Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Multifamily Development Regulations Need Further Analysis

Editor's note: This is a lengthy post, perhaps requiring an uncommon willingness to read all the way through, a necessity for fuller comprehension of Seattle's complex and vexing housing/zoning situation.


SEATTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEDERATION

November 22, 2010

Councilmember Sally Clark, Chair, Committee on the Built Environment

Members of the City Council
600 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98124-4749

Subject: Multifamily Development Regulations Need Further Analysis

Dear Councilmember Clark and Members of the City Council:

For many years concerned citizens and neighborhood organizations have drawn the City’s attention to problems associated with rampant townhouse development in our low rise zones. These cramped “4 pack” projects typically provide inadequate access and open space, and they destroy rather than enhance the established development patterns of our neighborhoods. In places they cover whole city blocks. They stand in stark contrast to the dense livability envisioned by the Urban Village strategy underlying our City’s Comprehensive Plan. And they are a testament to what misguided development can do to our communities. The Seattle Community Council Federation, a coalition of community groups throughout the city of Seattle, offers the following comments on these important issues.

The Federation has argued that many of these undesirable projects are the result of lax administration such as a willingness to ignore access easement requirements. But the Nickel’s administration chose a major rewrite of the multifamily code which, after an independent analysis by independent teams last year (the ‘black hat/white hat’ exercise) initiated a further rewrite in the hands of Council.

Trying to rewrite the development rules for the city's most affordable housing class that covers almost 6 square miles spread throughout our city is a challenging task, but one that should acknowledge the variety of conditions under which it will be applied. While the overhaul generally attempts to encourage development in designated “areas of change” (our Urban Villages), it does not ensure that infill respects ‘context’ in our “areas of stability” (outside of the Urban Villages) where predictability and consistency of neighborhood building forms are most desired.

We recognize the tremendous effort that has gone into this process, and acknowledge improvements have been made over the last several months. But we are concerned that the final stages are being driven more by schedule than results, and that additional work necessary to resolve real problems will not be allowed. Despite earlier indications that another independent ‘black hat/white hat’ review would be undertaken, it seems that COBE is intent on asking for passage as soon as possible. We think this is a mistake and will net a flawed code despite the years of effort.

What follows are what some examples of the most pressing issues that are imperative to address in the final legislation to avoid a variety of unintended consequences.

Abandonment of Urban Design Principles

We want to make it clear that we assert that some very specific faults remain with the code which would be clearly shown if an independent ‘black hat/while hat’ review exercise were undertaken.

1. Focusing on building types and the removing the public from the review process makes it likely that existing and intended development patterns will be ignored and neighborhoods with inconsistent streetscape characteristics and yard patterns will result.

The conversion of front and back yards to minimal setbacks, and the elination of side setbacks for end rowhouse will result in the placement of buildings incongruous with its neighbors. This will also introduce privacy and security failures. Respect of development patterns is a clear Comprehensive Plan goal, particularly outside of Urban Villages.

2. The upzoning of LDT à LR1, and L1 à LR2 and L3à L4 (LR3) in Urban Villages, coupled with removal of parking requirements in Urban Villages, will result in over-densification when green building bonuses are used. [1]

A few simple examples will best illustrate this dramatic flaw (see attachment for more):

o A 5000 sq ft lot zoned LDT in an Urban Village is now limited to 3 units and would be flats or townhouses with legal access provided perpendicular to the street. The proposal would force use of the certified green bonuses to retain 3 townhouse units, but could allow 3 rowhouses each with an accessory unit above, yielding 6 units - a 100% increase in unit density.

o A 5,000 sq ft lot zoned L1 in an Urban Village previously would allow 3 units, most typically townhouses with their own parking. Now as an LR2, if built green, the project could include 12 small apartments (~500 sq ft) with no parking provided – a 400% increase in units.

o A 5,000 sq ft lot zoned L2 outside of an Urban Village is now limited to 4 units and if unit lot access easements were enforced they would likely be flats or the lot would be combined with another to gain enough area for the access. The same potential as noted above (12 units) is possible if the proposed sharing of parking can be arranged. This is a 300% increase in units.

3. FAR as the overriding bulk/scale control will yield unpredictable lot coverage results and exacerbate the loss of the clear delineation between low-density MF zones and high-density zones. All zones now can yield a variety of density and building type outcomes.

