Trans-Lake Washington Project Meetings Postponed
The
Trans-Lake Washington Project has postponed its September and October open
houses as well as upcoming meetings of the Executive, Technical and Advisory
committees. These meetings are postponed until late fall and early winter to
allow the project team more time to develop the potential EIS alternatives,
address the project’s funding limitations, and coordinate system-related
issues. New meeting dates will be published shortly on the project’s website at
www.wsdot.wa.gov/translake.
Mayor’s neighborhood visit recounted
Mayor Paul
Schell has been touring various Seattle neighborhoods to see new developments
and hear local concerns first hand. Clarissa Easton asked me to accompany the
Mayor as a neighborhood liaison during his tour of Montlake on Monday,
September 10. Jim Diers, director of the Department of Neighborhoods, Jon
Layzer from the Strategic Planning Office, and a number of other city staff
were in attendance.
We toured the
neighborhood in a large van, starting with West Montlake Park. Residents and
members of the adjacent Seattle Yacht Club were pleased to hear the Mayor
commit to repaving West Park Drive E, which some have been trying to get
repaved for the past fifteen years. The Mayor’s staff seemed to think that
March or April was the most likely time frame.
While I had the
Mayor’s ear, I shared a number of concerns I had heard from community members
in the context of the mayor’s upcoming visit. I discussed the very poor
enforcement of parking restrictions on game days; the Mayor said it was
primarily a budget issue (though as others will attest, SPD has been less than
fully responsive to complaints.) I pressed further, claiming that enforcement
ought to pay for itself, and the Mayor generally agreed, though he stopped
short of making a concrete commitment on the spot. The
tour continued on the east side of Montlake Blvd., where a large group of
neighbors had assembled on Shelby Street to discuss their concerns about the
Trans-Lake Washington Project. The Mayor affirmed his commitment to oppose any
additional general purpose freeway lanes within the city of Seattle. I relayed
a request I had heard for the Mayor to walk through the Montlake Blvd.
intersection at SR-520 to understand things from the pedestrian perspective,
but the Mayor’s tight schedule did not permit this. I brought up the topic of
traffic speeds on 24th Avenue, which are sometimes in the 50-mph
range. The Mayor was quite surprised to hear this. Again, it seems enforcement
could pay for itself. I did not obtain a commitment to address the problem.
We made a brief stop at Montlake Elementary
School, where the Mayor discussed the environmental curriculum with Principal
Claudia Allan, and wrapped up with a reception at the Tudor Building, where a
number of other Montlake neighbors were able to chat with the Mayor and his
staff. I appreciate the Mayor taking the time to hear some of our many
concerns, but I found myself wishing for a less hurried tour.
The very image of Montlake
Share your digital
views of the neighborhood
In this issue of
The Montlake Flyer, we introduce a feature to spotlight images of life
in Montlake, past and present. We’re starting out with historical photos from
the Municipal Archive, because they are available.
We hope you will
contribute photos of the sights and scenes that you think make Montlake the
neighborhood we love to live in. We can print digital scans of historical
photos or contemporary images that you shoot with a digital camera. In
selecting a photo submit, remember that the photo will be small (roughly 2 ½
inches wide by 2 inches high). Large objects reproduce best. Also, remember the
image will be reproduced in black and white, so high-contrast is an advantage.
As a rule of thumb, if the image reproduces well on a photocopier, it should
work for the Flyer.
Please tell us
the date of the photo and name of the photographer, if known. You may also
include a short description of the occasion depicted, copyright information and
a title for the photo.
Let your
creative juices flow and give everyone the opportunity to see the neighborhood
through your eyes! Email your photos to summerwood@home.com.
Should we choose your photo, we will notify you of our decision and inform you
by return email of the issue in which it will be published. Selection decisions
are final.
--Jeff Wood, ed.
