>> OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON,
EVERYONE. THE SEPTEMBER 18th,
2024 LAND USE COMMITTEE MEETING
WILL COME TO ORDER. IT IS TO:
04 P.M. I AM TAMMY MORALES,
CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE. WILL
THE CLERK PLEASE CALL ROLE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER WOO.
>> PRESENT.
>> VICE CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> PRESENT.
>> CHAIR MORALES.
>> PRESENT.
>> FOUR PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE IS
EXCUSED. I'M GETTING A MESSAGE
TO TURN ON THE ZOOM PANEL,
EVERYONE, PLEASE. WE HAVE FIVE
ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
COUNSELED BILL 120833, BRIEFING
DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING .
COUNCIL BILL 120822. COUNCIL
BILL 120823, POSSIBLE VOTE ON
OMNIBUS LEGISLATION. COUNCIL
BILL 120824, A BRIEFING
DISCUSSION ON DESIGN REVIEW
EXEMPTIONS, AND COUNCIL BILL
120832. IF THERE IS NO
OBJECTION, TODAY'S AGENDA WILL
BE ADOPTED. HEARING NO
OBJECTION, TODAY'S AGENDA IS
UP.-- ADOPTED. SO WE WILL START
-- ARE WE STARTING WITH PUBLIC
COMMENT? OKAY. WE WILL START
WITH HYBRID PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD. IF YOU'RE HERE FOR
COUNCIL BILL 120833, THE LIVING
BUILDING AMENDMENTS, YOU ARE
WELCOME TO OFFER, NOW, BUT IF
YOU WANT YOUR , PART OF THE
PUBLIC HEARING, WE WILL ASK YOU
TO WAIT UNTIL WE OPEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING IN JUST A FEW
MOMENTS. OKAY. HOW MANY FOLKS
DO WE HAVE?
>> WE HAVE 14 IN PERSON, AND
SEVEN ONLINE.
>> OKAY.
>> LET'S GO AHEAD AND GIVE
EVERYBODY ONE MINUTE, JUST
BECAUSE WE HAVE A VERY LONG
AGENDA TODAY. AND I WILL ASK
YOU TO GO AHEAD AND READ THE
RULES.
>> SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED ON
IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY
REGISTERED. WE WILL START WITH
IN PERSON SPEAKERS. SPEAKERS
WILL HEAR A CHIME AT 10
SECONDS. WITH THAT, FIRST
PUBLIC SPEAKER IS STEVE,
FOLLOWED BY MEGAN.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL. MY
NAME IS STEVE. I AM SPEAKING
FOR TREE PAC. I WANT TO NOTE
THAT THERE IS NO RECORDING OF
THE SEPTEMBER 4th AFTERNOON
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AGENDA
PAGE THAT HOSTS THE AGENDA BY
THE CITY COUNCIL, SO I WOULD
URGE THAT YOU PUT THAT UP FOR
PUBLIC RECORD. I AM
DISAPPOINTED THAT THE COUNCIL
HAS CHOSEN NOT TO AMEND THE
OMNIBUS BILL TO ADDRESS
CONFLICTS IN THE BILL LIKE A
LONG DEVELOPERS TO HAVE THE
FINAL SAY IN THE ABILITY TO
REMOVE OR RETAIN TREES BY
ADDING LANGUAGE SAYING THAT THE
AREA CANNOT BE MODIFIED. THE
DEFINITION ITSELF SAYS IT CAN.
2511 060 SAYS THAT IT CAN. SO
DOES THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF
HORTICULTURE. I URGE YOU TO DO
THIS AS A PRIORITY NEXT YEAR TO
ADDRESS PROBLEMS. [ INAUDIBLE ]
TO REMOVE CONFLICTS . TREES
NEED THEIR OWN [ INAUDIBLE ] .
>> NEXT, WE HAVE MEGAN CRUZ,
FOLLOWED BY TOM.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM MEGAN
CRUZ, ASKING YOU TENT HAVE THE
DEPARTURES EVERY BUILDING
DESIGN WILL BE NEGOTIABLE AND
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY IS ZERO.
IT REQUIRES ONE DESIGN REVIEW.
THIS BILL THROWS EVERYTHING
OUT. IT DENIES 100,000 PEOPLE
PARTICIPATION IN A NEIGHBORHOOD
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AVAILABLE
TO THE REST OF SEATTLE AND THE
STATE. THE COUNCIL HAS NOT
GOTTEN ANSWERS TO BIG RUSSIANS
LIKE WILL THE PUBLIC CONTINUE
TO SEE DOCUMENTS AND FOLLOW
PERMITTING DECISIONS ONLINE.
WHAT HAPPENED TO LESTER'S
DESIGN REVIEW EXTENSION PILOT
FOR PROJECTS? WITHOUT PUBLIC
BENEFIT, WHY SHOULD MARKET RATE
PROJECTS BE EXEMPT? IS THERE AN
AMENDMENT TO PREVENT PROJECTS
FROM WALKING AWAY ? [ INAUDIBLE
] THIS BILL WAS WRITTEN FOR
THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO BE
BOTHERED WITH ZONING CODE
INPUT.
>> UP NEXT, WE HAVE TOM,
FOLLOWED BY TOM McGRAW.
>> UP NEXT, WE HAVE TOM
McGRATH.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM TOM. I
AM SPEAKING WITH SUPPORT ON
COUNCIL BILL 120833. I WOULD
JUST LIKE TO SPEAK NOW. I WILL
SAY, AS A RESIDENT , I WANT
MORE DENSITY. THIS DEVELOPER,
WHO GOT TURNED DOWN BY THE
HEARING EXAMINER, WENT AND
PERMITTED A BUILDING ACCORDING
TO OUR ZONING CODE ACCORDING TO
WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF
INSPECTIONS WOULD ALLOW. AND WE
NEED TO MAKE THIS CORRECTION TO
ALLOW THIS BUILDING TO PROCEED.
WE DO NEED THREE BEDROOM
APARTMENTS IN DOWNTOWN. I HAVE
A NEIGHBOR WHO HAS ONE SMALL
CHILD AND A BABY ON THE WAY. HE
WORKS AT AMAZON. THEY ARE GOING
TO MOVE, UNLESS WE GET MORE. IT
IS DESPERATE. I WOULD
APPRECIATE YOU PASSING THIS
BILL.
>> OF NEXT, WE HAVE [ INAUDIBLE
] , FOLLOWED BY JULIA.
>> THANK YOU. I AM A.P. HERD. I
AM THE AUTHOR OF THE CARBON
EFFICIENT CITY. I AM ADVOCATING
FOR INITIAL COST ANALYSIS WORK
ON THE ENERGY CODE THAT LOOKS
AT THE ENERGY CODE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT GO BEYOND
THE STATE CODE. WE NEED TO
UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THE COST
TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING OF
IMPLEMENTING THESE CHANGES. I
UNDERSTAND THAT SDCI HAS NEVER
MEASURED THE COST OF THEIR
PROPOSALS. ONLY THE
PERFORMANCE. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD
BY THOSE THAT OVERSEE THE
ENERGY CODE THAT THEY THINK THE
COST IS NEGLIGIBLE. ON HOUSING
-- NONPROFIT PROVIDERS ESTIMATE
THAT THE COST PER UNIT OF THE
DIFFERENCES IN THE CITY CODE IN
2018 WERE 25 TO 40,000 UNIT,
WHICH TRANSITS INTO OVER
$200,000 IN MONTHLY RENT. IN A
WORLD WHERE [ INAUDIBLE ] ARE
STRUGGLING TO MEET DEMAND AND
MARKET RATE RENTERS ARE COST
BURDENS, WE HAVE A DUTY OF
CARE. [ INAUDIBLE ]
>> THANK YOU. YOUR TIME IS UP.
THANK YOU.
>> OF NEXT, WE HAVE JULIA,
FOLLOWED BY SANDY.
>> WE CAUTION REPLACING THIS
WITH TECHNICAL DESIGN REVIEW
WITHOUT ADDRESSING HOW
COMMUNITY VOICES CAN BE HEARD.
THIS WAS THE PRIMARY AND OFTEN
REPEATED RECOGNITION OF
STAKEHOLDER REPORTS RELEASED
EARLIER THIS YEAR. FURTHERMORE,
THE REPORT FOUND THAT THE
PROCESSES WAS NOT DESIGN
REVIEW, BUT THE COMPLEXITY OF
THE PROJECT AND LACK OF
ADEQUATE SDCI STAFFING. I AM A
RESIDENT AT THIRD AND PIKE , A
BUILDING DESIGN PROFESSIONAL
FOR 20+ YEARS, AND A URBAN
PLACE MAKEOVER 10. DESIGN
REVIEW IS THE ONLY MEANS BY
WHICH I, AND THE OTHER 10,000
CORE DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS LIKE
ME, CAN [ INAUDIBLE ] PROJECTS
THAT WILL IMPACT OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS FOR CENTURIES DUE
TO THE UNIQUE SIZE [ INAUDIBLE
] THE PURPOSE OF THESE
BUILDINGS IN THE DOWNTOWN
CORRIDOR -- WHO IS TO BE MORE
CAREFUL ABOUT THESE PROJECTS. [
INAUDIBLE ]
>> NEXT, WE HAVE SANDY,
FOLLOWED BY JOHN.
>> HI. I'M SANDY SHETLAND WITH
TREAT ACTION SEATTLE. TODAY,
YOU WILL VOTE ON THE OMNIBUS.
WHILE PRACTICAL, IT IS A MISSED
OPPORTUNITY TO REVISE THE TREE
ORDINANCE. THE BILL AT THE
SENTENCE, ALL TREES MAY BE
REVIEWED WHEN DEVELOPMENT IS
PROPOSED IN 36 ZONES. ONE IS
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT, WHICH
HAS ITS OWN SPECIAL PROTECTION
ON PAGE 17. IF IT WERE PART OF
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL, AS
SDCI CLAIMS, WHY EVEN HAVE PAGE
17? THIS MAP SHOWS THAT THE
ZONES ARE IN FRONTLINE
COMMUNITIES. SOUTH PARK, A
FELLOW, BEACON HILL, AND LAKE
CITY. SDCI TELLS US THAT RSL
ZONES GET SEPARATE BUT EQUAL
PROTECTION, JUST AS GENERATIONS
PAST WERE DEEPLY HARMED BY THAT
PHRASE, IT IS [ INAUDIBLE ] IT
HURTS VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES
THE MOST. OH, SORRY. I'LL TELL
YOU LATER.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE JOHN ,
FOLLOWED BY JOHNNY, UNLESS YOU
WANT TO WAIT FOR THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
>> YES. I AM HERE TO STATE MY
DISAGREEMENT WITH PASSING
120833. WHY WE NEED MORE
HOUSING AND DENSITY IN GREEN, I
DO NOT AGREE WITH BYPASSING THE
CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THE
SYSTEM THAT THIS BILL WOULD
ALLOW . HAVING PUBLIC REVIEW
AND DISCUSSION ON ALL OF THESE
SHOULD BE ALLOWED, AND IT
SHOULD NOT JUST BE ABLE -- A
DEVELOPER SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
GO ABOVE CODES THAT HAVE BEEN
PUBLICLY REVIEWED BEFORE.
THANK YOU.
>> UP NEXT, WE HAVE JOHNNY,
FOLLOWED BY XAVIER.
