As-it-happened coverage: West Seattle Land Use Committee’s launch meeting

6:46 PM: The inaugural meeting of the West Seattle Land Use Committee is off to a late start – the go-to place for public meetings in WS these days, the Senior Center in The Junction, was locked. An alternative meeting place was just about to be secured when someone got the door open, and now the meeting’s beginning. About two dozen people are here. We’ll be reporting live as it goes along. Southwest District Council co-chair Vlad Oustimovitch is giving opening remarks – “the whole idea (of this) is not to react to a single project … it’s really to talk about how we can improve land-use decisions made by the city, in working with the committee .. it’s actually a very difficult subject …this is an open discussion on how to (make) this happen over a long period of time.” After Oustimovitch’s remarks, everyone around the table is introducing her/himself.

7 PM: Introductions over – the official total, barring late arrivals, is 25 people – “We have 26 people here, representing ‘the peninsula,’ not just ‘my neighborhood because something’s happening there,'” said Sharonn Meeks, SW District Council co-chair. Most are already active in other community groups all over the peninsula, from Delridge to Alki, High Point, to Admiral. As Mat McBride, chair of the Delridge District Council, said, “It’s tremendously exciting to see people from both districts here.” (The city considers West Seattle to be two “districts,” Southwest and Delridge.) That done, now the question is – what will they talk about? One attendee says he hopes issues will be discussed with facts, not feelings. Another: “Let’s be honest, many of us here because we’re not happy” with the way things are going regarding development.

Another attendee brings up Terminal 5 and its uncertain future (as reported here last month, it’s currently closed, while the Port begins a “modernization plan” whose funding has yet to be secured. Oustimovitch suggests that’s a good idea – start talking about hot spots around the peninsula, T-5 being one. Others? Junction, Triangle are mentioned. The plan to survey historical resources along California Avenue soon is also mentioned briefly. What about open space? “How are people going to play and be healthy outdoors?” asks one attendee.

Oustimovitch says he’s worried West Seattle will soon feel like an “anonymous” place. Another attendee says it might not be too late to save some buildings that have character. “But it’s also the streetscape, and the light, it’s not just about having a little museum piece of a building (preserved),” interjects someone.

Westwood is suggested as another hot spot meriting attention – as “an unplanned outdoor bus terminal.” Another nomination: Avalon Way, with its ongoing densification, before it becomes “a chokepoint.” What about the Admiral Theater and its uncertain future? asks someone else, leading to some discussion about its plight, and it too goes onto the list. That segues to a mention of the relatively few remaining Alki cottages, and whether there might be a reason for a photographic study of them, before they’re all gone. That in turn segues to a mention of the current trends in new-home architecture – modern – replacing old Craftsman-style homes.

7:21 PM: This continues to be a free-flowing discussion around the table, bouncing from topic to topic. Participation in meetings off-peninsula with big effects on-peninsula (City Council meetings, Landmarks Board meetings, etc.) is low, it’s mentioned. A suggestion in response: Maybe this committee can help encourage and nurture that kind of participation. Then back to a hot spot/topic: The Fauntleroy Boulevard project is brought up. Then, the city’s Pedestrian Zone Mapping project. And yet another hot topic that comes up at community meetings now and then: Some “urban village” areas already past growth targets set for years in the future. “Why can’t a ‘time out’ be called for them?” wonders the person who brings that up, who goes on into the issue of buildings being allowed without much, if any, parking.

7:33 PM: A mention of business climate in eastern West Seattle bounces over to one attendee’s mention of a study about the “food desert” concept and whether it’s valid or not. Shortly afterward, Oustimovitch reiterates the list of locations mentioned so far as possible deserving attention, pausing on Delridge and the east-west connection deficiency that has long been an issue. Overall he says he heard three things of importance, transcending the list of specific locations in the spotlight:

1. “Density, relating to infrastructure” – or the lack of it
2. Historic preservation
3. Land-use code – people research property next to them, think they know what might happen in the future, “and then something completely different is on the table, and part of the problem is that the code is so convoluted … for the layman, and even for me as an architect,” as Oustimovitch put it.

