Thank you, Council IT.
And welcome everybody to the August 3rd, 2022 meeting of the Seattle City Council's Public Assets and Homelessness Committee.
This meeting will come to order.
My name is Andrew Lewis, chair of the committee.
It is 2.01 p.m.
Will the clerk please call the roll?
Council President Juarez?
Here.
Council Member Morales?
Here.
Chair Lewis?
Present.
Chair, there are three members present, two excused.
Thank you so much, Mr. Clerk, and for the record, Council Members Herbold and Mosqueda are excused this week, so they are not present.
Approval of the agenda.
If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.
Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.
Chair's report.
Just to remind folks that public comment and a public hearing are different things.
If you peruse the agenda today, you'll see that one of the things on the agenda is a public hearing on the potential transfer of City Hall Park from the City of Seattle to King County.
That is a separate agenda item that is not part of our general public comment at the beginning of the meeting.
So I do just want to make that clear, since I know we do have a number of people signed for public comment, that we will be taking the commentary on City Hall Park later as part of that formal public hearing on that topic, which is an item, the third item on today's agenda.
The public comment at the beginning of the meeting, of course, can be relating to any topic on the agenda or the work plan of the committee.
With that, why don't we go ahead and move on to our public comment period of the meeting.
The public comment period will be moderated by the committee clerk, and I will allow two minutes for public comment with that existing admonition about reserving comments on City Hall Park until the public hearing, which is item three on our agenda.
So, Mr. Clerk, you may commence the public comment period when ready.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have one in-person public commenter and three online.
I'm going to begin with our in-person public commenter, Mr. Alex Zimmerman.
Alex, please approach the podium and begin when you're ready.
Zeke Heil, my dirty damn Nazi fascist mob, bandit and psychopath who speak to us from the heaven.
My name, Alex Zimmerman.
I want to speak about agenda number one.
Money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money.
Why recreation?
Why park needs so much money?
And exactly in committee who are responsible for homeless.
Every money that we have right now, we need to give to homeless people to fix this problem.
When you serve this animal, like a rat to me, you know what I mean?
Dangerous rats.
Stupid, aggressive, primitive.
Why you don't send all money to homeless to fix this problem?
Park can be wait.
Can wait one year, five year, 10 year.
Who care about park?
I don't.
Who care?
How many people go to park?
1,000, 10,000.
We have a dozen thousand homeless.
This problem need fix it.
It's what this money need go.
Every money what is possible.
And stopping this BS about park.
Clean park, build park, I know about all park in Seattle.
Maybe five or six what is I know, very close.
You know what I mean?
We don't need to spend money for them.
It's a problem, what we have right now.
We have a crime, what is skyrocketing, you know what I mean?
Homeless in totally bad shape right now.
Old city right now, down, you know what I mean?
Downtown Seattle is a nightmare right now.
You cannot walk in because all under drug.
Homeless and mostly young people, you know what I mean?
It's a nightmare.
You can broken your car, nothing happen.
No policemen around.
Every policeman comes, they don't doing nothing.
We need concentrate right now about crime.
This, what is we need doing right now?
Is this exactly what is my President Trump talking, and I'm talking all time.
Life for ordinary citizen need be better.
Stand up, America.
Our next public commenter has called in virtually.
That is Shannon Praetorius.
Shannon, when you're ready, you have two minutes.
And Shannon, you will need to press star six to begin.
Hi, my name is Shannon Pretoria.
I'm a long-term resident of Queen Anne.
I'm here as a voice of about 600 Queen Anne residents.
In support of Councilman Lewis's mission and goals, safe, clean, and open parks, we encourage the Parks Department to work with our community in creating an OLA in Upper Queen Anne.
In support of that effort, we ask that you approve sufficient funds for the development of new OLAs throughout the city including Upper Queen Anne.
Four preliminary applications have been submitted to Parks and Rec for consideration.
I believe each one of these submittals meets the preliminary threshold.
The Parks Department and policy leaders consider revising its criteria to allow the change of use to existing parks where there is broad community support.
This is in line with Seattle Parks and Rec's proposal strategies in their current presentation.
We encourage you to consider the requisition of new land parcels for specific proposals or purpose of OLA development where no space exists.
Again we ask that you consider approving funds in the upcoming budget for the support of this effort.
Any questions?
I believe that this is a solution for some of the homelessness, some of what is going on in our parks.
It will create some activity where it's very, very positive.
Thank you.
Thank you, Shannon.
Our next caller is Rachel Morris.
Rachel, please press star six and you have two minutes when you're ready.
Hi there.
This is Rachel Morris from the West Seattle Dog Park Coalition.
And we're very excited about the five proposed sites that have been submitted to Parks and Rec.
We're working directly with two individuals there.
We have the support of Lisa Herbold's office, Parks and Rec, COLA in our venture, and we're working to become an official nonprofit related to the year that will allow for new OLA fundraising, legitimize our efforts, and help to incorporate local support groups into our greater mission.
We're expanding our scope to include public education, dog safety, training, and sharing our knowledge of new OLA processes with other groups to help with the process of requesting new OLAs.
And our hope is that we can provide a community outreach group that will help to build bridges between dog owners and non-dog owners that we can safely coexist.
Our request is to ensure that there is funding specifically for new OLAs, at least one in West Yale.
We are deeply underserved in all respects, including dog parks, and this is creating significant safety issues because people are letting their dogs off leash on the beaches and on public school property.
And it's creating some major problems also at the local parks as well because people do not have a place to take their dogs.
The one dog park that we do have is Westcrest, which has been closed for improvements, but it's also these improvements have restricted even more space and causing some significant problems, including the crime that's already been in existence there.
So again, we're looking, West Seattle Dog Park Coalition is looking to get some additional funding for those new OLAs in West Seattle, as well as support for building the OLAs and hopefully improvals to get some, at least one set up in West Seattle in the near future.
Thank you.
Thank you Rachel.
Our next caller is Sharon Levine.
Hi I'm Sharon Levine and someone who has was instrumental in the creation of Seattle's original 14 off leash areas.
I'm confident in stating that the park department must revert to the previous method of appointing a planner and hosting public meetings so community residents can negotiate terms of new dog parks.
Currently park employees review a short form submitted by applicants for a new OLA.
The department officials then tend to deny the application based on negatives they perceive.
And there is no chance for neighborhood dialogue and compromise to create the required 18 month pilot program where issues can be addressed and resolved.
The new policies and procedures and criteria implemented recently by a former superintendent do not meet needs of neighborhoods where land is limited and expensive has challenging topography or is near activity areas like playgrounds or sports fields.
Policies must be revised to reflect current conditions.
And since Enola must begin as an 18 month pilot all stakeholders can resolve issues to ensure its sustainability and parks should work harder to ensure the neighborhood's needs are satisfied.
Another major impediment to creation of new OLAs is the modest amount of about $100,000 per year allotted to dog parks in the first part district budget.
Council, please address maintenance needs of current OLAs and the plans of Upper Queen Anne, West Seattle, the International District, Wallingford Madison Park, and other neighborhoods to create OLAs by appropriating generous funding in the new budget so that these communities can finally realize their needs for safe well-maintained OLAs where dogs can play and taxpaying owners will enjoy a sense of community.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, we've received one additional sign in for in-person public comment.
