West Point Security Gate Project
Open House and Community Input Summary October 2013
Open House and Community Input Summary ...... 1
Overview and Project Background ...... 3
Meeting Purpose ...... 4
Open House Format ...... 4
Common Themes from Input Received ...... 5
Staff Attendance ...... 9
For more information ...... 9
Appendix A. Open House Flipchart Notes ...... 10
Appendix B. Verbatim Input Received ...... 11
Page 2 of 49
Overview and Project Background
On August 21, 2013, the King County Wastewater Treatment Division (WTD) and the City of Seattle Parks and Recreation (Seattle Parks) invited community members to an open house at the Discovery Park Visitor’s Center to learn about and discuss the agencies’ proposal to install a new security gate to control vehicle access to the West Point Treatment Plant, beach and parking area.
The West Point Wastewater Treatment Plant (West Point) is located adjacent to Discovery Park along its northwestern bank. The West Point Treatment Plant has a long history in Magnolia. Prior to the completion of the primary treatment facility in 1966, a sewage disposal pipeline brought raw sewage from across the region onto the beach and into Puget Sound. Water quality along Seattle’s waterfront improved after the treatment plant became operational and Discovery Park was created in 1972. In 1996, the treatment plant was converted from primary to secondary treatment. During this upgrade, WTD reduced the plant size and limited shoreline facilities while improving public access to water and screening the plant from shoreline view.
Access to West Point is via Discovery Park Boulevard, a two‐lane road that runs about 1.5 miles from the park entrance at 36th West and West Government Way to West Point and beyond to the beach areas and lighthouse. Vehicular parking at the beach is very limited and is available only by City of Seattle permit in order to preserve the beach environment and protect the lighthouse facility. Permits are available at the Discovery Park Visitor’s Center. However, other than signage describing the permit requirement, there is currently no mechanism for ensuring that park visitors obtain a permit prior to driving to the beach. The result of this is a crowding of vehicles in the beach area, particularly on good weather days, creating traffic problems and at times blocking access to the main entrance to West Point.
Beach parking is intended to accommodate ten vehicles at a time, but there are times when up to 30 vehicles can be found parked in the area. In addition, vehicles can travel to the beach areas at night with no restriction. This has resulted in activity detrimental to the beach areas including illegal beach fires, defacing of property, damaged or stolen vehicles left on the beach, as well as evidence of illegal discharge of firearms.
West Point WTD staff and Seattle Parks staff respond to this activity when detected, but usually by this time the damage has been done. West Point day operations crews have extinguished beach fires and cleaned up graffiti on the berm wall that is intended to visually blend West Point with its natural surroundings. King County and Seattle Parks have a duty to the people they serve to maintain a safe and secure environment in the beach and light house areas and at West Point as well.
To address undesired beach and lighthouse area activity proactively, King County WTD and Seattle Parks are exploring methods to monitor vehicle traffic to those areas to ensure that existing limitations on vehicular traffic are observed and to help prevent the kinds of undesired activity that goes hand in hand with unrestricted night time vehicular access to those areas. Page 3 of 49
The project’s challenge is to prevent unpermitted vehicular access to the area without interfering with uses of the area that are encouraged for the enjoyment of this natural asset consistent with the Discovery Park Master Plan. Analysis and experience indicate that an effective means of meeting that challenge is to monitor and control motor vehicle traffic along Discovery Park Boulevard.
Meeting Purpose
The purpose of the open house was to: Introduce the proposed gate project Share information about the project’s purpose and need Provide opportunities for community members to ask questions of King County and Seattle Parks and Recreation Staff and provide input on the proposed project
Open House Format The open house was divided into numerous stations:
Problem statement. Displays described the problems that prompted King County WTD and Seattle Parks and Recreation to propose the gate, including illegal fires, trespassing after hours, illegal activities on the beach, and illegal parking that blocks access to the treatment plant.
Beach access and area map. Displays described the current park rules for parking at the beach, which is allowed by City of Seattle permit only for families with children under 8, people over 62, and others with some physical condition that to walk long distances. Displays described that visitors requiring vehicle access to the beach area would still be able to acquire access and parking permits as they do now through the Discovery Park Visitor’s Center. Displays also showed the proposed location for the gate and described how pedestrians and bicycles would be able to access the beach.
Project overview and gate features. Displays provided an overview of the project and provided information about the West Point Treatment Plant and its critical role in protecting water quality and public health in the greater Seattle area. Displays also outlined some of the key features of the proposed gate such as a turn‐around area in front of the gate, signs to direct park users to the Visitor’s Center to obtain parking for beach parking, and an intercom 24/7 from the gate to the treatment plant operations staff.
Comment forms. Comment forms were available for community members to fill out at the meeting and leave with County staff, or to take home and mail in later. Comment forms were also available online on the project website. Input was requested by September 20, 2013. Meeting materials are available on the project website at: www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wtd/About/System/West/Plant/Projects/SecurityGate.aspx
Page 4 of 49
Common Themes from Input Received Community members offered a wide range of perspectives on the proposed West Point Security Gate project at the open house as well as submitted via comment form, email and mail. Flipchart notes from the open house can be found in Appendix A and all written comments received by the project team can be found in Appendix B. Common themes from the input received include: Benefits of the proposed security gate: The proposed security gate meets the goals and mission statement of the Discovery Park Master Plan to protect the park. A security gate would reduce traffic in the park which would improve the park environment and visitor experience. A security gate would help protect the treatment plant and natural resources. A security gate would help protect public safety, reduce the number of illegal beach fires that are a threat to the park and nearby homes, and reduce damage and vandalism in the park.
Concerns with the proposed security gate: A security gate would further cut off already limited access to the beach. A security gate would discourage legitimate use of the park. A security gate would not solve the issues of driftwood fires or illegal activity at the beach. A security gate would not improve security of the treatment plant. The gate and permitting system would be too complex.
If the proposed security gate is installed: Maintain vehicle access to the beach during park hours, even when the Visitor’s Center is closed (specifically Mondays and evenings). Allow visitors access through the gate to drive to the beach to drop off and pick up passengers and gear. Provide year‐round shuttle bus service from all three Discovery Park parking lots to the beach. Install new signs to clearly communicate park rules and how to access the beach.
Alternatives to the proposed security gate: Explore alternative ways to maximize legal activities and access and implement the least costly alternative first. Install the security gate in front of the treatment plant instead of the proposed location on Discovery Park Boulevard. Solve the illegal parking problem by adding more enforcement (ticketing and towing) rather than installing a gate.
Page 5 of 49
Next Steps King County WTD and Seattle Parks and Recreation will continue to develop a project proposal based on community feedback, compliance with the Discovery Park Master Plan, and other considerations.
In early December 2013, King County WTD and Seattle Parks and Recreation will host another community meeting at the Discovery Park Visitor’s Center to share what the project team heard from the community and how this input was incorporated into the project proposal. Community members will have an opportunity to review and discuss the proposed project with King County and Seattle Parks staff.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Would the beach be closed to public access if the gate is installed? The beach would remain open to the public. The security gate proposed by King County and supported by the Seattle Parks Department would not block public access, but enforce a parking permit system that is already in place, and to ensure that people who do obtain permits can find a spot available when they drive down to the beach area. Existing rules that limit parking to those that qualify for and obtain a City of Seattle parking permit from the Discovery Park Visitor’s Center can be found at www.seattle.gov/parks/parkspaces/discoverypark/FAQ.pdf.
2. How would the public access the beach if there is a gate? Those who currently are allowed to access and park at the beach (families with children under 8, people over 62, and others with some physical condition that would make it difficult or impossible to walk long distances) would still be able to park at the beach and would continue to stop by the Discovery Park Visitor’s Center to pick up a pass that would allow them access through the gate. Pedestrians would be able to access the areas via the road, South Beach Trail, the Hidden Valley Trail or the North Beach Trail as they do now. Bicyclists would also be allowed to pass around the gate on Discovery Park Boulevard.
3. What if I just want to drive down to the beach to drop off or pick someone up but don’t want to park? King County WTD and Seattle Parks have heard from community members that many Park visitors’ drive down to the beach to drop off or pick up passengers and/or gear. One of the purposes of the gate would to reduce traffic on the road to the treatment plant, but the project team will address this concern and determine if there are solutions that would allow Park visitors to continue to drop off and pick up.
Page 6 of 49
4. How will I access the beach when the Visitor’s Center is closed (on Mondays and after 5 pm)? King County and Seattle Parks know there are concerns about beach access on Mondays and evenings when the Visitor’s Center is closed. The project team will continue working on these and other issues raised by the community.
5. Will there be parking at the gate turnaround? Seattle Parks does not have plans to add additional parking at the gate location. The turnaround area at the gate location would be for cars and trucks that drive down Discovery Park Boulevard and do not have access through the gate. Park visitors may continue to park at the north, south and east parking lots if they do not have a permit to access the restricted beach parking area. The turnaround area would be to the south of the intersection, where the road is already wide from a road that was decommissioned. The Park would be clearly signed to alert drivers that access is restricted to reduce the amount of traffic that arrives at the gate and then has to turn around.
6. Would bicycles be able to access the beach? Yes, bicycles would still be allowed to ride down to the beach. King County and Seattle Parks would design the gate so bikes can simply ride around it.
7. How would the gate be controlled? King County WTD is proposing to monitor (remotely or using staff at the gate) during business hours. During non‐business hours or if the gate is not staffed, the gate would be monitored by treatment plant staff in the Operations Main Control. The gate would be hard‐wired to the treatment plant through fiber optic cable. Cameras would be installed at the gate location to allow staff in Main Control to see vehicles at the gate, communicate with them, and if necessary, open the gate.
8. Why doesn’t King County put the gate directly in front of the treatment plant instead of on top of the hill so cars can still access the beach? There is no room for cars and trucks to turn around if the gate is put at the bottom of the hill in front of the treatment plant. In addition, a major safety concern about putting the gate in this location is that if cars and trucks back up in front of the gate, another car or truck could come down the blind corner of the hill and not see the back‐up until it is too late and cause an accident. This is an especially dangerous situation in winter conditions. Parks is also interested in reducing the amount of traffic on this road and reducing the number of vehicles on the beach. The Discovery Park Master Plan (available online at: www.seattle.gov/parks/parkspaces/discoverypark/masterplan.htm) calls for traffic to be kept to the perimeter of the park with parking in the north, south, and east lots. The interior of the park is for walking and biking. Reducing vehicle traffic will adhere to the vision of a peaceful and tranquil setting, and encourage wildlife and natural forest growth.
