While I’m plotting which stores to hit on my general route home that might still be stocked with water — read here about the water main break in South Seattle and if you live in one of the affected areas, don’t drink from the tap – I’ll relay to you the stats from Union Gospel Mission’s first month of running a shelter at the old Fire Station 39 in Lake City.

I visited the old Fire Station 39 for a dinner with the crew very soon after I joined City Council and it was clearly a tired building in need of replacement. Building the new FS 39 down the street meant the old FS 39 could be put out to pasture. In the long-term this means selling the property or signing a long-term lease with a developer who will build new housing. In the short-term, the building has had an interesting second life as a controversial stopping point for the encampment known as Nickelsville (they packed up last year) and, now, as a winter shelter for men and women.

Union Gospel Mission stepped forward last year with a proposal to run a winter shelter for men and women with connections to medical care, employment, permanent housing, treatment and other help people need to leave the streets. Union Gospel does this with no compensation from the City. December was the first month of operation and here are the stats so far:

• Provided 1,248 shelter nights in December (33 men, 8 women average per night)
• Served 3,526 meals during the month of December (hot breakfast, sack lunches and hot dinner)
• Placed 4 women (3 that had children) into transitional housing.
• Placed 2 men into long-term addiction recovery programs.
• Connected 2 men to employment (staff helped them search and apply for job online with CPU station for guests)
• Medical screening weekly from Seattle University Nursing Students and Addiction Recovery Intakes and Counseling provided weekly.
• Morning Watch coordinator engaged homeless people sleeping on the streets 63 times (some repeat customers) to invite back to the shelter for breakfast and services.
• Reported decrease in calls from community over public intoxication and loitering since the shelter opened.
• Reported decrease in people sleeping in front of businesses since the shelter opened.
• Reported decrease in homeless people trying to gain unauthorized access to nearby a apartment complex and overall loitering.
• Weekly meetings with the community advisory group to hear feedback on the impact of the shelter on area residents and businesses, and to collaborate on solutions

The winter shelter proposal has not started out popular with many residents or businesses in Lake City. Councilmember Sally Bagshaw and I met last year with representatives of the business district who had specific, valid concerns about safety and crime, and about a shelter becoming a magnet for “out of area” homeless. At the end of the day, though, the fact remains that Lake City has people living on the street and in vehicles (my assignment area for the One Night Count in 2008 was Lake City). We should get them safely inside and connected to services moving them toward a permanent home via a shelter operated with community accountability. Opening a new homeless shelter is an important, humane thing to do, but it’s no one’s idea of a great achievement because of what it signals – too many people in need. That said, congratulations to the Union Gospel Mission for a job well done.

Sunday night I participated in a safety walk with four officers from SPD and about 40 Othello-area neighbors. We walked and talked through the streets surrounding the Othello Light Rail station – the area where Danny Vega, a beloved member of the city’s Filipino and gay communities, was beaten leading to his death.

There’s a great power in standing up to be seen. We should do it more often.

For many of the neighbors, it was the first ever extensive walk around the area. Most people, if they walk in the area at all, have their route to and from home. Mr. Vega was on his usual route when he was jumped in November.

The tragedy of Danny Vega’s death brought press coverage to what locals in South Seattle who rely on transit in the Light Rail Corridor already know – too many frightening attacks with serious consequences have also occurred.  More than 30 street robberies or attempted robberies have occurred in South Seattle since Sept. 1, Seattle police reports indicate.

One attack is too many. Thirty is way, way too many. My greater neighborhood is filled with hardworking people, many of whom have no practical alternative to walking to and from the bus or light rail. Nor should they have to worry about walking to and from the bus or light rail. It has to be safe to walk to and from the Othello Street station, and from the Mt. Baker, Columbia City, and Henderson Street stations.

During Sunday night’s walk, organized by the Southeast Seattle Crime Prevention Council and followed Monday night by a walk around the Columbia City station, we looked for dark spots or secluded, dangerous areas. We found a full half block with no street lights and no lights on adjacent property, and five burnt out pedestrian-scale lights just across from the station itself. We found some places very well lit with well-trimmed landscaping. We saw the mounted video camera that captured the images of two young men stashing a jacket into a dumpster near where Danny Vega was beaten. We saw mostly good sidewalks, but some cracked and heaved areas that make walking (or rolling in a wheelchair) difficult.

In the end, though, there isn’t much unique about the greater Othello area. I don’t mean that in a bad way. It’s a great neighborhood of small businesses, homes, a new apartment complex and the great Othello Park.  The attacks on people can and do happen just about anywhere.  They are thwarted by a combination of efforts and luck. More light, tidier landscaping, more eyes on the street from neighbors and other walkers.

While investigating the specific attack on Mr. Vega, SPD has also focused resources on preventing more attacks from occurring. Capt. Nolan of the South Precinct has responded to the attacks with emphasis patrols targeting the areas where these attacks have been occurring. Also, the precinct now deploys a two-officer special emphasis car that does nothing but cruise the corridor on the look out for transit predators. South Precinct Anti-Crime Teams and Gang Unit officers also work the problem. 

These are all good moves, though community members have reason to ask why the pattern of attacks wasn’t publicized sooner. I remain concerned that South Precinct doesn’t have the number of officers needed to cover the area with a consistent visible presence.  Not only are we not hiring to replace all our retiring or otherwise departing current officers, but events in other parts of the City (like Occupy) require shifting officers out of neighborhood patrol assignments and into special duties. The result is a patrol force stretched too thin.

For now – big thanks to Lieutenant Hayes and Detective Cookie for their company and assistance Sunday night.  The punch list from our Othello area walk-around includes replacing lights, adding new ones, trimming hedges, fixing sidewalks – and follow-through.

Usually the Council’s Committee on the Built Environment (COBE) meetings begin at 9 a.m. or 9:30 a.m.  Tomorrow’s meeting, one of the more anticipated of the year, will begin instead at 10:30 a.m. due to cascading series of errors with the agenda release. We usually post the agenda several days in advance (and far in excess of the required 24 hours). We fiddled around with the meeting’s order of events, finalized agenda titles and confirmed speakers Monday – and then failed to make sure it posted yesterday. Consistent with Murphy’s Law it would happen with our last COBE meeting and the one with high profile debates.

Per usual, public comment will be at the top of the agenda. That will be followed by the Roosevelt Neighborhood Rezone discussion and vote, and then finishing with discussion and vote on revised General Lot Standards in Single Family Zones (more exciting than it sounds).

If you had planned to come to Council Chambers at 9 a.m. and the new start time causes any inconvenience, I apologize. If you were planning to speak in public comment and can’t attend, you can also do so in writing to councilmembers. Our contact information is located here.

Today in the Committee on the Built Environment we confirmed appointments of 16 citizens to various city boards, commissions, and councils.

The planned North Lot Tower near Qwest Field will undergo a review by the Pioneer Square Preservation Board. (Source: Daniels Development.)

Thanks to people stepping forward to serve, we have new appointees to the Seattle Design Commission, Seattle Chinatown International District Preservation and Development Authority, the Ballard Avenue Landmark District Board, the Historic Seattle Preservation and Development Authority, the Pioneer Square Preservation Board, a couple of neighborhood Design Review Boards, and the Ethics and Elections Commission.

My colleagues and I rely on input from more than 50 boards and commissions. The City Council and Mayor appoint members of boards and commissions after putting out a call for applicants.

We post notices and do some targeted outreach to professional groups that may be good trolling grounds for people with professional experience. You can check out openings any time on the Boards and Commissions Web site.

About serving on a board or commission

Service on the boards is voluntary (no conscription) with terms that last two or three years and include the opportunity to be reappointed. Commissioners meet usually twice a month. They contribute crucial informed opinions to project staff and policy makers.

How younger people can get engaged

Not surprisingly, board and commission membership can skew toward people who are established in their careers and have a bit more flexibility to give their time. Younger adults sometimes feel like they don’t have the knowledge or time to give.  Wrong! For a number of years now the city has had the Get Engaged program for adults under 30 who are interested in serving. The YMCA recruits the participants and provides training and support, while the City offers special one-year positions on the Boards and Commissions and partially funds the YMCA work.

