Durkan and our endorsed candidate Cary Moon prevailed in the primary and will square off in the general election–the outcome could have big implications for spreading growth equitably and enacting the inclusionary zoning requirements of Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) throughout the city. Allowing middle class housing types in every neighborhood would broaden our growth, and it’d also broaden our economic boom so people who work here can afford to live here, preventing Seattle from becoming a city for only the rich. Just how the political and technocratic process of unlocking missing middle housing would play out is still a mystery. Here are a few options:

1. Eliminate single-family residential zoning throughout Seattle. Replace with low-rise residential zoning that permits attached single family and multifamily.
2. Expand urban village boundaries to convert more of the surrounding single-family residential zones to low-rise residential.
3. Add new urban villages where they do no exist now, converting some single-family residential zones to low-rise and/or mid-rise residential.

One can argue “all of the above” would be best–technically they’re all recommendations from the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) committee–or we could pick and choose from the approaches if some of them are blocked politically. Clearly, the status quo means urban villages shoulder a tremendous share of Seattle’s growth, which contributes to growth progressing in an uneven and inequitable manner. In a recent press release, the Office of Planning and Community Development reported 85% of recent housing construction occurred within urban villages and centers:

Over the last 18 months, Seattle has added more than 10,000 new homes, with 85 percent of all housing construction occurring inside the city’s urban centers and urban villages, according to recent permitting and construction data published in the Urban Center / Village Growth Report. Seattle’s urban villages are identified in the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan as the places to guide future population growth, a policy established in 1994. The Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) has found that recent housing growth is becoming even more focused in Seattle’s densest neighborhood centers.

Adding new urban villages, let alone expanding existing boundaries is a major undertaking because it requires altering the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, which in the great Seattle tradition necessitates further process. We need to start steering the ship in that direction. The 2018 amendments to be considered for the Comprehensive Plan have already been selected, so we need to get our changes together by spring 2018 to be considered in 2019.

The Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) has indicated the latest batch of rezones will only include urban village expansions that were already officially considered in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Given the constraints, that’s understandable since implementing the Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) program in the multifamily residential zones across the city is the first priority–and in a somewhat tenuous phase as it tip-toes through the Environmental Impact Statement process. But as that’s accomplished, we should follow up by adding more multifamily residential zoning through urban village expansions and additions.

Updating The Comprehensive Plan

Back in 2015, The Urbanist endorsed aggressive urban village expansions building off Alex Brennan’s recommendation for an “Alternative 5” to the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Brennan recommended Wedgwood, Sandpoint, Magnolia, and Madison Park be added as urban villages and the board added to the list Upper Fremont, “Frelard” (also known as West Woodland), Westlake, Nickerson, Interbay, and Hillman City (which will get light rail with the Graham Street in-fill station). The inclusion of an infill light rail station at N 130th St (in addition to ST2 station already planned at 147th St) puts Haller Lake and Jackson Park on the map. These are all worthy additions.

Spurring Transit Upgrades

Adding urban villages would add momentum to transit upgrade plans. Many rail advocates were disappointed to see the Ballard Spur cut from ST3, but adding urban villages at Sand Point, Upper Fremont, and West Woodland would bolster the case to add a crosstown subway in a future measure. It’d also invite us to add a Laurelhurst urban village–seemingly unlikely given some Laurelhurstians strong opposition to development, but great transit, a Burke-Gilman bike trail connection, and easy access to the University of Washington would make for a great urban village. A light rail line connecting Magnuson Park to the Ballard Locks would span seven miles and greatly improve mobility while facilitating the kind of densification entailed in adding four urban villages and expanding the three urban villages already on the route. In short, adding these urban villages helps to get us the Ballard Spur.

Make Skimpy Urban Villages Less So

Another inequity called out in the HALA report: some urban villages are tiny. Compare the maps for yourself (screengrabs or interactive). The shapes and sizes are not consistent across the city, and some don’t make sense. “Urban Village boundaries do not reflect logical and rational land use patterns or proximity to transit and services,” the report states. “The City should expand Urban Village boundaries to areas within a 10 minute walking distance to frequent transit.” Some of the most egregious offenders are Greenwood-Phinney Ridge, Upper Queen Anne, Wallingford, and the Admiral District. Fleshing out these skinny urban village bones is a great idea to come out of HALA.

Minimize Exclusionary Zoning

Expanding and adding urban villages helps get us to overcome our great obstacle of having only 10% of Seattle zoned for multifamily housing. The HALA report mentions this problem specifically:

Many Seattle residents and people who want to live in Seattle are frustrated in their search for an apartment, townhome, duplex or similar housing. Their opportunities are limited by the relatively small portion of Seattle’s land zoned for multifamily housing (such as apartment buildings, condominiums, townhouses, duplexes, etc). In addition, only about 10% of the parcel land area is zoned for Lowrise (LR), Midrise (MR) or Highrise (HR)5 multifamily housing. In areas of the city where new multifamily development is feasible and where demand is highest (i.e., where people want to live, based on access to amenities, transit and other livability factors), development sites are in short supply.

That 90% of Seattle’s land contributes very little to new development highlights the need to either A) to end single-family residential zoning as we know it or B) significantly add the amount of land that is within urban villages. Missing middle housing types like rowhouses and courtyard apartments are more compatible with single-family areas than some folks believe and can coexist beautifully even in sanctified craftsman bungalow land.

Opening up Seattle to missing middle housing types would allow a different type of developer to build, one that doesn’t have the resources of say a Vulcan Real Estate to build high-rise towers on exorbitantly expensive South Lake Union parcels but could afford to build a modest building with a dozen apartments. It’d likely entice more people to become builders and do their own part to build the middle class into the future of Seattle. The change would take the MHA program truly city-wide building affordable units in every neighborhood. It’d also give non-profit developers and Seattle Office of Housing more options–particularly when it comes to finding less expensive land to develop–allowing them to build more spaces guaranteed to low-income folks in future Seattle.

Finally, some missing middle housing type could exist within single-family residential zones if we changed Seattle’s development standards rather than the zoning itself. Right now we permit only detached single family homes, which can be quite large but house just one family. We could change those development standards to allow attached single-family dwellings like rowhouses, townhouses, and courtyard apartments. The building sizes wouldn’t necessarily be larger than the mansions we are seeing go up in single-family Seattle but instead of catering to one very wealthy family, we could cater to half a dozen middle class families on the same lot.

This is along the lines of the Ban McMansions, Legalize Rowhouses idea I proposed in January, which was based on a program Portland is implementing. The development standards change may not need to go though the Comprehensive Plan process, but it would need to go through an environmental review process, including possible preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We’ve seen more modest changes to allow backyard cottages and granny flats tripped up by a lawsuit on the grounds the City didn’t do a full EIS. Since we can theoretically start an EIS sooner than we can get a Comprehensive Plan amendment considered, this could be an attractive route to take. The City may even be able to apply some of the legwork it’s now doing on the backyard cottage EIS to the next EIS on more sweeping changes.

2017 Endorsement Questionnaire: Cary Moon

The post Broaden the Boom: How to Rezone Single-Family Seattle first appeared on The Urbanist.

The plan is built upon foundational background data like race, age, housing composition, income, growth trends, and more. In fact, population and employment growth are one of the most important inputs since increases in either category create a new needs like additional transportation, sewer, and development capacity to support them in addition to baseline needs. By 2035, Seattle is expected to grow by at least 120,000 residents, 70,000 housing units, and 115,000 jobs. The adopted plan recommits to the Urban Village Strategy focusing most new growth in urban centers and urban villages:

We’ve covered the update process nearly from its beginnings and well into the legislative process.

Seattle 2035: EIS Scoping and Comprehensive Plan Alternatives

DEIS Issued for Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan

Seattle 2035: Explore the Draft Plan and Weigh In

Seattle 2035 Approved, Move-In Fee Reform Held Back

PLUZ Committee Discusses Seattle 2035 Again, But Future Land Use Changes Remain A Question

Stakeholders from the public, hardworking planning and support staff, and City politicians from the Mayor to Council all deserve commendations for a rigorous public involvement process and commitment to building the best possible plan. But like any plan, it won’t be perfect: new issues will arise and invariably annual amendments will be necessary to keep pace with an evolving city. We already know what some of those are, including three Council-approved topics for 2017: updated industrial lands policies; possible Future Land Use Map (FLUM) changes in North Rainier, Eastlake, and Beacon Hill; and cultural and economic vitality policy changes in Chinatown/International District. Further policy changes could also come in the form of urban village expansions on the FLUM and complimentary text amendments to implement the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda.

UPDATE (10/28/16): The Mayor has signed Seattle 2035 into law. The proof below.

@Seattle2035 is now signed by @MayorEdMurray! pic.twitter.com/y7gMc41Sxi

— Seattle Office of Planning & Community Development (@SeattleOPCD) October 28, 2016

The post Mayor Ed Murray To Sign Seattle 2035 Into Law first appeared on The Urbanist.

Seattle 2035 Approved

The City Council took up review of the Mayor’s Recommended Plan for Seattle 2035 in May, sending the proposal to most of the Council’s standing committees for review and deliberation throughout the summer. Councilmembers offered their input to the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning (PLUZ) Committee, which then held a series of meetings in August and September to discuss a slate of more than 190 amendments. At the outset that work, more than 140 technical amendments and 13 key policy decisions were identified before eliminating some and adding others. The most important changes that the PLUZ Committee considered involved:

• “Painting” urban villages and urban centers one color to give flexibilty for rezones within;
• Creating a very clear Community Involvement Element for planning and engagement;
• Revising growth estimates and the scale of development allowed in urban centers and urban villages;
• Adopting the current industrial lands policies in lieu of the proposed ones contained in the Mayor’s Recommended Plan (at least until next year when the Industrial Lands Advisory Panel can produce policy recommendations);
• Tabling a proposal to consider infill development in areas designated for single-family use outside but near urban villages and urban centers;
• Strengthening language and policy surrounding cultural, arts, and historic preservation;
• Adopting policies that support and encourage commercial affordability and bolster small locally-owned businesses; and
• Supporting changes to the Parks and Open Space Element to allow goal metrics to be housed outside of the Comprehensive Plan and instead in the Parks Development Plan (which Council will review and vote on next year).

The PLUZ Committee also adopted widely popular amendments providing clearer direction on things lidding I-5, evaluating a municipally-owned broadband internet system, expanding and preserving tree canopy, and affordable homeownership. The number of amendment proposals to the Mayor’s Recommended Plan stands at more than 180.

At yesterday’s Council meeting, two further sets of amendments were offered by Councilmember Lisa Herbold and Council President Bruce Harrell.

Councilmember Herbold’s amendments made changes to the newly created Community Involvement Element to define the term “community plan,” strengthen the language of certain sections for communities involvement and consideration, and add a new policy to prioritize community planning:

CI 2.12 Provide sufficient funding and resources to work with communities to update community and neighborhood plans to maintain their relevancy and consistency with community goals and the citywide policies of the Comprehensive Plan.

Council President Harrell’s amendment was solely focused on clarifying the meaning of “environmental justice” in the Community Involvement Element:

CI 2.3 Consider areas with the following characteristics when allocating City resources for community planning.

…

• Areas identified for multiple capital investments that could benefit from coordinated planning
• Areas experiencing environmental justice concerns including public health or safety concerns
• Areas with outdated community or neighborhood plans that no longer reflect current conditions, a citywide vision of the Comprehensive Plan, or local priorities

Move-In Fees Legislation

The City Council heard extensive comment from the public on Councilmember Kshama Sawant’s legislative proposal to cap rental move-in fees. Nearly 40 speakers provided testimony on the issue, with most in favor and many of whom were landlords themselves. Debbie Carlsen, a landlord and Executive Director of LGBTQ Allyship, spoke on the proposal saying:

As a landlord in North Seattle, I got the chance to have quality tenants. A queer couple, one who is working at the UW in the warehouse and also someone who works at YMCA. They could not pay their first and last deposit to get into my condo. And they asked me for a payment plan and I agreed, put it in the contract, it was easy, accessible, and I got my tenant in there and I got a quality tenant that I appreciate and they got accessible housing. For landlords like myself, this is a non-issue.