Page 7 of 49
9. How would emergency vehicles access the beach area through the gate? The security gate would automatically open for all emergency vehicles. King County staff have had initial conversations with Station 41 and learned that all emergency vehicles in Seattle have transponders on their vehicles. The security gate could be tuned to the same frequency as those transponders so that it automatically opened for emergency vehicles.
10. What is the decision process for this project? King County and Seattle Parks work closely with communities when new facilities are being installed or existing sites are being redeveloped. We work with the community in a site specific fashion, considering the type of project being carried out, surrounding land use, and community values in the project area.
King County and Seattle Parks will take the community input and work together on a conceptual design of the project. Once the project is conceptually defined, this will be presented to the Park Board of Commissioners. The Board will make a recommendation to the Superintendent, and the Superintendent will make the final decision. If the Park Board recommends installing the gate and the Superintendent agrees, the project team will begin further designing specific details of the project. The community will be kept informed of the process via community meetings, newsletters, emails, project updates and news releases.
11. Who is paying for this project? King County WTD will pay for design and implementation of the proposed project. All King County Wastewater Treatment Division capital projects are funded by regional wastewater ratepayers throughout the service area. Because this project is in the early analysis phase, a final budget will be developed later in the design process.
12. How are you going to ensure Park users understand how to access the beach if a gate is installed? New signage will be a crucial part of the new system to ensure that Park users understand how they can access the beach area. King County WTD and Seattle Parks will work together to create effective signage explaining how vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles can access the beach.
Page 8 of 49
Staff Attendance Erica Jacobs, Project Manager, King County WTD Dan Grenet, West Point Treatment Plant Manager, King County WTD Adair Muth, Community Relations, King County WTD Monica Van der Vieren, Community Relations, King County WTD Annie Kolb‐Nelson, Media Relations, King County WTD Michael Stella, King County WTD Alton Gaskill, King County WTD Karl Zimmer, King County WTD Louis Webster, Seattle Parks and Recreation Michele Thurmond, Seattle Parks and Recreation Donald Harris, Seattle Parks and Recreation Eric Friedli, Seattle Parks and Recreation Cheryl Fraser, Seattle Parks and Recreation Jason Tooley, Seattle Parks and Recreation Belinda Chin, Seattle Parks and Recreation Linda Hubert, Seattle Parks and Recreation
For more information
For more information, questions, or concerns, please contact: Adair Muth, King County Community Relations Email: [email protected] Phone: (206) 477‐5505
Project Website: www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wtd/About/System/West/Plant/Projects/SecurityGate.aspx
Page 9 of 49
Appendix A. Open House Flipchart Notes The following comments were recorded on flipcharts at the open house on August 21:
Concern about access after 5pm for disabled access (or any other after hours/weekend access) How will the public access the beach after 5pm and Mondays? Concern about electronics of a gate – potential for mechanical failure Road is already inherently unsafe – really need another access for trucks Put the gate uphill by bus shelter Move the gate higher up in Discovery Park Boulevard to avoid people parking on the road (or build a parking lot next to gate to decrease people parking on the road) Concern that there will be parking issues above gate Build more parking lots (underground) Parking permit (check out at the Visitor’s Center) has issues as well. The system has been abused by those falsifying their inclusion of either children or elderly. Visual confirmation is now needed to obtain a permit pass (this rule is new summer 2013). Wait time and number of people has increased this summer: more demand for getting closer to beach is occurring. More “slots” is the suggested cure, by the public waiting for a parking permit. Website permit (off‐hours) Add a shuttle to the beach (more than Saturday and Sunday summer: see the master plan – shuttle is provided) Need to update signage in the park Allow drop‐off and pick‐up Provide permits for near neighbors No more auto access (like national park at a trailhead) I really like Discovery Park
Page 10 of 49
Appendix B. Verbatim Input Received All written input received by the project team (comment forms, emails and letters) appear by date received below. If more than one comment was received by the same person, this is noted as [Same commenter] with the date of the subsequent comment(s).
08/07/2013
FYI ‐ Input from a Friends of Discovery Park member.
Begin forwarded message:
All,
Regret I will be on my way to my fifty year high school reunion in San Diego on the week of the hearing, unless I have a change in plans.
I am 100% behind this. Making it work requires foresight and planning. Really good signage is crucial. Here's what can go wrong: 1) Cars get down to the gate, the drivers then decide to park anywhere nearby along DP Blvd. e.g. along the curb, on stub roads, on Kansas, Montana Circle, Idaho etc. 2) Drivers become disgruntled when they encounter the gate and can't get through, and then speed on the way back out 3) Drivers get confused at the DP Blvd. Illinois junction and stop, or try to turn around at that intersection causing a 'bung up' 4) A few drivers try Washington instead of DP Blvd, and so we get more cars headed up that way 5) Drivers pass through the gate and then speed to make up for lost time (this one's unlikely, but possible, due to human nature) 6) Drivers follow right behind a vehicle that can access the gate to sneak through right behind him (where there's a will, there's a way)
A few more thoughts: Beach traffic will need an easily read and understood warning sign on entry to the Park, or as they approach the Visitors Center, that they must stop at the Vis Center for beach/lighthouse access by vehicle. Signage at the 5 corners will have to be completely redone, and done 'scientifically' (it'll have to be good). So, the signs on DP Blvd Illinois intersection and the Washington intersection would need to be completely replaced. As an additional consideration, traffic moving to and from Lawtonwood, Bay Terrace, and Commodore through the park should be directed as much as possible via Texas Way through the Lawton Parcel rather than via Illinois and DP Blvd. Unfortunately the painted, dashed arterial center‐line on 40th West coming up from Commodore Way goes to the right at the park entrance, to the traffic circle and up Illinois, rather that going to the left on Texas Way. Thanks to some of you Metro Buses are now all using Texas Way. It would be helpful if all through traffic could be directed that way. A sign at the 40th W Texas Way 'T' intersection directing through traffic to the left might help. Likewise a sign at the east entrance, at the Texas Way DP Blvd. intersection directing through traffic to the right on Tex Way would be a good thing.
Page 11 of 49
Lastly, this is a side issue, but I'd like to see improved crosswalk makings and traffic signs for the Loop trail crossings both on Illinois, and DP Blvd. The city now has STOP When In Use (or Occupied) signs at crosswalks all over the city. I have personally found these to be very useful and effective.
[Same commenter] 08/08/2013
Rather than save them up, I am going to shuttle on over to you any ideas that Friends of Discovery Park receives.
This is the latest I have received:
“The consequence, of course, is that visitation by well‐meaning Seattle parks users to probably the City’s most valuable park asset will be severely diminished. No consideration is being given to maximizing the availability of the two mile natural beach front to those who wish to enjoy it, learn from it and treat it gently….SUBJECT TO A FIXED VEHICLE PRESENCE AT WEST POINT.
I think the gist of this is that yes, we have a problem with illegal activities/uncontrolled vehicle access that needs to be addressed, but along with the Security Gate we should also be discussing alternate ways to maximize legal activities and access.
For example, there is a summer trial of providing shuttle bus service for limited hours on Saturdays and Sundays back and forth between the Visitor Center and the Beach. This trial is being paid for out of Discovery Park Advisory Council funds. This is a great start, but I think we really need a year‐round service that would run a continuous loop between all 3 Park parking lots and the beach.
[Same commenter] 08/09/2013
More input:
1. What happens on MONDAYS when the Visitor Center is closed and therefore beach passes are not obtainable. Perhaps DPR should be “pressured” to keep the VC open 7 days a week.
2. Another call for some kind of public transport to the beach and back ‐ a bus or a “train”; like they use to drive people around theme parks such as Universal Studios.
[Same commenter] 08/15/2013
More comments are popping up on the Magnolia Voice Blog:
http://www.magnoliavoice.com/2013/08/14/speak‐your‐mind‐to‐keep‐access‐open‐to‐ discovery‐park‐beach/
AND, this is copied from the 1986 Discovery Park Development Plan :) :) :)
Page 12 of 49
SHUTTEL BUSES
While the park is to have a strong pedestrian orientation, not all visitors are able to make the relatively long and steep trip to west Point or to other destinations. Therefore, a shuttle bus service will be provided for such purposes. The Park Department or its designee shall provide the shuttle bus system, which will operate from a central location and/or connect with the various parking lots and provide service to the South Beach and to other selected areas as may be warranted by demand. The type of busses utilized for transportation within the Parkway is selected based upon size and operation characteristics, which are compatible with the desired character of the park.
[Same commenter] 08/17/2013
Adair ‐ more ideas.
A. The SIGNAGE at 5‐Corners is going to be tricky because without writing an essay, because it needs to convey:
1. Security gate ahead
2. Public access by Permit only (available at Visitor Center)
3. BUT Montana Circle residents and WP Treatment Plant employees are OK
B. Currently, some people pause to read the current “restricted access” sign at 5‐Corners, but then they see 3 or 4 personal cars (Metro employees or Montana Circle residents ???) just zip right past them. So without knowing who those people are or where they are going, they figure “if those private cars can drive there, then I can drive there....” MONKEY SEE, MONKEY DO.
C. Sometimes those people who pause to read the current “restricted access” sign at 5‐Corners DO comply, BUT by then they have turned the corner and are now in the middle of the road. Some try to turn around right there, or they try to back out. Either option is very dangerous, as arriving traffic on DP Blvd or Illinois is usually driving too fast.
D. Therefore SPEED BUMPS should be installed on DP Blvd and Illinois to slow traffic ‐ start at W Government Way and Texas Way and continue all the way to the North Parking Lot AND also to Montana Circle (or to the new Gate at Capehart.)
[Same commenter] 08/29/2013
With the installation of a security gate to control unauthorized vehicle traffic to the Beach Area, the entire ACCESS and PERMIT SYSTEM currently used by DPR should be updated and revised.
1. SHUTTLE SERVICE
Page 13 of 49
***A regular shuttle service should be provided year‐round, but especially on summer weekends and holidays.
***The schedule should accommodate times of peak demand, including times of notable low tides.
***Summer hours would be later into the afternoon/early evening than winter hours.
***It should circulate between all 3 parking lots and the beach.
2. PERMITS
***The current parking Permit system is biased and unfair. Special privileges are currently granted to people with small children, whereas having kids is not a protected class.
***If we continue with Permits, then NO Permits should be issued during times when the Shuttle Service is in operation ‐ not to anyone for any reason ‐ they can ride the shuttle.
***The overall merits of having ANY private vehicle Permits should be weighed against their affects on the Park ‐ The Master Plan states their MAY be a permit system to allow automobiles to access the beach for “disabled or senior visitors and for scheduled groups.” Period.
