[MUSIC]
-- ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING.
AUGUST 19th, 2026. LAND USE AND
SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE MEETING
WILL COME TO ORDER. IT'S 9:34
A.M.. I'M EDDIE LIN, CHAIR OF
THE COMMITTEE. WILL THE
COMMITTEE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL?
-- COUNCIL PRESIDENT
HOLLINGSWORTH PRESIDENT
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. PRESENT.
CHAIR LIN. PRESENT CHAIR. THE
THREE MEMBERS PRESENT.
-- OKAY. AND VICE CHAIR. STRAUSS
AND COUNCILMEMBER FOSTER ARE
EXCUSED FROM TODAY'S MEETING. IF
THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED. HEARING
NO OBJECTION, THE AGENDA IS
ADOPTED. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.
THANK YOU FOR COMING TO THIS
WEDNESDAY MORNING MEETING.
DISCUSS LAND USE. THANK YOU TO
CITY CLERKS COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF MAYOR'S OFFICE AND SDCI
FOR HELPING US PREPARE. WE'LL
NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD. PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD
RELATE TO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA OR
ITEMS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE
COMMITTEE CLERK. HOW MANY
SPEAKERS ARE SIGNED UP TODAY?
-- WE HAVE ONE IN PERSON, THREE
REMOTE. OKAY.
-- EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE TWO
MINUTES. WE'LL START WITH IN
PERSON SPEAKERS. FIRST CLERK CAN
YOU PLEASE READ THE PUBLIC
COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS?
-- THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
WILL BE MODERATED IN THE
FOLLOWING MANNER. THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD UP TO 60 MINUTES.
SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE
ORDER IN WHICH THEY REGISTERED
IN PERSON. SPEAKERS WILL BE
CALLED FIRST, AFTER WHICH WILL
MOVE TO REMOTE SPEAKERS UNTIL
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD HAS
ENDED. SPEAKERS WILL HEAR A TIME
WHEN 10 SECONDS ARE LEFT FOR
THEIR TIME. SPEAKERS WILL BE
MUTED IF THEY DO NOT IN THEIR
COMMENTS WITHIN THE ALLOTTED
TIME TO ALLOW US TO CALL THE
NEXT SPEAKER. PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD IS NOW OPEN AND WILL
BEGIN WITH THE FIRST SPEAKER ON
THE LIST, STEVE.
-- GOOD MORNING STEVE.
-- GOOD MORNING. THE OUTCOMES IN
SEATTLE ON LAND USE HAVE NOT
BEEN TERRIBLY GOOD. I WOULD
COMPARE IT MUCH TO OUR PUBLIC
SAFETY. AS YOU LOOK AT THE FACT
THAT RENTS IN COST OF LIVING IN
SEATTLE HAVE GONE UP, I THINK, A
LITTLE BETTER THAN THE NATIONAL
AVERAGE. AND OUR POLICY HAS BEEN
IN LAND USE. ALL CARROTS, NO
STICKS FOR DEVELOPERS. I CAN
ONLY POINT OUT THE WINDOW OVER
HERE TO LOOK AT THE ALL CARROTS,
NO STICKS. WE HAVE A BIG HOLE IN
THE GROUND THAT'S BEEN THERE
FOR, OH, I DARE SAY AT LEAST A
DECADE NOW. AND THERE SEEMS TO
BE NO PENALTIES FOR DEVELOPERS.
MATTER OF FACT, I THINK THEIR
MOTTO IS TO VIOLATE THE LAWS AND
RULES AND ASK FORGIVENESS.
BECAUSE YOU SEE THE PENALTIES
ARE ARE MINIMAL, IF AT ALL. AND
A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE
CARE ABOUT THIS COMMITTEE HAS
NOT TAKEN UP FOR YEARS, NOT JUST
THIS CHAIRMAN, NOT JUST YOU
MEMBERS, BUT THE COMMITTEE HAS
SEEMED TO BE THE PROVINCE OF
DEVELOPERS. WE'VE TAKEN THE
PUBLIC OUT OF DESIGN REVIEW,
CAN'T HAVE THE PEASANTS
DESIGNING THEIR CITY. YOU KNOW.
