Please amend CB119398 and bring reality to City policy.
City Council is scheduled to vote on CB119398 this coming Monday, January 14, at 2 PM. Exempting downtown towers from transportation mitigations required for smaller developments outside the city core is the biggest adverse impact and mystery in CB119398. While we understand and applaud the goal of bringing alternative transportation options to the SOV into greater usage, Transportation Performance [i.e. travel time] should be our primary measure of success or failure, not just a fuzzy feel good SOV reduction standard.
Public losing right to challenge urban tower transportation impacts; Write now asking Council to vote NO on CB119398
CB119398 may be well intentioned, but it is dangerously incomplete. While smaller projects outside the urban core will need to mitigate their traffic impacts, new downtown towers are exempt. The bill eliminates Director’s Rule 2009-5 that says if a tower’s projected vehicle trips exceed street capacity at key intersections, it is required to address its adverse impacts.
Downtown: The Front Porch of Seattle
A cluttered front porch leaves a bad first impression, no matter what is behind it. The same with a city. We have so many great things in downtown Seattle, but on the way to them you’ll see trash, homeless tents, people passed out on sidewalks, drug deals & injections, traffic gridlock…and on and on. You don’t get a second chance at a first impression, so fix it now!
CB119398: Please Vote NO!
CB119398 will give downtown high-rises a free pass from the SEPA process, an automatic Determination of Non-Significance. We need to tighten controls, not throw wide the gates.
Stop the insanity now!
A recently released UW/SDOT study (click here for full report) confirms the inadequacies of Seattle's 100 year old downtown alleys. Why does the City continue to allow irreversible disastrous decisions with generational adverse impacts in Downtown Seattle? There can only be one answer.…The city sees a way out of their budget problems, and the developers are more than willing to accommodate them.
Alley and Loading Berth Design Code Must Be Changed…It Simply Doesn’t Work!
Escala was built to code but its berths won’t hold most common trucks. That’s why it’s imperative that we get action to improve Design Review procedures on loading design and alley circulation — and code revisions on loading requirements and alley width.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING ALERT
Make your voice heard to the committees overseeing Seattle’s transportation and land use policies
Tuesday, December 4, 2018, 2 p.m. Sustainability and Transportation &
Wednesday December 5, 2018 9:30 a.m. Planning, Land Use and Zoning
Meetings held in City Council Chambers at 600 4th Ave. Seattle, WA 98104
DOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN…that dog won’t hunt!
The Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) commonly uses the term Dock Management Plan as a “cure-all” for inadequate loading and waste facilities in proposed downtown high-rise projects, but the City of Seattle has no practical experience with their operation ,due either to the newness or incompleteness of the projects involved.
Too Big To Fail: Part 1 of 4; First Light at 2000 - 3rd Avenue
First Light Condominium at 2000-3rd Ave. boasts a rooftop pool and some of the best sunset views in the Pacific Northwest. Its problems come on the ground, where it is not a functional design. As home to an anticipated 1,600 condo dwellers and office workers, this small village is requesting fewer and smaller loading berths than required by code. Most trucks won't be able to access the berths because the project's narrow alley is lined with dumpsters from neighboring older buildings, home to some of Seattle's most popular restaurants. And ingress and egress from its parking garage will be challenging, if not impossible.
The Difference between Collaboration and Greed
The difference between collaboration and greed is literally the difference between day and night for the residents of adjacent towers...The intent here in the cover photo seems to be to work with the neighbors to insure natural light and livability for residents of both buildings.
Developer Abuses the Environment Impact Statement [EIS] Process
The analysis provided in the Addendum is incomplete and does not fulfill the requirements of a project EIS....Throughout, the Addendum describes impacts as “unavoidable,” which is simply untrue...there was little to no sincere attempt in this Addendum to propose or pursue impact mitigation.