Announcements and Notices
Update on the Trans-Lake Washington Study
The second phase of the Trans Lake Washington
Study (TLWS) was supposed to have been completed in July 2001 with a
recommendation to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
from the TLWS Executive Committee of 3 to 5 road/transit configurations (out of
8 possibilities on the table) for further study in a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
The Executive Committee deferred that decision
until October 2001, and now WSDOT has requested an additional 2 to 3 months’
delay. Both parties feel they need more information and more coordination with
several other studies on corridors with which SR-520 interacts (e.g., I-405,
I-90, and Sound Transit route alternatives). Furthermore, the Legislature had
not yet acted upon a funding package for future transportation planning.
Both committee and public meetings previously
announced for September and October are being postponed, with dates not yet
determined.
Based on the information received to date and my
sense of this neighborhood’s priorities, I continue to oppose further study of
any 8-lane road configuration, and to favor expanded transit alternatives in
the corridor. If you would like to send me your views, my email address is jeanleed@pipeline.com,
and phone is 329-9208.
The MCC Transportation Committee will meet
Wednesday, October 17 at 7:30pm in the west, modular building at the Montlake
Community Center.
Annual
Arboretum Greens Galore Sale
Shop for holiday decorations and gifts amid the
beauty of Seattle’s Washington Park Arboretum at the Arboretum Foundation’s
Greens Galore. The sale features cut greens, elegant wreaths and hand-made
gifts and is scheduled for Saturday, December 1, from 10am to 4pm, at the
Arboretum’s Graham Visitors Center, 2300 Arboretum Drive East in Seattle.
Arboretum volunteers will sell wreaths and other
hand-made decorations created from fresh local greens, dried flowers, cones and
more. Other gift and craft items include paperwhites, potpourri, candleholders,
journals, bookmarks, and one-of-a-kind scarves and ties.
Admission and parking are free. Bring a bag or
box to carry purchases home. Proceeds benefit the Washington Park Arboretum,
Seattle’s 230-acre living plant museum. For information, call (206) 726-1954.
NEDC
Meeting Report
September 2001: As it commonly does, the Northeast District Council passed
three resolutions at its September meeting offering advise or encouragement to
the City Council. The one germane to Montlake proposed expansion of a committee
that will provide neighborhood advise on Magnuson Park to include several
communities not originally on the committee. Montlake is one of the communities
the NEDC proposed be added.
The other development
of local interest pertains to the Neighborhood Street Fund/Cumulative Reserve
Fund grant program that was discussed in last month’s Montlake Flyer.
There it was reported that the single grant proposal from Montlake was
prioritized by the NEDC near the middle of about 15 proposals submitted from
the Northeast District. With a middling ranking it seemed unlikely to get
funded. However, the portion of this grant program that comes from the
Cumulative Reserve Fund can only be used for maintenance of existing
facilities. The Montlake proposal, which is for repair of Shelby and Hamlin
Streets, west of Montlake Boulevard, was one of the few proposals that
qualified for this source of funding and, as such, it shot to the top of the
citywide ranking and was, in fact, funded. Also contributing to the success of
the proposal was the $25,000 of matching funds that will be provided by the
Seattle Yacht Club. Thanks to the Yacht Club and congratulations to Ralph
Domenowske who proposed the project and did the detail work to get it through.
Board Meeting Minutes
September 5, 2001
Submitted
by C. Easton. The board of Trustees of the Montlake Community Club convened at
7:35pm.
Announcements: Tour of
Montlake with Mayor Schell on Monday, September 10. Action: J. Dubman
designated to escort. All were encouraged to attend reception at 2:30pm that
day in the Tudor building at MCC.
Report and discussion
on proposed process to modify MCC resolution process. Action:
D.Argus to coordinate input and recommendations.
Report and discussion
on Flyer routes. Additional volunteers are needed.
Discussion of program
ideas for the year. Action: C. Easton to contact MOHAI.
Suggestions for articles
in Flyer to introduce neighbors: “Characters around home”; “Heroes among
us.”
Meeting adjourned at 8:30pm.
