Seattle Land Use Blog

Wow, what a sad day for the city, we lost the Sonics and found out that Seattle can be out-hustled by a group that wants something really badly and isn’t afraid to fight for it.

I wonder if losing the Sonics will be to Mayor Nickels what the WTO was to Mayor Paul Schell - the straw that broke the mayor’s popularity. 

Of course, the $45 million cash settlement the city will receive makes my spidey-sense tingle - because the best thing to do would be to use it to pay off the remaining $37 million debt on Key Arena - but you know our mayor and city council, they like to ’invest’ in ‘interesting’ programs.

In fact, based on some prior decisions they’ve made - here are some things I wouldn’t be surprised we ended up with; Seattle could buy 57 high tech toilets (previously bought and maintained 5 high-tech toilets for $6 million)

Could build another 1.3 mile streetcar line. Maybe this time from Pioneer Square to the Sculpture park - oh wait, that would mean using existing tracks to service a streetcar line that successfully used to shuttle people around the waterfront. Never mind, stupid idea, that won’t happen. 
 

They could provide developers who build ‘affordable’ housing with 28 additional kinds of tax breaks like the one they gave this week. 

 Or maybe hold some more advisory elections, how about some more viaduct advisory votes?

Anyway, since I’m bummed at the Sonics’ passing - here’s something to brighten your mood - a clip from Game 7 of the ‘96 NBA Western Conference Finals when the Sonics stuck it to the Jazz (and in this game they especially stuck it to Malone and Stockton). 

Oh yeah, and here’s one more thing - at least we all don’t have to follow the team to Oklahoma - living there would be the biggest bummer of all.)

This article was written by Geof 

Parks and Green Spaces Levy: SAM hijack update
Here’s how bad an idea it is to give the Seattle Art Museum 11 million dollars out of the Parks and Green Spaces Levy, just submitted to City Council last week.

Even the PI Editorial Board, long a supporter of “big money” institutional public funding, opposes SAM funding in the levy, for good reasons.

Among the better quotes:
“The museum’s inclusion feels forced, lacking any true tie to the levy’s overarching themes of a green city, healthy communities and vibrant neighborhoods.”

Absolutely correct.

The PI also, rightly, cites a rapidly sinking local economy as a good reason to keep the levy as realistic and efficient as possible, thus helping November passage. It offers reasonable alternatives for SAM funding – there are several more that bear mentioning later.

Personally, I prefer the 11 million go to restoring those many projects cut citywide for SAM’s truly grotesque power play. SAM’s efforts demonstrate “old Seattle politics” at it’s worst: At a time when many on Council are allegedly embracing the new “Obama” era of transparency, accountability and hope.

Aren’t voters sick and tired of back room deals for special interests at great cost to the public? That’s exactly how the SAM funding apparently came about – from some very surprising sources, as I’m beginning to discover. Obama voters will rightly vote for Barrick, but likely will not vote – if informed – for very old ways of doing things.

The SAM deal sounds so very “Bush/Cheney” to many of us!

With Council telling everyone not to expect new funding in the upcoming city budget, shouldn’t this levy be as focused and efficient as possible, particularly if Council and greenies want it to pass?
So why should we tax ourselves for SAM, short change the rest of the city, while Council and Mayor cut services in the next budget?

“Do as say, not as we do?”

There are many, many more reasons to get this very bad idea out of the levy: Here are just a few.

11 million is by far and away the single biggest specific project funded in the levy - a levy advertised to fund parks, recreation and green spaces - for a building that just happens to be in Volunteer Park yet serves no park functions.

For a building housing the laudable but private non profit, fee to enter, Seattle Asian Art Museum, operated by SAM, but has nothing to do with Parks, Green Spaces, or Recreation.

The 11 million was intended to fund at least a dozen other relevant parks, recreation and green space projects in a dozen other neighborhoods city wide. Now those projects, benefiting 10’s of thousands of people won’t happen - because SAM’s Mayor, some Council and even “green” supporters allowed SAM to bully their way in.

