Category Archives: Commentary

Committee Amends North Rainier Rezone

May 27, 2014 Editor

originally appeared in the Seattle Transit Blog

by Martin H Duke

Last week the Seattle Council’s Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability (PLUS) committee once again took up the North Rainier Rezone, last seen inspiring a diverse set of public comments earlier this month. There were more public comments that are by now quite repetitive, although the latest tactic is calling for yet another 2-year delay while companion parks, economic development, and transportation plans develop. I predict approximately zero current opponents would suddenly accept the plan then, as it still won’t address their fundamental desire to limit the number of low-income neighbors and preserve effortless parking at local businesses. Meanwhile, rents spiral upward and the Rainier Valley continues to suffer.

Afterwards, the committee approved three amendments to the legislation and tabled a fourth proposed by Councilmember Bruce Harrell, who was out of town. Unfortunately, one of the amendments requires a title change to the bill, so the committee will have to wait until June 3rd to vote on the legislation and send it to full council.

The three attendees (Mike O’Brien, Nick Licata, and Tim Burgess) approved the following three amendments:

1) Amend the proposed zoning to exclude the parking maximums currently operative in other “Seattle Mixed” Zones (basically just South Lake Union and Lower Queen Anne). This triggers the required change in the bill title, and addresses the fear that the proposed maxima “might be too low” for certain businesses, like grocery stores, envisioned for the area.

2) Change the “Class I” pedestrian street designation to “Class II” on McClellan and Rainier. Class II allows “more flexibility” for street interface. It would keep transparency requirements, but permits more uses at ground level for a “greater range of businesses.” Rather than forcing nothing but eat/drink and retail, health care, light industrial, and office applications would also be allowed on the first floor — but not residential. The council is concerned about vacant storefronts, reflecting many comments from residents.

Even Class I setbacks are flexible in the design review process, but Class II allows 12 ft. setbacks as a matter of course. DPD thought “more suburban, less active” might be appropriate given the traffic on these streets. Notably, on-street parking on these streets would improve the pedestrian environment, possible if SDOT uses the “bowtie” street reconfiguration here to greatly improve bus/rail transfers.

3) The committee added a few blocks east of MLK and north of McClellan to the upzone (the blocks labeled LR3 and NC1-40 in the upper right), due to a request from the landowner, the nonprofit Mt. Baker Housing Association. These parcels are already developed to LR3 (Low Rise-3), but MBHA would like to tear this down, add more affordable housing, and simultaneously deal with residual contamination from a dry cleaning business there. The parcels would become MR2 (Midrise 2) and SM-65 (Seattle Mixed 65′), respectively.

From my perspective, these three amendments range from wonderful to mixed. The expanded housing on the MBHA site is unmitigated good news. Meanwhile, it’s clear that parking minimums create a whole suite of bad effects, but maximums are debatable, particularly in a place where redevelopment might take a while to get off the ground. As for the pedestrian classification, allowing a broader diversity of businesses is probably a good idea.

The Harrell amendment, on which the committee decided to delay deliberations until Mr. Harrell could be there to discuss it, would lower the 125′ limit on the Lowe’s site to 85′, although a contract rezone could raise it again once the City knew would would go in. As always, height is a flash point, but this amendment would simply reduce the site’s potential and add yet more veto points to its best possible use. DPD believes residential will not utilize 125′ under current conditions. Reducing the height will make residential more competitive, and is likely to subvert the often-expressed community wish for the site to be focused on job creation.

Mr. Burgess specifically asked for neighborhood feedback on this amendment, via public comment at the next meeting or via email. Let him know what you think.

Mr. O’Brien closed by asking about the lot immediately south of the station but not affected by the rezone, currently LR3-RC. Across a quiet street from the station, any sensible framework would upzone these extremely aggressively. Last decade these blocks fell out of the plan because they might cast shadows on deserted Cheasty Blvd., there were single family homes on the other side of the greenbelt, and there were commercial uses nearby that have since largely disappeared. I wish I was joking about any of these “problems.”

