>>> GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO
THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED 9:30 AM
COMMITTEE MEETING FOR OUR
SELECT MIDI ON CITYWIDE
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY.
IT IS 9:33 AM ON WEDNESDAY
MORNING.
I NAME IS ROB JOHNSON I AM
CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE.
I'M JOINED SO FAR BY
COUNCILMEMEBER SAWANT ,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD . ON
MONDAY WE AS A COMMITTEE DID AN
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO THE BASE
LEGISLATION THAT HAVE BEEN
SURFACED BY COMMUNITY MEMBERS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS SO FAR.
IN DISTRICTS FOUR, SIX AND
SEVEN.
TODAY WE ARE GONNA FOCUS ON
DISTRICTS ONE, TWO, THREE AND
FIVE.
WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM
IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER.
I WANT TO REMIND FOLKS OF A
COUPLE OF THINGS.
THIS IS THE 17th SELECT
COMMITTEE ON MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY.
IN ADDITION TO THE 17 SELECT
COMMITTEE MEETINGS WE HAD
SEVERAL OPEN HOUSES AND I THINK
WE'VE HAD 40 OR SO COUNCIL LED
MEETINGS AND PROBABLY 150
ADDITIONAL MEETINGS NOT COUNSEL
LED SINCE THIS PROCESS BEGAN IN
2016.
THE PLAN IS TO HOLD ANOTHER
THREE SELECT COMMITTEE MEETINGS
OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.
INCLUDING AN EVENING PUBLIC
HEARING HERE AT CITY HALL ON
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21.
530.
AND OUR NEXT SELECT COMMITTEE
MEETING BETWEEN NOW AND THE
PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE FRIDAY,
FEBRUARY 8 AT 9:30 AM TO
DISCUSS THE LEGISLATION.
WHAT WE START WITH READING THE
ITEM INTO THE RECORD.
>> AGENDA ITEM ONE.
SELECT -- THANK YOU FOR JOINING
US COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ . WHAT
WE ARE WALKING THROUGH TODAY IS
WHAT HAS SURFACED THROUGH THE
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS WE
HAVE HAD SO FAR.
IT DOES NOT MEAN NECESSARILY
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, THE COUNCIL
WILL CHOOSE TO BRING THE
AMENDMENT FORWARD IT DOES
RECOGNIZE THAT IS A
POSSIBILITY.
GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
TO WALK US THROUGH THE VARIOUS
DISTRICTS WE HAVE FOUR NUMBERS
OF OUR COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
LET'S START WITH BRIEF
INTRODUCTIONS AND WE WILL KICK
IT OFF WITH DISTRICT NUMBER 1.
MR. FREEMAN?
>> KETIL FREEMAN.
>> LISH WHITSON.
>> YOLANDA
>> ERIC McCONAGHY.
>> AND WHO IS GOING TO START US
WITH DISTRICT ONE?
>> I WILL GET YOU ALL STARTED.
AS WE MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY TO
ALLOW FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF MHA
EXECUTIVE HAS PROPOSED
INCREASING DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
IN TWO WAYS.
ONE IS THROUGH A CHANGE THROUGH
THE ZONE DESTINATION ON THE
OFFICIAL LAND-USE MAP.
OR THROUGH CHANGES TO
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THAT
INCREASE CAPACITY OF THE ZONE.
AN EXAMPLE IS TO INCREASE
HEIGHT OR FLOOR AREA LIMITS.
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.
AGAIN, WE WANT TO EMPHASIZE
THAT THIS IS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE
LIST, EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN
GOING THROUGH IS NOT WHAT IS
OUT THERE IN THE WORLD.
AGAIN, I REITERATE THAT THIS IS
NOT TO SUGGEST THAT THERE IS A
COUNCILMEMBER SPONSORING ANY
GIVEN AMENDMENT AT THIS POINT.
OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF WILL WORK
WITH COUNCILMEMBERS TO IDENTIFY
WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE
MOVE FORWARD IN THE PROCESS.
THESE AMENDMENTS ALONG WITH
CONTENT FOR A COMPANION
RESOLUTION WILL BE DISCUSSED AT
COMMITTEE MEETINGS IN FEBRUAR.
SO, WE WILL TURN OUR ATTENTION
TO ATTACHMENT ONE AND PAGE 14
DISTRICT 1 -- PAGE 1 AND
DISTRICT 1. FOR EACH DISTRICT
THE FIRST PAGE INCLUDES A
DISTRICT WIDE MAP THAT INCLUDES
A MAP LEGEND AND SHOWS A
NUMBER.WITH ALL THE POTENTIAL
CHANGES WE WERE AWARE OF AT THE
TIME OF THE CREATION OF THE
MAP.
FOLLOWING THE MAP IS A TABLE
THAT SUMMARIZES THE INFORMATION
ABOUT EACH AMENDMENT.
LOCATES AND DESCRIBES A
POTENTIAL AMENDMENT.
IDENTIFIES THE CURRENT ZONE
DESIGNATION.
MHA PROPOSED ZONE DESIGNATION
AND ALTERNATIVE ZONE
DESIGNATION.
THAT IS THE ONE PROPOSED BY
COMMUNITY OR OTHERS.
IT ALSO IDENTIFIES THE RANGE OF
ZONE STUDIES FOR THE SITE FOR
THE AREA IN THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
FOR MHA IMPLEMENTATION.
AND CATEGORIZES THE POTENTIAL
FOR AN AMENDMENT BASED ON THE
ANALYSIS.
IF THE NOTATION IS WITHIN THE
FEIS SCOPE, THAT INDICATES THE
POTENTIAL AMENDMENT WAS
CONTEMPLATED IN THE EIS AND
COULD MOVE FORWARD AS PART OF
THE MHA LEGISLATION.
IF THE NOTATION IS ADDITIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS NEEDED,
IT INDICATES A POTENTIAL CHANGE
WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED IN THE MHA
FINAL FEIS AND COULD NOT BE
ACCOMPLISHED IN THE MHA
LEGISLATION.
IT COULD BE INCLUDED IN A
COMPANION RESOLUTION WITH A
REQUEST TO THE CONSECUTIVE TO
REQUEST THE PLANNING PROCESS.
INCLUDING ADDITIONAL OF OUR
MENTAL REVIEW TO DETERMINE IF
THE CHANGES ARE APPROPRIATE.
IN SOME CASES IT IS NOT
FEASIBLE DUE TO THE CONSTRAINTS
OF THE EIS BUT A HIGHER
ALTERNATIVE WAS STUDIED IN THE
FEIS THAN WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY
THE EXECUTIVE.
AN ALTERNATIVE OPTION IS
AVAILABLE JUST NOT TO THE
EXTENT OF WHAT IS BEING
REQUESTED.
SO, WE ARE GOING TO START WITH
>> BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THAT I
WONDER, COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
, ANY OPENING REMARKS?
>> I JUST WANT TO THANK CENTRAL
STAFF AS WELL AS COMMUNITY
MEMBERS FOR SPENDING SOME TIME
WITH US, QUITE A BIT OF TIME,
GOING THROUGH THE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMUNITY
MEMBERS, A COUPLE FRIDAYS AGO.
IT WAS REALLY HELPFUL TO GET US
FOCUSED ON AMENDMENTS THAT THEY
WOULD LIKE TO SEE TO MAKE SURE
THAT THIS MHA PLAN REFLECTS
SOME OF THEIR INTERESTS.
AS YOLANDA MENTIONED, AND
NUMBER OF THE ITEMS THAT WE ARE
GOING TO DISCUSS TODAY ARE,
MOST ARE LIMITED TO MAP CHANGE
ISSUES.
AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON A
PRETTY EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF OTHER
ISSUES THAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS
WOULD LIKE ADDRESSED THROUGH
OUR DELIBERATIONS ON MHA.
SOME OF WHICH WILL INCLUDED --
BE INCLUDED IN THE ACCOMPANYING
RESOLUTION.
SOME WILL BE INCLUDED
POTENTIALLY IN SOME DESIGN
GUIDELINE CHANGES.
I MIGHT HAVE A COUPLE THINGS TO
ADD THE DIDN'T MAKE IT ONTO THE
MEMO.
ALTHOUGH I THINK YOU HAVE BEEN
DOING A GOOD JOB OF TRACKING
THE THINGS THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT
ONTO THE MEMO.
YOU MIGHT GET TO THEM BEFORE I
DO.
THANKS.
>> AN EXCELLENT REMINDER, THE
WAY HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT
THIS IS WITHIN THREE SEPARATE
BUCKETS.
THERE IS THE WITHIN THE FEIS
BUCKET WHICH ARE AMENDMENTS TO
CONSIDER FOR ADOPTION WHICH
INCLUDE NOT ONLY THE STRICT
FOCUSED COMMITMENTS BUT
AMENDMENTS THAT MAY APPLY
ACROSS THE CITY.
A SECOND BUCKET WHICH IS THE
BUCKET THAT SHE TALKED ABOUT
WITH ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEWS NEEDED WE COULD ASK THE
EXECUTIVE IN PLANNING THE
PERTINENCE TO DO ADDITIONAL
ANALYSIS.
AND THE THIRD BUCKET WE HAVE
HAD CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THE
ZONING PROCESS IS WHERE
COMPANION RESOLUTION
OPPORTUNITIES, THINGS WE CAN'T
ADDRESS THROUGH THE LAND-USE
CODE, CONCURRENCY ISSUES OR
OTHER CITY INFRASTRUCTURE
PRIORITIES THAT WE MIGHT WANT
TO SEE ANALYZED AND IDENTIFIED.
WE CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT
FRAMEWORK MOVING FORWARD.
THANK YOU FOR THAT REMINDER.
>> ONE THING I DIDN'T HEAR AS A
BUCKET THAT I RECALL THAT WE
WERE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH BECAUSE
THEY ARE A LAND-USE CHANGE BUT
THEY ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY MAP
CHANGES, ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES
THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
SIMILAR TO OUR PREVIOUS MHA RE-
ZONES IN DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES.
ISSUES RELATED TO SETBACKS, THE
SIZE OF RETAIL SPACES, SOME OF
THOSE THINGS.
I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT DESCRIBED
AS A BUCKET WE ARE LOOKING TO
LEGISLATE IN THIS PROCESS.
>> AND WE DISCUSSED THOSE AT
OUR FIRST MEETING, THE FIRST
DAY BACK WHICH FEELS LIKE SO
LONG AGO BUT WAS ONLY 10 DAYS
AGO.
MANY OF THOSE ISSUES ARE WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF THE FEIS SO THE
CROSSCUTTING ISSUES THAT RUN
ACROSS DISTRICTS WHETHER THEY
ARE DESIGN REVIEW ISSUES
COMMERCIAL SPACE COMBAT ABILITY
ISSUES, WE TALKED ABOUT THOSE
FIRST 25 OR SO AMENDMENT AND IT
WILL BE MORE TO COME.
>> BUT THOSE ARE CITYWIDE.
I'M TALKING ABOUT DISTRICT
SPECIFIC.
>> SURE, YES.
THOSE ARE ALSO THE KINDS OF
ISSUES THAT WE WOULD WANT TO
MAKE SURE THEY GET FORWARDED TO
CENTRAL STAFF FOR ANALYSIS
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE
WITHIN THE FEIS SCOPE.
I HAVE ASSUMED YOU WERE TALKING
ABOUT THE KIND OF DESIGN ISSUES
THAT MIGHT COME UP WITHIN EIGHT
ZONE DESIGNATION. IF YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC PARCELS,
THEN CERTAINLY AN INITIATIVE WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE IT GOES TO
THE CENTRAL STAFF.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING FOR
CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU FOR THAT PAUSE THAT
WE HAD HER BACK AND FORTH.
ALLOW US TO CONTINUE WITH
DISTRICT 1.
>> YES, SO WE HAVE 11 POTENTIAL
AMENDMENTS AND I WILL MENTION A
COUPLE NOT MAPPED AT THIS
POINT.
STARTING WITH 1-1 IT IS LOCATED
AT THE INTERSECTION OF
SOUTHWEST CARROLL STREET IN
BEACH DRIVE SOUTHWEST.
THE REQUEST IS TO NOT IMPLEMENT
MHA HERE AND SO THE CURRENT
ZONING IS LR THREE, RC AND MHA
PROPOSED ZONING IS LR THREE RCM.
THE PRESENT AMENDMENT IS NOT TO
ZONED AND THIS FALLS WITHIN THE
FEIS SCOPE IS A NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE.
>> 1-2 IS IN THE WEST SEATTLE
JUNCTION.
IT IS THE -- 1-2 THROUGH 1-6
ARE ALL TOGETHER BECAUSE IT IS
THE SAME PROPOSAL.
DIFFERENT AREAS.
THE REQUEST IS TO MODIFY ALL
PROPOSED RESULTS FROM SINGLE-
FAMILY WITHIN THE WEST SEATTLE
JUNCTION URBAN VILLAGE
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOTS.
THE CURRENT ZONING SF5000 AND
IT WOULD BE TO LR ONE -- M1.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO GO
TO RSL M. THE FIRST PARCEL OF
THIS APPLIES TO AND 1-3 IS THE
SAME.
SINGLE-FAMILY TO RSL INSTEAD OF
LR2 AND 1.
>> AS IT RELATES TO THIS
PROPOSAL I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE
COMMITTEE'S INTEREST IN DOING
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TOGETHER
WITH CONSIDERATION OF FINANCIAL
SOUND TRANSIT THREE SELECTED
ALIGNMENT.
THERE IS, OVER THE SEVERAL
MONTHS WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING
MHA, YEARS I SUPPOSE IS MORE
ACCURATE, I THINK THE COMMUNITY
HAS MOVED TOWARDS WITHIN THE
URBAN VILLAGE THE IDEA OF
CONVERTING SINGLE-FAMILY TO
RSL.
THERE IS INTEREST IN LOOKING AT
POTENTIAL HIGHER IN ADDITION TO
RESUMES SIMILAR TO WHAT IS
PROPOSED NOW.
LOW RISE 1-3. BUT THE CONCERN
IS THOSE DECISIONS NEED TO BE
MADE TOGETHER WITH PLANNING FOR
SOUND TRANSIT THREE AND THE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAS
IDENTIFIED THIS COMMUNITY AS A
PRIORITY COMMUNITY FOR
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING.
COMMITMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO
BEGIN SO IN EARNEST IN 2020.
WITH INITIAL CONVERSATIONS
BEGINNING THIS YEAR.
I WANT TO THANK THE COMMUNITY
FOR THEIR COMMITMENT AND TAKING
ANOTHER LOOK AT ADDITIONAL
ZONING CAPACITY IN THESE AREAS
IN THE FUTURE.
THANK THEM FOR EMBRACING THE
CHANGE TO RSL BECAUSE OF AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S WHAT
WE NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO
IMPLEMENT THE OBLIGATION OF
DEVELOPERS TO PAY TOWARDS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I WANT TO NOTE THAT THE NEXT
ITEM, 17, WAS OFFERED IN THE
SPIRIT OF IF YOU ARE GOING TO
PROPOSE A REDUCTION IN A
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ZONING
THAT YOU PROPOSE AN INCREASE IN
ANOTHER LOCATION.
SO THIS NEXT ITEM WAS OFFERED
IN THAT SPIRIT.
>> THANK YOU FOR JOINING US
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
PLEASE CONTINUE YOLANDA.
>> WE WILL MOVE THROUGH 1-5 AND
1-6, THOSE ARE ALL PRETTY THE
SAME.
WHAT COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
JUST EXPLAINED.
THEY ARE ALL WITHIN THE FEIS
SCOPE BECAUSE THEY WERE STUDIED
IN THE FEIS.
ITEM 1-7 --
>> HANG ON JUST FOR SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU.
I AM CURIOUS, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD , FIRST OF ALL I
APPRECIATE THE REALITY OF THE
TIMING OF A LIGHT RAIL
INVESTMENT IN COMMUNITY
PLANNING PROCESS MAKES SENSE AS
FAR AS WHEN TO MAKE -- TO
PRESERVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
FUTURE CHANGES THAT WAY.
I AM CURIOUS ABOUT THE
ADJACENCY BETWEEN RSL AND AND
SEE 75 ON 1-5 AND 1-6. IF THE
REALITY IS THIS IS GOING TO GO
THROUGH PLANNING PROCESS AND WE
WILL DO SOMETHING IN THE NEAR
FUTURE, THAT MAKES SENSE.
THE TRANSITION FROM A 75 FOOT TO
RSL IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT.
ONE THING TO DO WOULD BE TO
HAVE THAT STAY AS LR1 ON THE
WEST SIDE OF 42nd I THINK.
BUT I'M CURIOUS IF THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN
CONTEMPLATED AT ALL.
>> YES, I THINK THAT THERE IS A
HISTORICAL ISSUE WITH THE LACK
OF A TRANSITION IN THAT AREA.
AND IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME WHAT
THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO ADDRESS
THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT IT IS
CHANGING THE ZONING OR THROUGH
SOME DESIGN GUIDELINES
REQUIRING SOME TYPE OF
STEPPING.
THAT IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT HAS
BEEN DISCUSSED.
>> OKAY.
>> I WOULD JUST OFFER, MAYBE
NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO REMIND
FOLKS ABOUT THE HEIGHT
DIFFERENTIALS IN THE DIFFERENT
LOWRISE ZONES.
IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY FOR
SOMETHING LIKE'S EVENTUAL SMALL
LOT HELPERS ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO
BUILD UP TO 25 FEET, MAYBE 30
FEET?
>> UNDER MHA THE CURRENT
MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT IS 25 FEET.
UNDER THE MHA PROPOSAL IT WOULD
GO UP TO 30 FEET.
IN LOWRISE 2 ZONES IT WOULD GO
FROM 30 FEET TO 40 FEET.
ONE THING, THIS IS PROBABLY
MORE DETAIL THAN IS NECESSARY
FOR THIS DISCUSSION BUT IN
THINKING ABOUT THE TRANSITIONS
HERE BETWEEN CALIFORNIA AND
AREAS TO THE EAST OF IT OR IS A
GRADE CHANGE TO MODERATE
SOMEWHAT THE TRANSITIONS.
AND ALSO IN NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL ZONES THERE IS A
LEVEL SETBACK THAT APPLIES.
-- WHEN IT IS ADJACENT TO
SINGLE-FAMILY.
>> CAN YOU DO ME A FAVOR, DOING
SHEET NOTES, RESIDENTIAL SMALL
LOT 25, CAN YOU GO THROUGH
MIDRISE, HIGH-RISE AND
COMMERCIAL I UNDERSTAND THERE
ARE SETBACK ISSUES.
>> TODAY WE MAY TOUCH ON HIGH-
RISE ZONED AREAS BUT IN TERMS
OF HEIGHTS, AND THE LOWRISE
ZONES, SINGLE-FAMILY CURRENT
HEIGHT IS 30 FEET.
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT WOULD BE
30 FEET UNDER THE CURRENT
PROPOSAL.
>> CAN YOU SLOW DOWN.
>> OF COURSE.
MAYBE IN THE INTEREST OF THE
FOLKS WHO MAY BE FOLLOWING
ALONG, THE TABLE I AM REFERRING
TO IS IN THE DIRECTORS REPORT
ON PAGE 33.
IT HAS A PRETTY CONCISE
BREAKDOWN OF THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN CURRENT AND PROPOSED
ZONING UNDER MHA.
RETURNING TO RESIDENTIAL SMALL
LOT, AT THE PROPOSED HEIGHT
UNDER MHA WOULD BE 30 FEET.
