>>> THE FEBRUARY 23rd LAND USE
COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> [ ROLL BEING CALLED ]
>> THREE PRESENT.
THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES JOINED THE MEETING,
I WILL MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT, WE
DO HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA TODAY, THE CHAIR'S
REPORT, THREE ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA, PUBLIC HEARING AND
BRIEF DISCUSSION ON COUNCIL
BILL 120266 WITH NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL ZONES.
AND BRIEFING, DISCUSSION, FOR
ANNE CLARK FILE 314441 WITH
CONTRACT REZONE OF ROOSEVELT WAY
NORTHEAST.
AND VOTE ON COUNCIL BILL 12
ZOOS 275 WITH CLERK FILE 31141.
BEFORE WE BEGIN, IF THERE IS NO
OBJECTION, THE AGENDA WILL BE
ADOPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
I WILL TAKE THIS MOMENT WITH
THE CHAIR'S REPORT, WE HAVE
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON WITH US NOW
, I WANT TO TAKE MOMENT DURING
THE CHAIR'S REPORT TO TALK
ABOUT THE TREE ORDINANCE.
THE DECISION WAS PUBLISHED LAST
THURSDAY, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN AND MANY OTHERS ARE
VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS , SDCI
HAS BEEN INVITED AND I HOPE
THEY COME TO THE NEXT COMMITTEE
MEETING TO GIVE QUARTERLY TREE
REPORT BRIEFING FOR US TO
BETTER UNDERSTAND FROM THEIR
PERSPECTIVE THIS PACKAGE OF
BILLS AND FOR THE PUBLIC, THIS
PACKAGE INCLUDES TWO DIRECTOR'S
RULES AND TWO ORDINANCES.
ONE OF THE ORDINANCES ISABEL
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN DRAFTED
I GLADLY COSPONSORED ABOUT
ARBORIST REGISTRATION AND THERE
IS ANOTHER ORDINANCE THAT DEALS
WITH MORE OF THE POLICY OF THAT
MINUTIA. WE ARE GRATEFUL TO
HAVE THESE FOUR WINGS OF POLICY
TO PASS THROUGH AS THEY GO
THROUGH THE POLICY PROCESS
WHETHER THEY ARE SEPA APPEALS
OR NOT, TAKE THE BUILDUP OF
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
AT THE NEXT COMMITTEE, INVITED
SDCI AND HOPEFULLY JOIN US, THE
COMMITTEE FOLLOWS THAT, TAKE UP
AND PASS IF WE ACHIEVE A VOTE
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE TO PASS THE
REGISTRATION BILL AND SEND THAT
DIRECTLY BEFORE COUNCIL.
FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC, VERY
EXCITED EVEN THOUGH MAYBE NOT
SCREAMING, WE ARE VERY EXCITED
TO HAVE THESE POLICIES BEFORE
US AND BE ABLE TO TAKE
MEANINGFUL ACTION ON THEM.
WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE INTO
PUBLIC COMMENT.
ITEM C ON THE AGENDA, THERE
SHOULD NOT BE ANYONE SIGNED UP
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY AS
AGENDA ITEM 1 HAS ITS OWN
PUBLIC HEARING AND 2 AND 3 ARE
QUASIJUDICIAL.
I'M NOT SEEN ANYONE IS SIGNED
UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
SEEING AS WE HAVE NEW SPEAKERS
SIGNED UP NOR REMOTELY PRESENT,
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS CLOSED.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT
AGENDA ITEM.
IF I DID THAT WRONG, PLEASE LET
ME KNOW.
WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM D, ITEMS
OF BUSINESS.
ITEM 1 IS COUNCIL BILL 120266,
THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM, EXPANDS
THE TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS. PLEASE READ THE TITLE
INTO THE RECORD.
>> COUNCIL BILL 120266 IN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAND USE
AND ZONING AMENDING THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW FOR
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL OR TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN THE IN C3-
200 AND THE AND C-3 P-200
ZONES.
>> WERE JOINED BY JIM HOLMES
AND LISH WHITSON OF COUNCIL
NECK CENTRAL STAFF , PLEASE
INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND KICK US
OFF.
>> LISH WHITSON WITH COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF.
>> JIM HOLMES WITH OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT.
>> TAKE IT AWAY, JIM, DO YOU
WANT TO LEAD OR LISH , DO YOU
WANT TO BRIEF OR LET JIM GO?
>> LET'S LET JIM GO, IT IS
PRETTY SIMPLE LEGISLATION AND
HIS PRESENTATION SHOULD GO
GREAT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THIS WAS THE FIRST TO
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
. WITH THIS ORDINANCE WOULD DO
IS PROVIDE FOR TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WITHIN THE
IN C3-200 OR IN C3 P-200 ZONES.
ZONES EXCLUSIVELY LOCATED IN
FIRST HILL CAPITOL HILL URBAN
CENTER, WHEN DESIGNATED
LANDMARK IN THE AREA, THERE ARE
A COUPLE OTHER POTENTIAL
LANDMARKS.
THIS ORDINANCE WOULD ALLOW
BUILDINGS TO REACH A HEIGHT OF
350 FEET THROUGH THE USE OF
DISINCENTIVES.
HEIGHT INCENTIVE FOR ADJACENT
LAND OTHER ZONES IS 400 FEET
AND 200 FEET.
THIS INCENTIVE IS CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE DOWNTOWN AND UPTOWN
SOUTH LAKE UNION, UNIVERSITY
DISTRICT AND HIGH RIGHT ZONES.
