It’s Hammerhead Time!
Grab a beach towel and settle in — there's a lot to catch up on.
HERE'S WHAT WE KNOW
Our public-access plan has been in the City's pipeline since December 2022, and in formal land-use review since early 2025.
The right-of-way permit for the north homeowner's hammerhead driveway sat dormant for years, then quietly reactivated in mid-2025 — and is now moving.
If nothing changes, the private driveway looks likely to be permitted ahead of our public plan. (Neither is approved yet — hold that thought.)
Illustration of the proposed hammerhead driveway to the north
BUT WHY?
Ours is a Shoreline Substantial Development / Master Use Permit — a heavyweight land-use review: public notice, a public comment period, shoreline and environmental review, a wetland determination, a Director's decision. Slow by design, because it changes public land.
The driveway is a Street Use / Right-of-Way Construction Permit — the City treats a driveway as a "transportation use," so it skips the land-use gate, needs no public comment period, and clears far fewer hurdles.
And we're doing it without a lawyer. Our "legal team": a City-appointed Street End Steward, a Landscape Architect, an Arborist, an Architect, a dose of guidance from Friends of Street Ends, and the baked goods from supporters at neighborhood meetings. (We accept both cookies and comments.)
THE PLOT TWIST
The driveway application was actually filed back in October 2021 — then failed its first screening in 11 days and sat untouched for roughly three and a half years, springing back to life only in mid-2025. Our proposal has been grinding away the whole time. So the real story isn't who filed first. It's whose project suddenly got momentum.
The south homeowner's concrete driveway was permitted at 10 ft wide (but built 14 ft wide) and covers about 25% of the public street end, with plantings that originally went in without a permit. Encroachments like these are 100% revocable — the City can require them pushed back or removed. What's missing isn't the authority. It's the will.
Back in 1996 the City adopted Resolution 29370 (codified by Ordinance 119673 in 1999), declaring street ends public and discouraging private encroachments — its Policy 6 bars a new private use without public review, and not while an active public-access proposal is on the table. That's us! Both driveways sit in tension with Policy 6. The rules exist; the question is whether the City honors them.
ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY PLAN
As drawn, it's an 850-square-foot concrete driveway with a hammerhead turnaround and a "beautification project" that — by our read of the plans — would function as private plantings on public land. Build it as proposed and the public entrance to the beach narrows to roughly 8 feet, pinching to about 5 feet at the south hedge.
You may hear a Fire Department "turnaround" justification for the hammerhead. Dig into the code and it doesn't hold up: the Fire Code only requires a hammerhead for dead-end fire-apparatus access roads longer than 150 feet. This is a short residential driveway on a non-arterial street, where backing out is perfectly legal — and there's no fire condition anywhere in the permit file.
ANYBODY'S GUESS
No betting line yet, but here's what we're watching:
The Compromise: north driveway approved; south driveway pushed back to restore public access; our plan approved.
Beach Bummer: our plan gets delayed or watered down, or a homeowner reaches for lawsuits aimed at the City or FOHB.
Your Hot Take: where are you putting your (fantasy) Kalshi bet?
Every inch we're talking about is public — set aside for public access and enjoyment, as it's been for over 100 years. So the question remains: will a reasonable, accommodating, everybody-gets-something plan bring together SDOT, the City, the public, and the homeowners?
Keep your water wings inflated. Things could get choppy (though we'd prefer placid lake vibes) …
