>>> CHECKING ON YOUR FEED BEFORE
WE BEGIN.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, AWARD- WINNING
SEATTLE CHANNEL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
IT IS APRIL 16, 2025.
MEETING THE SELECT
MEETING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN HAD
COME TO ORDER.
IT IS 2:02 P.M.
I AM JOY HOLLINGSWORTH,
YOUR FAVORITE COUNCILMEMBER,
CHAIR OF
THE SELECT COMMITTEE. I KNOW MY
COLLEAGUES WOULD LIKE
THAT. WILL
THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE.
>> HERE AND I DO AGREE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
>> PRESENT AND AGREE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
>> PRESENT.
>>
COUNCILMEMBER --
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON.
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH.
>> THANK YOU.
OKAY.
WE WILL NOW CONSIDER
THE AGENDA -- EXCUSE
ME, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA AND
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON ARE
EXCUSED. WE WILL CONSIDER THE
AGENDA,
IF NO OBJECTIONS THE AGENDA WILL
BE
ADOPTED.
HEARING NONE, IT
IS ADOPTED. WITH THAT WE WILL
OPEN
THE HYBRID PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD.
PUBLIC KMONTS SHOULD BE
RELATED TO ITEMS ON TODAY'S
AGENDA IN THE PURVIEW OF THAT
COMMITTEE.
CLERK, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE
HAVE SIGNED UP?
>> 15 IN PERSON AND EIGHT
REMOTE.
>> AWESOME.
EVERYONE WILL GET ONE
MINUTE TODAY SO WE CAN JUMP INTO
OUR --
MR. TSIMERMAN, NOT TODAY,
PLEASE DO NOT BE DISRUPTIVE.
EVERYONE WILL GET ONE MINUTE.
WE ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE
PEOPLE 20 MINUTES
OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE
CONTINUE TO EXTEND IT
SO WE CAN GET THROUGH OUR
INTERIM
LEGISLATION AND HAVE PEOPLE
PUBLIC COMMENT, WE WILL DO ONE
MINUTE TODAY.
CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE
-- NOW I LOST
MY PLACE. THE
INSTRUCTIONS.
>> THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD WILL BE
MODERATED, I WILL CALL SPEAKERS
BY NAME IN THE ORDER
THEY REGISTERED AND FROM THE
SIGN UP SHEET IN COUNCIL
CHAMBERS.
WE START WITH IN PERSON
SPEAKERS FIRST.
IF YOU HAVE NOT REGISTERED TO
SPEAK, YOU CAN SIGN UP
BEFORE THE END OF THE
PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD. GO TO
THE COUNCIL'S WEBSITE OR BY
SIGNING UP ON THE
SIGN-UP SHEETS NEAR THE PUBLIC
COMMENTS
MICROPHONE. THE ONLINE LINK IS
ON TODAY'S
AGENDA. BEGIN BY SITTING YOUR
NAME AND ITEM YOU ARE
ADDRESSING.
SPEAKERS HEAR A CHIME WHEN
TEN
SECONDS ARE LEFT. IF SPEAKERS DO
NOT END AT THE
END OF THE ALLOTTED
TIME, THE
MICROPHONES WILL BE MUTED TO
ALLOW US TO CALL ON THE NEXT
PERSON.
>> AWESOME.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
I WILL CALL PEOPLE UP IN THREE.
WE HAVE MORGAN ROBINSON, WE
HAVE RUTH AND WE HAVE LARANT.
IF I SAID THAT CORRECTLY,
I APOLOGIZE IF I MESS UP
YOUR NAME.
MORGAN, RUTH, AND LARANT.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU
ARE TRYING TO GET THE
INTERIM LEGISLATION THROUGH
RATHER
QUICKLY TO MOVE ON
TO THE PHASE ONE LEGISLATION AND
NOT GET
BOGGED DOWN IN THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION.
I THINK THERE IS A
REAL RISK WITH THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION AS
IT STANDS.
SPECIFICALLY WHEN IT COMES
TO STEEP SLOPES, THE CURRENT
FORMULATION AROUND ECAs
WILL ALLOW FOR
CONSIDERABLE DEVELOPMENT IN
STEEP SLOPE ECAs
OF THE
VARIOUS KINDS. THE PROBLEM IF
YOU
TAKE AWAY THREE MONTHS LATER YOU
WILL
HAVE DEVELOPERS WHO SAY, HEY,
YOU
LET ME DO THIS AND NOW YOU
ARE TAKING AWAY AND SUBJECT
TO LAWSUITS AND THINGS.
I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER
THE AMENDMENT WE PROPOSED THAT
WOULD BLOCK STEEP SLOPE
DEVELOPMENT
IN ECAs BEFORE YOU ADOPT THE
INTERIM
LEGISLATION BECAUSE OTHERWISE
YOU HAVE
OPENED THE GATE AND TRY TO
CORRAL IT
BACK
IN. SO GOOD
LUCK GETTING THINGS THROUGH
QUICKLY ON
INTERIM
LEGISLATION. PLEASE
CONSIDER THAT NAEMT BEFORE THE
NEXT PHASE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MORGAN.
NEXT, WE HAVE RUTH
AND THEN LARANT.
>> I AM RUTH -- [ INAUDIBLE
].
>> IF YOU COULD USE THE
MICROPHONE.
>> RUTH -- REPRESENTING FRIENDS
OF QUEEN ANNE, FORMER
LANDSCAPER, ARCHITECT,
COMP PLANS AND GUIDELINES.
INSUFFICIENT --
>> ONE SECOND.
COULD WE RESTART THE
TIME? IF YOU COULD SPEAK IN THE
MIC.
YOU HAVE TO PULL IT TO
YOU.
>> OKAY.
RUTH REPRESENTING FRIENDS
OF QUEEN ANNE, RETIRED LAND USE
PLANNER, ARCHITECT,
WRITTEN BUSINESSES GUIDELINES.
WE ARE CONCERNED YOU HAVE
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO MAKE
YOUR DECISIONS.
I AM HOW INADEQUATE IT IS ON
UPPER QUEEN ANNE WHICH IS GOING
TO
BE NEARLY 1,000 LOTS UP TO NR.
AND 400% EXPANSION OF THE
BUSINESS DISTRICT YET
THE EIS FINDS IN SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT.
330 UNITS DEVELOPMENT
CAPACITY, NOBODY UNDERSTANDS IT,
PLANNING STAFF WON'T EXPLAIN
IT.
THIS IS IMPORTANT INNOVATION.
THEY SHOULD KNOW WE SHOULD HAVE
AND UNDERSTAND AFTER MONTHS
OF READING I UNDERSTAND IT.
PLEASE ASK STAFF TO EXPLAIN IN
CLEAR TERMS HOW THE ZONING WAS
DONE, INCLUDING ANY
STANDARD MEASURE TO DETERMINE
THE AMOUNT
OF EXCESS
ZONING NEEDED BEYOND
THAT GROWTH.
I CAN HELP YOU UNDERSTAND IT. IF
YOU DON'T -- THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, RUTH.
WE HAVE LAURENT AND DON SILLER
AND ALSO SUSAN FEDERER.
I APOLOGIZE IF I MESS UP YOUR
LAST
NAME.
>> LAWYER AUNT BERMAN, DISTRICT
7. THANK YOU FOR
HEARING US OUT
TODAY. REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
I WILL BE BRIEF.
FIRST I WANTED TO REITERATE
THE CONCERNS RAISED IN PRIOR
COMMENT
AROUND STEEP SLOPE DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE
CREATES AMBIGUITY THAT
CREATES POTENTIALLY PROBLEMS IN
THE FUTURE.
CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED
INTERIM LANGUAGE
AROUND SETBACKS AND WHAT THAT
WOULD DO TO TREES
IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS WE LIVE IN.
GENERALLY CONCERNS
ABOUT THE NORTHWEST STUDY THAT
WAS PUBLISHED ECONORTHWEST
BORDERING
ON MISLEADING AND INACCURATE
INFORMATION AROUND THE NUMBER OF
LOTS THAT NEED TO BE
DEVELOPED, NUMBER OF HOMES THAT
IT
WOULD REPRESENT USING A SUPPLY
RATHER
THAN DEMAND
NUMBERS. SO I WOULD PUSH US TO
REALLY
NOT CAUSE THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION
TO GO BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED
FOR
HB 1110 AND GIVE US THE TIME AS
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD AND
COMMUNICATE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
NEXT WE HAVE DON AND THEN SUSAN,
FOLLOWED BY NOT ALEX
TSIMERMAN
BUT ANOTHER ALEX. I CAN'T READ
THE LAST NAME.
>> MY NAME IS TSIMERMAN.
>> I'M DAWN SYLER, LIVE
ON QUEEN ANNE I WILL HL.
BY FRIENDS SCRAPED
ENOUGH MONEY TOGETHER TO BUY A
HOME IN
BALLARD. IT WAS THEIR LARGEST
INVESTMENT.
HOPING THAT THEY WOULD CASH IN
FOR RETIREMENT THEY RAISED
THEIR FAMILY, COACHED LITTLE
LEAGUE, PARTICIPATED IN
PTA, MARRIED SHARED IN
MARRIAGES IN -- WITH
THEIR NEIGHBORS.
THEY REMODELLED THEIR HOUSE AND
WATCHED THE VALUE GROW AND THEY
WERE PROUD OF THEIR HOME AND
NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT THEN A FUNNY
THING HAPPENED.
THE CITY UP ZONED
THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE
NEIGHBORHOOD STACK FLATS
FOURPLEXES AND
TOWNHOMES. THERE WAS NEVER
ENOUGH PARKING
SPACE, THE GREENERY
BECAME CONCRETE AND THE RENTERS
WERE
NO LONGER NEIGHBORS.
THEY WATCHED THE VALUE OF THEIR
HOME ERODE.
OPCD WANT TO APPLY
THAT SAME STANDARD TO QUEEN ANNE
HILL.
PLEASE DO NOT BALLARDIZE QUEEN
ANNE HILL -- [ INAUDIBLE ]
. WILL BE MAINTAINED.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
NEXT WE
HAVE SUSAN -- WAS THAT
SUSAN? YEAH.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
I AM SUSAN, I GREW AND LIVE IN
WEST SEATTLE WAY OF BALLARD.
PERTAINING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN I ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER
THE HARMFUL IMPACTS OF -- LEFT
OF OUR URBAN FOREST CANOPY
RELYING
ON PARKS AND PARKING STRIPS
STUNT ALLOW THE CITY TO REACH A
GOAL OF 30%.
HALF OF THE EXISTS TREES ARE
EXPERIENCING CLIMB CONDITIONS.
LESS ESTABLISHED
ROOT SYSTEMS
SUSCEPTIBLE TO EXTREME HEAT
EVENTS.
IT CONCERNS ME THEY ARE
APPROVING PERMITS FOR
THE REMOVAL OF MORE
THAN 350 DEGREES PER MONTH MORE
THAN 4,000 PER
YEAR WHICH MEANS THE AIR QUALITY
IS DEGRADED, HEALTH OF PUGET
SOUND IS SUFFERING.
ALL THOSE PRO LAWSUITENTS
HAVE NOWHERE TO
GO. AN EXAMPLE IS A GIANT HE IS
KWOI
TO ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK --
KNOWN FOR ABILITY TO
HANDLE DROUGHT AND PESTS.
RELEASED BACK INTO THE
ATMOSPHERE AT 60,000 POUNDS.
IRONICALLY SO THEY CAN INSTALL A
DRIVEWAY FOR A SINGLE FAMILY --
>> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE MR.
ALEX TSIMERMAN
FOLLOWED BY DAVID --
>> THANK YOU.
>> HI.
YEAH.
DIRTY NAZI FASCIST, I'M ALEX
TSIMERMAN. I SUPPORT -- A MAGA
MEMBER.
I HAVE 6,000 DAY
OF TRESPASS -- YOU EXECUTE ME
FIVE TIMES.