Interested in serving?

To find out more about board and commissions, what they do, and whether or not you might be interested in serving, visit the City of Seattle’s Boards and Commissions Web site.

As we get closer to what will likely be final committee-level action Dec. 14 (there’ll be no Roosevelt action at the December 8 Committee on the Built Environment), the Roosevelt rezone work is shaping up to set a template for thoughtful zoning and development standards review in other transit-connected urban villages in Seattle. I say this with some caution because the work has taken far longer than hoped (a consistent theme in zoning work) and will result in new height caps that will please some and infuriate some (also a consistent theme in zoning work).

I’ve watched and supported the neighborhood’s update on the Roosevelt neighborhood plan since joining City Council almost six years ago. Councilmember Jean Godden and I went to bat for Roosevelt almost four years ago when it looked like the effort might sputter and die for lack of attention from Department of Planning & Development staff. We convinced the City Council to earmark money to pay for the detailed zoning analysis, and DPD staff went to work with the neighborhood’s sharp citizen planners. They’d already moved heaven and earth by getting Sound Transit to shift the location of the light rail station further into the center of the ‘hood. How hard could a zoning scheme be?

Throw in a concurrent effort by private developers to rezone the hotly debated “Sisley high school blocks” along with an eleventh-hour change-up by a new mayor, and, OK, an agreed-upon zoning scheme becomes hard, really hard.  The Roosevelt Neighborhood Alliance (RNA) had an initial proposal. Then DPD presented that proposal with a tweak or two. Then my colleague, Councilmember Tim Burgess, publicly urged going bigger. Then Mayor McGinn made a proposal. Then RNA presented the Sustainable Livable Roosevelt Plan (SLRP). Then a few hundred people showed up at the Roosevelt High School Auditorium for a public hearing to cheer for the SLRP (and boo the urbanistas). In the wings, the Roosevelt Development Group continues their alliance with long-time community antagonist Hugh Sisley.  To the east, defenders of the Ravenna neighborhood pushed back against allowing higher on the high school blocks for fear that six story buildings will spread like a contagion east.

There’s a blockbuster movie in all this, or at least a really great urban development policy case study.

While the Roosevelt rezone package contains much more than the changes on the high school blocks, most of the heated debate revolves around these three blocks in the eastern half of the circle around the station. In public testimony, via email and in conversation, advocates have mentioned all or some of the following desires for the high school blocks (thanks to Councilmember Burgess for compiling this list):

1. Maintaining the central impact of the Roosevelt High School building by protecting views to and from the building.
2. Creating a streetscape that is active and pedestrian-friendly, including “green street” designation for N.E. 66^th St.
3. Creating effective transitions from the core of Roosevelt out to the single-family zoning.
4. Making new open and green space possible.
5. Keeping a clean, safe environment for everyone, including Roosevelt High School students.
6. Increasing the number of housing units in the area.
7. Ensuring that a portion of new housing units rent or sell at affordable levels.
8. Honoring the planning process and involvement by neighbors.

After reviewing the various plans and basic sketches of what different development scenarios might look like, I believe carefully constrained 65-foot zoning (versus the more bulky 40 feet currently allowed) on the high school blocks yields our best chance at achieving the goals above in this sub-area of the neighborhood. These blocks are between one and three blocks from the slated light rail station entrances. They are bordered by busy N.E. 65^th St.  In making a decision that’s right for now and 40 years from now, 65 feet provides more setbacks “buying” more sidewalk space, more housing, more affordable housing and wider view corridors to and from the high school.

Proponents of 40 feet argue you can gain the same wider view corridors to and from the high school if you require developers to set the building back from the property line. While this is true, it’s also true that this would mean a decrease in development capacity from what you could build on a majority of the blocks now. In other words, a downzone. To my mind, a downzone would not lead to winning enough of the goals cited above (or any if the downzone precluded any new development at all) and is hard to justify in a light rail station area.

