Brownfield Impacts on Residential Property Values: A Case Study of the Ranier Court Brownfield Redevelopment Project, Seattle, Washington

Item

Title

Eng Brownfield Impacts on Residential Property Values: A Case Study of the Ranier Court Brownfield Redevelopment Project, Seattle, Washington

Date

2014

Creator

Eng Thelen, Laura A

Subject

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text

Brownfield Impacts on Residential Property Values:
A Case Study of
Rainier Court Brownfield Redevelopment Project
Seattle, Washington

by
Laura A. Thelen

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2014

© 2014 by Laura A. Thelen. All rights reserved.

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Laura A. Thelen

Has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
By
________________________
Martha L. Henderson, PhD
Director, Graduate Program on the Environment.
Member of the Faculty

________________________
Date

ABSTRACT
Brownfield Impacts on Residential Property Values:
A Case Study of Rainier Court Redevelopment Project
Seattle, Washington

Laura Thelen
The case study is at the Rainier Court brownfield redevelopment project in
Seattle, Washington. This thesis examines the relationship between single-family
residential property home values associated with brownfields redevelopment. The
relationship of surrounding property is then examined based on distance from the
Rainier Court redevelopment project. Literature supporting smart growth
principles and sustainability goals are examined. Brownfields are defined as “real
property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by
the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant” (Public Law 107-118). The literature supports that brownfield
redevelopment can increase tax revenues to communities and provide
opportunities for economic developments, growth management, environmental
protections conditions and community development. The findings conclude there
is a positive linear relationship between single-family home over time. However,
the relationship between single-family home values and brownfield sites is not
fully explained based limits of the data. I conclude success around brownfield
redevelopments can take generations to uncover while other outcomes can be seen
more quickly. The externalities of brownfield redevelopment impacts are complex
and difficult to measure. Understanding these spillover effects on surrounding
home values can highlight the desirable outcomes of brownfield projects. More
case studies may provide insights in regard to brownfield project size and various
end use options. Further research can provide an opportunity to measure impacts
to surrounding areas and support public funding.

Table of Contents

I.

Introduction ..........................................................................................1
a. The Problem
b. Goals of this Case Study
c. Anticipated Outcomes

II.

Literature Review ................................................................................6
a. Introduction
b. Theoretical Worldview
c. Sustainability
d. Sustainable Redevelopment- People, Planet, Profit
e. Smart Growth
f. Infill Redevelopment
g. Linking Brownfield to Smart Growth
h. Linking Brownfield to Sustainability
i. Gentrification
j. Existing Brownfield Studies
k. Evaluation of Existing Research Methods: A Need for More Case
Studies and Mixed Methods Research
l. Conclusion

III.

Background Brownfield Redevelopment .........................................36
a. What is a Brownfield?
b. Resource Conservation Recovery Act
c. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
d. Brownfield in Washington State
e. Why a Case Study?
f. The Surrounding Area:
Southeast Seattle, Rainier Valley, Washington 98118,
98108, 98144
g. Rainier Court Brownfield Redevelopment

IV.

Data Analysis ......................................................................................55
a. Introduction
b. Mixed Methods
c. Data limits
d. Statistical Analysis
e. Results and Discussion
Conclusion ..........................................................................................65

V.

iv

Appendix A: Smart Growth Principles ..................................................................69
Appendix B: 1990-1991 Growth Management Act ...............................................70
Appendix C: Site-Specific Community Involvement Plan for Rainier Court
Development (draft) ...............................................................................................72
Bibliography ..........................................................................................................78

v

List of Figures
Figure 1: Illustration of the three pillars of sustainability and brownfield
redevelopment Adapted from Washington State Policy Recommendation, DOE,
2011. Drawn by Laura Thelen, June 2014. ........................................................... 43
Figure 2: Zip code boundaries surrounding Rainier Court (identified in green)
redevelopment project: 98118, 98108, and 98144. ............................................... 45
Figure 3: The brownfield site before the redevelopment process at Rainier Court.
Hazardous chemicals from illegal trash dumping contaminated the site. (Retrieved
from: http://www.geoengineers.com/project/rainier-court-brownfielddevelopment)......................................................................................................... 49
Figure 4: Aerial photo with added illustration of Four Phases of the Rainier Court
brownfield redevelopment project. Retrieved from google maps. 05/10/14 ....... 51
Figure 5: The Courtland Place, Phase One of the Rainier Court Redevelopment
Project. Images are before (2003) and after(2005) remediation, respectivley.
(Retrieved from: http://www.intercitycontractors.com/?portfolio=courtland-place3) ........................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 6: The Dakota development, Phase Two of the Rainier Court
Redevelopment Project. Images are illustrate before (2003) and after(2005)
remediation, respectivley. (Retreived from:
http://www.intercitycontractors.com/?page_id=82) ............................................. 52
Figure 7: Phase Three of the Rainier Court redevelopment before redevelopment
and after as illustrated with conceptual plan (Retrieved from: SouthEast Effective
Development (SEED) fact sheet). ......................................................................... 53
Figure 8: Photo of townhomes under construction for Phase Three illustrate
current conditions at time of research. 05/11/14 ................................................... 53
Figure 9: Photo of vacant houses at south end of site. Current conditions at time
of research include temporary parking, over grown weeds and a junkyard
warehouse.05/11/14 .............................................................................................. 53
Figure 10: This 14 year trajectory of home values shows an increase over time
significantly in regards to 300 foot distance from Rainier Court (p<.0001,
R2=.4786). ............................................................................................................. 57
Figure 11: This 14 year trajectory of home values shows an increase over time
significantly in regards to 500 foot distance from Rainier Court (p<.0001,
R2=.522). ............................................................................................................... 58
Figure 12: This 14 year trajectory of home values shows an increase over time
significantly in regards to 1320 foot distance from Rainier Court (p<.0001). The
further distance from Rainier court show that this model indicates a weaker
relationship between home values and time (R2=.3625). ..................................... 58
Figure 13: This 14 year trajectory of home values shows an increase over time
significantly in regards to 2640 foot distance from Rainier Court (p<.0001). The
further distance from Rainier court show that this model indicates a weaker
relationship between home values and time (R2=.086). ....................................... 59

vi

Acknowledgements
A number of people have supported me throughout my path. This project has
challenged me professionally, personally, and academically. My sincerest
appreciation extends to all of those involved.
First, I would like to thank my reader, Dr. Martha Henderson, for her on going
and words of support, encouragement, and excellent guidance.
Thank you to Amanda Sargent, Charles Thelen, Samuel Ballard and Terra Thelen
for their feedback, editing assistance and much needed moral support. Thank you
all for the long discussions around urban planning, brownfields and
sustainability…I’m sure you know more about brownfields than you’d ever wish
for.

vii

INTRODUCTION
Brownfields
Brownfields are contaminated properties that are abandoned or
underutilized due to known or suspected contamination. Many issues surround
brownfield redevelopment. The perception of contamination, liability risk and
costs of remediation all impact redevelopment of these properties. These impacts
all add complexities along the way. Measuring success of brownfield
redevelopments remain multi-lateral, complex and can be difficult to quantify.
Besides the impacts of contamination to the environment, brownfield sites also
impact the economy and community to which they are located. Decreased revenue
from idle brownfield properties affects both the economic longevity of a
community as well as the social impacts of blight, thus stigmatizing surrounding
properties. Through data analysis, previous roadblocks to brownfield
redevelopment can highlight opportunities best utilized through an
interdisciplinary perspective.
Legal barriers have historically enthralled redevelopment efforts on
brownfield properties however, legislative precedence has given brownfield
redevelopment an opportunity to gain footing in Washington State. Current
growth management policy can support brownfield redevelopment with framing
and postulating efforts of sustainability with smart growth principles. The
advantage to brownfield redevelopment is trifold and is analogous to the
systematics within the traditional three pillars of sustainability model; people,
planet, profit.

1

The three pillars should be regarded as belonging collectively, otherwise
sustainability is not obtained. The uses of this model can also be useful in
analyzing brownfield redevelopment outcomes. First, a remediated brownfield
site can achieve cleanup of contamination to state standards. Second, remediated
brownfields can provide economic solutions to lost opportunities for jobs and
development. Lastly, through the previous two accomplishments, redeveloped
brownfields can relieve social stresses through local tax revenues, reduced
attractiveness to crime and overall public health and safety. The purpose of this
research is to highlight multiple efforts measuring success and provide context to
why brownfield redevelopment and sustainability should be synchronized.
The central research questions addressed in this case study asks: Is the
Rainier Court redevelopment in line with existing smart growth policies? Is there
data to support claims that brownfield redevelopments increase residential
property values? How can improvements be made to reach sustainability goals.
To answer these research questions, quantitative data collected from county
databases and qualitative interviews provide opportunities for analysis.
The Case Study
The predetermined brownfield site is Rainier Court, located in Rainier
Valley, Seattle, Washington. The Rainier Court brownfield redevelopment project
has a long history of illegal dumping and other misuses for 35 years and provides
an opportunity to study before and after brownfield redevelopment conditions. Of
the four phases of redevelopment, two are completed, one is underway as of the
time of this study and the final one is expected to begin 2015. The first two
completed phases of Rainier Court are named Courtland Place and The Dakota,
2

which support 208 senior housing units and 178 multi-family housing units. Both
developments include mixed-use buildings including 18,000 square feet of retail
space providing goods and services, and are close to public transportation
(geoengineers.com/project/rainier-court-brownfield-development). The third
phase, named Community Gardens at Rainier Court, is underway at the time of
this research to be redeveloped as a 70-unit town house style senior housing. The
fourth phase is anticipated to include additional townhouses.
The first two completed phases of the four-phase project of the Rainier
Court redevelopment has won the Environmental Protection Agency Region 10
Phoenix Award, in 2005. The Phoenix Awards are widely recognized as the
outstanding award for achievement of excellence in brownfield redevelopment.
The contenders are judged on the magnitude of the problems and the project, use
of innovative techniques, cooperative efforts of multiple parties, positive impacts
on the environment, conservation or sustainability, as well as the project's general
and long-term economic and/or social impacts on the community
(phoenixawards.org).
Studies have shown brownfield redevelopment in Washington State can
facilitate economic, community and the environment. While each brownfield site
is a different scenario in terms of contamination, parcel size, location and zoning,
these factors also drive the redevelopment process. The first phase of the Rainier
Court project was expected to create 150 construction jobs and 25 long-term jobs
(South East Economic Development, 2008). State grant and loan funding
programs in Washington State mirror a national consensus in that job creation

3

generates corresponding increases in both state and local tax revenue. This in turn
enables benefits for the community including services provided by increased tax
revenue, construction of affordable housing, and civic pride through reduced
blight and beautification of the site.
Environmental benefits of cleaned up brownfield sites also are
economically associated. They can include reduced vehicle miles traveled,
reduced sprawl development, and reduced exposure of contaminants to people,
plants, animals and waterways, all of which impact the local economy and the
environment, thus social conditions are also improved.
This research relies on methodology that incorporates both quantitative
and qualitative data. The mixed methodology focuses on examining the impacts
of brownfield redevelopment at Rainier Court Seattle, Washington. Temporal data
collection provides a change evaluation to address a projects’ influence on the
community before and after Phase One and Two completions. Cartographic data
provide geographic context to the research. Qualitative data collection provides
insight to opinions on brownfield redevelopments and it’s fit to sustainability
goals. Statistical analysis provides insight to tangible measurements and insight to
intangible effects of brownfields on communities.
Success of the brownfield redevelopment is defined through the research
of literature and by conducting professional surveys from local brownfield project
managers, housing authorities, nonprofits, community groups and environmental
consultants involved in the Rainier Court redevelopment project. To supplement
the quantitative data collected, I identify how social factors influence or are

4

influenced by brownfield redevelopments. From my analysis, I provide an
interdisciplinary interpretation of findings. Finally, I make recommendations for
further brownfield redevelopment case study analysis to conclude this thesis.
Through this research, I conclude that brownfield redevelopments, less
tangible incentives, can be achieved by including a sustainable redevelopment
viewpoint. Sustainability goals are identified through both local communities and
goals of Washington State regarding growth management principles through the
Growth Management Act, and commitments to public health and safety.

