>>> WE WILL COME TO ORDER.
IT IS 9:30 2 AM.
I'M CHAIRED THE COMMITTEE.
WHILE THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
>> I KNOW THAT COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS WILL BE JOINING US IN
JUST A MOMENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY
ACKNOWLEDGING WE ARE ON THE --
THE FIRST PEOPLE OF SEATTLE.
WITH HONOR AND GRATITUDE TO THE
LAND ITSELF AND YOU WANT --
TRIBES.
WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA TODAY, A BRIEFING AND
PUBLIC HEARING ON CB 109827
WHICH RESOUNDS LANDS FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IT IS GOSH AND VOTE ON CB
119831, CHILD CARE NEAR YOU
LEGISLATION AND A DISCUSSION
AND VOTE ON CB 109835, THE
ANNUAL LAND USE ON THE BUS
BILL.
THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED
MEETING IS ON WEDNESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 9 STARTING AT 9:30
AM.
BEFORE WE BEGAN, IF THERE IS NO
OBJECTION, THE AGENDA WILL BE
ADAPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN THE
REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
FOR ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
BEFORE WE BEGAN, I ASKED THAT
EVERYONE BE PATIENT AS WE LEARN
TO OPERATE THIS NEW SYSTEM IN
REAL TIME.
WHILE IT REMAINS OUR STRONG
INTENT TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT,
AT ANY POINT, IF WE DEEM THIS
SYSTEM IS BEING ABUSED OR IS
UNSUITABLE FOR ALLOWING
MEETINGS TO BE CONDUCTED
EFFICIENTLY, IN A MANNER WHICH
-- MANNER IN WHICH WE ARE ABLE
TO CONDUCT NECESSARY BUSINESS,
I WILL MODERATE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THIS
MEETING IS UP TO 10 MINUTES AND
EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN TWO
MINUTES TO SPEAK.
I WILL CALL IN EACH SPEAKER BY
NAME AND IN THE ORDER IN WHICH
THEY REGISTERED ON THE COUNCIL
WEBSITE.
IF YOU HAVE NOT REGISTERED TO
SPEAK BUT WOULD LIKE TO, YOU
CAN SIGN UP BEFORE THE END OF
PUBLIC COMMENT GOING TO THE
COUNCIL WEBSITE.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT LINK IS ALSO
ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
ONCE I CALL A SPEAKER'S NAME,
STAFF WILL UNMUTE THE
APPROPRIATE MIKE IN THE
AUTOMATIC PROMPT THAT YOU HAVE
BEEN UNMUTED WILL BE THE QUEUE
THAT IT IS YOUR TURN TO SPEAK.
ALSO, FOR ALL PUBLIC -- PUBLIC,
PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU NEED TO
PRESS STAR SIX TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF AS WELL.
PLEASE BEGIN SPEAKING BY
STATING YOUR NAME AND THE ITEM
IN WHICH YOU ARE ADDRESSING,
SPEAKERS WILL HEAR A SEATTLE,
WASHINGTON 10 SECONDS I LEFT.
ONCE THE SPEAKER HERE'S THE
CHIME, WE ASK THAT YOU BEGIN TO
WRAP UP PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF STAPLERS DO NOT HAVE
COMMENTS AT THE END OF THE
ALLOTTED TIME, SPEAKERS
MICROPHONE WILL BE MUTED AFTER
10 SECONDS TO ALLOW FOR US TO
CALL THE NEXT SPEAKER.
ONCE YOU HAVE CONCLUDED YOUR
PUBLIC COMMENT WE ASK THAT YOU
PLEASE DISCONNECT FROM THE LINE
AND IF YOU PLAN TO CONTINUE
FOLLOWING THE MEETING, DO IT
VIA THE SEATTLE CHANNEL.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THERE ARE
SEPARATE HEARINGS ON THE AGENDA
FOR CB 119827 WHICH RESOUNDS
LAND IN RAINIER BEACH PICK UP
YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THAT ITEM,
I ASK THAT YOU HOLD THEM FOR
PUBLIC HEARING AND IF I HEAR
THAT YOU ARE BEGINNING TO SPEAK
ON IT I WILL INTERJECT, JUST TO
REACT TO THE QUESTION IF YOU
WANT TO CONTINUE SPEAKING I
WILL RESET THE TIMER.
REMEMBER, IF YOU ARE SPEAKING
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, PRESS STAR
SIX TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS NOW
OPEN AND WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE
FIRST SPEAKERS ON THE LIST.
I SEE HOLLY GOLDEN, JUDITH
LISTED AS NOT PRESENT, DEBORAH
BARKER, -- AND DAVID MORING.
I WILL CONTINUE TO CALL
SPEAKERS IN GROUPS OF THREE, AS
THEY BEGIN. HOLLY GOLDEN, IF
YOU ARE PRESENT AND HAVE
PRESSED STAR SIX TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF, PLEASE BEGIN.
>> GOOD MORNING.
THIS IS HOLLY GOLDEN.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT LAND-
USE ON THE -- OMNIBUS.
I'M ATTORNEY AND WORK ON
PROJECTS FOR SEATTLE AND SPEND
MY DAY DEEP INTO LAND USE CODE.
IN PARTICULAR I WANT TO SPEAK
ABOUT SEEKING SUPPORT OF THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
SUBSTITUTE FOR VERSION OF THE
BILL RELATED TO TRANSFERABLE
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR ADRS IN
THE DOWNTOWN RETAIL CORRIDOR.
THIS CHANGES ARE AIMED AT
ADDRESSING A PRACTICAL PROBLEM.
THE CURRENT COUNT SAYS CURRENT
PROJECTS IN THIS NARROW
DOWNTOWN ZONE CAN ONLY OBTAIN
TDR FROM OTHER SITES IN THE
ZONE.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE REALITY
IS THAT THERE ARE NO LONGER TDR
IS AVAILABLE ON THE PRIVATE
MARKET IN THIS AREA.
PROJECT SOUNDS ARE OUT OF LUCK.
THE ORIGINAL OMNIBUS ADDRESS
THIS PROBLEM BY REMOVING THE
LIMITATION IN TREATING PROJECTS
IN THE NARROW DOWNTOWN ZONE
LIKE PROJECTS IN OTHER DOWNTOWN
ZONES.
THAT FIXES THE PROBLEM FOR
PROJECTS GOING FORWARD.
IN THE SUBSTITUTE VERSION OF
THE BILL WILL INCLUDE A SMALL
CHANGE, TO FIX THE PROBLEM TO
PROJECTS ALREADY IN THE
PIPELINE.
THE CHANGE TREATS THE PROBLEMS
LIKE OTHER DOWNTOWN PROJECTS
AND CONTINUES SUPPORT THE
PRESERVATION THROUGH THE TDR
PROGRAM.
IS A WONKY TECHNICAL CHANGE
THAT IS THE KIND OF UPDATE
INTENDED FOR THE OMNIBUS AND I
WANTED TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT
FOR THE REVISION CONTAINED IN
THE SUBSTITUTE VERSION OF THE
BILL.
WELL I'VE GOT YOU I WOULD ALSO
LIKE TO THROW SUPPORT BEHIND
THE CLARIFICATION IN THE
SUBSTITUTE VERSION OF THE BILL
FOR THE PODIUM SECTION OF THE
CODE FOR SOUTHLAKE UNION.
IT IS A WONKY CHANGE THAT
ALLOWS THE CODE TO BE APPLIED
IN A PRACTICAL MATTER.
THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING IN
SUPPORTING THIS CHANGE.
>> THANK YOU, HOLLY.
JUDITH IS SIGNED UP NEXT BUT I
SEE SHE'S NOT PRESENT.
JUDITH, IF YOU REJOIN JUST LET
US KNOW.
THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE DEB
BARKER, -- AND DAVID MORING.
IF YOU ARE PRESENT, DEB, PRESS
STAR SIX AND BEGIN WHEN YOU ARE
READY.
DEB
, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
IF YOU NEED TO PRESS STAR SIX
TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.
NOT HEARING DABO, WE WILL COME
BACK TO YOU, LET US KNOW IF
SOMETHING CHANGES.
UP NEXT IS --, DAVID MORING AND
I HAVE NOT PRESENT KATIE, NOPE
LAST NAME PROVIDED.
AND PATRICK TAYLOR.
RIZWAN IF YOU ARE READY, PRESS
STAR SIX TO UNMUTE YOURSELF AND
BEGIN.
MY NAME IS RIZWAN, I'M THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
HOUSING SERVICES.
WE ARE A HOMELESS PREVENTION --
BASED IN SEATTLE THE LAST 20
YEARS.
MY CALL THIS MORNING IS
REGRADING CB 10927.
REZONING FOR LAND IN RAINIER
BEACH.
WE ARE HOPING THAT -- TALKING
ABOUT WHETHER TO MOVE THE OTHER
LOCATION INTO THE BUILDING,
WHICH WILL REQUIRE THE
REZONING.
AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF,
THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSING WILL
ALSO BE ADDING LARGE UNITS,
WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN AVAILABLE
ON THE LOW INCOME HOUSING SIDE.
AND IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE
REZONING PASSES FOR NUMBER OF
REASONS.
NUMBER 1 THE CR AGENCY WANTS TO
CONTINUE TO SERVE SEATTLE AND
SOUTH KING COUNTY POPULATIONS
THAT ARE NOT GETTING ASSISTANCE
AND ALSO WE NEED A FOR LARGER
UNITS FOR FAMILIES THAT ARE
HOMELESS IN THE PAST.
WE ARE HOPING THAT CITY COUNCIL
WILL VOTE FOR THE AMENDMENT TO
GO FORWARD.
LAST YEAR WE HOUSED OVER 1170
PEOPLE ACROSS THE COUNTY, WHICH
714 WERE HOMELESS.
456 WERE FACING EVICTION, A LOT
OF THEM WERE CITY OF SEATTLE
RESIDENCE IN SOUTH KING COUNTY
RESIDENTS WHO CAME TO THE CITY
FOR HELP.
WE HOPE WE CAN CONTINUE TO
OPERATE AND PROVIDE SERVICES TO
THE COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, RIZWAN, THANK YOU
FOR YOUR WORK ON BEHALF OF OUR
CITY.
I ALSO WANT TO KNOW COUNCIL
MEMBER LEWIS HAS JOINED THE
MEETING.
NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE DAVID
MORING, KATIE, NO LAST NAME
PROVIDED AND LISTED AS NOT
PRESENT, PATRICK TAYLOR, LAURA
LOWE. DAVID, IF YOU ARE
PRESENTS, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX
TO UNMUTE YOURSELF AND BEGIN AT
ANY TIME.
>> SURE, THIS IS DAVID MORING
WITH MAGNOLIA INTERBAY AREA AND
I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE
OMNIBUS.
I JUST WANT TO APPRECIATE OUR
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND PRESS FOR
TERMS OF THE CITY COUNCIL BEING
ABLE TO MANAGE ALL THAT IS ON
THE CITY'S PLATE AT THE MOMENT.
WITH THAT I'M UP APPRECIATING
THE EFFORTS MADE BY CITY
COUNCIL AND THE STAFF TO -- THE
OMNIBUS, ESPECIALLY REMOVING
THE LANGUAGE THAT POTENTIALLY
COULD IMPACT 400,000 TO 500
THOUSAND SEATTLE RESIDENTS.
SO ON THAT, JUST ON THAT NOTE
IF THE CITY HAS AN ULTIMATE
GOAL TO CONVERT THE DIVERSE
OPTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE
INO MULTIFAMILY, THEN DON'T BE
SHY.
AND ANNOUNCE THAT PUBLICLY TO
THE PEOPLE OF SEATTLE, MAYBE
LIKE MINNEAPOLIS DID.
I RECOGNIZE THAT THE OMNIBUS
WOULD HAVE NOT ALLOWED OR
LIMITED BACKYARD VENUES FROM
BEING INDIVIDUALLY SOLD.
BUT TWO THINGS, ONE IT DID NOT
STOP UP TO TWO ATTACHED
ACCESSORY DWELLINGS TO BE
SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD IN TWO, IT
DID NOT STOP THE EVENTUAL
CONVERTING OF THE GARAGE OR
OPEN SPACE AT A LATER DATE.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS
AND JUST BE OPEN WITH US, THANK
YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANKS, DAVE.
WE ABSOLUTELY WELL.
NEXT I HAVE KATIE, NO LAST NAME
PROVIDED, NOT PRESENT.
KATIE, IF YOU ARE HERE, PLEASE
UNMUTE YOURSELF BY PRESSING
STAR SIX.
NOT HEARING KATIE, NEXT WE HAVE
PATRICK TAYLOR, LAURA LOWE, DON
BRUBECK.
PATRICK, IF YOU ARE PRESENT AND
READY, PRESS STAR SIX AND BEGIN
AT ANY TIME.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> MY NAME IS PATRICK TAYLOR AND
I'M PART OF THE ADVISORY BOARD.
I'M SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL
MEMBER, NOT ON BEHALF OF THE
BOARD.
SPEAKING ON THE OMNIBUS BILL.
WE HAVE WRITTEN THE LETTER BUT
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS AND ANN
HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IN WORKING TO
MAKE CHANGES IN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
AND IF THE AMENDMENT IS
INCLUDED WITH THE OMNIBUS
LANGUAGE BILL, MAKING THE MOST
OF THE EXEMPTION, CONTINGENT ON
THE TYPE ONE DECISION, I WOULD
FEEL THAT THE BILL IS SOMETHING
I CAN SUPPORT AND REPRESENT A
VERY POSITIVE COMPLEMENT BETWEEN
THE NEEDS OF THE VIKING
COMMUNITY AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROVIDERS.
THE AMENDMENT WE DISCUSSED, I
SUPPORT WHAT EVERYONE NEEDS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, PATRICK AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE ON THE
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE
BOARD.
AND WORKING WITH NOAH.
I UNDERSTAND THAT DEB BARKER
YOU ARE ABLE TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF, I WILL PUT YOU BACK
IN FRONT OF LAURA LOWE.
DEB, ARE YOU AVAILABLE BY
PRESSING STAR 62 UNMUTE
YOURSELF?
DEB, I'M GOING TO COME BACK AT
THE VERY ENDS.
JUST SO WE CAN CONTINUE MOVING
FORWARD.
LAURA LOWE BERNSTEIN AND DON
BRUBECK, MATT HUTCHINS, LAURA
LOWE IF YOU'RE READY PRESS STAR
SIX.
>> THIS IS LAURA, CAN YOU HEAR
ME?
MY GUESS, WE CAN.
>> GREAT.
I'M CALLING TO THANK THE CITY
COUNCIL FOR PUTTING FORWARD CB
11931 WHICH ACKNOWLEDGES THE
COMMUNITY NEEDS WALKABLE,
ABUNDANT ACCESS TO CHILDCARE IN
OUR CITY.
WHILE ZONING CANNOT ALONE
ADDRESS SCARCITY OF RESOURCES,
CHANGES ARE KEY FACTOR IN
MAKING OUR CITY MORE AFFORDABLE
AND CLIMATE FRIENDLY.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
WORK ON PB ONE THROUGH --
CHANGES TO SUPPORT BETTER LAND
USE IN THE CITY.
I WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO HIGHLIGHT THE RECENT SEATTLE
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT FOR
RACIAL EQUITY, AFFORDABLE AND
RESILIENT RECOVERY.
I STRONGLY AGREE WITH THE
FOLLOWING GOAL THAT WE NEED TO
ADOPT AND USE COMMITTEE AND AN
OVERALL ANYTIME WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT PLANNING OR HOUSING
PRACTICES OR ECONOMIC PLANNING
OR ACROSS MANY OTHER
COMMITTEES, WE NEED TO WORK IN
COLLABORATION WITH BIPARTISAN
UNITY TO GET A PLANNING PROCESS
THAT SHARES POWER INCLUDING
BUDGETING, WE NEED TO ADVANCE
CHOICES AND SECURITY IN
RESPONSE OF COVID-19 INCLUDING
WIKIS INCREASING FUNDING -- WE
NEED TO MAINTAIN CRITICAL
TRANSIT NETWORKS TO ENSURE CITY
RIGHTS OF LAND-USE SAFETY, THE
NEEDS DURING THIS CRITICAL
PANDEMIC TIME INCLUDING -- AND
PUBLIX SPACE WORKS FOR EVERYONE.
THE CLEAN HAND COLLECTIVE, DIY
HANDWASHING STATIONS, MUST BE A
PRIORITY AND IN PUBLIC REALMS
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE OUR LAND-
USE WORKS TO MAKE MORE OF THOSE
HAPPEN.
AND FINALLY WE NEED TO UPDATE
OUR CITY RACIAL EQUITY TOOLKIT
TO INCLUDE INDIGENOUS PRACTICES
AND OUR PROJECT AND POLICY
DEVELOPMENT, I'M ESPECIALLY
CONCERNED THAT WE INCORPORATE
INDIGENOUS PRACTICES AND
INDIGENOUS WAYS IN OUR
INDUSTRIAL LAND PLANNING COMING
UP.
I JUST WANT TO TAKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO THANK YOU FOR
THE WORK YOU ARE DOING AND
THANK YOU FOR THE -- THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, LAURA LOWE.
NEXT WE HAVE DON BRUBECK
FOLLOWED BY MATT HUTCHINS AND
LAST MARY COTTER. WE WILL THEN
HEAR FROM DEB BARKER AND DOUBLE
AS -- DOUGLAS, YOU ARE LISTED
AS NOT PRESENT.
SAME WITH JUDITH AND KATIE NO
LAST NAME PROVIDED.
DON -- IT HAS COME TO MY
ATTENTION THAT WE HAVE REACHED
THE END OF THE INITIAL ALLOTTED
10 MINUTES A PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION,
PUBLIC CONDIMENTS WILL BE
EXTENDED AN ADDITIONAL 10
MINUTES.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, PUBLIC
COMMENT HAS BEEN EXTENDED AN
ADDITIONAL 10 MINUTES.
DON, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AND
BEGIN WHEN YOU ARE READY.
>> THIS IS DON BRUBECK.
I'M COMING TO URGE YOU TO VOTE
NO ON AMENDMENT -- CB 119815
REGARDING THE DIVISION OF BIKE
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR LOW
INCOME AND CERTAIN CONGREGATE
CARE HOUSING PEOPLE WITH LOW
INCOME ARE LESS LIKELY TO OWN
CARS, HAVE HARDER TIME WITH
ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION AND
ARE MORE IN NEED OF BIKES FOR
TRANSPORTATION.
BRINGING BIKES INTO VERY SMALL
APARTMENTS IS NOT A PRACTICAL
THING THAT PEOPLE CAN DO.
PROVIDING BIKE PARKING REQUIRES
PLANNING BUT IT IS SPACE
EFFICIENT, DENYING SECURE
WEATHER PROTECTED BIKE PARKING
FOR PEOPLE WITH LOW INCOMES IS
NOT EQUITABLE. I UNDERSTAND
THAT I KNOW FIRSTHAND THE
CHALLENGES BUILD AFFORDABLE LOW
HELP HOUSING PROJECTS BUT WE
SHOULDN'T DENY PRESENTATION
NEEDS TO PEOPLE WITH LOW
INCOME.
CONGREGATE CARE RESIDENCES ALSO
HAVE A HIGH RATIO OF STAFFING
BY PEOPLE WHO CAN MAKE GOOD USE
OF SECURE AND WEATHER PROTECTED
BIKE PARKING FOR COMMUTING TO
WORK IN SUCH INCIDENCES.
I WORKED AT CONGREGATE CARE
PLACE WHICH IS A LOCKUP
FACILITY WITH PEOPLE WITH
MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSES.
NONE OF THEM CAN RIDE BIKES BUT
HE CAN SUDDENLY RIDE HIS BIKE
TO WORK IN THESE PARKING FOR
IT.
THE PROPOSAL TO REMOVE THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR BIKE PARKING
FROM RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO LOW
INCOME PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY
TO FACILITY POLICY -- EQUITY IN
HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION AND
CLIMATE ACTION.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, DON.
I RECEIVED NOTES THAT JUDITH
HAS REJOINED US.
NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE MATT
HUTCHINS FOLLOWED BY MARY
HODDER, DEB BARKER AND JUDITH.
DOUGLAS, IF YOU WANT TO REJOIN
OR KATIE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
REJOIN, PLEASE DO SO NOW.
MATT, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF.
AND BEGIN.
>> HI, MY NAME IS MATT
HUTCHINS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
CONSIDERING THIS LAND-USE
OMNIBUS 119835.
AS AN ARCHITECT WHO DESIGNS
BACKYARD COTTAGES AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING I WOULD LIKE
TO VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR THE
OMNIBUS LAND-USE BILL.
ANYTIME WE CAN IRON OUT WRINKLES
THAT ADD COMPLEX SPRINKLES THAT
GET IN THE WAY OF ADD
COMPLEXITY TO THE CREATION OF
HOUSING IT IS A THING THAT WE
CAN ELIMINATE THAT.
TODAY ONE OF THE SMALL CHANGES
WOULD ALLOW FOR PORCHES AND
COVERED PATIOS AND ROOF DECKS
TO USE TO BE IN THE REQUIRED
REAR YARD.
THIS IS REALLY COMMON SENSE
PROVISION.
IMAGINE HAVING A HOUSE THAT YOU
CAN'T HAVE A FRONT PORCH OR ANY
SORT OF COVER OVER YOUR ENTRY.
IF YOU ARE COMING IN OFF THE
ALLEY, PROVIDING OUTDOOR SPACE
IS GREAT FOR LIVABILITY AND IS
IMPORTANT IF YOU LIVE IN A
SMALL HOUSE.
IN REGARD TO THE SUBDIVISION
PROVISION IT IS UNCLEAR WHAT
THIS PROVISION WOULD MEET.
BUT IF INDEED IT -- THE
POTENTIAL FOR SMALLER LOTS THAT
COULD THEREFORE BE MUCH MORE
AFFORDABLE, FOR MANY MORE PEOPLE
, I THINK THAT THAT IS
INCREDIBLY GOOD THING.
THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, MATT.
UP NEXT IS MARY HODDER FOLLOWED
BY DOUGLAS, DEB BARKER AND JUDY.
JUDITH.
I ALSO SEE RUBY HOLLAND HAS
JOINED, IF YOU ARE CURRENTLY
LISTED AS NOT PRESENT.
BE IF YOU'RE LISTENING PLEASE
JOIN THE PHONE LINE.
MARY, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF BY
PRESSING STAR SIX AND TAKE IT
AWAY.
MARY?
WE ARE NOT HEARING MARY.
MARY, WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU
AT THE END OF THE LIST.
DOUGLAS, IF YOU ARE READY,
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND BEGIN
AT ANY TIME.
>> THIS IS DOUG AND I'M A
RENTER IN EAST FREMONT.
OF I'M APOLOGIZING FOR THE
NOISE.
THEY ARE TESTING MY BUILDING
TODAY BUT I WANT TO URGE YOU TO
PASS CHILDCARE ORDINANCE CB
119831.
BECAUSE THE COST OF CHILDCARE
IN SEATTLE IS FAR TOO HIGH.
IS MAKING IT HARD TO EVEN DREAM
OF HAVING A FAMILY IN THE CITY
MUCH -- UNLESS YOU HAVE A LOT
OF MONEY.
I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING
FORWARD AND I WANT TO -- THE
CAMPAIGN TRAIL, ADDING
CHILDCARE CENTERS ACROSS THE
CITY WILL IMPROVE ACCESS FOR
FAMILIES IN LOWER COST.
ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT
PORTLAND, TODAY IS PASSING
ZONING REFORM ACROSS THE CITY,
MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO BUILD FOUR
HOMES AND EVERY LOTS IN SIX IF
THEY ARE AFFORDABLE.
THIS SHOULD BE A GOOD MODEL FOR
SEATTLE TO EMULATE CONSIDERING
HOW SLEEPING AND WHAT THE
IMPACT COULD BE FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROVIDERS.
LET'S BUILD ON CHILDCARE CENTERS
, LEGISLATION BY MAKING IT ALSO
EASY TO BUILD AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ALL OVER THE CITY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, DOUG.
UP NEXT, WE HAVE DEB BARKER
FOLLOWED BY JUDAS, MARY HODDER
AND RUPERT RUBY HOLLAND.
WE BE, IF YOU WANT TO JOIN US,
PLEASE CALL IN.
MARY, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX.
MARY, YOU ARE STILL MUTED.
MARY, WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU.
YOU ARE STILL MUTED.
DEB BARKER WILL BE NEXT.
DABBLE, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX
AND BEGIN WHEN YOU ARE READY.
I SEE THAT YOU ARE STILL MUTED.
>> HELLO?
>> THERE WE ARE.
GOOD TO HEAR YOUR VOICE.
>> I KNOW.
THANK YOU FOR THIS AMAZING
BUILDUP.
IS LIKE, IS SHE THERE?
STAR SIX DOES NOT WORK
UNIVERSALLY.
THANK YOU EVERYBODY.
DEB BARKER WEST SEATTLE
RESIDENT, FINALLY UNMUTED.
I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR THEIR
ASSISTANCE IN WORKING THROUGH
THE NUANCES OF COUNSEL BILL
119835.
AND HAPPY RETIREMENT TO L
MILLS, WHO STARTED THIS OMNIBUS
BILL AND THEN LEFT IT IN
ANOTHER WORLD.
SO HAPPY RETIREMENT, BILL
MILLS.
I WANT TO ADVISE COUNSEL THAT
IT WOULD BE GREAT TO ADOPT THE
MAJORITY OF THE OMNIBUS BILL.
AND I URGE YOU TO KEEP IT IN
THE MINOR CATEGORY.
AND STOP PUTTING IN THINGS THAT
FEEL LIKE THEY ARE MINOR.
NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING LIKE
A RESOUND IN HERE BUT THAT HAS
BEEN DONE IN THE PAST.
DON'T ADD ANY MORE COMPLEXITY
TO AN ALREADY COMPLEX ZONING
CODE.
I ECHO DAVID MOEHRING'S
COMMENTS ABOUT, IF YOU WANT TO
DO SOMETHING THEN DO IT.
SAY IT OUT LOUD, SAY IT IN A
PROPER FORUM AND DON'T TRY TO
HIDE IT IN AN OMNIBUS BILL.
I SUPPORT THE LANDMARK PROPOSED
CHANGES AS THE FORMER SIX YEAR
MEMBER OF THE SEATTLE LANDMARKS
BOARD.
AND AGAIN, THANKS TO STAFF AND
OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS TO
PROBABLY KNOW HOW TO UNMUTE
THEIR PHONE BETTER THAN I DO.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
IT WAS A FUN BUILDUP THIS
MORNING.
AND WE STILL HAVE TWO MORE.
JUDITH AND MARY.
RUBY I SEE YOU LISTED AS NOT
PRESENT.
JUDITH, IF YOU ARE ON -- I SEE
YOU ARE UNMUTED.
TAKE IT.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> I CAN.
NOW I CANNOT.
>> HELLO?
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> I CAN'T.
YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
>> GOOD, THANK YOU.
I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO DEBORAH
BARKER'S WORDS ABOUT THANKS TO
NOAH AND TO TOBY AND TO --
FREEMAN.
THEY HAVE BEEN HELPFUL.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE
SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE THAT IS
BEEN PROPOSED FOR THE UNIT LOT
SUBDIVISION ON THE OMNIBUS
BILL.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE WHAT WAS
THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND IT
CAUSED A HUGE AMOUNT OF
CONFUSION FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO -- I'M GLAD
THAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND I
WOULD URGE THAT ALL OF YOU VOTE
FOR THAT PORTION OF THE
SUBSTITUTE.
DEB BARKER IS MY CREW ON
LANDMARK THING BECAUSE SHE IS
ON THE LANDMARK BOARD.
BUT I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THAT
AND I WANTED TO SHARE IT WITH
YOU.
BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN COUCHED AS
-- AND NOT SIGNIFICANT, ALL
THESE CHANGES WHICH SOME OF US
FELT, A LOT OF THEM DEFINITELY
WERE SIGNIFICANT.
I THINK THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE
HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
READ THIS.
AND PARTICULARLY, FOLKS LIKE AT
THE LAURELHURST COMMUNITY
COUNCIL AND I SENT AN EMAIL TO
EUGENIA AT HISTORIC SEATTLE
YESTERDAY.
SHE HAD NEVER HEARD OF THIS.
I'M WONDERING, WHETHER THAT
SECTION ON THE CONDITION USE
AUTHORIZATION FOR LANDMARK
SITES COULD BE SOMEHOW TABLED
OR JUST PUT OFF? SO THAT PEOPLE
PUT IN THE KNOW AND HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THE ISSUE CAN
WEIGH IN ON IT.
IT COULD BE THAT IT IS FINE.
BUT AS MR. FREEMAN SAID, HE
DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THERE HAD
BEEN OUTREACH, REGARDING THIS.
AND I THINK THAT JUST AS A
MATTER OF FAIRNESS TO EVERYBODY,
THAT SHOULD BE DONE.
OTHER THAN THAT, THOSE ARE MY
FEW WORDS AND THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR YOUR SUBSTITUTE.
>> THANK YOU, JUDITH.
NEXT WE HAVE MARY HART AND THE
LAST TWO PEOPLE ARE LISTED AS
NOT PRESENT, RUBY HOLLAND AND
KATIE.
RUBY AND KATIE, IF YOU PLAN TO
JOIN, PLEASE CALL INTO THE
LINE.
MARY HODDER, IF YOU ARE READY?
THERE YOU ARE.
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK GOODNESS.
AFTER 30 STAR SIX IS.
I AM CALLING ABOUT THE UNIT
SUBDIVISION.
THAT PIECE OF THE LEGISLATION
YOU ARE PROPOSING.
I WANTED TO POINT OUT THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS DONE ON
THIS PROVISION WHICH SAYS,
HOWEVER THE PROPOSED OMNIBUS
LANGUAGE INTRODUCES AMBIGUITY
INTO THE CODE THAT COULD LEAD
TO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FOR
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT
LOTS.
CREATED THROUGH THE UNIT LOT
SUBDIVISION PROCESS.
I WANT TO POINT OUT AN
ADDITIONAL PIECE OF AMBIGUITY.
THERE IS NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE
REQUIREMENT FOR THIS.
SO IN YOUR EXAMPLE, ON THE
LEGISLATIVE RIGHT UP, YOU SHOW
IN MAINE HOUSE, YOU SHOW A
COTTAGE DETACHED AND THE
DEVELOPER COULD COME IN,
PURCHASE THE HOUSE, PUT IN THE
--, THEN SUBDIVIDES THEM UP AND
ADD ADDITIONAL --.
BECAUSE THEY COULD KEEP IT ALL
THE WAY DOWN.
THEY COULD SUBDIVIDE AND
SUBDIVIDE BECAUSE THERE IS NO
MINIMUM.
THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL PIECE OF
AMBIGUITY.
MY CONCERN ABOUT AMBIGUITY IS
THAT RIGHT NOW THE ALREADY GIANT
HOLE FOR AMBIGUITY THAT
DEVELOPERS DRIVE SEMI TRUCKS
THROUGH IN TERMS OF LOCTITE AND
LOT COVERAGE.
THERE ARE A BUNCH OF WAYS TO
GAIN THOSE SYSTEMS.
I FIGURED OUT WHAT THEY ARE AND
I AM WATCHING DEVELOPERS DO
THIS NOW TODAY IN FACT
BLUEPRINT CAPITAL SERVICES IS
PUTTING THIS IN THE HOUSE NEXT
DOOR.
THEY FIGURED OUT HOW TO GET 10
EXTRA HEIGHT, 10 EXTRA FEET OF
HEIGHT BECAUSE THEY GAINED THE
HEIGHT REQUIREMENT.
SO THE OTHER PIECE THAT I WANT
TO POINT OUT IS, IMAGINE THIS,
DEVELOPERS WHO ARE IN THE 1%
VERSUS HOMEOWNERS WHOSE ONLY
WEALTH GENERALLY IS ON PAPER IN
THE VALUE OF THEIR HOME, IS
TYPICALLY WILL COME IN AND
COMPETE WITH INDIVIDUALS TO BUY
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES SO THAT
THEY CAN PUT IN ADU'S IN
DADU'S, MULTIPLE OF THEM.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY CAN
CONSTRUCT WHOLESALE .
>> WE HAVE REACHED THE END OF
THE COMMENT PERIOD.
I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE
PIECE YOU ARE SPEAKING TO HAS
BEEN REMOVED FROM THE BILL.
>> OKAY.
THE AMBIGUITY ABOUT LOT SIZE?
>> YES.
>> OKAY, MY OTHER CONCERN IS
THAT YOU ARE BASICALLY FAVORING
THE 1%.
AND INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS WILL
GET THE SHAFT.
>> I APPRECIATE.
IF YOU COULD FOLLOW UP WITH
WRITTEN COMMENTS, WE NEED TO
GO.
THAT WAS TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I DID A TWO-MINUTE TIMER AND
IT WASN'T UP.
>> I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT.
I REALLY APPRECIATE HEARING YOU
THIS MORNING MARY.
SEEING AS WE HAVE NO ADDITIONAL
SPEAKERS REMOTELY PRESENT,
DOUBLE CHECKING THAT BB AND
KATIE ARE NOT PRESENT, I.T.,
CAN YOU CONFIRM FOR ME?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> I SEE THAT NOTE, THANK YOU.
SEEING WE HAVE NO ADDITIONAL
SPEAKERS REMOTELY PRESENT WE
WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT AGENDA
ITEM.
OUR FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS A
BRIEFING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
CB 119827 WHICH RESOUNDS LAND
IN RAINIER BEACH FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
PLEASE READ THE ABBREVIATED
TITLE INTO THE RECORD.
>> YES, AGENDA ITEM ONE,
COUNSEL BILL 119827, AND
ORDINANCE RELATED TO LAND USE
AND ZONING ATTENDING THE CODE
TO REZONE LAND IN RAINIER BEACH
NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> THANK YOU, NOAH.
WE ARE JOINED BY YOLANDA AT
COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF AND DATES
FROM OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELVES AND
PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE
PROPOSAL.
THANK YOU.
>> YES, YOLANDA, COUNSEL
CENTRAL STAFF.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> JEFF, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
>> GOOD MORNING, JEFF.
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> OKAY.
GOOD MORNING JOE STRAUS AND
ALSO NUMBERS.
I AM GOING TO PROVIDE BRIEF
BACKGROUND FOR YOU ON COUNSEL
BILL 119827.
I WILL SHARE MY SCREEN HERE.
AND THIS IS THE PRESENTATION
ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU DON'T
SEE THE PRESENTATION.
>> WE CANNOT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THIS ACTION, WE ARE CALLING
IT RAINIER BEACH AREA REZONE TO
SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND I WILL DESCRIBE THE
PROPOSAL FOR YOU.
THESE ARE TWO CLUSTERS OR
GROUPS OF LANDS IN AND AROUND
RAINIER BEACH AND THESE ARE
PART OF A COHESIVE STRATEGY TO
SUPPORT 100% RENT AND INCOME
RESTRICTIVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IN AN AREA THAT HAS A WEALTH OF
SERVICES AND AMENITIES FOR
RESIDENTS.
IT IS ALSO AN AREA OF THE CITY
THAT HAS A HIGH RISK
DISPLACEMENT AND THE ACTION
WOULD SUPPORT ANTI-DISPLACEMENT
OR STABILIZE COMMUNITIES AND NOT
DISPLACE ANY HOUSING.
ACTIONS ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY
COMMUNITY-BASED AGENCIES AND
BOTH GROUPS OF PARCELS HAVE
PARTNERSHIP WITH COMMUNITY-
BASED AGENCIES.
THE PROPOSAL WAS BROUGHT
FORWARD TO YOU AT THIS TIME
BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THIS
GROUPING OF ACTIONS CAN
CONTRIBUTE TO RECOVERY TO HELP
STABILIZE COMMUNITIES IN THIS
TIME OF INCREASED PRESSURE.
THE TWO CLUSTERS OF PARCELS
TOTAL 2.72 ACRES.
THERE IS NO HOUSING ON THE
SIGHTS.
THEY ARE VACANT AND
UNDERUTILIZED LANDS FOR BOTH
AREAS.
THE RESOUNDS WOULD ALLOW FOR
MORE COST-EFFECTIVE
CONSTRUCTION.
ALL THE AREAS ARE UNDER SITE
CONTROL BY NONPROFIT,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS.
AND WHAT IS PROPOSED WOULD
ALLOW THEM TO ESSENTIALLY
INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING
PROVIDED WITHOUT MUCH
ADDITIONAL COST.
THE DIRECT REPORT ANALYZES
CONSISTENCY AND COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND THE PROPOSAL IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN.
THE REZONE WOULD ALSO MEET
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE CRITERIA
AND THE REVIEW WAS COMPLETED
AND THE COMMENT AND APPEAL
PERIOD HAS EXPIRED.
I WILL REFER TO THESE TWO
GROUPS OF SITES AS THE SOUTH
ROSE TREE CLUSTER AND THE SOUTH
CLOVERDALE STREET CLUSTER.
YOU CAN SEE ON MAP THAT THEY
ARE SEPARATED BY ABOUT A
QUARTER MILE, VERY CLOSE TO ONE
ANOTHER.
AND THEY ARE CLOSE TO THE
ETHIOPIAN COMMUNITY CENTER,
WHICH IS BETWEEN THE SITES ON
RAINIER AVENUE. THEY ARE CLOSE
TO RAINIER BEACH HIGH SCHOOL,
CLOSE TO SOUTH LAKE HIGH SCHOOL
AND RAINIER BUTTES -- BEACH
COMMUNITY CENTER.
NOW WE WILL LOOK AT EACH GROUP
WITH MORE DETAIL.
STARTING AT THE SOUTH, THIS IS
THE SOUTH CLOVERDALE STREET
CLUSTER.
YOU CAN SEE IT IS JUST OFF THE
SHOULDER OF THE RAINIER BEACH
HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS FIELDS.
THE AREA PROPOSED TO CHANGES IS
THE HATCHED AREA.
THE CHANGE WILL INCREASE THE
HEIGHT LIMIT FROM 55 FEET TO 65
FEET.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE
WOULD NOT CHANGE.
THIS SITE IS THE PROPOSED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
AND WOULD INCLUDE ON THE GROUND
FLOOR OF THE RAINIER BEACH
COMMUNITY FOOD BANK, ALSO
REFERRED TO AS A COMMUNITY
CENTER, THAT WOULD LOOK AND
FEEL LIKE A GROCERY STORE.
AND WOULD HAVE ALL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FOR VERY LOW INCOME
FAMILIES ON THE FLOOR ABOVE THE
GROUND LEVEL.
GOING TO SCROLL TO THE SECOND
SITE.
SOUTH ROSE STREET CLUSTER.
YOU CAN SEE THE FRONT OF THE
SITE FACES ON TO RAINIER AVENUE
SOUTH.
IT EXTENDS TO THE EAST WITHIN
THE BLOCK.
IT IS A SPLIT ZONE PARCEL, SO
THE FRONT PORTION FACING
RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH WOULD
RESOUND FROM THE REST TO
MULTIFAMILY AND NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL WITH 55 FOOT HEIGHT
LIMIT.
THAT CHANGE WILL ALLOW MORE
HOUSING AND ALLOW ALSO FOR THE
LOCATION OF MUSLIM HOUSING
SERVICES, NONPROFIT OFFICES,
YOU HEARD FROM RIZWAN IN THE,
EARLIER, THEY PROPOSE TO LOCATE
THEIR OFFICES THERE. IT WOULD
ALSO INCLUDE A CHILDCARE CENTER
WITH CLASSROOMS AND SIGHTS.
THE BACK OR REAR PORTION OF THE
SITE, BE REZONE FROM SINGLE-
FAMILY TO THREE MULTIFAMILY.
AND THE PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE A
TRANSITION FROM HIGHER DENSITY
FACING RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH,
TAPERING OFF TO THE EAST.
THIS PROPOSAL WOULD INCLUDE OUR
FAMILY SIZED HOUSING UNITS OF
TWO, THREE AND FOUR BEDROOMS
AND INCLUDE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT
OF FAMILY-FRIENDLY OPEN SPACES.
SO THAT IS A VERY HIGH-LEVEL
OVERVIEW OF THE REZONE
PROPOSALS AND WHAT THEY INTEND
TO SUPPORT.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY
PRESENTATION TODAY.
WE WOULD BE HAPPY, COUNCIL
MEMBERS TO ANSWER ANY FOLLOW-UP
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE FOR
EITHER MY OFFICE OR THE OFFICE
OF HOUSING AND ARE PARTNERS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, JEFF.
I DO HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS BUT I
WANT TO CHECK WITH LAWANDA TO
SEE IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU
WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE AT THIS
TIME.
>> THE ONLY THING I WOULD NOTE
IS THAT THE ATTACHMENT TWO TO
THE STAFF MEMBER IS A PROPOSED
SUBSTITUTE VERSION OF THE BILL.
AND IT JUST MAKES TECHNICALS
CORRECTIONS BY STRIKING
ATTACHMENT ONE IN TWO WHICH
ILLUSTRATES EACH OF THE
SEPARATE RESOUND AREAS AND
REPLACED THEM WITH A SINGLE
ATTACHMENT SHOWING THE ENTIRE
RESOUND AREA AND AMENDS THE
LANGUAGE IN COUNSEL BILL 119827
ACCORDINGLY.
AND IT ALSO CORRECTS THE SOUTH
REZONE STREET AREA.
SOUTH ROSE STREET REZONE AREA
TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE
EXISTING ZONING BOUNDARIES,
WHICH DON'T QUITE FOLLOW THE
PERSONAL LINES ALONG THE
SOUTHWEST PORTION OF THE PARCEL
AND FOR THE WESTERN PORTION OF
THE AREA IT CHANGES THE
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
SUFFIX FROM ANSI 255 FROM M1 TO
M WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
CAPACITY.
>> THANK YOU.
JEFF, IF YOU CAN SHARE YOUR
PRESENTATION ONE MORE TIME.
I APPRECIATE ABOUT THIS
PROPOSAL IS THAT IT SEEMS TO
TAKE EACH AREA AND BUMP IT UP
ONE LEVEL.
AND WITH THE ROE STREET PORTION
THAT IS TAPERED IN SUCH A WAY
THAT IT STAYS WITHIN THE
CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
JEFF, CAN YOU OR YOLANDA SPEAK
TO WHAT DISTINGUISHES THIS
PROPOSAL FROM A CONTRACT REZONE
PROCESS?
>> YES, THANK YOU FOR THAT
QUESTION.
SO AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS
REALLY A GROUP, A COLLECTION OF
SITES THAT CONSTITUTES AN
AREAWIDE ACTION.
IS A COHESIVE STRATEGY TO ADD
HOUSING IN A PLACE WITH SUPPORT
SERVICES.
IT IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL
FOR COUNSEL IS BEING ASKED TO
TAKE ACTION ON THE REZONE OF
THE LAND.
YOU ARE NOT BEING ASKED TO TAKE
ACTION ON THE SPECIFICS OR
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ALTHOUGH
I PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION, IF YOU WILL ON
PARTNERSHIPS THAT ARE UNDERWAY.
SO THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT
THIS IS AN AREAWIDE PROPOSAL IN
THE SENSE THAT IT IS FULFILLING
A STRATEGY THAT IS LINKED TO
THE GOALS AND COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
IN THE RAINIER BEACH
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND IT IS
DIFFERENT FROM A VARIED SITE-
SPECIFIC ONE-OFF ACTION.
>> THANK YOU, THAT IS VERY
HELPFUL.
AND YOU ALSO LET ME KNOW IF YOU
HAVE HEARD ANY OR IF OBESITY
GENERALLY HAVE HEARD ANYTHING
FROM THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY
OVER THE PROPOSED CHANGE?
>> WE HAVE NOT HEARD CONCERNS
EXPRESSED DIRECTLY.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF SUPPORT.
THE COMMUNITY-BASED AGENCIES
AND THE NONPROFIT HOUSING
PROVIDERS HAVE DONE EXTENSIVE
OUTREACH ABOUT BOTH SETS OF
PARCELS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD
AND THE RENEWED SUPPORT.
I HAVE NOT HEARD ANY COMMENTS
THROUGH THE PROCESS OTHERWISE
PROPOSING THE PROPOSAL.
>> THANK YOU.
AND WE KNOW, HOW MANY
AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE
ANTICIPATED TO BE GENERATED IN
THE REZONE PERIOD?
>> TOGETHER, WE ANTICIPATE THAT
IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 425
AFFORDABLE HOMES. AND ABOUT 20%
OF THOSE WOULD BE ENABLED BY
THE SECTION.
>> THANK YOU.
YOLANDA, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHIN
TO ADD?
OR COUNSEL?
ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AT
THIS TIME, CHAIR.
>> I SEE COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS.
SINCE THIS IS LOCATED IN
RAINIER BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD I
WANT TO ASK IF THE EXECUTIVE
HAD CHECKED WITH COUNCILMEMBER
TAMMY MORALES OFFICE.
>> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
SHE HAS BEEN -- THIS HAS BEEN
DISCUSS WITH HER AND I WILL
DOUBLE CHECK BEFORE OUR NEXT
COMMITTEE MEETING WHEN WE KNOW
THIS.
TODAY IS SIMPLY A PUBLIC
HEARING AND BRIEFING.
SO GOOD QUESTION, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
>> THANKS.
>> I SEE COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE, IF I'M NOT
AT THE NEXT MEETING, MY SUPPORT
FOR THIS EFFORT, I'M EXCITED
ABOUT THESE PROJECTS AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT PAIRS
WITH EVERYTHING WE HAVE ALWAYS
TALKED ABOUT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THERE IS ACCESS TO LIVABLE,
WALKABLE, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES.
SO I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE
CHILD CARE AND JOB TRAINING.
THE BUSINESS INCUBATION AND
COMMUNITY SPACE NEAR GOOD
TRANSIT OPTIONS AS WELL.
WE KIND OF GET LOST A LITTLE
BIT SOMETIMES IN THE LANGUAGE
USED IN HOUSING AND ZONING.
I WANT TO LIFT UP THAT THIS IS
AN INCREDIBLE PROJECT THAT WE
HAVE, THE OPPORTUNITY AND
REALLY THE PRIVILEGE TO HELP
MOVE FORWARD AT THIS POINT.
THESE PROJECTS WERE REALLY, I
THINK ROOTED IN WHAT COMMUNITY
HAS BEEN ASKING FOR FOR A VERY
LONG TIME.
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE RAINIER
BEACH COMMUNITY IN PARTICULAR
FOR THEIR YEARS OF WORK TO
ADVANCE FOOD INNOVATION CENTER
AND MAKING SURE THAT THE
NEIGHBORHOOD HAD AFFORDABLE
HOUSING WHILE ALSO INVESTING IN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GOOD
JOBS FOR COMMUNITIES.
MR. CHAIR, BECAUSE I DON'T
THINK I'M AT THE NEXT MEETING I
WANT TO EMPHASIZE MY SUPPORT
FOR THIS EFFORT, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AS A MEMBER LEWIS, I SAW YOU
TURN THE CAMERA ON BRIEFLY.
I WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK,
COMMENTS?
>> I HAD THE SAME QUESTION AS
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN ABOUT
CONSULTATION WITH COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES.
I WANTED TO JUST WAIT TO HEAR
FROM HER OFF-LINE, I GUESS.
>> THANK YOU.
YOLANDA AND JEFF, NO FURTHER
COMMENTS?
>> NOTHING.
>> CNN, THANK YOU FOR THE
PRESENTATION, VERY HELPFUL.
BEFORE WE BEGIN, BEFORE WE OPEN
THE REMOTE PUBLIC HEARING, I
WOULD AGAIN ASK EVERYONE TO BE
PATIENT AS WE CONTINUE TO LEARN
TO OPERATE THIS NEW SYSTEM IN
REAL TIME AND GET TO THE
GROWING PAINS.
WE ARE CONTINUOUSLY LOOKING FOR
WAYS TO FINE-TUNE THE PROCESS
AND ADD PETE FEATURES TO ALLOW
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
I WILL MODERATE.
EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN TWO
MINUTES TO SPEAK.
I WILL CALL ON ONE AT A TIME IN
THE ORDER OF WHICH THEY ARE
REGISTERED.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER,
YOU CAN SIGN UP ON THE COUNCIL
WEBSITE.
THE LINK IS ALWAYS ON TODAY'S
AGENDA.
IF YOU ARE UNMUTED IT IS YOUR
CUE THAT IS IS YOUR TURN TO
SPEAK.
NOTE THAT YOU NEED TO PRESS
STAR SIX TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.
PLEASE BEGIN SPEAKING BY
STATING YOUR NAME AND THE ITEM
YOU ARE ADDRESSING.
YOUR COMMENTS SHOULD BE RELATED
ONLY TO CB 119827.
IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT
SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ON
TODAY'S AGENDA YOU CAN PROVIDE
WRITTEN COMMENT TO MY OFFICE.
SPEAKERS WILL HEAR A SEATTLE,
WASHINGTON 10 SECONDS I LEFT.
ONCE YOU HEAR THE CHIME, PLEASE
BEGIN TO WRAP UP YOUR PUBLIC
COMMENT.
IF SPEAKERS DO NOT END COMMENTS
AT THE ALLOTTED TIME PROVIDED,
THE SPEAKERS MIGHT BE MUTED TO
ALLOW US TO CALL ON THE NEXT
SPEAKER.
ONCE YOU HAVE COMPLETED PUBLIC
COMMENT WE ASK YOU TO PLEASE
DISCONNECT FROM THE LINE AND
CONTINUE FOLLOWING VIA SEATTLE
CHANNEL OR THE LISTENING OPTION
PROVIDED IN THE AGENDA.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON COUNSEL
119827 IS NOW OPEN AND WE BEGIN
WITH THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE
LIST.
WHICH IS RIZWAN.
I HAD NOT INTERJECTED IN THE
LAST PUBLIC COMMENT, I WELCOME
YOU TO SPEAK AGAIN FOR AN
ADDITIONAL TWO MINUTES IF YOU
DESIRE TO.
FOLLOWED BY OUR ONLY OTHER
COMMENTOR WHICH IS CONNOR
HANSEN.
RIZWAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK
AGAIN?
PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, AGAIN.
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE PROJECT AND
THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE
AMENDMENT TO GO FORWARD.
AS MENTIONED EARLIER, 20% OF
UNITS WILL BE AFFECTED IF THIS
IS NOT APPROVED AND IT IS A
HUGE SHORTAGE OF HOUSING FOR
FAMILIES WITHIN SEATTLE.
WHEN ISSUE FACING HOMELESS
PROVIDER AGENCIES, FINDING
LARGE UNITS IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE. THERE HAS BEEN
INSTANCES WHERE WE HAVE HAD TO
MOVE FAMILIES INTO OTHER PARTS
OF THE COUNTY.
PARTICULARLY TOWARD THE FEDERAL
WAY AREA. ONE INSTANCE WE HAD A
FAMILY OF 14 PEOPLE WHO ARE
HOMELESS IN TWO SEPARATE
HOMELESS SHELTERS.
BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT FIT IN
ONE AND CANNOT FIND HOUSING IN
SEATTLE WHERE WE COULD HOUSE
THEM SO WE HAD TO MODIFY.
THIS IS ONE OF THE UNIQUE --
GOING ON RIGHT NOW IN THE SENSE
THAT SEVERAL UNITS ARE THREE
AND FOUR BEDROOM TO ALLOW
LARGER FAMILIES TO BE HOUSED
WITHIN THE CITY.
A LOT OF THE UNITS BEING BUILT
ARE ONE AND TWO-BEDROOM RANGE.
IT IS CRITICAL THAT THIS GOES
FORWARD AND AGAIN, AS OUR
AGENCY, WE NEED TO FIND MORE
SPACE TO HELP THE COMMUNITY.
IT HAS GROWN OVER THE YEARS AND
THIS WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR US TO HAVE PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE SPACE WITHIN THE
COMMUNITY, THAT WE SERVE. AND
MAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE FOR
PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY TO
ACCESS FOR SERVICES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, RIZWAN.
CONNOR HANSEN, PLEASE PRESS
STAR SIX TO UNMUTE YOURSELF AND
BEGIN AT ANY TIME.
>> GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.
MY NAME IS CONNOR HANSEN, I'M
THE DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE FOR
-- HOUSING.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF
ORDINANCE REZONING FOR RAINIER
BEACH THAT WE'VE BEEN
DISCUSSING.
-- A NONPROFIT DEVELOPING AND
OPERATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
THE RAINIER VALLEY.
WE ARE EXCITED THAT OUR PROJECT
IS THE ONE THAT JEFF WAS
REFERRING TO ON THE SOUTH
CLOVERDALE PROJECT.
WE ARE PLANNING 221 UNITS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THIS IS
LOCATED WITHIN THE ACTIVITY AND
DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR OF THE
RAINIER BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
UPDATE.
IN ADDITION TO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, WE ARE ALSO PARTNERING
WITH THE RAINIER VALLEY FOOD
BANK TO HAVE THEM IN THE FOOD
CENTER ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
THIS WILL BE A GREAT COMMUNITY
ASSET THAT WILL FEEL LIKE A
GROCERY STORE BUT FUNCTION LIKE
A FOOD BANK.
THIS RESULT WILL ALLOW THE
PROJECT TO BE ECONOMICALLY
FEASIBLE FOR THE FOOD BANK AND
ALSO PRODUCE ANOTHER 40 UNITS
OF HOUSING WHILE DECREASING THE
PUBLIC FUNDING REQUEST OF THE
CITY HOUSING.
SUPPORT THE REZONE BECAUSE IT
WILL GREATLY ASSET THE
COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, CONOR.
AT THIS TIME, I DO NOT SEE
ANYONE ELSE LISTED TO SPEAK.
THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER
REMOTELY PRESENT TO SPEAK AT
THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON COUNSEL
BILL 119827 IS NOW CLOSED.
THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO
PROVIDED COMMENT TODAY.
THIS LEGISLATION WILL BE BACK
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON
SEPTEMBER 9. OUR NEXT ITEM OF
BUSINESS IS DISCUSSION AND VOTE
ON COUNSEL BILL 119831, CHILD
CARE NEAR YOU PROPOSAL.
I WILL, PLEASE READ THE
ABBREVIATED TITLE INTO THE
RECORD.
>> AGENDA ITEM 2, COUNSEL BILL
119831, RELATED TO ZONING,
MODIFIED USE AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS TO REMOVE REGULATORY
IMPEDIMENTS AND ALLOW THE
SETTING OF CHILDCARE CENTERS
THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND
AMENDING THE SEATTLE INVISIBLE
CODE.
>> THANK YOU.
WE ARE JOINED BY THE COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF, WISH, IT IS A
BUSY FEW WEEKS FOR ALL OF US.
PLEASE PROVIDE A REFRESHER ON
THE CHILD CARE NEAR YOU
PROPOSAL WHICH YOU PROVIDED A
BRIEFING DURING OUR LAST
COMMITTEE MEETING THREE WEEKS
AGO.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M HAPPY TO.
COUNSEL BILL 119831 IS A CHILD
CARE NEAR YOU PROPOSAL.
IT REMAINS IMPEDIMENTS --
ALLOWS CHILDCARE THE PERMITTED
USE IN ALL ZONES, CHILD CARE
CENTERS BE AT LEAST 600 FEET
APART FROM EACH OTHER.
REGULATIONS ALSO INCLUDED IN
LICENSING REQUIREMENTS REMOVES
MAXIMUM --.
HIGHER DENSITY ZONES, CHILD
CARE WILL BE EXEMPT FROM FOUR
AREAS AND ENCOURAGES CREATION
OF PRESCHOOL FOR ALL AGES OF
CHILDCARE.
ANY QUESTIONS?
>> THANK YOU, WISH.
COLIC, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS
BILL?
I KNOW WE HAD A ROBUST
DISCUSSION AND BRIEFING ON IT
PREVIOUSLY.
>> JUST A QUICK NOTE, THANK YOU.
I KNOW I HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF
PROVIDERS AND PROVIDER
ADVOCATES WHO APPRECIATE THE
IMPORTANT FIRST STEPS AS PART
OF THE BIGGER PICTURE AND HOW WE
GET MORE AFFORDABLE AND
ACCESSIBLE CHILDCARE ACROSS THE
CITY.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE STEP
AND I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT.
>> THANK YOU, VICE-CHAIR
MOSQUEDA.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO THANK VICE-CHAIR
MOSQUEDA WHO'S BEEN TALKING
ABOUT THE NEED TO EXPAND
CHILDCARE FOR A REALLY LONG
TIME.
AND JOE STRAUS FOR TAKING UP
THE MANTLE TO GET THE
LEGISLATION THROUGH.
AND OF COURSE ALL THE STAFF WHO
WORKED ON IT AND DID THE REAL
WORK FOR THE STAFF LEVEL.
AND MY ISSUE IS THAT I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE HIGH-
QUALITY CHILDCARE WHEN THESE
KIDDOS ARE AT THE STAGE OF
LIFE, THIS IS ONE THEIR BRAINS
ARE DEVELOPING RAPIDLY.
SO THE QUALITY OF THE CHILDCARE
IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
IT IS ONE CHANCE THAT WE HAVE
TO PROVIDE THAT.
THIS IS JUST A LAND-USE QUOTE.
I HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
REALLY LEARNING TO MAKE SURE
THAT THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT
ON QUALITY AND IT IS THAT THIS
IS A LAND-USE BILL NOT A CHILD
CARE LICENSING BILL OR
CHILDCARE SUBSIDY BILL.
I JUST WANT TO GET ON THE
RECORD THAT IT IS ONE OF MY
CONCERNS, MAKING SURE THAT THE
CITY IS ENABLING CHILDCARE THAT
WE ALSO ARE MINDFUL OF THE ONCE-
IN-A-LIFETIME CHANCE THAT WE
HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT HIGH-
QUALITY SO THE CHILDREN GET OFF
TO A REALLY GREAT AND STRONG
START.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
THAT IS A GREAT REMINDER THAT
THIS IS JUST ONE ASPECT OF
PERMITTING.
IT IS A SECONDARY ASPECT OF
PERMITTING.
THERE STILL PRIMARY PERMIT THAT
CHILDCARE FACILITIES WILL STILL
NEED TO HAVE APPROVAL FROM AND
ADDITIONALLY THERE IS STATE
REGULATIONS AND STATE CODES FOR
LICENSURE OF THE CHILDCARE
FACILITIES. THIS IS SIMPLY
CHANGING A CONDITIONAL ASPECT OF
THE CHILDCARE PERMIT, WHICH IS
AN ADDITIONAL STEP BEYOND THE
PRIMARY PERMIT. ADDITIONALLY,
THIS WORK THAT COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, YOU HAVE DONE BEHIND
YOU WITH QUALITY PRESCHOOL, THIS
MAKES SOME TECHNICAL CHANGES TO
ENSURE THAT PRESCHOOL AND
CHILDCARE ARE ABLE TO RECEIVE
THE SAME DEFINITIONS WITHIN OUR
CODE.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, JUST
DOUBLE CHECKING, YOU DON'T HAVE
ANYTHING TO SAY?
>> MR. CHAIR, I AM ALL ABOUT
IT.
THIS IS GREAT, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP AND I'M LOOKING
FORWARD TO SEEING THIS PAST.
>> BEFORE WE VOTE, I WANT TO
TAKE A MOMENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THIS LEGISLATION WILL NOT HAVE
COME TOGETHER WITHOUT LISH.
LISH HAS BEEN ENORMOUSLY
HELPFUL EVERY STEP OF THE WAY
AND I CANNOT THANK YOU ENOUGH.
WITH SOMEBODY BIG, URGENT
ISSUES FACING OUR CITY, -- AS
WE ALL KNOW CHILDCARE TOUCHES
SO MANY DIFFERENT ISSUES FROM
AFFORDABILITY IN OUR CITY TO
HOW EQUITABLE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS
ARE TO HOW WE SUPPORT WORKING
PARENTS AND PARTICULARLY
WORKING MOMS.
WHO DISPROPORTIONATELY BEAR THE
IMPACT OF CHILDCARE SHORTAGE.
I STARTED WORKING ON THIS BILL
IN JANUARY BECAUSE ADDRESSING
CHILDCARE SHORTAGE IS ONE OF MY
TOP PRIORITIES.
AND TODAY, COVID HAS MADE
CHILDCARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN
IT WAS SIX MONTHS AGO.
WE KNOW THAT CHILDCARE
ACCESSIBILITY AND AFFORDABILITY
ARE THE TWO MAIN ISSUES THAT
NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
AND WHILE THIS BILL ADDRESSES
PART OF THE ASSESSABILITY, IT
DOES NOT -- IT IS ONE PART OF
THE SOLUTION, AMONG MANY
ADDITIONAL STEPS WE NEED TO TAKE
, TO ENSURE THAT CHILDCARE IS
AFFORDABLE AND ASSESSABLE TO
EVERYONE.
AS I SAID BEFORE, IT IS NOT A
SINGLE SOLUTION.
OR COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION TO
CHILDCARE CRISIS.
WITH ALL THE CHALLENGES RELATED
TO THE LAND-USE CODE, IT SHOULD
NOT BE THE ADDITIONAL BARRIER.
THIS HELPS FIX THAT AND
ENCOURAGES CHILDCARE IN
NEIGHBORHOODS ACROSS OUR CITY.
JUST DOUBLE CHECKING, IF THERE
IS ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION BEFORE
WE MOVE ON THIS BILL.
I MOVE THE COMMITTEE PASS
119831.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF THE
BILL.
IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE?
>> VICE-CHAIR MOSQUEDA
>>
>> GUEST:
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>>
>> GUEST:
>> THANK YOU AGAIN TO EVERYONE
WHO HELPED BRING THE BILL
TOGETHER.
THIS IS MY FIRST BILL.
LAND-USE BILLS TAKE A LOT OF
TIME.
BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE REQUIRED
PUBLIC INPUT, WHICH IS GOOD.
SO EIGHT MONTHS IN AND I'M
EXCITED TO HAVE THIS BILL
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE.
THIS WILL GO BEFORE THE FULL
COUNCIL NEXT MONDAY, AUGUST 17
FOR FINAL PASSAGE.
>> CONGRATULATIONS MR. CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.
>> IN ALL YOUR ERRORS -- YEARS,
I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW IF WE HAD
BEEN IN THE STATE CAPITAL THERE
WOULD BE TEASING ALONG WITH
THIS BILL.
I'M GLAD WE ARE WHERE WE ARE
AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOING ON,
WE WOULD HAVE DONE IT SOONER.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN
GETTING IT DONE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
YOU ARE CORRECT.
WE WERE IN OLYMPIA, THERE WOULD
BE A LOT OF TEASING.
THANK YOU.
AND OUR FINAL ITEM TODAY IS A
DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON COUNSEL
BILL 119835.
THE LAND-USE OMNIBUS
LEGISLATION.
NOAH, PLEASE READ THE
ABBREVIATED TITLE INTO THE
RECORD.
>> AGENDA ITEM THREE, COUNSEL
BILL 119835.
AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO LAND
USE AND ZONING, CORRECTING
TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS, SECTION
REFERENCES, CLARIFYING
REVELATIONS AND MAKING MINOR
AMENDMENTS.
AMENDING SECTIONS AND ADDING A
NEW SECTION TO THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE.
>> THANK YOU.
NOAH, WE ARE JOINED NOW BY MIC
FROM SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION, INSPECTIONS AND
FROM CENTRAL STAFF TO PROVIDE
OVERVIEW OF THIS YEAR'S OMNIBUS
PACKAGE BEFORE OPENING THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
MIC, PLEASE GIVE -- GET US
STARTED.
>> I JUST THINK YOU MAY HAVE
BEEN READING FROM A DATED
SCRIPT.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS ALREADY.
NO NEED FOR A HEARING TODAY ON
THE OMNIBUS BILL.
AS A COMMITTEE KNOWS, COUNSEL
CONSIDERS LAMB NEWS -- LAND-USE
CODE OMNIBUS BILL EVERY OTHER
YEAR OR SO.
IT COLLECTS A LARGELY TECHNICAL
CORRECTION TO THE LAND-USE CODE
THAT IS IDENTIFIED IN THE FORCE
-- THIS TIME THE BILL ALSO
INCLUDES SOME OTHER CODES THAT
ARE BEEN ADMINISTERED INCLUDING
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ORDINANCE.
THE COMMITTEE WAS BRIEFED ON
THE OMNIBUS BILL BACK IN JULY.
THERE IS A MEMO OF IT THAT I
SAW LAST WEEK DESCRIBING WHERE
THE BILL DEPARTS FROM POLICY
CHOICES THAT ARE BEEN MADE BY
THE COUNCIL IN THE PAST.
IT ALSO IDENTIFIES CHANGES IN
THE OMNIBUS BILL RELATED TO THE
TRANSACTION -- PROPERTY
DISPOSITION.
CHAIR STRAUSS HAS DEVELOPED A
BILL IN THEIR TWO STANDALONE,
PREPARED FOR CHAIR STRAUSS
RELATED TO BY MEN -- BICYCLE
PARKING AND ALSO LAND-USE
STRUCTURES.
UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE BILL
AS PROPOSED, WE CAN GO INTO THE
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENTS.
>> THANK YOU, KETIL . UNLESS
THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS ON
THE BASE BILL I THINK THAT WE
SHOULD MOVE INTO THE
SUBSTITUTE.
SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS ON
THE BASE BILL, IF YOU COULD,
WALK US THROUGH THE FIVE
CHANGES PROPOSED IN THE
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT.
>> SURE.
COUNCIL MEMBERS STRAUSS IS
PROPOSING FIVE CHANGES TO THE
LAND-USE CODE, TO THE OMNIBUS
BILL AS POSED.
LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ALLOW ED
CREATION OF UNIT LOTS FOR
ACCESSORY USES.
THAT IS THE FIRST CHANGE.
THE SECOND CHANGE IS TO REPLACE
A MAP OF THE ROOSEVELT
RESIDENTIAL URBAN VILLAGE AND
THE DESIGN OF A CHAPTER FOR
MORE LEGIBLE MAP THAT IS
CLEARLY AN EDITORIAL CHANGE.
IT WOULD ALLOW DECKS AND ROOFS
OVER PATIOS FOR A DADU TO
EXTEND INTO YARDS.
THE FOR CHANGES TO REMOVE A
REFERENCE TO THE HEIGHT IN THE
UNION ZONES ABOVE WHICH LIMITS
WERE APPLIED TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF -- DOWNTOWN.
THAT IS A TECHNICAL CHANGE.
THE BUSINESS TO AUTHORIZE YOUR
PURCHASERS TO -- FROM THE SITES
THAT ARE ELIGIBLE.
FOR PURCHASE AND TRANSFER AT
THE TIME OF BUILDING PICK ISSUE
.
>> THANK YOU, I MERGED TWO
SCRIPTS FROM EARLIER AND I
WANTED TO FLAG THAT WE HAVE
ALREADY HAD PUBLIC HEARING ON
THE OMNIBUS BILL AND MIC AND
KETIL ARE HERE TO WALK US
THROUGH THE AMENDMENTS.
APOLOGIES FOR ANY CONFUSION
PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC.
THANK YOU.
MY OFFICE HAS WORKED TO
INCORPORATE THESE CHANGES INTO
THE SUBSTITUTE RAISED BY
SEVERAL COUNCILMEMBERS.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO
THE SUBSTITUTE BEFORE WE TAKE A
VOTE ON IT?
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN, TAKE
IT AWAY.
>> I JUST WANT TO THANK CHAIR
STRAUSS, HIS OFFICE, ALSO OUR
STAFF, KETIL FREEMAN, FOR
THEIR DILIGENT REVIEW OF THIS
118 PAGE BILL AND YOU KNOW
THERE'S A LOT, AS CHAIR STRAUSS
HAS SAID, THERE IS A LOT GOING
ON WITH VARIOUS CRISES AND
URGENT MATTERS.
YET WE STILL HAVE THESE
COMMITTEES, WE STILL HAVE THE
BUSINESS OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT
TO RUN HERE.
SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
CHAIR TAKING THE LEAD ON
IDENTIFYING THINGS.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE GENERAL
COMMENTS.
TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN, THE
DIRECTOR REPORT STATES THAT
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ROUTINE
MAINTENANCE OF THE LAND-USE AND
OTHER CODES AND PROPOSED AMOUNT
-- AMENDMENTS ARE OMNIBUS
AMENDMENTS BECAUSE IT IS
PACKAGED FOR EFFICIENCY THAT
ARE RELATIVELY SMALL-SCALE.
SUCH AMENDMENTS INCLUDE
RELATIVELY MINOR CHANGES THAT
DON'T WARRANT SEPARATE
LEGISLATION, INDEPENDENT
LEGISLATION, CORRECT
TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS, ETC.
TOOK THE REPORT AT ITS WORD
INITIALLY AND ASSUMED THAT
EVERYTHING IN THE BILL WAS
MINOR.
I APPRECIATE THE DUE DILIGENCE
FROM THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
TO LOOK AT THIS AND I THINK THE
SUBSTITUTE IS HELPING TO --
SOME ADDITIONAL, TECHNICAL
CORRECTIONS AS WELL IS DEALING
WITH POLICY MATTERS THAT CAN BE
DEALT WITH LATER.
I WILL GET TO MY AMENDMENT
WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL ITEM
ABOUT LANDMARK SITES.
AND I KNOW THAT THE CHAIR HAS
ANOTHER AMENDMENT.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS
PROCESS IN THE LEGISLATIVE
DEPARTMENT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
IS IN THE BILL AND WHAT MAY
NEED TO BE FIXED HERE.
SO THANK YOU FOR THE
SUBSTITUTE, WHICH I WILL BE
SUPPORTING.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
EDISON.
VICE-CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR.
CHAIR.
I DID WANT -- I DID WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT A FEW PIECES IN THE
SUBSTITUTE BECAUSE YOUR OFFICE
WAS VERY DILIGENT IN WORKING
WITH OUR OFFICE TO INCLUDE KEY
COMPONENTS.
SO WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THOSE
ALSO TO LIFT UP THE GOOD WORK
BEING DONE BY OUR TEAMS AT
CENTRAL STAFF IF I MIGHT.
ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 3, WHICH IS
THE REAR YARD UNENCLOSED DECKS
AND PATIOS, THIS IS SOMETHING
I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT.
IT BUBBLES UP ON THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD LAST
YEAR ON AN AMENDMENT I SPONSOR
TO THE CANTU ADU LEGISLATION
TO ENABLE ROOFTOP PATIOS.
AS WE THINK ABOUT GREATER
DENSITY ACROSS OUR CITY,
RECOGNIZING THAT BOTH
TOWNHOUSES AND ROWHOUSES AND,
AYE, ADU, ROOFTOPS CAN BE A
GREAT PLACE FOR FAMILIES AND
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE OUTDOOR
SPACE.
THEY CAN BE THE NEW BACKYARDS.
THEY CREATE DENSITY ACROSS THE
CITY AND IT IS IMPORTANT FOR
THE HEALTH AND LIVABILITY OF
OUR COMMUNITY.
WHERE PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY
TO ADDRESS SPACES OF PEOPLE
CANNOT PLANS AND ENJOY SITTING
ON THEIR PATIOS AND INCREASING
THE LIVABILITY OF ALL HOUSING
OPTIONS FOR ALL AGES IN OUR
CITY.
WE HEARD FROM FOLKS FROM THE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
ARCHITECT, THE SEATTLE CHAPTER
THAT THERE WERE ADDITIONAL
FOLLOW-UP CHANGES THAT NEEDED
TO HAPPEN TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE
OR ENABLE ROOFTOP PATIOS TO BE
INCLUDED ON THE ADU IN DADU AND
IT INCLUDES A MINOR TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT THAT CODIFIES THE
INTENT OF WHAT WE PASS THROUGH
THE LEGISLATION LAST YEAR.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW FOR
UNENCLOSED DECKS AND ROOFTOPS,
OVER PATIOS TO EXTEND INTO YOUR
YARDS WHERE A DADU IS MORE
LIKELY TO BE IN ADDITION TO
FINANCE.
AND AGAIN THIS TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT MAKES A GREAT
IMPROVEMENT IN TERMS OF
ENABLING THESE SPACES, THESE
OUTDOOR SPACES FOR HER GREENERY
AND MORE PLAY AND LIVE AREAS
FOR FAMILIES OF ALL AGES ACROSS
OUR CITY.
ALSO WOULD LOVE TO COLLECT SOME
OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE ON
AMENDMENT NUMBER 5. THIS
EXPANDS THE DOWNTOWN TDR
ELIGIBILITY.
THIS AMENDMENT ADDRESSES A
SMALL BUT REALLY IMPORTANT
TECHNICAL FIX IN THE PROS
CHANGES TO THE TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OR TDR
SECTION OF THE OMNIBUS BILL.
TDR IS A PROGRAM THAT ENABLES
US TO INCENTIVIZE DENSITY IN
AREAS WE WANT TO ENCOURAG
GREATER DENSITY SUCH AS IN THE
DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR IN EXCHANGE
FOR PRESERVATION OF THE
HISTORIC PROPERTIES, OPEN SPACE
AND VULNERABLE MASONRY
STRUCTURES THROUGH PURCHASE OF
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.
SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE WEEDS
FOR A SECOND.
WHAT THIS AMENDMENT ACTUALLY
DOES IS LOOK AT A FOOTNOTE.
THERE HAS BEEN A FOOTNOTE IN
THE CODE THAT CITED THAT THE
DOWNTOWN RETAIL CORRIDOR CAN
ONLY BE USED FOR TDR FROM
ANOTHER SITE IN THE DOWNTOWN
RETAIL CORRIDOR.
THE PRACTICAL PROBLEM IS THAT
TDR IS AN FUNCTIONALLY
AVAILABLE FROM ANY DOWNTOWN
RETAIL FORESIGHT.
THE OMNIBUS PROPOSAL IN FRONT
OF US DELETES THIS FOOTNOTE SO
THAT PROJECTS IN THE DOWNTOWN
RETAIL CORRIDOR ARE ABLE TO
OBTAIN TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENTS
RIGHT JUST LIKE ANY DOWNTOWN
PROJECT COULD.
THIS WOULD APPLY TO OUR PROJECT
IN THE DOWNTOWN RETAIL CORE,
GOING FORWARD.
THAT'S IT PIPELINE PROJECTS ARE
STILL WITHOUT A SOLUTION
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A BANK
TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT SITES TO
PULL FROM.
THIS AMENDMENT ADDRESSES
PIPELINE PROJECTS I ADDED
LANGUAGE THAT LAND-USE
PREVIOUSLY -- LAND-USE
PROVISIONS APPLY THAT ARE IN
EFFECT ON THE DATE OF BUILDING
PERMIT ISSUANCE. IN OTHER
WORDS, THESE CHANGES WOULD
APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT ARE
VESTED AND IN THE PIPELINE BUT
HAVEN'T BET OBTAINED FOR
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.
WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE PROJECTS
TO PARTICIPATE IN TDR BECAUSE
WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE DENSITY IN
THESE AREAS.
AND THE TRADE-OFF BETWEEN
PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC
DEPUTIES, OPEN STAYS AND
STRUCTURES THROUGH THE PURCHASE
OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS IS A WIN WIN.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME GET
INTO THE WEEDS ON THE AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THIS.
>> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.
AT THIS TIME, HEARING NO
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS I WOULD
MOVE TO AMEND THE 119835 BY
SUBSTITUTING VERSION D 2 FOR D
1 AS SHOWN IN THE SUBSTITUTED
AMENDMENT ON THE AGENDA.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
CHECKED INTO A MOVE -- MOVE THE
AMENDMENT TO COUNSEL BILL
119835 AS SHOWN IN THE
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT.
THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLE?
>> VICE-CHAIR MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS?
>> AYE
>> COMES MEMBER LEWIS?
>> AYE -- FOUR IN FAVOR, AND
OPPOSE.
MOTION CARRIES.
>> AMENDMENT ONE, ARE LESS
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION EXPRESSED
INTENT TO WORK WITH ADVOCATES
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROVIDERS TO AMEND THE BIKE
PARKING EXEMPTION PROPOSED IN
THE BILL.
THE AMENDMENT IS THE PRODUCT OF
THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND WOULD
NARROW THE BIKE PARKING
EXEMPTION TO STRIKE BETTER
BALANCE BETWEEN PROVIDING
FLEXIBILITY FOR HOUSING
PROVIDERS AND ENCOURAGING
BIKING AS A MEANS OF
TRANSPORTATION.
NOAH DID THE WORK, WORKING WITH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS
AND BIKE ADVOCATES.
THANK YOU, NOAH.
SPECIFICALLY THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD MODIFY THE BLANKET
EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND EXEMPT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECTS, TO 30% OF
AREA MEDIAN INCOME FOR LONG-TERM
BIKE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
THESE ARE MOSTLY PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECTS.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO ALLOW
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS FOR
30% TO 60% OF AFFORDABLE MEDIAN
INCOME TO APPLY FOR A WAIVER
FROM THE REQUIREMENTS, IF IT
INCREASES AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES
PROVIDED.
SO THIS IS THAT MIDDLE GROUND
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND I
THINK THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS
IMPORTANT, THIS LANGUAGE IS
BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO DEMONSTRATE
TWO ISSUES PICK -- IS GREETED
BY THE EXEMPTION AND REASONABLE
ALTERNATIVES PROVIDED.
THIS WOULD AUTHORIZE A RULE TO
FUND REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES
AND RESTORE SHORT-TERM PARKING
REQUIREMENTS TO ALL PROJECTS.
SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING IS
ESSENTIALLY OUTDOORS OR IN FRONT
OR IN THE LOBBY WHERE AS LONG-
TERM BIKE PARKING IS TYPICALLY
A ROOM WITHIN THE BUILDING.
THIS ALSO CLARIFIES THAT
NONPROFIT SENIOR HOUSING CAN
APPLY FOR A SIMILAR WAIVER.
I HAVE HEARD FROM MANY THAT
SENIORS ARE NOT PRONE TO BIKING
AND I DISAGREE.
WE HAVE MANY ELECTRIC BICYCLES,
THAT GET PEOPLE MOVING.
I HAVE BEEN BEAT BY PEOPLE
OLDER THAN ME, WHILE WE ARE
BOTH WRITING ELECTRIC BIKES.
AND THERE ARE EVEN TRIKES FOR
FOLKS THAT DON'T HAVE GOOD
BALANCE.
SO I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT
THAT THEY WAIVER THE
APPLICATION.
THE AMENDMENT ALSO NARROWS A
PROVISION INTENDED TO PROVIDE
FLEXIBILITY FOR BIKE PARKING
ACCESS ON SLOPE PARTIES.
SO THANK YOU TO BIKE ADVOCATES
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROVIDERS WHO WORK WITH US TO
DEVELOP THIS COMPROMISE.
PATRICK TAYLOR AND RICK
ADVISORY BOARD, BROCK HOWELL,
SEATTLE NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAYS,
THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CONSORTIUM AND NOAH FOR
COORDINATING.
KETIL , DID I MISS ANYTHING ON
THE AMENDMENT?
>> NO, YOU DID NOT.
THAT CAPTURED IT.
>> WONDERFUL.
SO AT THIS TIME UNLESS I HEAR
OTHER COMMENTS FOR MY
COLLEAGUES, COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS FOR
IDENTIFYING THIS AS AN ISSUE.
AND MY STAFF HAVE BEEN TALKING
TO BIKE ADVOCATES AS WELL.
I'M GLAD YOU ARE ABLE TO
SYNTHESIZE THE DIFFERENT
PRINCIPLES WE ARE TRYING TO
ACHIEVE HERE.
IT IS GETTING PEOPLE ON THE
BIKES, DEALING WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL CLIMATE CHANGE
ISSUES, AT THE SAME TIME TRYING
TO BALANCE THE DESIRE TO BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE COST
OF BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I HAD A QUESTION FOR KETIL
ABOUT -- AND ALSO FOR
ADDRESSING THE SENIOR HOUSING
AS WELL.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVEN'T
TALKED ABOUT IS -- I HAD A
QUESTION FOR KETIL ABOUT WHAT
THE UNDERLYING BILL IS DOING.
IS A RELAXING BIKE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR PROFIT RATE
DEVELOPERS?
IF SO, HOW IS IT DOING THAT?
>> IT IS NOT TO -- IT MAKES
SOME CHANGES THAT ARE LARGELY
TECHNICAL CHANGES TO THE
QUANTITY OF PARKING THAT CAN BE
REQUIRED BY MARKET RATE
DEVELOPERS.
BICYCLE PARKING.
BUT IT DOES NOT MAKE
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THERE.
AS CHAIR STRAUSS MENTIONED, ONE
OF THE CHANGES HAD TO DO WITH
LESS THE QUANTITY AND MORE OF
THE LOCATION AND ACCESS TO
BICYCLE PARKING.
THERE IS A PROVISION ON THE
PROPOSED OMNIBUS THAT WOULD
ALLOW OFF-SITE -- LONG-TERM
PARKING FOR RESIDENTIAL USAGE
TO BE LOCATED OUTSIDE.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THE COUNCIL
CONSIDERED A COUPLE OF YEARS
AGO AND ULTIMATELY REJECTED,
ALLOWING IT FOR COMMERCIAL USES
OR NONRESIDENTIAL USES.
SO THAT IS A CHANGE THAT IS
INCORPORATED INTO THE OMNIBUS
THAT HAS MORE TO DO WITH
LOCATION THAN ACCESS.
AS COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS
MENTIONED, THE BILL AS
PROPOSED, WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED
BICYCLE WORKING REQUIREMENTS
FOR AFFORDABLE PROJECTS,
PROJECTS WITH UNITS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IF THEY MET
CERTAIN CRITERIA FOR CONTINUED
AFFORDABILITY.
BUT THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY
CHANGES TO QUANTITY OF PARKING.
>> IF I MAY FOLLOW-UP, CHAIR,
IF THE RESIDENTIAL MARKET RATE
FOR PROFIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
IS A CHANGE IN LOCATION ACCESS,
I MEAN, ISN'T THAT A BENEFIT
THOUGH THAT IS BEING GIVEN TO
MARKET RATE DEVELOPERS TO ALLOW
THE LOCATION OF THE LONG-TERM
PARKING TO BE OFF-SITE?
AND ISN'T IT SOMETHING -- DID I
READ IT CORRECTLY, 600 FEET
WHICH IS BASICALLY THREE
FOOTBALL FIELDS AWAY FROM THE
PROJECT?
>> YES, IT IS 600 FEET.
AND IT HAS LANGUAGE THAT IS
SIMILAR TO WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN
THE CODE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL
USES WHICH IT IS PART OF THE
CAMPUS.
A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WHEN THE
COUNCIL WAS CONSIDERING THESE
CHANGES, WHEN THE COUNCIL WOULD
ALLOW OFF-SITE PARKING FOR
NONRESIDENTIAL USAGE, THE
COUNCIL WAS THINKING OF THINGS
LIKE EXPEDIA CAMPUS OR MAJOR
INSTITUTION CAMPUS, THINGS LIKE
THAT.
AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THERE
ARE NOT THAT MANY SITES THAT
ARE VERY LARGE.
WERE PARKING COULD BE LOCATED
600 FEET AWAY.
FOR THOSE THAT EXIST THIS WOULD
ALLOW A BARKING PARKING ROOM TO
BE LOCATED ON A FUNCTIONALLY
INTERRELATED CAMPUS THAT
INCLUDES USAGE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WANT TO THANK VICKI CLARK FOR
HER CONNECTING WITH THE OFFICE
ON THIS.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN.
THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION AND I
APPRECIATE THE ADDITIONAL
CLARIFICATION FROM KETIL
NOTING THE CAMPUS MUST BE
INTERCONNECTED.
UW MADISON, SOUTH LAKE UNION,
EXPEDIA, THERE HAS TO BE
INTERCONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE
BUILDINGS THAT ARE BEING
SERVED.
THAT IS HELPFUL CONTEXT AND
ANSWERS A QUESTIO THAT I ALSO
HAD.
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN, THANKS
FOR ASKING.
EXCELLENT.
VICE-CHAIR MOSQUEDA, PLEASE
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I WAS HAPPY WHEN YOU TALKED
ABOUT EXPEDIA'S PARKING.
I VISITED THAT CAMPUS AND IT IS
EXCITING.
I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEXT
ITERATION OF HOW THEY POPULATE
THE BUILDING BECAUSE IT IS SO
GREAT.
IT IS GOING TO BE A REALLY
GREAT INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO
BIKE TO WORK.
I JUST WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS
AMENDMENT.
I JUST WANT TO THINK YOUR
OFFICE.
THIS WAS SENT DOWN AS AN
OMNIBUS BILL AND A LOT OF
STAKEHOLDERS FLAGGED THAT IT
WAS A POLICY CHANGE.
I THINK THAT YOU HAVE REALLY
HELPED TO I THINK FIX THE
ISSUES THAT WERE GENERATED FROM
THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL
STAKEHOLDER AND BEFORE WE SAT
DOWN AND YOU DID TREMENDOUS
WORK TO BRING FOLKS TOGETHER.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE
HARD WORK.
I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THESE
AMENDMENTS.
I THINK IT MAKES SENSE.
THEY TAILORED TO THE DIFFERENT
TYPES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SITES AND YOU HAVE CREATED A
CREATIVE SOLUTION TO MAKE SURE
THAT IT IS NOT JUST A ONE-SIZE-
FITS-ALL.
IN THE AMENDMENT PROVIDES
STABILITY.
SO THAT WE ARE PROVIDING
APPROPRIATE PLACES FOR PEOPLE
TO INCLUDE THEIR BIKES.
WHETHER THAT IS SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING OR IN SENIOR HOUSING.
LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES FOR
FOLKS TO HAVE THEIR BIKES ON
SITES AND WHETHER THAT MEANS
VERTEBRAL HOOKS OR ON-SITE
UNITS OR WITHIN THE BUILDING IN
OTHER PLACES.
WE HAVE CONTINUE TO TRY TO
ENSURE THAT THIS MULTIMODAL
OPTION IS NOT ONLY RELEGATED TO
ONE CORNER BUT IS BUILT INTO
THE FABRIC OF THESE BUILDINGS
AND MAKING IT MORE ACCESSIBLE
OPTION FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
IT NOT ONLY HELPS LIVABILITY OF
THOSE IN THE REGION BUT ALSO
HELPS OUR LIVABILITY AS A
GLOBE.
IT IS GOOD FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK ON
THIS.
I APPRECIATE YOUR DILIGENCE ON
THE DETAILS.
>> THANK YOU, VICE-CHAIR
MOSQUEDA.
IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER
COMMENTS, THANK YOU FOR CALLING
THAT.
I WILL GIVE ALL CREDIT TO KNOW
WHAT IN MY OFFICE.
FOR MOVING ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE
CLOSER TOGETHER TO COMPROMISE.
IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER
COMMENTS I WOULD MOVE TO AMEND
COUNCIL BILL 119835 AS SHOWN ON
THE AGENDA.
AMENDMENT 1. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN.
IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED TO
AMEND COUNCIL BILL 119835.
WITH AMENDMENT 1 SHOWN ON THE
AGENDA, WILL LURK CALL THE
ROLE?
>> FOUR IN FAVOR COME IN AND
OPPOSE.
>> THANK YOU COLLECTS.
THE MOTION CARRIES.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL WALK ON
AMENDMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT ?
>> YES.
THANK YOU.
COULD I ASK KETIL TO DESCRIBE
IT AND THEN I CAN TALK ABOUT
THE INTENSE.
>> JUST FOR CONTEXT, AS FLAGGED
IN THE MEMO LAST WEEK, THE
OMNIBUS ADDS NEW LANGUAGE THAT
WOULD BE LANDMARK SITES, NOT
JUST LANDMARK STRUCTURES
ELIGIBLE FOR USE DISPENSATION
AND SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES THROUGH
AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.
THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS IS
A TYPE TO USE WITH DISCRETIONARY
-- APPEAL TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN'S
AMENDMENT REMOVES THE LANGUAGE
PROPOSED IN THE OMNIBUS AND
AUTHORIZE SDC I THREW THE
CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS ON
THEN MAKES -- LANDMARK SITES.
>> THANK YOU, KETIL . THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD BASICALLY JUST
BRING US BACK TO WHAT IT IS
TODAY.
AS I MENTIONED, EARLIER IN
THEIR MARKS SOME CONCERN WITH
118 PAGE BILL THEY HAD
SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS IN POLICY
MATTERS, NOT JUST TECHNICAL
CORRECTIONS.
WE WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY SOME
OF THOSE AND THAT IS WHY WE
PASSED THE SUBSTITUTE.
THAT IS WHY WE HAD THE BIKE
AMENDMENT AND NOW THERE IS THIS
AMENDMENT TO BASICALLY GO BACK
TO WHAT IT IS TODAY, WHICH IS
TO ALLOW THAT AUTHORITY FOR
LANDMARK STRUCTURES.
BUT TO REMOVE THE EXPANSION,
THE WHITE EXPANSION TO INCLUDE
LANDMARK SITES BECAUSE I THINK
THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE WE
DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS
LEGISLATION UNDERMINED THE
AUTHORITY THAT THE LANDMARK
RESERVATION BOARD, WHICH IS ITS
OWN PROCESS.
AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTION
REALLY WANTS TO DO ANY CITY FOR
SOME REASON.
THEY CAN JUST BRING IT AS A
DIFFERENT PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
BUT I FEEL IT IS INAPPROPRIATE
FOR THE OMNIBUS TECHNICAL
CORRECTIONS.
IT IS POTENTIALLY UNDERMINING
THE LANDMARK PRESERVTION BOARD
AUTHORITY AND SHOULD BE
REMOVED.
THAT IS WHAT THIS AMENDMENT
DOES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
KETIL , I WAS NOT BRIEFED ON
THIS AMENDMENT IN DEPTH BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE HEARING.
I DO HAVE -- I TYPICALLY
RESERVE THESE TYPES OF
QUESTIONS FOR BRIEFINGS.
AS WE ARE HAVING THE EXPERIENCE
HERE ON THE DAIS TODAY, I WANT
TO DOUBLE CHECK MY ASSUMPTIONS
FROM THE BRIEFING YOU JUST
PROVIDED HERE.
IT SOUNDS AS IF, EVEN WITHOUT
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN'S
AMENDMENT, THERE -- THE
PROCESS RETAINS A CONDITIONAL
PERMITTING PROCESS THAT
REQUIRES PUBLIC INPUT.
THE FULL PERMITTING PROCESS,
THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE
CHILDCARE CONDITIONAL PERMIT,
THAT WE JUST REMOVED FROM CHILD
CARE.
SO THIS ADDS A PERMITTING
PROCESS TO ALLOW DIFFERENT USES
ON HISTORICAL SIDE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES.
THE CURRENT PROCESS, THE
PERMITTING PROCESS IS ALREADY
THERE.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONAL
USE PROCESS IS THERE FOR USE
DISPENSATION FOR LANDMARK
STRUCTURES.
THE CRITERIA THAT IS USED IN
GRANTING THE USE DISPENSATION
LEE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE USE
IS COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING
DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STRUCTURE.
IT IS ALLOWED NOW AND APPLICANT
ALSO HAD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT
THE USE WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO
OTHER PROPERTIES OR THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND THE USE -- OTHER
USES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE
ALLOWED IN THE ZONE AND BEING
PROVIDED BECAUSE OF THE NATURE
OF THE STRUCTURE.
SO THOSE ARE THE CRITERIA.
THAT STCI USES CURRENTLY FOR
STRUCTURES.
>> VICE-CHAIR MOSQUEDA I HAVE
A FEW MORE QUESTIONS AND THEN I
WILL COME BACK TO YOU.
>> I WAS WONDERING IF THE
SCREEN COULD BE SHARED SO WE
COULD LOOK AT IT WHILE THE
QUESTIONS ARE BEING ASKED.
>> YES, ABSOLUTELY.
>> I TRY TO SHARE MY SCREEN.
, SHARING THE RIGHT THING?
>> IF YOU COULD ENLARGE OR ZOOM
IN TO -- IT IS VERY SMALL.
>> HERE WE GO.
I WILL ZOOM IN. I WILL SEE IF
IT ALLOWS ME TO.
HERE WE GO.
CAN YOU SEE THAT?
AMENDMENT 2 TO CB 119835.
>> THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THE
LAST QUESTION.
IT SOUNDS AS IF THERE IS A ROAD
PUT, EVEN WITH ALLOWING
DIFFERENT USES TO BE USED ON A
HISTORICAL SITE.
IT HAS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT
WILL NOT INFRINGE UPON ANY OF
THE STRUCTURES, CHANGE THE
STRUCTURES AND THAT THERE IS A
ROBUST PROCESS.
ARE THE PRESERVATION BOARDS
THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH
OVERSEEING THESE HISTORIC
SITES, WILL THEY BE PART OF
THIS CONDITIONAL PERMITTING
PROCESS?
DO THEY HAVE INPUT THAT IS THE E
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
LAND USE.
THE DIRECTOR IS WHICH EVER LAND
USE PLANNER IS ASSIGNED TO THE
ADMINISTRATION.
THERE IS NOTHING IN HERE THAT
COMPELS ANY KIND OF CONSULTATION
WITH THE LANDMARK'S PRESERVATION
BOARD.
THEY WOULD NEED TO WEIGH IN BUT
HOW THAT IS SEQUENCED, HOW THE
TWO DECISIONS INFORM EACH OTHER,
I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION
RIGHT NOW.
>> THANK YOU.
JUST CONFIRMING MAKES NO
STRUCTURAL CHANGES, MAKES SURE
NOTHING CAN BE -- THAT NO
DETRIMENTAL USES OF THE SPACE
WOULD BE ALLOWED.
>> RIGHT.
THERE IS SOME DISCRETION
AFFORDED TO THEM IN MAKING THAT
DETERMINATION.
>> THANK YOU.
WHAT WE ARE -- HELP ME -- I'M
GOING TO KIND OF PUT IT IN PLAIN
LANGUAGE.
HELP ME IF I'M NOT HITTING THIS
ON THE HEAD.
WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE
IS IF THERE IS A HISTORICAL SITE
IN A SINGLE FAMILY ZONE THAT
CONDITIONAL PERMIT PROCESS WOULD
HAVE TO -- BE ENGAGED IN TO
ALLOW THINGS LIKE WEDDINGS OR --
>> NO, IT COULD -- IT WOULD NOT
BE FOR THINGS LIKE THAT.
NOT THOSE KIND OF ACTIVITIES
NECESSARILY.
THOSE CAN HAPPEN IN INSTITUTIONS
IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES RIGHT
NOW.
I THINK THE PROBLEM THIS IS
SEEKING TO ADDRESS HAS TO DO
WITH ACCESSORY USES THAT MIGHT
BE ALLOWED IN A STRUCTURE.
IF THERE IS FOR EXAMPLE A
COMMERCIAL USE THAT IS
AUTHORIZED THROUGH -- THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONAL USE
PROCESS, UM -- FOR A STRUCTURE,
AN APPLICANT MAY HAVE DIFFICULTY
IN GETTING ACCESSORY USES
LOCATED ON THE SITE TO SUPPORT
THAT PRINCIPLE USE.
I THINK THAT IS WHAT THIS IS
INTENDED TO ADDRESS.
I DON'T KNOW -- IF YOU HAVE ANY
THOUGHTS ON THIS, YOU COULD
CHIME IN.
THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
I THINK THAT IS PRIMARILY WHAT
THIS IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS.
IT SEEMS LIKE AS A POLICY
MATTER IF THIS WAS SOMETHING THE
COUNSEL WANTED TO PURSUE IT
SHOULD APPLY IN MULTI-FAMILY AND
COMMERCIAL ZONES AS WELL.
>> MIKE, DO YOU HAVE ANY
THOUGHTS TO SHARE?
>> I WOULD CONCUR WITH THE --
THE EXAMPLE THAT KETIL JUST
PROVIDED.
THE THING THAT HAS BEEN
QUESTIONED FOR -- OF
INTERPRETATION IN OUR USE OF
THESE PROVISIONS IN THE PAST HAS
BEEN WHAT DO WE DO WITH THINGS
THAT ARE NOT --
[ INDISCERNIBLE ]
LIKE ACCESSORY PARKING WHICH
GOES TO THE EXAMPLE THAT KETIL
WAS SPEAKING TO.
UM -- WE HAD NOT INTENDED FOR
THIS TO BE A POLICY CHANGE.
WE THOUGHT THAT -- THE CHANGES
WE HAD PROPOSED WOULD BE
CLARIFICATIONS.
WE UNDERSTAND THE QUESTIONS THAT
HAVE COME UP WITH THIS AND THE
DESIRE POTENTIALLY ON THE PART
OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR US TO
DO SOME MORE ANALYSIS ON THIS
AND SOME OUTREACH.
WE WOULD BE HAPPY REVERTING TO
THE EXISTING LANGUAGE.
I WOULD JUST MENTION THAT AS A
BUSINESS PRACTICE WE COORDINATE
VERY CLOSELY WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF --
[ INDISCERNIBLE ]
>> THANK YOU.
VERY HELPFUL, MIKE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I THINK ALONG THE SIMILAR LINE
OF QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD AND
HAVING JUST BEEN IN A POSITION
WHERE AMENDMENTS GET WALKED ON,
I GET THE POSITION YOU ARE IN AS
YOU ARE CHAIRING.
IT IS NOT AN EASY TASK AND I
WILL BE WORKING ON IMPROVING
THAT PROCESS MOVING FORWARD.
MR. CHAIR I APPRECIATE THE LINE
OF QUESTIONS YOU JUST HAD TO ME.
THAT MEANS REALLY WHEN I -- WHEN
I LOOK AT WHAT THE LANGUAGES IN
FRONT OF US AND THE QUESTIONS
YOU JUST ASKED SEEMS LIKE -- A
SITE WITH A LANDMARK THAT IS
RESTRICTED BECAUSE OF THAT
LANDMARK ALREADY.
SO THERE SHOULD BE SOME
FLEXIBILITY FOR HOW THE REST OF
THE SITE IS USED.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE WANT TO
CONSIDER BUILDING HOUSING AN
THINGS LIKE WE HAVE BEEN
DISCUSSING THROUGHOUT THIS
COMMITTEE OVER THE LAST FEW
MONTHS, AND ITS ALREADY A
CONDITIONAL USE.
IT GOES THROUGH CAREFUL SITES
SPECIFIC OF YOU FOR THAT,
MR. CHAIR AND TO THE SPONSOR I
DON'T THINK I WILL BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT THIS CHANGE TODAY.
>> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE STCI RECOGNIZING
THEY MAY NEED TO DO MORE
OUTREACH AND WORK ON THIS.
REALLY THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT
MAKING A POLICY DECISION.
THIS AMENDMENT IS SIMPLY
ENABLING THE PROCESS TO OCCUR
WHERE THERE IS MORE ROBUST
ENGAGEMENT ABOUT WHAT IS A
POLICY CHANGE AND -- I GUESS
WHAT I'M CONCERNED WITH A COUPLE
OF THINGS IS IT IS REALLY --
HITTING THESE TWO AGENCIES
AGAINST EACH OTHER AND I THINK
THAT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED AND
DEALT WITH OFFLINE AND -- SO WE
CAN HEAR FROM LANDMARKS, FOLKS
ABOUT THIS CHANGE TO THEIR --
REALM, THEIR POLICY AREA AND
ALSO I GUESS -- IT IS MY
UNDERSTANDING THIS CONDITIONAL
USE PROCESS ISN'T THAT JUST -- A
DESK REVIEW BY -- SOMEBODY ON
STCI STAFF WHO IS JUST READING
E-MAILS THAT COME IN FOR
COMMENT?
IT IS NOT AN ACTUAL -- ROBUST
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT
APPROVAL FOR THAT AND I'M JUST
TRYING TO GET THIS TO A PLACE
WHERE WE CAN HAVE MORE COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT AND THERE ARE LOTS OF
THINGS IN THIS 118 PAGE BILL AND
I THINK ALL WE ARE DOING IS
TRIMMING THIS ITEM, THAT IS
POTENTIALLY CONTROVERSIAL AND
PUT A COUPLE OF AGENCIES
TOGETHER WE WANT TO RESOLVE THAT
HAD A MORE METHODICAL MANNER.
IT IS NOT MAKING A POLICY
DECISION.
IT IS ALLOWING THE PROCESS TO
OCCUR OUTSIDE OF THIS WHAT --
THIS 118 PAGE BILL.
>> IF I COULD I WOULD LIKE TO
CLARIFY WE DIDN'T WORK CLOSELY
WITH THEM AND THAT THEY ARE
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS SET OF
AMENDMENTS HERE AS THEY WERE
PROPOSED.
SO THERE HAS BEEN VERY ROBUST
CONSIDERATION OF THEIR NEEDS.
>> THANK YOU ALL.
I -- I AM ALSO JUST
STRUGGLING WITH NEEDING A LITTLE
BIT MORE INPUT FROM ABOUT THIS.
ITSEEMS -- JUST ON ITS BASE AS
I'M SITTING HERE BEING BRIEFED
FOR THE FIRST TIME DOES SEEM TO
ME THAT THERE -- THIS SIMPLY
ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY IN WHAT IS
ALREADY A HISTORIC -- A HISTORIC
DESIGNATION WHICH REQUIRES A
PROCESS OF CREATING THAT
HISTORIC SPACE AND THEN THERE IS
A PROCESS FOR ALLOWING USES
WITHIN THE SPACE AND THEN THIS
IS A CONDITIONAL PERMIT IN
ADDITION TO THAT THAT WOULD
ALLOW A DIFFERENT USE THAT IS
NOT ALLOWED IN A SINGLE FAMILY
ZONE.
I AM WONDERING IF THE SPONSOR OF
THIS AMENDMENT, IF YOU WOULD BE
WILLING TO HOLD THIS TILL MONDAY
SO WE CAN GET A LITTLE BIT --
GET ADDITIONAL OUTREACH AND SO I
CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS AMENDMENT.
OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A
VOTE RIGHT NOW WE CAN DO THAT AS
WELL.
>> WE SHOULD JUST -- IT IS OKAY.
I KNOW WE WILL HAVE A FULL
AGENDA ON MONDAY AND -- I
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT
EVERYBODY HAS MADE.
I WAS NOT MADE AWARE THAT
LANDMARKS SUPPORTED THIS.
I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THAT
INFORMATION ANYWHERE.
SO THAT IS NEW INFORMATION TO
ME.
I STILL THINK THIS IS A POLICY
CHANGE, THAT IT SHOULD BE DONE
OUT SAID OF THE SCOPE OF THE ON
THE BUS AND --
[ INDISCERNIBLE ]
>> YOU WENT ON MUTE THERE.
>> AND WILLING TO VOTE ON IT
NOW.
>> THANK YOU.
I REALLY HAVE TO THANK YOU FOR
YOUR DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THESE
BILLS AND FOR BRINGING THIS
DISCUSSION FORWARD WHILE I --
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT
RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF MY
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
I THINK YOU HAVE RAISED A VERY
IMPORTANT DOES CUSHION THAT
SHOULD OCCUR AND THAT NEEDS TO
OCCUR.
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING
THIS FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SO MR. CHAIR I WOULD LIKE TO
MOVE AMENDMENT 2 TO COUNCIL BILL
119835 REGARDING LANDMARK SITES.
>> I WILL SECOND THAT.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO AMENDMENT COUNCIL BILL 119835
AS SHOWN WITH AMENDMENT 2.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
>> NO.
>> YES.
>> NO.
>> TWO IN FAVOR, TWO OPPOSED.
>> AND DEPUTY CLERK SANCHEZ CAN
YOU ADVISE ME ON THE PROCESS IN
WHICH THIS -- MOVES AT THIS TIME
WITH A SPLIT VOTE AND OUR FIFTH
MEMBER NOT PRESENT?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS THE
MOTION FAILS.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
UM --
>> COUNCIL MEMBERS IF I MAY, YOU
MENTIONED MONDAY AS A POTENTIAL
VOTE.
AS IS OFTEN THE CASE WITH LAND
USE BILLS, WE MAY NEED TO
PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT
PERIOD HERE BECAUSE OF SOME OF
THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE
THROUGH THE SUBSTITUTE AND ALSO
IN THE BIKE PARKING AMENDMENT,
SPECIFICALLY THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT HAS -- A
PROVISION WHICH STAFF KIND OF
JOKINGLY REFERS TO AS THE
ENGLISH LOOP PROVISION.
IT REQUIRES WHEN THERE ARE
CHANGES MADE THAT ARE NEW TO THE
BILL, SO SOMETHING THAT THE
PUBLIC COULDN'T HAVE REASONABLY
TESTIFIED ABOUT AT THE PUBLIC
HEARING, AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT
PERIOD MAY BE REQUIRED.
IT IS LIKELY THAT IS THE CASE
HERE.
TYPICALLY WE LIKE TO PROVIDE
ABOUT 14 DAYS OR SO FOR THAT
COMMENT PERIOD.
IF ONE IS REQUIRED HERE THAT
PROBABLY MEANS A FULL COUNSEL
VOTE WILL NOT HAPPEN TILL --
AFTER THE COUNSELOR RETURNS FROM
PROCESS IN SEPTEMBER.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT ADVISEMENT.
PLEASE LET US KNOW WHETHER THAT
IS THE CASE -- IT DOES SEEM THAT
THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAD BEEN
PROVIDED HAD BEEN CONSISTENT
WITH THE ORIGINAL BILL THAT WAS
HEARD -- THAT RECEIVED A PUBLIC
HEARING.
OVERALL I WOULD LIKE TO BE
PRUDENT WITH OUR MOVEMENT.
I WANT TO THANK ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR WORK ON
THIS.
IN PARTICULAR JIM HOLMES, AARON
HOUSE, TOBY, KETIL, MIKE, PARKER
AND NOAH FROM MY OFFICE.
THIS IS A -- LARGE LIFT AND I
APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S WORK ON
THIS.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION
BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE UNDERLYING
LEGISLATION?
>> I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK YOU
DID.
THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH OUR
OFFICE.
ALSO I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE
CHECK KETIL WHEN YOU DO GET THE
CHANCE TO DO THAT ANALYSIS I
WANT TO JUST UNDER SCORE WHAT
THE GOOD CHAIR
MENTIONED.
I -- AM WANTING TO MAKE SURE WE
HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF
WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS TO MEET
THAT ADDITIONAL TIME PERIOD
GIVEN THE ROBUST NATURE IN WHICH
WE DISCUSSED THIS THE FIRST TIME
AROUND AND THE LENGTH OF WHICH
THE -- AMENDMENTS WERE
AVAILABLE.
SO, APPRECIATE YOU FLAGGING THAT
AND HOPING WE CAN CONTINUE TO
MOVE FORWARD.
>> EXCELLENT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ERIN HOUSE.
I WOULD MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNCIL
BILL 119835.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL?
>> I.
>> AND CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> THREE IN FAVOR.
NONE OPPOSED.
ONE ABSTAINED.
>> THANK YOU.
THE MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU ALL FOR THE DISCUSSION
TODAY.
DEPENDING ON THE PUBLIC NOTICING
REQUIREMENTS AS DISCUSSED BY
KETIL, THIS WILL BE BACK BEFORE
FULL COUNCIL ON EITHER AUGUST
17TH OR SEPTEMBER 8TH.
THERE IS NO FURTHER BUSINESS.
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO
SEE IF THERE IS ANY ITEMS FOR
THE GOOD OF THE ORDER.
SEEING NONE THIS CONCLUDES THE
MEETING.
AS A REMINDER OUR NEXT COMMITTEE
MEET WILLING BE ON SEPTEMBER 9TH
STARTING AT 9:30 A.M.
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING TODAY.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.