NN .00 Nd d0 hm Un0 V XLL_ Q 1 W 1 W N • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .Z- ~ w Z N 1 S N 10 N 1 O x 1 J I N RlS -+O r+ul 14O din O m�OS O W 1 w 1 N • • • • to F 1 Q I P O m .. O P O 10 N O S. 1 J I N 9 4 1: O w # E 1 + .r .a .-a N F 1 Q I N .0 .r 0 W of * f I r+ Q O # # 1 '0 I- .-•N o O 0 .-•0 1n-4 d 0 S P I-0 1- Q Z 1 1 W 1 un • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Q a # # o' 1 10 1 1 N m 0 V 1 1 > 1 u� I�I�O u� I�I� O f�h �n O n cn O O -- W 1 1 W ( • • • O K 1 1 w t m 0 r- .4 0 m 0 ncn140 u 0 1 1 > I 1N O r 1 Z 1 O 1 1 w l P o v) V I 0 0 r ! z 1 -4 Q LL1 z W tnJ 1 -4 cn M 4 0 10 PLn 0 -4 a, ( o S O10n N W 0 Q Q 1 S • • • • • . • • • • ♦ • • • • N W- u I Q a' Z WNJ I '+ I C7 1 1 O » V Z ( N �O RI O SNNO hN O .OPSO Q W 0Q4 1 S • • N V1 O VO 1 ON O m 0%.+ O 0 10N O NM D OuZ i N O o Q w LL_ 0— 1 •-4 ., ., .+ 0 o u 0 1 0 0 t7 x o_O O F W L O-- 1 14 .4 a LL 1 F I m N P P O P N P O N P P O O +P O O Z a 0 0 f 1 1 1 Z 1 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • W LL_ 1 F I m o 1 1 I O a' W I I W w 1 .4 m O m P.-•O h- .+ 0 h-N O O Y ( 1 I Z I O • • Q 1 1 K O 1 P O m O P 0 m 0 a ( 1 W W 1 .-1 O O Zo 0 * # IL 0 1 --4 �4 .4 .+ Q IL I I w O 1 0 0 z O * * LL_ O 1 .4 --4 W O * 1 r+ �O NNO cn NulO P P NO ('- .-ENO 0 J O 1 a' 1 cn • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • W 0: * ( '+ %n 10 P 1 0 = 1 W u% I cn cn in 0 N .0 o rn N 1n o m co 0 J w I a: 1 cn • • • • >- N 1 > 10 1 P 0 .0 R1 O m.--4 0 � cn u% 0 to ( W 1n I ro F 1 0 1 .-1 ra ri -4 r O 1 >10 1 �n S O 1 0 z 1 - 1 Ln 10 PUN0 O mN0 Min NO 4O•I-0 .+ w W I '0 I m • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • J 1 F ]L 1 1 1 O ui In O I- .�.+O U1 cn.-+O N N S O w z 10 1 C0 N ( O V 1 ! 0% O m .4 O P O 10 Cl) O F O 1 1 1 D O 0 'n 1 .• .i 14 u -- I .a 1 10 N O Z 0 0 LLI Ln 1 14 O } Q 01 COPr• l0 SPh0 SOl0 14000 inQ t7 u F 1Ln1 N Z u Q O 1 m CC) N O 1 O * 1 1 1 -4ocn o a o .+a o m o ��nmocm 1 O i a, co .-O 1 0 P O I- N 0 V O 1 1 1 4 N O r O .+ V 1 cn 1 14 .r .1 14 * 1 0 1 to .0 0 GoP w j Ln 1 f- 1n P100 Nu\toO OD NS .10 a00 Z I cn 1 .� �• Q 1 r I In 1 W% • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • P I Ln 1 I- N .-+ P 1 O I- 1 1 i .-• f` .4 0 P P.-�O �O N O N en d 0 14 •' 1 m l P 0 m O P O m 1-4 O 0 1 1 1 -4 • • • • -4 .� .d .� O 1 1 1 m .0 171 0 W W 1 m l cn ifl O tr F * .+ 1 m W J ( �n cn N�nO 4 .000 mN00 - SNSO W 2 f lL Q ( O • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • (p W J 1 1n I- Ln 10 N 0 w ►- I S u1 to.r O S N to 0 Ln M.•O O to S O x O Q ( 0 • • 7 O P O OD.-• O P 0 I- N O w O 1-- I S Z P A O a O F F.- W 0 1 N 1n 14 0 w } a 1r F 1 r4 1n W LL_ * O 0 > a * Q - 0 r • 0 IL ~ O O J t0 Z F- w Z Z • cc Z • Z D F J 0* 0 Q a > t- w F • } Q � w • • J W W O M a • Ir o /r D O N 0 • O a • 0 V -+ V w Q W O W • W w to 0 0 D 0 Q I.- W I-- 0 w I- 0 w I-- Qr Z N W Z F U. 0' to a a W --- w V) Ir O W N F Z O W Q O --a 0 W D 0 0 V o: Q N W V' a u a 1- D a 1- a z F z O ►- o z w Q O w -- u w Q w W Q � .- w a le •- z o' a w a J u o: O o: (x O J 0 w a O F �) a --0 0D x } ►+ z w Q Z a v) F O F V Z F w I- F D' V O M ►� v) -- wo zJ w0 Q :) wo 0 :) wo Q O Q a • F F W x Nz W W NZ EL NZ QLL. NZ a 0 (L N • 0 z a w --1, a > -- 1, W --1, --1, W N r z w N 30 W 0 3 J 0_ N 3 z 0: 03 F a w 1 leJ 011JQ0 owQO 0Q WQ0 QOWQO z .. r J 3 - Q Z Nxz 0 NxZ O NxZ LL. NxZ W J F J Q 0 F - + -+ aYJ zr � aYJ xr -- aYJ 0 •+aYJ lC Q .-. F Z Z - - -- - �- Q O Z � f Q -- J tnf Q V Wtnf Q Ztn tnf Q F J z O )L J O 10 F -- Q WI-F > xQWFF to xQ WF-F --YQWF1- IL x - 0 W 0 x - 0 F x - 0 Of P Of x - O 0 v D W F F a FZ1- w-- a Z ►- o a1-Z -- F w Qa F- z - _ -I w zx00 V) 2: 00 z F F zx00 Oaf00 } w LL W a S o m to -- W Z O W W Z O —LLI W Z 0 0 W z O I- J W V Q Q Q M z to x u a .-. m 0 LL O L O m # F m 1: a -- Z) 3 QO u Q ,} N F O r N -4 O # ( O 01 D OO .O M N CD N O MOt O 0%r-4t- M 1 O # ( • • • • 1 ( m • • • to• • • • •to • • • • • • • • • • • 1 l * I W I I w � W M O O to M r r 1 ~ O • J 1 � M.7 -4 .-• m N10 .1 NN N N04 14 O • O 1 WJ 1 o' 0 V X (LQ 1 'i f V w X U.Q I .Z. W f I•- w E In 1 S t r to .- O to .D to t'tN r-t N r to CD.D 1- to O .Z. Q ti) 1 S S '"'• to O W 1 N • Z• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • O VO ; J N N f`- • p0 •' 1 J 1 NC; r �n r N �O S N M O r O� �O S �O N r W * 1 N 1 •-• i OO• M.D Rl M .-1 N M N O w # E 1 ►- 1- to Q # # K 1 %D m r•r•r-t .� .4 a M r• r+ .4 U N .D N J r�%D %D %D Q w * * ( 'D .-• M 1D O �+ 1 1 W I to • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. 1 1 W I to • • • 0 .-• 1 I W I N a M V 1 1 > m 14 p O 1 1 W I N M M .-• m r-t OD r-4 .4 S N r-t N N r♦r-t S to to M } 1 Z I Ln } 1 Z 1 to V I ap O Q z W to J I r4 m 0 14 M IT 01 %D 04 to O r o %D to to to O M r Q V z W to J ( .-• m a w 0 Q Q ( a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Q W N Q Q 1 a • • • to D7 VZ I N O Sr♦M Ntn �D Nr-t +D NM �O r+ US40 rN to U. O O V Z I N M to O U V O 1 ra M S .-ti rr OD Cl).O M M N .-t N M S p VO 1 0' 7 WILO— 1 J WtLO— 1 O CC Q w 0 1D a 1 O LL I I-- 1 m .D r tD tT r M �D N N .D D• r P to 010 N M to to Z IL 1 ►- 1 m • 0 O O I 1 1 Z 1 O • • a' 1 1 1 Z 1 O • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • _ '� N r O Q I I a' I S to N.D to S S to O to c0 M r• .p to r N m tD M Q F- 11 O ( Ot O ri to N rJ m M 10 m M N m N to a Z Q # * U.O 1 Z * # lL O 1 W O O a N o w * 1 r� M m r l O M S N ( 1 1 0 m m to N r a D M • • • • J i 1 M J W 1 w M 1 r D' M O I W M 1 to a Ot .4 Cl) �D -4 a O a to.D M P m Ln } a 1 > D 1 m I Od 1 � � '' CD -4 t- o toN atn m 1 0 1 1 w 1 s s N o 0 1 to I to M to s rn r MLA t 4 I i o l M N o. S M .D a O w 1 to 1 to w W = 1 10 1 m • • • • ( `D 1 co • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I- 1 1 1 D` �` '' po F- 1 1 1 to tD N to a tin M N a o to N to N to o rn V 1 .-t 1 r-� to N lT N r O •-4 NNN•-4 to a jO w to 1 m .� M 1 r' O O l7 Z Q O I m O O O m O N O� N P 1 0 1 I r+ of OD S m m N Z Z Q O I m N m ( O 0 1 en I N • • • • • • • • • • • • • O Q i L 1 N • • O V 1 1 1 .4 IF to r�to r N M 4 ,4 O V 1 1 1 -4 N r O * 1 D 1 .q to N 01 N r O N M M .D M # N 1 D 1 o MI 't 1 MI tlD O' ( N N 10 O P 1 to 1 r M t- m N N co0 0 0 O I ( 1 .D O•r CC)Ot ND a Ot Q 1 to 1 t- M I to • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ra a 1 M I � 1n • 1 1 1 i ol 0 1 m l m �rtnr� Nr r Stn o rM0414 tna > # .• 1 w W Q m N O O to J I to S Ot 00 m U 1T -IO 0: �D Or SrarP M a m IC Q I O • • • • W I.- I a r-4 co M.D M a to O S cora 'A r .-+ r r N 0 to a f W O r l S ''• 1` 00 r O 1 rt N a r♦ 14 m M.D M M N r-t N N NM M a ►- 1- O ; °' -4 W F 1 a w ►- to to z * Q } o � 0 D o I- ►- a to to z w •�. t- IL N O 0! N of ►- Q o z z to w w o Q N >- w 00Ix > J w to a to to w O V Y V • w v ww a o ao Oo t- w z F' o -- aaao t oo a CC .. w '"' • 2 1 O O O _ X N J I 0 a H r. N M to i 1 1 a O 1- I- ►- '" z z Q Z 1 1 1 1 11 1 O to to w z z v w a Q a w 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o N M O a Q 2 w Q NZw 0 a a 000 I- f f o bg00 O O u- Y O Z J J J J z z Z O O Y > = Z IL CC r 0 0000 w Ww to 1 1 •f- H O a 0 F- Q W a = TS = 0 Y YY rr to Q 0 •• a w 0 a in to wWWw w0 AA00cn0 a 03 w Y ►} z w tntntntn t- w z z z opww 1- DG » » Z Z •• •• K 00 to Z O 000 W 3 to w w O Z O V w J S = S = D_ O 000 tD 0 to m W IL w W - J f- O Y Q 1 1 w W W to Oto z r-t N >W J C = Z J I- Z Z Z Z 1 I > » M to D� 0 * to0W w F Q w O '� �-�� � N `"' I I I W 1 1 1 1 1 JE O Q F- .