"...and to all a good night?" Only if you act now! Please urge the City Council not to use the variance process to weaken Seattle's Noise Ordinance by eliminating public meetings and most appeals and by going easier on public construction projects

In a pretty fair impersonation of Scrooge, Bad Santa, and the Grinch, three members of the City Council's Transportation Committee on Dec. 16 slipped us a lump of coal by expanding the variance process in a way that undermines Seattle's noise ordinance.

Hardly in the Christmas spirit, they approved the Mayor's proposals (Council Bill 116204) to (1) give public construction projects (which, like private construction, now use temporary variances of two weeks or less) their own permanent "forever" variance; (2) eliminate the "public meeting on due notice" that is currently required before the City acts on any variance of more than two weeks; and (3) eliminate the public's right to a Hearing Examiner ruling on whether a temporary variance was issued improperly. Expected to come to a full Council vote in mid-January, the proposals would be a historic setback to the public's right to peace and quiet.

Whoville's livability and Tiny Tim's health are at stake! A civic movement got Seattle's nationally recognized noise ordinance passed, and only a civic movement can save it. See below on the newly forming Quiet Alliance--but most urgently, please call and write all nine City Councilmembers. Background is below.

Noise at night carries furthest and is most intrusive. Disturbance of sleep is harmful--and is sometimes used for torture. For good reason, the noise ordinance (Seattle Municipal Code 25.08) strongly limits noise, especially at night. Adopted in 1978 by an enlightened Mayor and City Council, the ordinance expressly commits the Council to protect the people's "sleep and repose," and declares: "It is the policy of the City to minimize the exposure of citizens to the physiological and psychological dangers of excessive noise and to protect, promote, and preserve the public health, safety and welfare."

Noise controls will be a fraud if the City Council makes it easy for agencies and businesses to get variances that evade these controls. Restrictions on amplified noise after 10 p.m. that the Council added to the noise ordinance in 2007, and the Mayor and Council's good current proposal to reduce to 7 p.m. from the current 10 p.m. the evening hours when construction noise is allowed in residential areas--these controls are less than meet the eye because a temporary variance can set them aside, and they will be further diminished by eliminating the public's right to a Hearing Examiner ruling on whether such a variance was issued properly.

Administrative appeals to the Hearing Examiner were established to be inexpensive and citizen-friendly; eliminating them would leave citizens the unrealistic alternative of going to court, requiring a lawyer and great expense. The possibility of an administrative appeal keeps variances reasonable, and actual appeals force mid-course corrections when DPD issues variances too easily or without strong conditions. Without the public's right to appeal temporary variances to the Hearing Examiner, there will be no real check on DPD abuses.

The City Council must not accept the deeply flawed process that produced these proposals. The Mayor is also chair of Sound Transit, one of the agencies (along with WSDOT and the City's own SDOT) that most wants construction noise at night. Seattle's Department of Planning and Development (DPD) has been captured by these agencies and by businesses--all of whose noise it is supposed to regulate. Contrary to the well-balanced advisory committees, public hearings, and environmental impact statement that produced the 1978 noise ordinance, DPD cooked up the 2008 changes without hearings, did no EIS (which would carefully analyze who would suffer) and its "advisory committee" was private meetings with WSDOT, Sound Transit, and SDOT. Public interest advocates were excluded and not even notified of the changes being considered.

We can turn this around! Please urge City Councilmembers to do the following:

(1) Don't eliminate the required "public hearing on due notice" regarding proposed variances of more than two weeks. Do add a requirement for a "public hearing on due notice" for any proposal to grant more than two temporary variances (two weeks or less) at once to the same applicant.

(2) Don't eliminate the right to appeal temporary variances to the Hearing Examiner.

(3) Don't create a “major public project construction” variance. But if so, limit it to one year, with a new application, a public hearing on due notice, and a right of appeal to the Hearing Examiner for each yearly renewal.

(4) Urge the Council to send the proposal back to the Mayor, requesting that DPD provide it to those who have commented in the past on noise, conduct a series of public meetings, and consider public comments before making a recommendation, and before the City Council acts on the ordinance changes.

