ACTION

ALKI ALLIANCE
MISSION
To ensure this development is appropriate for the existing context and that the
Alki Neighborhood is left in better position than before
Second EDG Meeting
January 21, 2016
Written Comments
These comments are part of our neighborhoods review of SolTerras response to the Southwest Design
Review Board comments from the first Early Design Guidance meeting on October 15, 2015 regarding
the proposed d evelopment of The Perch located at 1250 1262 Alki Avenue SW (Seattle DPD Project
#3020640).
As previously noted in our written comments, we understand that a future MUP review will focus on the
environmental impacts created b y the project for traffic, noise, s tormwater, habitat, and critical areas.
However, we want to stress a gain that the EDG process should not be used to create a building envelope
that is out of character with the surrounding n eighborhood and causes unmitigatable impacts. We do
not want the EDG d ecision to create an oversized project whose impacts cannot be adequately
mitigated or precludes the application of potential SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements
appropriate to the site p er SMC 23.41.014(F)(3)(c).
The following comments are based on our review of the materials submitted b y SolTerra on January 13,
2016 to DPD for the second EDG meeting.
General Comments
1. It is our opinion that SolTerras EDG resubmittal does n ot respond adequately to the siting and
design guidance s et out by the Board, including those identified by the B oard a s Priority
Guidelines considered important to the neighborhood. We believe that SolTerra has not
responded to the Boards requests and the Developer has made inaccurate statements in their
revised EDG. Our specific concerns are outlined in our comments b elow.
2. At the first EDG meeting, the Board encouraged the developer to work with the Action Alki
Alliance as they further d evelop their massing options. While the Action Alki Alliance
welcomed the preliminary steps that SolTerra made to involve the n eighborhood in the EDG
process as directed b y the Board, we were not able to meet with the Developer or have
meaningful input in the development of their two massing options.
On December 15, 2015, SolTerra requested a meeting with us d uring the last half of December
during a time of year when many of us were traveling for the holidays, which clearly would not
work. We submitted written responses to SolTerras p roposal on January 8, 2016 only to find
out after the fact that SolTerra submitted their original proposal to DPD on January 5, 2016. We

ACTION ALKI ALLIANCE

MISSION
To ensure this development is appropriate for the existing context and that the
Alki Neighborhood is left in better position than before
believe that SolTerra provided the n eighborhood with inadequate information, a llowed
insufficient time for our n eighborhood to b e involved in discussions with them regarding our
concerns, did not listen to our concerns, and mislead u s on when they filed its response to the
Board.
3. After reviewing the revised EDG, SMC 23.41 and the S eattle Design Guidelines (2013), we
believe the Board should continue to emphasize the n eighborhood priority of physical size and
massing compatible with the recently d esigned and built multi-family structures in the
neighborhood. The revised EDG does not reflect this p riority.
4. We think that it is essential that SolTerra show property lines, setbacks, critical areas, critical
area buffers and proposed d epartures on cross s ections in the EDG materials. Otherwise, it is
difficult to understand the buildings relationship and impact to the s ite and neighborhood, and
compare the d evelopers two n ew options.
5. According to the DPD project website, the Midrise Residential ( MR) zoning district requires 25%
open space. SolTerras preferred massing option is 82% of the s ite which appears to b e
significantly more than the allowed 75%. We q uestion whether the s ingle-family zoned portion
of project site can b e used for a developers b enefit when a project is located in a mid-rise zone
portion of the site, in terms of such things as FAR, open space requirements, etc. The Boards
clarification on this would b e appreciated.
Comments on the Developers Two Options
1. The developer-preferred option remains out of scale a nd not compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, especially when the d eveloper proposed building width and d epth departures
are considered and are not offset b y the courtyard. The d evelopers code-compliant option is
clearly not d eveloped enough to provide an adequate comparison with the d eveloper-preferred
option.

2. It appears that the health of the exceptional tree (81.4 d. b. h. Lombardy Poplar) identified on
the site by the d evelopers certified arborist Robert Bailey on page 1.6, would be directly
threatened by the construction of the proposed underground parking garages in both options.
While the d eveloper did not provide measurements or a scale on their drawings, the proposed
underground parking garages in both options appear to extend to the southwest property line
and underneath the existing retaining wall to the south, undermining the roots of the tree.

