New Federation Mailing Address

SEATTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEDERATION

3425 WEST LAURELHURST DRIVE NORTHEAST

SEATTLE WA 98105

The correct mailing address for the Federation is shown above. Please revise your address books and mailing lists accordingly. Since late November 2009 Doris Burns had been in several healthcare facilities and some postal mail addressed to her may have have been misplaced or forwarded to an incorrect address. If you believe that some of your Federation mail may not have reached its intended destination, or if you have any questions, please contact me.

I will advise you via e-mail and post on this website when the details of Doris' memorial have been finalized.

Thank you,

Rick Barrett

Vice Chair - Seattle Community Council Federation

rickbarrett@gmail.com

Federation nixes proposed solicitation legislation

SEATTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEDERATION

March 31, 2010

Councilmember Tim Burgess

600 Fourth Avenue, 2nd Floor

P.O Box 94749

Seattle, Washington 98124-4749

Subject: Proposed Aggressive Solicitation Law

Dear Councilmember Burgess:

On Thursday March 25^th at our monthly meeting, with 18 Community Council’s represented, the Federation voted unanimously to oppose your “aggressive solicitation” proposal.

As written, the proposal would give Police broad authority to cite anyone who they determine has caused a reasonable person “to feel compelled” to give. Such vague language turns police into psychologists who must determine the mindset of the person who has been solicited – were they compelled or not? It invites selective enforcement and discrimination against those who don’t look quite right—whose only crime may be their mere appearance—perhaps it’s their color or dress that may be a discomfort to others and thus cause someone to feel compelled to give. It’s overly broad and will invite abuse at the expense of people whose only crime is that they are poor. It casts a net over all who are homeless and in need, not just a few who cause problems.

In San Francisco, where a similar law was put in place in 2004, in four years, 56,000 citations were issued, costing the city 10 million dollars in court and enforcement costs. (Note that “only” about half of these citations were related to panhandling – the rest for other “quality of life” violations.) The majority of those arrested were people of color. All these resources that should have been directed to fighting real crime were wasted. According to one city supervisor (a city councilmember there),“If you had been here several years ago, before the ordinance passed, and came back today, you wouldn’t see a difference in the level of panhandling. There’s as much as ever."

( http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_3_panhandling.html).

What the San Francisco law did, however, was cause great hardship for many homeless and low income people whose only crime was that they were poor. Most of those who are issued a citation cannot pay it, and then warrants are issued.

To quote from “A study Conducted by Religious Witness” entitled “To Determine the Extent and Cost of the Enforcement of ‘ Quality of Life’ Ordinances Against Homeless

Individuals in San Francisco during the Newsom Administration (January 2004-March 2008, ” those arrested under the law in San Francisco, when warrants are issued (since many who receive citations cannot pay the fines) these people "can't pass the standard background checks required for many services like federal housing assistance, SSI or SSDI benefits, employment or even some substance abuse treatment, because they have outstanding warrant."

In other words, a faulty citation for the crime of being poor which cannot be paid because they are poor—warrant issued—and then they are denied access to housing and services needed to help them out of poverty.

This divisive legislation takes us back 15 years to the era of Mark Sidran when without a doubt it was one of the most divisive and conflictual periods in this city’s recent political history. Why take us back to those times with such controversial legislation will do nothing to address real crime?

There already are numerous laws on the books dealing with real street-related crimes, including laws against assault, pedestrian interference, expectoration, trespass, urination, property defacement, theft, graffiti, drug loitering, stalking, littering, public drinking, menacing, malicious harassment, obstruction, to name just a few. It may be that a stronger police presence is needed to apply laws already on the books to respond to these and other real crimes. If so, then let’s move in that direction, rather than waste time, limited resources and jail space on laws that cast a net over everyone.

More importantly, let’s move forward with real solutions that truly help get people off the streets. We want to see, instead, legislation introduced now and first that calls for more money and new programs not just rearranges existing budgets and deck chairs. A far better approach would be a funding package for more housing, livable wage jobs, and community-based treatment, counseling and services for those with disabilities (and linked to housing).

Thank you for considering the views of the Seattle Community Council Federation.

Sincerely,

Jeannie Hale, President

3425 West Laurelhurst Drive NE

Seattle, Washington 98105

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

jeannieh@serv.net

cc: All City Councilmembers

A Dialogue with Councilmember Mike O'Brien

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, March 25, 2010

AGENDA

A Dialogue with Councilmember Mike O'Brien

Councilmember Mike O’Brien chairs the Council’s Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee and serves on the Regional and Sustainable Development, Finance and Budget and Energy, Technology and Civil Rights Committees. What are Councilmember O’Brien’s priorities? Should updating neighborhood plans be a grassroots effort or will the top down approach implemented by the Council work? What components should be included in the Council’s work plan to address the recent audit of District Councils? Will the Council reign in the Department of Neighborhoods in its efforts to lessen the role of district councils in rating large project neighborhood matching fund grants? These are just a few questions that will surface at the March meeting.