5

LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review focuses on literature discussing the inclusion of
brownfield property redevelopment as an element that could facilitate
sustainability goals statewide. Economic development, environmental protection
and social equity are three pillars of sustainability. The first part of this chapter
discusses the theoretical worldview of this research. The second part of this
literature review considers how sustainability is defined. The third set of literature
describes the connections between sustainability and smart growth goals, then to
brownfields. Brownfields are defined as “real property, the expansion,
redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or
potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.” (Public
Law 107-118). The fourth part focuses literature around social implications of
neglecting to see the interconnectedness of smart growth goals, i.e., sustainability.
The last part of this literature review focuses on methodologies used to
link the interconnectedness of social and economic systems and environmental
protections and remediation. While several fundamental components deep in our
social fabric are beyond the scope of this research, however, they are identified
throughout this literature review. This literature review provides detailed analysis
of social health and economic advantages and disadvantages of using brownfield
as a development tool to meet sustainability goals.
Theoretical Worldview
From a research perspective, the theoretical lenses of brownfields
redevelopment consume many worldviews to address confounding variables
including post-positivism, constructivism, pragmatism, and participatory and
advocacy (Creswell, 2009, p. 6). Commonly, a pragmatic worldview focused on
6

problem centered, real world situations fulfill research questions fit the
environmental protection motivation. The limitations of such an approach can
obfuscate the subjectivity and uniqueness of brownfield redevelopments.
Intersections among views make identifying with one challenging. For example,
Creswell explains that post positivism creates a basis for further research; while
constructivism is based upon how humans engage within their world and as they
understand it.
The myriad of stakeholders involved in brownfield redevelopments
requires an intertwining of worldviews (Creswell, 2009). Consider traditional
cause and effect supported by empirical science can effectively support a
trajectory that raises concerns for further exploration into the subject, therefore
pragmatic; and due to the change orientated collaborative nature of political issues
within brownfield redevelopments; a participatory worldview can be applied. The
theoretical context of mixed methods research is in line with organizational theory
and social sustainability. Consequently, a transformative worldview stands out in
that this research attempts to assess how we engage with social issues, within a
particular context.
Sustainability
Ideals that shape the definition of sustainability have commonalities and
discords. In recent literature, the term is commonly used to address economic,
social and environmental goals with three interdependent pillars each affecting the
other in a systematic linkage, a triple bottom line approach, in obtaining
sustainability (Chakrapani & Hernandez, 2009). Usage of the term regularly stems
from the development goals in relation to resource availability. Commonly, values
are also equated and embrace systems thinking, resilience, and inclusion of

7

societal improvements. Values, while seemingly straight forward, can
fundamentally shift and create disconnect in applications and interpretations
(Kemp & Martens, 2007).
The Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines sustainable as an adjective:
: able to be used without being completely used up or
destroyed
: involving methods that do not completely use up or destroy
natural resources
: able to last or continue for a long time
Sustainable. (n.d). In Merriam-Websters online dictionary.
Disciplines ranging from economists and engineers, to humanitarians and
environmental stewards all have slightly differing definitions and principles
within the triad rubric of sustainability. The Unites States’ Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) definition states:
Sustainability is based on a simple principle: Everything that
we need for our survival and well-being depends, either
directly or indirectly, on our natural
environment. Sustainability creates and maintains the
conditions under which humans and nature can exist in
productive harmony that permits fulfilling the social,
economic and other requirements of present and future
generations. (US EPA, 2014)
Definitions defined in 2002, World Summit on Sustainable Development,
included three major foci of sustainable development: 1) eradicating poverty, 2)
protecting natural resources, and 3) changing unsustainable production and
consumption patterns (Wedding, 2007, p. 484). The most common cited context
of sustainability comes from Our Common Future by The United Nations World
Commission on the Environment and Development, 1987 known as The
Brundtland Report. The report defines sustainable development as:

8

Sustainable development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:
the concept of 'needs', in particular the essential needs of the
world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given;
and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of
technology and social organization on the environment's
ability to meet present and future needs. (WCED, 1987, p.
37)
Measuring sustainability involves complex yet amorphous interpretations.
Reliant on consensus of the definition, there is a wide body of knowledge focused
on defining social sustainability. Attempts to define social sustainability can range
from descriptions of “Maintaining or preserving ways of living or protecting
socio-cultural traditions” to conflicting interpretations focused in “equitable
distribution of resources and opportunities” (Vallance, Perkins, Dixon, 2011).
Sustainability measurements are complex as they stem from a systematic design
encompassing inputs and outputs and maintain resilience of the system over time.
Climate change is a power driver in the realm of sustainability. The
growing global concern for sustainability has been illuminated recent in climate
change reports (Yates, 2012). The 2011 Stockholm Memorandum Tipping the
Scales Towards Sustainability, which states, “We are the first generation facing
the evidence of global change. It therefore falls upon us to change our relationship
with the planet, in order to tip the scales towards a sustainable world for future
generations” (Stockholm Memorandum, 2011, p. 3). The memorandum also
suggests a bimodal approach to addressing global issues:
We recommend a dual track approach: a) emergency solutions
now, that begin to stop and reverse negative environmental trends
and redress inequalities in the inadequate institutional frameworks
within which we operate, and b) long term structural solutions
that gradually change values, institutions and policy frameworks.
9

We need to support our ability to innovate, adapt, and learn.
(Stockholm Memorandum, 2011, p. 4)
The amorphous nature of sustainability inhibits a one size fits all
definition. Three pillars of sustainability; social equity, environment, and
economics encompass core components to sustainable systems and have been
termed the three P’s as in; People, Plant and Profit (Chakrapani & Hernandez,
2009). Sustainable urban development is comprised of challenges factoring the
three P’s. Population growth, efficacy, conservation and preservation, and
infrastructure limitations all effect the urban environment in which people live
and businesses thrive.
Increasing efforts to manage urban growth have become part of city
planners and local government. Widespread contemporary land use patterns
developed in the 1800’s are no longer sustainable, or necessary largely due to
improved transportation networks and sanitation technologies (Au-Yeung,
Yigitcanlar, Mayere, 2009). Past patterns in planning fodder and embrace
behaviors not supportive of a sustainable strategy.
Aside from managing daily operational functions of a city,
such as the assessment of property development application
and maintenance of streetscapes, local governments are
now also required to undertake economic planning, manage
urban sprawl, be involved in major national and state
infrastructure planning and even engage in achieving
sustainable development objectives. (Au-Yeung, et al.,
2009, p. 1)
A wide body of literature recognizes sustainable development at a parcel
level and larger citywide scales, each requiring its own consideration of
complexity within the triad of factors influencing sustainability, economic,

10

environmental and social mechanisms (Eisen, 2007, p. 723). Authors from the
Quality Growth Alliance 2009 Urban Centers and Transit Orientated
Development in Washington State report agree use of conventional land use
planning and development strategies no longer meet the goals of governments,
support infrastructure and are costly to uphold (Au-Yeung, et al., 2009, The
Quality Growth Alliance, 2009). Furthermore, the report stated:
President Obama has acknowledged the Federal
government’s role in the problem. Commenting at an urban
affairs summit on July 13th 2009 [he] said that “for too
long, Federal policy has actually encouraged sprawl and
congestion and pollution, rather than quality public
transportation and smart, sustainable development. (The
Quality Growth Alliance, 2009, p. 7)
Sprawl
Literature addressing urban life amenities includes proponents of living
outside of urban centers conflicts with sustainability goals. Authors argue the
openness and tranquility relieves one from the stress of city living including,
congestion, traffic, noise and other problems associated inner city living.
Ironically it is argued, the attraction to open spaces is the reason open space is
jeopardized. Additionally, each new development further ages existing areas
causing rings of 20-30 year old aging sprawl developments, furthering the
perception of urban decay (Snyder & Bird, 1998, p. 10). Characteristics of sprawl
include “1) it usually has densities no higher than 12 people per acre, 2) it is
compartmentalized, meaning that homes are separated from commercial and
industrial areas, and 3) it is an urban form typified by branching street patterns
and cul-de-sac” (Durning, 1996). Developments outside city limits distance
themselves to public services as well. It’s not a sustainable development strategy.
11

“Sprawl is generally defined as very low-density development outside of city
centers, usually on previously undeveloped land” (Snyder & Bird, 1998, p. 3).
Authors aiming at quantifying the real costs of sprawl argue:
Nonetheless, sprawl is as much a product of poor land use
planning, skewed market mechanisms, uneven tax policies,
and fragmented government bodies as it is a product of
personal preference. And while sprawl has its advantages,
some would argue its costs to society outweigh its benefits.
It is a problem primarily due to the hidden costs associated
with it, namely greater car dependence, higher
infrastructure costs, loss of open space and agricultural
lands, more energy-intensive development, urban core
disinvestment, and traffic congestion. (Snyder & Bird,
1998, p. 3)
The literature suggests careful consideration must be made when cost
accounting the real costs to sprawl vs. infill developments. Social costs associated
with sprawl is beyond the scope of this literature review but is discussed at length
(Snyder & Bird, 1998). Additionally, supporting the claim to omit causes of
sprawl from the scope of my literature review is a passage from Wilson &
Chakraborty (2013) explaining academic journals are faulty in explaining
causation of this favored land use:
At its core, urban sprawl is a complex and multifaceted
phenomenon with no universally accepted definition [4–6]
and these characteristics have had a profound impact on the
way that sprawl research has been conducted. The lack of a
standard definition has contributed to the longevity and
contentiousness of debate, while the breadth of the issue
has made it difficult to study in a comprehensive manner.
(Wilson & Chakraborty, 2013, p. 3303)
Literature addressing problems surrounding greenfield development,
undeveloped land or green spaces, is that they often lack infrastructure and do not
have the necessary capacity for growth and require more capital investment.
12

Stemming from this sprawl-type behavior and unbridled growth furthers the
community’s risk to environmental dangers.
Unchecked growth also furthers a need for better policy and growth
management integration in this arena. One example, as noted in a study measuring
the extent of land use practices on contamination of drinking water supplies in
New Jersey, the study found that because of mismanaged growth in 1993, over
100 people died from Cryptosporidium related to drinking water contamination
and persistent through the chlorinated process of potable water (Greenburg et al,
2003, p. 1522). The distrust regarding levels of safety of the potable water supply
was highlighted in a 2000 poll of which only 26% of New Jersey residents
reported that they drink tap water, compared to the national average of 53%
(Greenburg et al., 2003, p. 1522).
The fundamental end drivers of sprawl are beyond the scope of this
research and therefore are discounted while still recognizing the primary
relevance. “Urban decentralization, urban sprawl and low density residential areas
at the outer fringe of a city have suggested as the underlying factors that are
responsible of many of the undesirable and non-sustainable outcomes for cities”
(Au-Yeung et al., 2009).
In comparison, rural communities also struggle with sustainable
development, while different than that of metropolitan areas, it is equally as
challenging. This struggle comes from both their geographic surroundings and a
strong connection to heritage, traditional or resource based economic prosperity,
which is integrated into the social fabric of the landscape. Greenfield development

13

can obstruct objectives identified in established growth management policy in
Washington State. As a result of less perceived legal risks associated with
greenfield development compared to brownfields, other difficult or unquantifiable
factors accumulate and stress the disturbed ecological systems such as aquifer
recharge areas and critical habitats for endangered species.
Greenfield development strains growth boundaries and defies most smart
growth principles. Externalized costs associated with greenfield developments
include diminished ecological services. Accounting for ecosystem services is
important to public policy because nature's services contribute significantly to
human welfare (Boyd & Banzhaf, 2006, p. 23). Furthermore, there is ecological,
environmental and economic significance in leaving brownfields untouched and
not cleaned up resulting in blight and further decay of urban centers and fostering
costly sprawl style development away from established infrastructure.
Smart Growth
Literature from the established frameworks of sustainable developments
has created a progression of city and state planning standards to achieve the ten
smart growth principles (Appendix A). Various types of growth management
programs exist within each state. They vary from mandatory to voluntary and in
between. Federal guidelines assist local and state governments in managing for
growth. Federally established Smart Growth principles encompass:
1. Mix land uses,
2. Compact building design,
3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices,
4. Create walkable neighborhoods,
5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense
of place,

14

6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical
environmental areas,
7. Strengthen and direct development towards existing
communities.
8. Provide a variety of transportation choices,
9. Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost
effective
10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration,
development decisions
(International City/County Management Association and EPA,
Smart Growth Network, 2006, p. 6).

In 1961, Hawaii was the first state to implement statewide growth
management legislation (Kelly, 1993). Ten other states followed including
Vermont in 1973, Oregon in 1976, Florida in 1985, New Jersey in 1987, Rhode
Island in 1988, and Georgia in 1989 (Anthony, 2004, p. 378-379). In the 1990’s,
the Clinton administration incorporated major features of Vice President Al
Gore’s “livability agenda”. In its introduction, announced increased funding to
environmental funds to state and local governments. The initiatives aimed at
“smart growth” authorized $9.5 billion for “Better America Bonds” which
encouraged reusing unproductive urban land instead of spoiling “greenfield” land
and curbing sprawl (Eisen 1999, p. 189). Washington followed suit in 1990, as
well as Maryland in 1992, and Arizona and Tennessee in 1998.
Smart growth is a systematic way of thinking that considers past practices,
recognizes potential shortfalls, and anticipates costs. States as well as counties,
cities and municipalities apply the concept of smart growth across the county. The
EPA and Smart Growth Network have assisted communities across the United
States in committing to achieving better urban planning and livable communities.
The overarching challenges many cities face is population growth, ageing
15

infrastructures and lack of easily buildable land. Application of smart growth
principles is best facilitated at city and county level, where impacts to
communities and resources are not obfuscated by statewide competition. Smart
growth is defended by highlighting facts in urban planning and creating a vision
of what city governments and city planners want for their communities.
Smart growth recognizes the many benefits of
growth. It invests time, attention, and resources in
restoring community and vitality to center cities and
older suburbs. Smart growth in new developments
is more town-centered, is transit and pedestrian
oriented, and has a greater mix of housing,
commercial and retail uses… “Smart growth is progrowth. We know that developers, banks, and the
entire community rely on growth to fuel the
economy. The goal is not to limit growth, but to
channel it to areas where infrastructure allows
growth to be sustained over the long term”. Hugh L.
McColl, Chairman and CEO, Bank of America
(EPA, Smart Growth Factsheet, 2001)

Authors Au-Yeung et al.(2009) argue shifting from micro level urban
development can drastically make up for the shortfalls in macro level land use and
infrastructure planning. The gap therein suggests that applying smart growth
principles will help alleviate city challenges such as affordable housing, mixed
use development, transportation needs and encourage infill development to curb
sprawl. Advantages to addressing sprawl at a city level where stresses to existing
infrastructure and jeopardizes agricultural and environmentally sensitive land
where state priorities might differ. While it has taken 60-70 years for smart
growth policies to gain support at the State and Federal level, change to our urban
landscapes has an even longer trajectory (Anthony, 2004). Once pristine lands are

16

built upon and ecological systems disturbed, returning to its original habitat is
almost impossible and impractical.
Smart growth strategies are applied to urban and rural locations. Smart
growth principles foster design elements to encourage social equity,
environmental protection and conservation, and economic growth, all cores to
sustainable development. “When communities engage in smart growth planning,
they preserve the best of their past while creating a bright future for generations to
come” (Heberrle, 2006, p. 3). Some authors disagree on the effectiveness of smart
growth legislation in that mitigating for sprawl, a term that has negative
connotation dating back to the 1950’s, is inherent in many western modern
settlement patterns (Duran & Lahr, 2009).
Authors argue a myriad of factors deter smart growth and encourage
sprawl. For example, urban sprawl is not the problem but rather a symptom of the
large issue of inner city crime. Middle class flight due to inner city crime has been
discussed by authors (Cullen & Levitt, 1998, Duran & Lahr, 2009, Gibbs &
Maynard, 1976). Gibbs and Maynard (1976) suggest crime rates are a result of the
characteristics of city in relation to size and environmental positions of those
cities and not so much the social, cultural, or economic conditions. Cullen &
Levitt (1999), argue causality among crime and urban flight. “Violent crime rates
in U.S. cities with populations over 500,000 in 1993, were four times higher than
cities with populations below 50,000, and seven times greater than in rural areas”
(ibid, p. 159).