AND LOWRISE 1 ZONES, THE LEAST
INTENSE MULTIFAMILY ZONE,
ESSENTIALLY A TOWNHOUSE ZONE,
THE CURRENT HEIGHT IS 30 FEET
AND IT WOULD REMAIN 30 FEET.
THERE IS AN FIR BONUS TO LAMENT
THERE.
LOWRISE 2 30 FEET CURRENTLY
WOULD GO TO 40 FEET.
THIS IS A TOWNHOUSE ZONE
ALTHOUGH YOU MAY SEE SUMS THAT
SOME SMALL-SCALE PARENTS.
IN THE LOWRISE THREE ZONE WHICH
IS THE MOST INTENSE THE FAMILY
ZONE, THE HEIGHT WOULD GO TO 50
FEET INSIDE URBAN VILLAGES.
50 FEET, ONE THING TO KEEP IN
MIND IS THAT 50 FEET IS
ESSENTIALLY THE HEIGHT TO THE
PLATE, NOT NECESSARILY THE
HEIGHT TO THE PEAK OF THE ROOF.
THE BUILDING MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT
LARGER IF IT HAS A PITCHED ROOF
OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AFTER LOWRISE COMES THE MIDRISE
ZONE.
THESE ARE STILL IN THE FAMILY
OF MULTIFAMILY ZONES.
THE MIDRISE ZONE IS SOMETHING
YOU WOULD BE LIKELY TO
ENCOUNTER IN SAY PARTS OF
CAPITOL HILL FOR EXAMPLE.
IF YOU CAN IMAGINE AREAS NORTH
OF PIKE PINE AND WEST OF
BROADWAY, MUCH OF THAT AREA IS
ZONED MIDRISE.
CURRENTLY THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN
MIDRISE ZONES IS 60 FEET.
IT IS SUPPOSED TO GO TO ABOUT
80 FEET UNDER THE MHA PROPOSAL.
AND FINALLY, THERE ARE HIGH-
RISE ZONES, HIGH-RISE ZONES ARE
ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY LOCATED IN
FIRST HILL.
THE CURRENT HEIGHT IN HIGH-RISE
ZONES IS 300 FEET AND UNDER THE
MHA PROPOSAL WOULD BE 440 FEET.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW .
>> COULD YOU REMIND US ON WHAT
PAGE YOU WERE FINDING THAT?
>> THE DIRECTORS REPORT IS
FANTASTIC AND THE CHARTS THAT
DESCRIBE THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN ZONING BEGIN ON PAGE
33.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE OVERVIEW
AND FOR THE QUESTION.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO TALK
THROUGH SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
THANK YOU FOR THE PAUSE, I
THINK WE WERE ON 1-7.
>> 1-7 IS STILL ON THE WEST
SEATTLE JUNCTION.
IT'S IN THE TRIANGLE AREA AND
AS COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
MENTIONED THEY ARE PROPOSING
THIS ACTUALLY BE ZONED BEYOND
WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN THE MHA
PROPOSED ZONING.
THE CURRENT IS NC 3 65.
MHA IS PROPOSING NC 370 5M AND
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO
SOMETHING LIKE NC THREE 95 M1.
THAT IS OUTSIDE THE FEIS SCOPE
SO IT WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
VARMINT OVERVIEW.
>> MOVING ON TO 1-8 IN THE
MORGAN JUNCTION.
URBAN VILLAGE.
THE PROPOSAL HERE IS TO REDUCE
THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION.
AND THAT IS IN THIS LOCATION
CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE-FAMILY
5000, PROPOSED ZONING IS LR3 --
THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD BE
JANUARY 16, 2019 FOR M 1. ALSO
IN MORGAN JUNCTION THERE IS
INTEREST IN POTENTIALLY REMOVING
-- TO THE WEST ALONG CALIFORNIA
AVENUE SOUTHWEST IT IS ZONED Mc
THREE P 55 M1.
THERE IS A POTENTIAL MOVING THE
PEDESTRIAN DESIGNATION TO THE
ZONE.
HERE AND ALSO TO THE NORTH OF
SOUTHWEST GRAND STREET.
ALSO IN THAT AREA ZONED NC 2 P
40 M ALONG -- THERE IS SOME
INTEREST IN DESIGN STANDARDS
THAT MIGHT ALLOW MORE LIGHT
INTO THE AREA.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT A
COMMUNITY HAS REQUESTED.
>> IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REMOVING THAT
P DESIGNATION HAS TO DO WITH
THE KINDS OF REQUIREMENTS WE
PUT ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
TAKING AWAY THE PEDESTRIAN
DESIGNATION ALLOWS FOR YOU TO
HAVE EFFECTIVELY APARTMENT
UNITS ON THE GROUND FLOOR WHERE
IN A PEDESTRIAN DESIGNATION YOU
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE SMALL-
SCALE COMMERCIAL SPACE.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND I THINK THE COMMUNITY
WOULD BE INTERESTED IN
EXPLORING EVENTUALLY GOING
THERE BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
CRITERIA. IT'S NOT JUST THE
OBLIGATIONS OF THE DEVELOPER TO
DO PARTICULAR THINGS IN AN AREA.
THAT THEY ARE DEVELOPING AND.
BUT ALSO IT'S SOME OF THE
CRITERIA THAT ARE SUPPOSED
ALREADY BE EXISTING ON THE
GROUND.
THAT AREN'T.
IN ORDER TO BASICALLY MAKE THE
AREA ELIGIBLE FOR A P ZONE.
>> UNDERSTAND.
>> COULD YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE
MORE AND WHAT DETAILS YOU ARE
LOOKING FOR?
>> I'M NOT LOOKING FOR DETAILS.
THE COMMUNITY IS ASKING FOR
ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS FROM THE
CITY SO THAT THEY COULD BE
ELIGIBLE TO BE A PEDESTRIAN
ZONE.
AT THIS POINT THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF REGULATIONS IN PLACE
FOR AREAS TO BE FESTERING ZONES
THAT AREN'T BEING FULFILLED.
THINGS LIKE, STREET FURNITURE.
THAT DON'T EXIST IN THIS AREA
OF THE JUNCTION.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER
THINGS.
I THINK THERE IS A LIST COMING
MY WAY THAT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO
SHARE WITH YOU.
>> GREAT.
>> AND I WILL MENTION THAT THAT
POSSIBILITY IS WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF THE EIS OF REMOVING THE P
DESIGNATION.
THE NON-P VARIANCE OF THOSE
ZONES WERE STUDIED FOR THOSE
AREAS.
MOVING ONTO 1-9, THIS ONE IS IN
THE SOUTH PARK URBAN VILLAGE.
IT IS -- THE REQUEST IS TO
CURRENT ZONING IS LR3 AND
PROPOSED ZONING IS LR3 M. THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS FOR TO GO
TO NC 2 55 M. THIS WAS NOT
CONSIDERED IN THE EMS SO WOULD
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL REVIEW.
I WILL ALSO MENTION RELEVANT TO
THE SOUTH PARK URBAN VILLAGE
THERE IS SOME INTEREST IN
CONSIDERING THE HISTORIC
RESOURCES AND NOT IMPLEMENTING
POTENTIALLY MHA IN CERTAIN AREAS
, IT IS STILL KIND OF UP IN THE
AIR WHERE SOME OF THESE MIGHT
BE AND WE NEED TO KIND OF
REFINE THAT REQUEST.
BUT THAT IS OUT THERE.
AND WE WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT.
>> I HAVE SHARED WITH THE
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO I'VE BEEN
WORKING WITH IN SOUTH PARK THE
FACT THAT BECAUSE OF THE WORK
DONE AROUND DISPLACEMENT RISK
AND THE FACT THAT SOUTH PARK
WAS IDENTIFIED AS A NEIGHBORHOOD
WITH HIGH DISPLACEMENT RISK AND
LOW ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY, THAT
IS THE REASON WHY THE
ALTERNATIVE THAT THE EXECUTIVE
HAS MOVED FORWARD IS THE
SMALLEST BUMP NECESSARY TO PUT
INTO PLACE. MHA, THERE REMAINS
TO BE CONCERNS THAT EVEN A
SMALL BUMP IS GOING TO HAVE
DISPLACEMENT IMPACT SO I
CONTINUE TO TALK WITH
INDIVIDUALS IN SOUTH PARK ABOUT
THEIR INTERESTS.
THERE ARE, AS YOLANDA MENTIONED
INTERESTS IN WHETHER OR NOT
SPECIFIC PARCELS HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED AS HISTORIC
RESOURCES ALREADY, EITHER
THROUGH THE CITY'S LANDMARK
PROCESS OR STATE OR COUNTY LAND
MARKING PROCESSES.
SO WE MAY COME FORWARD WITH
SOME RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO
THOSE SPECIFIC PARCELS.
I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION THAT,
JUST SORT OF IN GENERAL, EVEN
THOUGH WE HAVEN'T TOUCHED UPON
IT AS A RELATES TO MORGAN AND
JUNOT, I'M SORRY MORGAN AND THE
JUNCTION, THERE HAS BEEN
INTEREST IN THE COMMUNITY
GROUPS IN THOSE AREAS OF ALSO
TAKING A LOOK AT THE HISTORIC
DESIGNATED PROPERTIES IN
POTENTIALLY DOING PARCEL BY
PARCEL CHANGES THAT WE HAVEN'T
YET IDENTIFIED YET IN THIS
PROCESS AS A WAY TO ENCOURAGE
PRESERVATION.
>> SO, MOVING ON TO 1-10 AND 1-
11 WHICH ARE IN THE WESTWOOD
HIGHLAND PARK URBAN VILLAGE.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO CURRENT
ZONING IS SINGLE-FAMILY 5000,
MHA PROPOSED ZONING IS LR1 M1
AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
WOULD BE HAVE THIS ONLY TO RSL
M. AND 111 -- 1-11 IS ALSO THE
SAME REQUEST.
CURRENT ZONING IS A 5000.
PROPOSED ZONING LR1 M1 AND
PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO RSL M.
>> I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR DISTRICT
ONE.
ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, ANYTHING YOU
WOULD LIKE TO KICK US OFF WITH?
>> I WILL JUST COMMENT AS WE GO
THROUGH THE DIFFERENT
AMENDMENTS.
>> DISTRICT TO INCLUDES FIVE --
DISTRICT 2 INCLUDES FIVE URBAN
VILLAGES AND EACH INCLUDES A
LIGHT RAIL STATION AND
EXECUTIVES PROPOSAL WOULD
EXPAND EACH OF THOSE URBAN
VILLAGES TO ENCOMPASS A 10
MINUTE WALK SHED FROM THE LIGHT
RAIL STATION.
THERE ARE 11 CHANGES THAT I
WILL TALK ABOUT.
THEY ARE PRIMARILY PROPOSED BY
THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND
COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS.
MOVING TO 2-1, LAST YEAR A NEW
MOUNT BAKER PARK HISTORIC
DISTRICT WAS DESIGNATED AT A
NATIONAL LEVEL, NATIONAL
HISTORIC REGISTER HISTORIC
DISTRICT.
THAT OVERLAPS WITH PART OF THE
AREA THAT IS PROPOSED FOR THE
NORTH RANIER URBAN VILLAGE
EXPANSION AREA.
AND GROUPS LIKE THE FRIENDS OF
MOUNT BAKER TOWNSEND HAVE ASKED
THAT IT BE REMOVED FROM THE
OVERLAPPING AREA, BE REMOVED
FROM THE URBAN VILLAGE
EXPANSION.
>> ONE COMMENT ON 2-1, I'M
LOOKING AT THIS FAVORABLY,
THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK DONE TO
ADD THE MOUNT BAKER PARK
ADDITION IS A HISTORIC DISTRICT
BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF
HISTORIC PLACES, I THINK THIS
AMENDMENT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE
FOR A LOT OF REASONS.
BUT ON ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS,
A DOZEN OF THEM, MY MIND ISN'T
MADE UP, I'M STILL TALKING TO
COMMUNITY MEMBERS, STAFF AND
THE WHOLE BIT.
A FEW OF THESE I WON'T SAY
ANYTHING BECAUSE AGAIN THESE
ARE COMPLEX ISSUES THAT WILL
AFFECT THESE AREAS IN THIS
DISTRICT FOR AT LEAST MY SHORT
LIFETIME.
CERTAINLY MY KIDS LIFETIME.
NOT TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY.
THERE IS STILL SOME WORK TO BE
DONE.
THIS IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT
FAVORABLY.
>> THE NORTH BEACON HILL URBAN
VILLAGE IS A HIGH ACCESS
OPPORTUNITY AND HIGH RISK OF
DISPLACEMENT COMMUNITY.
THE MHA PROPOSAL EXPANDS THE
URBAN VILLAGE AND INCREASES
ZONING WITHIN THE WALK SHED OF
THE BEACON HILL LIGHT RAIL
STATION.
AREAS WITHIN THE FIVE MINUTE
WALK SHED AND ADJACENT TO
JEFFERSON PARKER PROPOSED TO GET
M1 AND M2 INCREASES.
THE BEACON HILL COUNCIL HAS
REQUESTED THE URBAN VILLAGE BE
EXPANDED AND THAT NO REASON OWNS
BE ADOPTED IN NORTH BEACON
HILL.
>> LET ME SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT
THIS, I KNOW THERE ARE SOME
NUMBERS HERE THAT FEEL STRONGLY
ABOUT THIS, ANY THAT DO NOT.
THIS SORT OF REALLY GETS TO THE
HEART OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO
DO IN THE CITY.
TO A LARGE EXTENT, IN THIS
PARTICULAR AREA THAT I HAVE SO
MUCH HISTORY WITH, TO A LARGE
EXTENT WE ARE ALTERING TO GET
TO THE SAME PLACE AND THAT IS
TO FIGHT DISPLACEMENT, TO ALLOW
PEOPLE WITH HISTORICALLY AND IN
THESE AREAS TO CONTINUE LIVING
THERE IN THEIR LIFETIME AND
THEIR CHILDREN'S LIFETIME, TO
PRESERVE AFFORDABILITY IN THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND EVEN THE CULTURAL AND
ETHNIC SORT OF FLAVOR OF THIS
AREA IF YOU WILL.
THAT IS I THINK EVERYONE'S GOAL
, TRYING TO REACH THAT AS WE
SE PEOPLE GETTING PRICED OUT.
I THINK EVERYONE INCLUDING THE
CITY AND WE ARE HEADING EVEN
OVER OUR MHA STRATEGY ARE
TRYING TO GET THERE.
NOW, TO DO NOTHING, WHAT
HAPPENS, AND I HAVE WALKED
THROUGH THIS SEVERAL TIMES WITH
STAFF, WHAT OCCURS WHEN WE
DON'T TRY TO ALMOST MANDATE
AFFORDABILITY, WE HAVE SEEN
WHAT HAPPENS.
PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BE PRICED
OUT.
I CONTINUE TO LOSE THEIR HOMES.
AND PEOPLE WHO WILL TARGET,
REMEMBER WE ARE STILL GETTING
ANYWHERE BETWEEN 50-100 PEOPLE
MOVING TO SEATTLE EVERY DAY.
THE PEOPLE CONTINUE TO TARGET
AREAS THAT ARE LESSER PRICED,
1987 I DID THAT, THE FIRST
HOUSE I BOUGHT IN 1987 WAS IN
THIS AREA. WHAT WILL OCCUR IS
THEY HAVE THE DISCRETIONARY
FUNDS TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT
TO THE HOUSE AND YOU WILL SEE
GRADUAL BUT CLEAR DISTINCT
STRATEGIC PLACEMENT.
I SAY THAT TO SAY THAT AS I
LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO
I THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT THING
TO TRY TO CREATE AS MUCH OF
PORTABILITY AND TO SOME EXTENT
IT WORKS PEOPLE ALLOWING PEOPLE
TO LIVE WHEREVER THEY WANT TO
LIVE.
WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.
I KNOW A DO-NOTHING STRATEGY IS
NEAR AND DEAR TO THE HEARTS OF
MANY FOLKS.
I THINK JUST IF YOU LOOK AT THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT AND OTHER
AREAS OF THE CITY, MANY AREAS
OF THE CITY DO-NOTHING IS
PRECISELY WHY WE ARE IN THE
SITUATION WE ARE IN.
AGAIN, I WILL HAVE MORE
DIALOGUE AND WERE THINKING, AND
MAYBE THERE IS NOT EVEN A
MIDDLE GROUND, MAYBE THERE IS
SOME ADJUSTMENTS THAT COULD BE
MADE. BUT I DO SUPPORT WHAT WE
ARE TRYING TO DO WITH THE MHA
STRATEGY AND I KNOW THIS SIMPLE
AMENDMENT STARTS TO GET TO THE
HEART OF THE ISSUE WE ARE ALL
GOING TO STRUGGLE WITH A FINAL
VOTE.
>> THE BEACON HILL MERCHANTS
ASSOCIATION HAS ASKED THE
PEDESTRIAN DESIGNATION BE ADDED
ALONG BEACON AVENUE WHERE
COMMERCIAL ZONING IS PROPOSED
TO BE EXPANDED AND HEIGHTS ARE
PROPOSED TO BE INCREASED ALONG
BEACON AVENUE.
SO CONVERSE TO THE MORGAN
JUNCTION NEIGHBORHOOD, ON
BEACON HILL THERE IS A REQUEST
TO ADD A HISTORY AND
DESIGNATION TO SUPPORT
COMMERCIAL CHARACTER ALONG
BEACON AVENUE.
AN AREA JUST SOUTH OF THE MOUNT
BAKER LIGHT RAIL STATION IS
PROPOSED FOR A REZONING FROM
LOWRISE THREE TWO SEATTLE MIXED
ZONE WITH A 95 FOOT HEIGHT
LIMIT.
THERE ARE ONGOING EFFORTS TO
CREATE A PARK IN THIS AREA AND
THE FRIENDS OF NORTH RANIER
MAYBE HOOD HAVE ASKED --
NEIGHBORHOOD OF ASKED FOR LOWER
HEIGHT.
THERE ARE A RANGE OF OPTIONS
THAT CAN BE IN BETWEEN THE
EXISTING LOWRISE THREE AND
PROPOSED SEATTLE MIXED 95.
>> I WANT TO CHIME IN, ON THIS
ONE I THINK A LOT OF COMMUNITY
WORK AND THOUGHTFULNESS WHEN
INTO TRYING TO ESTABLISH THIS
PARK.
I THINK IT IS MUCH NEEDED.
AND AGAIN, WE ARE SORT OF
GEARED UP TO POSITION A PARK IN
THIS AREA AND I THINK IT
CONTINUES TO MAKE SENSE.
THAT IS WHERE I AM RIGHT NOW.
>> ON SOUTH CHARLESTON STREET,
STILL WITHIN THE NORTH RANIER
URBAN VILLAGE, THE PARKS
DEPARTMENT HAS PROPERTY TO
BUILD A NEW PARK AT THIS
LOCATION.
AND THAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE
ASKED THAT NO ZONING CHANGES BE
MADE.
MOVING TO 2-6, THIS IS A SITE
JUST OUTSIDE THE COLUMBIA CITY
URBAN VILLAGE.
THE PROPERTY OWNER, A CHURCH,
HAS ASKED THAT IT BE INCLUDED
IN THE URBAN VILLAGE AND THAT
ZONING HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING
SINGLE-FAMILY BE PROPOSED.
UNFORTUNATELY THIS WAS NOT
STUDIED IN THE EIS AND SO COULD
NOT MOVE FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
BUT COULD BE ADDED FOR FUTURE
STUDY.