ACTION ALKI ALLIANCE

MISSION
To ensure this development is appropriate for the existing context and that the
Alki Neighborhood is left in better position than before
Comments on the Developers Preferred Option
1. It is inappropriate and misleading for the d eveloper to use the width of 1301 Harbor Avenue
[Seabird] built in 1976 or 1727/1737 Harbor Avenue [Harbor Park a cross from Saltys] built in
1973 to justify the proposed width of the project. [See Section 7.2] Both buildings are more
than a half mile from the project site, are not part of the n eighborhood, and they are not
neighboring projects. At the last EDG, the Board suggested going a quarter mile in each
direction from the project site. Six of the eight longest buildings used b y the d eveloper to
support their proposed d epartures were constructed p rior to 1990. Of the two built after 1990,
1331 Harbor Avenue [Harbor Landing] is zoned NC2-65 and 1019 Harbor Avenue [Harbor Vista]
has a unique history.
We cannot h elp but wonder if buildings like those noted were the reason the code changed to
what we have today. The 1301 Harbor Avenue [Seabird] building is likely one of the reasons
why the SMC was amended to require a d esign review process that emphasized modulation and
reduced massing. In addition, the two s maller main masses of 1727/1737 Harbor Avenue
[Harbor Park] were connected in the center after the p roject was built to create the larger
structure.
Even the use of 1019 Harbor Avenue [Harbor V ista] ( 175 feet wide) is misleading as a larger
project than the developer-preferred option (174 feet wide). The two main vertical masses of
1019 Harbor Avenue [Harbor Vista] on the front are clearly narrower than the prominent front
masses of SolTerras developer-preferred option. We all remember the little house
surrounded by the condominium.

ACTION ALKI ALLIANCE

MISSION
To ensure this development is appropriate for the existing context and that the
Alki Neighborhood is left in better position than before

Figure 1: 1301 Harbor Avenue (K. C. Assessor I mage)

Figure 2: 1019 Harbor Avenue (K. C. Assessor

Image)

Figure 3: 1727 Harbor Avenue (K. C. Assessor

Image)

2. At the first EDG meeting on October 15, 2015, the Board noted that:
a. the developer s hould demonstrate how the courtyard and m assing for Options 2 and 3
provides a more m eaningful break in the m ass. The widths of the massing break(s) should be
equal to or greater than the requested departure for additional structure width.1 The
developer-preferred option of a s mall courtyard is inadequate. In addition, the pictures
provided b y the developer misrepresent the size of the proposed project as b eing smaller
than it actually would b e b ecause of the distortion caused b y the type of photography used.
b. the courtyard should be widened and either be at grade or, at a minimum, have a strong
relationship to the street grade.2 We find that the narrow and shallow courtyard proposed
in the developer-preferred option does n ot result in a real reduction of the buildings mass.

1
2

CS2-D-4, CS1-B-1&2, PL1-A-1

CS2-B-2, CS2-D-4, CS1-B-1&2, PL1-A-1

ACTION ALKI ALLIANCE

MISSION
To ensure this development is appropriate for the existing context and that the
Alki Neighborhood is left in better position than before
The depth of the reveal that the Board liked in Option 2 from the October 2015 meeting is
reduced in the n ew d eveloper-preferred option.
c. light and air to the courtyard and inward facing units was a concern and s hould be
addressed.3 We find that the narrow and shallow waterside facing courtyard proposed in
the developer-preferred option does n ot provide adequate solar a ccess and air to the units
facing the courtyard. In S olTerras response to Action Alki Alliance EDG 1 comments dated
December 11, 2015, the developer stated, Energy, daylighting and shading considerations
are critical factors when d esigning for a LEED Platinum building, our core focus. Direct
sunlight on the south and west faades n eeding to b e managed b y shading d evices will b e
limited, due to the location of the very tall hillside to the south and another property to the
west that will b lock most of it. The updated d esign includes a much larger open courtyard
to increase daylighting opportunities for units on the front faade.
We b elieve a code compliant building that is without d epartures will address this n eed,
particularly s ince buildings and the h illside shade three sides. The current proposal is
actually to the d etriment of the public good: it cuts off side solar access to the adjoining
buildings. The views from the side d ecks of 1238 Harbor Avenue are virtually eliminated, as
is solar access.
3. At the first EDG meeting , the Board identified the following Citywide and Neighborhood
guidelines a s Priority Guidelines considered important to the neighborhood:
4

a. Use natural topography and desirable landforms to inform project design. SolTerra
suggests they will "prioritize celebrating the natural beauty of the site" in part by creating a
living wall s ystem that ties the building back to the hillside and brings the greenery and
nature out to the street front. In the d eveloper-preferred option, they do this by including a
courtyard with a living wall, while asking for a d eparture in width of 24 feet. The approval of
a departure to the building width exchanges wider views of the real, naturally vegetated
Duwamish Greenbelt on either side of the proposed project for an artificial living wall in
the center.
A code compliant building would provide 38 feet of clear visual a ccess to the hillside and
allow everyone residents and visitors to the area to enjoy the natural b eauty of the site.
The project should include the greater side setbacks that were envisioned a lready in the
SMC b y the limitations to building width and d epth to maintain a visual connection to the

3

CS1-B-1, CS1-B-2
Context & Site, CS1 Natural Systems and Site Features: Use natural systems/features of the site and its
surroundings as a starting point for p roject d esign, CS1-C Topography, CS1-C-1 Land Form
4

ACTION ALKI ALLIANCE

MISSION
To ensure this development is appropriate for the existing context and that the
Alki Neighborhood is left in better position than before
green space and increase solar a ccess and views for tenants and n eighbors. In addition, the
survival of the artificial living wall over the buildings lifespan or even a few years is
questionable and d ifficult to enforce.
b. Review the height, bulk, and scale of neighboring buildings as w ell as the scale of
development anticipated by z oning for the area to determine an appropriate
complement and/or transition.5 As we explained above, we feel that the developer

used inappropriate and misleading examples on Section 7.2 to attempt to justify their
proposed larger width d eparture. In fact, d espite the concerns previously stated by the
neighborhood about the d epartures resulting in a building out of scale with the rest of the
neighborhood, the d eveloper-preferred option is n ow seeking a 33% larger width d eparture.
This calculation is based on the EDG 1 submitted preferred option not the preferred option
as presented by the d eveloper which was n ever p osted to the DPD website.
While the d eveloper has stated that they will b e granted an additional 1 6 h eight for
providing roof insulation exceeding the code minimum per S MC 23.60A.572.C.2, the concept
building s ection provides conflicting information as to what the actual h eight of the roof will
be b ecause there are two roof membrane h eights specified. We would a lso draw the
Boards attention to the minimum wall h eight that will be required for safety. The concept
roof plan on Section 3.6 d oes not specify this height and based on the d evelopers rooftop
plan, it will result in a taller faade than shown in the elevation drawings.

c. Use c hanges in topography, site shape, and vegetation or structures to help make a
successful fit with adjacent properties.6 The code-compliant option uses the sites
shape, which is wider along the street than the hillside, to create and channel views
from Alki Avenue to the real, naturally vegetated Duwamish Greenbelt on either side, while
the developer-preferred option requires a departure to expand the buildings width to
create a p lug 9 feet wide n ext to the hillside and 24 feet along the street. This effectively
cuts off views of the Greenbelt and creates 14-foot wide, more than 60-foot d eep canyons
on both sides that would n ot b e a llowed without approval the d evelopers requested width
departure.

Context & Site, CS2 Urban Pattern and Form: Strengthen the most d esirable forms, characteristics, and patterns
of the streets, b lock faces, and open spaces in the surrounding area, CS2-D H eight, Bulk, and Scale, CS2-D-1 Existing
Development and Zoning
6
Context & Site, CS2 Urban Pattern and Form: Strengthen the most d esirable forms, characteristics, and patterns
of the streets, b lock faces, and open spaces in the surrounding area, CS2-D H eight, Bulk, and Scale, CS2-D-2 Existing
Site Features

ACTION ALKI ALLIANCE

MISSION
To ensure this development is appropriate for the existing context and that the
Alki Neighborhood is left in better position than before
d. Respect adjacent properties with design and site planning to minimize disrupting the
privacy of residents in adjacent buildings.7 While a limited number of buildings in the
neighborhood have roof d ecks, only two of the examples cited by the d eveloper in the
appendix occupy more than half of the rooftop and n one uses the entire roof like the
developer-preferred option. There is an important d ifference between these existing d ecks
and the expansive roof top d eck proposed in the d eveloper-preferred option. There are no
common use roof d ecks in the n eighborhood. Access to these n eighboring d ecks is directly
tied to ownership of specific units and the roof d ecks are a vailable for use only b y the
owners of those units.
SolTerras philosophy is that When you live in one SolTerra Building, you live in all of
them. [www.solterra.com/cities] Our concern is the deck will b e a vailable not just to
Perch residents and guests but to a ll residents and guests of numerous SolTerra properties.
In S eattle SolTerra has 318 units under construction and/or d evelopment with more
planned. If Portland locations were included, 267 additional units could possibly have
access to the Perch rooftop. This common d eck could potentially b e a vailable to residents
and guests of over 600 units.
While the d eveloper would suggest the p lacement of the d eck would act as a noise
mitigator, the broad access to all of SolTerras residents cannot b e ignored. This is
completely inconsistent with roof top decks usage of a ll other buildings in the
neighborhood. Our concerns relate to the impact on the Alki Community, including safety;
noise; traffic; parking.
e. Arrange the mass of the building taking into consideration the characteristics of the site
and the proposed uses of the building and its open space.8 It appears that the
developer designed their preferred option so that the required departures from width

and depth requirements are the maximum necessary to fill the building envelope. The
developers request for the departures does not appear to m eet the requirement to
provide for a public good. The small and shallow courtyard does not offset the real
increase in the buildings overall mass and scale. The developer appears to be filling the
entire developable envelope of the site to m eet the projects program.

7

Context & Site, CS2 Urban Pattern and Form: Strengthen the most d esirable forms, characteristics, and patterns
of the streets, b lock faces, and open spaces in the surrounding area, CS2-D H eight, Bulk, and Scale, CS2-D-5
Respect for Adjacent Sites
8
Design Concept, DC2 A rchitectural Concept: Develop an a rchitectural concept that will result in a unified and
functional d esign that fits well on the site and within its surroundings, DC2-A Massing, DC2-A-1 Site Characteristics
and Uses

ACTION ALKI ALLIANCE

MISSION
To ensure this development is appropriate for the existing context and that the
Alki Neighborhood is left in better position than before
The proposed building width departure has increased from 18 feet 2 inches in the
developers October 2015 proposal to 24 feet in the developers January 13, 2016
proposal and the developers proposal building depth departure has increased from 12
feet 7 inches to 16 feet. In addition, on S ection 3.6 the requested depth departure
results in a building that breaks the front faade line created by the neighboring
buildings, pushes the buildings mass toward the street, and blocks views.
At 174 square feet by 106 by square feet, the S olTerra preferred massing option results
in a footprint in square footage that is approximately 37% greater than the code would
allow. This may benefit SolTerra, but we saw no demonstrated benefit to the
neighborhood and we question how these departures better m eets the design
guidelines and provides a public benefit.
4. The depth d eparture shown in the d eveloper-preferred option:
(1) Increases the square footage of the building;
(2) Results in a building that breaks the common front faade p lane of the n eighboring
buildings;
(3) Draws the building mass closer to the street;
(4) Creates a greater visual impact along the street; and
(5) Further blocks the views from n eighboring buildings.
We measured the front s etbacks of a ll the properties from 1140 Alki to 1350 Alki, the n ine-block
area cited in the proposal. The front setbacks range from 12 to 20 feet measured from the edge
of the s idewalk. Most were in the 14 to 16 foot range. The preferred massing option has
minimum s etbacks and it would break the common faade line established along Alki Avenue.
The public good is not served b y this d eparture.
SolTerra suggests their preferred massing features street-level public green space for a
neighborhood that does not have many, especially on the same s ide of the street. A code
compliant structure would reduce the d epth b y 16 feet allowing for landscaping in front of the
building to fulfill that n eed, along with Alki Beach Park and Puget S ound across the s treet.
5. The departures for building width a re now 33% greater than was proposed by the developer
in October 2015. The developer a rgues that the rear of their preferred option requires only

a nine-foot departure. This is immaterial, as the most important m easurements of the

ACTION ALKI ALLIANCE

MISSION
To ensure this development is appropriate for the existing context and that the
Alki Neighborhood is left in better position than before
width of the building a re at the front lot line along the street where the 24-foot departure is
visible to the public. It is also a function of the shape of the project site, which the
developer is trying to fill completely with building.
Coupled with the depth departure, the width departure required by the developer-
preferred option creates a greater obstruction of the views from the existing buildings on
either side of the proposed development and the views of the naturally vegetated Duwamish
Greenbelt than the code-compliant option. The d eveloper overstates the effect of the courtyard
width in offsetting the proposed d epartures.
6. The size of the windows in all three of the d eveloper-preferred options articulation concepts do
not reflect the established pattern found in most recent n eighboring development. Windows
are too s mall to take proper advantage of the projects location and the n eed to create solar
access for the building tenants. It is s till not clear from the options presented b y the developer
how much space there is between the units and the hillside, especially where the upper stories
cantilever over the slope. We would also like to know the historic basis for the use of
weathered bamboo for the project.
Comments on d evelopers Code-Compliant Option
1. The developer did not address the Board and neighborhoods request for more d etail for the
code-compliant option as s tated a t the first EDG meeting. At the first EDG, the Board requested
that Solterra submit a code-compliant option that would be feasible and further d eveloped
beyond a zoning envelope box. We d o not b elieve the current option achieves that objective.
The code-compliant option is not developed to the same extent as the developer-preferred
option with respect to properly designing the buildings mass and scale relative to the
neighborhood. As a result, the code-compliant option does n ot address the City and Boards
design requirements for breaking up the b uildings mass and scale, providing a courtyard, or
showing real articulation of the building.
2. At the first EDG meeting the Board made the following comments:
a. For the next m eeting the developer s hould provide at least two options, one of which is
code compliant.9 The d eveloper has not adequately d eveloped the code-compliant option
in a meaningful way that meets the Board request for additional information to evaluate the
developer-preferred option a gainst the code-compliant option. As SolTerra a cknowledged

9

CS2-D-all, DC2-A-1, DC2-A-2

ACTION ALKI ALLIANCE

MISSION
To ensure this development is appropriate for the existing context and that the
Alki Neighborhood is left in better position than before
on Section 2.1 of their summary of the Board comments, More n eeds to b e done to break
up the overall form.
SolTerra has not presented a viable code-compliant option to the level that the Board
requested. Code-compliant option is a reiteration of what the d eveloper a lready presented
at the first early d esign review meeting with the exception of p lacing an artificial living
wall in existing center mass. The failure to d evelop a ny real public space in the form of a
courtyard in the code-compliant option reflects this.
b. The Board asked the developer to provide a m ore comprehensive streetscape elevation of
the development on Alki Ave to show how the proposed options s uccessfully fit into the
existing context.10 The d eveloper d id n ot adequately d evelop a streetscape elevation for
the code-compliant option to meet the Boards request for additional information to a llow a
meaningful evaluation of the d eveloper-preferred option against the code-compliant option.
c. The Board expressed concern with the flatness of the planes, lack of articulation, and
disconnect between the architectural concepts on Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the EDG packet
and m assing options presented. The developer should take the architectural concepts
presented and further develop and apply these to the updated m assing options.11 The
developer d id n ot adequately d evelop the code-compliant option in a meaningful way that
meets the Board request for additional information to evaluate the d eveloper-preferred
option against the code-compliant option. The d eveloper made no real a ttempt to address
the flatness of the planes or lack of articulation in the code-compliant option.
3. At the first EDG meeting the Board identified the following Citywide and Neighborhood
guidelines as Priority G uidelines considered important to the neighborhood:
a. Opportunities for creating lively, pedestrian oriented open spaces to enliven the area
and attract interest and interaction with the site and building should be c onsidered.12
As noted above, while the developer put a lot of effort into integrating a central open
space as a pedestrian amenity and roof deck into their preferred option, they did not

show the same attention to the code-compliant option. It is impossible to make a

reasonable comparison of how the developer-preferred and code-compliant options
address this guideline.

