Parks Comm PKT 09-01-2005 • •
• CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Thursday, September 1, 2005 Hylebos Conference Room
6 :00 p.m. City Hall
AGENDA
I. Public Forum
II. Approval of Minutes
III. Commission Business /Reports
A. Lakota/Sacajawea Master Plan Review /Action Sanders
B. Field Scheduling Meeting Information Pfeiffer
C. Sacajawea Field Warranty Infollnation Pfeiffer
IV. Staff Reports
A. Fundraising Campaign Infonnation Faber
B. Cabin/Park Design Infonnation Sanders
• C. Community Center Infonnation Sanders
D. Parks Rec. Open Space Plan Information Sanders
E. Camp Kilworth Information Hanson
F. Downtown Public Space Infonnation Hanson
G. French Lake Park Infonnation Hanson
H. Dumas Bay Park Infonnation Hanson
V. Pending Items
A. All -City Parks Clean -Up Day
B. Special Use Permit Policies
VI. PRHSPS Council Committee Meeting
Monday, September 12, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in Hylebos Conference Room
VII. Next Meeting /Agenda Items
VIII. Adjournment
Next Meeting is October 6, 2005
•
•
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL. SERVICES
• Thursday, August 4, 2005 Hylebos Conference Room
6:00 p.m. City Hall
MINUTES
Chair Purdom called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Present: Chair C.T. Purdom, Vice Chair George Pfeiffer, Ade Bright, Don Dennis, Fred Konkell, Tom Medhurst
and Marie Sciacqua. Excused: Cindy Dodge, Joel Howitt and David Talcott.
Staff: Steve Ikerd, Parks and Facilities Superintendent, Mary Faber, Recreation and Cultural Services
Superintendent, Betty Sanders, Parks Planning and Development Coordinator, and Peggy Wright, Parks Operations
Administrative Assistant.
Guests: Jeanne Burbidge, City Council member.
Dennis moved: Konkell seconded motion to approve June meeting minutes as written. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC FORUM
In attendance: Ed Jones, Harrell and Sally Hurst, Joseph and Pat Spransy, Julie Seitz and Ed Opstad.
Ed Jones — stated he had asked the City Council for city involvement in returning Dumas Bay Park to the animal
sanctuary status from years past. Currently there are issues with teen drinking parties, fires on the beach and in park,
litter /garbage and vandalism with continual calls to police. In the two weeks since he addressed council there have
been six 911 calls made with one pertaining to teenagers carrying a gun in the park, another for a car in the ditch and
cooking meth on the beach. The neighbors assist the Parks department by closing and locking the gate to discourage
after -hours illegal activity. Mr. Jones is requesting the parking lot be lit, repair signage on park hours and rules, "no
parking" signs posted outside the gate and additional police patrols.
Joe Spransy — he would like to see the park returned to a sanctuary for wildlife. The neighborhood has concerns that
the park is deteriorating from lack of attention and lack of security, i.e., one -way exit is broken so accessible by
vehicles. He feels the park needs to be preserved as a city landmark.
Harrell Hurst — he wanted to thank the City for making French Lake Park a dog park area. He has been using it for
years for his dog. He said it would help if the gate could be closed to contain the dogs in the area.
Julie Seitz — she is a user of French Lake as a dog park and expressed her appreciation for the opportunity.
Sally Hurst — she stated that there appears to be increased use because people were not aware the park was there.
Jeanne Burbidge — she shares the concerns from Dumas Bay Park complaintants. Director Hanson had sent a letter
addressing the concerns of the Dumas Bay Park neighbors. Chair Purdom noted that there had been a change in
staff that has significantly changed the communication and information getting to the commission on these issues.
This was the first time the conunission was aware of the issues at Dumas Bay Park. Mr Spransy submitted a letter to
the commission for informational purposes that will be in the September packet as well as the letter from Director
Hanson.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Cabin /Park Desicn — Parks Planning and Development Coordinator B. Sanders reported that the design includes a
unique pervious pavement eliminating the need for an extensive stormwater system. In addition, landscaping with
irrigation and restrooms with water /sewer hookups have been added to the design. The Public Works department
will assist in the cost of the pervious pavement as a "test "site. Discussion followed on the pervious pavement
concerns of water run -off, oil residue, close proximity to buffer zone, etc. Ms. Sanders will have Public Works
• provide more information on their study of the product. The commission will wait until September for "action" on
this item until they have received additional information.
Chair Purdom said Director Hanson will be sending bi- monthly parks reports to commissioners and plans on
meeting with each connnissioner individually. She will also begin attending the meetings on a regular basis.
Chair Purdom said all commissione
rs had received an email from Director Hans on the resignation of Kurt Reuter
and introduced Steve Ikerd, the Superintendent of Parks and Facilities, who has assumed Kurt's position.
Superintendent Ikerd shared his work history and a short summary of his new duties. Chair Purdom asked that Steve
conununicate with the commission as a part of his new position.
Chair Purdom and Vice Chair Pfeiffer asked that a letter of appreciation be sent to Kurt Reuter for his years of •
service through the PRCS Director office. Upon further discussion, they decided they would draft the letter and
bring to the September meeting for conunission signature. Chair Purdom asked commissioners to let him know if
they had any specific information they would like included in the letter.
Chair Purdom read a letter to the commission from the Federal Way Youth Soccer League. They were concerned
last fall with the forecast of budget shortfalls in the parks maintenance division. They offered volunteers to help
pick up litter and mow to keep the fields in good condition. They feel it of the utmost importance that fields be
maintained in a safe, quality manner for the teams. With this in mind, they raised and presented the City with a
check for $5,000. Chair Purdom presented the check and letter to council member Jeanne Burbidge to take to the
Council Connnittee meeting on Monday.
STAFF REPORTS
Fundraising Campaign — Superintendent Faber discussed the structure of the campaign committee and relayed
information from two prior meetings. An outdoor patio off the pool area and an outdoor patio off the Senior Lounge
with possibly a raised garden area for flower gardening is being discussed with the architect as possible additions to
the Community Center. Three committees have been formed for'the fundraising campaign: Steering Committee will
provide overall management of the campaign, Grants & Prospects Research Committee will research different grant
sources and the Community Events Committee members will attend various city -wide functions to work as
spokespersons and solicit for the campaign. The part -time position to be hired to assist in the campaign has been
proposed and is in the City Manager office for review.
Community Center Update — Ms Sanders reported that she emailed commissioners on the logging activity for the
community center. She has contacted property neighbors and especially those along 333 Street to inform of the
logging truck /heavy equipment activity and parking issues. Trees are being Logged, stumps ground and the removal •
of topsoil has begun. Ms Sanders said it could take up to two months to perform the sitework m preparation for
pouring the building foundation. The construction manager is Brandy Matthews Fox at this stage of the construction.
Camp Kilworth — A memo from Director Hanson states that the City has until September 14, 2005 to conclude the
due diligence and finalize negotiations on the Camp Kilworth property. To assist in the process, the City hired an
environmental consulting firm and an appraiser. The report from the environmental group is expected the end of
July and the appraiser information in early August. Pfeiffer said the number one question asked concerned the
funding source and commissioners would like to this information in the next report. Ms Sanders reported that the
environmental report stated there were no wetlands on the property and the geotech report showed that development
should be back at least 100 feet from the bluff along Dumas Bay and 50 feet back from the edge of the ravine. It
was discussed why the City continues to buy property for parks when staff cannot maintain the parks we have nor
funds to develop other sites already owned by the City.
French Lake Park — Ms Sanders distributed a document on five different dog parks in the state listing their "pros"
and "challenges " - Golden Gardens Park, Magnuson Park, Marymoor Park, Northacres Park and Woodland Park.
Staff checked and Lakehaven repaired one area of fence in the park. Concerns on the water pond in French Lake
becoming contaminated from dogs using it was discussed. Staff is currently working on developing rules, dog waste
management and decisions on fencing and gates.
Downtown Park — The first of two public meetings is scheduled for Monday, August 29, 2005 on the ongoing
downtown economic development planning effort. This meeting will be informational on options.
Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan — Ms Sanders distributed a timeline on updating the park plan. Phase I would
be collecting data (statistical surveys, website, public /focus meetings), evaluation of recreation programs and take an
inventory of parks and open space properties from approximately August 2005 to January, 2006: Phase II would be
goal setting to set parks vision, level of service and to develop policies and goals through March, 2006: Phase III is
developing an implementation strategy from February to May, 2006 and Phase IV which is adoption of the plan in
June, 2006. Commissioners discussed how difficult it is to hold public meetings with public apathy. A survey
inserted in the Winter Parks and Recreation brochure was suggested as well as one on the city website in the near
future.
Chair Purdom will be attending the Council Committee meeting on Monday, August 8 in Hylebos conference room
at 5:30 p.m.
• •
PENDING ITEMS
• All -City Parks Clean -Up Day Special Use Permit Policies
NEXT MEETING /AGENDA ITEMS
Cabin/Park Design Dumas Bay Park Fundraising Campaign
Camp Kilworth Downtown Park French Lake Park
Lakota /Sacajawea Master Plan Field Scheduling Meeting
Sacajawea Field Warranty Issue Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Purdom adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
NEXT MEETING IS OCTOBER 6, 2005
•
•
• •
Agenda Report
Parks Commission Meeting
September 1, 2005
Agenda item
•
E. Camp Kilworth
City Manager and Staff has been meeting regularly with representatives of the Boy
Scouts. Negotiations have been progressing. A report will most likely be provided to
the City Council in September. At the last Parks Commission meeting there was a
request for information about the funding source to purchase Camp Kilworth.
Preliminary information is that funding could come from a variety of sources, but in
talking with the Finance Department, they are looking at one -time Real estate excise
tax revenues and potential grants. We know that the purchase can be structured in
order to be eligible for grants in the near future.
F. Downtown Public Space
A workshop featuring presentation by consultants from RTKL Associates on public
open spaces of different sizes, scale, scope and programs is scheduled for Monday
August 29 from 6:00 to 8:OOpm at City Hall in the Patrick Maher Conference Room
on the first floor. The purpose of the presentations is to inform the public and set the
stage for public input and participation m the visioning process. All Parks
Commissioners have been invited. More details of that meeting will be provided after
• . the 29t1
G. French Lake Park
Comments from the citizens using the Off Leash Dog Park have been positive. So far
there have been no negative comments from neighbors. Staff is working with
itaterested citizens concerning a gate to the park and "doggie bags." We are trying to
use the equipment already installed to save money on the gate. We are also
researching other cities and the most cost effective and environmentally responsible
method of providing "doggie bags." Maintenance crews who do the mowing at this
site say that the dog waste has been cleaned up dramatically over previous years.
H. Dumas Bay Park
As previously reported staff spoke with Mr. Schrantz about the neighborhood
concerns noted in the minutes from the last meeting. Staff has talked with the Public
Works Department about a light in the parking lot and no parking signs outside the
parking lot. We will have to go through PSE to request a light. The park hours are
posted until 6:OOpm, which is different from other parks in the City. Staff has also
been in contact with Washington State Fish and Wildlife concerning what we can do
for the sanctuary.
•
• •
• Lakota and Sacajawea Parks Master Plan
Executive Summary (DRAFT)
Plans for the development of Lakota and Sacajawea Parks were launched in early 2004 when the City of
Federal Way retained MacLeod Reckord to evaluate the sites and create a Master Plan for future use of the
properties. Programming needs were assessed to ensure all ideas and concerns relevant to this planning
process were addressed. The complex relationships between natural site characteristics such as topography
and vegetation, built features, aesthetic features, access and parking, adjacent and on -site land uses, inter -
local agreements with the school district, and regulatory restrictions all play important roles in the master
planting process. In addition, meetings with the City staff, the Parks Commission, the School District, and
public meetings with community members provided crucial input in the evolution of the Final Master Plan.
The Final Master Plans for Lakota and Sacajawea Parks accommodate a variety of users. Both plans
include public gathering areas, athletic events, a multi -use path system, parking, restrooms, a basketball
court, family picnic areas, children's play areas, and meadows and wooded areas that may be used for a
variety of informal activities. Sacajawea Park is unique in its provision of tennis courts. The Lakota Park
plan offers volleyball courts and viewing platforms into the large wetland on the south half of the property.
The Final Master Plans for each park are summarized below.
1111
•
• •
• Final Master Plan for Sacajawea Park — Summary (DRAFT)
The final concept plan for Sacajawea Park proposes modest changes to the locations of the existing athletic
facilities and adds passive recreational uses to the SE corner of the park.
New parking lots accommodate a total of 217 autos and 16 busses on both school district and park
properties. These lots replace +/ -177 existing auto spaces and 18 bus spaces. Paved service /fire access is
provided around the south and east sides of the school building. Existing vehicular access points to the site
are maintained in their current locations as recommended by the City's traffic engineers. A vehicular
entrance is added near the south -east corner of the site. Accessible parking and access are provided to all
site facilities.
The existing track is expanded to 8 lanes with new synthetic surfacing, and maintains it's current position
in order to preserve the existing artificial turf football /soccer field. A combined long jump /pole vault with
synthetic runways is located to the north of the track. A synthetic surfaced high jump fan and a shot put fan
surrounded by artificial turf are located in the track "D "s. The track, field events and football field are all
lighted.
Several retaining walls are located between the track and the baseball/softball fields due to the steep slope
and accessibility requirements there. The track bleachers are set into the hillside. An accessible axial
pedestrian pathway that doubles as an emergency vehicle access road divides the track from the
baseball/softball fields. A large public gathering space overlooks the ball fields and track, and acts as a
"knuckle" where the pedestrian path turns toward the main parking lot. A trellis structure accents the
gathering area. A restroom is conveniently situated close to the spectator areas for the track and play fields.
Storage facilities are provided for both the track and baseball/softball areas. A fenced storage and utility
• area is located at the east side of the school building. Ten pickleball courts and a basketball court are in an
easily monitored location close to the school building and parking.
The existing baseball and softball field locations have been rotated so their outfields no longer overlap, and
are moved slightly to the south to allow space for the emergency access /pedestrian pathway between the
track and fields. The new baseball/soccer fields are lighted and have artificial turf to allow more intense
scheduling of those fields. One full size soccer field may overlap the baseball outfield in two alternative
directions which reduces wear on the turf at the goals. A large retaining wall is necessary at the south and
northwest edges of the baseball outfield due to the steep slopes there. The softball field is ideally oriented
in a south - easterly direction and has an under - drained, irrigated natural turf outfield. Games may be viewed
from the bleachers located at the backstops, from adjacent sloped lawn areas, or from the public gathering
area at the northwest corner of the baseball /soccer field. The existing Qwest equipment is relocated to allow
for a full 200 foot softball outfield.
The Little League fields are redeveloped close to their existing location. The fields have under - drained,
irrigated natural turf outfields. Adequate space between them allows for dugouts, bleachers and pedestrian
access to the outfields.
A children's play area, four tennis courts, a restroom, parking, and a picnic area occupy the SE corner of
the park close to 116"' Avenue. These uses are intended to improve safety by increasing activity and
allowing_ better_ monitoring of that area. Visibility into the SE part of the park is improved with selective
removal of existing vegetation and trimming tree branches up.
•
• •
Final Master Plan for Lakota Park — Summary (DRAFT)
The f concept plan for Lakota Park maximizes development of athletic facilities on the north side of the
site, and emphsizes passive recreational activities on the south side of the site.
New parking lots accommodate a total of 255 autos on park property, 134 autos on school district property,
and 10 busses. These lots replace +/ -48 auto spaces on park property, +/ -120 auto spaces on school district
property, and + / -10 bus spaces. Existing vehicular access points to the site are maintained in their current
locations as recommended by the City's traffic engineers. Turning movements at the north entrance, across
from SW 314` Street, are restricted to right in/right out only. A vehicular connection is maintained between
this entrance and 14` Avenue SW (Adalaide Road). One vehicular entrance is added opposite SW 316`
Street. Accessible parking and access are provided to all site facilities.
New synthetic turf outfields and lighting allow for maximum scheduling of the baseball field and softball
fields. One baseball and two softball games may be played simultaneously. The softball infields are
constructed with colored synthetic turf to allow overlap of soccer fields with the infield areas. Two
regulation size soccer fields fit into the baseball /softball outfield area. One full size soccer field may
overlap the baseball outfield in two alternative directions which reduces wear on the turf at the goals. New
bleachers are situated at the backstops, and also at the south side of the field for viewing soccer games.
The existing track is relocated and expanded to 8 lanes with new synthetic surfacing. The track and field
events, and the football /soccer field are convenient to the school for shared use, and are ideally oriented in
a north -south direction. The artificial turf field is lighted to allow more intensive scheduling. A wall is
required along the east side of the track to retain the steep slope there. Bleachers are built into the slope.
A public gathering area, a children's play area, a restroom and a basketball court border the north side of •
the site. A trellis structure accents the gathering area. This area is easily monitored from Dash Point Road
and the parking lots.
The existing pickleball courts and practice field are maintained in their current location south of the school
building. An office and storage facility for the Hawks, and a restroom are added adjacent to the existing
school gym.
Development at the SE corner of the site includes parking, a restroom, sand volleyball courts, a children's
play area, a picnic shelter, and trails. Accessible exercise stations are located along a woodland path close
to the parking lot. A soft surface loop trail surrounds the existing large wetland. Three platforms with
informational signage provide views into the wetland. Additional information for points of interest will be
provided along the loop trail. Wetland restoration and enhancement in the large wetland will mitigate
impacts on the small wetlands on the north side of the site.
• •
Neighborhood of 44 Avenue SW
Federal Way, Wa
Subject: Upgrading the status of Dumas Bay Park to a Sanctuary
Let me begin by introducing myself. I am Joseph Spransy and I live on 44 ave SW near
the Dumas Bay Park.
My interest in the Dumas Bay Park originated with a neighborhood crime -watch meeting.
Over the course of the last year and a half I learned much about Dumas Bay Park, its
heritage and its value to the community. It is our neighborhood's interest to preserve
Dumas Bay as a Sanctuary for wildlife, particularly birds.
It is suitable to be a sanctuary, because it is a fresh water inlet that butts up against the
salt water of the Puget Sound. Historically, it was sanctuary for Heron. And, according
to reports at our neighborhood meetings, Federal Way accepted certain obligations to
preserve this area as a sanctuary as part of the agreement to turn stewardship of this area
over to the City.
Our neighborhood is concerned that the Dumas Bay Park is deteriorating due to lack of
attention and a lack of security. The one -way entrance to the parking lot is broken and
. allows access around the gate, so the park can never be locked closed. There is no
security lighting in the area which invites all forms of undesired activity and renders the
area an attractive nuisance.
We believe a few simple things can reverse this trend. First, we request that the one way
exit to the Park's parking lot be repaired. Two, we request that two or three solar -
powered lamps be installed at various locations in the park for security. Three, we
request that efforts be made to improve the habitat to encourage the return of the wildlife
that use to reside there.
We appreciate that budgets are always tight. We are wondering what funds or other
forms of help are available from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife or from
the Federal Government, National Park Service, Department of Interior.
It is the opinion of our neighborhood, that preserving Dumas Bay at the higher status of
Sanctuary will improve civic pride, benefit the City of Federal Way by adding to it the
City's list of notable landmarks, and improve the security of our neighborhood from
undesirable activity.
Joseph Spransy
Resident of the 44 Ave SW Ne
• •
CITY HALL
CITY OF 33325 8th Avenue South • PO Box 9718
Federal Way, nu 98063 9718
• Federal Way (253) 835 -7000
www cit yo ffede ra l wa y. com
(253) 835 -6901
July 29, 2005
Steven R. Schrantz
31006 - 44 Ave. SW
Federal Way, WA. 98023
Dear Mr. Schrantz
Thank you for your letter, subject Dumas Bay Park. I have reviewed the
information you submitted and noted h l have provided a copy listed
report to
and Decision of the Shoreline Officer.
our parks maintenance division and asked them to inspect the site to ensure
compliance.
• 1 must ask for your patience in allowing us a few weeks for this inspection and
compliance in that this is the busiest time of year for parks maintenance. To
meet this demand, we have restructured our crew to provide the maximum
resources in the areas of greatest need. We are focusing on the basic services
and hope that you will see improvement in the maintenance of all our parks,
including Dumas Bay Park. For this reason special requests and projects are
being delayed.
On a final note, I spoke with one of st od that you andthat he
had talked with you at Dumas Bay Park and that he u der
perhaps two other neighbors ofWe have have keys to the gte.
understanding of the to me
know if this is accurate so that
have staff open and close the park in the morning and evening?
Again, thank you for your interest in our parks. Please feel free to contact Steve
Ikerd, our Parks and Facilities Maintenance Superintendent, or me if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Donna Hanson
Director, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services
cc: Steve Ikerd, Parks & Facilities Maintenance Superintendent
David Moseley, City Manager
City Council
o vv. S
8 /0 c /G'. IA July 11, 2005
L l C k ' (i K c c t. cam,
To: FEDERAL WAY PARKS AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMM.
Donna Hanson; Parks Manager
Jim Hams; Community Development
Subject: DUMAS BAY PARK
For your perusal, I have provided a packet of pertinent documents which
provide basic information on the Park's history from its inception in 1981.
Hopefully, this material will provide an adequate backgrounder so that we
can resolve issues we, the Dumas Bay community living on 44` Avenue
gri Southwest, would like to raise at your earliest convenience.
Thank you, in advance, for your considered attention to this matter.
Steven R. chrantz
31006 44 Avenue Southwest
Federal Way, WA 98023
(253) 838 -7141
Attachments:
1. Shorelines Management Permit Review dated January 18, 1982
2. Environmental Assessment and Report dated December 15, 1981- Public Hearing
3. Report and Decision of the Shoreline Officer; December 15, 1981
4. Re: Dumas Bay Wildlife Sanctuary; a letter to the Federal Way Parks and Recreation
Department dated August 14, 1992
• 5. Relevant Federal Way newspaper articles (2) from the summer of 1981
KING COUNTY BUILDS & LAND DEVELOPMENT
State of Washington - ? RON M CONNELL, Acting Manager
ic fVex 450 Administration Building
RAND REVEILLE, King County Executive ' Seattle, Washington 98104
ii PARTMENT OF PLANNING (206) 344-7900
ND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
'Gary S. Tusberg, Director
Date: January 18, 1982
State of Washington and State of Washington
- Department of Ecology Office of the Attorney General
Northwest Regional Office Temple of Justice
4350 - 150th Avenue NE Olympia, WA 98054
Redmond, WA 98052
Attention: Shorelines Management Permit Review
In Re: Shoreline Permit No. 037 -81 -SH
Gentlemen:
This is to inform you that the subject Substantial Development
Permit application has been approved by King County and is
hereby forwarded to you for review pursuant to WAC 173 -14 -090.
S erely
(..-- Le-t/LA .
Ralph C. Colby `-'
Supervisor
RCC:AAR:rj
Att.
4
N
SH 13
BUILDING & LAND DEVELOPMENT
KING COUNTY M ana g er
State of Washington 450 qo n istr � �
PcIOCIMPOCCOMKgreowThEK Exeutive Seattle. Washington 98104
County
IF EPP AR MI King' � C NT OF PLANNING (206) 344 -7900
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Gary S. Tusberg, Director
Date: January 18, 1982
APPROVAL{}( OF DEVELOPMENT UNDER
THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT
1971
t
Application No.:
Approved _ Denied
n�7 -R1 - -
Date Received: June 25 1981 Date of Action: January le. 182
This action is for:
-- Substantial Development Permit
Shoreline Conditional Use
Shoreline Variance .
Pursuant to RCW 90.58 permission is granted to:
King County Parks Division
to undertake the following development: parking, and other
site improvements including trails, fencing, p
facilities at an existing park site
4111 upon the following descr property:
Eh, Sec. 11, Twp. 21, R. 3 .
The project site is within shorelines of statewide significance
(RCW 90.58.03 Natural Environment desig-
The project site is located within
nation. rovisions are applicable to this development.
The following Master Program p
Conditions: (Reasons)
Development authorized by this permit shall be subject to the following
conditions:
1. Conditions as enumerated in Attachment I.
2. Development shall conform to the approved plans on file with the
Building and Land Development Division.
Any deviation must be approved by this Division.
Date: `— U �1Z
I ' C (, 4.1
Ralph C. Colby III
Supervisor
II I RCC: Ap,R:rj .
SH 15
:�..f
A
File No.037 -81 - SH
Date: January 18, 1982 PERMIT ATTACHMENT I
KING COUNTY
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
1. Nothing in this permit shall be construed as excusing the
applicant from compliance with any federal, state or local
statutes, ordinances, or regulations applicable to this
project other than the permit requirements of the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971.
2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of
the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the
permittee fails to comply with any condition hereof.
3. Construction pursuant to this permit will not begin or be
authorized until thirty days from the date of filing the
final order of King County with the Department of Ecology
or Attorney General; or until all review proceedings initiated
within thirty days from the date of such filing have been
terminated.
4. The following time requirements shall apply to this permit:
a. Construction or substantial progress toward the
construction of this project must be undertaken
within two years from this date or the permit shall
terminate. If such progress has not been made, a
new permit will be necessary.
b. If this project has not been completed within five
years from this date, the permit will be reviewed
at the expiration of the five -year period and, upon a
showing of good cause shall be either
one year or shall be terminated;
such review shall be requested by the permittee prior
to the expiration date.
SEE ATTACHED CONDITIONS
BALD
.. DEPARTMENT OF P AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION III
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REPORT
TO THE KING COUNTY SHORELINES HEARING OFFICER
DECEMBER 15, 1981 - PUBLIC HEARING
'APPLICANT: King County Parks Division FILE: 037 -81 - SH
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION:
A Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for site
improvements, including trails, fencing, parking and other improve
ments on an existing park site.
B. GENERAL INFORMATION:
Owner: King County Parks Division
Smith Tower Building
Seattle, WA 98104
Agent: King County Architecture Division
320 Administration Building
1. Seattle, Washington 98104
Contact: Steven LaCourse 344 -5222
Request: A Shoreline Management Substantial Develop-
ment Permit for site improvements including
trails, fencing, parking and other improvements
on an existing park site.
STR: E 11 -21 -3
Location: At the Dumas Bay Park site, between S.W.
Dash Point Road and Puget Sound, between
39th Avenue S.W. and 44th Avenue S.W. near
Federal Way, Washington
111/Existing Zoning: SE and RS 15,000
Shoreline Environment: Natural
Water District: City of Tacoma
Sewer District: Lakehaven
School District: Federal Way #210
Fire District: #39
C. HISTORY /BACKGROUND:
1. The park site was acquired as a Forward Thrust project in
the early 1970's. Lack of funds has prohibited development until
now.
2. The subject application was received June 24, 1981. The
Manager, Building and Land Development Division initially determined
that no public hearing would be required.
3. On August 14, 1981, the Division received a petition with
56 signatures requesting a public hearing. On August 17, 1981, the
Division Manager reversed the initial determination and required
this public hearing.
D. THRESHOLD DETERMINATION OF ENCIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 CSEPA1
KCC 20.44.060 and W.A.C. 197 -10 -300, and upon review of the environ
mental checklist, the Parks Division prepared a proposed declaration
of nonsignificance in June, 1974, stating that the proposed development
would not constitute a major action significantly affecting the
quality of the environment. Therefore, an environmental impact
statement was not required prior to the preparation of this report.
OD E. AGENCIES CONTACTED:
1. Washington State Department of Ecology: No response.
-1-
• FILE 037 -81 -SH • r
2. Washington State Department of Fisheries: No response.
3. Washington State Department of Game: See Attachment 1.
III 4. King County Department of Public Works: See Attachment 2.
F. APPLICABLE PLANS, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES:
1. Title 25, King County Code (Shoreline Management Code):
"25.28.030 General requirements. (a) Nonwater related
water related and residential development shall not be
permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
"(b) No structure shall exceed a height of thirty
feet.
"(c) All development shall be required to provide
adequate surface water retention and sedimentation
facilities during the construction period.
"(d) Collection facilities to control and Separate
contaminants shall be required where stormwater runoff
from impervious surfaces would materiall degrade or add
to the pollution of recipient waters or adjacent properties.
"(e) Parking areas must maintain a shoreline setback of
two hundred feet from the ordinary high water mark and
retain existing vegetation or be planted to conform to
the landscape standards enumerated in the general require-
ments
(Section 25.16.030) of the urban environment."
(Ord. 3688 - 703, 1978)
COMMENT: No development is proposed waterward of the ordinary
high water line. No structures are proposed within Shoreline juris-
diction. Stormwater collection facilities installed in the parking
area drain away from the area designated Natural and would be some
850 feet back from the shoreline. Similarly, the parking area is
proposed to be some 850 feet from the shoreline in straight line
distance and 1,300 feet away along the proposed trail.
2. 25.28.150 Recreation:
"Recreational development may be permitted in the
natural environment subject to the general require-
ments (Section 25.28.030) of this chapter, provided;
(a) The recreational development will not require
any significant filling, excavation or regarding involv-
ing more than fifteen percent of that portion of the
site within the shorelines of the state.
(b) The construction of indoor swimming
pools, gyms and other indoor recreational facilities is
prohibited.
(c) Piers, moorages, floats or launching facilities
constructed in conjunction with recreational development
shall not be permitted, except that floating walkways
or other similar over water pedestrian structures facili-
tating access to observation points or viewing areas may
be permitted." (Ord. 3688 - 715, 1978).
COMMENT: No significant excavation, grading or filling is
proposed. No structures are proposed on the site. The project
includes only fencing, trail improvements and construction of a
parking area 850 feet back from the shoreline.
4 1/ 1
-2-
• FILE 037 -81 - SH
3. Ordinance 3692, Shoreline Goals, Policies and Objectives:
a) Public Access Element, Page 5: An element making
provision for public access to publicly -owned shore-
lines and assessing the need for providing
public access to shoreline areas.
GOAL: INCREASE PUBLIC ACCESS TO SHORELINE
AREAS PROVIDED THAT PRIVATE RIGHTS, PUBLIC
SAFETY AND THE NATURAL SHORELINE CHARACTER
ARE NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
Objectives:
1. Access development should respect and protect the enjoyment
of private rights in shoreline property.
Policy 1 Shoreline access areas should be planned to
include ancillary facilities such as parking
and sanitation when appropriate.
• Policy 2 - Shoreline access and'ancillary facilities
should be designed and developed to provide
adequate protection for adjacent private
properties.
COMMENT: Parking is to be provided, but no restroom facilities
will be built because of the low intensity of use. The site will be
fenced to control entry to the site and prevent trespass on adjacent
private property.' The size of the site and low intensity of development
will help reduce apparent impacts on surrounding properties.
2. Public access should be maintained and regulated.
410 Policy 1 Public access should be policed and improved
consistent with intensity of use.
Policy 2 - The provision to restrict access as to nature,
time, number of people and area may be appro-
priate for public pedestrian easements and
other public access areas where there are
spawning grounds, fragile aquatic life habitats
or potential hazard for pedestrian safety.
Policy 3 - Facilities in public shoreline access areas
should be properly maintained and operated. .
COMMENT: The Dumas Bay Park is owned, operated and maintained
by the.King County Parks Division. The site will be patrolled by
the King County Department of Public Safety. Design features of the
project are intended to control access to the site and facilitate
police patrols. The site is proposed to be fenced to control access
and prevent trespass on private property. A locked vehicle gate at .
the head of the trail will keep motor vehicles out but allow access
for emergency vehicles to the ten foot wide gravel trail. The
public access trail is located on high ground 150 to 200 feet from
the edge of the marsh. Existing trees will further separate the
trail from the marsh along most of its length.
3. Design of access should provide for the public health,
safety and enjoyment.
Policy 1 - Appropriate signs should be used to
designate publicly -owned shorelines.
Policy 2 - Within the shoreline environment pedestrian
• _
and non - motorized access should be encouraged.
-3-
• FILE 037 -81 -SH 4
Policy 3 - .Public access to and along the water's edge
S should be available in publicly -owned shore-
lines that are tolerant of human activity.
