Some neighbors around the Skanska development project at 3400 Stone Way are asking for those with opinions to weigh in proposed height variance being requested by the developer. For a bit of background on the Skanska project from the Skanska perspective, read Chris’ interview with Skanska USA’s Lisa Picard a few month’s back. Below, a shout-out from a group of neighbors led by Katherine Bragdon, Ted Lockery and Paul Willumson who are asking the city to deny the developer’s request to grant a variance that would allow the building to extend 20′ about the existing 45′ limit for that neighborhood:
Thank you for writing the city regarding the 3400 Stone Way building that as proposed would loom twenty feet above current zoning. At the bottom of this email, you can see the developer’s rendering AND read about an exciting victory but please first read on to find out what’s needed immediately to 1) keep this building to an appropriate size and 2) avoid the precedent of rezoning properties in this area from 45’ to 65’. We do not have Skanska’s financial resources but we do have more neighborhood voices. Let’s make sure we are heard loud and clear…
We need everyone in the neighborhood (all adults in each household) to take a moment to send ANOTHER letter to the City now. It’s just as important as the first letter you wrote. If you touched upon negative impacts in your previous letter, you can use those points now to comment on the developer’s application for a Master Use Permit which includes a 20-foot height variance. We generated 85 letters to DPD this fall which was clearly noticed by the city. Let’s generate even more this time by getting everyone in our households (and more neighbors) to write letters.
In its Master Use Permit (MUP) application to the Department of Planning and Development (DPD), the developer, Skanska, is now applying for a “Contract Rezone” which would give them the special privilege for an exclusive 20-foot height departure for that specific location with no requirement to meet any of the standards of the Living Building Program. We need to contact the city now and let them know that a 20-foot height increase would have significant impacts on our neighborhood.
Please send a letter now to the DPD asking them to deny the “Contract Rezone” in the MUP application for the 3400 Stone Way building – Project #3012601. The city cannot rely upon community opposition alone to deny or condition a permit request. Therefore, to write effective comments on the MUP application, we all need to explain the significant negative impacts the additional 20 feet will have on our neighborhood (as many of you did in your original letters): views blockages of the city, lake and bridges, increased traffic and parking issues due to the increase in building occupants, shading of nearby sidewalks and buildings, effect on the neighborhood character due to the height, bulk and scale issues, etc.
Please reference Project #: 3012601 and email or mail your letter to the DPD:
[email protected] or
Department of Planning and Development
700 5th Ave #2000
P.O. Box 34019
Seattle, WA 98124.Background Information & Exciting Update
In addition to Skanska’s request for a Contract Rezone, there is still pending legislation to the Seattle City Council to allow for a 20-foot height departure from current zoning for any buildings participating in the Living Building Program at 21 potential sites. Skanska is clearly trying a two-pronged approach to getting the 20-foot height variance. In preparation for this legislation, the DPD issued the “Determination of Non-Significance” stating that the legislation would have an adverse impact on neighborhoods but not a “significant adverse impact” because these areas are not “highly sensitive.” If approved the Skanska building at 34th and Stone Way could be granted a 20-foot zone departure (44% zoning increase) to bring the building to 65 feet (that’s almost 20 feet above the phone poles at 35th & Stone Way) plus rooftop features bringing the building to 80+ feet.
As you may remember, in response to this determination, the Wallingford Community Council (WCC) filed an appeal challenging the Determination and requesting that the city conduct a more thorough environmental review of the impacts of this proposed legislation. The hearing was scheduled for the end of this month. This week, the neighborhood had a major victory for due process. The hearing examiner ruled that the WCC hearing be postponed until after the DPD conducts the environmental review for the Master Use Permit. This means that WCC will have more detailed information about the impacts prior to the WCC hearing. Plus, it forces the City Council to analyze the impacts of the proposed building before the Council takes action on the pending legislation that would allow such a significant increase in the height of the building.
(Updated 1/13 4:43 PM: Added back in previously edited-out paragraph, since readers felt it added important content.)
In the interest of due process, I applaud the efforts of WCC. They have made sure that the city will have more thoroughly studied negative impacts of the proposed legislation *before* it goes to a vote before the city council. Thank you.
It’s amazing that if the contract rezone were accepted, Skanska would be granted 20 extra feet above what any other developer is allowed in this area. This means that they could build a 65-foot building (plus all the rooftop amenities bringing it to over 80 feet) with no requirements to meet any green standards. Hopefully this special rezone for Skanska will be denied.
The opponents of this project greatly overstate the opposition to it. The city sent me summaries of the ~85 written comments they received on this project, and a large proportion seemed to be in favor of the project.
I’m going to send another letter supporting it.
Hi Michael. You’re right, there were letters in support. Here are the exact numbers: 88 letters in opposition and 30 letters in support. Best.
I am going to write in and support this project. I read through the proposal and I think it will do great things for the area along with bringing in a great company. This along with some of the older buildings being revitalized lately and the revamp of the dump are great combination of growth for this area.