Scrooge, Bad Santa, and the Grinch did have a change of heart, so there's hope here for the Transportation Committee members (in fact, they say they're receptive to suggestions), and also that the other six Councilmembers will listen. Please sound off (quietly) to all! Below are the e-mail addresses and the voice mail numbers (individual messages are always more heeded than ones addressed to all Councilmembers in common). Faxes may be sent to (206) 684-8587, and the mail address is Seattle City Council, P.O. Box 34025, Seattle, WA 98124-4025.

sally.clark@seattle.gov684-8802
tim.burgess@seattle.gov684-8806
tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov684-8808
jean.godden@seattle.gov684-8807
richard.conlin@seattle.gov684-8805
jan.drago@seattle.gov684-8801
bruce.harrell@seattle.gov684-8804
nick.licata@seattle.gov 684-8803
richard.mciver@seattle.gov 684-8800

The above alert was prepared by Chris Leman, (206) 322-5463, mailto:cleman@oo.net, as an individual. Volunteers are Contact us to help the Quiet Coalition's organizing efforts or if you could create or host its web site. And please help by sharing this message with others, and soon. This issue affects everyone who values peace and quiet in Seattle.

FEDERATION HOLIDAY PARTY ALERT 12/19/08

Severe weather will limit attendance at the annual holiday party to those who can arrive on foot. All roads to Vivain’s home are impassable. If you need to take a car or bus to get there just forget it. If you can walk to Vivian’s you’re welcome to come.

We hope to be able to schedule a get-together on Friday, January 12, when the weather’s better, stay tuned.

HOLIDAY GREETINGS

Vivian McLean and the
Seattle Community Council Federation
invite you to Our Holiday Party
December 19th at 7:00 P.M. at the home of
Vivian McLean, 3814 20th Ave SW

Bring and enjoy refreshments and meeting old and new friends and the warmth of West Seattle at its best

HERE’S A MAP

Driving Directions

Take the Delridge off ramp from the West Seattle Freeway,
Go south on Delridge Ave SW to the traffic light,
Then (left) east to 21st Ave SW,
North (left) to the street end,
East (left) to 20th Ave SW
Finally, south just a tad on the east (left) [even-numbered] side of the street.
It's the big white house with the Christmas lights on the porch .

Meeting Highlights - November 20, 2008

(Based on the editor's notes --- these are not official minutes)

President’s Report:
The Federation sent letters to the City
(a) Urging delay of its proposed long-term leasing of buildings in Magnuson Park, an action illegal under the Washington Shoreline Management Act;
(b) Opposing earmarking of $43 million for rebuilding Mercer Street as two-way street;
(c) Urging the mayor to reconsider his plan to evict the Nickelsville homeless encampment at the University Christian Church, NE 50th St and 15th Ave NE;
(d) Supporting funding for a comprehensive aquatics plan; and
(e) To preserve the trees at Ingraham High School.

Jail Siting:
Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Seattle, and Shoreline formed a municipal jail planning coalition to evaluate six potential sites for a new regional jail, and hired a consultant at a cost of $380,000. Three of the sites are in Seattle (5th & Jefferson; 1600 W. Armory Way; and Highland Park Way S.W. and West Marginal Way S.W.); one in Bellevue, one in Shoreline, and one in-unincorporated King County. The group plans a series of public for in early December and scoping meetings for a draft environmental impact statement in early January (January 8th at 6 to 8:30 p.m. at City Hall). King County will continue to house felons. The jail would be planed for 445 jail beds. Its estimated cost is $ 220 million.
Real Change Executive Director Timothy Harris said the money could be better spent on alternative programs. Jailing offenders spoils the convict's future: a jail record reduces potential earnings by 18%; it makes loans for college difficult to obtain; it will deny public housing and food stamp allotments. Many are convicted for drug offenses and really ought to be receiving medical and psychological treatment. 85% of the people on welfare wind up in trouble with the law, and more active intervention and assistance at the first brush, would head off later offenses. Seattle citizens called for more emphasis on alternatives to jailing, and the City stipulated that the jail siting study consider alternative methods of punishment and rehabilitation as part of the study.

Voting Machines:
Our next election comes February 4th -- for King County Superintendent of elections and for schools in many districts. A plurality wins -- no run-offs. King County plans to conduct the election by mail with a few in-person voting places using touch screen voting.
Motion passed to ask King County and the Washington Secretary of State to provide a paper trail for all ballots from the time received by mail or cast until counted so that a recount by hand can verify them.

