MOHAI Hosts December MCC
A free evening at the museum for Montlake residents
Montlake Community Club President Clarissa Easton and Leonard Garfield,
Executive Director of the Museum of History and Industry have gotten together
and planned a “Montlake
Community Night at MOHAI” for Wednesday, December 13, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm.
Admission will be free to all Montlake residents. All the galleries
will be open, including the museum’s new “Home for the Holidays” display with
Frederick & Nelson artifacts, antique toys and festive trees.
Please
bring the front page of this issue of
The Montlake Flyer to show that you are participating in the Montlake
Community Night event!
Proposed
Broadmoor Land Use Action
History and Background
Regular readers of this newsletter will recall that for several years
our community club and some individual residents of the neighborhood lobbied
the City, both the Mayor and the Council, for creation of a pedestrian trail
(originally a bicycle trail) around the north end of the Broadmoor Golf course,
connecting the Arboretum near Foster Island with the northeast corner of
Madison Park. We came very close to accomplishing this goal, despite resistance
from a portion of the residents of Madison Park and a the Broadmoor Golf Club.
The trail would have required an easement along the northern edge of the golf
course. Such an easement seemed feasible because the Golf Club, since its
inception, had been occupying and excluding the public from a portion of a street right-of-way that crosses their driving
range. There is no street there, but the right-of-way is defined and legally
the area should be open to the public. The proposal was to legitimize
Broadmoor’s use of the right-of-way in exchange for the public’s use of the
strip along their 18th fairway. Somewhat over a year ago, acting on the
recommendation of the Mayor, the City Council formally abandoned the effort to
create the trail. The failure of the project was closely linked to Broadmoor’s
refusal to provide the needed land. (See
related article below)
President’s Comments
Two issues have garnered
much attention lately in community meetings. We have had divergent opinions
over the proposed siting of the replacement library. The Board of Trustees
strongly urges you to write the Seattle Public Library Board if you want to
affect their decision. There are primarily two sites under consideration: (1)
the northwest corner of the intersection of East McGraw and 24th Avenue East
(which would require demolition of single family homes) and (2) part of the
existing MOHAI building (joint tenants would be other like-minded agencies to
be determined).
We had a good turnout at the
November 15 Trans-Lake Washington Project design workshop at the Montlake
Community Center. Please watch the Montlake web site for links to the study
where dates of future workshops (February and March) will be published. Your
planning ideas will be best utilized if they are received early in the process.
What a pleasure it is to
invite you and your family to our December 13th meeting! Please join us for an
open house at the Museum of History and Industry where holiday exhibits will
assuredly thrill all ages. The museum is offering this free event in the spirit
of building a neighborhood for all ages. Please come and celebrate with us from
6:00 to 8:00 pm in the galleries.
Transportation Committee
will meet from 6:00 to 7:15 pm on December 6 at the Montlake Community Center
with the Board of Trustees meeting from 7:30 to 9:00 pm.
Broadmoor Land Use Action
Montlake
and the Wider Community Have Interests at Stake
After
using the public land for decades without payment for a street use permit, and
having refused to agree to an exchange that would allow public passage around
the golf course, Broadmoor has now applied for a vacation of the street
right-of-way that crosses its driving range. A street vacation closes a
right-of-way and must therefore provide some public benefit in exchange.
Broadmoor’s vacation proposal offers as public benefit the transfer to city
ownership of Broadmoor-owned wetlands north of the golf course and a little
piece of land just in front of the bridge onto Foster Island.
There are three problems
with this offer. First, The wetlands have no value to the City.
They are fully protected and no development can occur there under private
ownership. Second, the public has been passing over the Broadmoor land to the
bridge for many decades. In all likelihood a right to passage has been created
under the doctrine of adverse possession. It is quite inconceivable that the
golf club would invoke its ownership of this land to preclude public access to
Foster Island. If it did, the City could condemn the land and buy the small
piece that is needed. Therefore, neither parcel offered by Broadmoor is of
value to the City. Third, Broadmoor should be paying, and the City should be
collecting, something near $40,000 annually for a street use permit. Most
importantly, as everyone knows, transportation is the single worst problem
faced by Seattle. At this time there seems to be no feasible way to use the
right-of-way in question. Nevertheless, the future stretches before us for a
long, long time. There is no way to know how this right-of-way might someday be
useful. It is a fool’s bargain to give it up.
