>>> OKAY. GOOD MORNING,
EVERYONE. THE SEPTEMBER 4, 2024
LAND USE COMMITTEE WILL COME TO
ORDER. I AM TAMMY MORALES,
CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER WOO? VICE
CHAIR STRAUSS? CHAIR MORALES?
>> PRESENT.
>> I BELIEVE COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE WILL JOIN US VIRTUALLY.
WE WILL NOTE HER PRESENT AND WE
WILL BE SURE TO PUT THAT ON THE
RECORD. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
THIS IS A SPECIAL SESSION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL LAND USE
COMMITTEE. WE WILL BE HERE FOR
A BRIEFING ON FOUR COUNCIL
BILLS. AT 2:00 THIS AFTERNOON
WE WILL HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING
ON THREE OF THE BILLS. AS A
REMINDER, IF YOU ARE HERE FOR
THREE OF THE BILLS AND YOU WANT
TO SPEAK TO THEM THIS MORNING,
YOU ARE WELCOME TO. BUT IF YOU
WANT THEM TO BE PART OF THE
OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RECORD,
YOU WILL NEED TO COME BACK AT
2:00. WE HAVE FOUR ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA. COUNCIL BILL 120822,
CONGREGATE RESIDENCES. COUNCIL
BILL 120823 FOR BRIEFING,
DISCUSSION, AND PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE LAND USE CODES. COUNCIL
BILL 120824, BRIEFING,
DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE HEARING ON
DESIGN REVIEW EXEMPTIONS, AND
COUNCIL BILL 120833, BRIEFING
AND DISCUSSION ON THE LIVING
BUILDING AMENDMENT. IF THERE IS
NO OBJECTION, THE AGENDA WILL
BE ADOPTED. HEARING NO
OBJECTION, THE AGENDA IS
ADOPTED. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND
OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD RELATE TO
ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA AND
WITHIN THE VIEW OF THIS
COMMITTEE. IF YOU'RE HERE FOR
120822, 823, OR 824, YOU ARE
WELCOME TO OFFER COMMENT THIS
MORNING. IF YOU WANT YOUR
COMMENTS TO BE PART OF THE
OFFICIAL RECORD, YOU WILL NEED
TO RETURN AT 2:00. WE WILL HAVE
TO BRIEFINGS THIS MORNING. WE
WILL TAKE A RECESS HOPEFULLY
AROUND 11:30 AND RECONVENE AT
2:00 FOR THE HEARING. I WILL
HAND IT OFF TO YOU. HOW MANY
SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE SIGNED UP
TODAY?
>> EIGHT SEEKER -- SPEAKERS
FIND UP-TO-DATE IN PERSON. AND
WE HAVE SIX SPEAKERS SIGNED UP
VIRTUALLY.
>> LET'S GIVE EVERYBODY TWO
MINUTES TO SPEAK. I WILL HAND
IT TO YOU TO READ THE COMMENTS.
>> THE FIRST SPEAKER, WE WILL
START WITH IN PERSON SPEAKERS.
WE HAVE KIRK, FOLLOWED BY
MORRISON.
>> PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?
>> GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE
MICROPHONE.
>> GOOD MORNING,
COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS KIRK
AND I AM A PARTNER , TWO
FAMILIES THAT HAVE BEEN
TOGETHER SINCE 1971. WE ARE
GOING TO PRESENT A PROJECT TO
YOU THAT IS A LEGACY BUILT FOR
A LONG-TERM HOLD FOR OUR
FAMILIES. WE HAVE BEEN OWNING
AND OPERATING AND MANAGING IN
SEATTLE SINCE 1980. WE ARE
DEVELOPING 181 MULTI-UNIT
FAMILY SITE ON WESTERN AVENUE
IN BELLTOWN. OUR VISION WITH
THIS PROJECT IS TO CREATE AS
MUCH AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE
HOUSING AS POSSIBLE INSIDE A
DEEPLY SUSTAINABLE LIVING
BUILDING. THE APPROVED DESIGN
INCLUDES EITHER 13 UNITS OR
$2.5 MILLION AS WELL AS 10
THREE-BEDROOM FAMILY SIZED
UNITS. WE FOCUS ON WORKFORCE
HOUSING. THE SITE IS A DOWNTOWN
MIXED COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL AND UNDER EXISTING
ZONING ALLOWS FOR MULTIFAMILY
BUILDINGS OF 145 FEET. THE
SEATTLE CODE ALLOWS FOR
ADDITIONAL HEIGHT INCENTIVES
THROUGH PARTICIPATION IN THE
LIVING BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM
AND OR THE DOWNTOWN
THREE-BEDROOM INCENTIVE. FOR
VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATING IN
THIS INCENTIVE THE CODE
PROVIDES US AN ADDITIONAL 40
FEET IN HEIGHT. IN 2022, SDCI
ISSUED A STATEMENT THAT SAID
THE PROJECT WAS ELIGIBLE TO USE
BOTH INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. LATER
A FEW CONDO OWNERS APPEALED THE
PROJECT AS THE NEW HEIGHT
TRANSLATES TO A LOSS OF USE FOR
SOME. A RECENT RULING ON THE
APPEAL REVERSED SDCI'S WELL
REASONED INTERPRETATION.
RELATIVE TO THE HEIGHT BONUS
WAS NOT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR THE
PROJECT TO BE ELIGIBLE AND
UPHELD THE APPEAL. THIS --
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE
DOWNTOWN REVIEW BOARD --
>> THANK YOU. SIR, YOUR TIME IS
UP BUT I WILL ASK YOU TO SEND
YOUR COMMENTS TO OUR OFFICE SO
WE HAVE THEM AS PART OF THE
RECORD. AND AS A REMINDER, WHEN
YOU HEAR A CHIME, YOU HAVE 10
SECONDS LEFT TO WRAP UP YOUR
COMMENTS.
>> NEXT, MORRISON FOLLOWED BY
PEARSON.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. IAN
MORRISON HERE . I WANTED TO
GROUND THIS IN THE POLICY
ISSUE. I AM HERE TO SPEAK IN
FAVOR OF THE CLARIFYING
AMENDMENT. IT HAS LONG BEEN THE
POLICY TO HAVE ADDITIONAL
HEIGHT AND DENSITY FOR HOLDINGS
LIKE THE CENTER AND IT HAS BEEN
THE CITY'S POLICY TO GIVE
INCENTIVES FOR FAMILY-STYLE
UNITS DOWNTOWN WHICH WAS
ADOPTED IN 2017. THE SARATOGA
PROJECT WAS THE FIRST PROJECT
THAT MENTIONED SDCI'S GUIDANCE
TO STACK THOSE TWO INCENTIVES,
LIVING BUILDING AND BEDROOM TO
HAVE A DEEPLY SUSTAINABLE
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING THAT HAS
NOT ONLY 10 UNITS BUT OVER 43
UNITS WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
THAT ENCOURAGE FAMILY-STYLE
LIVING DOWNTOWN AND WHILE THE
PROJECT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED BY THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN
BOARD, UNFORTUNATELY A SMALL
BUT DEDICATED GROUP OF CONDO
OWNERS HAVE OPPOSED THAT
PROJECT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY
AND THE HEARING EXAMINER MUCH
TO OUR SURPRISE SAID CITY
COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE BEEN
CLEARER WHEN THEY ADOPTED THOSE
AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW FOR THIS
INCENTIVE TO BE STACKED. AS WE
UNDERSTAND IT WAS ALWAYS THE
COUNCIL'S INTENT AND SDCI'S
INTERPRETATION WITHOUT THIS
CLARIFYING AMENDMENT THIS IS
NOT ONLY AN IMPACT ON THIS
PROJECT IN THE 50 PLUS FAMILY
SIZED UNITS BUT AN IMPACT ON
ALL OF BELLTOWN ONE OF OUR MOST
TRANSIT RICH DEVELOPMENTS AND
ONE OF THE LOWEST IMPACTED
DEVELOPMENT AREAS FOR
DISPLACEMENT SO THIS
LEGISLATION IS NOT ABOUT ONE
PROJECT. IT IS ABOUT CLARIFYING
THE INTENT CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO SUPPORT
SUSTAINABLE FAMILY-STYLE LIVING
DOWNTOWN. AND SO WE ASK YOU TO
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT WHICH IS
SIMPLY CLARIFYING WHAT WE
BELIEVE -- ALLOW THIS PROJECT
IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE
NEW HOMES AND ALLOW THIS FOR
OTHER UNITS IN BELLTOWN. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
>> UP NEXT, CYNTHIA PEARSON
FOLLOWED BY ROBERT GAMMON.
>> I YIELD MY TIME.
>> MY NAME IS GAMMON AND I ALSO
YIELD MY TIME .
>> SIR, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
PLEASE COME FORWARD. THAT IS
FINE.
>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
PAT. I HAVE SOME WRITTEN NOTES
THAT I AM GOING TO BE READING.
WOULD LIKE COPIES SO YOU CAN
FOLLOW?
>> SURE.
>> BASICALLY I WILL ADDRESS
SOME OF THE ISSUES ON 12833 AND
I WILL READ THEM AGAIN THIS
AFTERNOON. FIRST, THE SUMMARY
OF THIS LEGISLATION
ACKNOWLEDGES IT AFFECTS A
SINGLE PIECE OF PROPERTY. WHAT
THE SUMMARY DOES NOT TELL YOU
IS THE PROPERTY IS THE SUBJECT
OF LITIGATION THAT WILL BE
RENDERED MOVED BY THIS
LEGISLATION. PLEASE ASK THE
SDCI STAFF WHY THIS LEGISLATION
HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD AT THIS
TIME. WHY IT COULD NOT WAIT
UNTIL THE LITIGATION IS
RESOLVED AND WHY WHILE IT
PRETENDS TO BE NON-PROJECT
ACTION IT IS NOT A SPOT ZONING
ORDINANCE. THE SECOND ITEM IS
THIS LEGISLATION IS ACCOMPANIED
BY THE DETERMINATION OF
NONSIGNIFICANT CONCERNING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. PLEASE
ASK SDCI STAFF TO SUMMARIZE
THE STUDIES THAT LED THEM TO
THIS CONCLUSION INCLUDING
SPECIFICALLY THAT A BUILDING
CAN BE 60% TALLER THAN ITS
NEIGHBORS AND PAIRING SUNLIGHT
TO THE NEIGHBORS IN A PROGRAM
INTENDED TO DEMONSTRATE HOW A
BUILDING CAN SURVIVE WITH ONLY
THE SUNLIGHT FALLING UPON IT
WHILE NOT OFFERING AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SURROUNDING
BUILDINGS. THIRD, THE ORDINANCE
IS WRITTEN AS IF IT WERE
CITYWIDE ORDINANCE AND ONLY
IMPACTS THE ZONE. IF THE LIVING
BUILDING PROGRAM IS A GREAT
BENEFIT TO THE CITY WARRANTING
SPECIFIC LEGISLATION WHY IS IT
NOT BEING LEGISLATED FOR THE
WHOLE CITY? THIS LEGISLATION IS
TARGETED TOWARDS A SPECIFIC
DISTRICT. THE ONE COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE REPRESENTS. HAS HIS
OPINION BEEN CONSIDERED? THE
LIVING BUILDING PROGRAM IS
ADMINISTERED BY THE INSTITUTE
NONPROFIT BASED IN PORTLAND,
OREGON. -- FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
-- [ INAUDIBLE ] JUST TO ADD
SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ON MY
NOTES --
>> WE WILL TAKE YOUR COMMENTS
AND HAVE THE WRITTEN ONES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOUR TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
>> NEXT, ROBERT GAMMON. YOU
WANTED TO YIELD YOUR TIME?
>> MY NAME IS ROBERT GAMMON. I
YIELD MY COMMENTS TO PAT .
>> IF YOU DON'T PREFER TO
SPEAK, THAT IS FINE, SIR. YOU
DO HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK.
OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> UP NEXT, ANDRE, FOLLOWED BY
PAT.
>> EACH SPEAKER GETS TWO
MINUTES. WE DON'T COMPILE TIME
LIKE THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK FOR TWO MINUTES YOU ARE
WELCOME TO COME ON UP. IF NOT
WE WILL MOVE ONTO THE NEXT
SPEAKER.
>> UP NEXT, PAT, FOLLOWED BY
STEVE. OH, OKAY. STEVE,
FOLLOWED BY STEVE BUSSELL OH.
>> I SENT YOU COMMENTS IN AN
EMAIL THE OTHER DAY. I WANT TO
EMPHASIZE ONE POINT TODAY IN
TERMS OF THE BILL . THERE ARE
INCONSISTENCIES THAT DON'T
MAKE SENSE. HAVING A TREE
PROTECTION AREA AND A SECOND
BASIC TREE PROTECTION AREA THAT
OVERRULES WHAT A TREE
PROTECTION AREA IS DEFINED AS
AN IMPLEMENTED. IT MAKES NO
SENSE . ONE SAYS YOU CAN
PROTECT THE TREE BY REDUCING IT
GETTING AUTHORITY FROM THE
DIRECTOR. THE BASIC DEFINITION
SAYS THE SAME THING, THE
DIRECTOR CAN MODIFY IT. WHEN
YOU GET A SECTION 070 IN THE
DEVELOPMENT ZONES, IT SAYS THEY
CANNOT BE MODIFIED SO IT
OVERRULES IT WHICH SEEMS LIKE
AN INCONSISTENCY TO SAY IN A
DEFINITION YOU CAN DO THIS AND
WHEN YOU GET TO THIS SECTION
YOU CANNOT DO IT. I WANTED TO
POINT OUT A PROBLEM WITH
DEALING WITH THE ONE INCH
RADIUS -- THE 1 INCH DIAMETER
EQUALS 1 FOOT TREE PROTECTION.
I WILL SHOW YOU LOOKING AT THIS
HERE IS A 24 INCH TREE. LET ME
PUT THAT IN THE CENTER. WE ARE
AT 18. THIS IS 24 FEET. SO THIS
WAY, THE OTHER WAY, A 24 INCH
TREE. THIS IS THE TREE
PROTECTION AREA, IN THAT
CIRCLE. YOU ARE SANG DURING
DEVELOPMENT IT CANNOT BE
MODIFIED. RATHER THAN THE TREE
PROTECTION AREA, IT IS A TREE
REMOVAL ZONE FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT. MY HOUSE -- THIS
IS 8 FEET FROM THE HOUSE.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE SHOW AND
TELL. ALWAYS GOOD TO HAVE SOME
VISUALS. PLEASE, GO AHEAD.
>> RECENTLY THE ONLY MARE I
KNOW OF ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CITY OF SEATTLE DIED. CHARLIE
AND I DIDN'T ALWAYS GET ALONG
ON LAND USE. I THINK MUCH TO
THE SURPRISE OF AT LEAST ONE OF
YOU PRESENT WHEN CHARLIE CAME
TO THE LAND USE COMMITTEE, HE
AND I SEEMED TO BE QUITE
FRIENDLY. BECAUSE WE WERE.
CHARLIE HAD A PROBLEM EARLY IN
HIS PRETERM MAYOR SITUATION
WHERE HE RAN FOR THE U.S.
SENATE. HE DID NOT DO WELL. HE
DID NOT WIN IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE. AT THAT POINT, HE DID
SOMETHING WHICH I HOPE YOU WILL
CONSIDER DOING. MOVING AWAY
FROM THE MONEY. MOVING AWAY
FROM THE BIG-TIME THINKERS.
COME BACK TO THE CITIZENS. NOW
LOOKING LAST TIME, IT WAS A
LITTLE TOUGH FOR A LOT OF
PEOPLE AND IT WILL GET TOUGHER,
I'VE GOT A FEELING. CHARLIE
LEARNED HE HAD TO GO BACK TO
THE PEOPLE THAT GOT HIM ELECTED
IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND THAT
REALLY HELPED THE CITY OF
SEATTLE. I HOPE YOU CONSIDER
HELPING THE CITY OF SEATTLE.
DESIGN REVIEW NEEDS TO COME
BACK. EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE ON
THE TABLE AND YOU NEED TO MAKE
AN ORDINANCE THAT SAVES TREES.
IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO
THAT, SEATTLE WILL REMEMBER. I
CAN'T PROMISE EVERYBODY NOT
COMING BACK. I AM NOT THAT
FOOLISH BUT I THINK IT WILL BE
HARD. WE WILL NOT HAVE NEARLY
AS MANY PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS
THAT GO DOWN TO THE GRASSROOTS
AS YOU USED TO TO HELP YOU
UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES. I HOPE
YOU THINK ABOUT THAT.
>> UP NEXT, WE ARE SWITCHING TO
ONLINE PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
>> BEFORE YOU DO THAT, I WANT
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE HAS JOINED
US. THANK YOU.
>> UP FIRST, MEGAN CRUZ
FOLLOWED BY STEVE H.
>> MEGAN, PUSH STAR SIX ,
PLEASE. WE SEE YOU ARE HERE,
BUT YOU ARE MUTED. THERE YOU
GO.
[ SILENCE ] ONLY ONE PERSON ON
THIS COMMITTEE REPRESENTS A
NEIGHBORHOOD AFFECTED. TO THE
REST OF YOU, PLEASE CONSIDER
HOW YOU WOULD VOTE IF THE
EXEMPTION WERE SLOWLY WHERE YOU
LIVE. THE OFFICE OF
RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY LED
RACIAL EQUITY REVIEW . IT IS
THE OPPOSITE OF NEW STATE
LEGISLATION REFORM DESIGN
REVIEW AND MANDATORY HERE
WITHIN MONTHS. A RECENT AUDITOR
REPORT CITES ETHICAL CONCERNS
EXPRESSED BY STAFF AROUND
LAND-USE DECISIONS. APPROVING
VARIANCES BEHIND THE SCENES
WILL INCREASE THESE PRESSURES.