YOU KNOW, THEY WILL DESIGN
THINGS FOR THEIR BENEFIT. AND
THE ROUGE THAT. GIVING
DEVELOPERS EVERYTHING THEY WANT
WILL LOWER THE COST HAS NOT
WORKED. WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS
PUT THE DIFFERENCE IN THEIR
POCKETS BECAUSE THEY SELL AT
MARKET PRICE. AND IF YOU CAN
BUILD IT FOR LESS, YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO SELL IT FOR LESS. AND
THAT'S HOW THE SYSTEM SEEMS TO
WORK HERE IN SEATTLE. I URGE YOU
TO LET THE PUBLIC BACK INTO THE
PROCESS AND LET THEM AT LEAST
MAKE THEIR OWN MISTAKES, BECAUSE
YOU'VE DONE A FAIR JOB OF
MAKING MISTAKES.
-- THANK YOU. STEVE.
-- WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO WE'LL
NOW MOVE ON TO REMOTE SPEAKERS,
STARTING WITH SANDY SCHETTLER.
-- GOOD MORNING. HI, THIS IS
SANDY SCHETTLER WITH TREE ACTION
SEATTLE CB 121276, WHICH YOU'RE
DISCUSSING TODAY. REDUCES OR
ELIMINATES TREE REQUIREMENTS IN
THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT NEED THEM
MOST. OVERBURDENED COMMUNITIES
WILL BE HIT HARDEST BY THIS BILL
BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE A
DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF
SMALLER NONPROFITS. AND THE
LOWEST TREE CANOPY PARKING LOTS
WITH 20 PLUS SPACES CURRENTLY
MUST RETAIN OR PLANT ONE TREE
FOR EVERY FIVE SPACES. THIS BILL
ELIMINATES THAT REQUIREMENT,
LEAVING THE DECISION TO THE SDCI
DIRECTOR, WHO WILL HAVE NO CLEAR
BASIS TO REQUIRE TREES. WHY ARE
WE STRIPPING TREES FROM PARKING
LOTS AND MAKING ASPHALT EVEN
HOTTER SECOND, GREEN FACTOR CAN
ALREADY BE MET WITHOUT SAVING OR
PLANTING A SINGLE TREE ON A
SITE. EVERYONE HAS SEEN THE
RAISED PLANTER BOXES WITH DEAD
PLANTS ALL OVER BEACON HILL. THE
PLANTS ARE KEPT ALIVE JUST LONG
ENOUGH TO GET PERMITS SIGNED
OFF. WE SHOULD BE STRENGTHENING
GREEN FACTOR TO INCLUDE TREES,
BUT THIS BILL WEAKENS IT
FURTHER. CITIES LIKE NEW YORK
AND ATLANTA ARE FIGHTING URBAN
HEAT ISLANDS AND WINNING. BUT
SEATTLE IS AGGRESSIVELY MAKING
URBAN HEAT ISLANDS BIGGER,
ESPECIALLY IN FRONTLINE
COMMUNITIES WHO ALREADY HAVE
HIGHER ASTHMA AND CANCER RATES.
THIS BILL ADDS MORE ASPHALT,
HEAT AND POLLUTION TO
OVERBURDENED COMMUNITIES AND
SHOULD NOT BE PASSED. THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU. SANDY.
-- NEXT UP, WE HAVE STEVE ZEMKE.
-- THIS IS STEVE ZEMKE. I'M
SPEAKING FOR TREE PACK AND
FRIENDS OF SEATTLE. S URBAN
FOREST. REGARDING COUNCIL BILL
121276, I URGE THAT A
COUNCILMEMBER REQUEST A
DIRECTOR'S REPORT ON THIS
PROPOSED LEGISLATION IT IS
SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT THE
PUBLIC AND THE COUNCIL NEED TO
KNOW SDCI. S POSITION ON THIS
LEGISLATION. I DO NOT AGREE WITH
THE SUPPOSITION BECAUSE THE
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
LEGISLATION IS LESS RESTRICTIVE
ON DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT
DENSER MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS SHOULD BE LESS
RESTRICTIVE. MULTIFAMILY ZONES
ARE MORE DENSE AND NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED. AS SUCH, I DO NOT
SUPPORT THE REMOVAL OF THE
SPECIFIC POSITION PROVISION THAT
A TREE BE PLANTED FOR EVERY FIVE
PARKING SPACES, AND LOTS WITH 20
OR MORE PARKING SPACES, AND LEFT
UP TO THE DIRECTOR TO DECIDE
WHAT SHOULD BE PLANTED OR NOT.
