EPA logo

The Duwamish Superfund cleanup is moving into the next phase of activity, as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced its preferred alternative. Over the next three weeks, comments are being taken on the proposal, and we expect EPA to make a final decision in the next few months. In the meantime, I have been working with the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition (DRCC) and other active parties to try to ensure that whatever cleanup program is adopted will have complementary elements that will support the communities of Georgetown and South Park.

One of the most important potential opportunities for these communities is the possibility of job training and employment in cleanup activities, hopefully leading to skill development that can result in long-term, living wage employment for residents of these communities, many of whom are recent immigrants and/or have limited income opportunities.

Last fall the EPA announced that it would create a Lower Duwamish Waterway Job Training Initiative, and this spring EPA is offering the first opportunity for participants to apply for an enroll in a job training program. Working with the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition, the program begins with training in Pre-employment Skills, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, and First Aid and Workplace Safety. This three week initial training program will qualify participants to apply for the first level of cleanup jobs on a competitive basis.

While the communities surrounding Superfund sites are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the program, and cleaning up toxic contamination is of course a positive step, cleanups can be impactful on these communities.  And a very successful cleanup could even lead to more negative results for them if it makes the area attractive enough that current residents are displaced by rising housing costs.

The best way to prevent these outcomes, to compensate residents for the history of environmental problems, and to position them for future success, is to provide jobs and skill development. This gives them immediate income, as well as the possibility of future employment.  Some communities are even seeking to leverage Superfund cleanups to foster the growth of a small business sector that can use the experience of working on the project to become experts and work on other superfund sites. Seattle’s strong environmental consulting and engineering sector may be able to capitalize on this opportunity, and provide more long-term jobs doing this important work.

The EPA Job Training Initiative is a great step in the right direction.

City of Seattle Seal

On Monday, May 13, the Seattle City Council adopted a resolution enlisting City departments to develop outreach strategies to educate and inform the public about new healthcare coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). ACA is the national health insurance legislation approved by Congress in 2010, which goes into full effect in 2014.  The Affordable Care Act requires that most members of the public enroll for healthcare coverage by January 2014. Departments will coordinate with the efforts of community partners to enroll all newly eligible residents in the new healthcare coverage options.

The City of Seattle has an extraordinary opportunity to increase the health of our residents by working diligently on enrolling folks in the expanded Medicaid program if they are eligible and in the health care insurance exchange if their incomes are too high for Medicaid. There are an estimated 26,000 Seattle residents who will be eligible for fully paid health care under the Medicaid expansion. Another approximately 30,000 Seattle residents will be eligible for partially subsidized coverage under the insurance exchange program. This is the most significant advance in health care since everyone over 65 years old received health care coverage with the enactment of Medicare in 1965.

However, many people do not know about the new health care law or understand how it will operate. Those who can now qualify for Medicaid will have to sign up and go through a process to verify their eligibility and enter the system. Those who can get partial subsidies must sign up for the health care exchange, find out how much subsidy they qualify for, and then select the insurance coverage that best matches their needs and their ability to pay. The State is funding trained resource people to help with this, but people will have to know about this opportunity and then sign up. That is where the City outreach comes into play.

Seattle’s outreach plan will include publicity efforts as well as person-to-person support for individuals, particularly communities who need more intensive help with the application processes and accessing health care services. Our goal is to ensure that everyone who can be covered actually accesses the appropriate information and services.

This is an unprecedented opportunity to help Seattle residents receive the care they need. It is also an opportunity to lower health care costs by decreasing reliance on high-cost medical services such as emergency room visits. And everyone in the city will benefit when we have a healthier, more productive population that is better able to contribute to and participate in our economy and civic life.

It’s a win-win-win for Seattle, but we have to participate to ensure that we realize all of the benefits. We are committing ourselves to helping people thrive by supporting the implementation of the ACA.

This study was commissioned last summer in response to the initial access proposal, which focused on vehicle parking. The Sound Transit Board has adopted new policies that emphasize fully integrated access plans, and the City of Seattle and Sound Transit partnered to develop a plan for the Northgate light rail station that would support people traveling to the station by bus, bike, walking and car.

Along with the access study, the Sound Transit Board and the Seattle City Council both unanimously approved a $20 million investment in bike/ped access, $5 million dollars from each entity to fund a portion of a bike/ped bridge across I-5 and $5 million from each entity to fund bike/ped projects around the station area. Both ST and the City are fully committed to funding these projects; the City is now working on identifying the remaining funds needed to perform environmental work, complete design, and construct the bridge (these funds need to be secured by July 2015). The access study will help determine whether the proposed projects would increase ridership and the bike/walk shed around the station by providing benefits to bikers and walkers.

The great news is that the study shows that these investments offer a very good return. The bike/ped bridge across I-5 increases the number of walkers accessing the station by 13% and the number of bicyclers by 4%, while the cycle track on 1^st Ave will increase bicycle access by 6%. All of the potential projects demonstrate benefits to bikers and walkers.

The expected mode share of riders that will access Northgate Station in 2030 and weekday boardings by mode are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1 also summarizes the increase in station ridership due to other potential projects such as streetscape improvements. The number of new walkers and bikers who would travel to the station as a result of these combined projects is expected to increase by 845 boardings each weekday, a 6% increase in total new weekday station boardings.

In addition to creating new station ridership, these potential ped and bike improvement projects would also improve access to the station for other expected station users who were already planning to come by bicycling or walking. Table 2 summarizes the expected number of station riders who would use and benefit from individual proposed bike improvement projects. Table 3 summarizes the number of expected station riders who would benefit from potential pedestrian improvement projects.

While this is encouraging data, final decisions on what improvements to construct will not be made until after public input on the proposed projects. The first opportunity to respond to the proposals will be at Sound Transit’s Northgate Station 60% design open house on May 23rd, 6-8pm (presentation begins at 6:30pm) at Olympic View School auditorium, 504 NE 95th St.

After receiving public input, Sound Transit, the City of Seattle, King County will make recommendations on a final project list. Policy makers must do everything we can to make transit a safe and convenient form of transportation. That is both an environmental and social justice imperative. Completion of this study is a great start to making this very important station as accessible as possible for all riders.

Comprehensive Plan map, 1950

On Monday, May 13^th, the Council unanimously adopted the 2012-2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Under State law, the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) can only be amended once a year (with a few specific exceptions), and the process involves a lengthy and thorough review of proposed amendments. The Comp Plan is not taken lightly by the City, and we are cautious about changing it.

State law also calls for a periodic full update of the Comp Plan, which the City is required to complete by 2015. This process began last year, and is now moving into high gear. Our goal is to reduce complexity and make the Comp Plan simpler and easier for people to understand, and easier for the City to implement. Even as this full update is underway, the City will also continue the annual amendment cycle in 2013-2014, which will begin with a call for proposals in the near future.

The current group of amendments includes some new policies that are intended to help shape the full update. The most significant addition are the new “Transit Communities Policies”. These policies augment the City’s Urban Village strategy by adding new sets of criteria to ensure that transit investments and housing development are more closely linked. The set of policies approved this year focus on creating the conceptual framework for transit communities, and on integrating the transit community concept built on walksheds surrounding areas that have frequent transit service with the urban village strategy generally built on existing commercial and residential nodes. We anticipate that making a closer linkage between transit service and development opportunities may lead to revised boundaries for urban villages and centers, and clearer priorities for future investments.

The transit communities policies were developed by the Seattle Planning Commission, and have been extensively reviewed and refined to create a clear path to making them useful parts of the Comp Plan. The revisions made by the Council defined the walkshed, emphasized the relationship to the urban village strategy, and added criteria for community engagement in working on specific changes in affected communities.

The Comprehensive Plan amendments include the following other important additions or modifications:

• Extensive reworking of the policies around climate change to reflect the new goal of carbon neutrality and the specific strategies that are included in the update of the Climate Action Plan.
• Revisions to the Urban Design element to emphasize and define the connections between the built environment and the natural features of Seattle, and to emphasize the importance of public space and parks.
• A new Healthy Food Policies element that creates the policy framework for the Seattle Food Action Plan, approved by the Council on April 29.
• Updates to the Broadview/Bitter Lake/Haller Lake and Rainier Beach Neighborhood Plan policies, the most recent neighborhood plans to go through a major review.

For details on the amendments, please see website.

Councilmember Richard Conlin
Councilmember Nick Licata

City to develop outreach strategies for Affordable Care Act

Seattle - Seattle City Council adopted a resolution today enlisting City departments to develop outreach strategies to educate and inform the public about new healthcare coverage programs made available through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Departments will coordinate with the efforts of community partners to enroll all newly eligible residents in the new healthcare coverage options.

"The City of Seattle has an extraordinary opportunity to increase the health of our residents by working diligently on enrolling folks in the health care insurance exchange,"said Councilmember Richard Conlin, sponsor of the resolution. "This is one of the most significant advances in health care since the implementation of Medicare in 1965 and it is imperative that we take a leadership role in this."

Seattle's outreach plan will include person-to-person support for individuals, particularly communities who need more intensive help with the application processes and accessing health care services. The Affordable Health Care Act requires that most members of the public enroll for healthcare coverage by January 2014. An estimated 30,000 Seattle residents will become eligible for subsidized health care coverage through Washington's Health Benefit Exchange and Council has made it a priority to enroll them all.

Councilmember Nick Licata said, "The Council action to expedite healthcare coverage is particularly timely considering this week's report that each year in the US, 11,300 newborns die within 24 hours of their birth, 50% more than all other industrialized countries combined."

"Nearly 60,000 Seattle residents are currently without health insurance,"said Mayor Mike McGinn. "I am enlisting City departments to inform and enroll people into expanded Medicaid and subsidized insurance that will soon be available through the Affordable Care Act. This is an unprecedented opportunity that will help our residents receive the care they need and lower health care costs by decreasing reliance on high-cost medical services including emergency room visits."

"We have a landmark opportunity to increase access to health care in our community,"said Dr. David Fleming, Director and Health Officer for Public Health - Seattle & King County. "By connecting residents to coverage, we will ultimately improve the health of our community."

[View in Council Newsroom]

Duwamish River and Industrial District, 1999

The first three proposals have been received and evaluated for the Industrial Development District (IDD). The IDD is a partnership involving the City of Seattle, King County, and the State of Washington that seeks innovative proposals for industrial development that have been challenging to implement due to regulatory, policy, or financial issues. I and my staff developed this idea as a project to add new vitality to Seattle’s industrial sector.

The IDD initiative seeks proposals that meet three criteria:

• Provide positive economic benefit
• Result in equal to or better measurable environmental performance than would result from current regulations
• Are located on currently industrially zoned land

We chose this approach because it has become increasingly clear that prescriptive regulations tend to be very good at stopping bad things, but we need to promote good things – and government regulations do not have the nimbleness or flexibility to encourage innovation.  So we are setting broad parameters to foster creativity around the goal of providing jobs and economic activity while enhancing the environment.

The Office for Economic Development has selected two of the proposals to advance as pilot projects. The third proposal was judged to have too many uncertainties and potential pitfalls, and was not selected in this round; however, the parties will explore the concept further with possible applications to a future round of proposals.

The first proposal selected was submitted by the Port of Seattle. The Port suggests that the seismic standards that are used to evaluate piers and warehouses are too stringent. The standards are based on those developed for office and industrial buildings, but the Port structures generally have few people working in and around them, and are relatively low buildings that have minimal risks. They estimate that they could save up to $600 million in cost savings if seismic regulations for their facilities were designed to better reflect the unique nature of their structures. The first steps in this project are to better understand the risks and possible consequences from changing the standards (including the impact on resilience – the Port’s ability to bounce back after the earthquake), and then to develop new standards if it appears truly warranted. If this project turns out to be feasible, the potential benefits in jobs and cost savings could be quite large when the Port upgrades their facilities to serve larger ships.

The second proposal accepted was submitted by the Manufacturing Industrial Council (MIC), and proposes to limit the siting of daycare centers in industrial zones. The MIC notes that the standards for cleaning up industrial sites to accommodate the special health risks to growing children are very costly, and suggests that if companies were not required to meet these standards, they could save significant amounts of money. While at first this may seem like a weakening of environmental standards, the results could be counterintuitive. Sites continue to be polluted because cleanup is triggered by new development and the standards make that cost prohibitive. Slightly modifying the standards may mean each site is cleaned up to a somewhat ‘lower’ level, but it could mean that currently very polluted sites are more likely to be cleaned up. Ecology agrees that this makes sense, but there are questions as to whether it is appropriate to limit daycare centers and if this can be enforced into the future. 

Both of these are puzzles that require careful and thoughtful analysis to see if the results do justify the modification of the standards. The third proposal was more like what we expected to see, a proposal to save money on stormwater treatment and compliance by creating joint treatment facilities covering several properties. The argument is that there would be economies of scale, and that there would be environmental benefits because the facilities would come on line more quickly and in advance of actual construction on some of the sites. While the agencies were interested in this proposal, there were enough legal and policy concerns that they decided to develop a more general policy covering this issue prior to accepting a specific proposal.

The IDD is a hard concept to implement and a challenging one to work through. It asks whether a set of tradeoffs will actually result in both environmental and economic benefits, and the agencies are appropriately cautious in making decisions to proceed. Nonetheless, if these projects are found to meet the two benefit tests, the potential for positive outcomes is significant. And success in these ideas could stimulate many more ideas in the future.

The IDD is an exciting concept that can create jobs and enhance the environment.  It has special promise in the Duwamish, where the environmental cleanup can be leveraged for economic development. That is why not only the involved governments, but business, labor, and environmental organizations have come together to support getting this work underway.

The Plan builds on my Local Food Action Initiative (LFAI), adopted by the Council in 2008 in response to the growing public interest in local, healthy food. Numerous steps have been taken to implement the initiative in the last several years, including providing more stability for Farmers Markets, expanding the City’s community garden (p-patch) program, increasing the City’s commitment to improve nutrition and reduce hunger, and creating land use code amendments for urban farming that make it legal to grow and sell produce and products. The LFAI has been widely publicized and used a model around the country, and the National League of Cities is now promoting the adoption of local food policies as part of its sustainability initiatives.

Our work on local food has now gone beyond the LFAI, with the creation of the Regional Food Policy Council, which I Chair, and with creation of a new a position in the Office of Sustainability and Environment to coordinate our food work. In recognition of the need for a more formal and coordinated strategic approach, the Council first commissioned a consultant to draft a food policy, and then worked with the Mayor’s office to move this draft through a community consultation process and create a formal plan.

The core elements of the Food Action Plan are to:

• Create and sustain strong interdepartmental and intergovernmental coordination on food issues.
• Enhance partnerships with the public and private sectors and community-based organizations in the City and across the region.
• Stimulate collaboration among community organizations, institutions, neighborhoods, and governments.
• Focus on racial and social equity and support the communities most at-risk for food insecurity and diet-related disease.
• Increase inclusive communication and engagement opportunities for the public.
• Use data to assess conditions, inform priorities, and track progress.

The Plan has four key goals, with a series of strategies under each.

Goal 1 is to foster Healthy Food for All. Strategies include:

• Promote the location of healthy food access points that can be reached by walking, biking, or transit by all residents.
• Use the City’s purchasing and contracting power to support healthy, local, sustainably produced food.
• Support programs, policies, and projects that help get more healthy food to children and youth.
• Increase affordability of healthy, local food for low-income Seattle residents.
• Promote healthy food, especially in low-income communities and with youth, through education and collaborative efforts.

Goal 2 is to Grow Local to the maximum extent possible. Strategies include:

• Prioritize food production as a use of land.
• Develop and support programs to produce food on City-owned land.
• Support efforts to expand urban food production on privately owned land, including residential, commercial, and institutional properties.
• Explore opportunities to expand rooftop and building-integrated agriculture.
• Work jointly with other jurisdictions to conserve agricultural land.

Goal 3 is to use the food sector to Strengthen the Local Economy. Strategies include:

• Support businesses that grow, distribute, process, and sell local and healthy food.
• Celebrate and enhance local food as an element of Seattle’s economy and identity.
• Support farmers markets and small retailers that sell healthy and locally produced food.

Goal 4 is to Prevent Food Waste. Strategies include:

• Prevent edible food from entering waste stream.
• Increase composting of non-edible food.

Each of these strategies has a set of action items associated with it. Some highlights are:

• Expanding the Farm to Childcare program, which brings healthy food from local farmers into childcare sites, trains child care providers on nutrition and cooking and brings kids to local farms.
• Expanding the Fresh Bucks program, which increases the affordability of healthy food for low-income Seattle residents.
• Growing the successful P-Patch community gardening program, which will expand to 90 gardens throughout Seattle by the end of 2013.
• Leasing underutilized City-owned land to urban farmers, who want to expand food production in Seattle.

The Seattle Food Action Plan lays the groundwork for a just food system in Seattle. Consumers, retailers, distributors and growers all benefit. The actions in the Plan will help get healthier, local food onto the tables and into the lunchboxes of individuals, families and children.

For more information on the City’s food systems work, visit www.seattle.gov/environment/food or my website at http://www.seattle.gov/council/conlin/food_initiative/

Council President Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Sally Bagshaw
Councilmember Tim Burgess
Councilmember Richard Conlin
Councilmember Jean Godden
Councilmember Bruce Harrell
Councilmember Mike O'Brien
Councilmember Tom Rasmussen

Seattle City Council passes South Lake Union rezone
New zoning increases capacity for housing, jobs

SEATTLE - Seattle City Council unanimously passed Council Bill 117603, a package of land use changes that increases the development capacity of the South Lake Union neighborhood to accommodate projected future job growth and housing demands.

"After eight years of collaboration with South Lake Union stakeholders, neighbors and city staff, we're finally implementing the 2004 designation of South Lake Union as an 'Urban Center' and the South Lake Union Neighborhood Plan update," said Councilmember Richard Conlin, Chair of the Special Committee on South Lake Union and the Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee. "By 2031, South Lake Union will have to absorb some 12,000 households and 22,000 jobs to continue to meet its share of future growth. This rezone will take the pressure off other neighborhoods and will shape South Lake Union for the next hundred years," added Conlin.

In addition to allowing greater building heights, the new zoning also imposes development standards and incentives to encourage a diverse urban form, more open space and an improved streetscape. For example:

• Only one tower per block will be permitted on the lake front blocks. Other blocks can have two towers but they must be more widely spaced than anywhere else in the city.
• There are strong street-level design standards and incentives to ensure a lively and vibrant pedestrian environment, such as requiring retail at ground level.
• A series of subarea standards will maintain the character of specific communities through incentives for preservation of landmark properties and existing open spaces.
• A new program that preserves farm land and forest land by transferring development rights into South Lake Union will generate funds for transportation improvements.

"This is the culmination of many years of hard work by many people," said City Council President Sally J. Clark. "Cascade neighbors, the South Lake Union Community Council, businesses large and small, property owners, research institutions, social service and low-income housing providers - they haven't always agreed, but they've all worked to shape a vision and now the rules for development of an amazing place to live and work."
"Imagine our South Lake Union alive with growing businesses a bustling neighborhood, connected to green spaces and great transit," said Councilmember Sally Bagshaw. "We've reached a sound compromise that will work."

The Council modified the legislation submitted by Mayor Mike McGinn by adding requirements for greener buildings, historic preservation and view protection, and strengthening affordable housing provisions. Major amendments approved by the Council include:

• Reducing the allowed height on the Mercer blocks from 240 feet to 160 feet, and reorienting the towers to protect views by limiting east-west width to 105 feet.
• Adding the opportunity for up to four 125 foot residential towers on two blocks between the intersections of Westlake and Dexter and Highland and Galer, where the slope of Queen Anne Hill creates a significant change in the topography. This will replace most of the development capacity lost with lower heights on the Mercer blocks.
• Requiring all new buildings to meet the Gold standard of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program of the US Green Building Council.
• Expanding incentives to encourage preservation of all landmarked structures.
• Raising heights in part of the Cascade neighborhood from 75 feet to 85 feet to allow more flexibility in design.
• Strengthening incentives if developers include a public school in their project.
• Creating permanent setbacks on east-west corridors to protect views of the Space Needle, which was accomplished without reducing development potential.

The Mayor's proposed legislation included a requirement for developers to either include affordable housing in their projects or to contribute to funds for building low income housing if the developer chooses to build above the base height, which is 85 feet in most of the neighborhood. The Council increased the amount of the required fee by 43% for residential projects in hopes of generating more affordable workforce housing in the neighborhood. The fee for commercial projects will increase 33%, phased in over eighteen months.

"We improved the South Lake Union proposal significantly for the public by generating more resources for affordable workforce housing, encouraging the creation of a new public school and establishing a positive precedent for future upzones that will ensure smart growth for Seattle," said Councilmember Tim Burgess.

"I am proud of the work Council did to strengthen the incentives to build more affordable workforce housing in South Lake Union, creating more opportunities for people to live near where they work," said Councilmember Mike O'Brien.

"As we grow denser - and we must - we are growing in a manner that promotes Seattle values: affordability, an inviting pedestrian environment, open space and protected public views, and design standards that will give us a neighborhood worthy of civic pride," said Councilmember Jean Godden.

"The rezone package strikes a sensible balance between developers and the affordability targets by the City. This year, we will begin a 7-year major update to the City's Comprehensive Plan so policy work will continue to address the city's share of affordable housing needs and stimulate the market with smart development," said Councilmember Bruce Harrell. "We want a City where residents can live, work and play. Most importantly, in this process to set a clear vision for the South Lake Union neighborhood, Council was forward-thinking and inclusive."

[View in Council Newsroom]

Council President Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Sally Bagshaw
Councilmember Tim Burgess
Councilmember Richard Conlin
Councilmember Jean Godden
Councilmember Bruce Harrell
Councilmember Nick Licata
Councilmember Mike O'Brien
Councilmember Tom Rasmussen

City Council Town Hall Meeting on Climate Action Tomorrow
Community encouraged to share thoughts and perspectives

Seattle - Join the Seattle City Council for a town hall meeting where Councilmembers will hear directly from the public.  The meeting will be hosted in the context of the City's recently unveiled Climate Action Plan. 

The town hall will open at 6 p.m. with remarks by Councilmembers, followed by a panel discussion to provide the community with an overview of the draft Climate Action Plan, why it's important and how the community can help.  The rest of the meeting will be dedicated to open public comment.  Speakers will not be constrained to addressing climate issues.

WHO: Seattle City Councilmembers, general public

WHAT: Council Town Hall on Climate Action

WHEN: Tuesday, May 7, 6 p.m.

WHERE: University Heights Center
5031 University Way NE, Room 209
Seattle, WA 98105

Read the draft Climate Action Program at http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/climate/

For more information, visit the event flier .PDF here

[View in Council Newsroom]

This is the first of three major actions that the Council will take to reshape and revise Seattle’s policies around trees. My goal is to create a comprehensive set of policies that will be focused on tree stewardship and restoring the urban forest, and to replace our somewhat fragmented approach with one that has a more cohesive direction and clearer ecological orientation.

In July, we will adopt a revised Urban Forest Management Plan, which we will rename the Urban Forest Stewardship Plan. This plan outlines how the City will improve and maintain the urban forest on City land, and how we will encourage and support residents and businesses in planting and taking care of trees on private property. In the first part of 2014 we will consider a land use ordinance outlining regulations for preserving, maintaining, and planting trees on private property.

The Street Tree ordinance covers the more than 200,000 trees that are planted on City rights-of-way. Trees planted and growing in public places are an important part of the urban forest, the health of which provides a substantial contribution to the quality of life in Seattle. The preservation, retention, protection, and planting of trees and shrubs reduces the impacts of storm water runoff and helps to replenish ground water supply; aids in reducing air and noise pollution and energy consumption; sequesters global warming pollution; maintains and increases property values; provides habitat for wildlife; and enhances the aesthetic environment.

Many of these trees were planted by private individuals, while others were planted by the City. No matter who planted them, they exist on property held in trust for the public by the City. Because of this, they share a unique legal situation: the City has regulatory authority over these trees, but private property owners who abut the right-of-way have responsibility for maintaining any tree not planted by the city. One of the purposes of this ordinance is to clarify what this shared arrangement means and how the City manages it.

The ordinance specifies that “No person shall destroy, kill, injure, mutilate, or deface a street tree or vegetation in a public place by any means.” It also requires that “No person shall plant, remove, or perform major pruning on any street tree without first obtaining a Street Use permit from the Department of Transportation…” This regulation defines the core relationship between the City and property owners.

The ordinance also provides that only tree species approved in the Department of Transportation’s tree list or by the Director may be planted as street trees. It requires that major pruning of street trees conform to a set of standards designed to protect the health of the trees, and that pruning must be done by registered Tree Service Providers, who have been trained to meet these standards.

The ordinance sets out a City policy to retain and preserve street trees whenever possible. Removing street trees is only allowed if they are hazards to public health or safety, are in poor condition, or conflict with construction. Street trees that are removed must be replaced, and public notice is required before the tree is removed unless there is an imminent danger to public health or safety.

Private property owners are responsible for maintaining street trees and other vegetation unless the Department of Transportation has taken on maintenance responsibility. They are required to be pruned to prevent obstructing signals, lights, and views of traffic at intersections, with a minimum height clearance of 8 feet above the sidewalk and 14 feet above the street. Property owners can be required to remove trees that are hazardous or causing unsafe conditions.

The new Street Tree Ordinance is a step forward in the restoration and maintenance of Seattle’s urban forest. It will improve both the health and condition of our streets, and create new assets that will make our neighborhoods healthier and safer.

Sound Transit Link Light Rail train

On Thursday, April 25^th, the Sound Transit Board approved a final plan for the route for East Link through Bellevue. East Link runs from downtown Seattle to Redmond via the I-90 Bridge, and is one of three extensions currently underway for the Sound Transit light rail system. The final plan is the end product of a collaborative process between Sound Transit Board members and staff and City of Bellevue Councilmembers and staff. I served as one of the three Sound Transit Board members on the negotiating team.

The East Link negotiations begin sixteen months ago, when Sound Transit and Bellevue resolved their differences about the core route through Bellevue with an agreement that had three major components:

1. Instead of the surface route preferred by Sound Transit, there would be a tunnel in downtown Bellevue.
2. Most of the rest of the route would follow Sound Transit’s preferred alignment, with some adjustments.
3. Because the tunnel is more expensive than a surface alternative, Bellevue would provide $100 million in funding and work with Sound Transit to identify design elements that would reduce the cost of the route through Bellevue by an additional $60 million.

This turned out to be a difficult task. The ultimate agreement, approved unanimously approved by the Sound Transit Board and Bellevue Council, will reduce costs by an estimated $30 million to $53 million. Bellevue will continue to be responsible to provide the rest of the $60 million or secure additional cost savings.

The negotiations were difficult, challenging, but ultimately cooperative. The core interest from the Sound Transit side was to maintain fast, reliable and convenient service for riders. Bellevue Councilmembers also had to consider concerns raised by neighbors along the route about alternatives that reduced costs, worked for Sound Transit but impacted nearby residences.

The changes adopted include a fully at-grade alignment along 112^th Avenue Southeast south of downtown. As the route moves north from South Bellevue Way and turns east onto 112^th Avenue Southeast it will pass beneath a raised section of 112^th at Southeast 15^th Street to reach the west side of the roadway. A street-level crossing of Southeast Fourth Street will allow only emergency vehicle access into the Surrey Downs neighborhood at that location. The City of Bellevue had earlier proposed a trench alignment along 112^th. The updated alignment is estimated to save $2 million to $4 million.

Trains will travel through downtown Bellevue in a tunnel. This plan replaces an underground station with a daylight station located slightly further north as the tunnel turns east onto Sixth Avenue and transitions to an elevated alignment in preparation to cross I-405. This change will save an estimated $19 million to $33 million.

Other refinements identified through the process will save an estimated $9 million to $16 million. Sound Transit’s work to advance engineering and secure permits will move forward under City of Bellevue land use changes that make the light rail extension a permitted use.

Along Bellevue Way, Sound Transit and Bellevue considered moving the light rail alignment from a trench north of the South Bellevue Park and Ride near the Winters House to an at grade alignment, as well as the possibility of coordinating construction of a new city HOV lane on Bellevue Way with the light rail project. The option would have required moving Bellevue Way to the west and constructing a retaining wall between the road and the Enatai neighborhood. However, the final decision was to keep the Link alignment in a trench. The City of Bellevue will independently evaluate and be responsible for any future construction of an HOV lane.

The outcome was not exactly what either side had hoped for. Some ideas turned out to be not as workable or save as much as had been hoped. Others were viewed positively by one party but not by the other. The ‘road over rail’ alternative and surface crossing at SE 4^th create a more efficient system for light rail, but keeping the cut at the Winters House was not our preferred option.

The 6^th Avenue surface station was the major issue. We were concerned about the quality of the station and whether moving it would reduce pedestrian access and ridership. Ultimately, the Board decided that we could live with the compromise on design. After carefully reviewing the walkshed around the station, we concluded that there would be little or no impact on ridership. This alternative also shortens construction time, and Bellevue agreed to invest $5 million in improving the pedestrian experience. These positives provided significant balance that reduced my initial resistance to this station alternative.

Ultimately, the Board agreed to this package because of the positive elements included, but also because the formal approval from Bellevue clears the way for construction to begin without the threat of litigation and delay. The negotiations forged a spirit of cooperation and mutual investment that will keep this project on track to completion. Property acquisition can begin immediately, construction can start in 2015, and trains can be operating by 2023. Being able to keep that timetable was the critical factor in persuading me to approve a package that would not have been my first choice. By 2030, East Link will carry 50,000 riders a day, creating a transit system that will reduce vehicle traffic and better integrate travel options around the region. That’s worth making some modest compromises!

East Link documents including maps of the alignment are available at http://projects.soundtransit.org/Projects-Home/East-Link-Project.xml

Councilmember Tom Rasmussen
Council President Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Nick Licata
Councilmember Richard Conlin

City Council to host second meeting on micro-housing developments
Public invited to share feedback with Councilmembers

SEATTLE - City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen today confirmed that a second public meeting on micro-housing developments will be held. The meeting will be on May 6 at 6:00 p.m. at Seattle First Baptist Church on First Hill.

The first meeting was held in April in response to questions and concerns raised by residents of several Seattle neighborhoods where micro-housing units are being constructed.

The purpose of the second meeting is to hear from neighborhood representatives who will give their views and recommendations on the micro-housing projects. Representatives of the developers who build micro-housing projects will be present to describe the projects and the market for this housing alternative and their response to concerns they are hearing from the community.

In addition to Councilmember Rasmussen co-sponsors of the meeting include Councilmembers Nick Licata, Sally J. Clark and Richard Conlin.

Councilmember Tom Rasmussen stated: "A portion of the meeting will include an opportunity for the public to provide comments on what they have heard during the meeting and to provide recommendations on what, if any, regulations should be enacted for this unique type of housing."

WHAT: Micro-housing development discussion

WHEN: Monday, May 6, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

WHERE: Seattle First Baptist Church
Fellowship Hall (downstairs), 1111 Harvard Ave. (on First Hill)

WHO: Seattle City Councilmembers and Council staff
Representatives from communities and neighborhoods
Representatives of micro-housing developers

"I want to see more affordable housing built in Seattle along with our residential neighborhoods accommodating housing options that contribute to their character," stated Councilmember Nick Licata, chair of the Council's Housing, Human Services, Health and Culture Committee. "I think both objectives can be accomplished and I look forward to this forum providing an opportunity to hear suggestions on how to fulfill both."

"I've visited some of these micro-units," said Council President Sally J. Clark. "They provide decent, often attractive housing for a range of people who don't need or want a lot of space. They're also appearing in greater numbers and more rapidly than some in the surrounding neighborhood want. This forum can provide a good airing of people's support, concerns and ideas for appropriate regulation."

"Micro-housing can be an affordable option for people wanting to live close to work or urban amenities," said Councilmember Richard Conlin, chair of the Council's Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee. "They're good for the environment and they can be good for neighborhoods too if we can find ways to preserve their affordability while ensuring that these developments reflect both the letter and the spirit of our land use laws. I look forward to working with stakeholders and the Executive to craft legislation to accomplish these goals."

Background

In recent years, micro-housing has emerged as an increasingly common residential building product in Seattle. Since 2006, DPD has received permit applications for 44 projects. Those completed projects have a total capacity of about 2,000 people. In 2012, DPD received applications for approximately 15 micro-housing projects.

Micro-housing projects are generally comprised of apartment or townhome-style dwelling units, each of which contains several (often seven or eight) smaller living quarters clustered around a shared kitchen and laundry area. Each of the smaller living spaces within the dwelling unit is leased to an individual tenant. These spaces are typically 150 to 200 square feet in size and equipped with a kitchenette (refrigerator, microwave, sink) and private bathroom. Rent levels vary by location but are often in the range of $600 to $700 per month.

Developers have found Seattle offers a strong market for micro-housing, with completed projects leasing up quickly. Tenants often include students, service industry workers, and individuals who divide their time between Seattle and a residence in another location. Geographically, 52 percent of the projects are located on Capitol Hill and 30 percent in the University District, with the remainder spread throughout the city.

Because micro-housing is not well-defined in City codes it also may not be adequately regulated. Some of the issues and concerns the public has raised about Seattle's growing stock of micro-housing include:

• Within micro-housing projects, DPD currently counts the several small living quarters that surround a common kitchen and laundry area as a single dwelling unit (e.g., one apartment with eight bedrooms and eight bathrooms). As a result, most micro-housing projects do not meet the threshold for design review. Normally the design review process also provides opportunities for neighbors to comment and offer input on proposed projects.
• DPD's current practice of counting multiple living quarters within a micro-housing project as a single dwelling unit also complicates efforts to measure progress toward adopted growth targets in neighborhoods where micro-housing is located. It also can affect whether a proposed micro-housing project is subject to environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
• Micro-housing may not be an appropriate building type for all multifamily residential zones.
• Micro-housing projects are generally designed to house 30 to 60 individuals; however, on-site parking is rarely provided.
• The high cost of this housing on a price per square foot basis.

[View in Council Newsroom]

City Councilmembers to vote on gun safety public health funding

Seattle - The City Council's Government Performance and Finance Committee will consider tomorrow morning an amendment to budget legislation to fund a gun safety public health package. According to earlier news reports, the City of Seattle would be the first city in the nation to provide direct funding for basic research into the causes and effects of gun violence.

WHAT: Discussion and vote on public health gun safety package

WHEN: TOMORROW - Wednesday, May 1, 9:30 a.m.
(see agenda, item #4; timing is approximate)

WHERE: City Council Chambers
Seattle City Hall
600 Fourth Ave, 2nd floor

WHO: Government Performance and Finance Committee members

Partnering with the University of Washington's Harborview Medical Center and public health agencies, the $370,500 package of initiatives would spur research on gun violence and improve the City and County's response to mental health crises resulting from tragedies.

[View in Council Newsroom]

Councilmember Richard Conlin

City Council Adopts Food Action Plan
Plan aims to increase access to healthy food, support local food production and strengthen local economy

SEATTLE - Seattle City Council today adopted the Food Action Plan, sending a clear signal that a healthy food system is a priority for the City. Highlights of the Action Plan include:

• Expanding the Farm to Childcare program, which brings healthy food from local farmers into childcare sites, trains child care providers on nutrition and cooking and brings kids to local farms.
• Expanding the Fresh Bucks program, which increases the affordability of healthy food for low-income Seattle residents.
• Growing the successful P-Patch community gardening program, which will expand to 90 gardens throughout Seattle by the end of 2013.
• Leasing underutilized City-owned land to urban farmers, who want to expand food production in Seattle.

"The Seattle Food Action Plan lays the groundwork for a just food system in Seattle," said Councilmember Richard Conlin. "Consumers, retailers, distributors and growers all benefit. The actions in the Plan will help get healthier, local food onto the tables and into the lunchboxes of families and children."

"Improving access to healthy food that comes from local growers is essential for healthy people and a healthy economy," said Mayor McGinn. "This Action Plan provides a strong path forward for that work."

Seattle's Office of Sustainability and Environment (OSE) developed the Food Action Plan in 2012, building on the work of the Local Food Action Initiative, passed by the City Council in 2008. In developing the plan, OSE engaged grassroots groups, food system leaders and business and community members from across the city. The recommendations in this plan will improve public health, strengthen the economy and enhance our environment.

"Food touches each of us in important ways," said Jill Simmons, Director of the Office of Sustainability and Environment. "Building a sustainable food system - one where people have access to affordable and healthy food that is sustainably produced - is critical to advancing Seattle's climate protection, social justice and economic development goals."

The Food Action Plan identifies a suite of strategies and actions to achieve the following:

• Increase Access to Healthy Food: All Seattle residents have enough to eat and access to affordable, local, healthy, sustainable and culturally-appropriate food.
• Grow Local: It is easy to grow food in Seattle and in our region, for personal use or for business purposes.
• Strengthen the Local Economy: Businesses that produce, process, distribute, and sell local and healthy food grow and thrive in Seattle.
• Prevent Food Waste: Food-related waste is prevented, reused, or recycled.

For more information on the City's food systems work, visit: www.seattle.gov/environment/food.

[View in Council Newsroom]

This action completes eight years of work to implement the 2004 designation of South Lake Union as an “Urban Center” in the Seattle Comprehensive Plan. Urban Centers are a key element in the region’s implementation of the Growth Management Act (GMA). They are intended to have high levels of housing and employment growth, in contrast to the rest of the City, which is intended to grow more gradually. Ensuring that South Lake Union and other Urban Centers can accommodate Seattle’s continued growth will take pressure off other neighborhoods that would have to absorb greater numbers of residents than are currently planned.

In 2004 South Lake Union was assigned a twenty year growth target of 8,000 households and 12,000 jobs, approximately 17% of the City’s household growth and 19% of the employment growth for that period. The planning horizon for this rezone extends out twenty years, and by 2031 South Lake Union would have to absorb some 12,000 households and 22,000 jobs in order to continue to meet its share of future growth. Decisions made on this rezone will shape the neighborhood for the next hundred years.

The rezone prepares the way for South Lake Union to become an integrated part of the downtown core and gets rid of the current zoning that fosters ‘breadbox’ buildings occupying full blocks. While allowing greater height in the form of towers, the new zoning also imposes development standards and incentives to encourage a diverse urban form, more open space and an enlivened streetscape. For example:

• Only one tower per block would be permitted on the Mercer blocks. Other blocks can have two towers but they must be more widely spaced than anywhere else in the city.
• There are strong street-level design standards and incentives to ensure a lively and vibrant pedestrian environment such as requiring retail at ground level.
• A series of subarea standards will maintain the character of specific communities through incentives for preservation of landmark properties and existing open spaces.
• A new program that preserves farm and forest lands by transferring development rights into South Lake Union will also generate funds for transportation improvements.

Much of the public discussion centered on increases in building heights. Tower heights will be 400 feet on Denny, matching the zoning on the south side, and will be 240 feet in the central area of the neighborhood. Towers are only permitted for residential development. On the Mercer blocks, between Mercer and Valley, towers will be limited to 160 feet. In the southwest portion of the neighborhood, heights will generally be limited to 85 feet to protect the flight path for Kenmore Air, and there are lower heights in the Cascade neighborhood and in the blocks nearest Lake Union.

Major amendments approved by the Council include:

• Reducing the allowed height on the Mercer blocks from 240 feet to 160 feet, and reorienting the towers to protect views by limiting east-west width to 105 feet.
• Adding the opportunity for three or four 125 foot residential towers on two blocks between Westlake and Dexter and Highland and Galer, where the slope of Queen Anne Hill creates a significant change in the topography. This will replace most of the development capacity lost with lower heights on the Mercer blocks.
• Requiring all new buildings to meet the Gold standard of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program of the US Green Building Council.
• Expanding incentives to encourage preservation of all landmarked structures.
• Raising heights in part of the Cascade neighborhood from 75 feet to 85 feet to allow more flexibility in design.
• Strengthening the incentives to developers if they include a school in their project.
• Creating permanent setbacks on east-west corridors to protect views of the Space Needle, which was accomplished without reducing development potential.

The Council also made modifications to the affordable housing incentive program. The Mayor’s proposed legislation created a requirement for developers to either include affordable housing in their projects or to contribute to funds for building low income housing if the developer wants to build above the base height, which is 85 feet in most of the neighborhood. The Council increased the amount of the required fee by about 30%, in hopes that this would stimulate more affordable housing in developments. If fully implemented, this could provide 10 to 20% of the City’s goal for affordable housing in the neighborhood. The challenge in creating these kinds of provisions is to balance the goal of providing affordable housing against the risk of decreased development. Raising the cost of residential development too much could cause developers to build offices instead, or even to decline to take advantage of the new zoning and only build less risky smaller developments.

Getting to the “right” fee amount is incredibly tricky, which is why I favored maintaining the Mayor’s proposed fee of $15.15 per gross square foot for residential units — the same as what developers pay to build across the street in Denny Triangle and downtown. This would put SLU on an equal playing field for development in the short-term and give Council time over the next few months to conduct a rigorous analysis of options for overhauling all our incentive programs, not just for SLU but also other neighborhoods with incentive zoning programs. However, a majority of Councilmembers believed that some increase over the proposed level could be included in this legislation, and we ultimately came to an agreement on a compromise package that can later be modified as we study the issue further.

There is general agreement that the incentive zoning included in this legislation is only one part of the answer. Recognizing this, the Mayor has convened a task force of stakeholders to analyze other tools to increase the supply of affordable housing and make recommendations on a comprehensive program that would consider not only South Lake Union, but the entire City. The Council will adopt a resolution that complements this by creating an Expert Review Panel to fully examine options for revising and expanding the incentive program. Ultimately, getting more housing built – affordable or market-rate — is the most critical step in making sure that all residents have a place to live, and the rezone is a major accomplishment in reaching that goal.

The Council will also adopt two additional resolutions as part of the South Lake Union package. One accepts the recommendations of the Council’s Race and Social Justice (RSJ) analysis of the rezone, and creates a work plan for job training and placement as well as actions to strengthen community resources for low and moderate income residents. The second resolution proposes several additional work plan items to follow up on the rezone, including providing view protection from Lake Union Park, funding a historic preservation survey, and advancing a review of transportation improvements.

Cities all over the country are looking at South Lake Union with envy. Seattle is incredibly fortunate in having the confluence of private and public investment that is creating a new neighborhood and providing jobs and housing for our future. While in the last two recessions, Seattle lagged a year or more behind the national recovery, this time we are leading the way. This legislation is a thoughtful and careful action that will enable Seattle to continue to prosper and will allow South Lake Union to be the great Urban Center envisioned in the South Lake Union Neighborhood Plan.

Earth Day, April 22, was a good day for a unanimous Mayor and Council to join Senators Cantwell and Murray and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community in opposing a proposal before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that would approve the commercial production of genetically engineered salmon that have had genes from other species inserted into their DNA to make them grow faster.

Senators Murray and Cantwell, the two Alaska Senators and Alaska’s Representative are part of a bipartisan coalition that supports legislation that would ban the genetically modified fish or require it to be labeled as transgenic if the FDA approves it. Washington and Alaska lawmakers are reacting to the possible threat to the livelihood of Northwest and Alaska fishermen. They are also concerned about the potential health concerns relating to the consumption of genetically engineered salmon and the threat to wild salmon if these fish get loose and become established in the wild.

The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community is also alarmed about this proposal. Brian Cladoosby, Chairman of the Swinomish Tribal Community, in a comment letter opposing the proposed FDA action, stated: “The Tribe is also concerned that genetically engineered salmon pose a grave threat to the environment and to the health of the general population. We strongly believe that it would be an error for the FDA to accept the unsupported “guarantee” that all genetically engineered fish can be contained and not adversely impact people and the environment. History has shown that fish raised in aquaculture facilities can – and will – escape. It is also likely that genetically engineered fish would eventually be raised in open ocean net pens because nearly all commercial salmon production occurs in such pens. Farmed salmon routinely escape.”

The proposal, by AquaBounty Technologies Inc., is to alter Atlantic salmon with genes taken from the Pacific Chinook salmon and the eel-like Ocean Pout. Adding these growth genes from other species would cause the fish to produce growth hormones continuously, allowing it to grow bigger and faster than natural salmon.

Seattle, as the home of much of the Alaska fishing fleet, has a direct economic stake in the continued health of the fishing industry, which this proposal threatens in several ways. We also, of course, share the concerns about human health and the potential degradation of the environment and threat to the survival of endangered wild salmon.

More than 400,000 fishermen, environmentalists, food safety advocates and others have written to the FDA with concerns about the FDA’s preliminary finding that this project should be allowed to proceed. As a fallback, many commenters have suggested that, if the FDA allows the project to proceed, the company should be required to label the fish as genetically engineered when they are sold to consumers. In its resolution, the City also endorsed federal labeling of genetically engineered food and animals.

In the European Union, genetically modified organisms are tightly regulated, required to be labeled, and often banned from human consumption. In the United States there are fewer restrictions on genetic modifications and no labeling requirements. This fall Washington voters will have the opportunity to vote on an initiative requiring labeling of GMO food sold in the State.

Council President Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Sally Bagshaw
Councilmember Tim Burgess
Councilmember Richard Conlin
Councilmember Jean Godden
Councilmember Bruce Harrell
Councilmember Nick Licata
Councilmember Mike O'Brien
Councilmember Tom Rasmussen

City Council Strengthens Affordable Housing Program
in South Lake Union
Consensus built around the need for more affordable workforce housing in the neighborhood

Seattle -- The Seattle City Council South Lake Union Committee voted unanimously on an amendment to produce more workforce affordable housing in the South Lake Union (SLU) neighborhood by strengthening the incentive zoning program. The agreement is a compromise between two existing amendments offered by Councilmembers, which were introduced in last week's SLU Committee meeting. Consensus was built around the need to strengthen the incentive zoning program without discouraging development.

"Today's decision is an important, modest step toward securing more affordable workforce housing in South Lake Union, so that people at all income levels who work in the neighborhood have a chance to live there," said Councilmember Mike O'Brien. "This is a community of opportunity where the city is investing over $500 million in public infrastructure, and I think it only fair that the benefits of this redevelopment are shared more broadly."

The legislation to strengthen incentive zoning includes a 43% increase in the residential pay-in-lieu price (from $15.15 to $21.68), effectively immediately, and a 33% increase in the commercial price that will be phased in over eighteen months (to $29.71). These prices are paid on a percent of square-foot basis in exchange for additional height and building capacity. Collectively, these provisions will produce an estimated 733 units of workforce housing in and near the neighborhood. The original legislation would have created an estimated 406 units.

"After collaborating with local businesses and affordable housing advocates, we crafted a sensible solution that goes far beyond the Mayor's status quo proposal and brings affordable workforce housing to the City's hottest real estate market," said Councilmember Tim Burgess. "Now many more nurses, school teachers, construction workers and other working families can call this booming neighborhood home."

"The Council's adjustments in this legislation and the overall commitment to seeing workforce-priced units actually built in these developments will  help more working people find homes in South Lake Union near jobs and transit," said Council President Sally J. Clark. "That's good for employees and good for employers."
              
"The new Affordable Housing Amendment reflects a collaborative and inclusive decision-making process with developers and affordable housing advocates. The Council applied the Race and Social Justice Initiative lens to ensure we were having an honest debate on equity. Council honored its promise of delivering on-site affordable workforce units in this neighborhood," said Councilmember Bruce Harrell.

"These amendments strengthen one of our tools to generate more workforce housing in South Lake Union," said Councilmember Richard Conlin, chair of the Special Committee on South Lake Union. "I look forward to working with stakeholders and housing experts to both refine our incentive zoning program and also increase the supply of affordable housing city-wide."

"It all goes back to why so many people come to Seattle -- they come because we are a city of inclusive neighborhoods, not just a copy of someplace else. A strengthened incentive zoning program reaffirms our commitment to inclusive and affordable neighborhoods," said Councilmember Jean Godden.

"These amendments, while not a bold leap, are reasonable steps in the right direction. This is only a modest beginning for making housing in Seattle more affordable for average folks," said Councilmember Nick Licata. "We cannot continue to see workers forced to move ever further from the city and drive long distances to work here. The solution is clearly to require developers to provide substantially more affordable housing."

The Council last updated the incentive zoning program in 2008, establishing the goal of producing 5% of affordable workforce residential units in the neighborhood of the development. The Council will also consider similar fee adjustments to the downtown incentive housing program to take effect in 2014.

"Even with this step, we need to go further by engaging in the process laid out in Resolution 31444 to review and update of Seattle's incentive zoning and other affordable housing programs, so we can begin to bridge the gap between our affordable housing needs and the amount we are currently producing," said Councilmember Mike O'Brien.

City Council plans to vote on the full South Lake Union rezone proposal at the May 6 Full Council meeting at 2:00pm in Council Chambers.

[View in Council Newsroom]

Councilmember Richard Conlin

City Opposes Genetically Engineered Salmon

Seattle -- Seattle City Council adopted a resolution today opposing the commercial production of genetically engineered (GE) salmon.  A proposal is currently before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that would allow GE salmon commercial production. The Mayor concurred with the resolution.

The City's action supports a bipartisan coalition, supported by Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, which is seeking to ban the genetically engineered fish or require it to be labeled as transgenic. More than 400,000 fishermen, environmentalists, food safety advocates and others have written to the FDA with concerns about the FDA's preliminary finding that this project should be allowed to proceed.

"This is a threat to the livelihood of Northwest and Alaska fishermen," said Councilmember Richard Conlin, sponsor of the resolution. "I'm also deeply concerned about potential health concerns related to consuming genetically engineered salmon.  That's why we felt the need to act."

AquaBounty Technologies Inc., is seeking permission from the FDA to alter Atlantic salmon with genes taken from the Pacific Chinook salmon and the eel-like Ocean Pout. Adding these growth genes from other species causes fish to produce growth hormones continuously, allowing them to grow larger and faster than natural salmon.

The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community is also alarmed about this proposal. Chairman Brian Cladoosby, said, "Genetically engineered salmon pose a grave threat to the environment and to the health of the general population. We strongly believe that it would be an error for the FDA to accept the unsupported "guarantee" that all genetically engineered fish can be contained and not adversely impact people, the wild salmon species and the environment. "

"Salmon are an important part of Seattle's environment, our heritage, and our economy," said Mayor Mike McGinn. "I stand with fishermen, environmentalists and food safety advocates to protect salmon and the public from genetic modification."

[View in Council Newsroom]

Council President Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Sally Bagshaw
Councilmember Tim Burgess
Councilmember Richard Conlin
Councilmember Jean Godden
Councilmember Bruce Harrell
Councilmember Nick Licata
Councilmember Mike O'Brien
Councilmember Tom Rasmussen

City Council to host Town Hall Meeting on Climate Action
Community encouraged to share thoughts and perspectives

Seattle -- Join the Seattle City Council for a town hall meeting where Councilmembers will hear directly from the public.  The meeting will be hosted in the context of the City's recently unveiled Climate Action Plan. 

The town hall will open at 6 p.m. with remarks by Councilmembers, followed by a panel discussion to provide the community with an overview of the draft Climate Action Plan, why it's important and how the community can help.  The rest of the meeting will be dedicated to open public comment.  Speakers will not be constrained to addressing climate issues.

WHO:             Seattle City Councilmembers, general public

WHAT:           Council Town Hall on Climate Action

WHEN:          Tuesday, May 7, 6 p.m.

WHERE:        University Heights Center
                     5031 University Way NE, Room 209
                     Seattle, WA 98105

Read the draft Climate Action Program at http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/climate/

For more information, visit the event flier .PDF here

[View in Council Newsroom]

Councilmember Mike O'Brien
Council President Sally Clark
Councilmember Richard Conlin

City Council Introduces Climate Action Plan on Earth Day
Plan provides pathway to carbon neutrality by 2050

Seattle -- Seattle City Council introduced Seattle's Climate Action Plan today, outlining the City's path to meeting its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050. The Plan focuses on three sectors where the City of Seattle can have the greatest influence in reducing carbon emissions: transportation and land use, building energy and solid waste. The Plan also includes a section on how the City should prepare for the impacts of climate disruption we currently experience, as well a section on actions individuals can take to reduce emissions through purchasing decisions.

"Taking climate action is not about austerity. It is about creating great places to live, work and play today and for future generations," said Councilmember Mike O'Brien, Chair of the Energy and Environment Committee. "This Climate Action Plan provides a vision for a city that is vibrant, economically prosperous and socially just." 

"The strong actions in this plan are evidence of the high value that the Seattle community places on sustainability," said Jill Simmons, Director of the Office of Sustainability and Environment. "Throughout the planning process, we heard from individuals and organizations who encouraged us to be bold and think long-term."

Seattle's Office of Sustainability and Environment has been developing the Climate Action Plan since 2011, engaging grassroots sustainability groups, environmental leaders and business and community members from across the city. The City also formed Technical Advisory Groups in each sector addressed in the Plan and convened a Green Ribbon Commission to recommend specific climate actions.

"With its natural beauty, strong economy and commitment to equity, Seattle is an amazing place to live. The Climate Action Plan lays out clear path to ensuring Seattle remains a great place to live and raise a family, while also doing its part to combat climate change," said Doris Koo, Co-Chair of the Seattle Green Ribbon Commission. 
"Even before the first Earth Day in 1970, Seattleites have taken pride in our city's commitment to protecting the environment through innovative thinking, hard work and zeal," said Seattle City Council President Sally J. Clark. "I'm proud we can introduce our Climate Action Plan on Earth Day, 2013, as yet another milestone in our city's dedication to making a difference for the planet."

The Climate Action Plan includes specific short- and long-term actions the City needs to meet its ambitious goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. For example, the transportation sector accounts for 40% of Seattle's greenhouse gas emissions, but the biggest challenge Seattle faces to reducing emissions in this sector is funding. The plan calls for new funding sources like extending the Bridging the Gap levy and securing local authority for a motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) to help improve bus service and reliability, invest in improvements that make it easier and safer to walk or bike and take steps to build out the region's light rail system. The plan also calls for supporting the adoption of low carbon vehicles and fuels.

In the building energy section, the Plan calls for accelerating Seattle's work to make energy use more visible to consumers by switching to smart meters, providing better energy performance information to building owners and users and generally helping people better understand and manage their energy consumption. Additionally, the Plan calls for getting the right mix of policies and incentives to spur retrofitting in Seattle's housing stock and commercial buildings.

"We have already seen the impact of a changing climate. We must act now to slow down the rate of climate change, and to respond to the issues as our climate is affected," said Councilmember Richard Conlin. "Together we can rise to this great moral challenge, take practical steps in the right direction, inspire others to emulate our example and build a positive future for Seattle."

"Seattle residents and businesses are leaders in the fight against climate change," said Mayor Mike McGinn. "I appreciate the hard work done by our citizen committee to craft recommendations for our updated plan and look forward to the Council's process for adopting the strongest possible Climate Action Plan. I thank Councilmembers O'Brien and Conlin for their leadership in this effort."

The Climate Action Plan will be discussed in two Energy and Environment Committee meetings--Tuesday, April 23 and Tuesday, May 14--and will also be the topic of a public town hall on Tuesday, May 7 from 6:00pm to 8:00pm at University Heights Center.

The Climate Action Plan can be viewed online at: http://www.seattle.gov/environment/climate_plan.htm

[View in Council Newsroom]

Councilmember Richard Conlin

Councilmember Conlin Encourages Participation at Happiness Open House

Seattle -- Seattle City Councilmember Richard Conlin will sponsor a Happiness Open House on Monday, April 22.  The open house will be hosted by The Happiness Initiative and Make it Happy, two social initiatives devoted to spreading happiness as a means to improve the world.  The groups will share their findings on Seattle's collective happiness in an interactive art installation, which will ultimately result in a report containing specific policy recommendations for creating sustainable happiness.

Councilmember Conlin's blog post on Seattle's first Happiness Report Card is viewable here.
                        
