From the Computer of Mayor Dave
I do not believe that Ordinance 907 will solve the access, safety, liability and signage issues that are important in the redevelopment of the Burke-Gilman trail.
I am certain that the City, King County and members of the community can work together to reach our common goals for the Burke-Gilman Trail. I have met with King County several times since the passage of Ordinance 907. I have received from the County Executive commitments to initiate a Lake Forest Park Citizen’s Advisory Task Force for the Burke-Gilman Trail, to have the outline of an Interlocal Agreement with King County that describes our common understanding of the process and timelines for trail redevelopment and a reorganization of the County team to include representative from the Executive’s Office.
My letter to the City Council outlining my written objections to Ordinance 907, is posted below. You can also read a news release on my veto of the ordinance.
Mayor's Letter to the City Council
News Release: Mayor Vetoes Ordinance 907
Coordination Maximizes Resources
The City of Shoreline, the Shoreline School District, YMCA, and LFP have begun a dialogue to coordinate the parks and recreation programs within the School District Area. Previously, each provider was working independently.
This resulted in a overlapping among programs and an inadvertent lack of support for each other’s programs. Dr. Jim Welsh, Superintendent of the Shoreline School District, called a meeting to establish a collaborative staff effort to coordinate resources, and to make sure we are getting the best out of our recreational program dollars. A similar process is needed in human resource programming too.
Ordinance 907
I am asking the City Council to set aside Ordinance 907. By doing so, the City of Lake Forest Park will be able to enter into good faith negotiation with King County on the redevelopment of the trail when the studies on the Burke-Gilman Trail are complete.
Background:
The Burke Gilman Trail is over 25 years old. The oldest segment of the trail runs through Lake Forest Park. The trial was developed when the area was part of unincorporated King County. When the trail was developed there were significant community concerns. Residents were concerned about the potential impact on property values, crime, privacy and access. Over the years these issues have been addressed in a variety of ways.
- In 1987 the Seattle Engineering Department did a study on the trail’s effect on property values and crime. They found the values of the homes actually increased more than other homes and that they were easier to sell. The study found that trespassing was not a problem for residents living adjacent to the trail and that overall the trail had a positive effect on the quality of life in neighborhoods adjacent to the trail.
- In 1988 King County developed rules for trail use. These were revised in 1995. These
included a speed limit of 15 MPH. The rules also say “speed shall be controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with others who are complying with the law and using reasonable care.”
Defining the Problem:
There remain several major issues that need additional attention: access, liability, signage, safety and inter-jurisdictional issues on regional trails. Access
Lake Forest Park citizens who live along the trail want to be sure they have access to their homes. There is a concern about the difficulty in crossing the trail. This is compounded by concerns about their safety and the safety of bicyclist.
Liability
Trailside homeowners believe that a Stop sign provides them with legal protection if an accident occurs between a car and a bicycle. This question of liability needs to be researched and addressed.
Signage
Almost all cyclists disregard the Stop signs. Some bicyclists slow down and look but do not stop. Their perception seems to be that since cars are infrequent at the intersections, the stop signs do not serve the purpose for which they are intended. Some people have raised the issue of Yield signs as an alternative.
Safety
Many citizens are concerned about the safety on the trail. The narrowness of the trail forces pedestrians and cyclists alike to be in single file when passing each other. Users are crowded and the speeds of cyclists appear to pedestrians to be faster than the posted limits. There are on the trail, as on every road in every city, some people who speed. These individuals should be encouraged to use alternative routes.
Inter-jurisdictional Issues
King County owns the trail and it brings to the discussion regional concerns. The trail runs through the City and affects our citizens. The City of Lake Forest Park is in the position of influencing the County’s decision, but does not have decision-making authority.
Where We Are Now:
King County is doing a study to collect information to address the trail issues and to make proposals for improvements. After the County has completed the study and we know what the proposals are, Lake Forest Park and the County should work collaboratively to develop solutions. I think we all agree that:
- The Burke Gilman Trail is an asset for everyone who lives in Lake Forest Park. The trail is an amenity that entices people to live in our community. In a sense, everyone in Lake Forest Park lives near the trail.
- The safety of all of the trail users is of paramount concern.
- We have an interest in making sure that the trail does not burden trailside homeowners with liabilities or dangers above and beyond what other homeowners in the City of Lake Forest Park experience when driving.
My Concerns:
I have several concerns about this ordinance:
- This ordinance gives the appearance of blocking any upgrading of the trail. I believe the upgrading of the trail is in the best interests of the people who live along the trail, the residents of the City of Lake Forest Park and the people who use the trail.
- This ordinance does not address the issues facing the community: access, liability, signage, safety and the inter-jurisdictional issues.
- We need to balance the needs and concerns of all the trail users. I think we can do this by working in cooperation with all the interested parties. The County has indicated an openness to look at new alternatives to making the trail safer and for looking at technological innovations that will assist homeowners in making safer crossings.
My Recommendation:
I am recommending that the City Council put aside proposed Ordinance 907 and enter into negotiations with King County. In my view it will be more effective to work with the County to insure that the solutions balance the competing needs of all of the stakeholders. Ordinance 907 will not get us to the place we want to be—a safer trail for all users.