-. �+ J -1 -1 co r4> I 11 1 1 Q W °0 1.- Z O O -- of wwof r+ Mtno LA Wwww ft� w of t- } w W W W W W W to to to 1 I I I � Z 2 f � 1 1 J W OZ w O O F- J W mmmm tnN � cr � I I 1 1 00000 1 1 Z coE P E E Q 6 Q W W W W V V V V V X X N V Q Q aD O O w Ww (D 0l7 tD z 7_ 7ZZ W w J Q co to Z z Z z z = >- >- >- Q Q Q Q «. �..-....-.• to W 4 r KENT PARKS & RECREATION PROTOTYPE FOR A SYSTEMATIC APROACH TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF APPENDIX D PLAN - 1982 PRIORITIES WITHIN THE ACTION PLAN. City of Section 2.0 of Chapter VII recommended that a systematic evaluation procedure Kent^shington be adopted to help the City of Kent establish priorities within its 6 year Capital Improvements program. The following tables and discussion describe one possible system and some of the considerations relative to the application of that system to the Kent situation. This system has been developed specifically for the Kent Parks and Recreation Plan, and has been used to develop the priorities given in the Action Plan presented in Chapter VII, Table VII-6. Tables C-1 through C-4 list the detailed criteria under each of the four sets of considerations. Each criterion is given a value relative to other criteria within its set of considerations. These relative values or "points" reflect the goals and objectives of this plan but are subject to modification over time as the City's needs and goals change. If the numerical evaluation system becomes too cumbersome, the City may want to simply use the criteria presented in each Table as a "check list" for prioritizing projects. The numerical evaluation results in a rating for each of the four sets of factors. Since all factors are not equally important, the scores from each set of factors are numerically weighted. (See Table C-5.) It is recommended that Factor 2 -- the degree to which projects meet identified needs -- be given double the weight of other factors. Each of the other three factors -- physical features, cost considerations, and unique opportunities and/or timing considerations -- are approximately equal in importance. As conditions change, weights can also change. In a given year, the City may determine that due to special budgetary problems, cost considerations will be of greater importance. Similarly, a sudden increase in development activity and pressure could result in attaching increased importance to factor 4 which includes special timing considerations. Table C-5 lists the recommended weights for each of the four factors. It also recommends a range of possible future adjustments which can be made to the recommended weights based on changing conditions within the City. These future adjustments are greatest for factors 3 and 4 and least for factors 1 and 2. The relative importance of the physical qualities of a site and the degree to which it meets identified needs generally changes less over time. After the weights presented in Table C-5 have been applied to each of the four factors, the resulting scores can be added together to arrive at a grand total score for each project. Because certain factors cannot be applied to some types of projects, i grand total scores cannot be used to rank projects. Ranking must be based on the KENT possible scores achieved. Table C-6 