The cry of many 40-foot proponents is “Protect the high school!” Roosevelt and the greater North End of the city have the gift of an iconic building constructed before school architecture was stripped down due to changing tastes and diminished budgets. The building is a landmark, but, contrary to some assumptions, the viewsheds to and from the school are not protected in city code. Neither are the south or east sides of the building buffered from the world by wide publicly-owned expanses of green space setting off the building from the surrounding neighborhood. It’s a high school in an urban village across the street from a future light rail station. It is an urban place. I think we do current and future students a favor by building more (and more affordable) housing on the high school blocks. The development standards will require that housing face the high school (except at the corner with 15^th) as way to guard against off-campus attractions setting up shop across N.E. 66^th St.  Additionally, we will define 66^th as a “green street” requiring extra landscaping and trees, making it more than the linear parking lot it is now.

The Roosevelt neighborhood plan update and these rezones have always been about more than just the high school blocks. Despite the anger some feel about the difference of 25 feet in three blocks of the entire station area, I still believe Roosevelt has set the standard for communities undertaking a plan update and carrying out a technically and philosophically challenging conversation about current conditions and how communities we love may change over time. The results will be better buildings, better streets, better public spaces – better building blocks with which people build lives.

In the last few weeks I’ve written about how, when I re-upped as the committee chair for COBE in 2010, I made it a goal to focus on land use as service, as a means to an end. I talked about the ways I wanted land use to serve the greater good of our city, which includes creating affordable housing and supporting great neighborhoods with healthy business districts and great gathering places. We’ve accomplished a lot when it comes to ensuring better design of buildings and, a couple of times, we’ve reached over into the street use code in order to improve our chances of getting great places and economic boosts for small businesses.

I’m proud that we succeeded in giving new flexibility to sidewalk cafes and loosening restrictions on mobile food vending. In planner-ese this is part of what’s called “placemaking,” but you could also say it’s just smart neighborhood and small business development. Walking down sidewalks this summer it was great to see people hanging out in new outdoor seating or see the tell-tale spray marks on sidewalks delineating planned outdoor seating.  One evening in upper Belltown I even got sit outside myself and talk with friends watching the world go by. A great luxury.

Helping food carts and trucks land in more places and be more successful strikes me as also smart neighborhood and small business development. Like everyone else I’m still waiting to see how mobile food vendors make use of the new street and sidewalk flexibility we approved this summer. I met a friend for dinner recently at Mr. Gyro in Greenwood and learned he’s underway with a truck and application. He’s now my test case.

If you know of anyone looking to get into the business, you can direct them to check out the Seattle Street-Food web portal - a one-stop-shop for interested mobile food operators to better understand the mobile food permitting process.  The portal includes a link to the Seattle Street-Food Checklist, which operators can print out to use while obtaining the necessary permits. 

Sidewalk seating and mobile food vending are part of my vision of land use (and street use) in service of economic rebound. Opening a food truck has a relatively low barrier to entry in terms of capital—what lenders call “low income, low asset startups.”  Make no mistake though. It’s still an expensive endeavor (as evidence, check out the niche market of food truck van retofitters), just not as expensive as some other ways to start a restaurant. The new flexibility and support are great ways the city can help hard-working entrepreneurs who want to innovate and be their own bosses.

This is my last blog entry looking back at the last term. Now that we’ve approved the 2012 Budget, everything is rolling again, and it’s time to start looking forward toward the future of our city.

Creating affordable housing in Seattle

I have a colleague and friend here in City Government who just returned from a Policy Link meeting in Detroit. If you read much about urban affairs you know Detroit is the crucible for everyone’s anger about the economy, the tanked automotive industry, bank foreclosures, overwhelmed public services, you name it. She said she thought Detroit was worse than New Orleans at this point in terms of crumbling public infrastructure and decimated neighborhoods.

Detroit is also the city where innovators are trying new things, taking over swaths of former single family neighborhoods and rowhouses as urban farms. Artists are re-colonizing and, if you can find a good paying job, you can find a house (most likely bank-owned) for less than $20,000. But can you live with the schools and transit….

Affordability is, to me, one of the toughest elements to produce in a city. No city aspires to follow Detroit’s path, but housing within reach for average people? I’d love to have more of that.

Affordability has multiple definitions depending on your economic standing. The most direct way we affect housing affordability is through direct subsidy — a voucher to pay the rent; a loan to share the cost of new construction; a tax break to buy down the rent. Because we’ll never have enough money to subsidize affordability for everyone (nor should we), it’s been important to me to squeeze, cajole and (bonus word alert) incentivize some level of affordability using the land use code. This has been a priority for me for my whole four years chairing the land use committee.

In general, “affordable housing” means housing that someone earning a region’s median income – or less — can afford.  We still use the long-standing benchmark of spending no more than 30 percent of your income on rent or mortgage, though, many of us would argue that adding in transportation costs would be a better measure of the true cost of housing. Like many American cities, Seattle struggles to keep affordable housing near where people work – a 2009 study showed that workers in core sectors — such as child care providers, office staff, maintenance personnel, and municipal workers — can’t afford to live in the city.

Even a high school teacher doesn’t earn enough to rent a two-bedroom apartment in Seattle; that apartment requires an hourly wage of $30.17, which is 16 percent more than a teacher’s salary. These days rent and homeownership frequently require multiple incomes per household.

While working to increase housing support for people earning way, way less than median income through the Seattle housing levy, I’ve tried to incorporate affordability into the basics of how we build new housing. Here are some of the ways I’ve worked in the Committee on the Built Environment (COBE) to make more housing affordable, and also to preserve the unique quality of Seattle’s neighborhoods while we’re at it.

Backyard cottages

Allowing backyard cottages is a smart and modest step to create more affordable housing options, help someone pay their mortgage, age with dignity in their own home, or to make a room for a son or daughter moving back home. Backyard cottages (officially known as detached accessory dwelling units) are separate from the main house and typically found in either the backyard or above a garage.

Thanks to legislation we passed through COBE, property owners city-wide now have the option to build a backyard cottage provided they meet certain criteria:

• Cottages are limited to 800 square feet, including garage and storage space.
• Your lot must be at least 4,000 square feet and not be in a Shoreline District.
• The maximum height of the cottage depends on how wide the property is, and total lot coverage requirements remain the same as for all single-family-zoned lots — no more than 35 percent of a lot can be covered with a structure, including the cottage.
• The property owner must live in either the house or the backyard cottage a minimum of six months every year.

Incentives for workforce housing

Incentive zoning is proven way to involve the private market in producing units that workers in core sectors can afford to live in. During my term we expanded incentive zoning from downtown to include urban centers, urban villages, and major transportation corridors.

Incentive zoning particularly targets those earning just less than area median income. These are not low-income rents, but they are affordable to mid-level workers in the sectors expanding in the city. Under these new rules the City Council can change the zoning in an area to set a base development level and also set a higher “incentive” height or density. To reach that higher development level a builder needs to provide a public benefit in exchange. The majority of that public benefit comes in the form of housing that must rent for no more than 80 percent of the area median income. The developer can choose not to include the affordable housing in their building, but then they must pay into an affordable housing fund, or, in some cases, provide a public benefit through open space, childcare, historic preservation, or use of development rights from another “saved” building or green area outside the city.

Updating multifamily code for green density

I worked to update the multifamily code in an effort to clear out obsolete restrictions that stood in the way of creating affordable housing while encouraging green development and density in urban

BEFORE

villages. We passed a collection changes – some radical — that add up to a positive vision with incentives that yield better places to live. Before, we saw cookie-cutter townhouses pop up everywhere. In the next building cycle I hope instead we’ll see different housing types providing more options and more housing where it makes sense (near transit and services). The overall cost of living for people should decrease as they have more opportunities to live near effective transit. OK, that assumes we can keep Metro solvent and expand service. All of our land use dreams are dependent on that little issue.