***DPR Visitor Center Staff currently tell people that they do not need a Permit when the Visitor Center is closed ‐ they tell people they are free to just drive on down to the beach. THIS IS NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED when the Permit system was implemented, ie open season on vehicles going to the beach, and it is specifically prohibited in The Master Plan. DPR Staff are WRONG to be encouraging this activity.
***If it is decided that a Permit system for private vehicles is still warranted, then it should be on a first come first served basis for EVERYONE ‐ no special classes of people should get special privileges.
***DPR has the authority to close areas of the Park during certain hours. Therefore,
if a permit system does continue, it should apply to ALL vehicles traveling to the beach 24/7. During those hours when the Visitor Center is closed and Permits are therefore not available, then NO Vehicles are allowed to drive to the beach ‐ simple as that.
***The Visitor Center needs to be open 7 days a week to accommodate public use of Discovery Park.
[Same commenter] 08/29/2013
With the installation of a security gate on Discovery Park Blvd in Discovery Park, the entire system of TRAFFIC FLOW through Discovery Park should be examined.
Page 14 of 49
1. The GOALS should be two‐fold:
***SLOW traffic through the Park.
***DECREASE unnecessary traffic through the Park.
2. Suggested changes to achieve these goals:
***Speed bumps installed the entire length of Discovery Park Blvd from Texas Way to the security gate at Capehart.
***Speed bumps (or "S" curves) also be installed on Illinois Ave between 5‐Corners and the North Parking Lot, and on Washington Ave and California Blvd starting at 5‐Corners.
***Through traffic coming from W Government Way should be routed north on Texas Way and around the Park ie the arterial street should turn north at Texas Way and NOT continue up Discovery Park Blvd into the Park.
***The same for through traffic coming out of Bernie Whitebear Way, Lawtonwood, Bay Terrace, and 40th Ave W ‐ they should be routed east around the Park on Texas Way by making it the arterial street.
***Discovery Park Blvd, Illinois Ave, Washington Ave, and California Blvd should all be NARROWED (with Bike lanes and other means ‐ plantings ???) to calm and slow traffic. This will also make people visually aware that they have entered the Park, and they are no longer on an arterial street.
***Park speed limit should be lowered to 20mph along with the narrowing of the roadways ‐ it's a PARK not a highway or a thoroughfare.
***Consider actually closing Illinois Ave between 5‐Corners and the North Parking Lot to all but service vehicles and the Shuttle.
***It should be noted that DPR is the caretaker of ALL of these roads within the Park boundaries, including Texas Way, Bay Terrace, and Lawtonwood Roads. ie NONE of them are maintained by SDOT. This includes Texas Way all the way through the Army property !!! Therefore DPR does have complete jurisdiction over things like speed bumps, "S" curves, roadway width, speed limit, and traffic flow on all of these roadways.
[Same commenter] 09/14/2013
Comments we received re the Security Gate in Discovery Park.
‐‐
Hello, Page 15 of 49
I have lived a block from Discovery Park for over 30 years and seen many changes there. I attended your board meetings as a community participant when the south parking lot was being planned and constructed. Bob Kildahl was chair then, we've known Bob and Ruth for many of those years.
I attended the recent Park Department open house about the new security gate for the beach and think it's an excellent idea. I do think it may create more issues in the future, however. I think a majority of the people parking at the beach without permits have simply been unaware of the regulations and permit requirements. When the new gate is put up the demand for permits will increase and people who do not live near the park will have a more difficult time getting one. Quite possibly a demand for an on‐line permit reservation system will come up. With more complete control it could be a good idea to increase the number of permit parking spaces. If demand greatly exceeds supply, it may be necessary to consider either a lottery method or a pay for parking method, or both to resolve the situation.
In the sense of not everyone knowing about parking permits, I think much more emphasis should be placed on signs about other park regulations. The bicycling restrictions are very poorly signed. Every other time I walk in the park I see bicycles on dirt paths by the bluff and other places. It's getting worse.
At the same time, there is no way for anyone parking in the south lot to ride a bicycle in the park without using a non‐paved path. The path that goes straight north from the parking lot street would be the best candidate to give those people paved use of the other roads.
One weekend day I saw five different dogs off leash on the beach. This also happens very often. There are more signs about this, but probably not enough. People are more likely to disobey requirements for pet dogs than other regulations, so you could claim no amount of signs would control that behavior, but I think more signs would help.
Thanks for your consideration of these matters.
08/14/2013
Dear Adair‐
As the Moderator for the Magnolia Moms & Dads group (over 1,000 families living in Magnolia), I've noticed an active discussion online today about the proposed upcoming meeting regarding the installation of a new gate near the lighthouse and water treatment plant.
I'm sure that the safety and security concerns cited in the flyer are legitimate and bear attention.
Page 16 of 49
As the plant borders the only accessible waterfront park area for Magnolia residents, I'm sure you can appreciate that residents in our neighborhood are concerned about being further cut off from the already very limited access we have to the precious natural resource. While many other Seattle neighborhoods have ready access to beach parks and beach clubs, the space next to the water treatment plant is unfortunately the only thing we've got, and it's already quite inconvenient unless you can drive down.
The proposed meeting date and time seems insured to limit the number of interested parties who attend, given that it is scheduled during normal working hours. Perhaps there is a way to ensure that the County better engages with the neighborhood on this issue?
Please keep us in the loop.
08/15/2013
Dear Adair Muth & Patti Petesch,
I will be out of town on the 21st, but I add my 100% support to the proposed gate installation. I believe it will relieve beach parking congestion, reduce parking infractions and abuses, and provide other benefits for the beach, lighthouse, park, and the vicinity of the treatment plant.
The installation of the gate will require proper signage at multiple locations. Since that is necessary, it might be well to look at the whole system of Discovery Park Blvd. from the main (east) park entrance to the beach, and, including, Illinois from the north park entrance to Discovery Park Blvd. Julia forwarded a previous e‐mail from me pointing out some problem areas. Some drivers may become frustrated and stop, or park, inappropriately, others may speed to make up for lost time and due to frustration. It would be well in any case to have the speed limit marked with signs in both directions on Disc. Park Blvd. I'd recommend a sign at the park entrance (which should be there now). Another one at the start of the hill on leaving the visitor's center, another on Disc. Park Blvd., after the Illinois intersection, and another after the gate on Disc. Park Blvd. for a total of 4 westbound. I'd put 3 on D.P. Blvd. eastbound. one at the start of the hill up from the beach, one after the gate, and one after the Illinois intersection on the way down the hill toward the visitor's center. There should also be 2 signs on Illinois, one on the northbound stretch up from the traffic circle, and one on the southbound stretch on the hill leading down from the intersection with D.P. Blvd. I believe one of the main causes for speeding in the park is that D.P. Blvd. and Illinois is due to the dashed line down the middle of those streets. While that line is for a good purpose and useful, throughout the city it is used to indicate a 30 m.p.h. (or more) arterial. When the speed limit is 30 most drivers nowadays fudge and may drive up to 35, even faster than that down hill (happens all the time, every day). With the speed well marked at 25 mph in both directions on both streets you may reasonably expect drivers to hold it down to 30 or less.
Page 17 of 49
Also, I'd hope both loop trail crossings are well signed and the crosswalks painted, both on D.P. Blvd. and Illinois.
Most people wanting to drive to the beach enter the main (east entrance). They need to be directed to the visitor's center in no uncertain terms. A few drivers coming in at the north entrance are headed to the beach and need to get the same information. Also, the gate may mean more people will want to walk to the beach from one of the three parking lots (north, east/main, south). It would be good to have better information for walkers at those locations, esp. north & south lots, with walking directions and distances to the beach and lighthouse posted, or available. perhaps notes could be added to the Friends handout maps.
The signs meant to restrict traffic at the 5 corners, both the intersection of D.P. Blvd & Washington, and D.P. Blvd. where it branches off from Illinois the same obsolete military signs. Since they are both overdue for update it would be well to replace the one on Washington as well. Cars trying to get to the beach may try that way as an alternate route if it's not signed clearly.
[Same commenter] 08/23/2013
I am a frequent visitor to Discovery Park and am a member of the Friends of Discovery Park. I support the proposed gate installation on Discovery Park Blvd. to restrict motor vehicles on the road through the park to the beach, lighthouse, and treatment plant. Since I go to the park to enjoy a natural area, especially because it is free of traffic, anything that reduces traffic or slows traffic in the park improves the park environment and experience. I like the idea of a shuttle bus (preferably electric, or natural gas) to take people to and from the beach on busy days. I also favror longer hours and an efficient system of obtaining a beach pass at the visitors center. Proper signage and speed bumbs would help route people properly and slow them down where need be. There are already speed bumbs in use on Texas Way in the Lawton parcel, and on 36th Ave W., adjacent to the park. Thank you for considering these comments.
[Same commenter] 09/19/2013
Dear Adair Muth,
You should already have e‐mail from me in support of the proposed beach access security gate. I write to reconfirm my support for the proposed gate.
I have been a member of the Friends of Discovery Park for a number of years. I have studied the master plan for the park and have printed copies of it in all it's versions. The master plan was an exceptionally good plan for the protection and preservation of Discovery Park as an unspoiled natural area of scenic beauty and serenity for all the public to enjoy. The proposed gate would be a strong enhancement to the goal of maintaining the beach, and the west end of the park as per the master plan. I favor the gate primarily for the sake of the park, particularly the beach
Page 18 of 49
area, but, also, to prevent encroachment on the waste treatment plant property and facilities. There is very limited parking near the beach, due to the large amount of area occupied by the treatment plant in the area below the bluffs. In a way this is beneficial. It prevents a large number of automobiles from accruing there, and limits car traffic on Discovery Park Blvd. A gate would regulate the traffic, and limit the number of vehicles at any particular time to what the beach can accommodate. Some of our parks have traffic problems, and some do not. Cars can travel through a portion of Seward Park, but are blocked completely from the interior of the bulk of the park. It is very desirable that traffic in Discovery Park be minimized. If one wants to enjoy a lot of traffic, one need only go downtown. If one wants to enjoy a combination of beach and traffic, I suggest Alki Beach, or Golden Gardens on a busy day. Let the beach at West Point be one of peace and beauty, always accessible on foot; and accessible via shuttle bus or jitney on summer weekends, and by car limited to the number of passes available, first come first served.
08/16/2013
TO: King County [email protected] 206‐263‐7319 Seattle Parks [email protected] 206‐615‐1803 Thank you both for taking the time to speak with me about this topic. As requested, here are my written comments and questions.
This topic is important to me, but, given only one week's notice, I am unable to change my schedule in order to attend the public meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 8/21.
Note that I have several specific process‐related questions/requests, separate from my comments, in the text below. I would appreciate answers to those specific questions. Thanks.