17

While reasons for crime can be complex, Cullen and Levitt (1999), focus
on changes in population and changes crime rates of 127 cities, the findings
suggest households with higher education and or children are more responsive to
crime rates and that rising city crime rates are linked to city depopulation. Other
assumptions encouraging sprawl include fragmented transportation networks and
aging inner city infrastructures in states without smart growth policies, while
state’s with smart growth programs are able to reduce sprawl (Duran & Lahr,
2009).
Infill Redevelopment
Infill redevelopment is at the heart of smart growth and sustainable
development (Smartgrowth.org). Infill redevelopment is one strategy of smart
growth design that alleviates pressures in existing infrastructure and reduces
sprawl into green spaces, by efficient land use. For example, policy makers in
Canada have valued infill development that accommodates a growing population.
The infill development strategy also reduces pressure on open spaces and
agricultural land as well as a way to revitalize city centers, making them more
people focused, livable and raise the quality of neighborhoods and public life
(Hayek, Arku & Gilliland, 2010). Ontario provincial government committed in its
2005 agenda that by 2015, a minimum of 40% of its new residential development
will occur in already built up metropolitan areas and satellite communities
(Government of Ontario, 2006). While the term smart growth is not seen in the
Canadian review of the literature, terms such as urban intensification and
sustainability are used instead and similarly aim at strengthening transportation,

18

agriculture, preserving resource land, making livable communities and nurturing
economic growth (Hayek et al, 2010, Government of Ontario 2006).
Infill applications to infrastructure encompass a large body of knowledge.
Authors agree that a collective neighborhood approach to smart growth intensifies
the efficiency of available resources and improves communities through values.
“Ideally, infill development involves more than the piecemeal development of
individual lots. Instead, a successful infill development program should focus on
the job of crafting complete and well-functioning neighborhoods” (Municipal
Research and Services Center, 2013). For the remaining review of literature, infill
is specific to existing built areas with contamination surrounding urban cores past
and present.
Linking Brownfield to Smart Growth
A large body of literature supports the inclusion of brownfield
redevelopment as a remedy in fostering infill development mimic start growth
strategies (Hayek et al, 2010, Wegmann & Nemirow, 2011, Smartgrowth.org).
Often brownfield sites are not fully utilized due to legacy contamination that
occurred in city cores. The Clean Ohio Revitalization Fund, implemented in 2000,
is a place-based approach to infill strategies, rather than parcel-by-parcel
approach. The Ohio project encompasses brownfield cleanup and redevelopment,
ecological conservation, farmland preservation and recreation into the goals of the
program as a region (Kurdila & Rindfleisch, 2007). The Clean Ohio
Revitalization Fund’s brownfield component supports the assessment and cleanup
of polluted properties as a catalyst for redevelopment (Kurdila & Rindfleisch,
2007). “Ohio’s fund differs from other state initiatives in its explicit recognition
19

of linkages between brownfield revitalization and greenfield protection” (Great
Lakes Commission, 2001, p. 65). This is essentially the same as an area-wide
approach as the term “place” highlights the unbounded nature of contamination
within a landscape. This example highlights how benefits to multiple efforts in
landscape preservation, habitat conservation and urban revitalization can be met.
Wisconsin’s smart growth policies also include promotion of brownfield
redevelopment. The Wisconsin law states, “Economic development, with
particular attention to brownfield redevelopment; intergovernmental cooperation;
and land use, including current and future trends” (Great Lakes Commission,
2001, p. 62). Collaborative efforts to achieve goals in economic, environmental
and healthy communities are vital to the successfulness of a brownfield
redevelopment project. To summarize authors, state participation suggests having
a smart growth plan is imperative to communicate goals and visions for
brownfield redevelopment and sustainability for the future.
A 2011 publication entitled Washington State Brownfield Policy
Recommendation: Redeveloping Brownfields; Revitalizing Our Communities,
reports on meeting State needs socially, environmentally and economically
through brownfield redevelopment programs. One of the study’s foci is on the
importance of facilitating a legal framework to better empower Washington’s
communities with a triple bottom line approach harnessing sustainability goals in
achieving economic prosperity, and environmental health.
Brownfield redevelopments encompass many growth management goals
already adopted by Washington States smart growth principles. While the term

20

brownfield is not codified in Washington State, it is explicitly linked to the
current GMA (Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), 2011, p. 37).
Because of this disconnect, greenfields generally have less physical and legal
restraints to development compared to brownfields. There are mutually beneficial
outcomes of including brownfield redevelopment into smart growth goals would
be that brownfield infill redevelopment can create new emphasis in sustaining a
balanced and equitable process in land use policy and embrace other state goals as
well. Washington State has recognized the challenge of supporting developing
brownfields.
Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) recognizes a need for
improvement in growth management and by fully utilizing brownfields
redevelopment as a tool to encourage and incentivize infill development strategies
consequently meeting community health needs as well as economic goals (DOE,
2011). Additionally, the 2012 publication from Washington State Department of
Commerce entitled Urban Growth Area Guidebook: Reviewing, Updating and
Implementing Your Urban Growth Area, affirms connectivity between infill
development and sustainability in meeting smart growth objectives.
Linking Brownfield to Sustainability
Brownfield redevelopments influence surrounding neighborhoods and
communities. Socio-economic demographics can be an indicator of sustainable
communities. Property values are one example that can drastically change a
community. A study conducted in Minnesota, found that while size of
development and impacts to existing infrastructure can influence change, values

21

ranging from 2.7% to 11.4% more suggest significant increases in property values
of surrounding brownfield sites (DeSousa, Wu, & Westphal, 2012, p. 95).
Proximity studies have concluded that distance from known contaminated
brownfield sites also effect residential population demographics (Mohal & Saha,
2007). Additionally, the study from 2009, entitled The Contagion Effect of
Foreclosed Properties (Harding, Roseblatt & Yao, 2009) estimates 1 % of the
local price trend on home values is affected by a foreclosed property. “We find
that if there are three or more foreclosed properties within 300 feet of a nondistressed sale, the non-distressed property sells at a price approximately three
percent below market” (ibid, p. 4). Foreclosed properties share some
characteristics of a brownfield. They too can be abandoned, neglected, and add
blight to the surrounding area. Similarly, brownfield sites don’t have any signs or
disclosure posted of contamination, it is often a perception based stigma and
therefore could influence home values from nearby brownfields.
Partnerships
The literature suggests a lack of transparency in stakeholder-driven
brownfield redevelopment processes facilitates oversight within the
redevelopment when minority populations are overlooked (Gute & Taylor, 2006).
Community opinions have been sidelined during the planning process when
dealing with contaminated properties and private developers. State funding
mechanisms collectively aim to support partnerships in planning when state tax
dollars are assisting cleanup funds. As a result, an evolution of planning and
communities concerned with economic, environmental and social equity has
driven brownfield redevelopment into a third generation approach. The third
22

generation approach is supported in the brownfields policy development
discussion report by DOE “The goal of this policy planning process is to further
the evolution of the State’s brownfield program into a “third generation” model
that is strategic, efficient, and integrates economic forces and community
perspectives to drive more environmental cleanups” (DOE, 2011, p. 35).
To summarize the trajectory of brownfields in Washington State, the first
generation of state brownfield redevelopments encompassed a federal regulatory
framework. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) approached fostered strict, joint and several
liabilities that gridlocked redevelopment efforts of lenders, insurance and
potential buyers. To help alleviate this gridlock, along with federal amendments
to CERCLA and the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act, second-generation state policies were intended to reduce these
challenges through Voluntary Clean-up Programs (VCP) and highlight the
property as an asset rather than a liability.
The second generation also falls short in that still didn’t place value on the
potential of social equity gained or lost. Market driven VCP developments can
lack community input and discussion of potential impacts to the existing
community unless receiving federal EPA funding. Issues such as affordable
housing, transit orientated development and displacement and not necessarily
private sector concerns and therefore ignored. Private developers are also
sensitive to changes in costs of cleanup; processes associated therefore could
potentially fall short and run out of money due to new discoveries and lack of

23

funding or difficulty in obtaining cleanup standards (Eisen, 1999). Since the VCP
cleanups are private sector investment projects that are susceptible to diminishing
assets, they are more adverse to risk. As a result of this, VCP cleanup and
redevelopment projects are often put on hold for extensive periods of time.
The inclusion of community, defined as individuals living and or working
within the area, is an emerging a norm in how brownfield redevelopment projects
are approached (Gute & Taylor, 2006, p. 542). Gute and Taylor also demonstrate
that environmental education as well as communicating risk without creating
panic is a challenge in the third generation approach. The American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) issued ASTM E 1984-98 The Standard Guide for
the Sustainable Restoration of Brownfield Properties, encourage meaningful
community involvement and is a voluntary effort to engage all parties. In
Washington State efforts to mitigate disconnects between community, knowledge
gaps, local governments, and developers through non-threatening third party
environmental organizations:
Third-party brownfield outreach organizations provide
information and support to local communities and property
owners. They typically act as liaisons between communities
and the regulatory agencies and provide guidance to project
proponents. They are different from professional consulting
firms in that they do not provide technical services such as
environmental analysis or legal support and do not assume
any liability exposure. (DOE, 2011, p. 54)
Therefore, by instilling partnership early on, third party organizations can
provide assistance to communities, landowners and developers in channeling
through the complex funding options at state, and federal grant and loan funding
options. Federal grant programs issued by the Environmental Protection Agency
24

assist in funding many brownfield partnerships. Third parties such as Southeast
Seattle Effective Development (SEED), Environmental Coalition of South Seattle
(ECOSS), EnvrioIssues, and many other private consulting firms work closely
with local, state and, federal agencies to facilitate process and understanding
among developers and community needs. However, funding and resources remain
one of the challenges of maintaining relationships in fostering communication
among those involved. While efforts to reach a consensus and encouraging
participation is an integral part of brownfield redevelopment, the process itself is
not linear and can lead to fragmentation in practice.
Gentrification
While not always the case, low income and minority groups often are most
sensitive to change (Wernstedt, Heberle, Alberni & Meyer, 2004, p. 7). The
history in the United States around gentrification is highly complex and not
uniform therefore beyond the scope of this literature review. However,
gentrification discussions surrounding brownfield redevelopment should not to be
overlooked. Gentrification is a concern because brownfield redevelopments
improve property values and environmental risk. Redevelopments can also
polarize communities and push out lower income inhabitant due to higher costs of
living.
Historically, the United States moved from a manufacturing to a service
based economy, a legacy of abandoned and contaminated buildings now scatter
the landscape. In The Western Journal of Black Studies, Essoka, (2010),
summarizes that this transformation paired with strict environmental federal laws,
enabled economically distressed urban cores to be forgotten; only not forgotten by
25

those left behind. These areas are riddled with poor infrastructure, blight,
environmental health hazards and high crime, and most often in minority
communities. Essoka, (2010) states:
Brownfield represent a two-sided coin of risk and relief to
inner city neighborhoods. On the one hand, these land
parcels contaminate the area and blight the community. One
the other hand, site remediation can bring investment
dollars, beautify the surroundings and create jobs. (Essoka,
2010, p. 303)
In the quantitative study, statistical significance concludes that
gentrification can be the consequence of brownfield redevelopments within EPA
regions. ”The findings help reinforce the assertion that brownfields
redevelopment is indeed an essential factor in altering local racial landscapes
regardless of changes on a larger scale are occurring” (Essoka, 2010, p. 311).
A case study of Kendall Yards brownfield redevelopment in Spokane,
Washington, also suggests brownfield sites are “central” to gentrification in
communities (Bryson, 2012). It is worth noting while this development was
underway, the 2007-08 Stock Market at an all-time high and soon came to a
drastic fall felt across the world. In an interview with a local city planner, Bryson
states:
Indeed real estate speculation in the West Central
neighborhood began almost immediately after the Kendall
yard cleanup began…’investment properties’ on the
northern border of the site ‘started shooting up in price, and
people started being forced out’. Within a year after the
project was announced, average home prices in the
neighborhood increased by almost a quarter of their value,
and real estate was beginning to move quickly as investors
purchased single-family homes and multi-family rental
properties. (Bryson, 2012, p. 29)