Councilmembers also had a lengthy discussion on the matter lasting more than 40 minutes, but culminating in a decision to refer the bill back to the Energy and Environment Committee, which Councilmember Sawant chairs. Introducing the bill at the meeting, Councilmember Sawant said that:

As tenants get more organized locally, we are starting the process of winning individual tenant rights that will add up to a significant Tenants Bill of Rights for this city. This Council bill limits non-refundable fees to only those specifically mentioned under state law, limits security deposits and non-refundable fees to no more than one month’s rent, which is pretty standard anyway, and most importantly allows tenants to pay the security deposit and last month’s rent on a payment plan. That final aspect of the bill will allow many tenants overcome a substantial hurdle to finding housing, as you have heard in public comment.

Prior to being sent to the full Council, the legislation had gone through two rounds of review in committee and received unanimous support from Councilmembers Sawant, Juarez, O’Brien, Johnson, and Herbold. Councilmember Sawant had expected the legislation to pass at the full Council meeting, but early in the discussion Councilmember Debora Juarez said that she felt it should go back to committee to ensure that it is drafted to withstand legal challenges and address enforcement and implementation issues that the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) had identified. Councilmember Juarez also said that she wants landlords to be incentivized to lower move-in costs and was worried about unintended consequences like increased rents compensating for the impacts of the law.

Meanwhile, Councilmembers Sally Bagshaw, Mike O’Brien, and Lisa Herbold indicated that they were ready to vote on the bill, but Councilmember Bagshaw said she would respectfully allow more time to debate the bill in committee if that’s what other members would need to support it. Councilmember Lorena González also expressed a desire to discuss the bill further in committee (she was absent during the September 27th committee meeting). She said that she would like to see an anti-retaliation provision added, have a reconciliation between the proposed ordinance and the City’s just cause eviction ordinance, and an obligation for landlords to put deposit money in an interest-earning escrow account so that capitalized interest would go back to the tenant when it was returned.

Councilmember Tim Burgess clarified that there would be time during the busy season to hold another committee meeting to hear the bill. A date in November was suggested, but Council President Harrell made a more general motion for a timeline “on or before December 13th” to provide flexibility. The Council isn’t exactly under the gun since the legislation wouldn’t be effective until January 1, 2017 whether it had been approved at the Council meeting yesterday or later this year. On a seven-to-two vote, the bill was referred back to committee with Councilmembers Sawant and O’Brien opposing the motion.

What The Legislation Would Do

Tenants can elect to pay move-in fees as installments instead of one bulk payment as part of securing a unit or paying the first month’s rent. The scheme differs by the type of rental agreement length and frequency of payment, but generally, a lease that lasts six months or longer would entitle a tenant to payment of six consecutive move-in fee installments during the beginning of the lease. The amount of fees are also capped at the equivalent of one month’s rent. Tenants and landlords, however, could establish alternative plans if mutually agreed upon. The legislation, as drafted, would also do a number of other things:

• Require rental agreements to disclose the frequency of payments, and amongst other things, the corresponding rent, security deposits, non-refundable move-in fee, last month’s rent, utility payments, parking charges, and late fees authorized by the rental agreement.
• Whenever establishing a new rental agreement, the landlord would have to complete a full checklist of existing unit conditions with the tenant and have the tenant sign the document confirming the conditions.
• Clarify that landlords will still be entitled to bring suit against a tenant for fees incurred from damage that is not covered by security and damage deposits.
• Pet deposits may not be charged for a tenant with a service animal, but could be charged for other animals. If a tenant enters into the original rental agreement with a pet, the deposit would be treated the same as other deposits for the purposes of calculating installment payments. A tenant choosing to get a pet later during their tenure would be subject to the prevailing pet deposit amount specified by the landlord, but the landlord would still have to provide an installment payment option and could not charge more than 25% of the total first month’s rent in amortizing the fee.
• If a landlord fails to comply with the rental requirements and attempts to enforce provisions that are contrary to it, the landlord could be held liable to the tenant for the full cost of damages, penalties paid to the City, double the amount of any security deposit unlawfully charged or withheld, and reasonable attorney fees.
• Enforcement of the tenant laws contained within Chapter 7.24 of the Seattle Municipal Code would be delegated to SDCI. A full appeal and hearing process would be established and carried out by the City’s Hearing Examiner to review.

Preserving Section Of Ramps To Nowhere

The Councilmembers also unanimously voted to move forward with the preservation of a small section of the “ramps to nowhere” that would have connected the SR-520 bridge to the never-constructed “R. H. Thomson” freeway proposed to run through the Central District, demolishing dozens of blocks of homes. The ramps were constructed by the Washington State Department of Transportation before the entire freeway project was cancelled due to opposition.

Preserving the ramps is intended to serve as a symbol of the effectiveness of citizen activism. Councilmember Herbold brought up a letter sent to the Council in support of the resolution by King County Councilmember Larry Gossett, who was a founding member of the University of Washington’s Black Student Union and who worked to stop the freeway in the 1960s.

Councilmember Rob Johnson brought up possible concerns about federal environmental regulations, issues regarding the City’s memorandum of understanding with the state department of transportation, and concern over the structural integrity of the structures to be preserved. But, those being all items that are sure to be addressed with the passage of the resolution, the proposal moved forward. 

The post Seattle 2035 Approved, Move-In Fee Reform Held Back first appeared on The Urbanist.

We encourage urbanists to attend to express support for passing the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan and get in a last word to encourage new ideas to include in this or future plans. We must apply consistent pressure to push the council on issues like expanding housing capacity and building municipal broadband internet.

Many municipal broadband supporters turned out at the PLUZ meeting last month, and it looks like it will be included in the plan as Policy 92. Of course we need to see municipal broadband through the whole legislative process. News that Comcast is capping data shows the need for a fair, affordable source of internet service is urgent.

We should also support painting the urban villages one color to expedite the roll out of Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) program. Capacity expanding rezones unlock the inclusionary requirement. Setting up the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to be compatible with MHA rezones allows for a public process but a more efficient process that will deliver affordable housing sooner.