I am also going to write in in support of this project, thanks for letting us know. I think it will fit in nicely with the other major development currently underway on Stone and will allow a developer to finally prove that deep green construction is commercially viable in Seattle.
I got this letter, since I live nearby. An alert reader might be wondering what you’re missing where, about 1/3 of the way down, you see “[…]”. KTC above already alluded to the substance of it:
“In its Master Use Permit (MUP) application to the Department of Planning and Development (DPD), the developer, Skanska, is now applying for a “Contract Rezone” which would give them the special privilege for an exclusive 20-foot height departure for that specific location with no requirement to meet any of the standards of the Living Building Program. We need to contact the city now and let them know that a 20-foot height increase would have significant impacts on our neighborhood.”
Don’t see why that was omitted, hope I’m not making trouble here, but if it’s true, that’s news, isn’t it? Did Skanska give up on the green thing because they couldn’t make it work, or because they have received assurances from the city that they can get what they want without all that trouble? Without the troublesome green technology, can they reduce the building envelope?
I might oppose this because of all the extra business it’ll bring to the Fremont Brewing Company. The lines for beer are long enough already!
wow, it seem like the same three people are effective at making the apparent opposition of this project larger than it really is. I too support this and I resent that wallyhood continues to ignore the other side of us that know why this project is important to community building. I know as a member of Sustainable Wallingford that this is a SUPPORTED project of Sustainable Wallingford and one of the MOST IMPORTANT projects in Seattle. This is in the Fremont Urban Village. This is next to the Transfer Station. Further, To have three (very active and media connected) neighbors prevent the best from happening is dishonest and deceitful and a violation to our public process.
I too will write my letter in support.
Thank you Donn for noticing that omission. In the shout out to neighbors, the most significant development in this process, the contract rezone, was described in a paragraph that was edited out when it was posted above. Again, here it is:
“In its Master Use Permit (MUP) application to the Department of Planning and Development (DPD), the developer, Skanska, is now applying for a “Contract Rezone” which would give them the special privilege for an exclusive 20-foot height departure for that specific location with no requirement to meet any of the standards of the Living Building Program. We need to contact the city now and let them know that a 20-foot height increase would have significant impacts on our neighborhood.”
Best to all for staying informed and writing letters — both for and against the project.
It’s encouraging to live in such an active neighborhood.
This building WILL be a Seattle Living Building Pilot Project building and a great asset for the community, if the WCC and the NIMBY neighbors don’t screw it up. I, for one, wish that my neighborhood association actually represented MY views.
I just sent my letter of support and received nice email back. I’m disappointed that a small, very vocal group of people feel that they accurately represent the entire neighborhood.
It seems to me that people are not necessarily opposing the project per se, but the variance from what are rigorously worked out neighborhood zoning height standards. Those folks above who are supporting the project seem to be engaging in some broad brush strokes, characterizing those neighbors who are opposed as a small minority of “NIMBYS” who are dishonest and deceitful. I strongly object to this. Many people in the neighborhood are seriously concerned about this permitting process, about variances requested and granted without strenuous review, about the potential precedent this could set for height variances along the waterfront area, and so on. Fortunately, Wallingford enjoys an active neighborhood association whose mission is to advocate for the best interests of our neighborhood.
I appreciate the comments regarding a living building. However, people who laud the project as being a living building haven’t looked at the actual documents regarding the project (beyond the Skanska dog and pony show). It will not be a living building. Skanska in private meetings acknowledges that. The city knows that. The law doesn’t require that it be a living building. When it doesn’t meet the requirements, the developer gets to keep its special privileges, but only may need to pay a small percentage penalty.
A review of documents obtained by the WCC through the Public Records Act show that some technical experts who have reviewed the project for the city point out that the project and the site are not particularly suited for the living building challenge. One reviewer indicated that Skanska seemed to only be willing to do the minimum necessary to avoid a fine. Once the building is up, Skanska says it plans to sell the building. There are no ongoing requirements that the building be operated to meet living building standards. The special privileges being sought are not only unnecessary, but in fact may be incompatible with the living building challenge.
Now, the current proposal is for a contract rezone which does not require that such standards be met.
The “small, very vocal group” being attacked for actually trying to have the city and Skanska comply with the law and neighborhood planning have spent hundreds of hours reviewing this matter. Each one will say that they support the idea of a living building, and would love to see the development meet the requirements of the law. I would urge everyone to take a CRITICAL look at what is actually being proposed, and just not swallow the developer’s living building line. Much of what has been asserted by the developer has been misleading and incomplete.
We can have different opinions regarding the course of development in the neighborhood, but anyone who says, or thinks, Wallingford is going to get a living building is simply misinformed. The actual project proposal in its current form should be the focus of the discussion, not the idea of a living building which simply doesn’t apply here.
A useful exercise that was done during the Children’s Hospital brouhaha was to string out a large helium balloon to the requested height, so that people could see what it really meant.
