Laurelhurst neighbors have been fuming since 2007, when Children’s Hospital unveiled plans to expand its kid-curing compound in northeast Seattle by 1.5 million square feet and build two 240-foot towers. To stunt the growth, the Laurelhurst Community Club pleaded to the hospital for fewer square feet, and one member asked the city to consider declaring an abutting 1940s condo village as a historic landmark. But the project couldn't be corralled; 85 percent of the condo owners have sold their property to the hospital. The last hope, it seemed, was persuading a citizens advisory committee to scale back Children’s ambitions. But last week, both the city and citizen’s committee (.pdf) recommended that the project proceed mostly as planned—but with shorter buildings and additional property across Sand Point Way.

“It would pretty much destroy the character of the surrounding communities with a Bellevue Square type development,” says Laurelhurst Community Club president Jeannie Hale. The group has filed an appeal to the expansion, which will be heard by the city’s hearing examiner on February 26, because, Hale says, it doesn’t fit with the city’s growth plan. She also cites several minority reports by the advisory panel that disagree with specific aspects of the recommendation. “The number-one problem is that they consistently refused to compromise on the proposal to add 1.5 million square feet in a low-density, family area.”

“The citizens advisory committee basically had Children’s at the table and no one else,” Hale says. “Neighbors went week after week to speak, but their concerns were not really addressed.”

But Karen Wolf, chair of the 15-person advisory committee, says neighborhood concerns were heard clearly and well represented on the panel. In fact, Wolf lives two blocks from the hospital. “I think the hospital did respond to them,” she says. For example, the current plan reduces the buildings’ height by 100 feet, creates publicly accessible open space, and establishes setbacks from the street to preserve views. “Yes, it is the same square footage as the hospital originally proposed but it will have to demonstrate need for the additional beds.”

Children’s says it must expand from 250 to 600 beds to serve children in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana. However, Hale argues that the hospital doesn’t need that much room, and thus can build shorter buildings (she’s asking for a maximum height of 105 feet) and avoid consuming the property across Lake City Way. She says an independently commissioned analyst working for the Laurelhurst Community Club claims the hospital needs only 10 percent of that growth.

“They want to be the leader in the region despite the fact that they only have a small share [of patients] compared to Swedish Hospital pediatric care,” Hale says, noting that she supports hospital’s mission to heal ill kids. “But they want to make their name.”

Already, with months and months to go before the filing deadline, a dozen candidates have filed to fill two, possibly three, spots that are being vacated by Seattle City Council members in November. That should be cause for excitement—rarely do so many people take an interest so early in the relatively low-profile (and often dead-end) job of city council member. But the current crop doesn't exactly inspire (and believe me, I'm far from the only City Hall watcher who feels this way). They include:

• Sally Bagshaw, a downtown resident and crusader for the mayor's doomed cut-and-cover tunnel as a board member for Allied Arts. She's raised about $6,300 so far but has spent nearly $19,000—mostly on consulting fees from Linda Mitchell, Christian Sinderman, and the public-speaking coach Michael Shadow—leaving her $15,000 in the red.

• UPDATE: Duh, I somehow skipped right over David Bloom, the former Church Council associate director who announced he's running in January. Bloom was one of the co-founders of the Seattle Displacement Coalition and is, like John Fox a big opponent of density and spending on big projects like the Mercer Mess; as such, he would be a natural to replace Licata, whose thinking on most issues is right in line with Bloom's. He's raised more than $10,000, and has barely spent a dime.

• James Donaldson, the former Sonic whose chain of gyms is apparently struggling. (The Seattle branch of Donaldson Fitness shut down late last year). Rumor has it that Donaldson has pissed off some potential supporters who've met him several times by calling them for money and failing to recognize their names. The first person to declare he was running for city council, Donaldson is now rumored to be considering a run for mayor. He's raised about $14,000, but, like Bagshaw, is in the red; McKenna Hartman is his consultant, although Sinderman has also helped him in the past.

• Peter Holmes, a police-accountability watchdog as head of the city's Office of Professional Accountability Review Board, filed too recently to have raised any money so far. In 2006, Holmes sought the council seat vacated by Jim Compton. Although he didn't make the council's final cut, he was on several council members' short lists for a seat that ultimately went to Sally Clark.