I AM STOOP ADD MAN AND
MY ENGLISH
NOT ENOUGH.
WHAT SELECTION?
SELECTION COMMITTEE.
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IN ENGLISH
IT IS MAYBE IN GERMAN AS I SPEAK
RUSSIAN OR -- SELECT MEANS WHEN
YOU HAVE 20, YOU SUPPOSED TO BE
CHOICE, FINE.
BUT YOU NOT SELECT.
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
IT'S NOT A
PROBLEM.
>> WHY?
BECAUSE MY PRESIDENT TRUMP
TALK ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU
DIRTY CROOKS REQUEST YOU DOING
THIS
BECAUSE THE 700,000 IDIOT --
WHAT IS
THEY TALKING? YEAH.
NOT CARE ABOUT THIS. YOU KNOW
THIS.
SO
TRUMP, AMERICAN REVOLUTION,
FREAKING --
>> THANK YOU.
AND FOR THE RECORD, MR.
TSIMERMAN, ALL I
ASK IS JUST
RESPECT. WHILE WE ARE TALKING,
JUST NO
OUTBURSTS. THAT WOULD BE GREAT
IF YOU
JUST DO ME THAT FAVOR AND SHOW
ME THE
SAME AMOUNT OF RESPECT I
SHOW YOU EVERY TIME YOU SHOW UP
TO
COUNCIL, OKAY? MR. DAVID GLOGER,
WELCOME.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM A
RESIDENT OF SEATTLE.
AS I IMAGINE MOST ARE AWARE, SIX
COMPLAINTS WERE FILED
AGAINST THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
FOR THE ONE SEATTLE
PLAN. NOW THESE COMPLAINTS HAVE
BEEN
DISMISSED BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL
ISSUES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE ISSUES.
ONE OF THESE COMPLAINTS NOTED
THAT THE EIS ASSUMEDASSUMED
THERE
WOULD BE 100,000 NEW HOUSING
UNIFORMS /-
UNITS BUILD UNDER THE
ONE SEATTLE PLAN.
HOW CAN WE KNOW THE IMPACT
TO SEATTLE IF WE BUILD THREE
TIMES THE NUMBER OF HOWSON UNITS
AS
STUDIED IN THE EIS?
THERE IS OTHER ISSUES LIKE
THE FACT THAT THERE
IS NO INFORMATION IN THE EIS
ABOUT
THE KILLER WHALES
AND THERE WERE
FOUR OTHER COMPLAINTS DISMISSED
OVER CAL TEASE.
THE CITY'S ATTORNEYS WERE
ABLE
TO GET THESE ISSUES DISMISSED
BUT THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES.
SO IT'S UP TO YOU COUNCILMEMBERS
TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES TO BUILD
AN ENVIRONMENTALLY STABLE CITY
THAT PROTECTS OUR TREES AND --
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
NEXT UP, WE HAVE JESSE SIMPSON
POLLEDGY JASMINE SMITH AND SANDY
SHET LERL.
WELCOME, MR. SIMPSON.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON,
COUNCILMEMBERS.
I AM JESSE SIMPSON
WITH THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CONSORTIUM.
EARLIER TODAY WE SENT YOU A
LETTER SIGNED BY OVER 60
ORGANIZATIONS,
INCLUDING AFFORDABLE DEVELOPERS,
BUSINESS, LABOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVOCATES ASKING TO ACT WITH
URGENCY
ON THE SEATTLE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND MAKE SPECIAL AMENDMENTS
TO STRENGTHEN THE MAYOR'S
PROPOSED ONE SEATTLE PLAN.
WE NEED TO CREATE
MORE FLEXIBILITY TO BUILD HOMES
IN SEATTLE TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS
OUR DEEP HOUSING SHORTAGE.
THE DISMISSAL OF THE
APPEALS OF THE FEIS CLEARS THE
WAY FOR
COUNCIL TO MAKE REAL
PROGRESS AND IT'S TIME TO
FOLLOW THROUGH BY APPROVING
THIS INTERIM ORDINANCE AND
ACTING TO ADOPT
A
BOLD FINAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
BEFORE THE SUMMER RECESS.
OUR LETTER OUTLINES
SPECIFIC ACTIONABLE AMENDMENTS
TO STRENGTHEN THE PLAN
LIKE EXPANDING
THE STACKED FLAT DENSITY BONUS,
CREATING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CITYWIDE AND
MORE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
IN LOW DISPLACEMENT HIGH
OPPORTUNITY
NEIGHBORHOODS- .
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT UP WE HAVE JASMINE SMITH.
WELCOME. FOLLOWED BY SANDY
SHETLER.
>> HI.
I'M JASMINE SMITH WITH FUTURE
WISE AND THE CO-CHAIR OF
THE COMPLETE COMMUNITIES
COALITION
AND AS JESSE POINTED OUT
REALLY THRILLED TO SEE THAT WE
HAVE CLEARED THE WAY TO CONTINUE
THIS WORK ON THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND BUILD ON WHAT WILL PLAY
--
A STRONG MODEL
ORDINANCE FOR HB 1110 AND GO
INTO ALL THE THINGS
THAT ARE GOING TO MAKE HOUSING
MORE AFFORDABLE, BUILD
WHAT WE NEED FOR OUR COMMUNITIES
ACROSS
THE CITY AND BUILD THOSE
CONNECTIONS FROM QUEEN ANNE TO,
SORRY, FROM QUEEN ANNE
TO COLUMBIA CITY AND
WHAT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT FOR
ALL OF US.
WHILE WE ARE MOVING THROUGH
THIS PROCESS, REALLY APPRECIATE
ALL
OF THE COLLABORATION
THAT'S HAPPENED ACROSS THE
DIFFERENT
LEVELS OF CITY
FROM THE -- OH, LEGISLATION AND
EVERYTHING
BETWEEN.
THANK YOU.
>> YOU'RE GOOD.
YOU STILL HAD TEN SECONDS.
THAT CHIME MEANT TEN
SECONDS. WE CAN
GIVE YOU BACK YOUR TEN
SECONDS? YOU SURE?
ALL RIGHT. OKAY.
>> I HAVE TO RUSH AND
ANYWAY, I WILL DO THE BEST I
CAN.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> HI, EVERYONE.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBERS.
I'M SANDY SHETLER WITH
TREE ACTION
SEATTLE. THANK YOU FOR INVITING
US TODAY
AND THANKS ESPECIALLY
TO COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF FOR THE
POWERPOINT WHICH NOTES THAT THIS
BILL
FAILS
TO ADDRESS THE ONGOING LOSS OF
SEATTLE'S TREES.
FEW REALIZE THAT
PRAUJS WITH FOUR UNITS PER LOT
ARE ALREADY
BEING BUILT IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES
UNDER THE
CURRENT SETBACKS AND
LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE IN
WEDGWOOD WHICH I WILL EMAIL TO
EACH OFOF
OFFICES.
RIGHT NOW THE FOURTH
SECTION -- FOURTH STRUCTURE IS
BUILD AS
A GARAGE AND UNHEATED
STORAGE SPACE UNDER THE CURRENT
CODE.
ONCE PASSED THESE WILL BE
COULDN'T VERTED TO
HOMES. BUILDERS ARE SHOWING US
THAT THEY CAN MEET HB 1110 AND
WORK
WITH EXISTING SETBACKS AND TREE
REQUIREMENTS. WHY COVER MORE
LAND THAN
COULD GROW TREES WITH PAVEMENT?
WE HOPE FOR STACKED FLATS AND
SPACE FOR TREES
IN OUR
ULTIMATELY VISION OF THE COMP
PLAN. FOR NOW WE SEEK TO --
>> THANK YOU, SANDY.
NEXT WE HAVE ROBERT REED
FOLLOWED BY JACKIE BOURHIS AND
THEN CHRIS.
HELLO, ROBERT.
>> COUNCILMEMBERS, THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY.
THANKS FOR BEING
HERE.
>> IF YOU COULD SPEAK
INTO THE MIC OR PULL IT TO YOU
SO WE
CAN
HEAR YOU A LITTLE BETTER.
>> WHAT ABOUT
NOW?
>> PERFECTO.
>> THANK YOU, JOY.
SO I'M BACK ONCE AGAIN TO
JUST SUPPORT THE TREE CANOPY
IN SEATTLE AND REMIND ALL OF
THE COUNCILMEMBERS ABOUT
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
WEBSITE
GREEN CITIES GOOD HEALTH.
AND THE
THOUGHT THAT SEATTLE COULD BE A
FOREST CITY.
WE'RE SO CLOSE IN SO MANY
NEIGHBORHOODS. IT'S NOT IN EVERY
NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT THE EFFECT THAT IT
WOULD
HAVE ON SEATTLE AS WHOLE IS
INCREDIBLE.
VERY SIMPLE WAY TO DO THIS WOULD
BE TO AMEND THE ONE SEATTLE PLAN
TO CHANGE THE GREEN
FACTOR SCORE FROM 0. 3 TO 1.30.
AND THE EFFECT THAT THAT
WOULD
HAVE ON DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE
AMAZING.
THANKS.
>> WHEN YOU HEAR THE
DING, YOU HAVE
TEN SECONDS LEFT. NEXT, JACKIE
FOLLOWED BY CHRIS.
>> HELLO.
>> HI.
DOES THIS WORK?
>> YES.
>> HI, I AM JACKIE BOURJOS AND
I REPRESENT PART OF THE
PEOPLE THAT ARE FRIENDS OF QUEEN
ANNE
AND I AM HERE TO SAY THAT
THE HB 1110 IS ENOUGH.
IT'S ENOUGH TO FOSTER
MIDDLE HOUSING IN SEATTLE.
IT IS OBVIOUS FROM ALL OF
THESE COMMENTS THAT WE ALL NEED
MORE TIME TO FULLY
UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF THE
INTERIM ORDINANCE,
ESPECIALLY PARTS THAT HAVE TO
DO WITH THE CALCULATIONS, THE
NUMBERS, THE SETBACKS, AND
THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION CHANGES
THAT WILL IMPACT LIVEABILITY AND
SAFETY.
ENVIRONMENTALLY
CRITICAL AREAS NEED TO BE TAKEN
CARE OF AS THEY
HAVE IN THE PAST TO AVOID
SLIDES.
IN CLOSING I WANT TO INVITE
ALL OF YOU TO VISIT THE AREAS
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT
ARE SO
OBVIOUSLY NOT READY FOR THESE
KINDS
OF CHANGES IN SPITE OF THE
FACT THAT WE ARE THOUGH
SUPPORTIVE OF HB 1110.
HB 1110 --
IS ENOUGH. THANK YOU.
>> THANK
YOU, JACKIE. CHRIS, WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR,
MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE.
I AM A LONG TIME RESIDENTS OF D3
AND
A LONG-TIME ASPIRING
HOMEOWNER. THE GRAYS OF MY BEARD
TELL
THAT STORY.
THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT
IS IN FRONT OF US TODAY IS A
STEP
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION BUT IT IS
ONLY A STEP. ONE THING THAT I
WANT
TO HIGHLIGHT ARE THE STILL
ONEROUS PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN
THE
INTERIM BILL, INTERIM ORDINANCE.
WE DON'T NEED TO IMAGINE
A CRAZY ALTERNATIVE TO ELIMINATE
PARKING IN THE CITY.
TURNS OUT MANY OF
THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WERE
BUILT BEFORE THE CAR CAME TO THE
CITY
HAVE SHOWN THAT
IMPACT WORKS
JUST FINE. WHEN YOU START
INCORPORATING
SETBACKS, LOT COVERAGE, AND
ALL OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS
WE'RE JUST SETTING OURSELVES UP
FOR
SHRINKING THE ABILITY TO
BUILD ON AVAILABLE LAND AND KEEP
THE
TREES AS WE TAKE UP MORE SPACE
FOR PARKING.
THERE IS PLENTY OF ON STREET
PARKING IN
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ZONES AND THERE
IS NO BETTER
WAY TO PROTECT TREE CANOPY THAN
TO
BETTER UTILIZE THE FWLUT OF
AVAILABLE STREET PARKING. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, CHRIS.
I DON'T SEE ANY GRAY IN YOUR
BEARD FROM HERE, SO YOU'RE GOOD.
ALL RIGHT.
WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO ONLINE
PUBLIC COMMENTERS.
I DO HAVE A LIST IN FRONT OF ME.
YOU WILL PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF. THE FIRST
PERSON WE HAVE ONLINE IS SUSAN
WARD FOLLOWED BY SCOTT
SURDIKE.
YOU ARE UP.
SUSAN, STAR 6 TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON,
COUNCILMEMBERS.
I REPRESENT THE
THORNTON NT CREEK ALLIANCE AND
SPEAKING TO THE INTERIM PROPOSAL
FOR THE
ONE SEATTLE PLAN.
WHERE THERE ARE CREEKS
AND WETLANDS DENSITY MUST BE
REDUCED NOT IN PROPORTION TO
THE PERCENTAGE OF THE LOSS
THAT CONTAINS ECAs BUT RESPECT
FOR REQUIRED BUFFER ZONES.
INTERIM
LEGISLATION MUST MAKE IT CLEAR
FOR THE HEALTH OF
WILDLIFE ECAs IN EVERY CASE MUST
BE TREATED AS REQUIRED AND SEPA
AND PROTECTED BY DEFINED [
INAUDIBLE ].
THE INTERIM PROPOSAL PUTS TREE
CANOPY UPON THE BACK BURNER.
REQUIRED SETBACKS SHOULD BE --
IMMEDIATELY NOT IN A YEAR.
FIVE AND TEN FOOT SETBACKS
AND THE 20 FOOT UNCOVERED
LAND MINIMUM WHICH ALLOWS PAVING
OVER IT WILL REMOVE -- EXISTING
THE TREES.
POPULAR WITH THE CROSS SECTION
BECAUSE THEY CREATE -- THAT
CAN BE PLACED SO AS TO PRESERVE
LARGE -- TREES.
TO ENSURE THIS RESULT WILL
OCCUR.
THE QUESTION OF WISDOM [
INAUDIBLE ] THAT THEY OFFER --
>> THANK YOU, SUSAN.
NEXT UP WE HAVE SCOTT. STAR 6 TO
UNMUTE YOURSELF.
>> HI, THIS IS SCOTT FROM
COMMUNITY ROOTS HOUSING
SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF CB 120948.
WE ARE IN THE
PROCESS OF BUILDING -- WE HAVE
OVER 43 TO
UNITS
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNDER
CONSTRUCTION THAT WE
HAVE OVER 700 UNITS IN THE
PLANNING
STAGES. SOME IN THE PLANNING
STAGES
ALMOST FIVE YEARS BECAUSE OF THE
EXTRAORDINARY CHALLENGES THAT
ARE OUR INDUSTRY IS FACING
WITH THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
WITH THE PANDEMIC AND WITH THE
INTEREST
RATES.
SO WE ARE IN THE PROCESS
TWO PROJECTS IN PARTICULAR
REPRESENT 350 UNITS, OF TRANSIT
STOPS
IN THE RAINIER
VALLEY. IF WE ARE FORCED
TO KPLOOI WITH THE 2021 RIGHT
NOW THEY
ARE VESTED UNDER THE 2015 CODE,
THAT
WILL ADD $6.9 MILLION TO
THE
COST OF THESE PROJECTS. WE
CANNOT TAKE -- WE ASK YOU TO
PLEASE MOVE THIS FORWARD SO THAT
WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITHWITH OUR
AND PROVIDE
MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE
CITY
OF SEATTLE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SCOTT. NEXT UP WE
HAVE
MARTHA BASKIN, STAR 6 TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF.
>> YES, CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> SURE CAN.
>> ALL RIGHT.
HELLO.
GOOD AFTERNOON. I'D LIKE TO
BRING TO YOUR
ATTENTION A FEW POINTS FROM CB
120969, THE INTERIM STATE ZONING
COMPLIANCE BILL PREPARED
BY
CENTRAL STAFF BECAUSE IT INFORMS
THE ORDINANCE RELANDING
TO THE -- ZONING
ORDINANCES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
TODAY.
IN A SECTION TITLED
DEVELOPMENT -- IMPACTS ON PAGE
26, CENTRAL
COUNCIL STAFF SAY THE COUNCIL
MAY WANT TO
CONSIDERCONSIDER CB 120969'S
PROPOSED INCREASES IN MAXIMUM
LOTLOT
COVERAGE WILL IMPACT
RETENTION WHETHER IT MEETS THE
COUNCIL RETENTION GOALS.
IT ALSO POINTS OUT
THAT CB 120969 SETBACKS
STRUCTURE
WITH HEIGHTS WILL IMPACT
THE FLEXIBILITY ALLOWED IN
THE CURRENT CODE TO RETAIN TREES
AND
WHETHER TO AMEND ANY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS RELATING TO AMENITY
AREAS.
THE CITY COUNCIL ARE
TASKED WITH REACHING 30% CANOPY
GOALS BY
2037 AS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN CB 120969 WILL -- THAT
GOAL LEAVING
A BARON CITY --
>> THANK
YOU, MARTHA. NEXT UP,
JOSHUA MORRIS. PRESS STAR 6 TO
UNMUTE YOURSELF.
>> I AM THE
CONSERVATION DIRECTOR FOR
SEATTLE
URBAN CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION
WITH
13,000 SUPPORTERS.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO REVIEW THE
LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE
TREE EQUITY NETWORK.
INCREASE PRESSURE ON
TREE REMOVAL HIGHLIGHTING
PRESERVING
AND CREATING CONTIGUOUS AREAS
FOR TREES DURING
DEVELOPMENT
MISSING FROM THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION AND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I WILL RESHARE THAT LETTER FOR
YOUR CONVENIENCE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK
YOU, JOSHUA. NEXT WE HAVE
SANJAY.
>> HI.
I'M SANJAY.
I'M A GRAD STUDENT,
A Ph.D. STUDENT AT UW, I LIVE ON
CAPITOL
HILL. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I
WOULD
LIKE TO SEE THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN GO MUCH FURTHER IN UPZONING
AND IN
PROMOTING DENSITY WITHIN THE
CITY OF SEATTLE.
I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT I
THINK IT GOOD THAT PARKING
REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING REMOVED
WITHIN
A HALF- MILE OF TRANSIT STOPS.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS GO
FURTHER, TO REMIND EVERYBODY
THAT SPACE FOR CARS AND ALSO THE
UNNECESSARY SETBACKS
THAT REMAIN IN THE PLAN
TAKE SPACE AWAY FROM BOTH
HOUSING AND ALSO FROM
TREES.
AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO JUST
TAKE THAT IN ORDER TO BUILD A
MORE LIVEABLE CITY, WE NEED TO
HAVE MORE HOUSING, WE
NEED IT TO BE -- AND IN
ORDER FOR HOUSING TO BE CHEAPER
IT NEEDS TO
BE MORE -- AND JUST TO
SAY PEOPLE IN MY GENERATION, THE
WORKING CLASS, WE CAN'T AFFORD
THESE
THINGS ANYMORE. WE NEED TO HAVE
MORE AVAILABLE.
>> THANK YOU,
SANJAY. NEXT WE HAVE DAVID
HAYNES.
>> THANK YOU. WE NEED LIVEABLE
AMENITY
SPACE, NOT ROADS TO
DRIVE THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS
WEAPONIZING TREE
ORDINANCES
TO DENY BETTER CHOICE IN
HOME. WE NEED A BUILD-OUT WITH
LESS RESTRICTIONS FOR HIGHER
LEVELS THAT GO BEYOND HB 1110.
WE CAN SAVE TREES BY BUILDING
HIGHER. IS IT
TRUE THAT THE MIDDLE HOUSING IS
ONLY ALLOWED TO GO
32 FEET HIGH?
THAT'S A TELL-TALE SIGN THERE
IS
A SABOTAGE WITHIN THE EFFORTS
TO UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY OF
THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE 21st
CENTURY FUTURE OF YOUNGER
GENERATIONS, MULTITUDES OF US.
WE NEED TO GET RID OF THE ONE
SEATTLE PLAN THAT'S TAINTED
IN RACIST POLICIES THAT WANT TO
SPREAD DISTRICT LOW QUALITY LOW
LEVEL INNER CITY MODERN THIRD
WORLD BUILDINGS AND SPREAD IT
AROUND ALL THE
NEIGHBORHOODS. WE NEED TO GO
BEYOND
THE BUILD- OUT OF THREE TO SIX
--
WE NEED TO HAVE INCENTIVES FOR
THE
DEVELOPERS INSTEAD OF PAYING
TO MHA FEE FUNDS THAT
HIRES UNQUALIFIED NON- PROFITS
THAT
ARE
UNDERMINING --
>> THANK YOU,
DAVID. NOW WE HAVE MEGHAN.
JUST PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE
YOURSELF.
CAN YOU HEAR US, MEGHAN?
JUST PRESS STAR 6.
>> THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS MEGHAN McKIERNAN.
I AM A NATIVE OF SEATTLE AND I
REALIZE THE
SUBJECT MATTER TODAY IS THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I HAVE A LITTLE DIGRESSION, BUT
BEGINNING WITH THE DEIS, IT IS
STATED THE
CITY'S TREE ORDINANCE WAS
UPDATED, IT'S
ANTICIPATED THAT THE UPDATES
WILL
DECREASE THE RATE OF CANOPY
LOSS ASSOCIATED WITH RESIDENTIAL
AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
IN FACT CURRENTCURRENT COLLECTED
SHOWS WE LOST OVER 2,000
TREES LAST YEAR, AND THIS YEAR
IN
THE FIRST THREE MONTHS
WE HAVE CUT DOWN 1253 DEGREES.
SHOULD THIS
RATE CONTINUE, SEATTLE STANDS TO
LOSE 5,000.
AMONG THESE TREES WILL VERY
LIKELY BE A 100-YEAR-OLD SEQUOIA
IN THE GREEN LAKE AREA.
I DON'T HAVE
THE TIME. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
IS
CONSIDERING
INTERIM LEGISLATION ON APRIL 21
AT --
>> THANK YOU, MEGHAN.
AND I DON'T KNOW, I
DON'T SEE ANY
OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTERS.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE ELSE SIGNED
UP.
SO THAT WILL OFFICIALLY CLOSE
OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR
COMING OUT FOR SPEAKING TODAY.
JUST A REMINDER, WE ARE
ALSO GOING TO HAVE MORE
PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES AS
WE
CONTINUE WITH
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THEN
A PUBLIC
HEARING THAT÷÷THAT STATE LATER
ON DURING
THE TIME WHICH WE WILL BE
HERE TO LISTON TO PEOPLE'S
COMMENTS AS WELL.
I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE
COUNCILMEMBERS. A LOT OF PEOPLE
HAVE
BEEN MEETING WITH FOLKS.
A LOT OF FOLKS HAVE ALSO BEEN
OUT ON NEIGHBORHOOD WALKS AS
WELL. THERE IS ALSO BEEN A TON
OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE HAD
INDIVIDUAL
MEETINGS AS WELL.
AND SO WE ARE
EXTREMELY ACCESSIBLE AND
AVAILABLE
TO TALK TO PEOPLE,
ESPECIALLY ONE-ON-ONE, AND
CONNECT
WITH FOLKS REGARDING SOME OF
THEIR ISSUES OR IDEAS THAT THEY
MIGHT HAVE OR WHATEVER IT IS.