The March meeting will also include our monthly Round Robin of issues 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. President’s report

7:15 A Dialogue with City Councilmember Mike O’Brien

8:15 Round Robin

1. Proposed Aggressive Solicitation Ordinance (Come prepared with direction from your group. Information at http://www.cityofseattle.net/council/burgess/.)

2. Changes to Lowrise Multifamily Zoning

3. Neighborhood Design Guidelines

4. Confirmation of Peter Hahn, SDOT Director

5. QFC vs. University Village

6. 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.

Seattle's Urban Villages and Status of Neighborhood Design Guidelines Setting “Planned” Character

3.21.10 SCCF draft by A. Nissen—circulate for confirmation

Per Comprehensive Plan @ A-5 Development Standards: “the City uses development standards to ensure that new development is consistent with the existing and planned character of a neighborhood ...”

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/static/Land%20Use%20element_LatestReleased_DPDP016166.pdf

Using the following sites:

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/Design_Review_Program/Applicant_s_Toolbox/Design_Guidelines/DPD_001604.asp

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@proj/documents/Web_Informational/cos_004510.pdf

These villages DO NOT have design guidelines and must rely upon Development Standards, Citywide Design

Guidelines, and Review Boards to set their intended “planned” character.

Urban Center villages (villages with historic districts not included)

1. Denny Triangle

2. Ravena

3. University District Northwest?

4. 12th Avenue

5. First Hill

Hub villages

6. Bitter Lake

7. Fremont

8. North Rainier

Residential villages

9. 23rd & Jackson

10. Aurora Licton

11. Columbia City

12. Crown Hill

13. Eastlake

14. Madison Miller

15. Westwood Highland Park

16. South Park

17. Rainer Beach

These villages HAVE Neighborhood Design Guidelines theoretically setting intended character

Urban center villages

1.Belltown 2004

2. Capitol Hill 2005

3. Northgate 2003

4. Pike/Pine 2000

5. South Lake Union 2005

6. Uptown 2009

Hub villages

7. Ballard 2001

8. Lake City/North District 2007

9. West Seattle Junction 2001

Residential villages

Admiral 2002

10.Greenlake 2001

11.Greenwood/Phinney 2006

12. Morgan Junction 2007

13. North Beacon Hill 2006

14. Othello 2006

15. Roosevelt 2000

16. University 2005

17. Upper Queen Anne 2009

18. Wallingford 2005

A Modest Proposal for Neighborhood Design Guidelines

WHEREAS, at Sally Clark's Townhouses Forever event at the Taproot March 20, Sally called Bill Bradburd's "complaint" about sequential Neighborhood Planning misdirected: the Council DID CARE and HAD DONE ALL IT COULD.

WHEREAS, the above can be interpreted two ways, the more appropriate being an INVITATION to transform the City's view of neighborhoods with needs into neighborhood with assets.
My reference no greater authority than Obama's favorite organizer (no not Alinsky) John McKnight, who learned all about from DON; I mean the DON that now hanging out at the UW.

WHEREAS, Sally Clark is no longer NP gatekeeper: the Council, in its wisdom, split Land Use, aka Urban Design, in three: Clark took "built environment," O'Brien took neighborhood planning/utilities, Conlin took sustainable/regional development, and not be be forgotten, Licata took Housing. (O'Brien and Conlin, both non COBE members, attended Clark's Taproot affair.)

WHEREAS, attached you will find a two part list, the first part lists the urban villages that 16 years after the urban village strategy was adopted still have NOT set the intended "planned" character for their village in the form of Neighborhood Design Guidelines (NDG). The second part lists the villages that have done so. HALF are still missing-in-action. Shameful.

WHEREAS, I have included there the links to the references I used. While at the link where all the NDGs are kept, open some of them and do some exploring. I find that the last produced ones have learned from the earlier ones, providing ample proof that neighborhoods CAN bootstrap these documents at will. In fact, that is the City's intent. Icing on the cake is that NDG are not limited to what they now call "growth areas" (villages) conserve areas (outside) can do NDGs too.

I THEREFORE PROPOSE that SCCF and CNC initiate a neighboring mentoring service wherein neighborhoods with experience help all to find the intended "planned" characters of "growth areas" that are still missing in action, to decide whether NDGs early on the learning curve need attention, and to set design priorities in conservation areas, e.g. undesignated villages and surrounding neighborhoods. E.g., these topics could be explored in more detail at SCCF's annual late spring workshop.

