>>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.
TODAY IS DECEMBER 5, 2018.
IT IS 9:30 A.M.
AND THIS IS THE REGULARLY
SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING,
LAND-USE AND ZONING COMMITTEE.
I AM ROB JOHNSON, CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE.
I WILL BE JOINED BY MY
COLLEAGUES MIKE O'BRIEN AND
LISA HERBOLD.
WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED
PROMPTLY.
THERE ARE SEVEN ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA STARTING WITH THREE
REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION FOLLOWED BY A PUBLIC
HEARING AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON AN
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
A BRIEFING PUBLIC HEARING AND
POSSIBLE VOTE ON AMENDMENTS AND
CHANGES TO OUR TRANSPORTATION
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS THAT
ARE REQUIRED INSIDE NEW
DEVELOPMENTS, AND FINALLY A
DISCUSSION AND VOTES ON THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON'S
MASTER PLAN.
AS A REMINDER, WE HAVE ABOUT
TWO DOZEN FOLKS HERE IN THE
AUDIENCE TODAY, AND ABOUT THAT
MANY THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO
GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT.
THE FINAL AGENDA ITEM RELATED
TO THE MASTER PLAN IS A
QUASIJUDICIAL MATTER WHICH
MEANS IT IS PROHIBITED TO GIVE
PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT TOPIC.
SO IF YOU ARE HERE TO TALK
ABOUT ISSUES THAT ARE GERMANE
TO THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE THAT'S
GREAT BUT YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
MASTER PLAN AND I WILL HAVE TO
CUT OFF YOUR TESTIMONY IF YOU
DO.
WE'RE GOING TO START THIS
MORNING WITH PUBLIC COMMENT.
IT'S A LITTLE COMPLICATED THIS
MORNING BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO
PUBLIC HEARINGS BUT THE GENERAL
PUBLIC COMMENT WE HAVE EIGHT
FOLKS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO
GIVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
YOU WILL EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES
AD SEVERAL OF YOU HAVE SIGNED
UP TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS
DURING THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
HEARINGS.
WE WILL GET TO THOSE WHEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT
RELEVANT TOPIC ARRIVES LATER IN
THE AGENDA.
THE FIRST PERSON WHO SIGNED UP
TO GIVE COMMENT IS ALEX
ZIMMERMAN FOLLOWED BY GNUTE
RINGAN.
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND COMING TO
THE MICROPHONES WE CAN GET
STARTED.
>> HELLO, I WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT
AGENDA NUMBER ONE, ABOUT
REAPPOINTMENT OF THREE
COMMISSIONERS.
I GO TO COMMISSIONER MEETING IN
SEATTLE GOVERNMENT FOR LAST 10
YEARS PROBABLY 100 TIMES AND I
SPEAK ALWAYS.
NOBODY GIVES ME QUESTIONS.
NOBODY ASKS ADVICE GOING ON YOU
KNOW WHAT I MEAN?
I TRY TO APPLY FOR 10 YEARS
LIKE A DOZEN TIMES MYSELF BUT
YOU DON'T EXCEPT ME.
I'M TOTALLY CONFUSED.
I AM IN POLITICAL FORUM MY
WHOLE LIFE AND AT I CANNOT
QUALIFY FOR ONE?
COMMISSIONER FOR 10 YEARS?
SO I TRY TO FIND ANSWER WHAT IS
THIS?
AND THEN I THINK I FIND THE
ANSWER.
IT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED.
WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT ANTI-
SEMITISM AND RACISM.
IT'S NOT SURPRISING ME SO I
HAVE NINE TRESPASSES.
THE LAST TRESPASS EXPIRED THIS
MONDAY FOR ONE MONTH.
THIS COME FROM COUNSEL, NINE
TRESPASSES FOR 930 DAYS.
NOBODY IN THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA HAVE THIS.
IT'S A SHOW SO WE HAVE
GOVERNMENT ANTI-SEMITISM EQUALS
WHAT I SEE FROM SOVIET UNION
COMMUNIST AND FROM GERMAN
NAZI.
I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW A MAN
WITH POLITICAL ACTION CANNOT
QUALIFY FOR ONE COMMISSION.
I'M TOTALLY CONFUSED SO RIGHT
NOW I SPEAK TO EVERYONE WHO
LISTEN TO ME.
SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THIS
GOVERNMENT.
SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS
GOVERNMENT TO ACTING LIKE A
PURE NAZI COMMUNIST CROOK AND
FASCIST.
I CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW
PROFESSIONAL MEN LIKE ME CANNOT
BE QUALIFIED FOR ONE COMMITTEE,
FOR 10 YEARS.
SO RIGHT NOW I SPEAK TO
EVERYBODY.
STAND UP, AMERICA.
>> THANK YOU, MR. ZIMMERMAN.
>> GNUTE RINGAN YOU WILL BE
FOLLOWED BY ED MARKIN.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
JONES IN.
THIS IS THE THIRD DAY WE ARE
HERE AND THIS WILL BE THE LAST
FOR A WHILE.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.
I HAVE TWO HANDOUTS FOR YOU.
MY NAME IS GNUTE RINGAN FROM
THE FISHER STUDIO BUILDING, A
HISTORIC LANDMARK ON THIRD
AVENUE AND WE HAVE TWO VERY
SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT A
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS
BEEN PROPOSED ALONG SECOND
AVENUE.
OUR CONCERNS ARE TWOFOLD.
THE FIRST IS ABOUT THE UPZONING
OF SECOND AVENUE THAT TOOK
PLACE 10 YEARS AGO IN -- AND
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT.
THAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
THE SECOND IS ABOUT HOW THE
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS IS BROKEN
AND NOT WORKING THE WAY IT
SHOULD.
THE WALL THAT IS BEING BUILT IS
BEING PROPOSED WITH 500-FOOT
TALL TOWERS WHICH WILL DIVIDE
THE CITY IN TWO ZONES.
THE WEST SON AND THE EAST SON.
THIS WILL TAKE AWAY THE LIGHT,
THE LIGHT OF THE SO-CALLED PIKE
PINE LIGHT CORRIDOR.
AND IT WILL MAKE IT VERY, VERY
DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN THE
CHARACTER OF THE CITY.
IN TERMS OF THE DESIGN PROCESS
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SECOND SIDE
OF THIS SHEET I HAVE, WE HAVE
MADE SEVERAL OBJECTIONS TO THIS
PROJECT.
NEVERTHELESS, IT WAS PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY BY THE REVIEW BOARD
EVEN THOUGH IT DID NOT AT ALL
FOLLOW THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
IF WE CANNOT HAVE OUR SAY OR BE
HEARD IN THE DESIGN PROCESS
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME
BACK YOUR TIME AND AGAIN OR
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LITIGATE
THESE ISSUES AND WE SHOULD NOT
HAVE TO DO THAT.
SPECIFICALLY, WE NEED YOU TO
ADDRESS FOUR OR FIVE QUESTIONS
THAT I HAVE OUTLINED ON THAT
SHEET AND THAT I DO NOT HAVE
TIME TO DEAL WITH RIGHT NOW.
WE ARE FIGHTING FOR A SYSTEM
WHERE ONE PARTY, THE DEVELOPER,
DOES NOT TAKE ALL AT THE
EXPENSE OF EVERYBODY ELSE.
WE WANT FAIRNESS IN THE SYSTEM
AND WE NEED AN ORGANIZED
SYSTEM.
THANK YOU.
>> ED, YOU ARE FOLLOWED BY JULIA
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME.
I AM HERE TO REPRESENT THE
FISHER STUDIO BUILDING AND I
WOULD LIKE TO REINFORCE WHAT
GNUTE RINGAN HAS SAID.
NOBODY IN OUR BUILDING IS
AGAINST THE BUILDING THAT IS
GOING IN FRONT OF OUR BUILDING.
WE WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE IT BUT
WE ARE WELL AWARE THAT PROPERTY
WILL BE DEVELOPED.
BUT DURING THE DESIGN REVIEW
THE DEVELOPER ASKED FOR
EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD AND
BECAUSE OF AN ERROR OF THAT
HEARING WITH THREE VOLUNTEERS,
10 MINUTES OF TIME GIVEN TO
EXPRESS ALL OF THE COMPLAINTS
WITHIN THAT BUILDING, IT WAS
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
IT WILL AFFECT HUNDREDS AND
HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE IN THE
SURROUNDING AREA AND THAT
PROJECT IS WORTH HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
SHIRLEY, THE NEIGHBORS OF THAT
BUILDING SHOULD HAVE MORE OF A
VOICE OF WHAT THAT BUILDING,
WHAT THAT NEIGHBOR BECOMES.
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
TRAFFIC.
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
LIGHT.
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT
THAT ON OUR BLOCK THERE ARE
FOUR IMPORTANT HISTORIC
BUILDINGS.
THEY HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY
IGNORED IN THIS DESIGN PROCESS.
THE PROCESS ITSELF IS FLAWED
HAVING THREE ARCHITECTS WHO ARE
POTENTIALLY PROFESSIONALLY
CONFLICTED IN THE PROCESS IS
NOT THE BEST WAY TO DESIGN FOR
THESE HUGE, MASSIVE BUILDINGS
IN DOWNTOWN SEATTLE.
I AM ALL FOR DENSITY AND
GROWTH.
I HAVE LIVED IN DOWNTOWN
SEATTLE FOR 40 YEARS.
I WAS PART OF BECOMING -- I
WANTED TO LIVE IN THE CITY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT FOR THESE
BUILDINGS TO BE GOING UP
ESSENTIALLY TO BE FILLED WITH
PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO GET
U.S. VISAS IS NOT THE SORT OF
DEVELOPMENT SEATTLE NEEDS.
WE DO NOT NEED TO BECOME
ANOTHER VANCOUVER.
THAT IS WHAT I'M HERE TO ARGUE
FOR.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
PACHULIA, YOU ARE FOLLOWED BY
MEGHAN CRISP.
>> MY NAME IS JULIA BAYBOU AND
I'M ALSO A RESIDENT OF THE
FISHER BUILDING.
I AM ALSO A LEED ACCREDITED
PROFESSIONAL AND REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WITH OVER
20 YEAR EXPERIENCE IN
BUILDING DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION.
10 YEARS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN
DEVOTED SPECIFICALLY TO
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN.
AND I ALSO AM IN FAVOR OF
DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE.
WE ALL RECOGNIZE THE HOUSING
CRISIS THAT IS OCCURRING IN
SEATTLE AND WE ARE PARTICULARLY
IN FAVOR OF IT'S USED FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE
DO HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT
THE PROPERTY AS IT IS CURRENTLY
PROPOSED.
IT VIOLATES A CORE
SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLE.
IN PARTICULAR, TO BE IN
DIALOGUE AND INTEGRATION WITH
ITS PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
ENVIRONMENT.
SOME OF THESE VIOLATIONS ARE
ADDRESSED BY FRED AND -- ED AND
GNUTE RINGAN.
THE BLOCK HAS SIX HISTORIC
PROPERTIES ON IT, MANY OF WHICH
WERE ORIGINAL FOUNDATIONAL
BUILDINGS TO SEATTLE'S
DOWNTOWN.
ONE OF WHICH IS ON THE NATIONAL
HISTORIC REGISTER.
HOURS WHICH IS A CITY LANDMARK
BUILDING.
THESE ARE BUILDINGS THAT
ACTUALLY PREDATED MIXED-USE
BEFORE MIXED-USE WAS A THING.
OUR BUILDING IN PARTICULAR WAS
A SORT OF EARLY CARNEGIE HALL
OF SEATTLE AND IS FOUNDATIONAL
TO THE CURRENT, MODERN-DAY ARTS
MOVEMENT IN SEATTLE SO THEY ARE
NOT JUST ARCHITECTURALLY
IMPORTANT, THEY ARE
HISTORICALLY AND CULTURALLY
IMPORTANT BUILDINGS.
THE DESIGN AS CURRENTLY
PROPOSED WOULD DWARF THIS AND
PLACE ARE BUILDINGS IN
PERMANENT SHADOW AND JEOPARDIZE
THEIR FUTURE.
IN TERMS OF THE PRESENT
INTEGRATION AS THEY'VE TALKED
ABOUT, THERE HAS REALLY BEEN NO
MEANINGFUL WAY FOR US TO ENGAGE
IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE
FUTURE.
IN TERMS OF THE FUTURE
INTEGRATION, THERE ARE SERIOUS
CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC AND
DELIVERY IT WOULD POSE.
>> THANK YOU.
MEGHAN YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
STEVE.
>> MEGAN CRUZ OF THE FISHER
STUDIO BUILDING.
IOCCO MY NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS
AND I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT
THE PROCESS.
AN ERROR WAS MADE.
THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DECLINED TO MITIGATE THE
EFFECTS OF HEIGHT MASSING BULK
AND SCALE SAYING IT WASN'T IN
THEIR JURISDICTION NOR WAS IT
IN THEIR POWER TO MITIGATE THE
15 FOOT ALLEY, 16 FOOT ALLEY
THAT SEPARATES THE TWO VERY
DIFFERENT SOUNDS.
THAT IS NOT TRUE.
THESE ARE IN THE GUIDELINES.
WHAT I THINK WOULD HELP UNTIL
THIS MATTER, THESE BUILDINGS
ARE WORTH HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS.
I THINK THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
IS VERY AFRAID TO MAKE A MOVE
THAT COULD BE LITIGATED OR THEY
COULD COME BACK AND BE
QUESTIONED.
I THINK WE DO NEED SOMEBODY
THAT IS NOT VOLUNTEER WORKING
IN THE SYSTEM AND WE DO NEED TO
HAVE THESE TAPED JUST THE WAY
THIS MEETING IS TAPED SO IT'S
ON THE RECORD AND IF AN ERROR
WAS MADE, THERE WOULD BE AN
IMPEACHABLE SOURCE.
THE SECOND THING IS WE FULLY
SUPPORT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
REQUEST THAT HISTORIC LANDMARKS
ARE PROTECTED AND IN THAT ERA
OF UPZONING.
WE HOPE THAT YOU TAKE THAT
SERIOUSLY AND WORK THAT INTO
THE LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU.
>> STEVE, YOU ARE OUR FINAL
SPEAKER.
>> AS RONALD REAGAN WOULD SAY,
HERE WE GO AGAIN.
THIS IS A NATIONAL DAY OF
MOURNING AND I EXPECT A VERY
GOOD DAY FOR A LAND-USE MEETING
IN SEATTLE.
I'M ONE THE LOSS OF CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION WHEN THE WHOLE
IDEA OF THE LARGER ZONES, THE
URBAN VILLAGES CAME ABOUT
DESIGN REVIEW WAS A KEY PART OF
IT AND IT WAS JUST NOT THE
COLOR OF THE BUILDING.
IT WAS TO LOOK AT PARKING, LOOK
AT HOW IT MET WITH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE WERE GOING TO HAVE
SCALE.
WE SAW ALL THESE WONDERFUL
CHARTS ABOUT HOW WHEN YOU PUT A
BIGGER ZONE NEAR A SMALLER ZONE,
HAVE THE BIGGER ZONE WAS GOING
TO COME DOWN AND IT WAS GOING
TO BE A TRANSITION.
WE DON'T GET MUCH TRANSITION IN
THE CITY OF SEATTLE AND WE
DON'T GET A HECK OF A LOT OF
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
SOME WOULD SAY YOU WELCH'S ON
THE DEAL.
AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO
HAS BEEN AROUND A WHILE I
REALLY FEEL THE CITY DOES NOT
CARE ABOUT ITS CITIZENS
PRESENTLY.
YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR
STAKEHOLDERS.
YOU ARE LOYAL TO DONALD TRUMP
OR ANY OTHER LARGE DEVELOPER AND
YOU ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO
ACCOMMODATE BIG-TIME
CONSTRUCTION.
AT THE SAME TIME, CITIZENS
COVER MEMBER WE HAVE AN
EMERGENCY IN THIS CITY WILL
ABOUT HOUSING?
YOU DON'T WANT TO COUNT THE
HOUSING THAT IS DESTROYED AND
YOU CHARGE SO LITTLE TO
DEVELOPERS COMPARED TO ANYWHERE
ELSE IN THE COUNTRY THAT MOST
PEOPLE HAVE FOUND, SO MAYBE IN
FIVE OR 10 YEARS WE WILL HAVE
SOME REPLACEMENT HOUSING.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS DURING THAT
FIVE TO 10 YEARS AND PROBABLY
THE 20 YEARS BEFORE THAT NEW
HOUSING BECOMES MUCH MORE
AFFORDABLE?
IN THE MEANTIME, IT'S NOT GOOD.
>> THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC
COMMENT.
FOR THE FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN
ERE THE LAST THREE DAYS
TESTIFYING ON A PARTICULAR
DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN, I THINK IT
IS FAIR TO SAY THAT EACH MEMBER
OF THIS COMMITTEE HAS HEARD YOU
NOW THREE DAYS IN A ROW BOTH AT
THE MONDAY MHA DISCUSSIONS,
AGAIN YESTERDAY AT THE
SUSTAINABILITY AND
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AND
THEN AGAIN HERE TODAY THIS
MORNING.
BECAUSE OF THE VOLUME OF WORK
THAT HAS GONE ON OVER THE LAST
COUPLE OF DAYS, MY OFFICE HAS
NOT HAD A CHANCE TO FOLLOW UP
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION BUT WE HAVE YOUR
INFORMATION AND ONCE WE HAVE A
BETTER UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE
PROCESS WE WILL FOLLOW UP.
WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO
AGENDA ITEMS 1 THROUGH 3. I
WOULD ASK OUR PRESENTERS TO
COME FORWARD WHILE WE READ
THOSE INTO THE RECORD.
>> AGENDA ITEMS 1 THROUGH
THREE.
APPOINTMENT 01196 EXCUSE ME SIR
1194 THROUGH 01196.
REAPPOINTMENT OF DAVID A.
GOLDBERG AS MEMBER, SEATTLE
PLANNING COMMISSION FOR NAZI
APRIL 15, 2021.
REAPPOINTMENT OF RICHARD E.
MOHLER AS MEMBER, SEATTLE
PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A TERM
TO APRIL 15, 2021, AND
REAPPOINTMENT OF JULIO A.
SCCHEZ AS MEMBER, SEATTLE
PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A TERM
TO APRIL 15, 2021.
>> I'M VANESSA MURDOCK DIRECTOR
OF THE SEATTLE PLANNING
COMMISSION.
>> MY NAME IS JULIO SCCHEZ.
I REPRESENT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION HERE IS ONE OF THE
MEMBERS.
>> WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE UP FOR
REAPPOINTMENT.
WHY DON'T YOU WALK US THROUGH
THEM AND THEN WE WILL GET TO A
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR MR.
SANCHEZ.
>> THE TWO REAPPOINTMENTS I
WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO OUR
DAVID GOLDBERG.
DAVID GOLDBERG HAS -- WAS FIRST
APPOINTED IN 2017.
HE IS AN OMBUDSMAN FOR WSDOT
REPRESENTING THE 520 PROJECT.
HE HAS PLAYED A KEY ROLE IN
SMART GROWTH.
HE IS A FORMER JOURNALIST AND
HE IS CURRENTLY THE CHAIR OF
OUR LAND-USE COMMITTEE.
RICK MUELLER WAS APPOINTED IN
2018.
HE HAS AN ARCHITECT AND
PROFESSOR OF ARCHITECTURE AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON.
HE LIVES IN THE TANGLE TOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD AND I SHOULD
MENTION DAVID GOLDBERG LIVES IN
WALLINGFORD.
I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
ON THEIR BEHALF.
>> MR. SANCHEZ, YOU HAVE BEEN
SERVING FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS?
>> THREE YEARS.