Floor area ratio is a general planning bulk and scale tool for identifying project capacity where established patterns of open space and building placement make little difference. Applying it to low scale residential building types with fractional differentiation for various conditions is not appropriate. It might be easy to discern the difference between a building of FAR 2 and one of FAR 3, but not the difference between 1.2 and 1.3.

By choosing to use FAR as a way to incent or disincent certain building forms, rather than clearly allow or disallow, means profitability will rule what buildings are built and how they cover the lot. This defeats one of the primary objectives of land use regulations—the investment security of having a rough idea of the future of one's immediate vicinity.

Instead, specific building types, as identified by Neighborhood Design Guidelines should be considered. Also, specific building forms should be tied to zones as is being done elsewhere in the country. This ensures that the higher density projects are produced in appropriate places and that permeable open space is promoted elsewhere in compensation.[2]

Parking Requirements 
Removal of parking requirements for projects in Urban Villages does not recognize real issues with severe parking problems in some neighborhoods. With likely Metro service cuts we will see street congestion exacerbated. Many neighborhoods are extremely concerned about the shortsightedness of these rules, and believe that this change in fact only externalizes development cost to the broader community by placing parking on the street. At the same time, these cars will compete with spaces that could be used by customers of small businesses and other visitors to the community. More granularity is needed in the determination of where parking should be required or exempted. At a minimum, a multi-unit project should require some shared parking if the area is already at an over-parked state (residential Parking Zone).

Design Review

Design review and citizen participation are being dramatically weakened or removed with the use of SDR. We are adamant that a strong design review process is the citizen’s right based on our Comprehensive Plan[3] and is necessary to develop quality infill in the multifamily zones by providing the developer with flexibility and input from the community.

The Design Review process however is already weakened by the ‘stacking’ of Boards with industry professionals who in review of their contemporaries’ projects are unwilling to seriously critique or pursue concerns voiced by the community, and is further made ineffective by Director rulings that allow unacceptable departures from the code. While perhaps ultimately in the project’s favor, it is a costly process and time-consuming process and one that only induces mistrust or contempt in our city agencies.

We believe that a strong citizen-based regularly-monitored design review processes (ADR, SDR, and DRB), along with recognition of extant neighborhood plans and sound codes will yield the best outcomes for our city. We would like to see more citizen staffing on Boards and, when development is more active, more Boards to ensure that projects may be reviewed in a timely manner. We also insist on the right to appeal decisions made by the Director concerning projects of 4 or more units in our neighborhoods.

Other 

We object to the abdication for any responsibility in this legislation for the recognized Unit Lot Subdivision problems, including questionable access easements and optional CC&Rs. We remain concerned about how these multi-building projects with shared streetscapes and building elements will be maintained and whether there remains the potential for blighting. CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions) should be required for all multifamily projects with shared areas and easements in order to address issues related to insurance, maintenance of common areas, building upkeep.

SUMMARY

The proposed legislation reflects a underlying disregard for the built environment and urban design elements of our neighborhoods in exchange for freedom of design for a project on a lot. Your cover letter dated October 18 states one of the goals for these amendments is to “Generally maintain the current overall scale and density of Lowrise zones”.
Yet these zone redesignations and code changes replace a clear delineation of densities and intensity of use from low duplex/triplex through the more intense larger-form structures with many units. We now have the possibility of

1. similar sized buildings, building types and similar unit densities throughout all the lowrise zones regardless of zone designation, and

2. loss of predictability about the number of units and unit size in all lowrise zones, and

3. an abandonment of urban design principles disturbing the existing characteristics of our neighborhoods, including yard and streetscape patterns.

A neighborhood is left with little certainty of how much can be built and what it will look like.

We are NOT against density, particularly in Urban Villages. What we strongly object to is the loss of gradation and the increased potential for incongruous development, the loss of targeted densities through zoning, and the potential disregard for extant conditions that would affect how projects are added to our communities.

We assert that the issues that remain with the proposed legislation are critical, represent divergence from our Comprehensive Plan, and yet are fixable. Please allow the additional public analysis necessary through a similar exercise to the black hat/white hat’ effort last year that uncovered the variety of flaws with the original Nickels proposal. We must complete this task and allow refinement to correct these significant errors.

Thank you for considering the views of the Seattle Community Council Federation. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Jeannie Hale, President
3425 West Laurelhurst Drive NE
Seattle, Washington 98105

206-525-5135 / fax 206-525-9631

jeannieh@serv.net



ENC

[1] Appendix B, the map of these upzones, belies the declaration that there is “no upzoning.” It took several years of costly “remapping” by petition to resolve a similar deception in 1988 through 1991.