Since this terrible decision, the status of these blocks has changed. Capitol Hill Housing purchased the southern block. The northern block will be split between an underground King county sewer overflow storage tank (!!!! – hopefully it’s buildable above) and a northern half split among several parcels. Mr. O’Brien asked for input from DPD and the public about making some or all of this area SM-85 or SM-65. Good for Mr. O’Brien to bring up this common-sense revision. Thank him and let him know this is a good idea.

As a side note, Lyle Bicknell of DPD said there is already interest in redeveloping the Rite Aid/QFC site immediately north of the station while preserving those tenants. Good news!

Image Courtesy Seattle Transit Blog

Commentary

Why The Mt.Baker Rezone Is The Right Move For South Seattle

May 17, 2014 Editor 1 Comment

by Young Han

At the beginning of this month, I attended a meeting of the Seattle City Council’s PLUS (Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability) Committee. The Committee hosted this meeting to hear public comments on the proposed rezone of the area around the Mount Baker Link Light Rail station. This is the area that has been identified for the location of the North Rainier Urban Village (http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cityplanning/completeprojectslist/northrainier/whatwhy/). The rezone would change the existing zoning to a designation called Seattle Mixed-use and raise height limits to 65, 85, and 125 feet, depending on the parcel of land in question. I attended to testify strongly in favor of this proposal, as it represents the best way to develop Rainier Valley in a way that is inclusive, attractive, and future-focused.

The reason for the proposed rezone has its roots back almost 15 years. Back in the late 1990s, the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, in tandem with neighborhood residents and other stakeholders, developed a vision for the northern corridor surrounding Rainier Avenue South. Through this plan, they envisioned development that was transit-oriented, mixed-income, and walkable. While the rest of Seattle has continued to change at a rapid pace and Link Light Rail brought much needed connectivity to the neighborhood, the status quo, with respect to zoning, has not led to the kind of development desired there. Much of the area remains low-density strip malls or underutilized buildings that fail to engage pedestrians or integrate well into their surroundings. The rezone would create additional incentives and a framework to make this happen, in a way that is consistent with the original vision.

Naturally, any plan that intends to bring large-scale change will lead to some degree of contention. Residents from all over Southeast Seattle packed the Committee hearing on a day where the temperature rose to an unseasonable 80 degrees. Many of the opponents to the planned rezone showed up early and made their concerns known loud and clear. The kinds of structures that would be built would be out of character. The new development would lead to traffic and congestion. If current levels of retail occupancy in mixed-use developments continued, new buildings would fail and too many workforce housing units would lead to unintended consequences. Many opponents also expressed concerns about the process that produced the proposed rezone. They had not been adequately informed or consulted, they said.

As someone who has been engaged with the North Rainier planning process since 2011, I was concerned by what appeared, at least very initially, to be overwhelming opposition. Thankfully as the comment period continued, a greater number of proponents began to lay out their arguments and restore balance. Ultimately, after two hours of testimony and public comments, it seemed reasonable to say that while the concerns were not entirely unreasonable, that they misguidedly defended a suboptimal status quo for fear of unknown (as opposed to likely) outcomes. At the PLUS Committee, I expressed an abbreviated version of the following opinion:

I’ve lived in both Columbia City and, before that, Mount Baker, for the past three years. In Mount Baker, I lived on Walden Street, one block from the area to be rezoned, in a mixed-use building. Currently I live in Columbia City less seven-tenths of a mile from the proposed rezone. I support this proposal because it will add a critical mass of infrastructure, people, and amenities. Currently much of this area is underutilized urban space. For many, it can feel unsafe and it is unquestionably unpleasant to navigate on foot. Anyone who has lived in the area knows, for instance, about the activity around the National Pride Car Wash. Right there, on the street, is what appears to be an open-air drug market. A year and a half ago, two people were shot at this location (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Teens-wounded-in-South-Seattle-175528391.html). There aren’t enough eyes on the street and this kind of development does not benefit anyone.

As City of Seattle’s Planning Department notes, Seattle will add 70,000 households in the next two decades—that’s significant. If Seattle cannot build the density to accommodate these future residents, we will end up with a housing and affordability crisis much like San Francisco’s. There, the crisis has created an immense amount of discord and class conflict as rising housing costs have displaced long-time residents.

For one, they got the zoning wrong (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francisco-exodus/7205/). Speaking to NPR, Former Mayor Art Agnos noted that in San Francisco the discussion is no longer about whether San Francisco can be a city for all people, but whether it can be affordable for those earning between $60,000 and $150,000 a year (http://www.npr.org/2013/12/03/247531636/as-rent-soars-longtime-san-francisco-tenants-fight-to-stay)! The median income for a worker in Seattle is currently under $60,000 and there are many similarities between our two cities. In a city growing as rapidly as Seattle, there will be trade-offs. In North Rainier, as it will be citywide over the coming decades, the trade-off will be managed density for sustained blight in some places and escalating housing prices in others.

Lastly, on the issue of workforce housing, there are many assumptions being made about people who will live in income-targeted housing, as well the number of units under consideration. The current zoning proposal will require developers to include a limited number of affordable units for each of their projects, if they want to build to the maximum heights allowable under Seattle Mixed. This is known as incentive zoning, and in a city where rents have soared over the past two years (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021673014_rentincreasesxml.html), an essential tool in keeping Seattle income-inclusive. This will not entail the construction, as some seem wont to believe, entire parcels of housing for the indigent. Indeed, for the purpose of the North Rainier rezone the units in question will be targeted those individuals earning 60-80% of area median income. For a single-person household, this is an income in the mid-$30 to mid-$40,000 a year. Large numbers of white-collar workers, particularly those starting out in careers, fall into this category and I, too, qualified for and lived in workforce housing while working at what was an e-commerce start-up.

The proposed rezone of the area around the Mount Baker Link Light Rail station represents both the continuation of a neighborhood visioning process begun in 1999 and an opportunity to bring quality development to Rainier Valley. For too long, the area has suffered from underinvestment, crime, and blight. Smarter levels of density, in conjunction with the transit links already established by Sound Transit, will lead to development that is engaging at street level, unnecessary to traverse using motorized vehicles, and safe for people of all ages. Different neighborhoods (pick your favorite example) around Seattle have used rezones to create beautiful urban spaces worthy of the name. Rainier Valley, too, can rise.
Note* The Seattle City Council Land Use And Sustainability Committee will be meeting this Tuesday, May 20th to discuss the Mt. Baker Rezone: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/aboutus/news/events/default.htm?trumbaEmbed=eventid%3D110117410%26view%3Devent%26-childview%3

Young Han is a Columbia City resident interested in economic history and the economics of technological change as well as an advocate for cooperative development, and expanding economic democracy

Commentary, Politics

Civic Salvos: How to Make A Difference? Get Organized!

May 3, 2014 Editor

by Sandra Vanderven

What if you got an email today asking you to click a button because there’s a terrible problem? Rather, what if you got 40 of them? Total fiction, right? Even so, if that were to happen, you have a few options. You can click on all the ones that are urgent (That’s all 40), or ignore them, or spend the day unsubscribing. But,maybe you really wish you could make a difference. Maybe you take this stuff seriously, and don’t feel you can just stand by or click buttons any longer.

Good. Now, do something. If we want better lives we can’t sit on our hands. That is easy to say and hard to do. I know; I have been there.

When I first realized it was time to act, I pushed myself out the door to a rally. I didn’t actually think it was going to help anything, unless 10,000 people were planning to join me, but I had to try something and didn’t know what else to do. So I went. I signed in, and as a result I began getting notices of local MoveOn meetings. I went to one. It was awful—truly a waste of time. At this point I could have felt justified in throwing up my hands and going back to clicking online petitions. Instead, I realized how desperately needed we all are. I remained engaged, and was soon invited to attend a leadership training. It didn’t take long until I took over those meetings and began to build progressive power by working with others in Seattle who wanted to make a difference.

For busy people, and we are, on average, busier than we’ve been in several generations, it is important to get it right. Since one of the major features of this crap economy is how it sucks away so much of our time, what we choose had better have a good chance of making a difference.