COMMENT: No motorized vehicles, except emergency vehicles, will be
allowed in the park. There are likely to be fewer problems with
motorized vehicles in the proposed park than exist today because the
site is currently unfenced and accessible to trail bikes from several
locations. The site has been recognized as a valuable site for
nesting waterfowl. The proposal includes bare minimum improvements
to the site such as fencing and trail improvements. The proposed
parking will be nearly ten times farther from the marsh than existing
development in the adjacent subdivision to the east.
4. Priority for access acquisition should consider resource
desirability, availability and proximity of population.
Policy 1 - A Shoreline element in the parks acquisi
tion and development program should be
encouraged so that future shoreline access
is acquired and developed by established
criteria and standards as part of an over
all master plan.
COMMENT: The park site is an excellent example of a small
coastal marsh and riparian forest habitat in a rapidly growing
suburban residential area. Because of its unique qualities as
habitat, and proposed minimal development as a park, the site is
. potentially valuable as natural refuge to be used by the surrounding
community for such passive pursuits as bird watching, photography,
and hiking. Schools and other educational institutions in the area
are likely to find the park an attractive. place for nature walks and
field trips..
5. Shorelines of the state should be available to all people
for sensory gratification.
Policy 1 - Viewpoints, lookouts and vistas of shorelines
of the state and wetlands should be publicly
accessible.
6. General Policies:
Policy 4 - Public pedestrian easements and access points
should be of a nature and scale that would
be compatible with the abutting and adjacent
land use as well as natural features including
aquatic life.
Policy 5 - Access development should respect and protect
ecological and aesthetic values. in the shorelines
of the state.
COMMENT: The proposed trail will make a lookout on Puget Sound
accessible to the public. The trail improvements proposed are
little more than surfacing an existing road, plus .fencing and parking.
The level of improvement is not likely to impact the marine shoreline,
wetland or riparian habitat. The.proposal respects and protects
the ecological and aesthetic values of the arelathrough low intensity
use, avoiding major development of the site and by controlling
access motorized vehicles.
b) Conservation Element - Page 8: An element which deals
with the preservation of natural shoreline resources,
considering but not limited to such characteristics
as scenic vistas, parkways, vital estuarine areas for
• fish and wildlife protection, beaches and other valu-
able natural or aesthetic features.
GOAL: ASSURE PRESERVATION OF UNIQUE AND NON - RENEWABLE
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ASSURE CONSERVATION OF RENEWABLE 1
NATURAL RESOURCES FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXISTING AND
FUTURE GENERATIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
• FILE 037 -81 -SH •
Objectives:
Ilik 1. Shorelines which are of unique or valuable natural charac-
ter should be acquired for public benefit commensurate with
preservation of the ecosytem.
Policy 1 - Unique and fragile areas in shoreline areas
should be designated and retained as open
space. Access and use should be restricted
or prohibited when necessary for their
preservation.
Policy 2 - When appropriate, King County should acquire
those shoreline areas which are unique or
valuable. Subsequent use of such areas should
be governed by their ecological carrying
capacity.
COMMENT: The site is unique, valuable wetland and riparian
habitat owned by the County. Improvements include little more than
trail improvements and fencing the site to control pedestrian access
and prevent access by motorbikes. The proposed parking is hundreds
of feet farther away from the wetland than the adjacent existing
subdivision and well buffered by the existing forest.
2. Resource conservation should be an integral -part of shore-
line planning.
Policy 1 - When feasible, King County shoudl initiate
programs to reverse any substantial adverse
impacts caused by existing shoreline develop
ments.
COMMENT: The park proposal is an example of protecting a
nique, valuable ecosystem while allowing the public to use the
nearby area for such passive pursuits as bird watching, hiking, and
photography.
•
3. Scenic, aesthetic and ecological qualities of natural and
developed shorelines should be recognized and preserved as
valuable resources.
Policy 1 - When appropriate, natural flora and fauna
should be preserved or restored.
Policy 2 - In shoreline areas, the natural topography
should not be substantially altered.
Policy 4 - Wildlife and aquatic habitats including
spawning grounds, should be protected, im
proved, and, if appropriate, increased.
COMMENT: The proposed park will protect and enhance the wildlife
area by fencing out motorbikes and limiting access to a controlled
location. The quarter mile walk to the beach is likely to discourage
noisy, auto - oriented beach parties. Such active users of the shoreline
can get closer to beaches with more public conveniences at other city,
county and state parks from Seahurst to Dash Point.
c) Recreation Element - Page 10: An element for the
preservation and expansion of all types of recrea-
tional opportunities through programs of acquisi-
tion, development and various means of less-than-
fee acquisition.
GOAL: PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SHORELINE DEPENDENT
AND WATER ORIENTED RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES
THAT ARE DIVERSE. CONVENIENT AND ADEQUATE FOR THE
REGIONAL POPULATION CONSISTENT WITH THE CARRYING
CAPACITY OF THE LAND AND WATER RESOURCE.
-5-
• FILE 037 -81 -SH •
Objectives:
illk 1. Areas containing special shoreline recreation qualities
not easily duplicated should be available for public use and
enjoyment.
Policy 1 - Opportunities should be provide for the
public to understand natural shoreline
processes and experience natural resource
features.
COMMENT: The marsh and riparian habitats in the park are unique
along the mainland saltwater shoreline of King County. The park will
allow the public to use and enjoy this area for low intensity types
of recreation. In addition the ecosystem is likely to be valuable
educational resource for local schools and community colleges.
2. Shoreline recreational use and development should enhance
environmental quality with minimal adverse effect on the natural
resources.
Policy 1 - Stretches of relatively inaccessable and
unspoiled shoreline should be available
and designated as low intensity recreational
use areas with minimal development; service
facilities such as footpaths, periphery car
parks and adequate sanitary facilities should
only be allowed where appropriate.
Policy 5 - Overall design and development in shoreline
recreational areas should be responsive to
to the site characteristics of those areas
with and be consistent i h th
e level of use in
the area concerned.
Policy 6 - Recreation areas on the shoreline should
have adequate surveillance and maintenance.
Policy 7 - The public should be provided with additional
off -site and on -site guidance and control
to protect the shoreline resource.
Policy 9 - Access to recreational shoreline areas
afforded by water and land circulation
systems should be determiend by the concept
of optimum carrying capacity and recreational
quality.
COMMENT: This relatively inaccessible and unspoiled shoreline
has been designated for low intensity use and minimal development.
The proposed trail will use an existing abandoned road on the property.
Fencing and gates will control access and prevent motorbikes from
entering the park.
4. A balanced variety of recreational opportunities should be
provided regionally for people of different ages, health,
family status and financial ability.
Policy 1 - Appropriate specialized recreation facilities
should be provided for the handicapped or
others who might need them. -
Policy 2 - Shoreline recreation areas Should provide
opportunities for different use intensities
ranging from low (solitude) to high Cinany
410 people).
-6-
FILE 037 -81 -SH •
Policy 3 - Opportunities for shoreline recreational
experiences should include a wide range
of accessibility and duration of use.
Policy 4 - Shoreline recreational experiences should
include a wide range of different areas
from remote - outdoor undeveloped areas to
highly developed indoor - outdoor areas.
Policy 5 - Recreational development should meet the
demands of population growth consistent with
the carrying capacity of the land and water
resource.
COMMENT: The proposed park will provide an opportunity to
observe a small coastal marsh and riparian ecosystem in an undisturbed
setting. Other county parks are oriented to beach activities,
boating, team sports, camping, etc. Such active pursuits are not i
proposed here nor would such activities be suitable in such an
environment. It will add variety to opportunities provided by King
,County Parks in the same way that Discovery Park in Seattle provides
the opportunity to observe nature in a largely undeveloped setting
near a major urban area.
d) Natural Environment: .The.Natnral Environment consists
of areas characterized by the presence of some unique
natural features considered valuable in their undis-
turbed or original condition and which are relatively
intolerant of intensive human use. Such areas should
be essentially free from development or be capable of
being easily restored to natural condition, and they
should be large enough to protect the value of the
resource.
The purpose of designating the Natural Environment is
to preserve and restore those natural resource systems
existing relatively free of human influence. These
systems require severe restrictions of intensities
and types of uses permitted so as to maintain the
integrity of the Natural Environment.
General Policies:
1. Natural areas should remain free from all development which
would adversely affect their natural character.
2. The intensity and type of uses permitted should be restricted
in order to maintain the natural systems and resources in their
natural condition.
3. Limited access should be allowed to those areas in the
Natural Environment.
4. Uses and activities in locations adjacent to natural areas
should be strictly regulated to insure that the integrity of the
Natural Environment is not comprised.
COMMENT: The level of development proposed for the site is
minimal. The intensity of use will be controlled by fencing and gates
to bar vehicles. The quarter mile walk from the parking area to the
beach will also act as a deterrent to more active types of recreation.
Dense vegetation and swampy terrain will also deter people from
tramping through the marsh itself.
e) Recreation - Page 44:
General Policies:
1. The development of recreational acquisition plans should
give emphasis to the acquisition of prime recreation lands
prior to their being preempted for other uses.
-7-
III FILE 037 -81 -SH •
2. In open spaces having an established sense of nature,
improvements should be limited to those that are necessary
and unlikely to detract from the primary values of the site.
3. The siting of all developments should aim to enhance and
protect the area concerned. .
COMMENT: The park site was acquired by the County nearly a
decade ago. Little is being done to the site in the way of development
in order to protect the character of the site which is unique to the
mainland marine shoreline of King County.
G. EXISTING CONDITIONS: .
1. General Zoning in the Area: The zoning of the park site
is SE (Suburban Estates). Surrounding zoning is RS 15,000.
2. Development Existing on the Subject Property: The, site is
presently undeveloped except for an abandoned dirt road from 44th
Avenue S.W. to the shoreline.
3. Development Existing on Adjoining Properties: Development
on adjoining properties is single family residential, including
the plats of Dumas Heights, Palisades Beach Estates and Twin Lakes.
4. Physical Land Characteristics:
a. Topography: Elevations vary on the site from sea
level to approximatley 100 feet above sea level along Dash Point Road.
A steep slope along Dash Point Road prevents access from this arterial.
The land slopes gently upward along the abandoned dirt road to the
proposed parking area on 44th Avenue S.W. The steep slope is mapped
as a Class III Landslide Hazard area.
b. Soils: Three soil types are mapped on the site including
II/
Cb (Coastal Beaches); AkF (Alderwood- Kitsap) on the steep slopes; and
RaD (Ragnar fine sandy laom, 15 -25% slopes) on the more gently sloping
areas.
c. Wildlife: Several wildlife agencies identify the
site as a major Great Blue Heron rookery. The birds net in the trees
along the stream southwest of the marsh and feed in the marine waters
of Dumas Bay. Other birds identified on the site by the King county
Wetlands Survey include Green Herons, Mallards, Red- Tailed Hawks, Rufous
Hummingbirds, tree swallows, barn swallows, redwinged blackbirds,
Swainson's thrushes, and Kingfishers.
d. Vegetation; The park site contains Several distinct
regions of vegetation. Riparian forest covers most of the South and
southwest portions of the site. The wetland is a Pal.ustrine (fresh
water) emergent marsh typified by cattails and soft bulrushes, with willow,
and red alder along the fringes. The marsh is largely controlled
by fresh water flowing from the surrounding uplands, although some salt
water may infiltrate the seaward edge of the marsh during a high tide.
A natural beach berm reinforced by drift logs and dense thickets of
blackberries separates the marsh from the beach.
H. ACCESS:
Access to the site is from 44th Avenue S.)V. at the site of the
proposed parking area. No access is possible from Dash Point Road
because of the steep slope. 39th Avenue S.W. has been ruled out for .
access because platted lots in the palisades Beach Estates subdivision
separate the site from the end of the cul -de -sac.
1111 .
-8-
III FILE 037 -81 -SH •
I. PUBLIC SERVICES: r/
Np s �`ti G.r ✓ ' V; c,� in c jc . _ e
1. Sewer and Water: --_he_.Lsikehayen -Sewer ni • •
se.r- v-i -and the Tacoma City Water Department provides, water service
in the area.
2. Fire Protection: King County Fire Protection District #39
provides fire protection.
3. Schools: The area is served by the Federal Way School
District #210.
J. IMPACTS ON NATURAL SYSTEMS:
1. Air and Noise: Because the site will remain largely undeveloped,
impacts on air and noise should be minimal. Noise from motorbikes should
be reduced from present levels because the site will be fenced and gated
to keep out these sources of noise.
2. Water: Again, because of the minimal level of development
proposed, there should be little if any impact on water quality in the
marsh or Dumas Bay. Water quality in the marsh is likely to be influenced
more by runoff from the surrounding, intense residential development,
particularly the plat of Twin Lakes upstream on the creek feeding the
marsh.
3. Vegetation and Soils: The proposal calls for no clearing
of vegetation in the marsh or the surrounding slopes. The only clearing
will be for the parking lot along 44th Avenue S.W. Because the park
is designed for low intensity use, impacts on the marsh and riparian
forest from park users are likely to be few. No soils related problems
are anticipated.
4.. Wildlife: The Great Blue Heron rookery in the wooded ravine
S is not likely to be impacted by the project. Access to the site will
be controlled by fencing and gates to control motorbikes. The main
pedestrian gate can also be locked temporarily if necessary. The
marsh area is protected from access by blackberry thickets and the wet,
swampy ground. Protection to the marsh will be increased because a
fence will be erected between it and the Palisade Beach states plat to
the east. The quarter mile walk from the parking area to the beach will
dissuade noisy, "beach party" type users.
K. SOCIAL IMPACT:
The major social impact of this project will be the benefit to
the community of a natural interpretive park in the midst of rapidly
urbanizing Federal Way. During a staff field trip to the site, two .
elementary school classes from the Federal Way Public Schools were
visiting the site for a nature walk. Trail improvements will make
such nature walks easier and the parking lot will help accommodate
parking safely off neighborhood streets.
L. DISCUSSION: '
The central issue here is the level of development which should
be allowed on the site. The balance here is between the desire of
the public to use a County park and the necessity to keep the park
site relatively undeveloped to protect the Heron rookery and marshland.
The proposal appears to accomplish the balance. An existing road
furnishes the main access from the parking lot to the shoreline.
Access will be controlled by fencing and gates to bar motor vehicles.
The proposed spur trail through the Heron rookery may, however, have
some impact by guiding people through an admittedly sensitive area.
Another issue raised by area residents will be traffic impacts
ID on 44th Avenue S.W. and the proposed parking area. Residents have
expressed concern about the safety of children in the area, and
potential vandalism to neighboring homes. In meetings
.
. .
_
-9-
III FILE 037 -81 -SH •
with the Parks Division and Public Works, Parks has agreed to condi-
tions regarding signing, hours, park furniture, police patrols,
etc., to meet the concerns of the community. Public Works will
study traffic/ pedestrian impacts on 44th Avenue S.W. once the park
is open and will recommend appropriate changes in street signing,
speed limits and sidewalks.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CONCLUSIONS:
1. Environmental Significance: Pursuant to the State Environmental
Policy Act of 1971 and the SEPA Guidelines as revised January 21,
1978, the Division of Parks adopted the proposed declaration of non -
significance as a final declaration after being circulated for 15
days and reviewed by all agencies of jurisdiction. Based upon the
responses of the agencies of jurisdiction and all other reviewing
agencies, a site inspection of the project, information submitted by
the applicant, and an evaluation of the affected natural, physical
and social systems as outlined in this report, the Manager of the
,Building and Land Development Division reconfirms this final determination
and does not require an environmental impact statement.
2. The proposal will provide valuable public access to the
unique physical setting of marine shoreline, marsh and riparian
forest. The project provides diversity of opportunity within the
King County system of Public Parks.
3. The site contains fragile natural wetlands and a noted
Great Blue Heron rookery.
4. The level of development proposed on the site is minimal,
consisting of trail improvements, parking and fencing. This level
110 of development is consistent with protecting the marsh and Heron
nesting areas.
5. Use of the park facility will be controlled to a greater
degree than presently exists on the site. Fencing and gates will
prevent motorbikes from disturbing the site and pedestrian access
will be limited to one entrance instead of the free access from all
sides at present.
6. Given the access controls, proposed signing and emphasis
placed on the park as a wildlife sanctuary,.it is not likely that
use of the park will have a significant adverse impact on the marshland
or wildlife resources the park is protecting.
7. It is likely that the impacts of surrounding residential
development on the wetland and nesting area will be greater than the
impacts of the limited use proposed for the park.
8. Because of the limited facilities proposed for the park, '
the long walk to the beach and the small number of parking spaces
available, it is not likely that the park operation will seriously
affect adjoining residences. The proposed fencing and dense forest
should help prevent trespass on surrounding private property.
B. RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Subject
to the following conditions:
1. The pedestrian gate at the parking area shall be equipped
with bollards or other device to effectively bar motorbikes from the
site.
III 2. The general park sign shall reflect the passive atmosphere
o f the park as a wildlife sanctuary.
-10-
III FILE 037 -81 -SH .
3. A sign shall be posted in the parking area listing rules to
be followed, e.g., no alcoholic beverages, no hunting, no fires,
41, etc.
4. Security lighting in the parking area or a street light on
44th Avenue S.W. shall be installed to discourage vandalism at
night.
5. The four -foot chain -link fence shall be extended out to
the 44th Avenue S.W. street right -of - way along the property lines
adjacent to the John H. Thompson and Steven R. Schrantz properties.
6. The limits of the public beach on Dumas Bay shall be clearly
posted.
7. Further development beyond this proposal shall require a
separate Substantial Development Permit.
8. No alteration of the natural marine shoreline shall be
allowed.
9. Picnic tables shown in the proposal shall be replaced by
benches. ,
10. No structures of any kind shall be built waterward of
ordinary high water in Dumas Bay or within 200 feet landward of
ordinary high water.
11. Barrier plantings or fencing shall be placed where necessary
on the beach berm to prevent access from the beach to the marsh.
TRANSMITTED to parties listed hereafter:
(See attached list)
RAC:AAR:ss
12/1/81
Attachment
-11-
F ILE- 037 - 81 - SH
it , .,
Steve LaCourse /Paul Leland Clarence Brittain
Architecture Division 29020 First S., SP 32
- Federal Way, WA 98003
I
A. Richard Gemperle ' Thais Bock
Architecture 29620 - 10th Place S
•Federal Way, WA 98003
Thomas Alvis Ruth Cook & Lois Dobish
4609 Sommerset DR SE 1100 - 7th SE
Bellevue, WA 98006 Puyallup, WA 98371
John Anderson . Michael Cordry •
31117 - 44th SW 32225 - 40th P1 SW
Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA 98003 -
Harold Anderson - Gary Craig
P.O. Box 3853 31011 - 39th SW
Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA _ 98003
- Dr. & Ms. Eric Carson
Fay Ainsworth 25703 - 16th S
40 P.O.Box 3921 Kent, WA 98031
Federal Way, WA 98003
John Austin
31007 - 44th SW J. L. Casserly
Federal Way, WA 98003 I _ Route 5, Box 1347F
Tacoma, WA 98423
Loren Anderson .
Robert Dodson, Jr.
3832 SW Dash Pt Rd ' 31009 - 39th SW
Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA -8003
G. Becraft •
•
4420 - SW 308th - Paul Ellingson
Federal Way, WA 98003 31012 - 39th SW
Federal Way, WA 98003
Charles Bland .
31031 - 39th SW - • Sharon Faucher
Federal Way, WA 98003 4425 - SW 308th
• Federal Way, WA 98003
Gerald Blank
31304 - 42nd PL SW William Frenk
Federal Way, WA 9800 31014 - 39th SW •
. Federal Way; WA 98003
1111 - William Barber Mr. Grunthal
3:17.5 - 44th SW 27 Catoctin Court
Federal Way, WA 98003 Silver Springs, MD 20906
III FILE 037 -81 -SH
Charles Graves Thelma Kralowec •
4417 - SW 310th 201 Eye St SE
Federal Way, WA 98003 l Auburn, WA 98002
Sandra Hall '
Kathleen Lemanski
3275 Heather Way 305 SW 328th St.
Eugene, Oregon 97405 Federal Way, WA 98003 •
Hebb & Narodick Const. Co., In. John E. Morrison
P.O. Box 130 .235 E. Via Havarr.e
Bellevue, WA 98009 Merritt Island, FA 32952
Charles Harris Oliver Moore
31004 - 39th SW 31215 - 41st P1 SW
Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA 98003
Gerald Hartman David Mosby
31300 - 42nd P1 SW 4410 SW 308th St
Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA 98003
Edward Hoit . Stanley Mar
4325 - SW 307th 10428 - 7th SW
Federal Way, WA 98003 Seattle, WA 98146
W. J. Hunter William Nelson
. 31020 - 39th SW ' - 31205 - 41st P1 SW
Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA 98003
Leigh Huseby Richard Ottele •
: 31007 - 39th SW
Federal Way, WA 98003 31015 - 44th SW Federal Way, WA 98003
Bernard Hansen .
Earle Pokela
P.O. Box 3259 Churchill Apts. #2
Federal Way, WA 980031700•Bailey Hill Road ,
Eugene, Oregon 97402
M/M R Johnson M/M A Peterson
30726 - 43rd SW 4316 - SW 307th
Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA 98003
David Jones Redemptorist Retreat Assn.
3808 SW Dash Pt Road p - O - Box 2214
Federal Way, WA 98003 Tacoma, WA 98401
Robert Kutz
31003 - 39th SW 1 Robert MacDonald
30841 - 44th SW
} Federal Way, WA 98003
Federal way, WA 98003
40 III
FILE 037-81-SH____ - -
Vern Nilson
IIII .1601 - 42nd SW
ederal Way, WA
31010 -39th P1 SW 98003
. .
Walter Walls
31305 - 42nd P1 SW
Federal Way, WA
Frank White
Theodore Sampson
31209 - 4Ist P1 SW
98003
Federal Way, WA 98003 -.
Federal Way, WA 98003
' . .
Charles Wright
Ida Scarsella 31126 44th SW -
P.O. Box 3348 Federal Way, WA 98003
Federal Way, WA 98003
,---- File
Daniel Schade
31006 - 39th SW
ederal Way, WA 98003
. .
Seattle Audubon Society
John Schade 619 Joshua Green Building
33020 - 18th P1 S , Seattle, WA 98101
Box 108
Federal Way, WA 98003 ---- ---
.._ .. .
--=-_-_ -• - ...._".:_.:=..... Jack Van Der Waal -
Steven Schrantz 30625 - 43rd SW
- .
31006 - 44th SW Federal-Way, WA- 98003
I
Federal Way, WA 98003
. - — -----__
. . .
. . . . .
John Stalder - -
31025 - 44th SW . .
• Federal Way, WA 98003
. . .
. .
---- .
Francis Schade
233 D Street NW
Auburn, WA 98002 - . .
. .
. _ .
- .
M/M A Slater . . ..
30720 - 43rd SW
Federal Way, WA 98003
. .
John Stevenson
P.O. Box 3524
Federal Way, WA 98003
John Thompson
30800 - 43rd SW
Federal Way, WA 98003 .
- ---- ----- - _____
•
r • •
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
411, Room 450, King County Administration Building
(206) 344 -5286
REPORT AND DECISION OF THE SHORELINE OFFICER
SUBJECT:
File No: 037 -81 -SH
Applicant: King County Parks Division, Smith Tower Building
Waterbody: Dumas Bay, Puget Sound
Location: At the Dumas Bay Park site, between SW Dash Point
Road and Puget Sound, between 39th Avenue S.W. and
44th Avenue S.W. near Federal Way, Washington
Request: A Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit
for site improvements including trails, fencing,
parking and other improvements on an existing park
site
DEPARTMENT REPORT
This is a request for a Shoreline Management Substantial Develop-
ment Permit to develop site improvements including trails, fencing,
parking and other improvements on an existing park site at Dumas
Bay, Puget Sound.
Application for the permit was duly received and filed on
June 24, 1981.
Public Notice of public hearing was mailed to property owners
within a 500 -foot radius of subject property by the Building and
Land Development Division on October 23, 1981. Notice of Appli-
--- - cation for a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit was
published in the Federal Way /Des Moines News on October 30, and
November 6, 1981.
A report was prepared and dated December 1, 1981 incorporating
data and information taken from the application, as well as that
observed by site inspection.
I. PUBLIC HEARING
On December 15, 1981, Ralph Colby, the King County Shoreline
Hearing Officer, conducted a public hearing on Room 402 (Council
Chambers) King County Courthouse, Seattle, Washington. At 9:05 a.m.,
Mr. Colby opened the hearing and outlined the procedures to be
followed, and those planning to testify were sworn in by him.
• •
FILE NO: 037 -81 -SH
December 15, 1981
REPORT AND DECISION
PAGE 2
The Hearing Officer called on Mr. Andrew Ruotsala, Shoreline
Planner for King County, to give a brief explanation of the case.
After explaining the proposal, Mr. Ruotsala read staff recommen-
dations.
Mr. Colby asked if both parties to the proceeding had any
objections to the opponents making their presentation first. There
being none, he asked those opposing the development to speak first.
Testifying in opposition to the proposal:
Stephen R. Schrantz
31006 - 44th Avenue S.W.
Federal Way, WA 98003
Mr. Schrantz entered Exhibit 20 -4 which was a typed copy of his
oral statement.
Testifying for the proposal:
Bud Parker
King County Park Department
Testifying for the proposal:
Tom Eksten
King County Park Department
Mr. Schrantz then made his concluding statements in opposition
to the proposal. Mr. Parker and Mr. Eksten made final comments
in favor of the proposal.
Mr. Colby closed the public hearing and explained that he
would take the matter under advisement and would render a written
decision, a copy of which would be sent to the parties of these
proceedings.
The hearing was adjourned at 10:07 a.m.
II. FINDINGS
1. The hearings report of the Building and Land Development Division
is hereby made a part of these findings.
2. The State Department of Game submitted a letter recommending
that no trails be constructed which lead into or through the
Heron rookery.
III III
FILE NO: 037 -81 -SH
December 15, 1981
REPORT AND DECISION
PAGE 3
3. A neighbor to the proposed parking lot testified in opposition
to the proposed development and submitted the text of his testimony.
4. The staff testified that the property'is presently used by
the local School District for educational field trips.
S. The staff testified that the site is well known to bird watchers
and other environmentalists who now visit the site and use it as if
it were an operational natural preserve.
6. The applicant testified that in response to public comments,
the park plan has been modified so that the property is basically
going to be left undeveloped. A paved parking lot for 16 cars,
a paved 10 -foot wide pedestrian trail, a paved 6 -foot wide pedestrian
trail, a fence (with gates) around the property and clean -up of
debris on the property is the extent of the development.
III. CONCLUSION
fill Any less development than that proposed by the County poses a
far greater risk to the preservation of the natural reserve and the
privacy of the neighbors than the proposal. People will continue
to use the park because it's a very unique and valuable resource
that has a very strong attraction to a particular segment of the
population. The site's use as a park offers the best chance for
its protection in that as people experience the uniqueness of the
place and the character of the limited development proposed by the
County, more and more people will realize the importance of por-
tecting the park and keeping it as undeveloped as possible. Their
concerns will be a significant factor in keeping the park from
being over -used or abused by those who have no interest in other
reserves.
2. The parking lot will help reduce the impact of the facility
. on the neighbors by providing a specific off - street place for
visitors to park their cars. At the same time, the readily apparent
IP small size of the parking lot will convey the clear message that
• the capacity of the park is very limited.
• •
FILE NO: 037 -81 -SH
December 15, 1981
SO REPORT AND DECISION
PAGE 4
3. The County has a clear and strong responsibility to fence the
property to protect if from vandalism and to provide off - street
parking for the members of the public who want to use the facility
and who have, through their taxes, helped purchase the property
for park use. The County has the responsibility to establish rules
for the use of the park which will ensure that the facility will
. not be abused and has agreed to do so.
' 4. No evidence or documentation was submitted by the opponent to
the park to substantiate his contention that the park would be
abused by the public. He acknowledged he has had no personal
experience with wild life reserves. The Hearing Officer's own
experience is that the public recognizes the significance of wild-
life reserves and once such reserves are clearly designated treats
them with appropriate consideration.
The alternatives to the County's minimum development proposal
are to do nothing which means uncontrolled use and vandalism of
the site, uncontrolled parking on the site and adjacent street,
unauthorized access from the park onto abutting private properties,
and unrestricted hours of operation or to write the site off as
a wildlife reserve and develop it as an active beach park with
large parking lots, bathhouses, picnic stoves /tables, play areas
and swimming facilities.
There are two certainties in this issue - the first is that
the land will be returned to private ownership and the second is
that the public will continue to use the property.
ACTION:
A Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for
Dumas Bay Park development is hereby approved provided:
1. The pedestrian gate at the parking area shall be equipped to
restrict motorbikes from the site.
2. The general park sign shall reflect the passive atmosphere of
IP the park as a wildlife sanctuary.
~ . •
FILE NO: 037 -81 -SH
! December 15, 1981
I
REPORT AND DECISION
PAGE 5
A sign shall be posted near the gate listing rules to be
3. g P Z----_
followed, e.g., no alcoholic beverages, no hunting, no fires,
etc.
4. Security lighting in the parking area or a street light on 44th
Avenue S.W. shall be installed to discourage vandalism at night.
5. The four -foot chain -link fence shall be extended out to the
44th Avenue S.W. street right-of-way along the property lines
%
adjacent to the John H. Thompson and Steven R. Schrantz properties.
6. The limits of the public beach on Dumas Bay shall be clearly �_
posted.
7. Further development beyond this proposal shall require a
separate Substantial Development Permit.
8. No alteration of the natural marine shoreline shall be allowed.
9. Picnic tables shown in the proposal shall be replaced by
4 benches.
10. No structures of any kind shall be built waterward of ordinary
high water in Dumas Bay or within 200 feet landward of ordinary
high water.
11. Barrier plantings or fencing shall be placed where necessary
on the beach berm to prevent access from the beach to the marsh.
12. The six -foot wide pedestrian trail alternative is not permitted.
13. The ten -foot wide pedestrian trail shall not be paved with an
asphalt, concrete or bituminous surface. '
ORDERED this 18th day of January, 1982.
C CAt'all;
RALPH C. OLBY
SHORELINE HEARINGS OFFICER
TRANSMITTED this 18th day of January, 1982, to the following parties
of record:
Steven R. Schrantz Richard Gemperle, King County
Bud Parker, King County Parks Architecture Division
Tom Ekston, King County Parks Paul D. Leland
• Sharon Rogers Steve LaCourse
Ann Strosnider Audubon Society
Dept. of Ecology, Redmond
Attorney General, Olympia
King County Assessor
Surface Water Management
RCC:rj
•
'Oita —
AN APPEAL
FROM THE FRIENDS OF DUMAS BAY*
TO THE KING COUNTY SHORELINE HEARING OFFICERS
RE: KING COUNTY PARKS DIVISION
FILE 037 -81 -SH
DECEMBER 15, 1981
*Steven R. Schrantz, Spokesman
31006 -44th Avenue Southwest
Federal Way, WA 98003
BACKGROUND
On July 13, 1981, selected residents of the Dumas Bay area received
a form letter from the King County Department of Planning and Community
Development on behalf of the Parks Division. It disclosed the County's
intention to develop the park now in question.
The residents that received the letter reacted sensing a threat to
the Natural Environment and their community from the park project.
A request for a public hearing was drafted and signed by twenty -eight
persons. A conference with Mr. Steve LaCourse, Project Manager, was
set up on 22 July, 1981. This took place at the County Administration
Building in Seattle. Present were two property owners, a member of the
Audubon Society, the Project Manager, and the Project Landscape Architect.
111 Mr. LaCourse issued a memo framing the County position (attached).
On July 27, 1981, a letter was issued from the County announcing a
public meeting to be held - August 5, 1981 in the Federal Way area. At that
meeting, representatives from the County presented the Phase One development
plan. Concerns were expressed by the public and responded to by the County
representatives.
