March 16, 2006

By TOM COGBILL
Contributing Writer

Zoning changes which could affect the character of downtown development for decades to come received a March 7 public hearing before the City Council’s Urban Development and Planning Committee. Mainly at issue is whether residential developers should be required to contribute to an affordable-housing fund, and if so, in what amount.

Mayor Greg Nickels has proposed allowing such developers to exceed current building-height limits in exchange for a $10 per square foot assessment. Committee Chair Peter Steinbrueck has pushed for a $20 per square foot fee, as well as stricter building and parking standards.

Most councilmembers were present for at least the initial part of the standing-room-only hearing. By evening’s end, three hours later, 65 people had registered their opinions, roughly half favoring Councilmember Steinbrueck’s approach and half opposed. Response of the public at large to the debate is difficult to gauge from such hearings, since groups on either side tend to pack them with like-minded supporters. Likewise, most individual councilmembers are waiting for a final draft of Steinbruek’s recommendation at a March 13 meeting before making up their minds.

Points made by speakers sometimes ventured into technical aspects of the proposals. However, in the main, developers and their allies in the business community claim Steinbrueck’s $20 per square foot fee is too onerous and would “downzone” the area (i.e., discourage development). Without development, no fees would be collected, thereby defeating its purpose of expanding the fund for affordable housing. Several stated that this fund was more properly the responsibility of all residents, better addressed through the citywide Housing Levy.

“ The proposed bonus fee is actually a tax on those living downtown, fulfilling the city’s commitment to the Growth Management Act,” said William Justen, a prominent downtown developer. “Support for low-income housing should be the responsibility of the entire community.” He said Steinbrueck’s proposal would mean “only the wealthy will be able to afford market-rate housing.”

Don Stark, Chair of the Business Climate Coalition, called Steinbrueck’s plan “a virtual downzone.” As for new service jobs, he said, “Many communities provide incentives — not, essentially, a tax — on creating jobs.”

A number of speakers countered these views with sometimes passionate statements emphasizing the city’s obligation to plan for all its citizens’ welfare, not just the top income brackets.

“ Developers have spoken on the burdens they’d bear if forced to pay the $20 bonus,” said Maureen Bo of the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans. “I ask you to consider the burdens on a low-income worker who has to have two jobs and lives an hour away by bus.” As for new jobs, she said, “Developers should be required to disclose the number and quality of jobs and what their wages and health-care benefits would be.”

Nancy Eitreim, president of the League of Women Voters, says the League supports fees of at least $20. She voiced dismay that “high-rise, high-end condos have become Seattle’s dominant form of downtown housing,” concluding, “We need hard data on how height and density changes will affect living-wage jobs and affordable housing. Otherwise, we risk becoming a city driven by special interests.” n