>> WHY DON'T YOU TALK ABOUT THE
WORK YOU HAVE DONE SO FAR AND
WHAT YOU PLAN TO DO WITH THE
REMAINDER OF THE TIME YOU HAVE
WITH A REAPPOINTMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THE
TEAMWORK THAT HAPPENS IN THE
COMMISSION BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE
PART OF THE COMMISSION YOU ARE
PART OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT
WORKS AS A TEAM, WORKS TOGETHER
AND SOME OF THE THINGS I
BELIEVE NEED TO BE HIGHLIGHTED
IS THE STEWARDSHIP OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR ALL REPORT.
HERE IS A COPY IN CASE ANYBODY
WANTS TO TAKE IT.
THEY SUPPORT DHA MEASURES AND
OF COURSE REMOVAL OF BARRIERS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESSIBLE
DWELLING UNITS OR BACK DRAWING
COTTAGES.
THAT IS SOME OF THE WORK WE
HAVE DONE AS A TEAM.
AS I CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
COMMISSION, I ALSO LIKE TO
CONTINUE REPRESENTING THE
COMMUNITY WHERE I LIVE, THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT, AND THE
COMMUNITY WHERE I HAVE LIVED
FOR THE LAST 10 TO 15 YEARS.
>> GREAT.
I THINK WE ARE VERY HAPPY TO
HAVE SO MANY GREAT LEADERS ON
THE COMMISSION THAT HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON REALLY DIFFICULT
PROBLEMS FOR A LONG TIME.
YOU GO BACK TO COMMISSION
REPORTS FOR 10 OR 15 YEARS AGO
THAT STARTED HIGHLIGHTING SOME
OF THE CHALLENGES WE ARE SEEING
AROUND INDUSTRIAL LANDS AND
ABOUT HALF OF OUR GENDER
RELATES TO PLANS THAT THE
COMMISSION AUTHORED IN THE 90s
AND 2000'S.
AND GRATEFUL TO THE WORK YOU
DO.
I WOULD ASK IF MY COLLEAGUES
HAVE THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS THEY
MIGHT LIKE TO ADD.
>> I WOULD JUST SECOND WHAT MR.
JOHNSON SAID.
I PRETEND TO KNOW HOW TIME-
CONSUMING IT IS TO SERVE ON THE
PLANNING COMMISSION.
I CAN ONLY IMAGINE HOW MUCH
THAT IS AND I REALLY APPRECIATE
YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BE PART OF
THAT.
I'M REALLY GRATEFUL YOU CAME
TODAY FOR THE REAPPOINTMENT.
FOLKS DON'T HAVE TO COME.
NOT TO CRITICIZE THE OTHER TWO
BUT IT'S GREAT THAT YOU SHOULD
APPEAR AND I APPRECIATE THE
WORK YOU DO AND THE PERSPECTIVE
YOU BRING TO THIS WORK.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION REALLY
CHALLENGES US THROUGH SAINT --
THROUGH CONVERSATIONS AND
THOUGHTFUL REPORTS ON HOW TO
THINK ABOUT WHERE THE CITY IS
GOING, AND THAT WORK IS
INVALUABLE.
IT'S NOT WITHOUT CONTROVERSY
AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
GROUP THAT SITS AROUND THOSE
TABLES AND THINKS ABOUT PICKING
WHAT YOU WANT TO WORK ON NEXT,
HOW YOU CAN APPROACH IT, WHAT
LENS YOU ARE GOING TO LOOK
THROUGH AND I'VE ALWAYS BEEN
IMPRESSED WITH THE
THOUGHTFULNESS AND THE KIND OF
FORESIGHT AND FRANKLY THE
RACIAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL
JUSTICE LENS THROUGH WHICH YOU
THINK OF LAND-USE AND HELP ME
AND OTHERS THINK THROUGH THESE
SOMETIMES KIND OF WONKY
TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT HAVE A
REAL IMPACT ON HOW WE LIVE IN A
CITY AND WHO GETS TO LIVE IN A
CITY AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE
SO THANKS SO MUCH FOR ALL THAT
YOU DO.
I AM REALLY GRATEFUL YOU ARE
WILLING TO SERVE ANOTHER TERM.
>> THANK YOU.
>> DITTO TO ALL OF THAT.
I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS
TO SERVE.
I DO JUST WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF
A COUPLE THINGS ABOUT THE
COMPOSITION RIGHT NOW.
I SEE AS IT RELATES TO THE
GEOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION WE DON'T
HAVE ANY REPRESENTATION FROM
DISTRICTS TWO, FOUR AND SEVEN.
A LOT OF REPRESENTATION IN
DISTRICT 6. WE'VE GOT EIGHT
FOLKS FROM THEIR. ONLY TWO FROM
DISTRICT 3. THANK YOU FOR
STICKING WITH IT, AND ONE FROM
DISTRICT 1 AND ONE FROM
DISTRICT 5. I THINK IN JUST X5,
ONE, TWO, FOUR AND SEVEN THERE
IS WORK TO BE DONE AND
SIMILARLY I THINK ON THE
DIVERSITY WORK AS WELL.
I THINK THERE'S SOME EFFORTS TO
BE MADE THERE.
MAYBE WE CAN ACCOMPLISH BOTH.
IN ONE EFFORT.
SORT OF BENEFIT BOTH THE
DIVERSITY SIDE AND THE
GEOGRAPHIC SIDE.
I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING A LOOK
AT THAT.
>> CERTAINLY.
IT IS OUR DESIRE AND OUR
EFFORTS TO HAVE GEOGRAPHIC
DIVERSITY, AGENDA DIVERSITY
PERSPECTIVE DOES FOR --
DIVERSITY, DIVERSITY AND WE
WOULD LIKE TO INCREASE OUR
GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY.
WE DID HAVE THREE PEOPLE FROM
WEST SEATTLE WHO WERE NOT ABLE
TO FULFILL THEIR TERMS SO IN
THE OPENING POSITIONS WE WILL
HAVE NEXT YEAR, WE WILL REACH
OUT TO OTHERS TO HELP.
>> I WOULD APPRECIATE HELPING
YOU DO THAT OUTREACH.
>> I APPRECIATE IT.
>>
>> IF I COULD ADD PERSONAL
NOTES OF RECOGNITION.
I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE REASON
WHY I WAS ABLE TO JOIN THE
COMMISSION IS BECAUSE I WAS
GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO
A LEADERSHIP PROGRAM THAT WAS
STILL FUNCTIONING UNDER PUGET
SOUND. THIS IS THE THIRD YEAR
THAT THE LEADERSHIP PROGRAM IS
CONTINUING TO BE EXPOSED TO
THAT GROWTH OPPORTUNITY.
THAT IS WHAT BROUGHT ME TO BE
IN THE COMMISSION.
I WANT TO PLEASE ASK THAT YOU
CAN SUPPORT SIMILAR LEADERSHIP
PROGRAMS.
PLEASE CONTINUE TO DO SO AND I
WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE STAFF
BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
DO THE WORK WE DO IF IT WASN'T
BECAUSE OF THE STAFF SO I JUST
WANTED TO ADD THOSE TWO NOTES.
>> EXCELLENT.
>> OUTSTANDING PROGRAM.
THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING
THAT.
IT'S A GREAT POINT.
>> SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION
ON THIS, I WOULD MOVE TO
CONFIRM APPOINTMENTS 1194 TO
1196.
>> SECOND.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
ALL THOSE -- ALL IN FAVOR
SIGNIFY BY SAYING "AYE."
THOSE APPOINTMENTS ARE
CONFIRMED.
MR. SANCHEZ, THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE.
WE WILL HAVE APPOINTMENTS IN
FRONT OF THE FULL COUNCIL ON
MONDAY THE 10th.
YOU ARE WELCOME TO JOIN US BUT
NOT REQUIRED TO BE THERE.
THANK YOU ALL.
LET'S MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM
NUMBER FOUR.
WHILE NOAH READS THE SHORT
TITLE INTO THE RECORD I WOULD
ASK THOSE PRESENTERS TO COME
FORWARD.
>> AGENDA ITEM 4 COUNSEL BILL
119244.
LAND-USE AMENDMENT TO
INCORPORATE CHANGES PROPOSED AS
PART OF THE 2017-2018
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL
AMENDMENT PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU FROM OUR CENTRAL
STAFF TO WALK US THROUGH THIS
SET OF AMENDMENTS.
VANESSA MURDOCK FROM THE
PLANNING COMMISSION IS STICKING
AROUND TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK.
>> THIS IS THE FINAL STEP IN
THE 2017-2018 AMENDMENT PROCESS.
IN APRIL 2017 THERE WAS A CALL
FOR POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE
COMP PLAN.
COUNCIL MEMBERS RECEIVED A
NUMBER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
IN AUGUST 2017.
THOSE WERE GROUPED IN FOUR
DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.
MANDATORY HOUSING RELATED
AMENDMENTS THAT YOU WILL TAKE
OF NEXT YEAR ALONG WITH OTHER
MHA RELATED LEGISLATION IMPACT
FEE RELATED AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY ON HOLD PENDING
RESOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL.
INDUSTRIAL AREA AMENDMENTS
WHICH ARE STILL PENDING AND THEN
ANOTHER SET OF AMENDMENTS THAT
INCLUDE ONE OF THE TWO
AMENDMENTS THAT FINALLY MADE IT
INTO THIS AMENDMENT.
IN OCTOBER 2017, THE EXECUTIVE
ISSUED DETERMINATION OF NON-
SIGNIFICANCE ON THESE
AMENDMENTS.
SO IT'S A PIECE OF LEGISLATION
THAT WOULD ADOPT TWO OF THE
CHANGES THAT CAME OUT OF THIS
PROCESS.
THE FIRST DEMMONS THE GOAL THAT
GUIDES RELATED OFFSTREET
PARKING IN ORDER TO CLARIFY
THAT SUPPORTING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IS ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT GO INTO PLAY IN COUNSEL'S
CONSIDERATION OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AND THE
SECOND AMENDMENT WOULD MOVE TWO
BLOCKS FROM THE BALLARD AND
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTER
TO ALLOW SPU TO CONSIDER
EXPANDING ON THOSE BLOCKS AS
THEY PREPARE A FUTURE MAJOR
INSTITUTION MASTER PLAN.
>> THIS IS THE SEATTLE PACIFIC
UNIVERSITY NOT SEATTLE PUBLIC
UTILITIES.
>> RIGHT.
>> WE WILL TAKE UP THEIR MASTER
PLAN LATER.
>> [ LAUGHTER ]
>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THE COMMISSION HAS SENT US A
LETTER REGARDING THIS SET OF
DISCUSSIONS.
>> THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE
TEXT CHANGE TO LANGEL USE 6
REGARDING THE REDUCED COST OF
HOUSING AND INCREASING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY REGULAR
OFFSTREET PARKING.
WE RECOMMENDED NOT TO APPROVE
THE CHANGE TO THE FUTURE LAND
USE MAP.
WE RECOGNIZE SEATTLE PACIFIC
UNIVERSITY IS DIFFERENT THAN
ANOTHER PROPONENT MIGHT BE.
A PRIVATE DEVELOPER.
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER HAS
REMAINED STEADFAST IN ARE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROTECT
INDUSTRIAL LANDS.
AND ABSENT STRONGER POLICY OR
POLICY DIRECTION REGARDING HOW
WE MAINTAIN AND PRESERVE OUR
INDUSTRIAL LANDS, WE
RECOMMENDED NOT APPROVING THIS
ADJUSTMENT AND WE REALLY LOOK
FORWARD TO ENGAGING IN THE
CONVERSATION ABOUT OUR
INDUSTRIAL LANDS AND LAND-USE
POLICIES.
>> I SHARE THAT INTEREST IN
TERMS OF A DESIRE TO HAVE A
MORE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF
THE INDUSTRIAL LANDS POLICIES.
WE HAVE BEEN WAITING ON THAT
SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND
REPORTS TO COME OUT OF THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE FOR THE LAST
COUPLE YEARS NOW.
ABSENT I THINK THAT MORE
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW
CONSIDERING THIS AMENDMENT HAS
BEEN IN DISCUSSION SINCE MID-
2016 OR IF NOT MID 2017, I
CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH, 2017.
I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US
TO TAKE SOME SORT OF ACTION ON
SOME OF THESE INDIVIDUAL PIECES
AND IN THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR
BECAUSE IT'S A DOMINO THAT
MEANS TO FALL BEFORE SEATTLE
PACIFIC UNIVERSITY TAKES UP
THEIR MANAGER -- THEIR MAJOR
INSTITUTION MASTER PLAN.
THERE IS A LOT OF CONFUSION AND
LACK OF CLARITY.
I KNOW WE ARE GOING TO OPEN UP
THE PUBLIC HEARING IN JUST A
LITTLE BIT BUT I WANT TO SAY
I'VE RECEIVED LETTERS FROM
SEVERAL FOLKS IN SUPPORT OF
THIS AMENDMENT.
BOTH REPRESENTING THE NORTH
SEATTLE INDUSTRIAL AREA, AS
WELL AS NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS.
SO WE WILL SEE ABOUT THE
CONTROVERSY ASSOCIATED WITH IT
WHEN WE OPEN UP FOR THE FOUR
FOLKS WHO SIGNED UP TO GIVE
PUBLIC COMMENT IN A FEW MINUTES
BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THIS IS A
RELATIVELY SMALL CHANGE,
RELATIVELY NONCONTROVERSIAL.
I WOULD LOVE FOR US TO CONSIDER
IT SO WE CAN ALLOW FOR THE
LENGTHY MAJOR INSTITUTION
MASTER PROCESS TO TAKE OVER FOR
SPU.
THIS IS A CHANCE FOR FOLKS TO
ASK QUESTIONS.
I WANTED TO SEE, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WANT
TO JUMP IN.
>> I DO.
WE HAVE RECEIVED AS CHAIR
JOHNSON INDICATED, A NUMBER OF
EMAILS FROM FOLKS WHO ARE
TYPICALLY INDUSTRIAL LANDS
STAKEHOLDERS IN FAVOR OF THIS
AMENDMENT AND MOST OF THOSE
EMAILS HAVE SPOKEN TO THE FACT
THAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE THIS
CHANGE IS PRECEDENT-SETTING.
I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM BOTH
OF YOU ON THAT.
>> THERE ARE TWO MAJOR
INSTITUTIONS IN INDUSTRIAL
AREAS.
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON AND
SEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVERSITY, SPU
IS THE ONLY ONE THAT ABUTS.
IN TERMS OF EXPANDING MAJOR
INSTITUTION BOUNDARY, THAT
WOULD MAKE THIS THE ONLY ONE I
KNOW OF.
>> FROM THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S PERSPECTIVE WE
RECOGNIZE THIS IS A DIFFERENT
SITUATION THAN THE USUAL FUTURE
LAND-USE ADJUSTMENT MAPS THAT
WE SEE ON AND -- ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS.
WE DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
PRECEDENT-SETTING.
WE REVIEW THE AMENDMENTS EVERY
YEAR AND EVERY YEAR WE RECEIVE
A NUMBER OF REQUESTS TO TAKE
LAND OUT OF OUR MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRIAL CENTERS SO WE REMAIN
CONSISTENT WITH OUR PAST
OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> I REALLY RESPECT NOT JUST
THE BROAD WORK THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DOES BUT I
APPRECIATE YOUR ANALYSIS ON
THIS 12.
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU
SAY.
I AM INCLINED TO DISAGREE WITH
THE DECISION IN THE END.
LARGELY BECAUSE THIS PROCESS
SEEMS TO BE GOING ON
INDEFINITELY WITH NO END IN
SIGHT.
I BELIEVE WE SHARE THE
FRUSTRATION THAT WE DO NEED TO
RESOLVE SOME POLICY AROUND WHAT
WE'RE DOING WITH OUR INDUSTRIAL
LAND AND NUMEROUS TIMES IN THE
PAST I HAVE AGREED WITH THE
PLANNING -- PLANNING COMMISSION
ON HOLDING OFF AND AT SOME
POINT IT FEELS LIKE I'M NOT
SURE WITH THE METAPHOR WOULD BE
BUT AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY
BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLEAR.
IT SEEMED LIKE YEARS AGO WE
WERE MONTHS AWAY AND NOW IT
SEEMS LIKE WE ARE EVEN FURTHER
AWAY.
I THINK THAT'S A SEPARATE
QUESTION.
I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION
IS TOTALLY APPROPRIATE TO BE
PUSHING TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE
BECAUSE IT DOES IMPACT HUNDREDS
OF OTHER DECISIONS WE ARE
TRYING TO MAKE AROUND THE CITY
WITH OUR INDUSTRIAL LANDS AND
ADJACENT LANDS THAT WITHOUT A
CLEAR OR UPDATED POLICY IT'S
REALLY HARD TO DO.
BECAUSE AS MY COLLEAGES HAVE
MENTIONED, WE HAVE HEARD I
THINK UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FROM
FOLKS INVOLVED IN THIS TO MOVE
FORWARD, SENSITIVE TO THE
PRECEDENT, I AM INCLINED TO ALL
THE I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE
PUBLIC HEARING, INCLINED TO
SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.
>> JUST AN ADDITION TO FOLLOW
UP.
ALTHOUGH IT'S TRUE THAT THE
REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL LANDS
POLICY HAS GONE ON FOR A LONG
TIME AND THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO
BE AN END IN SIGHT I WANT TO
MAKE CLEAR
THE DECISION I AM LIKELY TO
MAKE ON THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT.
IT'S ABOUT THE UNIQUE NATURE OF
THIS BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO
MAKE CLEAR I THINK OTHER
PROPOSALS COULD COME FORWARD
AND POINT TO THAT BEING THE
REASON WE SHOULD ACT ON IT.
IF I VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT IT'S
BECAUSE A UNIQUE REQUEST.
>> LET'S LOOK AT COUNSEL BILL
119442.
WE HAVE FOUR INDIVIDUALS SIGNED
UP.
ALEX ZIMMERMAN IS FIRST.
DANIEL ZIMMERMAN IS FIRST.
>> I LIVE IN SEATTLE FOR THE
LAST 30 YEARS.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED FOR LAST FIVE
YEARS MAKES ME ABSOLUTELY SICK.
IT'S STUPIDITY.
THEN BUSINESSMAN ALL MY LIFE.
WHAT YOU DID FOR LAST FIVE
YEARS, VERY UNIQUE.
RIGHT NOW YOU WANT TO FIX THIS
PROBLEM.
WE TOTALLY DISAGREE BECAUSE
IT'S IDIOTIC FROM BEGINNING.
WIFE FOR FIVE YEARS DO YOU
NEVER STOP?
I AM ONE MAN WHO COME TO THIS
PLACE 1000 TIMES, MORE THAN
2000 TIMES AND TALK ABOUT
ZONING.
BUT I CALL YOU NOT SEE -- NAZI
GARBAGE RATS WHO DRINK FROM
TOILETS.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHO YOU ARE.
NO ONE HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH
GOVERNMENT.
NUMBER ONE PEOPLE ARE THE ENEMY.
BUT ZONING WILL NEVER GO
BETTER.
IT WILL BE ENFORCED NO MATTER
WHAT YOU DO RIGHT NOW BECAUSE
FROM BEGINNING YOU DON'T STOP
AMAZON.
STOP AMAZON NOW.
NO ONE TALKS TO STOP AMAZON.
10% AMAZON MOVED FROM DOWNTOWN.
YOU NEVER DO THIS.
GUYS, YOU ARE NUMBER ONE
PEOPLE'S ENEMY.
IN MY PREPOSITION I AM AGAINST
THIS STUPIDITY AND I SAID BEFORE
WE CLIMBS THIS DIRTY CHAMBER
FROM THIS MENTALLY SICK NAZI
GESTAPO PRINCIPLE.
NOTHING WILL BE CHANGED.
IT IS MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION.
>> KAM MARTIN, YOUR FOLLOWED BY
STEVE GILLESPIE.
>> MY NAME IS STAN MARTIN.
I SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF SEATTLE
PACIFIC UNIVERSITY AND I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK TO YOU TODAY.
I CERTAINLY WOULD MOVE FOR AN
AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE AND A
PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU.
THIS IS REALLY THE RESULT OF
YEARS OF CONVERSATION FROM THE
UNIVERSITY'S PERSPECTIVE WITH
CITY OFFICIALS, WITH ELECTED
OFFICIALS, WITH MEMBERS OF THE
INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY, AND WITH
MEMBERS OF OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY
THERE IN QUEEN ANNE.
THIS IS REALLY THE NEXT STEP IN
THE CONVERSATION.
THIS IS A PART OF THE
CONVERSATION THAT WE WILL
CERTAINLY WANT TO LOOK AT THE
FUTURE USE OF THESE PARTICULAR
PARCELS.
AS WE CONSIDER HOW WE MIGHT
LEVERAGE THESE PARCELS TO
ACCOMPLISH WITH THE BROADER
COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN
TERMS OF THE FUTURE OF OUR
COMMUNITY, AND SEATTLE PACIFIC
UNIVERSITY.
AND THEN ALL MEMBERS OF OUR
COMMUNITY MIGHT FLOURISH.
WHEN WHERE FOUNDED IN 891, IT
WAS A RELATIVELY SMALL CITY OF
40,000 PEOPLE.
WE HAVE BEEN IN PARTNERSHIP
EVER SINCE.
AS THE CITY HAS GROWN AND
PROGRESSED, BECOME A WORLD-
CLASS CITY AND WORLD SHAPING, A
WORLD DEFINING CITY IT'S GROWN
IN REPUTATION AND INFLUENCE.
IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE OUR
PARTNERSHIP, AS WE THINK ABOUT
THE FUTURE, AS WE THINK ABOUT
BEING A FUTURE FACING
UNIVERSITY SO WE MIGHT REMAIN
AND CONTINUE TO BE A VITAL
CONTRIBUTING MEMBER OF THIS
COMMUNITY AND ITS FUTURE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> STEVE GILLESPIE.
>> GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU
FOR TAKING UP THIS PROPOSAL.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK
THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS
PROPOSAL.
IT BECAME FORMAL AND MID 2017.
MAYBE UP TO A YEAR BEFORE THAT.
ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, EXECUTIVE SIDE, SEE
CID, ETC.
I WANT TO DISCUSS WHAT THIS
AMENDMENT WILL AND WILL NOT DO
TO GET AT SOME OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION CONCERNS.
THIS AMENDMENT ADJUST THE
EASTERN BOUNDARY BUT IT DOES NOT
CHANGE THE INDUSTRIAL
DESIGNATION OR ZONING OF THE
PROPERTY.
THAT REMAINS IN PLACE.
AS WAS MENTIONED BY THE
COMMITTEE, AN OVERLAY CAN ONLY
HAPPEN AFTER A MAJOR
INSTITUTION MASTER PLANNING
PROCESS WHICH IS A YEAR'S LONG
DISCUSSION WITH THE
INSTITUTION, WITH THE CITY AND
STAKEHOLDERS.
THERE WILL BE DOZENS OF PUBLIC
MEETINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT
REQUEST.
IT'S NOT THE END OF THE
CONVERSATION.
IT'S THE BEGINNING OF THE
CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW TO BEST
USE THIS LAND TO FACILITATE
QUALITY JOBS, TO FACILITATE THE
THRIVING OF A 125-YEAR-OLD
INSTITUTION IN THE CITY.
I URGE YOU TO VOTE IN SUPPORT
OF THIS AMENDMENT AND RECOMMEND
THE FULL COUNCIL VOTE FOR IT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> INDUSTRIAL ZONING IS LESS
AND LESS AND LESS WITH THE CITY.
THIS MAY BE A STARTER, BUT WHY
START UNTIL YOU ARE SURE THAT
YOU REALLY WANT TO GO THAT WAY.
THIS IS WHIZBANG ZONING WITH
THE UP SON ONLY THAT WE HAVE
SEEN IN THE CITY FOR QUITE A
WHILE.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN SOMEONE COME
HERE WITH A PROPOSAL FOR A DOWN
ZONE AND THIS COMMITTEE TAKE
THEM ANYTHING CLOSE TO
SERIOUSLY.
THE ZONING IN THE CITY APPEARS
TO ONLY BE THE STARTING POINT.
IN ONE'S DREAMS AND DESIRES.
IT SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF WORKING
BOTH WAYS.
AND ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE
SOMETHING AS RARE AS INDUSTRIAL
ZONING AND ITS FORMIDABLE
BECAUSE IT'S RETURN IS NOT
EXTREMELY HIGH COMPARED TO SOME
OF THE OTHER ZONING'S.
SO IF YOU PUT THAT AT RISK, YOU
START LOOKING AT OTHER
OPPORTUNITIES.
THE EVALUATIONS GO UP, AND
GUESS WHAT?
THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING TENDS TO
DISAPPEAR FOR ANY OTHER
PERMITTED USE.
WE HAVE SEEN VERY LIBERAL
APPROACHES TO THE CITY TO
ALLOWING IDEAS OF GREATNESS,
WHICH MAY NOT BE SUPPORTED BY
THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY.
I HOPE THAT WE WILL LOOK VERY
CAREFULLY AT PRESERVING OUR
INDUSTRIAL LAND WHAT LITTLE IS
LEFT BECAUSE SEATTLE SHOULD NOT
HAVE TO HAVE A BIGGER CARBON
INPUT TO THE SYSTEM BY HAVING
EVERYTHING TRANSPORTED FROM A
LONG WAYS AWAY AND NO
INDUSTRIAL JOBS IN THE CITY.
SO LET'S SEE WHAT WE'VE GOT.
IT'S NOT MUCH.
>> THAT CONCLUDES THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP
TO SPEAK ON THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
ON COUNSEL BILL 119442.
COLLEAGUES, NO SURPRISES OUT OF
THOSE FOUR FOLKS GIVING
TESTIMONY, BUT I WONDER MR.
WOODSON, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
WE WILL HAVE TO TO -- WE WILL
HAVE TO DO IS SUSPEND THE
RULES.
WE NEED TO DO THAT.
MAYBE ONCE A YEAR UPDATES.
CAN YOU REMIND US ABOUT THAT
PROCESS?
>>
>> UNDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
ACT, COUNSEL MAY ONLY AMEND THE
PLAN ONCE A YEAR.
THIS IS THE LAST MEETING OF THE
YEAR AND --
>> POTENTIALLY.
>> THIS IS LIKELY TO LAST
MEETING OF THE YEAR.
AND SO IF YOU DO NOT ACT ON
THIS BILL AT THIS MEETING AND
DON'T HOLD A SECOND MEETING
THIS MONTH, THEN THESE
AMENDMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE
HELD UNTIL YOU TAKE UP
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
NEXT YEAR.
>> MY RECOMMENDATION,
COLLEAGUES GIVEN ME PUBLIC
TESTIMONY WE HEARD AND WHAT WE
HAVE RECEIVED IN ADVANCE OF
TODAY'S MEETINGS IS TO SUSPEND
THE RULES AND TAKE ACTION ON
THIS TODAY, WHICH IS NOT
SOMETHING WE USUALLY DO ON THE
SAME DAY AS A PUBLIC HEARING,
BUT IT IS SOMETHING WE DO WHEN
THERE IS TIME CONSTRAINTS AND
NOT OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION.
I WOULD LIKE TO START THE
PROCESS OF CONSIDERATION BY
MOVING TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO
VOTE ON COUNSEL BILL 119442 ON
THE SAME DAY AS PUBLIC HEARING.
>> SECOND.
>> ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY
SAYING "AYE."
NONE ARE OPPOSED.
LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
IT.
ANY CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS THAT
CAME UP AFTER THE PUBLIC
HEARING?
>> NO.
I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM
FOLKS.
I THINK I AM STILL SUPPORTIVE
OF THE AMENDMENTS AS THEY ARE.
I WANT TO JUST HIGHLIGHT THAT
THERE WAS ANOTHER AMENDMENTS
THAT HAD BEEN PROPOSED TO BRING
IN TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LIST
INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHICH IS A REQUIRED STEP
TOWARDS DOING TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEES, BUT THAT AMENDMENT
HAD BEEN -- IS -- THE
DETERMINATION OF NON-
SIGNIFICANCE FOR ANALYSIS HAS
BEEN CHALLENGED BY SOME LAWYERS
SO THAT IS NOT RIGHT FOR
DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW.
THAT WILL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL
2019.
THAT WORK CONTINUES BUT I THINK
THESE TWO AMENDMENTS MAKE A LOT
OF SENSE AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
WORK ON THIS, COUNCILMEMBER
JOHNSON.
I ALSO APPRECIATE PUBLIC
COMMENT.
>> I WANTED TO ASK IF WE WERE
GOING TO CONSIDER THE OTHER
COMP PLAN AMENDMENT NEXT YEAR,
WITH THE TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT LIST, NECESSARY TO
CONFIG -- TO CONSIDER AN IMPACT
TRANSPORTATION FEE, WHEN WITH
THAT COMP PLAN PROCESS BEGIN.
WHEN WILL WE BE LIKELY TO VOTE
ON IT NEXT YEAR?
JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF
WHEN WE WOULD HOPE THAT APPEAL
TO BE RESOLVED.
>> I THINK WE WILL KNOW MORE
AFTER DECEMBER 16 WHEN THERE IS
A MEETING WITH THE HEARING
SENATOR ABOUT THE APPEAL
PROCESS, AND THE TIMELINE.
BUT THE INTENT IS TO ACT ON
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT'S
AT THE SAME TIME YOU'RE ACTING
ON MANDATORY HOUSING
AVAILABILITY CHANGES BECAUSE
MANY OF THOSE CHANGES RELY ON
CHANGING URBAN VILLAGE
BOUNDARIES.
AND SO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH ANY
CHANGES TO URBAN VILLAGES THAT
YOU MAKE.
>> OKAY, SO THAT IS SPRING
TIME.
NORMALLY, WE HAVE TO DO A
RESOLUTION IN ADVANCE, NAMING
THEM.
>> YEAH.
WE STILL HAVE THE RESOLUTION
THAT WAS ADOPTED IN THE SUMMER
OF 2017.
>> ALL RIGHT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IF
WE DID NEED TO PASS ANOTHER
RESOLUTION, WHETHER OR NOT WE
NEEDED TO OR WE WERE ABLE TO
INCLUDE IDEAS THAT ARE BEING
APPEALED, BUT THE 2016
RESOLUTION IS STILL VALID FOR
2019 DELIBERATION.
>> YOU WILL HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY THIS COMING SPRING
AND SUMMER TO PASS THE NEXT
RESOLUTION.
IT LAYS OUT A NEW SET OF WORK
ON THE COMP PLAN.
>> WE WILL HAVE TO PASS ANOTHER
RESOLUTION?
>> NO, AFTER FEES, INDUSTRIAL
LANDS, AND CHANGES ARE ALL
CALLED OUT IN THE 2017
AMENDMENT, WE ARE STILL WORKING
ON COMPLETING THAT WORK.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> WE TRADITIONALLY HAVE HAD
THAT PROCESS.
>> WE HOPE TO CONSIDER MHA BUT
BECAUSE THAT DIDN'T COME TO
FRUITION WE HOPE TO TAKE UP
THAT WORK AGAIN BUT THE THINGS
YOU OUTLINED COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD JUST TO REITERATE ARE
INCLUDED WITHIN THE EXISTING
WORKPLAN SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE
A PROBLEM FOR US TO CONSIDER
THAT.
WITHOUT FURTHER ADO I WOULD
LIKE TO MOVED TO ADOPT COUNSEL
BILL 119442.
>> SECOND.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING
"AYE."
ANY OPPOSED?
THE COUNSEL BILL IS ADOPTED OUT
OF COMMITTEE AND WE WILL BE
BACK IN FRONT OF US AT THE
COUNSEL ON THE 10th.
WE WILL TAKE A BRIEF REPRIEVE
BUT HAVE YOU BACK HERE IN A
MINUTE TO TALK ABOUT THE MASTER
PLAN.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR GOOD WORK ON
THIS.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5. WHILE YOU
READ THAT INTO THE RECORD WHILE
I ASKED PRESENTERS TO COME
FORWARD?
>> COUNSEL BILL 119398 AN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAND USE
AND ZONING AMENDING THE TITLE
OF CHAPTER 23.52, SUBCHAPTER 1,
OF THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE
AND AMENDING SECTIONS 23.5
2.004 AND 23.5 2.008 OF THE SMC,
AND REPEALING SECTION 23.50
2.002 OF THE SMC, TO IMPLEMENT
A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD.
>> LET'S DO SOME BRIEF
INTRODUCTIONS.
>> I AM MAYOR -- ERIC
McCONAGHY.
>> OR IN FLOWERS.
>> EMILY EHLERS.
>> MICHAEL HUBNER.
>> WHYLLY FIGURE OUT THE
TECHNOLOGY NECESSARY TO PUT THE
PRESENTATION UP ON THE BIG
SCREEN, I WANT TO REMIND FOLKS
ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.
WAY BACK WHEN WE ADOPTED THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN 2016, ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID WAS
WE SET ASIDE PARTS OF THE CITY
WHERE WE WANTED TO SEE A
PARTICULAR LEVEL OF TRANSIT
RIDERSHIP AND SERVICE AND ASKED
THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
AND INSPECTIONS, PLANNING
DEPARTMENT, AND DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO COME BACK TO
US WITH HOW WE COULD IMPLEMENT
THOSE OBJECTIVES, PARTICULARLY
WITHIN NEW RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENTS.
WE HAVE SEEN AS A CITY A LOT OF
SUCCESS THROUGH THE STATEWIDE
PRODUCTION PROGRAM AT GETTING
PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR CARS AND
ONTO OTHER MODES OF
TRANSPORTATION THAN SINGLE
OCCUPANCY VEHICLES IN THE
WORKPLACE, BUT WE HAVE STRUGGLED
TO REPLICATE THAT IN THE
RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT.
THIS NEW SET OF TOOLS WE'RE
GOING TO WALK-THROUGH TODAY
WILL ALLOW FOR US TO REQUIRE
DEVELOPERS IN CERTAIN SECTIONS
OF THE CITY TO OFFER A WIDER
SET OF OPTIONS TO THEIR
RESIDENTS AS PART OF MEETING
THEIR SERVICE STANDARDS THAT WE
EXPECT AS THEY CONTEMPLATE
GROWING PARTICULARLY AROUND OUR
TRANSIT CENTERS THROUGHOUT THE
CITY.
WITH THAT INTRO, I AM A LITTLE
RUSTY TODAY, I WILL TURN IT
OVER TO YOU, MICHAEL TO KICK
OFF THE PRESENTATION.
>> SO LONG AS IT'S NOT
FORESHADOWING I THINK WE ARE,
-- WE ARE OKAY.
GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE.
I AM WITH THE OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT.
THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEFORE
YOU TODAY ARE A FLOW OUT OF
ESPECIALLY THE LEVEL OF SERVICE
STANDARD AND CONCURRENCY
REQUIREMENTS FLOWING OUT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I WILL TAKE THE LEAD ON THOSE
BUT I AM HERE WITH
CONSTRUCTION, INSPECTIONS AND
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BECAUSE THE IMPLEMENTATION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE STANDARDS
WILL FLOW THROUGH THOSE
DEPARTMENTS.
WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT
TWO SUBCHAPTERS OF SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE 23 52 SUBCHAPTER
1 WHICH DEALS WITH THE
TRANSPORTATION LEVEL PROJECT
REVIEW SYSTEM.
THAT IS THE MAIN TOPIC WE WANT
TO COVER.
THERE IS A SUBCHAPTER 2 IN THE
ORDINANCE THAT I THINK IS A
TECHNICAL UPDATE TO CLARIFYING
WHICH PROJECTS WILL BE SUBJECT
TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDIES
RELATIVE TO THRESHOLDS.
THESE ARE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED.
WHILE THEY ARE IN THE SAME
ORDINANCE OF THE DCI I WILL
HAVE STAFF SPEAK TO THE SECOND
ONE.
ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE
LOS STANDARDS AND THE
CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENTS THAT
WE WILL LEAP -- WE WILL BE
TALKING ABOUT ARE JUST ONE TOOL
IN OUR TOOLBOX TO ADDRESS
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS OF NEW
DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY.
WE HAVE CIPA REVIEWS, IMPACT
STUDIES THEMSELVES AND
POTENTIALLY TOOLS SUCH AS
IMPACT FEES THE COUNCIL MAY
CONSIDER.
THESE ARE ALL SEPARATE AND
COMPLEMENTARY TOOLS.
STARTING WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, AS NOTED, THIS REFLECTS A
POLICY SHIFT IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN THAT
ADDRESSES A VARIETY OF POLICY
AIMS THROUGH OUR LEVEL OF
SERVICE STANDARDS.
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ARE
MERELY A TECHNICAL MEASURE OF
OUR SYSTEM PERFORMANCE.
THAT IS KIND OF A 1Q WAY ABOUT
TALKING ABOUT HOW WELL ARE WE
PROVIDING FOR MOBILITY WITHIN
THE CITY AND FOR GOODS.
THIS IS A REQUIRED ASPECT OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
UNDERGROWTH MANAGEMENT.
PRIOR TO 2016 WHEN WE UPDATED
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE HAD
DEFINED THE LS LEVEL OF SERVICE
USING WHAT ARE CALLED SCREEN
LINES, ESSENTIALLY LOOKING AT
THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC RELATIVE
TO THE CAPACITY OF OUR
ARTERIALS AT VARIOUS
MEASUREMENT POINTS THROUGHOUT
THE CITY.
THIS WAS A HIGHLY AUTOMOBILE
CENTRIC MEASURE AND IT IMPLIED
POTENTIAL FIXES TO EXCEEDING
THE CAPACITY OF OUR ROADWAYS
THAT ADDRESSED ONLY OR
PRIMARILY AUTOMOBILES.
AT THE 2016 UPDATE TO THE PLAN
WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO UPDATE
OUR APPROACH TO LEVEL OF
SERVICE TO ADDRESS A VARIETY OF
POLICIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
ONE WAS THE EMPHASIS ON MOVING
PEOPLE AND NOT JUST VEHICLES.
ANOTHER IS OUR EMPHASIS ON
WORKING TOWARD OUR CLIMATE
CHANGE GOALS OF BECOMING CARBON
NEUTRAL.
WIT THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
BEING SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART OF
OUR GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS MOVING
PEOPLE AWAY FROM A RELIANCE ON
DRIVE ALONE TRIPS, SINGLE
OCCUPANCY VEHICLES.
THAT'S ONE WAY THE CITY CAN
HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON OUR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND
SETTING THE LOS STANDARDS IN A
WAY THAT PROVIDES A MEASURE OF
HOW WE ARE DOING AS A CITY THAT
TELLS US HOW WELL WE ARE
SHIFTING THOSE TRIPS TO THE
OTHER MODES WITH -- WOULD SEEM
TO BE A BETTER WAY OF
APPROACHING LOS.
THIS GREEN LINE APPROACH IN
PRACTICE PROVIDED US A MEASURE
TO COMPARE NEW DEVELOPMENT.
WHEN IT WAS PROPOSED WE HAD
TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC IMPACT
STUDIES THAT SHOWED HOW MANY
TRIPS WERE GENERATED BY NEW
PROJECTS AND WE WERE ABLE TO
COMPARE THAT TO WHAT WE KNEW
ABOUT THE ARTERIAL CAPACITY AT
THOSE SCREEN LINES.
