Will the Space Needle Views Disappear? Will Lake Union still be in view? Changes to building zoning that could allow 300ft towers to be built between Denny Way & Lake Union are being considered by the City of Seattle.

What can you do?

                        1. Learn about building height options being considered by viewing the Seattle Department of Planning & Development (DPD) website, South Lake Union page @ www.seattle.gov/DPD/Planning/South_Lake_Union/Overview

                        2. Attend the DPD Public Meeting on the alternatives to be studied for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on

Tuesday, Jan 26th, 2010 5:30 – 7:30pm

@ Seattle Unity Church/ 200 8th Avenue N.

                        3. Join the Lake Union Opportunity Alliance (LUOA) mailing list to find out about important meetings and announcements @ www.LUOA.org

                        4. Voice your opinion by sending an email to each Seattle City

Council Member. Email addresses can be found @

cityofseattle.net/council/councilcontact.htm

Lake Union Opportunity Alliance
Working together to ensure our neighborhood is a wonderful place to live and work Questions? Please contact: John Pehrson (206.254.1570) or Diane Masson (206.254.1444)

LUOA Advocacy Position Is:

1.     Do a comprehensive Urban Plan and Design on what kind of community we want and what public amenities will be included and how they will be funded, before setting the zoning.  The current city planning seems to be doing it backwards, define the zoning and then maybe we’ll add the public amenities.  That backwards approach hasn’t worked in Belltown, why would we believe it would work in SLU.

2.     Eliminate the City’s Alternatives #1 and #2 – they would rezone all of South Lake Union (SLU) outside of Cascade to either 300’ or 400’ and even upzone Cascade to 160’.  This would create a ‘mountain of concrete’, 3/4 mile long and 1/2 mile wide, that  would be up to 100’ taller than the top of Capitol Hill and Queen Anne.  They would potentially add up to 130 towers of 300’ or 400’ height. These alternatives are inconsistent with the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, the SLU Neighborhood Plan and the comments of 80 to 90% of the public.  These alternatives have been criticized in writing by the Space Needle Corporation, Washington State Department of Transportation – Aviation Divison, the Floating Home Association, and about 30 individuals.

3.     Include the LUOA Alternative that has 240’ height only along Denny Way, steeply steps down to 40’ at Lake Union, and includes provisions for public amenities, view corridors, green streets and a active center  for the neighborhood.

Here is our proposed zoning map (click to make it bigger):

UW Phase III Passes

It is with great regret that I inform you that the City Council voted 7 to 1to approve the Vulcan/UW Text Amendment for the increase in height for Phase III.  Voting ‘no’ was Nick Licata. Bruce Harrell abstained as his wife is on the UW Board of Regents.  With this action, that becomes the law.  Tom Rasmussen offered a compromise amendment that would limit the height to 105’ (compared to the currently allowed 85’), but it was defeated 6 to 2 (Licata and Rasmussen voted in favor).  This would match the zoning directly south of the block.  We have stated that we would support this compromise which seemed like a win-win.   Sally Bagshaw sponsored some amendments that cut the height limit from 125’  to 120’ and added requirements for some pedestrian amenities, open space and public art.  These passed and marginally helped.

On behalf of the LUOA Board, I want to express my appreciation for all the support we received from you.  So many came to our meetings in September 2009 (about 50) and January 2010 (about 90).  In addition, an amazing number of you emailed the Council.  I have heard that the Council has received for over 30 emails from you in opposition to the Text Amendment by Friday morning and more since.  It is disappointing that efforts and rational arguments of ordinary citizens did not carry the weight that power and money of Vulcan and UW did.  I hope the LUOA information has been useful to you and that you found it to be factual.

But we must carry on and defend the interests of those of us who work, live and worship in SLU, as even more significant decisions will be made over the next year on the future of SLU.  The next big activity is the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on South Lake Union rezoning to include greater height, density and development potential.  The City will be holding a meeting on this on January 26^th, starting at 5:30PM in the Seattle Unity Church at 200 8^th Avenue at John Street.  At that meeting the City will brief us of the their study plans and alternatives, and you can express your views.  We, the LUOA Board, will be there representing our views.  We are very concerned with the Alternatives the City has selected and disappointed that they have not selected the Alternative that LUOA suggested, which has been supported overwhelmingly by citizen comments.   Please come and make your own decision and then express your opinion on what the future of SLU should be.  Make your voice heard.

In closing, I’d like to thank you again all for your support and your action.  I truly regret that our strategy did not prevail.  We all knew it would be an uphill battle, when the City Staff, Vulcan, and UW were aligned against us.  I naively thought that logic, persistence and Citizen participation, along with responsible, civil behavior would prevail.  Apparently I was wrong.  We must do all of that and more during 2010.

