GOOD MORNING.
SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 MEETING OF THE
PLANNING, LAND USE, AND ZONING
COMMITTEE.
WILL COME TO ORDER.
IT IS 9:34 AM.
I AM COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO,
CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE.
I'M GETTING US STARTED FOR THE
MORNING.
WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA, WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION
AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON 314359 A
CONTRACT REZONE APPLICATION.
AND A SECOND BRIEFING AND
DISCUSSION ON ONE 19600 WHICH
UPDATES CITY POLICIES.
THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9 AT 5:30 PM
HERE IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING ON COUNCIL BILL
119600.
THERE WILL ALSO BE A MEETING
SEPTEMBER 11 AT NOON HERE IN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION TODAY,
TODAY'S AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED.
HEARING NONE, TODAY'S AGENDA IS
ADOPTED.
AT THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC
COMMENT.
ON ITEMS THAT APPEAR ON TODAY'S
AGENDA.
HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT.
SPEAKERS ARE REMINDED THAT WE
HAVE TWO MINUTES PER SPEAKER.
IF YOU'RE HERE FOR THE CONTRACT
REZONE, DUE TO THE COUNCIL'S
QUITE CAUSE LIGHT JUDICIAL IT
MUST COMPILED BY THE HEARING
EXAMINER AND THEY'RE NOT
ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER 2. FIRST ON OUR
LIST, MARTIN.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I AM WITH FUTURE WISE.
TODAY YOU WILL CONSIDER COUNCIL
BILL 116 00.
A PROPOSAL TO ADAPT CITY LAND
USE CODE IN ORDER TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES
OFFERED BY WASHINGTON STATE
BELL 1923.
ALONG WITH OUR PARTNERS,
SUPPORT THESE CHANGES AND
ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE THE BILL
COMMITTEE ONTO FULL COUNCIL AT
UPCOMING MEETINGS.
DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION
FUTURE WISE AND OUR PARTNER
ORGANIZATIONS WORKED TO PASS HB
1923 AND MORE SPECIFICALLY TO
ENCOURAGE THE REGULATIONS THAT
WOULD HELP ACHIEVE THE
NECESSARY OUTCOME OF BUILDING
MORE HOMES WITHOUT CAUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL HARM.
WE ARE CONFIDENT ADOPTING THE
EXEMPTIONS OUTLINED IN THE BILL
BEFORE YOU WILL LEAD TO GREATER
HOUSING DIVERSITY, MORPHEMES
HOMES BEING BUILT YOUR CAPACITY
TRANSIT AND THE REDUCTION OF
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CAUSED BY OR OTTO CENTRIC
PATTERNS.
AS YOU KNOW ADOPTING THE
EXEMPTIONS IS THE FIRST STEP IN
THE PROCESS.
THE TIME COMES TO DECIDE WHICH
ALLOWANCES ARE BEST SUITED TO
THE CITY'S NEEDS THERE WILL BE
MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE
THE PUBLIC AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS
TO THE SPECIFIC LAND-USE POLICY
IN QUESTION.
WE REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL
KEEP THE CITY'S HISTORY IN
MIND.
SPECIFICALLY THE PATTERN OF
EXCLUDING POOR AND WORKING-
CLASS HOUSEHOLDS FROM HIGH
OPPORTUNITY NEIGHBORHOODS
THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF ZONING
CODES FOR BID MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING.
THE CITY'S OFFICE OF PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING BACKGROUND REPORT IS A
GOOD RESOURCE FOR THIS HISTORY
AND ITS IMPACT.
IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT
TRANSFORMING THE CITY INTO A
CITY FOR ONE'S RACE DOES NOT
PREDICT THEIR WELL-BEING AND
THE COST OF RESPONDING TO THE
GROWING CLIMATE CRISIS ARE BORN
EQUITABLY ACROSS NEIGHBORHOODS
THEN WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO
PARTICIPATE IN A PROCESS THAT
UNFORTUNATELY IS BEING
UNDERMINED BY THE TACTIC OF
PROCEDURAL DELAY.
FUTURE WISE IN OUR PARTNERS
SUPPORT THE EXEMPTION BILL
BEFORE YOU AND THANK YOU FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT OUR LIST IS BRITNEY.
SHE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY RYAN.
>> I AM THE CHAIR OF THE SIERRA
CLUB SEATTLE GROUP.
I AM HERE TO EXPRESS OUR
SUPPORT FOR CHANGES TO THE CITY
LEVEL TO FIX IT, BACK FROM ITS
ORIGINAL INTENT OF PROTECTING
THE ENVIRONMENT.
FORTUNATELY IT HAS TOO OFTEN
BEEN WEAPONIZE TO DELAY AND
PREVENT PROJECTS THAT ACTUALLY
HAVE STRONG PROENVIRONMENT THE
IMPACTS.
INSTEAD IS USED TO INCREASE
SPRAWL AND TO PROLIFERATE CAR
DEPENDENCY.
WE SUPPORT THE COUNCIL'S
EFFORTS TO FIX IT AND WE ARE
ON YOUR SIDE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT IS RYAN POLL.
>>
>> I AM A WEST LAKE RESIDENT.
I WANT TO SHOW MY SUPPORT FOR
THE REFORMS.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOU
PUSHING IT FORWARD.
I HOPE YOU VOTED THROUGH TO THE
COUNCIL NEXT WEEK.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT IS DYLAN.
>> YES, I AM IT DYLAN.
I'M AN ARCHITECT, I AM ALSO HERE
AS A COCHAIR OF THE URBAN
DESIGN FORM WHICH IS PART OF
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
ARCHITECTS.
I'M HERE OBSERVING THE AMERICAN
INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS SEATTLE
CHAPTER IN SUPPORT OF THE SEPA
REFORMS.
HAS SEVERAL FOLKS HAVE NOTED
WHICH I AM IN COMPLETE
AGREEMENT WITH, THE SEPA LAW
INITIALLY WAS INTENDED TO DO
WONDERFUL THINGS FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT AND STILL DOES.
BUT, MANY OF THE REGULATIONS
AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEPA
HAVE SINCE BEEN INCORPORATED
INTO OUR BASIC CODES , IT IS
OFTEN, AS A PREVIOUS SPEAKER
SAID, AND USED TO DELAY
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. AND IN
SOME CASES IS DOING MORE HARM
THAN GOOD IN ITS CURRENT STATE.
WILL BE FULLY ENDORSE THE
REFORM.
AND I JUST WANT TO ENCOURAGE
YOU GUYS TO PASS THIS AND MOVE
FORWARD WITH THIS SO WE ARE NOT
SEEING SEPA USED AS A WEAPON TO
PREVENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS,
MUCH-NEEDED HOUSING PROJECTS.
AND PARTICULARLY, I WANTED TO
POINT OUT THERE IS A LIST OF
PARTICULAR ITEMS THAT YOU GUYS
WANT TO CREATE EXEMPTIONS FOR,
AND THE FOUR TOP ONES ARE THE
UP ZONING, 250+ ACRES.
FREQUENT TRANSIT.
ALLOWING TO PLEXUS AND
TRIPLEX'S AND APARTMENTS IN
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES.
INCREASING EXEMPTIONS TO
ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT.
AND ALLOWING FOR SUBDIVISION OF
LOTS INTO SMALLER PARCELS.
AND A PLUG AT THE END, THIS IS
PART OF THE STRATEGY BASICALLY
TO ALLOW TO MAKE IT EASIER IN
SEATTLE TO BUILD HOUSING WE
DESPERATELY NEED.
I WOULD CONTINUE TO ASK YOU GUYS
TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT
CONSIDERING SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING
AND CONTINUE TO TAKE A LOOK AT
THAT AS WELL.
BEYOND SEPA REFORMS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT ON OUR LIST IS ELISE.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I AM A 350 SEATTLE.
I SHOULD BE WEARING MY GREEN
NEW DEAL T-SHIRT HERE TO SPEAK
BEFORE COUNCIL , BECAUSE SEPA
REFORM IS REALLY NEEDED TO
SUPPORT THE GREEN NEW DEAL FOR
SEATTLE.
WE ALL KNOW THE GREEN NEW DEAL
WILL REQUIRE US TO BUILD LOTS
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEAR
TRANSIT AND TO ALLOW IN ORDER
TO ALLOW WORKING PEOPLE TO LIVE
LOW CARBON LIVES NEAR TRANSIT
AND PREVENT CARBON DESTROYING
URBAN SPRAWL.