I KNOW THAT OUR OFFICE IS REALLY
ACCESSIBLE AND I KNOW THAT
THE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS AND I
WANT
TO THANK THEM, I KNOW THAT
YOU ALL HAVE DONE YOUR DUE
DILIGENCE IN OUR DISTRICTS AND
CONTINUE
TO
BE THE FRONT PORCH OF THIS. SO
THANK YOU.
SO NEXT I ALSO WANTED
TO HIGHLIGHT THAT
MOST OF YOU HAVE ALSO HEARD THAT
LAST FRIDAY
THE HEARING EXAMINER DISMISSED
THE REMAINING APPEALS.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
THAT MEANS THAT THE SELECT
COMMITTEE IS ABLE TO
RESUME LEGISLATION MOVING
FORWARD.
THAT BEING SAID WE ARE GOING TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PASSING OF
THE
INTERIM LEGISLATION IN TAKING ON
SOME OF THESE ELEMENTS
WITH HB 1110 SO THAT WE CAN
MEET THE
STATE'S DEADLINE, WHICH IS JUNE
30th FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
AS A REMINDER, HB 1110 IS A
STATE MANDATED LEGISLATION TO
CREATE MISSILE -- I DON'T KNOW
WHERE THAT WORD CAME FROM,
MISSILE MIDDLE HOUSING.
I COMBINED MISSING AND MIDDLE
TOGETHER.
A NEW WORD.
AFTER WE PASS INTERIM
LEGISLATION FOR HB 1110, THEN
IT'S PHASE ONE OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND THAT IS
PERMANENT LEGISLATION FOR HB
1110, SO ÷÷THERE IS A LOT OF
DIFFERENT LAYERS THAT WE HAVE
TO SQUUGLE DURING THIS PROCESS
BECAUSE
OF THE TIMELINE BEFORE THE STATE
LEGISLATION.
I ALSO WANT -- OR STATE MANDATE
DEADLINE.
I ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT WE HAVE
A PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT IS
MONDAY, MAY 19th, BEGINNING
AT 9:30 A.M.
SO THAT IS MONDAY, MAY
19th, BEGINNING AT
9:30 A.M. WE ARE GOING TO BE
RELEASINGRELEASING INFORMATION
SOON
ON THE TIMING FOR VIRTUAL AND
IN-
PERSON PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS
DATE.
SO PLEASE CHECK THE
CLERK'S WEBSITE
FOR THIS NEW INFORMATION AS WE
PLAN FOR THIS.
THE TOPIC FOR THIS
PUBLIC HEARING ARE THE
AMENDMENTS
TO THE INTERIM
HOUSE BILL 1110 LEGISLATION.
SO THIS PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT
BE ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS FOR THE
INTERIM LEDGE STATION
FOR HOUSE BILL 1110.
EVERY LEDGE STATION WE HAVE
IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A PUBLIC
HEARING DURING THAT PROCESS.
WE ARE MANDATED TO
POST AMENDMENTS
FOR 30 DAYS. SO YOU ALL CAN GET
THOSE
AND SOSO THAT'S WHY IT IS ON
MAY 19.
WE
ARE JUGGLING A LOT OF THINGS
HERE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF LOGISTICS,
A LOT OF DIFFERENT
KPOEN TOENTS
THIS. AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING
THAT WE HAD EARLY ONON 5th,
DUE TO THE SEVERE WEATHER, OUR
OFFICE MADE THE PROMISE
TO HONOR THE SPEAKING ORDER OF
THOSE NOT
ABLE TO SPEAK AT THE END.
MEETING AND WE WILL
UPHOLD THAT AS WE HAVE COMBED
THROUGH EVERYONE WHO WROTE
DOWN THEIR NAME ON THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD OR ON THE
SHEETS AND ONLINE AND TO MAKE
SURE THAT
WE CONTINUE THAT
PROS FORWARD BECAUSE I KNOW
THERE WERE
CONCERNED PEOPLE AND ALSO
COUNCILMEMBERS BROUGHT THAT UP
AS WELL.
THIS IS DUE TO THE
SEVERE WEATHER THAT WE HAD TO
SHORTEN
THAT TIME. SO I JUST WANTED TO
THROW THAT OUT THERE.
SO, TODAY,
AND YOU ALREADY MADE YOUR WAY UP
TO THE TABLE,
OUR FAVORITE CENTRAL STAFF.
REORIENTING US TO THE
INTERIM LEGISLATION TODAY,
OUR WONDERFUL CENTRAL STAFF.
THEY WILL BE PRESENTING ON THE
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR
INTERIM LEGISLATION FOR HOUSE
BILL 1110 AS WE DELIBERATE
ON SOME AMENDMENTS.
WILL THE CLERK READ ITEM ONE
INTO THE AGENDA?
>> CB 120969 LAND USE ANDAND
IMPLEMENTING CONTROLS TO
COMPLY WITH LAWS, ESTABLISHING
FINDINGS
AND ADOPTING A WORK
PLAN FOR
PERMANENT LEGISLATION FOR
BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION.
>> FOR THE RECORD,
PLEASE PRESENT YOURSELF,
INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND THEN
YOU CAN JUMP
INTO YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
[ INAUDIBLE ].
>> JENNIFER
LABRECQUE.
>> ASHA VENKATARAMAN, COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF.
>> THANK YOU, AS THE CHAIR
MENTIONED, TODAY WE ARE GOING TO
DIVE INTO CB 120969 THE
EXECUTIVE
PROPOSE INTERIM
LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STATE LAWS.
HOUSE BILL 1110 AND A SECOND
BILL WHICH AMENDED HOUSE BILL
1110 .
HOUSE BILL 1293 RELATED TO
DESIGN
STANDARDS, SENATE BILL 6015
RELATED
TO OFF-STREET PARKING AND HOUSE
BILL 1287
RELATED TO ELECTRICAL VEHICLE
CHARGING IN NEW DEVELOPMENT.
CB 120969 IS
DRAFTED AS INTERIM LEGISLATION,
WHICH
MEANS IT WILL BE IN EFFECT FOR
ONE YEAR.
WITHIN WHICH TIME WE EXPECT THAT
THE COUNCIL WILL BE
ADOPTING PERMANENT LEGISLATION
THAT WILL
COMPLETELY REPLACE COUNCIL BILL
120969.
AS YOU LOOK AT PERMANENT
LEGISLATION, IT WILL BE
A NEW
BILL THAT WOULD BE REPLACING
THIS BILL.
THIS
IS INTERIM SORT OF STOPGAP BILL.
REQUIRES SEATTLE TO ALLOW AT
LEAST SIX OF NINE MIDDLE
HOUSING TIMES IN RESIDENTIAL
AREAS.
WE HAVE BEEN OVER THESE
BEFORE. CB 120969 WOULD ALLOW
ALL
NINE OF THESE HOUSING TYPES OF
IT INCLUDES A DEFINITION OF
MIDDLE HOUSING THAT GOES BEYOND
THE NINE HOUSING TYPES
INCLUDED IN HOUSE BILL 1110.
IT SAYS THAT STRUCTURES
LESS THAN 32 FEET TALL THAT HAVE
ANY ONE OF
THESE USES ARE CONSIDERED MIDDLE
HOUSING.
CARRIAGE HOUSES, RESIDENTIAL
HOUSES, ADULT HOUSING ARE
TYPES OF HOUSING NOT INCLUDED
IN HOUSE BILL 1110 BUT WOULD
BE
CONSIDERED MIDDLE HOUSING UNDER
COUNCIL BILL 120969.
THE
ONLY APPLICABILITY OF THIS
DEFINITION IN THE BILL
IS PARKING.
SO WITHIN THE HALF- MILE OF
A MAJOR TRANSIT STOP PARKING
WOULD
NOT BE REQUIRED FOR THESE MIDDLE
HOUSING TYPES AND
BICYCLE PARKING WOULD ALSO
NOT BE REQUIRED FOR THESE
MIDDLE HOUSING TYPES.
COUNCILMEMBERS MENTIONED
AN INTEREST IN SUPPORTING
STACKED
FLATS, BASICALLY APARTMENTS
THAT ARE
CONDOMINIUMS, RESIDENTIAL UNITS
STACKED ON TOP OF
EACH OTHER.
AS OF NOW, THE MAJORITY OF
UNITS
IN SEATTLE ARE COULD BE STANDARD
STACKED FLATS.
BUT THEY ARE TYPICALLY IN MUCH
LARGER BUILDINGS,
FIVE, SIX
STORIES OR 40 OR 50 STORIES
DOWNTOWN.
IN ITS ANALYSIS OF
THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION THAT THE MAYOR
RELEASED LAST
FALL WHICH INCLUDED AN INCENTIVE
FOR STACKED FLATS,
ECONORTHWEST
DETERMINED THAT THEY ARE LESS
LIKELY TO BE BUILT THAN
OTHER REAL HOUSING TYPES DUE TO
THEIR
INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
ONCE YOU START STACKING UNITS
ON TOP OF EACH OTHER, YOU
ARE KICKED INTO THE BUILDING
CODE RATHER THAN THE RESIDENTIAL
CODE, AND THE STANDARDS FOR
DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE BUILDING
CODE, PARTICULARLY
FIRE, LIFE SAFETY ARE HIGHER.
AND THEN IF IT'S
AN OWNER- OCCUPIED UNIT, IT
REQUIRES DESIGNATION AS A
CONDOMINIUM OR
A CO-OP.
CURRENTLY INSURANCE COSTS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CONDOMINIUMS
ARE
HIGHER THAN FOR OTHER
HOUSING TYPES.
AND THE COMBINATION OF
THOSE INCREASED COSTS FOR
STACKED
FLATS MAKE IT LESS LIKELY
THAT
STACKED FLATS WOULD BE DEVELOPED
UNDER THAT MODEL CODE.
HOWEVER, THEY ALSO FOUND THAT IF
BUILT, STACKED FLATS UNDER THAT
CODE WOULD BE LESS
EXPENSIVE
THAN NEW SINGLE FAMILY OR
TOWNHOUSE UNITS.
THE DRAFT BILL THAT THE
MAYOR RELEASED LAST FALL AND
THAT
PROBABLY WILL BE CARRIED FORWARD
TO THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION THAT YOU WILL BE
CONSIDERING
LATER THIS YEAR INCLUDED
AN INCENTIVE FOR STACKED FLATS
THAT
HAD AN INCREASED FLOOR AREA
RATIO AND DOUBLED THE
DENSITY FROM TYPICAL MIDDLE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
DRAFT BILL, BUT THE
COUNCIL COULD INCREASE THE FLOOR
AREA RATIO AND I THINK
PROBABLY INCREASE THE DENSITY
LIMIT FOR
STACKED FLATS UNDER THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION THAT'S IN FRONT OF
YOU.
WHICH COULD
INCENTIVIZE THE DEVELOPMENT OF
SOME STACKED FLAT
PROJECTS, ALTHOUGH AS
THE
ECONORTHWEST SAID, IT WILL BE A
CHALLENGE.
AND PROBABLY THESE UNITS
WOULD BE LARGER AND MORE
EXPENSIVE THAN THE TYPES THAT
WE'RE
ANALYZING UNDER THE ECONORTHWEST
STUDY.
COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE ALSO
ASKED FOR STRATEGIES TO SUPPORT
LEGACY HOMEOWNERS STAYING IN
THEIR
HOMES, PARTICULARLY WITH AREAS
OF HIGH DISPLACEMENT AND
NOTE THAT THE COUNCIL DID FUND
WORK
TO SUPPORT HOMEOWNERS
STABILIZATION SERVICES
IN COMMUNITIES
AT HIGH RISK OF DISPLACEMENT IN
THE BUDGET
PROCESS LAST YEAR.
ONE MODEL THAT YOU MAY WANT TO
LOOK AT IN TERMS OF INCENTIVES
FOR LEGACY HOMEOWNERS IS OUR
ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT REGULATIONS THAT
PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY THAT
SUPPORTS THE
CREATION OF ACCESSORY
DEVELOPMENT UNITS.