AGAINST STATE LAW THIS BILL
SETS A PRECEDENT. PLEASE REJECT
IT. THANK YOU.
>> UP NEXT, WE HAVE STEVE H. HE
IS CURRENTLY NOT PRESENT, SO WE
WILL MOVE ON TO JUNE, FOLLOWED
BY DAVE.
>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JUNE
AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT 2. I
URGE THE COUNCIL TO REJECT THE
TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE. A
TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE WAS
PASSED IN MAY OF 2023. MEMBERS
OF THIS COMMITTEE VOTED FOR IT
AND PROMISED TO FIX WHAT YOU
RECOGNIZED AS SIGNIFICANT
ISSUES. THIS BILL DOESN'T DO
THAT AT ALL. IT PROVIDES TWEAKS
ALONG THE EDGES WHILE MATURE
TREES HAVE GREATLY SINCE THE
ORDINANCE TOOK EFFECT. I AM
ESPECIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
RESIDENTIAL SMALL ZONES. THESE
ZONES HAVE VERY LITTLE
PROTECTION FOR TREES AND
DOCUMENTED ON PAGE 17 THROUGH
18. THEY AFFECT AREAS THAT HAVE
LITTLE TREE CANOPY. MOST OF
SOUTH PARK FOR EXAMPLE HAS 12%
TREE CANOPY. NEAR MY HOME IN
COLUMBIA CITY IS AN AREA WITH
22% TREE COVER. 10,000 SQUARE
FOOT LOT IN THAT ZONE RECENTLY
SOLD TO A DEVELOPER. FOUR OF
THE FIVE LARGE TREES ON THE LOT
ARE TIER 2. THREE ARE OVER 30
INCHES. THE OTHER IS TIER 3.
THE DEVELOPER HAS TORN DOWN THE
RESIDENTS ON THE PROPERTY AND
BUILD SEVEN COTTAGES WITH SIX
PARKING SPACES. ALTERNATIVES
EXIST THAT COULD ALLOW MULTIPLE
UNITS ON THE PROPERTY AND SAVE
SEVERAL TREES BUT UNDER THE
CURRENT ORDINANCE THERE ARE NO
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEVELOPER TO CONSIDER
ALTERNATIVES IN SPITE OF THE
LANGUAGE IN THE SDCI TIP SHEET.
IF SDCI APPROVES THE
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT THE WHOLE
NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE DEPRIVED
OF THE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT OF THOSE
TREES, A SOCIAL GOOD LOSS FOR
PRIVATE GAIN. WE CANNOT KEEP
BUILDING HOUSING IN WAYS THAT
MAKE NEIGHBORHOODS UNHEALTHY OR
EVEN UNINHABITABLE .
>> UP NEXT, STEVE, FOLLOWED BY
DAVID. PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX TO
UNMUTE YOURSELF.
>> GOOD MORNING. STEVE HERE.
THANK YOU, CHAIR MORALES AND TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR HEARING MY
COMMENTS THIS MORNING. MY
COMMENTS CONCERNED THESE BILLS
WHERE YOU ARE PUTTING BEFORE
THE COUNCIL THE OPPORTUNITY TO
DELEGATE WHAT REALLY SHOULD BE
IN ESSENCE A FUNCTION OF OUR
ELECTED LEADERS, WHICH IS TO
ZONE THE CITY OF SEATTLE. I
ACTUALLY LIVE IN A PROPERTY
ADJACENT TO THIS. YOU HAVE
HEARD TWO ATTORNEYS
REPRESENTING THE BUILDING. I
LIVE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE AND I
CANNOT SEE THE BUILDING. IT
DOES NOT MATTER HOW TALL IT IS.
I HAVE NOT PARTICIPATED IN ANY
ADVOCACY TO STOP THE EXCESSIVE
HEIGHT BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT
YOU ARE CONSIDERING DELEGATING
WHAT I THINK EVERY CITIZEN
BELIEVES IS YOUR ROLE TO ZONE
THE CITY OF SEATTLE AND TO HAVE
OPEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ZONING
TO AN ORGANIZATION SDCI THE
CITY'S OWN AUDIT REVEALED
FRAUGHT WITH CHALLENGES JUST
LAST YEAR. IF YOU WANT TO DO
THIS, GO AHEAD. HAVE THE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC
AND YOUR CONSTITUENTS ABOUT
ZONING. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION WITH YOU. THE
ZONING OUTLOOK FOR BELLTOWN
THAT IS REALLY THE FOCUS OF
WHAT A LOT OF THIS DELEGATION
WOULD ADDRESS ON PAGE 108, WE
COULD TALK ABOUT THAT ALL DAY
LONG. I WOULD ASK YOU NOT TO
DELEGATE WHAT WE BELIEVE IS
WHAT WE ELECT YOU TO DO, WHICH
IS TO ZONE. A DEPARTMENT IN THE
CITY THAT HAS NO OBLIGATION TO
THE PUBLIC AND NO OBLIGATION TO
HEAR COMMENTS. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR CONSIDERING THESE
COMMENTS TODAY.
>> UP NEXT, DAVID, FOLLOWED BY
LEWIS MARTIN.
>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
DAVID AND THIS MORNING I WILL
BE SPEAKING ABOUT THE PRE---
TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE.
DURING THE MAY, 2023 SEATTLE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING,
COUNCILMEMBER DAN STRAUSS
EXPLAINED TO THE FULL COUNCIL
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TREE
PROTECTION ORDINANCE. AMONGST
THE EXPLANATIONS, THE ORDINANCE
WOULD PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR
TREES IN ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
KNOWN AS ECA. THIS MAKE SENSE
BECAUSE YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO
REMOVE TREES FROM WETLANDS OR
STEEP SLOPES. HOWEVER THIS DOES
NOT SEEM TO BE TRUE AS IN CASE
AFTER CASE WE HAVE SEEN SDCI
APPROVES AN EXEMPTION TO ALLOW
THE REMOVAL OF TREES. ONE OF
THE LATEST EXAMPLES WAS MARTIN
LUTHER KING JR. WAY IN RAINIER
VALLEY. THIS SITE INCLUDES
THREE ECAS INCLUDING A WETLAND
AND STEEP SLOPE. ALL TREES ARE
SLATED TO BE CUT DOWN. CAN
SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY SDCI
IS ALLOWING FOR THESE
EXEMPTIONS? EITHER SDCI NEEDS
TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENTALLY
CRITICAL AREAS OR THE ORDINANCE
NEEDS TO BE AMENDED TO MAKE
SURE THEY ARE TRULY PROTECTED.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. UP NEXT, LEWIS
MARTIN FOLLOWED BY SANDY
SCHEFFLER. IF YOU PRESS STAR
SIX --
>> GOOD MORNING, CITY
COUNCILMEMBERS. I AM A LEGACY
RESIDENT AND SMALL BUSINESS
OWNER IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT
OF SEATTLE AND I AM HERE TO ASK
YOU TO REJECT COUNCIL BILL
120823. IN 2019, ECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED NEIGHBORHOODS
WERE REZONED TO INCLUDE MORE
DENSITY INCLUDING HAVING THEIR
ZONES CHANGED TO RSL WHICH IS
LEFT OUT OF TREE PROTECTIONS IN
THE CITY WHICH MEANS THOSE
NEIGHBORHOODS IN SEATTLE'S
DEVELOPMENT MUST BEAR THE BRUNT
OF LOSING MORE CANOPY MAKING
NEIGHBORHOODS HOTTER AND MORE
PRONE TO BECOMING HEAT ISLANDS.
I WORK WITH SMALL CHILDREN
EVERY DAY AND EACH ONE IS
DIFFERENT. BECAUSE THEY ARE
UNIQUE WE RESPOND TO THEIR
INDIVIDUAL NEEDS. EVERY TREE
SPECIES IS DIFFERENT WHICH
MEANS THE ROOT SYSTEM WILL BE
DIFFERENT. THE BILL LAYS OUT A
ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL ANALYSIS
WHICH MEANS SOME VARIETIES OF
TREES WILL BE SPARED AND MANY
WILL BE CUT DOWN BECAUSE THEIR
ROOTS SYSTEM DOES NOT FIT INTO
A CHECKED BOX. LAST YEAR'S
ORDINANCE HAS DONE SIGNIFICANT
DAMAGE . THOSE WHO CARE ABOUT
THE HEALTH AND CLIMATE
PROTECTION. PLEASE DON'T
DOUBLE DOWN ON LAST YEAR'S
LEGISLATION THAT HAS FALLEN
SHORT OF THIS PURPOSE. I ASK
EACH OF YOU TO REJECT THE BILL
IN THE NAME OF CLIMATE JUSTICE
AND I ASKED SDCI TO LOOK AT THE
IMPACT OF NOT ONLY FORMERLY
REDLINE AND DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES, BUT ACROSS THE
CITY. WE NEED OUR CHILDREN TO
GROW UP IN A SEATTLE THAT
PROTECTS TREES IN ALL
COMMUNITIES NOT JUST ONES IN
YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. PLEASE
REJECT IT AND ADVISE SDCI TO GO
BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. UP NEXT, SANDY,
FOLLOWED BY RUTH.
>> MORNING, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
THIS IS SANDY WITH TREE ACTION
SEATTLE. PLEASE ADVISE OR
REJECT THE ENTRY ORDINANCE
SECTION OF THE OMNIBUS. IT IS A
LOOPHOLE CLEAR-CUT FOR
CONSTRUCTION IN ALL
NEIGHBORHOODS. EVEN FRONT-LINE
COMMUNITIES ARE NOT ABLE TO
AFFORD LOSING TREES. IT ADDS A
NEW PROVISION STATING TREE
PROTECTION ONLY APPLIES TO FIVE
LAND USE ZONES AND IN ALL OTHER
ZONES, ALL TREES MAY BE REMOVED
WHEN DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED.
END QUOTE. SOUTH PARK IN THE
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT ZONING
DOES NOT GET TREE PROTECTION,
YET THEY HAVE 12% TREE CANOPY
COMPARED TO SEATTLE'S 28%. A
SWEEPING TREE REMOVAL PLAN OF
THIS MAGNITUDE? THE TREE
ORDINANCE SHOULD APPLY ACROSS
THE CITY. TREES GROW IN EVERY
LAND USE ZONE, EVEN INDUSTRIAL.
EVERY ONE OF THEM PROTECTS
PUBLIC HEALTH. REMOVING THEM
SHOULD NOT BE A FOREGONE
CONCLUSION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. THE LAST SPEAKER
WE HAVE, RUTH. RUTH, PLEASE
PRESS STAR SIX TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF.
>> HI. MY NAME IS RUTH BANNER
AND I AM PRESIDENT OF A
VOLUNTEER NONPROFIT DEDICATED
TO AFFORDABILITY,
SUSTAINABILITY, QUALITY OF
LIFE, AND SENSE OF PLACE FOR
ALL WHO LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING
PIKE PLACE MARKET. I AM HERE TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO BOTH CB
120833 AND 120824. I DO NOT
TRUST THE LIVING BUILDING PILOT
PLAN AND I AM INTERESTED TO
KNOW WHERE THEIR FUNDING COMES
FROM. IT APPEARS TO BE CB
120833 THAT SEEMS TO BE WRITTEN
BY DEVELOPERS FOR DEVELOPERS
SIMPLY TO COUNTER WIEN THE
LEGAL PROCESS ALREADY IN PLACE.
THEIR OWN HEARING EXAMINER
FOUND THAT THE PUBLIC WAS RIGHT
AND SDCI WAS WRONG. NOW THEY
ARE ASKING YOU TO STEP ON THAT
PROCESS. IN ANY CASE CURRENT
CODE REQUIRES THAT --
RECOGNIZES, SORRY. CURRENT CODE
RECOGNIZES SMALL LOTS CAN ONLY
SERVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
PROVIDES FOR A LIMITED NUMBER
OF FUTURE OCCUPANTS. CB 120833
AND 120824 DISREGARD PUBLIC
COMMENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.
DURING DESIGN REVIEW ACCESS TO
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS SHOWING A
DEVELOPER'S PLAN TO BUILD --
120833 [ BELL TOLLING ] SORRY,
PIKES PLACE --
>> THAT IS ALL OF THIS BECAUSE
WE HAVE REMOTELY OR IN PERSON.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT WRITTEN
COMMENTS, FEEL FREE TO DO THAT
AND AS A REMINDER IF YOU WOULD
LIKE YOUR COMMENTS INCLUDED IN
THE PUBLIC HEARING RECORD,
PLEASE COME BACK AT 2:00 AND
THOSE WILL BE INCLUDED THERE.
OKAY, WE WILL MOVE ON IN THE
AGENDA. PLEASE READ ITEM ONE
INTO THE RECORD.
>> ITEM ONE, COUNCIL BILL
120822 , CONGREGATE RESIDENCES,
AND AMENDING SECTIONS -- FOR
PUBLIC HEARING.
>> WE'VE GOT HOSPITAL 1998
WHICH ALLOWS FOR COLD LIVING
HOUSING KNOWN AS CONGREGATE
HOUSING IN ALL ZONES THAT ALLOW
WHAT A FAMILY HOUSING. I WILL
ASK YOU BOTH TO INTRODUCE
YOURSELVES FOR THE RECORD AND
BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL
MEMBERS. GEOFF WENTLANDT FROM
THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
>> SHOULD I JUST GO AHEAD?
>> SURE.
>> I HAVE A FEW SLIDES TO
SUMMARIZE THE LEGISLATION
BEFORE YOU TODAY. WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT COHOUSING OR
CONJUGATE HOUSING AND WE WILL
USE THOSE TERMS INTERCHANGEABLY
TODAY. SO, AS THE CHAIR STATED
THIS LEGISLATION DIRECTLY
IMPLEMENTS STATE BILL 1998 FROM
LAST YEAR'S REGISTERED LATE OF
SESSION. VERY ACTIVE ON HOUSING
LAST YEAR AND THIS IS ONE OF
SEVERAL BILLS YOU WILL SEE TO
ENACT THEIR SUPPORTS FOR MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR
STATE. COMPLIANCE WITH THE
STATE LEGISLATION IS REQUIRED.
BUT THE MAYOR WANTED TO GET
STARTED EARLY ON THIS. THE
DEADLINE FOR COMPLIANCE IS NOT
UNTIL THE END OF NEXT YEAR BUT
WE THINK THERE ARE REALLY
IMPORTANT BENEFITS TO THIS
LEGISLATION WE WANTED TO GET
BEFORE YOU EVEN SOONER SO THIS
LEGISLATION WILL ADDRESS THE
NEED FOR MORE HOUSING SUPPLY
AND PROVIDES POTENTIALLY
RELATIVELY LOWER-COST HOUSING
OPTION WITHOUT PUBLIC SUBSIDY.
AND WE WANT TO NOTE FOR YOU
THIS LEGISLATION DOES ROLLBACK
RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE PLACED
ON CONGREGATE RESIDENTS HOUSING
TYPE BY THE COUNCIL ABOUT 10
YEARS AGO. SO, WHAT IS COLD
LIVING HOUSING OR A CONJUGATE
RESIDENCE? THIS IS THE NEW
SLIGHTLY AMENDED PROPOSED
DEFINITION AND I WILL READ
THAT. CONJUGATE RESIDENCE MEANS
A USE IN WHICH SLEEPING ROOMS
ARE INDEPENDENTLY RENTED AND
LOCKABLE AND PROVIDE LIVING AND
SLEEPING SPACE. RESIDENTS SHARE
KITCHEN FACILITIES AND OTHER
COMMON ELEMENTS WITH OTHER
RESIDENTS IN THE BUILDING. YOU
MIGHT THINK OF SRO STYLE
HOUSING, OR DORMITORY STYLE
HOUSING. THOSE ARE PERMITTED
UNDER THE CONJUGATE RESIDENCE
MODEL. THERE ARE SLEEPING
ROOMS, NOT FULL APARTMENT
UNITS. THIS IS AN IMAGE FOR
YOU, JUST AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT A
CONJUGATE RESIDENCE STYLE
SLEEPING ROOM TYPICALLY LOOKS
LIKE IN NEW CONSTRUCTION IN
SEATTLE. IT IS A COMPACT LIVING
SPACE THAT WILL OFTEN HAVE A
BATHROOM IN IT, BUT NO KITCHEN.
IT WILL OFTEN HAVE A LOFTED
SPACE AND THE FLOOR PLAN YOU
SEE THERE SHOWS OFTEN IT WILL
HAVE SHARED SPACE IN ORANGE ON
THE FLOOR, SUCH AS A SHARED
KITCHEN. A SUMMARY OF WHAT IS
IN THIS LEGISLATION FOR YOU,
THE PRIMARY THING IS IT AMENDS
THE ALLOWABLE USES TABLES TO
ALLOW CONJUGATE RESIDENCES IN
ALL ZONES THAT ALLOW
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. THIS WILL
HAVE THE MOST IMPACT IN THE
LOWRISE MULTIFAMILY ZONES AND
NEVER HEARD COMMERCIAL ONE AND
TWO ZONES. THE BILL REMOVES
MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR COMMON
SPACES AND CERTAIN DESIGN
ELEMENTS FOR CONJUGATE
RESIDENCES. THAT IS REQUIRED BY
THE STATE LEGISLATION. IT ALSO
REMOVES VEHICLE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS WITHIN A HALF-MILE
OF A MAJOR TRANSIT STOP. MINOR
AMENDMENTS TO BICYCLE PARKING
AND AN UPDATE TO THE DEFINITION
OF CONJUGATE RESIDENCE TO MATCH
THE STATE 'S DEFINITION. HERE
IS AN EXAMPLE FOR YOU OF A
BUILDING THAT IS A CONJUGATE
RESIDENCE. THIS ONE IS IN
BALLARD. IT HAS 52 SMALL HOMES.
SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 200 SQUARE
FEET EACH. THE BUILDING HAS
NICE AMENITY SPACE IS LIKE A
LAUNDRY ROOM, MAILROOM, FITNESS
CENTER, EVEN A MOVIE THEATER.
THE OWNER REPORTS THE BUILDING
IS SERVING FOLKS WITH INCOMES
BETWEEN 30% AND 80% A.M.I.
LEVEL. SOME MORE INFORMATION
FOR YOU ON THE RENT WE ARE
SEEING ON THE MARKET. AND
DOCUMENTING THIS HOUSING IS
PROVIDING A RELATIVELY
AFFORDABLE OPTION. CURRENTLY WE
ARE SEEING WRENS FOR A SLEEPING
ROOM IN CONJUGATE STYLE HOUSING
IN THE 850 TO $950 PER MONTH
RANGE IN RENT, SLIGHTLY BELOW
WHAT YOU WOULD GET IN RENT FOR
A SMALL COMPLETE APARTMENT
WHICH TENDS TO RENT IN THE
$1150 TO $1250 PER MONTH. THE
$850 PER MONTH TO $950 PRICE
POINT IS RIGHT AROUND OR
SLIGHTLY BELOW EVEN THE RENT
LEVEL TO SERVE A HOUSEHOLD WITH
40% A.M.I. , SO TO SUMMARIZE,
SLEEPING ROOMS ARE ROUGHLY
RENTING IN THE MARKET WITHOUT
PUBLIC SUBSIDY AROUND 40%
A.M.I. LEVEL. THE EXPECTED
EFFECTS OF THIS BILL ARE TO
ENCOURAGE OR SUPPORT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THIS TYPE OF
HOUSING IN MORE AREAS OF THE
CITY, PARTICULARLY LOWRISE
ZONES, PLACES THAT HAVE A LOT
OF ZONING INCLUDING CAPITOL
HILL, BALLARD, FREMONT, AND
COLUMBIA CITY. THESE WILL
LIKELY BE BUILT WITHOUT ON-SITE
PARKING AS IS THE CASE TODAY
AND WE CAN EXPECT SOME
INCREASED PRODUCTION OF THIS
MODEL OF HOUSING CLOSE TO
TRANSIT. AND JUST THE LAST
FLIGHT FOR YOU, IT IS A
REMINDER OF THINGS TO COME. YOU
WILL SEE ADDITIONAL BILLS
ADDRESSING HOUSING IN THE NEXT
YEAR, PARTICULARLY THE STATE'S
HOUSING BILL HB 1110 UPDATING
OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONES. AND WHAT
I WANT TO MENTION IS THAT THE
LEGISLATION YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU
TODAY DOES NOT YET ADDRESS THE
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES
TO THE EXTENT WE HAVE TO
ADDRESS CONGREGATE RESIDENCES
WHICH WILL BE DONE AS PART OF
LEGISLATION YOU WILL SEE NEXT
YEAR. AND THAT CONCLUDES A
QUICK SUMMARY OF THIS
LEGISLATION.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE A
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS JUST TO
CLARIFY. ON SLIDE FIVE, THE
SECOND BULLET INDICATES IT
DELETES STANDARDS FOR SHARED
SPACE AND MINIMUM QUALITY
STANDARDS. CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT
THAT MEANS AND HOW THAT AFFECTS
KITCHEN SPACE, OTHER COMMON
AREAS, THE BATHROOM? I'VE GOT
A QUESTION ABOUT HABITABILITY
AND I KNOW THAT WAS PART OF THE
CONVERSATION YEARS AGO THAT LED
TO SOME CHANGES SO I WANT TO
MAKE SURE WE ARE ALLOWING FOR
OR REQUIRING SOME SORT OF
SHARED SPACE AND KITCHEN SPACE
FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THESE
BUILDINGS.
>> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION.
THE BILL YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU
WAS ADDRESSING THE LAND USE
CODE. THE CITY HAS OTHER CODES
THAT PROTECT AND MAKE SURE HIM
STANDARDS FOR HEALTH,
HABITABILITY , AS WELL AS FIRE
AND SAFETY. THE BUILDING CODE
ADDRESSES FIRE AND SAFETY, FOR
EXAMPLE. HOUSING BUILDING AND
MAINTENANCE CODE ADDRESSES
BASIC HABITABILITY. THOSE CODES
REQUIRE THAT THERE IS AT LEAST
ONE SHARED KITCHEN IN THE
BUILDING. IT HAS TO BE
ACCESSIBLE TO ALL RESIDENTS OF
A CONJUGATE RESIDENCE. THOSE
CODES WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THAT
IN THE CASE THE SLEEPING ROOM
DOES NOT HAVE A BATHROOM THAT
THERE IS A SHARED BATHROOM
AVAILABLE FOR EVERY EIGHT
SLEEPING ROOMS. THERE ARE OTHER
PROTECTIONS IN MOST CODES FOR
MAKING SURE THE UNITS ARE
HEALTHY AND SAFE.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. DID YOU
WANT TO ADD SOMETHING ELSE?
>> STATE LAW EXPLICITLY STATES
WE CANNOT HAVE THOSE KINDS OF
STANDARDS IN OUR LAND USE CODE.
>> THAT IS THE CLARIFYING POINT
FOR ME. THE LAND USE CODE. BUT
IN OTHER CODES WE CAN HAVE THE
REQUIREMENT?
>> JUST TO BE SPECIFIC, THE
LAND USE CODE STANDARD REQUIRES
A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF THE
FLOOR AREA TO BE COMMON SPACE
AND THAT IS THE REQUIREMENT
THAT IS NO LONGER ALLOWED BY
THE STATE AND WOULD BE DELETED
BUT WE WOULD STILL HAVE OTHER
BUILDING CODE PROTECTIONS IN
PLACE.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. I WANT TO
TALK -- A QUESTION ON THE LAST
SLIDE. WE WILL PROBABLY
MENTIONED THIS SEVERAL TIMES
THIS MORNING BUT WE HAVE LOTS
OF OTHER LEGISLATION COMING
NEXT YEAR. AS IT RELATES TO THE
LAND USE HOUSING ISSUES, I AM
WONDERING IF WE HAVE OTHER
ISSUES THAT WE WILL BE DEALING
WITH NEXT YEAR TO IMPLEMENT THE
STATE LEGISLATION, WHY WE
DON'T JUST WAIT AND DO ALL OF
THAT AT ONCE.
>> A COUPLE OF REASONS. FIRST
OF ALL, WE THINK THERE ARE
IMPORTANT BENEFITS TO THIS TYPE
OF HOUSING AND PASSING THE
LEGISLATION SOONER CAN ALLOW
MORE OF IT POTENTIALLY TO COME
ONLINE SOONER. AND SECONDLY,
THE LEGISLATION YOU WILL SEE
NEXT YEAR IS VERY COMPLEX AND
HAS A LOT OF MOVING PARTS AND
COMPONENTS. ANYTHING WE CAN DO
TO START TO IMPLEMENT PIECES OF
THE STATE REQUIREMENT SOONER
WILL LIGHTEN YOUR LOAD FOR WHAT
YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT NEXT YEAR.
THE MAYOR DOES NOT TEND TO SEND
SOME OTHER BILLS DOWN TO TRY TO
MANAGE THAT FLOW OF LEGISLATION
AND MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, YOU
CAN GET THROUGH WHAT WILL BE A
LOT OF ACTIONS ON HOUSING NEXT
YEAR TO IMPLEMENT THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER, DID YOU
HAVE A QUESTION?
>> I DID, CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE . IS THIS
LEGISLATION MEANT JUST TO BRING
THE SMC UP TO THE STATE -- WHAT
I THINK IS RECENTLY PASSED
LEGISLATION ON CONGREGATE
HOUSING. THERE IS NOTHING
SEPARATE ON BRINGING OUR CODE
UP TO THE STATE CODE, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. YES.
>> MY SECOND QUESTION, I
UNDERSTAND AS A CITY, WE NEED
TO ALIGN WITH THE STATE. WE CAN
GO HIRE THAN THE STATE, BUT
NOT LOWER. IS THERE A DATE BY
WHICH WE NEED TO COMPLY WITH
THE STATE'S LAW?
>> DECEMBER 31st, 2025.
>> SO IN THE NEXT YEAR. OKAY. I
HAVE MANY QUESTIONS, CHAIR, BUT
I HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY
TO GET A BRIEFING FROM CENTRAL
STAFF SO I WILL MAKE SURE TO DO
THAT. I DO HAVE ONE LAST
QUESTION, IF YOU WILL INDULGE
ME. I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY
THIS WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING, BUT LATER
ON HERE, IT SAYS THERE IS A
FORTHCOMING UPDATE TO A
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE
REGULATION, SO THAT SEEMED
INCONSISTENT. MAYBE I
MISUNDERSTOOD.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
I WILL CLARIFY. THE BILL TODAY
DOES NOT TOUCH OR ADDRESS THE
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING AT ALL.
THE LEGISLATION YOU GET ON
HOUSING NEXT YEAR WILL ADDRESS
CONGREGATE RESIDENCE TO THE
EXTENT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH
THAT SO THAT ONLY PART OF NEXT
YEAR'S BILL. WHAT YOU HAVE
BEFORE YOU TODAY TO BE VERY
CLEAR DOES NOT DO ANYTHING TO
SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING.
>> IF I COULD ADD MORE CONTEXT,
HOUSE BILL 1110 ALLOWS FOR A
RANGE OF HOUSING TYPES IN OUR
CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES. ONE OF THE
HOUSING TYPES THE CITY COULD
CHOOSE TO ALLOW IN THOSE ZONES
IS SIX PLEX IS. IF THE CITY
DOES CHOOSE TO ALLOW SIX PLEX
IS THE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
WOULD COME ALONG WITH IT
BECAUSE THE CONGREGATE HOUSING
POSITIONS APPLIED ANY ZONE WITH
SIX OR MORE UNITS.
>> HB 1110 DID PROVIDE IT. NEAR
TRANSIT, CORRECT?
>> NEAR TRANSIT, YES.
>> NEAR TRANSIT, WE WOULD NOT
HAVE A CHOICE. THE 6 PLEX --
YOU ARE SAYING THIS WOULD APPLY
THERE.
>> YES.
>> THAT IS TO KEEP IN LINE WITH
WHAT THE STATE IS REQUIRING US
TO DO. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE
THERE.
>> RIGHT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> CONSUL MEMBER STRAUSS?
>> THANK YOU FOR COMING TODAY.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO GO BACK TO
SLIDE FIVE YEAR. TAKING A BIG
STEP BACK, CLEARLY THE
APARTMENTS WERE BUILT ON 15th
AVENUE NORTHWEST IN THE LAST
DECADE. WE ALLOW SOME VERSION
OF THIS BEFORE PASSING THIS
LEGISLATION. CAN YOU EXPLAIN
WHAT THE ENVIRONMENT IS TODAY
WITHOUT PASSING THE LEGISLATION
, HOW 1503 NORTHWEST 59th
STREET WAS BUILT? PROBABLY
SLIDING BACK TO SLIDE FOUR AND
WALK US THROUGH WHERE WE ARE
GOING FROM HERE.
>> THIS TYPE OF HOUSING IS
ALREADY ALLOWED IN MANY ZONES.
JUST NOT ALL OF THEM. SO, I
BELIEVE THAT EXAMPLE IS IN A
ZONE THAT ALREADY ALLOWS A
CONGREGATE RESIDENCE TYPE
TODAY. I HAVE TO RESEARCH TO
CONFIRM.
>> JUST BECAUSE I AM THAT LEVEL
OF VICE CHAIR, I'VE GOT THE
MAP UP AND IT IS NC 155. IS
THAT WHERE THE DIFFERENTIATION
IS? WE ARE NOW ALLOWING IT IN
LOW RISE?
>> I AM GOING TO HAVE TO
RESEARCH THAT. I AM SORRY I
CANNOT GIVE YOU A GREAT ANSWER
RIGHT NOW.
>> USUALLY ALL 130,000 PEOPLE
WATCHING ON SEATTLE CHANNEL,
USUALLY WE HAVE A PRE-BRIEFING.
WE'VE GOT A STACKED AGENDA AND
WE JUST JUMPED INTO IT BUT I'M
HAPPY TO CHAT WITH YOU
OFF-LINE.
>> CONGREGATE HOUSING IS
ALLOWED USE IN ALL OF OUR
COMMERCIAL ZONES. IT COULD
INCLUDE ANY COMMERCIAL 155 ZONE
.
>> GREAT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> I WILL MAKE THEM OFF-LINE.
THANK YOU.
>> LOOKING ON TO COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE OR WOO? ANY MORE
QUESTIONS? WE'VE GOT SEVERAL
DENSE PIECES OF LEGISLATION
TODAY. THIS IS OUR FIRST
BRIEFING, SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO MAKE SOME
TIME AT CENTRAL STAFF AND WITH
OUR DEPARTMENTS TO GET OTHER
QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ANSWERED. IF
WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS HERE, THEN THANK YOU
BOTH FOR BEING HERE. WE WILL
HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS
AFTERNOON AND THIS BILL WILL BE
SENT TO THE SEPTEMBER 18th LAND
USE COMMITTEE SO WE'VE GOT TWO
WEEKS TO GET YOUR QUESTIONS
ANSWERED. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. PLEASE READ ITEM 2
INTO THE RECORD.
>> COUNCIL BILL 120823 ,
OMNIBUS FOR BRIEFING ,
DISCUSSION , POSSIBLE HEARING.
>> WE ARE JOINED BY SDCI.
ANYBODY ELSE COMING UP? THERE
WE GO. ARE YOU STAYING FOR THIS
ONE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WHO IS
RUNNING THIS SHOW?
>> I THINK WE HAVE TRAVIS.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> I WILL ASK EVERYONE TO
INTRODUCE YOURSELVES AND BEGIN
YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> FOR THE RECORD, TRAVIS
SAUNDERS WITH SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION . I
WILL BE RESENTING TODAY ON THE
2024 OMNIBUS.
>> MIKE, SDCI.
>> DAVE, SDCI. I'M IN THE
POLICY AND TECHNICAL GROUP WITH
TRAVIS SAUNDERS.
>> TRAVIS, TAKE IT AWAY. THANK
YOU.
>> LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN HERE.
BEAR WITH ME ONE MOMENT,
PLEASE.
OKAY, IS INVISIBLE TO
EVERYBODY? GREAT. AGAIN, I AM
TRAVIS SAUNDERS, SDCI. I AM
PRESENTING THE 2024 OMNIBUS
LEGISLATION. I WILL GIVE YOU A
BRIEF INTRODUCTION, SHOW YOU
SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS IN THIS
EDITION OF THE OMNIBUS AND ON
THE BACK END I WILL ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
SEATTLE HAS OMNIBUS LEGISLATION
EVERY TWO YEARS. SINCE AROUND
THE 1990s. ESSENTIALLY IT KEEPS
CODE UPDATED AND CORRECTS
ERRORS AND JUST AS A GOOD
PRACTICE TO KEEP UPDATING OUR
CODES AS WE MOVE ALONG. IT IS
RECOMMENDED BY THE STATE AND
OUR LAST OMNIBUS WAS ADOPTED IN
2022. THE AMENDMENTS LARGELY
ARE TO LAND-USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CODES, MINOR
UPDATES THAT DON'T WARRANT
STANDALONE LEGISLATION. THEY
CORRECT ERRORS. THEY PROVIDE
UPDATES TO RESPONSES TO THE
STATE LAW AS THOSE COME ALONG
AND THEY HELP CLARIFY ANY
CONFUSING PROVISIONS AFTER WE
HAVE LEARNED FOR A WHILE THAT
SOME THINGS ARE WORKING WELL.
SOME THINGS AREN'T WORKING AS
WELL AND THEY NEED SOME
CLARIFICATION. THEY COME TO US
A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT WAYS
THROUGH REVIEW STAFF AS THEY
ARE SEEKING CLARIFICATION. THE
DEPARTMENT WILL OFTEN COME TO
US AND SAY THINGS NEED TO BE
AMENDED FOR PURPOSES OF LEGAL
MATTERS. PERMITTED APPLICANTS
WILL CHIME IN SAYING THESE
PROVISIONS ARE CONFUSING. WE
NEED CLARIFICATION ON THEM.
NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES
WILL APPROACH SDCI AND REQUEST
CHANGES IN THE CODE. AGAIN,
THEY COME FROM A VARIETY OF
DIFFERENT SOURCES. I WILL GO
OVER SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS AND
THIS YEAR'S OMNIBUS. IT IS
VOLUMINOUS. 50 SOMETHING PAGES,
PROBABLY. I HAVE SELECTED A FEW
HERE TO HIGHLIGHT. ONE OF THE
CHANGES IS ONE OF THOSE STATE
LAW CHANGES THAT CHANGED THE
NOMENCLATURE FROM MARIJUANA TO
CANNABIS. WE TOUCHED ON ALL OF
THOSE AND MADE THE APPROPRIATE
CHANGES THERE. ANOTHER ONE OF
THE CHANGES WE WILL HIGHLIGHT
IS THE CLARIFICATION TO THE
AMOUNT OF ACTIVE SPACE.