I'm going to invite Alex Rodenhauser to please approach the podium.
Alex, you will have two minutes to speak.
Hi there, my name's Alec Rodenhauser.
I'm also here on behalf of the West Seattle Dog Park Coalition, as well as an advocate for the 2,992 people who registered dogs in the West Seattle zip codes last year.
Many would consider, you know, downtown West Seattle to be the Alaska Junction.
From the Alaska Junction to Westcrest Park is about 20 minutes drive time.
You know, you extrapolate that out, say you go there five times a week, you know, that quickly adds up to several hours.
So what, you know, what we found is people aren't spending that time.
You know, as Rachel had mentioned, you know, letting their dogs off leash, you know, on the beaches, in parks where they're not supposed to, on school playgrounds.
And it really creates a safety issue, you know, for the community at large.
So I think in general, an increase in funding for off-leash areas, as well as, you know, engagement, well, continued engagement from Seattle Parks, as far as these five sites that we've proposed for the creation of a new off-leash area.
Four of them are already on Seattle Parks land.
The fifth is owned by the port.
I'm confident that we'll get something eventually.
I just think the sooner the better.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alex.
Mr. Chair, that concludes our list of people who've signed up for public comment.
Thank you so much, Mr. Clerk.
We will now proceed to the items of business on our agenda.
Will the clerk please read item one into the record?
Agenda item one, resolution 32062, a resolution relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation, authorizing the superintendent of Parks and Recreation to act as the authorized representative agent on behalf of the city of Seattle and to legally bind the city of Seattle with respect to certain projects for which the city seeks grant funding assistance managed through the Recreation and Conservation Office.
And we are joined by Brian Goodnight on our Council Central staff and Christopher Williams with the Seattle Parks and Recreation for this agenda item.
And Superintendent Williams, did you bring anyone else with you who's gonna be on the panel or?
Yes, I did.
I've got Donnie Grabowski with me, our Finance Director.
Great.
All right.
Well, I will turn it over to you for this presentation.
And I would ask that the panelists hold their questions until, or council members rather, hold their questions for panelists until the conclusion of the slide deck.
Great.
Maybe I'll jump in here.
I've got a couple of slides I'll start out with and then perhaps turn it over to Donny on our team.
So it has been a long practice for the Seattle Park and Recreation Department to leverage essentially other people's money through grants.
And we're here today as a practice before we apply for a grant to get authorization to apply for $8.8 million in grants from the Washington State Recreation Conservation Office.
As you're aware, we routinely seek a council authorization before applying for these grants as they typically require a match, which requires the city to commit to some future spending.
This is an important source of funding that we use to leverage on a whole variety of capital projects.
Next slide.
We've been successful applying for and being awarded grants.
Historically, we were awarded $2.3 million from the Recreation Conservation Office in 2019 and $4.1 million in 2021. We've increased our efforts in applying for grants over the past two years and since COVID in 2020 and 2021 we applied for $7.8 million in funding and in 2022 we received a total of $6.4 million in grants awarded from the RCO in King County.
This slide shows specific projects awarded by RCO from funding sources, the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership or ORLP legacy grants.
And then monies from the Land Water Conservation Fund, I think as an interesting note, comes from federal sources such as offshore leases for oil and gas, oil and gas resources.
It comes from recreation fees, the sale of surplus, real property, and motorboat fuel taxes at the state level.
That's how a lot of these grants are funded.
Since 1966, the Seattle Park and Recreation Department has received over $43 million in grant funding from RCO, which has helped fund over 147 projects across the city.
We actively manage 48 CIP grants totaling $25 million The other thing I will call out here is that we have an extraordinary grant application team, which is managed by Donnie.
In fact, we were asked earlier this summer to come to the City Park Alliance National Conference meeting and share why Seattle Parks has been so successful securing large grant dollars or large grant awards.
So we've actually got quite a bit of national recognition for our efforts here.
So with that, I'll turn it over to Don.
All right, thank you.
Next slide.
All right, so good afternoon.
To first give a bit of context on this grant application process, RCO, administers competitive state of Washington grant processes, and part of their application requires formal approval of grant applications via a resolution.
This year, RCO requires the City of Seattle to deliver a council resolution by the end of August for our grant applications to be further considered.
This proposed resolution would authorize us to apply for $8.8 million, as Christopher mentioned, $8.8 million in funding for five projects through four RCO grant programs and they are the Aquatics Land Enhancement Account, with the acronym ALEA, Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is LWCF, the Washington Wildlife Recreation Program, which is WWRP, and the Youth Athletic Facilities, which is YAF.
Next slide.
Okay, so we have a very rigorous selection process at parks led by FCAR staff and one important consideration is that the project funded with RCO dollars must be operated and maintained in perpetuity for the purposes for which funding is sought.
Project applications are chosen based on several factors which you can see on the slide, including whether the matching fund requirement can be met, the project's location in an equity zone, whether the project meets the grant program requirements, whether the project has community support, if the build timeline fits within the grant timeline, whether the project has a conceptual design in place, and if there's an urgency to replace or repair something.
Next slide, please.
All right, so this is the first of our five proposed grant funding projects here.
The first one is Coleman Pool, and it's one of two outdoor pools, and it's the only saltwater pool operated by SPR Parks, and it's located in West Seattle.
These improvements will address much needed ADA accessibility issues at the pool.
It'll renovate the locker rooms to increase access for people of all abilities.
It will provide family and non-gender specific restrooms and changing areas, as none currently exist.
It will improve the on-site caretaker residence, provide several other improvements throughout the bathhouse and on the pool deck.
And it will also provide much needed updates to the unique operation critical filter equipment that's essential for drawing and filtering water from Puget Sound.
In this particular project, we're applying for $850,000 in RCO grant funds, $350,000 from the Youth Athletic Fields grant, and $500,000 from the Washington Wildlife Recreation Program grant.
Total project cost is $4.467 million.
Next slide, please.
OK, the next second project is the Rainier Beach Skate Park.
This site is located in the Rainier Beach Playfield alongside the Rainier Beach Community Center with playfield, soccer and baseball, tennis courts and the play area.
There are two adjacent public schools at this site.
It's a community driven project with the hopes of completing a skate park at Rainier Beach Playfield, which is identified in the 2007 Skate Park Master Plan.
If you Google Rainier Beach Skate Park, you'll find many sites including social media that are very excited about this project.
The community is bringing project ideas to us and for actively securing funding for the planning and design stages using Seattle Neighborhood Matching Funds.
And the goal of this application is to fund construction of the project to include demolition, erosion control, grading, installation of green, stormwater infrastructure, a skateboard facility, picnic shelters, circular pathway seating tables and landscaping.
And in this project, we're applying for $1.5 million in RCO grant funds, $1 million of which is coming from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and $500,000 from the Washington Wildlife Recreation Program grant.
Total project budget is $2.5 million.
Next slide, please.
The third project is the Carkeek Park Rail Overpass, and this is located in northwest Seattle.
And it will replace the existing railroad crossing pedestrian bridge that provides the only safe park access point to the beach.
This public access is very important for this regional destination 220 acre park.
Karkeek Park is home to one of three environmental learning centers within our system.
And it provides year round environmental education, stewardship and conservation programming to a large number of park users and school groups.