WHAT:
Happiness Open House

WHEN:
5 - 7 p.m., Monday, April 22

WHERE:
Seattle City Hall
Bertha Knight Landes Room, First Floor
600 Fourth Ave, Seattle 98104

WHO:
Seattle City Councilmember Richard Conlin, Make It Happy, The Happiness Initiative

[View in Council Newsroom]

Sound Transit will only contribute $75,000 to this design phase, with the City of Redmond contributing the remainder of the $1.9 million cost. Most of Redmond’s costs, in turn, are being funded by a federal grant, with the City only kicking in about $200,000.

This bridge was evaluated as part of the environmental review for East Link, but is not funded as part of the East Link project. Once the project reaches the 60% design level and construction costs can be estimated accurately, the partners will seek to identify funding to complete the bridge construction. If that funding can be identified, the bridge will be constructed by Sound Transit as part of East Link.

It’s exciting to see more options developed to connect the north side of 520 to Sound Transit’s light rail line on the south side, especially options that focus on pedestrian and bicycle access. The result will be a more attractive travel package for light rail passengers in this important employment center.

The two sides of the freeway are currently linked several blocks west of the Overlake Station at a major interchange where 148^th Avenue NE crosses the freeway, but this is not a very hospitable environment for pedestrians and bicycles, requiring them to cross access ramps that are part of the interchange. Microsoft funded another multi-modal bridge several blocks east of the Overlake Village Station, going diagonally across 520 from NE 31^st Street on the south to NE 36^th Street on the north side.

While these two crossings make pedestrian and bicycle crossings possible, they do not make them as attractive and easy to use as would be optimum. That’s where the Overlake Village Bridge comes in, making it possible to exit the train and cross directly to the north side when leaving the station. And, since it connects to the east-west bike/ped path on the north side of 520, which will run all the way into Seattle, it also makes it easy to get to other nearby destinations on foot or by bike, and facilitates mixed commutes like taking transit in the morning and returning home by bike.

This is the same type of crossing that is now in development at the Northgate Station to get across I-5, but the Overlake Village Bridge will be less expensive, as the distance is much shorter. And, on the planning horizon is another possible bike/ped bridge, connecting to the next light rail station, at the Overlake Transit Center, not far down the road. The City of Redmond and Sound Transit are thinking proactively about how to knit this community, sundered by SR 520, together to make it possible for light rail to be fully integrated with pedestrian and bicycle traffic in a truly transit oriented model.

Councilmember Tom Rasmussen
Council President Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Nick Licata
Councilmember Richard Conlin

City Council to discuss micro-housing developments Thursday 
Public invited to share feedback with Councilmembers and City staff

SEATTLE -- Seattle City Councilmembers Tom Rasmussen, Nick Licata, Sally J. Clark and Richard Conlin today reminded Seattleites about a public meeting on micro-housing developments on April 18, in response to questions and concerns raised in several Seattle neighborhoods.

"Several Councilmembers and I are sponsoring a two hour meeting to review what is occurring due to the strong interest and concern we are hearing in the neighborhoods," Councilmember Tom Rasmussen stated. "A portion of the meeting will include an opportunity for the public to provide comments and recommendations on what, if any, regulations should be enacted for this unique type of housing."

In addition to a public comment opportunity, representatives from the Department of Planning and Development (DPD), the Office of Housing (OH) and City Council staff will discuss Seattle's recent experience with micro-housing. 

WHAT:             Micro-housing development discussion

WHEN:            Thursday, April 18, 11:30 a.m. -- 1:30 p.m.
                        Members of the public are welcome to bring their lunch

WHERE:           Council Chambers, second floor
                        Seattle City Council, 600 Fourth Ave

WHO:              Seattle City Councilmembers and Council staff
                        Representatives from Seattle's Dept. of Planning and Development
                        Representatives from Seattle's Office of Housing

"I want to see more affordable housing built in Seattle along with our residential neighborhoods accommodating housing options that contribute to their character," stated Councilmember Nick Licata, chair of the Council's Housing, Human Services, Health and Culture Committee. "I think both objectives can be accomplished and I look forward to this forum providing an opportunity to hear suggestions on how to fulfill both."

"I've visited some of these micro-units," said Council President Sally J. Clark. "They provide decent, often attractive housing for a range of people who don't need or want a lot of space. They're also appearing in greater numbers and more rapidly than some in the surrounding neighborhood want. This forum can provide a good airing of people's support, concerns and ideas for appropriate regulation."

"Microhousing can be an affordable option that works well with neighborhoods," said Councilmember Richard Conlin, chair of the Council's Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee. "However, it does not fit neatly into Seattle's land use code, and we are looking for input on code improvements that will preserve the affordability while ensuring that these developments reflect both the letter and the spirit of our land use laws."

Background

In recent years, micro-housing has emerged as an increasingly common residential building product in Seattle. Since 2006, DPD has received permit applications for 48 projects. Once all those projects are complete, it is estimated they will yield residential capacity for more than 2,300 people. In 2012, DPD received applications for approximately 15 micro-housing projects.

Micro-housing projects are generally comprised of apartment or townhome-style dwelling units, each of which contains several (often seven or eight) smaller living quarters clustered around a shared kitchen and laundry area. Each of the smaller living spaces within the dwelling unit is leased to an individual tenant. These spaces are typically 150 to 200 square feet in size and equipped with a kitchenette (refrigerator, microwave, sink) and private bathroom. Rent levels vary by location but are often in the range of $600 to $700 per month.

Developers have found Seattle offers a strong market for micro-housing, with completed projects leasing up quickly. Tenants often include students, service industry workers, and individuals who divide their time between Seattle and a residence in another location.  Geographically, about 40 percent of the projects are located on Capitol Hill and 25 percent in the University District, with the remainder spread throughout the city.

Because micro-housing is not well-defined in City codes it also may not be adequately regulated. Some of the issues and concerns the public has raised about Seattle's growing stock of micro-housing include:

• Within micro-housing projects, DPD currently counts the several small living quarters that surround a common kitchen and laundry area as a single dwelling unit (e.g., one apartment with eight bedrooms and eight bathrooms). As a result, most micro-housing projects do not meet the threshold for design review. Normally the design review process also provides opportunities for neighbors to comment and offer input on proposed projects.
• DPD's current practice of counting multiple living quarters within a micro-housing project as a single dwelling unit also complicates efforts to measure progress toward adopted growth targets in neighborhoods where micro-housing is located. It also can affect whether a proposed micro-housing project is subject to environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
• Micro-housing may not be an appropriate building type for all multifamily residential zones. 
• Micro-housing projects are generally designed to house 25 to 100 individuals; however, on-site parking is rarely provided. 
• The high cost of this housing on a price per square foot basis. 

[View in Council Newsroom]

While these units are very popular and provide affordable housing, there has been some resistance to them in some areas of the City, particularly Capitol Hill, where a number of these buildings have been constructed. One sore spot has been the way that developers have used their ‘unit count’ in different ways depending on what City regulation they are working with. The City Office of Housing has now issued a regulation that should resolve this issue. The Office of Housing regulation requires that any building applying for a Multi-Family Tax Exemption for affordable housing use the same unit count that the developer uses in the land use permitting process.

For land use code purposes, a housing unit is defined by the presence of a kitchen. This means that seven or eight small efficiencies have been defined as one unit for land use code purposes, since they share a common kitchen. As a result, these buildings have often slipped below the threshold for design review and SEPA analysis, which are based on the number of units in the building. There are good arguments for suggesting that this is unfair, since the cumulative size and impact of eight bedrooms grouped around a single kitchen could be larger than that of a typical apartment unit.

A further problem has been that some project developers have used a different count when they apply for a Multi-Family Property Tax Exemption (MFTE) based on providing affordable housing, counting each bedroom as a separate unit. A number of these buildings have been granted MFTE status. The MFTE was designed to encourage developers to construct new affordable apartments, especially in areas where not much development was happening. City staff and electeds have agreed that micro-units are not completely congruent with the intent of the program.

The first step in resolving these problems has been taken by the Office of Housing, which has issued Housing Rule 01-2013, which simply states that “The number and size of dwelling units verified by the Owner in the application for property tax exemption for Multifamily Housing shall be identical to the number and size of dwelling units contained in the Owner’s application to the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) for a building permit…” That resolves the contradiction.

DPD is working on legislation that will address two other issues to cover micro-unit buildings in the land use code. This legislation will define micro-unit buildings, to establish that they are different from an apartment building and have different characteristics. DPD is also considering creating a new threshold for design review based on the size/square footage of the building, rather than the unit count, so that micro-unit buildings will be treated the same as an apartment building of the same square footage.

Creating a consistent unit count and applying design review consistent with an apartment building of similar size will provide a formal space for micro-unit buildings in the code and ensure that they are treated comparably to a similar apartment building. This should resolve some of the legitimate concerns that have been expressed by neighbors about micro-unit buildings taking unfair advantage of the MFTE program and unreasonably evading design review.

However, some of the opposition to these buildings is based on other, less tangible, factors related to this kind of affordable housing, even though these buildings meet the other requirements of the land use code. I continue to believe that these small room buildings provide affordable housing and are appropriate parts of our housing continuum, and I do not support regulatory actions that would prevent, rather than regulate, their further development.

City of Seattle Seal

Recently I had the honor of receiving two awards from organizations that have long histories of thoughtful and careful work in their respective fields. In late March I was named as a “Sustainability Trailblazer” by the Seattle-based Sustainable Path Foundation. On April 5 I was given the “Hunger Fighter” award for 2013 by the Seattle Weekly, after being nominated by Food Lifeline, the organization dedicated to ending hunger in Washington that coordinates securing and providing food for Food Banks and other hunger relief agencies.

Receiving these two awards is both humbling and gratifying, as together they recognize my ability to put into action the values of community sustainability and social justice that are the core reasons why I chose to serve as a Councilmember.

The Sustainable Path Foundation recognized my accomplishments in making sustainability real, noting especially my work in creating the Zero Waste Strategy and the Local Food Initiative, and in shepherding 37 neighborhood plans through the Seattle City Council to create the framework for Seattle’s implementation of growth management.

Sustainability has been my passion since co-founding Sustainable Seattle more than 20 years ago, and it continues to be the guiding principle for my work on the Council. The Mission Statement of the Sustainable Path Foundation is to promote sustainability and health in our region through collaborative approaches informed by scientific understanding and systems thinking. The Sustainable Path Foundation envisions a sustainable future based on scientific understanding and respect for the interconnected nature of our world.

 Gretchen Garth, Paul Brainerd, Chris Jordan, Cathy Tuttle and Kathleen O’Brien have also been named as “Sustainability Trailblazers.”  More information about each of the honored recipients (and additional recipients who will continue to be named) can be found at the Seattle Path Foundation’s website. “Richard Conlin, Seattle City Council member, is our sixth Trailblazer,” read the Foundation’s announcement.  “Richard is being recognized for blazing a trail of sustainability through ensuring that the city values and practices environmental stewardship, economic opportunity, social justice, and community in its every day operations.  Thank you Richard Conlin!”

The “Hunger Fighter” award was presented at Seattle Weekly’s annual “Voracious Tasting” event, a showcase of various chefs, local eats and food trucks, and local wineries and beer makers. Proceeds from the event benefitted Food Lifeline.

Several awards were given at “Voracious Tasting”, including the Hunger Fighter Award. Food Lifeline nominated me for my “efforts to end hunger in our community and for the generous, additional $200k to the emergency food system last year” which I got the Council to approve as part of the 2013 budget. Working to end hunger in our community is a key part of my Local Food Action Initiative, and I have coordinated closely with agencies like Food Lifeline and United Way in campaigns to ensure that all members of our community have access to healthy and nutritious food.

It’s a relatively small rezone, with modest implications for housing and pedestrian access, but it has a long and complicated history. The rezone adopted by the Council has the support of neighborhood leaders. It does not include a controversial provision that would have rezoned additional areas to the west and north of this area. This proposal was opposed by single family property owners in those areas.

The rezone adopted by the Council received strong support from property owners in the rest of the rezone area, with the exception of the owners of the Fred Meyer property adjacent to NW 3^rd Avenue.  This property owner applied for a permit for a new, more auto-oriented building in contravention to the intent of the neighborhood plan during the time that the rezone proposal was making its way through the legal process to get to the Council. Unfortunately, under Washington State law, once a permit has been applied for under the existing zoning, new zoning requirements cannot be applied to the property. So, the Greenwood community will have new, pedestrian-oriented, mixed use buildings east of the Fred Meyer site, where the property owners have embraced the zoning, but not on the Fred Meyer site for a considerable period of time in the future.

The owners of the property argued that the Council should not proceed with the rezone, because it will make the existing building non-confirming and not allow it to be replaced in its current form. The Council, however, respected the vision of the long-term plan developed by the community.

When the rezone was initially proposed, the property owners north and west of Fred Meyer opposed it because their properties would have been upzoned to low-rise residential. They were also concerned about the upzoning of the edges of the Fred Meyer site to 65 feet, suggesting that would lead to shadow effects on their residences. The property line pattern on the Fred Meyer site would make it difficult to rezone the edges to a lower height than the rest of the site. Fortunately, even though the entire site is rezoned to 65 feet, the density allowed on the site will require some setbacks, and the City has suggested that these setback requirements can be used in design review to mitigate any future shadow effects. Most of the property owners did not pursue their opposition to the rezone.

More recently, the owners of the property south of NW 85^th requested some different development standards, in order to build a development that provided significantly more housing and could accommodate a grocery store. Their request reflected the difficulty of providing parking for a grocery store and residential development in an area where the underlying peat soil makes underground parking difficult, and the sites lack of depth and poor alley access made alley ingress problematic as well. The Greenwood Community Council reviewed their proposal, and agreed that these development standards should be modified. The site will have more flexibility in configuring driveways and will be able to build some 30 additional housing units as a result.

Creating the kind of walkable residential urban environments envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and our neighborhood plans can be challenging, and the details make a big difference. In most cases this is made easier because property owners ultimately embrace the development potential that neighborhood commercial zoning offers and agree with the vision. The Greenwood rezone was a long and difficult process because that was not the case here. Ultimately, however, this legislation does respond to the community’s vision and moves it a long way towards the desired outcome – even if it will be many years before the Fred Meyer site is redeveloped in conformance to the community’s wishes.

On Monday, April 1, the Special Committee on South Lake Union made key land use decisions in this major rezone, giving direction to staff on amendments to land use maps and development standards. The Council’s final work session will be held on Monday, April 15, to be followed by a formal Committee vote on amendment language on Monday, April 22 and final Council action on Monday, May 6.

Strong majorities of the Council indicated preferences on most of the thirteen issues discussed and those preferences will define the options for formal amendment language. Here are the outcomes of the April 1 meeting:

‘Mercer Blocks’. On the blocks between Mercer and Valley Streets, the Council decided to reduce the proposed tower height from 240 feet to 160 feet, and to limit the east-west dimensions of the towers to 105 feet. A strong majority of the Council also agreed to retain the proposed 12500 square foot floor plates for towers, and to retain the 85 foot podium height on the north side of Mercer, although some Councilmembers wanted to further reduce these. This outcome will match the heights on the north and south sides of Mercer, one of the widest rights-of-way in the City, and will result in slimmer towers that will still be economically viable and provide significant numbers of new housing units.

Cascade Neighborhood. In response to requests from property owners, the Council agreed to increase heights in the six core blocks from 75 feet to 85 feet for residential projects. This will allow a modest amount of new housing units and give more design flexibility, making redevelopment more likely. Some Councilmembers were interested in the property owners’ proposal to increase heights to 125 feet for residential, but the Committee agreed that there had not been enough community or technical review of this proposal to advance it in this legislation. The Council will direct the Department of Planning and Development to conduct a formal process with community involvement and make a recommendation on this proposal in the future.

Fairview Boundary. The Council kept the boundary of Cascade neighborhood zoning on the alley between Fairview and Thomas, rather than moving it west to Fairview Avenue. There was general agreement that having similar zoning on both sides of Fairview made sense from an urban design perspective.

Westlake Panhandle. There was no Council consensus on whether to rezone this area. A strong majority favored of retaining the proposed 85 foot zoning south of Highland Drive, which is in the flight path of Kenmore Air. The major remaining land use decision is whether to rezone the two blocks between Highland, Dexter, Galer, and Westlake to permit two residential towers. Some Councilmembers agreed that two 160 foot towers would add residential units and strengthen the community on this transit corridor, while others preferred to retain the 85 foot height because of concerns expressed by Kenmore Air that these towers could cause wind shear problems for their planes. A third proposal, to allow 125 foot towers, was marginally acceptable to Kenmore, but may not add enough residential capacity to be worth pursuing. A decision on this area will be held over until the April 15 meeting.

8^th Avenue Residential Corridor. The Committee reviewed proposals from the University of Washington to allow the UW to extend its development to the northernmost block of this residential corridor if UW complies with the streetscape standards to be compatible with the residential character. There was no agreement on whether there is a workable way to do this, and further discussion will likely be required at the April 15 meeting.

Other Issues.

• The Committee agreed to require buildings in South Lake Union to meet the more stringent LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Gold standard for environmental attributes, with a provision that buildings could meet the Silver standard if they were connected to a District Energy system, which would provide additional environmental benefits.
• The Committee accepted amendments to strengthen incentives for incorporating an elementary school into a project, and to restore a provision that allows design review to permit a 5% variation in floor plate size if that would provide for more open space or better design.
• At a previous meeting, Council agreed to provide a 0.5 FAR bonus for all projects that incorporate the preservation of a designated landmark structure. On April 1, the Committee also agreed to extend that 0.5 FAR bonus to potential landmark buildings in the community as an incentive for preservation of portions of those structures.
• There was interest in a late-breaking proposal to add a Transfer of Development Rights mechanism to further protect landmark structures, but there was agreement that this required more analysis and should be explored in future legislation.

The meeting on April 15 will include resolving the remaining issues from this agenda, as well as considering options relating to the affordable housing incentive program. The decisions made on April 1 built on amendments agreed to at previous meetings and included in a substitute version of the legislation approved on March 18. A description of amendments made through the substitute and a track changes version of the substitute moved by the Committee are linked to the online agenda for the March 18^th meeting. There are also other issues that will be moved forward in separate legislation, such as providing budgetary authority to the Department of Neighborhoods (DON) to nominate potentially eligible landmark structures or defining view protection from Lake Union Park.

I look forward to passage of this legislation, which has been before Council since June of 2012. It implements the recommendations of the South Lake Union Community Council and completes the eight year-long process of the South Lake Union Neighborhood Plan update. More information on the history and development of the South Lake Union legislation can be found at my earlier blog post at http://conlin.seattle.gov/2012/12/12/south-lake-union-rezone-seven-realities/

Councilmember Richard Conlin
Council President Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Sally Bagshaw
Councilmember Jean Godden
Councilmember Nick Licata
Councilmember Mike O'Brien
Councilmember Tom Rasmussen

Seven remaining Councilmembers announce candidacy for Mayor
Will run as collective

Seattle -- The seven Councilmembers who are not already in the race for Mayor today announced that they will pioneer a new model for Seattle governance by running for Mayor as a collective. The seven will appear on the ballot as a single name, "O'Bagcloddenconrasita," reflecting their collegial approach to the position.

"Experience teaches us that seven heads are better than one," said the group speaking in unison. "Seven of nine is an excellent model for decision-making," they commented, making the obligatory geeky Star Trek allusion.

"This way the people of Seattle will know that there will always be a Mayor on the job," O'Bagcloddenconrasita added. "By taking shifts, we can cover the Mayor's office 24-7. And the Mayor can lobby in Olympia, cut a ribbon in West Seattle, and hold a town meeting in Ballard, all at the same time."

Commenting on the legality of the proposed candidacy, City Attorney Pete Holmes was sanguine about the outcome of any possible court challenge. "Nothing in the City Charter prevents innovative approaches to governance," Holmes added. "Furthermore, this will make it much easier to get a Mayoral signature on City documents."

The group noted that the departure of seven Councilmembers simultaneously would make it difficult to do business and fill the seven vacancies on the Council, since there would not be a quorum remaining. However, the group agreed that this could easily be resolved by the use of serial resignations spaced one week apart between the election and taking office on January 1. That way, each week eight Councilmembers could conduct business and appoint someone to the vacant seat. By the end of December, seven new Councilmembers would be seated and join Mayor O'Bagcloddenconrasita in governing the City.

[View in Council Newsroom]

Councilmember Richard Conlin

Sustainable Path Foundation Names Councilmember
Richard Conlin as "Sustainability Trailblazer"

Seattle -- Councilmember Richard Conlin has been honored as a "Sustainability Trailblazer" by the Seattle-based Sustainable Path Foundation. The Foundation recognized Councilmember Conlin's commitment to sustainability through his accomplishments, including his creation of the Zero Waste Strategy, the Local Food Initiative and his shepherding of 37 neighborhood plans through the Seattle City Council.

"I am honored to receive this award from Sustainable Path Foundation," Councilmember Conlin said. "Sustainability has been my passion since co-founding Sustainable Seattle more than 20 years ago, and it continues to be the guiding principle for my work on the Council."

The Mission Statement of the Sustainable Path Foundation is to promote sustainability and health in our region through collaborative approaches informed by scientific understanding and systems thinking. The Sustainable Path Foundation envisions a sustainable future based on scientific understanding and respect for the interconnected nature of our world.

Gretchen Garth, Paul Brainerd, Chris Jordan, Cathy Tuttle and Kathleen O'Brien were also named "Sustainability Trailblazers."  More information about each of the six honored recipients, including a full description of Councilmember Conlin's credentials, is available at the Seattle Path Foundation's website.

"Richard Conlin, Seattle City Council member, is our sixth Trailblazer," read the Foundation's announcement.  "Richard is being recognized for blazing a trail of sustainability through ensuring that the city values and practices environmental stewardship, economic opportunity, social justice, and community in its every day operations.  Thank you Richard Conlin!"

[View in Council Newsroom]

Councilmember Tom Rasmussen
Council President Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Nick Licata
Councilmember Richard Conlin

City Council to discuss micro-housing developments 
Public invited to share feedback with Councilmembers and City staff

SEATTLE -- Seattle City Councilmembers Tom Rasmussen, Nick Licata, Sally J. Clark and Richard Conlin today announced a public meeting on micro-housing developments on April 18, in response to questions and concerns raised in several Seattle neighborhoods.

"Several Councilmembers and I are sponsoring a two hour meeting to review what is occurring due to the strong interest and concern we are hearing in the neighborhoods," Councilmember Tom Rasmussen stated. "A portion of the meeting will include an opportunity for the public to provide comments and recommendations on what, if any, regulations should be enacted for this unique type of housing."   

In addition to a public comment opportunity, representatives from the Department of Planning and Development (DPD), the Office of Housing (OH) and City Council staff will discuss Seattle's recent experience with micro-housing. 

WHAT:           Micro-housing development discussion

WHEN:           Thursday, April 18, 11:30 a.m. -- 1:30 p.m.

WHERE:         Council Chambers, second floor
                        Seattle City Council, 600 Fourth Ave

WHO:              Seattle City Councilmembers and Council staff
                        Representatives from Seattle's Dept. of Planning and Development
                        Representatives from Seattle's Office of Housing

"I want to see more affordable housing built in Seattle along with our residential neighborhoods accommodating housing options that contribute to their character," stated Councilmember Nick Licata, chair of the Council's Housing, Human Services, Health and Culture Committee. "I think both objectives can be accomplished and I look forward to this forum providing an opportunity to hear suggestions on how to fulfill both."

"I've visited some of these micro-units," said Council President Sally J. Clark. "They provide decent, often attractive housing for a range of people who don't need or want a lot of space. They're also appearing in greater numbers and more rapidly than some in the surrounding neighborhood want. This forum can provide a good airing of people's support, concerns and ideas for appropriate regulation."

"Microhousing can be an affordable option that works well with neighborhoods," said Councilmember Richard Conlin, chair of the Council's Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee. "However, it does not fit neatly into Seattle's land use code, and we are looking for input on code improvements that will preserve the affordability while ensuring that these developments reflect both the letter and the spirit of our land use laws."

Background

In recent years, micro-housing has emerged as an increasingly common residential building product in Seattle. Since 2006, DPD has received permit applications for 44 projects. Those completed projects have a total capacity of about 2,000 people. In 2012, DPD received applications for approximately 15 micro-housing projects.

Micro-housing projects are generally comprised of apartment or townhome-style dwelling units, each of which contains several (often seven or eight) smaller living quarters clustered around a shared kitchen and laundry area. Each of the smaller living spaces within the dwelling unit is leased to an individual tenant. These spaces are typically 150 to 200 square feet in size and equipped with a kitchenette (refrigerator, microwave, sink) and private bathroom. Rent levels vary by location but are often in the range of $600 to $700 per month. 

Developers have found Seattle offers a strong market for micro-housing, with completed projects leasing up quickly. Tenants often include students, service industry workers, and individuals who divide their time between Seattle and a residence in another location.  Geographically, 52 percent of the projects are located on Capitol Hill and 30 percent in the University District, with the remainder spread throughout the city.

Because micro-housing is not well-defined in City codes it also may not be adequately regulated. Some of the issues and concerns the public has raised about Seattle's growing stock of micro-housing include:

• Within micro-housing projects, DPD currently counts the several small living quarters that surround a common kitchen and laundry area as a single dwelling unit (e.g., one apartment with eight bedrooms and eight bathrooms). As a result, most micro-housing projects do not meet the threshold for design review. Normally the design review process also provides opportunities for neighbors to comment and offer input on proposed projects.
• DPD's current practice of counting multiple living quarters within a micro-housing project as a single dwelling unit also complicates efforts to measure progress toward adopted growth targets in neighborhoods where micro-housing is located. It also can affect whether a proposed micro-housing project is subject to environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
• Micro-housing may not be an appropriate building type for all multifamily residential zones. 
• Micro-housing projects are generally designed to house 30 to 60 individuals; however, on-site parking is rarely provided. 
• The high cost of this housing on a price per square foot basis. 

[View in Council Newsroom]

To ensure that we carry out our commitment to social justice, as well as our long standing commitment to ending racism, the City has developed a Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI). The goal of this initiative is to provide information and tools to help City leaders and staff understand issues of race and social justice, and to ensure that our City actions accord with our values. Often those who are privileged in our society by virtue of social and economic standing have the most input to City actions, because they know who to talk to and how to talk to them. The goal of RSJI is to ensure that our decisions include the voices of those who are not heard as often.

In 2011, the Council asked staff members on our RSJI Change Team, a group of staff volunteers, to look at several pieces of legislation to see if applying an RSJI lens would help us make decisions that are inclusive and reflect our social justice values. The Change Team chose the South Lake Union (SLU) Rezone for one of its first reviews, and I had the team formally report to the South Lake Union Committee on Monday, February 25. After hearing their report, I announced that I would prepare a Resolution reflecting their recommendations. I expect to submit this resolution to the Council in the next few days.

The RSJI analysis identified five key areas where change in South Lake Union offered opportunities to ensure more equitable outcomes:

• SLU offers access to family wage jobs, housing, transit, and open space.
• Housing and jobs are the key areas that may have an impact on race and social justice.
• Retaining existing zoning in the Cascade neighborhood avoids displacing current residents.
• More workforce housing could be provided through incentive zoning.
• Pathways for communities of color to access jobs in SLU are a great opportunity.

The analysis offered five strategies to advance racial equity:

• Do not change heights in the Cascade Neighborhood.
• Maximize affordable housing through incentive zoning.
• Use education and job-training partnerships to expand access to job opportunities for communities of color.
• Promote community gathering spaces like a community center or school.
• Utilize revenues from the Transportation infrastructure Fund (TIF) to achieve social equity goals.

My resolution will delineate the Council’s response to these strategies, which will reflect our concurrence with the basic analysis and direction suggested by the Change Team. I expect that the Council will:

• Move carefully in making any changes in the Cascade heights, ensuring that those changes are targeted to areas where there are vacant lots or significantly underutilized properties and do not create incentives to demolish existing affordable housing. We are likely to approve modest changes that increase the opportunity for more housing to be built in the neighborhood, and consider providing a transfer of development rights provision that would encourage preservation of historic, affordable structures.
• The Council will adopt an incentive zoning program, and is likely to make some additions to the Mayor’s proposal. We will also begin a larger process to review options for increasing affordable housing and set a direction that will increase opportunities.
• My resolution will propose a work plan to increase and target education and job training partnerships in order to expand access to job opportunities.
• The Council will take an active role in promoting and finding resources to support community center development, and is likely to strengthen the incentives in the rezone legislation that would encourage developing a school to serve this area.
• The use of TIF revenues will be determined in a future ordinance, and the Council will keep the RSJI screening process in place when we review this legislation.

Achieving social justice requires careful, thoughtful, and specific steps that will move us in the right direction. There is no magic bullet or law that will end racism or create social equity. The RSJI screen helps us to construct and modify legislation in ways that will realize our goals of a City where the opportunity for housing, employment, and community participation is open and encouraged for all of the people of Seattle.

The initial legislation was developed in response to concerns from residents that some houses were being built on small lots delineated by using an archaic provision of the land use code. Neighbors did not know that these building sites could be created, and the City did not currently intend these old lines to be used to define legal building sites. Neighbors were also concerned that some of the houses being built on these sites were not compatible with the surrounding houses and/or proportional to the size of the lots.

The City supports infill development in single family neighborhoods, including on legally established undersized lots. However, these lots should be clearly and legally delineated, and neighbors should be aware of the potential for new houses to be built. In addition, new houses on undersized lots should be modest enough to be proportional to the size of the lot.

After reviewing policy options, meeting with neighborhood and developer groups, and taking comments at a public meeting, DPD has suggested the following parameters for permanent regulations:

• Create a permanent provision that disallows the use of historic tax records and mortgage records to create undersized lots. This closes the loophole that created lots where neighbors never expected them to exist.
• Set a uniform absolute minimum lot area of 2,000 square feet, to apply to lots qualifying under all lot area exceptions. Under the interim standards, lots qualifying for an exception based on pre-1957 records, such as historic plats or deeds, had to have an area of at least 2,500 square feet.  Different absolute minimums apply to other exceptions, such as lots reduced by street condemnation, or lots resulting from two-house/one-lot short plats.  The proposed regulation would make this uniform, provide consistency and predictability, and preserve the opportunity for infill development.
• Limit structure height for new buildings and additions to existing houses on lots that are less than 3,200 square feet to 18 feet, plus a five-foot pitched roof. Under the interim standards, structures on lots less than 3,750 square feet in area were limited to 22 feet in height plus a five-foot pitched roof. This proposal reduces the upper limit of the lot area range from 3,750 to 3,200 square feet in light of the fact that the projects that have generated the most concern generally have been on lots that were 3,200 square feet or less in area. The base height limit is proposed to be reduced from 22 feet to 18 feet, consistent with what is allowed for cottage housing in RSL and Lowrise zones.
• Add other provisions that will limit problematic development and provide some regulatory flexibility with appropriate notice. These include measuring the size of lots using the largest rectangle to prevent weird extensions, allowing additional height on small lots as a special exception with public notice and the opportunity for an appeal to the hearing examiner, and several other provisions that will clarify and provide consistency in the treatment of small lot projects.

DPD is also considering a proposal to allow undersized lots to be developed if they have an area at least 80 percent of the mean area of the lots on the block, as long as such lots are at least 2,000 square feet. This is designed to allow lots that are compatible with existing development in older areas of the City with smaller lots. Creating a new lot under this provision would require public notice and an opportunity to appeal.

You can reference the entire DPD memo at

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/planning/smallsinglefamilylots/overview/default.asp

 We are looking for thoughts on this proposal. Please send any comments to both my office and DPD: richard.conlin@seattle.gov and andy.mckim@seattle.gov by Wednesday, April 3.  After this stage, DPD will prepare a more detailed set of recommendations to take through environmental review, and will then submit legislation to the Council. The Council will receive comments and hold a formal public hearing. Our goal is to complete work on the permanent legislation before September.

One of my key learnings as a Councilmember has been the realization that land use and transportation are not just associated, but are inextricably intertwined. In fact, I often comment that land use and transportation are really the same thing, like two sides of the same coin. The fact is that the nature of development both shapes the need for transportation and responds to the transportation options available. Access to transit, the walkability and bikability of neighborhoods, the ability of trucks and freight to move around, all tell you what kind of development works in an area – and when the development does not match the available transportation options, it requires significant work to bring them back into alignment. It’s not surprising that when every Seattle neighborhood accepted its growth target under the Comprehensive Plan and provided a list of recommendations for community improvements, more than half of the recommendations involved transportation.

And transportation improvements, especially major ones, tend to be expensive and take long time to construct. While many of the neighborhood plan recommendations involved relatively modest improvements, like adding stop signs and traffic lights, a number of communities recognized that only significant new services, especially transit services, would make continued development workable. Light rail is potentially transformational on the east side of Seattle, although the recession has slowed the changes in South East Seattle along the only route that has been completed, but it takes a long time to build.

No one in Seattle would be surprised to learn that the Elliott/15^th Avenue corridor presents many challenges to transportation planners, and that creating good access routes between Ballard and downtown is a critical issue. Ballard is growing rapidly, but 15^th is its only through access to downtown. Interbay, which was not a neighborhood planning area, is adding commercial and residential development. And the area along Elliott Avenue continues to redevelop as new office space is constructed. There is critical pressure on both freight and passenger capacity for this route.

Metro has introduced its RapidRide service, which is intended to provide faster and more reliable bus service along the corridor. While it should eventually improve, the initial phases have not lived up to the promises. The City and Sound Transit have partnered to review possible rail access, but this study is just in beginning. In the meantime, we need to find a way to manage the corridor that will work as these new services are developed.

That’s where the Ballard to Interbay Corridor Study comes in. The study will consider how to address redevelopment issues in Interbay and Ballard, look at the potential for coordinating future transit investments and development, and identify opportunities for improving livability in the area. It could include proposals for changes to the Comprehensive Plan or the Land Use Code to support the vision for the corridor, which will be developed through a series of meetings with community working groups and reviewed in community meetings.

DPD is analyzing a variety of information about existing conditions. The Interbay working group has been meeting since December 2012 and will present preliminary recommendations to the community in April or May. The Ballard working group has begun meeting this spring.

 
This approach is an interesting and potentially important way to transcend the limits of neighborhood planning and consider ways in which to address common interests along this kind of linear corridor. For more information, go to: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/EnvisioningInterbay/Overview/

The Bryant site will be funded by the SR 520 project to compensate for park land that will be taken or used for the project where that land was all or partially funded by the federal government. A specific settlement for that kind of property is required under Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, and this agreement is known as meeting the Section 6(f) requirement.

The University of Washington (“UW”) and the City of Seattle (“City”) each own portions of the Arboretum Waterfront Trail and the Ship Canal Waterside Trail, which were developed with grant funding that makes these Trails, along with portions of the associated parks, subject to the requirements of Section 6(f) of the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (“LWCF”). This property will be converted from open space and park uses to transportation uses. The law requires that land developed with LWCF grant funds and converted from their approved use be replaced by lands of equal value and utility and which are available for the same recreational uses.

The Bryant site meets that criteria, since it is waterfront property near the impact area which can meet the same objective of water related recreational activities. The site is owned by the UW, and will be developed for park purposes, which includes demolition of the entire Bryant Building structure, part of which extends outside the Bryant Site boundary. WSDOT will pay a settlement amount to the UW, which will cover the costs of converting it to park purposes.

Some parts of the land will only be used for construction, and not become part of the transportation project. These lands will be restored to park use after completion of the project, and the agreement includes compensation for temporary use for these areas. WSDOT will pay $13.6 million for the Bryant site, in addition to relocation assistance, site improvements, and any remedial cleanup expenses. The City will ultimately become the owner of the Bryant site as public park land.

There are a series of other agreements that will come through the Council as the project proceeds, as WSDOT will be transferring property such as the WSDOT peninsula to the City, demolishing the ‘ramps to nowhere’, and funding improvements to the Arboretum such as a new bicycle path connecting SR 520 through the Arboretum to Madison Street. These are all complicated transactions, but the end result will be an even better parks and open space system than currently exists, as we have the opportunity to plan carefully and thoroughly for the entire area and take advantage of this project to create long-lasting improvements.

 SOUND TRANSIT STARTS PLANNING FOR 3^RD BALLOT MEASURE

The Sound Transit Board has unanimously approved moving forward with the first stages of planning for a third ballot measure, possibly as early as 2016. Sound Transit’s first ballot measure, approved in 1996 after failing in 1995, funded light rail from downtown to the airport. ST2, approved in 2008 after failing as part of a Roads and Transit package in 2007, is funding light rail from downtown through the UW to Northgate and Lynnwood, from downtown through Bellevue to Redmond, and from the airport south to Angle Lake.

Only a few months ago, the Board was thinking that a third ballot measure would not be possible until 2020 or possibly even 2024. But at a Board workshop in late November, there was enthusiastic interest in advancing that to a 2016 to 2020 planning horizon. Staff was asked to develop a strategy to make it possible to consider a 2016 vote.

The Board has now adopted a resolution approving the major steps in that process. It begins with a series of High Capacity Transit Corridor Studies in 2013-2014, assessing market demand and possible alignments in the corridors identified and funded for future study in ST2. Two of these planning efforts are already underway, Ballard to Downtown and south from 200^th to Federal Way. Other corridors identified for consideration include Lynnwood to Everett; Renton to Tukwila, SeaTac and Burien; Downtown Seattle to West Seattle and Burien; South Bellevue to Issaquah; Redmond to Kirkland and the U-District; Ballard to the U-District; Kirkland to Bellevue and Issaquah; and I-405 Bus Rapid Transit. Other corridors could potentially be added, such as Federal Way to Tacoma, either by the Board or through public involvement and outreach.

The next stage will be to develop an updated Long-Range Plan and conduct public outreach. This stage will begin later in 2013 and also be completed in 2014. Finally, after completion of environmental review, the Board will have to select the corridors, funding plan, and other elements to advance to a ballot measure. Board deliberations would take place in 2015-2016.

The plan update will be built around leveraging the ST2 work, consistency with regional transportation plans, and coordination with state transportation work. The Board will have other decisions to make, such as how to integrate the Sound Transit bus and commuter rail programs. There are also issues of how to operate the current system most efficiently, such as whether to build infill stations and provide additional system access improvements. And several cities not currently included in the Sound Transit boundaries, such as Marysville and Arlington, have expressed possible interest in joining, which will require integrating services to them into the long-range plan.

All of the above tasks can be carried out by Sound Transit staff and Board under current authority. But there is one very big issue that will ultimately determine whether Sound Transit can go to the ballot in 2016: whether there will be additional funding sources that can be placed on the ballot. And this is dependent on action at the State level.

Sound Transit’s ST1 and ST2 programs have committed most of its current sales tax and other authorized revenue sources for the next couple of decades. If ST3 is to be a significant expansion, there will need to be additional revenue sources authorized by the Legislature. In some ways this is an easier sell in the Legislature than other tax proposals, because Sound Transit is committed to a public vote to approve these new taxes. However, it will be still be a challenge to persuade legislators who are not particularly supportive of transit to agree even to let Sound Transit ask the voters. Whether we can get that authorization in the 2013, 2014, or 2015 legislative sessions is the most important determinant of whether the Board will be able to go to a 2016 ballot.

City Council to examine health care disparities in King County  Local health officials to join Council brownbag forum

This post was originally published in the march edition of my newsletter, Making it Work. 

At the Sound Transit Board meeting on Thursday, February 28, the Board approved a resolution creating The Overlake Village Bridge Project, along with two motions agreeing to jointly design the bridge in cooperation with the City of Redmond and approving a contract setting the design process in motion. The Board action endorses a proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge connecting the Link station at the Overlake Village in Redmond across SR 520 to the Microsoft/Honeywell campuses on the north side of the freeway. This action moves the project through 4 phases of Sound Transit’s project cycle in one fell swoop, all the way from concept to final design.

Sound Transit will only contribute $75,000 to this design phase, with the City of Redmond contributing the remainder of the $1.9 million cost. Most of Redmond’s costs, in turn, are being funded by a federal grant, with the City only kicking in about $200,000.

This bridge was evaluated as part of the environmental review for East Link, but is not funded as part of the East Link project. Once the project reaches the 60% design level and construction costs can be estimated accurately, the partners will seek to identify funding to complete the bridge construction. If that funding can be identified, the bridge will be constructed by Sound Transit as part of East Link.

It’s exciting to see more options developed to connect the north side of 520 to Sound Transit’s light rail line on the south side, especially options that focus on pedestrian and bicycle access. The result will be a more attractive travel package for light rail passengers in this important employment center.

The two sides of the freeway are currently linked several blocks west of the Overlake Station at a major interchange where 148^th Avenue NE crosses the freeway, but this is not a very hospitable environment for pedestrians and bicycles, requiring them to cross access ramps that are part of the interchange. Microsoft funded another multi-modal bridge several blocks east of the Overlake Village Station, going diagonally across 520 from NE 31^st Street on the south to NE 36^th Street on the north side.

While these two crossings make pedestrian and bicycle crossings possible, they do not make them as attractive and easy to use as would be optimum. That’s where the Overlake Village Bridge comes in, making it possible to exit the train and cross directly to the north side when leaving the station. And, since it connects to the east-west bike/ped path on the north side of 520, which will run all the way into Seattle, it also makes it easy to get to other nearby destinations on foot or by bike, and facilitates mixed commutes like taking transit in the morning and returning home by bike.

This is the same type of crossing that is now in development at the Northgate Station to get across I-5, but the Overlake Village Bridge will be less expensive, as the distance is much shorter. And, on the planning horizon is another possible bike/ped bridge, connecting to the next light rail station, at the Overlake Transit Center, not far down the road. The City of Redmond and Sound Transit are thinking proactively about how to knit this community, sundered by SR 520, together to make it possible for light rail to be fully integrated with pedestrian and bicycle traffic in a truly transit oriented model.

At the Sound Transit Board meeting on Thursday, February 28, the Board approved a resolution creating The Overlake Village Bridge Project, along with two motions agreeing to jointly design the bridge in cooperation with the City of Redmond and approving a contract setting the design process in motion. The Board action endorses a proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge connecting the Link station at the Overlake Village in Redmond across SR 520 to the Microsoft/Honeywell campuses on the north side of the freeway. This action moves the project through 4 phases of Sound Transit’s project cycle in one fell swoop, all the way from concept to final design.

Sound Transit will only contribute $75,000 to this design phase, with the City of Redmond contributing the remainder of the $1.9 million cost. Most of Redmond’s costs, in turn, are being funded by a federal grant, with the City only kicking in about $200,000.

This bridge was evaluated as part of the environmental review for East Link, but is not funded as part of the East Link project. Once the project reaches the 60% design level and construction costs can be estimated accurately, the partners will seek to identify funding to complete the bridge construction. If that funding can be identified, the bridge will be constructed by Sound Transit as part of East Link.

It’s exciting to see more options developed to connect the north side of 520 to Sound Transit’s light rail line on the south side, especially options that focus on pedestrian and bicycle access. The result will be a more attractive travel package for light rail passengers in this important employment center.

The two sides of the freeway are currently linked several blocks west of the Overlake Station at a major interchange where 148^th Avenue NE crosses the freeway, but this is not a very hospitable environment for pedestrians and bicycles, requiring them to cross access ramps that are part of the interchange. Microsoft funded another multi-modal bridge several blocks east of the Overlake Village Station, going diagonally across 520 from NE 31^st Street on the south to NE 36^th Street on the north side.

While these two crossings make pedestrian and bicycle crossings possible, they do not make them as attractive and easy to use as would be optimum. That’s where the Overlake Village Bridge comes in, making it possible to exit the train and cross directly to the north side when leaving the station. And, since it connects to the east-west bike/ped path on the north side of 520, which will run all the way into Seattle, it also makes it easy to get to other nearby destinations on foot or by bike, and facilitates mixed commutes like taking transit in the morning and returning home by bike.

This is the same type of crossing that is now in development at the Northgate Station to get across I-5, but the Overlake Village Bridge will be less expensive, as the distance is much shorter. And, on the planning horizon is another possible bike/ped bridge, connecting to the next light rail station, at the Overlake Transit Center, not far down the road. The City of Redmond and Sound Transit are thinking proactively about how to knit this community, sundered by SR 520, together to make it possible for light rail to be fully integrated with pedestrian and bicycle traffic in a truly transit oriented model.

Seattle City Council adopts healthy vending machine legislation

Some Councilmembers are talking about modifying the bonus/incentive zoning program in the proposed South Lake Union (SLU) rezone legislation to capture more value from development and increase the amount of money for affordable housing. To be clear, the rezone legislation is ALREADY an increase on the status quo because there is essentially no incentive zoning program in SLU now.  I think there are strong policy reasons not to attempt to create further changes in the affordable housing parameters in the context of this legislation, as well as legal risks that in my opinion are significant.

I am therefore recommending that the Council proceed with a careful process to revise our affordable housing program without holding up the SLU rezone or trying to come up with a number to apply to the SLU rezone without serious public process. There is a clear legal path to adopting new incentive zoning numbers and applying them to South Lake Union even if the numbers are not developed until a few months after approval of the rezone. Our Law Department has provided language to include in the SLU legislation that states that we will modify the affordable housing provisions.

There are good policy reasons not to amend the South Lake Union legislation to increase incentive/bonus program requirements.

1. Good public policy requires making major changes only after a thorough vetting in a transparent and thorough process. Changes will have enormous implications for many people, and the City should exercise due diligence and carry this out through public deliberations.
2. The Council does not have adequate information to make an informed decision about the level of incentive requirements that are appropriate, necessary, or reasonable. We have two consultant reports that have divergent conclusions and that have not been peer reviewed, and neither actually recommend a complete set of numbers that should be incorporated into law. The data is simply not there to allow us to pick numbers that can be justified.
3. If we pick numbers that are too high, we run the risk of having developers deciding to forego participation in the bonus program entirely. That means losing housing and jobs and losing the affordable housing we would have gotten under the current program. In a worst case scenario, it could even jeopardize the vitality of our South Lake Union economic engine. We like to think that Seattle is such a great place that our economy will keep thriving no matter what we do, but that is a very risky assumption. And it could very well be a mistake to rely on the assurance of one of our consultants that there are national and international developers that can bear significantly higher fees who are interested in South Lake Union, because that money could easily be headed somewhere else in a couple of years, while our local developers will still be here and trying to implement the next stages of the rezone.

There are also legal concerns about amending the SLU legislation’s affordable housing provisions. Inserting changes in this legislation could require a new title and likely will trigger additional Growth Management Act requirements for public process, delaying the legislation. There may be other process issues, such as SEPA requirements. It will be difficult to justify numbers chosen to modify the incentive housing program if those are challenged in court, because we do not have adequate data.

Finally, it is important to note that neither the City’s bonus/incentive program nor the legislative authorization has been tested in court, and we do not know where a court would go, since any litigation would likely raise as many issues as possible. While we should take steps to reduce our risk of losing a court case, the larger goal must be to keep us away from litigation. The stakeholder process used in 2001 to develop the affordable housing bonus program and set the initial level was successful in securing acceptance from the development community. If we act without a stakeholder process and take precipitate action to significantly increase even the fee-in-lieu, we are likely to face litigation, and the risks of losing the entire program greatly increase.

Mayor McGinn and I have reached agreement on creating a stakeholder process for formal review of the affordable/incentive housing program, led by an advisory group. The Mayor’s office has asked Tom Tierney, former director of the Seattle Housing Authority, if he would be willing to lead this group. We are preparing a resolution outlining the parameters of this review.

While waiting for the completion of the stakeholder process will mean that some projects will proceed under the proposed rules (essentially the same as those in downtown and the Denny Triangle), this rezone will be in place for many years, and only a small fraction of new development will be vested. DPD, the Office for Housing, and the South Lake Union community told the Council on February 25 that there is a commitment to meeting a goal of 37% affordable housing and that this is attainable under the current code. We have asked them for a road map to validate this; any changes to the affordable housing provisions made through the stakeholder process will make this even more likely.

The Council has the opportunity to move forward with legislation that will keep the boom going in South Lake Union and generate new housing, new jobs, new City revenues, and new affordable housing. We have a clear path to making changes to strengthen our affordable housing programs in a way that works from both a policy and legal perspective, and apply those changes to the vast majority of development in South Lake Union. I hope the Council will hang together and get those things done!

Submit your questions now to Seattle's policy leaders Councilmembers Conlin, Harrell and Rasmussen to appear on March's City Inside/Out: Council Edition

• Email: contact@seattlechannel.org
• Online: http://www.seattlechannel.org/CouncilEdition/
• Twitter: @SeattleChannel
• Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/SeattleChannel

Consequently, in 2013, we will be completing work on several specific priorities, and then taking our systems approach to a new level in moving towards a strategy for systematic transformation of the food system.

Specific actions that we will seek to complete in 2013 include:

• Providing a secure home for the University District Farmers Market (currently threatened with displacement) and adopting a second set of policies to ensure the future of Farmers Markets in Seattle (we have commissioned the RFPC to develop model policies around Farmers Markets).
• Advancing work on farmland preservation through adopting the Transfer of Development Rights program currently under review in my Committee and scheduled for a vote in early spring, while partnering with King County to pursue additional opportunities for protecting and/or acquiring farm land.
• Developing an assessment tool to evaluate urban agriculture (also in conjunction with the RFPC).
• Continuing to strengthen our P-Patch Program and provide new opportunities for immigrant and refugee populations and other urban farmers to practice agriculture on City-owned land.
• Develop an approach for food reserves for emergencies, scheduled to be completed in 2014 as part of our new Disaster Recovery Plan.
• Incorporate food system policies in the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, currently under review in my Committee and scheduled for a vote in early spring.
• Approve healthy food guidelines for vending machines on City property, currently scheduled for a Council vote on March 4.

This January, after several years of advocacy by the food community, the State launched a new food policy coordinating group that will bring together state agencies and organizations from around the State to develop common approaches to food issues. I serve on this group, and we are excited about the potential this process has for moving beyond the regional level that we are currently engaged in and bringing about dialogue and unity between farmers and consumers on the West side of the Cascades and the strong farm and rural communities on the East side of the Cascades.

Finally, in our most expansive project yet, Phyllis Shulman of my staff is working with key food activists around the region to develop a new concept for a regional strategy that will bring together governmental, nonprofit, and private sector groups involved with food issues in an approach called Food Web. Food Web will be an initiative to increase and sustain the capacity of the Puget Sound regional food system. Its goal is to create a viable and vital regional food system that nourishes families and communities, generates economic prosperity, contributes to public health and social justice through increased access to healthy food, safeguards the health of the environment, increases regional self-reliance/food security, and regenerates communities through civic/democratic engagement. The project is currently working to secure funding, and has generated enthusiasm among a broad array of those involved in food issues and growing and providing food in Western Washington.

Our work in Seattle has demonstrated that people are seeking a healthier food system. We will continue to look for new ways to advance this goal, blending specific actions in Seattle with work to develop regional, statewide and national alliances that will make this healthier food system possible.

Seattle’s Lake Union

After months of review and work, the Council is now moving towards decisions on the South Lake Union rezone. The rezone has been in development since 2004, when the Council adopted a revised neighborhood plan and designated South Lake Union as an Urban Center. Since then, South Lake Union has become one of the most sought after neighborhoods in the country, with large numbers of new commercial and residential development projects constructed and planned.

As an Urban Center adjacent to downtown, South Lake Union is intended to absorb some 17% of the City’s projected household growth and provide the location for 19% of new jobs. Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1995, Seattle has focused on bringing jobs and housing to Urban Centers and Urban Villages where growth makes the most sense. This protects our farms, forests, and wilderness areas from sprawl and concentrates new development where there are transportation and commercial centers to support it. It also prevents ‘in-city sprawl’ from overwhelming our single family neighborhoods.

The South Lake Union Community Council has fully embraced the proposed rezone, and just about everyone who has testified or written to the Council agrees that there should be substantial rezoning of South Lake Union. There are only a few areas that are contested, and the Council will look carefully at those as we move into the final stages of deliberation.

On February 25, the Council will review issues around affordable housing incentive programs. We have commissioned two consultant studies to help us identify ways in which we can ensure that new affordable housing is included in the neighborhood.

On March 4, the Council will review a decision agenda for South Lake Union, and on March 18 I plan to ask for a vote in Committee, to be followed by a Full Council vote on March 25. Here are the major decisions that will be considered:

• Cascade neighborhood increase in allowed height from 75 to 85 feet.
• Fairview Avenue transition between Fairview and Cascade.
• 8^th Avenue possible allowance for Research and Development uses on blocks otherwise designated for residential.
• Mercer Blocks decision between 160 and 240 foot towers and other decisions on tower floor plates. The Council has not indicated an interest in pursuing the proposed agreement that would trade property on Block 59 for the additional height.
• Review of the proposed 400 foot height on the north side of Denny.
• Possible rezone of property on the northwest corner of South Lake Union to allow additional heights.
• Setback standards to protect views of the Space Needle.
• Additional funding and location requirements for affordable housing.
• Updates of the transportation mitigation program.
• Extending historic preservation incentives to additional sites.

A Council consensus is beginning to emerge on most of these issues. The details of the Mercer Blocks and affordable housing funding are the areas where several options remain on the table, but it is likely that those will also be narrowed in the coming meetings.

The Council’s process began last July, but delays in the delivery of the legislation from the Executive; a break during budget deliberations in October and November; and the requirement to complete the Shoreline Management Program update delayed the serious work. I am confident that the Council can complete its process by the end of March.

Constructing rail lines in three directions is a big stretch for the agency, but it is also managing increased ridership on buses and the existing light rail segment and working to improve those services as well as Sounder commuter rail. With new policies on transit oriented development and station access added to the mix, the Seattle metropolitan area can finally see the outlines of a truly comprehensive transit system that has the potential to transform our transportation system – although there is still a lot of work to do. Here are some of the highlights of what happened in 2012, and what to expect in 2013:

Accomplished in 2012:

• Sound Transit served 25.8 million bus, train, and paratransit boarding’s.
• Sounder service began to South Tacoma and Lakewood.
• Tunneling was completed from the UW to the Capitol Hill Station and from Capitol Hill to downtown.
• The North Link baseline budget and schedule was adopted by the Board, and ground was broken at Northgate.
• The North Corridor (Northgate to Lynnwood) alternatives analysis was completed.
• East Link went into final design, and negotiations with the City of Bellevue advanced the project to the next stages.
• A design/build contract was awarded for the extension from the airport to S. 200^th St, and planning for other extensions in the South corridor began.
• The Board adopted a new Transit Oriented Development policy.

Planned for 2013:

• Boardings will increase by another 10%, to 28.3 million
• University Link will have track installed and interior work will begin on the University and Capitol Hill Stations.
• The Capitol Hill Transit Oriented Development agreement with the City of Seattle will be approved and implementation will begin, setting the table for a new transit community on the land around the new station.
• Contracts will be awarded for tunneling from the UW to the Maple Leaf portal, and pre-construction work will begin on the U District and Roosevelt Stations.
• The Northgate Link station design and access plan will be completed.
• Final agreements with Bellevue will be completed and prototype testing of the track system to be used on the I-90 Bridge will begin.
• Construction will begin on the S 200^th Link Extension.
• The Board will begin planning for the Sound Transit 3 ballot measure.
• Planning studies will begin on South Corridor alternatives, Tacoma Link extension, Federal Way extension, and Ballard to Downtown.
• The Preferred Alternative will be identified and preliminary engineering will begin on the Lynnwood Link Extension.
• The Board will adopt a new parking and system access policy, which will give more emphasis to non-motorized access to stations, as has already been done for Northgate.

Sound Transit is delivering on its promises, and the Board is actively considering when we can put the next phase, Sound Transit 3, on the ballot!

Council Bill 117710 requires all vending machines operating on City Property to include “Healthier” and “Healthiest” food and beverage selections as defined by Public Health Seattle & King County “King County Healthy Vending Guidelines.” These standards are based upon calories, fat, sugar and sodium content.