IN PRACTICE THIS WAS LARGELY A
PAPER EXERCISE.
WE RARELY IF EVER EXCEEDED
THOSE CAPACITY NUMBERS THAT
WERE IN THIS GREEN LINE RATIOS
THE FOR ESTABLISHED IN THE COMP
PLAN AND IT DIDN'T PROVIDE FOR
MEANINGFUL CHANGE, DEVELOPMENT
OR ACTIONS THE CITY WAS TAKING
TO SHAPE TRAVEL AND PROVIDE
OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE WITHIN THE
CITY.
IN THE 2016 UPDATE AFTER A LONG
PROCESS OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL
WORK AND WORK WITH A CONSULTANT
TO BUILD UPON THE MODELING DONE
FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT AND THE PLAN, WE
ARRIVED ON AN APPROACH BASED ON
MODE SHARING.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE SHARE OF
TRIPS THAT ARE MADE DURING P.M.
PEAK HOUR TIMES FROM 3 PM TO 6
PM -- P.M.
-- 3:00 P.M.
TO 6:00 P.M.
IN SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLES.
THAT TELLS US THE MOST ABOUT
HOW OUR SYSTEM IS FUNCTIONING.
WE HAVE AN IDEA ABOUT HOW MANY
SINGLE OCCUPANCY TRIPS OUR
SYSTEM CAN ACCOMMODATE, AND BY
LOOKING AT THE MODE SHARE AND
COMBINING THAT WITH WHAT WE
KNOW ABOUT GROWTH THAT IS
EXPECTED OUT TO 2035, WE SET
TARGETS FOR EACH OF EIGHT
SECTORS IN THE CITY.
THIS SLIDE SHOWS YOU THE
TARGETS FOR EACH OF THOSE EIGHT
GEOGRAPHIC SECTORS, FOR THE
SHARE OF TRIPS MADE BY DRIVE
ALONE DURING THE P.M.
PEAK PERIOD IN 2035.
THIS REPRESENTS A 2% TO 5%
DECREASE IN EACH SECTOR.
AS WE IMPLEMENT DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, WHICH I WILL TALK
ABOUT SHORTLY THAT HELP SHAPE
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT TO
REINFORCE PROGRESS TOWARD THESE
GOALS WE WILL BE ABLE TO
MONITOR PROGRESS CITYWIDE AND
WITHIN EACH OF THESE SECTORS
USING TRAVEL SURVEY DATA THAT
IS AVAILABLE FROM THE PUGET
SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL.
>> SO, THIS SLIDE ILLUSTRATES
SOME OF THE THINKING BEHIND
ESSENTIALLY THE SAME TO
EMPHASIZE MOVING PEOPLE RATHER
THAN VEHICLES AND MAKING THE
MOST EFFICIENT USE OF OUR RIGHT-
OF-WAY.
YOU WILL SEE HERE ARE SOME OF
THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WENT INTO
SETTING THE NEW LOS STANDARD
RELATING TO GROWTH EXPECTED BY
2035 AND IN MODELING HOW OUR
ARTERIALS ARE IMPACTED BY THE
GROWTH, AND THE TRIPS THAT COME
FROM NEW HOUSING AND NEW
BUSINESSES, THAT IF THOSE TRIPS
WERE MADE BY PEOPLE DRIVING
ALONE IT OCCUPIES A GREAT DEAL
OF OUR LIMITED CAPACITY IN OUR
RIGHT-OF-WAY, A RIGHT-OF-WAY
THAT IN A BELT OUT CITY CANNOT
EASILY FROM A FINANCIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL -- FINANCIAL,
ENVIRONMENT OR COMMUNITY IMPACT
STANDPOINT BE EXPANDED.
WE ARE QUITE FRANKLY LIMITED IN
OUR ABILITY TO ADD NEW VEHICLE
LANES, SO MAKING EFFICIENT USE
OF THOSE IS A PRIORITY.
YOU CAN SEE IN THIS EXAMPLE
ILLUSTRATED HERE TRAVELING BY
BUS TAKES UP MUCH LESS IN THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY.
WHEN RIDING THROUGH OUR EXISTING
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
SO HOW THIS WORKS UNDER THE NEW
LOS STANDARD IS PROJECTS ARE
PROPOSED.
BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND
NONRESIDENTIAL THROUGHOUT THE
CITY.
PART OF THIS IS COVERED.
I SHOULD SAY WHAT YOU SEE ON
THE SLIDE IS COVERED IN THE
ORDINANCE.
WE HAVE A JOINT DIRECTORS RULE
WHICH WE WILL TALK ABOUT
SHORTLY DESCRIBING THE TOOLS
AVAILABLE TO DEVELOPERS, BUT
FIRST OFF TO IDENTIFY WHICH
PROJECTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW
AT WHAT LEVEL.
THE ORDINANCE STIPULATES
PROJECTS ABOVE A CERTAIN SIZE
ARE SUBJECT TO THE LOS PROJECT
REVIEW.
ROUGHLY, THE SIZE PARAMETERS
HERE TRANSLATE INTO AT LEAST 30
TRIPS GENERATED DURING THE PEAK
HOUR PERIOD ON A GIVEN WEEKDAY.
THAT WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL
PROJECTS IN EXCESS OF 30
DWELLING UNITS, AND
NONRESIDENTIAL AT 30,000 SQUARE
FEET OF A FLOOR AREA OR GREATER,
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS -- PROJECTS
AT 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR
AREA OR GREATER.
THOSE ARE THE THIGHS -- SIZE
THRESHOLDS.
ON TOP OF THAT BASED ON OUR
MODELING AND ANALYSIS FOR THE
COMP PLAN, WE KNOW THAT
PROJECTS THAT ARE LOCATED IN
CERTAIN LOCATIONS IN THE CITY
THAT HAVE VERY RICH TRANSIT
OPTIONS AND CHOICES FOR
TRAVELING OTHER THAN SINGLE
OCCUPANCY VEHICLE AND ARE ALSO
CLOSE TO A VARIETY OF GOODS AND
SERVICES, AND JOBS, AND WHAT WE
IDENTIFY AS THOSE AREAS THAT
HAVE THE HIGHEST ABILITY TO
ATTRACT NON-SLB TRIPS ARE OUR
HUB VILLAGES SHOWN IN GREEN AND
A HALF MILE WALK DISTANCE TO
LIGHT RAIL.
WHAT YOU SEE ARE THE EXISTING
AND SOON TO COME ON SERVICE
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS.
PROJECTS LOCATED IN THOSE AREAS
SUBSTANTIALLY CONTRIBUTE TO US
ACHIEVING THOSE SOV SHARED
VEHICLES SO THOSE PROJECTS
WOULD THEN HAVE SATISFIED THE
STANDARD BY LOCATING WITHIN ANY
OF THOSE THREE GEOGRAPHIES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD.
>> ARE YOU SEEING PROJECTS
WITHIN THOSE AREAS WON'T
RECEIVE THE LOS REVIEW BECAUSE
THEY ARE THE DEEMED TO MEET THE
STANDARDS?
>> ESSENTIALLY, THE LOS REVIEW
WILL START WITH A LOCATIONAL
DETERMINATION, SO IN MASTER USE
PERMIT COMES IN THE DOOR, IT
WOULD INCLUDE THE FIRST CUT
WOULD BE WHERE IS THIS PROJECT
LOCATED AND DOES IT FALL WITHIN
THESE AREAS?
AND THAT IS A PERFORMANCE
STANDARD IN AND OF ITSELF.
FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE LOCATED
OUTSIDE OF THOSE THREE AREAS
WITHIN THE CITY, THERE IS A
MENU OF OPTIONS THAT ARE
ESSENTIALLY CHOICES THE
DEVELOPER HAS THAT WOULD ADD
FEATURES TO THE DEVELOPMENT
ITSELF OR HAVE THE DEVELOPER
PAY FOR, CONTRIBUTE TO PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS OR OTHER SERVICES
TO THE TENANTS OF THOSE
BUILDINGS THAT WOULD MAKE IT
EASIER AND CHEAPER FOR THEIR
TENANTS TO USE A VARIETY OF
TRAVEL OPTIONS OTHER THAN SOV.
SO THAT MENU IS IN A
PRELIMINARY DRAFT A JOINT
DIRECTOR'S ROLE.
THAT'S COMING OUT OF DCI AND
SDOT.
THEY WORKED CLOSELY WITH US TO
DRAFT THAT RULE.
AFTER YOU WOULD ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE, THE FORMAL DRAFT
WOULD BE RELEASED AND CERTAINLY
BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK AND WHAT
WE HERE UP UNTIL THEN THERE
WILL BE COMMENT PERIOD
FINALIZED.
DIRECTORS WILL GUIDE
IMPLEMENTATION BUT THE
PRELIMINARY DRAFT SAYS IT
PROVIDES A MENU OF FIVE
OPTIONS.
ONE IS TO CONTRACT NEW SIDEWALKS
IN THE AREA.
A SECOND WOULD BE TO CONSTRUCT
NEW CURB RAMPS.
BOTH OF THOSE ARE FEATURES OF
OUR PEDESTRIAN NETWORK.
A THIRD WOULD BE TO REDUCE THE
NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN THE
PROJECT.
THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY
IN EFFECT BUT RATHER PROVIDE AN
INCENTIVE FOR LESS PARKING THAN
OTHERWISE MIGHT HAVE BEEN
PROVIDED WITHIN CURRENT
REQUIREMENTS.
PROVIDING A MIX OF USES IN THE
AND THE KINDS OF SERVICES AND
GOODS THAT RESIDENTS MIGHT MAKE
TRIPS BY AUTO TO REACH INTO
WALKING DISTANCE AND ESSENTIALLY
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ESSO
TRIPS.
AND FINALLY HAVE THE DEVELOPER
CONTRIBUTE TO SUBSIDIZING BUS
PASSES THROUGH THE METRO
O.R.C.A.
PASS PORT PROGRAM.
THIS WOULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR
TENANTS TO ACCESS TRANSIT, USE
TRANSIT FOR MAKING MORE TRIPS.
THIS IS A SUITE OF DEMAND
MANAGEMENT TOOLS SIMILAR TO
EMPLOYER-BASED PROGRAMS TO
REDUCE COMMUTING TRIPS BUT
WOULD APPLY TO RESIDENTIAL AND
OTHER SMALLER, NONRESIDENTIAL
PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
THIS IS A SUITE OF TOOLS WE
WOULD MONITOR THE USE OF OVER
TIME AND COULD ADJUST BASED ON
HOW THOSE TOOLS ARE BEING USED,
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE DATA
THAT SHOWS HOW OUR MODE SHARE
IS SHIFTING YOUR TIME AND
FINALLY IF NONE OF THESE TOOLS
WORK, THERE IS A CHOICE THE
PROJECT DEVELOPER COULD PROPOSE,
SO LONG AS THEY DEMONSTRATE
THAT TOOL THROUGH THEIR OWN
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES WOULD
REDUCE TRIPS BY AT LEAST 4% SO
IMMODEST DECREASE IN TRIPS
MODERATED THROUGH DRIVE ALONE.
>> SO THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION
FOR YOU OR FOR GORDON.
FUNDAMENTALLY WHAT WE ARE TRYING
TO ACHIEVE IS A NEW SET OF
REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPERS IN
A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE CITY
THAT WOULD REQUIRETHEM TO
REALLY THINK THROUGH HOW THEIR
RESIDENTS OR THE TENANTS OF
THEIR BUILDINGS WILL GET TO OR
FROM THAT PLACE IN THE EVENING
PEAK PERIOD.
HOW MANY OF THESE REQUIREMENTS
THAT YOU HAVE ON THIS LIST ARE
IN PLACE TODAY AND WHAT IS THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOOLS
THAT WE REQUIRE OF DEVELOPERS
TODAY, AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF
WE WERE TO ADOPT THE BILL
BEFORE RECOGNIZING A DIRECTOR'S
ROLE IN IMPLEMENTATION.
>> I'VE DONE A LOT OF TALKING.
I AM GOING TO ASK GORDON FROM
DCI TO SPEAK TO THAT.
>> I WOULD SAY THESE TOOLS ARE
NOT AVAILABLE TODAY.
IN THE SENSE OF AN UPFRONT
ACTION THAT CAN BE WORKED INTO
THE PROJECT PLAN ITSELF.
>> IF A DEVELOPER WERE TO COME
IN TODAY AND NOT MEET THE GOALS
AND STANDARDS WE HAVE IN THE
COMP PLAN FOR A NUMBER OF FOLKS
THAT ARE COMING TO AND FROM
THEIR DEVELOPMENTS BY SINGLE
OCCUPANCY VEHICLE, THERE IS
REALLY NO WAY FOR US TO ADDRESS
THAT ISSUE TODAY, BUT THIS MENU
THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US
WOULD ALLOW FOR THE DEPARTMENT
OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS
TO REQUIRE CHANGES BEFORE IT
GETS BUILT.
THAT WOULD BRING IT INTO LINE
WITH EXPECTATIONS FOR A MODE
SHARE FOR THAT PARTICULAR
BUILDING.
>> THAT IS LARGELY TRUE.
I WOULD HAVE TO SAY IF THERE IS
A PARTICULAR SHORTFALL OR
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WITH A
SIDEWALK OR NEAR A PROJECT THAT
WE COULD REQUIRE INCREMENTAL
IMPROVEMENT OF THAT KIND OR A
STREET OR TRAFFIC SIGNAL
ADJUSTMENT, BUT THAT'S A LITTLE
BIT DIFFERENT CATEGORY.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD.
>> IN THE TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF DIFFERENT ITEMS.
MOST OF THEM REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
INVESTMENT FROM THE DEVELOPER.
ONE OF THEM DOES NOT.
ONE OF THEM WOULD RESULT IN
SAVINGS FOR THE DEVELEPOR.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THAT
MIGHT INCENTIVIZE COSTS TO THE
DEVELOPER AND THAT IS THE ONE
THAT REDUCES PARKING SPOTS ON
THE LOT.
SO IF OUR GOAL IS TO GET MORE
INVESTMENTS THAT INCENTIVIZE
FEWER SINGLE OCCUPANCY TRIPS,
WHY WOULD WE INCLUDE IN THIS
MENU OF OPTIONS, AN ITEM THAT
DOESN'T ADD TO OUR
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
IN A WAY THAT MOTIVATES OTHER
MODES OF TRANSPORTATION?
IT SEEMS LIKE DEVELOPERS WILL
GRAVITATE TOWARDS THE COST-
SAVING OPTION.
AND WE WON'T GET WHAT WE NEED.
>>
>> -- THERE COULD BE OTHER
INCENTIVES TO PROVIDE PARKING.
I THINK IT'S A POSSIBILITY THEY
WILL CHOOSE OTHER NON-PARKING
IMPROVEMENTS. THAT SAID, THERE
IS A DIRECT SORT OF
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
HOW MUCH PARKING IS AVAILABLE
AND WHAT THE LIKELY RESIDENT --
WHO WILL BE THERE, WHAT THEIR
PROFILE WILL BE IN TERMS OF CAR
OWNERSHIP, AND MOST LIKELY,
LESSER PARKED PROJECTS WOULD
TEND TO HAVE MORE HOUSEHOLDS
WITH PEOPLE THAT DON'T OWN CARS
AND THAT IN ITSELF WILL START
TO SHIFT THE TRIP GENERATION.
>> I THINK THERE IS DEFINITELY
ANECDOTAL AND LIMITED
STATISTICAL INFORMATION THAT
SUPPORTS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BUT
I THINK THE VERDICT IS STILL
OUT ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU KNOW
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO
LIVE IN BUILDINGS WITHOUT
PARKING OR PARKING ON THE
STREET AND TAKING UP STREET
SPACE, AND WHETHER OR NOT IT IS
ACTUALLY ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO
NOT OWN CARS AND TO TAKE
TRANSIT.
I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS MIX
OF TOOLS AND I HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE SET
STANDARDS FOR WHEN WE REDUCE
PARKING WITHIN FREQUENT TRANSIT
AREAS AND THIS SEEMS LIKE IT
WOULD ALLOW FOR REDUCED PARKING
BEYOND OUR CURRENT STANDARDS
OUTSIDE OF FREQUENT TRANSIT
AREAS, AS WELL.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A PRETTY
BIG POLICY ISSUE.
>> HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO OUR
EXISTING STANDARDS?
DOES THIS CHANGE THOSE?
IS IT WITHIN THE FLEXIBILITY
THEY WOULD HAVE?
>> IT'S WITHIN THE FLEXIBILITY
WE ALREADY HAVE.
IT DOES NOT CHANGE EXISTING
STANDARDS.
WITHIN EXISTING STANDARDS THERE
ARE A RANGE OF CHOICES
DEVELOPERS HAVE WITHIN A RANGE
OF A PROJECT SO THIS INDEED
PROVIDES IN A SENSE I WOULD SAY
A MODEST INCENTIVE TO BE CLOSER
TO THE MINIMUM AND THAT VARIES
DEPENDING ON THE LOCATION AND
WHAT STANDARD APPLIES
THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
I WOULD SAY IN RESPONSE TO THE
QUESTION THAT DEVELOPERS ARE
GOING TO BE SETTING PARKING
THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THEIR
DEVELOPMENTS.
I THINK THIS WOULD MOST LIKELY
BE USED BY A DEVELOPER WHERE
THEY SAW A POTENTIAL OVERSUPPLY
OF PARKING WITHIN THE PROJECT
AND THE PROJECT COULD STILL
MEET THIS REQUIREMENT.
I THINK A LARGE NUMBER OF
PROJECTS, THE URBAN CENTERS,
TRANSIT AREAS, WOULD ALREADY
MEET THESE STANDARDS, BUT THIS
DOES NOT CHANGE THE STANDARDS.
ONE THING WE CAN AND WILL DO IS
COLLECT DATA OVER TIME.
BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT THE
STANDARDS ARE, AND IF THERE IS
EVIDENCE THEY ARE USING THIS TO
REDUCE PARKING, WE HAVE
SPILLOVER IMPACTS.
THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE THAT
EQUATION.
WE STILL HAVE THAT SET OF TOOLS,
BUT WE CAN TRACK THE DATA ON
HOW DEVELOPERS ARE USING THIS.
>> GORDON, IS THERE ANYTHING
YOU'D LIKE TO ADD?
>> NO.
>> ERIC?
>> JUST VERY BRIEFLY BY
CLARIFICATION JUST REITERATING
WHAT MICHAEL SAID, THIS MENU OF
OPTIONS HERE ARE IN THE JOINT
DIRECTORS ROLE WHICH IS STILL
TO BE ROLLED OUT.
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW
WOULD RELY ON THIS BEING
ESTABLISHED, SO IF THAT'S
HELPFUL IN TERMS OF YOUR
DISCUSSION AND DECISION-MAKING
ABOUT THIS BILL AND HOW IT
MOVES FORWARD I JUST BRING THAT
UP.
>> FURTHER THOUGHTS?
>> THE DIRECTOR IS NOT COMING
BACK TO COUNSEL?
>> THE DIRECTOR'S RULE IS
HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY
THROUGH A PUBLIC PROCESS.
COUNSEL CERTAINLY EITHER BY
CONVEYING WHAT CONSTITUENTS ARE
COMMUNICATING TO THE OFFICES OR
COUNCIL MEMBER'S OWN OPINIONS
CAN PARTICIPATE IN THAT BUT BY
DEFINITION THAT IS HANDLED
ADMINISTRATIVELY.
>> THE LEGISLATION BEFORE US
SAYS THAT THE JOINT DIRECTORS
WILL PROVIDE A MENU OF OPTIONS,
SO THAT IS AT LEAST THESE ITEMS
IN THE TOOLBOX WILL BE INCLUDED
IN THE DIRECTOR'S RULE SO I
WANT TO GO BACK TO MY EARLIER
QUESTION.