Children's Hospital master plan:
Laurelhurst will appeal to the Seattle Hearing Examiner the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Children's Hospital Expansion. The EIS understates the impacts, failed to study alternatives, and erred in many other respects. Children's rejected the recommendation of the Citizens Advisory Committee ("CAC") to exclude the Hartmann site from the new major institutions boundary. The City also left testimony of witnesses in the neighborhood out of the record.
Rick Barrett testified at the Children's Citizens Advisory Committee in support of the position taken by the Laurelhurst Community Council. Our letters and testimony were not heeded.
Motion passed for the Federation to join in the appeal.

University Village Expansion:
QFC applied to the City to build a two-story garage with parking for 585 cars topped with 3 or 4 floors of market-rate apartments at the north end of its site; a 10,000 square foot food court; and a 21,000 square foot expansion of its store on the south along NE 45th St.
The Laurelhurst Community Council will write to the City Department of Planning and Development to ask that a declaration of significance be issued with environmental review of the project; that the City require that the QFC project be coordinated with the University Village's expansion; and that the traffic impacts for both projects be done or redone to consider the cumulative impacts of both.

City Council Elections:
Pundits speculate that three City Councilmembers may not seek re-election, leaving open seats on the City Council. So far half a dozen candidates are exploring a run for office.
http://www.realchangenews.org/
Motion passed to send a letter to City officials in support of the request of the Lake Union Opportunity Alliance (LUOA) that the environmental impact statement for the South Lake Union upzone consider the alternative that LUOA proposed.

Initiative 409:
Albert Fong explained Initiative 409 and circulated it for signatures by those present. The concise description says: "This measure would require state and local agencies to cooperate in enforcing federal immigration laws and would require verifying immigration status of persons seeking employment, receiving driver's licenses, and receiving some public benefits."

Burien Annexation:
The mayor will try again for legislation that will provide a subsidy to Seattle in order that it may annex White Center/North Highline. A draft letter was circulated asking Seattle area legislators to reject the proposal.

Interim Tree Protection Ordinance, CB 116404 is coming up for hearing on December 15 at 5:30 p.m.

Incentive Zoning Proposal

The Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Seattle Association, the Master Builders of King and Snohomish Counties, and a score of major developers wrote to the Mayor and the Seattle City Council recommending that the incentive zoning proposal be amended as follows
[This abstracts their letter with some of its text deleted but not changed; bullets are in the original. It is copied here so our members may know their views]

• Develop an incentive zoning policy framework by resolution, and establish specific incentive zoning requirements for each neighborhood through the legislative rezone process. One size does not fit all neighborhoods. When complete, the legislative rezones currently being considered by the City (and future rezones) may indeed result in different bonus height limits for each neighborhood. By establishing a single city-wide incentive zoning standard, the city would create a situation where it could cost more to develop in one neighborhood with lower height limits than another neighborhood with greater height limits. If a developer can elect to participate in the incentive zoning program in one neighborhood with 125-foot bonus height limits, why would they choose to develop in a neighborhood with 85 foot height limits if the incentive zoning requirements will have a greater impact on the profitability of a project in an 85 foot zone? By adopting a one size fits all approach, the City would be effectively creating an uneven playing field and favoring one neighborhood over another for future development.

• Limit program to Urban Centers and Urban Villages

• Focus incentive zoning requirements on heights 85 feet and above. Projects at heights between 45 and 85 feet present inherent construction challenges. Adding a costly incentive zoning requirement below 85 feet will only further discourage developers from using bonus heights to build more housing.

• Maintain fee in lieu option eliminating this option would definitely dissuade many developers from electing to take advantage of bonus heights and create the unintended consequence of more projects being developed at the base zoning heights. (The two projects under construction downtown that have taken advantage of the incentive zoning program have elected to exercise this option).

• Allow affordable housing credits to be transferred if a developer builds or provides extra, non-required affordable housing units, then the developer has "credits" that can be sold to another developer who needs the units.

• Include a sunset clause or a regular, mandatory review an incentive on paper must be one that also works in practice.

• The City should require an annual review of all incentive zoning policies to ensure that they are meeting their stated objectives.