INSTEAD, DEVELOPERS HAVE ASKED
FOR SPECIFICITY, AND THIS IS THE
REVERSE. A TREE SHOULD BE
REQUIRED ACTUALLY, FOR EVERY
FIVE SPACES OF PARKING ADDED
ACROSS THE CITY. THIS MAKES MORE
SENSE TO REDUCE THE CREATION AND
TO HELP REDUCE THE CREATION OF
MORE URBAN HEAT ISLANDS. AND THE
CITY HAS A GOAL OF TRYING TO
REDUCE PARKING ACROSS THE CITY
NEIGHBORHOOD. RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT HAS A GREEN FACTOR
OF 0.6, YET THE BILL LEAVES IT
AT 0.5. IN THE MULTIFAMILY
INSTITUTIONAL ZONE. THIS SEEMS A
CONTRADICTION OF SAYING YOU'RE
TRYING TO COMPLY WITH LESSER
RESTRICTIONS OR RESTRICTIONS IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONE. AND LASTLY, I WOULD
QUESTION THE IN THE SUMMARY IN
FISCAL NOTE REGARDING CLIMATE
CHANGE IMPACTS, RESILIENCY, WILL
THIS LEGISLATION MAKE SEATTLE
MORE OR LESS ABLE TO ADAPT TO
CLIMATE CHANGE IF IT REDUCES
RESILIENCY? EXPLAIN WHAT CAN BE
DONE TO LESSEN THE IMPACT IT
SAYS. NOT APPLICABLE YET. THE
LEGISLATION IS PROPOSED SEEMS TO
BE REDUCING THE ABILITY TO
RETAIN AND KEEP TREES AND PLANT
TREES IN IN THE MULTIFAMILY
ZONE, AND WOULD URGE THAT THIS
BE CORRECTED IN THE LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU
-- THANK YOU.
-- LAST UP, WE HAVE JENNIFER
GODFREY.
-- HELLO. THANK YOU. I'M
SPEAKING ABOUT THIS BILL ON THE
AGENDA TODAY. I FORGET THE
NUMBER. SO THE STORMWATER CODE,
PEAK FLOW CONTROL STANDARDS WERE
REDUCED. SO NOW THEY ONLY ARE
REQUIRED WHEN THERE'S OVER
5000FT OF NEW AND REPLACED HARD
SURFACES. JUST DOUBLED BEFORE
PROTECTIONS ARE REQUIRED. SO
REMOVING THAT STORMWATER CLAUSE
IN THIS NEW PROPOSED BILL FOR
EVERYTHING UNDER 4000FT HAS THE
POTENTIAL TO CAUSE SIGNIFICANT
ADVERSE IMPACTS TO AQUATIC LIFE.
I'VE HEARD PEOPLE WISHING FOR A
PERVIOUS PAVEMENT ORDINANCE,
WHICH IS ACTUALLY COVERED BY THE
STORMWATER CODE GOVERNED BY THE
STORMWATER CODE, WHEREAS THE
PERVIOUS PAVEMENT REQUIREMENT
FOR THIS PERVIOUS PAVEMENT IS
ALSO ONLY ALLOWED IN SLOPES
UNDER CERTAIN GRADES, IT IS NOT
A CURE ALL. IT IS WELL
ESTABLISHED BY THE EPA, USDA,
KING COUNTY, NOAA THAT TREES AND
GREEN SPACE HELP REDUCE COOL AND
FILTER STORMWATER. AND HERE WE
ARE NOT ONLY TAKING THAT OUT,
BUT ALSO SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT
ALLOWING FOR STORMWATER TO FLOW
INTO THESE AREAS. FOR EXAMPLE,
RAISED PLANTER BOXES CAN'T PULL
STORMWATER OFF OF A PARKING LOT
DUE TO THE LAWS OF LIMITING
SALMON. RECOVERY PLANS INCLUDE
TREE PLANTING AND RETENTION. SO
WHEN YOU COMBINE THIS WITH CB
121093, REMOVING SEPA REVIEW FOR
PARKING LOTS UP TO 90 SPACES AND
REVIEW FOR BUILDINGS UP TO 6500
ZERO SQUARE FEET. DOWNGRADING
STORMWATER CODE. PEAK FLOW
CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR
DEVELOPERS COMFORT AND ALL THE
OTHER PIECES OF THE COMP PLAN.
