Minutes: Community Stakeholder Meeting No. 2 MEADOWDALE BEACH
COUNTY PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY
Meeting Date and Time: Monday, April 20, 2015, 6:30 pm to 8:30
pm
Location: Meadowdale High School, 6002 168th St SW, Lynnwood, WA
98037
Attendees
Snohomish County Staff • Logan Daniels • Kathleen Herrmann • Tom
Teigen • Doug Dailer, Park Ranger
Anchor QEA, Consultant Team • Kathy Ketteridge, Anchor QEA • Peter
Hummel, Anchor QEA • Paul Schlenger, Confluence
Community Members • Community Participants
1. Introductions, Purpose of Meeting
Logan introduced the Snohomish County Staff and consultants. She
explained the purpose of the meeting was to obtain input on the
proposed alternatives.
2. Overview of Meeting Agenda
Peter went over the meeting agenda and explained that input from
the attendees would be obtained in small group sessions following
an upfront presentation of the proposed alternatives and completed
draft studies.
3. Presentation of Proposed Alternatives
Peter presented the three proposed alternatives, which were shown
on boards in the meeting space and on the screen as part of the
PowerPoint presentation. Plan and section views for each of the
three proposed alternatives are provided in Attachment 1, which is
the PowerPoint presentation shown during the meeting.
4. Overview of Studies Conducted for the Project
Kathy provided an overview of each of the studies completed as part
of the project (to date). A list of the studies is provided with
the PowerPoint presentation shown in Attachment 1. Some of the
studies were discussed in more detail, including: Cultural
Resources, Environmental Phase 1, Geotechnical Evaluation, Creek
and Coastal Studies,
Minutes: Community Stakeholder Meeting April 20, 2015
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study
2
BNSF coordination and Parks and Recreation. Summary talking points
for the studies are also provided in the PowerPoint presentation
provided in Attachment 1.
5. Small-group Discussion of Proposed Alternatives and “Report
Back” on discussion
The attendees were divided up into small groups (less than 10
individuals per group) and each group had a facilitator from
Snohomish County staff (Logan and Kathleen) or the Consultant Team
(Peter, Kathy, and Paul) assist with the discussion and answer
questions, as needed. Each facilitator recorded comments from the
attendees during the small group discussion. These comments are
provided (by facilitator) as Attachment 2. Comment card responses
provided by attendees are summarized in Attachment 3. The majority
of the attendees preferred Alternative 3.
6. Next Steps and Meeting Adjourned
Logan described the upcoming steps in the project, including a
second organization/stakeholder meeting and County meeting to
facilitate selection of the preferred alternative. Meeting minutes
and other project information will be posted on the project
website; information on the website is provided in the last slide
of the PowerPoint presentation (Attachment 1)
Attachments
o Attachment 1: PowerPoint Presentation o Attachment 2: Flip Chart
Notes, organized by discussion group o Attachment 3: Comment Card
Responses
Meeting summary prepared by Peter Hummel and
Kathy Ketteridge Anchor QEA, LLC
April 2015
Communicate any discrepancies in these meeting minutes, in writing,
to Kathy Ketteridge (
[email protected]) within 7
days.
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study Community
Stakeholder Meeting #2
April 20, 2015
Introductions and Purpose of Meeting
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study
Project Objectives:
• Pass sediment through the opening effectively and reduce
maintenance
• Accommodate increasing stream flows and reduce potential flooding
of public use areas
• Improve public access (including Americans with Disabilities Act
[ADA] access) and safety to the beach
• Enhance recreational and educational use of the park
• Improve fish habitat
Project Progress
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study
Meeting Agenda
• Small Group Discussion of Proposed Alternatives
• Summary and Clarification of Stakeholder Input/Comment
• Next Steps
Proposed Alternatives
Alternative 1
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 3
Alternatives Considered but not Evaluated
• Pedestrian Overpass − Does not address sediment and flooding
issues
− Large structure required for access
• Larger or additional box culverts through the railroad berm
− Box culverts cannot be built within BNSF work windows
• Large bridge that spans entire park frontage − Larger bridge not
needed to meet objectives of project
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study
Planning Studies
1999
2002
2010
2012
Creek and Coastal Effects
• All three alternatives were developed to allow passage of flows
and sediment loads larger than the expected 100-yr flood.