• The review should be conducted by an outside, independent consultant and be informed by an oversight committee representing diverse interests.

• Base the performance fee off of "net" bonus area, not "gross" and include an annual review of the appropriate fee amount, not an automatic escalator.

• Basing the performance fee off of net bonus space would keep the policy consistent with downtown requirements.

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, November 20, 2008

AGENDA

Quarterly Round Robin on Neighborhood Projects and Issues
A Continuation of a Seemingly Never-ending Story

The September Federation meeting will continue our quarterly discussion 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.

The Round Robin is a great networking opportunity and a chance to generate support from the Federation and its member organizations for the important work you are doing.

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 Round Robin
1. Jail siting—Update (15 minutes)
2. Vote counting machines—Will King County be prepared to have a paper trail to voting results?
3. Appeal of the Children’s Final EIS
4. Electing a County Elections Officer—The Process and are there any Candidates for the February Election?
5. University Village proposed expansion—Yet again! 300 unit housing complex planned at QFC
6. Upcoming City Council Races
7. 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.

Federation October 23, 2008 Meeting Highlights (Based on the editor's notes --- these are not official minutes)

Consider this contrast: (a) The City is getting ready to pass an ordinance for "incentive zoning," a catch phrase for giving developers bonuses in height and bulk in building apartments and condos in exchange for providing some "affordable" (i.e. middle income) housing units; and (b) the Mayor is moving to oust the homeless encampment (Nickelsville) at the parking lot of University Christian Church. Read on!

Incentive Zoning: John Fox of the Seattle Displacement Coalition explained the proposal:
Developers would get greater density for apartments and condos if the developer agrees to lease 10-20% of the new units --- the exact figures have yet to be set --- at rents or sell condos at prices "affordable" for households earning 80% of area median income ("AMI"). Alternatively, the developer could "buy bulk" by paying between $15 and $18.94 per square foot for bonus square footage into a housing fund; commercial developers would pay an additional $ 3.25 per square foot toward childcare facilities.
The City calculates that the bonuses would increase a developer's return on investment by 15-20% for high-rise buildings and 1-2% with mid-rise structures. The program would use rent reporting --- no occupancy qualifications --- so that wealthier people could (experience shows they will) compete for the units. The "affordable units" need not be on site nor do the "buy bulk” replacements have to be in the neighborhood. The proposal was worked up a task force comprised of developers, save for one member. The City Council held a public hearing at 9:00 A.M., well attended by the developers and their employees. No more are planned. The AMI is now set at $81,400; 80% would be $65,120. . The formula multiplies gross pre-tax income by 30% and divides by 12 for a monthly rent. A developer could then charge $1384 for a 2 bedroom unit; $1230 for a one bedroom; and $1076 monthly for a studio unit. In fact, over 90% of the apartment units advertised in a free monthly apartment rental publication rent at less than those figures. 79% of the work force gross less than $ 65,120 annually ($32.56 per hour for a 2000 hours work year (50 weeks x 40 hours per week). 51.3% earn less than $ 42,200 annually ($21.10.
per hour). The $42,200 wage earner would have to pay over 30% of his pre--tax income to rent even a studio unit. Seattle's 2020 growth targets are already being exceeded in almost all neighborhoods.
The City claims "incentive zoning" won't increase "height and/or density limits in any neighborhood." However, common sense shouts out that the new buildings will be taller and bigger by the amount of the bonuses; that people will experience bigger and bulkier buildings on the ground; and that over a short time, those super-sized structures will set the standard for the neighborhood. It's de facto, haphazard up-zoning.
The Seattle Chamber of Commerce urged the City Council to cut the malarkey and do a direct up-zoning.

