Update on the Kaiser Woods Trail
- friendsofkenlake
- Apr 22
- 12 min read
We updated this article to reflect the April 21 Board Meeting.
Find the original article here. Last update 4/25 includes primary sources.
"The 70-acre Marj Yung Park, behind Marj’s Ken Lake neighborhood, will be Olympia’s first to have dedicated mountain bike trails. It will include more than 5 miles of hiking and biking trails, with skills areas and features for beginners to advanced riders. This project will also include new access from Black Lake Boulevard, a 25-stall parking lot and restroom. " -Stirling and Robison, JOLT News |
May 3, 2026 While the board states that access is not at risk, they later state that access now, after their vote, relies on the generosity of the lot owners. This is a contradiction when in March we were legal grantees with guaranteed, recorded access to the Kaiser Woods Trails. That record was rejected by the board. |
I was talking and laughing with neighbors while we waited for the board to come out of executive session at the April 2026 planning meeting.
There were only a handful of topics on the agenda that night. One of them was the Declaration of Covenant for lot 2151—what most of us know as the Kaiser Woods Trail access.
This had been discussed in executive session for months. We were waiting to hear what the board had learned—what information they had gathered and what action the board proposed.
When the board returned from executive session, they did not present findings. They did not take questions. They voted.
They voted to file to reject access to a trail that was granted to the use of LCC members.
The information that typically comes before a decision like that was not shared. We completed the research ourselves.
This article documents the timeline of the 2151 Lakemoor easement, what decisions were made, and how the current outcome differs from prior direction.
Timeline of the Access Trail Acquisition
June 2024 — Community Support Intensifies
During community comments, multiple residents expressed strong support for securing access to Kaiser Woods Trail.
Residents described the easement as:
a long-term community benefit
a connection to a city park
a “once in a lifetime opportunity”
The emphasis at that time was on future access, safety, and shared use.
“The LCC board was offered a second opportunity to purchase a small easement for $12,000 seems wonderful, once in a lifetime. Look beyond personal views of that area and beyond today, look to the future, a number of young families with children and seeing them access the city park directly would be an added amenity. Drainage to the lake is a very high priority, include the easement as a priority.”
-Community comment, June 2024
Added 4/25/2026
|
Background: Olympia Parks, Arts & Recreation Director, Paul Simmons (2017)
|
Background: Swanson Law Firm (2017)
|
September 2024 — Board Proposes a Binding Member Vote
Discussion regarded the access trail continued, with a proposed solution.
Motion: the board of directors submit to the community a proposal to purchase an easement at 2151 Lakemoor Dr. This vote shall occur between 10/1 & 10/21/2024; and the board will respect the outcome of the vote. (old language: This vote shall be binding by the board. Amendment – changing the language from being binding to that the board will respect the outcome.)
o Seconded
o Discussion - we would want all of the information to be included with the vote
▪ Traffic mitigation would cost $5,000
▪ Lake mitigation would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars
o Roll call vote: it passes
In September 2024, the board agreed to put the question to the community and follow through with the simple majority member decision for acquiring the Kaiser Woods Trail |
October 2024 — Board Moves Forward to Secure Access
The board approved a motion to acquire an easement for the purpose of providing access to Kaiser Woods Park.
This reflected the direction requested by the community: to secure formal, legal access.
2151 Lakemoor Dr. Lot
● 163 returned votes – the majority were yes
● Move to adopt a resolution sent to board members (with language below), seconded, rescinded
○ LCC accepts the offer and will acquire the easement across Lot 33 to provide access to the city park for the offered price provided:
○ The language of the final recorded easement shall be negotiated with the owners of Lot 33 upon consultation with the LCC’s professional advisors.
○ The LCC Directors and professional advisors shall make every reasonable effort to conclude these negotiations by October 31, 2024.
● Discussion
Simpler motion proposed, seconded –
Subject to approval of a final legal agreement by our attorney, LCC will allocate the sum of $12,000 to purchase an easement on the undeveloped residential lot located at 2151 Lakemoor Dr. by October 31, 2024, for the purpose of securing exclusive, private, access to and from Kaiser Woods Park for Ken Lake residents.
