WILL.
>> GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.
APOLOGIES FOR HITTING THE WRONG
BUTTON.
COLLEAGUES, WE ARE GOING TO GET
UNDERWAY.
>> THE MAY 26 TO 2021 MEETING
OF THE LAND USE AND
NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITTEE MEETING
WILL COME TO ORDER.
IT IS 9:30 A.M.
I AM DAN STRAUSS FOR CHAIR OF
THE MEETING.
WILL CLERK PLEASE CALL ROLE?
>> [ ROLL CALL ].
>> THREE PLEASANT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE LAND-USE NEIGHBORHOODS
COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF
SEATTLE BEGINS OUR MEETINGS
WITH THE LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
THIS IS NOT TO BE A ROAD TO
BEHAVIOR OR A HABIT.
THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO JUST
SAY THE WORDS AND MOVE ON.
I ALWAYS LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT
TO PAUSE BEFORE WE DO SO.
THE CITY OF SEATTLE BEGINS THE
COMMITTEE MEETING BY
ACKNOWLEDGING WE ARE ON THE
TRADITIONAL AND ANCESTRAL LANDS
OF THE FIRST PEOPLE OF THIS
REGION, PAST AND PRESENT
REPRESENTED IN A NUMBER OF
TRIBES.
AND WE HONOR WITH GRATITUDE THE
LAND ITSELF AND THE PEOPLE OF
THIS LAND.
WE START WITH THIS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO RECOGNIZE
FACT THAT WE ARE GUESTS ON THIS
LAND AND SHOULD STEWARD OUR
LAND AS SUCH, AS GUESTS.
AND THIS IS NOT A CHECKLIST.
IT DOESN'T GIVE US A PASS.
STARTING WITH THE LAND
ACKNOWLEDGMENT IS NOT A
PASSPORT TO PROCEED HOWEVER WE
DESIRE.
AS REMINDER WE MUST STEWARD OUR
WORK AS GUESTS AS OUR TIME HERE
BOTH AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, ON
THE COMMITTEE AND IN LIFE IS
SHORT.
WE HAVE SEVEN ITEMS ON TODAY'S
AGENDA.
SO I WILL KEEP MY THANK YOUSE
AND QUESTIONS SHORTER THAN
USUAL.
WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON
COUNSEL BILL -- AND THIS IS
ON HOLD.
1279.
WE ARE HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING
TODAY.
THE BRIEFING AND THE BILL AND
THE WORK ON THE BILL WILL
HAPPEN AT A LATER DATE.
WE WILL HAVE A BRIEFING AND
VOTE ON THE EQUIPMENT OF THE
PIKE PLACE GOVERNING COUNCIL.
WILL HAVE A BRIEFING DISCUSSION
OF A POSSIBLE VOTE ON THE
COUNCIL BILL 1286 WHICH
TRANSFERS THE DISCUSSION.
AND ACCOUNTABLE ON 120081 FOR
PREFERABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
ON REALLY JUST INSTITUTION
LANDS.
AND WILL HAVE A FINAL BRIEFING
AND VOTE ON COUNSEL BILLS
120083, 84 AND 85 WHICH ARE
TECHNICAL CODES FROM
SDCI.
WE ARE NOT PLANNING TO HOLD THE
REGULARLY SCHEDULED JUNE 9th
MEETING OF THE LAND USE AND
NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITTEE
MEETING.
THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE JUNE
23rd STARTING AT 9:30 A.M.
BEFORE WE BEGIN, IF THERE ARE
NO OBJECTIONS, THE AGENDA WILL
BE ADOPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDAS ADOPTED.
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN THE
REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
FOR THE ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA
BEFORE WE BEGIN.
AND I ASKED THAT EVERYONE AS
PATIENT AS WE LEARN TO OPERATE
THIS NEW SYSTEM IN REALTIME.
WHILE IT REMAINS OUR STRONG
INTENT TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT
REGULARLY INCLUDED ON AGENDAS,
THE CITY COUNCIL RESERVES THE
RIGHT TO END THESE PERIODS AT
ANY POINT IF WE DEEM THE SYSTEM
IS BEING ABUSED OR IS
UNSUITABLE FOR ALLOWING
MEETINGS TO BE CONDUCTED
EFFICIENTLY AND IN A MANNER IN
WHICH WE ARE ABLE TO CONDUCT
OUR NECESSARY BUSINESS.
I WILL MODERATE THE PUBLIC
COMMENT IN THE FOLLOWING
MANNER.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR
THIS MEETING IS UP TO 10
MINUTES AND EACH SPEAKER WILL
BE GIVEN TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK.
I WILL CALL ON EACH SPEAKER BY
NAME AND IN THE ORDER IN WHICH
THEY REGISTER THE COUNCIL
WEBSITE.
YOU CAN SIGN UP BEFORE THE END
OF PUBLIC COMMENT BY GOING TO
THE COUNCIL WEBSITE.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT LINK IS ALSO
LISTED ON TODAY'S AGENDA AND IS
SEPARATE FROM THE LISTEN IN
LINE.
WHEN I COOL AND THE SPEAKER'S
NAMES, STAFF WILL UNMUTE THE
APPROPRIATE MICROPHONE AND A
PROMPT WILL BE THE SPEAKER'S Q
THAT IT IS THEIR TURN TO SPEAK
BEFORE SPEAKING AND THEN PLEASE
BEGIN BY STATING YOUR NAME AND
THE ITEM IN WHICH YOU ARE
ADDRESSING.
SPEAKERS WILL HEAR A CHIME 110
SECONDS ARE LEFT OF THE
ALLOTTED TIME.
WHEN THE SPEAKER HEARS THE
CHIME, WE ASK THAT YOU WRAP UP
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
IF SPEAKERS DO NOT END PUBLIC
COMMENTS, THE SPEAKER'S
MICROPHONE WILL BE MUTED AFTER
10 SECONDS TO ALLOW US TO CALL
ON THE NEXT SPEAKER.
WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED YOUR
PUBLIC COMMENT, WE ASK THAT YOU
PLEASE DISCONNECT FROM THE LINE
AND SHE PLANNED TO CONTINUE
FOLLOWING THIS MEETING, PLEASE
DO SO VIA THE SEATTLE CHANNEL
OR THE LISTING OPTIONS ON THE
AGENDA.
THERE IS A SEPARATE PUBLIC
HEARING FOR ITEM ONE, A LONG
TERM MANUFACTURED HOME PARK
PRESERVATION BILL.
SO IF YOU ARE CALLING IN ABOUT
THE MANUFACTURED HOME
PRESERVATION BILL, WE WILL NEED
TO HAVE YOU IN THE PUBLIC
HEARING AND NOT IN PUBLIC
COMMENTS.
SO IF YOU HAVE SIGNED UP FOR
PUBLIC HEARING AND WE CALL ON
YOU, PLEASE JUST ASKED TO BE
SWITCHED TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND PLEASE RESERVE ANY COMMENTS
ABOUT THE LEGISLATION FOR THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS
NOW OPEN.
I AM PULLING UP THE LIST AS WE
SPEAK.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, I
WANT TO SAY BEFORE PUBLIC
COMMENT THAT I AM PRESENT.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS.
>> WE JUST MOVED TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
I HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE
SIGNED UP.
MOST ARE NOT PRESENT.
REVEREND ROBERT JEFFREY, YOU
ARE NOT PRESENT.
LOOSELY HEATED UP MORE OKAY
THAT'S -- REVEREND
KNOCKOFF CAN CALL IN AND SPEAK
TO.
AND FIRST IS APRIL.
FOLLOWED BY JULIA.
GOOD MORNING APRIL.
>> I'M APRIL LITTLE SPEAKING
ON BEHALF OF THE FAITHFUL
INITIATIVE ABOUT CB120081.
THEIR DECADES OF ADVOCACY AND
HOUSING, WE HAVE SEEN THE ROLE
THAT LAND OWNERSHIP, ZONING AND
LAND OWNERSHIP POLICY PLAYS IN
RACIAL AND SOCIAL JUSTICE.
WE ARE AT A CRITICAL MOMENT IN
THE STORY.
SEATTLE'S IN THE MIDST OF A
DEEPLY INEQUITABLE HOMELESSNESS
AND HOUSING CRISIS MADE WORSE
BY THE PANDEMIC.
FAITH LEADERS AND CONGREGATIONS
ARE BEING CALLED TO BE STEWARDS
OF THE LAND WHERE THEIR
CHURCHES ARE LOCATED AND ARE
EAGER TO USE THE LAND IN THE
COMMON GOOD.
TOGETHER, OUR PRIORITY IS THAT
THIS PROPOSED BILL CONCRETELY
SUPPORTS STEWARDS OF THE
COMMUNITY.
ALTHOUGH WE SUPPOSE WORD TO THE
PRESENTATION, WE HAVE HEARD IN
CONVERSATIONS WITH FAITH
COMMUNITIES, POLICY LEADERS AND
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS THAT
THERE ARE MANY OTHER CHALLENGES
FACING FAITH-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PROCESS OF
LAND DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING A
SCALE OF RESOURCES NEEDED TO
RESPOND TO THE HOUSING CRISIS.
AND THE HOPE IS THAT THIS
POLICY IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF
WAYS THE CITY ANOTHER LIGHT.
IN THE CONVERSATIONS, WE HAVE
SURFACED FINANCIAL RESOURCES IN
ORDER TO PAY FOR THE HIGH
CONSTRUCTION COST.
AND THE FLEXIBILITY AND WHAT IS
ALLOWED IN THE DEVELOPMET.
INCLUDING COMMUNITY SPACE,
SMALL BUSINESS SPACE, SUPPORT
SERVICES AND OTHER MARKET RATE
AND LOW INCOME HOUSING IN THE
SAME BUILDING.
IN ORDER TO MEET THE NEEDS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, APRIL.
NEXT WE HAVE JULIUS SAINT.
REVEREND JEFFREY, WE SEE THAT
YOU ARE STILL NOT PRESENT.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK,
PLEASE CALL IN NOW.
JULIA, YOU ARE UP.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
I LIVE IN DISTRICT THREE.
I AM CALLING IN REGARD TO
COUNSEL BILL 120081 WHICH
PROPOSES THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
BONUS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON PROPERTY
OWNER CONTROLLED BY A RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO PERSONALLY
COMMAND THE OFFICE OF PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING FOR THEIR
CONTINUED DUTY IN ADDRESSING
THE SERIOUS NEED FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN OUR CITY.
AS A SHORT-TERM RESIDENT, I
HAVE BEEN EXTERNALLY
DISAPPOINTED IN OUR RESPONSE TO
THE SEATTLE HOUSING CRISIS THAT
HAS LEFT SO MANY UN- HOUSED IN
OUR COMMUNITY.
AND I SAY HOW CRISIS BECAUSE
THAT'S WHAT I FEEL THE LACK OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SHOULD BE
TREATED AS.
A CRISIS.
THERE IS NO REASON A CITY LIKE
THIS THE VALUES SOCIAL JUSTICE
LIKE THIS ONE IS COULD NOT HAVE
MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ITS
RESIDENTS.
I HAVE WITNESSED THESE
NNECESSARY SWEEPS ON HO
ENCAMPMENTS THAT DO LITTLE IF
ANYTHING TO HELP THE MEMBERS OF
THE COMMUNITY EXPERIENCE
HOMELESSNESS ESPECIALLY FOR
THOSE WHO HAVE NO HOME BECAUSE
OF THE LACK OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
I FEEL LIKE IT IS MORE OF A
METHOD OF DISPLACEMENT AND
VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE TRYING
TO SURVIVE IN OUR CITY AND I
URGE THE COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE
TO ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS IN OUR
CITY BUT TO CONSIDER COUNSEL
BILL 120081 AND OTHER BILLS
LIKE AT THAT ADDRESS THE CRISIS
THAT IMPACT ONE OF THE MOST
MARGINALIZED AND OVERLOOKED
COMMUNITIES IN OUR CITY AND
ALLOWS FOR MORE DIVERSE HOUSING
OPTIONS THAT ENCOURAGE
AFFORDABILITY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, JULIA.
NEXT WE HAVE REVEREND ROBERT
JEFFREY.
I STILL SEE WERE NOT PRESENT.
NEXT WE HAVE YAKOFF.
YAKOFF, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK
DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR PUBLIC
HEARING?
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> ARE YOUR COMMENTS STRICTLY
RESERVED TO THE HOME PARK
PRESERVATION BILL?
>> THEY ARE.
I HAVE A STATEMET.
>> WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU
IN JUST A MOMENT.
>> OKAY.
>> AND IT, CAN YOU CONFIRM TO
ME THAT REVEREND JEFFREY IS NOT
HERE AND THERE ARE NO FURTHER
REGISTRANTS.
>> THERE ARE NO OTHER FURTHER
COMMENTS OR REGISTRANTS.
>> WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS
PRESENT SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO
THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
REVEREND JEFFREY, PLEASE FEEL
FREE TO SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO
MYSELF AT
DAN.STRAUSS@SEATTLE.GOV.
THE FIRST ITEM -- OF BUSINESS
TODAY IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON
COUNSEL BILL 120079.
CAN YOU PLEASE READ THE SHORT
TITLE INTO THE RECORD?
>> AGENDA ITEM ONE.
COUNSEL BILL 120079.
AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE
LAND USE AND ZONING ADDING A
NEW CHAPTER TO ESTABLISH A
MOBILE HOME PARK OVERLAY
DISTRICT.
>> THANK YOU.
WE WERE FIRST BRIEFING TWO
WEEKS AGO AND COMMITTEE BEFORE
THE BILL WAS INTRODUCED.
WE DISCUSSED AND THEN RECEIVE
AN APPEAL TO THE STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
WHICH MEANS THE POLICY CANNOT
GET ACTION UNTIL THE REPEAL IS
VAULT RESOLVED.
WHILE WE ARE PROCEEDING TODAY,
WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE IN
THE NEAR FUTURE.
WHILE THE APPEAL WORKS ITS WAY
THROUGH THE PROCESS,
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ AND I HAVE
INTRODUCED COUNSEL BILL 120080
WHICH WOULD EXTEND THE
MORATORIUM ON THE REDEVELOPMENT
OF MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS.
THIS ENSURES THAT OUR
MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS ARE
PRESERVED SLOWLY MOVE FORWARD
WITH A LONG-TERM LEGISLATION.
IT WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING ON
THE MORATORIUM EXTENSION OF THE
FULL CITY COUNCIL MEETING NEXT
TUESDAY, JUNE 1st STARTING AT
2:00 P.M.
WE WILL HAVE A VOTE ON THE
MORATORIUM EXTENSION AT THE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON MONDAY,
JUNE 7. WE HAVE KIDO FREEMAN.
CAN YOU PROVIDE US WITH A BRIEF
OVERVIEW?
>> I WILL BRIEFLY WALK
THROUGH THE PRESENTATION FROM
LAST WEEK.
I THINK MR. SINAI IS PROBABLY
FAMILIAR WITH THE LEGISLATION.
BUT IN THE END IS
-- I WORE MINE WITH THE BILL
DOES ON THE VIEWING PUBLIC
BRIEFLY.
>> AS COUNCILMEMBERS WILL
RECALL, THE COMMITTEE IS
CONSIDERING A BILL OR WILL IN
THE FUTURE CONSIDER A POTENTIAL
BILL THAT WOULD ESTABLISH A
MOBILE HOME PARK OVERLAY
DISTRICT THAT WILL PROTECT THE
CITY'S REMAINING MOBILE HOME
PARKS.
AND A LITTLE BIT OF LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY.
IN JANUARY OF 2019, THE COUNCIL
PASSED AN ORDINANCE 125764 THAT
ESTABLISHED A ONE-YEAR
MORATORIUM ON THE REDEVELOPMENT
OF MOBILE HOME PARKS AND A WORK
PROGRAM FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO
PROPOSE PERMANENT REGULATIONS
TO PROTECT MOBILE HOME PARKS.
THE MORATORIUM HAS BEEN
EXTENDED THREE TIMES FOR
ADDITIONAL SIX MONTH PERIODS.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS MENTIONED
THERE WILL BE A FOURTH
EXTENSION IN EARLY JUNE.
THE CITY DID PUBLISH OR THE
COUNCIL PUBLISHED A THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION IN APRIL AND IT
HAS BEEN APPEALED IN THE NEAR
TERM.
A LITTLE BIT ON BACKGROUND AND
REGULATORY CONTEXT, AS I
MENTIONED, THERE TWO REMAINING
MOBILE HOME PARKS.
THEY ARE BOTH LOCATED IN THE
URBAN VILLAGE AND COMPRISED OF
11 ACRES IN TOTAL.
DEVELOP MINISTRY .8 ACRES.
THE HOUSE IS ABOUT TWICE AS
LARGE.
THERE IS CONFUSION ABOUT ZONING
FOR THE SITE.
SOME OF THE ONLINE MAPS ARE
INCORRECT.
THE COUNCIL DID OF ZONE BOTH OF
THESE SITES THROUGH THE MHA
ORDINANCE A FEW YEARS AGO.
THE PRIOR ZONING DESIGNATION
WAS C140.
THE SITES OR ZONES C155
RESULTED FROM AN ERROR IN THE
COUNCIL AND SORT OF A SLIP
BETWEEN A COMMITTEE DECISION ON
MHA AND WHAT HAPPENED AT FULL
COUNCIL AND THE MAPS THAT THE
FULL COUNCIL VOTED ON AND DID
NOT REFLECT THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION TO KEEP THE
ZONING AT THE T140.
SEATTLE IS NOT ALONE IN
ADDRESSING OR SEEKING TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF PRESERVING
MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PRESENT IN MOBILE HOME PARKS.
IN 2008, TUMWATER PASSED A BILL
THAT APPLIES TO SIX OF THE 10
MOBILE HOME PARKS THAT
TUMWATER.
MOST RECENTLY, KENMORE PASSED A
SET OF REGULATIONS THAT APPLIED
TO SOME MOBILE HOME PARKS IN
THAT CITY AND I BELIEVE THAT
LEGISLATION HAS BEEN APPEALED
FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
HEARINGS BOARD.
THE PROPOSED OVERLAY DISTRICT,
TO DEMYSTIFY SOME JARGON, AND
OVERLAY DISTRICT IS A SET OF
REGULATIONS THAT LAY OVER THE
UNDERLYING ZONING.
THERE ARE MANY OF THESE IN THE
CITY OF SEATTLE, THERE ARE MANY
FAMILIAR WITH IS THE SHORELINE
OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT OVERLAYS
THE CITY'S SHORELINES AND THAT
COMPLEMENTS THE SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT ACT FOR THE STATE.
THE PROPOSED OVERLAY DISTRICT
WILL LIMIT USED TO MOBILE HOMES
IN MOBILE HOME PARKS AND
ESTABLISH MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM
ENTITIES AND ALLOWS SOME
COMMERCIAL USE FOR THE SIZE OF
THOSE AND ESTABLISH IMITATIONS
CONSISTENT WITH ONGOING USE OF
MOBILE HOME PARKS AS
RESIDENTIAL USES AND REQUIRES
SOME RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES WHEN
PARKS ARE REDEVELOPED AND WOULD
EXPIRE.
THE SLIDE HERE SAYS UP WITHIN
50 YEARS OF THE LEGISLATION
INTRODUCED WITH AN EXPIRATION.
NEXT STEPS AS COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS MENTIONED, THERE IS THE
APPEAL WHICH MEANS COUNSEL
CANNOT ACT ON THE LEGISLATION
UNTIL THE APPEAL IS RESOLVED.
TABLE THAT WOULD EXTEND THE
MORATORIUM FOR AN ADDITIONAL
SIX MONTHS IS SCHEDULED FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS COMING
TUESDAY IN JUNE.
AND THE POTENTIAL FULL COUNSEL
VOTE THE FOLLOWING MONDAY.
AND SO THAT IS ALL FOR THE
RECAP COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> MR. FREEMAN, THAT WAS VERY
HELPFUL.