indicates the maximum PARKS & precentage of maximum poss RECREATION possible scores for each of three basic types of projects: (1) projects involving land PLAN - 1982 acquisition and development, (2) projects involving development on land already owned, (3) special projects such as cultural facilities. City of Kent,Washington As indicated in Table C-6, the maximum possible scores which can be achieved vary for the three basic project types. The most points can be scored by Park projects involving land acquisitions as well as development. Park projects involving develop- ment of existing park land can only score 80 points due to the fact that factor 4, -- unique opportunities and special timing considerations -- cannot be applied to projects which do not involve land acquisition. Special projects such as cultural facilities have the lowest maximum possible score due to the fact that several individual criteria within Tables C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 do not apply to these facilities. I General Note for Tables C-1 through C-6 Projects which are tied into junior or senior high school sites may assume that the facilities on the school site are part of the project for purposes of awarding points. TABLE C-1 PHYSICAL FEATURES KENT Recommended Priority Points Allocation System PARKS & Greenbelt RECREATION & Natural Cultural PLAN - 1982 Check ❑ Neighborhood D Community ElResource a & Special - One Box Park Park Park Facilities City of Kent,Washington a. Appropriate Parcel Size* (0-15) (0-10) N/A N/A b. Uniqueness of Physical Features (0-10) (0-10) (0-20) N/A c. Adjacent to School (0 or 15) (0 or 10) (0 or 5) (0 or 25) --------------- d. Linked to _`-~---�-- ------- Trail System 0 or 5) (0 or 5) (0 or 15) (0-20) e. Linked to Greenbelt System (0 or 10) (0 or 10) (0 or 15) N/A f. Historical Site (0 or 5) (0 or 5) -^ (0 or 5) - (0-15) g. Protects & Enhances - Sensitive Ntl. Resources (0-5) (0-5) (0-20) N/A h. Provides High Level of Public Transport. N/A (0-5) N/A (0-10) & Vehicular Access i. Enhances Existing Park & Rec. Facilities (0-5) (0-5) (0-5) (0-15) j. Provides Public Access to Water (0 or 10) (0 or 10) (0 or 15) N/A k. Suitability for Active Recreation Fields (0-10) (0-15) N/A N/A ------ ---------------- 1. Central to Served Popul. (0-10) (0-10) N/A (0-15) Total Points (0-100) (0-100) (0-100) (0-100) * Desired parcel size is 5-10 Acres for Neighborhood Parks and 15-30 Acres for Community Parks. TABLE C-2 DEGREE TO WHICH PROJECT MEETS IDENTIFIED NEEDS KENT j Recommended Priority Points Allocation System PARKS &RECREATION PLAN • 1982 f J City of Check Kent,Washington TF� One Within Within Within Within Box West Valley East Overall t , Hill Floor Hill Service Total Area Area Area Area .� Check n a. Neighborhood (50) (50) (50) N/A (50 possible) One L_ _.J Park — — — — }. Box '`1 ab. Community 0 0 —(30) 0 _(30 possible) Park c. Greenbelt & Ntl. Resource —(25) —(25) !(25) — (25) _(50 possible) Parks d. Cultural N/A N/A N/A (40) (40 possible) Facilities — — e. Field Games —(5) 0 —(5) — (5) —(10 possible) 4 f. Tennis (5) (5) 0 0 — (5 possible) g. Swimming (3) (3) (3) (2) (5 possible) (indoor or — — — — — outdoor) h. Trails N/A N/A N/A _ (15) _(15 possible) Total (100 possible) TABLE C-3 COST CONSIDERATIONS Recommended Priority Points Allocation System KEN& Check D ❑ PARKS & One Box RECREATION Greenbelt Cultural Max. PLAN - 1982 Neighborhood Community & Ntl. Resource & Special Possible City of Parks Parks Parks Facilities Points Kent,Washington �- a. Project