For the street vacation to
go forward the Mayor and the City Council must approve it. Broadmoor is a seat
of wealth and power in Seattle and the community has been lobbying the elected
officials. If the wider public raises no objection, the deal will quietly go
down. The choices are clear: Either the City can collect $40,000 per year for
the use of its right-of-way, keeping the right-of-way for a possible future
use; or, the City can relinquish its right-of-way in return for property which
will merely continue the current use, exactly as it is without City ownership.
The ONLY hope to sway this
process in favor of the wider public is MANY messages. Email addresses for city
employees, including the mayor and council members, are in the form: firstname.lastname@ci.seattle.wa.us.
The principal council members to contact are Richard McIver, Heidi Wills, and
Jim Compton. Please go now to your computer or typewriter and knock out a short
message to these council members expressing your opposition to vacating the
street right-of-way known as Lakeside Boulevard. Also, please email a copy to
me at cgibson@aa.net or mail to Paul Gibson, 1718 26th Avenue East,
98112.
Board Meeting Minutes
November 1,
2000 The Board of Trustees of the
Montlake Community Club convened at 7:40 p.m. at the Montlake Community Center,
with president Clarissa Easton presiding. Members Burgett, DeBurle, Hutchinson,
Jacobson, Judson, Kolb, Storie, and Thompson were present.
President Easton, reporting on the work of the
Transportation Committee, reported that a Department of Transportation
Trans-Lake Study design workshop session that focuses on the Montlake
neighborhood will be held on November 15, with the location still to be
determined. She had appointed Jim Kearnes, Ron Stenkamp, Eddie Spear, John
Hutchinson, Jonathan Dubman, and Doris Burns as the MCC representatives to the
workshop.
She also reported that a new version of the resolution
on library siting had been worked out at a meeting of interested parties. It
would be published in the newsletter and identified as an agenda item for the
next general meeting.
She introduced the next subject, formulation of the
club's policies for its Internet Web site, by saying the Lauralhurst Community
Club uses a Web bulletin board for community discussion, and asking if the
board thought this was a desirable addition to the Montlake site. Site manager
Jonathan Dubman added that he thought the site presently did not do all that it
could in getting information to community members and getting them involved in
community issues. He added that there were some drawbacks to the bulletin board
approach—not all members have access to the Internet, and discussions can
become "flame wars"—but there were also other options for discussions
and expression of opinions. He pointed out that a bulletin board or any other
enhancement should be considered in the context of the overall club Web site policy,
which had not yet been established.
There followed some discussion of the club's potential
use of its Web site and the alternatives available for community forums or
polls. It became clear that the subject was too complicated to make progress on
without a draft policy document in hand, and Mr. Dubman volunteered to create
and distribute one in advance of the next board meeting.
President Easton reported that there had been two
requests from ex-residents for newsletter subscriptions via U. S. mail, and
that the editor had asked what the policy was on paid subscriptions. The
secretary replied that the present newsletter policy provided for mailing
copies to a list of government officials, institutions, and other clubs, but
had no provision for paid subscriptions. Mike Storie moved that subscriptions
to the newsletter be taken with a subscription price of $10 per year. After a
short discussion, the motion was passed.
President Easton suggested that the club's December
general meeting be held as a social occasion (no business meeting) at the
Museum of History and Industry, saying the director had been encouraging a
Montlake "event" at the facility. The proposal was adopted by general
consent.
Scott Burgett reported that over 130 donation
envelopes had been returned in the first month following the appeal, with a
total of about $4300 contributed. He suggested that a reminder to return the
annual donation be included in the next newsletter.
Mimi DeBurle asked if funds from the Beautification
Committee budget could be used to provide plants to a community member who
wants to improve some public property adjacent to the Montlake Elementary
School. The board agreed that this was an appropriate use of her committee's
budget. She also mentioned that another community member wanted the club to
approach the City of Seattle about providing a water supply for the planted
street end at 19th and Calhoun.
John Hutchinson mentioned that it would be desirable
to get community opinion on the Trans-Lake Study design alternatives at the
coming general meeting so the club's representatives to the Design Workshop a
week later would be able to better represent the community. President Easton
said that a presentation on the Trans-Lake Study was the main item on the
general meeting agenda, so there should be a good opportunity to hear local
opinion.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
General Meeting Minutes
November 8,
2000 The Montlake Community Club
convened at 7:30 p.m. at the Montlake Community Center, with president Clarissa
Easton presiding. Approximately 45 members were present. The minutes of the
previous meeting were approved as published. There was no old business.
