Rezoning discussion, new leadership, event planning, more @ Fauntleroy Community Association’s February meeting

By Jason Grotelueschen
Reporting for West Seattle Blog 

With new leadership at the helm, last week’s Fauntleroy Community Association board meeting featured updates about neighborhood events and areas of concern and opportunity, along with (as the new board chairperson put it) a “spirited discussion” about the zoning implications of the One Seattle Plan.

The hybrid meeting at the Fauntleroy Schoolhouse was facilitated by Frank Immel with assistance from Dave Follis (more below on their planned roles for the year), in the first meeting since former president Mike Dey stepped down last month after 11 years. Meeting notes below:

SPD UPDATE: After opening meeting remarks, introductions and approval of minutes from the prior meeting, Officer Michael Bateman from the Seattle Police Department (attending online and filling in for crime-prevention coordinator Jennifer Satterwhite) provided some crime updates and statistics:

  • For the Fauntleroy area, year-to-date, crime overall is down compared to last year (and is historically low this time of year). Theft is down 50%, motor vehicle theft down 60%, no burglaries reported.
  • At the “macro level” (West Seattle’s Southwest Precinct as a whole), the statistics also show overall lower crime comparing year-to-date numbers with numbers from the same time period in 2024. For violent/property crime, there were 427 crimes last year during this time period, this year 392 (8% decrease). A significant reduction in assaults (down 32%) and motor vehicle thefts (down 35%). There has been a slight uptick in theft (property, vehicle prowls, etc) of 10% (217 year-to-date last year, and 238 this year).

A question from attendee Chris Lampkin (who serves on King County Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda’s staff, but was there on “personal capacity” Wednesday night because he’s a Fauntleroy neighbor): What’s the process for school lockdowns? When safety issues are occurring, schools may not be aware of what’s going on. Bateman: The first priority, of course, is for officers to make the scene safe. After that occurs, dispatch is notified to open the school and to provide overall status.  Follow-up Q:  How do they coordinate between schools? (there are a lot of them in/near Fauntleroy). Bateman: Generally, there is a lot of communication. And just because there’s a border line in the area (between Seattle and unincorporated King County) it doesn’t mean that there won’t be notification and coordination.  Other meeting attendees then discussed recent criminal activity in the area (such as the gunfire incident at the Barton St. 7-11 store) and law enforcement activity at a home in the area (WSB coverage here).

What about hiring trends for new officers?  Bateman said the trend is very good, with a “fully hired unit” of 25 additional SPD officers this year — “that’s a lot; exceeded our expectations.” He said SPD is working hard to get the new officers processed and trained, and then “they’ll go to wherever needed most.”  Attendee Lampkin added that King County is also working hard to fill the vacant storefront deputy position (serving White Center and vicinity). How about overall SPD morale? Bateman said that morale seems very good (which aligns with similar comments from Satterwhite in FCA’s January meeting), and he knows that “SW Precinct is a coveted precinct to be assigned to — generally, great morale.”

Q about what hours the SW Precinct is open for people to drop by — Bateman said it varies (the desk clerk position is one of last positions to be staffed), and people should call ahead to be sure, but generally there are officers there during business hours.

Q about whether SPD still hands out locks for steering wheels — Bateman said he’s not sure, but will check and get back to the group’s leaders.

ANNUAL MEETING & “FOOD FEST”: Board member David Haggerty reported on planning for the group’s March 18 annual meeting (6-8 pm) and “Food Fest” (local vendors serving small plates and drinks).  He noted that FCA, as a non-profit, is required by law to have an annual meeting with neighbors, and the group adds the free-food element, along with collecting money for annual dues and hosting info tables with representation from various. community groups. FCA also holds a brief “business meeting” during the event, to vote in new board members.

Immel emphasized that “this is our largest event, and a great chance to talk to people” and that important for the event to be welcoming and inviting for neighbors and potential new FCA members. Board member Bruce Butterfield offered a bit of history, noting that the origins of FCA were rooted in the “Fauntleroy Environmental Association” (FEA). Board members agreed that they’d make an effort to invite local elected officials, and would use the FCA website and email system to get the word out. Treasurer Alan Grainger said that he had increased the event’s budget from $2,000 to $2,500, to cover expenses.

ZONING AND SEATTLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Follis provided an update about the City Council’s recent February 5 public hearing (which we previewed here) on the city’s proposed rezoning plan and other elements of the One Seattle Plan. He said that while he wasn’t able to attend in-person, he watched the complete video online (which you can too, all 5.5 hours of it, on the Seattle Channel page), and there were about 120 speakers. The proposal includes the creation of Neighborhood Centers (a new type of zoning) throughout around the city — here are maps of various areas, including the proposed NCs, for District 1 which includes West Seattle.

Some notes and observations from Follis: Almost 60% of people in Seattle are renters. Comments included both older homeowners and younger renters (even some younger kids) and everyone in between. Lots of concerns about tree cover and losing it to development, people angry at developers for building/charging too much.

Follis and other board members said that for FCA and the Fauntleroy area, the unique concerns are for the Fauntleroy Creek watershed (which has decreased in size over the years) and the salmon-bearing streams, and the increased risk of slides and environmental disasters (especially in the event of seismic activity) if development isn’t handled properly in the watershed areas. Board members also suggested that while FCA’s stance isn’t anti-development (and shouldn’t be, because it’s important to acknowledge that more housing is needed), perhaps the emphasis should be “we don’t want anything upzoned along the creek” and that development should focus on arterials with existing infrastructure (such as the 35th Ave corridor).

Haggerty and others noted that FCA’s next steps should focus on getting more input from the community, via discussion at upcoming events, surveys, etc.  Attendees discussed various aspects of the zoning plan, the ideal role of FCA going forward, and the balance between wanting FCA to advocate for the quality of the neighborhood while “not coming across as a ‘NIMBY’ organization” and wanting to make it feasible/affordable for new families to move to the area. Most board members agreed that while it’s understandable for the city to want to have a consistent approach to zoning across all of Seattle, there also needs to be consideration for unique neighborhood realities — “for Fauntleroy, the differentiation is the creek.”

Immel thanked the group for the “spirited discussion” but noted that the meeting needed to proceed with other agenda topics, and he agreed that he would follow-up with an email to board members to propose and vote on next steps for getting input from Fauntleroy neighbors regarding the zoning plans.

BUDGET AND FINANCE: Grainger (treasurer) handed out copies of FCA’s latest budget and financial report, and walked through some changes to the way transactions are categorized. Board members then discussed the particulars of accounting for dues vs donations when receiving annual payments for FCA membership, and talked about financial support for the annual Fauntleroy Fall Festival (which is a separate entity, but linked to FCA in several ways). The board moved, seconded and voted to pass the budget as-written.

TRANSPORTATION AND FERRIES: Board member and transportation rep Marty Westerman gave an update on light rail plans from Sound Transit, expressing concerns about costs and logistics (noting, for example, that the West Seattle leg of the project won’t run downtown until after the Ballard segment is built). Westerman mentioned his involvement with the Rethink the Link group (see WSB coverage of their January 25 event) and his past advocacy for a gondola system serving West Seattle rather than light rail. More updates from Sound Transit are expected by the end of the month.

Westerman and other board members also briefly talked about ferry updates, noting the upcoming Washington State Ferries online community meetings (which have since taken place — WSB coverage here). There is an upcoming online meeting on March 11 in which plans and options for the dock rebuild will be discussed. Current plans still call for a new signal by the dock to be worked on this fall.

FAUNTLEROY FALL FESTIVAL: Save the date! The popular annual event is planned for October 19, 2025.

FCA LEADERSHIP PLANS: As we reported on from FCA’s January meeting, which was the final meeting for longtime president Mike Dey, the group’s plan had been for board members Dave Follis and Frank Immel to take over as co-presidents, with Immel leading meetings and Follis focusing on operations. However, on Wednesday night, Follis and Immel said that after further consideration and discussion, they decided that Immel would serve as the group’s sole president, with Follis remaining on the board and focusing on operations. Follis and Immel added that they both have full-time day jobs, and will do their best to fill Dey’s shoes, but will need to pick-and-choose priorities and manage expectations accordingly. Board members voiced their approval of the plan, which will go to the membership for a vote at March 19’s “Food Fest” general meeting, which always includes a vote regarding leadership for the upcoming year.

IN MARCH: NEXT MEETING AND ANNUAL MEETING: FCA meets most months at 6 pm on the second Tuesday (next month, that falls on March 11), at Fauntleroy Schoolhouse (9131 California SW) in the conference room near the east entrance. Also in March, as mentioned above, is the annual general-membership meeting aka “Food Fest” on March 18, featuring small bites and drinks from local purveyors, at The Hall at Fauntleroy on the schoolhouse’s south end.

42 Replies to "Rezoning discussion, new leadership, event planning, more @ Fauntleroy Community Association's February meeting"

  • Jort February 17, 2025 (3:33 pm)

     Shot:

    … “we don’t want anything upzoned along the creek” and that development should focus on arterials with existing infrastructure (such as the 35th Ave corridor).

    Chaser:

    … wanting FCA to advocate for the quality of the neighborhood while “not coming across as a ‘NIMBY’ organization”

    Hey, yeah, let’s not change anything around the wealthy homeowners’ areas (i.e. their backyards) and instead, um, maybe just shove everything, out of the way, onto the arterial? Is that the gist of it? Just don’t call them NIMBYs, though!! Also, additional housing reduces the “quality” of the neighborhood? Perhaps somebody can articulate the reasoning behind this thought?

    • CC February 18, 2025 (6:00 pm)

      Truly appreciate you, Jort.

  • justjosh February 17, 2025 (3:37 pm)

    It’s hilarious that the FCA doesn’t want to be seen as a “NIMBY” organization while saying that they don’t think that the Fauntleroy urban center should be upzoned and those efforts should be prioritized along arterials. So putting aside all the arguments why growth should happen outside of arterials, and these zoning proposals are so very modest, the FCA board wants the changes, BUT not in my backyard. If only there was a catchy term for that.

    • Kyle February 17, 2025 (8:04 pm)

      The faunterloy urban center should be upzoned. It is on an arterial and a major bus line. The whole area by the ferry dock should be up zoned too. Let’s stop pretending that area isn’t a key transportation hub. However, I do think most of the upzone should be along arterials. The peanut butter everywhere approach seems to have too many unintended consequences. How we shape the growth in our communities is a legitimate comment.

      • DC February 18, 2025 (10:13 am)

        What unintended consequences? Everyone says this but doesn’t provide any actual evidence that it will cause actual harm to the creek or the infrastructure. Unless the ‘unintended’ consequences are less free parking and more lower income in your neighborhood, I don’t see any evidence that homes in neighborhoods cause harm. 

  • AC February 17, 2025 (6:23 pm)

    Forbid the people who actually live in the area from expressing concern about what could be destructive to the local environment.

    • JustSarah February 17, 2025 (6:33 pm)

      I do live in the neighborhood and am against NIMBYism like this. There are concerns that can and should be (and regarding the creek, are accounted for in planning and permitting, but those are separate from the zoning itself.

    • Jort February 17, 2025 (10:17 pm)

      Oh, OK, well, if I lived on 35th I might think additional housing is destructive to my environment (maybe even to my backyard!) and I want development to be centered in Fauntleroy. See how that works? 

  • WS Urbanist February 17, 2025 (9:21 pm)

    It really rubs me the wrong way when folks advocate for limiting new housing strictly to arterials since research shows that living among busy streets increases exposure to air pollution, traffic noise, and safety risks. Creating a two-tiered system where some residents enjoy quiet residential streets while others must live along high-traffic corridors doesn’t seem to align with the FCA’s values of increasing the quality of life in their community. With the new zoning proposed in the one Seattle plan, we can thoughtfully integrate diverse housing options in Fauntleroy in ways that enhance quality of life for everyone.

    • JustSarah February 17, 2025 (11:24 pm)

      Agreed. I remember reading a couple comments on the One Seattle Plan in the neighborhood asking for more concentration on arterials, and specifically using those denser buildings as “buffers” for SFHs from arterials. 

      I don’t think the people who left those comments necessarily understand the ultimate impact of that unmet housing demand when they’re making those comments. Because the fact is, when we further shrink the upzoned areas, we prolong the housing crisis. See, the upzoned areas don’t immediately turn into denser housing and mixed-use. The changes only happen when property is sold and a new owner would rather develop than keep a SFH. So if you’ve shrunken the potential denser parcels down by like 50%, it’s going to take at least twice as long to meet the target housing units that were already known to be short of demand. 