So that you can spend more time doing something you feel is effective, I’m offering a run-down of the organizing landscape as I see it. This way you don’t have to flail around like I did.

First, I am going to assume you want to work to solve the underlying problem rather than treat the symptom. In other words, do you want to feed the hungry, or fix the structure that causes hunger in the first place? Obviously I have no problem with feeding hungry people. This is important work, but thousands of people across the country happily ladle soup, and too few are actually attempting to make soup kitchens obsolete. We need you in the latter group–badly.

Here are some ways of engaging:

Electoral work: For those of you who still think we should be working to elect progressives, who will then pass laws that benefit regular people, you can always jump in on the action around election season. Pick a favorite (preferably local) candidate or issue this way: 1. Do you share the same values? 2. Is this a winnable fight? (Seriously. Please don’t squander your precious time on things you know are a lost cause, no matter how noble. You are not getting that time back.) 3. Is this candidate or issue mounting a serious campaign? (See #2) Since you are inclined to do electoral work, you may also enjoy making sure the people you help elect know your views. You can write letters to the editor, you can call the elected official’s office and talk with their staff, send email, and you can even meet with him or her either in-district or at the capital, with an appointment of course. Many issue organizations have staff on hand to help you to make the most of your communications. Reach out.

Community Organizing—three vantage points:

Coordinated Left: It is a good thing and a bad thing that there’s coordination among left wing money and power. The mainstream groups rely heavily on phone banks and other tactics people don’t enjoy delivering or receiving. The pros are that they can work together, and avail themselves of strategy and communications experts who have been doing this work for a long time. Some cons are that they are often stuck in a rut; they ask people to do things they don’t like to do, and so struggle to hang onto volunteers. They also chip away at their own success by negotiating too much. This can be illustrated by the faction in the Seattle minimum wage fight that claims a small business is defined by having fewer than 500 employees. Yeah.

Uncoordinated Left: There are many organically grown organizing groups, who reside outside of the left’s mainstream. They have pros and cons as well. They are often more democratic and welcoming of new ideas, but they are not backed by much money. They struggle to carry on. Often, they run with ideas that are less strategic, but at the same time, there is some promise to having no constraints. This group can be characterized as the ones who want the $15 minimum wage to go into effect immediately, no exceptions. This stance is admirable but dismisses out of hand some legitimate concerns. It is a breath of fresh air, though, to those of us who are tired of watching one disastrous negotiation after another.

Highly Trained Grass Roots: This is the style of community organizing pioneered by Saul Alinsky in the ‘40’s, and continues with the work of the organization he founded, the IAF (Industrial Areas Foundation). A well trained organizer becomes embedded in the community s/he wishes to engage. S/he finds out what people are struggling with, what they would like to see addressed first, and what the options are. Local people who have the most at stake are trained in breaking problems down into their parts so they become solvable issues. The strategy for tackling those issues arises from a careful assessment of the resources available, where the opposition is to be found, and what opportunities are present. In this way, for instance, a group can go from being upset about a for-profit prison in Pierce County, to realizing it depends on ICE detainees for funds, to asking local county jails not to comply with ICE requests (holding onto detainees until their immigration status is determined, it turns out, is optional), and asking local municipalities to refuse to send their prisoners to the local jails who do continue to comply with those requests. In this way, 60 local families have remained intact over the last few months who otherwise wouldn’t have. The work is ongoing, but this is winnable.

Whatever you decide to do, there are a lot of choices out there, so if your first run at making a difference doesn’t feel right, try something else. Just do something. Give me a call or send an email (I promise to click on it!) if you want to talk over the possibilities.

Sandra Vanderven is a Senior Organizer at Fuse Washington and Board President of the Backbone Campaign. She can be contacted at sandra@fusewashington.org

South Seattle Emerald

Category Archives: Commentary

Committee Amends North Rainier Rezone

Why The Mt.Baker Rezone Is The Right Move For South Seattle

Civic Salvos: How to Make A Difference? Get Organized!

Amplifying the Authentic Narratives of South Seattle