Showing Up For Hidden Beach

Below is an email to the City sent today from Marty Oppenheimer—a longtime leader of Friends of Street Ends which oversees public efforts to open and maintain access to Seattle’s 148 public street ends (of which Hidden Beach is but one). Marty so clearly outlines where we are with Hidden Beach and how we got here. It’s a must read.

Soon after he sent it Libby reached out to friends of Hidden Beach suggesting we show up to show our support. We stood end-to-end on the 110ft public border of this street end, to help visualize the private encroachments Marty references in his letter to the City. It’s easy to forget that this is all public land.

AUG 29, 2025 EMAIL FROM MARTY TO THE CITY

Dear Alyse,

I feel like you and I have enjoyed a good relationship in the time we have worked together, BUT I have to agree with what Grace is saying here.  And I find it necessary to take it further.  The Friends of Hidden Beach need your support and help.

Over the past 10+ years, the city has placed itself in an indefensible position with regards to the E Harrison SSE.  And since the Friends of Hidden Beach have leapt through hoops provided by the city with little to show for it, the situation is even more disturbing.

To augment what Grace said, in today's world, the driveway to the south (Frazer/Snapp) is clearly an abomination.  It is a large expanse of impervious surface in the shore zone AND on a public SSE.  It should never have been installed.  From what I understand, when SDCI permitted it a) there was no consultation with SDOT, who should be controlling this SSE, b) SDCI permitted a 10' driveway but the owner installed a 14' driveway and c) an SDOT inspector with a significant lack of knowledge signed off on it.  One error after another.  There is zero rationally for that driveway to exist on the public space.  There was plenty of room for it to have been installed on the adjacent private property (though concrete would still be wrong).  And despite the fact that an SDOT inspector signed off on it, this error needs to be corrected.

But the Friends of Hidden Beach proposed plan even allows that driveway to be on the public space, though not where it currently sits.  And the Friends of Hidden Beach plan has dragged its way through the SDOT/SDCI system for YEARS at this point.  The process that they have been subjected to is just unconscionable. 

The law and court findings are clear that the "highest and best use of a shoreline street end is public access".  For this SSE, about 25% of it is currently encroached by the southern neighbor who has no "need" for that encroachment, other than his palatial entryway.  I know you can understand this.  Most, if not all, of this public property must be returned to the public sphere!

The Shoreline Street Ends were established in law by Council Resolution 29370.  Within that Resolution, Policies 4, 5 & 6 are most salient here.  My reading is clear that Policy 6 was violated because the driveway was installed in 2017 (18 years after the Resolution was enacted) without the required public review process.  I know SDOT is partially following Policy 6 with regards to the proposed driveway on the north side.  But I also note that, per Policy 4, when the Friends of Hidden Beach permit to improve the site for the public is finally approved it will be the responsibility of the property owner to the south to remove their encroachments "at the expense of the responsible private property owner."

Alyse, surely SDOT and SDCI are not so completely siloed that they cannot work together to move the Friends of Hidden Beach permit application forward together??  We all know that this "wetland" nonsense is only a red herring.  It feels almost as if the city is working against the public interest in favor of the private interest.  I can only hope that is NOT the case, though I know it was when Grace Crunican was Director and our Deputy contact was Joe Bell (who NEVER should have been in the department).  I really want to believe that from the the Director on down the rights and interests of the public are paramount when it comes to Street Ends.  Can you please assure me of that?  Can you demonstrate that?

I think you know that I have been a part of Friends of Street Ends for more than 25 years.  In that time, I have come to a belief that I can only hope the department will take on.  That belief comes from an implicit reading of Resolution 29370 (1996) and Ordinance 119673 (1999) there were to be no NEW private encroachments on our city's shoreline street ends.  Potentially SPU could have a required new encroachment in the public interest and potentially a water dependent maritime industrial business could apply for a new encroachment, BUT when it came to SSE's in residential areas there could be no new encroachments after those laws were enacted.   I know that the legislation and Director's Rules allow private encroachments with fees, but at the same time encourage their removal.  It seems to me that Friends of Hidden Beach strive to compromise with the adjacent property owners, though from my perspective there is neither need nor inherent "right" to encroachments on this site.

I hope you believe that the Friends of Hidden Beach work to create the best possible shoreline street end both for human users and for the environment.  That leads to a particular concern . . . . there was an on site meeting with Ben Perkowski in May 2023 (I believe).  While I know and support his mandate to support ecological function, at the end of that on site meeting he said something very disturbing, which I hope is NOT driving the process.  Ben told us that, at the end of the day his highest mandate is to prevent the city from being sued.  Alyse, I could not believe we were hearing that.  Preventing the city from being sued when we are talking about public use of public property versus wealthy landowners who would just as soon keep the public out??  Please!!!  There is little question in my mind that when the Friends of Hidden Beach permit is eventually approved, one or both adjacent landowners will sue the group and the city.  Is that why the permit is still stuck in the morass of bureaucracy?

Alyse, I have mostly remained background on the E Harrison SSE, but I need to ask you to help move this forward.  I think you are aware that a vindictive adjacent property owner has managed to have the group's volunteer arborist fined for operating an unlicensed tree service (which was not true), managed to have the SSE's volunteer steward fined for "hiring" an unlicensed tree service (which was not true) and has sicced Animal Control on any visitor with a dog off leash (possibly true, but completely unnecessary).

Friends of Hidden Beach, Friends of Street Ends and hundreds of users from around the city need your  help to take this SSE back into the public sphere.

I'm sorry that I have to drop this today . . . .Happy Labor Day!

Can you help?
Marty Oppenheimer