Thanks for listening. I would be happy to discuss any of these points in more detail; feel free to contact me.
Thank you.
PS: Please acknowledge receipt of this note, if possible, so I know that it made it's way to your inboxes.
+++
Page 19 of 49
The stated goals of the project are:
"The project would address several safety concerns associated with uncontrolled vehicle access to the treatment plant, beach and lighthouse. West Point Wastewater Treatment staff and Parks staff have responded to driftwood fires, illegal parking that blocks access to the treatment plant, and trespassing after hours. King County has to maintain a safe, secure environment at the West Point Treatment Plant, a facility critical to protecting water quality and public health in the greater Seattle area."
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wtd/About/System/West/Plant/Projects/SecurityGat e.aspx
I am a regular user of the Park (as a parent of young children who has benefited from the child permit system currently in place), and have seen instances illegal parking. and the results of the driftwood fires. I believe that these issues are important at some level.
However, I do not believe that these problems are of equal severity or priority, nor do I think that one solution will fit all. And for any of the problems, I believe that a new gate and associated permitting system is an "overkill" approach that won't actually solve any of the problems.
Illegal parking: The City already knows how to handle illegal parking problems, given that it already operates a force of parking enforcement officers. I believe that writing $40+ tickets will spread the news pretty quickly about parking outside of the legal spots, or parking during operating hours without a permit.
If illegal parkers are blocking the entrance to the sewage plant, then those cars should be towed. This is what I'd expect to happen at any other city or county installation, or if someone blocked the driveway in front of my own house.
Driftwood fires: I do not believe that the imposition of a gate will prevent or even reduce the incidence of driftwood fires. There's always plenty of wood available on the beach for anyone who wants to walk down and start a fire. I don't think that someone who is already willing to light a driftwood fire will be deterred by a gate. I think that if a teenager realizes that a keg of beer is too heavy to carry down to the beach due to a new gate, then said teenager will resort to something stronger in a small bottle (which could also function as lighter fluid in a pinch :). Ditto those who seek the beach at night time to fire off guns, fireworks, and so on.
Trespassing after hours and plant security: If this is a reference to concerns about driftwood fires or other illegal activities at night on the beach, see above.
If this is a concern about a larger security threat ‐ such as someone in a vehicle accessing the area around the sewage treatment plant after Park hours (6am‐11pm), with the intent to do harm ‐ then this is really a larger topic than "after hours" access, and deserves a larger analysis. Page 20 of 49
This is, in my opinion, the most serious consideration in this whole discussion, given our new post‐9/11 landscape.
The West Point plant is a "valuable" installation, set in an open urban area. Currently, it's possible to walk up to almost any portion of its perimeter, and to drive up to its gate and south perimeter.
I doubt that West Point would be built today in the same location or configuration, given current standards for infrastructure protection.
So we're starting out well behind where other similar facilities are headed, and can never catch up. With that in mind, if there is a desire to more fully secure the facility, then the only real incremental option is to completely close off West Point to all non‐authorized foot or vehicle users.
I presume that King County / Parks are not interested in pursuing that option, but are instead trying to strike a balance between security and public access, and so has determined that public foot and vehicular traffic during the day is acceptable, but not at night.
It seems to me that saying that vehicular traffic by day is acceptable, but not at night, is a meaningless distinction. A "bad guy with a truck" won't care what time of day it is, or whether a permit is required, or whether there's an automated gate in the way. It would seem that ensuring that the existing gate at the plant entrance meets modern security requirements would be the first order of business, as well as ensuring that plant‐related vehicular traffic, in the form of workers or those large trucks that remove sewage material from the plant, is properly authorized. For instance: are those large trucks inspected before being allowed to enter the plant?
Furthermore, given that the plant is, as noted above, more or less completely open to those arriving by foot, at all hours of the day or night, foot‐borne threats would still exist, which presumable are only slightly less serious than a vehicle‐borne threat.
There are no absolutes in "security". You can only diminish risk. With this in mind, it seems to me that installing a new gate and permitting system will not actually improve the security of the plant itself. It's not even incremental. The only incremental step would be to disallow all public access, by foot or by vehicle.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
After 6pm vehicular use of the beach area: Many users have benefited from a perceived loophole in the current system: when the Visitors Center is closed (after 6pm), the logic goes, it isn't possible to procure a permit, and so it's "ok" to park in a spot at the beach.
Page 21 of 49
We have employed this "loophole" many times to visit the beach. It is ironic that while Magnolia is surrounded by water on three sides, the Discovery Park beach is our only access to the water.
I strongly believe that this access scenario should be preserved.
I believe it's worth inconveniencing those who park poorly (outside of marked spots), in the form of parking tickets and tows, in order to ensure it. You wouldn't think of double‐parking at Pike Place market for a couple of hours; why should it be OK at the park?
I know that there are some who believe that the presence of any cars in the Park represents an abomination of the Master Plan. I admire those folks for their strong opposition in the past for major threats to its pastoral nature (such as development, etc). We have all benefited from their actions.
However, I do not believe that this problem ‐ illegal parking at the beach ‐ rises to the level of such a threat. It is a relatively small but cherished benefit to park users, available during a limited period (after 6pm). Simple measures can be put in place to keep the impacts minimal. The "loophole" has been in place for many years, and it should be codified.
Daytime drop off/pick up at the beach area: Similarly, we often drive to the beach area during the day to pick up or drop off kids who are hiking or biking. When our kids were 6 years old (or younger), we used the permit system. They are a little older now, and are not always up to the task of getting back up the hill. Once, we did try a round‐trip bike trip, but had to abort due to tire trouble, and so resorted to a pick up at the beach area.
This pick up/drop off scenario is also important and should be preserved.
Other uses of the money: As I think about the proposed response to the problems being address, I wonder what other park‐related security problems would be better served by the same funds.
For instance: Parks has known for years that there is a rampant vehicle break‐in problem in the Discovery Park parking lots. This problem has affected many users of the park whose cars have been vandalized, and often crosses my mind when I park at the Visitor Center.
Would the overall security of the park's users be improved by spending money to help alleviate that problem, with more police patrols, or private security guards, or cameras?
Cost/benefit analysis: Given the shortfall at Parks and at the County level, I feel that we should be spending money very carefully. The problems that have prompted this proposal ‐ driftwood fires, illegal parking, and after hours violations ‐ can each be addressed simply using existing means (illegal parking), or are problems that will always exist regardless of attempts to eradicate (driftwood fires).
Page 22 of 49
We have seen how Parks has struggled to keep its existing facilities maintained and staff levels adequate to keep those facilities open on a regular basis.
Creating a new gate and permitting system will cost us all money, in terms of the initial installation, and increased cost to Parks staff (for the permitting system) and diminished access for users of the park. And with the next budget crunch, the new system will likely suffer, further restricting access.
Complexity of a permitting system: I've been trying to think how this would work, and no simple approach comes to mind.
The current system is the model of simplicity: go to the Visitors Center, and if one of the laminated permits is available, you sign it out and take it with you. You display it on your dash at the beach. When you leave, you drop off the permit for someone else to use. The load on the staff at the Visitors Center is relatively light: if there's a permit, hand it out to someone who asks, provided they display proof of child/elderly/handicapped needs.
The permits are "valid", I believe, for four hours; if you overstay your time, there is no penalty, but there is also no confusion in the beach lot, since the permit is not available to be given to the next person.
How would this work in an automated system involving a gate? The Visitors Center staff would still need to check that you have show proof of child/elderly/handicapped needs. What happens then? Does the staff person issue an electronic ticket, which must be used to enter and leave the gated area? Would it also be time‐limited? How would the staff or system know that a family has left the parking area, so that it could issue a ticket to a new family? I am presuming that most parking garages handle this problem ‐ to not issue more tickets than there available slots ‐ but I wonder how accurate the system is... if you have 500 parking slots, you can afford to be off by a dozen or two. However, with only 8 parking slots to work with, the count would have to always be accurate. And this would require that the gate be in communication with the ticket‐issuing equipment at the Visitors Center...
What happens if someone is issued a ticket but can't find a slot at the beach because the system is off by 1 slot? Do they just hang around hoping for someone to leave? What if it's off by two? Then you have two vehicles hanging around the beach area, supposedly authorized to park there, but with no where to go.
Since the gate is not staffed, what happens if I lose my ticket (a not uncommon scenario)? How do I get out? Does Parks staff get involved, via an intercom system (not everyone has a cell phone), to remotely operate the gate?
Now, add in the desire to support a drop‐off/pick‐up scenario, where a parent drives down to the beach to pick up child hikers or bikers (our primary pattern of usage at this time). How
Page 23 of 49
would that work? Would Visitors Center staff issue me a different kind of access ticket, good for, say, 30 minutes, allowing me to drive down to the beach (but not park in a spot)? What happens if I don't exit in the required 30 minutes? Is there a penalty?
Finally, add in the desire to support an open 6‐to‐dusk policy, as is the de‐factor practice currently (and, apparently on Mondays, when the Visitors Center is closed). The Magnolia Community has enjoyed these unofficial open periods, and I believe Parks should strive to maintain it. Would the gate simply be open during this time, but closed at dusk? If not, then who issues the parking voucher?
As you can see, it gets complicated quickly, requiring a complex, costly geographically‐ distributed voucher system that will likely operate less well than the current laminated permit system.
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVES
My thinking on this is to keep it simple (don't take an "overkill" approach), don't reduce current levels of access, and focus on the most important topic here, which is the security of the sewage treatment plant infrastructure to and extent that's compatible with the first two points (simple, current level of access).
Parking and associated traffic:
‐ Continue with the existing approach (laminated permit parking only) during hours that permits are available (currently until 6pm). It's simple, low‐cost, and mostly works. My family benefited from this system, and it should be kept in place for future little kids (and elderly and handicapped) to benefit from.
‐ Enforce ticketing and towing per current city regulations.
‐ After 6pm, allow open parking in legal spots only.
‐ Allow the drop‐off/pick up scenario
‐ Lower the speed limit to 20 mph.
‐ Install a few more stop signs or speed bumps along the road to the beach, as well as a radar speed sign, to keep speeds down
To help with awareness and education and use of alternate means:
‐ Post a sign, with phone number, by which violators can be reported (similar to the "HERO" program in place elsewhere in the state: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/hov/hero.htm)
‐ Expand the existing shuttle service with more frequent service, perhaps including later hours (i.e., between 6 and sunset). Page 24 of 49
‐ Consider installing automated parking meters for, say, the 6‐10pm time period to foster awareness around the scarce parking resources (and raise some revenue).
I do not favor changing the hours at the Visitor's Center just to deal with these problems (except, perhaps, to fund Monday operations). It would be a costly solution that, inevitably, would fall victim to the next round of budget cuts. I also would not create new parking spots at the beach.
