>>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND
JOINING US THIS MORNING.
IT IS MONDAY, JANUARY 7. IT IS
10:30.
WELCOME TO OUR CONTINUING
CONVERSATION HERE AT THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY.
AND JOINED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
HARO AND COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW.
I BELIEVE COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ
AND COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN WILL
LIKELY BE JOINING US.
WE HAVE SEVERAL MEMBERS WHO ARE
ABSENT TODAY, SO WE ARE A
LITTLE LIGHT ON ATTENDANCE THIS
MORNING, BUT I KNOW THIS IS A
TOPIC THAT IS OF STRONG
INTEREST TO THOSE NUMBERS, AND
I'M SURE THEY WILL BE WATCHING
EITHER LIVE OR AFTER THE FACT.
THIS IS THE 15th MEETING THAT
WE'VE HAD OVER THE LAST COUPLE
OF YEARS ON THE SELECT
COMMITTEE OF HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY.
WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT
TWO AGENDA ITEMS.
ONE, A BRIEFING AND UPDATE ON
THE ANALYSIS THE CITY HAS BEEN
CONDUCTING AROUND HISTORIC
RESOURCES, AND SECONDLY WE'RE
GOING TO GO THROUGHSOME ISSUE
IDENTIFICATION RELATED TO
ISSUES OVER THE LAST 14
MEETINGS WE'VE HAD ON CITYWIDE
MHA TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE
ISSUES THAT HAVE ALREADY AT THE
AND IDENTIFIED AS HIGH
PRIORITIES BY CENTRAL STAFF AND
COUNCILMEMBERS.
AS A REMINDER FROM MY
COLLEAGUES, I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT
SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE
HAD SO FAR.
BEAR WITH ME, WHEN I SAY WE
BELIEVE WE HAVE HAD AT LEAST 40
COUNCIL LED DISCUSSIONS ON THIS
TOPIC, WHEN YOU INCLUDE
COMMUNITY DESIGN WORKSHOPS WE
HOSTED IN 2016C017, 14 OPEN
HOUSES, AS WELL AS FIVE PUBLIC
HEARINGS ON THIS TOPIC LAST
YEAR.
IN ADDITION, THE CITY WRIT
LARGE HAS NOT DOWN MORE THAN
10,000 HOMES IN URBAN VILLAGES,
AND HAD PROBABLY ANOTHER
HUNDRED 75 OR SO MEETINGS JUST
IN TERMS OF SCALE, AS SMALL AS
ONE-ON-ONE COFFEE DATES WITH
PEOPLE, AND COFFEE SHOPS IN
NEIGHBORHOODS, TO AS LARGE AS
SEVERAL PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES THE
CITY HELD IN 2016 AND 2017,
WERE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE
ATTENDED.
AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN
INCLUDING SOME WELL ATTENDED
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS THAT
LASTED THROUGHOUT 2016.
WE DO HAVE A LOT OF WEALTH OF
DATA TO GO ON, AS WE CONSIDER
TIMING AND DISCUSSION OF
AMENDMENTS.
AND WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD
LIKE FOR US TO START A RUNDOWN
OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN GOING
ON AFTER THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
RESULTS WERE PUBLISHED IN
NOVEMBER.
I WILL TURN IT OVER TO FOLKS AT
THE TABLE TO DO INTRODUCTIONS,
ALTHOUGH I THINK I NEED TO HAVE
NOAH READ THIS INTO THE RECORD.
>> AGENDA ITEM 1, UPDATE ON
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR
CITYWIDE MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABLE MHA.
>> MISTER WOODSON, WE WILL
START WITH YOU.
>> LISH WHITSON.
>> KETIL FREEMAN.
>> ALY PENNUCCI.
>> GEOFF WENTLANDT.
>> AND MISS MAXANA YOU'RE GOING
TO WALK US THROUGH THE FIRST
ITEM AND THEN WE CEREN TURN IT
OVER TO CENTRAL STAFF ORDERS
FOR ITEM 2.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE
THIS MORNING TO TALK ABOUT
ONGOING WORK TO COMPLETE
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
AND RESPONSE TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S DECISION LAST
NOVEMBER ON THE ADEQUACY OF THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT FOR CITYWIDE
IMPLEMENTATION.
OF COURSE, WE ALWAYS START OUT
WITH THIS SLIDE, AS WITH ALL OF
OUR PRESENTATIONS OVER THE LAST
SEVERAL YEARS IN FRONT OF YOU.
THIS IS ABOUT PUTTING IN PLACE
MANDATORY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS,
MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GROWTH,
NEW ZONING CHANGES IN ORDER TO
CONTRIBUTE TO INCOME AND RENT
RESTRICTED HOUSING.
I AM GOING TO HAND THINGS OFF
TO JEFF WENDTLAND IN OPD, WHO
HAS BEEN THE PROJECT MANAGER
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FOLLOWING THE EXAMINER'S
DECISION.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
AS MENTIONED, THE HEARING
EXAMINER FROM MOST ASPECTS OF
THE EIS CALLED FOR ADDITIONAL
DATA IN THE HISTORIC RESOURCES
SECTION, SO I'M GOING TO GIVE A
QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE STATUS OF
THAT ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AND A
PREVIEW OF THE INFORMATION THAT
IT WILL CONTAIN.
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION
CALLED FOR THREE MAJOR
COMPONENTS TO BE LOOKED AT.
THE FIRST ADDING INFORMATION
ABOUT LANDMARKS, PARTICULARLY
TO A SERIES OF MAPS.
THE SECOND IDENTIFYING THE
CONTENTS OF A CITY DATABASE
THAT EXISTS FOR SURVEY
INFORMATION.
THE THIRD BEING RELATED TO
PROJECTS THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM
SIEBEL LEVEL PROJECT REVIEW.
WE WILL TALK A LITTLE ABOUT
EACH OF THOSE.
THE ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF
HISTORIC RESOURCES THAT YOU
WILL RECEIVE CONTAINS LAYERS OF
INFORMATION ABOUT HISTORIC
RESOURCES.
IT BUILDS ON INFORMATION THAT
WAS IN THE EIS.
THIS SLIDE SHOWS YOU WHAT THE
LAYERS OF INFORMATION ARE.
A QUICK REMINDER THAT SEATTLE'S
DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICTS
ARE EXEMPT FROM MHA, NO ZONING
CHANGES ARE PROPOSED THERE, AND
THE INFORMATION IT WILL CONTAIN
PERTAINS TO THE CITY'S
DESIGNATED LANDMARKS.
THOSE ARE CITY DESIGNATED
LANDMARKS.
THERE IS ALSO INFORMATION ON
NATIONAL REGISTER DETERMINED
ELIGIBLE PLACES THAT ARE NOT
CITY LANDMARKS.
INFORMATION IN THE DATABASE,
WHERE INFORMATION SURVEYS HAVE
BEEN CONDUCTED.
WE INCLUDED NO INFORMATION ON
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC
PLACES DISTRICTS, WHICH ARE
DIFFERENT FROM CITY DESIGNATED
DISTRICTS, AND DETAILED
INFORMATION FOR YOU ABOUT SEPA
THRESHOLDS AND WHERE THEY MAY
BE GAPS IN REVIEW.
SO, THE CITY OF SEATTLE
LANDMARKS HAVE THE STRONGEST
PROTECTIONS FOR HISTORIC
PRESERVATION.
THEY ARE DESIGNATED BY A BOARD
AND ONCE DESIGNATED, A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL IS
REQUIRED FOR ANY CHANGES TO
HISTORIC FEATURES.
THE INFORMATION ADDED IN
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS IS TO SHOW
YOU WHERE ALL THOSE LANDMARKS
ARE ON MUCH MORE DETAILED MAPS
WITH INFORMATION ON THE MHA
ZONE CHANGES.
WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT A
LITTLE BIT MORE.
THERE IS AN EXPANDED DISCUSSION
FOR YOU ABOUT THE POTENTIAL
IMPACTS, PARTICULARLY TO THE
SETTING OF A LANDMARK SO WHEN
IT OCCURS NEAR MHA NEAR TO THE
LANDMARK, THAT COULD AFFECT ITS
PRESENCE.
THE NEXT LAYER OF INFORMATION
IS THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF
HISTORIC PLACES, DETERMINED
ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES, SOME OF
THESE MAY BE CITY OF SEATTLE
LANDMARKS.
MANY MAY NOT BE.
LISTING AS A DETERMINED
ELIGIBLE PROPERTY DETERMINED BY
THE STATE'S HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OFFICE AND SENT TO
THE NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE.
FOR THOSE SITES, A
DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS AND
MEDICATION WOULD BE REQUIRED
ONLY IF THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT HAS STATE FUNDING OR IS
A FEDERAL UNDERTAKING.
WITH OR WITHOUT MHA, THESE
IDENTIFIED SITES ARE SUBJECT TO
IMPACT FROM DEVELOPMENT.
YOU WILL SEE ADDED DETAILED
MAP, INFORMATION ALONG WITH THE
LANDMARKS, AND MHA ZONING
INFORMATION.
THE NEXT LAYER OF INFORMATION
IS THE CITY'S HISTORIC
RESOURCES SURVEY DATABASE.
SURVEYS OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED OVER MANY
YEARS IN NEIGHBORHOOD AREAS AND
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS HAS
A DATABASE, ESSENTIALLY, OF
WHERE SURVEYS HAVE BEEN
CONDUCTED, AND INFORMATION IN
OF THOSE SURVEYS DOESN'T REALLY
SAY WHETHER OR NOT OR DETERMINE
WHETHER OR ON NOT POTENTIAL
RESOURCES SHOULD BE A LANDMARK
OR SHOULD BE PROTECTED.
BUT THE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED
NONETHELESS IN THE ADDITIONAL
ANALYSIS.
SO, WE WILL DESCRIBE THE
CONTENT AND PURPOSE OF THAT
DATABASE, AND THESE LOCATIONS
WHERE SURVEYS HAVE BEEN
CONDUCTED WILL ALSO BE INCLUDED
FOR YOU ON A SERIES OF MAPS.
THE NEXT LAYER OF INFORMATION
WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S DECISION, BUT BASED
ON INPUT FROM STAKEHOLDERS AND
OTHERS, WE FELT IT WAS VERY
IMPORTANT TO ADD, AS WELL.
THESE ARE NEWLY DESIGNATED,
NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICTS.
IS OUR DIFFERENT FROM SEATTLE'S
DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
THEY ARE RECOGNIZED BY THE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
AND PARK SERVICE.
TWO NEW ONES HAVE BEEN
RECOGNIZED SINCE PUBLISHING THE
F EIS.
ONE IN THE RIVANNA NEIGHBORHOOD
NEAR THE URBAN ROOSEVELT
VILLAGE, AND ONE IN THE MOUNT
BAKER PARK ADDITION NEAR THE
MOUNT RAINIER URBAN VILLAGE, SO
OU WILL HAVE DE
THE DISTRICTS ALONG WITH
DISCUSSION OF IMPACT RESOURCES.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THE NEXT LAYER OF INFORMATION
HAS TO DO WITH THRESHOLDS FOR
PROJECT LEVEL REVIEW.
THIS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
PROJECT EXAMINER REVIEW.
THIS BASICALLY MEANS WHEN
PROJECT LEVEL DEVELOPMENT
HAPPENS, AND SOMEONE PROPOSES A
BUILDING, IF IT IS SUBJECT TO
SEPA, IT MUST BE REVIEWED FOR
IMPACTS TO LANDMARKS IF THERE
IS A LANDMARK THEREBY, OR OTHER
HISTORIC RESOURCES AS PART OF
THE CHECKLIST.
IF NOT, THOSE CHECKS ARE NOT IN
PLACE, SO THIS ADDITIONAL
ANALYSIS WILL SPECIFY FOR YOU
THE SPECIFIC MHA ZONES UNDER
THE PROPOSAL FOR SEPA EXEMPT
DEVELOPMENT COULD BE LIKELY.
THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE FOR
YOU, A SERIES OF MAPS, FOR EACH
URBAN VILLAGE.
YOU WILL HAVE ALL OF THE CITY
LANDMARKS THAT ARE IN THAT
VILLAGE IDENTIFIED IN THIS
SLIDE, THE ORANGE STARS, IS
WHAT WAS THE NATIONAL REGISTER
OF HISTORIC PLACES DETERMINED
ELIGIBLE SITES.
YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THOSE
RELATIVE TO WHERE THERE ARE
GREATER OR LESSER MHA ZONES
PROPOSED.
THIS IS THE GREEN LAKE URBAN
VILLAGE, WHICH CONTAINS TWO
LANDMARKS, AND ONE ELIGIBLE
SITE.
>> AND IN THIS MAP, JEFF.
I AM SORRY TO STOP YOU AT THIS
POINT, BUT I THINK THIS IS
INCREDIBLY VALUABLE INFORMATION
FOR US, AS WE CONTEMPLATE
CHANGES TO THE PROPOSAL AS WAS
SENT DOWN BY MAYOR BURGESS.
WEN YOU LOOK AT THE SITE OR
THIS EXAMPLE OF AN URBAN
VILLAGE, YOU IDENTIFIED BOTH
CITY LANDMARKS, AND RHP
ELIGIBLE SITES, BUT YOU ALSO
HAVE SOMETHING CALLED INVENTORY
PROPERTY AND HOLD PROPERTIES.
WHAT ARE THOSE TWO REFERENCES
ABOU?
>> THANK YOU.