Seattle’s Department of Parks and Recreation has already implemented a requirement for “Healthier” and “Healthiest” choices in all vending machines in City park facilities, a practice that was adopted into law for the Parks Department in 2010.

Vending machines with healthier snacks create more readily available healthy choices, and give people options. The experience with the Parks Department machines has shown that people like having these choices:  although there was an initial decline in sales, they quickly rebounded as people got used to the array of healthy choices that are now available.

Obesity and poor nutrition are serious problems in King County, and approximately half the adult population in Seattle is overweight or obese. Overweight adults are at greater risk for numerous serious health outcomes that place a large burden on the health care system and increase health care costs, including type two diabetes, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, certain cancers, asthma, arthritis and other debilitating diseases.

Ensuring easy access to healthy food and beverage choices in City worksites will provide opportunities for City employees to consume more nutritious food and beverages while at work, which will improve their health and their productivity as employees.

Under the ordinance any concessionaire operating a food and/or beverage vending machine on City property will be required to stock at least 50 percent of the items within each such machine with food and beverages items that meet the “Healthiest” or “Healthier” product selection criteria adopted by the Seattle King County Board of Health in the King County Healthy Vending Guidelines and to clearly label such items to inform consumers that such items meet the Guidelines.

We intend to review the implementation, compliance and impact of this ordinance one year from the effective date. This evaluation will include recommendations for promoting purchases of healthier foods and beverages, and will consider whether increasing the percentage of items in vending machines that meet the “Healthiest” or “Healthier” product selection criteria would promote healthier purchases. The ordinance also creates an accompanying education campaign conducted by the Department of Personnel to inform and educate City employees about the King County Healthy Vending Guidelines and the benefits of healthy vending choices.

This ordinance is one more step on the road to healthier eating and healthier lifestyles. Ultimately each of us must make these choices, but as a City we can provide the information and access that will encourage and facilitate good choices. The result will be benefits for the health of individuals and of our society, and reduced costs for our health care system.

Mayor Mike McGinn
Councilmember Richard Conlin

Council, Mayor propose healthy vending machine options

The Seattle City Council is considering legislation to increase the amount of healthy options in vending machines operated on City property. The majority of these machines only serve city employees.

"We are committed to providing healthier choices for our employees," said Mayor Mike McGinn. "This partnership with Seattle & King County Public Health is only the latest of our efforts to support a healthy work place. I thank Councilmember Conlin for his leadership on this issue."

"This is one way that we can support healthy and productive City employees," states Councilmember Richard Conlin, sponsor of the legislation. "Healthy vending provides opportunities for City employees to consume more nutritious food and beverages while at work."

Council Bill 117710 requires all vending machines operated on City Property to stock "Healthier" and "Healthiest" food and beverage selections as defined by Public Health Seattle & King County "King County Healthy Vending Guidelines." These standards are based upon calories, fat, sugar and sodium content.

Seattle’s Department of Parks and Recreation has led the way by successfully implementing the King County Healthy Vending Guidelines of "Healthier" and "Healthiest" choices in all vending machines in City park facilities in 2010.

"Vending machines with healthier snacks create more readily available healthy options," said Dr. David Fleming, Director and Health Officer for Public Health - Seattle & King County. "I applaud the City of Seattle for leading institutional changes that promote health."

Obesity and poor nutrition are serious problems in King County. Approximately half the adult population in Seattle is overweight or obese. Overweight adults are at greater risk for numerous serious health outcomes that place a large burden on the health care system and increase health care costs, including type two diabetes, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, certain cancers, asthma, arthritis and other debilitating diseases.

[View in Council Newsroom]

Councilmember Richard Conlin

National Earthquake Engineering conference coming to Seattle
Councilmember Conlin to present draft earthquake legislation

The City of Seattle is excited to welcome the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) to Seattle this year for their annual meeting, Feb. 12 through 15.

EERI's annual meeting will highlight earthquake policy issues while providing a venue for collaboration for researchers and practitioners from around the country. This year's meeting will focus on increasing community resilience following an earthquake.

"The 2013 EERI conference is especially relevant for the City of Seattle," said Councilmember Richard Conlin, chair of the Council's Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee. "Under the Council's direction, the Department of Planning and Development is developing an ordinance that will require earthquake safety upgrades to the most vulnerable buildings in our City, along with an incentive program to help building owners afford the improvements.  As we are reminded regularly, we will have a major earthquake in our region, the only question is when. We must all work hard to be prepared to sustain our City when that happens."

Councilmember Conlin will present the draft legislation at the conference. This legislation is the first of its kind outside of California. For more information, read Councilmember Conlin's blog post.

The annual meeting will highlight resilience planning efforts from across the country. Urbanization has increased our community's vulnerability to earthquakes, tsunamis and other disasters, presenting new challenges and opportunities for Office of Emergency Management staff.

"Seattle staff will be listening intently as we continue to enhance our strategies," added Emergency Management Director Barb Graff. "I applaud the outreach that EERI does to non-engineering communities. Together we all move closer to the goal of an earthquake resilient community."

For more information on the EERI and the 2013 conference in Seattle, visit https://www.eeri.org/.

[View in Council Newsroom]

Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan

On Monday, January 28, the Council unanimously adopted a resolution laying out a strategy for reviewing, updating, and implementing neighborhood plans. I introduced the resolution, with Councilmembers Clark and Bagshaw as co-sponsors.

Seattle’s 37 adopted neighborhood plans are a critical part of our Comprehensive Plan and the core strategy for our implementation of the Growth Management Act (GMA). They designate where new growth should be targeted and identify priorities for neighborhood amenities such as open space and street improvements. I was involved in developing the Central Area Neighborhood Plan before I ran for City Council, and my first major assignment on the Council was to shepherd the plans through the Approval and Adoption process. The plans were adopted between 1998 and 2000 after a city-wide effort energizing thousands of neighbors to work together to become community advocates for neighborhood visions, a public participation effort that is still a model studied by other communities around the country and around the world.

The neighborhood plans are now close to two decades old. While generally the core values and visions and many of the key strategies identified by neighborhoods seem to remain valid, to be accurate guides for changing neighborhoods the neighborhood plans must be periodically reviewed and refreshed. Virtually all neighborhoods have experienced implementation of plan priorities. Many neighborhoods are also experiencing significant increases in households and/or jobs beyond what was anticipated in their neighborhood plan. These changes need to be incorporated into the plans, especially as we near the next twenty year update of Seattle’s growth targets.

Ballard is a great example. The explosion of new apartments, condos and businesses along Market Street goes beyond what was anticipated in the Ballard plan. The designation of 15^th Avenue as a rapid ride corridor was also not anticipated. That part of the city is changing and we need to make sure that the plan is still relevant and that we are doing what residents said the city should do to respond to future growth.

There have been a few plans that have been recently updated because there have been very significant developments in those neighborhoods, such as light rail line construction or other transformational activities. Plans where updates are completed or in the process of being updated include Broadview-Bitter Lake, Roosevelt, University District, Capitol Hill, Downtown, South Lake Union, North Beacon Hill, Mount Baker, Othello, and Rainier Beach.

In the light of these changing conditions, we need to have a regular schedule for neighborhoods to review the implementation of their plans, engage new residents and businesses in working to implement the plans, provide the opportunity to consider whether recommendations that have not been implemented should be dropped, modified, or reemphasized, and adopt to changing conditions by developing new priorities and plans for the next phase of development under Seattle’s implementation of the GMA.

In order to do that, the Council and Mayor agreed to commit the City to working with at least three or four neighborhoods per year to review and update their plans. Our goal is to involve each neighborhood in this work at least every ten years. The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) and Department of Neighborhoods (DON) will lead the work with other City Departments partnering to ensure that neighborhood priorities are addressed and that inclusive engagement and outreach to neighborhoods is provided, especially the Office of Economic Development (OED), Department of Transportation (SDOT) and Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR).

We aren’t replacing existing neighborhood plans and all the hard work that went into them. Rather, we need to make sure that the plan’s recommendations are relevant. The core strategy will emphasize a place-based approach that successfully leverages public improvement, private investments and a collaborative approach to community engagement that furthers plan implementation, offers more value from the community’s input, and is strategic in leveraging investments to create change toward community and City goals.

Priority will be given to neighborhoods whose plans have not been reviewed since initial adoption, have experienced significant changes in conditions (such as implementation of major transportation facilities), have experienced either significantly more or significantly less growth than anticipated, and/or are expected to experience significantly increased growth in the future. Any urban center plans that have not been fully implemented or recently updated shall be given priority.

DPD, in cooperation with DON and the Seattle Planning Commission, will develop a draft schedule for implementation work based on the needs of specific neighborhoods as part of its ongoing three-year work plan.

The conversations and hard work required for neighborhood planning and plan implementation build partnerships between community members, local business and local government. We must keep this spirit alive and healthy in Seattle, and this resolution creates a path forward for doing that.

520 Bridge, Montlake Bridge, Arboretum

On Monday, February 4, the City Council Committee on the SR 520 Project (a special Committee that includes all nine Councilmembers) unanimously approved a Resolution committing the City to work with WSDOT to improve walking and biking connections on the west side of Lake Washington as the SR 520 project proceeds, including a shared use trail on the Portage Bay Bridge. I expect the Council to formally approve the Committee report on Monday, February 11.

 The resolution calls for improving the functionality, safety, and attractiveness of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Montlake community, especially on the lid, and developing designs for building the shared use trail on the new Portage Bay Bridge. As Chair of the Council’s Special Committee on the SR 520 Project, I introduced this resolution as the next step in making sure that the rebuild of SR 520 creates a system that effectively serves all modes of travel, enhancing the ability of Seattle residents to travel both across the Montlake interchange and on the SR 520 mainline.

It is clear that it would make sense to have a bicycle and pedestrian path on the Portage Bay Bridge, and that the current design for the area around the Montlake Interchange needs more development in order to ensure safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian connections. However, SR 520 is a State of Washington project, and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has the ultimate authority to make these decisions. Fortunately, the City has developed a strong working relationship with WSDOT as a result of our work with them to make the project successful, and WSDOT has committed to coordinating with the City on the design of the Seattle side. In 2011 we negotiated an agreement signed by WSDOT and the City that outlined a series of decisions that will need to be made on the Seattle side, and committed the two parties to a cooperative course in addressing them.

The Council has already called for a reexamination of the proposed Second Montlake Bridge, noting that a study that the City commissioned has determined that it offers little or no benefit for vehicles and transit, and that spending $100 million on this bridge is not the best way to meet the clear need for better pedestrian and bicycle connections across the Montlake Cut. The Council has allocated funds to conduct regular pedestrian and bicycle counts on the current Montlake Bridge to get a better picture of the need, to study several alternatives that would better serve pedestrians and bicycles, and to review the entire transit corridor around the Montlake Interchange to develop ways that would improve the movement of buses through the area. The review of the Montlake lid and connecting pathways by WSDOT and the City will complement that City work in facilitating pedestrian and bicycle movement.

The challenge for WSDOT and the City on developing a bicycle and pedestrian path across the Portage Bay corridor will be to reconcile efforts supported by numerous neighborhood organizations to reduce the width of the Portage Bay Bridge with our interest in adding a bicycle/pedestrian path. We are recommending that the designers look at the widest array of possible options in order to find the best design that meets both of those goals.

I am also recommending, following the advice of the Seattle Design Commission, that the City designate a point person to coordinate the City’s involvement with WSDOT on the SR 520 project. As these decisions move forward, it is important that we integrate issues like parks, transportation, and urban design.

We expect to have many west side design issues resolved by the end of 2013. At the same time, WSDOT will continue the work on SR 520 on the east side of Lake Washington, which is well underway, and the construction on the bridge approaches and pontoons that will actually comprise the floating bridge portion of the project.

WSDOT has also obtained a federal loan that will allow it to construct one of the two parts of the 520 corridor between the end of the floating bridge and the Montlake interchange. This is the first of several stages that are required to fully redo the Seattle side of SR 520. We want to keep this work going at a steady pace, as the worst case scenario for Seattle would be for the work to stall after the east side and floating bridge portions are constructed. That could leave the west side with unsolved transportation issues, and could potentially jeopardize important project components on the Seattle side, as costs increase over time and WSDOT searches for resources.

The fact is that WSDOT does not currently have the money to complete SR 520 on the Seattle side. If we want to ensure that we address the west side transportation issues, have comprehensive bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connections, and keep the elements that will make SR 520 work for our neighborhoods and the Arboretum, we must secure more funding. Tolling the I-90 Bridge has been identified by the State as a key element in their funding plan. This will, however, require authorization by the State Legislature, and that is a key action that the City will work on in this legislative session.

City of Seattle Seal

In 2012 I announced a set of priorities for my Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability (PLUS) Committee. Here’s a review of how we did, and the top ten priorities for 2013:

Accomplishments for 2012:

Goal: to develop Transit Communities Policies and advance neighborhood plans. Accomplishment: Major progress in getting Sound Transit (ST) to commit to Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and in moving implementation forward on Capitol Hill, University District, Rainier Valley, and Roosevelt ST sites. Moved Othello and Beacon Hill Plan updates through Council, kept North Rainier, Rainier Beach, and Bitter Lake going, and started University District.

Goal: Advance Vision Duwamish and take advantage of Superfund cleanup to create jobs, amenities, environmental restoration and community vitality in the Duwamish valley. Accomplishment: Progress, but Superfund is painfully slow.

Goal: Create an Industrial Development District that will encourage new industrial jobs through coordinated development, regulatory flexibility, and complementary environmental infrastructure. Accomplishment: Done, with first projects scheduled for 2013!

Goal: Move Yesler Terrace redevelopment forward. Accomplishment: Done!

Goal: Develop coordination policies for Transfer of Development Rights, etc. and incentive zoning – implement new TDR program with King County. Accomplishment: Lots of progress, still lots of work to do in 2013.

Goal: Approve Regulatory Reform Package. Accomplishment: Done!

Goal: Approve Shoreline Management Program update. Accomplishment: Done on January 14, 2013.

Goal: Develop new tree regulations with emphasis on incentives and forests. Accomplishment: Reset paradigm, but lots of work to do in 2013.

Goal: Update energy code and green building policies. Accomplishment: Approved revisions to Living Building program, more to do in 2013.

Goal: Work on emergency preparedness and find way to get Unreinforced masonry buildings renovated to earthquake standards. Accomplishment: Work moved forward, continues in 2013.

Goals for 2013:

1. Take Next Steps on Transit Communities Policies and Advance Neighborhood Plans
   1. Complete South Lake Union Rezone
   2. Complete work on Capitol Hill Sound Transit Development Agreement
   3. Adopt Neighborhood Plan Updates along with Urban Design Frameworks and/or Rezones in North Rainier, Greenwood, Broadview/Bitter Lake, Rainier Beach, and 23^rd and Union/Jackson Neighborhood Planning areas
2. Continue to advance Vision Duwamish and take advantage of Superfund cleanup to create jobs, amenities, environmental restoration and community vitality in the Duwamish valley, keep implementing Industrial Development District, implement Port Overlay District, and work on issues around Stadia and Georgetown
3. Take major steps forward on coordinating policies for Transfer of Development Rights, etc. and incentive zoning, and implement new TDR program with King County
4. Approve a comprehensive vision for Seattle’s urban forest and legislation to implement it
5. Keep moving Sound Transit station development and develop Station Area Plans around the North Rainier Station and possible North 130^th St Station
6. Approve legislation for a regulatory and incentive program to bring Unreinforced Masonry buildings (URMS) to modern earthquake standards
7. Revise the land use code to address new development issues and opportunities, including undersized Single Family lots, micro-unit apartment buildings, and updated neighborhood design guidelines
8. Launch the major update of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan, and ensure that it is well-integrated with our Climate Action Plan
9. Ensure that the waterfront and downtown areas have the kind of zoning and urban design standards to keep improving communities including Pioneer Square, Little Saigon, Central Waterfront, and the Lost Triangle
10. Endorse Neighborhood Plan update priorities for next two years and ensure that the University District Urban Center update moves forward, while working on new opportunities in areas such as Lake City and 12^th Avenue

Council President Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Sally Bagshaw
Councilmember Tim Burgess
Councilmember Richard Conlin
Councilmember Jean Godden
Councilmember Bruce Harrell
Councilmember Nick Licata
Councilmember Mike O'Brien
Councilmember Tom Rasmussen

Public invited to comment on memorandums of understanding related to renovation of Seattle's Central Waterfront

Members of the Seattle City Council Central Waterfront, Seawall, and Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program Committee invite the public to provide feedback on two proposed ordinances relating to partner projects that complement the City's renovation of the Central Waterfront.

WHAT: Public comment opportunity

WHEN: Monday, Feb. 4, 2013, 5:30 p.m. (Sign up available at 5 p.m.)

WHERE:
Council Chamber, Seattle City Hall
600 Fourth Ave, second floor
More information on visiting City Hall

The two memorandums of understanding (MOUs), Council Bill 117699 and Council Bill 117698, outline guiding principles, the process to move the project forward and provisions for City-funded support. They also include baseline concept designs that will be refined in coordination with City design of public-right-of-way improvements, including the Overlook Walk, the plaza in front of the Aquarium and new Alaskan Way and Elliott Avenue surface streets.

These MOUs were called for by Council Resolution 31399 relating to the Central Waterfront Concept Design adopted in August 2012.

[View in Council Newsroom]

Today some 16.4% of King County residents are uninsured, a lower percentage than the 21% uninsured in the United States as a whole, but still a very large number of people who lack access to quality health care and whose health depends on luck and the emergency room. The Affordable Care Act will help 85% of people who are uninsured through three major mechanisms:

• Employers of more than 50 people will be required to provide health insurance. This affects few people, since most employers of this size already do this. Employers of fewer than 50 people will receive tax credits if they provide insurance.
• Low income people with incomes less than 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), currently $31,809 for a family of four, will become eligible for Medicaid. This will cover about 83,000 uninsured people.
• An estimated 101,000 uninsured adults with household incomes between 139% and 400% of the FPL will become eligible for subsidized health insurance through Washington Healthplanfinder, our state’s health benefit exchange. These people will be able to select a health care plan from a menu of services and entities, and will be expected to pay a percentage of their income for the plan, with the rest of the cost subsidized. The amount subsidized varies by income level, but a family of four with an income between $31,809 and around $90,000 will be eligible for some assistance.

Only a small portion of the King County population will remain uninsured. Legal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid until they have been in the US for five years, although they can qualify for coverage under the insurance exchange; undocumented immigrants are not eligible for assistance. There are also a few exemptions from the requirement to purchase insurance, and some people may choose not to enroll.

Two things need to happen in order to make this health improvement program effective. First, people need to enroll in order to get Medicaid and to be subsidized under the exchange. Enrollment in both of these opens on October 1. Education and assistance campaigns will begin in June to give people information and help them prepare to make decisions and join the system. This planning is coordinated and largely funded through the State. In King County a coalition of organizations and businesses is already in place and developing this campaign.

The second, and more challenging, task is to ensure that there will be enough services and providers to handle the expected new patients. Pressure on emergency services will be reduced, saving money and potentially freeing service providers who can be redeployed to other areas. However, it is likely that many people will seek a variety of new services, and some will be entering the health care system for the first time. The challenge of creating medical records and providing those services will be significant.  In principle, there will be funding available to cover these costs, but getting the dollars to the right places to match the new services that are being used will be a challenge, and no one can guarantee that there will be an exact match. And, even if the dollars flow appropriately, finding and hiring staff and providing facilities and equipment takes time and organization.

Intense planning is going on in the health care system to ensure that things work as smoothly as possible. It’s exciting, and also a bit scary! But the benefits will be incredible – a healthier society where so many more people have access to services and where children and adults can be freed from the risks of uncertainty and ill health to become productive and happier members of society.

Council President Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Tim Burgess
Councilmember Richard Conlin
Councilmember Jean Godden
Councilmember Bruce Harrell
Councilmember Nick Licata
Councilmember Mike O'Brien
Councilmember Tom Rasmussen

Seattle City Council adopts updated Shoreline Master Program
New regulations protect shorelines for all

This afternoon the Seattle City Council unanimously adopted Council Bill 117585 comprising the first comprehensive update of Seattle's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) since 1987.

"These new regulations aim to meet the daunting goal of balancing three competing interests: the needs of our vital maritime industries, the public's right to shoreline access, and the state law to protect plant and animal habitat along our waters," said Councilmember Richard Conlin, Chair of the Planning, Land Use and Sustainability committee . "After five years, two drafts, hundreds of hours of staff work, and several phases of public involvement, this package of SMP amendments is a positive and proactive step in the right direction - protecting our precious shoreline resources for all."

The SMP is an important and complex set of regulations that govern development and uses on and adjacent to shorelines. In Seattle, this includes Puget Sound, Lake Washington, Lake Union and the Ship Canal, the Duwamish River, Green Lake, and wetlands and floodplains around these. The SMP affects land uses, structures and activities, including those occurring over water and on vessels, the location of structures including setbacks and allowed over water coverage, public access requirements and construction practices related to bulkheads, docks and piers.

Working extensively with the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) and the City Attorney's Office, the Council addressed most of the actions required under state law. In addition to that work, the Council held a public hearing along with public comment sessions at each of our seven Committee deliberations on the SMP, met with representatives of key affected constituencies, including people who live on boats and floating homes and water dependent businesses, and took field trips to visit houseboat communities and affected businesses. As a result of that work, the Council initiated and approved nearly 50 amendments to the legislation.

Many of these amendments were technical modifications and most of theothers clarify various situations involving water dependent businesses. The Planning, Land Use and Sustainabilitycommittee also strengthened some provisions relating to environmental protection and modified provisions relating to future regulation of people living on vessels. The Council made the following amendments to the SMP:

• Created a provision in the proposed allowed height and setback provisions for water dependent businesses to match the requirements for a Seattle company to modify their structure for building boats for Washington State Ferries. The improvements will not only make it possible to construct our ferries locally in a more efficient and economical way, but will reduce environmental impacts on the waterway.
• A provision defining fueling stations as water dependent uses inadvertently omitted the qualifier that these stations must only be for boats.
• A provision regulating single family homes in the shoreline environment did not exclude the use of historic lot lines that were not intended to definebuildable lots. We modified thelot definition.
• Language limiting signs in the shoreline area was strengthened.
• A provision prohibiting artificial reefs in functioning habitats was added.
• Language was added that directs DPD to prohibit the use of pesticides and fertilizers that impact ecological functions in the shoreline environment.
• In several cases, language was added that recognized that water dependent businesses can depend on certain non water related activities to sustain them financially. We allowed some exceptions to the use standards as long as there was no ecological impact and the property owner made a proportional investment in ecological restoration.

SMP update documents may be accessed onDPD's website at: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/ShorelineMasterProgramUpdate

The most challenging aspect of the SMP amendments has to do with figuring out how to address residences on the water. State law specifies that residential uses over water are not preferred uses of the shoreline/water environment. The City cannot change that law - it is based on the SMA initiative, and only the Legislature could modify it. The State did grant exceptions to allow some 480 recognized floating homes and 34 house barges, but has made it clear that there will be no new exceptions.

The Council has formed a stakeholder group to develop and consider alternatives for providing certainty and an orderly process for people currently residingon the water whose status is uncertain because they are not identified as legal existing floating houses or legal barges and are not clearly identified as vessels.

[View in Council Newsroom]

The SMP is an important and complex set of regulations that govern development and uses on and adjacent to shorelines. For Seattle this includes Puget Sound, Lake Washington, Lake Union and the Ship Canal, the Duwamish River, Green Lake, and wetlands and floodplains around these. The SMP affects land uses, structures and activities, including those occurring over water and on vessels, the location of structures including setbacks and allowed over water coverage, public access requirements, and construction practices related to bulkheads, docks and piers.

Updating the SMP is required under the State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), created by citizen initiative and adopted by voters in 1972. The SMA establishes policy goals for the management of shorelines, and the state’s SMP guidelines set requirements for how to achieve these, with some flexibility for local concerns and conditions. The Department of Ecology (DOE) has overall responsibility for approving state and local regulations under the SMA. Ecology issued guidance to local governments on how to complete this required update, and will review the final product. Our goal is to craft an update that Ecology can approve; if Ecology staff finds that there are provisions that do not comply adequately with the SMA, they will return the ordinance to the City for revisions.

The SMA specifies three major policy directions:

Preferred Shoreline Uses:  Water-oriented uses such as port facilities, shoreline recreational uses, and water-dependent businesses are preferred uses. Single-family residences are a preferred use if developed in a manner consistent with protection of the natural environment.

Environmental Protection:  The Act requires protecting shoreline natural resources, including “… the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic life …” to ensure no net loss of ecological function. No net loss of ecological functions means that the existing condition of shoreline ecological functions should not deteriorate because of development in the Shoreline District.

Public Access: The Act promotes public access to shorelines, including view protection.

The intense and comprehensive efforts of DPD and staff in the City Attorney’s Office, along with several phases of public involvement, resulted in legislation that addressed most of the actions required under state law. The Council held a public hearing along with public comment sessions at each of our seven Committee deliberations on the SMP. We met with representatives of key affected constituencies, including people who live on boats and floating homes and water dependent businesses. We also took field trips to visit houseboat communities and affected businesses. As a result of our work, we initiated and approved some 50 amendments to the legislation. Many of these amendments were technical modifications, and most of the others clarify various situations involving water dependent businesses. However, the Committee also strengthened some provisions relating to environmental protection and modified provisions relating to future regulation of people living on vessels.

The core of the legislation adopts the key recommendations from DPD, including:

• Ensuring No Net Loss (NNL) of ecological functions.
• Regulating environmentally critical areas located in the Shoreline District under the SMP.
• Developing a restoration plan that results in improved ecological functioning of the shoreline.
• Requiring that non-water-oriented uses include ecological restoration.
• Requiring that ecological restoration be included when replacing non-conforming uses and structures.
• Including shoreline buffers for all shoreline environments.
• Allowing 20% of a site to be used for uses that are not water-dependent or water-related (WD/WR) if they support WD/WR uses.
• Allowing additional height for permitted structures that are not WD/WR and for accessory uses.
• Allowing WD/WR uses to be located over water on lots in the Urban Commercial and Urban Maritime shoreline environments and allowing certain non-water-dependent or water-related uses to be located overwater as a Conditional Use.
• Requiring projects to avoid impacts and mitigate remaining impacts to achieve NNL.
• Defining and protecting priority freshwater and saltwater habitat.
• Allowing existing structures in the urban shoreline environments built in the required setback to be replaced if mitigation is provided.
• Allowing recreational marinas in the Urban Industrial and Urban Maritime shoreline environments in the Lake Union Ship Canal.
• Maintaining current regulations allowing floating homes to be repaired, maintained, and replaced.
• Prohibiting new floating homes.
• Maintaining current regulations prohibiting house barges after 1990 and requiring water quality protection while providing for the preferred uses and public access of the shoreline.

There is also a draft shoreline restoration plan that will be used by the City to identify the types of restoration that will increase ecological functions along Seattle’s shorelines.

SMP update documents may be accessed on DPD’s website at:

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/ShorelineMasterProgramUpdate

Here are some examples of amendments that the Council made to the SMP:

• We created a provision in the proposed allowed height and setback provisions for water dependent businesses to match the requirements for a Seattle company to modify their structure for building boats for Washington State Ferries. The improvements will not only make it possible to construct our ferries locally in a more efficient and economical way, but will reduce environmental impacts on the waterway.
• A provision defining fueling stations as water dependent uses inadvertently omitted the qualifier that these stations must only be for boats; we fixed that.
• A provision regulating single family homes in the shoreline environment did not exclude the use of historic lot lines that were not intended to define buildable lots (see my blog post    for an explanation!). We modified the lot definition.
• Language limiting signs in the shoreline area was strengthened.
• A provision prohibiting artificial reefs in functioning habitats was added.
• Language was added that directs DPD to prohibit the use of pesticides and fertilizers that impact ecological functions in the shoreline environment.
• In several cases, language was added that recognized that water dependent businesses can depend on certain non water related activities to sustain them financially. We allowed some exceptions to the use standards as long as there was no ecological impact and the property owner made a proportional investment in ecological restoration.

The most challenging aspect of the SMP amendments has to do with figuring out how to address residences on the water. State law specifies that residential uses over water are not preferred uses of the shoreline/water environment. The City cannot change that law – it is based on the SMA initiative, and only the Legislature could modify it. The State did grant exceptions to allow some 480 recognized floating homes and 34 house barges, but has made it clear that there will be no new exceptions.

The SMA also allows liveaboards on “vessels designed and used for navigation”. The SMP language does not change the law for people currently residing on existing structures that meet the State law definition of vessel. There are new standards that will create a clearer process for DPD to determine whether a future moored structure is the type of vessel that is allowed to be used as a dwelling unit, but this language does not apply to current residents.

Unfortunately, some residents are uncertain whether they actually live in a vessel. There have been some structures that are claimed to be vessels that are really houses on floats, which clearly do not meet the intent of the State law. There are enforcement proceedings underway in regards to owners whom DPD believes are in violation of the code. If, in the future, other owners receive a notice of violation, that person would have the opportunity to provide DPD with information showing that the floating residence is a vessel and the opportunity for judicial review. Only a judge can make the final determination as to whether an owner is in violation of the law and determine the consequences.

The Council would like to assist residents who are on vessels that are likely to be legal, but we have not come up with language that would do so and is still consistent with State law. We will continue to work on ways to resolve the uncertainty that the owners of an estimated 150 vessels/structures feel as they try to determine on which side of that line they fall. That could include additional SMP language or City administrative measures that could help to resolve uncertainties.

The Shoreline Management Act is a signal achievement of Washington’s commitment to environmental stewardship, preserving water dependent industry, and ensuring public access to the shoreline and waters of the State. As with many such legislative achievements, the details require careful and thoughtful review and management to ensure that the goals are truly being met. This package of SMP amendments is a positive and proactive step in the right direction.

Alturra aPodment Suites (photo from www.apodments.com)

The first “micro-unit” development, sometimes known as “aPodments” (which is actually one developer’s trademarked term) was constructed several years ago. In the last few months there have been a number of others built, many on Capitol Hill, but in a few other areas of the City as well, such as the University District. 

“Micro-unit” developments consist of very small dwellings, similar in size to a hotel room, which usually have private bathrooms and perhaps a mini-refrigerator and microwave. Seven or eight of these small efficiencies are grouped around a full kitchen/dining area. Since a housing unit is defined by the presence of a kitchen, this means that they are defined as a single unit. Many of these developments have been built in areas that are exempt from minimum parking requirements, and usually few parking stalls are included in the building.

The small rooms provide affordable housing (without using City housing levy or federal dollars), are very popular and are often leased out before the building is even finished. They are typically occupied by students or other people with limited resources and minimal housing needs, short-term residents, or persons who may have a larger residence in another City but use these when they are working in Seattle. Many of these residents do not bring cars to the development. However, the development type does not fit neatly into Seattle’s land use code, and occupies a gray area that raises some questions.

Seattle’s zoning code regulates the size of buildings in specific zones, and micro-unit developments must meet those aspects of the code. But other elements, such as requirements to engage in design review, are based on the number of units in a building, and, as noted above, unit is defined as the presence of a kitchen. A typical apartment building will include studios and one or two bedroom units, each with a kitchen, meaning that the number of bedrooms corresponds fairly closely with the number of units, although there are no specific limits on the number of bedrooms allowed in a housing unit. A micro-unit building, on the other hand, may have, say, 56 bedrooms around 7 kitchens. Since a housing unit, in the Seattle code, may house as many as 8 unrelated individuals, this is a legally permitted situation.

Design review is generally required for buildings that have more than 8 dwelling units in Lowrise zoned areas, or more than 4 units in Neighborhood Commercial. Most of the more traditional apartment buildings are required to go through design review based on the number of units, but a micro-unit building with the same bulk, mass, and height is usually below the unit threshold. Intuitively, this does not seem fair.

However, the issues I’ve heard have been mostly focused on density of tenants, impact on property values, lack of notification to the neighbors, and parking. Design issues seem to be secondary.

Thresholds for review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) are 20 units in most multi-family zoned areas, creating the potential for a similar situation, although the impacts of buildings in this size range are generally pretty minimal and SEPA review rarely results in significant mitigation requirements.

The Council has been monitoring these developments over time, as has the Department of Planning and Development (DPD). As with many developments, concerns are often raised by neighbors when these buildings are going through the permit process and under construction. However, these complaints seem to die down after the project is completed, and the oldest micro-unit building, on 23^rd Avenue near Madison, has been operating for years without generating any complaints that I am aware of.

Nonetheless the Capitol Hill Community Council has become alarmed by the increasing number of micro-unit buildings on Capitol Hill, and has asked that the Council put a moratorium on further construction until we can write code language that regulates them.

I agree that we should look at whether some redefinition is needed in order to treat the micro-unit buildings the same as a comparably sized apartment building for SEPA and Design Review purposes. 

However, there are some challenges to writing code that will actually work without causing problems in other areas. It would be perfectly legal to construct a building with 8-bedroom apartments; the only difference between this structure and a micro-unit structure would be presumably the degree of privacy the rooms afford – sharing a unit with roommates versus individuals living in separate “bedrooms” and only sharing a common kitchen and common hallways. Reducing the number of unrelated individuals who can live in a unit below the current 8 is problematic, limiting the opportunities for shared housing and efficient use of dwellings. Similarly, redefining ‘unit’ to be based around a bedroom rather than the kitchen/shared area would cause even more difficult problems:  would a three-bedroom apartment now count as 3 units? Builders are now constructing smaller ‘traditional’ apartments, so size may not be a good approach either.

Perhaps the most promising option would be to define both SEPA and design review thresholds in terms of the square footage of the building rather than the number of units (as it is currently defined for commercial buildings). However, this must be carefully evaluated to ensure that it is legal under State law and does not create other unintended consequences.

This may not fully address the Capitol Hill issues, however.  Many of the concerns we heard had to do with new buildings housing large numbers of residents where there had been a single family home, and decreased property values for adjacent single family homes. About half of the projects on Capitol Hill are being proposed in Midrise and Neighborhood Commercial zones, where these are not problems. Others are being built in areas that have been zoned multi-family for decades, but still have large numbers of single family houses. An apartment building could be constructed at any time in these areas, and, while a micro-unit building may house somewhat more residents than a comparably sized apartment building, it is not clear that the impacts are greater.

A moratorium does not, therefore, seem to be warranted. On the contrary, generally there seems to be no reason to discourage these developments:  the units are habitable and are filling a need in the housing market. The number of units in these buildings is not a regulatory issue, as underlying zoning regulates bulk, height, and other building parameters. The buildings are not any different from an apartment building that could be built in the same zone. The only exception might be where there are requirements for specific numbers of parking spaces per unit, but usually micro-units are being built in areas that do not have parking requirements.

There is a significant amount of research that is needed to design any specific code provisions that would be helpful in regulating these buildings, and to ensure that these developments are treated consistently with how other projects would be treated that have similar numbers of dwelling spaces but different unit counts. DPD will consider whether there should be a specific code section relating to them, and will do further research as to whether there are design standards or design review requirements that should be met depending on the size/impact of specific buildings.

We will continue to monitor micro-unit developments to see if there are issues that are of concern, but the design issues do not seem to be a major problem, and most of what we have heard from Capitol Hill seem to be related to the underlying zoning that permits multi-family buildings rather than to micro-unit buildings themselves.

Council President Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Sally Bagshaw
Councilmember Tim Burgess
Councilmember Richard Conlin
Councilmember Jean Godden
Councilmember Bruce Harrell
Councilmember Nick Licata
Councilmember Mike O'Brien
Councilmember Tom Rasmussen

Sea level rise will bring flooding to parts of Seattle by 2050
City plan will reduce greenhouse gases and adapt to climate change

Within the next 40 years,sea level rise caused by climate change will flood parts of Seattle during high tides, according to a new map developed by City planners, using conservative scientific assumptions.

Warming oceans are raising sea levels and changing shorelines worldwide. A new map created by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) shows parts of West Seattle, Georgetown, South Park, Harbor Island, Interbay and Golden Gardens could be inundated by 2050. The impact on Seattle shorelines depends on factors such as tides and storms, along with actions the City may take to reduce its own contribution to climate change.

"Climate change is an immediate and critical challenge," City Councilmember Mike O’Brien, chair of the Energy & Environment Committee said. "We are already seeing impacts in Seattle from extreme events, such as last month’s flooding of some 100 properties along Beach Drive in West Seattle. We need to take bold steps to prepare our city for expected impacts and drastically reduce our contribution to greenhouse gases going forward."

The City of Seattle has already taken action to deal with climate change. Departments have been taking steps to reduce their climate footprint and adapt to changes in temperature, precipitation and sea level rise. In 2010, Seattle made a commitment to become carbon neutral by 2050 and is writing a new Climate Action Plan to meet that goal.

"Seattle Public Utility’s sea level rise map suggests we have work to do to ensure Seattle’s utility infrastructure and assets are prepared for climate change," said Jean Godden, chair of the Libraries, Utilities and Center Committee. "Seattle is at the forefront of cities doing climate change planning and we intend to stay there. We’re going to make sure - starting now - that climate change impacts join safety and reliability as primary planning considerations for SPU and all city departments."

Today, the City Council called for public input on a set of recommendations for a new Climate Action Plan that were put forward by a recently convened Green Ribbon Commission.

"In the absence of meaningful climate action by the federal government, the Mayor instructed the Green Ribbon Commission to continue Seattle's tradition of climate leadership among the nation's cities," said Green Ribbon Commission co-chair Denis Hayes, president of the Bullitt Foundation. "Our recommendations were designed to help Seattle significantly reduce its own climate impact, and also-learning from Katrina and Sandy-help the city prepare for climate disruptions that are now inevitable. Equally important, these actions will also make Seattle a more equitable, prosperous and safe place to live."

"The Climate Action Plan will build on Seattle’s legacy of environmental leadership," O’Brien said. "Over the next two months we will hold a series of public forums and host an online survey to gather input from the people of Seattle to help guide the actions the city needs to take. We welcome all ideas and suggestions for actions we should take in the next three years as well as in the long-term. We plan to adopt a bold Climate Action Plan on Earth Day, April 22."

It is not too early for Seattleites to start preparing, either. Residents living in areas prone to flooding are advised to obtain federal flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program, available through Federal Emergency Management Agency. The average flood insurance policy typically costs around $600 per year.

[View in Council Newsroom]

As the long struggle to recover in New Orleans has graphically illustrated, recovering from a disaster can take years or even decades.  Making that happen requires an emergency plan that is built around resilience – having buildings that are designed to minimize damage, having the conditions in place that support communities ability to renew themselves, and having a plan to ensure that damage can be assessed, repaired, and restored as rapidly as possible.  Otherwise the economic and social impact of a crisis can lead not only to billions of dollars of economic losses, but disastrous consequences for people who cannot restore their health, vitality, and living circumstances.

Seattle is continuing to develop three initiatives that will help us to achieve more resilience.  We are working with communities, organizations, and neighborhoods to build capacity to respond to the impacts of disasters.  We are identifying steps that will reduce destruction and allow buildings and facilities to resist fatal damage and be ready to go back into use.  And we are creating a Post-Disaster Recovery Plan that will provide guidance on what to do in the wake of a significant disaster.  In the 2013-2014 budget, I secured funding for two specific projects:  developing a set of incentives to complement proposed regulatory requirements for our most vulnerable buildings, those made of unreinforced masonry, and developing the Post-Disaster Recovery Plan.

At the recent National League of Cities conference in Boston, I attended a session where presenters discussed new approaches to developing resilience.  They agreed that natural disasters in most parts of the world are becoming more intense due to climate change (since earthquakes are our most significant risk here, this is less so for Seattle, but the approaches are similar).

The core words that characterize a resilient city are:

• Responsiveness – being ready to take action
• Resourcefulness – having the confidence, training, and capability to act when resources are limited
• Flexibility and diversity – people and facilities that act proactively and are not centralized
• Learning – constantly open to new understandings and responding effectively
• Redundance and Modularity/Robustness – multiple pathways to resources and response
• Safe failure – designing facilities and systems that can contain failures and prevent them from bringing down the whole system

The biggest risk to resilience and recovery from a disaster, panelists agreed, is poverty.  People with limited resources will have great difficulty in developing and exercising these characteristics.  A poverty reduction program is important for so many reasons, but is also a critical factor in disaster response and recovery.

The federal government has changed since Hurricane Katrina, as the response to Hurricane Sandy showed.  One of our panelists was the Mayor of Joplin, Missouri, where a devastating tornado created a path of death and destruction a year ago that resulted in three times as much debris as the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center.  In both these cases, the federal government responded quickly and efficiently to help manage the immediate disaster and put the areas on the road to recovery.  But panelists emphasized that this response is not enough, and that only emphasizing institutional and community resilience and recovery planning will ultimately allow devastated cities to restore themselves.  Fortunately, we have grasped that lesson in Seattle, and are working to build our capacity for renewal for the disaster that we know will happen – the only question is when.

I continued to serve as the Council representative on the Sound Transit Board and was named Vice-Chair of the Capital Committee.  My other intergovernmental responsibilities include Chairing the Regional Food Policy Council, serving on the Growth Management Planning Council, the Board of Health, and the Green-Duwamish Watershed Restoration Forum, and representing Washington on the Board of Directors of the National League of Cities.  A lot of meetings… and a lot that I got done!  Here’s my Top Ten achievement list for 2012 (not necessarily in order of importance):

• Led the Council’s work in developing a successful levy to support the Seattle Public Library.  The levy was approved by some 65% of the voters in the August primary.  This will increase the library budget by about 25%, restoring all the cuts made in the recession years and adding funding for new hours, books and other collection resources, technology improvements, and major maintenance for library buildings.
• Secured passage of legislation to advance neighborhood plans and enhance communities, including plan updates for the Othello and North Beacon Hill Urban Villages and an ordinance to prevent construction on historical lots that were not intended to be buildable; began the process for updating the University District Urban Center Plan; moved rezones forward in South Lake Union to implement the SLU Urban Center Plan; secured agreement from the Executive for an accelerated schedule for neighborhood plan updates; and celebrated the opening of the Belltown Community Center, which I had added to the Community Centers Levy.
• Moved a difficult and challenging set of revisions to the Shoreline Master Program through the PLUS Committee, developing and adding amendments to promote water-dependent businesses, fund and ensure ecological restoration, and preserve floating home communities while preventing residential development over water.
• Won Council approval of a comprehensive package of Regulatory Reform measures to support housing and economic development, including encouraging home based businesses, reducing parking requirements in areas with good transit access, exempting small and medium size projects from SEPA review in areas that have not met their growth targets, and modifying requirements for street level retail to allow residential uses in where there is limited pedestrian traffic; secured Council approval of amendments to the Living Building Ordinance to create a “Deep Green” certification with accompanying incentives, with the goal of promoting building construction that is commercially viable and greatly exceeds current environmental requirements.
• As a member of the Sound Transit Board, successfully advocated for a new Transit Oriented Development policy; secured approval for investing Sound Transit and City funds in bicycle and pedestrian access to the Northgate Station, including a ped/bike bridge over I-5; introduced a possible station at North 130^th and I-5 into the North Link alternatives study; launched work on a Station Area Plan for the Rainier Avenue Station on East Link; continued to serve on the Board team successfully negotiating agreements with Bellevue to advance East Link; and worked with the Capital Committee to keep University Link and North Link moving forward.
• Won Council approval for new initiatives in the 2013-2014 budget to invest $500K annually in the Green Seattle Partnership to restore Seattle Parks; to add $130K each year to fund expanded domestic violence legal assistance for immigrants and refugees; to add $230K each year for food banks and food policy work; and to allocate $460K to complete new initiatives on earthquake preparedness, including a recovery plan for Seattle and an incentive program to retrofit unreinforced masonry buildings.
• Continued to lead the Council work on replacing SR 520, including getting funding for work to enhance transit connections through the Montlake Corridor and to examine more cost effective alternatives to a Second Montlake Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access across the Cut; launched Council review of proposed bicycle and pedestrian connections in Montlake and across Portage Bay with the goal of recommending an improved access plan to the State.
• Worked with City, community, and regional stakeholders to develop a Seattle Food Action Plan to focus the City’s food related programs, priorities, and policies for the next few years; continued a partnership with United Way to promote a Hunger Free King County; worked with the Regional Food Policy Council to recommend Comprehensive Plan policies related to food; won appointment as a member of the State Food Policy Council, to be launched in January 2013; continued work to increase the number of p-patch plots and food production on City-owned lands; began implementation of a Food Web project to work with regional stakeholders in integration of our work; introduced legislation to create a Transfer of Development Rights program to protect farmland in King County, scheduled for Council consideration in early 2013; and began the process of incorporating food system policies, goals, and implementation strategies into the Comprehensive Plan and Climate Action Plan.
• Continued work on restoring Seattle’s economy by initiating an Industrial Development District to promote manufacturing businesses and jobs, and moving forward policy initiatives such as Permit Consolidation and the Economic Development Commission.
• Continued to advance implementation of the Zero Waste Strategy by getting the ‘One Less Truck’ pilot project funded, supporting Council passage of new regulations requiring recycling of construction and demolition waste, and working with the Board of Health to develop a ‘Secure Medicine’ product stewardship takeback program for drugs and pharmaceuticals (scheduled for final approval in early 2013).

Marra Farm

Every once in a while there’s an unexpected positive in the midst of negative impacts like those of the current recession. Seattle’s gardeners will benefit because the City projected inflation rates that were higher than have actually been experienced when the Council developed the 2008 Parks and Green Spaces Levy. A lower inflation rate associated with the recession has meant that $427,000 reserved to cover inflated costs can instead be spent on projects.

And the City will spend it frugally, effectively, and in harmony with the City’s burgeoning interest in local food to develop approximately 115 new P-Patch community garden plots. The funds will also be used to add 14,500 square feet of land to the Marra Farm Large Tract Project for low -income households and to create new urban agriculture sites on city-owned land in Squire Park. 

The 2008 voter approved Parks and Green Spaces Levy earmarked $2 million to build four additional P-Patch community gardens. We planned to purchase land, and budgeted for the expected cost of new property. However, as a result of significant community involvement and the use of existing City property, by 2014 there will be 17 new gardens, and, in addition, five existing gardens will be expanded. It’s a great example of creative staff work and efficient government making the people’s money go farther!

Along with the new p-patch spaces, the added area at Marra Farm will double the size of the site and provide additional gardening space for three low-income farmers, and there will be two new sites at Squire Park. The sites at Marra Farm provide opportunities for low income families to grow some of their own food, and to become more self-sufficient through marketing their surplus production.

It is great for our community that we can expand opportunities for urban gardeners and farmers and continue to strengthen the P-Patch Program. These will help meet the high demand for fresh, organic, and local food in Seattle households. We can be proud that Seattle’s P-Patch Community Gardening Program now manages 81 gardens with 2650 plots and serves 6100 gardeners across the city, making it the second largest community garden program in the country (after New York City, which has ten times our population!).

Sound Transit logo

On Thursday, December 20, the Sound Transit Board unanimously adopted a policy to focus and increase Sound Transit’s involvement in Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Policy guidance on TOD was a key topic of a Sound Transit Board retreat earlier this year. The new policy clarifies what Sound Transit can and will do to promote new development around transit facilities. TOD is a key source of potential ridership for Sound Transit, and the Board decided that the agency was ready to take a more proactive role in advancing it.

As a transit agency with no land use responsibilities or authority, Sound Transit’s mission is to create transit opportunities for the region. The agency has concentrated its efforts over the last decade and a half on constructing and operating light rail and commuter rail systems and creating and operating a network of regional buses. While the agency has been involved in projects that will deliver riders to the system, such as building parking and partnering with other entities that can use Sound Transit surplus properties to develop housing, there has not been a systematic approach to integrating these opportunities with the delivery of transit services. At its spring retreat, the Board decided that new comprehensive TOD policies should be developed. This recognizes that Sound Transit has matured as an agency, proving its ability to deliver on its core mission of providing transit services, and is ready to take the next steps in ensuring that these transit services are well-integrated with regional plans in a comprehensive manner.

Sound Transit’s services are already designed to complement and coordinate with regional and local growth management objectives and land use plans. Sound Transit builds and develops services that connect Urban Centers and other core areas that are intended to be the locus of future population and employment growth.  The new policy creates a bridge that more firmly connects Sound Transit’s work to creating great places around stations in cooperation with local governments.

The Transit-Oriented Development Policy defines two categories of Sound Transit involvement:  “Agency TOD”, a policy for supporting TOD projects on Sound Transit property, and “Community TOD”, ways in which Sound Transit can foster and support projects in the area around stations.

The new focus developed out of the experience of constructing the first light rail line. While much of the line serves existing developed areas such as downtown Seattle, the hope was that new stations and services in areas like the Rainier Valley would lead to development around the stations that would provide employment and housing for residents and bring riders to Sound Transit. This has turned out to be a greater challenge than had been expected. The experience has shown that greater involvement and coordination is necessary to ensure that transit provides the most successful community service. With three new lines under construction or in planning (north to Northgate and then Lynnwood, east to Bellevue and Redmond, and south through the City of SeaTac), and with many opportunities to develop TOD on the horizon, the Sound Transit Board is committed to learning from experience and finding ways to ensure that TOD is implemented as smoothly and effectively as possible.

Specifically, the Board has mandated that evaluation of future TOD opportunities will play an increased role in siting and designing facilities, and in how the agency buys, uses and disposes of property. The Board will work with other government entities and the private sector to develop regional and local policies and as well as financial, land use and other strategies and tools to encourage and implement TOD, in coordination with stakeholder involvement.

Washington’s fragmented system of local governments, which is a product of the populist era, makes it difficult to implement the comprehensive planning mandated under the Growth Management Act. The kind of strategic approach embodied in this new TOD policy is a significant step towards resolving that.

Construction and demolition waste is one of the two major categories of materials that are frequently thrown away but have great potential for recycling (the other is food waste).  These two waste streams have been the major focus of City actions since the Zero Waste Strategy was adopted in 2007.  The City now has universal collection of food waste from single family residences, is phasing this in for multi-family, and has successfully worked with businesses and commercial waste collectors to ensure that compostable materials are collected in the commercial sector.

Most construction and demolition (C&D) debris is delivered to private transfer stations and recycling facilities that are not under City service contracts.  While there is a fair amount of recycling at these facilities, the City’s Solid Waste Plan calls for a 70% recycling goal as part of the Zero Waste Strategy.  In 2007, some 52% of the C&D was recycled, and by 2011 the recycling rate reached 63%.

The Council approved legislation that prohibited disposing of asphalt paving and brick and concrete by 2012, and adopted Building Code amendments to require a waste diversion plan and salvage assessment for construction sites in 2013.   Between 2010 and 2012, Seattle Public Utilities worked with stakeholders in the construction and waste processing sectors to develop a feasible plan to recycle all major components of the C&D waste stream. 

The legislation approved on December 10 will prohibit disposal of metal, cardboard, carpet, plastic film wrap, and new gypsum scrap by January of 2015, and clean wood and asphalt roofing by January of 2016.  Making this effective requires that facilities cooperate, that markets are available, and that we collect data on what construction projects are actually doing with their waste.  All of these components are built into the program, with provisions for administrative flexibility if there are problems with market development.

The materials that will be included in recycling requirements by 2016 represent more than 80% of the tonnage of waste generated in the construction sector.  Since SPU has forged a cooperative agreement with the businesses involved to make this program work, it is likely that we will be able to attain these goals, reducing the waste sent to landfills by 50,000 to 100,000 tons annually.

The MIMP process is designed to provide certainty to neighborhoods and institutions about the long-range growth plans, in this case for at least the next twenty years.  It is a multi-year process guided by the City’s Department of Neighborhoods who works with a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), the institution, and the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) to review the proposed plan and make recommendations to the City’s Hearing Examiner.  The Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation that goes to the City Council as a quasi-judicial issue.

Under quasi-judicial rules, which are also used for contract rezones (a rezone of a specific piece of property, as opposed to a neighborhood rezone) and a few other proceedings, the Council sits as a judicial body making a decision on the issue based on a formal record established in the Hearing Examiner process.  Councilmembers are not allowed to take input and collect opinions and arguments except in a formal public proceeding (although they may take cognizance of City documents such as Neighborhood Plans, and may visit locations to view proposed land uses). Council is required by State law to adopt such rules as they are deciding on the property rights of an individual property owner, in this case Seattle University.

The MIMP process can be a long and drawn out procedure.  Fortunately, since MIMP’s forecast growth over a period of at least 15 to 20 years, the Council only receives about one MIMP every two years.  The last MIMP that the Council worked on was for Seattle Children’s Hospital, which involved significant expansions in both area and development capacity, and took a number of months to work through.  The Seattle University MIMP, in contrast, was one of the least contentious MIMP’s that I remember.

It helps that there was such a small proposed addition to the Major Institution Overlay area.  Most stakeholders were included on the CAC, and they worked out many of the issues.  The Hearing Examiner process went smoothly as well, and by the time the MIMP came to the Council there were only two fairly narrow appeals that my Committee had to consider.  We reviewed the key documents and heard oral arguments, and were able to make fairly quick decisions.

Both appeals came from members of the CAC.  Two neighborhood representatives requested five changes, three to deny the eastward expansion areas, one requesting that student housing not qualify as replacement housing, and one requesting a stronger community notice process.  The CAC as a whole also asked for a stronger notification process, and that student housing not qualify as replacement housing.

The PLUS Committee agreed with the appellants and deleted one of the proposed expansion areas, a single site extension north of Marion on the east side of 12^th Avenue (the “Photocenter NW” site).   We felt that SU had not demonstrated a need for this area, and were concerned that it might limit potential private development in an area that was important to the 12^th Avenue Neighborhood Plan.  We denied the other two boundary appeals and the housing and process appeals, noting that SU already owned most of the few properties involved and that there were appropriate development standards, mitigation, and procedures to address the concerns raised by the appellants.

This was my first time managing a MIMP process as Land Use Chair, and I am pleased by how smoothly it went.  Good cooperation by all the parties involved and excellent staff work made this pretty painless.  We are pleased that Seattle U was able to put together a plan that will allow it to grow with such limited impact on the surrounding community.

1.  South Lake Union is an Urban Center and the proposed density implements Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan.  In 2004, the City Council officially designated South Lake Union as an “Urban Center” in the Seattle Comprehensive Plan.  Urban Centers are a key element in the region’s implementation of the Growth Management Act (GMA).  They are intended to have high levels of housing and employment growth, in contrast to the rest of the City, which is intended to grow more gradually.

In 2004 South Lake Union was assigned a twenty year growth target of 8,000 households and 12,000 jobs, approximately 17% of the City’s household growth and 19% of the employment growth for that period.  The planning horizon for this rezone extends out twenty years, and by 2031 South Lake Union would have to absorb some 12,000 households and 22,000 jobs in order to continue to meet its share of future growth.  The rezone provides the required 125% of targets mandated in State law.  It also provides additional capacity that recognizes that South Lake Union is developing very rapidly, and that decisions made on this rezone will shape the neighborhood for the next hundred years.  The City is not likely to rezone the area again for many years.

As Seattle continues to grow, if we fail to ensure that South Lake Union and other Urban Centers can accommodate this growth, other neighborhoods will have to absorb greater numbers of residents than are currently planned.

2.  This zoning proposal is endorsed by the South Lake Union Community Council, the designated stewards of the South Lake Union Neighborhood Plan.  The South Lake Union Community Council includes residents, businesses, and property owners in the South Lake Union neighborhood.  It has been the recognized stewardship organization for the neighborhood plan for more than a decade.  The Council worked with the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) for three years on this proposal, made some difficult decisions and tough choices, and developed a consensus position in support of the final proposal.  The rezone has also been endorsed by the Uptown and Queen Anne Community Councils, who are the closest neighbors.  The Cascade Community Council participated in the rezone process and asked to keep the current zoning in the Cascade Neighborhood on the east side of South Lake Union, and that request was accepted, with no change proposed in the zoning in Cascade.

