Written agreements from the developer

Too often developer promises are empty promises. DSCLN seeks all agreements with the developer in writing. Some items may be addressed in the City’s Property Use and Development Agreements (PUDA) that would result from the contract rezone and street vacation agreements. However the city does not always enforce these nor are they adequate to address all of concerns of the Coalition. Therefore we seek a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA).

The CBA is important because:

• it is a legally binding contract, negotiated between stakeholder community groups and the developer
• it will address items the PUDA cannot, such as local hiring
• it includes safeguards to ensure that the project negative impacts are compensated or mitigated

In exchange, the Coalition will support the project. Because the developer has chosen to fight the Coalition, significant project time has been lost - and project delay will continue. Their refusal to deal with the fundamental issues with the project and to address the public interest requirements for the street vacation are costing them and their investors money. The point of the CBA is to come to agreement quickly before the land use processes drag on. We asked the developer in November 2006 to come to the the table to address the project issues. Instead they have chosen the rocky course of land use litigation and a political fight in front of City Council. We are prepared to win in these venues.

To find out more about Community Benefits Agreements, click here.

An improved project proposal

We envision a mixed-use complex that serves commercial needs in the following order: primarily local residents, secondarily the city at-large and its visitors, and thirdly regional residents. The commercial mix will be weighted toward small, locally owned businesses thus contributing to a strong, healthy local economy.

Instead the developer proposes a regional priority and wants to compete with Northgate, Southcenter and other regional shopping malls.

What DSCLN seeks in its negotiation with the developer and/or as part of the project conditioning:

• Place a cap on the project square footage dedicated to big box and formula retail
• Maximize local, independent and non-franchised business tenancy
• Provide micro retail space (spaces in the 100-500 sq ft range)
• Facilitate mixed uses other than retail shopping, such as performance, theater or cinema space, small office space, hotel, etc
• For the 200 affordable units, they remain permanently affordable, but also that the developer meet the goals of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan, which calls for 20% of new housing units to rent at 50% or below median income and 17% of new units to rent at 51 to 80% of median income (of the project 565 total units of housing, that would be 209 units, of which 113 would rent to people making 50% or less of median income and 96 would rent to people making 50-80% of median income.
• Provide family housing (25% of the total units having 2 or more bedrooms, half of those are affordable as above).
• Provide quality jobs for construction and operation phases
• Hire local minority and women-owned businesses, and local residents
• Provide adequate mitigation measures for the increased traffic, impacts to surrounding business districts, and other negative impacts of the project
• Develop according to green building principles, minimize operational energy consumption, and have a small environmental footprint
• Ensure that the project aesthetic reads more to the International District

Is there a better use of the Goodwill site?

DSCLN believes that better uses for the Goodwill site are possible. If the city does not approve the requested contract rezone and street vacation, the developer’s project is dead. But that opens up the possibility of a much better project. We are already discussing such a project with other developers. We believe that such a project could include:

• Allowing Goodwill to remain on site during development rather than forcing them off site as currently proposed
• Providing Goodwill with warehousing facilities on site unlike currently proposed
• Providing twice the housing density than currently proposed
• Providing more low-income and affordable housing than currently proposed
• Providing more family units than currently proposed
• Providing more open space than currently proposed
• Offering a broad mix of retail and services more reflective of the cultural diversity of the surrounding neighborhoods
• Limiting national chain stores and big box
• Limiting traffic impacts to the area through a stronger transit focus and less retail
• Allowing Goodwill to retain its land - a significant asset they lose in the current proposal