○ Voted – carried
The president claimed that membership voted to acquire the easement only if HOAs were not raised in the process.
HOA dues were raised last year to address rising legal fees with Sound Legal.
A letter from Sound Legal, Jan 28, 2025 advising the board to not pursue legal action against an ADU. This was an issue in September and October 2025, when board members voted to file suit, and then had to cancel the action.  |
The board has not demonstrated that continued existence of the footpath would lead to an increase in dues.
|
December 2024 — Access Is Granted to LCC Members
A Declaration of Covenant was recorded that provides footpath access in favor of the LCC.
The Declaration specifies that the footpath access is private and limited to LCC members.
The lot was sold, and new owners had knowledge and understanding of the burden created by this declaration.
This means:
the access was secured
the footpath exists today
the community received the benefit without the previously discussed purchase cost
|
Process Concerns
On April 21, the board stated that the granting of access via footpath may not have been handled properly or that they were not aware of it.
What is documented:
The board had previously been directed to pursue an easement
The declaration granting access to a footpath was ultimately recorded
The board is responsible for following through on member-approved actions
Whether awareness was complete or not, the current decision is based on rejecting an existing asset.
December 2025 — Declaration of Access Becomes Subject of Review
Following the election of a new board, the Declaration of Covenant was discussed in executive session.
The April 2026 Newsletter concedes that a board member has interest in the outcome of this discussion, and to all appearances participated in each of these sessions. She was also later referenced in April 21 as the person members should direct questions to. |
The contents of those discussions were not presented to members in advance of this vote.
No cost analysis, liability estimates, or alternatives were shared publicly prior to a decision.
The declaration providing the footpath was an executive session topic from December until March of 2026.
|
March 2026 — Board Votes to Reject the Granted Access
This technically happened at the April planning meeting, but it is recorded in the March minutes.
The board voted to file to reject the Declaration of Covenant.
The discussion occurred in executive session
No member questions were taken before the vote
No supporting analysis was presented to members prior to the decision
Board members stated that there was not a time pressure to file this document
The rejection was filed an hour later.
|
April 2026 — Community First Opportunity to Respond
After the community submitted extensive objections, some information was provided - but questions were not taken in view of the public or on the record.
|
What the Decision Changes
The current Declaration provides, effectively, a legal access with LCC members as the grantees
If the rejection is filed:
the footpath access guarantee is removed
the community no longer holds a legal right of access
future access depends on the property owners
This is a change from protected access to informal or discretionary access.
And it’s at the request of the board, not the lot owners.
The board noted in the April 2026 newsletter that one issue with the declaration was that the location of the path was unspecified. It is unclear how relying on the generosity of the owners changes this fact in any way at all. |
Claims Raised and What Is Documented
During discussions, several concerns were cited.
Liability Concerns
The board raised the possibility that the easement could create liability.
What has not been presented publicly or when directly questioned:
estimated liability exposure
insurance costs
comparison to existing trails or common areas
At this stage, the concern has been identified, but not quantified. Genuine concerns should be supported by quotes.
There is a hidden trove of reports and contemporaneous legal discussion which references liability and should be widely unavailable to the membership. |
May 4, 2026 As I read the newsletter, it just hits wrong that we were concerned about liability - so instead of doing the research and committing to maintaining access, we pushed the responsibility back onto our neighbors, while still boasting that the neighborhood will continue to have access. In other words, we get all of the access with none of the responsibility - that goes to the lot owners and we rely on their generosity. The ethical thing to do would be to figure out how to be responsible for ourselves. |
Access and Use Concerns
It was suggested that connecting to a city park could increase outside use of the trail.
At the same time, it was also stated that:
the current owners may continue to allow access after the declaration is removed
This creates an important distinction:
Removing the declaration does not necessarily prevent use.
Rejecting the declaration removes the community’s ability to define or protect that use.