Great way to build city wide support. Giving money from a levy originally advertised for parks citywide to a private, non profit, wealthy cultural organization, acting like a bully, for a non parks use building.

The PGSL made a big deal out of “equity” in distributing levy proceeds. How is 11 million for SAM demonstrating commitment to “equity”? The biggest losers in this levy are - you guessed it - low income communities.

Why has there not been, up to now, a public debate and discussion on why, how and what the best means are for funding the publicly owned SAAM building? Why are SAM and a few insiders not only determining the fate of our building, but how it will be funded? You remember getting any say on this?

There must be better, more appropriate ways to do this, and it should be done, the City should honor what ever legal, contractual commitments made to SAM (if they are indeed legal and contractual):
Why this way, why now?

Perhaps it’s time to revisit the issue of whether the Volunteer Park facility should be a museum at all; if there are better, more public uses for our public property; whether having a museum there represents the best economic, parks, recreation and/or cultural return for the public; or question as to how all this fits into both Volunteer Park’s and SAM’s long term plans.

Shouldn’t the new Museum Director, yet to be hired, weigh in on this? Why rush to judgement by committing 11 million now before we have a chance to publicly debate alternatives?

SAM has threatened to “walk away” from the Vol. Park building. Let them – allow them to take the massive PR hit, as clueless to that as to the equally big PR hit they are already taking for this – and it’s only going to get worse for them. Is this what the SAM Board really wants, or do they know the whole story? Perhaps someone should tell them how they’re being represented.

Too many questions unanswered in the rush to judgement. Too few reasonable solutions unconsidered. Doubts equal “no” votes in times of economic difficulty.

The SAM funding unnecessarily jeopardizes the needed continuation of the current parks levy - and for the worst of reasons. There is no defense of this funding that passes any smell test I’m aware of - and, frankly, would not want to experience.

I won’t even discuss for now – as I have before - the complex , political machinations that brought what was a simple, well meaning “parks and green spaces for all” levy, with little accompanying controversy - and a good chance of passing in a tough economy - to the edge of defeat.

And how the Green Legacy Coalition - who pushed levy as a means to circumvent the Mayor - were actually used by him to his advantage. They thought they were players - turns out they didn’t know they were played, and by some they thought were their allies!

Nor discuss in depth the levies second biggest funded project at nearly 5 million: Renovations for – you guessed it – still another non parks and recreation building: Langston Hughes. Seems the Committee had so little contact and outreach to the Central District communities that they put this n the list at the last moment for lack of community articulated alternatives: How patronizing to that underserved neighborhood, in dire need of real parks and recreation facilities.

The two biggest project line items in the levy at this moment fund renovations for two cultural buildings – simply because the City doesn’t know where else to get the SAM money nor is able to otherwise address the parks and green needs of the Central District.

This whole process, as the Editorial points out to a degree, shows a real failure of leadership across broad fronts.

The only think I disagree with the PI on is the quality of the process that created the levy: It’s becoming obvious that this was anything but an open, public process, and more like another insider, deal cutting debacle, in spite of the sincere efforts of a minority of Committee Members to prevent this from happening.

However, it’s not to late for some on Council to show some backbone, and kick this money out, and soon; restoring public trust and faith, thus proving, as some newer Council Members are claiming, that it’s no longer “business as usual” at City Hall.

We shall see: Say vs Do.

Never to late to exercise quality leadership.

Time to exercise yours: Email/Call Council and tell them to take the SAM and other non parks money out, thus assuring a fair, equitable true parks and green space levy that the voters will pass.

If Council can’t muster the relatively minor courage required to that, then tell them at least to keep it off the ballot until ‘09, giving more time to find answers to the questions - and more - previously mentioned.

Like to see Mayor Greg “Green” Nickels, up for re-election, be directly confronted with the option of publicly opposing a green parks levy with out SAM funding, instead of manipulating it behind the scenes as he is doing now.

Regards,

Geof

Looking for a final report from the ‘Parks and Green Spaces Levy Citizens’ Advisory Committee’? Well, you’re in luck, you can grab it here.

Some interesting highlights -

Park Land, Facilities or Trail Corridors in Urban Villages and Single Family Neighborhoods - $24 million

Description:
This project will allow for the purchase of land in areas of the Seattle that have been identified by the Seattle Parks and Recreation as having most deficit in its 2006 Development Plan and Gap Analysis.

Urban Villages:
To increase open space in urban villages, this project focuses on those areas where the amount of available open space does not meet City standards in 50 percent or more of the village. Open space could be increased either by acquiring property for new parks, facilities or trail corridors and/or by buying property to expand existing parks, facilities or trail corridors. The 17 urban villages which do not meet City standards in 50 percent or more of the village area are:
  -12th Avenue Urban Center Village
  -Ballard Urban Village
  -Belltown Urban Center Village
  -Bitter Lake Hub Urban Village
  -Capitol Hill Urban Center Village
  -Chinatown-International District Urban Center Village
  -Commercial Core Urban Center Village
  -Denny Triangle Urban Center Village
  -First Hill Urban Center Village
  -Fremont Hub Urban Village
  -Greenwood-Phinney Ridge Residential Urban Village
  -Morgan Junction Residential Urban Village
  -North Rainier Hub Urban Village
  -Ravenna Urban Center Village
  -University Urban Center Village
  -West Seattle Junction Hub Urban Village
  -Westwood-Highland Residential Urban Village

Single Family Areas:
To increase open space in single family areas that do not meet City open space standards, this project allows for the acquisition of property for new parks, facilities or trail corridors. Single family areas that are deficient in open space are:
  -Wedgewood (sic) Neighborhood NE of Dahl Playfield
  -Beach Drive Northwest of Morgan Junction

Below are images of Northgate’s Thornton Place (being constructed by Lorig)- it’s scheduled to be completed this year and is located just south of Northgate Mall.

On this space used to be acres of parking which never seemed to ever fill up with cars - but instead would play host to various RV sales, car electronics blow outs, and traveling carnivals.

But soon it will be a southern extension to Northgate Mall and home to many new homes including; 143 retirement residences, 109 condos, and 278 apartments.

It’s being touted as Seattle’s greenest address? And even though I think Squirrelman’s old house may have given that claim a run for it’s money, it’s way greener than anything being built by the mall’s UVillage competitor.

Just wanted to post this - a nice KCTS piece on the now destroyed Ballard Denny’s.

Hey, check it out. A brand new blog covering the world of Wallingford. One really interesting post here featureda Wallingford neighbor who posts an ‘Upper Wallingford Word of the Week’ on NE 47th St.

There’s a really interesting article in the PI today about the irony of Seattle’s zoning code - where good townhome developments have ended up being good developments because they’ve had to ask for variances from the zoning code that should be encouraging better developments.  

And on the flip side of things, many bad designs occur when four-pack/six pack townhome developers ‘technically’ follow the current zoning code.

Change to this existing code is necessary, and it’s worth fixing now. I like what one local developer quoted in the article suggests: 

The project’s developer, Marty Liebowitz, is unusual, too — he called for a moratorium earlier this month on new projects while city officials overhauled the rules.

And it’s important too because if we change the zoning code without making necessary fixes, here’s what Sally Clark says will happen:

The challenge is to free townhouses from the current box of mediocrity without granting irresponsible developers license to inflict new horrors on neighborhoods, said City Councilwoman Sally Clark, who is chairwoman of the council’s planning, land use and neighborhoods committee and organized the forum.

Anyway, cheers to those who aren’t willing to be satisfied with bad code, and are willing to stand up with solutions for making it better.

Now I know the blogger’s kryptonite - nice weather! It’s hard to get online when the sun is finally out. So…with that in mind, sorry about the lateness of this post.

Last week I briefly stopped by a meeting of the Parks and Green Spaces Levy Citizen’s Advisory Committee’s final public hearing. You can get the entire meeting notes here.  But if you want a quick summary of what the public thinks - parks are a very emotional issue - the public thinks about quality of life, improving the environment and reducing the pressures of city life.

However the reality of any public effort is that there is only so much money to go around.

