Park Community Council
Portage Bay/Roanoke Park Community Council Minutes
November 17, 2015
St. Patrick’s Church
A brief executive board meeting voted to postpone the election of new officers until the January
meeting in 2016. Candidates are still being recruited.
Pete Delaunay, Council president opened the meeting at 7:00 pm.
The Treasurer’s report was included in the meeting agenda since Walter Oelwein could not attend.
Overall Balance $22,036.42
General Funds Available $5,324.11
Roanoke Park Fund $1,026.47
Astrid Park Fund $1,325.97
Elms Fund $13,859.87
South Portage Bay Park Fund $500.00
Minutes of July 2, 2015 Posted on the PB/RP CC website
Introductions by Pete Delaunay
John Gaines, PB/RP CC Vice President and neighborhood representative to the City/University Community Advisory Committee (CUCAC). The UW is in the process of it’s next 10 year update to the Campus Master Plan to guide the growth of the UW campus for the next decade. CUCAC represents the interests of the community in the development of the Master Plan.
John O’Neil, Facilities Manager at Seattle Prep and a liaison from Prep to our Crime Prevention through Environmental Design grant for the area beneath SR 520.
Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Barbara Krieger
Barbara Krieger reminded people that in the event of a major disaster citizens will need to sustain themselves for up to 7 days before other help can arrive. She emphasized the necessity for our community to begin to organize for disaster preparedness by forming block watches and developing a neighborhood HUB center where all information and assistance may be coordinated. If you are interested in helping with our community plan please contact Barbara at email@example.com
Denny Award to Friends of Roanoke Park Fran Conley
Gerry Conley, Head Steward of Roanoke Park, has been told that our neighborhood park volunteers, The Friends of Roanoke Park, have been awarded a Group Denny Award. Seattle Parks and Recreation initiated the Denny Awards in 2003 and are named after David T. and Louisa Denny, who donated land for the first Seattle park in 1884 (Denny Park) where Seattle Parks and Recreation headquarters is located. Their purpose is to recognize “individuals, businesses or organizations deemed to have made an exemplary to parks and recreation in Seattle.
“Friends of Roanoke Park was established in the mid-1990a. The Friends maintain, transplant, remove and replace plants and trees in the best interest of the park. They support Seattle Parks and Recreation with turf maintenance and the group raises its own funds and takes initiative on projects. Another one of the group’s priorities is to take care of the large elm trees that border the park. The group has provided care and support to Seattle Parks and Recreation to keep the beautiful trees healthy and free from Dutch Elm disease. There are very few strong elms left in the city, and the Friends of Roanoke Park are allowing residents to witness their magnificence.” A ceremony to honor the award winners will be held on December 1, 2015 from 6 pm to 9pm at the Museum of Flight located at 9404 East Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98108
Response to our community’s concerns about Mayor Murray’s SR520 “The Rest of the West Resolution. Lyle Bicknell, DPD, City of Seattle Community SR520 Liaison
Lyle began by stating that it would probably be at least 12 years before the “Rest of the West” is completed. The phasing and the funding of the project is tricky due to the length of time needed to complete the work that may be dragged out for many years. He assured us that all elements of the project are to be completed at once and not segmented.
There will be construction impacts just as there are in Montlake now with the WABN construction. He encouraged people to visit the construction site in Montlake now to get an idea of what may be ahead. That project is to be completed in 2017. Lyle also encouraged us to drive across SR520 and look at the lids that have been built over SR520 on the Eastside.
The design for the Box Girder Bridge over Portage Bay is still only 10% completed, but it will be wider with a separation in the middle to allow for more light below. There will be 6 lanes, safety shoulder lanes on each side and a 14 ft bike and pedestrian corridor. One lane each way will be a dedicated HOV lane.
Our community needs to hold WSDOT accountable for impacts we know will need mitigation:
The use of Noise-absorptive materials
Minimal amount of bridge signage
Bridge lighting that is sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods
Protection from demolition noise and timing of use of haul routes by heavy trucks
Documentation of pre-construction condition of homes in our historic neighborhoods.
Although the completion of the “Rest of the West” is not in the near future, our neighborhood voice in this major project needs to remain strong and involved.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm
Joan Stewart, Secretary
The following document was sent to Lyle Bicknell in advance of the community council meeting:
Portage Bay Roanoke Park Community Council (www.pbrpcommunitycouncil.org)
Since the Seattle City Council adopted Resolution 31611 without specific consideration of our neighborhood concerns, we have developed the following questions for our City SR520 liaison, Lyle Bicknell, to discuss at the next PBRP Community Council Meeting on November 17, 7 p.m. at St. Pat’s.
Bridge Design and Construction
1. The resolution was amended to support extending the SR 520 Portage Bay Bridge bike and pedestrian lane across I-5 through the very difficult to use Roanoke/Harvard/10th intersection. How will this be planned? Will the Delmar lid be impacted? What will be SDOT’s input?
2. Section 7 of the resolution states that “the City expects final phases of SR520 not to be completed incrementally. Funding and construction of the remaining components should allow for the project to be completed in the shortest duration possible, with a focus on limiting impacts to the neighborhoods and communities in the project area.” What is meant by the phrase “the final phases of SR 520 not to be completed incrementally”?
3. What is the current timeline to construct SR 520 from the Montlake intersection to I-5? Does the City prefer that all the work be completed in one construction phase or with two phases?
(First phase the Portage Bay Bridge replacement and second phase the connection from the bridge to I-5?)
Neighborhood Area Mitigation
1. Resolution 31611 supports use of SR 520 mitigation funds for additional pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the Montlake area. This funding was supported by ‘Greenways’ organizations including Montlake. Have these newly created Greenways organizations been given recognition or unusual weight as compared to that of established community councils? If so, should the PBRP community also create a Greenways’organization?
2. The Citywide 2014 draft map Greenways map (shhttp://www.seattle.gov/transportation/images/2014-Work-Plan-Map.jpg) appears to show four Greenways in our RP-BP neighborhood. They are: 1) Delmar Drive, 2) following the route of the Roanoke Street stairs/right-of-way between 10th Avenue and Boyer, 3) Along 10th Ave. from Roanoke/Delmar north to Shelby and 4) Shelby between Harvard and Boyer/Fuhrman. Why were these greenways not in resolution 31611? Why was PB-RP CC not asked to participate in the 2014 map development? What authority does this map have? Can it be changed?
3. Our community, along with Montlake, had requested a comprehensive solution to traffic safety and movement of pedestrians, bikers, buses, and cars through this area. What else is being considered for both our neighborhoods on an area wide basis?
4. Substantial 520 impacts have and will occur in Portage Bay waters and wetlands managed by WSDOT and Seattle Parks. These impacts include shading, sedimentation, water quality degradation and an explosion of invasive non-native water plants. Will the City monitor and/or regulate any of these impacts?
1. WSDOT must obtain a Seattle Street Use Permit from the SDOT Director. In addition to obtaining approval for street usage requirements, the permit implementation ordinance lists environmental factors as an area of consideration. Can the PB-RP CC work with SDOT in the development of permit conditions?
2. Will the City monitor SR 520 project mitigation funding to help ensure that the full amount of WSDOT pledged funding will remain available for mitigation in our neighborhood area that likely will be the last to be completed?
3. Will city work to ensure the installation of landscaping or landscaped buffers where feasible in areas where buffer zones are being removed or reduced? Will the City install or oversee the installation of vegetation areas on lids and other green areas?
Passing Another Resolution
Resolution 31611 reiterated the council request in Resolution 31427 "that the City and State continue to develop and evaluate options in respect to the following issues and recommendations in the Final Report: Roanoke Area, Portage Bay Bridge, Montlake Area, and pedestrian and multimodal connections generally;" Section 1 of Resolution 31611 contains headings for all of the four issues EXCEPT our RP-PB CC Area. Therefore, we request development of another resolution with specific related to our neighborhood including :
1. Reference to the existing SR 520 City Shoreline Permit and other documents related to the NEPA/ SEPA Record of Decision plus the Portage Bay shoreline- Boyer to Delmar CPTED pedestrian pathway that have been reviewed by WSDOT staff.
2. The following items listed in the Community Petition that was submitted during Council consideration of Resolution 31611:
• The use of noise-absorptive materials along the four-foot barriers where planned within the corridor, and throughout. WSDOT will encapsulate the Portage Bay Bridge joints in an effort to reduce noise.
• Bridge lighting designed to minimize lighting impact on adjoining properties and landscape, while at the same time maintaining the safety of the roadway.
• Implementation of a speed limit of 45 mph on SR 520 from the West high-rise to I-5.
• Design of a bridge keeping with the historic character of our area. We have advanced a ‘shared vision’ for the bridge design that fits within the preferred ‘box girder’ design footprint.
• Documentation of pre-construction condition of adjacent structures and that structural damage, loss of income, should be repaired or reimbursed by WSDOT directly to affected adjacent property owners.