THIS IS A PRETTY LARGE PIECE OF
DEREGULATION THAT FLIES DIRECTLY
IN THE FACE OF THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES RECOVERY PLANS, SO
CONVERTING EMPTY EXISTING
BUILDINGS IN THE DENSEST PART OF
SEATTLE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY
MORE ECO FRIENDLY FOR
DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW. TO
PROVIDE FASTER, LOW COST
HOUSING, AND THE DENSEST PART OF
SEATTLE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE
NEEDED AND AVAILABLE HOUSING
WHEN IT HAS THE VERY BEST
TRANSIT. SO PLEASE CONSIDER.
THANK YOU.
-- THANK YOU.
-- CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES OUR
SPEAKERS.
-- OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ARE
NO ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS WILL NOW
PROCEED TO OUR ITEMS OF
BUSINESS. ITEM ONE. WE'LL NOW
MOVE ON TO OUR ONLY ITEM OF
BUSINESS. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
READ AGENDA ITEM ONE?
-- AGENDA ITEM ONE. COUNCIL BILL
121276. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO
LAND USE AND ZONING AMENDING
SECTIONS 23, 45, FIVE, OH SIX,
23, 45570 AND 2351 AYE 004. OF
THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
INSTITUTIONS AND MULTIFAMILY
ZONES FOR BRIEFING AND
DISCUSSION.
-- KETTLE.
-- HELLO. KETIL FREEMAN. COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF SO TODAY IS AN
INITIAL BRIEFING ON COUNCIL BILL
121276. I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT SOME BACKGROUND AND
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. SO THE
PURPOSE OF THE BILL DESCRIBED
SORT OF AT A HIGH LEVEL WHAT THE
BILL WOULD DO, WALK THROUGH SOME
OF THE CHANGED DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND THE BILL, AND THEN
TALK ABOUT NEXT STEPS, WHICH
INCLUDE A PUBLIC HEARING THAT
WILL HAPPEN IN SEPTEMBER. SO
FIRST, SOME BACKGROUND HERE AND
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. LET'S SEE.
SORT OF BY WAY OF BACKGROUND,
I'LL ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHAT
IS AN INSTITUTION? THIS BILL IS
LARGELY GEARED TOWARDS MODIFYING
REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTITUTIONS IN
MULTIFAMILY ZONES. AN
INSTITUTION, THE LAND USE CODE
DEFINITION OF AN INSTITUTION IS
A STRUCTURE AND RELATED GROUNDS
USED BY ORGANIZATIONS FOR THE
PROVISION OF EDUCATIONAL,
MEDICAL, CULTURAL, SOCIAL AND OR
RECREATIONAL SERVICES TO THE
COMMUNITY. INSTITUTIONS INCLUDE
THINGS LIKE PLACES OF WORSHIP,
CHILDCARE CENTERS, COMMUNITY
CENTERS, THINK BOYS AND GIRLS
SCHOOL. THE TYPES OF
INSTITUTIONS THAT THIS THIS BILL
IS GEARED TOWARDS DOES NOT
INCLUDE MAJOR INSTITUTIONS. YOU
ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH MAJOR
INSTITUTIONS. THEY'RE COLLEGES
AND HOSPITALS, WHICH ARE
REGULATED THROUGH A SEPARATE
PROCESS. THE INSTITUTION MASTER
PLAN PROCESS. IN TERMS OF
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, IN 2000,
LAST YEAR, THE COUNCIL PASSED
ORDINANCE 127376, WHICH
IMPLEMENTED HOUSE BILL 1110.