I’m still neutral on this issue but I was compelled to comment after seeing some of the remarks. Our neighborhood council has just made sure that the city is educated before voting. This should be an ideal we strive for and when the city falls short, I’m grateful for the people who hold them accountable no matter where I stand on an issue. While I’m still undecided about the height, I am grateful that this organization exists to make sure our city takes the proper steps to educate themselves before voting.
Also, I’m really taken aback by the people in favor of the project who are making harsh comments. It really does their side a disservice. I come to this blog hoping to learn about issues and it’s really disheartening when I see people trash their neighbors with accusations. I hope in this forum we can encourage people to be vocal — on all sides of any issue — but to also be civil. That way everyone can learn and participate in a healthy debate and we can model for our children that it’s possible to whole heartedly disagree with someone without being uncivil.
That’s my hope for this blog and this community…
I intend to write the City expressing my support of this project. Progress is necessary and a 65′ tall building just isn’t that big. Quality developments like this are important given all of the crap that has been built in this City over the past 2 decades.
Info on the Seattle Living Building Pilot program is here: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Permits/GreenPermitting/LivingBuildingPilot/default.asp. The design review meetings show Skanska on track to meet those goals with a little help from additional height/daylight.
Regardless, it’s an exciting project that will bring jobs, restaurants, retail, and spur other economic development. It’s a positive step for the area.
I support it as well. I live two blocks away and have no concerns about the design or the height.
Added back the removed paragraph, sorry ’bout that
I don’t support the harsh comments against those trying to stop this project, but I think it is worth pointing out that it rankles other people who live in the neighborhood when the small group in opposition acts as if they speak for everyone here somehow. I think this attitude has stirred up many of the people moved to send in letters supporting this project–we are irritated that someone else is speaking in our names without authorization, and want to set the record straight.
This has been pointed out on previous occasions here, and the building opponents don’t seem to care.
Not only do we all love the idea of a living building, as mentioned above, I expect all of us love the idea of jobs, restaurants, retail, etc. on that site.
All it will take, is for the current owner to sell it to someone who will do something with it. She can afford to sit on it, as she has been doing for lo these many years, but the reason it’s idle is not because the neighbors hate development, or because the city has been suppressing development with its 40 foot limit. It has been waiting for this opportunity to make big money off an office tower. When that opportunity passes, because it wasn’t real, the property’s value will become more realistic and odds go way up of something real happening.
A contract rezone is tremendously valuable for the developer and it’s only fair that DPD expect them to share their good fortune with the neighborhood. The Wallingford Steps was partially funded by the developer of Regata condominiums as part of a public-private partership in exchange for their contract rezone, so there is precedent.
DPD, Parks, several other city departments and the developer worked with WCC representatives to get a bramble-covered hillside at the foot of Wallingford Avenue transformed into a beautiful park that connects Wallingford with Gasworks Park. Everyone, City, developer and the neighborhood, benefited and takes pride in that major accomplishment.
Given potential development under the existing zoning at 34th and Stone Way, it seems like there must be something of mutual benefit that we might be able to swap with the developer in exchange for his rezone, don’t you think?
I can not WAIT for this building to be built! LOVE that it’s deep green, LOVE the Brooks retail, LOVE that it’s not a Subway next to a Dump. I’m excited for the additional development/retail it will inspire and the energy it will bring to the neighborhood!
I’m an architect and mechanical engineer that has lived just a few blocks away for over a decade. I’ve studied green building, designed and programed LEED platinum projects across the country. I have also studied the cascadia project on capital hill and have reviewed the skanska proposal.
Its ambitious.
Let me provide some educated facts. 100% Living Buildings cost at least 25-30% more than a market rate building. This means to make them pencil, rents would need to also be 25% higher. So if someone is paying $1000 a month for rent, they now must agree to pay $1250 a month. Try to justify that expense when there are many hog buildings willing to give you space for $1000 or less.
See: https://ilbi.org/education/Resources-Documents/Reports-Docs/ProcessDocs/LB_FinancialStudy_Comparison_Matrix.pdf
So help foster these important buildings and the advancement of green tech, The city provides bonuses (via a pilot program) to reduce these costs to encourage living building developments. The only real economic off-sets the city has to offer is eased permitting and a density bonus. When a density bonus is offered, say even as high as 50%, this helps discount only the land cost but not building costs. Land costs typically represent less than 10% of a development’s total cost. So if there were a density bonus of 50%, it would only reduce the development’s cost by less than 5%.
A true living building is not a financially viable model even if the city gave a 50% density bonus to off-set the costs. Further, even if a project were to only incur half the costs of the living building (10-15%) this building still could not be built in a marketable condition with a city bonus.
Skanska’s attempt to bring forth a market rate project that achieves the goals of the city’s pilot is clearly ambitious.
I’ll be further documenting my support for the pilot program text amendment changes in a technical paper to the city council. I urge all other citizens and professionals knowledgable in the green building trades and those passionate about changing the nature of development in our city to over-ride the voice of the uneducated.
