The zoning ordinance would establish size limits for indoor urban farming in industrial zones, and limit activities in residential zones to what the state defines as one collective garden.

The Council has a new Marijuana in Seattle issue page with additional information about the zoning ordinance, where limits do and don’t apply, and how it interacts with state and federal law.

On implementation of recreational marijuana, the Liquor Control Board released the initial draft of rules for producers, processors and retailers, and is working on the timetable listed here.

It’s possible that state regulation, including any potential action by the state legislature regarding the medical and recreational systems, may require revisions to the zoning law. For this reason, I sponsored an amendment to the legislation noting that the City’s regulations may need to be revisited as the state continues to revise its rules.

The Seattle Channel has two recent programs touching on marijuana. The first one is called Pot Rules; my comments are here.

In addition, here’s an episode of City Inside/Out re: Marijuana Zoning.

Mercer Street, 1959 (Seattle Municipal Archives)

The City Council approved a rezone of the South Lake neighborhood on Monday, May 6 by a 9-0 vote.

The rezone increases maximum building heights to 400 feet adjacent to Denny, and 240 feet in much of SLU to Mercer, aside from the Cascade neighborhood. Previous zoning was 65 to 85 feet in most of this area, and 125’ adjacent to Denny. The rezone is intended to meet new growth targets for Seattle’s implementation of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, required by the state Growth Management Act.

I proposed amendments related to the urban form along South Lake Union Park and along Westlake, and to provide for additional housing, as described below.

Dept. of Planning and Development presentation, 2012

GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (GMA)/SEATTLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The previous zoning in SLU provided capacity for 12,000 new units and 18,000 jobs; the state GMA requires development capacity to be at least 125% of the 20-year growth target. The most recent 2031 targets are for 12,000 housing units, and 22,000 jobs.

DPD estimates the new updated zoning provides capacity for 22,000 to 24,000 housing units, and 28,000 to 30,000 jobs. This equals 190% of 2031 housing estimates, and 131% of job estimates.

SUMMARY

Council amendments to the Mayor’s original proposal included:

• Views: Creating permanent setbacks on east-west corridors to protect views of the Space Needle; this was accomplished without reducing development potential;
• Landmarks: Expanding incentives to encourage preservation of all landmarked structures;
• Schools: Strengthening incentives for developers to include a public school in their project;
• Conservation: Requiring all new buildings to meet the LEED Gold standard;
• Zoning: increasing height in the Cascade neighborhood from 75’ to 85’, and from 85’ to 125’ on parts of the southwest side of the lake, and reducing height from 240’ to 160’ between Valley and Mercer.
• Affordable Housing:  Applied a Consumer Price Index increase to the existing affordable housing pay-in-lieu price for developers who don’t want to build affordable housing and added a 20% premium to incentivize on-site affordable housing development.

The Council approved other elements of the proposal submitted by Mayor, including:

• Farm/forest: the first step in a program to preserve farm land and forest land by transferring development rights into South Lake Union; if approved by future legislation it will generate funds for transportation improvements;
• Design standards for different neighborhoods within SLU;
• Most of the proposed building heights;
• Preserving existing affordable housing in Cascade by maintaining current heights.

URBAN FORM: MERCER BLOCKS AND WESTLAKE

I co-sponsored two amendments to address the visual impact of towers proposed for the blocks adjacent to Lake Union Park at the South end of the lake. The Mayor proposed height of 240’; I co-sponsored a 160’ limit, which the Council passed by a 6-3 vote. The previous zoning was 40’, with 65’ under some circumstances, so even 160’ represents a significant increase. With 400’ along Denny and in the Denny Triangle, and 240’ in between, 160’ provides a good transition for maintaining urban form. This change will reduce the visual impact of shadows from the towers on Lake Union Park during the winter months.

Secondly, I also co-sponsored a proposal to limit the floor plate size (the size of each floor), for slimmer towers to protect views. Although this didn’t pass, the Council did approve a 105’ limit on the east-west width of towers.

The Council increased the zoning of a section of South Lake Union adjacent to Westlake and Dexter avenues, from the Mayor’s proposal of 85’, to 125’. I co-sponsored an amendment to ensure a smooth transition in the base heights, in line with the slope of Queen Anne Hill. The developer who owns the site planned on commercial buildings only at 85 feet; 125 feet will allow them to build up to 4 residential towers. This area is along a High Capacity Transit Corridor identified in the Seattle Transit Master Plan, and removed from the seaplane flight path. It’s a good location for additional housing.

HOUSING

I’m pleased that the Council increased the obligation of developers taking advantage of the potential for increased building heights to provide affordable housing, but it’s not nearly enough to meet South Lake Union’s future need. The City’s goal for affordable housing in South Lake Union is 4,200 units, the proposal the Council passed will result in approximately 700 affordable units produced.  Estimates are that these SLU upzones may result in over $12 billion worth of development over the next 25 years.  Without significantly more affordable housing for people working in the city, traffic congestion will increasingly clog our streets, hurting the economy and our environment.

Whether the Council enacts upzones in SLU or any other neighborhood, upzoning adds significant value to private property.  Seattle is among the most active real estate markets in the country, and we still have a great opportunity to get this right.  Just saying we’ll build more housing isn’t enough of a solution.  Housing regulations of cities across the country generate new units of affordable housing for their workforces. Denver and San Diego set aside 10% of all new units for affordable housing and Boston and Sacramento set aside 15%. Seattle’s incentive zoning program only sets aside 5% of all units.  I proposed an amendment to increase the affordable housing setaside to 10% of all residential floor area in a 240’ high building.  The amendment did not pass.

While the legislation passed by the Council does not require that enough affordable units will be built, I’m also concerned that the housing built will not serve the full range of workers. The Council’s own study found that by 2031, 100,000 new jobs will come to downtown Seattle. If current wage levels are maintained, one in four of the workers in these new jobs and one and three of workers in all jobs downtown, new and existing, will be paid wages that qualify them for affordable housing.  I proposed an amendment that half of the affordable units produced be affordable to these workers.  It did not pass.  Instead, the Council passed legislation with a target household income set at 80% average median income.  This means that childcare workers, health care, grocery/retail, hospitality and janitors will be priced out of South Lake Union and endure long commutes, contributing to pollution and suburban sprawl.

We all suffer if we push more people out of the city.  For these reasons, I will seek city-wide incentive zoning, requiring housing be built for our entire workforce, not just those earning the highest wages.

BLOCK 59

Included in the Mayor’s original submittal in November 2012 was a summary sheet and Memorandum of Understanding with Vulcan, under which Vulcan would sell four properties in “Block 59” of South Lake Union adjacent to Aurora and Mercer, to the city, to be combined with City properties. In return, they would receive a credit of $10-12 million for affordable housing bonus payments, locked in at the rate proposed by the Mayor. The facility would provide low and moderate income housing, a childcare facility, education/job training programs, and other services. Numerous social service agencies were involved in the planning, along with Vulcan and the Mayor’s office. Vulcan would pay up to an additional $3.25 million to build up to 240’ in the Mercer waterfront blocks.

Valuation for the Block 59 properties would be determined by an independent appraiser at the proposed rezone height of 240 feet. The appraisal value would be capped at $12 million; Vulcan could opt out of the agreement if the appraisal came in at less than $10 million. The zoning at that time was for 65 feet, with the King County Assessor listing an appraisal of the land value in 2012 at $4.7 million.

The Council received a funding scenario from Vulcan at a January 31 meeting of $76 million, mostly from SLU housing credits. It estimated 337 units of low and moderate income housing would be produced over 12 years on that site. The funding scenario included $6.5 million each from the state and King County, $7 million in city land, and $4 million in additional city housing funds.

The Council opted to not pursue the agreement, because it was tied to a specific Vulcan request, and the credits could only be used for one project, rather than for projects throughout South Lake Union. In any case, the Mayor never submitted legislation to the City Council.

