Category: urban administration

lessons learned from the development boom, redux

On By Chuck WolfeIn compact development, lessons learned, politics, transit oriented development, urban administration2 Comments

Last April 21, I wrote my first piece in seattlepi.com, and have not stopped since. I thought it would be worthwhile to “republish” here, as economic uncertainty stays with us well into the new year.

Infill development, or redevelopment of existing development, is among the key land use focal points in Washington State’s urbanized areas. As entrenched land use and environmental professionals, we have long advised clients on the broad range of due diligence, compliance and related issues which arise as infill development proceeds from planning to implementation. This advice has been practical by nature, not the stuff of daily dialogue. But suddenly, our entrenched professional dialogue is mainstream.

But have we lost a practical, implementation-based perspective?

“Green”, “sustainable” and “shovel ready”–and their older cousin, “smart growth”–have arrived with a vengeance, albeit often more as separate silos of ideas and inspiration than as interrelated elements of societal change. Even in a now slow real estate market, we now hear often from their advocates and thoughtful critics. How and where should we grow? Will the new residents of our region live, work and travel in a more sustainable way?

While former City Councilmember Peter Steinbrueck travels to Harvard in search of the ingredients of a more sustainable Seattle, former State Secretary of Transportation Doug MacDonald laments in Crosscut how growth management is not always working as planned, while national columnist Neal Peirce lauds the likely marriage of transportation and land use under the Obama administration–with the actual potential for silos of ideas to synthesize into cohesive programs with allied agendas.

As a long-time practitioner in the region, it is remarkable to see the dialogue emerge as never before, for debates to take center stage (witness the very public process over transit oriented development in South Seattle and Bellevue and the recent establishment of Seattle’s Green Futures Lab). Far more than entrenched and introspective professionals have become interested in land use patterns that conserve land, provide affordability and reduce emissions.

Absent large swaths of single-entity ownership such as South Lake Union, redevelopment of our current urban landscape will not be easy. As the pipeline of permitted and financed projects ebbs, we should take stock of what we have learned during the last boom–and look hard at how the silos and synergies will emerge on the ground.

Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA) has designated urban areas for growth for almost 20 years.

1. In the Puget Sound region in particular, the existing character of a neighborhood may be subject to dramatic change as preexisting neighborhoods are replaced by more dense redevelopment.
2. Critical area and contamination constraints, governed by elements of GMA and related statutes such as the Shoreline Management Act and the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA, the State’s cleanup law) have limited the amount of raw land available for straightforward development and often require sophisticated mitigation and/or remediation solutions.
3. In part to avoid long commute times, the live-work ideal has evolved as a major goal of mixed-use urban infill projects. As noted, transit oriented development has become a related driver of where people will live and work.
4. Cities such as Seattle continue to deemphasize traditional separation of residential from other uses and assumptions regarding parking and assumed modes of transportation.

Given the drivers influencing infill redevelopment, individual and interrelated projects can prove particularly challenging to assure an economic return and the absence of significant practical and regulatory constraints. From the private sector perspective, land must be accumulated in a rational pattern and permits and approvals obtained to allow for an economically and otherwise feasible project.

Infill redevelopment projects generate higher cost given the range of variables involved in the blending of old and new and assuring that existing neighborhood character is addressed in context. From the public sector perspective, GMA and regulatory consistency must be assured, as well as resource and human health protection achieved in concert with related environmental mandates.

Additional challenges result from a range of specific implementation concerns:

1. Assurance of Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation amendments if necessary to assure implementation of project parameters that vary from traditional “Euclidean” zoning requirements or limited floor area ratio, height or excess parking
2. Project mass and building height may require preservation of
view corridors in an urban setting, either from a development regulation of State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) context
3. Historic landmarks impacted by redevelopment plans must be addressed as required (e.g. Seattle Landmarks Preservation Ordinance)
4. Assurance that building, seismic and fire codes, as well as “green building” considerations can be met cost effectively
5. Assurance that impacts to neighbors will be managed appropriately, both from regulatory and public perception standpoints

Finally, as highlighted in a recent University of Washington study on “brownfields redevelopment”, infill sites constrained by historic contamination offer a key example of the balance that must be struck between the needs of the marketplace and the State cleanup law’s regulatory mandate to protect human health and the environment to the maximum degree practicable. The Department of Ecology is increasingly called upon to provide assurance to marketplace stakeholders, such as property purchasers, developers and lenders, over and above its more traditional role implementing a more mandatory or enforcement approach to site cleanup. The forms of assurance provided by Ecology, and the availability of staff, has become a key issue for infill projects where residential uses will be central to a project’s financing and marketing. Project acquisition and construction lenders and equity partners, as well as retail leaseholders and condominium lenders, residents and homeowners’ associations need assurance that site cleanup activities have met legal requirements.

In addition to the issues discussed above, urban redevelopment is often beset immediately with particular expectations or requirements to help solve urban and regional problems such as affordable housing and transportation. As these are elements of cost, a developer must find a way to contribute to resolution of these issues with the allowances of the project pro forma. Allocation of funds towards provision of transportation and affordable housing infrastructure and/or mitigation must be balanced against design and constructability decisions (constrained site construction and demolition challenges, quality of building materials, lighting, etc.), allocations of uses, parking and open/street spaces and vegetation.

The bottom line? Innovation will face implementation challenges that can benefit from practical lessons learned in recent years. The silos of design, regulation and financing must be addressed at an integrated, practical level if the now much-discussed sustainable growth models are to succeed.

and on the eve of the election, from where will the land use vision come?

On By Chuck WolfeIn politics, urban administrationLeave a comment

Hoping for breadth in a looming tunnel-centric campaign, my September 09  Crosscut article asked how a new mayor might “think boldly about planning”.  I asked in the land use arena how the candidates might move beyond single issues and set an integrated agenda to reinvent land use administration in Seattle, through a focus on restructuring, regionalism and revenue, with national examples in mind.

Within a few days, Mike McGinn answered directly with a listening session with over 20 attendees, including several Joe Mallahan supporters (disclosure: held in my law office).  Shortly after, his campaign produced a Planning, Land Use and Zoning Policy as well as Neighborhoods and Transportation Policies.  Eventually, the Mallahan campaign included some land use and zoning components within Housing and Transportation Policies, a reference to tree canopy within an Environmental Policy and recently, some passing debate references about potential paring back of the “planning department”.

The McGinn Planning, Land Use and Zoning Policy took on the several questions posed in my September 9 article, which ranged from the future role of the Department of Planning and Development (DPD), neighborhood planning, the Mayoral-City Council relationship, to regional cooperation and revenue generation tools.  The McGinn policy envisions sensitivity to neighborhood needs and achieving consensus results through expanded incentive zoning and work with the City Council.  The policy also proposes a zoning audit to assure sound land use practices and underscores collaboration with the region and necessary work to secure new approaches to infrastructure funding from Olympia.

In the end, the candidates have not jousted about zoning with deep bore vigor, and policy breadth has gone unnoticed in favor of alleged single issue “flip-flops”.   Important land use issues beside transportation infrastructure choices will likely await discussion in the early days of  a new administration.  Depending on who wins, the conversation may be led by some combination of the Mayor and City Council or, in a vacuum, by facilitating organizations outside of government such as the  Quality Growth Alliance, the  Cascade Agenda or Great City (ironically founded by McGinn).

In late October, the plot thickened, as Great City independently released a ”Land Use White Paper” to the campaigns, City Council, Planning Commission and city land use leadership.  The Great City White Paper is reflective of advocacy research by non-profits who champion policy areas in need of government action,  heretofore reserved for more boutique areas such as climate change and transit oriented development.

The Great City premise?  Not unlike mine on September  9–new elected officials and a recession provide a window of unparalleled opportunity to reevaluate how land use planning is done in Seattle.  Great City’s focus repeats many of the key focal points and provides an associated action plan, alluding to an enhanced role for neighborhood planning, the Planning Commission, and a greater role for the Department of Planning and Development:

  • Articulate a clear and long-term vision for growth
  • Elevate our planning process
  • Invigorate neighborhood planning
  • Build bridges between departments and disciplines
  • Create a flexible and responsive planning environment

The Great City action plan suggests empowering the Planning Commission to develop a vision for Seattle growth, and calls for an alteration in planning culture, including more neighborhood empowerment,  and enhanced relationship between DPD, the Planning Commission and the neighborhoods.  Implementation measures include consolidation of land use resources, a zoning audit, reevaluation of incentive zoning and greater attention to existing infrastructure finance tools.

Harry Truman once said that “[m]en make history, and not the other way around…[p]rogress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better .”  While we still don’t know the answer to how a new mayor might “think boldly about planning”, the late-campaign appearance of the White Paper–and its similarity to the McGinn Planning, Land Use and Zoning Policy–also shows that many ideas championed within are generational and may not disappear should the election tilt to Mallahan.