26

Unfortunately, in this case, addressing where displaced families would
find similar dwellings in their affordability range was not part of the developer’s
vision and overlooked by local government. Displacement was the result.
Environmental justice groups challenged the policies allowing for such
nearsightedness. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (WAC 197-11-405),
failed to address low income housing and the Spokane hearings examiner
supported the development by stating the EIS did not have to address it, “because
it is a socioeconomic issue. Socioeconomic impacts are not ‘environmental
impacts’” (Bryson, 2012, p. 30). However, juxtaposed to the GMA’s concurrency
requirement, socioeconomic impacts should have arguably been considered if part
of a smart growth positioned infill development (WAC 197-11-235).
Nevertheless, the development project went bankrupt due to other economic
reasons and the new developer’s plan looks to capture the missing community
concerns. Bryson, (2012), lessons learned such as this are too commonly
overlooked in brownfields redevelopment. Environmental and social justices are
part of the social and environmental fabric strived for in sustainable development.
Brownfield can be an opportunity to make sure we do better.
Studies in this literature review caution that brownfield redevelopment do
not automatically equate to sustainable outcomes. Interest rates, loans and grants
also weigh heavily in brownfield site redevelopment therefore businesses need
integrated analysis to measure incentives and risks simultaneously with goals of
the private and public sector. A multinational study found that lack of
progression from a business standpoint was due to haphazard understanding of

27

development standards, policy and public and private sector commitments
(Adams et al., 2008). Complicating the Adams et al. study, was brownfield site
size as well as technical and legal jargon lost in direct comparisons as well as
differing priorities of stakeholders. Most importantly, cultural motivations
supporting brownfield redevelopment was lost in communication. The finding in
this study is that within a globalized economy of today, regional cohesive rational
would be greatly supported by communication and facilitation at a much smaller
local level.
More public participation up front, such as with the third generation
approach facilitation methods, could have alleviated some disconnect from the
above-mentioned process involving brownfield redevelopment. Authors support
the issue is fixable. Work on bridging the gap between community impacts and
the economic objectives should not be left to investors and government alone
(Greenberg & Lewis, 2000). The literature supports that collaboration is essential
to the success of brownfield redevelopment projects and community participation
is just as important. As discussed, not all stakeholders share the same needs or
vision for the future. Multiple stakeholder input and community participation is
key to the success of brownfield projects. Additionally, community trust building
with local governments is essential for partnerships to succeed through the third
generation process.
The added emphasis on community development in
brownfield projects often involves building partnerships
with state and federal government agencies,
nongovernmental organizations (e.g., land trusts),
community groups, educational institutions, and involved
citizens. These collaborations facilitate creation of public
28

open space; preservation of historic and cultural resources;
learning opportunities; and an economic and land use
paradigm based on the intrinsic values of a community.
(DOE, 2011 p. 9)
Existing Brownfield Studies
Market research studies have identified through impact factors such as
property values, local employment, and civic pride and quality of life
measurements can be compiled and translated to local governments (Chakrapani
& Hernandez, 2008). In Brownfield Redevelopment and the Triple Bottom Line
Approach, the mixed methods analysis approach was critical to the research (ibid)
to address the interconnectivity of brownfield redevelopments. However, reuse
options and public involvement is not identified through the study. Additionally,
large road and surrounding infrastructure construction was necessary and may
have skewed survey response results. Despite the fact that some findings were
consequences of impacts by indirect external impediments in the immediate area
studied, temporal business and residential qualitative data paired with GIS
layering “brought the data to life” (Chakrapani & Hernandez, 2008, p. 6).
The holistic integration of tools and information can speak to problems,
opportunities, and solutions. Similarly, data can be used to better assist
communities in establishing sustainable growth policy and a better environmental
understanding by creating an impetus in brownfield redevelopment through a
multi-stakeholder planning process.
Studies have shown businesses have an important role in brownfield
redevelopment projects in meeting these objectives of urban renewal. Several
authors conclude that risks associated with unintended consequences of

29

brownfield identification could potentially raise the costs associated with cleanup
and redevelopment of other brownfield properties and surrounding properties
therefore, an area-wide approach would be beneficial to community revitalization
as opposed to a parcel-by-parcel approach (Eisen, 2007, p. 723, Wernstedt, et al,
p. 4). Journals have identified firms such as Home Depot who has “reclaimed
15,000 sites across the country” (Davidson, 2011, p. 14). While each brownfield
redevelopment is unique in its level of contamination, remediation challenges and
costs, utilizing existing infrastructure remains a critical factor in assessing
feasibility of redevelopment. Recent modeling scenarios have given investors
insight on forecasting market values and sustainability goals (Schadler et al.,
2011, p. 835).
Evaluation of Existing Research Methods: A Need for More Case Studies and
Mixed Methods Research
Brownfield sites that are not cleaned up correspond to lost opportunities
for economic development and for other community progress. Through use of an
integrated system approach and using tools such as geographical information
systems (GIS), risk can be better recognized with collaborated efforts (Snyder &
Bird, 1998). A pushback of acceptance is expected regarding a public GIS
databases due to privacy rights and the fourth amendment (Kubasek & Silverman,
2008, p. 36). These authors also suggest more multi-criteria evaluations, using
GIS tools, available databases and knowledge of the surrounding cultures, can
foster better decisions addressing the three P’s simultaneously. Furthermore,
contamination of multiple parcels, especially effecting groundwater, further
complicates cleanup with multiple stakeholders and jeopardizing human health
30

will defeat any agreements. Knowledge of all stakeholder concerns is vital to
successful partnerships.
Strong recognition of community needs is essential to a successful
brownfield project. Authors support the need of case studies in brownfield
redevelopment. Mixed method studies better capture the holistic nature of
brownfield redevelopments (Mohal & Saha, 2007, Essoka, 2010, De Sousa et al.,
2009). Values including impacts to human health, whether perceived or real, can
stop or turn idle land into revenue producers and affect equity in social conditions
by involving community throughout the redevelopment process. In analyzing
perceived priorities to preferred objectives in stakeholder groups, Brill (2009),
emphasized stakeholder goals can vary, “While economic factors were important
to both perceived and preferred objectives, quality-of-life factors held increased
weight in the preferred objective” (p. 59). This is not entirely surprising as the
“preferred” objectives comprised of social problems such as crime prevention,
property values, vulnerable populations and public health are all close to the heart
matters.
Through case study analysis, a synthesis of economic models, GIS and
sustainable design goals can highlight the complexities of brownfield
redevelopment while identifying potential opportunities and solutions for the
future. GIS software is widely used to illustrate demographic and site specific
information on basic cartographic overlays (Chakrapani & Hernandez, 2008,
Brill, 2009, Spielman & Thill, 2007, Hayek et al, 2002). In the Journal of
Planning Practice & Research, Hayek et al. (2010), conclude GIS analysis

31

provides city planners with tools to systematically describe site-specific variables
that are less communicated otherwise such as historical contexts and potential
contamination. “Building a comprehensive database of brownfield land is clearly
a worthwhile project for municipal governments, providing a tool to aid in the
management and redevelopment of sites; however, the creation of such a system
is not without costs (time and money)” (Hayek et al., 2010 p. 465). Mixed
methods approach comprising GIS software, demographic data and multistakeholder survey data, best contrast brownfield redevelopment success and
planning shortfalls on a site-specific basis. This framework is also supported in
mitigating for sprawl while accommodating population growth (Snyder & Bird,
1998).
By incorporating sustainability values, studies can provide an unsurpassed
potential when combined with geospatial data, interviews by providing a holistic
assessment of potential brownfield site redevelopment influences to a site-specific
location (Chakrapani & Hernandez, 2008). By providing data driven facts with
values based opinion, a mixed methods approach to brownfield redevelopment
projects at a site-specific scale will provide opportunities for better planning with
multi-stakeholder preferences in mind. Relationships among all variables in
holistic approaches can be difficult to clearly state. As a result, a comparison
analysis through case studies can illuminate overlooked linkages in practice and
provide better outcomes for all stakeholders.
Conclusion
Through the reviewed literature, Washington Research Council concluded
in 2002 on the subject, “For goals to have meaning in state law, it must be
32

attached to a plan.” The literature research objective here is to provide some
context to achieving sustainable smart growth goals and remediating brownfield
properties. The legacies left by an era of industry are scattered in our landscape.
History and pride are instilled in these idle and vacant brownfield lots across the
nation. These once robust acclimated businesses hold a special place in our hearts.
These places hold both history and value to communities near them, each in
differing ways. Facilitating community level planning and encouraging
municipalities to develop increased tax flow and highlighting successes in
creative ways, will better meet the needs of fruitful, happy and healthy
communities.
The issue surrounding the implementation of brownfields incorporation
into land use planning principles stems from the developers and local
government’s level of commitment to restoring the property to environmentally
safe standards. An article by Joel Eisen, Brownfield at 20: A Critical
Reevaluation discusses the industry of brownfield redevelopments and how
successes have been measured. Washington State’s current approach, mirrored
nationally, has led to patchwork developments that discourage infill, therefore
incentivizes greenfield development and sprawl that is at the heart of GMA’s
stated goals and concerns (Appendix B) (Eisen, 2007, p. 723). Alternatively, as
mentioned above, Eisen, (2007) emphasizes that brownfield practices are at a
turning point in current practice standards and as expectations increase regarding
human health concerns and sustainable growth can also lose meaning and
promise. Eisen, (1999) argues many reject “sustainability” as a “manipulative and

33

confusing slogan” or a “meaningless post hoc label used to justify the status quo”
(p. 197). To counter the status quo, it is important to differentiate between
advancing components of sustainable redevelopment and reflecting guidelines
(Eisen, 1999, p. 201). A shared vision can evolve in most situations by instilling a
mechanism for respectful community-based involvement, creativity and
collaboration (DOE, 2011).
An interdisciplinary methodology can achieve objectives of sustainable
brownfield redevelopment. Further prolongation and allowing contaminated
properties to sit idle causes blight to neighboring communities and affect
residences as a whole in a multitude of indeterminate ways. As a result of this
literature review, this research design brings new, fresh, useful and significant
analysis that will supplement current understandings of importance in using an
interdisciplinary approach in combining brownfield redevelopment and
sustainability.
The connections that need to be made to achieve a sustainable
development come from a wide array of factors, each with its own discipline. This
is why an interdisciplinary research is necessary to communicate with all
stakeholders. Authors represented in this literature review come to the same
general conclusions; there needs to be more site-specific case studies, more data
collection, more multi-stakeholder participation and a more holistic sustainable
approach to brownfield redevelopments.

34

BACKGROUND BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPEMNT
A short history of environmental brownfields policy
In the era of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring (1962), environmental
concerns of health and safety were demanded by the public for more federal
regulation, oversight and accountability. The need was eminent, as the
environmental movement as the 1960’s demanded the federal government to act.
New federal regulations supported management of previously unmanaged
hazardous substances and supported state and local governments in implementing
their own programs. The history surrounding defining a brownfield,
understanding what it takes to clean up contamination and the legal liability
involved added levels of complexity to brownfield redevelopment projects. The
maturity surrounding such redevelopment projects and their complexities
continue.
In 1996, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
defined brownfields as “abandoned, idle or underused industrial and commercial
sites where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived
environmental contamination that can add cost, time or uncertainty to a
redevelopment project” (epa.gov/brownfields/overview/glossary.htm). The
restriction of this definition pushed residential properties out of the picture. Since
contamination does not recognize parcel boundaries, residential land impacted
remained idle or vacant due to suspected or unknown contamination nearby, and
left acres in flux regarding cleanup alternatives and public safety. This
segregation in zoning furthered the perception of danger, depreciating land values,
furthering blight and attracting crime. Additionally, this restrictive definition, did
35

not account for potential in land reuse option, stemming from an uncertainty in
liability from contamination presence and lack of community involvement.
In 2002, amendments to the term "brownfield site” was amended to
include a broader and more inclusive definition by additions of the term, “real
property” by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization
Act (Public Law 107-118). The amended definition no longer limited brownfields
to commercial and industrial properties and included residential property as
means “real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be
complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant.” (Public Law 107-118). Brownfield sites can be small
one-parcel units of land and expand to acres of contamination. Since
contamination is not confined to established property boundaries, brownfield
contamination often extends to multiple properties.
Brownfield properties are often old landfills, automotive service stations
and dry cleaners. The vacant businesses leave behind under used and distressed
urban areas that were once economic mechanisms in a thriving economy. In
contrast to a brownfield, “greenfield” is a term used in urban planning to describe
an area free of such past land uses and often encompass pristine undeveloped
areas free of an industrial legacy. These terms are important to establish as
growth management policies work to curb greenfield development in efforts to
reduce sprawl, allow for open space, and encourage transportation networks
within existing communities and address environmental protection.

36

Commonly, brownfield sites are divided into four categories of potential
reuse as described in The Book entitled: Brownfields, A Comprehensive Guide to
Redeveloping Contaminated Property (Davis, 2002, p. 5). For purposes of
redevelopment as well as for public tax revenue accounting, these potential reuses
have significant difference in the impact they have on the economy and
surrounding property:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Sites that- despite needed remediation- remain
economically viable, due to sufficient market demand;
Sites that have some development potential, provided
financial assistance or other incentives are available;
Sites that have extremely limited market potential even
after remediation; and
Currently operating sites that are in danger of becoming
brownfields because historical contamination will
ultimately discourage new investment and lending.