The changes we approved to the multifamily code went into effect in April 2011, and do the following:

• Encourage a diversity of housing types among townhomes, rowhouses, cottages, apartments, and auto-court townhomes;
• Promote keeping trees or planting new ones;
• Waive density limits for certain housing types when good design features are achieved;
• Require new design features to improve quality overall. For example: At least 20 percent of street facing façades must be windows and doors, and building materials must be varied;
• Provide incentives for “green building” and hiding parking underground or at the back of the lot;
• Allow for shared open space, for larger usable common areas;
• Change the lowrise height limits to match the height limit for single-family zones in most cases;
• Waive parking requirements for projects in growth areas and within .25 mile of frequent transit service (15 minute headways), allowing the market to dictate the level of parking to provide;
• Use a new flexible standard of measuring floor space, “Floor Area Ratio,” rather than previously restrictive setback and lot coverage requirements;
• Require Streamlined Design Review for townhouses with three or more units, but not for rowhouses, cottages or apartments in multifamily zones, and
• Reduce the number of zones from five to three (LR1, LR2, LR3) for code simplicity.

Curbing the spread of “megahouses”

While working to create new options for affordable housing, I also focused on retaining the charm and individuality of Seattle’s neighborhoods. One problem that came to my attention early on was the spread of McMansions, or MegaHouses, in Seattle’s neighborhoods: Out-of-scale, out-of-character houses seemingly plunked into neighborhoods, overshadowing houses around them.

Working with Council President Richard Conlin, COBE adopted legislation to help curb the impact these massive structures create on neighborhood character.

The new rules did the following:

• Adjusted the formula for how much of a lot may be covered by the structure,
• Better protected neighboring homeowners from being overshadowed by removing the provision that allowed a new house’s height to be based on neighboring property heights, a weird spiral upwards in some cases,
• Limited the location and visibility of garage doors that face a street,
• Restricted allowable height for houses on sloped sites; and
• Waived parking requirements on lots of less than 3,000 square feet, reducing the prominence of a garage as part of a structure.

Next week I’ll look back briefly at some great work we did by reaching into the street use rules.

Learning that the National League of Cities will hold the fall “Congress of Cities” meeting later this week in Phoenix (meeting sites are selected four years in advance) has prompted me to think about what I’ve learned in the almost year and a half since I pushed forward a resolution calling for the City of Seattle to boycott travel to Arizona and purchasing from Arizona-based companies. This was after Arizona state lawmakers passed SB1070, effectively making immigration enforcement a local law enforcement function and instilling fear into documented and paper-less immigrants alike.

I had hoped the leadership of Seattle and dozens of other cities would prompt the federal government to recognize that state-by-state immigration policies are tearing apart families, communities and economies. Local authorities running immigration control puts whole communities at risk as families become afraid to call for police and fire when they need help and less likely to visit a clinic or hospital when they are sick, all for fear of being arrested rather than assisted.  While some pieces of SB1070 were blocked by the courts and some were reworked, other states, like Alabama, have pressed forward with even more strict and destructive laws — and on into the court system.

In September the National Council of La Raza called for an end to the Arizona boycott. The NCLR, the nation’s largest civil rights advocacy group for Hispanic people, said the boycott had fulfilled its purpose – other anti-immigrant proposals in Arizona were turned back and registration of Latino voters has surged. NCLR noted, also, that the boycott caused hardship for low-wage workers (many of whom are Latinos) in the hospitality industry due to the state’s lost convention and tourism business, with losses estimated by the Center for American Progress to be around $140 million over three years. Rational reform of immigration policies is still needed, but Arizona is no longer the single focus of debate and, arguably, no longer merits the focus of a boycott. The debate field has widened, though not improved.

So, what have I learned?

1.     Immigration law in the United States is still a patch-work mess. While Alabama, Utah, North Carolina and other states take matters into their own hands – and into expensive, protracted legal battles – we could instead have a national policy that builds a rational path to citizenship, a path that supports families and our workforce realities. We need Congress to step up.

2.     Starting a boycott is relatively easier than ending one when you don’t have an obvious victory. The NLC meeting this week has put a lot of city leaders on the spot. Looking at the NLC program, it’s a great chance to hear speakers, attend workshops on supporting struggling families in urban areas, and support progressive policy positions, including resolutions relating to immigration. While city councilmembers from Seattle and Tacoma will attend (my resolution had a clause stating that its implementation would be “to the extent practicable”), city councilmembers from Los Angeles are sticking by their boycott despite the NCLR action to drop the boycott.