Nickelsville Homeless encampment: When Mayor Nickels evicted "Nickelsville" on a street end, the University Christian Church offered to host it for several months in its parking lot at NE 50th St and 15th Avenue NE. The encampment houses about 100 people in individual blue, green, and pink tents. Its rules forbid alcohol and drug use and disorderly conduct; it supplies its own Sanicans; and volunteers provide security. Residents sleep in sleeping bags over air mattresses on the ground. Some residents work seasonally, some are unskilled, depending on casual labor, some are transients, and some suffer with mental illness that renders them unemployable. The Mayor ordered the encampment closed by Halloween; he cites an agreement with a sponsor of another encampment several years ago that only one such site would be permitted at any one time. Another sponsor is hosting one elsewhere.
Motion passed to write to the Mayor urging the City to seek a declaratory judgment before evicting this encampment. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) sets a high standard that a government must meet before impinging on the exercise of religious liberty. Helping the homeless is part of the church's religious mission. The City would therefore have to prove that it has a compelling interest in, and no less restrictive alternative to, closing the encampment; and if it fails, the City may be liable for damages and attorney's fees.

New $220,000,000 Jail? Real Change is urging the City Council to reconsider spending 4½ million dollars to plan for a new seven-acre municipal jail. It urges the City to invest in mental health and drug rehab services, diversion programs, home detention, group rehab houses, and other alternatives to lock-ups.
Motion passed to support Real Change's request and broaden the study to consider alternatives to detention and thereby reduce the size of the facility, cut the annual cost of jailing people, and get better results.
[Moderators Note: In recent days the movement to re-examine the need for a new jail is gathering steam. Here’s what the City Council, The King County Prosecutor, the City Attorney and the local media have very recently said:

Tim Burgess, Chair, Public Safety, Human Services & Education Committee said: (11/11/08)
The Council is also very likely to order a study of jail capacity needs in the future, including a review of the City's very successful jail diversion efforts that have led to a 40% reduction in jail bookings over the past 10 years. The Council wants to study additional alternatives to jail for low-level criminal behavior, such as minor drug offenses. I toured the region's jails this summer as part of my work on jail expansion plans and found two types of individuals incarcerated who didn't belong there—persons with mental health challenges and low-level drug offenders. Both of these groups deserve treatment services instead of jail.

Councilmember Nick Licata, a member of Tim’s Public Safety Committee says: (11/10/08)
DOES SEATTLE NEED TO BUILD A NEW JAIL?
In last week’s Council Budget Committee of the Whole, I presented a proposal that would help the City determine whether we truly need to build a new jail. I believe we need to examine the inevitability of needing a new seven-acre facility, estimated at $110 million to build and about $19 million a year to operate and proposed to a) either be sited in a Seattle neighborhood and operated by the City or b) sited in King County suburban city and jointly operated .

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD (11/10/08):
With the city's budget turning shaky, the last thing to spend money on should be a new jail. It's not a priority when people are hurting.
The Seattle City Council is weighing a good step toward investigating the necessity of a new jail. The council could withhold millions in facility funding for 2009 and 2010 until the city studies whether it might avert the need with new policies and programs on drug arrests.
Duty, not enthusiasm, has driven Mayor Greg Nickels' work on a jail. A mayoral adviser welcomed the idea of studying whether most drug offenders could be diverted -- safely and efficiently -- to social services before being jailed. A key would be King County funding enough services through a new mental health and substance abuse sales tax. The county and city have to make tough budget choices. If public safety can be preserved without a new jail, everyone will be happier.

The Stranger - Culture Clash by Dominic Holden (11/13/08):
In a testy letter to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, [City Attorney] Carr chastised the P-I's editorial board for suggesting that city leaders should consider "shift[ing resources] from the prosecution of low-level drug crimes into recovery programs" to handle the city's free-falling budget. That strategy, popular among Seattle progressives and several local lawmakers, saves money and has been shown to be more effective than incarceration.
King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg is diverting about 2,300 low-level drug cases away from prosecution and jail to help shave roughly $4 million from his budget, Satterberg, in contrast, has proposed sending thousands of drug-possession cases from King County Superior Court to the lower county district court, where, he says, most defendants "will not get jail." Because those defendants would no longer be eligible for drug court, a division of King County Superior Court, Satterberg's approach is actually more lax than the one advocated by the P-I's editorial board.

The Stranger - In The Hall by Erica C. Barnett (11/13/08):
The council may also hold off on spending the $82 million the mayor has requested to widen Mercer Street in South Lake Union, cut funding for pedestrian-safety programs, and put planning for a new city jail on hold until the council can determine whether changing the city's approach to drug crimes could make a new jail unnecessary.
In addition, 36th District Representative Mary Lou Dickerson, who came to our aid during the Northwest Hospital Incinerator battle more than a decade ago, and who represents the area that includes the proposed Interbay jail site, as well as the nearby Magnolia Community Club and the Queen Anne Community Council, both noted powerhouse community groups with plenty of clout, has expressed an interest in a legislative investigation of the proposed jail financing and siting scheme.