3.  The proposed zoning embodies the principles of good urban form.  Across Denny Way, the Denny Triangle has zoning up to 500 feet high.  The south side of Denny Way has a 400 foot height limit, and the proposed rezone will extend that 400 foot height to the north side – making it consistent.  The zoning then tapers down to the 240 foot height on the Mercer blocks, with further tapering provided by the 100 foot drop in elevation between Denny and Mercer.  Good urban design is further reinforced by development standards and incentives that will encourage a diverse urban form rather than the full-block build-outs that current zoning would allow.  Proposed towers are widely spaced, with no more than two to a block with required separations.  Only one tower per block would be permitted on the Mercer blocks.  There are strong street-level design standards and incentives to ensure a lively and vibrant pedestrian environment, and a series of subarea standards designed to ensure that development maintains the character of specific communities.  There are also incentives to preserve landmark properties and existing open spaces and a new program that will preserve farm and forest lands by transferring development rights into the urban area.

Projects using the incentive program will also be required to meet the Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) certification of silver or better for building environmental performance, have a transportation management program that ensures that no more than 40 percent of trips to and from the project will be made using single‐occupant vehicles, and have an energy management program and conservation strategy.

4.  Public views are protected; the City does not – and should not – decide who gets private views.  The City protects public views from designated viewpoints, parks, and street corridors.  These views would be protected, as would the views of the Space Needle, a designated landmark.  The proposal carefully spaces out higher buildings, limits the size of the floor plates and the density of towers, and uses setbacks to preserve public view corridors.

While the City does take private views into account in zoning decisions, which is one of the reasons that tower spacing was included in this proposal, in general private views are explicitly not protected in City code.  Protecting private views would require the City to make choices elevating the rights of one property owner over another.  Protecting private views would also threaten the City’s commitment to the urban forest, as a mature tree can block views.  There will be impacts to private views from this rezone proposal, but the new views will be consistent with current views in the downtown area, combining the urban landscape with natural features.  In some cases the more diverse urban forms will provide less view blockage than is allowed under current zoning. 

5.  The residential towers on the Mercer blocks will have positive impacts on Lake Union Park.  The three Mercer blocks are separated from most of South Lake Union by a wide Mercer boulevard.  Current zoning or zoning that does not allow towers would most likely encourage commercial rather than residential development on these blocks because office space is very valuable in South Lake Union.  The proposed zoning only permits residential development fronting on Lake Union Park.  Having people living close to Lake Union Park will ensure that the Park is activated, with users having easy access at all hours of the day.  In addition, the zoning requires street-level retail uses that will spill out on the street and help activate the park, as well as requiring that 20% of the block area be set aside as open space.  As with many urban parks, Lake Union Park is beautiful but not heavily used, because it is currently a destination rather than a neighborhood amenity.  The only way to ensure that urban parks are active, well-used, and safe environments is to ensure that they have nearby residents who can easily access them on a regular basis.  Because they are south of the Park, the proposed towers will have some shading effects, but will not block sunlight.

 6.  The South Lake Union proposal includes a comprehensive transportation package that will improve travel in the neighborhood.  Completion of the Mercer project and the SR 99 tunnel will increase the number of east-west streets from two (Mercer and Denny) to five (Mercer, Denny, Thomas, Harrison, and John).  The rezone includes transportation mitigation that will further improve access – ensuring that new developments fund transportation improvements and enhancements.  Transportation analyses show that the proposed mitigation will improve or stabilize travel opportunities around South Lake Union.

 7.  There are significant benefits for affordable housing.  New housing is inherently more expensive than existing housing, and it is difficult to provide low income or even work force housing in new projects.  While new development in South Lake Union will not displace existing affordable or low income housing, it will not increase the supply unless there are incentives and requirements for developer contributions.  These provisions must be carefully designed to ensure that it will still be attractive for developers to construct housing, especially in an area like South Lake Union where commercial office space can be a profitable competing option.

Current Seattle incentive zoning provisions require developers to either include affordable housing in their projects or to contribute to funds that will build low income housing if the developer wants to build to the maximum height and density.  These provisions are generally well accepted, and the proposals for South Lake Union will ensure that there is a significant contribution to low income housing production in the City.  In addition, the Mayor’s office has negotiated a draft agreement with Vulcan, owners of the Mercer blocks that would provide land that could be used for additional low income housing and other public benefits.  This would be part of the conditions for allowing an additional eight stories of tower development on those blocks (to the maximum of 240 feet).

The Council will carefully review these provisions and proposals to ensure that the City gets the best possible contribution to affordable housing.  We will balance that goal against the risk of raising the cost of residential development so much that it causes developers to build offices instead.

Conclusion:  The City Council should consider modest adjustments that would strengthen the proposed rezone, but should endorse the major elements of the proposal.  The proposed South Lake Union rezone is the last step in a comprehensive update of the South Lake Union Neighborhood Plan.  The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) has been working with the South Lake Union community since 2008 to develop this proposal.  Most of the work was completed this summer, and the Council received the final legislation in September.  We are exhaustively examining the proposed rezone, and considering some adjustments that are consistent with the environmental review of the proposal completed by DPD.  I will encourage the Council to recognize these realities of the proposed rezone, to adopt the major provisions, and to allow South Lake Union to be the great Urban Center envisioned in the South Lake Union Neighborhood Plan.

Next November, the annual convention will be in Seattle, and the organization has agreed to provide delegates an opportunity for the first time to vote on a resolution endorsing marriage equality.  It has only been in the last few years that NLC endorsed Comprehensive Immigration reform and took a stand in favor of action on global warming.  Both of those issues required several years of discussions before the organization was ready to make a decision.  More recently, NLC has created a Sustainable Cities Institute and launched work on local food issues.  In 2010 I sponsored a resolution that for the first time put NLC on record taking a stand in favor of a progressive Farm Bill.  And at this year’s convention, after a vigorous floor fight, the membership overrode a 15 to 14 vote of the Resolutions Committee to take a stand on the practice of fracking (using water, sand and chemical additives that can contaminate water supplies to open sandstone and shale formations in order to extract oil and natural gas).

NLC has historically had a very strong Black Caucus, many of whom are from small cities in the South.  With the retirement of the long-serving Executive Director, the Board (on which I sit) selected a former leader of that caucus as its new Executive Director, Clarence Anthony, former Mayor of South Bay, Florida.  The Board also elected our first Latina President, Mayor Marie Lopez Rogers of Avondale, Arizona, who grew up as a farmworker and has led the urban resistance to the anti-immigration policies of Arizona’s Republican Governor and Legislature.

The League has taken a strong stand against the across-the-board spending cuts that would come if there is not federal action on the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’, and in favor of revenue enhancements as part of any deficit reduction plan.  Once that set of issues have been addressed, we see immigration reform is a critical priority for 2013.  I will participate in a January Board meeting that will identify our three or four highest legislative priorities, and in the March Legislative conference in DC that will mobilize several thousand city leaders to go to Capitol Hill to advocate for them.

Several years ago I worked with then-Mayor Nickels to get NLC to designate Seattle as the site for the 2013 National Conference – the first time NLC has come to Seattle since the mid-1980’s, when then-Mayor Charles Royer served as NLC President.  After securing the Board’s endorsement for the Seattle conference, in 2011 I became the first Seattle representative in some 15 years to be elected to the NLC Board, after serving as both a member and Chair of NLC policy committees over the last few years.  I was elected along with several other Mayors and Councilmembers who had been active in the Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Policy Committee, one of NLC’s most progressive policy groups.  We are part of shaping the evolution of the organization into a bolder and more progressive vision that will help NLC revitalize itself after losing several hundred member cities due to the strained local budgets of the Great Recession.

The 2013 Seattle Convention will be an opportunity for the whole region to demonstrate our collaborative and innovative work on urban issues, as we are working with the Association of Washington Cities and our suburban partners to design the conference.  City leaders from around the country have expressed enthusiasm about visiting Seattle, and it will be a great chance for us to show off our progress on transit, urban development, zero waste, local food, economic vitality, and environmental stewardship to thousands of City officials.

Seattle’s urban forest is an important asset to the City.  Healthy trees in our parks and greenbelts keep steep slopes from becoming landslides and reduce flooding by absorbing and detaining stormwater.  Seattle’s existing urban forest provides millions of dollars annually in benefits to the City, in addition to being a great natural environment for Seattle residents to enjoy and value.  Forests also, of course, combat global warming by absorbing carbon.  Those are all great reasons why Seattle has set of goal of expanding tree cover in the City.

But forests in an urban environment don’t thrive without maintenance.  Our forests are adversely affected by invasive plants like ivy, which choke trees and ultimately can kill them.  And, while we are happy to have all of our trees, many of those planted in past years are neither native trees nor well adapted newcomers, and those exotic species often have short life spans and need replacing.

It takes a lot of work to maintain the 2500 acres of City owned forest, and the City has never had enough funds to properly steward these trees.

Enter the Green Seattle Partnership, an innovative approach that combines public and private funding and volunteer labor to take up the task that public agencies cannot afford to do by themselves.  Forterra, formerly the Cascade Land Conservancy, developed the Partnership idea a decade ago, and signed an agreement with the City in 2004 to begin a twenty-year effort to restore Seattle’s 2500 acres of forest.  There have been many accomplishments over the years, and the City investment of $1 to $1.5 million annually has been matched several times over by private investment and volunteer energy.

Most recently, this effort was funded out of the 2008 Parks Levy, with a modest amount of assistance from the drainage fund of Seattle Public Utilities.  The Parks Levy expires in 2014, however, and it has never reached the $2.5 million annually that was envisaged in the Partnership agreement.  In 2012, the City provided $1.3 million, but that was scheduled to drop to $800,000 in 2013.

I asked Mayor McGinn to include additional funds in the 2013-2014 budgets to at least maintain the current level of effort, and I very much appreciate his agreement to do so.  However, if we are to reach our goal of a healthy public forest, more funding will be needed.  I proposed adding another $500,000, either from the drainage fund or other resources.  Fortunately, the hot commercial real estate market is generating more tax revenues from the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) than we had anticipated.  Those funds can only be spent on capital construction and maintenance, not for expenditures like city staff, police, or human services – but maintaining the urban forest qualifies as an eligible use.  So, the Council has voted to add these funds in 2013 and 2014.

We will have to revisit this issue in future years, but I am hopeful that either a renewed Parks levy or an ongoing allocation through the drainage fund will be approved in 2014.

This year’s process was relatively smooth, since the economic recovery has begun lifting City revenues, and some difficult cuts made in the last two years helped keep the City on an even financial keel.  As I wrote in a previous post, the Mayor’s budget proposed very few cuts and even began restoring a few of the cuts made in the 2011-2012 cycle.

I am very pleased to report that the budget increases funding for the Seattle Public Library by almost 30%.  We are able to do this because the voters approved the library levy in August.  The levy provides funds to restore hours and collections budget that had to be cut in the 2011-2012 budget, as well as new funds for technology, collections, and building maintenance.

The Council made some major changes in the Mayor’s budget.  The Council added a public safety package that funds ten additional police officers and advances the replacement of the North Precinct, which is overcrowded and inefficient.  We adopted a transportation package that adds $2 million for street paving and funds the Ballard and Delridge Greenways and a Downtown Cycle Track.  The Council also reprioritized funding for transit planning to emphasize bus corridor improvements that can produce immediate benefits while maintaining enough funding to advance rail corridor planning, and funds further work on transit reliability and bike/pedestrian access around SR 520.

We also added $4 million in human services programs over the two year cycle, including $200,000 per year for assistance to victims of domestic violence, $200,000 per year for bulk food purchasing for food banks and meal providers, $150,000 per year for services to home-bound seniors, $600,000 per year for new housing and day centers for the homeless, and $530,000 in 2013 and $1.1 million in 2014 to expand the Nurse Family Partnership to reach all eligible mothers who wish to participate. 

The Nurse Family Partnership, initiated by the Council two years ago, is based on a national model for assisting low income mothers in the early months of caring for children.  It has been shown to have profound and far-reaching effects in preventing child abuse and other family problems and promoting mental and physical health.  Participation in this program has also been demonstrated to lead to long term positive results in increasing children’s academic achievement and reducing their future involvement with the criminal justice system.  With many of our programs, we know we are helping people, but are frustrated by how great the need is compared to our resources.  In this case, we have mobilized the will, identified and designed an effective program, and found the funds to actually meet the full need for services.  It’s a proud day for Seattle.

Recognizing that we must plan ahead to create the kind of Seattle that will work for the future, the Council added funds for land use planning for neighborhoods, industrial areas, and the Design Commission.  We also funded the next stage of our emergency preparedness work, including developing incentives for earthquake retrofit for unreinforced masonry buildings and disaster recovery planning.

The Council funded a few major priority projects, including a full evaluation of the youth violence prevention; $500,000 annually to increase City support for the Green Seattle Partnership to restore and maintain our urban forests (I’ll post more details on that soon!), $520,000 to improve the Lake City Community Center, and $100,000 for capital funding for arts facilities.

The Council balanced these adds by cutting some of the Mayor’s proposals that did not seem to have clear justification, such as the proposed Gunshot Locator System, but most of our additions were funded as a result of increasing revenues, especially from the dynamic commercial building sector downtown.  It’s a good illustration of how our patient nurturing of a strong economy not only generates jobs and other benefits for those who work or have businesses, but also allows us to provide services to our residential neighborhoods.

Seattle enters the next two years with a fiscally sound and carefully developed blueprint for growing and sharing prosperity.  Our 2013-2014 budgets serve the needs of the present while positioning us to advance in the future.

This project is another step forward on dramatically improving Jefferson Park, as was called for in the neighborhood plan.  The City has invested millions of dollars in burying the reservoir, redeveloping the Park, and adding new sports fields and other park elements (including a Food Forest!).  The upgrade of the golf facilities will benefit Beacon Hill residents who golf, as well as those who don’t, as it includes a restaurant and other amenities.  It also benefits the entire Seattle area golfing community by significantly improving this facility. 

Beacon Hill is one of our most diverse communities, and the Jefferson Park facility has historically been the premier facility serving members of Seattle’s minority communities who golf.  This project, like the other improvements to Jefferson Park, demonstrates the City’s commitment to investing in our neighborhoods and in facilities that serve minority and low income communities, a key element in our commitment to the City’s Race and Social Justice Initiative.

The North Beacon Hill Neighborhood Plan called for “…a new clubhouse per the effective design used at the Interbay golf facility.  Consider construction of a double-decker (driving range) facility in order to maximize efficiency of operation and increase the revenues from these facilities.”  Renovating or replacing the Jefferson Park clubhouse and expanding the driving range were both included the master plan for Seattle’s golf facilities developed in 2009.  However, while approximately 80% of the emails I received on this project supported it, some community members expressed concerns about the lighting, the replacement of the historic building, the cost of replacing the building, and the design of the new building.

• As noted above, even though the new lighting will be higher, it will be much more focused on illuminating the driving range, and will greatly reduce the glare and impact around the facility.  The light trespass map shows clearly that this will be an improvement for neighbors and drivers on Beacon Avenue.  We have experienced similar results with new lighting at many of our athletic fields.
• The building was submitted to the Landmarks Board, and a motion to give it a landmark designation failed by a 4 to 4 vote.  Even if a historic designation was granted, that would not necessarily have resulted in building preservation, only that landmark status would have to be taken into account in any renovation or replacement.  The Council generally defers to the recommendations of the Landmarks Board, who are our experts in historic preservation.
• While replacement of the building will cost approximately $1 million more than the estimated cost of renovation, there are substantial benefits ranging from energy conservation to improved interior design as a result of replacing the building.  This project is fully funded out of golf revenues, not the City’s general fund, and the project is expected to increase those revenues.
• The Design Commission approved the new design, and the Council generally defers to those experts on design issues.  People often have strong feelings about designs, both positive and negative, and we are generally reluctant to impose our aesthetic standards.

The project will begin construction in the next few months.

City Council Budget Committee refocuses 2013 budget on urgent, immediate needs
Budget actions invest limited resources to deliver results

Seattle – The Seattle City Council's Budget Committee today voted unanimously on a balanced 2013 budget for city operations and endorsed a spending plan for 2014.

The Council's revisions to Mayor Michael McGinn's September 24 budget proposal add funding for more police officers; focus more work on street repairs and transit speeds; care for Seattle's most vulnerable residents by adding nurse visits for low-income mothers, day shelter space, and support for food banks; build sustainable communities by maintaining investment in community centers and youth violence prevention; and step up the city's ability to measure results of tax payer investment.

"This year we asked the question – how do you deliver the right mix of services while still living out the end of a recession?" said Council President Sally J. Clark. "Mayor McGinn presented a good starting place. We dug into the numbers and the needs. I'm confident this final budget for 2013 manages urgent needs and invests for our future growth."

"The Council worked collaboratively to make changes that effectively address the urgent issues Seattle residents face today," said Councilmember Tim Burgess, Budget Committee Chair. "Listening to the community's priorities, we have developed a budget that invests our limited resources wisely and delivers results."

The following documents contain more information about the Council's changes:

• Summary of major Council changes
• Detailed list of Council actions and associated dollar amounts
• What community leaders say about the Council's budget

Proactive public safety

Continuing its emphasis on keeping Seattle's neighborhoods safe, the Council added more than $2.5 million to hire new police officers and fund police emphasis patrols to proactively prevent violent crime.

"The Council prioritized and focused on adding more police officers in neighborhoods," said Councilmember Bruce Harrell, Chair of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee. "We increased funding to add 21 police officers and $1 million for proactive policing emphasis patrol. The Council listened and acted to enhance public safety for all neighborhoods."

Enhance transportation mobility

Taking a balanced approach to transportation issues, the Council stressed the needs of today's transit riders while also advancing long-range planning for high-capacity transit already underway. The final budget package reprioritizes more than $2 million in transit funding to improve transit speed and reliability for bus corridors identified in City's Transit Master Plan.

Councilmembers also recognized the importance and need of basic road maintenance, preserving safety, mobility and the efficient movement of goods and allocating $2 million street maintenance, repairs and maintenance along Seattle's major transit corridors.

"The public is asking for better bus service now and with the additional funds SDOT will be able to make near-term road and signal improvements to help Metro provide better service and reliability," said Transportation Committee Chair Councilmember Tom Rasmussen. "We are also funding long-range planning for High Capacity Transit. The Madison corridor planning will begin in 2013 and the Eastlake corridor planning begin in 2014."

Caring for our most vulnerable residents

Councilmembers added $1.7 million in direct human services funding for a variety of vulnerable populations including victims of domestic violence, seniors, first-time moms living in poverty, individuals and families needing food security and homeless women, men and families.

"I'm pleased that the Council joined together to create human services package to enhance care for the most vulnerable members of our community," said Housing, Human Services, Health and Culture Committee Chair Councilmember Nick Licata. "In particular, it's critical that as part of that package we'll increase shelter capacity for the nearly 2,000 people sleeping outside as well as increasing day services for people spending the night in shelters that are closed during the day. Shelter and day services programs not only address critical survival needs but they also serve as outreach centers for those needing healthcare, case management and a connection back to a supportive community."

"We made great strides towards strengthening human services – adding an average of $2 million over the next two years on top of what the Mayor proposed – including funding for bilingual domestic violence advocacy," said Councilmember Jean Godden. "We also prioritized neighborhoods, making new investments in community center facilities and forest restoration to realize the Seattle we all envision."

Building a sustainable community

To encourage the growth of a more sustainable community and to support Seattle's continued economic recovery, the Council added funding for Green Jobs initiatives, growth-oriented land-use planning initiatives, efforts to reclaim public green space and restaurant permit streamlining.

"The Council is taking actions to create a better future for Seattle," stated Councilmember Richard Conlin, Chair of the Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee. "We are investing in bus and streetcar systems that will increase transportation choices. We are increasing funding for the Green Seattle Partnership, which mobilizes volunteers to maintain the health of our urban forest. We are continuing our emergency preparedness efforts by funding work on unreinforced masonry buildings and creating a resiliency strategy. And we are adding new resources that will strengthen housing, community centers, and human services in our neighborhoods and urban centers."

Following policy developed last year, the Council preserved the tiered structure for community centers, keeping operating hours for centers intact from baseline 2012 levels. The Council also added $500,000 to make capital improvements for the Lake City Community Center.

"Even with our economy showing signs of recovery, we need to be strategic with our resources and spending. We can't continue to fund every desire; we must target results and effectiveness. We have chosen to keep all of our community centers open while directing our money towards proven, intentional programming," said Parks and Neighborhoods Committee Chair Councilmember Sally Bagshaw. "We are meeting both needs and wants across the city and being purposeful with our priorities."

"Lake City is a growing and changing community. It's got a great group of active neighbors and residents. Now we are looking into the right programming for teens and seniors and creating an accessible, open, and welcoming community center," added Council President Clark.

Delivering results

To make sure the City's new investments actually improve lives and communities, the Council set aside $400,000 for the City Auditor to conduct evaluations of programs targeted for significant expansion (the Seattle Youth Violence Prevention Initiative and the Career Bridge employment assistance program) and has provided additional staff at the Auditor's Office to support this work.

The Council also requested additional clarity from the Executive regarding the specific outcome targets for other new or expanded programs, including the Center City Initiative and entrepreneurial support offered by the Office of Economic Development.

"I want to say thank you to all of the people who turned out to testify at public hearings, emailed, called and met with Council throughout this budget process," said Councilmember Mike O'Brien. "I was impressed with the engagement we saw from so many in the community and I think the input we received helped guide our thinking and decisions in this budget."

Final adoption of the 2013-2014 biennial budget will occur Monday, Nov. 19 at 2 p.m.

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

The proposed rezone is the last step in a comprehensive update of the South Lake Union Neighborhood Plan.  The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) has been working with the South Lake Union community since 2008 to develop this proposal.  Most of the work was completed this summer, and the Council received the final legislation in September.

Key components of the legislation include:

• Linking increased building height and floor area to incentive zoning to create opportunities for affordable housing;
• Maintaining current scale in the Cascade Neighborhood;
• Preserving public views through new development standards for tower spacing;
• Encouraging a strong pedestrian environment through strong street-level design standards; and
• Strengthening incentives to preserve landmark properties and existing open spaces while including a new program that will preserve farm and forest lands by transferring development rights into the urban area.

Historically, South Lake Union was a mixed commercial/industrial community with pockets of residential development and relatively low buildings.  Over the last few years, since being designated as an Urban Center in 2004, there has been significant commercial and residential development, including some height increases, notably for the Amazon complex and the University of Washington Medical Buildings.  Projects under development are generally seeking additional height, floor area, and zoning for more residential units.

The designation as an Urban Center comes with a set of Comprehensive Plan policies that are designed to encourage more development and significant increases in employment and housing.  The 2004 Comprehensive Plan update set twenty-year growth targets for South Lake Union at 8,000 households and 12,000 jobs, about 17% of citywide household and 19% of citywide employment growth.  The next twenty year update will likely maintain these percentages.  That will mean significantly more households and jobs in South Lake Union, because Seattle will grow even more significantly as we fully implement our growth management responsibilities.  Meeting these goals will require additional zoned capacity, and the proposal provides for an estimated capacity of 22,000 to 24,000 dwelling units and 28,000 to 30,000 jobs, which should cover projected development over the next twenty years.

The proposed new zoning includes increased height near Denny Way adjacent to the similar heights in the Denny Triangle neighborhood; increased heights through the center of South Lake Union where much current development is taking place; towers on the blocks between Valley and Mercer, across the street from the South Lake Union Park; smaller increases in height and density on the east and west sides of the neighborhood; maintaining current zoning in the Cascade neighborhood to the northeast; and modest adjustments on the northwest (partly as required under FAA regulations to preserve the flight path from the Lake Union Seaport).

The proposal carefully spaces out higher buildings, limiting the size of the floor plates and the density of towers, and using setbacks to preserve public view corridors. There are also a number of regulatory standards and incentives designed to ensure a lively and vibrant pedestrian environment and a series of subarea standards designed to ensure that development maintains the character of specific communities.

Under the proposed rezone, additional height and floor area must be gained by providing public amenities through the incentive zoning program.  Developers will generally be allowed to build to current height and floor area ratio (FAR) (called the “base” height and FAR) without using the incentive program.  Those who choose to build above this base height and FAR will be required to contribute public amenities in proportion to the amount of extra floor area.  This includes affordable housing, child care facilities, and open space enhancement and preservation. 

Projects using the incentive program will also be required to meet the Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) certification of silver or better for building environmental performance, have a transportation management program that ensures that no more than 40 percent of trips to and from the project will be made using single‐occupant vehicles, and have an energy management program and conservation strategy.

Projects can use the “TDR for TIF” program as part of their incentive requirements (see my blog post for more details).  This will transfer development rights from farm and forest land into the development while providing the City with additional funds for parks and other local infrastructure.

The changes in South Lake Union are creating an exciting and lively community that provides the kind of housing and employment opportunities that will keep Seattle a strong and healthy City.  My Committee will work through the details of this proposed rezone with the goal of ensuring that this neighborhood thrives – and that all of Seattle benefits from these developments.  Follow this link for more information on the details of the rezone.

Seattle City Council statement on likely passage of Seawall proposition

SEATTLE – Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, chair of the Council's Transportation Committee, released the following statement on the likely passage of Proposition No. 1 for General Obligation Bonds for the Alaskan Way Seawall:

"On behalf of the Seattle City Council, I applaud and thank Seattle voters for understanding the need to replace this most basic piece of Seattle's commercial and transportation infrastructure by approving Proposition No. 1. Rebuilding the seawall is critical to protecting the lives and property of our neighbors in downtown Seattle and along Alaskan Way and in the water."

The aging seawall has been considered vulnerable to an earthquake ever since the Nisqually Earthquake in 2011. Its collapse would have grave effects upon the businesses, utilities and roads along the waterfront and into downtown.

The measure was designed to fund the public safety need for a new seawall. The replacement project is also the critical first step in a larger vision to revitalize the downtown waterfront.

A strong and secure seawall will serve as the foundation and an important step in moving that revitalization forward. To meet the safety concerns caused by the seawall's vulnerability, the City has an accelerated schedule planned for replacing the seawall. By approving this necessary funding now, the project will be able to take advantage of today's favorable construction and bidding environment to begin this important project in 2013.

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

Community Power Works logo

The City’s Community Power Works program, funded out of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA – the ‘economic stimulus’ legislation of 2009) received some critical reviews for starting up more slowly than the original plan.  It did turn out to be challenging to ramp up as quickly as had been hoped, but the good news is that the program is now well underway and is on track to meet or exceed its goals before the scheduled completion date next year.  Sadly, bad news about government programs is worthy of headlines; getting things done, even in a challenging and difficult experiment, is often overlooked.  We’ll see if the mainstream media ever cover this good news story!

Community Power Works is a bold experiment to see if a modest federal investment can leverage substantial investment by building owners in energy conservation.  While many building owners have often invested in the easiest measures (like wall insulation), the premise of Community Power Works is that doing comprehensive energy audits and linking building owners with financial incentives and access to financing can lead to more complete and extensive conservation packages being implemented.  By providing the opportunities for local contractors to increase their activity and experience in installing conservation measures, the hope is that the energy conservation sector will grow and be in a position to keep marketing and installing these measures in the market in the future.  If all goes well, Seattle will save energy in a cost effective way, create new jobs, and have businesses that will continue to succeed.

The program saw immediate successes in the institutional and commercial sectors.  Four major hospitals – Harborview, Virginia Mason, Swedish, and Group Health – led the way by undertaking extensive audits and implementing upgrade projects.  The goal in the commercial sector was to retrofit 600,000 square feet of commercial space:  300,000 square feet have been completed, 110,000 square feet is under construction, 1.5 million square feet are under bid negotiations, and 2.2 million square feet are in the auditing process.  Both of these sectors are headed for outstanding success, exceeding the program goals.

The goal for residential properties is to retrofit 2,070 units.  As of September 30, 780 single family homes and 600 multifamily units have completed upgrades or are in progress.  Community Power Works is continuing to perform audits and work with building owners to commit to improvements, and has a good chance to meet or exceed this program goal as well by the middle of next year, when the program is scheduled to be finished.  The program has completed over 50 homes in each of the last two months.

And there is more good news on the residential front.  Homeowners are saving 28 to 30% of their energy consumption, more than anticipated, and are investing an average of almost $15,000 per home to achieve that.  To finance that, more than a quarter of them are using the innovative financing tools that Community Power Works has developed.  An evaluation by Washington State University found that 93% of participants are satisfied enough that they would recommend Community Power Works to their friends.

Whether this will translate into continued momentum after the federal funding expires is still an open question.  But contractors are happy, indicating that they are gaining experience, developing better marketing and sales skills, and hiring more people.  So far, the program has created over 109,200 hours of work performed by 782 people, with 26 contractors involved.  That means millions of dollars in the pockets of workers and business owners, more millions saved by consumers in energy bills, with all of that money circulating through the local economy and creating still more jobs in other businesses.

It appears unlikely that additional federal money will be available from Congress, even though the recession is still not completely over.  As the program winds down next year, the City will have to determine if there are key elements that should be funded locally, or if there is enough momentum in the private sector to keep the energy conservation work going.  Community Power Works has demonstrated that we can stimulate the private sector to create jobs through saving energy, and we need to ensure that this activity continues.

• Recognize, support, and value the vast majority of our police officers, who are effective and conscientious officers.
• Ensure that those few officers who have a pattern of serious problems are identified, penalized, and, if necessary, removed from the Department.
• Understand that there are other officers who may be prone to make mistakes or act inappropriately, and make sure that the City provides the training, policy direction, management, and assistance necessary to minimize the possibility that these will take place, ensure that they learn from any mistakes, and help them become the kind of police officers that we are looking for.

And we have to accomplish all of this while identifying and using evidence-based best practices and adaptive management to respond to changing public safety conditions and address continuing issues like youth violence and downtown street disorder.  These are major management and policy challenges.

On Monday the Council approved an ordinance establishing the Community Police Commission required under our consent agreement with the Department of Justice.  We also took a difficult, contentious, and major step forward with a resolution stating our support for a preferred candidate, Merrick Bobb, for the position of police department monitor.  While ultimately the Mayor agreed to the Council choice, there was a tense standoff for a while, and the Mayor remains unhappy with this decision.

The appointment of the monitor will actually be made by the federal judge overseeing the consent agreement.  The deadline for submitting a name is this Friday, October 26.  Four candidates were reviewed by the Mayor, four Councilmembers, the Seattle Police Department, the City Attorney, and the Department of Justice.  The City Attorney, the Department of Justice, and each of the four Councilmembers came independently to the conclusion that Mr. Bobb would be the strongest candidate.  Police Department staff and the Mayor disagreed.  A mediation attempt between the Mayor and Council was unsuccessful.  Ultimately, the four Councilmembers and the City Attorney decided that the selection of Mr. Bobb Is in the best interests of the City.  He Is, in their opinion, the strongest candidate; he is a candidate that can be supported both by City and Department of Justice representatives; and Councilmembers were concerned that rejecting him would be perceived by the public as giving the Police Department veto power over the selection of the monitor, which would threaten the credibility of the City.

This led to an awkward situation.  Normally, the Mayor represents the City as its Chief Executive, and is represented by the City Attorney.  However, the Council has the authority to make laws for the City and the City Attorney also represents the Council.  And the City Attorney is himself an independently elected officer.  Both the Mayor and City Attorney act as individuals and can make decisions on their own.  But the Council can only make decisions as a body in an open public process.  That is why we considered and approved a resolution stating our preference for monitor and asked the City Attorney to advocate for this preference before the judge.  There is no clear authority to resolve difficult and unforeseen situations like this disagreement over who is the voice of the City.

Fortunately, the Mayor agreed to go along with the Council, and the potential crisis was defused.  But we may face other situations like this as we work our way through the police reform process.  No one said that police reform was going to be easy, but if the process of getting started has been this problematic, I am concerned that implementing substantive change will be very difficult.

Much of the first year was committed to forming the Council, learning about the food system, and developing the RFPC agenda.  In our second year we continued to meet monthly, hearing presentations on topics like the federal Farm Bill, farming mentorship, food distribution, direct marketing, and the Transfer of Development Rights.  Our Subcommittee on Equity researched the role of listening sessions in community engagement and developed a framework for an equity assessment of the food system.  In May 2012, the council was briefed by PSRC staff on the rural transportation strategy.  The RFPC will provide recommendations on ways to integrate food policy into the region’s long-term transportation plan, Transportation 2040.

The City of Seattle contracted with PSRC to provide support for food policy work, including developing planning resources and designing a survey for urban agriculture.  PSRC also secured funding from the Washington State Department of Health to identify and pursue local policy initiatives.  In June 2012, the council hosted a summit of public health professionals and food systems advocates to explore the connections and opportunities to advance this work. Over 60 people attended this summit, including participants from Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia.

The City of Seattle also contracted with PSRC to research food policy concepts for its comprehensive plan.  PSRC staff worked with Seattle staff to develop policies, which were reviewed by the RFPC in June 2012.  Seattle will add food-related policies drawn from this report to our Comprehensive Plan in the 2012-2013 amendment cycle.  The RFPC will provide these model policies to other jurisdictions around the region and encourage them to adopt those that are locally relevant.

Staff also completed a review of codes and plans from 65 jurisdictions within the region and developed a database to organize existing local food-related policies.  This project helped identify innovative practices, opportunities for action, and future directions.  It led to our most far-reaching project, creating a way to identify policy levers for the entire food system.  With financial support from WSU Extension, the RFPC is working with consultant Jon Ramer to develop a web-based visualization tool that will serve as a data resource for both the council and the general public.  This tool, scheduled to be completed around the end of 2012, should generate a series of policy initiatives that the RFPC, individuals, and policy-makers from around the region can use to further the goal of a sustainable food system.

There are many Food Policy Councils around the country, but the Seattle version is a model for a strategic mix of public, private, and nonprofit membership, and is, we believe, unique in being part of the regional planning body.  These characteristics give us a great opportunity to influence public policy as well as actions by communities and businesses.  As the RFPC moves into its third year, you can expect to see food policy changes beginning to be put into place around the region, with practical and positive outcomes for consumers, businesses, farmers, and public health.

Sound Transit Link Light Rail train

Linking transportation choices and land use decisions is the best way to make our communities work and our investments in transportation infrastructure pay off.  And it is how we make growth management effective and protect our farms, forests, and wilderness areas.  The Capitol Hill light rail station offers an extraordinary opportunity to realize that vision, and Sound Transit and the City have released their draft plan to make a great transit community grow on the three city blocks where the station is being constructed just north of Seattle Central Community College.

The proposal has been in development since 2008, with Capitol Hill residents and businesses organized as the Capitol Hill Champion leading the way in defining the values and preferences of the community.  The Champion worked with the City to develop an Urban Design Framework for the area, and identified the following priorities for the site:

1. Build development projects of the highest quality
2. Include affordable housing and business space
3. Provide a permanent home for the Farmers Market
4. Pursue dedicated space for an LGBT Community Center and performance and visual artists
5. Provide an experiential gate way to Capitol Hill and aid wayfinding
6. Use environmentally responsible building practices
7. Increase allowed height to support community goals
8. Provide less parking than developments that are not transit-centered

Sound Transit owns the three block area, and legally must sell the land in a way that realizes fair market value for the agency in addition to meeting city and agency objectives.  The development agreement between Sound Transit and the City creates a framework which Sound Transit would then use as the basis for working with developers to achieve the goals of the plan.  These goals are broadly compatible with the priorities of the Champion, although the plan differs in some ways from the more detailed Champion outline.

Core elements of the proposed agreement are:

• One approximately 17,000 square foot site will be dedicated to affordable housing (projected to result in around 88 low income units)
• 20% of units in other mixed-use buildings will be affordable for residents earning up to 80% of area median income, with bonus points given to developers who propose additional affordable housing
• Approximately 450 total housing units will be developed, with some new development standards that would allow heights up to 85 feet
• The center of the site will be a public plaza that could house the Farmers Market, and there will be significant amounts of other open space and similar amenities in the project area
• Seattle Central will have the opportunity to negotiate a portion of the area to develop student housing or education services
• Sound Transit will provide bonus points to proposers who include a community center, and the City will provide a density incentive
• Parking will be capped at the ratio of .7 spaces per residential unit
• All  buildings will have to meet at least the LEED Silver Standard, with bonus points for proposals that go beyond Silver LEED
• The entire development will have an integrated approach to meeting the Seattle Green factor required for these kinds of buildings

I commend Sound Transit and DPD staff and Champion members for over four years of hard, diligent work to develop a plan that meets the community’s desire for good design and much needed low-income housing and Sound Transit’s duty to dispose of its surplus property expeditiously.  The collaboration with Champion serves as a positive example of effective community engagement.   The proposed agreement must be approved by both the City Council and Sound Transit.  The Council has a public hearing tentatively scheduled for Monday, December 13 at 5:30 in Council Chambers, with Committee and Full Council action scheduled in early January.  Sound Transit will likely vote at the January Board meeting.

Belltown Community Center

On a cheerful, sunny Friday evening this September, the Belltown Community Center opened its doors at 415 Bell Street.  It was great to see several hundred residents touring the rooms, enjoying music in the alley behind the Center and food donated by Belltown restaurants, and finally feeling the love of City government for one of our most dynamic neighborhoods.

More than twenty years ago, the City rezoned Belltown, then a community of low-rise small commercial and apartment buildings, to encourage new housing.  It was a while before development took off, but now the area is filled with new apartments, offices, and restaurants.  Most recently, of course, Belltown has become famous for the Escala, the setting for “Fifty Shades of Grey”, the Northwest’s latest fictional setting to follow the Twilight series and Twin Peaks in achieving international renown (the Escala is now on the Ride the Duck tour!)

As development ramped up in the late 1990’s, Belltown, like 37 other Seattle communities, created a neighborhood plan.  This was a transition time – when it began to sink into the Seattle consciousness that downtown was a neighborhood, with lots of residents, just like our other residential communities.  Downtown had been the only part of the City not assigned a Neighborhood Service Center Coordinator and included in a Neighborhood District when those programs were first conceived – an oversight that was soon remedied thanks to the advocacy of the Downtown Seattle Association (DSA).  Still, it raised lots of eyebrows when the head of the DSA was elected as the Chair of the City Neighborhood Council a few years later.

Like the other plans, the Belltown Neighborhood Plan included growth targets for housing and jobs along with a list of amenities and policy changes that would complement this development to ensure that Belltown worked as a community.  As with the other plans, the Council agreed to move forward most of the Belltown requests and has implemented the majority of them over the years since the plan was approved in 1998.

But there was a lot of skepticism about Belltown’s request for a community center.  In 1999, the Council put together the Seattle Center/Community Centers Levy package, which included a number of new and expanded community center facilities requested in neighborhood plans.  But when I suggested that we should add a new community center for Belltown, there was resistance.  Councilmembers did not see how the dense urban community of Belltown meshed with a traditional community center model, which included gyms and outdoor recreation space.  They thought that it would be impossible to site a community center on expensive Belltown land, or to afford a brand new center as part of a fairly modest levy package.

Ultimately we agreed on a compromise.  The Belltown Center would be a community gathering space, smaller than a traditional center and without a gym or outdoor space, would be sited as part of a larger development instead of being freestanding, and might be rented space rather than City-owned.  Still, this scaled-back version was a great step forward for Belltown, and everyone was excited when the levy passed.

That was thirteen years ago…  Not for want of trying!  Parks looked at dozens of locations over the years, and at one point we even had a groundbreaking as part of one new development – which later fell through when the larger project could not be funded.

But ultimately perseverance paid off!  A great old brick building with big wooden beams sat vacant for years, and the City was able to negotiate a seven year, 6000 square foot lease that allowed for modest remodeling and a grand opening.  The long-term may still be uncertain, but, thanks to persistent City staff work and the continued advocacy of the Belltown Business Association and Belltown Community Council, the Center is open.  Check it out!

King County forest canopy (photo from crawford.tardigrade.net)

As the City Council considers the comprehensive rezone legislation for South Lake Union (SLU), it will also take up legislation that will authorize and implement the ‘TDR for TIF’ program –‘Transfer of Development Rights for Tax Increment Financing’.  That arcane phrase describes a way to implement growth management by protecting rural land and investing in amenities that will make urban communities more livable.

The TDR for TIF program was developed by Forterra and approved by the Legislature in 2011.  The framework for implementing it in the region was approved by the Puget Sound Regional Council earlier this year (insert reference to blog post).  It’s a complicated program, with lots of details.  But the bottom line is a win-win-win-win:

• Landowners get to keep their land as farms or forests and are compensated for not developing.
• Developers get to build projects in the City.
• Seattle and King County get funds for infrastructure to support this development work, implementing growth management for urban density.
• The people of Seattle get food at their Farmers Markets, development and increased City revenues from downtown, implementation of infrastructure projects with lower costs for taxpayers outside of downtown, and effective growth management to protect rural areas.

Here’s how it will work:

• King County creates a TDR Bank that will buy the development rights from farms, forest, and designated rural lands.  They will pay property owners a sum of money in return for a legally binding agreement to keep the property in farm or forest use – forever.
• Seattle adopts legislation requiring developers to purchase TDR from either King County or directly from the landowner in order to complete projects that take advantage of the increased zoning in South Lake Union and other downtown areas.  In South Lake Union and the Broad-Denny-Aurora Triangle, the requirement will reflect the new zoning.  In the remainder of downtown, the requirement will replace an existing provision relating to Green Building (which is now the norm!).
• The TIF comes in because these developments will increase King County’s property tax collections – but incur few County costs.  So these County property taxes will be transferred to the City for investment in South Lake Union and downtown, the area generating the additional property tax.  That will allow the City to complete parks, green streets, and other infrastructure projects that will in turn make these areas more livable as they become denser and more developed.

First priority for purchasing TDR’s will be 200 development rights for farms.  We are advocating for these to be farms that sell at Seattle’s Farmers Markets or that are within the Tolt River Watershed, where we get drinking water.  This is the approach the City asked for in Resolution 31147, which I sponsored and which was approved in 2009.

The TDR for TIF legislation will be considered as part of the SLU package, and will likely come to Full Council for approval in early 2013.

Sound Transit.  Managing this regional transit system is a huge responsibility, and I have served as the Council representative on the Sound Transit Board since 2008.  I am Vice-Chair of the Capital Committee, and this week the Committee approved and sent to the Board a $182 million contract to construct the light rail line from SeaTac Airport to S. 200^th Street.  We also reviewed possible sites for a new light rail vehicle maintenance base to serve East Link, and agreed that staff should proceed with the next stage of environmental review on alternate locations.  I am also one of three Board members on a special task force working with the City of Bellevue Councilmembers to optimize the light rail route and stations and reduce costs on East Link, and we met to review the latest staff work on possible cost saving measures.

Regional Food Policy Council.  I initiated this policy committee, which reports to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC).  We have been meeting since the fall of 2010 and generate policy recommendations for local governments and other entities in the four-county region.  This week we reviewed a set of proposed Comprehensive Plan policies developed under a contract from the Seattle City Council, and agreed to forward them to Seattle and other cities for consideration and possible adoption.  We also accepted a grant from the State Department of Health to develop new public policies around food and health.

King County Growth Management Policy Council.  This is a regional body responsible for making recommendations on changes to the Growth Management Boundary and other growth management policies.  I have been one of three City of Seattle representatives since I was first elected to the City Council.  This week we approved a set of technical adjustments to the boundary, agreed to further discussions between the County and the City of North Bend on a possible boundary adjustment, refused to consider a request from a Renton private school (opposed by the City of Renton) to be added to the urban area, and voted down a proposal from the City of Woodinville to expand its urban area into designated farmland.  The vote on that one was 5 to 5, with Seattle joining County Executive Dow Constantine and Councilmember Larry Phillips in opposition to suburban cities and their King County representatives.  Two suburban city representatives told us that they opposed the proposal, but under the rules of the Suburban Cities Association (SCA) had to vote for it (SCA uses the archaic unit rule binding all of its representatives to vote the SCA majority position, and threatens representatives with being removed from regional bodies if they break ranks.)

I also met with state legislators and with staff to King County Executive Dow Constantine on the SR 520 project.  And, I continued my work as a member of the King County Board of Health on developing a proposal for a take back program for medicines and pharmaceuticals.

Councilmember’s roles in regional work make a difference for Seattle, working on policies and projects that directly affect the City.  It is also part of our ongoing task of building relationships so that we can work together most effectively, and of helping to make the region work.  Rarely recognized in the media, and not well-known to most of our constituents!

The Mayor’s proposal is basically a good news budget.  A combination of effective budget discipline over the last two years and an economic recovery that is stronger in Seattle than in most of the country has stabilized our financial picture and allows room for reinstating some previous cuts and adding a modest number of new program activities.

The Mayor’s package projects General Fund revenues increasing about $30 million per year over the next two years, just over 3 per cent.  While this is slower growth than in a typical recovery, there are also new resources from utility rate increases, construction related revenues, the successful library levy, the use of accumulated fund balances, and continued work on making government more efficient.   Together, these factors not only create a stable budget but allow restoring almost all of the money used from the Rainy Day Fund to balance the 2009-2011 budgets.

This is a big turnaround from the situation projected as recently as last spring.  Budget analysts are typically pretty conservative, and were understandably reluctant to report good news until there was enough evidence in actual collections this year from sales tax, real estate excise, and business taxes that money was actually coming in at a faster pace than during the recession.  The situation reflects the fact that the city’s budget has been managed well, and both the Mayor and Council can take some credit for Seattle’s financial health.

While this budget is strong enough to include some additions, such as more police officers, more street paving and transit work, and some increases in human services, I want to give kudos to the Mayor and his staff for continuing to push and implement some tough cost cutting and efficiency measures.  These include management efficiencies in the Fire and Human Services Departments, a number of improvements in the city’s property management and administrative functions, and specific steps to shore up areas of future concern.  This includes increasing both the city and employee contributions to the retirement system and developing a new approach for retirement for future employees.  We have to remember that this is still a lean budget, that the City’s future requires good stewardship, and that we must continue to make city government more efficient and responsive.

We will know more about the details in a few weeks, but here are some issues that I will focus on:

• Celebrating the good news for the library and making sure it stays in the budget!  Thanks to the voters, next year’s library budget will increase by about 30 per cent.  I want to make sure that we keep our promise to sustain general fund support.
• Taking a careful look at the Parks Department budget.  Parks has taken the most cuts of any General Fund department in recent years (such as major reductions in community center hours), and some of those cuts are painful.  We can’t fully restore the Parks budget in the foreseeable future, but we must create a plan, as we did for the library, to put parks on track to being fully funded.
• Looking at additional funds for critical human services priorities, especially emergency food programs and programs to combat domestic violence.  While Seattle has maintained such programs better than almost any other government, and the Mayor has proposed some increases for domestic violence work, cuts in federal and state funding have left too many families at risk.  I want to take a hard look at how we can make these an even higher priority.
• Making sure that we not only push city efficiencies, but that we focus on emergency preparedness and on economic development efforts such as business permit consolidation that will build Seattle’s resiliency for the future.
• Supporting planning and design for High Capacity Transit in additional priority corridors.
• Including adequate resources in the Department of Planning and Development to ensure that we can effectively implement our Comprehensive Plan and continue support for Neighborhood Plan Implementation.

I will report again on the budget later in October when we know more about our options.

We have often been told that this was one of the best deals any City has ever been offered, and that now it is even better.  Both of those statements are probably true.  But neither of them demonstrates that it is a deal that is truly in the interests of the people of Seattle.  This revised agreement may prevent the most problematic outcomes.  That does not mean that we will wind up benefiting from it, or that it is a good use of the City’s time, resources, or financial capacity.

As I noted in August when I first wrote about this proposal, the question before the Council is not whether we think having an NBA team is a good thing, but whether it is necessary and appropriate to invest public money (in the form of municipal bonds) for a new arena.  We have seen no evidence that constructing a new arena to bring an NBA basketball team to Seattle requires City participation.  The land is zoned to permit its construction, and the developer has purchased that land and lined up several very wealthy investors who have the capacity to pay for an arena and for the teams to fill it.

The core issues remain.  The City has negotiated an agreement that we would never do with any other for-profit business – giving up future City taxes that the business would generate and investing them in the business instead.  This is a very odd financial model for a public entity, with a very complex and convoluted agreement wrapped around it. 

This agreement takes an expense away from the business owner — paying his taxes.  Now this expense becomes money from the City invested in his business – and he makes a profit on it.

It takes a benefit away from the City.  Normally a new business pays taxes into the general fund.  Then our residents and businesses enjoy better services or lower taxes.  But now those taxes go back to the business to become an ‘investment’ that does not, in my opinion, generate returns for the City.

I respect the efforts of my colleagues to improve the proposed agreement.  Getting some funds generated by the arena dedicated to transportation improvements, securing a personal guarantee from Mr. Hansen that the City debt will be repaid, obtaining more City control over funds generated by the Key Arena during the time an NBA basketball team would be located there, and adding a provision limiting the possibility that we will be stuck with a money-losing arena by giving the City the right to require Hansen to buy it back after thirty years are all positive steps.  Because the entire agreement is with a single entity and lead individual, there is still some exposure, but it is greatly reduced, and there is a pretty good chance that additional City resources are not significantly at risk.

But these do not change the core issue.  And there are additional uncertainties.  We will have to figure out the future of Key Arena, which in 2011 made $310,000 on $6.6 million in revenues, and now will face a City funded competitor for major shows and possibly lose its primary sports tenant, the Seattle Storm.  While the transportation fund will help with industrial business and Port issues, this project adds to the challenges and uncertainties about their future and the future of the thousands of jobs they support.  And there is still possible litigation and the investment of City resources in managing very complex financial and logistical arrangements.

It is important to remember that this is a different financing structure from that used for Safeco and CenturyLink Fields.  Those financing plans were put in place many years ago, of course, when there were more public dollars available and research on the limited economic benefits of stadia was only just beginning.  In both of those cases, funding came from specific taxes authorized by the legislature (in the case of CenturyLink, it was also approved by voters).  These taxes had less impact on the City’s general fund, which receives taxes from the teams and operations (admissions taxes were used, over the City’s protest, as were some CenturyLink sales taxes).  The agreements were less complicated and are managed by special purpose entities that are insulated from general government.

The model in which a government funds a stadium for private owners to profit from is a relatively recent one.  For many decades, since the rise of professional sports 150 years ago, new facilities were almost entirely funded by the team owners.  Only since World War II has it become customary for local governments to be primary funders — and the current trend may be away from public finance.  We know that in San Francisco, the Golden State Warriors are building an arena on City waterfront land and piers using only private funds.  The City of San Francisco is providing the land and piers – but that is really unloading a liability, since it will require some $75 – $100 million to make the piers usable.

For all of those reasons, I voted no on this legislation.

Because the Council has long been skeptical of the need and utility of the second bridge, one provision of a Memorandum of Agreement signed last year between the City and the State (insert reference) was to convene a technical workgroup to conduct a detailed inquiry into the present and expected future performance of the transportation system in the vicinity of the existing Montlake Bridge.  This report was designed to be used to analyze the need to build a second bridge.  The technical workgroup, led by Tim Payne of Nelson/Nygaard and including SDOT, WSDOT, and Metro representatives, developed a report that defined thresholds for levels of performance in transit speed and reliability, pedestrian and bicycle mobility, and SR 520 mainline operations.

The report found no evidence suggesting that the Montlake Bridge plays any substantial role in creating transit delay or increasing transit time.  It appears that a second Montlake Bridge would have little impact in addressing adverse transit operating conditions in the corridor.  The study identified other potential transit projects in the corridor that would more likely improve conditions and should be implemented.  These include a range of speed and reliability improvements, such as traffic signal coordination, transit signal priority, bus lanes, queue bypass, safety improvements and stop consolidation.

The report found that current levels of service for bicyclists and pedestrians over the existing Montlake Bridge approach and at times already exceed thresholds that suggest that action is appropriate to improve conditions.  The consultant suggested that the best way to determine what actions will be most useful are to review and consider them as part of the City’s update to the Bicycle Master Plan, and through discussions with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Boards.  Actions to explore might include seeing if the sidewalk footprint on the existing Montlake Bridge could be expanded or managed more effectively, or constructing a small bicycle and pedestrian only bridge across the Montlake cut, perhaps connecting the public land east of the Montlake community directly to the University.

Tim Payne, the consultant, concluded that, based on the data reviewed and taking the current bicycle, pedestrian, and transit performance and mainline SR520 operation into account, it is likely that a second Montlake Bridge would not deliver benefits that justify its cost and impact to the neighborhood and environment. Given this conclusion I sponsored a resolution that makes these recommendations to the State:

• A Second Montlake Bridge should not be constructed within the foreseeable future.
• WSDOT, SDOT and Metro should continue to develop and monitor the triggers that have been developed for this project and continue to analyze any changes in conditions that could affect the SR520 corridor.
• WSDOT, SDOT, and Metro should invest in other measures that would increase the speed and reliability of transit in this corridor.

The resolution also recommends the following actions:

• SDOT should work with the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board to develop options for improved service for bicyclists and pedestrians for consideration in the Bicycle Master Plan.  SDOT should also develop and implement better monitoring of transportation performance for bicyclists and pedestrians in the vicinity of the Montlake Bridge.
• SDOT should work with King County Metro and WSDOT to identify and implement other transit improvements in the corridor and monitor the effects of these improvements.

The Council and Mayor agreed with my recommendations.

I personally doubt that the trigger conditions for the Second Montlake Bridge will ever be justified, based on the analysis that we have now seen, but continued monitoring will either confirm that or suggest when those trigger conditions might be reached.

The final decision on whether or not to build the Second Montlake Bridge will be made by the State of Washington.  At this point, I believe it is most important to implement the transit improvements that we will identify and to develop and implement ways to improve services to bicyclists and pedestrians. It is likely that improvements for transit, bicycles and pedestrians could be delivered at a lower cost than the cost of a new bridge.  I look forward to working with the State on these recommendations.

Seattle City Council recommends against second Montlake Bridge for SR 520 project

 The Seattle City Council today adopted Resolution 31411 (8-0), providing an official recommendation against construction of a second Montlake Bridge in the foreseeable future to the Washington State Department of Transportation and the State Legislature.

“It is unlikely that a second Montlake Bridge would deliver benefits that justify its cost and impact to the neighborhood,” stated Councilmember Conlin, Chair of the SR 520 Committee. “It is likely that corridor improvements for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit customers could be delivered in other ways at a lower cost earlier in the project timeline.”

Today’s recommendation was based on conclusions drawn after reviewing the findings of a report by a joint City, King County Metro, and WSDOT technical workgroup that set thresholds for levels of performance in pedestrian and bike mobility, transit speed and reliability and SR 520 mainline operations. The identified triggers were developed to provide data that could be used to analyze the need to build a second bridge.

“It appears that a second Montlake Bridge would have little impact in addressing adverse transit operating conditions in the corridor and if built would have minimal impact to the SR 520 mainline,” states Councilmember Conlin.

The resolution also recommends identifying and implementing transit projects that may improve conditions and developing alternatives that can address capacity limitations and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. The resolution also stresses the need for continued monitoring.

Chow, battling brain cancer, is a long time advocate for youth and the Seattle community, having served as a Seattle City Councilmember (1990 – 1997) and a School Board member.  She has also been a volunteer for the Seattle Chinese Community Club Girl’s Drill team and youth basketball leagues.

Photos from this event can be seen in this Flicker Gallery.

Video of the September 17 special recognition event, Seattle Channel

Video tribute to Cheryl Chow, Seattle Channel

Puget Sound Regional Council logo

Last month, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) published final employment data for the region for 2011.  They showed that Seattle has become the driver for economic recovery in the region, with employment growth far exceeding that of other areas.  While total employment in the region increased by only 1% (from 1,673,000 in 2010 to 1,697,000 in 2011), the number of Seattle jobs increased by 3%.

