>>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
THE DECEMBER 4, 2024 LAND-USE
COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER.
IT IS 2:00 P.M. I'M TAMMY
MORALES, CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLE?
>> MOORE?
>> PRESENT. TRENT 25
>> PRESENT.
>> VICE-CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> PRESENT.
>> AND CHAIR MORALES?
>> YOUR.
>> FOUR PRESENT. THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK 'S EXCUSE
UNTIL SHE IS ABLE TO MAKE IT.
>> SHE'S A COUPLE STEPS BEHIND
YOU.
>> GREAT. WE WILL ACKNOWLEDGE
HER WHEN SHE GETS HERE. OKAY,
COLLEAGUES, WE HAVE TWO AGENDA
ITEMS TODAY. ONE IS THE
RESOLUTION 32156 FOR BRIEFING
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE.
DECLARING THE INTENT TO
ESTABLISH A NEW SALES TAX AND
USE, A NEW SALES AND USE TAX
DEFERRAL FOR THE DEFERRAL OF
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO
RESIDENTIAL. AND COUNSEL BILL
120833 FOR BRIEFING DISCUSSION
AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON THE LIVING
BUILDING AMENDMENT. AND I WANT
TO ACKNOWLEDGE COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK HAS JOINED US. IF
THERE'S NO OBJECTION, TODAY'S
AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED. HEARING
NO OBJECTION, TODAY'S AGENDA
IS ADOPTED. WHEN I OPEN THE
HYBRID PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD RELATE TO
ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA, AND
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS
COMMITTEE. AMELIA, HOW MANY
SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE SIGNED UP?
>> TWO REMOTE AND SIX IN
PERSON.
>> OKAY. SO WE WILL GIVE
EVERYONE, SEVEN IN PERSON.
WE'LL GIVE EVERYONE TWO
MINUTES TO SPEAK, AND WE'LL
START, LET'S START WITH IN
PERSON FIRST. AND I'LL HAND IT
OFF TO YOU.
>> EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE TWO
MINUTES. THE SPEAKERS -- CALLED
IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY
REGISTERED. WE WILL START WITH
IN PERSON SPEAKERS, AND AN
ALTERNATE TO THE REMOTE
SPEAKERS. SPEAKERS WILL HEAR A
CHIME 110 SECONDS OR LESS OF
THE TIME. SPEAKERS MICS WILL BE
MUTED IF THEY DO NOT AND THEIR
COMMENTS WITHIN THE ALLOTTED
TIME TO ALLOW US TO CALL IN THE
NEXT FIGURE. THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD IS NOW OPEN. WE'LL
BEGIN WITH THE FIRST SPEAKER ON
THE LIST, AND THE FIRST ONE IS
MARI, AND JUST GIVE ME A QUICK
SECOND.
>> WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY
COUNCILMEMBER --
>> OH YES. THANK YOU. WE'VE
ALSO BEEN DRAWING I
COUNCILMEMBER CATTLE, WHO IS
JOINING REMOTELY. IN. WELCOME,
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE. OKAY.
>> HI, COUNCILMEMBERS. THANK
YOU FOR --
>> I'M ASKING YOU TO GET REAL
CLOSE TO THE MIC. YEAH.
>> IS IT ON? MY NAME IS -- I'M
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LAKE UNION
-- ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING
THE LITTLE HOUSEBOATS OF LAKE
UNION. AND I'M HERE ONLY TO
REMIND YOU THAT THERE ARE MANY
RESIDENCES LIKE OURS ON THE
WATER THROUGHOUT THE CITY , IN
OUR CASE, STILL LITTLE
AFFORDABLE HOUSEBOATS. SO WILL
YOUR ACTIONS TODAY ON
CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS BE APPLIED ALSO TO
BUILDINGS THAT ARE ON, NEAR, OR
OVER THE WATER, TO CONVERT
THOSE TO HOUSING AS WELL?
BECAUSE IT COULD REPRESENT THE
MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
WITHIN THE CITY OF SEATTLE.
>>
>> WE ARE ALSO LOOKING FORWARD
TO THIS COMMITTEE'S, LOOKING
INTO THE SNP IN THE NEW YEAR,
AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE COUNCIL DURING
THAT PROCESS. THAT'S IT. THANK
YOU.
>> WILLIAM? IS THERE A NEXT
SPEAKER?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
BILL LEEDOM. I WORK IN URBAN
RENAISSANCE GROUP. I COME
BEFORE YOU TODAY TO VOICE MY
SUPPORT FOR RESOLUTION 3215,
AND URGE ITS SPEEDY ADOPTION BY
URBAN RENAISSANCE IS AN OWNER,
MANAGER, AND DEVELOPER OF OVER
10 MILLION SQUARE FEET IN THE
SEATTLE AREA. MANY OF YOU --
OUR OLDER OFFICE BUILDINGS IN
THE SEATTLE CBD, INCLUDING THE
BUILDING I WORK AT CALLED THE
JOSHUA GREEN BUILDING ON THE
CORNER OF FOURTH AND PIKE.
TODAY, URG ESTIMATES THAT THE
JOSHUA GREEN BUILDING'S VALUE
AS AN OFFICE BUILDING IS DOWN
75% TO 80% FROM PEAK PRICING.
THERE IS VERY LITTLE TENANT
DEMAND FOR OFFICE SUITE IN THE
BUILDING, WITH MANY SAYING
VACANT FOR YEARS. SINCE THE
PANDEMIC, CONVERSION OF
MULTIFAMILY HAS BEEN TOO COSTLY
TO CONTEMPLATE AT OLDER ASSETS.
THE RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU WILL
IMPROVE THE FEASIBILITY OF
TURNING THE 120-YEAR-OLD JOSHUA
GREEN BUILDING AND OTHERS INTO
BADLY NEEDED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. AS EXAMPLE, A
CONVERTED JOSHUA GREEN BUILDING
COULD BRING AS MANY AS 85 TO 95
UNITS TO AN IMPORTANT CORNER OF
THE CPD, AND HELP ACTIVATE THE
AREA AROUND THE BUILDING WITH
NEW RESIDENTS AND RETAIL. FOR
LITTLE TO NO COST, THE COUNCIL
COULD ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION,
WHICH WILL BUILD UPON SOME OF
THE RECENT SUCCESSES URG HAS
WITNESSED DOWNTOWN DUE TO THE
COUNCIL AND MAYOR'S LEADERSHIP
ON CPD REVITALIZATION. I AGAIN
URGE YOU, SUPPORT RESOLUTION
3215. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND
SUPPORT.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS PATRICK
SLIGHTLY, THEN FOLLOWED BY TOM
GRAFF.
>> HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. PATRICK
FOLEY WITH THE LAKE UNION
PARTNERS. A COFOUNDER AND
MANAGING PARTNER OF THE COMPANY
SEATTLE-BASED. AND WE DO A LOT
OF URBAN INFILL MULTIFAMILY
MIXED INCOME DEVELOPMENT, BUT
WE'VE ALSO DONE A LOT OF
HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND I'M
HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF
THIS OFFICE TO HOUSING BILL FOR
SALES TAX. AND I THINK IT'S
SPECIFICALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
I HAVE A PARTICULAR INTEREST IN
HISTORIC PRESERVATION. B IN
PIONEER SQUARE AND OTHER
NEIGHBORHOODS, I THINK THESE
BUILDINGS ARE REALLY IDEAL FOR
OFFICE TO HOUSING CONVERSION.
MANY OF THEM IN PIONEER SQUARE
ARE EMPTY RIGHT NOW. NOT EMPTY
BUT VERY, VERY VACANT. AND THE
COST TO RENOVATE THOSE
BUILDINGS IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
THAN NEW CONSTRUCTION. SO THIS
BILL WILL REALLY HELP MOVE
THESE PROJECTS ALONG AND MAKE
THEM MORE FEASIBLE. AND I THINK
IT ALSO PLAYS A ROLE IN THE YOU
ARE AND ISSUE THAT WE HAVE WITH
A LOT OF THESE BUILDINGS THAT
NEED TO BE UPGRADED. SO I WOULD
ENCOURAGE YOU TO ADOPT THIS.
THANK YOU.
>> WE NEXT HAVE TOM, FOLLOWED
BY TOM OB, STEVE MARVA STELLA.
>> GOOD MORNING, OR GOOD
AFTERNOON. I'M TOM GRAFF. I
HAVE LIVED AND WORKED IN
BELLTOWN FOR 35 YEARS, AND I
CAME TO SPEAK ABOUT THE, THE,
THE AMENDMENT FOR COUNSEL BILL
120833. BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I
DO WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS
OFFICE TO HOUSING PREFERENCE
THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT DOING.
IT, IT IS, I, I WORK IN REAL
ESTATE, AND THIS CONVERSION
SOUNDS GREAT ON PAPER. IT DOES
NOT WORK UNDER OUR EXISTING
ECONOMICS FOR ALMOST EVERY
BUILDING. AND I, ICY THE OFFICE
MARKET CONTINUING TO BE VERY
DIFFICULT IN DOWNTOWN, AND I
KNOW THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL
UNITS IN THE HEART OF THE CITY.
SO I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO
THIS INCENTIVE TO HELP WITH THE
CONVERSION. IT'S NOT GOING TO
SOLVE IT, BUT IT'S GOING TO
HELP. ON THE COUNCIL BILL
120833, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO ALSO
PASS THAT AMENDMENT. THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTIONS HAVE ALREADY
ASSUMED THIS WORKS. THEY
INSTRUCT PEOPLE WORKING WITH
THE ZONING THAT IT WORKS, AND
THERE IS SOME AMENDMENT THAT
NEEDS TO BE DONE TO CORRECT
THIS, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO
IT. NOT ONLY THE FACT THAT THE
CITY ALREADY SAID IT WOULD
WORK, BUT SECONDLY, WE NEED
FAMILY HOUSING IN BELLTOWN. I
KNOW IT'S NEWS TO EVERYBODY,
BUT PEOPLE WITH KIDS, SOME OF
THEM WANT TO LIVE IN DOWNTOWN.