Next MCC Board meeting: Wednesday, October 3,
7:30pm in the west, modular building at Montlake Community Center.
General Meeting Minutes
June 13, 2001 Submitted by C. Easton.
The Meeting was called to order at 7:35pm.
Mimi DeBurle, Chair of the Beautification
Committee, reported on progress of site clearing underway on vacant
property at 23rd and Newton. The stalwart few who have accomplished
much there would appreciate help from residents in the immediate vicinity. We
have a deadline to finish the project. Please join weekend work parties to
distribute the load.
President recognized Peter Staten to lead discussion
of proposed resolution penned by HSR (Hamlin-Shelby residents living east
of Montlake Boulevard). Staten offered background information and distributed a
position statement (information previously published in September Flyer).
Clarification requested for paragraph 3 (as published). Motion
made and seconded to adopt resolution as amended:
The Montlake Community Club supports the
position of the Montlake Hamlin-Shelby Residents in asking that Mayor Paul
Schell and the Members of the Seattle City Council strongly and immediately
reaffirm the positions stated in the City of Seattle Trans-Lake Resolution (No.
29574) of April, 1997, regarding the Trans-Lake Washington Project and to do so
prior to any action taken by the Project to select alternatives or preferred
designs to be studied in the forthcoming environmental impact analysis.
Specifically, we support the following Hamlin-Shelby positions:
a. That, in order to prevent irreparable damage
to state shorelines and wetlands, to public parks, and to nearby residential
properties and institutions, all proposed alternatives be confined to the
existing SR-520 right-of-way, which is capable of accommodating 6 lanes, and
specifically, that the proposed expansion of the SR-520 right-of-way by as much
as 200 feet to the north, and construction of four lanes north of the present
roadway is not acceptable to the community; and
b. That current Project alternatives proposing a
second crossing of the Montlake Cut, as well as current designs for approaches
across Seattle shorelines, wetlands, and critical natural habitats are
unacceptable to the Montlake Community Club, and create unacceptable impacts of
noise and view obstruction, and loss of privacy and public access by adjacent
built environments, all of which are unacceptable to the Montlake community;
and
c. That no alternative shall result in creased
vehicular congestion on local Seattle streets or arterials; and
d. That each alternative shall include a clear and
enforceable program of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) as an integral
element of such alternative; and
e. That the City of Seattle promptly embark on a
legislative program to initiate TDM measures in the City of Seattle,
notwithstanding any actions taken by the Trans-Lake Washington Project.
Lively debate ensued concerning
Trans-Lake Washington Project in general, and potential impacts to
Montlake-area housing and traffic in particular. Jean Leed offered her
perspectives as TLWP representative and exhorted that the second crossing
deserves further study. Others warned that a second crossing will only
move the “pinch point” to another location. Additional comments and
opinions were offered: Jeff Wood wondered what substantive action this and
similar resolutions require of MCC; Karen Staten cited the fact that the Flyer
goes to every household in Montlake; participation in general meetings for
action on resolutions is up to the individual; Peter Staten, John Sage, Dia
Salogga, Jonathan Dubman, Ellen Judson, and others also commented. The question
was called. A point of order was invoked. The resolution was
re-introduced and subsequently voted according to proper procedures. The
resolution carried with 38 for and 7 against.
A volley of remarks was then fired questioning
validity of the MCC resolution process. Jean Leed pointed out that she
believes the resolution process now in place is “manipulative.” Some members of
the audience were insulted and strenuously objected, but focus was redirected
to published agenda.
Liz Bagshaw reminded the audience that Jean Leed
has had a long, difficult task in representing the neighborhood to the TLWP.
John Sage proposed and led discussion of a
motion (which ultimately carried with 36 for and 1 against)
stating,
The Membership moves that the Montlake Community
Club forward copies of this Resolution to candidates for city office, asking
for a statement of their position regarding the Resolution prior to the
November election; and that the Club print the candidates’ responses (or lack
thereof) in the November issue of the Montlake Flyer.
