We appreciate that our city has a severe need for more new housing, and in particular, housing that is more affordable.  We also think that the time that it takes for the various City departments to review and approve permits for development is too long. 

However, the Design Review process:

 (1) Is not a major contributor to the time required for review and issuance of permits.  We have not seen significant proposals to take other steps to reduce the permit processing time.

 (2) Adds significant value to the resulting developments.  Much criticism of Design Review seems to assume that the matters addressed in the process are “merely aesthetic” and even trivial.  This is far from the truth.

There are a number of ways in which the Design Review process can be improved and we hope to be part of the conversation as changes are considered. 

1. An opportunity for the public to participate in a design review process in the Central Area of Seattle is a Race and Social Equity issue.

Seattle Central Area residents desire and support new developments, providing homes for those in need and for an increasing population. However, Central Area residents know that new development is not necessarily equitable development. Approximately seven years ago neighborhood residents and groups sought and achieved Central Area-specific design guidelines intended to educate and inform investors and developers in the hope that new development could become more equitable for our city’s historic Black community. Briefly, the Guidelines, in the “Context and Priority Issues” section state: “(Seattle’s) historic pattern of discrimination established a structural foundation of inequity in our city, prioritizing homeownership and business opportunities for White residents. Because of this history, the City has made it a priority to evolve into a community of opportunity for all people, regardless of race or socio-economic status. This is noted in Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan, Seattle 2035, with one of its core values being: RACE AND SOCIAL EQUITY -limited resources and opportunities must be shared; and the inclusion of under-represented communities in decision-making processes is necessary.

“This value greatly informs the Central Area Design Guidelines. It is, however, important to note that the language within this document often speaks specifically to the preservation of the African and Black American community in the Central Area.

 “The inequities endured by Seattle’s Black residents during these times makes preserving African American culture and community a high priority in the Central Area. These (Design) Guidelines are both in response to this historic inequity and aligned with other Seattle programs with seek to facilitate public and private investments in neighborhoods that support those most in need.”

 To remove from the public meaningful opportunity to participate in the design review process and leave review and decisions to conversations entirely between and among City staff and developers would seriously undercut efforts to create new equitable development in the Central Area.

2. Eliminating public meetings from the process would not significantly reduce the amount of time required in the permitting process.

The City of Seattle, as part of its review of the effectiveness and impact of the Design Review process has commissioned an independent study of the effects of the current system. The results indicate that, for proposals going through the full Design Review (the process including an opportunity for public meetings) the design review process equaled 23% of the time required to obtain a Master Use permit. For proposals going through the Administrative Design Review process the design review process equaled 22% of the time required to obtain a Master Use permit. (Note that this overall time frame does not include the full process for obtaining a building permit; if it did, that 23%/22% portion would be significantly smaller).

3. The Design Review process adds real value to the neighborhood and the city.

Seattle’s Design Review program is nearly 30 years old, borne out of a consensus desire to protect and improve the built environment that houses our community. It has gone through a series of evolutions in that time and continues to be the prime conduit for public input on the face of urban development and growth. With that much history, it has been possible for critics of public involvement to pick isolated instances where the process went astray. In media coverage several  instances are cited repeatedly, distorting the reality of thousands of successful meetings.

Our experience has shown us numerous examples of positive impact for the community, directly attributable to explicit public input. Successful outcomes are the product of hearing the genuine high-level concerns from people on the ground regarding vehicle and pedestrian access, daylight and shadow, massing decisions, etc., and implementing them with reasonable conditions for a project to move forward with. These well-grounded directives would not have been possible if the only review came from city staff. If changes are needed in the current Design Review system, they are best left to local jurisdictions. Seattle is presently well on its way to completing a comprehensive review which is expected to produce recommendations in the coming months addressing concerns regarding “program outcomes, process improvements, and equity.”

Prominent instances of where clear community benefit has been the direct result of a public process include the Midtown development at 23^rd and Union and the Vulcan development at 23^rd and Jackson.  Both of those mixed-use developments include generous public spaces and connectivity to other streets and sidewalks in the neighborhoods.  The Midtown development includes significant works of art and design elements that reflect the community’s culture.  Another example is the three-story apartment building on 16^th Avenue at E. Jefferson.  After a public design review process the developer designed a multi-family building that more comfortably fits into a street with single family residences, resulting in a better experience for all residents, including the new residents of the apartment building.

There are many, many other examples demonstrating that the City of Seattle was correct when it instituted the design review program.  Modifying the process is necessary and appropriate.  Developing new guidelines and a new process requires attention to details.