Nationally, a negative cycle of economic decline, environmental and
social injustice, a past of little or no regulation and enforcement, as well as
environmental degradation of the landscape, can be observed in the brownfield
downward tailspin. Viable brownfields “are defined as underutilized properties
with actual or perceived environmental liabilities that, due to their inherently
positive market attributes, may be economically developed into positive assets”
(Davis 2002, p. 5). Davis, 2002, further divides brownfield sites into five
commonly used categories that further stigmatize the real estate surrounding
these perceived contaminated sites (p. 6-7).
1.
2.

A property owner, unwilling or unable to sell contaminated
property, mothballs it, thus undermining the local tax base.
Vacant facilities deteriorate and invite arson, illegal
dumping and vandalism, including the stripping of parts
and materials.

37

3.

4.
5.

Unaddressed contamination may spread, further eroding the
property values, escalating the cleanup cost, and
threatening the economic viability of adjoining properties.
Potential investors, faced with uncertain cost and legal
abilities, seek development opportunities elsewhere
Brownfields sites become unwanted legal, regulatory and
financial burdens in the community and its taxpayers.

While more regulation has ceased some undesired practices, these same
environmental regulations have widened the gap in achieving successful
redevelopment of brownfields depending on the strength of planners’ and
regulators’ commitments and extent of contamination.
Resource Conservation Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), protects
human health and the environment for waste disposal practices previously
unregulated. The RCRA regulations aim to achieve a cradle-to-grave management
system that uses tracking and permitting to monitor and control hazardous waste
in a top down regulatory manner (EPA, 2002). The act also identifies objectives
to reduce the amount of waste generated, and establishes methods in handling and
storage and treatment in a controlled environment. “The RCRA statute,
regulations, and programs were created at a time when we did not know how
much waste was produced or what happened to it. What we knew for certain was
that waste needed to be safely managed” (EPA, 2002). Later amendments to
RCRA established EPA programs to implement the acts’ corrective action
requirements, cleanup standards, permitting, and civil and criminal enforcements.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), also called “Superfund” characterizes
38

contaminated sites based on the known contaminants, extent of contamination and
the threat level to human health and the environment. It is important to note and
differentiate terms within environmental policy. The term “brownfield” differs
from “superfund” as established by federal law. Sites listed as “superfund”, have
a ranking and listing on the National Priorities List (NPL). Brownfields are not
listed on the NPL. The NPL allows the EPA to clean up such sites and to compel
responsible parties to perform cleanups or reimburse the government for EPAlead cleanups (EPA, 2002).
RCRA and CERCLA are two different statutes that govern the federal
management of hazardous waste facilities and response to abandoned,
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites respectively. The development of CERCLA
was a reaction to the conditions of the time of unregulated industry, and lack of
legal liability and protective measures and compensation to communities affected
by legacy of unbridled industry. They are not identical statutes but there are many
similarities and consistent outcomes.
Kubesk and Silverman (2008), advocate that public participation is most
welcome and overdue in amending the legislation to meet the needs of both
industry and communities alike. Before CERCLA, the federal government was
removed from active oversight in regards to hazardous spills and site
contamination. In attempts to regulate accountability, identifying potentially
responsible parties (PRP’s), became a means to identify temporally as well as
degree of involvement to the environmental hazards. CERCLA states, “strict,
joint and several liabilities” in assigning liability (Public Law 96–510). The PRP

39

liability identification encompasses many players and processes contributing to
the environmental contamination.
Liability can include those involved, past or present, owner and operators;
with ownership transactions as in United States v. Carolawn Chemical Company;
financial lenders as in United States v. Fleet Factors Corporation; persons who
arrange treatment of disposal, and transportation of contaminants as in United
States v. Mottolo (Kubesk & Silverman, 2008, p. 322-323). Many times as a result
from fear of liability, businesses, investors and developers steered clear of such
risky parcels. As a result, industry and commerce developed elsewhere.
Consequently, this fueled the demand for developing on greenfields and further
contributing not only to the enhancement of the preconceived notion of
brownfield sites, but also to loss of productive farmland, open spaces ideal for
other land uses.
For those sites not listed on the NPL, they became identified as
brownfields. Brownfield sites, often abandoned, are a result of fear mongering,
avoidance, perceptions of risk and liabilities. They remain burdensome to
taxpayers as unproductive use of land, lack tax revenues to sustain city needs and
pose health risks due to unmanaged contamination. Brownfields also often attract
illegal dumping, crime, reducing property values and diminishing urban cores and
encourage urban sprawl.
Brownfields in Washington State
To overcome the stagnation of redevelopment of brownfield sites, states
have developed legal mechanisms for incentivizing the reuse of potentially
contaminated land. Voluntary Cleanup Programs (VCP) have popped up in states
40

all over the country. “The goals of these programs include integrating issues
involving legal liability, technical requirements and economic incentives” (Davis,
2002, p. 13). The VCP approach is known in Washington State as a secondgeneration approach to brownfield clean ups following the stricter first generation
under the CERCLA framework.
In Washington State, the VCP is used to remediate brownfield sites with
little State oversight in attempts to obtain closure from a legal state document
designation in that the site requires no further action (NFA Letter). The NFA is a
Model Toxics Control Act, 1988 (MTCA), closure mechanism that enables the
property owner to conduct investigative studies and remediate contamination with
regulatory consultation and provides lenders with minimal risk (173-340 WAC).
Lenders and environmental insurance providers are often accepting of this type of
“closure”. The advantages of this type of cleanup, while not a “state assured”
(nothing is absolutely final) closure, implies that corrective action was taken
through MTCA regulatory framework. A NFA Letter does not provide a legal
remedy to liability but rather a legal letter of opinion, of which the State may
change due to circumstance.
Washington State (DOE, 2011, p. 28) identifies five major characteristics
in the brownfield dilemma:
1. Threats to public health and the environment
2. Blight and stigma that impact the value of surrounding
properties
3. Diminished local and state tax revenues
4. Lost opportunities for jobs and economic development
5. Attractive nuisance for vandalism and crime

41

The impacts of brownfield sites in communities have been quantified in many
ways. Identification of core values within a sustainability approach, to address
current the conditions, may provide measurable progress. Economic drivers and
environmental remediation are easier to quantify. However, community benefits
are no less important in measuring sustainability (DOE, 2011). Washington State
is migrating it’s brownfield redevelopments to a third generation approach that
mimics the triple bottom line archetype to sustainability with interdependence
among economic development, environment and community, see figure 1. The
2011, Washington State Brownfield Policy Recommendations, emphasis is toward
a need for a collaborative, values based approach:
The added emphasis on community development in
brownfield projects often involves building partnerships
with state and federal government agencies,
nongovernmental organizations (e.g., land trusts),
community groups, educational institutions, and involved
citizens. These collaborations facilitate creation of public
open space; preservation of historic and cultural resources;
learning opportunities; and an economic and land use
paradigm based on the intrinsic values of a community.
(DOE, 2011, p. 36)
To supplement the need for a proactive solution in achieving contaminated
property redevelopment, challenges and opportunities are identified in the
executive summary of the 2011, (p. 17-18) Washington State Brownfield
Policy Recommendations:
Challenges:
 An estimated 8,600 - 19,200 brownfield sites in Washington
State
 150 completed cleanups are approved per year, but 300 sites are
added each year
 Average costs of cleanup can range from $600,000 $1,000,000, representing a huge barrier in redevelopment of
these properties.
42




The demand for state grants is three times the forecasted budget
for the next ten years.
Cleanup can take 4-5 years depending on the state cleanup
program entered into.

Opportunities:
 Brownfield redevelopments generate estimated $500,000 annual
local tax revenue per site.
 Hundreds of units of affordable housing and dozens of acres of
public open space have been created on remediated brownfields
 Cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields transform blighted
properties that detract neighborhoods into productive
community assets.
People
•Safe Communities
•Affordable Housing
•Connectiveness

Planet

Profit

•Healthy
Environment
•Remediated
Contamination
•Reduced Sprawl

•Job Creation
•Increased Tax
Revenue
•Increased Property
Values

Figure 1: Illustration of the three pillars of sustainability and brownfield
redevelopment Adapted from Washington State Policy Recommendations, DOE,
2011. Drawn by Laura Thelen, June 2014.
Why a Case Study?
Case study analysis is a missing component measuring success of
brownfield redevelopments in Washington. Research has identified sustainable
development components are difficult to measure and are not a one size fits all
solution to brownfields redevelopments. By coupling known data within an
identified community and fundamentals in sustainability, my research concludes
relationships exist and can be used to promote and focus redevelopment. This

43

case study highlights the impacts of brownfield redevelopment and illustrates a
relationship and perhaps a model in addressing community needs and all aspects
of sustainability collectively. The Rainier Court, Brownfield Redevelopment
Project is located in the Rainier Valley area of Seattle Washington. This area and
site were chosen for this study because they provide an opportunity to observe
change over time supported by historical documentation.
The Surrounding Area: Southeast Seattle, Rainier Valley, Washington 98118,
98108, 98144
Located southeast of downtown Seattle the Rainier Valley area is bordered
to the west by Interstate 5, to the north by Interstate 90, to the East by Lake
Washington and extends south to the next city Renton, Washington. The areas’
population is approximately 54,068 with an area of 72 square miles. Located
within Rainier Valley are several micro-neighborhoods including Garlic Gulch,
Genesee, Columbia City, Hillman City, Brighton, Dunlap, and Rainier Beach. The
Rainier Valley area is considered one of the most culturally diverse in country
(Rainier Chamber of Commerce webpage, 2014). The area neighbors three
adjacent zip code boundaries encompassing Rainier Valley, see figure 2. The area
is geographically elongated with three major thoroughfares Beacon Avenue
South, Martin Luther King Jr. Way South, and Rainier Avenue South running its
length. Seattle's Link Light Rail extends nearly the whole length of the area
following Martin Luther King Jr. Way and has been key to transit oriented
economic development supporting affordable housing projects in the community
(The Quality Growth Alliance, 2009).

44

Figure 2: Zip code boundaries surrounding Rainier Court (identified in green)
redevelopment project: 98118, 98108, and 98144.
The population of the Rainier Valley consists of moderate to low income
households. The area has a long history of boom and bust development cycles
stemming from defense work during periods of war and the growth and decline
cycles of the local aeronautics industry. Predominant industries in the area since
World War II include Boeing Aerospace, Isaacson Ironworks, and Todd shipyards
(Hoole, 2011, p. 2). After World War II the boom time continued. The area could
not keep up with the growing population of new families and returning soldiers.
This created a time of hurried construction to meet demand. As supply met
demand, a cycle of economic decline followed. The most affluent of the
population enabled by the extended commute the automobile provided, relocated
to less industrial areas of the region.
Two large public housing projects, Rainier Vista and Holly Park are
located in this area. Partially as a result, the area has a history of crime and
isolation. "In the early days of public housing, this was seen as an opportunity to
45

shape and improve the lives of people in the communities they were
building"(Hoole, 2011, p. 3). A resulting polarization became apparent between
those residing in re-purposed barracks style public housing and those of moderate
income residing in craftsman style single-family homes.
The "Self-contained mini-communities" soon grew out of these shelters
and became pockets of isolation and crime (Hoole, 2011, p. 3). Many households
were made up of single mothers with little or no access to employment centers or
health facilities (Hoole, 2011, p. 7). The housing projects went through several
decades of redevelopment and transition. In 1979, the crime rate peaked. During
this time, residents and workers were targets for robbery and businesses were
vandalized. "White flight" and "red-lining" became more and more common and
obvious. The Seattle Police Department reported an estimated peak of 1,400 crack
houses in operation in the Rainier Valley (Hoole, 2011, p. 7).
After continued unsuccessful attempts to fix the social issues in the aging
Department of Defense housing turned public housing, the federal government
supported a new approach to public housing. The Homeownership and
Opportunity for People Everywhere (HOPE VI, a plan by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development) aspired to relieve the isolated poor from
distressed and dilapidating environments. The HOPE VI project would redevelop
an area in a manner to which the physiological satisfaction could also be
nourished. The traditional barracks like cul-de-sac design was replaced with a
mix of housing stocks from apartments to single-family homes. The design was
on a grid system, with a neighborhood feel and the multi-story heights and

46

varying colors of the dwelling added a craftsman like feel and “eclectic” and
“organic “neighborhood (Hoole, 2011, p. 10). Although design itself cannot
change poverty and crime overnight, the attempts to include rather than isolate
the projects has had notable success.
In 2000, success was measured as the Seattle Housing Authority reported
that in New Holly Park (one of three Seattle Housing Authority communities
initially designed to house defense workers during World War II) “crime dropped
by 64 percent over a three year period” (Hoole, 2011, p. 11). Residents once
deprived of common large chain retail establishments now enjoy grocery stores,
hardware stores and cafes that have found successful locations in the area. HOPE
VI funded projects have also supported plans to build community centers, parks
and a City of Seattle public library extension. The improvement efforts have also
had some negative consequences in the form of displacement of residents and the
shift of low-income housing needs to other areas in Rainer Valley. The social
problems created by housing will continue as any mitigation effort takes time and
creates need for adjustment.
Rainier Court Brownfield Redevelopment
The study site location is 3500-3700 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, WA
98144. The Southeast Effective Development (SEED) is a nonprofit that focuses
on affordable housing and other community development related needs. The
2002, Site-Specific Community Involvement Plan for Rainier Court Development,
(Appendix C), was provided in compliance to receive the EPA’s Coalition
Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Funding (BRLF). In 1999, SEED
purchased the site for affordable housing and mixed use including services and
47

retail developments to support an area wide approach to light rail, pedestrian
activity, transportation and density improvements and economic development.
The BRLF “is designed to empower states, communities, and other stakeholders
to work together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and
sustainably reuse brownfields. The EPA provides technical and financial
assistance for brownfields activities through an approach based on four main
goals: protecting human health and the environment, sustaining reuse, promoting
partnerships, and strengthening the marketplace” (EPA BRLF Factsheet, 2009).
Approximately 90 property parcels were obtained through partnerships
between SEED and the City of Seattle Housing Authority to address the need for
more affordable housing opportunities in the area. During construction activities
at Rainier Court, a seven-acre project, contamination was encountered, see figure
3. The properties within the seven acres had had past uses including an electrical
company, wrecking yard, an unregulated dump and a magnet for crime and drug
activities. Health concerns included carcinogens, air quality and groundwater
contamination.
Contaminates found included carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH’s), petroleum hydrocarbons and some metal. Since
contamination knows no legal boundaries, the large lot had been an economic and
environmental nightmare for the community goals. Further investigation of past
uses uncovered polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s), potentially from the electrical
company historically known to operate there. PCB’s, banned in 1979, can be
especially difficult and costly to remediate. PCB’s are an environmental risk as

48

they are persistent in the air, water and soil and bio-accumulate in plants, small
organisms and fish and the animals that eat them.