>> HI. MY NAME IS JOHNNY. I'VE
BEEN A STREET PERFORMER AT THE
PIKE PLACE PUBLIC MARKET FOR 30
YEARS AS A MEMBER OF THE MARKET
COMMUNITY, I ENDORSED THE
DEBTOR FROM THE CONSTITUENCY,
OPPOSING CB 230824. IT IS MIND
BLOWING REALLY UNDEMOCRATIC AND
CONSTITUTES AN INSULT OF
STAGGERING PROPORTIONS TO THE
COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE
CITY. THE FIRST THOUGHT THAT
CAME TO MY MIND WAS THAT IT
SOUNDED LIKE IT CAME DIRECTLY
FROM THE PLAYBOOK OF DONALD
TRUMP AND REPUBLICANS IN
GENERAL, WHO WANT TO PRIVATIZE
EVERYTHING AND ELIMINATE PUBLIC
OVERSIGHT IN THE WORKINGS OF
GOVERNMENT. OVER THE PAST
SEVERAL DECADES, IT'S NOT LIKE
EXISTING DESIGN REVIEW
PROTOCOLS HAVE GOTTEN IN THE
WAY OF DEVELOPERS WHEN CITY
HALL PLD LIKE CRAZY.
[ INAUDIBLE ] THIS PROPOSAL
WOULD SEND THE EXISTING
PARADIGM INTO HYPERDRIVE.
PLEASE VOTE NO ON [ INAUDIBLE ]
>> NEXT, WE HAVE DAVID,
FOLLOWED BY ALEX TSIMERMAN.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
DAVE. I LIVE IN DISTRICT 5. AS
YOU'VE HEARD COME THE SEATTLE
TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE
ALLOWS FOR REMOVAL OF TREES ON
SMALL PLOTS. I WOULD LIKE TO
SHOW YOU WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE
IN SOUTH SEATTLE. I HAVE TWO
PICTURES HERE. ONE, OF A
MAJESTIC DOUGLAS FIR, AND HERE,
A GROVE OF TREES ON THE EDGE OF
THE PROPERTY. BOTH OF THEM ARE
ON INCREDIBLY [ INAUDIBLE ]
AREA. 38 TREES WILL BE CUT
DOWN, AS STATED IN THIS PUBLIC
TREAT NOTICE. SO WHO IS GOING
TO PROTECT THE HOUSES BELOW
THESE 212, NOW THAT THE TREES
ARE GONE? I WOULD LIKE TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT A FEW OF THESE
TREES IN THIS PUBLIC TREAT
NOTICE -- THERE IS A BIG MAPLE
25 INCHES IN DIAMETER. THERE IS
A BIG [ INAUDIBLE ] , TOPPED
OFF WITH A CEDAR OF 56 INCHES
IN DIAMETER. DO YOU KNOW HOW
MANY DECADES IT TOOK FOR THAT
TO GROW? [ INAUDIBLE ]
>> NEXT, WE HAVE JEFFREY ONE,
FOLLOWED BY STEVE.
>> SIEG HEIL. PEOPLE PRETEND WE
ARE BUSINESSPEOPLE HERE. WHEN
YOU DON'T LISTEN TO PEOPLE [
INAUDIBLE ] YOU IGNORE THE
PEOPLE. IT IS ABSURD. WHY DO
YOU GIVE PEOPLE ONE MINUTE? I
AM CIVILIZED MAN. I'M SUPPOSED
TO BE [ INAUDIBLE ] BY MY
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. BUT YOU
NEED SOMETHING . DO YOU
UNDERSTAND?
>> NEXT, WE HAVE STEVE,
FOLLOWED BY KAYDEN.
>> I REALLY WISH YOU WOULD
SPEND SOME TIME ON THINGS THAT
PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN AND
NOT JUST MAKING VERY RICH
DEVELOPERS EVEN RICHER. I
DON'T THINK OF ANYTHING THIS
YEAR THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS
HANDLED WHICH IS IN THE GENERAL
POPULATIONS INTEREST . MHA FEES
-- YOU WANT TO HAVE
BELOW-MARKET HOUSING -- WE HAVE
SOME OF THE LOWEST IN THE
WORLD, LET ALONE IN THE
COUNTRY. AND WE CAN'T GET THAT
EVEN REVIEWED TO TAKE A LOOK AT
WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE DONE. WE
HAVE A TREE PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A
TREE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE. YOU
TAKE A LOOK AT DEVELOPMENT, AND
THE CITY RECOMMENDS, USUALLY,
REMOVAL OF TREES. IT SEEMS TO
BE ALMOST A STANDARD PART OF
THE DOCUMENT. THINK A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE
IN THE CITY, AND THAT IS NOT TO
MENTION -- BECAUSE I DON'T
HAVE TIME -- DESIGN REVIEW,
WHICH YOU HAVE GUTTED AND
ALMOST COMPLETELY --
>> NEXT, WE HAVE KAYDEN COOK. C
ABOUT COUNCIL BILL 120824 LAST
TIME, AND I WANTED TO REITERATE
THAT IT IS AN ESSENTIAL PIECE
OF LEGISLATION THAT CAN BE USED
TO COMBAT OUR HOUSING SHORTAGE
AND CRISIS. THIS REPRESENTS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD MORE
HOUSING EFFICIENTLY BY CUTTING
COSTLY RED TAPE. I KNOW HOW
RIDICULOUS SOME OF THESE
PROJECT DELAYS CAN BE. THEY
CAUSE DELAYS OR CANCELLATIONS
OF THE PROJECT. IT IS REALLY UP
TO SEATTLE TO BE A LEADER ON
THESE POLICIES AT A NATIONAL
LEVEL AND MAKE SURE THAT
HOUSING IS AFFORDABLE FOR
PEOPLE OF ALL INCOMES. WHILE
THIS BILL DOESN'T GO FAR
ENOUGH, IT IS A STEP IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION. SO PLEASE PASS
THIS BILL. I ALSO JUST WANTED
TO STATE THAT I SUPPORT THE
LIVING BUILDINGS LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU.
>> THE FINAL IN PERSON SPEAKER
IS LILY HAYWARD.
>> THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR MORALES AND LAND USE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M
SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF COUNCIL
BILLS 120824 AND 120823. THE
ANNUAL POLLING HAS SHOWN THAT
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IS A TOP
PRIORITY FOR SEATTLE VOTERS AND
THEY SUPPORT THE BUILDING OF A
WIDER VARIETY OF HOUSING IN
THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS. VOTERS
ALSO RECOGNIZE THE IMPOTENCE OF
A THRIVING DOWNTOWN AND THIS
PAST APRIL, 89% SAID IT IS
CRITICAL TO OUR REGION'S
RECOVERY. THE SEATTLE BUSINESS
COMMUNITY SHARES THESE
PRIORITIES AND ADVOCATES FOR
MORE HOUSING OF ALL KINDS
ACROSS THE CITY SO THAT MORE
PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO LIVE AND
RAISE FAMILIES CLOSE TO WHERE
THEY WORK. IT WILL ALLOW US TO
BUILD MORE FAMILY SIZED UNITS
IN OUR DOWNTOWN AREA.
ADDITIONALLY, IT WILL ADDRESS
THE PROCESSES THAT DISCOURAGE
DEVELOPMENT AND LEAD TO
GREATEST -- GREATER COSTS DOWN
THE LINE. THANK YOU. [
INAUDIBLE ]
>> SWITCHING TO ONLINE
SPEAKERS. FIRST, WE HAVE ALEX
RASMUSSEN.
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX, ALEX.
>> ALEX, CAN HE PRESS STAR SIX
TO UNMUTE? OKAY. LET'S MOVE ON
TO THE NEXT PERSON.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE NADINE. SUCK
--
>> PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX TO
UNMUTE YOURSELF.
>> NADINE, WE SAW YOU.
>> WE LOST THE CALLER.
>> HI.
>> PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> CAN I START? THANK YOU. THIS
IS BEING PRESENTED AS A PROJECT
WITH LITTLE SIGNIFICANT -- SO
YOU CAN SPREAD PASSING THIS
BILL REMOVES A KEY PART OF
ZONING, IMPACTING NOT ONLY 2616
QUESTION, BUT OTHER LOTS THAT
ARE UNDER 1900 SQUARE FEET.
NOTE ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS LIKE
THESE HAVE BEEN DONE. THE
PROPOSED 200 FOOT BUILDING AT
20 TO 6 WESTERN IS A RESULT OF
PRICE INCREASES. IT ACHIEVES
THAT WITHOUT VIOLATING ZONING.
THIS BILL SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGES
EXISTING ZONING. MAKE NO
MISTAKE. ZONING CHANGES, WHICH
I SUPPORT, SHOULD COME THROUGH
A TRANSPARENT PROCESS THAT
BENEFITS EVERYONE AND CONSIDERS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THANK YOU.
I-GOING BACK TO ALEX RASMUSSEN.
PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF, ALEX. OKAY. MOVING ON
TO THE FINAL ONLINE SPEAKER,
SANDERS. PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX
TO UNMUTE YOURSELF, SANDERS.
>> HI. MY NAME IS SANDERS. I
LIVE IN [ INAUDIBLE ] . I URGE
THIS COMMITTEE TO VOTE TO PASS
COUNCIL BILL 120824. COSTS GET
PASSED ON TO PEOPLE THAT ARE
LIVING NEAR THE BUILDING. IT
WILL HAVE TO CONFORM TO CODE.
IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE
DIRECTOR. THIS WILL STREAMLINE
IT AND ALLOW MORE HOUSING TO BE
BUILT IN THE CITY. [ INAUDIBLE
] AS A RENTER IN THE CITY, I AM
IMPACTED BY THIS. [ INAUDIBLE ]
IT HAS HAMPERED THOSE EFFORTS.
THANK YOU.
I-GOING BACK TO ALEX RASMUSSEN
ONE MORE TIME. PLEASE PRESS
STAR SIX TO UNMUTE YOURSELF,
ALEX.
OKAY. YOU CAN ALSO SEND IN YOUR
COMMENTS VIA EMAIL. THAT IS ALL
THE SPEAKERS WE HAVE.
>> THANK YOU, CLERK. VICE CHAIR
STRAUSS HERE, STEPPING IN FOR
CHAIR MORALES FOR JUST A
MOMENT. IT SEEMS WE HAVE NO
FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. WE WILL
NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD. I WILL PASS THE AGENDA
BACK TO THE CHAIR. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY.
SO, PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED.
WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE ITEM
INTO THE RECORD?
>> AGENDA ITEM 1.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS WE
MENTIONED AT THE LAST COMMITTEE
MEETING, THE LIVING BUILDING
PILOT PROGRAM IS INTENDED TO
PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY
ENCOURAGING THE VOMIT OF
BUILDINGS THAT REDUCE AND FOR
MENTAL IMPACTS, TEST NEW
TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVE AS A
MODEL FOR DEVELOPMENT
THROUGHOUT THE REGION AND THE
COUNTRY. THIS LEGISLATION
CLARIFIES THAT PROJECTS CAN USE
HEIGHT BONUSES TO EXCEED 4500
FEET IN SIZE, REGARDLESS OF LOT
SIZE IN THE DOWNTOWN MIXED
RESIDENTIAL ZONE. WE WERE
BRIEFED AT THE LAST MEETING,
AND WE DO HAVE DAVID WITH SDCI
TO PROVIDE A REMINDER OF
COUNCILMEMBERS. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS WOULD LIKE A REMINDER,
BUT THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING,
AND AS I MENTIONED LAST TIME,
WE WILL BE VOTING ON THIS BILL
IN DECEMBER -- ON DECEMBER 4th.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE STAFF
COME UP?
