ORCHARD STREET RAVINE

December 13^th, 2005 Meeting Comments

1. Alternative presented does not offer pedestrian access to neighborhood. Private park for neighbors on Orchard.


2. Concern regarding budget – will all $175k be able to be spent on restoration in 2 years?


3. Point of clarification. $48k for restoration. $25k for trail. Where does other $100k go?


4. Appreciates consideration of sidewalks. What does “recommendation” mean? Are other options off the table?


5. Will parking area be developed in cul de sac? There is concern about access – can parking be improved?


6. Concern about recommendation. Neighborhood plan and Green Crescent call for connected pedestrian access.


7. There is a precedent of stairways to access steep slopes through other greenbelts.


8. $175k is a lot for restoration.


9. Park should serve whole community, not become a private park.


10. Why did you present trails in first place?


11. Why didn’t the community get an opportunity to vote on the options?


12. Orchard Ravine is a greenspace not an active recreation park.


13. Levy language emphasizes habitat restoration, not trails.


14. Attachment A of levy specifies trail.


15. Pedestrian access doesn’t serve neighborhood.


16. Concern regarding long-term funding.


17. People on 36^th , Othello & Myrtle are being left out.


18. Safety issues are not being addressed.


19. Purpose of trail was through access, not a loop.


20. How many parks have only one access?


21. 36^th access is not developed, nor is Orchard, 38^th fully developed. There is no good access to the site.


22. What stewardship has occurred since park was acquired?


23. How will loop trail not increase crime?


24. Why did you present steep slope trails if not viable?


25. How will social and animal trails be avoided?


26. What about views?


27. What about the land-locked house?


28. What about wildlife?


29. Does the current recommendation preclude a future through-trail project?


30. No one is against restoration, we wouldn’t be having the argument if trail wasn’t mentioned.


31. If neighborhood wanted private park, they would already have one.


32. SDOT safety issues on Orchard Street. If physical reality is no through trail, there shouldn’t be a trail at all.


33. Cost of project based on trail.


34. Neighborhood organizations have vetted the through-trail option through an extensive process.


35. There is not a wall keeping people out of park.


36. Visual access will be improved from restoration.