AND YOU CANNOT GROW A THREE
BEDROOM UNIT IN THESE TOWERS
WITHOUT INCENTIVES. IT DOES NOT
WORK. I HAVE THIS BEAUTIFUL
COUPLE ON MY FLOOR. HE WORKS
FOR AMAZON, THEY CAME FROM NEW
YORK, THEY HAVE TWO KIDS.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE
UNLESS THEY CAN FIND A THREE
BEDROOM, AND THEY DON'T EXIST
WITHOUT INCENTIVES. SO I
ENCOURAGE YOU TO MAKE THIS
CORRECTION.
>> STEVE, AND THEN FOLLOWED BY
STEVE WILL BE MARK.
>> THERE HAS TO BE SOME
HAPPINESS SPREAD AS WELL. EMPTY
BUILDINGS, ARE WE IN A
CAPITALIST SOCIETY OR NOT? I
GUESS NOT. I SUSPECT THAT IF
YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE
INCENTIVES, HOW ABOUT
INCENTIVES FOR PEOPLE WHO MAKE,
SAY, LESS THAN $70,000 A YEAR,
LESS THAN $100,000 A YEAR? YOUR
INCENTIVES HAVE BEEN MORE FOR
PEOPLE WHO MAKE FAR MORE THAN
THAT IN SEATTLE. WE'RE SEEING
THE WORKING CLASS DISAPPEAR,
AND YOU'RE HELPING TO
SUBSIDIZE IT BY TAKING AWAY
THEIR ENVIRONMENT. YOU
ENCOURAGE THE KNOCKDOWN OF
OLDER BUILDINGS TO BUILD BIGGER
BUILDINGS AND RAISE THE RENTS,
AND THE OUTCOME OF THAT IS WE
HAVE FEWER PEOPLE IN SEATTLE OF
WHAT I WOULD CALL NORMAL
INCOME. YOU ALSO HAVE TO
REMEMBER THAT THE BUILD CLASS
HAS BEEN COMING DOWN, AND
THEY'RE GOING NOT UP. MANY OF
THEM ARE GOING TO THE WORKING
CLASS. SO IT MIGHT BE SMART TO
PUT SOME RESTRICTIONS ON YOUR
VALIANT GIVEAWAYS TO THE
DEVELOPERS, BECAUSE IF THEY
HAVE EMPTY BUILDINGS, THERE IS
A CERTAIN INCENTIVE TO DO
SOMETHING WITH THAT PROPERTY,
WHICH WILL BRING INCOME. AND
WHEN YOU GIVE AWAY TAX
GIVEAWAYS, THAT MEANS OTHERS,
US TWEETERS, I'M NOT POOR
ENOUGH TO GET PROGRAM TO HELP
ME, AND I'M NOT RICH ENOUGH TO
LIVE WHEREVER I WANT AND DO
WHATEVER I WANT. SO US TWEENERS
ARE A LITTLE UNHAPPY WITH YOUR
GIVEAWAYS. YOU ARE VERY KIND TO
THE VERY TOP. YOU GIVE A LITTLE
BIT TO THE PEOPLE ON THE
BOTTOM. AND YOU TAKE IT FROM
US. SO I WOULD PUT THE CHARITY
AT THE BOTTOM, NOT AT THE TOP.
AND PROTECT AGAINST ALL THESE
TAX GIVEAWAYS TO PEOPLE WHO
REALLY WANT IT BADLY, BUT
DON'T NEED IT.
>> WE NOW HAVE MARK, AND THEN
FOLLOWING MARK WILL BE COLIN.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU
TODAY. MY NAME IS MARK ANGELO,
AND I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF
SEATTLE FOR 32 YEARS. I'M A
MANAGING MEMBER OF STREAM REAL
ESTATE. VERY SMALL LOCAL REAL
ESTATE DEVELOPER AND COMPANY
BASED IN SEATTLE. COMMENTING IN
SUPPORT OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION
32156 CONCERNING OFFICE TO
RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE.
AS MANY OF YOU ARE AWARE, WE
ARE PROPOSING TO CONVERT A LONG
VACANT 1980S VINTAGE OFFICE
BUILDING TO MUCH-NEEDED
RESIDENTIAL AND AFFORDABLE
RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE BILL
PROPOSED UNDER RESOLUTION 32156
WILL BE THE TRIGGER TO MAKE OUR
PROJECT, AND MANY OTHERS,
FEASIBLE SO THAT WE CAN MOVE
FORWARD FROM DISCUSSIONS ABOUT
CONVERTING UNDERUTILIZED
COMMERCIAL SPACES TO ACTUALLY
STARTING CONSTRUCTION. IN OUR
CASE, WE WILL BE USING BOTH AN
FTE PROGRAM AND THIS PROGRAM TO
MAKE ALMOST ONE THIRD OF OUR
PROJECT AFFORDABLE UNITS. THIS
IS A GREAT BENEFIT TO THE CITY
AND THE COMMUNITY. I WOULD LIKE
TO EMPHASIZE THE NEED TO MOVE
THIS BILL ALONG AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE, AS WE ARE CURRENTLY
IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND
ANTICIPATION OF IT PASSING, AND
WILL BE READY TO START
CONSTRUCTION VERY SOON AFTER
THE NEW YEAR, BUT CANNOT START
UNTIL THIS BILL PASSES, AND WE
ARE CONFIRMED AS APPROVED BY
BOTH THE CITY AND THE STATE,
WHICH IS A LONG, TEDIOUS
PROCESS. EVERY DELAY PUTS OUR
AND MANY OTHER PROJECTS AT
INCREASING RISK. BE HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> COLIN, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE
ONE LAST IN PERSON SPEAKER
AFTER THAT.
>> NO, YOU'RE FINE.
>> DID AFTERNOON, COUNCIL
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS COLIN GRAY.
I WORK WITH SARATOGA P AND
WE'RE THE DEVELOPER OF THE
WESTERN THEATER'S BUILDING IN
BELLTOWN, AND I'M HERE TO ASK
YOU TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT
BEFORE YOU THIS AFTERNOON THAT
ALLOWS TO CONTINUE WITH THE
LIVING BUILDING THREE BEDROOM
DESIGN WE'VE INCORPORATED. WE
WORKED VERY HARD TO CREATE AN
INCREDIBLE BUILDING FOR THE
CITY, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL INCENTIVES AND
APPLYING HOUSING FOR FAMILIES
AND NHA FEES AND POTENTIALLY
PERFORMANCE ON-SITE NOT ONLY
DOES THIS OPEN THE DOOR FOR US
TO COMPLETE OUR DEVELOPMENT,
BUT IT ALSO OPENS THE DOORS FOR
OTHERS TO PURSUE BRINGING NEW
RESIDENTS TO BELLTOWN AND
CONTINUE TO DO GREAT GROWTH AND
BRING FAMILIES INTO DOWNTOWN
AND SUPPORT THE RETURN TO
BUSINESS HERE. SO THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME.
>> WE HAVE JESSE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
JESSE SCOTT KENDALL. I'M WITH
THE CARPENTERS UNION
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF PILE
DRIVERS. I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN
FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT TO
CONVERT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. YES, WE
NEED MORE HOUSES. BUT WE ALSO
NEED LABOR STANDARDS, RIGHT? WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
PEOPLE BUILDING THESE
FACILITIES, THESE HOUSES CAN
LIVE IN THESE HOUSES, RIGHT?
WE'RE SEEING A LOT MORE PEOPLE
BEING PUSHED OUT OF THE
COMMUNITY. WE'RE SEEING A LOT
MORE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY. WHAT
IS UNDERGROUND ECONOMY?
UNDERGROUND ECONOMY IS
BASICALLY LABOR BROKERS, PEOPLE
BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, WILL
NOT BEING, PAYING THE SEATTLE
MINIMUM WAGE. WE, WE'RE SEEING
THIS ON EVERY CONSTRUCTION JOB.
WE JUST WALKED A CONSTRUCTION
JOB IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE
WHERE THE GUY WAS MAKING NOT
EVEN $19 AN HOUR, BUILDING A
BUILDING IN SEATTLE. SO WE NEED
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE LABOR
STANDARDS WHEN WE, WE ARE
BUILDING THESE PROJECTS, AND
THAT'S WHAT WE ARE ASKING
FROM, FROM YOU GUYS. THANK YOU.
>> WE'LL NOW MOVE INTO OUR
REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS.
OUR FIRST ONE IS DAVID, EXCUSE
ME, IS NADINE TOOL. PLEASE
PRESS STAR SIX.
>> HI! THIS IS NADINE TOLD,
BELLTOWN RESIDENT, AND I'M
HERE TO PRESENT COMMENT ON CB
120833. THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. THIS BILL WAS
WRITTEN VERY INTENTIONALLY TO
SEEM LIKE A NO-BRAINER AT FIRST
GLANCE, BUT THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANT E
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF
INCENTIVES HAVE BEEN
OVERLOOKED. THE PROJECT IN
QUESTION, 303 604 THREE, IN THE
DCI PROPOSAL, DOES NOT CAP AT
175 FEET AS STATED. IT'S
ACTUALLY NEARLY 200 FEET TALL,
WITH NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS OF
125 FEET, YET THERE HAS BEEN NO
ANALYSIS OF THE FULL
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS. THE LBP
PIECE GOALS CAN BE ACHIEVED
UNDER CURRENT ZONING, AND THEY
HAVE BEEN, WITH A SUCCESSFUL
PROJECT COMPLETED AT BATTERY.
