In the 2009 legislative session in Olympia, density and transit-oriented development (TOD) advocates tried and failed to pass a controversial bill that would have mandated increased density around high-capacity transit stations.
The bill encountered stiff opposition from conservatives and density critics. It also prompted questions from local governments that were concerned about the bill's one-size-fits-all density requirements not being the best fit for their communities in every case. HB 1490 died when it failed to be brought up for a vote on the House floor in the final days before the legislative cutoff date.
Key stakeholders aren't giving up on the idea of state legislation to encourage transit-oriented development though. This year the environmental advocacy organization Futurewise is taking the lead on a bill that would provide an incentive-based approach to encouraging compact development around high-performing transit stations. Their platform is presented in a well-informed report published yesterday titled Transit-Oriented Communities: A Blueprint for Washington State, which was developed through a collaborative effort with Transportation Choices Coalition and GGLO.
Futurewise and other TOD supporters hope their changes to the legislation will make this year's bill more likely to pass than last year's bill. However, the political realities of the shortened off-year legislative session and the difficult budgetary climate in Olympia make passage far from certain.
What Killed HB 1490?
The most controversial portion of HB 1490 was a requirement that local jurisdictions adopt specific density and affordable housing requirements within a half-mile radius of high capacity transit stations, which included transit centers, Sounder commuter stations and future Link light rail stations. The jurisdictions were required to achieve an average net density of 50 dwelling units per acre.
Stakeholder groups that supported HB 1490 tend to agree that no single opposition group or issue was responsible for the demise of the bill. Instead, a series of disputes and legislative delay tactics conspired to drag out the legislative process. A lot of media attention focused on the issues raised by some density critics and neighborhood activists. However, equally important to the ultimate demise of the bill was the difficulty stakeholder groups had in convincing the local jurisdictions being impacted by the bill to support it.
Various municipalities expressed concern at public hearings that the requirements were too inflexible to be good fits for their communities. For example, the City of Auburn testified that soil conditions in the city center do not allow for buildings taller than five stories, a height limit that could be problematic for efforts to meet the average minimum density of 50 units per acre. The City of Bellevue also expressed reservations that it would be unable to meet density requirements around the South Bellevue station on the planned East Link light rail line.
Changes were made to the bill as it moved through the legislative process to accommodate the concerns of local jurisdictions. However, stakeholder groups ran out of time to get the bill passed during the 2009 session.
Supporters saw their last chance wither away when the Worker Privacy Law scandal broke just days before the legislative deadline in March. With so little time remaining, House leadership decided it could not afford to spend the time that would be needed to debate the dozens of unfriendly amendments that legislative opponents proposed.
What's Different This Year?
TOD advocacy organizations like Futurewise and Transportation Choices Coalition argue that denser development in urban areas is needed to protect the Puget Sound region from the negative impacts associated with sprawling growth, including traffic congestion, increased greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation. Since last year's attempt to impose mandates on local governments failed, supporters this year are adopting a more persuasive approach.
The most significant difference between this year's bill and HB 1490 is the change from mandatory density requirements around high-capacity transit stations to an incentive program that would reward local jurisdictions for meeting certain criteria around station areas.
According to Futurewise Urban Strategies Director Sara Nikolic, the bill would include a list of goals or measures to determine if a high-capacity transit station qualifies as a "high-performing station," making the jurisdiction eligible for financial incentives from the state. Those measures include:
- Bicycle/pedestrian connectivity
- Residential and employment density
- Affordable housing
- Mixed-use
- Green infrastructure and open space
- Urban design
Many of the performance measures lack a clear threshold. According to Nikolic, the idea is to give local jurisdictions more flexibility to create compact developments tailored to their unique situations. The hope is that this flexibility will address issues such as the ones brought up by the Cities of Auburn and Bellevue in the HB 1490 public hearing process.
Supporters hope this flexibility will make it easier for local jurisdictions to support the legislation. According to Nikolic, compromising on the density mandate was necessary to attract the support of local jurisdictions that will undertake TOD around the planned Link light rail lines to the Eastside, South King County and north of Seattle. "We want to do something that leverages this investment, but still manages to honor and respect the local jurisdictions and communities," Nikolic said.
The Association of Washington Cities (AWC) expressed confidence that the added flexibility for local jurisdictions was an improvement over last year's bill. "We certainly like the direction it’s heading," AWC policy analyst Sheri Sawyer said. "Plenty of cities are enthusiastic about TOD and want to do that kind of thing in their communities."
AWC has not yet endorsed the bill and would not do so at least until reviewing a final draft of the proposed legislation.
Affordable housing advocates will be likely to watch the performance measures closely. According to Nikolic, there will be no hard and fast thresholds for affordable housing numbers. Instead, local jurisdictions will be subject to a needs assessment and housing targets will be developed accordingly.
The legislation will include a "no net loss" affordable housing requirement, meaning that new development around transit stations could not result in fewer affordable housing units than already existed before the development. The requirement was a key demand of neighborhood activists in last year's debate. However, those affordable units could still take different forms; affordable single-family homes could be replaced by affordable condominium units, for example.
Exactly what the financial incentive program will look like is still under consideration. According to Nikolic, supporters may try to tap the excess bonding capacity leftover from the construction of Safeco Field as a potential funding source.
One mandate that will remain in the proposed legislation is a requirement that local jurisdictions do sub-area planning for all high-capacity transit stations. Sub-area planning will have to consider bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, design guidelines and transit-supportive densities. Details have yet to be worked out.
What Are Potential Pitfalls?
Passage of the bill during the 2010 session is far from certain. Unlike 2009's 105-day session, 2010 is an off year and legislators will only convene in Olympia for 60 days. The shortened calendar of off-year elections tends to make passing controversial legislation very difficult.
An additional problem is the state budget crunch. In 2009 the legislature made nearly $8 billion in cuts to the general-fund budget, and more cuts are expected this coming year. Because funding for any incentive program will almost certainly have to come from outside the general fund, options like Safeco Field's excess bonding capacity could be looked at seriously.
Despite the challenges, stakeholder groups and interested parties seem hopeful a solution can be reached this session. "Hopefully something can be worked out that's good for all the parties involved," Sawyer said. "The ideas are in the right place."