All said, it appears that what was proposed as an inevitable seven-acre blight in some unfortunate Seattle neighborhood may not get past the initial planning stage.]


Air Pollution: Motion passed to approve the letters in our September newsletter to government officials. These letters follow up recent studies pointing to higher risks of cancer due to airborne pollutants.

Budget priorities:
(a) The Mayor over estimated revenues and left it to the City Council to make cuts. One proposed cut would chop $300,000 for support of the City's senior centers. The economic downturn has especially hurt seniors, who must stretch their fixed incomes further and senior centers are more vital for them for meals, companionship, and helping each other.
(b) The Central Area Seniors have no lease for their center and need to get money to fix it up, but granting agencies won't consider their application until it gets a lease.
Motion passed to write letters opposing the budget cut (a) above, and ask for a lease and assistance to the Central Area Seniors.
(c) The City needs therapeutic pools for seniors and others afflicted with a variety of ailments. Children’s' Hospital has the only warm water therapy pool in Seattle and it is over-subscribed. The City's population over age 60 is now 15.6% of the population and will soon reach 20.4%. Moreover, the City needs more swimming pools for the general public. A growing percentage of Seattle youth never learn to swim. Private pools have long waiting lists, and the current public pools are crowded.
Motion passed authoring letters to appropriate government officials to ask that the next parks levy include therapeutic pools; that the City assess opening the former Officers' pool at Magnuson Park; and that it consider adding pools in the next parks levy.

Magnuson Park: The City Council passed ordinances authorizing long-term sweetheart leases at Sand Point and an amendment to its overlay ordinance to authorize the non-park uses. It is also negotiating with the Federal government to release the restriction of uses to park purposes. It is also seeking to change the ground rules to allow it to tear down buildings within the historic district and construct new faux buildings that would expand their footprint. Although the City had promised the United States in its environmental process preliminary to the acquisition that it would create a Sand Point Historic District, and represented that it was doing so, the City never followed through. Developers see this lapse as an opportunity and are moving in.
Motion passed to write to appropriate officials at the federal and state level nominating the district for designation, and to the City and its Landmarks Board for establishing a historic district; to urge the City to comply with the Landmarks Ordinance as if the district had been established as promised and represented; and to express dismay at the lapse.

University Village Expansion: University Village shopping center will expand by 26% and add a 900 space parking garage. Incredibly, DPD determined that it has no significant environmental impact. Moreover, it relied traffic studies done for the Children's Hospital expansion, which were inadequate.


Neighborhood blogs: The Seattle Channel has the video of the recent City Club/Library meeting on neighborhood blogs, a nascent but potent influential phenomena. Seattle is well represented; See The West Seattle blog, Pinehurst Community Blog, Miller Park Neighborhood Association blog, Capitol Hill Seattle, Central District News are outstanding examples of good neighborhood blogs. See the list of neighborhood blogs and websites (sometimes it’s hard to tell them apart) on the Federation blog

Noise ordinance appeal: Chris Leman presented his appeal on the amendments to the City noise ordinance that permit public works construction to exceed nighttime noise limits. The City determined that this would have no significant environmental impact. Chris called two witnesses: Dr. Ted Lane and the former mayor of Burien, an acoustical engineer. The City sought to block their testimony on procedural grounds and partially succeeded. The City Attorney's office has been a stickler on the rules, pouncing on the slightest deviation. Briefs are due soon.
[Editors Note: the Assistant City Attorney later moved to strike Chris' brief because it was filed one minute late! The motion was denied.]

Mercer Mess: Motion passed to send a letter of appreciation to Senator Mary Lou Dickerson (D-36) for opposing use of state money for the Mayor/Vulcan Development $220,000,000 proposal for a two-way Mercer Street, that would actually increase travel time through this corridor.