I tried to think of an approach involved automated parking meters at the parking area (as seen elsewhere in the City), but, again, it gets complicated quickly when trying to figure out how to permit one class of users (small children, elderly, handicapped) for parking, and another class of users for pick up/drop off during daytime hours, and also allow another set in the evening.
After hours illegal activities, such as beach fires:
‐ Realize that there's little that can be done about this, given the ease of walk‐in access and the remoteness of the beach.
‐ If there is a concern about a beach fire causing related issues around the plant, then create a vegetation buffer area (fire break) around the plant perimeter
Plant Security:
‐ Do what can be done at the current gate at the plant entrance, and upgrade associated procedures (i.e., inspect trucks entering the plant)
‐ Create barriers or take other measures to ensure that no unauthorized parking occurs near the plant gate
‐ Enforce existing parking regulations, and tow when necessary
QUESTIONS:
1: Is this a "done deal"?: I'd like to understand the current state of this proposal. From the King County web site:
King County and Seattle Parks are currently evaluating alternatives for different gate types and exploring how the Park will provide permits to allow access through the gate to the parking area at the beach and lighthouse.
This makes it sound like the public is being asked to comment on the kind of gate, and how the permitting system would work.... that the decision has already been made to install a gate. and the public is simply being asked to "comment".
Can you please clarify the current state of the decision‐making process?
Page 25 of 49
2: Which agency is in the "lead"? ‐ King County or Parks? Can you clarify how each agency is involved... the roads and land are administered by Parks (correct?), but the plant is administered by King County. What roles does each agency have? Is one in the "lead"? Who makes final decisions?
3: Budget and Source: What is the budget for this project, and where is the money coming from?
4: Public engagement: I have concerns about the approach being used to engage the public on this matter.
I heard about this proposal on Wednesday, August 14th, when it was reported in the Magnolia Blog (http://www.magnoliavoice.com/2013/08/14/speak‐your‐mind‐to‐keep‐access‐open‐to‐ discovery‐park‐beach/) and Queen Anne and Magnolia News (http://www.queenannenews.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=34507&SectionID=95&SubSe ctionID=448&;S=1).
I can not find any reference to the proposal in the Seattle Times.
Performing a Google search ("West Point Security Gate") returns no hits except for the project web site and the "Summer" edition of a news letter referencing the project (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CGAQ FjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.westpoint.edu%2Fhistory%2FSiteAssets%2FSitePages%2FSum mer%2FTravel%2520Packet.pdf&ei=beYMUrjeFIbBigLFyoHoBA&usg=AFQjCNEiXy1ue1fgRhUs5o 38jRaeJ6a‐rw&bvm=bv.50768961,d.cGE).
So how is the average City resident supposed to find out about this project?
If the "Sewer News" was the primary vehicle: What is the distribution of that newsletter? Was it sent to everyone in zip code 98199? How many people receive it? Does it really represent a reasonable percentage of park users? Is it a reasonable assumption that if someone receives "Sewer News", they are also a park user?
Moreover, this project apparently was not the subject of any King County press release (http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wtd/Newsroom.aspx), nor that of Parks. The project does not appear to be listed on Park's web site for Discovery Park, either.
No news on the Magnolia Community Club site, either (http://magnoliacommunityclub.org/).
IA suggestion: please schedule a second meeting, with the same agenda and goals as the first, in September or later, and please ensure that the word gets out with at least two or three weeks' notice.
And also consider posting news of this second meeting before the first one happens, to get ahead of any distracting discussions about this aspect of the project. Page 26 of 49
THANK YOU
08/16/2013
Hi Adair,
I am a Magnolia resident and I am writing to express my opposition to a gate that will block access to the public beach. I have a handicapped son and an elderly mother, and it is already a burden to stop at the Visitor's Center to get a pass. There have been times when we tried to get a pass, but there were none available. If the security of the treatment plant is sincerely the concern, there are many other options. The area is not well marked, so better signage would be helpful. Also, the road to the treatment plant could be gated. An alarm system could be installed in the treatment plant, and any intrusion signal could be responded to by Seattle P.D. Security cameras could be installed, and staff at the Visitor Center could monitor those during business hours. I'm sure there are many, many other options that do not include blocking public access to the private beach.
I actually believe more parking should be added to the beach area. Meters could be installed to alleviate the burden on the Visitor's Center staff. Make the parking tickets hefty ($250), and monitor the area. The city could actually generate revenue. I can't believe that the city would contemplate gating off a public beach, thus totally denying access to the handicapped, elderly and infirm on days when the Visitor's Center is closed. Please do not punish the citizens for problems caused by transients or trouble‐makers. Punish those creating the problem!
Furthermore, there was little or no notice of the open house. I only heard about it because of my Magnolia Moms and Dads yahoo group. I work full‐time and have small children, and to attend a meeting I need advance notice to arrange for childcare. I would venture a guess that the majority of the residents in Magnolia, and non‐Magnolia residents who use Discovery Park, are opposed to this plan, but are unaware of it.
I fully support taking steps to secure the treatment facility and understand how important that is, but I respectfully submit that it does not have to entail blocking access to the PUBLIC beach. Thank you for your time.
08/16/2013
Dear Adair,
I won't be able to attend the meeting on the gate, but we did receive a flyer about the meeting with a description. My initial response was that yes, security to the treatment plant needs improvement. However, I do have concerns about the lack of access that a gate on the thoroughfare to the beach/ treatment plant leaves for the beach. We have children under 6 and
Page 27 of 49
with careful planning we can often get a pass to go down. I also love the regular availability of the bus taking people to and from the beach.
Would it not work to gate the treatment plant and leave the beach open? The increase in signage/ red striping for no parking at the beach outside of the designated areas is helpful to reduce extra parking, it has already cut down on extra cars. However, people still park at the cul‐de‐sac at the end of the street and in the spots when they don't have a beach pass. Many don't even know how to get a beach pass.
Recently I was there with my 1.5 year old daughter and a man was there from out‐of‐state who was clearly a lighthouse enthusiast. He simply wanted to photograph the lighthouse and then had to leave to get back to airport. It saddens me to think that the beauty of the discovery park beach and lighthouse would be cut‐off to all outsiders unless they had the 1+ hours to hike in and out of the area.
As you noted to the Magnolia Moms and Dads group, I also have concerns about access on Mondays. As of now, we get a pass before close on Sunday to use for the pass parking spots on Monday if we think we want to go. If a pass gave you access through a gate on Monday, I suppose it would still be OK, but I would like to see increased, not decreased access to this area.
Another point already brought to your attention is the common use of one family member dropping of a car‐load of family‐especially the youngsters or grandparents and then drive back up the hill to hike back. A gate prevents this entirely.
I would not want to see our beach looking like golden gardens, but I do hope for continued ready access while still protecting the treatment plant. That is why I feel a gate at the entrance to the treatment facility right where you take a turn into the facility makes more sense than blocking the common road.
Thanks for your evaluation of all options.
[Same commenter] 08/21/2013
One great way to clarify the Monday issue would be to increase funding so the park can be open on Mondays! Also, in this next phase, continued funding of shuttle service to the beach will be imperative!
Thanks for your response to my first email.
08/16/2013
I've lived near the park for almost 20 years. My daughter has grown from infancy to preteen on its beaches; we hike, bike and run there year‐round. We regularly used the Discovery Park Page 28 of 49
Visitor's Center pass to access the parking lot when she was small. That resource is still available to visitors who need car access to the beach, even with a gate.
But a gate will protect this amazing, rare natural resource against the increasing evening "party traffic," with their campfires and litter. It will keep the tiny parking lot available for folks who really need it.
Don't increase the parking lot size, please. If we wanted a drive‐up beach we can go to Alki. This is a precious natural area where development ‐ and vehicles and trespassers ‐ should be minimized. Yes to a gate!
(Can't make the meeting, and want to speak up for all the wildlife at the beach who can't attend either)
08/20/2013
Dear Adair & Patti,
As board member of the Friends of Discovery Park & long time user of the park, I am DELIGHTED that a gate will be installed to stop the yo‐yo's from illegally driving to the beach!!!!!
My suggestions, some already registered by other people, are:
1‐ Who actually needs to DRIVE to the beach????
Only Park employees or people working on the light house or its buildings. The general public does NOT need to drive there. I'm all for ADD access, etc., but is that really necessary/required here….??? Passes may be given for group classes, etc., but that's IT!
So, how about:
a‐ a bus that goes to all 3 parking lots on summer weekends & on holidays May ‐ September for the general public
b‐ Huge signs in fluorescent paint (!!!) at the east entrance to the Park saying that there is NO car access to the beach, never, ever!
c‐ Greatly narrow the entrance to "Discovery Park Blvd" (Utah) from Illinois, again w/more "no‐ no" signs for the illiterates. Narrowing it serves as a strong visual message. Now it's so wide, it invites all.
d‐ Make the gate strong enough to withstand some jerks trying to open it by ramming it.
Make the stanchions on the sides of the gates strong enough for the same jerks trying to ram it.
Page 29 of 49
Build large dirt hillocks, covered in blackberry bushes (!) on either side of said gate for same reason.
The point is, the yo‐yo's will try to get around, under, over or through the gate, so make that impossible!
And put up plenty of warning signs so they can't pretend ignorance & try to sue the city for their damaged car!
e‐ Make the signs showing the walking paths to the beach larger & more frequent in all 3 parking lots
f ‐ Put big signs at the VC re: no beach access by car….& train the people behind the desk to tell everyone they may get to the beach by walking (or waiting for the summer time bus)
g ‐ Get the police to frequent the area on weekends, holidays & in the summer to catch those who just might figure out a way there & give them tickets.
h‐ Many people, esp. the younger generations, feel "entitled" to drive to the beach, just as they feel "entitled" to let their dogs off‐leash in DP. Let's help them grow up!!!!!!
Thanks
[Same commenter] 09/18/2013
Thanks for e‐mailing me. I really feel VERY strongly about keeping ALL people from the Discovery Park beach. One Sunny Sunday there were 29 (!!!!) dogs ON the beach. Just because people have been illegally driving down there doesn't give them the license to keep doing it.
It is simply amazing to me that people think they are "entitled" to do certain things when there are signs prohibiting those actions. Well, nobody's crazier than people….
08/20/2013
I am a volunteer naturalist with the Seattle Parks so I understand the need to control access during the hours that visitors can obtain parking passes from the Environmental Learning Center. My concern is what visitors who have disabled, elderly or infant family members will do when the ELC is closed. Many beautiful sunsets occur after the Center is closed and it would be nice to leave this beach accessible to those visitors. I do realize that there are other parks in the Seattle area but this park has a very long, wheelchair friendly path that is not overridden with bicycles making it one of the few peaceful accessible beaches in the city.
