November 2006
From: Discovery Park Advisory Council
Re: U.S. Army Reserve Parcel
To: Mayor Nickels:
The Discovery Park Advisory Council (DPAC) would like to express our views regarding future development of the U.S. Army Reserve Parcel, which lies between Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine. We hope these proposals will be supported by the Friends of Discovery Park, the Magnolia Community Club, Heron Habitat Helpers, Sustainable Ballard, and other local stakeholders.
The Army Reserve Parcel is located strategically between Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine, separating two of the City’s most important wildlife reservoirs. The divestiture of Army Reserve ownership provides an unprecedented opportunity to link these two reserves.
The Army Reserve Parcel also contributes significantly to the watershed of Wolfe Creek in Kiwanis Ravine and Salmon Bay. Salmon Bay is a vital regional salmon habitat. This potential change in ownership opens the door to possible reductions in contaminated surface runoff (oils and other wastes) into the Wolfe Creek watershed -- and improve the overall water quality of the Salmon Bay estuary for migrating salmon.
Within the context of your Green Seattle Partnership initiated last year and your just-announced draft Urban Forest Management Plan, we believe that strong City advocacy is needed to protect this Parcel, which contains lands within the City’s designated “critical area ordinance” for 40% or more steep slope, potential slide area, and fish and wildlife habitat. In addition, this Parcel contains lands included in a draft-in-process Department of Planning & Development Director’s Rule establishing the Kiwanis Ravine Great Blue Heron Management Area.
Because of its value to wildlife, DPAC urges the designation of a City-sanctioned wildlife corridor, to include the Army Reserve, the privately owned areas between Kiwanis Ravine and Discovery Park and Bay Terrace Road. This special wildlife corridor designation would enhance the ability of fish and wildlife to utilize the greater Salmon Bay/Kiwanis Ravine/Discovery Park Ecosystem.
We therefore propose the following:
1) The City of Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation should seek and obtain legal title to all unused open space, green belts, fences, medians, parking strips, and forested areas as well as any potential future open space which might be designated in the Army Reserve Parcel.
2) Any existing buildings or pavement not currently used should be removed and converted to open space. This is especially true of the large parking lot in the extreme NE corner of the property, which covers a relatively steep slope with surface runoff into Kiwanis Ravine.
3) All landscaping within the Army Preserve Parcel be native plantings only. Specifically, we urge the planting of future nesting trees for the great blue herons of Kiwanis Ravine. Make this corridor a showcase of your draft Urban Forest Management Plan.
4) Any new uses of the Army Reserve Parcel should not be allowed to impact Discovery Park or Kiwanis Ravine more than current use. As an example, the number of vehicles entering the parcel, noise, lighting, pets off leash, etc. should not increase as a result of change in ownership or use.
5) All exterior lighting in the Army Reserve Parcel should be wildlife friendly and minimize night time light pollution, with full cut-off fixtures and the light source fully shielded.
6) Any exterior construction activities occurring within the Army Reserve Parcel be restricted to seasons not in conflict with the nesting season of either the Great Blue Herons of Kiwanis Ravine or Bald Eagles using the Discovery Park peninsula for nesting. In addition, the developers of any proposed construction in the Parcel would be required to submit an Environmental Impact Statement, prior to issuance of a building permit, detailing how their construction will not harm wildlife.
7) All trees 6 inches in diameter measured at 4 ½ feet above the ground shall be retained within this corridor, unless the tree is diseased or threatens life or property. This would significantly increase the tree canopy in the Discovery Park/Kiwanis Ravine/Salmon Bay Wildlife Corridor and improve ability of wildlife to move through the area.
8) Exteriors of any new construction or changes to existing buildings be designed so as not to attract, increase or cause flying birds to collide with the structure.
We also believe the City should support improvements in the Discovery Park/Kiwanis Ravine/Salmon Bay ecosystem by: (a) establishing Kiwanis Ravine as the City’s first official nature preserve, wildlife refuge, or similar name with special regulations protecting the Great Blue Heron nesting season, (b) taking steps to initiate the daylighting of Wolfe Creek through Commodore Park into Salmon Bay – reconnecting this watershed and its freshwater estuary to aid the migration of millions of salmon, and (c) linking management of the entire complex – the two parks, the wildlife corridor, and daylighted Wolfe Creek in Commodore Park.
We understand the challenges that this represents and urge you to support the greater Discovery Park Ecosystem. This is an historic opportunity for all citizens of Seattle. We are confident of your support.
Sincerely - The Discovery Park Advisory Council
CC: Seattle City Council members
Ron Sims
Larry Phillips
Christine Gregoire
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles
Jim McDermott
Norm Dicks
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Maria Cantwell
Rep. Helen Sommers
Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson
Phil Lane – UIATF
Paul Thompson – Friends of Discovery Park
Magnolia Community Council
Sustainable Ballard
Heron Habitat Helpers
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Saturday, March 10, 2007
MAGNOLIA NEWS EDITORIAL BY BOB KILDALL
The following is a guest column written by Bob Kildall published in the Magnolia News February 2007 -
Doug Taylor’s letter (Magnolia News 2-7-07) poses the question why the money from the settlement agreement is planned to be used to demolish the Nike building in Discovery Park.
The settlement agreement was a legal document between Metro (now Metropolitan King County) and five environmental and civic groups that sought the replacement of the large existing sewage digesters with a system with less odor and consuming less land. By giving up their appeal these citizens allowed Metro’s secondary plant to be built without further delays. These same citizens had supported secondary treatment.
In turn Metro agreed to terms in the agreement to form a citizen’s committee and provided $5-million to study treatment processes that might reduces the impact on the park by the year 2000. If these studies failed they would pay a settlement of $3-million dollars plus interest. After a decade that totaled over $5-million.
