Audio (4.5 minutes) of an interview that Chris Leman gave to the Feb. 26 KBCS-FM 91.3 show, One World Report, regarding the Seattle City Council's efforts to develop an Open and Participatory Government Plan, and suggestions for it that the Seattle Community Council Federation made in the Feb. 24 letter pasted below.
http://bellevuecollege.edu/kbcs/downloads/One_World_Report/OWR_20090226/OWR_20090226_Open_Government_PMHT.mp3

SEATTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEDERATION

February 24, 2009



City Councilmembers
City Hall, 600 4th Avenue, 2nd floor
PO Box 94749
Seattle, WA 98124-4749

SUGGESTIONS FOR THE OPEN AND PARTICIPATORY GOVERNMENT PLAN AND POLICY AS MANDATED BY RES. 31049

Dear City Councilmembers:

The Seattle Community Council Federation offers here its suggestions for the City Council’s Special Committee on Open Government regarding the Open and Participatory Government Plan and Policy that, under Res. 31049, the Committee is responsible for developing for City Council action. We also provide suggestions on how the Committee might approach its task. Founded in 1946, SCCF has worked for many years toward a more open and participatory Seattle government.

Background. Res. 31049 (adopted April 14, 2008) includes the following:

Section 3 Open and Participatory Government Plan and Policy.
The Council will develop a coordinated plan and policy on open and
participatory government outside of the Comprehensive Plan. The open
and participatory government plan will consolidate current policies
into a cohesive document. Development of the plan and policy will
include reviewing existing policies and considering additional
policies where gaps exist or there are opportunities to extend and
increase the City's commitments. The Council's review will include
consideration of possible Comprehensive Plan policies for the 2009
Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. The Council President will
consult with Councilmembers to either identify an existing Committee
in which this work plan item could be located, or to determine
whether a special Committee should be developed.

Although SCCF regrets that the first meeting of the Special Committee will occur more than ten months after passage of Res. 31049, we look forward to working with the committee as it develops for full Council action an Open and Participatory Government Plan and Policy that we all can be proud of.

2009 City Council Work Program. We are concerned that the City Council’s 2009 Work Program (p. 36) describes the work of the Special Committee for Open Government only as being to “Enhance transparency of Council actions and improve opportunities for public input to Council decisions.” On the contrary, the Open and Participatory Government Plan and Policy that Res. 31049 calls for is clearly not limited to City Council activities, but is to cover all parts of the City government. We request that the Work Program be amended to reflect this broad work product and mission of the Committee.

We regretfully note that adoption of the Seattle City Council 2009 Work Program exemplified barriers to open and participatory government that the Open and Participatory Government Plan and Policy needs to correct. As Res. 31113, the 2009 Work Program was both “walked on” (introduced) and passed at the Feb. 2, 2009 City Council meeting. It was not an agenda item in any City Council committee, nor, prior to its introduction and adoption, was it available on the City web site or even mentioned on that day’s City Council agenda. There was no realistic opportunity for the public to know about what was being proposed nor for the public to provide comments that could have been considered prior to passage.

The description of Council work items and the resources that will be devoted to them is an important statement of Council priorities, one that should be discussed in draft at the committee level, with the public given timely notice and the opportunity to comment. We note that, even after it was adopted, the version that is on the web site is almost unreadable, making it difficult for the public to understand exactly what the Council decided that day.

The Council’s adoption of the 2009 Work Program was not in accordance with Legislative Department Procedure PRO-D-617 (effective Jan. 22, 2008), which states that

All newly-proposed legislation, regardless of whether from the Executive or another agency, or generated by the City Council or staff, must be delivered to the Legislative Department Receptionist or the Deputy Clerk no later than noon on Tuesdays. Exceptions to this procedure, which include the actions commonly known as “walk-ons,” are strongly discouraged and are subject to review by the City Clerk and approval by the Council President prior to the meeting at which they would be introduced. [emphasis in the original]

One wonders what was the rush, as Res. 31113 was adopted on Feb. 2, 2009, more than three weeks earlier in February than was Res. 31045, which adopted the 2008 Work Program on Feb. 25, 2008).

Committee practices. The Special Committee for Open Government should set a good example in providing openness and participation. The agenda for the Committee’s first meeting on Feb. 27 schedules public comment as only the last item on the agenda, preventing public comment from informing the Councilmembers’ discussions during the meeting. While SCCF can see the value of allowing the public to comment at the end of the meeting, we urge that the Committee always provide a public comment period at the beginning of the meeting.

