Beachfront parkland or beachfront home? Seattle Parks recommends moving ahead with county-to-city transfer of 8923 Fauntleroy Way SW

| Fauntleroy | Utilities | West Seattle beaches | West Seattle news

(WSB photo, from April – Cove Park at left, 8923 Fauntleroy house & beach at right)

A month and a half after a community meeting (WSB coverage here) on whether to take over a King County-owned beachfront home at 8923 Fauntleroy Way SW, the Seattle Parks recommendation is in – they support moving ahead with a swap of sorts that would in effect expand Cove Park next to the Fauntleroy ferry dock. Here’s the news release we just received:

After considering public comments, input from a public meeting, and City policy, Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR) has recommended that King County Wastewater Treatment Division move forward with the street vacation request which would involve the transferring of the King County owned property located at 8923 Fauntleroy Way SW to the City of Seattle. Having made this recommendation, the next step in the process involves King County Wastewater Treatment Division applying for a street vacation. This is one of many steps in the process prior to the Seattle City Council making a final decision on the street vacation and taking ownership of the property.

In 2015, the King County Wastewater Treatment Division finished an upgrade to the Barton Pump Station by the Fauntleroy Ferry Terminal to accommodate West Seattle’s growing population. To build the new pump station, King County acquired the property just to the north of SW Barton Street for use during construction. Once the project was finished, King County began the process to surplus the property. With the City expressing an interest in the property, this raised the possibility of trading the Fauntleroy Way SW property to the City for a partial vacation of SW Barton St. (under the county’s pump station) which the County is interested in obtaining.

This potential trade is not solely an SPR issue, but rather a City issue that needs the input of multiple departments for an adequate review. The comprehensive City review required by a street vacation application will help provide the information necessary to fully inform the public, address unanswered questions, and lead to an informed decision by City Council.

The street vacation process will be run by Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) and will include plenty of opportunities for further public input and dialogue.

For more information on this proposal, please visit http://www.seattle.gov/parks/projects/cove_park/addition.htm or contact Chip Nevins, SPR, at chip.nevins@seattle.gov or 206-233-3879.

The possibility of Seattle taking over the county-owned house and 35-foot-wide strip of beach (aerial map here) was first explained publicly at April’s Fauntleroy Community Association meeting (WSB coverage here).

anonyme July 11, 2016 (5:25 pm)

It would have been nice to have a small grocery and/or coffee shop on the ground floor of the live/work units. Arbor Heights is a desert in terms of amenities, and this seems like the perfect spot/combination of functions. Of course, that might mean additional parking, which I’m sure is a no-go.

WS Taxpayer July 11, 2016 (5:33 pm)

Hope they give the same business to the street vacation request that they did to the Sodo Arena.

Steen July 13, 2016 (1:40 pm)

I didn’t realize someone was willing to invest hundreds of millions of $$$ for that Park owned shack like chris Hansen is with the SODO Arena. <sarcasm off> Be smarter.

All for walking on the beach July 11, 2016 (5:34 pm)

Horay. One step closer. What a great opportunity that could serve people today and generations to come! It will make waiting for the ferry a delight and not just a sit in the car:)

RC July 11, 2016 (5:54 pm)

Only if you’re on the dock or nearby. Not so much if you’re waiting up the line aways.

aRf July 11, 2016 (5:37 pm)

I am happy they’ve chosen to do this.

LAintheJunction July 11, 2016 (6:36 pm)

This is great news, expanding Cove park will be a nice addition to the neighborhood.

Trileigh July 11, 2016 (8:07 pm)

But the land transfer doesn’t mean the city will retain the property as a park, does it? I know that the city was considering selling the property for private development (house?) at one point.

WSB July 11, 2016 (9:11 pm)

The city has made a point of saying this would be to “add” to Cove Park, which is a street-end park (SDOT property) that’s been maintained by area residents, not a Seattle Parks park. That was the subject of some community questioning, whether the land would be held by SDOT or Seattle Parks, and Chip Nevins said at the June meeting that if it seemed to be a stumbling block, certainly the vacation of the entire street end could be sought and it could be Parks land instead of SDOT-owned parkland.