• Jessie Israel, a King County parks employee. Although Israel was the first candidate to declare which seat she's seeking, it may not help her much: As a relative unknown, she isn't really staking a claim to the seat; and the incumbent, Nick Licata, still hasn't announced if he's running for reelection. Also not in her favor: She has said she won't take a leave from her job to run for council—an understandable decision, economically, but one that will make it tough for her to compete against opponents who'll be running for office full-time. Unlike other candidates, Israel's in the black, with $6,400 raised and just over $1,000 on hand.

• Tim Killian, a political jack-of-all-trades who's worked for Mark Sidran and as a lobbyist for Seattle strip clubs. Killian has been in the general orbit of city politics forever, but he's the sort of low-key guy I imagine being happier on the sidelines than in the spotlight. On the other hand, he's making the rounds—it's hard to go to a political event without running into him. So far, he's raised just a little under $2,000 and hasn't spent any money to speak of.

• David Miller, a neighborhood activist who used to head up the Maple Leaf Community Council. Miller was in the news most recently for opposing the redevelopment of North Seattle's Waldo Hospital, home to a grove of trees neighbors dubbed the "Waldo Woods." (To read more than you ever wanted to know about that, check out SaveWaldo.org). He's also been an outspoken opponent of other tree-cutting projects. Interestingly, many of his donations are small—as in $2.50 small—which is actually pretty unusual even for grassroots candidates (and will definitely reduce his average contribution, which is a number that often gets trotted out on the campaign trail).

• Mike O'Brien, a Sierra Club activist and (prescient!) opponent of 2007's roads and transit ballot measure. O'Brien's a true-green environmentalist, and a righteous public speaker. However, he definitely pissed off many in the environmental establishment when he (and the Sierra Club) came out against roads and transit, which most enviros supported because they thought people wouldn't support transit without roads. O'Brien's raised about $7,500 so far, most of it from fellow environmentalists and family members.

• Dorsol Plants, another neighborhood activist and chairman of the Highland Park Action Committee, which has opposed the siting of a jail in West Seattle. He has raised $370—$360 of that from himself.

• Robert Rosencrantz, who's run for council enough times now that it seems fair to tag him with the "perennial" label. Still, maybe the third time will be the charm. With Rosencrantz's council mentor, Jan Drago, retiring, the council will lack a small-business representative; Rosencrantz, a landlord whom Drago endorsed in the past, could fit the bill. Of all the candidates so far, Rosencrantz is most deeply in the hole—nearly $20,000, much of that spent on speaking lessons (Shadow again) and campaign setup costs.

• Jordan Royer, son of former mayor Charley Royer, who just this Monday declared he's running for the seat currently held by Richard McIver, who's retiring. Royer's decision to pick a seat makes more sense than Israel's—he's a known quantity who used to work for Mayor Greg Nickels, making the seat pretty much his to lose. I haven't seen Royer speak yet, but folks who have say he that for a former city bureaucrat, he's surprisingly dynamic. On the other hand, his logo sucks: A toss-up! Royer's raised around $7,500, and has about $850 on hand.

• Robert Sondheim, owner of the Rosebud restaurant on Capitol Hill, has been seeking a council seat since 2006, when he also put his name in the running for Compton's old job. In 2007, he ran against Jean Godden and got knocked out in the primary with 12 percent—the lowest of the four candidates running.

It's likely that more candidates (hopefully some more women and people of color) will get into these races, and that people will continue to shift from seat to seat. Everyone's waiting to see what Nick Licata does; one theory has it that he'll announce he isn't running for reelection and lay low until right before the filing deadline, when he'll throw his name into the race for mayor. Even with no money (the council member hasn't raised any cash in a year), Licata has enough name recognition (and popularity among the anybody-but-Nickels crowd) to take 20 percent of the vote without even trying. That could hurt the chances of other potential Nickels opponents, like developer Greg Smith and former council member Peter Steinbrueck; anti-Nickels sentiment may be rampant, but there's only so much of it to go around. Similarly, money may be spread thin this year: With the economy in shambles, people will be giving less cash, to fewer people, meaning the half-a-million-dollar campaigns of years past may be over, for now.

The Seattle Displacement Coalition's John Fox sent out a gleeful email this morning thanking the city of Seattle for opposing Rep. Sharon Nelson's (D-34) transit-oriented communities bill, which would allow densities of up to 50 units per acre on lots directly adjacent to light rail stops. As usual, Fox's email contains so many distortions it deserves to be looked at point by point.