YET THIS BILL IS FRAMED AS THE
ONLY PATH FORWARD. IT ALSO DOES
NOT ADDRESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IN ANY WAY, AS THIS IS A
PROPOSED LUXURY RENTAL. THE DMR
ZONING IS UNIQUE TO OTHERS
ZONING HERE IN SEATTLE. LOT
SIZE IS IT JUST A GUIDELINE, IS
A CRITICAL ELEMENT IN ENSURING
THAT AREAS LIKE BELLTOWN REMAIN
LIVABLE. THIS BILL DOES NOT
ACKNOWLEDGE THE UNIQUE ZONING
CRITERIA, AND THIS WILL
POTENTIALLY IMPACT MULTIPLE
LOTS IN BELLTOWN, AND YET IT
WAS WRITTEN WITH A PROJECT IN
MIND, AND YET IT'S BEING
PRESENTED AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUSTMENT WITH MINIMAL IMPACT
AND A NON-PROJECT ACTION.
SUPPORTING DETAILS HAVE BEEN
SHARED IN EMAIL, BUT I URGE YOU
TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS
BILL WITHOUT FULLY SCRUTINIZING
THE FACTS VERSUS WHAT WAS
PRESENTED. THERE'S TOO MUCH AT
STAKE TO TAKE THIS BILL AT FACE
VALUE. THANK YOU.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DAVID
HAYNES. FOLLOWING DAVID WILL BE
JAMES MATSON.
>> HI. THANK YOU. DAVID HAYNES.
WE NEED TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT
WHERE THE INCENTIVE TO BUILD
HOUSING COMES WITH A
REQUIREMENT THAT YOU PUT TWO
SHIFTS ON THE JOB SITE SO WE
CAN EXPEDITE SOME HOUSING BUILD
OUTS AND CONVERSIONS. AND WE
NEED A NOBLE USE OF LAND WITH
AN EMPHASIS OF 21ST-CENTURY
FIRST WORLD QUALITY HOUSING
FLOOR PLANS AND COMMERCIAL
BUILDING BUILD OUTS THAT DON'T
GET OVERWHELMED BY THE ROADS,
THE BUS, THE TRAIN, THE PLANES,
OR ALL THE UNSAFE, UNSAVORY
CHARACTERS ROAMING AROUND THE
NEIGHBORHOOD IN AREAS WHERE YOU
REALLY DON'T WANT TO LIVE. AND
IT'S A CONCERN THAT THE
EXECUTIVES TRYING TO TRICK
PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING THAT
IT'S SAFER IN LARGER NUMBERS
OF INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO ARE
BEING TRICKED INTO COMING TO
DOWNTOWN, WHERE THERE STILL
EXISTS THE DRUG PRESSURES, AND
HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE PUBLIC
SAFETY ISSUES. BUT I'M
WONDERING, WHERE ARE THE
LAND-USE PLANS FOR ALL THE
CAPACITY NEEDED FOR THE PROPER
WINTER SHELTER, AND THE
AMENITIES WITHIN THAT? AND
WHERE ARE THE, LIKE, PLANS TO
USE THE LAND WHERE THE UNSAFE
SEX TRAFFICKING MOTEL SLUMS ARE
THAT SHOULD HAVE ALL OF THEIR
DEBTS WRITTEN OFF BY THE BANKS
AND HAVE THAT LAND GIVEN OVER
TO THE PEOPLE, AND HAVE THE
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CUT
SOME FOLDERS FOR THE FOUNDATION
AND BUILD UP SOME EMERGENCY
RESPONSE HOUSING? AND, QUITE
FRANKLY, WE NEED A 21ST-CENTURY
HOUSING BUILD OUT THAT GOES
HIGHER THAN THE LEVELS SO THAT
YOU HAVE A LIVABLE SPACE WITHIN
THE BUILDING, LIKE A ROOFTOP
VIEW THAT GIVES YOU A BETTER
MENTAL HEALTH AND AN ENJOYABLE
LIVING SPACE. IT'S NOT SO
CLOSE TO THE ROAD THAT YOU'RE
ONLY ALLOWED TO GO THREE LEVELS
IF YOU'RE DEALING WITH SOME
NONPROFIT THAT HAS TO HIRE A
FOR PROFIT -- BUILDOUT -- HOUSE
-- SKIM OFF OF. WHICH BRINGS ME
TO THE -- YOU ALL SHOULD CHANGE
THE LAW THAT YOU ALL CHANGED A
COUPLE YEARS AGO, WHERE ONLY
NONPROFITS ARE ALLOWED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING MONIES FROM
THE M.A. JP. BECAUSE SOME OF
THESE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT --
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER'S JAMES.
HE'S OUR LAST REGISTERED
REMOTE SPEAKER.
>> HI. MY NAME IS JAMES MATSON.
I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF
RESOLUTION 32156. I'M WITH THE
FIRM HORTON DEVELOPMENT AND
WE'RE BASED IN THE BAY AREA,
AND WE'VE RECENTLY MADE A
NUMBER OF INVESTMENTS IN
SEATTLE REAL ESTATE THIS YEAR,
INCLUDING A NUMBER OF
DISTRESSED SMART PROPERTIES
DOWNTOWN. ONE OF THE PROPERTIES
WE PURCHASED WAS THE VANCE AND
STERLING BUILDINGS AT THIRD AND
UNION, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MOST
DIFFICULT INTERSECTIONS IN THE
CITY. WE REALLY APPLAUD THE
CITY'S EFFORTS SO FAR TO GET
THAT AREA CLEANED UP, AND THERE
HAS BEEN A NOTICEABLE
IMPROVEMENT. HOWEVER, THE
PASSAGE OF RESOLUTION 32156 IS
REALLY ESSENTIAL TO THE
FEASIBILITY OF NEXT STEPS IN
REACTIVATING THAT BUILDING. WE
ARE LOOKING AT CONVERSION OF
THE OFFICE BUILDING INTO
RESIDENTIAL. WE WOULD CREATE UP
TO 162 UNITS OF NEW HOUSING,
INCLUDING AFFORDABLE UNITS AND
WE WOULD LANDMARK THE EXISTING
HISTORIC BUILDING AND PROTECT
IT. AND WE WOULD BE
REACTIVATING THAT DIFFICULT
CORNER DOWNTOWN WITH NEW USES,
NOW THAT OFFICE IS NO LONGER
VIABLE. SO WE THANK YOU FOR
CONSIDERING THE RESOLUTION, AND
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT ITS
PASSAGE.
>> THAT'S THE END OF OUR, OUR
SPEAKERS.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANKS, EVERYONE, FOR CALLING
IN. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO
AGENDA ITEMS. CLERK, COULD YOU
PLEASE READ AGENDA ITEM ONE
INTO THE RECORD?
>> AGENDA ITEM ONE, AND
RESOLUTION 32 156, THE SALES
AND USE TAX DEFERRAL FOR THE
OFFICE OF CONVERSION RESOLUTION
-- POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'RE JOINED BY OUR OPCD STAFF
AND OUR CENTRAL STAFF. SO WE,
SORRY, LET ME GET BACK TO MY
NOTES. SO THIS IS A RESOLUTION
THAT ESTABLISHES THE CITY'S
INTENTION TO AUTHORIZE A SALES
AND USE TAX DEFERRAL PROGRAM.
AS A REMINDER, WE DID PASS
COUNSEL BILL 120761 IN JULY,
AND THAT ALLOWED FOR THESE
CONVERSIONS TO TAKE PLACE.
WITHOUT THIS EXEMPTION FROM
SALES TAX, THESE PROJECTS WOULD
JUST BE TOO EXPENSIVE TO BUILD,
AS WE HEARD FROM PUBLIC COMMENT
TODAY. BUT WE ARE JOINED BY OUR
OPCD AND CENTRAL STAFF FOR A
BRIEFING AND REVIEW OF THIS,
AND TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. SO
IF I COULD ASK YOU ALL TO
INTRODUCE YOURSELVES, WE'LL
GET STARTED.
>> -- DIRECTOR , OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
ALSO WITH
COMMUNITCE AND
CENTRAL STAFF.
>> OKAY. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> SO, COUNCILMEMBER MORALES,
AS YOU MENTIONED, IN JULY, YOUR
PASSAGE OF THE OFFICE AND
RESIDENTIAL LEGISLATION SET THE
STAGE FOR WHAT WE CAN DO AS A
CITY TO BEGIN TO, BEGIN A NEW
INVESTMENT IN DEVELOPMENT,
PLACE MAKING, AND AN INCREASE
IN THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS IN
THE DOWNTOWN CORE. THAT
LEGISLATION HAS POTENTIAL OF
BEING A CATALYST FOR OUR
INVESTMENT IN RE-ENVISIONING
DOWNTOWN AS A NEIGHBORHOOD AND
BUILDING BACK UP OUR TAX BASE.
>> RICO, CAN YOU GET A LITTLE
CLOSER TO THE MIKE PLEASE?
THANK YOU. IT'S OKAY.
>> THE RESOLUTION WE'RE
DISCUSSING TODAY IS RELATED TO
STATE BILL 6175, AND ADDRESSING
HOW THE CITY OF SEATTLE CAN
PROVIDE A CRITICAL SALES TAX
DEFERRAL TO DEVELOPMENT TEAMS
SEEKING TO MAKE OFFICE AND
RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION PROJECTS
HAPPEN. I THINK IT'S OF NOTE
THAT THE CITY OF SEATTLE HAS
BEEN ON THE FRONT EDGE OF THIS
DISCUSSION. WE WERE PART OF THE
BROOKINGS INSTITUTE
COLLABORATION RELATED TO
REINVESTMENT IN DOWNTOWN,
RE-ENVISIONING DOWNTOWN AS
NEIGHBORHOODS AND OFFICE
RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION
SPECIFICALLY. I THINK THAT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ADOPT
LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS FOR THE
SALES TAX REFERRALS WILL REALLY
BE AN IMPORTANT NEXT STEP IN
AND SHARING THAT DEVELOPMENT
TEAMS AND BUILDING OWNERS CAN
MAKE THIS CRITICAL CHANGE AND
GET MORE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE
DOWNTOWN. SO JUST REALLY
EXCITED FOR THE MOVEMENT AND
THE CONVERSATION.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, RICO.
WE HAVE SOME SLIDES HERE FOR
YOU TODAY, COUNCIL. THIS GIVES
YOU AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT IS IN
THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. SO, AS
MENTIONED, WE'RE SEEKING TO
INCENTIVIZE THE CONVERSION OF
OFFICE SPACE TO HOUSING AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THIS IS A
COMPONENT OF MAYOR HARRELL
DOWNTOWN ACTIVATION PLAN, AND
WE'RE PROPOSING TO ESTABLISH A
DEFERRAL OF THE SALES AND USE
TAXES ON THE COST OF
CONSTRUCTION TO DO THE
CONVERSION. AS WAS MENTIONED,
THIS FOLLOWS WASHINGTON STATE
SENATE BILL SIX 175 THAT PASSED
LAST YEAR. IT AUTHORIZES CITIES
TO PROVIDE THIS SALES TAX
DEFERRAL. AND IT REQUIRES THAT
10% OF THE HOUSING UNITS IN THE
CONVERSION HAVE TO BE
AFFORDABLE AT THE 80% OF AREA
MEDIAN INCOME LEVEL IN ORDER TO
QUALIFY FOR THE DEFERRAL. AND
IF THAT AFFORDABILITY IS
MAINTAINED FOR 10 YEARS, SALES
TAXES DO NOT HAVE TO BE REPAID.
SO FOR A CITY TO ENACT THIS
PROGRAM, WE HAVE TWO STEPS. THE
FIRST OF WHICH WE'RE ASKING
YOU TO TAKE TODAY, WHICH IS TO
PASS A RESOLUTION STATING THE
CITY'S INTENT TO ADOPT A
PROGRAM. THE RESOLUTION ALSO
SETS THE DATE FOR A FUTURE
PUBLIC HEARING, AND STEP TWO,
THEN, IS TO COME BACK TO YOU
WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING AND
WITH THE ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE
REGULATIONS AND TO CODE EARLY
NEXT YEAR. SEATTLE WOULD BE THE
FIRST OR THE SECOND CITY
STATEWIDE TO IMPLEMENT THIS,
AFTER SPOKANE DATE IN
SEPTEMBER. SO OTHER SPEAKERS
HAVE ALLUDED TO THE GOALS OF
THIS ACTION. THIS ADDRESSES
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE'RE
ESTIMATING THAT THIS WOULD
PRODUCE 1000 TO 2000 UNITS OVER
A SEVEN YEAR TIMEFRAME. THIS
SUPPORTS DOWNTOWN RECOVERY, AS
HAS BEEN MENTIONED, AND IT ALSO
PROMOTES ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY. IT'S ALWAYS
SUSTAINABLE TO REUSE STRUCTURES
RATHER THAN HAVING TO REBUILD.
SO THERE IS AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING REQUIREMENT, AS I
MENTIONED. 10% OF THE HOUSING
UNITS THAT ARE CREATED IN THE
CONVERSION HAVE TO BE PROVIDED
AS AFFORDABLE AT THE 80% AMI
LEVEL. SO RENTS WOULD BE CAPPED
AT THAT LEVEL THAT YOU SEE
HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ON THIS
SLIDE. AND AGAIN, THE DEVELOPER
WOULD HAVE TO MAINTAIN THOSE AS
AFFORDABLE FOR 10 YEARS IN
ORDER TO KEEP THE EXEMPTION
FROM THE SALES TAX. YOU MIGHT
ASK, WHAT IS THE SALES AND USE
TAX AMOUNT? SO THIS IS JUST A
REFRESHER FOR YOU. IN SEATTLE,
THE TOTAL SALES TAX PERCENTAGE
IS 10.35%, AND THE GRAPHIC ON
SCREEN SHOWS YOU THE BREAKDOWN
OF WHERE THAT SALES TAX GOES. A
LARGE PORTION OF IT GOES TO
WASHINGTON STATE. SEATTLE
DIRECTLY RECEIVES ONLY 1% OF
THE, OVER 10% SALES TAX. AS HAS
BEEN MENTIONED BY COMMENTERS,
CONVERSIONS ARE VERY EXPENSIVE.
WE'VE TALKED WITH YOU ABOUT
THIS BEFORE EARLIER THIS YEAR.
THEY'RE SO EXPENSIVE THAT THEY
OFTEN EXCEED THE COST OF NEW
CONSTRUCTION, AND IT, WHEN
YOU'RE THINKING OF REAL ESTATE
AS AN INVESTMENT, SOMETHING
THAT SOMEONE HAS TO FINANCE, IF
A CONVERSION IS MORE EXPENSIVE
THAN A NEW COTION
PRWON'T,
WON'T SEE THAT HAPPEN. SO WE
BELIEVE THAT PUBLIC SUPPORT IS
NECESSARY TO MAKE A CONVERSION
FEASIBLE, AND THAT'S ONE OF
THE THINGS YOU'RE DOING TODAY,
BY PROVIDING THE DEFERRAL, TO
BRING DOWN THAT COST SO IT'S
ON PAR WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION.
TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE
AMOUNT OF, OF INCENTIVE THAT
WOULD BE PROVIDED, THIS IS AN
EXAMPLE FOR YOU OF A 200
HOUSING UNIT CONVERSION OF A
1920S ERA OFFICE BUILDING. THE
DEFERRAL WOULD REDUCE THE
OVERALL PROJECT COST BY ABOUT
7.1%. OR, IN THIS EXAMPLE, $10
MILLION. SO IT WOULD REDUCE THE
TOTAL PROJECT COST FROM
APPROXIMATELY $140 MILLION-$130
MILLION. FINANCIAL IMPACTS.
FIRST OF ALL , OUR OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING TO
ADMINISTER THIS PROGRAM WITH
EXISTING STAFF. SO THERE REALLY
ISN'T MUCH OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE COST TO THE
CITY. I DO WANT TO NOTE, TOO,
THAT IF THE CONVERSION CEASES
TO QUALIFY, SAY, BECAUSE THE
UNITS ARE NO LONGER AFFORDABLE,
ALL THE BACK SALES AND USE
TAXES WOULD BE DUE PLUS
INTEREST IMMEDIATELY. SO
THAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE.
THERE ARE POSITIVE FINANCIAL
IMPACTS. WE BELIEVE. SO ADDING
RESIDENTS TO DOWNTOWN CAN
SUPPORT BUSINESSES IN RECOVERY.
AND IF WE SEE A HEALTHY NUMBER
OF CONVERSIONS, IT CAN HELP TO
STABILIZE DECLINING PROPERTY
EVALUATIONS IN DOWNTOWN THAT
WE'RE SEEING IN THE OFFICE
MARKET. WE BELIEVE THERE ARE
LITTLE TO NO DIRECT COSTS OR
LOSS OF REVENUE, BECAUSE, AS
HAS BEEN MENTIONED, WE REALLY
DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE ANY
OR MANY CONVERSIONS WITHOUT
INCENTIVES LIKE THIS. SO
YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT REALLY
LOSING THESE SALES TAXES,
BECAUSE THAT CONSTRUCTION
WOULDN'T BE HAPPENING WITHOUT
THE INCENTIVE. AND JUST
WRAPPING UP HERE WITH A FEW
IMAGES. THESE ARE POTENTIAL
CONVERSION EXAMPLES THAT OUR
OFFICE IS AWARE OF , THAT
BUILDERS ARE RESEARCHING OR
EXPLORING. ON THE LEFT, WE HAVE
THE: BUILDING ON FIRST AVENUE.
IN THE MIDDLE, WE HAVE THE
VANCE BUILDING, WHICH IS AT
THIRD AND UNION. AND ON THE
RIGHT, WE HAVE THE 201 QUEEN
ANNE AVENUE BUILDING. ALL OF
THESE ARE IN THE EXPLORATORY
STAGE FOR CONVERSION TO
RESIDENTIAL. AND THAT'S THE
END OF OUR SLIDES TODAY. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR CONSIDERING
MOVING THIS FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU, GEOFF AND
DIRECTOR -- IS THERE ANYTHING
YOU WANTED TO ADD?
>> JUST TO MENTION THAT THIS
RESOLUTION JUST SET UP PUBLIC
HEARING DATE. ADDITIONAL
LEGISLATION'S REQUIRED IN
ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROGRAM THAT WOULD BE ADOPTED
AFTER THAT PUBLIC HEARING
OCCURS. AND THE DATE OF THE
PUBLIC HEARING IS JANUARY 30th.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO,
COLLEAGUES, I'LL GO AHEAD AND
OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS. I DID
WANT TO START WITH JUST ONE
QUESTION TO CLARIFY. DEVELOPERS
ARE ALLOWED TO STACK INCENTIVES
HERE. CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THAT, PLEASE?
>> YEAH. THE STATE LAW
EXPLICITLY ALLOWED FOR THIS TO
BE COMBINED WITH A MULTIFAMILY
TAX EXEMPTION. SO IN THE
MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION, A
DEVELOPER IS REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE 20% OF THE UNITS AS
AFFORDABLE IN ORDER TO QUALIFY.
THIS WOULD, WHAT'S BEFORE YOU
WOULD PROVIDE ANOTHER 10% OF
UNITS TO QUALIFY FOR THE SALES
TAX DEFERRAL. SO THAT BRINGS IT
UP TO A TOTAL OF 30%. AS
MENTIONED IN PUBLIC COMMENT,
ROUGHLY A THIRD OF THE BUILDING
COULD VERY WELL BE AFFORDABLE.
WITH BOTH INCENTIVES.
>> THANK YOU. AND I GUESS, I
JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO THE
POINT YOU MADE ABOUT, THERE MAY
NOT REALLY BE AN OPPORTUNITY
COST TO ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION,
BECAUSE WITHOUT IT, FEW
BUILDINGS MIGHT BE BUILT
ANYWAY. IT SEEMS TO ME, THOUGH,
THAT THERE COULD BE AN
OPPORTUNITY COST FOR NOT
ALLOWING THIS, WHICH IS THAT WE
POTENTIALLY HAVE VACANT OFFICE
BUILDINGS THAT WILL JUST
CONTINUE TO SIT THERE GIVEN
THE, THOSE IN ARTICLE JUST
EARLIER THIS WEEK ABOUT THE
OFFICE VACANCY RATE OF OVER
30%, I THINK. AND SO, AS YOU
SAID, THERE MAY NOT BE MANY
BUILDINGS THAT WOULD
PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM, OR
BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
IT, BUT IF EVEN FOUR OR FIVE
COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT,
WE'RE NOT ONLY CREATING MORE
HOUSING, WE WOULD ALSO BE
ADDRESSING VACANT BUILDINGS
THAT ARE DOWNTOWN, WHICH I KNOW
IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALL
INTERESTED IN. OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, AND
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS, DID YOU
HAVE A QUESTION? OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I HAD A
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS RELATING
TO, I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT, SO
YOU SAY THE AFFORDABILITY IS
MAINTAINED FOR 10 YEARS AT THE
SALES AND USE TAX IS
PERMANENTLY WAIVED. IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> RIGHT.
>> SO THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN
MFTE, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. UNDER
MFTE , THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T
HAVE TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES FOR
A SET DURATION OF TIME, 12
YEARS, TYPICALLY. BUT THEN
AFTER THAT, THEY WOULD.
>> OKAY. SO THAT'S A PERMANENT
-- AND THEN I'M ALSO CURIOUS
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, UNDER MFTE,
YOU'VE GOT 20% UNITS, BUT
HERE, IF THEY DON'T COMBINE,
YOU ONLY HAVE 10%. IS THERE
REASON WHY WE HAVE A LOWER
NUMBER HERE? BECAUSE I AM NOT
SURE EVERY PROJECT IS GOING TO
UTILIZE MFTE TO GET TO A 30%
LEVEL.
>> THE 10% IS WHAT THE STATE
LEGISLATURE AUTHORIZED. AND
THAT'S, SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY
WHERE THAT NUMBER COMES FROM.
>> OKAY. AND I'M UNFAMILIAR
WITH THE STATE LEGISLATION, SO
DID THEY ALSO CAP IT AT 10 YEAR
AFFORDABILITY, AND THAT IS A
PERMANENT TAX EXEMPTION? OR DO
WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO INCREASE
THE AMOUNT OF TIME IN WHICH
AFFORDABILITY HAS TO BE
MAINTAINED?
>> I DO BELIEVE THAT THE
COUNCIL COULD ELECT TO HAVE
DEEPER ADDITIONAL AFFORDABILITY
THAN WITH THE STATE REQUIRES IS
MINIMUM. SO I DO BELIEVE
THAT'S AN OPTION. WE'RE
PROPOSING TO, TO DO WHAT THEY,
BUT THE STATE LEGISLATURE
CALLED FOR.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. ONE LAST
QUESTION. SO UNDER, AGAIN, I
HAVEN'T READ ALL OF THIS, BUT
UNDER MFTE, THE UNITS, THE
AFFORDABLE UNITS HAVE TO BE OF
THE SAME QUALITY AND HAVE THE
SAME AMENITIES. IS THAT ALSO
THE CASE FOR THIS BILL? I
DON'T SEE IT SPECIFICALLY
MENTIONED.
>> IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY
REGULATED IN THAT WAY.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> -- DID YOU WANT TO ADD
ANYTHING?
>> HAPPY TO EXPLORE THOSE
QUESTIONS FURTHER BEFORE THE
ORDINANCE COMES BACK --
>> THANK YOU.
>> YEAH. AND JUST AS A
REMINDER, IT'S JUST ABOUT
SETTING THE HEARING DATE, AND
WE WILL HAVE AN ACTUAL
ORDINANCE BEFORE US NEXT YEAR.
SO, OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR MORALES. I
DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THE 10
YEAR . THIS PERMANENT,
PERMANENTLY WAIVED AFTER THE 10
YEAR. SO AFTER THE 10 YEARS IS
MET, THEN WE'VE WAIVED IT, AND
THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAINTAIN
THAT 10% AS AFFORDABLE, OR 80%
AMI.
>> THAT'S --
>> CORRECT? AND DO WE HAVE, AND
WE HAVE THE ABILITY, LISH, TO,
TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS ON
THAT, BASED ON WHAT THE STATE
IS ALLOWING?
>> I THINK SO, AND I WILL, YOU
KNOW, WORK WITH YOU AND --
DETERMINE WHO'S GOING TO BE
STAFFING THIS. SO WE'LL WORK
WITH YOUR OFFICE --
>> THANK YOU, LISH. AND THEN
DID THIS DATE SET THE 80% AMI
LEVEL? IS THAT A -- THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO NOTE THAT, AS COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE SUGGESTED, LIKE, THE
ADDING AN EXPLICIT STATEMENT
ABOUT THE MINIMUM QUALITY OF
THE UNIT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF
SOMETHING THAT COULD BE AMENDED
FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE VERSION
OF COMPLIANCE.
>> OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER,
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, IS THAT A
NEW HAND? OKAY. OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER -- BUT THAT WAS
AN OLD HAND. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> MAKE SURE I KNOW WHO'S --
OKAY. WELL, IF THERE ARE NO
OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, I
MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF
RESOLUTION 32156 , AND THAT THE
RESOLUTION BE SENT TO THE
DECEMBER 17th CITY COUNCIL
MEETING. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S MOVED AND
SECONDED TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION
WITH THE DECEMBER 17th CITY
COUNCIL MEETING DATE. THERE ARE
NO FURTHER COMMENTS, WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROAD?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> AND CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> --
>> THANK YOU. THE MOTION
CARRIES, AND THE RESOLUTION
WILL BE SENT TO THE DECEMBER
17th CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR A
FINAL VOTE. THANK YOU,
EVERYONE. OKAY. AMELIA, WILL
YOU PLEASE ITEM --
>> IS ABOUT 1208 33, LIVING
BUILDING PILOT FOR A BRIEF
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY.
WE HAVE LISH HERE, AND TRAVIS
SAUNDERS WITH SDCI IS ALSO HERE
TO DISCUSS THE LIVING BUILDING
PILOT PROGRAM. AS A REMINDER,
THIS IS INTENDED TO PROMOTE
PUBLIC INTEREST BY ENCOURAGING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATIVE
LIVING BUILDINGS. IN OTHER
WORDS, BUILDINGS THAT CAN
REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ,
THAT CAN TEST NEW TECHNOLOGIES,
AND REALLY SERVE AS A MODEL FOR
DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT THE
REGION. AS A REMINDER, WE WERE
BRIEFED ON THIS LEGISLATION IN
SEPTEMBER, ON SEPTEMBER 18th
BEFORE THE BUDGET STARTED, BUT
WE HAVE ASKED SDCI TO JOIN US
AGAIN TO REVIEW THE LEGISLATION
AND WHAT IT AIMS TO ACHIEVE
BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE ON THE
BILL. SO I'LL ASK YOU TO
PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
TRAVIS SAUNDERS. I'M WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTIONS.
>> STILL LISH WOULD LEND. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. PLEASE GO AHEAD,
TRAVIS. THANK YOU.
>> BEAR WITH ME HERE WHILE I
GET THIS SET UP. OKAY. ALL SET.
SO, HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. AGAIN,
TRAVIS SAUNDERS WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTIONS REGARDING THE
LIVING BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM
LEGISLATION. THAT YOU'RE
LOOKING AT TODAY. JUST, HERE'S
A ROAD MAP FOR PRESENTATION.
I'LL DO AN INTRODUCTION,
FOLLOWED BY A CASE STUDY THAT
HAS COME UP AGAINST CHALLENGE
IN CODE, AND THEN GO OVER THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS,
DIRECTIVES, AND SOME TIME FOR
QUESTIONS.
>> TRAVIS, I'LL ASK YOU TO GET
A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MIKE.
YEAH. YOU CAN PULL THE WHOLE
THING TOWARDS YOU.
>> OKAY. SO INTRODUCTION. THE
LIVING BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM
IN SEATTLE IS AN INCENTIVE
INITIATIVE TO ADVANCE
SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PRACTICES.
THE GOAL IS TO ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE AND SUSTAINABLE
DESIGN OPTIONS WITH DEVELOPMENT
INCENTIVES SUCH AS INCREASED
HEIGHT AND ADDITIONAL FLOOR TO
AREA RATIO. THE GOAL IS TO TEST
AND PILOT SUSTAINABILITY
MEASURES SUCH AS -- SOLAR
POWER, HIGH-EFFICIENCY SYSTEMS
THAT NORMALLY WOULD BE
DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY IN THE
MARKET, TO BE ABLE TO BUILD
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE
PROGRAM IS THROUGH 2030, OR 20
PRODUCTS, WHICHEVER COMES
FIRST. CURRENTLY, THERE ARE
FOUR PROJECTS LEFT AVAILABLE
IN, IN THE PILOT PROGRAM. THE
CODE AMENDMENT IS TO BASICALLY
CORRECT A GAP IN THE CURRENT
CODE, MAKING IT CLEAR THAT
ADDITIONAL HEIGHTS MAY BE
GRANTED IN THE PROGRAM,
REGARDLESS OF THE LOT SIZE. THE
CURRENT CODE BASICALLY SAYS IF
YOU HAVE A LOT THAT IS LESS
THAN 19,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU'RE
CAPPED AT 145 FEET. AND
CORRECTING THIS LANGUAGE WOULD
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ORIGINAL
POLICY WOULD BE TO INCENTIVIZE
DEVELOPMENT, NOT JUST LOTS OF A
CERTAIN SIZE. THIS AMENDMENT
ALSO INCLUDES A PROVISION THAT
WOULD ALLOW IT TO APPLY TO
EXISTING VESTED PROJECTS SO
THIS PARTICULAR CASE EXAMPLE
BUT I'LL, I'LL GO OVER WOULD
QUALIFY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THIS. WE DO HAVE A PROJECT AT
2616 WESTERN AVENUE THAT HAS
BUMPED UP AGAINST THIS CODE
LANGUAGE. PROJECT NUMBER 303
604 THREE-LU. IT HAS BEEN
REVIEWED BY THE ZONING REVIEW
BOARD AND APPROVED BY SDCI,
WHICH GRANTED THE ADDITIONAL
HEIGHT UNDER THE BUILDING PILOT
PROGRAM. SDCI HAS INTERPRETED
THAT THE PILOT PROJECTS CAN
RECEIVE DEPARTURES FOR HEIGHT
CONSISTENT WITH SIMILAR
PROVISIONS IN THE CODE. SDCI'S
ALSO INTERPRETED THAT IN THE
CODE HEIGHT BONUSES, MAY BE
ADDED TOGETHER , IN THIS CASE,
ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR A THREE
BEDROOM UNIT. SO YOU COULD
STACK YOUR INCENTIVES FOR
ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, FOR
PROVIDING THREE-BEDROOM UNITS,
FOR A LIVING BUILDING PILOT
PROGRAM, AND ANY OTHER
INCENTIVES THAT ARE AVAILABLE.
THIS PROJECT AND INTERPRETATION
WAS APPEALED TO THE --
EXAMINER. THEY WERE ALLEGED
THAT THE SUBJECT LOT WAS NOT
ELIGIBLE FOR THE ADDITIONAL
HEIGHT UNDER THE LIVING
BUILDING PROGRAM, AND FOR A
THREE-BEDROOM FAMILY SIZE UNITS
BECAUSE OF THIS HEIGHT
LIMITATION IN THE MUNICIPAL
CODE THAT BASICALLY SAYS 19,000
SQUARE FEET LOT OR LESS, YOU'RE
CAPPED AT 145 FEET. SO THE
OBJECTIVE OF THE AMENDMENT IS
TWOFOLD. NUMBER ONE IS TO
CLARIFY THAT CITY COUNCIL, IT
TENDS TO ALLOW HEIGHT BONUSES
IN THE DMR ZONE UNDER THE
LIVING BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM ,
REGARDLESS OF LOT SIZE. AND
THEN SECONDLY, IT CLARIFIES AND
REAFFIRMS THE CODE
INTERPRETATION THAT HEIGHT
BONUSES AVAILABLE IN THE CODE
MAY BE COMBINED, STACKED
THROUGH THE LIVING BUILDING
PILOT PROGRAM. AND JUST SOME
INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. IT DOES PROVIDE $2.4
MILLION IN HOUSING AND
AFFORDABILITY PAYMENT, OR NHA
FEES ARE BEING COLLECTED. THESE
ARE MARKET-RATE UNITS, BUT WILL
BE OFFSET BY PROVIDING THE NHA
PAYMENT. AND THEN ALSO, TO GIVE
YOU KIND OF AN IDEA OF THE
SCOPE OF THIS OJECT, ITITS,
118 OF THOSE ARE ONE-BEDROOM
UNITS, 12 OF THOSE ARE STUDIO
UNITS, AND THEN 42 TWO BEDROOM
UNITS. AND THEN, IMPORTANTLY,
IT'S PROVIDING SO MUCH NEEDED
THREE-BEDROOM UNITS, AND THIS
IS HOW IT'S ALSO ABLE TO GAIN
THAT -- TO OTHER INCENTIVES IN
CODE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
THAT'S THE END OF MY
PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE
FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT
HAVE, OR IF I CAN CLARIFY ANY
FURTHER, I'M HAPPY TO DO SO.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LISH,
IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO
ADD? OKAY. GREAT. WELL, I JUST
ANSWERED THE TWO QUESTIONS I
HAVE, WHICH IS TO CLARIFY THE
AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE GOING INTO
NHA. YOU SAID $2.4 MILLION.
GIVEN OUR DIRE NEED IN THE CITY
FOR MORE THREE BEDROOMS, I
APPRECIATE KNOWING THAT THERE
WILL BE 10 MORE FAMILIES THAT
WILL BE ABLE TO FIND
THREE-BEDROOM UNITS IN THE
CITY. I , AS I SAID, WE WERE
BRIEFED ON THIS IN SEPTEMBER,
SO I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO
OPEN IT UP TO MY COLLEAGUES IF
THERE'S THINGS FOLKS WANT TO
DISCUSS. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. SO I KNOW
THAT THERE'S BEEN A FAIR
AMOUNT OF PUBLIC OPPOSITION
FROM RESIDENTS IN BELLTOWN TO
THIS, AND THAT THE HEARING
EXAMINER RULED AGAINST THIS
HEIGHT. SO MY QUESTION IS, WHAT
HAS BEEN THE PUBLIC PROCESS,
BEYOND THE PUBLIC HEARING HERE,
ON SEPTEMBER 4th FOR ENGAGEMENT
WITH THE RESIDENTS OF BELLTOWN?
>> ON THIS, IT FOLLOWS THE, THE
TYPICAL LEGISLATION PATHWAY,
WITH, WITH PUBLIC NOTICE, AND
THEN GOING THROUGH COUNCIL,
RELATED TO THE PROJECT ITSELF,
WHICH IS A SEPARATE THING THAT
WENT THROUGH DESIGN REVIEW
PROCESS. SO THERE WAS, SPECIFIC
TO THAT PROJECT, NOT THE
LEGISLATION, AN OPPORTUNITY TO
COMMENT ON, ON THAT PROPOSAL.
AS I HAD MENTIONED, TOO, THIS
PARTICULAR PROJECT WAS APPEALED
TO THE HEARING EXAMINER, AND AT
THAT STOP, THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOUND THAT SDCI'S
INTERPRETATION DISAGREED WITH
THE INTERPRETATION THAT
DEVELOPMENT COULD EXTEND BEYOND
145 FEET, WITH PROVIDING LIVING
BUILDING PILOTS AND
THREE-BEDROOM. FROM THERE, THE
HEARING EXAMINER ALSO FOUND
THAT CIBA, THEY DISMISSED THE
CIBA APPEAL ON THAT, BECAUSE
WITH NEW STATE LEGISLATURE,
CIBA NOW EXEMPTS PROJECTS WITH
HOUSING UNITS. AND SO BEING
THAT THIS PROJECT HAS HOUSING
UNITS, HEARING EXAMINER
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT AND SAID THE
CIBA APPEAL IS -- THIS
PARTICULAR PROJECT IS GOING
FORWARD AT SUPERIOR COURT, AND
APPEALING THAT UNDERLINING THE
PROTECTION ACT. SO, SO THERE
ARE POINTS IN, IN EACH STEP OF
THE PROCESS FOR, FOR PUBLIC
INPUT, BUT RELATED TO THIS
LEGISLATION, THE TYPICAL
COMMENT PERIOD WAS PROVIDED
THROUGH NOTICE IN THE BULLETIN,
LAND-USE BULLETIN, AND AN
OPPORTUNITY HERE -- LAND-USE
COMMITTEE, AND THEN, OBVIOUSLY
AGAIN IN CITY COUNCIL.
>> OKAY. AND SO DO WE KNOW
WHAT, HOW MANY THREE BEDROOMS
WOULD BE INCLUDED, AND WHAT,
WHAT THE COST OF THOSE THREE
BEDROOMS WOULD BE? WHAT, WHAT
IS THE COST OF A THREE BEDROOM?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY
INFORMATION ON WHAT THE MARKET
RATE WOULD BE FOR, FOR SUCH
UNITS. BUT I DO KNOW THAT THEY
PROVIDED -- TO TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF THAT, THAT INCENTIVE IN THE
CODE.
>> AND WHY ARE WE -- OH, I'M
SORRY. WHY ARE WE INVESTING FOR
OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVEN'T
MADE ANY APPLICATION?
>> I'M SORRY, ONCE AGAIN?
>> YOU SAY AN APPLICANT MAY
ELECT TO USE THIS EXEMPTION
EVEN IF THE APPLICATION VESTED
BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE? WHY
ARE WE INVESTING?
>> YEAH. SO ANY PROJECT THAT
HAD COME IN BEFORE THIS
ORDINANCE AND HAD VESTED WOULD
BE ABLE TO REACH FORWARD AND
UTILIZE THIS CHANGE IN CODE. SO
IN THE CASE EXAMPLE THAT I GAVE
IS ONE SUCH PROJECT THAT DID
VEST, AND SO IT WOULD BE ABLE
TO REACH FORWARD. IT WOULD BE
ABLE TO REACH FORWARD, SORRY
ABOUT THAT, IN THE NEW CODE. I
DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER
PROJECTS IN THAT, IN THAT
SCENARIO.
>> SO BASICALLY THERE'S ONLY
ONE PROJECT THAT THIS APPLIES
TO AT THE MOMENT.
>> THAT I'M AWARE OF, YES.
>> OKAY. SO WHY ARE WE
INVESTING FOR ADDITIONAL
PROJECTS?
>> THAT LANGUAGES --
>> YEAH, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU,
LISH.
>> SORRY. THAT LANGUAGE IS
NECESSARY FOR THAT PROJECT TO
BE ABLE TO USE THIS CODE
PROVISION.
>> OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND
THEN THIS PROGRAM EXPIRES IN
2030. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES. THE LIVING BUILDING
PILOT PROGRAM EXPIRES IN 2030,
OR 20 PROJECTS, WHICHEVER COMES
FIRST.
>> OKAY. AND I UNDERSTAND THERE
ARE FOR TEEN NOW, SO .
>> RIGHT.
>> SO THIS PROJECT, SO THE
PILOT, THOUGH, COULD BE MADE
PERMANENT AFTER 2030, WHICH
THEN WOULD MEAN WE'VE MADE A
CHANGE OF PERMANENT ZONING CODE
CHANGE FOR THE HEIGHT.
>> TRUE.
>> YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, DID I
SEE YOUR HAND UP?
>> YES, IT IS.
>> PLEASE --
>> THANK YOU. FIRST, THANK YOU
FOR THE MEETING. OBVIOUSLY,
BOTH TOPICS TODAY ON THE AGENDA
ARE VERY D7 CENTRIC , SO I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY, AS
I DON'T SIT ON THE LAND-USE
COMMITTEE. SO I RECOGNIZE IT
CAME UP BEFORE, BUT I,
OBVIOUSLY I'VE BEEN HEARING
FROM COMMUNITY, BUT I DID NOT
HAVE THE BACKGROUND, AS IT CAME
BEFORE COMMITTEE EARLIER. IT'S
AN INTERESTING PIECE. I JUST
HAVE SOME, SOME BASIC
QUESTIONS. ONE IS, YOU KNOW,
ONE OF THE POINTS THAT ARE MADE
OFTEN IS THAT BELLTOWN IS
UNIQUE, AND HAS THE SMALL LOT
SIZE FEATURE. AND I WAS JUST
CURIOUS, WHERE DID THE 145 FEET
COME FROM, AS THAT WAS
ESTABLISHED IN THE FIRST PLACE?
WAS THAT SOME ARBITRARY NUMBER,
OR WAS NOT CREATED FOR SPECIFIC
REASONS?
>> YEAH, SO THE 145 FEET IS THE
STANDARD HEIGHT MAXIMUM IN THE
ZONE. AND SO THE LIVING
BUILDING PILOT, OR ANY OTHER
INCENTIVE, FOR THAT MATTER,
WOULD ALLOW, NORMALLY, FOR THAT
ADDITIONAL HEIGHT TO GO OVER
THAT MAXIMUM. SO, SO IT'S A
DMR 145 , MEANING THE MAXIMUM
HEIGHT BEING AT 145.
>> AND TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT
MORE HISTORY, THE 145 FEET DATE
BACK TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
REQUIREMENTS. PRIOR TO THAT,
THE HEIGHT LIMIT WAS 125 FEET,
AND THAT HEIGHT LIMIT DATES
BACK TO THE 1980S, WHEN
DOWNTOWN -- WAS CREATED.
>> OKAY. AS ALWAYS, LISH, THANK
YOU. FOR THAT BACKGROUND. AND I
APPRECIATE IT. I WAS JUST
CURIOUS IF THERE WAS SOMETHING
DRIVING, LIKE, PARTICULARLY
RELATED TO BELLTOWN AND THE
IDEA OF A SMALL LOT
DEVELOPMENT, IF THAT WAS
SOMETHING UNIQUE TO BELLTOWN AS
OPPOSED TO OTHER AREAS. SO
THANK YOU FOR THAT. ONE
QUESTION THAT OFTEN COMES UP,
TOO, IS THE, THE ADDING ON OF,
YOU KNOW, THE BENEFIT, THE
OPTIONS. IS THERE A LIMIT?
LIKE, I UNDERSTAND NOW THAT IT
WOULD BE ALLOWED, BUT IS THERE
A LIMIT? LIKE, HOW MANY
ADDITIONAL HEIGHT INCREASES CAN
BE, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A LIMIT
IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF TIMES
THAT IS DONE?
>> NO. NOT NECESSARILY. SDCI
AND OTHER MATTERS LOOKS AT THE
CODE AS STACKING INCENTIVES TO
GAIN ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. SO IF
YOU CAN GRAB 10 FEET OF
ADDITIONAL HEIGHT UNDER A
CERTAIN PROVISION, AND 15 FEET
UNDER ANOTHER, IF YOU PROVIDE
BOTH OF THOSE, YOU CAN GET BOTH
OF THOSE INCENTIVES AND STACK
THEM.
>> THAT'S TWO STACKING
INCENTIVES. IS THERE A LIMIT OF
THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX? I MEAN,
THERE MAY NOT BE THAT MANY, BUT
IS THERE ANY GENERAL KIND OF
LIMIT IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF
STACKING INCENTIVES?
>> IT DOESN'T SPECIFY THAT,
AND WE HAVE INTERPRETED THAT,
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN STACK THOSE
INCENTIVES. SO THIS LEGISLATION
WOULD ALSO HELP TO REAFFIRM
THAT, THAT POLICY THAT YOU CAN
STACK THESE INCENTIVES.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. I GUESS MY
LAST QUESTION TOO IS, I
RECOGNIZE THIS COULD GO TO SOME
TYPE OF ARBITRATION -- BUT THE
-- DISPUTE IN TERMS OF, LIKE,
YOU STACK THESE HEIGHTS, AND,
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE SAYING THAT
FOR THIS PROJECT, THE HEIGHT IS
AT THIS LEVEL. BUT IF THE
IMMUNITY COMES BACK AND SAYS,
WELL, ACTUALLY, BECAUSE OF
DIFFERENT THINGS, YOU KNOW, THE
IT'S THE, RELATED TO ROOFTOP,
OF WHICH I GUESS WOULD BE
ANOTHER KIND OF INCENTIVE ,
THEY'RE ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN
THAT. YOU KNOW, I'M SURE
YOU'VE HEARD FROM COMMUNITY
THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SAYING
ONE NUMBER, BUT THEY'RE SEEING
A DIFFERENT NUMBER. HOW IS THAT
ADJUDICATED ON SDCI, AND TO
ENSURE THAT WE'RE ALL WORKING
FROM THE SAME BASELINE?
>> YEAH. YEAH. SO IN CODE,
THERE ARE ALLOWANCES FOR FEET
AND ROOFTOP THEATERS, FOR
EXAMPLE. PENTHOUSES, PARAPETS,
MECHANICAL UNITS, THINGS OF
THAT NATURE. SO THE, YOU KNOW,
-- A CERTAIN STANDARD IS GIVEN
FOR THE HEIGHT. AND THOSE WE
LOOK AT AS ABOVE THE STANDARD
BASE HEIGHT, RIGHT? SO LET'S
SAY THE ZONE HAD A HEIGHT OF
145. THE CODE ALSO, THEN, TALKS
ABOUT ROOFTOP FEATURES, RIGHT,
AND ALLOWANCES. SO THOSE WOULD
BE STACKED ON TOP OF 145. SO
DOES THAT HELP TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION?
>> YEAH.
>> SO BASICALLY YOU HAVE AN
ABSOLUTE HEIGHT, RIGHT, OF YOUR
STRUCTURE. BUT SOME OF THOSE
FEATURES WOULD BE ROOFTOP
FEATURES, ABOVE THAT BASE
HEIGHT.
>> I THINK YOU MAY BE ASKING
ABOUT, WHEN CAN COMMUNITY
MEMBERS FEEL SDCI DECISION? IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> KIND OF. AND I APPRECIATE
THAT ANSWER, AND I RECOGNIZE,
BECAUSE THERE'S TONS OF
PROJECTS, WHEN YOU SEE THE
ROOFTOP FEATURES, PARTICULARLY
THE MECHANICAL THAT YOU ARE
MENTIONING, AND SO FORTH, OR
GET, LIKE, A ROOFTOP KIND OF --
KIND OF OPTION ON AND I
APPRECIATE THAT. BUT, KIND OF,
TO YOUR, LISH, TO YOUR
QUESTION. BUT IT'S ALSO, IT'S
LIKE, THE DEVELOPER'S SAYING
IT'S THIS HEIGHT, AND IN THE
COMMUNITY SAYING, NO, IT'S
ACTUALLY THE SITE, BASED ON HOW
WE VIEW IT, DOES SDCI, CAN WE,
CAN I ASK SDCI TO, YOU KNOW,
SAY WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING
OF THE HEIGHT OF THIS PROJECT,
PARTICULARLY WHEN IT'S
BELLTOWN.
>> YEAH. AND SO CODE IS, IT'S
VERY SPECIFIC ON HEIGHT
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES. SO WE
LOOK AT THOSE STANDARDS TO
ASSURE SETTING WHAT THE BASE
LINE IS, AND HOW WE MEASURE TO
THAT, THAT MAXIMUM HEIGHT. THEN
ONCE WE GET THAT, YOU CAN FOLD
IN OTHER ALLOWANCES SUCH AS
ROOFTOP FEATURES, INCENTIVES.
SO THE CODE'S VERY CLEAR ABOUT
ESTABLISHING WHAT THAT BASE
HEIGHT MEASUREMENT IS. AND SO
THAT'S WHAT WE RELY ON.
>> YES. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT,
PARTICULARLY WITH THE SLOPES.
THERE'S THOSE KINDS OF
FEATURES FOR CONSIDERATIONS.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE GET
DIFFERING OPINIONS ON WHAT THE
PROJECT ACTUALLY IS. AND SO
IT'LL BE GOOD TO GET A
DEFINITIVE CALL, IF YOU WILL.
SO WE CAN, WE, I CAN FOLLOW-UP
OFF LINE ON THIS ONE, THAT LAST
QUESTION.
>> I GUESS WHAT THE -- TO --
WITH A DISAGREEMENT THERE,
OBVIOUSLY, WITH PROJECTS, THERE
IS AN APPEAL PROCESS, SO IF
SOMEBODY DISAGREED WITH THAT,
THERE'S OPPORTUNITY TO
CHALLENGE THAT THROUGH, THROUGH
THE APPEAL PROCESS. SO.
>> WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT,
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THIS
BELLTOWN PROJECT HAS HAD A LOT
OF ATTENTION AND A LOT OF
INPUT, LET'S SAY, SO I
APPRECIATE THAT. AND AGAIN,
THANK YOU, CHAIR, GIVEN THAT
THIS AGENDA PLUS THE PREVIOUS
ONE, VERY HELPFUL FOR THE
DISTRICT -- REPRESENTATIVE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. CAN YOU
TELL ME WHAT FACTORS ARE
CONSIDERED WHEN HEIGHT
ALLOWANCES ARE SET,
PARTICULARLY MAXIMUMS? LIKE,
THE THINGS EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE, LACK THEREOF,
AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE GO
INTO IT, OR WHAT FACTORS ARE
CONSIDERED, IN GENERAL?
>> YEAH. SO GENERALLY IT'S JUST
AN ADHERENCE TO MEASUREMENT
STANDARDS, RIGHT? SO AGAIN,
SAYING THAT THAT IS, THAT
BASELINE FOR THE PROJECT, IF
IT'S ON MY SLOPE, THERE'S
METHODOLOGIES ON HOW TO ARRIVE
AT THE NUMBER.
>> AND WITH THE SETTING THE
STANDARDS? I GUESS THAT'S PART
OF MY QUESTION TOO.
>>
>> THE MUNICIPAL CODE SETS
THOSE STANDARDS. THEY ARE
WRITTEN INTO THE DEVELOPMENT
CODE OF STANDARDS, AND THEN
THERE ARE METHODOLOGIES WRITTEN
IN CODE ON HOW, HOW TO MEASURE
THAT.
>> AND, AND MORE BROADLY, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE 145 HEIGHT HEIGHT
LIMIT, IT'S SET MY COUNCIL
THROUGH ADOPTING THE LAND USE
CODE. AND IS DRIVEN IN PART BY
THE POLICIES CONTAINED IN THE
CITY'S CONFERENCE OF PLAN.
>> LISH, I'LL FOLLOW-UP WITH
YOU, BECAUSE I GUESS WHAT I'M
ASKING IS THAT THAT SEEMS A
LITTLE ARBITRARY TO ME. I MEAN,
COUNCIL OR NOT EXPERTS, AND SO
WHAT WE CAN SAY, SOMETHING CAN
BE A CERTAIN HEIGHT, BUT IT
DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT'S,
THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND
EVERYTHING ELSE IS POLICE TO
ALLOW FOR THAT. SO I GUESS I'M
ASKING MORE IN THE WEEDS, AND
WE CAN TAKE IT OFF LINE, BUT.
>> RIGHT.
>> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
BETTER, RATHER THAN SOMETHING
THAT SOUNDS ARBITRARY. AND THEN
THERE ARE 15 BUILDINGS. WHERE
ARE THESE 15 BUILDINGS LOCATED?
ARE THEY THROUGHOUT THE CITY,
OR?
>> YEAH. SO THE, THE LIVING
BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM IS
CITYWIDE. SO, YEAH, DISPERSED
ACROSS THE CITY.
>> ARE THEY MAINLY IN ONE AREA,
OR ARE THEY REALLY, TRULY
ACROSS THE CITY?
>> YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE THE,
A DISPERSAL CHART, BUT, YOU
KNOW, THERE ARE CERTAINLY ONCE,
YOU KNOW -- DOWNTOWN, AND THE
LIKE. SO, YEAH, I DON'T KNOW
--
>> I CAN GET THAT ONLINE. AND
THAT AFTER THE PILOT, WOULD
COUNCIL HAVE TO TAKE ACTION TO
MAKE IT PERMANENT, OR TO EXTEND
THE PILOT? OR DOES IT
AUTOMATICALLY?
>> YEAH. THE PILOAUENDS THE PRO
IN 2030, OR UPON 20 PROJECTS
BEING BUILT.
>> AND THEN WE HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING, COUNCIL WOULD HAVE
TO TAKE ACTION TO MAKE IT
PERMANENT.
>> CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION?
>> THERE'S A NEW HAND.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
>> SO TWO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS
TO COUNCILMEMBER -- SORRY, [
CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ]
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA'S
QUESTION.
>> SO THOSE PROJECTS WOULD HAVE
BEEN COMPLETED FOR ONES THAT
HADN'T BEEN COMPLETED. UNDER
CONSTRUCTION MAY BE ABLE TO DO
THAT THROUGH A REVISION OF
THEIR ACTIVE PERMIT .
>> BUT THIS CODE AMENDMENT IS
ONLY FOR THE DOWNTOWN MIXED
RESIDENTIAL ZONE, SO IT IS ONLY
FOR PORTIONS OF BELLTOWN THAT
HAVE THAT ZONING. IT IS THE
MAYBE 20-BLOCK, 30-BLOCK AREA.
>> OKAY. SO IT IS LIMITED. WITH
ALL OF THE VARIOUS ADDITIONAL
WAYS TO STACK, IS THERE A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT CAP THAT WE CAN
SET? YOU CAN HAVE ALL THESE
OTHER ADDITIONAL ROOFTOP EXTRA
HEIGHT -- ET CETERA -- BUT WITH
ALL OF THAT YOU CANNOT GO ABOVE
X AMOUNT OF FEET .
>> THERE IS NOTHING IN CODE
THAT SETS A STACKING LIMIT, PER
SE. THERE WOULD BE ONE CONTROL
MAY BE IN THE DOWNTOWN FLIGHT
ZONE. SO THERE IS A MAXIM
RELATED TO THAT . YOU CAN BUMP
UP BEYOND THAT POINT, BUT AS
FAR AS THE CODE SETTING, YOU
CAN ONLY STACK THREE DIFFERENT
THINGS AND THEN YOU ARE
COMPLETE.
>> THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> YEAH. I THINK TO THAT POINT,
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, THAT IS A
GREAT CONVERSATION FOR NEXT
YEAR TO TALK ABOUT , WHAT ARE
THE MENU OF INCENTIVES THAT WE
HAVE ? WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS ON
DEVELOPMENT, PRICING, DENSITY .
I WILL SAY AS A DOWNTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD , KNOWING THAT
FAMILIES DO HAVE AN INTEREST IN
COMING DOWNTOWN, A PROJECT LIKE
THIS THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO
ACTUALLY CREATE THREE BEDROOMS
IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THE BLUR
INTERESTED IN SEEMS LIKE A GOOD
WAY TO GO. I THINK THERE IS AS
WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER TODAY A
LOT OF MAKING IT EASIER FOR
FAMILIES TO COME DOWNTOWN . ADD
MORE THAN JUST FAMILIES. IF
THERE ARE STUDIOS ONES AND TWOS
IN THIS PARTICULAR PRODUCT AS
WELL, I CAN IMAGINE THE
BELLTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD
BECOME MORE VIBRANT AND CREATE
THE KIND OF NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE
WE CAN REALLY INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO COULD
PURCHASE AT LOCAL RESTAURANTS,
LOCAL BUSINESSES, SUPPORTING
GROCERY STORE. SUPPORT MORE
CHILDCARE DOWNTOWN. I SEE THIS
AS A REAL OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO
BEGIN TO CREATE THE KIND OF
DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THE
MAYOR IS TALKING ABOUT AND THAT
WE KNOW GIVEN THE VACANCY RATES
THAT WE HAVE . IT IS KIND OF
ONE MORE TOOL FOR BEING ABLE TO
CREATE THE VIBRANCY WE ARE
LOOKING FOR DOWNTOWN. DO I SEE
ANY OTHER HANDS? I DON'T. NO.
OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION , SO I'M GOING TO
RECOMMEND -- I'M GOING TO MOVE
THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED
PASSAGE OF COUNCIL BILL 120833.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED. IF THERE IS NO
FURTHER DISCUSSION -- I DON'T
SEE ANYMORE HANDS -- OKAY, WILL
THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON PASSAGE OF COUNCIL BILL
120833?
>> [ ROLL BEING CALLED ]
>> THE MOTION CARRIES. THE BILL
WILL BE SENT TO THE DECEMBER
10th, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FOR A FINAL VOTE. OKAY. THAT IS
THE END OF OUR AGENDA . UNLESS
THERE IS ANY GOOD --
>> AS YOU KNOW, I WAS EXCUSED
FROM THIS MEETING, BUT I CHOSE
TO COME TODAY AS YOUR LAST
MEETING -- LAND-USE MEETING. I
WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO
OUR CITY. YOU AND I WERE BOTH
ELECTED IN 2020, EIGHT WEEKS
BEFORE THE PANDEMIC . FOR
COLLEAGUES, YOUR FIRST YEAR
HERE -- I MEAN, YOU WERE HERE
IN A DIFFERENT ROLE. BUT BEING
ELECTED AN OFFICIAL IS A
DIFFERENT SPACE. IN OUR FIRST
SIX MONTHS TOGETHER ,
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, WE FACED
A PANDEMIC, RECESSION,
CIVIL-RIGHTS RECKONING, AND
CIVIL UNREST. I'M SORRY THAT
THESE LAST 11 MONTHS HAVE BEEN
WORSE THAN THAT. I WAS REALLY
EXCITED TO GET UNDERWAY WITH
OUR WORK TOGETHER . AS YOUR
VICE CHAIR, I STAND READY TO BE
HERE FOR A SMOOTH TRANSITION.
SORRY. I HAVE SOME NOTES AND I
TOTALLY WENT OFF STRIPPED --
SCRIPT. REALLY THE POINT I'M
MAKING HERE IS I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. WE HAVE
GONE THROUGH SOME TOUGH TIMES
TOGETHER. WE DON'T ALWAYS
AGREE. AND THAT'S OKAY. JUST
WANTED TO SAY THANKS. I KNOW
THAT -- I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO
SEE WHAT YOUR NEXT CHAPTER HAS.
JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU.
>> IN QUEUE, COUNCILMEMBER . I
APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY. I THINK
WE ARE ADJOURNED . THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THE NEXT LAND-USE
COMMITTEE MEETING WILL BE A
SPECIAL MEETING ON THURSDAY,
JANUARY 30th, AT 2:00 P.M.
THANKS FOR BEING HERE,
EVERYONE. WE ARE ADJOURNED. ♪ ♪