And since the active train tracks, which you can see in the picture, act as a barrier, a bridge here provides a vital connection to the shoreline, beach, and salmon spawning creek.
The original bridge was built in 1956, and it recently received some shoring.
And in 2021, a feasibility study noted that the remaining life of this bridge was limited due to steel corrosion and concrete cracking.
And the new project would be a replacement bridge is a cable stage style bridge with a main pier located on the east side of the track.
And it'll be fully accessible and wide with a gentle ramp leading to a viewing platform from which one can see the trains below and Puget Sound.
In this particular project, we're applying for 2.3 million in RCO grants, 1.8 million from the Washington Wildlife Recreation Program grant and 500,000 from the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account.
Next slide.
All right, this next project, the fourth project is Little Brook Park Improvements, and this is a community-initiated, community-led project to construct a new vision for a roughly one-acre park in the Little Brook neighborhood of Northeast Seattle.
This park is surrounded by low-rise multifamily residential and mixed-use zoning where both residential commercial development are allowed.
It's a high density low income area with the park being the only accessible green space that residents can walk to in five to ten minutes and it's the only publicly accessible green space within the neighborhood.
The project goal here is to redesign this park to further enhance the environment to better fit the needs of the neighborhood.
The local organization, Lake City Collective has organized residents to discuss desired amenities and park activation features that will result in residents feeling welcome and safe in the park.
Our and LCC's shared goal is to create a new design for this park that better responds to the needs of the growing neighborhood and encourages positive activation and environmental stewardship of the stream.
It includes a community garden seating walls, central turf lawn for recreation and gathering, site furnishing, including picnic tables and grills, a looped exercise walking path, all interwoven in nature under some trees and the sound of the stream.
In this particular project, we're applying for 1.3 million in RCO grant funds, 800,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and 500,000 from the Washington Wildlife Recreation Program grant.
Total project cost is 1.8 million.
Next slide.
Okay, and the fifth project here is the Lower Soundview Playfield.
This is currently a grass field in Northwest Seattle.
It gets easily rained out, muddy, and not so lit, so playing time is limited in the winter.
This project will renovate an existing grass playfield to synthetic turf within this 10-acre park, and it will enhance playability, improve safety, create an accessible facility, and it will install about 114,000 square feet of multipurpose all-weather field and field amenities, including a state-of-the-art lighting system, new ADA-accessible looped walking path, leecher seating, and seat walls.
One thing to note is that in 2019, this field was only booked for 676 hours.
And with the synthetic play fields being in high demand, we expect that this renovation will result in a tripling of the available hours of play.
And by comparison, the nearby Loyal Heights play field was booked for about 2,000 hours in 2019. And it's important to the community because youth participation in active sports is growing, but local acreage to build new sports facilities is limited.
Game quality fields and accessible facilities are particularly lacking in this area of Seattle, where demand is high and most nearby play fields are grass.
And it will support little leagues and youth baseball and softball, soccer and football teams, both youth and adult leagues and other sports.
And so with this particular project, we are applying for $2.85 million in RCO grant funds, $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 350,000 from the Youth Athletic Facilities grant and 500,000 from the Washington Wildlife Recreation Program grant.
So the total project here is $4 million.
Okay, next slide.
This slide just gives a recap or a summary of the projects that we would like to apply for funding for, the council district that they belong in, the grant requests that we are making, matching funds for the project, and the total project cost.
So just to recap here, $8.8 million is the RCO grant request.
We have $9.4 million in match in this slide.
Next slide, please.
This slide just gives a recap of the amount of money that we are asking for each of the four RCO grant categories.
So I won't read those numbers, but you can see on the slides what we are asking for.
The largest amounts are from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program.
And a total of $8.8 million again.
Next slide.
And this slide just kind of gives you kind of a quick timeline for our RCO grant process.
So we are here today with the council review of this proposed resolution.
The resolution, again, is due to RCO by the end of the month.
RCO then takes our application along with other applications and reviews them, and we will hear by mid-June of the RCO awards, and then we get into contract execution and also supplemental legislation back to the city council after we hear of the grant awards from our seal.
And that would be no sooner than third quarter of 2023. Next slide.
And I think that's it.
That concludes our presentation.
Wanted to know if there were any questions.
Thank you so much.
Really appreciated getting that overview.
I have a couple of questions and then I'll open it up to council colleagues.
I see council member Morales getting in the queue.
So that's good.
There's some folks on the panel.
Can we go back to slide 11 really quickly, please?
Yes.
So for this list of the grant requests juxtaposed with our match and the total cost of the projects, what are the sources for our matches?
I mean, we've had a lot of conversations over the last couple months about the various different plug-ins for capital projects from parks, Metropolitan Park District, REIT, General Fund.
Where do we anticipate this match coming from?
Is any of this envisioned to be debt financed or, you know, can we get a little bit more visibility into our end of things separate from the federal grants we're seeking?
Sure, I can, I can attempt to answer this and then Michelle Whitfield, who is our true grant expert is on the call as well, and she can also help fill in, but do you want to project by project kind of quick listing of those other sources?
Yes.
Okay.
Yep.
Okay, so for Coleman Pool, in addition to the RCO grant contribution, we also have City funds of almost $1.1 million.
And we also have a King County Aquatic Center grant program amount that's $1.8 million supporting this.
For the second project, which is the Rainier Beach Skate Park, in addition to the RCO funds, the city is contributing $917,000.
A local nonprofit is contributing $33.
and King County Matching Funds are contributing also about $50,000.
And then for Carkeek, RCO, in addition to RCO, we have the city of Seattle contributing 1.3 million to this project.
For Little Brook, we have, in addition to RCO, the city contributing $470,000 and King County Water Works about $30,000.
And then for the last project, City of Seattle would also be contributing to the Lower Soundview Playfield about $1.1 million.
Council Member Lewis, the city's contribution to these funds are REIT funds.
So real estate excise tax funding our capital programs is largely the city contribution and there is no debt financing here.
Great, good to know.
Thank you so much.
I really appreciate that we are queuing up this discussion and being so competitive for land and water conservation fund contributions to city projects.
I think I'd be remiss before I open it up for more questions from colleagues, not to mention that the origin of land and water conservation fund is from legislation from our own late Senator Henry M. Jackson, Scoop Jackson, who represented the state of Washington and, created the Land and Water Conservation Fund and definitely want to give due credit for its renewal in the last couple of years to the hard work of Senator Cantwell who really made sure that that program was renewed that we rely on so much for partnership in protecting and expanding our open spaces and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation locally for the advocacy work that they did in making sure that that critical legislation was reauthorized, refunded, and passed.
So good legacy in the Pacific Northwest here of getting more resources for the preservation and expansion of open space.
With that, I am going to pass it over to Council Member Morales for a question.
Thank you.
chair lewis um i have um a quick question just asking for a clarification on the timeline um you well shoot i wrote my notes down and then i erased them um you said that the announcement is uh june 2023 uh third quarter contract execution when would the doll might the dollars actually get out the door i think i missed that
They wouldn't get out the door until we, you know, until these contracts are executed so it wouldn't be until at least third quarter 2023 and then of course we would need to apply for the supplemental legislation through the city council.
Okay.
So, okay.
So, late 2023, maybe early 2024. Mm hmm.
Good to know.
Um, I just want to say I'm really excited to see the Rainier Beach skate park on here thank you very much for helping community advocate for this.
It's going to be a great addition to the Rainier Beach Community Center and provide, you know, safe active space for young people in the area so I'm really looking forward to.
helping this move along.
And I will also say, Council President Juarez, I was just at that Carkeek overpass.
I didn't realize that that was the only access to get down to the water.
So glad to know that we're working on making sure that it is safe to pass over it so that people can get done.
I've been taking my kids there since they were really small.
So I'm glad to know that we're working on that.
Yeah, good to know.
All right.
Thank you so much.
Are there any additional questions from council members for the panel?
Okay, I don't see any.
My intention had been to vote on this today.
So I think I am going to move this resolution given that there's no additional questions.
So I move that the council recommend passage of resolution 32062 to the full council.
Is there a second?
Okay, having been moved and seconded, will the clerk please call the roll on the motion to recommend passage of resolution 32062.
Council President Juarez.
Aye.
Council Member Morales.
Yes.
Chair Lewis.
Yes.
Chair, there are three in favor, none opposed.
Thank you, with three in favor, none opposed, the motion passes and the resolution will be considered at the next full council meeting.
Okay, so moving on to our next parks panel.
Will the clerk please read item two into the record.
Item two, Seattle parks presentation on off-leash areas.
And I think we have mostly the same panel here.
Superintendent Williams, are you joined by some folks from parks who can walk us through this next item?
You may be muted superintendent Williams.
Yes, yes I've got Daniel lofty here, who is going to join me in the presentation and I'll start out with some preamble and give some background and turn it over to Danielle.
Okay, well, maybe I'll jump right in here and kick it off.
You've heard from a few folks today who have testified about off-leash areas and we want to give you kind of a comprehensive overview of the department's work over the past 25 years and just recently kind of an update to the plan.
We've had off-leash areas for about 25 years resulting from a city council resolution to establish off-leash areas.
We're proud to have gradually expanded the off-leash area system to about 15 locations across the system.
Our Seattle Park and Recreation Department is ranked each year by the trust for public lands in a nationwide public urban parks ranking system and each year including this year we are within the top 10 park and recreation departments in the country and we are always within the top 10 cities for off-leash areas in the country.
In addition to the 15 off leash areas we have in the system.
Dogs are always welcome as long as they're on leash in the other 485 plus parks across the system.
The Seattle Park and Recreation, I'm sorry, the Seattle Park District support for major maintenance projects that are off leash areas and support partnership with Seattle Animal Control, who are responsible for enforcement of off-leash and scoop laws and other animal-related laws in the city.
We've got a great partnership with them that is currently funded in the Metropolitan Park District.
Today, we'll share how we work with community members and volunteers to maintain and grow our off-leash area system, and we'll highlight a few new off-leash areas that are on the horizon or in the planning phase.
And I just want to salute Danielle, who has done an amazing job here over the last few years taking this work on.
So with that, I'll turn it over to you, Danielle.
Good afternoon, council members.
My name is Danielle Lotfi.
I'm a Community Engagement Advisor at Seattle Parks and Recreation.
And within my work here, I oversee the off-leash area program.
Thank you for having us today.
So as Christopher mentioned, I'll be speaking a little bit about I'll be giving a briefing about our fish area program.
This is a list of this is the agenda for the presentation today so you have a sense of what is coming up.
an overview of the existing system.
I will share with you ways that we are maintaining and working to expand the office area system.
I'll provide a couple of examples of educational campaigns that we have done on this topic.
I'll share a little bit about how the enforcement of pet laws, animal laws in the city work.
And of course, what we have on the horizon.
So, As Superintendent Williams mentioned, our off-leash area system dates back to 1997. We currently have 15 fenced off-leash areas that total roughly about 28 acres of public land.
These off-leash areas range in size from 9 acres, like the Magnuson off-leash area, to 0.1 acres, like our smaller ones such as the Danville off-leash area.
And of course, this is in addition to over 400 parks where leashed dogs are allowed to walk, exercise, and have fun.
The only areas that dogs are not allowed per the Seattle Municipal Code are organized athletic fields, beaches, or children's play areas.
And of course, Christopher shared this data point with you all that among the top 12 park systems in the country, the Trust for Public Land ranks Seattle among the top five in terms of our access to dog parks per capita.
This is a map of our existing off-leash area system.
As you can see, the green icons are where our current off-leash areas are.
There are also three off-leash areas that are on the horizon, which I will cover a little bit later on in the presentation.
And we have one, there's one off-leash area that was built and is operated by Seattle City Light on their Denny substation property, but but that we still incorporate into our larger off leash area system so that brings us to a total of 15 dog parks.
When it comes to the maintenance of off-leash areas, we partner with two community organizations, first being the Magnuson Off-Leash Group, which solely focuses on the Magnuson Dog Park, which is our largest one and one of our most popular ones in the city, as well as Citizens for Off-Leash Areas, or COLA, which covers the other 14 off-leash areas.
These groups partner with us in the day-to-day operations of the off-leash areas.
They help us maintain a clean and safe environment for visitors.
They help us recruit volunteer stewards and organize work parties.
where they participate in maintenance projects, simple things.
They also help us educate off-leash area visitors about the rules and etiquette and behavioral expectations at these dog parks.
They regularly report minor and major maintenance needs at off-leash areas and, of course, propose improvements and new amenities And finally, they also do some fundraising as well as pursuing sponsorship opportunities, again, in order to improve our existing off-leash areas.
From the Parks Department side, we support these groups by leading major improvements and installation of new amenities.
We provide materials for their work parties when requested.
We regularly empty dumpsters and trash cans.
We assess trees, especially after storms, and of course mowing of the grass.
We respond to and repair damages from vandalisms at dog parks and finally review and approve special maintenance projects at off-leash areas.
In terms of major maintenance projects, as has been mentioned, the Seattle Park District provides roughly a little bit over $100,000 annually for major maintenance projects at off-leash areas.
Between 2017 to 2021, we spent $635,000 on these projects.
And this annual investment is expected to provide us with $120,000 this year for major maintenance projects.
Some examples of projects, some examples of where this money has gone are grading improvements at Magnolia Manor, Dog Park, We have installed agility equipment at Golden Gardens.
We've made ADA and major drainage improvements at the Westcrest off-leash area.
We developed and constructed a small and shy dog area at Genesee off-leash area.
And of course, resurfacing, fencing, and natural restoration at various off-leash areas throughout our system.
I wanted to cover a few strategies that exist for expanding our off-leash area system.
So first is adding off-leash areas through a new park or redevelopment projects, considering land-banked undeveloped sites as off-leash area opportunities, rebuilding proposals by community members, interagency partnerships, and privately owned property.
Just to cover, just to give you all a sense of kind of some of the standards that we consider when looking at a proposed site for an office area.
So the threshold criteria that we have that the site cannot be located in a park that is a designated landmark or on the register of historic places.
It cannot be located in natural areas that are under active restoration or are in an environmentally critical area.
The site should not conflict with existing park uses in a way that creates safety issues.
And if the property, if it's private property, there must be preliminary approval from the site owner to build an off-leash area on the property.
Some additional considerations.
We want sites that are ADA accessible, and if not, for there to be a plan for these sites to be accessible.
Sites must not have significant vegetation and large trees because they very quickly die inside an off-leash area.
Proposed site must be at least 50 feet away from other property lines to create a buffer for noise and odor.
We prefer flat sites to slopes since surfacing erodes over time on slopes.
We make considerations for access to parking spots or accessibility to the site by public transportation.
And finally, high visibility into the site in order to ensure better safety.
This slide shows a couple educational campaigns that we engaged in over the past couple years.
So on the left is an educational video.
that we developed on best practices for dogs and their owners inside and outside off-leash areas.
It covers the existing rules, you know, where dogs are allowed leashed and unleashed, and just provides in a fun, cartoony way, in an engaging way, provides some information to dog owners about what they can do, where they can have fun, and what they should avoid, of course.
And on the right is an infographic that we developed as a response to the growing problem of abandoned dog waste in parks, whether it's inside office areas or outside.
The purpose of this infographic is to really educate pet owners about what happens after they leave that dog waste in the park and the negative impacts it has not just on the environment, but the potential impacts it might have on other dogs and of course humans.
The enforcement of all animal laws in the city are of course managed by the animal control officers at the Seattle Animal Shelter.
Our staff and community partners, we regularly share reports of incidents involving dogs with animal control and ACOs or animal control officers can conduct emphasis patrols in areas or parks where they are receiving repeated reports.
I wanted to speak a little bit about kind of what's on the horizon for us.
So some new strategies that we're trying to pursue in looking to expand our system.
We are pursuing smaller neighborhood size off-leash areas.
Unfortunately, because of the realities on the ground, it's not as easy for us to create another off-leash area the size of Magnuson Park.
However, we can.
kind of turn our focus to more small, walking distance neighborhood off-leash areas, increasing, continuing to increase our focus on geographical equity.
And an example of course is our recent work with the West Seattle Dog Park Coalition, who you heard from earlier in the public comment section, and trying to expand the system to areas that are dense and have an increasing population of dogs.
We also look for interagency partnerships, an example of which I will cover in just a minute.
And we're also looking at how we may be able to adjust the standards that were set in the People, Dogs, and Parks Plan in a way that would, of course, allow for more off-leash area opportunities, but not sacrifice the kind of integrity of an off-leash area of what we believe a successful off-leash area as a dog park that people want to go to and be at.
So we have three off-leash areas that are approved and are in various stages in the planning process.
So the first, which is a prime example of inter-agency partnership, is the Georgetown Flume property.
This is a partnership between us, SBU, excuse me, I should say, SBR City Light and SDOT.
My apologies.
This was a partnership where City Light was able to transfer ownership of a piece of their flume property to Seattle Parks and SDOT to develop into an off-leash area, as well as a trail, a pedestrian trail, and in return, I believe City Light requested a permanent vacation for a site at their Soto property.
Additionally, the South Park Community Center site redevelopment project will also include a new off-leash area.
And the Smithco Park development will also include an off-leash area.
So these are, again, these are three projects that are approved that are for sure going to become off-leash areas.
But of course, beyond these three, we are actively having conversations with various communities, neighborhoods about opportunities to expand the off-leash area system.
That brings us to the end of my presentation.
Happy to answer any questions.
Thank you so much for that overview.
And I'm happy to jump into the question portion of the presentation.
So I'll ask a few first, and then I'll open it up to colleagues.
And I've been kind of making notes as the presentation was going through.
This is a big area of interest.
not just for myself, but I know also for Councilmember Herbold, who could not be here today, but would be very proud that his constituents are here, not only in council chambers, but attending virtually to comment on the lack of off-leash areas in West Seattle, and was glad that was a focus of the presentation in addressing geographic equity in future plans.
And also appreciated in the presentation the nod toward revising potentially overly restrictive policies on where off-leash areas can currently be sited in the future plans to place more, which I've heard from constituents is at least being interpreted as an obstacle to being able to expand off-leash areas further beyond the current footprint that they have.
So I appreciate those areas of flexibility and want to drill down a little bit into them.
So can we go back maybe as a starting point to the map in the slide deck?
I don't remember which slide it was.
It was towards the beginning.
share my screen again.
Can you see my screen councilmember?
I can see it.
Yeah.
Okay.
Excellent.
So, I mean, as we can clearly see from this map, I mean, just to emphasize again, so that when Council Member Herbold comes back from vacation, or sorry, from the local progress conference that Council Member Herbold is attending, I don't wanna be crosswise with her, because I didn't really point out that that West Seattle area definitely has very limited visible coverage.
And we can see some of these other areas where there's gaps, In terms of the future planning for where to put these smaller neighborhood-based off-leash areas, what is sort of the broader infill strategy of the department to accomplish that?
And I thought loading up the map would be a helpful way to maybe center that conversation.
Hey, Council Member.
Apologies, my internet briefly
So maybe I can jump in here, Council Member, while we're waiting on Daniel and maybe he can fill in some of the blanks.
Our overall strategy historically has been to consider off-leash areas at the time we acquire new parkland.
This strategy allows us to work with the community It allows us not to displace existing activities that are already in a park.
It allows us to engage the community in a fulsome community engagement process.
That's been the strategy so far.
We are open to other strategies.
I think where it really comes down to some level of difficulty is where you have a park and there are existing uses already.
Placing an off-leash area in a place that may already have existing park uses has been challenging.
So we're open to Rethinking and, you know, I think the stark example of West Seattle clearly illustrates we need more off leash areas in that part of town.
Yeah, I appreciate.
that as we're planning this and developing, particularly on existing park properties, we'd be conscious of the potential to displace existing activities.
That might be a good segue to talk about a question I have that's more district specific related to a upcoming plan to build out the sort of long awaited Smith Cove Park development in the Inner Bay neighborhood.
We recently, we meaning myself and members of my staff held a town hall meeting in Queen Anne and this was a large item of interest that came up from attendees regarding the plan for the dog run at that park.
This is sort of related to some of the safety considerations that are raised on slide nine of the presentation deck.
But the idea that, or at least the reported concern from the community was that the dog run is gonna be smaller than what was initially promised at the Smith Cove Park location, that they had concern that a smaller dog park or a smaller off-leash area at Smith Cove Park would have the impact of more people using non off leash area land for the purpose of running their dog or having their dog off leash, which could in turn, create pressures and issues of people trying to use the park for different purposes.
I wanted to raise that very specific concern about the planned off-leash area at Smith Cove Park and whether we could go back to the original planned and promised scope and scale of that park.
It was a very significant area of community concern at the town hall and one of which my office is aligned and supportive of the community in seeking a larger off-leash area in line with what was initially proposed.
So maybe I'll try to respond to some of that and allow Danielle to maybe fill in some blanks here.
So Smith Cove is a great example of a newly acquired parcel of land where we are literally trying to accommodate a variety of interests from athletic fields to an off-leash area to a walking track to passive recreational uses and a parking lot area and then on the east side access to the beach.
I think the question is is how do we parse limited amount of land so that all of those uses can take place in a compatible way and a user-friendly way for everyone who comes to the park and wants to use the park.
This is a great example of, I think, attempting to do lots of things at a single site, but your point is well taken.
We will go back and roll up our sleeves and see if we can uh reconsider how to add more space to the off-leash area.
I really appreciate that superintendent because I mean I you know as we are faced with choices on how to use um limited space in our planned or existing parks I mean for me Personally, a big part of it really comes down to what are we hearing in terms of the prioritization of the community and people who are going to use that park.
In the case of Smith Cove Park overwhelmingly.
That was a big concern, not just to have sufficient area.
As I, as I.
indicated to use the off-leash area effectively, but also to make sure that off-leash activity was not spilling out of the park if there was insufficient room.
So I really just wanted to underscore that and I look forward to continuing to work with you and your team.
And I know that those constituents will be really happy to hear that we can take a look at that again to see if it accords with what they're saying their priorities are.
So I wanted to stick on slide nine here for a minute to ask questions more generally, because I think a big part of the tension that you alluded to earlier, Superintendent Williams, around the concern that off-leash areas could crowd out existing uses and parks or compete for space with other activations is an ongoing pressure about having more of them.
I think that's inextricably linked with something that I think was on slide, maybe slide 10, but it's sort of, yeah, right here.
So, indicating that these are sort of the nice to have considerations, I guess I would almost characterize them.
If slide nine, I mean, well, I guess maybe I'm asking you for clarification on that.
If slide nine is kind of the hard and fast rules.
of the things that absolutely have to be done for the most part.
I mean, obviously things like ADA accessibility, that's something we have to do, but how we incorporate around site-specific obstacles like vegetation, large trees, the slope of a site, I guess that part of my question is how flexible we are in these points.
Because another thing I've heard from a lot of community members is spots might be identified that are city surplus properties, park properties, maybe portions of existing parks, and they get vetered by the department for things that fall in slide 10, like that there's a subtle slope to the site, or maybe there's an exceptional tree on the site that would prove to be too much of an obstacle or provide visibility issues.
I think in a lot of cases, these can be troubleshot by careful and effective planning of a site.
And the impression in the community historically, and what I experienced a lot as a candidate when I was doorbelling in 2019, was people who had pitched off leash areas that because of things within these slide 10 considerations, that project never got further than an email or a conversation.
And I just want to make sure that we can be nimble and maybe really look into how to work around some of these things and be flexible.
And I wonder what your thoughts on that are.
I mean, the phrasing of this slide seems to indicate that there is an interest in being flexible on the part of the department, but I just want to confirm that.
Because if so, we've got some potential sites in Queen Anne that we can talk about, but I just want to clarify.
Yeah, so that's a great question.
You know, so our goal is to be rigidly flexible, wherever we can and all situations, particularly with regard to public use of the system.
So I think as the city becomes increasingly dense, we're going to need more off leash areas.
You know, I think one reminder is that people are welcome to go to any park with a dog on leash.
I think it's part of this, but if we have property line issues, you know, you can always do things to buffer the adjacency to a private property.
We can mitigate issues like significant trees by placing a picket fence around the tree.
There are a number of strategies that we are open to a lot of our existing off-leash areas were installed at a time when we didn't have these preferred considerations.
And they're working today.
So, you know, I'll just use Golden Gardens on a steep slope, for example, if we were going to go back and redo that, we probably wouldn't do that today.
But we have mitigated some of the risk out of that by the way we manage it.
So we would definitely be open to thinking about these considerations and want to work with the community to ask the question, how do we mitigate the risk out of what feels like a difficult situation?
Council Member.
Superintendent, thank you for that.
But I'll hand it over to Daniel in a second, but maybe Daniel, you can build on this, but Superintendent Williams sort of anticipated one of my other questions, which, you know, I used to be a, Well, I mean, I am still a barred attorney, I guess, but I'm not really practicing, but one of the questions I had set up that Superintendent Williams foreshadowed in that line is how many of our current sites are non-conforming to our current standards.
And one was raised on Golden Gardens, which I appreciate you raising and bringing that out.
And I think it is just a good example that we can have sites that might slightly not conform to the ideal, but still be effective.
I don't know if there's others in our list of fifteen that fit that description but I appreciate you introducing that.
Sorry, I interrupted you, Danielle.
Do you have a?
Yeah, no worries.
First off, sorry, my camera's off.
I'm having some internet bandwidth issues.
I'm hoping.
No worries.
But to build off of what the superintendent was mentioning is that of course, we've learned so much and you know, since 1997 And specifically, we've learned so much about what makes an office share successful in the long run, both in terms of the department and the maintenance costs that we have to take care of over time, but also from the community side, sites that the community truly wants to go to, sites that are fun to be at, that are safe to be at.
And so another example that I would use is, Woodland Park, for example.
It's a wonderful park, but it is an off-leash area that sits on a hill and it's sloped.
So one of the biggest challenges, one of the biggest lessons we've learned is that over time, in the long run, this both creates extra maintenance costs for us and it creates extra work for our stewards at these areas.
And again, Superintendent Williams mentioned this as well, But we are we're still learning so that that learning did not stop between 97 and 2017 when we released our plan we are continue continuously learning and, as I shared in my presentation right now we are looking at.
which of these considerations, criteria we have set, there's flexibility so that, again, we can increase opportunities to build off-leash areas and expand the system, but at the same time not jeopardize kind of the integrity of a successful and loved off-leash area.
Great, well, thank you so much, guys.
This has been a great presentation and we really look forward to being in touch on this and in the context of the general work of Seattle Parks and Recreation, but also the Metropolitan Park District renewal where this was raised as a very significant public priority through the outreach that was conducted.
So this is really helpful information and really appreciate the thoroughness of the presentation and your time today.
Do colleagues have any final questions on this matter before we move to our final agenda item?
I'm good.
Excellent.
Okay, seeing none, we can move forward to this.
And I think that does it for our parks panelists.
I don't think that they have to testify at all on item three.
So thank you so much for joining us, Superintendent Williams and everyone from your team.
Appreciate it.
All right, will the clerk please call, read item three into the record.
Item three, city hall park land swap proposal, public hearing.
Thank you so much, Mr. Clerk.
So as a reminder, this is a public hearing for the proposal to give City Hall Park, to transfer City Hall Park to King County from the city of Seattle in exchange for a number of properties that have been proffered by King County as part of that potential transfer.
That is the only topic people can speak to as part of these comments.
That's why at the beginning of the meeting, we have a general public comment opportunity for other items.
This public hearing is a component of the requirements under the State Environmental Policy Act, which, is part of the governing policy framework for land transfers between public entities of this nature.
And with that, we will begin this public comment session, which will be moderated by the committee clerk.
Speakers will be given two minutes to speak.
And as a reminder, just as a final reminder, this will be a more strictly enforced comment session, given that it really is for our purpose of building a record and deliberating about this King County proposal.
So please keep your remarks germane to that topic.
Otherwise I will suspend the time of the speaker.
So with that, Mr. Clerk, you may begin the public comment session.
And why don't we go ahead and begin with people who are in chambers.
who I think have been waiting patiently for this item.
Not that the other items on the agenda weren't interesting, but to have in-chamber speakers go first and then proceed to virtually signed up speakers.
Our first speaker is Judge Patrick Oishi.
Thank you and good afternoon.
So my name is Patrick Owishi.
I am the King County Superior Court presiding judge.
I'm here both in my official capacity and also as a longtime resident of Seattle.
