‘Long conversation’ about one Fauntleroy Creek culvert’s future finally ends with city-church agreement

(Graphic courtesy Judy Pickens, showing culvert’s route, schoolhouse at left, church at right)

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

Two culverts carrying salmon-bearing Fauntleroy Creek underground below two streets must be replaced and widened. That’s long been known. But a behind-the-scenes part of the story has just come to light.

One of the replacement plans, for the section beneath 45th SW, has not been particularly controversial – it’s in city right-of-way and the planning is under way after the “restart” about which we reported back in March.

The other is an entirely different story – one that has just closed the book on a difficult chapter.

Fauntleroy Church and the City of Seattle have reached agreement on how to deal with the other section of culvert, which carries the creek under California SW and the church parking lot – a 130-foot city culvert, almost a third of which extends under the church parking lot [vicinity map], where it joins a 230-foot church-installed culvert. At one point in this “long conversation,” as Fauntleroy Church senior pastor Leah Atkinson-Bilinski describes it, there was the possibility that the church would face a giant price tag for the culvert project – potentially $7 million – a sum that would have bankrupted the church.

(WSB photo, exploratory drilling in 2020)

That was the state of things in 2019. Then in 2020, the church says, a city contractor doing geotechnical boring “inaccurately locate(d) the culvert and punche(d) two holes in it.” That took the situation to a different level, with the church pursuing city commitments regarding responsibility for the resulting damage, and the need to replace the 70+-year-old culvert. The conversation came to “dead ends, where it felt like we couldn’t move forward,” the pastor said. Eventually, the church felt compelled to file a lawsuit against the city, and did so last year (but did not serve it).

As the result of that, the church and city have struck a deal – recently signed by both parties – under which the church will deed part of its land to the city, enough for construction of the new city/church culvert. How much, nobody knows until the new culvert is designed. The agreement includes stipulations to protect the church’s future, such as protecting the garden outside its basement-level preschool space and a certain number of ADA parking spaces, plus the fire lane. And as part of the deal, the city is relieved of liability for damaging the church’s current culvert. And there is a provision to ensure the city would be compensated for the investment of public funds, should the church site be sold to a for-profit buyer within the next quarter-century.

Many, but not all, details of the culvert replacement itself will be guided by state and federal requirements. Rev. Atkinson-Bilinski says that ideally the deal would have given the church a bit more say in the future plan, but it does guarantee they’ll be consulted as “important partners” and that their ideas “will be considered.” When the time comes, she adds, it will be very important for community voices to weigh in on prospective designs – not just what happens in the culvert itself, but the project features above-ground.

Just getting to this point, though, is a victory, church leaders reiterate. This all dates back to the original construction of the culvert – at a time when nobody considered looking far into the future to imagine a time when restoration of salmon habitat would be important, and possible. The city first looked at culvert replacements in 2001, but shelved the idea, which resurfaced after a partial blockage hit the 45th SW culvert in 2015. (That culvert also had a clog last year.) In 2019, design concepts were presented by the city, and that’s when the church learned it could face a multi-million-dollar expense.

(2021 reader photo, salmon in Fauntleroy Creek)

Judy Pickens, who has been involved for decades with bringing Fauntleroy Creek back to life as a salmon-bearing stream, co-chaired the church’s committee dealing with the culvert issue. She says it’s important to note that reaching the agreement doesn’t just settle the stalemate between the church and city, but also means the church is “walking its talk” regarding respect for tribal fishing rights. In addition to legal requirements, a church background document explains, “as a congregation we have accepted a moral responsibility to steward the land and water that were taken from Coast Salish peoples.”

This section of culvert has been completely underground since the early 1950s. At some point before that, there was a trestle bridge over California, the church says. Mobility was a motivation when the project was planned back in the ’50s; in addition to the ecosystem, safety is a key concern now. Four preschools are in the area, and one side of California holds one of them plus the church and the Fauntleroy YMCA (WSB sponsor), while the other side holds historic Fauntleroy Schoolhouse, home to other schools, multiple small businesses, and a popular event venue, The Hall at Fauntleroy. Once a year, the Fauntleroy Fall Festival spans all of those venues, with a huge all-ages throng visiting for the afternoon.

