Public Document Library Table of Contents
Parks Foundation—The Parks Foundation met this week. They are moving forward identifying additional members, deciding on a marquee project for their first fund raising efforts, and identifying potential funding sources.
Barbara Feasey, volunteer coordinator of the Park Foundation, outlined the mission and purpose of the Foundation. The Foundation is being created to raise money for special projects of the Department to promote greater public appreciation and use of park services and facilities. Parks have captured citizen's imagination and enthusiasm and much of what Seattle has today was a gift from those who came before us. By creating the foundation, it will build on tradition and leave our city to the next generation better than we found it. Many citizens offer time, energy and resources to improve the parks, community centers and pools. The foundation will build on the work of those volunteers by identifying more resources and support.
The purpose of the foundation is threefold: raise money from the private sector to fund parks projects and programs that would not otherwise be accomplished as quickly as desired; promote parks for all citizens of Seattle by building an awareness, appreciation and legacy; and, create and find funding for a small matching grants program for neighborhood park projects. Bruce Bentley inquired about the grants application process. Barbara related it would not be an application process from the neighborhoods. The Department would bring the project and program priorities to the Foundation that were not able to be funded during the regular budget process. James Fearn inquired if there would be a general development campaign. Barbara stated initially the foundation will seek funding for an existing high priority list of projects and programs. The foundation may do general campaigns to build memberships throughout the city of interested citizens who would like to contribute but cannot give large dollars. Susan Golub inquired if the issue of sponsorship and naming is being addressed. Barbara stated the Foundation will not let donors dictate and will work within department parameters. Bruce Bentley informed Barbara of the initial concern of advisory councils being in competition for funds. Barbara stated it is not the intent of the foundation to set up any type of competitive atmosphere. The foundation hopes to be a partner with some of the citizen groups. It is the intent of the Foundation to try to find large scale and long term donors.
In the fall of 1998, Mayor Schell embraced the concept and recruited the founding board members. The foundation is currently in the process of filing for non-for-profit status with the IRS and is recruiting additional board members. The Park Foundation will become public next spring. The Board and Superintendent expressed appreciation to Barbara Feasey for all her valuable work. The Superintendent thanked staff member Jennifer Cargal for her work on the Park Foundation. The Board expressed interest in meeting with Foundation Board members next spring.
Magnuson Park/Sand Point - On October 13, 1999, the Culture, Arts and Parks Committee passed out of committee the appropriation request for positions for Magnuson/Sand Point. On Monday October 11, the Council of the Whole made modifications to the plan moving the dogs off leash area to the north, moving the soccer/track field to the previously proposed dogs off leash site. Passed 5 to 3. They accepted the recommendations of the Park Board relative to lighting and artificial turf on the fields west of the meadow.
A public hearing was held on September 20 and there is currently no schedule for when the Council will act on a recommendation. The goal of the plan is to unite the Magnuson Park and former Naval Air Station Sand Point properties into a cohesive whole that encourages many uses and mixes wetlands, shoreline and habitat restoration with a variety of active recreation sites for sports, boating, and dog offleash activity.
Design Concepts: With environmental restoration and stewardship as an overall goal, the design endeavored to put the off leash area in that context as well. The design keeps buildings and paving to the roadside of the park. The shoreline road/trail is service road only allowing pedestrian and bicycle access. All new parking should be pervious so that it contributes to the drainage system. In terms of circulation, there are a number of trails throughout with the bulk of the trails in the wetland area pedestrian trails. As a starting point, water quality tests will be done before restoring any landforms. The design has a balanced cut and fill situation.
Lighted sports fields include four softball and 2 artificial turf soccer fields.
A traffic and parking analysis stated the parking is adequate for the fields and also the boat launch area.
Entry Points: The design maintains 65th as a natural entrance to passive areas of the park. In discussions with the University of Washington, the area to the south of 65th St.will be redeveloped into housing and entry will be from 65th St..
Off Leash Area: The off leash area is nine acres with a possible lake and stream. The area would be self contained and accessed from a parking lot. The designated area would alleviate the existing intersections with other pathways in the park and the off leash area.
Board Comments:
Kathleen Warren stated why are fields not all lighted and artificial turf given the need for sports fields. Opposed to putting in fields that are not usable most of the year. Ken Bounds stated the community is opposed to lights. Two turf fields are available for rugby. Kathleen added it will be much more difficult to add lighting to the fields later. Athletic fields should go in fust.
Motion: Approve lights and artificial turf on all soccer fields (plan has two artificial turf and lighted fields)
Discussion: Susan Golub would like to see fields to the west lighted and the two in the meadow not lighted with turf. James Fearn supported lights and artificial turf on other two fields but not the two in the meadow. Bruce Bentley agreed. Motion failed.
Motion: Approve plan with four fields west of the meadow to be lighted and artificial turf. The fields in the meadow area to remain not lighted and turf. Motion passed.
Motion: Approve plan with an off leash area as presented. The plan allows for water access and alleviates the problems with a linear off leash area. Motion passed.
Motion: Support the plan as amended and with comments/recommendation. The Board will vote on prioritization/phasing of elements later. Motion passed.
Ilse Jones stated work would probably start with major earthwork and utilities.
Sand Point / Magnuson – A Mayor's press release announced support of initiatives to support the arts in Seattle. An new position, Chief Arts Strategist, will be located at Sand Point. This point person will deal with all arts issues.
Sand Point: Jones and Jones is finalizing the plan and we anticipate a City Council hearing. The plan reflects most of what the Blue Ribbon Committee is recommending.
It is expected that the Mayor will recommend the final Jones and Jones plan to the City Council in Mid-August. The Council will hold a public hearing and then take action in September. The Park Board will make their recommendation to the Council after the public hearing.
Jones and Jones has reviewed comments from the workshops and all correspondence and is now working on a more detailed schematic plan. They have discussed the configuration of sports fields with the Sportfield Advisory Committee. The goal is to design a transition area between the more structured field and fences. The area between the brig and kite hill would be a non-structured field/meadow for soccer and rugby. The existing field area that is now part of Sandpoint would be a more structured area with lights and would be heavily scheduled.
The proposal for the off leash area includes a short term and long term plan. The short term/interim plan is to relocate a portion of the off leash area that goes north and south to the north, next to the NOAA fence and then down to the lakeshore. The long-term plan is to configure the area adjacent to the athletic fields and create a new water access site.
The proposal to move the boat launch to Pontiac Bay will not work because of sediment issues. The boat launch will remain in its present location and will be managed in a way that will reduce capacity (there will be less parking).
NOAA has declined to purchase the area at North Shore and so Parks will now work our way through the surplusing process and hopefully the property will be transferred to Parks. Jones and Jones is looking at different ideas for incorporating ideas into the North Shore.
Comments:
Margaret Ceis stated the Committee made some strong recommendations regarding restoration of the lake and the off leash area. The plan seems to be moving away from what was recommended to the City Council. The area for lake restoration now appears to be meadow/fields for rugby and soccer and the off leash area will remain at the lakeshore. How temporary is this offleash area? The erosion to the lakeshore is objectionable.
Kathleen Warren stated while she supports more fields, we should be using the ample property of the school district rather than parkland for fields.
Earl Sedlik stated support for the rugby field and is opposed to the off leash area in the park.
Sandpoint/Magnuson Park: The Mayor will make a recommendation to the Council and the Council will hold a public hearing. A date for a hearing has not been set.
Meetings with the design team continue and the Department is continuing to refine the design into a Mayor's proposal that will be complete in the next few weeks. We have asked the design team to prepare a computer generated model of the preferred once it is complete.
The design process was reviewed and a number of issues are being discussed. The location of the off leash area continues to be discussed as well as the proposed community center and sports fields. The sports fields are included in the short term plan and the off leash area and pond in the long term plan.
The consultant, Jones and Jones, is beginning to prepare cost estimates for the short term plan. There is some concern expressed by the Blue Ribbon Committee for the amount devoted to active recreation. There is a need for meadow space as well. The current field gets a lot of use now and maybe this area can become unstructured in the long term.
There is an opportunity to utilize natural drainage and allow large open spaces. Built areas can interface with natural areas. As we define wetland areas we need to look at the balance of cut and fill options.
Once the budget is finalized, we will build a design model that will be presented in June or July and hold a public meeting when the design goes to the City Council.
Earl Sedlik stated he as an individual would be writing a letter to the editor regarding the off leash area.
Sharon LaVine stated there should be a way to enforce the new policy and make sure it is followed. Pass an ordinance rather than a resolution. Ensure that there is a master plan for each park in accordance with a neighborhood plan. Satisfy sports interests at certain fields that can accommodate high use and not at small neighborhood parks.
The Parks Department has contracted with Jones & Jones to complete the Magnuson Park Design. They have met with user groups and have sponsored a design workshop. The designers presented the design thus far. The plan shows the development of a landscape framework which takes into account the hydrology and habitat of the site. The plan outline's a drainage plan that captures runoff from the park area and building roofs and releases it into the wetland. The intent of the wetland is to create an enhanced area as well as a water treatment system.
The plan looks at options for restoring the shoreline including how to fit in the Off leash area for dogs. Given the charge of environmental restoration, shoreline access may not be contributing to the mission. A long-term goal is to take down fences. One suggestion is an off leash area at the center with a pond created for water access.
There will be a public meeting on June 9, 1999. The next steps are for the design team to refine the plan and report back to the Park Board. The City Council process will be in early June/July.
Comments:
People at the workshops/meetings have reacted to what is not in the plan. Previous plans have included details such as the location of trails, fields etc. and this is not at that level of detail. The next step in design will produce something that is closer to a use plan. There will also be cost estimates for some ofthe big items in the design. Magnuson Park Design Review will be scheduled again for the Park Board meeting on May 27, 1999.Introduction
Dewey Potter stated the Department has been in the process of updating the Department's public involvement policies. In January and February, three workshops were held to receive public input on how to establish reasonable and cost-effective guidelines. Based on those meetings, a draft policy was developed earlier this month and has been sent to citizens participating in this process for review.
Public Testimony
1. Ray Bird-4135 Woodlawn Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103. There was a lack of public notification for this meeting.
2. Denise Derr - 2912 4th Ave. W., Seattle, WA 98119, Friends of Queen Anne Bowl and Rodgers Park. The preliminary draft is merely a simplification ofthe current obligatory notification and comment procedure. The revised policy fails to provide meaningful public involvement by eliminating beneficial public involvement policies previously established and fails to solve specific issues raised at the public involvement workshops. This first draft document of the new public involvement policy maintains the status quo of allowing the DPR to seemingly decide what they want and then by numbers, need, or nagging. The Queen Anne Bowl protest was not caused by a failed policy but rather a failure to follow the policy. What we need is accountability plus some commonsense additions to our public involvement policy that seek to incorporate meaningful public involvement. (full transcript of letter submitted.)
3. Chris Leman - 85 E. Roanoke St., Seattle, W A 98102. There are variations within the Department in terms of responsiveness. The process resulted in yet another revision of the policies. What makes a difference? - money in the budget, the way people are being hired, how board members are selected and performance evaluation. The Parks Committee of the City Council has not openly debated the Metropolitan Park District proposal and the proposal was not presented to the Park Board until after the debate started. . The MPD was a good example of when public involvement is necessary. The future of our parks is at stake. Impressed with what Parks personnel has done but the issue is one of how can strengthen what is already there.
4. Gloria Butts - 12009 1 5t N. W., Seattle, W A 98177. Our natural parks such as CarkeekPark may need a different approach or wording in the policy. The policy should include more notification to citywide groups, local papers other than the Times and PI should be notified, a notification sign in a bright color is a good idea, don't exempt all safety issues - when a playground toy is removed explain why. not replaced, Parks needs improvement in terms of project managers - long delays. How does the policy work when property is used for other projects coordinated by other agencies?
5. Sharon LeVine - 2819 4th Ave. W., Seattle, WA 98119. These are vague policies. The bias of park officials is a concern. Employees have pet projects and needs of all users should be examined. There is no oversight or maintenance of existing policies. Do not discard policy, attach revision. A definite appeal process should be available for each project. A key element of the policy should be the requirement to explain the basis of decisions. There should be a definition of capital projects and major maintenance projects and respective processes. There should be a safeguard for the moving of funds from one source to another. Each community should have a notice of annual projects, whats happening in that neighborhood's parks and associated budgets.