ACCESSORY TO GROCERY STORES.
THIS WOULD BE IN THE NC ONE AND
NC 2 ZONES AND ESSENTIALLY
ALLOWING FOR AMPLE ROOM OR
THINGS LIKE PROPER EMPLOYEE
BREAK ROOMS, STORAGE AREAS FOR
THE VARIETY OF PRODUCT THAT
THESE URBAN GROCERY STORES HAVE
TO HAVE, ADEQUATE OFFICE SPACE
FOR OPERATING GROCERY STORES.
THIS HELPS CLARIFY THAT. THESE
AREAS ARE EXEMPT. AND ANOTHER
CLARIFICATION IS TO ALLOW
COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES
WHEN THERE IS A LOT THAT IS
OWNED BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL. BEING ABLE TO HAVE
OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES WHICH WE
FOUND ARE VALUED AND THIS HELPS
GET THAT DETAIL. THERE ARE
SEVERAL CHANGES HERE IN SEATTLE
MIXED ZONES AND ONE OF THEM IS
HELPING TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
HEIGHT FOR PRESERVING OPEN
SPACE AND TO FACILITATE
ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR
THOSE IMPACTED BY THE MONORAIL.
AND THERE ARE CHANGES TO
DOWNTOWN ZONES TO CLARIFY
HEIGHT LIMIT STANDARDS. THEN
THERE IS ONE REGARDING THE
HEIGHT ALONG THIRD AVENUE AS
WELL AS SOME TOWER SPACING
PROVISIONS AS TO WHAT
CONSTITUTES AN EXISTING TOWER
PER THE CODE . AND THEN THERE
ARE SEVERAL ADMINISTRATIVE
PAGES WITH THE TREE PROTECTION
ORDINANCE THAT ARE PRIMARILY TO
PROVIDE CLARITY NOW THAT WE
HAVE HAD THAT LEGISLATION ON
THE BOOKS FOR A LITTLE OVER A
YEAR NOW. THERE ARE NO CHANGES
IN POLICY TO THAT ORDINANCE.
THESE ARE CLARIFICATIONS AND
CHANGING OF NOMENCLATURE TO THE
TIER 1 , 2, 3, 4. IT CLEARS
SOME OF THAT UP AS WELL. THAT
IS A QUICK OVERVIEW, SOME
HIGHLIGHTS. I AM HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THESE
OR FURTHER EXPAND IF THERE ARE
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS YOU MAY
HAVE SEEN IN THE CHANGES AND
THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SO, WE ALSO HAVE COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF WHO DRAFTED A
VERY USEFUL TABLE TO HELP US
UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE
DIFFERENT CHANGES THAT ARE
BEING CONTEMPLATED HERE.
SEVERAL CHANGES ARE REQUIRED
UNDER STATE LAW AND SOME ARE
CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS POLICY
DECISIONS THE COUNCIL HAS MADE.
IN A MOMENT, I WILL ASK YOU TO
GO THROUGH YOUR MOMENT AND
FOCUS ON THE ISSUES NOT
CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS
POLICY, SO THE FIRST TABLE FOR
COLLEAGUES ON THE COMMITTEE AND
ANYONE WHO HAPPENED TO PRINT
OFF THE AGENDA DOCUMENTS. BUT
BEFORE WE GET THERE, I DO WANT
TO GIVE THE SDCI TEAM A CHANCE
TO RESPOND TO THE CONCERNS WE
HAVE HEARD ABOUT CHANGES TO THE
TREE CODE. I WONDER IF -- I'M
NOT SURE WHICH OF YOU WOULD
LIKE TO ADDRESS IT BUT WE DO
KNOW AND I APPRECIATE SDCI
SENDING A MEMO LATE LAST NIGHT,
YESTERDAY EVENING ADDRESSING
THE CONCERNS, BUT IF YOU COULD
JUST FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC
TALK ABOUT WHAT IS BEING
CONTEMPLATED TO CHANGE AND WHAT
IS BEING NOT CONTEMPLATED TO
CHANGE. WHO IS TAKING THAT ONE?
>> SORRY. I HIT MY AUDIO BUTTON
THERE. I AM HAPPY TO TALK
REGARDING THE RSL ZONES. I
THINK THE CONCERN HERE IS IN
THE TABLE -- AND IF YOU HAVE
THE ORDINANCE HANDY, IT IS ON
PAGE 140 ON THE ORDINANCE.
THERE IS A TABLE. ESSENTIALLY
IT CALLS OUT NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES, SEATTLE
MIXED RESIDENTIAL . THEN IT HAS
A FOOTNOTE THAT SAYS BASICALLY
TREES CAN BE REMOVED AND ALL
OTHER ZONES. I THINK THERE WAS
CONCERN OF THE RSL ZONE WAS NOT
INCLUDED SPECIFICALLY IN THE
TABLE THERE WAS CONCERN THE
FOOTNOTE WOULD SAY YOU COULD
REMOVE ALL TREES UNDER PROPOSAL
IN RSL ZONES, WHICH IS NOT TRUE
BECAUSE THE TERM NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONE -- IF YOU LOOK
UP THE DEFINITION IN THE
MUNICIPAL CODE, RSL FALLS UNDER
THE UMBRELLA OF NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES. NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES INCLUDES RSL.
RSL HAVE THE SAME PROVISIONS AS
THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES. SORRY, 1, 2, 3.
>> SO THEY ARE AUTOMATICALLY
COVERED BECAUSE THEY ARE BY
DEFINITION PART OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
>> THEY ARE PART OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL SUITE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY, LISH, IF YOU COULD
WALK THROUGH YOUR MEMO AND HELP
US UNDERSTAND SOME OF THOSE
PROPOSED CHANGES.
>> I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE IF
THIS GETS VERY WONKY.
>> DULY NOTED.
>> SECTION 17 OF THE BILL
RELATES TO EXEMPTION OF SPACE
FOR BASEMENTS IN MULTIFAMILY
ZONES. CURRENTLY FOR SOME
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING TYPES,
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA IS EXEMPT
FROM THE OVERALL LIMIT ON
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA IN A
BUILDING. IF IT IS BELOW 4 FEET
ABOVE THE LEVEL. YOUR BASEMENT
CAN BE 4 FEET ABOVE WHICH
ALLOWS FOR WINDOWS TO EXIT.
FROM BEDROOMS IN THE BASEMENT,
THIS BILL -- OR THIS SECTION OF
THE BILL RELATES IN PART TO THE
LAST BILL. WE JUST DISCUSSED IT
WILL APPLY THE CONGREGANT STATE
PROVISIONS IN MULTIFAMILY
DWELLING UNITS TO CONGREGATE
HOUSING BUT GOES FURTHER AND
APPLIES TO OTHER HOUSING TYPES
LIKE SINGLE-FAMILY AND
TOWNHOUSE OR COTTAGE HOUSING.
THE CURRENT CODE HAS TWO
DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS, ONE FOR
APARTMENT BUILDINGS WHERE
PARKING CAN BE ACCESSED FROM
THE STREET AND CAN BE ACCESSED
DIRECTLY FROM THE STREET IN
ORDER TO USE THAT FOR
EXEMPTION. FOR TOWNHOUSES ,
PARKING NEEDS TO BE BEHIND OR
BENEATH THE BUILDING IN ORDER
TO ACCESS THE BASEMENT SPACE. I
RAISE THE QUESTION ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT THAT SHOULD ALSO
APPLY TO SINGLE-FAMILY OR
COTTAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
WHICH ARE CLOSER IN FORM TO
TOWNHOUSES THAN TO LARGER
APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
>> SO WOULD THAT MEAN THEN IT
IS REQUIRED TO HAVE THE PARKING
IF IT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE IT
BEHIND?
>> CORRECT.
>> OKAY.
>> TRAVIS MENTIONED THE GROCERY
STORE EXEMPTION. IT IS MEANT TO
APPLY TO CERTAIN PARTS OR
CERTAIN FUNCTIONS OF THE
GROCERY STORE. YOU MIGHT WANT
TO CONSIDER PROVIDING MORE
FLEXIBILITY BY ALLOWING GROCERY
STORES TO BE LARGER AND NOT
SAYING THE EXTRA SPACE HAS TO
BE IN BACK OF HOUSE FUNCTIONS.
THAT WOULD PROVIDE MORE
FLEXIBILITY FOR GROCERY STORES
TO REMODEL IN THE FUTURE
WITHOUT GETTING TRIPPED UP ON
HIS THIS A FUNCTION OR FRONT OF
HOUSE FUNCTION? THE BILL
PROVIDES SOME HEIGHT LIMIT
EXEMPTIONS AND CHANGES THOSE IN
SOUTH LAKE UNION. THIS IS
SECTION 27 OF THE BILL. THOSE
EXEMPTIONS -- THOSE SPECIAL
HEIGHT LIMITS WERE DRAFTED TO
SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT THAT
PROTECTS A PARTICULAR PRIVATELY
OWNED PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN
SPACE ON FAIRVIEW AVENUE JUST
NORTH OF DENNY WAY. IT USED TO
BE CALLED THE SEATTLE TIMES
PARK AND WAS ACROSS THE STREET
FROM THE OLD SEATTLE TIMES
BUILDING. THE OMNIBUS BILL
PROPOSES HEIGHT LIMIT
ALLOWANCES FOR THE RIGHTS OF
THAT PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY
ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE. THE ZONE
THE SUPPLIES IN IS A VERY LARGE
ZONE AND APPLIES TO MOST OF
SOUTH LAKE UNION AND SDCI WAS
NOT ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHETHER OR
NOT THERE ARE PROJECTS INVESTED
INTO THE CURRENT CODE
PROVISIONS IN ORDER TO MAKE
SURE THERE ARE NO UNINTENDED
IMPACTS OF THIS CODE CHANGE YOU
COULD KEEP THE EXISTING
LANGUAGE AND ADD THE NEW
LANGUAGE RATHER THAN REPLACING
THE EXISTING LANGUAGE WITH THE
NEW LANGUAGE. THE EFFECT WOULD
BE PROTECTING ANY EXISTING
PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN
INVESTED, BUT ALSO MAKE THE
CODE MUCH MORE COMPLICATED. THE
SEATTLE MIXED UPTOWN 160 ZONE
WAS CRAFTED WITH THE UPTOWN
COMMUNITY AS PART OF A RE-ZONE
OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THE
INTENT OF THAT ZONE WAS TO
ALLOW TOWERS -- MIXED-USE
TOWERS INCLUDING BOTH
RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL
SPACE OR RESIDENTIAL TOWERS IN
THE TRIANGLE -- BASICALLY NORTH
OF DENNY AND WEST . NORTH OF
DENNY, SOUTH OF SEATTLE CENTER.
SEVENTH AVENUE NORTH WHERE THE
AURORA AVENUE NORTH . THE BILL
PROPOSES TO ALLOW PROJECT THAT
ARE ON-SITE THAT HAVE THE
MONORAIL RUNNING THROUGH IT TO
BUILD TOWERS. BUILD
NONRESIDENTIAL TOWERS ,
PARTICULARLY HOTEL PROJECTS.
THIS IS SOMEWHAT INCONSISTENT
WORKING WITH THE CITY ON THIS
ZONING SO I AM RAISING THAT
INCONSISTENCY WITH COUNCIL
INTENT. AND I THINK FINALLY --
YES. TOWER INVESTING RULES. IN
DOWNTOWN, TOWERS NEED TO HAVE
SPACE IN BETWEEN THEM. WE WILL
HAVE MULTIPLE TOWERS ON THE
BLOCK. THE EFFECT OF THAT IS
THERE ARE LIMITS ON THE NUMBER
OF TOWERS THAT CAN BE BUILT
DOWNTOWN. WE HAVE A SERIES OF
RULES THAT INDICATE WHETHER OR
NOT THERE IS A TOWER ON A BLOCK
THAT THIS REQUIREMENT NEEDS TO
APPLY TO. AS YOU MAY IMAGINE,
THERE IS A LOT AT STAKE ON
WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN BUILD A
TOWER IN DOWNTOWN SEATTLE. WHAT
WE -- WHAT SDCI HAS SEEN IS
THAT THESE PROVISIONS, WHICH
ALLOW FOR SORT OF VESTING OF A
TOWER PROJECT AT THE POINT WHEN
AN APPLICANT FILES AN
APPLICATION FOR AN EARLY DESIGN
GUIDANCE SO THE VERY FIRST STEP
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM.
HAS RESULTED IN SOME PROJECTS
SORT OF FILING THAT EARLY
GUIDANCE APPLICATION AND MOVING
THROUGH THE FUTURE STEPS TO
BUILD THE TOWER PROJECT. THAT
ALLOWS THE PROPERTY OWNER
CERTAINTY THAT THEY, AT SOME
POINT IN THE FUTURE, WILL BE
ABLE TO BUILD A TOWER ON THEIR
SITE BUT IT ALSO MEANS THEIR
NEIGHBORS WHO MAY ALSO BE READY
TO BUILD A DEVELOPMENT ARE
PRECLUDED FROM BUILDING A TOWER
ON THEIR SITE. SDCI IS
PROPOSING CHANGES TO THOSE
PROVISIONS IN ORDER TO REQUIRE
CERTAIN MOVEMENT TO GET PAST
THAT EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE
PHASE OF A PROJECT. IF ADOPTED,
A PROJECT WILL NEED TO APPLY
FOR A PERMIT WITHIN THE YEAR OF
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
ORDINANCE. THE EFFECT WILL BE
SOME PROJECTS THAT AREN'T QUITE
READY TO MOVE INTO MASS USE
PERMIT REVIEW MIGHT LOSE THEIR
VESTING TOWER PROJECT. BUT
THEIR NEIGHBORS WOULD BE ABLE
TO ACTUALLY MOVE FORWARD WITH
THEIR TOWER PROJECTS WHICH
MIGHT MORE READY TO GET
STARTED. AND I KNOW THAT WAS
CONFUSING, BUT -- [ LAUGHTER ]
>> IT IS A QUESTION OF WHO GETS
THEIR PROJECT MOVING AND WHO
DOESN'T. I MEAN, POTENTIALLY
THERE COULD BE SORT OF WAITING
TO SEE WHEN THE RIGHT
OPPORTUNITY IS, BUT THAT COULD
PRECLUDE YOUR NEIGHBOR FROM
BEING ABLE TO GET THEIR PROJECT
DONE AND IT'S READY TO GO SO
I'M NOT SURE THERE IS -- I'M
NOT SURE WHAT THE FIX IS FOR
THAT, BUT MAKING SURE THE FOLKS
WHO ARE READY TO GO GET THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD THEIR
PROJECT MIGHT BE WORTH
CONSIDERING AND THAT IS WHAT IS
BEING CONTEMPLATED WITH THIS
PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.
COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. LISH, THIS
IS AN AREA OF THE LAW I AM NOT
AS FAMILIAR WITH. Y, FROM A
POLICY PERSPECTIVE, OR MAYBE IT
IS AN ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION
PERSPECTIVE, WHY ARE WE
LIMITING ONE TOWER TO THAT
BLOCK OR AREA? IT SEEMS TO ME
WE ARE LIMITING IT TO ONE. YOU
GO FIRST BUT IF YOU ARE NOT
READY TO GO WHICH IS SOMETIMES
LEGITIMATE BUT THEN IT
PRECLUDES THE OTHER PERSON SO
WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND?
>> IT IS MAKING SURE RESIDENTS
DOWNTOWN HAVE ACCESS ESPECIALLY
ON LOWER LEVELS OF TOWER. IF
YOU'VE GOTTEN -- IT REQUIRES A
60 FOOT DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO
RESIDENTIAL TOWERS. THAT SPACE
IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE LIGHT
AND AIR TO THE RESIDENCES.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> I WANT TO BACK UP TO -- I AM
JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH --
>> CHAIR?
>> I'M SORRY. I DID NOT SEE
YOUR QUESTION. LET ME ASK ONE
QUESTION AND THEN I WILL GO TO
YOU, COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. I
WONDER, LISH, IF YOU COULD TALK
ABOUT IT -- I THINK IN MOST OF
THESE PIECES OF LEGISLATION WE
ARE CONTEMPLATING TODAY, THERE
ARE CHANGES THAT ARE REALLY
MEANT TO FACILITATE PARTICULAR
PROJECTS SO IN THIS PARTICULAR
BILL, TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
WHAT THOSE ARE. YOU MENTIONED
SEATTLE TIMES PARK. I DO THINK
IT IS WORTH HAVING A
CONVERSATION ABOUT WHICH
PARTICULAR PROJECTS COULD BE
IMPACTED BY THESE CHANGES.
>> THE TWO THAT JUMP OUT AT ME
ARE THE SEATTLE TIMES PARK AND
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE
DEVELOPMENT ON THE FORMER
SEATTLE TIMES BUILDING, SEATTLE
TIMES SITE, WHICH DOES INCLUDE
CITY LANDMARK PROTECTIONS FOR
THE FACADE OF THE FORMER
SEATTLE TIMES BUILDING WOULD
USE THOSE PROVISIONS. THAT IS
LOCATED JUST NORTH OF DENNY ON
THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET.
