Fauntleroy Community Assoc.: CSO “proceed” letter, schoolhouse…

From last night’s Fauntleroy Community Association meeting, the final of four WSB reports from last night’s neighborhood-council meetings around West Seattle (newly expanded Admiral report here; Junction report here; North Delridge here): FCA has weighed in with its views on the Combined Sewer Overflow control controversy. While much of the recent attention has focused on the proposals for controlling overflows from the Murray Pump Station at Lowman Beach, north of Lincoln Park, three alternatives for CSO control also are on the table for the basin feeding the Barton Pump Station (county photo above) by the Fauntleroy ferry terminal south of the park, and FCA went public last night with the draft of the letter they want to send the county – including their hope that the Murray controversy will not delay the Barton project. Read ahead for the full text as well as other meeting toplines:

Transcribed from the hard copy of the draft letter provided at the FCA meeting last night:


County Executive Dow Constantine

Subject: Barton Combined Sewer Overflow Project

Dear County Executive Constantine:

The Fauntleroy Community Association (FCA) has been meeting and working with the King County Wastewater Treatment Division to develop a new Combined Sewer Overflow management system. The project is highly important to the community because of the environmental sensitivity of Fauntleroy Cove, which is already subjected to significant impact from ferry operations.

We would like to have the Barton CSO project proceed as soon as possible to avoid accidental discharges into Fauntleroy Cove, which unfortunately occur regularly due to the outdated system now in place. There is some concern that progress on the Barton project may be affected by the controversy over the nearby Murray project, and we want to ensure that the Barton project is not impacted as those issues are resolved. The FCA would also like to state that it does not support locating the Murray facility in Lincoln Park, as has been discussed.

At this time, the Fauntleroy Community Association does not have a definitive position on which Barton Street CSO alternative is most suitable for our community, but we would like to see full development of the engineering for the parking area of Fauntleroy School, as that seems to show the most promise. Fauntleroy School was recently acquired by the Fauntleroy Community Service Agency (FCSA) and after many years of neglect, the process of significant building and site upgrades are being planned. Having King County work with the FCSA would help leverage a public asset that is already under redevelopment. This is a significant opportunity for a very good outcome for two separate public initiatives.

The Fauntleroy Community Association looks forward to working with King County to ensure a successful outcome to the Barton CSO project. Please feel free to contact me if you have any comments and questions.

Bruce Butterfield

Here’s our report on the March meeting discussing the three alternatives the county is exploring for Barton CSO control – the most controversial was one that could affect the small embankment-top greenbelt known as “Captain’s Park,” across from the ferry terminal.

Meantime, two more notes from last night’s FCA meeting – a reminder of the celebration of the Schoolhouse acquisition, coming up 6:30 pm June 3 (Facebook event listing here); and a followup on the recent Fauntleroy Fall Festival fundraiser at Endolyne Joe’s – it raised $2,100.

The Fauntleroy Community Association meets the 2nd Tuesday of each month at The Hall at Fauntleroy, 7 pm.

12 Replies to "Fauntleroy Community Assoc.: CSO "proceed" letter, schoolhouse..."

  • Duckitude May 12, 2010 (1:05 pm)

    Hi: It is too bad that Fauntleroy wants to paint this situation with this kind of brush, as if they have worked so much harder than the folks here in the Murray basin on CSO planning, back-up generators, etc.
    What would have been more neighborly, would have been to propose a joint task force to quell the controversy which is based on legitimate concerns, and find solutions that would be acceptable to both Barton and Murray. To try to say they are not intimately linked would be to deny reality.
    So, in a sense, what the FCA has done, in my opinion, is open up a turf war between the two community associations and not work towards an acceptable and adequate solution for both.
    So be it, if that is the road you wish to pursue. It would have been a better approach, really, to pass such a letter by the Morgan Junction Community Association for consultation and feedback before going public with it. Too late. It sets up an adversarial process between the two associations. Is that what you want?

  • Yardvark May 12, 2010 (2:08 pm)

    I don’t think we’ll have an adversarial relationship with Barton Basin or the Fauntleroy Community. Just a jealous one.

    Why can there be a green infrastructure option in the Barton Basin and not in Murray? I’ve heard it’s because of the hills and the soil, but that doesn’t make sence to me. Is it because the city only wants to risk doing one of these green infrastructure projects at a time?

    It seems like the green infrastructure plan is the only option that actually addresses the problem, yes?

    Wouldn’t this allow us to save the Parks…while building community….and protecting the Sound?

    Public roadside raingardens. Private cisterns. Water conservation. Isn’t this plan the real solution?

  • bettytheyeti May 12, 2010 (2:45 pm)

    Let’s see the Fauntleroy Community gets to be part of the problem . . . or part of the solution? Under-built Barton Basin vs over-built Murray basin. Does the (FC) not see this connection? Or maybe you do? Yes an expedited solution, would benefit (FC) because then the same green options would not be provided to others. You get to use a parking lot up and off sight. You don’t have the beach impacted. Oh, by the way what you don’t treat with you under-sized solution; the Murray Basin WILL have to treat.

  • Frank May 13, 2010 (12:28 pm)

    Duckitude really!!!
    First you and the Lowman gang push to have your cso placed in Lincoln Park. You dont meet with the Fauntlaroy community for discussion you simply want it not to be “in your backyard”.
    Now that the Fauntlaroy community says no way, you want to work jointly.
    How would you feel if the fauntlaroy community pushed to have their cso put in Lowman beach?

  • wseye May 13, 2010 (2:56 pm)

    Seems to me that the folks down by Lowman need to take a deep breath. The Fauntleroy community has been working on its own project for a longer time, it has matured sufficiently to proceed. The Lowman project still needs some work, but it is wrong to get angry with an adjacent community that has always been very supportive.

  • Bettytheyeti May 13, 2010 (5:41 pm)

    Just because FC has been working on its “own” project longer doesn’t mean it NEEDS to proceed. Especially when it’s “own” project adversely affects it’s neighbors. The conditions that necessitates CSO mitigation do not exist in a vacuum. Again what Barton doesn’t capture Murray will by default. These CSO areas are inter-connected, and so are the solution.

  • wseye May 13, 2010 (6:05 pm)

    Not so Betty. The drainage basin for Fauntleroy Cove is different than the one for Lowman. It is true that the flow captured from Fauntleroy then passes through Lowman, but all the more reason to reduce the overflow from Fauntleroy – it will reduce the load on Lowman. We are in this together, no need to get into disputes with people who have the same objectives. Peace.

  • Bettytheyeti May 13, 2010 (8:23 pm)

    @wseye the point is Fauntleroy is under-building their system, their flow capture could be greater and it is off site. The reduction to Murray could then in fact be greater. Hence the “whoa nelly.” I concur we are in this together.

  • wseye May 13, 2010 (9:05 pm)

    That is simply fiction, dear Betty. The purpose of the new system will be to capture and delay release of the CSO into the existing sewer system so that it doesn’t get over burdened as it does today (and thus releasing it into the Sound). Stop with the silly conspiracy theories already.

  • Duckitude May 14, 2010 (3:46 pm)

    Actually, you misrepresent my writings — I am not PUSHING for Lincoln, I AM PUSHING for a true stakeholder group that has the right to look at ALL options, including Lincoln. I am only saying, if you will note, that it appears to be a better solution for everyone, not just the Lowman Beach neighborhood. I am not going to do a long post to explain that all to you if you haven’t read everything I have written so far, especially at the Sound Angels site. I am not pushing anything on Barton, except noting that there seem to be significant issues not being looked at.
    The idea that I originated the Lincoln Park idea is also completely wrong, but, then again, you haven’t probably been to the meetings where that was brought up by many others than me.
    I will be the messenger on this stuff. I plan on doing my best to look at all options and lobby for a true stakeholders group. I have no other agenda, but to get to the truth of what would be the best for neighborhoods and the Sound, not just what looks like the best or is purported to be the best, but which a truly-involved knowledgeable stakeholder group signs off on.
    I have been involved in this process of the CSO and generator siting since the end of 2004. KCWTD kept us (a previous quite official stakeholders group) out of the current planning process as much as they could. Maybe you have an inside track, and you feel good about this solution, but, guess what, a whole ton of people don’t. I guess you don’t care about that “whole ton of people,” but just me, as if I was the only one.
    You can be as happy as you want with the solutions being offered to you. However, I am not so sure those solutions are the best for the whole community, and there is no way to know as stakeholders, since we have not been truly involved in the process (unless you think you have, but then, that would be a stakeholder “group” of one).

  • Duckitude May 14, 2010 (3:58 pm)

    Oh, again, I am just one person. FCA holds itself out to be a community organization. Do you see MOCA doing anything remotely like try to do anything other than bring the communities together. You are comparing apples (me) and oranges (FCA). The comparison should be drawn between MOCA and FCA.
    It’s not up to me to work with the FCA, that is MOCA’s job. I have asked, as many others have, for a community stakeholders group. Whether the FCA wants to be part of that community stakeholder group is up to them. It appears they don’t want to be. Again, the “Lowman Gang” is not MOCA, so we don’t purport to represent the community. But we do purport to ask for community representation, true representation at the table, and that I think is what MOCA has indicated a yearning for, although it has not made a formal statement.
    BTW, you can drop the “gang” word, really. I never called the FCA a gang, nor would I use pejorative terms for people who work as hard as they do. A little respect, eh?
    As for you accusations of NIMBYism… read my blog, man, I hardly use the park. I use the water. The water will be there no matter what happens to the park. I have literally NO personal stake in whether the tank there ends up tall, short, big, small, right or wrong. I can move anytime I want at will. I have no property. If the Sound goes to hell, I can sail on Lake Washington. All I care about is the process the government brings to the table, and this one SUCKS!
    You can try to tar me with NIMBYism, but it will never stick. Propaganda has a way of doing that… not sticking for long.

  • nmb May 20, 2010 (11:40 am)

    How about we get to the root of the problem, which is why we have so much stormwater in the first place. It is only going to get worse, when more buildings get built without considering the alternatives of green roofs, bioswales and other natural catchment systems.

    In Germany, all new buildings are required to deal with their own stormwater on site, which they do with green roofs and other alternatives.
    Yes, green roofs are costly, but wouldnt the county be better off having incentives for developments rather than building these expensive and massive CSO projects. Here is a video about Green Roofs in Portland

    META Architects.com

Sorry, comment time is over.