Other issues that may deserve mention:

• Lidding I-5 (Policy T3.11)
• A new Community Involvement Element
• Urban Village expansion
• Integration with transportation
• Redefining Level of Service (LOS) to be human-focused, not car-focused.

The Urbanist has delved into many of the issues. Some of that coverage is below.

• Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
• Key policy amendments
• Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
• Seven takeaways from Mayor’s Recommend Plan
• PLUZ Committee guidance on amendments

The post Voice Your Support For The Comp Plan On Monday first appeared on The Urbanist.

• Settled technical amendments previously presented to the PLUZ Committee;
• Further minor technical amendmens and policy decisions;
• New amendments; and
• Four remaining key policy decisions.

Settled Technical Amendments

The Committee adopted a package of 152 technical amendments that had been reviewed on or before the September 9th meeting. These amendments were generally minor in nature and not the subject of extensive scrutiny during the deliberations. Examples include updated maps, added definitions, improving readability, and making targeted changes to strengthen proposed policies. In some cases, of the policies would be stricken from the Mayor’s Recommended Plan.

Further Technical Amendment Refinements And Policy Decisions

At the September 9th meeting of the PLUZ Committee, Councilmembers still had a few policy questions remaining on mostly-settled amendment topic areas, which had generally been introduced as key policy decisions. There was a desire for further revision on some of the proposed policies, including industrial lands policies, the definition of transit service, the 10-/20-year housing goal of the Growth Strategy, commercial affordability, municipal broadband, and cultural and historic preservation policies.

Language below underlined in red are further amendments since the September 9th meeting while plain underlined language was the original amended text at that meeting.

The 20-year housing language for the growth distribution discussion in the Growth Strategy Element was further amended and adopted:

This Plan anticipates that over the next twenty years, Seattle will add 70,000 housing units and 115,000 jobs. These estimates represent the city’s share of King County’s projected twenty-year growth. Seattle’s comprehensive planning to accommodate this expected growth works from the assumption that the estimates for growth citywide, in urban villages and in urban centers are the minimums we should plan for. The city will monitor various aspects of growth over time and respond with adjusted approaches if growth significantly exceeds the estimates.

A previously proposed displacement policy was further amended and adopted:

H 2.6 Seek to identify affordable housing at risk of displacement demolition and to apply measures work to mitigate that the displacement of residents ahead of planned upzones.

A brand new policy amendment for alternative affordable homeownership options was adopted:

H 5.25 Explore implementation of models that could provide opportunities for affordable homeownership, such as community land-trusts, down payment assistance, mixed-income housing requirements and limited equity housing co-ops.

A minor adjustment was made to a new policy for the Parks and Open Space Element concerning lidding:

P 1.17 Create innovative opportunities to use existing public land, especially in the right of way, for open space and recreation, including street plazas, pavement to parks, parklets, lidding of reservoirs and highways, and community gardens.

The language of municipal broadband did not change over previous meetings, but it was reconfirmed at yesterday’s meeting by Councilmembers. The policy would be added to the Capital Facilities Appendix as a discretionary project of the City:

….

Material storage facilities

Municipal Broadband

…

New Amendments

The Lid I-5 coalition successfully lobbied, in party, to get enhanced language to be restored to the Transportation Element:

T 3.11 Look for opportunities to reestablish or improve connections across I-5 by creating new crossings, or enhancing streets where I-5 crosses overhead, or constructing lids, especially where these can also enhance opportunities for development or open space.

A new displacement mitigation policy would be added to the Housing Element:

H 2.7 Evaluate the City’s efforts to mitigate displacement of affordable housing.

An environmental and social justice amendment would be added to the Environment Element:

EN 2.7 Work to identify and reduce flooding through improvements to drainage and wastewater systems and reductions in impervious surfaces and runoff, particularly in traditionally underserved areas.

A social justice amendment would be added to the Community Well-Being Element:

CW 6.6 Support community development activities in areas with low access to opportunity and high displacement risk.

Remaining Key Policy Decisions

Some key policy decisions previously discussed by the Committee were unsettled. Further refinements and policy changes were made in four topic areas.

Community Involvement Element

The first remaining policy decision was on the new Community Involvement Element. Councilmembers had identified outstanding issues with the draft version of the new Element that would consolidate the City’s approach to inclusive and equitable community involvement as well as community and neighborhood planning.

Added to the proposed Element included some of the following:

CI 1.3 Build community capacity for meaningful and authentic community involvement, enhance the ability of community members, including those of marginalized communities, to develop the knowledge and skills to effectively participate in planning and decision-making processes.

CI 1.8 Seek to reflect of the diversity of the city in the membership of city-appointed boards and commissions.

CI 2.7 Collaborate with the community to implement community plans.

CI 2.8 Maintain consistency between neighborhood plans and the Comprehensive Plan. In the event of a possible inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan and a neighborhood plan, amend the Comprehensive Plan or the neighborhood plan to maintain consistency.

In the process of making these changes, the Committee also deleted the Community Engagement section of the Growth Strategy Element, including Goal GS1 and Policy GS 1.1 through GS 1.10, and the Neighborhood Planning Element since they were redundant to the new Community Involvement Element.

Growth Estimates

The Committee decided to make targeted changes in the Growth Strategy Element in order to revise intended growth estimates in urban villages. The purpose was to focus less growth in areas with high risk of displacement from increased growth pressures. To name a few, these areas constitute urban villages like Bitter Lake Village, Mt. Baker (North Rainier), 23rd & Union-Jackson, and Columbia City:

Enumerating the urban villages will provide greater clarity about where anticipated growth could go and direct City actions when it comes to neighborhood planning, such as investments and regulatory changes for land use. In tandem with this, the Committee also changed the Growth Strategy Element discussion to clearly reference the Growth and Equity Analysis that is the basis for determining access to opportunity and risk of displacement throughout the city.

Scale Of Development In Urban Center And Urban Villages

A third remaining policy decision by the Committee was what to do about the Comprehensive Plan’s direction on scale of development in urban centers and urban villages. A few revisions were proposed and adopted, including a reference to Growth Strategy Figure 1 and allowing consideration of more development capacity near light rail stations, an issue that could come to the forefront if Sound Transit 3 passes this fall:

LU 1.3 Provide for a wide range in the scale and density permitted for multifamily residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects to generally achieve the following overall density and scale characteristics, consistent, at a minimum, with the guidelines in Growth Strategy Figure 1:

In urban centers, a moderate to high-density and scale of development

In hub urban villages, a moderate density and scale of development

In residential urban villages, a low to moderate density and scale of development

Consider higher densities and scales of development in areas near light rail stations

Future Land Use Map (FLUM)

The fourth remaining policy decision was on whether or not to “paint” the urban centers and urban villages with one color on the FLUM. Leaving the FLUM effectively unchanged in urban centers and urban villages would have meant that some aspects of the Mayor’s Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) rezones associated with Mandatory Housing Affordability requirements would not have been possible.

That’s because the FLUM currently designates urban center and urban village boundaries, but paints the land use designations by type (e.g., Single Family Residential Areas, Multifamily Residential Areas, and Commercial / Mixed Use Areas). Only certain implementing zones are permissible depending upon the land use designation (e.g., single-family zones in Single Family Residential Areas and multi-family zoning in Multifamily Residential Areas), tying the City’s ability to consider entirely different rezones in some parts of urban centers and urban villages. “Painting” the urban villages one single color allows the City to consider a broader set of MHA rezone possibilities within urban centers and urban villages and in concert with other established Comprehensive Plan policies and zoning criteria.

The Committee chose to “paint” urban centers and urban villages to give immediate flexibility in the HALA process as opposed to tackling the issue in annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan next year.

Next Steps

The Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan update process is coming swiftly to an end. The City Council will vote on a final proposal at the October 10th legislative session. Councilmember Rob Johnson, Chair of the PLUZ Committee, indicated that further amendment proposals would be welcome in the weeks between and could be proposed at the October legislative session. So it’s still possible to see further refinements.

The post Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan Sails Ahead To Final Vote first appeared on The Urbanist.

Councilmember and PLUZ Chair Rob Johnson closed public comment, and noted, “There is a point where the Seattle process needs to conclude.” He cited the long process that had already taken place including at least five Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan presentations at the PLUZ committee and eight more in other council committees.

Johnson said he plans to put the Comprehensive Plan amendments to a vote at the next PLUZ Committee meeting on September 20th. He said the full City Council will likely take up the Comp Plan at its October 3rd meeting.

More On The Comprehensive Plan

For more background, The Urbanist has offered extensive Comp Plan coverage and analysis.

• Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
• Key policy amendments
• Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
• Seven takeaways from Mayor’s Recommend Plan
• PLUZ Committee guidance on amendments

Busy Beavers

Some opponents of the Comprehensive Plan resorted to colorful metaphors at Thursday’s meeting to get their points across or at least dress up the same talking points. None more so than David Ward who made an extended beaver metaphor to paint a portrait of bureaucratic morass and developer greed. I’ve included his comment below because many opponents made the same points but none in as much style:

I’m a volunteer driver for parks and today I did a naturalist tour and the focus actually was on beavers. I thought beavers that’s just like what’s happening with the Comprehensive Plan. The City’s been busy as beavers making insurmountable mounds of detailed changes in the Comprehensive Plan, and the public can’t follow those change. A lot of them are coming at them last minute. There’s not much we can do. So I ask that you delay the Comp Plan until the end of December or early January 2017. The neighborhoods are trying to keep up with what’s happening in their neighborhoods and their neighborhood plans, but the developer beavers keep building so much that they’re destroying the plans that were established before. I ask that the Comp Plan restore the strong neighborhood plans that were in there before and should continue in the future. The busy beavers are building so much that there’s also no chance for concurrency. We really need that for the livability in our neighborhoods, for the schools, for the roads, for the other facilities. And just like beavers, the developers are not paying impact fees. And just like beavers, the Comp Plan… I can’t see what I’ve written here. But anyway the public needs to have delays on the Comp Plan. We need to return to having strong neighborhood plans. You know how we have all these signs in the neighborhoods that say ’20 is plenty’? There are 200 changes in the Comp Plan. So, that’s ten times as much. 20 changes is sufficient.”

Councilmember Johnson parried “As a big tooth person, you’re not the first person to call me a beaver, but I appreciate that.”

Vocal Support For Municipal Broadband

A handful people spoke in support of Policy 92 that would add municipal broadband internet to the Comprehensive Plan. Commenters argued City-provided internet could offer faster service at lower prices and break the stranglehold that Comcast and CenturyLink have on the city.

Back in March, Mayor Ed Murray distanced himself from municipal broadband instead paying lip service to that politico obsession: public-private partnership. A City-commissioned study released in summer 2015 showed it would cost between $480 million and $665 million to build out a municipal-broadband network across the city. “That price tag is less than previously estimated, but the mayor said it was still too much to be feasible,” Rachel Lerman reported.

“When I came into office, I was very excited about the possibility of municipal broadband until the study came back and indicated it would be literally the largest tax increase in Seattle,” Murray said.

It’s unclear how a half-a-billion-dollar program would somehow break the budget in a city that recently OK’d a $930 million transportation levy, a $290 million housing levy, a $371 million seawall, very nearly a $149 million police precinct Mayor Murray himself championed, and statewide multi-billion dollar projects like the SR-99 Bertha tunnel and the new SR-520 bridge. Mayor Murray’s fiscal conservatism on municipal internet is penny wise but pound foolish when considering the pronounced competitive advantage it would give Seattle’s booming tech sector.

Putting municipal broadband in the Comprehensive Plan would pressure Mayor Murray to make this a reality or at least unveil the details of his brilliant private-public partnership plan.

Video of Thursday’s PLUZ Committee meeting is available here.

The post 2035 Comp Plan Rolling Ahead Amid Calls To Slow Down Or Speed Up first appeared on The Urbanist.

In a meeting last week, the PLUZ Committee retraced some of their steps on amendment proposals to the Comprehensive Plan, but focused most of their attention on five primary topics, including:

• A proposed Community Involvement Element;
• Industrial lands policies;
• Possible amendments to historic preservation and cultural resources policies;
• Making technical corrections to the Neighborhood Planning Element due to inadvertent omissions of language; and
• Commercial affordability policies.

In particular, Councilmembers had robust discussions on the proposed Community Involvement Element and commercial affordability policies. Council Central Staff followed up discussion by raising some past issues that the Committee had previously been briefed on. One of the primary issues still remaining is how the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) should be addressed.

The Future Land Use Map Question

In drafting the Mayor’s Recommended Plan, the Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) proposed a suite of changes to the FLUM, including mapping tentative areas for urban village expansion and coloring in urban villages and urban centers. Those changes were put forward in the final version of the Mayor’s Recommended Plan, but OPCD won’t have final recommendations on where urban villages should be expanded until sometime next year, in large part because OPCD still needs to complete the process of soliciting community feedback on where to draw the lines.

The PLUZ Committee decided that it would be in the best interest of the City to not move forward with mapping fuzzy urban village expansion lines as part of Seattle 2035. Some of the reasons should be fairly apparent. For one, drawing lines now could create an expectation for property owners to be included in an urban village expansion. For another, it could fuel increased property speculation and solicit undue excitement by the public when no final decisions have been made.

In terms of changing the colors on the FLUM, the PLUZ Committee had indicated support for only adding cemeteries as a unique land use in August. Urban villages, however, would not be “painted” in with the blue tones that OPCD had included as part of the Mayor’s Recommended Plan. This presents a significant technical challenge for the Mayor’s larger Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) process, which is intended to include Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) rezones next year.

One feature of the Mayor’s HALA proposal is predicated on rezoning large swaths of land within urban villages to increase allowed building heights and floor area ratio and changing zoning district types. Some areas of urban villages are still zoned single-family residential; in those instances, zoning is intended to change to denser, more diverse zoning types like multi-family residential. Likewise, some multi-family residential zones are intended to change to commercial zones. Under the Mayor’s preferred approach, rezones are generally planned to be urban village-wide in nature as opposed to only touching certain zoning types within urban villages.

However, the existing FLUM designations of Single Family Residential Areas and Multi-Family Residential Areas in many urban villages pose an obstacle to making those sort of changes mentioned above. If the FLUM isn’t changed to “paint” the urban villages with one land use designation, fewer rezones would be possible. That’s because single-family residential zoning types are the only permissible implementing zones for Single Family Residential Areas. Likewise, multi-family residential zoning types are the only permissible implementing zones for Multi-Family Residential Areas. Changing those areas would in effect be delayed because it would require amendment to the FLUM in tandem with rezones. The likely timeframe for implementation could be somewhere between late 2017 and early 2018.

Last week, Tom Hauger, a senior planning staff member of OPCD, explained the issue to the Councilmembers in this way:

The real idea behind “painting” the urban villages was to indicate that the urban villages and the urban centers are really expected to be different places than the areas outside them. It was to show the intention that these places are likely to be the most dense places in the city and they’re also the places that we’re going to see a wider mix of uses–multi-family housing and commercial use–and in concentrations that aren’t found outside of them. They also may have an effect on future zoning changes because there will no longer be a need to change the Future Land Use Map to effect a rezone within an urban village if they’re all “painted” the same color.

Having said that, however, current policy in the Comprehensive Plan says that the colors on the map–as it exists today–are intended to be generalized areas and not specific boundaries. And that a change to the Future Land Use Map is only required if changing a large area and allowing significant change in use. And so rezones can already occur without a Future Land Use Map amendment. So the “painting” of the village doesn’t really do much in that regard, but it does signal the City’s intention more clearly how these areas are intended to be treated different.

Councilmember Johnson asked if the proposed change would result in zoning changes. Clarifying the matter, Mr. Hauger said:

It doesn’t not change any zoning directly and it’s accompanied by new policy that [is] in the Mayor’s Recommended Plan that more specifically say[s] what we’re expecting in terms of heights, scale, and density in each village type and new policy that also says that heights should taper down within the village toward the outside of the village. So, I think it gives more direction than we’ve given in the past about how we make those decisions about what occurs within the villages.

Following on, senior planner Patrice Carroll gave a little more background on why OPCD had proposed the FLUM changes in the first place:

If we leave the Future Land Use Map as it is, essentially it looks very, very similar to the Future Land Use Map we had 20 years ago. I think at this point in time, certainly a lot of the public discourse that we had during all of the outreach that we’ve been doing over four years, is that people think that the Future Land Use Map should be different and the City is actually making a shift in the policy. So that change on the Future Land Use Map says land uses within urban villages are considered very differently than land uses outside of urban villages, and I think that’s the important shift.

In concluding the discussion, both Councilmembers Rob Johnson and Lisa Herbold expressed an openness to take another look at the issue in order to better understand the ramifications of pursuing various policy paths.

Public Hearing On Thursday

The public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan will kickoff at 2pm on Thursday (September 15th). Individuals who wish to provide public testimony are advised to sign-in. The Clerk will have a sign-in sheet available as early as 1.45pm. Councilmember Rob Johnson, Chair of the PLUZ Committee, is also taking feedback directly and sharing it with his colleagues. If you have any priorities that believe the City should pursue, now is the time to share them with the City Council.

The post PLUZ Committee Discusses Seattle 2035 Again, But Future Land Use Changes Remain A Question first appeared on The Urbanist.

The Seattle City Council is nearing final approval of the long-awaited update to Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan. This document is used to guide policy and recommend growth strategies over a 20-year planning period. Its goals and policies provide important direction for city leaders.

To that end, we believe policy supporting future connections over and around Seattle’s freeways could be more comprehensive and advance a more ambitious vision. The previous version of the plan mentioned lids specifically, while the current draft leaves them out. Here is policy in the updated plan:

Policy T3.11: Look for opportunities to reestablish or improve connections across I-5 by creating new crossings or enhancing streets where I-5 crosses overhead, especially where these can also enhance opportunities for development or open space.

To support our efforts, please consider sending a message to the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning (PLUZ) Committee urging the adoption of stronger policy language. We’ve prepared a letter below that you can send directly or customize as needed.

Members of the Seattle City Council Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee,

I am writing to support the Lid I-5 Steering Committee’s requests for refinements of the draft Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The following changes are needed to reflect growing community support for the concept of lidding I-5, the long term addition of new public space, and the eventual reconnection of neighborhoods that have been divided for over half a century:

1) Modify transportation policy T3.11 to specifically reference freeway lids and broaden it to all freeways in Seattle. This would be consistent with plans for two new lids in the Montlake and Roanoke neighborhoods over State Route 520, and it would support existing lids over I-5 and I-90: Freeway Park, Sam Smith Park, and the Convention Center.

2) Change the policy to refer to “…opportunities for development AND open space”, as freeway lids are not limited to one or the other. Community feedback has focused on the need for public land for parks, affordable housing, and a Downtown elementary school.

3) Repeat policy T3.11, with revisions as needed, to three other plan chapters: Land Use; Housing; and Parks, Recreation, & Open Space. The creation of new public land above freeways creates a wide range of possibilities which touch on many of the City’s goals for growth, public investment, and private development.

Thank you.

Comments should be e-mailed to these committee members by the morning of Wednesday, September 14:

TO: rob.johnson@seattle.gov
CC: mike.obrien@seattle.gov, lisa.herbold@seattle.gov, lorena.gonzalez@seattle.gov
BCC: mail@lidi5.org

For more information, click here to download and read the Steering Committee’s formal letter.

If you are interested in testifying publicly, the PLUZ committee is holding a hearing on the Comprehensive Plan on Thursday, September 15, at 2:00 PM at the Seattle City Hall Council Chambers (600 5th Avenue).

Lid I-5 is a community organization working to continue the effort of lidding Seattle’s freeways for parks, housing, schools, and other public uses. They are officially sponsored by the Seattle Parks Foundation, a philanthropy-based organization that encourages public-sector investment and private-sector giving to help create, activate, and care for public spaces throughout Seattle. For information, visit www.lidi5.org.

The post Lid I-5: Ask The City Council To Support Freeway Mitigation Policy first appeared on The Urbanist.

Key Policy Issues

Policy 1: Community Involvement Element

At the direction of committee members, City staff were told that a new Community Involvement Element should be created to clearly outline the City’s role in engaging the public. The proposed Community Involvement Element would be broken up into two general parts. The first section would focus on how to foster inclusive and equitable community involvement. The second section would explain the City’s approach to community planning. A few policies that would be added through the new element include:

CI 1.2 Develop well-designed, responsive, culturally-relevant community involvement plans.

CI 1.5 Achieve greater equity in decision-making processes through meaningful involvement of diverse community members (homeowners, renters, businesses, employees, property owners, institutions, youth, seniors, etc.), and especially members of marginalized communities.

CI 2.2 Consider areas with the following characteristics when allocating City resources for community planning:

Areas designated urban centers or villages in the Comprehensive Plan;

Areas with high risk of displacement;

Areas with low access to opportunity and distressed communities

Areas experiencing significant improvements in transit service;

Areas experiencing a growth rate significantly higher or lower than anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan;

Areas identified for multiple capital investments that could benefit from coordinated planning;

Areas experiencing environmental justice concerns; and

Areas with outdated plans that no longer reflect a citywide vision of the Comprehensive Plan or local priorities.

CI 2.5 Use an integrated, interdepartmental planning approach to implement community plan recommendations such as capital improvement projects, affordable housing, services, zoning and other City investments.

Policy 16: Amend Urban Village Growth Rates

Possible policy amendments are still pending.

Policy 17: Growth Along Transit Corridors

Possible policy amendments are still pending.

Policy 35: Scale of Development in Urban Villages and Urban Centers

The Recommended Plan vaguely identifies the scale and density of development allowed in urban villages and urban centers. To resolve this issue, the following amendment is proposed to give better direction in how to apply to the policy:

LU 1.3 Provide for a wide range in the scale and density permitted for multifamily residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects to generally achieve the following overall density and scale characteristics, consistent with the guidelines in Growth Strategy Figure 1:

In urban centers, a moderate to high density and scale of development

In hub urban villages, a moderate density and scale of development

In residential urban villages, a low to moderate density and scale of development

Policy 36: Future Land Use Map (FLUM)

At the last PLUZ Committee, councilmembers decided that it was best to hold off on changes to the FLUM until further work could be completed to determine what boundaries may change for urban villages and urban centers. The Committee did express support for adding cemeteries as a unique land use.

Policy 37: Industrial Lands Policies

Committee members felt that the Recommended Plan’s discussions on industrial lands were not sufficient, primarily because a host of policy recommendations will eventually be forthcoming from the Mayor’s newly-established Industrial Lands Advisory Panel in early 2017. Councilmembers feel that it would be better to retain the current language from the Comprehensive Plan–the one now in effect—over the Recommended Plan. Here are just a few of the current policies that could find their way back into the future Comprehensive Plan:

UVG21 Encourage economic activity and development in Seattle’s industrial areas by supporting the retention and expansion of existing industrial businesses and by providing opportunities for the creation of new businesses consistent with the character of industrial areas.

LUG27 Restrict or prohibit uses that may negatively affect the availability of land for industrial activity, or that conflict with the character and function of industrial areas.

EDG11 Support the retention and growth of the industrial sector, retain existing businesses and small firms, and actively seek to attract new industrial businesses.

ED6 Work with other levels of government and with the private sector to support and encourage the cleanup of contaminated soil and other environmental remediation associated with the re-use or expansion of industrial sites.

Policy 38: Allowing Development in Proximity to Urban Villages and Urban Centers

The PLUZ Committee decided to table the issue expanding the scope of LU 7.3 to include areas outside of urban villages and urban centers. Therefore, no amendment is proposed.

Policy 52: Frequent Transit and High-Capacity Transit Language

There was support in the PLUZ Committee to use the term “frequent transit” over “high-capacity transit” and similar terms, which amendments would resolve.

Policy 73: 10-Year/20-Year Housing Goals

A policy issue was raised regarding the mixing of 10-year and 20-year housing goals in the Recommended Plan. The PLUZ Committee agreed that language should be modified slightly for a specific goal in order to retain a more generalized outlook for the next 20 years. So while the “Housing Supply” discussion section in the “Housing Element” would reference the City’s 20-year and 10-year housing goals, language specifying a 10-year goal under Housing Goal 2 (H G2) would be stricken.

Policy 92: Municipal Broadband

A proposed amendment would add municipal broadband as a discretionary project for the City to pursue.

Policy 113: Metrics and Goals for Parks and Open Space

The PLUZ Committee felt comfortable with moving the parks metrics and goals from the Comprehensive Plan to the Parks Development Plan–a plan likely to appear before the City Council in 2017. Therefore, no amendment is proposed.

Policy 121: Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources

The Land Use Element could get revisions to language surrounding historic preservation and cultural resources over the proposed Recommended Plan language. For starters, the discussion section would see the title stricken from “Historic Districts and Landmarks” and replaced with the more encompassing “Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources” name. Kicking off the discussion section would be focusing language for why this issue important to the city, which would be pulled from the Art and Culture Element:

Historic preservation recognizes and protects aspects of our shared cultural heritage–buildings, districts, and designed landscapes that link to Seattle’s past. From the Native Americans who first established trading centers along the Duwamish River to the latest waves of newcomers from around the world, all have left their mark. Over time, Seattle has acquired historic features that have become part of the city’s civic identity. Through the preservation of icons and historic locations such as the Space Needle, the Olmsted network of parks and boulevards, and Pioneer Square, the city can continue to celebrate its heritage and maintain its unique sense of place.

Similarly, proposed language in the discussion section would reiterate that protection of such resources isn’t merely aesthetic in design:

Preserving historic buildings can help incubate small businesses, revitalize commercial districts, and generate local jobs. Historic preservation promotes sustainability through the reuse, repair, and upgrading of existing built resources.

A few key added policies include:

LU 14.1 Maintain a comprehensive survey and inventory of Seattle’s historic and cultural resources.

LU 15.2 Encourage rehabilitation opportunities and reinvesting in vacant or underutilized historic properties to spark economic revitalization.

LU 16.2 Promote seismic and energy efficiency retrofits of historic buildings to reduce carbon emissions, save money, and improve public safety.

LU 16.3 Encourage the creation of ecodistricts to achieve sustainability and resource efficiency at a district scale.

Policy 136: Direction for Neighborhood Planning

The was consensus by the PLUZ Committee to provide clarity about decision-making and the role of neighborhood planning. Proposed changes to address this issue are included in the Community Involvement Element discussed above.

Other Major Amendment Topics

Policy 15: Amending Neighborhood Plans

A package of amendments are proposed to the Neighborhood Planning Element, which would address specific policies in the Central Area, Fremont, North Beacon Hill, North Rainier, Rainier Beach, South Lake Union, and Downtown. These topics were not originally presented to the PLUZ Committee in August, but have been identified as inadvertent omissions in the Recommended Plan and are intended to be added back since they were adopted in 2015. It’s hard to categorize the changes overall since they range in substance. Some are merely minor adjustments to phrasing and grammar while others change language to become more actionable and greatly revise policy over the wording in Recommended Plan. Examples include the following: (F refers to Fremont, DT to Downtown, and NR to North Rainier)

F-P14 Make use of existing tools ((in striving to assure that the impacts of new growth are mitigated))to address affordable housing needs.

DT-LUP10 Consider allowing((Allow)) voluntary agreements to mitigate the impact of development((earn floor area increases above the base density)) in certain downtown zones, and also consider adopting non-mitigation-based strategies for the provision of low-income housing….

NR-P13 Encourage a mix of home prices and sizes through ((active))use of incentives, requirements on development, and/or funding.

Policy 15.1: Commercial Affordability

Language to address the affordability of commercial space and success of small locally-owned businesses could also be added. Six specific policies in the Land Use Element and Economic Development Element could be changed, putting pressure on the City to tackle the issues.

LU 5.16 Require higher-density development to offset its impacts through mechanisms such as incentives for landmark preservation, open space amenities, ((and ))affordable housing, and affordable commercial space.

LU 9.23 Use zoning and other planning tools in urban centers and urban villages to address displacement of small locally-owned businesses that provide culturally relevant goods and services to Seattle’s diverse population.

ED 1.3 Prioritize assistance to commercial districts in areas of lower economic opportunity with high concentrations of small locally-owned businesses.

ED 1.6 Pursue strategies for community development that help meet the needs of marginalized populations in multicultural business districts, where small locally-owned businesses are at risk of displacement due to increasing costs.

We’ll provide a follow-up after the PLUZ Committee has met to discuss these topics further.

The post Seattle 2035: Another Round Of Amendment Deliberations By PLUZ Committee first appeared on The Urbanist.

So far, the City Council has identified approximately 160 proposed amendments, many of which are technical changes rather than substantive policy changes. But the contents of each could have long-lasting impacts on City policy for many years to come, and that’s to say nothing of the proposed wording of the Recommended Plan itself. Three meetings of the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning (PLUZ) Committee will be held to discuss the Plan. The last meeting would give the Committee’s approval and send the proposal out of committee for final approval by the full City Council.

• Friday, September 9th (9.30am): The PLUZ Committee will take up discussion on possible amendments to the Plan;
• Thursday, September 15th (2pm): The PLUZ Committee will hold a public hearing on the Plan and proposed amendments; and
• Tuesday, September 20th (9.30am): This date is still tentative, but the PLUZ Committee could act on adoption of the amendments and modified Plan.

If an amended version of the Comprehensive Plan is voted out of committee on September 20th, it could go to the full Council on September 26th or October 3rd for final action. Otherwise, the proposal will be tabled until after the budget season in very late November. Participation at each step is important if you want to impact the outcome of policy direction. Those who want to testify at the public hearing on September 15th should show up early and sign-in to speak. Individuals can sign-up as early as 1.45pm and the public hearing is scheduled begin shortly thereafter at 2pm. Councilmember Rob Johnson, Chair of the PLUZ Committee, is also happy to take feedback directly to share with committee members.

The post Moving Seattle 2035 Forward first appeared on The Urbanist.