While I didn’t support the agreement as it was presented, I found the concept intriguing and worth considering; I am continuing to explore options for pursuing the vision of an integrated program in SLU that would provide for the same services and housing.

At the May 8 meeting of the Housing, Human Services and Culture Committee next Wednesday, we’ll discuss and consider a decision agenda about Council Bill 117744 re: marijuana zoning, which I wrote about earlier. The decision agenda will be linked to the meeting agenda on Monday.

The Committee held a public hearing on April 24, which you can view here. You can view the presentation and Councilmember discussion here. The memo from that meeting explains the relationship of the proposed ordinance to the current land use code in, for example, commercial zones. It also lists the public comments received up to that point. A map of industrial zones  was also discussed in the meeting.

A vote on the ordinance could take place at the May 22 committee meeting.

You can view the March 27 committee presentation on the Seattle Channel here.

In recognition of Earth Day today, our city is garnering a lot of attention for the grand opening of the Bullitt Foundation’s new headquarters on Capitol Hill. The Bullitt Center is not only intended to be the greenest building in the world, it is intended to have a lifespan of two hundred and fifty years.

It is the first commercial building in the U.S. to earn the Forest Stewardship Council’s certification for using 100 percent FSC-certified wood and it is the largest structure to qualify for the Living Building Challenge.

The Bullitt Center on Capitol Hill

The Living Building Challenge is the built environment’s most rigorous performance standard. To be certified under the Challenge, projects, over a minimum of 12 months of continuous occupancy, must meet a series of ambitious performance requirements, including net zero energy, waste, and water.

Last year, The Living Building Challenge was a topic of discussion for me and other Councilmembers during a Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee (PLUS) meeting regarding the approval of Ordinance 117516, which allows additional design departures under the Demonstration Program for Living Building Design.

Stone 34 in Wallingford

During that discussion, many people testified to object to developer Skanska USA’s plan for the Stone 34 building in Wallingford. Skanska’s plan calls for qualifying through the City’s Living Building Challenge for a 20 foot height increase above the property’s then current height limit of 45 feet. The International Living Future Institute, which manages the Living Building Challenge certification program, objected, claiming that the Skanska project doesn’t meet the Challenge’s intentionally stringent standards. The Bullitt Foundation expressed concerns, also, that the City’s green building standards appeared to be weakening. Skanska’s project was eventually approved under the City’s less stringent Deep Green program, rather than under The Living Building Challenge.

July 25, 2012 PLUS Committee Meeting Video

In response to concerns raised over the Skanska project by the surrounding community, the Bullitt Foundation, and Living Building Challenge representatives, I have introduced Resolution 31400. It calls on the City to provide updates and enhancements to its Living Building Challenge and Seattle Deep Green pilot programs.

Resolution 31400 also requests the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) to form a standing Green Building Advisory Board to advise the City on sustainable building practices; to screen proposals for eligibility; and to assist in developing new or updated sustainable building programs.

Although DPD has in the past employed ad hoc technical advisory groups to advise on sustainable building projects, those groups do not always include members certified in LEED architecture, sustainable building practices, and building energy systems engineering, nor do they always include representatives of a neighborhood community council. My proposed advisory board would require such members and would also create a standing body rather than one that is ad hoc. Such continuity, along with community and expert membership, should help quell the kind of criticism the Council received over the Skanska approval process.

My resolution will be discussed and possibly voted on during the May 8 meeting of the PLUS Committee, which is chaired by Councilmember Richard Conlin. Councilmember Conlin is co-sponsoring my resolution. The committee agenda isn’t posted yet, but you can check for it a few days before the meeting by clicking here.  I encourage you to read my proposed resolution, here, and consider sending your comments to the committee members listed below.

