City outlines park operations, funding and design choices; preliminary geotech monitoring says permeable pavement likely infeasible
Loading...
Summary
City staff described an operations and programming plan, occupancy limits, parking/gate operations and funding sources. Designers testified the project considered many alternatives and that preliminary groundwater monitoring indicates infiltration/permeable pavement is probably not feasible on most of the site.
City staff and the project design team gave the hearing an overview of operations, funding and design evolution for the Lakefront Park Improvements.
Cory Mattson, the city's community programs planner and project manager for the park, said the city will develop an operational and programming plan (conditioned in Ex. 39) including a reservation and facility agreement process for the community building and annex, special event permitting for gatherings over 30 people, occupancy limits (conditioned at 95 people), and a transportation plan requirement for larger events. Mattson listed acquisition and construction funding sources (to be filed as Exhibit 61) including the Recreation & Conservation Office acquisition grants, King County parks funds and levy appropriations, the Department of Commerce, and other county/state support.
Kenny Booth (planner) said SEPA-level vehicle emissions and long‑term noise studies were not prepared because the SEPA checklist found the project's scale appropriate in a residential setting, and the SMP accommodates site‑specific engineering for pile spacing in nearshore soils.
Amber McClusick, the project design lead, described a multi‑year engagement that moved from early acquisition‑era vision sketches to puzzle‑piece community workshops and then schematic/70% design. She explained the team first did site assessments (wetland delineations, tree inventory, geotechnical borings) and that every substantive design iteration was reviewed with ecologists and regulatory planners. She described two groundwater monitoring wells installed to test infiltration feasibility and showed a preliminary six‑month graph the geotechnical team supplied; those first results indicate shallow groundwater behavior that likely precludes broad use of permeable pavement except possibly at an upland high point. The geotechnical transducers logged data for six months, but one instrument's battery failure left gaps so the team is still collecting a full 12‑month dataset before finalizing geotech recommendations.
What happens next: the city will complete the monitoring, finalize geotechnical recommendations, and carry the mitigation/monitoring programs into permit conditions and the operations plan. Several grant contracts have been awarded or are in process; the city will present a funding summary as Exhibit 61.