[2] This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan “Yards and Open Space” Policies LU36 & 37, and “Environment” Policy LU10: “Strive to increase the amount of permeable surface and vegetative cover in the city in order to mitigate the heat island effect of developed areas, control storm water flows and reduce pollution.”

[3] LU 55: Employ a design review process to promote development that:. . . Allows for diversity and creativity in building design and site planning.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Free Trees For Your Yard!

Despite the very cold weather the past few days, ideal tree planting time is nearly upon us! Seattle reLeaf is offering free trees for your yard! Details are below.
The Seattle reLeaf Trees for Neighborhoods program is pleased to offer you free trees to plant in your yard. Planting trees is a great way to lower your carbon footprint. An average city tree will absorb about a ton of harmful carbon dioxide over its lifetime. Urban trees also help keep our water clean, our air breathable, provide habitat for birds and other wildlife and make Seattle a vibrant place to live and work.
Tree supply is limited, so it is first come, first served. Applications will not be accepted after Dec 6. Program participants will receive up to 4 free trees per household, watering bags, a bag of GroCo compost, and training on proper tree planting and care.
Available species include:
Shore pine (Pinus contorta 'Contorta')
Katsura (Cercidiphyllum japonicum)
Red oak (Quercus rubra)
Western red cedar (Thuja plicata 'Excelsa')
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
To receive a free tree, you must meet these guidelines:
Live in Seattle, and plant the tree on your property (renters must have their landlord's permission)
Plant the trees in your yard, and not as street trees
Do NOT plant the trees under power lines (these are large trees that will eventually grow into the power lines)
Commit to caring for the tree in the future, including watering for the first 3 summers
To get your trees, send in the application ASAP.
Questions can be directed to: 
Jana Dilley 
Seattle reLeaf
206-615-1668

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Want a better transit system? Tell SDOT

SEATTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEDERATION


Want a better transit system? Tell SDOT what you’d like to see!
Getting around Seattle can be tricky—everyone has waited for a delayed bus in the rain, driven to work to save time, or needed room for just one more bike on the train. Maybe you wish the bus stopped closer to your house or was easier to get to on foot or by bike. We know you have ideas about how transit should be improved, so here’s a chance to share your take with the city.

The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) is updating Seattle’s Transit Master Plan, which will help to determine the city’s future investments in transit. As part of this process, SDOT is conducting a short survey to figure out what’s working and what isn’t in Seattle’s transit system. The survey takes less than 10 minutes and asks some basic questions about how you currently use transit and what you'd like to see improved. Throw in your two cents at http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/transitmasterplan/survey and check out  http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/transitmasterplan.htm for more information about the plan.

Founded in 1946, the Seattle Community Council Federation is one of the nation's oldest and most active coalitions of neighborhood groups.  Yearly dues for member groups are $50.  SCCF welcomes new member groups, and encourages renewal by groups whose membership in SCCF may have lapsed.  Individual donations are also welcome and tax deductible, and go very far, as SCCF is an all-volunteer 501(c)(3) organization.  Please mail your check to SCCF, 2370 Yale Avenue East, Seattle, WA  98102-3310.  For questions, contact treasurer Chris Leman, (206) 322-5463, cleman@oo.net.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Federation October 28, 2010 Minutes


SEATTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEDERATION

Seattle Community Council Federation Meeting
October 28, 2010
Minutes

Meeting called to order at 7:05 PM.

Attendance attached

Visiting Candidates introduced themselves with short bios: Karen Donahue and Ed Mc Ed McKenna both running for judicial positions.

Guests: Jean Godden, City Council member and head of Budget Committee and Dr. Ben Noble, Director on Council Central Staff.

Jean Godden indicated she wanted to present an overview of where they are at this point; this is her third year as budget chair. This is a biennial budget for 2011-2012.   The Council will pass the budget for 2011 and endorse the budget for 2012.  The Mayor brought his proposed budget to the Council on September 27; the Council will pass a budget for 2011 probably by Nov. 22.  (It must be no later than Dec. 1, 2010.)   It must be a balanced budget.
The Department heads present their budgets in October and November (now)for round one and the second round in early November.  The final votes of the Council take place on Nov. 11 and 12th.  Proceedings can be viewed on Channel 21.   Green sheets can be found on the website indicating when the council is considering changes to the Mayor’s budget (must be signed by three Council members).  Each green sheet is an addition to or subtraction from budget.  Round 1 will be over by November 2.