So, here’s what’s being reduced and what’s being considered to the list of projects that would be included in the levy. You can see the list here.

Projects Removed
- Langston Hughes Performing Arts Center - $5 million
- Bathhouse Theatre - $1 million
- Citywide Bicycle Facilities - $1.35 million

Reduced Funding
- Northgate Urban Center Park – reduction from $3.2 million to $2.5 million
Total Savings - $8.05 million

And here were the projects considered for addition to the levy:

Projects Considered for Additions

-Increasing acquisition by $5 million
-Increase shoreline by $500K
-Increase forest and stream restoration by $500k
-Increase green space acquisition by $2 million
-Increase funding for Magnuson Park by $2.75 million
-Lake City Acquisition $1 million
-Seattle Chinese Garden $500k
-Belltown Acquisition $3 million
-Off-leash Dog Areas - Magnolia / QA $70k
-Off-leash Dog Areas - Queen Anne $70k
-U-Heights $2.5 million
-Tree inventory $1 million
-Jefferson Park $3.6 million
-Discovery Park $500k
-Denny Park $500k
-Northeast Queen Trail Project $200k
-Opportunity Fund $5 million
-Carkeek Park Acquisition $180k
-Maple Leaf / Waldo Acquisition $5 million
-Restore neighborhood playgrounds $1.35 million
-Waterway #1 at Laurelhurst $50k

Industrial Area Park Acquisitions $2million
-Downtown/SODO Street Parks $2 million
-Pools - Study + UV $1 million
-I-5 Colonnade $250k
-14th Ave W - Ballard $1 million

Grand Total for all of this
$41.52 million

(photos from the meeting)

That PT Cruiser parked at the top of this S. Seattle driveway could really do some damage lower down the hill (as indicated by the arrow) if it backed out too fast.

Anyway, too bad our local Master Builder’s Association doesn’t have a ‘Zoning Contortionist’ Awards program - I bet these townhomes could win an award. 

Edith Macefield, the 84-year old Ballard resident who refused to sell her home to developers, passed away this Sunday. You can read more at MyBallard.com.

We’ll miss you Edith.

(MyBallard.com photo)

Safe Walks is a growing coalition of neighborhoods from across the City of Seattle. We are advocating for additional funding for critical sidewalks and crosswalks throughout the city.

We are especially focused on neighborhoods that lack sufficient infrastructure in the north and south ends of our city. And, we are asking for priority to be given to projects that rate high in the Seattle Department of Transportation priority rating system that takes into account factors such as a project proximity to schools, parks, arterials and urban villages.

City Councilmembers and pedestrian safety organizations with whom we have spoken have been very receptive to having a dialogue on these issue. And, they seem happy to see neighborhoods working together.

We are working with Councilmember Nick Licata to plan a forum on pedestrian safety and critical sidewalks and crosswalks in mid-July. More information will be available on the forum soon.

We have set up a Google Group for Safe Walks and invite all who are interested to consider joining us. Learn more at: http://groups.google.com/group/safe-walks

Thank you so much!

Renee

I’ve been working on a post to see how much neighborhoods pay in the long run when a development as a whole is able to wriggle around design review - and one of the most well-publicized examples of this recently was a 13-unit West Seattle townhome development built by Soleil Development.

The West Seattle Herald, Seattle Times and West Seattle Blog all wrote about how this townhome development as a whole largely avoided design review by taking advantage of a loophole in Seattle’s zoning code called ‘micropermitting‘ (which the proposed multi-family zoning update still doesn’t address).

(The WestSeattleBlog.com image below shows what this Soleil development looks like.)

The West Seattle Herald summed up negative impacts of this development not going through design review as:  

A 13-unit townhouse development under construction in the Gatewood neighborhood is raising hackles among neighbors who claim the developer flew under the city’s regulatory radar by dividing the project into three seemingly separate projects.

Had the Gatewood development been more thoroughly scrutinized by the city, Soleil would have to make improvements to the public infrastructure around the site such as better sidewalks, storm-water detention and street trees, Oustimovitch said. Probably the biggest environmental impacts of the project will be on traffic and parking, he said.