  • Tim February 18, 2025 (9:58 am)

    Can we start a “Please in my backyard” group? I would love if I could subdivide and sell half of my lot and a developer put another family or a couple of apartments on my backyard. I would like a corner store every block or two, maybe a couple more small bars and restaurants. I would like a few more sidewalks and improvements, more buses and light rail sooner. It’s frustrating that some are constantly seeking modifications to plans and proposals that have been public for many years. Nobody is going to be happy with every aspect of a growing city. But I would rather live somewhere vibrant and growing than stagnant and decaying. And yes, that means that new people with different feelings and ideas are needed. Signed PIMBY

    • JustSarah February 18, 2025 (10:51 am)

      Look into “YIMBYism.” Yes, in my backyard. It’s a movement. And look into West Seattle Urbanism if you want to talk to like-minded people about concrete actions.

       Yes, increased density can bring so many improvements to our neighborhood. Walkability, more businesses, better transit, better schools, stronger community ties… And if course it decreases sprawl in exurbs and undeveloped areas. There is a lot to like about having more neighbors. Also, it will be a gradual shift. It’s a zoning change, not a mandate to immediately raze and rebuild while neighborhoods. 

      • Ivan Weiss February 19, 2025 (10:59 am)

        “And of course it decreases sprawl in exurbs and undeveloped areas.”

        Been to Auburn lately? Silverdale? Bonney Lake? Covington? Port Orchard? Obviously not, because if you had been, you wouldn’t be repeating the urbanist cult’s Big Lie. Sprawl is increasing more quickly than density is, because there is a market for sprawl. Because a significant number of people crave space, and a modicum of solitude, and don’t give a hoot in hell for “vibrant.”

        There might be plenty of arguable reasons to promote urban density. By now I have heard them all. But “density prevents sprawl” is a fraud. It does no such thing.

        • Kit-Sap February 19, 2025 (2:07 pm)

          Of course density does not prevent sprawl any more than the police reduce crime. 
          But adding more housing close to where people live does indeed lessen the sprawl.  

          Those people moving to outlying areas are doing so for cheap housing, paying for that in quality of life reductions such as increased commutes and a heavy environmental footprint.
           Much of the new housing in Port Orchard and Silverdale is multifamily (all the same Monopoly game houses) or townhouses without the lauded open space they replace.  

          If you want to see lack of planning and crummy ugly construction, just cross the Sound.

          • JustSarah February 19, 2025 (2:42 pm)

            Thank you. I just finished working a volunteer shift at a local org that provides necessary goods to struggling families, many of whom would be in a better position if housing weren’t so damn expensive.

            And yeah, I didn’t say density eliminates sprawl, I said it decreases it. Sure, some people want to live in those exurbs, but many would prefer to be here in Seattle if there was supply available. 

    • WS Urbanist February 18, 2025 (11:20 am)

      Tim, if you aren’t a part of Seattle YIMBY yet, you should join https://seattleyimby.org/

      There’s also an active west seattle specific urbanism/yimby group https://linktr.ee/westseattleurbanism

  • Susan February 18, 2025 (12:52 pm)

    The upscaling proposed for the Endolyne/Fauntleroy community changes everything to LR3 designation. Illustrations show 3 story buildings, but if you read the definition, LR3 = up to FIVE story buildings. The objection is to FIVE STORY apartment buildings filling the Endolyne neighborhood and lining Barton St and Fauntleroy from the ferry dock all the way to Morgan Junction with 5 story apartment buildings.  

    • Bbron February 18, 2025 (1:55 pm)

      Why is that bad?

    • K February 18, 2025 (2:24 pm)

      Zoning does not require 5-story buildings, it only allows it.  And even then one of your neighbors has to sell to a developer to allow them to build the 5 stories.  There are many, many streets in West Seattle zoned for 3-5 story apartments that are still mostly single-family homes.  The panic far exceeds the reality of this zoning change.  The streets will change gradually, as they have done everywhere else.

    • JustSarah February 18, 2025 (4:14 pm)

      I’ll echo others: What is wrong with that change? Again, I live in the neighborhood and am in favor of it. I know many others who are, as well. We’d love population density to support increased and expanded transit, fund and fill public schools, support and grow more local businesses, and allow employees of these businesses, agencies, and schools to live in our neighborhood if they so choose.

