The Mosler’s contractor feels they are owned $6.7 million for the project, and so they filed a lien against the developer. And what this means for the condo owners is that they’re stuck in a financial limbo because the lien basically prevents them from selling their units.

Coming on the heels of a King County rural landowners property rights decision by the state yesterday (whose regulations to prevent land clearing were designed to help prevent sprawl), it’s kind of ironic that these condo owners (who by living in a multi-family building like this are actually helping prevent sprawl) are facing an even more restrictive property rights situation than their rural counterparts.

But beyond the pain these Mosler homeowners face, the additional harm this situation creates is that it helps reinforce the idea that multi-family ownership is less secure, less protected, and less valued than single-family ownership - and that’s a shame - because multi-family good development like the Mosler should be protected and encouraged.

It would be nice if the city spent as much time lobbying for the rights of multi-family citizens (this also includes protecting their rights to sunlight and privacy) as they are into reducing grocery store bags. Because as long as doubts about their rights as multi-family home owners linger, single family home ownership is going to be most peoples’ Plan A.
The Mosler Lofts - nicely designed, but tied down by legal questions.

ShareThis

From what I can gather, it seems like the court said that King County mistakenly thought the Growth Management Act gave it the authority to set omnibus land clearing standards like these and that King County was also incorrect in thinking that the Growth Management Act gave it the power to override a state law which says you can’t ‘tax, fee, or charge’ tangible personal property

Anyway, does this mean that rural land owners can start paving over creeks on their property tomorrow? Or that any new development in rural King County can go ahead unchecked? No. But it looks like it does open the door to new rural development proposals that previously were barred by King County. I don’t know, but if you ask me it looks like this decision favors exurb development and will create more places to put your yellow Urban Land Institute Legos.

For those of you who like looking at recently repealed county code, here’s a snippet of King County’s clearing standards which are going off the books.

Clearing standards for individual lots in the rural zone.
A. Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the RA zone the following standards apply to clearing on individual lots:
1. For lots one and one-quarter acre or smaller:
a. clearing shall not exceed the greater of:
(1) the amount cleared before January 1, 2005, or cleared under a complete clearing permit application filed before October 25, 2004, in
(2) fifty percent of the lot area; or
(3) seven thousand square feet.
b. any clearing required for the construction of access, utilities and septic systems shall not be counted towards the amount of clearing allowed under this subsection;
2. For lots greater than one and one-quarter acres and up to fives acres in area, clearing shall not exceed the greater of:
a. the amount legally cleared before January 1, 2005, or cleared under a complete clearing permit application filed before October 25, 2004, in accordance with previous county regulations; or
b. fifty percent of lot area;
3. For lots greater than fives [sic] acres, clearing shall not exceed the greater of:
a. the amount legally cleared before January 1, 2005, or cleared under a complete clearing permit application filed before October 25, 2004, in accordance with previous county regulations;
b. two and one-half acres, or
c. thirty-five percent of lot area; and
4. For lots greater than one and one-quarter acre in either the Bear Creek basin, the Issaquah Creek basin and the May Creek basin, clearing shall not exceed the greater of:
a. the amount legally cleared before January 1, 2005, or cleared under a complete clearing permit application filed before October 25, 2004, in accordance with previous county regulations; or
b. thirty-five percent of lot area;
B. The standards in subsection A. of this section shall not apply if more restrictive standards apply through:
1. The Critical Areas Code, K.C.C. chapter 21A.24, and its adopted public rules;
2. Property-specific development standards or special district overlays under K.C.C. chapter 21A.38; or
3. Critical drainage area designations identified by adopted public rule.

ShareThis

One thing that I think is pretty interesting about this video is that it uses three lanes (one for HOV, one for SOV, and one for bicycles). Even though I would prefer that the third lane was light rail - I think the idea of one SOV lane is a good one - why build out a huge bridge if three lanes could get the job done? But how realistic is this vision?

As someone who commutes across the bridge (via shuttle), I know the real pain is the bottleneck caused at the SR 520/I-405 and 520/I-5 intersections. And although fixing the 520 bridge will help, a total solution is going to require thinking about I5 and I405 too.

Here are a couple more folks (and I’m sure there are some more - Bellevue Square, I’m looking at you…) who are going to need to start upping their game to help reduce the 520 crunch.

• Children’s, the UW and UVillage need to start working together to create a Montlake solution for all of their traffic. UVillage is considering adding 520 new parking spaces, Children’s Hospital is planning an expansion which will increase traffic, and the UW has acres of parking for staff, students, and visitors. It would be nice to see these folks help come up with a solution that made it really easy to connect from their locations directly to a Montlake hub on 520. A UVillage park and ride would be awesome.
• Metro. C’mon guys, can’t you start working together a little better? If I relied on you to get me to the Eastside from my NE Seattle house - it would take me about 1.5 - 2 hours each way? Use the 520 tolls to pay for more routes!

And next, do more of this, make commuting fun like the city of Redmond does. Here’s a site called www.gortrip.com that lets you track your monthly commute - and register to win prizes for commuting. I knows it’s kinda gimmicky, but it’s a great way to see how much money you’ve saved by commuting.

Anyway, here’s my commuting schedule for the month. And if we had more flexible bus routes (ie running earlier in the morning and afternoon) I could have shaved off and additional 3-4 of those ‘Drive Alone’ days.

ShareThis

Citizen observers are welcome and needed on Monday, July 7, 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. in King County Courthouse (516 Third Avenue) room E-733 as Superior Court Judge Julie Spector hears arguments by citizen activist Dennis Saxman and by lawyers for a developer and the City of Seattle in a case that Saxman has brought, arguing that Seattle’s design review and project approval process is not obeying the law.

Saxman alleges serious problems in Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development, the Hearing Examiner’s office, and the City Attorney’s office. He had appealed the DPD approval of a land use project on the 500 block of Pine Street between Belmont and Summit in Capitol Hill’s Pike-Pine neighborhood–ground zero for badly designed overdevelopment. When the Hearing Examiner sided with DPD, Saxman took the case to Superior Court.

It helps a citizen appellant for members of the public to be there in respectful attendance, and you are welcome to attend 9-10 a.m. Monday at the County Courthouse, room E-733. If you want further information, below is detail on the case, and how to donate if you are so inclined.

Why the case matters. Saxman has undertaken this effort because he believes that principles important to many Seattle neighborhoods are at stake, and that the project review system as it is currently practiced, is just plain unfair. Although no longer a practicing attorney, he benefits from his training and experience as an attorney in California, where he is still an inactive member of the Bar.

Many who closely follow the workings of Seattle’s design review process feel that the volunteer review boards, City staff, and Hearing Examiner do not always take the design guidelines seriously, thus favoring developers and undermining existing zoning. Bringing this dysfunctional system to the scrutiny of Superior Court poses the possibility of overturning it, or at least exposing such problems that the Mayor and City Council are forced into reforms.

Few have the energy and knowledge for an administrative appeal, and then the tenacity to take DPD and the Hearing Examiner to court. Dennis Saxman is that rare person who is seeing his case through, dramatizing the need for reform not only of DPD and the Office of the Hearing Examiner, but also of the City Attorney’s office, which seems to be over-zealous in defending the City’s position, acting in a number of instances to make citizen appeals particularly difficult.

Summary of the case. Saxman’s appeal to the Hearing Examiner argued that (1) the DPD Director was not justified in making a SEPA determination of nonsignificance; (2) in approving departures from the Land Use Code, the DPD Director had failed to show that development would better meet the intent of the neighborhood’s design guidelines; and (3) that the relevant design guidelines for the neighborhood had not been followed by the Design Review Board in making its decisions.

When the Hearing Examiner sided with DPD, Saxman filed a lengthy Land Use petition urging the Superior Court to find that the Hearing Examiner: (1) did not meaningfully consider and weigh all of the arguments and evidence; (2) did not weigh the credibility of DPD’s and the developer’s testimony and evidence; (3) treated Saxman and DPD differently when it came to the submission of evidence; (4) failed to adequately address appearance of fairness doctrine issues; (5) made errors of facts and law; (6) erred in finding the granting of departures was justified; and (7) erred in concluding that the project was consistent with the design guidelines.

Benefits of the case. Sixteen neighborhoods in Seattle have neighborhood-specific design guideline, and others are about to get them. Despite the guidelines, these neighborhoods continue to experience development that clashes with the neighborhood context—the very problem that neighborhood-specific design guidelines were supposed to solve. Saxman argues that, while neighborhood-specific design guidelines are meant to control design outcomes, the design review boards pay inadequate attention to the guidelines and DPD fails to ensure that they do, regarding the guidelines as not being binding.

Saxman’s case may establish a legal precedent that DPD and the Design Review Boards must follow the law and the design guidelines when evaluating projects; and more fully consider and heed public input. A clear victory would mean that the days of lax enforcement of neighborhood design guidelines by the DPD would be at an end and developers would be put on notice that they are required to abide by laws and guidelines proposed by the neighborhoods and enacted by City Council.

Here is Dennis Saxman’s summary of his goals: “In a nutshell, I think multiple design review, departure and SEPA analysis requirements are being ignored. If I prevail in this lawsuit, that should begin to change. I also think it would go a long ways towards beginning the repair of a review process that, as practiced, is highly biased against public appellants such as myself and that is not conducted according to the requirements of the law.”

Should Saxman lose his battle at the Superior Court level, the research he has done will still do a lot of good. He has found partiality and arbitrariness in the system–evidence that could help push the Mayor and City Council to reform the design review boards, DPD, the Hearing Examiner’s office, and the City Attorney’s office. If you have questions about the case or would like to receive documents about it, contact Dennis Saxman at (206) 328-5326 or peregrin@isomedia.com. As mentioned above, the hearing (case no. 08-2-05294-0 SEA) will be held 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. Monday, July 7 in King County Courthouse room E-733, Superior Court Judge Julie Spector’s courtroom. Citizen observers are welcome and needed.

Dennis Saxman has undertaken this case despite chronic poor health and very low income. It is not overdramatic to say that in expending vast amounts of energy and time, he is risking his life for a citizen voice and good design in Seattle’s neighborhoods. He needs donations to help afford the filing fees, exhibits, and the official transcript that, as appellant, he is required to provide. Checks can be made out to Dennis Saxman and addressed to him at 1717 Bellevue Avenue #205, Seattle, WA 98122.

The above is an individual message from Chris Leman (206) 322-5463, and not offered on behalf of any organization.

ShareThis

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.)

ShareThis

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

ShareThis

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

ShareThis

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.

ShareThis

ShareThis

ShareThis