THOSE ARE THE INFORMATION FROM
THE CITY'S HISTORIC RESOURCES
SURVEY DATABASE, SO THEY ARE
SITES THAT HAVE HAD SOME SURVEY
INFORMATION COLLECTED. WE DON'T
KNOW WHETHER THEY ARE ELIGIBLE
FOR PROTECTION AS A LANDMARK OR
NOT, BUT THERE IS SOME
INFORMATION IN THE CITY'S
DATABASE FOR THOSE SITES.
>> BUT THAT AGAIN WOULD BE SORT
OF NEW DATA THAT WASN'T PART OF
THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE AS
PART OF THE F EIS, CORRECT?
>> MORE OR LESS.
IT WAS DISCUSSED WITH TEXT AND
TABLES IN THE F EIS F,E.I.S.
BUT THIS MAKES IT MORE
GRANULAR FOR YOU.
WE THINK IT IS MORE IMPORTANT
TO LOOK AT THIS ADDITIONAL
ANALYSIS, AND THINK ABOUT WHAT
EXPANDED MITIGATION MEASURES
COULD BE RESPONSIVE.
THESE THINGS WERE INCLUDED IN
THE F.E.I.S., BUT WE WANT TO
UNDERSCORE SEVERAL OF THEM THAT
MAY BE IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER
WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
THINGS DECISION-MAKERS COULD DO
TO LESSEN IMPACTS THAT ARE
PRESENT.
ONE OF THOSE WOULD BE TO REDUCE
THE URBAN VILLAGE BOUNDARY
EXPANSIONS INTO THE NEW
NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC
DISTRICTS.
THE NEW ONES BEING RIVANNA
CALLAN, AND MOUNT BAKER PARK
ADDICTION EDITION.
THAT COULD BE SOMETHING TO
CONSIDER.
THE SECOND BULLET PART WOULD BE
MHA LEGISLATION BUT WOULD BE
VERY VALUABLE FOR INCREASED
FUNDING FOR COMPREHENSIVE AND
SYSTEMATIC SURVEY OF HISTORIC
RESOURCES, FOLLOWED BY A
PROACTIVE CITY NOMINATION FOR
LANDMARK KING.
GIVEN THAT LANDMARK KING IS OUR
STRONGEST PROTECTION CURRENTLY
IN PLACE FOR RESOURCES, GETTING
AS MANY OF THE VALUABLE
RESOURCES DESIGNATED LANDMARKS
AS POSSIBLE COULD BE EFFECTIVE
MITIGATION.
THE THIRD BULLET TOUCHES ON
MODIFYING SEPA EXEMPTION
THRESHOLDS, SO IF THERE IS A
CONCERN ABOUT GAPS IN PROJECT
LEVEL PROTECTION TO HISTORIC
RESOURCES, WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF
CEPADA, THE DECISION-MAKERS
COULD CONSIDER MODIFYING THOSE
EXEMPTION THRESHOLDS.
THE LAST BULLET HAS TO DO WITH
SETTINGS OF LANDMARKS.
IF THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT
INCREMENTALLY LARGER SCALED
BUILDINGS NEAR LANDMARKS, YOU
COULD LOOK AT THE ALTERNATIVES
THAT PROPOSED LESS M1 OR AN TO
M2 TEARS.
THE PROPOSAL DOES THAT TO A
CERTAIN EXTENT ALREADY, BUT YOU
WILL HAVE THE MAPS TO CONSIDER
IF THERE ARE OTHER PLACES YOU
WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT.
JUST ONE MORE POINT THAT IS NOT
ON THIS LIST, WHICH I WANT TO
MENTION, IS THE FIRST HILL,
CAPITOL HILL NEIGHBORHOOD, AS
YOU WILL SEE IS VERY RICH IN
HISTORIC RESOURCES, AND
SOMETHING WE HAVE DISCUSSED
PREVIOUSLY IS THE OPTION OF
RETAINING TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR HISTORIC
PRESERVATION IN THE LEGISLATION
IN THE FIRST HILL NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'VE TALKED WITH COUNSEL ABOUT
THAT PREVIOUSLY.
COUNSEL WOULD UNDERSCORE THAT
AS AN EFFECTIVE MITIGATION
EFFORT.
>> I WANT TO PAUSE AGAIN AND
SAY I THINK THIS IS REALLY
IMPORTANT, THE FOUR OPTIONS
BEFORE US AND THE FIFTH YOU'VE
JUST TALKED ABOUT.
A REMINDER TO MY COLLEAGUES,
FOR THESE ISSUES THAT REQUIRE
SEPARATE ACTION, REMEMBER, WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT COMPANION
RESOLUTION ALONGSIDE THE
PROPOSED MHA LEGISLATION.
THESE ARE EXACTLY THE KIND OF
SEPARATE ACTIONS WE WOULD WANT
TO INCLUDE IN POTENTIAL
COMPANION RESOLUTIONS TO HAVE A
COMMITMENT TO HAVE THE COUNSEL
AND THE CITY WITH LARGE SET A
TIMELINE FOR THESE KINDS OF
ANALYSES AND THIS KIND OF WORK.
THESE ARE IMPORTANT THINGS FOR
US TO DIFFERENTIATE BECAUSE
THERE IS SOME THINGS WE CAN DO
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE LAND
USE CODE, AND THERE IS SOME
THINGS WE CANNOT.
THESE TWO THINGS ARE GREAT
THINGS FOR US TO COMPLICATE
CONTEMPLATE BUT ARE NOT
NECESSARILY THINGS WE CAN DO
THROUGH THE EXISTING MHA BILL.
JUST WANTED TO FLAG THAT FOR
FOLKS.
THERE WILL BE CONTINUED
DISCUSSIONS I THINK ABOUT OTHER
REALLY GOOD IDEAS THAT WILL
COME UP DURING OUR MHA
DISCUSSIONS THAT MAY NOT BE
INCLUDED IN THE BILL.
THE RESOLUTION IS A REALLY
GREAT PLACE FOR US TO HIGHLIGH
THOSE THINGS.
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE OVERVIEW,
AND IN PARTICULAR I JUST HAVE A
FEW QUESTIONS, JUST FOR THE
VIEWING AUDIENCE AND SOME
PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR
WITH THE TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, WHICH IS
SOMETHING THAT CAME INTO BEING
ABOUT 20 OR 30 YEARS AGO, WHICH
WE NEVER USED TO HAVE IN THE
PROPERTY FIELD RIGHTS OF LAW.
CAN YOU GIVE A BRIEF
EXPLANATION OF WHAT THAT MEANS
FOR THE VIEWING AUDIENCE AND
SOME PEOPLE THAT AREN'T
FAMILIAR, AND THEN MAYBE
EXPLAIN HOW YOUR DEPARTMENT OR
YOU WOULD ENVISION SUCH A
SCENARIO, WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE
THAT TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS, AND WHAT THAT WOULD
MEAN FOR THE CAPITOL HILL
COMMUNITY.
>> GREAT, SORRY FOR THE WONKY
LANGUAGE ON TDR.
>> I AM THE ONLY WONK APPEAR.
>> [ LAUGHTER ]
>> NO, I AM NOT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S ON THE
SLIDE.
>> IT'S NOT ON THE SLIDE.
UNDER THE EXISTING INCENTIVE
ZONING PROGRAM IN FIRST HILL,
THERE IS AN OPTION FOR
TRANSFERRING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
IF YOU ARE SAVING A HISTORIC
RESOURCE IN A DEVELOPMENT YOU
COULD ESSENTIALLY SELL THE
RIGHTS TO ALLOW FOR A BONUS ON
OTHER PORTIONS OF THE SITE, OR
ANOTHER OFF-SITE SITE.
THAT'S UNDER INCENTIVE ZONING.
IN THE INITIAL PROPOSAL THAT
WAS SENT TO YOU, BECAUSE A NEW,
MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS PROPOSED.
TDR OPTION WAS NOT CARRIED
FORWARD BECAUSE WE ARE ADDING A
NEW REQUIREMENT FOR HOUSING,
AND IT WASN'T CLEAR HOW THAT
WOULD DOVETAILWITH RETAINING
THE INCENTIVE ZONING FOR TDR.
WE RECEIVED FEEDBACK FROM FIRST
HILL COMMUNITY, AND OTHERS,
THAT WE SHOULD FIND A WAY TO DO
BOTH, AND AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN
PREPARED FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
HOW THOSE BOTH CAN FIT TOGETHER
AND CARRY FORWARD THE INCENTIVE
TO PRESERVE AND ADD THE MHA
REQUIREMENT.
>> THIS IS A TOPIC I THINK WE
ARE GOING TO DISCUSS LATER
DURING ISSUE IDENTIFICATION, BUT
THIS OVERLAY BETWEEN
NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE FIRST HILL
CAPITOL HILL, WHERE WE HAVE
ZONING AND THEN AFTER THIS BILL
PASSES, WE WILL HAVE THE
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
PROGRAM ON TOP OF IT, CREATES
COMPLICATIONS.
WE HAVE HAD SIMILAR DISCUSSIONS
ABOUT THOSE COMPLICATIONS IN
SOUTH LAKE UNION.
IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME WE'VE
HAD IT BUT IT IS A POLICY
CHOICE IN FRONT OF COUNSEL ABOUT
HOW WE MARRY THOSE TWO
OBJECTIVES WITHIN TWO DIFFERENT
PROGRAMS.
>> I JUST WANT TO WRAP UP. THIS
IS THE LAST SLIDE AND NOTE THAT
TODAY, CONSULTANTS AND STAFF
HAVE NOT FOUND NEW, PROBABLE
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS, AS
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE MORE
GRANULAR INFORMATION, AND WE
EXPECT TO PUBLISH THE
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS BY THE END
OF JANUARY IN ORDER FOR YOU TO
BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD.
>> JEFF, WHEN YOU SAY PUBLISH
THE ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS, WHAT
DOES THAT LOOK LIKE?
WHAT FORM DOES THAT TAKE?
>> AT THIS POINT, WE ARE
EXPECTING IT TO BE CALLED AN
ADDENDUM TO THE F.E.I.S..
>> WHAT INCLUDE INDIVIDUAL
MAPS WITHIN THE PROPOSED URBAN
VILLAGES, AS YOU HIGHLIGHTED IN
THE EXAMPLE?
SO IT WOULD INCLUDE THOSE KIND
OF MAPS IN ALL THE URBAN
VILLAGES WHERE WE HAVE
CONTEMPLATED ZONING CHANGES?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> FURTHER QUESTIONS,
COLLEAGUES ABOUT THESE TOPICS?
OKAY, SEEING NONE, NO NEED FOR
YOU TO STICK AROUND.
LET'S MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 2.
NOAH, I WILL ASK YOU TO READ
THAT INTO RECORD.
>> AGENDA ITEM 2 ISSUE
IDENTIFICATION FOR CITYWIDE
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
MHA.
>> AS I MENTIONED AT THE TOP,
WE HAVE HAD ALMOST 3 YEARS,
MAYBE 3 1/2 YEARS WORTH OF
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MHA, SO THERE
ARE SEVERAL TOPICS THAT HAVE
COME TO LIGHT OVER THE LAST
SEVERAL YEARS.
WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL
FOR US TO TALK THROUGH THOSE,
AND I HAVE ASKED CENTRAL STAFF
TO GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF
THOSE.
WE ARE GOING TO FOCUS TODAY ON
ISSUES THAT KIND OF CROSS
JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES WITH
AN OBJECT OF FUTURE DISCUSSION
ABOUT TALKING ABOUT PROPOSED
CHANGES THAT ARE GEOGRAPHICALLY
FOCUSED, SO TODAY, WE'RE GOING
TO TRY TO TALK ABOUT
CROSSCUTTING ISSUES, AND AT THE
MEETINGS NEXT WEEK, WE WILL
TALK ABOUT DISTRICT SPECIFIC
AMENDMENTS THAT MIGHT RELATE TO
BOUNDARY EXPANSIONS, OR CHANGES
TO INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES, OR
OTHER TYPES OF ISSUES THAT ARE
MORE DISTRICT FOCUSED.
WITH THAT AS THE T OFF, I WILL
TURN IT TO CENTRAL STAFF AND ASK
YOU TO WALK US THROUGH ISSUE
I.D.
>> WE WILL BE WORKING FROM A
MEMO.
YOU CAN SEE A TABLE APPEAR ON
THE SCREEN.
THE MEMO IS DATED JANUARY 4,
2014.
THERE ARE TWO ATTACHMENTS TO
THE MEMO.
ONE IS THIS TABLE, WHICH IS A
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
IDENTIFICATION TABLE, AND THE
OTHER IS AN ATTACHMENT SHOWING
A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
LANGUAGE WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE
FOR AMENDING NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
GOALS AND POLICIES.
I WILL JUST MAYBE MAKE A
DISCLAIMER BEFORE WE DIVE INTO
THIS TABLE, WHICH IS THAT THIS
IS BY NO MEANS EXHAUSTIVE.
IT'S A PRELIMINARY ISSUE
IDENTIFICATION TABLE.
FOR THE COMMITTEE PROCESS
BETWEEN NOW AND FEBRUARY,
ADDITIONAL ISSUES WILL BE
IDENTIFIED BY YOU AND BY STAFF.
THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION.