We also find that on the Council web site, the Committee agenda does not have any links to documents that the Committee will be discussing, among them the committee’s draft work plan and the proposed Council Bill to amend the Seattle Municipal Code regarding compliance with the Public Records Act. Such documents should routinely be included as links in the agenda well in advance of Committee meetings, so the public has a meaningful opportunity to comment.

To demonstrate and practice openness and participation, we urge the Special Committee to engage in outreach and publicity about its meetings and drafts; to consider suggestions from the public and comments on committee drafts; and to hold some meetings in the evening or on weekends to reach members of the public who cannot attend committee meetings during the business day.

Conclusion. Thank you for your efforts to improve openness and participation in City government. We look forward to working with you to ensure that these efforts are lasting and successful.

Sincerely,

Jeannie Hale, President
3425 West Laurelhurst Drive NE
Seattle, Washington 98105
206-525-5135 / fax 206-525-9631
jeannieh@serv.net

SUGGESTIONS FROM THE SEATTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEDERATION FOR THE OPEN AND PARTICIPATORY GOVERNMENT PLAN AND POLICY
Below is a listing of specific steps that governments can take to make it easier for citizens to find out what they are doing. Open government depends of course on obedience to laws on open public meetings and the disclosure of public records. But governments should not simply wait for a citizen to ask for information or to attend public meetings; they should proactively maximize the quantity and quality of public access to documents, meetings, and other activities.
City Council
• Publicize meetings of the Council and its committees widely, beyond what is minimally required by state law
• Include citizen stakeholders around the table regularly at Council committee meetings.
• Well in advance of meetings of the Council and its committees, provide on the web site, as links to the agenda, those documents that will be discussed, including amendments likely to be offered
• Provide paper copies (at least for inspection purposes) at meetings of the Council and its committees so that members of the public have the full text of what is being discussed
• Without a declaration by the City Council that the matter justifies a departure from this practice, do not take action on the same day as a hearing, soon after a committee recommendation or on a measure that has not been referred to a committee for its consideration.
• Accompany all legislation with a clear explanation of what is being proposed; in the case of land use legislation, explain how it would affect various types of landowners and renters
• For each quarterly budget adjustment, do public outreach and hold at least one public meeting outside of business hours.
• Do not allow the Growth Management Act’s requirement for prior public notice of “development regulations” to expand to curtail Council and public debate on proposals that are not “development regulations”
• For each quarterly budget adjustment, do public outreach and hold at least one public meeting outside of business hours
• Adopt a City Council rule requiring that Council staff shall not lobby for City legislation (similar rules applying to state House and Senate legislative staff have been in effect for many years).
• Assign Council central staff in a way that ensures that responsibilities for review of proposals • from an agency are not given exclusively to staff who formerly were employees of that agency
• For appointments and renewals that are exclusively the Council’s decision and are made by Council vote (City Clerk, City Auditor, and Hearing Examiner), adopt legislation requiring as much public notice and comment as the Council requires for its confirmation or renewal of Mayoral appointees
• Restore to a majority vote the Council’s decision on whether to release legal advice it has received (a Council rule change adopted in 1998 allows even one Councilmember to veto such release)
• Routinely release for public discussion any legal advice the Council has received unless there is an impending legal proceeding
• Legislative retreats that are public meetings under the Open Public Meetings Act shall be held in City buildings within the City of Seattle and shall be audio recorded
• Executive sessions shall be audio recorded (the City Council in 2008 supported state legislation requiring audio recording of executive sessions, but does not audio record its own)
• Upon request, provide interpretation services at City Council meetings so that people for whom English is not their first language, or who are deaf or deaf-blind, can observe or comment
Mayor and executive branch
• Avoid unilateral budget actions; bring budget adjustments to the City Council for action
• Ensure that public-private partnerships do not become a substitute for public planning and outreach
• In any implementation of a 311 call center, do not close off the public's access to the existing phone numbers of City agencies and officials.
• The Mayor's title shall not be put in the name of City agencies that are not a part of the Office of the Mayor
• Executive branch lobbying of the City Council shall not be exempted from lobby disclosure regulation (at the state level, state and local executive branch lobbying of the legislature has been subject to disclosure for many years)
City Attorney
• Issue opinions on legal matters for public review, including on questions posted by the public (as is done by the state Attorney General)
• Advise the executive branch and City Council on proactive ways to achieve open and participatory government that go beyond the minimal legal requirements of state law