I'm here to speak in support of the proposed City Hall Park land swap.
First, of course, I would like to thank committee chair Lewis, as well as the other committee members I know you all have thoughtfully considered the proposal.
I'm here today.
Again, I've actually consistently spoken from this body, but I'm here again today.
to ask this committee to vote the proposal out of committee and move it on to the full council for three reasons.
One, the court feels very strongly that this is an access to justice issue for all the users of the King County Courthouse.
So jurors, litigants, observers of court proceedings, as well as employees.
Second, as I've stated previously, City Hall Park is quite literally the front yard of the King County Courthouse, which is the seat of county government.
The court feels strongly that the park should be part of the county's downtown civic campus.
I would ask the committee members to recall the very poignant and frankly, well-stated comments of King County Council Member, Dean Cole-Wells at the last meeting.
And it is my firm belief that King County will be a responsible steward of the park.
And third and finally, I think this is a public safety.
I would ask the committee to support the land swap and vote the legislation out of committee.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jojo Ishii.
Our next public commenter is Beth Purcell, who will be followed by Lisa Howard.
Hello, my name is Beth Purcell and I've worked on public park space in the county and the city for the past 30 years.
I'm also on the Seattle Park Foundation board.
I'm a part of a broad coalition of nonprofits and public space advocates who have had concerns about the city hall park transfer.
In December of 2021, I listened to the entire County Council discussion about this transaction.
County Council members voted twice against language that would require the park to be used as parkland in perpetuity.
That was concerning to me.
Our coalition has dissected the covenant language the county has submitted.
Ambiguities remain throughout.
There is no mention of how the park will be operated, funded, and maintained, and the city will have no control of that once the trade is made.
And regarding the trade, the South Park property that's included in this trade borders the Duwamish River which is a Superfund site.
There are likely millions of dollars of cleanup work that the city will be required to invest to make that a safe and viable park property for the South Park community.
Take a look at Duwamish Waterway Park and how it has been sitting idle for that very reason.
At the last committee meeting, you were presented with an attractive graphic image from the county as to what the park might look like.
However, there are no actual plans, has been no public process, and the result could vary significantly from that graphic.
Are you all aware that the Parks Department and SDOT were working with the community and have design ideas as well?
Has anyone asked the Parks Department to present the work that they had been doing before this was abruptly shut down by the transfer discussion?
In closing, I'm genuinely curious as to what is motivating you as a city leader to give away downtown park property that serves a significantly underserved community and needs access to green space.
If you really want to serve the needs of your constituents, engage your city departments to make that happen.
They have the experience to run urban parks and have had success in the past.
Now they need your support and the resources to make that
Thank you, Beth.
Our next public commenter is Lisa Howard.
Lisa, whenever you're ready.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Lisa Howard.
I'm the executive director of the Alliance for Pioneer Square.
Thanks for allowing us to make comment today.
I am providing comment as a member of a dedicated coalition of park and public space advocates that is requesting the city not to transfer City Hall Park in exchange for the listed county properties under the current legislation.
I have provided detailed comment letter which I asked you to read.
We only learned of this hearing on Friday and it was our understanding that the environmental process required a 10 days notice if there's any clarification around that requirement.
City Hall Park serves the Pioneer Square neighborhood, in addition to the other entities which care about this space.
We thanks to decades, the city of county of city and county policy, we have the highest concentration of low income income residents in the region.
The park serves over 800 people prior to being closed and fenced.
Our low-income residents live in tiny spaces and need quality green space maybe now more than ever.
We are very unclear about the county's goals in acquiring the park and are concerned about the county simply displacing unwanted behaviors from the park to the neighborhoods and other surrounding parks.
We also believe that this process clearly violates the will of the people as embodied in initiative 42. The properties that portrayed clearly did not serve the same population to City Hall Park.
If this instance of trading away public property does not trigger I 42 with this park, are there any that would in the city of Seattle.
This space needs more consideration cooperation and thoughtfulness, not less.
We are prepared to continue to work with the city and the county in helping to ensure that Pioneer Square has a safe, clean and open spaces that are accessible and available for all of our residents in the community.
Public safety is not the sole responsibility of SPD.
It is a condition that will be reached for systems work well from operations maintenance, as well as the judicial system in its entirety.
We urge the city to turn its attention from disposing of the park back to the central issue of providing its citizens with quality space and look forward to partnering with the city in those efforts.
Thank you.
That concludes our in-person public commenters.
We will now move to public commenters who have called in.
Please remember that you need to press star six to take yourself off mute.
Our first caller is Tiara Dearbone.
Tiara, please press star six and begin speaking whenever you're ready.
Hello, Council, my name is Tiara Dearbone with the Public Defender Association.
I'm calling as a member of a dedicated coalition of park and public space advocates requesting the city not transfer City Hall Park in exchange for county properties and include the surrounding communities in the conversation about how this land should be protected or maintained.
As you know, in the summer of 2021 Just Care, a coalition of providers managed by PDA worked to move folks who are living here into rapid lodging and supportive services.
The hope is that the park would be reopened and available to the entire community for use as the only green space available to hundreds of low to no income people.
It is critical that there be an agreement that the space will remain a park and available to all, including those who no longer need to live there, but should have access to the space for recreational use.
People were not moved so that it could be closed.
The community needs time to provide adequate feedback pertaining to future use of this space prior to the transfer.
We would also like to see an immediate plan to reopen and activate the park.
This community has gone on over a year without access to a park or green space.
Please partner with the community and residents to create a plan to make this a successful space for all.
Thank you.
Thank you, Tiara.
Our next public commenter is Derek Elgard.
Hello, everybody.
Thank you council for hearing me today.
I'm Derek Belgar, executive director for the Chief Seattle Club.
I'm calling today as a representative for our native relatives who either housed or plan to house within the next six months.
By early next year, we'll have 156 units here within Pioneer Square, which will provide housing for over 180 of our most vulnerable relatives.
I'm requesting that the city do not transfer City Hall Park in exchange for county property.
And I ask that you include our surrounding communities in future conversations about how this land should be protected and maintained for the following four reasons.
First, City Hall Park is an irreplaceable community and historic asset, which served over 800 low-income residents prior to it being closed.
Second, we should not give up the city park.
More work needs to be done around this space to address the issues that have emerged out of the current proposal.
Thirdly, we are concerned with the lack of information regarding the land transfer while the process moves forward.
More information including SS land value of all parcels, King County staffing activation budget and proposed uses of the park must be detailed and presented to the public first.
Finally, a timeline for opening staffing and activating the park must be provided by King County, the city as soon as possible or the city needs to open the staff and open and staff the park while it's in process.
Allowing the park to remain closed during these summer months while nearby residents don't have the access to green space is a failure of your moral duty to your constituents.
So just in closing, the members we serve, especially in the urban native community, deserve the right to utilize public green space.
City Hall Park is one of the only public green parks that our members and all residents can utilize within reasonable walking distance.
And I ask that you find a way to keep that park open to the public in perpetuity moving forward.
That will enable our house relatives to truly thrive and the unhoused that come utilize our day shelter from day to day.
Thank you all.
Bye-bye.
Thank you, Derek.
Our next public commenter is Harold Hillseth.
Harold, you can begin when ready.
Hi, y'all.