6. Patricia Stambor - 2540 37th W. Seattle, WA 98119. It is important to follow the policies and procedures as outlined. Need to know how, when and why park projects are done and why changes in a park are proposed. The Park Board can provide one more checkpoint.
7. Gregory Flood - 4309 Densmore N. Seattle, WA. Should respect that each park has its own flavor. For example, a park's use may be more athletic or passive oriented. The notification process is very important. There should be a point of contact assigned for each park.
Discussion
There seems to be a loop hole where funds can be reallocated from programs to projects and vice versa.
Margaret Ceis stated citizens have an opportunity to comment during the budget process.
Sharon LeVine commented there is a conflict of interest when a division manager is also a member ofthe Sports Advisory Council.
Ken Bounds stated the original public involvement policy iscumbersom but the new policy needs more detail. We could use the existing policy and use the new to polish.
Kathleen Warren stated she was interested in budget issues. It is an expensive proposition to do an extensive mailing for every project. Also, in terms of mailings, is there a substantial cost difference in doing a mailing that includes addresses within 600 feet of a park as opposed to 300 feet? Citizens need to know how much these mailings and notices will cost if policies are implemented. Every person working in a community center should be able to answer citizen's questions or direct them to where they can get answers.
Earl Sedlik stated the policy has flaws - the use of the word "emergency" requires us for example to remove trees before there is a chance to notify the public. There is a lack of trust between people impacted and the department. There has to be an ombudsman element or independent person built into the process. Project signs should be easy to understand and say what they need to say. Also, apply the best technology for example real estate boxes/flyers. We do not need to hire facilitators. Parks has talented people.
Kathleen Warren stated people are unaware that Park Board meetings are open to the public and have a public comment session at every meeting. The Park Board could be up front on the Parks web page. Project signs are a priority over mailings as they inform many more people. Reader . boards at community centers could also be used. Bruce Bentley stated information about projects could be given out at community centers.The local papers are anxious to write stories about areas of interest in parks.
Each park could have a sign that informs the community about all projects planned for that park for the year.The Park Board could represent a more balanced view- have a broader perspective and citizens come to the Board rather than Nick Licata. Margaret Ceis added the Park Board is not a complaint board and would encourage talking to our political people.
Kathleen Warren stated there should be a system to notify citizens by issues. Dewey Potter stated Parks does have a data base that is organized around projects and some Issues. .
The policy states a need for sports facilities but there is nothing in the policies that recognizes the need for neighborhood parks.
The policies should be applied consistently within regions. For example, the same policy towards lighting facilities should be the same in the North or South Divisions. In one area of the city, lights are programmed to go off at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. at another.
We need a plan for each park because don't remember the promises made.
Bruce Bentley stated advisory councils and teen programs through partnerships with community centers could get involved by helping distribute flyers about projects.
Magnuson Park - The public workshop on the design plan will be April 27. Additional issues that the Blue Ribbon Committee did not deal with are the interests of the general community such as swimmers and boaters and details such as how big the off leash area will be.
Magnuson Park: The park design process is underway with Jones & Jones including scheduling public workshops and other opportunities for community input. The Magnuson Park off leash area support user groups held a rally to generate awareness to keep the off leash area where it now exists.
Sand Point / Magnuson Park: The Magnuson Park Design Team in under way. Invitations were sent out this week to user groups inviting them to participate in a series of small work group sessions. The Department is also in the process of hiring a director and the Board may be asked to participate on the interview panel.
Sand Point: The Ordinance accepting the deed for the parks and recreation property has been sent to the Council and is expected to be before the C.A.P. Committee on March 19. We are continuing negotiations with Jones & Jones to establish the scope, schedule and fees for the Park design project. We are expecting more information from them on Monday and hope to have final agreement by the end of the week.
Park Foundation: An organizing meeting was held on January 22 to discuss next steps. They now have a list of potential founding members.
Sand Point / Magnuson Park:The Department has reviewed park design proposals and a decision is expected next week on what design firm will take this park plan forward