Advisory boards and commissions
• Meetings of City boards and commissions shall be widely publicized, and held in rooms large enough for all
• Board and commission meetings shall be regarded as public meetings, whether or not this is required under the Open Public Meetings Act (which applies only to advisory committees created by ordinance)
• Equip for TV broadcast and web cast the meeting rooms used by the City's boards and commissions
• Adopt an ethical standard for City agencies and officials against trying to influence a decision by an advisory board or commission
• Each board or commission shall choose its own leadership, by-laws, procedures and agenda , but shall operate by Robert's Rules of Order, and strive for consensus
• Draft agenda will be distributed prior to each meeting and adopted at the beginning of the meeting
• Draft minutes shall be distributed prior to the meeting at which they will be approved, with sufficient time for board or commission members, and members of the public to suggest revisions
• Those present who are not board or commission committee members should be provided a reasonable opportunity to comment at meetings. This opportunity should normally be at the outset of the meeting or agenda item, not after the committee has acted or at the end of the meeting. Alternatively, a board or commission may provide members of the public the informal opportunity to participate in discussion throughout the meeting.
• Include on the web site the board or commission's draft agendas, draft and final minutes, and documents to be discussed, or that have already been approved
• Decision documents being referred to during a meeting by board and commission members shall also be available, at least for inspection purposes, to members of the public who are in attendance
• Wherever possible, materials relating to agenda items will be distributed some days prior to the meeting in order to allow board and commission members, and the public, to read and consider them beforehand
• Upon request, provide interpretation translation services so that people for whom English is not their first language, or are deaf or deaf-blind, can observe
Seattle Channel
• Create a separate TV cable channel for arts programming, to restore hours that were lost in recent years from the previous rebroadcast coverage of meetings of the City Council and of City boards and commissions. Ensure that these rebroadcasts again include substantial programming during weekday prime time and weekend daytime hours
• Greatly increase the broadcast and rebroadcast of meetings of City boards and commissions
• Provide closed captioning on Seattle Channel broadcasts
• Webcast the meetings of all the City's boards and commissions.
City web site(s)
• Include with mayoral proposals and proposed and adopted legislation, and in a timely way, all attachments that are referred to
• Post all drafts and proposed amendments that are expected to be brought up during the consideration of a Council Bill
• Keep web sites updated and user-friendly
• Include on public web sites many documents that the public is likely to want, thereby reducing the need for public records requests
• Do not deny access by the public to Seattle's "in web" (internal web site). Withhold internet access to the "in web" only for documents that are legally exempt under the Public Records Act.
Official Newspaper
• As the City Charter requires that official notices be published in a “daily newspaper of general circulation,” do more to facilitate alternatives to the current use of the Daily Journal of Commerce.
Public documents
• Adopt as the City's policy the Washington Attorney General's suggested model rules for the handling of public records
• Archive all electronic documents for at least a year, and do not deliberately record over backup tapes or other media
• Do not allow those who created a document to have the sole decision on deleting it; have that decision made by someone without a potential conflict of interest
• Proactively provide paper copies (e.g. newsletters, posters) for those people who have limited or no access to a computer
Responding to document requests
• Provide documents freely and quickly; do not invoke the Public Records Act as a way to slow down or reduce the provision of documents.
• Do not withhold documents just because legally they can be; decide this on a case by case basis
• With small requests, provide the documents at no charge--the Public Records Act allows but does not require a charge
• Provide the requested documents in electronic form if that is what the requester wants

Nick Likata re legislation creating a major project noise variance

Thank you for writing me about legislation creating a major project noise variance. The legislation would allow major public projects that last over 6 months to receive a variance to allow nighttime construction during the period the project is being constructed. Current law allows for a 2-week variance, which must be renewed.

I proposed two amendments to this legislation. The first amendment would allow for an appeal of a permit to the Hearing Examiner after the first year the permit is in place. This would allow for easier citizen access than having to appeal to Superior Court. This amendment passed by a 6-3 vote.

My second amendment would institute an annual review of any variance, in line with the Quiet Alliance proposal. The proposed legislation provides only for review after the first year. My amendment was defeated by a 5-4 vote. The legislation was then passed at the full council.

While it is unfortunate this amendment did not pass, the amendment that passed will allow for greater citizen accessibility.

