Comments on Giant Illuminated Signs due Monday Afternoon, 5.PM

A reader writes:

Dear Councilmember Conlin:

Thank you for the response to my recent e-mail on this topic.

The present proposal may indeed be limited -- perhaps tailor-made for just one company.  But once it's in place, innocent little amendments are sure to follow --just a little increase in the size of the signs that are permitted, a lower limit on the number of employees, a change in the way employees are counted (sort of like the "job creation" story), a modest change in the minimum height requirement (let's just simplify & make it 50 feet, rather than 500).  These sorts of things are easily slipped through, once the main controversy has been forgotten.

It's disturbing to think that economic development depends on lighted signs on downtown buildings.  This does not bode well for the success of such a marginal business.  (The argument IS, is it not, that without the sign, Russell won't thrive.)  It's also disturbing to think that Seattle City government is so eager to

play this race-to-the-bottom game.  One has to wonder what else the Mayor & his staff have promised to this firm, & what they will promise to the next one that they steal from some other city.

Yours truly,

Federation Editor's note: 

Comments on Giant Illuminated Signs due Monday Afternoon, Decemer 6, 5.PM

Don't vandalize Seattle's skyline with unsightly illuminated signs

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2013570345_guest02ochnser.html

The Seattle City Council is considering changes to its rules about signs that could mar the city's skyline with giant illuminated signs. Guest columnist Jeffrey Karl Ochsner argues the city should preserve the sense of the city's civic identity apparent under current sign rules.

By Jeffrey Karl Ochsner

Special to The Times

THE city of Seattle may be poised to approve an ordinance that will permanently deface the downtown skyline. A Nov. 6 Seattle Times editorial noted that unnamed "dignitaries" were amenable to rewriting the Seattle Municipal Code to allow Russell Investments to put giant illuminated signs at the top of their building, the former WaMu Tower.

A City Council committee will consider proposed revisions to the sign-code portion of the Seattle Municipal Code at a public hearing Dec. 7. A council vote on the issue may occur before Christmas.

Adding giant illuminated signs to the former WaMu Tower will mar the downtown skyline. The Tower is nearly dead center in the skyline. The bright lights will make the Russell Investments sign the primary focus of the skyline. The state outlawed billboards in 1961, but the Russell Investments sign will turn the downtown skyline into a giant billboard.

The proposed changes are a shocking give-away of our skyline. This kind of special favor for a special interest undermines the integrity of Seattle governance. Allowing giant illuminated signs will blight the skyline that Seattle has protected for the last half century. The proposed changes contravene our Comprehensive Plan.

The sign code currently allows downtown signs for business tenants only below 65 feet. Hotels and public buildings may have signs above 65 feet because these signs help us find places for public access and use.

The proposed changes would allow any tenant downtown with more than 200,000 square feet of space to have giant illuminated signs near the tops of downtown buildings. Signs could be up to 324 square feet on four sides of a building, or up to 648 square feet on two sides of a building more than 500 feet tall. Giant illuminated signs up to 18-by-36 feet or 12-by-48 feet or 10-by-64 feet would be allowed.

The downtown skyline is a tremendous asset forming a memorable image within our natural setting. Victor Steinbrueck called attention to the extraordinary value of our skyline nearly 50 years ago in "Seattle Cityscape," writing, "Seen from west of the bay, at a small lookout park on the tip of Duwamish Head, the central business district provides a thrilling panorama by day and by night."

The city of Seattle Comprehensive Plan "Culture Resource" section cites the skyline as central to our civic identity: "Over time, Seattle has acquired many features that people have come to identify with the city. Among them are ... the downtown skyline, distinguished by landmarks such as the Smith Tower." But now, with little public discussion, this will be discarded and forgotten.

The Municipal Code currently restricts signs at the tops of downtown buildings to protect our skyline for the enjoyment of everyone. The Comprehensive Plan specifically calls for "reducing visual clutter" and "limiting the signs at the tops of buildings," yet this is being ignored.

If approved, the proposed changes will set an appalling precedent. What happens when a tenant with 150,000 or 100,000 square feet asks for equal treatment? The Russell Investments signs open the door to untold visual clutter on our skyline.

The code changes undermine Seattle's claim to be a sustainable city. Giant illuminated advertising signs will consume energy for commercial advertising, contributing nothing to the community.

Seattle City Council must recognize how appalling the proposed sign-code revisions are. The integrity of the Seattle Municipal Code and the Comprehensive Plan is at stake.

After a half-century of treasuring our Seattle skyline, why is the city poised to allow it now to be vandalized? The skyline belongs to all of us. It should not be given away.

Jeffrey Karl Ochsner is a professor of architecture at the University of Washington.

Seattle Sign Code Amendment

Issue: 

The City of Seattle is considering amending its sign code to allow building signage above 65 feet for purposes other than wayfinding or public buildings.  These signs would be limited to tenants leasing over 200,000 square feet.

This change is being made to allow Russell Investments (which has just moved to Seattle) to place a 1200+ square foot sign on the former WAMU Center building.

Public Hearing: Tuesday Dec 7, 2pm, City Hall Council Chambers

Letters: need to be received by Monday Dec 6, 5pm (email, fax ok)

Talking Points

PROCESS

1.     There sign code currently has an exception process for applying for this type of sign.  It includes consultation with the Design Commission. Why isn’t that satisfactory, especially if there is only one applicant (Russell Investments)?

2.     The City has great difficulty monitoring and enforcing the current sign code for signs below 65 feet.  DPD is cutting staff that manages sign permitting and enforcement.  With these changes, what will keep these types of advertising signs from proliferating as well?

3.     Lease agreements are private contracts.  How will city monitor lease arrangements? What if the amount of space leased declines below the threshold? How will the City even know this? And if the leased area decreases below the threshold, will the tenant be made to take the sign down? 

4.     It seems that a deal was made over a year ago to allow this sign.  With a change this dramatic to what is essentially everyone’s skyline, shouldn’t this have been a more public decision making    process?

IMPACT TO SEATTLE'S SKYLINE AND AESTHETIC CHARACTER

1.     Signs above 65 feet have been reserved for wayfinding and public benefit.  What is the Public Benefit for allowing corporate advertising signs? Companies are private places, and are not the same as public destinations or hotels.

2.     The skyline is composed of and defined by architecture, not signs. We have a skyline recognized throughout the world.  Commercial branding will mar the character of our skyline, the 10^th most photographed skyline according to Getty Images.

3.     The design review process is very rigorous for downtown buildings. It is part of our Comprehensive Plan’s downtown policies.  Why are we not including a rigorous design review for signs which will be many hundreds of square feet in size and visible for miles?

4.     We are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a design for our Central Waterfront, but consideration of the how the skyline itself looks has been abandoned.

5.     What will keep this from being the first sign for a gradual proliferation of signs on many more downtown buildings?  What about companies that lease less than 200,000 sq ft?   Or companies that are long associated with Seattle?  What assurances do we have that companies that own their building won’t want to display their name and logo?  Or that multiple tenants would want to display signage?

ADVERTISING

1.     Signs of this size and placement are clearly meant for advertising purposes.  We are already faced with a proliferation of advertising in our lives.  Our skyline should not be used as another place to hang corporate names and logos. 

2.     Seattle has a long history of controlling advertising and billboards, and this is a bad precedent which opens a new outlet for the placement of advertising signs.

3.     This change will in effect “brand” our skyline and the city with the name of a single company (Russell Investments) which has just arrived in Seattle.

4.     Cities around the US and the world are trying to reverse the trends of advertising signage on their skyline (such as Pittsburgh - http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09088/959089-53.stm). 

ECONOMIC

1.     This is ostensibly being done to help promote business and to attract businesses to Seattle.  But companies do not choose a city because they can put a sign on their building - they seek quality of place.  Seattle is desirable because of its aesthetics and natural beauty. 

2.     The net return to the city for this is virtually nothing.  The stadium naming right at least generated significant money for the city.  The permit fees for this type of advertising should reflect market rates.  The city has just taken measures to ensure that street meter parking fees match market rate.  This advertising should pay market rate fees to the city as well.

3.     Successful businesses do not need big signs, and not having signs on our buildings doesn’t make Seattle any less “open for business”. 

4.     Cities that allow signage have not fared any better in lease rates or business retention.

TECHNICAL

1.     The Seattle sign code is decades out of date - it is too weak and flawed in many ways.  It needs a major overhaul. 

2.     The City has not established clear and enforceable standards for signs of this type.   The current legislation is written specifically for one sign and is flawed, and it is too restrictive for other companies that are supposedly eligible for signs based on their current lease agreements.

3.     We should create a citizen task force (such as the Pedestrian or Parks Advisory Boards) to define how the downtown sign code should be revised.  There are people with the appropriate skills and interest to make this happen.

4.     Building codes and standards (such as LEED) are moving to control and reduce ambient light from buildings and signs because of negative effects on humans and birds, energy consumption, and light pollution impacting the night sky.

FOUNDED IN 1948, THE SEATTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEDERATION IS ONE OF THE NATION'S OLDEST AND MOST ACTIVE COALITIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS. YEARLY DUES FOR MEMBER GROUPS ARE $50. SCCF WELCOMES NEW MEMBER GROUPS, AND ENCOURAGES RENEWAL BY GROUPS WHOSE MEMBERSHIP IN SCCF MAY HAVE LAPSED. INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS ARE ALSO WELCOME AND TAX DEDUCTIBLE, AND GO VERY FAR, AS SCCF IS AN ALL-VOLUNTEER 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATION. PLEASE MAIL YOUR CHECK TO SCCF, 2370 YALE AVENUE EAST, SEATTLE, WA 98102-3310. FOR QUESTIONS, CONTACT TREASURER CHRIS LEMAN, (206) 322-5463, CLEMAN@OO.NET.