Sincerely,

John Pehrson, President
Lake Union Opportunity Alliance
206-254-1570

UM Medical Phase III – LUOA Opinion

Why a text amendment?

• Should it be a Contract Rezone?
• One property owner, one client. Should it be quasi-judicial not legislative? 
• Is it legal?
• Is criteria valid or just reverse engineered?

What’s the Land involved and Why?

• Initially one block, one property owner, one client and Client was even at the PLUNC table
• Now criteria that does not seem to relate to requested change, is it reverse engineered?
• How many blocks are really involved or potentially involved?

This is the WRONG way to do neighborhood planning

• Whole community currently involved in Urban Design Framework and this violates results to date
• EIS planned for 2010
• This makes a mockery of that process and assumes an answer to that multi-year process

Impact on Community

• Current Context 1 – 2 floor buildings plus Veer Lofts  + Amazon + Lake Union + Lake Union Park
• Potential build out to 65’ and 85’
• Need DPD to provide 3D view of potential build out
• Impact on Veer Lofts residents who did due diligence

Why not build out Phase III within the rules?

• Don’t try to put on smaller block what fit on a larger block
• Build out to current rules and regulations per Phase II
• Client can’t afford more than 144,000 sq ft now not 430,000 sq ft
• Noblesse Obliege

This proposal contains no significant public benefits commensurate with a height increase of 47% (or compared to non R & D buildings 92 to 115%)

• This is a 50% increase in height
• This is a 50% increase in bulk
• Open space is primarily a light well and tenant improvement and not of value to public
• What is the community getting?
  

Why a text amendment? Should it be a Contract Rezone? Should it be quasi-judicial not legislative?  Is it legal?

Is this Spot Rezoning that is considered illegal in Washington?

We are not lawyers or big companies that can hire land use attorneys to argue our case or interpret the law for you, but let us raise a couple of issues.

This is a huge height change that was initiated for one block, for one property owner, and for one client.  For the initial PLUNC Committee meeting that client (UW) was even at the ‘table’.  It has great value to the property owner as it puts on their lot the same square feet of space that is now on a lot 24% larger.  One can only assume that part of that increase in value is reflected in the land value.  Has the City asked that question and if it is so, why hasn’t the City asked for an incentive bonus.

Why was the definition of the applicability of this text amendment changed?  It started out as defined for a single block, bounded by Mercer, Dexter, Republican and 8^th Avenue.  That is at least understandable and unambiguous.  Now it is defined as:

Location.  Structures may be developed above a height of 65 feet as

provided for in subsection A provided, the structure is located on a block

that is: designated SM-65 in the zoning code,  bounded by arterial-

designated streets on at least two sides, is greater than 60,000 square

feet in size and does not exceed 100,000 square feet in size, and is not

bisected by alleys or other public rights of way.

Can you really believe that was the basic criteria for selection of these blocks or is it a way to mask asking for a zoning change for one property owner?  That some planner in DPD was sitting at his desk and said now if these conditions are met we should change the allowable building height to 140’ in the middle of an area zoned 65’ for all the blocks in SLU where they are applicable?   No, the only explanation I can come up with was there was a legal concern about identifying this huge economic benefit for one property owner and one user.  Maybe I’m wrong, but you should ask for an explanation.

Maybe this should be a Contract Rezone?  Maybe it should be a rezone that goes through the whole process.

The City has said “The text amendment, contrary to a rezone, does not permit any new uses that are not currently permitted, does not allow for more intensive use of the property than current zoning allows (it limits FAR to that currently allowed by existing zoning), and advances Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plan goals. 

This is a more intensive use of the property than the current zoning.  Can anyone with a straight face say a building that is 125’(maybe 140’) in height is no more intensive (to the public) than a building 85’ in height with the same external profile? 

We understand that Local legislative bodies acting on private applications for rezoning are judicial rather than legislative actions.  Although in form this is an action that was initiated by DPD, in fact is it not a private application relating to one property owner and one client.  Wasn’t in fact the one client at the table with the planning committee at the first hearing.   Why isn’t this a JUDICAL action and not a LEGISLATIVE action?

You should at least question the use of the Text Amendment.

As far as the Neighborhood Plan, this change violates more strategies in the SLU Neighborhood Plan than it supports.

One of the rationales for the height is their use of FAR.  They justify the FAR of 5 by saying there is no FAR limit for S/M 65 and with 10’ floor to floor dimensions that would support an FAR of about 5 or 6.  Then they jump to say but we need 15’ floor to floor dimensions so with an FAR of 5 we should be able to enclose 50% more volume and a 50% increase in the ‘form’ of the building and that will take 7 or 8 floors with our smaller floor plate sizing to meet our requirements.  In my experience FAR is used to limit bulk, with flexibility, but never to increase height.  These creative people are breaking new ground.  Question them on where FAR has been used to increase height, and considering ‘form based zoning’ isn’t a building 125’ (or 140’) in height more intensive that one that is 65’ or 85’ or even 105’?