JUST FOR CLARIFICATION'S SAKE.
SO THE ABILITY TO REDUCE
PARKING SPACES IN A PROJECT THAT
WILL BE ABLE TO HAPPEN WHERE?
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE
NOT MAKING A MAJOR POLICY
CHANGE WITHIN A DIRECTOR'S
ROLE.
>> I FULLY UNDERSTAND AND THIS
IS A COMPLICATING TOPIC BECAUSE
YOU HAVE INTERSECTING
ORDINANCES THAT DEAL WITH THIS.
RIGHT NOW, PROJECTS HAVE
LATITUDE TO PROVIDE A RANGE OF
PARKING WITHIN THE PROJECT.
>> IN SOME PLACES.
>> YES.
>> THERE IS A RANGE EVERYWHERE.
>> THERE IS A RANGE OF
REQUIREMNTS WROTE THE CITY
RIGHT NOW.
THIS MENU WITH THE CONSENT --
CONCURRENCY LOS, THE MENU THAT
GUIDES THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IT
DOES NOT CHANGE THOSE
REQUIREMENTS.
RIGHT NOW, DEVELOPERS HAVE THAT
LATITUDE TO PROVIDE PARKING AT
VARIOUS LEVELS.
THIS DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT THEY
CAN DO.
>> I CAN ADD A LITTLE BIT.
INTO THE AREAS WHERE THERE IS A
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR
RESIDENTIAL USES, WHICH IS
GENERALLY ONE SPACE PER
DWELLING UNIT, THAT REQUIREMENT
IS STILL THERE.
THE CHOICE BY THE DEVELOPERS TO
VOLUNTARILY HOLD THEMSELVES TO
THAT ONE SPACE PER DWELLING
UNIT MINIMUM WHICH BECOMES
ESSENTIALLY THE MAXIMUM THAT
THEY PROVIDE FOR THE PROJECT.
IN CASES WHERE THERE IS NO
PARKING REQUIREMENT AT ALL.
THE CHOICE IS TO PROVIDE NO
MORE THAN 2.6 PER DWELLING
UNIT.
>> THAT IS WHAT THE DATA SHOWS
US.
>> THOSE OF THE VOLUNTARY
CHOICES THAT WE HAVE DRAFTED IN
THE MENU HERE.
>> GOT IT.
>> AND LARGELY SPEAKING, THE .6
SPACES PER UNIT WILL COVER AN
ACTUAL PARKING DEMAND FOR INNER-
CITY MULTI FAMILY PROJECTS.
>> SO IN AREAS WHERE THERE IS A
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIRED,
NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED, THIS
TOOL WOULD ALLOW WHAT?
>> TO FULFILL THAT UPFRONT
OPTION.
THE DEVELOPER WOULD CHOOSE TO
PROVIDE NO MORE THAN ONE SPACE
PER DWELLING UNIT.
>> SO THIS WOULD NOT AFFECT
THOSE AREAS AT ALL?
I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY THEY
COULD VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE TO DO
SOMETHING ELSE.
>> I THINK IT DOESN'T CHANGE
THE FLOOR OF WHAT'S REQUIRED.
THERE IS STILL A MINIMUM
PARKING REQUIREMENT.
YOU HAVE TO DO AT LEAST THAT
MUCH.
WE'RE JUST INCENTIVIZING
DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE CLOSER TO
THE MINIMUM THAN THEY MAY
>> IF THERE IS A ONE PER UNIT
REQUIREMENT A DEVELOPER MAY
FIND -- MAYA VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE
TO DO TWO AND WE WOULD SAY TO
BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS, YOU
COULD CHOOSE TO DO A MENU OF
THINGS INCLUDING REDUCE PARKING
TO ONE PER UNIT INSTEAD OF TWO
PER UNIT.
STILL MEETING THE LEGAL
MINIMUM.
WE ARE NOT CHANGING THAT BUT
SAYING WHY DON'T YOU
VOLUNTARILY COME CLOSER TO THAT
NUMBER.
>> I THINK A LOT OF THE
RATIONALE FOR THAT IS BASED ON
OUR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ABOUT
MODE SHARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS
AND IN PARTICULAR HOW FOLKS ARE
GETTING AROUND AND HOW THAT
IMPACTS WRIT LARGE OUR CITY'S
GOALS AROUND CLIMATE.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD, YOU AND
I DISAGREE ON WHAT THE
LITERATURE MIGHT SAY ON IF YOU
BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME
RELATED TO PARKING DEVELOPMENT,
BUT GENERALLY I THINK THE
EXAMPLE THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT HAS BEEN WELL HIGHLIGHTED
BY FOLKS HERE.
SO TO YOUR SPECIFIC EXAMPLE,
COUNCIL EMBER O'BRIEN, THAT IS
THE PLACE WHERE I THINK WE
WOULD SEE PEOPLE GETTING ASKED
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS TO
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SPACES IN
THE PROJECT.
WHAT IS VERY UNLIKELY IS TO SEE
SOMEBODY WHO IS ALREADY
BUILDING ON A .6 DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD THAT IS ONE SPACE PER
UNIT AND THEN COMING INTO SDCI
SAYING THE BEST WAY I CAN DO
THIS IS TO GO FROM 1 TO .6.
I DON'T SEE FOLKS SKIMMING THE
SYSTEM IN THAT WAY BUT WE'RE
GOING TO TRACK THE DATE AND WE
ARE GOING TO BE ANALYZING THE
DIRECTORS ROLE TO SEE WHAT'S
COMING THROUGH.
I THINK THIS MENU OF OPTIONS I
AM MOST EXCITED ABOUT ALLOWS US
TO PRIORITIZE A SET OF
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS IN
CURB RAMPS AND SIDEWALKS THAT
WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE THE
RESOURCES FOR NOW.
AND SECONDLY THINGS LIKE
SUBSIDIZED BUS PASSES, WHICH IS
NOT A TOLL TO DEVELOP -- TO
REQUIRE DEVELOPERS TO
SUBSIDIZED BUS PASSES FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT SO THE RESIDENTS
WOULD GET A MENU OF OPTIONS
THAT DON'T EXIST TODAY.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE JOINT
EFFORT ON YOUR PATIENCE.
>> COMPLICATED SET OF ISSUES
WITH A LOT OF INTERSECTION.
>> WE HAVE OTHER IMPORTANT
THINGS TO GET TO TODAY, BUT I
DON'T HAVE CLARITY ON WHAT
TRIGGERS THIS REVIEW.
YOU TALKED ABOUT SIZE.
PROJECTS ABOVE A CERTAIN SIZE,
30 UNITS OR WHATEVER IT IS AND
OBVIOUSLY, IF THEY ARE WITHIN
THE GEOGRAPHY LINED OUT EARLY
IN THE REVIEW THEY WOULD SAY
YOU ARE QUALIFIED SO WE ARE
DONE BUT WHAT ARE THE OTHER
CHARACTERISTICS THAT WOULD
CAUSE FOLKS TO GO TO THIS MENU?
IS EVERY PROJECT OVERSIZE LOOK
AT THIS?
OR DOES IT LOOK LIKE JUST MORE
TRIPS THAN WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE?
>> IT WOULD BE CATEGORICAL WITH
RESPECT TO THE SIZE AND
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT.
THE IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF
FLEXIBILITY HERE IS THE OPTION
FOR THE DEVELOPER TO PROPOSE AN
ALTERNATIVE TOOL THAT IS IF
THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE
UNIQUE IN CHARACTERISTIC THAT
MAY NEED TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR
THERE IS CERTAINLY THROUGH THE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESSES
THAT COME UP WITH THEM, THEY
CAN CERTAINLY ADDRESS UNIQUE
CHARACTERISTICS, BUT THAT WOULD
BE PART OF THE REVIEW.
IT WOULD REALLY BE IMPINGEMENT
ON THE DEVELOPER TO DEMONSTRATE
HOW THEY -- HOW THEIR PROJECT
IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS
EXPECTED UNDER THE DIRECTION.
>> SO A PROJECT IS LARGE ENOUGH
TO GO THROUGH REVIEW THAT LINE
IS OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN VILLAGE
OR URBAN CENTER, LIGHT RAIL
ZONES, IF THAT PROJECT
IS IN AN AREA THAT HAS NO
PARKING MINIMUMS AND THEY ARE
PROVIDING .6 OR FEWER, THEY
WOULD THEN AUTOMATICALLY
QUALIFY, AND IF IT WAS A
PROJECT THAT HAD PARKING
MINIMUMS AND THEY WERE NOT
PROVIDING MORE THAN ONE PARKING
SPOT PER UNIT, THEY WOULD ALSO
QUALIFY.
SO THE ONLY FOLKS THAT WOULD GO
TO THE OTHER BULLET POINTS
WOULD BE SOMEONE WHO IS
PROVIDING MORE THAN THOSE
PARKING OUTSIDE THOSE ZONES AND
THEN WE WOULD SAY EITHER REDUCE
YOUR PARKING CLOSER TO THE
MINIMUMS OR TRY ONE OF THESE
OTHER TOOLS.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
THERE MAY BE OTHER ELEMENTS OF
PROPOSED PROJECTS TO SATISFY
THE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL SUCH
AS MIXED-USE.
SO IT'S DEMONSTRATING AS
PROPOSED WHAT IS THE CURRENT
PROJECT?
DOES IT SATISFY TOOLS ON THE
MENU?
AND IF NOT CHOOSE ONE OF THOSE.
>> THIS IS HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND
HOW IT IMPACTS GOING BACK TO
THE BIGGER POLICY.
I WANT TO SAY I REALLY SUPPORT
THIS.
I BELIEVE WHEN WE HAVE A LEVEL
OF SERVICE AROUND VEHICLE
INTERSECTIONS, AS WE TEND TO DO
IN OUR SOCIETY MORE BROADLY I
BELIEVE THAT CONTINUES TO
ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO SAY AS WE
GROW, WE NEED TO WIDEN ROADS
AND MAKE BIGGER INTERSECTIONS,
MORE ATTORNEYS AND ALL THOSE
THINGS WHICH AS YOU ALL
MENTIONED THAT OUR CITY, WE ARE
JUST NOT CAPABLE OF DOING
ANYMORE, BUT ALSO IN OTHER
JURISDICTIONS IT ENCOURAGES
FOLKS, THE SOLUTION TO THE
PROBLEM WE SEE IS BIGGER ROADS,
WHICH STARTS TO REINFORCE A
SYSTEM WHICH ENDS UP WHERE AS I
WAS JUST ALERTED TO CARBON
EMISSIONS IN THE U.S. HIT A
RECORD LEVEL IN 2018 AND WE
HAVE TO DO SOME DIFFERENT
THINGS TO ADDRESS THAT.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO
RADICALLY CHANGE IT, BUT I DO
THINK THE FOCUS ON WHAT WE CARE
ABOUT WITH THESE PROJECTS IS
HOW MANY SINGLE OCCUPANCY TIPS
ARE YOUR PROJECTS GOING TO
GENERATE AND WE WANT TO DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MINIMIZE
THAT.
THE ALTERNATIVES HERE IS TO
ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO SUBSIDIZE
TRANSIT.
OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE A LOT OF
WORK TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE A
ROBUST ENOUGH SERVICE THAT WE
CAN MEET DEMAND.
WE ARE STRUGGLING WITH THAT BUT
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT ON
ANOTHER DATE.
THAT MIGHT HELP.
BUT I THINK THE JUST OF THIS
MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
>> WE'VE GOT ONE MORE SLIDE TO
GET THROUGH BEFORE WE OPEN UP.
>> VERY QUICK ONE.
SHIFTING GEARS ENTIRELY TO PART
TWO OF THE SUBCHAPTER TWO OF
2352, I WILL TURN TO GORDON TO
EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT THIS DOES.
>> THIS DOES HAVE A
RELATIONSHIP TO THE CIPA
THRESHOLDS WE HAVE APPLIED FOR
URBAN CENTERS.
MADE THOSE A FAIRLY HIGH LEVEL
THRESHOLD.
THIS REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN IN
THE CODE FOR A WHILE BUT IT
ALLOWS FOR AND REQUIRES
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FOR
DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE BELOW
THAT HIGH THRESHOLD BUT ABOVE
WE WANT TO KEEP LOOKING AT
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS FOR
PROJECTS OF THOSE SIZES AND
HAVE THE ABILITY TO MITIGATE
IMPACTS AS THEY ARISE.
THE CORRECTIONS HERE ARE MAINLY
JUST TO UPDATE THE HEADINGS AND
MAKE SURE THE WORDING OF THIS
THRESHOLD TABLE IS CORRECT.
>> IN OTHER LEGISLATION WE HAVE
CREATED IN CERTAIN AREAS WHERE
PROJECTS COME IN BELOW IS A
CERTAIN THRESHOLD.
THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM CIPA.
BUT WE CAN STILL REQUIRE YOU TO
GO THROUGH TRANSPORTATION
ANALYSIS INDEPENDENT OF THE MORE
ROBUST ANALYSIS?
>> AND THESE SUPPLY
SPECIFICALLY TO URBAN CENTERS.
AND IN OTHER AREAS THE TYPICAL
THRESHOLDS ARE STILL IN PLACE.
>> STEALING MY TALKING POINTS.
GOOD JOB.
ALL RIGHT.
ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS FROM FOLKS
HERE ON THE STAFF SIDE OF THE
TABLE?
COUNCIL MEMBERS, ANYTHING YOU
WANT TO ASK BEFORE WE OPEN A
PUBLIC HEARING?
WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I WOULD
LIKE TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON
COUNSEL BILL 119398 RELATED TO
THE ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE
STANDARD.
WE HAVE FOUR INDIVIDUALS WHO
HAVE SIGNED UP TO GIVE PUBLIC
TESTIMONY.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH ALEX
ZIMMERMAN AND ALEX CRUISE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I AM AGAINST THIS PLAN AND I
EXPLAINED TO YOU WHY.
LIKE A BUSINESS COUNSEL TURNING
PROFESSIONAL BUSINESSMAN, I
HAVE ONE DELIVERY TO YOU, HOW
WE CAN MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR THE
700,000 IDIOTS OF THIS CITY.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS
HAPPENED.
NUMBER ONE, THIS WHOLE PLAN
RIGHT NOW UNDER TRANSPORTATION
IS VERY SIMPLE.
IT IS CONTROLLED BY THE TRANSIT.
THE COUNSEL IN THIS ROOM, ALL
UNDER THIS PLAN.
UNDER THIS, NAZI SOCIAL
DEMOCRATIC MARKET.
SUPPLY NUMBER ONE WE NEED TO
CLEANSE THIS DIRTY CHAMBER FROM
THIS CONSOLE TO MAKE LIFE
MISERABLE AND GET WORSE AND
WORSE FOR EVERYDAY AND IT NEVER
WILL BE BETTER.
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.
NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO.
MY RECOMMENDATION.
RIGHT NOW I DON'T BLAME YOU,
THIS COUNSEL FOR THIS BUT I
SPEAK TO YOU SEATTLE DEGENERATE
SUPERSMART IDIOT PROFESSIONAL
EDUCATE CITY DON'T UNDERSTAND
WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE.
WHY?
WHY PEOPLE WHO COME HERE
TALKING ABOUT SEATTLE?
AT THE TYPICAL RECOMMENDATION
WHEN THE BODY IS SO SIX THEY
NEED A HUGE OPERATION.
YES, WE NEED TALENT TO FIX THIS
PROBLEM.
SEATTLE IS DYING.
I HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH SOVIET
UNION TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNIST
TRANSPORTATION.
YOU MAKE UNIQUE SITUATION.
YOU MAKE FROM AMERICAN
CHOCOLATE RUSSIAN --.
I DON'T HAVE ANALOGY LIKE THIS
IN AMERICA.
STANDUP, AMERICA.
CLEANSE THIS DIRTY CHAMBER FROM
THIS NAZI PIG.
>> MISS CRUZ YOU ARE FOLLOWED
BY JUDY GIBBS AND THEN STEVE
STELLA.
>> OKAY.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO
EXPAND THE WAYS WE LOOK AT
TRANSPORTATION LEVELS OF
SERVICE, BUT THIS LEGISLATION
NEEDS MORE WORK.
IT HAS BIG EMISSIONS AND IT
DOESN'T DO ANYTHING FOR THE
DOWNTOWN CORE, WHICH IS WHERE
WE ARE FACING A REAL CRISIS.
I WOULD RECOMMEND WE TAKE THIS
LEGISLATION AND SEND IT BACK
FOR FURTHER STUDY OF THESE
ASSUMPTIONS, THE AREA OF
COVERAGE AND HOW IT MEASURES
TRAFFIC NOT JUST BY SOP'S BUT
OTHER FACTORS.
SEATTLE IS APPROACHING MAXIMUM
CONSTRAINTS AND THIS WON'T
MEASURE THAT CRITICAL VOLUME
VERSUS CAPACITY THAT TELLS YOU
WHERE THE CHOKEPOINTS ARE GOING
TO BE.
IT ALSO EXEMPTS DOWNTOWN TOWERS
ESSENTIALLY FROM HAVING TO
COMPLY WITH ANY MITIGATION JUST
BECAUSE THEY ARE WITHIN SO MANY
BLOCKS OF A LIGHT RAIL.
ALSO THE PROBLEM IS IT WON'T
GAUGE WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN ITS OWN
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE NEW MEASUREMENT IS JUST
OVER A WIDE SWATH OF DOWNTOWN,
LAKE UNION AND WEST CAPITOL
HILL.
THE MEASUREMENT WILL COME EVERY
TWO YEARS IN A HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
PUT OUT BY THE PUGET SOUND
REGIONAL COUNCIL.
THAT'S REALLY NOT GOING TO GIVE
US THE DATA WE NEED TO DO THIS
RIGHT.
IF WE'RE GOING TO DO DENSITY,
WE HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE ABOUT
IT.
ONE EXAMPLE, AND I'VE GOT THIS.
I HOPE YOU SEE THIS
ILLUSTRATION IS AN AREA THAT WE
ARE GOING TO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH
END THIS LOS WON'T ADDRESS.
ON VIRGINIA STREET BETWEEN
FIRST AVENUE AND FIFTH AVENUE
ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BLOCK,
THERE WILL BE 12 NEW TOWERS
GOING UP IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS.
IF THEY ARE ALL APPROVED.
IT WILL AT 6500 NEW RESIDENTS
GOT 2500 NEW PARKING STALLS,
AND THOUSANDS MORE PEOPLE
LIVING AND WORKING IN THESE
BUILDINGS.
IF WE DON'T HAVE SOME MEASURE
OF WHAT THIS IS GOING TO DO TO
THE STREET, WE CAN'T ASK THESE
DEVELOPERS FOR MITIGATION.
THEY ARE ALREADY EXEMPT.
>> JUDY GIBBS FOLLOWED BY STEVE
STELLA.
>> WHEN I CAME HERE TODAY I
KNEW WE WERE GOING TO BE
TALKING ABOUT PARKING AND
REMOVING PARKING.
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT WAS JUST
ASKING THE DEVELOPERS TO PUT IN
LESS PARKING.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE MY
COMMENTS ON THE FLY, BUT I AM
GOING TO -- I DO WANT TO
COMMENT ON THIS.
FIRST OF ALL, IF PEOPLE ARE
BEING REQUIRED TO REDUCE THE
AMOUNT OF PARKING ALL THAT
MEANS IS A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO BE PARKING OUT ON THE
STREET AND HOMES THAT HAVE
DEPENDED ON STREET PARKING
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE
ANYTHING ELSE YOU KNOW,
HOMEOWNERS ARE GOING TO BE
FIGHTING FOR IT.
I THINK MY REAL POINT IN THIS
AND THE REASON I CAME DOWN
TODAY IS PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK
THAT WE CAN FORCE TRANSIT USE
BY REDUCING PARKING
AVAILABILITY.