THAT BILL RELAXED DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS FOR INSTITUTIONS IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES
IN BOTH NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES AND MULTIFAMILY ZONES.
INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE NOT MAJOR
INSTITUTIONS ARE REGULATED AS
ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONAL USES.
AND THAT MEANS THAT THERE IS A
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW AS A TYPE
TWO PERMIT, A MASTER USE PERMIT
THAT CAN BE APPEALED, THAT IS IS
AN APPLICATION, THAT IS THERE'S
A TYPE TWO DECISION BY THE SDCI
DIRECTOR, MEANING IT'S A
DECISION THAT IS APPEALABLE TO
THE CITY HEARING EXAMINER,
WHEREBY PERMISSION FOR USE IS
GRANTED IF CERTAIN CRITERIA ARE
MET, THOSE CRITERIA ARE LARGELY
HAVE TO DO WITH MITIGATING
MITIGATING IMPACTS ASSOCIATED
WITH INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING
THINGS LIKE PARKING AND TRAFFIC
IMPACTS. OTHER THINGS THAT ARE
UNIQUE TO AN INSTITUTIONAL USE,
AND THE HOURS IN WHICH AN
INSTITUTIONAL USE MAY OPERATE.
THERE'S A BIG ONE, WHICH IS
DISPERSION. INSTITUTIONAL USES
HAVE TO BE SEPARATED FROM EACH
OTHER. NOW, IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES, THEY NO
LONGER HAVE TO BE SEPARATED FROM
EACH OTHER. THIS BILL WOULD ALSO
ELIMINATE THAT REQUIREMENT FOR
MULTIFAMILY ZONES SO THE PURPOSE
IN PART, IS TO HAVE A SIMILAR
REGULATORY APPROACH FOR BOTH
NEIGHBORHOOD, RESIDENTIAL AND
MULTIFAMILY ZONES, AND ALSO TO
HELP SMALLER INSTITUTIONS EITHER
REDEVELOP ON SITE OR FIND NEW
LOCATIONS AND NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND
MULTIFAMILY ZONES. SO THAT'S
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO, WOULD
ENACT REGULATIONS THAT ARE THAT
ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THOSE
THAT APPLY IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES, WOULD ALLOW
INSTITUTIONS TO MEET DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE ZONES. IT
WOULD HAVE THE SAME OR SIMILAR
GREEN FACTOR AND SCREENING AND
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS THAT
APPLY IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. THAT
WOULD ALSO APPLY IN MULTIFAMILY
ZONES, AND IT WOULD REMOVE THE
DISPERSION REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE
PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA SO A
LOOK HERE AT THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS THAT WOULD CHANGE OF
NOTE ABOUT THIS. THIS IS NOT ALL
MULTIFAMILY ZONES. WE'RE MOSTLY
LOOKING AT LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL
ZONES HERE. THE BILL WOULD ALSO.
APPLY SIMILAR STANDARDS IN
MID-RISE AND HIGH RISE ZONES.
I'VE USED LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL
HERE BECAUSE IT'S THE
PREDOMINANT MULTIFAMILY ZONE.
ABOUT 11% OF THE CITY'S ZONED
LAND AREA. THE CURRENT STANDARDS
ARE ON THE LEFT. THE CURRENT
STANDARDS FOR THE CURRENT
STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES
ARE ON THE LEFT. THE CURRENT
STANDARDS FOR INSTITUTIONAL USES
ARE IN THE MIDDLE, AND THE
PROPOSED STANDARDS ARE ON THE
RIGHT. GENERALLY SPEAKING, FOR
BULK, HEIGHT, BULK AND SCALE
STANDARDS THAT WOULD APPLY TO
RESIDENTIAL USES. THOSE SAME
HEIGHT, BULK AND SCALE STANDARDS
WOULD APPLY TO MULTIFAMILY USES.
A GREEN FACTOR IS NOT CURRENTLY
A REQUIREMENT EXCEPT WHEN TRYING
TO MODIFY THE STRUCTURE, WITH.
IN LOW RISE ZONES FOR
INSTITUTIONAL USES, THE BILL
WOULD MAKE A GREEN FACTOR
REQUIREMENT. ACROSS THE BOARD.