3.     Boycotts are, frankly, difficult to maintain. Even though Los Angeles councilmembers will skip the NLC Congress of Cities in Phoenix, Los Angeles still purchases millions of dollars worth of goods and services from vendors in Arizona because they are the best vendor with the best deal. Seattle has faced the same challenges, although on a much smaller dollar scale. If you need to buy red light cameras and the leading vendor makes its headquarters in Arizona, do you buy the cameras or wait for a non-Arizona-based competitor to pop onto the scene? (If you hate red light cameras, I imagine the answer is “wait.”)

In this economy and political climate, cities have far more in common than in difference. All cities are struggling with the effects of unemployment, diminished dollars from the federal government, more “devolution” of responsibilities from other levels of government. We’re all looking for creative class jobs, money for infrastructure, and ways to grow the tax base in order to fund parks, libraries, police officers and fire fighters. Even when people aren’t struggling, boycotting another city or state is a big step. In this case, if I had the decision to make again I’d still side with the boycott (though, I’d give a heads-up to the Convention and Visitors Bureau – sorry about that). With NCLR calling off the boycott and the National League of Cities choosing Phoenix, it seems the boycott is over. Unfortunately our immigration problems are not.

In my last blog, I talked about some of the goals I had in mind when I re-upped for two more years as chair of the Committee on the Built Environment, a term that is coming to an end this December. I wanted to look back on some of those goals and reflect on how we did.

It seems timely and appropriate to look at how I think about land use as a vehicle for helping to speed economic recovery. This is a subject that’s on everyone’s mind, and has been since the recession started. The City’s annual budget process has become a grim struggle to shore up crucial services, like police, shelter and the most basic elements of our city’s infrastructure.

Economic recovery and growth in the world of land use tends to mean development. Development brings jobs (construction jobs and the jobs that come with new building tenants) and places to live for the 120,000 new residents Seattle will gain over the next 20 years. It’s been at times uncomfortable and at other times gratifying to lead efforts that promote or pave the way for new development. I’m a big fan of the Seattle I found when I moved here in 1984, as well as the Seattle I know now, and have to temper that with my obligation to set the table for the Seattle I hope to love tomorrow.

The best examples of land use in service of economic recovery that I’ve worked on include:

• Extending the master use permit period to get building’s back on track and builders back to work as soon as financing becomes available.
• Working with neighborhoods in Southeast Seattle on neighborhood plan updates to take advantage of smart development opportunities presented by light rail stations.
• Working through 2 phases of the Pike/Pine Conservation District overlay to encourage developers to preserve the character of the neighborhood using design guidelines and transfers of development rights (TDR)s.
• Approving zoning code amendments to help move forward good projects like UW Phase III in South Lake Union and new development on the old North Lot of the Kingdome.

Master Use Permit Extensions

The Master User Permit Legislation was designed to help offset the fact that financing for construction projects dried up (to put it mildly) with the recession. This meant that people trying to build larger projects requiring complicated financing got stuck with the clock ticking on their permits. When permits expire, people get sent back to square one in terms of permits. For any size project, this can be extremely expensive and cause even greater delay in getting a project out of the ground.

The legislation we adopted extends the life of building permits obtained before the end of 2012, so workers can begin building soon after financing becomes available.

South and Southeast Seattle Neighborhood Planning

Three neighborhoods where the land use code is going to work in service of economic recovery during my term are Beacon Hill, McClellan, and Othello. With help from the Department of Planning and

The grand opening for the Whistle Stop Coop bike shop & cafe at Othello Station. Congratulations, Dick and Mona. Thanks for your persistent positive vision.

Development, the city provided these three neighborhoods with “quick start” assistance in updating their neighborhood plans–pulling together snapshots of each neighborhood compared to 10 years ago, including demographic shifts, zoning, housing units and affordability, transportation upgrades in the last decade, new parks, and a neighborhood plan implementation report.

This information is helping shape new zoning around the light rail station to invite more residential units and more retail and office space for the neighborhoods.  These neighborhoods are leading the city in a progressive approach to incorporating density – along with all the other things that neighborhoods need in order to have great places and great communities, such as parks, greenery, and sensitive, intelligent transitions between greater density and single-family homes. The zoning proposals for these neighborhoods will come to the Council before the end of this year and be taken up by Council early next year.

The Pike/Pine Conservation overlay district

The Pike/Pine neighborhood on Capitol Hill is covered with buildings filled with the history of Seattle’s original auto-row. (Coincidentally, I’ve worked previous jobs in three parts of the neighborhood.) Lately, it’s an area that has attracted the attention of developers. No one has wanted to see the area’s character and charm lost in the process of becoming a popular “it” place.

Working closely with Councilmember Tom Rasmussen on legislation he spearheaded, we encouraged the preservation of “character” buildings, that is, buildings that have the historic facades and stories that define the neighborhood’s unique feeling.

The first phase of the legislation provided incentives to retain and incorporate buildings older than 75 years into new development. The legislation promoted new development that is compatible in scale with the existing buildings, encouraged small and diverse business, and retained the facades of buildings that define the neighborhood.

As I write this, we are reaching the end of phase three for the Pike/Pine Conservation overlay district. This legislation, which I hope to see passed before the end of the year, will create a transfer of development rights (TDR) exchange program that will make it easier for developers to preserve existing structures in exchange for the right to build larger buildings elsewhere within the district. We already established design guidelines in phase 2, intended to preserve the character of the neighborhood.

All of this work is intended to bring in new apartments, jobs, street-level retail, and vitality in a way that matches the “feel” of Pike/Pine.

UW Phase II and North Lot

As chair of the land use committee you get pitched on the special needs of various projects. This is a perversely good problem to have. In some cities in the United States new development knocking on

Sally and Jan Drago at the North Lot Groundbreaking

the door is merely a dream. Most projects go through what’s called a rezone. Some developers come forward from time to time with what they describe as short-comings in the existing zoning rules, shortcomings that hinder their ability to develop to the needs of potential tenants. I have supported text amendments in my time as a committee chair when the amendment truly fixes a code blindspot (though the yield in jobs and better design clearly benefiting the community are great, too). UW Phase III and the North Lot in Pioneer Square both met the criteria for me. Both will be built with dramatically better designs, open space, and street-level feel than would have been possible under the then-existing zoning code. Both will yield new jobs and, in the case of the North Lot, new residents to call Pioneer Square home.

Next time, I’ll be writing about land use and housing. Please check back: I’ll see you here.

I can’t believe it’s the fourth quarter of the year already. As usual the year is flying by. It’s a little startling to realize I have just two and a half months left as chair of the Council’s Committee on the Built Environment – COBE, perhaps known to normal people as the land use committee.

During my four-year tenure as chair, I’ve met and spoken with city planners, low-income housing residents, architects, environmental activists, developers, community group planners, advocates for the homeless, regional planners, homeowners, renters, property managers, historians, futurists, attorneys, representatives of religious institutions, archeologists, people with an interest in transit-based development and people who would prefer to see Seattle stay the way it was in 1970 (or 1980, or 1990, or 2000).

There isn’t anyone in the city whose life isn’t touched by land use decisions in one way or another. That’s what I’ve loved about the thorny, no-clear-right-answer decisions we’ve faced. Each one has presented compelling, competing arguments for how we grow and change as a city on the micro and macro level. It’s been fascinating committee work and not always comfortable. The policies and planning required to keep Seattle sustainable, livable, and still recognizably Seattle requires concentration, flexibility, foresight, an appetite for risk, and a thick skin for everyone involved. I think I might have just medium-thick skin, by the way.

When I re-upped for the land use committee chair position at the start of 2010, I made it my goal to focus on land use as a service, as a means to an end. Zoning alone doesn’t make a great community. People make the community. Zoning – and great ideas about what to do with it – shapes the spaces we use in our life. Here are some of the ways I wanted land use to serve the greater good of our city:

• Support great neighborhoods with healthy business districts, affordable housing, and great gathering places
• Support historic preservation and cultural assets
• Support better living spaces with greater friendliness and visual appeal
• Support more efficient buildings and greater sustainability
• Support neighborhood safety
• Support economic success and the creation of jobs

As we proceed through the end of the year, I’ll use this space from time to time to evaluate how we did in COBE at meeting these goals. I look forward to hearing how you think we did.