Jonathan Dubman reported on Mayor Paul
Schell’s tour of Montlake on September 10, 2001.
Having exercised admirable patience during the
lengthy discussions, invited State of Washington DOT staff took the floor
and presented initial data from expanded ramp metering on Montlake and Lake
Washington Boulevards. Many stalwart residents offered their comments and
input. DOT staff agreed to return to MCC’s general meeting in January to
present additional data.
The Meeting adjourned at 9:50pm
Letters to the Editor
Madam President
[Montlake Community Club]:
My wife and I will be traveling at the time of
the September MCC meeting and will miss the vote on Mr. Peter Staten’s
resolution regarding the Trans-Lake Washington Project. Since absentee voting
is not currently allowed, we are willing to express our opinion of the
resolution.
We are in sympathy with our neighbors in the
Hamlin-Shelby area as they deal with the brunt of the traffic impacts, and we
agree on several points presented by Mr. Staten. However, if we were present at
the meeting, we would speak against the resolution and vote against it as
presented. Our reasons are as follows:
(1) The resolution effectively takes a
position against every alternative and mitigation either considered or
presented by the DOT and its representatives. Therefore, it takes a position
against doing anything to try to solve our present traffic problems.
(2) It may represent the Hamlin-Shelby
position, but it doesn’t seem to try to solve the needs of the larger Montlake
community, and it clearly does not represent a solution to the transportation
needs of the wider Seattle or trans-lake communities.
(3)
It sends a message that could be construed by Seattle community leaders as
narrow-minded, NIMBY thinking. It rejects pragmatic, informed discourse and
action to help solve our problems.
If we work together, we can improve a very bad
transportation problem. We don’t believe that this resolution as presented is
representative of wider Montlake community opinion or a step in the right
direction.
--Marty
Lindemann
Kathie Lindemann
Editor The Montlake Flyer:
First, I want to assure the Board and the
community that, as your representative to the Trans-Lake Washington Study, I
will faithfully represent the positions adopted at the September MCC meeting to
the TLWS, even though I raised some questions about them.
Second, I want to apologize to the Hamlin Shelby
Neighbors who proposed the resolution. I said that I was concerned that the MCC
was being “manipulated” by resolutions. I regret that several people in
attendance interpreted that as a negative reflection on those proposing this
resolution. Rather than continue the already-too-lengthy discussion, I decided
to clarify what I meant in this letter and convey it to the entire community.
The “manipulation” I perceive is through the
process by which the MCC handles resolutions. Our by-laws require that
resolutions (as opposed to motions, which can be made and voted upon at any
meeting) be printed in the Flyer, which ordinarily is delivered to each
household 10-12 days in advance of the public meeting (3-5 days in advance of
the Board meeting, which is held the week before).
Since last January alone, resolutions have been
proposed at 4 of the 7 meetings, 3 of them dealing with the Trans-Lake Study.
Each of these 3 has been multifaceted (containing 5-6 separate sections), and
none of them were discussed in advance by the Transportation Committee or the
board. Even though I am the designated Montlake representative to the
Trans-Lake Washington Advisory Committee, none were discussed with me, nor was
I even informed that they were being presented.
Based on the knowledge I have gained by
attending numerous TLWS-related meetings and reading much information, I felt
that some statements in the resolutions were exaggerated, misinformed, and too
directive. Yet the only forum in which I could make these statements were the
public meetings where a vote was to be taken.
I believe that this is disrespectful of the
neighborliness which the Community Council was created to enhance. Common
courtesy suggests that people who live together talk to each other and try to
work out differences within the structure, rather than putting complicated
issues to an up-or-down vote as their first step.
I further believe that the Board must take more
leadership in managing this process, such as the following:
·
If we have appropriate committees, let’s
use them (or the Executive Committee) to review resolutions and make a
recommendation, or to work out a compromise that most people can agree to in
advance of the meeting.