Would another option have been to negotiate with the owners to better define access and path location? This is unanswered. |
What Was Missing From the Process
At both stages—before and after the Apr 7 vote—member questions were not incorporated.
No questions were taken before the vote following executive session
No questions were taken when information was later presented
This creates a structural gap:
Information was provided, but not tested.
Some information was second hand, attributed to the HOA’s legal council. The membership does not know the question presented, or what efforts were taken to protect the asset.
Without questions, there is no mechanism to identify:
missing data
unclear assumptions
additional risks or considerations
Community Concerns Raised
Residents raised several concerns during comments that were not addressed in the information session..
One concern focused on precedent:
If an existing community asset can be rejected without a full cost or impact analysis,
what process governs decisions about other assets?
Another concern focused on conflict of interest:
Residents noted that prior legal challenges to the easement had not been discussed as part of the current decision context.
The board director who had a legal letter objecting to the purchase was recognized as the most knowledgeable on the topic.
The newsletter stated that the 'Adjoining Lot Owner' recused herself from the vote. It also stated that she made her interest in the topic clear. The part omitted is that she participated fully in discussions, and was the point of contact members were directed to with questions about the Trail access. Does it matter if 'Adjoining Lot Owner' recused herself from the vote if she led the discussions? There are no roll call votes, so it is unclear whether or not the 'Adjoining Lot Owner' participated in the vote to reject our access rights. |
A third concern focused on process:
A member-supported decision to secure access was followed by a board-level decision to remove that access,
without a visible step where the underlying analysis was shared with the membership.
The last recorded vote, on October 21st, 2024, represented a 60% majority of voting members. Members who abstained from the vote are not required for the majority, as a special assessment was never levied. (Covenants VI.D). The board choosing to give those members more weight than members who voted is a decision, not a requirement. |
We are asking the board to address these concerns, and to provide the missing report and legal documents related to the trail. We are asking about authority and process, questions we did not have time to ask before the vote. 'Enough.' is not an answer. 'Agree to disagree' is not an answer. 'We were elected to make decisions' is not an answer.
|
Why Timing Matters
The central issue is not whether the declaration should ultimately be kept or rejected.
It is the sequence of decision-making.
Retaining the access as granted allows time to:
evaluate liability and cost
compare alternatives
involve the membership
Rejecting it removes the asset before that evaluation is shared publicly.
Once removed, the community no longer controls that position. The owner does. The original valuation of $12,000 would be a starting cost to retaining the same access again.
“What I really like about the easement opportunity is that it is way less money, and no board has been willing to do that. Seems like a total win-win for all of us. Moving forward it is an asset to many user groups. Looking to the forward to the future of the community. You never regret purchasing land, only regret not purchasing land in my Land Use background. Let me know what I can do to help facilitate.”
-Community Comment, June 2024
What This Means for Governance
This situation highlights a broader question:
How are community assets evaluated before being accepted, modified, or removed?
A functional process typically includes:
documented analysis
visible reasoning
opportunity for questions
clear sequencing of decision steps
When those elements are not present, decisions rely on incomplete visibility. We cannot tell whether the board is meeting its fiduciary duty to protect and maintain member assets.
What Can We Do?
The answer is not hopeful The board did not take questions publicly, and by all accounts seems intent on maintaining the rejection as filed.
In most states, a petition of of membership can call a special meeting. In WA, the goal for us would be 20% of membership, and that will be written into the new bylaws.
However, if the board cannot address concerns fully, either through evidence or action, the next step is harder. We can help organize; this is your neighborhood.
The question neighbors will have to ask themselves is, how far is too far?
TLDR (Too Long, Give Me the Cliff Notes)
The community identified the Kaiser Woods access as a long-term asset. The board should have moved to secure it. The owner could no longer hold the property for us - the footpath was granted to the HOA.
No concerns about processes were raised that month, or the year after when Gowrylow, who was present for the vote, assumed the presidency.
The current decision rejects that gift.
The remaining question is not only about this asset, but about process: how are decisions of this scale are evaluated, explained, and timed in a way that allows the community to understand what is being decided before the outcome is set.
Comments