Seattle City Council Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee, May 8, 2013, 9:30 a.m. meeting in the Council Chamber: 600 4th Ave 2nd Floor:

Richard Conlin, Chair, 684-8805;

Tim Burgess, Vice-Chair, 684-8806;

Mike O’Brien, Member, 684-8800;

Sally Clark, Alternate, 684-8802.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter.
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

The annual report is required to include, among other things, the estimated total amount of tax exempted annually and cumulatively for individual projects in the MFTE program, as well as for the entire program.  The report is also required to provide an estimated annual impact of the MFTE program on the individual Seattle homeowner.  In the 2011 Annual Report we learned that for MFTE projects receiving an exemption under this program, their owners are estimated to receive about a $170,184,350 exemption for the life of the building’s participation in the project, with a total Seattle homeowner tax impact of $197.50 through 2025.

This year, OH was not ready to provide information on the tax impact of the program and has asked for additional time.  Last year, at my request, the Office of City Auditor conducted a performance audit of the MFTE Program, which is managed by the City of Seattle’s Office of Housing (OH).  One of the findings from the Audit Report was that “OH should…report on actual data, if it is available, rather than estimates. This should include providing actual tax exemption impacts from the King County Department of Assessments…”  My HHSHC Committee is in the midst of a program review.   I support getting accurate information now from the King County Assessor’s Office about the actual tax impacts of the program.

This program was passed in 1998.  There were changes to the program in each 2004, 2008, and 2011.  My emphasis has always been to support increasing the number of rent-restricted units required under the program and making them available to lower income people, for whom the need is greatest.  I voted against the program in 2008 because I believed the changes undermined its effectiveness by 1) subsidizing private developers to build units at essentially market rents, 2) expanded the program to build these market rate units in neighborhoods that have already met growth targets and 3) raised taxes for the rest of us to pay for it.

Each of the times over the last 12 years that program changes were made, the Council and the public was told that there was no general fund impact resulting from the program because the tax reduction developers receive were actually offset with increased property taxes for all other property owners.  Today we found out that this is not the whole story and that some portion of the exempted property taxes is forgone altogether.  In evaluating the project and making future changes it is critical to know what funds we may be foregoing that would otherwise pay for other critical tax-funded services.

INTRODUCTION

I begin this UP with a request. After you read this Urban Politics, consider sending a message to the Councilmembers asking them to dramatically increase the City’s plans for providing for more affordable housing in South Lake Union. My prior UP #322 provided background on how the City is developing SLU into a new and vibrant neighborhood, with expectations that in 18 years it will be the site of over 50,000 jobs and hopefully 15,000 housing units to accommodate those employees. Quite likely it will become one of Seattle’s densest urban centers. The question before the City is what kind of a new neighborhood will this be? Will it become a homogenous residential neighborhood, with employees car dependent on getting to work?

BE BOLD – TAKE THE LEAP

Before you is a strategy for creating an environmentally sustainable and an affordable neighborhood in the heart of our city. If you are in agreement, then email Councilmembers and put in the Subject Line: “BE BOLD – TAKE THE LEAP” In the body of the message use your own words for why you believe there should be more affordable housing in Seattle and South Lake Union in particular. Emails for the Councilmembers are:
Sally.Bagshaw@seattle.gov
Tim.Burgess@seattle.gov
Sally.Clark@seattle.gov
Richard.Conlin@seattle.gov
Jean.Godden@seattle.gov
Bruce.Harrell@seattle.gov
Nick.Licata@seattle.gov
Mike.OBrien@seattle.gov
Tom.Rasmussen@seattle.gov

WHAT DOES “TAKE THE LEAP” MEAN?

In short it asks Councilmembers to dramatically increase the requirements on South Lake Union developers to provide affordable housing units when they build larger and higher buildings due to the upzoning of this area. My proposal, which was kindly referred to as the “Licata Leap” by Councilmember Burgess, would do three things. First, reduce carbon emissions from employees driving to work from long distances by creating a greater incentive to provide affordable housing in SLU and in the city. Second, significantly increase the number of affordable housing units beyond what the other plans are proposing. Third, it will begin to make those changes now, capturing the potential to build hundreds of new housing units that would otherwise be lost if we were to wait another year for more discussions.

COMPARISON OF SLU PROPOSALS FOR FUNDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The performance requirement (i.e. the developer builds the affordable housing units on or offsite site) and the in-lieu payment amounts (i.e. the developer pays a fee to the city and the funds are used by someone else to build the units elsewhere) would significantly increase with the Leap Plan. Below is a table showing the differences.