My name is Harold Hillseth, and I am the Policy and Advocacy Manager for Chief Seattle Club.
And I similarly to our executive director, I'm calling as a representative of our members, over 80 residents in all our affordable housing property in Pioneer Square.
And I'm too requesting the city not transfer City Hall Park in exchange for county properties.
And I ask that you include our surrounding communities in the conversation as we have been over the last four to five months, but continually going forward about how this land should be protected and or maintained for the following reasons.
City Hall Park, absolutely irreplaceable community and historic assets.
which serves over 800 low-income residents prior to being closed last year.
And we should not give up this city park as more work needs to be done around this space to address the issues that have emerged out of the current proposal.
We are just generally concerned with the lack of information regarding the land transfer while the process moves forward.
And just the general timeline for opening staffing and activating City Hall Park must be provided by King County to the city as soon as possible where the city needs to open and staffed the park while in process, and this allowing the park to remain closed during the summer months while nearby residents, including those in All All and folks that we serve in our day center, do not have access to green space.
And we kind of see this as a failing of our moral duty to the members we serve to continue advocating for this to you all and to your constituents.
Many of our members we serve, especially in the urban Native community, deserve the right to utilize the public green space And city hall park is one of the only public green parks that our members and all residents can utilize within reasonable walking distance.
And I ask that you find a way to keep the park open to the public and perpetuity moving forward regardless of the decisions made.
Just wanted to thank you for your time once again.
Thank you.
Thank you, Harold.
Our next public commenter is Tiffany McCoy.
Hi, this is Tiffany McCoy.
I am the advocacy director at Real Change and also part of the City Hall Park Coalition, which is asking you to not transfer City Hall Park in exchange for county properties and to also include surrounding communities in the conversation about how this land should be protected and maintained.
I just want to like really encourage City Council to like step back and think long term about what we're trying to do with this park and with this area of the city going forward.
I just want us to not like rush into something because there just seems to be tremendous pressure from the county and the mayor and even like mainstream media publications that this is a done deal.
It's not a done deal.
You still have the ability to stop this transfer.
And I just have to say like based on The judge's comments, I'm a bit concerned about what the discussions have been behind the scenes about this land swap.
I don't know how this land swap is gonna make anything safer near the courthouse and how this is a public safety issue.
We have a homelessness crisis.
We have a crisis of poverty and lack of investment into this community and just transferring this park isn't going to solve any of those underlying issues.
So that's just really like, a false narrative to put forward that we're gonna solve this by swapping.
And I also just want to read a couple of postcodes that you all on the council are gonna get that vendors at Real Change who use, well, don't anymore, used to use that park.
So I'm just gonna read a couple of those for now just to get their comments in.
One vendor says that we need to, also, this is all don't transfer the park.
One says, keep it clean, but don't transfer it.
Another vendor who actually serves near the park said that this park has been in the hands of the city for years and we must keep it that way.
And another vendor talks about how this is the battle of Seattle.
This park is immoralized and we don't want to become San Francisco where folks that are in house are not welcome anywhere.
Don't transfer the park, find somewhere else to transfer.
Overall, I'm gonna send a bunch of these postcards to all of you, but we do not want that to be transferred and they also want it activated so they can actually go there and enjoy time outside.
Thank you.
Thank you, Tiffany.
Our final public commenter is Jeannie Colwells.
Thank you, Chair Lewis and the committee.
I'm King County Council Member Jean Cole-Wells, representing the fourth council district, all within the city of Seattle, speaking in support of the land swap agreement.
As having chaired our budget committee the previous two years, I became acutely aware of the pandemic's effects on our county operations, but also on the once beautiful City Hall Park, adjacent to the courthouse, As employees in the area stopped coming to their workplaces, businesses closed, and the parks becoming used for unintended purposes, reversing what improvements have been made.
And of course, we all became aware of the hardships of so many, as well as increasing threats to public safety in the vicinity.
I think of the beautiful plaza you all have to the west of Jillian City Hall.
It's enjoyed by the public and by the city and county employees at city hall events.
And that it's, of course, owned by the city.
And I think of how fortunate the city is and what it could be like if our county government's home, the King County Courthouse, were able to have a space truly of its own.
Unfortunately, that is not the case.
The park adjoining the courthouse is owned by the city, and it's fenced off from this by the city.
Think if this were the case with your plaza, that it was owned by the county, that it was not maintained, and that was closed off to the public.
And think how you had no say over what happens with the park.
Think how we feel about the same with City Hall Park.
But you're now considering approving a land swap for the county to take over City Hall Park, maintain it, improve it, and preserve it as open space to be used by all, so needed in the Pioneer Square community.
And importantly, engaging the community so that it will indeed become what we all want.
It's a good deal for all.
Seattle will gain even more green space in its parks throughout the city, and King County will have a park with some in the heart of the county seat, a park that will remain a park for all.
And the stewardship will not be taken lightly.
It's also an opportunity for us to consider reopening the original Jefferson street entrance, which flowed into the park for nearly 80 years and would lead to more foot traffic in the park and off of third Avenue.
Adding to- Council Member Goodwells, I'm so sorry.
Your time has expired, but thank you for calling in and thank you for your comments.
Okay, next speaker, Mr. Clerk.
Chair, that concludes our list of speakers.
Thank you so much.
So the public hearing having been concluded, or the speaker's list having been concluded, we don't have any additional public items in terms of the next steps.
This proposal around the potential land transfer of City Hall Park is still going through the SEPA process.
So I don't think we have another scheduled check-in for this topic in committee yet, checking with the clerk, we don't yet.
So we will continue to, talk to Seattle Parks about what the potential next step for considering this is given that state environmental policy work is still pending on this project.
There's not a plan for a vote at this time, but members of the public will be duly informed when there is a scheduled vote for the council to formally make a decision on the transfer that has been proposed.
So with that, colleagues, we don't have any additional agenda items.
Does anyone have anything for the good of the order before we adjourn this afternoon's meeting?
I don't see any comments from colleagues.
I will just very, very briefly, make a public announcement.
And I made this at the conclusion of full council yesterday.
But in case people are watching and interested, there will be two additional public hearing opportunities for people to weigh in on the Metropolitan Park District renewal publicly.
One of those opportunities will be on Monday, August 15th at the Rainier Beach Community Center at 6 p.m.
And the second will be at the Northgate Community Center on Wednesday, September 7th, also at 6 p.m.
Both of these Metropolitan Park District hearings are gonna be taking only in-person public comment.
Just as a reminder, at all of the Metropolitan Park District meetings that we have in council chambers, we accept virtual comments.
So this is really an additional supplemental opportunity for us to try to get out to one location in South Seattle, one location in North Seattle, and have some additional in-person opportunities to provide public comment for folks who otherwise might not be able to get downtown to participate in our Metropolitan Park District meetings.
So I just wanted to remind people of that opportunity.
I'm going to make another public announcement about them on at council briefing next Monday and probably send out a formal statement about those comments or about those opportunities in the coming days.
But I just wanted to make sure for those of you watching and following the Metropolitan Park District, there are gonna be two other opportunities to provide in-person feedback.
With that, colleagues, it is 3.35 p.m.
and hearing no additional business, I'm gonna go ahead and adjourn this meeting of the Seattle Public Assets and Homelessness Committee.
Thank you.