UNFORTUNATELY, TIME AND AGAIN
IN SEATTLE SEPA APPEAL HAS BEEN
USED TO DELAY EFFORTS TO BUILD
OR TO ALLOW MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING . BACKYARD COTTAGES AND
MOST RECENTLY AND EGREGIOUSLY
TO DELAY ALLOWING MORE TINY
HOME VILLAGES IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS.
THIS LAST ONE ISN'T JUST ABOUT
AFFORDABILITY BUT ALSO LIFE AND
DEATH IS MORE PEOPLE WILL
CONTINUE TO DIE IN THE STREET
WHILE THE APPEAL DELAYS
DESPERATELY NEEDED HOUSING.
THE ACTIONS BEING CONSIDERED
TODAY TO STREAMLINE THE SEATTLE
SEPA PROCESS IN HARMONY WITH
STATE LAW WILL SAVE TAXPAYERS
THE COST OF LENGTHY APPEALS,
HELP PREVENT FURTHER ABUSE OF
SEPA TO BLOCK AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AND IN SO DOING WILL
HELP SPEED DEVELOPMENT OF
CLIMATE FRIENDLY AND
DESPERATELY NEEDED FOR HOUSING
IN THE GREEN NEW DEAL.
THANKS FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT IS MEGAN FOLLOWED BY STEVE.
>> I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SPEAK
ABOUT THE SEPA BILL.
SEATTLE CONSIDERS ITSELF A VERY
PROGRESSIVE CITY.
IT WANTS A GREEN NEW DEAL.
HUMAN RIGHTS, PUBLIC
EXPRESSION.
BUT THIS BILL CRUSHES ALL OF
THAT.
THE REASON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ISN'T BEING BUILT IS BECAUSE OF
A THING CALLED THE GRAND
BARGAIN.
THAT GAVE DEVELOPERS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BUY OUT A
BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALL
OVER THE CITY.
WHEREVER THEY PUT IN THE
BUILDING.
INSTEAD, THEY CAN PAY THEIR WAY
OUT.
AND IN ORDER TO GET THE
BUILDING BUILT, THE CITY HAS TO
APPROVE WHATEVER DESIGN THEY
PRODUCE.
AND CONSISTENTLY, IT IS GETTING
WORSE AND WORSE.
UNSUSTAINABLE DESIGNS, AND
AFFORDABLE TO THE EXISTING
STAKEHOLDERS.
THE REASON PEOPLE ARE
CHALLENGING THIS IS BECAUSE
THEY DON'T MEET ENVIRONMENTAL
STANDARDS.
FOR EXAMPLE, DOWNTOWN, THERE
ARE NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOING
IN.
IT IS TOWERS 40-50 STORIES TALL.
EACH OF THEM INCLUDES PARKING
FOR 50-80% OF THE RESIDENCE.
AN AVERAGE TOWER OF THE SIZE
GENERATES 1000 CAR TRIPS PER DAY
EVEN THOUGH THESE TOWERS ARE
SURROUNDED BY MULTIMODAL
OPTIONS.
DON'T BE FOOLED.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS
GOING TO STOP AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FROM BEING BUILT.
WE WANT SUSTAINABLE HOUSING AS
WELL AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND WE HAVE TO HAVE RULES LIKE
SEPA TO GIVE PEOPLE THE
ABILITY TO CHALLENGE AND GET
THE BEST DESIGNS.
PLEASE, DON'T PASS THIS BILL.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT IS STEVE.
>> THE CITY IS NEVER REALLY
LIKED SEPA.
BECAUSE THAT MEANS THERE IS
ANOTHER LAYER OF PEOPLE TAKING
A LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON.
AND I'D REALLY LIKE TO THINK
ALL THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE
HERE, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A
REFLECTION OF WHAT YOU THINK OF
PUBLIC OPINION.
AND I'M GLAD THE CHAIRMAN IS
HERE.
BUT I'D LIKE TO GET MORE INTO
SEPA.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT TREES.
REMEMBER TREES?
THESE ENVIRONMENTALISTS OR SO-
CALLED ENVIRONMENTAL LIST DON'T
CARE ABOUT THE HERITAGE, LARGE
TREES THAT ARE VERY GOOD AT
TAKING CARE OF CARBON.
YOU DON'T CARE AT ALL ABOUT
THIS.
AND YET THEY CALL THEMSELVES
ENVIRONMENTALISTS.
I DID NOT HEAR THESE GREAT
ENVIRONMENTALISTS WHEN WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT MHA ONE FOR ONE
REPLACEMENT OF HOUSING UNDER
MARKET IN NEIGHBORHOODS.
THEY WERE NOT THERE BECAUSE
THAT IS A DEVELOPER COST.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU GO FROM
12 APARTMENTS THAT ARE UNDER
MARKET BECAUSE IT'S AN OLDER
BUILDING AND THE OWNER IS
REASONABLE, TO SAY 100, YOU
COULD HAVE LESS UNDER MARKET
HOUSING COME OUT OF IT AND THEY
WILL PAY OFF A MINOR FEE AND
THE HOUSING WILL PROBABLY NOT
BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO ALL OF THESE YOU TALK ABOUT,
WHICH HAVE BEEN FOR HAVING
HOUSING AROUND THE CITY FOR
PEOPLE, THAT IS AFFORDABLE,
THIS WILL GO AGAINST, BECAUSE
AS YOU WE CAN SEPA, YOU FIND A
BUILDING DONE TO DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS JUST TO MAKE MONEY.
I THINK SEATTLE IS ALREADY OVER
ZONED.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK, HOW MANY
TIMES THE POPULATION OF SEATTLE
COULD DO IT WITHOUT CHANGING
THE ZONING, WE ARE ONLY MAKING
MORE PROBLEMS.
>> NEXT ON THE LIST IS LESLIE.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M COMING TO YOU AS A
CONCERNED CITIZEN IN DOWNTOWN
SEATTLE IN RESPONSE TO 119600.
AS IT STANDS THE CITY COUNCIL
BILL WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE
PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO CHALLENGE
AND EQUABLE DECISION IN FAVOR
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT PUT
PROFIT BEFORE THE FUTURE OF OUR
BEAUTIFUL CITY.
I HAVE THREE SPECIFIC CONCERNS
I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER.
FIRST IS THE CLAIMS THAT
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY CODE
MAKE SEPA LESS NEEDED.
THIS IS NOT SUPPORTED.
FIRSTLY, THE CODE CANNOT
ANTICIPATE EVERY EVENTUALITY,
THAT IS WHY WE NEED SEPA
REVIEW.
SECONDLY DEVELOPS ARE BECOMING
MUCH GREATER THAN EVER
ENVISIONED IN OUR CODE.
WHERE IN THE CODE HAS A CITY
PLAN FOR 40 TO 50 TOWERS WITH
2000 PEOPLE.
SUCH DEVELOPMENT HAVE NO
INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THEM.
WHERE IN THE CODE HAS A CITY
ANTICIPATED PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS
FOR MEGA STRUCTURES.
AND WHERE IN THE CODE HAS A
CITY ANTICIPATED LOSS OF
DAYLIGHT AND IMPOSITIONS OF
SHADE IN EXISTING BUILDINGS?
THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE
REASONS WHY WE NEED SEPA
REVIEWS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSAL TO
HIRE HEARING EXAMINERS IS NOT
JUSTIFIED.
OUTSOURCING JUDICIARY IS NEVER
A GOOD IDEA.
FINALLY, THE PROPOSAL TO LIMIT
THE TIME THE HEARING EXAMINERS
APPEAL CAN TAKE A LITTLE WEIGHT
CITIZENS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS.
ISN'T GOING TO HELP US HAVE
MORE FOR HOUSING.
IT IS ONLY GOING TO HELP US NOT
HAVE WHAT WE NEED WHICH IS MORE
OVERSIGHT AND SEPA REVIEWS.
THANK YOU.
>> I'VE BEEN JOINED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD AND
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO DID NOT
HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK THAT
WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
THING THEN WILL NOW CLOSE
PUBLIC,.
OUR FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS A
BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION ON
COUNCIL BILL IN 19517 WHICH
AMENDS THE OPEN-SPACE
INCENTIVES.
PLEASE READ THE A B RATED TITLE
INTO THE RECORD.
>> COUNCIL BUILT 119597.
>> AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO
LAND USE AND ZONING; AMENDING
SECTIONS OF THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE, TO REVISE
EXISTING REGULATORY INCENTIVES
TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND
ALLOW DEPARTURES FROM TOWER
SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS WHEN
THE PROJECT INCLUDES A LANDMARK
THAT IS SUBJECT TO LANDMARK
CONTROLS AND INCENTIVES ADOPTED
BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
>> WITH THE FOLKS AT THE TABLE
PLEASE INTRODUCE THEMSELVES.
AND TELL US MORE ABOUT THE
ITEM.
>> ALY PENNUCCI.
>> JIM HOLMES.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCIL MEMBERS.
IT IS A PROPOSAL TO MODIFY THE
LAND USE CODE INCENTIVE, EXCUSE
ME TO PRESERVE EXISTING
PRIVATELY HELD OPEN-SPACE IN
THE SOUTH LAKE UNION URBAN
CENTER IN 2013 THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED A REZONE OF THIS AREA
THAT INCLUDED A VARIETY OF
INCENTIVES TO ALLOW INCREASES
IN HEIGHT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC
BENEFITS.
ONE OPTION A DEVELOPER COULD
CHOOSE IS PRESERVATION OF OPEN
SPACE.
FOLLOWING IMPLANTATION OF THE
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
PROGRAM THE VALUE OF THIS
INCENTIVE WAS REDUCED.
THIS LEGISLATION IS AN UPDATE TO
THE LEGISLATION TO PRESERVE
EXISTING OPEN-SPACE AND WILL
ENSURE THAT THE AREA KNOWN AS
THE SEATTLE TIMES PARK WILL BE
PRESERVED AND AVAILABLE TO THE
PUBLIC.
I WILL NOW TURN OVER OPCD TO GO
OVER IN MORE DETAIL.
>> THANKS.
>> IN THE 2013 REZONE, INCLUDED
A NUMBER OF INCENTIVES AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INTENDED
TO ACHIEVE THE COMMUNITY'S
VISION SET OUT IN THE URBAN
DESIGN FRAMEWORK.
ONE OF THE MAIN IDEAS WAS THAT
THERE WOULD BE A NETWORK OF
OPEN SPACE THROUGH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
REQUIRE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF
GROUND-LEVEL OPEN-SPACE WITH
BLOCK CONNECTIONS, ETC.
THIS LEGISLATION AS SHE SAID
STRENGTHENS EXISTING INCENTIVE
TO PRESERVE THE SEATTLE TIMES
PARK.
WHICH WAS REDUCED IN VALUE WHEN
MHA WAS APPLIED TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WILL PRESUME THE PARK IN
PERPETUITY AS LONG AS THE
PROJECT EXISTS AS PUBLIC OPEN
SPACE.
BUT MAINTAIN PRIVATELY BY THE
DEVELOPER OF THE SITE.
IF YOU LOOK ON THIS MAP YOU SEE
THE AREA IN BLUE WHICH IS
CALLED THE FAIRVIEW BLOCKS.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FIVE
BLOCKS RIGHT THERE ON THE WEST
SIDE OF FAIRVIEW.
THESE BLOCKS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY
LARGER THAN THE AVERAGE
BLOCKING SOUTH LAKE UNION.
THE AVERAGE BLOCK IS ABOUT
80,000 SQUARE FEET BISECTED BY
AN ALLEY.
40,000 ON EACH SIDE OF THE
ALLEY.
THESE BLOCKS ARE ALMOST HUNDRED
10,000 SQUARE FEET.
THREE OF WHICH DO NOT HAVE
ALLEYS.
SO WHEN WE DEVELOPED THE
ORIGINAL REZONE PROPOSAL WE
UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY COULD
ACCOMMODATE MORE DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL THAN THE SMALLER
BLOCKS.
SO SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS ARE UNIQUE TO THESE
BLOCKS.
MORE FA ARE, POWER SPACING
REQUIREMENTS, ONE OF THE THINGS
ABOUT THREE OF THESE BLOCKS IS
THAT THEY HAD LANDMARKS WITH
THE SEATTLE TIMES PARK.
HE REALLY WANTED TO ENSURE
WHATEVER HAPPENED IN EXCHANGE
FOR THIS INCREASED POTENTIAL
THAT THESE ASSETS WERE PRESERVED
FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I TALKED ABOUT HOW MHA REDUCE
THE VALUE OF THE INCENTIVE WE
PROVIDED, THIS IS WHAT WAS
ADOPTED IN 2013. IF YOU LOOK AT
IT, YOU SEE THE TWO TOWERS, YOU
SEE THREE PLANS, ONE AT THE
BOTTOM, ONE IN THE MIDDLE AND
ONE AT THE TOP, THE FIRST
INCREMENT WAS WHAT YOU COULD
DEVELOP BY RIGHT WITHOUT ANY
PUBLIC AND IF IT'S BEING
PROVIDED.
THAT WAS EQUIVALENT TO WHAT THE
EXISTING ZONING A LOT OF THE
TIME.
ALL OF THE FLOOR AREA ABOVE
THAT MIDDLE PLANE HAD TO BE
ACHIEVED THROUGH A COMBINATION
OF PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
FROM FARMLAND.
APPLICATION OF MHA CHANGED THE
STRUCTURE AND APPLIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT
TO THE ENTIRE BUILDING LEAVING
ONLY THE PORTION OF THE FLOOR
AREA ABOVE THAT MIDDLE PLANE
DEVOTED TO TVR AS THE INCENTIVE,
NON-MHA RELATED INCENTIVE.
THE ORIGINAL INCENTIVE TO
PRESERVE THE PARK WOULD HAVE
RAISED THAT MIDDLE PLANE HIGHER
, SO LESS FLOOR AREA SUBJECT TO
PROVIDING PUBLIC BENEFITS.
SO THE BENEFIT TO THE DEVELOPER
OF PRESERVING THE PARK WAS
DRAMATICALLY REDUCED WITH THIS
CHANGE.
WHAT THI ORDINANCE DOES IS
RESTORE SOME OF THAT BENEFIT,
THE KEY THING IT DOES IS ALLOWS
TRANSFER OF FLOOR AREA THAT
COULD BE DEVELOPED TO THE
ADJACENT BLOCK. YOU CAN SEE
RIGHT THERE WHAT HAS BEEN
PROPOSED IS THREE FLOORS ON ONE
TOWER, ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE
BLOCK ONE FLOOR ON THE EAST
SIDE OF THE BLOCK, THAT
REPRESENTS A LITTLE LESS THAN
HALF OF THE FLOOR AREA THAT
WOULD BE DEVELOPED ON THE PARK.
WHICH THEY COULD DEVELOP,
SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO.
WITHOUT AGREEING TO THIS
INCENTIVE USE OF THIS INCENTIVE.
THE OTHER THING THIS
LEGISLATION DOES IS IT HAS A
NUMBER OF MODIFICATIONS TO
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ALLOW
THIS PROJECT TO REACH ITS FULL
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.
I TALK ABOUT SETBACKS ON THOMAS
STREET WHICH IS AT THE NORTH
END OF THIS BLOCK.
THERE IS AN UPPER-LEVEL SETBACK
REQUIRED FROM FAIRVIEW TO
AURORA.
IT IS PROGRESSIVE.
THE SETBACK IS GREATER, THE
ATTEMPT IS TO PROVIDE A
CONTINUOUS VIEW OF THE SPACE
NEEDLE AS YOU DRIVE DOWN THOMAS
STREET.
WE ALSO, BASED ON GUIDANCE FROM
LANDMARKS COMMISSION AND IN THE
UPDATED URBAN DESIGN
GUIDELINES, THEY ARE SITTING
BACK THIS TOWER FROM THE FACDE
OF THE SEATTLE TIMES BUILDING.
WHICH KIND OF BRINGS IT TO THE
FOREFRONT OF THE PROJECT AND
REALLY IMPROVES THE DESIGN OF
THE PROJECT.
BUT, THE ONLY WAY TO REACH THE
FULL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IS
THEN TO ENCROACH ON THIS POWER
SPACING REQUIREMENT.
AFTER TALKING WITH THE
COMMUNITY ABOUT WHETHER YOU
NEED THESE STANDARDS, ONCE THEY
FELT THEY COULD COMPROMISE ON,
IT WAS AGREED THAT WE WOULD
RECOMMEND MAKING THE TOWER
SPACING REQUIREMENT AT THE
STANDARD ONLY TO THE EXTENT
NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE
MAXIMUM FLOOR SIZE THAT IS ALSO
IN THIS PROPOSAL.