      And don’t worry, initially the zoning change will actually increase values of the affected properties. If you’re one of the people who absolutely doesn’t want to risk ever having a tall building next to you, your home is also probably affected. Go ahead, cash out that “nest egg” (as the former FCA president so baldly wrote is one of the main reasons for opposing the change). 

      • Kyle February 18, 2025 (7:58 pm)

        Honestly trading one neighbor, for a 5 story neighbor sounds terrible. Not to mention living next to a construction zone for probably a year plus. I’d hate having no privacy and then going to a rotating cast of yearly leases next door. Telling people to just sell after the rules were changed underneath them seems callous. Wanting to know your neighbors and have community is reasonable. I love a cafe but I chose my house because I don’t want my neighbor running a cafe next door 7 days a week. A compromise where increased zoning is more concentrated near transit stops and businesses makes sense. Some of Faunterloy has that, some of it does not.

        • Bbron February 19, 2025 (12:56 am)

          Ah, there it is: “a rotating cast of yearly leases next door.” Just a homeowner holding onto some weird disdain for renters.

          • Kyle February 19, 2025 (6:56 am)

            Ah there it is, a troll by Bbron. is that your only takeaway? 

          • k February 19, 2025 (7:36 am)

            And outdated stereotypes of renters too.  I live in an area of mostly SF homes with a couple apartment buildings nearby and you have to pretty much wait for someone to die to have an opening.  The tenants at both have been there longer than I have.  Tenant turnover is about the quality of the landlord, not the commitment of the neighbor.

        • Other February 19, 2025 (4:52 am)

          I moved next to a development, because I couldn’t afford a single family home, and it’s not that bad. I look forward to what is going to happen down the line, when I get to meet my new neighbors and explore the new opportunities opening up around me. 

        • walkerws February 19, 2025 (8:20 am)

          “A rotating case of yearly leases next door” – wow, the mask is just fully off in peoples’ disdain for those not even poor but simply less wealthy than themselves.

          • Kyle February 19, 2025 (9:25 am)

            Why do you assume future renters would be poorer? It could be a high class beautiful building of wealthy people who came here for an executive job and will move on after a few years.

        • Jort February 19, 2025 (8:32 am)

          Can you help me understand why you don’t want “a rotating cast of yearly leases next door?” I’m genuinely curious why this bothers you. Please – help me understand. 

          • JustSarah February 19, 2025 (9:23 am)

            Never realized how often I’d use the “5 Whys” technique in regular life after learning it in a project management course years ago, lol. It’s really so helpful in discussions like this. 

          • Frog February 19, 2025 (9:43 am)

            Oh puhleeze.  Let me spell out the obvious, as if you didn’t know already.  One of the joys of living in a single family neighborhood, a big part of the quality of life, is having long term neighbors whom you know and trust, people who are invested in neighborhood relations because they expect to be there a long time and/or have a stake in their own property value.  People paying nosebleed rents in REIT-owned new-build shoebox apartments are not that.  They are mostly stressed out short term people who live by the Seattle freeze.  They have no space for their trash, cars, kids, or pets, and no long term stake in the neighborhood because their overpriced shoebox is only a step to something better (they hope).  Been there, done that, ask me how I know.  We all know that you consider shoebox density housing to be a higher social priority than SFR quality of life.  We know that .  We know.  But don’t play dumb and pretend that SFR quality of life is not a real thing.

  • Kyle February 19, 2025 (9:09 am)

    @Jort because he actually treated me like a human and didn’t use rhetoric. Perhaps that part of response wasn’t thoughtfully written. My point was when your neighbor goes from 1 to possibly 20 those 20 separate lives will cycle in and out much more frequently whether it’s condos, apartments, etc. Not everyone would want that and that’s okay. And if you’re going to change the rules on people after they made their decision it makes sense they would voice an opinion. It’s honestly much more the construction and the lack of privacy regardless the ownership model. When I was younger I wanted to be in denser housing and when I’m older I may want that again. But I’ll steer clear of all L3 zoned houses for the next 10-15 years because I don’t want a cafe or a construction zone next door.

    • JustSarah February 19, 2025 (9:26 am)

      “My point was when your neighbor goes from 1 to possibly 20 those 20 separate lives will cycle in and out much more frequently whether it’s condos, apartments, etc.”

      I think we all understood your point, but you haven’t answered why that’s a problem.

      Also, maybe some people don’t want the same neighbors for twenty years. I don’t see why one viewpoint is more valuable or correct. I could see several benefits to having more neighbors and some turnover. But in any case, we can’t control who our neighbors are (unless we live in a co-op condo or elite gated community).  

      • Kyle February 19, 2025 (10:16 am)

        Who said that was a problem? It is a fact that it is harder to build relationships when people change out frequently. And likely impossible to have 20 relationships, it changes the scale. All though to your point you may want a cranky neighbor to move out quicker :). You keep picking at that strawman, so do you agree that the lack of privacy and construction are valid concerns? Honestly do you just want no zoning anywhere? I’m actually for meeting our density targets concentrating growth to transit and services which some areas of Faunterloy have. Is there no middle ground? Good grief.

        • walkerws February 19, 2025 (10:46 am)

          “Honestly do you just want no zoning anywhere?” – With very few exceptions, exactly that. Buying a home entitles you in no way to the area around your home remaining static.

          • Kyle February 19, 2025 (6:41 pm)

            I look forward to your libertarian no rules vision when you run for office. Excited about building factories, night clubs, and all housing types next to each other. 

        • k February 19, 2025 (11:04 am)

          The problem with that whole line of reasoning is that it’s a lot of assumptions and falsehoods, and doesn’t reflect the reality of living in an area that’s mixed with owners and renters.  There’s a house on my street that has been sold three times in five years.  There are renters who have lived in their house for almost a decade.  There is no “owners stay and renters go” thing happening.  Maybe 40 years ago, but in 2025, no.  Employment is just not that stable.  The assumption that owners have more invested in a neighborhood is inaccurate to the point of being offensive.  Tell me you’ve never bothered to meet half of your neighbors without telling me you’ve never bothered to meet half of your neighbors.  Those poor renters are paying more than most (if not all) homeowners are, they do very much care.  Ironic to see people complaining about the “Seattle freeze” while advocating freezing out renters in their neighborhoods.

        • Ivan Weiss February 19, 2025 (11:10 am)

          Sorry, Kyle, but when you deal with these YIMBY urbanists, you might as well be toiling on Maggie’s Farm.

          Well, I try my best
          To be just like I am

          But everybody wants you

          To be just like them

          • WS Urbanist February 19, 2025 (4:53 pm)

            Density and walkability create healthier, happier communities for everyone. People in walkable neighborhoods have better physical health, stronger social connections, and report higher life satisfaction. Contrary to fears, denser housing often fosters more community interaction – think of friendly encounters in shared spaces, local cafes, or community events. Plus, it addresses housing affordability and reduces car dependency. Remember, good neighbors and strong relationships aren’t determined by housing type – they’re built through mutual respect and community engagement, whether you live in a single-family home or an apartment building.

        • JustSarah February 19, 2025 (2:45 pm)

          Ok Kyle, I was holding out because there are more important aspects to this discussion, but like having spinach in my teeth I’d want someone to tell me if I were you: it’s spelled “Fauntleroy.” Three times now you’ve spelled it “Faunterloy.” 

        • Bbron February 19, 2025 (4:04 pm)

          Why do you believe homeowners have the right to dictate what happens to other properties? Why should homeowners be the final say on what public policy is best? All you bring up are things you think are “unfair” to homeowners; the new 20 lives you dislike being near you would be happy, so it seems like a good trade if the impact is upsetting someone who thought they were entitled to a gated community.

          • Kyle February 19, 2025 (6:39 pm)

            What? Never did I mention anything over who has final say or a gated community lol. Before you decide to live anywhere do you not look at what could be built next door? I did, and do. L3 zoning means years of construction and disruption for developers to reach the max profit for the zoning allowed. I wouldn’t buy a property in that zone with that impact, and I sure would want a say if those rules were changed on me after the fact.

          • Jethro Marx February 19, 2025 (6:48 pm)

            “… the new 20 lives you dislike being near you would be happy…”  Wut? Like they’d be happier than average in some way? Wouldn’t they be the same distribution of jerks and a**h****s as the rest of us?

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.