What’s the Land involved and Why?

The text amendment defines the property where this up zone is applicable as follows:
Location.  Structures  may be developed above a height of 65 feet as

provided for in subsection A provided, the structure is located on a block

that is: designated SM-65 in the zoning code,  bounded by arterial-

designated streets on at least two sides, is greater than 60,000 square

feet in size and does not exceed 100,000 square feet in size, and is not

bisected by alleys or other public rights of way. 

We were assured this only covered this one block.  However, we looked at the zoning map and the streets that were ‘arterials’ and the blocks sizes and saw the potential for up to six other blocks. 

1. The City has mentioned the block between 9^th Avenue and Westlake Avenue and between Republican and Mercer Streets that only needs an alley vacation.
2. The block bounded by Mercer, Westlake, Broad and ninth seems to meet this criteria and is across the street from Lake Union and Lake Union Park!!! 
3. The block bounded by Mercer, Broad, Ninth Avenue, and Westlake appears to meet those criteria now.
4. The block bounded by Dexter, 8^th, Valley and Roy seem to meet those criteria now. 
5. The ‘tear drop site’ is too small now, but when Broad Street is vacated, the resultant block would qualify and increase its land value. 
6. In a similar way the block bounded by Dexter, Republican, Aurora, and Mercer might qualify after Board Street is vacated and that land sold for private development. 

You should ask what really is covered now and could potentially be covered in the future?  Do you want 125’ buildings across the street from Lake Union and Lake Union Park?  Do you want this zoning to 125’ (really 140’) that is at least 3 blocks away from similar zoning to the south along Denny Way?

But be that as it may, how can you connect the criteria with relaxing the height limits from 65’ in height (85’ for R & D) to 125’ in height with 65% roof coverage to 15’ or 140’ and that right at the property line.  The criteria states 2 sides have arterial streets, but the other two sides could have narrow, quiet, pedestrian streets like 8^th Avenue, and this text amendment allows 125’ walls on that kind of street.  Similar issues arise with the other blocks in question.  It appears to us the criteria was ‘reverse engineered’ to cover the block in interest and as an unintended consequence covers 6 more blocks!  Ask DPD about this.

 

 

 

This is the WRONG way to do neighborhood planning

It throws water in the face of the currently ongoing South Lake Union Urban Design Framework, which is being led by the City of Seattle itself. The neighborhood groups involved with this effort include the South Lake Union Chamber of Commerce, South Lake Union Friends & Neighbors (SLUFAN), Lake Union Opportunity Alliance (LUOA), the Cascade Neighborhood Council (CNC), Vulcan and other landowners, and other civic interests.  This group is attempting to form a consensus around changes to neighborhood zoning, and if the city council and landowners are going to develop a neighborhood plan block-by-block as they see fit, then we’re all wasting our time.

The South Lake Union Urban Design Framework process will culminate in an EIS process with extended environmental impact studies, multiple public hearings and opportunity for public input, mitigation studies to ease those impacts, hearings before the City Council and then a City Council vote with Mayoral approval.  This text amendment is a mockery of that process.
Impact on Community

Current Context

For the present, with three exceptions, the building form in the area is one or two floor of light industrial or retail or commercial.  The three exceptions are:

1. UW  Phase I and II, which is 65’ high or 85’( with an addition 15’ over 65% of the roof) but at the property line the height is 65 or 85’
2. Veer Lofts a new Vulcan Condo that is ½ block SE and is 65’ high.
3. The Amazon project buildings that are 2 blocks to the east and are 65’ high.

Also, interestingly, only 2 blocks to the NE is Lake Union and the Lake Union Park.

This text amendment (as it is being used by the applicant) has buildings 140’ high at the property line, essentially encircling a open space/light well, without set backs or green space at the periphery, without transitions in Height, Bulk and Scale to the current surrounding buildings of 1 or 2 floors.

It can only be considered out of scale with the existing Context (buildings) and should have some transition requirements to the less intensive existing neighborhood.

Also remember we do not operate in a vacuum.  What do you think is the impact of this action on adjacent property owners?  If Vulcan and UW can get a rezone to 140’ on S/M 65, in the eyes of the law I’m as good as them and I should get a similar rezone.   For example, what do you think the property owners that are trying to sell their property next to the 160’ high Amazon buildings are saying about what’s possible on their land?   They are saying it’s  zoned for 85’ but across the street Vulcan and Amazon got the zoning to 160’. If you have questions you might ask?  This is a precedent.  Is that what how you want to do land Use planning?