>> REALLY BRIEFLY, I WANT THE
VIEWING PUBLIC TO KNOW,
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES HAS
JOINED US SO WE ARE JOINED BY
VICE CHAIR MORALES,
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN ,
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON AND
MYSELF.
>> AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP,
THE GOLDENROD COLOR ALLOWS
LANDMARK PRESERVATION.
THE BROWN AREA IS THE HIGH-RISE
ZONE, ALLOWED 440 FEET.
THE BLUE AREA IS THE MAJOR
INSTITUTION OVERLAY ZONES.
THE ONE MOST RELEVANT TO THIS
IS THE MEDICAL CENTER, MIO THAT
USES THE NC3-200 AS UNDERLYING
ZONE . LANDMARK TDR IS
CURRENTLY PERMITTED IN THE
BROWN ZONE, AS I JUST SAID.
>> JIM, SORRY TO INTERRUPT, I
REALIZE AS WE PREPPED THIS
BRIEFING, I WAS REMISS SOME OF
THE COLLEAGUES ON THIS
COMMITTEE WERE NOT ON THE
COMMITTEE LAST YEAR WHEN WE DID
TDR, MAYBE GIVE US 30-SECOND
OVERVIEW ON TRANSFERABLE
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.
>> RIGHT.
BUT THIS BILL WOULD DO IS FOR
LANDMARK STRUCTURE, IF THERE IS
AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
FOR COMMERCIAL AREA OR UNUSED
RESIDENTIAL FOR TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, THEY COULD
TRANSFER THE UNDEVELOPED FLOOR
AREA BY PRESERVING THE LANDMARK
TO ANOTHER SITE WHICH WOULD
ALLOW THE OTHER SITE TO DEVELOP
PROJECTS ABOVE THE EXISTING
HEIGHT LIMIT OF 200 FEET.
THEY WOULD PURCHASE THE
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FROM THE
LANDMARK AND THE LANDMARK WOULD
RECORD A COVENANT RUNNING WITH
THE DEED AND AGREEMENT WITH THE
DEPARTMENT NEIGHBORHOODS FOR
ONGOING MAINTENANCE,
REHABILITATION OF THE LANDMARK.
>> EXCELLENT.
IN SHORT, WE TRANSFER THE
ABILITY TO BUILD THOSE FLOORS
THAT CANNOT BE BUILT AND THOSE
HELP SUPPORT AND PRESERVE THE
LANDMARK.
>> CORRECT.
THIS BILL RELIES ON EXISTING
PROVISIONS AND INCENTIVE ZONING
CHAPTER 23.58 A. IT REQUIRES A
SITE AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO
ESTABLISH HOW MUCH FLOOR AREA
RECEIVING IN THE SITE,
PURCHASING THE DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS CAN TRANSFER FROM THE
LANDMARK OR THE SENDING SITE.
IT ESTABLISHES THE PROCEDURES
TO CALCULATE THE FLOOR AREA
THAT CAN BE TRANSFERRED FROM
THE LANDMARK SITE.
IT REQUIRES LANDMARK SCULPTURES
BE REHABILITATED AND MAINTAINED
AS REQUIRED BY AGREEMENT BY THE
DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOODS.
IN THIS CASE, IT ESTABLISHES
THESE ZONES OF BASE HEIGHT OF
200 FEET AS EXISTENT WITH
HEIGHT LIMIT, ESTABLISHES BASE
F.A.R.
CURRENTLY ALLOWED WHICH IS THE
CURRENTLY ALLOWED F.A.R.
WHICH IS 8.25 FOR COMMERCIAL
STRUCTURES AND UP TO 12 FOR
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, IT
LIMITS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
FLOOR AREA TRANSFERRED TO
110,000 SQUARE FEET.
AND IT SETS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
A RECEIVING SITE MAY ACHIEVE
THROUGH THIS METHOD 350 FEET.
IT LIMITS THE TRANSFERS TO
SENDING AND RECEIVING SITES ON
THE SAME LOT, SAME BLOCK,
EXCUSE ME.
>> SAY THAT ONE PART ONE MORE
TIME, I THINK THAT IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT FEATURE.
>> FOR THE CASE OF THE SORRENTO
HOTEL, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO
SEND, TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT
FLOOR AREA TO AN ADJACENT SITE
ON THE SAME BLOCK IN THE SAME
ZONE.
THAT IS THE GEOGRAPHIC LIMITS
OF HOW TRANSFERS CAN OCCUR.
>> WHEN WERE TALKING ABOUT IT
BEFORE COMMITTEE, YOU MENTIONED
A COUPLE OTHER --
>> THERE IS THE POTENTIAL
LANDMARK SURVEYED, THE REASON I
BROUGHT UP THE MIO, THE SWEDISH
FIRST HILL MIO, POTENTIAL
LANDMARK CURRENTLY LIMITED BY
THE MIO TO HEIGHT OF 70 FEET.
COULD RELY ON THESE PROVISIONS
BUT TO MAKE PRACTICAL USE, IT
WOULD REQUIRE AMENDMENT FOR THE
MASK REQUIREMENT MIO.
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN FURTHER DOWN
MEDICINE AT THE FREEWAY HAS NOT
BEEN SURVEYED BUT IT HAS BEEN
SUGGESTED IT MAY BE ELIGIBLE
FOR LANDMARK STATUS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COLLEAGUES, I WANT TO OPEN
IT UP FOR QUESTIONS FROM YOU, I
MIGHT HAVE A FEW OF MINE, I
HAVE COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN ,
LISH, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO
ADD ?