− Alternative 2 requires the creek channel to be re- aligned to the
north of its current location
− The opening for alternative 3 is larger than required
• All three alternatives will distribute sediment on the delta in a
wider area than happens now
− Alternative 2 will push delta formation north of it’s current
location
− Alternative 3 provides additional width for creek migration and
delta formation
• More complex channel formation is expected from all three
alternatives
• Alternative 3 would provide additional width for migration of the
beach landward due to sea level rise
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study
Railroad Coordination Study • All alternatives were developed to
be
consistent with BNSF bridge design guidelines and O&M
Procedures
• All alternatives were developed to be constructed within the
6-hour work windows required for this location
• Alternative 3 would take longer to construct and require
additional maintenance costs than Alternatives 1 and 2
Cultural Resources and Environmental Phase 1 Studies
• Initial “desktop” study did not identify any significant
issues
• Additional study would be conducted during the design phase for
the project
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study
Habitat Study • Site currently provides productive estuary
waterward of railroad and altered, but generally adequate habitat
in creek. At and immediately upstream of railroad crossing is
severely impaired habitat.
• Restoration elements focus on restoring natural estuary
transition between creek and Puget Sound. Overall, the main
elements of the restoration are the same among the alternatives,
but the size and configuration differ.
− Wider creek opening for sediment to pass and fish to access the
creek
− Estuarine marsh area landward of railroad − Creek habitat
improvements − Riparian vegetation improvements
• Alternative 3 provides widest opening, largest space for marsh
and most certainty of sustained function over time.
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study
Parks and Recreation Study • Conversion of Lawn to Natural
Habitat
• Beach Access:
− Alternatives 1 and 3 provide the best beach access. Can be
further refined in Preferred Alternative
− Alternative 2 retains the use of existing culvert/tunnel
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study
Small Group Discussion: Proposed Alternatives
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study
Next Steps
• Synthesize and summarize input gained from this meeting (late
April)
• Second organization/agency stakeholder meeting to discuss
proposed alternatives (early May)
• Selection and refinement of a preferred alternative (mid to late
May)
• Meetings with BNSF and agencies to discuss preferred alternative
(late May)
• Finalize Draft Studies and Compile Feasibility Report
(June)
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study
Project Status and Point of Contact
For current project status, updates, and document availability go
to: www.snocoparks.org
Questions or Comments: Contact: Logan Daniels, P.E., Project
Manager Phone: 425-388-6619 Email:
[email protected]
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study
Thank you for your participation!
ATTACHMENT 2
Community Stakeholder Meeting No. 2 Notes, by Group MEADOWDALE
BEACH COUNTY PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY
Meeting Date and Time: Monday, April 20, 2015, 6:30 pm to 8:30
pm
Peter Hummel, facilitator Sheet 1
• Is lawn to habitat, direct correlation • Mix and match clearance
for pedestrian walkway • How is the lawn used and how often? • Like
the idea of smaller lawn and more habitat (Alternative 3) • Concur
with prior bullet item: like the Alternative 3 habitat • Noise:
when building a bridge
o Will train horns be required? o Would like to minimize horns o
Like Alternative 3– largest opening, less lawn OK
• Can BNSF pay? • Like Alternative 1 – least cost • Like
Alternative 3 – best habitat and sediment passage
Sheet 2
• Like Alternative 1 – keeping more lawn • (Park user) usually
walking to the beach • Alternative 2 is least desirable;
Alternative 3 is the best over the long term:
opening size, fish, and views • More picnic sites is better • Like
Alternative 1 – more protected from tides • Like gravel path, north
side • Like Alternative 1 – cheaper, railroad would like,
Alternative 3 – railroad (may have
issues with it)
Drawing on Un-numbered Sheet
Community Stakeholder Meeting No. 2 Notes, by Group April 20,
2015
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study
2
Kathy Ketteridge, facilitator Sheet 1
• Most folks avoid the western lawn • Most folks just want to get
to the beach • Put more picnic tables at the beach since access
will be better • Lawn is important, but need to have more habitat •
Views are important – picnic spots • Boardwalk could be useful for
public
Community Stakeholder Meeting No. 2 Notes, by Group April 20,
2015
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study
3
• Want to know costs! • Larger habitat with smaller opening •
Picnic tables – folks use them, but shading is not ideal • Walking
loop is important • Park is a hike, so not like a typical park
where folks bring coolers, etc. • Picnic areas – sunny locations
are better! • Volleyball court could be moved to beach • Like the
larger opening (Alternative 3) • Improve the lawn • Coho
populations have fallen in the creek, chum are doing OK •
Alternative 2 – pro/dynamic • Boardwalk through wetland for bird
watchers • The culvert does get impacted by high water now – bottom
is at approx. 9 feet –
check drawing • Two reasons to go to the park: the walk/hike, and
the beach
Logan Daniels, facilitator Sheet 1
• Time frame and cost • Parking • High-flow bypass – route to Sound
• What about the problem upstream?
