AN ORDINANCE related to the Cheasty Greenspace Trails and Bike Park Pilot Project and amending Section 5 of Ordinance 124546.
The Report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill 118506 related to the tasty green space trails and the Bike Park Pilot Project and amending Section five of Ordinance one two, four, five, four, six. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw. Thank you very much. So I spoke to this this morning and also, as a reminder to my colleagues, this is something that we worked on a full year ago. And there was concern from those who opposed adding the new recreational opportunity in the green space to give us some more time. So we agreed to do just exactly that. And we developed a project advisory team and it was from the neighborhood with both the supporters and the opponents. The project advisory team met five times and in February recommended that we move forward with this. Our Board of Parks Commissioner Commissioners then took a look at it and the goals being to increase recreational opportunities in an area where there need to be more to connect our environment with our schools, our parks, our neighborhoods, and really to improve the oversight and actual diminution of some of the illegal activities that we know that were going on and this long recent green space. I do want to say thank you very much to all of you who volunteered to clean that up. I've enjoyed the work parties and I want to say a special thanks to Jay and also to my good friend, Mr. DeYoung. You've done a tremendous job of bringing the volunteers out. And what this will do now is move the $100,000 forward from the Neighborhood Matching Fund to be able to be spent on this. The outreach and planning will continue. Parks will come back to our Parks Committee Quarterly to report on it, and they will create an environmental checklist to evaluate the project as they go. And the evidence to damage to the wetlands erosion, vandalism, parking patterns that negatively impact the neighborhood will be considered and there will be adequate separation of bikes and pedestrians on this path . Bikes will be going around the perimeter in one direction. Pedestrians will have connections in two directions, and after the project is constructed, it's considered to be a 15 month pilot and Parks will come back, make a report. If the impacts are negative, they can make a change at that point. If they're positive, they can go forward. So again, I want to thank you to the Friends of Chiefs to Greenspace and Mountain View for your dedication to this project. I'm recommending that we vote yes and move forward with this. Thank you. Questions or comments, Councilmember Rasmussen. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw, for helping lead us through this effort during the last year. I wanted to make sure that the city's policies that do protect our green spaces were being followed in this process. And as the project is carried out, if it is carried out, one of the things I think that's important to remember is that we do not prohibit uses or active uses in our greenbelt. But what we do say is that if active uses are going to occur in the greenbelt, they have to be minimal activities, ones that don't have a negative impact upon the greenbelt. And that's what we wanted to make sure. With regard to the proposed bike park and trail, I think that the Parks Department has done a good job of evaluating how best to construct a trail there that wouldn't have a negative impact upon the greenbelt. And they've come up with a design that is likely to not have a negative impact. This is just a 15 month pilot project that requires rigorous reporting from the Parks Department every quarter. They have to report back to the Parks Department on the effect of the bike trail in the greenbelt. So I think that this provides good protection to ensure that there is an active use, but also that it's not having a negative impact upon the greenbelt that's consistent with our city policies. In the meantime, we have asked the Parks Department to review and modify, if necessary, our greenbelt natural area guidelines. We want them to do that with broad public participation, and that will help guide further decisions. With regard to any other proposed uses in our greenbelt, we want to make sure that the policies that we adopt give clear guidance to the Parks Department when proposals are made to you, make active uses within the greenbelt, and that's what that process is to do, and it is underway now. So I do support this. I understand the community's concerns about the greenbelt. I, I appreciate very much their concerns and their stewardship over the greenbelt. And this process that we have moving forward will help to ensure that the effects that they're concerned about will not occur. Thank you, Councilor. Remember Lakota. I have actually I was moved to ask some questions actually from our speakers today because my back show, if you could help me understand, I do remember voting before and I was under the impression that we were safeguarding the space and was also under the impression that this proposal would still do that. I, I seem to recall one of the points that we did not approve of was having mountain bikes go through the park. I thought that was one of those elements that was there. And so before you answered that one, I got a couple other questions. So my understanding is that the current design is a perimeter path, nothing through. One of the concerns I had was to stop bikes from going through the middle of the park. And so if you could address how we're monitoring that and then the issues were raised that this park would not longer be no longer monitoring it, although Cosmo Rasmussen said they would be civic, he clarified that. And also the statement was made that Parks has been not releasing information. I haven't heard that before. Have you heard any complaints about not releasing information? And the last is on the appeals for the hearing examiner. The first ruling was to proceed, as was pointed out, not significance. And maybe this is a question for someone else. I don't believe you generally hold moving forward if there's an appeal. My impression was that we generally go for it. But if you could answer this question, I'm sorry to pile them on. Yeah, right. And I didn't write them down as we go. So let's start with the beginning. One, and you may. Want to remind me as we go. The Parks Department did ask for the neighborhood to come together through this, Patty. And the agreement was made that we would not have a path going through the park, but it would be, as you said, a circumference park. So that is like the pilot. There is a lot of interest in making a pedestrian pathway like they've done down at the southern part of Chisti that connects the top of Beacon Hill down to the Columbia Street Station. There's a lot of interest in doing that with a pedestrian pathway, but that's going to be on hold for now. It's just a circumference around that around the edges where the bicycle and the two way pedestrian path will go in for now. And then we'll see how that goes. Remind me of the other questions. Question the information being released. Nothing but salient information not being released by person no. Nothing about that. I have Parks Department is listening today. We will let them know that there's been a particular request and to make sure that that's attended to. And the monitoring council member garden may have more information on that than I do. And the monitoring element. Monitoring is going on monitor is continually going on, particularly around the wetlands, the evidence of any damage, obviously species renewal, water quality erosion, any damage to the existing plants, any habitat disturbances. That monitoring is going to continue and a deep continuation every quarter. We'll come back and make that report to the Parks Committee beginning as soon as this gets going. So I imagine the next quarterly report will be December or January when we will hear about it. So I heard also the concern that there wasn't going to be monitoring. Very specific monitoring is going on. And that's in no small part because of the concerns that have been raised by the neighborhood. And in the last was the appeals process. We can gather more details on that. I can only give you this much is that the appeals are ongoing, but the keeper process will continue. And the as I said, the the impact on the park, the impact on the neighborhoods is important, critical. And that information will be coming back to our parks committee. So we will have all that. It's not like it's going away. It's not like it's being swept away. That's part of all of this stuff going forward. We're releasing the hundred thousand dollars so that the commitment to getting an effective project in place occurs and it starts right away. Thank you. I saw it on their hands, went into speakerphone. Councilmember Rasmussen I thought Councilmember Herrell was adamy, but he deferred to you or you deferred. Thank you. Just to answer Councilmember Lakatos question about reporting by parks permit as required by this council bill, it specifically says there have to be quarterly reports for the next 15 months. I know that Councilmember Banks have said is underway, but it's required by the ordinance as well. So that's codified. Councilmember Herald. Thank you. I will be supporting this legislation and I have not missed any committee meetings where we've discussed this, you know, this, this Chishti Park You know, my parents lived about six blocks from it for 30 years and my son lives across the street from it. So when I've and I've met in homes I've met in. At the park have met at coffee shops to discuss this. And it saddens me that I have sort of a community sort of torn apart for something that could, I think, be a very beautiful asset, a beautiful gem for the South and of Seattle, and will be so under this vision. The monitoring piece is not taken lightly at all that I've been very critical of parks for certain projects in the past and will continue to be critical of parks if they do not deliver. But I'm asking them to deliver for the beauty of this park. You know, we have competing policies here. On the one hand, we are trying to look at greenspace somewhat new. As we approach our density. We are looking at a cultural piece where we can have a very diverse group of kids and young adults get together and and not only enjoy the the activity of mountain biking, but enjoy conservation and helping us get rid of some of these invasive species. We have a great opportunity in front of us, but we do have some geotechnical issues. We do have we know that I've looked at some of the some of the areas in the ground that we have to monitor. Jefferson Park is a one of our gems in the city. And, you know, parking is is terrible up there. And and so we don't know who's going to use this park and in parks does not have the skill set really to monitor parking. So I'm calling upon them to actually look at other departments to make sure we are monitoring how people are getting to the park at park and quite frankly, who are using the park. It does not bother me that if people from all over the city are using the park, but we need to know who is using the park and make sure again that we have neighbors that have been there for 20, 30, 40 years, that this is an enjoyable experience for all. The bottom line is we have a phenomenal group of volunteers, people who love the community as much as anyone else, putting a lot of blood, sweat and tears behind this effort. We have a great opportunity to have some cross-cultural experiences meeting this nature deficit and so many of our kids having a beautiful pedestrian trail alongside the bike trail, making sure that safety comes first, that this is a safe activity. We are going to learn more about what this entails as we balance the policy between minimal activity in greenspace and recreational activity. I think we have a tremendous opportunity and four in front of us and we will hold parks accountable. We will do more than monitor. We will evaluate, learn, invest where we have to and look forward to supporting this this this investment. Because I think if done right, it will be a tremendous gem for generations to come. And again, you know, if we're going to be completely honest and completely transparent, we do have a deep analysis that is is not completed. We have some pending issues in front of the hearing. Examiner In a perfect world, before we passed legislation would help have all of that in back of us. This is not a perfect world. I'm working very closely with both parks and again, everyone involved in this effort. We're not going anywhere in terms of monitoring this. And so let's let's make sure this works out for all communities. And thank you for I know this is not a great news for you. But again, let's keep the communication lines open. Let's preserve this beautiful gem and move forward as one community. Thank you. Are there any other comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Okamoto I Rasmussen I so want back shore garden i Harrill i Lakota. Hi O'Brien. I am President Burgess nine. In favor and unopposed. Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read items three, four and five.