A reader writes: Re: ZONING CODE "UPDATE" - Illuminated Signs on Buildings  


I see several problems with the proposal to relax the City Code regulating illuminated signs on buildings.  For openers it would be of benefit only to large firms and landlords.  Small businesses would be put at a competitive disadvantage.  That is both unfair and misguided since small to midsize retail businesses are already having a hard time making a go of it, especially in downtown Seattle.   What is the justification for favoring the big guys?   Meanwhile the City's argument that such signs help people find their way around town is hard to take seriously.  The sign would be so high up nobody walking or driving nearby would be able to see it from street level.   Nor could it be seriously argued the building is hard to find.   In fact it is one of the most visible and prominent buildings in the city, not that Russell Investments needs the advertising.   Last I checked their clients are primarily other investment firms, large trusts, and mutual fund companies, very few of which are even located in Seattle.   I don't know if they have any walk-up retail customers.   If that weren't enough, the sign would be most visible at night when the building isn't even open.   

This looks like just another sweetheart deal where City Hall does a favor for a large company.  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Russell Investment moved to Seattle, but they sure don't need special treatment from the City.  They already got a steal when they bought the building for a fraction of what WAMU paid for it.   The City ought to think about what other tall buildings will be turned into free advertising if this ordinance goes through.   If City Hall wants to help the downtown landlords and developers the way to do it is through efficient public services down at street level.  Allowing advertising on the top of highrises won't do anything to fill vacant buildings, but better police and social services might make downtown a little more attractive to the small retailers and service businesses that are struggling. 

By the way, before the City further relaxes the sign ordinance they ought to take a look at what happened after they allowed bright moving-image signs.   If you want to see one take a look at the large sign on First Ave S. just south of the Stadiums.  You can't miss it, its attached to a strip club and runs provocative ads 24 hours per day.  Yup, just what the city needed to improve its family-friendly image and bring in neighborhood retail.   Whoever is coming up with these changes to the sign ordinance must live in some other neighborhood, or maybe they live in a suburban city that protects neighborhood interests by carefully regulating illuminated signs.   The proposed change for Russell Investment is unnecessary and is another step down a slippery slope.   Allowing big illuminated advertising on buildings is not the answer to any of Seattle's problems.    

Charles Prestrud

Is Seattle ready for row homes?

By AUBREY COHEN
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

Dense Seattle neighborhoods could start looking a lot more like those in cities like San Francisco and Philadelphia, under a proposal the City Council is set to take up later this month.

The plan would let developers build row homes right up their neighbors' side lot lines on in townhouse zones, similar to classic older homes in many other U.S. cities. It's one of many changes aimed at making townhouse development more diverse, attractive and sustainable.

The City Council's Committee on the Built Environment this week unanimously endorsed the plan, which the full council could take up as early as Dec. 13. The changes would apply to the approximately 8 percent of the city zoned for townhouses, but wouldn't impact single-family zones.

In townhouse zones, the city has long allowed townhouses on a single lot to have shared walls, but required them to be set back from side property lines. The idea was to continue a semblance of Seattle's tradition of detached houses and provide some protection to people who continued to live in traditional houses that remained in townhouse zones.

There's widespread agreement that the results of the current rules were often ugly, particularly clusters of homes around an auto court.

"We've seen some really great housing developed, despite some of the things that were in our code, and we've seen some things developed that were really not positive additions to our city," Councilmember Sally Clark said at a committee meeting Tuesday. "We can do better."

Squire Park resident Bill Zosel said that, at the community meetings he attends, community members cite bad townhouses as "the most or one of the most significant problems."

City planners proposed an overhaul of rules governing townhouses and small apartment and condominium buildings more than two years ago. The original plan called for giving developers more flexibility for different (and, hopefully, better) designs by allowing homes to be taller and closer to the street, while also adding new design, open-space and landscaping requirements, and addressing other concerns, such as high fences along streets.

Some people felt that the rules didn't go far enough to allow different kinds of homes, while others said they would allow even-uglier buildings.

Many agree that the recent change allowing attached row homes that go right up to the property lines on either side will allow prettier homes. It will also allow variation that makes for more attractive neighborhoods, Clark said.

"In the last development cycle we saw so much of the same thing over and over again," she said. "What we heard from architects and developers was: 'Well your code makes us do that.'"

The change also would put homes closer to existing neighbors and, over time, could result in block-long rows of houses, such as those that have long existed in older cities. Row homes would have to be set back from neighboring single-family zones, but not from single-family houses that are in townhouse zones.

"I think we realized that trying to force multi-family development to look like single-family development was yielding some really bad product," Clark said Thursday. "We weren't doing anybody any favors."

The new rules would still allow townhouses that aren't row homes. But the current auto-court-style homes would be limited -- allowing just two or three on a typical lot where three or four could go now.

Non-row townhouses could build to the higher density if they put parking at the rear of the lot, off an alley if there is one, and meet green-building requirements. Row houses would, for practical purposes, be limited to three on a typical lot by the width of the lot.

Row home parking is pretty straightforward if there's an alley. The garages go on the alley in a row across the back yard from the houses.

If there's no alley, developers could run a driveway down the side of the lot to the back, which cuts into row-home space, or build parking underground, which is expensive.

Another option is to have separate front driveways for each home. But that takes away street parking and creates more places where cars can conflict with pedestrians on sidewalks.

"That's a lot for pedestrians to be crossing, and it doesn't seem to serve anybody's interest," Clark said.

The solution that the Committee on the Built Environment adopted Tuesday was a compromise: Require driveways to be at least 18 feet from each other and, on lots too narrow to meet this requirement for all homes, allow two homes to share a driveway.

The plan eliminates required parking altogether in urban villages, which are designed to have services and transit within walking distance, and certain other areas close to transit.

Clark wants to get rid of parking requirements in other areas, leaving the decision up to developers and the market, eventually.

"I would like to get the city out of the business of prescribing how much parking you provide, because I don't think we're particularly good at it," she said.

But many existing residents still see parking requirements as needed to ensure streets aren't clogged with parked cars, she added. "We didn't go there yet. I would say that Seattle's probably on the way to that."

Overall, the proposal "does a lot of good things," Zosel said in endorsing the plan Tuesday. "I think that it will make things better in the future."

Architect Bradley Khouri, representing the Seattle chapter of the American Institute of Architects, said the measure "doesn't address everybody's concerns, but it certainly goes a long way to getting us towards the kind of flexibility that we want to see within legislation that will allow great solutions."

But Seattle Community Council Federation Treasurer Chris Leman argued the rules would make things worse, saying: "The so-called solution for townhouses, and there has been a bit of a townhouse problem, is to build taller and larger apartment and condo buildings that are bulkier, that lack meaningful yards and are really a lot worse than even the worst townhouses."

Aubrey Cohen can be reached at 206-448-8362 or aubreycohen@seattlepi.com. Follow Aubrey on Twitter at twitter.com/piboeing.

Act now to clean up the Duwamish river!

Seattle Community Council Federation

At our November meeting Heather Trim from People for Puget sound presented a compelling argument for prompt action. Here's a summary of what she told us:

The Duwamish River is one of the most polluted sites in Puget Sound as well as one of the most polluted sites in the US. It is in the process of being cleaned up.  The River is polluted for 5.5 miles with PCBs, dioxin/furans, PAHs, and arsenic as well as 39 other chemicals at levels above standards.  We need your help in asking Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the WA Department of Ecology for a strong cleanup option.

Email EPA and Ecology to give your opinion about the cleanup by clicking here.

Or attend a public meeting and give your public comments:

December 7, 5:30–8:30 p.m.: Concord International Elementary School, 723 Concord Ave S, in South Park. Spanish interpretation, food and child care provided.

December 9, 3:30–8:30 p.m.: (with information sessions at 4:30 and 6:30 p.m.): South Seattle Community College–Duwamish Campus, 6737 S. Corson Ave., in Georgetown. Vietnamese interpretation and food provided.

EPA and the Department of Ecology have released a "menu" of 12 cleanup options for the Duwamish River.  The cleanup options have various proportions of the following techniques:

•  “Natural recovery” in which the pollution is left in place and natural sedimentation from upriver slowly covers it over and dilutes it;
• “Capping” in which a layer of clean sand and gravel is placed over the polluted area to create a barrier above the contaminated material; and
• “Dredging” in which the polluted material is removed from the river and is transported to a hazardous waste landfill.

The costs of the 12 options range from $210 million (mostly natural recovery) to $1.3 billion (mostly dredging).  This range of options also ranges from least certain to most certain in terms of long-term success.  All of the cleanup options will take at least 10 years as this is a big site.

Unfortunately, none of the 12 options are expected to cleanup the river enough to protect the health of tribal and subsistence fishermen who eat the seafood from the river, mostly because of ongoing sources of pollution. The options don't describe what is being done to control continuing pollution, which has the potential to undermine the cleanup effort by recontaminating the river bottom with PCBs, dioxins, arsenic and other chemicals. No pollution control plans are currently in place for upriver sources.

People For Puget Sound is on the advisory forum for the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition/TAG (DRCC/TAG).  DRCC/TAG has had the cleanup options reviewed by independent technical advisors and has the following main recommendations:

• The river must be cleaned up to "natural background" levels to best protect human health
• Upriver pollution source control must be addressed for an effective and equitable cleanup
• Only one option (Alternative #6R) provides a permanent cleanup that ensures it is done once and done right
• An Environmental Justice Assessment is needed to make sure that all populations are protected

Click here for the full fact sheet and a sample letter.
Click here for more information about the Duwamish River Superfund Site.

Click here to send an email to EPA and Ecology voicing your opinion.

Thank you for your help!

Cheers,

Rein Attemann,  rattemann@pugetsound.org

Heather Trim, htrim@pugetsound.org

Don't vandalize Seattle's skyline with unsightly illuminated signs

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2013570345_guest02ochnser.html

The Seattle City Council is considering changes to its rules about signs that could mar the city's skyline with giant illuminated signs. Guest columnist Jeffrey Karl Ochsner argues the city should preserve the sense of the city's civic identity apparent under current sign rules.

By Jeffrey Karl Ochsner

Special to The Times

ELLEN M. BANNER / THE SEATTLE TIME

Downtown Seattle looks glorious viewed from Elliott Bay.

THE city of Seattle may be poised to approve an ordinance that will permanently deface the downtown skyline. A Nov. 6 Seattle Times editorial noted that unnamed "dignitaries" were amenable to rewriting the Seattle Municipal Code to allow Russell Investments to put giant illuminated signs at the top of their building, the former WaMu Tower.

A City Council committee will consider proposed revisions to the sign-code portion of the Seattle Municipal Code at a public hearing Dec. 7. A council vote on the issue may occur before Christmas.

Adding giant illuminated signs to the former WaMu Tower will mar the downtown skyline. The Tower is nearly dead center in the skyline. The bright lights will make the Russell Investments sign the primary focus of the skyline. The state outlawed billboards in 1961, but the Russell Investments sign will turn the downtown skyline into a giant billboard.

The proposed changes are a shocking give-away of our skyline. This kind of special favor for a special interest undermines the integrity of Seattle governance. Allowing giant illuminated signs will blight the skyline that Seattle has protected for the last half century. The proposed changes contravene our Comprehensive Plan.

The sign code currently allows downtown signs for business tenants only below 65 feet. Hotels and public buildings may have signs above 65 feet because these signs help us find places for public access and use.

The proposed changes would allow any tenant downtown with more than 200,000 square feet of space to have giant illuminated signs near the tops of downtown buildings. Signs could be up to 324 square feet on four sides of a building, or up to 648 square feet on two sides of a building more than 500 feet tall. Giant illuminated signs up to 18-by-36 feet or 12-by-48 feet or 10-by-64 feet would be allowed.

The downtown skyline is a tremendous asset forming a memorable image within our natural setting. Victor Steinbrueck called attention to the extraordinary value of our skyline nearly 50 years ago in "Seattle Cityscape," writing, "Seen from west of the bay, at a small lookout park on the tip of Duwamish Head, the central business district provides a thrilling panorama by day and by night."

The city of Seattle Comprehensive Plan "Culture Resource" section cites the skyline as central to our civic identity: "Over time, Seattle has acquired many features that people have come to identify with the city. Among them are ... the downtown skyline, distinguished by landmarks such as the Smith Tower." But now, with little public discussion, this will be discarded and forgotten.

The Municipal Code currently restricts signs at the tops of downtown buildings to protect our skyline for the enjoyment of everyone. The Comprehensive Plan specifically calls for "reducing visual clutter" and "limiting the signs at the tops of buildings," yet this is being ignored.

If approved, the proposed changes will set an appalling precedent. What happens when a tenant with 150,000 or 100,000 square feet asks for equal treatment? The Russell Investments signs open the door to untold visual clutter on our skyline.

The code changes undermine Seattle's claim to be a sustainable city. Giant illuminated advertising signs will consume energy for commercial advertising, contributing nothing to the community.

Seattle City Council must recognize how appalling the proposed sign-code revisions are. The integrity of the Seattle Municipal Code and the Comprehensive Plan is at stake.

After a half-century of treasuring our Seattle skyline, why is the city poised to allow it now to be vandalized? The skyline belongs to all of us. It should not be given away.

Jeffrey Karl Ochsner is a professor of architecture at the University of Washington.

OUTSIDE CITY HALL A neighborhood manifesto for change

OUTSIDE CITY HALL

A neighborhood manifesto for change

Carolee Colter and John V. Fox  (reprinted from Dec 1, 2010 edition of Pacific Publishing Co. Newspapers)

http://www.northseattleherald-outlook.com/m/ArticleDisplay.aspx?articleid=28685&sectionid=9

Looking ahead to the 2011 Seattle City Council election, it’s not too early to start thinking about how to make City Hall more responsive to our neighborhoods and the cause of social justice.

The five seats now occupied by councilmembers Tom Rasmussen, Jean Godden, Tim Burgess, Bruce Harrell and Sally Clark will be contested.

Early next year, housing and neighborhood activists expect to convene an ad hoc group to discuss whether to run our own candidates in any of these races or find other ways to make all our electeds more sympathetic to our needs.

Right now, it appears likely that most, if not all, incumbents will seek reelection. And given the power of incumbency, we know how difficult it would be to beat any of them.

Only Godden, who routinely sides with development interests, seems to be in any way vulnerable.

Time to limit growth

There are other ways for neighborhood activists to challenge the status quo. Putting an initiative on the ballot, for instance, to block the current upzone-redevelopment-tear-down craze could save both trees and low-income housing.

The “creeks initiative” from 2003 was a good example. Had the courts not struck it down, that initiative would have thrown a serious monkey wrench into developers’ plans across our neighborhoods.

Another option might be creation of a “Neighborhood PAC,” or a Municipal League-like entity to evaluate and rate candidates in terms of their stance on issues important to the neighborhoods.

And there’s always another push for district elections. By making City Council members represent specific districts, they would become more directly accountable to their constituents instead of the moneyed special interests who donate to their campaigns.

And it would become much more financially feasible to those without corporate donors to get elected since TV advertising would no longer be as cost-effective as door-to-door campaigning. That’s why corporate interests went all out to (successfully) defeat an initiative for district elections in 2003.

Whether we run candidates, rate candidates or work to get initiatives on the ballot, our theme should be limiting growth to responsible, managed levels.

As we come out of the economic downturn, we need mechanisms in place to preserve our trees, greenspace, affordable housing and the physical and social character of our neighborhoods — the things that make this city livable — before growth accelerates again to the runaway levels we experienced before the recession hit.

What we really need

We’ve seen too much growth, and our current elected leaders are too beholden to developers, Paul Allen and downtown interests. It’s time developers started paying their fair share of the costs of growth, in the form of one-for-one replacement of affordable housing units they remove.

We need stronger tree protections (not fewer) and no more upzones in our neighborhoods, period.

Impact fees should replace regressive revenue sources, such as increases in property taxes, user fees, tolling and the business-and-occupation tax. Small businesses, working people, low-income people, including many longtime residents, are all being nickeled-and-dimed to death.

Let’s stop tapping the general fund for big-ticket projects that serve special interests and put them on special ballots rather than bridge repairs, crosswalks and funding for our libraries and community centers — that’s what the general fund is for.

Root out the millions in our general fund going to South Lake Union and downtown.

No to fixing the “Mercer mess,” and no to the Alaskan Way Viaduct-replacement tunnel!

No to adding more lanes to state Route 520.

More for buses, and less for Sound Transit and streetcars.

Kill the stoplight cameras, bring parking-meter rates back down and limit “road diets” to those areas where the neighborhoods want them.

More police accountability — it’s time for a real citizen-review board with subpoena powers and power to impose penalties and consequences.

Good stewardship

The big lie is the assumption that Seattle isn’t doing its share to absorb density and growth, to prevent sprawl and curb global warming. In nearly every neighborhood, including most of the areas around train stops, we’ve exceeded our growth targets.

There’s something wrong with advocating for open-space preservation outside the city but, once across the city line, aiding and abetting the pouring of concrete and wiping out of trees, stamping out every last vestige of nature for urban dwellers outside of parks.

Good stewardship of our environment begins right here in our own neighborhoods: protecting our trees, preserving space in all our neighborhoods for essential urban gardening, saving urban streams — and, not coincidentally, preserving our existing stock of low-income and affordable housing.

It’s right in our neighborhoods where we can make the most impact on climate change, not somewhere else.

Although this runs counter to conventional wisdom and special interests, we need to publicize and promote the notion of a “steady state economy,” a realization that growth anywhere of any kind at accelerated rates is anathema to a healthy environment.

In the interim, a poly-centered approach to growth for the region — distributing it where people are already living and not concentrating it all in Seattle — is the most cost-effective and environmentally sound way to manage the growth we have.

We progressives need to reclaim the environmental high ground, and that means learning to say no to growth.

JOHN V. FOX AND CAROLEE COLTER are coordinators for the Seattle Displacement Coalition (google us), a low-income housing organization or email us here or ph: 206-632-0668.

SEATTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEDERATION

Founded in 1948, the Seattle Community Council Federation is one of the nation's oldest and most active coalitions of neighborhood groups.  Yearly dues for member groups are $50.  SCCF welcomes new member groups, and encourages renewal by groups whose membership in SCCF may have lapsed.  Individual donations are also welcome and tax deductible, and go very far, as SCCF is an all-volunteer 501(c)(3) organization.  Please mail your check to SCCF, 2370 Yale Avenue East, Seattle, WA  98102-3310.  For questions, contact treasurer Chris Leman, (206) 322-5463, cleman@oo.net.

Keep up-to-date at our blog/website www.seattlefederation.blogspot.com

Deep Bore Tunnel forum Today, December 1, at 7:30 p.m. in Town Hall on First Hill.

Urban Politics #303 11/30/10

THE DEEP BORE TUNNEL CONTROVERSY

By City Councilmember Nick Licata
with assistance from Newell Aldrich

Replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct has more twists and turns than a Hitchcock movie, and the final credits are still a long way off. The latest plot twist introduces two new developments.

First, the Sierra Club and Real Change are considering a city initiative to stop the deep bore tunnel from being built unless certain conditions are met. Under the name Move Seattle Smarter, they are trying to craft an initiative that would protect Seattle taxpayers from any potential cost overruns before construction could begin. They would need to collect about 25,000 signatures to assure placing the initiative on the ballot in late summer or fall of next year, although it still could face a legal challenge for overreaching the intended authority granted to citizens through the initiative process.

Second, state initiative promoter Tim Eyman testified before the Washington State Transportation Commission that the commission lost the power under state law to set toll rates when his Initiative 1053 passed this fall. I-1053 said that all legislative action raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature, and any new or increased fees require majority legislative approval. Since funding for the deep bore tunnel is dependent on about $400 million in tolls, the state legislature would have to vote to set the tolls rates, rather than the State Transportation Commission. The State Attorney General is examining this issue at the request of a state senator; opinions generally take 60 days.

It may not be easy for the legislature to set tolls without opening up the issue of project funding and cost overruns. Worse, if the costs for the tunnel go over the set-aside contingency (i.e. goes over budget) the state legislature would need a two-thirds vote if they were to raise taxes to pay for the gap.

Although the Democrats will still control both the State House and Senate, their majority has shrunk. That leaves less room for Seattle's delegation to collect the votes that may be needed to address these issues if Eyman's interpretation is correct.

Meanwhile the State is evaluating the two bids that have been submitted for construction of the deep bore tunnel. It is expected that the State will accept one of them before the end of the year. A contract with the winning bidder would then be signed in the first quarter of next year and construction will follow. Any attempts to stop the project would be increasingly difficult after the contract is signed. This means that the question of who covers any eventual cost overruns would be most likely decided through some understanding reached between the Governor and the State Legislature.

The public debate so far has focused on the deep bore tunnel's financial risk to Seattle taxpayers. Of the $900 million City contribution for tunnel-related projects the Mayor has criticized, $500 million is for the Seawall and utility relocation-costs the state would have picked up for an elevated replacement. It's ironic that some opponents of the elevated option now criticize this spending, when many urged a no vote on the elevated option in 2007 which would have had these costs paid for by the state. The elevated also didn't put extra traffic onto city streets, because it had six lanes and tolls weren't needed, another key objection of tunnel critics. In addition, the Governor agreed the state would pay the replacement cost for an elevated, removing the issue of cost overruns.

Those calling for transparency in the State's and City's decision-making would hope to make the potential risk of building a deep bore tunnel readily apparent to the general public. Their focus has been on the financial risk of the project. Thus, the other main objection-made earlier by a number of environmentalists-over the tunnel's failure to curb vehicle usage is largely being ignored. Why is that? It could be because the other options have major problems.

In 2008 the state's stakeholder advisory group made two recommendations: one was a 6 lane surface/transit option that would have turned Western Avenue into a 3 lane road, which would have presented a huge environmental impact to the north end of Pike Place Market which it passes by; the other was a smaller 4-lane elevated viaduct, with bigger and bulkier columns, but fewer of them. Political forces representing various constituencies in Seattle effectively blocked either solution. Both options included transit, due to reduced road capacity; the state has yet to authorize any tax options to fund additional transit operations for the deep bore tunnel option.

At the last moment, the Governor met with then Mayor Greg Nickels and King County Executive Ron Sims, and they came up with the deep bore tunnel solution. It was seen as freeing up the waterfront from an obtrusive elevated viaduct and providing a functioning corridor through the city, one that was not seen as viable with the surface-only solution. A surface option could also be more expensive for Seattle than other options, unless the Viaduct is torn down with anything to replace it. It is questionable whether the state legislature would authorize funding a non-freeway surface option, so the City could well be on its own.

Whether Tim Eyman or Move Seattle Smarter efforts to halt the deep bore tunnel succeed or not, the controversy over it as the best replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct will continue until it is built or the bill has been paid.

The Stranger, a consistent critic of the deep bore tunnel, is sponsoring a forum this Wednesday, December 1, at 7:30 p.m. in Town Hall on First Hill. To date three speakers have been confirmed on the panel: Mayor Mike McGinn, City Councilmember Mike O'Brien and a speaker from Move Seattle Smarter.

Below is a short history on how we got to our present situation, for those who want additional details.

VIADUCT TIMELINE

In 2001 the Nisqually earthquake damaged the Alaskan Way Viaduct. In 2002, the City Council passed a resolution in favor of a tunnel to the extent feasible (I voted no). The then-estimated cost was $10 billion.

In 2003, I asked the state to examine repairing the Viaduct; they didn't find it feasible. In 2006, when a new proposal arrived, I again asked the state to study a "retrofit". They found it could be done, but would cost almost as much as rebuilding it. During this time, various pro-tunnel resolutions were passed by the Council by 8-1 or 7-2 votes.

In 2006, as then Council President I commissioned a study of a 6-lane surface option.  The study indicated it would result in more pollution, greater congestion, and showed how streets with too much vehicle traffic quickly become pedestrian unfriendly. Critics charged the consultants used WSDOT data that they consider unreliable. The 2004 EIS showed that traffic speed with a 6-lane surface option would average about 12 miles per hour in both directions. Many surface supporters favor a 4-lane option.

In 2006 I also proposed a public vote.

In December 2006, the Governor released a report stating the State would fund an elevated replacement, but that the City would need to provide additional funding for a tunnel, including cost overruns.

In March 2007, public votes took place on two options. $2.8 billion was available in state funding for SR 99 replacement, (costs include south end work of roughly $1 billion):

*         Elevated Structure: a $2.8 billion 6-lane elevated: it was fully funded by the state, with no tolls, no impact on city streets according to EIS, utilities and seawall were paid for by the state; the existing Columbia, Seneca and Elliott ramps would be re-built.


*         Surface-tunnel hybrid: a $3.4 billion four-lane cut and cover tunnel, with 2 wide shoulders for peak hours, to be funded with $2.8 billion state funds, $500 million city utility funds; $250 million localized tax on specially benefited landowners.

Both measures went down, with 43% yes on the elevated, 30% yes on the surface-tunnel hybrid.

Subsequent to the public vote, the state legislature removed $400 million from the project and shifted it to the 520 bridge replacement project, leaving $2.4 billion. Any project costing more would need another funding source, such as tolls.

After the vote, the Council passed the Urban Mobility Plan to explore a surface option, and WSDOT, Seattle and King County convened a Stakeholder Advisory Committee that met in 2008.

The Stakeholder group reviewed eight options that were generally 4 lanes for a Viaduct replacement. Because a 4-lane elevated or tunnel (and surface options) would have less capacity than the current Viaduct, a separate menu of options was developed to add capacity to I-5, city surface streets, and transit, and possibly streetcars.

The Stakeholder group then reviewed two "hybrid" options, one elevated, one surface, that all included some I-5 work, transit, and city surface street work.

First was a SR 99 Elevated Bypass Hybrid, with two independent two lane side-by-side viaducts. In South Lake Union, it included a new underpass at Republican, with the following:

*         Cost: $1.67 billion (including risk/contingency)

*         $640 million extras ($103 million I-5 work, $234 million city streets, $267 transit, all include risk), + $130 million construction mitigation

*         Total $2.4 billion (including $1.1 billion south end SR 99 work: $3.5 billion)

Opponents of an elevated option weren't appeased by this reduced-size proposal.

I-5/Surface/Transit Hybrid The surface option would convert Alaskan Way and Western into 3-lane one-way streets to replace the Viaduct. In South Lake Union, it would include 5 signalized crossings over Aurora, and 28 stoplights in a new SR 99 corridor along the waterfront. The option includes:

*         $929 million (including risk/contingency)

*         $1.28 extras ($553 I-5 work, $216 city streets, $476 million transit, all include risk), + $30 million construction mitigation

*         Total, $2.2 billion (including $1.1 billion south end SR 99 work: $3.3 billion)

The Pike Place Market was alarmed by the prospect of converting Western to a high-capacity road adjacent to the pedestrian environment of the Market; in any case, the surface option isn't inexpensive, as some seem to think.

Around $250 million or so can be reduced from south end cost estimates, since bids have come in lower. The City had already committed to funding some of the road work above. In addition, those estimates included $250 million seawall and $250 million in utility relocation, costs the City has since agreed to pay as part of the tunnel project. Thus, both options could have been economically feasible.

In December, supporters of a bored tunnel proposed a single-bore tunnel, less expensive than the twin-bore tunnel WSDOT had considered. It was presented to the Stakeholder group.

In January 2009, the Governor and then Mayor Nickels and King County Executive Sims signed an agreement to proceed with a 4-lane $1.9 billion bored tunnel as part of a $4.2 billion plan. The City helped reduce cost estimates for the tunnel by agreeing to pick up the utility and seawall costs, roughly $500 million.

This option has one key advantage over the others: it won't require closure of the viaduct, and a construction impact period of several years. On the other hand, the risk may well be higher. Funding for transit has yet to be secured.

In April 2009, the State legislature required that $400 million in tolls be used to fund the states $2.8 million portion of the agreement.

The use of tolls reduces the projected number of vehicles that would use the tunnel, especially during rush hour, when tolls would be higher.

The legislature further limited the state's contribution to $2.8 billion, and stated that any extra costs would need to be borne by "property owners  in the Seattle area who benefit from the replacement of the existing viaduct with the deep bore tunnel", a provision the State Attorney General and City Attorney have both said is not enforceable. The state legislature would need to take action in the future to craft separate legislation to attempt to enforce it, which would be difficult at best, because the state cannot create local taxing districts (only local governments can).

In July, Initiative 101 was filed to prohibit construction of a tunnel or use of City right-of-way for a tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Signatures are being collected for this previous effort but it seems unlikely that its sponsors collect enough signatures in time to present it on the fall ballot.

The Council voted in August 2010 to support the tunnel in a resolution endorsing the drafts of agreements that say the State shall pay costs. I proposed an amendment the Council passed subjecting the resolution to the state legislature not enacting legislation to overturn WSDOT's responsibility for costs, including cost overruns, set out in the agreements.

In mid-October, WSDOT released a poll of Seattle and inner suburban residents.  It showed support 69-27 for a bored tunnel over surface, 65-30 bored tunnel over a rebuild, and 52-41 rebuild over surface. Some criticized it as biased.

In October, WSDOT offered the bidders concessions to cover inflation, bonds, insurance, and building damage. This reduced the contingency budget from $415 million to $235 million.

On October 29, the Governor announced that both bids came in within budget.


COUNCIL MEMBERS & MAYOR'S EMAIL ADDRESSES

Sally.Bagshaw@seattle.gov<mailto:Sally.Bagshaw@seattle.gov>
Tim.Burgess@seattle.gov<mailto:Tim.Burgess@seattle.gov>
Sally.Clark@seattle.gov<mailto:Sally.Clark@seattle.gov>
Richard.Conlin@seattle.gov<mailto:Richard.Conlin@seattle.gov>
Jean.Godden@seattle.gov<mailto:Jean.Godden@seattle.gov>
Bruce.Harrell@seattle.gov<mailto:Bruce.Harrell@seattle.gov>
Nick.Licata@seattle.gov<mailto:Nick.Licata@seattle.gov>
Mike.OBrien@seattle.gov<mailto:Mike.OBrien@seattle.gov>
Tom.Rasmussen@seattle.gov<mailto:Tom.Rasmussen@seattle.gov>

Citizens are directed to the following website to complete a form to send an email to the Mayor's Office. http://www.cityofseattle.net/mayor/citizen_response.htm


URBAN POLITICS SUBSCRIPTION INSTRUCTIONS

To subscribe, send a message to: urbanpolitics-subscribe@speakeasy.neturbanpolitics-subscribe@speakeasy.net>
To unsubscribe, send a message to: urbanpolitics-unsubscribe@speakeasy.neturbanpolitics-unsubscribe@speakeasy.net>
You do not need to include anything in the body of the messages.