Future Context

This block and surrounding blocks are zoned S/M 65 (N, W, E) and S/M 85 (S). S/M 65 zoning (other than R & D) can have roof coverage of 15% so max height is really 65’.  For S/M 85 (other than R  & D) the effective max height is 85’.   Also, only 2 blocks to the ENE the zoning is S/ 40 between Valley and Mercer, much less intensive zoning.

Also, interestingly, only 2 blocks to the NE is Lake Union and the Lake Union Park.

Again, this text amendment (as being applied by this applicant) has buildings 140’ high at the property line, essentially encircling a open space/light well, without set backs or green space at the periphery, without transitions in Height, Bulk and Scale.  Compared to the surrounding zoning this text amendment allows on this one block buildings essentially twice what can be built around it in the future.

DPD has 3D projections of what this neighbor might look like to you with the current zoning and built out to that, so you could see graphically the impact of putting this building in the middle of these building potentials.  Delay your vote until DPD shows these to you and the public.  That is only appropriate.  What area they hiding?  Then and only then can you make an informed decision.

 

How do you think this looks to a responsible buyer of a condo in Veer Lofts that did ‘due diligence’ and found out the zoning in the neighborhood was consistent with his or her buy.   Now, powerful people and interests are building outside those rules about twice that high and with noisy ventilation on the roof aimed at them?

Why not build out Phase III within the rules?

First there is an example of that across 8^th Avenue in the Phase I and II UW facility.   It includes about 430,000 square feet on a block of 105,000 square feet.  To the best of our knowledge it is a functioning facility and nothing that Vulcan or UW has said is to the contrary.  Why not duplicate that in this smaller lot, albeit reduced in size commensurate with the size and value of the property.  The lot proposed for rezone is 89,000 square feet, a reduction of about 15%, so we would expect that it could accommodate about 365,000 square feet.

However, Vulcan and UW say they need 430,000 square feet, but in no way justify that number.  Actually their proposal undercuts the validity of that number.  They say they do not now have the need or the money for that 430,000 square feet, but can only afford and can only use about 144,000 square feet.  Some time in the undefined future they might have the need for that extra space, but that time is not defined or justified.  I understand a requirement to be a need that someone has with enough money to consummate that need.

Ask them to show the City what they can do living within the rules, regulations and code to at least meet their documented needs (144,000 square feet).  That is what we are asking others to do and why that cannot be accommodated with the current rules, regulations and codes that everybody else is required to follow.

I was taught “Noblesse Oblige”, the responsibility of the those in power, those who are powerful, to follow the rules. Well, the UW,  Vulcan and City Government are certainly powerful.  Are they setting a good example or one of arrogance, while the rest of us follow the rules?  There are those, who bow to those in power and say yes.  We choose to try to represent the public good as we see in spite of that power.

This proposal contains no significant public benefits commensurate with a height increase of 47% (or compared to non R & D buildings 92 to 115%)

•  
  • This project does not include incentive zoning bonuses, which is a loss of revenue to the neighborhood for Low Income Housing or Public Amenities).   Why is that, while allowing height and bulk increases of about 50% or more.
  • The only proposed green space is available through a 30 foot wide corridor through the center of three 125 foot tall buildings to an open space that has nothing to draw the public and is primarily a light well for the interior offices and labs. Although it might be landscaped beautifully, it will look and feel like a canyon devoid of people.  It will be much narrower and with higher walls than the open space for Phase I and II.
  • There are no setback requirements, and no podium height requirements.  The developer will do what they want with this space, up to a full block building of 125 feet and with the 65% coverage to an additional 15’ tor140’ (in the case of UW Phase III design with 140’ walls directly on the property line).  This is a terrible streetscape environment.  It is particularly negative on narrower and quieter streets like Republican and 8^th Avenue.
  • At the end of the day, what are the City of Seattle and her residents getting for this change? Why are we doing this? Continuing to make changes to existing zoning for a single landowner reeks of favoritism.

MINUTES: LUOA PUBLIC MEETING OF MEMBERS

9/21/2009

 

            The LUOA Public Meeting of Members was held at Cascade Peoples Center in the SLU Cascade neighborhood on Monday, Sept 21, 2009 at 7 P.M.  All Board members  were present except Tim Soerens.   In total, there were some 49 attendees at the meeting.   

            John Pehrson opened the meeting and introduced the agenda.

            Diane invited everyone to attend two events at Mirabella: The Candidate Forum on 9/29, 7:00 PM, and the SLU Neighborhood Update on 10/7 featuring speakers from the Hutchison Cancer Center, UW and City Light

.