ADDITIONAL UNITS ON THE LOT WITH
AN EXISTING HOUSE.
THEY ARE NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMIT
SO YOU COULD BUILD AN
ADU ON TOP OF MAXING OUT THE
PRINCIPAL DWELLING UNIT'S
DENSITY.
THEY DON'T REQUIRE STREET
IMPROVEMENTS IF YOU ADD IN ADU.
YOU CAN ADD DETACHED ADUs
IN WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE
BE REAR
YARDS. ADUs ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE
PARKING AND
THE CITY HAS SUPPORTED THE
DEVELOPMENT OF
PRE- APPROVED DESIGNS FOR ADUs
SO THAT A PROPERTY OWNER CANCAN
GO
THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT
OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS
WITH A PLAN
THAT THEY KNOW WILL PASS PERMIT
REVIEW.
IN ADDITION TO THE PROVISIONS
ABOUT MIDDLE
HOUSING, HOUSE BILL 1110
REQUIRES THAT THE
CITY INCREASE THE DENSITY OF
DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED ON OUR
RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
AND DENSITY IS CONSIDERED IN TWO
DIFFERENT WAYS.
FIRST IS THROUGH DENSITY LIMITS,
WHICH ARE CALCULATED EITHER
BY THE NUMBER OF UNITS PERMITTED
ON A LOT OR THE SQUARE FEET
OF LOT AREA PERMITTED PER UNIT.
SO UNDER THE SECOND IF YOU
HAVE LIKE A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT
LOT, IT WILL SAY THAT YOU CAN
HAVE FOUR
UNITS. YOU CAN HAVE ONE UNIT
PER 1250 SQUARE FEET, SO
YOU CAN HAVE
FOUR UNITS ON THAT 5,000 SQUARE
FOOT PLAT.
DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IS ALSO
MANAGED THROUGH FLOOR AREA RATIO
LIMITS
WHICH ARE THE RATIO OF
SQUARE FOOT OF SPACE WITHIN A
STRUCTURE TO THE LOT AREA.
SO A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING
ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT
HAS 0.5 F.A.R. BECAUSE OF THIS
HALF OF THE LOT AREA, 6,000
SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON A 5,000
SQUARE FOOT LOT HAS 1. 2 F.A.R.
AND SO
THAT'S THE RANGE OF
DENSITIES THAT YOU ARE
CONSIDERING UNDER
CURRENT ZONING AND COUNCIL BILL
120969.
UNDER OUR CURRENT ZONING AND
COUNCIL BILL 120969 THERE IS
A MINIMUM LOT AREA PROVIDED
FOR
THE DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES THAT
RANGES FROM ONE UNIT PER 9,600
SQUARE
FEET IN OUR LEASE DENSE ZONE UP
TO ONE UNIT PER 2,000
SQUARE FEET IN A RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT
ZONE.
THERE
ARE PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW FOR
FLEXIBILITY IN AREAS
WHERE YOU HAVE LOT SIZES THAT
ARE SMALLER THAN THESE
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
AND THAT ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE AREAS AS
WELL.
COUNCIL BILL
120969 INCLUDES DENSITY LIMITS,
LIMITS ON
THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON A LOT.
THESE COMES
FROM HOUSE BILL
1110. I THINK YOU ARE ALL AWARE
OF
THEM.
THE BILL INCLUDES EXCEPTIONS FOR
LOTS WITH ENVIRONMENTALLY
CRITICAL AREAS, IN PARTICULAR
RIPARIAN CORRIDORS, WETLANDS
AND WETLAND BUFFERS.
SUBMERGED LANDS AND AREAS
WITHIN THE SHORELINE SETBACK AND
IN LOTS WITH THESE
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL
AREAS, YOU COULD STILL BUILD
HOUSING,
BUT YOU ARE -- THE
NUMBER OF UNITS YOU CAN BUILD IS
REDUCED.
IT'S REDUCED BY THE PERCENTAGE
OF THE LOT AREA THAT IS IN THESE
ECAs.
SO IF HALF OF YOUR LOT IS IN AN
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL
AREA, THE NUMBER
OF UNITS YOU CAN BUILD IS
HALVED.
UNDER THE BILL FLOOR AREA
RATIO LIMITS ARE DETERMINED
BASED
ON HOW MANY
UNITS, BASED ON THE UNIT DENSITY
ON YOUR LOT.
SO IF YOU HAVE ONE UNIT
ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, A
TYPICAL SINGLE- FAMILY HOUSE
UNDER
TODAY'S ZONING, YOU HAVE A
FLOOR
AREA RATIO OF 4.6 A SLIGHT
INCREASE OF THE 0.5 YOU HAVE TO
TODAY. IF YOU HAVE FOUR UNITS ON
THE
LOT, YOU HAVE A FLOOR AREA
RATIORATIO 1.2.
DOUBLE THE FLOOR AREA IF YOU
HAVE MORE UNITS ON YOUR LOT.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE NOT
COUNTED TOWARDS THESE FLOOR AREA
RATIO UNIT LIMITS.
SO YOU CAN BUILD TWO ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS THAT ARE 1,000
SQUARE FEET EACH ON TOP OF THESE
FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMITS.
AND UNDER THE BILL
ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS ARE COUNTED
TOWARDS THE MAXIMUM DENSITY
LIMIT.
THERE IS A SEPARATE BILL
THAT'S CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH
THE
LAND USE COMMITTEE THAT WOULD
NOT
COUNT
ADUs TOWARDS THE UNIT DENSITY
LIMIT.
SO THERE
IS A LITTLE TENSION BETWEEN THE
TWO BILLS.
WE EXPECT THAT 1200949 WILL BE
ADOPTED BEFORE
COUNCIL BILL 120969, AND WILL BE
COMING
IN WITH AMENDMENTS TO RECONCILE
THE TWO LEGISLATIONS AS
AMENDMENTS
TO THIS COUNCIL BILL 120969.
ONE ISSUE IS THE CODE ALLOWS A
MINIMUM OF 2,500 SQUARE FEET
FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES, NO MATTER HOW SMALL THE
LOT IS, PROVIDED
IT MEETS
THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR A
DEVELOPABLE LOT.
THAT
PROVISION IS NOT IN COUNCIL BILL
120969.
SO TAKING AN EXAMPLE OF A 3750
SQUARE FOOT LOT IN OUR THREE
ZONE, WHICH IS THE SMALLEST
LOT IN THAT ZONE, IT'S BELOW
THE
ONE UNIT PER 5,000 SQUARE
FOOT LIMIT, UNDER TODAY'S CODE
YOU COULD BUILD A PRINCIPAL
UNIT 2,500 SQUARE FEET UNDER THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION YOU COULD
BUILD A UNIT THAT IS
2250 SQUARE
FEET. IN EITHER CASE YOU WOULD
BE ALLOWED TO BUILD TWO
ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS ON TOP OF
THE LOT AREA -- OR THE FLOOR
THAT THAT
YOU ARE PERMITTED.
ANOTHER THING TO CONSIDER AND
MAYBE CONSIDER WITH
PERMANENT LEGISLATION, THERE ARE
DIFFERENT ROUNDING STANDARDS
DEPENDING ON
THE ZONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THIS WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE
MARGINS, PROJECTS THAT ARE JUST
BELOW, FOR EXAMPLE, 5,000
SQUARE FEET OR JUST BELOW 10,000
SQUARE FEET IN OUR THREE ZONE
WOULD
ONLY BE ABLE TO BUILD ONE UNIT,
WHEREAS TODAY THEY MIGHT BE ABLE
TO BUILD
TWO USING A MORE STANDARD
ROUNDING CONVENTION.
AND I WILL HAND IT OVER TO
ASHA SO YOU CAN STOP LISTENING
TO ME
BLABBER ON.
>>
GOOD AFTERNOON,
COUNCILMEMBERS. AS YOU SEE, I'LL
BE TALKING TO
YOU ABOUT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
THAT ARE PROPOSED IN COUNCIL
BILL 120969.
THE BILL DOES PROPOSE
TO REGULATE A VARIETY
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
WE TALKED ABOUT DENSITY AND
FLOOR AREA RATIO.
THIS TALKS WITH STRUCTURE HEIGHT
SETBACKS AND YARDS LOT IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES, LOWRISE
ZONES. THESE STANDARDS ARE
INTENDED TO
BALANCE BUILT SPACE WITH
OPEN SPACE AND ENSURE THAT IT IS
CREATING A SPECIFIC
AESTHETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CHARACTERISTIC THAT ALLOWS FOR
LIGHT AIR
AND SPACE BETWEEN
STRUCTURES AND BETWEEN
STRUCTURES AND THE
RIGHT OF WAY.
BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
HB 1110 INCREASED DENSITY
ON LOTS CURRENTLY ZONED FOR
FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL USE, THIS
COUNCIL BILL RESULTS -- EXCUSE
ME, THIS COUNCIL BILL DOES
CHANGE
THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
TO ACCOMMODATE SPACES THAT
NOW WILL HAVE A HIGHER DENSITY
OF UNITS.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS TALKS ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES
THE HEIGHT LIMITS COMPARED
IN TERMS OF WHAT IS IN THE
CURRENT CODE COMPARED
TO WHAT IS IN
COUNCIL BILL 120969 AND THE
MODEL CODE.
FOR YOU CAN SEE
FOR THE MOST PART, THE CURRENT
CODE HAS
A MUCKS MUM HEIGHT LIMIT
OF 30 FEET IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
COUNCIL BILL 120969 WOULD
PROPOSE TO INCREASE THAT
MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 32 FEET PLUS
THE HEIGHT OF A PITCHED ROOF.
THE MODEL CODE PRIMARILY APPLIES
TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT
ZONES, BUT RECOMMENDS A 35 FOOT
MAXIMUM
HEIGHT PLUS THE PITCHED ROOF.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
YARD LIMITS IN
CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
AND
RSL ZONES YOU WILL SEE ON THE
NEXT
SLIDE THEY ARE REFERRED
TO AS SETBACK LIMITS.
THAT'S JUST A TERMINOLOGY
ISSUE, YARDS ARE PRIMARILY
REFERRED TO
IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AND
RSL ZONES.
AS YOU SEE, THEY ARE THE CURRENT
LIMITS IN AN R ZONES FOR FRONT,
REAR, SIDE AND GARAGES
DIFFER FROM BOTH WHAT THE CODE
SAYS FOR RSL ZONES AS
WELL AS FOR WHAT IS PROPOSED IN
COUNCIL BILL 120969.
THEY WOULD IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES,
THE FRONT
AND REAR YARDS REQUIREMENTS
WOULD GENERALLY BE REDUCED IN
THE FRONT YARDS CURRENTLY THE
STANDARD IS THE LESSER OF EITHER
20 FEET ORT AVERAGE OF
THE ADJACENT SINGLE-
FAMILY STRUCTURES ON EACH SIDE.
RSL ZONES CURRENTLY ARE
LIMITED TO TEN FEET AND
COUNCIL BILL 120969 WOULD ALSO
REQUIRE A
TEN- FOOT YARD
LIMIT. THE MODEL CODE AS YOU SEE
DOES
REFER TO A 15-FOOT LIMIT
EXCEPT FOR 10 FEET WITH
LOTS OF THE UNIT DENSITY OF
THREE OR MORE
AM THE MEMO PROVIDES
THE COMPARISON, SO I WON'T GO
THROUGH THE REAR,
SIDE AND
GARAGES FOR EACH OF THE ZONES,
BUT YOU SEE IN GENERAL THERE
IS EITHER A DECREASE IN THE
YARD
LIMIT OR IT'S STAYING THE SAME
THE RSL ZONES.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
FOR IN TERMS OF SETBACK
LIMITS, THIS APPLIES IN
LR ZONES. FOR AS YOU SEE IN THE
CURRENT
CODE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT LIMITS
FOR THE DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF
HOUSING. THINGS LIKE COTTAGE
HOUSING AND
TOUCHDOWNS, ROW HOUSES
AND APARTMENTS DIFFERENT
REQUIREMENTS.
WHAT COUNCIL BILL 120969
WOULD DO WOULD STANDARDIZE EACH
OF THOSE REGARDLESS OF THE TIME
OF HOUSING BEING
BUILT. SO IT WOULD MOVE TO A
SYSTEM
IN WHICH ANY FRONT SETBACK WOULD
BE A SEVEN FOOT AVERAGE WITH A
FIVE
FOOT MINIMUM, REAR SETBACK
A SEVEN FOOT AVERAGE WITH A
FIVE FOOT MINIMUM IF IT ABUTS
AN ALLEY WITH ZERO
FOOT MINIMUM WITH AN ALLEY AND
SIDE
SETBACKS YOU WOULD BE AT FIVE
FEET
PROPOSED IN COUNCIL BILL 120969.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
FOR LOT COVERAGE THE
EXISTING LOT COVERAGE
IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES DEPENDS.
LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE
FEET, YOU ARE LOOKING AT
A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE
OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET PLUS 15% OF
THE LOT AREA.
AND FOR A LOT
WITH 5,000 OR MORE SQUARE FEET
THE STANDARD WOULD
BE 35%.
COUNCIL BILL 120969
WOULD INCREASE MAXIMUM LOT
COVERAGE TO
50% REGARDLESS OF THE LOT SIZE.
IN RSL ZONES THAT STANDARD WOULD
REMAIN UNCHANGED AT 50%.
AND I
HAVE PROVIDED WHAT THE MODEL
CODE PROPOSED,
WHICH IS A SLIGHTLY VARYING
AMOUNT
OF MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE
DEPENDING
ON THE DENSITY.
SO A HIGHER LOT COVERAGE FOR
UNITS, EXCUSE ME, LOTS WITH SIX
UNITS SLIGHTLY WER.
FOR STRUCTURE WIDTH THIS
IS PRIMARILY AFFECTING LR ZONES.
SO CURRENTLY -- AND JUST A QUICK
CORRECTION. WHAT IS UP ON THE
SLIDE
RIGHT NOW÷÷ APPLIES LR 1 AND
LR-2 ZONES.
CURRENTLY
NO STRUCTURE FOR COTTAGE AND ROW
HOUSING, 60 FOOT
MAXIMUM WIMBLEDONING FOR
TOWNHOUSES AND 45 230R
APARTMENTS. LR 3 ZONES IT'S
SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT. THE CURRENT CODE DOES
NOT HAVE
A LIMIT ON WIDTH FOR COTTAGE
AND ROW HOUSES SIMILAR TO THE LR
1 AND 2 ZONES BUT
FOR TOWNHOUSES AND APARTMENTS
OUTSIDE OF URBAN
VILLAGES, CENTERS OR STATION
OVERLAY DISTRICTS THE MAXIMUM IS
120 FEET AND FOR TOWNHOUSE AND
APARTMENTS INSIDE THOSE HOUSES
IT'S 150 FEET.
IN COUNCIL BILL 120969 WOULD
CHANGE THAT MAXIMUM TO 90 FEET
REGARDLESS OF STRUCTURE TYPE
IN LR 1 AND 2 ZONES AND WOULD
BE UP TOP 150 FEET IN LR 3
ZONES.
SO FOR SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT
ARE LAID OUT ON THIS SLIDE
HERE, THE FIRST IS ABOUT THE
IMPACT
MUCH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON
MIDDLE HOUSING GENERALLY.
SO IN GENERAL THE COUNCIL
CAN CONSIDER
WHETHER TO TAKE ACTIONS LIKE
ADDING BONUSES TO
THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF
HOUSING THAT
IT WANTS TO SEE MORE OF.
FOR EXAMPLE, COUNCIL BILL 120969
INCREASES MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN
NR ZONES FROM 30 TO 32 FEET
WITH AN ALLOWANCE FOR PITCHED
ROOFS.
THE COUNCIL HAS THE OPTION
OF INSTEAD USING SOMETHING LIKE
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PROPOSED IN
THE MODEL CODE AT 35 FEET, SO
THAT INCREASE IN ALLOWABLE
HEIGHT
OF THAT ADDITIONAL THREE FEET
COULD BE USED AS A BONUS FOR THE
TYPES OF HOUSING THAT THE
COUNCIL WANTS TO SEE.
SIMILARLY, THAT COULD BE THE
CASE FOR ANY OF THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT
SPECIFIC TO THE TYPES
OF HOUSING
THAT THE COUNCIL WANT TO SEE
MORE OF.
THE SECOND TWO QUESTIONS RELATE
TO TREE
RETENTION. AS WE'VE JUST
DISCUSSED, THE
INCREASES IN COUNCIL BILL 120969
ON MAXIMUM LOT
COVERAGE, STRUCTURE ITEMS,
ADJUSTED YARD
SIZES, IN ADDITION TO
THE DENSITY AND F.A.R. CHANGES,
ALL OF THOSE CHANGES WILL ALTER
THE FOOTPRINT OF BUILDINGS
COMPARED
TO THE STRUCTURES
CURRENTLY BEING BUILT AND THAT
CHANGES
THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE
AVAILABLE FOR TREE RETENTION.
THE COUNCIL MAY WANT TO
THINK ABOUT ADJUSTING
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ACCOUNT
FOR
IMPACTS ON
RERETENTION. THE INCENTIVES
THAT ARE
AVAILABLE FOR TREE RETENTION IN
THE CODE, THOSE DEVELOPMENT --
EXCUSE ME, THE
INTERIM LEGISLATION
DOES NOT MAKE CHANGES TO THE
TREE CODE AS
PROPOSED.
THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WILL
IMPACT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE WAIVERS OR MODIFICATIONS
THAT
ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR TREE
RETENTION.
SO FOR SOMETHING LIKE IN LR
ZONES, FOR
EXAMPLE, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR LOTS THAT ARE
UNDERGOING DEVELOPMENT CAN
BE MODIFIED IF AN
APPLICANT CHOOSES
TO÷÷ RETAIN A TIER TWO TREE THAT
WOULD OTHERWISE BE REMOVED.
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS CAN BE --
DECREASE UP TO 75%
STRUCTURE WIDTH INCREASE UP TO
30%.
SO AS WE DISCUSSED CURRENTLY LR
1 ZONES THE
STRUCTURE STANDARD IS 45 FEET.
COUNCIL BILL 120969
WOULD INCREASE THAT TO 90 FEET.
OBVIOUSLY, 30% IN A CHANGE TO A
WIDTH OF 45 FEET IS DIFFERENT
FROM A -- EXCUSE ME,
30% CHANCE TO 90 FEET.
THOSE CHANGES WILL IMPACT WHAT
KIND OF OPEN SPACE IS AVAILABLE
TO RETAIN TREES.
AND SO THE QUESTIONS THAT
ARE LAID OUT HERE ARE ABOUT
WHETHER COUNCIL WOULD WANT TO
CHANGE
ANY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
BASED ON HOW IT WOULD IMPACT
TREE
RETENTION GOALS OR WHETHER TO
ADD IN THINGS LIKE AMENITY AREAS
OR OPEN SPACE. I'LL NOTE THAT
THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION DOES NOT
PROPOSE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO
AMENITIES
OR OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS
BUT THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION
WOULD
PROPOSE TO MAKE THOSE
CHANGES ADDING IN A REQUIREMENT
FOR AMENITY AREAS IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES
AND
ADJUSTING THE
AMENITY AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
LR ZONES.
I WILL PASS IT TO
JEN.
>> THANK YOU.
I AM HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISIONS
IN BOTH COUNCIL BILL 120969 ASAS
AS HB 1110.
SO THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION INCLUDES A PROVISION
FROM HOUSE
BILL 1110 TO AWLOU SIX UNITS
PER LOT IN NR ZONES IF THEY ARE
NOT
WITHIN A QUARTER MILE WALKING
DISTANCE OF A MAJOR
TRANSIT STOP IF TWO OF THOSE
UNITS ARE
AFOBDABLE TO LOW NORTH CAROLINA
HOUSEHOLDS.
LOW- INCOME WOULD BE
CONSIDERED -- FOR SALE UNITS AND
60% AMI FOR RENTAL AND UNITS
WOULD HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE
FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS.
THIS IS A
VOLUNTARY BONUS PROGRAM.
IT IS UP TO THE
DEVELOPER WHETHER OR NOT THEY
WOULD WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN
PROVIDING
THOSE TWO AFFORDABLE ADDITIONAL
AND AFFORDABLE UNITS.
THE IMPACTS OF THE
AFFORDABILITY PROVISION ARE
LIKELY TO BE
LIMITED WHILE THE DEVELOPER
WOULD GET TWO ADDITIONAL
UNITS.
>> THOSE TWO UNITS AT A
SALES PRICE OR A RENT LEVEL WELL
BELOW
THE MARKET.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE
FOR OWNER- OCCUPIED UNITS WHERE
THE DELTA BETWEEN THE
AFFORDABLE SALES PRICE AND THE
MARKET PRICE
COULD BE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF DOLLARS.
AS SUCH, THIS FORDABILITY
PROVISION
WITHIN THE INTERIM LEGISLATION
IS LIKELY
MOST LIKELY TO BE USED BY NON-
PROFIT HOMEOWNERSHIP DEVELOPERS.
IT IS NOT LIKELY TO BE USED BY
AFFORDABLE RENTAL
HOUSING DEVELOPERS
BECAUSE THEIR PROJECTS NEED TO
BE AT A MUCH
LARGER SCALE TO PENCIL.
MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY. UNDER THIS
PROGRAM, WHERE THEY ARE CHANGES
TO ZONING TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
CAPACITY NEW RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT MUST
PROVIDE A
PERCENTAGE
OF LOWER INCOME UNITS KNOWN AS
PERFORMANCE OR MAKE IN
LIEU
FEE PAYMENT. MHA DOES NOT APPLY
IN MOST
INDUSTRIAL ZONES AND IT DOES
NOT CURRENTLY APPLY IN
NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
THE EXCEPTION IS THAT MHA DOES
APPLY IN RESIDENTIAL SMALL
LOT OR RSL ZONES WHICH IS A
TYPE OF
NR ZONING WITHIN URBAN VILLAGE
BOUNDARIES.
NEITHER THE INTERIM NOR THE
PROPOSED PERMANENT LEGISLATION
WOULD EXTEND MHA TO
NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES,
ALTHOUGH H BILL 1110 DOES NOT
PROHIBIT JURISDICTIONS FROM
DOING SO.
WHETHER OR NOT TO EXTEND
MHA TO
NR ZONES IS A POLICY
CONSIDERATION FOR COUNCIL.
NEXT SLIDE. I WILL TAKE THE FEW
MOMENTS
TO WALK YOU THROUGH SOME
RECENT DATA ABOUT
BOTH MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY AND
ALSO FEASIBILITY
OF MIDDLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND I
SHARE THIS
WITH YOU JUST FOR CONTEXT AS
YOU, YOU
KNOW, CONSIDER THE DIFFERENT
POLICIES BEFORE YOU.
THESE NEXT FEW SLIDES PROVIDE
SEVERAL INFORMATION FROM SEVERAL
DIFFERENT SOURCES.
ONE IS INFORMATION FROM BERK AND
HEARTLAND'S RECENT
MHA EVALUATION WHICH WAS
PRESENTED AT THE MARCH 28 SELECT
COMMITTEE.
ECONORTHWEST MIDDLE
HOUSING FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS,
WHICH
LISH HAS ALREADY REFERENCED,
AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FROM CENTRAL STAFF'S RESEARCH.