AND FINALLY, THERE IS A
PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR SKY
BRIDGES CONNECTING THE TOWERS
PROVIDED THEY ARE INTERNAL TO
THE PROJECT.
THAT IS IT.
>> I THINK A COUPLE OF THINGS
WORTH NOTING.
IN TERMS OF THE DEPORTABLE
STANDARD SUBJECT TO THE DESIGN
REVIEW, IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO
THAT PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENT.
AND NEEDS TO BE A RESULT IN AN
OVERALL BETTER DESIGN FOR THE
PROJECT.
THE OTHER THING TO KNOW IS THAT
WHILE THIS -- IT PROVIDES MORE
SOLUTE VALUE TO PROVIDE OPEN-
SPACE, IT DOES NOT DIMINISH
SEPA REQUIREMENTS WITH THE
ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA THE STUFF
TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MHA PROGRAM
IN THE SAME AMOUNT THEY WOULD
IF THEY WERE NOT TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THIS INCENTIVE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD .
>> CAN YOU TELL ME, I AM
GUESSING THE REFERENCE IN THE
TITLE TO SPECIFIC SECTIONS, I
HAVEN'T READ THE TEXT OF THE
BILL YET, THAT THE REFERENCE TO
THE SMC SECTIONS CENTERS THIS
PROPOSAL IN A GEOGRAPHIC AREA.
THIS ISN'T CITYWIDE, THIS IS
FOCUSED --
>> CORRECT.
IT IS SPECIFIC CRITERIA. IT HAS
TO BE A BLOCK OF A CERTAIN
SIZE.
THE SPACE HAD TO BE IN
EXISTENCE AS OF 2015.
>> SO IT IS SUBJECT TO
CRITERIA, NOT A GEOGRAPHIC
LOCATION?
CORRECT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT
OTHER POTENTIAL IMPACTS THIS
BILL MAY HAVE ON OTHER LANDMARKS
THAT HAVE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
?
>> AS FAR AS WE KNOW THERE IS
NO OTHER SITE.
WE HAVE LOOKED THROUGH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SATISFIES THE
CRITERIA.
THERE IS ONE EXISTING SITE OF
OPEN-SPACE IN EXISTENCE AT THAT
TIME THE SITE OF THE DISCOVERY
CENTER.
BUT THE BLOCK ISN'T LARGE
ENOUGH TO MEET THE CRITERIA.
>> IT IS THE ZONE SLU IS
SPECIFIC TO THIS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
>> I DON'T HAVE MY HEAD
TOTALLY AROUND THIS.
CAN ASK YOU TO WALK THROUGH, I
UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND THE,
HOW IT USED TO WORK PRE-MHA.
THE FIRST QUESTION IS, IS THE
PROJECT WHERE THE PRESERVING
FACDE OF THE OLD SEATTLE TIMES
BUILDING THE SAME PROJECT THAT
IS GOING ON ADJACENT TO THE
PARK NEXT
>> CORRECT.
>> SO THAT IS ALL, THAT ALL
HAPPENED BEFORE MHA, DIDN'T IT?
>> NO.
THE SITE THAT HAS THE SEATTLE
TIMES FACDE DOES NOT HAVE IT
YET.
>> THEY ARE DOING THE DEMO WORK
BUT WITHOUT MHA.
>> THEY ARE GOING THROUGH THE
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS.
TEY HAD PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED
A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON THAT
SITE, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING
YOU ARE REMEMBERING.
THEY DID APPLY FOR THAT.
BUT THEN THEY DECIDED TO CHANGE
TO A COMMERCIAL PROJECT.
>> THEY VESTING TO PRE-MHA OR
POSTERIOR DO THEY HAVE THE
FLEXIBILITY TO DO EITHER?
>> NO.
THEY HAVE TO DO MHA.
>> AND THAT IS THE WHOLE SITE,
NOT JUST --?
>> CORRECT.
>> EVEN NOISY CONSTRUCTION MY
ASSUMPTION --
>> THE BLOCK THAT THE PARK IS
LOCATED ON HIS WILL UNDER
CONSTRUCTION.
YOU CAN GO BY AND SEE THE
TOWERS THERE.
THAT WAS SUBJECT TO MHA AS WELL.
>> BECAUSE THEY OPTED IN I
ASSUME?
>> KNOW THEY ACTUALLY GOT AFTER
MHA BECAME EFFECTIVE.
>> THAT IS HELPFUL.
I UNDERSTAND HOW THE MIX OF
INCENTIVES WORKED AND IF I
UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY BECAUSE
THERE IS NO LONGER A BONUS TO
BE ACHIEVED, THROUGH THE
INCENTIVE ZONING BECAUSE WE ARE
GOING TO CHARGE YOU FOR
WHATEVER YOU BUILD ANYWAYS, IS
THAT THE PIECE, THE RENTAL COST
OF PAYING FOR THE OPEN-SPACE
DOESN'T GIVE THEM THE RETURN ON
THEIR INVESTMENT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED HERE
ABOUT, WHAT IS THE SHIFT?
WHAT ARE THEY GETTING NOW?
>> THEY ARE GETTING MORE FLOOR
AREA.
TRANSFERRING FLOOR AREA OF THE
SIDE OF THE PARK ONTO THE
ADJACENT BLOCK.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE IMAGE ON
THIS SCREEN, THE FLOORS THAT
ARE ABOVE THE DOTTED BLUE LINE,
THREE FLOORS ON THE WEST
PORTION OF THE SITE, AND ONE
FLOOR ON THE EAST PORTION OF
THE SITE, BUT FOR THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD NOT BE
PERMITTED.
>> CORRECT.
>> FROM THE PARK.
AND THEN THE PUBLIC BENEFIT IS
THAT THE PARK IS MAINTAINED AND
OPEN AND IS VERY CLEARLY A
PUBLIC PARK OPEN WITH ALL THE
-- YOU CAN'T REMOVE PEOPLE
UNLESS THERE BEING DISRUPTIVE
TO OTHERS, THE BASIC SAME RULES
WE APPLY TO OTHER PARKS.
>> WHAT IS THAT SLOPE LINE
INTERSECTS THE BUILDING?
>> THAT IS ACTUALLY A FEATURE
OF THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING.
THE SIDES OF THE BUILDING -- IT
DOESN'T READ WELL IN THE
STRONG.
>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS SOME OF
THE SPACE NEEDLE VIEW BLOCKING.
DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
IT'S A DESIGN ELEMENT.
>> THAT IS A DESIGN.
>> GOT IT.
IT SOMOS LIKE A COMBINED LOT
DEVELOPMENT TRANSFER, IT'S THAT
KIND OF CONCEPT?
>> YES.
>> BUT IT'S SEPARATED -- OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
>> SEEING THERE IS NO MORE
DISCUSSION I WILL NOW OPEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING ON COUNCIL BUILT
119597.
SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO TWO
MINUTES A PUBLIC COMMENT.
THE COMMENTS EXCEED THE TWO
MINUTES THE MICROPHONE WILL BE
TURNED OFF.
FIRST ON OUR LIST IS JOHN
PEARSON.
>> THANK YOU TOWNSELL MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS JOHN PEARSON.
I AM A BOARD MEMBER OF THE
SOUTH LAKE UNION COMMUNITY
COUNCIL AND A RESIDENT OF
MARABELLA.
LITERALLY ACROSS THE STREET
FROM THE SEATTLE TIMES PARK.
AT MIRABELLA I LEAVE THE TASK
FORCE.
IT MONITORS DEVELOPMENTS AND
TRIES TO IMPACT THE QUALITY OF
DEVELOPMENT IN OUR AREA.
WE STARTED WORKING ON SAVING
THE SEATTLE TIMES PARK BEFORE
2013.
OVER SIX YEARS AGO.
WE HAVE CONTACTED ALL THE CITY
COUNCIL MEMBERS, MAYOR STAFF,
AND MEMBERS OF D.C. AND OPCD
BEFORE THE NAME CHANGES.
COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL PLAN,
WHICH WAS TO DESTROY THIS SMALL
URBAN PARK, CHAINSAW DOWN FIVE
EXCEPTIONAL TREES, HIS CURRENT
PLAN IS GREAT.
IT REPRESENTS A COMPROMISE ON
BOTH SIDES, SAVING THE PARK THE
LIFE OF THE BUILDINGS.
AND KEEPING THE PARK OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC AND AT THE SAME TIME
ALLOWING SOME ADDITIONAL HEIGHT
FOR OFFICE DEVELOPMENT ON
ADJACENT LOTS.
THE SOLUTION HAS THE SUPPORT OF
THE SOUTH LAKE UNION COMMUNITY
COUNCIL AND THE MIRABELLA
DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE.
I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T
SAY THAT THIS SOLUTION WOULD
NOT HAVE HAPPENED EXCEPT FOR
COUNCILMEMBER BIGSHOT.
SHE INTEROFFICE WORKED
TIRELESSLY OBTAINING AN
AGREEMENT IN THE WRITTEN MO WAY
AND FOLLOWED UP BY TRYING TO
ACCELERATE THIS AMENDMENT TO
THE COUNCIL FOR OVER A PERIOD
OF SIX YEARS.
THE ESSENCE OF THIS AGREEMENT
WILL HAVE SOME LIGHT WITH
ATTACHMENT TO THE DEED TO
PROTECT ANYBODY IN THE FUTURE.
I CAN SPEAK FOR THE SOUTH LAKE
UNION COMMUNITY COUNCIL BOARD
AND THE MIRABELLA COMMUNITY, WE
WILL MISS COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW
WHEN SHE IS BACK AT HARVARD
INSTEAD OF SAVING THE CITY OR
AT LEAST COUNCIL DISTRICT 7.
THANK YOU FOR ALL SHE HAS DONE
AND WE APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANK YOU.
I WILL BE SURE AND FOR THE
MESSAGE.
NEXT ON OUR LIST IS MEGAN
FOLLOWED BY STEPHEN.
>> THANKS.
THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING
PROPOSAL AND IT SEEMS TO WORK
OUT WELL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD
IN THIS CASE.
BUT I WOULD ECHO COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD 'S CONCERNS ABOUT
SETTING PRECEDENTS FOR OTHER
EBER HOODS.
RIGHT NOW LANDMARKS AND
DAYLIGHT SKYLIGHT IS AT A
PREMIUM IN SEATTLE.
WHEN WE START MAKING DEALS TO
BE ABLE TO ADD A LITTLE MORE
HERE AND THERE, WE ARE COMING
OUT VIEWS AND LIGHT THAT
EVERYONE ENJOYS.
JUST, I WOULD SAY LET'S KEEP
THIS TO A MINIMUM.
THANKS.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT IS STEVE.
>> I WISH I HAD MORE FAITH IN
THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAND-USE.
WHEN YOU TELL ME IT IS FOR ONE
PLACE, I REALLY HOPE YOU'RE
RIGHT.
BECAUSE, WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF
INTERESTING THINGS WITH LAND-
USE IN THIS CITY.
THINGS THAT WERE NOT PRECEDENTS
TURNED INTO PRECEDENTS.
AND ACTUALLY GROUND FLOORS, NOT
CEILINGS.
SO MY CONCERN IS, WHAT WILL BE
THE COST TO THE DEVELOPER IF
THIS PARK IS NO LONGER A PARK?
IS THERE GOING TO BE SOME
PENALTY THAT WOULD BE SO BAD
THAT WE WOULD ACCEPT THE
PENALTY AND THE LOSS OF THE
PARK?
THAT IS PROBABLY NOT IN THERE.
BUT I WOULD HOPE IT WOULD BE.
I HEAR A LOT FROM THE
DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, BUT THEY
HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF GIVING'S.
AND I DON'T SEE THE SAME SORT
OF DESIRE TO COMPENSATE THE CITY
AND THE TAXPAYERS FOR THE THINGS
THAT THEY ARE ACHIEVING IN
GIVING.
SO, I WOULD SAY, THAT WHEN WE
HAVE OUR HEARINGS AND WHEN WE
DELETE SEPA, WHICH IS WHAT YOU
ARE TRYING TO DO AND DOING A
FAIR JOB OF TRYING TO WEAKENING
IT, IT'S NOT TOTALLY DEAD YET,
AND YOU HAVE ALREADY TAKEN
DESIGN REVIEW DOWN TO ALMOST
NOTHING, IT USED TO BE WIDE
OPEN TO LOOK AT THE PROJECT AND
MAKE IT FIT, AND YOU DON'T
REALLY THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT
ANYMORE, AND, THE FACT THAT
MANY OF YOU, DON'T SHOW UP FOR
THE PUBLIC HEARING PART OF THIS
MEETING, THAT IT SHOWS WHAT
PEOPLE ON THE COUNCIL THINK OF
THE PUBLIC.
AND THE PUBLIC IS A LITTLE
CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR
STEWARDSHIP.
>> THANKS STEVE.
NEXT IS LESLIE.
>> GOOD MORNING MY NAME IS
LESLIE, I AM A RESIDENT OF THE
FISHER STUDIO ELDON, A HISTORIC
LIMERICK DOWNTOWN.
I LIKE TO SAY THIS PROPOSAL
WORKS WELL BECAUSE IT PREFERS
PRESERVES GREEN SPACE.
HOWEVER WE HAVE SETBACKS IN
REGARDS TO LIMERICKS FOR
REASON.
PRESERVATION.
CHANGING THESE IN REGARDS TO
LANDMARKS SETS A DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT.
PLEASE THINK LONG AND HARD
ABOUT THIS DECISION.
WHAT IT WILL MEAN FOR THE
DECISIONS MONTHS AND YEARS FROM
NOW.
PLEASE THINK ABOUT WHAT IT SAYS
ABOUT PRESERVATION IN SEATTLE.
THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO
SPEAK AND DID NOT SIGN UP TO
SPEAK?
I JUST ASK THAT YOU PLEASE SIGN
.
>> I WILL SIGN IN.
MEDICAL HERE LEARY.
WE REPRESENT THE PROPONENT OF
THIS CODE AMENDMENT.
I'M SORRY FOR NOT SENDING IN
EARLIER.
I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY A
COUPLE OF THINGS I HEARD. I
HEARD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS
ABOUT MHA AND INCENTIVE ZONING
PAYMENTS.
I ACTUALLY TEXTED THE CLIENT,
THANK YOU TECHNOLOGY, TO MAKE
SURE I GOT THE NUMBERS CORRECT.
411 20 DENNY WHICH IS THE
PROJECT ADJACENT TO THE PARK ON
THE SOUTH SIDE, OF JOHN STREET,
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PAYMENT
FOR THAT PROJECT IS $8 MILLION.
411 20 JOHN WHICH IS THE
PROJECT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
JOHN WHICH IS RECEIVING THE
DENSITY, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PAYMENT IS $11 MILLION.
THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT WE
ARE DEALING WITH IN TERMS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PAYMENTS.
I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY, I HEARD
A COMMENT EARLIER, RELATED TO
SETBACKS AND LANDMARK
STRUCTURES.
THIS ACTUALLY DOESN'T ANY
CHANGE ANYTHING WE ARE DOING.
WHAT IT DOES IS ALLOWS FOR
DEPARTURES IN TERMS OF TOWER
SPACING AND TOWER SEPARATION.
IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PROCESS
WE ARE CONTINUING TO GO THROUGH
WITH THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION
BOARD.
THAT PROCESS WILL CONTINUE. WE
WILL HAVE TO OBTAIN A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FROM
THE LANDMARKS BOARD FOR WHAT WE
ARE TRYING TO BUILD.
IF YOU DO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS,
WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY, WE DID
THE ROUNDS EARLIER BUT IF YOU
HAVE ANY MORE SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS WE ARE MORE THAN
HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
THANK YOU.
>> OTHER ANY OTHER FINAL
SPEAKERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK?
SEEING THEN I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC
HEARING COUNCIL BILL 119597.
COLLEAGUES, FOR ADDITIONAL
CONTEXT, LAST YEAR A COLLECTION
OF MHA PAYMENTS WAS ABOUT $13.6
MILLION.
THANK YOU BOTH FOR BRIEFING US
TODAY.
THIS LEGISLATION WILL BE BACK
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE FOR A
POSSIBLE VOTE NEXT WEEK OF
SEPTEMBER 11 AT NOON.
OUR NEXT ITEM IS A BRIEFING
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON
314 359.
A CONTRACT REZONE APPLICATION
FOR 4726 15th AVENUE NORTHEAST.
PLEASE READ THE TITLE INTO THE
RECORD.
>> 314359.
AND APPLICATION OF YUAN'S H&H
PROPERTY, LLC TO REZONE AN
APPROXIMATELY 4,320 SQUARE FOOT
SITE LOCATED AT 4726 15th
AVENUE NORTHEAST FROM LOWRISE 3
(LR3) MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 2
WITH A 65 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.
>> WE ARE JOINED BY LISH
WHITSON WITH COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF.
PLEASE REFRESH US ON THE RULES.
>> SURE.
THIS IS A PETITION FOR A SITE
SPECIFIC REZONE.
WHICH MEANS COUNCIL REVIEWS
THE PROPOSAL BASED ON CRITERIA
IN THE LAND-USE CODE.
IT HAS RECEIVED A RECOMMENDATION
FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
FROM THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS.
THERE WAS AN OPEN RECORD
HEARING HELD AT THE HEARING
EXAMINER, THE HEARING EXAMINER
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH
CONDITIONS.
AND THAT RECORD IS CONTAINED IN
THIS FOLDER.
AND IT'S AVAILABLE TO ALL OF
YOU TO REVIEW.
I WILL BE SHOWING YOU SOME
EXCERPTS FROM THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S RECORD.
COUNCIL MAY NOT RECEIVE ANY
PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS STAGE.
AND THERE WERE NO APPEALS TO
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
SO, THE CLERK FILE FOR THE
APPROVAL COMES IN AT THE VERY
BEGINNING OF THE STAGE.
AND OFTEN, AS THE PROJECT GETS
BETTER DESIGNED WE HAVE CHANGES
TO THE PROPOSAL. AT THE END OF
THE PRESENTATION I WILL TALK
ABOUT THE CHANGES TO THE TITLE
OF THE CLERK FILE.
THAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER.
BUT BASICALLY THIS IS THE
REZONE OF ONE LOT FROM LOWRISE
THREE WITH A MANDATORY HOUSING
FOR ABILITY SUFFIX TO
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 2. THE
SITE IS LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF 15th AVENUE NORTHEAST.
SOUTH OF NORTH EAST 50th STREET
AND NORTH OF EAST 47th STREET.
IN THE UNIVERSITY URBAN CENTER.
THE LOT TO BE REZONED IS
CURRENTLY ZONED LOWRISE THREE
WITH AN M DESIGNATION.
AS YOU CAN SEE WAS LEFT OUT OF
THE REZONE THE REST OF THE
BLOCK FACE.
THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNER
DECIDED NOT TO SIGN A PROPERTY
USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THAT ITS NEIGHBORS AGREED TO
SIGN THE REST OF THE BLOCK WAS
REZONED.
IT LEFT THIS ONE PARCEL OUT OF
THAT REZONE.
THE NEW PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE
COME FORWARD REQUESTING A REZONE
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE
NEIGHBORS WERE REZONED TO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
>> THE BLUE DOT IS INSIDE, IS
THAT THE BLUE DOT OFF OR IS THE
PROJECT SPAN BOTH ZONES?
>> THE PROJECT SPANS THREE
PARCELS.
AND THE BLUE DOT IS THAT 4726
WHICH WAS THE ADDRESS FOR THE
LAND-USE PERMIT.
DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR ON ALL
THREE PARCELS AND THE BLUE DOT
REPRESENTS THE MIDDLE OF THE
THREE PARCELS.
>> SO TWO OF THE PARCELS ARE
CURRENTLY ZONED IN SITU 75 AND
ONE OF THEM IS LR THREE?
>> ALL OF THESE PARCELS WERE
REZONED IN APRIL UNDER THE
CITYWIDE MHA LEGISLATION.
>> THE REZONE WOULD FACILITATE
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SECOND
STORY 127 YOU BUILDING WITH
RETAIL AND UNDERGROUND PARKING.
THIS IS MORE DETAIL, THE
BUILDING TO THE NORTH HAS BEEN
BUILT.
THIS IS THE GROUND FLOOR WITH
COMMERCIAL SPACE, RESIDENTIAL
LOBBY, PARKING ACCESS.
THERE IS ABOUT 40 PARKING
SPACES PROPOSED IN THE PROJECT.
THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTIONS COMMENDED
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL WITH TWO
CONDITIONS.
DEVELOPMENT BE IN SUBSTANTIAL
CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS.
AND THE PROJECT BE SUBJECT TO
THE MANDATORY HOUSING
PORTABILITY REQUIREMENTS. IF
THE COMMUNITY SUPPORTS THE
RECOMMENDATION IN THE
DEPARTMENT, THERE ARE A FEW
STEPS THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN.
THE FIRST IS TO AMEND THE TITLE
TO REFLECT CURRENT CONDITIONS
INCLUDING THE CURRENT
APPLICATION MHA UNDER THE
REZONE THAT WAS PASSED EARLIER
THIS YEAR.
REFLECTING THE CURRENT
APPLICANT FOR THE PROPOSAL AND
REFLECTING THE PARCEL AT 4730
15th BEING REZONED, NOT THE ONE
TO THE SOUTH.
>> GIVEN THAT WE HEAR SO MUCH
ABOUT THE MHA PAYMENT, DO YOU
HAVE AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT?
>> NO.
IT IS, SO THE M1 DESIGNATION ON
THE SITE IN THIS LOCATION WOULD
BE $20 PER SQUARE FOOT.
OR, 9% OF THE UNITS.
THE OTHER TWO PARCELS WILL ONLY
HAVE IT M DESIGNATION WILL HAVE
A 6% REQUIREMENT AND A $13 PER
SQUARE FOOT APARTMENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
>> HAVEN'T CONTEMPLATED A
SPLIT ZONE, DO WE AVERAGE OR DO
WE HAVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON
THAT PARCEL TAX
>> I THINK THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT
THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON EACH
PARCEL.
>> I MEAN THE DESIGN LOOKS LIKE
, IT'S NOT LIKE GOING TO STEP
DOWN WHEN YOU GO TO THAT.
THAT IS INTRIGUING.
>> THE REZONE ISN'T APPROVED
AND THEY WOULD NEED TO STEP
DOWN.
AND THEY WOULD NEED TO
ELIMINATE THE COMMERCIAL SPACE.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE, THANK YOU. I
SUPPORT THE TITLE TO CORRECTING
IT AND ADDRESSING THE OTHER
ERRORS YOU EXPLAINED.
IF THERE ARE NO MORE
DISCUSSIONS I WOULD LIKE TO
MOVE TO AMEND THROUGH 14359 TWO
TITLE AS DESCRIBED IN THE
CENTRAL STAFF MEMO.
IS OUR SECOND?
>> THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION
PASSES.
NOW THAT WE HAVE CORRECTED THE
TITLE, IF THERE IS NO FURTHER
DISCUSSION I MOVED TO ADOPT AS
SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT NUMBER 2 OF
THE CENTRAL STAFF MEMO.
>> SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE
VOTRAN.
MOTION PASSES.
FINALLY I MOVE WE RECOMMEND THE
APPLICATION CONTAIN CLERK FILE
THROUGH AND 4359 BE GRANTED AS
CONDITIONED AT THE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING THE TIMBER 23rd.
THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE VOTE AYE.
THE MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU.
AS STATED THIS WILL BE BACK THE
TIMBER 23rd IN ORDER TO GIVE
CENTRAL STAFF TIME TO WORK ON
THE TO USE AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AS WELL AS AN
ORDINANCE.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY,
LISH WHITSON.
OUR FINAL ITEM IS A BRIEFING
AND DISCUSSION TO THE SEPA
POLICIES.
PLEASE READ INTO THE RECORD.
>> COUNCIL BILL 119600 IS AN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW; AMENDING
SECTIONS OF THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY
TIMELINES AND THE CONTENT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, TO
AUTHORIZE THE DEVELOPMENT OF
DIRECTOR'S RULES TO CLARIFY THE
CONTENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTS, AND TO MAKE
CORRECTIONS AND TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS.
>> WELCOME BACK.
>> TODAY'S DISCUSSION IS A
CHANCE TO FOLLOW UP ON ANY
OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS FROM THE
LAST MEETING GIVE MEMBERS
ANOTHER CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS
BEFORE A PUBLIC HEARING IN VOTE
NEXT WEEK.
IF YOU CAN GIVE US A BIT OF A
REFRESHER AND WE CAN GO FROM
THERE.
>> THIS LEGISLATION UPDATES THE
CITIES REGULATION RELATED TO
THE STATE ENVIRONMENT POLICY
ACT OR SEPA.
INTEGRATES NEW PROVISION FROM
WASHINGTON STATE LAW ADOPTED 'S
PAST SPRING AND IN 2012.
AND BEST PRACTICES FROM OTHER
JURISDICTIONS.
IN PARTICULAR IT EXEMPTS
CERTAIN ON PROJECT ACTIONS
APRIL 1, 2021.
PROVIDES A TIME LIMIT ON
HEARING EXAMINER APPEALS.
IT STATES THAT NON-PROJECT
APPLICATIONS THAT WOULD
IMPLEMENT SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM WOULD BE ALLEGORICALLY
EXEMPT FROM THE SEPA
REGULATIONS.
AND EXEMPTS PROJECTS IN URBAN
VILLAGES WITH UP TO 200 UNITS
FROM SEPA UNTIL THE URBAN
VILLAGE 20 YEAR ESTIMATED
GROWTH.
UNDER THE COMP PLAN.
HE DEVELOPED OVER THE 20 ESSMAN
IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW.
I SHOULD MENTION THAT THIS
PROPOSAL DOES NOT CHANGE ANY
EXEMPTIONS FOR DOWNTOWN SEATTLE.
THE CURRENT EXEMPTIONS ARE IN
PLACE WOULD CONTINUE.
AT THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING
MEMBERS ASKED HOW THIS COMPARES
TO CITIES IN OTHER STATES.
THE BRIEF ANSWER, IT DOESN'T
REALLY.
20 STATES HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS. MOST OF THEM
ADOPTED IN THE LATE 1860S AND
EARLY 1970S.
IN RESPONSE TO AND SORT OF
MIRRORING THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT. BUT
MOST OF THE STATE LAWS THAT
REQUIRE OUR MENTAL REVIEW ONLY
APPLY TO STATE AGENCIES.
THEY DON'T APPLY TO CITIES AND
COUNTIES.
ONLY FIVE STATES HAVE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY TO
CITIES.
WASHINGTON, NEW YORK,
CALIFORNIA THE MOST COMPLEX
REGULATIONS.
IN WASHINGTON, IT'S THE ONLY
STATE THAT PROVIDES FOR AN
APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION BEFORE AN ACTION
HAS BEEN APPROVED.
AND ALL THE OTHERS, IN OTHER
STATES, EITHER THERE IS NO
ABILITY FOR SOMEONE TO APPEAL
ANY ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNATION
OR, APPEALS ONLY HAPPEN TO THE
COURTS AFTER A DECISION HAS
BEEN REACHED.
SO, WASHINGTON STATE IS THE
ONLY STATE WHERE HEARING
EXAMINER APPEALS OCCUR. I
LOOKED AT WHAT OTHER WASHINGTON
STATE JURISDICTIONS DO, AND THE
LARGEST JURISDICTIONS ALSO HAVE
TIME LIMITS ON THE HEARING
EXAMINER APPEAL.
THEY ARE SHORTER THAN THOSE
PROPOSED UNDER THIS LEGISLATION.
KING AND PIERCE COUNTIES AND
SPOKANE AND TACOMA ALL HAVE
TIME LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT OF
TIME THE HEARING EXAMINER CAN
TAKE TO REVIEW AND APPEAL.
SNOHOMISH, SPOKANE, AND A FEW
OTHERS DON'T HAVE TIME LIMITS
WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH
SEATTLE'S CURRENT PRACTICE.
ANY QUESTIONS?
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
>> SO THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
TO LIMIT THE APPEAL PERIOD TO
120 DAYS UNDER CERTAIN COMPLEX
SCENARIOS.
THE OTHER LARGE CITIES OR LARGE
COUNTIES HAVE A SHORTER TIMELINE
. I AM CURIOUS, MY
UNDERSTANDING IS WE HAVE
ARRIVED AT THE 120 DAY PERIOD
AS WE THINK IS KIND OF FEASIBLE.
HOW TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS, HOW
SUCCESSFUL ARE THEY IN GETTING
SHORTER TIMELINES?
>> SO THE ONE I REVIEWED IN
DETAIL WAS KING COUNTY.
AND THEIR LIMIT WAS PUT IN
PLACE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF EXAMPLES.
BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOLUME
OF HEARING AND APPEALS THAT
SEATTLE DOES.
>> SO HOW MUCH OF IT IS THE
BACKLOG CHALLENGE?
IF SOMEONE APPEALS TODAY,, I
GUESS THE BACKLOG NATURE OF IT,
THERE IS A BUNCH OF THINGS IN
THE QUEUE BEFORE YOU GET TO IT,
EVEN IF THE SLATE WERE CLEAR IN
THIS WERE THE ONLY APPEAL, BUT
IT TAKES LONGER?
>> I THINK IT IS BOTH.
SEATTLE HAS HAD A NUMBER OF
FAIRLY LARGE COMPLEX PROPOSALS
THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH SEPA
APPEALS RECENTLY.
AND I KNOW YOU KNOW THEM, BUT
THE MHA LEGISLATION, THE TRAIL,
THEY WERE ALL LARGE WITH
MULTIPLE ATTORNEYS, PRESENCE OF
AN ATTORNEY AT AN APPEAL, IT
TENDS TO LINK THEM OUT.
ALL OF US CAN CONTRIBUTE CAN
THE LENGTH OF THE APPEALS.
AND PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN
WHAT HAPPENS IN SEATTLE.
SO WE GET A LOT OF ATTENTION.
>> IMAGINE THE COMPONENT OF THE
TIMELINE THAT IS DRIVEN BY WHAT
I WILL CALL BACKLOG.
IT CAN BE ADDRESSED IN PART BY
MORE RESOURCES TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER, WHETHER THAT IS
INTERNAL STAFF OR TEMPT PEOPLE
TO COME IN AND DO THAT.
SO WE CAN ELIMINATE THE BACKLOG.
AND ON THE COMPLEXITY, ARE
THERE THINGS THAT THE HEARING
EXAMINER CAN DO TO KIND OF
STREAMLINE THE PROCESS ON
COMPLEX ONES?
I AM NOT A LAWYER AND NOT AN
EXPERT, BUT IT DOES FEEL LIKE
THAT THERE ARE LEGAL
MANEUVERINGS PEOPLE CAN DO TO
ASK FOR ANOTHER 30 DAYS AND
ANOTHER REVIEW AND ANOTHER
HEARING THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
IS THAT ALL SOMEWHAT
DISCRETIONARY FOR THE HEARING
EXAMINER TO SAY, YES WE ARE
GOING TO STRETCH THIS OVER SIX
MONTHS OR, NO YOU HAVE TO DO IT
ALL IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF
MONTHS?
>> SO, THE LEGISLATION HAS 120
DAY LIMIT.
IT PROVIDES, IT ALLOWS THE
HEARING EXAMINER TO EXTEND IT
TO 150 DAYS.
IF IT APPEARS TO BE A FAIRLY
COMPLEX APPEAL.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAN TAKE
MORE TIME'S DISCOVERY.
SO LIMITING DISCOVERY COULD
SHORTEN THE AMOUNT OF TIME.
SEPA APPEALS ARE BASED ON A
RECORD THAT EITHER EIS OR THE
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
AND IT'S UP TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER FAR BEYOND THOSE
DOCUMENTS DISCOVERY OCCURS.
>> SO THAT IS A DISCRETIONARY
DECISION THAT THE HEARING
EXAMINER CAN MAKE.
>> YES.
AND THE LEGISLATION ALLOWS THE
HEARING EXAMINER TO EXTEND
BEYOND 150 DAYS IF BOTH PARTIES
AGREE.
IF EVERYONE SEES THAT THERE IS
A LOT OF WORK THAT WILL NEED TO
HAPPEN BEFORE THE HEARING
OCCURS, OR THAT MULTIPLE
HEARING SESSIONS MIGHT BE
NEEDED, THEY CAN AGREE ON IT, A
MUTUALLY AGREEABLE TIME WHEN.
>> YOU GATHER THE DATA IN TERMS
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER AND HOW
LONG DOES APPEALS TAKE, THE
AVERAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY
HUNDRED 20 DAYS, CORRECT?
>> MEDIAN WAS 120 DAYS.
AND HAS BEEN LONGER MORE
RECENTLY.
BUT BEFORE 2015 OR SO, ALMOST
ALL APPEALS HAPPENED WITHIN 120
DAYS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD .
>> TANKS.
I WANT MORE OF AN UNDERSTANDING
ABOUT ITEMS SIX AND SEVEN IN
YOUR MEMO RELATED TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE OF
ECONOMIC ISSUES.
ITEM 6 SAYS CLARIFY THAT
ADDITIONAL NON-ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC ISSUES
WHEN INCLUDED IN AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT IS NOT
SUBJECT TO APPEAL.
>> SO THAT ITEM, AND DEPENDENT
OF ITEM 7, WHICH IS NOT ABOUT
THE APPEAL RIGHTS, IT IS ABOUT
IT OR NOT SEPA ANALYSIS IS
REQUIRED, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> SIX IS ABOUT APPEALS, SEVEN
IS ABOUT THE ANALYSIS ITSELF.
>> RIGHT.
UNDER THE STATE LEVEL SEPA
REGULATIONS, THERE IS A LIST
OF ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE
ANALYZED UNDER THE CITY SEPA
REVIEW.
THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ECONOMIC
ISSUES AND STATE LAW IS CLEAR
THAT ECONOMIC ISSUES ARE NOT
PART OF SEPA.
OUR REGULATIONS SINCE THE 1980S
HAVE REQUIRED CERTAIN ANALYSIS
OF ECONOMIC ISSUES ALONGSIDE
SEPA REGULATIONS.
IT WAS NEVER CONTEMPLATED THAT
THAT ANALYSIS WOULD BE SUBJECT
TO REVIEW.
OR SUBJECT TO APPEAL.
RECENT CASES, PARTICULARLY THE
TRAIL, THAT HAS BEEN MUDDIED IN
THE COURTS, SO THIS CLARIFIES
THAT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, NOT
SUBJECT TO APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS
NOT A COMPONENT OF THE
ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE STATE
LEVEL SEPA REGULATIONS.
AND THEN THE SECOND ALSO CAME UP
IN THE BURKE GILMAN APPEAL.
STATE LEVEL TRANXL IS CLEAR THAT
INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE
NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED OR DISCLOSED. BUT IN
THAT CASE THE COURTS WERE
STARTING TO LEAD DOWN THAT PATH
IN TERMS OF HOW A PARTICULAR
BIKE TRAIL WILL IMPACT
PARTICULAR BUSINESSES ALONG A
PARTICULAR ROUTE.
AND HOW CHANGES TO THE STREET
RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL POTENTIALLY
CHANGE THE ECONOMIC
CIRCUMSTANCES OF AN INDIVIDUAL
BUSINESS IN THIS CLARIFIES THAT
THAT IS NOT WHAT SEPA IS FOR.
>> IN SEATTLE EVEN THOUGH IT'S
NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO AN
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UNDER SEPA ,
WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO IT BUT
NOT FOR INDIVIDUAL BUSINESSES.
>> CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> UNDER HB 19, I'M SORRY 1923,
THE CITY HAS UNTIL WHEN TO
UPDATE OUR THRESHOLDS?
>> APRIL 1, 2021.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD .
>> AS IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY
TO AUTHORIZING UNIFORM
STANDARDS, I UNDERSTAND THAT
THE AUTHORITY LIES WITH SDCI
BUT CAN WE INCLUDE LANGUAGE
AROUND THE OBLIGATION OF SDCI
TO WORK WITH APPROPRIATE CITY
DEPARTMENTS IN DEVELOPING THOSE
RULES?
>> YES.
>> I AM JUST THINKING, THERE
ARE A NUMBER OF DEPARTMENTS
WITH EXPERTISE IN SPECIFIC AREAS
THAT THIS LEGISLATION TOUCHES.
IT MIGHT BE USEFUL TO GIVE
THOSE DEPARTMENTS DEVELOPMENT
OF THE RULES.
>> THAT IS STANDARD PRACTICE.
THERE ARE NUMEROUS JOINT RULES
FOR EXAMPLE BETWEEN SDCI AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION.
>> ALSO AS IT RELATES TO THE
PRO TEM EXAMINERS, ARE THERE
ETHICS RULES AROUND THE OTHER
BUSINESS THAT THOSE PRO TEM
EXAMINERS MIGHT HAVE WITH
PROJECTS THAT COULD BE IMPACTED
BY THEIR DECISION-MAKING, JUST
WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT, IF
THERE AREN'T, WHETHER OR NOT WE
SHOULD CONSIDER THAT TO TRY TO
MAKE SURE WE ARE AVOIDING ANY
CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN GIVING
THEM THAT ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.
>> I WILL LOOK INTO THAT MORE.
I AM ALMOST CERTAIN ANY
CONTRACTORS WITH THE CITY HAVE
CERTAIN ETHICS RULES THEY HAVE
TO COMPLY WITH, BUT I WILL MAKE
SURE YOU HAVE THAT FOR YOUR
NEXT MEETING.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU.
CHECKING INTO THAT.
AND THEN THE LAST THING I
WANTED TO SHARE IS TO KEY UP
FOR DISCUSSION NEXT TIME, IN
RESPONSE TO A LETTER FROM
CLIMATE SOLUTIONS, SITE LINE
AND TRANSPORTATION CHOICES, WE
RECEIVED, AS IT RELATES TO THE
SEPA LEGISLATION AND AREAS
RELATED, RELATED AREAS IN THE
CITY WITH REPLACEMENT AND LOW
ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY, AND
AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD LOVE TO
TALK TO YOU ABOUT BETWEEN NOW
AND THE NEXT MEETING.
THAT WOULD CLARIFY THAT THE
LEGISLATION IS PROPOSED WOULD
APPLY ONLY TO AREAS THAT ARE AT
LOW RISK FOR DISPLACEMENT AND
HIGH ACCESS OPPORTUNITY.
AWKWARD SILENCE.
>> I'M JUST SEEING THIS, I
APOLOGIZE.
>> DIGESTING.
>> IT TAKES A WHILE.
>> USED TO VOLUNTEER IN RADIO
MANY YEARS AGO.
[LAUGHTER]
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK
FURTHER?
>> I THINK IT IS REALLY
CONSISTENT WITH POSITIONS THAT
I HAVE WORKED TO PROMOTE AS A
MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE FOR
YEARS, LAND USE AND
DEVELOPMENT,.
AND HOW THOSE POLICIES IMPACT
AREAS THAT ARE AT RISK FOR
DISPLACEMENT.
WE HAVE OUR DISPLACED RISK
ANALYSIS THAT IS PART OF OUR
CONFERENCE OF PLAN.
WE HAVE A COMMITMENT TO USING IT
AND I THINK USING IT IN THIS
WAY TO ENSURE THAT, THAT THIS
BILL ACTUALLY WORKS TOWARDS
PROMOTING GREATER HOUSING
DIVERSITY IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
>> I AM WILLING TO CONSIDER THIS
AND GIVE IT FURTHER
CONSIDERATION.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I CAN
CHECK WITH CENTRAL STAFF, MY
STAFF AS WELL AS STAKEHOLDERS
AND GET FURTHER COMMENT.
>> JUST FLOATING IT.
>> I AM INTRIGUED BY IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S STILL TOO
EARLY FOR ME, I CAN'T GET MY
HEAD AROUND IT.
BUT IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HEAR
COMMENTS ON THAT.
I APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD PUTTING THIS OUT THERE
SO FOLKS CAN COMMENT.
>> IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS, I WANT TO THINK OF
FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL AS
LISH FOR ALL YOUR WORK AS WELL
AS THE INDIVIDUALS AND
ORGANIZATIONS THIS MORNING.
WE WILL HAVE THE PUBLIC
HEARING, WE RECONVENED NEXT
MONDAY FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING
AT 5:30 PM ON THIS.
FOLLOW-UP FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION A VOTE ON
WEDNESDAY THE 11th AT NOON.
THIS CONCLUDES NOW ARE
SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 MEETING OF THE
PLANNING, LAND USE, AND ZONING
COMMITTEE..
ONE LAST REMINDER, THE PUBLIC
HEARING FOR THE SEPA REFORM
ORDINANCE WILL BE MONDAY,
SEPTEMBER 9 AT 5:30 PM HERE IN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
FOLLOWED BY THE SEPTEMBER 11
MEETING WEDNESDAY AT NOON.
THANK YOU ALL FOR ATTENDING.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.