The Floating Homes Association has submitted comments on the EIS scoping for the rezone proposed for the South Lake Union area. The Association's Board of Directors is adamantly opposed proposals #1 and #2, currently on the table. These proposals would allow 400-foot towers to blot out views of downtown and the Space Needle as far away as Gasworks Park. Views actually might end up being among the least of the intrusions, given the bulk and scale anticipated and the utter lack of any public space requirements.
The Lake Union Opportunity Alliance, a group formed as an alternative to the "citizens" group which came up with the first proposals, is proposing a third alternative which is much more palatable. But serious questions have been raised about the need for the rezone at all. The Floating Homes Letter raises this point, too --
City planning must provide for "livability" and other qualities, not just plan for zoning and density. Zoning and density should reflect and support the livability goals, not dictate the planning goals. Current state and city law both bear on these goals. They provide a context in which this particular up-zone proposal rings a very sour note.
For instance, the state's Growth Management Act designates South Lake Union an Urban Center and targets the area for 16,000 new jobs and 8,000 new households in the next 20 years (2004 to 2024).
The city has already enthusiastically embraced this goal. Its "Urban Center Neighborhood Plan," dated September 2007, states that, "Existing zoning allows more than sufficient reserve to accommodate Comprehensive Plan goals. There is zoning capacity for an additional 10,000 housing units and up to 27,000 additional jobs in over 8 million square feet of commercial space." (p11) http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Planning/South_Lake_Union.
Immediately to the south of this area, the city has just recently completed a dramatic up-zone of downtown. This increased capacity is now available to absorb growth pressure, reducing the need to rezone other areas to accommodate planning goals.
So we ask, in view of the fact that Seattle's current zoning already exceeds the state's mandate for an urban growth center, where is the need for an up-zone at all? We wonder particularly what legitimate purpose is driving proposals that are so far out of context that they would be comical, if their consequences weren't so profound.
Find the full text of the letter in the attached pdf.
Marty Greer and Ann Basetti provided most of the research and energy behind this letter.