Embedded Files
Winter 2010
The Seattle Community Council Federation, the Displacement Coalition and many individuals (webkeepers included) wasted most of the summer with the Seattle Hearing Examiner conducting a de facto environmental review of the City Council COBE (Committee of the Built Environment) Lowrise Amendments. A decision was issued in October. [*See "A_Disappointing_Decision attached first below].
Three architects, two arborists, one hydrogeologist, one affordable housing advocate, one preservationist, one transit analyst, and one neighborhood planner all contributed pieces of the puzzle (four architects, if one counts the City's advocate).
The purpose of an effective environmental review is to bracket courses of actions from within which decision-makers can generally piece together an informed proposal. Although, even fair and thorough Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) do not always lead to workable solutions. A case in point—the extensive EIS for the 1982 overhaul that the current proposal most resembled and the 1982 Council's informed selection was no match for reality—within seven years the entire experiment had to be abandoned.
In contrast to the EIS process, the Hearing Examiner ruled "alternatives" out of order, so below is the first airing of possible ways to unscramble the puzzle presented by the alleged errors.
Resolution of Appellents' Item 1a) displacement and loss of affordable housing is never more critical to Seattle's ability to function and the entire list will have bearing as issues play themselves out in the years to come, Council section not withstanding.
List of Alleged Errors in the Proposed Lowrise Multifamily Amendments dated April 22, 2010.
1) Missing mitigation:
a) Displacement of current residents & loss of affordable housing
Proposed correction: *An Affordable Lowrise Program
—Remove density limits only in the case of voluntary 1 for 1 inclusionary housing (with all additional units affordable under long-term contract ).
Per SB 2984 enacted 2006, Shoreline and the *City of Bainbridge Island have affordable housing ordinances that permit up to 50% increase in density limit when each additional unit is “affordable.” COBE chose not to apply SMC 23.58A.014 Subchapter II: Extra Residential Floor Area Bonus residential floor area for affordable housing. That was a good decision because that giveaway is unlikely to work at such a small scale. However, unlimited density for what is well on its way to becoming standard practice (Built-Green) is nothing but a giveaway. The Council needs to go beyond the selective information they are fed on inclusionary housing. The similar village parking giveaway for frequent transit needs similar consideration. http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/landuse/Documents/Inclusionary%20Housing,%20Incentives%20and%20Land%20Value%20Recapture.pdf
More: Markets vs Management Compatible New Neighborhoods
b) Potential fire hazards
More: Two Fires, Two Messages
Proposed correction
—Enforce unit lot assess easements AND resolve fire hazards related to lack of sprinklers and pre-engineered floor and roof trusses.
c) Impossibility of infiltration, the City's preferred method of stormwater management *(Directors' Rule 2009-17 sec. 4.3.2) and other “simple, non-structural” methods of stormwater management such as increasing the tree canopy and amending soil (ibid, sec. 3.1, 4.4.1, & 4.4.2).
More: Green Gone Wrong
Proposed correction
—Fully implement the *Comprehensive Plan's urban village strategy to conserve neighborhood patterns outside of villages sufficient to make infiltration feasible in most cases thus balancing the more likely in-feasibility in most cases inside villages; and thus fully implementing the environmental policies of the *Comprehensive Plan. some added in 2007 and the new state mandate for Low Impact Development to the "maximum extent feasible."
Appy one or more of the following outside villages and by exception inside villages, dependent upon "place in the city"
—retain existing *lot coverage" or better Compatible New Neighborhoods
—require a sum total for front and back yards related to neighborhood patterns
—room for and planting of at least one medium sized tree, preservation of existing tree root zones including those on neighboring property, etc, etc, Green Gone Wrong
—correct setback and other imbalances disfavoring flats (most spatially and energy efficient)
MF Zoning on a Spreadsheet
2) Preemptive upzonings contrary to Ordinance & the Neighborhood Planning Element of the Comprehensive Plan—see attachments
Proposed correction:
A. Resolve failure to follow *legislative remapping procedural requirements and inadequate notification of property owners (risking a repeat of '89-90 remapping by free petition). Summarily rezoned with
• Outside villages: all LDT to LR-1 Extends the unpredictability (illustrated at right).
• Inside villages (See also attachment below: "Map of Proposed Upzones" with particularly impacted villages circled)
B. Enable steward group coordination of outreach, evaluation, and appropriateness of:
• all LDT to LR-1 See attachment below: CouncilStaff vs Reality Fremont LDT.pdf (the only L-1 left inside villages, or does it step up too now or later, see next)
• all L-1 to LR-2 (does this mean just old L-1 or old LDT too?)
• all L-3 to LR-3 (actually more intense inside villages than old L-4, which is similar to the old L-3 responsible for the 82-89 mess)
• impact on SF small lot, etc. still “only by neighborhood plan”
C. Facilitate, in lieu of NP Updates, preparation of neighborhood design guidelines by villages that still lack them (~ half of all villages)
D. Full consideration of neighborhood design guidelines or, in their absence, citywide design guidelines in all design reviews.
Poster Children?
Poster Children?
The since adopted proposal continues to disfavor flats (apartments and over/under duplexes & triplexes).
Here's a Poster Child from the Nickel's Administration, a South Queen Anne duplex ignored by the QAHS. Compare it with its possibly never-to-be-finished replacement, a six pack (garages, don't ask), the 2006 market choice in lieu of 8 apartment units.
Let's not make this North Queen Anne Triplex and its equally charming duplex and triplex neighbors, zoned L-1 in a sea of Single Family zoning, the Poster Child for an even more unpredictable future: continued compatibility—*"the urban design of continuity," lot-line to lot-line rowhouses, or design-reviewed six packs. Not conducive to investment in the existing building.
F. Add Good-neighbor criteria to land use code for all design reviews and departures above development standards (placement to retain solar access, averaging to retain patterns). See Ryan attachment below, new Backyard Cottages Guidebook, conditional use criteria in circa '75 SMC, and “dynamic zoning” per Donald Elliott, A Better Way to Zone, 2008. Time for only one book?
nissen draft 9-25-10
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse