Loading...
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