>> MAYBE I CAN REPEAT BACK WHAT
I THINK IT IS AND IF I GET IT
WRONG, YOU CAN CORRECT ME, THAT
WE HAVE TWO TYPES OF BONUSES
THAT CAN BE USED IN THE
BELLTOWN ZONE AND BECAUSE WE
DID NOT INCLUDE THE CORRECT
WHEREAS CAUSES IN THE ORIGINAL,
SDCI HAS HAD TROUBLE
INTERPRETING WHETHER THEY ARE
ABLE TO BE ADDED ON TOP OF EACH
OTHER, OR THEY ARE JUST
SEPARATE. I BELIEVE IT WAS THAT
COUNCIL'S INTENT THAT THEY
WERE ADDITIVE, BUT NOW THERE IS
AN APPEAL ON THE BUILDING,
WHICH IS WHY WE ARE NOT VOTING
ON IT.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> THUMBS UP FROM THE TEAM. ARE
IT. DON'T NEED A BRIEFING.
THANK YOU.
>> VERY WELL. THEN WE WILL OPEN
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON COUNCIL
BILL 120833. NAOMI, I KNOW WE
DID HAVE A FEW OTHER FOLKS
SPEAK TO THIS ALREADY. DO WE
HAVE ANYBODY ELSE? PLEASE COME
ON UP.
>> SEVEN IN PERSON, AND FIVE
ONLINE.
>> GREAT. OKAY. SO START WITH
THE IN PERSON SPEAKERS,
STARTING WITH TOM.
>> MY NAME IS TOM. I AM A
RETIRED ARCHITECT, FORMER
MEMBER OF THE SEATTLE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND A LONG TIME --
LONGTIME RESIDENT OF BELLTOWN.
I'M PART OF THE BELLTOWN
COALITION, ALTHOUGH I DO NOT
LIVE NEAR THE PROJECT, THAT IS
AT 2616 WESTERN. THE ZONING IN
BELLTOWN IS UNIQUE TO SEATTLE.
STAFF OFTEN DO NOT UNDERSTAND
HOW THAT IS INTENDED TO WORK
AND HAS WORKED TO PRESERVE
ACCESS TO LIGHT, AIR, AND OPEN
SPACE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. ONCE
AGAIN, THEY HIDE BEHIND THE DNS
FOR THIS BUILDING, WHICH IS
ONLY TECHNICALLY NON-PROJECT
ACTION. ONE PROJECT IS
AFFECTED. I HAD SENT THIS
ANALYSIS.
PLEASE DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN.
PLEASE DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN
IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AGAIN.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KIRK
KOZLOWSKI, FOLLOWED BY ALEX
TSIMERMAN.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS KIRK
KOZLOWSKI . WE ARE TWO FAMILIES
THAT HAVE OWNED AND MANAGED
HOUSING IN SEATTLE SINCE 1980.
WE ARE DEVELOPING 181
MULTIUNIT, MULTIFAMILY SITE IN
2616 WESTERN AVENUE IN
BELLTOWN. THIS IS A LONG-TERM
GOAL FOR US AND WE ARE
COMMITTED TO DOWNTOWN SEATTLE.
OUR VISION FOR THIS PROCESS IS
TO CREATE AS MUCH AFFORDABLE
WORKFORCE HOUSING AS POSSIBLE.
INSIDE A SUSTAINABLE LIVING
BUILDING. THE APPROVED DESIGN
INCLUDES 13 ON-SITE MHA UNITS.
AS WELL AS THE 10 THREE-BEDROOM
FAMILY SIZED UNITS. SDCI'S
CODE AMENDMENT CLARIFIES THAT
THE THREE BEDROOM AND LIVING
BUILDING CHALLENGE [ INAUDIBLE
] ENSURING THESE CAN BE USED TO
BUILD THIS PROJECT AND FIGHT
MULTIFAMILY BUILDERS DOWNTOWN
IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE ALEX
TSIMERMAN, FOLLOWED BY IAN
MORRISON. NEXT, WE HAVE ALEX
TSIMERMAN, FOLLOWED BY IAN
MORRISON .
>> SIEG HEIL. I AM ALEX
TSIMERMAN. I WANT TO SPEAK
ABOUT [ INAUDIBLE ] . THE
QUESTION IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO
PEOPLE [ INAUDIBLE ] THAT ARE
LOW INCOME . 100,000 PEOPLE.
EXACTLY NOT. IT IS EXACT. WHERE
IS OUR BONUS? NOTHING. YOU TAKE
MONEY FROM US. WHEN THEY BUILT,
THE PRICE GOES UP. IT WILL GO
UP. EVERY PRESENT SEATTLE GOES
UP. SO WHERE IS THE BONUS FOR
POOR PEOPLE LIKE ME? AND
ANOTHER COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS. SOME MAKE A LITTLE BIT
OF A MOTION. TOP LEVEL
CORPORATIONS. [ INAUDIBLE ]
>> NEXT, WE HAVE IN , FOLLOWED
BY STEPHEN.
>> THANK YOU. WE ASK THAT AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE, AS THE CHAIR
MENTIONED, THIS IS ABOUT BEING
ABLE TO IMPLEMENT TO THE LIVING
BUILDING BONUS. YOU PROVIDE 10
THREE-BEDROOM FAMILY CELL UNITS
IN DOWNTOWN. TRENT -- SDCI'S
INTENT WAS FOR THESE TO BE
STACKED. THEY APPROVED THE
DESIGN WITH THESE INCENTIVES.
THIS PROJECT WILL NOT ONLY
PROVIDE $2.5 MILLION IN MHA
FEES, BUT IT WILL PROVIDE THREE
BEDROOM UNITS AND 42 TWO
BEDROOM UNITS POINT WE BELIEVE,
CONSISTENT WITH THE CONFERENCE
OF PLAN , AREAS THAT ARE ALSO
AS AN 14 RECOGNIZES, THIS IS
NOT SIMPLY ABOUT ONE PROJECT.
THIS IS FOR ALL OF BELLTOWN
.25+ SPOTS THAT THEY COULD TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THESE INCENTIVES
TO BUILD SUSTAINABLE
THREE-BEDROOM FAMILY STYLE
LIVING. WE BELIEVE THAT IS THE
RIGHT SOLUTION. THANK YOU.
>> SWITCHING TO ONLINE
SPEAKERS. FIRST, WE HAVE STEVE,
FOLLOWED BY ALEX RASMUSSEN.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. STEVE HERE.
I'M A RESIDENT OF BELLTOWN AND
DOWNTOWN. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE
THAT I WAS ON THE LINE THE
WHOLE TIME AND I WOULD'VE
APPRECIATED MY ONE MINUTE TO
COMMENT EARLIER, WHICH I WAS
NOT AFFORDED, AND I WOULD ASK
THE CHAIR TO CONSIDER PROVIDING
ME THAT MINUTE TO COMMENT ON
THE PRIOR BILL. WITH REGARD TO
120833, I WOULD SIMPLY ASK THAT
THE COUNCIL -- THANK YOU FOR
NOT TAKING A VOTE ON THIS
TODAY. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU NOT
TAKE ANY ACTION THAT DIRECTLY
RELATES TO ANY SPECIFIC
PROJECT. WE ELECT YOU TO CREATE
COVENANTS FOR THE CITY. WE DO
NOT ELECT YOU TO BECOME THE
JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER
RELATED TO SPECIFIC BUILDING
PROJECTS, AND SO, IT'S VERY
WISE OF YOU TO DELETE MAKING
ANY DECISION THAT WOULD HAVE AN
IMPACT ON THOSE EXISTING
PROJECTS, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT
HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER THIS
BILL, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR THE TIME.
>> UP NEXT, WE HAVE [ INAUDIBLE
] , FOLLOWED BY BRITTNEY FROST.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I URGE YOU
TO REJECT THIS BILL. 120833. AS
THIS BILL BENEFITS LARGE
DEVELOPERS AT THE COMMUNITIES
EXPENSE , AND IT FAILS TO
ADDRESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING . IT
NEGATIVELY IMPACTS SOLAR AXIS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY. IT SETS A
PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT AND IGNORES
COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS. IT IS INCONSISTENT
WITH HOUSING GOALS. IF TALLER
THINGS ARE NEEDED, THEY SHOULD
COME THROUGH WITH A TRANSPARENT
PROCESS THAT BENEFITS EVERYONE,
STARTING WITH AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. SO PLEASE STAND WITH
BELLTOWN RESIDENTS AND UPHOLD
THE ZONING THAT BALANCES EQUITY
AND SUSTAINABILITY. THANK YOU.
>> WE HAVE BRITNEY, FOLLOWED BY
RUTH.
PLEASE PRESS STAR.
>> HELLO, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS
BRITTANY. I AM A RENTER IN
BELLTOWN AND I URGE YOU TO
APPROVE CB 120833. I KNOW THERE
IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT
HOW WE NEED MORE HOUSING FOR
FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN. I LIVE
IN A BUILDING IN BELLTOWN AS A
RENTER WHERE THE LARGEST FLOOR
PLAN IS TO BEDROOM. THERE ARE
FAMILIES WITH TWO AND THREE
CHILDREN ALL STUCK IN A SINGLE
BEDROOM. IMPROVING THIS BILL
HAS DRAWBACKS, BUT IT IS BETTER
THAN FAMILIES BEING IN SMALL
APARTMENTS OR MAKING THEM MOVE
TO CITY LIMITS. PLEASE CONSIDER
THIS BILL FOR APPROVAL TO THE
FULL COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME TODAY.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE RUTH GAYNOR.
AS OUR FINAL SPEAKER ONLINE.
>> PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX TO
UNMUTE YOURSELF, RUTH.
>> RUTH, CAN YOU PUSH STAR SIX,
PLEASE? DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER
SPEAKERS ONLINE?
>> THAT IS THE FINAL SPEAKER
ONLINE OR IN PERSON.
>> OKAY. RUTH, IF YOU WANT TO
EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS, WE WILL BE
HAPPY TO TAKE THEM. AND INCLUDE
THEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER
SPEAKERS --
>> THERE WERE SOME NAMES
CROSSED OFF ABOVE MINE. AND
MAYBE SOMEBODY GOT MINE. BUT
THERE WERE SEVERAL CROSSED OFF.
OKAY. GO FOR IT.
>> ONE SECOND.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR TIME ON
THERE YET.
AGAIN, WE HAVE A PROBLEM IN THE
CITY. YOU FEEL THAT THEY SHOULD
BE DOUBLED UP, EVEN THOUGH WHEN
YOU WENT WITH THE HEARING
EXAMINER, OBVIOUSLY, THE
PAPERWORK DID NOT BACK THAT UP
BECAUSE WINNING WITH THE
HEARING EXAMINER IS NOT A
SIMPLE PROCESS. I CAN GUARANTEE
YOU THAT. BUT THE PUBLIC WAS
PROMISED WHEN MHA WAS PAST,
THAT IT WOULD BE 50-50,
APPROXIMATELY, OF PEOPLE TAKING
IT, AND PEOPLE HAVING UNITS
SPREAD IN THE COMMUNITY OF
DIVERSE INCOMES . WELL, WELL,
WELL. WE HAVE NEVER HAD THE
TIME IN THIS COMMITTEE TO
REVIEW, AND I CAN GUARANTEE
YOU, IN THE NORTH END AND
PROBABLY IN THE REST OF THE
CITY, IF THE BARGAIN PRICES [
INAUDIBLE ] YOU ARE NOT SEEING
IN YOUR COMMUNITY -- THE
DIVERSE INCOME . IN OTHER
WORDS, BELOW MARKET COSTS.