AND I CHALLENGE PEOPLE TO GET
FROM MAGNOLIA TO THE U DISTRICT
AFTER 5:15 P.M.
ON WEEKDAYS OR ANY TIME ON A
WEEKEND, OR A HOLIDAY.
BECAUSE OF A LACK OF TRANSIT.
WE NEED AN ADEQUATE TRANSIT
SYSTEM IS WHAT I AM SAYING.
RIGHT NOW, IF I WANT TO GO TO
THE U DISTRICT, AFTER 5:50 IN
THE EVENING OR ANY TIME ON THE
WEEKEND, I HAVE TO TAKE A BUS
DOWNTOWN, CHANGE AND GO BACK.
IT TAKES TWO HOURS TO GET TO
THE U-DISTRICT.
TWO HOURS EACH WAY.
IF WE HAD A TRANSIT SYSTEM LIKE
VANCOUVER, B.C., WHICH HAS SKY
TRAINS ON THE BUS LINES, IT
WOULD BE WONDERFUL.
I WOULD LOVE TO TAKE TRANSIT
ANY PLACE I GO.
I CAN'T.
I TAKE THE BUS WHEN I GO
DOWNTOWN BUT I WON'T TAKE IT
ANY PLACE ELSE.
BUT I WOULD.
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS
PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE
HORSE.
YOU HAVE TO IMPROVE TRANSIT
AVAILABILITY AND THEN CUT THE
PARKING.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MR. RUBSTELLA.
>> I CONCUR BUT I ALSO THINK I
CAN GO BACK TO MY INITIAL
REMARKS.
HERE WE GO AGAIN.
I HEAR ABOUT ALL THESE PROMISES
ABOUT WHO WOULD GAME THE SYSTEM.
DEVELOPERS NEVER GAMED THE
SYSTEM IN SEATTLE, YOU KNOW?
IT'S SO SIMPLE.
THEY LOVE COMPLEX BECAUSE IT'S
ALWAYS REINTERPRETED AND I THINK
THAT A NICE CHART SHOULD GO
WITH THIS TELLING WHAT THE
LIMITS ARE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW,
YOU'RE PASSING SOMETHING, WHICH
WILL BE KIND OF NOT VERY
SPECIFIC.
WHEN IT GETS SPECIFIC, IT MAY
NOT LOOK A WHOLE LOT LIKE WHAT
YOU HAVE JUST PASSED.
THAT HAS BEEN THE HISTORY IN
SEATTLE ABOUT ZONING.
A GOOD BUILDOUT OF MAXIMUMS, A
MINIMUMS CHART TO SHOW WHAT
LIMITS THE DIRECTOR CAN WORK
IN, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE DON'T
HAVE THOSE.
WE ALSO HAVE PROBLEMS ABOUT THE
SIZE OF THE STALLS THAT ARE
PARKING AVAILABLE.
MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE BUYING
LARGER VEHICLES.
STALLS DON'T SEEM TO BE
REFLECTING THAT.
I'VE SEEN MANY STALLS THAT THE
LARGEST VEHICLES WON'T GO INTO.
AND THOSE THAT WILL, HOW DO YOU
OPEN THE DOORS TO GET IN AND
OUT OF THE VEHICLE?
SO THAT'S WHY SOME PEOPLE PARK
ON THE STREET.
ANOTHER REASON WHY PEOPLE PARK
ON THE STREET IS LET'S FACE IT,
IF YOU CAN DO IT WITHOUT PAYING
AND YOU PAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER
IN BUILDINGS, ESPECIALLY OF ANY
SIZE FOR PARKING, IT DOESN'T
REQUIRE THE CITY TO REQUIRE
THAT BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF
PARKING.
AND ANOTHER THING THAT HAS
BOTHERED ME IS YOU ARE CHOKING
THE ARTERIES OF THE CITY.
I HAVE SEEN ARTERIALS GETTING
SMALLER AND SMALLER.
>> THANK YOU, MR. RUBSTELLA.
THAT CONCLUDES THE FOLKS WHO
HAVE SIGNED UP TO TESTIFY ON
THE PUBLIC HEARING SO I'M GOING
TO CLOSE THE CANCEL HEARING ON
119398.
I'M SORRY, WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE
--
>> CAN YOU PLEASE --
>> I'M SORRY.
OKAY.
PER THE CONVERSATION THAT WE
HAD WITH SHWAISH EARLIER THIS
DOES REQUIRE ACTION RELATIVELY
QUICKLY.
I WANT TO OFFER THE OPPORTUNITY
FOR FOLKS TO DISAGREE BUT I
THINK THIS ONE HAS BEEN TWO
YEARS IN THE MAKING SO I WOULD
ASK THAT WE CONSIDER SUSPENDING
THE RULES TO ALLOW FOR US TO
VOTE ON THIS, ON THE SAME DAY
AS THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> WHAT IS THE -- IS THIS
ANOTHER THING THAT HAS TO BE
PASSED BY THE END-OF-THE-YEAR?
>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING BUT
I DEFER TO CENTRAL STAFF TO
DISCUSS THIS FURTHER.
>> THE SOONER THIS PASSES THE
SOONER THE DEVELOPMENT JOINT
ROLE CAN HAPPEN AND THEN THE
CITY CAN IMPLEMENT.
>> MY QUESTION IS NO?
>> THIS DOESN'T GET BUNDLED
INTO THE SAME SORTS OF RULES
WITH PASSING A COMP PLAN ONCE A
YEAR.
I THINK IF THERE IS ANY SENSE
OF IT BEING TIMELY, IT'S THAT
IT DOES IMPLEMENT THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH IS A
REQUIREMENT OF THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT.
THE POLICIES ON THE COMP PLAN
ARE REFLECTED IN OUR CODE.
THIS IS THE EXECUTIVE PROPOSAL
TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
IT HAS BEEN TWO YEARS IN THE
MAKING SO THAT IS BY WAY OF
COMMENT -- OF CONTEXT.
>> I APOLOGIES, CALL IT -- I
APOLOGIZE, COLLEAGUES.
ABOUT THIS REQUIRED ACTION
BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR
OTHERWISE, WE WOULD HAVE TO
DELAY.
>> MY THINKING, I DIDN'T HEAR
PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WILL CHANGE
MY MIND, BUT I WILL DEFER TO
OUR RULES AND IF EITHER OF MY
COLLEAGUES WOULD PREFER NOT TO
SUSPEND THE RULES AND GIVE IT
ANOTHER MEETING I WOULD
CERTAINLY SUPPORT THAT.
>> AS A PERSON WHO HAS
RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHAIRING A
COMMITTEE WHERE THINGS COME UP
SOMETIMES THAT THERE IS SOME
URGENCY AROUND I AM KIND OF A
STICKLER MYSELF FOR WHEN I
SUSPEND THE RULES AND WHEN I
DON'T.
I SUSPEND THE RULES WHEN THERE
IS AN ACTUAL TIME EMERGENCY, SO
JUST FOR MY OWN CONSISTENCY'S
SAKE I WOULD NOT SUPPORT
SUSPENDING THE RULES.
>> I WOULD STAND WITH
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> IN THAT CASE, I WON'T MAKE A
FORMAL MOTION SENSOR WOULD LOSE
ANYWAY.
WHAT WE WILL SAY IS WE HAVE
CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
THIS TOPIC AND WE WILL
ANTICIPATE TAKING THIS BACK UP
AGAIN EITHER AT OUR MEETING IN
DECEMBER, DECEMBER 19 OR AFTER
HE FIRST OF THE YEAR.
>> JUST ONE SMALL BIT OF
BUSINESS I WOULD LIKE TO INSERT
HERE.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME JUMP
IN.
THERE ARE SOME TECHNICAL
TYPOGRAPHIC CHANGES THAT NEED
TO BE MADE TO THE MAP THAT IS
IN THE CODE THAT CAN BE TAKEN
NEXT TIME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
BUT IN TERMS OF LETTING THE
PUBLIC KNOW, THEY ARE SHOWN IN
THE MEMORANDUM.
THERE IS NO CONCERN ON BEHALF
OF CENTRAL STAFF.
I THOUGHT I WOULD BRING IT UP
NOW AS PART OF THE PUBLIC
RECORD.
WHEN COMMITTEE TAKES IT UP
AGAIN, THERE COULD BE A CENTRAL
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE
THAT AMENDMENT.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
WE WILL LOOK FORWARD TO
DISCUSSING THIS AT A FUTURE
DATE.
LET'S MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEMS
NUMBER SIX AND SEVEN.
PLEASE, READ THE ABBREVIATED
TITLES.
>> AGENDA ITEM 6 AND 7, CLERK
FILE 314346 APPLICATION OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON TO
PRAYER -- TO PREPARE A NEW
MAJOR INSTITUTION MASTER PLAN
FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON SEATTLE CAMPUS AT
4015th AVENUE NORTHEAST AND
COUNCIL BILL 119426 AN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAND USE
AND ZONING GRANTING APPROVAL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
2018 SEATTLE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
AND AMENDING CHAPTER 23.32 OF
THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE.
>> WITH US AGAIN, OUR COUNSEL
CENTRAL STAFF.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE
MASTER PLAN FOR SEVERAL MONTHS
NOW AND DURING THE BUDGET
PROCESS, THE MASTER PLAN
RESOLUTION WE ADOPTED WAS OUT
FOR DISCUSSION AND A BACK AND
FORTH, BUT BEFORE WE GET TO
THAT, THE RESOLUTION THAT MIGHT
HAVE COME FROM THE BACK AND
FORTH COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE
VARIOUS PARTIES, CAN YOU REMIND
US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE
MASTER PLAN IS AND HOW WE HAVE
GOTTEN WHERE WE ARE TODAY?
>> SURE.
WE HAVE TWO PIECES OF
LEGISLATION IN FRONT OF YOU
THAT WOULD CONDITIONALLY
APPROVE THE DIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON'S 2018 SEATTLE
UNIVERSITY MASTER PLAN AND A
COURT FILE GRANTING APPROVAL.
IT'S A DOCUMENT THAT IS A
REPOSITORY OF BACKGROUND
INFORMATION ON THE MASTER PLAN.
THE FINAL STEP WOULD BE A
REVIEW OF THE MASTER PLAN.
THE MASTER PLAN INCREASES
BUILDING HEIGHTS AND ADOPTS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
DEVELOPMENT ON THE CURRENT
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON CAMPUS
INCLUDING IN THE HISTORIC
CAMPUS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON TO THE EAST, SOUTH
AND WEST OF THAT HISTORIC
CENTRAL CAMPUS.
THE MASTER PLAN WOULD ALLOW THE
UNIVERSITY TO ACCOMMODATE AN
ADDITIONAL 6 MILLION NEW SQUARE
FEET ON CAMPUS OVER
APPROXIMATELY 10 YEARS.
THAT WOULD ALLOW THE GROWTH OF
THE CAMPUS POPULATION BY 35,000
STUDENTS OVER THAT TIME.
THE COUNCIL PASSED RESOLUTION
31 839 IN SEPTEMBER.
THAT WAS THE PRELIMINARY
DECISION TO ELIMINATE THE
MASTER PLAN.
THAT RESOLUTION WAS CIRCULATED
TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS.
THE CITY UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND OTHER
PARTIES OF RECORD WHO HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE
PRELIMINARY DECISION.
THE COUNCIL RECEIVED 20
RESPONSES.
I WILL GO OVER THOSE IN JUST A
MINUTE.
THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
RESPOND AND THE COUNCIL
RECEIVED FIVE LETTERS IN REPLY.
MY MEMO FOR TODAY'S MEETING HAS
THREE ATTACHMENTS.
THE FIRST ATTACHMENT SHOWS
CHANGES BETWEEN RESOLUTION 31,
839 AND COUNCIL BILL 11 --
119426.
THESE CHANGES INCORPORATE
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS AND SOME
SPECIFIC CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
THAT SEEM NON-SUBSTANTIVE OR
USEFUL TO INCORPORATE, AND
BETTER CLARIFIED THE COUNSEL'S
INTENT.
FOR EXAMPLE THE COUNSEL'S
FINDINGS NOW START WITH A SHORT
DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF WASHINGTON AND IN SUPPORT
AND'S TO THE CITY AND THE STATE
OF WASHINGTON.
CONCLUSIONS HAVE BEEN
SIMPLIFIED TO CLARIFY THAT THE
COUNSEL'S AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE
THE PLAN RESTS ON ITS POLICE
POWER AUTHORITY, CIPA AUTHORITY
AND SPECIFIC AUTHORITY INTO THE
UNIVERSITY AGREEMENT AUTHORITY.
ISSUES RAISED BY THE BOARD OF
REGENTS AND OTHER PETITIONERS
INCLUDES AFFORDABLE HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS.
THE RESOLUTION WOULD HAVE
REQUIRED 150 UNITS OF HOUSING
THE BOARD -- BE BUILT AFFORDABLE
TO UNIVERSITY STAFF EARNING UP
TO 50% OF INCOME AND 300 UNITS
AFFORDABLE TO STAFF EARNING UP
TO 80% OF THEIR MEDIAN INCOME.
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON,
THEIR RESPONSE HAS BEEN TO
VOLUNTARILY PROVIDE THAT
HOUSING.
OTHER RESPONSES THAT YOU
RECEIVED SO THAT IS A
COMMITMENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY
OF WASHINGTON.
OTHER RESPONDENTS HAVE ASKED
FOR MORE HOUSING TO BE BUILT.
HOUSING UNITS OF VARIOUS SIZES
TO BE INCLUDED IN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECTS.
THE HOUSING WILL EITHER BE NEAR
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON OR
IN OTHER LOCATIONS ACCESSIBLE
BY TRANSIT.
AND THAT THE HOUSING NOT BE
OWNED BY OR DEVELOPED BY A
NONPROFIT OR A PUBLIC AGENCY
INCLUDING THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON BUT NOT LIMITED TO
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON TO
ENSURE LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY.
RELATED TO A SINGLE OCCUPANCY
RATE WHICH IS TIED TO THE LAST
DISCUSSION SLIGHTLY, THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
INCLUDED A GOAL OF 15% TO -- OF
TRIPS TO THE UNIVERSITY BY THE
END OF THE PLANNED PERIOD TO BE
TAKEN BY OR MADE THROUGH OR BY
PEOPLE MAKING USE OF SINGLE
OCCUPANCY VEHICLES.
THE COUNSEL'S RESOLUTION THAT A
GOAL OF 12%.
BY 2028, IN THEIR RESPONSES,
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
AND THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS STATED
THAT THEY CONTINUE TO BELIEVE
15% IS MORE APPROPRIATE AND
THAT THEY CAN ACHIEVE THAT GOAL.
OTHER PETITIONERS RECOMMENDED
OR SUPPORTED THE 12% GOAL AND
RECOMMENDED THE UNIVERSITY BE
REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL
EVEN SOONER BY 2024.
RELATED TO PARKING, THE PLAN
INCLUDED A CAP OF 12,300 SPACES
ON CAMPUS.
EXEMPTING STUDENT HOUSING
PARKING.
THE COUNCIL SET A CAP OR
PROPOSED A CAP OF 9000 SPACES.
INCLUDING PARKING ACCESSORIES
TO STUDENT HOUSING.
THE UNIVERSITY'S RESPONSE
RECOMMENDED KEEPING THE CAP AT
300 BUT INCLUDING STUDENT
HOUSING PARKING WITHIN THE CAP.
OTHER PETITIONERS SUPPORTED THE
9000 SPACE CAP INCLUDING THE
750 SPACES THAT ARE ACCESSORY
TO THE FORMER SAFECO BUILDING
OR THINK IT'S THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON TOWER.
THOSE SPACES ARE OUTSIDE OF THE
BOUNDS OF THE MAJOR INSTITUTION
OVERLAY.
SO PART OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON MASTER PLAN.
THERE WAS ALSO A DISCUSSION OF
ESSENTIAL PARKING ZONE COSTS
AND REQUESTS THAT THE
UNIVERSITY REQUIRE PAYMENT OF
THOSE.
LET ME GO TO PAGE 177 TO REMIND
YOU ABOUT THE BUILDING HEIGHT
THAT WERE UNDER DISCUSSION AS
PART OF THE COUNSEL'S
DELIBERATION.
SO COUNSEL, THE LEGISLATION FOR
REVIEW WILL MAKE SIGNIFICANT
CHANGES TO HEIGHTS ACROSS OR
AROUND THE CAMPUS.
MANY AREAS INCLUDING THE AREA
SOUTHWEST OF THE MAIN CAMPUS
ARE PROPOSED TO GO TO HEIGHTS
UP TO 240 FEET.
THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSED TWO
SITES THAT IN PARTICULAR HAVE
BEEN RAISED BY THE CITY
UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT COMMUNITY
COUNCIL AS LOCATIONS WHERE
HEIGHTS PROPOSED BY THE
UNIVERSITY MAY NOT BE
APPROPRIATE.
THAT'S LIKE W 22 HERE AT THE
NORTH END OF OF THE UNIVERSITY
BRIDGE AND SITE W 37 ON THE
WEST SIDE OF THE UNIVERSITY
BRIDGE.
THE COMMITTEE VOTED TO CONSIDER
REDUCING HEIGHTS ON SITE W 22
TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT HEIGHT
LIMIT OF 105 FEET.
THE UNIVERSITY IN THEIR
RESPONSE ASKED FOR AN INCREASED
TO 240 FEET AND POINTED TO
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING
A PLAN THAT WILL REDUCE
SETBACKS AND HELP SHAPE THE
BUILDING.
AND IN THEIR RESPONSE AND REPLY,
THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT COUNSEL
ASKED FOR HEIGHT LIMITS.
TO BE THE CURRENT HEIGHT LIMIT,
CURRENT LOWER HEIGHT LIMITS ON
SITES W 37 AND W 22.
THAT IS SUPPORTING THE
COUNSEL'S PRELIMINARY
RECOMMENDATION FOR W 22 AND
CONTINUING THE CALL FOR LOWER
HEIGHTS ON W 37.
RELATED TO TRANSIT INVESTMENTS,
THE COUNSEL -- THE COUNSEL'S
PRELIMINARY DECISION INCLUDED A
REQUIREMENT THAT THE UNIVERSITY
OF WASHINGTON PAY FOR CAPITAL
EXPENSES TO IMPROVE RAPID RIDE
ROUTES SERVING THE CAMPUS.
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
AND THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS
HAVE COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON A
SCHEDULE OF AGREEMENTS AND A
CAP OF $12.7 MILLION.
THAT WOULD BE USED TO IMPLEMENT
THOSE CHANGES.
THAT IS REFLECTED IN THEIR
LETTERS.
BICYCLE FACILITIES, THE
PRELIMINARY DECISION CALLED FOR
SEPARATE PATHWAYS FOR
BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS ALONG
THE BURKE GILMAN TRAIL TO BE
IMPLEMENTED BY 2024.
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
ASKED THAT IT BE CLEAR THAT
THEY ARE BEING ASKED TO
SEPARATE USERS BY 2024 BUT NOT
NECESSARILY CREATE SEPARATE
PATHWAYS BEYOND THE CURRENT
BURKE GILMAN TRAIL TRAIL BED
TODAY.
PETITIONERS ASKED THAT THE
TRAIL BE WIDENED AND SEPARATED
BY 2021 OR 2024 DEPENDING ON
WHO WAS WRITING THE LETTER.
OTHER PETITIONERS ASKED THAT A
BICYCLE PARKING PLAN BE
PREPARED.
AS PART OF OR FOLLOWING ON THE
APPROVAL OF THE CAMPUS MASTER
PLAN.
RELATED TO CHILDCARE, THE
COUNSEL AND KNOWLEDGED THE
UNIVERSITY'S PLANS TO INCREASE
CHILDCARE SPACES ON CAMPUS.
PETITIONERS ASKED THAT THE
UNIVERSITY BE REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE CHILDCARE ALONGSIDE THE
PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THEY ALSO ASKED FOR A STUDY IN
PROGRAM FOR A JOINT EMPLOYER-
EMPLOYEE VOUCHER PROGRAM, WHICH
IS SOMETHING THE COUNCIL HAS
PREVIOUSLY ASKED THE EXECUTIVE
TO WORK WITH THE UNIVERSITY AND
ITS UNIONS TO DEVELOP.
THE CITY-UNIVERSITY AGREEMENT
REQUIRES AN ANNUAL REPORT ON
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MASTER
PLAN, AND A NUMBER OF LETTERS
ASKED THE COUNCIL TO REPORT ON
ISSUES RAISED BY COMMUNITY AND
ENDORSED BY THE COUNSEL AS PART
OF THAT ANNUAL REPORTING
PROCESS.
AND THEN THERE WERE A FEW OTHER
ISSUES, IDEAS THAT WERE OUTSIDE
OF THE COUNSEL'S PURVIEW
REGARDING THE MASTER PLAN NOT
RELATED TO THOSE ISSUES.
>> THUS CONCLUDES THE OVERVIEW
OF THE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN
THE VARIOUS APPELLANTS AND
PROPONENTS OF THE MASTER PLAN
PROCESS.
BEFORE WE GET TO DISCUSSION
ABOUT AMENDMENTS, WHICH I THINK
IS WHERE YOU ARE HEADED NEXT, I
WANT TO PAUSE HERE AND SAY IT
IS MY INTENT FOR US TO AFTER WE
HAVE SOME Q&A BACK AND FORTH
ABOUT WHAT FOLKS MIGHT WANT TO
TALK ABOUT, RELATED TO THE BACK
AND FORTH THAT HAPPENED BETWEEN
THE APPELLANTS IN THE
PROPONENTS, IT IS MY INTENT
THAT WE WILL THEN CONSIDER A
SET OF AMENDMENTS AND I HOPE
PASS THE ORDINANCE OUT TODAY.
SO THAT WE CAN STAY ON SCHEDULE
TO ALLOW FOR REVIEW OF THE FULL
COUNCIL BOY -- COUNSEL BY
NOVEMBER 10 AND ALLOW FOR
APPROVAL, THE APPROVAL PROCESS
THAT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THE
OFFICIAL BOARD OF REGENTS
PROCESS AS WELL.
THIS IDEALLY HAS BEEN SIX OR
SEVEN MEETINGS SO FAR ON THIS
TOPIC AND NOT A WHOLE LOT OF
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES AND
FEEDBACK THAT HAVE COME FROM
THE DRAFT PROPOSAL THAT WE
ADOPTED IN SEPTEMBER THROUGH
RESOLUTION TO TODAY.
WITH THE POTENTIAL ORDINANCE IN
FRONT OF US.
BUT I WANT TO STOP HERE AND
ALLOW SPACE FOR PEOPLE TO ASK
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LETTER
WRITING THAT HAS HAPPENED BACK
AND FORTH BETWEEN THE
APPELLANTS AND THE UNIVERSITY.
ANY QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS?
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> I WANT TO SAY I BELIEVE
THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO YOUR
STATEMENT THAT THERE HAVEN'T
BEEN THAT MANY CHANGES IN WHAT
WE SEE ON A COUNSEL BOOK
COMPARED TO THE RESOLUTION AT
THE COUNSEL MOVED OUT.
THERE IS THE CHANGE A FEW
MONTHS AGO OF ALTHOUGH THE
COMMITTEE VOTED ON SITE 2022 TO
MAINTAIN THE 105 HEIGHT, THIS
RESOLUTION PUTS IT TO THE
HEIGHT RECOMMENDED BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON 240,
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S AN AMENDMENT I AM
PLANNING TO BRING.
>> IT'S NOT CONTAINED?
>> NO.
>> THE BILL ITSELF HAS THE HIGH
DEPTH PROPOSAL THAT CAME OUT OF
COMMITTEE.
>> I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> MUCH TO MY PERSONAL CHAGRIN.
BUT I WILL BE BRINGING THAT
FORWARD AGAIN FOR DISCUSSION AS
PART OF THE AMENDMENT.
>> PERFECT.
I WAS JUST USING THIS AS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IF IT
WAS ALREADY CONTAINED.
IT'S NOT SO I WILL TALK ABOUT
IT LATER.
>> THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
>> I GOT THAT RIGHT, DIDN'T I?
>> YES.
THE ZONING CHANGES INCORPORATED
IN THE ORDINANCE REFLECT THE
CHANGES MADE BY THE COMMITTEE
IN SEPTEMBER.
>> I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT.
OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE
VARIOUS PARTIES?
BETWEEN SEPTEMBER AND TODAY?
I AM NOT SEEING ANYTHING SO AS
WE CONTEMPLATE AMENDMENTS, TALK
TO ME FIRST ABOUT THE TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED AS
PART OF ATTACHMENT ONE.
DO WE NEED TO MAKE ANY MOTIONS
TO ADOPT THOSE TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS, WHICH YOU SORT OF
GIVE A WALK-THROUGH -- GAVE A
WALK-THROUGH OF?
>> THOSE ARE INC.
IN THE BASE BILL, PROVIDED
THERE FOR TRANSPARENCY.
>>I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO READ
THROUGH ATTACHMENT ONE.
THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT I
WOULD CONSIDER TO BE ANYTHING
OTHER THAN WHAT YOU SAID, WHICH
IS TECHNICAL.
IF FOLKS WANTED TO PULL ANY OF
THOSE THINGS OUT, I AM HAPPY TO
ENTERTAIN THAT BUT I DON'T
HINK THERE'S ANYTHING I
TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES --
ASSOCIATED ATTACHMENTS THAT IS
ANYTHING OTHER THAN SMALL
CHANGES TO ELEMENTS OF THE
FINDINGS OF FACTS FOR EXAMPLE
THAT ALLOW FOR CONSISTENCY
BETWEEN THE VARIOUS RECORDS.
SO, WHILE FOLKS REVIEW THAT,
WHY DON'T WE MOVE ON TO THE
SECOND PART, WHICH IS THE
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL
AMENDMENTS THEMSELVES, AND
WE'VE GOT 10 OR SO TO REVIEW.
DO YOU WANT TO START WITH I
THINK WE ARE CALLING IT
AMENDMENT A?
>> YEAH.
THIS IS A PRETTY SIMPLE
AMENDMENT.
IT ADDS A RECITAL ASKING THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON TO
INCLUDE IN'S ANNUAL REPORTS
INFORMATION ABOUT TOPICS OF
INTEREST TO THE CITY AND THE
COMMUNITY.
AS A NOTE, OTHER AMENDMENTS
FURTHER ON WOULD AMEND THIS
RECITAL TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL
ITEMS IN THE LIST.
BUT IT IS ASKING FOR UPDATES
RELATED TO --
SORRY.
ISSUES SUCH AS ACTIONS TO
INCREASE ACCESS TO PRESCHOOL
AND CHILDCARE, IMPLEMENT
PRIORITY HIRE PROGRAMS, SUPPORT
LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND
INTEGRATE MINORITY AND WOMEN
OWNED BUSINESSES INTO THE
CAMPUS AND TO UPDATE THE
UNIVERSITY AGREEMENT.
>> A LOT OF THE REASON WE WANT
TO ADOPT THE REPORTING
AGREEMENT IS BECAUSE THERE ARE
OTHER THINGS THAT WE WILL BE
ASKING FOR POTENTIALLY AS WE
GET FURTHER ALONG THAT ALSO
WOULD REQUIRE SOME SORT OF
REPORTING.
I WANT TO START WITH THIS
REPORTING AMENDMENT AND OTHER
AMENDMENTS MAY BE REFLECTED IN
AN UPDATED REPORTING SECTION OF
THE BILL WHEN IT IS FINALLY
ADOPTED.
ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS?
I WOULD MOVE TO ADOPT AMENDMENT
A AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT
THREE.
ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING
"AYE."
THAT AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
MR. WITSON HOW ABOUT AMENDMENT
B 1?
>> AMENDMENT B 1 IS RELATED TO
THE COMMITMENT TOWARDS
PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
INCORPORATES A VOLUNTARY
COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE AT LEAST
450 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THAT IS AFFORDABLE TO VARIOUS
INCOME LEVELS.
AND IT WOULD ALLOW THAT HOUSING
TO BE BUILT BOTH WITHIN THE
CAMPUS IN THE BROADER CAMPUS
NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ALSO OTHER
LOCATIONS ACCESSIBLE BY TRANSIT
TO THE CAMPUS.
AND IT ASKS FOR REPORTING
RELATED TO THAT HOUSING.
THIS IS SPONSORED BY COUNCIL
MEMBERS HERBOLD AND JOHNSON.
>> F.O.P.s?
>> I WOULD LOVE TO BE A SPONSOR
BUT I CAN SHOW MY SUPPORT BY
VOTING IN FAVOR.
>> JUST TO MAKE SURE I REMEMBER
THE FACTS CORRECTLY, THE
ULTIMATE NUMBER OF 450 WAS
DERIVED FROM SOME EVIDENCE IN
THE RECORD ABOUT THE NUMBER OF
JOBS THAT WOULD BE LOW ENOUGH
WAGE TO QUALIFY FOR THESE
LEVELS OF HOUSING AND MY
RECOLLECTION WAS ABOUT 900
JOBS.
THE ASSUMPTION WAS THEY WOULD
BE TWO HOUSEHOLD JOBS SO IN THE
THEORY OF CREATING THE UNITS
FOR ALL THESE, THAT WOULD BE
450 UNITS HOUSING NOT THAT
THOSE PEOPLE NECESSARILY BE IN
THESE BUT THAT WAS THE CONCEPT.
IT'S GREAT TO SEE A VOLUNTARY
COMMITMENT.
I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE'S
AMENDMENT TO CODIFY THAT
COMMITMENT.
WE WILL GET THE UNITS WHICH IS
WHAT I CARE ABOUT.
>> OKAY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> I APPRECIATE REPORTING BUT
WHAT THERE BE A REQUIREMENT TO
MAKE A CHANGE GIVEN THAT IT'S A
VOLUNTARY COMMITMENT IF THE
SITUATION CHANGED SOMEWHERE
DOWN THE ROAD AND UW DECIDED
THEY COULDN'T FULFILL THE
VOLUNTARY COMMITMENT?
OR WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT
WOULD JUST COME UP IN
REPORTING?
>> ANY CHANGE TO THE COUNSEL'S
CONDITIONS UNDER THE CITY AND
UNIVERSITY AGREEMENT IS
CONSIDERED A MAJOR CHANGE TO
THE PLAN WHICH IS GENERALLY
CONSIDERED A MAJOR CHANGE TO
THE PLAN WHICH WOULD NEED TO
COME BACK TO COUNSEL.
THIS WILL BE RECORDED AS A
COMMITMENT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON THAT THEY NEED TO
FULFILL.
>> THANK YOU.
>> FURTHER DISCUSSION?
I WOULD MOVE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT BE ONE.
>> SECOND -- AMENDMENT B 1.
>> I SECOND.
>> ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY
SAYING "AYE."
NOT OPPOSED AMENDMENT B 1
ADOPTED.
AMENDMENT U 2 MR. WITSON.
>> THIS AMENDMENT IS ALSO
RELATED TO THOSE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS.
IT PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT MORE
FLAVOR OR GUIDANCE ABOUT THE
COUNSEL'S REQUEST RELATED TO
THAT HOUSING.
IT ASKS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON TO WORK WITH ITS
EMPLOYEES IN DESIGNING HOUSING
USING BEST PRACTICES TO TALK TO
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE
POTENTIAL OCCUPANTS OF THE
HOUSING BEFORE YOU START
DESIGNING WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
CONSIDERING A RANGE OF HOUSING
TYPES AND PLANNING FOR THE
HOUSING NOT JUST SMALL STUDIO
UNITS, AND WORKING WITH
NONPROFIT DEVELOPERS OR RATHER
PUBLIC AGENCIES TO KEEP RENTS
AFFORDABLE IN PERPETUITY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RYAN?
>> I WILL JUST SAY THAT THE
TROLLS WE HAD AT OUR DISPOSAL
IN WERE SOME -- FOR SUBOPTIMAL
IN SOME RESPECTS BECAUSE OF THE
QUALIFIED JUDICIAL PROCESS WE
CAN'T HAVE THE DIALOGUE WITH
VARIOUS PARTIES TO NEGOTIATE
WITH THIS LOOKS LIKES.
WHERE AUTHORITY STARTS AND ENDS
IS DEBATABLE TOO SO THIS IS
CERTAINLY AS YOU MENTIONED BUT
-- BEST PRACTICES.
I HOPE IS THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON WILL DO SOMETHING
MORE -- DO SOMETHING KIND OF
CONSISTENT WITH THIS.
>> I WOULD MOVE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT B 2.
>> SECOND.
>> ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY
SAYING "AYE."
>> THIS IS FROM COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
IT ASKS THE CITY TO CONSIDER
INCORPORATING CHILDCARE IN
THEIR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
PARTICULARLY CONCERNING FAMILY
SIZE UNITS.
>> NOTHING TO ADD.
>> I THINK THIS CONTINUES WITH
THAT TRANSPARENCY ABOUT ASKING
FOLKS TO REALLY TAKE A REAL
RESPONSIBILITY MAKING SURE WE
HAVE AFFORDABLE CHILDCARE
THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
THIS IS ONE I AM HAPPY TO
SUPPORT.
I WOULD ASK FOR ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT B 3.
>> SECOND.
>> FURTHER DISCUSSION?ALL IN
FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING "AYE."
AMENDMENT B 3 ADOPTED.
AMENDMENT C.
>> AMENDMENT SEE WHAT
INCORPORATES THE UNIVERSITY AND
SDCI PROPOSED TIMELINE AND
SCHEDULE FOR PAYMENTS TO
IMPLEMENT RAPID RIGHT
IMPROVEMENTS.
AND IT ALSO PROVIDES AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR NEGOTIATION
WITH THE SDCI DIRECTOR IF THE
UNIVERSITY DOESN'T BUILD THE
AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT
IS INCORPORATED IN THIS
CONDITION SO IF THEY ARE MOVING
MORE SLOWLY, THEY CAN NEGOTIATE
WITH THE DIRECTOR TO SORT OF
SLOW THE PAYMENTS.
>> SEEMS LIKE ONE OF THOSE
THINGS WHERE WE GIVE A LITTLE
BIT OF EXTRA TIME, AND THE
PARTIES CAME UP WITH A GOOD
SOLUTION SO I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT.
>> EXCITING.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
I WOULD SAY MOVE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT C.
>> SECOND.
>> ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY
SAYING "AYE."
NOT OPPOSED.
AMENDMENT C IS ADOPTED.
AMENDMENT D MR. WOODSON.
>> AMENDMENT D IS RELATED TO
SITE WWE 22.
IT WOULD ADOPT A HEIGHT LIMIT
OF 240 FEET FORESIGHT W 22.
WHICH IS AGAIN HERE AT THE
NORTH END OF THE UNIVERSITY
BRIDGE.
GENERALLY BOUNDED BY EASTLAKE
AVENUE NORTHEAST, THE ONE BLOCK
OF EAST AVENUE NORTHEAST, 11th
AVENUE NORTHEAST, AND CAMPUS
PARKWAY.
AND YEAH.
>> AND ENTER ROB JOHNSON TO
MAKE THE PITCH AGAIN TO MY
COLLEAGUES ABOUT CONSIDERING A
DIFFERENT APPROACH THAN THE ONE
WE CONSIDERED THE LAST TIME
AROUND.
I WANT FREE TRADE ALL THE
TALKING POINTS THAT I DID WHEN
WE DISCUSSED THIS IN SEPTEMBER
BUT GENERALLY, IT IS MY BELIEF
THAT THIS AMENDMENT RESULTING IN
A 24 STORY OPPORTUNITY AS
OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT
PROPOSAL, WHICH IS ONLY A 10
STORY BUILDING IS VERY
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S
GROWTH AND EQUITY GOALS,
PARTICULARLY AROUND OUR LIGHT-
RAIL STATIONS.
WE HAVE OVER THE LAST COUPLE
YEARS ADOPTED SON AND HEIGHTS
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE
VERY COMPATIBLE WITH 240 FEET.
THIS SITE WOULD BE ABOUT TWO
BLOCKS FROM THE FUTURE LIGHT-
RAIL STATION.
WHICH AGAIN IS A NEIGHBORHOOD
WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO NOT ONLY
ENCOURAGE MORE DEVELOPMENT, BUT
ALSO MAKE SURE THAT DEVELOPMENT
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER SUBSIDY
ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPENING OF
THIS NEW LIGHT-RAIL STATIONS.
SO I WANTED TO GIVE THIS
ANOTHER RUN AND SEE IF A COUPLE
MONTHS OF TIME MIGHT CHANGE
PEOPLE'S MINDS BUT WE WILL STOP
THERE AND ASK FOR A FURTHER
DISCUSSION, THOUGHTS OR
QUESTIONS BEFORE WE DECIDE
WHETHER OR NOT TO MOVE THIS
FORWARD.
COUNCILMEMBER BRIAN.
>> YOU SAID THIS A MOMENT AGO
BUT IN THE COMMENT PERIOD
úBETWEEN SEPTEMBER AND NOW, HE
SAID WE RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM
KUKEC AND SOMEONE ELSE ON THIS.
WAS ANYONE ELSE RECOMMENDING
THAT WE MAINTAIN THE LOWER
HEIGHT CONSISTENT?
>> THE UNIVERSITY OF DISTRICT
COMMUNITY COUNSEL.
>> OKAY.
SO THEY PROVIDED SIMILAR COMP
-- SIMILAR COMMENTS.
>> RIGHT.
>> DO YOU HAVE THE UNIVERSITY
DISTRICT IMMUNITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT COMMENTS IN ADDITION
TO THIS AMENDMENT?
>> WHAT IT ALSO BE FAIR TO SAY
WE'VE GOT COMMENTS FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ASKING
USTO GO BACK TO THE 240 LEVEL?
>> YES.
>> OKAY SO I WILL SPEAK TO
WHERE I AM ON THIS IF THAT'S
OKAY.
BACK IN SEPTEMBER, WHAT THE
DESIGN GUIDELINES AND SETBACKS
WERE REQUIRED WAS SOMETHING I
HAD AN OPEN QUESTION ABOUT.
I WENT ALONG WITH THE LOWER
HEIGHT BECAUSE I HAD CONCERNS
ABOUT THE BULK AND SCALE OF IT.
NOW THAT I HAVE A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS
ALLOWED AND REQUIRED THERE, I
AM INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE
HIGHER HEIGHTS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE
ZONING THERE NOW WOULD REQUIRE
A MAXIMUM PODIUM HEIGHT OF
ABOUT 45 FEET AND THE PODIUM
COULD GENERALLY PROBABLY COVER
THE ENTIRE LOT AS SHOWN AND
FLOORPLATE SIZE ON THE TOWER
ABOVE 45 FEET AROUND 12,000
SQUARE FEET, IS THAT ABOUT
RIGHT?
>> I THINK IT WAS 14,000
POTENTIALLY ON THIS SITE.
IT'S ABOUT 21,000 SQUARE FEET
LOT.
AND THAT IS DUE TO UPPER-LEVEL
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND TOWER
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
>> GOT IT.
SO FOR ME, THAT GIVES A SENSE.
IT'S STILL A LARGE STRUCTURE NO
DOUBT BUT IT GIVES SOME
FLEXIBILITY THAT THERE IS GOING
TO BE MORE AIR AND LIGHT AS WE
GO HIGHER, SO I AM INCLINED TO
ACTUALLY ALLOW THE HEIGHT TO GO
TO 240 AND SUPPORT YOUR
AMENDMENT, COUNCILMEMBER
JOHNSON.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION
AND SOME COMMENTS.