This table applies only to new residential construction, not commercial construction, taking advantage of the SLU upzone. Commercial developments would also pay a fee, but their numbers would vary from those presented below.

Notes:

• *AMI is Average Median Income
• **Office of Housing suggests that non-profit developers may build an additional 300 units by 2031.
• *** This is the number of affordable housing units that the Office of Housing has determined that we’ll need by 2031 to meet our needs for the growth of jobs in SLU. Our consultants have confirmed this number and believe that it would be higher by 50% if we included the demand for affordable housing coming from the rest of the central business district.

The Council is moving in the right direction by increasing the amount of affordable housing from what the Mayor has proposed. One way that some Councilmembers have proposed is to increase the fees is by capturing inflation costs through applying the CPI index. This increase is one that could have been administratively applied, without legislation, any of the years since the 2007 passage of our first incentive zoning program.

I’m also glad to see that some Councilmembers are proposing a higher fee (referred to as an “in-lieu premium” of 20-25%) on developers who do not provide onsite affordable housing. I appreciate that Councilmember Burgess, who was the first to propose higher fees than what the Mayor proposed, acknowledges that even with this in-lieu premium, “the fee would be well below what is allowed by state law, RCW 36.70A.540 (h)”… well below the total cost to develop the workforce units.”

My objective is to encourage the development of affordable housing within projects and discourage the practice of developers writing a check to fulfill their incentive zoning obligations. Since its inception, San Francisco’s differential performance requirements and pay in-lieu options has succeeded in this objective, resulting in 80% of projects performing on-site units, 4% have performing offsite, and 16% making an in-lieu fee payment. My proposal is much more modest, but it will still increase the amount of on-site development than is currently being considered.

Here are some of the details of my proposal:

• For developers building affordable housing onsite: 10% of all residential floor area would be set aside as affordable for 60% and 80% average median income workers, which works out to about $60 gross square foot.
• For developers who don’t build affordable housing onsite, they make a “payment in lieu fee” which is equivalent to the cost of developing more units, instead 15% of units, or about $96 gross square foot.

IS THIS PROPOSAL REASONABLE?

The City Council’s consultant produced The Spectrum Report which concluded that an in lieu fee of even $104/gross square foot (mine is estimated as $96) would result in a 6.8% Return On Equity for developers and investors, the baseline threshold accepted by in the current market is 6%. In other words, developers could still make a healthy return on their projects.

Some have suggested that if we ask developers for too much in exchange for them using the upzones, they will not build in SLU if they can make larger profits elsewhere. While that is a possibility, there are other things to consider.

Although incentive zoning should be applied city wide, SLU is and will continue to be the hottest real estate location in the city for some time. The Mayor created a taskforce for considering how incentive zoning should be applied city-wide. It should move quickly and make a proposal by mid-summer, not at the end of the year as is currently planned. We do need city-wide consistency in applying incentive zoning. With a good portion of the Mayor’s appointees on the taskforce being for-profit developers, I expect that they will voice their hesitations about robust incentive programs. Consequently, I have low expectations that they will endorse anything that is bold enough to meet our city’s needs for more affordable housing. However, while the public deserves to hear their concerns, we should not use this taskforce as a barrier for tackling our affordable housing needs now. Rather, we should move forward before the end of the year to address the need city-wide.

Seattle is currently the sixth most active real estate market in the nation, and the risk factor for investors in this market is the second lowest in the nation as well. Both stats come from a report of Real Capital Analytics, a nationally respected firm, whose report received wide attention. However, San Francisco is even a “hotter” and they have a more aggressive affordable program than what I’m proposing (their “in-lieu” fee is over $300 a gross sq. ft. compared to mine of $96, or the Mayor’s at $15.) The requirements of their program applies even when there is no concurrent upzone and any time a builder is building more than 5 units of housing. And developers there have to provide housing units that are affordable to a lower income worker – 55% of Area Median Income, while all our proposals are at 80% of AMI (mine is half at 80% AMI, and half at 60%). Finally in San Francisco the affordable units are permanently affordable, for the life of the project. Our program guarantees affordability for only 50 years.

We need to build housing for our entire workforce, not just those at the highest wage scales. That is why we must have an incentive zoning program that also produces housing for workers earning 60% of the AMI. These are the security, clerical, maintenance, sales and hospitality workers. One proposed new building, just outside the SLU boundary, will be Seattle’s largest hotel employing over 400 people earning less than $25,000 a year. These are people who deserve the opportunity to walk or bike to work, rather than being forced to drive from Kent, Renton or beyond every day because they cannot find affordable housing in Seattle.

CONCLUSION

Council does recognize the opportunity of capturing additional public value for the private value we intend to create.  And, upzoning adds significant value to private property. The Department of Planning and Development has estimated that future growth due to upzoning SLU could result in over $12 billion worth of development over the next 25 years. Is it reasonable to expect that we should shape that development to be sensitive to our physical environment and our community values? I don’t want to see a downtown enclave created that can only house the most highly paid workers.

My vision is the creation of a functional and sustainable new downtown urban center that reflects the social diversity and environmental goals of our city. Can we do that by creating another 500 or even 700 affordable units when we expect there to be 15,000 housing units in SLU by 2031? I, for one, believe we can and must do better.

I welcome the Council’s continued resolve to grapple with these issues now, as well as the fact that we are also collectively rolling up our sleeves to do the same for incentive zoning throughout the City. But we need your guidance. What do you believe we should do?

A staff report provides a good summary and description; here’s a link to a map showing where the proposal would apply.

I am co-sponsoring this legislation, along with Councilmember Clark; we met with several District Councils late last year and early this year.

The ordinance would establish limits on the production, processing, selling, or delivery of marijuana from a business or residence in a historical or special review district or Single-family, Multifamily, Pioneer Square Mixed, International District Mixed, International District Residential, Pike Place Mixed, Harborfront, and Neighborhood Commercial 1 zones.

In addition, it would modify the existing provision that limits community gardens and urban farms on industrially zoned property in the Manufacturing and Industrial Centers (MICs) from allowing “rooftop and vertical farms” to allowing “rooftop farms and indoor agricultural operations”.  Indoor agricultural operations would be limited to 10,000 square feet, excluding associated office or food processing areas.

In the zones and areas not mentioned above, the production, processing, selling, or delivery of marijuana would continue to be regulated according to existing provisions in the Land Use Code for comparable uses by zone designation.

In the restricted zones and areas, the production, processing, selling, or delivery of marijuana, marijuana-infused products, or useable marijuana in any business establishment or dwelling unit would be limited to:

• 45 marijuana plants;
• 72 ounces of useable marijuana; and
• an amount of marijuana product that could reasonably be produced with 72 ounces of useable marijuana.

These limits are consistent with the State’s requirements for individual collective gardens.

Below is background to the development of this proposal.

In 1998, Washington voters passed I-692, approving medical use of marijuana by patients with qualifying conditions. In 2011 the state legislature passed a bill permitting collective gardens by medical marijuana patients, and stating that cities may use their zoning authority to regulate.

The City Council passed Ordinance 123661 in 2011, clarifying that the manufacture, production, processing, possession, transportation, delivery, dispensing, application, or administration of marijuana must comply with all applicable City laws, and that compliance with City laws does not constitute an exemption from compliance with applicable state and federal regulations.

In 2012, Washington state voters approved I-502 legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana, and directing the state liquor control board to develop a process for regulating the production, processing, selling and delivery.

Under federal law, marijuana is classified as a schedule 1 controlled substance.

If you’re interested in this, an informative Council staff memo covers a wide range of topics including affordable housing, urban form, the Cascade neighborhood, the Mercer waterfront blocks, Denny Way, the bonus program, transportation impact mitigation, historic preservation, and more.

The meeting is scheduled to begin after Full Council on Monday afternoon, and includes a presentation by the Legislative Department’s Race and Social Justice Change Team, and their memo.