BERK AND HEARTLAND'S
MHA EVALUATION FOUND FOR THE
MODEL SCENARIOS THEY RAN MHA HAD
A
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON TOWNHOME
FEASIBILITY, ESPECIALLY IN
MEDIAN FEE
AREAS. THIS WAS TRUE EVEN IN
2018
WHENWHEN
CONDITIONS WERE MUCH MORE
FAVORABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE BERK'S
ANALYSIS WAS RUN ON MODEL
SCENARIOS,
IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO
MEAN
THAT TOWNHOME
DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO MHA HAS
NOT OCCURRED.
I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A DOUBLE
NEGATIVE.
IT SHOULD --
THAT TOWNHOME
DEVELOPMENT HAS OCCURRED, THAT
HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO MHA.
CENTRAL STAFF'S ANALYSIS FOUND
THAT THERE WERE ABOUT
900 PROJECTS WITH TEN UNITS OR
LESS THAT HAVE MADE AN MHA
CONTRIBUTION IN LR ZONES
SINCE MHA INCEPTION.
MOST SMALL PROJECTS IN LR
AREAS ARE TOWNHOMES.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE HAVE BEEN
220 PROJECTS WITH TEN UNITS OR
LESS THAT MADE AN
MHA CONTRIBUTION IN RSL ZONES.
THE MHA EVALUATION ALSO
LOOKED AT SOME PEER CITIES ALONG
WITH OTHER CITIES AND TOWNS IN
THE
SEATTLE METROPOLITAN REGION
TO DETERMINE IF THEY HAVE A
MINIMUM
UNIT THRESHOLD BEFORE THEIR
INCLUSIONARY ZONE
REQUIREMENTS APPLY.
SORT OF APPLICABLE TO
THESE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES WHERE WE ARE LIKELY TO
SEE SMALLER PROJECTS HAPPEN.
SEATTLE CURRENTLY HAS NO UNIT
THRESHOLD FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR
MHA PROGRAM.
THE MAJORITY OF COMPARISON
JURISDICTIONS IN THE REPORT HAD
HAD UNIT
THRESHOLD FROM FOUR TO 30 UNITS.
A SEPARATE REPORT FOUND
THAT MAJORITY OF PROGRAMS HAD A
THRESHOLD, ALTHOUGH THERE
WAS NOT SORT
OF CONSENSUS ON THE UNIT
THRESHOLD SIZE.
I'D LIKE IT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO
TALK ABOUT
ECONORTHWEST'S FEASIBILITY
ANALYSIS ON MIDDLE
HOUSING.
WHILE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED
TO MHA, IT DOES PROVIDE VALUABLE
DATA FOR UNDERSTANDING
THE POTENTIAL ECONOMIC
VALUE PROVIDED BY
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES
AND THE
OVERALL SCALE OF UNITS THAT
COULD BE PROVIDED BY THESE
UPZONES. THE STUDY LOOKED AT
ABOUT 100,000 LOTS IN
NR ZONES ACROSS THE CITY AND IT
FOUND
THAT MIDDLE HOUSING WOULD
BE FEASIBLE ON ABOUT 19% OF
THOSE LOTS OR
ABOUT 19,000, WHICH IS AN
INCREASE FROM THE 3% THAT
WOULD BE WHERE DEVELOPMENT WOULD
BE
FEASIBLE UNDER CURRENT ZONING.
OVERALL, THE UPZONE
COULD RESULT IN A HE NET
INCREASE OF
23,000 UNITS OVER WHAT IS
CURRENTLY
POSSIBLE FOR A TOTAL OF 36,000
UNITS. THE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
ALSO FOUND THAT MIDDLE HOUSING
IS SENSITIVE TO COST INCREASES.
IF COST INCREASED BY $18,000 PER
UNIT, 25 OF THOSE PROJECTS
THAT WERE CONSIDERED FEASIBLE
WOULD NO LONGER BE FEASIBLE.
25% AND IF COSTS INCREASES BY
$41,000,
THEN HALF OF THE
PROJECTS MAY NO LONGER BE
FEASIBLE.
NEXT SLIDE.
SPEND A MOMENT TALKING ABOUT
MHA
OUTCOMES. MHA HAS GENERATED
ABOUT
$300 MILLION IN FEES SINCE
INCEPTION.
OVER 30% OF THOSE FEES ARE
ABOUT 108 MILLION HAS BEEN
FROM PROJECTS WITH TEN UNITS OR
LESS
IN LOWRISE ZONES OR THE RSL
ZONES.
AS NOTED IN THE BERK
EVALUATION, THERE IS A MARKED
TREND
OF LOWRISE HOUSING PRODUCTION
SHIFTING FROM NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES TO --
SORRY, SHIFTING FROM LR
ZONES TO NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL
ZONES FOLLOWING THE ADOPTION OF
MHA AND THEN A COUPLE OF YEARS
LATER A CHANGE IN ADU
REGULATIONS IF
THE CITY DOES IMPLEMENT
UPZBLOENGS WITH MHA, THAT
TREND COULD CONTINUE, WHICH
TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON MHA
REVENUE.
JUST A COUPLE OF NOTES ABOUT MHA
OUTCOMES.
IT IS SUPPORTED THE
PRODUCTION OF 4,700 UNITS SINCE
INCEPTION,
INCLUDING THROUGH THE USE
OF LEVERAGE LIKE
THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX
CREDITS
AND THERE HAVE BEEN 400 INCOME
AND RENT
RESTRICTED UNITS CREATED THROUGH
THE PERFORMANCE OPTION ONLY
THREE PROJECTS WITH TEN
UNITS OR LESS HAVE CHOSEN THE
PERFORMANCE OPTION.
THAT HAS LARGELY
BEEN AN OPTION
WHEN USED SELECTED BY LARGER
PROJECTS.
MOVING ON TO POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS.
UNDER STATE LAW AN
INCLUSIONARY ZONING PROGRAM CAN
ONLY
BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE SAME
TIME THAT A DEVELOPMENT BENEFIT
SUCH
AS A DENSITY INCREASE IS
CONVEYED.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF
COUNCIL WANTED TO EXTEND
INCLUSIONARY
ZONING TO
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES
NOT NOW
OR DURING THE
PERMANENT LEGISLATION BUT IN
COUPLE OF
YEERNG, IT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
DO SEW
UNLESS ADDITIONAL DENSITY
WAS PROVIDED AT THAT TIME.
MHA IS NOT A MONOLITHIC POLICY.
THERE ARE A LOT OF POLICY
LEVERS THAT CAN BE SORT
OF PULLED OR A LOT OF DIALS THAT
CAN BE
TURNED TO CRAFT A PROGRAM.
MAJOR CHOICES INCLUDE THE FEE
AMOUNT
OR THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT,
BUT
OTHER CHOICES INCLUDE THINGS
LIKE IF
THERE SHOULD BE AN OWNER
OCCUPANCY
EXEMPTION FOR SOME
PROJECTS OR SOME TYPE OF OWNERS
LIKE LEGACY
HOMEOWNERS AND TIMING AROUND
WHEN THE MHA FEE IS PAID.
ONE OPTION FOR COUNCIL TO
CONSIDER COULD BE IMPOSING A
SMALL FEE IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES AS JUST AN
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE, IT IS
ESTIMATED THAT THERE WOULD BE --
I THINK THE SLIDE
SAYS 33,000 NEW UNITS.
IT SHOULD BE 36,000 NEW UNITS
IN OUR ZONES OVER THE NEXT 20
YEARS.
THAT INFORMATION IS COMING FROM
THE ECONORTHWEST REPORT.
IF AN MHA FEE OF
5,000 PER UNIT WERE APPLIED
AND THOSE UNITS DEVELOPED, IT
COULD RESULT IN
165 MILLION IN REVENUE OVER THE
NEXT
20 YEARS. DEVELOPMENT IS VERY
CHALLENGING IN MIDDLE HOUSING IS
SENSITIVE
TO COST INCREASES.
SO IT IS A NOTE THAT IF COUNCIL
WANTED TO IMPLEMENT MHA BUT
NOT HARM HOUSING PRODUCTION,
THERE
WOULD NEED TO BE SERIOUS
CONSIDERATION TO THAT APPROACH.
AND FINALLY, IF COUNCIL
WANTED APPLY MHA
TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES IT SO DO SO IN
THE INTERIM OR
PERMANENT
LEGISLATION. WAITING FOR THE
PERMANENT LEGISLATION WOULD
ALLOW
COUNCIL TO HAVE MORE
INFORMATION. IF COUNCIL
DOES INTEND TO
CONSIDER IMPLEMENTING MHA IN NR
ZONES IN THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION, IT MAY BE
HELPFUL IF IT STATED ITS
POLICY
INTENTION TO DO SO WHEN
IMPLEMENTING THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION. THANK YOU.
>> WE ARE GETTING TOWARDS THE
END.
TALKING BRIEFLY ABOUT PARKING
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS.
UNDER CURRENT ZONING ONE
OFF-STREET PARKING
SPACE IS REQUIRED FOR EACH
RESIDENTIAL
UNIT. WITH A NUMBER OF
EXCEPTIONS.
COUNCIL BILL 120969 WOULD ADD AN
ADDITIONAL EXCEPTION FOR MIDDLE
HOUSING WITHIN
A HALF-MILE OF A MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP.
AND THE DEFINITION OF MAJOR
TRANSIT STOP COMES FROM HOUSE
BILL 1110.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS
REQUIRED, SOME RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED
TO PROVIDE SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND
CURB RAMPS WITH
DEVELOPMENT. SIDEWALKS -- MOST
SIDEWALKS IN
THE CITY HAVE BEEN BUILT BY THE
DEVELOPERS OF THE ADJACENT
PROPERTY.
SO DEVELOPMENT OF SIDEWALKS
WITH DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL
AND
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS IS HOW
MOST SIDEWALKS HAVE BEEN BUILT
IN
THE
CITY. SO THE THRESHOLDS FOR
WHEN SIDEWALKS ARE REQUIRED IS
TERMS OF THINKING
ABOUT HOW THE
CITY WILL FILL OUT ITS
PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS.
UNDER OUR CURRENT CODE AND
COUNCIL BILL 120969,
IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES, SIDEWALKS ARE REQUIRED
FOR TEN
OR MORE LOTS OR TEN OR MORE
UNITS.
IN MOST OTHER ZONES IT'S SIX
OR
MORE LOTS OR SIX OR MORE
DWELLING UNITS.
I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND MAKING ANY
CHANGES TO THE COUNCIL BILL
120969, BUT AS YOU'RE LOOKING
AT
THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION
AND WHAT MAKES SENSE
FOR NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
AREAS, WHICH WILL BE
ACCOMMODATING MORE HOUSING THAN
THEY ARE
TODAY, YOU
SHOULD CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT
THOSE THRESHOLDS ARE
APPROPRIATE.
THE ONE
CHANGE IN COUNCIL BILL 120969 IS
THAT THERE IS AN
EXEMPTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
A SINGLE- FAMILY HOUSE
UNDER
CURRENT ZONING AND THAT WOULD BE
AMENDED TO SAY ONE UNIT.
AND THAT'S IT FOR OUR POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS.
NEXT STEPS, THERE WILL
BE A BRIEFING THE AFTERNOON OF
APRIL 30th FROM THE EXECUTIVE ON
SOME KEY ISSUES.
BEFORE THEN WE ARE HOPING TO
HAVE YOUR SORT OF CLOSE TO FILE
LIST OF AMENDMENT IDEAS
FOR COUNCIL BILL 120969 BY
NEXT MONDAY.
SO IF YOU WANT CHANGES,
PLEASE TALK TO US
THIS WEEK OR ON MONDAY.
SO THAT WE CAN GET THAT
UNDERWAY, MAKE SURE THAT AS
MULTIPLE
COUNCILMEMBERS ARE CONSIDERING
CHANGES WE
ARE RECONCILING THEM, THAT WE
HAVE
LEGAL REVIEW AND CAN
PUBLISH THEM ALL IN ADVANCE OF
THE
MEETING ON MAY 7th.