10

CS2-D-1, DC2-A-1
DC2-A-2, DC2-B-1, DC2-C-1, DC2-D-1&2
12
Public Life, PL1 Connectivity: Complement and contribute t o the n etwork of open spaces around the site and the
connections among them, PL1-B Walkways and Connections, PL1-B-3 Pedestrian A menities
11

ACTION ALKI ALLIANCE

MISSION
To ensure this development is appropriate for the existing context and that the
Alki Neighborhood is left in better position than before
b. Design primary entries to be obvious, identifiable, and distinctive with clear lines of
sight and lobbies visually c onnected to the street.13 It is not clear from the elevations

provided by the developer where the primary entries are located for the code-compliant
option. The primary entries for the developer-preferred option appear to be lost in the
artificial natural wall. This lack of information makes a credible evaluation difficult.
c. Design the entry as a collection of coordinated elements including the door(s), overhead
features, ground surface, landscaping, lighting, and other features.14 R elated to

addressing PL3-A-1 above, it is not clear from the elevations provided by the developer
if there is a coordinated set of elements for the entry design for the code-compliant
option building. There does not appear to be coordinated elements in the entry
elements in the developer-preferred option. The use of canopies and overhangs, while
stressed by the developer in the text, a re not reflected in the elevation drawings.
d. Provide security and privacy for residential buildings through the use of a buffer or
semi-private space between the development and the street or neighboring buildings.15
There is not enough detail in the code-compliant option to evaluate the buffers,
landscaping, and transitions between the project and the streets or neighboring
buildings.
Neighborhood Design Preferences
1. We want to s ee a code-compliant option that addresses what the Board and the n eighborhood
said they wanted to s ee a t the October 2015 EDG meeting: a code-compliant option that offers
the same level of detail and the same features as the d eveloper-preferred option. These
features include a d eeper and wider courtyard area in the center of the building frontage,
especially as part of the Code-Compliant Massing Evolution from Base Envelope in S ection 5.1,
better d eveloped broken-up massing a nd articulation that is more in s cale with n eighboring
developments.
We request the Board ask S olTerra to return with a code-compliant option that embraces the
features of the preferred option and b etter meets the massing and s cale of the n eighborhood.

13

Public Life, PL3 Street-Level Interaction: Encourage human interaction and activity at the street-level with clear
connections to building entries and edges, PL3-A Entries, PL3-A-1 Design Objectives
14
Public Life, PL3 Street-Level Interaction: Encourage human interaction and activity at the street-level with clear
connections to building entries and edges, PL3-A Entries, PL3-A-4 Ensemble of Elements
15
Public Life, PL3 Street-Level Interaction: Encourage human interaction and activity at the street-level with clear
connections to building entries and edges, PL3-B Residential Edges, PL3-B-1 Security and Privacy

ACTION ALKI ALLIANCE

MISSION
To ensure this development is appropriate for the existing context and that the
Alki Neighborhood is left in better position than before
2. The Board stated at the October EDG that departures from code requirements must provide a
public b enefit and that a projects program n eeds are not reasons for departure. We b elieve
that the Board should d eny b oth d eparture requests b ecause they do not provide a public good.
the Developers interest to fill the site to the maximum extent possible for a b igger building with
a small, narrow courtyard results in the loss of views of the naturally vegetated Duwamish
Greenbelt.
In conclusion, we are concerned that the d epartures requested b y the d eveloper for the b uilding
width and depth are not for the public good, but are n eeded to ensure that the project is
financially viable. We d o not b elieve SolTerra has met the public b enefit test and ask that any
departure request b e d enied.