THIS HAS BEEN A MAJOR POINT OF
CONTENTION AROUND WHETHER OR
NOT THE COMPARISON TO
RESIDENTIAL TOWERS THAT ARE
SORT OF THE SENDER TOWER --
THUNDER TOWER'S IS AN
APPROPRIATE COMPARISON GIVEN
THAT THESE ARE NOT RESIDENTIAL
TOWERS SUBJECT TO THE SAME BOOK
AND SCALE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT
LEVEL OF HEIGHT.
IS WHAT COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN
SAYING, DOES THAT MEAN THAT IS
AN APPROPRIATE COMPARISON?
THESE LIKELY NONRESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES TO THE SENDER
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES BECAUSE
OF HIS SETBACK REQUIREMENTS?
>> RIGHT.
ON A SMALLER SITE LIKE THIS, IT
IS MORE LIKELY TO LOOK LIKE THE
RESIDENTIAL TOWERS THAT ARE
PERMITTED JUST NORTH OF THE
SITE THEY IF THERE WERE A
LARGER SITE COMPARING W 21 AND
TO BE 22 UP THERE.
YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN
BULK -- THAT'S PRIMARILY DUE TO
THE SITE SIZE AND IF THEY
CHOOSE TO BUILD A TOWER.
THERE ARE UPPER LEVEL TOWER
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
>> SO IT'S MORE ABOUT THE SIZE
OF THE LOT, NOT ABOUT I MEAN I
DO SEE THERE IS -- IT'S MORE
ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE LOT, NOT
THAT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO
DEVELOP ON AS MUCH OF THE LOT.
>> RIGHT.
>> OKAY.
SO I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO
THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS
PARTICULAR LOCATION AND THE
VERY LONG HISTORY OF PLANNING
AND COLLABORATION WITH THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THIS LONG HISTORY OF
PLANNING AND THE FOCUS ON THIS
PARTICULAR SITE IS IMPORTANT TO
THE COMMUNITY.
BECAUSE THE SITE IS SEEN AS A
GATEWAY TO THE UNIVERSITY.
THE URBAN CENTER PLAN OF 1998,
THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION WAS
IDENTIFIED AS A GATEWAY.
AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY IN 2003,
THE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN AGAIN,
THIS IS A DOCUMENT THAT IS
DEVELOPED JOINTLY,
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS, WHERE THE
SITE WAS THEN CALLED 30 W AND
PROMISED THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON WOULD DEVELOP
NEIGHBORHOOD AS A GATEWAY TO
THE UNIVERSITY.
GATEWAY LOCATIONS INCLUDE
VISUAL ENHANCEMENTS SUCH AS
IMPROVED LANDSCAPING, SIGNAGE,
ARTWORK OR OTHER FEATURES THAT
SIGNIFY ENTRIES INTO
COMMUNITIES.
AND SO I REALLY SEE THIS HEIGHT
OF THIS PROPERTY AND I THINK --
I THINK IT IS VISUALLY
DEMONSTRATED THAT IT REALLY HAS
THE POTENTIAL TO CONFLICT WITH
THOSE LONG-HELD GOALS FOR THIS
SITE AND I JUST DID A
CALCULATION ON THE NUMBER OF
SQUARE FEET THAT THIS MASTER
PLAN IS
ADDING AND IT'S 6 MILLION
TOTAL.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2
POTENTIAL HEIGHTS FOR THIS
PARTICULAR PROPERTY, THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 175,000
SQUARE FEET, AND ABOUT 87,000
SQUARE FEET IS A 1.5% SHARE OF
THAT 6 MILLION TOTAL SQUARE
FOOTAGE, SO IT'S A REALLY SMALL
CHANGE AND IT IS STILL I THINK
YOU KNOW GIVING THE VAST
MAJORITY OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE
THAT THE UNIVERSITY HAS SAID
THEY NEED FOR THEIR FUTURE, AND
I THINK TAKING BACK THIS VERY
SMALL NUMBER OF SQUARE FOOTAGE
AGAIN 1.5% OF THE 6 MILLION
TOTAL, IS REALLY IN KEEPING
WITH WHAT I THINK THE NATURE OF
THIS PROCESS IS REALLY ABOUT,
AND IT'S ABOUT COLLABORATION AND
SHARED GOALS, SO I HOPE I CAN
GET YOUR SUPPORT, BUT I THINK I
KNOW WHERE THE VOTES ARE
FALLING.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
JUST GIVEN THE LATENESS OF THE
HOUR AND NOT TO BELABOR THIS
DISCUSSION TOO MUCH LONGER, BUT
AS SOMEBODY WHO REPRESENTS THE
AREA AND SOMEONE WHO HAS SEEN A
LOT OF DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES
HAPPEN IN THE CITY WITH A LOT
OF RELUCTANCE TO SEE
PARTICULARLY COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT I WANT TO AVOID THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS FIGHT
CONTINUE TO PLAY OUT IN OTHER
PARTS OF THE CITY WHERE THERE IS
PRESSURE FOR EXPANSION WHETHER
THAT'S IN INDUSTRIAL LANDS
AREAS OR OTHER PARTS OF THE
CITY THAT WOULD PREFER TO STAY
IN A RESIDENTIAL LOOK AND FEEL.
SO FOR ME, I THINK THAT THE
CONCENTRATION RIGHTLY SO OF
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT NEARBY A
MAJOR PIECE OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN
A PLACE WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE A
LOT OF TALL BUILDINGS MAKES A
LOT OF SENSE.
ALTHOUGH YOU ARE RIGHT IT'S A
1.5 PERCENTAGE CHANGE,
FUNDAMENTALLY I THINK IT IS THE
RIGHT THING FOR US AS A CITY
GIVEN OUR CLIMATE GOALS, GIVEN
OUR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GOALS, GIVEN OUR AFFORDABILITY
GOALS, GIVEN OUR OBJECTIVES OF
MAKING SURE PEOPLE GET OTHER
PLACES WITHOUT NEEDING TO HAVE
A CAR TO MAXIMIZE THOSE
INVESTMENTS AND THAT DOESN'T
HAPPEN IN A LOT OF PLACES IN
THE CITY AND I THINK THIS IS
ONE OF THOSE PLACES WHERE WE
SHOULD REALLY CONSIDER A
CHANGE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE
ADOPT AMENDMENT D ACT WHICH
WOULD CHANGE ZONING ON SITE W
22 TO 240 FEET.
>> I WILL SECOND AND CAN I ASK
ONE MORE QUESTION?
I AM JUST LOOKING AT THE TEXT OF
WELL, THE BACKGROUND SECTION IN
GRAY ON PAGE 73 AND AT THE
BOTTOM IT TALKS ABOUT APPLYING
THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THE RECORD INDICATES A MAXIMUM
THEORETICAL TOWER FLOORPLATE
SIZE OF APPROXIMATELY 12,100
FEET.
I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT IS
ACCURATE.
>> THAT IS THE ONE I SHOULD
USE.
>> OKAY, GREAT.
THAT'S A LITTLE LESS THAN 60%
OF THE SITE FROM MY
UNDERSTANDING.
SO IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY CHANGE
ANY SUBSTANCE BUT I WANTED TO
CORRECT THAT FOR THE PUBLIC AND
IT GOES ON TO SAY ADJACENT TO
THE U DISTRICT, WHICH IS
COMPARABLE TO THE MAXIMUM
FLOORPLATE FOR THE ADJACENT U
DISTRICT, WHICH ARE ALLOWED
BETWEEN 10,700 11,500.
IT'S SLIGHTLY BIGGER.
WE CAN DEBATE WHETHER IS
COMPARABLE OR NOT.
BUT I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT.
>> FOR THE DISCUSSION ABOUT
THIS.
>> TRYING TO GET THE FACTS
STRAIGHT.
>> OKAY, ALL IN FAVOR OF
AMENDMENT U PLEASE SAY I. THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO AMENDMENT U.
>> AMENDMENT U FROM
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
IT ASKS THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON TO PREPARE A BICYCLE
PARKING PLAN.
>> I WOULD MOVE IT.
>> OKAY.
ANY DISCUSSION COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD?
I WILL SECOND THE MOTION TO
ADOPT AMENDMENT E. AND ASK ALL
THOSE IN FAVOR TO PLEASE VOTE.
AMENDMENT E AS OPPOSED WITHOUT
REJECTION.
>> AMENDMENT F IS FROM
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD AND IT
ASKS THE UNIVERSITY TO WORK
WITH ITS EMPLOYEES ON A
CHILDCARE VOUCHER PLAN.
>> ANYTHING TO ADD?
>> I THINK STATING FOR THE
RECORD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE
BACKGROUND ON THIS, AND THE
DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE HAD
ABOUT DOING A STUDY AND WHERE
THAT SAT BETWEEN THE
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, THE
EXECUTIVE, AND THE UNIVERSITY
OF WASHINGTON.
>> YEAH.
WHEN THE COUNCIL CONSIDERED
THREE ZONES OUTSIDE OF THE
CAMPUS, IT ADOPTED A RESOLUTION
ASKING FOR A NUMBER OF FOLLOW-
UP ITEMS.
ONE OF WHICH WAS WORKING WITH
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON,
EMPLOYEES AND OTHER EMPLOYERS
IN THE AREA ON A CHILDCARE
VOUCHER PLAN.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HAS
EITHER FAILED TO GET OFF THE
GROUND OR STALLED.
>> THERE WAS A STUDY COMPONENT
REQUIRED, CORRECT?
>> RIGHT.
THIS WOULD SORT OF BUILD ON
THAT REQUEST FROM THE COUNCIL
TO THE EXECUTIVE.
>> OKAY.
I JUST THINK THIS IS ONE OF
THOSE EXAMPLES WHERE THINGS
THAT WE PUT IN COUNCIL
RESOLUTIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE
REALLY IMPORTANT SOMETIMES
THOSE THINGS FALL BY THE
WAYSIDE.
SO, I AM HOPING THAT THE
INCLUSION HERE GETS US BACK ON
TRACK WITH DOING THE WORK THAT
WE COMMITTED TO DO IN WHAT,
2017?
>> I CONCUR WITH THIS AMENDMENT
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT
THE ORGANIZATION --
ORGANIZATION SET FOR ADVOCATING
FOR THIS HAVE ALSO HAD SOME
úCHANGES TO THEIR PRIORITIES AN
I THINK THAT THE WORK WE HAD
INTENDED TO DO WAS ASKED FOR BY
PARTICULAR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMUNITY WHO WHEN WE WENT BACK
OUT TO THEM AND ASKED FOR AN
EXTENSION, DELAY OR
COLLABORATION HAD SAID BACK TO
US WE DON'T THINK THAT IS AS
NECESSARY TODAY AS WE THOUGHT
IT WAS IN 2017 WHEN IT GOT
STARTED.
TO ME, I STILL THINK OF THIS AS
THE PERSON ON THIS COUNCIL WHO
MOST REGULARLY PAYS FOR CHILD
CARE, I STILL THINK
AFFORDABILITY AND CHILDCARE IS
CRITICAL, AND THE CONCEPT FOR
US OF A VOUCHER PROGRAM I THINK
IS ONE THAT IS RIPE FOR
DISCUSSION NOT JUST WITHIN THE
CONSTRUCT OF THIS MASTER PLAN
PROCESS, BUT ALSO AROUND THE
CITY WITH LARGE AS MY
COUNCILMEMBER CALLING MISS GIL
LIKES TO REMIND US WE ARE ONE
OF THE MOST EXTENSIVE CHILDCARE
PLACES IN THE U.S. SO I THINK
THE WORK NEEDS TO GET DONE.
THE SPEED WITH WHICH IT'S NOT
GETTING DONE I THINK IS A
FRUSTRATION BUT THIS IS A GOOD
REMINDER FOR US TO CONTINUE TO
REDOUBLE OUR EFFORTS TO ASK FOR
SOME KIND OF ADDITIONAL
ANALYSIS AND WORK TO BE DONE
BOTH WITHIN THE CITY FAMILY AND
IN COLLABORATION WITH THOSE
OUTSIDE THE CITY FAMILY.
I WOULD MOVE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT F.
>> SECOND.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY
AYE.
OPPOSED.
AMENDMENT F IS ADOPTED.
WE'VE GOT AN AMENDED BILL IN
FRONT OF US.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT
THAT AMENDED BILL?
IF NOT, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE
ADOPT COUNCIL BILL 119426 AS
AMENDED.
>> SECOND.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE
SAY ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY
SAYING "AYE.".
>> MAN OPPOSED.
>> THE AMENDED BILL IS ADOPTED.
THAT WILL BE IN FRONT OF FULL
COUNCIL ON MONDAY.
WE HAVE AN ASSOCIATED KOREC
FILE WITH THIS BILL THAT DOES
ALL THE THINGS THE CLERK FILES
DO.
ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, THAT
YOU WOULD LIKE TO OFFER MR.
WOODSON?
>> IT'S BASICALLY ALL OF THE
BACKGROUND MATERIAL ON THE
MASTER PLAN.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT?
SEEING NONE, I WOULD MOVE TO
GRANT AS CONDITIONED CLERK FILE
31346.
>> SECOND.
>> ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY
SAYING "AYE."
>> THE CLERK FILE IS ADOPTED
AND THAT WILL ALSO BE IN FRONT
OF FULL COUNCIL MONDAY,
DECEMBER 10.
THIS HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS,
MR. WOODSON.
WE WOULD BE REMISS IF WE
DIDN'T SPEND A LOT OF TIME AND
ENERGY TODAY SAYING THANK YOU
FOR THE HERCULEAN EFFORT THAT
YOU HAVE UNDERTAKEN THESE MANY
MONTHS OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION,
BUT CERTAINLY MANY MONTHS
BEFORE THE ISSUE CAME TO
COMMITTEE OF REALLY GREAT WORK
TO GET US TO THIS POINT.
I AM VERY GRATEFUL TO YOU.
THIS CAUSE I JUDICIAL PROCESSES
ARE COMPLEX AND NECESSITATE A
LOT OF WEIRD, NON-DIALOGUE
BETWEEN PEOPLE AND YOU'VE DONE
AN EXCELLENT JOB OF HELPING TO
MAKE SURE THOSE FIREWALLS
EXISTED AND FACILITATING THIS
PROCESS, AND I JUST CANNOT SAY
THANK YOU ENOUGH FOR YOUR GREAT
WORK.
BEFORE WE ADJOURN, OTHER
THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS,
COLLEAGUES?
>> FIRST OF ALL, SECOND THE
THANK YOU.
THERE HAS BEEN A NUMBER OF
STASSEL ONE -- STEPS ALONG THE
PROCESS WHERE WE CAME UP WITH
COLLECTIVELY WHAT I WOULD
CHARACTERIZE AS CREATIVE IDEAS
AND TRYING TO STICK TO AN
AGGRESSIVE TIMELINE I AM REALLY
PLEASED THAT YOU, LAW, AND
OTHER FOLKS YOU MANAGED TO
CORRAL, WERE ABLE TO GET
RESPONSES BACK SPECIFICALLY
WHEN WE WERE ON RECESS OVER THE
LAST COUPLE WEEKS OF AUGUST.
WHILE I WAS ENJOYING THE WATERS
OF THE GULF ISLANDS, YOU WERE
TOILING AWAY SO THANK YOU FOR
DOING THAT.
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE
QUASIJUDICIAL NATURE.
IS THIS PLANNING TO GO TO FULL
COUNCIL ON MONDAY?
>> IT IS.
>> OKAY AND THEN WHEN DOES THE
QUASI JUDICIAL -- ARE THERE
APPEALS?
HOW LONG DO WE HAVE TO WAIT
BEFORE WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE
CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE ABOUT
THIS OR PEOPLE WHO CAN ACTUALLY
COME SAY THANK YOU OR YOU JERK
OR WHATEVER.
>> IF YOU GET THANK YOUS,
PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
I SEEM TO BE GETTING A LOT OF
THOSE YOU JERKS.
>> IT REMAINS QUASIJUDICIAL
UNTIL ALL JUDICIAL APPEALS HAVE
BEEN RESOLVED.
AT A MINIMUM, THAT WOULDN'T
KICK IN UNTIL AFTER THE BOARD
OF REGENTS DECIDES WHETHER OR
NOT THEY ARE GOING TO
INCORPORATE ALL THE CHANGES
THAT YOU HAVE ADOPTED INTO
THEIR FINAL MASTER PLAN AND
ADOPT A FINAL MASTER PLAN, BUT
I THINK THERE WOULD BE A PERIOD
AFTER THAT TIME WHEN THERE
WOULD STILL BE OPPORTUNITY FOR
OTHER PARTIES TO APPEAL.
>> OKAY.
SO WE AND FOLKS IN THE
AUDIENCE, WE ASK YOU TO ACT --
FOLKS ARE OBVIOUSLY WELCOME TO
CELEBRATE OR MOURN HOWEVER THEY
WANT BUT WE HAVE TO NOT BE PART
OF THAT FOR A LITTLE WHILE
LONGER.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WEEKS AT LEAST,
MAYBE A FEW MONTHS.
>> AND I WILL ASK THE LAW
DEPARTMENT TO CIRCLE BACK
AROUND THE CENTRAL STAFF AS
WELL AS OUR OFFICES TO GET A
CLEAR SENSE ABOUT WHAT THE
TIMELINE LOOKS LIKE, BUT I KNOW
AT MINIMUM WE HAVE THE ACTION
ON MONDAY AT FULL COUNCIL AND
THEN SOME PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE
THE BOARD OF REGENTS TAKES
ACTION, YOU CAN COUNT ON AT THE
LEAST THROUGH THE END OF THE
YEAR IS CONTINUING TO BE A
QUASIJUDICIAL PROCESS.
THE QUESTION WILL BE HOW MUCH
LONGER IS THAT APPEAL WINDOW
AVAILABLE TO APPELLANTS AND WE
WILL TRY TO GET AN ANSWER FROM
THE LAW DEPARTMENT AS SOON AS
WE CAN.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS OR
QUESTIONS MR. WOODSON?
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> I WANT TO ECHO THE THANKS
BUT NOT JUST FOR HELPING US
MAINTAIN THE FIREWALLS, BUT
REALLY I THINK IT IS SO
IMPORTANT THAT YOU HAVE GONE
ABOVE AND BEYOND TO LET US KNOW
WHAT IS IN THE RECORD SO THAT I
MEAN THERE'S JUST SO MUCH
INFORMATION AND IT IS I THINK
-- I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY
EASY FOR US TO SORT OF TAKE A
CURSORY VIEW OF WHAT THE
OPTIONS ARE, BUT I THINK YOU
HAVE DONE A REALLY GREAT JOB OF
HELPING US DIG IN DEEP, AND
KNOW WHAT WE CAN KNOW ABOUT
THINGS ON THE RECORD SO THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WE WILL HAVE THESE TWO
ITEMS, THE COUNCIL AND THE
CLERK FILE UNDER FULL COUNCIL
MANDATE -- MONDAY THE 10th.
WE MAY BE BACK HERE ON 19
DECEMBER TO CONTEMPLATE THE
CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD ON THE
TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE
STANDARDS.
IT WILL DEPEND ON VACATION
SCHEDULES AND WHETHER OR NOT
THOSE STAFFERS CAN BE BACK TO
ANSWER ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS.
WE WILL KEEP MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC IN THE LOOP ABOUT
WHETHER WE NEED TO HAVE THAT
MEETING AS SOON AS WE KNOW THE
ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT
IF THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER TO
TODAY WE WILL BE ADJOURNED AND
WE WILL SEE YOU AGAIN SOON.
>> ALL RIGHT.