Proponents say it will allow for stronger conditions to be put in place from the beginning, because the public agencies will have a greater incentive to agree to conditions and spend more money with a longer duration for the permit. I hope that works; if it doesn’t, the opportunity to appeal to the Hearing Examiner after one year should help.

Sincerely,

Nick Licata

- please circulate - please circulate -

Outside City Hall - reprinted from the March 4th edition of the South Seattle Beacon http://www.sdistrictjournal.com/

Carolee Colter and John Fox respond to their critics in the debate over density:

"Only modest transit development needed and more buses serving the majority in the region not served by rail"

We sure stirred up a hornet’s nest! Our last two columns--critiquing the Futurewise bill mandating minimum densities of 50 units per acre around transit hubs, and questioning whether transit-oriented development (TOD) will help climate change—generated more controversy than any time in the four years we’ve been writing “Outside City Hall.”

A segment of the environmental community is enraged with us because we’ve challenged a key assumption of theirs--that the only way to prevent sprawl, make housing more affordable, and prevent climate change is to cram more housing into Seattle’s neighborhoods. However, there are many residents of southeast Seattle already contending with increased density and gentrification, who agree with us.

"People need yards and open space to be mentally healthy,” said Pat Murakami, president of Southeast Seattle Neighborhood District Council, in the Seattle Times. “Are we supposed to live like sardines crammed into a can?"

Yes, say the proponents of greater density. You must sacrifice your open space, your trees, the very scale of your neighborhood that allows you to know your neighbors. And furthermore, you must make that sacrifice on faith, without guarantees that any particular land anywhere is saved as a result.

Since 2004 Seattle has reached 50% of its 20-year growth targets and we have three times the zoning capacity to meet them. In contrast, many smaller cities around the region aren't meeting their targets. Meanwhile, 30 to 40% of growth in Pierce and Snohomish Counties occurred outside the growth boundaries, (compared to only 2% in King County.) Obviously county and city governments out there on the margins are not effectively holding the line on strip developments and subdivisions.

While Seattle has been absorbing much more than its share of growth in recent years, it’s made no dent in reducing sprawl. Although we have grave concerns about Transfer of Development Rights as a concept, at least it would protect an actual parcel of rural land from suburban sprawl in exchange for urban dwellers “living like sardines.”

But looming over us is an even larger threat than sprawl—global warming. And without a doubt, automobile use is a major cause of that . No one involved in this density debate, us included, questions this science.

What we’re missing, however, is the hard data proving that a minimum of 50 units per acre will reduce automobile use enough to offset the environmental destruction caused by tearing down neighborhoods of smaller, older buildings, wasting the energy embodied in these buildings from their original construction, producing massive amounts of greenhouse gas-emitting concrete and destroying the mature trees.

Proponents point to studies showing a theoretical tipping point with “vehicle miles traveled” falling at 50 units per acre – when most people switch to transit. There is debate even among transit gurus, however, over this tipping point and many say one size does not fit all.

More to the point, those studies extolling 50 units per acre ignore the costs and environmental impacts of removing what's in these communities already. And they don’t even consider the question of whether there is adequate transit capacity in place to absorb those densities.

Take a look at this quote from a recent L.A. Times story on four TOD projects:

“New Urbanist planners have long hoped that building high-density, mixed-use, multiple-unit developments on or near public transit lines would encourage Angeleños to leave their cars and start taking buses and trains. Instead, the properties that Times reporters studied have substantially increased vehicular traffic.”

What the reporters found is that while many people were attracted to the mix of housing and shopping, they were not foregoing their cars.

When Portland built its first MAX light rail line, several transit-oriented housing projects sprang up near stations. However, according to a study by the Cascade Policy Institute, very few living in those buildings used the rail station. Most in fact got in their cars to drive away in the morning. Because parking requirements for these TOD projects had been waived, residents created “guerilla parking spaces” and blocked neighbors’ driveways. Meanwhile commuters from outside the neighborhood drove to the rail station, exacerbating the parking crunch.

Unless car ownership can actually be prohibited (something we doubt), TOD residents will probably still have cars and will still use them, and transit riders from outside the area will drive to transit stations.

If some current residents of neighborhoods near transit stops are displaced from their homes by demolition and higher prices, and others lose their trees and open space, their sacrifice should at least have achieved the desired result of significantly reduced auto trips. We shouldn’t be messing with people’s lives based on wishful thinking.