COLLEAGUES, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE
HAD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS
MORATORIUM EXTENSION EVERY SIX
MONTHS FOR THE LAST TWO PLUS
YEARS.
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I WILL
BE ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
ANYONE WATCHING THAT WOULD LIKE
MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE DO
REFERRED TO OUR LEGISLATIVE
AGENDA WHICH TAKES YOU TO THE
AGE THAT HAS MUCH MORE
INFORMATION AND WE WENT INTO A
MORE DEEP PRESENTATION AND
HEADED ON A DEEPER LEVEL AT THE
LAST MEETING.
COLLEAGUES, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
FOR MR. FREEMAN AT THIS TIME
QUICK SEEING NINE, I WOULD LIKE
TO MOVE US INTO THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
AND BEFORE WE OPEN THE REMOTE
PUBLIC HEARING, I WOULD AGAIN
ASK THAT EVERYONE PLEASE BE
PATIENT AS WE CONTINUE TO LEARN
TO OPERATE THE NEW SYSTEM IN
REALTIME AND NAVIGATE THROUGH
THE INEVITABLE GROWING PAINS AS
WE ARE CONTINUOUSLY LOOKING FOR
WAYS TO FINE TUNE THE PROCESS
AND ADD NEW FEATURES THAT ALLOW
FOR A LOOK AT PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN COUNCIL
MEETINGS.
AND MODERATE IN THE FOLLOWING
MANNER.
EACH SPEAKER WILL BE GIVEN TWO
MINUTES TO SPEAK.
I WILL CALL ON ONE SPEAKER AT A
TIME AND IN THE ORDER IN WHICH
THEY REGISTERED ON THE COUNCIL
WEBSITE.
IF YOU HAVE NOT YET REGISTERED
TO SPEAK AND WOULD LIKE TO, YOU
CAN SIGN UP FOR THE PUBLIC
HEARING BY GOING TO THE COUNCIL
WEBSITE ON SEATTLE.GOV/COUNSEL.
THIS IS ALSO LISTED ON TODAY'S
AGENDA AND IS DIFFERENT FROM
THE LISTEN LINE OPTION.
WHEN I CALL ON A SPEAKER'S
NAME, STAFF WILL ON MEAT THE
APPROPRIATE MICROPHONE AND AN
AUTOMATIC PROMPT WILL BE THE
SPEAKER CUE THAT IT IS YOUR
TURN TO SPEAK.
PLEASE BEGIN SPEAKING BY
STATING YOUR NAME AND THE ITEM
YOU ARE ADDRESSING.
AS A REMINDER, PUBLIC COMMENTS
SHOULD RELATE TO COUNSEL BILL
120079.
IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT
SOMETHING, PLEASE PROVIDE
WRITTEN COMMENTS BY E-MAILING
MY OFFICE.
SPEAKERS WILL HEAR A TIME WHEN
10 SECONDS ARE LEFT.
WHEN YOU HEAR THE CHIME, WE ASK
THAT YOU WRAP UP PUBLIC
COMMENT.
IF SPEAKERS DO NOT END THE, AT
THE END OF THE ALLOTTED TIME,
THERE WILL BE A MUTE TO CALL
THE NEXT SPEAKER.
WHEN YOU COMPLETE THE PUBLIC
COMMENT, WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE
DISCONNECT FROM THE LINE.
AND IF YOU CONTINUE FOLLOWING
THIS MEETING, PLEASE DO TO SO
DO IT --
PLEASE DO SO WITH THE SEATTLE
CHANNEL.
120079 IS NOW OPEN.
I'M CONFIRMING THAT I AM SEEING
THE CORRECT LIST.
I AM SEEING YAKOFF SINAI AND
LINDA MCCOY PRESIDENT.
>> THANK YOU.
FIRST IS YAKOFF AND THEN LINDA.
GOOD MORNING.
>> GOOD MORNING.
THIS IS YAKOFF SINAI.
CAN I CONFIRM THAT YOU CAN HEAR
ME?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
GOOD MORNING.
>> LET ME KNOW WHEN I CAN
START.
>> YOU CAN START AT YOUR
CONVENIENCE.
ANYTIME YOU LIKE.
>> GOOD MORNING.
THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL LAND
USE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, MY NAME
IS YAKOFF SINAI AND I HAVE
PROBABLY OWNED A MOBILE HOME
PARK FOR OVER 40 YEARS.
THE PRESERVATION OF THIS TYPE
OF HOUSING FOR RESIDENTS LIKE
MINE IS IMPORTANT.
THERE ARE SO FEW MOBILE HOME
PARKS LEFT AND MY HOMEOWNERS
ARE HARD-WORKING AND MANY ARE
LOW INCOME.
THESE HOMES ARE A STABLE AND
AFFORDABLE PLACE FOR THEM TO
LIVE.
I HAVE SAID THIS IN MY PRIOR
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR AGAIN THAT I
HAVE NO INTENTION OF
REDEVELOPING THIS.
INTO ANY OTHER USE THEN IT IS
NOW.
A PLACE THAT SERVES THE CURRENT
RESIDENTS AND PROVIDES THEM
WITH AFFORDABLE HOMES AND TO
OPERATE THE LAND FOR THE LONG
TERM, I SUGGEST THAT YOU CHANGE
IT TO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION
THAT WILL ALLOW ME THE
FLEXIBILITY NEEDED OVER TIME TO
TAKE CARE OF THE PROPERTY AND
MAKE MODEST CHANGES WITHOUT
OVERBURDENING THE PROPERTY.
THE LEGISLATION CHANGES THAT
WOULD HELP INCLUDE.
NOT INCLUDING THE LIMITS ON THE
NUMBER OF HOMES ON THE PROPERTY.
WHICH WOULD RESTRICT ADDING NEW
OWNERS IN THE FUTURE OR
RECONFIGURING THE SITE.
ADDING SETBACKS WHEN NEW HOMES
ARE ADDED, THE AMOUNT OF LAND
WE ARE ABLE TO USE FOR OWNERS
OVER TIME.
AND THE EXPENSE OF LOW INCOME
OWNERS.
THE REQUIREMENT TO ADD OPEN
SPACE TO ADD OR CHANGE ARE MORE
THAN 30% OF THE TOTAL HOMES.
AND THE SAME AMOUNT OF LAND WE
ADD TO MANUFACTURE HOMES.
WEARE NOT -- FOR FUTURE OPEN
SPACE AND GREATLY IMPACT.
>> EXCUSE ME, YAKOFF.
>> WE HAVE REACHED PAST THE
10 SECONDS THAT I KEPT T WILL
MUTE YOUR MICROPHONE. PLEASE
SEND IN THE REMAINDER OF YOUR
COMMENTS TO DELL --
DAN.STRAUSS@SEATTLE.GOV.
>> NEXT WE HAVE LINDA MCCOY.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
IF YOU DO NOT WRAP UP AT THE
END OF YOUR TWO MINUTES, YOUR
MICROPHONE WILL BE MUTED AFTER
10 SECONDS.
GOOD MORNING, LINDA.
>> HELLO.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> WE CAN.
>> GOOD.
THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I DO
THINK THAT, AS YAKOFF SAID, IT
IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE
ADDRESSED.
SO TO HAVE NEW SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS WOULD REALLY
DISTURB THE WHOLE ARRANGEMENT
THERE.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT.
SO I HOPE YOU CAN FIND A
SOLUTION TO THAT THAT WORKS FOR
THEM.
SO WITH THAT SAID, I SPEAK IN
FAVOR OF THE LAND USE TO
PROTECT US FROM THE DEVELOPMENT
THAT WOULD CAUSE THE PARK TO
CLOSE.
AND I WANT TO SPECIFICALLY
ADDRESS SOME OF THE POINTS IN
THE PAPER BY THE LAWYER
REGARDING THE CEPA.
AND THE FIRST IS
-- IT MAY NOT SEEM LIKE THE
MOST IMPORTANT TO YOU.
BUT TO ME, READING IT, THERE
WAS A COMMENT IN THERE THAT WAS
SORT OF LIKE, IF WE CLOSE THE
PARK AND KICK THESE PEOPLE OUT,
WE WILL GIVE THEM AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BUY INTO A NEW
APARTMENT.
AND THAT IS JUST SUCH A SLAP IN
THE FACE TO THOSE OF US WHO ARE
HERE BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE
FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO DO THOSE
THINGS.
THAT IS HOW CAN WE LIVE HERE.
AND WE ALSO LIVE HERE BECAUSE
WE ENJOY BEING IN A PLACE WHERE
WE ARE NOT JUST SIDE-BY-SIDE IN
A LITTLE BOX.
WE HAVE MORE OF A REAL LIFE IN
A MOBILE HOME.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT
POINT.
AND THEN, THERE IS
ANOTHER POINT THAT I WANTED TO
MAKE.
I DID SEND IN COMMENTS IN
WRITING.
I THINK THAT IS IT.
IS THAT MY TIME?
>> FIVE SECONDS LEFT.
>> PLEASE ADDRESS ANY ERRORS
IN THE CEPA.
THE THING ABOUT ZONING IS THERE
IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THEM.
THAT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED.
THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS.
>> THANK YOU FOR SENDING IN
YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS.
>> CAN YOU CONFIRM THERE ARE
NO MORE PUBLIC REGISTRANTS FOR
THIS PUBLIC HEARING?
>> THERE ARE NO MORE PUBLIC
HEARING REGISTRANTS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THIS WAS THE LAST SPEAKER
REMOTELY PRESENT TO SPEAK AT
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON COUNSEL
BILL 120079 IS NOW CLOSED.
THANK YOU TO EVERYONE THAT
PROVIDED PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY.
WE PLAN TO MAKE THE LEGISLATION
BROUGHT BACK UP AFTER THE
APPEAL HAS BEEN RESOLVED.
AND THEN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH
THE MORATORIUM OF THE PUBLIC
HEARING FOR THE EXTENSION ON
TUESDAY, JUNE 1st AT 2:00 P.M.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT REGISTRATION
OPENS AT NOON ON TUESDAY, JUNE
1st.
AND WE WILL VOTE THE FOLLOWING
WEEK ON JUNE 7th.
THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS TODAY
IS A BRIEFING DISCUSSION AND
VOTE ON AN APPOINTMENT TO PIKE
PLACE MARKET PDA GOVERNING
COUNCIL.
WILL YOU PLEASE RIDE IT --
READ THIS ITEM INTO THE RECORD?
>> APPOINTMENT OF PIKE PLACE
MARKET PRESERVATION AND
AUTHORITY GOVERNING COUNCIL FOR
A TOMB TO JUNE 30TH 2022.
>> WE ARE JOINED BY NICK
SUTTON, THE APPOINTEE AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARY BETH
CARELLA AND COLLEEN BULMAN FROM
THE PIKE PLACE MARKET PDA AND
HANNAH SMITH FROM THE OFFICE OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATION AS
WELL AS SPEAKING TO THIS PDA
BEING IN DISTRICT 7.
WE HAVE COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS ON
THE COMMITTEE AS WELL AS A
STANDING MEMBER.
SEVERAL WEEKS AGO,
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS FACILITATED
A CONVERSATION WITH MARY,
COLLEEN AND OTHERS TO DISCUSS
THIS APPOINTMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING BEFORE WE
BEGAN?
>> NO MR. CHAIR.
AND IN MY CAPACITY AS SOMEONE
THAT REPRESENTS THE PIKE PLACE
MARKET COMMUNITY.
I WAS HAPPY THAT YOU ARE
WILLING TO TAKE THE TIME WITH
ME TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE
ABOUT THIS APPOINTMENT AND THE
BROADER CONCERN COMING OUT OF
COVID-19 AND GOING INTO
RECOVERY FOR THE MARKET AND HOW
WE CAN BE A GOOD REGIONAL
PARTNER WITH THE PDA AND THE
INSTITUTION THAT FORMS A JEWEL
IN THE HEART OF THE CITY'S
CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND HISTORIC
SPACE.
AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE A GOOD
NOMINEE HERE WHO HAS BEEN SENT
DOWN FOR OUR CONSIDERATION
TODAY.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE
HEARING.
>> THANK YOU.
WELL SAID.
I GUESS FROM HERE, WHO WOULD
LIKE TO TAKE THIS AWAY?
MARY OR COLLEEN.
>> COOL AND.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS.
WE ARE HAPPY TO BE HERE TODAY
AND VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE
APPOINTEE YOU ARE CONSIDERING.
IF IT IS OKAY WITH YOU, I WOULD
LIKE TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT NICK'S HISTORY AND THEN
WE WILL TURN OVER TO MARY.
>> NICK HAS BEEN A VERY AVID
VOLUNTEER FOR ABOUT A DECADE.
AND CELEBRATED 50TH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE INITIATIVE TO SAVE THE
MARKET THIS YEAR AND HE HAS
BEEN ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
OF THE PIKE PLACE MARKET
CONSTITUENCIES SINCE 2017
FORMERLY SERVING AS THE VICE
CHAIR IN THE 2020 SECRETARY-
TREASURER. IN ADDITION TO HIS
VOLUNTEERISM, NICK HAS BEEN A
LONGTIME SUPPORTER AND
VOLUNTEER OF THE FOUNDATION AND
WITH CONTRIBUTIONS THAT RANGE
FROM GENERAL EVENTS TO THE
KEYNOTE SPEAKER AT FUNDRAISING
EVENTS.
NICK HAS A DEEP PASSION ABOUT
THE HISTORY OF THE MARKET.
BECAUSE OF THAT, HE HAS
DESIGNED SEVERAL HISTORY TOURS
FOR THE PDA.
ALSO VIRTUAL HISTORY WALKING
TOUR OF THE MARKET THROUGH
HISTORY LANGUAGE IS A GREAT
ORGANIZATION WHOSE OFFICES
RESIDE IN OUR MARKET AS WELL.
HE IS BRINGING THAT TOOLKIT AND
REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS AND
RELATIONS TO THE TABLE.
HE FORMERLY WORKED FOR VISIT
SEATTLE AS A ATTENDANT OF THE
BOOTH.
AND BEING THE FACE OF THE
MARKET.
BEFORE THAT, AS A FOOD TOUR
GUIDE FOR A SAFER SEATTLE
INTRODUCING THOUSANDS OF
VISITORS TO THE WONDER OF THE
PIKE PLACE MARKET.
I WILL SAY ONE MORE THING
BEFORE YOU TURN IT OVER TO MARY
THAT I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
PDA STAFF AND HANNAH WHO HAS
BEEN IN COLLABORATION WITH US
IN MAKING SURE WE FOLLOWED OUR
POLICY ALL ALONG THE WAY.
SO THANK YOU TO THE STAFF FOR
THAT.
MARY, ANYTHING TO ADD?
>> YOU SAID MOST OF IT,
COLLEEN AND I WANT TO THANK
EVERYBODY HERE ALSO.
I WANT TO THANK HANNAH AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FOR HAVING US
HERE.
AND THANK YOU TO NICK FOR
WANTING TO JOIN THE COUNCIL.
EVERYTHING COLLEEN SAID AND
MORE.
WHAT IS INTERESTING OVER THE
YEARS SINCE I HAVE TALKED TO
NICK IS THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THE
MARKET.
NOT ONLY AS HISTORY AND
COMMUNITY BUT ALSO AN ECONOMIC
ENGINE FOR THE CITY.
AND AS WE GO THROUGH COVID-19
RECOVERY AND HOW IMPORTANT IT
IS WILL WORK TOGETHER TO BE
ABLE TO GET THE MARKET TO THE
OTHER SIDE OF THIS.
AND AT THIS TIME, ESPECIALLY
WITH THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF
SAVING THE MARKET.
AND ASSOCIATE AT THIS TIME, IT
IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE
IN THE COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY
PUT THE ENERGIES TOWARD THAT TO
GET US THROUGH THIS AND WORK
WITH DOWNTOWN ALSO TO GET US
THROUGH THIS AND TO THE OTHER
SIDE.
>> EXCELLENT.
THANK YOU, COLLEEN AND MARY.
NICK, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO
SAY AND THEN HANNAH, IF YOU CAN
ROUND US OUT.
>> THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR
CONSIDERING THIS TODAY.
COLLEEN AND MARY, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR THOUGHTS.
YOU DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF
SUMMING IT UP.
AS COLLEEN MENTIONED, I HAVE
BEEN SERVING WITH THE PIKE
PLACE MARKET CONSTITUENCY FOR
NUMBER OF YEARS NOW.
AND I HAVE RUN PREVIOUSLY FOR
THIS PDA APPOINTEE SEAT HERE.
AND AM EXCITED TO EXPLORE THE
NEXT STEPS AND TO MOVE FORWARD
AND FIGURE THINGS OUT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, NICK.
BRIEFLY, ANY INTERESTING FACTS
ABOUT THE MARKET FROM YOUR
HISTORICAL TOURS THAT YOU HAVE
CREATED THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO
SHARE WITH US?
>> SURE.
WOULD SEE.
MY FAVORITE ONE -- AND THIS
MIGHT BE A BIT PERSONAL BUT MY
FAVORITE ONE IS THAT WE HAVE
GOT POTENTIALLY THE OLDEST
PUBLIC RESTROOMS ON THE ENTIRE
WEST COAST RIGHT BELOW PIKE
PLACE FISH.
AT VERY LEAST, THE LONGEST
CONSECUTIVELY USED ONES THAT
HAVE BEEN IN USE SINCE 1909.
LET'S SEE.
THERE IS SO MUCH.
ONE OF MY FAVORITE THINGS I WAS
DOING THE TOURS WAS HAVING
THOSE DISNEY MOMENTS OF THE
MARKET COMMUNITY FINDING WAYS
TO HELP EACH OTHER OUT AND TO
OVERCOME THEIR OWN ADVERSITY,
WHETHER IT IS THE STORY OF THE
ANONYMOUS $1000 DONATION AND
THAT WAS PUT FORWARD AND PAYING
IT FORWARD INTO THE BUSINESS
MODEL TODAY.
OR IF IT'S BEING PRIVY TO AND
SITTING IN ON THE DECISION OF
THE FORMER EMPLOYEES AT PIKE
PLACE FISH WORKING WITH THE
THEN OWNER OF THE COMPANY TO
TAKE IT OVER AND BRING THOSE
SORT OF MARKET IDEALS OF
COMMUNITY EVEN FURTHER.
THERE IS SO MUCH.
AND IF COUNSEL PEOPLE WOULD
LIKE TO COME AND TAKE A TOUR
WITH ME, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO
SHOW YOU AROUND THE MARKET AND
TRY TO CRAM IT INTO AS SHORT OF
A TIME AS I CAN.
BUT I CAN GO PRETTY LONG ABOUT
IT.
>> I WOULD LOVE TO TAKE YOU
UP ON IT.
I KNOW I WILL SHOW YOU MY TILE
AT THE MARKET AND HOPEFULLY YOU
WILL INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR TOUR.
>> I WILL SHOW YOU MY CHARM
ON THE NEWMARKET FRONT FENCE.
>> THERE WE ARE.
THANK YOU.
AND HANNAH, ANYTHING ELSE YOU
WOULD LIKE TO ROUND OUT WITH
THIS BEFORE WE END THE
CONVERSATION?
>> NOT MUCH TO ADD. CLEARLY
THERE IS A LOT OF PASSION HERE
FOR THE MARKET WHICH IS SO
IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US IN
SEATTLE AND ESPECIALLY IN THE
RECOVERY.
THANKS TO EVERYONE FOR YOUR
PATIENCE WITH ME AND COMING
THROUGH THE PAPERWORK.
IT WAS A LONG PROCESS.
NOTHING TO ADD THERE.
BUT HAPPY TO BRING FORWARD THE
MARKET FOR THE FIRST TERM.
>> ONE MORE THING.
I WANT TO THANK HANNAH, IF WE
DID NOT, SHE TAKES OUR CALLS
ALL THE TIME FOR NUMBER OF
REASONS AND IS ALWAYS REALLY
GREAT AT HELPING US TO THE
PROCESS AND I WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS BECAUSE HE
IS DOING THE SAME THING
ESPECIALLY THROUGH LEWIS,
TAKING OUR CALLS AND TRYING TO
NAVIGATE.