The difficulty of understanding the city rules and codes, and tracking changes, is noted by another attendee. (And, as also pointed out, there are many changes in the works.) Speaking of change – one person opines that the change from at-large to by-district City Council election (starting next year) might “change the dominant paradigm.” Then back to the potential changes – the impending rulemaking for microhousing was mentioned, with the City Council potentially voting soon, so if you have something to say, pro or con, this is the time to have a say. What’s the problem with microhousing? asks one attendee. One reply: The problem is when it’s next to single-family neighborhoods, as opposed to areas already planned for and moving toward density.

7:51 PM: And that springboards to a question about affordable housing, and what constitutes “affordable.” Plus – what about more commercial development, creating jobs here, so that West Seattle can become less of a bedroom community? That would make more sense, says one person, than just putting residential development here and sending everyone somewhere else to work. What if a five- to seven-story commercial/office building went up in The Triangle? That concept draws support, including a suggestion that the city be recruited to help make that happen. What about a shared workspace where big employers based elsewhere, which have employees living here, each bought a floor, or so?

8 PM: And now the meeting’s wrapping – mindful of, as Oustimovitch said, the fact this is a subject that won’t lose its vitality any time soon – “it’ll go on for months and years.” Some optimism is found in the fact that more than two dozen people turned up despite the fact it’s late August, possibly the worst time to try to get people together for a meeting. So far, it looks like the fourth Wednesday will be the meeting times, going forward. And now organizational logistics are being discussed – whether city resources will be available for future meetings; district coordinator Yun Pitre from the Department of Neighborhoods is here, but that was made possible by the fact that she and her colleagues had fewer regular meetings to staff this month, with district councils taking August off.

Next meeting – Wednesday, September 24th, 6:30 pm, Senior Center of West Seattle (California/Oregon).

10 Replies to "As-it-happened coverage: West Seattle Land Use Committee's launch meeting"

  • AmandaKH August 27, 2014 (9:42 pm)

    Thanks for the play by play TR. I am on vacation and bummed that I missed this meeting. Looking forward to future ones! And thanks to whomever brought up Westwood Village.

  • sophista-tiki August 28, 2014 (7:04 am)

    Westwood resident for nearly 15 years. This was a great area to live and I was glad I chose to buy my house here. Up until metro dumped its transit hub on us. Now its practically a nightmare . How do we get this to change?

  • John August 28, 2014 (8:19 am)

    How soon we forget. The Westwood “transit hub” is partly in reaction to Delridge activists’ complaints about “food deserts” and access to grocery stores. The politically popular “food desert” theory for neighborhoods with higher obesity,health and death rates, that are caused by lack of healthy food access, has been debunked.
    To be accurate the Westwood Metro issue variously described as “wall of buses” “two blocks long” is blocks from anyone’s house, never “two blocks long” and next to a park. All change is a challenge and participating in meetings and making positive recommendations can lead to positive results.

  • AmandaKH August 28, 2014 (9:25 am)

    Tiki – First thing? Write to Metro. And write often. The WWRHAH group has taken this on with gusto, but they also need to hear from more neighbors. Start with Kevin Desmond, the GM. And I would also write to Metro Transit Police. Emails:
    Kevin Desmond
    Metro Transit Police – Dave Jutilla
    WWRHAH has been working on this issue for over a year. We have had some success, but not enough. It’s a long process and one that has been incredibly frustrating. Especially with the response of “we don’t have enough money for XYZ”.
    Next month’s WWRHAH meeting will be a joint one with HPAC at HPIC on September 18th.

  • McBride August 28, 2014 (12:15 pm)

    The Westwood transit hub has nothing, not one single thing, to do with residents of an area petitioning for social equity. That statement is categorically incorrect. I can appreciate not liking the term “food desert”, it’s not my favorite either. It is however an accurate descriptor of the situation in most of Delridge, and the issue is more complex than the just relationship between fresh food and health. Maybe “Equity Vacuum” would be a better descriptor.
    I completely agree that positive action leads to improvement. Thanks in advance for your (and everyone else’s) efforts.

  • wakeflood August 28, 2014 (12:17 pm)

    I have an idea that I’m trying to vet that turns a portion of Terminal 5 into a real multi-modal transit hub – as opposed to a bunch of buses parked on a street.

    I’m starting discussions with some of the local community leaders and WSTC to see if it could pencil. I’m on the agenda to outline the idea at the Sept. Delridge District Council meeting, should you care to know more.

  • John August 28, 2014 (9:14 pm)

    I wrote that the transit hub is “partly in reaction to Delridge activists’ complaints about “food deserts” and access to grocery stores.
    The transit issue was a raised often by opposition to the DESC homeless facility both at meetings I attended and here on WSB.
    Here is just one example from WSB 10/26/2011

    “del neighbor,

    Yes, 1x per week public funds will pay for a van to shuttle 75 residents from this project to a grocery store.

    Meanwhile, long-time, low-income North Delridge residents can only shop for food at a gas station.

    And, watch this video where experts, including DESC Exec. Dir. state that these projects “should not happen just anywhere outside of the downtown core” but should be in “walking distance of a grocery store, good public transportation,” etc.

    DESC Exec. Director stated in a public mtg that convenience stores are harmful for his clients and that they should have walkable access to a “major super market” to have a chance at normal socialization. This project would be directly across the street from a gas station AND a convenience store. Plus, bus service is poor in Delridge.

    Neither the project nor the neighborhood can support one another. Bad timing, bad idea. Bad logic.
    Comment by I heart Delridge — 10:38 pm October 26, 2011 #”

    I have no idea how one got from complaints about transit to “petitioning for social equity” unless I heart Delridge’s post is petitioning for social equity. Either way my statement stands categorically correct.

  • AmandaKH August 29, 2014 (8:23 am)

    John & McBride – According to Victor Obeso at Metro, the decision to move the 120 and the 125 from White Center to WWV Was in response to the NDNC’s push for access to grocery shopping. That is what I was told. Social equality? Maybe. The decision to move people away from services in White Center (DHSH, Salvation Army) down to an area that has no services at all is questionable at best. You have an area that was already having problems, add additional liquor sales and an under patrolled “Transit Hub” and ta-da! Everyone should have access to healthy food, and to social services that are vital. I would like to know if the Delridge corridor feels like this solution is working for them.

  • McBride August 29, 2014 (8:58 am)

    I was there as well. I remember.
    The association between DESC’s justification of placement and the area resident’s bafflement at the logic behind it do not correspond to Metro placing a transit hub. It isn’t, actually, partially correct to state they have a connection. The hub is there because Metro needed a hub with the shuffling of routes during the implementation of Rapid Ride, and that location provided the necessary space for parking a Lot of busses as well as facilities for the drivers while on mandatory breaks.
    There have been a lot of conversations about access to goods and services within Delridge. If your only involvement pertains to the DESC event, it’s understandable where you don’t see the connection. Issues regarding transit and issues regarding lack of goods and services are separate items which sometimes overlap. But the connection suggested in your original post (request for better services = transit hub) isn’t one of those instances.
    Again, thanks for your involvement in the community.

  • Jetcity girl August 30, 2014 (1:24 pm)

    Wakeflood: I like your concept and thank you for going there with it to WSTC!!!

    “I have an idea that I’m trying to vet that turns a portion of Terminal 5 into a real multi-modal transit hub – as opposed to a bunch of buses parked on street”

    West Seattle needs a transit center and it could be much more than a parking lot with buses. It could have coffee shops, retail and parks and ART :)

Sorry, comment time is over.