In looking at the initiatives, Jean said that the liquor initiatives would have a significant impact on the budget if passed…as well as repealing the tax on soda and candy.

Concern expressed from group about a letter dated August 13 to Mayor and signed by 7 of the 9 council members as it did not seem to be part of the open process. The letter had asked the Mayor to go easy on police, etc.  There are harsh cuts to Parks.   Ben Noble said that the process has changed; all would be done in open meetings now.

Q.  What do you rely on when identifying issues?   
A. (Ben) Questions are sent to departments to clarify staffing issues, etc.  There is a better dialogue than under the previous administration.

Q. Have you ever done a public information request?
A. (Ben) No, we generally get what we want.

Questions were solicited on specific budget items:

Q Look at tax breaks given in past years.
A. The tax breaks don’t diminish revenue as the funds are made up by others.

Q What about higher fees for encroachments? A street use permit is needed which is a one time $15 fee.  This should be an annual fee.
A. Fees being looked at; i.e. fees to be increased 100% on sky bridges.

Q.  City needs to look at what is being overlooked currently.  Concern also expressed about doubling false alarm fees when they are not always false.  It could have been an unsuccessful attempt.

Q. What about the sidewalks on Linden?
A. They are still in the budget at this point and considered high priority.

Q At Green Lake Community Center, rooms are being made into permanent offices for Parks staff which means loss of classrooms and programming..  The Parks Foundation wants to move in.  The Center would lose a well used day care center.
Concern expressed that this Community Center was built with Forward Thrust money in agreement with King County and city.  Concern also expressed about the Laurelhurst Community Center which has 2 small rooms and one large room.  One room would change to an office for Lifelong Recreation; Magnuson would love to have it.
A. (from both Jean Godden and Ben Noble)   Council is still studying this; asked for information from Parks.

Suggestion:  There seems to be a 40% vacancy in Columbia Center.
A. (Jean G.)  The 40% may be too high but they are looking at those empty offices.
A. (Ben) There will be less programming in Community Centers due to lack of money. Moving Parks staff into Community Centers from the Armory helps to keep the building open.  They are looking at staffing ratios.

Q. What about an increase in fees?  Also, concern expressed about a truck that blows leaves around.
A.  There will be less park maintenance.

Concern expressed that Laurelhurst CC not for public access any more.

Q. What about the unions and use of volunteers? Speaker thinking about libraries; couldn’t volunteers pull weeds?
A. (Jean G)  Unions are not happy about volunteers.
A. (Ben) Unions agreed to get rid of the 2% floor for wage increases.  Volunteers are on the discussion list with unions for 2011.

Concern expressed concerning a report that John Barber had put together: can’t use volunteers for everything and can’t let the infrastructure deteriorate. 
Q. (from attendee) Some interns are used for clerical work.  Concern expressed about pensions.
A. (Ben) Pensions are part of the dilemma.  There is a statement of legislative intent to look at different retirement systems for new hires, perhaps 401Ks.  They are asking unions to be smarter in scheduling overtime.  On pensions: Pension fund made enormous gains during the dot com boom and the city decided to reduce contributions.

Q. What about health care plans?
A. These plans need to be renegotiated.

Jean Godden interjected that there have been accomplishments: the 45th Street Bridge was redone; levies were passed to renovate libraries and for 4 new fire stations.  The Parks levy improves infrastructure in some buildings.   The transportation benefit district can increase vehicle license fees and impose taxes.

Suggestion: The fees paid by developers for exceeding height limits went into housing; perhaps some should go into infrastructure.

Concern: Re parking increases and parking in parks.
A.  There will be a study to determine trade-off.

Concern expressed about utility rates: don’t they have to have a rational basis for raising rates?
A. Jean G. said that utility rates can’t be raised for the general fund.  City Budget has three parts: City Light, SPUD, and the general fund.  There are tax increases when rates go up.  (Apparently there was a misleading article in the newspaper that made it look as though rates were being raised to aid the general fund.)

Other concerns expressed: water rate increases; some of the land being considered for permanent tent city has water problems; leaks at Green Lake Bathhouse Theater not being fixed; Leschi concern re: loss of District Coordinator and no maintenance in Leschi Park.
Both guests needed to leave at that point.

Treasurer’s report:  There are funds but a letter needs to be sent to CCs re dues.

Minutes for September meeting were approved with one correction to the Treasurer’s report: change non-profit to tax exempt when signifying matching contributions from employers.

Discussion re: letter to City Council expressing concern about Green Lake and Laurelhurst CCs.  It was felt that letter should be general and should request an equitable allocation in hours.  Letter should also show support for Neighborhood Service Centers and the District Coordinators as well as the Crime Prevention Coordinators, support libraries and parks maintenance.  Suggest lower cost staff do jobs that more highly trained folks now do.  Suggest higher fees for street use permits where walls, rockeries and fences encroach.  Suggest looking at 6 figure salaries; furloughs are more a reduction in service to the public than a cut in salary.

Anna Nissen gave update on the multifamily issue.  She suggests we ask for each individual unit to be certified as affordable.  Sally Clark will not meet with the group.   Nick Licata is willing to help if he sees community support.  She objects to giving a bonus for green; green now sells.  There is a huge deficit of housing at 40% of median and a huge surplus at 80% of median.
Chris concerned about the 30 day window for appeal.

Jorgen Bader made motion which Rick Barrett seconded to go ahead and appeal.
M/S/C to appeal and use funds up to $500.  Unanimous vote.

Anna expressed her concern for the total disregard of loss of affordable housing.  Hearing is on November 23rd.

Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM.

Respectfully submitted by Diane Snell

Next meeting November 18 (due to Thanksgiving falling on 4th Thursday)


Revised Federation 11.18.2010 Agenda - NEW: Duwamish Cleanup Alternatives

NEW:  Duwamish Cleanup Alternatives
Fed logo_flat
SEATTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEDERATION
Regular Meeting
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency), Pacific Marine Center on Lake Union
Thursday, November 18, 2010

REVISED AGENDA


Upzones (changing the character of neighborhoods) and Seattle’s Transit Plan—
Can you think of any issues more important to neighborhoods?
NEW:  Duwamish Cleanup Alternatives

The November Federation meeting will feature in-depth conversations with those most equipped to provide you with the tools for your community council to take action on these issues.

Should Seattle upzone its “lowrise” multifamily zones?  Guest speaker is Greg Hill, an architect and longtime community advocate

Unless the public speaks up, especially at the November 22 City Council hearing (5:30 p.m. at Wing Luke Museum, 719 S. King Street) and other meetings the lowrise multifamily zones found throughout Seattle will suffer amendments that doom many affordable buildings in favor of bigger ones that block treasured views and eliminate open spaces and trees.  On-site parking requirements would be swept away, worsening shortages of on-street parking.  The proposals can be found at http://www.seattle.gov/council/clark, and the current zone of any lot can be found at http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/Zoning_Maps/default.asp).  More information is available at http://sites.google.com/site/livableseattle

How should EPA move forward after release of the Duwamish River Superfund Cleanup Alternatives?  Guess speaker:  Heather Trim, Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition, People for Puget Sound

How can SDOT finalize and implement a Transit Master Plan when the County expects to cut more than 600,000 hours of bus service due to a projected deficit of more than a billion dollars over the next five years?  Guest speakers Tony Mazzella, SDOT Project Manager, and Jennifer Wieland, Deputy Project Manager

The City Council adopted the Seattle Transit Plan – “To Get Seattle Moving” (Resolution No. 30799) in September 2005.  The plan is the basis for transit strategies in the City's Transportation Strategic Plan and will be completed by the end of 2011—but citizen input is needed.  The vision of the Plan is to recommend policies, programs, and investments resulting in a high-quality transit system to make it easier and more desirable for people to take transit. Quality includes fast and reliable service that is safe, comfortable, and accessible for all users, providing the greatest degree of mobility and access possible with the appropriate technology.  How should the City move forward with this plan?  More information at http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/transitnetwork.htm,

7:00                  Call to Order and Introductions
7:05                  Changes to the Multi-Family Code:  Architect and Community Activist Greg Hill
7:40                  Duwamish Cleanup Alternatives:  Heather Trim, Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition
8:00                  Seattle’s Transit Plan:  Tony Mazzella, SDOT Project Manager, and Jennifer Wieland, Deputy Project Manager
9:00                  Adjourn

Founded in 1946, the Seattle Community Council Federation is one of the nation's oldest and most active coalitions of neighborhood groups.  Yearly dues for member groups are $50.  SCCF welcomes new member groups, and encourages renewal by groups whose membership in SCCF may have lapsed.  Individual donations are also welcome and tax deductible, and go very far, as SCCF is an all-volunteer 501(c)(3) organization.  Please mail your check to SCCF, 2370 Yale Avenue East, Seattle, WA  98102-3310.  For questions, contact treasurer Chris Leman, (206) 322-5463, cleman@oo.net.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Upzones (changing the character of neighborhoods) and Seattle’s Transit Plan— Can you think of any issues more important to neighborhoods?

SEATTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEDERATION
Regular Meeting
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency), 
Pacific Marine Center on Lake Union
Thursday, November 18, 2010

AGENDA


Upzones (changing the character of neighborhoods) and Seattle’s Transit Plan—
Can you think of any issues more important to neighborhoods?

The November Federation meeting will feature in-depth conversations with those most equipped to provide you with the tools for your community council to take action on these issues.

Should Seattle upzone its “lowrise” multifamily zones?  Guest speaker is Greg Hill, an architect and longtime community advocate

Unless the public speaks up, especially at the November 22 City Council hearing (5:30 p.m. at Wing Luke Museum, 719 S. King Street) and other meetings the lowrise multifamily zones found throughout Seattle will suffer amendments that doom many affordable buildings in favor of bigger ones that block treasured views and eliminate open spaces and trees.  On-site parking requirements would be swept away, worsening shortages of on-street parking.  The proposals can be found at http://www.seattle.gov/council/clark, and the current zone of any lot can be found athttp://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/Zoning_Maps/default.asp).  More information is available at http://sites.google.com/site/livableseattle. 

How can SDOT finalize and implement a Transit Master Plan when the County expects to cut more than 600,000 hours of bus service due to a projected deficit of more than a billion dollars over the next five years? Guest speakers Tony Mazzella, SDOT Project Manager, and Jennifer Wieland, Deputy Project Manager

The City Council adopted the Seattle Transit Plan – “To Get Seattle Moving” (Resolution No. 30799) in September 2005.  The plan is the basis for transit strategies in the City's Transportation Strategic Plan and will be completed by the end of 2011—but citizen input is needed.  The vision of the Plan is to recommend policies, programs, and investments resulting in a high-quality transit system to make it easier and more desirable for people to take transit. Quality includes fast and reliable service that is safe, comfortable, and accessible for all users, providing the greatest degree of mobility and access possible with the appropriate technology.  How should the City move forward with this plan?  More information at http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/transitnetwork.htm,

7:00                 Call to Order and Introductions
7:05                 Changes to the Multi-Family Code:  Architect and Community Activist Greg Hill
8:00                 Seattle’s Transit Plan:  Tony Mazzella, SDOT Project Manager, and Jennifer Wieland, Deputy Project Manager
9:00                 Adjourn
NOAA is a federal facility on high security alert, so attendees must enter by the security gate and may need to present photo ID. If you haven't attended a recent Federation meeting, please send your name, contact information, and address to rickbarrett@gmail.com  to be added to the entry list. No e-mail? Call 206-365-1267. The building is ADA compliant, with ample parking in front.

 Founded in 1946, the Seattle Community Council Federation is one of the nation's oldest and most active coalitions of neighborhood groups.  Yearly dues for member groups are $50.  SCCF welcomes new member groups, and encourages renewal by groups whose membership in SCCF may have lapsed.  Individual donations are also welcome and tax deductible, and go very far, as SCCF is an all-volunteer 501(c)(3) organization.  Please mail your check to SCCF, 2370 Yale Avenue East, Seattle, WA  98102-3310.  For questions, contact treasurer Chris Leman, (206) 322-5463, cleman@oo.net.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Get the latest budget news and some last licks at what is to be cut or kept, at the City Neighborhood Council's budget committee on Wednesday, Nov. 10, from 5-6 p.m. in room 370 of City Hall


Decisions on Seattle’s two-year budget (to be adopted by the City Council on Nov. 22) may be the most important for City government in a generation.  Be part of the process!  The City Neighborhood Council's Budget Committee invites you to its meeting this Wednesday, Nov. 10, 5-6 p.m. in City Hall room 370 (601 Fifth Avenue, third floor).  Hear the latest on discussions within the City Council, and between the Mayor and City Council, regarding where to make the needed severe budget cuts—made greater by voters’ recent repeal of the “snack tax.”  In our last three meetings, we had visits from City Councilmembers Sally Bagshaw, Richard Conlin, Jean Godden, and Nick Licata, so you never know who might drop in next!

Budget letters that the City Neighborhood Council sent July 2 and Oct. 29 are available at http://seattle.gov/neighborhoodcouncil.  City Council resolution 28115 that designates CNC and the district councils as official advisory bodies, states that "The responsibility of the City Neighborhood Council shall include review and recommendations regarding City budget issues, including the general fund, capital and block grant budgets, and the Neighborhood Matching Fund."  The resolution also states that "The City Council shall consider the recommendations of the City Neighborhood Council and the comments of neighborhood organizations and District Councils in its review and actions on the City budget." 

The CNC Budget Committee seeks to involve the district councils and other volunteers in these discussions, and also encourages the district councils and individuals to write their own budget letters and e-mails.  For background or to get involved, contact CNC Budget Committee chair Chris Leman, cleman@oo.net (206) 322-5463, and please send us your ideas.  Whether or not you can come to the CNC budget committee Nov.10, please let the City Councilmembers know your views by messages (their contacts are listed at http://seattle.gov/council/councilcontact.htm).  Brief public comment is also allowed at the morning opening of the City Council's all-day Budget Committee meetings.  To see the Mayor's budget proposals, go to http://seattle.gov, and for more information on the City Council process and meeting agendas:  www.seattle.gov/council/budget.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Invitation to SNC breakfast meeting, Saturday Nov.13, 9 a.m.


Dear Federation members and others,

We'd like to inform you of a rare opportunity to dialog with a remarkable and atypical local business leader who is also a firm believer in social responsibility, so we're passing along this invitation from SNC:

SNC
  (SEATTLE NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION)

is pleased to have as our November 13th. Guest, Sally Jewell, CEO of REI,

You may wonder why a neighborhood group would have as a guest a woman who oversees a major US. corporation headquartered in Seattle, REI.  Her role is to manage a company whose sales and impact aren’t just local, but global.  What of value can she teach us that relates to our lives and neighborhoods here in the Northwest? 

First, we will understand that as an employer REI provides jobs to a wide range of employees many of whom are our neighbors and care as much about the quality of life as we do.  The products they sell are of exceptional quality and equip many of us and our neighbors as we explore nature away from our workplace.  We might understand why REI has been ranked by independent reviewers as one of the best places to work in the entire US. 

But, the reality is, that Sally Jewell carries a message that represents a very different way to think of corporate culture. Jewell has recognized and proved that success in the business world need not be the ruthless tactics and selfish dog eat dog culture that has earned some corporations a bad reputation.

REI is a Co-Op, responsible to it’s members, but financially it operates much like traditional corporations.  Profits from sales pays operational costs and returns to its  members a credit much as any other corporation would deliver dividends to a stock holder.

What makes Jewell so outstanding, besides understanding markets, management, finance, banking and making REI profitable, is that she believes that corporations can succeed and still respond to the greater society with an inherent social responsibility. REI from its inception has broken the mold as a corporate retailer, but Jewell has both led and legitimized the notion that a corporation can have a conscience and still be profitable.  

Make no mistake, REI isn’t a socialist enterprise.  They make money, take risks, are aware of the bottom line and work hard to be successful, but within the corporate philosophy is a deeper moral philosophy that asks it’s employees and the organization, to behave as a human being rather than an arrangement of financial processes.   REI has become an abstraction that functions in a way we all hope a good citizen would, to give back to the commons.

Sally Jewell is unlike many CEO’s.  She is amazingly well read in a wide variety of subjects.  Whether it be responding to environmental issues, to how we behave as a culture, she is intently curious how the lives of her employees and we, her customers, can be treated with respect that might enrich our lives.

Jewell is an outstanding speaker and her message is inspirational.  She has occasionally revealed some of her personal thoughts on how our culture influences the lives of our children.  It’s worth attending just to hear her thoughts.

Give some thought to inviting a special friend to share this very unique opportunity.  You may well leave this meeting inspired and optimistic about how good things can happen by giving back to your community.

Please join us for a delicious breakfast at the Salmon Bay Café, 5109 Shilshole Ave NW at 9:00 AM. Saturday November 13th. HERE’S A MAP.  

Note: Use of this meeting place is contingent on each of us placing 
an order. 
See you there.  

Friday, November 5, 2010

'Smart growth' won't result in social equity - OUTSIDE CITY HALL

11/3/2010 1:38:00 PM  (reprinted from South Seattle Beacon and other Pacific Publishing Newspapers)
OUTSIDE CITY HALL | 'Smart growth' won't result in social equity
On Sept. 20, Nick Licata, the head of Seattle City Council’s Housing Committee, hosted an overflow crowd of 200 at a forum entitled “Can We Achieve Social Equity Using Smart Growth?”