The funds would come to the city with this proviso:
“All funds paid under this subsection shall be dedicated to improvements to Discovery Park consistent with the primary function and central purpose as defined in the Discovery Park Master Plan, and if any funds remain, to the acquisition and improvement of saltwater beaches.”
This section of the plan is found under the Park Guiding Principles and reads:
“The primary role of this park in the life of the city is dictated by its incomparable site. That role should be to provide and open space of quiet and tranquility for the citizens of this city—a sanctuary where they might escape the turmoil of the city and enjoy the rejuvenation which quiet and solitude and an intimate contact with nature can bring. It should be accepted that this park cannot satisfy all of the recreational needs of all of the citizens of Seattle. It can only complement the other elements in the park system. This park should not be asked to serve too many functions. It will best serve this city if it is permitted to serve one primary function and to serve that function well.”
The next paragraph in the principles is named “Future Structures and Activities. It states:
“In the years to come there will be almost irresistible pressure to carve out areas of the park in order to provide sites for various civic structures or space for special activities. There will in the future be structures and activities without number for which, it will be contended, this park can provide an “ideal site” at no cost. The pressures for those sites may constitute the greatest single threat to the park. They must be resisted with resolution. If they are not, the park will be so fragmented that it can no longer serve its central purpose. Only those activities and only those structures should be accepted which are in harmony with the overall theme, character and objective of the park. There must be a deep commitment to the belief that there is no more valuable use of this site than as an open space.”
These are two sections are part of nine paragraphs that comprise the guiding principles.
Removing the Nike building to restore the property as a natural area conforms with the Park’s Plan’s ultimate objective. That was “…the acquisition of all lands which presently comprise the site of Fort Lawton.” It also fulfills the Magnolia Community Club’s 1969 Fort Lawton Park Recommendations. The ten recommendations were based on a club’s survey that had called for a natural park. The survey was led by Club members Bill Jeske and Ed Mueller. They had citizens canvass every third home on Magnolia with the oversight by the University of Washington’s Bureau of Community Development.
Since then there have been nearly 150-proposals for “just a piece of the park.” But a host of citizens believe in defending the primary function-central purpose of this Park. We live in a country where Nature is being often overlooked and trashed and constantly diminished. Discovery Park helps fulfill our open space needs and the needs for solitude from the stress of urban living for the citizens yet to come. Removing the Nike site is one way to return that part of the Park to Nature.
Robert Kildall
February 13, 2007
Doug Taylor’s letter (Magnolia News 2-7-07) poses the question why the money from the settlement agreement is planned to be used to demolish the Nike building in Discovery Park.
The settlement agreement was a legal document between Metro (now Metropolitan King County) and five environmental and civic groups that sought the replacement of the large existing sewage digesters with a system with less odor and consuming less land. By giving up their appeal these citizens allowed Metro’s secondary plant to be built without further delays. These same citizens had supported secondary treatment.
In turn Metro agreed to terms in the agreement to form a citizen’s committee and provided $5-million to study treatment processes that might reduces the impact on the park by the year 2000. If these studies failed they would pay a settlement of $3-million dollars plus interest. After a decade that totaled over $5-million.
The funds would come to the city with this proviso:
“All funds paid under this subsection shall be dedicated to improvements to Discovery Park consistent with the primary function and central purpose as defined in the Discovery Park Master Plan, and if any funds remain, to the acquisition and improvement of saltwater beaches.”
This section of the plan is found under the Park Guiding Principles and reads:
“The primary role of this park in the life of the city is dictated by its incomparable site. That role should be to provide and open space of quiet and tranquility for the citizens of this city—a sanctuary where they might escape the turmoil of the city and enjoy the rejuvenation which quiet and solitude and an intimate contact with nature can bring. It should be accepted that this park cannot satisfy all of the recreational needs of all of the citizens of Seattle. It can only complement the other elements in the park system. This park should not be asked to serve too many functions. It will best serve this city if it is permitted to serve one primary function and to serve that function well.”
The next paragraph in the principles is named “Future Structures and Activities. It states:
“In the years to come there will be almost irresistible pressure to carve out areas of the park in order to provide sites for various civic structures or space for special activities. There will in the future be structures and activities without number for which, it will be contended, this park can provide an “ideal site” at no cost. The pressures for those sites may constitute the greatest single threat to the park. They must be resisted with resolution. If they are not, the park will be so fragmented that it can no longer serve its central purpose. Only those activities and only those structures should be accepted which are in harmony with the overall theme, character and objective of the park. There must be a deep commitment to the belief that there is no more valuable use of this site than as an open space.”
These are two sections are part of nine paragraphs that comprise the guiding principles.
Removing the Nike building to restore the property as a natural area conforms with the Park’s Plan’s ultimate objective. That was “…the acquisition of all lands which presently comprise the site of Fort Lawton.” It also fulfills the Magnolia Community Club’s 1969 Fort Lawton Park Recommendations. The ten recommendations were based on a club’s survey that had called for a natural park. The survey was led by Club members Bill Jeske and Ed Mueller. They had citizens canvass every third home on Magnolia with the oversight by the University of Washington’s Bureau of Community Development.
Since then there have been nearly 150-proposals for “just a piece of the park.” But a host of citizens believe in defending the primary function-central purpose of this Park. We live in a country where Nature is being often overlooked and trashed and constantly diminished. Discovery Park helps fulfill our open space needs and the needs for solitude from the stress of urban living for the citizens yet to come. Removing the Nike site is one way to return that part of the Park to Nature.
Robert Kildall
February 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)