“The voice of the uneducated”? Come on you guys, the neighborhood has legitimate concerns. Skanska is an international construction and development corporation with deep financial pockets. Such a lot of loud and detailed cheerleading for this proposed project…just sayin’. Are you the same folks who traipsed around Fremont extolling the virtues of this project a few months ago?
What are the legitimate concerns? I hear about “due process”, and concern that it may not be a “living” building, but I don’t understand what the real issues are that people may have with this building.
I didn’t read Winn’s comment as a dig at people who oppose this project. He’s obviously interested in seeing the real thing happen, the full-on Living Building, which means people have to understand what that really means and what it costs – including as Lee pointed out above, on-going responsibilities of the building tenants. Few of us do, and in the present case it doesn’t really matter – the builder never pretended to be aiming at a 100% Living Building, and their non-binding promises about partial compliance just served as a sort of sound bite to be used along with “jobs”, “vibrant” etc. by the folks who are going to be champions of this office tower for some reason whatever the facts about it. This is an opportunity to talk about the real thing, but it isn’t the real thing and never was.
What are the concerns? I don’t think everyone’s opposed for the same reasons. Some people are opposed to the height per se, or the building mass, in a neighborhood where no one else is allowed to build that high. Some people just hate being lied to – I mean, look at the artist renderings, what is up with that transparent building?
I personally like this neighborhood, I place a high value on the kind of retail etc. business that actually is located there and I expect would develop on this site if it weren’t priced out of reach by the land owner. Her office developments around the corner all along the canal into Fremont represent the diametric opposite, the token street level retail fig leaf over office canyons that have nothing to do with any neighborhood. Is there any surviving retail there, or is it all bank branch offices by now? Somehow I do not believe this is the model we want for our neighborhood.
Good point Diane, I haven’t seen a single concrete reason why I should oppose this project.
letter sent
I have concerns about the precedence the 65′ height change will set. If the City accepts the Contract Rezone on this property, what is to prevent the City from rezoning all of the IC properties east and west of 34th and Stone to the taller height limit? There is one area along 34th, St James Towers, where the height limit jumps to 65′, though that parcel is zoned neighborhood commercial and not industrial-commercial. But that parcel, which is next to 99, fronts a steep hill, the buildings to the north sit at a higher elevation giving the perception that development marches down the hill. The 34th and Stone parcel is basically flat. Totally different topography.
The parcels surrounding 34th and Stone have a height max of 30′, 40′, and 45.’ It makes sense to me from an urban design perspective to minimize building heights at the flat and by the water. A line of 65′ tall buildings along 34th could wall off upland public views and street vistas that add so much to the character of the Wallingford and Fremont neighborhoods.
What is the City and neighborhood’s larger vision for N 34th? How would land use planners and neighbors like to see that streetscape develop? I think these questions should factor into our thoughts regarding the rezone.
I think it’s only fair that the rest of us (the 99%) in Wallingford get spot rezones. So now all the single family residences can go up an extra 20’ to 50’ in height and of course that would change us from single family to residential/ commercial zoning. And using the logic of some of the pro spot rezoning, if you’re opposed to my new 50’ apartment building then you’re opposed to single family houses. Oh, I’ll throw in a couple of solar panels and call it green! Brooklyn NY, here we come!
Is it possible to support the building of the project but request that the extra 20 foot height be denied? I believe the project will bring great things to our neighborhood and lives, but also would like to try to keep our neighborhood from losing its neighborhood feel and look. The project at Stone and 40th across from 7-11 seems monstrous to me. Again, not opposed to it, just think it looks very out of place and I assume they had to follow the height restrictions…I don’t think we want to start any precedents here that we regret in the future. And who do I write to again to state my support of the project but not the permission of the special rezoning permission?
James – seems unlikely that single family residences could meet the requirements of the Seattle Living Building Pilot project for additional height, or that other businesses in the IC zones will do so.
@ Miss Ruby – Skanska won’t need to meet the minimum requirements of the Seattle Living Building Pilot project either if they pursue a Contract Rezone as their MUP application specifies.
Can you support the project but oppose the height exemption? The question at the moment is specifically whether they should be given this contract rezone, to exceed zoning height limit, so … if you like the project otherwise, then it’s a trade-off: do you like it enough, to support the height exemption, because otherwise it isn’t going to happen (they say.)
I think that means, do you like Brooks enough, specifically, to swallow the height exception to get them. If you don’t particularly care about Brooks, and you don’t want a big building, then don’t worry – a 40 foot limit doesn’t stop all development, only big buildings, so once it’s clear that an exception will not be granted then we should be able to move on to something that fits in the neighborhood. If on the other hand, you happen to care a lot about Brooks, for example because someone in your household works there, then you might be all over this discussion as a zealous promoter of development and progress who for some reason doesn’t get any of what’s being said.