Page 30 of 49
Would it be possible to have the new gate closed during hours that the Center is open (thereby restricting access to only those with passes) but have the gate open after hours? I am assuming the gate will be passcoded rather than paying a staff member to operate it.
As for security at the wastewater treatment center, could the gate to the treatment center be lowered after hours? Do trucks come all day and night? If so, could they be given a code to enter at the gate at the treatment center? This would restrict vehicular access to the treatment plant to only those with the daily code.
Just ideas and thoughts.
08/21/2013
Absolutely not in any way should our ability to access the west point light house by motor vehicle be blocked in any way. This is a public resource not a private and should remain open and free for the local people to access.
08/21/2013
Gate is great idea! Parking at beach out of control.
08/21/2013
Am delighted to finally see this happen. We've lived near the park for 21 years and have spent a lot of time in the park (and raised 2 children here).
Over the years I've often been disturbed by the excessive amount of car park illegally at the beach.
My primary concern is the disturbance and destruction of the wildlife habitat on the beach.
In the master plan for DP (1972 & 1986) the park is not intended to be a multi‐use park. Its mission is an area of solitude in nature for citizens in the city; as well as being maintained as a native natural habitat. Both of these goals are eroded by continuing to allow illegal access to the beach.
[Same commenter] 08/26/2013
I'm greatly in favor of the proposed gate. We are in the park on an almost daily basis, because we have lived nearby for 21 years. We chose to live in Magnolia because we love Discovery
Page 31 of 49
Park, and feel so thankful that Seattle has this enormous jewel of the natural world, within the city limits.
We are also familiar with the Mission Statement of the Master Plan for Discovery Park. The gate is completely in line with that statement.
Due to the easy accessibility of driving to West Point, and the lack of enforcement due to limitations on Park staff and Police presence (based on budget limitations I imagine), the only viable, and reasonable, solution is the gate.
Visiting the beach some mornings I have seen smouldering fires, during warm summer days there are ALWAYS illegally parked cars, and of course the frequent dogs off leash on the beach (some of those folks walk down, but I have seen people unloading their dogs from their cars).
I spoke with people at the Aug. 21 meeting who are not in favor of the gate, and they seem to be mistaken (or misinformed) on two major points: 1) They think the gate will deny access to kids, seniors and handicapped folks. The same current access rules will apply for those groups. 2)They don't understand that Discovery Park is not a multi‐use park. The mission statement describes the park on three terms ‐ as a place of solitude in nature away from the city, a wildlife habitat of native plants and animals, and a place of opportunity for observation of and education about the natural world. It's goal is not easy access to the beach by whoever wants to go there. Other parks in the city serve that purpose.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
p.s. The Magnolia Voice blog's "story" (it doesn't qualify as an "article") about the meeting was presented in a very biased fashion, in opposition to the gate. I, and quite a number of other folks, commented on the "story", pointing out the factual errors presented.
[Same commenter] 09/06/2013
To: City Parks and State DNR Waste Water Treatment Project Personnelnk you holding the August 21, 2013 Meeting at Discovery Park Visitor’s Center. I very much appreciated the opportunity to meet with your project staff and offer some suggestions to resolving the parking problems near the Waste Water Treatment Plant at West Point, Seattle. Your reasons for gating (vandalism and illegal parking) do not overcome the primary and best use of the area for full public access.
I remain opposed to the imposition of an electronic gate blocking access to the beaches and lighthouse. Neither the City/Parks nor State/DNR/WW has made a sufficient case for depriving the public access to the beaches and lighthouse. The question is whether the magnificent and unsurpassed view and beaches in downtown should continue to be available to motor driven families and handicapped, elderly (non hikers/bikers). Now the State/DNR/City’s proposed Gate will effectively deprive public rights to access the West Point Lighthouse and Beaches even Page 32 of 49
though the City/State agencies cannot and have not justified the ‘taking’ of the public access rights to the park. We should ask, is this goal, a first step in banning all vehicular traffic in the city of Seattle?
I remain opposed to the proposed gating project for the following reasons:
A the unmanned gate, while barring automobiles will not stop vandalism to the gate and plant and ‘damage’ from hikers, homeless, bikers or boaters;
B. the illegal parking can be corrected by immediate simple administrative changes ‐ 1. reduction in current permit's number of hours from 1‐3; 2. more frequent operation of shuttle from north, south and visitors lot to lighthouse; 3. better more direct and well marked foot trails to the beaches and lighthouse; 4. The expense of the gate, together with it installation, excavation of turn around, maintenance and remediation of certain vandalism, addition of new personnel to man during business hours is better used to improve the criminally negligent condition of the road to the lighthouse/plant which is being used by oversized trucks never intended for such use.
The only reasonable interim solution to access to the existing plant and lighthouse/beaches, is to construct a new road, a straight, level and direct road from the North parking lot. All available monies should be directed to that purpose. Long ter strategic planning for environmental and practical purposes(cost) requires a relocation of the Plant’s sludge processing to the SODO area accommodate the massive deposition of human waste from the sports stadium, ocean liners and So. Lake Union development which takes advantage of direct access via heavy duty recently constructed ramping to I‐5 and I‐90.
You have not made a sufficient case for deprivation of the public right to free access to the Park and lighthouse area, especially when other less offensive measures are readily available and you should devote resources to relocation of the plant’s sludge processing to the SODO.
[Same commenter] 09/19/2013
Outline of comment opposing gate at discovery park
1. Before the gate project proceeds more careful study and trial of available administrative resources and remedies should be undertaken:
A. shorten time for permits ‐ from 3 hours to 1‐2 hours with provision for after hours (daylight);
B. add enforcement (security and parking) officer during daylight hours on site of lighthouse parking or visible tow truck on site; (instead of having to hire an enforcement officer full time (24/7) to enforce the gate)
C. add more frequent shuttle bus service and addition of service from north and south parking lots‐ perhaps with minimal fare (.50 to $1.00); Page 33 of 49
D. improve signs ‐ accurately describing proper process for getting permits (during work hours), parking limitations, hours of permitting, etc.;‐ a t present,these signs are extremely vague and ambiguous, misleading and unenforceable;
E. better marking of trails to encourage and facilitate use by hikers ‐ at present trails are confusing, indirect ‐ a virtual maze of trails. Better to construct foot paths expressly direct access more direct and level to the beaches and lighthouse;
F. better security directly around waste plant should be burden of plant personnel which may include fencing.
G. Funds which apparently are available for the proposed gate should be applied to the more urgent needs of maintaining the pathways which are rapidly eroding around the lighthouse blocking access even with permitted public access.
2. Interim actions are necessary which could avoid the proposed gate’s additional expense for installation, excavation, maintenance and operation and repair of the electronic gate which will surely be targeted by vandals. (an additional security officer may even be required at the gate site)
A. gating should preferably take place directly at the plant driveway
B. better use of plants on‐site security, its personnel better directed to security, perhaps installation of motion detectors, etc .;
C. improvement of access road leading up to any proposed gate. Existing road is extremely dangerous as too narrow for huge sludge hauling tandem trucks, sharp turns, without shoulders and extreme drop. This is a tragedy waiting to happen.
D. construction of new road for trucks, which would be direct and level from the north parking lot to the plant;
3. The plant was located in discovery park before consideration of environmental and public access concerns was necessary. The plant location is an error which should not be compounded. Plans should be under consideration for relocating the sludge processing to the SODO, a heavy industrial zoned area with perfect access
08/21/2013
It was interesting to see that most of the information and concept is either unknown or undecided.
I would like to suggest a few options:
Page 34 of 49
‐ Have the gale close 9pm ‐ 6am summer hours and 6pm‐6 am winter hours; this eliminates late night crime, etc., but also allows people early am access
‐ Allow people who live in Magnolia or prove over 62, children under 8, to obtain a “key card” that would give them access on Mondays and before/after hours
‐Have a redundant system at gate for “key cards” and intercom Visitor Center. My concern is a malfunctioning or unmonitored gate that further limits access
‐ Continue to use Visitor Center permits as access point Tues‐Sun during business hours
08/21/2013
This is a very good idea, especially the automated gate that will be activated by a permit.
[Same commenter] 08/25/2013
Hi Adair,
I just wanted to add an afterthought that the security gate turn around area should be given several highly visible NO PARKING signs or else some people will just leave their cars there and walk down. Possibly the no parking designation should go all the way back to the residential area.
08/23/2013
I'm a frequent park visitor and a park volunteer. I think a security gate could be a good idea if the following conditions are met:
* Permits for those who are eligible are more readily available than they currently are given the limited hours of the Visitor Center.
* Trails to the beach are upgraded and improved to make travel more easy. Each of the 3 beach trails are falling into disrepair (like much of the Park's infrastructure.)
* Useful signage is installed that gives clear directions and distances to the beach. I frequently re‐direct park visitors who are lost due to inadequate park signage.
* A restroom needs to be constructed closer to the beach area to encourage good sanitation practices. The nearest restroom is too remote and almost hidden away in the forest.
Page 35 of 49
08/25/2013
Hello Adair
I live in Magnolia, am 80 years old.
Put me down as dead set against the proposed gate to be added to the road to the beach. I missed the meeting as I came on the wrong night but would have voiced my vote loudly if I had been there.
Anything that complicates access to the beach in this way should not be permitted and I so hope it doesn't happen.
Why do you suppose it's named Discovery Park?
08/26/2013
I live in the first house south of the beach and was party and provided most of the funds for the West Point settlement agreement and have fought for Discovery Park for decades.
Because of where I live I am witness to what goes on on the beach and the situation is very bad for the park and its users. I have had to call 911 a significant number of times each year and here is why:
1. Gang use of the beach including gun fire
2. beach fires all the time during the dry winters endangering both the park and my home.
3. Fire works being set off in the weeks prior and after the Fourth causing both a fire hazard to the park and my home.
We fought hard for beach access when West Point was being enlarged, and access during normal hours will continue. But I am sure that those who do not want a gate, also understand that a park on fire, gang activities, and the risk of fire to nearby homes, supersede the need for night access.
The master plan of the park also limits parking to those with disabilities and have a special permit to use the parking places.
It is a shame that a few individuals and gang members make it unpleasant for everybody else.
[Same commenter] 08/26/2013
Commenter called Adair and got her "out of office", then called Monica to provide verbal comments in support of the gate, in addition to the written comments he provided online. He Page 36 of 49
wanted to ensure King County knows he is a strong supporter of the security gate project, and that his name can be used as a supporter.
