This 'n that

Fat Salmon makes landfall

The 350 swimmers participating in the 14th Fat Salmon Open Water Swim arrived on Madison Park beach yesterday morning after successfully completing a cold swim (with or without wetsuits) over a 3.2-mile course which began at the I-90 floating bridge. Participants were required to be able to swim the distance in under two hours (laggards would be pulled from the water if they didn't accomplish that mission). The first swimmer from the first wave arrived in well under 90 minutes (that's her in the wetsuit above), and as far as we know no one had to be pulled. The event is sponsored by the Green Lake Aqua Ducks, and winners in each category were awarded (eventually, since there was a delay in determining the race results) a big fat salmon.

Sewage leak in Canterbury?

On Friday we posted a link on our Facebook page to a KIRO-TV story with the provocative heading "Sewer Detectives Search Madison Park for Sewage Leak." KIRO's photo (above) shows the vehicle of a Seattle Public Utilities team at 40th and E. McGraw that was investigating which residence, precisely, is responsible for an increase in fecal coliform in the Lake. The detected increase  is not sufficient to cause an immediate health hazard, the homeowner responsible will have to pay for repairs to the residence's connection to the sewer system.

There is no increase in fecal coliform levels at Madison Park beach, which is a long way from the suspected leak area (which has, according to KIRO, been pinpointed to a two-block radius of Canterbury).  As of Monday, King County was reporting fecal coliform levels of virtually zero at the Beach.  No worries.

Madison Park eatery a 'gem'

The current issue of Seattle Magazine has a nice little review of Madison Kitchen, which is described as a place with "seductive", "unexpectedly good" and "knockout" items on the menu. In what was an overall laudatory commentary, the only negative note was a ding at the "sometimes standoffish service."  Bottom line:  "It's worth it.  The place is a gem."

Beavers beware! Broadmoor to dredge

Though they’ve been given a couple-week reprieve so they can finish out their breeding season, the Madison Park beavers may soon be in for a rude awakening. Broadmoor’s plans to dredge around the golf club’s water intake pipe (shown above) have been approved by the City with the only restriction being that the project may not begin before April Fool’s Day. As reported previously on this blog, Broadmoor has a longstanding right to take water from Union Bay. The golf course utilizes pumped water from this source to help keep the grass green during the summer. The intake pipe for the irrigation system is located just off the pier at the 37th Avenue E. road end, within 40 feet or so of a beaver lodge which appears to be inhabited. As many neighbors have reported, beavers are very active in the vicinity.

To be fair, Broadmoor’s dredging plans have been scaled back significantly from what was originally proposed. The golf course had asked to be allowed to do a deep dredge within a twenty-foot radius around the intake site. After public complaints about the potential disruption to the natural habitat, Broadmoor agreed to limit the project's scope. Under the revised plan dredging will occur only in the area up to 17 feet to the west of the intake, up to five feet to the south, and up to six feet to the east. The depth of the dredging will be limited to six feet. There will be no dredging to the north of the intake so as to minimize the impact on the beaver population.

As noted in the City’s “analysis and decision” concerning Broadmoor’s dredging proposal, beavers are a protected wildlife species under Washington State law. However, “restrictions on development activity within the vicinity of a beaver lodge are not regulated,” according to the Seattle Department of Planning & Development’s analysis. Under terms of the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA), the City issued a “Determination of Non-Significance,” thereby allowing work to go ahead. Broadmoor’s contactor must still obtain several other permits, including one from the State's Department of Fish & Wildlife, before dredging can commence. I was unable to get a return call today from the contractor to confirm whether all of these permits are now in place.

Residents of the area, including the beavers and herons, can expect to endure two to three weeks of construction activity once the project gets underway. A barge-based crane will utilize a clam-shell dredge to collect dredge spoils from around the intake site. The spoils will then be dumped onto a shuttle barge which will convey the residue to a storage barge located in the Lake, about a third of a mile to the east. The dredge spoils will ultimately be trucked to a new home somewhere in Maltby, Washington.

Gene Brandzel, one of the neighborhood activists who oppose Broadmoor’s dredging plans, is unhappy with the City’s decision. “After declaring the beaver a protected animal under Washington State law, today's decision has no scientific information that confirms that the revised dredging plan protects the beaver,” Brandzel told me. He notes that while the City said it would consult with “experts” concerning the potential impact on the beavers, there is no indication in the approval who was contacted and what those experts may have said. He questions whether the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife has decided the plan protects the beavers. Unless that is the case, he said, “What alternative is left other than to appeal the City’s ruling? Someone has to step up for the beavers.”