Figure 3: The brownfield site before the redevelopment process at Rainier Court.
Hazardous chemicals from illegal trash dumping contaminated the site. (Retrieved
from: http://www.geoengineers.com/project/rainier-court-brownfielddevelopment)
The property at the time, being publicly held, provided an opportunity to
receive funding through federal brownfield programs. The local government
applied for and received a Targeted Brownfields Assessment (TBA), a federally
funded study conducted by EPA contractors, to determine the nature and extent of
contamination (2007, EPA, Targeted Brownfields Assessment Fact Sheet
www.epa.gov/brownfields). EPA site assessment characterized the site and
produced an extensive four-inch report including natural background levels in the
soil.
The extensive nature of the EPA contracted report halted progress, as
filtering the scientific documents’ contents to communicate potential risk was
49

cumbersome. A contracted third party was necessary to understand the nature and
extent of the liability now owned by the city’s housing authority. ECOSS
(Environmental Coalition of South Seattle), a nonprofit organization, encourages
urban redevelopment and a healthy environment by providing education,
resources and technical assistance to diverse businesses and communities in the
Puget Sound region (www.ecoss.org). The contamination extent was better
understood due to this collaborative process.
The remedy for the contamination was excavation and capsulation, a
common practice with contaminated sites. Fortunately, for developers, a large
portion of the project already included a large amount of excavation for an
underground parking garage. The extensive excavation needed due to the known
PCB’s was more feasible to remediate by installing a cap after excavation.
Capping after excavation is common remedial activity as once the contamination
is known and no longer mobile or a threat to groundwater. Isolating the known
remaining contaminates is common practice. The project became known as
Rainier Court and comprises of four phases of redevelopment of brownfield
properties, see figure 4.
The Rainier Court Redevelopment Project is divided into four phases.
Phases One and Two were done simultaneously providing affordable housing for
families and seniors and include retail and services at out ground level. Phase
Three is underway at the time of this research and will provide additional
affordable senior housing units. Phase Four remains in the planning process and

50

have included a pocket park completed in 2011, and infrastructure improvements
to accommodate potential apartments or townhomes in the future.

Pocket Park
Phase 3
Phase 1

Phase 4
Parking
Garage

Phase 2

Figure 4: Aerial photo with added illustration of the Four Phases of the Rainier
Court brownfield redevelopment project. Retrieved from google maps. 05/10/14
Phase I- The Courtland Place, completed 2005, see figure 5.
 Started in 2003.
 Supports 208 senior housing in 30% to 60% of median income
range.
 Includes plans for parking garage, in construction process at time of
this research.

51

Figure 5: The Courtland Place, Phase One of the Rainier Court Redevelopment
Project. Images are before (2003) and after(2005) remediation, respectivley.
(Retrieved from: http://www.intercitycontractors.com/?portfolio=courtland-place3)
Phase II- The Dakota, completed 2006, see figure 6.
 Started in 2003.
 178 affordable family housing units.
 Supports affordable housing 50% to 60% of median income range.

Figure 6: The Dakota development, Phase Two of the Rainier Court
Redevelopment Project. Images are illustrate before (2003) and after(2005)
remediation, respectivley. (Retreived from:
http://www.intercitycontractors.com/?page_id=82)
Phase III- Community Gardens at Rainier Court, 2012-present, see figures 7 & 8.



Started 2012.
Final project will create 70 new town house style senior housing
units for annual incomes between $17,000 and $35,000.

52

Figure 7: Phase Three of the Rainier Court redevelopment before redevelopment
(Retrieved from: SouthEast Effective Development (SEED) fact sheet).

Figure 8: Photo of townhomes under construction at the Community Gardens at
Rainier Court, Phase Three. Photo shows current conditions at time of research.
05/11/14.
Phase IV- The Rainier Court Phase IV, not yet started, see figure 10.



Pocket park at northern end competed in 2011.
Located between 34th and 35th Avenues South immediately east of
the Dakota
 City water line installed to accommodate future plans
 Redevelopment considerations include apartments and townhomes.

Figure 9: Photo of vacant houses at south end of site, Phase Four. Current
conditions at time of research include temporary parking, over grown
weeds and a junkyard warehouse. 05/11/14
53

DATA ANALYSIS
Methods
The central research questions addressed in this case study asks: Is the
Rainier Court redevelopment in line with existing smart growth policies? Is there
data to support claims that brownfield redevelopments increase residential
property values and what is the geographic scope? Is there data supporting
blighted brownfield sites decrease residential property values? How can
improvements be made to reach sustainability goals? To answer these questions, a
mixed-method approach was chosen to gain a comprehensive perspective of the
research question.
To answer my research questions, quantitative data collected from county
databases and qualitative interviews provide opportunities for analysis. The
mixed methods approach provides context to the quantitative analysis. A
regression analysis is used to explain a relationship in home values over time,
incrementally, and evaluate any differences of the physical location of values in
distance from the Rainier Court redevelopment. Tests for significance indicate
relationships regarding home values increase over time. The survey response rate
was approximately 50 %. Participants were from government brownfield
programs (n=3, 75%) and, private environmental consulting firms, (n=1, 25%).
Limitations of data
Factors affecting the housing market values are complex. Other factors
that may have influence not studied in this research such as attractiveness of the
location, income, and demographics. Environmental health, safety and crime
perceptions were not part of this study.
54

Quantitative Data
The purpose of this data collection is to establish potential growth and
economic development to the area of study through evaluating single-family
residential property values and their relationship to distance from a brownfield
site. The quantitative data provides a before and after brownfield redevelopment
analysis as well as area wide and localized impacts to single-family residential
property values. Quantitative data was collected using various methods and scale.
The King County Geographic Information Systems (KCGIS) interactive mapping
tool, iMap, provided parcel identification within designated buffers distanced at
300, 500, 1320, and 2460 feet from the central brownfield redevelopment project
at 3700 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98144. Single-family
residential home taxable value data was obtained from occupied single-family
residential properties using KCGIS property research tool to access King County
Assessor’s reports. Micro-level taxable values from parcel data surrounding the
Rainier Court brownfield redevelopment area were collected. The data includes
years 2000, before redevelopment to 2010, after redevelopment, and present,
2014.
Micro-level data was collected from parcel data randomly selected from
100 single-family residential properties from one half mile (2640 ft.) radius and
one quarter mile (1320 ft.) radius from the Rainier Court redevelopment(n= 100,
n= 100). 46 single-family residential parcels were collected from the 500 foot
radius (n= 46). 20 single-family residential parcels were collected from the 300
foot radius (n= 20). The decline in sample size was a result of a diminishing
sampling group.
55

Based on trends visualized from the collected data; residential home
values over time, a regression analysis was used to evaluate the relationship.
Resampling methods were used because the data did not meet all the assumptions
for parametric analysis. The assumptions not met were the assumption of
normality, most likely due to explainable outliers in my data set. The resampling
method provides statistical significance of assure the validity of the model
statistic used.
Statistical Analysis and Results
Data were examined using a regression analysis. Resampling methods
were used as a result of a non-normal distribution. Data were analyzed using
Resampling Stats for Microsoft Excel Version 4.0 and Microsoft Excel provided
by Microsoft Office Professional 2010 for spreadsheets and descriptive statistics.
I have identified one dependent variable, property values, based over time, the
independent variable. I have repeated this scenario four times to represent
distances from the brownfield site location. The research tested the following null
hypothesis: There is not a statistically significant relationship between singlefamily residential home values over time (from before and after Rainier Court
redevelopment commenced) among the multiple distances.
Residential home values increased over the trajectory of 14 years within
each distance data set. Distance from the Rainier Court redevelopment may have
had influenced this relationship. The statistical technique selected revealed that
home values may have increased from a result of the Rainier Court
redevelopment, however, more detail is needed to make this assumption. An

56

increase in residential home values indicated closest to the Rainier Court
redevelopment at a 300 ft. radius over time (p< .0001, R2= .4786). See figure 10.
The explanatory power of this analysis shows a greater explanation of variance to
the two closer data sets, 300 ft., 500 ft. respectively (R2= .4786, R2= .522). See
figures 10 & 11. The further distances , 1320 ft. and 2640 ft., from Rainier Court
show that this model indicates a weaker relationship between home values and
time, respectively (R2=.3625, R2=.086). See figures 12 & 13.

Residential Property Value (dollars)

Home values of properties within a
300 ft. radius from Rainier Court
600000
y= 10771x - 2E+07
R² = 0.4786
p< .0001
n=20

500000
400000
300000

Home Values

200000

Linear (Home Values)

100000
0
1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Time (years)

Figure 10: This 14 year trajectory of home values shows an increase over time
significantly in regards to 300 foot distance from Rainier Court (p<.0001,
R2=.4786).

57

Residential Property Value (dollars)

Home values of properties within a
500 ft. radius from Rainier Court
600000

y= 11502x - 2E+07
R² = 0.522
p< .0001
n=46

500000
400000
300000

Home Value

200000

Linear (Home Value)

100000
0
1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Time (years)

Figure 11: This 14 year trajectory of home values shows an increase over time
significantly in regards to 500 foot distance from Rainier Court (p<.0001,
R2=.522).

Residential Home Vlaues (dollars)

Residential property values within .25
mile radius from Rainier Court
800000

y= 12046x - 3E+06
R² = 0.3625
p<.0001
n=105

700000
600000
500000
400000

Home Value

300000

Linear (Home Value)

200000
100000
0
1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Time (years)

Figure 12: This 14-year trajectory of home values shows an increase over time
significantly in regards to 1320 foot distance from Rainier Court (p< .0001). The
further distance from Rainier court show that this model indicates a weaker
relationship between home values and time (R2= .3625).

58

Residential Home Values (dollars)

Residential property values within .5 mile
radius from Rainier Court
y= 14695x- 3E+07
R² = 0.086
p<.0001
n=100

2500000
2000000
1500000

Home Values

1000000

Linear (Home Values)
500000
0
1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Time (years)

Figure 13: This 14 year trajectory of home values shows an increase over time
significantly in regards to 2640 foot distance from Rainier Court (p<.0001). The
further distance from Rainier court show that this model indicates a weaker
relationship between home values and time (R2=.086).
Qualitative Data
Qualitative data was collected during professional interviews with
stakeholders from local governments, technical advisors, non-profits and state
program managers. Open and closed ended question relating to the brownfield
redevelopment at Rainier Court as well as brownfield impacts in general on
surrounding property values were discussed. Examining stakeholder opinions
about the impact of brownfield redevelopment on surrounding communities
provides insights to intangible variables such as civic pride, sense of place and
perceived safety effects to the community as well as to the environment, i.e.
cleanup. Interviewee’s experience with brownfield redevelopment projects ranged
in involvement from 7-32 projects.