·
Require that resolutions address only one
issue, or allow any member to call for a division, meaning that each section
would be considered individually.
·
Have the board president or appropriate
committee chair make a good-faith effort to seek out a spokesperson with either
relevant knowledge or a different opinion, so that there is a basis for
discussion at the meeting, not just rubber stamping.
·
Bring in an outside trained facilitator
to manage discussion of contentious issues and maintain civility. That person
can lead the discussion in a way that gives people who express concerns or
opposition suggestions for steps they can take to meet their concerns, rather
than just moving to a vote.
·
Clarify the process for amending or
modifying a resolution, and the situations in which they are most useful.
I’m sure that others have ideas of how we can
function more civilly and remain good neighbors. I urge to Board to take
leadership in this discussion.
--Jean
Leed
Editor:
Over the summer, several active MCC members got together
informally (okay, over beer and burgers at Grady’s) to discuss the role of the
resolution in MCC proceedings. This debate also seems to be the subtext of many
of the discussions we have in general meetings. I’m writing to report the
discussion to the general membership, and to try to open up the debate to all.
At the risk of stating these positions too well,
here are some of the various gripes. I’ll try to be succinct and fair in
summarizing them, most of which I don't personally share:
1. A
resolution can be counterproductive if it is lengthy, difficult to grasp,
poorly written or incendiary. Such a resolution could make MCC look foolish to
those it is intended to influence.
2. A resolution that encompasses a range of
points can manipulate the membership into saying something it doesn’t really
want to say, because:
a.
It’s difficult to discuss and sort out the finer points of a long text in the
time frame of a general meeting. Points that are unrepresentative may slip
through, or
b.
The membership expects a resolution to be ready to pass or vote down, and may
become impatient with amendment proposals, even ones that might improve or
clarify the text.
3. MCC should concentrate on community-building
activities, rather than politics.
4. MCC has a reputation in the city for being
obstructionist and nasty, which undermines our ability to influence city
policy. We need to lay off the resolutions and engage our elected officials
constructively.
5. Resolutions are illegitimate anyway, because
not everyone shows up to meetings. MCC does not represent the views of Montlake
as a whole (this point is usually brought up by someone who opposed a
just-passed resolution).
My own view is that MCC is the proper place to
air community issues, and the means we have created to protect and improve the
neighborhood. In a neighborhood as heavily impacted as ours is by freeways and
institutions, the MCC is the way we band together to protect each other’s very
homes. As such, the occasional common statement of concern to a government
agency is right and proper. This is a way to lend support to those of our
neighbors who have the most to lose from an expansion of a road or institution.
The next time it could be my house (actually, the last time it was my house. A
sore subject still; don’t get me started).
The concern I have is to develop and improve the
resolution process so that a resolution is less subject to charges of
illegitimacy or counter-productivity (although I usually disagree with those
charges). I wish to help our resolutions become a stronger, more effective tool
for us. To accomplish this, I have found common ground with the critics.
In our smoke-filled room (Grady’s), we agreed in
general that an additional step in the resolution process might begin to
address everyone's concerns. A resolution writer might be asked to bring it to
a board meeting to discuss it before having it published in the Flyer, and to
demonstrate some support for it in some way. As a sometime resolution writer
myself, I know that my proposed resolution could have benefited from such a
discussion.
The risk is that such an additional step could
be used to prevent resolutions from coming to the floor altogether (or could be
perceived to do so). I would be very much opposed to a process wherein a
resolution could be prevented from being considered by the membership.
I have also heard the position that the relevant
MCC committee or community council representative should be allowed to review a
proposed resolution before it is published. This might be a courtesy to them,
and it might benefit the resolution writer to do so. But appointees should not
be able to prevent a resolution from being presented; that's how the membership
informs the appointees.
I would invite further discussion of this issue.
We have a several ways to do it: a letter to the editor, a posting to the
Montlake Forum, or by proposing a resolution (just kidding).
--Don
Argus, Trustee