Claudia July 11, 2016 (8:43 pm)

I am thrilled and elated! Please let me know what you need done to help this move forward!

Fed up July 12, 2016 (1:14 pm)

This is disgraceful. What a waste. The waterfront owners will just become increasingly stringent on enforcing their own private property rights. The Parks Department shouldn’t have even held a meeting since they clearly didn’t take into account what the public wanted–NOT another park. Lies and more lies. Might have to call up some news stations so the public can become aware of the wasting of taxpayer money.

Sally Says July 12, 2016 (7:37 am)

I see another no vote on Street Vacation from the Seattle City Council. Followed by a property sale to highest bidder.

Frustrated July 12, 2016 (8:15 am)

Frustrated but not surprised to see they didn’t take the publics opinions into account.
Just another example of our money being wasted.

Seattle Taxpayer July 12, 2016 (1:15 pm)

Interesting the reasoning behind asking for public opinion which was overwhelmingly in favor of the opposite outcome. If you have already decided to try to acquire the property please don’t waste the public/taxpayers time/money pretending like you value their input! This is a waste of money for 35 feet of property that could be allocated to an actual need in Seattle. Lincoln Park is 800 ft. North with over 2000 ft. of accessible waterfront. Taxpayer cost on this project will easily top 4 million dollars over the next 10 years to add a small sliver of beach access and make traffic in the area worse.

Disgusted July 12, 2016 (1:16 pm)

Wake up Seattle! Just another empire building by the Parks Dept. Funds much better used on Schools and homeless shelters etc. City of Seattle harps on us concerning shortage of housing but they are determined to tear down a perfectly good house for a not needed park. I attended the meeting and this was not the wants nor wishes of the majority. City should be ashamed of themselves.

Salt Spray July 12, 2016 (3:49 pm)

I vote for whatever will protect the property from being acquired by WSDOT / Ferries. I understand that Parks cannot give away/sell Parks land. Is that still true if SDOT owns the land and Parks just manages it as a park? If SDOT would have the ability to lease the property to Ferries in the future (it already leases them the land that the dock occupies), then the property NEEDS TO GO TO PARKS, NOT SDOT.

The ferry dock is mandated to be rebuilt in 13 years (get rid of creosote pilings), which would be the perfect time to attempt expansion. Fauntleroy Way would become a state highway like Lake City Way. Say goodbye to any sense of residential neighborhood!

maxwell4504 July 12, 2016 (4:54 pm)

As to tearing down a perfectly good house; if the property gets sold the house will come down and a million dollar house will go in its place. It will not solve our affordable housing shortage. If it stays a park, then all residents will have a place to share. Protecting shorelines for future generations should be a priority. We benefit from those that came before us in the parks and green spaces they preserved.

Fed up July 14, 2016 (10:06 am)

Maxwell, your logic is flawed, by not selling the house back into the private sector, the city will be wasting 4 million for the projected cost, as well as the sale of the house, and the subsequent 20,000+ in yearly property taxes. All of this money could go towards better causes such as housing shortage. Why penalize people who have worked tirelessly to be able to afford to live on the water? However, at this point its simply about wasting everyones money and taking away this money from other, much better causes.

Ducky July 12, 2016 (9:21 pm)

Did the community meeting in Fauntleroy accurately represent public opinion? The public meeting was attended by many who wanted to see the parcel sold to private interests and/or to prevent it from becoming park space, but many who couldn’t make the meeting submitted opinions in writing. I don’t know that there’s been a tally of the total”vote” as it were.

If I understand correctly, his piece of property is currently owned by King County, not the City of Seattle. And acquiring this property is not costing the city money, it’s a property trade, right? So I’m not clear how this is a waste of money that could be allocated elsewhere (housing, schools, homeless services, etc.).

Also, it is not realistic to address Seattle’s housing shortage with this one small waterfront parcel. What would zoning allow–a duplex or triplex at most?

It seems the bigger issue against the property swap is that neighbors don’t want to see the ferry terminal enlarged and/or feel uncomfortable with the public ( criminal element?) being allowed closer to their property boundaries. Yes?

Is there an avenue to voice requests/demands for language in the property swap agreement to address the former,and/ or to lobby for adequate enforcement of whatever park rules become to address the latter? Anyone know who can chime in on this?

WSB July 13, 2016 (9:31 am)

The site is zoned single family. I don’t know if it would be eligible for a backyard cottage under current zoning, which is proposed for loosening to allow more such units. Regarding the language – as Parks’ statement says, and as they’d said earlier, the street-vacation process has various layers of comment, including at some point a public hearing before the council. But if you have specific suggestions right now, the best way to have them in the record is to e-mail Chip Nevins, contact info above. – Tracy

Seattle Taxpayer July 12, 2016 (10:45 pm)

The costs involved are: (1) The million dollars paid already to acquire the house. (2) The cost to demolish the existing house and infrastructure. (3) The cost of creating the extention/addition to the existing park ie: plan developing, landscaping, permitting, plumbing, sprinkler systems, lighting. (4) Ongoing maintenance, clean up, security wages paid to parks workers. (5) Lost property taxes paid for years to come. (6) Police officer wages for the extra security involved with keeping people out of the park and neighboring properties after hours. I’m sure there’s more that don’t readily come to mind. Easily 3-4 million dollars when it’s all said and done for a small sliver of waterfront (35) feet…when there is over 2000 feet of publicly accessible waterfront 2 blocks away already.

WSB July 12, 2016 (11:38 pm)

Just to add some numbers there, from our previous coverage:

-Parks estimated $15,000 maintenance cost per year and about $50,000 to tear down the house, though who would pay – city or county – would have to be negotiated.

Jon Wright July 13, 2016 (2:19 pm)

Discouraging that so many of the homeowners down there take such offense at granting folks like my family a smidgen more access to the waterfront.

Fed up July 14, 2016 (10:10 am)

Your family has access to Lincoln Park, which is a beautiful waterfront park. People take offense at the wastefulness and careless spending of EVERYONE’s money.
- Jon Wright July 14, 2016 (4:09 pm)
  
  “People” take offense? How about “NIMBYs trying desperately to convince the world they are not NIMBYs with a smoke screen about finances” take offense. Why is it that all these fiscally responsible sorts opposing this deal also happen to live right by where this park would be?
  - Ferry Fort July 15, 2016 (2:10 pm)
    
    All this means Mr. Wright, is more signs displayed on either side of this “park” that drastically limit the public’s usage of the private property on either side of ferry dock. Owners have been extremely graceful about trespassers walking the beach but I can see that changing as people are fed up about late night party’s, bon fires and garbage left on the beach in their backyards. Most people are completely harmless and respectful but I’m sure you wouldn’t want those few who aren’t in your back yard. This park is unnecessary and a waste of public funding, there will be no parking so only people living within walking distance will have access. Lincoln Park is a jewel that we are all very lucky to have in our back yard…which deems the expansion of this park fairly useless. The public meeting was a joke. Just like the survey that was sent out a couple days before. If the decision was already made then why waste everyone’s time with the smoke and mirrors public meeting. Horrible display of gaining public opinion all around but the Seattle Park’s Department has lost a ton of trust.

S July 13, 2016 (7:09 pm)

Fauntleroy NIMBY’s have successfully blocked much of the ferry improvements that would make the ferry more usable and safer for the community. They accomplish this by showing up in force to public meetings and overriding the majority of West Seattle residents. I’m glad it didn’t work this time, and I hope Seattle starts moving towards surveys and email comments and away from public comment meetings where only the most motivated attend. I don’t think a tiny number of highly motivated people should be able to override the wishes of the vast majority of citizens. Looking forward to a ferry expansion and ferry safety improvements in the next decade.