7/7/07 Mayor Ives could have partnered AND negotiated to save Perrigo Woods

7/18/07 During last night's Council meeting regarding Perrigo Heights easement, Councilwoman Kim Allen voiced concerns for the three, long 20-30 foot wide easements that had been stripped clean of all trees. The easements are for sewer, stormwater and water pipes. CAMWEST indicated that new trees would be planted on these easements. I don't think so! as I recall, common construction practices are to plant only native vegetation cover, NOT trees -- because tree roots can work their way into the pipes. Question: why didn't the Director of Public Works or the Senior Planner approach the podium to clarify Camwest's answer. If not for Councilwoman Kim Allen then the viewing public ? ??

Stormwater piping will be trenched under an ancient Snoqualmie Indian village site directly into Perrigo Creek. The stormwater will be released downstream from the wetland into Perrigo Creek. Thus, all rainwater from the forest (now the development) will be diverted away from the wetlands! With the trees stripped, sun is now "feeding" invasive plants in the wetlands. The wetlands are drying; possibly now slowing "dying". Public Works and Parks have been notified and will monitor this Priority park wetland resource.

Considering public outcries to save this hilltop woodland, the caving in of the City of Redmond to short-term budgetary pressures and CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT, INC. to short-term higher margins is astounding and sad. Considering the $71,000,000 the city is spending for the City Hall over 40 years, investing a small percentage of our capital fund to conserve the long-term values our culture & this urban forest seems prudent. Regarding City Hall waste: standard sized (less luxurious) hallways, fewer waterless urinal gadgets, less imported tile, more efficient use of space for records storage, reasonably priced, well received art, could alone have pared the money needed to save the woods as a passive, educational park.

Last night the Mayor mentioned the word "partnering" again, in association with CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT, INC. When she thanked CAMWEST for going out of their way to PARTNER with the city on the 3.24 acre "greenway" arrangement, I almost gagged. CAMWEST and the City already have a partnership from the scores of developments they've mutually approved. What didn't take place in this partnership were needed NEGOTIATIONS to acquire the hilltop woodlands! When I asked city officials and CAMWEST if either party negotiated in earnest, the silence was deafening. The Administration clearly dropped the ball on Perrigo Heights. Our Council Parks Chair had nothing to say about negotiating, nor the Mayor, or Camwest. It is clear the city sees no need for passive, urban ,non-recreational parks at a time when our aging demographics require it.

What DID take place were professional, savvy negotiations by CAMWEST DEVELOPEMNT as they leveraged their "feel good partnership" with the Mayor. CAMWEST was able to trade off 3.24 acres of the greenway land they really didn't want owing to: 1) public relations (huge houses would sit right on top of the trail and wetland upsetting every citizen walking by, 2) those towering "trail houses" would lose their value without a backyard tree buffer, 3) a planned detention pond sited for the greenway was replaced by an underground wet-vault further up the hill.

Thus, CAMWEST had no use for the vacated pond site, YET the city paid CAMWEST for this land. 4) the steep greenway land was hardly buildable for a reasonable profit and may have been a previous surface requirement anyway. Despite all these benefits to CAMWEST our City Administration still gave the equivalent of $1 million for the greenway. Keep in mind, lots 22,23,24 (comprised of .64 acres) could not have been built without the city giving CAMWEST the vacation easement. The City charged CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT nothing for use of these easement building sites. Not all "partnering" or negotiating by the city for the Greenway was transparent and certainly not for the hilltop woodlands. A question remains: what other lands, if any, has Mayor Ives "partnered" away to developers at the expense of natural urban forest passive recreation?

The greater community is still asking and looking for the map and survey of the greenway our Administration "partnered" to secure. The greenway-development boundary is further muddied by the city's 20-foot "clearing limits" whereby trees within 15-20 feet of the outside of the boundary (and possibly inside the greenway) may be cleared.

The city failed in not hiring a professional negotiator. For all we know, our warm-hearted mayor -- highly influenced by previous and pending CAMWEST land-use deals -- was left face-t0-face with a highly seasoned, professional negotiator in Camwest's owner, Eric Campbell. Remember, CAMWEST makes it's core living negotiating with landowners and jurisdictions. While our Mayor is a politician, shaping public opinion while trying to please "everyone".

Attention: next Mayor! IN FUTURE LAND AQUISITION DEALS OF THIS NATURE PLEASE HIRE A PROFESSIONAL LAND-USE NEGOTIATOR TO REPRESENT OUR CITY. We hire "facilitators" for council retreats & "outcome-based budgeting". We hire "consultants" for election advice? We hire "qualified wetland and geotechnical consultants" for land-use projects. We keep hiring our 20-year municipal lawyer to negotiate labor law, jurisdictional laws, zoning laws, facilitate council meetings, and on. Why can't we hire an objective, professional land-use negotiator. In my Fortune 500 medical sales career in National Accounts, my negotiations with "hospital buying groups" were always joined at the hip to corporate partnering.

CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT, INC. is the other side of the story. It's now quite obvious they are in our neighborhoods exclusively for profit and "just because they can"; they are the most powerful landowner and influential developer in the City of Redmond. This, a sad state of affairs considering CAMWEST IS one of the city's biggest customers and depend ultimately depend on Redmond residents for their income stream.

Old update of 6/11/07 - Mayor Rosemarie Ives has NOT yet explained her decision to clear our urban forest. I asked Mayor Ives and Jim Robinson (Council Chair of Parks) if the city negotiated in earnest with CAMWEST to acquire the forest. Neither answered. I also emailed CAMWEST with the same question. No response from either party. Assumption: no earnest negotiations for the the 8 acre woodland ever took place.

The city council OMBUDSMAN gave the following two reasons not for pursuing acquisition of the Perrigo Heights forest:

Mr. Yoder, "The Parks Board and the City Council have been aware of your request for the City to purchase the land. In general, the land was considered very expensive and Education Hill is served by more parks than any other neighborhood in Redmond." Mr. Marchione, City of Redmond Ombudsman-for-the-month.

DISCLAIMER: Mr. Marchione's statement is representative of the entire council and mayor, not one person. Mr. Marchione is primarily speaking as the messenger for the entire City Council, since his was the OMBUDSMAN for that month.

My response: Primary: the land was very expensive because the Administration didn't negotiate. 1) According to the most recent Parks report, Ed. Hill ranks 4th in total neighborhood park acreage, 2) the city has at least $14M in unallocated funds that could have been used in acquisition negotiations, and 3) the pending parks levy was an unused revenue generator for acquisition and 4) Perrigo Heights may have been misconstrued as a threat to the levy rather than a stimulus to passage of the minuscule 5 cent "mocha latte" levy. BY

Anyone wishing to respond or comment (city official, developer, citizen) may email me at redmondblog@gmail.com and I will post their comments.