Commenter said that the security gate is not a treatment plant issue only: he and his neighbor have between them called 911 thirty times in the last year for what he reports as gang activity including gunfire, and also for bonfires. He said the fires on the beach are especially dangerous because they use driftwood that gets burning out of control very easily, and could endanger not only the beach environment, but also the plant, lighthouse, and homes nearby. He also said the gang type activity could be a real risk in his opinion, especially for women that he sees using the trails and beach on their own. He also reported that fireworks are used a lot around the 4th of July resulting in additional fire potential.
Commenter did not feel that using law enforcement and parking enforcement resources was an efficient use of public funds and resources when a gate would be cheaper and limit the amount of enforcement time at Discovery Park that could be applied elsewhere.
Commenter felt that people did not understand the gate just enforces current rules, and doesn't block access to the beach. He also said the beach area is mostly lightly used, and the traffic to him did not justify the expense of a shuttle. He summarized his viewpoint as follows: "A few people are making a lot of noise about a seldom used area that won't be closed off with the gate."
[Same commenter] 09/18/2013
I have written before supporting the gate. What I would ask those who oppose the gate to imagine is in this very dry weather some very stoned teen agers, lighting a very large bon fire when the winds were coming from the West and sparks were going into the neighboring wooded slopes a few feet from the bon fire. While you may imagine this, I actually had it happen just a short time back, after my last letter.
This last year, I have had my home broken into from someone coming up from the beach at night with damage over $50,000.
[Same commenter] 09/19/2013
I contacted my neighbors and also sent in a second comment. please read it and if you have a hearing perhaps you might want to read it aloud. those who oppose a gate support fires in Discovery Park.
[Same commenter] 09/24/2013
I concur with what [commenter] has written below about moving the gate further away.
[See communication from 9/24/2013 on page 49]
Page 37 of 49
08/28/2013
I think the idea of a security gate is fine. Security is needed for the beach. Too much grafitti, etc. down there now. We encourage moving the project forward.
09/02/2013
I frequent the beach, by parking permit, with my two pre‐school grand‐kids.
I also access the area for birding.
I am unable to walk back up the steep hill( due to a lung condition), to be able to park in one of the large existing parking areas.
How would I access beach on a Mon., when office is closed?
Who is going to man the gate?
Unfortunately, the few that create problems will not let a gate stop their activities.
[Same commenter] 09/03/2013
Monica‐ Thank you for responding and the information.
Having dealt with keycard systems, with a large number accessing the system, it becomes a nightmare managing the cards‐mostly returns. It ends up needing a full position to manage.
09/03/2013
I am very much in favor of a gate that will restrict access to the beach and the lighthouse at Discovery Park. Too many people do not respect the Park and/or The Beach and let their dogs run loose creating a sanitation problem. The Treatment Plan also needs to be protected and the road kept clear. I think there should be a shuttle service seven days a week from the Visitor Center to the beach during the summer. The service can be scaled back during the winter. The Master Plan of the Park calls for the space to be kept as natural as possible and to provide a quiet retreat from the sounds of the City. Cars going up and down the road to the beach and parking in unauthorized areas does not lend itself to the Master Plan concept. Thank you.
Page 38 of 49
09/03/2013
Seattle Parks have regulations regarding opening and closing, they are to be closed from 11PM until 6 AM, WTP people have need for access 24/7 so this is the first point which seems easy to accomplish.
Because of Discovery Parks unique nature most people should walk from the parking lots to the beach with exceptions to be granted for old, young, and disabled with a limit on the total number; this is where it gets more complex, doable but complex.
And then we come to those people who want special consideration because they want to go to the beach when the Visitors center is not open; it becomes more complex and could be done but will require an even more complex system and the question will be who is going to pay for it. Parks doesn't have the money and it would not be fare to stick WTD with the bill. The fact is that somebody will be offended.
09/08/2013
Subject: WEST POINT LIMITED ‐ ACCESS GATE PROJECT....( 41 PUBLIC COMMENTS OVER A THREE WEEK RESPONSE COLLECTION PERIOD ) ‐ ‐ SEPARATED AND CATALOGUED ACCORDING TO FAVORABLE VERSUS UNFAVORABLE INCLINATION:
WEST POINT LIMITED – ACCESS GATE PROJECT….( 41 PUBLIC COMMENTS OVER A THREE WEEK RESPONSE COLLECTION PERIOD ) ‐ ‐SEPARATED AND CATALOGUED ACCORDING TO
FAVORABLE VERSUS UNFAVORABLE INCLINATION:
1. First, below, are comments generally FAVORABLE to the Limited – Access Gate Project.
2. Second, below (Scroll down), are comments generally UNFAVORABLE to the Limited – Access Gate Project.
3. Remember, these are the comments of motivated citizens (and voters)….only one investigative reporter amongst them.
4. And, my sole purpose is to make it easier to non‐judgmentally assimilate lots of random inputs to help in follow‐on decision‐making on the West Point access‐limiting gate project.
[Comments posted online followed]
Page 39 of 49
09/12/2013
My family of 4 reside in Lawtonwood and have enjoyed the spectacular scenery and ambience of the beach at sunset for years. I'm not aware of any perceptible criminal element and doubt there is any impact on illegal or ill‐intentioned tresspassing from placing a gate where proposed. The adverse impact of the roadblock on the law abiding public who so often enjoy this exceptional site far exceeds any benefit from a false sense of security posed by this barrier. The implications of one more wall built to keep people out is antithetical to the open‐hearted culture of this community.
If you must build it, close it after 10PM. I would readily pay more taxes for employed security to meet the city's needs and keep all of our parks open, than have gates erected that speak so loudly and badly for our changing culture to the generations of sunset‐loving, star‐watching children yet to come.
09/16/2013
I favor this project as it will increase the overall security of the park and metro sewer plant. I would think that the sewer plant facility would be as important to protect from disruption as are electric and other key utility supply sources.
Please consider the continuation of locking the south gate at night. The walkway gate should also be closed but not locked to deter party activity on the beach and in the vicinity of the gate. Thanks.
“Did this open house fulfill your needs?” No! There was no information presented to the attendees‐ no presentation on plan just informational photo‐word placards. However, enjoyed meeting staff and supervisors from both Parks and Dept of Natural Resources.
09/16/2013
Dear Ms. Muth:
I attended the open house on August 21, both as a representative of the Magnolia Community Club and as an resident of Magnolia. I am providing the following comments in the latter capacity, as the next meeting of the MCC Board is on September 17. It may offer comments following that meeting.
I appreciated the candor and openness of the representatives from both King County and Seattle Parks. Because there has not been an actual design of the proposed security gate to control access to the West Point Treatment Plant, beach area and lighthouse, no estimate of the Page 40 of 49
cost has been developed. Informally, a guesstimate of $200,000 or more was suggested to me at the open house. In reaching a decision about whether or not to proceed with the security gate, I urge the County and Seattle Parks to evaluate how effective such a security gate might be, and whether there are other less expensive methods to achieve similar or perhaps better results. Beach fires and other unidentified illegal activities will not be eliminated simply by restricting vehicle access. Unless the beach was closed to all persons, which I submit is an unthinkable step for this major city park, individuals will either walk or be dropped off from vehicles to visit the beach and lighthouse. An exhibit at the open house showed a stolen car which had driven on to the beach and abandoned, and I understand that this has happened twice. It is an unfortunate fact that it will continue to happen from time to time, even with a security gate. Another current problem identified are cars parked so as to block the Treatment Plant access. The solution to that would be the posting, for a relatively minor cost, of a large sign stating "Park Here and You Will Be Towed" or similar wording. If the sign proves ineffective, a second step would be to arrange with a tow truck company to either patrol the immediate area on busy weekends or be on call from the Treatment Plant. Even with recent legislation limiting somewhat the maximum tow charges, the tow truck operators would profit very nicely from this source of business. As to those who do not have permit but park in the designated parking area, I suggest that a certain amount of latitude needs to be given to such violators, and that if on occasion vehicles illegally parked were given a warning ticket, or even a polite written request placed on their windshield, it might discourage such violations. It should take a limited number of man hours (person hours?) to occasionally patrol this area far less time and expense than if there is an attended security gate.
Although I overlooked asking at the open house whether the security gate would require an attendant for all hours that Discovery Park is open, I assume that will be a requirement if access will be permitted to those with a permit and for employees and vendors for the Treatment Plant. What I am strongly suggesting is that the least costly alternatives be implemented first, before a substantial sum is spent to install a security gate and obligating Seattle Parks or the County (or both, on a shared basis) to the continuing cost of providing a gate attendant. Moreover, a security gate will only be minimally effective. As long as people can enjoy the beach and the lighthouse, there will be occasional violators. Let's start with the least costly measures, some of which have been suggested above, to reduce these violations.
09/19/2013
My wife and I are in full support of the installation of a gate as proposed. This past summer the illegal use of the park seems to have increased with fireworks and beach fires. The only people that will be inconvenienced by the proposed gate are the people that are illegally using the park. We are especially concerned by the fire hazard caused by the beach fires and fireworks and the risk to our home. Page 41 of 49
09/19/2013
Please do not install a gate at Discovery Park. There is discreet, respectful use of this most wonderful spot. The parking pass system works great for the hours that the visitor center is open. Please don't cut off respectful neighbors who find peace by the lighthouse in the mornings and evenings.
09/19/2013
I think that protection of the treatment plant should be limited to areas near the plant. Public access to the beach area is a major asset for the park and should not be curtailed.
09/19/2013
I strongly urge King County to move forward with a gate on the road serving the West Point Sewer Plant. The number of illegal night beach fires, parties and occasional gunfire on or near the to the south of the point has increased each year. Providing a gate as far east of the beach as possible will discourage this activity and allow for more effective enforcement.
09/19/2013
Master Plan looks intense! But I would guess it's a long ways out. In the meantime, the abuse of too many cars down at the beach point gets out of control. WTD & SP&R, are trying to preserve the limited space for that area. Illegal parking is simply that, illegal. Parking enforcement, signage, and a constriction point (with full explanation of parking limitations) should should exist at the Discovery Park Blvd. and Illinois Street "T" intersection. The existing large white sign is outdated and not authoritative enough.
The proposed "guard house" gate station location doesn't need to be that far westward on Discovery Park Blvd. Plus that "guardhouse" design looks either military or parking garage, which it is neither.
Parking at the beach should be during park hours. When the East and South parking lots get too full and drivers start parking illegally, it is up to SPD parking enforcement. X amount of slots in those lots, X amount of slots at the beach. Make the illegal parking at the beach more difficult and punitive. Paint the pavement with white/red restrictive zones. Post violation fee signage. Put up bollards, place boulders, or a rail to eliminate parking on the sidewalks. Place cameras and speakers so WTD can see violators then announce the infraction. When the parking gets out of control and reported to the visitor center, staff calls SPD parking enforcement to come and Page 42 of 49
write tickets. How can that be improved? Airports and reservoirs have posted security guards (Homeland Security funding)?
Thanks for your time.
09/19/2013
I believe that the proposed gate to limit access to the West Point plant has created a public response to a situation that is more complex than a simple gate.
The gate can be seen as a simple security issue for a controlled access to the West Point plant. Looked at this way, the obvious answer is if Metro feels it needs better control of access for security reasons, and will pay for, and manage the gate, I am all for it.
However, most people are really concerned about and talking about, access to the beach on park land near the light house. Here some people want more auto access to the beach, more parking, and few if any limits based on the time of day and night.
Others, INCLUDING ME, look to the Discovery Park master plan and its clear statements on limited access for cars within the park. Discovery Park is a park for people not a place to park cars.
A gate will not reduce access to the beach for PEOPLE, it will make it easier to control the current illegal parking that takes place every day in the area near the light house. Today the park has a small lot and tries to limits access by issuing permits to certain classes of users. The vast majority of people parking in and near the small lot ignore the current park rules and just do as they please. A gate, administered properly could bring some order to the situation and get us closer to the sprit of the Master Plan of a park for people not cars.
I am for the gate and using it to enforce limits on private auto access to the beach.
I am also for more people access to the beach. For most this can be gained by the simple act of walking. However, a small free bus operated on a regular schedule during prime times is both justified and desirable. Give us a bus at no cost, and eliminate all parking on park property.
Give us a gate and a bus, everyone can have access, and we can get illegal cars off the beach.
09/19/2013
Dear Mr. Muth,
Page 43 of 49
I recommend that the utilization of “soft” enforcement to encourage compliance is highly preferable in our park environment where it is appropriate to remember that the WTD has chosen to come into the park with its facilities and should go out of its way to accommodate park users.. WTD should be aware that fences and gates that interfere with customary park uses are disfavored and employ informal persuasion and suggestion to enhance park users’ enjoyment of our regional park consistent with WTD’s need for routine access to the facility.
09/19/2013
Mr Murth,
Please note that as a long term resident of Magnolia I agree with Mr. Carter's stated thoughts below.
We do not need a gate or limiting fencing to control access to our public Park's beaches. Find another solution such as public outreach and/or education.
09/20/2013
I understand that it would be more convenient for county staff to have fewer cars near the road end, but the county exists to serve the public, not the other way around. The illegal parking shows that the public wants access to the beach to be easier, not harder. Your proposal is tone deaf.
I also understand the arguments regarding misdemeanors (beach fires, drinking, drugs), but these strike me as part of life in the city. There's been vandalism on my street, but no one would seriously propose to limit access as a response. Just deal with it like the rest of us. The use of scare tactics undermines confidence in your argument.
09/20/2013
I fully support the gate, especially for reasons of preserving public safety. I have a young son who I often take to the beach at Discovery Park. Safety is a priority. The public will still have access to the beach and will simply need to follow a protocol. I find it ridiculous that people would not support and claim they are being denied access. It is a park, afterall, and parks are about being outdoors. In my opinion, cars do not belong there anyway.
Thank you and I hope the proposed gate is allowed to move forward.
Page 44 of 49
09/20/2013
Cutting off access to the water that far up the hill is ridiculous and unreasonable. Having the water treatment plant use a gate immediately before their parking is reasonable.
It's a public park that should be available for people to access during all park hours. If it is further up bit is always opened during park hours, that's fine.
09/20/2013
Dear Mr. Muth,
Thank you for accepting comments on the WTD Security Gate Project.
I attended the information open house you held at the Discovery Park Visitor’s Center and am extremely concerned and dismayed at the possibility of severely restricting access to the beach.
This is a public beach used by many. If a family wants to have a picnic on the beach on a Sunday or Monday, or any day that the visitor’s center is not open, often a car will be driven down with supplies and drop everyone off with the supplies and return to the main visitor’s center to park. I have driven to the beach when my grandchildren were young and the visitor’s center was closed, hopefully others would be able to do the same.
The beach is a public treasure, access should not be through a gate. PLEASE DO NOT GATE THE BEACH.
09/20/2013
Hi Adair,
As a Magnolia resident, I am writing to express my objection to the proposed West Point Treatment Plant Security Gate. I believe it will discourage the legitimate use of the park and I question its effectiveness in impeding those it is intended to keep out. I encourage you to find an alternative solution.
09/22/2013
Dear Messrs. Muth and Williams:
Please see my attached comments regarding the West Point Security Gate Project.
Page 45 of 49
Thank you for your time.
Dear Messrs. Muth and Williams:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the West Point Security Gate Proposal. This and other security measures in Discovery Park are long overdue. I have enjoyed walking, running and hiking in Discovery Park for over 25 years. There is no question that damage and vandalism has increased considerably in the park over the past few years. This is particularly true of the West Point area.
The public has clearly “discovered” the access road down to the beach, and word has been spreading fast. Even when walking around the neighborhood outside of the park boundaries, I have been asked on numerous occasions by car loads of individuals if I knew where the road was that “goes to down to the lighthouse.” Among other things, the area has obviously become a party destination.
In the past few years, every time I run through the West Point area during daylight hours, there are numerous unpermitted cars parked in the lot—summer and winter. Along with the cars has come an explosion of graffiti, vandalism. Illegal fires, alcohol consumption and unleashed dogs on the beach.
Even reckless driving seems to be plaguing the area now. A short time ago, I watched two cars racing up Discovery Park Boulevard in the middle of the day. One of them lost control on a curve near the intersection with Illinois Avenue and took out 20 or 30 feet of guard rail. Since that time, I have observed that more of the same guardrail appears to have been hit.
In addition to being in the park up to three or four days a week, I can also see the West point area from my home. Compared to a few years ago, the number of automobile headlights seen driving through the restricted parking area at all hours of the night has increased hugely.
Clearly, the relatively dark, isolated and seldom patrolled area is a tempting invitation to gangs and other law breakers. The garbage, litter, graffiti and damage they leave behind is always in evidence. In addition, spent fireworks, shell casings, burned driftwood and other equally alarming evidence of seriously dangerous and destructive activity is also being left behind at an increasing rate.
Before it became common knowledge that you could drive to the West Point area, fires were extremely rare. Now I see them all the time, especially late at night during the summer. Last year, I reported 13 fires to 911. So far this year, it has been 11. These are fires that I just happen to observe. I’m not necessarily looking for them, and I’m sure there are many more that I don’t see.
Page 46 of 49
The fire department and/or the police have to respond to all of these fires. Often both are dispatched. I’m sure that the cost of these responses alone would be enough reason to justify the cost of a gate.
The road to the West Point area is already posted with a large sign prohibiting unauthorized vehicles. That prohibition carries the authority of city law (Seattle Ordinance 106615). Those who ignore this law have clearly demonstrated that they are also inclined to break many other laws that are critical to both life and property.
The costs to the city in property damage and destruction as well as police and fire resources resulting from illegal activity facilitated by unfettered automobile access to the West Point area must be tremendous. Park users’ loss of their sense of personal safety and their ability to enjoy an unmarred natural environment is an even greater cost.
The park master plan states that the role of Discovery Park should be “to provide an open space of quiet and tranquility for the citizens of this city—a sanctuary where they might escape the turmoil of the city and enjoy the rejuvenation which quiet and solitude and an intimate contact with nature can bring.”
There are many beaches and views in Seattle that are easily accessed by car. In addition, the park already makes provisions for a reasonable number of people who cannot walk to West Point to gain limited access by automobile. It is perfectly reasonable and fair for the citizens of Seattle to have at least a few parks and beach areas that are not oriented to cars as the principal means of access.
The security gate is urgently needed, and has been for years. It should really be placed further from West Point than is currently proposed. The intersection of Discovery Park Boulevard and Illinois where the current restricted access sign is located would be a better choice than the top of the treatment plant hill.
Why is the city even seeking “comments” on something that will help enforce a law that has already been well considered and has been on the books for years? We need to stop unauthorized vehicles from driving to West Point or else open the area up to anyone who wishes to take a car there.
[Same commenter] 09/24/2013
Adair,
Thank you for acknowledging receipt of my emailed comments.
I’m sorry that they were so long, but obviously I feel very strongly about the park and the project. In addition, I believe that my frequent presence in and near the park, as well as my
Page 47 of 49
ability to view the West Point area from my home, may make my insights into the situation a little more informed than most.
Good luck with the review process, and please don’t hesitate to contact me if you think I may be able to help.
Incidentally, I was very sincere in my suggestion that the gate be placed much farther to the east on Discovery Park Boulevard than is currently proposed. More and more cars are parking on the side of road at the top of the treatment plant hill. There is, in fact, a small off‐street area there where the loop trail intersects Discovery Park Boulevard. There is also a similar area where the old road through the historic district intersects with Discovery Park Boulevard (near the historic, Fort Lawton bus stop). It too is becoming an increasingly popular parking spot for unauthorized cars.
If we are going to put in a gate, let’s put it where it will also serve to stop the increasing number of vehicles driving into this restricted part of the park. I’m sure that the residents of the Montana Circle homes would not mind. And even if they did, they could be given alternate access by reopening the north end of Kansas Street.
Please consider how much extra value a gate placed nearer to Illinois Avenue would bring to the park in terms of keeping out cars that don’t belong there.
09/23/2013
Hi Adair,
I was not able to attend the public meeting, but have reviewed the project website for information. I understand and endorse the need for the security gate, but I have the following comments.
1. It appears that the project wants to maintain the objective that “visitors that need car access … will still be able to acquire access and parking permits”. I want to emphasize there should be provisions for people to access and drop off their equipment for their activities. I understand that there may not be parking, but everyone who wants to temporarily (e.g., 30 minutes) access the parking area to drop off equipment (e.g., kayaks, wind/kite boards, scuba) be allowed to do so. I understand they may need to drive their car back to a parking area and walk back down, but it’s very important to allow all folks to be able to access the beach—not just those with disabilities or families with small children. Access to the water by the public is very important and I feel is equal to the plant’s need for security. Incidentally, I heard a rumor that kayakers were not allowed to launch at the West Point beach, but I was unable to find any statutes/rules prohibiting this. I would hope that’s not the case as I would see no good reason why. Page 48 of 49
2. Allow provisions (e.g., temporary KC work badges) for contractors and other temporary workers at the plant to gain access to West Point without the need to contact Main Control or the Visitors Center.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide comment. Good luck on your project. Please use my personal email for your records.
Page 49 of 49