AS YOU THINK ABOUT POTENTIAL
AMENDMENTS, I WILL JUST
REITERATE THERE IS ONE THING
THAT SHOULD BE TOP OF MIND FOR
YOU, WHICH IS LIMITATIONS AND
THE FINAL EIS AS IT IS ADDED TO
BY THE ADDITIONAL WORK BEING
DONE BY A PCD AND ANY
AMENDMENTS THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS
CONSIDER FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION
BILL HAVE TO BE WITHIN THE FOUR
CORNERS OF THE EIS.
FOR AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NOT
WITHIN THOSE FOUR CORNERS,
THERE IS OF COURSE THE
COMPETING RESOLUTION, WHICH WE
WILL BE DEVELOPING AND SET OUT
AN AWARD PROGRAM TO FURTHER
IMPLEMENT MHA.
>> AND ALLOW ME TO SORT OF
VOLUNTEER FOR INSTANCE,
COLLEAGUES.
I AM PLANNING TO ATTEND THE
ROOSEVELT NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION MEETING NEXT
TUESDAY, WHERE I ANTICIPATE
SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS WILL ASK
FOR US TO CONSIDER
CONTEMPLATING TALLER THAN 85
FEET AROUND THAT POTENTIA
FUTURE LIGHT-RAIL STATION.
OUR EIS ONLY STUDIED 85 FEET IN
THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, SO IT AN
EDITION OF STORIES ABOVE 85
FEET IN PROXIMITY TO THE LIGHT
RAIL STATION WOULD NOT BE
WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE
EIS AND SO IS THEREFORE NOT AN
AMENDMENT I WOULD BE BRINGING
FORWARD.
THOSE KINDS OF SCREENS I THINK
ARE GOING TO BE REALLY
IMPORTANT FOR US, AND IT'S PART
OF THE REASON WE HAVE BEEN
ASKING YOUR OFFICES TO ENGAGE
EARLY ON SO WE CAN HAVE THE
TIME TO DO THAT ANALYSIS BEFORE
MINUTES ARE DRAFTED AND BROUGHT
FORWARD.
CONTINUE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WE ARE GOING TO START WITH A
DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL AREAS
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY WANT TO
CONSIDER AMENDING.
AS YOU MAY RECALL, TO IMPLEMENT
MHA, THE EXECUTIVE HAS PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY INCREASES
IN TWO WAYS.
ONE IS FOR CHANGES TO THE LAND
USE MAP, THE OFFICIAL LAND-USE
MAP WHICH WOULD BE REZONING THE
PROPERTY, AND ALONG WITH THAT
ADDING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
CAPACITY.
IN ADDITION, THERE ARE CHANGES
TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR ZONES THAT INCREASES ITS
CAPACITY.
FOR EXAMPLE, A PROPERTY ZONE LR
2 TODAY MAY REMAIN LR 2. IT WILL
HAVE A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE
CAPACITY BY INCREASING THE
AMOUNT OF FLOOR AREA THAT CAN
BE BUILT ON THE SITE, THE
HEIGHT, THAT TYPE OF THING.
WHAT WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT
IS THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
THAT VARY BY ZONE, AND SO WE
WILL WALK THROUGH THAT TODAY,
GENERALLY BY ZONE CATEGORY, AND
THEN HAVE A SECTION THAT TALKS
ABOUT SORT OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS THAT APPLY ACROSS
ZONES, SO WE WILL START WITH
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE
NEW PROPOSED RSL ZONE, AND I AM
ON PAGE 3 OF THE MEMO, STARTING
WITH THE POTENTIAL AREA FOR
CHANGE UNDER A ONE.
I WILL NOTE HERE, WE HAVE JUST
HIGHLIGHTED DESCRIBED VOTES IN
THE EXECUTIVE PROPOSAL AND
BRIEFLY DESCRIBE HOW OR WHY
COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY WANT TO
CONSIDER CHANGES, BUT HAVE NOT
IN GENERAL INCLUDED A SPECIFIC
AMENDMENT THAT WE WILL BE
WORKING WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS TO
DEVELOP FURTHER INTO FEBRUARY.
THE FIRST ONE IS DISCUSSING THE
MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE FOR EXISTING
DWELLING UNITS.
THE EXECUTIVE'S PROPOSAL WOULD
APPLY A MAXIMUM SIZE OF 2200
SQUARE FEET FOR A PRINCIPAL
DWELLING UNIT IN THIS ZONE.
THIS IS MEANT TO PROHIBIT
CONSTRUCTION OF VERY LARGE,
HIGH-COST, SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES,
AND ENCOURAGE A MIX OF
MODERATELY SIZED HOMES IN THIS
DISTRICT.
APPLYING THIS STANDARD TO
EXISTING STRUCTURES MAY MAKE IT
DIFFICULT FOR EXISTING SINGLE-
FAMILY HOMEOWNERS TO DO
ADDITIONS.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE A 1300
SQUARE FOOT, ONE-STORY HOME, IF
YOU WANTED TO DO A SECOND STORY
ADDITION AND JUST GO STRAIGHT
UP, YOU WOULD BE ABOVE THAT
MAXIMUM.
DOING THAT TYPE OF ADDITION CAN
MAKE IT A LITTLE
úARCHITECTURALLY AND ENGINEERIN
WISE DIFFICULT TO DO.
OR SOMEONE MAY HAVE A HOME THAT
IS LIKE 2100 SQUARE FEET, AND
THEY WANT TO DO A SMALL BUMP
OUT ON THEIR KITCHEN.
THIS MAXIMUM SIZE LIMIT MAY
PROHIBIT THEM FROM MAKING THOSE
SMALL ADDITIONS.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW
MODEST ADDITIONS TO EXISTING
HOMES THAT MAY BUMP UP AGAINST
THAT LIMIT.
SO EITHER GOING STRAIGHT UP
WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OR DOING A
SMALL ADDITION, BUT CONTINUE TO
APPLY IT TO NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THE NEXT AMENDMENT, APARTMENTS
IN RSL ZONES.
THERE ARE DENSITY LIMITS
PROPOSED IN THE RSL ZONE, AS
WELL AS A LIMIT FOR SMALL
APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
THAT'S A NEW DEVELOPMENTS TYPE
THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THIS
ZONE THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW MORE
THAN THREE DWELLING UNITS IN
ACE MORROW APARTMENT BUILDING,
AS WELL AS NOT ALLOWING MORE
THAN ONE UNIT PER 2200 SQUARE
FEET OF LOT AREA.
THE COMBINATION OF THE ABSOLUTE
LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS
AND DENSITY LIMIT MAY PROHIBIT
FOR EXAMPLE A FOUR UNIT, SMALL
APARTMENT BUILDING THAT MIGHT
BE APPROPRIATE ON A LARGER LOT,
SO THIS AREA IS JUST SUGGESTING
THAT YOU MAY NOT NEED BOTH OF
THOSE RESTRICTIONS, BECAUSE
THERE IS OTHER IF THEY ARE,
HEIGHT LIMITS THAT WOULD CONTROL
THE SIZE OF THAT BUILDING.
SECTION A THREE IN THE RSL
ZONES, THE PROPOSAL WOULD APPLY
TO EXISTING MULTI FAMILY ZONES
TO RSL ZONES.
THIS INCLUDES REQUIRING A
DETACHED RDU MUST BE LOCATED
BEHIND THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
LIMITS ON HEIGHTS, EXTERIOR
STAIRS AND OTHERS.
THERE MAY BE AN AREA TO CONSIDER
WHETHER THESE ADDITIONAL LIMITS
ARE NECESSARY, PARTICULARLY
AROUND REQUIRING THAT THE
DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT IS LOCATED DIRECTLY BEHIND
THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
IT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE
LOGISTICALLY ON A LOT TO HAVE
IT BUMPED BEHIND, NOT DIRECTLY
BEHIND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
IN ADDITION, I THINK THERE HAVE
BEEN SOME COMMENTS TO CONSIDER
GOING FURTHER TO PUSH THE
ACCESSORY DRILLING UNIT
STANDARD SIMILAR TO WHAT HAS
BEEN STUDIED IN A SEPARATE BODY
OF WORK FOR CHANGES AND SINGLE
FAMILY ZONES.
ONE THING COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY
WANT TO CONSIDER IS WHETHER
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN THE
NEW RSL ZONE, IF YOU WANT TO
INCENTIVIZE OR PRIORITIZE THOSE
IN THE SAME WAY BECAUSE RSL
ZONES ALLOW MULTIPLE PRINCIPL
STRUCTURES ON A LOT, OR A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE WHERE YOU
CAN HAVE A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE
PLUS AN ACCESSORY UNIT, SO
THERE MAY BE REASONS WHY YOU
WANT TO NOT PUT AS MUCH
PRIORITY ON PROMOTING RDU'S IN
ASL ZONES.
BUT FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE
CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU, ALY
MAYBE NOT RIGHT NOW, BUT I AM
AS YOU WELL KNOW FOR YEARS,
HAVE BEEN REALLY ADVOCATING FOR
ADU'S.
I WANT TO KEEP THEM LOW ON THE
PROPERTY BUT ALSO PROVIDE
FLEXIBILITY FOR AN OWNER TO
DETERMINE WHERE ON THE SITE IT
COULD BEST BE LOCATED.
MAY BE AFTER THE MEETING WE
COULD TALK ABOUT WHERE THIS IS
GOING AND WHAT WE CAN DO BASED
ON THE ONGOING LAWSUITS, AND
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S ABOUT
MAKING SURE IN 2019, WE
ACTUALLY HAVE MOVEMENT ON THAT.
>> GREAT.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP
WITH YOU.
>> TO REITERATE, THERE IS A
DIFFERENCE TO COUNCILMEMBER
BAGSHAW, TO WHAT WE MAY ALLOW
IN A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME VERSUS
A RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT ZONE.
WHILE WE ALL AWAIT THE EXAMINER
RESULTS ON A DU THIS MAY BE A
TIME TO CONTEMPLATE WHAT THAT
LOOKS LIKE.
>> MORE TO COME.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MOVING ON.
THIS RELATES TO THE GARAGE TO
SIGN STANDARDS.
THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR GARAGES
IN MULTI FAMILY ZONES WOULD BE
CARRIED FORWARD IN THE RSL
ZONE.
THIS ALLOWS GARAGES FACING THE
STREET.
THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS ABOUT
PRIORITIZING ACCESS FROM THE
ALLEY, AND THOSE SORTS OF
THINGS.
OF ITS FACING THE STREET,
SETBACKS, AND WITH REQUIREMENTS
BUT IF YOU HAD A ROW OF
TOWNHOMES, AND ROW HOUSES, IT
COULD RESULT IN A SORT OF LINE
OF GARAGE DOORS FACING THE
STREET SO YOU MAY WANT TO
CONSIDER MAKING CHANGES TO
DEVELOP AND STANDARDS THAT
WOULD MAKE IT SO WHERE YOU ARE
WALKING ALONG THE SIDEWALK,
YOU'RE NOT JUST WALKING ALONG A
BLANK WALL OF GARAGE DOORS
VERSUS THE WINDOWS INTO THE
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO DEVELOP
AND STANDARDS AND THE MULTI
FAMILY ZONES.
I AM GOING TO PAGE 5 OF THE
MEMO, AND NUMBER A FIVE.
A5 AND A6 ARE RELATED TO
DENSITY UNITS AND FLOOR RATIO
UNITS IN LOW RISE ZONES.
THESE STANDARDS REGULATE THE
BULK OF BUILDINGS IN THIS ZONE.
AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF UNITS
THAT CAN BE ON A LOT.
ARE THE WAY THEY ARE PROPOSED,
IT MIGHT INCENTIVIZE CERTAIN
DEVELOP MINT TYPES.
THE QUESTION FOR COUNCIL
MEMBERS IS CONSIDERING WHETHER
OR NOT YOU WANT TO INCENTIVIZE
CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT TYPES OVER
OTHERS.
FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE DENSITY
EMITS, THE PROPOSAL IS TO
REMOVE DENSITY FOR HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS AND REDUCE
EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS FOR
ROWHOUSES AND TOWNHOUSES ON
LOTS LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE
FEET.
THIS MAY LESSEN DEVELOPMENTS OF
COTTAGE HOUSING AND APARTMENTS
OVER LOTS WITH MORE THAN 3000
SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA.
THAT MAY BE THE POLICY
PREFERENCE.
BUT IT WOULD INCENTIVIZE THAT
VELTMAN TYPE OVER TOWNHOMES, SO
YOU COULD CONSIDER MAKING THOSE
DENSITY LIMITS UNIFORM ACROSS
THE DEVELOPMENT.
SIMILARLY, THE FA ARE F.A.R.
ZONES ARE PROPOSED FOR ALL
DEVELOPMENT TYPES, AND THE CODE
CURRENTLY USES DIFFERENT
F.A.R.
LIMITS.
SO HERE, YOU CAN CONSIDER
BURYING THEM MORE IF YOU WANT
TO INCENTIVIZE OR YOU HAVE A
PREFERENCE FOR A CERTAIN STYLE
OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
NEXT, HOW HEIGHT IS MEASURED.
AND TYPICALLY, THERE IS A TOTAL
HEIGHT LIMIT FOR A ZONE THAT IF
IT'S A FLAT ROOF, IT'S MEASURED
TO THE TOP OF THE ROOF.
OF ITS PITCHED, YOU TYPICALLY
MEASURE TO THE MIDPOINT OF THE
ROOF.
THERE ARE OTHER WONKY DETAILS
ON HOW HEIGHT IS MEASURED.
THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE
HEIGHT LIMIT FOR CERTAIN TYPES
OF ROOFS AND SPECIFICALLY
PITCHED ROOFS.