The numbers showed that, like other areas of the country, recovery is proceeding in the Seattle region, but much more slowly than would be optimum.  The drag on the economy has become public sector employment, which declined by 2,000 in the region, although only a few hundred of that was in Seattle.  In contrast, private sector employment increased by 26,000 in the region, almost 12,000 of that in Seattle.  Based on recent increases in sales tax revenues and building permits, we suspect that the recovery is accelerating this year in Seattle, and that we will see further job gains as public and private investment continues to grow.

Downtown Seattle is the key, with virtually all of the employment growth taking place in downtown, especially in South Lake Union and the Denny Triangle.  This is further evidence that the continued investment in downtown infrastructure and changes in zoning and City policies are paying off for thousands of Seattle residents who now can go to work.  The Lake Union submarket had an office vacancy rate of 17% in 2009.  Now it is down to 6%, despite the addition of new buildings (including the Amazon complex).

Seattle has put together a series of policy and investment initiatives since the recession hit in 2008 to try to stimulate economic recovery.  In past recessions, Seattle was usually affected later than most parts of the country, but also recovered much more slowly.  In this recession, we again slid into decline later than other areas, but we are leading the recovery.  While the innovations and energy of the private sector have driven this, our determined and deliberate public policy approach has helped to make it possible.

Seattle’s Lake Union

My Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability (PLUS) Committee has begun work on the first comprehensive update of Seattle’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) since 1987.  We received our first briefing in August and discussed aspects of it at our September 12 and September 13 meetings and we’ll discuss it again at our October 26 meeting.  A public hearing has been set for Monday, October 15, at 5:30 in the Council Chambers, with a vote scheduled for November 14.

The SMP is an incredibly important and complex set of policies and regulations that govern development and uses on and adjacent to marine and freshwater shorelines.  For Seattle this includes Puget Sound, Lake Washington, Lake Union and the Ship Canal, the Duwamish River, Green Lake, and wetlands and floodplains around these.  The SMP affects land uses, structures and activities, including those occurring over water and on vessels, the location of structures including setbacks and allowed water coverage, public access requirements, and construction practices related to bulkheads, docks and piers.

Updating the SMP is required under the State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), created by citizen referendum in 1972. The SMA establishes policy goals for the management of shorelines, and the state’s SMP guidelines set requirements for how to achieve these, with some flexibility for local concerns and conditions. The SMA establishes three major policy goals:

Preferred Shoreline Uses:  Water-oriented uses such as port facilities, shoreline recreational uses, and water-dependent businesses are preferred uses. Single-family residences are a preferred use if developed in a manner consistent with protection of the natural environment.

Environmental Protection:  The Act requires protecting shoreline natural resources, including “… the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic life …” to ensure no net loss of ecological function.  No net loss of ecological functions means that the existing condition of shoreline ecological functions should not deteriorate because of development in the Shoreline District.

Public Access: The Act promotes public access to shorelines, including view protection.

The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) began working on this update in 2008, and the proposed revisions have been through a series of public outreach activities.  A first draft was released on February 8, 2011 and a second on October 26, 2011.  Key recommendations from DPD are:

• Ensure No Net Loss (NNL) of ecological functions.
• Regulate environmentally critical areas located in the Shoreline District under the SMP.
• Develop a restoration plan that results in improved ecological functioning of the shoreline.
• Require that non-water-oriented uses include ecological restoration.
• Require that ecological restoration be included when replacing non-conforming uses and structures.
• Include shoreline buffers for all shoreline environments.
• Allow 20% of a site to be used for uses that are not water-dependent or water-related (WD/WR) if they support WD/WR uses.
• Allow additional height for permitted structures that are not WD/WR and for accessory uses.
• Allow WD/WR uses to be located over water on lots in the Urban Commercial and Urban Maritime shoreline environments and allow certain non-water-dependent or water-related uses to be located overwater as a Conditional Use.
• Require projects to avoid impacts and mitigate remaining impacts to achieve NNL.
• Define and protect priority freshwater and saltwater habitat.
• Allow existing structures in the urban shoreline environments built in the required setback to be replaced if mitigation is provided.
• Allow recreational marinas in the Urban Industrial and Urban Maritime shoreline environments in the Lake Union Ship Canal.
• Maintain current regulations for floating homes to be repaired, maintained and replaced.
• Prohibit new floating homes.
• Maintain current regulations prohibiting house barges after 1990 and requiring water quality protection while providing for the preferred uses and public access of the shoreline.

DPD has prepared a draft shoreline restoration plan that will be used in conjunction with the proposed regulations. The restoration plan will not be included in the City’s regulations but will be used by the City to identify the types of restoration that will increase ecological functions along Seattle’s shorelines.  The restoration plan will be approved as part of the SMP ordinance.

All SMP update documents may be accessed on DPD’s website at: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/ShorelineMasterProgramUpdate

The Council and our staff will review this very complex legislation and may fine-tune the proposed regulations to ensure that they are workable and effective.  My goal is to make sure that we preserve and enhance our shorelines while minimizing any impact of new regulations on our shoreline based businesses. We expect that DPD has developed a careful analysis of the economic and environmental impact of these changes.  We also expect there to be considerable discussion of how proposed regulations concerning live-aboards (people who live on a vessel) will be implemented and whether or not the proposed regulations balance the City’s desire to improve the environment on our waterways with live-aboards’ desire to continue to enjoy their unique homes.

Global to Local Health Initiative Partners

Public Health – Seattle & King County, Swedish Health Services, HealthPoint Community Health Clinics, and the Washington Global Health Alliance have partnered with the cities of SeaTac and Tukwila to create an innovative approach to addressing health disparities.  This project is another step towards reforming the US health care system to focus on the health of individuals and communities, as we move towards the vision of universal access to health care.

The project, called the Global to Local Health Initiative (G2L), was launched with $1 million in seed funding donated by Swedish.  The concept is to take advantage of the knowledge and experience emerging from the area’s expanding global health sector.  The plan is to apply the lessons learned and strategies developed for addressing health issues in lower income countries to low income communities in our area.  The goal is to improve health, lower costs, and create economic development.

The United States has a pattern of extraordinary health disparities that is vastly different from other industrialized countries.  That pattern has been set by the lack of access to quality health care for persons with low and moderate incomes, reinforced by lack of knowledge and the tendency to postpone or neglect preventive care.  Our fee-for-service health system encourages this behavior – if you do not have an excellent health insurance plan and/or belong to a managed care organization that emphasizes prevention, the financial incentives are perversely structured to discourage getting medical attention when it is most cost effective, early in an illness or before a chronic condition establishes itself.  Those who do not have health insurance (13% of King County residents aged 16 to 64, 24% in the targeted cities of Tukwila and SeaTac) are dependent on the limited resources of charity care or governmental assistance.  The problem is especially acute for those whose incomes are too high for programs like Medicaid but too low to provide serious resources that can be dedicated to health care.

In Tukwila and SeaTac, teen birth rates are three times the King County average, obesity rates are 50% higher, asthma rates are 30% higher, and life expectancy is significantly lower.  At the same time, much of the population is foreign born and many have limited English skills.

G2L has engaged a diverse team of locally recruited Community Health Promoters, who work with community members to promote health, offer classes on health issues, use new technologies to provide interpretative services, and help people identify and get access to economic opportunities.  With additional funding from Providence, the JPMorgan Chase Foundation, and Novo Nordisk, the program is expanding and diversifying its services.

Poor health and poverty are deeply linked phenomena.  Healthy individuals and communities are on their way to prosperity – and prosperity generates the income that maintains health.  By using tested methods of community involvement drawn from experi3ences in low income communities around the globe, G2L has the potential to turn a vicious cycle into a virtuous cycle, and make a difference for those involved and for our community as a whole.

Interim measures approved for small lot development
City to evaluate small lot exceptions for single family homes

SEATTLE – The Seattle City Council today approved legislation that puts interim controls in place on small lot development in Seattle.

While the City has generally been supportive of urban infill development, some single family development approved under current lot size exceptions, has resulted in structures that are out of character with surrounding conditions and inconsistent with the policy intent for infill development. Interim measures were adopted today to allow adequate time for analysis and discussion of permanent standards.

"This legislation is not about density – the modest number of homes that can be built under this loophole are not a significant addition to the housing stock. And it is certainly not about affordable housing," said Councilmember Richard Conlin, Chair of the Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee. "Rather, it's about replacing a random pattern with no rhyme or reason, dependent on a developer happening to find archaic lot lines that were not intended to define a buildable lot, with planning in a systematic and thoughtful way."

Interim measures were adopted so that development is more proportionate to the lot size. The proposed interim measures would:

• Limit application of the lot size exception to lots with an area of at least 50 percent of the minimum requirement for the zone; prohibit development on lots that are less than 50 percent.
• Disallow reliance on historic tax records as a basis for qualifying for the lot area exception.

Limit the height of development on lots less than 3,750 square feet to 22'.

The City Council adopted the following schedule as part of the legislation, calling for the City to adopt permanent regulations within a year:

Background
Lot size exceptions for historic lots were meant to preserve the investments of property owners who had acquired lots prior to the adoption of minimum lot size standards in the 1950's. These exceptions have allowed development on some very small sites. This has resulted in complaints that houses on such lots do not fit in with their surroundings, and that in some cases the exceptions allow development of lots that were never intended for separate development.

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

City of Seattle Seal

On Monday, September 10, the Council unanimously approved Council Bill 117572, an emergency ordinance to close a loophole in the City’s Land Use Code that allowed developers to build large houses on very small lots by manipulating lot lines intended for tax purposes.  These lots are not platted or identified in property records, and do not show up on land use or real estate maps.  In one case a developer built a three-story house on a lot of only 1050 square feet.

Contrary to some of the misinformation that is circulating about this legislation, it does not prevent development on all small lots, and will not affect the ability of property owners who have platted small lots that have at least 50% of the square footage of the underlying zoning standard to proceed with constructing houses.  The ordinance will make some changes in development standards, and will close a loophole in the City code to prevent new substandard lots from being created in a random manner.

The emergency ordinance is a rarely-used procedure in which the Council can act quickly to provide a short term fix (stopping problem activities) while it considers legislation for a long-term solution; in this case, land use standards that make sense on very small single family lots.  Emergency ordinances are defined under State law, and expire after one year.  The Council took this unusual step to ensure that developers did not try to apply for permits under the existing regulations, thereby allowing problematic developments to continue using lot lines that were not intended for development purposes.

This issue came to our attention earlier this summer, when we learned from community groups that some developers were using an obscure provision of City code that allows lots that are well below minimum lot size requirements to be used for infill development. These substandard lots, often times well below 3,000 square feet, were generally created before 1957 for tax purposes.  In some cases these lots were actually created by mistake when lot descriptions on more than one line were transcribed from hand-written records as two separate lots.  Others had been intended to be erased by new plats or subdivisions that established legally developable lots.  When the Council adopted minimum lot size standards in 1957 and again in 1982, they allowed these lots to be “grandfathered” as legal nonconforming lots while the City developed new regulations; this allowed people that owned these lots time to develop them and recoup their investment within a reasonable time period.

Unfortunately, there was no expiration date on the grandfathering clause, and recently some developers have rediscovered it and are using it to create housing that is not compatible with neighboring single family houses.   Community members from a number of neighborhoods called this to our attention, and created a website at www.onehomeperlot.com  They pointed out to us that, despite a small number of these occurring on a yearly basis, there is a software package planned for release in October that will allow these substandard lots to be identified quickly and easily.  That means that we could see many more in the near future if we do not take immediate action.

The emergency ordinance brings these lots into conformance with other lots under the City’s land use regulations by preventing development on lots that are less than 50% of the square footage defined as a minimum size in the underlying zoning.  It also ends the use of historic property tax records as a basis for qualifying for minimum lot area exceptions, and allows development of lots with an area up to 75 percent of the general minimum lot area of the zone (i.e. lots up to 3,750 square feet in an SF 5000 zone), but only up to a limit of 22 feet in height (2 stories).  Owners of existing houses on small lots retain the right to renovate, replace, or expand their houses.

Developers of these structures have argued that they should not be limited because they are building new housing, and that this loophole allows them to make it more affordable because the cost of land is lower for small lots.  Actually, small existing houses are affordable – new construction will almost always be more expensive.  One of the projects built on a 2400 square foot lot was listed for $665,000 – a pretty long distance from affordability.  Under this legislation, smaller houses could continue to be built that would be more affordable and appropriate for the size of lots that are being used.  Contemporary trends are for people to downsize into smaller housing units, reversing the trend that led to large homes that are neither affordable nor sustainable.

Last year, the Council adopted legislation that limited the amount of development that can occur on lots that are less than 2,500 square feet, including height limits and structure width and depth standards. These interim regulations would modify those regulations to limit all single family zoned lots that are less than 3,750 square feet to a principal structure limited to 22 feet in height.

Under the State code governing emergency legislation, the Council will hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 13, at 9:30 AM in the Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability (PLUS) committee to hear comments on this legislation and on the plans for next steps.  The Council legislation also creates a work plan for developing permanent legislation to address this issue.  Under the work plan, new legislation will be developed by the end of this year, go through environmental review, and come to the City Council in the spring of 2013.

This legislation is not about density – the modest number of homes that can be built under this loophole are not a significant addition to the housing stock.  It is certainly not about affordable housing.  It is about replacing a random pattern with no rhyme or reason, dependent on a developer happening to find archaic lot lines that were not intended to define a buildable lot, with planning in a systematic and thoughtful way. 

The neighbors who brought this to the Council had already been impacted:  houses have been built or permits granted that affect their houses.  They should be applauded for their willingness to engage in community and civic action unselfishly, out of altruistic concern to prevent their fellow residents from having the same negative experience.  This is a great example of democratic engagement:  people mobilizing not out of a desire for profit, but in order to maintain healthy communities.

Council Committee to review expert technical report on second Montlake Bridge

Seattle – The Seattle City Council's Special Committee on SR 520 will meet on Monday morning to receive a briefing on the findings of an expert technical review of the second Montlake Bridge component of the SR 520 replacement project:

WHAT:
Expert technical report on the second Montlake Bridge part of SR 520 project   

WHEN:
Monday, Sept. 10, 2012, 10:30 a.m.

WHERE:
Council Chambers, Seattle City Hall, 600 Fourth Avenue, second floor

Meeting materials, including the executive summary, one-page briefing paper and final report, can be found on the meeting's agenda.

This meeting will be informational and no vote will take place.

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

Yesler Terrace, 1940s (photo by Calvin Schmid, found on HistoryLink.org)

On Tuesday, September 4, the Council unanimously adopted five pieces of legislation to implement the redevelopment plan for the Yesler Terrace community.  This vote is the culmination of many months of work by Councilmembers and our Central Staff.  Council considered this project so important that we conducted all of our meetings in a Special Committee that included all nine Councilmembers.  I initiated and Chaired this Committee in 2011, during my time as Council President, and Council President Sally Clark ably led us as Chair in 2012.

The Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) has been working for years to create a redevelopment plan for Yesler Terrace, the last of its WWII era housing projects.  The other three (New Holly, High Point, and Rainier Vista) have all been redeveloped as mixed income communities, with new and better housing for the low income residents.

Yesler Terrace currently has 561 low income units.  These units, hastily constructed during World War II, are not aging well, and do not have important characteristics that would enable them to effectively serve low income populations (such as access for the disabled).  There is no source of funding for repair and rehabilitation, which would be a stopgap measure at best.  Replacing them is essential to providing the level of service and dignity that our residents deserve.  SHA will dramatically reshape this community by adding the area between 12^th and 14^th to the east of the current property, and then building up to 4500 units of housing, along with 900,000 square feet of office, 65,000 square feet of neighborhood services, and 88,000 square feet of neighborhood retail.   The plan is designed to take full advantage of the property’s proximity to downtown and the First Hill medical centers to develop significant density.

Included in the 4500 units of housing will be 561 replacement extremely low income units (less than 30% of median income), another 390 units at less than 60% of median income and 850 low income/workforce units (less than 80% of median income).  These units will be largely financed by the market rate housing and office space also incorporated in the project.  Building a mixed income community is not only essential to providing this level of low income housing, but it is a key element in creating a sustainable community that will provide the kinds of education, training, and employment opportunities that will enable low income residents to move out of poverty – and to also keep living in their neighborhood.

While developing low income housing has always relied on financial structures that leverage public dollars many times over through private investments and tax credits, the three earlier projects were given financial boosts by the federal HOPE VI program, a Clinton initiative that focused on rebuilding the nation’s low income housing stock.  Unfortunately, HOPE VI lost its funding under the Bush administration, and federal funds will be much more limited in this project.

The Council legislation includes:

•  A land use code amendment that allows the diversity of uses, sets limits on non-housing development, and provides for the overall density and building heights.
• A Planned Action Ordinance that allows all future development consistent with the EIS to proceed and adopts design standards.
• A street vacation ordinance that reorganize the street grid and vacates some streets while rededicating other rights-of-way.
• A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that establishes phasing and timing for the replacement housing, approves City funding, and establishes sustainability parameters.
• A Resolution that commits the City and SHA to work together to explore developing a mixed use project in Little Saigon that will assist that community to thrive while this major development is going on next door.

Terms of the planned action ordinance, cooperative agreement and street vacation call for SHA to construct 15.9 acres of community gardens, pedestrian pathways and pocket parks open to the public, and re-landscape the neighborhood with more trees than are currently present.  SHA will provide comparable housing for all current Yesler Terrace residents during construction.  Every resident will also receive a certificate guaranteeing their right to return to the neighborhood once new housing is completed.  SHA estimates that replacement construction will begin in 2013.

The redevelopment of Yesler Terrace is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a whole new community in this important location.  The Council has carefully scrutinized the SHA plans to ensure that they are workable and appropriate.  The Yesler Terrace redevelopment will increase low income housing, create a vibrant neighborhood next to downtown, and take a major step towards meeting our growth management goals.  New Holly, High Point, and Rainier Vista demonstrate Seattle Housing Authority’s ability to develop extraordinary communities.  The Yesler Terrace new development will be added to this list as a careful, thoughtful, and prudent project that will make a big difference in many people’s lives.

Seattle City Council approves Yesler Terrace redevelopment legislation
Comprehensive legislation lays the groundwork to improve neighborhood for low-income residents

SEATTLE — The Seattle City Council voted unanimously today to approve legislation allowing the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) to redevelop the 22-acre Yesler Terrace public housing neighborhood.

The legislative package requires SHA to replace 561 existing units of very low-income housing for current residents, build more than 1,200 new income-restricted units at a variety of affordability levels, and allows for as many as 4,500 total housing units.

Council President Sally J. Clark said, "The Council took this opportunity to ensure the Yesler Terrace redevelopment plan will respect the needs of people who live in Yesler now and to make sure that Yesler evolves into a greater urban neighborhood for more residents."

Terms of the planned action ordinance, cooperative agreement and street vacation call for SHA to construct community gardens, pedestrian pathways and pocket parks open to the public, and re-landscape the neighborhood with more trees than are currently present.

"The Yesler Terrace redevelopment will increase low income housing, create a vibrant neighborhood next to downtown, and take a major step towards meeting our growth management goals. New Holly, High Point, and Rainier Vista demonstrate Seattle Housing Authority's ability to develop extraordinary communities," stated Councilmember Richard Conlin, co-vice chair of the Yesler Terrace Special Committee. "The Yesler Terrace Redevelopment project will be added to this list as a careful, thoughtful, and prudent project that will make a big difference in many people's lives."

The Housing Authority may build up to 900,000 square feet of office, medical service space and lodging, as well as 150,000 square feet of retail and services.

SHA will provide comparable housing for all current Yesler Terrace residents during construction. Every resident will also receive a certificate guaranteeing their right to return to the neighborhood once new housing is completed. SHA estimates replacement construction will begin in 2013.

Councilmember Nick Licata, co-vice chair of the Special Committee said, "The Council made this development better by providing stronger assurances that excess revenues must provide additional very low income housing and any future use of Housing Levy funds at Yesler Terrace must be awarded according to a competitive process.  In addition, renters' rights to return to Yesler are much strengthened by limiting SHA's criteria for screening returning tenants."

The Council modified the Mayor's proposed cooperative agreement between SHA and the City to improve the project and provide further safeguards for residents of Yesler Terrace. Of the 20 amendments to the cooperative agreement the Council passed, several were imposed to further protect Yesler Terrace tenants, improve the quality of the neighborhood and to increase the amount of low-income housing created:

• SHA is required to use all proceeds from the sale of land for infrastructure and low-income housing in the Yesler Terrace neighborhood. 

• If SHA gets more than it needs to pay for the infrastructure and low-income housing, additional funding will pay for up to 100 more units for very-low income residents (households that make no more than 30% of area median income).

• Housing built east of Boren in the early stages of the project must include units for low-income residents.

• If a tenant has a dispute, SHA is required to work with the Yesler Terrace Community Council and the Citizens Review Council to resolve the matter.

• If future Housing Levy dollars are requested for Yesler Terrace, any funds will be awarded through the regular Housing Levy Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process.

• SHA must work with community organizations that assist women- and minority-owned businesses and economically disadvantaged individuals to obtain employment through Section 3 hiring, apprenticeship programs and equal opportunity programs.

"Our vision for Yesler Terrace is to improve the quality of life for all who choose to live, work, and play there," said Councilmember Sally Bagshaw. "This new community will foster understanding for generations among our children, seniors, those who speak English and those who don't. It will provide access to jobs, schools, transportation, medical care and more. It's a vision that has been years in the making. I am proud today to say Yes to Yesler."

"Since its inception, Yesler Terrace has fostered a unique community, allowing thousands of Seattleites to create a home and raise children near the heart of downtown.  I'm thrilled to see residents get the improvements they deserve in order to continue to thrive," said Councilmember Jean Godden. "Additionally, I am committed to ensuring that the voices of communities impacted by the change continue to guide the redevelopment process."

"Today's vote is an important step towards creating more healthy, affordable housing in Seattle. I am committed to continuing to work with SHA and Friends of Little Saigon to ensure that this is a project that benefits not just Yesler Terrace residents but the surrounding communities as well," added Councilmember Mike O'Brien.

"As Civil Rights chair, I believe we must work inclusively with this diverse community and reassure the 1,200 residents who include families with children, people with disabilities, seniors, and immigrants who speak other languages, a right to return to their home and community," said Councilmember Bruce Harrell. "I am confident that this cooperative agreement will assure, at a minimum, a 1-for-1 replacement of low-income units at Yesler Terrace."

"Remaking Yesler Terrace will create a strong neighborhood full of opportunity and hope in the heart of Seattle," said Councilmember Tim Burgess. "It's a project that creates jobs, contributes to economic growth, protects affordable housing and lines up perfectly with our desire for fairness and opportunity for all. It's a project that is rooted in our progressive values."

"This exciting project will rebuild badly needed low-income housing for current residents and generations to come," said Andrew J. Lofton, Executive Director of Seattle Housing Authority.  "We've enjoyed collaborating with the City Council, Mayor and many others to develop this plan, and we're excited to move forward."

For more information on the proposed Yesler Terrace redevelopment plans, visit http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/yesler_terrace.htm.

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan

On August 13 the Council unanimously approved a resolution that advances possible Comprehensive Plan amendments for analysis and review by the Seattle Planning Commission and the Department of Planning and Development.  These amendments will be considered for adoption in the spring of 2013 (state law limits the City to making general amendments to the Comprehensive Plan once a year).

The amendments proposed for review were culled from those submitted by City Departments, Councilmembers, and members of the public, both in written form and at a public hearing held in June.  Another public hearing will be held prior to making a final decision on what amendments should be adopted.

A major Comprehensive Plan update is scheduled for 2015, and some of the amendments scheduled for review will add new policies in advance of that update, or expand on current policies in preparation for it.  The new policy areas include:

• Policies relating to the City’s climate action program and progress towards carbon neutrality.  Recommendations are being developed by the Office of Sustainability and Environment.
• Policies that support the production and distribution of healthy food.  Recommendations are being developed by the Regional Food Policy Council under a contract with the City.
• A Transit Communities Policy intended to make neighborhoods complete, compact, connected communities that are well-served by transit.  Recommendations are being developed by the Planning Commission.

• Urban design policies will be amended to improve the design of public spaces and connections among them.  Recommendations are being developed by the Department of Planning and Development.
• New policies will be added to the Broadview — Bitter Lake — Haller Lake Neighborhood Plan and Rainier Beach Neighborhood Plan sections of the Comprehensive Plan.  These communities are in the final stages of neighborhood plan updates.

One other plan update is proposed to bring Seattle into conformance with state policies by clarifying the Container Port Element of the Plan.

In addition to these seven, which are all likely to result in new adopted Plan amendments, there are four policies that were recommended by the public which will be advanced for further review.  These are new policies that may or may not be deemed appropriate for the Plan.

• The recreational boating industry has proposed to amend the Economic Development Element to recognize the importance of the recreational boating industry and include marinas, boat yards and boat sales as water-dependent and related businesses.
• The maritime unions have proposed to amend the Land Use element to prohibit the development of spectator sports facilities in industrial zones if they would significantly restrict or disrupt existing industrial uses.
• Community groups have proposed an amendment that would amend the Neighborhood Planning Element to state that the City is receptive to funding neighborhood organizations to conduct neighborhood planning processes.
• And community groups have proposed to amend the Transportation Element to discourage pedestrian grade separations in urban centers.

The Council chose not to proceed with analysis of several amendments relating to possible rezones in the Interbay area, pending the outcome of a corridor study of 15^th Avenue NW which will provide guidelines on the level of development that can be sustained in this area.

The Council also adopted a companion resolution consolidating several resolutions that defined the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan, and adding a criteria that amendments should be “likely to make a material difference in a future city regulatory or funding decision”.  The City and Council take the Comprehensive Plan and the process for amending and revising it very seriously.  It is intended to be a living document that guides City practices, as well as including the mandatory elements specified by the Growth Management Act.  The annual amendment process is an important step in defining the kind of City we will aspire to.

SEATTLE – Today Mayor Mike McGinn, Councilmember Richard Conlin, and Council President Sally J. Clark, in partnership with King County and Washington State, launched the Industrial Development Pilot Program. The program is designed to support and grow the region’s industrial economy by providing regulatory and policy flexibility, financial incentives, and/or workforce training in support of innovative and sustainable industrial projects.

Washington State, King County and the City of Seattle will select up to ten Industrial Development Pilot Projects for priority assistance to explore regulatory and policy flexibility and financial incentives. By evaluating the success of the pilot projects, long-term, systemic solutions could be identified to support a model that encourages sustainable industrial development in our region and across the state.

“This innovative program will encourage new ideas for growth and reinvestment in our valuable manufacturing and maritime sectors. These sectors have long-provided family-wage jobs and a diverse economy for Seattle and the region,” said Mayor McGinn. “Our message to industrial businesses and property owners is clear. If you have a good idea, we want to support it. If you know of a better way to grow jobs while taking care of the environment, let’s try it.”

In order to be considered for the incentives, projects must demonstrate that they would achieve a positive industrial economic benefit, equal or better environmental performance than current regulations require, and be located on industrially zoned land within unincorporated King County or the City of Seattle.

"This program puts innovation in the driver's seat of industrial development," said Councilmember Richard Conlin, Chair of the Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee and primary sponsor of the Industrial Development Pilot Program. "We want to achieve more sustainable practices and a cleaner environment by pursuing creative alternatives to existing policies and regulations.”

Washington’s Puget Sound Region and King County are uniquely positioned to grow as world leaders in the design, manufacturing, and export of locally made products and services in a number of industrial sectors. Success of the region’s manufacturing and maritime industry sectors are essential to retain and create living-wage industrial jobs, and to maintain a diverse regional economy.

In Seattle alone, manufacturing and maritime businesses support more than 90,000 jobs, generate $6 billion per year in taxable retail sales, and contribute over $37 million per year in B&O taxes. Industrial businesses have been resilient during the economic downturn, but need support to remain globally competitive.

“Our hope is that these pilot programs will serve as a launch pad for innovative industrial projects that create family-wage jobs and create sustainable and environmentally sound industrial growth," said Council President Sally Clark, Chair of the Economic Resiliency and Regional Relations Committee.

Responses are due to the Office of Economic Development by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, November 5, 2012. Two question and answer meetings will be held on September 17, 2012 and October 4, 2012.

For details on the Request for Concepts (RFC), visit www.seattle.gov/economicdevelopment.

City’s Office of Economic Development (OED)
OED supports a healthy business environment and empowers companies to grow and compete. We provide services directly to businesses through advocacy, retention and expansion assistance, and workforce development. OED has several financing options for businesses, including options for small to medium to large businesses. Visit www.growseattle.com to access city services for businesses, and for more information about our office, visit www.seattle.gov/economicdevelopment

Seattle Jobs Plan
Mayor Mike McGinn’s vision for next generation economic development that creates a sustainable economy with shared prosperity in Seattle was launched in August 2010. It consists of new and existing policies, programs and investments designed to help create quality jobs, protect the environment, and ensure that taxpayers get true value from the city of Seattle's public investments. For more information, visit www.seattle.gov/mayor/jobsplan.

Seattle City Council
Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council’s website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

All Mayor's Office press conferences, town halls and general public meetings are archived by Seattle Channel. Many town halls and press conferences are also broadcast live to the web. Sign up for The Reader, our office newsletter, at our website. And learn more about your neighbors and the mayor’s activities on our blog.

###

Yesler Terrace redevelopment legislation passes out of Seattle City Council
Special Committee
Full Council will cast final vote on September 4

SEATTLE – allowing the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) to redevelop the 22-acre Yesler Terrace public housing neighborhood.

Council President Sally J. Clark, chair of the Yesler Terrace Special Committee, said, "The Council took this opportunity to ensure the Yesler Terrace redevelopment plan will respect the needs of people who live in Yesler now and to ensure that Yesler becomes a great urban neighborhood again. The new development of great parks and gardens, better streets and a true housing mix means we ensure low-income people have a great Yesler home far into the future."

The legislative package requires SHA to replace 561 existing units of very low-income housing for current residents, build more than 1,200 new income-restricted units at a variety of affordability levels, and allows for as many as 4,500 total housing units.

Councilmember Nick Licata, co-vice chair of the Special Committee said, "The Council made this development better by providing stronger assurances that excess revenues must provide additional very low income housing and any future use of Housing Levy funds at Yesler Terrace must be awarded according to a competitive process.  In addition, renters' rights to return to Yesler are much strengthened by limiting SHA's criteria for screening returning tenants."

"The Yesler Terrace redevelopment will increase low income housing, create a vibrant neighborhood next to downtown, and take a major step towards meeting our growth management goals. New Holly, High Point, and Rainier Vista demonstrate Seattle Housing Authority's ability to develop extraordinary communities," stated Councilmember Richard Conlin, co-vice chair of the Yesler Terrace Special Committee. "The Yesler Terrace new development will be added to this list as a careful, thoughtful, and prudent project that will make a big difference in many people's lives."

Terms of the planned action ordinance, cooperative agreement and street vacation call for SHA to construct community gardens, pedestrian pathways and pocket parks open to the public, and re-landscape the neighborhood with more trees than are currently present.

"Remaking Yesler Terrace will create a strong neighborhood full of opportunity and hope in the heart of Seattle," said Councilmember Tim Burgess. "It's a project that creates jobs, contributes to economic growth, protects affordable housing and lines up perfectly with our desire for fairness and opportunity for all. It's a project that is rooted in our progressive values."

"I'm pleased that SHA has been working with members of the community to maintain the vitality of Little Saigon," said Councilmember Jean Godden.

The Housing Authority may build up to 900,000 square feet of office, medical service space and lodging, as well as 150,000 square feet of retail and services.

SHA will provide comparable housing for all current Yesler Terrace residents during construction. Every resident will also receive a certificate guaranteeing their right to return to the neighborhood once new housing is completed. SHA estimates replacement construction will begin in 2013.

"As Civil Rights chair, we must work inclusively with this diverse community and reassure the 1,200 residents who are families with children, people with disabilities, seniors, and immigrants who speak other languages, a right to return to their home and community," said Councilmember Bruce Harrell. "I am confident that this cooperative agreement will assure, at a minimum, a 1-for-1 replacement of low-income units at Yesler Terrace."

For more information on the proposed Yesler Terrace redevelopment plans, visit our web pages.

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

Lush street trees in 1937 (Seattle Municipal Archives)

Seattle has accepted a big challenge:  to turn around the loss of tree cover from developing a City on this formerly forested land, and to restore and regrow as much of the urban forest as we can.  Trees not only because they make the City more beautiful and our neighborhoods more livable, but also help with stormwater management, reduce air pollution, provide food and habitat, and reduce global warming by absorbing carbon.  Our goal is to protect as many current trees as possible, ensure that existing trees are maintained and encouraged to grow stronger, and plant and establish new trees.

We have made progress.  We created the Seattle Green Factor, which requires new development to include an appropriate array of trees and bushes.  We implemented the Green Seattle Partnership, which mobilizes volunteers to cut back ivy and other invasives and plant trees in our parks and public lands.  We adopted an Interim Tree Ordinance that makes protecting groves of trees a priority.  Groves provide healthy ecosystems for other forms of life and a better environment for sustaining the trees themselves.  Actions like these have resulted in measurable increases in Seattle’s tree canopy.

Over the next few months, there will be four decisions that will help determine how successful we will be in the next stages of this work.

1. A proposed Street Tree Ordinance is expected to reach the Council sometime in early fall.  This ordinance would formally create requirements for the maintenance of the thousands of trees planted in the right-of-way.  Many of these trees suffer from poor maintenance, from trimming and topping to prevent conflicts with power lines, or because the wrong tree was planted in a place where there is limited space to grow without cracking sidewalks or interfering with underground utilities.  The proposed ordinance would codify requirements to plant appropriate trees, create requirements for best practices for care and maintenance, and prevent improper trimming practices.  This ordinance will go to Councilmember Rasmussen’s Transportation Committee.
2. The Council will decide on continuing the Green Seattle Partnership when approving the 2013 budget in November.  This program was funded under the 2008 Parks Levy, and has mobilized thousands of volunteers.  Levy support is reduced after 2012.  The Council will have to find at least $1 million to keep the program going, either in the Parks budget or drainage rates.  Unfortunately, the City’s general fund faces an estimated $30-35 million shortfall next year, so it will be tough to come up with new money for this program, and there are already great pressures on the drainage utility.  I am committed to try to find a solution, but it will not be an easy task.
3. Revisions to the City’s Urban Forestry Management Plan (UFMP) will come to the Council late this year.  The UFMP was created in 2007 to identify goals and strategies to maintain, preserve, restore, and enhance the urban forest in order to reach the City’s 30% canopy cover goal.  These revisions update key indicators of progress, provide current data on the state of the urban forest, specify actions for tree management, and inventory existing urban forest programs.  The draft plan is available for public comment through October 1, 2012 at www.seattle.gov/trees/management.htm.
4. Finally, in late 2012, the Council expects to receive a proposed ordinance that creates a permanent regulation governing trees on private land.  It is a difficult task to craft tools that can grow our urban forest while also giving property owners choices that balance other important priorities, such as gardens, recreational space, sunlight, and safety.  The Urban Forestry Commission is currently reviewing the draft of the new ordinance.

To restore our urban forest, we must take a holistic approach, considering a full range of strategies to make the most of both public and private property.  We should embrace ecosystem thinking.  Our goal should be to foster the growth of a diverse, multi-age, multi-species forest in the City with appropriate understory.  The Seattle forest should be focused on native or native-adapted trees, and self-sustaining to the extent possible, with minimal requirements for pruning and management, especially on public property.  Recognizing that individual trees and small groups of trees can be great assets to property owners and communities, our focus should be on providing a set of incentives and parameters that will encourage groves and stands of trees, whether in linear form along streets, in backyards where property owners are willing participants, on larger parcels of land including parks, or in cooperating neighborhoods where neighbors can come together to steward these groupings.

On private property, an incentive based approach to encourage property owners to plant and retain more trees is the best strategy, including creative ways to engage private property owners as partners in recognizing the inherent value of trees on their property.  We should explore neighborhood based conservation approaches, such as LIDs, tree easements, community covenants regarding tree maintenance and preservation, and tree cooperatives, where maintenance and preservation can be planned and shared in the community.  In areas being developed, I suggest that the Seattle Green Factor is a great model of how we can best support the maximum amount of trees and an ecosystem approach.  While I appreciate the appeal of a ‘tree removal permit’ and similar regulatory approaches, an approach based on a regulatory model will be insufficient to meet our city’s goals.  I do want to maintain exceptional trees that are currently protected, and would not exclude regulation from the toolkit, but it should not be the centerpiece of our strategy.

The people of Seattle are committed to the health and stewardship of Seattle’s urban forest.  I look forward to hearing comments and creative thinking as our efforts to implement an updated Urban Forest Management Plan continue.

A rendering of the plan for Seattle’s Waterfront (Waterfront Seattle)

On Monday, August 13, the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 31399, which creates the framework for the new Seattle downtown waterfront.  The resolution supports the direction developed by the citizen group that has been working for years on this project, the Central Waterfront Committee, lays out a funding plan, and delineates the timeline for the next steps in implementation.  A key provision calls for forming a local improvement district, a mechanism whereby the City can generate funds for the project by taxing property owners whose property will increase in value as a result of the removal of the viaduct, creation of the new park and other waterfront development.

This is a huge step forward in realizing the dream of transforming the central waterfront from the existing conditions dominated by the noise and structure of the viaduct to a park that is focused around public access for Seattle residents and visitors and linked to downtown through a series of corridors and connections that will make access easier and more attractive.

The City began the public process of developing a waterfront plan in 2003, approved guiding principles in 2004 based on forums supported by the Planning and Design Commissions, and created the Waterfront Concept Plan in 2006.  In 2009, the City created the Central Waterfront Partnerships Committee to advise the Mayor and City Council on the strategies and partnerships necessary to successfully develop and manage new public spaces along the Central Waterfront.

This group’s report, published in January, 2011, was then turned over to the new Central Waterfront Committee for further development.  In turn, the Central Waterfront Committee, informed by numerous public meetings, developed the strategic plan and a funding strategy.

The core strategy calls for an urban street and promenade along a new surface Alaskan Way, park space, strong east-west connections, spectacular views, spaces for diverse social and recreational programs, and access to Puget Sound. While there are many decisions and details left to be developed, the strategy includes access to the water in several ways, a diverse set of parks along the water and on the public piers, an expanded Aquarium, a new urban space connecting the Aquarium and the Pike Place Market, and a series of other changes in the way in which transportation and urban development will relate to Alaskan Way, the waterfront, and connections to downtown.

While funding requirements for this plan is estimated at about $1.07 billion, the good news is that there is a viable funding strategy.  The strategy is anchored in the public investments in the WSDOT Alaskan Way Replacement project and the Seawall Bond which will appear on the November ballot.  The State money is already secured, and if the Seawall Bond is approved, these two sources and funds that are already budgeted by the State and City will cover about 60% of the projected costs, $650 million of the projected $1.07 billion.

The local improvement district is anticipated to fund the largest part of the remainder, between $200 and $300 million, and private philanthropy is also anticipated to provide $80 to $120 million.  That leaves between $70 and $150 million to be financed through the City’s general fund and/or a future levy.  The next step is to begin forming the local improvement district, anticipated to be in place in the spring of 2014.

Other near-term actions will include developing agreements between the City and the Pike Place Market and Seattle Aquarium to continue the design work in that area of the waterfront and develop funding plans for their projects.  And the City will work with partners in the community to foster creating a not-for-profit Friends of the Seattle Waterfront to further advance the projects.  In addition, the City will begin developing a plan to maintain, operate and program the Central Waterfront after Waterfront Improvement Program project components are constructed.

It is incredibly exciting to see the planning for our waterfront moving into this next stage.  When I was elected to the Council in 1997, I had no idea that we would have the opportunity to reshape our waterfront.  Although the State and City had already begun reviewing the seismic issues relating to the seawall and Alaskan Way Viaduct, it was not until the Nisqually Earthquake in 2001 that the work became more visible and took on a new sense of urgency.

It has taken us more than ten years to get to the point where the transportation system work is underway and we can begin to fully turn our attention to the possibilities of the waterfront.  The controversies seem to be behind us, and the public engagement has been strikingly successful.  Only a few people from the public were present when the Council approved this plan – and none of them were opposed to it.  The next five years will continue to see challenges, but they will be the challenges of realizing a vision.  The rewards of that vision will become increasingly apparent as we continue this work.

Central Library, in Downtown Seattle (Wikipedia)

I would like to personally thank Seattle voters for again reaffirming their commitment to libraries by overwhelmingly approving a seven-year, $122.6 million property tax levy on the August 7 ballot to support the Seattle Public Library (SPL).  I initiated the two year process to prepare this proposal, and chaired the Committee of the Whole on the Library Levy, which placed it on the ballot.

I am very grateful for the strong support of my colleagues on the Council and the Mayor, as well as the commitment of the Library Board, the Library Foundation, the Friends of the Library, and many hundreds of volunteers who support the libraries and joined in this work.  This was both a true grassroots effort and a great partnership between community activists and City government.  It once again demonstrates that we are most successful when we work together to solve difficult challenges to the health and well-being of Seattle.

The levy vote also reaffirms the confidence of voters that the City Council is making thoughtful and careful decisions about budgets and priorities in the face of a difficult economic climate and the constraints placed on the City by the Eyman initiatives requiring voter approval for revenue increases.

Opponents of the levy (who, in a truly Orwellian twist, called themselves ‘Save Our Seattle Library’), asserted that the City should fully fund the library out of general fund revenues.  These claims ignored the impact of the recession on City revenues, which forced libraries to compete with public safety, human services, and other priorities.  Opponents never stated what they would cut in order to fund libraries.  And, as Seattle voters know, the Eyman tax limitation initiatives limit the growth in City property tax revenues to 1% per year, meaning that the City budget falls behind inflation and population growth even in normal years.

This levy will restore the services that have been cut from the City budget since the recession began, protect the library from further cuts, and add funding that will take the library to a new level of service designed for the 21^st century.  This means expanded collections, including electronic materials, hours that make branches more accessible for working families and school children, better technology, and maintenance that will protect the investments in our Central Library and 26 branches.

Seattle has set a marker and a model that will be looked to by cities all over the country.  Libraries are being cut back as City governments are challenged by the recession.  We can be proud of the way the people of Seattle have responded to this challenge by emphatically stating their willingness to voluntarily raise their taxes in order to maintain library services.  Our example will give new energy to the many people who are rallying around the vision of the central role of free public libraries as essential to democracy.

Proceeds from the levy will:

• Add back operating hours at branch libraries, increase reference services at branches and the Central Library, and fund security services and technology support.  Of the 15 branches that are currently open five days per week, 13 will gain Sunday hours and two will transition to a seven day schedule.  2012 will be the last year that SPL will have to have a week-long, system-wide closure.
• Increase the collections budget to better meet patron demand for materials, increase purchases of downloadable materials, and provide more copies of popular material in print, digital, and other formats.
• Replace and upgrade computers and technology infrastructure and improve online services.
• Support regular and major maintenance activities at SPL’s 27 buildings.

For more information, see http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/library_levy.htm

City of Seattle Seal

The City Council is considering whether it should approve public financing to support the construction of a new arena south of Safeco Field.  It appears likely that constructing a new arena to bring an NBA basketball team to Seattle can be done without City participation.  The land is zoned to permit its construction, and the developer has purchased that land and lined up several very wealthy investors.

The question before the Council is not whether we think having an NBA team is a good thing, but whether it is necessary and appropriate to use Seattle’s bonding capacity to invest public money (in the form of municipal bonds) for a new arena.  After reviewing the proposed agreement, I have serious concerns about the proposed City involvement.

Eight Councilmembers share many of my concerns, and sent a letter to Chris Hansen [PDF] on July 30 stating:  “Our review has led the majority of Councilmembers to conclude that the agreements do not represent an appropriate balance of public and private benefits, nor do they sufficiently protect the City from the financial risks inherent in the arena’s financing.”  We then laid out a series of issues that would need to be addressed or changed in order for the Council to be prepared to consider City investment.

It may be possible to craft an agreement to move forward that meets all or most Councilmembers’ concerns, but that will take considerable discussion and negotiation.  We expect to work on this over the next few weeks.  All of us would welcome investment in the City and a new basketball team, and are willing to look carefully at these proposals.  However, any agreement must be designed to protect and advance the public interest.

Reasonable people can disagree on what the public interest is.  Councilmembers have a range of opinions on what an acceptable agreement would be, and I am writing to explain my point of view.  I appreciate that not everyone will share my perspective.  Here are my concerns:

1.      This is a different financing structure from that used for Safeco and CenturyLink Fields.  Those financing plans were put in place many years ago, of course, when there were more public dollars available and research on the limited economic benefits of stadia was only just beginning.  In both of those cases, funding came from specific taxes authorized by the legislature (in the case of CenturyLink, it was also approved by voters).  These taxes had less impact on the City’s general fund, which receives taxes from the teams and operations (admissions taxes were used, over the City’s protest, as were some CenturyLink sales taxes).

This proposal takes all of the city taxes which would otherwise go to the general fund to support police, fire, human services, parks, and transportation investments.  The approximately $13 million anticipated to be generated annually could, for example, largely restore funding for the City’s parks system to its pre-recession levels.  Instead, these taxes are diverted to pay the debt on the arena.

Every other business in town pays those taxes.  We make investments in transportation, public safety, and other priorities in order to make the entire community work – and to benefit economic development.  But we don’t put those funds back into any other business as a public investment.  It would make more sense if the proposed public funding had specific new taxes to support it, or if it relied on taxes that most businesses do not pay, such as the admissions tax.  I fear that the precedent of giving up taxes that would support general fund activities sets a precedent that we will rue in the future.

If arena proponents want public funding, they could go to the legislature and propose specific taxes, and take those to the ballot if necessary.  Note that (contrary to public mythology), voters in Seattle actually voted for Safeco Field.  The baseball field lost in other areas of King County.  The football stadium was approved in a statewide vote.

2.      I am not convinced that the proposed arena will make a significant contribution to economic development.  It will bring some new money into Seattle and will divert some other money that people might have spent on other activities.  The economists who have studied this proposal agree (as do studies of every other such project) that the net effect is very small.  Furthermore, I have not been persuaded by the argument that there will be significant tax revenues generated by “ancillary” economic activity in the stadium district following construction of the arena.  The evidence is slim or hypothetical.

3.      As the Seattle Planning Commission said in their report, the proposed arena may cause economic problems by interfering with Port and other industrial jobs.  The Manufacturing Industrial Council and Port have raised legitimate questions about the impact of the arena on transportation and land use in the area.  We will not know how significant these are until there has been a full study when the project goes through environmental review.  I think that there are likely to be impacts, but I also think that these impacts probably can be mitigated.  There will need to be money invested in this mitigation, but the good news is that addressing transportation impacts from the arena will also likely help with other transportation problems.  Under those circumstances, I would support investing public funds for part of these transportation projects.

4.      The investment in this project is fundamentally different from what are cited as comparable investments in places like McCaw and Benaroya Halls.  There is no need to get into the discussion of the relative merits of arts and sports.  The fact is that the arts facilities that the City invests in host nonprofit organizations.  No one is making money off of them – unlike the investors in this proposal.  The McCaw family invested tens of millions of dollars into the renovation of McCaw Hall.  They get no financial return – they get their name on a plaque.

5.      In contrast, Mr. Hansen said no when I asked him if he would organize the proposal as a nonprofit.  In fact, he specifically stated that he is looking for public funds to make him richer.  In his blog response to the question of why he wanted public financing, he put it quite explicitly:

“Public support improves the economics of the project: The first reason why a public contribution is necessary to the Arena project is that it meaningfully improves the economics of the project… the City and County Councils must appreciate that there is a significant difference between operating profitably and earning an adequate return on our investment.” (emphasis in the original)

Mr. Hansen has since stated that he believes that the City will receive a 7.15% annual return on investment.  While City analysts are skeptical about this number, he must believe it to be true.  That suggests that he believes that he is entitled to a significantly larger rate of return, or else he would be willing to replace the public funds at this rate.

6.      The proposed arena is designed to accommodate both basketball and hockey, but the memorandum of agreement provides that there will be only $120 million in public funds used if there is only a basketball team, instead of the $200 million if both teams are secured.  When I asked Mr. Hansen what the difference would be in the arena if a hockey team had not been secured, however, he stated that he would build it the same way.  That suggests that at least $80 million of the proposed public investment is unnecessary, since he can evidently finance the arena without it.  He has never presented a financial plan that lays out what level of public investment he actually needs to make the finances work.

7.      There are questions about the security of City investment in this arena, identified by Council staff and expert consultants.  There are many good policy statements in the MOU, but there are serious questions as to how they will actually be implemented.  For example, the City is listed as having ‘first priority’ for revenues – but that is very different from having ‘first lien’, which entitles the holder to actually be first in line if there is a financial meltdown.  We are told that the banks will have ‘first lien’.  And there is no apparent guarantee from the investors that their personal money would back up the City’s investment if the worst case happened, even though the investors listed have quite large financial resources.  It is not clear why the City should take any such risks, even if the chances of problems are relatively small.

8.      Owning the arena at the end of thirty years does not make up for the possible risk and commitment of City tax revenues.  The City already owns KeyArena, which struggles financially – why would we want to own two?  And no one can guarantee that a ‘state of the art arena’ built now will not be deemed insufficient in 15 years – remember that KeyArena was renovated in 1994, and the Sonics signed a 25 year lease, which they chose to break after only 13 years.  The City thought it was fully protected in that lease, but it turned out to be breakable.  Why will not the same situation occur with this arena?  The Rose Garden, with Paul Allen owning the team, and surely having the financial assets to handle the issues there, still went bankrupt.

The fact is that running arenas is not the City’s core mission.  We have challenges enough with police, human services, electricity, water, and the other areas that are our central responsibilities.

9.      In San Francisco, the Golden State Warriors are building an arena using only private funds.  The City is providing the land – but the land is more of a liability than an asset, requiring an estimated $75 – $100 million to make the piers usable.  If private money can build an arena in one of the most expensive cities in the country, why not in Seattle?

The City can welcome investors building a new arena and we can play our traditional economic development role by supporting that with complementary investment in city infrastructure such as transportation systems, and with regulatory assistance where that is compatible with the public interest.  The investors could finance and own the facility, just like every other for-profit business.  Alternatively, the investors could go to the legislature, get the legislature to approve a new taxing authority, and set up a public facility district to manage the arena.  Both of these are proven models that can work.  The current proposal is a complicated and convoluted arrangement that subsidizes profits for a private investor, takes away tax revenue that should go to the City’s general fund, and leaves the City with a potentially money-losing facility down the road.

I’ve heard from lots of basketball fans and I appreciate their passion.  I will continue to be open to possible changes in the agreement that would address the issues I have cited.  Ultimately, I must make my decision based on my best judgment of the public interest as I see it and as outlined above.

Seattle City Council special committee supports initial Central Waterfront concept design and strategic plan
Council recognizes mix of funding sources and Friends of Seattle Waterfront organization

This afternoon the Seattle City Council unanimously approved Resolution 31399 supporting the overall direction of a Central Waterfront concept design and strategic plan. This resolution also addresses a funding plan for public, private, and philanthropic sources for the Waterfront Improvement Program and states the City’s intent to form a local improvement district to help pay for the waterfront improvements. The resolution calls for partnerships with the Pike Place Market and Seattle Aquarium and supports formation of a Friends of the Seattle Waterfront non-profit organization.

“This resolution marks a significant milestone in turning Seattle’s Central Waterfront   into a vibrant and bustling public area,” said Councilmember Jean Godden, chair of the Special committee on the Central Waterfront, Seawall, and Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement program. “We now have a cohesive vision for connecting the waterfront and the City, a thoughtful strategy for funding and implementation, and partnerships to make the vision a reality.”

“We are moving forward and making this once in a lifetime opportunity a reality. With the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, we will create unique and memorable open space and a waterfront for all,” added Councilmember Sally Bagshaw, committee vice-chair.

Nearly 10 years ago, the City began a public process for developing a community vision to reconnect Seattle to its waterfront in conjunction with the removal of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and replacement of the aging Elliott Bay Seawall.

In the summer of 2009, the State, King County, the Port of Seattle and the City of Seattle signed a memorandum of agreement to signify the preferred Alaskan Way Viaduct (AWV) replacement option, a deep bored tunnel.

“Thousands of Seattle residents and organizations helped create this vision,” said Councilmember Richard Conlin, committee vice-chair. “Together we will build a truly remarkable waterfront.”

In early 2011, the Mayor and City Council appointed a 34-member Central Waterfront Committee (CWC) to provide oversight for waterfront planning and design efforts, including robust public outreach. The CWC and its subcommittees met more than 80 times to craft the strategic plan to implement the central waterfront designs. The City held four public meetings garnering feedback from approximately 4, 000 people and five community forums were held to explore topics including mobility and access, habitat, and the culture and uniqueness of Seattle.

"This plan is the product of an incredible collaboration with Seattle residents who attended the design forums, the citizen-led Central Waterfront Committee, and local organizations that will join with the new Friends for Seattle Waterfront non-profit. Public/private partnerships will forge the way to Seattle's new waterfront,” stated Councilmember and committee vice-chair Tom Rasmussen.

Click for more information on the Special Committee on the Central Waterfront, Seawall, and Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program.

City Councilmembers participate in “Night Out Against Crime”
Neighborhood activities focus on crime prevention and block watch efforts

Seattle– Seattle City Councilmembers will travel throughout Seattle on Tuesday night, spending time with neighbors across the City in an effort to heighten crime prevention/awareness and neighborhood safety. “Night Out” is a national Crime Prevention event and will take place this year on August 7, 2012. Last year, 1,327 events were registered with the Seattle Police Department. If you have never participated in “Night Out”, Councilmembers encourage you to get involved this year. The theme this year is “Together – Safer Neighborhoods.”

Night Out is an excellent opportunity to organize your block and work together as a community.  

• Join or start a Block Watch
• Communities are the catalyst in preventing crime. Make a commitment to reduce crime and violence in your community and learn what you can do.

Find a Night Out event in your Neighborhood by viewing this map.

Councilmembers will participate in numerous neighborhood festivities including, but not limited to, the following:
Council President Sally J. Clark: Madrona, Rainier Valley, and Seward Park neighborhoods
Councilmember Sally Bagshaw: Ravenna and Downtown neighborhoods
Councilmember Tim Burgess: Downtown, West Seattle and South Seattle neighborhoods
Councilmember Richard Conlin: Ravenna neighborhood
Councilmember Bruce Harrell: Downtown, Ravenna, and Seward Park neighborhoods
Councilmember Nick Licata: Belltown neighborhood
Councilmember Mike O’Brien: Fremont neighborhood

Seattle Police North Precinct
Cedar Park/Meadowbrook Neighborhood
Bartlett Night Out
Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 6 – 9 p.m.
3000 Bartlett Ave NE

Broadview/Bitter Lake Neighborhood
11700 Fremont Ave N Block Party
Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 6 – 9 p.m.
11700 Fremont Ave N

Broadview/Bitter Lake Neighborhood
Bitter Lake Neighborhood Night Out
Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 6 – 9 p.m.
Where Intersection of N. 133rd and Bitter Lane

Wedgwood/View Ridge Neighborhood
Top Pot Doughnuts' Night Out Against Crime
Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 5 – 8 p.m.    
Wedgwood Top Pot Café 6855 35th Ave NE

Seattle Police West Precinct
Queen Anne Neighborhood
9th Ave Block Party
Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 5 – 10 p.m.
2700 block of 9th Ave W

Belltown Neighborhood
Block Party / Neighborhood Night Out
Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 6 p.m.
3rd Avenue and Vine St.