Whats with all of the bizare paranoia that everyone who supports this project somehow has an ulterior motive and is somehow going to profit off it. There is nothing wrong with taking this position and it doesnt mean “you dont get any of whats being said.” These belitting comments are no different than the implication that everyone against the project opposes jobs in our neighborhood, hates all development, thinks all big business is evil. or values their precious view of the Aurora Bridge over the environment.
As for the slippery slope argument that keeps coming up – variances are nothing new, the city looks at each one and makes a decision on the merits. It has done this since the code existed. Permitting one variance does not mean that the entire neighborhood is going to look like Brooklyn, downtown Seattle, or anywhere else.
Well, if you don’t particularly care about Brooks, with the living building business no longer on the table, what else is left? Unconditional love for 5 story office buildings, such that wherever one is proposed, zoning must be amended to allow it?
So if there’s no height, then there’s no living building and no Brooks, and we wait for something “better” to be proposed. Sounds like what happened to the QFC development up the street…didn’t work out that way.
To be clear, there’s no living building in any case. We’re being asked to grant the height exception anyway, for no special green standards, just a 5 story office building like any other.
We have been told that Books is only going to take the top three floors. So, the extra height isn’t a Brooks prerequisite unless the execs in this company require the extra height so they can have special views over the neighboring buildings toward the lake.
@Donn – not sure where you’re getting your info but, as of last week, this is still very much a Seattle Living Building Pilot Project. Are you confusing this with the national Living Building Challenge?
I guess it’s good we’re having this discussion. See above – in the blog article –
“Skanska, is now applying for a “Contract Rezone” which would give them the special privilege for an exclusive 20-foot height departure for that specific location with no requirement to meet any of the standards of the Living Building Program.”
All I know is what I read, plus the obvious inference that they would ask for this because they don’t expect to meet those standards. If they aren’t applying for a contract rezone or the terms aren’t as portrayed, then we should straighten this out.
Well, that’s Ms. Bragdon’s opinion, but I don’t believe it’s correct. As I said, as of last week the intent was still to meet the criteria of the pilot program.
Beware of “greenwashing.” Especially with how the Wallingford/Fremont demographic is likely perceived so saying green opens doors regardless of whether there is follow through.
It isn’t just Ms. Bragdon’s opinion. If you read the following comments, apparently it’s the WCC’s opinion as well. I don’t know if this is one of the things that came out of the Public Records Act request, but it wouldn’t be surprising if the developer has pursued this option rather quietly.
Yes, it WOULD be surprising. WCC and Bragdon are working together on the appeal filed against this project, they would have the same (incorrect) info on this.
WCC and Bragdon are correct. Look at the three large MUP signed posted by DPD on the project site. Also check the DPD website. The application is for a contract rezone.
DPD has been fighting with WCC for months trying to restrict the SEPA environmental review of the proposed changes to the Living Building Pilot Program and the Skanska project. Late yesterday afternoon DPD filed yet another motion trying to restrict environmental review. The following is a quotation from DPD’s most recent motion. The legislation referred to is the Living Building Challenge ordnance .
“Although the proposed legislation would also allow review of a potential 65-foot structure as a design departure under the City’s Design Review program, the contract rezone proposal stands on its own under current Code without the proposed legislation. The project applicant not only does not need the
legislation to complete the application for rezone that has been filed, the applicant indeed cannot legally rely on the legislation because it has not been adopted. There is no certainty that the applicant will ever use the proposed legislation.”
Skanska sure seems to have made some friends in the DPD.
Between the contract rezone and the proposed legislation, this issue can get pretty confusing. It is true that there would be no Living Building requirements for Skanska if they were granted 20 extra feet through a contract rezone. Basically there is no connection between the contract rezone and the Living Building Pilot Program.
On the other hand, if Skanska were granted the 20 feet through the proposed legislation then they would have to meet 60% of the Living Building goals to avoid fines. That said, as Lee mentioned above, DPD said, “There is no certainty that the applicant will ever use the proposed legislation.”
Regarding fact vs. opinion, the city has been very helpful explaining the process. I called a city planner with the DPD just a few days ago to make sure my understanding of the contract rezone is correct. She confirmed that there are no Living Building requirements under the contract rezone. If anyone has unanswered questions about the process, I would recommend calling the city directly.
I am very much in favor of this building at the proposed hincreased height. Sent my email.
few other comments relative my analysis of the skanska MUP application (available online). there appears to be no change in the design away from the features necessary to meet the living building pilot program. plans show/indicate matrix of goals and elements to support things like grey water and rain water management and reuse (sheet a2p3). not typical for any developer in seattle or let alone in the US.
i suspect that skanska filed the contract rezone given the city hasn’t processed the living building amendments. why else would they do it. its expensive, isn’t ‘it?
but its interesting how my community assumes they aren’t going forward with the living building features. i looked at the drawings and i’m satisfied.
they are doing as they have said.
working on my letter of support now.
Snow has a way of slowing down my day and giving me way too much computer time.
If Brooks only needs 3 floors, then why not compromise , keep retail as planned on the street level with 3 floors of office space for Brooks above. There is already a development incentive in code that enables pilot projects to build an extra 10′ above the height limit. No code changes required. Skanska gets extra height for their floor to floors , but building height is kept to 55′.
I think the community assumes Skanska won’t go to the expense of building those living building plans, because: 1, they won’t need to, if they get the contract rezone, and 2, (my take anyway on the information WCC got) because it looked like they weren’t going to get even their partial living building plan past the DPD’s technical advisors. You’ll see the drawings for the more economical standard 5 story office building – design revision after they get the rezone.
Skanska probably could make a green building that partially met living building standards, and they could probably do it easier if they scaled it back to 4 stories as suggested above. But none of that is going to work and simultaneously “pencil out” to the satisfaction of Skanska and the site owner. I imagine by now Brooks is sorry they got sucked into this ridiculous scheme.
I remind myself that bringing employment into our neighborhood is important. That we need to make room for the next generation. It’s not about accepting people into our neighborhood to think about, its about having a place where my son and daughter can work, live and play. What people don’t realize is that the growth is here already, incubating as the very children living in our own home. We can’t stick this block in a time capsule and wish it to never change. We need it to change. AND I like that this change has a super responsive proposal. For what is the Fremont urban village. For what is next to a trash dump.
This is not about height. Its about making a path toward the right development to house the places of our future.
Don’t be silly. The reason it may look like a time capsule is exactly because of Fremont Dock’s grandiose hopes for developments that aren’t allowed by zoning restrictions. When realistic development becomes possible, we’ll get a more honest process and better results.
They need the additional height to meet the goals of the Pilot Program – higher ceilings, more daylight, less energy use – and to get great/compelling retail on the ground level. Skanka tells us that Brooks has an option on the additional space in the building AND that Brooks is very committed to being in a living building. Not easy for the tenant, either.
One of the unique things about this building is that the goal is to do living building AND be market rate. This is challenging, but important if we want more of these kinds of buildings built.
Donn, no need for belittling comments like that.
OK, maybe you’re right, I shouldn’t call it silly to talk about “time capsules” as though the neighborhood is against development or change. “Disingenuous” would be be a better word for it, seeing as the above comments and the comments on every other 3400 post have been crowded with assurances that no one is against development, everyone would be happy to see development on that site, if the land owner who has been sitting on it for lo these many years would simply settle for compliance with the zoning restrictions. The whole question is exactly that height exception, and efforts to twist the issue by portraying it as anti-change are by now absolutely surreal. Is it unreasonable to point this out?
Seems reasonable to me.
The proposed building should not be viewed as an issue of ‘for’ or ‘against’ green buildings but of what constitues appropriate design for the site that is consistent with the land use plan done by the neighborhood. The Wallingford Community Council is not opposed to a building at that site, and has not opposed the Skanska building proposal itself. It has appealed the City’s decision to not review the project at the same time it is reviewing amendments to the Living Building Ordinance that would authorize the 65′ height that Skanska wants. The City persists in insisting the height increase would be ‘in the public interest’ and help get ‘Living Buildings” into the City, where it really would only be a special privilege for one applicant that in all liklihood will not even qualify for the LB standard. The environmental impacts of a five story building at that site need to be evaluated including view impacts, shading impacts, traffic impacts, parking impacts, pedestrian impacts, etc. A lot of people spent a lot of time on a South Wallingford Land Use Plan that put that parcel at 45’. To go to 65′ without looking at the impacts of doing so is not appropriate. And, by the way, Skanska has never said it would build a building that qualifies as a “Living Building”; they’ve just noted they want to use that process that would give them height variances. It is highly unlikely the project will ever qualify as as Living Building, which really can only be determind after the building is up and operating. It won’t matter to Skanska then, as they will have built the five-story building they want in order to ‘pencil out’ the project. To them, it’s a matter of maximizing profit; not a matter of neighborhood or of being green. Too bad Skanska is not willing to look at all three elements — profit, green and neighborhood — and find a way to make all work together. Certainly that’s possible. Why won’t they do it?
It is true that the Skanska building will never be a certified Living Building. The standards of Seattle’s Living Building Pilot Program are based on those of the Living Building Institute…
Here’s an excerpt from the city’s flyer on the pilot program:
“The Living Building Challenge is a green building certification created by the International Living Building Institute to recognize buildings meeting the highest level of sustainability.
Living Buildings are required to be self-sufficient for energy and water needs and meet advanced standards for elements such as material use and quality of the indoor environment. More information on the challenge is available at http://www.ilbi.org.”
The Skanska building will not be a self-sufficient building which is a key component of being a certified Living Building.
Skanska has consistently said from the start that will only try to meet 70% of the goals of the Living Building Pilot program. Therefore in the end, if they reached that mark, they would be able to avoid fines but they would not have a true Living Building.
If anyone seriously cares about this city being sustainable and affordable for families, we’re going to have to come to terms with greater density and accordingly taller buildings. Hopefully this can be a model for how to properly do things.
ao what is th eplanned expansion of the Fremont Dock besides the chain link fence .. which while it may nto break any zoning may appear to some as an eye sore.
For greater density, see the signs for the 4 story apartment building going in a couple blocks up Stone Way, over 100 units. There’s some concern about a building with fewer parking spots than units, but haven’t noticed anyone making a big stink about it, so it doesn’t look like the neighborhood has a huge problem coming to terms with greater density. As long as it fits within the zoning, as apparently it does. It might help make the city more affordable for families; harder to see how a 5 story office building has anything to do with that.
Fremont Dock – don’t know what’s up with the fence, for all I know they just like to control access to that area in off hours. Note that “Fremont Dock” is also the name under which the land owner (Suzie Burke) will lease the land for this office building.
Can we stop calling this building a “living building”. It does not come close to living building standards.
We are talking about the Seattle Living Building Pilot program, not the Living Building Challenge (ILBI). The Seattle pilot program criteria are not as ambitious as the national Challenge, and the two programs are not related.
And if it’s important that this building is anything of that nature, it’s imperative that they not get this contract rezone which would let them off the hook.
So to clarify my understanding, Skanska is seeking the 65′ height limit change through either one of two avenues – 1) a text amendment to the land use code that allows a height departure for Living Building Pilot Program projects on IC parcels in an urban village; or 2) a Contract Rezone. The text amendment departure ties to the pilot program but the Contract Rezone does not. Correct?
In response to Miss Ruby : What people hear is that it’s going to be a “Living Building”. If it’s just a “challenge” then let’s call it a green building since the building will not make many of the goals of a living building. If this is not as ambitious as the national program why are we essentially giving Skanska a pass?
Meeting the criteria of the Living Building Challenge is a VERY high bar for any developer – not achievable (yet) at market rates. The Seattle Pilot Project is very ambitious as well, more difficult to achieve than any current green standard, but not the same as LBC – though hardly a “pass”. It’s a little confusing, obviously, and people are tossing the two phrases around (or shortening to Living Building) w/o really understanding the distinction.
In entry 67, the person states, “We are talking about the Seattle Living Building Pilot program, not the Living Building Challenge (ILBI). The Seattle pilot program criteria are not as ambitious as the national Challenge, and the two programs are not related.”
But meanwhile, the city’s flyer on the Living Building Pilot Program clearly explains the relationship between the two programs, “The Living Building Pilot Program assists projects attempting to meet the requirements of the Living Building Challenge. The Living Building Challenge is a green building rating system created by the International Living Building Institute to recognize buildings meeting the highest level of sustainability.”
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Permits/GreenPermitting/LivingBuildingPilot/default.asp
A representative of Seattle’s Living Building Pilot Program as well as the developer itself, Skanska, have also stated that this will not be an actual Living Building. Again, if Skanska hit their goals they would reach 70% of the criterial but not enough to reach certification.
I want to know where the representatives of the City of Seattle have been in this process. They left the WCC meeting early after answering only a handful of questions and concerns from the community. This process largely ignores other key neighborhood issues, such as increasing the safety of the pedestrians along the Burke Gilman trail and how growth will make an impact. The corner at 34th and Stone Way has pedestrians constantly spilling onto the street from over congestion. How is Seattle dealing with the long term planning of our community along 34th and Stone Way? Representatives from Skanska were eager to say that they want to improve this area, but it is not their responsibility. Seattle has not dealt with this in a transparent way, by pushing the environmental review through without performing due diligence, and secretly holding discussions to sell publicly owned land.
If I am remembering correctly, about 5 years ago the City/ County tried to take title to all the land from Carr Place North to Densmore, 34th to 36th, by Eminent Domain. The City did not prevail. It seems to me that the 3400 Stone property would be best used for an entrance to the new transfer station from Stone Way , open space and setback from the sidewalk. Does anyone know if taking the 3400 Stone property for public use has been considered?
Sharon: Now those are fighting words! 🙂 Fremont Dock Company does not give things away for the public good.
@KtC/72 – per the Seattle Land Use code, projects participating in the Pilot Program must achieve a min of 60% of the Living Building imperatives, energy/water use equal to 75% or less of avg comparable building, and storm water onsite capture/reuse that is 50% or greater than avg or comparable building. Skanska has said they will hit those requirements and may be better (the 70% number you mention).
I agree they did say that. What are the penalties for not meeting those goals? Who is going to enforce them? What we are planning on giving Skanska is two stories of unimpeded views of Lake Union and we get what?
It doesn’t seem that anyone is opposed to the Living Building “imperatives” nor to the Pilot Program and certainly not to increasing measures that propogate environmental safeguards and conservation. I would venture to guess that Wallingford’s residents are as well educated on the necessity of finding ways to lighten our footprints as on the need for building community and neighborhood stewardship.
Arguing for this significant height variance under the guise of green cloaking and having to “pencil in” market return by this wealthy and international construction corporation galls me. It reminds me of all the benevolent and breathless advocacy of teeny dense residential units at transportation corridors for “workers”: how convenient for them! how green for them! how very very unpleasant to actually live in! Miss Ruby, are you suggesting that it is impossible for Skansa to build a green building on this site unless they build it 65+ feet high?
Oversimplification makes for a good sound bite, but does a disservice to the issue at hand. This is not just a “green” building, this is a Living Building Pilot Program building (criteria above). The goal is to “pencil in”, as you say, a LBPP building at market rates – so that businesses can afford to move into these buildings, and that developers will build them, and, as a result, that banks will lend to developers to build them.
Skanska’s deep pockets put them in an enviable position to be able to self-fund so they can implement cutting edge technologies and new ideas and do this project – and in the process we all learn more about to move more of these types of developments forward.
Miss Ruby, are you suggesting that it is impossible for Skansa to build a (really really) green building on this site unless they build it 65+ feet high? I believe most of the earlier posts clarify that Skanska is not going to meet nor will they be compelled to meet the Pilot Program certification criteria you have referenced.
@Miss Ruby/76. Yes, that’s correct. That’s the bare minimum that a participant needs to hit to avoid fines. That means that they would have 70% of a Living Building … again not a certified Living Building.
@Ralph/77. The fine of not reaching the 60% minimum is **up to** 5% of the building costs. The amount of the fine (as far as the percentage) is up to the discretion of the city. I’m not sure how those fines would compare to the income generated by an entire extra floor. If I understand this part correctly, the city only reviews the building one time for compliance (after 1 year?) and then never again. To double check my understanding of the review process, you may want to contact Jess Harris with the city.
Living Building Challenge is the basis for creating the City’s Pilot Program. However, as I previously mentioned, there are several academic/technical papers illustrating how full living buildings (yes those that are based on ILFI.org’s criteria) are not financially feasible or viable (i.e. for owners or renters). Currently built living buildings are developed by those organizations and institutions that are making a statement and find value in spending 30% more on their buildings. Not what you or could/would do.
There is no question, the added FAR presented in Seattle’s pilot program is not sufficient to make a full living building (that is why its a pilot program), so skanska must figure out new ideas to just achieve the requirements of the pilot program (which by the way was created to get exactly what skanska is attempting to do).
Its really interesting to read the critical assessments of this innovative building that is doing well beyond what any other building has ever attempted to do here in Seattle or I tell you anywhere in the US; yet these comments are about the building not doing enough, which appears to be masking a fear of height in the neighborhood, building or development in general. And this fear isn’t about this site, but about other areas.
folks, let’s be honest with ourselves.
let’s not attack a building that is doing so much for not doing enough.
really? And why is the leadership of wcc attacking the city’s amendments to the living building pilot? It appears that these efforts are a lot of tilting at windmills.
And my efforts here are probably no different.
Let’s keep the actual issues in mind. Can Skanska build a living building to 65 feet under current law if that is necessary to pencil out? Of course. There are no doubt a large number of sites that allow that under current zoning, and building one wouldn’t even require a departure from the zoning code. The problem is that Skanska and property owner insist that it should be entitled to build on this particular site, and needs to be granted special privileges under the law to do so. DPD’s analysis has indicated that this site is not even particularly suitable for a living building given its size and shape. Given that, the question should be why? Is Skanska committed to building a living building, or is it using the living building provisions as a pretext to have the city grant it special privileges so that it can change the zoning for its benefit and provide million dollar views to its tenant that it otherwise would not be able to do? Skanska has so successfully wrapped itself in the cloak of a Living Building that most people have defined this as a question of whether one is for or against a living building, or for or against development or jobs. Skanska’s P.R. has been very effective in polarizing the community and sidetracking people from critically looking at the real issues.
The issue regarding the amendments is whether special interests should be able to violate existing zoning regulations and neighborhood planning even more than presently allowed. WCC’s appeal is not based on opposition to a living building, or even the Skanska building, or even proposed amendments to the challenge departures. The appeal is based on the refusal of DPD and Skanska to participate in an environmental review of the project and proposed amendments.
It doesn’t seem to me that questions being raised by those familiar with both the proposed project and the living building challenge regarding the level of Skanska’s compliance are based on a criticism that Skanska isn’t “doing enough”, but an attempt to look at the actual facts underlying the unquestioned image that some people have of “Skanska’s Living Building”, a deception that Skanska has encouraged.
Why shouldn’t they build on this particular site? It’s a GREAT place for such a building and for Brooks! Right at the trail, between two great neighborhoods – an underutilized spot. I agree with Winn – this is about views; and I wish the WCC would support the project.
Looks like Skanska is buying some property in South Lake Union. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017335419_skanska26.html
And it looks like a zoning variance for height is also at issue here. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017355997_skanska28.html