The Seattle Displacement Coalition, Puget Sound SAGE, Washington Low-income Housing Alliance, Seattle Human Services Coalition and Housing Development Consortium of Seattle-King County co-sponsored the event.

Currently, Seattle is in the process of upzoning many neighborhoods, especially around current or planned light-rail stations for “transit-oriented development.”

The goal is to encourage new patterns of so-called “smart growth” that prevent sprawl and promote increased use of mass transit. By reducing auto dependency in this way, proponents hope to dramatically reduce the region’s carbon emissions and combat climate change.

While halting the pace of climate change is critical, in past columns, we’ve expressed doubt that cramming still more of the region’s growth into Seattle helps us reach that goal.

We’ve argued that preventing sprawl (and getting people out of their cars) can best be achieved through a more even distribution of growth among all of the region’s existing activity centers, not just Seattle.

But there’s another reason we’ve argued against increasing densities in Seattle, especially around rail stops. The added development threatens to accelerate removal of what’s left of our city’s low-income housing stock, including many units serving minority households in Southeast Seattle.

Preserving housing
The forum was designed to shed light on these trends and identify new legally defensible tools that Seattle could adopt to preserve our low-income housing before putting in place further “smart-growth policies.”

First, a panel of experts shared experiences from across the country. Connie Galambos Malloy, director of programs for Urban Habitat, an environmental-justice group in the Bay Area, described how San Francisco’s growth has made it the most expensive city in the United States. As a result, more city workers, especially lower wage earners, were moving to the suburbs. Commute times, car usage and travel distances went up, undermining the carbon neutrality goals of “smart growth.”

Dennis Keating, professor of urban planning from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, then described what happened to other cities adding densities under the banner of “smart growth.” The increased supply in these already-built-up urban areas did not “trickle down” to the poor. On the contrary, expensive, new residential construction — now legitimized as environmentally “sustainable” —  simply replaced the older, lower-density units.

Sarah Treuhaft from Policy Link, a national social-justice think tank, then presented a toolkit her agency developed to mitigate the effects of “smart growth” on low-income housing. Drawing from that toolkit, the audience then broke into small groups identifying several possible housing preservation strategies for Seattle, including:

•“Inclusionary zoning” laws that would require developers to set aside a percentage of new units in their projects at low-income rent levels.

•Requiring developers seeking upzones or any special exceptions above normal zoning to replace “one-for-one,” and at comparable rent, all existing low-income housing they demolish.

•“Special Review Districts” or “overlay zoning” for gentrifying low-income communities. Neighborhood advisory boards would be created and growth monitored in these areas.

And whenever too much low-income housing was being lost, more housing-levy dollars would be directed into these districts and zoning rules would be altered to require developers to set aside more low-income housing in their projects.

•“Right of First Notice” requiring owners of existing low-income apartment buildings to notify and entertain bids from nonprofit housing developers before selling these buildings to speculators and for-profit developers.

No reconciliation
Still, we remain skeptical that these “smart-growth,” pro-density policies ever can be reconciled with the goal of preventing displacement and achieving social equity.

Data presented at the forum showed that from 2005-2007 — a period of high growth in Seattle — more than 7,000 low-income units were lost to demolition, condominium conversion and increased rents.

When the economy picks up, we fear these trends will emerge with even greater force due to the upzones now being considered in the name of “smart growth.” Even if we do adopt new housing-mitigation measures to accompany these upzones, they won’t be adequate to stem the loss.

For example, a “one-for-one” replacement policy would ensure developers replace any affordable housing they directly demolish. But as Keating pointed out, upzones to these areas will push up land values and lead to rent increases on surrounding properties not directly lost to redevelopment.

More speculative buying and selling of existing rentals will also occur in these now-“hot” areas, driving rents up further, and more rentals are lost to condominium conversions.

Despite our skepticism, we strongly support one-for-one replacement, right of first notice and inclusionary zoning, if only to minimize the growing inequality caused by “smart growth.”

More support needed
Closing the forum, City Councilmember Licata pledged to get a resolution passed to consider the anti-displacement strategies prioritized by the audience, and other attending council members seemed supportive.

Ultimately, however, these tools won’t be adopted unless a larger coalition of housing and homeless advocates come together to push our leaders with the same zeal we did to get the housing levy passed last year.

JOHN V. FOX AND CAROLEE COLTER are coordinators for the Seattle Displacement Coalition, a low-income housing organization (http://www.zipcon.net/~jvf4119/ ).