A letter from the Project Manager dated August 11, 1981(attached)
summarized the concerns and County responses: On the same date, a letter
(attached) from the community detailed twelve points conditioning community
acceptance of the park proposition. As the deadline for submitting a request
for this public hearing was August 15, the County was asked to respond by
August 14. The response was prompt but in the community's opinion, was
incomplete and unsatisfactory. The community opted to proceed with the
. issue to this hearing to resolve the question of whether or not the King
County Parks Division should be issued a permit to proceed in spite of
expressed public objection.
101 •
•
• • • 2
•
GENERAL COMMENT
•
The question of whether or not to develop a park at the Dumas
Bay site is not new.
A park project was planned and funded for this site with the passage
of the original Forward Thrust package. It called for extensive de-
velopment, the details of which are a matter of record. These details,
along with pertinent testimony regarding Ecological /Environmental
findings may be helpful to this hearing for the purpose of establishing
a better historical perspective . That initial project was denied a
permit because of its inherent endangerment to the Natural Environment
of Dumas Bay.
The proposed Dumas Bay park project can be considered an eleventh -hour
411 plan to hopefully be implemented before the Forward Thrust authorization
expired.
The "passive" rather than "active" nature of the proposed park is
at least in compliance with respected Ecological studies concluded in
1978 by the University of Washington, but this testimony suggests that
the plan is "idealistic" with regard to its purported intnet to "preserve
and protect" the Natural Environment; that people freely accessing a
delicate nature condition will behave with the proper sensitivity and
respect for the environment, adjacent private property, and the immediate
local community. Other parks (Dash Point State Park, for example) have
posted signs bespeaking their "wildlife, game, or natural preserve" in-
tention, but the nature in those parks no longer supports whatever wildlife
species that may have enjoyed sanctuary before people were allowed to
- "share" that nature. Unsupervised people are capable of and often do ignore
posted rules, regulations, and intentions.
Since the proposed project does not explicitly provide for adequate
supervision, regular dedicated and sustaining police patrol for the security
• of the nature and the adjoining private property, does not establish a
regular maintenance schedule nor the funds in the immediate future to
accommodate potentially detrimental contingencies, it cannot definitively .
410
ensure that the delicate Nature and indigenous wildlife in and around
the shoreline will be sacrosanct, and that the shoreline as well as the
public and privately -owned tideflats and beaches won't fall prey to the
behavior of beachcombers and the like who will wander unchecked by auth-
ority where they will. It's one thing to assume that the visitors to this
park will behave with the right degree of conscientiousness and that this
extremely delicate Natural Environment will not suffer; it's another thing
to try to mend the damage that can ensue here.
In these times of budgetary restraint, there is no evidence that
anything beyond the opening of the park itself can be accomplished;
there's no assurance that a degenerative condition -- regardless of its
scope - -can be corrected. Other parks are already underfunded for main-
tenance and /or restoration and show it; what's to become of this new one?
These marshlands of Dumas Bay are the last of their kind in this greater
• metropolitan area and offer a limited at best sanctuary for the life forms
• they support; they must not be endangered.
•
•
• • 9-
SPECIFLC COMMENT
In late November, the Department of Planning and Community Develop-
ment and Land Development Division on behalf of the King County Parks
Division circulated a copy of its Environmental Assessment and Report
the King e
to th in County Shorelines Hearing Officer (copy attached). . The
9 Y 9 ( PY )
following responds item -by -item to that document's content.
Page 1, Item A,B:
No comment.
•
• Page 1, Item C, No.
1:
Comment regarding "lack of funds has prohibited development until now ":
Other factors such aspreviously- defeated plans to install a boat- launching
• facility would indicate that funds for the overall development of a park
were established with the denoting of the park site as a Forward Thrust
project. The "master plan" of 1974 was funded, but not implemented. Now,
this minimal development (Phase One) is funded for about $68,000.00 No
other future funding appears avail -able for further development, nor does
it appear present for contingencies.
•
Page 1, Item C, No. 2 and 3:
No Comment
Page 1, Item D:
•
4110 Comment regarding the non - requirement for an Environmental Impact
Statement(EIS):
The County's declaration of nonsignificance of June, 1974 stated that
• • 5-
the ro osed development (Master Plan) would not constitute major p p p ( ast erP1 a ) u c a a� acti n o
significantly affecting the quality of the environment and that, therefore,
an EIS was not required prior to the preparation of this report for this
Shoreline Hearing.
It has been seven years since the County's "nonsignificance" statement
was issued; and EIS should be required prior to permitting the implementation
of the proposed park. A singular, subjective, County - generated interpretation
regarding the delicacy of the Natural Environment does not adequately satisfy
the safeguard intentions of the Shoreline Management code.
Page 1 -2, Item E., No. 1 -4:
No
Page 2, Item F., No. 1 and 2:
No comment.
Page 3, Item F., No. 3, Objective 1, Policies 1 and 2, and County Comment:
Regarding Ordinance 3692, Shoreline Goals, Policies, and Objectives:
The stated goal to increase public access to shoreline areas provided that
private rights, public safety, and the natural shoreline character are not
adversely affected'is enthusiastically endorsed. Further, the Objectives
and Policy guidelines are meaningful and appropriately noted. The County
idealistically believes that the park will enjoy a "low intensity of use"--
.
ostensibly because the size of the site is small- -and therefore does not
require restroom facilities. It presumes that overcrowding won't likely
occur; that the sixteen -car parking lot should somehow limit the number of
people in the park at any given time; that pedestrian traffic -- residents from
the many nearby homes, apartments, and condominiums won't walk to the park
on a sunny, warm weekend next summer to enjoy the day sunbathing on or near
the shoreline in the proposed quiet, pristine nature of Dumas Bay Park.
Last summer on the 4th of July, there were nearly 5,000 people in Dash
•
• • 4,
Point Park less than three miles from this proposed park site. Because
the parking lot was full, the people parked along Dash Point Road above
the park and hikedin with their picnic baskets, blankets, frizbees, and
the like. It was a hot day. Verifiably, people will access any water-
.
front available in warm, sunny weather regardless of minor inconveniences
like a short, quarter -mile walk. What protection does the proposed park
offer the delicate shoreline, tideflats, beach, marshland, woods, and
wildlife next July 4th? What assurances against damage are offered to
the people whose privately-owned adjacent property is subjected to insensitive
visitors next July 4th. What about public safety under these conditions?
Of course, this scenario is conjectural; just as conjectural as the
County's, but the odds are in favor of a County misjudgment here.
Page 3, Objective No. 2, Policies 1,2,3 and County Comment:
•
The County has not indicated that there is adequate budget beyond the
re
$68,000.00 for implementation for purposes o f regular policing maintenance
much less improvements to the park site.
No regular police patrol has been assured beyond the initial opening
time frame of the park's use. The Federal Way Police Department has stated that
although it is understaffed, it would respond as quickly as possible" to any
community- generated complaints. The record of complaints having to do with
this park site and the security question surrounding it, is well established.
The community should not be saddled with the security responsibility for
either public safety, private property, or the Natural Environment.
The controlled- access feature of the park applies only to motor ve-
hicles. It will, at least, inhibit free access to motor bikes, but it will
at no time control pedestrian traffic. Once again, the local residents can-
not be expected to watch for rule violations - -8:00 AM - 8:00 PM only, no
alcoholic beverages, no picnicking, no fires, no beach parties, no noisy
loitering in the parking lot until 2- or 3:00 AM by car -borne teenagers,
etc., etc., -- calling the Federal Way Police Department (as has happened
so many times already) to report a "disturbance" in the park area.
• • • 7
Page 2 and 3, Objective No. 3, Policies 1,2,3 and County Comment:
Comment (Policy 1.): The County intends to post signs delineating
public from privately -owned shorelines. When the tides are out (the tideflats
extend about one -half mile at low tide) people will naturally wander from
publicly -owned to privately -owned space within the bay. There's no way
to avoid this when signs posted at the high -water mark area on the beach are
not visible from one-half mile out on the low -water mark tideflat.
Comment (Policy 3.): The Dumas Bay shoreline, tideflats, and marsh-
land are not tolerant of human activity other than that of the most mature,
respectful, rare type. The park site is now, and has always been, endangered
by its openess and consequent vulnerability to those who have become aware
. of its presence and accessibility. The County has known of this delicate
area since it acquired it nearly ten years ago and has yet to adequately
• - protect it through the simple erection of a 50 -foot long barrier device
such as a road -side fence, guard rail, or the like. It has never posted
any "King County Property: Keep Out signs as a deterrent to human violation.
Now it states to the shoreline hearing that there are likely to be fewer
problems with motorized vehicles in the proposed park than exist today because
the site is currently unfenced and accessible to bikes. The County's
new -found concerns are admirably expressed but seem more contrived to meet
their objectives of obtaining your permission to proceed.
Page 4, Objective No. 4, Policy 1 and County Comment:
The site is and excellent example of a small coastal marsh and riparian
forest habitat; an ideal habitat for the ideal good behavior of "bird watchers,
photographers, and responsible hikers ", but within the broad cross - section
of potential users, reality says this type of visitation would be the ex-
ception rather than the rule. The wildlife, sensitive to human presence,
would be frightened off by those "other" types of visitors who are less
than nature - oriented. Realistic - -and not idealistic thinking -- suggests that the
latter occurrence would far exceed the former to the severe detriment of
the Natural Environment.
Page 4, Objective No. 4, Policy 1:
No comment.
Page 4, Objective No. 6., General Policies:
Comment: The proposal would provide.a lookout on Puget Sound acces-
sible to the public but at the cost of certain ruination of the current,
precious Natural Environment.
Page 5, Objective No. 1, Policy 1,2, and County Comment:
Comment: We must save some of our fragile, undeveloped areas for
• future generations; save delicate sites such as this for development at a
later date when proper funding can provide the right research, design,
development, and control.. The project as drafted is an expedient, limited
design that dangerously is full of risk; utterly too idealistic.
Page 5, Objective No. 2, Policy 1 and County Comment:
The park proposal is an example of pushing a . program into existence
that has no public support, no mandate for its implementation. At the
public meeting held August 5, 1981, a form was circulated which enabled the
interested citizens to express their choices among five alternative actions.
(Copies of the originals are attached fro your perusal). No one opted for
the "proceed -as- planned" alternative.
Page 5, Objective No. 3, Policies 1,2,3 and County Comment:
Comment: The County, here, further states its idealistic rationale
saying that the quarter -mile walk to the beach is likely to discourage
noisy, auto - oriented beach parties ". They suggest that "such active users
of the shoreline can get closer to beaches with more public conveniences
at other city, county, and state parks from Seahurst to Dash Point ". This
logic is totally unacceptable. Will a one - quarter mile walk really dis-
• •
courage the "undesireable" element? Will "active" users seek out already
crowded parks on hot summer weekends when one is nearby that is uncrowded,
open, and inviting? Perhaps, but isn't that really wishful thinking?
Pase 6, Objective No. 1, Polic No.1 and Count Comment:
No comment.