IT MAY EXTEND UP TO FIVE FEET
ABOVE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT
IF IT DOESN'T EXCEED 612.
THAT'S JUST HOW STEEP THE ROOF
IS.
AND THEN HOW THE WIDTH OF THE
LOT AND THE WIDTH OF TOWN
HOUSES TYPICALLY ARE OTHER
DEVELOPMENT TYPES.
SOMETIMES,, THAT DOESN'T
PRACTICALLY MAKE SENSE, SO IN
ORDER FOR SOMEONE TO BUILD A
HOUSE WITH A 312 PITCH, THEY
MAY NEED THAT HEIGHT LIMIT
EXCEPTION CONSISTENT WITH OTHER
FORMS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO
YOU MAY CONSIDER THAT EXCEPTION
FOR OTHER ROOF PITCHES.
STRADDLING PAGE 5 AND SIX, THIS
RELATES TO HIGH-RISE ZONES.
THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT WAS
DISCUSSED IN THE LAST ITEM ON
THE AGENDA WERE UNDER THE
EXISTING INCENTIVE ZONING
PROGRAM, DEVELOPERS IN THE HIGH-
RISE ZONE IN THE FIRST TO KNOW,
CAPITOL HILL VILLAGE CAN
ACHIEVE THE EXTRA FLOOR AREA BY
EITHER CONTRIBUTING TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, OR THEY
CANNOT ACHIEVE UP TO 40% BY
PROVIDING A COMBINATION OF
PUBLIC SPACE, IMPLEMENT AND
GREENSTREET IMPROVEMENTS ARE
PURCHASING DEVELOP MINT
POTENTIAL FROM HISTORIC
LANDMARK SITES.
AS WAS DISCUSSED IN THE
PROPOSAL, THE PROPONENT THE
PROJECT WOULD FULFILL
REQUIREMENTS TO ACHIEVE THE
ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA.
SO IT TAKES AWAY THE TDP, THE
TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL AS WELL AS LANDMARK
BUILDINGS.
COUNCIL MEMBERS COULD CONSIDER
MODIFYING THE PROPOSAL IN WAYS
LAID OUT PROPOSED EARLIER WHERE
YOU ARE EITHER MAINTAINING
VOLUNTARY OPTIONS UP TO 40% OF
THE FLOOR AREA.
THAT COULD BE GAINED THROUGH
GREENSTREET OR OPEN-SPACE
IMPROVEMENTS.
THAT SPACE WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM
MHA PAYMENTS, WHICH IS KIND OF
WHAT THE ISSUE YOU WERE TALKING
ABOUT OR REFERRING TO
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON ABOUT THE
DOUBLE APPLICATION.
ALTERNATIVE YOU COULD APPLY MHA
TO THE WHOLE BUILDING BUT STILL
HAVE THE OPTIONAL 40% AS A
VOLUNTARY CHOICE.
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK.
MY MEMORY FAILS ME ON THE
APPROACH WE TOOK TO THE
CONFLICT, WHICH IS TOO STRONG
OF A WORD, BUT IN THE SOUTH
LAKE UNION NEIGHBORHOOD, WHERE
WE ALSO CURRENTLY HAVE BOTH
INCENTIVE ZONING AND MANDATORY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS IN
PLACE.
>> THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF HOW THE
MHA PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE
AMOUNTS WERE SET, AND IT WAS
SPECIFIC BY ZONE.
THE FHA PAYMENTS ARE APPLIED TO
THE ENTIRE BUILDING BUT THE
INITIAL AMOUNTS WERE SET TO
MAKE IT SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY
WOULD PAY NOW IF PAYING THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON JUST A
PORTION OF THE BUILDING.
>> TO YOUR QUESTION
COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW ABOUT
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS I THINK
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS
WHERE WAITING FOR THE FINAL
ANALYSIS FROM THE OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT WILL HELP US BE
INFORMED ABOUT THE PATHWAY
FORWARD.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE HOW
EXPANSIVE THE NEW ANALYSIS IS
AND HOW THE MORE EXPENSIVE
ANALYSIS RELATES TO HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN FIRST HILL,
CAPITOL HILL NEIGHBORHOOD, AND
USE THAT TO INFORM POLICY
POSITIONS WE MIGHT WANT TO MAKE
ABOUT THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT
AGAIN.
I KEEP USING THAT WORD.
I THINK CONFLICT IS TOO STRONG
BUT THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION
BETWEEN POLICY OBJECTIVES HERE
IN THE FIRST HILL CAPITOL HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WOULD PREFER TO WAIT FOR
ANALYSIS BEFORE COMING DOWN ON
ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER.
I BELIEVE THAT IS THE END OF
A8.
SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO COMMERCIAL
AND MIXED ZONES.
>> I WILL TURN IT OVER TO LISH.
>> THE NEXT ISSUE IS AN ISSUE
THAT HAS BEEN RAISED IN A
NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOODS,
PARTICULARLY AS DISCUSSION OF
MHA, AS IT IS APPLIED IN THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT.
SMALL BUSINESS DISTRICTS OR
BUSINESS DISTRICTS IN THE CITY
HAVE SOUGHT TOOLS TO ENCOURAGE
THE CREATION OF SMALL BUSINESS
SPACE, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS PART
OF NEW CONSTRUCTION SO COUNCIL
MEMBERS COULD CONSIDER AMENDING
THE BILL TO SUPPORT THE
CREATION OF SPACES FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES.
FOR EXAMPLE, LIMITING THE
MAXIMUM FACDE WITH OF GROUND
FOR COMMERCIAL SPACES OR
REQUIRING THAT BUILDINGS
REQUIRE SPACE FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES IF THEY PROVIDE
SPACES FOR LARGE BUSINESSES.
IF YOU DO WANT TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH THIS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER
WHERE THOSE REQUIREMENTS WOULD
APPLY, EITHER IN PARTICULAR
NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE ALONG THE
AVENUE IN THE U-DISTRICT, OR IN
ALL PEDESTRIAN DISTRICTS OR ALL
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONES.
THE LEGISLATION INCLUDES A NEW
SEATTLE MIXED ZONE FOR THE
RAINIER BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS CAME OUT OF WORK THAT WAS
DONE WITH RAINIER BEACH AND
PARTICULARLY THE RAINIER BEACH
ACTION COALITION TO SUPPORT A
FOOD INNOVATION DISTRICT IN
THAT COMMUNITY.
THE LEGISLATION INCLUDES
INCENTIVES FOR FOOD AND
MANUFACTURING SPACE WISH WITHIN
THE SPACE AROUND THE RAINIER
BEACH LIGHT RAIL STATION.
IT ALSO INCLUDES STANDARDS WE
DON'T NORMALLY SEE IN LIGHT
RAIL STATION AROUND LIGHT RAIL
STATIONS PARTICULARLY FOR
PARKING BETWEEN BUILDINGS ON
THE STREET, AND AN ALLOWANCE
THAT WOULD ALLOW SURFACE
PARKING AREA TO COVER HALF OF
THE SITE IN THE SEATTLE MIXED
RAINIER BEACH DISTRICT.
COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT TO
CONSIDER THE TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN
COMMUNITIES GOALS FOR
SUPPORTING EXISTING BUSINESSES
IN THE AREA WITH THE IMPACT OF
NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE
STANDARDS NEXT TO A LIGHT RAIL
STATION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON, I AM
WELL AWARE OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS
WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING
DILIGENTLY FOR A NUMBER OF
YEARS TO TRY TO CREATE THIS
VISION FOR THEIR COMMUNITY.
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE HAS BEEN
AN ONGOING SERIES OF ROADBLOCKS
THAT HAVE MADE THIS A REALLY
LONG PROCESS.
I AM REALLY SENSITIVE TO
ALLOWING? ABILITY FOR THEM TO
GO FORWARD.
I DO THINK AS WE MOVE FORWARD
IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE
CONVERSATION WITH SOME
COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE.
THERE IS INTENTION HERE BETWEEN
THE DESIRE TO HAVE THE RIGHT
PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT AND A
COMMUNITY VISION.
I IMAGINE THERE IS A WAY TO
NAVIGATE THAT.
MAYBE, THE PROPOSAL DESCRIBED
HERE IS THAT WAY, OR MAYBE
THERE IS SOME OTHER TWEAKS WE
NEED TO DO TO IT.
>> THE PROPOSAL RE-ZONES LARGE
SECTIONS OF THE CITY SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONED AREAS,
APPROXIMATELY 6% OF THE CITY.
AND THOSE THREE ZONES ARE TO
HIGHER DENSITY ZONES THAT
INCLUDE DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS.
RESULT FOR SOME PROPERTY OWNERS
MAY BE THAT THEIR EXISTING
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WOULD NO
LONGER BE CONFORMING TO THE
ZONING STANDARDS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE 2200 SQUARE
FOOT MAXIMUM SIZE LIMIT FOR THE
RSL ZONE, IF APPLIED TO A LARGE
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WOULD MEAN
THAT THAT HOME WOULD NO LONGER
CONFORM TO THE ZONING.
THE CODE DOES INCLUDE SOME
PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW FOR
EXISTING AND NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURES TO REMAIN AND BE
USED IN THE CASE OF A NATURAL
DISASTER OR FIRE, BE REBUILT,
AS THEY WERE, BUT COUNCIL
MEMBERS MAY WANT TO CONSIDER
WHETHER THOSE STANDARDS GO FAR
ENOUGH.
THE NEXT ISSUE IS PRESCHOOL
USES.
THE CODE DEFINES PRESCHOOLS AS
A SUBSET OF CHILDCARE
FACILITIES, AND THAT IS JUST IN
OUR DEFINITION OF WHAT A
CHILDCARE FACILITY IS.
AND INCLUDES PRESCHOOLS.
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
INCLUDES A NUMBER OF INSTANCES
WHERE PRESCHOOLS ARE GIVEN
SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS, SO IN ORDER
TO SUPPORT THE CREATION OF NEW
PRESCHOOL SPACE, COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAY WANT TO CONSIDER IF THEY
WANT TO EXPAND THAT TO ALL
CHILDCARE FACILITIES, NOT JUST
PRESCHOOL FACILITIES.
UNDER THE CURRENT LAND USE
CODE, THERE IS A PIKE PINE
OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT SUPPORTS
THE CONSERVATION OF EXISTING
BUILDINGS IN THE PIKE PINE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
ONE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
PIKE PINE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS
IT HAS AN ACCENTED INCENTIVE
FOR BUILDINGS THAT INCLUDE 50%
OF THEIR FLOOR AREA IN LOW
INCOME RESIDENTIAL USE.
THAT PROVISION IS PROPOSED TO
BE DELETED AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAY WANT TO CONSIDER RETAINING
THAT TO PROVIDE MORE SUPPORT
FOR BUILDINGS WITH A LARGE
PERCENTAGE OF LOW-INCOME
HOUSING IN THE PIKE PINE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
INCLUDES A NEW STANDARD FOR
SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING
ACCESS.
ON LOTS WHERE THERE ISN'T AN
ALLEY, THERE IS A NEW
REQUIREMENT WHERE ACCESS IS
FROM THE STREET FOR RECYCLING
AND GARBAGE PICKUP.
THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR A
NEW RAMP TO ACCESS THOSE SOLID
WASTE BINS.
COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY WANT TO
CONSIDER ADDING COMPOST TO THE
LIST OF BINS REQUIRED FOR THOSE
FACILITIES.
>> LISH, CAN YOU TALK MORE
ABOUT ACCESS TO THE GARBAGE
CANS AND THE BINS, PARTICULARLY
IN THE DOWNTOWN ALLEYS?
I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF
CONCERNS RAISED FROM PEOPLE WHO
LIVE IN THE TOWERS, WHEN THERE
ARE OTHER TOWERS THAT ARE GOING
TO BE BUILT IMMEDIATELY ACROSS
THE ALLEYS, THAT THERE IS NOT
ROOM RIGHT NOW FOR A TRUCK TO
MOVE THROUGH LET ALONE TWO
TRUCKS, AND LET ALONE TWO
TRUCKS, GARBAGE CANS AND ACCESS
TO THEM.
SO HOW ARE WE GOING TO BE
ADDRESSING THOSE ISSUES?
>> THE CODE DOESN'T OR THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION DOESN'T
ADDRESS THAT ISSUE IN GENERAL.
GENERALLY, ACCESS TO GARBAGE
AND RECYCLING IS FROM THE ALLEY
WHEN THERE IS ONE THAT EXISTS,
BUT OUR ALLEYS ARE NOT WIDE
ENOUGH IN DOWNTOWN TO ALLOW TWO
TRUCKS TO PASS EACH OTHER, AND
THIS LEGISLATION DOES NOT
CHANGE THAT.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE
COULD DO, ANYTHING WE SHOULD BE
DOING TO ACCOMPLISH THIS,
ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE NEW
CONSTRUCTION COMING IN?
I DON'T KNOW, ALY, IF THAT IS
SOMETHING YOU HAVE DONE SOME
WORK ON, BUT IT'S A REAL
PROBLEM AND AS WE ARE BECOMING
MORE AND MORE DENSE DOWNTOWN,
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THERE IS
ROOM AND SPACE FOR PEOPLE TO DO
THEIR DELIVERIES, FREIGHT, AND
THE PICKUP OF COMPOST AND
RECYCLING, AND GARBAGE.
>> WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT
AND GET BACK TO YOU WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT DISTRICT 7
SPECIFIC ISSUES NEXT WEEK.
>> VERY GOOD.
MAYBE WE CAN TALK OFF-LINE
ABOUT IT TO GET ME PREPARED AND
ALSO LET YOU KNOW THE QUESTIONS
I AM HEARING, PARTICULARLY
AROUND, AS WE ARE GETTING MORE
DENSE AND WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH
THE FREIGHT AND THE CONNECTIONS,
AND HOW WE ARE MAKING DECISIONS
ABOUT THIS.
LET'S MAKE SURE YOU AND I
CONNECT BEFORE NEXT WEEK.
>> GREAT.
>> SO A15 IS REGARDING DESIGN
REVIEW EXCEPTIONS.
THE DOCUMENT DOES NOT REGARD
CHANGES TO THE PROGRAM.
HOWEVER, DURING THE
DISCUSSIONS ON THE LAND-USE
OMNIBUS BILL WHICH MAKES
TECHNICAL AND CLARIFYING
CORRECTIONS TO THE LAND USE
CODE, THERE WAS A PROPOSAL TO
REINTRODUCE EXEMPTION FOR
ROWHOUSE DEVELOPMENT UNDER A
CERTAIN SIZE.
AS YOU MAY RECALL A FEW YEARS
AGO, THE COUNCIL CHANGED THE
DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM,
SPECIFICALLY AROUND THE
THRESHOLD, SIMPLIFIED THE
THRESHOLD SO THAT PROJECTS THAT
ARE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH
DESIGN REVIEW JUST BASED ON THE
SIZE AND TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
RATHER THAN HAVING DIFFERENT
THRESHOLD THAT VARY BY ZONE, BY
TYPE OF HOUSING, OR BUILDING
TYPE, AND ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER
FACTORS.
THE OMNIBUS BILL WAS FLAGGED AS
A POLICY CHOICE, RATHER THAN A
TECHNICAL CORRECTION AND THE
DECISION WAS DEFERRED.
ONE THING COUNCIL MEMBERS COULD
LOOK AT IS LOOKING AT THE NEW
DESIGN THRESHOLD, AND WHETHER
FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF
DEVELOPMENT, YOU EITHER WANT TO
USE AS AN INCENTIVE TO ACCEPT
CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT TYPES, OR
IN REVIEWING THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF
DEVELOPMENTS LIKE ROW HOUSES,
IF YOU FEEL THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS ARE PRESCRIPTIVE
ENOUGH THAT YOU WILL GET THE
URBAN DESIGN OUTCOME YOU COULD
CONSIDER REMOVING THOSE.
THIS IS JUST THAT OPTION.
>> THE NEXT CATEGORY OF ISSUES
HAVE TO DO WITH THE FRAMEWORK
FOR MANDATORY AFFORDABILITY,
WHICH MEANS THE PERFORMANCE
AMOUNT, THE PAYMENT AMOUNT, AND
THE PROCEDURES BY WHICH THE CITY
REQUIRES PAYMENT AND
PERFORMANCE.
AS COUNCIL MEMBERS NO,
LEGISLATION CURRENTLY IN FRONT
OF THE COUNCIL HAS PAYMENT AND
PERFORMANCE AMOUNTS THAT ARE
BASED ON MARKET DATA FROM 2016.
ONE THING THE COUNCIL SHOULD
CONSIDER IN A REVISED BILL IS
UPDATING PAYMENT AMOUNTS TO
REFLECT MORE CURRENT MARKET
DATA THAT COULD TAKE A COUPLE
OF DIMENSIONS.
IT COULD JUST MEAN CHANGING
THOSE AMOUNTS.
IT COULD ALSO MEAN CHANGING THE
BOUNDARIES FOR THE HIGH,
MEDIUM, AND LOW BOUNDARIES.
THERE IS THREE DIFFERENT
IMPLEMENTATION AREAS, OUTSIDE
OF DOWNTOWN BASED MORE OR LESS
ON RENTS.
THERE IS ANOTHER DIMENSION HERE
HAVING TO DO WITH CONSUMER
PRICE INDEX IN 2016 WHEN THE
COUNCIL ESTABLISHED THE MHA ARE
FRAMEWORK.
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING WAS
REQUESTED TO RECOMMEND
ALTERNATIVES TO THE CPI.
THEY ARE CURRENTLY UPDATED ON
THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX.
THE REQUEST INCLUDED A JULY 1,
2018 REPORTING DATE FROM THE
OFFICE OF HOUSING THAT HAS NOT
BEEN FORTHCOMING SO ONE THING
THE COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER IS
TAKING UP A DIFFERENT INDEX ON
ITS OWN.
>> ON THE HIGH, MEDIUM, AND LOW
ISSUE, I THINK THAT IS ONE THAT
WILL BE IMPORTANT FOR US TO
CONTINUE TO REVIEW.
I THINK MANY OF US PATENT HAVE
BEEN HEARING ABOUT THE INCREASE
IN RENT IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT
NEIGHBORHOODS, AND I THINK IT
WILL BE INTERESTING TO HAVE
MORE ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT THOSE ADDITIONAL
RENTS HAVE BEEN RENT INCREASES
ACROSS THE BOARD.
I.E., YES IT HAS GOTTEN MORE
EXPENSIVE TO LIVE IN THE CITY
BUT THE LOW AREAS ARE STILL LOW
EVEN THOUGH IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE
THAN IT USED TO BE, AND THE
HIGHS ARE STILL HIGH OR WHETHER
OR NOT WE HAVE SEEN A
SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH RENT
INCREASE IN SOME NEIGHBORHOODS
TO TRANSFORM THEM FROM MEDIUM
TO HIGH.
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AS PART OF
OUR CONSIDERATION WOULD BE
HELPFUL.
>> JUST SO YOU'RE ALL AWARE,
THIS MAY BE ONE OF THOSE ISSUES
THAT CAN'T BE COVERED IN THE
EIS.
THIS MAY BE A WORK ORDER ITEM
CAPTURED IN THE REVOLUTION
RESOLUTION FOR FUTURE
REFINEMENT.
THE NEXT ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH
OFF-SITE PERFORMANCE.
CURRENTLY, OFF-SITE PERFORMANCE
IS ONLY ALLOWED UNDER THE MHA
PROGRAM, NOT UNDER THE MHA ARE
PROGRAM.
THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER CAN
PERFORM OFF-SITE IF THEY
PERFORM WITH A LETTER OF CREDIT
OR SIMILAR SECURITY UNDER THE
MANDATORY HOUSING AND
AFFORDABILITY RESIDENTIAL
PROGRAM.
OFF-SITE PERFORMANCE IS NOT
ALLOWED.
SOME CONSTITUENTS HAVE BEEN IN
TOUCH ABOUT ALLOWING OFF-SITE
PERFORMANCE UNDER MHAR.
THERE HAS BEEN PROBLEMS WITH
OFF-SITE PERFORMANCE,
PARTICULARLY HAVING TO DO WITH
THE TIMING OF WHEN THOSE UNITS
COME ONLINE, AND ALSO THE UNIT
VALUE OF THE OFF-SITE
PERFORMANCE AS WELL AS PAYMENT.
THE COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER
ALLOWING OFF-SITE PERFORMANCE,
BUT PERHAPS MORE ALONG THE
LINES OF A LINE OF CREDIT
SECURING OFF-SITE PERFORMANCE
IF IT'S TO OCCUR.
THE NEXT ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH
THE TIMING OF MHA PAYMENTS.
CURRENTLY, MHA PAYMENTS ARE DUE
AT ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST
BUILDING PERMIT FOR A PROJECT.
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A MASTER
USE PERMIT. IF ONE IS
CONSIDERED THE MHA AMOUNT IS
LOCKED IN AT THAT TIME, IT'S A
BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. ONE
THING THE COUNCIL COULD
CONSIDER HIS AMORTIZING
PAVEMENTS OVER TIME ALLOWING
THE DEVELOPER TO PASS PAYMENTS
ONTO A POTENTIAL PURCHASER OF
PROPERTY.
FINALLY, ONE THING THE COUNCIL
MAY WANT TO CONSIDER IS
CLARIFYING MORE OF A PROCEDURAL
ISSUE, CLARIFYING HOW PROJECTS
CAN OPT INTO MHA IF THEY ARE
CURRENTLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT
PIPELINE.
AS THE COMMITTEE WILL RECALL,
THE COUNCIL ESTABLISHED
SPECIFIC OPT IN PERFORMANCE
REVISIONS FOR DOWNTOWN PROJECTS.
THE COUNCIL MAY WANT TO
CONSIDER SOMETHING SIMILAR FOR
PROJECTS OUTSIDE AND IN
DOWNTOWN SOUTH LAKE UNION
ALLOWING PROJECTS IN THE
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO OPT INTO
MHA. SOME OF IT COULD SIMPLY BE
DIRECTION TO SDCI TO FACILITATE
OPTING IN.
>> I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AS WE
CONTEMPLATE THIS BECAUSE
NEARING THE END OF THE
DEVELOPMENT CYCLE, THE MORE WE
CAN GET TO CAPTURE BOTH THE
ADDITIONAL MARKET-RATE UNITS
AND OF ADDITIONAL AFFORDABILITY
UNITS, I THINK THE BETTER.
>> MOVING ON TO SECTION C
RELATED TO REZONE CRITERIA.
THE CITY USES A SET OF CRITERIA
INCLUDED IN THE LAND-USE ZONE
TO DETERMINE WHERE APPROPRIATE,
AND GENERALLY THE MANDATORY
HOUSING AND AFFORDABILITY
RESOUNDS RELY ON THOSE EXISTING
CRITERIA.
MOST OF THOSE CRITERIA ARE NOT
PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED.
HOWEVER, THE RFL ZONE WHICH IS
GETTING REVAMPED UNDER THIS
PROPOSAL HAS CHANGES TO THE
REZONE CRITERIA.
ONE ISSUE THAT IS SORT OF LEFT
OUT WITH THOSE CRITERIA WAS THE
ISSUE OF ACCESS TO TRANSIT, AND
COUNSEL LAST YEAR SPENT A LOT
OF TIME DEFINING THE TERM
FREQUENT TRANSIT SERVICE.
NEITHER THE RSL REZONE
CRITERIA, OR THE MIDRISE
CRITERIA, WHICH BOTH FOCUSED ON
ACCESS TO TRANSIT AS ONE OF THE
ISSUES THAT DETERMINES WHETHER
OR NOT A ZONE IS APPROPRIATE IN
A PARTICULAR LOCATION USED
FREQUENT TRANSIT SERVICE. NOT
USING THAT TERM WILL PROVIDE
MORE FLEXIBILITY TO COUNCIL
MEMBERS AS THEY ARE ASSESSING
PARTICULAR REASONS, BUT COUNCIL
MEMBERS MAY WANT TO USE THE
DEFINED TERM AND PROVIDE MORE
CLARITY ABOUT WHERE THOSE
REASONS ARE APPROPRIATE.
>> MOVING ON TO SECTION D
REGARDING CHANGES TO ZONE
DESIGNATIONS ON THE OFFICIAL
LAND-USE MAP, AS PROVIDED
DESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY ONE OF THE
WAYS MHA WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IS
THROUGH CHANGES TO ZONE
DESIGNATIONS AND THE INCREASED
ZONING DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
THAT COMES ALONG WITH THAT OVER
THE LAST YEAR OR TWO.
COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE HAD
MULTIPLE REQUESTS FOR EITHER
PARCEL SPECIFIC OR AREAWIDE
CHANGES TO THE EXECUTIVE
PROPOSAL.
THOSE SPECIFIC REQUESTS WILL BE
PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED AT THE
NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING ON
JANUARY 14 AND 16.
WE JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT AT
A HIGH LEVEL WHAT THE SORT OF
PARAMETERS WILL BE FOR THOSE
DISCUSSIONS THROUGH THE MHA
FINAL VHS.
EXECUTIVE CONSIDERED SEVERAL
OPTIONS FOR ZONING CHANGES
THROUGHOUT THE STUDY AREA.
CHANGES THAT ARE REQUESTED TO
THE PROPOSAL THAT ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE OPTIONS
STUDIED IN THE FINAL EIS CAN BE
CONSIDERED AS AN AMENDMENT PART
OF THIS PROCESS.
ALSO JUST NOTE THAT AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL WORK, THERE MAY
BE ADDITIONAL CHANGES BEYOND
THE LIST PRESENTED NEXT WEEK.
CHANGES THAT ARE BEYOND THE
OPTION STUDIED IN THE FINAL EIS
COULD INCLUDE PARCELS THAT ARE
NOT WITHIN THE STUDY AREA, OR
COULD INCLUDE AS COUNCIL MEMBER
JOHNSON DESCRIBED, ASKING FOR
MORE HEIGHT OR DENSITY THAN
WHAT WAS CONTEMPLATED IN THE
FINAL EIS.
AREAS THAT CAN'T BE AMENDED
THROUGH THIS PROCESS, BUT CAN
BE FLAGGED FOR THE EXECUTIVE
WITH A REQUEST TO DO ADDITIONAL
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL WORK
TO DETERMINE IF THOSE CHANGES
ARE APPROPRIATE AND SEE IF IT
IS APPROPRIATE TO COME BACK FOR
THAT LEGISLATION.
>> AS FOR THE SCHEDULE NEXT
WEEK, COLLEAGUES.
I BELIEVE WE ARE STILL
FINALIZING THESE DETAILS, BUT I
THINK WE ARE PLANNING TO DO 4,
6, AND 7 ON MONDAY AND 1, 2, 3,
AND 5 ON WEDNESDAY.
I BELIEVE THAT IS THE SCHEDULE.
SUBJECT TO CHANGE BUT THAT IS
THE DRAFT WE HAVE GOING.
>> MOVING ON TO SECTION E,
WHICH IS RELATED TO THE
CONFERENCE OF PLAN.
THE PROPOSAL IS ACCOMPANIED BY
A BILL TO AMEND THE CONFERENCE
PLAN.
THAT BILL WILL INCLUDE TWO
DIFFERENT TYPES OF CHANGES.
AMENDMENTS AND MAPS IN THE PLAN
TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
PROPOSED REASONS, PARTICULRLY
IN AREAS WHERE URBAN VILLAGES
ARE PROPOSED TO BE EXPANDED,
AND AMENDMENTS TO NEIGHBORHOOD
PLAN POSSIBLE PLAN POLICIES TO
REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH CITYWIDE
POLICY RELATED TO THE MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM.
ATTACHMENT TO THE MEMO INCLUDES
AMENDMENTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
PLAN POLICIES.
WE WILL TALK ABOUT MOST OF
THOSE POLICY CHANGES AS WE TALK
ABOUT SPECIFIC AREAS NEXT WEEK,
BUT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT CHANGES
. THE FIRST IS IN FREMONT, THE
FREMONT PLAN HAS A PLAN THAT
DISCUSSES THE WALLINGFORD URBAN
VILLAGE BETWEEN STONE WAY AND
AURORA.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD
AMEND THAT POLICY TO REFOCUS ON
THE AREA WITHIN THE FREMONT
URBAN VILLAGE, RATHER THAN FOR
URBAN VILLAGE.
AS REWRITTEN, THE POLICY
DOESN'T REALLY CAPTURE THE
CHARACTER OF THE FREMONT URBAN
VILLAGE, AND DOESN'T CAPTURE
THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE
POLICY, WHICH WAS TO TALK ABOUT
AREAS WITHIN THE WALLINGFORD
URBAN VILLAGE.
YOU MAY WANT TO LOOK AT THIS
POLICY AND CONSIDER WHETHER IT
MAKES SENSE TO HAVE THE URBAN
VILLAGE PLAN TALKING ABOUT THE
WALLINGFORD URBAN VILLAGE, AND
IF SO WHAT THAT POLICY SHOULD
BE.
SECOND, THE MORGAN JUNCTION
POLICY, THIS IS THE ONLY TIME
YOU WILL SEE A NEW POLICY BEING
PROPOSED AS PART OF A SET OF
CONFERENCE PLAN AMENDMENTS,
THIS POLICY ENCOURAGES
COMMUNITY PLANNING AS A
RESPONSE TO GROWTH.
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
COMMUNITY HAVE ASKED FOR A MORE
DIRECTIVE POLICY.
>> LET'S PLAN TO MAKE SURE WE
HIGHLIGHT THOSE WHEN WE DO THE
GEOGRAPHIC SPECIFIC DAYS WITHIN
THOSE DISTRICTS.
AND RECOGNIZING THAT HE WON IS
SHARED BETWEEN E WON E1 IS
HIGHLIGHTED NEXT WEEK.
>> IN THE NEXT REGARDS
TECHNICAL CHANGES.
THE MHA LEGISLATION WAS
INTRODUCED ABOUT A YEAR AGO.
SINCE THAT TIME, THE COUNCIL
HAS MADE SEVERAL AMENDMENTS TO
THE LAND-USE CODE, AS WELL AS
STAFF IN OPCD, THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING, AND OTHERS, AS WELL AS
CENTRAL STAFF HAVE IDENTIFIED
THINGS IN THAT BILL THAT COULD
BENEFIT FROM TWEAKING OR
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS, OR
CLARIFYING LANGUAGE.
IN ORDER TO DO THAT IN THE MOST
EXPEDITIOUS WAY, THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION IS TO PROPOSE A NEW
BILL IN JANUARY, THAT
INCORPORATES ALL OF THOSE
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
WE WILL PRESENT A REDLINE
VERSION BETWEEN THE BILL THAT
WAS INTRODUCED A YEAR AGO AND
THE BILL PROPOSED FOR
INTRODUCTION LATER THIS MONTH
AT THE MEETINGS NEXT WEEK.
>> THAT IS THE OVERVIEW, FOLKS.
ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON
TO PUBLIC COMMENT?
I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO
CENTRAL STAFF.
I KNOW COMING THROUGH SEVERAL
EARS WORTH OF WORK TO COME UP
WITH A COMPREHENSIVE LIST, BUT
STILL A PRETTY SHORT LIST OF
THINGS TO DISCUSS TODAY WAS A
LOT OF WORK SO THANK YOU FOR
DOING ALL THAT WORK OVER THE
LAST SEVERAL WEEKS IN
PARTICULAR DURING THE BREAK.
WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, WE HAVE
ABOUT A HALF HOUR WITH A
MEETING SCHEDULED TO END AT
NOON.
WE HAVE ABOUT A HALF HOUR LEFT
AND 20 FOLKS SIGNED UP TO GIVE
COMMENT, SO I'M GOING TO ASK
FOLKS TO LIMIT THEIR COMMENT TO
A MINUTE AND A HALF SO WE CAN
MAKE SURE TO GET EVERYBODY.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON AND
NOAH, MAY I REQUEST THAT WE
TURN OFF THE SIDE MONITORS FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT?
>> WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, WOULD
YOU COME UP TO ONE OF THE TWO
MICROPHONES IN THE FRONT, AND
BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY WITH 1 1/2
MINUTES EACH.
WE WILL START WITH ALEX MAMMEN,
PATIENCE MALABA AND ROB
WARNING.
HORNAN.
MISTER ZIMMERMAN.
>> HAPPY NEW YEAR MY LOVELY
COUNSEL.
>> THAT WAS NICE.
OKAY.
>> ALL RIGHT.
HAPPY NEW YEAR.
GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.
MY NAME IS PATIENCE.
I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSING CONSORTIUM.
WE ARE A ASSOCIATION WORKING TO
ENSURE ALL PEOPLE LIVE WITH
DIGNITY IN SAFE HOUSING AND
AFFORDABLE HOMES.
I ALSO REPRESENT THE SALE FOR
EVERYONE COALITION, WHICH IS
UNITED TO PUTTING MHA AND TODAY
I AM HERE TO REMIND YOU THIS
HAS BEEN A JOURNEY OF MANY
YEARS, AND MONITOR INCLUSIONARY
PROGRAM HAS ELUDED THE CITY FOR
TWO DECADES, AND IT'S TIME.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR
EFFORT IN TAKING THE AIM CHASE
CITYWIDE AND GOING FORWARD TO
MAKE SURE WE GET INTO FULL ON
INCLUSION IN OUR CITY.
AS YOU LOOK AT POTENTIAL
TECHNICAL ISSUES AND
PREPARATIONS FOR THE
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT, WE URGE
YOU TO PRIORITIZE MAXIMUM
AFFORDABLE HOMES THIS PROGRAM
CAN PRODUCE.
600 AFFORDABLE HOMES THROUGHOUT
THE CITY IN OPPORTUNITY RICH
NEIGHBORHOODS IS SOMETHING OUR
CITY NEEDS TODAY AND WE BELIEVE
OUR CITY HAS SO MUCH TO OFFER
FOR ALL OF US.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
ENSURE WE ARE A CITY THAT IS
INCLUSIVE TO THE COUNTRY.
>> FOLLOWING RON CORNING WILL
BE CINDY AND DEB PARKER.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS
FOR THE RIGHT TO TALK TODAY.
I'M PROPOSING A HISTORIC
DISTRICT ALONG HIGHWAY 99.
YOU HAD A SLIGHT UP THERE WHERE
IT SHOWED TWO PROPERTIES ON THE
LIST.
THAT'S ALL THAT IS LEFT IN THE
GREEN MICROPHONE VILLAGE.
HIGHWAY 99 IS A HISTORIC AREA.
IS IN THE COMP PLAN AND DESIGN
GUIDELINES FOR THE CITY DESIGN
AND IT'S ALSO IN THE COMP PLAN
FOR THE GREEN LAKE DESIGN
PLANS.
THE ARCHITECTURE ALONG THERE
SHOULD BE SAVED.
AND PRESERVED.
I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT AS
A HISTORIC ADDED INTO THIS MHA
BECAUSE IT WILL BE REZONED
UNDER MHA IF IT IS NOT KEPT
HISTORIC.
>> THANK YOU.
IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE THOSE WITH
THE CLERK, WE ARE HAPPY TO PUT
THEM IN.
THE MORGAN COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION FOLKS HAVE SIGNED
UP AS A GROUP SO YOU WILL GET
FIVE MINUTES.
YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY LISA
KUHN AND ALGER ANGELA COMPTON.
HOLD ON FOR JUST ONE SECOND.
IT TAKES US A MINUTE TO RESET.
OKAY.
>> WE ARE GOING TO SPEAK TO
ITEMS E2 AND CLARIFY WHAT
COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON SAID AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
ON THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT
LANGUAGE, THERE HAS BEEN
EXACTLY 2 OUTREACH EFFORTS BY
THE CITY.
ONE WAS A MEETING THAT HAPPENED
IN WEST SEATTLE FOR THE TWO
VILLAGES AFFECTED BY THE COMP
PLAN AND THE OTHER WAS THE
CONSIDERATE SURVEYS.
DEB WILL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT.
WE SUBMITTED OUR VERSION OF
WHAT WE WANTED THE WORDING TO
SAY BACK TO OPCD IN 2017.
IT SAYS COMMUNITY PLANNING
ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE TRIGGERED
WHEN THE URBAN VILLAGE HAS BEEN
IDENTIFIED TO UNDERGO MAJOR
CHANGES.
THAT IS WHAT WE REALLY WANT.
WHAT THE WORDS YOU HAVE NOW
SAY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SEEN A
TREND THAT IT'S GOING TO GO BAD
ON YOU AND BY THEN IT'S TOO
LATE.
FOR EXAMPLE IF MORGAN IS
IDENTIFIED AS AN ST3 STATION,
THAT SHOULD TRIGGER
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING.
YOU SHOULDN'T WAIT UNTIL IT'S
BUILT AND THEN SEE THE EFFECTS.
ANOTHER EFFECT IS A VERY LARGE
PROPERTY IN THE GATEWOOD SCHOOL
THAT COULD BE SOLD FOR
REDEVELOPMENT.
THOSE ARE THE TRIGGERS WE
WANTED.
I HAVE A MEMO WE SENT THAT HAS
THAT WORDING.
FINALLY, YOU WILL SEE MORGAN
HAS PROVIDED WORDSMITHING.
IT HAS SAID MORGAN HAS
COMMENTED.
WE ARE STUCK IN A HARD PLACE.
WE HAVE WORDING THAT WE HAVE
SUBMITTED IN OPCD.
WE HAVE BEEN WAITING TO SEE
WHAT WAS GOING TO BE
TRANSMITTED TO COUNSEL.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT UNTIL TODAY.
SO, WE ARE KIND OF ALL THE WAY
BACK IN 2017 TO HAVE THIS
DISCUSSION WITH YOU.
>> OKAY, I AM SPEAKING OF
PRESIDENT OF THE MORGAN
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY SOMETHING
ABOUT THE FIRST ITEM ON THE
TABLE.
MO CHA SUBMITTED ITS CONFERENCE
A PLAN IN FEBRUARY 2018.
WE COULD HAVE DONE NICE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING IF WE HAD
BEEN ABLE TO GET GOING AT THAT
POINT.
WE STILL DO NOT HAVE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESSES
TO DEAL WITH CONFLICTS BETWEEN
PROPOSED MHA LANGUAGE AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LANGUAGE.
WE WANT TO HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD
PLANNING.
YOU WILL SEE THE DATA AS WE
LOOK AT IT, FROM THE OUTREACH
WHEN IT'S OVER KURT WHEN IT'S
OCCURRED REJECTS THE ONE-SIZE-
FITS-ALL LANGUAGE IN FAVOR OF
HAVING AN ACTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD
PLANNING PROCESS.
I AM GOING TO STOP ROLL QUICKLY
AND PUT ON MY LANDMARKS BOARD
VICE CHAIR HASSETT.
AND TAKE YOU BACK TO ITEM
NUMBER ONE, AND I AM GOING TO
URGE YOU TO SUPPORT ACTIONS
THAT INCREASE FUNDING FOR
HISTORIC RESOURCES, URBAN
VILLAGE.
IT DOES NOT HAVE HISTORIC
RESOURCES TO SURVEY, JUST FYI,
REDUCE THE URBAN VILLAGE
EXPANSIONS WHERE THERE ARE
HISTORIC DISTRICTS, MODIFY THE
SEPA THRESHOLDS, AND LASTLY
TAKE THOSE TDRS YOU WERE
TALKING ABOUT, AND EXPAND THOSE
TDRS CITYWIDE TO ALL URBAN
VILLAGES WITH HISTORIC
PROPERTIES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU BOTH.
MISS ANGELA COMPTON.
>> YOU HAVE TO RESET IT.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
GO AHEAD.
