Chuckanut Ridge and Greenways
"There are legal challenges on the vesting and the application of the
critical areas ordinance. There are unresolved questions about
transportation impacts and what sort of mitigation would be required
and if it's practical or affordable. Once those are resolved only then
will they be able to determine what the true costs are and the true
development potential of the property."
Would you support the commitment made by Mayor Asmundson and the four
council members of $8M to be made available from Greenways or other
funds for the City’s acquisition of Chuckanut Ridge?
Rather than focusing on Greenways funds as the key, I believe the
conversation on Chuckanut Ridge needs to start elsewhere. In the end
I hope public purchase will play a role, but I would look first to
other ways to secure and protect as much of this urban forest treasure
as possible.
Chuckanut Ridge is a rare and invaluable community asset that ought to
be protected from development regardless of where it is located. It
is also a poor choice for large multifamily development, due to
Critical Areas concerns, traffic impacts, school impacts, and effects
on neighborhood character. From a community planning perspective,
when we are moving away from large residential-only developments and
reliance upon the automobile and are moving towards downtown
redevelopment and mixed-use urban centers, the Fairhaven Highlands
proposal runs against our community’s vision.
In my view, these and other reasons argue against the development of
Chuckanut Ridge, and I would work to eliminate the harm that such
development would bring. I have walked the property and looked at
this project from all sides. Personally and through organizations, I
have raised these issues to our elected officials, and I drafted the
Coalition of Southside Neighborhoods’ public comment letter on the
scope of the EIS to ensure that these concerns were properly
addressed.
Various legal, regulatory, and financial matters complicate the issue.
The proper regulations and mitigation requirements, which hold the
promise of substantially reducing the development potential and value
of the property, have not been established yet. Only after these
issues are settled will it be the proper time to consider public
purchase of some or all of Chuckanut Ridge.
Will you support the requirement that the developer will pay for and
build the 24th Street connector (or widen the 12th Street Bridge) if
the density is larger than the two lots per acre as originally zoned
on Chuckanut Ridge?
Yes, I would work to secure agreements to fully mitigate traffic
impacts before occupancy of any residential development. Each of
these mitigation efforts raises serious issues. For instance, a 24th
Street connector would threaten off-site wetlands, and could prevent
us from acquiring land for public trail corridor connecting the
Interurban system with Fairhaven Park. The bottleneck created by
the12th Street Bridge, and adjacent intersections, is an even more
acute problem, which I feel must be dealt with before any project is
approved.