This is in response to the article titled “Kenmore’s Log Boom beach plan faces opposition” (Reporter, July 2) by Joshua Adam Hicks.
As stated, the Log Boom beach project is included in the Kenmore parks and recreation master plan and approved by City Council in 2003, I assume due to what the people wanted.
Elizabeth Mooney asks where the demand for these projects came from, such as expanding the beach, adding a fountain that spouts water out of Lake Washington and creating a log boom to protect the swimming area from debris. I don’t know about the latter two, but expanding the beach was decided by residents who attended the advisory meetings that took place in 2003 and 2005, which determined what the public wanted to see in its parks. If she had attended the meetings, which I’m not sure she did, she would have known. I don’t recall seeing her there.
As far as a fountain that spouts water from the lake and creating a log boom to protect the swimming area from debris, I don’t believe that was mentioned at these meetings, I believe it was something that was determined later by a committee, which probably included Bill Evans and others.
The article states most participants indicated that waterfront improvements were a high priority, but nearly half opposed the more specific idea of a beach enhancement during later polling. I never was included in that later polling, so don’t know if the fountain and log boom were included.
If Bill Evans is talking about the advisory sessions I attended, there were many more than just 20 people attending, so don’t know if that is what he is talking about. The ones I went to were to talk about what we wanted to do with Log Boom Park, were at the Northshore Utility District and I thought they were quite highly attended.
As far as downsizing the beach, I was not asked to be included in the city’s decision to downsize the beach — was any other resident?
Evan says they have tightened up initial plans to mitigate the impacts, trying to respond to the needs of the public — both for and against this project — but it keeps shrinking down. I don’t think this is fair without listening to all sides for and against the project!
I don’t agree it would be better to enhance the existing beach without enlarging it. I believe this is what is needed, an expanded beach like Juanita and Matthews, for example, where people can go to enjoy a day at the beach. I think this is much needed at this end of the lake.
Regarding an expansion destroying shoreline and aquatic vegetation that is critical to fish habitats, nothing was ever disturbed in the good old days when we had a place like Kenmore Resort. We had aquatic vegetation and an abundance of fish and birds, probably more so than we do today. If people are so concerned, it’s too bad they weren’t here when the condos and marina were allowed to be built. Or going back further, all of the industry that was allowed to take over, such as the sand and gravel company and Plywood Supply, which overtook some of the most beautiful areas of the north end of Lake Washington. And which is more important — to have something for human beings to enjoy or the fish for people to watch and/or catch?
What does Tom Murdoch mean by enhancing the pier for fishing? Allowing more boats to moor there and places for people to fish, but nothing for young and old who would like to have a place where they can wade into the water and swim out a little further to go swimming without having to worry about boats running into them? Yes, a lot of shoreline may have been lost in some areas, like previously mentioned, to industry, boat marinas and condos, but again, why can’t others enjoy the lake? They don’t have much to enjoy in Kenmore as it is right now. It can still be a natural habitat as it was in the earlier days. It doesn’t have to be an extremely huge area, but I would certainly like to see it expanded more than it is at the present — just a little more sandy beach and some picnic tables and benches, and maybe even a little outdoor kitchen area.
The idea of the city intending that a structure, such as a log boom to be a historic element that would block solid debris from entering the swim area is a great idea. And if that is true when Debra Srebnik says a log boom would disrupt the circulation of water and Evans says that the log boom floats on top and water flows beneath, what is the problem with that? How is that disrupting the circulation of water?
As far as the water fountain goes, I do wonder if that is necessary, but would it waste resources and potentially disrupt fish? As far as saving water and energy, would that be affected? Wouldn’t we still be using what is already there and just re-circulating it? I do, however, wonder how they came up with this idea and if it is really needed. I think that would give a more commercial aspect to it, which I don’t approve. Also, if pipes and cables are going to be placed underground under the lake and there are some bad effects of unearthing sediment because of this, is a fountain really necessary and expensive? Do we want to spend money for something like this?
Evans says some people want the lake to be natural and some want to develop it. Can’t we have a little of both, as we had in the past and something more natural without doing a lot of harm to the environment? Yes, it is the only site within Kenmore with public access to the waters of Lake Washington; however, it shouldn’t be for just boating and fishing enthusiasts and condo owners. I don’t think it is wrong with local people wanting to have a lake to swim in and a picnic area rather than going to an indoor chlorinated and heated swimming pool.
Jeri Keasey is a Kenmore resident.