Save the Trees: Motion passed to send a comment letter to the City's Department of Community Development opposing the issuance of a permit on application #3009549 to cut a grove of trees on the Ingraham High School Campus. Last August, the Superior Court had issued a temporary injunction, and the School District then withdrew its application. The School district has now filed a new application very similar to the earlier one. There are alternate locations on the 28-acre site for the construction.

Goodwill site redevelopment: The hearing examiner made findings and recommendations in accord with the City's presentation and failed to discuss major points made by the community. The community will appeal to the City Council. The developer is asking for vacation of two acres of City streets and will pay eight million dollars in street vacation fees, but wants the City to apply all the money for project mitigation that the developer is required to do.
Motion passed to authorize two sets of letters:
(a) a letter to appropriate City officials to oppose applying the street vacation fees for mitigation. The developer on its own should pay those costs. There are other very important needs in the area that the money should be spent on. The developer's proposal in essence lets it get the street vacation for free.
(b) a letter to the City Council asking it not to accept the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. The Hearing Examiner did not follow all the criteria for a rezone. The Hearing Examiner picked out the portions of the record that support the City's presentation, but did not cite the record as a whole.
Residential Parking Zones. Motion passed to oppose imposing RPZs where they're not wanted by local residents and businesses.

Councilmember Burgess on new jail

Excerpted from Tim Burgess’ City View Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue #12 • November 12, 2008

Other Public Safety Considerations

The Council is also very likely to order a study of jail capacity needs in the future, including a review of the City's very successful jail diversion efforts that have led to a 40% reduction in jail bookings over the past 10 years. The Council wants to study additional alternatives to jail for low-level criminal behavior, such as minor drug offenses. I toured the region's jails this summer as part of my work on jail expansion plans and found two types of individuals incarcerated who didn't belong there - persons with mental health challenges and low-level drug offenders. Both of these groups deserve treatment services instead of jail.

Councilmember Burgess is the chair of the Public Safety, Human Services & Education Committee and may be contacted at Phone: (206) 684-8806 Fax: (206) 684-8587
Tim burgess@seattle.gov

DOES SEATTLE NEED TO BUILD A NEW JAIL?

Urban Politics #266, 11/13/08

By City Councilmember Nick Licata

DOES SEATTLE NEED TO BUILD A NEW JAIL?

SUMMARY
In last week*s Council Budget Committee of the Whole, I presented a
proposal that would help the City determine whether we truly need to
build a new jail. I believe we need to examine the inevitability of
needing a new seven-acre facility, estimated at $110 million to build
and about $19 million a year to operate and proposed to a) either be
sited in a Seattle neighborhood and operated by the City or b) sited in
King County suburban city and jointly operated .

BACKGROUND
The City*s contract with King County for jail space expires in 2012
and without a contract with the County, the City has no place to jail
arrested misdemeanants. For this reason, 4.5 million dollars of next
year's city budget have been dedicated to siting a new jail which the
City determines could be built by the end of 2013.

In addition, the King County Prosecutor, in response to impending
budget reductions, is offering many drug defendants a reduced plea to a
misdemeanor, after which the defendant will have no requirement to, and
no assistance to, get treatment or any other intervention that would
lessen the likelihood of future criminal conduct. I prefer the approach
described below that continues to use the threat of incarceration to
entice offenders into treatment programs.

MY PROPOSAL
My proposal would require an evaluation of how arrests and jail
bookings could be reduced if the Seattle Police Department changed its
approach to enforcing low-level felony drug violations (offenses
involving marijuana or less than ten grams of other illegal drugs).
Here are some of the questions I proposed that this evaluation
consider:

If some number of violations could be addressed through referrals to
appropriate treatment and services, what impact would be seen on the
need for jail beds? What types of treatment and services would be
needed; at what cost? Would there be impacts to public safety; if so,
what? Could these alternatives to criminal prosecution of low-level
drug felonies be established in such a manner to ensure long-term access
to King County jail space adequate to accommodate all Seattle
misdemeanants?

My proposal directs the Office of Management and Planning to coordinate
an effort using the resources and problem-solving abilities of
community-based groups to address these questions and provide to the
Council an assessment of whether a different approach to enforcing
certain crimes could eliminate the need for a new jail.

One such approach that has been very effective is a model that uses a
pre-arrest prevention approach. In this model, SPD offers a suspect an
alternative to being booked into jail: going immediately instead to an
intake center for the law enforcement diversion program. A preliminary
assessment of the 125 participants in this program to date shows that
although they have an average of 7.6 arrests and 2.7 convictions by the
time they enter the program (average age of 25), after more than a year
the non-recidivism rate was 82%. You can read more about how the
diversion program works:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003867286_cleandreams04m.html


Last night (11/12/08) the proponents of this model spoke to about 150
members of the Belltown Community Council. Some community leaders are
interested in exploring submitting an application for about $1 million
in new money in a fund administered by King County so that this model
can be brought to Belltown.

The groups that I hope can help the Council and Executive to determine
whether we can eliminate the need for a new jail include the King County
Bar Association, the Urban League, citizen representatives of the
Precinct Advisory Councils, the ACLU and the public defenders. The
government agencies would include the Seattle Police Department, the
Human Services Department, the Seattle Municipal Court, and the City
Attorney*s office. Once assembled, this group would need also to
invite representatives from the King County Executive, the King County
Council, and the King County Prosecutor*s Office to join this effort
because a critical element to these deliberations is whether King County
would consider re-opening a discussion about extending the City*s
contract for use of the King County Jail.

A budget proviso is a mechanism that restricts spending by a city
department until some pre-set condition is completed by it. As a way to
ensure this work is done thoroughly, I want the City Council to attach a
proviso to a portion of the $4.5 million in the 2009 City Budget. The
City Budget Office says that the project will have at least $2 million
of 2009 funds available (plus any amount the City carries over from
2008) to fund the environmental assessments on the potential sites
Seattle is considering and any other planning work that needs to be done
in the first half of 2009. Thus a proviso of $2 million dollars should
not stop the city from future jail planning while this work is done, but
it will ensure that it*s done. Given that the Council has not always
received requested information from the Executive departments in a
timely fashion, the proviso assures the Council that it will in this
instance.

The Mayor does not support the proviso because Seattle has established
a strong regional collaboration with some of our suburban cities in
working toward a common jail site and this proviso may give them the
impression that Seattle may not be a reliable partner in that pursuit.
However, the proviso is constructed in a way to allow Seattle to
continue to work with these cities while determining if a jail is needed
of if a smaller one could suffice. Certainly if it is found that a
smaller jail is required, with lower construction and maintenance costs,
then all cities could benefit from this work.

CONCLUSION
An approach like this could accomplish 4 things:

1) Mitigate the possible negative impact on public safety and quality
of life in our neighborhoods that may result from the King County
Prosecutor*s decision to reduce many felony drug charges to
misdemeanors;

2) Considerably improve the County budget picture by decreasing
criminal justice system utilization;

3) Help us determine whether we need to build a new jail - which could
free up another $2.5 million dollars in the City budget mid-year; and

4) Help offenders to make positive changes in their lives by removing
obstacles to a better life for participants, rather than creating new
barriers and at a fraction of what it costs to arrest, book, prosecute
and convict the participants of low-level drug crimes.

Here is an editorial from this week*s Seattle P.I. supporting my
efforts:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/387228_jailed.html

The Council will be voting on this budget action on Monday morning,
November 17.

Urban Politics (UP) blends my insights and information on current
public policy developments and personal experiences with the intent of
helping citizens shape Seattle's future.

Instructions on subscribing or unsubscribing to the Urban Politics
mailing list are at the bottom of the UP.

COUNCIL MEMBERS & MAYOR*S EMAIL ADDRESSES

Tim.Burgess@seattle.gov
Sally.Clark@seattle.gov
Richard.Conlin@seattle.gov
Jan.Drago@seattle.gov
Jean.Godden@seattle.gov
Bruce.Harrell@seattle.gov
Nick.Licata@seattle.gov
Richard.McIver@seattle.gov
Tom.Rasmussen@seattle.gov

Citizens are directed to the following website to complete a form to
send an email to the Mayor's Office.
http://www.cityofseattle.net/mayor/citizen_response.htm


URBAN POLITICS SUBSCRIPTION INSTRUCTIONS

To subscribe, send a message to: urbanpolitics-subscribe@speakeasy.net

To unsubscribe, send a message to:
urbanpolitics-unsubscribe@speakeasy.net
You do not need to include anything in the body of the messages.