Rezoning opposed by Conlin

By Richard Conlin

On Monday, Dec. 17, the City Council approved legislation reducing the size of commercial and retail uses that can be constructed in areas zoned industrial. The legislation was approved by a vote of 6 to 3, Conlin, Drago, and Rasmussen voting against.

Prior to final approval, amendments were defeated to hold the legislation for several weeks so that it could be fine-tuned (5 to 4, with Clark joining Conlin, Drago, and Rasmussen in supporting holding the legislation), to exclude the Georgetown area (5 to 4, with the same 4 voting to protect Georgetown), and to exclude a portion of Sodo (6 to 3, Clark, Conlin, and Drago voting to restrict implementation in Sodo).

I opposed this legislation and offered amendments to limit it because:

- It effectively rezoned some 12 percent of the city's area, affecting almost half of the property not zoned for single family, without taking into account the specific needs of particular sub areas such as Sodo, Georgetown, and Interbay.

- It privileged large commercial enterprises, such as Starbucks, Amazon, Vulcan, and the Port, who have the resources and clout to get specific exemptions from its provisions, while penalizing other landowners who do not have the same access or influence.

- There was no evidence that this particular legislation was needed or appropriately targeted to achieve the goal of preserving industrial jobs and enterprises, or of any rush to construct encroaching commercial buildings that would take land out of industrial use (the proponent's own numbers showed that less than 800,000 square feet of commercial construction was permitted in industrial zones in 2007, using up about one-tenth of 1 percent of the possible land - leaving a 700 year supply under the zoning in place).

- This legislation was prepared in haste and without adequate consultation as required under the Growth Management Act - the vote on Dec. 17 came only 19 days after the legislation was introduced, with the first committee votes only a week after introduction, and even the sponsor of the legislation introduced an amendment on the floor of the Council to correct inadvertent errors.

- The legislation effectively overturned a compromise painfully arrived at during the neighborhood planning process for the Duwamish Industrial Area, a process that did engage all of the stakeholders and took the time to find agreement - just when steps are underway to revise neighborhood plans through a new stakeholder process.

The industrial lands legislation came to the Council in response to a study by the Planning Commission. The commission examined the state of the city's industrial land, concluded that there were potential threats from commercial development, and recommended considering measures to protect industry. Historically, land was zoned industrial to protect commercial and residential property from being encroached on by industrial smells, sounds, and pollution. This situation has now reversed, with industry needing protection from the higher value that land has when developed for commercial or residential purposes.

All council members agree with that conclusion, and agree that steps are needed to preserve the core industrial and maritime properties which support Seattle's thriving industrial sector and the many blue collar jobs that are part of it. I personally led the effort to secure funding for the Planning Commission study.

However, adoption of this legislation short-circuited the rational next step in the process, which would be to figure out the right amount of land that should be protected and where protection would be most needed and appropriate without possibly compromising commercial, retail, and residential development that is likely more appropriate for areas such as Sodo and Georgetown. Instead, this legislation took a broad brush approach without the detailed assessment of the long range needs and opportunities for Seattle's future.

Consequently, organizations such as the Washington Software Association opposed the legislation, noting that fringe industrial/commercial land is exactly the kind of relatively low rent property that fledgling companies need to be able to develop and grow, and that restricting this much land will cause office rents to rise with scarcity (the most likely beneficiaries will be large property owners in areas like downtown and South Lake Union). In the long run, this legislation is likely to reduce the amount of future land available for industry, as the pressure will grow until wide swaths are rezoned for commercial, instead of remaining as areas where both commercial and industrial could be developed depending on the specific economic conditions at the time.

The outstanding immediate example will be the proposed rezone of the Port's property in Interbay. Ironically, the Port, while supporting this legislation to restrict commercial development in other industrial lands, wants to take some 50 acres of prime maritime industry land with water access out of industrial use and rezone it for commercial development. Reportedly the mayor has agreed to support that in return for the Port support of this legislation.

The Council clearly lacked the knowledge to make a good long-term decision on this issue, which the legislation's proponents acknowledged by also proposing a series of further studies in an accompanying resolution. There is no rush to vest commercial development, and the Council has the power to enact emergency legislation if such a rush develops. There is a consensus that the zoning should be modified to preserve the appropriate maritime and industrial development. But the time wasn't taken to develop the needed knowledge and work through the issues in order to make a good decision.

Several years ago, the city's approval of a revision to the University's Master Development Plan was overturned by the Growth Management Appeals Board because it acted without appropriate public participation. The Board noted that following the letter of the law might not be enough: "To inappropriately truncate or eliminate the public's opportunity to participate in the making of local government policy would fly in the face of one of the act's most cherished planning goals and separate the "bottom up" component of Growth Management Act planning from its true roots - the people." This legislation could have similar legal vulnerabilities. However, even if it is upheld legally, there are so many significant problems with it that the Council will likely have to spend the next several years amending it to clean up the unforeseen consequences.

Councilman Richard Conlin may be reached at richard.conlin@seattle.gov