Seattle Police East Precinct
Capitol Hill Neighborhood
11th and Denny Block Party                                
Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 6 – 10 p.m. 
100 block of 11th Ave. East and Denny Way

Madrona/Leschi Neighborhood
31st Ave Neighborhood Night Out!
Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 6 – 10 p.m.  
400 block of 31st Ave / 31st between E Jefferson and E Terrace

Mt. Baker/North Rainier
Leschi/Mt. Baker night out
August 7, 2012, 5:30 – 8:30 p.m.
31st Ave S between Norman and Judkins

Seattle Police Southwest Precinct

Alki/Admiral Neighborhood
3200 44th Ave SW Night Out   
Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 6 – 9 p.m.
3200 44th Ave SW between Hanford and Hines

West Seattle Neighborhood
Morgan Junction Block Watch
Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 5 – 10 p.m.
6000 42nd Ave SW

Seattle Police South Precinct

Beacon Hill Neighborhood
3300 Block Night Out
Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 6 – 9 p.m. 
3300 block of 17th Ave South

Rainier Beach/Othello Neighborhood
Angel Morgan Night Out
Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 6 – 10 p.m. 
P-Patch at S. Morgan and 42nd Ave. S.

Rainier Beach Neighborhood
59th Avenue S. Block Party
Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 6 – 10 p.m. 
10628 59th Avenue S. (59th Ave S - South of Bangor)

Columbia City Neighborhood
2012 National Night Out Against Crime with CURB
Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 5 – 9 p.m.
4437 Rainier Avenue South

The “new look” of South lake Union, exemplified by one of many new buildings in the area. (Seattle Municipal Archives)

Since the revisions to the South Lake Union Neighborhood Plan and its designation as an Urban Center, South Lake Union (SLU) has led the City in developing new jobs and housing, just as was hoped.  By investing in infrastructure there, the City has successfully encouraged this development.  This year, the Council will consider additional rezones in SLU that will continue this record of success.

Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1995, Seattle has focused on bringing jobs and housing to Urban Centers and Urban Villages where growth makes the most sense.  This protects our farms, forests, and wilderness areas from sprawl and concentrates new development where there are transportation and commercial centers to support it.  This also prevents ‘in-city sprawl’ from overwhelming our single family neighborhoods.

The core centers for growth are intended to be our designated Urban Centers, initially the 6 Downtown neighborhoods, First Hill, Capitol Hill, Northgate, and the University District, who are generally following the pattern of continued development.    The most dramatic change in that lineup was the addition of South Lake Union as an Urban Center in 2004.  Like First Hill, Uptown, and Pioneer Square, SLU is adjacent to downtown.  Unlike those neighborhoods, its original neighborhood plan, hammered out in a fairly tense process following the defeat of the Seattle Commons proposal, did not embrace growth, and instead called for SLU to remain a relatively low-density, mixed use neighborhood.

That changed as employment centers like the Fred Hutch and Zymogenetics grew around the edges of SLU, as property ownership turned over and Paul Allen’s Vulcan acquired much of the holdings of those who resisted change, and as City planners began to think more deeply about the possibilities of this in-city community.  In the mid-2000’s, the community revised the neighborhood plan, the City adopted the Urban Center designation, and both public and private investment began.

The City’s core investments have been creating the South Lake Union Park (fulfilling at least partially the dream of the Seattle Commons – and the majority of the funding for the Park came from private donations), joining with the private sector to create the South Lake Union Streetcar (almost 50% of the funding came from private sources, with most of the rest from federal and state grants), facilitating the relocation of MOHAI to the South Lake Union Armory (again with a significant private investment), and beginning the long-dreamed process of transforming Mercer from the Mercer Mess to a new Main Street for South Lake Union (also largely with grant funds, as well as significant private contributions).  Of the estimated $480 million in public investments committed or planned in South Lake Union, only $96 million came from the City’s budget resources.

In turn, new zoning and land use policies have facilitated private investment pouring into the neighborhood, with some 12.5 million square feet of new development between 1995 and 2011.  The result has been the emergence of a new mixed-use urban community, with approximately 3000 new residents and 8500 new jobs.   In 1990, SLU had a population of 677, almost entirely in the Cascade neighborhood.  In 2010, the population was 3738.

The new housing has led to a new and more diverse population.  The percentage living in poverty fell from 40% to 21%, with many of the low income residents living in publicly subsidized low income housing.  Of the nearly 2300 housing units developed in SLU in the last 20 years, about a third were below market affordable units.

South Lake Union has long been an employment center, with 14,570 jobs in 1995.  In 2011, there are now some 23,000 jobs.  Most of the growth has been in professional and technical services.  The principle loss has been in industrial jobs – although even in 1995, these were only 30% of the SLU jobs.  It is not clear how many of the 3000 that have left have migrated to other areas and how many have been transformed or lost as a result of the changing economy.

There are many different ways to measure the City’s return on investment, but even the narrowest method of computation – direct tax revenues generated in this community – suggests that the City has made a good choice in partnering for development in South Lake Union.  When you add the growth management implementation, the jobs for our residents, the new transportation opportunities that emerge from the Mercer rebuild, and the low income housing, it is clear that this coordinated strategy has made a lot of sense.

This fall, the Council will consider the final step in the neighborhood plan revisions, a proposed rezoning of significant areas of South Lake Union.  As we evaluate the opportunities and challenges posed by land use changes, we have the opportunity to continue to leverage our investments in the interests of good, thoughtful, and comprehensive public policy.

SEATTLE - Today Mayor Mike McGinn signed legislation to reform development regulations in Seattle. The changes, adopted by Seattle City Council on July 23, are intended to support jobs in the city, with many of the changes applying to areas of the city where most growth is expected, including most major urban centers and areas along light rail.

"Today's Council vote supports jobs, urban vitality and environmental sustainability by removing outdated and unneeded regulations," said McGinn. "I thank the City Council for their due diligence and approval of these regulatory reforms, first announced last summer as part of my Jobs Plan. I especially thank Councilmember Richard Conlin, not only for his leadership on the Council in gaining approval for this package of reforms, but for his dedication to reforming city regulations in a way that helps protect and encourage what makes Seattle a great city."

The reforms are expected to support a wide range of projects, from large development and institutions to neighborhood mixed use development to home occupations and accessory dwellings units. Historic buildings continue to require special review by the Historic Preservation Office.

“This legislation moves the land use code in the direction of more flexibility and less rigidity,” said Councilmember Richard Conlin, chair of the Land Use Committee. “These are fairly modest reforms but taken as a whole they show our commitment to fostering entrepreneurism, supporting small business, and creating vital, walkable neighborhoods.”

The changes include:

• Limiting required street level commercial uses to pedestrian designated zones in certain business districts (letting the market decide for some commercial street fronts )

• Eliminating required parking for all uses in urban villages within ¼ mile of good transit service ( letting the market determine the number of spaces provided)

• Reducing by half parking requirements for all uses in most other areas when within ¼ mile of good transit service (except industrial zones)

• Reducing the number of projects subject to environmental review in growth areas (urban center neighborhoods, like First Hill, and around light rail stations) to acknowledge existing regulations that address impacts, such as design review, noise, stormwater, and environmental critical areas

• Relaxing home occupation rules to allow those running businesses at home to alter their structures, use accessory structures and advertise in the media, including internet

• Creating greater flexibility for creating accessory dwelling units, including backyard cottages

• Expanding time limits for certain temporary use permits by allowing them to be extended in six month increments when there are no impacts to neighbors.

Council Bill 117430 can be found at: http://bit.ly/T29Htd

All Mayor's Office press conferences, town halls and general public meetings are archived by Seattle Channel. Many town halls and press conferences are also broadcast live to the web. Sign up for The Reader, our office newsletter, at our website. And learn more about your neighbors and the mayor's activities on our blog.

- 30 -

Office of the Mayor

Rendering of the Bullitt Center, Seattle’s first Living Building Challenge development. (Miller Hull Partnership)

The Council has unanimously adopted changes to the ‘Living Building Challenge Pilot Program’ that will tighten the qualifications for participation and provide additional incentives for builders to participate in the program.  We expect at least one additional building to be able to proceed into construction as a result of this change.

The Living Building ordinance is a pilot program.  The idea is to find the right set of incentives that will encourage builders to go to a high level of green.  The program only allows 12 buildings to be constructed.  It is not a general rezone, and has both a limited number of buildings permitted and an expiration date.  At that point, we pause and see what we are willing to incorporate into our regular code in order to reach this new level of greenness.

While the program was enacted in 2009, only one building is in construction, the Bullitt Foundation.  Clearly, the incentives provided are not enough.   During the drafting of the original legislation, the Bullitt Foundation requested flexibility in case they fell short of meeting the Living Building Challenge, and the City incorporated a fallback process that would allow buildings to keep the incentives if they met 60% of the criteria for certification by the Living Building Challenge, as well as other specific requirements for energy, water and stormwater.

The Living Building Challenge sponsors have decided that they are not satisfied with the 60% level being called a ‘living building’, so we have worked out modifications to the ordinance that require buildings to fully attain three of the seven living building challenge criteria, one of which must be energy, water or materials.   In addition, requirements for energy, water consumption and capture and use of stormwater are specified in order to call the building a participant in the Living Building Pilot Program.    The current 60% path will be limited to a maximum of three developments, and participants at that level will be designated as ‘Seattle Deep Green’ buildings rather than ‘living building challenge participants.’

The Living Building Challenge sponsors are now satisfied with this ordinance.  Denis Hayes, President of the Bullitt Foundation, states:

This looks very good to me. …Three Deep Green buildings seem fine to me.  In fact, after we take this through the next iteration sometime in the future, it would be good to encourage many high-performance, ‘deep green’ buildings (while encouraging living buildings — with their higher costs and greater benefits — even more.)

Seattle’s goal is not just to create a small number of living buildings, but to change the world by demonstrating that buildings that meet rigorous standards for the environment can be commercially viable.  That is why two incentives are added to those in the original ordinance.  The amendments provide the option of 20 feet of additional height above the base zoning, instead of the 10 feet approved in 2009.  And the ordinance provides that floor space used for ground level retail services is exempted from floor space limits.  Both of these provisions can only be implemented with the approval of the Design Review Board.  Consistent with a settlement agreement with a Wallingford neighbor, the ordinance also limits the area above 45’ to no more than 66% coverage to help address bulk and view concerns.

The proposed added incentives only apply to buildings that are in Industrial Commercial (IC) zones located in urban villages or urban centers.  Approximately 27 parcels are eligible, mostly in the area around 34^th and Stone Way in Fremont/Wallingford, but including some parcels in the University District and Eastlake.  The immediate result will be that the proposed Stone 34 development, on the northeast corner of 34^th and Stone Way, will be able to proceed.  Other sites around the corner may be developed under these provisions, but DPD thinks it is unlikely that the sites in the U District and Eastlake will be, since they are either too small or already developed.   The ordinance does not have any impact on Capitol Hill.  One other potential living building is proposed on Capitol Hill, but it would qualify under the existing ordinance.

The Stone34 project is located in the Fremont Hub Urban Village, and the amendments that would permit it to proceed have the endorsement of the Fremont Community Council and Fremont Chamber of Commerce.  While some residents of South Wallingford have opposed this project because of concerns about private views, the adopted Comprehensive Plan policies in the South Wallingford plan provide protection for public views, which the project does not impact.  The project design was changed to reduce the bulk of the top two floors in order to reduce the impact on private views.  The Wallingford Community Council has opposed the legislation, but did not appeal the SEPA determination of non-significance.  Future appeal of the SEPA review on the Stone34 project itself is not precluded by any of the SEPA process for this legislation and is not precluded by adoption of this legislation.

The Fremont Neighborhood Council stated the following in support of the ordinance:

• “The appropriate zoning for the block of industrial lands around 34^th and Stone Way has not been comprehensively addressed by the City since before neighborhood planning in the mid 1990s. In 2009, DPD did propose changing the zoning around 34^th and Stone Way from IC–‐45 to IC–‐65 in response to Council direction to review all “I” zones in urban villages outside of manufacturing and industrial centers MICs)… The Stone34 proposal is consistent with the overall tenor and movement of land use in the area, and will actually help mitigate the impacts of the City’s new Transfer Station by completely screening it from Stone Way. The east end of the Transfer Station will be built into the hill that rises over 40 feet from Stone Way to Woodlawn Avenue.
• “The land rises away from the Stone34 site in all directions except toward Lake Union. The Stone34 site is not in the 200 foot shoreline zone. The project will cause no loss of views of Lake Union from any public right of way; the building at the southeast corner of 34^th at Stone Way already does that for lower Stone Way. Loss of views of Lake Union from private property will be minimal, and there will be minimal blockage of views of the Aurora Bridge as well. All of these impacts were thoroughly vetted in both the design review process and the SEPA review of the LBPP amendments.”

The process for these amendments was not as straightforward as would be ideal.  The Stone34 Project was reviewed in 29 meetings with the public.  This includes 14 hours of Design Review Board discussions, which resulted in a recommendation by the Design Review Board pending approval of this amendment.  The proponents of the Living Building Challenge, who had some initial concerns, have now concurred with the proposed revisions.  It should be emphasized that the organization that administers the Living Building Challenge has no position on the proposed incentives, but wanted to make sure that there was not confusion about the use of their name in the legislation.

If constructed, the Stone34 proposal will provide many benefits for the community.  It will be an attractive building, with ground floor retail, and will appropriately screen the North Transfer Station from the west.  While there may be some impacts on private views, the building will be much better in every other way than what could be built under the underlying zoning.  Brooks Shoes will relocate its headquarters to the building, supporting some 200 jobs initially and potentially significantly more as Brooks Shoes expands in the future.

I appreciate that the process that led to this result was confusing, and I very much regret that.  However, the legislation is clearly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the wishes of the Fremont Neighborhood Plan and the neighborhood stewards for that plan, and is likely to be a good neighbor.

Seattle Deep Green Pilot Program gives Stone34 green light
Project will be new headquarters of Brooks Sports, Inc.

SEATTLE - The City Council today voted unanimously to approve an ordinance to amend the Living Building Pilot Project in order to facilitate and encourage developments that strive to meet the highest level of sustainable design. 

The Living Building Challenge Pilot Program was established in 2009 to permit the development of up to 12 projects meeting the prerequisites of the Living Building Challenge.™  The approved amendments create another tier, the Seattle Deep Green Pilot Program. This tier is reserved for projects actively participating in the Pilot Program that will meet sixty percent of the imperatives of the Living Building Challenge. 

To qualify for the program, buildings must consume less than 25 percent of the energy and water used by comparable buildings, and capture at least 50 percent of stormwater used on site. There are additional regulations for building design, construction materials and community integration that go beyond current Design Review guidelines.

The vote helps to move Stone34, a proposed deep green building in Fremont, closer to construction. The building will be located across the street from the Burke-Gilman trail and will serve as the new headquarters for Brooks Sports, Inc. Additionally, Stone34 is pre-certified LEED Platinum by the U.S. Green Building Council.

"This is a win for both the environment and Seattle's economy. These changes will make it possible for the Stone34 project to bring more than 300 jobs to Seattle and to raise the bar for future green building projects," said Councilmember Richard Conlin, Chair of the Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee. "We must take our commitment to carbon neutrality seriously. Our goal is to change the world and that means building buildings that are deep green and that make business sense. We can't ask the private sector to build the greenest buildings possible without providing incentives to do so."

"We are excited to move into this vibrant Seattle neighborhood and inspired to participate in the Seattle Deep Green Pilot Program," said Jim Weber, President and CEO of Brooks Sports. "This program isn't just about transforming building design and performance, it's about changing behavior. For Brooks that means doing our part to protect great outdoor spaces for the long run and connecting with the community in meaningful ways."

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

Seattle City Council in discussions with investor Chris Hansen to modify proposed arena agreement

Seattle – A majority of Seattle City Councilmembers signed a letter today to investor Chris Hansen, continuing discussions regarding modifications to the proposed agreement for a sports and entertainment arena in SoDo. The letter outlines areas of concern in the current proposal and states the City Council's desire to address these concerns before moving forward with a final agreement. The full text of the letter is available here.

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

King County Executive Dow Constantine and Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn today proposed a new development incentive program that will invest millions of dollars in community infrastructure projects in the South Lake Union neighborhood, while preserving the working forests and farms that supply Seattle and its residents with fresh locally grown food.

"By partnering with Seattle we can help create a healthy urban environment, while preserving 25,000 acres of the region's working forests and farms - the same farms that supply the City's restaurants and farmers markets with fresh local food," said Executive Constantine.

"This is the definition of win-win," said Mayor McGinn. "We will continue to concentrate growth in our urban neighborhoods, where the jobs are and where people want to live and work. In return we will receive important benefits for the city and permanently secure more rural areas as forests and working farms."

"This agreement brings to fruition the policy direction expressed in the City Council's 2009 Resolution 31147 to protect rural farms and dairies through a TDR program," said Seattle City Councilmember Richard Conlin, chair of the land use committee. "It's crucial to advancing my Local Food Action Initiative because, after all, no farms, no food."

"The Landscape Conservation and Local Infrastructure Program is a game changer for our region and the leadership of the City of Seattle and King County advancing its first use is a major milestone." said Gene Duvernoy, Forterra president. "Under the Program we can simultaneously build livable and affordable communities while conserving our region's landscapes. Today's announcement show's a path for creating a region worthy of our children and grandchildren."

The program, known as the Landscape Conservation and Local Infrastructure Program, was developed by the City of Seattle, King County, and the environmental organization Forterra. It is the first to be developed under new state legislation that enables cities to access a portion of the county's property tax increment resulting from new development when a certain percentage of the new development results from the use of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). TDRs are created by the permanent protection from future development of the region's working forest and farmlands.

Under the program, a portion of incentive zoning (5 percent in Downtown and 33 percent in South Lake Union) would be gained through the purchase of regional Transferable Development Rights. In exchange, the City will receive a portion of future County property tax revenue from new development occurring in the area for up to 25 years that can fund local infrastructure improvements, including new sidewalks, parks, and potentially a community center in the South Lake Union neighborhood. The South Lake Union neighborhood will be involved in the process of vetting improvements to be funded.

The South Lake Union rezone ordinance will implement the development standards for the program. In the coming months, the City will be developing a specific list of infrastructure projects that could be funded through this program.

The South Lake Union rezone ordinance is currently under review by the Seattle City Council and requires their approval. The resulting interlocal agreement must be approved by the King County and Seattle City Council.
Background

• In 2011, state legislation created Landscape Conservation and Local Infrastructure Program (LCLIP) program, which establishes framework for agreement (SB5253)
• Seattle will be first city to use this enabling legislation
• City, County and Forterra have been working together for 9 months to model and develop the proposal

To learn more about the South Lake Union rezone click here.

The package is based on a set of recommendations announced last fall by a task force of business, labor, environmental, and neighborhood representatives who worked with the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) to develop the proposal.  Councilmembers and staff reviewed the proposal and agreed to advance the most promising of the recommendations.  Elements of the ordinance approved by the Council include:

• Encouraging home-based businesses by allowing up to two non-resident employees, allowing structural alterations that would be consistent with zoning, and permitting limited use of outbuildings and advertising.
• Modifying the regulations covering detached accessory dwelling units by permitting them on through lots, with various housing types including townhouses, and allowing more flexibility in height.
• Allowing renewals of most temporary use permits to be processed as Type I, rather than Type II, decisions.
• Extending the existing code provision that allows developers with projects in urban centers and station area overlays to make decisions about the number of parking stalls they will build based on market demand (rather than an arbitrary City minimum requirement) to include all uses on multifamily- and commercial-zoned lots in urban villages that are located within a quarter-mile of a frequently served transit stop.
• Reducing by 50% the minimum parking requirements that apply on multifamily- and commercial-zoned lots that are located outside of an urban center, station area overlay or urban village but within a quarter-mile of a frequently served transit stop.
• Adopting revised standards for SEPA review in urban centers and urban villages with station area overlays where growth targets have not been met, exempting small and medium size projects from SEPA analysis.  Since SEPA was adopted, many new, specific regulations have been codified that cover most of the issues subject to SEPA for small and medium size developments.  Additionally, as part of the regulatory reform package, DPD’s authority to require developers to address transportation impacts and historic preservation issues (see companion Council Bill 117524) was codified.
• Modifying the City’s street-level use requirements to allow ground floor residential units in most Commercial 1 and Neighborhood Commercial 2 and 3 zones.  Some of these areas are not suitable locations for the ground floor commercial uses that are currently required, and this change will prevent the continued proliferation of vacant storefronts in such areas.  However, within designated pedestrian (P) zones and about 60 potential P zone areas identified by the Council, existing street-level use requirements will continue to apply. The Council also tasked DPD with further evaluating the potential P zone areas over the next year to determine whether they should be given the P zone designation or if ground floor residential uses should be permitted in these areas.

While most of these proposals raised little controversy, the Council did specific reviews of the three issues that seemed of the greatest concern and made some modifications to the legislation in response.

1. There was significant controversy over a proposal to allow small commercial uses in multi-family areas in urban centers and station area overlays, especially on Capitol Hill, which includes more than half of the area that would have been affected by this proposal.  After considerable discussion, the Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability (PLUS) Committee decided to remove this proposal from the package.  While I thought the proposal had merit, the suggested benefits were generally modest and there were many public concerns.
2. The proposal on parking requirements has been consistently misrepresented, and Councilmembers noted that this was a modest expansion of the current code (large areas of the City are already exempt from mandatory parking requirements) and that it in no way prohibits parking – it merely leaves the number of spaces up to market factors.  However, with input from the Planning Commission, the Council did scale back the Executive’s original proposal by retaining existing parking requirements in industrial zones and reducing by 50% – rather than eliminating – the minimum parking requirements that apply in certain frequent transit service areas that are located outside urban centers, station area overlays, and urban villages.
3. Councilmembers were concerned that limiting SEPA review could curb DPD’s authority to require landmark review, manage construction impacts, and require transportation mitigation.  We also wanted to make sure that there was still a real opportunity for public and community involvement.  Provisions extending DPD’s authority to require transportation impact evaluations were included in DPD’s original legislation, a companion bill that codified citywide landmark referral thresholds was prepared and approved by the Council, and DPD was able to document that they would continue to have authority over the other issues, and that there would continue to be opportunities for public involvement and legal challenges to projects through Design Review and other public processes.  The PLUS Committee also reduced the size of commercial developments that would be exempt from SEPA and added a provision requiring any projects exempted to be at least 50% residential.

This legislation moves the land use code in the direction of more flexibility and less rigidity.  My goal is to focus on outcomes and standards that are clearly necessary, and to encourage developers to be able to use creativity in project design and development in order to meet those standards.  As we move Seattle in the direction of becoming more welcoming to denser development around transit facilities, we should promote good development, rather than trying to stop development because some of it is problematic.  We do have or can create the tools to guide development in a positive direction, and we should emphasize that as the goal.

Obama praised Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act

With the Supreme Court having upheld most of the Affordable Care Act and ruled that it is constitutional, implementation plans, which have already been in process, are moving into high gear in Seattle and King County.  There will be an immense number of changes in the health care system between now and 2014, when the individual mandate kicks in and we finally join the family of developed nations who have universal access to health care.

Access will be guaranteed, but efficiency and effectiveness will require much work on the local level.  David Fleming, the Director of Public Health Seattle & King County, is fond of reminding Board members about the challenge by showing us a simple diagram, which matches the amount of money spent in each country with life expectancy.  Almost every other country falls onto a line where increased expenditure is correlated with longer life.  Only the United States falls way off the curve, with higher expenditures per capita than any other nation, but life expectancy that falls well short of that attained in other industrialized countries.  Our system is way more expensive than the results justify.

The Affordable Care Act lays out an ambitious plan to change that by:

• reducing administrative costs
• providing preventive care that will keep people out of expensive emergency rooms
• helping consumers choose health plans based on quality and value
• expanding coverage to people who currently do not have health care insurance, and
• taking a series of other steps to change the system so that we achieve better health in a more cost effective way.

It sounds great, and some of the provisions will work at the federal level (such as the requirement that insurance companies refund to consumers revenues above a certain percentage that were not been spent on actual health care).  But most of the work will require considerable effort at the local level to reorganize the system so that it delivers results.

Fortunately, Washington has already taken a leadership position by approving implementing legislation at the State level, including the creation of a health care insurance exchange.  At the local level, Public Health has joined with other providers to create the King County Collaborative, which will implement the requirement for Community Health Needs Assessments and defining strategies to improve community health.

Public Health Seattle & King County examined the 11,554 deaths in King County in 2009, and identified approximately 5500 of them as preventable.  That’s a pretty extraordinary number!  Prevention strategies include reducing smoking, encouraging healthier diets and more physical activity, and reducing the impacts of alcohol, infectious diseases, poisoning, injuries, and drug use.  All of these activities can be controlled or managed, and the task of community health prevention is to identify effective strategies and create the programs and funding to implement them.

The City of Seattle is participating in the work of health care reform, and we will do our part to create a model that can not only increase the health of our residents, but be the kind of approach that other communities will be able to replicate in order to improve their health.  We have a long track record of innovation:

• Creating Group Health Cooperative
• Groundbreaking public health programs
• The Level One Trauma Center at Harborview
• The Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
• Seattle Children’s Hospital
• The myriad of organizations and companies working on global health issues and biotech
• And many others.

The benefits will be extraordinary, and the challenges great.  How will the expected increase in Medicaid eligibility be managed (42% more people enrolled)?  How will we provide services in mental health, long the step child of health programs, but with a new lease on life under the Affordable Care Act?  How will the middle class, now eligible for significant subsidies (up to the level of $92,000 annual income for a family of four) use their new access to health care services?  How do we make prevention the top priority?  How will our community health clinics expand their services while still maintaining their quality?  How will we cut the red tape and administration while still maintaining cost control measures?

We have great capabilities in this community, but it will take all of our ingenuity and commitment to transform this ailing system into a new picture of health.  The work is starting and the systems are being put in place.  Stay tuned for the revolution.

Rendering of the future “North Rainier Station” (Sound Transit)

University Link is under construction between downtown and Husky Stadium.  The line from there to Northgate is going into final design and engineering.  And Seattle is also getting a new light rail station on the East Link between downtown and Redmond.

East Link has already been approved by the Sound Transit Board, although there are continuing discussions about design refinements in Bellevue.  It will run from downtown Seattle along I-90 across Lake Washington to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond.  Riders will find it easy to get on at downtown stations:  the long range plan is for trains from the north to split when they leave downtown, with alternate trains serving the airport and the eastside.

But riders will also have a chance to get on at a new station to be located in the I-90 right of way near Rainier Avenue.  This station will be the first one to be sited in Seattle at a location that is not in an urban village, and will present unique challenges in designing access and in determining what kind of transit oriented development will be possible in the vicinity.

Recognizing that early planning is critical, the Council has approved Resolution 31386, calling for DPD to begin a station area planning process for the provisionally named ‘North Rainier Station’.  Even the name can be confusing, as what is now the Mount Baker Station is located in the North Rainier Neighborhood Planning area.  That area is close enough to the new station that interaction between the two station areas will be important to assess.

The City is committed to finding ways to ensure that development around light rail stations supports ridership and takes full advantage of the transit opportunities that light rail development will provide.  It is important to begin this planning work early in order to limit incompatible development, review options for effective implementation of appropriate planning and zoning, and ensure that there is effective community engagement.  A station associated with a light rail line in a freeway alignment will be challenging to integrate into the community.

For all of these reasons, now is the time to begin work on this station, even though light rail service will not be operational for almost ten years.  The Council has asked that this begin with a plan for community outreach and station area planning around the planned North Rainier Station, to be provided to the Council by August.  We want this plan to include specific timelines and planned staff commitments that will allow planning to be conducted in time to influence decisions by Sound Transit about the configuration and design for the station.

We are also asking that the plan include a timeline for adopting a station area overlay district for the North Rainier area and station area zoning that will limit the development of new auto-oriented uses in the vicinity of the proposed station.

Seattle has many unique opportunities to integrate housing, jobs, and light rail transit to develop walkable communities that will thrive around light rail stations.  The North Rainier station is particularly challenging, but we have time to creatively consider and develop options that will make this station work for people in the vicinity and for others who would like to use it to ride light rail.  Seattle and Sound Transit continue to develop stronger connections and joint planning efforts for great communities.

The weekly Pike Place Market Express provides access to locally grown food right here at City Hall. (City Council Photo)

The Local Food Action Initiative (LFAI) is designed to increase gardening and farming in the City, encourage farmers markets and other connections to local producers, and emphasize food as an important part of our economy.  We know that eating more locally can reduce the cost of transport, provide access to food that is healthier and produced in a less resource intensive way, support regional farmers and farmland and keep money circulating in the local economy.  We also know that we can’t grow all of our food within the region — products like bananas and coffee will always have to be imported from farther away.

How much of the food we consume can we actually supply within our region (within our local ‘foodshed’)?  What is a reasonable definition of our foodshed, and will it always supply only a small part of our consumption, or can we actually come closer to balancing local consumption and production, at least for those products that can be grown given our local ecological constraints?

A group of University of Washington graduate students, under the direction of Kara Martin of Urban Foodlink and Professor Brandon Born, has released a “Western Washington Foodshed Study” commissioned by the American Farmland Trust, that seeks to answer these questions.  They defined our foodshed as the 19 Washington counties west of the Cascades, an area that includes both urban and rural patterns of settlement, that has a common ecological pattern, and within which local products can be transported relatively easily.

Using data from the USDA’s Economic Research Service, the study estimates that the 5.2 million inhabitants of Western Washington consume almost 6 billion pounds of food annually (that breaks down to about 3 pounds per person, per day).  A lot of food gets wasted within our food system, though, so much more food – about 8.6 billion pounds – needs to be produced in order for those 6 billion pounds to make it to our forks.  Of the top 20 items we consume, 15 can be grown in our ecosystem.  And there are numerous other items that we should be eating more of (like leafy green vegetables) that are not in the top 20 but can easily be produced here.  Relocalizing our diets could improve our health as well as our local economy.

Production of food in Western Washington totals almost 4 billion pounds, about 43% of the food we need to sustain our current diets. That is actually a pretty substantial production base, but the percentage of specific food items consumed versus produced locally varies widely.  Our foodshed produces about 1.5 times as much dairy products as we consume, but only about half of the vegetables we eat and 10% of the fruits and protein products we consume.  Of course, drilling down to specific products reveals an even more complex picture, with some food items produced in surplus and exported, and others largely imported.  Adjusting for food exports, our 17,000 farms produce about 25% of the food that we consume in Western Washington.

How could we increase this amount and encourage a more healthy diet?  The recommendations are clear:

• Protect the farmland that is currently in production, and bring land currently underutilized into production. Some of the region’s best historic farmland is still being lost to development, but much of it is still undeveloped, and could be brought back into agriculture.  A targeted strategy to protect prime land will be critical to our food future.
• Increase food yields on currently active farmland. By using simple technologies like hoop houses, adopting improved farming practices and converting some land currently used for non-food items to edible crop production, we could produce significantly more food than we do now on the farms we already have.
• Cut down on food waste at all stages of the food production chain. As it stands, about 40% of the food that’s produced never makes it to our plates. Innovations in packaging, improved inventory management technologies and consumer education campaigns could go a long way to making our food system more efficient.
• Shift to healthier diets, in line with USDA guidelines. On average, we currently eat almost 40% more than we should; cutting back even moderately would make it easier to meet our own food needs within the region. The USDA also recommends that we up our consumption of vegetables and dairy, which we produce readily in Western Washington, and reduce our consumption of protein, sugar and grains, which we don’t produce so much of.
• Continue to encourage and facilitate infrastructure that makes it possible for local farmers to process and store food and connect with local markets. We can also consider the opportunities to produce food that has local markets but is served by imports. For example, we currently produce only 6% of the leafy greens that we consume, yet we can grow them practically year-round. Identifying similar market opportunities and developing a farm to market strategy could make a huge difference in matching local consumption with production.

Forget about the oranges, bananas, and coffee – that is not the issue.  Let’s focus on what we’re able to grow here, and on what we can do to ensure that our considerable agricultural assets translate into a robust local food system.

This study demonstrates that we do produce a significant amount of the food we consume, and that we can do much more with the right kind of local food strategy.  We can eat a healthier diet, protect our environment, and keep our dollars in the local economy while supporting our farmers, restaurants, and food-related businesses.  If we really want to eat locally, we have to take practical steps to make doing so possible. A coordinated regional food strategy would produce multiple benefits for all of us.  We can do many great things within the City, but this regional work is essential to truly realizing the vision of the Local Food Action Initiative.

Seattle City Councilmembers approve Seawall replacement bond levy
$290 million levy likely to be on November ballot

SEATTLE – Seattle City Councilmembers today unanimously approved Council Bill 117498, a 30-year property tax bond measure of $290 million to provide public safety and protection of the Central Waterfront and related public infrastructure. Once approved at the Full Council meeting next week, the measure will be on the November 6, 2012 General Election ballot.

A new Seawall is projected to protect the City and its residents and workers for the next 100 years or more. A 30-year bond spreads the cost of this project to existing and future Seattle residents who will benefit from today's investment. The 30-year bond for $290 million would cost the owner of a $360K home about $59 per year.

"Replacing the seawall is essential both to public safety and to the local and regional economy," stated Council President Sally Clark. "Failure of the wall could severely disrupt transportation and commerce and lead to widespread property damage, injury and loss of life."

Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, Transportation Committee chair said today, "Seawall replacement is also necessary to support construction of a new Alaskan Way surface road following removal of the Viaduct. The seawall must be removed and rebuilt by 2016 to ensure that Alaskan Way can be rebuilt on time to serve as a vital corridor for moving people and goods."

"The seawall project is the foundation for Seattle's future waterfront. Regardless of what kind of development will happen we are taking the next important step to providing a safe corridor and pedestrian friendly waterfront," stated Councilmember Jean Godden, chair of the Central Waterfront, Seawall and Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program Committee.

"The first priority is to fix the seawall for public safety and get our public piers back in working order so that we can safely use them again," stated Councilmember Sally Bagshaw. "This is the beginning of reclaiming Seattle's waterfront."

A replacement Seawall is essential both to public safety and to the local and regional economy because the current Seawall is not designed to withstand seismic events. Seawall failure could lead to widespread property damage, injury and loss of life while severely disrupting public transportation and commerce.

The proposed bond would go before voters in November. The dollars generated would pay for construction of the new seawall from South Washington Street to Virginia Street and provide funds toward replacing the deteriorated pilings and decking of the two City-owned piers that extend from the seawall: Pier 58, known as Waterfront Park, and Pier 62/ 63, both of which are owned and operated by the Seattle Parks Department. Pier 58 is seismically vulnerable and the structural deficiencies of Pier 62/63 have forced the City to limit use of the pier to protect public safety.

The $290 million bond measure would complete project funding for this stretch of the seawall in combination with approximately $30 million from the King County Flood Control District and nearly $30 million already identified in the City's General Fund. Seawall replacement is also necessary to support construction of a new Alaskan Way surface road following removal of the Viaduct.  The seawall must be removed and rebuilt by 2016 to ensure that Alaskan Way can be rebuilt to provide public access to the waterfront and area businesses.

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

Site of the planned Northgate Station
(Sound Transit)

Today, Thursday, June 28, the Sound Transit Board unanimously approved my motion to create a new access strategy for the Northgate light rail station.  This motion is the first effort to implement the new Sound Transit Board’s policy direction that emphasizes developing a variety of access modes to get riders to Sound Transit stations.  It commits Sound Transit to funding $10 million in bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including a major contribution towards the proposed bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Interstate 5.  It also specifies that Sound Transit will only fund replacement parking for the park and ride spaces that are displaced, and that this parking will be implemented in ways that will facilitate new housing on the current park and ride lots.

The Northgate station will be built in an area that is generally still fairly auto-oriented and has one of the only two existing park and ride facilities in the City of Seattle (the other is under the freeway at 65^th Street between Roosevelt and Green Lake).  This park and ride is an important connection for Metro Transit riders.  It includes not only a number of spaces owned by Metro Transit, but leased multi-use parking at Northgate Mall and Thornton Place.

The long range vision for Northgate calls for its transformation into an Urban Center, with housing, employment and light rail access, along with the evolution of the mall into a downtown like environment.  Ridership is planned to triple when light rail replaces Metro buses as the primary transit mode, and many of these new riders are expected to walk, bike, or take buses to the station.  New transit oriented development will make it easy and convenient for thousands of potential riders.

Sound Transit is required to replace or mitigate the loss of park and ride spaces that are displaced by the station and construction.  This motion integrates that replacement with the long range vision for Northgate, including the development of transit oriented development on the park and ride lots.

The motion, which was approved unanimously by the Board, provides that Sound Transit will:

• Create a Northgate access improvement study to identify potential additional pedestrian and bike access improvements needed to enhance access to the current Transit Center and future Northgate Station inter-modal transit facility.
• Commit to fund 25% of the cost of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge across I-5 up to a maximum of $5 million. The City of Seattle will match Sound Transit’s $5 million contribution towards the I-5 pedestrian/bicycle bridge costs.  The City will also seek other funding partners to secure full funding to complete design and construction of the bridge (total cost approximately $20 million).  If a full funding agreement for the implementation of the I-5 pedestrian/bicycle bridge cannot be completed by July 2015, the Sound Transit Board will reallocate any unspent bridge funds to other priority pedestrian/bicycle projects identified through the connectivity and access study processes.
• Commit to match up to $5 million in City investments in pedestrian/bicycle facilities in and around Northgate Station consistent with the improvements identified and recommended by the access study.
• Limit investment in park-and-ride facilities to a new parking garage that accommodates 450 Park and Ride stalls, preferably in shared use.  The 450 stalls and any additional stalls funded by private investment may be used to replace parking now provided at the King County owned park and ride surface lot currently east of the proposed station to allow that lot to be made available for transit oriented development that will bring ridership to North Link and support the added vitality of the Northgate Urban Center.

I am very pleased that Sound Transit and the City have worked out a practical plan that integrates transit oriented development with multiple modes of access to the light rail station.  This positions Northgate to take the next steps towards realizing the vision of the neighborhood and the City.  That vision of becoming and urban center is embodied in the Northgate Area Comprehensive Plan, and this is a major step towards implementation of that plan.

Seattle City Councilmembers support Supreme Court ruling
on Affordable Health Care Act

SEATTLE – Seattle City Councilmembers today celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling to uphold the Affordable Health Care Act:

"I applaud the Supreme Court's careful review of the arguments," stated Council President Sally J. Clark. "Coverage for all Americans is critical to urban places, as well as rural. Now we have work to do to ensure health care outcomes improve along with coverage."

"The Supreme Court chose logic over politics with this decision," stated Councilmember Nick Licata, chair of the Human Services, Health and Culture committee. "Now Washington voters must let their state leaders know if they support the expansion of the Medicaid allotment."

"I am pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling this morning," said Councilmember Tim Burgess. "We can now focus on the improvements necessary to make comprehensive health care affordable, efficient and effective for all Americans."

"This is an extraordinary opportunity to reshape our health care system by combining quality health care with affordable health care," added Councilmember Richard Conlin. "Seattle is working with our local providers to reshape our local system to ensure that all of us – including the least, the lost, and the left-behind, will share the blessings of healthy lives."

Councilmember Sally Bagshaw added, "I have longed for today's headline. Four years ago, Obama said, ‘Yes we can' and today five Supreme Court Justices said, ‘Yes we will' to affordable health care. At long last, all Americans will have choices and accessibility to a health plan. Thank goodness."

"I think that we always knew that extending the benefits of health care was the right thing to do. Now we know that it is not only right, but it is also constitutional," stated Councilmember Jean Godden.
"With national health care reform upheld, Washington can get to work making sure everyone has access to affordable, quality care," stated Councilmember Mike O'Brien. "Affordable health care will bring equity to those that need care and provide continued coverage for those already insured."
"After today's ruling by the Supreme Court the thirty million Americans currently without health insurance will begin having access to affordable health care," stated Councilmember Tom Rasmussen. "This is a great step forward for America"

"I have seen the detrimental impact of not having medical coverage in my own life through the eyes of family members, friends, and colleagues. This decision will ensure that they are no longer one major medical emergency away from health and financial disaster," said Councilmember Bruce Harrell. "People can now seek solace knowing that their health is not tied to their employment status. This is absolutely critical in building a healthy Seattle."

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

Seattle’s Industrial District (Courtesy Seattle Municipal Archives)

Seattle’s long range strategy for encouraging manufacturing is paying off, as Forbes magazine, in a recent article, rated the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metropolitan Area as the top area for manufacturing growth in the nation over the last five years.

Manufacturing employment is growing around the country, as industries realize the opportunity for ‘reshoring’ industrial activity.  Much of this activity moved to other countries to take advantage of low wages and the lack of regulatory requirements that are typical of many less industrialized countries.  However, these advantages can only go so far:  companies are realizing that low wages often mean low skills, and that workers who acquire skills will leave for better jobs as these countries develop.  The lack of regulations may cut costs in some cases, but it can also create difficult and challenging environments to work in and cut productivity.  Companies seeking long range sustainability not only want strong environmental regulations to level the playing field, but prefer stable and predictable environmental regulations to manage costs.  Companies also have experienced difficulties with legal and political systems, such as arbitrary and/or corrupt officials, difficulties in what should be routine business practices like managing relations and financial issues with subcontractors who have quality control problems, and issues around trademarks and intellectual property rights.

Since 2010, manufacturers have added 470,000 jobs in the United States, with a rate of job growth that is 10% faster than the rest of the private economy, Forbes reports.  Areas that have fared best have been those that are well positioned to bring together technology and manufacturing.  In our area Boeing is the outstanding example, but many other industries now create high-tech and blue-collar jobs at the same time.

Over the past year the Seattle metropolitan area was No. 2 in the nation in manufacturing growth, expanding employment by 7.9% to 164,000 manufacturing jobs.  The aerospace sector, led by Boeing, accounted for roughly half this expansion.  Seattle is one of the few big metropolitan areas where there are more manufacturing jobs today than in 2006, before the recession hit.  Manufacturing employment is up 0.4% over the past five years.

This is great news for our economy and for the thousands of workers who are making the kind of living wages that these jobs usually provide.  It’s also a big responsibility for government and decision makers, who will need to be sensitive to the concerns and issues around manufacturing and industrial facilities, effective at finding and using land that can support industry, and efficient at bringing together economic concerns and environmental regulations to ensure that we can simultaneously grow our economy and protect and enhance the environmental quality that is so important to our future.

One creative way Seattle is working to do this is my proposed Industrial Development District.  Since I proposed this in 2010, there has been growing momentum in support of the idea, and the State of Washington has just signed on to join Seattle, King County, and the Port of Seattle in issuing a Request for Concepts for pilot industrial development projects, now expected to come out in July.

Seattle City Councilmembers to take public comment
on Seawall replacement bond levy
$290 million levy to be considered for November ballot

SEATTLE – Seattle City Councilmembers today announced the public hearing date to discuss a proposed 30-year property tax bond measure of $290 million to provide public safety and protection of the Central Waterfront and related public infrastructure. The measure under consideration would be on the November 6, 2012 General Election ballot. The 30-year bond for $290 million would cost the owner of a $360K home about $59 per year.

"Replacing the seawall is essential both to public safety and to the local and regional economy," stated Councilmember Tom Rasmussen. "Failure of the wall could severely disrupt transportation and commerce in the region and lead to widespread property damage, injury and loss of life."

WHAT:
Seawall bond measure public hearing
Central Waterfront, Seawall and Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program Special Committee

WHEN:
Wednesday, June 27, 2012, at 5:30 p.m.
Sign up will open at 5 p.m.

WHERE:
Council Chambers, Second floor
Seattle City Hall, 600 Fourth Avenue, Seattle 98104

WHO:
Council President Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Sally Bagshaw
Councilmember Tim Burgess
Councilmember Richard Conlin
Councilmember Jean Godden
Councilmember Bruce Harrell
Councilmember Nick Licata
Councilmember Mike O'Brien
Councilmember Tom Rasmussen

A replacement Seawall is essential both to public safety and to the local and regional economy because the current Seawall is not designed to withstand seismic events. Seawall failure could lead to widespread property damage, injury and loss of life while severely disrupting public transportation and commerce.

The proposed bond would go before voters in November. The dollars generated would pay for construction of the new seawall from South Washington Street to Virginia Street and provide funds toward replacing the deteriorated pilings and decking of two City-owned piers that extend from the seawall: Pier 58, known as Waterfront Park, and Pier, 62/ 63, both of which are owned and operated by the Seattle Parks Department. Pier 58 is seismically vulnerable and the structural deficiencies of Pier 62/63 have forced the City to limit use of the pier to protect public safety.

The $290 million bond measure would complete project funding for this stretch of the seawall in combination with approximately $30 million from the King County Flood Control District and nearly $30 million already identified in the City's General Fund. Seawall replacement is also necessary to support construction of a new Alaskan Way surface road following removal of the Viaduct. The seawall must be removed and rebuilt by 2016 to ensure that Alaskan Way can be rebuilt to provide public access to the waterfront and area businesses.

Seawall Ordinance

Seawall Fiscal Note

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

Cedar River Reservoir. Most of Seattle’s water comes from the Cedar River Watershed. (Courtesy Seattle Municipal Archives)

Seattle Public Utilities has developed an updated water plan covering 2013-2018, with some analysis and projection for future years as far out as 2060.  It’s a good news plan, demonstrating that Seattle’s commitment to water conservation has been extraordinarily successful, and projecting continued success in the future.

The bottom line is that total average demand is forecast to remain at or below current levels of approximately 133 million gallons per day through 2060.  That’s 20% below the projections made in the last water plan issued in 2007.  Actual demand is now lower than in the 1950’s.  Since 1990, consumption has decreased by about 30% while population in the service area has increased by 15%.  Population is expected to grow by more than 20% during the next 3 decades, with no increase in consumption.

Since Seattle’s current water supply system produces 172 million gallons per day, there is no need for additional water sources as far as SPU can project.  This is true even taking into account the most severe possible impacts from climate change.   Under the warmest scenario analyzed, supply would be reduced by about 13% by 2075, which is when the supply would exceed projected demand.  SPU projects that even at this point, there would be low or no cost system improvements that would enable the system to meet demand.

This good news means that only very modest improvements and renovations will be needed to the supply side of the Seattle water system over the next few decades.  The quality of our water supply continues to be very high, and current drinking water quality facilities will probably not need major new increments.  That’s more good news for water drinkers – and for ratepayers.

There are other parts of the system that will need work, however.  SPU has completed permanent covers for eight reservoirs and plans to try decommissioning the two remaining open reservoirs, Roosevelt and Volunteer.  However, the first two reservoirs to be covered, Bitter Lake and Lake Forest Park, had floating covers rather than permanent ones, and the plan is to replace these when the floating covers have reached the end of their useful life.

Then there’s the distribution system.  This is where there is likely to be a long range need to continue to invest in maintenance and replacement of aging infrastructure.  Capital spending is expected to level off and decline by about one third over the next decades.  The hope is that the new evaluation, maintenance, and scheduling methodology that SPU has been developing and implementing will mean that this level of investment will create a system that is well-maintained and capable of being sustained over time at this level of expenditure.  This will mean more stable water rates in the future, especially as the utility pays off the major capital investments made in the last few years in quality treatment and habitat conservation.

Seattle is known around the world for the quality of our water, the effectiveness of our conservation programs, our innovative approach to habitat conservation, and our proactive approach to infrastructure maintenance.  The Seattle water system is an example of how we have not just imagined sustainability, but achieved it in this critical area.

Seattle City Council approves plan to protect local waters from pollutants
Proposed pollution control plan expected to save ratepayers more than $375 million

SEATTLE — This afternoon the Seattle City Council unanimously approved a first-of-its-kind proposed agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Ecology that will ensure the systematic control of Seattle's chronic sewage overflows, while allowing the city to use cost-effective and environmentally beneficial projects to control and treat both storm water and sewage.

The agreement, which took city, state and federal officials four years to negotiate, could save utility ratepayers as much as $375 million through 2025.

"This is a smart, responsible, and cost-effective way for Seattle to meet the goals of the federal Clean Water Act — using a new integrated approach that allows us better tools and strategic investments to protect the environment," said Councilmember Jean Godden, chair of the Libraries Utilities and Center Committee. 

"This plan is a win-win. I'm honored to work together with environmental groups to ensure the protection of our waters for generations to come," said Councilmember Sally Bagshaw, Libraries Utilities and Center Committee member.

"I'm very pleased that Seattle and our environmental community are committed to moving forward with this innovative, flexible, and less costly approach to solving our chronic water quality problems." said Councilmember Richard Conlin, Libraries Utilities and Center Committee vice-chair.

Today's vote has the support of key environmental leaders who had earlier raised questions about whether certain toxic compounds important to Puget Sound would be included in future analysis under the consent decree. The final legislation satisfies these environmental concerns. 

"Councilmember Godden asked us to try to address the concerns before the Council took final action.  I don't think we ever had a large disagreement with the environmental community; but we all benefited significantly from sitting down together to focus on key interests," said Martin Baker, Seattle Public Utilities Deputy Director, who led the consent decree negotiations with the state and federal government.

"This is a great start to protect our investment in the Superfund cleanup of the Duwamish River and shows the communities around the Duwamish that things can get better," said James Rasmussen of the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition/TAG. 

"We applaud the city for working proactively to address CSOs and storm water as a partner in restoring the health of Puget Sound," said Tom Bancroft, Executive Director of People for Puget Sound.

"As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, the City of Seattle is showing their commitment to clean up sewer overflows and storm water runoff," said Chris Wilke, Puget Soundkeeper and Executive Director at Puget Soundkeeper Alliance. "This is a very important step in the recovery of Puget Sound and our freshwater resources."

In 2010, 190 million gallons of combined raw sewage and storm water spilled from city-owned pipes into Lake Washington, Lake Union, local creeks, the Duwamish River, and Elliott Bay, creating significant health and environmental risks.

Under the proposed plan, Seattle agrees it will meet its commitment to clean up sewage overflows under a specific and regulated schedule, to an average of one overflow per outfall per year (the standard established by the Washington state Department of Ecology) and meet requirements of the federal Clean Water Act.

Over the next 13 years, the city estimates it will spend about $500 million on capital construction projects, including retrofits, green infrastructure and large underground storage tanks, to implement the proposed agreement.

The plan next goes to the Mayor for signature followed by a federal court review, which will include a public hearing. The proposed agreement is expected to be finalized by the end of the year.

For more information about Seattle's efforts to protect our waterways, go to www.seattle.gov/cso.

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

University District (Courtesy Seattle Municipal Archives)

The City is embarking on a three year program to support investment in the University District.  With construction of light rail from Husky Stadium to Northgate about to break ground, the U District is poised to take a major step forward as an Urban Center, and the City initiative is designed to help make that happen.

The University District and Northgate are the only designated Urban Centers north of the Ship Canal, and the City’s growth management strategy is dependent on their success as walkable and vibrant communities connected by light rail to other major centers of employment and housing.  Urban Centers are intended to have a mix of commercial activity and employment along with a range of housing types suitable for diverse populations.

The ‘University District Livability Partnership’ will include three major areas of activity:

• A set of strategies and actions that will encourage commercial activity and economic development.
• An Urban Design Framework that will create a suggested development strategy around land use, zoning, urban design, transportation, with an emphasis on areas within a ten minute walk of the University District light rail station.
• A collaborative partnership with the community and University to coordinate this work and ensure a broad range of public involvement.

The commercial revitalization plan will be developed in a partnership between the Office of Economic Development and the Greater University District Chamber of Commerce, with broad based stakeholder involvement.  This plan is intended to be completed this year, with action steps beginning immediately.

The Urban Design Framework will be developed in phases involving a range of community engagement activities.  Core concepts will be developed and ideas gathered through 2012, with recommendations then put together by DPD staff, reviewed by the public during 2013, and presented to the Council for legislative action in late 2013 or early 2014.  Legislative action will require environmental review, and will likely include zoning, design standards, housing incentives, and a streetscape concept plan.

This program will also inform other possible future initiatives, including a possible community led EcoDistrict initiative and the shaping of the next University of Washington Master Plan update, scheduled to begin in 2015.

I am committed to having the City take a more active and proactive role in implementing and updating Seattle’s neighborhood plans.  We have heard from communities that their primary interests are generally not to revisit and completely rework the existing plans.  Instead, communities have generally emphasized that they are comfortable with the neighborhood plan visions but want to ensure that implementation continues, especially of major initiatives that are not yet complete.

With the expansion of light rail, RapidRide service, streetcars, and other possible transit initiatives, there is also interest in revisiting some transportation issues, but the primary areas that need attention are updating zoning, land use, and housing plans in order to get the maximum integration between development and transit, and in order to further economic development and meet the next stages of the City’s long range housing goals under the Growth Management Act and the region’s Vision 2040 Plan.

The University District is an absolutely critical element in this work.  I had included U District planning as one of my priorities for 2012-2013, and I am very pleased that this work is getting underway.

Seattle City Councilmembers to take public comment
on Seawall replacement bond levy
$290 million levy to be considered for November ballot

SEATTLE – Seattle City Councilmembers today announced the public hearing date to discuss a proposed 30-year property tax bond measure of $290 million to provide public safety and protection of the Central Waterfront and related public infrastructure. The measure under consideration would be on the November 6, 2012 General Election ballot. The 30-year bond for $290 million would cost the owner of a $360K home about $59 per year.

"Replacing the seawall is essential both to public safety and to the local and regional economy," stated Councilmember Tom Rasmussen. "Failure of the wall could severely disrupt transportation and commerce in the region and lead to widespread property damage, injury and loss of life."

WHAT:
Seawall bond measure public hearing
Central Waterfront, Seawall and Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program Special Committee

WHEN:
Wednesday, June 27, 2012, at 5:30 p.m.
Sign up will open at 5 p.m.

WHERE:
Council Chambers, Second floor
Seattle City Hall, 600 Fourth Avenue, Seattle 98104

WHO:
Council President Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Sally Bagshaw
Councilmember Tim Burgess
Councilmember Richard Conlin
Councilmember Jean Godden
Councilmember Bruce Harrell
Councilmember Nick Licata
Councilmember Mike O'Brien
Councilmember Tom Rasmussen

A replacement Seawall is essential both to public safety and to the local and regional economy because the current Seawall is not designed to withstand seismic events. Seawall failure could lead to widespread property damage, injury and loss of life while severely disrupting public transportation and commerce.

The proposed bond would go before voters in November. The dollars generated would pay for construction of the new seawall from South Washington Street to Virginia Street and providing funds toward replacing the deteriorated pilings and decking of the two City-owned piers that extend from the seawall: Pier 58, known as Waterfront Park, and Pier, 62/ 63, both of which are owned and operated by the Seattle Parks Department. Pier 58 is seismically vulnerable and the structural deficiencies of Pier 62/63 have forced the City to limit use of the piers to protect public safety.

The $290 million bond measure would complete project funding for this stretch of the seawall in combination with approximately $30 million from the King County Flood Control District and nearly $30 million already identified in the City's General Fund. Seawall replacement is also necessary to support construction of a new Alaskan Way surface road following removal of the Viaduct. The seawall must be removed and rebuilt by 2016 to ensure that Alaskan Way can be rebuilt to provide public access to the waterfront and area businesses.

• Seawall Ordinance
• Seawall Fiscal Note

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

Seattle City Councilmember Richard Conlin proposes Northgate access strategy
Matches pedestrian and bicycle access strategies with replacement parking facility

Seattle – Sound Transit Board Member and Seattle City Councilmember Richard Conlin will propose a coordinated access strategy for the Northgate Link Light Rail Station at the Sound Transit Capital Committee on Thursday, June 14, 1:30 p.m. at 401 South Jackson Street. The proposal will commit Sound Transit to:

• Match up to $5 million in City investments in bicycle and pedestrian facilities around the Northgate station;
• Commit up to $5 million as a 25 percent share in a bicycle/pedestrian bridge between the Northgate station and North Seattle Community College;
• Agree that Sound Transit will fund park-and-ride facilities including a new 450 stall parking garage, preferably shared use. Private funding could be used to provide additional parking garage stalls and potentially free existing surface parking for future development.

"A coordinated access strategy is critical to making light rail work and to realizing the vision of the Northgate Urban Center and enhancing the neighborhoods around Northgate," Conlin stated. "We can accomplish so much more by recognizing that all modes of access are necessary in order to prevent gridlock and ensure that transit and urban development work together."

The proposal includes Sound Transit being credited against the sum for any required mitigation imposed as part of permitting and other City regulations, and includes actions that Sound Transit has already engaged in to design the station to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle improvements. 

Under the Conlin proposal, Sound Transit would be committing up to $10 million for pedestrian and bicycle facilities along with approximately $12 to $15 million for Transit’s share of parking garage construction. The proposed investments would be funded within Sound Transit’s budget for North Link. These investments, in turn, will leverage other public and private funding.

The City of Seattle would have to commit $5 million to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, an amount that is consistent with the City’s long-range plans for this area. A consortium of entities would have to be brought together to fund the remaining 75 percent of the pedestrian bridge. 

"If the Sound Transit Board agrees to this proposal, and the other funding partners join the commitment, we will be able to invest $10 million in pedestrian and bicycle facilities and up to $20 million for the pedestrian bridge over I-5," Conlin noted. "I am confident that the City would invest $10 million, and we will ask our regional partners to come up with the other $10 million."

Projected public investment in access to the Northgate station:

Sources of funds:

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

Building damaged in 2010 Chilean earthquake (photo from Wikipedia)

Last month I was one of 40 Seattle business, government, labor, and academic leaders on a study mission to Santiago and Valparaiso, Chile.*  One of my major reasons for going was to identify lessons from the recent Chilean experience with a major earthquake.  Chile, like Seattle, is on the Pacific Rim of Fire.  In February, 2010, Chileans experienced a devastating 8.8 magnitude earthquake.  Many electric, water, and sewer utilities were damaged.  81,000 homes were destroyed and 109,000 more were severely damaged, along with 221 bridges, 1554 kilometers of roads, and 3000 schools.  The morning after the earthquake, 1,250,000 children were unable to attend classes, and 800,000 people were homeless.   Losses totaled about $30 billion, equal to about 17% of Chile’s GDP.

Analysts suggest that this event was the most important in the history of modern earthquakes, because it was the first major test of modern building standards and of the ability of communities and government in an economically developed country to respond to and recover from an earthquake of this magnitude.

Here are some of the key lessons that I gleaned from discussions with Chilean officials and written assessments of the experience:

1.   Communities responded well to the disaster.

A.    Chile is sometimes described as a ‘seismic culture’, because it has experienced so many earthquakes, including the magnitude 9.5 earthquake of 1960, the most severe in modern history.  Volunteerism, preparedness, and community self-reliance are strongly rooted.  In Chile, all firefighters are volunteers, and being a volunteer firefighter carries so much prestige that applicants pay a fee to be one.

B.   The result was that people took action on their own initiative.  The medical community in the most severely stricken area of the country, which lost communications with the central government, responded without central control and successfully improvised and delivered medical responses to the 60,000 injured victims under “austere conditions” that included damaged buildings and loss of water and power.  Both the newly injured and existing critical care patients were managed well with minimal losses.  Most hospitals were up and operating within a day of the earthquake.

C.   Communities responded by sharing shelter and supplies with those who had suffered losses.  When the government opened congregate shelters, they were surprised at how few people took advantage of them, because people practiced ‘shelter in place’ by finding friends and relatives who were able to help them.

2.   On the other hand, the central government was slow to respond.

A.   A presidential transition was in process, with the new government scheduled to be inaugurated on March 11.  Many leadership posts were unfilled, and the outgoing government was hesitant to move decisively.

B.   The central government lacked good information, and made poor choices with the information it had.  The most crucial error involved a broadcast that no tsunami was expected.  Based on erroneous information, the government advised people who had gone to higher ground to return to their homes.  More than half of the deaths were attributed to the tsunami, and many of these were likely preventable.  Seven people have been convicted on criminal charges for failing to issue proper warnings.  Many lives were saved because some local authorities refused to believe the federal government and told people to evacuate (although in one city, the government properly ordered vessels to go out to sea, but unaccountably failed to alert residents).  However, the single largest loss of life due to the tsunami occurred on an island where people were camped on vacation:  there was no program in place to communicate with and alert tourists and other transient populations.

C.   Past experience with military dictatorship led the government to hesitate to order the military to take authority in devastated areas.  It was five days before external help reached the most damaged areas, and some looting took place, which shocked Chileans who thought their community cohesiveness would have prevented that.

3.   The effectiveness of modern building codes was decisively demonstrated.

A.   Half of the deaths were from the tsunami, very few from building collapse.

B.   Most of the deaths in buildings occurred in old-style adobe houses:  60% of the houses destroyed were adobe buildings.

C.   Of the 9,974 modern mid and high rises that had been constructed since 1985, when the new seismic codes took effect, only 35 had to be evacuated, and the few tall buildings that actually collapsed were those improperly sited on poor soils, which had been overlooked because of mistakes or fraud by the builder.  In one building that completely toppled over, most of the occupants survived because the framework of the rooms still met seismic standards and preserved the integrity of the individual apartments.

D.   A critical gap in standards was the failure to consider the role of major interior elements, such as air conditioning units, shelving systems, and office equipment.  Significant amounts of damage and injury were caused by interior systems that tore from walls or slammed around rooms.

4.   Recovery has been slow; ingenuous improvisation has helped.

A.   It took a month to restore utility services, and 90 days to restore schools with modular classrooms.

B.   Food began flowing to the affected area very rapidly, because the government already had a supply of standard 4×4 boxes of food used in its low income food programs, which could easily be dispatched for emergency use.

C.   65,000 units of prefabricated emergency temporary housing were assembled and deployed to allow people to reoccupy their properties long before they could repair or restore permanent houses.  The government has committed $3 billion to finance reconstruction of housing, using a set of model designs.

D.   Many businesses, industrial properties, and office and residential buildings were not designed to be resilient enough to be rapidly renovated and repaired after significant damage.  The long-term economic effects of the earthquake are still being felt by some people and areas, even though the Chilean economy as a whole has resumed its economic momentum.

5.   Effective insurance and liability systems are critical to long-term recovery.

A.   Only about 25% of the damage was insured, and the $7.5 billion in insurance settlements greatly exceeded the $4.3 million in premiums that had been collected in the past 30 years.  Participation in reinsurance plans was critical to the survival of the insurance system and to ensuring that claims were paid.

B.   The government stepped in with a mandatory adjustment system to ensure rapid settlement of claims.  In ten months, 99.8% of claims were settled.  Of 234,517 cases that were contested, only ten went to the litigation stage.

C.   Chile’s liability law makes construction companies liable for any damages for ten years after construction if building codes were not properly followed.  The few modern buildings that collapsed had generally been constructed improperly, and this law ensured that those major losses would be covered by the construction companies.

Some core messages for Seattle:

1. We cannot overestimate the importance of a community that is prepared and ready to take individual and collective action in the immediate aftermath of a disaster.  We should redouble our efforts to work with our residents, businesses, and communities to give them the understanding and tools they need to be able to respond, and the confidence to take action.  This includes reemphasizing and expanding our efforts to support community building and developing strong connections among and within communities.
2. Government, especially those responsible for immediate actions to ensure order and provide assistance (including decision makers), must be well-trained and practiced in order to be ready for decisive and swift response.
3. Effective and resilient communications systems are essential, and people responsible for communication to the public must be well-trained and able to effectively interpret and communicate information under conditions when accurate data may be minimal.
4. Building codes should be modified to ensure that buildings significantly at risk (in Seattle, these include unreinforced masonry and other older construction types) are retrofitted to meet modern standards.  Requirements for tie-downs and other policies should be reviewed to prevent damage to and from major interior elements (Chile is developing a model interior element code, which it will implement on a national level).
5. The adequacy of the insurance system should be reviewed, and possible changes to insurance and liability laws considered.  Systems should be in place, such as the extended builder liability law in Chile, that ensure that building codes are complied with.
6. The jury is still out on recovery strategies.  Continued efforts are required to ensure that the framework is in place to ensure rapid economic and social recovery from a disaster.

*The Council usually sends one or two representatives on these annual international study missions, and 2012 was my turn to be eligible to join the trip.  The core mission for these trips is developing connections with leaders and business representatives in other countries, and promoting international understanding and peaceful relationships.  We also look at specific issues, such as economic planning, education and health care systems, tourism and urban development strategies, and environmental issues.  One of the most interesting experiences was meeting with leaders of the ongoing student-led campaign for education and political reform – they gave us quite a different perspective from the government officials we met with.

City of Seattle Seal

Seattle property owners will actually fund about $15 million of the City’s proposed $120 million investment in the proposed basketball/hockey arena to be developed south of Safeco Field, even though publicity for the project has suggested that repayment of this investment will come entirely from revenues associated with the arena, not taxpayers, and, further, that this investment will be risk-free for taxpayers.  As the Council is finally given the information that will allow us to make a reasoned judgment on the viability of this proposal, details are beginning to emerge about the actual agreement, and some of those details do not quite live up to the hype.

The agreement between Mr. Hansen and the governmental participants is complex, with lots of moving parts and highly specific arrangements.  One of those details transfers some of the funding responsibility to Seattle property owners.  It’s an arcane arrangement specifically tailored to the unique way in which property taxes are assessed in Washington.  It’s also a challenge to explain, but here’s the basic story.

Unlike almost every other state, in Washington local governments do not actually set a property tax rate.  Instead, cities levy a total dollar amount of taxes to be collected, and the County Assessor translates that into a rate that will collect that much money.  The amount of money to be collected can only increase by 1% per year without voter approval, which means that property taxes are generally pretty stable, with only small increases or decreases as property values fluctuate with the economy.

There is one exception:  new development.  This is assessed at the same rate as other property, and then is added to the base for the following year.  In practice, this means that actual property tax collections increase by 2% or 3% each year, rather than the 1% allowed, but since the additional amounts are paid by the owners of the new development, this does not increase the tax bill for the rest of the property owners beyond 1%, so normally new development and this extra revenue collection does not affect your property taxes.

But the arena deal is structured so that it will.  Here’s how:

• Hansen’s company will build the new arena as a private development, so when it is completed, the approximate $400 million value of the new building (the value of the land underneath the building is not included in this) will be added to the tax rolls, leading to about $1 million in additional property tax revenues to the City the first year that the new facility is in operation.
• But then the agreement provides that the City will take possession of the arena after a year or so.  Once the City becomes the owner, no property taxes will be assessed on the arena, because public property is exempt from property taxes.
• The catch is that since the arena was on the tax rolls for a year, its value gets rolled into the next year’s property tax base.  So the $1 million or so in taxes that the arena would have owed each year from then on gets paid by every other taxpayer.  The $1 million per year will be used to pay off $15 million of the City’s funding for the arena, but even after the loan is paid off, taxpayers will pay this much more per year — forever.
• If the arena remained private property, the taxes paid by the arena would go to the City’s general fund to support police, fire, human services, and other City programs.

Is this an accident, a mere quirk of the deal?  No, the City’s financial analysts explained to me that it is deliberately structured in this way to allow the City to sell about $15 million of the bonds with the very secure backing of a guaranteed property tax revenue stream.  And then to ensure that these property taxes are not paid by the team owners.

It’s a small amount – no more than a few dollars per year for even the owners of the most valuable property.  But it disturbs me, and it emphasizes how important it is to look this ‘gift horse’ in the mouth, and thoroughly check all of the provisions of the agreement before signing off on it.

Seattle City Councilmembers join regional partners in launching next phase of Alaskan Way Viaduct tunneling project

SEATTLE – Seattle City Councilmembers today joined Gov. Chris Gregoire, state, port and local officials in breaking ground for the launch pit for the tunnel boring machine for the Alaskan Way Viaduct (AWV) replacement project. When complete the tunnel will connect to the new SR 99 roadway south of downtown to Aurora Avenue in the north providing for a safe corridor and better mobility.

Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, Transportation Committee Chair said today, "This event marks the next critical phase of the tunneling project as the pit is readied for the boring machine. The tunnel project maintains capacity of Viaduct, avoiding the kind of congestion that could cripple movement of freight and growth of commerce in Seattle. The tunnel project will take the traffic, noise and blight that now separates our downtown from our waterfront and will bury it underground." 

"Today we break ground on a tunnel that will finally allow Seattle to rediscover our waterfront," stated Councilmember Jean Godden, chair of the Central Waterfront, Seawall and Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program Committee. "When complete, our waterfront will be active and vibrant, populated with parks, restaurants and cultural amenities. It will be a waterfront second-to-none, which will be cherished for generations. We are truly building for the future."

"One small scoop of dirt, one giant leap for Seattle," said Councilmember Bruce Harrell. "After a decade of debate, I am excited to finally start work on a safe and superior corridor that will improve mobility in this region and create thousands of jobs. I look forward to late 2015 when this tunnel opens."

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

Elliott Bay 1976

Seattle and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have completed negotiations on a historic consent decree that opens the door for a more thoughtful and effective approach to promoting clean water in Seattle and Puget Sound.  The Council is now reviewing this decree, and will vote on whether to endorse it in the near future.

Cities around the country are required to meet standards for cleaning up Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO’s).  CSO’s take place when a single pipe carrying both sewage and stormwater to the treatment plant becomes overwhelmed by a rain event.  Under this circumstance, the pipes are designed to spill the untreated sewage and stormwater into the city’s waterways, threatening human and aquatic health and the region’s quality of life.  While it would be prohibitively expensive to completely eliminate these events,  state regulators have set a standard of an average of no more than one such event per year for each outfall as an achievable goal to meet the objectives of the Clean Water Act.

sewer pump 4, 1924

For decades, cities have been working to build the expensive holding tanks and other systems that will attain that goal.  Seattle has reduced its overflows by more than 80%.  However, the ones that remain to be managed are  those that are the most expensive,  and/or most difficult to manage.

At the same time, over these decades there has been growing  evidence that the toxic materials carried by stormwater  exceed the effects of CSO’s on water quality.  Cities have also been struggling to find ways to effectively manage stormwater, and Seattle has been a leader in developing new green infrastructure that can be both effective and affordable.

The problem is that there has not been a way to set priorities that integrates the issues of stormwater and CSO’s so that the most cost effective strategies for clean water can be implemented as rapidly as possible.  That’s why for years Seattle and other cities around the country have been asking EPA to rethink the way it regulates such investments.  Finally, last fall, EPA issued a letter indicating that it was open to looking at doing the best investments first, rather than relying on a more prescriptive set of rules that don’t always deliver the most effective and immediate water quality improvements that could be optimum.

The proposed agreement allows SPU to integrate the full set of tools — rain gardens, street swales, low-impact development, larger diameter pipes, larger storage tanks, and treatment — with street sweeping and best operation and maintenance practices.  Seattle continues to have the obligation to clean up sewage overflows under a specific and regulated schedule, to the regulatory standard of an average of one overflow per outfall per year.  But this schedule is supplemented by being able to mix and match clean water actions to deliver pollution prevention.  Seattle’s plan will be the first in the nation to give flexibility to set priorities for both stormwater and combined sewage overflow control measures.

Over the next 13 years, the city estimates it will spend about $500 million on capital construction projects — including retrofits, green infrastructure, and large underground storage tanks — to implement the proposed agreement, but will save approximately $375 million in future operating and maintenance costs over the next 13 years — primarily because Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) has been able to demonstrate it uses best practices for inspecting and managing its existing sewer pipes and systems.  Using some of the most advanced technology and system analytics available, Seattle’s maintenance program has significantly reduced the risk of pipe breaks and sewage spills.  Recognizing this, the proposed plan allows SPU to take a much less prescriptive approach for maintaining its system.

Cleaning up environmental pollution and getting the best water quality in our streams and Puget Sound as quickly as possible is a challenging and costly endeavor.  There is no perfect path to get there and certainly no inexpensive way.  There will be questions about the new strategic approach, such as how this impacts other considerations like specific neighborhoods where priorities might change, especially low income communities.  These will  be taken into account as new plans and priorities are developed.  Overall, however, the emphasis on doing the most cost effective environmental projects and the widest range of effective measures as a priority makes a lot of sense for the environment and ratepayers.

Have a question for the Seattle City Council? Get it answered on Seattle Channel's Council Edition
Councilmembers Bagshaw, Conlin and Rasmussen to appear on
June's City Inside/Out: Council Edition

SEATTLE – Do you have a question for the City Council? What are city leaders doing to address the rise in gun violence? How can residents voice their opinion on the proposed NBA/NHL arena?  Whatever your questions, submit them now.

The June 5 episode of Seattle Channel's City Inside/Out: Council Edition will feature Councilmembers Sally Bagshaw, Richard Conlin and Tom Rasmussen answering your questions with host Brian Callanan.

Submit your questions for the Councilmembers by noon, Friday, June 1.

• Email: contact@seattlechannel.org
• Online: http://www.seattlechannel.org/CouncilEdition/
• Twitter: @SeattleChannel
• Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/SeattleChannel

Don't miss this opportunity to put your issues before the city's lawmakers. Send in your questions now and tune in to Seattle Channel, Cable 21, 7:30 p.m., Tuesday,
June 5 to hear the Councilmembers respond.

Follow SEATTLE CHANNEL on Facebook and Twitter!

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

Walmart (photo from Wikipedia)

The Council is working on changes to the way the City implements the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) in the regulatory reform legislation now under consideration.  The goal of this component of the legislation is to encourage development in areas that the City has identified for future growth by eliminating redundant regulations.  That means not putting these projects through two reviews covering the same issues.  The changes, which follow guidelines set by the State Legislature, will ensure that review of proposed projects under SEPA is targeted to developments of a large enough scale that potential issues may not be covered by other regulations.  We are proceeding carefully with this to ensure that there are no loopholes or unintended consequences.

Under current Seattle law, projects in Urban Centers or Station Area Overlay Districts are exempted from SEPA review if they are below a certain size, generally 30 to 80 housing units and up to 12,000 square feet of commercial space, with some variation depending on the zoning.  The proposed legislation increases the size limits for exemption to 200 to 250 residential units or up to 30,000 square feet of commercial space when that space is located in a mixed use project.   This only applies to residential or mixed use projects within the 6 Urban Centers and 6 Urban Villages with light rail stations, and only in areas that have not yet met adopted Comprehensive Plan Growth Targets for jobs and density.

All such projects will be required to comply with environmental regulations, which cover most of the issues included in SEPA.  Many of Seattle’s environmental regulations were adopted or strengthened since SEPA was first adopted, which is why SEPA has become somewhat redundant.  For example, Seattle now has a Shoreline Master Program that regulates development on the shoreline, and an Environmentally Critical Areas program that limits and regulates development on steep slopes and in other environmentally sensitive areas.  Council has reviewed the areas that SEPA covers, and identified transportation impacts and historic preservation as areas that might not be adequately covered if these changes are adopted.  The legislation now adds provisions covering transportation issues, and the Council is preparing another ordinance that will cover the issues around historical preservation (which are currently covered for projects exempt from SEPA through an interdepartmental agreement between DPD and the Historic Preservation office).  The Council will also require DPD to make an annual determination as to whether each area has met its growth target and thus is no longer subject to this exemption. 

In addition, the Council will amend the legislation to define “mixed use” to mean a building with at least 50% of the gross floor area in residential use.  This will eliminate a loophole that could have provided an incentive for a developer to avoid SEPA for a commercial project by providing a code-compliant dwelling unit that may never have been occupied.

Our assessment is that the exemption of SEPA review will only apply to the Downtown, South Lake Union, Northgate, and University Urban Centers, and the North Beacon Hill, North Rainier, Rainier Beach, and Roosevelt Station Areas.  That list could shrink as the pace of economic recovery and development increases.  Analysis of permits applied for and appealed over the last few years suggests that the exemptions will apply to perhaps about 15% of projects per year, and will reduce the number of legal appeals by less than 10%.  This will save paperwork and staff time, but continue to encourage the use of SEPA for the larger projects where it is most useful (and that are most likely to be appealed).

The initial proposed legislation raised the threshold for mixed-use commercial projects from 12,000 square feet to 75,000 square feet.  The United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) raised concerns that this change could limit opportunities to challenge the development of Wal-Mart stores (or other retailers they see as irresponsible and harmful to local businesses) that might be sited in Seattle.  After reviewing the legislation, we agreed with UFCW that lowering the proposed commercial threshold from 75,000 square feet to the now recommended 30,000 square feet would still capture much of the benefits of changing the thresholds without potentially limiting the appeal opportunities where those are important.

Sound Transit Link Light Rail train

As I noted in an earlier post, the Sound Transit Board held a retreat in April, primarily to discuss parking policies and valuing transit oriented development (TOD).  My goal was to change Sound Transit’s perspective on these issues, and to get the Board to agree to revise long-standing policies that encouraged Sound Transit (ST) to focus on providing parking at stations and discouraged significant investment in TOD.

The Board did agree to develop new policy approaches, and ST staff have now prepared summaries of the Board’s direction.  The next step is to take these summaries and prepare resolutions that will formally create new policies.  Here are the key points that will guide those resolutions:

Transit Oriented Development

• The ST Board wants a new, consolidated TOD policy, strategies, and work plan.
• A key outcome is encouraging and supporting land use change and/or other desirable economic development, such as improving quality of life, allowing achievement of comprehensive and regional plans, and maximizing transit ridership and its related benefits.
• The high-capacity transit system should remain the focus of ST’s resources.
• ST should develop a specific process for assessing and implementing TOD opportunities and other transit-supportive land use changes during project development.
• The ST Board should be involved very early in project planning, and it should remain involved to guide implementation during all phases of planning and project delivery.
• ST should financially evaluate TOD policies and investments, assigning an appropriate value to their potential to contribute to ridership.

This change in policy will take some time to implement, but it will make a significant difference in the way in which ST develops stations, treats property it has acquired, and collaborates with local governments to integrate land use and development issues with transit development.

Parking

• ST needs to initiate actions to address immediate parking issues while reviewing and updating policy as appropriate to support long range parking management strategy.
• ST should be responsive to local land use and travel patterns and integrate access strategies that include parking, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit feeder service.
• Existing parking should be managed to optimize use by and availability to transit users before capacity is expanded.
• Management and expansion of transit parking are regional, multi-agency issues and need to be addressed through an integrated, coordinated, regional effort.

Like the TOD discussion, the parking discussion has long-range implications, but it also has very immediate applications.  ST will immediately begin looking at issues around pricing parking, managing existing facilities to maximize their use by transit riders and HOV, and initiating a regional discussion about inter-agency coordination.

In the longer run, changing from an emphasis on parking at station areas to multi-modal (bike/ped/bus) station access will hopefully lead to a more well-honed set of decisions on how to decide on whether and how much parking to develop at each station.  This will immediately inform decisions about the strategy for managing transit access at Northgate, which the Board will be working on over the next few weeks.  As the decision options become clearer at Northgate, I will be emphasizing the opportunity that this discussion has opened up for a policy around parking and access that integrates into the long-range vision for the Northgate Urban Center.

1936: Workers move the last slab of seawall into place, at the foot of Madison Street. (Courtesy Seattle Municipal Archives)

The City Council has begun the process for placing a 30-year property tax bond measure on the November ballot to complete the financing package for the Seawall replacement and strengthening.  The Council must make a decision by July in order to place this measure on the ballot.

The City has been working for almost ten years on plans to protect the safety of the waterfront.  The Seawall does not meet modern earthquake standards, and has sustained damage and deterioration over the time since the three different segments were constructed.  The plan has always been to replace the Seawall as part of the overall project to replace the SR 99 Viaduct, and the City has coordinated the timing of this replacement project with the State’s highway construction project.

The Elliott Bay seawall:

• Protects Seattle’s downtown waterfront from wind-driven storm waves and the erosive tidal forces of Puget Sound and Elliott Bay.
• Supports and protects major public and private utilities, including power for the western seaboard and downtown Seattle, natural gas, and telecommunications.
• Supports State Route 99, the ferry terminal, and rail lines, all of which transport local commuters and visitors as well as local, regional, and international freight.

The funding plan for the highway replacement project includes the reconstruction of Alaskan Way, the surface street along the waterfront.  However, the repair and replacement of the Seawall itself is not funded under the state package.  For the last several years, the City has been working on design and environmental analysis in cooperation with the State and the US Army Corps of Engineers (which has permitting jurisdiction over water-related projects as well as the ability to participate financially if that is authorized by Congress).

This spring the design process reached the point where the City was able to provide a well-grounded estimate for the overall cost of the Seawall project.  With that in hand, the Council is ready to advance the funding plan to the voters for approval, and intends to do so as rapidly as possible.  Between now and mid-July, the Council will develop the proposed bond measure during the course of a series of open public meetings.

The projected cost for the Seawall replacement is approximately $300 million.  Of that amount, the City has already secured approximately $60 million: $30 million from the King County Flood Control District, and $30 million from the City’s general fund and other sources.

The timing is now at a critical point.  We now know that the federal environmental review will be completed and permits issued within the next two years.  The timing for the state highway project requires the Seawall project to begin in that time frame and be completed by 2016, when the viaduct is slated for demolition and the funding will be available to replace the surface street on the waterfront.  In order to be ready to go to bid on the project, it is crucial that the City have committed funding in hand within the next year.

The City does not realistically have the resources to fund the remaining $240 million without having a revenue stream to cover these costs.  That is why we are planning to go to the voters to ask for a property tax increase for the bonds.

The good news is that this project is exactly the kind of project that voter-approved bonds are designed for, which means that, unlike a levy, the costs will be relatively modest on a yearly basis since they will be spread over a thirty year period.  Interest rates are also at record low levels.  The result is that a30-year bond for $240 million would cost the owner of a $400K home about $55 to $60 per year.  Unlike a levy, however, which only requires a majority vote, a voter-approved bond requires a 60% majority.  The last voter-approved bond in Seattle was the 1998 Libraries for All measure; 70% of voters supported that measure.  The costs for the Libraries for All bonds, incidentally, were front-loaded onto the first ten years, so there is only a modest remaining annual payment.

In addition to the Seawall and the replacement of Alaskan Way, the overall waterfront project includes other repair/renovation work on the piers and city infrastructure, as well as the construction of the new waterfront promenade and park.  The Council will consider including some of the repairs on the piers as part of this bond issue, as there may be efficiencies in timing of the repairs that may be advantageous as well as less disruption to waterfront businesses.

The funding for the park development will be considered in future years, and will include a special assessment on property owners near the waterfront whose property will increase in value, as well as contributions from private philanthropy and some additional public funding.  That plan will be developed in the next couple of months.

The opening of Seattle’s first streetcar line is just one of the many changes since the last Comp Plan update. (Courtesy Seattle Municipal Archives)

On Monday, May 14, the Council adopted a resolution describing how we will carry out the second ever update of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan.  The Plan was first adopted in 1994, and then updated in 2004.  The next update is scheduled for 2015, and will respond to lots of changes in the City (for example, we now have light rail and streetcar lines, with more under construction), new learnings and understanding about how cities work, and new approaches to successful City planning.

The ‘Comp Plan’, as it is known informally, sets a framework for City actions to change, develop, and manage Seattle over time.  It is required by Washington’s Growth Management Act, and the core policies are required to plan for the City’s share of projected state growth.  For Seattle, that means 70,000 housing units and 115,000 jobs over the next twenty years.

The resolution lays out a three year timeline for completing the update.  It asks the Executive to address the themes that have been developed after a round of broad and inclusive public outreach process:

a. Promote economic opportunity. Foster a business environment where employers are encouraged to stay in or to move to Seattle because of the available labor pool, the amenities and services provided, and the regulatory environment.

b. Leverage growth. Encourage shops and services to locate where existing or planned residential and employment densities are sufficient to make delivery of services efficient; and where the City and the private sector can collaborate on further enhancements to the urban environment.

c. Become a climate-friendly city. Guide the form and location of growth and transportation infrastructure to reduce greenhouse gases produced in the city, even as the city grows, and identify strategies for coping with the likely effects of a changing climate.

d. Build healthy, complete communities. Develop policies that further the Comprehensive Plan’s current Urban Village strategy by improving the availability of services within convenient walking and bicycling distance of where people live.

e. Create housing choices. Continue to encourage a sufficient land base that is appropriately zoned and with regulations in place that allow a wide variety of attractive and affordable housing types in sufficient quantity to serve current and future Seattle residents and workers.

f. Balance transportation investments. Continue to maintain existing transportation facilities, while encouraging expansion of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and increasing transit service to densely developed neighborhoods.

g. Build on transit. Encourage appropriate levels of development near existing and planned high-capacity transit stations in order to make it possible for more people to easily take advantage of the access that transit service can provide to jobs, services and entertainment.

h. Invest strategically in neighborhoods. Direct public improvements in neighborhoods where growth is occurring, so that those neighborhoods can continue to serve current residents and attract additional ones.

i. Encourage great design and innovation. Identify ways that new development can respect the natural beauty and unique neighborhood identities that make Seattle an attractive city. At the same time, look for ways to attract new industries that can thrive in the city.

The resolution also lays out a set of recommendations to make the document more accessible and usable, and a plan for public engagement.  Finally, there is a specific schedule for the next three years of work.

In 2012-2013, the Council will consider early action on crucial issues where the City is already developing recommendations to address social and community change.  These include adding more explicit urban design considerations; policies related to the City’s Climate Action Plan; policies regarding appropriate development types and densities near existing and planned transit investments; and policies that encourage equitable access to healthy food.

In 2013-2014, the focus will be on identifying citywide policy issues requiring further review, reconfiguring the online Plan format to improve readability, and recommending new citywide growth expectations and appropriate policy revisions.

Finally, in 2014-2015, the new Recommended Comprehensive Plan will be submitted, reviewed, and adopted by the Council.  The resolution calls on the Executive and City Council to review amendments suggested as part of the annual Comprehensive Plan processes for 2013 and 2014 to determine whether those amendments fit with the schedule and guidance described in this resolution.

dollar sign

On Monday, May 14, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 31380, joining some 100 other cities and other governments calling for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Supreme Court decision that granted corporations political rights as ‘persons’.  The 5 to 4 decision, in the case known as ‘Citizens United’ (the name of the corporate front organization that brought the lawsuit against campaign finance laws), essentially undid campaign finance regulation at the federal level and freed corporations to spend as much money as they want to influence elections.  It is not yet clear to what extent this also undoes state and local campaign finance regulations and even disclosure requirements.

It is unusual for the Council to take a position on a federal issue that is not directly related to the City’s ongoing work.  In this case there is a direct connection, as Seattle has long been in the forefront of campaign finance reform.  We pioneered disclosure and limits on contribution size, and even had a form of public financing in place in the 1970’s until the Washington State Legislature took away our authority to implement that.  While we are always searching for ways to improve our campaign finance management system, we are proud of what we have accomplished.  We believe that we can defend it against the implications of the Citizens United decision, but there is some risk that it could be affected as lower courts construe the Supreme Court action.

But beyond the integrity of our own election system, there is a larger concern with the future of democracy in America.  There have been many struggles over how to effectively regulate and limit the disproportionate influence of money in the American political system, and an ongoing effort to find the best model at the federal, state, and local levels.  That reflects the vitality of our democracy, as we work through such complex issues to come up with the fairest solution.  Many such situations wind up in court cases, and courts often have to make careful determinations about fairness and appropriateness.

But the Supreme Court did not carefully review the law and strike down areas that could be problematic.  Instead, they rendered a decision that essentially swept away the playing field, ending virtually all possibilities for federal campaign finance reform.  As journalist Jeffrey Toobin put it:  “The Roberts Court, it appears, will guarantee moneyed interests the freedom the raise and spend any amount, from any source, at any time, in order to win elections.”

It appears that the only way that can be reversed would be to amend the Constitution (unless the Court itself backs down in some fashion).  And the only way that will happen is through a grassroots movement for change.  That’s why so many cities, counties, and states are passing such resolutions, and why it makes sense for Seattle to weigh in.  Our own laws are at stake — and the health of our democratic system and the long term future of the republic.

City of Seattle Seal

On Wednesday, May 9, the Council’s Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee (PLUS) agreed to a revised proposal developed by the Seattle Planning Commission that adds portions of the City to the area already exempt from minimum parking requirements.  The action is part of a larger package of regulatory reforms designed to stimulate economic activity by removing unnecessary and redundant regulatory requirements.

Removing minimum parking requirements does not prohibit developers from including parking in their projects, and is not intended to suggest that cars will not play an important role in most household’s transportation system.  What it does is allow the market to play a greater role in determining how much parking will be included in a particular project. 

In many cases, developers are already including greater amounts of parking than required under code, and this is likely to continue where projects are designed to serve a market where tenants are willing to pay the extra cost of having parking.  However, for buildings that serve populations that do not tend to own as many vehicles and rely more on transit or other transportation alternatives (such as low income housing projects, senior housing projects, projects in areas well served by transit, and projects that serve students and younger adults), removing mandatory requirements allows the builder to plan for the appropriate amount of parking, thus reducing the cost of the building.  This can mean lower, more competitive rents, or, in the case of publicly financed low income housing projects, more units of housing for the same amount of funding.

The City currently exempts projects in downtown and certain commercial and multifamily zones from minimum parking requirements.  About 5670 acres of the City have no minimum parking requirements for residential development.  The new legislation removes approximately 540 additional acres from minimum parking requirements, in areas that have the highest level of transit service.  Another 2590 acres with frequent transit service would have the required minimums reduced by 50%.

Parking would continue to be required in areas where the presence of readily available street parking could tempt developers to reduce the amount of parking in a project to the point where parking congestion is created that adversely affects neighborhoods.

The proposal on parking requirements has been consistently misrepresented as a major change, and Councilmembers emphasized that this was a modest expansion of the current code and that it in no way prohibits parking – merely leaves the number of spaces up to market factors.

The package of regulatory reforms will next be discussed in Committee on Wednesday, May 23^rd, and may be voted out to Full Council at that meeting.  Final Council approval is likely to occur by the middle of June at the latest.

1947 garbage truck (municipal archives)

The Seattle City Council is authorizing a pilot program to test the idea of moving to garbage collection every other week.  The pilot program, which will be implemented for 800 customers in four neighborhoods from July through December, will examine what rate structure best rewards people for minimizing their garbage, while avoiding unwanted negative impacts.

Every other week garbage collection could provide one more incentive for waste reduction, cut garbage truck traffic in our neighborhoods by 20%, cut fuel consumption, greenhouse emissions, and air pollution by a corresponding 20%, and reduce overall system costs by $6 million annually.  If people can adapt to this change, the cost savings will be passed on to rate payers as the Council adopts new rates in the future.  Seattle is rightfully proud of our commitment to recycling and waste reduction.  We have adopted universal recycling and organics collections and dramatically reduced the amount of garbage we send to the landfill.  We’ve banned disposable items that have readily available substitutes, like Styrofoam takeout containers and plastic grocery bags.  We’re designing the rebuilding of our transfer stations to make it easy and convenient to recycle building materials and other items.  And we continue to work to find new ways to reduce garbage costs.

Since the Zero Waste Strategy was approved by the Council in 2007 we have accelerated our rate of progress.  Universal organics collection was a key step for single family residences, and we are now extending it to multi-family residences.  The things that actually have to go into the garbage can are down to a few kinds of plastics and some other items (like kitty litter and disposable diapers) that are pretty challenging to recycle.  Many customers, even those with the smallest garbage containers, either do not set out their containers every week or set them out half-empty.

The question that the pilot program will test is whether moving to every other week collection is possible for Seattle customers, and what rate structure will be most effective in preserving fairness and the incentive to reduce waste.  The 800 customers who will be enrolled in the pilot program will have an immediate rate reduction in their solid waste rate.  If they choose to increase the size of their can rather than increase their waste reduction efforts and make sure that they are using their recycling and organics cans to the greatest extent possible, they will pay a higher rate.

The pilot will test how many customers will increase the size the of their container and whether the rate structure makes a difference, if there are any negative impacts to customers and the neighborhood, and whether there is decreased waste as a result of implementing this change. 

We hope to learn whether we can implement such a program citywide.  If the pilot demonstrates that people can adapt to this change with little or no negative repercussions, then the City can proceed with implementation, and we can realize the benefits of reduced waste, reduced truck traffic, and reduced cost to ratepayers.

A number of other cities are experimenting with this collection model, but few have a population as committed to recycling and waste reduction as Seattle.  Because of that, we are hopeful that we may be able to implement one more step on the road to zero waste.

Map of the "Sliver on the River"

The King County Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), the body comprised of County and City representatives that approves policy relating to implementation of Growth Management in King County, has unanimously approved a City of Seattle proposal to designate the ‘Sliver on the River’ in South Park as a Potential Annexation Area (PAA) for Seattle.  This sends the designation first to King County and then to cities for formal approval by jurisdictions representing 70% of King County population.  While the window for action on this may extend through this fall, this is essentially a formality in this case, since there is no indication of any opposition (and we don’t even have to campaign for action, since King County is supportive and failure to take action by Cities is considered ratification of the GMPC vote).

The GMPC action followed on the heels of Council approval of an amendment to Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan that designated this small area (17.25 acres, 155 inhabitants) for annexation.  The area is surrounded by Seattle except on the river side, and was left out of the City limits because it is the landing area for the South Park Bridge, owned by King County.  With the new bridge under construction, Seattle is negotiating for ownership and a maintenance agreement that will help fund the costs of bridge operation. 

The annexation process in Washington is a cumbersome one.  Once we have completed this action, we still have to approve an Interlocal Agreement with King County and submit the proposed annexation to the Boundary Review Board (BRB) for approval.  The real action is in the negotiations with King County on maintenance of the bridge and other service transition issues, since there is no likely or plausible opposition to the proposed boundaries.  If all goes well, the annexation could take place as early as sometime in 2013.

Seattle is also proposing to annex another leftover parcel, called the Duwamish Triangle, which is primarily industrial, including 124 acres but only 6 residents.  This parcel is bordered by Tukwila, and both cities have already received approval for it as a Potential Annexation Area.  That could lead to a real contest before the Boundary Review Board, but we believe that it is closely linked enough to Seattle that we would likely be successful.

The kicker in both of these areas, however, are potential costs that Seattle might have to bear in order to complete the annexation and bring the areas up to urban standards.  There is strong agreement that South Park deserves to be united so that Fire, Police, and other services can be provided on a more rational basis, and that the two areas together will provide ample revenue to more than cover those costs to the general fund (the Duwamish Triangle brings a great deal of revenue from business taxes with little expense, which is the reason that Tukwila is interested in it).

The concern is with potential capital costs and environmental liabilities associated with past pollution in the Duwamish Triangle, and with the lack of sewer and drainage infrastructure in both areas.  Most of the area has informal drainage and septic tanks.  Together these items could total in excess of $100 million, according to a City analysis.  Although the capital costs could be spread over 30 years, there would still be noticeable impacts on utility rates.  The City will seek assistance from King County for these costs, but even if there is some sharing of responsibility, the City will still have to make a decision as to whether these costs can be managed.

So, despite the progress being made, there is still a long road to annexation.  Nonetheless, the actions by the Council including the Sliver in the Comprehensive Plan and the approval by the GMPC are significant steps in the right direction, and we can celebrate them as steps forward on the journey to reunite the South Park community.

City of Seattle Seal

Washington has a unique business tax system:  businesses are taxed on their gross income (Business and Occupation Tax – B&O Tax), rather than their profits.  There’s a statewide B&O Tax, and some 40 cities have local B&O Taxes.  And there are three different ways that cities can charge this tax:  on gross receipts (like the state does), on a per-employee basis (“Head Tax”), or on the amount of space that the business occupies (Square Footage Tax).

This makes life complicated for businesses, and, in addition to long-standing debates about whether Washington should move to an income tax, and whether taxes should be reduced, business organizations have asked for tax simplification to make it easier for businesses to know and process their tax liabilities.

We have just gone through a flurry of activity on business tax simplification over the last few months.  The end result is good news.  What started out as a proposed State action that would have caused potentially serious problems for Seattle (including the possible loss of up to $45 million in revenue per year), has now become agreement on a win-win process that will take steps that will work for businesses and state and local governments as well.  Here’s the story of how Seattle made that happen.

Last fall the State began an effort to take over the collection of local B&O Taxes.  As a talking point, the idea of setting up a central collection for both state and local taxes sounds good – in principle, this makes a lot of sense.  But we had a lot of concerns, and this issue is a great example of why details matter.  When you look at how this would actually work, it turns out to be much more complicated.  For example:

• State collection does not actually benefit most businesses very much – only a tiny fraction of businesses operate in more than one city, so most businesses will see little or no reduction in their paperwork.
• Cities have very few classifications with different tax rates (there are only three of significance in Seattle), while the state has almost fifty different classifications and rates.  It is much harder to interpret the State system than the City systems.
• It was unclear how the State would account for businesses that operate in different cities and how auditing would be managed.  A failure to enforce which cities were owed B&O taxes would result in significant projected revenue losses for Seattle and the other cities charging the B&O tax.

We were able to turn this issue around:

• The five cities that collect about 90% of B&O revenues (Seattle, Tacoma, Bellingham, Bellevue, and Everett) are working together to develop a common web portal that will eliminate most of the issues for businesses that operate in more than one City, and we believe that we can do this for much less than it would take the State to develop new software.
• Seattle worked closely with our local Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, and was able to work out an agreement to address some important issues for Seattle business.  The Chamber understood our concerns, and agreed that losing tax revenue for Seattle was a problem.  Seattle is fortunate to have a business community that is willing to pay its fair share for City services – while, of course, urging the City to be more efficient and effective.
• The Association of Washington Cities supported us in Olympia.
• Legislators were responsive and understood our concerns.
• Ultimately, cities wound up in productive discussions with the Governor’s office.

The agreement at the State level is that the Governor and legislature will focus on reducing the number of classifications and rates – which would help business at little or no cost to government.  Of course, those who benefit from classifications that give them tax breaks are likely to oppose changes, so this will not be easy, but the principle is widely accepted.

At the local level, the five cities have agreed to move forward with their common portal, which will greatly reduce paperwork for those businesses that operate in multiple cities.  Seattle has also agreed to work on policies that will clarify some provisions of our tax code that are ambiguous – a task force has been working on this, and revisions will come before the Council in the next few weeks.  We are also exploring a potentially more far-reaching simplification, with a common agreement that the City is ready to take steps that make it easier for businesses to calculate and pay taxes, as long as these do not reduce the amount of taxes that we collect.  We think there may be more win-wins to find as we explore this issue through the City-business tax forces that have been created.

Four months ago we faced struggles between business and government, and the prospect of losing millions of dollars in the Seattle budget.  Because we reached out and worked to find common ground, we have averted the problem and are seeing cooperation instead of conflict.  It’s a good news story for all of us.

"Only in Seattle" OED image

In the last several recessions, Seattle has lagged the national recovery, sometimes by as long as a year.  But, in this recession, we are at the leading edge of recovery.  Washington’s official numbers show the state’s unemployment rate at 8.2% in February, about equal to the national average – but that the Seattle area rate had dropped to 7.4%.  A study by the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, reports that the number of jobs increased by 2.2 percent in the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue area between January 2011 and January 2012, making Seattle the fifth fastest growing job market in the nation during that period.

Seattle Office of Economic Development (OED) estimates are that the rate in Seattle itself may be as low as 6.6%.  This is based on numbers showing that Seattle has recovered more than half of the jobs lost in the 2008-2009 recession, and that employment is continuing to grow.

While we still have a lot of work to do to reach full levels of employment, this is all good news.  And, while the actions of City government are only one of the reasons that Seattle is doing better, these numbers do seem to indicate that we are following the right strategy and working well with our business community in finding ways to foster a healthy economy.

Some of the actions that Seattle has taken in direct response to the recession have contributed to the recovery.  The Council has approved two resolutions (31135 in 2009 and 31282 in 2011) laying out economic recovery strategies, and many of these measures have been implemented.  Steps like accelerating Parks Levy projects and working closely with the State and Sound Transit to move transportation projects forward have directly created jobs.  Other actions, like supporting expanded job training and creating new programs to encourage people to visit neighborhood business districts (“Only in Seattle”) have helped workers and small businesses to improve their prospects.  And attention to the basics, like delivering high quality electricity at some of the lowest rates in the country and giving public safety and the human services safety net budget priority, have also helped foster economic confidence and security.

But it is our long-range strategies that have laid the groundwork for economic success and that will continue to do so in the future.  Seattle is committed to the new urban model – encouraging a diverse downtown that mixes economic activity and housing, supporting growing sectors like technology and biotech, sponsoring a welcoming environment for creativity that attracts young urban professionals, assisting business retention both small and large, developing the framework for a citywide network of ‘urban villages’ linked by diverse transportation options, and reworking City regulations and investments to become more nimble and effective.

That’s why economic thinkers like Richard Florida predict a bright future for Seattle.  Noting that “Seattle has seen more residents move into its downtown core since 1990 than Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, Portland, San Diego or even San Francisco.”, Florida suggests that “Seattle provides a good example of the back-to-the-downtown trend that is reshaping cities across the United States as workers relocate to formerly neglected urban cores that offer transit, walkability and central location.”  He continues:   ”As I wrote in The Great Reset, “A new spatial fix – a new geography of working and living – will be our only path back to renewed economic growth, confidence and prosperity.” That’s exactly the path Seattle is following.”

The new economy demands great agility and continued attention to both the big picture and the myriad of details that running a big city requires.  Our continued success will depend on our continued effective commitment.  It will also require us to tackle and resolve big issues like public safety concerns as well as the challenge of repairing the Seawall and creating a waterfront that will be the next major step forward in the vision for a vital and sustainable city – while maintaining the confidence and support of the Seattle community.

Photo from komonews.com

Obesity continues to be a major public health challenge.  Too many Americans are overweight enough that their health is suffering, with diseases like diabetes rising dramatically.  In Seattle 50% of adults and 22% of youth are overweight or obese. The problem is that healthy food is often expensive and not widely available, while unhealthy food is easy to get and heavily marketed.  And Americans do not have enough access to physical activity in daily life.

Public Health of Seattle and King County is a national leader in developing and implementing policies and programs that will help.  As we implement these, we will see real benefits in better health and quality of life, lower health care costs, and more productive and happy residents.

Here’s what we are implementing:

• Guidelines for building codes that promote active design and access to water fountains.
• Standards for nutrition and physical activity at childcare, after school programs, and recreation centers, along with implementation assistance.
• Land use guidelines promoting physical activity, which have been adopted by the King County Growth Management Planning Council (see reference)
• Guidelines for healthy products in vending machines.
• An interactive educational exhibit at the Pacific Science Center.
• Promotion and assistance activities for Healthy Corner Stores and Healthy Churches.
• Arrangements to accept WIC (Women, Infants, and Children food assistance) at Farmers Markets.

Seattle’s Parks Department has launched a major campaign, called “Healthy Parks, Healthy You”, designed to make parks and recreation facilities the centers for physical activity and good nutrition that they logically should be.  Department staff recognized that they needed to be the models for the behavior that they are seeking to spread.  They began with steps to change the internal culture by providing staff access to community center exercise equipment, creating a staff weight loss challenge, providing healthy food along with nutrition and physical activity education at meetings and trainings, and fostering staff discussion about how to encourage and create conditions for healthy living..

They then moved on to implement program changes for the public:

• 100% healthy products in vending machines.
• Healthy meal policies for childcare and community programs, along with education on healthy cooking.
• Gardens and community kitchens at Community Centers.
• Drop off sites for Community Supported Agriculture baskets at 7 Community Centers.

Surveys demonstrate that these actions are creating results among participants, who report doing more exercise and changing diet and fitness behaviors.

King County has pioneered a Healthy Incentives program to provide financial incentives for personnel to engage in health behaviors.  They have reduced health care costs by $23 million in 2011 and $38 million in 2012 as a result.  Seattle’s School Based Health Centers (funded under the Families and Education Levy) are preventing obesity through providing messaging and counseling to students, and fostering cooking and gardening programs.  The “Farm to Table” program has brought together community organizations to provide healthier food at more than 50 meal sites that provide meals for low income children and seniors.

All of these programs, in combination with the many other actions of individuals, businesses, and communities, are starting to make a difference.  But they are only the beginning.  Changing the cultural norms around food, physical activity, and healthy eating will require an array of strategies and commitments. 

Too many parts of our social fabric discourage activities that can bring about better health.  We are hoping to rebalance that equation by creating the conditions that will make good choices easier and more affordable.  Those kinds of efforts will encourage the individual, family, and community choices that will bring about the results that we need to enable personal and community health.

Special Committee to discuss Seawall

SEATTLE – The Seattle City Council’s Special Committee on the Central Waterfront, Seawall and Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program will meet after Full Council on Monday, April 23. 

The Committee will discuss public safety and protection of the Central Waterfront, the downtown business district, transportation and public infrastructure, a possible bond measure to replace the Elliot Bay Seawall and the Seawall design, schedule, cost estimates and next steps.

WHEN:
Monday, April 23, 2012, following Full Council
(approximately 2:30 p.m.)

WHERE:
Council Chambers, Seattle City Hall
600 Fourth Ave, Second floor, Seattle 98104

View the committee agenda here.

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

City of Seattle Seal

On a day of driving rain and snow in March, which perfectly demonstrated the effectiveness of the project, a hardy gathering of neighbors, design professionals, and city and county staff celebrated the official opening of the South Orcas Greenstreet project. 

The South Orcas Greenstreet is an innovative, community-driven natural drainage project developed by Cari Simson, a Georgetown neighborhood leader and former staff to the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition.   It’s a great example of how people in Seattle can take the lead in challenging environmental problems – and how local government and businesses can embrace and support this activism.  And, unfortunately, how our regulations can make life difficult for this assemblage of people of good will.  But we can change all that!

Six households on South Orcas joined together to create rain gardens in front of their houses.  Before the project, water ponded in low points on this relatively flat street, and did not flow evenly towards the storm drain.  King County is looking for ways to reduce street runoff into the drain anyway, because this drain is a combined sewer, and has overflows into the Duwamish.  This project will divert an estimated 5,376 gallons of runoff per year – a modest part of solving the overflow problem, but such projects can add up over time, and King County welcomed this as a demonstration and a real contribution.

Fortunately, this street has a wide planting strip, so there was space for rain garden swales.  The community received funding from the legal settlement fund that the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance uses to encourage community projects, along with in-kind services from SvR Design and Gary Merlino Construction. 

The City wanted to help make it happen as well, but unfortunately there are rules that had to be followed, and that meant that the Street Improvement Permit required an engineering survey ($10,000), a $5200 surety bond for the construction, and an inspection fee of $2200 – all for a $32,000 project.  It is the rule for any street project that requires curb cuts, but the rule did not contemplate community efforts like this one.  These kind of rules are very important to managing the right-of-way when a major development is planning to take actions that affect the street, but this is a different type of project.

Fortunately, City Departments recognized that this was way out of proportion, and clearly would discourage such efforts, which we want to encourage.  I asked the Departments to pull together a team to design a permit process that could apply to these kinds of projects, and they agreed.  If it requires legislation to make community work like this possible, I am happy to sponsor that, but we think it can likely be done within the Departments, by carefully carving out an exception process to the standard system.

Once again, the people of Seattle have shown that they want to be part of solving community problems, an attitude that the City fosters through much of our work, particularly the Neighborhood Matching Fund.  But sometimes we need to find a way to get out of the way of the community, and I am confident that we can find a way to make that possible!

Some historical perspective from Northwest Folklife:

Every year since 1972 Northwest Folklife has presented the Northwest Folklife Festival at the Seattle Center on Memorial Day Weekend.

The first Festival presented over 300 performers to an enthusiastic audience over Memorial Day weekend, and was hailed as a successful and needed addition to Northwest arts programs. Today, the four-day Festival attracts an audience of about 250,000 visitors and has over 6,000 volunteer performers and 800 volunteers. Visitors from all over the world come to Seattle Center to take part in the weekend’s activities, but the focus remains local–all performers hail from communities in the Northwest. The Folklife Festival is a truly Northwest experience, our diversity and our commonality told through music and dance.

Visit the Seattle Municipal Archives Folklife Audio Collection at http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/folk1.htm.

For more information on this weekend’s Next 50 opening celebration at the Seattle Center, visit http://www.thenextfifty.org/.

Seattle Municipal Archives has some excellent resources on the 1962 World’s Fair.  Click to view digital files, text files.  Image files can be viewed here and here.

Seattle Municipal Archives Item #139028

Sound Transit Link Light Rail train

The Sound Transit II (ST II) vote in 2008 funded an ambitious plan to build a light rail line all the way to Lynnwood.  University Link between downtown and the UW is under construction; Northgate Link from the UW to Northgate is in final design; and Lynnwood Link from Northgate to Lynnwood is completing scoping and is ready to move into formal environmental review.  That means that if Seattle wants input on a line that will open ten years in the future, we have to make our preferences known now.

And we just successfully did that.  While the ST II ballot measure did not include any Seattle stations between Northgate and 145^th, the Sound Transit Capital Committee has now unanimously approved considering a station at 130^th Street and I-5.  The Committee agreed to study the Sound Transit staff recommended configurations for the portion of the line within Seattle and Shoreline – the original ST Ii line with stations at 145^th and 185^th, and an alternative with stations at 130^th, 155^th, and 185^th. 

I proposed an amendment to the list of EIS alternatives that would consider an alignment with stations at 130^th, 145^th, and 185^th, and the Committee approved my proposal without dissent – immediately after an intense debate about studying a possible station at 175^th over the opposition of Shoreline and a negative analysis by Sound Transit staff.  We partnered with the City of Shoreline to put together this proposal — Shoreline considers 155^th and 175^th as poor prospects for transit oriented development (TOD) and station siting.

I advanced my proposal with the unanimous support of the Seattle City Council, which approved Resolution 31168, supporting the study of a light rail station at 130th in addition to the proposed station at 145th Street.  We supported this alternative because 130^th would have frequent and convenient transit connections to the nearby Bitter Lake Hub Urban Village and Lake City Hub Urban Village.  In addition, the Northgate Area Comprehensive Plan recommends including at least one station in Seattle north of Northgate and adjacent to I-5 in order to provide access for Seattle residents while reducing traffic congestion and other impacts on the Northgate area.  And, while 130^th and I-5 is not a great location for transit oriented development, it does offer some opportunities.

Sound Transit has already made a major decision on the Lynnwood corridor that limits TOD prospects by finding that an alignment oriented around SR 99 was not affordable.  This alignment, unfortunately, was estimated to cost some $800 million more than the I-5 corridor.  The I-5 corridor does have the advantage of providing direct and rapid service for the two urban centers of Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood, but the TOD opportunities in King County are limited.  Shoreline, however, believes that we can develop TOD around the 185^th Street station, and that 145^th also has some possibilities.  By adding 130^th to this configuration, we open the possibility for TOD work within Seattle:  as noted above, there is some potential near the station as well as two nearby urban villages.

A final alignment decision will be made after the EIS has been completed, in the summer of 2013.  At that time, we will have better information on the costs and prospects for the configurations under study, and hopefully will be able to make a good case for including the 130^th station in the Preferred Alternative.  Construction would start in 2018, with service beginning in 2023.

Watch Seattle City Councilmembers share their
favorite Seattle Center memories

SEATTLE - In anticipation of the Seattle Center's Next Fifty celebration kick-off on Saturday, April 21, Seattle City Councilmembers sat down to share their favorite Seattle Center memories. Tune in to our Council Connection blog over the next week as they share their stories.