AND WE ARE HAPPY TO TAKE
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, LISH.
, JEN, AND ASHA, FOR A GREAT
PRESENTATION. I KNOW IT WAS A
LOT FOR US TO
ABSORB AND FOR US TO --
IT'S BEEN A LOT.
I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF
INFORMATION. SO THANK YOU ALL.
I KNOW THAT YOU ALL
HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK BEHIND
THE SCENES.
AS WELL WITH OUR COUNCIL
OFFICES.
SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE ALL
THE TIME YOU SPENT WITH US
ONE-ON- ONE, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT
OR NOT. BUT THANK YOU ALL.
I WILL PAUSE HERE TO SEE IF
MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS.
JUST RAISE YOUR HAND ON THE ZOOM
AND I WILL
GO AHEAD AND HAPPILY CALL ON
YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I WILL SHARE WITH THE
PUBLIC I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE
PRETTY
EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU
ALL. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
TIME YOU
SPENT WITH
ME. I KNOW I HAVE
ASKED QUESTIONS, YOU PROVIDED
ANSWERS AND I
THINK WE WILL BE GOING
THROUGH A COUPLE MORE ROUNDS
BEFORE NEXT
WEEK. WANTED TO SHARE
THAT WHILE I DON'T HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS
TODAY FOR THE RECORD, THAT WE
ARE CONTINUING TO WORK THROUGH
THIS AND I KNOW IT'S A
LOT, ESPECIALLY I KNOW,
LISH, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A
DIFFERENT BILL THAT WE ARE
TAKING UP
TOMORROW IN
LAND USE. THERE IS A LOT OF LAND
USE
STUFF GOING ON THIS WEEK.
THANK YOU FOR ALL
YOUR WORK AND
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO
MEET WITH YOU.
>>
AWESOME.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS. COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
>> THANK YOU,
CHAIR
HOLLINGSWORTH. AND THANK YOU ALL
FOR TODAY'S
PRESENTATION.
CERTAINLY WANT TO GET
THE BALL ROLLING AND MOVING
FORWARD IN
THE PROCESS.
I HAVE A NICHE QUESTION ON SLIDE
23. IT SAYS IN CURRENT
CODE THE SETBACKS FOR ROW HOUSES
ARE
ZERO FEET IF ABUTTING ANOTHER
OR 3.5 FEET OR FIVE FEET
IF ABUTTING A SINGLE- FAMILY
ZONE.
BUT WITH COUNCIL BILL 120969
IT SAYS FIVE FEET.
ARE WE ADDING A FIVE-FEET
SIDE
SETBACK FOR ROW HOUSES, AND IF
SO, WHY?
HOUSES, AND IF SO, WHY?
>> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION I
WILL BE HAPPY TO GET BACK TO YOU
ABOUT.
>> AWESOME, THANK YOU.
AND GOING BACK TO
STACKED FLATS, IF YOU CAN REMIND
US AGAIN THE
MAIN CAUSES FOR STACKED FLAT
DEVELOPMENT TO BE UNABLE TO
PENCIL, AND DOES THIS
CHANGE WITH THE LIKELY PASSAGE
OF STATEWIDE CONDO LIABILITY
REFORM
AND WHAT CAN WE DO AT THE
CITY
LEVEL TO CHANGE THIS REATING TO
COMMERCIAL CODE?
>> YEAH.
HOPEFULLY, THE STATE'S BILL,
WHICH I THINK
HAS PASSED THE LEGISLATURE
RELATED TO CONDO
RELIABILITY REFORM SHOULD HELP.
PARTICULARLY, THERE ARE
EXCEPTIONS FOR PROJECTS WITH 12
OR FEWER UNITS.
WHICH MEANS THAT THEY WILL
NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME
LIABILITY PROJECTS AS LARGER
PROJECTS.
AND SO THAT SHOULD HELP
RELIEVE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT
HAD TAKE
PROBABLY A FEW YEARS FOR THE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO PROCESS
THAT AND CHANGE THEIR
PROCESSES AND RATES.
>> COULD I
ADD? I THINK MY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE CURRENT
STATUS OF THE CONDO
LIABILITY IS THAT THE
HOUSE OF THE SENATE HAVE PASSED
A BILL
BUT THEY ARE DIFFERENT, SO THERE
NEEDS TO BE
RECONCILIATION. AND I BELIEVE
THAT
THEY BOTH DO OFFER SOME
EXEMPTIONS.
I AM NOT SURE SPECIFICALLY
WHAT FOR UNITS 12 AND UNDER, BUT
IN THE SENATE BILL THAT'S --
THE EXEMPTIONS DON'T APPLY IF
THE UNITS ARE STACKED.
SO WE WILL DO A LITTLE BIT --
I THINK
MORE INVESTIGATING. IT HAS MADE
PROGRESS AT
THE STATE BUT IS NOT YET FULLY
PASSED.
>> AND THEN THE SECOND PART OF
YOUR QUESTION WAS ABOUT I THINK
BUILDING CODE VERSUS
RESIDENTIAL CODE AND WE WILL
NEED TO GET
BACK TO YOU ON WHAT OPTIONS ARE
AVAILABLE THERE.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU
ALL.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY QUESTIONS,
CHAIR. THANK YOU.
>> AWESOME.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE
PRESENTATION. SO JUST A
QUESTION, BECAUSE THE
PROPOSED INTERIM LEGISLATION HAS
LESS F.A.R. AND
OTHER PROVISIONS, AND I'M
JUST WONDERING SORT OF FROM A
POLICY POSITION OR EVEN FROM A
LEGAL
POSITION IS THERE A
DRAWBACK TO -- BECAUSE I THINK
FOR STACKED FLATS, OBVIOUSLY, WE
ARE
GOING TO NEED TO HAVE
GREATER F.A.R. THAN
WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED
IN THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION. SO IS THERE A
REASON NOT
TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION? LET ME ASK,
REPHRASE THAT.
IF WE DON'T INCLUDE THAT IN
THE INTERIM LEGISLATION,
ARE WE SOMEHOW PRECLUDING
OURSELVES
FROM THEN INCLUDING THAT IN THE
PERMANENT LEGISLATION?
>> NO.
THE INTERIM LEGISLATION IS
DRAFTED TO BE FAIRLY SPARSE.
THE PERMANENT
LERZ WILL INCLUDE FEATURES THAT
ARE
NOT IN THE INTERIM LEGISLATION.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE CORNER
STORE PROPOSAL AND WE ANTICIPATE
THAT
THERE WILL BE MORE DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIALLY ALLOWED UNDER THE
PERMANENT LEGISLATION
PARTICULARLY ON LARGER LOTS AND
IN THE LOWEST DENSITY ZONING
CATEGORIES.
SO THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION
IS NOT GOING TO
BE BOUND BY YOUR DECISIONS ON
THIS BILL.
>> TO THE POINT THAT SOMEBODY
MADE IN PUBLIC COMMENT, IF
WE GO -- IF WE CREATE SOMETHING
NOW AND DEVELOPMENT BEGINS UNDER
THAT AND WE WERE FOR SOME
REASON TO GO BACKWARDS ON
PERMANENT
LEGISLATION, THAT COULD BE
POTENTIALLY A
PROBLEM?
>> I
CAN'T PROVIDE YOU LEGAL
ADVICE ON THAT QUESTION.
>> RIGHT.
>> BUT I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD
BE A PROBLEM NECESSARILY.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>>
AWESOME. I DON'T SEE -- I'LL
PAUSE IF
THERE ARE ANY OTHER
COUNCILMEMBERS THAT HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS.
OBVIOUSLY, I KNOW THAT
THE TIMELINE THAT WE'RE UNDER
ISN'T THE MOST IDEAL, AND
TAKING
ON INTERIM LEGISLATION ISN'T THE
MOST IDEAL AS WELL
TO TURN AROUND AND TAKE ON THE
PERMANENT
LEGISLATION.
BUT THIS IS THE PREDICAMENT
THAT WE ARE IN.
SO REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE,
LIKE I SAID, I WILL SAY IT
TO THE END, EVERYONE TAKING THE
TIME FOR US TO GET
THIS DONE BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S
IMPORTANT
FOR US TO MEET DEADLINES.
ALSO I WANT TO REMIND
EVERYONE AS WELL BEFORE I
FORGET, JUST THE NEXT STEPS.
I KNOW THAT WAS ON SLIDE
40, BUT I HAVE IT IN FRONT OF
ME.
SO ON WEDNESDAY,
APRIL 30th, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE
A BRIEFING
FROM OUR EXECUTIVE OFFICE
REGARDING
THE INTERIM LEGISLATION TO HOUSE
BILL 1110.
THAT AGENDA IS CURRENTLY BEING
FORMED.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE
TALKED ABOUT THAT.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 7 WE ARE GOING TO
DISCUSS POSSIBILITY
AMENDMENTS TO HOUSE BILL
120969. YOU HEARD LISH GIVE
A DEADLINE BY NEXT MONDAY WE
NEED TO HAVE THOSE IN.
I KNOW WE HAVE SENT CONCEPTS,
BUT WE NEED TO FIGURE
OUT
DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS. PEOPLE
WILL STILL
HAVE MEETINGS WITH THE PUBLIC
AND
CONVERSATIONS AND TRY TO GET
THOSE AMENDMENTS IN SO
THOSE COULD BE WORKED WITH
CENTRAL
STAFF.
WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING MAY 19.
MAY 19, PUBLIC HEARING,
STARTS AT 9:30.
WE ARE WORKING OUT THE LOGISTICS
FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. THAT
PUBLIC HEARING
ISIS
SPECIFICALLY ON THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION FOR HOUSE BILL 1110.
AGAIN, THAT PUBLIC HEARING WILL
BE ABOUT THE INTERIM LEGISLATION
FOR HOUSE BILL 1110 ON MAY 19th
STARTING AT 9:30.
AND WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE -- WE WILL SEND
OUT MORE INFORMATION
BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
IT'S ACCESSIBLE FOR PEOPLE,
SO
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TWO
DIFFERENT TIMES.
PLEASE STAY POSTED ON US WORKING
OUT THOSE LOGISTICS.
ALSO THE COMMITTEE VOTES ON MAY
21, THAT IS A
WEDNESDAY. SO THE VOTE ON MAY 21
ON
A
WEDNESDAY. AND THEN WE WILL HAVE
A
FULL
COUNCIL VOTE ON MAY 27th, AND
THAT IS A TUESDAY.
SO IT'S A TIGHT
TIMELINE DURING THAT PROCESS,
AND THEN AFTER
WE FINISH THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION AND THEN WE WILL
TAKE ON THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO
EVERYONE? YOU CAN SAY NO AND
I'LL REPEAT
MYSELF LOUDER AND LOUDER.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE JOKES IN A
SELECT COMMITTEE FOR LAND USE,
OKAY? YOU ALL ARE A TOUGH CROWD.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
SO, I DON'T SEE ANY
MORE QUESTIONS.
OH, I SEE COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
>> THANK
YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION, AND SO WHAT IS
THE PLAN FOR TAKING
UP THE COMP PLAN?
>> YEAH, SO AFTER -- GREAT
QUESTION.
AFTER WE PASS THE COUNCIL
VOTE, THEN WE TRANSITION TO
PHASE
ONE, WHICH IS THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
AND THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION
FOR HOUSE BILL 1110.
IS THAT CORRECT?
I'M LOOKING AT THE CENTRAL
STAFF.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I AM
CORRECT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
HOPEFULLY, THIS SUMMER
BEFORE BUDGET ACTION AND WE'RE
WORKING
ON THE SCHEDULE.
>> AWESOME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS,
FINAL
SOLD TO THE DAIS. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, EVERYONE.
WITH THAT, WE DON'T HAVE
ANY OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
I THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING TO
TODAY.
SEEING NONE, THIS IS GOING
TO CONCLUDE OUR APRIL 16th
MEETING
ON THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN