Residents bash beach proposal
November 25, 2009
By J.B. Wogan
By J.B. Wogan
The latest proposal for a waterfront park along Lake Sammamish took a beating at the City Council’s Nov. 16 meeting, but not from the council.
The Parks Commission and several residents asked that the council not approve the proposed plan because of its beach element.
Parks Director Jessi Richardson showed the council a revised draft that included a 440-foot swim beach — expanded from an earlier proposal — that involved some clear cutting of natural vegetation. Richardson said building the park would cost about $6 million.
The park site, known as Sammamish Landing, is at the northern tip of the city, wedged between the East Lake Sammamish Parkway and Lake Sammamish.
In September, Richardson presented a park design showing the 3,000-foot-long strip of Lake Sammamish with a 36-car parking lot on the other side of East Lake Sammamish Parkway, with six small beaches, monuments, a bike trail, restrooms and a picnic pavilion.
The previous design had about 240-feet of beachfront combined.
Richardson had the city consultant The Berger Partnership design a passive-use park, without a central swimming area because of the heavy environmental oversight imposed on the site.
Various public agencies would regulate the park site, including the state Department of Ecology, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the city’s own shoreline development regulations.
Nonetheless, the council told Richardson to revise the park plan to include a more robust beach.
In response, the Parks Commission, which advises the council on parks and recreation matters, delivered a Nov. 16 recommendation against the expanded beach option.
Parks Commission Chairman Hank Klein told the council he thought the costs outweighed the benefits.
In his address to the council, Klein said the removal of plants and trees was too great an environmental impact to the park area. He pointed out that an expanded beach would probably attract more visitors than the parking lot could accommodate.
Both added parking and offsetting the environmental impacts of a bigger beach would tack on about $3 million in costs.
“We do, in fact, favor development of this park, but we are concerned about the overall expense. We question whether this is the best use of our funds,” Klein said. Instead, the commission asked the council to return to a previous park plan that called for less dramatic changes to the shoreline.
Klein added that the expanded beach was a big enough change that any decision the council makes should happen after further public input.
The required public input for the plan has been exhausted, with the city holding three public meetings, plus discussing the plan at previous council meetings and commission meetings.
Four residents testified that they didn’t want the expanded beach. Kathy Richardson, who lives along Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast, said the council should approve a “no regrets proposition.”
She uploaded several photos on the council projector and showed the difference in dense vegetation at the Sammamish Landing site compared to Bellevue’s Vasa Park. The two parks would be comparable if the council approved a 440-foot swim beach.
Reid Brockway, who lives on East Lake Sammamish Shore Lane Northeast, pointed out that the park site was designated by the city as having high ecological value. The site is classified by the city as urban conservancy.
“To be blunt, this proposal seems rather hypocritical,” Brockway said, referring to a recent series of decisions on shoreline building regulations where the council imposed restrictions on lakefront owners in the name of no-net loss of ecological function.
Brockway said he was concerned that the expanded beach plan didn’t list out the significant mitigation that he thought would be necessary to offset cutting down trees and clearing plants.
George Toskey, who lives on 238th Place Northeast, said the city should have a big beach area, but Sammamish Landing isn’t the right location.
He said there were empty lots that didn’t have the kind of rich ecological value that Sammamish Landing did.
“Go purchase that property, put in what people would expect for a swimming beach,” he said.
The council’s reaction ran the full gamut.
City Councilman Lee Fellinge’s initial questions went in the opposite direction of concerns expressed by Klein, Kathy Richardson, Brockway and Toskey. He asked if there wasn’t a way to make the beach even bigger.
“How can we take advantage of what I think is a one-time opportunity?” Fellinge asked. Later, he added that he thought the city had two options: approve a modest plan that would only have pocket beaches or approve an extensive waterfront park with a bigger beach area worth the multi-million dollar price estimate.
City Councilwoman Michele Petitti complimented the parks director on the latest proposal.
“I really like where we’ve come. I think you’ve gone back and incorporated the things that we asked,” Petitti said.
“I think we could accomplish what we want with a smaller beach area,” City Councilwoman Nancy Whitten said, adding that she, like Klein, wanted to hear more from the public before making a final decision.
City Councilwoman Kathy Huckabay called the plan “OK,” but added that she had envisioned a park that was more natural.
Richardson said she’s awaiting further direction from the city manager and council, but doesn’t expect the park plan to come up again until 2010.
Reporter J.B. Wogan can be reached at 392-6434, ext. 247, or jbwogan@isspress.com. To comment on this story, visit www.SammamishReview.com.
The latest proposal for a waterfront park along Lake Sammamish took a beating at the City Council’s Nov. 16 meeting, but not from the council.
The Parks Commission and several residents asked that the council not approve the proposed plan because of its beach element.
Parks Director Jessi Richardson showed the council a revised draft that included a 440-foot swim beach — expanded from an earlier proposal — that involved some clear cutting of natural vegetation. Richardson said building the park would cost about $6 million.
The park site, known as Sammamish Landing, is at the northern tip of the city, wedged between the East Lake Sammamish Parkway and Lake Sammamish.
In September, Richardson presented a park design showing the 3,000-foot-long strip of Lake Sammamish with a 36-car parking lot on the other side of East Lake Sammamish Parkway, with six small beaches, monuments, a bike trail, restrooms and a picnic pavilion.
The previous design had about 240-feet of beachfront combined.
Richardson had the city consultant The Berger Partnership design a passive-use park, without a central swimming area because of the heavy environmental oversight imposed on the site.
Various public agencies would regulate the park site, including the state Department of Ecology, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the city’s own shoreline development regulations.
Nonetheless, the council told Richardson to revise the park plan to include a more robust beach.
In response, the Parks Commission, which advises the council on parks and recreation matters, delivered a Nov. 16 recommendation against the expanded beach option.
Parks Commission Chairman Hank Klein told the council he thought the costs outweighed the benefits.
In his address to the council, Klein said the removal of plants and trees was too great an environmental impact to the park area. He pointed out that an expanded beach would probably attract more visitors than the parking lot could accommodate.
Both added parking and offsetting the environmental impacts of a bigger beach would tack on about $3 million in costs.
“We do, in fact, favor development of this park, but we are concerned about the overall expense. We question whether this is the best use of our funds,” Klein said. Instead, the commission asked the council to return to a previous park plan that called for less dramatic changes to the shoreline.
Klein added that the expanded beach was a big enough change that any decision the council makes should happen after further public input.
The required public input for the plan has been exhausted, with the city holding three public meetings, plus discussing the plan at previous council meetings and commission meetings.
Four residents testified that they didn’t want the expanded beach. Kathy Richardson, who lives along Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast, said the council should approve a “no regrets proposition.”
She uploaded several photos on the council projector and showed the difference in dense vegetation at the Sammamish Landing site compared to Bellevue’s Vasa Park. The two parks would be comparable if the council approved a 440-foot swim beach.
Reid Brockway, who lives on East Lake Sammamish Shore Lane Northeast, pointed out that the park site was designated by the city as having high ecological value. The site is classified by the city as urban conservancy.
“To be blunt, this proposal seems rather hypocritical,” Brockway said, referring to a recent series of decisions on shoreline building regulations where the council imposed restrictions on lakefront owners in the name of no-net loss of ecological function.
Brockway said he was concerned that the expanded beach plan didn’t list out the significant mitigation that he thought would be necessary to offset cutting down trees and clearing plants.
George Toskey, who lives on 238th Place Northeast, said the city should have a big beach area, but Sammamish Landing isn’t the right location.
He said there were empty lots that didn’t have the kind of rich ecological value that Sammamish Landing did.
“Go purchase that property, put in what people would expect for a swimming beach,” he said.
The council’s reaction ran the full gamut.
City Councilman Lee Fellinge’s initial questions went in the opposite direction of concerns expressed by Klein, Kathy Richardson, Brockway and Toskey. He asked if there wasn’t a way to make the beach even bigger.
“How can we take advantage of what I think is a one-time opportunity?” Fellinge asked. Later, he added that he thought the city had two options: approve a modest plan that would only have pocket beaches or approve an extensive waterfront park with a bigger beach area worth the multi-million dollar price estimate.
City Councilwoman Michele Petitti complimented the parks director on the latest proposal.
“I really like where we’ve come. I think you’ve gone back and incorporated the things that we asked,” Petitti said.
“I think we could accomplish what we want with a smaller beach area,” City Councilwoman Nancy Whitten said, adding that she, like Klein, wanted to hear more from the public before making a final decision.
City Councilwoman Kathy Huckabay called the plan “OK,” but added that she had envisioned a park that was more natural.
Richardson said she’s awaiting further direction from the city manager and council, but doesn’t expect the park plan to come up again until 2010.
Reporter J.B. Wogan can be reached at 392-6434, ext. 247, or jbwogan@isspress.com.
Comments
One Response to “Residents bash beach proposal”
Got something to say?
We really need a swimming beach on Lake Sammamish. We also need a dock where we can pick up and drop off waterskiers and a place where boaters can tie up for short durations.
While these areas need to be divided from one another, both could and should be accomadated here.
As far as shoreline regulations being different for public vs private use, I believe that shoreline regulation exceptions should be made in instances where the benefits for the public good are concerned.
The lake is a public resource and recreational opportunities in it and on it should be available to all, not just the people that are fortunate enough to be able to afford property bordering it.