Seattle officials say Futurewise's 50 units per acre mandate should be dropped from HB 1490

Fox launches right into his letter with a typically misleading headline. The bill, which is being pushed by the environmental organization FutureWise, wouldn't mandate that builders build 50 units of housing per acre. No legislation can force development to happen. What it does mandate is that around transit stations, and around transit stations only, the allowable net density (more on that in a minute) must be 50 units per acre.

(This bill would require Seattle and other cities to upzone for 17000-20,000 units (50 units per acre) within a one-half mile radius of each light rail or rapid bus transit station in their community - at least 45 such stations around the region. There are six such stations planned for SE Seattle where thousands of low income housing units are located - most occupied predominantly by people of color - and all would be threatened by the upzones mandated by this bill).

While there are indeed (actually 42) stations planned around the region, only 16 of those are in Seattle. Of those, five are in Southeast Seattle. Many are already zoned for the densities Futurewise is requesting. Right next to the Othello station, within the existing zoning, developers are working on a six-story project that will have a density of 175 units per acre. In Northgate, the number of units you could currently build per acre is nearly 100. And the area within a half-mile of the Mount Baker station has existing capacity for nearly 18,000 units, or 55 units per acre. Here's what a typical residential block near the station looks like now:

For comparison, here's Belltown, whose densities Fox claims Futurewise wants to force on Southeast Seattle:

In reality, a typical Belltown block has a density more than four times greater than what Nelson and Futurewise are proposing.

Back to Fox:

[The] City also wonders what the bill means by "allowable density" and "net density" and calls for (as we have done) language that clarified exactly what these terms mean (this is needed only if the 50 unit per acre mandates remain).

That's a good question. Fortunately, the answer is actually pretty simple, as Dan Bertolet at Hugeasscity has illustrated: Net density, which is what we're talking about when we say "50 units per acre," refers to the total number of housing units divided by the size of the lots they're on. Gross density, which Fox cites to demonstrate that 50 units per acre would represent a massive upzone, divides the total number of units by everything—streets, medians, sidewalks, parks, everything. It's inherently misleading. As Bertolet has documented ably here, a typical single-family block has a gross density of about 6.5 units per acre; look at the actual developable land, however, and you get a net density of around 10 units per acre. Up that to a little more than 50, and you get Rainier Vista, which has a net density of about 66 units per acre. So when we talk about densities of 50 units per acre, we're really talking about three-story buildings, not 20-story condo towers.

Fox again:

Their letter also provides estimates of capacities for several TOD areas which directly brings into question Futurewise assumption that these areas already are zoned for 50 units per acre. The city's letter says current capacities around most TOD's in our nabe's are well below that threshold ...Given that the bill lacks adequate measures to mitigate the impact that these increased densities would have on existing low income housing, such upzones would greatly accelerate levels of displacement within these communities and especially in low income and multi-racial communities in SE Seattle where the gap between current density and densities allowed under the upzones would be the greatest.

The city's letter does include much lower densities than Futurewise's estimates. That's because the city comes up with "assumed housing density" numbers by looking at what sort of development a neighborhood has already experienced—not what sort of development is allowed. And some of their assumptions are way off. For example, the city assumes that only half the space in new developments is residential (the other half is assumed to be office or retail). But most new developments include several stories of apartments (or condos) above one story of retail. Another example: In Southeast Seattle, the allowable density on any single-family lot is two units—one single-family house, and one mother-in-law apartment. But because those aren't that common, the city just doesn't include them. It's no wonder their density numbers are way lower than Futurewise's, which represent what's actually allowed.

Most existing low income housing will not be lost due to demolition - not initially - but due to increased land values accompanying upzones mandated by the bill and added speculative activity - buying and selling - that drives rents up and longtime residents out.

Well, here we are again. Speculation—"buying and selling"—is happening anyway. People buy and sell houses; density increases. That's how cities work. Focusing that density near transit stops—and providing affordable housing in the process, although Fox doesn't think the legislation goes far enough—just makes sense. Futurewise's bill acknowledges the inevitable (you can't stop people from moving here) and channels that growth in a smart way: Around transit stations that allow people to live and work in the region without being completely dependent on their cars.