It’s a disservice to the Growth Management Act and the cause of combating global warming to blindly assume that solutions rest with massive increases in density clustered around a handful of rail stations serving only a small fraction of the region’s commuters.

We advocate for many smaller-scale TOD’s distributed around the Puget Sound region and centered on bus transit and vanpooling. These modest projects could meet the needs of the 95% of commuters who won’t be served by light rail, including those in the hinterlands who currently have no alternative to the auto. In fact there are centers now in existence with unused capacity – with infrastructure already in place that can support more employment and more residents.

Building more office towers in Seattle and a six-lane 520 bridge is going in the wrong direction. Instead of badmouthing suburbia, and expecting all those suburbanites to move to the city, it makes more sense to promote moderate-density TOD suburban centers so that people living there can work closer to home and ride public transit.

The fight against climate change begins with managed and more modest levels of growth here in Seattle done without any more loss of trees, open space and urban streams. The burden of proof rests with those who tell us we must sacrifice our environment on faith in order to preserve it somewhere else. Urgent action is needed that will actually make a difference, not just destroy people’s homes and make developers rich.

- John V. Fox and Carolee Colter (for more information contact 206-632-0668)

QUIET ALLIANCE NOISE ORDINANCE ALERT.

ALMOST THERE, ONLY ONE MORE VOTE NEEDED, HERE’S HOW YOU CAN EASILY HELP.

Thanks to a torrent of calls and e-mails from citizens and businesses, we got four votes at the City Council March 2 against the new loophole in the noise ordinance; but we need a fifth vote to pass a brief new ordinance reversing that devastating result. [Too busy to read further? Please leave messages as suggested below.]

There's hope of reversing Monday's decision against allowing annual revisions in the new variance, which now can last the life of a public construction project. Thanks go to Nick Licata, Richard Conlin, Bruce Harrell, and Richard McIver for voting to allow yearly revisions. They stressed that a variance lasting many years cannot foresee all difficulties in regulating noise, and that the Department of Planning and Development and the City Council itself mustn't be denied the ability to revise it yearly to correct mistakes or omissions. Now they can help us get that fifth vote for the brief new ordinance that is required.

Most importantly, urge Councilmembers Tom Rasmussen, Jean Godden, Tim Burgess, Sally Clark, and Jan Drago to help pass a brief new ordinance reversing their March 2 vote against allowing annual revisions in the their public construction variance. As Transportation Committee Chair and Vice Chair respectively, Drago and Clark bear heaviest responsibility for this historic weakening of the ordinance (which until March 2 limited most variances to two weeks!). They passed the changes out of their committee without correcting DPD's failure to reach out to the public, develop alternatives, or identify the businesses, neighborhoods, and the disadvantaged who will be most hurt.

Rasmussen, Godden, Burgess, Clark, and Drago didn't acknowledge--hopefully didn't know--that their "forever" variance could allow all-night construction not just by WSDOT and Sound Transit, but also local road, bridge, sewer and water agencies, any local improvement district, City Light, the new jail, the Port, the Seattle Housing Authority, the Convention Center, public schools and colleges--in fact, any federal, state, local, or special-purpose agency that exists or might be invented.

Noise is harmful--some countries (even our own) have used it for torture. Seattle's noise ordinance (adopted in 1978) explicitly commits the City Council to protect the public's 'sleep and repose.' To be honest, the Council on Monday should also have repealed that uniquely strong commitment--but to honor it, the Council must not allow this new loophole to stand. In barring nighttime noise, the ordinance has for thirty years also protected against nighttime light, dust, vibration, and traffic--all will increase with the new variance that, for the life of the project, could allow construction 24-7.

Without a yearly opportunity to revise the variance, citizens and businesses from now on will have no recourse once they discover how grossly public construction is evading the noise ordinance's protections. Because of how the five Councilmembers voted on Monday, now if the City tries to tighten a variance's hours or noise levels, the construction agency will get a court to block the improvements, as the applicable law is what existed when the variance was issued. The March 2 repeal of checks and balances also makes it easier for regulators to be captured by the regulated. The Council simply must pass a brief new ordinance reversing this reckless, lasting blow to livability and democratic rights--and won't unless you call and write NOW. The decks are stacked against us, but we must try--for ourselves, and for future generations.

