Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cpted Codification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Land use committee weighs codifying Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) for Seattle projects
Summary
Council members, developers and CPTED practitioners discussed a draft checklist, examples from other cities and possible incentives or requirements. Suggestions included a pilot on city-owned properties, a permit checklist checkbox, incentives (height/FAR or points) for compliance, and prioritized review for publicly funded projects.
The Land Use Committee continued a discussion on codifying Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles for Seattle projects, including how to implement guidance without creating permitting bottlenecks.
Chair Mark Solomon invited CPTED practitioners and local developers to describe pilot ideas and practical design changes. Lisa Nitsa, principal at Nitsa Stegen, and Laurie McKeown, vice president of development at Nitsa Stegen, described how they use CPTED reviews in early design for multifamily projects and said early input reduces costly retrofits. They cited a mixed-income, eight-story project at 4101 S. Willow (Othello) as an example where the developer and CPTED reviewer adjusted garage access, amenity placement and a planned open stair to improve visibility and limit unmonitored circulation.
Solomon and the practitioners outlined repeated, concrete recommendations that are inexpensive to add early and costly to retrofit: orient building lobbies and leasing desks for visibility of multiple entrances; limit points of uncontrolled entry; add mirrors and high-reflectance finishes in garages to improve visibility; locate amenity glazing to increase sight lines; reduce garage-door open/close lag to discourage tailgating; and provide law-enforcement access (address-linked fobs or recessed lockboxes tied to CAD) so first responders can rapidly access a building’s common areas and elevators.
The group reviewed municipal models and code language from other jurisdictions. Tampa’s code (chapter 27) includes a statement of purpose supporting CPTED and incorporates CPTED principles into regulatory review. Federal Way has design guidelines and a written CPTED checklist developers submit with plans. Jupiter, Fla., supplementary district regulations (example cited: section 27‑18‑58) require CPTED standards for new development in certain districts; Grand Rapids and other jurisdictions also have CPTED ordinances. Washington jurisdictions were noted: more than 40 Washington cities include CPTED in code or guidance, and Auburn, Bellevue and Federal Way were discussed as local examples.
Participants discussed implementation approaches: a simple, citywide master checklist that applicants would receive and acknowledge at permit submission; incentives (additional FAR, height or a points system) for projects that meet CPTED standards; prioritizing publicly funded or city-owned projects for required CPTED review; and a tiered pilot (start with city-owned buildings and larger multifamily projects, exempt most single-family and small projects under about 20 units). Several members urged keeping reviews timely to avoid creating permitting delays; presenters said training additional city staff or using existing police/parks/design staff with CPTED expertise would address capacity concerns.
Committee members and developers agreed early integration is most effective: Septet (CPTED) review at the massing and schematic stage with a follow-up checklist review before construction would capture most actionable items. The presenters offered to provide a draft master checklist and to work with central staff on pilot designs and outreach to the development community.
No formal code change or motion was adopted during the meeting; the committee discussed next steps, including drafting a checklist, piloting requirements for city-owned projects and exploring incentives for voluntary compliance.