The latest on our neighborhood beavers

Well they’re still out there alright, frolicking in the waters off Madison Park’s northern shore, blithely unaware that the City is rapidly moving towards a decision on whether to allow dredging within just a few yards of their snugly lodge located near the dock at the foot of 37th Avenue E. The Seattle Department of Planning & Development (DPD) reports that they expect to have a decision within two weeks on Broadmoor’s request to dredge the general area.

As we reported last month, the managers of the golf course say they need a less-obstructed water intake system for hydrating the grass during the summer months. Neighbors in the area of the beaver lodge worry about collateral damage to the beavers and other wildlife as a result of the proposed dredging. In particular, there was concern that the dredging operation would damage or destroy several suspected beaver tunnels that were thought to run underwater into the beaver lodge from the land near the dock (one of the tunnel entrances is shown below).

However, neighborhood activist Liz Brandzel notes that she has been told this by the DPD: "Biologists confirmed that beavers do not build tunnels from their lodge or from their dam to the shoreline. The dredging therefore would not affect the beavers in this way." The tunnels may, therefore, be the handiwork (or rather, the paw-work) of a different kind of rodent.

In any event, the public comment period on Broadmoor’s permit request has now ended, so the next opportunity for the public to be involved will occur when and if a dredging permit is granted. DPD spokesperson Bryan Stevens tells me that a permit approval would be appealable for a period of two weeks. We’ve requested a copy of the permit decision when it’s issued and will be report what we know when we know it.

.

[Photo of beaver lodge by Dave Hutchins. Photo of beavers at play by Jana Wilkins. Photo of mystery tunnel by Bryan Tagas.]

Do Broadmoor’s dredging plans pose a threat to Lake Washington wildlife?

I'm sure it comes as a surprise to many of us that Broadmoor Golf Club keeps its course green and lush during the summer with the help of water pumped from Lake Washington. Under grandfathered water rights which probably date back many decades, the Club gets Lake water from an intake pipe located at the foot of the 37th Avenue E. road end in the Canterbury section of Madison Park, just to the east of Broadmoor’s Union Bay shoreline (marked in red below):

Attention is now being focused on Broadmoor’s water-intake system as a result of the Golf Club’s request for a permit to dredge the Lake around the intake pipe. The purpose of the proposed dredging is to improve water flow to the golf course’s pump house. Some Canterbury residents are disturbed by the possibility that the habitat of wildlife in the area, particularly a small population of beavers and otters, may be negatively impacted by the dredging. They are seeking to, at minimum, delay permit approval in order to allow more study of Broadmoor’s plans.

A leader of the locals is Gene Brandzel, a Canterbury Shores resident and attorney who says that the “Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Fish and Wildlife Species” that Broadmoor submitted as part of its dredging application is inadequate. The study, which was prepared for Broadmoor by The Watershed Company, “doesn’t deal with any of the wildlife issues at the inlet,“ he says, “other than those related to salmon and certain other fish.”

Brandzel is upset that Watershed’s report “says nothing about the beavers other than to state there’s a beaver lodge in the area but that no beavers were observed.” The reason no beavers were observed, he notes, is that the report writers visited the site during the day. Beavers are only observable in the area at dawn and dusk, he says.

As proof that there is a lot of beaver activity, Madison Park resident Jana Wilkins visited the area on Sunday and provided these pictures of beavers frolicking during the early morning hours:

In this shot, looking north to the SR-520 Bridge, three beavers are visible (click to enlarge):

Brandzel, who visits the road end frequently, says that Broadmoor has not addressed most of the wildlife issues in its report. “What we want is a complete biological study of the wildlife--including the beavers, otters, herons, eagles, turtles, ducks and geese, and red-winged blackbirds--that inhabit the area where the dredging would be done.” Secondly, he notes, “we need time to work with Broadmoor to see if there‘s a way to give them the water supply they need without disruption to the natural habitat.” He notes that there are alternative water-pumping systems to the one Broadmoor currently employs which might be less costly, more effective, and not as potentially detrimental as dredging would be to the environment of the inlet. What the opponents have asked for, he says, is for the permit process to be delayed for 90 days in order to see if both objectives can be achieved during that period.