THERE IS A POLICY CHOICE HERE
ABOUT THE LEVEL OF GREEN FACTOR
CURRENTLY IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL AND LOW RISE. THE
GREEN FACTOR REQUIREMENT IS 0.6
FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
USES, AND IT'S 0.5 AND HIGH
RISE AND MID-RISE ZONES. THE
BILL REFLECTS A POLICY CHOICE OF
0.5. AND FINALLY, THE DISPERSION
REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE REMOVED.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE? SO
THE NET EFFECT OF THESE CHANGES
MAYBE I'LL JUST GO BACK UP
HERE. THE NET EFFECT IS THAT IF
YOU ARE A NEW INSTITUTIONAL USE
LOOKING TO LOCATE IN A
MULTIFAMILY ZONE, IT WILL BE
EASIER FOR YOU TO FIND SITES
BECAUSE THE DISPERSION
REQUIREMENT IS NO LONGER THERE.
IF YOU ARE AN EXISTING
INSTITUTIONAL USE AND
MULTIFAMILY ZONE, IT WILL BE
EASIER FOR YOU TO REDEVELOP YOUR
SITE. IF YOU WANT TO DO
SOMETHING THAT IS HAS A MIXED
USE CONCEPT. SO IF YOU WANT TO
RETAIN AN INSTITUTIONAL USE ON
YOUR SITE AND HAVE A RESIDENTIAL
COMPONENT AS PART OF THE NEW
DEVELOPMENT, IT WILL BE EASIER
FOR YOU TO DEVELOP THAT USE NEXT
STEPS. THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING
IS SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 16th.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND VOTE
WILL HAPPEN LATER IN SEPTEMBER.
-- OKAY. THANK YOU COLLEAGUES.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I
HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. COULD YOU
REPEAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING
ABOUT THE DISPERSION IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL?
CURRENTLY? YEAH.
-- SO IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES, PREVIOUSLY
THERE WAS A DISPERSION
REQUIREMENT THAT APPLIED IN BOTH
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AND
MULTIFAMILY ZONE. SO
INSTITUTIONS COULDN'T BE LOCATED
WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE OF
EACH OTHER. I BELIEVE THAT
DISTANCE IS 600FT. UNDER BOTH
UNDER IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES. THAT
DISPERSION REQUIREMENT NO LONGER
APPLIES. SO INSTITUTIONAL USES
ARE NO LONGER LIMITED BY THEIR
PROXIMITY TO OTHER INSTITUTIONAL
USES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. THAT
SAME RELAXATION OF THE
DISPERSION REQUIREMENT WOULD
APPLY IF THIS BILL PASSES IN
MULTIFAMILY ZONES AS WELL. SO IF
YOU HAVE A CHURCH OR A PLACE OF
WORSHIP. IF YOU WANT TO SITE A
CHURCH OR A PLACE OF WORSHIP,
FOR EXAMPLE, AND THERE'S ALREADY
A PLACE OF WORSHIP THAT IS
WITHIN 600FT OF A SITE THAT YOU
ARE CONSIDERING, THAT WOULD NO
LONGER BE A LIMITATION ON YOUR
ABILITY TO SITE A INSTITUTIONAL
USE ON THAT, ON THAT, IN THAT
LOCATION
-- GOT IT. SO JUST TO, TO
CONFIRM AGAIN, THE THERE'S NO
DISPERSION IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL. THIS THERE ISN'T
CURRENTLY A DISPERSION
REQUIREMENT IN MULTIFAMILY
ZONES. THIS WOULD REMOVE THAT
DISPERSION REQUIREMENT. SO THERE
WOULD BE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE
MULTIFAMILY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL.
-- CORRECT.
-- OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL
THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR TODAY.
JUST ONE LAST TIME. SEE IF
THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU
SO MUCH. WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER
16th. THANK YOU ALL.
THAT CONCLUDES UNLESS THERE'S
ANYTHING ELSE COMES BEFORE ANY
OTHER BUSINESS. OKAY. HEARING NO
FURTHER BUSINESS. WE ARE
ADJOURNED AT 9:53 A.M.. THANK
YOU.
-- [MUSIC] [MUSIC]