The proposed Seattle City Light Substation

            Michael Clark, Project Engineer for the City Light Substation provided an excellent update on the status of the $200 million project.  He addressed the questions of Why, Where and When.  After establishing several strict, comprehensive criteria for the location, an advantageous site had been purchased in the SE corner of Cascade Neighborhood on Blocks 13 and 19 between Denny and John south to north and between Minor and Yale west to east.  The intervening “dog-leg” of Pontius would be closed between the two blocks, providing ample room for the construction, staging and shielding from the neighborhood during construction.  Since these two blocks exceed the space requirements for the substation, part of the space after the completion of the project may become available to the public and/or may allow a reconstitution of Pontius directly south of John.  The needs, advantageous and outcomes of the project were delineated.  The wires and cable will be underground several blocks from the building.  The building will be an anticipated 2-2/1/2 stories high and will be compact and designed to optimize the visual appearance.  Citing the station in this dense and rapidly developing area posed many challenges, especially with respect to the north portal of the viaduct tunnel.  He found it difficult to predict a starting date but suggested 2-3 years. 

             Q&A followed the presentation.

 

South Lake Union Urban Design Framework Group  (UDFG)

            Marshall Foster, city planner in the Mayor’s Office of Policy Management, discussed the goals and accomplishments of UDFG to date.   He has led the effort to establish a professional, conceptual and visual framework for development of SLU along with extensive pro bono consultation from Dan Foltz and associates with the Weber Thompson architectural firm.  Other architects have also participated along with representatives of several city departments and community interest groups.  This framework, which will provide an overall, general scheme for  a balanced, livable and affordable (both from standpoint of city and residents) neighborhood, will be used to inform the subsequent EIS process, city design boards and city council. 

            He offered some history behind the emergence of SLU to its present status as one of the 7 Urban Villages to increase density in order to accommodate the anticipated in-city growth as mandated by the state.  50% of future urban growth is to occur in these areas.  SLU in its 380 acres is projected to provide for 16,000 new jobs and 8,000 new households over the next 20 years, and this goal may be doubled by the city.  The basis for the UDFG, as ostensibly for any city planning for the area, is based upon the SLU Neighborhood Plan, devised by stakeholders of the area that was accepted by the City Council in 2004 and updated in 2007.  UDFG is trying to distill the best and most coherent features of this and other plans that have been developed over the years

            He gave examples of the direction SLUDGE was moving.

1. Any zoning changes should require definite incentive benefits in line with the UDFG .  According to current codes, heights above 85 ft give stakeholders the prerogative of determining a mix of housing and non-housing benefits in a 60:40 ratio.  The challenge is to secure family and affordable housing.  Low rise should be in the mix. 
2. Focus on land use relationships, transportation, housing and infra-structure.
3. Entry to the neighborhood from Mercer, Stewart, Denny and Dexter would be made easier and more obvious for cars and pedestrians. East-west connections are becoming possible with the north portal design of the proposed viaduct replacement tunnel. View corridor protection of Lake Union for Fairview, Boren, Westlake and possibly John.  Green street designation for Thomas and others.  Moving parking garages away from street fronts and behind buildings.
4. Cascade Neighborhood would remain residential.  A residential emphasis would also be directed to the Denny Park/8^th Avenue area with encouragement of stoops, front yards and court yards.  Commercial development would be emphasized to the east of Westlake to Fairview.  The current Seattle Parks Dept. office could be a future community center for SLU as well as Belltown, Uptown, Denny Triangle and Queen Anne.  Become pro-active in identifying and securing disposable city properties for community uses.
5. SLU Park will become a regional draw.  A “tear-drop” parcel of city land between Dexter and Valley could be the site for a school or library. 

           

            In the Q&A, concern was registered that current development in SLU already threatened to nullify many aspects of design framework.  Marshall saw the framework coming online in early 2010.  One speaker applauded separating commercial from retail development.  Marshall deferred answers to questions about height contending this was a separate track from the UDFG mandate per se and would have to be seen in the entire context of urban form and incentive zoning opportunities and requirements.  He did state that incentivized height would be expected to pay for much of the amenities and infrastructure.  He also added that the city currently lacked funding for an EIS, but that heights would be viewed in the light of the mitigations contained in the UDFG proposals. 

 

UW/Vulcan Phase III Development

            On hand to present the case for the UW phase III expansion of their biotech campus in SLU were Phil Fuji, Vulcan architect and consultant to UW, and Victoria Buckley, a Vulcan Project Manager for UW.   On the original block (site of the “Blue Flame” building), Phase I was completed in 2004 and Phase II in 2008 with two buildings 85 ft and 5-6 stories high providing 420,000sq ft. of research and infrastructure space.   These buildings remained within the established FM 65 code due to exceptions for height given to research laboratories.    The block for Phase III, also owned by Vulcan and leased to UW, is immediately to the  west, bounded by Mercer, 8^th Ave, Republican and Dexter Ave.  Phil presented the case for the UW to increase the height of three buildings to be built in stages on this block from the current FM 65 to 125 ft. through a text amendment to the city zoning code.   He contended that since the proposed block for Phase III unexpectedly proved to be 20% smaller than the block for Phase I-II, the three buildings would have to be7-8 stories high to provide the same research space and amenities.  An alternative would be a lower but bulky building that would not support sequential development or open spaces between the buildings. 

            He reminded the audience that the present UW facility engages in a wide array of research from stem cells to obesity, and is regarded by the city as a key element in the envisioned biotech center in SLU, employing 1200 people.

             The UW will present its request for zoning change in a text amendment to the city code in imminent hearings before the Planning, Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee of the City Council.  A fast track is deemed necessary to meet a UW time framework to obtain approval from the UW Board of Regents in March 2010. Waiting for new zoning for the area was not considered a viable option.   

            John presented the majority position of the LUOA Board on this UW proposal which was detailed in a handout provided for all attendees.  The conclusion was that : “Without compelling reasons for a rezone, and none has been provided to date, we see no reason to break the current code, rules and regulations that have already been relaxed for biotech and that are being observed by other projects in the vicinity.  We object to the rezone as currently proposed. If there were a compelling need, then adequate compensating true public benefits would be required as mitigation for the clear environmental impact of the rezone.”  The benefits of the ground level courtyard were seen as entirely private and not public as currently presented. 

            Points raised in the Q&A were: Why does UW need to replicate Phase I and II in terms of space?  Why wouldn’t 3 buildings at 85 ft. be sufficient?   Why not get more land elsewhere?  Why not wait for anticipated rezoning in SLU? Why not build the entire structure in one stage and then fill it out sequentially as the need arose?  Where are the public benefits for spot rezoning?  In response, Victoria seemed open to exploring what public benefits could accrue from the project such as meeting and classrooms.  On the other hand, retail space on the ground floor was not feasible. 

            John encouraged everyone to attend the City Council Hearings on this issue on 9/23, 11/18 and 12/9 at 9 AM on the 2^nd floor of the City Hall, and that public comment would be permitted. 

 Respectfully submitted,

David O’Hara, Secretary

An Update from LUOA

Dear LUOA Members and Friends,

 It’s been some time since I’ve written to you, but we have been busy.  I want to bring you up to speed on what’s happening and what we think is its significance.

The Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) Study that was planned for early 2009 has been delayed until late 2009 or 2010.   A South Lake Union Urban Design Framework Study (SLU UDF), which LUOA has been requesting has been initiated.    The purpose of the SLU UDF is to define how SLU might best accept future growth while maintaining and improving its community features.  It has three elements.  First, a group of design professionals, led by the City and with considerable, pro bono professional architectural and urban planning help, have held 6 half-day workshops on key elements of the future growth of our community.  Second, a Community Advisory Group has review the results from a community perspective.  That Community Advisory Group is made up of 2 to 3 members from SLUFAN, Cascade Community Council, Lake Union Opportunity Alliance, selected major property owners, representatives of the low-income housing, arts, and human services communities.  The work of these two groups should be completed in September.   For the third step the City, supported by those who have worked on this, will then take this to the Community.  I expect this to happen in October or November.

My assessment is that we’ve made some significant progress in defining view corridors toward the lake and toward the Space Needle, selected streets for great Green Street treatment, selected areas for emphasis on residential and families friendly areas and what that means, where the civic and recreational ‘hearts’ of the neighborhood are, general consensus for only minimal changes in the Cascade Neighborhood, and some general consensus on appropriate treatments for the pedestrian environment (podium height, setback requirements, etc).  I think it’s also positive for the various community groups and interest to be working together and finding some common interests.

In addition, in conjunction with the Seattle Office of Housing and the Low Income Housing Consortium, we are updating the 2004 Housing Plan for SLU.  We’re also developing interesting strategies to encourage the future addition of more affordable housing in SLU in line with the Seattle Comprehensive Plan.

But we have some really sticky issues yet to be resolved.  These include the overall topology of the neighborhood, will there continue to be a step down to the lake and how much extra development capacity to add to the neighborhood (how high the buildings might be).  I am still optimistic we’ll bring some attractive ideas to the community this fall for review and it will be much better than the previous EIS Alternatives.