Caveats:
1. Yes, NDGs are only as good as developments standards, which at the moment are going from "so complicated as to be no law at all" to "return of a failed experiment on steroids".

2. Yes, NDGs are only as good as the criteria for Design Review and the qualifications, values, and integrity of the reviewer(s), both administrative and board.

3. Yes, NDGs rely on the clarity and effectiveness of the Citywide Design Guidelines (CDG), upon which they are based. DEADLINE for CDG update COMMENTS MARCH 31!

4. No, NDGs will not rezone, however no existing NP did that, although a number of savvy ones limited certain upzones. There are two places OUTSIDE of waiting for NP update to raise the issue of miszonings: a) at the required once-a-decade Comprehensive Plan reconsideration now getting underway and b) as an annual Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal submitted just like the developers do (may disappear, if MFU Rezone Criteria are passed in the form submitted to Council or, as is now possible, a worse form.

Anna Nissen
Nissen/Nissen Architect

Multifamily Housing Regulations on SeattlePOSA@yahoogroups.com

Yesterday there was yet another public hearing about boosting Seattle’s population density, this time, by revising the multifamily housing regulations for “lowrise” housing zones -- more height, more dwellings on each new site, and less or no parking spaces.

All the proposals have strong support by the development community and some environmentalists, who like to repeat the notion that increasing density increases affordability, and that increasing density prevents sprawl. I say: untrue for both! Well, look around!

Here’s the point: we should be discussing how we and future generations want to live. Lower relative income in the future suggests smaller, simpler housing. The need for psychological well-being translates to livable neighborhoods and dwellings that resemble homey places to live, better places to be when we won’t be traveling so much.. Sustainability also means treating the environment gently and making wise use of resources. It’s not rocket science, but it does demand the careful crafting of neighborhood plans and city policies.

Here is my testimony to the City Council Members present (Richard Conlin, Sally Clark, Sally Bagshaw, and Tim Burgess):

“I like the direction of these proposals towards creating more human scale for living conditions, a sense of neighborhood, and buildings that have some appearance of being homes.

But one word is missing from the proposal: trees.

Alvar Aalto, considered the genius of human scale design had a dictum: build no buildings higher than the highest trees. This principal is valid in so many ways other that the ability of tall trees to give scale to buildings -- among them, stormwater retention, shade, air quality, and support for habitat.

The examples and photographs provided to illustrate the proposed new types of buildings under the code all have nothing but tiny trees, There is simply no space to provide for substantial trees.

I’d like to see these new regulations and all new projects evaluated for effect on the city’s tree canopy goals and the effect on infrastructure, namely the stormwater drainage system. Also, the restriction of the number of parking spaces on site should be carefully evaluated to make sure that pushing the cars into the streets may result in streets so packed with parked cars that developing Green Streets later will be impossible.

John Barber

reply-to SeattlePOSA@yahoogroups.com

Puget Sound Pollution comments deadline March 23!

PEOPLE FOR PUGET SOUND VIEW AS WEB PAGE | FORWARD TO A FRIEND

TAKE ACTION TO STRENGTHEN CRUISE SHIP MOU!

Dear Heather, As you know, in recent years there has been a steady increase in cruise ships departing from Seattle for Alaskan cruises. These ships travel through Puget Sound, the Straits and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (when traversing south), contributing to threats to human health and the Sound’s unique and diverse marine resources. Instead of being regulated by a permit (similar to those for sewage treatment plants), they operate under an MOU (memorandum of understanding) between the WA Dept of Ecology, the Port of Seattle and the NW CruiseShip Association. This voluntary agreement currently addresses some aspects of water pollution. We are asking you to support three amendments to the MOU to help reduce the cruise ship pollution in three specific ways. Please take a moment right now to provide your input! For your convenience we have set up an easy to use web comment form, just click here. The public comment period ends at midnight on Monday, March 22nd, so act today. In order to stem the tide of cruise ship air and water pollution in Puget Sound and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, we urge you to tell the WA Department of Ecology and the Port of Seattle that you support the following three amendments to cruise ship rules: Ban the discharge of treated wastewater while cruise ships are docked in Elliott Bay; Ban the discharge of all cruise ship wastewater in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary; and Ban the incineration of cruise ship solid waste (which includes sludge, plastics, and other wastes) while they are in Puget Sound and the Strait. Please take action by clicking here. Or, you can email Ecology directly: Please address your comments to Amy Jankowiak at ajan461@ecy.wa.gov. To send comments to the Port of Seattle Commissioners: commission@portseattle.org. Remember, deadline is midnight on Monday, March 22nd, so act today. Together we can and will recover Puget Sound back to health by 2010. Thank you in advance for responding to this call to action. Cheers, Rein Attemann rattemann@pugetsound.org For more information about the Cruise MOU click here.