>> NO, I THINK THE
COUNCILMEMBER QUESTIONS.
>> RIGHT.
CONSUL MEMBER PEDERSEN, TAKE
OVER.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS.
THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, I DON'T
THINK YOU ANSWERED THIS, HOW
WHERE THE MAPPED AREAS
DETERMINED?
>> RIGHT.
WE RELIED ON THE ZONES.
THE CHAPTER OF CODE OF CENTRAL
ZONING CHAPTER ESTABLISHES
PROCEDURES BUT THEN REQUIRES
THE ABILITY TO USE THOSE
PROCEDURES BE CALLED OUT IN THE
ZONE, THAT IS WHAT THIS DOES.
NC3-200 ZONE, THAT IS WHY IT
IS LIMITED TO THAT ZONE.
>> FOOT BACK TO SITE THREE, I
THINK THAT WILL HELP.
>> SURE.
THE GOLDENROD COLOR, THAT IS
THE NC3-200 , NC3P-200 ZONE.
THAT IS THE AREA AND THE
SORRENTO HOTEL IS INTERESTED IN
USING THIS WEAR THAT HOTEL IS
LOCATED IS RIGHT THERE.
YOU CAN CURRENTLY DO THIS,
TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
WITHIN THE HIGH-RISE ZONE WHICH
IS THE BROWN AREA, THAT IS
PROVIDED FOR IN THAT CHAPTER OF
THE CODE.
THIS EXTENDS IT TO THE NC3-200
ZONE .
>> OTHER LANDMARK PENDING, IS
THERE ANOTHER PENDING BESIDES
SORRENTO?
>> NOT AT THIS POINT, NO.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> I CAN SEE LISH WITH HIS HAND
UP, THERE ARE SOME THAT COULD
THAT ARE BEING SURVEYED THOUGH,
FOR LANDMARK.
>> JUST TO PROVIDE MORE CONTEXT
ON THE NC3-200 ZONE , THIS IS
THE ONLY ZONE, THE ONLY AREA IN
THE CITY WHERE THIS ZONE IS
MAPPED.
THIS IS THE DENSEST
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE IN
THE CITY AND IS ONLY FOUND IN
THIS SECTION OF FIRST HILL
ALONG MADISON STREET.
>> GREAT.
COLLEAGUES?
VICE CHAIR MORALES, PLEASE TAKE
IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU.
I'M PLAYING A LITTLE BIT OF
CATCH-UP HERE, I AM CURIOUS
ABOUT WHY, WHY THE TRANSFER
ONLY ALLOWED ON THE SAME BLOCK
RATHER THAN SOMEWHERE
THROUGHOUT THE AREA THAT IS
ZONED THAT HAS SIMILAR ZONING?
>> IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO DEFINE
THE AREA TIGHTLY.
IN OTHER AREAS, IT IS MORE
BROADLY THROUGHOUT THE ZONE, WE
WERE TRYING TO TARGET
SPECIFICALLY WHERE THE
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS WOODLAND.
>> IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THE
INTENT OR REASONABLY THE INTENT
WOULD BE FOR THE RIGHTS FOR BOTH
THE HOTEL ITSELF AND PARKING
GARAGE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO SOME
PRIOR --
>> NO, THE RIGHTS WOULD BE
TRANSFERRED TO THE OREGON
GARAGE WHICH WOULD BE
REDEVELOPED.
>> FROM THE HOTEL.
>> OKAY, THAT PART SOMEHOW
ESCAPED ME.
THANK YOU.
>> SURE.
>> A LITTLE BIT OF ADDED
VERIFICATION, THAT ONE IS
INSTANCE THESE OTHER LANDMARKS
UNDER SURVEY BECOME LANDMARKS,
THERE ARE OTHERS TO DO THIS AS
WELL.
THIS BILL IS NOT FOR THE
SORRENTO HOTEL SOLELY, THIS IS
FOR THIS ENTIRE ZONE BECAUSE
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
PARCELS TO MEET THIS METRIC.
GOOD QUESTION, VICE CHAIR.
CONSUL MEMBER NELSON, I CAN SEE
ON VIDEO, ANY QUESTIONS, GOOD
TO GO. I GUESS WORK JIM AND
LISH, DO WE HAVE COMMUNITY
GROUPS CURRENTLY EXPRESSING
CONCERN OR OPPOSITION TO THESE
CHANGES?
>> DURING THE SEPA PERIOD, WE
RECEIVED A LETTER FROM HISTORIC
SEATTLE, WHILE THEY ARE
GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE
APPROACH AND EXTENDING IT TO
THE ZONE, THEY HAVE CONCERNS
REDEVELOPMENT ON THAT
PARTICULAR BLOCK COULD ENCOURAGE
REDEVELOPMENT OF ONE OF THESE
TWO APARTMENT BUILDINGS
ADJACENT TO IT IN THE BROWN,
WHICH ARE ALSO IDENTIFIED IN
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEYS AS
POTENTIAL LANDMARKS.
AND THEN WE RECEIVED A LETTER
YESTERDAY FROM HISTORIC SEATTLE
, COUNCILMEMBERS RECEIVED IT TOO
, WASHINGTON HISTORIC SOCIETY
SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.
>> ADDING CLARIFICATION TO THE
RECORD, THE BROWN AREA, AREA IN
BROWN ALREADY HAS TDR PROGRAM,
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
IS IT NOT SPECIFIED WITH
HISTORIC WILL BE LIKE THIS ONE?
>> NO, IT IS A LANDMARK TDR.