PLEASE DO SOMETHING.
>> THAT WAS THE FINAL SPEAKER
IN PERSON.
>> OKAY. LET ME MAKE SURE
NOBODY ELSE IS HERE TO SPEAK
ABOUT CB 120833. OKAY. THE
PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED,
AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT
AGENDA ITEM. NAOMI, WILL YOU
PLEASE READ ITEM 2 INTO THE
RECORD?
>> ITEM 2, COUNCIL BILL 120822.
FOR BRIEFING, DISCUSSION, AND
POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> OKAY. WE ARE JOINED BY
CHRISTIE PARKER AND GEOFF
WENTLANDT. I WANTED TO MAKE
SURE STAFF WAS AVAILABLE IN
CASE THERE ARE QUESTIONS. I
WILL HAND IT TO YOU TO GIVE A
BRIEF REMINDER ABOUT THESE
BILLS, AND IF THERE ARE ANY
FINAL QUESTIONS BEFORE WE VOTE,
WE CAN TAKE THEM THEN.
>> YEAH. CENTRAL STAFF. AS YOU
PROBABLY REMEMBERED, THIS BILL
ALIGNS WITH THE CITY'S
REGULATIONS FOR RECORDS FOR A
LIVING. HOUSING, OR AS IT IS
CALLED IN SEATTLE'S CODE,
CONGREGATE HOUSING RESIDENTS.
AND DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING
ELSE?
>> I DON'T HAVE A
PRESENTATION. WE BRIEFED THE
COMMITTEE ON SEPTEMBER 4th.
I'LL BE A RESOURCE HERE FREE
TODAY IF YOU HAVE ANY CUSHIONS.
>> THANK YOU. JEFF, I WANT TO
APOLOGIZE FOR THE LAST MEETING.
I WAS ON [ INAUDIBLE ] . I
THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE TRIPPED
YOU UP A LITTLE BIT. MY
APOLOGIES. I DIDN'T WANT TO
JUST ASK -- CAN YOU GIVE A
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF HOW THIS BILL
CHANGES WHAT WE HAVE TODAY? AS
COMPARED TO WHERE WE ARE GOING
IN THE FUTURE.
>> YEAH. I'LL TAKE A CUT OF
THAT.
>> AND GEOFF, IF YOU COULD PULL
THE MICROPHONE CLOSE.
>> THIS BILL WOULD ESSENTIALLY
ALLOW FOR THE CONGREGANT
RESIDENCE HOUSING TYPE, WHICH
IS WHERE YOU HAVE SLEEPING
ROOMS THAT ARE INDEPENDENTLY
RENTED AND LOCKABLE WITH SHARED
KITCHEN FACILITIES IN THE
BUILDING. THAT TYPE OF BUILDING
WOULD BE ALLOWED IN MORE ZONES
ACROSS THE CITY. THAT IS
REQUIRED BY THE STATE
LEGISLATION THAT WAS PASSED
LAST YEAR. CURRENTLY, THE CITY
OF SEATTLE ALREADY ALLOWS THAT
HOUSING TYPE IN MANY ZONES. THE
COMMERCIAL THREE ZONES AND
ZONES THAT ARE EQUAL OR MORE
THAN THAT IN INTENSITY. THIS
BILL WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT
CONJUGATE RESIDENT HOUSING TYPE
IN ALL OF THE CITIES.
MULTIFAMILY AND ZONES. IN
ADDITION, IT AMENDS BICYCLE
PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO ALIGN
WITH THE STATE REQUIREMENT THAT
ONE SLEEPING ROOM COUNTS --
FOUR SLEEPING ROOMS COUNTS AS
ONE RESIDENCE. AND REMOVES
REQUIREMENTS FROM THE LAND USE
CODE RELATED TO SHARED
FACILITIES FOR CONGREGATE
RESIDENCE.
>> AND THAT IS REQUIRED BY
STATE LAW, RIGHT? JUST AS A
REMINDER, THIS IS IMPLEMENTING
STATE LAW REQUIREMENT , AND WE
HAVE THE ABILITY TO INCREASE
FOR SMALLER UNITS AT A LOWER
PRICE POINT FOR THE MANY PEOPLE
WE KNOW THAT NEED ACCESS TO
THAT KIND OF HOUSING.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. JUST TO
REITERATE, WE ACTUALLY CAN'T
GO LESS THAN THE STATES. WE
REALLY DO NEED TO PASS THIS
BILL IN ORDER TO BE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.
CORRECT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
>> WELL, I'M NOT SEEING ANY
FURTHER DISCUSSION, THEN.
NAOMI, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL FOR COUNCIL BILL 120822?
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER WOO.
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MORALES.
>> YES.
>> FOUR IN FAVOR.
>> IT WILL MOVE TO THE
SEPTEMBER 24th COUNCIL MEETING
FOR THE FINAL VOTE. WE READ THE
NEXT ITEM INTO THE RECORD?
>> AGENDA ITEM 3. COUNCIL BILL
120823, FOR POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> SO WILL THE SDCI FOLKS
PLEASE COME UP. THIS IS --
PERIODICALLY WE UPDATE THAT
LAND-USE CODE. IT IS AN
IMPORTANT PART OF THE
REGULATORY PROCESS TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ARE CORRECTING ANY
ERRORS IN DRAFTING ANY
OMISSIONS THAT WERE LEFT OUT
INADVERTENTLY, AND MAKE
THAT CITY POLICY IS CLEAR. SO
WE'VE GOT -- ARE YOU HERE
ALONE? PLEASE GO AHEAD AND
INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
>> I'M TRAVIS SAUNDERS, SDCI
POLICY AND TECHNICAL TEAM.
>> OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A
PRESENTATION? DO YOU WANT TO
JUST GO THROUGH QUICKLY -- AND
IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS FROM THE
COUNCIL.
>> I PRESENTED LAST SESSION. I
DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION
PULLED UP. I CAN CERTAINLY GIVE
AN OVERVIEW OR ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
>> OKAY. WHILE MY COLLEAGUES
ARE CONTEMPLATING IF THEY HAVE
QUESTIONS, I DO WANT TO -- WE
HAVE A COUPLE OF AMENDMENTS
HERE, BUT BEFORE WE DISCUSS THE
AMENDMENTS, I DO WANT TO
ADDRESS A CONCERN THAT I KNOW
WE HAVE HEARD FROM A LOT OF
FOLKS. REGARDING THE TREE CODE.
SO THERE ARE NO CHANGES
REGARDING TREE PROTECTION THAT
ARE BEING PROPOSED TO THE RSL
ZONES. EXISTING TREAT
REGULATIONS ALREADY APPLY TO
THOSE CODES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONE. SO THE INTENT
IS TO PROVIDE CLARITY OF USE
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE
REQUIREMENTS. THE PROPOSED
FOOTNOTE THAT IS IN THE BILL IS
INTENDED TO CLARIFY THAT TREE
PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS DON'T
APPLY IN ZONES THAT AREN'T
SPECIFICALLY LISTED. WHICH
INCLUDES NEIGHBORHOOD,
RESIDENTIAL, LOWRISE, MIDRISE,
AND SEATTLE NEXT. AND I DO WANT
TO ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHEN
WE WERE HAVING THIS
CONVERSATION LAST YEAR, I KNOW
I, AND MAYBE A COUPLE OF OTHER
FOLKS DID SAY THAT AFTER WE
PASSED THE CODE, WE WOULD
REVISIT TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY
OTHER CHANGES THAT WERE NEEDED.
AND I WILL SAY THAT I DO PLAN
TO DO THIS. THE CODE HAS BEEN
IN EFFECT FOR LESS THAN A YEAR,
SO I DO THINK WE NEED TO ALLOW
TIME FOR THE TREE CODE TO BE IN
EFFECT SO WE CAN DETERMINE
WHAT'S WORKING AND WHAT'S NOT
WORKING. I WILL ALSO SAY THAT
NEXT YEAR, WE WILL HAVE THE
COMPETENCE OF PLANNED
DISCUSSION. THAT IS ANOTHER
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE ARE INCREASING TREE
PROTECTIONS, WHILE WE CONTINUE
TO ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE TREE CODE. I SIT ON THE
PSRC PORT , AND WE HAVE
RECEIVED RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT
HOW WE CAN INCREASE OUR TREE
CANOPY WHILE NOT IMPEDING ON
DEVELOPING HOUSING THAT WE ALL
KNOW WE DESPERATELY NEED. FOR
EXAMPLE, THEY RECOMMEND WE
IMPLEMENT MEASURABLE, OBJECTIVE
GOALS AND ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO
PROTECT TREES. SO WE WILL HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW BEST
PRACTICES AND FACILITIES AND
REALLY TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT
MIGHT LOOK LIKE. SO I JUST WANT
TO REITERATE THAT THIS
PARTICULAR LEGISLATION DOES NOT
CHANGE HOW THE CODE IS
ADMINISTERED. IT PROVIDES
CLARITY, AND WE WILL HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY NEXT YEAR TO TALK
ABOUT THAT. OKAY. THAT BEING
SAID, I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF
AMENDMENTS TO THIS. SO I'M
GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE
THOSE AMENDMENTS AND ASK LISH
TO ADDRESS THEM. I MOVE
AMENDMENT ONE, REGARDING SINGLE
FAMILY COTTAGE BASEMENT FLOOR
EXEMPTIONS --
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. OKAY. LISH, CAN I
ASK YOU TO GIVE A BRIEF
OVERVIEW OF THIS?
>> YEAH. IF IT'S OKAY, I'LL
PULL UP THE [ INAUDIBLE ]
LANGUAGE.
>> CHAIR, SORRY. JUST A
TECHNICAL POINT. I THOUGHT WE
HAD TO MOVE THE ENTIRE BILL
FIRST BEFORE WE COULD MOVE THE
AMENDMENT.
>> YOU ARE CORRECT. OKAY. I AM
GOING TO MOVE COUNCIL BILL
120823. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S
BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. JUST
TO COVER ALL OUR BASES, I WILL
ALSO NOW MOVE AMENDMENT 1. IS
THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT HAS
BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. NOW,
LISH, CAN I ASK YOU TO PLEASE
DISCUSS THIS AMENDMENT?
>> SURE. THE BILL INCLUDES A
PROVISION THAT EXTENDS
INCENTIVES THAT WE CURRENTLY
HAVE IN THE LAND USE CODE FOR
MULTIFAMILY ZONES FOR PROJECTS
THAT HAVE BASEMENTS OR WHERE
THE BASEMENT EXTENDS ABOVE THE
STREET LEVEL. OR THE SITE GRADE
BY FOUR FEET. THOSE SPACES AND
APARTMENTS, ARE CURRENTLY
EXEMPT FROM OUR FLOOR AREA
RATIO LIMITS. THE BILL AS
PROPOSED WOULD EXTEND THAT
PROVISION TO ALL RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES. THE QUESTION THAT
THIS AMENDMENT ASKS IS WHETHER
OR NOT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY AND
COTTAGE HOUSING PROJECTS IN OUR
MULTIFAMILY ZONES , SHOULD THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLY TO
ROAD HOUSES -- ROWHOUSES APPLY?