Announcements: President
Easton distributed club contribution envelopes to those present, and encouraged
all who had not made a contribution to do so.
She also mentioned that now is the time for community
members to review the University of Washington Master Plan, and that a link to
the plan is available from the MCC website.
Jean Leed provided a reminder of the MCC Land Use
Committee meeting on the coming Monday, and said details were in the
newsletter.
Debra Adler passed out copies of the most recent
newsletter of the Seattle Council on Airport Affairs.
New Business: Mimi
DeBurle asked for the club’s approval of preparation of a grant request by the
Beautification Committee for improving the club’s lot at the southeast corner
of 24th and Boyer to make it more attractive and more easily maintained. Paul
Gibson moved that the Montlake Community Club encourage the Beautification
Committee to investigate procuring a “Small and Simple Grant” to be used for
improving the lot at the southeast corner of 24th and Boyer, including
professional help in planning what should be done at the site. The discussion
was primarily concerned with the need to consider on-going maintenance as well
as the initial improvements. The motion passed on a voice vote.
Robert Newhouse moved to adopt the following
resolution:
Resolved, that the Montlake Community
Club express to the Library Board the neighborhood’s strong opposition to
siting the new Montlake Branch Library at any location that would require the
taking of residences from unwilling sellers.
He said that he felt that this resolution more
accurately reflected the views of the majority of the membership who had
defeated a similar resolution at the last meeting.
Doris Burns moved to amend the resolution by deleting
the words "from unwilling sellers" at the end of the sentence.
She argued that, historically, the Montlake Community Club has opposed the
elimination of housing from the community for any reason.
In the discussion which followed, opponents of the
amendment argued that it was unreasonable to ask property owners to limit to
whom they could sell, that the club had no legal means for trying to block
sales by willing sellers, and that the amendment would reduce community support
for the resolution. Proponents of the amendment generally agreed that there was
no means of enforcement, but felt that the community should continue its stand
against any reduction in housing or expansion of the business district.
A motion by Paul Gibson to end debate on the amendment
obtained the required two-thirds majority. The amendment was then approved by a
vote of 23 to 19. There was no further discussion of the resolution, as
amended, and it was approved by a vote of 32 to 10.
Program: The
evening’s program, “Trans-Lake Washington Project: Designing Alternatives with
the Community”, had been scheduled to prepare the community for the design
workshop and open house on the following Wednesday, November 15. It was
presented by Jeff Peacock of Parametrix Corp., who is Consultant Project
Manager. He was assisted by Les Rubstello, Project Manager for the Washington
Department of Transportation, and Amy Grotefendt, Public Involvement Manager
and an employee of EnviroIssues. Mr. Peacock began by summarizing the
background and history of the Trans-Lake Project, then described the design
alternatives under consideration and the format of the community design open
house. He concluded by responding to a number of questions from the audience.
In his historical summary, he said that the study
originated as the result of requests from a number of jurisdiction to improve
mobility across and around Lake Washington. In the first phase, a 47-member
committee composed of public agency and community representatives spent 15 to
18 months considering the problems and potential solutions, and recommended a
set of alternatives for further study. One conclusion they reached was that it
is not feasible to continue to build capacity to accommodate demand. The second
(current) study involves preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). There are 4 lead agencies for this phase: the Washington State
Department of Transportation, Sound Transit, the Federal Transportation
Department, and the Federal Highway Department. The EIS phase is being
performed by 3 separate committees; an executive committee of elected or
appointed representatives of the government agencies involved, a technical committee
with members appointed by the agencies on the executive committee plus
technical advisory consultants, and a community advisory committee with
representatives from the full spectrum of community interests.
The design alternatives being considered in this EIS
phase have been expanded beyond those defined by the original study committee.
This is a result of the federal involvement, which mandates that the scope of
the study be established by "NEPA" guidelines. A number of ideas were
added during the scoping process, and, after initial screening by the
committees, there are still ten under consideration. The list was nearly
identical to that included in the Trans-Lake insert in the November MCC
newsletter, and consisted of:
·
No action (an
alternative which must be included to provide a baseline forecast against which
to compare the others).
·
Minimum footprint.
Basically, rebuild the bridge with no new traffic lanes, adding only shoulders
that are too narrow to be converted to traffic lanes later.
·
Add HOV lanes (each
direction) on SR-520 from I-405 to Seattle.
·
Add HOV and general
purpose lanes (each direction) on SR-520 from I-405 to Seattle.
·
Add "bus-only"
lanes (each direction) on SR-520 from I-405 to Seattle.
·
Add high-capacity
transit lanes (not necessarily light rail) on SR-520 from I-405 to Seattle.
·
Add high capacity
transit lanes (not necessarily light rail) on I-90 from I-405 to Seattle.
·
Add high capacity
transit lanes (not necessarily light rail) from I-405 to Seattle that cross
Lake Washington somewhere between I-90 and SR-520.
·
Use transportation
demand management strategies to reduce demand.
·
Use land-use strategies
to reduce transportation demand.
The purpose and format of the design workshop was also
covered in detail in last month's newsletter insert.
During the question period, the following information
was provided by Mr. Peacock and his assistants:
·
The objective of the
project is to "improve mobility across and around the lake". They
have a number of ways to quantify mobility, and it does not simply mean
reducing average travel times.
·
Regarding mitigation,
the project recognizes that the first priority is to avoid and to minimize
impacts. The community design workshops are to involve community members in
discussions of how the alternatives should actually "look" in their
neighborhoods. By considering actual impacts and community opinions, the number
of design alternatives actually taken to the EIS phase should be reduced.
·
There is recognition
that I-5 cannot handle additional traffic volume from SR-520, and that is why
the western terminus for the alternatives is specified as Seattle rather than
I-5. Routing any additional lanes under I-5 directly to downtown is an option.
·
Passenger ferries are
not listed as one of the alternatives because a study by Sound Transit
concluded that they are not cost effective at the present time. They will be
reconsidered as the situation progresses.
·
There are several
agencies on the technical committee with responsibility for environmental
issues. On salmon, for example, there are two federal agencies and one state
agency responsible.
·
Federal standards apply
to limits on noise and air pollution. SR-520 was built prior to and does not
meet current federal standards. Any changes to the highway would require that
it be brought up to current standards. Noise monitoring and assessment will be
part of any new design.
·
The Trans-Lake study is
coordinating with other on-going traffic studies in the region, including the
I-405 study. Members of the technical team are also participating in the City
of Seattle Intermediate Capacity Study.
·
East-west routes farther
north of the lake are not among the alternatives because the committees have
concluded that the present plans for SR-522 are already appropriate, and routes
further north don't deal with the origins and destinations that produce the
current traffic situation.
The
meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Husky Stadium Advisory Group
The
latest Husky Stadium Advisory Group met Nov. 16. Montlake was represented by
Bruce Balick and Lake Washington Boulevard neighbors Jim Kearnes and Eddie
Speers.
Seahawks
game attendance has been falling, from about 55,000 initially to about 45,000
in the past few games. On the other hand, Husky attendance appears to be
holding at nearly the Stadium's capacity, over 70,000. Bus ridership has been
improving steadily. Somewhere near 44 percent of Seahawks game attendees arrive
by bus.
Parking
on campus has dropped from about 5,000 cars at first to 3,500 cars (a
50-percent reduction). These are the cars that congest our streets, so the news
is welcome. The number of cars parked on campus has dropped from 200 to 160 per
1,000 game attendees. This compares favorably to the goal of 185 cars. The
charge for on-campus parking (one to two passengers) is now $20, in order to
discourage car use—and its working. Carpool parking is $10 per car. The
Seahawks have worked hard and successfully to meet these goals.
After
a very long delay, the fine for illegal RPZ parking has increased from $28 to
$44 at all times (not just for games). Signs with this fine need to be posted
at freeway exit ramps. We hope this will deter parking by those who feel that
the old fine of $28 was worth the risk of citation, especially since they can
beat the post-game traffic rush. RPZ violation citations have been holding
fairly steady at about 140 per game lately (up from about 100 at first). There
are 13 parking officers on duty at Seahawks games, fewer for Husky games. The
RPZ violation problems have moved from close to the Stadium (Hamlin and Shelby
Streets) to Lake Washington Boulevard and other streets a bit farther out.
Traffic enforcement isn’t keeping up with these changes well.
Montlake has no formal
position on lawn or driveway parking by nonresidents. Paid off-street parking
is illegal and police are starting to enforce the statutes. The neighborhood is
divided on this issue.
We
were informed that a public footrace (the Seattle Marathon) and a Seahawks game
were scheduled on the same day, November 26. By the time this newsletter
arrives, we'll be starting to recover from the mess created in Montlake. People
who issue the permits for footraces and other events need to be informed of the
days of football games.
Consistently
poor response on the parking hotline, 625-5011 was noted. The problem will be
reported to the Seattle Police (who didn't show up for this meeting).Post-game
trash pickup has been excellent.
Discussion will begin in
February over ways in which the Husky traffic management plan can be improved,
as shown by the performance of the Seahawks TMP.
CUCAC
Meeting Report
The City University Community Advisory Committee
(CUCAC) busied itself at the
November 21, 2000 meeting, as at the previous November 14 meeting, with
discussion of various comments prepared by the committee members, on the topic
of the Draft University of Washington Seattle Campus Master Plan (CMP).
The
issues that seemed to attract the most attention were proposed changes to the
Campus Parkway area; waterfront improvements in back of the Medical Center;
addition of a 100-foot-high fence at the Golf Driving Range; and a proposed
lid/tunnel across NE Pacific Street to link the Medical Center with upper
campus.
No time has been spent to
date by the committee, to adequately discuss: the proposed Transportation
Management Plan (TMP), which is of most importance to Montlakers; the effect of
University Village expansion plans on the University's TMP; or the effect of
recently floated changes to the Rapid Transit plans throughout the University area.
These ideas could profoundly affect the CMP and its implementation in the ten
years commencing in 2002. Somehow, it seems that the University plans and
designs in a vacuum.
There is still time to
voice your opinions! Two public meetings are scheduled for December 6: the
first at UW HUB, at 11:30am to 2:30pm; the second at University Heights Center,
at 5:30 to 8:30pm. The program will include an open house, presentations, and
time for public comments in a formal hearing setting.
Letters
to the Editor
MCC Library Siting Resolution
Montlake Neighbors,
This is in response to a question from Debra & Merle Adler in their
November Flyer letter asking if we want to expand the business district.
I do. I’m not looking for skyscrapers or strip malls, but another block or two
of shops would substantially increase the livability of our neighborhood by
decreasing the number of times I have to get in my car and drive somewhere. In
my opinion the best neighborhoods are the ones that combine residences with
businesses. I’m no urban planner, but it seems ideal to face 24th—already
a fast, loud road—with businesses rather than residences. Would it be naïve of
me to suggest that businesses might offer above-value prices for those lots,
paving the way for those residents to buy a (quieter) house elsewhere in
Montlake, creating a win-win situation for everyone?
—Bill Barnes
Editor,
On page 5 in the November issue of the newsletter, there was a proposed
resolution for the November MCC meeting. It opposed the Library Board selecting
any location requiring taking residences from unwilling sellers. At the
November meeting, an
amendment to the resolution was proposed, namely the removal of the
last sentence about unwilling sellers. In other words, the resolution is
against residents selling, even when they’re willing—or eager. The feeling was
that once a site is used for non-residential purposes, it’s lost forever as a
residence. False! The lot on the northwestern corner of 24th and Boyer was once
a gas station. Now it has two single-family houses. If we don’t want our
neighbors to sell their house to the Library Board, we should have a quiet,
friendly talk with them. We shouldn’t pressure them by using the heavy hand of
a resolution from the Montlake Community Club. That’s too much like bullying.
It’s not what the Montlake Community Club is about.
—Lensey Namioka
Yard
Parking on Game Days
Montlake Neighbors,
I would like to offer another point of view on the matter of parking football
drivers on our properties. On my block, located near the Hop-In, seven of us
have been parking cars for at least three decades, with only an occasional chat
with the ticket ladies to ensure we keep wheels off sidewalks. We have always
viewed this as a win-win in that we get wandering cars off the streets, warn
drivers ignorant about the perils of on-street parking, and hand out garbage
bags to the unprepared in the rain. We have happy customers who return with
appreciation for help, often for out-of-towners for whom alternative bus travel
is not practical.
I would hope that in our broad-minded community
there is room for diverse opinions on this subject. I have always said I have a
love-hate feeling about the games, as I would prefer they not impact us so, but
if they must, we might as well provide a service and receive small compensation
in return...for which we would buy licenses, but which we all know the City
won't sell to us for this activity! Catch 22. Please consider softening your
demands on the Seahawks for the next season, and not insisting that they cruise
the streets to shut us down. I had a most informed conversation with an officer
who started off hard line, didn't believe we had been doing this for decades,
finally conceded maybe we had, agreed it was a win-win for some, and ended up
saying “just be careful if the licensing folks come around.” We all know that
no officials will come round unless they receive a complaint. I would ask you
to tolerate us as useful service providers and not call in the officials. Thank
you.
—Susan Miller