Sheet 2
• Get rid of lawn altogether • Leave some lawn • Most important
aspect is the beach • Alternative 2 – the creek would want to go
back into the tunnel • Volleyball court can go • Note that
concerned about picnic views • Alternative 3 is preferred but
concern for cost
Paul Schlenger, facilitator Sheet 1
• Water and sediment on path • Cost • Want something that lasts •
Alternative 3 gives room for creek meandering • Alternative 2
maintenance trouble – culvert
Community Stakeholder Meeting No. 2 Notes, by Group April 20,
2015
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study
4
• Sea level rise sustainability • Want space for birds/wildlife
that marsh/wetland would provide • Lawn upstream of the picnic area
is often wet • Keep volleyball somewhere • Need to recognize that
there will be trails created along the north even if not part
of the design • Wide riparian zone for salmon – good • Favor
habitat over recreation
Sheet 2
• Alternative 3 – room for change over time, e.g., sediment • Life
cycle cost – Alternative 3 sustainability provides value • More
maintenance-free, the better • Alternative 2 creek bend problematic
over time • More space lessens the likelihood for trampling • When
did the culvert go in? In 20 years would it need to be replaced? •
Do it once, do it right • No one uses horseshoes
o Sometimes volleyball o The lawn is rough (mole hills), not easy
to run on o Picnic area is used often
• Big investment of Alternative 3 still a value • Big lawn not
needed
Sheet 3
• Alternative 3 less lawn maintenance, more bird viewing •
Playground could add use by kids, but not wanted instead of
Alternative 3 • Want a project that doesn’t need to be redone in 20
years • Park usage statistics – increasing over time • Passive park
– lessen lawn maintenance • Increased park use leads to railroad
crossing safety issues that this project needs
to address / will address
What is County priority?
Q: Alternative 1
• Not that concerned about view/height; concerned about access •
Community park will be key over the next 50 years • Once you are on
the beach, you have a view
Community Stakeholder Meeting No. 2 Notes, by Group April 20,
2015
Meadowdale Beach County Park Feasibility Study
5
• Folks aren’t big on Alternative 2 – don’t want to walk in the
tunnel • BNSF – What’s the cost of Alternative 1 vs. Alternative 3?
• What about BNSF buy-off?
Sheet 2
• What about a “Bradley bridge,” which was used in wars? • Good to
have double track by park • Regarding lawn: only one part of it is
sunny; people would rather go to the beach
for views, rain or shine • The lawn is a swamp; the lawn is a waste
– better to have a pond for fish • Reduce lawn for habitat and
leave a bit for picnic shelter • What about building a platform (at
the north end regrade / dead end trail) for a
view on Alternative 1?
Sheet 3
• What about a boardwalk with big pilings, to allow the stream to
flow and people to walk?
• Lots of good County folk / expertise working on this – what do we
think? • Can/should we put pressure on BNSF/Berkshire Hathaway to
participate?
Sheet 4
• Seen people with strollers crossing the railroad tracks • Some
people put rocks on the tracks • Public safety issues • Folks like
Alternative 3: better views, better access, more habitat, allows
flexibility
Sheet 5
• Who are other agency partners? • Has sediment load changed
recently? • Where was new conservation land approx. 13 acres
bought? (Lynnwood?) • If the lawn is being kept, it needs to be
regraded because it is a swamp • Regarding dead-end path: keep the
picnic area and remove trees/foliage to keep
open view, to keep personal safety Sheet 6
• 6.5-foot vs. 6-foot clearance difference is inconsequential • How
long will it take for native plants to come in after restoration? •
What is the timeline for constructing this project?
ATTACHMENT 3
Community Meeting No. 2 Comment Cards MEADOWDALE BEACH COUNTY PARK
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Meeting Date and Time: Monday, April 20, 2015, 6:30 pm to 8:30
pm
Comment No. 1 “Very well-facilitated discussions; great information
and visuals – thanks!”
Comment No. 2 “Good options on more riparian zone for salmon
habitat.”
Comment No. 3 “My first meeting on this; great surprise on how
developed it is. Good luck, and keep it going!”
“I would like to be more involved! Let me know what I can
do.”
“I suggest putting BNSF/Berkshire under pressure.”
Comment No. 4 “Alternate 1 sounds good (the best); thanks.”
Minutes_Meadowdale Beach Community Mtg
04-29-2015_DRAFT_gs_ha_gs_kk
Attendees
4. Overview of Studies Conducted for the Project
5. Small-group Discussion of Proposed Alternatives and “Report
Back” on discussion
6. Next Steps and Meeting Adjourned
Attachments
Slide Number 1
Project Objectives:
Project Progress
Meeting Agenda
Proposed Alternatives
Alternative 1
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 3
Planning Studies
Next Steps
Thank you for your participation!
Flip Chart Notes
Peter Hummel, facilitator
Kathy Ketteridge, facilitator
Logan Daniels, facilitator
Paul Schlenger, facilitator
Kathleen Herrmann, facilitator
Comment No. 1
Comment No. 2
Comment No. 3
Comment No. 4