FOR ROWHOUSE DEVELOPMENT, WE
REQUIRE PARKING TO BE BEHIND OR
BENEATH THE BUILDING. IN ORDER
TO ACCESS THE FLOOR AREA RATIO
WAIVER. THE AMENDMENT WOULD ADD
SINGLE-FAMILY AND COTTAGE
HOUSING PROJECTS TO THE LIST ,
ALONG WITH ROWHOUSES AND
TOWNHOUSES WERE PARKING NEEDS
TO BE BELOW OR BEHIND THE
BUILDING.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CERTAINLY, THE INTENT HERE IS
TO HAVE SIMILARLY TO TOWNHOUSES
AND ROWHOUSES, TWO CREATE
BETTER STREETSCAPES THROUGHOUT
THE CITY, REGARDLESS OF THE
HOUSING TYPE THAT IS BEING
DEVELOPED. COLLEAGUES, ARE
THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
AMENDMENT? COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS
AT THIS TIME.
>> OKAY. I AM JUST CHECKING TO
SEE IF COUNCILMEMBER WOO'S
HAND WAS RAISED.
>> THANK YOU. [ INAUDIBLE ]
>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
LISH. IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER
COMMENTS, WHERE THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT ONE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> NO.
>> VICE CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> TWO IN FAVOR, ONE AGAINST,
AND ONE ABSTENTION.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT WILL BE ADOPTED.
>> OKAY. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON
TO AMENDMENT 2. I MOVED TO
ADOPT AMENDMENT 2. IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT
2. LISH, WILL YOU PLEASE
ADDRESS THIS AMENDMENT?
>> THIS RELATES TO SIZE LIMITS
ON GROCERY STORES AND
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ONE AND
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO
ZONES. THE PROPOSED BILL WOULD
ALLOW GROCERY STORES TO HAVE
ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR BACK OF
HOUSE USES. SUCH AS OFFICES ,
STORAGE, LOADING DOCKS, ET
CETERA. AND THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD REMOVE THAT ADDITIONAL
SPACE. LENIENCY THAT WOULD BE
PROVIDED BY THE BILL.
>> THANK YOU. SO, THIS
AMENDMENT AS LISH SAID, COUNTS
BACK OF THE HOUSE TOWARDS THE
TOTAL SIZE LIMIT . THE INTENT
HERE REALLY IS TO SIMPLIFY THE
CODE. AND I WILL SAY THAT THERE
ARE PROJECTS THAT THIS MAY HAVE
APPLIED TO, BUT THIS IS REALLY
MEANT TO APPLY TO ALL -- TO
APPLY PROSPECTIVELY TO PROJECTS
MOVING FORWARD, AND PROJECTS
THAT ARE ALREADY VESTED WOULD
NOT BE IMPACTED BY THIS. SO
THAT IS THE INTENT, AND IT
REALLY IS ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE ARE SIMPLIFYING
AND NOT ADDING PARTICULAR
LANGUAGE TO A PARTICULAR
DEVELOPMENT. COLLEAGUES, ARE
THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> CHAIR, I UNDERSTAND THIS TO
BE -- THE NEED -- GROCERY
STORES ARE INCREASING THE BACK
OF HOUSE SPACE FROM WHEN THE
CODE WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN,
WHETHER IT IS HEALTH CONCERNS
OR ADDITIONAL RESTROOMS, ET
CETERA. THE INTERESTING THING
ABOUT THE CODE IS THAT WE
DECIDED THEY NEED TO DO MORE --
DEVELOPERS NEED TO DO MORE
THINGS, BUT WE DON'T
NECESSARILY CHANGE THE RATIO
THERE. THE ALLOWANCE IS THERE.
I'M INCLINED TO TAKE THE BILL
AS TRANSMITTED ON THIS ONE. I
APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
THAT IS GOOD STEWARDSHIP OF THE
LAND USE COMMITTEE, BUT I'M
INCLINED TO LET IT BE EXEMPT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I ACTUALLY
AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE,
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. I THINK
THAT THERE ARE USES I HAVE
HEARD OF TO EXPAND BACK OF THE
HOUSE, EVEN TO ALLOW FOR MORE
SPACE FOR EMPLOYEES, EVEN, TOO,
LOCKER ROOMS AND THINGS OF THAT
NATURE, SO I THINK THAT IS IN
THE BEST INTEREST TO ALLOW USE
OF THAT EXTRA SPACE, AS WE HAVE
BEEN REQUIRING MORE AND TO
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS'S POINT.
I WOULD NOT SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT, AND JUST ALLOW THE
BILL TO STAND AS IS. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND
I WILL SAY, PART OF THE INTENT
HERE, IS, AS WE ARE -- AS A
FORMER FOOD SYSTEMS PLANNER, I
THINK IT IS IMPORTANT WE MAKE
SURE WE HAVE GROCERY STORES IN
AS MANY DIFFERENT PARTS OF OUR
COMMUNITY AS POSSIBLE, IN
DIFFERENT SIZES, SO WHAT I WAS
REALLY TRYING TO AVOID IS , YOU
KNOW, HAVING REALLY LARGE-SCALE
FORMAT STORES IN SMALLER
COMMERCIAL AREAS. SO I DID
SPEAK WITH LISH AND A FEW OTHER
FOLKS WHO WERE WORRIED ABOUT
THIS. I WILL SAY THAT I AM NOT
AT ALL TRYING TO PREVENT
ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA RATIO --
ADDITIONAL STORIES SO WE CAN
GET AS MUCH HOUSING AS POSSIBLE
INTO AS MANY NEIGHBORHOODS AS
POSSIBLE, PARTICULARLY TO
SUPPORT THE IDEA OF
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS AND MORE
HOUSING CLOSE TO SERVICES. SO,
I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND. I THINK
I WILL WITHDRAW THIS AMENDMENT
, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE ARE
-- I'M A LITTLE CONFLICTED, I
WILL SAY, MYSELF. SO JUST TO BE
PERFECTLY CANDID. SO I AM
WITHDRAWING AMENDMENT TWO.
>> AND CHAIR, I WILL JUST SAY,
I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION,
AND I APPRECIATE -- THIS HAS
BEEN QUITE GOOD. THANK YOU.
>> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE
OMNIBUS LEGISLATION?
>> OKAY. SEEING NONE, WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
COUNCIL BILL 120823?
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER WOO.
>> ABSTAIN.
>> VICE CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MORALES.
>> YES.
>> OKAY. THE BILL PASSES AND IT
WILL BE SENT TO COUNCIL ON
SEPTEMBER 24th FOR A FINAL
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LET'S MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM
4.
>> AGENDA ITEM 4. COUNCIL BILL
120824.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY.
THIS LEGISLATION AMENDS THE
LAND USE CODE FOR AN INTERIM
PERIOD OF THREE YEARS TO EXEMPT
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS FROM
THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS IF
THEY CONSIST OF HOUSING,
HOTELS, OR RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES. WE DO
HAVE GORDON CLOWERS TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE. I WILL OPEN IT UP
TO YOU.
>> GORDON CLOWERS, SDCI.
>> THIS BILL WOULD EXEMPT HOTEL
RESIDENTIAL AND RESEARCH
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN
DOWNTOWN SOUTH LAKE UNION AND
URBAN CENTERS AND PARTS OF THE
URBAN CENTER AND THE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTER
FOR AN INTERIM. THEY CAN AVAIL
THEMSELVES OF THE SAME
BENEFITS. THAT INCLUDES
TERRIBLE VESTING, AND THE
ABILITY TO GET WAIVERS AND
MODIFICATIONS AND OTHER
STANDARDS [ INAUDIBLE ] THEY
CAN REVIEW THOSE DECISIONS THAT
WILL BE MADE BY THE SDCI
DIRECTORS. A TYPE OF DECISION,
WHICH IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE
NONAPPEALABLE DECISION USING
THE CRITERION THAT THE WAIVER
WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
LODGING ROOMS. RESIDENTIAL
UNITS. OR RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT
SPACE. THERE ARE THE BONES
PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES.
>> OKAY. I MOVE ADOPTION OF
COUNCIL BILL 120824. IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED. AND COLLEAGUES,
ANY COMMENTS OR ISSUES BEFORE
WE MOVE ON?
>> I WILL SAY BROADLY THAT I
RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A BILL
THAT IS SUPPORTED, AND I
BELIEVE WAS INITIATED BY THE
MAYOR AS PART OF THE DOWNTOWN
ACTIVATION PLAN HE PUT TOGETHER
TO REVITALIZE DOWNTOWN,
SOMETHING THAT I HAVE BEEN ON
THE RECORD AS VERY MUCH HAVING
AN INTEREST IN. AND FOR THOSE
REASONS, POST COVID,
ESPECIALLY, WE ARE TRYING TO
REVITALIZE DOWNTOWN, AND I
THINK THIS IS A GOOD TOOL, AND
I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THIS
PARTICULAR DESIGN REVIEW
EXEMPTION IS FOR A LIMITED
PERIOD OF TIME OF THREE YEARS.
SO IT IS NOT MEANT TO BE
ONGOING. AND I THINK THAT ALSO
BEARS ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT PIECE
TO DAYLIGHT AS PART OF THE
CONVERSATION FOR THIS
PARTICULAR BILL, AND SO I AM
SUPPORTIVE OF THE BILL AS IT
IS.
>> GREAT.
>> OKAY. WELL, AS KITTLE SAYS,
I HAVE A COUPLE OF AMENDMENTS
TO THIS. SO I'M GOING TO GO
AHEAD AND MOVE THEM. I MOVE
AMENDMENT ONE . IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED. CAN YOU REVIEW
THAT?
>> I WILL SHARE MY SCREEN HERE.
WE ARE ON COUNCIL BILL 120824,
AMENDMENT ONE. SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES. I JUST
DESCRIBED THE AMENDMENT?
>> SURE.
>> THE COMMITTEE HAS TO THE
COUNCIL HAS IN RECENT YEARS BUT
AT A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL
EXEMPTIONS FROM DESIGN REVIEW
ONE ON LOW-INCOME HOUSING
PROJECTS, AND ANOTHER OF THOSE
EXEMPTIONS AVAILABLE FOR
PROJECTS TO CHOOSE TO PERFORM
UNDER THE AFFORDABILITY
PROGRAM. IT IS PROVIDED
ON-SITE. [ INAUDIBLE ] FOR BOTH
OF THOSE EXEMPTIONS, THE
COUNCIL DID NOT EXTEND
FAVORABLE VESTING INFORMATION.
AND THROUGH THE DESIGNING
PROCESS, AND REVIEW OF THE
PROJECT, THEY HAD THE
APPLICATION THAT PROVIDED THEY
MAKE PRE-PERMIT APPLICATION
PHASE. THAT THEY APPLY FOR THE
PERMIT . SO THE AMENDMENT
PROPOSED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
MALICE WOULD HOLD ALL OTHER
PROJECTS. [ INAUDIBLE ] AND FOR
THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS , IT
LOCKS IN THE REGULATIONS THAT
APPLY TO THAT PROJECT. [
INAUDIBLE ] IS A BUILDING
PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED, THE USE
PERMIT IS REQUIRED. IT IS AT
THE END OF THE PROCESS FOR TYPE
I PROJECTS. PROJECTS WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THAT APPROVAL. [
INAUDIBLE ] THAT IS ALSO PART
OF THE PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU, KETIL. YES. WE
ARE BASICALLY TRYING TO MAKE
SURE THE VESTING PROCESS ARE
STANDARDIZED ACROSS THE BOARD.
SIMILAR TO PROJECTS FOR
EXEMPTING LOW-INCOME HOUSING,
FOR EXAMPLE. SO, ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS,
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> CHAIR, I APPRECIATED THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
PILOT PROGRAMS AND ONE OF THE
REASONS I APPRECIATED THE
DIFFERENCE IS BECAUSE EACH OF
THESE PROJECT PILOT PROGRAMS
ARE LIMITED IN SCHEDULE . FOR A
TIME-LIMITED DURATION. AND I
WAS JUST MEETING WITH AN
ARCHITECT WHO HAD FINALLY
CAUGHT ON TO THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING EXEMPTION, AND IS JUST
NOW STARTING TO GET INTO THOSE
PROJECTS, EVEN THOUGH WE PASSED
THAT A YEAR AGO. IT TAKES A
MINUTE FOR PROJECTS TO COME
ONLINE AND BECOME DEVELOPED AND
GET TO PAPER. AS WE CONTINUE TO
REVIEW THE DESIGN REVIEW
PROGRAM, BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE
APPROVED AND IT NEEDS TO HAVE
FIXES, I THINK IT IS HELPFUL
FOR US TO HAVE A
DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THESE
PILOT PROGRAMS SO WE CAN SEE,
IS THIS -- WHAT IS WORKING AND
WHAT IS NOT? I DON'T
NECESSARILY PERSONALLY HAVE
THEM ALL STANDARDIZED. I FIND
SLIGHT DIFFERENCES COULD BE
HELPFUL IN THE LONG RUN. THANK
YOU, CHAIR.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. GIVEN THE
SHORT TERM OF APPLICABILITY OF
THIS PARTICULAR PILOT, I DON'T
FEEL LIKE IT NEEDS TO BE -- YOU
KNOW, YOU ARE BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I DON'T THINK IT
NEEDS TO BE STANDARDIZED TO THE
ONGOING PILOT WE HAVE. AND TO
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS'S POINT,
WE CAN LOOK AT -- WE WILL BE
LOOKING AT , YOU KNOW, DESIGN
REVIEW IN GENERAL AND
PERMITTING AND ALL OF THESE
PROCESSES. SO AT THE MOMENT,
THOUGH I APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THIS FORWARD, I WILL
NOT BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS
AMENDMENT , FOR THOSE REASONS.
THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. WE WILL -- ANY FURTHER
COMMENTS ON THIS?
>> ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO
TAKE A VOTE ON THIS THEN. WILL
YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
AMENDMENT -- WHAT AM I ON? 1?
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER WOO.
>> NO.
>> VICE CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> NO.
>> CHAIR MORALES.
>> YES. THE MOTION FAILS. WE
WILL MOVE ON. I MOVE TO ADOPT
AMENDMENT 2 BUT IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND. IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT
2. THIS IS BASICALLY A
REPORTING REQUIREMENT ON
EXEMPTION OUTCOMES, BUT I WILL
ASK KETIL TO GO AHEAD AND
DESCRIBE THE AMENDMENT.
>> SO AMENDMENT TWO, ALSO
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES WOULD ADD A SECTION TO
THE BILL, SECTION 8. THAT WOULD
REQUEST THAT SDCI PROVIDED BY
MAY 31st, 2025. THE BEGINNING
OF NEXT SUMMER, AND THAT REPORT
WOULD INCLUDE A MAP SHOWING THE
LOCATION OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE
UTILIZED THE EXEMPTION AND
IDENTIFY THE WAIVERS OR
MODIFICATIONS SOUGHT BY THE
APPLICANT. THE MODIFICATIONS
GRANTED BY SDCI, AND THE AMOUNT
OF FLOOR AREA THAT RESULTED
FROM THE WAIVER MODIFICATIONS.
>> THANK YOU. SO COLLEAGUES,
WHAT I'M REALLY TRYING TO DO
HERE IS GET AN UNDERSTANDING,
ESPECIALLY AS FOLKS HAVE SAID,
WE ARE GOING TO BE MOVING INTO
A BROADER CONVERSATION ABOUT
DESIGN REVIEW. YOU KNOW, SO
THAT THE PUBLIC IS ABLE TO KNOW
WHICH PROJECTS RECEIVED
DEPARTURES, AND SINCE THIS
LEGISLATION EXAMS PROJECTS FROM
DESIGN REVIEW, THIS INFORMATION
WOULDN'T BE AVAILABLE TO THE
PUBLIC ANYMORE, SO WE ARE JUST
TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT
IS STILL GETTING OR BECOMES
AVAILABLE SO THAT FOLKS CAN SEE
WHAT KIND OF PROJECTS ARE BEING
EXEMPT, WHAT KIND OF DEPARTURES
ARE REQUESTED, AND THE
AMENDMENT WOULD ENSURE THAT
SDCI PUBLICLY PUBLISHES WHICH
DEPARTURES ARE GRANTED . IT IS
REALLY ABOUT TRYING TO INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY ABOUT WHAT CHANGES
ARE BEING MADE TO OUR
PROCESSES. SO THAT IS THE
INTENT. ARE THERE QUESTIONS?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I DO HAVE
A QUESTION. SO I'M ALWAYS IN
FAVOR OF REPORTING AND GETTING
DATA AND INFORMATION TO HELP
INFORM THE DECISIONS THAT WE
MAKE UP HERE. SO I APPRECIATE
YOU BRINGING THIS ON REPORTING.
I HAVE A QUESTION. EARLY SUMMER
OF 2020, THIS IS A THREE-YEAR
PROGRAM PILOT PROGRAM. SUMMER
OF 2025, IT IS LESS THAN A YEAR
FROM TODAY BECAUSE IT IS EARLY
SUMMER. SO I WONDER IF CHAIR
WOULD -- AND I PROCEDURALLY
DON'T KNOW HOW THIS WORKS, IF
CHAIR WOULD CONSIDER EXTENDING
THE TIMELINE A BIT, BECAUSE IT
DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A SUFFICIENT
AMOUNT OF TIME FOR REPORTING,
BUT I SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT IF
WE WERE TO GIVE MORE TIME.
>> SURE. KETIL, CAN YOU TALK
ABOUT THE CHALLENGES WE HAVE
WITH THE TIMELINE?
>> SO THAT DATE WAS SELECTED IN
PART BECAUSE WHEN THE DATE BY
WHICH THE CITY WILL LIKELY NEED
TO HAVE LEGISLATION EFFECTIVE
TO PASS HOUSE BILL 1293 -- AND
THAT IS THE NEW STATE LAW THAT
REQUIRES THAT THE CITY MODIFY
THE PROGRAM -- SO, IF THE
COUNCIL WANTS INFORMATION FROM
THIS PROPOSED EXEMPTION TO
INFORM WHAT THAT -- HOW CHANGES
MAY LOOK BY THE DATE THAT WE
ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE THOSE
CHANGES, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE
THAT INFORMATION BY AT LEAST A
MONTH BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED
TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES. IN 2025.
>> ARE THOSE CHANGES ONGOING
CHANGES , KETIL?
>> THEY WOULD BE ONGOING
CHANGES, YES. BUT THE CHALLENGE
IS, IF WE DON'T LEAVE ENOUGH
TIME TO ACTUALLY GET
INFORMATION THAT IS HELPFUL TO
HELP US MAKE THE DECISIONS, I
DON'T SEE HOW -- I MEAN, WE
ARE KIND OF IN A WEIRD SPOT.
>> SURE.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO GET
THE INFORMATION TO HELP INFORM,
BUT IF IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT
TIME, WE WON'T HAVE GOOD
INFORMATION TO HELP.
>> THERE MAY NOT BE MUCH
INFORMATION BY THAT DATE, BUT
TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS
INFORMATION AND THE COUNCIL
NEEDS THAT INFORMATION TO MAKE
A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
TO EXTEND, THE INTERIM
EXEMPTION FOR DOWNTOWN -- IT
WILL PULL DOWNTOWN INTO BROADER
INFLAMMATION LEGISLATION. IT
WILL BE WHATEVER THE
INFORMATION IS AT THE TIME.
>> I WOULD SAY, CHAIR, THEN, I
WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST, IF WE
MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS
REPORTING MECHANISM, THAT I
JUST CAUTION US IN TERMS OF
WHATEVER THE DATA SAYS OR
DOESN'T SAY, BECAUSE THERE
ISN'T ENOUGH TIME FOR US TO BE
MAKING ONGOING DECISIONS BASED,
YOU KNOW -- WE CAN CONSIDER IT,
BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD
GIVE IT A LOT OF WEIGHT IF WE
DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> SURE. SURE.
>> SO IF THERE IS A COMMITMENT
TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT
PROVERBIALLY PUTTING ALL OF OUR
EGGS IN ONE BASKET, IN TERMS OF
HOW MUCH INFORMATION WE GET.
AND THAT, INFORMING THE ONGOING
DECISIONS . I THINK I'M FINE
WITH IT.
>> AND I THINK WE WON'T REALLY
KNOW UNTIL WE ARE THERE. AND IT
WILL BE A QUESTION OF -- IS
THERE SUFFICIENT DATA TO DRAW
ANY CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS,
>> CORRECT AND I WANT THE
COMMITMENT THAT WE ARE GOING TO
HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AND MAKE
SURE THAT THE DATA IS
SUFFICIENT TO HELP INFORM, SO
WE ARE NOT LOCKED-IN NOW. THANK
YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT
REQUIRES AN AMENDMENT OR IF WE
CAN JUST STATE THE INTENT HERE.
>> I MEAN, IT WOULD BE THE SAME
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. IN MAY, SO
-- SPOKE WE CAN DECIDE THEN.
I'M HAPPY TO REDRAFT THIS
BEFORE COUNCIL IF THAT IS OF
INTEREST.
>> COULD WE ADD LANGUAGE AND
PASS IT TODAY? WOULD WE HAVE TO
BRING THIS BACK AGAIN, KETIL?
>> IT CAN BE MADE AS AN
AMENDMENT, AS WELL.
>> YEAH. WE CAN HOPE THIS, AND
THEN BRING IT BACK NEXT WEEK.
IF THERE IS ADDITIONAL
LANGUAGE.
>> NEXT WEEK?
>> AT FULL COUNCIL.
>> OH.
>> OKAY.
>> YEAH.
>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S DO
THAT. SO I AM GOING TO MOVE
AMENDMENT 2. I ALREADY DID
THAT. WE ARE GOING TO CALL THE
ROLL ON AMENDMENT TWO. WE ARE
GOING TO GET THROUGH THIS,
EVERYONE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER WOO.
>> YES. [ INAUDIBLE ]
>> VICE CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MORALES.
>> YES.
>> FOUR IN FAVOR.
>> AT THE MOTION CARRIES, AND
WE CAN NOW VOTE ON THE BILL. SO
NAOMI, WILL YOU PLEASE -- ANY
FINAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON
THIS? OKAY. WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON THE BILL AS
ADOPTED, AS AMENDED?
>> YES. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER WOO.
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MORALES.
>> YES. THANK YOU. THE
LEGISLATION PASSES AND WILL BE
SENT TO THE SEPTEMBER 24th,
2024 FINAL FULL COUNCIL FOR A
FINAL VOTE. GOOD GRIEF. OKAY.
BEFORE WE MOVE OFF OF THIS
BILL, I DO WANT TO SAY, THAT WE
KNOW THERE IS A LARGER BODY OF
WORK TO BE DONE RELATED TO
DESIGN REVIEW. SDCI IS STARTING
THAT WORK. THE STATE IS
REQUIRING US TO CHANGE OUR
PROCESS. THAT MEANS WE WILL BE
CHANGING TO ONE PUBLIC COMMENT
-- ONE PUBLIC MEETING. WE HAVE
TO HAVE CLEAR OBJECTIVE
STANDARDS FOR DESIGN REVIEW. IT
WILL BE VERY DIFFERENT. AND
WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS
PRETTY PRESCRIPTIVE, THE STATE
IS PRESCRIPTIVE IN TERMS OF
WHAT WE WILL BE ALLOWED TO DO
AND WHAT WE WON'T BE ALLOWED
TO DO, IT IS STILL IMPORTANT
THAT THROUGH THAT PROCESS, AS
SDCI DECIDES WHAT OUR FINAL
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS WILL LOOK
LIKE, WE STILL ENGAGE
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. I THINK
THAT WAS SOME OF THE CHALLENGE
THAT WE HAD IN THE SDCI REVIEW
REPORT THAT CAME OUT. THERE WAS
SOME CONFUSION ABOUT WHETHER
THE INTENT OF THE REVIEW OF THE
PROCESS WAS REALLY ABOUT HOW
DESIGN REVIEW CONTRIBUTES TO
ESCALATING COST FOR PROJECTS
AND HOW IT IMPACTS COMMUNITIES
OF COLOR BECAUSE THAT IS ONE OF
THE VERY FEW OPPORTUNITIES THAT
THE PUBLIC HAS TO TALK ABOUT
THE POTENTIAL DISPLACEMENT OF
PROJECTS ON THEIR COMMUNITY.
AND SO, I WILL SAY, AS SOMEBODY
THAT HAS REGULARLY EXPERIENCED
FRUSTRATION IN KNOWING THAT
THERE ISN'T REALLY A PLACE FOR
BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES TO
ASK THE QUESTION, HOW IS THIS
PROJECT GOING TO IMPACT US, AND
WE HEAR FROM PEOPLE OVER AND
OVER AGAIN, THE FEAR OF
DENSITY, THE FEAR OF
DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES, BECAUSE THEY HAVE
WITNESSED DISPLACEMENT AS A
RESULT OF THESE PROJECTS, AND
THERE AREN'T THAT MANY PLACES
FOR PEOPLE TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT
WILL HAPPEN TO THEIR
NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THESE ARE
IMPORTANT DECISIONS. WE ARE
MAKING DECISIONS. WE ARE
ALLOWING OR DISALLOWING
PROJECTS THAT WILL SHAPE HOW A
NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS FOR
GENERATIONS. SO ALL OF THAT IS
WORK THAT WE WILL BE TALKING
ABOUT. THE SDCI WILL BE WORKING
ON TO MAKE SURE WE ABIDE BY THE
NEW STATE REQUIREMENTS ABOUT
WHAT OUR DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
LOOKS LIKE, AND WE HAVE TO
KNOW, AND WE HAVE TO EMBRACE
THE NOTION THAT COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR STILL NEED A PLACE TO
WEIGH IN ON HOW THEIR
NEIGHBORHOODS WILL BE IMPACTED.
IT CAN'T BE USED AS AN EXCUSE
TO SAY, WE DON'T WANT MORE
HOUSING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT'S NOT
REALLY AN OPTION GIVEN THE
HOUSING CRISIS THAT WE HAVE,
BUT I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT
FOR US TO REMEMBER THAT THERE
HAS TO BE A PUBLIC PLACE FOR
PEOPLE TO WAIT IN ON HOW THEIR
NEIGHBORHOOD, HOW THEIR
COMMUNITY, HOW THEIR DAY-TO-DAY
EXISTENCE IS GOING TO BE
IMPACTED BY THE POTENTIAL
PROJECTS COMING IN. END OF MY
SOAPBOX. I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT FOLKS KNOW THAT THERE
ARE MANY THINGS THAT SDCI WILL
BE BALANCING AS WE MOVE FORWARD
WITH WHAT THIS NEW PROJECT --
PROCESS LOOKS LIKE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. WITH
THAT, LET'S MOVE ON TO AGENDA
ITEM 5.
>> AGENDA ITEM 5. COUNCIL BILL
120832, FOR BREATHING,
DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE VOTES.
>> THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, IT
HAD BEEN MY INTENTION TO HAVE
SEVERAL BRIEFINGS. WE DID HEAR
THIS ONCE ALREADY. I'M HOPING
THAT IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS, WE DO HAVE A LITTLE
BIT OF TIME THE REST OF THIS
MEETING TO GET QUESTIONS
ANSWERED, AND SO I'M GOING TO
ASK OUR PANEL HERE TO INTRODUCE
YOURSELVES. AND PROVIDE A BRIEF
OVERVIEW , TO THE EXTENT YOU
CAN OF THE DIFFERENT CODE
CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED
HERE.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. TECHNICAL
CODE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER.
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTIONS. I'LL GIVE A BRIEF
OVERVIEW AFTER EVERYONE HAS
INTRODUCED THEMSELVES.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM THE
BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS.
I'M THE LEAD TECHNICAL POLICY
ADVISER FOR CONSTRUCTION CODES.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM AMANDA.
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS. I
AM THE UN-REINFORCED MASONRY
PROGRAM MANAGER.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM THE
PRINCIPAL ENGINEER REPRESENTING
THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS. I
AM RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING
THIS PROGRAM.
>> I AM COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GO
AHEAD.
>> THIS LEGISLATION IS FOR THE
ADOPTION OF THE 2021 SEATTLE
CONSTRUCTION CODES, CONSISTING
OF GOATS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL
CODE COUNCIL, THE INTERNATIONAL
PROTECTION ASSOCIATION. THESE
CODES, WITHOUT SEATTLE
AMENDMENTS ARE ALSO AMENDED AND
ADOPTED BY THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON WITH STATE LAW
ALLOWING JURISDICTIONS TO AMEND
CERTAIN CODES, AS WE DO, AND
THEN REQUIRING LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS TO ENFORCE THESE
CODES. THERE ARE MANY PROPOSED
CHANGES FOR THE SEATTLE 2021
CODES. WE HAVE HIGHLIGHTED
THOSE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN A
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE MEETING AND
PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION ON THOSE
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, INCLUDED
AMONG OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
ARE THE CODE UPDATES THAT
DEFINED THE MINIMUM VOLUNTARY
SEISMIC IMPROVEMENTS TO BE
RECOGNIZED AS A RETROFITTED
UNREINFORCED BUILDING.
ADDITIONALLY, SDCI HAS
IDENTIFIED ITEMS TEACHER MORALE
IS THAT STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED AS
ERRORS THAT BASED ON THE
COMMITTEE, WE ASKED THEM TO
INCLUDE THAT IN THE APPROVAL.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
>> CHAIR, I WILL SAY THAT I
HAVE STARTED DIGGING INTO THIS.
I HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE POINT
WHERE I USUALLY PREFER TO BE.
IT IS A DIFFERENT METRIC
BECAUSE I WAS A LAND-USE CHAIR,
AND I WOULD ASK YOU ALL MANY
QUESTIONS OVER A SERIES OF
MEETINGS, AND I'M FINE TO VOTE
ON IT TODAY. I WOULD APPRECIATE
SOME MORE TIME, BUT I WILL
FOLLOW YOUR LEAD, CHAIR.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> IF WE VOTED TODAY, I WOULD
HAVE TO ABSTAIN BECAUSE I HAVE
A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS. I KNOW A
LOT ABOUT URMS AND I FEEL
COMFORTABLE WITH THAT PORTION,
BUT THIS IS A MEATY PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, AND I HAVE SOME
QUESTIONS AND WOULD LIKE TO DIG
DEEPER ON SOME OF THESE
CHANGES, SO THAT I -- I ALWAYS
FEEL, IF I CANNOT EXPLAIN THESE
CHANGES TO A CONSTITUENT, THEN
I'M NOT DOING MY HOMEWORK, AND
I SHOULDN'T BE MOVING FORWARD
VOTING ON THE BILL THAT I
CAN'T EXPLAIN TO CONSTITUENTS,
SO I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE MORE
TIME WITH THIS BEFORE I WOULD
VOTE ON IT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> I WILL SAY, HAVING TRIED TO
EXPLAIN THE ENERGY CODE TO A
NORMAL PERSON, THAT IS A TALL
CUP OF COFFEE.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT I
THINK THERE ARE WAYS TO
SIMPLIFY. I THINK YOU ARE BEING
FACETIOUS. JUST LIKE I CAN
EXPLAIN URMS OR OTHER PARTS OF
THE CODE -- I FEEL LIKE I
DON'T HAVE THE FULL
INFORMATION, AND BECAUSE OF
THAT, I WOULD LIKE MORE TIME
WITH THIS BEFORE VOTING ON IT,
AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU HAD
THE PRESENTATION AT THAT LAST
MEETING, AND WE'VE HAD A
NUMBER OF THINGS BETWEEN THEN
AND NOW TO CONSIDER, AND SO I
COULD USE THE EXTRA TIME.
>> SURE. I WONDER IF THERE ARE
QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE A B
ANSWERED NOW WHILE WE HAVE
FOLKS HERE AND A LITTLE BIT OF
TIME.
>> I UNDERSTAND I'M GOING OVER
THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS PART
OF THE PACKET, AND THERE IS A
LACK OF INFORMATION HERE, AND I
DID REACH OUT TO SDCI EARLIER
TODAY, AND I WILL BE HAVING A
CONVERSATION WITH THE DIRECTOR
ABOUT THIS, BUT I DON'T HAVE
ANYTHING FOR THIS PARTICULAR
PANEL AT THE MOMENT.
>> CHAIR, IT COULD BE, IF WE
WANTED TO MOVE IT OUT OF THE
COMMITTEE, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE
OUR BRIEFINGS TO THE SIDE,
BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT IN
COUNCIL. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH
THAT.
>> OKAY. WELL, MAYBE I SHOULD
SEE IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.
COUNCILMEMBER WOO, DO YOU HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR SDCI
STAFF?
>> RIGHT NOW, BUT I ALSO WOULD
PREFER MORE TIME ON EVERYTHING.
>> OKAY. I WILL JUST REMIND
COLLEAGUES THAT I HAVE BEEN
ASKING AT EVERY BRIEFING AND
MEETING TO GET BRIEFED. THIS IS
A PARTICULARLY MEATY PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, AND I THINK WE
PRESENTED IT FIRST IN JULY. SO
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO MOVE IT OUT OF
COMMITTEE TODAY. IS THAT RIGHT,
COUNCILMEMBER WOO?
>> IF WE VOTE YES --
>> OKAY. OKAY. VERY WELL.
LET'S GIVE IT A TRY. I'M
GOING TO MOVE --
>> EXCUSE ME, CHAIR, DID YOU
WANT TO CONSIDER -- I DON'T
KNOW.
>> LET ME MOVE THE BILL. I'M
GOING TO MOVE COUNCIL BILL
120832. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED. WE DO HAVE SOME
ADDITIONAL CHANGES . YOLANDA,
WILL YOU PLEASE -- I'M GOING
TO MOVE AMENDMENTS 1 MULCHES
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS. IS THERE
A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> OKAY. THAT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED.
>> THERE WE GO.
>> OKAY. SORRY. SORRY FOR
INTERRUPTING YOU THERE BEFORE.