Yesterday Councilmembers Rasmussen, Bagshaw and I sent out a press release stating our support for shorter, slimmer towers for the South Lake Union waterfront blocks.

I’ve copied the press release below.

Councilmembers support shorter, slimmer towers for South Lake Union waterfront blocks

SEATTLE – Seattle City Councilmembers Nick Licata, Tom Rasmussen and Sally Bagshaw today announced their support for shorter, slimmer towers for the waterfront blocks in South Lake Union adjacent to Lake Union Park.

The Councilmembers support reducing the maximum height included in the Mayor’s rezone proposal from 240 to 160 feet on the blocks bordered by Mercer and Valley, and slimming down the size of the towers.

Councilmember Licata said, “This compromise configuration still allows Vulcan to build their towers, while providing for greater public views of Lake Union and less shadowing on Lake Union Park than what the Mayor has proposed. By limiting the towers to 160 feet in height and smaller floor plates, the towers will be more in scale with the rest of South Lake Union’s buildings, and still provide a significant amount of housing and retail frontage.”

“My goal is to minimize the effect of the towers on Lake Union Park. This urban gem, close to the center of downtown Seattle, provides valuable access to green space and the lake shore,” said Councilmember Rasmussen.

Councilmember Bagshaw added, “160 foot towers grant additional capacity in regards to height and density and advances our goals of future development without sacrificing space and openness.”

Current zoning establishes a maximum height of 40 feet, with an exception that allows structures up to 65 feet if 20 percent of a site is set aside for street level open space.

The Van Vorst Building, a registered landmark, in the 400 block of Boren Ave. N. in the South Lake Union/Cascade neighborhood.

4Culture just announced two new funding programs for preserving historic places. Preservation Special Projects and Preservation Sustained Support. Special Projects supports basic community preservation work, such as predevelopment studies on significant properties. Guidelines are now posted on 4Culture’s website. The deadline for applying to Preservation Special Projects is February 27. A sampling of those who can apply include Historic Seattle, Docomomo, the Seattle Architectural Foundation, and the City’s own Historic Preservation Program.

Preservation Sustained Support provides operating funds for organizations with a preservation mission and for cities with active preservation programs. Its application deadline is October 9. This is the first preservation program to fund operations, rather than projects, and will go a long way to keeping such organizations viable, especially smaller organizations.

4Culture’s Preservation Special Projects funds can be used to conduct surveys and inventories, registering landmarks, and project planning among other things. They want preservationists to identify historic places in innovative ways, communicate through new media, and engage people who may not think of themselves as preservationists. Awards can go to individuals, organizations and public agencies and will range from $3,000 to $10,000 per project.

Alice Winship, president of the Association of King County Historical Organizations, welcomes these new funds, which can address needs that are difficult for organizations to fill from other sources, like annual memberships and fundraising drives. AKCHO has more than 70 member organizations including Allied Arts of Seattle, the Pike Place Market Preservation & Development Authority, the Rainier Valley Historical Society, El Centro De La Raza, the Wing Luke Museum and the Ballard Historical Society.

The South Lake Union/Cascade neighborhood, looking north.

A neighborhood that comes to my mind when thinking of preservation is the South Lake Union\Cascade neighborhood. The Council is currently considering an upzone to that area that would include an alternative that would provide the ability of landmarked properties to sell their unused development rights, through a TDR program (transfer of development rights), to other properties wishing to expand their developments once a TDR program is established there. None currently exists in South Lake Union. This alternative would apply if the Council chooses not to establish a program whereby development rights from rural King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties could be transferred to property in South Lake Union.  An added alternative being considered by the Council would provide developers of landmarked properties increased density through a floor-area-ratio bonus program (FAR), which grants projects additional floor space in return for preserving portions of landmarked properties.

With 14 current landmarked buildings within South Lake Union/Cascade and another 34 structures considered eligible for landmark status, 4Culture’s two new preservation funding programs offer timely tools for preservationists to utilize there.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.
• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.