FOR THE MONORAIL CHANGE, THERE
IS A SITE AT DENNY AND FIFTH
AVENUE NORTH ON THE EAST SIDE
OF THE STREET THAT HAS THE
MONORAIL RUNNING THROUGH IT AND
THERE IS AN ACTIVE PERMIT
APPLICATION THAT WOULD USE
THESE CODE PROVISIONS IF
COUNCIL ADOPTS THEM . THERE ARE
CHANGES ALONG THIRD AVENUE THAT
ARE CONSISTENT WITH CODE
CHANGES LAST YEAR TO REZONE
PORTIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN RETAIL
CORE . THOSE PROVISIONS INCLUDE
A BLOCK NORTH OF GINGER . AND I
THINK THOSE ARE THE
SITE-SPECIFIC CHANGES, OR THE
CHANGES I KNOW THERE IS A
PROJECT THAT COULD ACTUALLY
BENEFIT FROM THESE CHANGES.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. VERY
HELPFUL, LISH. I WANT TO ASK
YOU MORE QUESTIONS LATER ABOUT
THE BASEMENTS BECAUSE I THINK
THAT GETS INTO THE WEEDS OR THE
ROOTS. WHATEVER BASEMENTS DO.
TALKING ABOUT GROCERY STORE
FLOOR AREA EXEMPTIONS, JUST
FOCUSING IN HERE, WE ARE
ESSENTIALLY EXEMPTING BACK OF
HOUSE USES. THE OTHER CHOICE IS
TO MAKE THEM LARGER OR ALLOW
THEM TO BE LARGER IN GENERAL.
IS THERE A REASON OR IS THAT
FOR US TO FIND OUT AS TO WHY WE
WOULD NOT WANT THEM LARGER? IS
THERE A REASON WE CAN STRING
THEM TO THIS FLOORPLAN IN THE
PAST?
>> THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
ZONE IS INTENDED TO BE A SMALL
ZONE AND NEIGHBORHOOD OF
SERVICE BUT IT IS THE INTENT OF
HAVING THAT ZONE SO WE HAVE
FAIRLY STRICT SIZE OF USE
LIMITS. IN THE PAST, THAT
COUNCIL HAS ALLOWED GROCERY
STORES TO BE LARGE AREAS GIVEN
THE IMPORTANCE OF SERVING
COMMUNITIES WITH FOOD. SO, YOU
KNOW, THE QUESTION IS HOW LARGE
-- YOU ARE BASICALLY WEIGHING
ALLOWING GROCERY STORES TO BE
LARGER, WHICH IS NOT
NECESSARILY CONSISTENT WITH THE
CHARACTER OF THESE AREAS BUT
PROVIDING FOOD TO
NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> OKAY. JUST AS WE WERE
UTILIZING THE APARTMENTS IN THE
LAST -- I AM STILL ON THE GIS
MAP OF THE CITY. SOME PARCELS
ARE PROBABLY TOO SMALL HOWEVER
YOU HAVE 24th AND 58th, JUST A
FEW BLOCKS AWAY, AND IT FITS
WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT. IF THIS
WERE BUILT TODAY, WE ARE THING
YOU COULD HAVE MORE BACK OF USE
SPACE THAT IS EXEMPTED RATHER
THAN THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION
WHERE THEY HAD TO JAM
EVERYTHING IN?
>> CORRECT.
>> THAT IS HELPFUL. I WAS HERE
ON STAFF WHEN WE WERE GOING
THROUGH THE CHANGES TO HELP
RESERVE AND CHANGE SEATTLE
TIMES PARK. ARE THERE NEGATIVE
IMPACTS ? ARE THERE POTENTIAL
NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO SEATTLE
TIMES PARK, OR IS THIS JUST
LOOKING AT THAT WHOLE MAPPED
AREA REGIONALLY? OKAY, GREAT.
THIS TABLE IS VERY HELPFUL.
LOOKING AT THE MONORAIL
BUILDING IN ATTACHMENT 2, WHAT
I -- THIS MAP IS VERY HELPFUL.
IT SHOWS THE MONORAIL CUTS OFF
A PORTION AND MAYBE THE
QUESTION I'M ABOUT TO ASK
MAYBE YOU ARE NOT THE RIGHT
PERSON TO ASK BUT WOULD IT BE
POSSIBLE -- YOU SAY IT IS
INCONSISTENT BECAUSE OF THE
HEIGHT LEVEL, CORRECT?
>> IT IS INCONSISTENT BECAUSE
IT IS ENCOURAGING MAYBE IN
NONRESIDENTIAL TOWER IN AN AREA
THE COMMUNITY WAS PLANNING OR
HOPING FOR RESIDENTIAL TOWERS.
>> MUCH LIKE THE BUILDING NEXT
TO SEATTLE TIMES PARK WAS
INTENDED TO BE RESIDENTIAL, YET
SOMEHOW REMOVED IT TO OFFICE
SPACE RIGHT BEFORE THE PANDEMIC
BUT WE WILL NOT GET INTO THAT.
THAT IS THE INCONSISTENCY, NOT
THE AMOUNT OF FLOOR AREA THAT
IS USED. I JUST SEE THIS FROM
ME FLOOR AREA PERSPECTIVE WHERE
WE ARE ESSENTIALLY CHOPPING THE
CORNER OFF ON THE MAP, CHOPPING
OFF THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING
AND PUTTING IT ON TOP. IS THAT
WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT? OUR
SISTER CITY HAS A LIGHT RAIL
STATION IN A RESIDENTIAL TOWER.
IT IS UP ON THE SIDE OF THE
HILL. PEOPLE FLOCK FROM ALL
OVER JUST TO TAKE PHOTOS OF IT.
IT WOULD BE NEAT TO HAVE A
BUILDING MUCH LIKE THE
EXPERIENCED MUSIC PROJECT GOES
THROUGH THE BUILDING, BUT YOU
DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS
POSSIBLE, DO YOU?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
POSSIBLE ON THIS PARTICULAR
SITE AND IT DOES RAISE A WHOLE
BUNCH OF ISSUES FOR THE
DEVELOPERS IN TERMS OF
COORDINATING WITH THE MONORAIL.
>> FAIR ENOUGH. WHEN WE RIDE
THE MONORAIL DIRECT FROM CITY
HALL TO SEATTLE CENTER, IT IS
ALWAYS COOL TO GO RIGHT OVER
THAT BUILDING. THAT WOULD BE AN
INTERESTING PROJECT. SORRY, I
AM GOING DOWN HERE. THE THIRD
UNION PODIUM HEIGHTS --
SWITCHING TO THE NEXT TABLE --
THIS WAS A BILL WE PASSED LAST
YEAR. I SPONSORED THIS BILL AS
PART OF THE DOWNTOWN ACTIVATION
PLAN. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH
WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LAST
YEAR. THE PODIUM HEIGHTS WILL
HELP. THIS WILL BE HELPFUL.
THAT IS WHAT I'VE GOT FOR YOU
RIGHT NOW, CHAIR. I WILL GO
THROUGH THIS DETAILED MEMO AND
I WILL ASK FOR MORE TIME WITH
LISH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> WE HAVE TWO MORE BILLS TO
COVER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LET'S MOVE ON. WE WILL BRING
THIS BILL BACK TO THE SEPTEMBER
18th LAND USE COMMITTEE MEETING
AND I ENCOURAGE COLLEAGUES TO
REACH OUT TO CENTRAL STAFF AND
DEPARTMENTS IF WE'VE GOT
QUESTIONS. PLEASE READ ITEM 3
INTO THE RECORD.
>> COUNCIL BILL 120824, DESIGN
REVIEW FOR BRIEFING AND
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE
HEARING.
>> THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS IF
THEY CONSIST OF HOUSING,
HOTELS, RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT USES. IT AFFECTS
AREAS IN THE URBAN CENTERS OF
DOWNTOWN, SOUTH LAKE UNION,
UPTOWN, AND FIRST HILL. AND
SOME PORTIONS IN THE
GEORGETOWN. WE ARE JOINED BY
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF. PLEASE
INTRODUCE YOURSELVES AND GET
STARTED.
>> HI. GORDON CLOWERS, SENIOR
PLANNER WITH SDCI.
>> COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE DO HAVE A
PRESENTATION . I'M NOT SURE
EXACTLY HOW TO GET THAT GOING
HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> OH. GREAT.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES, THANK YOU.
>> WE ARE HERE TODAY -- THANK
YOU FOR INVITING ME TO TALK
ABOUT THE DESIGN REVIEW
EXEMPTION. PROGRAM PROPOSAL. I
WILL TRY TO SUMMARIZE THE BASIS
OF THIS AT THE BEGINNING AND
ITS SOURCE ORIGINATES IN THE
DOWNTOWN ACTIVATION PLAN. YOU
CAN LEARN MORE ABOUT THAT AT
DOWNTOWN IS YOU .COM. IT IS THE
MAYOR'S INITIATIVE TO HELP
PROMOTE IMPROVED ENVIRONMENT IN
SEATTLE'S CORE, MOST NOTABLY
DOWNTOWN BY ENCOURAGING MORE
LIVING AND RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT, MORE JOBS, AND
IMPROVEMENT OF THE
ENTERTAINMENT AND SHOPPING
OPPORTUNITIES IN THE CITY. WE
ARE LOOKING TO STIMULATE
INVESTMENTS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT
IN THE NEXT THREE YEAR PERIOD.
PART OF THAT AND PART OF THIS
PROPOSAL IS TO LOOK AT HOW WE
CAN PROMOTE A MORE EFFICIENT
PERMITTING AND AT THE SAME TIME
RETAIN THE FLEXIBILITY THAT IS
OFFERED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW
PROGRAM CURRENTLY ADDRESSING
PROPOSALS IN DOWNTOWN AND
SURROUNDING URBAN CENTERS.
>> THANK YOU. AS YOU MOVE TO
THE NEXT SLIDE, I WOULD LIKE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON HAS JOINED US. THANK
YOU.
>> SO, THAT IS IN PARTICULAR
RESPONDING TO THE CURRENT
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND SOME OF
THE DIFFICULTIES THAT ARE
HOLDING BACK PROPOSALS FROM
GOING FORWARD RIGHT NOW AND WE
ARE LOOKING AT TRYING TO
ENCOURAGE SOME OF THOSE ACTIONS
TO HAPPEN BY GIVING THEM A
LITTLE MORE INCENTIVE THAT THEY
CAN GET THROUGH THE PERMITTING
PROCESS QUICKER. SO, WE ALREADY
KNOW THAT THERE IS A TREND
TOWARDS DESIGN REVIEW REFORM.
LAST YEAR THE STATE LAW
MANDATED REFORMS TO SHORTEN THE
PROCESS. THIS BILL IS NOT THE
DESIGN REVIEW POZO YET. THAT IS
UNDER DEVELOPMENT AND WILL BE
PRESENTED TO YOU AT A LATER
DATE. AGAIN, THIS IS ABOUT MORE
SHORT-TERM STIMULATION OF
GROWTH AND ACTIVATION OF
DOWNTOWN AND SURROUNDING URBAN
CENTERS. SO, THIS PROPOSAL HAS
GIVEN US A CHANCE TO EXPLORE
HOW WE CAN REFORM OUR CODES AND
HOW WE CAN BEST SUPPORT A
STRAIGHTFORWARD PERMITTING
PROCESS. AGAIN, ALLOWING FOR
FLEXIBILITY WHILE PRESERVING
QUALITY AND COORDINATING. AS I
HAVE SAID, THE FINANCING ARENA
AND ECONOMY IS A LITTLE
CHALLENGING RIGHT NOW
DISCOURAGING NEW DEVELOPMENT
FROM HAPPENING. THE CODE
COMPLEXITY THAT WE HAVE IN
SEATTLE AND THE PERMITTING
PROCESS REALLY DOES ADD
ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES THAT MAY
HOLD BACK IN DEVELOPMENT. SO,
THE PROPOSAL, IT WOULD ON AN
INTERIM BASIS ALLOW DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSALS FROM THE DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS FOR THREE YEARS
AND THIS IS PROPOSED FOR THE
DOWNTOWN URBAN CENTER, UPTOWN,
SOUTH LAKE UNION, FIRST HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD, JUST EAST OF I-5,
AND THE DUWAMISH MANUFACTURING
AND INDUSTRIAL CENTER, WHICH I
WILL SHOW ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
THE MANUFACTURING AND
INDUSTRIAL CENTER PORTION EAST
OF 4th AVENUE, WEST OF I-5
LABELED ON THE MAP. IT IS NOT
GOING TO AFFECT PIONEER SQUARE,
CHINATOWN, TAKE PLACE MARKET .
THOSE AREAS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
CHAPTER 23 41 DESIGN REVIEW,
THEIR OWN SPECIAL PROCESSES ARE
MORE THAN ADEQUATE TO CONSIDER
THE FLEXIBILITY AND DO NOT NEED
OR THIS PROPOSAL WOULD NOT BE
RELEVANT TO THEM. OKAY, SO THE
RANGE OF PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE
ELIGIBLE UNDER THIS PROPOSAL IS
ORIENTED TO RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS, HOTEL, BUILDINGS AND
USES, MIXED-USE PROJECTS THAT
INCLUDE 50% OF THE FLOOR AREA
IN RESIDENTIAL OR HOTEL USES,
OR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
LABORATORY USES, SPECIFIC LAND
USE CATEGORY GENERALLY
INVOLVING HIGH-TECH BUSINESSES
AND IT MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE
LABORATORY SPACE SO THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF THESE IN SOUTH LAKE
UNION TODAY. SO, THE PROPOSAL
IS RATHER GO THROUGH THE DESIGN
REVIEW PROGRAM, THE PROPOSED
CODE ACCOMMODATES THE CITY TO
ALLOW FOR DEVIATIONS AND
REDUCTIONS IN MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS CONDUCTED BY OR
THROUGH SDCI PERMIT REVIEW
PROCESSES ALLOWS US TO CONSIDER
THE NATURE OF PROPOSED
ADJUSTMENTS TO SITE PLANS AND
DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL
PLANS AND DECIDE WHETHER TO
ALLOW THOSE OR NOT ALLOW THOSE
AS PART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS.
IT IS COMPARABLE TO THE
DEPARTURES THAT ARE GRANTED
THROUGH THE DESIGN REVIEW
PROCESS. AND -- YES. THE RANGE
OF SUBJECTS THAT ARE ADDRESSED
BY THIS PROPOSAL ARE SPELLED
OUT IN THE CODE. IT IS THIS
LENGTHY LIST HERE. THESE
REFLECT THE RECORDS OF THE PAST
FIVE OR SIX YEARS. I HAVE
REVIEWED 75 DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS AND THESE ARE THE
RANGE OF DEPARTURES THAT HAVE
BEEN CONSIDERED AND GRANTED IN
THOSE PROCESSES. IT REALLY
SPEAKS TO THE NATURE OF NEEDED
DESIGN FLEXIBILITY IN MANY
CASES. THE UPPER-LEVEL SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS, MODULATION OF THE
OPENINGS OF THE STREET FACADE,
SETBACKS, FLOOR TO FLOOR
HEIGHT, TREE LEVEL USE TYPE AND
DEPTH, VARIOUS OPEN SPACE
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS,
VEHICLE ACCESS TO PARKING AND
LOADING CAN BE SOMETHING THAT
GAINS A LITTLE BIT OF DESIGN
FLEXIBILITY ON LOCATION OR
DIMENSIONS. PARKING SPACE SIZE
REQUIREMENTS. THESE WOULD BE A
TYPICAL PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN
UNDER REVIEW AND PROPOSES
ANYWHERE FROM AROUND THREE TO
SIX DEPARTURES. MANY ARE
RELATED TO JUST GAINING A
LITTLE BIT MORE CONSISTENT
BUILDING FORM IN THE
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BUT
SOMETIMES AND FAIRLY OFTEN ALSO
THEY RELATE TO THINGS LIKE
STEEP STREETS THAT MAKE IT
DIFFICULT TO COMPLY WITH THE
MINIMUM STANDARDS. OR OTHER
CHALLENGES, LIKE PROXIMITY OR
OTHER THINGS TO THE SITE THAT
MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO
COMFORTABLY MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS. ONE EXAMPLE IS AN
ANGLED STREET. THERE IS A
SPECIFIC PROJECT WHERE A LITTLE
FLEXIBILITY AND SQUARING OFF
THE CORNER WOULD ALLOW
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR MORE
CONVENTIONAL LOOKING BUILDING
TO BE ACCOMMODATED WITH A
MINIMUM FLEXIBILITY. GRANTED
DURING THE PROCESS.
OH, OKAY. I THINK I AM ON THE
RIGHT SLIDE THERE. THIS
PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES A
PROVISION THAT IS COMPARABLE TO
WHAT OCCURS DURING THE DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS. THE VESTING TO
THE LAND USE CODES IS DEFINED
AT WHICH GUIDANCE IS PROPOSED.
THAT IS EARLY IN THE PROCESS.
THIS PROPOSAL LIKELY SHOULD
HAVE A PROVISION AND WE NEEDED
TO DEFINE ACTION OR A VERSION
OF THAT CALLED A LETTER OF
ELIGIBILITY THAT CAN BE FILED
BY THE APPLICANT TO SAY I AM
ELIGIBLE FOR THIS DESIGN REVIEW
EXEMPTION AND AS LONG AS THEY
FILE THE PERMIT APPLICATION
PACKAGE WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER
THAT, THEY ARE VESTED BY THE
TIME OF THAT LETTER OF
ELIGIBILITY. AND THERE IS
ANOTHER PRACTICAL REASON FOR
THIS PROPOSAL AS WELL, WHICH IS
SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT WILL
BE PROPOSED WILL BE TYPE ONE
ONLY AND SOME WILL BE TYPE TWO
ONLY. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE, A
TYPE I PROJECT CAN GO STRAIGHT
TO THE BUILDING REVIEW WITHOUT
NEEDING A MASTER USE PERMIT.
THERE IS A ZONING REVIEW
CONDUCTED DURING THE BURLING
BUILDING PERMITTING PROCESS BUT
THIS ALLOWS FOR A PRELIMINARY
PROPOSAL TO BE FILED THAT IS
COMPARABLE TO MASTER USE PERMIT
DESIGN PACKAGE WITHOUT HAVING
TO 100% DESIGN THE BUILDING TO
MEET BUILDING CODE BEFORE YOU
COME IN THE DOOR, SO THAT IS
ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, BENEFIT OF
THIS PROPOSAL. SO, IN RESPONSE
TO THE PUBLIC INPUT WE HEARD
EARLIER, WE ARE INCLUDING THE
PUBLIC NOTICE FOR ALL KINDS OF
PROJECTS WHETHER OR NOT THEY
ARE TYPE I OR TYPE II PROJECTS
TO HAVE NOTICED PROVIDE FOR
COMMENT PERIOD IN MAIL NOTICE
TO THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING OF
THE DEVELOPMENT SO THIS
MAINTAINS THE SAME LEVEL OF
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION IF A
PROPOSAL IS HAPPENING IN ONE OF
THESE AREAS AND ALERTS THE
PUBLIC THEY CAN AND SHOULD
PARTICIPATE IF THEY WOULD LIKE
TO OFFER COMMENT AND FOLLOW
ALONG. I BELIEVE THAT IS ALL OF
THE SLIDES THAT I HAVE. I AM
HAPPY TO GO OVER ANY OF THOSE
DETAILS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GORDON.
I APPRECIATE THAT. I APPRECIATE
THE SLIDES AND THE DISCUSSION.
I WANT TO THANK YOU AND THANK
CENTRAL STAFF FOR THE MEMO THAT
VERY THOUGHTFULLY RAISED
SEVERAL ISSUES FOR US TO
CONSIDER. AND I JUST WANT TO
SAY I KNOW DESIGN REVIEW IN
PARTICULAR HAS BEEN UNDER A
MICROSCOPE FOR SOME TIME AND WE
HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO
IMPROVE THE PROGRAM AND MAKE
SURE WE ARE FULLY ADDRESSING
OUR GOALS OF GOOD DESIGN
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT SERVE
EVERYONE AND GETTING THE KIND
OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND
HOUSING AND ALL OF THE THINGS
THAT MAKE A THRIVING COMMUNITY
FOR US. THAT SAID, I THINK IT
IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THIS IS A
REMINDER TO COUNCIL THE WORK OF
REMEDYING OUR DESIGN REVIEW
CHALLENGES IS UNDERWAY. THERE
IS A LOT OF WORK TO DO AND THIS
PARTICULAR BILL IS AN EXEMPTION
BILL, NOT AN OVERHAUL OF THE
DESIGN PROCESS. I HAVE A FEW
QUESTIONS FOR GORDON AND THEN I
WILL ASK YOU TO GO THROUGH AT A
HIGH LEVEL SOME OF THE ISSUES
YOU RAISED IN YOUR MEMO.
GORDON, CAN YOU TALK A BIT
ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL
IS PART OF THE DOWNTOWN
ACTIVATION PLAN TO REVITALIZE
DOWNTOWN SO WHY ARE RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT LABS INCLUDED
IN THE EXEMPTION BUT NOT
COMMERCIAL USES? IT FEELS LIKE
THIS IS A SPOTTY ZONE BEING
PROPOSED.
>> WELL, I THINK THIS
RECOGNIZES THE USES PROVIDE
FOR, YOU KNOW, LARGE EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES AND I HEARD
SECONDHAND THAT KIND OF COMPANY
AND DEVELOPMENT TENDS TO HAVE
THE EMPLOYEES STAY IN THEIR
BUILDINGS AND WORKING LONGER
PERIODS SO THEY ARE MORE LIKELY
TO BE PRESENT IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND HELPING TO
ACTIVATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> OKAY. SO, DESIGN REVIEW IS
NOT REQUIRED IN THE INDUSTRIAL
INNOVATION ZONES, SO WHY IS THE
Mc INCLUDED IN THIS IF THEY
WOULD NOT BENEFIT FROM THE
LEGISLATION?
>> WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS A
PROPONENT THAT HAS AN
APPLICATION IN THE DOOR ALREADY
WOULD LIKE TO CONDUCT REVISIONS
TO THAT POSSIBLY END IT IS IN
THE SPIRIT OF ALLOWING FOR
EXPEDITING PROJECTS THAT CAN
HAPPEN IF THEY GET A LITTLE BIT
OF, YOU KNOW, ASSISTANCE IN THE
PERMITTING PROCESS THAT THEY
COULD OBTAIN SOME REVISION OR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. IN ORDER
TO, YOU KNOW, BRING ABOUT NEW
DEVELOPMENTS.
>> OKAY. CAN YOU -- SOMEBODY
MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS
DISCUSSION -- CAN YOU TELL ME
IF COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE HAS
BEEN BRIEFED ON THIS PARTICULAR
BILL?
>> I BELIEVE HE HAS. YES.
>> I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE
GIVEN A PORTION EFFECTS HIS
DISTRICT. I HAVE A QUESTION
ABOUT -- WELL, I WILL SAVE THAT
FOR LATER. I HAVE A BROAD
QUESTION ABOUT DESIGN REVIEW
GIVEN THE FLY RESPONSE WE
RECEIVED EARLIER THIS YEAR, BUT
I WILL SAVE THAT FOR A LITTLE
BIT LATER. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW
-- I AM INTERESTED IN BRINGING
A TECHNICAL AMENDMENT THAT
WOULD CLARIFY WHETHER A PROJECT
IS VESTED -- WHEN A PROJECT IS
VESTED BECAUSE IT IS A LITTLE
UNCLEAR WHAT THIS SO I WILL
FLAG THAT FOR NOW AND I WILL
TALK TO YOU LATER ABOUT THAT.
OKAY. I WILL HAND IT OFF AND
ASK IF YOU COULD REVIEW YOUR
MEMO AND I SEE THAT
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS HAS HIS
HAND UP.
>> ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA IS A
MEMO FROM ME FROM LAST WEEK. IT
PROVIDES A BIT OF BACKGROUND
CONTEXT ON CHANGES TO THE
DESIGN PROGRAM WHICH WILL
INFORM THE PROPOSAL AND AS
INDICATED, THIS IS NOT A DESIGN
REVIEW EXEMPTION INVOLVED HERE
FORMED BY SOME OF THE WORK THAT
HAS BEEN DONE BY SDCI . THIS IS
ESSENTIALLY A NEW ON THE
ELEMENT PROCESS. THE WAY IT HAS
EXISTED FOR THREE YEARS, THIS
IS NOT A NEW PROCESS. I WILL
PROVIDE SOME COMPARING AND
CONTRASTING ON WHAT IS
CURRENTLY REQUIRED DOWNTOWN FOR
PROJECTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO
DESIGN REVIEW DUE TO THE SIZE
OF THOSE PROJECTS AND A TABLE
OF COMPARISON OF WHAT THAT
PROCESS WILL LOOK LIKE COMPARED
TO WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE
MAYOR. TO RECAP HERE A BIT,
WHAT GORDON SAID, I WILL
IDENTIFY A FEW ISSUES. THE BILL
WOULD ALLOW THE DIRECTOR TO
ADMINISTRATIVELY GRANT
MODIFICATIONS THE WOOD ONLY
OTHERWISE BE AVAILABLE THROUGH
DESIGN REVIEW. THE GRANT WOULD
BE ON A PROJECT BY PROJECT
BASIS THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISION . OTHERWISE THOSE
TYPES OF GRANTS OR DEPARTURES,
MODIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS WOULD ONLY BE
AVAILABLE THROUGH LEGISLATIVE
ACTION FROM THE COUNCIL THROUGH
SOME OTHER EXISTING PROCESS
LIKE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION
PROCESS SO IT RAISES ISSUES FOR
THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS. WHAT I ASKED TO
DO WITH THE RIPENESS, WHETHER
THIS IS THE RIGHT TIME GIVEN
CHANGES THAT ARE FORTHCOMING. I
WILL MENTION THOSE. DELEGATION
-- THIS IS A PRETTY BROAD
DELEGATION PROPOSED BY SDCI.
VESTING, AND THE INDUSTRIAL
CENTER INCLUSION AS WELL, SO I
WILL WALK THROUGH EACH OF THOSE
ISSUES AND WALK THROUGH ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THE
HEARING THIS AFTERNOON, OTHER
ISSUES MAY BE IDENTIFIED BY THE
PUBLIC. THIS IS NOT AN
EXHAUSTED LIST BUT A POINT OF
DEPARTURE FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION. SO, WITH RESPECT
TO RIPENESS AS THE COMMITTEE
KNOWS THERE ARE MANY ONGOING
PROCESSES RELATING TO DOWNTOWN
INCLUDING THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENTS THE COUNCIL
WILL CONSIDER IN THE SUMMER OF
NEXT YEAR. THOSE AMENDMENTS
WILL FORM THE POLICY BASES FOR
POSSIBLE FUTURE REGULATORY
CHANGES DOWNTOWN. IT IS LIKELY
THE COUNCIL WILL NOT SEE
LEGISLATION IMPLEMENTING THE
POLICY DIRECTION NOT UNTIL 2026
. ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW WOULD NEED TO BE DONE
DOWNTOWN SO THE EARLIEST THAT
WOULD HAPPEN WOULD BE 2026 OR
PERHAPS EVEN LATER. NEXT YEAR
AT THE LEAST THERE IS THE
OPTION FOR THE COUNCIL IN THE
SEVEN YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
UPDATE. THERE IS, OF COURSE,
PLANNING ON GOING BY SOUND
TRANSIT FOR A LOCATION. THOSE
DECISIONS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE
BUT THEY WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE
IN TERMS OF WHERE LAND USES ARE
NOW AND HOW THINGS MAY FLOW.
THOSE ARE LIKELY TO BE MADE
NEXT YEAR. COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS MAY HAVE A BETTER IDEA
FOR THE SCHEDULE BUT THOSE WILL
BE MADE MORE OR LESS
CONCURRENTLY WITH THE DECISION
BY THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION FOR THE LENGTH
AND THAT WILL INFORM IN PART
WHERE THE STATIONS ARE LOCATED
DOWNTOWN. AND AS COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES MENTIONED THERE IS A
REQUIREMENT UNDER STATE LAW WE
MODIFY OUR DESIGN REVIEW
PROGRAM SO THERE ARE CURRENTLY
THINGS PART OF THE PROCESS THAT
CAN NO LONGER BE PART OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS. WE HAVE
TO MAKE THOSE MODIFICATIONS
CONSERVATIVELY BY SUMMER OF
NEXT YEAR. ABOUT THE SAME TIME
THE COUNCIL WILL BE CONSIDERING
CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN. THOSE ARE ALL FUTURE
CHANGES THAT WILL INFORM WHAT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE LIKE
DOWNTOWN AND WHERE THERE ARE
PREFERRED USES DOWNTOWN. I WILL
GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE JUST TO
MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE REAL. AS
WE ALL KNOW, THERE IS LESS
EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITY DOWNTOWN
DAN PRE-PANDEMIC. THAT THEY
CHANGE. PERHAPS THE FUTURE OF
DOWNTOWN IS A MORE RESIDENTIAL
PLACE. THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS WE USED TO ENCOURAGE
A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT? ONE,
MAIN STREETS. WE'VE GOT MAIN
STREETS IN BELLTOWN THAT WE TRY
TO USE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO
ACHIEVE GIVEN THE LACK OF PARK
SPACE DOWNTOWN. IT MAY BE THE
CASE IN THE FUTURE WITH
DECISIONS ABOUT WHERE
RESIDENTIAL USES COULD BE
DOWNTOWN, THERE COULD BE OTHER
DESIGNATED GREEN STREETS OR
SIMILAR CHANGES IF THE COUNCIL
WERE TO APPROVE COUNCIL BILL --
CB -- THE BILL NOW. SOME OF
THOSE LOCATIONS A NEW
DEVELOPMENT MIGHT BE TITLED
THAT DO NOT MEET THOSE
STANDARDS SO THERE IS A COST
POTENTIALLY THAT GOES ALONG
WITH ACTION ON THIS NOW SO THAT
IS AN ISSUE FOR THE COUNCIL TO
THINK ABOUT. THAT IS ONE ISSUE.
THE DELEGATION IS PROBABLY THE
HEART OF THE ISSUE HERE. THERE
IS A BROAD DELEGATION PROPOSED
TO THE SDCI DIRECTOR. THERE ARE
TWO ELEMENTS WHERE THE COUNCIL
MAKES A DELEGATION THAT IS
SOMEWHAT OF A POWER RESERVED TO
THE COUNCIL. ONE, IS THERE
SUFFICIENT DIRECTION TO WHO THE
DELEGATION IS MADE? AND THE
OTHER, IS THERE A SAFEGUARD
AGAINST ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND
EXERCISING THAT DELEGATION?
WITH RESPECT TO THE DIRECTION
HERE PROPOSED BY SDCI, IT IS
SIMPLY THERE BE MORE HOTEL
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
LABORATORY SPACE OR RESIDENTIAL
USE OCCASIONED BY WAIVERS AND
MODIFICATIONS THE SDCI DIRECTOR
WILL BE ABLE TO GRANT. THAT IS
THE CONTRAST UNDER FULL DESIGN
REVIEW NOW THE DELEGATION IS
NOT STRICTLY TO THE SDCI
DIRECTOR AS TO THE DIRECTOR AND
OR BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND
WHEN THE BOARD MAKES A
UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION THAT
IS BINDING ON THE SDCI
DIRECTOR, SO THAT IS WHAT THE
DELEGATION CURRENTLY LOOKS
LIKE. THE DIRECTION PROVIDED BY
THE COUNCIL UNDER DESIGN REVIEW
IS A LITTLE MORE EXPANSIVE.
THERE ARE ADOPTED GUIDELINES.
THOSE GUIDELINES ARE APPROVED
BY AN ORDINANCE THAT THERE IS
ACTION BY THE COUNCIL TO
APPROVE THE GUIDANCE THE BOARD
USES IN REVIEWING THE PROJECT
AND MAKING A DECISION ABOUT
DEPARTURES. THOSE TO BE CALLED
WAIVERS AND MODIFICATIONS UNDER
THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED BILL.
THAT IS THE FIRST PART OF THE
ELEMENT ABOUT DELEGATION. WHO
IS A DELEGATION TO, AND WHAT IS
THE DIRECTION? THE SECOND PART
HAS TO DO WITH SAFEGUARDS
AGAINST ABUSE OF DISCRETION SO
AS IS CURRENTLY THE CASE UNDER
THE PROPOSAL FROM SDCI IS THE
DECISION BY THE DIRECTOR TO
GRANT MODIFICATION VIA A TYPE I
DECISION. TYPE I DECISION IS
NONAPPEALABLE ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS WHICH CANNOT BE
APPEALED TO THE CITY EXAMINER.
THERE CAN BE AN APPEAL TO THE
PROJECT IN SUPERIOR COURT WHICH
IS TRUE FOR EVERY PROJECT BUT
IT IS SUBJECT TO CITY APPROVAL.
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR AN
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL WOULD NOT
BE AVAILABLE UNDER THIS
PROPOSAL. BY CONTRAST, UNDER
FULL DESIGN REVIEW A DECISION
IS A TYPE II DECISION MEANING
IT IS AN APPEALABLE DECISION TO
THE CITY HEARING EXAMINER AND
OTHER SAFEGUARDS HAVE BEEN
BUILT INTO THE PROCESS AS WITH
ANY TYPE TO DECISION. THERE IS
A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PUBLIC
NOTICE REQUIRED AND OF COURSE
TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR EVERY
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT. THERE IS
A LITTLE MORE PUBLIC SCRUTINY.
IT'S AVAILABLE THROUGH THE
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS .
PROPOSAL OF SDCI WOULD ALLOW A
NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
COMMENT , BUT NOT TO THE SAME
LEVEL ALLOWED THROUGH THE
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS. THAT IS
THE DELEGATION HERE PROPOSED BY
SDCI. IT IS PRETTY BROAD.
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
APPEALED BY THE DIRECTOR BASED
ON CRITERIA WITH AN
OPPORTUNITY. SO THAT IS AN
ISSUE FOR THE COUNCIL TO THINK
ABOUT. POLICY LEVERS THE
COUNCIL COULD PULL TO PROVIDE A
LITTLE MORE EITHER SCRUTINY OR
OPPORTUNITY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEAL, BUT THOSE ARE CHOICES
FOR A FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETING
OR IN OFFICE. VESTING. AS
GORDON MENTIONED, THE PROPOSAL
WOULD ALLOW PRETTY SIMILAR TYPE
OF VESTING AVAILABLE THROUGH
DESIGN REVIEW. DESIGN REVIEW
TAKES A LONG TIME. IT COULD
TAKE TWO YEARS OR MORE. ONE OF
THE WAYS THE CITY MITIGATES
AGAINST THE RISK TO A DEVELOPER
OF REGULATIONS CHANGING IS BY
ALLOWING A PROJECT SUBJECT TO
DESIGN REVIEW TWO VEST AT AN
EARLY STAGE. IT IS
PRE-APPLICATION STAGE. THE
PROJECT VESTS UNDER DESIGN
REVIEW WITH EARLY DESIGN
GUIDANCE APPLICATION PROVIDED
AN APPLICATION IS MADE FOR
MASTER USE PERMIT FOR A PERIOD
OF TIME. A SIMILAR PROPOSAL BY
SDCI , NOT THE SAME RISK
ENVIRONMENT HERE. THE TYPE OF
PERMIT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED
HERE WOULD SIMPLY BE A TYPE I
PERMIT. LAND USE PERMIT THAT
COULD BE INCORPORATED INTO A
PERMIT APPLICATION. IT IS
UNCLEAR WHAT PURPOSE THIS
SERVES HERE BECAUSE THERE IS
NOT MUCH TIME ASSOCIATED WITH
THE PROCESS. AND FINALLY, THE
LAST ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH THE
INDUSTRIALIZATION ZONES.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES ASKED THE
QUESTION ABOUT IT. DESIGN
REVIEW IS NOT REQUIRED IN
INDUSTRIALIZATION ZONES AND HAS
NOT BEEN. THAT IS THE RESULT OF
A DECISION THE COUNCIL MADE
THROUGH THE INDUSTRIAL LAND
WORK IN 2023. IT USED TO BE
REQUIRED. GORDON, IF I COULD
GET YOU TO PULL UP A MAP OF THE
AREA SO WE ARE ALL LOOKING AT
THE SAME AREA.
>> I AM NOT SURE IF I AM STILL
SHARING OR NOT HERE.
>> IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE AREA
-- ESSENTIALLY THE AREA BETWEEN
--
>> THERE WE GO.
>> IT IS THE AREA IDENTIFIED AS
MIC. PRIOR TO 2023 --
>> KETIL, SPEAK INTO THE
MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
>> SORRY. THE DESIGN REVIEW WAS
REQUIRED BUT AS A POLICY MATTER
IT IS NO LONGER REQUIRED SINCE
PASSAGE OF THE INDUSTRIAL LAND
LEGISLATION SO IT IS UNCLEAR
WHAT PURPOSE IS SERVED BY
ADDING THIS AREA IN. AS GORDON
MENTIONED, THERE IS THE URBAN
VISION THAT HAS A CAMPUS
DEVELOPMENT THERE. COULD
POTENTIALLY BENEFIT FROM SOME
OF THESE CHANGES, BUT WE WOULD
HAVE TO EXPLORE A LITTLE MORE
WITH SDCI HOW THAT WOULD WORK
FUNCTIONALLY AND IF THIS IS A
PLACE DESIGN REVIEW IS NOT
CURRENTLY REQUIRED.
>> OKAY.
>> SO THAT'S -- THOSE ARE THE
FOUR PRELIMINARY ISSUES FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION. MAYBE
OTHERS HAVE IDENTIFIED THROUGH
PUBLIC TESTIMONY OR BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS THEMSELVES.
OF COURSE, A GREAT DISCUSSION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
GOING THROUGH THAT. I HAVE A
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, BUT I WILL
GO TO COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS
FIRST. GO AHEAD.
>> NO, YOU CAN GO FIRST. NO,
YOU CAN GO FIRST. NO, YOU CAN
GO FIRST. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PRESENTATION. I HAVE TO ASK A
FEW QUESTIONS. REGARDING THE
2023 SESSION WHICH REQUIRES
DESIGN REVIEW TO BE CHANGED,
WHAT -- CAN YOU TELL US MORE
ABOUT THAT? YOU MENTIONED THIS
IS SOMETHING WE WILL HAVE TO
TAKE UP SIX MONTHS AFTER THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS PASSED.
THIS IS, I BELIEVE, ONE OF THE
MANY THINGS WILL HAVE TO TAKE
UP NEXT YEAR AS TO WHY SOME
THINGS NEED TO GO SOONER RATHER
THAN LATER. CAN YOU GIVE ME A
ROUGH RUNDOWN ON WHAT WE NEED
TO DO IN THE FUTURE REGARDING
DESIGN REVIEW REGARDING 1293?
>> THERE ARE TWO KEY COMPONENTS
AND IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHAT
THAT WILL BE. WE'VE GOT THE
BENEFIT THE COUNCIL REQUESTS IN
2022 SO THAT IS MY RESPONSE.
THE WORK INVOLVED IN THAT
PREDATES PASSAGE OF 1293 AT THE
STATE LEVEL, SO IN SOME WAYS IT
IS USEFUL WORK AND IT IS STUFF
THE CITY HAS DONE NOW THAT
COULD INFORM PROCESS CHANGES.
TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHAT
1293 REQUIRES, THERE ARE TWO
MAJOR CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE
MADE. ONE, THERE IS A
LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF
MEETINGS. UNDER THE CURRENT
PROCESS THERE ARE TWO MEETINGS,
AN EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE
MEETING AND A RECOMMENDATION
MEETING. GOT THE GUIDANCE
MEETINGS THAT HAPPEN BEFORE THE
MASS USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
AND THE BOARD IDENTIFIES THE
GUIDELINES THAT ARE KEY FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF A SITE AND THERE
IS A RECOMMENDATION BASED -- A
SECOND MEETING THAT OCCURS
AFTER THE MASS USE PERMIT
APPLICATION WHERE AN APPLICANT
IDENTIFIES HOW THEY HAVE MET
THOSE GUIDELINES. FOR LARGER
PROJECTS AS A PRACTICAL MATTER
THERE ARE MORE THAN THOSE TWO.
THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON HOW
MANY MEETINGS THERE CAN BE BUT
THERE IS AUTHORITY FOR THE
BOARD TO ASK FOR A WAIVER OF
THE LIMITATION. UNDER 1293,
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE MEETING.
THE EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE
PROCESS WOULD NEED TO CHANGE.
THE MEETING WOULD NEED TO OCCUR
AT SOME DIFFERENT POINT IN THE
PROCESS. MAY BE AFTER MASS USE
PERMIT APPLICATION BUT THERE
WOULD BE A LIMITATION ON THE
NUMBER OF MEETINGS. THAT IS ONE
BIG CHANGE. THE OTHER, THE
DESIGN GUIDELINES HIMSELF WOULD
HAVE TO HAVE OBJECTIVE
CRITERIA. AS IT IS NOW, WE HAVE
A WHOLE BOOK OF DESIGN
GUIDELINES. THERE ARE CITYWIDE
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR
MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND THERE ARE
SUPPLEMENTAL NEIGHBORHOODS
SPECIFIC GUIDELINES. THE MOST
RECENT EXAMPLE IS THE CITY
ADOPTING NEIGHBORHOOD
GUIDELINES FOR CROWN HILL WHICH
I BELIEVE HAPPENED IN 2022.
THOSE GUIDELINES THEMSELVES
WOULD HAVE TO BE REWRITTEN TO
BE MORE OBJECTIVE. AN APPLICANT
OR POTENTIALLY THE BOARD WHO
KNOWS WHAT THE DESIGN REVIEW
MAY BE LIKE IN THE FUTURE COULD
EASILY ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT
THEY HAVE MET THOSE DESIGN
GUIDELINES. THOSE ARE SORT OF
TWO BIG CHANGES THAT WE WILL
NEED TO GO ALONG WITH ANY
CHANGE TO COMPLY WITH 1293.
>> THANK YOU, KETIL. RIGHT NOW
FROM WHAT I AM INFERRING FROM
YOUR BRIEFING, THE DESIGN
STANDARDS RIGHT NOW ARE
SUBJECTIVE RATHER THAN
OBJECTIVE.
>> THAT IS PROBABLY TRUE IN
CERTAIN CASES, YES.
>> AS WE PREPARE -- I CAN TELL
YOU I HAVE TAKEN MANY
OPPORTUNITIES TO TRY TO
UNDERSTAND BOTH THE PROBLEMS
AND THE SOLUTIONS WE NEED TO
FIND FOR DESIGN REVIEW. IT
REMAINS A PROCESS WHERE
PEOPLE'S VOICES ARE NOT HEARD
TO THE EXTENT THEY WANT TO AND
AT CERTAIN TIMES IT CAN BE
WEAPONIZED AGAINST PROJECTS.
THOSE THINGS CAN BE TRUE AT THE
SAME TIME AND THERE IS NOT A
SIMPLE OR EASY SOLUTION HERE.
IT IS CLEAR FROM THE STATE'S
LEGISLATION WE WILL HAVE TO
MAKE CHANGES TO RESIGN --
DESIGN REVIEW WHICH IS WHY WE
NEED TO PILOT SOME IDEAS OUT.
KETIL, YOU SAY THESE MAY NOT
COME TO FRUITION IN THE
TIMEFRAME WE NEED TO HAVE A NEW
LAW PASSED. STILL, I THINK
THERE WILL BE INTERESTING AND
IMPORTANT INFORMATION WE WILL
GLEAN ALONG THE WAY. MOVING
BACK TO THIS BILL, IF I COULD
CONFIRM WHAT I BELIEVE WHICH IS
IF A PROJECT -- EVEN IN THE
LIMITED SCOPE AND GEOGRAPHY
LET'S SAY THIS BILL PASSES AND
A PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR AN
EXEMPTION. IF THEY WANTED A
DEPARTURE OR A VARIANTS FROM
OUR CODE, THEY WOULD NEED TO
RETURN FROM DESIGN REVIEW,
CORRECT?
>> NO. AS LONG AS THEY ARE
PROVIDING MORE FLOOR AREA THEY
WILL GET IT. THERE ARE A LOT OF
LAND-USE PROCESSES TO GIVE YOU
A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES TO COMPARE
THAT TO DISTINGUISH THE DESIGN
REVIEW FROM THOSE AND WHAT IS
PROPOSED HERE. SO, TYPICALLY IF
YOU CAN'T MEET DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR SOME REASON ,
THERE MAY BE A PROCESS YOU CAN
AVAIL YOURSELVES OF. USUALLY
THOSE PROCESSES ARE RELATED TO
A SITE-SPECIFIC RELATED TO THE
VARIANCE AND A SPECIAL
EXEMPTION. OR SOME KIND OF USE
SPECIFIC KIND OF ANALYSIS THAT
NEEDS TO GO INTO SOMETHING. TO
COMPARE AND CONTRAST THAT TO
DESIGN REVIEW, A DEPARTURE THE
VERNACULAR IN DESIGN REVIEW CAN
BE GRANTED BECAUSE SOMETHING
DOES NOT MEET GUIDELINES OR
ANALYSIS AND THIS IS A BETTER
PROJECT IF IT MEETS THE DESIGN
REVIEW ANALYSIS. TURNING TO THE
OTHER TYPES OF PROCESSES AND
OTHER EXEMPTION PROCESSES,
THERE SIMILAR TO USE. FOR
EXAMPLE, THERE IS ALLOWING HIRE
HEIGHT LIGHT POLES OR ONES THAT
EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMITS IN
COMMERCIAL ZONES. THE REASON
FOR HAVING THAT EXEMPTION
PROCESS IS TYPICALLY LIGHT
POLES, WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH
FIELDS, CAN BE -- YOU KNOW,
THEY CAN HAVE NEIGHBORS THAT
DON'T LIKE LIGHTS IN THEIR
WINDOWS. HAVING HIRE POLES ,
MORE LIGHT IS DIRECTED TO THE
FIELD SURFACE. IT IS AN
EXEMPTION PROCESS THERE IN
ADDITION TO THE ACCESSORY USE.
THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN
EXEMPTION PROCESS. ANOTHER
EXAMPLE OF A VARIANCE, A
CLASSIC EXCEPTION PROCESS. THE
APPLICANT NEEDS TO DEMONSTRATE
THERE IS SOME SORT OF HARDSHIP
OR SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROPERTY
THAT MAKES IT HARD FOR THEM TO
USE THEIR PROPERTY IN THE SAME
WAY SOMEONE IN A SIMILAR
SITUATION COULD. THE PROPERTY
OWNER COULD. THE ANALYSIS IS
NOT SOMETHING IS BETTER BUT
THERE IS A DEMONSTRATED
HARDSHIP. IT IS ON THE
APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT
HARDSHIP. IT IS NOT THAT THE
PROJECT IS BETTER BECAUSE THERE
IS A HARDSHIP OR SOME
DISCRETIONARY USE. IT IS SIMPLY
THERE IS MORE CRITERIA.
>> ANY DEVIATION REQUEST WOULD
BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND
DECISION MAKING AS PART OF THE
PERMIT PROCESS. THERE IS A
CONSIDERATION WHETHER IT MAKES
SENSE.
>> I THINK THAT IS WHERE I WAS
GOING WITH THIS. WE ARE NOT
GIVING FREE REIN TO ANYONE TO
BUILD ANYTHING IN ANY SORT OF
FASHION.
>> IT IS WORTH INTERROGATING TO
MAKE SURE WE ARE CLEAR AND OUR
RESPONSE TO YOU ALL THERE WILL
CERTAINLY BE REVIEW BY SDCI AND
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT BUT
AS LONG AS MORE IS PROVIDED,
SDCI WOULD BE COMPELLED TO
GRANT THE WAIVER MODIFICATION.
TYPE I MODIFICATION IS NOT A
DISCRETIONARY DECISION, IT IS
AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION SO
AS LONG AS THE CRITERIA IS MET,
SDCI SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY
PROBLEM GRANTING THE WAIVER.
>> DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AT THE
COMMITTEE TABLE HERE.
>> I WILL LOOK INTO IT. WE WILL
DO SOME RESEARCH THERE. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> I WILL SUMMARIZE MY TAKE ON
THE BILL RIGHT NOW WITH
STANDING A LITTLE DEEPER
INVESTIGATION INTO THE
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AT THE
COMMITTEE TABLE HERE WHICH IS
THAT THIS BILL IS LIMITED -- I
THINK THIS IS A PRUDENT BILL
THAT IS LIMITING DURATION BY
THREE YEARS, BY SCOPE WITH
RESIDENTIAL OR HOTEL OR
RESEARCH AND LAB. IT IS
RESEARCH -- LIMITED IN
GEOGRAPHY. THIS GIVES US A NICE
PILOT TO PREPARE US FOR THE
FUTURE CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE
MADE AND THE SCOPE OF WHERE WE
ARE IS A HEAVILY DEVELOPED AREA
WHICH MEANS THERE IS NOT A LOT
OF POTENTIAL COMPARED TO IF
THIS BILL WERE APPLIED TO
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL TODAY
I WOULD HAVE A LOT MORE
CONCERNS. WHAT I WILL SAY HERE,
MUCH LIKE CHAIR MORALES HAD
CONCERNS REGARDING THE
INDUSTRIAL ZONES, I KNOW WE
HAVE TO CLEAN UP FROM THE
INDUSTRIAL MARITIME CHANGES WE
MADE LAST YEAR SO I WILL BE
INVESTIGATING THAT. THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU. I -- WE ARE AT
11:30 AND WE HAVE ONE MORE
BILL. COUNCIL PRESIDENT, SINCE
YOU JOINED US, DO YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS?
>> THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO
COME AND PARTICIPATE. I'VE
ALWAYS SAID WE NEED TO BETTER
ALIGN OUR REGULATORY
ENVIRONMENT TO MEET OUR GOALS.
WHEN IT COMES TO HOUSING, IF WE
WANT MORE HOUSING WE HAVE TO
MAKE IT CHEAPER AND EASIER TO
BUILD. THAT HOLDS TRUE AS I
THINK ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION
AND WE HAVE WIELDED OUR ABILITY
TO BETTER ALIGN OUR REGULATIONS
BECAUSE WHEN IT COMES TO
HOUSING WE HAVE PERMANENTLY
EXEMPTED DESIGN REVIEWS
CITYWIDE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND FOR PROJECTS THAT PROVIDE
AFFORDABLE UNITS ON SITE
INSTEAD OF PAYING PER SQUARE
FOOT FEE AND THAT IS BECAUSE WE
HAVE ELIMINATED DESIGN REVIEW
FOR THAT. DESIGN REVIEW ADDS
TIME WHICH ADDS COST. WHAT WE
WANT TO DO IS INCENTIVIZE THE
PROJECTS I HAVE ALREADY
MENTIONED SO WE NEED TO BE
CONSISTENT IN OUR THINKING OF
DESIGN REVIEW WHEN IT COMES TO
HELPING OUT DOWNTOWN. APPENDIX
D -- I AM NOW REFERRING TO THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
RESPONSE TO THE SLIDE REPORT,
THIS REALLY BIG REPORT
REFERENCED IN THE CENTRAL STAFF
MEMO. ANYWAY, ON PAGE TWO, IT
SHOWS THE FULL DESIGN REVIEW
AVERAGES 739 DAYS, WHICH IS A
REALLY LONG TIME AND AGAIN,
THAT ADDS COST. WHY? BILLABLE
HOURS FOR ATTORNEYS THAT ARE
GOING TO THOSE MEETINGS. IT IS
ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL
RENDERINGS. SDCI LAND USE
PLANNERS, THE PERMITTING
TIMELINE IS EXTENDED AND THOSE
COSTS ARE INCLUDED AS WELL.
THAT IS ONE NOTE I WANT TO MAKE
SURE EVERYONE RECOGNIZES. THOSE
COSTS ARE PASSED DOWN TO THE
PEOPLE THAT WILL EVENTUALLY
DWELL IN THOSE UNITS. PAGE SIX
OF THE CENTRAL STAFF MEMO
ACKNOWLEDGES IT IS A BARRIER TO
HOUSING AND JOBS BUT THE
SUGGESTED FIX OF MAKING DESIGN
REVIEW OPTIONAL FOR THE
PROJECTS NOT SEEKING DEPARTURES
FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WILL
ONLY BENEFIT 30% OF THE
PROJECTS THAT APPLY BECAUSE,
AGAIN, IN APPENDIX E, IT NOTES
69% OF PROJECTS APPLY FOR
DEPARTURES. AND SO, WE DON'T
NEED TO GET INTO THE STANDARDS
THERE BUT MY POINT IS THERE IS
A REASON WHY A MORE
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW EXEMPTION
PER THE SDCI DIRECTOR'S
DECISION MAKES SENSE THERE.
WHILE THE MEMO NOTES THAT
ACCORDING TO SDCI'S
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY DASHBOARD
THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL 41,000
UNIT CAPACITY DOWNTOWN, I
LOOKED AT THE SDCI HOUSING
GROWTH DASHBOARD FOR APARTMENTS
DOWNTOWN AND IT SHOWS THERE IS
A 9% DECREASE YEAR TO DATE
COMPARED TO LAST YEAR AND UNITS
UNDER CONSTRUCTION HAS FALLEN
FROM 2023 THIS TIME LAST YEAR
AND IS WAY DOWN COMPARED TO
2019. CLEARLY THERE IS, I
THINK, AN ISSUE GOING ON DOWN
HERE AND WE CANNOT CONTROL
THOSE FACTORS LIKE FINANCING.
BUT TO THE EXTENT WE CAN
CONTROL SOME OF THE THINGS THAT
HAVE SLOWED DOWN THE
REVITALIZATION OF DOWNTOWN AND
BUILDING MORE HOUSING, I
BELIEVE WE SHOULD. AND JUST
TAKING YOU THROUGH SOME OF THE
-- ONE OF THE NOTES KETIL
MENTIONED WAS THE WAY TO
SUPPORT REVITALIZING MAIN
STREETS. YES, THERE ARE
EXAMPLES OF THAT BUT THE ONE IN
BELLTOWN HAS A LOT OF
COMPLAINTS SURROUNDING PUBLIC
SAFETY AND IT IS CLEAR EYES ON
THE STREET MORE PEOPLE
CIRCULATING DOWNTOWN IS A
BETTER WAY OF ENSURING MORE
PUBLIC SAFETY, I WOULD ARGUE.
AS FOR DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO
THE DIRECTOR TO MAKE EXEMPTION
DECISIONS, I UNDERSTAND THAT
IS, YOU KNOW, A POINT OF
CONCERN. MORE SALIENT TO ME IS
THE CONSTITUENTS THAT DO SAY
THAT WE ARE TAKING AWAY THE
ABILITY TO WEIGH IN ON THE
DESIGN AND THE APPEARANCE OF A
BUILDING. I TAKE THAT
SERIOUSLY. BUT WE HAVE
PERMANENTLY CITYWIDE ELIMINATED
DESIGN REVIEW FOR MARKET RATE
DEVELOPMENT WITH ON-SITE
PERFORMANCE, SO THAT -- I
DON'T KNOW IF THE SAME
ARGUMENT WAS LOADED THAT TIME
BUT AGAIN, IT IS ABOUT
CONSISTENCY IN HOW WE TRY TO
INCENTIVIZE WHAT I THINK
EVERYBODY AGREES IS A POSITIVE.
SO, THANK YOU.
>> SURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
APPRECIATE BOTH OF YOU BEING
HERE TO WALK US THROUGH THE
PRESENTATION AND THE MEMO.
SINCE COUNCIL PRESIDENT BROUGHT
UP THE REPORT IN RESPONSE TO
THE SLIDE REQUEST, THE REPORT
INDICATED THIS RAISES A BIGGER
QUESTION ABOUT DESIGN REVIEW
FOR ME BECAUSE THE REPORT
INDICATED 100% OF DEPARTURES
ARE GRANTED, WHICH REALLY MAKES
ME WONDER IF MAYBE OUR
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE TOO
RIGID AND WHAT WE SHOULD BE
TALKING ABOUT HERE IS
INCREASING FLEXIBILITY SO THAT
PROJECTS CAN GET DONE IN A WAY
THAT BEST PRESERVES THE SITE
AND OUR GOALS IN THE COMMUNITY.
IT ALSO DID INDICATE THERE IS
NO EVIDENCE -- I KNOW THERE IS
A LOT OF TALK OF INCREASING
COST OF PRODUCTION. THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT
BECAUSE PROJECTS WERE NOT
AVAILABLE FOR ANALYSIS SO I'M
SURE THERE IS SOME CONNECTION
THERE. IT IS JUST A HARD POINT
FOR US TO PROVE BECAUSE WE
DON'T HAVE PROJECTS THAT CAN
HELP US SEE HOW THESE DELAYS
MIGHT ADD COST. I WOULD LOVE IF
THERE ARE DEVELOPERS OUT THERE
INTERESTED IN SHARING THAT
INFORMATION SO WE CAN REALLY
BACKUP WHAT WE ARE SEEING WITH
DATA, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
THAT SAID, WE ALL AGREE DESIGN
REVIEW NEEDS TO BE OVERHAULED
WHICH IS WHAT THE STATE WILL
REQUIRE US TO DO. I WILL SAY
FOR ME, THE DELEGATION QUESTION
AND THE RIPENESS QUESTION ARE
REALLY SALIENT. WE'VE GOT THE
STATEWIDE IMPLEMENTATION WE
SHOULD BE WORKING ON. THERE IS
ENVIRONMENTAL WORK THAT NEEDS
TO HAPPEN WITH UP ZONES. WE'VE
GOT THE SOUND TRANSIT BOARD
DECISION COMING AND QUESTIONS
TO RESOLVE. NOT TO MENTION THE
REPORT HAD SEVERAL
RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT HOW TO
IMPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW
PROCESS. I WILL SAY, I AM
CONCERNED STAFF IS SPENDING A
LOT OF TIME ON THIS LIMITED
PROJECT WHEN WHAT WE REALLY
SHOULD BE ASKING THE DEPARTMENT
TO DO IS WORK ON OVERHAULING
THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS. I
KNOW YOU ARE DOING WHAT YOU
HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO DO BUT I
WILL SAY THERE IS A LOT OF WORK
TO DO TO IMPLEMENT THE
STATEWIDE LEGISLATION AND
ENGAGE WITH COMMUNITY ABOUT HOW
TO WALK THE LINE BETWEEN
ALLOWING FOR NEIGHBORHOOD
INPUT, ALLOWING FOR US TO DO
THINGS LIKE THE CROWN HILL
DESIGN OR LIBERTY BANK BUILDING
WHICH ONLY HAS CULTURAL
REPRESENTATION BECAUSE THE
NEIGHBORHOOD INSISTED THERE IS
CULTURAL REPRESENTATION. IT IS
IMPORTANT. AND TO COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS' POINT, WE CANNOT LET
THAT BE IN THE WAY AND
WEAPONIZE BLOCKING WHAT WE ALL
KNOW IS A DIRE NEED FOR MORE
HOUSING IN THE CITY. SO, THANK
YOU. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A
CONVERSATION -- A RICH
CONVERSATION BOTH ON COUNCIL
AND IN THE DEPARTMENTS AND I
KNOW WE WILL HAVE A LOT TO TALK
ABOUT, SO THANK YOU FOR BEING
HERE. WE WILL -- OH, PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST
WANTED TO SAY WE NEED TO LOOK
AT LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM
SOLUTIONS. THIS BILL IS
ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS
SHORT-TERM SOLUTIONS SPECIFIC
TO DOWNTOWN, AN AREA WE HAVE
BEEN STRUGGLING WITH
POST-PANDEMIC TO REVITALIZE .
AT THE SAME TIME WE RECOGNIZE
WE HAD LONG-TERM ISSUES WITH
DESIGN REVIEW AND PERMITTING
AND PERMITTING PROCESSES. THAT
IS NO SECRET. WE NEED TO DO THE
LONG-TERM PROCESS BUT WE CAN'T
WAIT TO DO A LONG-TERM PROCESS
WHEN WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS
THESE, YOU KNOW, IMMEDIATE
SOLUTIONS. I THINK WE NEED TO
WORK ON BOTH. IT IS NOT OR. IT
IS AND. I REALLY WANTED TO NOTE
THAT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS
BILL WILL BE BACK ON THE
SEPTEMBER 18th LAND USE
COMMITTEE AND WE WILL SEE YOU
THEN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY. WE HAVE ONE MORE BILL,
COLLEAGUES. PLEASE READ IT INTO
THE RECORD.
>> COUNCIL BILL 120833, FOR
BRIEFING, POSSIBLE DISCUSSION.
>> WE ARE JOINED BY DAVID
VANSKIKE FROM SDCI. I WILL ASK
YOU TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND
START YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
>> DAVE VANSKIKE, SDCI
TECHNICAL GROUP . I THINK I AM
TAKING THE LEAD ON THE
PRESENTATION. TODAY'S
PRESENTATION IS ABOUT A
SPECIFIC BILL AND BIT OF
LEGISLATION. IT GOES TO HOW THE
LIVING BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM
IS APPLIED AND THERE IS A KNOWN
PROJECT WE ARE DESCRIBING HERE
AS A CASE STUDY THAT DESCRIBES
WHY THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE
OF LEGISLATION TO CORRECT SOME
WORDING IN THE CODE ON HOW THE
PILOT IS ADMINISTERED. I WILL
GO OVER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
OBJECTIVES AND I KNOW THERE
WILL UNDOUBTEDLY BE QUESTIONS.
THE LIVING BUILDING PILOT
PROGRAM IS TO ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
OPTIONS AND THE WAY THAT WE DO
THAT IS THROUGH AN INCENTIVE
PROGRAM ADMINISTERED THROUGH
DESIGN REVIEW AND ALLOWS
ADDITIONAL WHICH ARE TYPICALLY
NOT ALLOWED THROUGH DESIGN
REVIEW . THOSE INCREASED
HEIGHTS ARE BAKED INTO THE
LIVING BUILDING PILOT. THE GOAL
IS TO TEST THESE MEASURES TO
MAKE COMMONPLACE THOSE THINGS
THAT PREVIOUSLY WOULD NOT SEE
AS VIABLE OPTIONS BUT TO
INSPIRE OTHERS TO SHOW WHAT IS
POSSIBLE, TO TEST THINGS AND
THE PROGRAM HAS BEEN ONGOING
FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. ONLY
FOUR PROJECTS KNOWN TO BE LEFT
IN THE PROGRAM BUT WE FEEL IT
HAS PROVIDED VALUABLE FEEDBACK
TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY .
AS WE REPORT BACK TO YOU ON
WHAT HAS OCCURRED. SO, THE
PARTICULAR LEGISLATION HERE
AFFECTS A CASE STUDY WHICH WE
CAN DESCRIBE ANYTHING YOU
PROBABLY HEARD IN THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PROPOSAL 266 WESTERN BY
THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AND
APPROVED BY SDCI. DEPARTURES
WERE GRANTED FROM DESIGN REVIEW
AND ADDITIONAL HEIGHT WAS
GRANTED UNDER THE LIVING
BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM. SDCI
ALLOWED US TO ADD ADDITIONAL
HEIGHT REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE
OF THE LOT IN THE ZONE. IN THIS
CASE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN
ADDITIONAL HEIGHT BONUS GOING
FROM 145 TO 175 FEET. OR 170
FEET. AND TO STACK THAT BONUS
WITH A BONUS BUILT INTO THE
LIVING BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM
AND OTHER PORTIONS OF THE CODE
WHERE WE GIVE AN ADDITIONAL 10
FEET TO INCENTIVIZE THREE
BEDROOM UNITS. THIS PROJECT
WENT FORWARD WITH THOSE TWO
BONUSES STACKED AND A
LONG-STANDING HOW THE CODE
WORKED. IT WAS APPEALED AND THE
HEARING EXAMINER FOUND CONTRARY
TO HOW EVERYONE ELSE SAW THE
CODE THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHTS
FOR THREE BEDROOM FAMILY SIZED
UNITS WERE NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE
OF THIS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN
THE CODE THAT LIMITED THE
HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS IN THIS
ZONE TO 145 FEET UNLESS THEY
ARE 19,000. SMALL LOTS GET LESS
HEIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD IN THIS
ZONE. LOTS THAT ARE JUST
SLIGHTLY SMALLER -- SORRY,
19,000 FEET OR ABOVE LARGER,
THE LARGER LOTS COULD PROVIDE A
BIGGER BUILDING. SO THE GOAL OF
THIS LEGISLATION IS TO CLARIFY
WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD THE FULL
COUNCIL INTEND ONES, TO ALLOW
BONUSES IN THE ZONE UNDER THE
LIVING BUILDING PILOT
REGARDLESS OF LOT SIZE. FOR
EXAMPLE, WE ARE TALKING A
DIFFERENCE OF A LOT THAT WOULD
BE -- LET'S SAY 160 BY 120.
THE BONUS WOULD BE ALLOWABLE.
WE'VE GOT SOME DIMENSIONS. 120
FEET BY 120 FEET WOULD NOT BE
ALLOWED TO GET THE BONUS. WE
ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT IN THE
DOWNTOWN ZONE SUBSTANTIALLY
DIFFERENT TYPES OF LOTS TO
WHICH THE PROGRAM WOULD APPLY.
THIS PARTICULAR CASE STUDY
PROJECT PROVIDES $2.4 MILLION
IN HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
PAYMENTS AND 182 DWELLING
UNITS, WHICH ARE ONE-BEDROOMS.
THERE ARE STUDIOS. 42 TWO
BEDROOMS AND 10 THREE BEDROOM
UNITS. WE HAVE PACKAGED THIS
ORIGINALLY WITH OMNIBUS BECAUSE
IT DID REFLECT A CLEAN UP OF
WHAT OUR EXISTING PRACTICE HAS
BEEN IN UNDERSTANDING HOW THE
LIVING BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM
WORKS AND HOW THOSE BONUSES
WORK BUT BECAUSE IT IS
APPLICABLE TO A SPECIAL
PROJECT, WE WOULD BRING THIS TO
YOU IN THIS SESSION.
UNDOUBTEDLY THERE ARE
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DAVID.
ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD?
>> I WILL JUST ADD TWO
ADDITIONAL POINTS. DAVID
DESCRIBED THE LEGISLATION. AS
MENTIONED IN PUBLIC COMMENT
THERE HAS BEEN APPEAL OF THE
DETERMINATION OF
NON-SIGNIFICANCE UNDER SEPA
WITH THE HEARING EXAMINER AND
THAT IS PENDING. THE ONLY OTHER
POINT I WILL MAKE IS A
TECHNICAL ONE. THERE IS A
PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER
18th, NOT THIS AFTERNOON.
>> FUNKY. -- THANK YOU. ANY
QUESTIONS, COLLEAGUES?
>> CHAIR, I WILL MEET WITH YOU
PRIVATELY. MY ASSUMPTION
PREVIOUSLY WHERE THESE WERE
STACKABLE SO THAT WAS A
SURPRISE TO ME. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. YOUR HAND IS UP. DID
YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> THAT WAS FROM THE LEFT
THING, BUT I DO HAVE SOME
QUESTIONS. I WILL FOLLOW-UP
WITH YOU AND SDCI.
>> OKAY. OKAY. WELL, I THINK I
WILL JUST SAY THAT THIS PILOT ,
ITSELF, AS WE SAID IS TO
PROMOTE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
ENCOURAGING SUSTAINABLE
BUILDINGS. THE BULLET CENTER IS
A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THIS AND I
AM ENCOURAGED THIS IS SOMETHING
WE CONTINUE TO DO. ORIGINALLY
THE PILOT PROJECT WAS TARGETED
FOR 15 PROJECTS. SO FAR, 20?
OKAY. THERE ARE SEVERAL LEFT
WHICH IS WHY WE ARE EXTENDING
OR HAVE EXTENDED IT IN THE PAST
SO WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THAT AND LEARN AS MUCH AS WE
CAN ABOUT HOW TO INCENTIVIZE
THIS KIND OF CONSTRICTION.
OKAY. IF THAT IS THE CASE AND
THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS
-- LET ME JUST CLARIFY 120833
OF HEARING IS NOT THIS
AFTERNOON.
>> THAT IS ON THE SEPTEMBER
18th MEETING.
>> IT IS THE OTHER TWO BILLS,
823 AND 822 . OKAY. VERY GOOD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS,
COLLEAGUES? I THINK WE MAY HAVE
RUN OUT OF STEAM HERE. I DO
WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR
COMING THIS MORNING. WE'VE GOT
A LOT OF THINGS TO THINK ABOUT.
I WILL, AGAIN, ENCOURAGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO REACH OUT TO THE
DEPARTMENTS AND CENTRAL STAFF
BECAUSE WE GOT A LOT TO THINK
ABOUT IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.
SO, IF THERE IS A NO OBJECTION,
THE LAND-USE RECESS WILL BE IN
RECESS UNTIL 2:00 P.M. HEARING
NO OBJECTION, WE ARE IN RECESS
UNTIL 2:00 P.M. WHERE WE WILL
BEGIN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON TWO
BILLS.
>> THE FIRST THREE BILLS ON THE
AGENDA WILL HAVE THEIR PUBLIC
HEARING THIS AFTERNOON.
>> OKAY. THAT'S -- I GET IT
NOW. WE ARE IN RECESS UNTIL
2:00 P.M. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.