On my own visit to the site with Brandzel and his wife, Liz, we observed a heron standing in or near the area of the proposed dredge. And to the right of the dock at the road end there appeared to be several tunnels, which the Brandzels say are used by the beavers to access their lodge (beaver dam) which sits less than 100 feet to the north. It seems apparent that the beaver tunnels extend directly into the area that Broadmoor will be dredging. According to Brandzel, dredging--if approved--will occur within 15 feet of the beaver lodge (shown to the left in the photo below).

Alan Foltz, permit coordinator for Broadmoor’s dredging contractor, Waterfront Construction, tells me that regarding the beaver lodge “we are not going near it” during dredging. “It is not our intent to endanger the wildlife” in the area, he says. He adds that the beaver dam is an appropriate distance from the dredging operation. “We do dredging in a lot of areas of Lake Washington, and if the federal, state and local agencies all agree we are in compliance, then we're able to dredge. We never dredge unless we are in compliance.” He notes that Waterfront Construction has been in business for a good 30 years and in its history has always been very conscious of the environment. "Almost all of our work involves environmental enhancements," he notes.

According to Foltz, his company’s experience with beavers is that during the dredging period they tend to scatter but then return to the area as soon as dredging is completed. He acknowledges that Waterfront Construction is looking at ways to minimize the impact of the dredging on the area’s beaver population: "Mitigation is definitely under consideration.”

Under Broadmoor’s permit request, planned dredging would remove up to 1,000 cubic yards of silt and sediment in a 20-foot radius from the water intake pipe, which is housed in a wooden structure near the road-end dock. The dredging would also remove “invasive” plant species growing within the proposed dredge zone. The project is expected to be completed in a two to three week period and will be accomplished through the use of a barge-based crane and clam-shell dredge.

The last dredging which occurred in the area was reportedly in 1974, and the intent of this year’s dredging would be to return the water intake system to its 1974 level of “operational integrity and efficiency.”

Foltz notes that multiple permits are required for the project, some of which have been approved and some of which are still in process. The City of Seattle’s approval process is still underway, and the public-comment period has been extended until January 14, this Thursday. Anyone who would like to give their input is encouraged to do so by faxing their comments to project planner Craig Flamme at the City’s Department of Planning and Development: (206) 233-7901. He can also be emailed (craig.flamme@seattle.gov).

The Madison Park Community Council (MPCC) considered the Broadmoor water intake issue at its monthly meeting this month, informally agreeing to support efforts to find a solution to Broadmoor’s needs other than dredging. MPCC President Ken Myrabo says “it’s a very sensitive wetlands area and we’d like to work with them to find other options.” He notes that former MPCC board member Maurice Cooper, who is a Broadmoor resident, has been asked by Council members to meet with both sides and see if there’s a possible compromise. "I applaud what they’re doing,” he added.

.

More to follow.

[Upper photo courtesy of Broadmoor Golf Club. Aerial photo by the US Geological Survey. All other photos by Jana Wilkins. ]

Defining Madison Park: an essay (part three)

In its more than 100 years as an upscale Madison Park neighborhood, Washington Park has gradually but inexorably grown from a relatively small enclave at the top of the hill to its present-day expansive form, covering most (or, depending on your view, all) of Madison Park south of E. Madison Street. The residential community of Washington Park, as noted earlier in our series, was so-named because of its proximity to the City park of the same name and, presumably, as a way to distinguish the area from the rest of Madison Park, which was considered much less exclusive.

From its inception, Washington Park was known for its large and stately homes. A good example of early homebuilding in the neighborhood is the Walker-Ames Mansion (808 36th Avenue E.), built in 1906, which has served as the home of University of Washington presidents since it was bequeathed to the UW in the early part of the last century. That’s the house pictured above, and here’s how it looks today:

Historically, Washington Park was confined to just a few blocks east of E. Lake Washington Boulevard and directly south of E. Madison Street. Even by mid-century, the area considered to be Washington Park was much less extensive than it is today. Longtime Madison Park resident Lola McKee (Madison Park Hardware) reports that back then everybody knew that Washington Park extended to 39th Avenue E. and went no further. All of the blocks to the east were just plain old Madison Park, she says.

