Seattle City Council, Committee on the Built Environment, and You

There is an important letter to Seattle City Council members floating around the community and it may apply to your neighborhood someday just as much as it applies to the current Roosevelt Legislative Rezone.

For clarity:
A legislative rezone is usually proposed by the city or a neighborhood to change zoning on a larger portion of the city or neighborhood.
AND
A contract rezone is a rezone by an individual or entity to rezone property under their control for a specific purpose.
See CAM228.

The Three High School Blocks:

1. Fruit Stand block 8 parcels all owned by Hugh Sisely.
2. Middle block 10 parcels 6 owned by Hugh Sisley, 1 owned by Roosevelt Group, 3 owned by other individuals.
3. West block 9 parcels 5 owned by Brooklyn Court LLC (Jerry Jandacka, Sisley’s son-in-law) 4 owned by others.
   Parcels in yellow are owned by Sisley, RDG, or Brooklyn Court.
   
   

   Legislative or contract rezone?

   During a recent COBE meeting Council Member Harrell and Council Member/Committee Chair Clark tried to come to an understanding about how the City Council should handle neighborhood input re zoning issues.

   I understand that Council Member Clark wanted to divide up the neighborhood to make the discussions fit the limited time frames of committee meetings. But I agree with Council Member Harrell, that the legislative rezone should address the entire impact on a neighborhood, transit or not.

   Here is a 4+ minute video clip of that segment of the meeting. You may want to send a copy of the letter below (or some version of it)to Council Members, no matter what neighborhood you live in. Seattle will only be a great city if the inhabitants of Seattle are involved and active in its growth.
   

   Feel free to use all or part of the sentiment expressed below. Also, make use of the comment section here to express your opinion. Coming to a consensus on how the neighborhood will grow is an important part of the City Council process. While they may mean well to construct a list of how they think achieving community values should be implemented, telling them specifically what we have agreed on is an important part of the process. Write to them today.

   SAMPLE LETTER:
   RE: Conflicts of Interest

   Committee on the Built Environment

   Dear Council Member:

   We recent wrote to point out the terrible injustice that is occurring as you allow the financial interest of a developer to outweigh the needs of a community. The developer is providing drawings and reports through their architect (GGLO) that distort and misrepresent information to sway you toward voting for 65’ tall structures along the south boundary of Roosevelt High School. This letter is intended to help demonstrate some examples of their misrepresentations in hopes that you realize you have been purposefully led to believe things that are not true for an outcome that will be neither fair nor just. Bad information leads to bad decisions.

   First, the Council should not forget the premise. The Sustainable, Livable Roosevelt (SLR) plan was created with one major goal – to add so much density that density critics would stop complaining as long as it preserved 40’ maximum on the High School blocks: that was the primary goal. The SLR plan was an alternative to the Mayor’s Plan, not a supplement. The Mayor’s plan did not take into account the character, mores, values, goals, and vision of the neighborhood and the pattern in which they wanted to grow. Roosevelt did not want to add more density as it already complied with every target, study, and report cited by the City. So it was a trade off. It was noted by Roosevelt that studies also show that if you add density without any amenities such as open spaces, parks, view corridors, etc. it would be a recipe for disaster. So wider sidewalks, view corridors, open space, increased setbacks should be legislated outright as part of the increased density: it has nothing to do with 40’ or 65’. Council members Clark, Burgess, and Bagshaw seem to be bent on taking all that over-the-top SLR density and then adding insult by also pushing 65’ on the High School blocks. Again, it was clear that the SLR plan was an alternative, not a supplement.

   The Committee on the Built Environment published the GGLO reports online and provided copies for entire City Council. Examples of why the information is suspect:

   Only one option was presented for a 40’ building. There are several things wrong with that.
   First – this should be just like Design review wherein they would have to submit a minimum of three proposals for the 40’ buildings. Providing just one is not proper in any forum unless you want the outcome to be 65’ tall buildings.
   Second, just because code allows something, doesn’t mean they get it carte blanche – that’s the whole reason the City has a Design Review processes. The City Council is currently reviewing as if they were the Design Review Board in this case and should demand that all 40’ schemes reflect wide sidewalks, a greenway on 66th, and a massing that reflects the importance of the Landmarked high school building. Design Review Boards would demand all that and they have less power than the City Council. The Council needs to step up and act with more concern.
   Third, the Council can mandate whatever is appropriate; wider sidewalks, view corridors, and green streets whether a zone is 40’ or 65’. This is a Legislative Rezone. As pointed out already, these elements should be included outright in any drawing or concept. The Council must stop confusing these design parameters as being in exchange for giving a private developer whatever they want. They are not the main attraction: they are a side show of the more important business of the people, the Neighborhood Plan.
   The developer shows depictions of the 40’ site plan without trees on 65th and 15th. They show the 65’ tall buildings with the upper 20’ of their 65’ buildings as white elements – light and airy. The developer shows brick on the 65’ tall building, but it is oddly missing on the 40’ buildings. A Design Review Board and the public would call them on that, why isn’t the Council acting with concern and crying foul?
   The developer shows more modulation on the 65’ tall buildings than the 40’ buildings. Flat facades are not a right in this City, design review boards enforce that and GGLO knows that just as we do. Shouldn’t the Council have objected?
   The developers report that incentive zoning (affordable housing requirements) kick in only if they build to 65’. We do not concur. It is our understanding that any upzones past what exists now are subject to incentive zoning. Also, this is not a benefit provided by the developer as the SLR plan adds so much incentive zoning and affordable housing you should be applauding that feat rather than glossing over it.
   GGLO’s report (again noting that they stand to gain $1,000,000 in design fees if they are successful in convincing you to vote for 65’) reports open space calculations. However, this open space is not all for the public; it includes above grade spaces that will never be accessed by the public. The Council should be as offended as we are that the developer threatens that they would build out property line to property line in a 40’ building – the Design Review Board would laugh at that, so should the Council.
   GGLO’s report shows the advantages of their options when compared to the neighborhood’s goals. Those are not the neighborhood’s goals – the neighborhood was crystal clear that they were accepting higher densities in the core areas to preserve the portion of their neighborhood plan that called for 40’ maximum on the High School blocks – an element of the Neighborhood Plan for more than 15 years!

   Demand better information form objective people. Please toss out the GGLO materials and start over with something based more on reality than the smoke-and-mirrors of a developer working hard to convince you to make them rich at the expense of the neighborhoods that elected you.

   Sincerely,
   Cut and paste these addresses into your To: field:
   sally.clark@seattle.gov, jean.godden@seattle.gov, tim.burgess@seattle.gov, richard.conlin@seattle.gov, nick.licata@seattle.gov, bruce.harrell@seattle.gov, mike.obrien@seattle.gov, tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov, sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov

   Advertisement