SIMILARLY 2-7 IS A LOCATION IN
GEORGETOWN IN A SINGLE-FAMILY
AREA OR PROPERTY OWNER HAS
ASKED FOR A INCREASE IN ZONING.
THIS IS ALSO OUTSIDE THE FEIS
STUDY AREA.
2-8 IS A REQUEST FOR INTERIM,
THEY ARE LOOKING AT DEVELOPING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AT
THE SITE AND OF ASKED FOR A
ZONING DESIGNATION HIGHER THAN
THE PROPOSED LR1.
THE EIS STUDY AND UP TO LR THREE
-- LR3 SO THE LR2 REQUESTED IS
WITHIN SCOPE . 2-9 IS A BLOCK
FACE ADJACENT TO APOLLO PARK.
THIS IS AN AREA WHERE LR2 WAS
STUDIED.
IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED SINGLE-
FAMILY AND THIS COULD BE AMENDED
UNDER THE EIS.
2-10 IS A SITE THAT BELLWETHER
DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING TO
REDEVELOP. IS A SPLIT ZONE LOT
NORTH OF THE GREATER BEACH
URBAN VILLAGE ALONG RANIER
AVENUE.
THE PORTION OF THE LOT THAT IS
SINGLE-FAMILY WAS NOT STUDIED
AND SO RECONCILING THE ZONING
ACROSS WHAT IS A VERY LARGE LOT
IS OUTSIDE OF SCOPE BUT COULD
BE STUDIED FOR FUTURE
AMENDMENTS.
AND 2-11 IS A RAINIER BEACH
STATIONARY -- STATION AREA.
THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN A LONG
TIME COMING.
IT IS A NEW SEATTLE MIXED
RAINIER BEACH ZONE.
HEIGHTS ARE PROPOSED TO 125
FEET.
THE ZONE WOULD ALLOW FOR AREAS
SIMILAR TO THOSE PROPOSED IN
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 55 ZONE
WHICH IS WHITE MANY OF THE
CHANGES FROM NC 40 TWO A
SEATTLE MIXED 125 ARE SHOWN AS
M LEVEL CHANGES BECAUSE THE
FLOOR AREA RATIO IS MORTAR --
LOWER THAN YOU WOULD SEE IN
EIGHT 125 FOOT ZONE.
HOWEVER UNDER THE PROPOSAL
ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA COULD BE
USED FOR AREAS LIKE COLLEGE
SPACES, LIGHT MANUFACTURING,
VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS, FOOD
PROCESSING, CHILDCARE CENTER OR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THE IDEA IS TO SUPPORT THE
COMMUNITIES VISION FOR A FOOD
INCUBATOR CENTER IN THIS AREA.
SOME CONCERN HAS BEEN VOICED BY
THE COMMUNITY AND COUNCIL
MEMBERS COULD CONSIDER HEIGHT
LIMITS LOWER THAN THE 125 FOOT
ZONE.
FOR EXAMPLE AN 85 FOOT HEIGHT
LIMIT ACROSS THE STATION AREA.
>> TWO COMMENTS.
I WANT TO GO BACK UP TO 2-5 ON
THE LORING HEIGHTS IN THE
FUTURE PARK ON SOUTH CHARLESTON
STREET.
CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH THE
CONTEXT AGAIN?
THERE IS A LARGE SWATH OF LAND
THAT IS ALREADY PARK.
AND THERE IS A CORNER OF IT
THAT IS NOT.
CORRECT?
>> RIGHT.
>> SO, -- GO AHEAD.
>> SO THE PARKS DEPARTMENT OWNS
FIVE PARCELS. RIGHT UNDER THE 2-
5 NUMBER ON THE MAP THERE IS
ONE PARCEL WITH THE PARKS
DEPARTMENT DOES NOT OWN.
SOME COMMUNITY MEMBERS WOULD
LIKE THAT PARCEL ALSO TO BE
ACQUIRED TO CREATE SORT OF A
SQUARE OR RECTANGULAR PARK AND
HAVE ASKED THAT THE ZONING NOT
BE CHANGED BEFORE THAT CAN
HAPPEN.
>> OKAY, AND WITHOUT IT, I
DON'T EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THIS
OFF THE TOP YOUR HEAD, I'M
TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR THE
SIZE OF THE PARK WITHOUT THAT
ADDITIONAL PERSONAL.
WAS THIS ADDITIONAL PARTIAL
MAKING IT AN AWESOME PARK.
I'LL BE GOING FROM GOOD TO
GREAT OR AVERAGE TO GOOD?
TRYING TO QUANTIFY WHETHER THIS
MAKES SENSE OR NOT BECAUSE I
COULD SEE, I LIKES -- I LIKE
PARKS AND I KNOW COMMUNITIES
LIKE PARKS AND TRY TO CALIBRATE
THIS AGAINST THE NEED FOR
ADDITIONAL HOUSING.
IT'S HARD TO DO ON THESE LITTLE
MAPS.
STAFF LOOKED AT THAT?
I WILL WORK WITH PARKS AND
STAFF TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
I GUESS I HAVE TO EYEBALL IT AS
WELL.
I KNOW THE AREA.
>> I THINK NOT HAVING A LARGE
BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
THE PARK IS GENERALLY NICE FOR
SOLAR ACCESS REASONS.
BUT, I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF IS
HAD NEGOTIATIONS.
>> I WILL TALK TO STAFF AND
PARKS ABOUT THAT ONE.
MY LAST COMMENT WAS ON THE LAST
ONE, RAINIER BEACH RAIL STATION
AREA.
WHAT I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND IS
THAT THE REASONS, THE OUTCOMES
WE ARE TRYING TO DRIVE WHICH
ARE JOBS, MANUFACTURING,
COLLEGE, PERHAPS A VOCATIONAL
ARTS SCHOOL, CHILDCARE, FOOD
PROCESSING, THESE KINDS OF
THINGS, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OF COURSE, THAT ADDITIONAL
HEIGHT WOULD BE A GOOD THING
FOR THESE KINDS OF ACTIVITIES
WE ARE TRYING TO DRIVE INTO AN
AREA.
IT'S NOT JUST HOUSING, IT'S
HOUSING COUPLED WITH ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT.
AND SOME INCREASED HEIGHT WOULD
CERTAINLY I THINK HELP US ALONG
THOSE LINES.
BUT I'M HEARING FROM A FEW
COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT THEY
STILL HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE
INCREASED HEIGHT.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
I'M ASKING, IF ANYONE IS PAYING
ATTENTION, OTHER THAN A FEW
PERSONAL FRIENDS WHO WATCH THIS
STATION WHEN I SPEAK --
>> WE ARE ALL LISTENING.
>> LET ME KNOW AGAIN THE
PUSHBACK.
MANY OF US HAVE BEEN FIGHTING
FOR YEARS TRYING TO GET THESE
EXACT SAME THINGS IN THE
RAINIER BEACH AREA.
AND WE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN
A LOT OF WAYS.
I GET IT.
THE FEAR THAT THESE BIG HUGE
BUILDINGS WITH ALL THIS
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ARE GOING
TO PRICE EVERYONE OUT, I GET
THAT.
BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE IF
THESE HEIGHTS PROPOSED WARRANT
THE KIND OF CONCERN THAT I AM
HEARING.
I'M NOT HEARING A LOT OF
CONCERN, JUST SOME.
IF STAFF OR ANYONE ELSE ARE
HEARING MORE CONCERNS I NEED TO
KNOW THAT.
I MUST ADMIT HIGHER HEIGHTS,
PARTICULARLY GOING UP TO 125
WERE CONDUCIVE TOWARD OUR
TRYING TO ESTABLISH KINDS OF
INSTITUTIONS WE ARE TRYING TO
BRING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
COMMUNITY.
>> CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION
IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSED
HEIGHTS IN THE RAINIER BEACH
LIGHT RAIL URBAN VILLAGE VIS-C-
VIS THE HEIGHTS OF OTHER LIGHT
RAIL URBAN VILLAGES THROUGHOUT
THE CITY?
>> SURE.
WE DO HAVE HEIGHT LIMITS THE GO
UP TO 125 FEET AND HIGHER AT
THE MOUNT BAKER STATION AREA.
WHERE SIMILARLY WE ARE TRYING
TO ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT NEXT TO A LIGHT
RAIL STATION AREA THAT HAS MORE
AUTO ORIENTED CHARACTER TODAY.
A FELLOW WE HAVE SEEN MORE
DEVELOPMENT, NEAR THE LIGHT
RAIL STATION, THE HEIGHTS ARE
LOWER.
THEY ARE AROUND 85 FEET.
ONE THING TO CONSIDER WHEN
CONSIDERING 125 FEET VERSUS 85
FEET IS CONSTRUCTION TYPE.
AT 85 FEET YOU CAN OFTEN BUILD
A WOOD FRAME CONSTRUCTION
BUILDING WHICH IS CHEAPER TO
CONSTRUCT THAN THESE STEEL
FRAMED CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD
NEED TO BE BUILT AT 125 FEET.
>> LET ME JUST UNDERSTAND THE
PROCESS.
LET'S ASSUME, PURELY
HYPOTHETICALLY, THIS IS A PURE
HYPOTHETICAL THAT WE ADOPT A
LOWER 85 FOOT FOR THIS STATION,
HYPOTHETICAL.
IF IN FACT SOME DEVELOPMENT IS
DESIRED TO EXTEND TO THE 125
THAT WE DIDN'T ADOPT THROUGH
THIS EXERCISE, THEY WOULD JUST
GO THROUGH A CONTRACT GRISONS
PROCESS AND STAFF -- CONTRACT
GRISONS PROCESS AND STAFF --
BUT THAT IS MORE EXPENSIVE FOR
THE PERSON TO DO, THE FULL-
BLOWN PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO
HAVING A BLESSED UNDER THE MHA
PROPOSAL.
THAT IS WHAT WOULD LIKELY
OCCUR?
>> RIGHT.
IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THAT OPTION
OPEN WE WOULD WANT TO KEEP THE
SM 125 ZONING ON THE BOOKS EVEN
THOUGH IT IS NOT BEING MAPPED.
--
>>
>> THAT WOULD ASSUME WE
LEGISLATE THE SM 125 NOW.
I AM ASKING, -- SO IT'S ON THE
BOOKS BUT THEY CAN'T USE IT?
>> UNTIL HE REZONE APPLICATION
WAS PROCESSED.
>> BUT WE CAN'T DENY IT AT THAT
POINT?
WE CAN'T SAY IT'S BOOKED BUT
YOU CAN'T USE IT.
WE CAN TONIGHT AT THAT POINT?
>> THE DISTINCTION IS BETWEEN
BEING ON THE BOOKS AND BEING
MAPPED.
LET'S -- LISH IS DESCRIBING A
SCENARIO IN WHICH IS IN THE
TEXT OF THE LAND USED CODE BUT
DOES NOT NECESSARILY APPEAR ON
THE OFFICIAL LAND-USE ZONING
MAPS AND POSSIBLY THERE ARE
REZONE CRITERIA AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE LAND USE CODE
THAT DESCRIBE THE CRITERIA THE
COUNCIL WOULD USE IN EVALUATING
TO GO TO 125.
BUT THE ZONE ITSELF AND THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE
ZONE WOULD BE IN THE LAND USE
CODE.
>> I SEE.
SO IT IS BOOKED, IT'S ON THE
BOOKS, BUT THERE ARE STILL SOME
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA THAT CAN BE
IMPOSED ONCE THE APPLICATION,
THE PERMIT PROCESS IS
TRIGGERED?
IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING?
AM I SAYING THAT CORRECTLY?
THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
>> A QUESTION, LOOKING AT SOME
OF THIS MAP, GOING FROM NC
THREE P 40 TWO -- IT SEEMS LIKE
IT'S MORE THAN 8M.
HELP ME THROUGH THAT.
>> THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE FLOOR
AREA RATIO LIMITS UNDER THE
PROPOSED SM RB ZONE.
THEY HAVE USED THE FLOOR AREA
RATIO LIMITS FOR A TYPICAL 55
FOOT COMMERCIAL ZONE.
AND THEN YOU CAN GO ABOVE THAT
IF YOU PROVIDE ONE OF THE USES
IN THE BUILDING THAT ARE LISTED
IN THE CODE.
THAT IS A LIGHT MANUFACTURING
SPACE OR FOOD PROCESSING OR A
COLLEGE OR CHILDCARE FACILITY.
SO, BECAUSE IT IS A
RESTRICTIVELY LOW FA ARE LIMIT
-- FAR LIMIT THEY SET THE MHA
LEVEL BASED ON THAT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIR I WANT TO TAKE A
QUICK SECOND TO GO BACK TO THE
MACRO CONCEPT THE PRESIDENT
COUNSEL STARTED WITH AS WE
LOOKED THROUGH AND I THINK IT
CONTINUES TO BE A MISNOMER WHEN
WE TALK ABOUT HIGH RISK OF
DISPLACEMENT AND HIGH
OPPORTUNITY YET THE OUTCOME IS
LESS DEVELOPMENT.
THE REPORT YOU REFERENCED
EARLIER, THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT,
ON PAGE 17 AND I HAVE READ THIS
BEFORE BUT I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR US TO READ IT
AGAIN AS WE TALK ABOUT
POTENTIAL CHANGES, AND THEY DID
THE DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS THEY
LOOK AT PHYSICAL, ECONOMIC
DISPLACEMENT AND CULTURAL
DISPLACEMENT.
IT SAYS ECONOMIC'S BASEMENT
OCCURS WHEN RESIDENTS CAN NO
LONGER AFFORD RISING RENTS OR
THE COST OF HOMEOWNERSHIP AND
LIKELY PROPERTY TAXES.
IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT THE MHA
CITYWIDE PROPOSAL IS INTENDED
TO HELP ADDRESS THIS PLACEMENT
MAY CREATING NEW INCOME
RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOMES
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
HOUSING CHOICES TO HELP MEET
RISING DEMAND.
AGAIN, AS WE THINK ABOUT HOW WE
CAN CREATE MORE AFFORDABLE
UNITS, THE CONSEQUENCE OF NOT
UP ZONING OR CREATING MORE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR FOLKS TO LIVE
ESPECIALLY IN THESE AREAS WITH
A HIGH RISK OF DISPLACEMENT, WE
ARE DOING A DISSERVICE TO OUR
COMMUNITY WE DON'T THINK ABOUT
HOW WE CAN CREATE AS MANY UNITS
AS POSSIBLE, NOT JUST ONE-
BEDROOMS BUT TWO BEDROOM AND
THREE BEDROOM WHICH IS
SOMETHING I'M HOPING TO WORK
WITH THE COUNCIL ON.
NOT JUST HOMES, BUT AS THE
PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES WHICH I HOPE WILL
INCLUDE CHILDCARE.
IT SAYS IN OUR REPORT FOR EVERY
LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD DISPLACED
DUE TO DEMOLITION 13 NEW INCOME
AFFORDABLE HOMES WOULD BE
IMPLEMENTED AS PROPOSED.
IF WE WERE TO DO ANY OF THE
REDUCTIONS, THE POTENTIAL
REDUCTIONS BEING PROPOSED, IT'S
AS IF MHA WERE NOT IMPLEMENT IT
ONLY SIX NEW INCOME RESTRICTED
AFFORDABLE HOMES WOULD BE
CREATED FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD
DISPLACED THROUGH DEMOLITION.
WE HAVE THE OPTION OF CREATING
13 NEW INCOME RESTRICTED HOMES
LET THE MARKET DO WHAT IT WILL
AND END UP WITH SIX.
I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT WAY
TO FRAME WHAT IS IN FRONT OF
US.
I'M IN SUPPORT OF WORKING WITH
THE COUNCILMEMBERS AS WELL AS
WE THINK ABOUT SETBACKS, OR
GREEN SPACES AS WE CREATE MORE
PARKS AND MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OUR VERY OWN REPORT
SAYS IT.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO OFFER
THE REFRAIN BECAUSE I THINK
SOMETIMES THE LANGUAGE CAN
SOMETIMES CREATE
MISUNDERSTANDING ON WHAT WE ARE
TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WHICH IS
CLEARLY OUTLINED ON PAGE 17.
>> AN IMPORTANT POINT,
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
I WOULD JUST ADD TO THAT AS
SOMEONE WHO IS TRYING TO
NAVIGATE THROUGH A LOT OF
DIFFERENT AMENDMENT PROCESSES,
ONE THNG TO ALSO CONSIDER IS
THAT WHEN WE CHOOSE TO NOT
APPLY THE MANDATORY HOUSING
PORTABILITY PROGRAM IN SOME
AREAS OF THE CITY THAT CREATES
A DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE THAT
DOESN'T EXIST TODAY.
IF WE REZONING MOST OF THE CITY
BUT SOME POCKETS CONTINUE TO
HAVE PARTS WHERE MHA DOESN'T
APPLY, THAT WILL BE SEEN FOR MY
PERSPECTIVE AS AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR DEVELOPERS TO REDEVELOP
THOSE AREAS EVEN FASTER THAN
THEY WOULD'VE OTHERWISE BECAUSE
THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
THEREFORE PAY INTO THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM AND
ALSO THEREFORE GOING TO HAVE
LOWER DEVELOPMENT COSTS.
AN IMPORTANT THING AS WE
CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE
GOING TO EXEMPT CERTAIN AREAS
FROM THE ZONING CHANGES BECAUSE
IF WE DO, THAT MAY CREATE THE
INVERSE OF WHAT COMMUNITIES ARE
ASKING FOR.
I THINK WE ARE WRAPPED UP WITH
DISTRICT 2. UNLESS THERE'S
ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD?
>> A CLOSING COMMENT.
I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER HARRELL
IS IN QUEUE.
>> IT'S YOUR DISTRICT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA I
AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID
WHOLEHEARTEDLY AND I THINK YOU
HAVE AN APPRECIATION FOR WHEN
COMMUNITIES AND PARTICULARLY
COMMITTEES OF COLOR IN THE LAST
DECADE HAVE SEEN THE RELATIVES
AND PARENTS AND EVERYONE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD SORT OF MOVE OUT
TO AUBURN, OR WORSE, IS THERE
ANYTHING WORSE THAN AUBURN?
[LAUGHTER]
>> FURTHER WAY.
>> JUST KIDDING.
WE SEE IT IS VERY REAL.
WHEN THERE IS A MISTRUST OF
BOTH POLITICIANS AND DEVELOPERS
AND APARTMENT BUILDING BUILDERS
, IT IS REAL.
AND SO IT IS SORT OF A TOUGH
PILL TO SWALLOW WE ARE LOOKING
AT MAPS AND TALKING ABOUT
DEVELOPMENT AND THEY ARE SEEING
THE EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT.
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU
SAY, BUT AS WE MAKE THESE MAP
DECISIONS I FEEL THE PAIN OF
THE FOLKS WHO SEE WHAT'S
HAPPENING TO THE CITY.
>> THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO AGAIN
REINTRODUCE THE CONCEPT THAT
MHA IS ONLY EFFECTIVE AS A
DISPLACEMENT TOOL IF WE ARE
REQUIRING AN EQUAL OR GREATER
NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS TO
BE BUILT AS ARE BEING REMOVED
BECAUSE OF REDEVELOPMENT.
I HAVE MENTIONED BEFORE THAT,
AS IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO
THE LOSS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DUE TO DEMOLITION, THE PHYSICAL
LOSS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE
APPROACH THAT THE CITY HAS USED
, HAS GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATED
THE NUMBER OF UNITS LOST TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE IT
USES A PROXY UNITS THAT HAD
TENANTS OCCUPYING THEM WERE
ELIGIBLE FOR THE TENANT
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
ORDINANCE.
THERE ARE MANY MORE UNITS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WERE
REMOVED THAT WERE NOT OCCUPIED
TENANTS ELIGIBLE FOR THE TENANT
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
ORDINANCE.
FURTHER, THE DISPLACEMENT RISK
ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE IN THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT, THE
ANALYSIS ESTIMATED THAT THERE
WAS A POTENTIAL LOSS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BETWEEN 40
AT THE LOW-END AND 200 AT THE
HIGH-END. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN
APPLICATIONS COME IN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES
THAT IN THAT ANALYSIS HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED AS UNLIKELY TO
REDEVELOP.
SO, MY CONCERN IS WE ARE
GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATING THE
DISPLACEMENT IMPACTS. I DO
AGREE WITH CHAIR JOHNSON AND
THAT IS WHY I HAVE HAD A STRONG
COMMITMENT THAT EVEN IN THOSE
NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THERE IS A
HIGH RISK OF DISPLACEMENT, AND
A LOW ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY,
THAT WE STILL PUT IN PLACE MHA
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO CREATE
-- TO EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM OF
DEVELOPMENT HAVING IN THESE
AREAS AND NO MONEY GOING TO FOR
HOUSING.
I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY
CAREFUL AND THROUGH THIS
PROCESS MOVING FORWARD COME UP
WITH A BETTER WAY OF PREDICTING
WHAT THE TRUE IMPACTS OF
DEVELOPMENT ARE ON OUR LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES.
AND ON THAT NOTE, AGAIN, I WILL
QUEUE UP THE FACT THAT I DO
HAVE A PROPOSAL, A DRAFT
PROPOSAL I HAVE SHARED WITH
MANY OF YOU.
AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS TO DEVELOP
TO -- A HOUSING MITIGATION
APPROACH, SO THAT IN AREAS
WHERE WE ARE TAKING A LEAP OF
FAITH AND INCREASING THE ZONING,
EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE AREAS THAT
TRADITIONALLY HAVE BEEN A HIGH
RISK FOR DISPLACEMENT, THAT WE
HAVE A WAY OF REPLACING LOST
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUED
DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU ABOUT
THOSE.
>> LISH WHITSON ANYTHING YOU
WOULD LIKE TO ADD ABOUT
DISTRICT 2?
>> COUNCILMEMBER I THINK YOU
LIKE TO TEE UP?
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
JOHNSON.
SOME OF MY COMMENTS ARE
SPECIFIC BASED ON NEW
INFORMATION WE HAVE RECEIVED ON
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
FIRST I WANT TO START WITH
GENERAL COMMENTS AND THEY WILL
BE ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD WAS JUST
SAYING BUT I WANT TO INTRODUCE
SPECIFIC INFORMATION FROM
COMMUNITY MEMBERS BUT ON THE
SAME TOPIC OF, WHAT DOES MHA
ACTUALLY OFFER AND WOULD HAVE
BEEN DISPLACEMENT COSTS?
FIRST I WANT TO THANK CENTRAL
STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK THEY'VE
BEEN DOING.
THIS IS AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF
WORK AND I REALLY APPRECIATE
THE ATTENTION TO TECHNICAL
DETAIL.
AND I ALSO WANTED TO THANK
COMMUNITY MEMBERS BOTH FROM
DISTRICT 3 BUT ALSO CITYWIDE
WHO HAVE BEEN CONTACTING MY
OFFICE AND I'M SURE OTHER
COUNCILMEMBERS ON THESE ISSUES.
I REALLY APPRECIATE, AGAIN FROM
THEIR STANDPOINT, AND ATTENTION
TO DETAIL WHICH IS HARD TO DO
BECAUSE OF YOU HAVE -- BECAUSE
YOU HAVE YOUR LIVES AND
FAMILIES.
A SPECIAL APPRECIATION.
I ALSO WANT TO SPECIFICALLY
CALL OUT PUGET SOUND SAGE WHO
HAVE MESSAGED THE ENTIRE
COUNSEL ALSO THE MEDICINE
MILLER PARK COMMUNITY GROUP WHO
HAVE SOME SPECIFIC INPUT ON
DISTRICT 3. AND OBVIOUSLY GIVEN
THE TIME CONSTRAINTS OF THIS
MEETING AND NOT READ OUT ALL OF
THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND
CONCERNS, BUT I JUST WANT TO
SAY THAT I BELIEVE, AND I THINK
THESE COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND
GROUPS ARE ALSO REFERENCING
SIMILAR POINTS, WHICH IS THAT
THE CONTEXT AND FRAMING FOR MHA
SHOULD NOT BE -- SHOULD BE THE
NEEDS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
THE EVALUATION OF MHA SHOULD BE
ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IT'S
GENERATING TO US.
AND I WOULD LIKE US, EVEN
THOUGH THE FOCUS OF THIS
MEETING IS ON MHA, AND I WON'T
DWELL ON IT, THAT I FEEL WOULD
BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T MENTION
AT LEAST IN PASSING THAT MHA,
EVEN IN THE BEST POSSIBLE
SCENARIO WHICH WE DON'T HAVE
TODAY, IS NOT GOING TO BE A
PANACEA FOR THE DEEP
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS WE HAVE IN
THE CITY.
I AM ABSOLUTELY IN FAVOR OF AND
HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN FAVOR OF
ANY FOR ABILITY WE CAN GET OUT
OF MHA BUT WE HAVE TO KEEP IN
CONTEXT IT'S NOT A PANACEA.
WE NEED OTHER POLICIES, RENT
CONTROL, BIG EXPANSION OF
PUBLICLY OWNED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, THE MARKET DOES NOT
ADDRESS THE PROBLEM.
AND IN FACT HAS MADE IT WORSE.
OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS INCLUDING
DIGIT SOUND SAGE HAVE ALSO
REMINDED US THAT THERE ARE
OTHER POLICIES THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTING
WHICH UNFORTUNATELY HAVEN'T
SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY DESPITE A
LOT OF DISCUSSION IN THE PAST.
I WANTED TO MENTION A COUPLE OF
THOSE.
FIRST I WANT TO START WITH THE
INFORMATION WE GOT FROM ME
MEDICINE MILLER PARK COMMUNITY
GROUP WHO TALK ABOUT EXACTLY
WHAT COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD WAS
TALKING ABOUT WHICH WAS IN
ORDER FOR THE MHA TO WORK IN
THE BEST POSSIBLE WAY, WE NEED
TO INSIST ON EIGHT KNOWN NET
LOSS POLICY FOR EXISTING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I JUST
WANTED TO CLARIFY, WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT BOTH DIRECT
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING AND MARKET
AVAILABLE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T
LOSE SIGHT OF THAT.
THAT IS SOMETHING THEY REMIND
US OF IN THIS LETTER.
TALK ABOUT HOPE FOR HOUSING HAS
TO INCLUDE OLDER APARTMENT
BUILDINGS AND SINGLE-FAMILY
HOUSES SUBDIVIDED INTO MULTIPLE
RENTAL UNITS WHICH SUPPLY
HOUSING AFFORDABLE TO LOW AND
MIDDLE INCOME RESIDENTS.
THESE ARE NOT UNITS SUBSIDIZED
OFFICIALLY BY CITY SUBSIDIES
BUT ARE UNITS AVAILABLE
AFFORDABLY BECAUSE OF THE
ECONOMICS WORKOUT.
THEY TELL US CORRECTLY WE
SHOULD NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THAT.
AND QUICKLY MOVING TO PUGET
SOUND SAGE'S POINTS, FIRST OF
ALL I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEY
ENGINE HOW THEY AND THEIR
PARTNERS IN SOUSE COMMUNITIES
-- SOUTH COMMUNITY'S HAVE BEEN
FIGHTING AND PUSHING FOR A
STRONG INCLUSIONARY ZONING
POLICY IN THE CITY SINCE 2008.
AND WHY A STRONG INCLUSIONARY
ZONING POLICY IS NEEDED TO
SHARE IN THE BENEFIT OF
INCREASED LAND VALUE CREATED
THROUGH PUBLIC INVESTMENT AND
INCREASES IN ZONING CAPACITY.
IN OTHER WORDS WHAT THEY ARE
SAYING IS WE CAN'T JUST TALK
ABOUT ZONING CAPACITY BUT
AFFORDABILITY.
AND JUST TO QUOTE THEM, THEY
SAY, "FOR THE MOST PART THE
CITY OF SEATTLE HAS ALREADY
ZONED DOWNTOWN, SOUTH LAKE
UNION AND MANY URBAN VILLAGES
WITHOUT GETTING MUCH IN RETURN
BUT A STRONG INCLUSIONARY
ZONING POLICY COULD LEVERAGE
THE NEXT WAVE OF DEVELOPMENT TO
ENSURE OUR COMMUNITIES CAN
PROSPER IN PLACE."
I THINK THAT SHOULD BE KEPT IN
MIND. THERE ARE OTHER SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS, I THINK
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT ALSO
LOOKING INTO PARCEL BY PARCEL
DESIGNATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE AS
MUCH OF ANTI-DISPLACEMENT AS
POSSIBLE.
IF YOU DON'T MIND COUNCILMEMBER
JOHNSON, I WANT TO QUICKLY
SWITCH TO THE NEW ITEMS THAT
HAVE BEEN TAUGHT TO MY ATTENTION
LAST EVENING FROM THE LOW
INCOME HOUSING INSTITUTE WHO
HAVE SEVERAL PROPERTIES THEY
WOULD LIKE UP ZONED.
I WILL RAPIDLY READ THEM OFF.
BUT OBVIOUSLY I DON'T EXPECT
DISCUSSION BECAUSE I HAVE JUST
FORWARD THIS TO CENTRAL STAFF.
JUST TO MENTION, IF THESE
PROPERTIES ARE ALREADY IN THE
SCOPE, THAT I THINK WE SHOULD
MAKE THESE AMENDMENTS AND IF
THEY ARE NOT I WOULD REALLY
LIKE TO FLAG THEM FOR THE NEXT
ITERATION OF MHA CHANGES.
WEAKLY, THERE ARE SEVERAL SITES
IN THE CENTRAL AREA IN DISTRICT
3, ONE OF THEM IS ON 26th
AVENUE WHICH IS LEHIGH COLUMBIA
COURT.
ANOTHER IS AN ESTER WEIGHT
WHICH IS THE MITCHELL HER HOME.
THERE IS ANOTHER ON 14th AVENUE
WHICH IS MITCHELL MANOR.
THE CURRENT SITE OF LEHIGH
NICKELSVILLE DINING HOUSE
VILLAGE.
ONE ON 22nd AVENUE WHICH IS
OWNED BY THE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF
THE GOOD SHEPHERD.
WHICH IS INTERESTED IN
COMBINING WITH ANOTHER PROPERTY
TO DEVELOP 16 UNITS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THERE ARE TWO PROPERTIES THEY
HAVE HIGHLIGHTED NOT IN
DISTRICT 3 BUT I WILL QUICKLY
SAY THEM, ONE IS IN DISTRICT 2
IN THE FELLOW STATION AREA AND
THE OTHER IS IN DISTRICT 5, THE
LEHIGH BITTER LAKE SITE.
I'M HOPING TO FOLLOW UP ON
THESE.
>> I BELIEVE ERIC McCONAGHY
WILL WALK US THROUGH DISTRICT
3.
>> I WILL FOLLOW-UP WITH YOU
COUNCILMEMBER.
DISTRICT 3 IS SHOWN ON THE MAP.
I WILL JUMP RIGHT IN TO 3-1 AND
3-2. IN THIS CASE THE CURRENT
ZONING IS NC 1 40.
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT IS TO
NOT UP ZONED THESE AREAS.
-- UPZONE THESE AREAS.
IN 3-3, THE CURRENT ZONING IS
SINGLE-FAMILY 5000.
MHA PROPOSAL IS LR1 WITH ONE
BUMP.
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT IS TO
DIG RSL.
3-4. LOOKING AT THE EAST SIDE
OF 18th AVENUE EAST NORTHEAST
THOMAS STREET.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS EITHER
SINGLE-FAMILY OR LR2.
PROPOSAL IS LR1 OR LR2 IN THE
REQUESTED AMENDMENT IS TO GO
TO RSL.
I SHOULD MENTION THAT SO FAR 31
-- 3-1 THROUGH 3-4 WITHIN THE
FEIS SCOPE.
>> HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS.
IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH THERE ARE
SOME SECTIONS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY ZONED FOR SOMETHING
LIKE LOWRISE TO -- 2 AND THAT
REQUESTED TO TAKE IT ALL AND
TAKE IT DOWN TO RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT?
>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> 3-5, IN THIS PROPOSAL, THIS
IS ADJACENT TO THE CAPITOL HILL
URBAN VILLAGE, WE HAVE STEPPED
OUT OF MEDICINE MILLER.
THIS PROPOSAL SINGLE-FAMILY
5000, THE MHA PROPOSAL IS TO
KEEP IT THAT WAY, NO CHANGE
PROPOSED UNDER MHA BILL.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT IS TO
LOWRISE NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL.
THIS WAS NOT IN THE FEIS STUDY
AREA.
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
WOULD BE NEEDED.
>> IS THIS A SET OF SITES
ADJACENT TO THE QFC ON 15th
AVENUE?
>> IT'S BETWEEN 15th AND 16th,
YOU CAN SEE THE PURPLE LINES
SHOW SORT OF A NOTCH IN THE
URBAN VILLAGE MANAGEMENT.
>> THIS IS THE SITE JUST EAST
OF THE QFC ON 15th AVENUE.
THERE IS ALSO A OLDER CO-OP
BUILDING ON THIS BLOCK.
>> I RECOGNIZE THIS IS ONE OF
THOSE AREAS THAT IS NOT WITHIN
THE STUDY AREA BUT I WANT TO
USE IT AS A WAY TO HIGHLIGHT
HOW EVEN SOME OF OUR HISTORICAL
DECISIONS SEEM A LITTLE
STRANGE.
THE BLOCK TO THE NORTH AND
SOUTH ARE BOTH ZONED OR
SOMETHING TALLER THAN THE BLOCK
IN THE MIDDLE.
THOSE HISTORICAL CHANGES ABOUT
THE URBAN VILLAGE BOUNDARIES
SEEM ADEQUATE IN SOME PLACES.
THIS SEEMS LIKE ONE OF THOSE
WHERE FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS TO CLEANUP WHAT IS THE
ALLOWANCE FOR TALLER BUILDINGS
TO THE SOUTH INTO THE NORTH
DIRECTLY OF THESE SINGLE-FAMILY
HOUSES I SENSE TO ME.
ALTHOUGH NOT SOMETHING WE CAN
DO HERE.
>> YOU MENTIONED THERE IS A BIG
CO-OP CONDO BUILDING RIGHT THERE
. I ACTUALLY, IT'S NEITHER HERE
NOR THERE, BUT THAT WAS MY
HUSBAND AND MY FIRST PLACE AND
CAPITOL HILL.
THE ONLY REASON I MENTION IT IS
THAT, IN REFERENCE TO COUNSEL
NUMBER JOHNSON'S POINTS ABOUT
LITTLE POCKET'S, WE HAVE TO
KEEP IN MIND THESE ARE AGAIN,
THEY MAY NOT BE AFFORDABLE TO A
LOT OF PEOPLE, BUT IF YOU LOOK
AT CONDO PRICES, THEY HAVE BEEN
RELATIVELY MUCH MORE AFFORDABLE
IN THAT BUILDING THAN IN OTHER
BUILDINGS.
WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL HOW WE
TALK ABOUT ZONING, IN THE SENSE
AGAIN IT COMES BACK TO WHAT
AFFORDABLE UNITS THERE ARE.
>> THE REASON I BRING IT UP
COUNCILMEMEBER SAWANT IS
BECAUSE THE MAKEUP OF THAT
BLOCK.
EFFECTIVELY YOU HAVE THE SMALL
CONDO BUILDING BUT IT'S TALLER
THAN WHAT A FAMILY HOUSE WOULD
BE.
YOU HAVE THE QFC ON THE
BACKSIDE AND THEN YOU HAVE A
ROW OF SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES.
WE ALREADY HAVE A LOT OF
DENSITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
WITH SOME INCOMPATIBLE USES
HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED
INCOMPATIBLE USES BUT
INCOMPATIBLE WITH WHAT YOU
COULD DO TODAY.
I THINK THE IDEA OF US PUTTING
UP THE INCOMPATIBLE USES WOULD
ALLOW FOR CREATION OF SOME OF
THE THINGS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
LIKE A SMALL SCALE CONDO
BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE
PROHIBITED TODAY.
CONTINUE.
SORRY ERIC McCONAGHY.
SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> THIS GOT ME THINKING AND
IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO DISTRICT
3, EVEN MANY OF OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE THIS
INCONSISTENCY THAT WE WOULD NOW
CALL IT, I WOULD REALLY
APPRECIATE IF WE COULD HAVE
DIVIDED FOR THE COUNCIL AND FOR
THE PUBLIC THE CHARTS THAT SHOW
THE ACTUAL DOWNSIZING THAT HAS
OCCURRED OVER THE LAST DECADES.
A LOT OF FOLKS DON'T REALIZE
HOW MANY OF THESE LARGER
STRUCTURES DO EXIST THROUGHOUT
OUR COMMUNITY.
FOR EXAMPLE I LIVE IN QUEEN
ANNE, IT'S NOT AN AREA FOR AN
UPZONE.
I LIVE IN AN APARTMENT BUILDING
THAT IF IT WERE DEMOLISHED
TODAY COULD NOT BE RECONSTRUCTED
INTO A APARTMENT BUILDING IT
WOULD BE A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED
AREA.
I AM SURROUNDED BY APARTMENT
BUILDINGS THAT ARE FIVE STORIES
HIGH.
IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR US TO
JUXTAPOSE THESE POTENTIAL
POCKETS WE ARE LOOKING AT IN
TERMS OF WHAT CURRENT STRUCTURES
OR WHAT WERE ALLOWED TO BE
CONSTRUCTED THERE THREE DECADES
AND FOUR DECADES AGO.
THAT MIGHT GIVE US A BETTER
SENSE OF HOW THE THESE MIGHT
FIT IN WITH CURRENT
DEMOGRAPHICS.
IF THAT'S OKAY, THAT REQUEST.
>> LET'S CONTINUE ERIC
McCONAGHY.
>> THIS IS A MAP OF 3-6. WEST
SIDE OF 19th AVENUE EAST, EAST
THOMAS AVENUE TO REPUBLICAN
STREET.
CURRENTLY SINGLE-FAMILY 5000.
LR3 AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
WOULD BE JANUARY 16, 2019 FOR
M 2 BUMP.
3-7. ALSO IN THE MEDICINE
MILLER URBAN VILLAGE.
THIS CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE-
FAMILY 5000 PROPOSAL IS TO LR1
PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD BE
SMALL LOT.
3-8 EAST SIDE OF 21st AVENUE
EAST AND TO THE WEST SIDE OF 20
AVENUE SECOND BETWEEN EAST
JOHNSON STREET AND EAST THOMAS.
CURRENT ZONING IS LR3.
PROPOSAL IS LR3 WITH A M BUMP
IN PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO LR1.
3-9. WEST SIDE OF 24th AVENUE
BETWEEN EAST HOWELL STREET,
24th AVENUE EAST, NORTH OF EAST
HOWELL STREET.
CURRENT ZONING LR2.
PUZZLE IS LR3.
I SHOULD SAY THE MHA PROPOSED
ZONING IS LR3 M 1 BUMP.
PROPOSED WOULD BE LR2 WITH M
BUMP.
>> THAT WOULD REALLY BE ABOUT
CHANGES TO THE SCOPE LIKE MR.
FREEMAN TALKED ABOUT EARLIER,
YOU CAN MAYBE BUILD FIVE FEET
TALLER THAN EXISTING LR2 AND
MAYBE GET A LITTLE MORE FLOOR
RATIO?
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> 3-10.
EAST SIDE OF 22nd AVENUE EAST
TO THE WEST SIDE OF 21st AVENUE
EAST.
NORTHEAST PINE STREET.
CURRENT ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT.
THE PROPOSED, THE BILL WOULD GO
TO LR1 AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT
WOULD BE TO DIG RSL.
3-11.
THIS IS 953 23rd AVENUE EAST.
THIS WOULD GO FROM SINGLE-
FAMILY 5000, MHA IS RSL AND
PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO
LR3.
>> IS THAT WITHIN THE SCOPE --
>> YOU BEAT ME TO IT.
3-11, ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
WOULD BE NEEDED BUT A HIGHER
ALTERNATIVE WAS LOOKED AT
WITHIN THE FEIS SCOPE.
THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT HERE
WOULD GO TO LR3.
AN ALTERNATIVE WAS STUDIED LR1
AND ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 3 WAS
RSL.
THERE IS A MOVE TO GREATER
INTENSITY IN ONE OF THE
ALTERNATIVES BUT NOT QUITE AS
FAR AS IS ASKED FOR AT THIS
MOMENT.
THIS IS 3-12 ADDRESSED AS 935
23rd AVENUE EAST.
CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE-FAMILY
5000.
PROPOSAL IS RSL.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS LR3 --
NC2-55 M IN THE SAME SORT OF
SITUATION AS A PREVIOUS
AMENDMENT DISCUSSED.
THE LR THREE ADJUSTMENT -- LR3
AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
BUT WITHIN ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 2
LR1 .
>> WITHIN THESE AMENDMENTS
WHERE ADJACENT TO 23rd AND
UNION NODE THAT WE IMPLEMENTED
MHA ON AS PART OF LAST YEAR'S
CENTRAL AREA MHA AMENDMENTS, I
THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL AS WE
CONTEMPLATE THESE COUPLE OF
AMENDMENTS TO UNDERSTAND A
LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE
ZONING CHANGES THAT WERE
ADOPTED WITHIN THE GRAY SHADING
SO WE ARE ADDRESSING SOME OF
THE ISSUES THAT COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS
OF ADJACENCY AND WHAT HEIGHT
DISPARITIES YOU MIGHT HAVE
BETWEEN THE PROPOSAL OF FOR
EXAMPLE 3-11 ACROSS THE STREET
YOU CAN BUILD SITE MUCH LARGER.
HOW WE UNDERSTAND THOSE
TRANSITIONS.
>> MAYBE IT'S WORTH TAKING A
MOMENT, I THINK I NEGLECTED TO
EXPLAIN THAT SOME TERMINOLOGY,
THIS IS REVIEW FOR MOST FOLKS
BUT FOR FOLKS TUNING AND MAYBE
THIS IS HELPFUL.
AND I SAY ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 2
AND ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 3
TALKING ABOUT ONCE A WERE
CONSIDERED IN THE FINAL IMPACT
STATEMENT.
SOMETIMES THE ALTERNATIVE IN
THE ME J-VILLE, -- MHA BILL. I
THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO
REVIEW THAT.
3-13.
THIS IS IT EAST TESSLER WAY.
COUNTRY DOCTOR IS PART
PROPONENT OF THIS.
CURRENT ZONING IS YOLANDA 1 40.
REQUEST IS TO GO TO 28 3 75.
-- NC 3 75.
THESE ARE EAST OF MARTIN LUTHER
KING JR. WAY.
SINGLE-FAMILY 5000.
PROPOSAL IS RSL IN THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT IS LR1.
>> COUNCILMEMEBER SAWANT
PLEASE.
>> NOT TO INTERRUPT YOU, I
JUST WANTED TO MENTION 3-13, I
DON'T KNOW IF COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOTICED THAT IS FOR COUNTRY
DOCTOR WOOD SHOULD BE
HIGHLIGHTED BECAUSE THEY ARE A
MEDICAL CARE PROVIDER AND THEY
WANT TO EXPAND THEIR FOOTPRINT
SO THEY CAN EXPAND SERVICES.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS IN
THE SCOPE OF THE EIS.
>> I NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT
WAS NOT CONSIDERED.
AN ADDITIONAL REVIEW WOULD BE
NECESSARY.
I BELIEVE WE ARE AT 3-15.
1722 22nd AVENUE SOUTH.
CURRENT IS LR2.
PROPOSED IS 35 -- LR3.
PROPOSED TO BE NC M 2 BUMP.
MORE REVIEW WOULD BE NECESSARY.
A HIGHER ALTERNATIVE WAS
CONSIDERED WITHIN THE EIS
SCOPE.
THAT AN ALTERNATIVE 2 WAS M2
AND ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 3 WAS
LR3.
>> THERE MIGHT BE MOVEMENT IN
THE DIRECTION OF INTENSITY BUT
NOT AS FAR AS PROPOSED IN THIS
AMENDMENT?
>> THE LAST ONE IN DISTRICT
THREE, 3-16, THIS IS AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF 20th AVENUE
SOUTH.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE-
FAMILY 5000.
THE PROPOSAL IS FOR RSL.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD BE
TO LR2 AND THIS IS WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF THE FEIS.
>> FURTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
COUNCIL MEMBERS, ANYTHING YOU
WOULD LIKE TO ADD?
LET'S MOVE ONTO DISTRICT 5.
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ , ANYTHING
YOU WOULD LIKE TO LEAD OFF
WITH?
>> YES ABSOLUTELY.
I HOPE EVERYONE IS AWAKE.
WE CAN DIVE INTO DISTRICT 5.
THAT'S A JOKE.
NO ONE IS AWAKE.
WE HAVE 10 PROPERTIES AND WE
SHOULD NOTE THAT OUR OFFICE HAS
BEEN IN CORRESPONDENCE AND MET
WITH JUST ABOUT EVERY PROPERTY
PERSON INVOLVED.
I ALSO WANT TO THINK, TILL FOR
THIS BIG CHART WITH ALL THE
CHEAT NOTES AND EVERYTHING LAID
OUT.
THE OWNERSHIP SOURCE IN OUR
COMMENTS AND NOTES.
IN ADDITION WE HAVE A
COLLECTION OF EMAILS
CORRESPONDING TO EACH LOCATION
FROM DISTRICT 5 1 THROUGH
DISTRICT 5 NUMBER 10.
A LOT GO BACK TO APRIL.
WE HAVE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION
TO THE ISSUES COMING UP.
DISTRICT 5, I WANT TO SAY THIS
FOR THE VIEWING AUDIENCE IS 85th
TO 145th.
WE HAVE A LOT OF DENSITY ISSUES
WITH TO JACK -- 2 LIGHT RAIL
STATIONS.
WE HAVE MANY NEIGHBORHOODS WITH
HIGH DISPLACEMENT AND LOW
OPPORTUNITY.
NATURE ECONOMIC AND GROWTH
COMING IN ON NORTHGATE.
AND CERTAINLY ON AURORA.
DISTRICT 5 HAS THREE STATE
HIGHWAYS THE GO THROUGH IT.
AURORA, 522 WHICH IS CITY WAY
AND 523 WHICH IS 145th.
LIKE MANY NEIGHBORHOODS THEY ARE
THE VIGIL IN THEIR OWN WAYS,
NEEDS, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING
AND DISPLACEMENT AND ALL THE
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT GOES WITH
IT.
I WAS JUST TALKING TO
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA OFF-LINE
AND I WANT TO MAKE AN
OBSERVATION BEFORE WE DIVE IN
TO DISTRICT 5, COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA CHAIRED OUR HOUSING
COMMITTEE MONDAY MORNING.
THAT WAS OVER TWO HOURS AND
BROUGHT FOLKS FROM LOS ANGELES.
THE MAIN THING WE HEARD WAS
BUILD HOUSING.
HOUSING.
BUILD HOUSING.
RE-EXAMINE THE SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONING ISSUE.
MANY OF US READ THE REPORT OUT
OF MINNEAPOLIS, HOW YOU LOOK AT
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING AND WRITING
HISTORICAL WRONGS AND ALL THE
ISSUES THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT.
THAT AFTERNOON FOR OVER TWO
HOURS COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON
SHARED THE FIRST MHA MEETING
AND WE HEARD PEOPLE COME AND
SING DO NOT BUILD.
DON'T TOUCH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE DON'T WANT YOU TO DO
ANYTHING WITH IT.
IT IS A BIT SCHIZOPHRENIC BUT
THAT'S OUR JOB.
DISTRICT 5 IS NO DIFFERENT.
WITH THESE 10 PROPERTIES AND
DIFFERENT INTERESTS, I AM GLAD
WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON, TO ACTUALLY
FLUSH OUT ALL OF THESE ISSUES.
AND ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT
RECENT HEARING EXAMINER'S
DECISION.
WHICH WAS QUITE ENLIGHTENING
FOR THOSE WHO HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT, THERE
WERE 88 FINDINGS OF FACT AND 55
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND THREE
LEGAL FINDINGS THAT HAS
DIRECTED US OF HOW THE CITY IS
GOING TO GROW.
>> RIGHT NOW WE ARE STRUGGLING
WITH THE WATERFRONT AND THE
L.I.D.
AND HOPEFULLY HAVE MAGICALLY
GROWN 20 ACRES ON THE
WATERFRONT.
I KNOW PEOPLE AREN'T HAPPY WITH
THAT RIGHT NOW BUT THAT'S WHERE
WE ARE AT.
I THINK WHAT WE ARE STRUGGLING
WITH AND WHAT WE CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH AS ELECTIVES AND
YOU'VE HEARD IT FROM EVERY
COUNCILMEMBER APPEAR IS THAT WE
ARE A BIG CITY WITH BIG CITY
PROBLEMS.
THE SHAPE OF OUR CITY IS AN
HOURGLASS.
WE CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH. BUT I
THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT
THAT WE HAVE THE HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS
AND HOW THEY HAVE TO GROW AND
HOW WE HAVE TO LOOK AT DENSITY.
OF THE 10 PROPERTIES WE ARE
LOOKING AT AS POTENTIAL
EMINENCE IN DISTRICT 5 NOT ALL
OF THEM WANT GROWTH BUT MOST
DO.
WE LOOK AT DIFFERENT AREAS
WHERE DISTRICT 5 HAS THE
HIGHEST NUMBER OF LOW INCOME
SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING.
THESE ARE ALL THE COMPLEXITIES.
I SHARE THIS WITH YOU BECAUSE I
WANT TO FRAME THE NARRATIVE
THAT WHEN WE GO THROUGH THESE,
THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS I
KNOW MY COLLEAGUES ARE LOOKING
AT AND WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.
WE ARE OKAY TO AGREE TO
DISAGREE.
I AM HOPING AS A CITY WE
RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S NOT 1970 OR
1980 ANYMORE.
IT'S 2018.
OBVIOUSLY WITH MHA WE HAVE THE
PERFORMANCE VERSUS PAYMENTS.
SOME OF US, INCLUDING ME,
RATHER HAVE PERFORMANCE THAN A
CHECK.
WITH THAT I'M GOING TO LET YOU
DIVE INTO DISTRICT 5. I HAVE
SOME COMMENTS ON SOME ISSUES
BUT UNDERSTAND THIS IS MORE A
FLAGGING OF THE ISSUES.
IF I NEED TO COMMENT I WILL, IF
NOT I WON'T.
>> IS MENTIONED DISTRICT 5 IS
GENERALLY SPEAKING A HIGH
DISPLACEMENT RISK LOW
OPPORTUNITY AREA FOR THE
PURPOSE OF OUR CONFERENCE OF
PLAN.
MAPPING AND I INFORMED THE
PROPOSAL FROM MAYOR BURGESS
WITHIN THE DISTRICT 5 HAVE ONLY
INTERIM LEVEL BUMS.
THAT IS SOME CONTEXT ON THE
PROPOSAL.
DISTRICT 5 HAS THREE URBAN
VILLAGES.
IT HAS ONE URBAN CENTER. 10
POTENTIAL AND LIMITS HAVE BEEN
SUGGESTED FOR DISTRICT 5. I
WILL WALK THROUGH EACH ONE.
THE FIRST IS IN THE BITTER LAKE
HOLLOW LAKE URBAN VILLAGE.
A PROPOSAL TO NOT UPZONE.
A COUPLE OF LARGE SITES
CURRENTLY OCCUPIED WITH MOBILE
HOME PARKS INCLUDING THE VERBAL
-- CURRENT ZONING IS 140
COMMERCIAL 155 IS PROPOSED.
>> COUNCILMEMEBER SAWANT.
AS I WAS MENTIONING IN THE
BRIEFING THIS MONDAY, AND TO
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ , THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT SEEMS PORTON TO
DO, IT'S NOT IN ANY WAY OPPOSED
TO THE OVERALL GOES -- GOALS OF
IMPROVING THE ZONING, UPZONE
THE CITY, THESE ARE SPECIFIC
SITUATIONS.
THIS WHOLE SITE, CONTAINS TWO
MOBILE HOME PARKS.
AS COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN
INFORMED, THE FIRST ONE HOUSES
SENIORS 55 AND OLDER.
THEY FACE THE REAL PROSPECT,
IMMEDIATE PROSPECT OF EVICTION
IF SOMETHING IS NOT DONE.
BY ITSELF IT WILL NOT
ACCOMPLISH IT BUT IT IS PART OF
THE PROCESS. AS YOU ALL KNOW
THIS PROPERTY IS CONTROLLED IN
TRUST BY U.S. BANK WHICH IS IN
THE PROCESS OF SELLING IT TO A
DEVELOPER CALLED BLUE FARM
WHICH WOULD END UP EVICTING
THESE RESIDENTS.
IT'S ALSO A WORSE SITUATION
THAN USUAL EVICTION WHICH IS
BAD ENOUGH BECAUSE THE
RESIDENCE OWN THEIR
MANUFACTURED HOMES AND THEY'RE
NOT ACTUALLY MOBILE.
IT'S GOING TO BE A PERMANENT
LOST -- LOSS.
AND FURTHERMORE, IT SEEMS
IRONIC BUT IT'S TRUE THAT THEY
WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO PAY FOR
THE DEMOLITION.
ALL SAID AND DONE, IT SEEMS
LIKE WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS
AMENDMENT. MY OFFICE BROUGHT
THIS FORWARD.
I WANT TO SHARE WITH MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC THAT IN FACT
YESTERDAY NICK JONES FOR MY
OFFICE JOINED SOME OF THE
RESIDENCE, A GROUP OF 10
RESIDENTS AS THEY WENT
DOORKNOCKING WITH THEIR
NEIGHBORS TO HELP THEM
UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE.
MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTOOD WHAT
IS UP ON THEM AND TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY HAVE MAXIMUM
ATTENDANCE FOR THE DISCUSSION
ON THIS ISSUE.
HAPPENING THIS FRIDAY AT 1:30 PM
IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
>> AS YOU REMEMBER, A SIMILAR
ISSUE HAPPENED IN MY NECK OF
THE WOODS I THINK WE WERE ABLE
TO WORK THROUGH A SET OF
CHALLENGES AROUND THE
DEVELOPMENT. THE CONCERN I HAVE
ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL IS THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE AGAIN OF
LEAVING OUT PARCELS FROM THE
MANDATORY HOUSING FOR ABILITY
PROGRAM.
I THINK THAT PUTS A GREATER
EMPHASIS ON THOSE AREAS FOR
LIKELY REDEVELOPMENT BECAUSE
AGAIN A DEVELOPER WOULDN'T BE
REQUIRED TO PAY OR PERFORM
UNDER THE CITY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROGRAM.
I GET CONCERNED ABOUT LEAVING
OUT POCKETS OF THE CITY BECAUSE
I THINK THOSE WILL BE THEN
FURTHER TARGETED.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE.
WITH MORE DISCUSSION EITHER AT
COMMITTEE TABLE OR FUTURE DATES
OR OFF-LINE.
>> I THINK IT IS, IT'S DEAFLY
WORTH A DISCUSSION AND WE
SHOULD DISCUSS THE QUESTION YOU
HAVE RAISED.
HOWEVER, I THINK THE BOTTOM
LINE HAS TO BE FOR THE CITY
COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE THESE
SENIORS HAVE HOUSING.
IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER
PLACE FOR THEM TO GO TO AND WE
HAVE TO MAKE SOME ARRANGEMENTS.
THE CONCERN YOU HAVE
HIGHLIGHTED PRECISELY POINTS TO
THE LIMITATIONS OF ONLY
FOCUSING ON SOMETHING LIKE MHA
AS OPPOSED TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DOING BROADER WORK ESPECIALLY IN
ACTUALLY RAISING PROGRESSIVE
TAXES SO WE HAVE FUNDS FOR
PUBLICLY OWNED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
THE POINT YOU MAKE ACTUALLY
HIGHLIGHTS THE PROBLEMS THEY
ARE FACING.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE YOU ALL JOIN
IN REPEALING THE AMAZON TAX IF
YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THIS WE
HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER OPTION.
IT IS NOT AN OPTION IN MY MIND
TO ALLOW THE DISPLACEMENT,
EVICTION AND VERY REAL PROSPECT
OF HOMELESSNESS FOR MANY OF
THESE SENIOR RESIDENTS.
SOME OF THESE RESIDENTS, THERE
ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE MESSAGED MY
OFFICE AND ARE POSTING ON
SOCIAL MEDIA, THEY HAVE
PERSONAL CONTACT WITH AMY
MADDEN WAS A WELL-KNOWN OFFICER
, JUST POSTED ONE OF THE
RESIDENCE THERE, SHE HAS KNOWN
HER AS AN ENGLISH TEACHER FOR
DECADES SHE LIVES THERE. WHERE
IS SHE GOING TO GO?
THEY HAVE INVESTED THEIR MEAGER
RETIREMENT INTO THIS HOME.
I DO THINK WE HAVE A MUCH HIGHER
MORAL AND POLITICAL OBLIGATION
HERE THAN SIMPLY SAYING THESE
ARE INCONSISTENCIES.
UNDER THIS FRAMEWORK IF WE DON'T
PUSH FOR SOCIAL HOUSING, THESE
PROPERTIES WILL CONTINUE TO GET
TARGETED.
BECAUSE THEY WILL BE TARGETED
IN THE FUTURE MEANS WE ALLOW
THEM TO BE TARGETED TODAY.
THAT IS A NONSOLUTION.
WE HAVE TO WORK TOWARD REAL
SOLUTIONS.
AT THE VERY LEASE THIS LEASE,
SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE TO
MAKE SURE EVICTION IS NOT
IMMINENT WE DISCUSS OTHER
SOLUTIONS.
>> OTHER COMMENTS?
>> 5-2.
>> MOVING ACROSS I-5 OR ALMOST
ACROSS I-5 TO THE FURTHER EDGE
OF THE NORTHLAKE, OF NORTHGATE
URBAN CENTER THERE IS A REQUEST
FROM A PROPERTY OWNER WHOSE
PROPERTY LIES JUST OUTSIDE THE
NORTHGATE CENTER TO GO FROM
SINGLE FAMILY 5000 TWO LOW RISE
2. M1.
UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS NOT PART
OF THE FEIS STUDY AREA.
CONTINUING WITHIN THE NORTHGATE
URBAN CENTER YOU ARE PROBABLY
AMILIAR WITH THE SENIOR LIVING
SITE, SPLIT ZONE.
THEY HAVE A REQUEST TO RESOLVE
THE SPLIT ZONING.
CURRENTLY ZONED LR3 AND
MIDRISE.
>> IF I COULD CHIME IN.
JUST BRIEFLY, THIS IS THE NORTH
HAVEN AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
WITH NORTH HAVEN FOR A COUPLE
OF YEARS.
WILLIAM DORN AND DARLENE STORY
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
WE ARE ENCOURAGING -- FOR THE
VIEWING AUDIENCE, THEY ARE
ASKING FOR THESE CHANGES
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BUILD LOW
INCOME ELDER HOUSING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECTS. THIS IS WHY
THESE COMMITTEES AND GROUPS ARE
SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF WE WERE
TO ALLOW AND TO AGREE TO THE
CONCERNS THAT NORTH HAVEN HAS,
THEN WE COULD ADDRESS SOME OF
THE ISSUES THAT COUNCILMEMEBER
SAWANT BROUGHT UP IN REGARDS TO
NUMBER 1, WE HAVE 76 MOBILE
HOMES AND 85 PEOPLE LIVING
THERE.
MOST OF THEM BEING ELDERLY.
THIS IS THE KIND OF OPEN
DISCUSSION WE CAN HAVE ABOUT
HOW WE REMEDY THOSE SITUATIONS.
I'M HOPING THAT, I'M NOT GOING
TO MAKE THE PITCH NOW, BUT
NORTH HAVEN AND THOSE FOLKS
HAVE BEEN GOOD ABOUT PUSHING
FORWARD IN TRYING TO BUILD THE
TWO ADDITIONAL HOUSING PROJECTS
FOR LOW INCOME SENIORS.
THANK YOU.
>> WAS THIS ONE CONTEMPLATED
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE FEIS?
>> THIS ONE LOOKS TO BE WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF THE FEIS.
>> A POSSIBILITY.
>> MOVING ON TO 5-4. AN AREA ON
THE EAST SIDE OF THE NORTHGATE
URBAN CENTER.
CURRENTLY ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY.
IT WOULD BE AN EXPANSION AREA
FOR THE NORTHGATE URBAN CENTER.
IT IS A PROPOSAL TO GO TO M3
-- LR1 AND THERE IS A
RECOMMENDATION TO GO TO RSL
INSTEAD.
THE PROVENANCE OF THE PROPOSAL
IS A LITTLE UNCLEAR.
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE
MADE BY HIS TCI IN MAKING THE
RECOMMENDATION.
EITHER WAY, RSL AND LOW RISE 1
ARE OPTIONS.
THIS BLOCK HAS A TRIBUTARY TO
THE THORNTON CREEK RUNNING
THROUGH THE BACKYARD.
>> WELCOME COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ . NICE TO HAVE YOU
BACK .
>> 5-5, A SITE SOUTH OF
NORTHEAST NORTHGATE WAY.
AN EXISTING APARTMENT COMPLEX
CURRENTLY ZONED LOWRISE THREE.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO GO TO
LOWRISE THREE M. THE MINIMUM M
BUMP.
A RECOMMENDATION TO TO MIDRISE
1. THAT WAS NOT STUDIED WITH
ANY OF THE ALTERNATIVES.
IT'S NOT AN OPTION.
MOVING OVER TO LAKE CITY
RESIDENTIAL URBAN VILLAGE.
THERE IS A DESIRE BY SOME
PROPERTY OWNERS TO GO EVEN
HIGHER TOWARDS WHAT YOU MAY
IMAGINE AS BEING THE HEART OF
THE LAKE CITY URBAN VILLAGE.
THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE HEIGHTS
HIGHER THAN THE PROPOSED NC --
UNFORTUNATELY THAT WAS THE
HIGHEST HEIGHT ANALYZED IN THE
FEIS.
MOVING FURTHERSOUTH ON LAKE
CITY, THIS IS A PARCEL THAT IS
BETWEEN -- SURROUNDED BY
COMMERCIAL ZONING.
THERE IS A DESIRE FOR THE SITE
TO BE ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL. UNFORTUNATELY THIS
WAS NOT STUDIED IN THE EIS.
THIS IS A SOMEWHAT ANOMALOUS
THING.
THERE IS A SITE CURRENTLY
DEVELOPED OFF OF THE LAKE CITY
WAY NORTHEAST.
SOMEHOW WHEN IT WAS DEVELOPED A
SINGLE-FAMILY PORTION OF THE
SITE WAS DEVELOPED FOR A
MULTIFAMILY BUILDING.
IT MAY BE AN ARTIFACT OF
EXISTING ZONING REGULATIONS OF
WHEN THE BUILDING WAS BUILT.
I THINK IT'S FAIRLY OLD.
THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A DESIRE
TO RESOLVE THE SPLIT ZONING ON
THAT SITE.
MOVING OVER TO THE AURORA
LINKEDIN URBAN VILLAGE.
MAYBE I WILL SET SOME CONTEXT.
CURRENTLY THERE IS A DEVELOPED
MORATORIUM FOR CERTAIN USES IN
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONED
AREAS ON AURORA NORTH.
THE COUNCIL RENEWED THAT.
THE TYPES OF USES THE COUNSEL
SOUGHT TO LIMIT THROUGH THE
TEMPORARY MORATORIUM WERE
PRIMARILY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND
HEAVY COMMERCIAL USES,
PARTICULARLY MANY WAREHOUSES
WHICH WERE PROLIFERATING.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS 5-9 AND
THAT WOULD BE A PROPOSAL TO
FROM LOWRISE 1 UP TO LOWRISE 2
FOR AN AREA OFF AURORA AVENUE
NORTH.
UNFORTUNATELY THIS LR2 WAS NOT
STUDIED IN THE EIS.
MOVING NOW TO THE COMMERCIAL
SPINE, AS COUNCILMEMBERS KNOW
THERE WAS A DESIRE BY THE
COMMUNITY TO HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD
SERVING RETAIL USES ALONG
AURORA AVENUE FOR SOME PORTION
OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ZONED AREAS
ALONG A REVENUE -- AURORA
AVENUE.
THIS IS TO ESTABLISH A
COMMERCIAL P DESIGNATION FOR
SOME PORTION.
>> I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES OUR
AMENDMENTS.
>> ON THIS LAST ONE, THE P
DESIGNATION I AM ASSUMING
WOULDN'T BE ON EVERY BLOCK FACE
IN THE WHOLE AREA BUT WOULD BE
TARGETED TO CERTAIN LOCK FACES?
>> THERE WOULD.
THERE ARE CHOICES FOR
COUNCILMEMBERS TO MAKE AN WHERE
THE P DESIGNATION SHOULD BE IN
THERE ARE THINGS YOU MIGHT WANT
TO CONSIDER AND WHETHER OR NOT
DECIDING WHERE IT SHOULD GO AND
WHAT THE EXISTING LAND USES ARE.
>> WE HAVE DONE THAT AND
SIMILAR CORRIDORS BUT MORE LIKE
IN ZONED AREAS.
CORRECT?
KIND OF NODES ALONG THE AURORA
CORRIDOR, CORRECT?
>> THE CODE CALLS OUT SPECIFIC
STREETS ALONG WHICH THE
PEDESTRIAN DISTRICT
REQUIREMENTS APPLY.
THERE ARE NODES FURTHER SOUTH
ALONG AURORA AVENUE NEAR GREEN
LAKE THAT HAVE A PEDESTRIAN
DESIGNATION.
SIMILARLY NORMALLY WE WOULD
JUST REQUIRE COMMERCIAL USES
ALONG THE MAJOR ARTERIAL.
>> OKAY.
THUS CONCLUDES THE AMENDMENTS
FOR DISTRICT 5. COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ IS ANYTHING YOU WOULD
LIKE TO ADD TO WRAP UP?
>> GO DISTRICT 5!
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MY
COLLEAGUES BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TODAY.
NOT SEEING ANY.
AT THIS POINT WE HAVE ABOUT 30
PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO
GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE ARE SCHEDULED TO BE OUT OF
HERE AT NOON.
SO COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ HAS
HAD TO CHANGE OVER THE ROOM.
EVERYONE IS GOING TO GET 2
MINUTES.
WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME IS COME
UP TO ONE OF THE MICROPHONES.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD
AND WE WILL START WITH MARIA.
>> GOOD MORNING.
HONORABLE MEMBERS I ALWAYS
APPRECIATE THE BIG BRAINS EACH
AND EVERYONE OF YOU HAVE.
AND I AM UP TODAY BECAUSE I
HAVE BEEN THINKING A LOT ABOUT
HOW THIS PARTICULAR SET OF
COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE EMBRACED
NOT ONLY AFFORDABLE ISSUE BUT
ALSO TRULY EMBRACED EQUITY
ISSUES.
IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO
DISRUPT THE SYSTEMATIC RACIST
LADY -- LEGACY OF REDLINING AND
HOW THE SYSTEMIC INTERRUPTIONS
YOU ARE DOING COULD CONTRIBUTE
TO WEALTH BUILDING.
IMPERFECT AS IT MAY BE WE ARE
MOVING FORWARD WITH MHA AND OUR
COMMUNITY IS CONTINUING TO
ENGAGE AS WELL AS OTHER
COMMUNITIES.
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT
TO KIND OF ZOOM OUT AND TAKE A
LOOK AT THE BROADER LANDSCAPE
OF WHAT EQUITY POLICIES GOING
TO BE NEEDING TO BE IN PLACE.
WHILE WE HAVE YOU AS A
COLLABORATIVE SET AND WE ARE
ALSO FACING ELECTIONS AND SOME
OF YOU HAVE DONE HONORABLE
SERVICE WILL NOT BE CONTINUING,
I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT
WE HAVE COMPANION RESOLUTIONS
OR SEPARATE ORDINANCES THAT
WOULD REALLY ADDRESS SOME OF
THE OTHER PIECES TO PUT IN THIS
BROADER FRAMEWORK.
FIRST IS, MITIGATION FOR THE
CITY IDENTIFIED RSG MHA
DEFICIENCIES AND AS YOU KNOW
THOSE HAVE BEEN UNCOVERED
THROUGH THE PROCESS.
THAT IS IN PLACE.
THERE ARE 11 DEPARTMENT REPORTS
THE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN
TERMS OF RACIAL EQUITY
DEFICIENCIES.
THE SECOND IS COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD SPOKE ABOUT THIS, WE
NEED TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT IN
THE LOT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
COVER RACE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE.
THIS IS A FRONT AND CENTER
POLICY BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE.
IN THAT TOOL NEEDS TO BE AMENDED
SO CAN ALLOW FOR RACIAL EQUITY,
DISPLACEMENT AND ALLOW FOR
INTERVENTIONS.
>> THANK YOU MARIA.
>> THE THIRD ONE IS LAND TRUST
FOR FAMILY HOUSING.
THANK YOU.
>>
>> MARRIED HER STATEMENT?
SHE TOOK TIME OFF FROM WORK AND
HAD TO GO BACK.
>> WE HAVE A LOT OF FOLKS
WAITING PATIENTLY.
AND YOUR STATEMENT
>> HER PUNCH LINE IS WE WOULD
LIKE TO WORK WITH COUNCIL
MEMBERS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES
THAT MHA IS NOT DOING.
THAT'S WHY WE ASKED FOR NO UPS
OWN.
-- UPZONE.
>>
>> GOOD MORNING.
I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE
MORTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION.
YOU SAW OUR URBAN VILLAGE MAP
AND I REQUESTED MAP CHANGE.
YOU ALSO HEARD ABOUT OUR
PEDESTRIAN ZONE ISSUES.
WE WILL HAVE MORE COMMENTS
ABOUT THAT.
AND WE WILL HAVE OTHER
COMMENTARY THROUGHOUT THIS
PROCESS. IT IS BEEN QUITE A FEW
YEARS THAT ALL OF YOU HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED IN THIS.
I WANT TO SAY GOOD MORNING AND
I'M GOING TO SAY I'M SPEAKING
TO THE NEED TO FORMALLY
EVALUATE THE URBAN VILLAGES FOR
HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL
RESOURCES.
THE HEARING EXAMINER PUT THE
CITY ON NOTICE THAT THE FEIS
DID NOT CONTAIN ACCURATE
INFORMATION ON HISTORIC
RESOURCES.
IS MANDATED ADDENDUM TO THE EIS
TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES IS
BEING PREPARED BY THE SAME
CONSULTANTS WHO MISSED IT ON
THE FIRST ROUND.
I'VE GOT TO SAY THAT KIND OF
CONCERNS ME AND HOPE IT
CONCERNS YOU.
I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING
THAT REPORT COME OUT.
UNTIL THAT HAPPENS I NEED TO
SAY THERE ARE 17 URBAN VILLAGES
THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED OR
HISTORIC RESOURCES INCLUDING
MORGAN JUNCTION.
AND I URGE YOU TO FUND HISTORIC
RESOURCES SURVEY IN ADVANCE OF
ASSIGNING YOUR MHA SO YOU KNOW
WHAT'S GOING TO BE IMPACTED.
I NEED YOU TO THINK ABOUT THE
WAYS THAT A 90 FOOT TALL
BUIDING SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO
A HISTORIC BUILDING COULD CHANGE
THE AIR QUALITY OR THE SUNLIGHT
AROUND THAT BUILDING.
LASTLY I NEED YOU TO KNOW ABOUT
THE SOUTH PARK AMENITY GOAL OF
ESTABLISHING A HISTORIC
DISTRICT OF 100-YEAR-OLD
WORKING-CLASS FAMILY HOMES.
THAT MHA UPS OWN -- UPZONE
WOULD DESTROY THEIR DREAM.
PLEASE LISTEN TO SOUTH PARK
RESIDENCE.
>>
>> THANK YOU CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE.
I AM A HOMEOWNER IN CAPITOL
HILL.
ALSO SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF LONG-
TERM CARE PROVIDERS.
WE HAVE 3000 MEMBERS WITHIN THE
CITY OF SEATTLE.
HERE IN SUPPORT OF MHA.
THE PROPOSAL IS A RESULT OF
YEARS OF HARD WORK AND
COMPROMISE.
AS A UNION WE URGE YOU TO
REJECT THE AMENDMENT AND PASS
THE RESOLUTION ENTIRETY.
OUR MEMBERS CARE FOR SENIORS
AND INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES IN THEIR HOMES IN
THE CITY.
I MUST BE ABLE TO CONSISTENTLY
REACH THEIR CLIENTS TO PROVIDE
CARE.
MANY CANNOT AFFORD TO DRIVE AND
THEREFORE MUST LIVE NOTE THE
CLIENTS AND PATIENTS.
THIS ALL MEANS IF WE WANT OUR
CITY SENIORS AND INDIVIDUALS
WITH DISABILITIES TO REMAIN IN
THEIR HOMES THEN WE NEED
WORKFORCE AND LOW INCOME
HOUSING.
>> WE CANNOT ACHIEVE THIS
WITHOUT INCREASING THE HOUSING
STOCK AND LISH WHITSON THE
NEIGHBORHOODS IN OUR CITY.
WE ONLY HAVE SO MUCH LAND AND
IF WE WANTED TO REMAIN A
DIVERSE CITY THERE MUST BE
RELIES -- WE MUST REDUCE
RELIANCE ON SINGLE USE
PROPERTIES SO LOW AND MIDDLE
INCOME SEATTLE CAN FIND HOUSING
AS WELL.
AS OUR POPULATION AGES WE NEED
MORE CARETAKERS IN THE CITY,
NOT LESS.
HOWEVER, IF WORKFORCE HOUSING
ISN'T ADDRESSED AGGRESSIVELY
SENIORS WILL BE FORCED OUT OF
THEIR HOMES.
PLEASE DO NOT ENDANGER IT.
WE ALMOST ACKNOWLEDGE THE
PROBLEM AND DO OUR PART IF WE
ARE GOING TO ENSURE SEATTLE
REMAINS A QUALITY PLACE TO LIVE
FOR EVERYONE.
>> FIRST GIVEN THE EXISTING
POPULATION OF SOUTH PARK,
UPZONE IS UNCONSCIONABLE.
LAST WEEK I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT
ETHICS, I'M AFRAID YOU'RE SO IN
DEEP ANYBODY TO SO MANY LIES
ARE YOUR -- I DON'T THINK YOU
CAN BACK OUT EVEN IF YOU WANT
TO.
THE THING IS YOU SHOULD'VE SEEN
THE UPZONE FOR WHAT THEY ARE.
THREE YEARS AGO.
THE MINUTE REDLINING WAS
BROUGHT UP YOU SHOULD'VE LOOKED
T THE MAPS.
YOU SHOULD'VE SEEN THE GREATEST
INEQUITY WAS HAPPENING TO AREAS
THE PEOPLE OF COLOR WERE
REDLINED INTO.
YOU SHOULD'VE RECOGNIZED THIS
AKES AWAY THE OPPORTUNITY TO
OWN A HOME WHICH IS THE
GREATEST CHANCE FOR WEALTH
BUILDING FOR ANYONE AS STATED
BY RON SIMS.
YOU SHOULD'VE SEEN THIS WILL
CREATE MORE HOMELESSNESS AS
PEOPLE ARE PUSHED OUT OF THEIR
APARTMENTS.
YOU HAD ACCESS TO THE NUMBERS.
YOU SHOULD'VE KNOWN IT WOULD
REQUIRE THE DISPLACEMENT OF
OVER 30,000 HOUSEHOLDS TO GET
THE 6000 UNITS.
AND MAYBE NEED TO ADDRESS THE
SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM AND
DISCOURAGE TECH COMPANIES FROM
TRYING TO TURN THIS INTO THEIR
OWN PRIVATE CAMPUSES.
SAINT AUGUSTINE SAID IT ABSENCE
OF JUSTICE WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY
BUT ORGANIZED ROBBERY?
I BELIEVE FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO
MAY HAVE A CONSCIENCE OR
BELIEVE YOU MAY HAVE ONE, AFTER
PASSING THIS YOU WILL NEVER
HAVE A CLEAR CONSCIENCE AGAIN
FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES.
SO, ON A PERSONAL NOTE I WANT
YOU TO KNOW, MY HUSBAND AND I
ALREADY KNOW WE ARE GOING TO
MOVE.
WE DECIDED THIS 1.5 YEARS AGO.
THE REASON I HAVE BEEN FIGHTING
THIS SO HARD IS TO STOP YOU
FROM CREATING MORE HOMELESS
PEOPLE.
AND I THINK THOSE
COUNCILMEMBERS WHO RECOGNIZE
THIS.
>> KEN YEAR FOLLOWED BY DOUG
AND THEN ANN.
>> I HAVE OPERATED APARTMENTS IN
SEATTLE FOR 40 YEARS.
>> SPEAK CLOSER TO THE
MICROPHONE.
>> MOST OF THEM HAVE BEEN IN
CAPITOL HILL, CENTRAL DISTRICT
AND RAINIER VALLEY.
WE HAVE ABOUT 15% OR 20% OF OUR
TENANTS ARE SECTION 8 AND A LOT
OF THEM ARE MODEST INCOME.
OUR PLANS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE
RANIER CHAMBER.
THE SEATTLE GIRLS SCHOOL IS A
PROPERTY I'M ADDRESSING.
AND THEY ARE PLANNING ON MOVING
TO A NEW CAMPUS IN THREE YEARS.
THIS IS ON JACKSON AND MARTIN
LUTHER KING WAY.
THE PROPERTY I AM REQUESTING
TALKING ABOUT IS WE HAVE A LARGE
PIECE OF PROPERTY, PART OF IT
IS OWNED FOR 55 FEET HIGH.
THE NEXT ONE IS PLANNED TO BE
ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL SMALL
LOTS WHICH WOULD ALLOW ONLY
SEVEN HOUSES.
LOWRISE 1 WOULD ALLOW FOR ABOUT
34 UNITS.
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING.
THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO
MAKE THIS WORK FOR DEVELOPMENT
FOR HOUSING.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
DOUG. YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
ANN.
>> HELLO COUNCILMEMBERS I WORK
FOR THE FIRST HOME IMPROVEMENT
ASSOCIATION.
FIRST HILL IS A UNIQUE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE HISTORIC MANSIONS NEXT
TO REGIONAL HOSPITALS.
WE HAVE LOW INCOME SENIOR
HOUSING NEXT TO MULTIMILLION
DOLLAR CONDOS.
THE FIRST HOME IMPROVEMENT
ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT OF
ZONING CHANGES AND NC 300
RHIZOMES.
WE URGE YOU TO MAINTAIN THE
INCENTIVE ZONING PROGRAM.
THE INCENTIVE ZONING PROGRAM
HELPS TO PROVIDE PROTECTION OF
HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT PROVIDE
NATURALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
DEVELOPMENT OF OPEN SPACE, AND
THE ENHANCEMENT OF GREEN
STREETS.
PLEASE REINCORPORATE INCENTIVE
ZONING TO REFLECT OUR COMMUNITY
PRIORITIES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.
>> ANN FOLLOWED BY PATIENTS AND
THEN NICOLE.
>> I AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE FIRST HILL IMPROVEMENT
ASSOCIATION.
THE FIRST HILL IMPROVEMENT
ASSOCIATION ADVOCATES ON BEHALF
OF A VIBRANT PUBLIC THAT
EMPHASIZES WALK ABILITY,
LIVABILITY, CONNECTIVITY AND
GOOD URBAN DESIGN.
WE WISH TO ENSURE THE FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FLECKED
PRIORITIES OF THE COMMUNITY.
THE MHA LEGISLATION AS IT IS
CURRENTLY DRAFTED REMOVES THE
INCENTIVE ZONING PROGRAM FROM
THE ZONE ELIMINATING THE
BENEFITS THAT OPEN SPACE AND
GREEN STREETS BRING TO OUR
RAPIDLY DENSIFY NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT MAINTAINING
THE EXISTING INCENTIVE PROGRAM
AND ASK YOU MHA -- AMEND THE
MHA PROVISION TO RESTORE THESE.
AS FIRST HILL CONTINUES TO
RAPIDLY GROWING POPULATION AND
INTIMACY -- DENSITY THE PROGRAM
PROVIDES PROTECTION TO FIRST
HILL'S HISTORICAL ASSETS,
ENCOURAGES THE DEVELOPMENT OF
OPEN SPACE AND SUPPORTS
NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
DURING THIS WINDOW WHILE
COUNSEL IS CONSIDERING MHA
LEGISLATION, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO
REINCORPORATE THE INCENTIVE
ZONING PROGRAM.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS PATIENCE.
I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM.
WE ARE AN ASSOCIATION OF THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMUNITY
WITH THE MEMBERSHIP OF HUNDREDS
OF ORGANIZATIONS WORKING TO
ENSURE ALL PEOPLE LIVE WITH
DIGNITY IN SAFE, AFFORDABLE
HOMES WITHIN COMMUNITIES OF
OPPORTUNITY.
I'M HERE RESENTING OUR
COALITION, SEATTLE FOR
EVERYONE.
WE UNEQUIVOCALLY SUPPORT THE
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORD
ABILITY PROGRA AND WOULD LIKE
TO SEE THIS CAREFULLY
CALIBRATED TO AN INNOVATIVE
POLICY YOU'VE ALL CHAMPIONED
THE IMPLEMENT IT EFFECTIVELY.
AND THANK YOU FOR RAISING SOME
OF OUR CONCERNS WE HAVE THAT WE
HAVE A LEADER IN THE
DISCUSSIONS.
WE APPRECIATE THE LEADERSHIP
AND TRUST YOU ONLY ADOPT
AMENDMENTS THAT WILL ENSURE
PEOPLE LIVE NEAR THEIR JOBS,
THEIR AMENITIES AND THEY WILL
LIVE NEAR TRANSIT.
WE DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH SOME
OF THE AMENDMENTS, SPECIFICALLY
I CAN GO STRAIGHT AND SAY IN
DISTRICT 1 THERE ARE ABOUT
SEVEN POTENTIAL AMENDMENT'S AND
OF THOSE FIVE ARE REDUCING THE
UPZONE AND THEY ARE WITHIN THE
FEIS AND THAT IS A CONCERN.
THERE ARE ONLY TWO THAT ARE
INCREASING UPZONE AND ONLY ONE
IS IN THE FEIS.
IN DISTRICT 2 THERE ARE 11
AMENDMENTS , FIVE ARE UPZONE
AND THEY ARE ALSO WITHIN THE
FEIS.
THAT IS A CONCERN.
ONLY THREE OF THE SIX INCREASING
UPZONE ARE WITHIN THE FEIS
SCOPE.
THE SAME FOR DISTRICT 3 AND
FIVE.
WE URGE YOU TO ENSURE THE
FINAL LEGISLATION IS ABOUT OUR
COMMUNITY AND OUR COMMUNITY
DESPERATELY NEEDS MORE HOMES.
OUR CITY HAS SO MUCH TO OFFER
AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
US TO MODEL BEING AN INCLUSIVE
CITY.
THANK YOU.
>> NICOLE FOLLOWED BY ALEX AND
THEN DWIGHT.
>> THANK YOU. NICOLE GRANT FROM
MLK LABOR.
WE ARE HERE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF MHA.
AND IN SUPPORT OF NOT LISTENING
THE UP ZONES.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS A LOT OF
AMENDMENTS TO CARVE OUT, WHAT
WE NEED TO SEE IS THE MAXIMUM
AMOUNT OF DENSITY IN OUR CITY.
I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS THAT
AROUND 100,000 PEOPLE COMING TO
KING COUNTY EVERY YEAR.
100 COMING TO SEATTLE BASICALLY
EVERY DAY.
WE ARE REALLY FIGHTING FOR A
GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE FOR
WORKING PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE.
I THINK FOR THAT TO HAPPEN, WE
HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE
CITY IS GOING TO CHANGE AND
THAT KING COUNTY IS GOING TO
CHANGE.
AND THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE
MORE PEOPLE LIVING IN APARTMENTS
AND CONDOMINIUMS AND THAT
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A BAD
QUALITY OF LIFE.
WE ARE FIGHTING FOR DENSITY AND
UP ZONES AND MORE HOUSING BUT
AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE
FIGHTING FOR OPEN SPACES.
LIKE A GOOD PARK ON THE
WATERFRONT.
WE ARE FIGHTING FOR A GOOD
SEATTLE CENTER CAMPUS WITH A
WORLD-CLASS KEY ARENA THAT IS A
CULTURAL CENTER OF THE
NORTHWEST.
I THINK THAT ESPECIALLY FOR
WORKERS IN MY GENERATION AND
YOUNGER WORKERS, THERE IS NO
FANTASY THAT THEY ARE GOING TO
BE ABLE TO COME TO SEATTLE AND
HAVE A BIG HOUSE AND HAVE A BIG
YARD.
BUT THERE IS A REAL BELIEF THAT
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE A
GOOD APARTMENT BUT THEY CAN
AFFORD IN THE CITY THAT HAS A
GREAT QUALITY OF LIFE.
I JUST WANT TO END BY SAYING IN
PARTICULAR, THERE ARE SOME
PILOT PROJECTS FOR LOW INCOME
HOUSING THAT THE CITY IS
LOOKING AT THE USE COMMUNITY
WORKFORCE AGREEMENTS AND FOR US
THAT IS THE GOLD STANDARD.
THANK YOU.
>> ALEX FOLLOWED BITE DWIGHT
AND THEN LARRY.
>> MY NAME IS ALEX BRENNAN. I'M
A RESIDENT OF THE MILLER PARK
URBAN VILLAGE.
I'M HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT THE
MANDATORY FOR ABILITY PROGRAM
AND TO URGE THE COUNCIL TO
REJECT THE PROPOSAL OF DOWN
ZONE AMENDMENT IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE MAYOR'S FINAL PROPOSAL TO
COUNSEL PRETTY REDUCED PROPOSED
UP ZONES IN THE MORE WEALTHY
SINGLE-FAMILY PARTS OF OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD RELATIVE TO THE
DRAFT ALTERNATIVES.
AND THE AMENDMENT'S PROPOSED
WOULD JUST FURTHER THIS
UNFORTUNATE SHIFT IN THE
PROPOSAL.
I AM ALSO HERE TO SPEAK TO THE
POSSIBILITY OF A COMPANION
RESOLUTION.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY
COMMIT TO CONDUCTING A
DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS FOR THE
LGBTQ COMMUNITY.
PARTICULARLY REGARDING CULTURAL
DISPLACEMENT.
DON'T DELAY ADOPTION IN ORDER
TO DO THIS TO COMMIT TO DOING
IT IN THE FUTURE.
I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW
ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS, ALTHOUGH
THE PRESENTATION TODAY WAS VERY
INFORMATIVE.
I DO GENERALLY WANT TO SAY IS
YOU ARE CONSIDERING INDIVIDUAL
CHANGES I URGE YOU TO TAKE BOLD
ACTION TO ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY
IN OUR CITY.
AND TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE
CONCERNS OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES.
BUT NOT TO LET THE WEALTHY AND
POWERFUL WATER THIS DOWN FOR
THEIR OWN CONVENIENCE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
DWIGHT.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS DWIGHT GRAY AND I'M
A MEMBER OF EMERALD CITY CHURCH
IN SEATTLE.
SPEAK UP.
I AM A MEMBER OF THAT 70
ADVENTIST CHURCH IN SEATTLE.
IN 1966 OUR CHURCH MEMBERS
BOUGHT A PARCEL PROPERTY
LOCATED OFF OF MARTIN LUTHER
KING WITH THE INTENT OF
BUILDING A CHURCH.
THE MEMBERS LATER FOUND ANOTHER
CHURCH AT ANOTHER SITE WHERE
IT'S CURRENTLY LOCATED OFF OF
25th AVENUE.
WE LOOKED AT OVER THE YEARS
SEVERAL DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE PROPERTY INCLUDING A
COMMUNITY CENTER, A SCHOOL AND
A VARIETY OF OTHER THINGS.
BUT NONE OF THOSE PROVED TO BE
FEASIBLE FOR CHURCH MEMBERS AT
THE TIME.
PART OF THE PROBLEM WE HAVE AT
THE PROPERTY IS THERE WETLANDS
ON THE PROPERTY AND SINCE 2014
WE HIRED AN ENVIRONMENTAL
INSULT TO HELP US RESOLVE THOSE
ISSUES AND FORTUNATELY THAT HAS
BEEN NOW RESOLVED AND WE WENT
FROM BEING ABLE TO BUILD 2-3
LOTS ON THE PROPERTY UP TO 6-8
LOTS.
THE PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
WE ARE ASKING THE CITY TO
CONSIDER IS ABSORBING IT TO
EITHER SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL OR
I GUESS IT'S RESIDENTIAL SMALL
LOTS OR LOWRISE 1.
UNFORTNATELY IT WAS NOT
CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE
INITIAL STUDY BECAUSE OF FALLS
IN BETWEEN THE NORTH RAINIER
VALLEY AS WELL AS THE COLUMBIA
CENTER.
I THINK THAT WAS THE MAIN
REASON WHY IT WASN'T CONSIDERED
FOR THE UP ZONING.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS FAR
TOO LATE AT THIS POINT TIME TO
TRY TO GET IT INCORPORATED WE
WOULD LIKE TO LET CITY COUNCIL
KNOW AS WELL AS STAFF THAT WE
WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CONSIDERED
IN THE FUTURE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
LARRY?
FOLLOWED BITE CINDY BARKER AND
ALEX ZIMMERMAN.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I AM LARRY BROWN FROM ST. JAMES
CATHEDRAL AND I'M HERE TO
TESTIFY IN FAVOR OF THE
RESOLUTION.
WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT WE FEEL
VERY STRONGLY THAT WE NEED TO
KEEP THE PDP ELEMENTS OF THAT.
WE HAD ST. JAMES, LIKE THE
OTHER LANDMARK CHURCHES ON
FIRST HILL, OR ON THE FRONT
LINES IN THIS CITY'S RESPONSE
TO THE HOMELESSNESS CRISIS IN
THE CITY.
WE ARE SERVICE PROVIDERS ON A
VARIETY OF FRONTS.
AND TDP'S ARE WAY OF ALLOWING
US TO CONTINUE THAT VISION.
PDP'S ARE A FAIR COMPENSATION
LANDMARK ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS
ST. JAMES, WE HAVE GIVEN UP OUR
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.
WE HAVE GIVEN UP UNTOLD
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, BUT WITH
HE PDP'S WE HAVE THE CHANCE OF
UNLOCKING SOME OF THAT REVENUE
TO ALLOW US TO MAINTAIN THESE
IMPORTANT COMMUNITY STRUCTURES
AND NOT IN CONSEQUENTLY
CONTINUE OUR MISSION TO THE
POOR AND DISADVANTAGED IN THE
CITY.
>> WE FEEL RETENTION OF THIS
WILL ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO
SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT SERVICES TO
THE POOR AND NEGLECTED.
AND WE HOPE THIS AMENDMENT IS
ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
CINDY?
>> I HADN'T INTENDED TO SPEAK,
I SEND UP JUST IN CASE AND THAT
WORKED OUT.
I WILL ADDRESS THE PEDESTRIAN
ZONE QUESTION FOR THEM MORGAN
URBAN VILLAGE.
THE CITY WENT THROUGH A PROCESS
WERE IDENTIFIED DISTRICTS IN
THE POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN ZONES.
WE HAD COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND
MET WITH STAFF TO TALK ABOUT
WHETHER MORGAN SHOULD BECOME A
P ZONE.
HE TURNED IN A LETTER THAT SAID
AT THIS TIME WE THINK NOT.
WE GAVE SIX POINTS AND MOST
WERE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE
PROGRAM WAS BEING IT LAMENTED.
WESTON'S ABOUT HOW SDOT WORK
TOGETHER AND WHETHER OR NOT
THEY WERE GOING TO REQUIRE
DEVELOPERS TO PUT IN THE
AMENITIES THAT WERE DESIRED IN
A PEDESTRIAN ZONE.
CENTRAL STAFF REMOVED US FROM
THE PROPOSAL.
WHEN MHA CAME OUT IT WAS NEVER
DISCUSSED IN THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
>> THE STUFF THAT WE WERE
TALKING WITH DID NOT KNOW THE
HISTORY.
WE SAID THAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN
GLAD TO ENGAGE IN THAT
DISCUSSION BUT WE DID NOT THINK
OUR ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED.
SO THERE IS A GOOD SOLID
FOUNDATION FOR THAT.
WE ARE HAPPY TO COME BACK AND
WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO DRIVE
THE DISCUSSION ON THIS.
MOST PEOPLE THINK THAT GETTING
úA P ZONE WOULD RESULT IN
SIDEWALKS AND BENCHES.
BUT YOU DON'T GET THAT UNLESS
FUNDS ARE COMMITTED TO DO THAT.
AND IF THEY DON'T DO THAT IN A
RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE LIKE OURS,
THEY DON'T DO IT.
AND THEN IT BECOMES THE BURDEN
OF THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE WE
HAVE TO PAY THE PERMIT AND THE
-- YOU GOT TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE
GETTING INTO HERE.
>> I AM NOT SEEING ALEX
ZIMMERMAN.
MICHAELA, YOU ARE NEXT.
YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY JUDY
GIBBS.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS MICHAELA AND I AM
HERE TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF OF
THE --.
WE ARE HERE TO ADDRESS THE
ONGOING HOMELESSNESS CRISIS.
IF ADOPTED IN THE TRUE SPIRIT
OF THE PLAN IT WILL CREATE
THOUSANDS OF HOMES FOR FAMILIES
IN SEATTLE WHO'D DESPERATELY
NEEDED.
WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THE
CONSIDERATION THAT THE COUNCIL
AND CITY STAFF HAVE PUT INTO
THE FINAL LEGISLATION.
WE ARE HERE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO
HONOR THE PLAN WITH THE
AMENDMENTS.
WE SUPPORT THESE AND WE NEED TO
PRIORITIZE THE NOBLE OF HOMES
IN AND AROUND THE ECO-DISTRICT.
WE WANT TO OFFER TWO
SUGGESTIONS FOR COMPANION
LEGISLATION.
DOING THIS WELL MEANS DOING IT
RIGHT.
I APPLAUD THE STAFF FOR
INCLUDING A POLICY THAT INCLUDES
THESE PIECES.
LGBTQ ARE LEFT OUT OF THE
FRAMEWORK.
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT FUTURE
ANALYSIS THINKS ABOUT HOW IT
IMPACTS THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
COUNSEL SHOULD INCORPORATE THE
SCHOOL INTO THE POLICY
EVALUATION FOUNDATION ONCE MHA
IS CREATED.
OR A DESIGNATED HISTORIC
DISTRICT MODELED AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE OVERLAY.
WITH MODIFICATION TO ACCOUNT FOR
UNIT CONTEXT, WE THINK THAT
THIS TOOL COULD BE EFFECTIVELY
REPLICATED IN OTHER BUSINESS
DISTRICTS.
AS A MEANS FOR ACCOMMODATING
GROWTH WHILE ALSO INCENTIVIZING
ELEMENT THAT REFLECTS LOCAL
PRIORITIES.
AS A FIRST STEP, YOU CAN DIRECT
OPC -- PCD TO DEVELOP
IMPLEMENTATION.
>> JUDY GIBBS.
>> THIS TESTIMONY RELATES TO A
STACK OF PETITIONS THAT I
EMAILED EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER
YESTERDAY.
JUST TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE
. AND WE ARE AT THE, THE
PETITION ASKS FOR AMENDMENT.
THIS PERTAINS TO A SMALL
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREA
THAT WOULD BE UP ZONED FROM 40
FEET TO 55 FEET.
IT IS NOT WITHIN A GROSS CENTER
OR VILLAGE BUT IT IS ADJACENT
TO THE HERON HABITAT WHICH IS A
DESIGNATED WILDLIFE REFUGE AND
IT WOULD IMPACT THE HABITAT. I
BELIEVE IT IS WITHIN THE HABITAT
BUFFER ZONE.
SALLY, THIS IS FOR YOUR.
PEOPLE IN OUTER DISTRICTS --
PEOPLE IN OTHER DISTRICTS ARE
ARGUING THAT UPZONING IMPACTS
THEIR MEANS OF RETIRING IN
THEIR OWN HOMES. THIS IS TRUE
IN OUR AREA.
AND, THE HERONS WOULD LIKE TO
RETIRE TO THEIR SISSY CITY
DESIGNATED WILDLIFE REFUGE.
WE ASKED THE COUNCIL TO AMEND
THE LEGISLATION AS NEEDED TO
GIVE THE HERONS LIVABILITY IN
THEIR OWN HABITAT BY KEEPING
THE ZONING AT 40 FEET RATHER
THAN 55 FEET.
AND, I SENT YOU ALL A COPY
YESTERDAY AND I WOULD LOCK LIKE
TO ADD THAT THIS IS DISTRICT 7.
I APOLOGIZE FOR COMING TODAY
BECAUSE I COULD NOT COME ON
MONDAY.
I AM ASKING FOR THIS AMENDMENT
FOR DISTRICT 7 AND THE HERON
HABITAT.
>> THANK YOU, SALLY.
>>> STEVE, WHEN YOU WILL BE
FOLLOWED BY CHARLIE AND LAUREN.
>> GO AHEAD STEVE.
HERE WE GO AGAIN.
>> WE HAVE SOME TOP-DOWN ZONING
THAT PROMISES TO BUT IT HAS
NEVER WORKED BEFORE.
LET'S LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF MY
LIFETIME OF LOOKING AT THE
URBAN VILLAGES AND THE PROMISES
OF MORE HOUSING AT LOWER COST.
IT DOES NOT WORK.
AND THE REASON WHY IS YOU DON'T
COUNT THE PRIVATE HOUSING WHICH
IS DESTROYED IN THE PROCESS.
IF WE POINTED OUT IN THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT, WE HAVE QUITE
A CHANGE IN POPULATION BECAUSE
OF ON AFFORDABILITY.
THIS IS HAPPENING IN THE WHOLE
CITY.
IN THE CENTRAL AREA, IT WAS
QUITE APPARENT VISUALLY.
YOU DID NOT NEED TO LOOK AT
NAMES AND INCOMES.
THEY ARE JUST NOT THERE
ANYMORE.
AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WERE
NOT THERE ANYMORE.
IT IS TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT
YOUR MANDATORY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND MAKE IT MANDATORY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THE RATES ARE FAR TOO LOW.
IF YOU WERE GOING TO GO THIS
ROUTE THEN YOU ARE ACTUALLY
GOING TO CHARGE ENOUGH TO MAKE
IT HAPPEN.
AND IF YOU REALLY WANT A CITY
THAT HAS DIVERSE POPULATION OF
INCOMES, HOW ABOUT REALLY
INCENTIVIZING IF NOT REQUIRING
IT IN THE BUILDINGS.
IT IS SO MUCH MORE DIFFICULT
WHEN YOU BUILD A BUILDING.
FIRST, YOU NEED TO GET ALL THE
TENANTS OUT BECAUSE DEVELOPERS
DON'T LIKE TO HAVE PEOPLE IN IT
WHILE THEY ARE PLANNING.
THEY HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BE
ABLE TO AFFORD THE LOSS OF
INCOME.
THEY DON'T PAY UNTIL THEY GET
THE OCCUPANCY PERMIT. AND THEN
THEY START THE PLANNING FOR THE
HOUSING TO REPLACE SOMEWHAT. OR
A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT WAS LOST.
AND ALL OF THIS TAKES A LOT OF
TIME.
SO MAYBE IN 20 YEARS OR MORE HE
WILL HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
>> THANK YOU, STEVE.
CHARLIE.
>> HELLO.
I AM CHARLIE LAFAMM.
I AM A RENTER AND I AM HERE
UPON THE KING COUNTY LABOR
COUNCIL.
WE HAVE BEEN GOING AT THIS FOR
YEARS AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
YOU ALL FOR ALL OF THE WORK
THAT YOU HAVE DONE.
IT IS SO EXCITING TO SEE MHA
NEARING THE FINISH LINE.
OVER THE LAST DECADE, LIVING IN
SEATTLE HAS BECOME MORE AND MORE
EXPENSIVE. IT HAS BECOME MORE
EXPENSIVE FOR WORKING PEOPLE
AND PEOPLE IN UNIONS THEY FIGHT
LIKE CRAZY TO GET A SMALL WAGE
INCREASE OF ANY % AND THEN RENT
GOES UP BY 10%.
PART OF THIS IS BECAUSE OF HOW
HIGH YOU CAN BUILD AND THAT
KEEPS THE SUPPLY LOW AND THE
PRICE HIGH.
LET'S PASS A CLEAN MHA WITHOUT
AMENDMENTS TO WATER IT DOWN
AND MAKE THIS A MORE AFFORDABLE
AND BETTER PLACE TO LIVE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, CHARLIE.
NOW, YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
DON AND ME.
>> I WOULD SAY IT IS A GOOD
MORNING.
I AM HERE TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF
OF DOVE.
SHE HAS DONE MORE FOR ANY SORT
OF JUSTICE, ENVIRONMENTAL AND
RACIAL GROUP THAN I HAVE EVER
DONE IN MY LIFE.
IN THE LAST 20 OR SO YEARS, SHE
HAS BEEN DISPLACED FIVE TIMES.
THE MOST RECENT BEING THIS PAST
YEAR.
IN THE LAST BEING THIS PAST
YEAR FROM BEACON HILL.
SHE SAYS, "POLITICIANS AND
DEVELOPERS, PLEASE HEAR OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD.
LISTEN TO US, TALK WITH US AND
TEMPER YOUR PLANS WITH US
EQUALLY.
I WAS DISPLACED.
NO MORE DISPLACEMENT SHOULD
TAKE PLACE ON BEACON HILL FROM
NOW ON.
AND I THINK I CAN SAY ALL OF
SEATTLE ON HER BEHALF.
>> DARLING, YOU WILL BE
FOLLOWED BY BRITTANY AND THEN
RYAN.
>> GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU, FOR YOUR TIME AND
EFFORT. ESPECIALLY, DEBORAH
WAREZ, OUR COUNCILWOMAN FROM THE
NORTHGATE AREA.
I AM THE DIRECTOR OF NORTH
HAVEN.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE OVER 200
RESIDENTS, LOW INCOME THAT WE
SUPPORT.
WE SUPPORT THE MHA AND WE ARE
EXCITED ABOUT THE INCREASE IN
LOW INCOME HOUSING THROUGHOUT
THE GREATER SEATTLE AREA.
RECENTLY WE WERE AWARDED OFFICE
OF HOUSING FROM THE CITY OF
SEATTLE FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING
FOR OUR PROJECT AND WE WILL BE
ADDING LOW INCOME HOUSING AND
WORKFORCE HOUSING WITH THE HELP
OF ALL OF YOU.
WE HAVE PARTNERED WITH THE
WORKFORCE HOUSING PART OF
THINGS AND THAT IS IT EXCITING
FOR THE NORTHGATE AREA WITH ALL
OF THE LOW INCOME HOUSING THAT
IS NEEDED WITH THE LIGHT RAIL
COMING INTO THAT AREA.
A REZONING OF OUR AREA WOULD
ALLOW FOR AN INCREASE IN
DENSITY AND PROVIDE MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE AREA.
WE HAVE PARTNERED WITH
PROVIDENCE PACE PROGRAM SO WE
WILL BE OFFERING HEALTHCARE FOR
RESIDENTS IN ONE OF THE
BUILDINGS.
AND WE ARE LOOKING AT LOW
INCOME CHILDCARE IN ONE OF THE
BUILDINGS.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT
OF THIS PROJECT.
AND, BRIAN LLOYD FROM DEACON
COMMUNITIES WILL TALK ABOUT THE
SPECIFICS OF WHAT THIS PROJECT
ENTAILS BUT WE REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORT AND TIME
IN SUPPORTING THE PROJECT.
>> THANK YOU.
BRITNEY, YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
DARRELL.
>> I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
SEATTLE CLUB GROUP.
AS COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER
HARRELL SAID, DEVELOPMENT HAS
PUSHED INTO CRITICAL WETLANDS
OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN AREAS.
CONVERSELY, WHEN PEOPLE HAVE
MORE OPTIONS TO LIVE IN THE CITY
IT INCREASES TRANSIT USE, IT
MAINTAINS COMMUNITIES, IT
INCREASES WALKING AND IT
INCREASES ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
WE SUPPORT MHA AND ANY OTHER
POLICIES THAT INCREASE OUR
HOUSING IN THE CITY.
THANK YOU.
>> RYAN.
>> HELLO.
I AM A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 5. I
-- AURORA HOST LITTLE AS JOB
GROWTH HAS DECREASED.
THIS IS MEANT TO BE A CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT AT A WALKABLE
COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE ADDED THOUSANDS OF
RESIDENTS BUT NOTHING HAS
CHANGED.
THIS IS BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO
NORTH SEATTLE AREAS.
THERE ARE THOSE THAT HAVE AND
THE HAVE KNOTS.
MUCH OF IT IS DESIGNATED THE
ADDED FEE MAY STALL PROPOSALS.
EACH PROJECT CARRIES A FEE OF
OVER $3000.
COUNSEL MAY WAIVE OR RETURN 50%
OF THE FEE IF THE DEVELOPER
PROVIDES ONE OF THE MISSING
ASSETS TO THE COMMUNITY.
DOING SO WITH POINT DEVELOPMENT
ALONG WHERE IT SHOULD BE.
ALONG WITH THE MOST RIDDEN BUS
IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.
AURORA NEEDS A NEW IDENTITY.
IT HAS CHANGED.
IT'S BIGGEST ASSET TO THE CITY
IS FOR BUS RIDERSHIP.
THE DISTRICT SHOULD ENGAGE IN
THE IDENTITY OF SUSTAINABILITY.
THE OTHER HALF OF MHA FEES
SHOULD BE RETURNED FOR A CARBON
NEGATIVE BUILDING PRACTICE AND
TO PROVIDE SOLAR ENERGY ON
BUILDING ROOFS.
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT OWNS A
PROPERTY IN THE SOLAR POWER
INSTALLATION WOULD BE ANOTHER
JOB ENTER TRINITY FOR THOSE IN
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THIS SHOULD BE THE LAST
HAVE NOTS URBAN VILLAGES.
WE HAVE SUPPORTED 45% OF THE
HOUSING GROWTH.
AFTER THIS, IT IS TIME FOR THE
REST OF SEATTLE TO SHARE IN
HOUSING GROWTH.
WE SHOULD LOOK AT WHAT OTHER
NEIGHBORHOODS ARE DOING.
THERE ARE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS
THAT NEED TO PROVIDE HOUSING
NEXT.
>> DARRELL, YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED
BY BRIAN LLOYD AND KNOOT.
>> MY NAME IS DARRELL GRIND
HOUSE AND I WOULD LIKE THE
COMMUNITY TO ADOPT 8 -- A 8.
THE COUNCIL STATES THAT THIS
WOULD GIVE DEVELOPERS THE
OPTION OF ACHIEVING UP TO 40%
OF THE EXTRA FLOOR AREA BY
PROVIDING ANY COMBINATION OF
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, GREEN STREET
IMPROVEMENT OR PURCHASING
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL FORM FROM HISTORIC
LANDMARK SITES.
THE SALE OF DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL FROM LANDMARK
BUILDINGS IS A POTENTIAL SOURCE
OF REVENUE FOR OWNERS OF THE
LANDMARK BUILDINGS FOR
PRESERVATION.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD CARRY
FORWARD THE CURRENT INCENTIVE
ZONING ON HEARST HILL WHERE 60%
OF THE FLOOR AREA WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AND THE
DEVELOPERS WOULD HAVE THE
OPTION, NOT THE REQUIREMENT
THAT THE OPTION TO ACHIEVE THE
REMAINING 40% BY PURCHASING
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN
PROVIDING OPEN SPACE AND GREEN
STREETS.
AS I HAVE TESTIFIED IN PRIOR
MEETINGS BEFORE THIS COMMUNITY,
THE TRINITY LANDMARK CHURCH IS
NEARLY 120 YEARS OLD.
IT IS VERY COSTLY TO MAINTAIN.
TRINITY SUPPORTS THE MHA
PROGRAM.
THE POSSIBILITY OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IS A REALITY THAT WE
SEE EVERY DAY IN THE PEOPLE
THAT COME TO OUR SHELTER FOR
HOMELESS WOMEN, THE THRIFT SHOP
AND COMMUNITY SUPPERS.
THE ISSUE IS NOT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OR LANDMARK
PRESERVATION.
IT IS BOTH --.
>> RARELY HAVE I SEEN SOMEBODY
TIME THERE TO IT SO ELOQUENTLY.
YOU ARE A TOUGH ACT TO FOLLOW.
YOU ARE FOLLOWED BY BRIAN LLOYD
AND CHARLIE INCOME.
>> I AM FROM THE FISHER STUDIO
BUILDING ON THIRD AVENUE.
I WANT TO MAKE TWO POINTS.
WE ARE TRYING TO TO TO FIGHT A
DEVELOPMENT THAT IS VERY LARGE.
THESE ARE DELUXE CONDOMINIUMS.
IT WOULD OVERWHELM THE BLOCK
THAT WE LIVE ON AND IT MEANS
TWO MAJOR POINTS.
ONE HAS DUAL ZONING.
THE WEBSITE ALLOWS FOR 500 FEET
AND THE EAST SIDE FOR 140 FEET.
THE GUIDELINES SAY THAT THERE
NEEDS TO BE RECONCILIATION
BETWEEN THOSE THINGS.
BUT THEY DON'T SAY HOW THE
RECONCILIATION IS TO BE
PERFORMED.
WE CAN'T CHALLENGE THE
DEVELOPMENT UNLESS WE HAVE
SOMETHING TO HANG OUR HAT ON.
OTHERWISE THE DEVELOPER WILL
SAY WE ARE BEING ARBITRARY IN
OUR ARGUMENT THAT THEIR
DEVELOPMENT IS NOT
PROPORTIONATE TO THE REST OF
THE BLOCK.
SO WE NEED SOMETHING MORE
SPECIFIC.
THE SECOND POINT IS THAT OUR
BUILDING AND THE BUILDING
AROUND THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE
HISTORIC LANDMARKS.
WHILE THE HEARING OFFICER HAS
INSTRUCTED YOU TO DEVELOP
BETTER LEGISLATION ON
PROTECTING AND TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT HISTORIC LANDMARKS, THE
GUIDELINES SAY THAT THERE
SHOULD BE CONFORMIT BETWEEN
THEM BUT THEY DON'T SAY HOW THAT
CONFORMITY IS TO BE ACHIEVED.
I HAVE CONTACTED THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION BOARD AND THE
BOARD SAID THAT WE CAN DO
NOTHING UNLESS SDS CI INVITES
US INTO THIS.
SO WE ARE STUCK.
YOUR OWN LEGISLATION SAYS THAT
WE CAN CHALLENGE THE DESIGN OF
THE STRUCTURE BUT ONCE IT IS
APPROVED IN EARLY DESIGN
GUIDANCE WE CAN'T CHALLENGE THE
OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT HAS
BEEN APPROVED.
SO WE CANNOT CHALLENGE THE
HEIGHT OF THIS BUILDING. THERE
ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE
WOULD REALLY LIKE YOUR HELP
WITH.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> BRIAN, YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED
BY CHARLIE BAUMAN AND THEN
KRISTIN BRIAN.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I AM BRIAN LLOYD AND I WORK
WITH BEACON HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION
DOING PROJECTS IN SEATTLE AND
THROUGHOUT WASHINGTON STATE.
IN GENERAL I WOULD LIKE TO URGE
YOU TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE
MHA PROGRAM. THE DELAY THAT WE
HAVE EXPERIENCED HAS COST OF
100S OF UNITS OF AFFORDABLE
UNITS ALREADY.
WE ARE EAGER, AND I SPEAK ON
BEHALF OF MY COLLEAGUES, TO SEE
THE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED SO THAT
WE CAN PRODUCE MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING THAT IS SO DESPERATELY
NEEDED. SPECIFICALLY, I WANT TO
SPEAK TO A PROJECT THAT WE ARE
WORKING ON RIGHT NOW WITH
DARLENE IN THE NORTH HAVEN
SENIOR LIVING GROUP.
THAT INCLUDED A MEMO TO COUNCIL
MEMBER JUAREZ . WE COULD PER
FOUR PROVIDE A GROUND FLOOR
PACE CENTER THAT WOULD PROVIDE
HEALTHCARE, COUNSELING AND
OTHER SERVICES TO LOW-INCOME
SENIORS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
PROVIDENCE.
WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE
POSSIBILITIES THAT THIS CAMPUS
APPROACH CAN ACHIEVE.
IN TERMS OF SERVING THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND THOSE IN THE
COMMUNITY.
THE REQUEST IS FOR NC TO 75.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT IS AN EASY
FIX TO MAKE.
>> CHARLIE, YOU WILL BE
FOLLOWED BY KRISTIN.
>> I YIELD TO KRISTIN.
>> KRISTINYOU ARE THE LAST
SPEAKER TODAY.
>> AS A FOLLOW-UP TO THE
CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE JUST
HAD AROUND THE EARTH HAVEN
PARCEL, I AM HERE SPECIFICALLY
TO SUBMIT EXTENDED AMENDMENT
RELATED TO THE 5-3 AMENDMENT
THAT DARLENE SPOKE ABOUT BEFORE
IN LOOKING COMPREHENSIVELY AT
THE SITE THAT NORTH HAVEN OWNS
AS WELL AS SOME ADJACENT SITES
THAT ARE INTERSPERSED WITH
THEIRS.
THERE IS A REQUEST TO DEVELOP
WORKFORCE HOUSING AND PUBLICLY
FUNDED HOUSING ON THE EAST SIDE
OF THE NORTH HAVEN EXISTING
BUILDING.
IT IS ZONING THAT WAS STUDIED
IN THE EIS ALTERNATIVE ALREADY.
SO IT HAS BEEN LOOKED AT.
IT IS CONSISTENT WITH ZONING
AROUND THAT AREA THAT CHANGE
WOULD ALLOW FOR A DIFFERENCE OF
NEARLY 100 ADDITIONAL
AFFORDABLE UNITS TO BE BUILT ON
THAT PARCEL BEYOND WHAT EXISTS
CURRENTLY WITH THE CURRENT
EXISTENCE OF LR3.
I THINK THIS IS A FIBROUS
EXAMPLE TO CREATE A TRUE
CAMPUS OF MIXED INCOME TO
GENERATIONAL HOUSING FOR A
WEALTH OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
RESIDENTS OF SEATTLE IN A
HIGHLY ACCESSIBLE
TRANSPORTATION AREA.
IT THIS IS THE KIND OF THING
THAT MHA IS INTENDED TO CREATE
AND DESIGN.
I ENCOURAGE COUNSEL TO CONSIDER
AND CONTINUE TO CONSIDER THIS.
>> THAT INCLUDES THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO SIGNED UP TO
GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY.
I WANT TO THINK MY COMMENTS
COLLEAGUES FOR STICKING AROUND
FOR THIS DISCUSSION.
OUR NEXT OPPORTUNITY TO GET
TOGETHER WILL BE ON FRIDAY,
FEBRUARY 8. AT THAT MEETING IT
IS OUR INTENTION THAT WE WILL
BE WALKING THROUGH AMENDMENTS
THAT YOU HAVE SPONSORED AND
SUPPORTED.
WHETHER THOSE ARE CITYWIDE OR
NOT.
WE DO NOT PLAN TO VOTE ON
AMENDMENTS THAT DAY BUT OUR
HOPE IS THAT WE HAVE A WELL
DEFINED UNIVERSE OF AMENDMENTS
FOR FOLKS TO DISCUSS AND THAT
WILL INCLUDE, THINGS WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ROUND,
TEXT AMENDMENTS AND THE WHOLE
THING.
BUCKLE IN FOR A LONG DISCUSSION
THAT FRIDAY MORNING.
I ANTICIPATE WE WILL DO WHAT WE
HAVE DONE IN THE PAST AND THAT
IS TO START WITH AMENDMENTS
THAT WOULD APPLY TO ALL PARTS
OF THE CITY.
AND THEN MOVE THROUGH
DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS BY
DISTRICT.
THAT CONCLUDES WITH YOURS
COUNCIL MEMBER BAGSHAW.
WE WILL STAND ADJOURNED FOR
TODAY AND WE WILL BE BACK HERE
ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8. THANK
YOU.