This distinction made a lot of sense geographically, since Madison Park (the City park, that is) was to the east and Washington Park (the City park) was to the west. So how does it happen that today the neighborhood of Washington Park extends all the way to the shores of Lake Washington and perhaps (depending on where you draw the line) even touches Madison Park, the City park that gives our community its name? Isn’t that just a bit perverse?

As it happens, the redefinition of Washington Park is almost certainly an extreme case of neighborhood creep, which over the years was encouraged and abetted by home builders, homeowners, and real estate agents anxious to capture the cachet of a Washington Park address when selling residences located further and further from that neighborhood’s original starting point.

Let me explain neighborhood creep by pointing to what may well be a present-day example of the phenomenon: a successful attempt to market a new residential project, Madison Lofts, as being in Madison Park when the properties in question clearly sit outside of what has traditionally been considered our community. The Madison Lofts is that new brick condo building in Madison Valley located in the 2900 block on the north side of E. Madison Street. Even the City of Seattle (which, as we’ve noted, is somewhat confused about our southern border) recognizes that on the west side Madison Park begins at E. Lake Washington Boulevard. That, at least, is where they erected the “Madison Park/Washington Park Welcome You” sign.

Undoubtedly because Madison Park is considered to be a more exclusive neighborhood than Madison Valley, the developer and its real estate agent decided to market the condos as though they are located in Madison Park, which after all is only two blocks away. The Northwest Multiple Listing Service accepted this designation and listed the property as a Madison Park address. Perhaps this wouldn’t have happened if Madison Lofts had been built on a site with a previously existing Madison Valley residence on it, but the site was undeveloped. So for this new residential address, realtors bought into the developer’s concept that Madison Lofts is in Madison Park. And as a result, anyone buying a condo there presumably believes he or she lives in Madison Park. If other new residential buildings were to be built in the area between 29th and E. Lake Washington Boulevard, presumably they could and would be marketed in the same manner. And if that happened, there would be an additional block or two of people who believe they live in Madison Park, effectively extending Madison Park into Madison Valley.

Neighborhood creep is clearly a gradual process, and it probably only works successfully when there’s an affinity between the type of construction in the new area and that of the original neighborhood. In other words, as the area to the east of Washington Park became gentrified, it was perhaps logical and appropriate to consider it part of Washington Park. But the extension of Washington Park eastward probably wouldn’t have been successful if the area had continued to be dominated by bungalows, cottages, and beach houses, as the area “down the hill” from 39th Avenue E. was during much of the 20th Century.

While it’s pretty evident that most people in the community accept the idea that Washington Park now extends all the way to the Lake, a question still remains: Does Washington Park encompass all of Madison Park south of E. Madison Street?

When I moved to Madison Park I accepted the view of a friend who already lived here that to be south of Madison is to be in Washington Park. But I gradually became aware of the fact that not everyone subscribes to this notion. In researching this story I asked local realtors what they thought. Here’s the answer from one well-informed professional: “Washington Park begins at the Reed Estate. I can’t remember what street that is, but I can tell you one thing for sure—Washington Park Tower is not located in Washington Park.”

He’s right, assuming you accept the current view of real estate officialdom, which appears to be consistent with historical usage. The Northwest Multiple Listing Service (MLS) puts the area north of E. Garfield Street (the northern border of the Reed Estate) solidly in Madison Park. The Washington Park neighborhood begins south of Garfield. Just to confirm this position, I checked on the four residences currently listed for sale in the five blocks south of Madison that are supposedly not considered Washington Park. In each case (one of which is a condo unit in the Washington Park Tower) the MLS shows the neighborhood as “Madison Park” and not “Washington Park.” I also talked to a couple of longtime residents of these blocks who agreed that Washington Park starts somewhere to the south, one telling me ‘I grew up right here and didn’t think I lived in Washington Park then--and I certainly don’t think I live in it now.’