The LUOA board continues to follow developments in the community.  Of particular interest is a Vulcan/UW proposal for a Phase III development on the block bounded by Mercer and Republican and by 8^th Avenue and Dexter.  Vulcan and UW are proposing a 125’ high project in an area currently zoned S/M 65’ with a special provision for biotech to add 20’ to 85’ in height.  We are concerned this is out of context with its surroundings on all sides and would be out of character with the neighborhood with walls 125’ high on all property lines.  In addition, this could set a bad precedent and is the wrong way to do community planning, one block at a time.

 If you have questions, comments, or issues please let us know at contact@luoa.org or call any of the LUOA board members.

 Thank you for your support

John Pehrson, President

LUOA Board

LUOA’s Annual Meeting

5/6/2009

The LUOA Annual Meeting was held at Cascade Peoples Center in the SLU Cascade neighborhood on Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 6 P.M. All Board members and founders were present. Members were asked to sign in to receive ballots in order to vote. In total, there were 42 attendees at the meeting.

Review of year:
Don Bennett and Lloyd Douglas gave a summary of the steps leading to the formation of LUOA. Dave O’Hara discussed the impact of our first Public Meeting 8/27/08 which provided much positive support, impetus and direction to the organization. Kevin McCarthy provided a brief resume of our meetings with city officials, of the second Public Meeting 10/27/08 and the influence wielded by LUOA representation and comments at the EIS Scoping Meeting 11/15/09. John Pehrson commented upon our meeting with the Mayor and subsequent participation in the Urban Framework Study, which we had been advocating as a crucial process prior to any EIS undertaking and represented a remarkable fruition of our efforts.

Election of the BOD
Following a motion and second to elect by affirmation the slate of directors proposed by the BOD, the voice vote was taken and was unanimous to elect the slate. Those elected for a two year term were: John Pehrson, Lloyd Douglas, Don Bennett and Tim Soerens. Those current Board members remaining in office to complete the second of a two year term are: Diane Masson, David O’Hara and Kevin McCarthy. The new 7 member Board will select its officers at its next meeting.

Speakers
We were most fortunate to be able to introduce three exceedingly qualified speakers to the address audience with topics of great interest.
Rick Hooper, Strategic Planning Director, Office of Housing, presented an over-view of the nine diverse projects for affordable housing accomplished or underway in SLU, the role of on-profits, and the tools available to fund these projects. Funding sources include Federal grants, tax incentives, conversion of city properties, incentive zoning., and most importantly the housing levy. Property tax exemptions apply mainly to rental units which must offer below market rentals in at least 20% of the building to qualify. Incentive zoning may capture affordable housing by either in-building or in- neighborhood dedication, but may also be out of neighborhood or by payment in-lieu of space. Incentive zoning may also capture public spaces and amenities as well as housing. He recognized some developers are more attuned to broader neighborhood concerns on these issues than others. He concluded with an explanation of the history and operation of housing levy proceeds, and the crucial importance of passing the 2009 Housing Levy to enable his office to function and meet human and neighborhood needs. He passed out an informative flyer supporting the Levy Program.

Jim Homes, Senior Planning & Development Specialist, Department of Planning and Development, directed his comments mainly to the results of the Scoping process and how the EIS will be informed by these comments as well as the results of the Urban Framework Study. He stated the EIS has been slowed to allow the Framework Study time for input. A part of the process will be to see how incentive zoning can accomplish urban design goals. He indicated the SLU website from the DPD link is being revised and will provide a comprehensive source of information on all matters pertaining to SLU planning and development.

Marshall Foster, Strategic Advisor, Office of Policy & Management in the mayor’s office, provided an up-date on the Urban Design Framework Study which is being conducted by a core team of city staff representing key city departments in cooperation with Dan Foltz representing the Weber Thompson architecture firm, providing pro-bono expertise. It is hoped other architectural and urban planners will step up to the plate and help. The public at the present time is represented by 10 members from SLUFAN and LUOA as well as an individual from Vulcan and the local Chamber of Commerce. The on-going study will be reported on-line and will eventually be the subject of public meetings when recommendations have been reached. The purpose of the Study was to make zoning subservient to urban design. It will guide future zoning changes, capital improvement measures and provide a basis for mitigation. He passed out a draft of the SLU Design Framework goals and principles. In response to comments from the audience that the city was deluged with paperwork from nice studies and plans that never got implemented, Marshall stated this was to be a process that extracted the desirable and doable from numerous previous SLU studies and linked these items to specific means of implementation, including responsible individuals and target dates. He did not intend for this to be an exercise in futility.

The speakers were thanked for their willingness to meet with us and share their knowledge and viewpoints.
John Pehrson was thanked for providing coffee and cookies and Lloyd Douglas for arranging the meeting at the Cascade Peoples Center. The next LUOA Membership meeting will take place in 2-3 months when there is something to report from the Urban Framework Study.

Sincerely,
David O’Hara, Secretary

KIRO 97.3 FM Interview

KIRO’s Erin Covey interviewed Diane Masson and Kevin McCarthy yesterday after our meeting with the Mayor and crew. They’ve posted the material with video online, and the audio spots are airing on KIRO 97.3FM today. They’re a bit different than the material online, and can be found here and here.

LUOA Meets with Mayor

On January 26th, members of the Lake Union Opportunity Alliance (LUOA) Board met for an hour with Mayor Greg Nickels, Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis, Director Diane Sugimura of the City’s Department of Planning and Development, and Nathan Torgelson, Mayor’s staff.  Representing LUOA were John Pehrson, Kevin McCarthy, Diane Masson, Tim Soerens, and Lloyd Douglas.

We presented to the Mayor, the background on LUOA, our activities to date, and our advocacy position which is:

1. Do a comprehensive Urban Plan and Design on what kind of community we want and what public amenities will be included and how they will be funded, before setting the zoning.  The current city planning seems to be doing it backwards, define the zoning and then maybe we’ll add the public amenities.  That backwards approach hasn’t worked in Belltown, why would we believe it would work in SLU.
2. Eliminate the City’s Alternatives #1 and #2 – they would rezone all of South Lake Union (SLU) outside of Cascade to either 300’ or 400’ and even upzone Cascade to 160’.  This would create a ‘mountain of concrete’, 3/4 mile long and 1/2 mile wide, that  would be up to 100’ taller than the top of Capitol Hill and Queen Anne.  They would potentially add up to 130 towers of 300’ or 400’ height. These alternatives are inconsistent with the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, the SLU Neighborhood Plan and the comments of 80 to 90% of the public.  These alternatives have been criticized in writing by the Space Needle Corporation, Washington State Department of Transportation – Aviation Divison, the Floating Home Association, and about 30 individuals.
3. Include the LUOA Alternative that has 240’ height only along Denny Way, steeply steps down to 40’ at Lake Union, and includes provisions for public amenities, view corridors, green streets and a active center  for the neighborhood.

We believe the Mayor understood our position  and the support we had from the community, and that he and the City will take our position into account in future actions.  We were told that in about a month the City will  select the alternatives to be studied for the EIS.  We did not receive any commitment   to include our LUOA Alternative, but, in our opinion, it would be difficult to ignore the 80 – 90% of the public comments that support this position.

After the meeting, KOMO radio and KING 5 TV interviewed Kevin McCarthy and Diane Masson on our position and the about the meeting with  the Mayor.

We will continue to work with the City to further our position that has grown out of our public meetings and the work of the board of directors and will keep you all informed.

John Pehrson, President
LUOA Board of Directors
206-441-9913

10/28/08 – Public Meeting

We had a very successful meeting on 10/28/08, with over 65 people attending.

We had residents and interests from Belltown, Westlake, Eastlake, Cascade, Queen Anne, Capitol Hill, House boaters and Sail boaters alike and out in force!

We’ve uploaded our presentation, there are two parts:

1. LUOA’s Vision of a Neighborhood for Neighbors. We didn’t want to open up talking about heights and densities and all that. In fact, if that train wasn’t already leaving the station, we likely wouldn’t be talking about those at all.
2. LUOA’s community-based proposal. Our members wanted us to come up with a proposal, we did, and by and large they were very pleased with it. You can view our proposal here in Powerpoint format.

8/27/08 – Public Meeting

We held our first public meeting on 8/27/08, and 60 people from Capitol Hill, South Lake Union, Cascade, Freemont, Belltown, Eastlake and Westlake joined us to share their opinions on the issues. We were also honored to have four city employees present. One was from the Mayor’s office, the Director of the DPD, Tim Durkin in charge of our neighborhoods and Lyle Bicknell a city planner. 

We would like to thank everyone for attending, and here are some quotes that we captured from citizens across the board:

“Only 19% of our households have children, while this averages closer to 35% nationally”

“Can we encourage Climate Friendly Development somehow?”

“This dialog (between and among the city and SLUFAN) has been more like a monologue”

“(If you look at what SLUFAN proposes to build) We’re talking about 30,000 additional cars in the area, where’s everyone going to park?”

“What is our own environmental impact statement? We need our own plan”

“When I think of neighborhood, I don’t think of 400ft towers”

“It’s not enough to be reactive, we have to be proactive”

“I’m hoping that towers aren’t part of the plan”

“We can tap into local experts as volunteers for free”

“I think the DPD (Seattle Department of Planning and Development) should help”

“These alternatives have been built with the minimum view protections. Thousands of residents and visitors would lose their view of the Space Needle”