59

Professional Surveys

Three themes were identified from the results from conducted professional
interview. Three themes are identified below.
1. Brownfields impact on residential property values
2. Gentrification is a concern when property values increase
3. Size and location and of brownfield have influence on perception
of environmental or human health risks

An interview with a Brownfield Program Manager who works with
financial aspects of brownfield funding, highlighted the power of
perception when it comes to contaminated properties. For example, there is
a 900-acre parcel in Spokane, WA, an old rail yard used for industrial
purposes for decades. 500 acres are obvious industrial areas, 140 acres have
confirmed contamination and 120 acres is the intensive railroad usage with
the heaviest of contaminations. Therefore, 140 acres remain stagnated that
is safe, buildable land of which no one wants due to the perception of
contamination associated with the location. The underuse site furthers
blight in the area and may be deflating surrounding property values and
referred to the Harding et al. (2009), study on foreclosures’ effects of home
values. The program manager expressed that the sight would be perfect for
industry or high intensity land use similar to that of the past, of at least 20
jobs per acre. Unfortunately, the larger the site results in a greater
perceived contamination.
An interview participant from a brownfield program planning
perspective agreed with the consensus of the literature and respondents in
that residential property values may be lower nearby brownfield sites. The
60

participant estimated an impact could extend to a few miles or as small as a
neighborhood depending on context of the site itself. The place-based
influence within the community was highlighted as a driver of positive
outcomes regarding reuse options for brownfield sites. Sprawl,
gentrification and changes in land use zoning were a concern with changes
in property values if raised too quickly. Therefore, a disproportionate
burden would be reflected more on low-income communities, forcing those
to seek housing elsewhere.
An interview respondent associated with a localized brownfield
program agrees with the consensus that blighted or underutilized
brownfield sites can depress the value of surrounding residential property.
The impacts are not known and no before and after studies have been
conducted by the County’s brownfield program. Reuse options for
redevelopment weigh heavily on the potential outcomes of a project. For
example, commercial reuse options may have differing impacts than if it
were a small neighborhood site.
The three themes lined up with the consensus in the literature supporting
that residential property values are hindered by the perception of contamination,
i.e. brownfields and blight. The reuse and scale also support that mentioned by
interviewees and the literature. The context of the redevelopment is crucial to the
success of a redevelopment project for the community. When addressing social
issues such as affordable housing, governments must take care not to help create
conditions not suitable for the community needs. Increased tax revenue from

61

brownfield redevelopment projects can be beneficial in generating dollars to be
used publicly elsewhere (De Sousa et al, 2012). However, there is a careful
balance in expected outcomes versus unforeseen or unwanted outcomes in the
field of urban planning.
Discussion
Phases One and Two of the Rainier Court redevelopment project were
initiated in 2003 and completed by 2005. Phases Three and Four are not measured
due to the completeness of the projects. The quantitative data collected for this
research was specific to 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2014. Due to the relatively short
timeline to project completion, the limited temporal analysis it is difficult to make
the assumption that property values were hindered by the blight of the Rainier
Court site before remediation and redevelopment commenced. The data collected
in this research does not support this claim. Considering 35 years of illegal
dumping and other area wide social factors including other crimes, a more
detailed study could measure other possible factors influencing home values. A
more detailed study, such as mentioned, could provide fact driven statements that
brownfield redevelopments are indeed vital influences in altering the local
landscapes regardless of other changes are occurring in the area. More case
studies addressing these factors in regions less populated might show a stronger
relationship between distance from a brownfield and residential home values.
Small-scale projects would provide additional insights in that larger
projects may occur around larger populations, often not as vulnerable to change.
Considering the property values in the Seattle metropolitan area rank in the top
five, this may have skewed the data analysis findings. A comparative analysis
62

including smaller towns with smaller scale projects, and potentially smaller
funding, may provide better insights to the relationship between brownfield sites
and residential property values.

63

CONCLUSION
Environmental, economic and equitable concerns remain a focus in a
systems thinking approach. These concerns are peppered throughout brownfield
redevelopment projects. Imminent population growth, habitat vulnerability,
ecosystem services and limited resources of the future can be better understood
and therefore protected from implementing a multilateral approach to future land
use design with sustainability goals. While contamination threats to human health
remain a priority, many other disciplines determine project outcomes. From
examining these other disciplines and their relationships to each other, I reveal
larger system dynamics and power structures influence brownfield redevelopment
projects.
Measuring residential property value effects from the Rainier Court
brownfield redevelopment project is the focus of this research. From my analysis,
I conclude more temporal data collection is needed to better explain a change in
property values from brownfield redevelopment efforts. While many factors
influence changes in property values, more data would be necessary to fully
account for any relationship between before and after effects of brownfields
redevelopment projects.
Analysis of the themes from interviews and the data collected suggest
relationships to distance from brownfields exist. To examine and better
understand the relationships more case studies focused on communities may
highlight missing linkages to overall perceptions of brownfields to communities.
The data analysis suggests and highlights the importance of an interdisciplinary

64

focus to measuring brownfields influences. Social factors would include
community input and data collection of characteristics of the surrounding area
before and after projects begin. The spatial relationship of brownfield influences
on nearby communities and shape landscapes in a multitude of ways. The
economic driven data suggests that complexities exist in and are difficult to
measure when socio economic environments are present.
The pragmatic worldview is focused on problem centered real world
situations fulfill research questions, and are aligned with environmental protection
and economic motivations. The limitations of such an approach can obfuscate the
subjectivity and uniqueness of brownfield redevelopments. As shown in this
research, further examination of data may reveal the common assumption that
brownfields effect residential property values nearby. Use of additional
worldviews in addressing brownfield success should include systematics
including sustainability theory, social constructivism to address assumptions
about the world around us.
Externalities of brownfield redevelopments are complex and difficult to
measure. Understanding spillover effects on surrounding a community, such as
home values, can highlight subjectivity and desirable outcomes of brownfield
projects. Additional case studies in the field of risky brownfield redevelopments
may provide insights in regard to brownfield project size and various end use
options can provide an opportunity to measure impacts to surrounding areas and
support public funding. Several studies do so in a large-scale analysis (De Sousa
et al, 2012 & Harding, 2009). My findings suggest more small-scale case study

65

research may be beneficial in addressing brownfields influences to a community
through and data driven context, supporting a localized visions of sustainability as
well as local government needs. Without measurements of the pieces, how can
we measure the success of the whole? The central research questions addressed in
this case study ask: Is the Rainier Court redevelopment in line with existing smart
growth policies? Is there data to support claims that brownfield redevelopments
increase residential property values? How can improvements be made to reach
sustainability goals?
This research suggests that Rainier Court is in line with existing smart
growth policies. The mixed-use design accommodating, senior and affordable
housing solutions are in line with other community goals such as transportation
upgrades. The data does support claims that brownfield redevelopment increase
property values however, more data is needed to confirm that property values had
actually decreased as a result of the contaminated properties. Other efforts in the
community may have also had an accumulative influence on the market values.
Additionally tax assessors’ evaluation processes were not examined in this study
and may provide insights to how properties were assessed for their taxable value.
Phases One and Two of the Rainier Court redevelopment project may be
seen as an exemplary case as it has received the EPA Phoenix Award in 2005.
Phases Three and Four were not specifically accounted for in the award criteria.
Due to the ongoing project development of Phase Three and Four the project is
not complete in totality. Seattle needs affordable housing for seniors and families.

66

To meet the needs of the public, the Seattle housing authority was already
planning for development for housing.
Seven acres of land was idle, vacant and attracting crime. There was a
large blight in the area due to a number of confounding factors including the
brownfield. Additionally, federal assistance from the TBA and the BRLF may
have been the differentiating factors in this brownfield redevelopment project and
its success. Areas of this redevelopment project remain undeveloped (Phase
Four). Federal funding frameworks allowed the local governments to utilize
opportunities to include participation, accommodate for population growth, curb
sprawl, and other smart growth objectives as required in Washington State. Thus,
qualifying as measures of sustainable redevelopment success in the 3P
framework.
Lastly, Washington Research Council concluded in 2002 on the subject,
“For goals to have meaning in state law, it must be attached to a plan.”
Sustainability is an ongoing process of evaluation and adaptation. Therefore,
planning is an ongoing process that includes environmental consideration, social
needs and economic development. From this research, I conclude that Rainier
Court has met the fundamental achievements of sustainability as discussed. The
time involved with measuring a brownfield success can take generations to
uncover. Measurements should not be allocated in just dollars as in this research.
By supplementing economic data, a focus on intangible outcomes would support
claims to measuring success, and sustainability of brownfield redevelopment

67

projects overall. With a communicating interdisciplinary approach, this can be
achieved.

68

Appendix A
Smart growth Principles:
Compact Building Design
Create Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices
Create Walkable Neighborhoods
Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration
Foster Distinctive, Attractive Communities with a Strong Sense of Place
Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair and Cost Effective
Mix Land Uses
Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty and Critical Environmental
Areas
Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices
Strengthen and Direct Development Towards Existing Communities

Source: Adapted from the PDF "This is Smart Growth," published by
ICMA and EPA in 2006. http://www.smartgrowth.org/why.php

69

Appendix B
1990-1991 Growth Management Act
The following goals are adopted to guide the development and adoption of
comprehensive plans and development regulations of those counties and cities
that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040. The following goals
are not listed in order of priority and shall be used exclusively for the purpose of
guiding the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations:
(1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate
public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
(2) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land
into sprawling, low-density development.
(3) Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that
are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city
comprehensive plans.
(4) Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic
segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities
and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
(5) Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the
state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic
opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for
disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing
businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences
impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas
experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's
natural resources, public services, and public facilities.

(6) Property rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be
protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
(7) Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should
be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
(8) Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based
70

industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries.
Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural
lands, and discourage incompatible uses.
(9) Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational
opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural
resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities.
(10) Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality
of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water.
(11) Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of
citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities
and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts.
(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and
services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the
development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use
without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum
standards.
(13) Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands,
sites, and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance.
Source: Washington State Legislature, 2002
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A&full=true#36.70A.
010

71

Appendix C
SITE-SPECIFIC COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN FOR RAINIER
COURT DEVELOPMENT- Draft
Washington Coalition Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund
1. Overview of the Community Involvement Plan
This Site-Specific Community Involvement (CI) Plan has been prepared in
accordance with the Washington Coalition Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan
Fund (BCRLF) Program Implementation Manual. The purpose of the CI Plan is
to provide background and environmental information on the Rainier Court
Project Phase I, and to indicate how the project proponents, including the
Washington Coalition, King County and SouthEast Effective Development
(SEED) will involve the community and solicit input into the project.
2. Site Background
Site Location The site is located at 3500 - 3700 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle,
WA, 98118. The site consists of two parcels, which will be Phase 1 of a multiphase development project.
Site/Facility History Since the 1940’s the project site has been used for
commercial purposes. Commercial uses included vehicle storage, welding, office
space and a mortuary. There are three structures on the site, two of which are still
being used for commercial purposes.
The site is part of a larger, 7-acre site that has been blighted for the past 30 years
and has been used for illegal dumping and criminal activity. In 1997, the City
assisted neighborhood volunteers in removing tons of garbage, including
furniture, cars, baby diapers, tires and drug paraphernalia from the entire site.
SEED, a nonprofit community development corporation that has purchased the
site for cleanup and redevelopment, secured the site when it purchased the land,
but the incidents of illegal dumping continue. Cleanup and redevelopment of the
site will result in new housing and jobs and serve as a catalyst for additional
investment in the area.
3. Site Investigation
Summary of Environmental Risks EPA has completed sampling on the site under
its Targeted Brownfields Assessment Program. This included obtaining soil and
groundwater samples on the site (Parcels B and C). Contaminants exceeding
screening levels in the soil were not found beneath Parcel C. However, on Parcel
72

B, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
tetrachloroethene (PCE) and metals were detected above screening levels. In
general, the magnitude of the contaminant concentrations and number of
contaminants decrease with depth beneath the site. Groundwater contaminants
detected beneath portions of the site include petroleum hydrocarbons, arsenic,
manganese, lead, iron, PCE, trichloroethene (TCE) and vinyl chloride (VC).
SEED intends to perform a remedial action that is protective of human health and
the environment and meets cleanup standards in compliance with the Washington
State Department of Ecology Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) (WAC 173340) dated February 12, 2001.
Analysis of Cleanup Alternatives for the Site A Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and Cleanup Action Plan (CAP) have been prepared for
this project. The Washington Coalition Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan
Fund (BCRLF) Program and EPA Region 10 have determined that this RI/FS and
CAP meet the requirements of an analysis of cleanup alternatives required for
cleanups performed using BCRLF funds. The RI/FS CAP is available for review
at the information repository and administrative record identified later in this
document.
The following cleanup action alternatives were evaluated for the site:
Alternative 1: No action. Alternative 2: Isolation of the contaminants and
implementation of institutional controls. Alternative 3: Design, installation and
operation of in-situ remedial stabilization systems. Alternative 4: Excavation of
contaminated soil with on-site treatment and reuse of the excavated soil.
Alternative 5: Excavation of contaminated soil with off-site treatment disposal of
the excavated soil at a permitted facility.
Preferred Remedial Action The preferred remedial alternative is a combination of
excavation of contaminated soil with off-site treatment and disposal of the
excavated soil at a permitted facility (Alternative 5), and on-site isolation of the
contaminants and implementation of institutional controls (Alternative 2). In
addition, a groundwater monitoring plan will be prepared and implemented for
monitoring groundwater quality beneath the site after the remedial action.
4. Community Background
The Rainier Valley in Southeast Seattle has been the city’s most diverse
neighborhood for the past 40 years, with 60 different ethnic and cultural groups
reported in the 2000 census. When compared with the rest of Seattle, the Rainier
Valley has the greatest concentrations of low- and moderate-income people in the
city, and many pockets of people in poverty. Seattle’s two largest public housing
73

projects are located in this neighborhood, and 15%-20% of residents receive food
stamps.
In recent years, there has been significant redevelopment in Southeast Seattle.
The successful Rainier Valley Square shopping center opened, with 104,000
square feet of new commercial space and successful retail outlets. Since then
QFC, Lowe’s Hardware and Starbucks have opened successful stores in the area.
The two public housing projects are being redeveloped into mixed-income
neighborhoods with increased density and quality design, through HUD Hope VI
Grants. In addition, the Sound Transit Link light rail project, the largest capital
investment in the region, will be located along Martin Luther King Way South,
less than a mile from the Rainier Court site.
The Seattle-King County Public Health Department reports that indicators of
community health are weaker for this population than for other areas of the City
and County. Key indicators include: unavoidable hospitalizations, which are 2-3
times higher than for the rest of the County; low birth weight; lack of prenatal
care and teenage pregnancies, which are significantly higher than in the rest of the
County; high early death rates; and lower life expectancy at birth, which is 75
years for Southeast Seattle as compared to 80 for other areas.
In recent years, there has been significant redevelopment in Southeast Seattle.
The successful Rainier Valley Square shopping center opened, with 104,000
square feet of new commercial space and successful retail outlets. Since then
QFC, Lowe’s Hardware and Starbucks have opened successful stores in the area.
The two public housing projects are being redeveloped into mixed-income
neighborhoods with increased density and quality design, through HUD Hope VI
Grants. In addition, the Sound Transit Link light rail project, the largest capital
investment in the region, will be located along Martin Luther King Way South,
less than a mile from the Rainier Court site.
Past Community Involvement with the Site SEED began planning the overall
development project in 1995 and has involved community groups in the project
from the beginning. The project was identified in two City of Seattle Department
of Neighborhood Plans (Columbia City and I-90), and as such was subject to
public review during the neighborhood planning process.
In addition, starting in 2002, SEED has met monthly with local community
groups to describe project plans and progress and address concerns. These groups
include the Courtland Action Team (comprised of local residents), the Mt. Baker
Community Council, the Genesee Merchants Association and neighborhood
Block Watch groups.
74