>> GREAT, HELPFUL.
CAN YOU SHARE, DO YOU KNOW WHY
THE INITIAL TDR PROGRAM WAS
EXCLUDED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL ZONE?
>> I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR
THAT.
I KNOW WE HAVE BEEN
IMPLEMENTING IT AS WE HAVE GONE
THROUGH, SOUTH LAKE UNION, THE
U DISTRICT AND UPTOWN AS WE
HAVE GONE THROUGH
NEIGHBORHOODS, WE HAVE ADDED.
>> THE USAGE VERY LIMITED IN
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONES,
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONES
WE ONLY HAVE IT IN THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT.
>> COLLEAGUES, WE ARE DOING
PUBLIC HEARING TODAY AND THIS
WILL BE BACK AT OUR NEXT
COMMITTEE MEETING, DOES ANYONE
HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW
OR SHOULD WE BRING IT TO PUBLIC
HEARING?
SEEN NO QUESTIONS, WE WILL MOVE
IT TO PUBLIC HEARING.
BEFORE WE OPEN REMOTE PUBLIC
HEARING, I ASKED EVERYONE
PLEASE BE PATIENT AS WE
CONTINUE TO OPERATE THIS NEW
SYSTEM OF REAL TIME AND
NAVIGATE THROUGH THE INEVITABLE
GROWING PAINS, CONTINUOUSLY
LOOKING FOR WAYS TO FINE-TUNE
THE PROCESS ALONG FOR
ADDITIONAL MEETINGS OF PUBLIC
PURCHASE THE PATIENT IN COUNCIL
MEETING.
MODERATE PUBLIC HEARING IN THE
FOLLOWING MANNER EACH SPEAKER
GIVEN TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK.
I WILL: ONE SPEAKER AT A TIME
IN THE ORDER THEY REGISTERED ON
THE COUNCIL WEBSITE.
IF YOU HAVE NOT YET REGISTERED
AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, GO TO
THE WEBSITE ON THE WEBSITE
SEATTLE.GOV AND THE LINK IS
LISTED ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
ONCE I CALL SPEAKER NAMES,
MICROPHONE AND AUTOMATIC
PROMPTED THE UNMUTED, IT IS
THEIR TURN TO SPEAK.
PLEASE BEGIN SPEAKING BY
STATING YOUR NAME AND ITEM YOU
ARE ADDRESSING.
PUBLIC, MUST RELATE TO COUNCIL
BILL 120266, IF YOU HAVE
COMMENTS ABOUT SOMETHING NOT ON
TODAY'S AGENDA FOR THIS PUBLIC
HEARING, YOU CAN ALWAYS PROVIDE
WRITTEN COMMENTS BY EMAILING MY
OFFICE.
SPEAKERS WILL HEAR THE TIME, 10
SECONDS LEFT OF ALLOTTED TIME.
WANT TO HEAR THE CHIME, WRAP UP
PUBLIC COMMENT.
THE SPEAKER'S MICROPHONE WILL
BE MUTED.
ONCE YOU HAVE COMPLETED YOUR
PUBLIC,, WE ASK DISCONNECT THE
LINE AND IF YOU PLAN TO
CONTINUE FOLLOWING, PLEASE DO
SO VIA THE SEATTLE CHANNEL OR
OTHER DISNEY OPTIONS.
LISTED ON THE AGENDA, PUBLIC
HEARING ON COUNCIL BILL 120266
IS NOW OPEN AND WE WILL BEGIN
WITH THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE
LIST, THE FIRST AND ONLY
SPEAKER TODAY IS JESSICA.
WELCOME. PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY.
>> RIGHT.
I BELIEVE I'M UNMUTED, CAN YOU
HEAR?
>> WE CAN.
GREAT TO HEAR YOU.
>> GREAT TO BE WITH YOU.
THIS IS JESSICA. WE REPRESENT
THE OWNERS OF THE SORRENTO, I
WANT TO THANK CONSUL MEMBERS
FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION OF THIS
IMPORTANT BILL AND I HAVE
EMAILED ALL OF YOU RIGHT NOW, A
FEW MINUTES AGO, THREE COMMENT
LETTERS WE THINK ARE REALLY
IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO READ IF
YOU CAN'T BE FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION IN A COUPLE OF
WEEKS ON THE VOTE ON THOSE
BILL.
THE FIRST IS FROM THE FIRST
HILL IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS BILL, THE
SECOND IS FROM VIRGINIA MASON,
NEARBY NEIGHBOR ON FIRST HILL
ALSO SUPPORTIVE OF THE BILL.
AND THE THIRD, ALREADY
MENTIONED, IS FROM THE
WASHINGTON TRUST FOR THE
WASHINGTON HISTORIC TRUST FROM
CHRIS MOORE.
VERY IMPORTANT THAT THIS BILL
ALLOWS THE SORRENTO TO REALIZE
THE BENEFIT OF HISTORIC
PRESERVATION BY FOLLOWING IT
TDR ONE DAY.
WE APPRECIATE WORKING WITH JIM
HOLMES ON THIS AND I THINK HIS
LIMITED AND CONTROLLED APPROACH
WHERE THE ADDITIONAL COULD BE
TRANSFERRED JUST DOWN THE BLOCK,
WE KNOW WHERE IT WOULD GO FOR
THIS AND SOME FUTURE AND MARK
ALSO IN THE AND SEE 3 ZONE AND
CREATE TDR ONE DAY.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE WORKING
WITH STAFF ON THIS AND
APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT OF
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ON THIS
VERY ODD, LIMITED, NC3-200
ZONE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, JESSICA.
ERIC, IAN, CAN YOU PREFER THERE
NO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
REGISTRANTS FOR THIS PUBLIC
HEARING?
>> CONFIRMED, THEIR ART NO MORE
COMMENTERS FOR COMMENTING.
>> THANK YOU.
THAT WAS THE LAST SPEAKER
REMOTELY PRESENT TO SPEAK AT
THIS PUBLIC HEARING ON COUNCIL
BILL 120266 IS NOW CLOSE.
THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO
PROVIDED COMMENT TODAY.
COLLEAGUES, AS I SAID, THIS
LEGISLATION BACK BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON MARCH 9 MEETING
FOR VOTE.
AND THEN WE SEND IT TO FULL
COUNCIL.
COLLEAGUES, IF YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS OR AMENDMENTS YOU
WOULD LIKE TO BRING, PLEASE DO
SO WITH MY OFFICE AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE AND IT WILL BE BACK
FOR THE NEXT COMMITTEE.
ITEM 2, FILE 314441, CONTRACT
THREE ZONE OF NORTHGATE.
PLEASE READ THE ABBREVIATED
TITLE INTO THE RECORD.
>> FILE 314441 APPLICATION OF
WALLACE PRETTIES PARK AT
NORTHGATE LLC FOR CONTRACT
RESENT AT A SITE LOCATED AT
10735 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST
FROM LOW RISE 3 WITH M
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
SUFFIX TO MIDRISE WITH M1 MHA
SUFFIX.
>> THANK YOU.
WE ARE JOINED BY KITTLE FREEMAN
OF COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
CAN YOU GIVE US NEW
INFORMATION, OUTSTANDING ITEMS
FOR THE PARTIES TO COMPLETE
BEFORE FINAL PASSAGE, ANY
UPDATES AND A BRIEF REFRESHER
PLEASE.
>> SURE.
THOSE ITEMS ARE 95% THERE, I
WILL POINT YOU TO THE MATERIALS
THAT YOU HAVE FOR CLERK FILE
314441, COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS
TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE
BACKGROUND AND WALKED HER A
COUPLE DECISION DOCUMENTS HERE
AND PROBABLY NEED TO READ
COUNCIL BILL 120275 INTO THE
RECORD.
FEBRUARY 9, THE COMMITTEE
BRIEFED AND HAD INITIAL
DISCUSSION ON APPLICATION BY
WALLACE PROPERTIES, FIVE ACRES
IN SIZE AT THE EASTERN EDGE OF
THE NORTH GATE URBAN CENTER,
THE RECOUNT SUPPOSED TO BE FROM
ALERT THREE ON WITH MIDRISE WITH
AFFORDABILITY SUFFIX.
MAY BE I WILL SHARE MY SCREEN
BRIEFLY SO YOU ALL CAN NAVIGATE
THROUGH WHAT IS ON THE AGENDA.
THIS IS THE MEMO.
DATED FEBRUARY 22, YESTERDAY,
THERE ARE COUPLE ATTACHMENTS TO
THE MEMO, I WILL GO THROUGH
WHAT THEY ARE AND GO TO THE
STATUS OF ONE OF THEM.
DECISION DOCUMENT WE WILL GET
TO IN A MINUTE TO DESCRIBE WHAT
IT DOES WITH THE DECISION
DOCUMENT WOULD GRANT THE REZONE
APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS
THAT ARE IN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF
, THAT WOULD BE THE PETITION BY
THE FULL COUNCIL BASED ON
RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEE AND
ALSO ANOTHER ITERATION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL COVENANT, WE
TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE
PREVIOUS MEETING, RECOMMENDS
SDCI ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICALLY
AREA RECORDED PRIOR TO FULL
COUNCIL ACTION SO THIS IS THE
LATEST ITERATION OF THAT AND
USES THE SDCI TEMPLATE AND HAS
BEEN MASSAGED FOR THIS
PARTICULAR PURPOSE TO REQUIRE,
RESTRICT ACTIVITY IN THE
COVENANT AREA BUT ALSO ALLOW FOR
, THERE IS A WORD I'M LOOKING
HERE, IT IS ESCAPING ME,
RESTORATION AND THAT COVENANT
AREA WITH DEVELOPMENT SO THIS
HAS, EXPECT TO SEE COVENANT
WHICH HAS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
THE COVENANT AREA AS WELL AS
THE SURVEY SHOWING THE COVENANT
AREA WHICH IS SOUTHEAST CORNER.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
MATERIALS AND I WILL MOVE ON TO
REFRESHING YOUR MEMORY ABOUT
THE REZONE APPLICATION ITSELF.
>> THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES, VICE CHAIR MORALES,
PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON.
>> THANK YOU, I HAVE A
QUESTION, MAYBE, IN THE MEMO,
IT INDICATED THE NORTH AND SOUTH
SITE SHALL DESIGNATE 20% FOR
MFTE, BUT THEN I'M READING ON
THE THIRD PAGE OF THE ATTACHMENT
, THE NORTH AND SOUTH, THAT IS
REALLY HARD TO SAY, NORTH AND
SOUTH SITE SHALL COMPLY AND
HAVE THE GOAL OF PROVIDING 20%
WHICH TO ME FEELS A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT THAN IT SHALL PROVIDE
20%.
>> YES, THANK YOU, THAT IS A
GREAT QUESTION.
THE CHALLENGES THE APPLICANT
HAS NOT APPLIED FOR MATTHEW'S
PERMANENT DEVELOPMENT ON THESE
SITES.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO
REDEVELOPMENT THE SITE WITH
THREE PHASES.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LAW WILL
BE AT THE TIME THE APPLICANT
APPLIES THOSE DEVELOPMENT
PERMITS.
THE MFT PROGRAM IS A TERM
LIMITED PROGRAM, IT HAS TO BE
RENEWED PERIODICALLY BY THE
COUNCIL.
CURRENT ITERATION WILL EXPIRE
DECEMBER 31 2023, IF THEY DO
NOT MAKE APPLICATION BEFORE
DECEMBER 21, 2023, WE DO NOT
KNOW WHAT THE LAW WILL BE.
INSTEAD, WE MODIFIED THE
CONDITION, THEY HAVE TO COMPLY
WITH MFTE, WHATEVER IT LOOKS
LIKE AT THE TIME , THE
APPLICANT STATED INTENT
PROVIDING 20% OF RESIDENTIAL
UNITS ON SITE, MEETING
AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS.
THAT IS THE WAY WE ADDRESS THE
FACT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LAW
WILL BE, IN THE FUTURE WHEN
THEY DO APPLY, WE CANNOT ALLOW
THEM TO LOCK THEMSELVES INTO
SOME PROVISIONS OF CURRENT MFTE
PROGRAM WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE
DEVELOPED PROPOSAL.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED SOLUTION
TO THAT.
LET ME POINT THE LANGUAGE, LET
ME SHOW MY SCREEN LOOKING AT
THE LANGUAGE COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES FLAGGED HERE.
THIS IS THE FINDING AND
CONCLUSION DECISION DOCUMENT AS
IT PROVIDES LANGUAGE,
STRIKETHROUGH CONDITION NUMBER
THREE, IS EVERYONE SEEING THAT?
>> MM-HMM.
>> OKAY.
SO, MFTE EXPIRES MAYBE 12
YEARS, IT WILL BE DIFFERENT,
THE PERCENTAGE WILL BE
DIFFERENT, WHATEVER IT LOOKS
LIKE AFTER 2023 IS WHAT THIS
WOULD NEED TO COMPLY WITH
DEPENDING ON WHAT IS PROPOSED.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
THEY COULD APPLY SOONER FOR
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ONE OF
THE PHASES IN WHICH CASE THEY
MAY LOCK INTO THE CURRENT
PROGRAM.
NOT KNOWING WHEN THEY WILL
APPLY, THIS IS THE LANGUAGE TO
ADDRESS THAT.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> MM-HMM.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS.
KETIL, FOLLOWING UP ON THIS
QUESTION ABOUT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, SDCI MEMO ATTACHED TO
HEARING EXAMINER'S RULING
INDICATES THERE ARE 148 HOUSING
UNITS CURRENTLY THAT ARE BELOW
MARKET.
>> YEAH, ABOUT 70% OR 90% AMI.
>> OKAY.
WE ARE SEEING HERE THEY WILL
HAVE THE GOAL OF PROVIDING 20%
OF HOUSING UNITS THAT MEET
AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS WITH
MFTE.
AND WHAT WITH THE 20% BE, ISN'T
THAT ONLY 100 UNITS?
>> NO, AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSALS MAY LOOK LIKE.
WE DO KNOW THE GENERAL THINKING
, A LOT OF THIS I THINK IS
LOOKING AT 10, THE APPLICANT
REZONE ANALYSIS, WE NOTE FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT IS LIKELY GOING TO
BE SOMEWHERE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD OF 1000 UNITS,
THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE IMAGINING
WILL HAPPEN OVER THE COURSE OF
MANY YEARS OF REDEVELOPING THE
SITES.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF
AFFORDABILITY COMPONENTS.
ONE IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF MHA, ASSUMING
IT IS 1000 UNITS UNDER M1
REQUIREMENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR
PART OF TOWN, THE APPLICANT
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 9%
OF UNITS.
>> THAT IS ABOUT 100, 90.
>> THAT IS CLOSE.
THE REMAINING OF THE AFFORDABLE
UNITS WOULD COME FROM MFTE,
ANOTHER 200 POTENTIALLY
DEPENDING ON WHAT THE PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS ARE AT THE TIME OF
THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED.
>> THE MHA REQUIREMENT WOULD BE
WHAT, 60% AMI?
>> YEAH, 60% AMI.
>> AND MFTE IS DIFFERENT AMI
BASED ON UNIT SIZES AND SUCH,
THAT NATURAL OCCURRING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LIKE YOU
SAID, 70 TO 90% AMI, MHA WOULD
BE 60% PLUS THE MFT UNIT WHICH
WOULD BE A RANGE OF, I CAN'T
MEMBER, 70 TO 90% AMI FOR MFT.
>> AND LOWER, IT DEPENDS ON THE
UNIT SIZES AND NUMBER OF THE
DREAMS.
>> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT THE TRADE-OFF IS FOR LOW
INCOME HOUSING BECAUSE, I
APPRECIATE THE LEVEL OF DETAIL
WITH THIS ANALYSIS SO WE CAN
SEE IT CAN BE EQUIVALENT OR
BETTER POTENTIALLY THAN WHAT IT
IS TODAY.
>> YEAH.
IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW MANY
UNITS ARE ULTIMATELY DEVELOPED.
AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THE
APPLICANT'S' CURRENT PLANS,
SOMEWHAT OVER 1000, I THINK 1100
IS IN THE RECORD, INDICATING
WHAT THEIR INTENT IS FOR
REDEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE.
IF THAT HOLDS, THERE WOULD BE
MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS ON SITE
IN THE FUTURE THAN THERE
CURRENTLY ARE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I LOVE THOSE FINE POINTS,
KETIL.
>> NO PROBLEM.
THE INTEREST AND REFRESHING
YOUR MEMORY AND FOLKS FOLLOWING
ALONG OUT IN THE PUBLIC, I WILL
REMIND FOLKS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
THE APPLICATION, THE MAP OF
WHERE IT IS.
PROPOSED REZONE IS ON THE
NORTHGATE URBAN CENTER,
PROPOSAL TO REZONE THE SITE
FROM MR M1, COMBINED SITE IS
ABOUT FIVE ACRES.
APPLICATION DOES NOT INCLUDE
MATTHEWS PERMITS FOR
DEVELOPMENT, THOSE WILL COME IN
THE FUTURE.
SDCI ISSUED SEPA DETERMINATION
AND INITIALLY APPROVED THE
APPLICATION IN SEPTEMBER.
THERE WAS KETIL APPEAL WHICH
WAS DISMISSED WITH EXAMINERS IN
OCTOBER.
THE HEARING HAVING PUBLIC
HEARING AS WITH EVERY CONTRACT
REZONE, COUNCIL DELEGATED
AUTHORITY TO THE HEARING ZONE
ON CONTRACT REZONE'S AND THAT
WAS HELD OCTOBER 7 AND THE
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL ON
DECEMBER 3. A COUPLE OF MAP ON
WHERE THE SITES ARE AND WHAT
THE ECA CONDITIONS ARE,
ENVIRONMENTAL EAKLY CRITICALLY
AREA, THE SITES AT THE EASTERN
EDGE OF NORTHGATE WITHIN THE
URBAN CENTER AND THE SITES ARE
LOCATED PRETTY CLOSE TO THE
THORNTON CREEK CORRIDOR, THEY
ARE GREEN AREAS INCLUDING THE
BEAVER POND NATURAL AREA.
A COUPLE OF VIEWS OF THE SITES,
THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE, THE
SOUTH SITE, SEPARATED BY
DRIVEWAY SURFACING PROPERTY,
SANDWICHED BETWEEN, APPROXIMATE
TO THE SITES. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
MAY INCLUDE THREE PHASES AND UP
TO 1100 OR MORE UNITS ON THE
SITES.
THE HEARING DID HAVE
CONDITIONS, THOSE CONDITIONS
CONCLUDE SUBMITTING SIGNED AND
RECORDED ECA COVENANT PRIOR TO
FULL COUNCIL ACTION AS WELL AS
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF MASTER USE
PERMITS FOR MASS DEVELOPMENT OF
THE SITE, SUBMISSION OF
RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA,
FOR THE COVENANT AREA ENCUMBERED
BY THE ECA, COMPLIANCE WITH
PERFORMANCE UNDER THE MHAR
PROGRAM AND MFT PROGRAM.
AND THE CORRIDOR, THE LARGER OF
THE TWO SITES OF FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT WOULD INCLUDE EAST
WEST PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR BETWEEN
EIGHTH AVENUE NORTHWEST AND
ROOSEVELT WAY.
THE HEARING EXAMINER
RECOMMENDED AT THE HEARINGS,
CONDITION THE HEARING EXAMINER
TO ADDRESS SOME CONCERNS RAISED
BY NEIGHBORS, FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH SIDE
SHOULD LOOK AT PREFERRED ACCESS.
THOSE ARE THE CONDITIONS AND
THE PROCEDURAL POSTURE OF THE
COMMITTEE, MAYBE TURN TO
PROVISION DOCUMENTS UNLESS YOU
HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
PROPOSAL WITH THIS LOCATION.
>> I DID HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL
QUESTION, YOU HAD THE SLIDE UP
ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTALLY
CRITICALLY AREA PROTECTIONS, DO
WE HAVE THAT PROTECTION
AGREEMENT?
>> WE DO, YEAH.
LET ME SHOW YOU THAT.
WE DO HAVE IT, IT IS NOT
RECORDED YET, 95% OF THE WAY
THERE.
>> THAT IS YOUR EMAIL, BY THE
WAY.
>> YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT,
HOLD ON.
DON'T WANT TO BE SEEING THAT.
THERE WE GO.
LET'S SEE, HERE IS THE ECA
COVENANT. IT IS DIFFERENT FROM
THE DRAFT VERSION THAT YOU
LOOKED AT ON FEBRUARY 9, THIS
IS THE CITY TEMPLATE, AS I
MENTIONED IT IS ABOUT 95% OF
THE WAY THERE.
I NEED TO GOT A FEW EYES AND
CROSS IF YOU TEASE AND CONFIRM
SDCI THINKS THIS IS READY TO GO
IN CONJUNCTION WITH SDCI AND
THE APPLICANT, THIS WOULD LIMIT
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY AND
COVENANT AREA, NO DEVELOPMENT
IN THE COVENANT AREA BUT ALLOWS
FOR RESTORATION ACTIVITY
CONSISTENT WITH THE HEARING
RECOMMENDATION WHICH IS
CONDITIONAL OF WHAT THE
COVENANT AREA IS.
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.
>> THIS HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED OR
NOT RECORDED?
>> IT HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED OR
ASSIGNED.
THE APPLICANT BEING ABLE TO DO
THAT.
>> FOR THE RECORD, IF THIS IS
NOT SIGNED AND RECORDED BEFORE
TUESDAY, THIS BILL WILL NOT BE
AT FULL COUNCIL?
THAT WAS MORE CLARIFICATION FOR
ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES AND
EVERYONE WATCHING.
>> THAT IS A GOOD SEGUE TO
OTHER DECISION DOCUMENTS.
ATTACHMENT TO THE ORDINANCE
WHICH I WILL TOUCH ON IN SECOND,
DUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT, ALSO WILL NEED TO BE
NOT RECORDED BUT EXECUTED BY
THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO FULL
COUNCIL ACTION.
THAT IS A GOOD TRANSITION TO
DECISION DOCUMENTS, THERE ARE
TWO.
THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND
DECISION.
IT ADOPTS THE HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS AND DECISIONS, MAKES
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS RELATED TO
THE SUBMITTAL OF RECOMMENDED
ECA COVENANT.
AND IT AMENDS THE CONDITION
RELATED TO FUTURE PARTICIPATION
IN MFT PROGRAM FOR THE REASONS
WE DISCUSSED BASED ON
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES' QUESTION
AND ADOPTS REMAINING PRIOR TO
MATTHEW'S CONDITIONS
RECOMMENDED BY THE HEARING
EXAMINER.
THIS WOULD BE THE DECISION BY
THE FULL COUNCIL RECOMMENDED BY
THE COMMITTEE.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO ACT
ON THE CLERK FILE NOW OR SHOULD
I DESCRIBE THE REZONE BELT IN
THE INTEREST OF COMPLETENESS?
>> LET'S MOVE ON THE CLERK FILE
AND MOVE TO THE COUNCIL BILL.
COLLEAGUES, DO YOU HAVE OTHER
QUESTIONS ON THE CLERK FILE AT
THIS TIME?
I'M SEEING NONE SO I WILL MOVE
TO RECOMMEND GRANTING THE
REZONE CONTAINED IN CLERK FILE
314441.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED, CLERK FILE 31441.
CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> CONGRESS PERSON PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
CONGRESS MEMBER NELSON.
>> AYE .
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL BILL PEDERSEN .
>> YES.
>> MOTION CARRIES.
I EXPECT THAT BEFORE THE FULL
COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, MARCH 1,
PENDING THE EXECUTION OF
SIGNING AND RECORDING OF THE
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICALLY AREA
PROTECTION AGREEMENT.
THAT MOUTHFUL, CAN YOU PLEASE
READ THE ABBREVIATED TITLE OF
THE FINAL ITEM, COUNCIL BILL
120275 INTO THE RECORD?
>> AGENDA ITEM 3 COUNCIL BILL
120275, ORDINANCE RELATING TO
LAND USE AND ZONING AMENDING
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
REZONE TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT
10735 ROOSEVELT WAY NORTHEAST
FROM RICE 3 WITH M MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY SUFFIX TO
MIDRISE WITH M1 MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY SUFFIX.
>> WONDERFUL.
MR. FREEMAN, TAKEN AWAY WHERE
WE LEFT OFF.
>> COUNCIL BILL 120275
RECOMMENDATION BY THE
COMMITTEE.
IT DOES TWO THINGS, IT AMENDS
THE OFFICIAL LAND USE MAP,
SOMETIMES CALLED THE ZONING
MAP, TO REZONE SITES FROM LOW
RISE 3 WITH M MANDATORY HOUSING
WITH M1 AND ATARI HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY SUFFIX.
IT ALSO ACCEPTS EXECUTED
PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT, THAT PROPERTY
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS
RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY,
THAT HAPPENS AFTER COUNCIL
ACTION, FULL COUNCIL ACTION AND
IT CONTAINS THESE CONDITIONS
FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
SITE.
THOSE TWO THINGS, AMENDS THE
OFFICIAL LAND USE MAP AND
ACCEPTS AND EXECUTES REZONING
AND DEVELOPMENT.
ON THIS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS
ABOUT COUNCIL BILL 120275, IF
YOU DO, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
THEM.
>> I THINK I ASKED MY QUESTIONS
IN THE CLERK FILE.
JUST CHECKING WITH COLLEAGUES,
DID ANYONE ELSE HAVE ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE.
THAT IS THE FASTEST LAND USE
COMMITTEE WE HAVE HAD YET.
AGAIN, THIS WILL BE BACK FOR US
NEXT WEEK PENDING THE SIGNING
AND RECORDING OF THE CRITICAL
AREA PROTECTION AGREEMENT.
TO FINISH THIS EXERCISE, WE
WILL NEED TO VOTE THIS COUNCIL
BILL OUT SO I WILL MOVE TO
RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNCIL
BILL 120275.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
THANK YOU.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNCIL
BILL 120275.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL?
>> MEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU, THE MOTION
CARRIED, COUNCIL BILL 120275
WILL BE BACK BEFORE FULL
COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, MARCH 1 FOR
FINAL VOTE DEPENDING ON
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICALLY
PROTECTION AGREEMENT.
MOVING TO ITEM B OF THE AGENDA,
ADJOURNMENT, ITEMS GOOD FOR THE
ORDER AT THIS TIME.
SEEING NONE, THIS INCLUDES THE
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2022
MEETING OF THE LAND USE
COMMITTEE MEETING, THE NEXT
SCHEDULED MEETING IS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9 STARTING AT
2:00 P.M.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM
SDCI ABOUT THE TREE PROTECTION
ORDINANCE, DIRECTORS RULE AND
THE BILL I GOT COSPONSORED.
WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
HAVE A GREAT DAY.