Will the future expanded culvert bring salmon back to the upper reaches of Fauntleroy Creek, steeper than many such streams? “The potential is there … they’ve surprised us before,” Pickens says, while tempering her optimism.

“If you build it, they will come. Hopefully!” adds pastor Atkinson-Bilinski.

But for now, some relief that they know a multimillion-dollar culvert repair isn’t looming over the church. “We’re just gratified,” says church board chair Greg Dirks, “and looking forward to partnership with the city and community.”

Watch for more on how you can get involved, via the Seattle Public Utilities project page.

12 Replies to "'Long conversation' about one Fauntleroy Creek culvert's future finally ends with city-church agreement"

  • Bbron August 23, 2024 (10:30 pm)

    is there a source from the city acknowledging that they damaged the Church’s culvert? this report only presents the Pastor’s side, and implicitly confirms it as true without sourcing the other party. i’d like to know where all sides stand with sources.

  • Steph August 24, 2024 (6:45 am)

    There was a lawsuit regarding water damage to private property near there that shocked me a while back. The City was brutal. It seems they nearly bankrupted the poor property owners. The City had allowed water to damage the downstream property.It doesn’t sound to me like the church was dealt with very fairly in this case, but if they are happy with it then…. I’ve had extensive damage from the City’s very poor water management but I don’t have the money and time to try to get justice. I also finally realized that group of “crazy old coots” who used to get together 40 years ago at breakfast meetings downtown trying to “fight the corrupt City Hall” weren’t crazy at all, they were brave.

    • same here August 24, 2024 (3:09 pm)

      Same here Steph, we’ve had trouble similar trouble with the City!

  • Joe August 24, 2024 (8:26 am)

    Those are going to be some very expensive salmon, if they ever do come up the creek. This is a creek that never had salmon to begin with, even before the culvert was there. I’m glad to see our city putting our tax payer funds to such good uses!

    • Chim August 24, 2024 (11:41 am)

      Source on there never having been salmon in the creek?

    • Arbor Heights Resident August 25, 2024 (12:50 pm)

      Joe, this is a very important use of tax dollars. The government is required by law to uphold treaty rights, all of which guarantee tribes access to salmon fisheries.  Most salmon runs are also threatened or endangered, and therefore fall under the Endangered Species Act as well as state conservation plans. Not only are salmon a part of our natural heritage, not only is their conservation a legal requirement, but restoring their habitat provides economic benefits in the form of more productive fisheries, forestry, and agriculture. Salmon bring in nutrients from the ocean and fertilize our land. And restoration efforts have been highly successful across the state- when a fish barrier is removed or other restoration is done, oftentimes they will come back the very next spawning season. Every stream matters in this effort, even a small urban one like Fauntleroy Creek. Also keep in mind that this culvert is old and prone to clogging and flooding anyway. Which is one of the main reasons why this project is being undertaken.

  • B August 24, 2024 (10:33 am)

    I had no idea this was going on – thank you for reporting on this! 

  • TruthIsland August 24, 2024 (12:12 pm)

    This sounds like a win-win — the city avoids a multimillion dollar lawsuit for damaging the church’s culvert, and the church avoids spending multimillions replacing it. I agree that the church may have gotten the worse end of the deal with no real say in the new culvert design, but hopefully the city will listen to community input in the design process and come up with something that makes sense for how the property is used by the church and community. But bottom line any agreement that avoids litigation and gets a new culvert in line with state law concerning salmon-bearing streams is great news. 

  • fishy August 24, 2024 (8:12 pm)

    The article mentions legal requirements the church had. I’m having a hard time imagining what those might be, other than just maintaining the culvert in good order so it isn’t a problem for neighbors. Since SDOT damaged the culvert, it seems like the church would’ve had a strong case in court and could’ve gotten SDOT to pay for a fix without giving up their land. WSDOT is under an injunction to fix a number of fish barrier culverts, but the city is not, and individual property owners certainly are not.

    In other words, the city is choosing to do this project, no one is forcing them to. And they damaged private property in doing this. Why is the private property owner giving anything? Legally I mean. I get that they feel a moral obligation as well 

Sorry, comment time is over.