What:
Seattle City Councilmembers share their Seattle Center memories

When:
Morning and afternoon blog postings, April 16-20, 2012

Where:
Council Connection Blog at http://council.seattle.gov/
Subscribe to the RSS feed at http://council.seattle.gov/feed/

For more information on the Seattle Center's Next Fifty celebration, including the schedule of events, visit http://seattlecenter.com/news/detail.aspx?id=1719.

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

City of Seattle Seal

United Way of King County has boldly announced a goal of making King County a hunger free community.  The City Council applauds this goal, and on March 15, I was a plenary speaker at a Hunger Action Forum convened by United Way, the Seattle Food Council, and the Meals Partnership Coalition to look at strategies for meeting this goal.  On March 19 the Council joined United Way in proclaiming Hunger Awareness Week as part of the campaign.

Fulfilling this commitment will require a sophisticated and complex engagement with the people of our community.  It will take resources, understanding, and the will to follow through.  Seattle has funded programs to provide food for people who can’t afford to eat as part of our human services budget.  Continuing this work and addressing hunger in a more comprehensive way is a critical part of my Local Food Action Initiative, and we have increased our financial and programmatic commitment over the last several years.

The critical step in dealing with hunger is to make linkages between the underlying causes.  The reason people don’t have enough to eat is, of course, the direct result of poverty – and there are many causes for poverty, including lack of jobs, lack of education, problems of health and disability, discrimination, and many others.  A campaign against hunger is also a campaign against poverty.

But there is still another critical linkage to make, and that is the link between hunger and obesity – both of which are directly connected to poverty and health.  Hunger and obesity are two sides of the same coin – people with limited incomes often wind up eating food that leads to poor nutrition, because what they perceive as cheap food (it may not actually be cheaper, but that is the perception) tends to be high in empty calories and low in the variety of nutrients that lead to good health.  Sadly, these dual crises are also linked to a national food policy that has encouraged and subsidized the production of commodity foods – especially corn and other monocultures, which are then translated into the variety of less healthy and less expensive foods that wind up in the low income diet.  There are two vicious circles here:  one is the link between federal subsidies which lead to less healthy food being cheap, and the other being the link between poverty, cheap food, and obesity and other health problems, which in turn makes it more difficult to get out of poverty.  Children who get poor nutrition don’t do as well in school, and adults who are obese and unhealthy have difficulties getting and keeping work.  In order to truly end hunger and obesity, we have to break these cycles.

That is a daunting undertaking, and we know that it will take time, energy, and resources to end hunger, obesity, and poverty.  But every step in the right direction will help some people, and if we organize ourselves we can create virtuous cycles instead:  good food means healthier kids who can do better in school and have a better chance of acquiring the skills to get out of poverty.

So the challenge is multi-tiered.  In the short-term, our work must involve feeding the hungry now, by supporting food banks, getting food stamps to more of those eligible, and other steps to address the immediate needs of the hungry.  But at the same time, we must ensure that food banks continue to increase their resources of fresh and healthy products, that we increase the number of low income people who can grow their own food, either at p-patches or other places.  Finally, we must advance the whole array of other activities that will help to change our food system.  These include steps like protecting farmland, promoting farmers markets and getting them equipped to accept food stamps, working to get fresh food available in areas where there are no stores that carry it, setting up learning gardens and community kitchens at our community centers, and providing land for people in the City to organize urban farms (as Seattle has at Marra Farms in South Park, at the community farm launched last year at Rainier Vista, and at our newest farm in Rainier Beach, which will go into production this year).  And challenging the federal government to take a new direction in the renewal of the Farm Bill.

We are just beginning to understand all the benefits that the work on local food can bring to our society – a better environment, a stronger economy, a healthier population, and lively and vibrant communities.  To foster a hunger free King County, our task is to ensure that those benefits are shared by everyone.  United Way has launched the vision – and now we have to do the work to bring it to fruition.

City of Seattle's economic programs recognized nationally
League of Cities touts three business engagement programs

Today Mayor Mike McGinn and Councilmember Richard Conlin celebrated the National League of Cities (NLC)' tool kit for local leaders, entrepreneurs and small businesses. The tool kit highlights the economic development practices of seven cities, including Seattle's Office of Economic Development (OED)'s business services program.

"We are committed to providing access to services to local businesses to help them grow and compete in our local economy," said Mayor McGinn. "I congratulate my staff and our Office of Economic Development for their work to forward the goals of my Seattle Jobs Plan. I also thank Councilmember Conlin for his work to support Seattle's local economy. The National League of Cities' recognition of our work is further evidence that Seattle is on the right track."

Under the Mayor's Seattle Jobs Plan, the Office of Economic Development has developed a number of programs to better serve the local business community. Three of the programs: the Business Retention and Expansion Program; the monthly City Business Casual networking series; and the Citywide Business Advocacy Team (CBAT), are highlighted as successful examples of how to engage business communities and promote economic development.

"As President of the City Council when the recession hit, my first priority was to get Seattle's economy back on track. These programs are examples of the Office of Economic Development's key role in supporting our business sector and getting people back to work," said Councilmember Richard Conlin, NLC board member, and chair of the Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee. "Economic recovery cannot happen by itself and the purpose of my Economic Recovery Resolution, is to make it easier to do business in Seattle by identifying and removing unnecessary barriers to growth and helping the private sector thrive. The tools highlighted by the National League of Cities are working in Seattle and I believe they can help other cities too."

Business Retention and Expansion Program
OED created the Business Retention and Expansion Program to actively reach out to businesses to understand their needs, help them navigate government processes and connect them to resources. Interactions with individual businesses are tracked by staff, ensuring proper follow-up and identification of systematic and recurring problems. This information is then used to advocate for policy or services changes to better reflect the on-the-ground needs of local businesses.

Through partnerships with key stakeholders, such as the Downtown Seattle Association, enterpriseSeattle, Environmental Coalition of South Seattle, Manufacturing Industrial Council and Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association, OED communicates directly with the local business community and respond to its needs. Over the past two years, OED has conducted 1,219 such business visits and provided 671 businesses with resources and assistance.

"OED staff work hard at continuous improvement of our business assistance programs," said Council President Sally J. Clark, chair of the Council's Committee on Economic Resiliency and Regional Relations. "Staff know that even a little support to a small business owner can mean more jobs, more business buzz in a neighborhood and overall success in the city. I look forward to studying the other cities' efforts for great ideas."

City Business Casual
The monthly City Business Casual networking series provides the Seattle business community with regular, direct access to business-focused city officials, including influential city leaders and key department heads and representatives. Business owners and advocates have a chance to ask questions, suggest ideas, and troubleshoot specific issues in an informal and relaxed setting. For upcoming dates, visit the City Business Casual webpage.

Citywide Business Advocacy Team (CBAT)
The Citywide Business Advocacy Team helps businesses navigate government services, with over 75 businesses assisted in 2011 on issues ranging from permitting to public safety to land use. The key to its success is the interdepartmental group with representation from all of the major departments involved in regulatory, zoning and economic development issues, including Economic Development, Planning and Development, Transportation, Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle City Light, Police, Fire and Finance and Administrative Services.

"We have developed finance and advocacy programs to support micro enterprises, small and growing businesses, and our larger employers," said Steve Johnson, director of the Office of Economic Development. "Our priority remains to continue to execute programs that are relevant and meet the needs of businesses throughout Seattle."

OED also has a business services portal that directs businesses to resources they need to START | GROW | or GREEN their businesses at www.growseattle.com.

National League of Cities
The National League of Cities (NLC) is dedicated to helping city leaders build better communities. Working in partnership with the 49 state municipal leagues, NLC serves as a resource to and an advocate for the more than 19,000 cities, villages and towns it represents.

Learn more at the National League of Cities' Supporting Entrepreneurs and Small Business Toolkit.

See the full City of Seattle's Office of Economic Development profile at the Seattle, Washington profile under City examples.

City's Office of Economic Development (OED)
OED supports a healthy business environment and empowers companies to grow and compete. We provide services directly to businesses through advocacy, retention and expansion assistance, and workforce development. OED has several financing options for businesses, including options for small to medium to large businesses. Visit www.growseattle.com to access city services for businesses, and for more information about our office, visit www.seattle.gov/economicdevelopment.

Seattle Jobs Plan
Mayor Mike McGinn's vision for next generation economic development that creates a sustainable economy with shared prosperity in Seattle was launched in August 2010. It consists of new and existing policies, programs and investments designed to help create quality jobs, protect the environment, and ensure that taxpayers get true value from the city of Seattle's public investments. For more information, visit www.seattle.gov/mayor/jobsplan.

Seattle City Council
Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

All Mayor's Office press conferences, town halls and general public meetings are archived by Seattle Channel. Many town halls and press conferences are also broadcast live to the web. Sign up for The Reader, our office newsletter, at our website. And learn more about your neighbors and the mayor’s activities on our blog.

###

Office of the Mayor

Seattle City Council

Library leaders and city officials join together in support of levy for The Seattle Public Library

Seattle Public Library Board President Marie McCaffrey, City Librarian Marcellus Turner, Mayor Mike McGinn and City Councilmember Richard Conlin announced support for a Library levy to restore cuts and improve core services at a noon press conference at Seattle's Central Library. City officials and Library leaders were joined by scores of Library patrons at the event.

The Library levy would fund increased Library hours, build the collection of books and materials, enhance computers and online services and improve building maintenance. The plan grew out of a two-year process that involved comments from more than 39,000 residents through public meetings, open houses, surveys, focus groups and forums. There were more than 14 million visits to The Seattle Public Library last year and over 11 million books and materials circulated.

The City Council is expected to vote on legislation that would authorize an Aug. 7, 2012, ballot for a Library levy at 2:30 p.m. today.

The seven-year Library levy of $17 million annually would stabilize the Library budget after four years of cuts that have eroded services. The Library has been closed for one week each year since 2009, 15 of 26 branches are closed two days a week, and the budget to buy books and other items has been cut by more than 13 percent since 2009. The levy would also provide an estimated $5 million to address anticipated cuts in 2013. The Library would continue to rely on the city's general fund for the majority of its budget. At about 15 cents per $1,000 of assessed value, the levy would cost the median homeowner approximately $52 a year.

"We owe a huge thank you not only to the mayor and council for their collaboration and support, but also to the people of Seattle who helped shape the plan over the past two years," said McCaffrey. "This is an important step toward completing the vision of the 1998 'Libraries for All' bond measure, which resulted in new and improved libraries across the city."

McGinn said people depend on libraries for access to information and resources they need to succeed. "Libraries are the great equalizers for people of all ages," he said. "A strong Library system contributes to the economic, educational and cultural vitality of our city." He noted that libraries are key partners in supporting his initiatives for youth and families and to bolster civic engagement. "Libraries support our residents looking for work, students needing homework assistance, and people who cannot afford a computer," he said. "Our libraries are educational centers in every community and gathering places for neighborhood meetings and activities."

Conlin initiated a study of alternative funding options for the Library in 2010 after recognizing the city's fiscal challenges and declining tax revenues were affecting services. A levy package grew out of that effort.

"At the City Council's April 3 public hearing, Library patrons spoke to how they have been impacted by the cuts and how critical it was that our libraries be open with the resources and assistance they need," Conlin said. "Libraries are particularly important in challenging economic times and it just doesn't make sense to cut services when people need them the most."

City Librarian Marcellus Turner said the plan was built to reflect the priorities of the community. "Libraries are the city's classrooms for both individuals and the community," he said. "The Library levy will help ensure we can provide essential Library services now and for the next generation of users." 

Ninety-one-year-old Eleanor Owen and local mystery writer Kathrine Beck also spoke about how the Library has helped them, and their families and friends, throughout their lives.

For more information, visit www.spl.org and select "Libraries for All: A Plan for the Present, A Foundation for the Future," or call 206-386-4636.

For more information contact: Andra Addison, communications director, 206-386-4103

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

King Ccounty forest canopy (photo from crawford.tardigrade.net)

The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) has approved a resolution that will engage cities in a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to protect rural lands in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties.  Under this program, counties would buy the right to develop from landowners, thus ensuring that those lands will remain as farmland or other rural activity.  Cities would then require developers to purchase TDRs if the developers wish to build to the maximum allowed height and density.

The “Landscape Conservation and Local Infrastructure Program” implements a law approved by the Legislature in 2011, thanks to the work of the Cascade Land Conservancy (now known as Forterra).  The law also creates a voluntary program that allows infrastructure financing through the incremental increase in property values that result from development in a specific area.  The area must be designated to receive the development rights transferred from the rural lands and must have infrastructure needs that are necessary to fund in order to generate the development that will use the transferred development rights.  Under these circumstances, the local government can receive up to 75% of the incremental property taxes that would otherwise be paid to other entities in order to finance the necessary infrastructure.

The first step in implementing this program is for each county to calculate the total number of development rights that may be available on eligible natural resource and rural lands.  The Puget Sound Regional Council then allocates these development rights to cities that are eligible under the state legislation to receive them.  Only King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties are covered by the legislation.

Each county calculated the number of development rights that can be transferred by determining how many acres of agricultural, forest, other rural land are currently unprotected, and how many development rights exist on that land that could be purchased from the property owners.  King County then added the number of development units that already have been purchased under other programs and not yet transferred into urban areas.  King County proposed allocating 7,643 development rights, Pierce County 5,371, and Snohomish County 11,619, for a total of 24,633 development rights.  If the program succeeds, 811,535 rural acres would be permanently protected from development.  The role of PSRC is to allocate those development rights to each city based on the City’s share of regional housing and employment targets, modified by “other relevant factors”.

The City of Seattle strongly supports this program, and we are looking forward to participating.  However, we also have a complex structure for allocating development rights that includes requiring developers to fund affordable housing, protecting historic buildings, and other priorities within the City.  We were concerned that an unrealistic number of development rights were proposed to be allocated to Seattle under this program – that the Counties were not going to be able to obtain as many rights as they thought they could, and that Seattle would not be able to use the nearly 6,300 TDR’s that were allocated to us.  After much negotiation, a new formula was agreed to that reduced the total number of TDR’s expected to be generated in this program by 25%, which we believe is a more accurate reflection of what is realistically possible, and included a couple of other provisions that directed more TDR’s to smaller cities, who generally do not have the existing TDR type of programs that Seattle does.  The result is that Seattle will receive 3,440 TDR’s through this program – still more than half the number of TDR’s expected to be generated in King County.

This new allocation is still ambitious.  In order for the City to use the infrastructure financing tool that is part of this program, developers or the City need to purchase a certain portion of those 3,440 TDRs.  City staff is currently evaluating the costs, benefits and risks to determine whether the program will be financially feasible for the City.  We are hopeful that we will find a way to participate in this program that could protect so much of our farmland and other rural areas, and are looking forward to the next steps.  These would include ordinances approved by the County and City to get the program up and working.  If all goes well, we hope to have those completed in the next few months.

Levy proposal addresses ongoing fiscal challenges and supports critical services

What:
After a two-year process involving the thoughtful contributions of tens of thousands of residents and collaboration between The Seattle Public Library, Mayor’s Office and City Council, a proposal to stabilize Library funding and improve Library services is complete.

Who:
Library Board President Marie McCaffrey, City Librarian Marcellus Turner, Mayor Mike McGinn and Seattle City Councilman Richard Conlin will announce a proposed Library levy to address ongoing financial challenges and support key service priorities: Library hours, collections, technology and building maintenance.

91-year-old Library patron Eleanor Owen and Seattle author Kathrine Beck will also speak about the Library’s importance to the city’s educational, cultural and economic vitality.

Library and city officials will be joined by other members of the City Council and Library Board, as well as the Friends of the Library, Library Foundation and members of the public.

When:
Noon Monday, April 9, 2012

Schedule:
Noon to 12:30 p.m. – Event Remarks
Library Board president, mayor, City Councilman Richard Conlin and city librarian will talk about the levy plan and what it offers the community. Two Library patrons will talk about the importance of libraries in their lives. The press will receive copies of the proposal, “Libraries for All: A Plan for the Present, A Foundation for the Future.”

12:30 p.m. – 1 p.m. - Other Broadcast Opportunities
Library officials, the mayor, City Council members, Library patrons Eleanor Owen and Kathrine Beck, as well as Library Friends and Foundation members available for further interviews. Opportunities to film baby story time, tax assistance program and poetry group and other activities happening in the building. City Council is scheduled to vote on the proposed Library levy for the Aug. 7, 2012 ballot at 2:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers, 600 Fourth Ave.

Where:
The Central Library, 1000 Fourth Ave., Level 3

Information:
Andra Addison, The Seattle Public Library, 206-386-4103, andra.addison@spl.org
Caroline Ullmann, The Seattle Public Library, 206-615-1627, caroline.ullmann@spl.org

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

Downtown Central Library

On Monday, April 9, the Council will vote on placing a seven-year, $122.6 million property tax levy on the August 7, 2012, ballot to support the Seattle Public Library (SPL).  The Council is likely to approve the ordinance.  This levy will restore the services that have been cut from the City budget since the recession began, protect the library from further cuts, and add funding that will take the library to a new level of service designed for the 21^st century.  This means expanded collections, including electronic materials, hours that make branches more accessible for working families and school children, better technology, and maintenance that will protect the investments in our Central Library and 26 branches.

All over the country, libraries are being cut back as City governments are challenged by the recession.  In many other cities, this has led to large public protests, and City governments have responded by trying to find ways to keep libraries going.  Seattle values our libraries, and the Council has managed to avoid drastic cuts that would close branches or eviscerate services.  However, the cuts we have been forced to make have reduced the accessibility of library services and greatly strained staff and facility resources.

The proposed levy would raise $17 million in 2013 and grow by 1% per year.  The assessment would be about $0.15 per $1,000 of assessed value.  The annual cost to the owner of a residential property with the median assessed value for Seattle ($361,000) would be around $52.

Approximately 95% of SPL’s $52 million operating budget for 2012 is supported by the City’s General Fund.  SPL’s capital budget is largely funded by the City’s Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues.  Both of these resources have been greatly constrained in the past four years.

Recognizing this, the Council initiated a process of researching funding options in 2010, and in 2011 continued this effort by calling for a proposal for a potential 2012 levy.  In December 2011, the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 31345, which set forth a structure, process and schedule for the development of a 2012 library ballot measure.  CB 117425 is the result of the work plan articulated in Resolution 31345 and would authorize the placement of a specific library levy proposal on the August 2012 ballot.

If approved by Seattle voters, proceeds from that levy would support the following four categories of library services from January 2013 through December 2019:

1)   Open hours and access – $26.8 million (annual average – $3.8 million)

SPL would add back operating hours at branch libraries and increase the reference services available at branches and the Central Library.  Funding would also be provided for security services and technology support.  Of the 15 branches that are currently open five days per week, 13 would gain Sunday hours and two would transition to a seven day schedule.  SPL would no longer have a week-long, system-wide closure each year.

2)    Collections – $17.3 million (annual average – $2.5 million)

The variety and depth of SPL’s collection would be increased to better meet patron demand for materials.  The collections component of the levy would also fund increased purchasing of downloadable materials, such as e-books, and more copies of popular material in print, digital, and other formats.

3)    Technology – $10.6 million (annual average – $1.5 million)

The Library would replace and upgrade computers and technology infrastructure that was purchased during the Libraries for All capital program.  Levy funding would also support improvements to SPL’s online services.

4)    Regular and Major Maintenance – $26 million (annual average – $3.7 million)

Levy funds would provide additional support for regular and major maintenance activities at SPL’s 27 buildings.  This would not include funding for any new or expanded library facilities. 

The remaining funds generated by the levy would be used to restore funding for open hours and services that would otherwise be cut in 2013 due to the City’s continuing fiscal challenges.  For more information, see http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/library_levy.htm

City of Seattle Seal

On Monday, April 2, the Council unanimously approved rezones in the North Beacon Hill and Othello Residential Urban Villages.  These rezones are designed to take the next stage in implementing the neighborhood and station area plans for those neighborhoods, by creating the zoning needed to promote additional development around the station.

The North Beacon Hill legislation  (Council Bill 117375) will rezone 85 parcels on 12 acres of land around the station, along with expanding the Station Area Overlay boundary to include the block immediately north of the light rail station and some areas on the north end of the Beacon Hill business district.  It is estimated that these rezones will almost double the current capacity for growth in the North Beacon Hill Residential Urban Village, from 677 units to 1294 units.  Not all of this capacity is expected to be used in the 2031 planning horizon.  The actual number of units expected to be developed by 2031 increases from 233 to 446.  This is still a fairly modest level of development for an area served by light rail, but it represents the best estimate of what developers would actually be willing to proceed with over this time period.  The rezones include requirements for affordable housing.  Development on the site owned by El Centro de La Raza between El Centro and the station is expected to create a major portion of the new housing.  This project will also include community amenities such as a plaza and spaces for small businesses that serve community residents.

The Othello legislation (Council Bill 117412) will rezone 29 acres of land around the station.  These rezones will increase the estimated capacity in the Othello station area from 6046 units to 6350 units, a fairly modest change.  The actual number of projected units to be developed by 2031 will increase from 2082 to 2187.  These rezones also include requirements for affordable housing.   The Othello area has already had significant new development at New Holly and in the Station at Othello project.  The City hopes that these minor modifications will create a pattern of development that will be more balanced and attractive to property owners and the development community.  Achieving the 2187 units by 2031 would be a major addition to Seattle’s housing stock, and still leave significant capacity for future growth.

The proposals were developed through an extensive community process, beginning in 2009.  A set of Comprehensive Plan Amendments derived from this planning process and providing the framework for these zoning changes were approved as part of the 2010-2011 Comprehensive Plan Update in April of 2011.  This legislation completes the plan update process.

These are the first neighborhood plans to be formally updated as part of a systematic process focusing on the opportunities for transit oriented development.  The updating process was initially limited to light rail station areas, especially those that do not have sufficient zoning to truly support the effective utilization of the light rail line.  The Mount Baker Station area (part of the North Rainier Neighborhood Plan) was also designated for review in this phase, but that work has not yet come to the Council.  The Roosevelt neighborhood initiated a plan update on its own, a modified version of which has already been adopted by the Council.

The next phase of plan updates expanded the criteria to include neighborhoods served by extensive bus service, and covers the Bitter Lake Neighborhood Plan on Metro’s Aurora Rapid Ride line along with the Rainier Beach Neighborhood Plan on the light rail line.  I am advocating for an accelerated process to consider future plan updates, and I am especially concerned that the City focus on the Northgate and University District plans, which are the two urban centers located on the next extension of light rail.  The City has already extensively updated zoning on Capitol Hill.   

Experience from the initial plan updates suggests that communities are fairly satisfied with their existing plans.  Neighborhoods have asked that the City concentrate on implementing the remaining items from the original plans, rather than trying to create whole new lists of implementation measures.  Updates could be more carefully focused on changes to reflect changing conditions, such as the land use changes in response to increased transit opportunities that were the major new elements in the North Beacon Hill and Othello plans.  My hope is that by concentrating on implementing existing plans and limiting updates to changed conditions, we can start doing as many as four plan updates per year.

Feedback sought on proposed Seattle Public Library Levy

SEATTLE – Providing funding stability for the Seattle Public Library is a priority for the City of Seattle. Seattle City Councilmembers invite members of the public to provide their feedback on the proposed Library Levy legislation before the Council. 

WHAT:
Public Hearing on the proposed Library Levy

WHEN:
Tuesday, April 3, 5:30 p.m. (Sign up will open at 5 p.m.)

WHERE:
Council Chambers, second floor
Seattle City Hall, 600 Fourth Avenue, Seattle 98104

Over the last two years, the Library has involved over 39,000 residents in strategic planning for the Library's future and setting priorities for Library services. In community surveys, focus groups panel discussions, five open houses, and three community meetings, the people of Seattle came together to identify the priorities for the Library's work now and in the future. Please take this opportunity to share your feedback on the proposed seven year Library Levy.

For more information on the proposed Library Levy, please visit the Council's issue page.  The proposed legislation will likely be voted on at the April 9, meeting of the Special Committee on the Library Levy at 2:30 p.m. in Council Chambers.

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council's website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

That’s why I have been working on finding a way to get these buildings upgraded, and we have now taken the next step by convening a Policy Committee of interested stakeholders to provide feedback to City Staff, the Mayor and City Council on options for developing a retrofit program for URMs. 

There are over 800 URM buildings in Seattle.  These buildings are typically relatively low, located in older areas of the City, and are of the highest concern for possible collapse when a large earthquake takes place.  The earthquakes in Chile, New Zealand, Japan, and Indonesia over the last few years have demonstrated how dangerous a place the Pacific Rim is – and the only region not yet affected is the Pacific Northwest.  URM buildings were generally built before modern earthquake resistant building codes, and these recent earthquakes demonstrated how much of a concern URMs are.   DPD and the Office of Emergency Management have already completed a study of the number of buildings in Seattle and developed an understanding of the risk that we face and what we need to do in order to reduce that risk.

The good news is that URMs are a relatively small part of our building stock.  The bad news is that retrofits are generally expensive, and that these buildings are older and relatively modest in size, so making improvements could be difficult for building owners.  If the City simply adopted a regulation requiring these buildings to be retrofitted, this is likely to be financially unaffordable for many owners, and they would either close the buildings or tear them down.  Many of these buildings are elegant and historically significant structures with many years of expected life.  Even with the recovery gathering steam, this is not a great time to tell building owners to spend large sums of money that will have little immediate payback.

That’s the dilemma we face.  On the one hand, we can keep gambling that the earthquake won’t hit – on the other hand, we could force serious economic consequences on the property owners and the City.  We need to find a way to connect these issues, to stop taking risks while making retrofits affordable.  That’s why the collection of business owners, property owners, residents, and interested individuals who were identified and invited by the City to participate in this process will discuss a variety of topics and provide recommendations and advice to the City for inclusion in the URM policy.  What we would like them to do is figure out a way that the City can support a retrofit process in a way that is affordable to property owners, by figuring out how to lower costs, stretch out requirements over time, or provide incentives that will help property owners make this happen.

It’s not an easy assignment, and there are no readily available answers.  But we must take action, and I am looking forward to receiving their report, to be completed by the fall of 2012. Legislation implementing a URM retrofit program is anticipated to be submitted to the City Council in early 2013.

Domestic violence is one of the leading causes of homelessness for women, but it has often not been part of the discussion around community housing programs.  Victims/survivors face considerable challenges in accessing the safe shelters and transitional and permanent housing that is critical for their long term safety.

In order to better understand the complexity of this issue, Councilmembers took a training course on domestic violence, conducted by the Human Services Department, using the model they have developed for City employees.  The Council also held a forum with a panel of domestic violence survivors and housing providers to review the areas of need, and to identify where our resources could be most useful.

Our Human Services Department (HSD) will take three major actions in 2012 to implement this priority.

• In the spring of 2012, HSD will begin the process of renewing and modifying our contracts with human service providers who work on homelessness and housing issues.  The new approach to funding will be guided by a long-term Strategic Investment Plan that was developed in 2011 in conjunction with an extensive community process, and that involved staff working on domestic violence issues.  Through this process and the restructuring of the funding process to follow the Investment Plan, there will be greater opportunities to ensure that agencies working with homeless populations and low income housing take into account the specific needs of domestic violence victims in their proposals.
• Because domestic violence survivors often have children with them, and also have skills and education that can allow them to quickly reestablish themselves in a secure living situation, they are good candidates for rapid transition into more stable housing.  HSD is currently piloting a program that will provide rental/move-in assistance for clients who have left their homes under stress or are ready to move from temporary shelter into more stable housing.  The program has $27,500 in funding initially, and if it turns out to be successful, HSD would look at moving other funds into it.
• Shelter providers need training on how to deal with the special concerns of domestic violence survivors.  Among other critical issues, survivors often fear further abuse, and need to have their identities safeguarded and privacy protected.  The City has partnered with the King County Housing Authority to conduct training sessions to increase the awareness of domestic violence among housing providers, and to give them guidance on how they might modify their screening or intake procedures to serve domestic violence victims more effectively.

There are tens of thousands of domestic violence incidents annually in King County, and there is substantial evidence that a significant portion of the women and women with children   experiencing homelessness are victims/survivors.  These programs will help to ensure that appropriate services are provided and that these women and children have the opportunities to reestablish secure lives.

Washington has a long and proud heritage of cooperatives and other alternative institutions.  We have the largest percentage of publicly-owned electricity providers of any state, many successful credit unions, and some of the largest and most well-known cooperatives in the country – like Recreational Equipment Incorporated (REI), the Puget Consumers Co-Op (PCC), and Group Health Cooperative (GHC).

Yet, until recently, Washington required that public agencies deposit their funds only in commercial banks, and prohibited them from using credit unions.  State law requires that any entity that will hold public funds must be certified as a ‘public depository’ by the Public Deposit Protection Commission, which consists of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and the State Treasurer.  This Commission can only authorize funds to be deposited in entities which will provide collateral that can be used as part of a pool to ensure that public funds are secure if any institution fails or defaults.  These fairly conservative financial policies were designed and have been managed to, appropriately, ensure that public funds are stewarded properly and that the public is not put at risk.

Credit unions don’t quite fit into these standards, so they were not certified to hold public funds.  In 2010, the legislature decided that credit unions should be eligible, but that they would provide security in a different way, through their protection as part of the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund.  But the 2010 legislation only allowed the use of state-chartered credit unions (many credit unions hold national charters), and limited deposits to $100,000, even though credit union accounts are insured up to $250,000.

The new legislation adds nationally –chartered credit unions to the list of eligible institutions, and sets the ceiling for public deposits at the maximum deposit insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, which now is $250,000 but which could increase in future years.

This is a modest change, but one which contributes to opening up the financial system.  Congratulations and thanks to the legislature and the sponsors for making this happen.

Comprehensive Plan map, 1950

Maligning ‘Seattle Process’ is somewhat of a cottage industry in our town, although it may not generate much economic development.  We have some processes that drag on way past their sell-by date.  And sometimes people deride process because it didn’t go their way.  Seattle has a history of effective engagement, but often we don’t design an appropriate process for decision making – such as in the recent Roosevelt neighborhood rezone decision.

BTW, IMHO it should not be called ‘Seattle Process’.  It’s actually ‘Washington process’, and the ownership has to be shared.  Some recent outstanding examples – the viaduct replacement, SR 520, and Sound Transit East Link – are all processes that are not Seattle exclusive, and not even Seattle driven.

The Seattle Neighborhood Planning Process is an example of the right way to do public involvement and decision making.  This was a complicated process in which 37 neighborhoods analyzed their current conditions, involved some 20,000 residents, and came up with a set of land use recommendations to meet their assigned targets under the Comprehensive Plan, and recommendations for neighborhood improvements.  The process was commissioned in 1995.  The planning was undertaken in 1996-1998.  By 1999 all 37 plans had been completed and approved by the Seattle City Council, along with all land use revisions required to meet the Comprehensive Plan targets.  Since then, the City has worked its way through the 6000 recommendations for improvements, and has completed most of them.

Why did the original neighborhood planning process work so well?  Because the parameters were laid out with great precision, and there was a clear deadline for decision making.  Each neighborhood was given a growth target, and was asked to decide whether it was reasonable.  Each neighborhood knew that they were entitled to come up with a wish list for implementation if they met the targets.  And each neighborhood was given both the process guidelines and resources for carrying out the planning process.  Neighborhood planning started in an atmosphere of controversy.  Discontent over growth targets fueled political insurgency culminating in the election of Comprehensive Plan opponent Charlie Chong to the City Council in a special election in 1996.  But every neighborhood ultimately accepted its growth target and completed the process on time and on budget.

Here are five steps that we can take to make processes work better:

1. Remember that an effective process is something to be proud of and to embrace.  Involving people in decisions that will affect their lives is a good thing, and it usually improves outcomes – none of us is as smart as all of us, and there are countless examples of projects that are better because of thoughtful engagement.
2. Keep in mind that process works best when the steps are clearly laid out in advance, possible outcomes are defined, and there are clear statements about how input will be used, who will make the final decision, and when that will happen.  A lack of clarity around these parameters is the most frequent cause of frustration.  Sometimes circumstances change, and you have to reopen processes, but that should be the exception, not the norm.  It’s not fair to the many busy people in our community, who have the right to be involved, to drag out processes until the only people participating are the last ones standing.  People have the right to know when their involvement is meaningful, and continuing to punt decisions down the field “to hear more input” will, perhaps counter-intuitively, often lead to less real involvement, not more.
3. Make sure to manage the process so that constructive input gets attention, and sabotage is recognized and discouraged.  Everyone should have the opportunity to express their opinion.  But when you are making critical decisions, the people who are involved must agree to commit to an outcome and be willing to live with a reasonable one, even if it wasn’t their first choice.  As Hubert Humphrey once put it:  “The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.”  It is important to challenge all parties to engage constructively.
4. Strive for consensus; seek win-win solutions; but acknowledge that not every outcome will be win-win.  An honest effort to come up with consensus can pay huge dividends.  Seeking to engage people’s interests and values, rather than engaging in positional debate, offers the best chance to achieve agreement. If people’s input is respected, and a sincere effort is made to accommodate it, they will most often be willing to go along with an outcome.  At some point (defined by the parameters set out in advance!), the discussion has to come to a close, and if consensus cannot be achieved, that should be acknowledged and everyone encouraged to look for an outcome that is acceptable.
5. Work to improve the structures that make decision making harder.  Decision authority is fragmented, both legally and institutionally, in our system.  Sometimes this is a strength, as having many people engaged helps to build the constituency that will ensure that good decisions are implemented.  But sometimes there are too many steps, too many hurdles, and multiple decision makers who don’t necessarily have an interest in bringing things to a close.  Reviewing some of the obstacles to making a decision could be a constructive effort to shorten the decision making process.

Conflict is not a bad thing.  It is how we manage conflict that determines whether we will be successful.  The best way to do that is to lay out clear principles and parameters in advance, work to engage all relevant parties, and then make the call when it is clear that input has been taken and it is time to come to a decision.  And the first – and critical – decision must be to commit to a process that is well-designed from the start.

• Support developing Food Web, an initiative to increase and sustain the capacity of the Puget Sound regional food system.
• Use the Seattle Farm Bill Principles as a tool to work with local, regional, and national partners to encourage local governments and others to support them and advocate for appropriate policy in the renewal of the Farm Bill.
• Convene community partners working on hunger issues to identify next steps to meet immediate needs.  Continue efforts towards a long-range campaign to meet the long-range needs of underserved communities by improving healthy food access and participating in community building around the food system.
• Work with the Regional Food Policy Council to create an Action Agenda and launch a project to inform and engage elected officials in food issues.
• Coordinate with state agencies and organizations around the state to strengthen Washington State food policy work, and raise the salience of food issues for candidates for Governor.
• Work with the Seattle Human Rights Commission to develop policies and practices around the concept of food as a basic human right.
• Create a campaign to promote the health and nutrition of City employees, modeled after the successful work in the Department of Parks and Recreation.
• Update and begin implementation of the P-Patch Strategic Plan.
• Support further action steps to make City and other public lands available for food production.
• Develop and adopt Phase 2 of the land use code changes to encourage food production and urban agriculture.
• Convene organizations working to preserve and enhance farm land in King County, including County agencies, the Agriculture Commission, and the King Conservation District, to develop coordinated strategies.
• Develop additional opportunities for expanding economic activity, marketing, and jobs in the local food economy including exploring how best to support Puget Sound Fresh.
• Increase connections between the city and local and regional farmers and increase ties with small and mid-sized farmers in Eastern Washington.
• Work with food system stakeholders to increase small-scale regional distribution that supports small farms and farmers.
• Continue to strengthen urban agriculture including finding a home for the business directory of urban agriculture related businesses in Seattle and the urban agriculture business association.
• Develop additional strategies for preserving farmland to produce food for Seattle residents in partnership with entities such as the Pike Place Market.
• Adopt a Transfer of Development Rights program to protect farmland.
• Solicit community feedback, approve, and begin implementing a Food System Policy Plan.  Work with the City food staff person to strengthen the City’s Interdepartmental Team on food and to identify and write grants and perform community outreach and policy development.
• Develop indicators of success in transforming the food system.
• Work with immigrants, refugees, and associated organizations to expand opportunities for market gardening and farming.
• Continue to work with and encourage community—led projects and the CPPW and CFG funded projects.
• Work with OEM and regional partners to strengthen the regional plan for food reserves for emergencies.
• Incorporate food system policies, goals, and implementation strategies in the Comprehensive Plan, revised Climate Action Plan, Neighborhood Plans, and Transportation planning.
• Secure adoption of healthy food guidelines for City vending machines.
• Consider how to take local food work to scale in transforming the local food system through developing the “Food Web” project.
• Work with the PSRC to develop an assessment tool for evaluating urban agriculture.

Sound Transit Link Light Rail train

The Sound Transit Board will engage in a policy discussion about integrating and valuing transit oriented development (TOD) at a Board retreat scheduled for early April.  Sound Transit (ST) has focused on building and operating transit systems, and has been especially cautious to maintain this focus with strong financial oversight since the financial problems that ST ran into a decade ago that caused the scaling back of the original ST light rail plan.

However, I have asked the Board to reconsider how TOD fits into the ST mission, as we begin thinking in a more sophisticated way about attracting and serving ridership.  Transit is, after all, about moving people, and land use and transit are not just linked, but two sides of the same coin.  Sound Transit has not hesitated to build park and rides — and operate them at no charge to drivers – in order to attract and serve riders.  ST investments in TOD will bring riders into the system who will not have to drive to get to transit lines, and it is time that we recognized that this is an investment worth making.

ST’s mission is to support and implement the voter approved transit plan.  Legally, ST has the ability to design stations and invest in TOD to achieve the number of riders projected in the documents presented to the voters.  The problem is that current financial policies consider the actual finances of the transportation system as the primary criterion for evaluating costs and benefits of a transaction.  They do not consider transit oriented development (TOD) as a factor in evaluating the financial return from property sales and investments around station areas.   

Thus, in a recent discussion evaluating the possibility of overbuilding the Roosevelt station and creating additional units of housing, ST staff assessed overbuilding costs as approximately $3.3 million, and anticipated revenues from the sale of the overbuilding rights as $1.6 million, leaving a $1.7 million gap.  The project was considered not to be cost effective, even though it would result in 48 housing units right over the station – the closest thing to guaranteed ridership one can imagine.

One way to change the evaluation of such projects would be to include revenues based on anticipated ridership.  A 48 unit development located adjacent to a station is likely to generate strong ridership.  Assume only about 1 regular rider for every two units, or 100 rides per day (to and from).  Assuming $3/ride in 2020, and 250 days a year of travel, yields 100 rides x 250 days x $3 = $75,000 annually.  ST could evaluate the investment based on this revenue as a rate of return on capital.  In Roosevelt, investing $1.7 million with a return of $75,000 annually is a 4.4% ROI.  This will increase over time as fares rise.

Of course, transit systems do not plan to fully fund their operating expenses from fare collections, so it would be anomalous to require 100% recovery from a TOD investment.  Multiplying the fare return by 2 would reflect collecting a conservative 50% of operating expenses, and would better reflect the value of these riders.  2 x 4.4 = 8.8%, a pretty good rate of return.

The Federal Transit Agency has begun using such tools to evaluate the financial actions of transit agencies, and would likely welcome engaging in a dialogue about valuing transit oriented development in this kind of approach.

The Board decided not to pursue the Roosevelt station overbuild, which has other complications, but did decide to review policy.  Decisions about the Northgate station will be made in the near future, and there is a much greater opportunity to shape these decisions towards TOD.  ST is considering a 500 car garage at Northgate as part of a range of options to cover required mitigation for lost parking places.  I think developing a serious strategy around TOD, in partnership with King County, Seattle, and private property owners, is a better direction for ST to focus on, partly using money that could be saved by reducing the replacement parking plan to the minimum requirement.

Seattle has now realized how important it is to develop housing around transit stations, and to include affordable housing in the mix.  We did not have a strong policy in place when the line was constructed in the Rainier Valley, and that has left us scrambling to catch up, rezone, and attract investments to those stations.  We have developed a great partnership on Capitol Hill, where the community has a visionary housing proposal that includes a major commitment to affordable housing.  Sound Transit and the City have been negotiating to ensure that ST’s surplusing policy on Capitol Hill is consistent with that vision, and we are close to concluding an agreement.

That makes me optimistic that we can change ST policy to be more focused on TOD on the lines currently in construction and planning.  I think the Board is ready for that discussion, and hope that the April retreat will result in giving that policy direction to the staff.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, a Catholic Church in Uptown (formerly known as Lower Queen Anne) has hosted a food bank for many years.  With the support and assistance of Food Lifeline, nearby grocery stores, and the people of the parish, the food bank provided not only groceries, but breakfasts and lunches for the hungry.  It operated with lots of great volunteer energy from its faith community, and a single full-time employee.  The monthly budget was only $2500.

But last November, the program ran out of funds, and had to lay off the coordinator, Elise Hale-Case, who has been running the program for the last few months, since graduating from Mount Holyoke College.  The food bank was scheduled to close after Thanksgiving. 

Then the generosity kicked in.  Articles about the closure appeared in the Seattle Times and the Queen Anne/Magnolia News.   A television station ran a report.  Elise decided to make an appeal on the programs web site, www.queenannefb.org

Emails, phone calls, letters, and personal donations poured in.  The web posting attracted people to donate from all around the country, but most of the donations came from right here, in our wonderful city.   The goal was to raise enough money to fund the organization for two years, $100,000, and they are just about there.

This is a small food bank, serving around a hundred people a day.  But it is important to those who are in need.  And I am very grateful to those who rallied around to keep it open.

The official reopening was a short and sweet ceremony with a couple of dozen volunteers, members of the fund-raising committee, and the priests from Sacred Heart.  I thanked all of them – and all those who donated – on behalf of the City.  We are committed to do all that we can as a City to provide food, shelter, and social services to the people of our City who need help, and our voters have pitched in on many occasions to support that effort.  Those public services are very important.

But our community thrives because of the volunteers and donors who step up to the plate in so many ways for the myriad of voluntary organizations like the food bank at Sacred Heart.  That’s what makes Seattle such an extraordinary place.

UW Dept. of Bioengineering, South Lake Union campus

Seattle is the proud home of the University of Washington, and also hosts Seattle University on First Hill and Seattle Pacific University on the north slope of Queen Anne, as well as a great set of community colleges.  And there is also the campus of Antioch University Seattle at 6^th and Battery near South Lake Union, and the Bainbridge Graduate Institute, which offers classes at 4^th and Vine.  Seattle’s universities and community colleges enrolled more than 106,000 students in the 2011-2012 academic year. 

Now a new complex of universities is emerging downtown, creating an interesting set of options for students and employers of students who are looking for additional course work, degrees, or research opportunities. Seattle policy makers should accelerate our work to embrace this development and the associated economic activity.

The original home of the University of Washington was downtown, in a group of blocks called the ‘Metropolitan Tract’, which the University still owns and receives substantial revenue from.  The Washington Territorial Legislature decided to locate the University in Seattle in 1860, early in the history of the Washington Territory.  Legend has it that Seattle was the third largest city at the time, and there were three public facilities to be allocated.  Walla Walla, as the largest city, got the state prison; Olympia, the second largest, got the State Capitol; and Seattle got the University, which existed only as a gleam in the eyes of those who foresaw its possible future.

Seattle has been very fortunate to have the University of Washington, not only as a great educational facility, but as a premier research institution which consistently ranks as one of the top recipients of federal funding contracts and grants.  UW is also a robust center for entrepreneurial activity.  In addition to a significant commitment to fostering the growth of small business through a variety of programs and an incubator facility, a number of companies have been launched by UW faculty, often to take the next steps in building commercial applications that can be spun off from research at the University.

The University of Washington School of Medicine has developed a campus in South Lake Union, designed to complement the emerging biotechnology and world health economic sectors that are centered in that neighborhood.  This campus now includes some 1250 researchers and staff in four buildings, and is expected to continue to expand.

Two other universities will be Joining Antioch and the UW South Lake Union campus in the emerging downtown university district.  City University of Seattle is an independent University with main offices (somewhat anomalously) in Bellevue.  They have made a decision that their future lies in reconciling their name with their location, but more importantly taking advantage of the urban setting and the transportation and housing options that Seattle offers for their students.  They have entered into a lease for the former P-I/Group Health building at 6^th and Wall, and will be opening their doors there in January of 2013.

Further strengthening this emerging educational center will be Northeastern University , based in Boston, which has announced its intent to establish a branch in Seattle that will ultimately serve up to 1000 students.  The Seattle campus will offer graduate degrees “tailored to the workforce needs of the local economy”.  While they have not selected a location as yet, downtown is their preferred option.

There is a wonderful synergy between great cities and great universities.  City University and Northeastern are locating downtown because of the value they place on being in the middle of vibrant, culturally rich, and diverse  neighborhoods with a dense concentration of residents and employers.  There will be prospective students, jobs, internship opportunities, and student housing in close proximity.  And others who are interested will have easy access because these areas are served by light rail, street cars, bus systems, and good bicycle and pedestrian facilities.  The City’s task is to ensure that these transportation systems are maintained and expanded, as well as to protect public safety and support other employers and housing opportunities.

The next economy will be built around creativity and a highly educated work force oriented towards lifelong learning.  The emerging downtown university complex bodes well for Seattle’s future in harvesting this potential.

Seattle City Council Committee calls for independent financial review of Seattle Public Utilities

SEATTLE – The Libraries, Utilities and Center Committee, during this morning’s discussion of fraud at Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), called for an independent review of SPU’s financial practices.

“We need to move forward now to immediately fix this problem. Ratepayers demand and deserve financial accountability from the utility. And they will get it,” said Councilmember Jean Godden, committee chair.

The Committee asked the City Auditor—an independent third party—to conduct an investigation of financial controls at SPU, particularly those related to accounts that could be subject to high risk transactions such as the water main accounts.

“The public trust has been broken. Only through systematic review and tight new financial controls can we restore trust and provide the services we all expect,” said Councilmember Sally Bagshaw.

The Committee requested that the City Auditor and SPU report to the Committee with a scope of work by March 27, 2012, and present plan details to the Committee at the April 3, 2012, meeting.

The plan will address the immediate water main extension revenue problem and recommend whether all SPU development fees should be part of the review. By the end of this week the Committee will send a letter to the City Auditor and SPU detailing issues it would like to see examined in their review.

“The Committee will participate in every step of this process,” said Councilmember Godden. “There will be no discussion of new utility rates until Seattle Public Utilities gets its house in order.”

Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast and Webcast live on Seattle Channel 21 and on the City Council’s website. Copies of legislation, Council meeting calendar, and archives of news releases can be found on the City Council website. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook.

It is now time to take the Local Food Action Initiative to the next level of salience and organizational momentum.  The City has hired a Food Policy Coordinator, who will be based in the Office of Sustainability & Environment, and we are now seeking public input on the elements and priorities for city food policy for the next few years.

Those who are interested in this effort are invited to participate in Our City, Our Food, Our Future:  listening sessions on food in our community.  These sessions will focus on how we can implement a just, sustainable, and resilient food system where:

• All Seattleites have enough to eat and have access to affordable, local, healthy, culturally appropriate food. 
• It is easy to sell local and healthy food in Seattle. 
• It is easy to grow food in Seattle, whether for personal use or for business purposes.
• The City provides sustainable ways to prevent and deal with food waste.
• Our community is educated about eating local and healthy food.

The Office of Sustainability & Environment is hosting three public meetings to talk about what the City should do next to meet these goals.

• Tuesday March 13, 5:30-8:30 p.m.  Ravenna Eckstein Community Center (6535 Ravenna Ave NE)
• Friday March 16, 1:00-4:00 p.m.  City Hall, Bertha Knight Landes Room (600 4^th Avenue)
• Monday March 19, 5:30-8:30 p.m.  Southside Commons (3518 S Edmunds Street)

To participate, please RSVP by March 2^nd.  Contact Sharon Lerman at foodpolicy@seattle.gov with any questions. If you are unable to attend, there will be an opportunity to add your perspective online at www.seattle.gov/food.

You can get more information on the City’s food work and the listening sessions at  www.seattle.gov/food.  We look forward to hearing from you on where the Local Food Action Initiative should go in the future.

Sound Transit Link Light Rail train

On Thursday, February 23, the Sound Transit Board formally adopted a policy for naming stations and other Sound Transit facilities.  Before this, the naming process followed a design manual, but there was no Board policy.  This has become a problem as Sound Transit builds stations where there might be some controversy about the name, and as Sound Transit enters a new phase in its construction program, where there are multiple lines under construction.  In the not too distant future, there will be trains traveling on different lines to different destinations.  Right now, there is only Central Link Light Rail.  In the future, there will be a north-south line and an east-west line.

Under the new policy, there will be five criteria for deciding station/facility names:

• Reflect the nature of the environment:  neighborhoods, street names, landmarks, plus geographical locations
• Be brief and easy to read and remember
• Comply with Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines and requirements and be limited to 30 characters
• Avoid commercial references because they may change, prove confusing to the public and be costly to change
• Avoid similar names or words in existing facility names.

For naming lines, Sound Transit will use the common transit system method of identifying lines by color, with a direction for the train based on the last stop on the line.  For example, the north-south line could be the Blue Line, with northbound trains identified as ‘Blue Line to Northgate’ and southbound ‘Blue Line to Kent-Des Moines’ (if those are the station names), with the end point changed as the line is extended further.

Station names in South East Seattle originally were based on the names of the cross streets.  Neighborhood plans in both Columbia City (‘Edmunds Street Station’) and Rainier Beach (‘Henderson Street Station”) made strong representations that these names were relatively obscure and confusing in identifying the destinations served.  They also argued that they would be a disservice to the commercial districts and future housing developments in these neighborhoods by failing to highlight them.  The City Council agreed, and, as Chair of the Neighborhoods Committee, I led the successful effort to persuade the Sound Transit Board to adopt the current Columbia City and Rainier Beach station names.

As the line continues north in Seattle, most of the station names will be easy to agree on – Capitol Hill, Roosevelt, and Northgate are all widely accepted community names, and there is a lot of logic in naming the Husky Stadium station for the University of Washington.

The naming policy will become interesting when the Board considers the station at Brooklyn and 45^th.  Right now, this has the provisional name of the ‘Brooklyn Station’, but communities around the station are already lining up behind ‘University District Station’.  While there is some question of overlap with the ‘University of Washington Station’, I think we can probably overcome that.  The real problem is with the ‘University Street Station’ in downtown Seattle.  I think there is already a confusion problem with that and a ‘University of Washington Station’, but having three stations with ‘University’ in their names makes no sense.  Since the ‘University Street’ station has no relationship to an actual University, I think that’s the name that has to be changed.  This will require concurrence from King County and Metro.  I will urge Sound Transit to begin that process in the near future so that the way can be cleared for a rational discussion of how to name the stations that are around the actual University.

• Developing Transit Communities policies that ensure housing and job development is coordinated with transit corridors, and that provide guidance for neighborhood plans.
• Propose a levy to the voters that ensures Seattle’s library system has sufficient materials, staffing and computers to provide a sustainable level of service.
• Change zoning in South Lake Union to match the goals and potential of Seattle’s newest urban center.
• Ensure that Capitol Hill, University District, Rainier Valley, and Roosevelt neighborhoods get great development on former Sound Transit properties.
• Move forward on the Duwamish River clean-up and related environmental justice actions in South Seattle.

Here is the complete list of priorities:

PRIORITY #1: MAINTAINING SAFE, HEALTHY AND JUST COMMUNITIES

PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE

Take input from the Department of Justice, community, officers, and local and national experts to move Seattle into the forefront of effective urban policing. Commit to new strategies for police recruitment, training, supervision, and accountability. Monitor body-mounted cameras pilot program for SPD officers. Implement strategies that affirm, value, and strengthen all constituencies.

EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION

Oversee the implementation and administration of the 2012-2018 Families and Education Levy, the City’s most critical investment in Seattle Public Schools.

Coordinate and advance the objectives of the Great Student Initiative to provide high-speed Internet access to low-income families with children in Seattle Public Schools.

SAFE SHELTER AND HOUSING

Continue to expand affordable housing options and services for people experiencing homelessness, ensure families have shelter options in 2012.

Devise strategies and funding options in the 2013-2014 budget to address unmet needs. Implement the Safe Parking Program pilot in Ballard.

Implement the Rental House Inspection Program to assure renters of safe housing, prevent deterioration of rental housing and provide clear, fair guidelines for property owners.

Spotlight discrimination in housing and develop policies to eliminate this injustice. Promote and advance strategies to educate residents and communities on Seattle’s fair housing and employment regulations.

PRIORITY #2: BUILDING HEALTHY, GREAT PLACES

DOWNTOWN

Establish a unified, clear community-driven vision for the remaking of Seattle’s waterfront. Make sure the proposed plan has the right combination of vision and practicality that will make it possible to fund replacement of the seawall and development of new waterfront elements.

Improve the downtown core through the Third Avenue Initiative. Work with the task force to produce and act on a clear plan to address public safety, transit mobility, retail health and a cleaner, more inviting environment for riders, shoppers and employees.

ENVIRONMENT

Adopt a Climate Action Plan that outlines short and long term policy paths for achieving the City’s goals to be carbon neutral by 2050.

Move forward on the Duwamish River clean-up and related environmental justice actions in South Seattle.

DEVELOPMENT

Adopt legislation making the Yesler Terrace redevelopment a model for sustainable, mixed-income communities, with a net increase in low-income units.

Change zoning in South Lake Union to match the goals and potential of Seattle’s newest urban center.

Develop Transit Communities policies that ensure housing and job development is coordinated with transit corridors, and that provide guidance for neighborhood plans.

Ensure that Capitol Hill, University District, Rainier Valley, and Roosevelt neighborhoods get the great development on former Sound Transit properties.

Break ground on construction of First Hill Streetcar between Pioneer Square, the International District, Little Saigon, First Hill and Capitol Hill. Oversee construction to minimize disruptions to nearby businesses and residences while ensuring start of service in early 2014.

PRIORITY #3: IMPROVING MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS

EFFECTIVE TRANSIT

Work with King County Metro Transit to lessen impacts from the County’s elimination of the Ride Free Area, procure new Electric Trolley Buses that improve service and attract new riders, ensure that restructured routes improve bus service for Seattle riders, and help Metro secure long-term sustainable funding from Olympia.

CONNECTIONS

Clear the way for better mobility between and through neighborhoods by embedding policies prioritizing neighborhood greenways, cycletracks, crosswalk and sidewalk improvements, traffic calming, paths and trails.

Develop a freight master plan while updating the bicycle master plan and acting on the pedestrian master plan.

PRIORITY #4: MAKING A MORE RESILIENT CITY

RESPONSIBLE TAXATION AND REGULATIONS

Review the City’s tax policies for opportunities to enhance fairness and consistency and to encourage small and large companies to do business in Seattle. Continue efforts to simplify licensing and permitting.

PARTNERSHIP

Reprise Seattle for Washington, dispatching Councilmembers to other parts of Puget Sound and Washington State to look for ways cities can help each other succeed.

Collaborate with the Port of Seattle, the Manufacturing Industrial Council, the Prosperity Partnership, and others to support development of living wage jobs in export, marine, life sciences and other opportunity sectors.

NEIGHBORHOOD LIFE

Develop a set of goals, policies, and a sustainable organizational structure ensuring that the Department of Neighborhoods delivers services that are responsive to communities and supportive of community-initiated projects.

Propose a levy to the voters that ensures Seattle’s library system has sufficient materials, staffing and computers to provide a sustainable level of service.

PRIORITY #5: INVESTING IN OUR FUTURE

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLANNING

Review prioritization of operations and major projects by Seattle Department of Transportation. Develop recommendations for more efficient operations, making the prioritization of projects more understandable to the public with clear reporting of departmental performance measures.

Adopt a six-year strategic plan and new financial policies for Seattle City Light, including a rate structure that supports conservation, equity and stability. Improve customer service and access to information about energy use, allowing customers to manage energy use and bills.

Initi