SO THIS IS AMENDMENT 1, TOOK
COUNCIL BILL 120832 AND THESE
WERE IDENTIFIED BY SDCI STAFF,
AND I DID CIRCULATE THIS LITTLE
BIT EARLIER TODAY. IT WAS
INFORMED YESTERDAY, SO, THESE
ARE IDENTIFIED BY OUR CODE
REVISOR AS NEEDING TO BE
AMENDED BY THE COUNCIL, AND SO,
THIS WOULD -- THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD MAKE AMENDMENTS IN THREE
OF THE ATTACHMENTS TO THE
COUNCIL BILL. THE FIRST IS
ATTACHMENT B OF THE 2021
SEATTLE BUILDING CODE. THIS
WOULD ALIGN SECTIONS 403.3 .2
AND 403.3 .3 WITH THE 2021
SEATTLE FIRE CODE, WHICH IS
GOING TO BE SEPARATELY ADOPTED,
DELIBERATED BY THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE SOON, AND
WOULD ALSO EDIT LANGUAGE IN
SECTION THREE TO REFLECT
SDCI'S PROCESS FOR PROCESSING
ELEVATOR INSPECTION REPORTS.
SECOND ATTACHMENT THAT WILL BE
AMENDED IS ATTACHMENT C. THE
2023 SEATTLE ELECTRICAL CODE,
AND WOULD INCLUDE SECTION
700.32 FOUR EMERGENCY SYSTEMS
THAT WAS INADVERTENTLY OMITTED,
AND ALSO, AMENDS SECTION 701,
REGARDING EXCEPTION FOR
OVERCURRENT PROTECTIVE DEVICES.
AND FINALLY, ATTACHMENT LETTER
I WOULD BE AMENDED, WHICH IS
THE 2021 SEATTLE RESIDENTIAL
CODE TO REQUIRE THAT ALL
TOWNHOUSE UNITS INCLUDE FIRE
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, WHICH WOULD
BE CONSISTENT WITH THE 2018
SEATTLE RESIDENTIAL CODE.
>> OKAY. SO I -- THESE ARE
CLEARLY DOCUMENTS -- DENSE
DOCUMENTS, AND I CAN IMAGINE
THAT THINGS GET OVERLOOKED, BUT
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO
UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS HERE AND
HOW YOU IDENTIFIED THAT THERE
WERE ADDITIONAL CHANGES THAT
WERE NEEDED.
>> ABSOLUTELY. THE FIRST ONE ON
THE LIST HERE IS JUST A
COORDINATION ISSUE. SECTION 403
IN THESE TWO ITEMS ARE SIMILAR
TO CHAPTER 9 OF THE FIRE CODE.
THEY SHOULD BE IDENTICAL. WE
OVERLOOKED THAT COORDINATION IN
THAT SECTION, CONSIDERING THERE
ARE TWO DIFFERENT CHAPTERS IN
TWO DIFFERENT BOOKS. THAT WOULD
BE THE FIRST ONE. AND THE --
I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO MY
LIST. I APOLOGIZE. THE SECOND
ONE IS JUST A PROCESS. WE NO
LONGER MAIL THE REPORTS. WE
UPLOAD THOSE TO OUR SEATTLE
SERVICES PORTAL . JUST A
CLARIFICATION OF PROCESS. I HAD
HOPED THAT ONE DIDN'T HAVE TO
COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL, BUT
THAT WAS AN OVERSIGHT. AND THEN
THE THIRD ITEM IS SECTION
700.3.2 OF THE ELECTRICAL CODE.
IT IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO
SECTION 7.1 .32 OF THE
ELECTRICAL CODE. IN REVIEWING
THE SACRAMENTS, WE THOUGHT WE
HAD A DUPLICATE, AND IT
INADVERTENTLY OMITTED THAT
SECTION, BUT IT WAS REQUIRED TO
BE THERE IN THAT SPECIFIC
SECTION. AND THEN, THE OTHER
ITEM IN 701.3 .2 IS A
CORONATION OF LINKAGE BETWEEN
700.3.2 AND 701.3.2. THAT IS A
MINOR OVERSIGHT THEY ARE. AND
THEN PART 313 FOR THE SPRINKLER
SYSTEM -- OUR INTENT IS TO
MAINTAIN THE 2018 SEATTLE CODE
FOR THIS ITEM. WHICH DOES
REQUIRE SMUGGLERS IN ALL
TOWNHOUSE'S. THE STATE ALLOWS
AN EXCEPTION THAT WE HAVE NOT
ADOPTED AND HAVE NEVER ADOPTED.
AND WHEN WE COMBINE THE 2021
MODEL CODES WITH THE WASHINGTON
STATE AMENDMENTS THAT WE PULLED
IN AND THE SEATTLE AMENDS,
AGAIN, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT
WE BROUGHT IN, AND WAS AN
OVERSIGHT . IT IS JUST
CORRECTING THAT ERROR AND
MAINTAINING THE 2018 LANGUAGE.
AS IT CURRENTLY READS.
>> THAT IS HELPFUL. THANK YOU
FOR WALKING THROUGH THAT.
COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT
THIS TECHNICAL AMENDMENT?
>> NO QUESTIONS , BUT I DO MAIL
CHECKS TO PAY MY BILLS.
>> OLD SCHOOL. OKAY. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. I'M GOING TO GO
AHEAD AND ASK NAOMI TO PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION
OF AMENDMENT 1.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> SORRY. I HAVE A QUESTION.
YES. COUNCILMEMBER WOO, SORRY.
THE VOICE CAME OUT OF NOWHERE.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> SO FOR THE AMENDMENTS, [
INAUDIBLE ] WE ARE REQUIRING
TOWNHOUSES TO UPGRADE THEIR
SYSTEMS -- AND IF SO, HOW MANY
TOWNHOUSES DO WE THINK THAT
WOULD AFFECT?
>> GREAT QUESTION. WE ARE NOT
REQUIRING TOWNHOUSES TO UPGRADE
THEIR SYSTEMS. THIS LANGUAGE IS
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTIONS ONLY. SO
WHEN NEW TOWNHOMES ARE
CONSTRUCTED, THEY ARE REQUIRED
TO INSTALL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.
THIS IS A CURRENT AMENDMENT TO
OUR SEATTLE CODE THAT IS
CURRENTLY ENFORCED, AND WE ARE
JUST MOVING IT FORWARD INTO THE
2021 GOATS. WE ARE NOT
REQUIRING RETROACTIVE SPRINKLER
REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION ONLY.
>> GREAT. AND NONE OF THESE ARE
RETRACTED. [ INAUDIBLE ]
>> SORRY. COULD YOU RESTATE
THAT, COUNCILMEMBER?
>> SO THE ATTACHMENTS -- THERE
ARE THREE POINTS THAT WOULD --
THESE ARE CORRECTIONS. [
INAUDIBLE ] THIS WOULD BE
HOLDING INTO CITY CODE WHAT THE
STATE HAS PASSED?
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT IS
BEING ASKED. I APOLOGIZE.
>> SORRY. IT'S A LITTLE HARD
TO HEAR YOU, COUNCILMEMBER WOO.
CAN YOU ASK YOUR QUESTION ONE
MORE TIME?
>> SO THESE POINTS UNDER
AMENDMENT 1, VERSION 1, NONE OF
THESE ARE RETROACTIVE.
>> WE ARE NOT ADOPTING WHICH
INTO THE CODE. THESE ARE ERRORS
THAT WE MISSED IN OUR
AMENDMENTS. AND THEY ARE GOING
TO BE FOLDED INTO THE CODE, AND
THEY APPLY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THE ELECTRICAL CODE ITEMS MAY
APPLY TO EXISTING CONSTRUCTION
IF THEY GET TO THAT POINT, BUT
ALL THESE AMENDMENTS APPLY TO
NEW CONSTRUCTIONS.
>> GOT IT. THANK YOU.
>> WE HAVE 10 CODES THAT ARE
1000 PAGES OF ORDINANCE. WE
APPRECIATE SOME GRACE ON OUR
ABILITY TO CATCH EVERYTHING IN
THAT CORONATION. WE DO TRY TO
CATCH IT ALL. THESE WERE
IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL
TECHNICAL CHANGES THAT WERE
RECOMMENDED TO TAKE THE
COUNCIL, VERSUS JUST MOVING
FORWARD AS ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
IN THE ORDINANCE CLEANUP. SO
THAT IS WHY YOU ARE SEEING THEM
TODAY.
>> THANK YOU. [ CAPTIONERS
TRANSITIONING ] .
>> THANK YOU, THE AMENDMENT
CARRIES.
>> IS THERE BE
THOUGHTFUL WHEN
WE MAKE, WHEN WE PASS
LEGISLATION I HAVE TO SAY I WAS
NOT CLEAR IN READING THIS IN
PREPARATION FOR THIS MEETING
THERE WAS A LACK OF CLARITY AND
THERE WAS A CONFUSION FOR ME
BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
2018 CODES ADOPTED IN 2021 AND
THEN THE STATE PASSED, AND I
WOULD SAY I DON'T WANT US TO
GET INTO A SPACE WHERE THEN IF
SOME OF US NEED EXTRA TIME WITH
SOMETHING WE ARE FEELING LIKE
SOMEHOW, YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT
DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE. IT IS
BECAUSE I AM DOING MY DUE
DILIGENCE THAT I WANT EXTRA
TIME WITH THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. AND, SO, TO
ADDRESS WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER I
WANT IT ON THE RECORD AND
BECAUSE I HAVE CONSTITUENTS
THAT I ANSWER TO THAT I HAVE
DONE MY DUE DILIGENCE ON THIS.
AND I WILL CONTINUE TO ALWAYS
DO MY DO YOU DILIGENCE. IF I
FEEL LIKE DEPARTMENTS WHEN THEY
BRING THESE THINGS ARE NOT AS
CLEAR AS THEY CAN BE I RESERVE
THE RIGHT TO TAKE SOME EXTRA
TIME WITH A PIECE OF
LEGISLATION BECAUSE I ALWAYS DO
EVERYTHING THOUGHTFULLY. FOLKS
THAT KNOW ME KNOW. I GET IN THE
WEEDS WITH MORE, MORE SO THAN
OTHER FOLKS DO. BECAUSE OF THAT
I NEED EXTRA TIME WITH THIS
PARTICULAR LEGISLATION. I
DON'T WANT IT TO BE THAT
BECAUSE WE NEED EXTRA TIME
SOMEHOW THAT BECOMES AN ISSUE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>> LET'S GO AHEAD WITH THE
ADDITIONAL GETTING BRIEFING AND
GET YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE
ROLE ON COUNCIL BILL 120832.
>> RIVERA. ABSTAIN.
>> WOO.
>> ABSTAIN.
>> MORALES.
>> YES.
>> .
>> TWO ABSTAIN, TWO YES.
>> AND I DO WANT TO SAY
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA. I THINK
IT WAS SHOCKING TO ME HOW
QUICKLY THINGS MOVE THROUGH AND
GIVEN WE LEGISLATE YEAR AROUND
NOT LIKE THE LEGISLATURE WHERE
EVERYTHING IS CRAMMED INTO 130
DAYS OR SOMETHING IT DOES NOT
MAKE SENSE TO ME THAT WE ALWAYS
TRY TO MOVE THINGS THROUGH IN
ONE OR TWO COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
SO, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE WHAT
YOU ARE SAYING AND I SAY I
SHARE THAT. I FEEL LIKE THERE
HAS BEEN A FEW THINGS LATELY
THAT MOVED TOO QUICKLY FOR MY
LIKING. FULLY UNDERSTAND. OKAY.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS
THIS CONCLUDES SEPTEMBER 18th
LAND USE COMMITTEE MEETING AND
PUBLIC HEARING THE NEXT MEETING
OF LAND USE COMMITTEE IS
WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 4th AT 2:00
P.M. THANKS FOR ATTENDING
EVERYBODY. WE ARE ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU.