...City Council Candidate David Miller, for his response to this morning's Fizz item about his views on density:

"There are two thoughts in density in Seattle. One suggests density is inherently good for Seattle and the environment, the other suggests that only density done well is good for Seattle and the environment. I’m firmly in the latter camp. Polling done during the Parks for All campaign suggests the vast majority of Seattleites are with me in this regard."

(The remaining 14 paragraphs of Miller's comment are after the jump).


The Northgate letter was written by the Maple Leaf Community Council Executive Board and signed by me as its President in June of 2008 – BEFORE ST-2 passed and brought light rail to Northgate. If anyone would take the time to read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Northgate upzone, you would see the MLCC document in its context.

Thankfully, the project as described in the original DEIS has been shelved. Over a hundred of the most affordable housing units in the Northgate Urban Center would have been eliminated with no guarantee of equivalent affordable units in the new plan. The DEIS would have left in place the “superblocks” that make pedestrian access to the transit center from the blocks north of Northgate Way impossible. The original DEIS read more like marketing material for a poorly-conceived development than the analysis of the impacts of the project required under SEPA codes.

A subsequent proposal, based partly on comments received on the original DEIS, is superior. It has a plan to exchange height bonuses for public pathways that eliminate the superblocks. More green, permeable space is created. Guarantees on replacing the existing affordable housing are still on the light side, but I think a smart Council could work with the area developers to come to an agreement.

Erica is right. If we cannot figure out how to do density right at Northgate, we fail our environmental responsibilities and create a significant mess that will make it harder to do development right in other areas of the city. Fortunately, we have time to get it right. The state-mandated King County Buildable Lands Report tells us our city is ALREADY zoned for 3 times the housing units and 2.7 times the employment job growth we will need to handle our year 2020 commitments under the Growth Management Act.

The data for Seattle tells me we have done well in preparing for our 2020 growth needs in terms of zoning. Starting next year, Council will look out to 2040 in the rewrite of our comprehensive plan. We may need to make upzones to accommodate the growth (an additional 150,000 in population between 2020 and 2040) Mayor Nickels has signed us up for.

For me, this means we need to be more creative in allowing larger projects in our urban villages, urban centers, and especially our urban core. It also means we need to join nearly every jurisdiction around Seattle and create an intelligent cottage housing code amendment. Cottage housing, done right, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are excellent ways to densify our single-family zoning – particularly where they run up against more intense zoning. I have specific ideas in mind for test projects for both cottage housing and ADUs, which is why I told Erica I believe we can add more density to single family areas without dramatically altering the quality of life and atmosphere that helps Seattle stay at or near the top of the list for desirable cities.

Seattle has failed to match infrastructure with growth. The state Growth Management Act requires that infrastructure arrive CONCURRENTLY with increased density. Seattle relies on special property tax levies to handle infrastructure concurrency now, while most of our surrounding jurisdictions rely on development impact fees. I’m in favor of instituting impact fees, but ONLY if we can reduce unnecessary indirect permit process costs for developers.

If we simply add impact fees, we make it more difficult to create affordable housing. However, if we can remove unnecessary time delays in the permitting process we can capture part of that savings in impact fees and create a win-win situation for all involved.

For example, let’s say a developer is servicing a $2 million loan for a multi-family project. Shaving 3-5 months off the permit process would save $50,000 in indirect loan servicing costs (even more in consultant and professional services costs). If City Council can force such streamlining, and then creates $25,000 in impact fees isn’t this a win-win situation? The developer saves $25,000 on the project, the city gains $25,000 in infrastructure, and everyone should be happy.

Not all projects are amenable to such streamlining. Interestingly, projects most amenable to streamlining tend to be otherwise straightforward projects whose only wrinkle happens to be innovative architecture or green building innovations. Such permits can languish for months inside DPD simply because they don’t know what to do with them. I can’t tell you how many green developers I’ve met on the campaign trail who have absolute horror stories to tell about trying to work with DPD. This has nothing to do with neighborhood protests, just disincentives inside the department.

We can take the impact fee system I describe a step further by implementing a menu of offsetting incentives. A developer would be able to offset the impact fees by including certain socially desirable features in his/her projects. Examples of these would be saving trees that aren’t otherwise required to be saved, implementing green roof technology, using permeable surfaces for driveway/walkways, and/or unit affordability. I’ve talked about this on the campaign trail and the reception has been very positive.

Land use is tough and packed with danger of unintended consequences. In the late 1980s, we smartly decided to concentrate our Seattle’s growth into urban centers, cores, and villages. I’m 110% on board with this concept. I strongly believe INTRA-urban sprawl is as dangerous to our environment as suburban sprawl. If Seattle grows in an uncontrolled fashion and turns into one big concrete heat sink, we will lose our critical urban watersheds, Lake Washington, Lake Union, and Elliott Bay.

If, however, we grow Seattle in a way that meets our Growth Management Act population and employment responsibilities simultaneously preserving the most trees, green spaces, and the uniqueness represented by our neighborhoods – then we win. We reduce sprawl in the suburbs, we preserve our urban watersheds, and we create walkable community hubs reachable by transit services, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Oh, and we retain the quality of life that makes Seattle unique among comparable cities.

That’s the Seattle I want to see. And if I have to get shelled by anonymous political opponents for opposing the idea that density is inherently good regardless of what it does to Seattle’s environment, I’m OK with that.