The Council must also reconsider its March 2 action because--after the public comment period ended--it suspended its rules to allow Sound Transit to strongly oppose Licata's amendment allowing annual revision of the variance. Revealingly, Sound Transit also acknowledged that it's been working quietly on the proposals since March 2006 with the City regulators (not for another two years did the public and the Council receive the proposals, in April 2008!). On March 2 the Council compounded this incestuous relationship by giving Sound Transit the last word, denying the public any chance to rebut its special pleading before giving Sound Transit what it wanted. Where's the Council's sense of fair play?

Please sound off (quietly) to all! Individually addressed messages are always more heeded than if sent to all Councilmembers in common. The fax number is (206) 684-8587; the address is City Council, P.O. Box 34025, Seattle, WA 98124-4025. Send e-mail and leave a voice mail. Here are the names and message (or just say you support the Quiet Alliance's effort at reconsideration):

PLEASE RECONSIDER YOUR MARCH 2 VOTE, AND SPONSOR A BRIEF NEW ORDINANCE ALLOWING ANNUAL REVISIONS IN THE PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION VARIANCE

sally.clark@seattle.gov 684-8802
tim.burgess@seattle.gov 684-8806
tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov 684-8808
jean.godden@seattle.gov 684-8807
jan.drago@seattle.gov 684-8801

THANKS FOR VOTING TO ALLOW ANNUAL REVISIONS IN THE PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION VARIANCE. PLEASE SPONSOR A BRIEF NEW ORDINANCE MAKING THAT CHANGE IN THE MARCH 2 RESULT

richard.conlin@seattle.gov 684-8805
bruce.harrell@seattle.gov 684-8804
nick.licata@seattle.gov 684-8803
richard.mciver@seattle.gov 684-8800

The above alert was prepared by Chris Leman (Ph.D., political science) for the Quiet Alliance.
He can be reached at (206) 322-5463, cleman@oo.net.

SEATTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEDERATION
Regular Meeting
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency), Pacific Marine Center on Lake Union
1801 Fairview Avenue East
http://seattlefederation.blogspot.com/
Thursday, February 26, 2009

AGENDA

Street Vacations – Understanding the Process and the
Public Benefit Requirement
featuring Beverly Barnett, Seattle Department of Transportation

Street vacation petitions are filed by private property owners and developers throughout the City. Some are minor; others involve significant transfers of public right-of-ways to private interests. Seattle’s policies require a long-term public benefit to the general public for approval of a vacation petition. How does the City interpret and apply the “public benefit requirement?” Is it sufficient that the community would benefit from the economic growth a shopping mall would bring? Should major institutions such as universities and hospitals be off the hook because they serve a public purpose? Learn about the City’s complex street vacation process, the many issues and how you can get involved from Beverly Barnett who plays a major role in the street vacation process in the City.

The February meeting will also include our monthly Round Robin of issues and projects in your neighborhood. It is your opportunity to brief our citywide membership about what you are working on and to share perceptions on what is going right and what isn’t with our city government.

If you have informational materials you would like distributed at the meeting, please email electronic copies or links to Jeannie Hale at jeannieh@serv.net.

7:00 Call to Order and Introductions
Administration
1. Changes to the agenda
2. Treasurer’s report
3. President’s report

7:15 Street Vacations – Understanding the Process and the Public Benefit Requirement: Beverly Barnett, SDOT

8:00 Round Robin

1. Open and Participatory Government Plan
2. New alliance opposing the Dearborn/Goodwill project
3. Funding for the Mercer Project—or Not
4. HB 1490—Futurewise or Unwise Future?—an Update
5. Other issues/projects

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.

The latest version of the TOD bill hit the street Friday night, 02/18/09, and significantly waters down some density requirements (The Senate version of the bill is SB 5687.)
The new draft requires 50 units/acre only in areas previously defined by the Puget Sound Regional Council as “growth centers.” These centers are: Auburn, DT Bellevue, Overlake, Everett, Federal Way, Kent, Lakewood, Lynnwood, Puyallup, Redmond, Seatac, Capitol Hill, DT Seattle, Northgate, the University District, DT Tacoma, and Tukwila.

Get the 02/13/09 version of HB 1490 at http://seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/h-19642.pdf

THE RAINIER VALLEY POST: What if Futurewise & TCC had a community meeting & forgot to invite the community? 2/14

THE RAINIER VALLEY POST: What if Futurewise & TCC had a community meeting & forgot to invite the community? 2/14