So there you have it: the Washington Park Tower (shown in the photo above) does not sit in the Washington Park neighborhood. Here’s how the dividing line looks on an aerial view, courtesy of Bing (click to enlarge):

Now that we’ve disposed of that issue, what’s left define about Madison Park? Well, several things. For one, what do we call that group of houses that sit to the east of E. Lake Washington Boulevard and to the north of E. Madison Street (behind the Shell Station and Arboretum Court)? They are the closest to Washington Park Arboretum of any houses located in Madison Park, so by all rights they ought to be part of the Washington Park neighborhood, shouldn’t they? Not so. By historic convention (and the supreme authority of the MLS), the four-block area squeezed between Broadmoor and the Arboretum is actually a stub section of “Madison Park.” Here’s the aerial view, again courtesy of Bing (click to enlarge):

Interestingly, this area is disputed by the Greater Madison Valley Community Council (GMVCC), which believes it is part of the Valley. In fact, the Council’s expansive view of their community also takes in a section of Washington Park running from 33rd to 36th Avenue E., south of Madison (this is perhaps a bit of a surprise to residents in that area). This map shows the border between the Valley and the Park, according to the “Greater” view:

So Madison Park residents on the four blocks to the north of Madison--as well as those on another six blocks to the south--are in the happy position of being represented by two community councils at the same time; which, according to City planner Steve Sheppard, shouldn’t necessarily be considered a bad thing. Madison Valley or Madison Park? Let the residents decide!

At this point we’re almost done with our overview, but there are still two additional items left to claim our attention: 1) What about Canterbury? And 2) Where, if at all, does Denny-Blaine fit into the picture?

Canterbury, for those not in the know, is an area of Madison Park located next to Broadmoor‘s east side, in the area north of E. Newton Street. It was built as a developed community in the late 1950s and consists of about 100 mostly ranch-style homes popular during that era:

Like the rest of Madison Park, Canterbury has been undergoing a lot of redevelopment in recent years; but even before that, it was considered the tonier area of Madison Park north of Madison Street. The MLS does not consider Canterbury to be a separate neighborhood on a par with Broadmoor or Washington Park, so homes in the area are listed for sale simply as in the “Madison Park” neighborhood. Instead, “Canterbury” is listed as the plat area (or “project”), in the same manner as a house in Washington Park might have “John J. McGilvra Second Addition” as a plat designation on its MLS listing.

Nevertheless, Canterbury is clearly recognized by the Madison Park Community Council (MPCC) in its bylaws as a separate enclave on a par with Washington Park and Broadmoor, so why should we be any less generous in our evaluation? Canterbury is obviously a defined Madison Park neighborhood, another enclave.

.

And Denny-Blaine?:

Like Canterbury, the MPCC recognizes the neighborhood as being within the Council’s area of representation. But there’s a difference. Yes, it’s true that the Denny-Blaine has no community council; and as we saw in part two of this series, it has been disowned by the Madrona community. Additionally, the City’s Department of Economic Development includes Denny-Blaine in the coverage area for the Madison Park Business District. So Denny-Blaine is part of Madison Park, right?

Not really. The residents there apparently don’t think of themselves as being in either Madison Park or Madrona. And according to current MPCC President Ken Myrabo, the reason Denny-Blaine was added to the MPCC coverage area is not because it is considered part of Madison Park but simply to give its residents representation by a community council. From that perspective, Denny-Blaine might at most be considered part of “Greater Madison Park,” but someone really ought to poll the residents there to see if they agree. The final verdict: Denny-Blaine is not Madison Park.

So that about does it. We’ve now explored the entire geography of Madison Park, and we’ve put to rest the misapprehensions anyone could possibly have on the subject of where Madison Park begins and ends. We now know what enclaves exist within the Park and what the boundaries are of each of these subunits. We’ve completed our definitive review and have emerged from our investigation--5,718 words later--weary but informed. Who could possibly now question our logical and reasoned conclusions?

Well lots of people, probably. Definitions, as we have seen, have been surprisingly dynamic throughout the course of Madison Park history. And, in fact, there’s no real authority on these matters. The City--as we’ve seen--is befuddled, the community councils disagree, and the Park’s residents have their own conflicting opinions. In my months of probing the definition of Madison Park I’ve talked to a lot of people, many of whom had strong opinions. But one well-known realtor was dismissive of the idea that there is any reason for confusion about neighborhood definitions. As she told me (and here I am paraphrasing), ‘It doesn’t make any difference what the City says, the community council says, or even what the homeowner says about what neighborhood their house is in. It’s the real estate professionals who decide these things!”

Well, that settles that!

[Historic photo of the Walker-Ames house courtesy of the University of Washington Libraries.]