>> I AM LISA, I'M HERE TO TALK
ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD
NOTIFICATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE CITY
CITIZENS COULD HAVE ATTENDED
NUMEROUS MEETINGS IF THEY KNEW
TO LOOK AT THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
TWO, THEY HAD THE ABILITY TO
ACCESS THE CITY'S WEBSITE,
THREE, THEY KNEW SOMEONE WHO
KNEW SOMEONE THAT KNEW ABOUT
THE MEETINGS, FOUR, THEY KNEW
THIS WAS GOING TO BE DONE TO
THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS CITY
WHO WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE MHA
UP SOUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN
DIRECTLY CONTACTED BY THE CITY
THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE UPS
OWNED.
THE UNCLEAR DOOR HANGERS
NOTWITHSTANDING, THIS MAY BE
LEGAL BUT THE ETHICS STINK.
I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT
SEATTLE IS NOW BEING SEEN AS
THE CAUTIONAY TALE OF WHAT NOT
TO DO AS A CITY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MISS MISS COMPTON
AND STEVE ZEMKE.
>> GOOD MORNING, CITY COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS ANGELA COMPTON AND
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF FUTURE
WIVES FOR THE MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM.
THE MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM WILL
IMPROVE THE LIVABILITY OF
SEATTLE AND THE PUGET SOUND
REGION BY IMPLEMENTING MHA.
WE ARE IMPROVING THE HEALTH OF
OUR ENVIRONMENT.
CURRENTLY, SEATTLE'S
RESTRICTIVE ZONING LAWS FORCE
US TO CONTINUE TO SPRAWL EACH
TIME WE BUILD A NEW SPRAWLING
DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE REDUCING GREEN SPACE AND
FARMLAND OUR COMMUNITY HAS BUT
MHA REDUCES THE SPRAWL AND
ALLOWS OR MORE HOMES TO BE
BUILT IN CENTRAL, OPPORTUNITY
RICH NEIGHBORHOODS, PROVIDING
MORE LIVABLE, WALKABLE AND
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES.
BY IMPLEMENTING MHA, WE ARE
ALSO INCREASING SEATTLE'S
AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK.
CURRENTLY, WE HAVE A HUGE
DEFICIT OF AFFORDABLE HOMES.
THE IMPACTS OF THIS HOUSING
SHORTAGE CAN BE SEEN DIRECTLY
OVER 12,000 OF OUR NEIGHBORS
WERE FOUND WITHOUT A HOME LAST
YEAR.
OUR NEIGHBORS NEED HOMES THEY
CAN AFFORD, WITH RENTS
INCREASING ON AN AVERAGE OF 35%.
THE WAIT FOR MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY IN SEATTLE CANNOT
BE ANY LONGER.
BY IMPLEMENTING MHA, WE ARE
ENSURING THAT WE BUILD A MORE
LIVABLE AND EQUITABLE COMMUNITY
BY ALLOWING FOR MORE HOMES TO
BE BUILT IN OPPORTUNITY RICH
NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BY BEGINNING
TO UNDO THE RACIAL IMPLICATIONS
OF OUR RESTRICTIVE ZONING LAWS.
MHA BEGINS TO GIVE
NEIGHBORHOODS THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SUPPORT EQUITABLE
COMMUNITIES BY SAYING WE KNOW
THAT WE NEED MORE HOMES, AND WE
WANT TO WELCOME NEW NEIGHBORS,
AND BE PART OF THE NEW SOLUTION
TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CRISIS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MISS COMPTON.
MISTER ZEMKE, MEGAN CRUZ AND
JOHN LOCKS.
>> STEVE ZEMKE REPRESENTING THE
COALITION FOR STRONGER TREE
ORDINANCE.
WE WANT TO EXPRESS CONCERN OVER
THE UPDATE TO THE TREE
ORDINANCE.
OF THE EIS THAT YOU DID
BASICALLY SAID YOU ARE GOING TO
BE DOING LOTS OF THINGS WITHIN
THE CITY TO PROTECT TREES.
WHAT WE SEE IN TERMS OF THE
ORDINANCE YOU'VE PROPOSED SO
FAR IS MORE A TREE REPLACEMENT
RDINANCE THAN A TREE
PROTECTION ORDINANCE WITH ALL
THE REMOVAL FOR PROTECTION OF
EXCEPTIONAL TREES.
I WANT TO NOTE ALSO THAT WE
BELIEVE THE CITY IS NOT
COMPLYING WITH THE CURRENT TREE
ORDINANCE, WHICH IS VERY
SIGNIFICANT.
IF YOU RE 2511 909 IT SAYS EACH
EXCEPTIONAL TREE AND EVERY TREE
OVER TWO FEET IN DIAMETER THAT
IS REMOVED IN ASSOCIATION WITH
DEVELOPMENT IN ALL ZONES SHALL
BE REPLACED BY ONE OR MORE
TREES.
THE SIZE AND SPECIES WILL BE
DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR.
THE TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIRED
WILL BE DESIGNED TO RESULT UPON
MATURITY IN A CANOPY COVER THAT
IS AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE CANOPY
COVER PRIOR TO REMOVAL.
PREFERENCE WILL GIVE BE GIVEN
TO ON-SITE REPLACEMENT.
WHEN ON SITE FOR PLACEMENT
CANNOT BE ACHIEVED, OFF-SITE
REPLACEMENT ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.
SDCI HAS NOT BEEN KEEPING TRACK
OF TREES REMOVED AND TREES
REPLACED BY THE MAYOR'S
EXECUTIVE ORDER.
AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL, MOST OF
THESE TREES THAT ARE REMOVED
THAT ARE EXCEPTIONAL ARE OVER
24 INCHES, ARE NOT BEING
REMOVED.
WE URGE YOU TO TAKE ACTION TO
ENFORCE THE CURTAIN ORDINANCE
AS YOU SAID YOU WOULD DO IN DIS.
>> MISS CRUZ FOLLOWED BY MISTER
FOX.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU.
I AM MEGAN CRUZ OF THE FISHER
STUDIO BUILDING A 106-YEAR-OLD
LANDMARK IN DOWNTOWN SEATTLE,
PROTECTED BY THE PRESERVATION
LANDMARK BOARD.
WE ARE JOINED BY TWO OTHER
BUILDINGS ON THE BLOCK THAT ARE
ALSO LANDMARKED OR HISTORICALLY
PROTECTED, AND WITH MHA
UPZONING, WHICH WE DON'T
DISAGREE WITH, WE ARE FACED
WITH A VERY DIFFICULT PROGRAM.
A 50 STORY BUILDING IS SAILING
THROUGH DESIGN REVIEW LOCATED
16 FEET TO THE EAST OF US ALONG
THE ALLEY.
IT HAS NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IT HAS SEVERAL 400 FOOT STUDIO
APARTMENTS THAT WILL RETAIL FOR
$600,000 OR MORE, AND IT HAS A
NUMBER OF ISSUES WE WOULD LIKE
TO SEE MITIGATED BUT WE HAVE
GOTTEN NO TRACTION DESPITE
ASKING FOR THE HELP OF CURRENT
LAWS ON THE BOOKS, DESIGN
GUIDELINES, DEVELOPMENT
GUIDELINES, AND SMC.
PECIFICALLY THIS BUILDING W
DOMINATE THE USE OF OUR ALLEY
AND TWO PROTECTED LIGHT
CORRIDORS.
WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK TWO
QUESTIONS.
ONE IS WILL THE HEARING
MANAGERS MANDATE REQUIRE
PROTECTION BE USED FOR
MITIGATING THIS PROJECT, AND
TWO, WE HAVE BEEN FAITHFUL
STEWARDS OF THE PARTNERSHIP WE
ENTERED INTO WITH THE CITY TO
PROTECT OUR BUILDING AND WE
WANT TO KNOW IF THE CITY WILL
BE KEEPING THEIR PLEDGE TO HELP
US PRESERVE THAT BUILDING.
THANK YOU.
>> MISTER FOX, ESTHER BARFIELD
AND THEN ERIC McLAUGHLIN.
>> JOHN FOX SEATTLE
DISPLACEMENT COALITION.
THE CITY WAS ADVISED AND I
HEARD A NUMBER OF TIMES HERE
TODAY AGAIN, THAT IT SHOULD
AVOID MAKING AMENDMENTS OR
CHANGES THAT FALL OUTSIDE THE
SCOPE OF WHAT WAS ASSESSED IN
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT.
WE ARE AWARE OF AT LEAST ONE
CHANGE THAT VIOLATES AND
BLATANTLY VIOLATES THAT
GUIDELINE.
UNBEKNOWNST TO THE COMMUNITY,
ESPECIALLY AFFECTED SMALL
BUSINESSES, AN UP SOON FOR
UNIVERSITY WAY NORTHEAST SOUTH
OF 52nd, THE AVENUE WAS QUIETLY
ADDED OVER 14 MONTHS AFTER THE
MHA EIS WAS COMPLETED, AND WHY
WHILE IT WAS STILL UNDER APPEAL
BY 20 COMMUNITY GROUPS.
OBVIOUSLY, SMALL BUSINESS COULD
NOT AIR THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT
NEGATIVE IMPACTS SINCE THE
AVENUE UPZONE WASN'T EVEN IN
THE PLAN NOR STUDIED IN BE EIS.
THREE YEARS AGO, THE COUNCIL
PASSED A RESOLUTION COMMITTING
TO TAKE SEVERAL STEPS NOT JUST
TO SURVEY, BUT TO DO AN UPDATE
OF THE HISTORICAL ANALYSIS AND
IMPLEMENT MEASURES TO SAVE
SMALL BUSINESSES.
YOU MAY HAVE BEEN TOLD SINCE IT
WAS STUDIED FOUR YEARS AGO IN
THE EIS SPECIFIC TO THE U-
DISTRICT THAT IT DOESN'T NEED
TO BE STUDIED NOW.
THAT IS CATEGORICALLY WRONG.
ANY READING OF SEPA AND D.O.E.
RULES REQUIRE AT LEAST AN
ADDENDUM OR SUPPLEMENT, AND A
NORMAL PROCESS OF PUBLIC REVIEW
WITH AN APPEAL.
IF THAT IS AND DONE IN LEGAL
PARLANCE, THIS UPZONE SPECIFIC
TO THE U-DISTRICT IS RIPE FOR
LEGAL CHALLENGE.
>> THANK YOU MISTER FOX.
BUT PLEASE, REMOVE IT FROM THE
PLAN AND FULFILL YOUR PLEDGE TO
THE SMALL BUSINESSES WHICH HAS
NOT BEEN FULFILLED.
>> THANK YOU, MISTER FOX.
MISS BARFIELD FOLLOWED BY RICK
McLAUGHLIN AND THEN COREY
CROCKER.
>> IN MOURNING, COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS AUSTER ESTHER
BARFIELD.
I LIVE IN PHINNEY RIDGE.
I HAVE SPOKEN WITH SEVERAL OF
YOU OVER THE YEARS.
I HOPE YOU WILL HEED THIS
SEATTLE TIMES RECOMMENDATION TO
STOP THE DIVISIVE UPZONE SENT
MOVE TO A MORE NEIGHBORHOOD
BASED APPROACHED APPROACH.
FOR EXAMPLE, IT WORKS WITH
CAPITOL HILL FOR ALL OF ITS
URBAN AREAS, DIRECT ACCESS TO
THE UNIVERSITY, DOWNTOWN,
AIRPORT, BUSES IN EVERY
DIRECTION, DOES NOT WORK FOR
PHINNEY RIDGE WERE WE HAVE A
ONE STRAIGHTLONG, ONE MILE
LONG AND ONE STRAIGHT WIDE
URBAN VILLAGE, AND ONE BUS
ROUTE.
THAT SAID, IF YOU ARE NOT
WILLING TO START OVER, I WANT
TO RECOMMEND THREE DISCRETE
AMENDMENTS THAT WILL HELP KEEP
MHA MORE IN TUNE WITH A VISION
OF THE COMP PLAN CONCENTRATING
GROWTH IN URBAN VILLAGES.
THE FIRST IS TO LIMIT UPZONE'S
TO THE URBAN VILLAGES.
RIGHT NOW, THE MHA AND
ENVISIONS EVERY ZONE. CLR AND
NSR ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
BUT WHEN URBAN VILLAGES WERE
CREATED IN '90s, THOSE WERE
SUPPOSED TO BE THE CENTER OF
GROWTH, AND THAT IS WHERE THEY
SHOULD BE FOR MHA.
NEXT IS TO NOT UPZONE LOTS THAT
SHARE A BOUNDARY WITH THE NC
LOTS AND SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES
HAVING FIVE STORIES RIGHT ON A
BACK YARD BORDER IS TOO MUCH.
THIRD IS LIMITING THE HEIGHT
INCREASES OF THE LR ZONED, SO
WE DON'T HAVE FIVE STORY
BUILDINGS IN AN LR ZONE.
APART FROM THAT, THE ONE OTHER
THING I WOULD URGE YOU TO
CONSIDER IS TYING UP STONES TO
BUILDING UNITS THAT ARE NEEDED.
>> THANK YOU, MISS MURPHY.
BUT BY LIMITING THE NUMBER OF
SMALL EFFICIENCY DWELLING UNITS
AND REQUIRING CERTAIN SIZED
UNITS.
>> THANK YOU.
MISTER McLAUGHLIN FOLLOWED BY
COREY CROCKER AND THEN I THINK
DARBYONE.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.
EVER-PRESENT THE U-DISTRICT
SMALL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION AND
I AM A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER ON
THE AVENUE, BIG TEMPORARY.