Ties in with Joint—use Or Other Co- (0-20) (0-20) (0-20) (0-20) 20 operative Agree- ments Between Kent & Other Pub. Agencies b. Minimize Ratio Target = 1.0 Target = 1.0 Target = 1.0 Target = 1.0 of Land Cost To Land Value * * * 20 c. Minimize Ratio Target = .60 Target = .40 Target = .40 Target = .40 of Local to all Other Sources * * * * 20 of Funding d. Minimize Ratio of Target = .60 Target = .60 Target = .60 Target = .60 City Government _ Funding to Private Funding Sources, * * * 20 Donations & Volunteers e. Minimize Annual Target = Target = Target = Target to Maintenance & $6,000/Acre $5,500/Acre $500/Acre be established Operating Costs Minus User Fees * * * * 20 & Other Project Income TOTAL 100 Key to Scoring * Target + 20% or more = 0 points _ * Target + 1-10% = 5 points * Target + 0% = 10 points * Target - 1-10% = 15 points * Target - 20% or more = 20 points TABLE C-4 UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES AND/OR SPECIAL TIMING CONSIDERATIONS KENT Recommended Priority Points Allocation System PARKS & RECREATION Possible PLAN - 1982 Points City of ---------- -------------------------------- ------- Kent,Washington a. Unnusually Strong User Group (0-25) Support b. Unusually Strong Public and/or (0-25) Political Support Unusually Severe c. Rezone Anticipated (0 or 10) Development within year or already Pressures on Desired existing Site: d. Subdivision or (0 or 10) (Does not apply Short Plat to park development Anticipated and cultural & special within year or already facilities) existing e. Construction (0 or 20) Activity Anticipated within year f. Land for Sale (0 or 10) Total (0-100) TABLE C-5 KENT SYSTEM FOR ESTABLISHING PARKS & PRIORITIES FOR PARK ACQUISITION RECREATION PLAN • 1982 & DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS City of Ranking of Projects is Based on % of Maximum Kent,Washington Possible Score Achieved by Project. POINTS TOTAL WEIGHTS X SCORED = SCORE Recom- (Possible mended Future FACTORS: Weight: Adjustment) 1. Physical Qualities .20 1.05 0-100 0-20 of Site 2. Degree to Which Project .40 ± .10 1 0-100 0-40 Meets Identified Needs 3. Cost Considerations .20 ± .15 0-100 0-20 4. Unique Oppor- tunities and/or .20 ± .15 0-100 0-20 Special Timing Considerations* 0-100 TABLE C-6 MAXIMUM POSSIBLE WEIGHTED SCORE FOR KENT EACH SET OF PRIORITY FACTORS PARKS & RECREATION PLAN • 1982 City of PROJECT TYPE: Kent,Washington Cultural Park Acquisition Park & Special And Development Development Facilities FACTOR 1 PHYSICAL 20 20 20 FEATURES FACTOR 2 MEETS 40 40 16 NEEDS FACTOR 3 � ) COST 20 20 20 CONSIDERATIONS FACTOR OPPORTUNITY/TIMING 20 10 10 CONSIDERATIONS 1 MAXIM TOTAL 100 90 66 SCORE U POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS APPENDIX E 1970 1980 1990 2000 — Trends* Policy* Trends* Policy* Pop. Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % % WEST STUDY 9972 11,521 16% 14,086 22% 13,735 19% 16,170 15% 15,970 16% HILL AREA CITY OF N/A 9,793 13,382** 13,048** 15,362** 15,172** KENT VALLEY STUDY 9,672 9,857 2% 16,497 67% 16,934 72% 20,609 25% 21,221 25% FLOOR AREA CITY OF N/A 9,364 16,497** 16,934** 20,609** 21,221** KENT EAST STUDY HILL AREA 17,662 28,201 60% 34,002 21% 30,229 7% 41,542 22% 38,726 28% CITY OF N/A 3,995 11,901** 10,580** 22,848** 21,299** KENT STUDY 37,306 49,579 33% 64,585 30% 60,898 23% 78,321 21% 75,917 25% TOTAL AREA CITY OF 16,275 23,152 41,780** 40,562** 58,819** 57,692,+* KENT * From Cog. Estimates ** Jones & Jones Estimates Using Cog #Is and assumptions of Kent Annexations. —