In 2003, SEED began the process of applying for a City of Seattle Master Use
Permit (MUP), which requires SEED to conduct public meetings about this
particular phase of the project. To-date, five design review meetings have been
held for the general public, and SEED has continued to attend community group
meetings as mentioned above.
Key Community Issues and Concerns- Concerns identified through a series of
community interviews include the following: • Traffic impacts, • Adequacy of
street and landscaping improvements, • Owner occupied units in addition to
rentals, • Need for ongoing environmental monitoring, • Concern that the project
be completed, • That the cleanup be done adequately, • That the project is too big
in scale for the neighborhood.
To address these concerns, SEED is conducting the following activities: the
developer of Rainier Court is working with the City of Seattle Department of
Transportation on street improvements to reduce the traffic impacts of the project
overall. The clean-up activity will be done according to a plan that is approved by
the State Department of Ecology (DOE) and will be conducted by trained
personnel with procedures that meet State and Federal regulatory requirements.
The project has also gone through the City’s Design Review process, which
includes public comment. The project was scaled-down in this process and
specific amenities, including street and landscaping improvements have been
developed and will become conditions of the building permit. The Washington
State Housing Finance Commission has awarded the Rainier Court project tax
credit financing which requires that the project be constructed and occupied by
December 2004. SEED is working with the City and the State Department of
Ecology to assure that necessary reviews and approvals are done in a timely
manner so that the building can be constructed by that deadline.
Continued Community Involvement Plans Throughout the planning and cleanup
process, monthly updates will be given in person and in writing to the groups
listed in Attachment 2 and will also be placed in the information repository a the
SEED offices for interested community members to review. In addition, there
will be a 30-day public comment period on the draft RI/FS and CAP and that the
comment period will be announced by publishing a notice in the Seattle Times
and by notifying the community groups listed in Attachment 2. Comments
submitted during the comment period will be considered by the Washington
Coalition, Ecology, and the project owners before the final remedial plan is
adopted. In addition, an Action Memorandum or equivalent document will be
produced that documents the final plan and how any significant comments

75

received were addressed. Final project reports will be placed in the information
repository and the administrative record after the remedial action is complete.
The project documents may be reviewed at the information repository located at
the SEED offices, at 5117 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, Washington, 98118, or
at the administrative record located at the Washington State Department of
Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED), located at 128 – 10th
Avenue SW, Olympia, WA, 98504-2525.
5. Schedule and Timeline
Rainier Court: Phase 1 City of Seattle issue grading permits September - October
2003
Dept. of Ecology approve cleanup plan September - October 2003
Clean up conducted October – December 2003
Construction begun December 2003
Completion and Occupancy December 2004
Attachments
Attachment 1: Locations of Information Repository and Administrative Record.
The Information Repository is located at SouthEast Effective Development
(SEED) at 5117 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, Washington, 98118. The
Administrative Record is located at the Washington State Department of
Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) at 128 – 10th Avenue
SW, Olympia, WA, 98504-2525.
Attachment 2: List of Interested Groups and Contacts
The Rainier Court project has strong, broad-based support from the community,
and SEED has involved community groups in the project from the beginning.
SEED meets monthly with community groups to describe plans and progress and
address concerns. These groups include the Courtland Action Team (comprised
of local residents), the Mt. Baker Community Council, the Genesee Merchants
Association and the Rainier Chamber of Commerce. Contact information for
these groups is listed below.
Courtland Action Team Diana Vibh 3618 Courtland Place S Seattle, WA 98144
(206) 383-1716
Kevin Dour 3637 - 36th Ave. S Seattle, WA 98144 (206) 725-2753
76

Genesee Merchants Assoc. Grover Haynes 5217 S. Alaska Seattle, WA 98118
(206) 722-6947
Rainier Chamber of Commerce Susi Burdick Burdick’s Security 4728 Rainier
Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98118 (206) 723-0773
Mt. Baker Community Club Kim Burroughs 3450 Cascadia Ave. S Seattle, WA
98144 (206) 722-5078
List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: Site Diagram

77

Bibliography
Adams, D., De Sousa, C., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Brownfield Development: A
Comparison of North American and British Approaches. Urban Studies,
47(1), 75–104. doi:10.1177/0042098009346868
Anthony, J. (2004). Do state growth management regulations reduce sprawl?
Urban Affairs Review 39: 376-397, doi:10.1177/1078087403257798,
Retrieved from: http://uar.sagepub.com/content/39/3/376.abstract
Au-Yeung, B., Yigitcanlar, & T. Mayere, S. (2009). Brisbane urban growth
model: integrated sustainable urban and infrastructure management in
Brisbane. In Infrastructure Research Theme Postgraduate Student
Conference 2009, 26 March 2009, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane. p.5, Retrieved from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/20707/1/20707.pdf
Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2006) What are ecosystem services? The need for
standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63,
616-626. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.bay.evergreen.edu/science/article/pii/S0921
800907000341
Brill, C. W. (2009). Using GIS to contrast perceived versus preferred priorities for
brownfield redevelopment in Worcester, Massachusetts. Journal of the
Urban & Regional Information Systems Association, 21(2), 49-57.
Bryson, J. (2012). Brownfields gentrification: redevelopment planning and
environmental justice in Spokane, Washington. Environmental Justice,
5(1), doi: 10.1089/env.2010.0045
Chakrapani C. & Hernandez, T. (2008). Brownfield Redevelopment and the
Triple Bottom Line Approach. Centre for the Study of Commercial
Activity. Retrieved October 24, 2012, from
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page9933.aspx
Cullen, J. B. & Levitt, S.D. (1999) “Crime, urban flight, and the consequences for
cities,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 81, 159-169
Davis, T. (2002). Brownfields a comprehensive guide to redeveloping
contaminated property. (2nd ed.). United States of America: American Bar
Association.
DeSousa, C. A., Wu, C., & Westfal, L. M. (2009). Assessing the effect of publicly
assisted brownfield redevelopment on surrounding property values.
Economic Development Quarterly, 23(2), 95-110. doi:
10.1177/089124208328379
78

Durning, A. T. (1996). The car and the city, 24 steps to safe streets and healthy
communities. Seattle: Northwest Environment Watch.Eisen, J. (1999).
Brownfields policies for sustainable cities. Duke Environmental Law &
Policy Forum, Vol. 9, p. 187-229, Retrieved from:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1921766
Eisen, J. (2007). Brownfields at 20: A critical reevaluation. Fordham Urban Law
Journal, 34, 721-756 Retrieved from
http://law2.fordham.edu/publications/articles/400flspub8507.pdf
Gibbs, J. P. & Erickson, M. L. (1976). “Crime Rates of American Cities in an
Ecological Context,” American Journal of Sociology, 82(3), 605-620.
Great Lakes Commission (2001). Linking brownfield redevelopment and
greenfields protection for sustainable development. Bridges, Retrieved
from: http://www.glc.org/bridges/9-01BridgesI.pdf
Greenberg, M., Mayer, H., Miller, K. T., Hordon, R., & Knee, D. (2003).
Reestablishing Public Health and Land Use Planning to Protect Public
Water Supplies. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1522-1526.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1522
Gute, D. M., & Taylor, M. (2006). Revitalizing neighbourhoods through
sustainable brownfields redevelopment: principles put into practice in
Bridgeport, CT. Local Environment, 11(5), 537-558. doi:
10.1080/13549830600853452
Harding, J. P., Roseblatt, E., & Yao, V. W. The Contagion Effect of Foreclosed
Properties. Journal of Urban Economics, 66, 164-178. Retrieved May 1,
2014, from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/apers.cfm?abstract_id=1160354
Hayek, M., Arku, G., & Gilliland, J. (2010). Assessing London, Ontario’s
brownfield redevelopment effort to promote urban intensification. Local
Environment, 15(4), 389-402. doi: 10.1080/13549831003677712
Heberle, L. (2006). Connecting smart growth and Brownfield’s redevelopment,
School of Urban and Public Affairs, University of Louisville. Retrieved on
June 6, 2011 from:
http://cepm.louisville.edu/publications/PDF_docs/smart%20growth%20an
d%20brownfields%20for%20website.pdf
Hoole, J. City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, Historic Preservation
Program (2011). Public housing in southeast Seattle: 1940- present.

79

Retrieved from website:
http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/preservation/sotheastseattle
International City County Management (2010), Putting smart growth to work in
rural communities, Smart Growth Network (www.icma.org); at
http://icma.org/Documents/Document/Document/301483.
Kubasek, N., & Silverman, G. (2008). Environmental law. Sixth Edition. New
Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall
Kurdila, J., & Rindfleisch, E. (2007). Funding opportunities for brownfield
redevelopment, 34 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 479 Retrieved from:
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol34/iss3/3
Mohal, P., & Saha, R. (2007). Racial inequality in the distribution of hazardous
waste: A national-level reassessment. Social Problems, 54(3), 343-370.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sp.2007.54.3.343
Schädler, S. S., Morio, M. M., Bartke, S. S., Rohr-Zänker, R. R., & Finkel, M. M.
(2011). Designing sustainable and economically attractive brownfield
revitalization options using an integrated assessment model. Journal Of
Environmental Management, 92(3), 827-837.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.026
Smartgrowth.org (2011). Smart growth principles. Retrieved on June 6, 2011
from Smartgrowth.org website: http://www.smartgrowth.org/why.php
Spielman, S., & Thill, J. (2007). Social area analysis, data mining, and GIS.
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32, 110-122. doi:
10.1016*j.compenvurbsys.2007.11.004
Synder, K. & Bird, L. (1998). Paying The costs of sprawl: using fair-share costing
to control sprawl. Retrieved from:
http://www.smartcommunities/articles/sprawl.shtml
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields and Land
Revitalization (2009). Brownfields Definition. Retrieved June 6, 2011,
from The United States Environmental Protection Agency website:
http://epa.gov/brownfields/overview/glossary.htm
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields and Land
Revitalization (2011) Rural revitalization: EPA’s Brownfield program
working with small and rural communities. Factsheet. Retrieved June 6,
2011, from United State Environmental Protection Agency website:
http://epa.gov/brownfields/policy/bf-Ag-FactSheet-4-5-11.pdf
Washington Research Council. (2002) Economic development growth
management’s missing link. Policy Briefs, PB 02-1. Retrieved on June 6,
80

2011 from Washington Research Council website:
http://www.researchcouncil.org/docs/PDF/WRCGrowthLandUse/EconDe
velGrowthMgmtMissingLink.pdf
Washington State Department of Commerce. (2009). Smart growth. Retrieved
from: http://www.smartgrowth.org/why.php
Washington State Department of Ecology. (2011) Washington State Brownfield
Policy Recommendations; Redeveloping Brownfield/ Revitalizing Our
Communities. (2011, September). Retrieved from
www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/1109051.html
Washington State Legislature (2002). Comprehensive plans- Mandatory elements.
Retrieved June 6, 2011, from Washington State Legislature website:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070
Washington State Legislature (2002). Growth management — planning by
selected counties and cities. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from Washington
State Legislature website:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A&full=true#36.70A.
010
Wedding, C. G., & Crawford-Brown, D. (2007). Measuring site-level success in
brownfield redevelopments: a focus on sustainability and green building.
Journal of Environmental Management, 85, 483-495.
Wegmann, J., & Nemirow, A. Institute of Urban and Regional Developement,
(2011). Secondary units and urban infill; a literature review (2011-02).
Berkley: University of California.
Wernstedt, K., Heberle, L., Alberini, A., & Meyer, P. (2004). The brownfields
phenomenon: Much ado about something or the timing of the shrewd.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Wilson, B., & Chakraborty, A. (2013). The environmental impacts of sprawl:
emergent themes from the past decade of planning research.
Sustainability, 2013(5), 3302-3327. doi: 10.3390/su5083302
Wolfe, C., & Symington, P. (2009) From Barriers to Solutions and best practices:
urban centers and TOD in Washington . The Quality Growth Alliance, The
Runstad Center for Real Estate Studies, The College of Built
Environments University of Washington. Retrieved from:
http://www.qualitygrowthalliance.org
Yates, J. J. (2012). Abundance on trial: the cultural significance of
"sustainability". The Hedgehog Review, 14(2), Retrieved from www.iascculture.org/THR?THR_article_2012_Summer_Yates.php
81

Media

Thelen_LMESThesis.pdf