Page 6, Objective No. 2, Policies 1,5,6,7,9 and County Comment:
Comment: Policy No. 6 of this objective states that "recreation areas
on the shoreline should have adequate surveillance :and maintenance ". The
- nature and extent of surveillance and maintenance provided for in the pro-
posed park plan are unspecified; ostensibly, no provision has been included.
• Policy No. 7 states that "the public should be provided with additional -
off -site and on -site guidance and control to protect the shoreline resource ".
No such provision has been in the proposed park plan.
Page 6, Objective No. 4, Policies 1,2,3,4,5 and County Comment:
No comment.
Page 7, Item d., General Policies No. 1 -4 and County Comment:
"NATURAL ENVIRONMENT" Inherent in these words,is the essence of the
objection to the proposed park. This area is designated Natural Environment
and as such is relatively intolerant of intensive human use and should be
kept free from development. The County believes that the "intensity of use
will be controlled by fencing"; that "the quarter -mile walk to the beach will
be a deterrent to more active types of recreation "; that "dense vegetation
411) and swampy terrain will also deter people from tramping through the marsh
itself ". The intensity of use cannot be controlled by fencing alone; the
number of people (intensity of use) has nothing to do with the amount of
fencing; moreover, the design allows free pedestrian access at all times.
• • (
4
The -mile walk to the beach along a proposed 10- foot -wide asphalt
road won't deter anyone (nuch less the so- called "active" types) from
accessing anything from the park entrance to the low -water tideline.
Dense vegetation and swampy marshland doesn't deter adventure seekers,
especially courageous young school -aged children. If humans contaminate
a nesting area even accidentally, the wildlife leaves and can't easily
be restored.
.Page 8, Item G and H:
No comment.
Page 9, Item I, No. 1:
• Comment: The Lakehaven Sewer District does not provide sewer service
to the proposed park site.
Page 9, Item J., No 1:
Comment: Opposition to items 1-4 suppositions have been previously
voiced; no need for redundancy.
Page 9, Item K:
No comment.
Page 9, Item L:
DISCUSSION: The County here admits that "some" impact to the Heron
rookery may be experienced by guiding people through the admittedly sen-
sitive area. The extent of impact is purely conjectural; the opposition .
suspects it will be substantial.
• • 11
Page 10, Item A., Conclusions:
Item No. 1 Comment: The Building and Land Development Division mana-
ger's idealized interpretation that an EIS is unnecessary should be chal-
lenged. An EIS should be, in this case, mandatory.
Item No. 2 -5: No comment.
Item No. 6: Dash Point State Park is also a so- called "Wildlife -
sanctuary ". It can hardly be called a sanctuary for wildlife anymore, how -
ever, it's merely a beach access. The same fate will surely befall Dumas
Bay if the public is invited to access it in an uncontrolled, unsupervised
manner.
Item No. 7: No comment. •
Item No. 8: This states that "it is not likely that the park operation
will seriously affect adjoining residences: The proposed fencing and dense
forest shouldhelp prevent trespass on surrounding private property ". The
proposed park borders and entrance are immediately -adjacentto private -
- residences. The property owners are much more anxious about the level of
impact the park will likely have on their properties in the form of trespass, .
vandalism, and general nuissance. The dead -end street (44th Avenue Southwest)
accessing the parking lot is 18 -feet wide, winding, downhill, with no shoulders
or sidewalks, and is potentially very dangerous. It safely support
vehicular -borne park visitors in its present condition. The community in
this immediate vicinity has grown significantly since 1974. It should not
now be subjected to even the slightest threat of difficulty stemming from
this proposal. The truth is, there's no satisfactorily appropriate means
of creating a safe park access either along 44th Avenue Southwest or from
39th Avenue Southwest - -the only two corridors to the site -- short of a
major funded Highway Department project to support this end.
Without a full and proper Environmental Impact Statement and closer
evaluation of the public safety concerns for traffic along 44th Avenue
IIIP Southwest, we respectfully implore this panel to deny the permit to proceed
with this - substantial shoreline development project. Thank you.
•
• 400 c ri\cl
August 14, 1992
Federal Way Parks and Recreation Department
Federal Way City Hall
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98023
RE: DUMAS BAY WILDLIFE SANCTUARY
To whom it may concern:
The park located along 44th Avenue Southwest was approved for construction as a result of a
December 15, 1981 Shoreline Substantial Development public hearing, review, and finding
subject to 11 special conditions (enclosed). Specifics of the proceedings are found in King
County Parks Division File: 037- 81 -SH. A review of this document will apprise you of the
circumstances surrounding the establishment of this park.
In the intervening years, the 11 conditions have been in effect. Some days ago, however,
certain of these conditions (number 1 and 3) were compromised and must be remedied to
protect the wildlife as soon as possible. Specifically, the security barrier which prevented
access to the park by motorbikes, horses, etc. and comprised a perimeter chain link fence,
double, locked emergency/ maintenance swing gate, and pedestrian "snake" gate has been
removed permitting free access to anything that can get around the current parking lot
entrance- restricting devices. The special sign posted near the entrance (pedestrian gate) listing
rules to be followed, e.g. no alcoholic beverages, no hunting, no fires, etc. has been removed.
While no condition prevents it, a sanican has been installed.
I have a related concern. My property is adjacent to the park. Street signs were installed
along 44th Avenue S.W. (directly in front of my property) prohibiting parking north of the
sign's location. With growing frequency, Park visitors (and late at night, teenagers) are now
parking in front of my residence and dangerously straddling the north -bound lane and drainage
ditch which runs parallel to the road. Clearly, the narrow road can not and should not support
any parking other than for emergency cases; it simply isn't safe.
While all the concerns mentioned are of great importance to me,,I am most interested in
protecting the sensitive environment that comprises the Park itself. The fences, gates, and
"rules" signs must be replaced straightaway.
Kindly advise me of your intentions in this matter as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
•
Steven R. Schrantz
31006 44th Avenue Southwest
Federal Way, WA 98023
• •
(206) 838 -7141
Federal Way Parks and Recreation Department;
S.R. Schrantz
August 14, 1992
(enclosure)
King County Parks Division
CONDITIONS ON THE APPROVAL OF DUMAS BAY PARK
1. The pedestrian gate at the parking area shall be equipped with bollards or other device
to effectively bar motorbikes from the site.
2. The general park sign shall reflect the passive atmosphere of the park as a wildlife
• sanctuary.
3. A sign shall be posted in the parking area listing rules to be followed, e.g., no
alcoholic beverages, no hunting, no fires, etc.
4. Security lighting in the parking area or a street light on 44th Avenue S.W. shall be
installed to discourage vandalism at night.
5. The four -foot chain -link fence shall be extended out to the 44th Avenue S.W. street
right -of -way along the property lines adjacent to the John H. Thompson and Steven R.
Schrantz properties.
6. The limits of the public beach on Dumas Bay shall be clearly posted.
7. Further development beyond this proposal shall require a separate Substantial
Development Permit.
8. No alteration of the natural marine shoreline shall be allowed.
9. Picnic tables shown in the proposal shall be replaced by benches.
• 10. No structures of any kind shall be built waterward of ordinary high water in Dumas
Bay or within 200 feet landward of ordinary high water.
11. Barrier plantings or fencing shall be placed where necessary on the beach berm to
prevent access from the beach to the marsh.
r
t } save Ba ;,- . ,,,,".,,,o.,___.).,...... ill, e r ' . , 1 {, ox the } ..,.2_,
. , .
` - - ; y s - ,' -Y + r t .t . 40 f(r, W yi -. z e ,g r„ - '! ' '. 4, ;4
J a by A nn Ha ` • 44 THE ORIGINAL park plan was r y .
i Many Dumas Bay residents re- revised In the following ways
main unconvinced of the ap- to a c c o m m o d a t e the r e-
propriateness of a King County quirements suggested by Dumas
park in their backyards despite Bay residents:
. conciliatory negotiations by the 1) Instead of being referred to
• county. as the Dumas Bay Park, the area
t _ The proposed park was will be referred to as the Dumas
r discussed recently at a public Bay ark Wildlife and Preserve
meeting held at Calvary or Refuge. This change is subject
Lutheran Church, 2415 S. 320th St. to approval by the King County
The county outlined its plans for Council.
the development of the 23 -acre 2) Posted signs will list the
site followed by discussion and a hours the park is open.,
- slide show presentation by com- 3) Signs will be posted on pro-
munity activist, Steve Schrantz. petty borders stating adjacent
Diana Scbrantz, of 31006 44th _ acreage or tideflats are private.
Ave. S.W., who has worked with ' 4) There will be no picnic tables
her husband to coordinate opposi- or trash receptacles near the
, tion to 'the project, said "they beach to disturb the ecology of
really didn't offer us anything." existing wildlife.
• %
■
"The majority of the people 5) The narrow and winding
-r want to protect and preserve this deadend street leading to the
t' : area for the future rather than park will be investigated by the
1110 . }, see it turned into a park," she King County traffic division to
C' said. ascertain conditions. Signs w_ Ill
• 1. Long a point of dissension bet- be posted.
< • ween the two factions, the park .6) Security will be tightened by
has been scheduled for develop- fencing and locking gates
I went since - 1968 with : nearly
;' : . $230 in Forward Thrust funds LACOURSE SAID he assumes
for purchase of property, an 'en- the negotiations are over and the
virotunental study; and develop- next step is putting the develop -
ment of the site. The 'study was ment of the park up for bids with
- completed in 1974. - , ° - a possible starting date of early
THE COUNTY` expects the September.. '
• park to give more people the op- "The Blue Heron are the least
portunity to enjoy the beach since apt to be disturbed from
, most waterfront .property is September through November
privately owned. and we're anxious to get on with
A current budget of $61,000 it early - and work out a com-
i:' ea11s for a 16-car parking lot, a 10- promise," he said. '
foot wide pedestrian path from Property owners recently
44th Avenue Southwest to the responded to a questionnaire that
• - beach and a 1,740 feet of chain asked how they felt regarding the
• link fencing enclosing the proper - upcoming park. Five people re-
ty quested that one not be
Dumas Bay residents have developed; 10 voted for develop -
been most concerned about los- ing it, but wanted further
- ing the area as a natural habitat changes negotiated with the
for existing wildlife and vegeta- county; 19 asked that the park be
tion, the destruction of the ace preserved and
Pe P protected for the
and uiet that
now surrounds the future; ure; and three people re-
neighborhood and the loss of quested a shoreline hearing.
II" .
security.. Dr. Eric Carson, community
Steve LaCourse, manager of activist and a supporter of
the project for the county's Ar- careful planning of the park, said
chitecture Division, said every there were still many votes yet
_ effort is being made to corn uncounted.
promise with residents. "The community established a
"The master plan recognizes mandate for a nature preserve-
this is a natural resource with a tion with the Forward Thrust
fragile ecology and . essentially bond and there's been no expen-
that - will remain unchanged," diture for this kind of park so