This April one of the City Council’s priority COVID emergency acts was passing CB119769 to suspend in-person Design Review meetings and allow developers to choose administrative internal review by the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI). The reason: they claimed affordable housing approvals would stall by waiting for online Design Review meetings to begin.

At that time the Council and other city departments were meeting virtually, sharing presentations and receiving public comment, but the Council accepted SDCI’s line that Design Review was more complex and needed further time and research. People from the development community predicted dire consequences if the Council didn’t act quickly and suggested the policy should be permanent. At least one Council Member agreed.

Five months later and after public pressure, SDCI held its first two online meetings in August.  Using the 25-year old Webex platform, the virtual Design Review meetings followed the same in-person format and functioned just like other virtual meetings people have come to know.

Architects screen-shared project presentations and answered questions from the Design Review Board. The public gave comments. A tech facilitator kept the proceedings running smoothly and all stakeholders were heard.  In-person meetings are still preferable but until it’s possible, this good and safe option gives neighbors a public voice in shaping their community.

So, did CB119769 result in a flood of new affordable housing applications?  No reports are available.

However, following the money for overall development shows that applications boomed after the vote. June saw SDCI’s highest total monthly value ever with $600 million in new projects, led by big developments.  That’s remarkable in a pandemic.

Count the DRA among cynics that believe CB119769 was intended to incentivize national and global developers to invest without having to go through a public process. To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with building city coffers but not at the expense of transparency and public trust.

The Council has decried Seattle and Washington State’s regressive tax structure. But the same dynamic exists in the City’s land use policy and shows up in skewed legislative priorities. As long as Seattle government relies heavily on development dollars for funding, public input will be secondary.