>>> GOOD MORNING EVERYONE, WELL
COUPLE TO OUR REGULARLY
SCHEDULED FRIDAY MORNING,
FEBRUARY 8 CITY WIDE SELECT
COMMITTEE ON MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY.
IT IS 9:37 ON FRIDAY MORNING.
I'M ROB JOHNSON, CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE.
WITHTHANK YOU ALL FOR BEING
HERE.
I IMAGINE A COUPLE OF FOLKS
WILL JOIN US.
THIS MORNING, WE ARE GOING TO
PROCEED THROUGH A SERIES OF 80
DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS.
WE WILL START WITH A SERIES OF
TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NOT
SPECIFIC TO INDIVIDUAL
GEOLOGIES.
THEN WE WILL GO THROUGH BY
DISTRICTS THE INDIVIDUAL MAP
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED.
AS PART OF OUR DISCUSSION FOR
TODAY, I'M CURBING A LITTLE BIT
FROM THE BUDGETING PROCESS.
WHAT I'M GOING TO DO AS WE GO
THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS IS START
BY ASKING CENTRAL STAFF MEMBERS
TO EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT.
SECONDARILY.
I WILL ASK THE SPONSOR IF THEY
WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT.
THIRDLY, I WILL ASK IF THERE IS
ANY DIGS CUSHION OR QUESTION
FROM MY COLLEAGUES AND LASTLY,
I WILL ASK IF ANYBODY WOULD
LIKE TO ADD THEIR NAME AS A
COSPONSOR.
THE FASTER THIS GOES, THE
FASTER WE CAN GET OUT OF HERE
AND AVOID THE SNOW-POCALYPES
COMING.
THERE IS NOT A LARGE SCALE
DISCUSSION, I PLAN TO ROLL A
COUPLE OF THEM INTO ONE LARGE
CONSENSUS AMENDMENT FOR
DISCUSSION WHEN WE HAVE A VOTE
ON FEBRUARY 25.
SO MY PLAN IS SORT OF TO ASSESS
THE ROOM AND ASSESS THE
RESPONSE OF THESE INDIVIDUAL
AMENDMENTS.
AND IF THEY ARE NOT
CONTROVERSIAL, ON THE 25th, WE
WILL START WITH A DISCUSSION OF
WHAT WOULD BE A BROAD SCALE
AMENDMENT THAT IS A ROLLUP OF A
LARGE NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS.
WE WILL TALK MORE ABOUT THE
LOGISTICS ON THE 25th BUT
THAT'S HOW I PLAN TO HANDLE OUR
DISCUSSION THIS MORNING.
SO, WITH THAT, AS A REMINDER TO
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WE HAVE
TWO MORE SELECT COMMITTEE
MEETING DISCUSSIONS THIS MONTH.
A SIXTH EVENING PUBLIC HEARING
HERE AT CITY HALL ON THURSDAY,
FEBRUARY 21 STARTING AT 5:30.
THEN MEETING TO VOTE ON
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND VOTING
ON FEBRUARY 25 AT 2:30 P.M.
OR DIRECTLY FOLLOWING OUR
REGULARLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL
MEETING THAT DAY.
SO WELCOME COUNCIL MEMBER
O'BRIEN.
WOULD YOU READ THE ABBREVIATED
TITLE OF OUR ITEMS?
>> AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO LAND
USE AMENDING THE SEATTLE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
INCORPORATE CHANGING RELATED TO
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
AS PROPOSED AS PART OF THE
PROCESS.
IS 114 RELATED TO HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY.
IMPLEMENTING MHS REQUIREMENTS
AND MODIFYING STANDARDS TO
APPROVE LIVABILITY.
AND RECTIFYING SECTIONS OF THE
SEATTLE CODE A. 119445.
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE LAND IN
THE NORTH GATE URBAN CENTER.
AND, ADDING SECTIONS, AMENDING
AND ADDING SECTIONS OF THE
CODE.
>> WELL DONE.
WE HAVE THE ENTIRETY OF THE
LAND USE.
LET'S START WITH INTRODUCTIONS.
>> ALY.
ERIC.
KETIL.
>> LISH.
>> LET'S START WITH WALKING
THROUGH THE PROPOSED TEXT
AMENDMENTS UNLESS THERE ARE ANY
OPENING REMARKS YOU WOULD LIKE
TO GIVE.
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GO OVER
A FEW THINGS AND WE WILL JUMP
INTO THE TEXT AMENDMENTS BUT
PLEASE STOP ME IF YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS.
AS DESCRIBED BY THE CHAIR, WE
WILL DISCUSS AMENDMENTS.
CHANGES TO TEXT OF THE LAND USE
CODE AND THE ZONING MAP
CHANGES.
WE WILL START BY DISCUSSING THE
SPECIFIC TEXT AMENDMENTS FOUND
IN APPENDIX 1. PAGE 5-104.
I WANT TO KNOW THE SPECK CODE
LANGUAGE IS STILL BEING
DRAFTED.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
THE EXECUTIVE STUFF AND OUR LAW
DEPARTMENT AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
TO FINALIZE THE LANGUAGE PRIOR
TO THE VOTE ON FEBRUARY 25.
SO, THE SPECIFICS OF THAT
LANGUAGE MAY BE MODIFIED.
WE WILL WALK THROUGH PROPOSED
MAP AMENDMENTS FOUND ON PAGE
105-172 OF THE MEMO AND
ATTACHMENT 2. THE COMPLETE SET
OF MAP CHANGES IN THE
INTRODUCED COUNCIL BILL CAN BE
FOUND ONLINE.
THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RELEASED
THE ADDENDUM TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REMANDED AND INCLUDES THE
ENVIRONMENTAL WORK FOR THE
PROPOSAL.
INFORMATION FOUND IN THE FINAL
EIS.
OVER THE COMING WEEKS WE WILL
WORK WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS TO
IDENTIFY IN ADDITIONAL CHANGES
THEY MAY WANT TO MAKE BASED ON
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE
ADDENDUM.
INFORMATION TO THE TEXT AND MAP
AMENDMENTS, INCLUDED IN THE
MEMO IS AN OUTLINE FOR THE
COMPANION RESOLUTION INCLUDED
IN ATTACHMENT 3O THE MEMO ON
PAGE 173.
SO, CONCURRENT WITH THE THREE
PIECES OF LEGISLATION, COUNCIL
WILL BE ADOPTING THAT
RESOLUTION.
RECOGNIZING THE CITY WIDE MHS
LAND USE CHANGES ALONE IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO ACHIEVE ALL TO
GOALS OF SEATTLE'S
NEIGHBORHOODS.
THIS RESOLUTION COMMUNICATES
COUNCIL'S COMMITMENT TO TAKING
ACTION ITSELF O REQUESTING THE
MAYOR AND EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS
CARRY OUT A NUMBER OF CITY WIDE
INITIATIVES.
THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN
ATTACHMENT 3 ARE NOT EXHAUSTIVE
AND NOT A COMPLETE SET OF ITEMS
THAT MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE
COMPANION RESOLUTION.
CENTRAL STAFF MAY IDENTIFY
CONTENT FOR THE RESOLUTION.
AND WILL POST A DRAFT OF THE
RESOLUTION IN ADVANCE OF THE
PUBLIC HEARING SO THE PUBLIC
HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW
AND COMMENT AT THAT HEARING.
SO, UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS
I'LL MOVE ONTO THE TEXT
AMENDMENTS.
GREAT.
SO WE WILL BE WORKING FROM THE
TABLE ON PAGE 5 OF THE MEMO.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS A1.
AND, IT IS AN AMENDMENT THAT
WILL ALLOW ADDITIONS TO
EXISTING BUILDINGS IN
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT ZONES.
ABOVE THE MAXIMUM NET UNIT
AREA.
THE PROPOSAL WOULD RESTRICT THE
MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE FOR A
DWELLING UNIT TO 2200 SQUARE
FEET.
THIS WOULD ALLOW STRUCTURES
THAT EXIST TODAY TO DO SMALL
ADDITIONS OR IF YOU ARE A
SINGLE STORY HOUSE TO DO AN
ADDITION DIRECTIONALLY ABOVE.
>> NOTHING TO ADD.
QUESTIONS?
>> COSPONSOR.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> AND GONZALEZ.
>> APARTMENT STRUCTURES IN RSL
ZONES.
LIMITING APARTMENTS TO THREE
DWELLING UNITS IN SMALL LOT
ZONES.
THERE ARE DENSITY LIMITS.
OUR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENTS AND
THAT SORT OF THINGS.
THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS.
OPTION ONE SPONSORED BY COUNCIL
MEMBERSON WOULD REMOVE THE
ABSOLUTE LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF
UNITS.
OPTION TWO WOULD INCREASE THE
ABSOLUTE LIMIT ON A NUMBER OF
UNITS IN AN APARTMENT
STRUCTURE.
>> WELCOME COUNCIL MEMBER
JUAREZ.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.
ANYTHING TO ADD?
>> THE DISTINCTION IN MY MIND
OF THE TWO AMENDMENTS.
ALY, TO DO FOUR UNIT, TO HAVE A
LARGE ENOUGH LOT WOULD BE JUST
UNDER 8,000 SQUARE FEET LOT.
THAT'S A PRETTY LARGE LOT.
WHICH I'M SURE A HANDFUL EXIST
LIKE THAT.
AND I KNOW PEOPLE COULD BUY
MULTIPLE LOTS AND COMBINE THEM.
I, THE CURRENT LIMIT ALLOWING
THREE MEANS A TYPICAL BUILDING
TYPE WE SEE HISTORICALLY LOOKS
LIKE A HOUSE BUT HAS FOUR DOORS
AND YOU HAVE TWO UNITS RIGHT
AND LEFT DOWNSTAIRS AN UPSTAIRS
SEEMS LIKE A NICE BUILDING TYPE
FOR THE RSL SO EXPANDING IT TO
FOUR WOULD ALLOW THE BUILDING
TYPE ON THE RARE OCCASIONS WHEN
THERE IS A LOT THAT SIZE.
THAT'S WHY I'M PUSHING FOR
THAT.
IF SOMEONE HAD A REALLY LARGE
LOT.
12,000, 14,000, 16,000 SQUARE
FEET, THE DISTINCTION WOULD BE
YOU BUILD TWO FOUR-UNIT
BUILDINGS AS OPPOSED TO ONE
WHICH IN MY MIND MIGHT FIT IN
MORE WITH A CHARACTER OF WHAT I
THINK RSL WOULD BE PROMOTING.
AT THE SAME TIME, I I DON'T
EXPECT WE WILL SEE A LOT OF RSL
DEVELOPMENT.
THAT IS OPTION TWO.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT YOU
IN THIS.
COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON, IF WE
DID OPTION ONE, WHICH APPEARS
TO HAVE YOUR NAME ON FIT, THAT
IT WOULD ALLOW LARGER LOTS
DEVELOPMENT OF MORE THAN THREE
UNITS BUT IT WOULD BE SIZE AND
DESIGN DEPENDENT.
>> THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
FACTORS THAT LIMIT THE
POSSIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN PROPOSED LOT SIZE SQUARE
FOOTAGE INCLUDING THINGS LIKE
OUR FLOOR AREA RATIO.
DESIGN STANDARDS AND SETBACKS.
I THINK THIS IS A SMALL
PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN
AND MYSELF I WOULD ASK WE WORK
ON A PROPOSAL THAT WOULD GARNER
SUPPORT FOR THE TWO OF US.
THIS ONE DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A
HARD ONE TO WORK OUT.
>> I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE
THE TWO OF YOU DOING THAT AND I
WOULD LIKE TO ADD MY NAME TO
THIS.
>> FURTHER QUESTIONS?
DISCUSSIONS?
COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
THANKS TO THE TWO SPONSORS OF
THESE A AMENDMENTS.
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE DESIRE
TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE NO
LIMITS SO WE ARE NOT BACK IN
THE SAME SITUATION TRYING TO
AMEND UNIT BY UNIT OUR LIMITS
EVERY YEAR.
I WAS PREPARED TO SUPPORT YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> FURTHER DISCUSSIONS?
>> CAN I JUST ADD, AGAIN, THE
EXISTING LEGISLATION ON MY
PROPOSAL, THERE'S NO LIMIT ON
THE LOT.
IT IS JUST HOW MANY UNITS IN
ONE BUILDING.
>> IN AN APARTMENT STRUCTURE
SPECIFICALLY.
>> YEAH.
AND SO, BUT I'M CONFIDENT WE
CAN FIND SOMETHING.
>> I I WILL CALL THAT NOT A
CONSENSUS ITEM FOR DISCUSSION
ON FEBRUARY 25.
AND WE WILL BRING FORWARD AN
AMENDMENT FOR INDIVIDUAL VOTE.
AMENDMENT 3.
>> THIS IS RELATED TO ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS IN
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT ZONES.
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
APPLIES THE SAME STANDARDS THAT
EXIST TODAY IN SINGLE FAMILY
ZONES TO THE RSL ZONE WITH A
FEW MINOR EXCEPTIONS.
ONE IS ALL ADUs MUST BE BEHIND
THE DWELLING UNIT.
THIS WOULD REMOVE THE
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND
ALLOW THE STANDARDS TO BE A
ZONE.
LEGISLATION, AT SOME POINT
LATER THIS SPRING, THERE MAY BE
FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT
REASONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR
DISTINGUISHING SOME OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS.
THIS PUTS BOTH ZONES AT THE
SAME STARTING POINT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD.
>> YES.
A COUPLE OF FOLKS SUPPORTING.
OUNCES HERBOLD, BAGSHAW.
A4.
>> A4 IS RELATED TO GARAGE
STANDARDS IN RSL ZONES.
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION AS
INTRODUCED COULD ALLOW FOR A
ROW OF FRONT FACING GARAGES FOR
CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT TYPES.
SO THIS WOULD JUST REQUIRE SOME
MORE CREATIVE DESIGN THINKING
FOR THE DEVELOPER TO AVOID
HAVING A JUST ROW OF FRONT
FACING GARAGES ALONG THE
SIDEWALK OR STREET.
>> NOTHING TO ADD.
ANY QUESTIONS?
NOPE?
SO COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ IS A
COSPONSOR ON THAT ONE.
AND O'BRIEN AS WELL.
I WILL CALL THAT A CONSENSUS
ITEM.
A5?
>> A5 RELATES TO THE DENSITY
LIMITS IN RSL ZONES.
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
APPLIES THE DENSITY LIMIT OF
ONE DWELLING UNIT PER 2,000
SQUARE FEET.
LOOKING AT THE LOTS PROPOSED TO
BE REZONED THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF LOTS SO SMALL IT WOULD NOT
ALLOW FOR THOSE LOTS TO ADD A
SECOND DWELLING UNIT.
THIS WOULD ALLOW ANY LAW WITHIN
AN RSL ZONE TO ACHIEVE AT LEAST
TWO UNITS.
THERE ARE YARD REQUIREMENTS.
HEIGHT LIMITS.
FSA REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD
LIMIT THE OVERALL BULK OF THE
BUILDING BUT JUST ALLOW FOR A
SMALLER LOT TO HAVE A DUPLEX.
>> AS WE DISCOVER WHAT THE
FUTURE OF SMALL LOT LOOKS LIKE,
THIS ALLOWS FOR A SHARED SET OF
GOALS THAT KEEPS THE PRINCIPLE
STRUCTURE INTACT BUT ALLOWS FOR
A SMALL SCALE COTTAGE TO BE
BUILT IN THE BACKYARD.
>> AND A DATE MEANS SOMEONE
COULDN'T COME ALONG AND
SUBDIVIDE A LOT.
IT WOULD ALLOW EXISTING LOTS?
>> CORRECT.
>> FURTHER DISCUSSION OR
QUESTIONS?
SO I'M SEEING SOME COSPONSORS.
MOSQUEDA, BAGSHAW, GONZALEZ.
A6.
IS THAT STILL YOU?
>> I AM TURNING THIS OVER TO
KETIL.
>> A6 WOULD AMEND THE DENSITY
LIMIT TO ALLOW SLIGHTLY MORE
DEVELOPMENT ON A SITE.
THE PROPOSED BILL WOULD REMOVE
MANY DENSITY LIMITS BUT RETAIN
THEM FOR A SMALLER LOT.
THIS WOULD AMEND THE DENSITY
LIMIT ON SMALLER SITES.
>> QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT?
OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA IS A
COSPONSOR.
COUNCILMEMBER AS WELL.
A7?
>> UNDER THE PROPOSED CODE,
CERTAIN FEATURES CAN EXCEED THE
HEIGHT LIMIT.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD MODIFY THE
ROOFS SO THEY CAN BE SLIGHTLY
FLATTER.
>> QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT?
WILL CALL THAT A CONSENSUS
ITEM.
>> AMENDMENT A8 WOULD
INCENTIVIZE.
UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION,
ZONING PROVISIONS IN FIRST HILL
WOULD BE ENTIRELY REPLACED BY
MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY.
UP TO 40% OF EXTRA RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA FOR HIGH-RISE
DEVELOPMENT IN FIRST HILL CAN
BE ACHIEVED THROUGH PURCHASE OF
TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
AND OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENTS.
THIS WOULD RETAIN THE ABILITY
FOR DEVELOPMENT IN FIRST HILL
TO ACHIEVE EXTRA RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA THROUGH THOSE MEANS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW?
>> THIS IS SUPPORTED BY OUR
FIRST HILL IMPROVEMENT
ASSOCIATION.
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.
AND I JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE
THAT THIS PARTICULAR AREA IS
DENSE AND BECOMING MORE SO.
WHAT THEY LACK IS GREEN SPACE
AND PARKS AND HAVING THE
INCENTIVE ZONING WITH PUBLIC
BENEFITS IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT
OF THIS.
SO I SUPPORT THIS AND WELCOME
COSPONSORS.
>> QUESTIONS?
COSPONSOR?
COUNCILMEMBER HARRELL AND
MYSELF.
A9?
>> A9.
WE MAY BE BOUNCING AROUND A
LITTLE BIT AS WE SPLIT THE
WORKLOAD A BIT.
A9 IS ABOUT REQUIREMENTS TO
MEET GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS
IN MULTIFAMILY ZONES.
PROJECTS CAN ACHIEVE EXTRA
FLOOR AREA BY MEETING A GREEN
BUILDING STANDARD AND PUBLIC
BENEFIT LIKE SCREENING PARKS OR
PUBLIC HOUSING.
THE PROPOSAL WOULD INCREASE THE
FAR LIMITS AND SET A BASE ABOVE
WHICH GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS
ARE REQUIRED.
AND SO, THERE IS A HELPFUL
DIAGRAM ON PAGE 38 OF THE MEMO
THAT PROVIDES AN EXAMPLE OF HOW
THIS WORKS BUT ESSENTIALLY, IF
TODAY, UNDER TODAY'S CODE, THE
MAXIMUM FAR IN A LOW RISE 1
ZONE IS 1.1.
IF YOU ARE BUILDING ABOVE 0.9
FAR LIMIT, YOU HAVE TO MEET THE
GREEN BUILDING REQUIREMENT AS
WELL AS PROVIDE THOSE OTHER
PUBLIC BENEFITS TO REACH THE
1.1 HEIGHT.
THE MHA PROPOSAL INCREASES THE
LIMIT TO 1.3.
IN THAT CHANGE IT SAYS ANYTHING
ABOVE 0.9 YOU HAVE TO MEET THE
GREEN BUILDING REQUIREMENT.
YOU CAN GET TODAY AS WELL AS
THE ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA ADDED
THROUGH THE MHS LEGISLATION,
YOU HAVE TO MEET THE GREEN
BUILDING REQUIREMENT.
IT THIS WOULD RAISE THE BAR
SLIGHTLY.
THE FAR LIMIT ABOVE WHAT YOU
HAVE TO MEET THE GREEN BUILDING
REQUIREMENT.
SO ESSENTIALLY, UNDER EXISTING
CODE.
IN ORDER TO GAIN THE .2 FAR
INCREASE YOU HAVE TO MEET A
GREEN BUILDING STANDARD.
THIS RESETS IT TO THE SAME
REQUIREMENT.
>> THIS ONE IS OBVIOUSLY VERY
SELF-EXPLANATORY.
[ LAUGHTER ] SORRY.
>> I COULD TRY THAT AGAIN.
>> NO, NO, NO, MS. PENNUCCI.
IF OUNCES COUNCILMEMBERS WANT
TO DIG IN, THIS CREATES A
HIGHER, SLIGHTLY HIGHER
THRESHOLD FOR THE PERFORMANCE
OF A BUILDING STANDARD AND
DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY GIVE IT
AWAY WHEN YOU DO THE MHS FAR
INCREASE.
SO, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THIS
MAY BE ONE WE NEED TO PULL OUT
FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION.
BECAUSE, THIS COULD RESULT IN A
QUIZZICAL LOOKS I'M GETTING HE
FROM A LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES.
BUT, WHY DON'T WE PAUSE AND SEE
IF THERE ARE ACTUAL QUESTIONS
ABSENT MY JOKING ON THIS TOPIC.
AND IF THERE ARE NOT, THEN WHAT
I WOULD SUGGEST IS THIS IS A
MEATY ENOUGH TOPIC WE KEEP THIS
ONE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE AND
DISCUSSION WHEN WE CIRCLE BACK
AROUND ON THE 25th.
>> I'LL HOLD MY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> I WANT TO COSPONSOR IT AND
INDICATE WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF
SUPPORT FROM THIS FROM FOLKS
WHO WANT TO BE MORE
CONSTRUCTION.
SAW THE FIRST PASSIVE HOUSE
LAST WEEK IN DISTRICT 2. THIS
IS A GREAT ONE.
LOOK FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION.
>> OKAY.
IT'S IN.
>> OKAY, SO THIS IS THE SMALL
COMMERCIAL SPACE REQUIREMENT.
THIS IS BASED ON OTHER
STANDARDS ALREADY EXISTING
SIMILAR TO THE PIKE PINE
OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THERE ARE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
THAT REQUIRE THE NEW
DEVELOPMENT INCLUDE SPACES FOR
SMALL COMMERCIAL USES.
SO, DEVELOPMENT, NEW
DEVELOPMENT IN PEDESTRIAN ZONES
OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SMALL
COMMERCIAL SPACES AND KIND OF
CREATING MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL SPACE.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS
HERE SPONSORED BY VARIOUS
COUNCIL MEMBERS.
OPTION ONE IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBERS O'BRIEN AND
HERBOLD.
THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE SMALL
COMMERCIAL PLACES BE PERMANENT
AND 2 SPONSORED BY JOHNSON
WOULD ALLOW FOR THE SPACES TO
HAVE A FIVE-YEAR EXPIRATION.
>> THINGS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO
ADD TO THAT?
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE FACT
AMENDMENTS LIKE THESE WERE ALSO
USED FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES
DURING THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT
DISCUSSIONS OF UP ZONES ON THE
AV.
WE DID HOLD THAT UP ZONE AND
THESE TYPES OF AMENDMENTS I
THINK WOULD ADDRESS SOME OF THE
CONCERNS WE HAVE HEARD BOTH IN
THAT DISTRICT AS WELL AS IN
OTHER COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
ABOUT THE CONCERN OF A LOSS OF
AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL SPACES.
I DID RECALL THOUGH THAT THERE
WAS A SUITE OF OTHER AMENDMENTS
THAT ACCOMPANIED THIS SO I
WANTED TO SIGNAL MY INTEREST IN
LOOKING BACK.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE
COVERING OUR BASES.
BUT THIS IS I THINK A GOOD
FIRST STEP.
>> AND I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER
THINGS TO ADD, HERE, THIS
APPLIES TO PRINCIPLE PEDESTRIAN
STREETS.
WE WILL DISCUSS APPLYING THE
PEDESTRIAN DESIGNATION TO
SEVERAL CORRIDORS THROUGHOUT
THE CITY.
WE ALSO IN ADDITION TO THAT
APPLY PRINCIPLE PEDESTRIAN
STREETS WITHIN THOSE PEDESTRIAN
ZONES SO THIS APPLIES TO A
LIMITED NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL
SPACES.
JUST ON THE PRINCIPLE
PEDESTRIAN STREETS WITHIN
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONES.
COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> I THINK THE POLICY
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO
OPTIONS HERE, BOTH DECENT
POLICY OBJECTIVES, I WANT TO
WEIGH OUT BY HAVING THE TIME
LIMITED, WHAT THAT WOULD ALLOW
FOR MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE
EXISTING OR NEW SMALL
BUSINESSES COULD LOCATE IN ONE
OF THESE SMALL SPACES.
AS THE SMALL BUSINESS GREW,
THEY MAY WANT TO EXPAND INTO
ADJACENT SPACES.
IF THAT COINCIDED WITH THE TIME
LIMIT, COULD STAY IN PLACE
ESSENTIALLY BY EXPANDING INTO
NEIGHBORHOOD SPACES WHICH I
THINK IS IS A LEGITIMATE
POLICY.
THE FLIP SIDE IS AS THEY
EXPAND, THOSE SPACES ARE NO
LONGER SMALL FOR THE NEXT
GENERATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES.
AND BY NOT HAVING A TIME LIMIT.
IF YOU ARE A SMALL BUSINESS AND
YOU START TO GROW AND NEED TO
GET A DIFFERENT SPACE, YOU
WOULD NEED TO FIND ANOTHER
SPACE TO VACATE THAT EXISTING
SMALL BUSINESS SO THE NEXT
SMALL BUSINESS COULD COME INTO
IT.
I LEAN TOWARD THE LATTER ONE.
BUT I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE
DESIRE.
BUT I DO FEEL HAVING, THIS IS A
CHALLENGE THAT WE WILL FACE
WITH AN ONGOING EFFORT.
HAVING PERMANENT SMALL SPACES
WOULD BE A GOOD THING.
>> GIVEN THE BACK AND FORTH AND
HAVING ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS AND
QUESTIONS EXPRESSED ON THIS ONE
SHOULD RESULT IN US HAVING AN
INDIVIDUAL VOTE.
I APOLOGIZE COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ.
>> LY HOLD MY QUESTION SINCE
THIS WILL BE SUBJECT TO MORE
CONVERSATION BUT I THINK THERE
ARE SEVERAL POLICY QUESTIONS.
WE NEED SOME DATA.
WHAT IS THE CURRENT PERCENTAGE
OF YOU KNOW, 5,000 PLUS SQUARE
FOOT COMMERCIAL SPACE IN SOME
OF THESE AREAS.
THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT APPLYING
MHS TO.
AND, REALLY SORT OF WHAT I'M
LOOKING AT IS WHAT THE CASE FOR
PERMANENCY.
I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN AND
HERBOLD'S AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE
THESE TO BE PERMANENT.
REALLY ON THE SOLE BASIS I FEEL
LIKE WE LOST A LOT OF SMALL
COMMERCIAL AFFORDABLE SPACE AND
WE LOST THAT TO THE
CONSTRUCTION.
LARGE, UNAFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL
SPACE.
SO THERE IS A QUESTION TO BE
HAD ABOUT THE STOCK AND WHAT IS
CURRENTLY IN THE MARKET.
BEFORE WE MAKE THIS DECISION.
>> SO WE WILL HOLD THAT ONE FOR
AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE ON THE 25th
OKAY.
A11.
>> A11 IS RELATED TO THE PIKE
PINE OVERPLAY.
IT ALLOWS A 15% FAR INCREASE
FOR PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE 50%
OF THEIR FLOOR AREA AND
HOUSING, AFFORDABLE TO
HOUSEHOLDS LESS THAN 50% MEDIAN
INCOME.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO DELETE THAT.
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
ANY OTHER COSPONSORS?
I WILL CALL THAT A CONSENSUS.
SO, WE WILL ADD THAT TO THE
CONSENSUS PACKAGE.
A12?
>> A12 IS SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS COMING OUT OF THE
DISTRICTS FROM A FEW YEARS AGO.
AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS A
PROPOSAL TO REZONE THE AV TO
SM85, THE SEATTLE MIX ZONE 85.
AT 75 FEET.
AT THE TIME THE COUNCIL DECIDED
TO HOLD ANY CHANGES ALONG THE
AV, THE PROPOSAL NOW IS TO
MAINTAIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL ZONE AND INCREASE
THE HEIGHT TO 73 FEET.
BUT IT DIDN'T INCLUDE AN UPPER
LEVEL SERGEANTBACK REQUIREMENT
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED
IN THE SEATTLE MIX ZONE.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE
THAT WHEN BUILDINGS ARE BUILT
ABOVE 45 FEET IN HEIGHT, THERE
IS AN UPPER LEVEL SETBACK.
THIS HELPS AT THE STREET LEVEL
MAINTAIN THE MORE PEDESTRIAN
SCALED CHARACTER OF THE
BUILDINGS BUT STILL ALLOW
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
IN THE ZONE.
>> QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT?
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> HOW BIG A SETBACK IS IT?
>> AN AVERAGE DEPTH OF TEN FEET
FROM THE STREET LOT LINE WOULD
BE REQUIRED ABOVE A HEIGHT OF
45 FEET.
>> AND DOES THAT MEAN YOU HAVE
NO SETBACK FOR THE FIRST TEN
FEET AND THE 20-FOOT SETBACK?
OR A SLOPE THING YOU HAVE TO
STAY WITHIN?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I NEED TO SORT OF LOOK INTO
THAT A LITTLE MORE.
BUT IT REQUIRES A SETBACK ABOVE
45 FEET.
TYPICALLY, IN SOME CASES THEY
DO A DEEPER SETBACK TO CREATE A
ROOFTOP AMENITY SPACE OR THAT
SORT OF THING.
SO IT IS THE AVERAGING OF THOSE
AREAS.
I CAN FOLLOW UP WITH ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
>> GOT IT.
I FULLY SUPPORT THIS.
I THINK THAT THIS IS AN
APPROPRIATE PLACE TO DO THAT
AND IT HELPS MITIGATE SOME OF
THE CONCERN WE HAVE HEARD FROM
FOLKS.
LIST ME AS A COSPONSOR.
>> GREAT.
GREAT.
SO THAT IS COUNCILMEMBERS
BAGSHAW, HERBOLD, AND GONZALEZ.
>> DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
LIVE WORK UNITS.
THIS WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR UNITS
THAT PROPOSED.
IT WOULD ESTABLISH A MINIMUM
SIZE SOFT 300 SQUARE FEET AS
THE WORK PORTION OF THE UNIT.
AND REQUIRE A PHYSICAL DIVIDER
BETWEEN THE LIVE AND WORK
PORTIONS OF THE UNIT.
THE INTENT OF THESE CHANGES IS
TO IMPROVE THE PRIVACY FOR THE
RESIDENTIAL FUNCTION.
AND ENSURE THAT THE FRONT OF
THESE SPACES ARE USED FOR
BUSINESS PURPOSES.
AND, IDEALLY CREATE A MORE SORT
OF ACTIVATED PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT.
>> ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE
HAVE SEEN, PARTICULARLY WITH
TOWNHOUSES IN WHAT WOULD BE
TRADITIONALLY NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL ZONES IS THEY MAY BE
A BUSINESS THAT OPERATES OUT OF
THERE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO
UNDERSTAND THAT OR SEE IT SO I
THINK THIS IS INTENDING TO
INCENTIVIZE MORE OPEN
BUSINESSES.
A LOT OF LEADED GLASS.
AS YOU WALK PAST.
>> DID WE DO THE SAME SET OF
AMENDMENTS WITH, WAS IT THE
QUEEN ANNE ZONES?
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT.
I BELIEVE YOUR MEMORY OF THAT
IS ACCURATE.
>> THEY LOOK CONFUSED.
>> THEY DO.
>> YOU KNOW THAT THE STANDARDS
FOR LIVE WORK UNITS HAVE BEEN
MODIFIED SEVERAL TIMES.
THIS TAKES IT A LITTLE BIT
FURTHER.
WITH THOSE CHANGES, WE HAVEN'T
SEEN THE RESULTS INTENDED SO
THIS REQUIRES A LITTLE BIT MORE
TO ENSURE THERE IS CLEARLY WORK
AND LIVE SPACE TO FIND IN THE
UNITS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD,
GONZALEZ?
>> I SUPPORT THIS.
I HAVE A QUESTION.
SOMETIMES I HAVE HEARD FROM
DEVELOPERS AND PEOPLE LIVING
DOWNTOWN THAT WE REQUIRE
COMMERCIAL SPACE IN AREAS WHERE
IT IS DIFFICULT TO FIND RENTERS
FOR THAT COMMERCIAL SPACE.
IS IT POSSIBLE ALSO AND MAYBE
THIS IS PART OF WHAT IS ALREADY
DEALT WITH, BUT, SOME OF THE
UNITS COULD BECOME LIVE WORK
UNITS.
>> IN SOME CASES WHERE
COMMERCIAL SPACE IS ALLOWED,
LIVE WORK CAN QUALIFY.
WHEN THERE IS ACTUALLY A STREET
LEAVE REQUIREMENT FOR
COMMERCIAL USES, LIKE IN
PEDESTRIAN ZONES, DOESN'T MEAN
THE REQUIREMENT.
OVER THE YEARS, THE CITY HAS
LEGISLATED BY THE COUNCIL SORT
OF NARROWED THE AREAS WHERE
THOSE REQUIREMENTS APPLY SO
THEY ARE NOT AS BROAD AS THEY
ONCE WERE BUT IT IS TRYING TO
BALANCE ENSURING OVER THE LONG
TERM, WE CONTINUE TO HAVE
SPACES FOR NEIGHBORHOODS
SERVING BUSINESSES AND
NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE WHEN THE
RESIDENTIAL MARKET IS VERY HOT,
THERE IS A DESIRE TO JUST BUILD
RESIDENTIAL UNITS BECAUSE THEY
LEASE UP VERY QUICKLY OR SELL
VERY QUICKLY.
BUT IN THE LONG TERM, IF ALL
BUILDINGS ARE BUILT WITH ONLY
RESIDENTIAL, THERE WON'T BE
AMENITIES LEFT.
>> SO, I'M WONDERING WHETHER WE
SHOULD CONSIDER LOOSENING UP
THE REQUIREMENTS.
IF YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL SPACE
THAT HASN'T BEEN RENTED FOR A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, TO DO
WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING HERE.
DIVIDING UP THE SPACE.
AND MAYBE, I'M GETTING TOO
COMPLICATED HERE.
BUT IT STRIKES ME THE MORE
OPTIONS WE CAN GIVE TO HAVE
SMALLER SPACES FOR COMMERCIAL.
IF NEEDED.
AND, MORE RESIDENTIAL SPACE IS
A GOOD THING.
>> WE HEAR YOU.
SO I THINK THAT SEEMS LIKE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR A POSSIBLE NEW
AMENDMENT TO BRING FORWARD.
AND I'LL ASK CENTRAL STAFF TO
KEEP WORKING WITH YOU ON THAT.
A 14.
>> A 14 IS COSPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HARRELL AND
O'BRIEN.
THIS IS RELATE TODAY THE MIXED
RAINIER BEACH ZONE PROPOSED
AROUND THE RAINIER BEACH LIGHT
RAIL STATION.
THAT AREA WOULD INCLUDE NEW
STREET LEVEL PARKING STANDARDS.
AND THIS AMENDMENT WOULD TARGET
THOSE, THAT GREATER FLEXIBILITY
FOR SURFACE PARKING TO INCLUDE
THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS.
>> DO THE SPONSORS HAVE
ANYTHING TO ADD?
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> YES.
SO, I'LL JUST SAY THERE HAS
BEEN A CLEAR REQUEST FROM FOLKS
IN THE RAINIER BEACH
NEIGHBORHOOD WORKING FOR A
NUMBER OF YEAR ON TRYING TO
ESTABLISH SOME ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES AND THE IDEAS
THEY HAVE WOULD REQUIRE CERTAIN
TYPE OF VEHICLE ACCESS.
WHAT WE WOULD NOT TYPICALLY PUT
IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
ZONE.
AND I THINK THE ORIGINAL
LANGUAGE HAD A BLANKET.
FOR OTHER USES WE MIGHT SEE
AROUND LIGHT RAIL STATIONS
ANYWHERE, WE PREFER TO NOT HAVE
A SERVICE PARKING LOT IN FRONT
OF THE BUILDING.
SO IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
RAINIER BEACH ACTION COALITION,
THEY SAID THIS LANGUAGE WOULD
ALLOW THEM THE FLEXIBILITY TO
GO FORWARD AS THEY ARE LOOKING
FOR SITE TO DO A PROJECT AND IT
WOULD STILL PRESERVE MORE
BROADLY THE TYPE OF URBAN
DESIGN WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
I THINK THE FLEXIBILITY IS
APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE.
>> JUST TO BE SPECIFIC WHAT WE
ARE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE IS
CERTAIN TYPES OF ACTIVITY.
LIGHT MANUFACTURING.
COLLEGES, CHILD CARE CENTERS.
FOOD PROCESSING WORK.
FINE ART SCHOOLS, VOCATIONAL
SCHOOLS.
WE ARE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE THAT
KIND OF DEVELOPMENT.
BUT STILL CREATE A PEDESTRIAN
FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT.
THIS REACHES THE RIGHT BALANCE
BETWEEN PARKING NEEDS AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE
COMMUNITY THAT IS PREPARED FOR
IT.
>> FURTER QUESTIONS OR
THOUGHTS?
I WILL CALL THAT A CONSENSUS
ITEM AND CON GRADUATIONS, WE
ARE HAVEWAY THROUGH THE TEXT.
>> SO, WE NOTED IN SEVERAL
SECTIONS OF THE COUNCIL BILL AS
INTRODUCED THERE, CERTAIN
BENEFITS GRANTED TO PROJECTS
THAT INCLUDED PRESCHOOLS THAT
DO NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT
INCLUDE CHILD CARE CENTERS.
AND IN THE LAND USE CODE, CHILD
CARE CENTER IS A BROADER TERM
THAT INCLUDES PRESCHOOL.
ENCOURAGING THE INCLUSION OF
CHILD CARE CENTERS IN NEW
DEVELOPMENT THAN JUST
PRESCHOOLS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT
INCLUDING THIS.
I HOPE FOLKS ON THE COUNCIL ARE
ACCEPT PORTATIVE.
I ASKED EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS
THAT WE WENT TO, WOULD YOU BE
SUPPORTIVE OF INCENTIVES TO
ENSURE THERE WAS A SPACE FOR
CHILD CARE ON THE FIRST OR
SECOND FLOORS AND
OVERWHELMINGLY EVERY SINGLE
PERSON WAS SUPPORTIVE TO MAKE
SURE CHILD CARE IS ACCESSIBLE.
SEATTLE IS THE HIGHEST COST
CHILD CARE IN THE COUNTRY,
ESPECIALLY FOR INFANT CARE.
>> I WOULD ADD THERE HAVE BEEN
A LOT OF STUDIES THAT HAVE COME
OUT LAST YEAR THAT TALK AND
HIGHLIGHT ABOUT A PHRASE
REFERRED TO AS CHILD CARE
DESERTS.
THIS IS THE CONCEPT THAT IN
PLACES WHERE THERE ARE FAMILIES
EXPERIENCING AN EXTREME
SHORTAGE OF PROVIDERS AND CHILD
CARE FRIENDLY SPACES FOR THE
CHILD CARE PROVIDERS TO SET UP
A CHILD CARE CENTER.
THAT IS SEPARATE BUT RELATED TO
THE ISSUE OF LACK OF
AFFORDABILITY OF CHILD CARE IN
THE CITIES.
I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A REAL
RESPONSIBILITY AND OPPORTUNITY
TO INCENTIVIZE AND REQUIRE THAT
THESE SPACES BE CREATED AS ONE
TOOL OF IN THAT WILL BE NEEDED
TO ADDRESS THE REALITIES OF
CHILD CARE CENTERS AND CHILD
CARE DESERTS IN WASHINGTON
STATE IS NOT IMMUNE FROM THIS
CONCEPT.
WE UNFORTUNATELY RANK VERY HIGH
IN TERMS OF THE STATES BEING
RANK AS CHILD CARE DESERTS.
AND I THINK THIS IS A COMMON
SENSE POLICY FOR US TO SUPPORT.
PARTICULARLY IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE WORK WE ARE DOING
AROUND THE FAMILIES EDUCATION
PRESCHOOL AND PROMISE LEVEE
THAT WILL ALSO SUPPORT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF PIPELINE OF
ADDITIONAL CHILD CARE WORKERS.
WE ARE DOING WORK AT THE STATE
LEVEL TO HOPEFULLY MODIFY SOME
OF THE RESTRICTIONS CURRENTLY
IN PLACE THAT MAKE IT REALLY
DIFFICULT FOR CHILD CARE
PROVIDERS OR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO
GET INTO THE CHILD CARE
PROVIDER INDUSTRY.
MANY LAND USE REGULATIONS ARE
CREATING SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS
IN TERMS OF CHILD CARE DESERTS.
>> I SAW COSPONSOR HANDS.
COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW, DID YOU
WANT TO ADD SOMETHING?
>> JUST ADDING ONE MORE PHRASE.
YESTERDAY IN THE SEATTLE TIMES
THERE WAS AN EXCELLENT OP ED
ACKNOWLEDGING THE FACT DEMAND
FOR CHILD CARE IS FAR OUT-
STRIPPING SUPPLY RESULTING IN
ASTRONOMICAL COSTS OF ROUGHLY
12,000 PER YEAR AND YEARLONG
WAIT LISTS FOR CHILD CARE.
SO ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO HELP
PROMOTE THIS.
>> I KNOW SEVERAL FOLKS THAT
WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO BE ONLY
PAYING $12,000 A YEAR FOR CHILD
CARE.
SO, I WILL CALL THAT A
CONSENSUS ITEM.
AND WE WILL MOVE ONTO A16.
>> OKAY, SO A16 IS ADDITIONAL
TREE REGULATIONS.
AND, THIS IS COSPONSORED BY
CHAIR JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN.
SO, BASED ON THE BUILDING UPON
SOME OF THE WORK WE DID IN THE
PLANNING LAND USE AND ZONING
COMMITTEE LAST YEAR IN TERMS OF
DRAFTING A TREE PROTECTION
ORDINANCE, THIS IS LOOKING AT
SOME OF THAT WORK AND
INCORPORATING IT WHERE IT IS
APPROPRIATE IN THE MHA BILL.
SO, THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
INCREASE, SO, THERE IS A NEW
TREE SCORE REQUIREMENT THAT IS
IN THE RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT
FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.
AND, THIS AMENDMENT LOOKS TO
INCREASE THE TREE SCORE
REQUIREMENT RESULTING IN MORE
TREES PLANTED OR PRESERVED WITH
NEW DEVELOPMENT AND CREATE A
NEW OPTION FOR SATISFYING TREE
PLANTING REQUIREMENTS.
ADD PROTECTIONS FOR TREES
PLANTED TO MEET THE PLANTING
REQUIREMENTS IN RSL.
AND REQUIRE ARBORISTS WORKING
WITH THE CITY TO BE CERTIFIED
BY THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF
ARBOR CULTURE.
>> EXCELLENT PRONUNCIATION.
QUESTIONS?
THOUGHTS?
>> ONE QUICK QUESTION.
I WILL SUPPORT THIS.
I'M VERY INTERESTED IN OUR
URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION'S
RESPONSE THAT WE RECEIVED
YESTERDAY.
HAS THIS BEEN INCORPORATED IN
THE LANGUAGE?
DO YOU KNOW?
>> NOT YET.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
WHAT THEY HAVE ADDED IS TO
ALLOW A FEE IN LIEU SHALL BE
PAID TO THE CITY TO REPLACE THE
TREES IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE
THEY HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
THERE I A BALANCE IN KEEPING
THE TREES WE REGARD AS SPECIAL.
MAKING SURE WE ARE ABLE TO
CONTINUE TO PLANT IN OTHER
AREAS AND HAVE THE MONEY AND
RESOURCES TO DO THAT.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT WE
TAKE A LOOK AT THE URBAN
FORESTRY COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION.
AS WE ARE GOING FORWARD WITH
THIS AMENDMENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> THANK YOU.
I REMEMBER IN OUR DISCUSSIONS,
IN TREE REGULATIONS, THERE WAS
SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE USE
OF ARBORISTS VERSUS THE USE OF
TREE PROFESSIONALS.
THE ADVOCATES WERE URGING US
NOT TO REQUIRE ARBORISTS FOR
SOME PART OF THE LEGISLATION.
AND I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT
THE REQUIREMENT FOR ARBORISTS
TO CERTIFY, THOSE ARBORISTS
WORKING FOR THE CITY, THAT IS A
DISCREET BODY OF WORK YOU ARE
REFERENCING.
>> CORRECT.
THAT IS MY READ OF IT AS WELL.
I'M SURE IF I'M WRONG, SHE WILL
CORRECT ME.
>> THIS IS IN TERMS OF TREE
PRESERVATION PLANS.
ASKING FOR A CERTIFIED ARBORIST
TO PROVIDE THAT, THAT IS A
PRETTY LOW BAR I UNDERSTAND
FROM MY RESEARCH IN PEOPLE IN
THE FIELD, I'M HAPPY TO BE
CORRECTED ON THAT, IF THAT
MIGHT BE TOO HIGH A BAR.
BUT I THINK IT IS NOT
UNREASONABLE TO KNOW THAT FOR
THE CITY TO KNOW THAT THE
PERSON SUBMITTING THE PLAN FOR
THE TREE PRESERVATION
SPECIFICALLY IS SOMEONE WHO IS
KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THE TREE
PROFESSIONAL CARE WORK.
>> THAT IS I THINK A DISTINCT
FUNCTION FROM WHAT WE WERE
DISCUSSING IN COMMITTEE.
NEEDED TO BE ONLY PROVIDED BY
TREE PROFESSIONALS.
>> WHEN WE HAVE THE TREE
LEGISLATION BACK IN FRONT OF
US, WE WILL CONTINUE THE
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
CERTIFICATION NATURE OF TREE
PROFESSIONALS AND WHETHER THEY
WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE
ARBORISTS OR GONE THROUGH A
CITY CERTIFICATION PROCESS.
MORE TO COME ON THAT.
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ?
>> I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT
THE TREE PROFESSIONAL CERTIFIED
PERSON.
YOU GUYS USED A LOT OF
DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY.
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CITY
EMPLOYEES.
NOT CITY ARBORISTS.
>> EXTERNAL CONTRACTORS.
>> AND, HOW DOES THIS POLICY
PROPOSED POE SAL OR PROPOSAL
IMPACT, ARE THERE ANY
CROSSOVERS INTO OUR LABOR
RELATIONS AS IT RELATES TO THIS
BODY OF WORK?
ARE THERE ANY LABOR
IMPLICATIONS RELATED TO THIS
AMENDMENT?
>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
>> DIRECT OR INDIRECT.
>> THE GREEN FACTOR
REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICALLY.
I JUST LOOK AT THEM.
THEY DO REQUIRE A CERTIFIED
TREE PROFESSIONAL WHICH, THIS
WOULD INCLUDE SOMEONE CERTIFIED
BY THE ISA.
I'M NOT GOING TO TRY THAT WORD
AGAIN.
AND, SO, THERE ARE MULTIPLE
INSTANCES WHERE THE CITY HAS
REQUIRED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION ALSO REQUIRES.
SO, IT IS SOMETHING, THERE IS
PRECEDENT IN THE CITY.
>> I WOULD ALSO NOTE THERE IS A
BIT OF A DISTINCTION HERE.
THIS IS A PLAN THE APPLICANT
NEEDS TO SUBMIT TO THE CITY.
THE CITY STILL HAS TO CONDUCT
THE REVIEW OF THE PLAN AND WE
HAVE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN TREE
REVIEW.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR
CREDENTIALING REQUIREMENTS ARE
BUT IT DOESN'T TAKE A BODY OF
WORK AND CONTRACT IT OUT, IT'S
THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY
TO PREPARE THE PLAN AND BE
REVIEWED?
>> AND WHAT WE ARE ASKING HERE
IS THE APPLICANTS HIRE AN
ARBORIST WHO IS CERTIFIED BY
THE INTERNATIONAL CERTIFICATION
ORGANIZATION FOR ARBORISTS.
>> RIGHT.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
I JUS WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE
WASN'T ANY IMPLICATION OF THE
BODY OF WORK CURRENTLY BEING
DONE BY CITY EMPLOYEES.
>> I THINK I SAW COUNCILMEMBER
BAGSHAW RAISE HER HAND TO BE
LISTED.
OH YES PLEASE COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
WE WILL CALL THAT A CONSENSUS
ITEM FOR THE 25th.
>>> A17.
>> MECHANICALLY DESIGNATING AN
AREA WITH A P AS PART OF THE
ZONE DOES NOT NECESSARILY
CONVEY STANDARDS AND
PROTECTIONS THAT APPLY THROUGH
THE LAND USE CODE.
AMENDMENT A17 WOULD ADD 90th
STREET AS PRINCIPLE PEDESTRIAN
STREETS.
NORTHWEST, 15 AVENUE NORTHWEST
AND 55th STREET.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> THE CROWN HILL NEIGHBORHOODS
CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS
THAT WILL NOT BE COMPLETED
UNTIL AFTER WE ARE DONE WITH
THIS PROCESS.
THEY DID WORK WITH BOTH THE
CITY STAFF AND KIND OF OUTSIDE
THE URBAN DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
AND IDENTIFIED THESE STREETS AS
POSSIBLE OR THE MORE LIKELY
AREAS WHERE THEY MIGHT BE ABLE
TO SEE MORE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD
MAIN STREET IF YOU WILL.
SO THEY MADE THAT REQUEST WITH
THIS.
IT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I
THINK IS ACCURATE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> THANK YOU.
I WOULD LIKE TO COSPONSOR IS.
AND FROM THOSE OF US IN D5 THAT
DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS, WE LIKE
TO ERE ON THE SIDE OF ELDER
FRIENDLY, PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY,
CHILD FRIENDLY SIDEWALKS AND
STREETS AN SO PEOPLE CAN
ACTUALLY USE THE INFRASTRUCTURE
TO GET TO LIGHT RAIL AND BUS
STATIONS SO I WILL COSPONSOR
THIS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
WE WILL CALL THAT A CONSENSUS
ITEM.
A18.
>> THIS ONE IS SIMILAR.
IT IS FOR THE NORTH BEACON HILL
COMMUNITY.
IT WOULD ADD 15th AVENUE SOUTH
AS A PRINCIPLE PEDESTRIAN
STREET.
ACCOMPANIED BY A MAP AMENDMENT
THAT ADDS PEDESTRIAN
DESIGNATIONS ON BEACON AVENUE
SOUTH.
AND, 15th AVENUE SOUTH.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT HARRELL,
ANYTHING TO ADD?
>> WELL, I'M OBVIOUSLY
SPONSORING THIS.
BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, THIS IS A
POLICY, THE BEACON HILL
MERCHANT'S ASSOCIATION ARE
STRONG ADVOCATES FOR PRESERVING
THEIR BUSINESSES AND MAKING
SURE IT IS PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY
AND WE HAVE THE RETAIL FRONTING
IF YOU WILL ON 15th AND 14th
AVENUE SOUTH TO STEVENS STREET.
SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD MOVE.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
THOUGHTS?
WE WILL CALL THAT A CONSENSUS
ITEM FOR THE 25th.
LET'S MOVE ONTO THE B
AMENDMENTS.
>> OKAY.
B1.
ANNUAL INFLATIONMENT
ADJUSTMENTS TO PAYMENT AMOUNTS.
THIS LOOKED AT DIFFERENT
INDEXES TO ADJUST THE PAYMENT
AMOUNTS.
SO, CURRENTLY, THE PROPOSAL WAS
TO USE THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
ALL ITEMS.
AND, BUT, UPON FURTHER STUDY
BUT THE OFFICE OF HOUSING THEY
DETERMINED THAT IT DID NOT SEEM
TO ACTUALLY TRACK WITH THE
HOUSING MARKET AS WELL AS AN
ALTERNATIVE INDEX.
ALSO A CPI.
IT IS CPI SHELTER.
AND SO BASED ON THEIR ANALYSIS,
THEY SAW THAT IT TRACKED MORE
CLOSELY TO THE RISE IN AVERAGE
RENTS IN SEATTLE THE PAST FIVE
TO TEN YEARS THAN THE CPI ALL
ITEMS KNOWN AS CPIU.
SO, JUST A NOTE THAT BECAUSE
CPI SHELTER REFLECTS CHANGES IN
THE HOUSING MARKET, THIS INDEX,
THE USE OF THIS INDEX FOR
ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS MEANS THE
PERCENTAGES IN INCREASE AMOUNTS
WOULD BE GREATEST WHEN THE
HOUSING MARKET IS STRONG.
AND THE PAYMENTS WOULD INCREASE
LESS OR NOT AT ALL DURING
MARKET DOWNTURNS SO THIS
WOULDN'T USE ANY INCREASES IN
CPI SHELTER TO AUTOMATICALLY
ADJUST CPIU.
>> QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS ABOUT
THAT?
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO COSPONSOR
THAT AMENDMENT BUT I ALSO WANT
TO FLAG MY CONTINUING INTEREST
TO LOOK AT THE NEED TO ADJUST
THE FEE IN ORDER TO STRIKE OUR
GOALS TO HAVE 50% PERFORMANCE
AND 50% PAYMENT.
THEY ARE GOOD REASONS FOR WHY
THE PAYMENT OPTION MEETS THE
NEEDS OF THE CITY AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE FACT
THAT THOSE PAYMENT DOLLARS CAN
LEVERAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF
MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
BUT, WE HAVE ALSO HEARD FROM
OUR COMMUNITIES THAT THEY
REALLY WANT TO SEE PERFORMANCE
IN THESE BUILDINGS.
SO, I KNOW THAT THERE IS A
POINT AT WHICH WE ARE GOING TO
EVALUATE THIS PROGRAM.
AND, MAKE A DETERMINATION OF
WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE KIND OF
HITTING THAT 5050 SWEET SPOT.
BUT, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE
OF A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW AND
WHEN WE WILL DO THAT.
THERE MIGHT BE AN AMENDMENT
LATER THAT ADDRESSES THIS.
>> NEXT.
>> OH, IT'S COMING UP NEXT.
OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> NO PROBLEM.
YES COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I WOULD LIKE TO COSPONSOR THIS
ONE AND I WAS REMISS IN NOT
COSPONSORING A18.
>> OKAY, SO LET'S MOVE ONTO THE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
>> B2 IS AN AMENDMENT.
IT IS IN THE MHA FRAME WORK
BILL PASSED A COUPLE OF YEARS
AO INCLUDED IN THE LEGISLATION
WERE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO
MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE MHA.
MAKING PAYMENT AMOUNTS.
THIS AMENDMENT ORIGINALLY HAD
THIS REPORT DATE OF JULY 1,
2019.
FOR THE DIRECTOR OF THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTIONS AND THE DIRECTOR OF
HOUSING.
SPECIFICALLY IN REGARDS TO
PAYMENT VERSUS PERFORMANCE
OUTCOMES.
BUT GIVEN THE DELAY IN
IMPLEMENTATION IT SEEMED TO
MAKE SENSE TO EXTEND THE STAY
OF THIS REPORT.
WE HAVE OPTION ONE BY CHAIRSON
TO MOVE THIS OUT TO JULY 1,
2021 TO ALLOW MORE DATA TO BE
GATHER.
OPTION TWO WOULD MOVE THIS OUT
TO NEXT YEAR.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> WHAT WERE THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE DATES?
>> ONE YEAR.
NEXT YEAR VERSUS TWO YEARS.
>> YEAH.
SO, I THINK THIS IS WORTHY OF
ONGOING CONVERSATION.
I THINK THE DESIRE
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD TOUCHED
ON, UNDERSTANDING AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE HOW THIS IS PERFORMING
SO STRIKING THE BALANCE BETWEEN
HOW SOON CAN WE GET MEANINGFUL
INFORMATION.
CAN WE GO TOO SOON AND IF WE
DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DATA.
I'M INTERESTED IN TALKING MORE
WITH STAFF AND OFFICE OF
HOUSING FOLKS TO GET A LOOK AT
WHAT THE SWEET SPOT IS.
>> THE REASON I SUGGESTED 2021
ORIGINALLY WAS WE HAD MOST
DEVELOPMENTS TAKE ABOUT A YEAR
TO GO THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT
CYCLE SO I FIGURE WE ADOPT THIS
THING IN 2019, WE HAVE
DEVELOPMENT CYCLE PERMITS IN
2020 AND SOME OUTCOMES TO
REPORT ON IN 2021.
BUT THIS DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A
BIG CONTROVERSIAL THING.
BUT I WELCOME THOUGHTS OR
SUGGESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES
TO POINT US IN ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER.
PLEASE COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ.
>> COSPONSORING.
>> ANY QUESTIONS COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD?
>> 2020 OR 2021.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO COSPONSOR
2020.
>> AND DID YOU HAVE A
PREFERENCE?
>> 2021.
>> OKAY.
IT'S A 2-2 AT THIS POINT.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> I THINK THE EARLIER THE
BETTER IS HELPFUL.
>> WE WILL CALL THIS ONE FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL VOTE AND BRING IT
BACK UP ON THE 25th.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WILL
REQUIRE A LOT OF TIME AND
ATTENTION.
HOPEFULLY, WE CAN WORK OUT
SOMETHING IN THE INTERVENING
FEW WEEKS.
ITEM B3?
>> SO, THE PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF
COUNCIL HAS PAYMENT AMOUNTS
THAT ARE DERIVED FROM THE
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS.
AND THOSE PAYMENT AMOUNTS ARE
BASED ON MARKET DAY A ABOUT A
YEAR-AND-A-HALF OR SO OLD.
CAP RATES IN RENTS.
CAPITALIZATION RATES HAVE
CHANGED.
AMENDMENT B3 WOULD ESTABLISH A
DATE OF THIS SUMMER FOR
UPDATING THOSE PAYMENT AMOUNTS.
JULY 1, 2019 DATE.
AND THE SAME VEIN AS B1 AND B2.
THIS WOULD BE DONE THROUGH AN
AMENDMENT IN THE FRAME WORK
ORDINANCE WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
COUNCIL'S INTENT FOR
IMPLEMENTING MHA.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> THANK YOU.
SO, THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE
CONVERSATION WE JUST HAD ABOUT
TRYING TO GET THE RIGHT
BALANCING POINT TO ENCOURAGE
THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF PERFORMANCE
AND ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY THAT
THE MONEY GOES OFF THE HOUSING
WITH HAS MORE FLEXIBILITY.
THE REALITY OF COURSE IS THE
MARKET IS CONTINUALLY CHANGING.
THIS PROCESS HAS TAKEN LONGER
THAN WE ANTICIPATED.
SOME OF THE BASELINE AMOUNTS WE
ARE CHARGING ARE BASED ON SOME
DATA THAT IS STARTING TO GET A
LITTLE OLD.
I'M NOT PROPOSING THAT WE MAKE
THE CHANGES IN THIS PROCESS
BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL TAKE A
LITTLE LONGER FOR US TO DO A
LITTLE MORE ANALYSIS.
BUT I WOULD LOVE TO GET THAT
DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THE
IDEA WOULD BE SOME TIME IN THE
NEXT FEW MONTHS BY JULY 1, TO
HAVE THAT ANALYSIS DONE AND MY
PROPOSAL IS WE WOULD ACT PRETTY
SWIFTLY TO UPDATE THOSE
AMOUNTS.
UP TO THE LATEST MEASURE OF
MARKET CONDITIONS AS KIND OF
REESTABLISHING A NEW BASELINE.
>> I AM SIGNALING MY SUPPORT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
GREAT.
WE WILL CALL THAT A CONSENSUS
POSITION FOR THE 25th.
B WILL?
>> YEAH.
ONE THING, STAYS ON B3 FOR A
MINUTE, THE AMENMENT
CONTEMPLATES THE COUNCIL
LOOKING AT THE BOUNDARIES
BETWEEN HIGH, MEDIUM, AND LOW
AREAS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
REVIEW.
MOVING ONTO B4.
>> SORRY.
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> JUST REMIND FOLKS THAT THE
HIGH, MEDIUM, AND LOW AREAS
WEREN'T JUST KIND OF RANDOM
COLORS ON THE MAP.
THEY ARE COST OF HOUSING IN
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WILL SHIFT.
A SIMILAR THOUGHT PROCESS FOR
ME.
IT HAS BEEN A FEW YEARS SO
LET'S GO AHEAD AND UPDATE THAT
IF WE HAVE NEW DATA.
IT IS POSSIBLE SOME OF THE
BOUNDARIES MAY HAVE SHIFTED.
>> OTHER THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS
ABOUT THAT?
>> I MAY WANT TO JUST FOLLOW UP
WITH THE SPONSOR AND THE CHAIR
ON THIS AMENDMENT IN THE
INTERIM.
I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
AND, NOT NECESSARILY CONCERNS
THAT WOULD INDICATE THE PULL IF
OTHER FOLKS WERE COMFORTABLE
WITH IT.
>> SO, AMENDMENT B4, THIS IS AN
AMENDMENT COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
IS COSPONSORING.
THE NOTION BEING THAT
DEVELOPERS COULD PARTNER WITH A
NONPROFIT TO DEVELOP SOME
PORTION OF THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OFF SITE.
UNDER THE FRAMEWORK, OFF SITE
PERFORMANCE IS ALLOWED UNDER
THE MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM.
IN RECOGNITION DEVELOPERS OF
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ARE NOT
NECESSARILY IN THE BUSINESS OF
BILLING HOUSING.
THIS WOULD USE THE SAME
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT
APPLY TO THE MHAC OFF SITE
PERFORMANCES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> SURE, THE ONLY DISTINCTION
IS IN THE WRITTEN VERSION OF
THE DESCRIPTION IS THAT IN
ORDER FOR OFF SITE PERFORMANCE
TO BE PERMITTED, THERE HAS TO
BE A PARTNERSHIP WITH A
NONPROFIT DEVELOPER TO ACT AS A
STEWARD OF THOSE UNITS.
THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY
OFF SITE PERFORMANCE TYPICALLY,
WE DON'T TYPICALLY USE IT FOR
MHAR.
BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY OH
HAS IN MONITORING THE
AFFORDABILITY OF THOSE UNITS
BUT IN THOSE CASES WHERE THERE
IS A NONPROFIT STEWARD OF THOSE
UNITS, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS WOULD
BE AN APPROPRIATE OPTION.
>> AND, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF
POINTS THAT FEEL LIKE IT IS
IMPORTANT TO MAKE AS PART OF
THIS DISCUSSION IN SIGNALING MY
SUPPORT HERE.
ONE OF THE REPORTS IS THE OFF
SITE PERFORMANCES INTENDED TO
BE WITHIN THE SAME AREA.
SO URBAN CENTER, URBAN VILLAGE.
WITHIN A MILE OF THE PROJECT.
AND, THE DEVELOPER CHOOSING AN
OFF SITE PERFORMANCE OPTION HAS
TO PROVIDE A SECURITY EQUAL TO
THE IN LIEU PAYMENT SO IF THE
AGREEMENT THEY HAVE WITH THE
HOUSING DEVELOPER WERE TO FALL
THROUGH, THAT WE WOULD HAVE
SOME SECURITY WE WOULD STILL
HAVE THE SAME FUNDS AVAILABLE
TO US TO DELIVER THE UNITS WE
WERE PROMISED.
THOSE ARE TWO IMPORTANT POINTS
AND PUT ME IN FAVOR OF THIS
ONE.
SO PLEASE ADD ME AS A
COSPONSOR.
AND COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA AND
GONZALEZ.
WE WILL CALL THAT A CONSENSUS
ITEM FOR THE 25th.
B5?
>> B5, THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
WAIVE MHS REQUIREMENTS FOR
MASONRY BUILDINGS TO ADD UNITS
TO EXISTING BUILDING THE THEY
QUALIFY FOR THE 2030 DISTRICT
CHALLENGE PILOT MEETING CERTAIN
EFFICIENTLY GOALS AND OTHER
GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS.
SO, WHAT THE 2030 DISTRICT
PILOT DOES IS IT ALLOWS
BUILDINGS IN CERTAIN
GEOGRAPHIES THAT ARE
UNREENFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS
TO ADD ADDITIONAL FLOORS TO THE
EXISTING BUILDING IF THEY ARE
MEETING THIS GREEN BUILDING
STANDARD.
WHAT THIS AFENDMENT WOULD DO,
IF YOU ARE CONVERTING THE
ADDITIONAL PORTION OF THE
BUILDING TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS,
IF YOU ARE GOING A CONVERSE TO
AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, MHS
APPLIES SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO
CONTRIBUTE TO MHA WITH
AFFORDABLE UNITS OR PAYING IN.
THIS WOULD NOT APPLY THE MHA
REQUIREMENTS TO THE EXISTING
BUILDING IN RECOGNITION THAT
THE COST OF THE GREEN BUILDING
STANDARDS AS WELL AS THE COST
OF DOING THE STRUCTURAL RETRO
FIT TO MAKE THAT BUILDING MORE
EARTHQUAKE SAFE.
IS A HIGH ENOUGH BAR.
BUT YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
CONTRIBUTE TO MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY.
SO ANY NEW FLOOR AREA YOU ARE
ADDING ABOVE THE EXISTING
BUILDING YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED
TO CONTRIBUTE TO MHA.
THE EXISTING BUILDING WOULD BE
EXEMPT IF YOU ARE DOING ALL OF
THOSE OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD MY NAME
TO THIS.
I ALSO WANT TO REMIND ALL OF US
THAT THIS UNREENFORCED MASONRY
IS AN ISSUE WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON A NUMBER OF YEARS.
THERE IS LEGISLATION THAT WOULD
HELP.
SOMETHING CALLED THE PACER
FINANCING PROCESS.
THAT IS PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN
ENERGY RESILIENCY PROGRAM.
SO, THERE MAY BE MONEYS
AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE WHO OWN
THESE BUILDINGS AS AN INCENTIVE
TO RESTORE THEM BACK FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I SENT THAT TO MAKE SURE THEY
KNOW IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS
IMPORTANT TO US AS WELL.
>> AND I THINK THAT WAS COUNCIL
PRESIDENT ASKING TO BE LIST AS
A COSPONSOR.
AND COUNCIL MEMBER GONZALEZ.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS?
MOSQUEDA AS WELL.
WE WILL CALL THAT A CONSENSUS
AGENDA ITEM.
B6?
>> THIS IS COSPONSOR BY
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
EXPRESSING COUNCIL'S INTENT TO
TAKE STEPS IF THE REQUIREMENTS
ARE DETERMINED TO BE UNLAWFUL
TO PROEVENT THE CONTINUANCE OF
THE NEW ZONING IN THE ABSENCE
OF OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS.
IF THE MHA REQUIREMENTS
COULDN'T MOVE FORWARD, THEY
WOULD TAKE ADDITIONAL ACTION TO
REQUIRE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
USING A DIFFERENT APPROACH.
OR, RETHINKING THE UP ZONES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> THIS JUST UNDERSCORES THE
INTENT OF THE LEGISLATION AS
DESCRIBED ON PAGE 2 OF THE
CENTRAL STAFF MEMO IN EXCHANGE
FOR THE ABILITY TO BUILD
ADDITIONAL FLOORS.
FLOOR AREA OR UNITS AREAS
REZONED WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
INCLUDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNITS TO BUILD AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS.
SO AGAIN, THE REASON FOR THE
INCREASED ZONING CAPACITY IS TO
ALLOW US TO EXTRACT THE
CONTRIBUTION TOWARD AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
IF WE CANNOT COLLECT THE
CONTRIBUTION FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, FOR SOME REASON, IN
THE FUTURE, WE REALLY NEED TO
RETHINK THE BARGAIN THAT IS
IMPLICIT IN THIS LEGISLATION.
>> AND I THINK.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> YOU KNOW, THIS IS A SIMILAR
PROVISION WE ADOPTED IN
PREVIOUS ZONING CHANGES.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT HARRELL IS A
COSPONSOR.
C1.
>> MR. PRESIDENT?
>> SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
>> IF IT IS THE CONSENT OF THIS
BODY TO INCLUDE IT I WILL NOT
ARGUE IT SHOULD BE PULLED OUT
BUT I THINK IT SETS A BAD
PRECEDENT.
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CALL
INTO QUESTION SOMETHING THAT
HAS BEEN DEEMED NOT LEGAL.
I AM NOT GOING TO SUGGEST THIS
GET PULLED OUT, BUT I DON'T
WANT US TO GO DOWN THE ROAD OF
SETTING THIS PRECEDENT.
>> C1.
>>> THE CITY USES A SET OF
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHERE
A ZONE IS IS APPROPRIATE.
MANY OF THOSE INCLUDE TRANSIT
SERVICE.
THIS AMENDMENT USES TERM
FREQUENT TRANSIT SERVICE THAT
IS 15 MINUTES OR MORE IN AN
HOUR.
>> D1.
SO THESE LAST TWO ARE
AMENDMENTS TO COUNCIL BILL
119143 WHICH AMENDS THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE FIRST ONE IS FREMONT
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN POLICY.
THIS POLICY CURRENTLY REFERS TO
AN AREA WITHIN THE WALLINGFORD
URBAN VILLAGE.
IT DOES SO ASKING FOR THE
RETENTION OF THE AREA.
IT TALKS ABOUT PRESERVING THE
CHARACTER OF EXISTING FAMILY
AREAS.
THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE
EXECUTIVE, THIS POLICY WOULD
SHIFT ITS FOCUS FROM AN AREA IN
THE WALLINGFORD TO THE FREMONT
URBAN VILLAGE.
THEY DON'T HAVE ANY SINGLE
FAMILY ZONING SO THE PROPOSE
POLICY DOESN'T RELATE WELL TO
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FREMONT
URBAN VILLAGE.
THIS PROPOSES TO RELY ON
WALLINGFORD NEIGHBORHOOD
PLANNED POLICIES TO GUIDE CITY
ACTION IN THE WALLINGFORD URBAN
VILLAGE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> I WILL PROFESS TO BE A
PROFESSIONAL.
BUT THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT SEEMS
TO BE THAT THERE IS AN INTEREST
TO JUST KIND OF CLARIFY.
THE UNDERLYING LEGISLATION
MAINTAINING A REFERENCE TO
SINGLE FAMILY AREAS WITHIN THE
FREMONT SEEMED TO BE
SUPERFLUOUS.
>> NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE
WILL CALL THAT A CONSENSUS.
>> B2 IS THE MORGAN JUNCTION
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN POLICY.
SO, THERE WERE SOME REVISIONS
TO THE PLANS IN RESPONSE TO
COMMUNITY INTEREST.
THIS IS AN AMENDMENT.
THIS LANGUAGE IN THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT MORE REFLECTS WHAT
THE COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE
IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> THIS ESTABLISHING A TRIGGER
FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING WHEN
25% OR MORE OF THE LAND WITHIN
THE URBAN VILLAGE CREATES A
TRIGGER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD
PLANNING PROCESS.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT ONE?
WE WILL CALL THAT A CONSENSUS
AGENDA ITEM.
ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD BEFORE WE
MOVE ONTO THE MAP RELATED
AMENDMENTS AND OTHER TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS?
>> NO.
JUST I GUESS AT THE MEETING ON
THE 25th THERE WILL BE CLEANUP
INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CONSENT
PACKAGE.
>> AS A REMINDER FOR MY
COLLEAGUES, THE WAY WE PLAN TO
HANDLE THAT CONSENT PACKAGE IS
TO BASICALLY WALK THE COUNCIL
THROUGH THAT CONSENT PACKAGE AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE
DELIBERATIONS.
AND ALLOW ANY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER
FOR ANY REASON TO PULL ANY ITEM
FROM THAT CONSENT PACKAGE FOR
INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION AND
VOTES.
SO, JUST BECAUSE IT IS A
CONSENT ITEM TODAY DOESN'T MEAN
YOU DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PULL IT OUT FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL VOTE ON THE 25th.
YOU'LL STILL HAVE THAT
OPPORTUNITY.
WE WILL TRANSITION NOW TO THE
MAP AMENDMENTS AND WE WILL GO
THROUGH IN ORDER BY DISTRICT
WITH THE SAME PROCESS AS
BEFORE.
ENTRAL STAFFERS WALKING PEOPLE
THROUGH THE CHANGE.
ASK THE SPONSOR IF THEY WANT TO
ADD ANYTHING.
ASK OUNCES IF IF THEY HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE IS ABOUT 60 OF THOSE.
WE ARE RUNNING PRETTY FAST A
PACE, BUILDING STANDARDS I
WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO TRY TO BE
FOCUSED IN OUR DISCUSSIONS.
I KNOW MANY FOLKS HAVE
LUNCHTIME EVENTS THEY NEED TO
TRY TO ATTEND.
ANY OPENING REMARKS ON THE MAP
ORIENTATION?
>> LY TURN IT TO MY COLLEAGUE
WHO WILL DO A QUICK DESCRIPTION
OF HOW TO READ THEM AND
DESCRIBE THEM.
>> SO, I AM STILL ERIC AND I
STILL WORK FOR YOU.
SO, EACH OF THE PAGES IS
FORMATTED MORE OR LESS THE SAME
WAY.
SAME COLORS.
SAME STYLES, SAME LINES ON THE
MAP.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS IN THE
UPPER LEFT OF THE MAP FRAME IN
THAT SORT OF FONT AND STYLE.
THE MHS PROPOSED DESIGNATION IN
THE BILL, THE AMENDMENT NUMBER.
IT IS 11.
STREETS ARE SHOWN, SORT OF SELF-
EXPLANATORY.
YOU CAN SEE THE THIN OUTLINES
OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARCELS WHERE
THERE ARE SPACES BETWEEN THE
PARCELS FOR FOLKS THAT MIGHT
NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH LOOKING AT
MAPS OF THIS TYPE.
THAT'S THE RIGHT OF WAY WHERE
YOU SEE ROADS SOUTHWEST
CARROLL.
YOU WILL SEE THE CURRENT
ZONING.
SORT OF FROM WHAT'S ON THE
GROUND NOW.
YOU WILL SEE WHAT IS PROPOSED
ON THE BILL.
THE ZONING ABOVE THE LINE AND
BELOW THE LINE TO THE RIGHT,
YOU WILL SEE THE AMENDMENT
REPRESENTED ON THE PAGE.
THERE'S A DESCRIPTION IN THIS
CASE.
THAT IS A QUICK SENTENCE OR SO
TO GIVE A LITTLE MORE MEANING
TO IT.
FINALLY WANTED TO TOUCH ON SOME
OF THESE AMENDMENTS TO ZONING
WOULD REQUIRE A CORRESPONDING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENMENT.
AND THAT IS NOTED EITHER AS NO
OR YES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE
PAGE.
THIS IS MEANT TO BE HELPFUL.
WE WILL SEE A LOT OF PAGES LIKE
THIS AND HOPEFULLY IT WILL HELP
FOLKS REVIEWING THIS VIDEO
LATER.
SORT OF KEEP UP WITH WHAT'S
HAPPENING.
>> QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAP OR
LEGEND?
>> WE WILL START WITH
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD'S
DISTRICT.
>> 11, SO, THE EXISTING ZONINGS
LR3RC PROPOSED TO JUST GET THE
M BUMP.
BUT THE REQUEST IS FOR THERE TO
BE NO REZONE.
SO DO NOT APPLY MHA TO THIS
SITE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> THIS IS AN UNUSUAL SITUATION
IN THAT THE ONLY REASON THAT WE
ARE REQUESTING THIS AMENDMENT
IS BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY SMALL
AREA THAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED,
LR3 SURROUNDED BY LR2, LR1.
AND LR2 ZONES.
AND SO, THE WAY THAT THE
COMMUNITY HAS PROPOSED TO HAVE
THE HEIGHT CONSISTENT WITH THE
REST OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS
IS TO NOT PROPOSE THE M BUMP.
THIS IS THE CURRENT LOCATION.
THIS IS A REQUEST FROM THE
SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
>> QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ONE?
COLLEAGUES?
I'M GOING TO EXPRESS
RESERVATIONS ON THIS
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
WE HAVE TRIED REALLY HARD TO
ENSURE THAT MHA IS APPLIED IN
ALL THE PLACES WHERE IT IS
APPLIED.
I THINK WE WILL GET TO A POINT
LATER ON WHERE I MIGHT ARGUE
AGAINST MY OWN POSITION RIGHT
THERE.
AT THIS POINT, I WOULD SIGNAL
I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THIS
AMENDMENT BUT I WILL NOT STAND
IN THE WAY OF IT BEING INCLUDED
IN THE CONSENT PACKAGE BECAUSE
OF THE SMALL NATURE OF THIS AND
THE FACT I WILL BE MAKING IT
INTELLECTUALLY.
PLEASE COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> MOSTLY EXCITED TO HEAR ABOUT
YOUR ARGUMENT COMING UP.
I WILL BE PAYING ATTENTION.
>> SO WOULD THIS LEAVE AN HR3
WITHOUT THEM.
THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY PLACE IN
THE CITY WHERE THAT WOULD
EXIST?
>> THERE WOULD BE OTHER PLACES
TOO.
SO MHA IS NOT BEING IMPLEMENTED
IN OTHER OVERLAYS.
THE UNDERLYING ZONING WOULD BE
THE LR3 ZONED AREAS AS WELL.
>> IN ADDITION, MOST HISTORIC
DISTRICTS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED
FROM THE MHA PROPOSAL.
>> AND THERE IS LOW RISE
ZONING.
>> THANK YOU.
I'M SORRY?
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I JUST HAVE A GENERAL COMMENT.
AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE COUNCIL
MEMBER FROM DISTRICT ONE.
THIS IS A COMMENT I WOULD LIKE
TO MAKE FOR THE VARIOUS MAP
AMENDMENTS.
I WILL BE CONCERNED WITH
AMENDMENTS INDICATING IF WE
WILL DOWN ZONE OR UP ZONE.
I THINK THAT IN EVERY
OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE TO
EXPAND HOUSING TO OPPORTUNITY
RICH THRIVING VILLAGES I WOULD
LIKE TO SEE US TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF THAT AND I HAVE RESERVES
ABOUT REDUCEING THE CAPACITY TO
INCREASE OUR ABILITY TO SERVE
FOLKS IN THE TYPE OF PLACES WE
ARE LOOKING AT IN URBAN
VILLAGES THAT COULD OFFER MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO VARIOUS
AREAS OF THE CITY.
SO, JUST ON PRINCIPLE STANCE, I
JUST WANT TO SIGNAL TO MY
COLLEAGUES AS A CITY WIDE
COUNCIL MEMBER, I FEEL IT IS MY
DUTY TO LOOK AT THIS ENTIRE
PACKAGE AS A WHOLE.
I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY THAT WE
HAVE DISTRICTS THAT HAVE
SPECIFIC CONCERNS AND I
APPRECIATE THAT.
I WANT TO LOOK AT HOW WE CAN
CONTINUE TO EXPAND AUXESES TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR
THRIVING URBAN VILLAGES.
OF THE 50 OR SO MAP AMENDMENTS.
ABOUT 35 OF THEM APPEAR TO
REDUCE THE ZONING CHANGES.
IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE UNITS
AND THE NUMBERS THOUGH I AM
VERY INTERESTED IF WE HAVE
EXAMPLES OF THE NUMBER OF
HOUSES OR A NUMBER OF UNITS WE
WOULD NOT HAVE BECAUSE I THINK
THAT TRANSLATES TO A NUMBER OF
PEOPLE THAT WOULD NOT BE LIVING
IN THOSE AREAS.
I APPRECIATE THAT MANY PEOPLE
HAVE HAD TOUGH DISCUSSIONS
WITHIN THEIR DISTRICT.
THEY KNOW THERE ARE MEMBERS IN
DISTRICTS AS WELL.
WE HAVE BEEN OUT IN DISTRICT AS
WELL.
WE HAVE TRIED TO PUSH THE
LIMITS ON WHAT WE COULD DO.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE ARE
CONSTRAINED WITH WHAT WE
CURRENTLY HAVE.
SO I WILL EXPRESS CONCERNs AS
WE GO THROUGH IF WE ARE GOING
TO BE SCALING DOWN WHAT WE
COULD BE DOING UNDER THE IS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> I WANT TO ECHO COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA'S CONCERNS.
I AGREE WITH THE INTENT.
I KNOW THERE ARE SOME AREAS
ACROSS THE CITY AND I
UNDERSTAND COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD REPRESENTS DISTRICT ONE
AND I REPRESENT DISTRICT 5. I
LOOK AT THE ISSUES IN THE
DENSITY AND HOW WE LOOK AND
GROW OUR CITY THAT WE CERTAINLY
LOOK AT IT THROUGH A
DISPLACEMENT LENS THAT HAS NOT
AND EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IS
DIFFERENT.
BUT I'M HOPING THAT IN THESE
DISCUSSIONS WE DON'T JUST FIND
OURSELVES CARVING OUT PLACES
WHERE PEOPLE POLITICALLY THINK
IT IS NOT VIABLE TO MAKE
CHANGE.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT FOR THE CITY.
WE UNDERSTAND HOW THE CITY WAS
DELIBERATELY RELINED AND
CONSTRUCTED TO KEEP PARTICULAR
PEOPLE IN NEIGHBORHOODS OUT OF
PARTICULAR AREAS.
I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ,
NEXT.
O'BRIEN AND HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU.
I ALSO HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT
THE SUITE OF DISTRICT ONE
PROPOSED AMENMENTS.
AT THIS POINT, I DON'T THINK I
CAN SUPPORT MANY, IF ANY OF
THESE.
FIVE OF THE 11 AMENDMENTS BEING
PROPOSED ARE ACTUALLY IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE I LIVE IN
THE WEST SEATTLE JUNCTION URBAN
VILLAGE.
SO I CONTINUE TO HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT NOT BEING WILLING TO
ADVANCE FULL DENSITY IN A SPACE
LIKE THE WEST SEATTLE JUNCTION
URBAN VILLAGE WHICH IS A HIGH
OPPORTUNITY AREA AND LOW RISK
OF DISPLACEMENT.
AND I THINK IT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT FOR US TO TAKE A
STRONG STANCE IN THOSE
PARTICULAR CONTEXT TO ENSURE WE
ARE ALLOWING SPACE FOR OTHERS
WHO HAVE NOT HAD HISTORICAL
ACCESS TO THOSE TYPES OF
NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE ABLE TO
BECOME MY NEIGHBORS AND I FEEL
LIKE THAT IS AN IMPORTANT VALUE
AND CONCEPT HERE.
I APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD'S DESIRE TO GO A LITTLE
SLOWER IN THE SMALL LOT
APPROACH.
I THINK WHERE I HAVE THE
DIFFICULTY IS THAT WE END UP
ASKING FOR LESS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN ORDER TO GET THOSE
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOTS AND I
FEEL A SENSE OF URGENCY AROUND
GETTING AS MUCH AS WE CAN FROM
THESE UP ZONES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> I CONCUR WITH THE LAST THREE
COLLEAGUES.
IF YOU ARE COUNTING THOSE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, I
IMAGINE MANY OF THOSE SAME
CONCERNS WILL BE LEVELED
AGAINST ME IN JUST A FEW
MINUTES WHEN WE GET TO DISTRICT
4 SO I DON'T WANT YOU TO FEEL
PICKED ON.
>> WE HAVEN'T YET MOVED INTO
THE SET OF AMENDMENTS.
I WANT TO SPEAK GENERALLY ABOUT
HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE.
THE FOLKS IN THE CITY AND IN
PARTICULAR IN MY DISTRICT WHO
ARE EMBRACING RSL.
THAT IS A HUGE JUMP FROM WHERE
WE WERE JUST SIX MONTHS AGO.
AND, I THINK WE ARE
UNDERESTIMATING HOW BIG OF A
CULTURE SHIFT THAT IS AND HOW
BOLD OUR ACTION IS THAT WE ARE
CONTEMPLATING TAKING.
IF RSL HAS DONE WELL AND
SUCCEEDS IN URBAN VILLAGES, WE
CAN PRODUCTIVELY IN
COLLABORATION WITH COMMUNITIES
WHO ARE IN SINGLE FAMILY
OUTSIDE OF URBAN VILLAGES
PROMOTE A CONTINUED DISCUSSION
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RSL IN
OTHER PLACES.
IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT GOING SLOW
FOR GROWTH.
IT IS ABOUT BRINGING PEOPLE
INTO THIS CONVERSATION.
ABOUT THIS CULTURE SHIFT.
AND ABOUT THE FACT THAT AGAIN,
WE HAVE COMMUNITIES OF PEOPLE
WHO COMPLETELY OPPOSE ANY
CHANGES TO SINGLE FAMILY AND I
DON'T WANT TO SELL THAT
ACCOMPLISHMENT SHORT.
I THINK IT IS A DOWN PAYMENT
TOWARD LEVERAGING MORE
PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS
OUTSIDE OF URBAN VILLAGES.
I ALSO WANT TO DISTRIBUTE JUST
A VISUAL ILLUSTRATION OF HOW
RSL WILL TRANSFORM SINGLE
FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IN A WAY
THAT I REALLY BELIEVE IS
SIGNIFICANT.
SO, I WANT TO SPEAK
SPECIFICALLY TO THE JUNCTION
AMENDMENTS AFTER THEY ARE
DESCRIBED BUT THAT IS JUST SORT
OF IN GENERAL MY POSITION ON
THE FRAMEWORK AND POSITIVE
PROGRESS THAT WE ARE MAKING
WITH THIS NEW RSL MODEL.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
PLEASE.
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ?
>> I TRUST THAT WE ARE GOING TO
BE ABLE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO DISCUSS THIS MORE IN THE
FUTURE.
AND MAYBE EVEN SHORTLY.
I WANT TO SAY THAT I DON'T WANT
MY COMMENTS TO BE CONSTRUED AS
A SORT OF REJECTION OF SOME OF
THE GOODWILL THAT YOU HAVE
DESCRIBED.
BUT, I DO THINK THAT THIS IS A
MOMENT IN TIME AND THIS IS A
VERY UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
CITY TO BE BOLD IN TERMS OF ITS
EFFORTS AND VISION AROUND
INCREASING DENSITY IN URBAN
VILLAGES AND THIS IS I THINK
THAT MOMENT IN TIME.
AND I FEEL AS THOUGH WE DON'T
HAVE THE LUXURY OF TIME TO
CONTINUE TO WAIT TO BRING FOLKS
ALONG AND WE HAVE BEEN HAVING
THIS DISCUSSION FOR YEARS IN
THIS CITY.
WITH LOTS OF OUTREACH.
LOTS OF ENGAGEMENT.
I THINK MS. ROXANA HAS MORE
GRAY HAIR THAN WHEN SHE
STARTED.
I CERTAINLY DO.
AND I FEEL LIKE THIS IS THE
MOMENT OF TIME FOR US TO MOVE
THIS IMPORTANT POLICY FORWARD
IN A WAY THAT IS BOLD.
VISIONARY, AND ACCOMPLISHES THE
ULTIMATE GOAL OF BUILDING MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THAT IS THE GOAL, FOR ME,
THAT'S THE NORTH STAR IS HOW DO
WE ENSURE AS WE DEVELOP DENSITY
IT MEETS CHARACTER OF
NEIGHBORHOOD?
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, I GUESS WHAT I
HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH IS SORT OF
THE CONSTRUCT THAT THE ANSWER
TO MAKING SURE THAT
NEIGHBORHOODS ARE LIVABLE IS
JUST TO LEAVE THEM THE SAME
WAY.
AND SO, I AGREE.
BUT I THINK THAT RSL IS IN MY
MIND, DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH TO
BE ABLE TO MEET THE CHALLENGES
WE ARE HAVING WITH AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
WE NEED MORE UNITS TO BE BUILT
O ALLOW MORE PEOPLE TO
THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND SO, I FEEL REALLY STRONGLY
THIS IS THAT MOMENT IN TIME AND
OUR OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE
BOLD ACTION TO ADVANCE THIS.
>> I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY
THAT REASONABLE MINDS CAN COME
TO SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
CONCLUSIONS ON THIS.
AND, WE ALL WANT TO BE INFORMED
BY DATA.
AT THE CONCLUSION OF THESE MAP
PRESENTATIONS YOU WILL HEAR A
LITTLE FROM CENTRAL STAFF ABOUT
THE TOTALITY OF THE AMENDMENTS
WHICH I ASSUME IS GOING TO BE
IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR OUR CITY
WIDE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO
UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSALS.
I APPRECIATE THE RECOGNITION
THAT THREE YEARS WORTH OF
MEETINGS, 40 SOME OF WHICH WERE
LED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
HAS RESULTED IN A SET OF
CHANGES GETTINGEST CLEAR TO THE
FINISH LINE.
AND THAT IS A TESTAMENT TO I
THINK TO THE PERSEVERANCE OF US
AND MANY COMMUNITIES.
WE ARE GETTING THERE.
IF THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER.
PROCESS QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
YOU MENTIONED AT THE END WE
WILL TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT
THE TYPE OF DATA AND IMPACT
ANALYSIS COMPLETE.
IS IT FAIR TO SAY AS WE GO
DISTRICT BY DISTRICT WE DON'T
YET HAVE A FULL ASSESSMENT OF
THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS OR
HOUSES THAT WOULD BE REDUCED SO
WE DON'T HAVE A NET IMPACT OF
EACH DISTRICT AS WE GO THROUGH
WITH THE PROPOSALS DO WE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
WE WERE WAITING TO GET THE SET
OF AMENDMENTS THAT WERE
SPONSORED AND THEN, WE WILL BE
LOOKING AT THE POTENTIAL
IMPACTS OF THE AMENDMENTS TAKEN
AS A WHOLE WOULD HAVE ON THE
OVERALL HOUSING PRODUCTIONS AN
WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO SOME
ANALYSIS OF BREAKING THAT DOWN.
THE MORE THAT BREAKS DOWN, THE
LESS PRECISE IT BECOMES.
>> THAT'S HELPFUL.
AND I THINK THAT JUST GOES
FURTHER TO UNDERSCORE THE POINT
I STARTED WITH, WHICH IS
PERHAPS THIS IS WORTH THE
POLICY DISCUSSION AND PERHAPS
IT IS WORTH WEIGHING VARIOUS
CONSIDERATIONS.
WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE UP FOR
DECADES OF LOST TIME.
AND HISTORICAL WRONGS.
TO UNDERSCORE THE POINT IS
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE DON'T
HAVE THE DATA.
THAT IS NOT ON YOU.
WE ARE WORKING AS FAST AS WE
CAN TO GET THE AMENDMENTS
TOGETHER BUT IT IS IMPERATIVE
TO KNOW THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE
VARIOUS AMENDMENTS ESPECIALLY
IF IT RESULTS IN REDUCED HOMES.
>> WHAT WE DO HAVE IS ANALYSIS
THAT THE EXECUTIVE DID BASED ON
A REQUEST FROM COUNCIL
PREVIOUSLY FROM A SELECT
COMMITTEE MEETING.
WHAT IF IT WAS MODIFIED TO ONLY
APPLY AND LEVEL BUMPS
EVERYWHERE IN THE CITY.
SO, NO M1 OR M2 BUMPS ANYWHERE.
AS WELL AS LOOKING AT WHAT IF
THEY WERE APPLIED IN SINGLE
FAMILY ZONES WHICH MEANS ALL
SINGLE FAMILY ZONES WITHIN THE
STUDY WOULD GO TO RSL.
WE HAVE THAT ANALYSIS.
AND I HAVE BROKEN THAT DOWN BY
URBAN VILLAGE THAT I CAN
DISTRIBUTE AFTER THIS MEETING
BUT THAT DOESN'T -- THAT IS NOT
A ONE FOR ONE COMPARISON TO THE
PACKAGES PRESENTED HERE TODAY.
>> THAT'S THE INFORMATION I
PROVIDED LAST NIGHT.
AND AS ALY IS SAYING, THE
NUMBER FOR ALL OF THE SINGLE
FAMILY TO GO TO RSL WAS A 37
UNITS AND AS YOU WILL SEE WHEN
WE GO INTO IT, THE AMENDMENTS
PROPOSED DO NOT CONVERT ALL
SINGLE FAMILY TO RSL.
SOME OF THE SINGLE FAMILY IS
MAINTAINED AT WHAT WAS
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED SO IT WILL
BE A SLIGHTLY LOWER NUMBER THAN
THE 37 UNITS.
>> THAT WAS MAP 1-1. OF ABOUT
60.
SO LET'S MOVE A LITTLE MORE
QUICKLY THROUGH THE NEXT 59.
1-2?
>> SO 1-2-1-6 ARE THE SINGLE
FAMILY ZONES WITHIN THE WEST
SEATTLE JUNCTION.
SO, THE REQUEST WAS FOR, WE
UNDERSTOOD FOR ALL THE SINGLE
FAMILY AREAS WITHIN THE WEST
SEATTLE JUNCTION TO BE.
THE MHA PROPOSAL WAS FOR THOSE
TO GO TO LR1 OR LR2 WHICH WOULD
BE AN M1 OR M2 BUMP DOWN TO RSL
TO THE M BUTCH.
>> MY REVIEW OF THE MAP OF THE
ENTIRE AREA ZOOMED IN, I DON'T
THINK IT IS FOR ALL OF THE
SINGLE FAMILY AREAS.
THERE ARE SOME SINGLE FAMILY
AREAS THAT THERE IS NO
AMENDMENT PROPOSED.
WITHIN THE URBAN VILLAGE.
>> WE CAN PROVIDE THAT
INFORMATION.
>> SO AS IT RELATES
SPECIFICALLY TO THESE
AMENDMENTS, WE KNOW SOUND
TRANSIT THREE HAS IDENTIFIED
THE WEST SEATTLE JUNCTION AS
THE LOCATION OF FUTURE LIGHT
RAIL STATION.
THE SPECIFICS OF THE STATION
AND SPECIFIC ALIGNMENT AND THE
NECESSARY PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS
HAS NOT YET BEEN DECIDED.
THE COMMUNITY HAS EXPRESSED
STRONG SUPPORT FOR ADDITIONAL
ZONING CHANGES TO ACCOMMODATE
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN
STATION LOCATION HAS BEEN
IDENTIFIED.
OPCD HAS COMMITTED TO THE
JUNCTION AND TO ME AND THE
COUNCIL IN A REPORT RESPONDING
TO LEGISLATIVE INTENT RELATED
TO NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING,
PRIORITIES THAT THEY WILL BEGIN
A NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS
TO IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL ZONING
CAPACITY.
THEY WILL BEGIN IN EARNEST NEXT
YEAR AND START HAVING
DISCUSSIONS THIS YEAR THOUGH.
AN ADDITIONAL CONCERN IS UP
ZONING PROPERTIES LIKELY NEEDED
FOR LIGHT RAIL FOR STAGING OR
ACQUISITION BECAUSE THE
PROPERTIES ARE IN THE FOOTPRINT
OF THE ALIGNMENT, WILL
POTENTIALLY INCREASE THE COST
OF SOUND TRANSIT 3. THEY ARE
UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE,
WHEN DOING CONDEMNATIONS OF
PROPERTIES, THEY HAVE TO PAY
THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR THE
HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE
PROPERTY.
AND THAT IS GOING TO BE A VERY
DIFFERENT SUM OF DOLLARS
BETWEEN RSL AND A LOW RISE ONE
OR TWO.
AND LASTLY, AS WE MENTIONED
BEFORE, THE CENTRAL STAFF AS
IDENTIFIED THAT THE CHANGE IN
THE CURRENT SINGLE FAMILY AREAS
CHANGING IT ALL TO RSL WOULD BE
A POTENTIAL AFFORDABLE UNIT
COUNT OF 37 UNITS AND AGAIN, I
BELIEVE WE CAN MORE THAN MAKE
UP FOR THAT IN STATIONARY OF
PLANNING.
THAT THE COMMUNITY WILL BE
GETTING NEXT YEAR.
>> FURTHER THOUGHTS OR
QUESTIONS?
>> ONE BROAD COMMENT.
REFLECTION ON WHAT YOU SAID.
I APPRECIATE THE SENSITIVITY TO
SOUND TRANSIT.
COST AND EXPANSION.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE CHANGES,
YES, THERE IS ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY WHICH
WOULD LIKELY INCREASE THE
VALUE.
THERE IS ALSO A REQUIREMENT IN
SOME CASES WHERE WE ARE LOOKING
AT AN M2 BUMP.
A SIGNIFICANT REQUIREMENT THAT
THESE PROPERTIES HAVE TO
CONTRIBUTE TO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
THE ASSUMPTION IS THEY WILL BE
GETTING FAIRLY CLOSE TO
OFFSETTING.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I ACCEPT IT
THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY $20 A
SQUARE FOOT.
IT MAY NOT INCREASE THE VALUE.
I WANT TO SPEAK JUST FOR A
SECOND AS WE GET INTO THE SWEET
OF THESE THINGS, IF WE MAKE IT
THROUGH TO AMENDMENT 60 OR SO.
DOWN INTO MY DISTRICT, THERE IS
A NUMBER THERE AS WELL I WILL
ALSO BE PROPOSING SCALING BACK
SOME OF THE UP ZONE THAT IS
CURRENTLY SINGLE FAMILY
PROPOSED TO GO TO LOW RISE BACK
TO RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT.
AND I WANT TO SPEAK TO THREE
REALLY IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES
GUIDING ME IN THESE DECISIONS.
THAT I THINK ARE CONSISTENT IN
THE FRAME WORK AS WE HAVE BEEN
DISCUSSING A LONG TIME.
ONE IS ALL MULTITALLY AND
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY
WILL CONTRIBUTE TO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
AND THE PROPOSALS HERE, THE
AMENDMENTS DO THAT FOR SURE.
ANOTHER ONE IS THAT URBAN
VILLAGES ARE DRAWN IN A WAY
THEY REPRESENT APPROPRIATE WALK
SHED FOR FREQUENT RELIABLE
TRANSIT.
SO, THESE ARE THE AREAS WHERE
WE ARE WELL SERVED BY TRANSIT
AND WE WANT TO SEE ANYONE IN
THE WALK SHED OF THESE AREAS TO
BE IN THE URBAN VILLAGE.
SO, CONSISTENT WITH THAT ONE
TOO.
AND THE THIRD ONE IS THAT
WITHIN OUR URBAN VILLAGES THAT
SOMETHING MORE DENSE THAN THE
SINGLE FAMILY ZONE; NOT
CHANGING THAT.
IT MEANS MY THREE MAIN
REQUIREMENTS.
I TRIED TO BE SENSITIVE TO THIS
IN CROWN HILL.
WHICH IS THE AREA WHICH IS
ABOUT TRANSITION ZONES.
IN MY PROPOSAL WHERE WE SHIFTED
FROM LOW RISE BACK TO
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT TO LEAVE
BUFFERS BETWEEN NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT OF SOME LOW RISE.
AND LOOK AT SOME OF THE MAPS ON
HERE.
LIKE 1-5. I CAN SEE ALONG THE I
PRESUME THE NORTH SIDE, THERE
IS A PROPOSAL TO LEAVE A COUPLE
OF LOTS OF LOW RISE TWO AS A
BUFFER BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL.
ON THE WEST SIDE OF 42 AVENUE,
THERE IS THE PROPRO SAL TO GO
TO RSL ADJACENT 75 FEET.
I THINK AGAIN IT IS PRETTY
CHALLENGING TO DRAW THESE MAPS
BUT I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT
THE TRANSITION ZONES AND I'M
NOT PROPOSING ANYTHING CHANGING
AT THE MOMENT.
BUT I WOULD SPEAK TO BEING MORE
SUPPORTIVE IF THERE WERE LOW
RISE BUFFER BETWEEN COMMERCIAL
AND RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT.
>> WHAT I'M HEARING OUT OF THAT
CONVERSATION WHICH I HOPE WILL
INFORM FURTHER DISCUSSIONS IS
WHEN CENTRAL STAFFERS WALK
THROUGH A SUITE OF AMENDMENTS
RELATED TO ONE PARTICULAR
VILLAGE.
IF THERE IS A PROPOSAL, 1-5,
YOU MIGHT WANT TO SEE FURTHER
ANALYSIS ON, WE COULD PULL OUT
THAT INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL.
IN THE COURSE OF THAT
DISCUSSION, YOU DID NOT ASK FOR
THAT.
SO, MY RECOMMENDATION MOVING
FORWARD IS UNLESS THERE IS
OBJECTION, WE WILL CALL THE
WEST SEATTLE JUNCTION AMENDMENT
PART OF THE CONSENT PACKAGE.
IF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS WOULD
LIKE TO PULL OUT INDIVIDUAL
PARTS TO DISCUSS ON THE 25th,
THEY CAN DO SO.
BUT PLEASE, COUNCILMEMBER H
HERBOLD.
>> I WANT TO SIGNAL TALKING
MORE ABOUT 5 TO ADDRESS THE
BUFFER CONCERNS.
>> THAT WAS THE EXAMPLE IN
FRONT OF ME.
A NUMBER OF THEM HAVE SIMILAR
THINGS.
I WILL DEFER TO OTHER
COLLEAGUES TO SEE HOW STRONGLY
FOLKS FEEL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT.
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
ENTIRETY OF THE WORK YOU PUT
INTO THIS.
WE CAN SEE THE LIGHT AT THE END
OF THE TUNNEL.
BY THE END OF THIS MONTH, WE
WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TELL WORKING FAMILIES ACROSS
SEATTLE THAT THERE IS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE IN DENSER
TRANSIT ACCESSIBLE RICH
NEIGHBORHOODS OF THE COMMUNITY
THAT WE HAVE BEEN REALY TRYING
TO FIGURE OUT WAYS TO CREATE
MORE INCLUSIVETY OVER THE LAST
THREE PLUS YEARS.
I APPRECIATE WE WANT TO GET
THROUGH THIS RELATIVELY
QUICKLY.
I HAVE CONCERNS OVER ITEMS 1-2
THROUGH 1-6 INCLUDED IN THE CON
SET PACKAGE.
I THINK THERE IS A GOOD POINT
RAISED ABOUT THE CONSIDERATION
OF LIGHT RAIL UNDERWAY AND THE
WAYS IN WHICH THE AREA COULD BE
CHANGING WHEN THE WEST SEATTLE
STATION OPENS IN 2030.
I AM INTERESTED IN LIVING IN
YOUR DISTRICT.
AND, VERY INTERESTED IN SEEING
HOW WE CAN EXPEDITE SOME OF THE
ZONING SO WE CAN LIVE IN THE
AREA NEAR THE RAPID BUS LINES.
THIS IS A VERY DENSE AREA FOR
RENTERS TO LIVE IN.
AND RENTERS IN PARTICULAR NEED
TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OPTIONS.
IT IS WORTHY OF ADDITIONAL
CONVERSATION.
IT IS WORTHY OF ADDITIONAL
CONVERSATION AND WOULD LIKE TO
PULL THOSE.
>> SO I WILL ASK THEN FOR
CENTRAL STAFF TO MARK THE URBAN
VILLAGE VOTES FOR THE 25th.
UNLESS OF COURSE, AS WAS
SUGGESTED, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD COULD COME TO SOME
CONSENSUS POSITION.
AND, ALLOW PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE WHEN WE
ARE BACK AGAIN.
>> 18 IS WEST OF FAUNTLEROY IN
THE MORGAN JUNCTION URBAN
VILLAGE.
NORTHWEST OF FAUNTLEROY
SOUTHWEST.
IT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED TO IN
THE COUNCIL BILL TO BE LR3M2
AND AMENDMENT WOULD BE LR2M1.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
I'M NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT THAT.
1-10.
>> 1-10.
THIS IS THE AREA BOUNDED BY
SOUTHWEST BARTON PLACE.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO APPROVE IN
THE URBAN VILLAGE.
OH WAIT.
SOMETHING IS WRONG.
AM I LOOKING AT THE RIGHT ONE?
OH SORRY.
WE HAVE A DESCRIPTION ERROR.
THIS IS HIGHLAND PARK.
IN THE HIGHLAND PARK
NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS CURRENTLY SINGLE FAMILY
7200.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> NOTHING TO ADD.
>> ANY COLLEAGUES THAT WOULD
LIKE TO PULL THIS OUT FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION?
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> DO YOU WANT ME TO SPEAK TO
IT?
>> NO.
IF YOU ARE JUST ASKING FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL VOTE.
WE CAN REGISTER IT THAT WAY.
>> YEAH.
THAT RELATES TO MORGAN JUNCTION
AND THE WEST HIGH LINE PARK.
REALLY BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY
TO LIGHT RAIL.
>> OKAY.
1-11?
>> 1-11 AND 1-12 ARE -- WAIT
NO.
HOLD ON.
1-11 IS TO ARE REDUCE THE
DESIGNATION OF HIGH LAND PARK
ALONG 26 AVENUE SOUTHWEST.
FROM LOW RISE MULTIFAMILY TO
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT.
THE PROPOSAL IN THE COUNCIL
BILL WAS FOR IT TO BE LR1M1.
>> WE WOULD LIKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE
VISUALLY HOW SMALL THE AREAS OF
THESE CHANGES ARE WITHIN THE
LARGER URBAN VILLAGES.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE THESE MAPS DO
JUSTICE TO THE FACT THAT THESE
ARE VERY SMALL AREAS WITHIN
LARGER AREAS THAT HAVE -- THAT
THERE ARE NO AMENDMENTS TO
TWEAK THE ZONING.
I PRODUCED THAT.
I DIDN'T BRING IT ALONG WITH
ME.
AT SOME POINT I WILL SHARE
THAT.
>> ERIC PUT UP ON THE SCREEN,
THIS DOESN'T DO IT PERFECTLY.
BUT IT IS A KEY MAP THAT SHOWS
THE AREAS.
ANYTHING THAT IS WHITE IS
OUTSIDE OF THE STUDY AREA.
SO IT IS SORT OF SHOWING IN THE
DISTRICT THE AREAS NOT SUBJECT
TO AMENDMENTS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'M WONDERING IF THE SPONSOR OF
THE LAST TWO HERE CAN YOU HELP
ME TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE MORE
ON WHAT THE CHANGE WOULD MEAN?
>> WE HAVEN'T GOT TON THOSE
YET.
WE ARE STILL ON 1-11.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT
1-11?
NOT SEEING ANY REQUEST TO PULL
IT OUT FOR AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE,
SO WE WILL CONSIDER THAT TO BE
PART OF THE CONCEPT PACKAGE.
>> SO 1-12 AND 1-13, A REQUEST
HAS BEEN TO.
>> SORRY MR. CHAIR.
MY COMMENT BEFORE WAS RELATED
TO BOTH THE WESTWOOD HIGH LAND
PARK AND THE MORGAN JUNCTION.
>> OKAY.
>> JUST TRYING TO BE
CONSISTENT.
>> WHAT DID WE SAY?
INTELLECTUAL CONSISTENTLY?
>> YES.
REMAINING INTELLECTUALLY
CONSISTENT.
>> SHALL WE PROCEED?
OKAY.
PLEASE.
>> SO.
112 RAND 113 ARE REQUESTS TO
REMOVE THE ZONE DESIGNATION IN
THE URBAN VILLAGE.
SO CURRENTLY, THE ZONING IN 112
IS NC330.
SIMILARLY, 113 IS NC230.
COUNCIL BILL WOULD HAVE IT GO
TO NC2P40.
AND AMENDMENT IS FOR IT TO GO
TO NC240.
>> SO, THE REMOVAL OF THE
PEDESTRIAN DESIGNATION.
>> FOR NOW.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT FOLKS
FROM MORGAN CAME AND SPOKE TO
US IN A PREVIOUS MEETING.
THEY ARE INTERESTED IN PURSUING
A PEDESTRIAN DESIGNATION.
THAT IS SIGNALED IN THE
RESOLUTION THAT WE ARE
DEVELOPING.
BUT, THEY JUST FEEL LIKE WE ARE
GETING THE CART BEFORE THE
HORSE A LITTLE BIT.
>> IN THE MEANTIME, THE BIGGEST
THING HERE IS BUILDINGS COULD
BE BUILT WITHOUT REQUIRED
COMMERCIAL SPACES ON THE GROUND
FLOOR AND RESULT IN MORE
HOUSING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK THE NET AFFECT IS
POSITIVE FOR US.
I'M LOOKING AROUND.
IT COULD RESULT IN MORE
HOUSING.
DEVELOPMENT IN THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE REQUIRED.
YOU ARE ALLOWED TO PUT IN
GROUND FLOOR APARTMENTS IF I'M
NOT MISTAKEN AROUND I'M LOOKING
AT CENTRAL STAFF.
I KNOW KIND OF WHAT I'M DOING.
>> ONE OF THE OTHER
DISTINCTIONS WOULD BE I BELIEVE
WHERE DRIVEWAYS AND STUFF WOULD
BE LOCATED AND SO, I HAVE SOME
CONCERNS ABOUT IT.
BUT, I TOTALLY RESPECT THAT THE
NEIGHBORHOOD IS GOING THROUGH A
PROCESS TO DO THAT AND I
SUPPORT COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD'S
AMENDMENTS.
>> WHY?
>> SO I'M CALLING THIS ONE A
SET OF CONSENSUS DISCUSSIONS.
I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES
DISTRICT ONE.
LET'S MOVE ONTO THE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT'S DISTRICT.
>> 21A, 21B, AND 21C ARE
RELATED TO AN AREA WITHIN THE
NEW MOUNT BAKER PARK HISTORIC
DISTRICT.
IT WAS DESIGNATED AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL LAST YEAR.
AND SO, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED
AS PART OF THE EXECUTIVE'S
PROPOSAL.
THEY ARE BOTH AREAS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY WITHIN THE NORTH
RAINIER URBAN VILLAGE.
21C ARE THE PORTIONS OF THE
HISTORIC DISTRICT PROPOSED TO
BE ADD TODAY THE NORTH RAINIER
URBAN VILLAGE.
THESE WOULD REMOVE 21C TO THE
EXPANSION AREAS.
>> I SORT OF DESCRIBED THIS
DURING THE FIRST ROUND.
THE DESIGNATION AS A HISTORIC
DISTRICT WAS THE RESULT OF A
LOT OF COMMUNITY WORK.
FRANKLIN HIGH SCHOOL BEING
RIGHT THERE, A LOT OF GOOD
SMALL BUSINESSES AND A STRONG
COMMUNITY CARVING THIS OUT
BECAUSE OF ITS HISTORIC
DISTRICT STATUS AND THE EFFORTS
JUST CONSISTENT.
IT HAS BEEN A TRAFFIC DESIGN
AREA WITH SOME ANOMALIES.
AND AGAIN, WE ARE ON THE CUSP
OF DOING GREAT THINGS IN THAT
AREA AROUND THE LIGHT RAIL.
AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WORK
IS VERY COMPLIMENTARY.
SO AGAIN, THE COMMUNITIES ARE
GETTING STRONG FOR THIS AND I
STRONGLY SUPPORT IT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS?
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> ARE ALL THESE AREAS WITHIN
THE HISTORIC?
>> YES.
THANK YOU.
>> DISCUSSIONS FOR THIS TOPIC?
PLEASE COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> THANKS TO THE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD.
I THINK AS I LOOK AT 1-1A, B,
AND C, I'M AWARE OF THE FACT WE
HAVE OTHER COMPLICATIONS AS
WELL WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS
IN THIS PACKAGE AS A WHOLE.
I REMAIN CONCERNED BECAUSE
THESE AREAS ARE NEAR FRANKLIN
HIGH SCHOOL, NEAR THE TRANSIT
CENTER AND OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE
SURE MORE RESIDENTS HAVE
ACCESS.
IF THIS IS THE WILL OF THIS
BODY, ABOUT MOVING FORWARD.
I UPS THAT.
>> I AM HEARING YOUR CONCERNS.
>> I APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS.
AT SOME POINT, WE HAVE TO
RECOGNIZE, COMING UPON THAT
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE TO
UNDERSTAND THE POLICY CONCERNS
WE ARE TRYING TO GO WITH
AFFORDABILITY.
BUT LISTEN TO THE STUDENTS AT
FRANKLIN.
THE SMALL AFRICAN-AMERICAN,
ASIAN, LATINO AND MINORITY
BUSINESSES IN THE COMMUNITY.
LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN IN THAT COMMUNITY FOR 30,
40, 50 YEARS.
THESE AMENDMENTS ARE THE RESULT
OF A LOT OF ADVOCACY FOR WHAT
THEY ARE TRYING TO PRESERVE IN
THIS AREA.
AND THIS IS ONE SMALL PART OF
DISTRICT 2 BY THE WAY.
SO, THAT IS WHY I WAS A LITTLE
SILENT ON COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
SHE WAS THE GUINEA PIG.
BUT THIS IS THE PUSH AND THE
PULL OF WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST.
I THINK PLAYING INTO THE
HISTORIC DISTRICT AND OTHER
ACTIVITIES OCCURRING WILL GET
US MORE RESOURCES FOR
PARTICULARLY SMALL BUSINESSES.
AND I SAY THIS ALL ALONG.
I HAVE BEEN SOMEWHAT SILENT.
WE ARE NOT VOTING TODAY.
THAT WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING, THE
ECONOMIC FORCES OF DISPLACEMENT
ARE QUITE HUGE.
AS WE CONTINUE TO FIGHT IT AND
EXECUTIVES CONTINUE TO FIGHT
IT, PRESERVING OTHER
INSTITUTIONS LIKE SMALL
BUSINESSES, CHURCHES, SMALL
STORES BECOMES CRITICAL BECAUSE
A LOT OF THESE TANGIBLE ASSETS
STILL HELP TO PRESERVE THE
COMMUNITY.
AND EVEN PEOPLE ON FIXED INCOME
MAY HAVE TO FLEE TO, I'LL SAY
AUBURN.
I ALWAYS PICK ON AUBURN.
I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE COULD STILL
HAVE AS MUCH, AS MANY TANGIBLE
ASSETS HERE AS POSSIBLE IN
ADDITION TO HOUSING SO WHEN I
LOOK AT WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO
DO, THAT WORKS TOWARD THAT END.
SO I GET YOUR CONCERNS AND I
HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND MINE.
>> YEAH.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ?
>> YEAH.
I THINK MUCH OF WHAT I WAS
GOING TO SAY HAS BEEN SAID.
I ALSO UNDERSTOOD COUNCIL
PRESIDENT HARRELL'S MOTIVATION
FOR ADVANCING THESE THREE
AMENDMENTS IN THE RESOURCE
DISTRICTS.
THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD BE
REMISS IN FAILING TO EXPRESS MY
DISAPPOINTMENT THAT MOUNT BAKER
-- THAT THIS PART OF MOUNT
BAKER WON'T SEE ADDITIONAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BEING BUILT
WITHIN THE PARTICULAR
NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THAT IS AN UNFORTUNATE
SITUATION FOR US TO BE IN.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THE MOTIVATION
AS I UNDERSTAND IT BASED ON
OTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER
DEPARTMENTS WITHIN OUR CITY.
I APPRECIATE THE ROLE YOU PLAY
IN REPRESENTING YOUR DISTRICT
AND HOPE WE AT LARGE
COUNCILMEMBERS CAN CONTINUE TO
CARRY THE WATER.
AND HOLD THE WEIGHT OF MAKING
SURE THERE IS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AVAILABLE IN ALL PARTS
OF OUR CITY.
BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING WITH
CITY WIDE MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY.
AND I THINK COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA AND I WILL CONTINUE TO
HOLD THAT ROLE ON THIS DAIS AND
TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY.
>> SO THERE WASN'T AN
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER WHO ASKED FOR
AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE ON THIS.
SO WE WILL ASK FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL VOTES TO COME
FORWARD ON THE 25th ON A, B,
AND C.
>> SO NO ONE ASKED FOR
INDIVIDUAL VOTES SO WHY ARE YOU
DOING IT?
>> I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE
POSITION EDUCATION PRESSED BY
YOU.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFYING
THAT.
AND I THINK COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ ARTICULATED.
IT IS A SENSE OF
DISAPPOINTMENT.
A RECK REALITIES WE ARE FACING.
I APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS WE
ARE ALL FACING.
IT IS WANTING TO ENSURE THAT WE
DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE
A CHANCE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION
IN THE MEANTIME.
>> I APOLOGIZE.
>> NO PROBLEM.
I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND MY
COLLEAGUES YOU STILL HAVE
THREE, FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX.
AND SEVEN.
>> SEVEN IS GOOD.
>> I HAVE A LONG MEMORY.
>> 2-3.
>> THAT ADDS A PEDESTRIAN
DESIGNATION TO BEACON AVENUE
SOUTH IN THE NORTH BEACON HILL
URBAN VILLAGE.
>> ANYTHING TO ADD?
>> NO, NOTHING.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
ONE?
CONSIDER THAT TO BE PART OF THE
CONSENSUS PACKAGE BY YOUR
SNEEZING OBJECTION
COUNCILMEMBER.
2-4.
>> REDUCES THE PROPOSED HEIGHT
IN AN AREA SOUTH OF THE
INTERSECTION OF MARTIN LUTHER
KING WAY AND RAINIER BEACH
AVENUE SOUTH FROM 95 FEET TO 55
FEET.
>> AGAIN, THIS IS COMMERCIAL.
AND, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS
THERE IS IS A STRONG PUSH TO
JUST HAVE THIS COMMERCIAL ZONE
STILL, LOWER HEIGHTS.
AND AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THE
POLICY ARGUMENTS OF WANTING TO
INCREASE THIS COMMERCIAL ZONE.
BUT AS I SAID IN MY SPIEL ON
SMALL BUSINESSES THIS BECOMES
CRITICAL FOR THE PRESERVATION
OF OUR COMMUNITY.
>> AND I WOULD CONCUR ONE OF
THOSE INSTANCES WERE AGAIN TO
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN'S
QUESTION ABOUT AAGENCY.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MAP ON
THIS ONE.
IT CREATES A GREATER AJAY SEN
SITE PERFORMANCEINGLY THINK THE
FRAME WORK ALLOWED UNDER THIS
PROPOSAL, WOULD IT ALLOW A MORE
AFFORDABLE CONSTRUCTION OPTION
EVEN IF IT IS SLIGHTLY LOWER, I
WONDER IF IT WOULD BE MORE
AFFORDABLE CONSTRUCTION OPTION
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT IT IS
COMMERCIAL.
>> AT 95 FEET, OUR ZONING
DOESN'T ALLOW WOOD FRAME
CONSTRUCTION.
BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS BUILD TO 75
FEET IN THAT ZONE WHICH WOULD
BE A WOOD FRAME OVER CONCRETE
BUILDING.
SO, IT IS PROBABLY A WASH.
>> OKAY.
AND, THIS IS JUST COMMERCIAL
AGAIN, MR. CHAIR?
MR. STAFF?
>> YES.
IN THE LEGISLATION PROPOSED TO
GO TO A SEATTLE MIX ZONE WHICH
ALLOWS COMMERCIAL USES.
IT WOULD GO TO A COMMERCIAL
ZONE WHICH ALSO ALLOWS
COMMERCIAL USES.
IT IS NOT PURELY COMMERCIAL.
>> AM I LOSING RESIDENTIAL
POSSIBILITIES BY KEEPING IT
LOWER?
>> THIS WOULD REDUCE A COUPLE
OF FLOORS OF RESIDENTIAL USE.
>> THAT WASN'T MY ASSUMPTION.
SO, LET'S HOLD OFF ON THIS
UNTIL I HAVE FURTHER
DISCUSSION.
>> WE WILL CALL FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL VOTE ON 2-4. 2 -9.
>> AN INCREASE IN THE AREA
AROUND OTHELLO PARK.
THE PARK ITSELF, THIS WOULD
INCREASE THE ZONING ON THE EAST
AND SOUTH OF THE PARK FROM
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT TO SLOW
RISE ONE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT?
>> THE URBANIST AND THE DENSITY
ADVOCATE I AM, I THOUGHT IT
APPROPRIATE TO AMEND THIS SO IT
SPEAK FOR ITSELF.
>> ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS?
>> I LIKE THIS ONE.
>> WE WILL INCLUDE THAT AS PART
OF THE CONSENSUS PACKAGE.
I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES
DISTRICT 2. AS A PREAMBLE FOR
DISTRICT 3, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT IS UNABLE TO JOIN US.
SHE IS HOME SICK.
IN HER PROPOSAL, WE ARE SEEING
A SERIES OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
THAT WILL I THINK BE LOOKED
UPON FAVORABLY BY OUR CITY WIDE
COUNCIL MEMBERS.
IN EACH INSTANCE, IT TAKES THE
EXECUTIVE PROPOSAL TO INCREASE
THE ZONING CAPACITY.
AND, I ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE
THAT IT IS ONE OF THE FEW
PLACES WHERE THE EXECUTIVES
ANALYSIS ALLOWED FOR THAT KIND
OF CHOICE.
I THINK MANY OF US WERE
FRUSTRATED BY THE LACK OF
FLEXIBILITY WE WERE GIVEN AS
PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS ABOUT PLACES WE MIGHT
LIKE TO SEE THE ZONING HEIGHTS
GO A LITTLE BIT HIGHER.
THIS IS NOT PROVEN TO BE THE
CASE.
SO, WITH THAT PREAMBLE, LET'S
WALK THROUGH THE FOUR DISTRICT
THREE AMENDMENTS.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
SO, THIS IS 3-14.
THIS IS AREAS EAST OF MARTIN
LUTHER KING JR. WAY AND JACKSON
STREET.
INSTEAD OF TO RSL AS PROPOSED
IN THE BILL.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS?
>> WE WILL CONSIDER THAT TO BE
PART OF THE CONSENT PACKAGE.
3-15.
>> 3-15 LOCATED AT 1722, EXCUSE
ME, 22 AVENUE SOUTH.
THIS WOULD GO FROM LR2 UNDER
THE AMENDMENT TO THE BILL.
TO RISE M2 UNDER THE BILL AS
PROPOSED FOR THE EXECUTIVE.
IT IS TO LR3M1.
>> QUESTIONS?
>> THIS IS 3-15?
>> CORRECT.
>> HAPPY TO REITERATE ANY OF
THAT.
>> HELP ME IN A SENSE.
IS THIS ONE BLOCK?
WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?
WHO IS PROPOSING THIS
AMENDMENT?
>> THIS COMES FROM INDIVIDUAL
SORT OF PARTIES INTERESTED IN
HAVING THIS HAPPEN.
THE IDEA WAS TO, I THINK
PROBABLY TO AN AMENDMENT IN
EACH OF THESE, THE IDEA WAS TO
GO TO HIGHER ZONES THAT
COULDN'T NECESSARILY BE
ACHIEVED, THAT WEREN'T PROPOSED
IN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
BUT SUPPORTED BY THE OTHER
ALTERNATIVES.
THIS WOULD BUMP THIS FROM LR3
TO MID RISE.
>> SOLET ME PUT THIS IN THE
LAYPERSONS TERMS.
THIS IS ASKED BY A PRIVATE
DEVELOPER TO GO UP AND HOW DOES
THAT FIT INTO THE ADJACENT
PROPERTIES?
IS IT A CARVE-OUT AND WHO IS
THERE OUT AND BEING DISPLACED?
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT LAST
QUESTION ABOUT WHO IS BEING
DISPLACED RIGHT HERE AT THE
TABLE BUT I COULD LOOK INTO
THAT FOR YOU IF YOU LIKE.
IN LAYPERSON'S TERMS, THIS IS
WHY IT WAS CONSIDERED IN ONE OF
THE ALTERNATIVES.
YOU CAN SEE TO THE NORTH AND
WEST, THERE IS PROPOSED UNDER
THE BILL, A MID RISE BUMP TO
M2.
AND SO, SHOULD THIS AMENDMENT
GO THROUGH, IT WOULD ADD
ANOTHER PIECE OF MID RISE TO
THE ZONING ON THE GROUND THERE.
AND SORT OF STEP UP FROM THE
LOW RISE 3.
>> I MIGHT BE MISTAKEN ABOUT
THIS, BUT THIS IS A SITE THE
COUNCIL HAS CONSIDERED IN A
DIFFERENT CONTEXT BEFORE.
I THINK LAST FALL THEY PASSED
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING SOME
PORTION OF THIS AREA AS
ELIGIBLE FOR REMEDIATION FUNDS.
SO THIS MIGHT BE PART OF THE
SITE CONTROLLED AT LEAST
PARTIALLY BY LAKE UNION
PARTNERS AND BAKER HOUSING
SLATED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
>> IT IS THE GRAN STREET
COMMONS PROJECT.
>> THANKS TO COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ'S TECHNOLOGICAL SKILLS
I'M LOOKING AT AT IT RIGHT NOW.
MY QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED.
>> WE WILL CONSIDER THAT TO BE
PART OF THE CONSENT.
>> I WANTED TO ADD ADDITIONAL
CONTEXT FOR MY COLLEAGUES AND
FOR THE PUBLIC.
SO, I WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED
BECAUSE IT IS A SPECIFIC
ADDRESS.
AND I WASN'T SURE WHAT THAT WAS
ABOUT.
BUT I APPRECIATE THE ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION TO JOG OUR
COLLECTIVE MEMORIES AROUND THE
CONNECTION TO THE VISION AROUND
CREATING A MASSIVE AMOUNT IN
FOOTPRINT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WITH COMMERCIAL SPACE ET CETERA
WITH MOUNT BAKER HOUSING I
BELIEVE IT IS.
SO CURRENTLY, JUST SO FOLKS
KNOW, IF YOU GO ONTO GOOGLE
MAPS AND LOOK AT THE SATELLITE
IMAGES AND ZOOM IN, IT IS
ACTUALLY AN EMPTY LOT.
WITH SOME ABANDONED BUILDINGS
ON IT.
SO I SEE THIS AS A GOOD MOVE
FORWARD IN TERMS OF REIMAGINING
AND REPURPOSING THIS PART OF
THE CITY TO FACILITATE MOUNT
BAKER'S ABILITY TO HOUSE THEIR
PROJECT.
>> THOSE COMMENTS WE WILL
CONSIDER THIS TO BE PART OF
THAT CONSENT PACKAGE.
316?
>> THE CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE
FAMILY 5,000 AS PROPOSED PART
OF THE BILL, IT WOULD GO TO RS
WILL WITH AN M BUMP.
THIS IS LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF 20th AVENUE
SOUTH AND SOUTH WHOLE GATE.
>> QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS,
COLLEAGUES?
SEEING NONE, WE WILL CONSIDER
THAT PART OF THE CONSENT.
317?
>> 317 WOULD GO FROM SINGLE
FAMILY 5,000 IN THE BILL WITH
THE EXECUTIVE.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD TAKE IT TO
LRM21.
>> CONSIDERING THE FACT THIS
APPEAR TO BE ONE PARCEL, IF YOU
COULD SING A FEW MORE BARS
ABOUT THAT.
>> THERE WERE ALONG WITH OTHER
HOUSING PROVIDERS, I THINK
SEVERAL OFFICES RECEIVED
REQUESTS TO LOOK AT PROPERTIES
THAT EITHER THEY HAVE SORT OF
PARTNERSHIPS WITH OR HAVE
CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY TO HAVE
MORE CAPACITY ON THOSE SITES.
TO REDEVELOP I GUESS IN THE
FUTURE WOULD BE THE NOTION.
THE REQUESTS FOR THE SITE WAS
FOR MORE THAN LR2.
BUT, THAT WASN'T SUPPORTED BY
THE EIS.
THIS GOES AS FAR AS SUPPORTED
BY ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVES
PREPARED UNDER THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
CONSEQUENTLY, YOU SEE A SINGLE
PARCEL BEFORE YOU.
>> THAT'S HELPFUL.
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ?
>> A GENERAL QUESTION ABOUT ALL
OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
IN TERMS OF, SO, ALL OF THESE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS UNLIKE THE
AMENDMENTS WE WERE SEEING IN
SOME OF THE OTHER PROPOSED MAP
AMENDMENTS ARE ALL UP ZONES
WHICH BUMP UP THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AS WELL.
CAN YOU TELL ME IN ALL OF THESE
INSTANCES, IS THIS THE MAXIMUM
AMOUNT OF DENSITY THAT WE ARE
ALLOWED TO PURSUE BASED ON THE
EIS?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SO, WITH THAT, I BELIEVE WE
WILL CONSIDER THAT TO BE PART
OF THE CONSENT PACKAGE AS WELL.
AND WE WILL MOVE ONTO DISTRICT
4.
>> THANK YOU.
SO DISTRICT 4,LY START WITH
MAPS 4-2A AND 4-2B IN TERMS OF
ADDRESSING TRANSITIONS.
AMENDMENT 4-2A WOULD REDUCE THE
PROPOSAL AND DESIGNATION NORTH
OF NORTHEAST 70th STREET FROM
THE PROPOSED LOW RISE 1 TO RSL.
LR2 TO LR1 CREATING A STEP
DOWN.
>> QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ONE?
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ?
>> NO.
SORRY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> I JUST WANT TO FLAG ARE WE
GOING TO GET TO THE
INTELLECTUALLY LESS HONEST
COMING SOON?
>> WE ARE DANGEROUSLY CLOSE.
>> LOOKING FORBARD TO IT.
>> SO UNLESS THERE IS OBJECTION
WE WILL CONSIDER THAT PART OF
THE CONSENT PACKAGE FOR 4A.
>> OKAY.
MAPS 4-4A AND 4-4B ARE SIMILAR.
AMENDMENT 4-4A IS LOOKING AT
THE AREAS IN THE DESIGNATED
HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO, AMENDMENT 4A WOULD REDUCE
THE CHANGES TO M LEVEL BUMP IN
AREAS WHERE THE HISTORIC
DISTRICT OVERLAPS WITH THE
EXISTING URBAN VILLAGE
BOUNDARY.
SO IT WOULD NOT BE EXPANDED AND
ANY WOULD BE REDUCED TO AN M
LEVEL BUMP.
MUCH OF THIS AREA IS PROPOSED
EITHER FOR AN M1 OR M2. THE
DISTRICT ACTUALLY SPANS ACROSS
THE EXISTING URBAN VILLAGE
BOUNDARY. ALL OF THESE WOULD BE
REMOVED FROM THE PROPOSED POE
SAL.
>> SO, HERE WE ARE.
WE HAVE ARRIVED AT THAT
LOCATION COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
I STRUGGLE TO ALLOW AN
INDIVIDUAL VOTE ON THIS.
I STRUGGLE FOR A COUPLE OF
REASONS.
ONE IS WE ARE. THE LIGHT RAIL
STATION SET TO OPEN IN 2021.
THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS
BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND HAS
ASKED FOR ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS
BOTH ADDITIONAL ZONING HEIGHT
TO CORRESPOND NEAR THE LOCATION
OF THE LIGHT RAIL STATION.
AS WELL AS ORIGINALLY, MOVE OF
THE PROPOSED LIGHT RAIL
CAPTIONING.
TO THE HEART OF THE ROOSEVELT
URBAN VILLAGE.
URBAN VILLAGE HAS BEEN IN
EXISTENCE SINCE THE URBAN
VILLAGE DESIGNATIONS HAPPENED
MORE THAN 25 YEARS AGO.
HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE A
RECOGNITION OF A NEW HISTORIC
DISTRICT CREATED IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD THE LAST YEAR
SINCE THE EIS WAS PUBLISHED.
SO I AM NOT PREPARED TO SIGNAL
AT THIS POINT WHICH WAY MY
HEART IS GOING TO LAND.
BUT I WANTED TO GIVE MY
COLLEAGUES A RANGE OF OPTIONS
TO CONSIDER.
THERE ARE REAL AND DIFFICULT
CHOICES TO MAKE IN THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD.
RECOGNIZING THE MANY COMMENTS
THAT WERE MADE EARLIER ABOUT
THIS BEING A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH
HIGH ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY AND
LOW RISK OF DISPLACEMENT.
PARTICULARLY WITH THE PROXIMITY
TO THE LIGHT RAIL STATION.
I'LL STOP THERE.
AND, AGAIN, CONFESS THIS IS A
PLACE WHERE I THINK WE HAVE
SOME REALLY DIFFICULT CHOICES
AHEAD OF US.
PLEASE COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ.
>> WELL, CHAIR JOHNSON, UNLIKE
YOU, I'M GOING TO REMAIN
INTELLECTUALLY CONSISTENT AND
EXPRESS MY CONCERN ABOUT THIS
PARTICULAR APPROACH.
I UNDERSTAND THE MOTIVATION AND
THE LOGIC BEHIND 4-4A AND 4-4B.
I FEEL AS THOUGH THOSE IN THE
SAME CATEGORY AS THE DISTRICT 3
MOUNT BAKER.
SORRY, DISTRICT 2 MOUNT BAKER
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY COUNCIL
PREPONDERATE HARRELL.
I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT
SEVERAL OF THESE DOWN ZONES
PROPOSED IN OTHER PARTS OF
DISTRICT 4 FOR THE SAME REASONS
THAT I HAVE EXPRESSED IN
DISTRICT 1.
>> I TOLD YOU IT WAS HAPPEN.
>> JUST POINTING IT OUT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
THOUGHTS FOLKS WANT TO EXPRESS?
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> I WANT TO SAY THEY ARE NOT
DOWN ZONES.
THEY ARE UP ZONED.
REDUCED UP ZONES FROM WHAT IS P
PROPOSED.
>> THE OTHER WOULD PRESERVE
EVERYTHING AS SINGLE FAMILY.
>> IN GENERAL, THERE HAS BEEN
PORTRAYAL OF THESE AMENDMENTS
AS DOWN ZONES IN THE PRESS AND
E-MAILS WE HAVE RECEIVED.
AND, IN GENERAL, THEY ARE NOT
DOWN ZONES.
THEY ARE REDUCTIONS IN WHAT IS
PROPOSED POSED AND THEY ARE
STILL UP ZONES FOR WHAT IS
CURRENTLY EXISTING.
I WILL ENDEAVOR TO BE MORE
PRECISE IN MY LANGUAGE IN THE
FUTURE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, I
APPRECIATE YOUR TRANSPARENCY
ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS HERE.
KIDDING ASIDE, I THINK THIS IS
A CHALLENGE OF BALANCE AND I
SHARE THE DILEMMA THAT YOU ARE
IN HERE.
OR THAT WE ARE ALL IN HERE
FRANKLY.
WE ARE HAVING A MASSIVE
INVESTMENT IN LIGHT RAIL.
AND PUTTING SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS
OF HOUSING IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
I DO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A
NEIGHBORHOOD THAT BROADLY OVER
THE YEARS HAS BEEN VERY
SUPPORTIVE.
I BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE SIGNS
IN THE FRONT YARDS.
AT A TIME WHEN THAT WAS LESS
POPULAR THAN TODAY TO TALK
ABOUT.
I THINK THE ISSUE AROUND
HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS IS
ANOTHER ONE THAT IS COMPLEX.
IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE
CREATE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES
FOR HOUSING AND JOBS THROUGHOUT
THE CITY AND IN GENERAL.
AND IT IS IMPORTANT WE FIND
WAYS TO PRESERVE THOSE HISTORIC
AREAS.
WHEN WE GET TO DISTRICT 6, WE
WILL NOT BE TALKING ABOUT UP
ZONES.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WILL BE
CONTROVERSIAL.
THE SCALE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
IS CERTAINLY ACCEPTABLE.
I COULD SEE A FUTURE WHERE WE
HAVE DOZENS OF RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS WHERE WE COULD PUSH
AN ISSUE WE HAVE TO STRUGGLE
WITH.
BUT TODAY, I AM SUPPORTIVE OF
TAKING SOME ACTION TO
ACKNOWLEDGE AND RESPECT THAT
HISTORIC DESIGNATION.
THERE MAY BE FUTURE
CONVERSATIONS GOING FORWARD.
I THINK AT THIS MOVE, I TALKED
ABOUT THE THREE MAIN PRINCIPLES
THAT I HAVE.
AND, I COULD HAVE A FOURTH ONE
THAT IS MAYBE A LITTLE
SUBSIDIARY TO THAT.
IT IS AROUND HISTORIC DISTRICTS
AND FIGURING OUT HOW WE MANAGE
THAT.
THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY, WOULD
PUSH, WOULD CHANGE SOME LINES
IN WAYS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT
WITH SOME OF THE THINGS I LAID
OUT.
THAT MIGHT BE THE EXCEPTION I'M
WILLING TO MAKE, TOO.
>> SO, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR
INDIVIDUAL VOTES ON THESE TWO
ITEMS WHEN WE GET TO IT ON THE
25th.
>> I HAVE THE DEEP APPRECIATION
FOR THE CHALLENGE YOU ARE
UNDER.
I KNOW AS WE ALL DO, WE VALUE
NEIGHBORHOODS AND NEIGHBORHOOD
VOICE AS WE ARE MAKING THESE
DECISIONS.
SO IT IS A COMPLEX SCHEME OF
THINGS AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
ADVOCACY FOR YOUR DISTRICT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP
ON THIS.
I APPRECIATE YOU ARE INTERESTED
IN HAVING INDIVIDUAL VOTES.
I THINK THE ADDITIONAL DATA WE
COULD GET BE HELPFUL IN
ELIMINATEING THE TRADE OFFS.
I THINK THIS ENTIRE COUNCIL IS
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HELPING TO
ENSURE HISTORIC DISTRICTS
RECEIVE THE ATTENTION AND
RESOURCES THAT THEY NEED SO OUR
COMMUNITY CAN CONTINUE TO
THRIVE BUT IF WE THINK ABOUT
THE FACT WE WILL BE STEPS AWAY
FROM THE ROOSEVELT LIGHT RAIL
STATION, THAT IS CREATING DENSE
AFFORDABLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
MORE COMMUNITIES TO ENJOY YOUR
INCREDIBLE DISTRICT.
SO LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING THAT
DISCUSSION ON THE 25th AND
APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP ON
IT.
>> OKAY.
GREAT.
LET'S MOVE ONTO 4-6.
>> I WAS REMISS IN THE PREVIOUS
4-2A AND 4-2B.
THESE ARE NEAR LIGHT RAIL
STATION OPENING IN 2021.
NEAR GOOD GROCERY STORES.
SCHOOLS AND OTHER AMENITIES.
I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER
ADDITIONAL DATA ON THE 25th.
>> I AM HEARING THAT.
AS COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF ARE
KEEPING TRACK, LET'S REVERSE
COURSE ON THAT.
4-6.
>> THIS APPLIES TO PARCELS
LOCATED AT 6707 TO 6211
NORTHEAST 62 STREET.
THIS WOULD INCREASE THE
PROPOSED ZONING FROM LOW RISE
ONE TO LOW RISE TWO.
>> ONE OF THE FEW PLACE INS THE
DISTRICT WHERE WE STUDIED
SOMETHING HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS
PROPOSED.
I'M NOT SEEING ANY OPPOSITION
TO THAT.
>> 4-10, INCREASING ZONING
NC255 TO NC275.
I WANT TO NOTE THE M
DESIGNATION WAS LEFT OFF OF THE
AMENDMENT SHEET THAT WOULD
INCREASE THE MHA REQUIREMENT
FROM AN M LEVEL BUMP TO AN M
ONE LEVEL BUMP.
>> ANY QUESTIONS?
OKAY, WE WILL CONSIDER THAT
PART OF THE CONSENT PACKAGE.
4-14.
>> 4-14 WOULD REDUCE THE
PROPOSED ZONING OF THE WALLING
FORD FROM LOW RISE ONE TO RSL.
>> THIS IS ONE OF THE ISSUES
THAT CONTEMPLANTS TRANSITION
ZONES.
AND WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO
CONSIDER A LOW RAISE ZONE TO
THE SOUTH AN SINGLE FAMILY ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET AT
50th.
NOT SEEING OBJECTION TO THAT.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
YOU'RE GRABBING YOUR
MICROPHONE.
>> WELL.
>> MAYBE?
>> CAN I HEAR THE PRESENTATION
ON 414 THROUGH 417?
>> ALTOGETHER?
SURE.
>> SO 415 IS SIMILAR.
BUT A DIFFERENT AREA PROPOSED
TO GO FROM LOW RISE ONE INTO
THE AREA NORTH OF 46th STREET.
IT WOULD BE MODIFIED TO RS4.
>> SHOULD WE DO 4-17 AS WELL?
>> SIMILARLY, IN THE
WALLINGFORD URBAN VILLAGE, THE
SINGLE FAMILY NORTH OF 40th
BETWEEN ASHFORTH AND DENSMORE.
IT WOULD REDUCE THE PROPOSAL
FROM RS1 TO RSL.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I GUESS I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE
ACCUMULATION OF THE LOST UNITS.
LOST OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE IN THE
AREA WITH THESE THREE BEING
REDUCTIONS FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO
LIVE IN THIS AREA.
I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE
DATA, MR. CHAIR.
AND ASK IF WE CAN WEIGH THAT
DATA AGAINST THE FACT THIS AREA
IS THREE MILES FROM DOWNTOWN.
IDENTIFIED AS A HIGH
OPPORTUNITY AREA.
HOW ACCESSIBLE THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD IS TO MUCH OF OUR
DOWNTOWN CORE AND OTHER JOB
OPPORTUNITIES.
SO I THINK I DO HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT THE THREE OF THESE
TOGETHER.
>> PLEASE.
>> YEAH.
AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS MORE
AT THE END WHEN WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT MAPS.
I WANT TO SET EXPECTATIONS
ABOUT WHAT SORT OF DATA IS
POSSIBLE FOR US TO PRESENT TO
THE COUNCIL.
SO, THE IMPACTS OF AN
INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT WILL HAVE
DIFFICULT TO ACERTAIN WHAT WE
THINK WILL RESULT FROM THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THEOVER ALL
PROPOSAL AND HOW MANY HOUSING
UNITS IN GENERAL.
BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE CITY
DOES THEIR PLANNING.
AND, CAPACITY BUILDING, IT
LOOKS AT THE OVERALL ZONING
CHANGES.
AND, THE GROWTH ESTIMATES AND
HOW THAT GROWTH WILL BE
DISTRIBUTED.
SO ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL CHANGE,
I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY
IF YOU REZONE THIS PARCEL TO
THAT.
THERE WILL BE ONE LESS MHA
UNIT.
WE CAN DO IT AT THE DISTRICT
SCALE.
SOMEONE AT THE URBAN VILLAGE
SCALE.
ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT, IT
WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR US TO
TELL YOU THE IMPACTS OF ONE ONE
INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT.
SO IT WILL BE THE SUITE OF
AMENDMENTS BY SORT OF LARGER
AREAS THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO
REPORT BACK ON SORT OF IF YOU
DO THIS ENTIRE SUITE OF
AMENDMENTS.
THE IMPACTS OVERALL AND BY
DISTRICT WOULD RESULT IN X
FEWER UNITS.
>> WOULD BIT FAIR TO SAY AS WE
CONTINUE TO CONTEMPLATE THE
TEXT AMENDMENTS WE DISCUSSED,
THAT HAS AN IMPACT ON
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HAS AN
IMPACT ON THE UNITS THAT GET
PRODUCED.
AN ALL OF THAT WOULD BE
FACTORED IN TO A COMPLICATED
EQUATION ON THE PROPOSED
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ALL OF
THOSE INTERNAL LOCKING
ELEMENTS.
>> YEAH.
THAT IS CORRECT.
I'M HAPPY TO TALK WITH YOU ALL
MORE INDIVIDUALLY IF YOU REALLY
WANT TO GET IN THE WEEDS ON THE
GROWTH MODEL AND THOSE SORTS OF
GOING FROM LOW RISE TO RSL, IF
IT REDEVELOPS IS LESS THAN WHAT
ONE REQUIRED IF THE HIGHER ZONE
AND IN GENERAL, YOU UNDERSTAND
THE IMPLICATIONS, WE WON'T BE
ABLE TO GIVE YOU A PARCEL BY
PARCEL LEVEL IMPACT ANALYSIS.
>> ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS?
MOSQUEDA?
O'BRIEN?
>> I AM JUST GOING TO FLAG THAT
AS WE GET INTO DISTRICT 6 IN
THE CROWN HILL AREA, THERE IS
MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT RSU.
I WILL SAVE MY CASE I WANT TO
MAKE UNTIL WE GET THERE.
I KNOW THE LANDSCAPE THERE.
BUT I THINK SOME OF THE THINGS
I WILL SAY ARE SIMILAR TO WHAT
WE HAVE SEEN HERE AND SIMILAR
TO WHAT WE SAW IN DISTRICT ONE.
ALL URBAN VILLAGES WITH
SIGNIFICANT SINGLE FAMILY
ZONING TODAY INSIDE AN URBAN
VILLAGE.
>> AND, TO COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD'S POINT, ALL OF THESE
RESULT IN ELIMINATION OF SINGLE
FAMILY TO SOMETHING DENSER.
AND, THE DECISIONS CONTEMPLATED
HERE ARE LESS DENSE THAN WHAT
IS IN THE EXECUTIVE'S PROPOSAL.
I HEAR YOUR REQUEST,
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
UNLESS I'M MISSING IN, LESS
MOVE TO 4-18.
EAST LAKE.
>> AMENDMENT 4-18 WOULD
INCREASE THE PROPOSED ZONING ON
THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE EAST
LAKE URBAN VILLAGE FROM LR3 TO
MID RISE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ONE
FOLKS?
I WILL OFFER IN SEVERAL
CONVERSATIONS, I HAVE HEARD A
DIVERSITY OF OPINIONS ON THIS.
BUT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH
WHAT I HEARD.
A DESIRE TO SEE TALLER
BUILDINGS CLOSER TO THE FREEWAY
AND SMALLER SCALE BUILDINGS AS
WE MOVE CLOSER TO THE WATER SO
THIS CHANGED TO MID RISE.
>>> THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REDUCE
THE EXPANSION AREA AND WOULD
NOT REZONE THIS AREA.
SO IT WOULD NOT APPLY.
>> THIS IS ONE OF THE KNEW
PLACES IN THE CITY WHERE THE
PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT EXPANDED THE URBAN
VILLAGES IN ROOSEVELT AND IT
TOOK THAT BOUNDARY OVER TO 17th
AVENUE AND I AM PROPOSING TO
EXPAND IT TO 16th AVENUE, WHICH
HAS BEEN A REQUEST FROM THE
COMMUNITY.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS IN.
>> ONE OF MY FRAMEWORK GUIDING
PRINCIPLES WAS URBAN VILLAGES
REPRESENT THE WALK SHED FROM
THE HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO -- THIS IS
DEPENDING ON HOW YOU WALK ON
THE BORDER.
>> THE WAY IS THAT THE PROPOSAL
IS WRITTEN IS THAT THE
EXPANSION WOULD GO TO 17th FOR
THE MOST PART JUST FOR THESE
COUPLE OF BLOCKS BECAUSE OF
THAT WALK SHED AS WELL AS A
COUPLE BLOCKS TO THE SOUTH.
THOSE SOUTHERN BLOCKS ARE
COVERED BY AMENDMENTS WE
DISCUSSD EARLIER RELATED TO
THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THIS IS NOT PART OF THE
PROPOSED HISTORIC DISTRICT BUT
THERE'S A HEAVILY UNDERUTILIZED
SET OF PROPERTIES ON THE BORDER
BETWEEN THAT 15th AND 16th
AVENUE, A DILAPIDATED AND IN
SEVERAL CASES SHELLS OF
BUILDINGS BECAUSE THEY'VE
BURNED SIGNIFICANTLY.
SO THIS CONTINUES TO FOCUS THE
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN BETWEEN
15th AND 16th AVENUE AND PULSE
OUT THE SECTION BETWEEN 16th
AND 17th ON THE EDGE OF.
IT COUNCIL MEMBER?
>> I APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATIONS YOU'VE HAD IN THE
DISTRICT, MR. CHAIR.
I THINK THE CONCERN I HAVE IS
REMOVING BITS AND PIECES OF THE
AREA WHERE MHA WOULD APPLY AND
HOW IT FITS IN WITH OUR EFFORTS
TO APPROACH THE URBAN VILLAGE
EXPANSIONINGS AND I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS ABOUT
THESE SMALL WALKS AND HOW THEY
WOULD AFFECT OUR GOALS.
>> I'M HEARING THAT AS A
REQUEST FOR AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE.
OKAY.
THAT CON CLOUDS, I BELIEVE
DISTRICT 4, DOES IT NOT?
OKAY.
LET'S MOVE ON TO DISTRICT 5.
ANY OPENING REMARKS?
>> I KNOW I'M BEING -- I FELT
LIKE I'M BACK IN THE COURTROOM
AGAIN.
LY MAKE SOME BRIEF REMARKS
BECAUSE I WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF
THE TIME AND WE HAVE SNOW
COMING.
DISTRICT FIVE IS 58th TO 15th,
NORTHGATE AND AURORA.
I BELIEVE THERE ARE FIVE ITEMS
UNDER THERE.
I WANT TO PREVIOUSLY GO OVER
WHAT WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH IN
COMMUNITY REGARDING THE
CHARACTERISTICS AND
DEMOGRAPHICS AND HISTORY OF
DISTRICT 5. I HOPE I HAVE THE
APPRECIATION AND SPAR OF MY
COLLEAGUES.
D5 HAS ONE INTERSTATE.
I-5 SPLITS 10 LANES DOWN THE
MIDDLE.
WE HAVE NORTHGATE COMING IN IN
2021 AND THE OTHER AFTER
NORTHDATE.
DID.
5 HAS A COLLEGE, A HOSPITAL, A
MAJOR MALL, TWO HOTELS AND TWO
MORE HOTELS COMING ONLINE.
WE HAVE TWO HIGH SCHOOLS, 13
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND TWO
MIDDLE SCHOOLS.
WE ALSO HAVE FIVE HOUSING FOR
OUR ELDERLIES.
WE'RE AT 51% OF ELDERS AND 49%
OF HOMEOWNERS.
AS I SAID EARLIER WHEN WE WERE
LOOKING AT THESE FIVE
AMENDMENTS WE CERTAINLY STARTED
WITH THE ISSUE OF DISPLACEMENT,
LOOKING AT PROVIDING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE
TWO AND THREE BEDROOMS RATHER
THAN JUST ONE BEDROOM CONDOS.
AS THE COUNCIL MEMBER STATED,
WE HAVE A REAL EMPHASIS ON
CHILD CARE WHEN WE HAVE THE
RICH TRANSITS AND HOUSING
COMING IN.
WE'RE'S FIND MILLION THAT
PEOPLE ARE BRINGING THEIR
CHILDREN TO LIGHT RAIL AND THEY
SHOULD BE ABLE TO DROP OFF
THEIR CHILDREN HOPEFULLY, BUY
GROCERIES, HOP ON LIGHT RAIL
AND BE DOWNTOWN IN 8 TO 12
MINUTES.
NEEDLESS TO SAY WITH THAT ALL
SAID THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
INPUT AND DISCUSSION.
WITH THAT WE CAN JUST GO
THROUGH THE FIVE AMENDMENTS.
>> MR. FREE MAN?
>> SO THE FIRST HEALTH 5.1,
THIS WHO NOT ZONE AN HEAR THAT
IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AS TWO
MOBILE HOME ARMS, TO SEE 155CM.
>> AS YOU ALL KNOW ON JANUARY
28th THIS COUNCIL PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY THE WORK PLAN WITH
THE MORATORIUM BEGINNING FROM
FEBRUARY TO MAY WITH THE WORK
PLAN AND THE SCI GETTING BACK
TO US ON THE LEGISLATION AND IT
WILL CONCLUDE SOMETIME IN
OCTOBER AND DEALS WITH COUNCIL
DELIBERATIONS AND PUBLIC
HEARING REGARDING THE
MORATORIUM.
CERTAINLY, THIS IS ONE OF THE
AREAS WE LOOKED AT.
WE DID NOT WANT TO DISPLACE 85
SENIOR RESIDENTS FOR DID WE
WANT TO DISPLACE THE 76
OCCUPANTS WHO LIVE IN THE
MOBILE HOME PARK.
I WANT TO THANK YOU COUNCIL
MEMBER JOHNSON FOR WORKING ON
THE MORATORIUM WITH ME.
>> I WANT TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT
ALTHOUGH IT IS RARE WE SHOULD
NOT BE APPLYING MHA IN PLACES
BECAUSES OF ONE-YEAR
MORATORIUM AND THE ADDITIONAL
WORK THAT WE WILL BE DOING.
I HOPE TO PROVIDE SOME
ADDITIONAL ZONING PROPOSALS
THAT WOULD COME TO REPRESENT
MAYBE A NEW MANUFACTURED HOME
PARK DISTRICT OR OTHER SUCH
PROPOSALS.
I THINK IT IS WISE FOR US TO
NOT IMPLEMENT MHA ON THESE TWO
PARCELS AND ALLOW FOR THE
PIECES OF LEGISLATION TO COME
FORWARD AND GOVERN WHAT
POTENTIAL AND USES COULD LOOK
LIKE.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BE LIMBED
AS A SONS SORT I THINK THIS IS
A WISE DECISION TO NOT
IMPLEMENT MHA.
>> I SHOULD ADD THAT WE HAVE
WILL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
EXECUTIVE ABOUT HAVING
SOMETHING MORROW BUS THAN JUST
A MORATORIUM.
IT DOESN'T STOP THE PROPERTY
FROM BEING SOLD.
I THINK THAT WAS A MISNOMER PUT
OUT THERE.
WHEN KNOW WE WILL HAVE
DISCUSSIONS SO THIS PROPERTY
CAN ACTUALLY SUSTAIN AND APPLY
MANDATORY HOUSING AND DO OTHER
THINGS WITH THE PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER IS A
COSPONSOR.
>> JUST TO EXPLAIN WHERE I'M AT
ON THIS SPECIFIC AMENDMENT.
I ALSO SUPPORT COUNCIL MEMBER
WALKER'S JUAREZ AND I THINK
WE'RE ENGAGD IN CONVERSATION
WITH THE TRUSTEES, TALKING
ABOUT POTENTIAL DENSER
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SENIORS, SO
T ILLUMINATE MY POSITION ON
THIS AND TO SHOW THERE'S
CONSISTENCY BECAUSE OF THE
EXISTING MORATORIUM THERE.
I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THIS
REMAINING IN.
>> SO WE MOVE ON.
>> YES.
>> 5-3.
>> WE ARE ACROSS THE HIGHWAY.
THIS IS A SITE THAT'S CURRENTLY
DEVELOPED WITH THE NORTH HAVEN
SENIOR LIVING FACILITY WHAT
YOU'RE SEEING IS LIKELY TO
CHANGE.
THIS AMENDMENT SHEET SHOWS A
PROPOSAL TO GO FROM LOW PRICE
3M TO M1 TO CONSOLIDATE ZONING
FOR PORTIONS OF THE SITE.
THIS WILL LIKELY SHOW ON THE
EASTERN SECTION AND THE 70-FOOT
HEIGHT LIMIT THAT WAS ANALYZED
UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE 2 AND EIS
AND SOME OTHER TREATMENT FOR
THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE
BASED ON CERTAIN CONVERSATIONS
WITH NORTH HAVEN THAT HAPPENED
YESTERDAY.
>> I THINK WE HAVE OUR NORTH
HAVEN FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE
TODAY.
AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY
WITH THEM FOR TWO OR THREE
YEARS.
NOT ONLY WOULD THIS PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL HOUSING FOR OUR
ELDERS BUT A HEALTH CLINIC AS
WELL.
>> CONSIDERING THERE MAY BE
CHANGING FROM THE HEALTH TODAY
TO WHAT IS PROPOSED AS PART OF
A CONSENT PACKAGE, LET'S FLAG
THAT WHEN WE'RE BACK HERE ON
THE 25th.
>> I JUST WANT TO LET COUNCIL
MEMBER JUAREZ KNOW I'M LEAVING.
I HAVE SOMETHING THAT STARTED
11 MINUTES AGO BUT I SUPPORT
WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS.
IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU NEED ME
TO KNOW IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS,
LET MOW KNOW AND THANK YOU
CENTRAL STAFF.
WE HAVE NOTHING IN D7.
NO AMENDMENTS.
SO THANK YOU AND THANKS TO
EVERYBODY WHO CAME AND SAT
THROUGH THIS FOR THE LAST THREE
HOURS.
>> I KNOW SEVERAL OTHER FOLKS
MAY HAVE LUNCHTIME COMMITMENTS.
LET'S CONTINUE HOOP.
>> MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ONE.
TEST IS THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE
NORTHGATE CENTER AND WHAT WAS
TRANSPORTED TO US A YEAR OR SO
AGO.
THIS IS A PORTION OF THE
FORTGATE.
THIS WOULD MODIFY THE PROPOSAL.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
COUNCIL MEMBER FOR BRINGING
THIS TO ATTENTION.
THAT'S IT.
>> SO WE'LL CONSIDER THAT TO BE
PART OF THAT CONSENT PAWFNLGT
PLEASE CONTINUE EYE THINK
COUNCIL MEMBER GONZALEZ HAS A
QUESTION.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE
ABOUT THE PROPOSAL.
THIS IS A DEVIATION FROM THE
CURRENT ZONING AND THE PROPOSED
ZONING, SO IT'S GOING, IT WOULD
BE PROPOSED TO GO TO RSL.
I JUST WANT TO FLAG THAT I WANT
TO HAVE ADDITIONAL
CONVERSATIONS WITH COUNCIL
MEMBER JUAREZ TO UNDERSTAND
THIS PROPOSAL AND HAVE MORE
DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS PROPOSED
AMENDMENT.
>> YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS A
CATCH HERE OF AN ERROR?
>> WE CAN TALK FURTHER, COUNCIL
MEMBER GONZALEZ.
THE PRINCIPALS RECOGNIZES THAT
NORTHGATE IS A LOW ACCESS TO
OPPORTUNITY AREA.
SO GENERALLY ACROSS NORTHGATE
MOST OF THE INCREASES ARE LOWER
THANYOU MIGHT SEE IN PLACES
LIKE CAPITOL HILL.
THE PROPOSAL WAS PROXIMITY TO
CRITICAL AREAS, AREAS THAT
GENERALLY SEE LESS DEVELOPMENT
BECAUSE OF GEOLOGICAL CONDITION
OR THEY HAVE SOME VALUE FOR
WILDLIFE HABITAT.
SO PART OF WHAT WAS THE ORANGE
THIS AREA AND THAT'S DUE TO ITS
PROXIMITY TO ONE OF THOSE
CRITICAL AREAS FOR THORNTON
CREEK.
>> SO WHAT IS DRIVING THIS
PARTICULAR AMENDMENT IS
PRIMARILY THE CRITICAL AREAS
COMPONENT THAT YOU JUST
DESCRIBE.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I'M HEARING THAT'S STILL A
REQUEST FOR AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE.
>> I THINK I HAVE THE
INFORMATION I NEED SO I'M FINE
WITH IT MOVING ON TO THE CON
CENSUS AGENDA.
I KNOW I HAVE FROM NEW UNTIL
THE 25th TO RAISE THOSE.
>> LET'S CONTINUE.
>> 510A THROUGH D ARE ALL THEME
MATCALLY SIMILAR.
PORTIONS OF AURORA BETWEEN 85th
UP TO ABOUT 100th STREET, SO
AREAS IN THE AURORA AREA NORTH
OF 105th I THINK OR 100th THAT
ARE NOT CURRENTLY -- THAT DO
NOT CURRENTLY HAVE A PEDESTRIAN
DESIGNATION WOULD NOT HAVE THE
CONTROLS THAT APPLY TO THE P
ZONES.
SO FOR PIN STANCE WHERE HANDY
ANDY CURRENTLY IS WOULD NOT BE
AFFECTED BY THE DESIGNATION.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ?
>> I THINK THAT'S ALL.
>> WE'LL CONSIDER THOSE PART OF
THE CONSENT PACKAGE.
FINALLY?
>> MOVING ON TO 511 THIS IS A
RELATIVELY NEW ONE.
IT WAS NOT DISCUSSED AT THE
LAST MEETING.
>>> THIS WOULD EXPAND THE NORTH
GATE URBAN CENTER FOR A HALF A
BLOCK WEST OF I-5 CLOSE TO THE
HOSPITAL THERE.
THIS ALTERNATIVE WAS ANALYZED
AND ALTERNATIVE 2 TO THE EIS
AND WOULD REZONE THIS HEAR FROM
SINGLE FAMILY TO LOW RISE TO M
IS.
>> WE WOULD BE SUPPORT OF THIS
AND OUR CONSTITUENT REACHED OUT
TO US.
HE WAS UNAWARE ABOUT WHAT WAS
GOING ON WITH THE AMENDMENT, SO
WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GOT
IT IN THE PACKET.
WE SHOULD FOCUS THAT AREA IS
BUILDING WITH THE DENSITY THAT
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
OWNS AND NORTH SALE COLLEGE IS
THERE.
WITH THE BIKE BRIDGE COMING IN,
YOU'LL SEE MORE BUYING, RENTING
AND HAVING MORE UNITS.
PEOPLE WILL BE GOING OVER THE
PEDESTRIAN BIKE BRIDGE.
WE HAVE 130th STREET.
SO IF THERE'S TIME TO BUY
PROPERTY, IT'S NEW.
>> THIS AMENDMENT WITH ALSO
REQUIRE A CORE CORRESPONDING
AMENDMENT.
>> LET'S MOVE ON TO DISTRICT
506 DISTRICT 6, I'M GOING TO BE
PINCH HITTING FOR MY COLLEAGUE,
SO COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU MAY NEED
TO JUMP IN HERE MORE AND IN
OTHER DISTRICTS AS I HAVEN'T
BEEN AS INVOLVED IN CREATING
THE AMENDMENTS BUT WILL DO MY
BEST TO CHARACTERIZE THEM.
IN DISTRICT 6 THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
SIMILAR TO OTHER AREAS WE HAVE
DISCUSSED.
6-3 IS CURRENTLY ZONED SINGLE
FAMILY IN THE CROWN HILL.
IT IS TO GO TO RSL.
THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE NEXT
SORT OF FIVE OR SIX AMENDMENTS
BUT WE'LL WALK THROUGH THEM
INDIVIDUALLY.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIAN.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON, THE
SUITE OF AMENDMENTS, MY
PREFERENCE WOULD PROBABLY BE TO
SPEAK OF THEM AS A PACKAGE.
>> IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU?
>> THAT'S FINE WITH ME.
THIS WOULD BE THE AREAS ZONED
SINGLE FAMILY IN THE CROWN HILL
WHICH ARE AMENDMENTS 6-3
THROUGH 6-11.
THEY ARE ALL PROPOSALS TO
MODIFY WHAT WAS IN THE BILL
ORIGINALLY AND THE PRINCIPAL
THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BRIAN SAID.
SO IT'S ADDRESSING TRANSITION
AREAS.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE
FLOOR.
>> COULD WE ALSO -- COULD I
ALSO ASK -- LET ME SCROLL
THROUGH THIS.
SPEAK TO 6-16 AND 6-17.
THOSE ARE ALSO IN CRUN HILL.
>> SO 6-16 IS THE AREA OF THE
INTERSECTION NORTHWEST 58th
STREET.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO GO FROM LOW
RISE TO NC75.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD REDUCE THAT
TO 55 FEET AND 6-17 IS A
COMMERCIAL NODE AT 15th AVENUE.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO GO FROM
NC3P40 TO 55.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD INCREASE
THAT TO 5 FEET.
>> THANK YOU.
SO, COLLEAGUES, I WANT TO WALK
THROUGH CROWN HILL IS ONE OF
THE HANDFUL OF URBAN VILLAGES
THAT AS OF TODAY HAS SINGLE
FAMILY CONSISTENT WITH THE
FRAMEWORK WE'VE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT.
IT WOULD BE ZONED AT A HIGHER
DENSITY AND BE REQUIRED TO HAVE
SOME LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY
WITH THAT.
BECAUSE THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF SINGLE FAMILY,
THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY I'LL
CALL IT, TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL SMALL
LOT.
IT HAS RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT.
WHAT MY SERIES OF AMENDMENTS
WOULD DO WOULD CONVERT SOME OF
THE UNDERLYING PROPOSAL FROM
LOW RISE TO RESIDENTIAL SLOW
LOT AND MAKE BORDER ADJUSTMENTS
TO TRANSITION FROM THE HIGHER
HEIGHTS OF COMMERCIAL TO LOW
RISE ZONES TO RESIDENTIAL SMALL
WILL THES BEFORE WE GET TO THE
BOUNDARY OF THE URBAN VILLAGE
WHERE THIS WILL TRANSITION TO
SINGLE FAMILY.
THE WORK I'VE DONE WITHIN
COMMUNITY OUT THERE AND I WANT
TO BE CLEAR LIKE EVERY
COMMUNITY THERE'S A MIX OF
OPINIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE'S IN ONE GROUP OR
INDIVIDUAL THAT SPEAKS TO THAT
ENTIRE COMMUNITY BUT IN AN
ATTEMPT OVER THE LAST YEAR TO
WORK WITH PEOPLE IN THE
COMMUNITY INCLUDING GOING OUT
AND KNOCKING ON DOORS AND GOING
TO A NUMBER OF MEETINGS, TO
REALLY TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHERE
THERE'S CONSENSUS.
ANOTHER PRINCIPAL I HAVEN'T
TALKED ABOUT AT THE MOMENT BUT
IT'S COME UP BEFORE IS THAT A
DESIRE THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO
MAKE SOME SHIFT THAT IS WITH
AFFECT CAPACITY AND ALSO AFFECT
THE AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN ONE DIRECTION, TO
LOOK FOR OFFSETTING SHIFTS IN
THE OTHER DIRECTION.
WHAT THE A LOT OF FOLKS IN THE
CRUN CROWN HILL AREA THEY WOULD
LIKE TO SEE INCREASED DENSITY
ALONG 15th.
SO THERE'S AN AMENDMENT TO
INCREASE FROM NC55 TO NC75 FOR
A STRETCH THERE BUT THEN HAVE
THAT STEPPED DOWN TO
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT AND I
WANT TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY
ABOUT WHY I'M EXCITED ABOUT
RESIDENTIAL SMALL PLOT.
I'VE BEEN ON A NUMBER OF
WALKING TOURS AND HAVE DRUGGED
FOLKS FROM CENTRAL STAFF.
SO THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING
IN THAT.
THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULD LIKE TO
SEE ADDITIONAL DENSITY BUT
THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
AFFORDABILITY OF THAT
ADDITIONAL DENSITY.
THE LOTS ARE SOMEWHAT LARGE
LOTS.
THEY OFTEN HAVE RELATIVELY
SMALL HOMES ON THEM.
THEY'RE ALREADY SEEING
REDEVELOPMENT IN THE SINGLE
FAMILY ZONE WHERE A SMALL HOUSE
IS TORN DOWN AND A MUCH LARGER
SINGLE FAMILY HOME REPLACES IT.
IT DRAMATICALLY CHANGES THE
AFFORDABILITY OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE'S SOME CONCERN IN SOME
AREAS THAT A LOT OF SHIFTS TO
LOW RISE ONE WOULD HAVE THAT
SIMILAR THING.
THE LOW RISE WOULD PRODUCE,
WOULD BE MANDATED TO PRODUCE
SOME AFFORDABILITY.
THERE'S SOME OVERALL CONCERNS
AND A DESIRE TO SAY, THEY THINK
THAT REDEVELOPMENT UNDER A
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT PROVIDES
AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAINTAIN
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND
MAINTAIN THE AFFORDABILITY
LEVEL OF THOSE.
HOPEFULLY EVEN MAINTAINS THE
CURRENT RESIDENCE OF THOSE,
WHILE ADDING ADDITIONAL
CAPACITY WITH REALLY TO
ACCOMMODATE THAT.
THE RESIDENTIAL SMALL WILL THE
DOESN'T EXIST IN THE CITY.
WHAT WHERE' TALKING ABOUT WITH
THE SUITE OF THINGS IS
ESSENTIALLY CREATING A NEW TYPE
OF LAND AND I DON'T WANT TO
PRETEND THAT I KNOW EXACTLY HOW
THIS WILL PLAY OUT.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU FOR SURE IS
PEOPLE WILL BUILD SOME THINGS
THAT WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE.
I'M HOPING THERE WILL BE A LOT
OF GOOD THINGS THAT HAPPEN.
I WITHIN THE BE SURPRISED IF
THINGS GET BUILT AND THEY SAY
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE INTENDED AND
HAVE TO GO BACK AND MAKE
CHANGES.
THERE HAVE BEEN HARK TCT
ARCHITECTS.
AND HOW WE ADD MORE DENSE TI
WITHOUT NECESSARILY CHANGING
THE MAYBE BULK AND SCALE OF
SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT
WE HAVE SOME AREAS THAT WE CAN
TRY OUT.
I'M HOPING CROWN HILL FOLKS
EXPERIMENTING WITH WHAT THE NEW
FLEXIBILITY PROVIDES AND
OPTIMISTIC THAT WE'LL SEE A LOT
OF PEOPLE, PROBABLY MORE
IMPORTANT PEOPLE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD SAY I LIKE THE
CHANGES HAPPENING IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
I LIKE THE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY
THAT'S ADDED.
I LIKE THE FACT THERE'S A RANGE
OF AFFORDABILITY IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THE SUITE OF AMENDMENTS IT'S
AN INCREASE IN DENSITY BUT
WOULD REDUCE THE DENSITY ON
SOME BLOCKS FROM WHAT IS IN THE
PROPOSAL AND INCREASE THE
DENSITY IN OTHER BLOCKS FROM
WHAT'S ON THE PROPOSAL.
THE INTENT IS TO BALANCE THAT A
BIT AND ALLOW FOR SOME
EXPLORATION OF RESIDENTIAL
SMALL PLOT AT A SCALE THAT I
THINK COULD BE KIND OF IT
EXCITING.
IT'S NOT UNIQUE TO CROWN HILL
BUT AN -- IT MAY NOT BE
REDEVELOPMENT, MAYBE ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT ON TOP OF EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS SOMETHING
I'M EXCITED TO SEE AND
RESPECTING THERE NEEDS TO BE
SOME TRANSITION ZONES.
SO THOSE TRANSITION ZONES ARE
FAIRLY NARROW BECAUSE OF THE
LAYOUT OF THE URBAN VEG.
I'M REALLY EXCITED TO HEAR WHAT
MY COLLEAGUES THINK ABOUT THIS
TO STRIKE A BALANCE THAT I
THINK HELPS.
IF YOU LOOK AT AMENDMENT 6-3,
THAT WAS ALL PROPOSED TO GO TO
LOW RISE.
SOME WANTED TO SEE RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT.
WE HEARD FROM SOME MORE
NEIGHBORS WHO ARE -- IT'S KIND
OF AN L-SHAPED CUTOUT AND
TRANSITION ZONES.
HEY, WE WOULD LIKE TO REMAIN
LOW RISE AS PART OF A SMALL
TRANSITION TO RESIDENTIAL SMALL
LOT.
I BELIEVE WE REACHED MAYBE
BEYOND CONSENSUS BUT THAT
EVERYONE WAS SUPPORTIVE OF LOW
RISE ON THOSE SMALL LOTS.
ANYWAYS, I LOOK FORWARD TO
HEARING ANY SUGGESTIONS YOU
HAVE, QUESTIONS.
>> DID I CUT ANYBODY OFF?
>> NO.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I DO HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.
ONE IS ON 16 AND 17, ARE THOSE
TWO COMBINED TOGETHER?
DO THEY IMPACT EACH OTHER?
IS THERE A NET NEUTRAL IN TERMS
OF HOUSING OPTIONS THERE?
I'M SORRY JUST BECAUSE OF THE
LANGUAGE AND THE DESCRIPTION.
>> THE 16, WHAT'S ON THE GROUND
AND THE AMENDMENT IN 16 IS JUST
A COUPLE PARCELS CURRENTLY
ZONED LR3.
FOR SOME REASON WHICH I DON'T
TOTALLY UNDERSTAND, THE BASE
PROPOSAL PROPOSES THAT TO GO TO
7345.
THE CHUNKS ALONG THE ARTERIAL
ONLY PROPOSED 55.
I NEVER UNDERSTOOD HOW THE ONE
IN 16 WENT TO 75 WHILE NOT
ADJACENT ONE.
MY PROPOSAL WOULD LOWER FROM
THE BASE PROPOSAL THE CHUNK IN
16, FIVE PARCELS BACK DOWN TO
35 FOR A TRANSITION TO LOW RISE
TWO AND INCREASE THE HEIGHT
FROM 55 TO 75 ON SIGNIFICANTLY
MORE PARCELS.
I CAN'T COUNT THEM ALL HERE BUT
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ROUGHLY SIX
TIMES THE AREA.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT THOSE TWO
-- THE NET OF THOSE TWO I
BELIEVE WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT
INCREASE IN CAPACITY ON THOSE.
>> OKAY.
>> SO IF I MIGHT, MR. CHAIR, I
THINK -- I APPRECIATE THAT AND
THOSE TWO, SETTING ASIDE THOSE
TWO AMENDMENTS.
GENERALLY, AS I LOOK AT THE
VARIOUS PROPOSALS I REMAIN
CONCERNED.
NUMBER ONE, I DON'T THINK I
WOULD HAVE THE CONCERNS IF WE
CONSIDERED APPLYING RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT ACROSS THE CITY.
I THINK THAT WILL GIVE US A LOT
OF DENSE TI OPTIONS BUT GIVEN
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 6% OF
THE LAND ACROSS ALL OF THE
PROPOSED CHANGES IN THIS
PACKAGE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO LOOK AT HOW WE GO TO THE
MAXIMUM AVAILABLE UNDER THE
EXISTING EIS RECOGNIZING IT'S
LIMITED AS IT STANDS.
I KNOW WE'RE NOT DOWNZONING.
I WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR.
BUT EVEN REDUCED CAPACITY
EQUALS REDUCED NUMBERS OF
PEOPLE TO LIVE THERE, HOUSING
UNITS AND FOLKS TO HAVE ACCESS
TO YOUR AS SET-RICH
NEIGHBORHOODS.
I'M CONCERNED.
HAD WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
BE AN RSL, IT WOULD BE
DIFFERENT.
I THINK THERE ARE VARIOUS AREAS
ACROSS THE CITY THAT WOULD LIKE
TO EXPLORE THOSE MODELS YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT SINCE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT URBAN VILLAGES
AND THE ABILITY TO CREATE
DENSITY IN POCKETS I'M
INTERESTED?
MAXIMIZING THE DI DIVERSE
NUMBER OF HOUSES.
BIKE LANES WE'RE STILL TRYING
TO GET.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE MORE
RESIDENTS HAVE ACCESS TO THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE'RE
PUTTING IN DISTRICT 6. SO A
GENERAL SUITE OF THE AMENDMENTS
YOU DISCUSSED, I REMAIN
CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE THAT
WOULDN'T, AS YOU DISCUSSED WITH
16 AND 17 LEVEL OUT TO ALLOW
FOR GREATER DENSITY EYE WAS
HOPING TO GET US OUT BEFORE THE
SNOWFALLS.
SOUNDS LIKE A DESIRE TO KEEP
THE CROWN HILL TOGETHER.
I WANT TO GIVE YOU AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND BUT I
WANT TO CONFIRM I HEARD THAT
FROM YOU WITH POSSIBLY THE
EXCEPTION OF THE COMMERCIAL
NODE ZONING CHANGE FROM 55 TO
75 AND FROM 5 TO 55.
I BELIEVE YOU THOUGHT THOSE
WERE APPROPRIATE BUT THE
REMADER OF THE AMOUNTS 63
THROUGH 6-11 SHOULD BE CALLED
OUT FOR INDIVIDUALIZED VOTES.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR
COMMENTS, NOT JUST ON THIS
PARTICULAR CHANGE BUT
THROUGHOUT THE DAY AND I DON'T
HAVE ANY PHILOSOPHICAL
DIFFERENCE.
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A
PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCE.
YOU SPEAK WELL TO THE SENSE OF
URGENCY TO ADDRESS A WHOLE HOST
OF ISSUES BOTH AROUND
AFFORDABILITY AND CLIMATE
CHANGE FITS IN THAT.
WHAT REDEVELOPMENT FROM SINGLE
FAMILY TO LOW RISE AND WHAT
SINGLE FAMILY TO RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
WHILE IT'S POSSIBLE THAT
SOMEONE COULD CONVERT A LARGER
HOME INTO A BIGGER DEVELOPMENT
THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH
LOW RISE, I'M NOT AWARE OF
SEEING THAT IN A SINGLE
INSTANCE IN OUR CITY.
SO WHEN LOW RISE-- WHEN THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD IF IT WERE TO BE
REDEVELOPED TO LOW RISE, WE
DON'T SEE THE DEMOLITION OF THE
EXISTING STRUCTURES GOING IN
WHICH IS PART OF WHAT HAPPENS
IN CHANGE AND IT'S HARD AND I'M
OPEN TO THAT.
WHAT I'M EXCITED ABOUT IS THE
POSSIBILITY OF RETAINING SOME
OF THESE PLACES WHERE FOLKS CAN
STAY IN PLACE AND BE PART OF
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AT
CAPACITY AND WHILE THIS MAY NOT
ADD AS MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE AS
WE SEE IN LOW RISE ZONE, I
THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE ADD
AS MANY NEW UNITS.
LOOKING AT LOW RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT, I THINK THAT'S A
FAIR ONE AND ONE I'M INTRIGUED
BY.
I THINK THE POLITICAL REALITY
IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE IN A
DEMOCRACY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT OUR
COMMUNITIES ARE READY TO
EMBRACE THAT CITY WIDE.
ONE WAY IS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT
WE HAVE THIS NEW THING CALLED
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT.
DRIVE TO ONE OF YOUR
NEIGHBORHOODS DOWN THE STREET
AND SEE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT
THAT.
DO WE DO IT IN ONE BIG STEP.
I GET THE URGENCY TO TAKE ONE
BIG STEP.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE QUITE
READY TO DO THAT.
THAT'S WHY I'M EXCITED ABOUT
THE REST DISENGS SMALL LOT.
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT.
WHEN I LOOK DOWN HERE IT'S A
DIFFERENT VIEW.
GLAD I BROUGHT MY SKI HELMET
FOR MY BIKE RIDE HOME.
I TOTALLY RESPECT THE POINTS
AND I APPRECIATE THE DIALOGUE
HERE.
I WILL LIKELY STAY ON
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT, IS MY
SUGGESTION FOR THIS FOR THE
REASONS MENTIONED AND I HOPE
THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY IN
THE RELATIVELY NEAR FUTURE TO
TALK ABOUT POSSIBILITIES OF
USING RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT IN
MANY MORE AREAS OF THE CITY.
>> ANYTHING TO ADD?
>> THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO ECHO COUNCIL
MEMBER'S POINTS AND RATIONAL
AND YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE
CONCEPT THAT SOMEHOW RSL IS
EVENTUALLY GOING TO GET US TO A
POINT WHERE PEOPLE WILL
SUDDENLY BE CONVINCED THAT
INCREASE DENSITY IS APPROPRIATE
FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T
THINK THAT RINGS TRUE FOR ME.
THE AMOUNT OF RESISTANCE WE'VE
HAD IS PRETTY EXTRAORDINARY AND
I APPRECIATE THAT WE HAVE, YOU
KNOW, ACCOMMODATED SOME
CONCERNS?
THE CURRENT PACKAGE AND IN
PRIOR PACKAGES.
CERTAINLY WHEN WE WERE TAKING
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BY
NEIGHBORHOOD, WE WERE ABLE TO
MORE DEEPLY ENGAGE IN SOME OF
THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAD
VERY HIGH RISK OF DISPLACEMENT
RATINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND I
THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE
THING TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION.
I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE NET
EFFECT CITY WIDE WHEN WE START
SLOWLY CHIPPING AWAY AT
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE BEEN
EVALUATED, ANALYZED AND
DETERMINED TO BE HIGH
OPPORTUNITY AND LOW RISK OF
DISPLACEMENT.
NOW LOW RISK OF DISPLACEMENT
DOES NOT MEAN ZERO
DISPLACEMENT.
IT DOES MEAN THERE'S PLAN
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO TAKE A
STEP FORWARD AND MAKE SURE
WE'RE IMPLEMENTING POLICIES IN
THOSE AREAS THAT ARE TRUELY
GOING TO RESULT IN MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS RATHER
THAN LESS THAN THE ONES THAT
ARE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.
SO I CONTINUE TO HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT THIS DIRECTION.
I SEE THIS SUITE OF AMENDMENTS
AND THE ARGUMENTS YOU HAVE MADE
IN FAVOR OF THEM SIMILAR TO THE
WEST SEATTLE AREA, SO I'M GOING
TO STAY CONSISTENT AND SAY I
HAVE CONCERNS.
>> WE HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES TO
DISCUSS.
BEFORE WE GET TO THAT THERE'S
AN EMERGENCY ORDER.
>> I WILL SAY I DO LIKE YOUR
SMALL STEPS APPROACH, BUT
THAT'S NOT WHAT I NEED TO SAY.
AT 11:00 TODAY THE MAYOR DID
DECLARE A CIVIL EMERGENCY
DESCRIBING WHAT WE'RE PROBABLY
SEEING NOW WHICH IS NOT ONLY
HEAVY SNOWFALL BUT WIND GUSTS
TO THE TUNE OF 35 TO 45 MILES.
SO THE EMERGENCY ORDERS IS IN
PLACE AND STARTED AROUND 11:00.
WE AS A COUNCIL, WE CAN
ENDEAVOR TO ACT WITHIN 45
HOURS.
IF WE TAKE NO ACTION THE ORDER
STAYS IN EFFECT.
BASICALLY THIS ORDER, YOU ALL
HAVE IT IN YOUR INBOX, IT GIVES
THE MAYOR THE ABILITY TO MAKE
PURCHASES FOR SALT AND OTHER
TYPES OF PRODUCTS TO ASSIST US,
EMERGENCY AID, WHATEVER IS
NECESSARY.
SO IT'S IN PLACE.
WE HAVE 48 HOURS WITH WHICH TO
ACT.
IF WE DO NOTHING IT STAYS IN
PLACE.
WE CAN RESCIND IT AT ANYTIME
WHEN WE ME.
LASTLY YOUR POINT OF CONTACT,
DANA.
SO THE MEETING IS POSTPONED.
THE MEETING IS AT 11:00.
USE DANA AS YOUR POINT OF
CONTACT AND THIS COMMERCIAL IS
OVER.
>> SO YOU DON'T ANTICIPATE YOU
WILL NEED US TO TAKE AN ACTION
DURING THIS MEETING.
>> CORRECT.
I DON'T NEED -- I'M NOT
RECOMMENDING AT THIS POINT THAT
YOU CONVENE IN 48 HOURS.
THIS IS A PRETTY SOLID ONE.
IT'S WHAT'S BEEN SENT TO THE
GOVERNOR.
YOU CAN LOOK AT IT AND WE CAN
ALWAYS RESCIND IT ON MONDAY IF
WE CHOOSE.
>> QUESTIONS?
>> WHILE WE HAVE THE VIEWING
AUDIENCE'S ATTENTION ANY
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE
HOURS FOR SHELTERS FOR OUR
HOMELESS POPULATION?
DO WE KNOW IF THOSE ARE 24/7 OR
WILL THEY STILL HAVE TO LEAVE
AT 7 A.M.
>> I DO NOT KNOW.
I HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE
OFFICE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> CCHAIR?
>> THERE WAS AN EMAIL.
THIS IS FROM A NEWS ROW LEASE
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR,
THAT IS IN THE SECTION
DISCUSSING THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT.
THE CITY OF SEATTLE IS
EXTENDING THROUGH SUNDAY NIGHT.
HSD WILL PARTNER WITH MARY'S
PLACE.
THEHSD AND PARKS AND
RECREATION ARE OPENING A 24-
HOUR WARMING SHELTER PER FAMILY
WITH CHILDREN THREW MONDAY
MORNING AND THERE MAY BE MORE
ANNOUNCEMENTS COMING AS WELL AS
THE SEATTLE CENTER.
THAT IS THE UPDATE WE HAVE.
>> CHAIR JOHNSON, IF I CAN
HOPEFULLY PUNCTUATE THIS, THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS
RECENTLY ANNOUNCED WITHIN THE
LAST HOUR THAT THEY ARE ASKING
RESIDENTS IN THE CITY WHO SEE
SOMEBODY WHO MIGHT BE COLD AND
IN NEED OF SHELTER TO DIAL 911.
THIS IS UNUSUAL FOR US.
WE DON'T TYPICALLY USE 911 FOR
THAT TYPE OF CALL BUT SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT IS
ENCOURAGING MEMBERS OF OUR
COMMUNITY TO CALL 911 IF THEY
SEE SOMEONE WHO APPEARS TO BE
IN DISTRESS OR MAYBE NOT IN
DISTRESS BUT MAYBE IN NEED OF
SHELTER AND SEATTLE POLICE WILL
MAKE SURE APPROPRIATE RESOURCE
ARE DEPLOYED.
>> WE HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS LEFT
TO DISCUSS WHICH ARE NOT CROWN
HILL RELATED.
>> AMENDMENT 6-15.
IS THE BLOCK NORTHWEST 56th
STREET AND NORTHWEST 57th
STREET.
TH PROPOSAL IN THE LEGISLATION
HAS TO GO FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO
LOW RISE ONE.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REDUCE
THAT TO RSL.
>> I HEARD FROM A CONSTITUENT
WHO LIVES IN THIS BLOCK ALMOST
A YEAR AGO WITH SOME CONCERNS
ABOUT LOW RISE ONE.
I'VE HEARD FROM OTHERS WITH A
STRONG PERFORMANCE FOR LR1.
I THINK THAT LOW RISE ONE IS
MORE PROAMPLET APPROPRIATE.
I WOULD ASK THAT WE NOT MOVE IT
FORWARD.
>> I'M ASKING AS A REMOVE FOR
FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND
THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
6-18.
>> 6-18, THE FINAL AMENDMENT.
THIS IS ADJACENT TO THE URBAN
VILLAGE.
THIS WOULD REDUCE IT TO LOW
RISE ONE.
THIS IS INFORMED BY INPUT FROM
THE COMMUNITY AND WE'LL BE
LOOKING AT THE DATA PROVIDED IN
THE ADDENDUM.
>> APPRECIATE THAT.
COLLEAGUES, THIS IS AN AREA,
AGAIN, I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THE
HISTORY BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE
UNDERLYING ZONING, THIS IS A
LOW RISE ONE CHUNK OF PARTIALS
SURROUNDED BY LOW RISE 2. THERE
WAS SOME DESIRE IN THE PAST TO
KEEP IT DIFFERENT.
I KNOW THE DESIRE IS, IN PART,
AROUND A SERIES OF HOMES ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF I THINK 36th
THERE THAT CERTAINLY HAVE A LOT
OF CHARACTER.
I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON SPEAKING
TO IT.
I THINK IT'S VICT TORIAN.
SO THE REQUEST FROM COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WAS TO IN AN EFFORT TO
MAINTAIN SOME OF THE HISTORICAL
CHARACTER OF THAT, TO NOT MOVE
THIS UP FROM LOW RISE ONE TO
LOW RISE 3 WHICH WOULD BE AN M1
BUMP AND KEEP IT AT LOW RISE 1
WHICH IS AN M BUMP.
IT WOULD BE PART OF THE
CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK WITHIN THE
URBAN VILLAGE.
IF THIS AMENDMENT GOES THROUGH,
THE ADJACENT PARCELS WOULD BE A
LOW RISE THREE.
THAT WOULD BE A DISTINCTION.
IT PRESERVES SOME FLEXIBILITY
TO DO SOME MORE WORK FOR
DESIGNATIONS AROUND SOME OF
THOSE STRUCTURES THAT I THINK
ARE THE CHARACTER IS PRETTY
IMPORTANT.
JUST SO FOLKS ARE FAMILIAR,
THESE ARE HOMES ACROSS THE
STREET FROM THE TROLL AND ON A
STREET THAT'S EXTREMELY
SLIPPERY PAUSE I WAS OUT THERE
THE OTHER DAY.
>> AND HALF IS IN YOUR DISTRICT
AND HALF IS IN MINE.
FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
ONE, COL GLOBALS?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER GONZALEZ?
>> I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND
THE RATIONAL A LITTLE BIT MORE.
THIS IS AN AREA THAT ALREADY
HAS QUITE A BIT OF DENSITY.
THERE'S LAP DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THESE AT LOW RISE ONE AND THE
ADJACENT FULLY SURROUNDING IT.
I BELIEVE THROUGH PREVIOUS
PROCESSES BECAUSE OF THE
HISTORY PICK NATURE AND I SAY
HISTORIC WITH A LOWER CASE H. I
DON'T THINK THEY'RE DESIGNATED.
FOR WHATEVER REASON THERE WAS A
DISTINCTION TO BE MADE THE
UNDERLYING PROPOSAL, THE BASE
PROPOSAL MOVES YESSING TO LOW
RISE THREE AND THIS WHO
ELIMINATE THAT DISTINCT.
MY PROPOSAL IS TO BE --
EVERYTHING IS GOING FROM LOW
RISE TWO TO LOW RISE ONE.
IT IS INTENDED TO NOT PUT
PRESSURE ON REDEVELOPMENT
THAT'S HAPPENING IN THE AREA ON
THOSE SPECIFIC SITES AND TO
ALLOW SOME POSSIBILITY FOR SOME
DESIGNATIONS GOING FORWARD.
THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN, BUT
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PRESSURE
IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A LONG
TIME AND FOR WHATEVER REASON
THEY HAVEN'T REDEVELOPED MOST
OF THOSE SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT
IMPACT THIS WHO HAVE ONE WAY OR
THE OTHER BUT I DO KNOW THERE
ARE A LOT OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS
THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT
STAY PRESERVED, IF AT ALL
POSSIBLE.
>> I JUST HAVE ON GOING
CONCERNS ABOUT THAT APPROACH.
I THINK THE OTHER PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS IN MOUNT BAKER AND
RAVENNA, WE DECIDED WE ARE
ADVANCING, PUTTING ON THE CON
SEN SPUPS AGENDA AMENDMENTS
THAT ACKNOWLEDGE THE HISTORIC
RESOURCE DESIGNATION BY THINK
THE TRIGGER IS THERE HAS BEEN A
DESIGNATION.
I WORRY ABOUT ALLOWING MORE
SPACE ON THE BASIS THAT PEOPLE
BELIEVE THE HOMES TO BE
HISTORIC, SO I'M A LITTLE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDEN
THAT SETS, AND AGAIN IN AN AREA
ALREADY PART OF AN URBAN
VILLAGE.
>> TO BE CLEAR THERE'S ONE
PERCENT THAT THEY DECIDED TO
LEAVE IT AT LOW RISE ONE SO NO
ZONING BUMP AT ALL.
I DO BELIEVE WITHIN AN URBAN
VILLAGE CLOSE TO TRANSIT THAT
EVERYTHING SHOULD PARTICIPATES
IN IT.
THE LEVEL, I THINK I CERTAINLY
FEEL THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME
DISCRETION WITHIN THAT
FRAMEWORK TO SET THAT AND I DO
THINK THAT THE LOWER CASE H
HISTORIC NATURE OF THIS ALLOWS
US TO STAY ON THE LOWER END OF
THAT BUMP BUT I WOULD NOT BE
SUPPORTIVE OF DOING NO
DESIGNATION AND ESSENTIALLY
CARVING THIS OUT UNLIKE WHAT WE
DID AT MT. BAKER AND RAVENNA
AND SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO
UPZONE.
I STILL THERE THERE SHOULD BE
AN UPZONE BUT A MODEST ONE.
LIKE ON THE PREVIOUS ONE, I
COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE
CONCERNS THERE.
I GUESS I WOULD SAY I'M
BALANCING IT MORE THIS
DIRECTION.
>> I'M HEARING YOUR REQUEST AS
A REQUEST TO PULL THIS ONE OUT.
>> WE CAN LEAVE IT ON THE
CONSENSUS AGENDA.
I WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT MORE,
ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL.
I SEE COUNCIL MEMBER MAKING A
FACE.
>> I'M IN THE SAME BOAT OF
DESIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AND HAVE A CONVERSATION FOR
CENTRAL STAFF ABOUT THE
PRECEDENT.
SO IF YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED
IN HAVING THOSE DISCUSSIONS ON
THE 25th, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
THIS ADDED FOR CONSIDERATION.
>> MY COLLEAGUES AND PUBLIC, I
WILL ACTUALLY NOT BE HERE ON
THE 25th.
MY SCHEDULE DID NOT ALIGN WITH
THE SCHEDULE.
I WILL BE AVAILABLE SOMEWHERE
IN THE CITY ALL NEXT WEEK TO
HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS AND
WITH LOVE TO ENGAGE WITH FOLKS
ABOUT THAT.
SO I MAY BE CALLING IN ON THE
25th BUT I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE
SAME AS AN INPERSON DISCUSSION.
>> AND WE HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE
TO CONNECT WITH THIS BUT ONE OF
THE ALTERNATIVES WOULD BE
HOLDING OFF DISTRICT 6
AMENDMENTS UNTIL THE FULL
DISCUSSION ON THE 18th OF
MARCH, SO LET'S CONTINUE TO
TALK WHEN WE HAVE A CHANCE.
COLLEAGUES, I BELIEVE THAT
CONCLUDES THE AMENDMENTS.
>> I WANT TO REITERATE WE'LL
CONTINUING TO WORK WITH ALL OF
YOU TO FINALIZE AMENDMENTS
FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING
AND BEFORE THE COMMITTEE VOTES.
WE SAID SOMEWHERE IN THE
CONVERSATION THAT WE WOULD HAVE
MORE OF A DISCUSSION ON THE
HOUSING UNIT.
I MIGHT SUGGEST, GIVEN THE
WEATHER AND THE TIME, WHAT I
CAN COMMIT TO DOING IS
PREPARING A MORE DETAILED MEMO
THAT WOULD BE MORE USEFUL THAN
ME ON THE FLY IN ADVANCE OF THE
PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE COULD
MAKE AVAILABLE AND I'M HAPPY TO
MEET WITH YOU TO TALK TO SOME
OF THE PROS AND CONS OF GOING
ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
>> AND WE HAVE ABOUT HALF OF
THE AMENDMENT THAT IS WE
DISCUSSED TODAY AS PART OF THE
CONCEPTS PACKAGE FOR DISCUSSION
ON THE 25th AND ABOUT HALF
REMAIN.
AS CONVERSATIONS PROGRESS OVER
THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS I
WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO TALK TO EACH
OTHER SO WE DON'T HAVE
INDIVIDUAL VOTES ON 40
AMENDMENTS BUT TO KEEP THAT
NUMBER ON A SMALLER NUMBER SO
WE'RE NOT PROGRESSING LONG INTO
THE EVENING ON MONDAY FEBRUARY
25th.
COLLEAGUES WE'RE ABOUT TO KICK
IT OFF TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
COUNCIL MEMBER?
>> I ALSO WANT TO CONGRATULATE
YOU FOR YOUR INCLUSIVE AND
INTENSE PROCESS WORKING WITH
VARIOUS COMMUNITIES HAVING--
HOW MANY MEETINGS DID YOU HAVE?
>> I BELIEVE WE HAD 42 AND MORE
THAN 200 LED BY VARIOUS CITY
DEPARTMENTS OVER THE LAST THREE
YEARS.
>> VERY IMPRESSIVE.
>> THANK YOU FOR GETTING US TO
THIS LAST AND FINAL HURDLE.
I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES.
I KNOW THERE WAS AN INTENTION
CONVERSATION TODAY.
I KNOW THAT WE ARE ALL VERY
INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE WE
ARE PROVIDING CLARITY ON THE
AMENDMENTS, SO THE DATA WILL BE
HELPFUL.
THE ON GOING -- IT'S IMPORTANT
FOR US TO REMEMBER EVEN THOUGH
SOME OF THE CHANGES ARE BEING
PROPOSED, THAT DOESN'T EQUAL
DEMOLITION.
WHAT IT DOES IS EQUAL
LEGALIZATION OF EXISTING UNITS
THAT HAVE BEEN REZONED AND
CONSIDERED ILLEGAL.
THE APARTMENT THAT I LIVE ON ON
10th AND LEE IN QUEEN ANN IS
NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO BE BUILT
IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE TAKEN A MULTIFAMILY
ZONE AND OVER THE DECADE REZONE
IT INTO SINGLE ZONE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE
DO THAT, WE ARE VERY THOUGHTFUL
AS COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN HAS
TALKED ABOUT.
WHEN WE THINK ABOUT
DEVELOPMENT, WE THINK ABOUT
THOSE WHO ARE AT RISK OF
DISPLACEMENT, SENIORS ON LOWER
INCOME AND THINK ABOUT HOW TO
BUILD A CITY THAT PROTECTS
THOSE THAT ARE HERE.
AS WE THINK ABOUT CHANGING THE
DENSITY REQUIREMENTS AROUND THE
CITY IT IS TRULY LOOKING AT THE
HISTORY PICK ROOT THAT IS ALLOW
FOR MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE IN THE
AREAS AND CORRECTING SOME OF
THE HISTORIC WRONGS.
I'M GOING TO BE BRINGING
FORWARD TO THE COMMITTEE SOME
OF THOSE SITE LINE MAPS THAT
SHOW FROM THE 1920s IN WHICH
SINGLE ZONING HAS INCREASED
RATHER THAN DECREASE AS YOU
WOULD THINKS A WE'RE ADDING
ABOUT 1,000 PEOPLE TO THE
REGION, GROWING 18% OVER THE
LAST FEW YEARS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE
LOOKING AT THAT HISTORY BUT I
DON'T WANT FOLKS TO THINK IT
AUTOMATICALLY MEANS A CHANGE IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S BECAUSE OF THE SMALL
BUSINESSES, THE COMMUNITY
CENTERS AND AS WE THINK ABOUT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEM TO STAY
IN PLASHINGS I THINK WE ARE
HITTING A RIGHT BALANCE OF
LOOKING AT HOW DO WE ENSURE
THAT PEOPLE, SMALL BUSINESSES,
COMMUNITY CENTERS CAN THRIVE
AND MORE PEOPLE CAN HAVE ACCESS
TO IT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ON GOING
LEAD PERSHIP TO GET US TO THAT
POINT.
AND I HOPE WE THINK ABOUT THAT
BALANCE OVER THE NEXT TWO
WEEKS.
>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS THAT
FOLKS WOULD LIKE TO SHARE?
HEARING NONE, UP FOR PUBLIC
COMMENTS.
WE HAVE ABOUT 40 INDIVIDUALS
WHO SIGNED UP BUT I'M THINK
MANY OF THEM LEFT.
WE WILL ALLOW TWO MINUTES OF
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND I WOULD ASK
YOU TO COME TO ONE OF THE TWO
MICROPHONES.
>> I LIKE SEATTLE.
EVERYBODY'S HAPPY.
IT'S HAPPENED.
IT'S AMERICA.
IT'S SEATTLE.
YEAH.
POOR PEOPLE LIKE SENIOR
CITIZEN.
IT'S AMERICA.
SO NEW YORK, FOR EXAMPLE, MUCH
SMART THAN YOU GUYS.
WHAT DID AMAZON DO.
NO ONE TALKING ABOUT AMAZON
STOPPING, ONLY ONE MAN ALEX
ZIMMERMAN.
ONLY ONE MAN ALEX ZIMMER MAN
TALKING ABOUT STOPPING AMAZON.
>> ABORTION, STUPIDITY.
SO YOU'RE DOING GOOD JOB
EXACTLY.
FOR THIS I LIKE YOU.
HELLO, MY LOVELY FUHROR.
>> MR. BLOOM, I APOLOGIZE YOU
HAVE TO FOLLOW MR. ZIMMERMAN.
>> MY NAME IS DAVID BLOOM.
ACCORDING TO CITY PERMIT DATA
BETWEEN 2016 AND2018 HOUSING
UNITS WERE TORN DOWN WITH
APPLICATIONS PENDING.
>> TO REQUIRE DEVELOPER TO
REPLACE ALL OR A PORTION OF THE
EXISTING LOWER COST UNITS AND
AT COMPARABLE PRICE. WE BELIEVE
THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.
WITHOUT STRONG HASN'T
DISPLACEMENT LANGUAGE, IF WE
CONTINUE TO UPZONE THE CITY.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO LOSE.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. FOX.
>> JOHN FOX DISPLACE MISS
COALIST.
WE HAVE TWO AND A HALF YEARS.
THERE'S 26 DEVELOPMENTS.
EIGHT OF THOSE INVOLVE DIRECT
DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING
STOCK OF LOW INCOME HOUSING.
ON THOSE SITES WE'RE GOING TO
LOSE 168 UNITS OF EXISTING LOW
INCOME AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE WENT DOOR TO DOOR AND
INVENTORIED THEM.
WORKERS WHO WORK AT THE UAW,
STUDENTS, ELDERLY PEOPLE ON
THOSE SAME EIGHT SITES WE'LL
GET 84NHA UNITS FOR A NET LOSS
OF 84 AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
DON'T TELL ME THEY WOULD BE
DEMOLISHED OR REMOVED ANYWAY.
GO STAND AT 42nd AND 12th AND
LOOK UP THE STREET.
THEY HAVE A LONG.
THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A LONG LINE
HD WE NOT CHANGED THE ZONING
THERE.
, THE DEPARTMENT, THE PLANNERS
IDENTIFIED ONLY 40 UNITS OVER
THE PLANNING PERIOD THAT WOULD
BE TORN DOWN.
WE'RE ALREADY LOSING 168 IN TWO
1/2 YEARS.
THERE'S 1400 UNITS IN THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE NEED A ONE FOR ONE
REPLACEMENT MEASURE.
MINNEAPOLIS, YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT
MINNEAPOLIS.
ZONING THE LOWER DENSITY AREAS,
ROPE ZONING THEM.
WHAT YOU HAVEN'T HEARD IS THEY
WILL PHASE IN THOSE AND THEY
APPROVE AN ANTIDISPLACEMENT
PROPERTY PALS THE UNITS ARE ROW
PLACED ONE FOR ONE.
IT INCLUDES A COMMITMENT BEFORE
THE UPZONES TO DEAL WITH AND
PREVENT THE DISPLACEMENT OF
NATURALLY OCCURRING HOUSING.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WE NEED ONE AS A
PREREQUISITE FOR THIS OTHERWISE
YOU'RE GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR MORE DISPLACEMENT AND
DRIVING A DEEPER WEDGE.
>> MR. THAYLOR, PLEASE COME
FORWARD.
MR. ZEMKE WOULD YOU PLEASE COME
TO THE OTHER MICROPHONE.
>> THE PURPOSE OF THE MHA
PROGRAM IS TO PROVIDE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THE CITY HAS AGREED THERE'S NO
NEED FOR INCREASED CAPACITY BUT
FOR THE ABILITY TO REQUIRE
INCLUSION FAIR RI HOUSING ON
SITE OR A FEE IN LOU FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
HOWEVER, THERE'S A CHANCE IT
WILL RESULT IN FEE PROVISIONS
BEING DECLARED.
PLEASE GIVE -- PLEASE, THE
GIVEAWAY WITHOUT OBTAINING
IMPACT FEES OR ANY OTHER
MITIGATION OR BENEFIT NEEDS TO
STOP.
AMNDMENT B6 IS CRITICAL TO
MAKE SURE THE CITY DOESN'T
INCREASE CAPACITY AND AND UP
GET NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
EXCEPT GENTRIFICATION AND
DISPLAYSMENT IN RETURN.
THANKS COUNCIL MEMBER HER BOLD.
MY NEIGHBORHOOD FREMONT HAS HAD
SEVERE DISPLACEMENT OVER THE
PAST 20 YEARS.
DOCUMENTED IN APEN DISM, FREE
MONTH'S CENTRAL CENSUS TRACK
HAS HAD THE HIGH'S DISPLACEMENT
FOR HOUSEHOLDS.
SO THE APPENDIX SALES THE
FREMONT IS A LOW DISPLACEMENT
RISK NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'RE BEING DISPLACED OF LOW
INCOME PEOPLE.
EXISTING MULTIHOUSING BUILDINGS
CONTINUE TO BE REDEVELOPED IN A
WAY THAT REPLACES EXISTING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHOUT ANY
PROVISION TO REPLACE.
303-3280.
THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS
REPLACING RENTERS WITH HIGH
EXPENSE.
IF YOU GIVE ME ANOTHER 30
SECONDS I WOULD BE HAPPY TO
EXPLAIN THE HISTORY OF THE
TROLL ZONING.
>> STEVE, FOLLOWED BY CINDY.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> STEVE ZEMKE.
I WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR
PUTTING AN AMENDMENT ON A DEAL
WITH TRYING TO COMPENSATE FOR
SOME OF THE TREE LOSS THAT WILL
HAPPEN UNDER THE MHA ORDINANCE,
CERTAINLY FOLLOWING BURGESS'
EXECUTIVE ORDER, TOTALLY
CONSISTENT WITH THE SCOPE OF
THE EIS AND THAT ORDER SAID
MAYBE LOOKING INTO PUTSING IN
PLACE FEES AND TRACKING
REPLACEMENTS.
ONE OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE TO
DO IS ENSURE DCI SPEEDS UP ITS
PROCESS, THEIR DATA COLLECTION
TO TRACK TREE LOSS AND
REPLACEMENT SO WE CAN HAVE A
BETTER IDEA OF THE IMPACT GOING
ON HERE.
YOU LOOKED AT DOING THE IN LIEU
FEE FOR SETTING UP THE
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOTS, THAT
ACCORDING TO THE DIRECTOR'S
REPORT AND THE POTENTIAL 750
ACRES BEING A SINGLE FAMILY, 5,
720.
YOU'RE NOT TALKING TALKING
ABOUT TREE REPLACEMENT IN TERMS
OF THE IMPACT OF TREES BEING
LOST.
IT WILL BE INCLUDED ON THOSE
LOTS.
AND URGE YOU OBVIOUSLY TO
PROCEED AHEAD WITH WHAT WE NEED
IN TERMS OF A COMPREHENSIVE TO
THE TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE.
THAT'S IN THE JUST LOOKING AT
TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT
BUT THE OLD TREES, LARGE TREES.
THE PROBLEM IS THE RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT PUTTING THREE OR FOUR
HOUSING UNITS WILL REPLACE IN
THE LOSS OF A LOT OF OLD TREES.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE
REPLACED.
THEY WILL BE ABLE TO BE
RETAINED.
>> THANK YOU.
MISS BARKER.
>> SO I HAVE A REQUEST FOR THE
COUNCIL.
THERE ARE FOUR AMENDMENT THAT
IS CHANGE THE DESCRIPTION AND
THE DENSITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS IN THE RSL ZONES, SO
AS PART OF THE PERSON WHO DID A
LOT OF THAT OUTREACH THAT YOU
REFERRED TO HELPING OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU'RE NOW
CHANGING THE GAME.
SO YOU'RE ADDING A NEW TYPE,
APARTMENTS.
YOU'RE DEBATING HOW MANY EXTRA
UNITS YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW ON
RSL.
I UNDERSTAND IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD
I WILL END UP IN MY COMMUNITY
MEETINGS HAVING TO EXPLAIN TO
PEOPLE WHAT IS SHOWING UP IS
DIFFERENT FROM THE ACTUAL MODEL
THAT IS THEY SAW PREPARED BY
STAFF, SO MY REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL IS YOU ASK STAFF TO
PREPARE NEW GRAPHICS AND
PICTURES SO THAT PEOPLE WILL
GIVE YOU FEEDBACK ON IF THESE
FOUR CHANGES ARE WHAT THEY
WANT.
NOW THE GARAGE DOOR ONE I GIVE
YOU.
THAT'S A GOOD CHANGE, BUT IT'S
THE ONE THAT UPZONE OR UPDEN
SIGH FIEOR UP INCREASE WHAT
WAS ALREADY PRESENTED.
I DON'T WANT TO SAY BAIT AND
SWITCH BUT IT'S CLOSE.
I KNOW THIS IS HOW THE PAYMENT
PROCESS WORKS.
YOU COME IN AND MAKE CHANGES.
USUALLY IT'S TO MAKE SOMETHING
BETTER, NOT SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
>> THE EXAMPLE OF THE FOUR
UNITS ON AN 8,000 LOT.
>> HELLO.
I'M SARA JANE SIG FREED.
WE APPRECIATE SOME OF THE
GENERAL AMENDMENTS INCLUDING
THE REVIEW OF FEES GENERATED TO
REVERSE THE ZONING IF IT'S
LATER DECLARED ILLEGAL.
>> WITH REGARD TO THE ADEQUACY
OF THE FEES WE NOTE COUNCIL HAS
BEEN USING 110,000 WITH THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE 300,000 PER
UNIT WOULD BE LEVERAGED FUNDS,
MOSTLY TAX PAYER FUNDS.
IN TESTIMONY IN OLYMPIA THE
HEAD OF THE WASHINGTON STATE
FINANCE COMMISSION TESTIFIED
THAT TAX CREDIT FUNDS ARE ALL
USED UP.
I SUGGEST THAT THE COUNCIL
NEEDS TO REVISIT THE NUMBER OF
UNITS THAT THE MHA FEES WOULD
ACTUALLY PRODUCE.
I WOULD THINK THAT NUMBER IS IN
SERIOUS DOUBT.
WHAT'S MISSING IN THE
LEGISLATION IS RESTORING THE
DEFINITION OF FAMILY SIZED
HOUSING FROM THREE BEDROOMS TO
TWO BEDROOMS.
IT WAS REDEFINED A COUPLE YEARS
AGO AND FOR PROFIT DEVELOPS ARE
BUILDING THREE BEDROOM UNITS
AND THE RECENT CHANGE COVERS UP
THE LACK OF UNITS IN THE NEW
STOCK OR THE FOR RENT STOCK AT
ALL.
THERE'S NO FAMILY SIZED HOUSING
IN THIS PLAN AND THIS NEEDS TO
BE ADDRESSED.
THIS IS AN ISSUE OF SOCIAL
JUSTICE.
I BEG YOU TO INCLUDE THAT.
ALSO MISSING IS AN INVENTORY OF
AFFORDABLE FAMILY UNITS EASILY
DONE BY ADDING A BOX TO THE
INVENTORY.
WE CAN'T MANAGE WHAT WE CAN'T
COUNT.
UNLESS WE START COUNTING THE
ACTUAL NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE
UNITS, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'VE
GOT.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S DESTROYED.
SO PLEASE ADDRESS THIS.
>> THANK YOU.
AMY COLBERT, ARE YOU STILL
HEAR?
YOU'LL BE FOLLOWED BY RUSS
SAUNDERS AND RICK McCLAW FLYNN.
>> I AM THE CURATOR ON
UNIVERSITY WAY, A VERY SMALL
MUSEUM BUT WE'RE A NONPROFIT,
EXPLORING, FREE COFFEE, FREE
PASTRY AND EXCHANGE OF IDEAS.
THIS CANNOT BE GAINED BY GENTRY
IF ICATION AND CONFORM MI TI
BUT LOOK FOR UNITY HANDY VERSUS
TI.
AND DIVERSITY.
I FEAR THAT IF THE UNIVERSITY
WAY BECOMES A HIGH RISE
NEIGHBORHOOD, ALL THE RENTS
WILL BE UP AND WE'LL BE OUT
SOMEWHERE ELSEWHERE WE HAVE NO
DIVERSITY.
LET US PLEASE AT LEAST KEEP
THIS ONE STREAK AND LET THIS
CONTINUE TOE THRIVE AND TO
EXEMPLIFY WHAT IT MEANS TO FIND
UNITY AND DIVERSITY.
>> THANK YOU.
RUSS, FOLLOWED BY RICK.
>> I'M WITH MY FAMILY'S
BUSINESS, HANDY ANDY'S RENTAL.
WE'RE CELEBRATING 40 YEARS ON
AURORA THIS YEAR AND WE'VE SEEN
AURORA THROUGH ITS UPS AND
DOWNS AND THE REZONING TO THE
CLASS IF CLASSIFICATION IS A
SAFETY ISSUE AND WILL
DETERIORATE THE AREA EVEN MORE.
I'VE PROVIDED A PACKET, BUT
WITH THIS PLANNING YOU DIDN'T
TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE
FREIGHT MASTER PLAN.
IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THAT,
AURORA IS DIFFERENT.
IT'S THE LARGEST TRANSPORTATION
ROUTE NORTH OF SEATTLE WENT
EXCEPTION OF I-FIVE AND IT'S
EXPECTED TO GROW AND HAVE MORE
TRUCKS GOING UP AND DOWN IT.
IT'S ALSO CLASSIFIED AS A
BOTTLENECK AND CLASSIFIED AS A
HIGH AXLES CORRIDOR FOR TRUCKS
AND THEN YOU CAN ALSO SEE HOW
RESTRICTED THE SIDEWALKS ARE.
THEY'RE ONLY 6-FOOT WIDE IN
MOST PLACES.
BUILDINGS ARE BUILT RIGHT TO
THE EDGE.
THERE'S NO ROOM FOR BUFFER,
PEDESTRIANS.
THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS WHAT
A LOVE, THE GROUP DREW UP WHICH
IS TO TAKE A LANE OUT OF EACH
DIRECTION, WHICH ISN'T POSSIBLE
BECAUSE THE STATE WON'T ALLOW
THAT.
THERE IS DENSITY AVAILABLE THAT
WE DID NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
AROUND OAK TREE CINEMAS AND
AROUND -- BETWEEN THAT AND THE
NEW NORTHGATE CROSS WALK.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
RICK, YOU'RE FOLLOWED BY ROSA
AND SANDRA.
>> I'M HERE BECAUSE YOU GUYS
ALL SPEAK ABOUT WANTING TO HELP
SMALL BUSINESSES AND RIGHT NOW
YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO.
WE PUT FORTH AN AMENDMENT.
IT'S AT HIGH, HIGH RISK OF
DISPLACEMENT.
A LOT OF WOMEN AND MINORITY
OWNED BUSINESSES.
YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS WERE TALKING
ABOUT BEING INTELLECTUALLY
CONSISTENT.
INTELLECTUALLY CONSISTENT
SHOULD BE CHANGED TO SAD.
IF THIS IS YOUR VIEWPOINT
TOWARD THE CITY, IT SADDENS ME.
AT THE AND OF THE DAY YOU HAVE
TO CARE ABOUT WHO'S HERE NOW
AND NOT GENTRIFICATION AT ALL
COSTS.
I'M ASKING YOU TO SPONSOR AN
AMENDMENT TO HELP BUSINESSES.
THEY NEED HELP.
WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT WAYS
TO HELP THE BUSINESSES AND NOT
INCREASING RENTS AND PROPERTY
TAXES.
WHEN YOU UPZONE THEM, THAT
PROPERTY TAX GETS PASSED DOWN
THROUGH TRIPLE NET AND
EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS.
YOU KNOW THIS.
SO PLEASE STAND UP FOR THEM.
SPONSOR THE AMENDMENT AND
REMOVE IT FROM THE UPZONE.
THANK YOU.
>> ROSA?
>> WE ARE A MINORITY OWNED,
WOMEN OWNED BUSINESS.
THE PROPOSED UPZONE WILL PLACE
INCREASED PRESSURE ON OUR
ABILITY TO REMAIN ANDLY OUR
WORKERS.
WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
UPZONE OF OUR MAIN SHOPPING
STREET.
WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO CAREFULLY
CONSIDER THE IMPACT AND TO
FOLLOW OUR SMALL BUSINESS ALONG
THE AVE.
PLEASE DO NOT INCREASE THE
BUILDING HEIGHT.
THAT WOULD FORCE US TO CLOSE
OURS BUSINESSES.
THERE WAS A BUSINESS AND SHE'S
BEEN ON THE AVE FOR 19 YEARS.
DUE TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THE
UPZONE, SHE -- HER LANDLORD
WILL NOT RESIGN THE LEASE WITH
HER SO SHE MIGHT BE FORCED OUT
OF HER BUSINESS SO SHE'S ON
MONTH TO MONTH.
SHE REALLY WANTS TO MAKE IT TO
20 YEARS BUT THAT MIGHT NOT
HAPPEN.
SHE PREVIOUSLY WORKED AT HAIR
MASTER ON THE AVE.
THAT'S NO LONGER THERE SO SHE
DECIDED TO OPEN HER OWN SALON.
>> HI.
MY NAME IS SANDRA.
I'M HERE ON BEHAVE OF FAUX TIE
TIE.
IF THE SECOND UPZONE IS PASSED
BY THE COUNCIL -- ALREADY THERE
ARE CONSTRUCTION CRANES AND
MORE PLANS FOR HIGH RISE
BUILDINGS LIKE THE PROPOSED 24-
STORY BUILDING JUST ON THE
OTHER SIDE.
THIS PROJECT AND MANY OTHERS
WILL SURELY INCREASE OUR
REPETITIVE.
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE SERVING THE
STUDENTS FOR THIS MANY YEARS WE
HAVE VERY TIGHT MARGINS AND IT
IS A STRUGGLE TO REMAIN ON THE
AV.
THINK HOW IT WILL FORCE US TO
MAKE A DECISION TO ROMAINE ON
THE AVE.
WE CAN WORK TOGETHER AND SPORT
BUSINESSES THAT MAKES THE
DISTRICT SPECIAL.
>> HALLALEX.
YOU'LL BE FOLLOWED BY CHRIS AND
THEN RAY.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS ALEX PETERSON WITH
DEEP RESPECT TO THE LEGACY OF
THE COUNCIL I ASK YOU TO AMEND
THE LEGISLATION BY LISTENING TO
THE THOUGHT TESTIMONY INPUT OF
THE PEOPLE LIVING AND WORKING
IN THE COMMUNITIES.
I WILL HIGHLIGHT ONE IMPORTANT
EXAMPLE.
MY FAMILY AND I HAVE LIVED NEAR
THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT FOR THE
PAST FOUR YEARS.
BEFORE I WORKED FOR COUNCIL
MEMBER TIM BURGESS I WALKED.
I ASK THAT YOU PRESERVE AT LEFT
ONE STREET THE MAIN STREET,
UNIVERSITY WAY NORTHEAST, WHICH
WE LOVINGLY REFER TO AS THE AV.
YES.
MAKES SENSE TO UPZONE NEXT TO
RELIABLE TRANSIT BUT THE
DETAILS MATTER.
YOU'VE ALREADY UPZONED
EVERYWHERE ELSE BUT THE AV IS
YOU UNIQUE.
IT HIGHLIGHTS THE RISKS OF
DISPLACING SMALL LOCAL
BUSINESSES FROM THE AV.
AS WE SEE THROUGH OUT THE CITY
WHEN SMALL LOCAL BUSINESSES ARE
DISPLACED, THEY'RE OFTEN
REPLACED WITH CHAIN STORES
WITHOUT SOUL, WITHOUT HISTORY
AND WITHOUT COMMUNITY
CONNECTION.
IN ADDITION TO DISPLACEMENT WE
WANT GREATER TRANSPAREN SIGH.
THE AV WAS REMOVED FOR GOOD
REASONS AND THOSE REASONS HAVE
NOT CHANGED.
YET, POLICY MAKE PERS SLIPPED
THE AV IN LEGISLATION THAT
PERTAINS TO DIFFERENT URBAN
VILLAGES AND DIFFERENT AREAS OF
THE CITY THANK YOU, ALEX THANK
YOU.
>> CHRIS?
CHRIS, YOU'RE FOLLOWED BY ROY
AND THEN BROOKE.
>> MY NAME IS CHRIS WEYMER.
I'M FROM THE UNIVERSITY
DISTRICT.
WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 40 YEARS
THIS YEAR.
I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO.
WE'RE NOT THE ONLY SMALL
BUSINESS THAT'S BEEN THERE A
LONG TIME.
THE AV IS HEAVILY MOPLATED BY
SMALL BUSINESSES THAT CREATE A
VERY UNIQUE EXPERIENCE IN THE
DISTRICT THAT MYSELF AND
EVERYBODY ELSE WHO HAS MOVED TO
THIS TOWN HAVE SEEN.
OUR RENTS HAVE GONE UP 50% AND
THAT'S A PROBLEM EVERYBODY
SHARES BUT A RADICAL REZONE IS
GOING TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR
MOST OF THE SMALL BUSINESSES TO
GO THERE.
IT WILL HOMOGENIZE.
WHAT DOES MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD
UNIQUE NEEDS TO BE PLOWED UNDER
TO MAKE WAY FOR SOMETHING
THAT'S ALREADY AVAILABLE.
I JUST ECHO WHAT OTHERS HAVE
SAID.
I HOPE YOU WILL RECONSIDER UP
ZONING THE AV.
>> ROY, YOU'RE FOLLOWED BY
BROOKE.
>> I'M HERE TO REP ALADDEN EURO
AND DELI.
WE'VE BEEN ON THE AV FOR 20
YEARS.
WE'VE WATCHED MANY PROJECTS GO
UP AND AFRAID OF WHAT MIGHT
HAPPEN FOR SMALL BUSINESSES AND
FAMILIES.
WE HOPE THIS MR. BRING MORE
BUSINESS TO US.
WE ALSO REALIZE WITH THAT COMES
POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS.
THE ISSUE THAT SCARES US THE
MOST IS FURTHER INCREASE IN
RENT AND BEING FORCED TO CLOSE
AND MOVE OUR BUSINESS OUT OF
THE U DISTRICT.
MANY OF THE CUSTOMERS HAVE
EXPRESSED THE SAME CONCERN AND
WE TRULY HOPE TO ROMAINE PART
OF THE U DISTRICT FOR MANY
YEARS TO COULDN'T.
WE ASK YOU TO PLEASE KEEP THE
UPZONE OFF THE AV AND WE'RE
READY TO INCREASE BUILDING
HEIGHTS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ENTURN A
CITY WIDE POLICY OF NO NET LOSS
THE FDIS SAID THERE'S A HIGH
RISK OF DISPLACEMENT.
OF 10, 400 SINGLE FAMILY
PARCELS AS LIKELY TO REDEVELOP,
OVER 6,000 OF THEM ARE OVER 60%
ARE IN SOUTH SEATTLE.
SOUTHEAST SEATTLE AND SOUTH
PARK AND WEST HIGHLAND PARK AND
THAT'S THE BLUE ON THIS MAP,
THE SINGLE FAMILY PARCELS ON
SOUTH SEATTLE.
THAT IS NEARLY EVERY AND THOSE
ARE URBAN VILLAGES THAT ARE 5%
TO OVER 5% PEOPLE OF COLOR.
YOU CAN SEE IT'S NEARLY EVERY
SINGLE FAMILY PARCEL IN THOSE
AREAS.
AND THAT MEANS DISPLACING
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE OF COLOR,
THE PRIMARY LONG TERM
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
IN ADDITION THE EIS SAYS LOSING
ONE CULTURAL ANCHOR OR CULTURAL
INSTITUTION CAN LEAD TO
DISPLACEMENT OF COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR.
YOU CAN SEE WITH THE RED THEY
HAVE IDENTIFIED ALL THE
COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AM
SOUTHEAST SEATTLE.
ALMOST 400 PARCELS.
SO THE REASON WHY WE NEED AN
ENFORCEABLE POLICY FOR ONE TO
ONE REPLACEMENT IS WITHOUT IT
IT WILL DECIMATE SEATTLE'S MOST
SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR WHO THANK YOU, DAVID.
LISA?
>> I SUPPORT COMMONLY KNOWN AS
CLAW BACK AND SAY NO UPZONES ON
THE AV.
>> THANK YOU, DAVID.
>> LISA, YOU'RE FOLLOWED BY
FRANK AND MARTY.
>> I'M LISA.
I WILL DO THIS QUICKLY.
AMENDMENT B6, THE CLAW BACK.
YES, PLEASE THANK YOU TO
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD.
THE REASON WHY WE NEED THE
CLAWBACK, BOEING, THE HUGE TAX
BREAKS THEY GOT TO SUPPOSEDLY
KEEP JOBS IN THIS CITY.
THERE WERE NO COMPLAWBACKS AND
LET'S ALL REMEMBER WHAT
HAPPENED WITH THAT.
OKAY.
SO TODAY IN THE WEST SIDE
SEATTLE NEWPAPER GENE GODDEN,
COPIES FOR EVERYBODY.
YOU MAY WANT TO READ IT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, LISA.
>> FRANK, YOU'RE FOLLOW BID BY
MAR TIP AND THEN STEVE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
GREETINGS.
ONE IS STRUCK TODAY AS A
LISTENER THAT APPARENTLY
THERE'S A CERTAIN EXPRESSION ON
THE COUNCIL THAT APPARENTLY
RESIDENTS DON'T LIVE IN
NEIGHBOR HOODS.
THEY APPARENTLY LIVE IN
NEIGHBORHOOD PRODUCTION ZONES
THAT ALL WE'RE CONCERNED WITH
WE'RE NOT CONCERNED WITH
NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE'RE JUST CONCERNED WITH HOW
MANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
AND A TRIVIAL AMOUNTS OF
HOUSING UNITS THAT WE CAN RING
OUT OF THIS LEGISLATION. WHAT
IS CLEAR ABOUT THIS
LEGISLATION, IT WILL NOT -- IT
WILL REPLACE THE RESIDENCE.
IT WILL REPLACE THE COMMUNITIES
AND IT'S PRETTY CLEAR IT WILL
NOT BRING BACK THOSE HOP CAN'T
AFFORD A LARGE SALARY.
THAT SAID, I WOULD SUPPORT
SEVERAL THINGS.
I DO SUPPORT ALL THE AMENDMENTS
THAT TRY AND ONCE AGAIN
RESTORE, NOT GO -- THAT RESTORE
FROM LOW RISE TO RSL.
IT'S AT LEAST A BETTER STEP.
I SUPPORT -- I WOULD SUPPORT
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NOT THERE.
IF YOU REALLY WANT SOMETHING
THAT FITS INTO NEIGHBORHOODS,
WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH SOME
REASONABLE SETBACKS AND
DEFINITELY WE NEED TO HAVE A
STRONG CLAWBACK PROVISION.
THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE THIS
WOULD BE SOOTHED BY A LOT OF
PEOPLE AND IT NEEDS TO BE
PROTECTED.
>> THANK YOU.
GET SLAUGHTERED.
WHEN YOU COME FROM A PLACE OF
CORRUPTION AND GREED, THE
UNIVERSE LEVELS THE PLAYING
FIELD TAKING THE KEY PLAYERS
OUT OF THE GAME.
MURRAY, ALLEN, BASIS, MEMBERS
OF THIS COUNCIL, BECAUSE YOU
HAVE CHOSEN TO BE A HOG,
DESTROYING PEOPLE'S LIVES AND
PROMOTING FEAR AND MISERY WITH
THE THREAT OF DISPLACEMENT.
THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS MESS
IS TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
I REQUEST THAT YOU AMEND THE
MHA AND NOT APPS ON THE 23rd
URBAN VILLAGE. I URGE YOU TO
CREATE AN ANTI-DISPLAY FOR YOUR
DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS.
COUNCIL MEMBERS, IF YOU WANT TO
FIGHT TO AVOID DISPLACEMENT FOR
THOSE DIVERSE AND, DESERVING
SENIORS WHILE TURNING A BLIND
EYE TO THE OTHER SENIORS IN
DISTRICT 3 WHO ARE FACING
DISPLACEMENT IS NOTHING LESS GO
GRANDSTANDING.
SARAH MAGNA, THE MHA IS NOT AN
ANTI-DISPLACEMENT TOOL. NICE
TRY.
NOT GOING TO WORK.
PLEASE USE YOUR BRILLIANT MIND
TO CREATE A PLAN THAT TRULY
HELPS PEOPLE AVOID DISPLACEMENT.
MICHAEL BRIAN, YEARS IS A PLAN
THAT CAN HELP HOMEOWNERS AVOID
DISPLACEMENT AND BRING OUR
PRICE DOWN ESSENTIAL WORKERS,
FIREFIGHTERS, TEACHERS, POLICE,
BACK TO THE CITY FOR THEY SERVE
AND WHERE THEY BELONG.
GOOD LUCK.
I WISH YOU SUCCESS. MY FELLOW
HOMEOWNERS, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO
FEAR BUT FEAR ITSELF.
THE UNIVERSE HAS OUR BACK.
>> THANK YOU PATRICIA.
>> [ APPLAUSE ]
>> I'M NOT SEEING NATALIE
WILLIAMS.
WE WILL MOVE TO REVEREND
SIMPSON.
YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY COREY
COCKER.
>> I AM HERE FROM UNIVERSITY
TEMPLE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
GOING ON 130 YEARS IN THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT TO SPEAK UP
FOR OUR NEIGHBORS.
THIS IS A COMMERCIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD WORKING FOR
LONGTIME BUSINESSES TO BE HYPER
LOCAL ON 43rd.
THE IMPORT STORE, WOOLLY
MAMMOTH SHOES HAS BEEN THERE
SINCE 1970, SAMIR'S HAS BEEN
SELLING FOR 42 YEARS AND THEY
ARE BARELY MAKING IT.
BUT IT IS ALSO WORKING FOR NEW
BUSINESSES.
RIGHT ON THE CORNER, HAD MADE
ICE CREAM HAS BEEN THERE FOR
THREE YEARS EVEN IN THE WINTER.
IT IS WORKING FOR LARGE
BUSINESSES TOO.
CVS MOVED IN ON THE BLOCK WITH
OF IT PHARMACY.
GOING UP NORTH, TARGET SEEMS TO
THINK THEY CAN MAKE MONEY BY
BUILDING A BRAND-NEW STORE
LOWER THAN THE EXISTING HEIGHT
LIMITS.
IT IS WORKING.
THE DISTRICT HAS PUT IN TO THE
PIPELINE A MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF
MHA SYSTEM CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
PROJECTS ALREADY PLANNED.
AT CONSIDERABLE COST TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE DISPLACEMENT OF HOUSING HAS
ALREADY BEEN NAMED.
SO LET'S END THE SPECULATION
AND THE UNCERTAINTY.
JUST LEAVE THAT OUT OF OUT OF
THE REZONE.
KEEP THE CURRENT HEIGHT LIMITS.
KEEP OUR ALREADY THRIVING URBAN
VILLAGES HEART.
>> [ APPLAUSE ]
>> COREY AND THEN DOUG.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M A SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER AND 30 YEAR
EVENT OF THE DISTRICT.
WE HOPE FOR AND HAVE BEEN
ADVOCATING FOR THE PUBLIC
BENEFITS TO KEEP OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABLE.
THE FIRST DISTRICT BROUGHT
TYRICE AND WE WERE THE FIRST
NEIGHBORHOOD TO REQUIRE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THE MHA
PROGRAM.
MISSING ARE THE BENEFITS
PROMISED TO CITIZENS AND THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT. WENT
BENEFIT WE ALREADY HAVE AND
RISK LOSING WITH THE SECOND
REDISTRICT OUR UNIQUE SMALL
BUSINESSES ALONG UNIVERSITY WAY
NORTHEAST.
PROPORTIONALLY, THE AVERAGE
HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS OF THE
AVE IS 17 FEET . THE CURRENT
ZONING IS ABOUT 65 FEET.
THE UPS OWNED HEIGHT OF
BUILDINGS ACROSS THE ALLEY FROM
THE BUILDING IS 320 FEET. THAT
IS A MASSIVE INCREASE.
YOU CAN IMAGINE THE DEVELOPMENT
PRESSURES INTENT.
IT HAS ALREADY IMPACTED SMALL
BUSINESSES ALONG THE AVE.
SOME HAVE ALREADY LEFT IN SOME
WE ARE ABOUT TO LOSE.
A MAJORITY OF THEM ARE OWNED BY
WOMEN, PEOPLE OF COLOR, THEY
ARE SMALL, SO THEY ARE
VULNERABLE.
WE HAVE A SPECIAL CASE ALONG
THE AVE A PRIME CANDIDATE FOR
HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WE HAVE GIVEN SIGNIFICANTLY TO
WELCOME NEW RESIDENTS TO THE
MHA PROGRAM AND ASK YOU TO HELP
US SAVE THE AVE BY KEEPING IT
OUT OF THE SECOND UP SO NEVER
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU..?
YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY FRANK
JONES.
>> HELLO.
I'M HONORABLE DARK NEWS.
MY WIFE AND I OPEN THE STORE IN
1983.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO
CONSIDER THE U DISTICT
HOLISTICALLY.
THE U DISTICT HAS BEEN
EXTREMELY WELCOMING TO INCREASE
DENSITY.
I WOULD DOUBT THERE IS ANY
NEIGHBORHOOD OTHER THAN DOWNTOWN
THAT WILL CONTRIBUTE MORE IN
MHA FEES TO THE CITY THEN THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT.
THERE ARE NINE TOWERS EITHER
UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR BEING
BUILT IN PART OF THE U DISTICT.
WERE TALKING ABOUT A SMALL
NUMBER OF HALF BLOCK FACES ON
UNIVERSITY WAY NORTHEAST.
THE AVE IS THE HEART OF THE U
DISTICT.
IT HAS A UNIQUE PURPOSE IN THE
U DISTICT FOR GENERATIONS.
SMALL BUSINESS IMPACT HAS BEEN
SPOKEN TO.
THERE ARE ALSO 200 NATURALLY
LOW INCOME UNIT HOUSING UNITS
THAT WOULD BE THREATENED BY
INCREASED DENSITY OR HEIGHTS ON
THE AVENUE.
RIGHT NOW PROPOSAL AFTER
PROPOSAL IS BEING PUT THROUGH
ON PARTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE AVE .
THERE ARE NO PROPOSALS THAT I
AM AWARE OF BY DEVELOPERS ON
THE AVE UNDER CURRENT ZONING
AND WE DO NOT NEED THE
ADDITIONAL PRESSURE GIVEN ALL
OF THE DENSITIES WE HAVE TAKEN
ON IN THE REST OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE REMAINING
COMMERCIAL STREET IN OUR
DISTRICT WITH MANY VULNERABLE
BUSINESSES AND HOUSING UNITS.
FOR GENERATIONS THE AVE HAS
BEEN THE PLACE IN THE U
DISTICT HAS BEEN A PLACE FOR
YOUNG FRESHMEN GET THEIR FIRST
EXPERIENCES OF PERSONAL FREEDOM,
INTELLECTUAL AND ARTISTIC
ADVENTURE, AND WE DO NOT NEED
TO HAVE THIS ONE LAST PIECE OF
THE U DISTICT BE CORPORATIZED.
THE U DISTICT NEEDS TO BE
VALUED FOR THE UNIQUE ROLE IT
PLAYS IN THE CITY AND TO SEE
THIS ROLE TREASURED AND
PRESERVED.
>> FRANK JONES.
ARE YOU HERE?
>> LEO BRENNAN?
LEO, YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
PATIENTS.
>> MY NAME IS LEO BRENNAN.
WERE LOCATED THREE BLOCKS SOUTH
OF THE ROOSEVELT LIGHT RAIL
STATION.
OUR PROPERTY IS PROJECTED TO BE
REZONED TO AS PART OF THE
ROOSEVELT URBAN VILLAGE REZONE.
WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS.
WE WISH TO GET IT APPROVED. OUR
PROPERTY IS LOCATED NEXT TO THE
PROPOSED 55 AND 75 ZONING WHICH
REFILLED THE TRANSITION WILL BE
TOO LARGE AND OUR PROPERTY,
INTO 75 TO MAKE THE WHOLE BLOCK
THE SAME ZONING.
WE ARE ASKING THE CITY TO ADD
THE SEVEN PROPERTIES, SEVEN
LITTLE LOTS WHEN THE DECISION
TO SUPPLEMENTAL REZONE PROCESS
THEY ARE CONSIDERING AFTER THE
REZONING PROCESS.
WE WOULD APPRECIATE AND IN ARE
TO, INTO 75 IS TOO MUCH.
THERE WERE JUST SEVEN LITTLE
LOTS THERE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK.
>> THANK YOU, LEO.
PATIENTS, YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED
BY ELAINE AND THEN CHARLIE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
THE PATIENTS DOES NOT COME WITH
THE NAME, BUT I TRY.
I'M WITH THE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM AND HERE
REPRESENTING SEATTLE FOR
EVERYONE.
FIRST OF ALL I WANT TO
CONGRATULATE YOU ON GETTING THE
AGENDA AND PUBLISH YESTERDAY AS
REQUIRED BY THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S RULING.
AS PART OF THE. SECONDLY THANK
YOU FOR SUPPORTED THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENTS
THAT WE PROPOSED MOST OF WHICH
WE SUPPORT ESPECIALLY THOSE AND
WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE FINAL
RESOLVED ONES THAT WERE PASSED
THE DAY.
AND THEN AS A RELATES TO THE
AMENDMENT DISCUSSIONS YOU HAD,
THANK YOU FOR RAISING THE
CONCERNS THAT YOU DID.
ESPECIALLY FOR AREAS NEAR OPEN
SPACES, JOBS AND SCHOOLS.
IF WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT
BEING A BEAUTIFUL CITY, WE NEED
TO BE FOCUSING ON WHO IS LIVING
NEAR THOSE AREAS AND HIM, HOW
WE ARE HELPING FAMILIES TO LIVE
IN THESE AREAS.
I JUST WANT TO SAY WE NEED TO
PAY ATTENTION TO WHOSE VOICE
WERE LISTENING TO.
MOST OF THESE AMENDMENTS WERE
BROUGHT FORWARD BY PEOPLE WHO
HAVE THE RESOURCES TO ENGAGE
WITH YOU.
IT IS IMPORTANT WE PRIORITIZE
ON WHAT MAKES A SAFE,
AFFORDABLE AND INCLUSIVE OF
EVERYONE.
>> LET?
>> ELAINE FROM DISTRICT 3
MADISON MILLER.
I AM A HOMEOWNER THERE.
OUR PARTICULAR BLOCK IS GOING
FROM SINGLE-FAMILY TO LR ONE.
WE ASKED FOR RSL BUT WE WILL
LIVE WITH WHAT THAT IS.
IT MEANS I AM GOING TO BUILD
EVERYTHING I CAN ON MY PROPERTY
AND MAKE IT AFFORDABLE.
ANYBODY THAT BUYS MY PROPERTY
IS NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
AND THE CITY FAILS TO RECOGNIZE
IT AND THAT IT HAS A
RESPONSIBILITY TO PARTNER AND
PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR PRIVATE
AND PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
ALSO TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE
NEED FOR COOPERATIVE HOUSING
AND COHOUSING.
THOSE ARE SOLUTIONS AS WELL. I
HAVE NEVER HEARD ANY OF THAT IN
THIS BECAUSE THERE IS NO
IMAGINATION WHATEVER AND THIS.
WHAT I DO HERE IS ARE TALKING
ABOUT WORKING FAMILIES AND
FAMILIES AND MULTI FAMILY AND
IN FACT THE HOUSING THAT YOU
ARE TALKING ABOUT, I OPPOSE A
TEXT AMENDMENT TO DENSIFY.
IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED
FOR RSL BECAUSE WERE SEEING
WHAT THOSE KIND OF IMPACTS ARE.
THERE IS NO ALLEYWAYS, PARKING,
NO SPACE AROUND THE BUILDINGS.
IT IS NOT KID FRIENDLY.
IT IS REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE
UNITS AND THAT MEANS IS NOT
GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE TO
FAMILIES.
THE EXPECTATION THAT YOU ARE
SELLING THAT IS GETTING SUPPORT
FOR MHA IS YOU WILL HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE THERE.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PEOPLE THAT
WE SEE ON THE STREETS SLEEPING
ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN
THIS PLACE.
NO.
NONE OF IT WILL BE AFFORDABLE.
IT IS AN INCENTIVE FOR
DEVELOPERS TO MAX OUT THEIR
PROFITS IN THE AMOUNT OF FEES
THEY ARE PAYING IS EXTREMELY
DISPROPORTIONATE.
>> CHARLIE?
>> HOLD ON FOR A SECOND,
CHARLIE.
YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY ANGELA
AND MATTHEW.
>> I AM CHARLIE AND HERE
REPRESENTING THE KING COUNTY
LABOR COUNCIL AND THE 100,000+
WORKERS WE REPRESENT.
REALLY REPRESENTING THE ENTIRE
LABOR COMMUNITY.
UNIONS HAVE UNIVERSALLY
SUPPORTED THIS LEGISLATION. OUR
MEMBERS YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER
YEAR HAVE BEEN PRICED OUT OF
LIVING IN SEATTLE.
THE ONES THAT CAN LIVE IN
SEATTLE, THEY ARE SEEING THEIR
RENTS GO UP.
THEY ARE SEEING RENTS TAKING UP
MORE AND MORE OF THEIR
PAYCHECKS.
THEY ARE SEEING THE DREAM OF
PURCHASING A HOUSE GO AWAY. WE
JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE OF
YOU FOR BEING COMMITTED TO
SOLVING THIS PROBLEM.
COMMITTED TO THIS LEGISLATION
OVER THE YEARS EVEN ON DAYS
LIKE TODAY.
STAYING FOCUSED ON THE GOAL
THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
ACCOMPLISH.
OBVIOUSLY WE ARE SO EXCITED TO
SEE THIS GETTING CLOSE TO THE
FINISH LINE.
AS WE GET INTO THE FINAL WEEKS,
PLEASE CONSIDER THE UNDERLYING
PROBLEM WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS.
THAT WE ARE IN A CRISIS, A
HOUSING CRISIS AND PEOPLE
CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE IN THE
CITY.
DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO
MAXIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING
IN THE CITY AND BRING COSTS
DOWN.
NOT TO DOWN ZONE BUT PLEASE
DON'T MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF UP
SO THEY CAN DO.
WE KNOW HOW HARD IT HAS BEEN TO
GET TO THIS POINT AND THIS IS A
ONCE IN A GENERATION OPPORTUNITY
TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY MORE
AFFORDABLE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU CHARLIE.
>> CHARLIE I HAVE AN EXTRA
JACKET BACK AT THE OFFICE.
THAT IS A BOLD FASHION CHOICE
WITH THE SHORT SLEEVES ON A
SNOWY DAY.
>> ANGELA, ARE YOU STILL HERE?
MATTHEW ARE YOU STILL HERE?
MARK SHERBET? MARK, YOU WILL BE
FOLLOWED BY BRITNEY AND THEN
DARBY.
>>
>> MAY I JUST SAY THANK YOU TO
THE MARTIN LUTHER KING LABOR
COUNCIL FOR THEIR WORK ON THE
SEATTLE BUILDING TRADES LETTER.
THEY SENT A JOINT LETTER AND
THEY REPRESENT ALL OF THOSE
PEOPLE AS WELL.
THANK YOU FOR THAT LETTER.
>> TO REDUCE THE RISK OF
DISPLACEMENT FOR ALL, PLEASE
WORK TO OBTAIN EXEMPTION FROM
PROPERTY TAX INCREASES,
SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE
PROPOSED UP STONES.
UNTIL AN OF ZONED PARCEL IS
EITHER SOLD, TRANSFERRED OR
DEVELOPED FOR INCREASED DENSITY.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER
THAT THESE UP STONES NOT SOUGHT
BY THE URBAN VILLAGE
COMMUNITIES.
RATHER THESE UP STONES ARE
BEING IMPOSED BY CITY
GOVERNMENT UNDER MHA.
INITIALLY ED MURRAY INTENDED TO
SPREAD THE BURDEN OF ADDED
DENSITY THROUGHOUT SEATTLE BY
ALLOWING DUPLEXES, TRIPLEX IS,
AND ALL SEATTLE SINGLE
NEIGHBORHOODS.
WHEN HE EXPERIENCED NEGATIVE
FEEDBACK TO THIS IDEA, HE
DECIDED TO CONCENTRATE SUCH
ADDED DENSITY WITHIN URBAN
VILLAGES. IMPOSING MANDATORY UP
SELLING'S ON JUST 6% OF ALL
SEATTLE SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMEOWNERS.
CONSEQUENTLY, 6% OF SEATTLE
FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ARE BURDENED
WITH HIGHER DENSITY FOR THE
PUBLIC BENEFIT OF THE ENTIRE
CITY.
AS SUCH, IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT
SEATTLE GIVE BACK TO THE URBAN
VILLAGES.
A TARGETED PROPERTY TAX
EXEMPTION FROM HIGHEST AND BEST
USE IS AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO
MAKE URBAN VILLAGE LIVING MORE
AFFORDABLE, MINIMIZE
DISPLACEMENT.
AND SHOW APPRECIATION FOR THE
TARGETED SACRIFICES REQUIRED OF
THE URBAN VILLAGE RESIDENTS
UNDER MHA.
WHEN PEOPLE OF THE URBAN
VILLAGES ARE NOT LIVING UNDER
THE ADDED RISK AND PRESSURE AND
REALITY OF BEING TAXED OUT OF
THEIR HOUSING, SEATTLE BECOMES
A MORE LIVABLE INCLUSIVE AND
AFFORDABLE CITY.
>> THANK YOU, MARK. BRITNEY,
ARE YOU STILL HERE?
DARBY?
BONNIE?
YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY CHRIS
AND EVE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
THIS IS A LONG ONE TODAY.
I AM HERE ON A MISSION.
I JANUARY 24 I ATTENDED THE
SEATTLE PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING.
I DON'T USUALLY GO AND NOT MANY
PEOPLE THAT ARE JUST RESIDENTS
ATTEND.
I WAS LISTENING TO A
PRESENTATION ON THE DIRECTORS
REPORT, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
ELEMENT UPDATE.
THIS REPORT WAS PRESENTED BY
JEFF. I LEAFED THROUGH THIS AND
IT GOES BACK TO A SUMMARIZATION
OF OPEN HOUSES IN OCTOBER 2017
WHICH IS A SUMMARY OF THE
FEEDBACK THEY GOT WHEN WE WERE
SKED IS NEIGHBORHOODS THE
CRAFTER ROLE POLICY FOR COMP
PLAN AMENDMENT LANGUAGE TO
OVERWRITE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS.
THAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS.
I WAS AT BOTH OPEN HOUSES.
WEST SEATTLE AND NORTH.
WHEN I LOOKED THROUGH THE
REPORT, I SAW THIS WITH A
HEADER.
WE HAD THREE POSTER BOARDS.
WE CRAFTED OUR OWN POLICY AND
STICKERS WERE LEFT OVER
EVERYTHING. SO WHAT THE REPORT
OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS HAD MORE
ACCURATE INFORMATION.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO AS
NEIGHBORHOODS THE CRAFTER ROLE
POLICY WITH NO BACKGROUND AND
NO COMMUNICATION TO THE BODIES
THAT ARE GOING TO MAKE
DECISIONS UNCHANGING, THERE IS
SOMETHING REALLY WRONG IN THIS
OUTREACH.
OUR MESSAGES DO NOT GET PASSED
ON. IF YOU ARE ASKED TO CRAFT
YOUR OWN POLICY YOU OUGHT TO BE
ABLE TO HAVE INPUT ON POLICY.
WHEN I WENT TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION THEY SAID THERE WERE
TWO OR THREE PAGES OF NEW
LANGUAGE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON.
WE SAID PROTECT SINGLE-FAMILY
WHICH IS NOT WHAT THEY WANT TO
HEAR.
ARE WE SAID WE NEED FORMAL
PLANNING.
I HAVE ACTUAL PHOTOS AND I NEED
TO GET THE REPORT.
>> THANK YOU BONNIE.
>> I WILL BE FOLLOWING UP
POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT COULD HELP
ME PICK
>> HE WAS JUST WHISPERING IDEAS
TO ME.
STICK AROUND FOR A COUPLE OF
MINUTES.
>> WHO WAS SUBMITTING?
>> KNOW WHAT WAS WHISPERING
SOME IDEAS TO ME.
>> THE SECOND CORRECTION WAS
WRONG.
>> THANK YOU BONNIE.
>> CHRIS, YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED
BY EVE AND THEN JAMES.
>> WHAT I'M HEARING IS UP SONG,
UP SONG, UP SEWN.
IF THAT'S THE WAY TO
AFFORDABILITY DOWNTOWN WOULD
HAVE THE MOST AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
THE COUNCIL HAS NOT SOUGHT REAL
AFFORDABILITY AND HAS NOT
LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC WHEN WE
HAVE OFFERED YOU SENSIBLE,
THOUGHTFUL PROPOSALS.
STATE ZONING LAW, INCLUSIONARY
ZONING LAW SPECIFIES RELIEF
FROM PARKING RESTRICTIONS AS
ONE OF THE WOULD PROPOSE.
YOU GAVE THAT AWAY WITHOUT
GETTING ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING
BACK FOR IT.
IT IS A BETTER LEVERAGE POINT
THEN UP STONES.
PLEASE LISTEN TO THE SEATTLE
DISPLACEMENT COALITION ABOUT
ONE-FOR-ONE REPLACEMENT OF
DISPLACED PEOPLE OR AT LEAST
REDUCE THE PROPOSED RESULTS AND
UP STONES TO WHAT IS AND, OF
ZONES TO WHAT IS NEEDED.
THERE ARE FAR LESS THAN OTHER
CITIES.
THEY NEED TO BE SPENT CLOSE TO
ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE
THEY ARE GENERATED.
THERWISE YOU'RE USING THOSE
NEIGHBORHOODS AS A CASH COW AND
MAYBE THERE WILL BE MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUT NOT IN
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I HOPE THAT YOU WILL BE VOTING
FOR A REVISION BUT IT HAS TO BE
MUCH STRONGER.
THE FACT IS, WITHOUT A STRONG
ONE, THE DEVELOPERS WILL HAVE
EVERY INCENTIVE TO TRY TO DEFEAT
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROVISIONS AND THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR ON-SITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND THEN THEY WILL HAVE THE UP
ZONE WITHOUT THE AFFORDABILITY.
ALL THIS TALK YOU HAVE ABOUT
AFFORDABILITY WILL BE LOST.
IT MUST BE STRONGER THAN THE
PROPOSAL WHICH AT THIS POINT IS
A STATED INTENT.
WE HAVE TO QUESTION YOUR
SINCERITY ABOUT AFFORDABILITY.
>> EVE, YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
JAMES. I'M SORRY AM
MISPRONOUNCING.
>> MY HOME LOCATION, I AM FIVE
HOUSES IN TO DISTRICT 3. AS
PRESIDENT OF THE MOUNT BAKER
HUB ALLIANCE AND BEING ONE OF
THE PRINCIPAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS
THAT DID THE LEGWORK TO MAKE
THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF MEL
BAKER PARKER REALITY.
ISAF DESIGNATE MYSELF AND
HONORARY DISTRICT 2 MENARD,
MEMBER.
COUNCIL MEMBERS GONZALEZ AND
ALL OF YOU, PLEASE REMEMBER
THAT THE RAINIER VALLEY IS ONE
OF THE LEAST DEVELOPED REGIONS
OF SEATTLE.
THE GUYS AT THE NATION SHOULD
BE LOOKING AT THIS REGION
WITHIN FOUR MINUTES BY LIGHT
RAIL FROM THE CENTER OF ONE OF
THE HOTTEST CITIES IN THE
COUNTRY.
THE RAINIER VALLEY WILL EXPLODE
WITH GROWTH.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS WELCOME
AS IS MIXED-USE HOUSING.
ALONG RAINIER AVENUE AND MARTIN
LUTHER KING JR. WAY FIRST.
NO NECESSARY UP ZONING REQUIRED.
NO ADDITIONAL OF ZONING
REQUIRED.
COUNCIL MEMBERS, PLEASE SUPPORT
LINDA BONES OF OUR MELT ACRE
HISTORIC DISTRICT TOGETHER AND
PLEASE FIND FUNDING FOR
ACCESSIBLE MOUNT BAKER WHICH
WILL ENHANCE THE LIVABILITY FOR
OUR RESIDENTS AND SUPPORT THE
SMALL BUSINESSES WE CHERISH
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, EVE PICK
>> JAMES YOU ARE THE LAST PERSON
. I'M LOOKING AT THE AUDIENCE.
IF I AM MISTAKEN AND YOU WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK, TO THE OTHER
AVAILABLE MICROPHONE. YOU ARE
FINE THERE.
>> FAIR ENOUGH.
JAMES FACKLER.
SORRY ABOUT THE SLOPPY
HANDWRITING. FIRST I WOULD LIKE
TO THANK ALL OF THE COUNCIL
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE FOR THEIR
HARD WORK ON THIS. IS ONE OF
THE MORE CONTENTIOUS ISSUES IN
THE CITY.
MY WIFE AND I OWN A HOUSE IN
THE 23rd AND UNION, JACKSON
AREA THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE
REZONED.
WE BOUGHT IT WHEN I WAS WORKING
AS A CARPENTER.
MY WIFE IS A SECRETARY.
IT WASN'T AFFORDABLE HOME AT
THE TIME.
WE HAVE WATCHED THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE
SIGNIFICANTLY.
WE ARE A SMALL PORTION
SURROUNDED BY LOW RISE.
WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE
CHANGES THAT HAVE COME TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD WITH MORE PEOPLE.
THERE IS THINGS THAT HAVEN'T
BEEN GOOD LIKE APARTMENT
BUILDING SET OF BEEN TORN DOWN
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS BEEN
LOST.
WE SEE THAT AS A TRAVESTY.
PHILOSOPHICALLY, WE WOULD LIKE
TO DEVELOP OUR PROPERTY AND WE
WANT TO DEVELOP THAT WITH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE DO NOT SEE THAT POSSIBLE
WITH WHAT IS PROPOSED WHICH IS
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT.
WE ARE BETWEEN NORMAN AND
CHARLES AND THAT IS ONE SINGLE
BLOCK OF RESIDENTIAL SURROUNDED
BY PROPOSED LOW RISE 1 TO THE
SOUTH AND WEST AND NORTH.
OUR CONCERNS RUN COUNTER TO
WHAT WAS THE INTENT BEHIND THE.
THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT
WILL EXPERIENCE A NEW LIGHT
RAIL STATION.
IT IS FREQUENTLY SERVED BY MASS
TRANSIT.
AND FORTUNATELY I HAVEN'T BEEN
ABLE TO GET A HOLD OF MY
COUNCILMEMBER PARAGRAPH LEFT
MULTIPLE EMAILS AND MESSAGES.
>> THANK YOU JAMES.
>> JAMES, WE APPRECIATE THAT.
>> IF YOU LEAVE YOUR CONTACT
INFORMATION WE CAN ENSURE THE
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFFERS CAN
CIRCLE BACK AROUND WITH YOU.
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE
COME THROUGH AND MADE SIMILAR
REQUESTS.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT HAS BEEN DONE.
WE WILL ASK CENTRAL STAFFERS TO
LOOK AT THOSE PARCELS AND GIVE
YOU MORE INFORMATION WHEN WE
HAVE A CHANCE.
PLEASE STICK AROUND SO WE CAN
GET YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION
PICK
>> FOLKS, THAT CONCLUDES FIVE
HOURS. I HAVE NOTHING LEFT TO
SAY.
I LOOK TO MY COLLEAGUES TO SEE
IF THEY DO.
FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WE
WILL BE BACK HERE AT CITY HALL
AT 5:30 ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY
21 FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT
FOR CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE
AMENDMENTS AT THE CONCLUSION OF
OUR FULL COUNCIL MEETING ON
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.
>> [ EVENT CONCLUDED ]