IF I MISSED THE TWO OF THEM, I
WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU.
>> FROM OUR DISCUSSION WITH
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, I'M SORRY
BUT I'M REMINDED OF A NUMBER OF
QUESTIONS FROM THE LAST
MEETING.
I KNOW I WAS STEERING US IN THE
DIRECTION TO WRAP UP BUT I HAVE
A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS I WOULD
LIKE TO PUT ON THE RECORD.
I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWERS.
BUT CAN YOU REMIND ME OF
ANYTHING IN THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF THE PDA CALLED
FOR YOUR CONSTITUENCY TO HOLD
AN ELECTION FOR THE SEAT AND
THE BACKGROUND REGARDING THAT
IN THIS SITUATION?
>> I CAN TAKE THAT IF YOU
WOULD LIKE, MARY.
THE POLICIES FOR THE PDA AND
THE CONSTITUENCY ARE THE SAME.
THE CONSTITUENCY IS AN ORGAN OF
THE PDA AND THEY ARE VERY CLEAR
FOR FILLING VACANCIES.
IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE
HANDLED BY A LIVE ELECTION.
IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE HANDLED BY
A VOTE AND A MEMBERSHIP PRESENT
WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN.
WHEN A TWO-MONTH CLOCK IS UP ON
THAT, IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE
PDA TO ELECT SOMEONE TO THE
SEAT.
WHAT WE SIMPLY DID WAS TAKE THE
PROCESS AND PICKED IT UP WHERE
IT LEFT OFF WITH THE NOMINEES
IDENTIFIED UNTIL WE FINISHED
THE PROCESS.
>> WERE THERE OPPORTUNITIES
OR WAS IT IN PERSON ONLY?
>> IF THE TWO MONTH PERIOD IS
UP, OUR POLICY IS THAT THE PDA
COUNCIL ITSELF RELAX.
IT IS A REMOTE MEETING WHERE WE
HEARD PUBLIC COMMENTS BUT THE
COUNCILMEMBERS ACTUALLY THE
ONES THAT VOTE.
>> OKAY.
SO THE RULES REQUIRE IN PERSON
BUT WAS TOLD REMOTELY?
>> THE RULES FOR THE
CONSTITUENCY, HAVE THEY FILLED
THE SEAT WITH A TWO MONTHS,
WERE TO HAVE A REMOTE MEETING
WITH NEW MEMBERSHIP PRESENT.
ON THE CLOCK IS UP, THE ROLE
BECOMES THAT IS INCUMBENT ON
THE PDA COUNCIL TO MAKE A VOTE
AND DECISION ON THAT.
SO IT IS TWO DIFFERENT
PROCESSES.
IT CAN GET CONFUSING.
>> SO CAN YOU REMIND ME, HAS
NICK BEGUN ALREADY SERVINGAS
OF NOW?
>> YES.
WE CHECKED WITH HANNAH.
THE APPOINTEES START SURVEYING
UNTIL AND UNLESS WE HEAR
DIFFERENTLY FROM YOUR BODY OR
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, IS
THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD
LIKE TO ADD ABOUT THE PROCESS
THAT IT HAS BROUGHT US TO
TODAY?
>> NO MR. CHAIR.
I THINK THAT COVERED IT WELL.
I DO JUST WANT TO SAY THAT IN
THIS ERA OF COVID-19 AND HAVING
TO WORK REMOTELY, IT HAS LED TO
A LOT OF ADAPTATIONS THAT WE
HAVE HAD TO MAKE.
WE ARE SITTING HERE AT A
VIRTUAL MEETING CONDUCTING CITY
BUSINESS OUT OF THAT HORRIBLE
NECESSITY.
AND I THINK THAT THIS HAS BEEN
ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE AWKWARD
WORKAROUNDS OR WE HAVE TO DEAL
WITH THE RULES AND DEAL WITH
THE SITUATION THAT COVID-19 HAS
DEALT US TO STILL CONDUCT THE
PEOPLE'S BUSINESS IN A WAY THAT
IS IN KEEPING WITH PUBLIC
HEALTH GOALS AND IN A WAY THAT
IS MAKING SURE EVERYONE CAN
PARTICIPATE AND FEEL SAFE AND
IN A WAY WHERE WE ARE NOT
ASKING SOMEONE TO BALANCE THEIR
PUBLIC HEALTH VERSUS
PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY.
AND THAT IS REQUIRED MAKING
SOME ADAPTATIONS IN HOW WE
CONDUCT BUSINESS ON THIS IS
JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT.
I WANT TO SAY IT IS CLEAR FROM
THE ANALYSIS THAT PDA DIDN'T
FOLLOW THE RULES THE WAY THEY
HAVE TO BE IMPLEMENT TO DURING
THIS TIME.
AND I'M SURE ALL OF US LOOK
FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO
CONDUCT BUSINESS.
BUT I DO APPRECIATE PUTTING ON
THE RECORD THAT THIS WAS
ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE COVID-19
ERA ANOMALIES.
WHEN NICK COMES BACK FOR
RECONFIRMATION, IT WILL
PROBABLY BE ALONG THE LINES OF
WHAT WE ARE HISTORICALLY USED
YOU.
>> WELL SAID.
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS
AND THANK YOU FOR THE
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS?
SEEING NONE, WE CAN VOTE ON THIS
.
>> I DIDN'T WANT TO PUT THESE
COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE
LAST QUESTION BUT I WANTED TO
GIVE A BRIEF SHOUT OUT TO THE
PIKE PLACE MARKET COMMUNITY
THAT HAS BEEN REALLY RESILIENT
DURING THIS VERY DIFFICULT
TIME.
PIKE PLACE MARKET HAS SORT OF
BEEN THIS RESILIENT READOUT IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE DOWNTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAS REALLY
HELPED TO MAINTAIN A REALLY
IMPORTANT SOURCE OF GROCERY FOR
THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS
MAINTAINED A CULTURAL CENTER OF
RESTAURANTS AND GATHERING
SPACES, EVEN DURING THE COVID-
19 CRISIS THAT HAS NOT JUST
HELPED THE UNIQUE ECOSYSTEM AND
COMMUNITY SUSTAIN ITSELF BUT
ALSO HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO A
NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS
EXPERIENCED A LOT OF HARDSHIP
OVER THE COURSE OF COVID-19.
AND THAT IS NO SMALL PART OF
THE FOLKS PRESENT TODAY.
THE LEADERSHIP OF MARY AND
COLLEEN AND NICK.
AND ALSO DUE TO THE COUNTLESS
VENDORS, RESIDENTS AND THE
PEOPLE AND THE ARTISTS AND THE
PEOPLE THAT HAVE REALLY MADE
PIKE PLACE MARKET THIS UNIQUE
EXAMPLE OF PLACE MAKING IN THE
CITY OF SEATTLE.
AND IN A PRACTICAL SENSE, WE
ARE ONLY HERE TO CONFIRM NICK
TODAY.
BUT IN A BROADER SENSE, I DO
LIKE THAT WE HAVE ALL TAKEN A
FEW MOMENTS TO RECOGNIZE, AS IT
LOOKS LIKE WE ARE COMING OUT ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS, WHAT
THE MARKET HAS BEEN THROUGH AND
HOW THE MARKET HAS SURVIVED AND
THRIVED AND WILL COME BACK EVEN
BETTER HOPEFULLY ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF THIS GOING INTO
RECOVERY.
AND HISTORY COULD HAVE BEEN
DIFFERENT.
BUT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE
PEOPLE HERE HAVE REALLY MADE IT
SO THAT WE CAN HANG ON, ADAPT
AND GET TO THE CRISIS.
AND AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS, I
REMEMBER THAT MARY TOLD ME, WE
WERE IN YOUR OFFICE AND YOU ARE
JUST BESIDE OURSELVES.
IT WAS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
SENATE WAS LOOKING VERY GRAHAM
AND/OR MARIE SAYING, WHEN THIS
IS ALL OVER COME WE SHOULD HAVE
A BIG PARTY.
A BIG PARTY HERE AT THE MARKET.
AND IS THERE GOING FORWARD, IF
YOU WANT TO PROGRAM THE BIG
PARTY, I FEEL LIKE WE CAN
ALMOST START PLANNING NOW.
FINGERS CROSSED.
WE ARE GETTING CLOSE.
THAT I AGREE WITH THAT
SENTIMENT.
SO THANK YOU SO MUCH AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO CONFIRMING NICK IN A
FEW SECONDS.
>> AS LONG AS MUD HONEY PLACE
ON TOP OF THE MARKET ROOF
AGAIN, I AM IN.
WITH THAT SAID, UNLESS THERE IS
FURTHER DISCUSSION, COLLEAGUES,
WE CAN NOW VOTE ON THIS
APPOINTMENT.
SEEING NONE, HAVE MOVED THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED
CONFIRMATION OF THE APPOINTMENT
091 VISA -- 0917.
SECOND.
>> SECONDED.
NO ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS OR
COMMENTS, WILL THE CLIQUE CLERK
PLEASE CALL ROLE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> AS IT.
COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> AS IT.
CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES IT.
MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU, NICK FOR YOUR
SERVICE.
THANK YOU, MARY, COLLEEN AND
HANNAH FOR EVERYTHNG THAT YOU
DO.
THIS APPOINTMENT WILL BE BEFORE
THE FULL COUNSEL JUNE 1st.
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR
TIME.
>> THANK YOU ALL.
>> THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS
COUNSEL BUILT 120086
TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP OF THE
GREENWOOD SENIOR CENTER PROPERTY
TO THE PHINNEY NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION.
>> ITEM THREE, 120086, AN
ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE
TRANSFER OF CITY PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 525 NORTH 85TH
STREET AUTHORIZING THE
CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY TO
THE PHINNEY NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION.
>> THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES, I'M VERY EXCITED TO
BRING THIS TO YOU TODAY.
THE SEATTLE FIRE APARTMENT IS
ROLLING BY CITY HALL.
WE WILL WAIT UNTIL IT GOES.
WE ARE VERY EXCITED FOR THIS
PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
IT HAS BEEN LONG-AWAITED TO
HAVE THIS BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE.
IT WAS PART OF THE PACKAGE WITH
BURGER BAR PLACE IN THE CENTRAL
AREA SENIOR CENTER BECAUSE OF A
COUPLE OF REFINEMENTS THAT
NEEDED TO BE MADE.
THAT PACKAGE WAS SPLIT OUT.
AND SO WE HAD THESE PIECES OF
LEGISLATION BEFORE US.
THE SAME TYPE OF PACKAGE BEFORE
US ALREADY THIS YEAR.
THIS LEGISLATION WAS PART OF
THE PACKAGE AND WAS SPLIT OUT
TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WOULD
MOVE FORWARD AS FAST AS
POSSIBLE.
AND SO THIS HAS BEEN A LONG-
AWAITED PIECE OF LEGISLATION
AND WE ARE VERY EXCITED TO HAVE
IT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TODAY.
I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
WE HAD SPOKEN ABOUT POSSIBLY
HAVING THIS FOR TWO MEETINGS.
I AM UNFORTUNATELY GOING TO
NEED TO MOVE THIS TODAY.
WE ARE NOT ABLE TO TYPICALLY
-- TYPICALLY LIKE TO HAVE TWO
MEETINGS FOR PIECES OF POLICY.
BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN LONG-
AWAITED AND BECAUSE THIS WAS
PART OF A PACKAGE THAT WE HAVE
ALREADY DISCUSSED AND VOTED ON
AT CITY COUNCIL WITH THE
FINANCE AND HOUSING COMMITTEE
AND IT FULL COUNSEL AND BECAUSE
IT IS PART OF THE PACKAGE THAT
WE HAVE ALREADY HEARD, AND THE
MEETNG DESIRE TO STAY ON THE
TIMELINE FOR PHINNEY
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO BE
ABLE TO START ACTIVATING THE
SPACE IN REALLY IMPORTANT WAYS
FOR THE COMMUNITY, WE ARE GOING
TO MOVE FORWARD TODAY.
SO APOLOGIES FOR ANY
MISCOMMUNICATION ON MY BEHALF
THERE OR FOR THE ASSUMPTION
THAT THERE WOULD BE NO
AMENDMENTS.
THAT IS AN ASSUMPTION THAT I
MADE AS THE CHAIR.
SO WE WILL BE ENGAGING IN THE
EXCEPTION TO MY RULE WHICH IS
TO HAVE THIS IN ONE COMMITTEE
TODAY.
BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE
TO MAKE SURE TO RECOGNIZE THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE WITH US
TODAY.
CHRISTIE BECKLEY, THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE PHINNEY
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, KATY
SHANE FROM OPCD, KAREN GRUEN
AND DIRECTOR MANTIA.
PRESENTERS, IF YOU LIKE TO
INTRODUCE YOURSELVES AND THEN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CHRISTIE
BECKLEY WILL BE KICKING US OFF.
>> THANK YOU.
I AM THE DIRECTOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF,
LISH WHITSON.
>> KAREN GRUEN, FINANCE AND
INITIATIVE SERVICES.
>> KATY SHE HE.
>> CHRISTIE BRICKLEY WITH THE
CITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND I'M HAPPY TO START WITH
JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THE PNA AND
THE GREENWOOD SENIOR CENTER
BEFORE WE GET INTO A
CONVERSATION ABOUT THE
LEGISLATION.
FIRST, I'M GOING TO DO A QUICK
SHOUT OUT FOR NICK SUTTON.
CONGRATULATIONS.
I'M SO HAPPY TO HAVE WITNESSED
THAT AND I CANNOT THINK OF A
BETTER APPOINTMENT.
SO BACK TO THE PNA, I JUST WANT
TO SAY THAT WE ARE SO GRATEFUL
TO BE PART OF THE LONG-TERM
PARTNERSHIP AND FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT
POSSIBILITIES OF A TRANSFER.
FOR US, IT MEANS WE CAN
CONTINUE TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY
AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO THAT.
IT ALSO MEANS WE CAN THINK IN
TERMS OF THE FUTURE AND THE
COMMUNITY IS
CHANGING.
MORE AND MORE SENIORS ARE
BECOMING SENIORS AND MORE AND
MORE STRUGGLING WITH BASIC
NEEDS AND HOUSING ISSUES THAT
WE CAN HELP THEM SUPPORT.
LET ME ALSO SAY, AS
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS ALLUDED
TO, THIS HAS BEEN A LONG
PROCESS.
AFTER YEARS OF CONVERSATIONS,
WE ARE EXCITED TO BE HERE.
WE ARRIVED HERE WITH THE
SUPPORT OF OUR COMMUNITY.
JUST OUTSIDE MY DOOR IS A
BANNER WITH THOUSANDS OF
SIGNATURES ON IT.
SUPPORT FROM THE MEMBERS AND
THE BOARD AND FROM THE
COMMUNITY PARTNERS AT THE
PHINNEY AND GREENWOOD COMMUNITY
COUNCILS.
SO THE PNA MISSION -- WE WILL
GIVE A QUICK OVERVIEW.
A LITTLE MORE THAN THE STANDARD
ASSOCIATION.
THE PNA MISSION IS TO BUILD,
ENGAGE AND SUPPORT OUR DIVERSE
COMMUNITIES THROUGH PROGRAMS,
SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES THAT
CONNECT NEIGHBORS AND FOSTERS
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT.
SO WE DO HAVE ABOUT 25 MEMBERS
OF THE PNA AS WELL AS ANY
ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE
SENIOR CENTER.
THERE IS SOME OVERLAP.
WE ALSO SERVED THE COMMUNITY
AND A LOT OF REALLY UNIQUE
WAYS.
WHERE WE CONNECTED AND BRINGING
PEOPLE TOGETHER.
WE HAD THE QUARTERLY NEWSPAPER.
I KNOW I LOOK FORWARD TO IT
EVERY TIME.
IT GOES OUT TO ABOUT 20,000
HOUSEHOLDS.
WE HAVE THE POPULAR PHINNEY
BLOG THAT WE MAINTAIN AS PART
OF THE SUPPORT NETWORK TO LOCAL
SMALL BUSINESSES.
WE HAVE ROOM RENTALS PROVIDING
AFFORDABLE SPACE AND SUBSIDIZED
SPACE FOR CHILD CARE,
EDUCATION, FITNESS, MUSIC AND
EVER MEETINGS.
THE PHINNEY CENTER SITE WHERE I
AM LOOKING AT NOW, THE LOBBY IN
THE FRONT DESK IS OPEN FOR
SPACE FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE
AND GATHER AS WELL AS
CONNECTIONS TO RESOURCES AND
INFORMATION IN THE COMMUNITY.
WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF FAMILIES
THAT UTILIZE OUR LICENSED
CHILDCARE AND PRESCHOOL AS WELL
AS PARTICIPATE IN ONE OF OUR
THREE CO-OP PRESCHOOLS.
WE HOST TENS OF THOUSANS OF
PEOPLE AT OUR COMMUNITY EVENTS
EACH YEAR, IN A NORMAL YEAR.
AND CONNECT PEOPLE LIKE WE DID
LAST WEEKEND A GARAGE SALE DAY
OR HELP CELEBRATE CULTURAL
EVENTS LIKE THE HOLY FESTIVAL
OR HELP SMALL BUSINESSES.
AND THEN FINALLY DOES NOT
FINALLY.
WE SERVE ABOUT 20,000 MEALS
EACH YEAR THROUGH THE HOTMAIL
PROGRAM WHICH ALSO SERVES AS A
CONNECTION POINT FOR CONNECTING
PEOPLE WITH ON-SITE DENTAL AND
HEALTH RESOURCES.
AGAIN, ALL OF THAT TO HIGHLIGHT
THAT WE ARE MORE THAN WHAT A
LOT OF PEOPLE THINK OF AS AN
ASSOCIATION.
AND A BIG PART OF OUR WORK IS
AT THE GREENWOOD SENIOR CENTER.
THE GREENWOOD SENIOR CENTER IS
AN INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY THAT
PROVIDES SOCIAL, PHYSICAL AND
EMOTONAL ACTIVITIES FOCUSED
AROUND THE NEEDS OF OLDER
ADULTS.
WE WORK TO FIGHT ISOLATION,
BUILD CAMARADERIE AND ENRICH
EACH OTHER'S LIVES AND IF YOU
UNIQUE THINGS WE DO AT THE
SENDER IS HOST AND OPERATE A
MEMORY LOSS PROGRAM.
AND WE ARE PART OF THE WHOLE
REGION.
THE LEVY PROGRAMMING. THE
MEMORY LOSS PROGRAM INCLUDE
SUPPORT GROUPS FOR INDIVIDUALS
AND FAMILIES ALONG WITH OTHER
SPECIALIZED PROGRAMMING.
AND WE OFFER SUPPORT GROUPS AND
COUNSELING FOR SENIORS AND THE
VILLAGE.
IN THE VILLAGE PROGRAM ALLOWS
SENIORS TO AGE IN PLACE AND
STAY IN THEIR HOMES AND
COMMUNITIES UTILIZING THE HELP
OF VOLUNTEERS FOR BASIC CHORES
AND OTHER HELP.
MANY SENIORS ARE -- THEY HAVE
BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR
DECADES.
WE PURCHASED A MODEST HOME AND
HAVE PRICED OUT OF THE ABILITY
TO MOVE ANYWHERE ELSE LIKE MANY
PEOPLE IN SEATTLE.
SO THE SENIOR CENTER AND BEING
ABLE TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT
THAT COMMUNITY IS REALLY
CRUCIAL, AS WELL AS, AS I
MENTIONED, MORE SENIORS
BECOMING SENIORS AND THE
COMMUNITY GROWING AND CHANGING
AND THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY
GROWING AND CHANGING.
SO THIS TRANSFER ALLOWS US TO
DO THAT NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.
THE LAST THING I WILL SAY IS
THAT OUR PLAN IS, WHEN THIS IS
ALL FINALIZED, IS TO CONDUCT
BECOE BRANDS OF NEEDS
ASSESSMENT.
IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE
HAVE DONE THAT SO WE CAN TRULY
UNDERSTAND WHAT WE NEED THE
SPACE TO BE FOR THE COMMUNITY
THAT WILL COMPLEMENT SOME
EXISTING SITES AND FEASIBILITY
STUDIES ABOUT POSSIBLE USE OF
THE SITE WHICH WILL ALSO BE
UPDATED.
SO THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THE
OVERVIEW.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS.
>> THAT IS REALLY GREAT,
CHRISTIE.
YOU ARE LITERALLY A BEACON ON
OUR RIDGE.
THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU
ARE DOING OUR COMMUNITY.
I KNOW DIRECTOR MANTIA HAS A
PRESENTATION FOR US.
COLLEAGUES, IF YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS DURING THE
PRESENTATION, PLEASE TAKE AWAY
AND I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR
QUESTIONS TO CHRISTIE, KATY,
KAREN AND THE DIRECTOR AFTER
THE PRESENTATION AS WELL.
I WILL LEAVE IT UP TO WHOEVER'S
DOING THE PRESENTATION.
>> WE SHOULD GO THROUGH THE
PRESENTATION AND THERE MAY BE
COMMENTS AFTERWARDS.
>> GREAT.
>> JUST CHECKING THAT FOLKS
CAN SEE THAT, WE ARE THRILLED.
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS
ON BEHALF OF THE SIX INVOLVED
THE DEPARTMENTS THAT CONSTITUTE
ARE THRILLED TO BRING THE
GREENWOOD SENIOR CENTER
LEGISLATION TO THIS COMMITTEE
FOR CONSIDERATION OF TRANSFER
AS WAS MENTIONED BEFORE.
THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF A
BROADER PACKAGE THAT WE HAVE
BEEN WORKING ON THE LAST TWO
YEARS.
FOR THE MUTUAL AND OFFSETTING
BENEFIT BUILDINGS INTO THE
HANDS OF COMMUNITY AS THE CORE
PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMUNITY
WEALTH BUILDING WORK WHICH IS
SUPPORTED BY THE DEPARTMENTS
INVOLVED AND HIGHLIGHTED BY THE
MAYOR AS WELL.
AND A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT.
AT THE START OF THE PROCESS,
THEIR WORST SIX MUTUAL
OFFSETTING BENEFIT BUILDINGS.
THE THREE WE ARE NOW, HOPEFULLY
WITH THE TRANSFER OF THE
GREENWOOD SENIOR CENTER WOULD
INCLUDE THE CENTRAL AREA SENIOR
CENTER WHICH WAS FINALIZED IN
LATE 2020.
AND BRETT BARR PLACE WHICH WAS
ALSO FINALIZED AND TRANSFERRED
IN 2020 AND THEN THE GREENWOOD
SENIOR CENTER.
AND TO NOTE, I KNOW THERE IS
GREAT INTEREST FROM COUNSEL
ABOUT THE WORK HAPPENING AT THE
SOUTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
AND THAT IS STILL ONGOING AS WE
WERE TO BUILD ADDITIONAL
CAPACITY FOR THE COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS FOR FUTURE AND
EVENTUAL OWNERSHIP AS WELL.
I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MY
COLLEAGUE TO TAKE US TO THE
NEXT SLIDE.
>> THANK YOU AND THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
I'M ALSO REALLY EXCITED ABOUT
THIS LEGISLATION FINALLY
GETTING TO COUNSEL.
MY INVOLVEMENT ACTUALLY GOES
BACK A LITTLE FURTHER TO THE
LATE 2016, EARLY 2017 ARROW
WHEN A SMALLER
INTERDEPARTMENTAL TEAM WAS
WORKING TO ESTABLISH
ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS
CRITERIA FOR THESE 3MOB'S THAT
WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT TODAY.
THE INITIAL GROUP INCLUDED MY
OFFICE OF THE PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND
THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO WE SET THE GROUNDWORK
FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL
READINESS CRITERIA.
WE ALSO BROADEN STAFF FROM FAS
OBVIOUSLY.
AND HE THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT.
AND SO, THIS GROUP -- AND THE
OFFICE OF HOUSING AS WELL TO
REVIEW HOUSING POTENTIAL ON ANY
OF THESE SITES.
SO INCLUDED A STATEMENT OF
INTEREST FROM THE COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS AND THEN MET
CONTINUOUSLY FROM 2019 UNTIL
2020.
AND MAKE SURE ALL THE COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE THE
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNITY THAT
THEY WILL BE DEMONSTRATING
BENEFITS.
AND THE CURRENT OPERATIONS AND
FACILITY MAINTENANCE ON THE
SAME PAGE UNDERSTANDING THE
BUILDING ITSELF AND DEVELOPING
LONG-TERM REPLACEMENT PLANS AND
MAKING SURE THERE IS A CLEAR
PUBLIC RECORD THAT THE
COMMUNITY SUPPORTS THIS
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY.
AND I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS.
FOR NOW, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO
KAREN FOR THE NEXT SLIDE.
>> I WILL TAKE THE NEXT SLIDE
úAND THEN KAREN CAN GO TO THE
FINAL ONE.
THIS IS JUST TO REITERATE SOME
OF WHAT CHRISTIE HAS TALKED
ABOUT, WHICH IS A HISTORY OF
THIS BUILDING, WHICH WAS
PURCHASED IN 1877 WITH
ACCOMMODATION OF STATE BONDS
AND CDGB BONDS WITH SOME OF THE
ORGANIZATIONAL ELIGIBILITY
REQUIRING US TO DEAL A LITTLE
MORE WITH A DEEP DIVE IN TERMS
OF MAKING SURE WE WERE AWARE OF
WHAT THE CRITERIA WAS THAT WE
NEEDED TO CONTINUE FOR THOSE
FUNDS.
PNA WAS DONE IN 1980 WITH A
FEDERAL GRANT AS CHRISTIE WAS
SAYING.
NOW SERVES WELL OVER 2500
COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
THEN THE CITY ENTERED INTO THIS
NEGOTIATION BACK IN 1887.
SHORTLY AFTER THAT REALIZING WE
PROBABLY NEEDED TO MOVE.
I REMEMBER FOR MY PART THAT
THIS CONVERSATION STARTED WITH
THE NICHOLS ADMINISTRATION.
TO GIVE YOU A QUICK SUMMARY AND
THE NEXT SLIDE WE'LL TALK ABOUT
KEY ELEMENTS OF THE AGREEMENT
AND THEN WE CAN PAUSE FOR
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
AND FAS AS A DEPARTMENT IN THE
CITY IS THRILLED TO BE A PART
OF THIS TRANSACTION AND IT IS A
LONG TIME COMING.
THE KEY POINTS OF THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PNA TO
TRANSFER THE GREENWOOD SENIOR
CENTER ARE SUMMARIZED ON THE
SLIDE.
THE FIRST IS THAT THE PNA WILL
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SOCIAL
SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC WITH A
FOCUS ON SENIORS.
THE SECOND IS THAT THE PNA WILL
ASSUME ALL ENVIRONMENTAL RISK
AND THE PNA SIGNIFIES THE CITY
FOR ENVIRONMENT THE LIABILITIES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY.
THE THIRD IS THAT IF THE PNA
REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY FOR SOME
REASON OR EXPANDS, THE
IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE FOR THE
PROVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES
WHICH MAY BE COMBINED WITH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND THEN THE PROPERTY SHALL
REVERT TO THE CITY'S OWNERSHIP
IF IT IS NOT USED FOR THE
PROVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES.
THAT IS THE FINAL POINT.
I THINK WITH THIS, WE HAVE THE
END OF THE PRESENTATION AND WE
WILL TURN IT OVER TO LISH OR
THE CHAIR.
>> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? I
HAVE SOME QUESTIONS TO KICK US
OFF.
I THINK COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
HAS AMENDMENTS.
>> BRIEFLY, THE CITY AND THE
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND
OBLIGATIONS UNDER WAY HAVE A
GRANT WHICH REQUIRES AN
AGREEMENT AND THAT WILL EXTEND
FOR 15 YEARS UNDER THE
AGREEMENT AND THEN UNDER PARTS
OF FEDERAL LAW FOR ANOTHER FIVE
YEARS AFTER THE AGREEMENT IS
COMPLETED.
BUT THE CITY REQUIREMENTS UNDER
STATE LAW AND THAT SORT OF
FUNDING WILL EXTEND FOREVER AS
FAR AS I CAN TELL.
SO THE PROPERTY WILL BE
REQUIRED TO BE USED FOR SOCIAL
SERVICES FOR AS LONG AS STATE
LAW WILL REQUIRE IT.
>> THANK YOU.
YOU ANSWERED TWO OF MY
QUESTIONS THERE WHICH IS, CAN
YOU ELABORATE ON THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
UNDERSTAND IT IS 80% AND THAT
WILL EXTEND AS LONG AS THE
STATE LAW IS IN PLACE REGARDING
THIS AS WELL AS THE SERVICES
THAT WILL BE PROVIDED TO
SENIORS.
SO THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR
BOTH SENIOR SERVICES AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IS THAT A CORRECT
UNDERSTANDING?
>> YES.
SO IT IS REQUIRED TO BE USED
FOR SOCIAL SERVICES.
THE SERVICES CAN BE ACCOMPANIED
BY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND THE AFFORDABILITY AND THE
AGREEMENT IS ALL UNITS 80%
BELOW THE MEDIAN INCOME AND AT
LEAST HALF AFFORDABLE AT 60% OF
IMMEDIATE INCOME OR BELOW.
>> IT IS CURRENTLY AT 60, NOT
80?
>> ALL OF THEM BELOW 80 AND
AT LEAST HALF BELOW
60.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION.
AND THEN, THAT IS ONLY IF THE
PROPERTY IS REDEVELOPED, IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND CHRISTIE, CAN YOU
REMIND ME -- IT IS MY
UNDERSTANDING THERE ARE NO
PLANS FOR REDEVELOPMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC
PLANS. BUT WE ARE LOOKING AT
WHAT THE OPPORTUNITIES, OPTIONS
AND BEST USE COULD BE.
>> GREAT.
AND FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC THAT
CANNOT SEE THE AMAZING DIRECTOR
WHO HAS JOINED US AS WELL.
HE HAS BEEN HERE THE WHOLE TIME
AND IS WAVING TO SAY HELLO.
DIRECTOR, ANY WORDS BEFORE WE
GET INTO QUESTIONS AND
AMENDMENTS?
>> SORRY FOR BEING LATE TO
THE PARTY.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD FOR THE
MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED BY DIRECTOR MANTILLA
AND KATY AND OUR OFFICE.
THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME
COMING.
IT IS GREAT TO BE AT THIS
POINT.
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR.
COLLEAGUES, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR I WILL PASS IT OFF TO
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN WHO HAS
A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS TO BRING
FORWARD TODAY?
SEEING NO QUESTIONS,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, PLEASE
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS
AND FOR THE PHINNEY
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR
ALL THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE FOR
DECADES AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO
AND THE TWO AMENDMENTS ARE
MAINLY TO STRENGTHEN THE PUBLIC
BENEFIT NOTION OF THIS
STRUCTURE.
I DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH HOW THE
JENNY DURKAN ADMINISTRATION
-- AND I KNOW THIS WAS
INHERITED FROM THE MURRAY
ADMINISTRATION AND IT WAS GOING
ON BACK THEN AS WELL.
AND STRUCTURING A TRANSFER IN
PERPETUITY OF PUBLIC PROPERTY,
GIVEN PUBLIC PROPERTY TO A
PRIVATE ENTITY BASICALLY IN
PERPETUITY WITH THESE
RESTRICTIONS.
RATHER THAN WHAT I HAVE SEEN IN
JURISDICTIONS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY WHICH IS -- AND I
HAVE SCENE IS MORE COMMON WHEN
TRANSFERRING PUBLIC PROPERTY,
TO DO IT WITH A 99 YEAR LEASE
OR OTHER LONG-TERM LEASE.
THEY GIVE TO THE SAME BENEFITS.
YOU CAN STILL REDEVELOP
PROPERTY AND GET FINANCING
THROUGH THE 99 YEAR LEASE BUT
IT KEEPS THE LAND AND PUBLIC
OWNERSHIP AND I HAVE SEEN THAT
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.
AND THE RCW, THAT UNDERGIRDS
OUR ABILITY TO DO THIS RCW40 3.
83.410.
IT SPECIFICALLY CALLS OUT
LEASES, LONG TERM LEASES AS AN
OPTION.
I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT
THERE THAT THAT IS SORT OF AN
OVERALL CONCERN WITH THE JENNY
DURKAN ADMINISTRATION.
LOOKING AT THESE LEASE OPTIONS
GOING FORWARD, THESE TWO
AMENDMENTS WOULD SIMPLY
STRENGTHEN THE PUBLIC BENEFIT.
THE FIRST ONE CLARIFIES AND
MAKES IT MORE CLEAR WHEN TITLE
WOULD AUTOMATICALLY REVERT BACK
TO THE CITY GOVERNMENTS.
AND THE OTHER ONE IS TO FOCUS
-- IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE ARE NO
IMMEDIATE PLANS TO REDEVELOP.
IDEALLY, THIS WILL MATTER THAT
MUCH.
AMENDMENT TWO BECAUSE IT IS
FOCUSING ON VERY LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS.
ESPECIALLY SENIORS TYPICALLY
WOULD FIT THIS LOW INCOME
MEASURE OF 50% AMI INSTEAD OF
80%.
RIGHT NOW 80% AMI IS OVER
$90,000 FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR
EXTRAPOLATING THE ROOMS BEING
ABOUT 2000 FOR A TWO BEDROOM
UNIT WHICH IS ABOUT AT MARKETS
A REALLY ARE NOT EVEN BELOW
MARKET IF THEY ARE 80%.
SO THAT IS WHAT AMENDMENT TWO
IS.
CHAIR, WHAT I CAN DO IS MOVE
THE AMENDMENTS AND ANSWER
QUESTIONS FOR EACH ONE.
OR I CAN TAKE QUESTIONS NOW.
HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT?
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
LET'S DO IT ONE AT A TIME.
I'M SUPPORTING AMENDMENT ONE
AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING
AMENDMENT TWO AND I WILL BE
HAPPY TO SHARE WHY.
AS FAR AS AMENDMENT ONE GOES,
AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS
TECHNICAL AND CLARIFYING IN
NATURE AND I DON'T HAVE ANY
FURTHER DISCUSSION.
COLLEAGUES, ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION ABOUT AMENDMENT ONE
AND CAN YOU PULL THIS UP ON THE
SCREEN SO WE CAN HAVE A VISUAL
OF WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON?
>> AND THANK YOU TO LISH AND
THE LAW DEPARTMENT FOR LOOKING
AT THESE SO QUICKLY.
>> GREAT.
SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY PUTTING
IN A CALM IN A PARAGRAPH AND
GREEN ENUMERATING THE REMAINDER
OF EXHIBIT B.
>> AND DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
LAW DEPARTMENT, THE WAY IT READ
ORIGINALLY, BECAUSE SEVERAL
THINGS ARE SQUISHED TOGETHER,
BY SEPARATING THEM, IT MAKES IT
MUCH MORE CLEAR.
ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT WILL
BE IN PLACE FOR SO LONG.
IT WILL BE GOOD TO HAVE THIS
CLARITY.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
DID YOU BRING THIS AMENDMENT FOR
THE CENTRAL AREA SENIORS
CENTER?
>> THE AGREEMENTS WERE
DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T
HAVE THE SAME FUNDING SOURCES.
>> THANK YOU.
HELPFUL CLARIFICATION.
COLLEAGUES, ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS ON THIS AMENDMENT?
IF NOT, COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
YOU ARE FREE TO MOVE IT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
COLLEAGUES, I WOULD LIKE TO
MOVE TO AMEND COUNSEL BILL
120086 BY AMENDING IT WITH THIS
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT ONE BEFORE US TODAY.
>> I WILL SECOND THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND COUNSEL BILL
120086.
WILL YOU PLEASE CALL ROLE.
>> PEDERSEN.
>> AS IT.
COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> FOUR IN FAVOR AND
UNOPPOSED.
>> MOTION CARRIES.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN. THE
TWO QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR YOU IS
IF YOU ARE ABLE TO DO OUTREACH
AT THE PHINNEY NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION PRIOR TO PROPOSING
THIS AMENDMENT AND JUST CLARIFY
FOR THE RECORD WHEN THE
AMENDMENT WAS CIRCULATED.
>> SINCE WE RECEIVED THIS
LEGISLATION, IT WAS APPROVED ON
THE INTRODUCTION REFERRAL
CALENDAR LESS THAN 48 HOURS
AGO.
I AM GLAD THAT MY STAFF AND I
WERE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE 45
PAGES OF THE EIGHT DOCUMENTS
AND CONFER WITH THE LAW
DEPARTMENT ON THIS.
SINCE THERE ARE NO LATE PLANS
FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON THIS
PROJECT.
BUT THIS LEGISLATION IS
GRANTING THE PROPERTY AND
PERPETUITY.
I THINK THIS WOULD FOCUS IT IN
ON VERY LOW INCOME HOUSING AND
WOULD SERVE THE PUBLIC BENEFIT
BETTER, THE CITY BETTER.
ESPECIALLY WITH THE
HOMELESSNESS CRISIS.
AND MOST SENIORS WOULD BE 50%
AMI OR LESS.
I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE I KNOW
THE RENT IS AT MARKET.
SO IT IS NOT EVEN BELOW MARKET
AT 80% AMI AND THE ADDITION IS
TO BRING THEM BELOW MARKET.
AT 50% AMI, IT IS A STANDARD
USED BY SEVERAL HUD PROGRAMS
AND OTHER HOUSING PROGRAMS AND
EVEN THE HOUSING LEVY.
SO THAT IS WHY THEY CAME IN AT
THE 50% LEVEL, FOR THE PUBLIC
BENEFIT.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
I WILL LET THE RECORD REFLECT
THAT IN ADDITION TO THE
HOUSING, THERE ARE SOCIAL
SERVICES WHICH IS THE CRUX OF
WHY I CAN'T SUPPORT THE
AMENDMENT TODAY, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT YOUR DESIRE
AND AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT 80%
AND MARKET RATE.
BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE SENIOR
SERVICES, SOCIAL SERVICES
OCCURRING ON SITE AS MR. WOODS
AND US KNOW, THERE IS AN
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF BELOW
60% AMI.
AND MR. WOODSON, CAN YOU REMIND
THE COMMITTEETHAT THE
REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR ALL
HOUSING TO BE UNDER 80%?
>> LET ME SHARE THIS
AMENDMENT.
THIS INCLUDES THE UNDERLYING
LANGUAGE.
IT'S NOT SHOWING UP ANYMORE.
JUST A SECOND.
>> UNDER THE EXISTING
LANGUAGE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON
THE SITE NEEDS TO BE AFFORDABLE
TO HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOME
LEVELS OF UP TO 80% MEDIAN
INCOME AND WITH THE MAJORITY OF
UNITS SERVING COUNSEL AT 60% OF
AREA MEDIAN INCOME.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, DID YOU
HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD TO THAT?
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO TRY TO
MOVE IT.
>> GREAT.
AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING
THIS FORWARD.
I THINK IT WAS BROUGHT WITH
GOOD FAITH AND GOOD INTENTION.
AND MY APOLOGIES.
MY ASSUMPTION HAD BEEN THAT
EVERYONE HAD BEEN BRIEFED ABOUT
THIS DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT
HAD BEEN PART OF THE BIRD BAR
AND CENTRAL AREA SENIORS CENTER
PACKAGE.
I GUESS THAT WAS MY VIEW OF
BEING SO ENGAGED IN LAND USE
ISSUES.
SO MY APOLOGIES TO YOU
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
I ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT
FOR THE MONTHS OF WORK THAT
WENT INTO NEGOTIATING THE
DETAILS OF THIS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY AND PHINNEY IS
WHAT MAKES IT HARD FOR ME TO
VOTE FOR THIS.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE TO CHANGE THE TERMS
OF THE AGREEMENT IN THIS FINAL
STEP IN THE PROCESS WITHOUT A
LONGER CONSULTATION WITH THE
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
PROVIDING THESE SERVICES.
AND THERE ARE NO CURRENT PLANS
TO REDEVELOP THE SITE.
SO WE CAN'T -- WE ARE
DISCUSSING WHAT COULD BE IN THE
FUTURE.
MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF
THE 50% REQUIREMENT IS THAT
WHEN WE HAVE SO MANY OTHER CITY
REQUIREMENTS AND MECHANISMS
GEARED TOWARD THE 60% AMI
AFFORDABILITY LEVEL, THERE ARE
TWO THINGS.
THERE IS A 60% REQUIREMENT AND
WE HAVE THESE OTHER
REQUIREMENTS FROM THE CITY THAT
JUST MAKE THIS PROCESS -- I
DON'T SEE THE WRINKLES BEING
IRONED OUT.
MOST APPARENTLY, IT IS MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT IN THE EVENT
OF THE REDEVELOPMENT, ANY
HOUSING PORTION WOULD LIKELY BE
I EFFECT AND SUBSIDIZING THE
SENIOR SERVICES THAT THE PNA
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE.
IF THE PNA IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY WHILE
PROVIDING SENIOR SERVICES, THE
REDEVELOPMENT WOULD OTHERWISE
-- WE ARE REDEVELOPING
OTHERWISE UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS
PROVIDING SENIOR SERVICES AND
HOUSING AND ALLOWING THE
HOUSING TO BE UP TO 80% AMI TO
HELP SUBSIDIZE THE SERVICES IS
WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY HERE.
AND REDUCING THE REQUIREMENTS
50% WOULD MAKE IT MORE
CHALLENGING FOR THE SENIOR
SERVICES PROVIDED. AND
CHRISTIE, DID I SUMMARIZE THAT
CORRECTLY?
DO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS YOU WANT
TO SHARE?
AND THEY SEE THE VICE CHAIR
MOSQUEDA AND COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
YOU DID SUMMARIZE THAT
CORRECTLY.
AND I WILL JUST CLARIFY THAT MY
COMMENTS ABOUT NO IMMEDIATE
PLANS FOR REDEVELOPMENT.
WE DO PLAN TO HAVE A
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE.
AND I THINK WE ARE IN FAVOR OF
WHEN THAT HAPPENS, LOOKING AT
ALL OPTIONS.
AND SO FOR US, WE ARE IN FAVOR
OF AN AGREEMENT THAT PROVIDES
THE MOST FLEXIBILITY TO DO THE
BIGGEST IMPACT UTILIZING THE
RESOURCES THAT WE CAN IN
SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY WITH
HOUSING AND SOCIAL SERVICES.
>> THANK YOU, KRISTI.
VICE CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I JUST WANT TO LET
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN KNOW
THAT I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TODAY FOR
REASONS OUTLINED BY THE CHAIR.
AND I APPRECIATE, KRISTI, YOUR
FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS AND I
UNDERSTAND THERE WILL PROBABLY
BE OPPORTUNITIES TO WORK WITH
YOU AND WHAT THE BEST USE IS.
AND APPRECIATE YOU NOTING THE
HOUSING AND THE IMPORTANCE OF
THAT.
ESPECIALLY IN THE AREA.
WITH THAT, I JUST WANTED TO
MAKE SURE THAT I WAS
TRANSPARENCE ABOUT WHERE I WAS
OUT ON THIS AMENDMENT AND THANK
YOU FOR THE INTENT BEHIND IT
BUT NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT TODAY.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
AND OF COUNCILMEMBER TROLLOPE
DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY, I
WILL LET YOU ROUNDED OUT FOR
THIS TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
MAYBE LISH CAN ANSWER THIS
QUESTION.
IT BRINGS UP AN INTERESTING
POINT ABOUT, WHAT HAPPENED --
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE PROPERTY IS
REDEVELOPED AND THERE ARE
SEVERAL PROFIT MOTIVATED
TRANSACTIONS THAT OCCUR.
A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER, A FOR-
PROFIT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER,
WOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO
REDEVELOP OR PROFIT FROM A
DEVELOPER FEE FROM THIS
QUICKSAND IS ONE.
AND THEN THE NET OPERATING
INCOME FROM THAT PROPERTY,
WHERE IS THE NET OPERATING
INCOME AND CASH FLOW FROM THE
PROPERTY ALLOWED TO GO?
AND THIRD, CANNOT BE RESOLD TO
ANOTHER ENTITY AS LONG AS THE
SERVICES ARE PROVIDED?
AND IF IT IS SOLD, WHERE DID
NET SALE PROCEEDS GO?
SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A FOR-
PROFIT TRANSACTION THAT IS HERE
AS A POTENTIALITY, BOTH WITH A
DEVELOPER FEE, DEVELOPER PROFIT
AND THE NET OPERATING INCOME
AND CASH FLOW AND PROCEEDS IF
THE PROPERTY IS REDEVELOPED AND
EVENTUALLY SOLD.
WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO THAT WE
ARE ENABLING TO HAPPEN WITH
GIVING THIS PROPERTY AWAY IN
PERPETUITY?
>> CAN'T ANSWER ALL THOSE
QUESTIONS.
WHAT WE HAVE SEEN WITH OTHER
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IS THAT AN
ORGANIZATION LIKE PHINNEY
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TENDS
NOT TO HAVE THE EXPERTISE AND
HOWLS TO REDEVELOP A PROPERTY
LIKE THIS.
SO WE WILL TYPICALLY PARTNER
WITH AN ORGANIZATION, EITHER
NONPROFIT OR FOR-PROFIT OR
DEVELOPER THAT HAS HAD
EXPERTISE AND CAN CONSTRUCT THE
BUILDING.
AND DEVELOPERS TEND TO NEED
DEVELOPER FEES TO PAY COSTS,
BOTH PERSONNEL AND THE COSTS
AND THE TRANSACTION COSTS AS
PART OF THOSE DEALS.
SO IT IS LIKELY THAT THE
PHINNEY NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION, UNLESS THEY HIGHER
FOR SOMEONE IN HOUSE, WOULD BE
PARTNERING WITH ANOTHER
DEVELOPER.
AND THEY WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED
TO SELL THE PROPERTY WITH THE
PROFITS FROM THE SALE GOING --
WITH ALL THE PROPERTY REVERTING
BACK TO THE CITY UNDER THE
STATE LAW PROVISIONS.
SO THEY WOULD NEED TO REMAIN
OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY OR ELSE
IT WILL COME BACK TO THE CITY.
AND SO LONG TERM, THEY WOULD BE
THE OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE.
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE
AGREEMENT.
BUT KAREN -- CAN CORRECT ME
IF I HAVE ANYTHING WRONG.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU, LISH.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> IS NOT CLEAR WHERE THE
EXCESS DEBT OPERATING INCOME OR
CASH FLOW WILL GO DURING THE
OWNERSHIP.
THAT IS THE ONLY REMAINING
QUESTION I THINK.
>> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING
THAT GOES BACK TO SUBSIDIZED
SERVICES PROVIDED ON-SITE.
>> DIRECTOR MANTILLA, IF YOU
WANT TO JUMP IN.
OR KRISTI.
I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
CAN HAVE AN OFF-LINE
CONVERSATION WITH YOU.
I JUST WANT TO CENTER FOR THE
DISCUSSION ON THE RECORD THAT
THIS WAS PART OF THE PACKAGE
AND THE OTHER TWO PARTS OF THE
PACKAGE ALREADY CAME BEFORE
COUNCIL AND WERE VOTED ON.
THIS IS A THIRD PART OF THE
PACKAGE WHICH, MY APOLOGIES
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, FOR MY
ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WOULD BE
UNCONTROVERSIAL AND LASTLY, IN
YOUR LINE OF QUESTIONING, THE
BENEFITS BEING PROVIDED TO THE
CITY THROUGH SOCIAL SERVICES
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A
DISAGREEMENT ON THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING BEING A SOCIAL SERVICE
TO THE CITY.
JUST WANTED TO AGAIN ROUND THIS
OUT WITH THE FACT THAT IF THERE
IS THE PROPHET OCCURRING THAT
THE PROPERTY WILL REVERT BACK
TO THE CITY.
SO I SEE KRISTI BECKLEY HAS HER
HAND RAISED AND DIRECTOR
MANTILLA, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING
TO SHARE.
AND OF COURSE COUNCILMEMBER YOU
WILL HAVE THE LAST WORD BEFORE
MOVING THE AGENDA.
>> JUST TO JUMP IN AND
CONFIRM THAT, YES, ANY BENEFITS
FROM THE HOUSING PROFITS OR
CASH FLOW IF YOU WILL WOULD GO
BACK INTO SERVICES AS AN
OPERATOR OF THOSE SERVICES.
AND JUST TO SAY THAT OUR INTENT
WOULD ALSO BE TO PARTNER WITH
ANOTHER NONPROFIT HOUSING
ORGANIZATION. AND NO WE DO NOT
HAVE A DEVELOPMENTAL DEPARTMENT
ON STAFF.
>> THANK YOU, KRISTI.
DIRECTOR MANTILLA, ANYTHING YOU
WOULD LIKE TO SHARE?
>> JUST TO UNDERSCORE THE
PRINCIPLE OF CASH GENERATED
GOING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATION OR SUSTAIN
ORGANIZATION IS A CORE
PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMUNITY
WEALTH BUILDING MODEL THAT WE
ARE HOPING IS SUSTAINED HERE.
SO JUST TO ADD THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
DIRECTOR NAY FOR, CAN YOU
CONFIRM THE 80% AMI WAS ALSO ON
THE OTHER TWO AGREEMENTS, IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE FOR
MOTION?
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
SO WE CAN HAVE THIS ON THE
RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO
AMEND COUNSEL BILL TOLD HUNDRED
86 AS SHOWN IN AMENDMENT 22 AND
CHANGE IT TO 50% AMI.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND I WILL UNFORTUNATELY
NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
ROLE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER CHAIR
STRAUSS.
>> NO.
>> ONE IN FAVOR AND THREE
OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU MR. CLARK.
THE MOTION FAILS.
UNLESS COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS
AND THANK YOU EVERYBODY ON THE
COMMITTEE HERE.
I THINK -- I KNOW THAT IT
SOUNDS LIKE THIS HAS BEEN
WORKED ON OVER MANY MONTHS AND
YEARS AND SO I STILL HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THE WAY THAT THE
JENNY DURKAN JENNY DURKAN
ADMINISTRATION STRUCTURE THIS.
I SUPPORT THE PHINNEY
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
ABSOLUTELY AND AM EXCITED ABOUT
THE OCIAL SERVICES IT WILL
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE.
AND I'M OBVIOUSLY DISAPPOINTED
ON THE LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
SO AS TO NOT CREATE A DIVIDED
COURT, I WILL ABSTAIN FROM THE
FINAL PACKAGE SO THAT CHAIR
STRAUSS CAN GET THIS THROUGH
MOVING ON.
I DO WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT
THAT I STILL NEED TO LOOK AT
THE DOCUMENTS BASED ON THE
DISCUSSION ABOUT WHERE THE NET
CASH FLOW GOES AND SO I WILL
KNOW IT FULL COUNSEL.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO HOLD UP THE
PROGRESSION HERE TODAY FOR YOU,
CHAIR SO I WILL BE ABSTAINING
ON THE FINAL VOTE TODAY.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE
CONSIDERATION.
COLLEAGUES OR PRESENTERS.
ANY FINAL WORDS BEFORE WE CALL
ROLE?
SEEING NONE, I WANT TO THANK
KRISTI.
YOU THAT THIS CROSS THE FINISH
LINE AND YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON
THIS FOR SO LONG.
DIRECTOR MANTILLA, THANK YOU
FOR MAKING THIS HAPPEN.
KAREN, WITHOUT YOUR WORK
WITHOUT FAS, WE WOULD NOT BE
HERE TODAY.
AND DIRECTOR KAREN DON'T GO, IT
IS GOOD TO HAVE YOUR NAME ON
THIS LIST.
THANK YOU FOR COMING IN AT THIS
MOMENT.
AND AS ALWAYS, THANK YOU FOR
EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO AND OF
COURSE TO OUR CLERK FOR MAKING
THIS HAPPEN.
WITH THAT, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL
ROLE
-- I ACTUALLY HAVE TO MOVE THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF
COUNSEL BILL 120086 AS AMENDED.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
WILL YOU PLEASE CALL ROLE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> AS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> THREE IN FAVOR, AND
UNOPPOSED AND ONE ABSTENTION.
>> THANK YOU MR. CLARK.
THE MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK ON
THIS.
THIS LEGISLATION WILL BE BACK
BEFORE FULL COUNSEL ON TUESDAY,
JUNE 1st.
NEXT TUESDAY.
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
TODAY.
WITH THE OUTCOME WE MOVE ON TO
THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
GREAT TO SEE YOU ALL.
THANK YOU, KRISTI, FOR
EVERYTHING YOU ARE DOING ON THE
RIDGE.
>> THANK YOU EVERYBODY.
I APPRECIATE IT.
>> GREAT.
WE ARE COMING TO ITEM FOUR OF
SEVEN.
THE LAST, FIVE THROUGH SEVEN
ARE A BIT SHORTER IN NATURE
HOPEFULLY.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS REGARDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
ON RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION LAND.
THE OFFICIAL TITLE IS A BRIEF
DISCUSSION ON COUNSEL BILL TOLD
HUNDRED 81 PROVIDING A
FLEXIBILITY FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING A RELIGIOUS LAND.
PLEASE READ INTO THE RECORD.
>> COUNSEL BILL 120081.
ORDINANCE RELATED TO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ON PROPERTIES OWNED OR
CONTROLLED BY RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS, MODIFYING
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
TO FACILITATE CREATION OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
>> THANK YOU.
WE HAVE A GREAT GROUP OF
PRESENTERS BEFORE US TODAY.
THIS IS ANOTHER BILL THAT HAS
BEEN LONG AWAITED AND IT WILL
HAVE A GREAT IMPACT IN THE
COMMUNITY AND IT IS PART OF A
STATE BILL THAT PAST.
WE HAVE WITH US TODAY, DIRECTOR
ALVARADO OF THE DIRECTOR OF
HOUSING.
DANIEL MORENO, AND DIRECTOR
QUIRINDONGO.
NICK WELCH AND KETIL FREEMAN
WHO HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS
AND GETTING IT ACROSS THE
FINISH LINE.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY
INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND THEN
KETIL OR MS. ALVARADO.
>> I WILL SAY A FEW THINGS.
THIS WILL BE AN INITIAL
BRIEFING OF THE COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF ON THE COUNSEL BILL 1200
81.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS
MENTIONED, THIS IMPLEMENTS THE
POSITING OF THE LAW IN 2019
SUBSTITUTE HOSPITAL 1377 WHICH
IS NOW CODIFIED UNDER THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT AND
APPLICABLE TO THE CITY OF
SEATTLE.
THERE IS A PRESENTATION FROM
THIS ATTACHED TO THE BILL AND A
MEMO AS WELL.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED
FOR JUNE 23rd.
I WILL NOTES THAT I WILL BE OUT
OF THE OFFICE IN JUNE TO THE
EXTENT THAT IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROPOSAL OR
AN INTEREST IN AMENDMENTS, IT
IS BETTER TO GET THEM TO ME
SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
THEY WILL BE COVERED BY CENTRAL
STAFF WHEN THAT TIME COMES.
I WILL JUST COMMAND THE MEMO.
BUT OTHERWISE THIS WILL BE OBC
DO NH TODAY.
>> THANK YOU MR. FREEMAN.
>> GOOD MORNING
COUNCILMEMBERS.
AND EMILY ALVARADO, DIRECTOR OF
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING.
>> I AM THE INTERIM DIRECTOR,
RICO QUIRINDONGO.
>> NICK WELCH, OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT.
>> DAN MARINO, OFFICE OF
HOUSING.
>> WONDERFUL.
DIRECTOR ALVARADO, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO TAKE THIS AWAY?
>> RICO WILL KICK IT OFF AND
I THINK NICK WILL GET THE
POWERPOINT ROLLING.
>> HERE WE ARE.
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A
COUPLE OF INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
THANK YOU FOR THE INTRODUCTIONS
AND YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
THAT THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME
COMING.
I STAND ON THE SHOULDERS OF THE
GREAT WORK OF DIRECTOR ALVARADO
AND THE GREAT WORK NICK HAS
BEEN DOING IN OUR OFFICE ON
THIS ONE.
GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
>> WHAT WE WILL GO THROUGH
AND I WILL HAND THE BATON BACK
TO DIRECTOR ALVARADO IN A
SECOND.
WE WANT TO GIVE A LITTLE
BACKGROUND ON THE ORIGINS OF
THE PROPOSAL AND TALK ABOUT THE
ELIGIBILITY AND AFFORDABILITY
REQUIREMENTS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU
UNDERSTAND WHAT WE HAVE HEARD
FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS
PROCESS AS WELL AS A SUMMARY OF
PROPOSED LAND-USE CHANGES AND
THE IMPACT OF THIS FOR OUR
COMMUNITY AS SOMETHING THAT A
LOT OF FOLKS HAVE REALLY BEEN
LOOKING FORWARD TO WITH THIS
COMING TO PASS.
BACK TO YOU.
>> AS MENTIONED, THIS IS A
NEW TOOL THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS TO
ACCESS ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
CAPACITY WHEN THEY REDEVELOP
THEIR PROPERTY FOR A LONG TERM
RENT AND INCOME RESTRICTED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND AS MENTIONED, THIS IS LOCAL
LEGISLATION THAT IMPLEMENTS
STATE LEGISLATION AND AS WAS
COMMENTED ON BY PUBLIC COMMENT
EARLIER THIS MORNING, THIS IS
FOLLOWING --
THE LOCAL LEGISLATION IS
FOLLOWING YEARS OF ADVOCACY AT
THE STATE LEVEL INCLUDING BY
FAITH ORGANIZATIONS WHO SOUGHT
TO USE THEIR LAND IN A WAY THAT
FITS WITH THEIR VALUES AND
MISSION.
AND AT THE STATE, THE STATE
PASSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL
1377 AS KETIL MENTIONED.
AND THAT LAW REQUIRES LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS TO ADOPT THESE
ALLOWANCES THAT WOULD CREATE
ADDITIONAL DENSITY FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON RELIGIOUS
LAND.
IT IS THE STATE REQUIREMENT
THAT WE ARE IMPLEMENTING AND
DOING SO IN A WAY THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF OUR
LOCAL NEEDS AND PRIORITIES AND
THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE
HEARD.
>> NEXT LINE.
>> DIRECTOR ALVARADO, I KNOW
WE DISCUSSED THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THESE.
I UNDERSTAND THE STATE
LEGISLATION STATES THAT WE
SHALL IMPLEMENT THIS LAW.
IS THIS A CORRECT
UNDERSTANDING?
>> EXACTLY RIGHT.
IF YOU ZOOM AND VERY CLOSE TO
THE PICTURE OF THE BILL THAT
YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT, IT DOES
SAY THAT A CITY PLANNING UNDER
THIS CHAPTER MUST ALLOW AN
INCREASED DENSITY BONUS.
SEVERE ACTING CONSISTENT WITH
THE DIRECTION FROM THE STATE
AND THE STATE ALSO RECOGNIZES
THAT THAT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED
CONSISTENT WITH LOCAL NEEDS FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THAT IS
WHAT YOU WILL SEE REFLECTED IN
THE PROPOSAL.
>> TO TAKE THAT ONE STEP
CLOSER, WE WOULD BE OUT OF
COMPLIANCE IF WE WOULD NOT
PASSES, IS THAT A CORRECT
UNDERSTANDING?
>> I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY
THAT THE STATE IS DIRECTING US
TO DO SO.
I THINK IT IS ALSO FAIR TO SAY
THAT THERE ARE MANY
JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE NOT YET
IMPLEMENT AT THIS.
AND WE WOULD BE ON THE EARLY
SIDE OF TAKING ACTION TO
IMPLEMENT THIS.
>> WONDERFUL.
THANK YOU.
>> THE STATE IS PRESCRIPTIVE
IN THE LAW ABOUT WHAT THE
ELIGIBILITY AND AFFORDABILITY
LEVELS ARE COME TO ACCESS THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
CAPACITY.
AND UNDER THE STATE LAW WHICH
WE ARE TRACKING AS PART OF THE
LOCAL LEGISLATION, TO ACCESS
THIS NEW TOOL, A PROPERTY MUST
BE OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY A
RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION.
ALL HOUSING MUST BE INCOME
RESTRICTED AND IN LAYMAN'S
TERMS, THAT IS THE PEOPLE THAT
OCCUPY EITHER THE OWNERSHIP OR
RENTAL UNITS HAVE TO BE INCOME
ELIGIBLE AND THE HOUSING CAN BE
RENTAL OR OWNERSHIP.
BUT REGARDLESS OF RENTAL OR
OWNERSHIP, THERE IS ALL OF THE
UNITS THAT HAVE TO BE
AFFORDABLE AT LEAST 80% OF AREA
MEDIAN INCOME OR BELOW.
AND MENTIONED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN EARLIER, ROUGHLY THAT
EQUATES TO A FOUR PERSON
HOUSEHOLD AT AROUND $92,000
ANNUALLY OR ONE PERSON
HOUSEHOLD AROUND 65 THOUSAND
DOLLARS ANNUALLY WITH CURRENT
AMI.
AND PROBABLY MOST IMPORTANT TO
THIS LEGISLATION, ALL PROPERTY
THAT ACCESSES THE ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPING CAPACITY MUST BE
AFFORDABLE FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS
AND THAT IS WITH A COVENANT IS
SO THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
PROPERTY IS SOLD.
AND I SHOULD EXPLAIN FOR THE
VIEWING AUDIENCE THAT WHEN
SOMETHING IS RENT AND INCOME
RESTRICTED FOR 50 YEARS, THAT
MEANS THE OFFICE OF HOUSING
DOES COMPLIANCE MONITORING ON
úTHE UNITS TO MAKE SURE DURING
THE AFFORDABILITY TERM, THE
UNITS ARE OCCUPIED BY FOLKS
THAT ARE INCOME ELIGIBLE AND
THE RENT AND AFFORDABILITY
LEVELS ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT
NEEDS TO BE DONE.
>> AND DIRECTOR ALVARADO, IS
IT A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING THAT
TO BE WILL TO MEET THESE
AFFORDABILITY METRIC
BENCHMARKS, THAT INSTITUTIONS
ARE DISSIPATING IN THE PROGRAM
WOULD ALMOST BE GUARANTEED A
HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY WOULD
BE ACCEPTING PUBLIC FUNDS?
AND DOES NOT INCREASE THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THEM TO
PROVIDE PUBLIC HOUSING?
DOES THAT STRENGTHEN ANY OF
THESE FOR TIME, DURATION OR
AMI?
>> GREAT QUESTION.
I WOULD SAY THAT I ANTICIPATE
AT THIS POINT THAT MOST
PROPERTIES THAT WOULD ACCESS
THIS DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY WOULD
ALSO BE SEEKING PUBLIC SUBSIDY
FROM EITHER THE CITY OR OTHER
PUBLIC FUNDERS.
THAT IS BECAUSE WHEN YOU ARE
BUILDING IS HOLY AT 80% AMI,
EVEN IF IT MIGHT NOT BE TOO TO
SIMILAR FROM THE MARKET, A 50
REGULAR TRADE AGREEMENT DOES,
IN MANY CASES, ACT AS A BARRIER
TO PEOPLE WHO WOULD WANT TO DO
SOMETHING ELSE WITH THEIR
PROPERTY, WHO WOULD WANT TO USE
IT AS A CASH GENERATING
PROPERTY.
SOME ANTICIPATE THAT MOST
PROJECTS WILL ALSO SEEK PUBLIC
SUBSIDY.
IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THAT IS
REQUIRED.
SO THERE COULD BE CASES WHERE
THERE ARE PROPERTIES DEVELOPED
UNDER THIS HAVE BECOME INCOME
RESTRICTED BY 50 YEARS BY
VIRTUE OF THIS INCENTIVE ALONG.
BUT IT IS LIKELY NOT THAT
VALUABLE OF AN INCENTIVE TO SEE
THAT HAPPEN IN TOO MANY CASES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT WHERE
PUBLIC SUBSIDY GOES INTO
PROJECTS, OUR HOUSING FUNDING
POLICIES DO DRIVE
SUBSIDY AND TO LOWER
AFFORDABILITY LEVELS.
SO I WOULD SAY OUR HOUSING LEVY
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE RENTAL
SPACE IS AT 60% AMI AND BELOW
ALTHOUGH OWNERSHIP IS 80.
SO WHERE PUBLIC SUBSIDY COMES
INTO PLAY, MANY OF THESE UNITS
WOULD BE MORE AFFORDABLE.
I WILL PASS IT TO DANIEL.
>> THANK YOU.
AND DEVELOPMENT OF THIS
PROPOSED LEGISLATION, THE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF DID
EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY OUTREACH
AND ENGAGEMENT FROM VARIOUS
STAKEHOLDERS.
WE MET WITH FAITH ORGANIZATIONS
WITH EXPLORING REDEVELOPMENT.
THOSE IN THE EARLY STAGES AND
THOSE WHO ARE MORE IN DEPTH AND
HAVE A PROPOSAL IN MIND.
WE ALSO ENGAGED WITH
NEIGHBORHOOD-BASED EFFORTS
WITHIN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
AND DID OTHER OUTREACH.
THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND THEN
ENGAGEMENT, WE FOUND SOME
COMMON THEMES.
FIRST WAS THE DESIRE TO INCLUDE
COMMUNITY SPACES SUCH AS OFFICE
SPACE FOR THE FAITH
ORGANIZATION AND SPACE FOR
NONPROFITS AND A COMMERCIAL
SPACE FOR COMMUNITY BASED SMALL
BUSINESS THAT COULD BE PART OF
A LARGER REDEVELOPMENT EFFORT
OF THE PROJECT.
ANOTHER THEME IN ALIGNMENT WITH
WHAT DIRECTOR ALVARADO
MENTIONED REGARDING THE
LIKELIHOOD FOR PUBLIC SUBSIDY
AND WHAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE.
SO ANY NEED FOR TECHNICAL
SUPPORT WHICH INCLUDES IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH NONPROFIT
HOUSING PROVIDERS WHO REGULARLY
OPERATE IN THIS SPACE.
REGULATORY SUPPORT THAT THIS
WILL HELP TO PROVIDE.
AND THIS LASTLY, THE
ORGANIZATION'S MADE CLEAR THAT
ANY DEVELOPMENT MOVING FORWARD,
THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO ENGAGE
THE COMMUNITY IN THIS WORK AND
IN THIS PROCESS SO THAT IT
WOULD BE A COMMUNITY INCLUSIVE
PROCESS AND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL.
WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER
TO NICK WHO WILL GO INTO MORE
DETAILS.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL.
IN ADDITION TO TALKING WITH
STAKEHOLDERS OVER THE LAST
YEAR, WE HAVE ALSO ANALYZED
WERE FAITH INSTITUTIONS OWN
PROPERTY IN SEATTLE.
WE FOUND THAT THE SITES ARE
LOCATED IN NEIGHBORHOODS
THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND ACROSS
A RANGE OF ZONES AND AT THE
SIZE OF THE PROPERTIES, IT
DIFFERS QUITE WIDELY.
SOME ARE SMALL SITES AND OTHERS
ARE MUCH LARGER.
ALTOGETHER, THE PROPERTY
AMOUNTS TO JUST ABOUT 1% OF ALL
SEATTLE LAND.
THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
FOCUSES ON A SMALL SHARE OF
SITES IN THE CITY AND
SPECIFICALLY FOR LONG-TERM
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THOSE
SITES.
THOSE TOOLS WILL BE AVAILABLE
ON RELIGIOUS PROPERTIES
CITYWIDE.
WE HAVE TAILORED THE
DEVELOPMENT BONUS TO SPECIFIC
CONTEXT WHICH WE WILL DESCRIBE
IN A MOMENT.
AND WE HAVE COMPLETED THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE
PROPOSAL UNDER THE STATE AND
GOVERNMENTAL POLICY ACT OR CEPA
AND THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING
SCHEDULED IN THIS COMMITTEE ON
JUNE 23rd.
BEFORE WE LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC
DETAILS, THIS IS HOW IT WOULD
WORK AT A HIGH LEVEL.
RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS OFTEN
HAVE A PORTION OF THE LAND THAT
IS UNDERDEVELOPED LIKE IN THIS
CASE, THE SURFACE PARKING LOT
WE HAVE ILLUSTRATED.
AND THEY MAKE THESE OTHER
CHANGES OR CHALLENGES LIKE
HAVING A FACILITY THAT IS TO BE
UPGRADED OR EXPANDED.
WE HAVE HEARD EXAMPLES OF THAT
THROUGH OUR OUTREACH.
CURRENTLY, WHEN THEY REDEVELOP
THE PROPERTY, RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS ARE LIMITED TO
THE HEIGHT AND THE SCALE OF THE
EXISTING ZONING ALLOWED.
THIS DIAGRAM IMAGINES THAT
COULD BE A FOUR STORY
DEVELOPMENT BASED ON CURRENT
ZONING RULES.
THE PROPOSAL HERE WOULD PROVIDE
FLEXIBILITY.
SOMEONE FAITH INSTITUTIONS ARE
PURSUING LONG-TERM AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, THEY CANNOT COMPETE
MORE EFFECTIVELY FOR PUBLIC
HOUSING AND THAT THEY CAN
CREATE MORE AFFORDABLE HOMES
THAN WOULD OTHERWISE BE
POSSIBLE.
>> CAN WE GO BACK TO THE LAST
SLIDE?
ACTUALLY KEEP MOVING.
>> THIS GETS A LITTLE MORE
INTO THE SPECIFICS.
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION WOULD
INTIMATE THE DEVELOPMENT BONUS
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PRIMARILY BY ALLOWING
ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, FLOOR AREA
OR RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ON
RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION
PROPERTY.
THIS TABLE SUMMARIZES THOSE
SPECIFIC ALLOWANCES DEPENDING
ON THE TYPE OF ZONE.
SO TO JUST GO ROW BY ROW.
AND MULTI FAMILY ZONES,
DEVELOPMENT UNDER CURRENT
ZONING CAN RANGE FROM 3-8
STORIES IN HEIGHT DEPENDING ON
THE ZONE.
THE PROPOSAL WOULD ALLOW FOR
ONE ADDITIONAL FLOOR OF
DEVELOPMENT FOR PROJECTS THAT
ARE 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SIMILARLY IN MIXED-USE
COMMERCIAL ZONES, MAXIMUM
HEIGHTS CURRENTLY RANGE FROM 3-
8 STORIES AND THE PROPOSAL HERE
WOULD ALLOW 1-3 ADDITIONAL
FLOORS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ON FAITH OWNED SITES.
IN ZONES WITH HEIGHT LIMITS
ABOVE 85 FEET, MAXIMUM HEIGHT
TODAY BURYING QUITE A BIT TODAY
UP TO MORE THAN 40 STORIES
DEPENDING ON THE ZONE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT.
IN THESE AREAS, THE PROPOSAL
WOULD ALLOW UP TO SIX
ADDITIONAL FLOORS.
AGAIN, DEPENDING ON THE
SPECIFIC ZONE.
AND FINALLY, AND SINGLE FAMILY
ZONES, CURRENT RULES SET A
HEIGHT LIMIT OF THREE STORIES
AND A DENSITY LIMIT OF ONE UNIT
OR ONE HOME FOR A SPECIFIC
AMOUNT OF AREA.
THAT AMOUNT DIFFERS ON THE
ZONE.
IT RANGES FROM 2000 TO JUST
UNDER 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE PROPOSAL WOULD GENERALLY
MAINTAIN THE EXISTING HEIGHT
AND SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT
WE ALREADY HAVE IN SINGLE-
FAMILY AREAS.
BUT BY LOWERING THE DENSITY
LIMIT, IT WOULD ALLOW MORE
AFFORDABLE HOMES TO BE CREATED
WITHIN THAT SPACE.
AND IT WOULD PROVIDE
FLEXIBILITY FOR OTHER HOUSING
TYPES LIKE TOWNHOUSES THAT
COULD PROVIDE AN AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP OPTION.
>> THIS IS REALLY HELPFUL.
DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHICH OF
THESE ZONES WOULD PROBABLY HAVE
THE MOST DEVELOPMENT?
OR ARE SOME MORE PREFERRED OR
LESS PREFERRED?
>> YES.
MOST LIKELY, THE MULTIFAMILY
AND MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL ZONES
ARE PROBABLY WHERE THERE IS THE
MOST OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE
PROPOSAL PUT INTO ACTION, JUST
GIVEN THE SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT
POSSIBLE THERE AND THE TYPE OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPLICATIONS
THAT THE CITY OFTEN FUNDS AND
WE MAY WANT TO ELABORATE ON
THAT.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IN A SINGLE-
FAMILY CONTEXT, LIKE AFFORDABLE
TOWNHOMES, THEY COULD PROVIDE A
HOMEOWNERSHIP OPTION THAT IS
SIMILAR TO SOME RECENT
AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP
PROJECTS THAT OH HAS FUNDED.
>> JUST TO REINFORCE THE
POINT, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT
DEVELOPMENTS CAN GO FORWARD
WITHOUT PUBLIC SUBSIDY AND
UTILIZE THIS TOOL.
HOWEVER, WHERE THEY ARE SEEKING
SUBSIDY, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS WE
WOULD TYPICALLY SEE PROJECTS
úDEVELOPING AND MULTI FAMILY
ZONES OR MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL
ZONES BECAUSE OF THE SENSE OF
SCALE THAT IT ALLOWS US TO
INVEST IN.
RESOURCES, WE HAVE INVESTED IN
PROJECTS AND HIGH-RISE ZONES
BUT NOTABLY ONE MAIN ONE IN THE
LAST MANY YEARS.
AND IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES,
WHAT OUR INVESTMENT WOULD MOST
LIKELY LOOK LIKE WOULD BE TO
PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP AND WE HAVE BEEN
INCREASING OUR INVESTMENT IN
THAT SPACE FOR TOWNHOMES OR
COTTAGES THAT ARE PERMANENTLY
AFFORDABLE BUT A HOMEBUYER
OPTION.
>> THANK YOU.
THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL.
AND CONGRATULATIONS AND THANK
YOU DIRECTOR ALVARADO.
FAST WORK ON THE TOWNHOME
PROJECT FOR HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY ON 80TH AND 28TH AND
ROYAL HATES.
I WAS ABLE TO JOIN YOU FOR THE
GROUNDBREAKING THERE IN OCTOBER
AND THE FOR SALE SIGNS ARE
ALREADY ON THE STREET.
SO IT IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY
WITH SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES AND I
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT
MOST LIKELY WE WOULD BE ANOTHER
ZONES TO GET THE BEST RETURN ON
INVESTMENT.
CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR ME THE LAND
MUST BE OWNED BY A RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTION?
THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN
IT IS CHURCH.
SO THE EXAMPLE I WILL PROVIDE
IS ALSO THE ROYAL HEIGHTS
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE THREE PARCELS
PARCELS.
ONE IS THE CHURCH AND ANOTHER
IS THE AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR THAT
THEY WENT OUT TO SOMEONE ELSE
AND THE THIRD IS AN OFFICE
BUILDING.
WHAT ALL OF THESE PARCELS BE
ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM?
OR JUST THE BUILDING THAT HAS A
CHURCH?
>> IT WOULD BE ALL PARCELS
OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY A
RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION.
ABOUT TWO THIRDS BASED ON OUR
ANALYSIS ARE PARCELS THAT HAVE
A CURRENT USE OF A RELIGIOUS
FACILITY TODAY THAT CAN BE A
CHURCH OR SOME OTHER PLACE OF
WORSHIP.
IT IS RECOGNIZED AS A RELIGIOUS
FACILITY.
THERE ARE SITES LIKE YOU
MENTIONED THROUGHOUT THE CITY
WERE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS ON
A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROPERTY OR
BUILDING.
SOME OF THOSE ARE SCHOOLS.
SOME ARE HOUSING.
THERE IS A CHART AND THE
DIRECTORS REPORT THAT BREAKS
DOWN THE ANALYSIS.
THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS
THAT THE PROVISIONS HERE FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WOULD APPLY
ON ALL OF THOSE SITES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> IT WAS MENTIONED IN
PUBLIC, AND THAT WE SHOULD NOT
SEE THIS AS THE BE ALL END ALL
OF TOOLS IN ADDRESSING THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS AND
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
WHAT THIS DOES IS HELPS TO WORK
IN CONCERT WITH MANY OF THE
OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT WE ARE
UNDERTAKING TO SUPPORT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO HELP MAKE
THE INVESTMENTS AND MAKE THE
STRATEGIES GO BETTER AND GO
FURTHER.
AND SO RIGHT HERE YOU SEE A
PICTURE OF GOOD SHEPHERD
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
I SHOULD REMIND YOU ALL THAT IS
PART OF OUR PERMANENT HOUSING
PILOT THAT WE LAUNCHED LAST
YEAR, WE INVESTED IN SIX
BUILDINGS TO PROVIDE PERMANENT
HOUSING.
IN ONE CASE, WE MADE A
CONDITIONAL FUNDING AWARD TO
LEHIGH AND GOOD SHEPHERD, TO
CREATE PERMANENT HOUSING AT 103
UNITS IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT.
THIS IS A SITE OWNED BY THE
CONGREGATION AND THE REASON WE
MADE THE CONDITIONAL FUNDING
AWARD IS BECAUSE THE PROJECT
DID NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY
ZONING CAPACITY NEEDED AT THE
TIME TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE
LEVEL OF SPEED WE WERE HOPING
OUT OF THE PILOT.
SO THESE ARE EXACTLY THE KINDS
OF PROJECTS THAT WE THINK WILL
BE FACILITATED AND BARRIERS
WILL BE PRODUCED, OR REDUCED
FOR THESE TO GO FORWARD.
OTHER EXAMPLES, WE JUST DID AN
INTENT TO APPLY WHERE WE SOUGHT
INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC
ABOUT WHO INTENDS TO APPLY FOR
CITY HOUSING FUNDS AND WE
RECEIVED AN INTENT TO APPLY
FROM ST. LUKE'S IN BALLARD AND
ALSO FROM NEW HOPE MISSIONARY
BAPTIST IN THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT.
SOME MORE AND MORE, WE ARE
SEEING THESE FAITH-BASED
PARTNERSHIPS.
AND THIS LEGISLATION WOULD HELP
THEM TO FULFILL THEIR MISSION.
I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE TO
DANIEL'S POINT MADE EARLIER IN
THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH THAT
INCREASINGLY, WE ARE HEARING
FROM BLACK CHURCHES IN THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT WHO SEE USING
THEIR LAND FOR THEIR MISSION AS
A KEY WAY TO HELP ADDRESS
DISPLACEMENT.
AND THIS BECOMES A TOOL TO HELP
WORK WITH COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS AND RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS TO SEE WHETHER
THERE IS FLEXIBILITY THAT WILL
HELP THEM TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS A TOOL.
IT IS NOT A HUGE TOOL. BUT IT
HELPS US TO MOVE FORWARD IN
FACILITATING THE GOALS OF
RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND
DOES SO IN A WAY DIRECTED BY
STATE LAW.
>> DIRECTOR ALVARADO, I HAVE
TO COMPLIMENT YOU ON THOSE LAST
COMMENTS IN SCOOPING THE STORY
THAT I HAVE BEEN EXCITED TO
WORK ON FOR MANY MONTHS NOW
WHICH IS ASSISTING ST. LUKE'S
IN THEIR PROPOSAL TO REDEVELOP
THE PROPERTY.
HERE IT IS.
IT IS NOW PUBLIC.
>> I'M STEALING YOUR THUNDER.
>> COMPLETELY OKAY.
IT IS ALMOST AN ENTIRE CITY
BLOCK IN DOWNTOWN BALLARD.
THIS ILLUSTRATION PROVIDES THE
ABILITY TO PUT IN ONE OF THE
BIGGEST NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROGRAMS IN DOWNTOWN BALLARD.
WE CAN LITERALLY CHANGE THE
FACE OF DOWNTOWN BALLARD BY
PASSING THIS LEGISLATION AND
SUPPORTING ST. LUKE'S IN THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PROGRAM.
MY OFFICE HAS BEEN HELPING THEM
ALONG THE WAY TO MOVE THE
PROCESS FASTER AND GET THEM
READY TO HAVE SUBMITTED THE
REQUEST TO YOU BEFORE WE EVEN
WERE ABLE TO PASS THIS BILL WE
ARE CONSIDERIG TODAY.
SO THANK YOU DIRECTOR ALVARADO
AND I AM EXCITED TO SHARE MORE
WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT ABOUT
THE REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM THAT
IS BEING SOUGHT AT ST. LUKE'S
PROPERTY DOWNTOWN BALLARD.
THANK YOU.
>> AND THAT IS THE END OF THE
PRESENTATION.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, I SEE
YOUR HAND IS RAISED.
COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS, NOW
IS A GREAT TIME.
WE ARE NOT PUTTING ON THIS
TODAY.
IS MY TYPICAL RULE OF HAVING IT
BEFORE US TWICE AND WE WILL BE
HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING ON
JUNE 23rd.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, TAKE IT
AWAY.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS.
WAS CENTRAL STAFF GOING TO
PRESENT OR TALK MORE ABOUT
THEIR MEMO?
>> I'M HAPPY TO.
A LOT OF THE CONTENT OF THE
MEMO WAS DESCRIBED BY OPCD AND
OH JUST NOW.
THERE ARE THREE ISSUES THAT I
FLAGGED FOR THE COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION.
I WILL WALK THROUGH EACH OF
THOSE NOW.
>> THERE WILL BE OTHER ISSUES
COMMUNITY MEMBERS IDENTIFY
UNDER THE COURSE OF THEIR
REVIEW OF THE BILL.
I WILL JUST FLAG A FEW OF THEM
HERE.
THE LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY AND
THE STATE STATUTE SETS OUT 80%
OF AMI AS A MINIMUM IN A 50
YEAR TERM AS THE MINIMUM.
I NOTED IN THE MEMO THAT SOME
OF OUR REGULATORY INCENTIVE
PROGRAMS HAVE DIFFERENT LEVELS
OF AFFORDABILITY AND NOTABLY
THE MHA PROGRAM HAS A 60% LEVEL
FOR RENTAL AND 80% FOR
OWNERSHIP AND A 75 TERM FOR
OWNERSHIP.
AND ISSUE FOR THE COUNCIL COULD
BE WHETHER OR NOT TO TRUE UP
THIS PROPOSED TOOL WITH SOME OF
THE OTHER REGULAR TRADE
PROGRAMS.
THE DESIGNER YOU IS CURRENTLY
NOT REQUIRED FOR ANY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECT BECAUSE OF
COVID-19 MODIFICATIONS TO OUR
REGULAR TRADE PROGRAMS.
THIS PROPOSAL WOULD ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT OF A SCALE IN
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES BUT WOULD
BE SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW IF
THEY WERE IN MULTIFAMILY ZONES.
THERE IS A QUESTION FOR THE
COMMITTEE ABOUT WHETHER TO
REQUIRE A DESIGN REVIEW FOR
PROJECTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE
WITH THIS TOOL IN SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONES.
FINALLY, THERE IS AN LANGUAGE
OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY.
THAT COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE
STATE STATUTE.
THE CITY HAS SOME EXPERIENCE
WORKING WITH THAT.
WITH A DESCRIPTION OF A
PROPERTY INTEREST WHEN IT COMES
TO TINY HOUSE VILLAGE IS
SPONSORED BY ORGANIZATIONS.
AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
CITY IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT
LANGUAGE FOR TINY HOUSE
VILLAGES, CONTROLLED BY HAS
BEEN INTERPRETED TO MEAN
SOMETHING OF A CONTRACTUAL
FISCAL SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT.
SO A QUESTION HERE FOR THE
COMMITTEE IS, SHOULD THERE BE
SOME FOR THE DEFINITION AROUND
THE TERM CONTROLLED BY?
THOSE ARE THREE ISSUES FLAGGED,
PRELIMINARY ISSUES FLAG, FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I THINK SOME CAN DISAGREE AND
WHAT TO DO WITH THE ISSUES AND
DIFFERENT APPROACHES AS THE
POLICY TOOLS IMPLEMENTING IT.
I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE
COMMITTEE AND TALK TO
COUNCILMEMBERS ON POTENTIAL
MOMENTS IN ORDER TO HELP ANSWER
FURTHER QUESTIONS.
AS I MENTIONED, THE SOONER YOU
ENGAGE ON THIS, THE BETTER
BECAUSE I CAN DO SOME
PRELIMINARY WORK AND THEN HANG
THINGS UP TO MY COLLEAGUES WHEN
I GO ON VACATION.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> THANK YOU.
WE APPRECIATE AND VALUE YOUR
ANALYSIS AND INPUT ON THIS.
AND THOSE THREE ISSUES YOU
RAISED ARE REALLY IMPORTANT IN
TERMS OF FOCUS SAYING THIS.
I SUPPORT THE INCREASED DENSITY
HERE.
AND I WANTED TO BE TIED TO VARY
LOW INCOME HOUSING.
AND SO THE CONCEPT OF TOURING
IT UP TO THE MHA PARAMETERS, AS
WE KNOW, THE STATE LEGISLATURE
AS A WHOLE IS BY FAR MORE
CONSERVATIVE THAN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE.
AND SO IT IS NO SURPRISE THEY
WOULD HAVE DONE AN 80% AMI AS
THE UP TO LEVEL.
IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE, KNOWING
HOW HIGH INCOMES ARE AVERAGED
OUT WITH THE AMI, EVEN THOUGH
PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING BECAUSE
WE ARE BLESSED TO HAVE SUCH
HIGH PAYING TECH JOBS AND ET
CETERA AND IT LIFTS UP THE AMI.
AND THEN THE RENTAL PROGRAMS
ARE PEGGED TO THAT.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE FOCUS MORE
ON LOW INCOME -- A VERY LOW
INCOME, EXCUSE ME.
50%, 60% AMI, ET CETERA.
AND THEN THIS ISSUE OF CONTROL
BY A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, I
WOULD THINK THE INTENT OF THE
STATE LAW IS THAT IT IS
SOMETHING OWNED BY RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATION OR ARE CONTROLLED,
SOMETHING VERY STRONG SUCH AS A
MANAGING MEMBER OF THE LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY OR THE
MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER OF THE
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OR
SOMETHING WHERE THEY ACTUALLY
HAVE REAL CONTROL AND SOMETHING
THAT IS WELL-KNOWN IN BUSINESS
TRANSACTIONS TO HAVE ACTUAL
CONTROL VERSUS JUST A VERY
LOOSE ARM'S-LENGTH TRANSACTION
WHICH SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD GO
AGAINST THE INTENT OF THE LAW
AND THE DESIGN REVIEW AND
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES, I WOULD
HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THAT AND
WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN.
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU RAISING
THESE AND I WANT TO SIGNAL THAT
I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN
WORKING WITH AT LEAST ANOTHER
COLLEAGUE ON THE COMMITTEE TO
ADVANCE ON THAT THE NEXT TIME
WE HEAR THIS?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT ALERT
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I HAVE A QUESTION.
IT IS SORT OF SIMILAR TO THE
COMMENTS COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON
RAISED JUST NOW AROUND THE
AFFORDABILITY THRESHOLDS.
WHEN WE WORKED ON THE
LEGISLATION IN THE FALL AND IN
THE WINTER AROUND THE PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING STREAMLINING
AND RED TAPE CUTTING, WE SPENT
A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT
WAYS TO HAVE SIDEBOARDS ON THAT
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INCOMES
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT REALLY
WERE TARGETED TOWARD FOLKS
CHRONICALLY HOMELESS AND
COMPLETELY INDIGENT.
IT IS TYPICALLY THE AMI OF NEAR
ZERO OR WHAT SUPPORT THEY DO
HAVE IS BEING ENROLLED IN SSI
OR SOMETHING ELSE.
SO MAKING SURE WE COULD FIGURE
OUT WAYS TO GET THAT AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE.
I REMEMBER THERE WERE ISSUES
SURROUNDING JUST HOW THE
FINANCE SAYING OF THESE
PROJECTS GENERALLY WORKS WHICH
REQUIRED A HIGHER THRESHOLDS.
OBVIOUSLY, HERE, WE ARE NOT
TALKING EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
BUT I DO WONDER -- SORT OF AS
A FOLLOW-UP TO COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN'S COMMENTS, IF I CAN
JUST HEAR A CORRESPONDING
ANALYSIS FOR THIS PROJECT,
SIMILAR TO WHAT WE WENT THROUGH
AND SOME OF THE WAYS WITH HOW
THESE PROJECTS ARE PUT TOGETHER
AND FINANCED THAT THE AMI
CONVERSATION AND FORMS, IT
MIGHT BE A USEFUL REFRESHER,
CERTAINLY FOR ME AND THE REST
OF THE COMMITTEE IF SOMEONE ON
THE PANEL WANTS TO ADDRESS IT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, I
WOULD BE HAPPY TO JUMP IN.
I THINK THE DISTINCTION IN THIS
CASE IS THAT THIS LEGISLATION
IS CREATED IN A WAY THAT IT
COULD POTENTIALLY BE ACCESSED
BY BUILDINGS THAT DO NOT SEEK
PUBLIC SUBSIDIES.
IN THAT WAY, IF A RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATION WANTED TO DEVELOP
LAND AND HELP ADDRESS THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CHALLENGES
WITH 80% AMI HOUSING WITH LONG-
TERM RENT AND THEY COULD FIGURE
OUT HOW TO FINANCE THAT WITHOUT
SUBSIDY, THEY COULD DO SO.
I THINK THAT WHAT YOUR
QUESTIONS SUGGEST AND SOME OF
THE EARLIER LINE OF DISCUSSION
FROM COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, IS
THAT IF WE WERE SEEKING TO TIE
THIS LAND USE CODE CHANGE
SPECIFICALLY TO PROJECTS THAT
ONLY ACCEPT PUBLIC SUBSIDY, WE
MIGHT CONTEMPLATE PEGGING IT AT
A DIFFERENT AMI LEVEL.
THAT IS BECAUSE OUR
HOMEOWNERSHIP INVESTMENTS GO UP
TO 80% AMI BUT THE RENTAL
INVESTMENTS, THE VAST MAJORITY
OF THEM MAX OUT AT 60% OF AREA
MEDIAN INCOME WITH A HYPER
FRIENDS AND PRIORITY ON
EXTREMELY LOW INCOME HOUSING.
THE TWO-YEAR POINT,
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, FINANCING
DOES SOMETIMES DRIVE US AND
OTHER PUBLIC POLICY GOALS DRIVE
US TO CREATE MORE MIXED INCOME
FROM ZERO UP TO 60 WITH A MIX
OF UNITS.
THE THRESHOLD QUESTION AGAIN
FOR COUNSEL IS, DO YOU WANT TO
KEEP OPEN THE IDEA THAT THERE
ARE PROPERTIES THAT MIGHT
CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WITHOUT SUBSIDY AND IF SO, THE
80% CREATES SOME OPPORTUNITY TO
DO SO.
IF YOU WOULD RATHER TIE IT MORE
SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT WE WOULD
BE SUBSIDIZING AT THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING, THEN THAT MIGHT
JUSTIFY DIFFERENT AMI'S.
>> A FOLLOW-UP REALLY QUICK,
MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY.
>> I APPRECIATE THE
CLARIFICATIONS.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS
ASKING FOR.
THAT WAS GREAT.
IN TERMS OF THE PROJECTS THAT
ARE ENVISIONED, WHEN I LOOK AT
THIS, I SORT OF THINK ABOUT,
NOT THE EXACT PROJECTS.
MAYBE IN SOME PROJECTS, THE
EXACT, I DON'T KNOW IF
REPRESENTATIVE -- THROUGH HIS
EFFORTS HAVE SITES.
BUT I THINK OF THE KIND OF
DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THE HOME
THROUGH HOPE, ENTERPRISE AND
TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER WHERE IT
IS SORT OF A
MIX.
LIKE SOME MARKET RATE HOUSING
AND SOME WORKFORCE HOUSING.
AND THIS LOOKS LIKE A FLEXIBLE
ENOUGH MODEL WHERE SOMEONE
COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WHERE THERE IS KIND OF THAT BIG
MIX OF DIFFERENT TYPES ALL KIND
OF CO- LOCATED WITH SOME SORT
OF CHILDCARE OR RETAIL SPACE
THAT IS ALSO INCLUDED.
I WONDER IF THE DEPARTMENT OR
ANYONE HAS DONE ANY ANALYSIS ON
HOW WE DO ANTICIPATE PEOPLE TO
RESPOND TO THIS REGULATION.
LIKE ARE WE EXPECTING THAT MORE
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE
MAXIMIZING IT OUT TO THE 80% OR
HAVING MORE OF A WORKFORCE
HOUSING?
TO BE EXPECT A MIX OF MODELS OR
DO WE EXPECT PEOPLE TO GO DEEP
AND TRY TO DO A SUBSIDIZED PSH.
IT SEEMS LIKE THEY COULD DO
ANYTHING ON THE SPECTRUM.
AND I WONDER IF THERE IS A
SENSE OF HOW THAT WOULD BE
DISTRIBUTED.
THAT IS PART OF THE CONCERN.
IDEALLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE
AS MUCH OF THIS REGULATION
CHANGE SPUR A LOT MORE
DEVELOPMENT AT THE LOWER END OF
AMI.
AND I THINK THAT IN THE
INTERESTING -- IT WOULD BE
INTERESTING IF THERE IS
ASSESSMENT OF HOW WE THINK THE
SECTOR WILL RESPOND TO THIS
CHANGE.
>> MR. CHAIR, IF I CAN
INTERRUPT REALLY QUICK, I
APOLOGIZE.
I HAVE A HARD STOP AT 11:30.
I WANTED TO GO BUT I WANTED TO
EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR THE
QUESTIONS ASKED AND THE BILLS
IN FRONT OF US.
I WOULD JUST WANT TO BE ON THE
RECORD SAYING THAT I SUPPORT
ALL THE BILLS THAT WE HAVE NOT
YET VOTED ON AND I LOOK FORWARD
TO FULL COUNCIL AND DIRECTOR
ALVARADO, I'M SORRY TO
INTERRUPT YOU AND I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT ADDITIONAL EFFORTS TO
GET MORE HOUSING IN THE
COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY LAND LIKE
THIS WITH IMPORTANT PARTNERS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING YOU
BACK IN COMMITTEE NEXT TIME AND
THANK YOU FOR READJUSTING YOUR
SCHEDULE TO MAKE TIME TODAY.
>> YOU ARE AWESOME.
THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.
DIRECTOR ALVARADO, PLEASE FEEL
FREE TO CONTINUE AT YOUR
CONVENIENCE.
>> THANK YOU.
I WOULD SAY THAT MY CRYSTAL
BALL MIGHT NOT BE ANY BETTER
THAN YOURS ABOUT WHAT MIGHT
HAPPEN TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE
FUTURE.
WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT I WOULD
GENERALLY ANTICIPATE THAT MOST
PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD UNDER
THIS LEGISLATION WOULD SEEK
PUBLIC SUBSIDY BECAUSE THE
INCENTIVE IS NOT THAT VALUABLE
THAT IT PROVIDES SUFFICIENT
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES THAT CAN
BE DRIVEN INTO THE PROJECT FROM
THE VALUE OF THE ADDED CAPACITY
ITSELF.
SO IF PROJECTS SEEK PUBLIC
SUBSIDY, THAT IS WHEN WE GET
INTO THE CONVERSATION OF, WHAT
ARE THE POPULATIONS BEING
SERVED?
THIS IS AGNOSTIC TO WHAT THOSE
POPULATIONS ARE, SO LONG AS
THEY ARE INCOME ELIGIBLE.
AND IT IS REALLY THE FUNDING
PROCESS THAT GOES TO THE OFFICE
OF HOUSING IN COLLABORATION
WITH THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY
PARTNERS THAT THEN DICTATES THE
MIX OF POPULATION.
SUCH AS LOOKING BACKWARDS AT
WHAT WE HAVE DONE, AND I WILL
MENTION PROJECTS THAT I WANT TO
BE REALLY CLEAR TO ANYONE
WATCHING . SO ARE NOT PROJECTS
THAT NECESSARILY NEEDED
ADDITIONAL ZONING CAPACITY BUT
THEY ARE PROJECTS ASSOCIATED
WITH RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
THAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY FUNDED
AT THE OFFICE OF HOUSING.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE A LONG
TRACK RECORD OF FUNDING COMPASS
HOUSING ALLIANCE AT PLACES LIKE
GETHSEMANE LUTHERAN AT SOUTH
LAKE UNION WHICH WAS A
RECONSTRUCTION OF SOME OF THE
SPACE AND EXTREMELY LOW INCOME
HOUSING PRIMARILY AT THAT
LOCATION.
WE HAVE WORKED IN THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT WITH
BELLWETHER AND NOW I'M BLANKING
ON THE CHURCH NAME AND THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT.
MAYBE COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON
CAN HELP ME.
THAT IS A MIXED INCOME
DEVELOPMENTS WITH 30-50% AMI
AND 60% AMI HOUSING UNITS.
>> THE PRESBYTERY --
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SO I GIVE THOSE EXAMPLES TO
SHOW THAT IN MANY CASES, WHAT
WE'RE DOING IS BEING RESPONSIVE
TO THE FAITH ORGANIZATIONS AND
THEIR AMBITIONS AND WE ARE
SUPPORTING THEM WITH SUBSIDY.
IN THIS CASE, 80% AMI GIVES
SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS TO EXAMINE WHAT
POPULATIONS THEY MIGHT WANT TO
SERVE AND THEN THE SUBSIDIZED
PROCESS WOULD MAY BE DRIVE THAT
AFFORDABILITY A LITTLE MORE
DEEP.
I DON'T KNOW, NICK, IF YOU HAVE
ANYTHING TO ADD FROM THE
ANALYSIS OF THE SIZE AND SCALE
OF OPPORTUNITIES THAT EXIST
CURRENTLY.
>> PROBABLY NOT MUCH IN
DETAIL.
THERE IS A WIDE RANGE OF SIZE
OF SITES ON THE ZONES IN WHICH
THEY ARE LOCATED.
AND OF THE ONES THAT WE HAVE
BEEN ENGAGED WITH, AS DANIEL
DESCRIBED, HAVE EXPRESSED SOME
INTEREST, MOST ARE IN MORE OF A
MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED-USE
CONTEXT.
AND SOME OF THE ELIGIBLE SITES
ARE IN SINGLE-FAMILY AS WELL.
>> MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY ASK
ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP OF DIRECTOR
ALVARADO.
>> PLEASE.
>> YOUR RESPONSE NOW ACTUALLY
SPURRED ANOTHER QUICK QUESTION.
WITH THIS PERHAPS PROVIDE ANY
ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE IN
ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THEY
WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO BE
SUBSIDIES FOR THINGS TO PENCIL
OUT?
THE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING CHANGES
THE PAST, DOES NOT PROVIDE AN
ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE THAT MIGHT
NOT HAVE EXISTED PREVIOUSLY?
AND HOW MIGHT THAT INTERACT
WITH THIS POLICY?
BECAUSE THAT MIGHT EVEN HELP A
STEP FURTHER TO INCENTIVIZE
GOING AT A LOWER AMI.
>> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.
I TEND TO THINK THAT THE MORE
WE MAKE IT SIMPLE,
STRAIGHTFORWARD, COST-EFFECTIVE
AND PREDICTABLE TO DEVELOP,
THOSE TAKEN TOGETHER MAKE IT
MORE LIKELY THAT FAITH
ORGANIZATIONS WOULD FOLLOW
THROUGH ON THAT MISSION TO
CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
TAKEN TOGETHER WHEN YOU ARE
REDUCING BARRIERS AROUND DESIGN
REVIEW OR REDUCING BARRIERS
AROUND PURSUING CONTRACT RE-
ZONES AND INSTEAD HAVING SOME
CAPACITY PROVIDED BY THE LAND
USE CODE.
WHEN YOU HAVE TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE, IT MAKES IT LESS
COMPLICATED FOR RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS WHO MIGHT NOT BE
MORE REGULARLY PARTICIPATING IN
THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
I DO THINK THEY WORK TOGETHER
AND IN PART, THAT IS WHAT SHOWS
THAT THIS IS A PARTNERSHIP
BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF HOUSING
AND OPCD AND PARTNERED PVC WITH
SDCI FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS AND ALL THESE
DEFERMENTS WORKING TOGETHER AND
CREATING THESE EFFICIENCIES I
THINK WILL MAYBE CREATE MORE
OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO WANT
TO ENGAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE PROPERTY.
>> THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING
ALL OF MY QUESTIONS.
I PROMISE THAT I HAVE NO MORE.
YIELDING BACK TO YOU, MR.
CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS
TIME?
THANK YOU DANIEL AND THANK YOU
NICK.
JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ALL.
AND THANK YOU, KETIL.
A REMINDER TO ALL COLLEAGUES TO
PLEASE GET YOUR IDEAS TO MR.
FREEMAN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO
THAT WE CAN HAVE THIS AS A
SMOOTH PROCESS.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE
INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL.
WE PLAN TO HOLD THIS ON THE
JUNE 23rd MEETING.
AT THAT MEETING, I PLAN TO ASK
THAT WE SUSPEND THE RULES SO
THAT WE ARE ABLE TO VOTE ON THE
LEGISLATION ON THE SAME DAY
THAT WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING
IN THIS ADVANCED BRIEFING WILL
SERVE AS ONE OF TWO MEETINGS
THAT I LIKE TO HAVE BEFORE
PASSING LEGISLATION.
ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS AT THIS
TIME, COLLEAGUES ABOUT THIS
PLAN?
>> SEE NONE, GREAT.
THANK YOU ALL FOR JOINING US
TODAY.
WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO
ITEMS FIVE THROUGH SEVEN.
GREAT TO SEE YOU AND THANK YOU
FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK ON
BEHALF OF THIS CITY.
>> THE THREE AGENDA ITEMS TO
CLOSE US OUT TODAY ARE ALL
UPDATES TO TECHNICAL CODES AND
WE WILL CONSIDER THEM ALL
TOGETHER.
WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE
ABBREVIATED TITLES OF ALL THREE
BILLS INTO THE RECORD.
>> AGENDA ITEM FIVE, COUNSEL
BILL 120083, AN ORDINANCE
RELATED TO SEATTLE'S
CONSTRUCTION CODES AND ENDING
WITH THE SEATTLE BUILDING CODE
AND ENERGY CODE AND BUILDING
CODE.
>> BILL, COUNSEL BILL 120084,
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAND
DISTURBING ACTIVITY UPDATING
THE GRADING CODE.
>> AND AGENDA ITEMS 7120085,
AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO BOILER
AND STEAM ENGINE OPERATIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
WE HAVE WITH US TODAY MICAH
CHAPELLE, STEVE FRASER AND EDE
COURTNEY WHO IS UNABLE TO JOIN
US TODAY.
WE WANT TO THANK HER FOR HER
WORK ON THIS LEGISLATION.
SDCI, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE
YOURSELF AND REFRESH US ON THE
PROPOSAL WHICH WE HEARD
PREVIOUSLY IN COMMITTEE AT THE
LAST MEETING AND THEN PROVIDE
THE PRESENTATION.
>> SURE.
I WILL BE WALKING THROUGH THE
PRESENTATION.
AND REMIND COMMITTEE MEMBERS AT
THESE I BELIEVE ARE THE LAST
SET OF SO-CALLED CONSTRUCTION
CODES ACCOUNTS WILL BE
CONSIDERING.
AND HAVING TO DO WITH LICENSING
AND FOLKS AND OPERATE THE
BOILERS AND THE STEAM ENGINES.
AND I THINK THIS WILL BE THE
LAST FEW AND THE COUNCIL WILL
BE SET FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL
YEARS UNTIL THE NEXT CYCLE OF
UPDATES.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE MICAH MIGHT
BE FROZEN.
THERE YOU ARE.
>> THERE WE ARE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I AM MICAH CHAPELLE.
I'M THE TECHNICAL CODE
DEVELOPMENT MANAGER FOR SDCI.
WE WILL WALK YOU THROUGH A
QUICK PRESENTATION.
I'M JOINED TODAY BY STEVE
FRASER, THE CHIEF BOILER
INSPECTOR AND EDE COULD NOT BE
HERE TO PARTICIPATE TODAY BUT I
WILL COVER ANYTHING FOR THE
GRADING CODE.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
>> THESE CHANGES ARE BEING
úPROPOSED AND PRESENTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION FOR
PURPOSES OF HELPING PEOPLE
BUILD A SAFE, LIVABLE AND
INCLUSIVE SEATTLE.
WE ARE CAPTURING THAT PURPOSE
BY ACTIVELY PURSUING OUR VALUES
OF EQUITY, RESPECT, QUALITY,
INTEGRITY AND SERVICE.
NEXT SLIDE.
>> TODAY WE ARE GOING THROUGH
THESE UPDATES TO THE GRADIENT
CODE SEEN IN HERE WITH BOILERS
OPERATORSLICENSE LAW UPDATE
AND SOME SEATTLE CONSTRUCTION
CODES.
>> THE INTENT OF THE GRADING
CODE UPDATE IS TO ALIGN 2021
SEATTLE STORM WATER CODE UPDATE
THAT WAS JUST APPROVED BY USE
OF CITY COUNCIL AND NECESSARY
TO COMPLY WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF ECOLOGY REQUIREMENTS AND THE
CLEAN WATER ACT.
EXTENSIVE OUTREACH AND PUBLIC,
AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
PROPOSED UPDATE OCCUR AS PART
OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS DONE
FOR THE 2021 CLEAN WATER CODE.
THE COMMENTS WERE A JOURNALIST
FOR THE MEETINGS.
EXCHANGES WE WILL HIGHLIGHT
TODAY WOULD INCLUDE CURRENT
THRESHOLD REVISIONS,
VERIFICATIONS TO DEFINITIONS
AND MODIFICATIONS TO SOME
EXCEPTIONS.
NEXT SLIDE.
>> AT ONE POINT, THE
STORMWATER GRADING CODE.
SEPARATED AND OVER TIME, THE
REVIEW THRESHOLDS SHIFTED
APART.
THE UPDATE, IT REALIGNS THE
REVIEW THRESHOLDS.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE TABLE,
THE LAND IS SERVING THE
ACTIVITY AREA IN THE 2016 STONE
WATER CODE WITH 750 SQUARE
FEET.
THAT THRESHOLD IS BEING
INCREASED TOO THOUSAND SQUARE
FEET.
AND THEN IN THE 2012 GRADING
CODE, IT WAS A THRESHOLD OF 1
ACRE AND THAT THRESHOLD IS
BEING REDUCED TOO THOUSAND
SQUARE FEET WITH A LAND
DISTURBING PERIOD.
THAT WILL LINE BOTH OF THOSE
CODES.
SO THE NEW REPLACED SURFACE
AREAS, WAS 2016 AND 2021 STORM
WATER CODE AT 750 SQUARE FEET
WHERE THE 2012 GRADING CODE WAS
THAT 2000 SQUARE FEET AND YOU
CAN SEE IN THE TABLE THAT THE
2021 THRESHOLD IS BEING REDUCED
TO 750 SQUARE FEET TO ALIGN
WITH THE STORMWATER CODE.
>>> THANK YOU.
BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I THINK THIS
IS JUST A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE CODES
-- CODE CHANGES BEFORE US ARE
TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE COMPLYING
WITH STATE AND FEDERAL CODE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE MOVING
FORWARD TO, TO ALIGN IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
REQUIREMENT AND CLEAN WATER ACT
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
THIS SLIDE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES
TO US THAT WE ARE CREATING A
UNIFORMED CODE AND BY DOING
THAT, THAT MEANS INCREASED
SEEING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN
THE STORMWATER CODE DRAINAGE
AND MAKING SURE ALL ARE MATCHED
UP.
SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT
OUT AND HIGHLIGHT YOUR GOOD
WORK.
THANK YOU, MICAH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT SLIDE.
>> WE ARE DOING SOME
CLARIFICATIONS IN THE GRADING
CODE AND IT IS NOW BEING
CHANGED TO THE HARD SURFACE.
THAT IS TO ALIGN WITH THE
STORMWATER CODE.
AND THEN WE ARE CHANGING THE
POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS LOCATION
TO VERIFY THAT IT WILL INCLUDE
ANY STATE OR FEDERAL DATABASE
THAT INCLUDES AREAS OF
POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION.
>> ON THE SLIDE, CAN YOU HELP
ME UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE IN
THE DEFINITION BETWEEN
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND HARD
SURFACE?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
IN 2019, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ONE TO TRACK ALL HARD SURFACES.
SO THAT DEFINITION AND TERM WAS
INCLUDED IN THE 2016 STORMWATER
CODE.
SO CHANGING HARD SURFACE IN THE
GRADING CODE FOR THIS UPDATE
WILL ALIGN THE STORMWATER CODE.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS IN A HARD
SURFACE, AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
IS SOMETHING WATER CANNOT GET
THROUGH.
BUT HARD SURFACE, ACTUALLY
WATER CAN GET THROUGH THAT.
SO HE CAN THINK OF AND PERVIOUS
CONCRETE, THERE IS SOME THAT
WILL DRAIN WATER THROUGH IT.
SO THAT IS A HARD SURFACE BUT
IT IS AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
SO IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN
TRACKED AND OF THE PREVIOUS
TERM.
WILL BE ARE MAKING SURE THAT
TOM WILL CAPTURE THOSE TYPES OF
SURFACES THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY WOULD LIKE TO IDENTIFY.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU THAT WAS VERY
HELPFUL.
>> AND THE LAST CHANGES WE
WILL COVER TODAY FOR THIS
GRADING CODE OR MODIFICATIONS
TO SOME EXEMPTIONS WHERE NEW
UTILITY INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS
FOR NEW STORMWATER SYSTEMS WILL
NO LONGER BE EXEMPT FROM THE
REVIEW OF THE PERMIT.
ADDITIONALLY, WE REMOVED THE
EXEMPTION FOR UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANK REMOVAL AND
REPLACEMENT TO ALIGN WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF ECOLOGY.
>> NEXT SLIDE.
WE WILL GET INTO WHAT WE HAVE
DONE FOR THE STORMS -- EXCUSE
ME, THE STEAM BOILER AND
OPERATOR UPDATE.
THIS ORDINANCE WAS LAST UPDATED
IN 2006 IT WAS A LITTLE
OVERDUE.
IN 2018, THIS APPLICATION AND
ISSUANCE PROCESS WAS MOVED TO
THE COMPUTER PLATFORM.
WHAT THIS DID WAS REQUIRED AS
TO DO A REORDERING OF SECTION
16.420.
FOR 22 ACCURATELY CAPTURE THE
PROCESS.
THERE WAS NO REAL CHANGE THERE.
JUST FEAR HIS STEPS TO MODIFY
AND GO ALONG WITH THAT COMPUTER
PLATFORM.
ADDITIONALLY, THE EDITORIAL
CHANGES FOR UPDATING THE
CURRENT LEGISLATIVE FORMAT AND
SWITCHING TO GENERAL LANGUAGE.
ALSO WE HAVE CREATED A DIRECT
PATHWAY FOR ADVANCEMENT TO A
GRADE ONE AND GRADE TWO BOILER
SUPERVISOR.
THIS LEGISLATION ALSO MODIFIES
AN EXISTING TABLE B IN SECTION
6.420.400 THAT CORRECT MISTAKES
THAT OCCURRED IN THE 2006
UPDATE.
ALL THESE CHANGES WERE REVIEWED
AND APPROVED BY THE STEAM
LICENSE ADVISORY BOARD.
NEXT SLIDE.
>> THOSE NUMBERS ARE SHOWN ON
THE SCREEN.
>> THANK YOU.
IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT LAST
SLIDE BRIEFLY, THERE ARE A LOT
OF TECHNICAL CHANGES INCLUDED
IN THIS DENSELY PACKED SLIDE.
I JUST WANT TO CALL THIS OUT AS
AN EXAMPLE FROM YOU.
YOU CAN SHARE THE DIRECT PATH
FOR ADVANCEMENT FOR BOILER
SUPERVISORS.
WHAT WAS THE SITUATION BEFORE
AND WHAT HAVE WE CHANGED IT TO
NOW?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
PREVIOUSLY, THE LANGUAGE
ACTUALLY REQUIRED AN INDIVIDUAL
WHO IS THE SUPERVISOR TO TAKE A
STEP BACK AND CERTIFICATION FOR
ONE YEAR IN ORDER TO TAKE A
STEP FORWARD AND CERTIFICATION.
SO GRADE ONE, YOU HAVE TO STEP
BACK TO A DIFFERENT LICENSE.
AND NOW FOR ONE YEAR.
AND NOW THAT CLARIFIES THAT YOU
DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THAT STEP
BACK AND IT IS JUST A DIRECT
PATH FROM ONE STEP TO THE
OTHER.
>> THANK YOU.
STEVE, PLEASE JUMP IN.
>> LET ME JUMP IN.
GRADE ONE IS ACTUALLY THE
HIGHEST LEVEL OF LICENSE.
SO AS AN EXAMPLE FOR THAT, IF
YOU WERE A GRADE THREE BOILER
SUPERVISOR, TO GO TO A GRADE
TWO SUPERVISOR, YOU WOULD HAVE
TO TAKE A STEP BACK FROM BEING
A SUPERVISOR AND BECOME A
REGULAR GRADE TWO STEAM
ENGINEER FOR A YEAR.
THAT HAS TWO ADVERSE IMPACTS ON
THE LICENSEE'S ABILITY TO
MAINTAIN HIS JOB AND INCOME.
THE OTHER IS THAT IT REDUCES
THE AVAILABLE BOILER
SUPERVISORS TO ASSIST BOILER
OWNERS AND OPERATORS WITH
PROPERLY ATTENDING.
>> VERY HELPFUL.
AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE END
OF YOUR PRESENTATION.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WE HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE.
>> THE LAST THING WE WILL
COVER TODAY IS THE LEGISLATION
CLARIFYING SOME OF THE
REGULATIONS ADOPTING SOME
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT
WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE AND
MAKING SOME TECHNICAL
CORRECTIONS FROM OUR EMISSIONS
WHICH INCLUDE THE TABLE FOR THE
SEATTLE BUILDING CODE, VARIOUS
LANGUAGE.
ONE OF THE ITEMS WILL BE CODE
REFERENCE SECTIONS AND MAKING
SURE THOSE ARE CORRECT.
SO THAT LEGISLATION IS MINOR
AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL NOT HAVE
TOO MANY MORE OF THOSE IN THE
FUTURE.
THAT WILL BE ALL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. AND AGAIN,
THANK YOU TO EDE COURTNEY WHO
COULD NOT BE WITH US TODAY AND
DID A LOT OF REALLY GREAT WORK
ON US.
COLLEAGUES, DO YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS?
I KNOW WE HAD THIS BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE AND THE LAST
COMMITTEE MEETING.
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME BEFORE
US.
I KNOW IT IS DENSE AND EXCITING
INFORMATION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, HE
QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, ANY
QUESTIONS?
>> NO MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
I SPENT PROBABLY ABOUT AN HOUR
AND A HALF OR MORE WITH MICAH,
STEPHEN EDE, GETTING INTO THE
DETAILS OF THIS.
AND IT WAS VERY INTERESTING.
ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW THAT WE
NEED TO GO INTO THAT NOW.
I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION IS, IS
YOUR BACKGROUND STILL LIKE
PENDER RAY OR IS IT A NEW
BACKGROUND?
>> THAT IS A NEW BACKGROUND.
THAT IS IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL
PARK AFTER DOING SOME
FLYFISHING.
>> YOU HAVE GOOD TRAVELS.
I WOULD LOVE TO COME WITH YOU
NEXT TIME.
>> I DO.
I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO
HAVE YOU.
>> I AM IN ALL NOT TOO.
>> STEVE, I ASSUME THAT IS
SMT IN YOUR BACKGROUND?
>> IT IS.
>> THANK YOU FOR COMING IN TO
THE OFFICE TODAY.
AND THIS REOPENING.
I AM EDITORIALIZING.
WE DO HAVE WORK TO ROUND OUT
THE DAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THESE
THREE ITEMS?
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS AND
PEDERSEN SAID NO.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING THE
PASSAGE OF COUNSEL BILL 120083.
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED.
RECOMMENDING THE PASSAGE OF
COUNSEL BILL 1283.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, PLEASE
CALL ROLE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> YES TO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES IT.
MOTION CARRIES.
>> NEXUS COUNSEL BILL 120084.
I MOVE THE COMMITTEE RECOMMEND
PASSAGE OF COUNSEL BILL 120084.
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF THE
BILL IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS.
WILL CLERK PLEASE CALL THE RULE
ON THE PASSAGE OF COUNSEL BILL
120084?
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES, IT.
>> THREE IN FAVOR AN
UNOPPOSED.
>> MOTION CARRIES IT.
MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE NOW
RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNSEL
BILL 120085.
IS VERY 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 ROLE ON THE PASSAGE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> YES IT.
CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> THREE IN FAVOR AND NONE
OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU.
THE MOTION CARRIES.
AND I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM
WITH THE CLERK SINCE WE DID
THOSE THREE IN SUCCESSION THAT
WE HAVE PASSED ALL THREE BILLS
AT THIS TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
>> STEVE, YOU HAVE A HAND UP.
DID YOU WANT TO JUMP IN?
>> WHICH COUNSEL BILL WAS THE
STEAM ENGINEER AND BOILER
OPERATOR LICENSE LAW?
>> THE THIRD.
>> 120085.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I AM PULLING ON MY AGENDA
NOW JUST TO PUT IT ON THE
RECORD THAT WE JUST PASSED
THREE BILLS.
COUNSEL BILL 120083.
ORDINANCE RELATED TO SEATTLE
CONSTRUCTION CODES AMENDING
SECTIONS, MANY SECTIONS.
AND COUNSEL BILL 120084,
ORDINANCE RELATED TO LAND
DISTURBING ACTIVITY AND AN
ORDINANCE COUNSEL BILL 120085,
ORDINANCE RELATED TO STEAM
ENGINE OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS.
THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES AND THANK
YOU STEVE, EDE AND MICAH FOR
ALL OF YOUR WORK ON THESE
UPDATES.
IS A GREAT WAY TO WRAP UP
BUILDING SAFETY MONTH.
>> GREAT TO SEE YOU ALL.
THESE BILLS WILL BE BACK BEFORE
THE FULL COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE
1st.
ANY ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE
ORDER, COUNCILMEMBERS OR
COLLEAGUES?
>> SEEING NONE, THIS
CONCLUDES THE WEDNESDAY MAY 26
TH, 2021 MEETING OF THE LAND
USE AND NEIGHBORHOODS
COMMITTEE.
THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE JUNE
23rd STARTING AT 9:30 A.M.
THANK YOU ALL FOR ATTENDING.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.