The developer might also have had to stabilize a 22-foot-tall bluff just east of the site. Perhaps a view corridor would’ve been required so passersby could still see an old log cabin that neighbors call the hunting lodge, Oustimovitch said.

Okay, great, this article helps my future post by providing some really good examples of infrastructure improvements the neighborhood (ie you, a city taxpayer) may end up having to pay for in the long run because this project as a whole did not go through design review.  

I then went over to Soleil’s web site to try and find out more about this townhome development, but wasn’t able to find more about it (maybe I’m just not looking in the right place). However, while reading about their other developments I did find something that I found to be a bit ironic - their description of the neighborhood benefits of their cottage properties.    

Our Cottages -Preserving Neighborhood Flavor
Our cottage projects have been specifically designed to integrate harmoniously into their single family neighborhoods. These in-city developments meet the need for more urban housing as well as fitting the character and feel of the neighborhood. Built on a smaller scale than the townhouse, our cottages are only 17-20 feet high versus 35 feet high, benefiting the whole dynamic of street appearances and property values in the area.

To me this kind of says that they are well aware of the benefits of lower height buildings within neighborhood settings - and how carefully designing buildings to fit into a neighborhood can both meet the needs of density and preserving neighborhood character at the same time. 

So, I went back to the Soleil site and found a townhome of theirs at 4117 SW Morgan Street. From the photo below the development looks to be in a neighborhood with a single-family home as its neighbor. The building also looks to be about 30-35 feet tall. So, if one were to apply their cottage projects benefits statement to this building could one assume that this townhome of theirs neither benefits the whole dynamic of street appearances nor benefits property values in the area as much as it would have if it were 17-20 feet high?

This all makes me wonder, if even a developer who is skilled at leveraging zoning codes understands the benefits of more thoughtful, lower height new development in neighborhoods - why is the multifamily zoning update rewarding developers who have been very skillful at finding zoning loopholes to build even higher in the future (35+ feet). Shouldn’t we first focus on closing down the zoning loopholes so we don’t encourage even bigger problems? 

(Soleil townhome development - 4117 SW Morgan Street) 

Have something to say about the upcoming SR 520 bridge replacement, or just want to learn more?
Well, you’re in luck, there are two open houses this week where you can have the opportunity to find out more.

Seattle
Tuesday June 24, 4-7pm
Naval Reserve Building - South Lake Union
860 Terry Ave N

Bellevue
Wednesday June 25, 4-7pm
Bellevue City Hall
450 110th Ave NE
WSDOT’s web site also has additional info. 

I have to admit it, I haven’t always had the best relationship with PCC. When I moved to Seattle from the Midwest way back in the 90s I got a snooty response when I asked where the Doritors were (hey, I lived in Central Illinois - how would I know what a specialty grocery store was? At the time I hadn’t even heard of organic food.), and last time I was there I *gasp* took a call on my cell phone and got lots of frowny-face looks. So…that’s why I have a feeling this may rub some people the wrong way.

When PCC’s  announced that it was saving paper by introducing double-sided receipt printing, I thought, you know, that’s nice, but it seems like a pretty minor issue. The big issue that would be great for PCC to solve is - reducing the number of cars that customers drive to PCC.

So, I’d like to make a suggestion - why not encourage your members to pay $1 each time they drive to PCC to shop. You could make it optional (but still kind of make it so people feel bad about themselves if they don’t pay - think collection baskets at church), and you could apply the funds to groups that help reduce carbon emissions.

I guess you could also take the ‘carrot’ approach and give those who say they took the bus, walked, or biked to PCC a discount on their bill. Anyway, those are just the thoughts of a cell phone user who every once in awhile can still enjoy a handful of Doritos.

(Note: yes, I know it’s ironic that this photo of cars in the View Ridge PCC parking lot was taken while I was in my car)

Don’t get me wrong, I’m extremely happy with my bus ride to work (especially considering it has wi-fi), but right now the bus is stuck in super-slow-moving traffic along with all the other cars - and I just feel compelled to mention that trains don’t usually suffer from this same affliction.