I'M HERE BECAUSE THE COUNCIL
RESOLVED TO STUDY IMPACTS ON
SMALL BUSINESSES BEFORE
RECONSIDERATION OF THE AVENUE
UPZONE.
IN ADDITION TO PLEDGING SUPPORT
FOR THE SURVEY WE CONDUCTED,
SMALL BUSINESSES WHO WERE
IMPACTED BY THE REASON, THE
COMMITTEE COMMITTED TO SEVEN
KEY TASKS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON
THE U-DISTRICT, AND COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 31732.
IT WAS ADOPTED THE SAME DAY AS
THE U-DISTRICT REZONE.
TO DATE, THIS COLLABORATION HAS
NOT HAPPENED.
WE ARE HERE, WILLING TO WORK
WITH YOU AND WILLING TO FIND
SOME ANSWERS, BUT TO DATE, THAT
HAS NOT HAPPENED.
AS WELL AS, THE AVE WAS
EXCLUDED FROM STUDY IN THE FHA.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, UNTIL
THERE IS A PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF
MHA, THEREFORE THE CITY MUST
ISSUE A THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
PRESENTING IT AS AN ADDENDUM OR
SUPPLEMENT TO THE F EIS, WITH
REVIEW AND COMMENT PERIOD, AND
THE RIGHT TO APPEAL AS SEPA
PRESCRIBES.
THERE IS A RECORD OF CITIES
OWNED AMENDMENT AND THE CITY
CODE ALLOWS FOR APPEALS OF
REASONS FOR THE HEARING
EXAMINER.
WE ARE HERE.
WORK WITH US.
FIND SOME SOLUTIONS.
DON'T HAMMER THIS DOWN OUR
THROATS.
THANK YOU.
>> MISTER CROCKER.
>> GOOD MORNING.
THE U-DISTRICT WAS THE FIRST
AREA OF THE CITY THAT WAS
UPZONE TO INCLUDE MHA WITH THE
HIGHEST HEIGHTS OF ANY
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTSIDE THE
CONTIGUOUS DOWNTOWN AREA.
AT 320 FEET, BY COMPARISON
WHILE THE U-DISTRICT
CONTRIBUTES 9% OF DEVELOPMENT
TO MHA, SOUTH LAKE UNION
CONTRIBUTES 2%.
THE U-DISTRICT HAS DEMONSTRATED
ITS GENEROUS CONTRIBUTION TO
MHA AND WE WELCOME GREATER
DENSITY, BUT IT MUST HAVE
CONFERENCE CONCURRED
INVESTMENTS TO KEEP IT
SUSTAINABLE AND LOVABLE.
WORKING WITH COUNSEL, THE U-
DISTRICT REZONE DELAYED
INCLUDING THE AVE FOR IMPACTS
ON BUSINESSES FIRST.
THROUGH 370132, THE CITY
PROMISED A NUMBER OF MITIGATION
STRATEGIES.
TWO YEARS LATER, WE STILL AWAIT
THE ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY,
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, OUR SMALL
BUSINESSES ORGANIZED, RAISED
THOUSANDS KIND CONDUCTED A DOOR-
TO-DOOR SURVEY OF 123
BUSINESSES ALONG THE AVENUE
AVE.
THE MAJORITY ARE WOMEN OR
MINORITY OWNED.
A MAJORITY ARE SMALL OR EVEN
MICRO-IN SIZE.
THEY ARE OWNER OPERATED, THEY
RENT THEIR SPACES AND THUS THEY
ARE HIGHLY VULNERABLE TO
DISPLACEMENT BY DEVELOPMENT.
IN SUMMARY, WE ASK YOU TO ALLOW
US JUST ONE STREET.
THE U-DISTRICT HAS ALREADY BEEN
ZONED TO CONTRIBUTE
PROPORTIONALY THE MOST SUPPORT
TO MHA OF ANY URBAN CENTER OR
VILLAGE.
THE CITY HAS STILL NOT STUDIED
THE IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES
AS PROMISED.
OUR SMALL BUSINESSES ARE IN
DANGER OF BEING DISPLACED WITH
POTENTIALLY DEVASTATING
REPERCUSSIONS.
HELP US KEEP OUR MAIN SHOPPING
STREET AT A HUMAN SCALE BY NOT
UPLOADING AND LET'S SAVE THE
AVE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
MISTER McCOMB, RICHARD ELLISON,
DAVID WARD.
>> GOOD MORNING AND HAPPY NEW
YEAR.
I AM HERE REPRESENTING JUST A
COUPLE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROVIDERS.
BOTH ARE IN DISTRICT 3. THEY
HAVE AREA SPECIFIC REASONS THAT
YOU HEARD ABOUT EARLIER TODAY
THAT WILL BE UP HOPEFULLY NEXT
WEEK.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF
CLOSELY ON THEM BUT I THOUGHT
THIS WOULD BE A GREAT
OPPORTUNITY TO FLAG THEM FOR
YOU, SEE YOU IN PERSON AND MAKE
SURE THEY ARE ON YOUR RADAR.
THE FIRST ONE IS THE SEATTLE
GIRLS SCHOOL SITE.
IT HAS AN RSL REZONING UNDER
MHA, BUT LR ONE WAS ALSO
STUDIED AND WE WOULD LIKE TO
HAVE THAT CHANGED FROM RSL TO
LR ONE.
>> COULD YOU SPEAK MORE INTO
THE MICROPHONE?
>> YES, HOW IS THAT?
THE SECOND ONE IS FAMED HOUSING
ASSOCIATION, THE BRYANT MANOR
PROJECT.
IT IS PROPOSED FOR A REZONING
AND WE ARE WORKING WITH SCALE,
AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND STAFF
TO FIND A WAY TO HOPEFULLY
PROTECT IT FROM THE APPEAL
PROCESS BY CREATING MAY BE A
SEPARATE ORDINANCE OR SOME
OTHER WAY TO ACHIEVE THIS REZONE
WHICH HAS NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE
NOW RECEIVED CITY ZONING FROM
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING AND WE
ARE GO, GO, GO TO BRING ABOUT
THIS 240 UNIT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECT.
HERE IS A HANDOUT.
THANKS A LOT.
>> THANK YOU.
MISTER ELLISON?
YOU ARE GOING TO BE FOLLOWED BY
DAVID WARD AND MARIA BARIANTIS.
>> I AM RICHARD ELLISON
REPRESENTING FIRST TREE
ADVOCATES.
I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU
ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF
2017 ON TREE PROTECTION, WHICH
THE CITY OF SEATTLE IS NOT
ACTIVELY ENFORCING.
WHEREAS RECENT RESEARCH SHOWS
EXISTING TRUE PROTECTIONS AND
EXISTING PRACTICES RELATED TO
TREES MUST BE STRENGTHENED IN
ORDER TO PROTECT SEATTLE'S
CANOPY COVERAGE, SDCI WILL
REQUIRE CONSISTENT
DOCUMENTATION FOR REQUIRED TREE
REMOVAL ON PRIVATE PROPERTY,
INCLUDING MITIGATING CANOPY
COVER ON TREES BE REMOVED, AND
MONITORING TREES FOR SURVIVAL.
WHERE ARE THE LIST OF PLANTED
TREES.
WHERE ARE THE LISTS OF FUNDS
THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE USED
TO REPLACE TREES THAT ARE NOT
BEING REPLACED?
TREE PROTECTION, SDCI, IN
CONSULTATION WITH OTHER CITY
DEPARTMENTS IN THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION IS TO
UPDATE EXCEPTIONAL TREES TO
INCLUDE ADDITIONAL TREE
PROTECTION.
WHERE ARE THESE ADDITIONAL TREE
PROTECTIONS?
THE CURRENT LAWS ARE NOT BEING
ENFORCED.
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER 2017-11 IS
NOT BEING ENFORCED.
WE WERE PROMISED A NEW TREE
PROTECTION ORDINANCE FOR THE
LAT 10 YEARS.
IT IS NOW BEING TAILED AND PUT
FORTH INTO THE FUTURE.
MHA DEPENDS ON AN UPDATED TREE
ORDINANCE.
IF WE'RE NOT GETTING THE OLD
ORDINANCE IN FORCE, THE OLD
MAYOR'S INITIATIVES ENFORCED,
AND WE ARE NOT GETTING A NEW
ORDINANCE, WHERE THE TREES?
>> MISTER WARD.
YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY MARIA
BARIANTIS AND KRISTIN RYAN.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO
HAVING AN INCREASE IN PAYMENT
AND PERFORMANCE AMOUNTS AT 5%
TO 10% FOR AFFORDABLE HOMES.
IT DOES NOT CREATE ENOUGH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, DEMOLISHING
TOO MANY AFFORDABLE BUILDINGS,
AND CREATES NEW, EXPENSIVE
BUILDINGS WHICH MAKES SEATTLE
LESS AFFORDABLE OVERALL, NOT
MORE SO.
I WOULD AGREE THAT UPZONING ON
THE AVE SHOULD NOT HAPPEN
BECAUSE IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN
THE F EIS.
IT WAS NOT FROM THE PREVIOUS
UPZONE SO THAT SHOULD NOT
HAPPEN WITHOUT ADDITIONAL SEPA
REVIEW.
I WILL DOVETAIL ON WHAT DEB
PARKER SAID ABOUT EXPANDING
SURVEYS IN ALL AREAS WITH
HISTORIC SITES, AND WE NEED
AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS THE RSJI
ISSUES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MISS BARIANTIS FOLLOWED BY
KRISTIN RYAN.
>> MARIA BARIANTIS.
I AM HERE TO VOICE MY SUPPORT
FOR THE CITYWIDE MHA UPZONE IN
AND URGE COUNSEL TO CONSIDER
INCREASING DENSITY TO THE
MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE WITHIN
THE EIS OPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
STUDIED.
WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IN SEATTLE, AND MHA IS A
FRAMEWORK FOR MORE EQUITABLE
GROWTH.
WE MUST LEVERAGE THE RAPID
GROWTH SEATTLE HAS EXPERIENCED
AND WILL CONTINUE TO EXPERIENCE
TO CREATE MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE IN
OUR CITY.
>> THANK YOU, MISS BARIANTIS.
MISS RYAN, YOU ARE OUR FINAL
SPEAKER AT THIS POINT.
ú>> MY NAME IS KRISTIN RYAN.
I WAS A MEMBER OF THE HOLLIS
UP COMMITTEE AND I HAVE BEEN
PART OF OTHER GROUPS WORKING TO
PROMOTE IMPLEMENTATION, AND I'M
HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF
YOUR WORK, AND PASSING THE
UPZONE LEGISLATION.
I HAVE BEEN AN ADVOCATE FOR
PROVIDING A RANGE OF AFFORDABLE
OPTIONS FOR THE PEOPLE IN OUR
CITIES SO ALL SEATTLEITES HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO THRIVE AND
BECOME SUCCESSFUL.
THERE ARE MANY TOOLS IT WILL
TAKE TO DO SO AND MHA IS A
CRITICAL ONE OF THOSE 'TWAS.
AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW, THE
TOOLS CANNOT BE DELAYED IN
IMPLEMENTATION.
SO ON ARE THE INTENSE TIME YOU
HAVE FOR THE NEXT MONTH FOR
COLORFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE
ISSUES RAISED, BUT I STRONGLY
URGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO MOVE
FORWARD ON THE TIMELINE
PROPOSED AND URGE TIMELY
IMPLEMENTATIONS OF PROJECTS CAN
CONTINUE TO GROW.
THANK YOU.
>> THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC
COMMENT FOR THIS 15th SELECT
COMMITTEE ON MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY.
WE WILL BE BACK TWICE NEXT
WEEK.
MONDAY AT 2:30, OR FOLLOWING
OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS THAT BEGIN AT
2:00 ON MONDAYS, AND THEN ON
WEDNESDAY, I BELIEVE WE HAVE IT
AT EITHER 9:30 OR 10:00.
9:30 ON WEDNESDAY.
ON MONDAY AFTERNOON, WE WILL BE
TALKING ABOUT EARLIER
DISTRICTS, 4, 6 AND LIKELY 7.
ON WEDNESDAY MORNING, WE WILL
BE DISCUSSING 1, 2, 3, AND 5.
THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES.
I APPRECIATE YOUR CALLING'S
ATTENTION AND TO GIVE YOU A
LITTLE FLAVOR OF HOW DIFFICULT
SOME OF THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE,
TO HIGHLIGHT AN ISSUE IN MY OWN
DISTRICT BROUGHT UP DURING
PUBLIC COMMENT, WE DID PUT A
PAUSE ON THE AVENUE WHEN WE
INTRODUCED THE UPZONE'S IN
2017.
ONE OF THE PROJECTS NOW IS A
TARGET, WHICH IS BEING BUILT IN
CURRENT ALLOWED ZONING, ABOUT
THREE STORIES TALLER THAN THE
REST OF THE BUILDINGS BUT IT IS
NOT REQUIRED TO PAY INTO THE
MANDATORY PORTABLE HOUSING
PROGRAM.
THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO THE
CHOICES WE MAKE SO OVER THE
NEXT COUPLE MONTHS AS WE
CONSIDER WHAT CHANGES WE MAY
MAKE BUT I WANT TO OFFER THAT
AS A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR US
ABOUT SOME OF THE TRADE-OFFS WE
MAY HAVE WHEN WE MAKE THOSE
POLICY DECISIONS WITH THAT, WE
ARE ADJOURNED.
WE WILL SEE YOU ON MONDAY
AFTERNOON.