Can you provide some advice to these neighbors who want to preserve waterside public access?
This request came my way from a couple of NE Seattle neighbors who would like your thoughts on this particular issue. They are just collecting suggestions on how to approach this right now, so no letter writing campaigns necessary yet. 
You can visit their web site at http://www.waterway1.org.
(photo of Waterway Number 1)
(photo of Waterway Number 1’s mascot ‘Friend’)
Waterway Number 1 is a jewel in the city, providing a priceless waterside access to the Union Bay Natural Area and Washington Park Arboretum. By canoe and kayak, we can paddle to hidden marshes that re-connect us to the natural world. We can view turtles, frogs, blue heron, wood ducks, merganser, and mallards. In early morning, we spy otters diving for fresh water crayfish, beavers carrying twigs, and bald eagles. Before breakfast, joggers gather for a morning run along the waterfront. After school, kids and adults practice shooting baskets at the basketball court while parents escort toddlers to the beach to watch the ducks. Neighbors mow and maintain the waterway, practicing restoration ecology as they replace invasive weeds with plants that thrived along Union Bay before 1850.
There are few locations whose history is more closely entwined with the history of Seattle than Waterway 1. Next year, we will celebrate the 100th Anniversary of Waterway 1 when a pier and boat landing at the 1909 Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exhibition linked what is now the U of W site to Waterway 1 and to boat landings around the lake. In 1910, the Laurelhurst Launch carried residents by boat from Madison Street to Waterway 1 where the first school in Laurelhurst was established. Originally there were five Duwamish longhouses along the north shore of Union Bay, including at what is now the Talaris campus.
Today, this gateway to the natural world and other unique public trust lands like it are at risk. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources proposes to lease a substantial portion of the public waterway for unauthorized uses, significantly reducing public access. As part of its decision making process on a proposed lease, DNR will allow the public to comment within a 30-day period. While we don’t know exactly when the 30-day period will start—tentatively in early April—we hope that all who care about Washington State’s stewardship of its residential waterways and parks will start thinking about what the waterway means to them today and in the future. This is a precedent-setting decision that will impact not only Union Bay and Waterway 1 but all of the public, residential waterways and parks in our cities.
Help us to assure that DNR will not use its quest for revenues to eliminate the public lands that provide our access to the lakes that are our irreplaceable public heritage. Please let us know your opinion about the value of Waterway 1 and the importance we place on DNR’s role as steward of the aquatic resources and public trust lands that are our heritage. Please send your advice to Friends of Waterway 1, Kate Lloyd at friend@friendsofwaterway1.org.
6 comments
Seattle Parks and Open Space Advocates (seattlePOSA@yahoogroups.com) could be useful for Waterway 1.
Update on Laurelhurst’s Waterway 1 - this pretty interesting article was featured in Seattle Weekly.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2007-05-23/news/garden-gloves-are-off-in-laurelhurst-property-battle-involving-bill-gates-sister.php?page=1
[…] The Seattle Weekly’s take on Laurelhurst’s Waterway 1 battle. Touch my property and the shrubbery gets it.* Mayor Nickels proposes requiring building […]
My advice to Kate Lloyd and Judith Thornton is to consider working with the many Laurelhurst neighbors who participated in development of a concept plan with the assistance of SDOT, the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and well-know tree and plant expert Arthur Lee Jacobsen for the waterway.
Many neighbors have signed volunteer agreements and will soon be working to implement the plan to improve, enhance and restore the waterway.
For almost six decades the waterway has been an eyesore, mostly unusable due to the massive spread of noxious weeds caused in large part by mowing which multiplied the weeds considerably. There is a worn out basketball court that is well-used despite its condition. The plan calls for resurfacing the basketball court for safety reasons. Under a shoreline permit, large, slip-resistant granite stones have already been installed at the water’s edge to make it safer to launch non-motorized boats at the site, a priority in the concept plan. There are many other components of the plan that will ultimately restore and enhance the site and provide for environmental stewardship and maintenance.
Yes, there is private use of a portion of the waterway on the part of the adjacent property owners. These property owners have permits with SDOT that require considerable fees authorizing the uses. Negotiations are under way to also authorize these uses through DNR, a common practice for the state’s waterways.
Why not work together to improve, restore and enhance the waterway instead of being an obstacle to creating a wonderful community amenity and distorting the facts about this great project?
I am responding to Jeannie Hale’s letter. I appreciate her comments. Waterway 1, which celebrates its 100th anniversary next year, is a historical/cultural landmark. It supports diverse wildlife and provides waterside access to the Union Bay Natural Area and Arboretum. I share her concern about the need to keep the waterfront park an attractive area for the water-related use of neighbors and the community.
Our letter about DNR’s proposed leasing of a substantial portion of the waterway for unauthorized uses is consistent with the policies of the Laurelhurst Community Club Board and with the published statements of LCC’s president. In their October 2005 minutes, the LCC Board states: “LCC policies call for working with property owners living adjacent to the waterway and/or shoreline street end, respecting the privacy of those property owners and developing community consensus on improvements. LCC also supports incentives to encourage adjacent landowners to minimize private use of the public space.”
In October 2003, Jeannie Hale wrote to Diane Sugimura at DPD and Grace Crunican at SDOT: “In contacting you, it is our goal to ensure unobstructed public access to the waterway and to develop a means to address the many complaints we have received from neighbors about the encroachments at Waterway No 1… State waterways and shoreline street ends provide important amenities to neighborhoods…” Regarding the blocking dock, Jeannie wrote: “The aerial photo we have since reviewed, however, documents the encroachment. In March 2003, we asked what plans would be taken to correct the encroachment and we were told none. Because of the public nature of this area, we ask for further review.”
However, Jeannie’s current letter is confused about the ownership of the waterway and existing use rights to it. In fact, the waterway is owned by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Recently, DNR has undertaken a partial survey and valuation of Waterway 1, contemplating leasing a substantial portion of the waterway. However, there will be a public comment period prior to a final decision. Separately, since April 2005, SDOT has levied a regulatory fee for temporary, revocable permits. Patti Quirk, who administers permit fees for Seattle’s waterways, notes that the waterway permit is not a property rental fee, but is intended to reflect use of the waterway and corresponding public needs that are associated with the use, such as the Harbor Patrol. In February, Anthony Gibbons of Resolve Real Estate Appraisal reported that one permit-holder is appealing this regulatory fee.
On June 5, Fran McNair, Aquatic Land Steward, wrote: “DNR is continuing to discuss the encroachments to the waterway with the adjoining landowners. The public notice for the volunteer agreements is a separate action. If and when DNR is entering into use authorizations with the adjoining landowners, DNR will include public input through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process.” It is this forthcoming SEPA process that will address the proposed lease of a substantial portion of the public waterway for unauthorized use. This precedent-setting decision will have major impact, not only on Waterway 1, but on all waterways providing public access to our lakes and streams.
Regarding the 2005 LCC-SDOT concept plan for the residual corridor that Jeannie mentions, I like many of its elements. I am puzzled that LCC did not implement the plan or even provide maintenance for the waterway during the following two years after publishing the plan. I am bewildered by Jeannie’s statement, “For almost six decades the waterway has been an eyesore, mostly unusable due to the massive spread of noxious weeds caused in large part by mowing which multiplied the weeds considerably.” Because of neglect, neighbors organized Friends of Waterway 1 to mow and maintain the residual corridor. This group includes neighbors who have received many Good Neighbor Awards from LCC for taking care of the waterway during the previous decade. Those of you who have visited and photographed the waterway recently know that it is currently mowed and well-maintained. If you are interested, drop by quickly to see it because, last week, the LCC president instructed the Friends group to stop all activity at the waterway.
Now that LCC has a partnership agreement with DNR to maintain and improve the residual corridor of the waterway (referred to as the “Property” and shown in the attached DNR document, Exhibit A), I hope that LCC will actually implement their agreement. I have submitted a Volunteer Right of Entry form to LCC’s president and look forward to contributing to LCC’s efforts.
However, mowing the residual corridor is less significant than communicating our concern to DNR about their forthcoming decision to approve or disapprove of unlawful encroachments. DNR’s decision is precedent-setting. It threatens us with the steady, bit-by-bit elimination of the public lands that provide our access to lakes and streams. It is remarkable to observe the confluence of opinion as members of the community have seen the DNR leasing documents and learned that DNR was planning to issue use authorizations for the encroached areas of the public waterway. Some view the issue as a question of the accountability of DNR as steward of public lands, some consider it an issue of deterring illegal appropriation of public land, but everyone concurs that Waterway 1 is an historic asset that must remain intact and in public trust. We hope that all of you will comment during the SEPA process.
The Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC) was against the encroachments and wanted a fully functional and accessible waterway at one time.
On 10/22/03 Jeannie Hale, representing LCC, wrote the following to the Department of Design, Construction and Land Use, and the Seattle Department of Transportation:
“In contacting you, it is our goal to ensure unobstructed public access to the waterway and to develop a means to address the many complaints we have received from neighbors about the encroachments at Waterway No. 1.”
Also, regarding the dock, which juts into the waterway, Jeannie Hale wrote: “The aerial photo we have since reviewed, however, documents the encroachment. In March 2003, we asked what plans would be taken to correct the encroachment and we were told none. Because of the public nature of this area, we ask for further review.” And she wrote: “LCC did not approve the dock relocation as noted on the SDOT permit, nor was there any discussion about the 20-foot encroachment.”
I supported her and the LCC’s position then and believe this is still in the best interests of the community and the waterway. I look forward to working with LCC in the future.
Kate Lloyd, former Vice President of LCC
Leave a Comment