NOWS THANK YOU FOR JOINING US
FOR THE 20th MEETING
OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
CITY'S MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM.
WE ARE PLANNING TODAY TO DO A
QUICK RUN OF SHOW AS
FOLLOWS.
WE'LL HEAR FROM THE MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC, WHO HAVE
GOT ABOUT 20 PEOPLE SIGNED UP
TO GIVE PUBLIC
COMMENTS.
THEN WE WILL MOVE INTO A
DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS
RELATED TO THE BILL.
THERE ARE SORT OF FOUR
DIFFERENT AMENDMENT PACKAGES
THAT WILL GO THROUGH RELATED TO
TWO OF THE THREE
BILLS THAT WE'VE GOT IN FRONT
OF US.
ONE OF THE THREE BILLS DOES NOT
HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS
PROPOSED.
AND AS WE GO THROUGH THOSE
DISCUSSIONS, I'VE GROUPED
THE AMENDMENTS WE'VE DISCUSSED
INTO A COUPLE OF
DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
CONSENT AGENDA AMENDMENTS, AND
AM.
S FOR INDIVIDUAL VOTES.
CETRAL STAFF WILL WALK US
THROUGH THE CONSENT
AGENDA PACKAGE, AND I'LL BE
KEEPING MY HEAD ON A
SWIVEL TO SEE WHICH OF MY
COLLEAGUES MIGHT BE
INTERESTED IN PULLING
INDIVIDUAL AM.
S FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND
THEN WE'LL TAKE ACTION
ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND THEN
INDIVIDUAL
AMENDMENTS, AND THEN THE BILL
ITSELF.
THEN WE'LL TO THE SAME SEQUENCE
FOR NEXT BILL, AND
THEN FINALLY FOR OUR THIRD
BILL.
THOSE THREE BILLS TODAY ARE THE
CITY-WIDE MAIN MHA
LEGISLATION, WHICH AMENDS, THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL
CODE TO IMPLEMENT
AFFORDABILITY.
THE SECOND BILL AMENDS THE
CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM.
THE THIRD BILL IMPLEMENTS
MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY IN THE NORTH GATE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS THE CULMINATION OF MORE
THAN 200 MEETINGS,
40 COUNCIL-LED MEETINGS, 16
URBAN DESIGN VILLAGE
WORKSHOPS.
THE IMPACTS WERE ANALYZED IN A
DRAFT AND FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AFTER A YEAR-LONG APPEAL, WE
ARE FINALLY HERE,
GETTING READY TO TAKE WHAT I
ANTICIPATE BEING A SET
OF FINAL VOTES OUT OF COMMITTEE
BEFORE COUNCIL'S
FINAL ACTION IN ABOUT 3 WEEKS.
I WANT TO SAY A BIG THANK YOU
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC WHO STAYED WITH US FOR
THE FOUR-AND-A-HALF
HOUR PUBLIC HEATING WE HELD,
AND COUNCILMAN FOR
CHAIRING THAT CONVERSATION.
I HAD A CHANCE TO ARE VIEW.
I WASN'T HERE IN PERSONAL.
I'M GRATEFUL FEW YOU FOR THE
STERN HAND THAT YOU HAD
IN THE BEGINNING OF THAT
MEETING TO MAKE SURE
EVERYTHING STAYED ON TIME AND
ON AGENDA.
AND IT DID BREAK THE RECORD.
WE HAD PREVIOUSLY SET AT FOUR
HOURS AND 22 MINUTES.
THIS 4 HOURS AND 25 MINUTES
MEANS YOU ARE NOW THE
RECORD HOLDER OF THE LONGEST
MHA PUBLIC HEARING.
AFTER WE CONCLUDE PUBLIC
COMMENT, CENTRAL STAFF AND
THE CLERK WILL BE TALLYING
VOTES.
BUT THAT CERTAINLY IS MADE A
LOT EASIER IF COUNCIL
MEMBERS CAN SPEAK UP DURING THE
DISCUSSION PHASE ON
INDIVIDUAL VOTES.
SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING ABOUT
WHERE YOU MIGHT LAND RATHER
THAN HAVING TO SPEND
TIME AND ENERGY TRYING TO COUNT
THE HANDS THAT ARE
RAISED AS WELL.
. WE WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF THE
FACT COUNCILMAN HERBOL
HAS INTRODUCED NEW LEGISLATION
NOT A PART OF THIS
COMMITTEE'S RESPONSIBILITY.
IT IS ON TODAY'S AGENDA AND HAS
BEEN REFERRED TO THE
ZONING COMMITTEE.
IT IS, I THINK, SOMETHING THAT
WE WILL WARRANT
LARGER DISCUSSION ABOUT WITHIN
THE FRAMEWORK OF THAT
COMMITTEE.
BUT I WONDER COUNCILMAN HERBOL
IF THERE'S ANYTHING
YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY ABOUT
THAT NOW.
>> THAT'S SEVENTY, THANK YOU.
>> WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, WE'LL
NOW MOVE INTO THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF
TODAY'S AGENDA.
THERE ARE, LIKE I SAID, ABOUT
20 PEOPLE WHO HAVE
SIGNED UP TO GIVE PUBLIC
COMMENT.
EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC WILL HAVE TWO
MINUTES.
WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE
COME TO ONE OF THE TWO
MICROPHONES AT THE FRONT OF THE
AUDITORIUM.
AND IT HELPS IF WE HAVE FOLKS
LINED UP SO WE CAN
MOVE THROUGH THE COMMENT PERIOD
QUICKLY.
THE FIRST PERSON IS DEBORAH
HANULA FOLLOWED BY ALICE
LOCKHART, AND THEN MICHAEL
IMIGGER.
>> I'M NOT SURE WHICH WHAT
MICROPHONE THIS IS.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS DEBORAH HANULA, AND
I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU
TODAY.
I'VE HEARD NOW SEVERAL TIMES AT
THIS MEETING AND
LAST ONE ABOUT ALL THE EFFORT
AND YEARS OF WORK
GOING INTO MHA, BUT THAT'S NOT
THE CASE FOR THE
AMENDMENTS, AND I'M ASKING THAT
YOU CALL 418.
COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON'S STAFF
INFORMED ME THAT 418
WAS ADDED IN MID-JANUARY OF
THIS YEAR, SO ABOUT A
MONTH AGO.
418 WAS ACCORDING TO THEM, NOT
THE PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE OR THE MAYOR'S
PROPOSAL, AND THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL DID NOT HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BEGIN
PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE
LEGISLATION UNTIL THIS
YEAR.
CAPITOL HILL RESIDENTS ONLY HAD
NOTICE OF THIS WHEN
ONE PERSON JUST HAPPENED TO
CATCH THE CITY COUNCIL'S
WEB SITE SEVERAL WEEKS AGO THAT
MENTIONED 418.
THAT'S NOT NOTICE.
AND I APPRECIATE WE MAY NOT
HAVE THE LEGAL ARGUMENT,
BUT AS OF CITIZENS OF THE CITY,
WE SHOULD BE TREATED
WITH DEAN SAY AND RESPECT.
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO PEOPLE THAT
WILL BE IMPACTED BY
THE ACTUAL NOTICE.
I RECEIVED FROM THE CITY A
COMPLAINT ABOUT FOLIAGE
ON A SIDEWALK.
I RECEIVED NOTICE, A PHONE
NUMBER TO CALL, HOW TO
PARTICIPATE IN THAT PROCESS,
SAME WITH JURY DUTY,
SAME AS IF I'M SUMMONED TO
COURT.
ANNOUNCING THIS IN A FEW WEEKS
ISN'T ENOUGH.
I WAS TOLD BY MR. AWN THAT THE
FINAL,IS WAS
PUBLISHED ON NOVEMBER 2017, BUT
THAT'S NOT NOTICE.
I THINK IT'S DISINGENUOUS TO
THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO
THROUGH 1,052 PAGES OF THE EIS
STUDY AND ASSUME THAT
ALL THE SEATTLE IDENTITIES WHO
ARE WORKING, RAISING
CHILDREN, RETIREES WITHOUT
COMPUTER SKILLS, CITIZENS
BATTLING CANCER, OTHER LIFE-
THREATENING DISEASES,
ARE ALSO DILIGENTLY CHECKING
YOUR WEB SITE TO SEE IF
THE CITY COUNCIL HAS REJECTED,
QUOTE, "THE PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE OR THE MAYOR'S
PROPOSAL.
I'M RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING YOU
TAKE 418 AND REMOVE
IT FROM THE CONSENT PACKAGE,
VOTE NO ON IT, AND
REALLY --
>> THANK YOU.
>> -- LISTEN TO US ABOUT THE
NOISE, BECAUSE A BLOCK
OF WALL ON BOYLSTON THAT'S
GOING TO BOUNCE THAT
NOISE AND POLLUTION BACK TO US
HAS NOT BEEN LOOK AT,
AND YOUR ORDINANCE --
>> YOUR TIME IS UP.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> MS. LOCKHART, YOU'RE GOING
TO BE FOLLOWED BY
MICHAEL IMIGGER, AND THEN RANDY
RIDDLE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL.
I'M, AS USUAL HERE, SPEAKING
FOR 350 SEATTLE'S
HOUSING TEAM.
THIS TIME IT'S TO SORT OF
NARROW OUR FOCUS.
WE ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT MHA.
WE SUPPORT THE CONSENT PACKAGE
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
AM.
6, WHICH WE HOPE WILL BE
PULLED.
BUT I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE
CROWN HILL PACKAGE.
TAKEN AS A PACKAGE -- ACTUALLY,
THE CROWN HILL
PACKAGE AND THE CRITERIA FOR
IT, WHICH WE ARE HOPING
THE COUNCIL WILL APPLY TO ALL
OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
SETS OF MAP AMENDMENTS.
THE CROWN -- I'M REALLY SORRY.
GIVEN OUR HOUSING AND CLIMATE
EMERGENCIES, EACH
NEIGHBORHOOD PACKAGE SHOULD,
CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE,
REDUCE NEITHER MARKET RATE NOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CAPACITY PROVIDED BY THE MHA.
CRIME HILL DOES THAT.
IT SHOULD NOT REDUCE HOUSING
CAPACITY PLANNED FOR
THE VICINITY OF LIGHT RAIL.
CROWN HILL ISN'T SLATED FOR THE
LIGHT RAIL.
AND EACH SHOULD HAVE BEEN
ARRIVED AT BY INEQUITABLE
PROCESS, WHICH IN THE CASE OF
CROWN HILL MEANT THAT
NEIGHBORS, NOT ONLY HOMEOWNERS,
BUT RENTERS WERE
CONSULTED AS WELL, WHICH I
THOUGHT WAS PRETTY
AWESOME.
AND THAT THE DOWN ZONING PART
OF THE BALANCE, SOME
DOWN ZONE, SOME UP ZONE, WAS
DONE WITH THE MOTIVE OF
REDUCING DISPLACEMENT RISK IN
PARTICULAR PARTS OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO IT FELT LIKE AN EXEMPLARY
PROCESS.
IT FELT LIKE THERE WERE
CRITERIA THAT COULD BE USED
FOR SUCH PROCESSES IN THE
FUTURE, AND MOREOVER,
CRITERIA THAT THE COUNCIL COULD
USE IN DISCUSSING
THE D1 AND D4 NEIGHBORHOOD
AMENDMENT PACKAGES, WHICH
I BELIEVE SORT OF DO THE
OPPOSITE WITH RESPECT TO
HOUSING NEAR TDD, AND TO
BALANCING UP AND DOWN AND
COMING OUT.
>> THANK YOU, ALICE.
MICHAEL, YOU'RE GOING TO BE
FOLLOWED BY RANDY REHOL,
THENNESTER PATRICK.
>> MY NAME IS MIKE LONGAER.
I LIVE IN THE OFFICIAL
BUILDING.
I'VE BEEN A DOWNTOWN RESIDENT
FOR OVER 30 YEARS, IN
THE OFFICIALS STUDIO BUILDING
ON THIRD AVENUE KNEW,
ENJOYED THE ADVENTURE OF
LIVERING ON THIRD AVENUE
KNEW WITH THE CONDITIONS OF
STREET CRIMES AND DRUGS,
AND FAMILIAR WITH DOWNTOWN
LIVING.
MY PURPOSE HERE TODAY IS TO ASK
CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE
IT BACK A FEW STEPS ON FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT OF
DOWNTOWN HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS
THAT ARE THROWING
SHADOWS, IMPACTING THE QUALITY
OF LIFE FOR THE
DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND LOOK MORE AT THE MARKET
MODEL OF INTEGRATED
HOUSING WITH MIXED INCOMES.
OFFICIALS STUDIO BUILDING IS A
MIXED-INCOME
BUILDING.
WHAT WE'RE SEEING NOW ARE HIGH-
RISE BUILDINGS THAT
THE AVERAGE PERSON CAN'T PEBBLY
AFFORD.
WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE BEING
MARKETED INTERNATIONALLY,
WHICH IS GREAT.
SEATTLE IS A COSMOPOLITAN
INTERNATIONAL CITY.
BUT THE RESULT IS IT'S NOT
BEING BUILT FOR THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S NOT A BUILDING BUILT FOR
THE SUSTAINABILITY OF
OUR COMMUNITY, AND THAT THESE
ISSUES NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED.
IN PARTICULAR, WHEN MY
NEIGHBORS AND COLLEAGUES WILL
BE TALKING MORE ABOUT THE
DOWNTOWN DENSITY BILL OF
RIGHTS.
WE'RE ASKING CITY COUNCIL TO
STEP BACK, REALIZE THAT
OUR FREEWAY DOWNTOWN WAS NOT
BUILT FOR A SERIES OF
FOUR-STORY BUILDINGS.
WITH THE THOUSANDS OF AUTO
TRIMS, THOUSANDS OF
DELIVERIES THAT ARE HAPPENING
IN THAT THE TRAFFIC
SNARL THAT WE EXPERIENCE ON A
DAILY BASIS DOWNTOWN
REFLECTS IN PART, BECAUSE WE
DON'T HAVE THAT
FREEWAY, AND WE'RE OVERBUILDING
WHAT THE CURRENT
FREEWAY CAN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.
>> THANK YOU, MR. LEONARD.
APOLOGIES FOR THE MISPRONOUNCE
ANXIOUS.
RANDY REDEL.
YOU'LL BE FOLLOWED BIESTER
PATRICK, AND ALEX
ZIMMERMAN.
>> I'M RANDY READLE, AND I HAVE
A HOME IN IN THE
MORGAN JUNCTION AREA.
I'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF
MHA.
JUST IN GENERAL, I'VE GOT A
PICTURE AT HOME.
I'S THE FIRST DEPICTION OF THE
CITY OF SEATTLE, AND
IT WAS HAND DRAWN BY AN OFFICER
ABOARD A NAVAL
VESSEL, SITTING JUST OFFSHORE.
THEY WERE TRYING TO KILL THE
CITY COUNCIL AT THE
TIME, AND WHILE I ASSUME THAT'S
WHAT THEY WERE
DOING, BECAUSE THEY WERE FIRING
NAVY ARTILLERY AT
THEM.
I DON'T THINK THEY WERE JUST
TRYING TO SCARE THEM.
THE REASON THEY WERE DOING THAT
WAS THE CITY
COUNCIL, AT THE TIME, ONLIED TO
THE LAND USE
PRACTICES AND THE HOUSING NEEDS
OF THE NEWCOMERS.
SO THEY HAD TO GET RID OF THE
COUNCIL, OF COURSE.
HERE WE ARE 163 YEARS, 0 DAYS
LATER, AND WEIR KIND
OF ARGUE ABOUT THE SAME THINGS.
I HEARD IN THE LAST MEETING A
LOT OF PEOPLE
COMPLAINING ABOUT NEWCOMERS AND
EVERYTHING, BUT THE
FACT IS THEY'RE COMING.
AND IN DROVES, AND I SORT OF
LIKE MOST OF THEM.
AND SO WE'VE GOT TO PLAN FOR
THEM FOR THE FIRST
TIME.
IN THE PAST, WE'VE BEEN GOOD AT
REJECTING PEOPLE
THAT COME IN, YOU KNOW, NEW
COMEERS.
I THINK OF THE CHINESE THAT
BUILT THE RAILROADS AND
SO FORTH.
THOSE PEOPLE ARE MOSTLY WELL
EDUCATED.
YOU HAVE TO BE TO GET THE JOBS
WE'RE GETTING.
AND WE NEED THE HOUSING.
SO ANYTHING YOU DO TO DOWNGRADE
THE UP ZONES IS KIND
OF HOSTILE TO THE IDEA --
>> THANK YOU, MR. READLE.
>> -- MHA.
> ESTER, YO'RE GOING TO BE
FOLLOWED BY ALEX
ZIMMERMAN, THAN SARAH
ZUEGFRIED.
>> THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CME HERE AND SPEAK
TO YOU ABOUT THE 418 AND THE
LUXURY HOUSING THAT IS
BEING BUILT IN THE CITY, AND I
WANT TO TALK ABOUT
THE LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
THAT WE HAVE IN THIS
AREA.
I AM A THERAPIST, A SOCIAL
WORKER THROUGH CHILDREN'S
ADMINISTRATION, THROUGH
WASHINGTON STATE, AND I HAVE
CLIENTS THAT WITHIN OF THE BIG
BARRIERS TO REUNIFY
CAUTION OF THEIR CHILDREN IS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE
LIMITED SPACE THAT IS
IN THIS AREA, AND YOU'RE TAKING
IN YOUR BUILDING
LUXURY HOMES, THAT'S TAKING
AWAY FROM ACTUAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND IT'S
VERY DIFFICULT, AND THE
PERSON WHO SPOKE ABOUT THE
FREEWAY AND BEING ABLE TO
NAVIGATE SEATTLE, I JUST WANT
TO, KEY THAT PERSON.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE
SERVICES FOR OUR
FAMILIES IN THIS AREA, BECAUSE
WE CAN'T GET AROUND.
YOU HAVE BUSES.
YOU HAVE A BIKE SYSTEM.
BUT WE NEED TO DRIVE CARS IN
ORDER TO GET TO OUR
FAMILIES IN ORDER TO MEET THEM
AND TO PROVIDE THE
SERVICES THAT THEY NEED.
SO I WANT TO ENCOURAGE A VOTE
OF NO ON 418, AND
THANK YOU FOR HEARING WHAT I
HAVE TO SAY.
>> THANK YOU, MS. PATRICK.
>> ALEX ZIMMERMAN, FOLD BY
SARAH JANE ZIEGFRIED, AND
BRITTANY BOLET.
>> MY NAME IS ALEX ZIMMERMAN.
I WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT ZONING.
THERE IS NO QUESTION, THIS IS
DANGEROUS, BECAUSE IT
HAS NOT CHANGED.
WE WON'T STOP AT EMPTY
APARTMENT.
IT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS DOING
RIGHT NOW.
BUT IT'S A MUCH DEEPER PROBLEM
THAN WHAT WE HAVE
RIGHT NOW.
THIS ZONING ERODES WHAT YOU
ESTABLISH RIGHT NOW,
ESTABLISHED BY -- GO FOR
REELECTION.
THE SITUATION IS WHAT WE HAVE
RIGHT NOW.
YOU ARE PROVING SOMETHING THAT
YOU NEVER WILL BE
RESPONSIBLE.
SO BY DEFINITION, NUMBER ONE, I
WANT YOU TO STOP
DING THIS NOW BEFORE NEW PEOPLE
COME.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE
NEW BRAINS WILL COME AS
A GUARANTEE NOW.
IT WILL CHANGE THE SITUATION.
NUMBER TWO, WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY
CRITICAL, AS I'VE
SEEN FOR MANY YEARS,, FOR
EXAMPLE, CONCERT, YOU KNOW
WHAT THIS MEANS, ONLY SUPPOSED
TO GO UP.
ONLY FOR ONE PARTICULAR REASON.
LAST WEEK, HE MADE FOUR HOURS.
WE SIT -- A FEW DOZEN PEOPLE
SIT IN THIS CHAMBER FOR
FOUR HOURS BEFORE WE CAN SPEAK.
ONLY FOR ONE PARTICULAR REASON,
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE
OUT FROM THIS CHAMBER.
IT'S ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE.
THAT'S NUMBER TWO.
NUMBER THREE, WE HAVE
EXPERIENCED -- YOU KNOW WHAT
THIS MEANS?
WHY WE CAN NOT TAKE AL JOHNSON
NOW, BECAUSE BY
DEFINITION HE'S EGOTISTIC, AND
STUPID.
SO RIGHT NOW, I SPEAK TO
ANYBODY WHO WILL LISTEN TO
ME.
STAND UP, AMERICA.
THIS ZONING WAS SUPPOSED TO BE
FOR ONE YEAR.
>> THANK YOU, MR. ZIMMERMAN.
MS. SIEGFRIED, I APOLOGIZE FOR
THE EARLIER SPEAKER,
AND I'M SORRY YOU HAVE TO
FOLLOW HIM.
YOU'RE GOING TO BE FOLLOWED BY
BRITTANY BOLET AND
FRANK MAY.
>> THANK YOU.
SARAH JANE ZIEGFRIED.
THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR
THIS OPPORTUNITY.
I WANT TO READ FROM THE SC
INSIGHT COLUMN.
SCINSIGHT.COM JUST TO CORRECT
THE RECORD.
WE KEEP HEARING ABOUT 6,000
UNITS OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN THIS BILL, BUT IT'S
3,000.
AS YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL ASKED
FOR A RECONSIDERING,
RERUNNING OF THE MODEL TO SEE
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WHEN
THE CHANGES WERE MADE IN THOSE
NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE COUNCIL STAFF PLUGGED IN
ALL THE AMENDMENTS
UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND THEN
RERAN THE MODEL.
IT CAME UP WITH NET DECREASE IN
MHA UNITS OF 56 OUT
OF THE 3,000 ORIGINALLY
EXPECTED TO BE PRODUCED.
ABOUT A 2% DECREASE FOR CITY-
WIDE MHA, AND 1% FOR
THE ENTIRE PROGRAM, WHICH
INCLUDES DOWNTOWN.
SO I THINK THAT WE'RE
EXAGGERATING THE POTENTIAL
LOSS FOR NOT TAKING INTO
CONSIDERATION WHAT THE
NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE REQUESTED.
TODAY, YOU RECEIVED A LETTER
FROM HISTORIC SEATTLE,
AND AS YOU KNOW, SCALE
PRESENTED ABOUT 40 DIFFERENT
ISSUES TO THE HEARING EXAMINER,
AND WHERE THE,IS
CLEARLY FELL SHORT WAS IN
CONSIDERATION OF HISTORIC
RESOURCES, THE POTENTIAL LOSS
JUST HADN'T BEEN
CONSIDERED AT ALL.
PICK ONLY BE DONE BY A PARTIAL
BY PARTIAL
EXAMINATION.
IN YOUR WORDS, BY NEIGHBORHOOD
PLANNING.
OLDER BUILDINGS PROVIDE
NATURALLY OCCURRING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
REPLACING THEM WITH NEW
CONSTRUCTION THAT DOES NOT
OFFER AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS
DISPLACEMENT.
THE COUNCIL HAS AND ODD VIEW OF
DISPLACEMENT.
IT'S A TOP-DOWN THING.
WHAT THE MAYOR HAS PROPOSED IS
A BAND AID.
YOU GET DISPLACED, AND YOU GET
ON A LIST.
THAT'S REALLY NOT IT.
AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
COMMUNITIES BEING
DISPLACED.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS
ALL OVER THE CITY,
IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE ALL HAVE FRIENDS AND
RELATIVES WHO HAVE BEEN
DISPLACED AND ARE BEING
DISPLACED FROM THE CITY.
SO I ASK YOU TO TAKE A STEP
BACK AND RETHINK
DISPLACEMENT.
>> THANK YOU, MS. ZIEGFRIED.
BRITTANY, YOU'RE GOING TO BE
FOLLOWED BY FRANK MAY,
THEN JUDY GIBBS.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
SIERRA CLUB SEATTLE GROUP.
THE SIERRA CLUB HAS LONG BEEN
SUPPORTIVE OF MHA AND
CONTINUES TO STAND IN SUPPORT
AS THE LEGISLATION
ENTERS THE HOME STRETCH.
BEING PRO ENVIRONMENT MEANS
BEING PRO DENSITY.
DENSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS
GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
IN A NUMBER OF WAYS.
THE MORE PEOPLE THAT CAN LIVE
IN A CITY, THE FEWER
PEOPLE HAVE TO DRIVE IN FROM
OUTSIDE THE CITY.
MHA WILL DECREASE DRIVING AND
INCREASE TRANSIT
BIKING AND WALKING, HELPING THE
ENVIRONMENT AS WELL
AS INCREASING PEOPLE'S QUALITY
OF LIFE.
MULTI-FAMILY AND OTHER SMALL
HOUSING IS ENERGY
EFFICIENT, REQUIRING LESS
ENERGY TO CONSTRUCT, HEAT,
AND COOL THAN LARGER SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES.
AND THE CITY WHERE BUILDINGS
ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
OVER 30% OF OUR EMISSIONS, THIS
MATTERS.
THIRD, BUILDING IN THE CITY
BREAKS FRAGILE AREAS
OUTSIDE THE CITY.
PREVENTING SPRAWL BREAKS OUR
MOUNTAINS, FORESTS,
WETLANDS AND OTHER NATURAL
AREAS THAT WE CHERISH AND
COUNT AS PART OF OUR REGIONAL
IDENTITY.
THIS LEGISLATION HAS BEEN
STUDIED, HEARD, EXAMINED,
AND DISCUSSED THOROUGHLY, AND
IT IS TIME TO PASS IT
WITH THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UP
ZONES.
LET US USE SEATTLE'S REMARKABLE
GROWTH AS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE OUR PLACE
AS A LEADER ON
CLIMATE, AND TO WELCOME MORE
FRIENDS AND NEW
NEIGHBORS INTO THE PARTS OF THE
CITY THAT WE LOVE
THE MOST.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
FRANK?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M FRANK MAY, AUTHENTIC
NEIGHBORHOOD VOICE FROM
WALL END FORD.
THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS ARE
NEEDED TO IMPROVE THE
MHA LEGISLATION.
FIRST I'D LIKE TO COVER THE
ONES THAT COVER MY
NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'D LIKE TO -- I'D LIKE TO --
EXCUSE ME -- ADVOCATE
FOR A YES VOTE FOR 14, FOR 415,
FOR 416B, AND FOR
417.
I WOULD LIKE TO DEFINITELY
ADVOCATE A NO VOTE FOR
416A, WHICH IS NOT BEEN
CONSULTED WITH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE NEIGHBORS
THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED
THERE.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, I'D ALSO LIKE
TO ADDRESS THE FUND.
ALES OF THE LEGISLATION.
THERE NEEDS TO BE ONE-FOR-ONE
REPLACEMENT OF
DISPLACED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNITS.
THERE MUST BE FREQUENT
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, AND
SUBSTANTIAL CORRECTIONS
REQUIRED IF THE REPLACED
GOALS ARE NOT MET.
THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THE
LEGISLATION.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A REQUIREMENT
THAT MHA UNITS ARE
BUILT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF
THE CONTRIBUTING
DEVELOPMENTS.
WE WANT INCLUSIVE
NEIGHBORHOODS.
THAT'S THE PROMISE OF MHA.
FAILURE TO INCLUDE SUCH A
PROVISION WILL RESULT IN
GENTRIFIED AND SEGREGATED
NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND FINALLY, WELL CONSTRUCTED
LEGISLATION INCLUDES
PROVISIONS THAT SHOULD COVER
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF
PART OR ALL OF THE LEGISLATION
IS FOUND TO BE
UNLAWFUL.
THIS SHOULD BE THE CASE FOR MHA
LEGISLATION.
A PROVISION NEEDS TO BE ADDED
TO DELL WITH THIS
LIKELY CIRCUMSTANCE.
AND IT NEEDS TO BE A PROVISION,
NOT A RESOLUTION.
IT NEEDS TO SPECIFY EXACTLY
WHAT WILL HAPPEN SHOULD
THIS LEGISLATION BE FOUND
UNLAWFUL.
THE MHA LEGISLATION IS COMPLEX.
BASED ON NOVEL LEGAL THEORIES
AND LIKELY SUBJECT TO
LAWSUITS BY AT LEAST THREE
PARTIES.
IT IS VITAL THAT THIS CITY IS
NOT LEFT WITH NOTHING
IF THE LAWSUIT SUCCEEDS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE COUNCIL.
>> THANK YOU.
JUDY GIBBS?
JUDY G,BBS, YOU'RE GOING TO BE
FOLLOWED BY MATT
HUTCHINS, THEN LEO BROKENNAN.
>> HI.
I'M JUDY GIBBS, AND I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT THE HERON
HABITAT, YET AGAIN, WHICH IS A
DESIGNATED WILDLIFE
REFUGE.
MIKE MARSH AND DAVID MOORING
SPOKE LAST WEEK, AND
MDC, WHEN ROB JOHNSON CAME TO
SPEAK US, HE SAID HE
WOULD MEET WITH US ABOUT THE
HERRING HABITAT.
WE'RE STILL INTERESTED IN
WAITING TO HEAR FROM ROB
ABOUT THE HERRING HABITAT.
WE DO NOT WANT UP ZONING IN THE
BUFFER ZONE AROUND
THE HERRING HABITAT.
THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A
CERTAIN AMOUNT -- THERE'S
SUPPOSED TO BE A BUFFER ZONE, A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF
SPACE AROUND THE HERRING
HABITAT TO PROTECT THE
BIRDS.
AND WE THINK THIS -- WE THINK
THE PROPOSITIVED UP
ZONING WOULD IMPACT THAT, AND
WE DO NOT WANT THAT UP
ZONING AROUND THE DESIGNATED
WILDLIFE REFUGE.
SO, ROB, WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM
YOU.
SALLY, COUNCIL MEMBER BAGSHAW
IS OUR COUNCIL MEMBER.
WE WOULD WELCOME YOUR
INVOLVEMENT IN THIS.
WE'VE HEARD HERE FROM GROUPS
LIKE THE SIERRA CLUB.
I WOULD HOPE THAT THE SIERRA
CLUB, WHICH EVE
BELONGED TO FOR MANY YEARS.
NOT NOW, BUT HAVE IN THE PAST.
I WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WOULD --
THAT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS WOULD
SUPPORT PROTECTION OF A
WILDLIFE REFUGE.
>> THANK YOU, JUDY.
MATT, FOLLOWED BY LEO BRENNAN,
AND KNUT RINGIT.
>> HI.
SEATTLE SPACING AND HOUSING
CRISIS, CLIMATE CRISIS,
AND IS AN INCREASINGLY
INEQUITABLE CITY TO LIVE IN.
I WANT THIS TO BE A PLACE WHERE
MY DAUGHTER CAN, IN
20 YEARS, FIND A PLACE TO LIVE
IN HER NEIGHBORHOOD
THAT SHE LIVES NOW IN NOW, BE
ABLE TO RAISE A
FAMILY, BE ABLE TO AFFORD
HOUSING, CLOSE TO JOBS,
PARKS, SCHOOLS, ALL THE GREAT
THINGS WE THINK ABOUT
WHEN WE THINK ABOUT SEATTLE
TODAY.
CREATING CLOSE HOUSING OPTIONS
EQUITABLY ACROSS OUR
CITY ADDRESSES KIND OF ALL
THREE.
SO I'D LUKE YOU TO SUPPORT ALL
THE RESIDENTIAL SMALL
LOT AMENDMENTS, THOSE THINGS
THAT HELP HOMEOWNERS
MODIFY THEIR HOUSES, TAKE
APARTMENT BANS OFF THE
TABLE, DO COMMON-SENSE
FLEXIBILITY FOR USE, AND KEEP
THOSE 900 PROPERTIES FROM BEING
EFFECTIVE DOWN
ZONES, THE ONES THAT ARE UNDER
3,700 SQUARE FEET.
NOW AS MUCH AS I'M AN ADVOCATE
FOR RESIDENTIAL SMALL
LOT ZONING, IT'S NOT A
SUBSTITUTE FOR MORE
APPROPRIATE USES, LIKE LOW-RISE
AROUND LIGHT RAIL,
AND THROUGH THE OTHER PARTS OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I'D ALSO LIKE YOU TO OPPOSE
MAP AMENDMENTS THAT
DECREASE THE ZONING CAPACITY.
THEY ARE, FIRST OF ALL, HIT ON
POTENTIAL NEW
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THEY ARE INEQUITABLY
DISTRIBUTED.
THEY ARE ONLY HAPPENING IN TWO
URBAN VILLAGES, AND
THEY'LL LEAD TO NEW MARKET
RATES, SOMETHING I DON'T
KNOW THAT STAFF HAS PORTRAYED
IN THE RECENT STUDY,
AND AT LEAST AT ANY
NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK IT'S A
FALSE PROMISE TO SUPPORT HIGHER
DENSITY AS PART OF
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ONCE SD 3
COMES AROUND.
SO I WOULD SAY PLEASE VOTE FOR
THE MAXIMUM -- MHA
FOR THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MATT.
LEO.
LEE YOU'RE GOING TO BE FOLLOWED
BY KATE RINGIN AND
COREY CROCKER.
>> YES.
MY NAME IS LEO BRENNAN, AND MY
FAMILY AND I HAVE A
PROPERTY IN THE ROOSEVELT AREA.
WHILE WE VERY MUCH SUPPORT THE
MHA UP ZONE, OUR
HOUSE IS PRESENTLY SINGLE
FAMILY, AND IT'S GOING TO
BE HAVE ONE OR TWO, WHICH WE
WOULD SUPPORT VERY
MUCH.
.
>> THE BLOCK THAT OUR HOUSE IS
IN.
THERE ARE SEVEN SINGLE
PROPERTIES THERE ARE.
ARE WE'RE RIGHT NEXT TO THE
BANK, THE COMMERCIAL
BANK, AND THE REST OF THE BLOCK
IS GOING TO GET UP
TO ZONE, NC 75, WHICH WILL LEAD
TO A HUGE STEP DOWN
FOR OUR PROPERTY.
SO WE WOULD HOPE, AND ASK THE
CITY COUNCIL AND NOT
DURING THE LEGISLATION, THAT
THEY WOULD CONSIDER
MAYBE UP SORTING THE WHOLE
BLOCK TO THE SAME ZONING.
AND NOT HAVE THIS HUGE STEP
DOWN FROM NC 75 TO R2.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK.
>> THANK YOU, LEO.
>> COREY CROCKER AND THEN
SHERBERG.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
COUNCIL MEMBER ACTUAL
STAFF TO DEVELOP SOME
AMENDMENTS TO DEAL WITH SOME
OF THE UNANTICIPATED ISSUES OF
ADMINISTERING UP
ZONING DOWNTOWN, AND THESE WERE
CONSIDERED NOT TO BE
GERMANE TO THIS LEGISLATION,
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DEAL
SPECIFICALLY WITH DOWNTOWN.
SO WE HAVE DEVELOPED THE OUT
LINE FOR WHAT WE WOULD
LIKE TO CALL A DOWNTOWN DENSITY
BILL OF RIGHTS THAT
I'VE SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
THE DEAL WITH MAKING
SURE THAT WE PROTECT EXISTING
NEIGHBORS, EXISTING
ROSES, THAT WE GET A MORE
RATIONAL REVIEW PROCESS
THAT THE PUBLIC CAN PARTICIPATE
IN BETTER.
AND A COUPLE OF OTHER
OBJECTIVES.
WE'VE STUDIED NOW THE HISTORY
OF THE DOWNTOWN UP
ZONING LEGISLATION, AND THE
ADMINISTRATION GOING
AROUND THAT OVER THE LAST
DECADE OR SO.
THE OBJECTIVE OF THAT
LEGISLATION WAS TO CREATE MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOWNTOWN.
IT HASN'T HAPPENED.
OF THE 10 -- 6,000 OR SO
APARTMENTS BEING BUILT OR
PROPOSED DOWNTOWN RIGHT NOW,
NOT ONE OF THEM IS
AFFORDABLE, BY A LONG SHOT.
I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO WHAT MIKE
LONGYEAR SAID, THAT
WE'RE RISKING CREATING A
SEGREGATED CITY, AND THAT
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS REALLY
RICH DOWNTOWN GHETTO
WITHOUT THE DIVERSITY WE NEED
DOUBLE A VIBRANT CITY.
AND THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO
HAPPEN TO OTHER AREAS
THAT YOU UPSON IN THE URBAN
VILLAGES.
AS THOSE CENTERS BECOME MORE
VALUABLE TO DEVELOPERS,
THEY WILL TRY TO DO THE SAME
THINGS.
I URGE YOU TO MAKE SURE NOT
JUST THAT PEOPLE CAN BUY
THEMSELVES OUT OF HAVING TO
PROVIDE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, BUT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE
TO PROVIDE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS PART OF
THEIR LEGISLATION.
AND FINALLY, THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AN EXAMPLE OF
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, JUST
RECENTLY ENACTED
LEGISLATION SAYING NO NEW UP
ZONE PROPERTIES
COULD --
>> THANK YOU.
>> -- THEIR NEIGHBORS.
COREY?
>> Reporter: GOOD AFTERNOON,
COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I AM COREY CROCKER, SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER AND 30-YEAR
RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT.
MANY OF US IN THE DISTRICT
WELCOME THE INCREASED
DENSITY, AND WE WERE THE FIRST
NEIGHBORHOOD TO
REQUIRE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
THROUGH THE MHA PROGRAM.
TWO YEARS AGO WITH THE ADOPTION
OF OUR REZONE.
THAT, YOU LISTENED TO OUR
EXISTENTIAL CONCERNS OF
OUR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.
YOU OFFERED A DELAY OF THE
REZONE ALONG THE AP TO
STUDY THE IMPACTS, AND PROMISED
COMPANION
RESOLUTIONS TO HELP MITIGATE
OUR CONCERNS.
IN THE TWO YEARS SINCE, WE
ORGANIZED, RAISED OUR OWN
FUNDS, AND CONDUCTED A SURVEY
OF 123 SMALL
BUSINESSES ALONG THE AVE.
WHEN WE DISCOVERED HOW VERY
VULNERABLE THEY ARE.
HOWEVER, WE HAVE NOT SEEN
PROGRESS ON THOSE
COMPANION RESOLUTIONS FOR THE
CITY, AND OUR CONTINUES TO
WORSEN.
WE NEED YOUR HELP.
SO THAT THE BENEFITS OF THE
DENSITY THAT MAY BE
ENJOYED BY MORE OF OUR
ENDANGERED SMALL BUSINESSES.
WE ARE DISAPPOINTED OUR
PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS NOT
SPONSORED BY OUR COUNCIL MEMBER
SO THAT THE OTHER
COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN CONSIDER IT
AND MAYBE SUPPORT
OUR MODEST REQUEST.
WE WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO
WORK WITH YOU TO CAN'T
THAT WORK ON A SOLUTION THAT
WOULD BE GOOD FOR OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE INVITE YOU AND EVERYONE
HERE TO JOIN US
TONIGHT FROM 5 TO 9:00 P.M.
AT BIG TIME BREWERY IN
THE U DISTRICT FOR THE RALLY TO
SAVE THE AVE.
PLEASE JOIN US.
THANK YOU.
>> MARK SHERBER, YOU'RE GOING
TO BE FOLLOWED BY
PATIENCE MULAVA AND CHRIS
LEHMAN.
>> REGARDING A2 DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, IN ORDER TO
CLARIFY LEGISLATIVE INTENT, I
REQUEST COUNCIL TO
SPECIFY THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
APARTMENT UNITS THAT A
4,000 SQUARE FOOT RSL PARENT
LOT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO
SUPPORT.
>> I ALSO FIND IT INTERESTING
THAT AMENDMENTS 3 AND
4 USE MAINTAINING PASSABILITITY
WITH SINGLE FAMILY
ZONES IN SUPPORT OF PASSING
THOSE AM.
S. IS THIS AN INDICATION THAT
THE CITY WANTS APARTMENTS
NEXT IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES.
THAT IS AFTER PASSING HOLLA TO
MAKE THINGS
COMPATIBLE BETWEEN SINGLE
FAMILY AND RSL?
>> THANK YOU, MARK.
I BELIEVE OUR TECHNICAL
PRESENTATION MAY COVER SOME
OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU ASKED
QUESTIONS ABOUT.
PATIENCE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE
FOLLOWED BY CHRIS
LEHMAN AND CINDY BOOKER.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
MY NEIGHBORS IS PATIENCE MULABA
WITH THE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM OF
SEATTLE COUNTY.
I AM HERE REPRESENTING SEATTLE
FOR EVERYONE, A
COALITION UNITED IN SUPPORTING
THIS LEGISLATION.
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY, AS
TODAY, YOU WANT TOWARDS
VOTING ON THIS LEGISLATION AND
TAKING IT OUT OF
COMMON, WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOU
PASSING IT OUT OF
COMEDY.
AND AS YOU JUST CAST THE ISSUE
OF AMENDMENTS, WE
REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO ENSURE
THAT YOU'RE
MAXIMIZING THE AFFORDABLE HOME
GOALS THAT THIS
LEGISLATION CAN GET, ENSURE
THAT ALL DISTRICTS CAN
EQUALLY CONTRIBUTE, ENSURING
THAT WE HAVE MORE
HOUSING.
THERE ARE VARIOUS REDUCTIONS IN
DISTRICT 1, IN
DISTRICT 2, IN DISTRICT 4, AND
IN DISTRICT 6, AND WE
WOULD LIKE TO CALL ON YOU TO
ENSURE WE'RE GETTING
MAXIMUM HOUSING IN THOSE
SPECIFIC AREAS, ESPECIALLY
I THE AREAS THAT ARE NEAR
TRANSIT, IN AREAS THAT
ARE NEAR OPEN SPACES, IN AREAS
THAT ARE NEAR JOBS,
IN AREAS THAT ARE ALSO SET FOR
FUTURE STATION
PLANNING.
WE WANT TO BE SURE PEOPLE HAVE
THE OPTION TO LEAVE
THOSE, WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY
PUBLIC INVESTMENTS.
WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE ISSUE
OF THE HISTORIC
DISTRICT CARVE OUTS THAT WE SEE
IN THE AMENDMENTS.
WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THERE IS A
LEGAL STEP THAT NEEDS
TO BE TAKEN AND THAT NEEDS TO
BE LOOKED AT VERY
CAREFULLY, WE DO SEE THAT AS
HOLDING MORE STUFF AS
OFF LIMITS FOR MULTI-FAMILY
HOUSING.
SO EAR CALLING ON YOU TO
CAREFULLY CONSIDER ENSURING
THERE ARE SOME IN SOME OF THOSE
SPECIFIC AREAS,
BECAUSE EMPHASIZING ON
EXCLUSIONARIRY ZONING AND THE
NEED TO FACE THIS HEAD ON, AND
YET WE ARE HAVING THE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NOT DOING
THAT IS NOT A PART
THAT WE SHOULD BE TRYING.
WE'RE CALLING ON YOU TO BUILD
AN INCLUSIVE CITY.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE
AS A CITY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, PATIENCE.
CHRIS?
CHRIS, YOU'RE GOING TO BE
FOLLOWED BY CINDY BUCKER.
.
>> THE LETTERS THAT I JUST
PROVIDED, JUST FINISHED
ON SATURDAY, AND WE WERE
RESEARCHING THEM ON
THURSDAY, WEREN'T ABLE TO GET
THEM.
DID COME TO THE HEARING, BUT
SINCE YOU CONCLUDED IT
EARLY, I MISSED THE LEAGUER.
JUST A JOKE.
THANK YOU FOR STAYING AS LONG
AS YOU DID.
BUT THE LETTER IN PARTICULAR
THAT WE WANT YOU TO
LOOK AT IS JUST AMENDMENT 418,
THAT IS A TERRIBLE
SURPRISE TO, YOU KNOW, POSE ON
A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT
HAS A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT DAMAGE
THAT WE'VE ALREADY
EXPERIENCED AND WILL EXPERIENCE
AT MHA.
IT WOULD BRING MID-RISE ZONING
TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, AND
YOU MUST ISN'T DO THIS
WITHOUT ENGAGING THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, AND REALLY FULLY
EXAMINING THE IMPACTS, WHICH DO
INCLUDE THE NOISE
REFLECTION, WHICH WAS NOT
ADEQUATELY DISCOVERED, AND
LOOKED AT -- NOT LOOKED AT ALL
IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT.
AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS
IN PARTICULAR,
COUNCIL MEMBER JOHNSON, YOU
TOLD THE COUNCIL THAT
THIS WAS BASED ON THE IDEA OF
TRYING TO STEP DOWN
THE HEIGHTS FROM HIGHER -- THE
TEMPERATURE OF THE
HILLSIDE, AND DOWN TO THE
SHORELINE.
WELL, THAT IN THEORY WAS ONE
APPROACH THAT WAS
CONTROVERSIAL, BUT WAS
DISCUSSED AT THE 2017
WORKSHOP IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE
PROPOSING.
UNFORTUNATELY, YOU ARE NOT
PROVIDING STEP-DOWN, AND
YOU ARE JUST CHERRY-PICKING THE
WORST THING ABOUT
THAT IS JUST WHAT YOU'RE DOING
IN CROWN HILL.
IT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR, WRONG, AND
UNDERHANDED, AND YOU
MUSTNT DO IT.
PLEASE REMOVE THIS.
IF YOU WANT TO ADD IT A COUPLE
YEARS AFTER THE
PROCESS, DO SO.
.
>> I'M SORRY, MR. LEHMAN, YOUR
TIME IS UP.
>> MS. BARKER?
MS. BARKER, YOU'RE GOING TO BE
FOLLOWED BY RICHARD
EL SON.
RICHARD, YOU'RE OUR LAST
SPEAKER TODAY.
>> CINDY PARKER FROM MORGAN
JUNCTION.
I WANT TO SPEAK TO D2, EVEN
THOUGH IT'S IN THE
CONSENT PACKAGE
I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S VERY
CLEAR PLANNING
COMMISSION CAME UP AND SAID,
"IF YOU PUT THIS IN, IT
COMMITS OPC TO DO NEIGHBORHOOD
PLANNING.
IT DOES NOT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU
UNDERSTAND THAT.
IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SIGNAL,
BECAUSE EACH
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS REFLECTIVE
OF THE UNIQUE
CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE HAVE ALWAYS USED THAT IN
MORGAN AS A COMPANION TO
WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH THE CITY
FOR UNCORPORATION OF
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
WE'RE WITHIN OF THE FEW
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ACTUALLY
HAS TRAPPED MANY OF OUR
PROJECTS AS WE GO THROUGH.
SO IT'S OUR SIGNAL FOR THOSE OF
US LOOKING TO GET
AWAY FROM LAND USE, THAT THE
FUTURE STAKE HOLDER
GROUP LOOK AT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
PLAN, AND WHEN 25% OF
OUR URBAN VILLAGE COMES UP
UNDER A PROPOSED LAND USE
CHANGE ORSONNING CHANGE, OUR
STEWARDSHIP GROUP IS
SIGNALED TO SAY MAYBE YOU OUGHT
TO GO CONSIDER USING
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING.
IT'S A CRITICAL DISTINCTION I
NEED TO MAKE SURE YOU
UNDERSTAND.
IT DOES NOT COMMIT OPCD TO
SPEND MONEY ON JUST
MORGAN JUNCTION.
THAT IS NOT OUR INTENT.
SO ON TO CITY-WIDE THINGS,
THANK YOU TO CENTRAL
STAFF.
I TALKED TO YOU TWICE ABOUT
BEING CONCERNED ABOUT
THE VISUALIZATION OF RSL.
I'M NOW RELAXED ON THAT,
RECOGNIZING WHAT LOT SIZES
THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.
I DO WANT TO SAY B6, PLEASE DO
PASS THAT.
I THINK THAT IS DUE DILL JOHNS
ON YOUR PART.
ANOTHER THING IS HISTORIC
SEATTLE SENT YOU A LETTER
TODAY, AND THAT GOT COVERED IN
AND EARLIER COMMENTS.
I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M
SUPPORTIVE OF THE POINTS THEY
MADE IN THAT.
PLEASE PASS AMENDMENT B7, WHICH
IS 5% FOR HOME
OWNERSHIP.
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE FOR
MORGAN JUNCTION.
WE ARE REALLY LOOKING TO MAKE
SURE WE CONTINUE TO
TRACK YOUNG STARTER FAMILIES,
PEOPLE WHOSE ECONOMIC
CIRCUMSTANCES WON'T LET THEM
BUY SYSTEM OF THE NEW
HOUSING STOCK THAT'S BEING
BUILT.
SO 5% FOR HOME OWNERSHIP
INABILITITIES SUCH AS
COMMUNITY LAND TRUST IS
IMPORTANT TO US.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MR. ELLISON?
>> MY NAME IS RICHARD ELLISON,
AND I'LL LIKE TO
SPEAK ABOUT TRUE PROTECTION IN
MSA.
CURRENTLY THE PROPOSAL IS ONLY
FOR FEES IN LIEU OF
LITIGATION, MEANING HOW BIG
THAT TREE IS, THEY CAN
CUT IT DOWN.
SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS BOTH
HERITAGE TREES AND
EXCEPTIONAL TREES ARE NOT
PROTECTED AT ALL BY THIS
ORDINANCE.
THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND CUT DOWN
THREE EXCEPTIONAL
TREES PER YEAR ON A PROPERTY.
AND SPEAKING TO NOAH RENQ UIST,
HE SAID THERE ARE
ONLY 028 ACTIVE TREES IN THE
CITY OF SEATTLE.
DEVELOPER CAN COME AND CUT ANY
OF THESE TREES DOWN
JUST BY PAYING A FEE.
THERE SHOULD BE A STANDARD THAT
SAYS NO.
, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SEATTLE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS
THAT -- ONE OF THE FOUR CORE
VALUES IS ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP.
SO AS WE THRUST FORWARD IN
BUILDING MORE HOUSING, WE
HAVE TO HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP ALSO.
CAN WE NOT SAVE 238, TRY TO%
THESE TREES.
OF THESE 238 TREES, 160 ARE
BELIEVED TO BE ON
PRIVATE PROPERTY.
OF THE 1,000 -- 149,000 STREET
TREES, ONLY 2,882 OF
THEM ARE EXCEPTIONAL.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS LESS THAN 2%
OF THE CITY STREET
TREES ARE EXCEPTIONAL TREES.
CAN'T WE FOLLOW THE CORE
PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP AND SAY LET'S SAVE
THE BEST 2% OF
SEATTLE.
IF WE CAN'T DO THAT, CAN'T WE
SAY LET'S GUARANTEE
SAVING ALL THE HERITAGE TREES.
DEVELOPERS CAN'T CUT THEM DOWN.
WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO DO?
APPARENTLY, WE'VE BEEN KICKING
THE CAN DOWN THE
STREET FOR DECADES NOW ON TRY
PROTECTION, AND WE
SAY, "OH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A
GREAT TREE
PROTECTION ORDINANCE COMING
SOON," BUT IT NEVER
COMES TO HAPPENING BECAUSE MAK
TEMPLATE FOR PART OF THE FUTURE
TO PROTECT HERITAGE TREES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC
COMMENT FOR THIS AFTERNOON.
WE HAVE THREE BILLS IN FRONT OF
US BUT WE ARE GOING TO START
WITH THEM ONE AT A TIME.
MADAM CLERK -- MS. WILLIAMS I
WILL ALLOW IT.
HOLD ON FOR ONE SECOND SO WE
CAN RESTART.
GO AHEAD.
>> I AM A WILLING FOR RESIDENT
AND MANY A WALLINGFORD RESIDENT
AND MHA LEGISLATION HAS OFFERED
LITTLE FLEXIBILITY ON IMPORTANT
DETAILS SUCH AS THE UNCHANGED
5%-7% LOCKED IN FEES DUE TO THE
BARGAIN.
ZONING HAS NOT BEEN, ZONING HAS
NOT BEEN FLEXIBLE AS FAR AS
WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SOME OF THE MAP CHANGES THAT
HAVE BEEN OFFERED AND ARE NAMED
AS MAP AMENDMENTS I SUPPORT 414
, 415 , 416 KNOW BECAUSE IT
WASN'T ON THE AGENDA AND THE
NEIGHBORS DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT.
416 YES, 416 BE A GUESS. THE
CITY NEEDS PROTECTION FROM THE
LAWSUITS AND THAT IS IT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
NOW WE WILL CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC
COMMENTS AND I WILL ASK THE
CLERK TO READ IN THE
ABBREVIATED TITLE OF OUR FIRST
AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE [
INDISCERNIBLE - LOW VOLUME ]
MADAM CLERK.
>> 11944 RELATED TO MANDATORY
REZONING IMPLEMENTING MHA
REQUIREMENTS TO IMPROVE
LIVABILITY CHAPTER 23 CODE FOR
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> THANK YOU.
WILL YOU START US WITH
INTRODUCTIONS AND THEN I
BELIEVE YOU HAVE A BRIEF
PRESENTATION.
>> AS WE GET STARTED TODAY AS A
REFRESHER PRIOR TO DIVING INTO
THE DISCUSSION OF THE
AMENDMENTS YOLANDA WILL BRIEFLY
WALK THROUGH EXAMPLES OF THE
TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT WE EXPECT
TO SEE IN CERTAIN ZONES, I WILL
BRIEFLY DISCUSS HOW THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD
IMPACT THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
RESTRICTING UNITS THAT WOULD BE
PRODUCE A TEN-YEAR PERIOD FROM
THE MHA PROGRAM THEN WE WILL
MOVE INTO A DISCUSSION OF THE
AMENDMENTS.
>> BEFORE WE MOVED TO YOU WHAT
WE DO INTRODUCTIONS FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC.
ERIC McCONAGHY.
KETIL FREEMAN.
>> I HAVE ASKED THEM TO GIVE US
A WALK-THROUGH AS A MEMBER OF
THE PUBLIC EARLIER COMMENTED WE
COULD GET A BETTER SENSE OF THE
VISUALIZATIONS OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF MHA AND
INDIVIDUAL ZONES.
COLLEAGUES THERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO FOLLOW
ALONG BUT THERE IS ALSO THE
PROJECTION OF THE PRESENTATION
HERE AND I WILL [ INDISCERNIBLE
- LOW VOLUME ] IN CASE YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS.
PLEASE.
>> WE WILL BE MOVING THROUGH A
CERTAIN ZONE, NOT ALL OF THE
ZONES THAT WILL BE EFFECTED BY
MHA . IF WE COMMIT TO THE NEXT
-- YES.
WE WILL START WITH THE TOPIC OF
MUCH DISCUSSION BECAUSE
CURRENTLY IT IS ONLY BEEN
LIMITED TO THE MADISON MILLER
URBAN VILLAGE. ALL AREAS ARE
CONVERTED CURRENTLY ZONED
SINGLE-FAMILY AND THE IDEA OF
AN RSL ZONE IS TO ENCOURAGE
MORE OF A MISSING LITTLE
HOUSING.
THE TOP LEFT IMAGE IS A COTTAGE
STYLE HOUSING, THE TOP RATE IS
TWO STACKED HOUSING UNITS AND
IN THE ILLUSTRATIONS BELOW THE
ORANGE HOUSES IS AN EXISTING
HOUSE AND THE WHITE HOUSE IS
BECAUSE IN THE CODE THERE IS A
50% EXISTING FLOOR AREA
EXEMPTION FROM THE LIMITS
REGARDS TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT
OR QUESTION A BUILDING WITH TWO
APARTMENTS WOULD BE ALLOWED ON
A 4000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
>> QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
CONTINUE. ?
>> WE WILL KIND OF RUN THROUGH
THE NEXT FEW, I THINK RSL HAS
BEEN THE MAIN FOCUS OF
INTEREST.
IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS PLEASE
FEEL FREE TO STOP ME.
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME WE WILL
GET THROUGH THESE.
LOWRISE ONE WOULD BE PRIMARILY
ROWHOUSES, TOWNHOUSES AND SMALL
APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
MAKE A NOTE THAT AMENDMENT A6
WOULD CHANGE THE DENSITY LIMIT
TO 1300 SQUARE FEET.
>> NO CHANGES TO THE HEIGHT
JUST SLIGHT CHANGES TO THE
FLOOR AREA RATIO?
>>CORRECT.
THIS IS HIGHER DENSITY AGAIN
AND MIXTURE OF TOWNHOUSES,
ROWHOUSES AND APARTMENT
BUILDINGS.
THIS DOES GET THE 10 FOOT
HEIGHT INCREASE AND A SLIGHT
INCREASE IN THE FAR LIMIT.
TOP LEFT IS LIVING UNITS IN THE
TOP RIGHT IS AN EXAMPLE OF
PARTMENTS AND BUILDING, AND
LET'S SEE SO BOTTOM LEFT IS
KIND OF A SMALLER LOT TOWNHOUSES
BOTTOM RIGHT IS A LARGER LOT
AND APARTMENT BUILDING --
LOWRISE THREE THIS ONE WOULD BE
AGAIN A SLIGHTLY HIGHER INCREASE
IN RANGES DUE TO WHERE THEY ARE
LOCATED WHETHER THEY ARE WITHIN
URBAN VILLAGE.
THIS JUST KIND OF SHOWS FOUR
-FIVE STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS
OR CONDOS.
>> IN SOME PARTS OF THE CODE WE
HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
ZONES THAT WILL BE ABOUT THE
SAME HEIGHT LIMIT AS THE
PROPOSED LOWRISE THREE ZONES
BUT THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE IS
THERE WHAT IS ALLOWED ON THE
GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TEND
TO BE THE MORE MIXED-USE WITH
THE COMMERCIAL ON THE GROUND
FLOOR VERSUS LOWRISE WHICH
COULD BE FULLY RESIDENTIAL.
>> GOOD.
>> MOVING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL WE WERE SPEAKING OF
AGAIN WE WILL BE WALKING
THROUGH THE PROGRESSION OF AN
INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT SO
AND SEE 40 WILL GET THE 10 FOOT
PUMP NC40 WILL SEE THE 10 FOOT
JUMP IN HEIGHT.
GROUND-FLOOR IS THE INTENT HERE.
55 THE THIS WILL ACTUALLY
COMPRISE THE LARGEST PORTION OF
THE COMMERCIAL ZONING IN THE
PROJECT AREA SO THE BOTTOM
ILLUSTRATION SHOWS NC 55 ON THE
RIGHT AND L ARE ONE ON THE
LEFT FOR COMPARISON AND THE
INFILL IS INDICATED IN YELLOW.
NC 75 IS AGAIN WE ARE LOOKING
AT SEVEN-STORY BUILDINGS,
GROUND-FLOOR COMMERCIAL,
INCREASE IN FAR LIMIT.
SOME CHANGES ALLOWED SIX FLOORS
OF WHICH STRAIN WOODFRAME
CONSTRUCTION MAKING IT LIKELY
FOR DEVELOPERS TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THIS LIMIT
INCREASE.
THE BOTTOM ILLUSTRATION SHOWS
75 ON THE LEFT AND 55 ON THE
RIGHT AGAIN INFILL INDICATED IN
YLLOW.
MOVING ONTO MIDRISE MIDRISE IS
RESIDENTIAL AGAIN SO THIS IS
SHOWING THE HEIGHT INCREASE AND
FAR INCREASE AGAIN SIMILAR TO
THE NC 75 ZONE, DEVELOPERS WILL
BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THIS HEIGHT LIMIT INCREASE
WITH THE BUILDING CODE CHANGES.
AGAIN I WILL JUST HIGHLIGHT THE
TOP RIGHT IS THE IMAGE IS THE
MIDRISE ZONING DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS INCLUDE STANDARDS
THAT ENCOURAGE COURTYARDS AND
OTHER OPEN SPACES SO THAT IS AN
ILLUSTRATION OF A COURTYARDS
BUILDING.
FINALLY FOR HIGH-RISE SORRY
THERE IS A TYPO IN THERE, THERE
IS A HEIGHT INCREASE AND WHERE
THE FAR INCREASES IT IS
MILITANTLY MODEST TO ENCOURAGE
A TALLER MORE SLENDER TOWER AND
LIMIT THE NUMBER OF TOWERS THAT
ARE BUILT ON A SINGLE LOT.
THE BOTTOM RIGHT SHOWS A TOWER
WITH A HEIGHT OF 440 FEET ON A
20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
ANY QUESTIONS?
THAT WAS A QUICK ONE BUT I WAS
HOPING TO GET SOME PICTURES TO
THE ZONES.
>> I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES HER
PRESENTATION BUT I THOUGHT IT
WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC TO HAVE
VISUALIZATIONS OF THOSE SMALLER
RESIDENTIAL I AM NOT SEEING ANY
QUESTIONS SO I THINK WE SHOULD
PROCEED.
>> I WILL MOVE ON TO A BRIEF
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MHA
ESTIMATES.
IT PROVIDES A BRIEF SUMMARY OF
THE METHODOLOGY USED TO
ESTIMATE GROWTH AND THE
PROJECTED PRODUCTION OF RENT
AND INCOME RESTRICTED UNITS
WHICH WOULD BE PRODUCED THROUGH
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MHA,
CITYWIDE LEGISLATION COMPARES
THE RESULTS OF THE MODEL TO THE
ESTIMATES OF NEW HOUSING AND
MHA UNITS AND POLICY
DISCUSSION RELATED TO THOSE
AMENDMENTS.
AS DESCRIBED IN MORE DETAIL IN
THE MEMO THE SPEED UP
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED
AT THE COMMITTEE MEETING WILL
RESULT IN REDUCING THE
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF UNITS BY 56
UNITS.
THIS IS THE NUMBER BASED ON A
MODEL RUN.
I WILL REITERATE WHAT I SAID
THAT IN THE MEMO.
THE AMOUNT OF NEW HOUSING IN
THE NUMBER OF RENT INCOME
RESTRICTED UNITS THROUGH THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF MHA
LEGISLATION DEPENDS ON THE
AMOUNT OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
THE MODEL ESTIMATES FUTURE
CONDITIONS USING THE BEST
AVAILABLE DATA THE BECAUSE OF
MANY FACTORS INFLUENCING THE
PRODUCTION OF HOUSING THE MODEL
MUST MAKE A SERIES OF
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE CITY'S
GROWTH.
AFTER FULL IMPLEMENTATION THE
CITY WILL MONITOR AND REPORT ON
THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND MAY
PROPOSE ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE
COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION IF WE
ARE NOT ACHIEVING THOSE GOALS.
>> QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MODEL
RUN?
PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
DEVELOPING THIS ANALYSIS.
COULD I ASK JUST A FEW
CLARIFYING QUESTIONS?
WE DID SEE AND WE HEARD
TESTIMONY THAT THIS ANALYSIS
SHOWS A REDUCTION OF 56
AFFORDABLE UNITS OF THE NEXT 10
YEARS WITH THESE AMENDMENTS
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO
NOTE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THOSE
56 UNITS THAT WOULD BE SORT OF
TRIGGERED BY MHA THAT DOES NOT
INCLUDE THE FULL ANALYSIS OF
THE POTENTIAL OVERALL MARKET
ATE HOUSING OPTIONS THAT COULD
BE LOST A POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS
WITH THROUGH, IS THAT ACCURATE?
>> I DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS
OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
56 IS THE NUMBER OF UNITS NOT
NECESSARILY INDIVIDUALS SO
DEPENDING ON HOW MANY
INDIVIDUALS LIVE TOGETHER IN A
FAMILY UNIT THE NUMBER IS
MULTIPLIED IF WE ASSUME 2.5
INDIVIDUALS PER FAMILY THAT IS
OVER 100.
>> CORRECT.
IT WAS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF
AFFORDABLE UNITS PRODUCED NOT
THE SIZE OF THE HOUSEHOLD OR
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> PLEASE YES.
>> ALY PENNUCCI IN TERMS OF THE
ESTIMATE OF HOUSEHOLD SIZE
DOES THE MODEL ACCOUNT FOR THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE
LIVING IN THESE 56 UNITS?
>> THE MODEL IS BASED ON A
NUMBER OF ASSUMPTIONS THAT IS
BASED ON SORT OF THE CITY'S
INVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE UNITS.
I AM NOT CERTAIN THAT IT
ACTUALLY BREAKS IT DOWN INTO
WHAT EXACT SIZE UNITS WE EXPECT
AND THE SIZE HOUSEHOLD WE EXPECT
, I WOULD HAVE TO DIG IN MORE
TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION BUT IT
IS REALLY FOCUSED ON THE NUMBER
OF UNITS PRODUCED AND NOT
INDIVIDUALS IMPACTED.
THAT HAS SORT OF BEEN MY
CONSTANT FRUSTRATION WITH HOW
WE MODEL THESE NUMBERS.
IT IS A WIDGET KIND OF APPROACH
TO REALLY EVALUATE THE NUMBER
OF PEOPLE THAT WE WOULD CREATE
ACCESS TO ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FOR.
I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE
GETTING A BETTER SENSE OF THE
WHAT THE MODEL IS TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT IN TERMS OF HOUSEHOLD
SIZE AS IT RELATES TO EACH UNIT
. I THINK THAT GIVES US A MORE
ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE IMPACT
OF THE AMENDMENTS BEFORE US.
>> FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
THOUGHTS?
PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> NOW WE ARE READY TO START
THE DISCUSSIN OF THE AMENDMENT.
WE WILL, BEFORE I TURN IT BACK
OVER TO THE CHAIR I WANT TO
NOTE WE WILL BE USING
ATTACHMENT TO THROUGH FIVE 2
THROUGH 52 WALK THROUGH THOSE
EACH OF THOSE ATTACHMENTS
EXCUSE ME THERE ARE SUMMARY
TABLES AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH
OF THOSE ATTACHMENTS AND I HAVE
HARD COPIES AVAILABLE IF ANYONE
NEEDS A COPY OF THAT TABLE
COMBINED OR MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC IN THE AUDIENCE NEEDS A
COPY, WE HAVE THOSE AVAILABLE.
>> OKAY.
AS A REMINDER FOLKS I AM KIND
OF RUNNING THE SHOW FROM HERE
ON OUT AND AT THE CLERKS
REQUEST I WILL PUT THE BILL IN
FRONT OF US AND ASK FOR A
SECOND.
THEN WE WILL WALK THROUGH WHAT
WE ARE CALLING THE GROUP 1
AMENDMENTS WHICH IS THE CONSENT
AGENDA, THE CENTRAL STAFFERS
WILL WALK THROUGH INDIVIDUAL
ITEMS BRIEFLY THAT WE DISCUSSED
AT OUR LAST FULL COMMITTEE
MEETING.
THERE WAS CONSENSUS THAT THOSE
SHOULD BE HEART OF A CONSENT
PACKAGE. I WILL LOOK TO MY LEFT
AND RIGHT TO SEE IF ANY MEMBER
WOULD LIKE TO PULL ANYTHING
FROM THE CONSENT PACKAGE.
IF AN ITEM IS PULLED WE WILL
DISCUSS IT FOR AN INDIVIDUAL
VOTE.
IF NO ITEMS ARE PULLED WE WILL
TAKE ACTION ON THAT ENTIRE
CONSENT PACKAGE AND MOVE TO TWO
AMENDMENTS AFTERWARDS WHICH ARE
ALL ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED
AT AN INDIVIDUAL THAT.
>> PROCESS QUESTION IF THE
ITEMS IN THE CONSENT PACKAGE
ARE PULLED OUT FOR INDIVIDUAL
VOTES WILL THEY BE VOTED ON AT
THAT TIME OR WILL THEY BE VOTED
ON LATER WHEN WE GET TO THE
NONCONSENT PACKAGE VOTES?
>> WE WILL PUT THEM IN Q AND
VOTE ON THEM LATER WHEN WE GET
TO THOSE NONCONSENT AGENDA
VOTES.
YOU BRING UP A SECOND IMPORTANT
POINT THAT I WAS GETTING TO
WHICH IS FOR SOME OF THE
GEOGRAPHICALLY SPECIFIC VOTES
THAT WE MAY TAKE THAT ARE NOT
PART OF THE CONSENT AGENDA IT
IS MY INTENTION THAT WE WILL
VOTE ON THOSE AS A SWEET AS IT
RELATES TO ONE PARTICULAR
NEIGHBORHOOD.
FOR EXAMPLE IN HIS ABSENCE HE
HAS ASKED US TO TAKE A SINGULAR
VOTE ON THE CROWNE HILL
AMENDMENTS, CENTRAL STAFF WILL
WALK US THROUGH THOSE
INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS BUT WHEN
WE GET TO THAT POIT I WILL ASK
FOR A VOTE ON THE SUITE OF
THOSE AMENDMENTS. A SIMILAR
PROCESS IN WEST SEATTLE I
BELIEVE AND WE WILL TAKE A
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT APPROACH IN
DISTRICT 4. OTHER PROCESS
RELATED QUESTIONS?
OKAY.
WITHOUT FURTHER ADO I WILL JUST
PUT THE BILL IN FRONT OF US AND
MOVE TO PASS COUNCIL VOTE
119144.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED,
WHY DON'T YOU WALK US THROUGH
THE CONSENT PACKAGE.
>> FOR THE CONSENT PACKAGE I AM
GOING TO START WITH THE TEXT
AMENDMENT WHICH IS A1 TO THE
MEMO ON PAGE 14.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW
ADDITIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS
IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES THAT
EXCEED THE 2200 SQUARE-FOOT
LIMIT PLACED BASED ON A
PERCENTAGE INCREASE OF EXISTING
FLOOR AREA OR ALLOWING A SECOND
FLOOR DOES NOT CHANGE THE
FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING
STRUCTURE.
>> I SEE NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> REMOVE THE LIMIT ON THE
NUMBER OF UNITS IN AN APARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT DENSITY LIMITS
ALONG WITH REGULATIONS ON HEIGHT
, YARD REQUIREMENTS AND FLOOR
AREA WHICH STILL APPLY, I WILL
NOTE AT THE LAST COMMITTEE
MEETING THERE WERE TWO OPTIONS
ON THE TABLE AND THE SPONSORS
OF THOSE TWO OPTIONS AGREED TO
MOVE FORWARD AS PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON THAT
REMOVES THE LIMIT.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> AMENDMENT THREE WOULD MAKE
MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT
ALREADY APPLIES IN SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONES.
>> NO OBJECTION.
>> 4 WOULD APPLY STANDARDS FOR
GARAGE ENTRANCES IN ZONES
APPLICABLE IN SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONES TODAY.
>> NO OBJECTIONS MOVE ON.
>> FIVE WOULD ALLOW ALL LOTS IN
ZONES INEFFECTIVE AS OF OF THIS
DATE TOINCLUDE NO MORE THAN
TWO DWELLING UNITS.
SIX WILL REDUCE THE DENSITY
LIMITS AND LOWRISE ZONES TO ONE
UNIT PER EVERY 1300 SQUARE FEET
OF LOT AREA WHICH COULD RESULT
IN SLIGHTLY MORE DEVELOPMENT ON
SMALLER SITES.
>> MOVE ON.
>> SEVEN WOULD REDUCE THE
REQUIRED PITCH OF ROOFS IN
MULTIFAMILY ZONES WHICH ARE
ALLOWED TO SEE THE HEIGHT LIMIT
FOR MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> EIGHT WOULD RETAIN THE
OPTION FOR DEVELOPMENT IN HIGH-
RISE ZONES TO ACHIEVE A PORTION
OF THE LECTURE RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA THROUGH THE
PROVISION OF OPEN SPACE STREET
IMPROVEMENTS OR PURCHASE OF
TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
FROM DESIGNATED HISTORIC
LANDMARKS.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 10 WOULD REQUIRE NEW
DEVELOPMENT IN PEDESTRIAN ZONES
WITH OVER 500 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL SPACE PROVIDE SOME
SMALL COMMERCIAL SPACES AND NEW
DEVELOPMENTS.
AT THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING
THERE WERE TWO OPTIONS DISCUSSED
NOT ONE THAT WOULD PLACE A
PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR SMALL
COMMERCIAL SPACES AND A SECOND
THAT WOULD INTRODUCE THE
REQUIREMENT FOR UP TO FIVE
YEARS, THE SPONSORS WORKED
TOGETHER AND MOVED FORWARD THE
OPTION THAT MAKES THE
REQUIREMENT PERMANENT WITH
AUTHORITY FOR THE DIRECTOR TO
WAIVE THAT REQUIREMENT IF THE
PROJECT CAN DEMONSTRATE THE
AVAILABILITY OF SMALL
COMMERCIAL SPACES WITHIN THE
SAME VICINITY OF THE PROJECT.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 11 WOULD RETAIN A FLOOR AREA
EXTENSION THAT APPLIES IN THE
OVERLAY DISTRICT ALLOWING A 50%
INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA FOR
PROJECTS THAT COMMIT TO
PROVIDING AT LEAST 50% OF THEIR
FLOOR AREA AS AFFORDABLE TO
INCOME ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS.
>> NO OBJECTIONS MOVE ON.
>> 12 WOULD IMPLEMENT AN UPPER-
LEVEL SETBACK ABOUT 45 FEET IN
HEIGHT FOR STRUCTURES ON
UNIVERSITY WAY NORTHEAST.
>> NO OBJECTIONS MOVE ON.
>> 13 WOULD MODIFY REQUIREMENTS
FOR WORK UNITS TO IMPROVE
PRIVACY FOR RESIDENTIAL
FUNCTIONS AND ENSURE THE FRONT
PORTION OF THOSE SPACES ARE
DEDICATED TO BUSINESS PURPOSES.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 14 WOULD LIMIT SPECIAL
PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS
IN THE PROPOSED BEACH DISTRICT
úTO PROJECT THAT INCLUDE THE
TYPES OF USES THE IMMUNITY
SEEKS TO ENCOURAGE.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 15 WOULD REPLACE THE TERM
PRESCHOOL WITH CHILD CARE
CENTER TO EXTEND CERTAIN
BENEFITS BRANDED TO PROJECTS
THAT INCLUDE PRESCHOOLS TO THE
BROADER CHILDCARE USE CATEGORY.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON BUT A
LOT OF SMILES MOVE ON.
>> 16 WOULD MODIFY TREE
REQUIREMENTS IN RSL ZONES BY
REQUIRING A 33% TREE CANOPY AND
STREET TREES WOULD NOT BE
INCLUDED IN THAT REQUIREMENT.
AS A PROTECTION FOR TREES TREE
PRESERVATION PLANS WOULD BE
PREPARED BY A CERTIFIED
ARBORIST AND IT ALSO REMOVES
THE EXEMPTION OF TREE
PROTECTION FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
LOTS UNDER 5000 SQUARE FEET AND
REQUEST THAT THE EXECUTIVE
ESTABLISH A IN BLUE FEE FOR RSL
TREEPLANTING REQUIREMENTS THAT
CAN BE USED TO INFORM A FEE
OPTION FOR TREE REGULATIONS
CITYWIDE .
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 17 WOULD ADD PORTIONS OF
NORTHWEST 90th STREET AND MARY
AVENUE NORTHWEST IN THE URBAN
VILLAGE TO THE LIST OF
PRINCIPAL PEDESTRIAN STREETS
WHERE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN
PEDESTRIAN ZONES APPLY.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 18 WOULD EXTEND THE
PEDESTRIAN DESIGNATION ALONG
THE LENGTH OF COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS PROPOSED FOR BEACON
HILL AND ADDS DESIGNATIONS TO
PROPERTIES ON 15th AVENUE SOUTH
AND ADDS 15th AVENUE SOUTH TO
THE LIST OF PRINCIPAL
PEDESTRIAN STREETS.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> INCREASES IN THE CONSUMER
PRICE INDEX SHELTER TO
AUTOMATICALLY ADJUST PAYMENT
AMOUNTS INSTEAD OF THE CONSUMER
PRICE INDEX ALL ITEMS.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>>2 WOULD CHANGE THE REPORT
DATE FOR THE DIRECTOR OF THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS AND
THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING TO
PROVIDE COUNSEL WITH AN
ASSESSMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
FROM JULY 2019 THROUGH DECEMBER
1, 2020 . AT THE LEFT OF THE
DISCUSSION THERE WERE TWO
OPTIONS PROPOSED, ONE CHANGING
THE DATE TO JULY 2020 AND THE
OTHER THROUGH JULY 2021.
THE SPONSORS AGREED TO A
MIDPOINT OF DECEMBER 2020.
>> NO OBJECTION BUT A LOT OF
SMILES.
MOVE ON.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION.
THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IN
THIS REPORTING REQUIREMENT THAT
THE DEPARTMENT AND OFFICE OF
HOUSING HAVE EXISTING RESOURCES
TO COMPLY WITH THE REPORTING
REQUIREMENT COMPONENTS OF THIS
BILL AND PERHAPS THAT'S NOT A
QUESTION THAT WE KNOW THE
ANSWER TO RIGHT NOW BUT I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS
EXISTING RESOURCES AVAILABLE
FOR THAT AND IF NOT IF THERE IS
A PLAN TO ADDRESS THOSE
RESOURCE ISSUES IN OUR UPCOMING
BUDGET PROCESS.
>> WE CAN FLAG THAT TO CONFIRM
DURING BUDGET BUT THIS IS AN
ONGOING REPORTING REQUIREMENT
LAID OUT IN THE HOUSING
POLICIES PLAN AND THE COUNCIL
HAS ADDED RESOURCES FOR
ADDITIONAL STAFF TO HELP WITH
THAT WORK BUT WE WILL CONFIRM
THAT.
THANK YOU.
>> I TAKE THAT AS A REQUEST TO
PULL THIS BUT MORE OF A --
>> I AM SIMPLY ASKING A
CLARIFYING QUESTION, I DID NOT
DESIRE OR REQUEST REMOVAL FOR
INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
>> OKAY.
WE WILL MOVE ON.
>> THREE WOULD MODIFY THE
INTENT LANGUAGE IN THE
FRAMEWORK LEGISLATION TO STATE
THAT THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER
MODIFYING PAYMENT AMOUNTS AND
BOUNDARIES OF HIGH MEDIUM AND
LOW AREAS BY JULY 2019 BASED ON
CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS.
>> NO OBJECTIONS MOVE ON.
>> 4 WOULD ALLOW OFF-SITE
PERFORMANCE IN THE MHA
RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM .
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> SIX ADDS A NEW SECTION TO THE
COUNCIL BILL EXPRESSING
COUNSEL'S INTENT TO TAKE STEPS
IF THE POSITIONING REQUIREMENTS
ARE DETERMINED TO BE UNLAWFUL
TO PREVENT THE CONTINUANCE OF
THE NEW ZONING AND INCREASED
DEVELOPING CAPACITY IN THE
ABSENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE
PULL SIX FROM THE CONSENT
PACKAGE AND I WANT TO GIVE A
LITTLE BIT OF AN EXPLANATION
WHY.
I WOULD LIKE TO PUSH BACK ON
THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AND
CONCEPT THAT ZONING CHANGES ARE
A POSITIVE BENEFIT FOR OUR
COMMUNITY.
I THINK WE ALL KNOW AND WE HAVE
TALKED ABOUT IT TODAY THAT
SEATTLE IS FACING A HOUSING
CRISIS LARGELY BECAUSE WE HAVE
NOT UPDATED OUR ZONING CODE TO
ACCOMMODATE THE MASSIVE GROWTH
WE HAVE EXPERIENCED OVER THE
LAST DECADE AND BEFORE THAT
EVEN.
ONE OF THE GOALS OF THE PROGRAM
WAS TO PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OPTIONS ACROSS THE CITY
AND ZONING CHANGES IN THIS IS
THE TOOL TO GET US THAT WAY.
AS I READ IT IT WOULD SET THE
INTENT TO REAP DEAL RE-ZONES
AND HOLD FUTURE ZONING CHANGES
AND POSSIBLY [ INDISCERNIBLE -
LOW VOLUME ] DEVELOPMENT.
THE MHA CHANGES HAVE TAKEN
YEARS OF ENGAGEMENT ALREADY.
YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT HUNDREDS OF
MEETINGS IN TERMS OF PLANNING
AND CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR
COMMUNITY PARTNERS.
THE LAST THING I WOULD LIKE US
TO DO IS SET A PRECEDENT THAT
SAYS THIS PROCESS HAS TO START
ALL OVER AGAIN AND THE PROGRESS
WOULD BE REVERSED, I DON'T
THINK THAT IS THE MESSAGE WE
WANT TO SEND AND I WOULD LIKE
MORE TIME TO TALK ABOUT THIS
AND TO HAVE THAT DEBATE IN FULL
COMMITTEE WHEN WE CAN OR LATER
WHENEVER YOU DECIDE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE
TAKE THIS OUT OF THE CONSENT
PACKAGE.
>> IT HAS BEEN REMOVED SO THE
ORDER NOW WILL BE TO DISCUSS
THIS FIRST AFTER WE ADOPT THE
CONSENT PACKAGE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> PLEASE YES.
>> THANK YOU.
ON THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT B6
MAYBE YOU CAN POINT ME TO THE
SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN 119144
THAT DOCUMENTS THIS.
>> IT IS NOT CURRENTLY IN THE
COUNCIL BILL AS INTRODUCED, IT
IS ON PAGE 98 OF THESE COUNCIL
CENTRA STAFF MEMO THAT INCLUDES
THE LANGUAGE . IT IS LANGUAGE
THAT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT THIS
COUNCIL ADOPTED IN THE REZONE
BILL A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
>> SO PAGE 98 OF YOUR MEMO?
>> YES
>> IT SHOULD ALSO BE UNNUMBERED
PAGE 98 OF THE ATTACHMENT TOO
IF YOU ARE IN THAT LINK.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AMENDMENT C1 WOULD USE THE
DEFINITION OF FREQUENT TRANSIT
SERVICE IN THE RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT HIGHLIGHT HIGH-RISE
RESIDENTIAL REZONE CRITERIA TO
IDENTIFY AREAS WHERE CERTAIN
ZONES ARE APPROPRIATE.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> AMENDMENT E ONE MAKES
CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS TO FIX
TYPOS AND OTHER DRAFTING ERRORS
IDENTIFIED BY STAFF.
I WILL NOTE IT IS LIKELY THAT
THERE WILL BE ANOTHER SET OF
TECHNICAL AND CLARIFYING
AMENDMENTS THAT WE WILL BE
ASKING FOR THE COUNCIL'S
CONSIDERATION OF AT THE FINAL
COUNCIL VOTE GIVEN THE NUMBER
OF AMENDMENTS THERE ARE LIKELY
TO BE A FEW THINGS WE NEED TO
CLEAN UP AT THE FINAL MEETING.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES THE
TEXT AMENDMENTS AND WE WILL NOW
MOVE INTO THE MAP AMENDMENT
THAT ARE PART OF THE CONSENT
AGENDA.
>> CORRECT.
THAT WILL START WITH MAP 1-8.
>> I APOLOGIZE IF THERE WAS
CONFUSION LAST TIME AS WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT THE AMENDMENT IT
WAS MY INTENT TO PULL THIS
AMENDMENT IN ADDITION TO THE
OTHERS WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST
COMMITTEE MEETING.
I THINK THE RATIONALE IS VERY
SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN
TERMS OF DESIRING MORE
CONVERSATION AROUND AMENDMENTS
THAT WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF
HOUSING UNITS AVAILABLE TO
BUILD BY TRANSIT AND AMENITIES
LIKE GROCERY STORES AND I WOULD
LOVE TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION
AS WE PULL OUT THE OTHER ONES
AS WELL.
>> WE WILL THEN DEAL WITH
AMENDMENT 18AFTER WE DEAL WITH
AMENDMENTS B6. AMENDMENT 112.
>> 112 AND 113 WOULD REMOVE THE
PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ZONE
DESIGNATION BETWEEN SOUTHWEST
HOLLY AND SOUTHWEST GRAHAM AND
BETWEEN SOUTHWEST GRAHAM AND
SOUTHWEST RAYMOND.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 21ABC WOULD REMOVE AREAS
WITHIN THE MOUNT BAKER HISTORIC
PARK DISTRICT FROM THE URBAN
VILLAGE EXPANSION AREA AND
WOULD REMOVE FROM THE PROPOSED
AREAS WITHIN THE EXISTING URBAN
VILLAGE BOUNDARY WHERE IT
OVERLAPS WITH THE NEW HISTORIC
ISTRICT.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 2-3 WOULD EXTEND BEACON
AVENUE AND 15th THE SOUTH
WITHIN THE NORTH BEACON HILL
URBAN VILLAGE.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
29 WITH INCREASE IN AN AREA TO
THE EAST AND SOUTH OF THE A
FELLOW PARK AND URBAN VILLAGE.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 311A WOULD INCREASE THE
PROPOSED ZONE DESIGNATION FOR A
PARCEL ADDRESS 953 23rd AVENUE
FROM RSL TO LOWRISE ONE.
THIS IS A NEW AMENDMENT ADDED
AFTER THE FEBRUARY IS COMMITTEE
MEETING BUT IT WAS DISCUSSED AT
A PREVIOUS MEETING.
OR A VARIATION OF IT.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 340 WOULD INCREASE THE
PROPOSED DESIGNATION IN AREAS
EAST OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.
WAY AND SOUTH JACKSON STREET
FROM RSL TO LOWRISE
MULTIFAMILY.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 315 WITH INCREASE THE
PROPOSED ZONE DESIGNATION FOR
THE PARCEL ADDRESS TO 7022 22nd
AVENUE SOUTH FROM LOWRISE TO
MIDRISE.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 360 WOULD INCREASE THE
PROPOSED ZONE DESIGNATION FOR A
VERSION OF THE BLOCK AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF 20th AVENUE
SOUTH AND SOUTH COLGATE STREET
FROM RSL TO LOWRISE.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 317 INCREASED THE DESIGNATION
FOR THE ADDRESS 1490 22nd AVENUE
FROM RSL TO LOWRISE.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
380 WOULD INCREASE THE PROPOSED
ZONE DESIGNATION CHARLES STREET
25th AVENUE SOUTH AND 26th
AVENUE SOUTH FROM RSL AND THIS
IS A NEW ADDITION ADDED AFTER
THE LAST COMMITTEE DISCUSSION.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 4-6 INCREASES AND 12 AVENUE
NORTHEAST AND THE ROOSEVELT
URBAN VILLAGE FROM LOWRISE ONE
TO LOWRISE TWO.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 4-10 WOULD INCREASE THE
PROPOSED HEIGHT FROM 55 FEET OF
TO 75 FEET.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> AMENDMENT 480 WOULD INCREASE
PROSPOSED ZONE DESIGNATION ON
THE EAST SIDE OF THE EASTLAKE
URBAN VILLAGE FROM LOWRISE TO
MIDRISE.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> AMENDMENT 5-1 WOULD REMOVE
TWO MOBILE PARKS MOBILE HOME
PARKS IN THE URBAN VILLAGE FROM
THE PROPOSAL [ INDISCERNIBLE -
LOW VOLUME ].
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> AMENDMENT 53-A WOULD
INCREASE THE PORTION FROM
LOWRISE THREE TO NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL 2 WITH A 75 FOOT
HEIGHT MEANT. NOTE THIS IS A
VARIATION OF AN AMENDMENT THAT
WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST THE
MEN LAST COMMITTEE MEETING.
5-4 WOULD MODIFY THE ZONE AREA
ALONG EAST 108th STREET BETWEEN
11th AVENUE NORTHEAST AND NORTH
EAST NORTH GATEWAY FROM LOWRISE
TO RESIDENTIAL [ INDISCERNIBLE
- LOW VOLUME ].
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> 510 ABCD WOULD EXPAND
PEDESTRIAN DESIGNATIONS ALONG
SOME AREAS ALONG AURORA AVENUE
NORTH WITHIN THE AURORA URBAN
VILLAGE.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> AMENDMENT 5-11 WOULD REZONE
AREAS NORTHEAST OF MERIDIAN
AVENUE NORTH AND NORTH 113th
STREET FROM SINGLE-FAMILY TO
LOWRISE AND WOULD EXPAND THE
BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHGATE URBAN
CENTER.
>> NO OBJECTION MOVE ON.
>> AMENDMENT 6-16 WOULD REDUCE
THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED
COMMERCIAL ZONE FROM 75 FEET TO
50 FEET IN THE AIR OF WEST OF
NORTHWEST AND NORTHWEST 85th UE
STREET.
AREA OF 15th AVENUE NORTHWEST
AND NORTHWEST 85th STREET.
>> 6-17 AMENDMENT WOULD
INCREASE THE PROPOSED
DESIGNATION FROM 55 FEET TO 75
FEET AND INCREASE THE MHA TEAR
AT THE INTERSECTION OF 15th
AVENUE AND 85th.
>> NO OBJECTION THAT CONCLUDES
THE CONSENT PACKAGE.
IS THERE ONE MORE?
>> I HAVE ONE COMMENT.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE COMPANION
AMENDMENTS TO THE COPPERHEADS A
PLAN THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED
WHEN WE GET TO THE NEXT BILL
AND WE WILL NOTE THAT WHEN WE
ARE AT THAT PLACE.
THERE ARE CHOICES HERE MAKING
THAT SORT OF PARTNER AMENDMENT
TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> WILL SET.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR
DIRECTION WHEN WE GET TO THE
SECOND BILL.
PLEASE.
>> I AM NOT INTERESTED IN GOING
BACK AND RELITIGATING WHETHER
OR NOT WE ARE KEEPING CERTAIN
AMENDMENTS IN THE CONSENT
PACKAGE I SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT
WE ARE DISCUSSING MOVING
FORWARD IN THE CONSENT PACKAGE.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH AS
IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO THE
NORTH RAINIER MOUNT BAKER
HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AMENDMENTS IN THIS EXAMPLE AS I
UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE
MAINTAINING THE RECOMMENDED
ZONING DESIGNATION BUT WE ARE
NOT APPLYING THE MHA
REQUIREMENT?
>> SO THE AREA WHERE THE
EXISTING OR PROPOSED URBAN
VILLAGE BOUNDARY OVERLAPS WITH
THE ESTABLISHED HISTORIC
DISTRICT WOULD NOT SEE ANY
ZONING CHANGES AND MHA WOULD
NOT BE IMPLEMENTED SO IT WOULD
STAY.
>> SO I AM NOT QUITE SURE I
UNDERSTAND HOW THAT HAS A ZERO
NET HOUSING DIFFERENCE ON YOUR
CHART.
IF WE ARE NOT APPLYING MHA HOW
ARE WE REALIZING THE SAME
NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS?
>> CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG BUT
THE MODEL SEES A CERTAIN AMOUNT
OF GROWTH IN EACH URBAN
VILLAGE.
THE NORTH RAINIER URBAN VILLAGE
HAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
CAPACITY AND SO THERE IS SPACE
WITHIN THE URBAN VILLAGE FOR
GROWTH TO OCCUR THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE OCCUR ON THOSE SITES.
>> I AM ASKING ABOUT THE 90
PROJECTED AFFORDABLE UNITS, IF
THERE IS NO MHA HOW ARE WE
GOING TO BE EXTRACTING
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING?
>> THERE ARE ONLY ABOUT FIVE OR
SIX PARCELS THAT WOULD BE
ADDRESSED BY THE AMENDMENTS SO
IT IS A FAIRLY SMALL AREA AND A
SMALL CHANGE THAT WAS PROPOSED
UNDER THE LEGISLATION AND THAT
GROWTH CAN BE ACCOMMODATED
SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE VILLAGE
EASILY.
>> SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE MHA IS
BEING APPLIED ?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COLLEAGUES WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF AMENDMENTS B6 AND
1-8 I WOULD BE THAT THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS ADOPTION
OF THE AMENDMENT SCHROON --
FOR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
THIS IS A COMMITTEE MEETING TO
DON'T FORGET TO RAISE YOUR HAND
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR
HAND, NONE OPPOSE THE CONSENT
PACKAGE CONSISTING OF ALMOST 50
AMENDMENTS CONGRATULATIONS I
THINK WE ARE CLOSE TO HALFWAY
THERE ALY PENNUCCI.
NOW WE WILL GO BACK BEFORE WE
MOVED TO GROUP 2 AND DISCUSS
FIRST AMENDMENT B6. IN ORDER TO
PUT THAT AMENDMENT BEFORE AS I
WILL MOVE ADOPTION OF IT AND
ASKED FOR A SECOND.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED, I BELIEVE YOU WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS AMENDMENT
IN FURTHER DETAIL PLEASE.
>> COULD THE PROPOSER SPEAK TO
IT FIRST?
>> I AM ACTING A LITTLE ON THE
FLY, IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH AT
FIRST I WOULD LOVE THAT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO.
THANK YOU.
THE LEGISLATION ITSELF IS A
UNIQUE PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS IN
ITSELF ANY STATEMENTS THAT WE
MAKE ABOUT OUR INTENT AS
PRESIDENT SETTING, IT IS BY ITS
VERY NATURE PROPOSED TO BE A
BARGAIN. IN THE CENTRAL STAFF
MEMO WE HAVE BEFORE US ON PAGE
2 THE LEGISLATION IS DESCRIBED
AS A REZONE OF THE CITY'S
COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY AREAS
, URBAN VILLAGES AND AREAS ON
THE EDGES OF URBAN VILLAGES
WITHIN A 10 MINUTE WALK OF
FREQUENT TRANSIT.
IN EXCHANGE FOR THE ABILITY TO
BUILD ADDITIONAL FLOORS, FLOOR
AREA, OR UNITS, AREAS REZONED
UNDER THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO INCLUDE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS ON SITE OR MAKE A
PAYMENT IN LIEU TO BUILD
AFFORDABLE OFF-SITE HOUSING.
AGAIN THIS HAS BEEN
CHARACTERIZED AS A GRAND
BARGAIN AND IF WE DO NOT HOLD
ALL PARTIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE
CONTENTS OF THE BARGAIN I THINK
IT UNDERCUTS OUR ABILITY TO
NEGOTIATE WITH PARTIES IN THE
FUTURE.
THIS LEGISLATION IS VERY INTENT
FR THE LAST FOUR YEARS HAS
BEEN ALL ABOUT EXTRACTING
COMMITMENTS FROM DEVELOPERS
WHEREVER THEY ARE DEVELOPING,
BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL,
EXTRACTING COMMITMENTS FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IF WE SHOW TODAY THAT WE ARE
NOT SERIOUS ABOUT THAT I DON'T
KNOW HOW WE CAN REALLY TAKE
OURSELVES SERIOUSLY AS A COUNCIL
FOR THESE KINDS OF NEGOTIATIONS
WHEN WE ARE EXPECTING SOMETHING
OF VALUE WHEN WE GRANT
SOMETHING OF VALUE.
>> PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR.
CHAIR AND TO THE SPONSOR OF THE
AMENDMENT FOR THE EXPLANATION.
HERE IS THE CRUX OF MY CONCERN.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ADD A NEW
SECTION 2 THE COUNCIL BILL
EXPRESSING THE COUNSEL INTENT
TO TAKE STEPS IF THE
REQUIREMENTS AREN'T DETERMINED
TO BE UNLAWFUL TO PREVENT THE
CONTINUANCE OF THE NEW ZONING
AND INCREASED DEVELOPING
CAPACITY IN THE ABSENCE OF
SUBSTANTIAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS.
TO ME I THINK THIS ENTIRE
SUMMARY OF THIS AMENDMENT RUNS
COUNTER TO WHAT WE WERE HOPING
TO ACHIEVE OUT OF THIS MHA
PROGRAM.
IT'S REITERATE, THIS IS VERY
MINIMAL CHANGES WE ARE MAKING.
IF FOR SOME REASON WE WERE TO
HAVE TO PAUSE THIS OR GO ON HOLD
AND NOT MOVE FORWARD ON THE
ENTIRE ESSENCE OF WHAT WE ARE
TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, HALT
FUTURE ZONING, REPEAL RESULTS,
I THINK IT WOULD BE COUNTER TO
THE GOALS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT
OVER THE PAST YEAR.
I ALSO THINK A MORATORIUM RUNS
COUNTER TO OUR AFFORDABILITY
GOALS.
IS NOT JUST THE BUILDING BUT
THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET DOLLARS
IN HAND SO WE CAN BUILD MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
FOR ME I THINK IT DESERVES
SCRUTINY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT
THIS COUNSEL WANTS TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THIS TYPE OF
LANGUAGE.
I AM NOT INTERESTED IN SENDING
A MESSAGE THAT WE WOULD HAVE
SOME SORT OF MORATORIUM, I
THINK THAT COULD HAVE ADVERSE
IMPACT ON OUR ABILITY TO BUILD
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WITH
THE IN LIEU FEES THAT COULD
POTENTIALLY BE PAID RESTRICTING
OUR ABILITIES TO GET THOSE
DOLLARS IN HAND AS WELL.
I APPRECIATE THE GOOD INTENT
AND FOR ME THIS IS SOMETHING I
AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH VOTING
ON BECAUSE OF THE SIGNAL IT
SENDS.
>> ANY OTHER COLLEAGUES?
I WILL JUST OFFER THAT I THINK
I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF
THIS AMENDMENT AND
PHILOSOPHICALLY I AGREE WITH
WHAT YOU HAVE OFFERED, I DON'T
LOVE THE IDEA THAT FOLKS WHO
HAVE HELD UP THIS LEGISLATION
FOR SEVERAL MONTHS IF NOT YEARS
HAVE BEEN FUNDRAISING OFF OF
THIS AMENDMENT, HOWEVER I THINK
THIS AMENDMENT AS IT IS WRITTEN
IS POORLY INTENT LANGUAGE.
IT IS ANY FUTURE COUNSEL ACTING
IN WHATEVER WAY THAT COUNSEL
CHOOSES TO AND ALL OF THIS
AMENDMENT DOES IS AFFIRM THAT
THAT FUTURE COUNSEL HAS THE
RIGHT TO TAKE FUTURE ACTIONS.
I THINK IT IS PARTLY A UPON US
TO RECOGNIZE IT IS NOT OUR JOB
TO TIE THE HANDS OF FUTURE
COUNCILS BUT TO RECOGNIZE THEY
HAVE FUTURE CHOICES TO MAKE.
I DON'T SEE THIS AS HARMFUL TO
THE ADOPTION OF THE
LEGISLATION, I DON'T LOVE IT
BUT I WILL SUPPORT IT.
>> JUST A THOUGHT OR A COMMENT,
I GUESS MY CONCERN IS THAT JUST
THE LANGUAGE TO SUGGEST THAT IF
WE ARE DOING SOMETHING IT JUST
SEEMS THIS IS BAD LANGUAGE TO
HAVE IN THE ORDINANCE IT SEEMS
AFTER RECOGNIZING ANYTHING WE
DO IS SUBJECT TO A LEGAL
CHALLENGE BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO
ME THAT WE SORT OF CROSS THAT
BRIDGE WHEN WE COME TO IT OR
THAT COUNSEL WOULD.
IT IS NOT LIKE A COURT WILL
JUST SAY IT IS UNLAWFUL TO
START OVER, OFTEN THERE ARE
OPINIONS AND DIRECTIVES THAT
THE COUNCIL WOULD USE. I AM NOT
SURE WHAT IT DOES, IT SEEMS TO
ME THAT IF WE DIDN'T HAVE IT IT
STILL APPLIES.
WE ARE FREE TO TAKE WHATEVER
THAT ACTION IS.
I AM NOT REALLY SURE WHAT YOU
GET BY ADDING IT BUT IT SEEMS
TO ME THAT AN OPPONENT OF MHA
THEY ALREADY THINK THERE IS
VULNERABILITY BECAUSE THEY ARE
ANTICIPATING IT AND THEY WILL
TAKE ACTION.
I DON'T SEE THE BIG PAYOFF ON
ADDING THE LANGUAGE.
>> I WILL RESERVE A COUPLE OF
COMMENTS WERE AFTER YOU SPEAK.
I'M SORRY.
>> [ INDISCERNIBLE - LOW VOLUME
]
>> BY ALL MEANS.
GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
AMENDMENT FORWARD AND I INTEND
TO SUPPORT IT.
IT TIES THE ZONES THAT ARE SO
PROFITABLE TO BIG DEVELOPERS TO
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CONTRIBUTIONS THAT THOSE
DEVELOPERS ARE REQUIRED TO PAY.
I AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT
HE HAS MADE AND I WANT TO MAKE
A FEW MORE OF MY OWN.
THOSE SMALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PAYMENTS ARE THE ONLY PART OF
THIS SO-CALLED GRAND BARGAIN
THAT MITIGATES THE RAMPANT
DISPLACEMENT DRIVEN BY THE FOR-
PROFIT REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
OF THE DEVELOPERS AND OTHER
LARGE INVESTORS. THE REALITY IS
THERE IS NO INDICATION AND NO
STATISTICAL INFORMATION THAT
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILT BY
MHA WILL EVEN KEEP PACE WITH
THE RATE THAT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IS BEING LOST TO RENT
INCREASES AND REDEVELOPMENT.
IT IS WORTH REMEMBERING WHERE
MHA COMES FROM.
IN 2014 AFTER A GRASSROOTS
MOVEMENT IT BECAME CLEAR THAT
THE NEXT BIG STRUGGLE WOULD BE
OVER THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CRISIS IN SEATTLE.
TO ADDRESS THIS ACTIVISTS AND
ADVOCATES ALONG WITH COMMUNITY
MEMBERS KNEW THAT WE WOULD HAVE
TO FIGHT FOR A MAJOR INVESTMENT
IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT IS
PUBLICLY FUNDED, PAID FOR BY
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE SOURCES
LIKE TAXING BUSINESSES AND
FIGHT FOR RENT CONTROL.
WE KNOW THE FOR-PROFIT MARKET
HAS FAILED.
TO CUT ACROSS THAT MOVEMENT
SEATTLE'S BIGGEST DEVELOPERS
AND FORMER MAYOR LAUNCHED A
COMMITTEE AND ON THAT COMMITTEE
WERE SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ADVOCATES YES BUT THEY WERE BIG
DEVELOPERS AND IN THE END THE
DEVELOPERS WERE GIVEN A VIRTUAL
VETO OVER THE RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE COMMITTEE.
AT THAT TIME COUNSEL HAD PASSED
RESOLUTIONS SUPPORTING FEES, A
TYPE OF INK PACKED FEE THAT
WOULD HAVE REQUIRED ALL
DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY TO PAY
TOWARDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THE BIG DEVELOPERS AND FOR-
PROFIT DEVELOPERS ON THE
COMMITTEE VETOED THAT RENT
CONTROL IN A VETOED BIG
BUSINESS TAXES.
MHA CAME OUT OF THAT COMMITTEE
BECAUSE IT WAS THE THING THE
BIG DEVELOPERS WERE WILLING TO
ACCEPT AND THE REASON THEY WERE
WILLING TO ACCEPT IT IS BECAUSE
IT IS SO LIMITED.
IT WAS DELAYED FOR YEARS AND AS
A LEGAL MECHANISM IT IS
EXTREMELY LIMITED ON HOW MUCH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IT CAN
GENERATE.
THE BIGGEST VICTORY FOR THE BIG
DEVELOPERS AT THE TIME WAS
IDEOLOGICALLY STALLING THE
MOVEMENT FOR RENT CONTROL AND
SOCIAL HOUSING BY GETTING
AFFORDABLE GENUINE HOUSING
ADVOCATES TO FIGHT EACH OTHER
OVER WHO WAS MORE OR LESS IN
FAVOR OF DENSITY.
THIS IS WHAT THEY CALLED THE
GRAND BARGAIN.
THE NEXT MONTH COUNSEL WILL BE
TAKING A FINAL VOTE ON CREATING
ZONING CHANGES AND IMPLEMENTING
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS HOWEVER AS SOON AS
THE ZONING IS CHANGED WHAT
WILL STOP THE BIG DEVELOPERS
FROM ATTEMPTING TO STRIP THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
OUT OF THE BILL?
THE DEVELOPERS HAVE PROMISED
NOT TO SUE. IN MY OPINION THAT
IS TOTALLY NACE BECAUSE IF BIG
DEVELOPERS CAN MAKE MORE
PROFITS BY BREAKING A PROMISE
THEN THEIR TRACK RECORD ISN'T
GREAT AND THEY WILL BREAK THE
PROMISE THEIR PROMISE.
THEY ALSO HAVE PROMISED NOT TO
SUE THEN THEY SHOULDN'T OBJECT
TO THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE IN
THAT CASE THAT CLAUSE WOULD
NEVER BE TRIGGERED AND I DON'T
UNDERSTAND HOW THIS AMENDMENT
COULD RAISE A SIGNAL OF
MORATORIM AND I WILL ALSO
POINT OUT IN COMMENTS EVERY
ORDINANCE HAS A CLAUSE THAT
STATES WHAT HAPPENS IF SOME
PART OF IT IS CONSIDERED
UNLAWFUL.
IT IS VIRTUALLY IN EVERY BILL
SO I AM NOT CLEAR WHY THERE
WOULD BE AN OBJECTION TO THIS
PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.
>> ANYTHING ELSE?
>> I FELT THAT THE POINT I MADE
ABOUT THE SIGNAL MADE THAT THIS
LANGUAGE SENDS TO THOSE
DEVELOPERS WHO WANT THE ZONING
BUT MIGHT BE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT
THAT COVERED MY LAST POINT I
WANTED TO MAKE.
>> SO THE PROCESS, THIS INTENT
LANGUAGE HAS BEEN PROPERLY
MOVED AND SECONDED SO WHEN YOU
VOTE YES YOU ARE VOTING TO PUT
IT INSIDE THE BILL TO KEEP THE
INTENT LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED
INSIDE THE BILL.
IF YOU VOTE NO YOU GO TO STRIP
THAT LANGUAGE FROM BEING
ADOPTED WHICH MEANS IT NEVER
MAKES IT INTO THE BILL TO BE IN
TO BEGIN WITH.
I WILL BE ENCOURAGING MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE YES ON THIS
BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED
IN OTHER PREVIOUS MHA ZONING
LEGISLATION . IT DOES SIGNAL
THE FUTURE COUNCILS HAVE THE
ABILITY TO MAKE FUTURE
DECISIONS BASED ON WHATEVER
THEY THINK IS THE RIGHT THING
FOR THEM AND AS I MENTIONED
BEFORE I DON'T LOVE THAT FOLKS
ARE FUNDRAISING, FOLKS THAT
DON'T LIKE MHA BUT I ALSO
DON'T SEE THIS AS ANY DIFFERENT
FROM SOME OF THE OTHER INTENT
LANGUAGE WE HAVE HAD IN OTHER
RESOLUTIONS AROUND MHA.
WITH THAT I WOULD ASK ALL OF
THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS
AMENDMENT PLEASE RAISE YOUR
HAND.
THOSE OPPOSED PLEASE SAY NO AND
RAISE YOUR HAND.
THE AMENDMENT PASSES 5-3 VOTES.
BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO AMENDMENT
1-8 I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A
PROCESS QUESTION.
I DON'T BELIEVE 1-8 IS AN
AMENDMENT THAT GOES ALONGSIDE
ANY OF THE OTHER URBAN VILLAGE
PROPOSALS SLATED FOR INDIVIDUAL
INVESTMENTS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> WITH YOUR CONSENT WE WILL
NOW TALK ABOUT THAT AMENDMENT
DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE WILL
GET TO THE DISTRICT ONE
AMENDMENT UNTIL LATER ON THE
AGENDA.
ALY PENNUCCI WOULD YOU AGAIN
DESCRIBE FOR US THE AMENDMENT
1-8 ?
>> I WILL TURN IT OVER TO
YOLANDA.
>> 1-8 IS THE AREA WEST OF AND
SOUTHWEST GRAND STREET. THE
PROPOSAL IS TO REDUCE THE
PROPOSED DESIGNATION SOUTH OF
SOUTH GRAND STREET TO A LESS
INTENSE LOWRISE MULTIFAMILY
ZONED DESIGNATION.
IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS SINGLE
FAMILY 5000 AND IN THE COUNSEL
BILL AS IS IF THE PROPOSAL IS
TO GO A BUMP THE AMENDMENT
WOULD REDUCE THAT TO.
>> IN ORDER TO TAKE ACTION ON
THIS I WILL MOVE ADOPTION OF
THIS AMENDMENT.
PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED,
START THE DISCUSSION.
>> THANK YOU.
THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY MAP
AMENDMENT FOR FOLLOWING THAT IS
RELATED TO MHA.
AGAIN THIS IS CURRENTLY A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED AREA THAT
MY AMENDMENT WOULD PROPOSE TO
UP ZONE TWO LOWRISE ONE. THE
REASON BEING IS THAT AN ABRUPT
ZONING CHANGE FROM SINGLE-
FAMILY TWO LOWRISE THREE CAN
CREATE ONE HARSH TRANSITION
BETWEEN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
ZONED AREA ITSELF TO HARSH
TRANSITIONS WITHIN THE
SURROUNDING ZONING WHICH
INCLUDES CURRENT SINGLE-FAMILY
THAT IS PROPOSED TO ALSO BE UP
ZONED TWO LOWRISE ONE.
UNDER THE CURRENT PROPOSAL ALL
OTHER SINGLE-FAMILY AREAS WOULD
BE UP ZONED TO RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT OR LOWRISE ONE.
THERE IS NO OTHER AREA IN THE
MORGAN JUNCTION THAT IS
CURRENTLY PROPOSED TO BE UP
ZONED BY MORE THAN WHAT WE
REFER TO AS TWO STEPS UP.
FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF COMMUNITY
THIS IS AN ANOMALY THAT IN THE
EXECUTIVE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
IS PROPOSED TO GO FROM SINGLE-
FAMILY AGAIN TWO LOWRISE THREE.
MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHANGE
THE ZONING FROM SINGLE-FAMILY
TWO LOWRISE 2 INCREASES THE
ZONING OF THIS AREA, STILL MORE
THAN ANY OTHER UP ZONED AREA
FOR A SINGLE FAMILY WITHIN THE
MORGAN JUNCTION.
AGAIN IT IS SINGLE-FAMILY AND
THE OTHER AREAS ARE LOWRISE ONE.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW FOR
INCREASED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN
THE AREA BUT CREATE A LESS
ABRUPT TRANSITION FROM THE
SURROUNDING AREAS.
A LARGER MAP ILLUSTRATION THAT
IS THIS LITTLE PIECE AND ALL OF
THIS OTHER AREA ONLY THIS IS
THEIR PROPOSAL FOR A CHANGE.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE
ALL TRACKING THAT ONE BECAUSE
THE DESIGNATIONS CAN BE A
LITTLE HARD TO FOLLOW.
THE PROPOSAL AS I UNDERSTAND IT
FROM THE PREVIOUS
ADMINISTRATION IS TO TAKE A
SINGLE-FAMILY AREA TO A LOWRISE
THREE.
THAT THIS AMENDMENT THEN WOULD
TAKE A SINGLE-FAMILY AREA TO A
LOWRISE 2 CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> REMIND US AGAIN OF THE
HEIGHT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THOSE.
>> 15 FEET.
>> SO IN THIS INSTANCE THE
MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN A LOWRISE 2
ZONE IS 30 FEET THEN?
>> THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 40 FEET
AND IN THREE IT IS 55.
>> I APOLOGIZE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION.
TERESA MOSQUEDA I ASSUME YOU
HAVE SOME COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I APOLOGIZE THAT THERE WAS
CONFUSION LAST TIME SIMILAR TO
TE CONVERSATION WE WILL BE
HAVING SHORTLY ABOUT ALL OF THE
DISTRICT AMENDMENT UP FOR
CONSIDERATION THAT HAVE BEEN
PULLED.
MY INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE WE
ARE LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN
INCREASE HOUSING AVAILABILITY
TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED UNDER
THE EXISTING EIS.
I THINK SOMEONE LAST WEEK SAID
IT BEST, ANY HOUSING DELAYED IS
HOUSING DENIED.
MY INTENT IS TO TRY TO MAKE
SURE IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO GO TO
LR THREE WE WORK WITH THE
COMMUNITY TO MAKE SURE THERE
ARE PROCESSES IN PLACE AND TO
MAKE SURE THAT TRANSITION
HAPPENS IN A WAY THAT MESIC
AMENITIES NEEDS.
IT WILL NOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT,
JUST BECAUSE WE CREATE THIS NEW
ZONING DESIGNATION DOES NOT
MEAN PLACES WILL AUTOMATICALLY
CHANGE OVERNIGHT.
LET'S REMEMBER THIS IN ADDITION
TO SOME OTHER PLACES WE WILL
TALK ABOUT LATER IS AN AREA
WELL SERVED BY TRANSIT, IT IS
CLOSE TO AMENITIES, IT WOULD BE
A SHORT HIKE RIGHT OR BUS RIDE
TO THE FUTURE LIGHT RAIL AND IT
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROACH
I THINK I AND OTHERS HAVE MADE
THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE
WE DON'T REDUCE ZONING CHANGES
EVEN THOUGH IT IS STILL
TECHNICALLY AN UP ZONE, IT IS A
REDUCTION IN HOW MUCH OF AN OF
ZONE IT CAN BE.
I DO THINK IT WOULD HAVE A
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NUMBER
OF AVAILABLE HOUSING UNITS THAT
COULD BE BUILT WITH THAT
ADDITIONAL BUMP WITHIN THE 15
FEET YOU MENTIONED MR. CHAIR
AND WITHIN THOSE WITHIN THAT
SPACE WE ARE REALLY TALKING
ABOUT UNITS FOR FAMILIES TO
LIVE IN.
>> FURTHER THOUGHTS?
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO ADDRESS THIS, MY
INSTINCT LIKE YOURS IS TO GO TO
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED UNDER MHA
AS DISCUSSED.
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE
THOUGH I AM GOING TO BE
SUPPORTING COUNSEL MEMBER LISA
HERBOLD.
YOU HAVE FOUND WAYS TO STILL
HAVE AN OF ZONE BUT SOMETHING
THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTED BY YOUR
COMMUNITY AND I ACKNOWLEDGE
THE FACT THAT THIS IS GOING TO
BE COUNTERED TO MOST OF MY
POSITIONS BUT I DO WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE
DONE AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING
YOU.
>> I BELIEVE MR. FREEMAN HAS
SOMETHING.
>> I GAVE SOME WRONG
INFORMATION, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
IN THE LOWRISE THREE ZONE IS 50
FEET WITH A PITCH OF 55 FEET.
IT IS ACTUALLY A 10 FOOT NOT A
15 FOOT DIFFERENCE BUT IT IS AN
ADDITIONAL FLOOR MORE OR LESS.
>> THANK YOU.
ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD?
>> I FEEL STRONGLY THAT NOT
ONLY THE WORK I HAVE DONE WITH
THE COMMUNITY BUT OUR COMMUNITY
LEADERS HAVE DONE WITH OTHER
FOLKS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN AS
ENGAGED IN THIS EFFORT SHOULD
BE HONORED.
I AM REALLY PROUD NOW I HAVE
FIVE SEPARATE URBAN VILLAGES IN
MY DISTRICT AND AS IT RELATES
SPECIFICALLY TO WEST SEATTLE
I'M NOT GETTING THE EMAILS I
THINK EVERYONE ELSE IS GETTING
SAYING VOTE NO ON MHA.
THE EMAILS I AM RECEIVING OUR
EMAILS IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENTS
AND THAT IS A TRIBUTE TO THE
HARD WORK THAT COMMUNITY
ACTIVISTS ARE DOING TO BRING
PEOPLE ALONG THROUGH THIS
PROCESS.
I WANT TO HONOR THAT WORK AND I
HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT THIS
LIMIT.
>> I WILL BE ENCOURAGING MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE YES FOR THIS
AMENDMENT AS WELL.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
SURROUNDING DESIGNATION OF
THESE 18 OR SO PARCELS INCLUDED
IN THIS AMENDMENT ON ONE HAND
YOU'VE GOT A DESIGNATION OF TWO
DIFFERENT HEIGHTS AND I BELIEVE
THIS WILL FIT BETTER WITH THE
CURRENT PROPOSAL AS OPPOSED TO
A SLIGHTLY JAGGED TRANSITION
BETWEEN WHAT COULD BE A 55 FOOT
HEIGHT ON A BUILDING AND
LOWRISE ONE MORE OF THAT
STOCKERT TRANSITIONED TO ME SAYS
THAT THIS AMENDMENT WHILE
SACRIFICING SOME DENSITY TO
YOUR POINT I THINK IT WILL
EFFECT BETTER CHANGE IN HEIGHT
DIFFERENCES IN THE
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT IS MORE
CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROACH WE
HAVE HAD.
I WILL BE ENCOURAGING MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE YES ON
AMENDMENT 1-8. ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION?
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I DO WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING
THAT WILL PROBABLY END UP BEING
REITERATED LATER ON AS WELL.
I HAVE ALSO HAD CONVERSATIONS
WITH CONSTITUENTS AND I HAVE
HAD MEETINGS IN DISTRICTS
THROUGHOUT SEATTLE TO SPEAK
WITH FOLKS ABOUT WHAT TYPES OF
CHANGES THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE
WHETHER IT BE A SLIGHT
REDUCTION IN THE ZONING AND WE
WILL ALSO TALK ABOUT SOME OF
THOSE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT
HAVE COME FORWARD.
I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT MY
POSITION ON THESE VARIOUS
AMENDMENTS HAS BEEN DIRECTLY
INFORMED BY COUNSEL
CONVERSATIONS I HAVE HAD IN
OFFICE HOURS AND MEETINGS AND
LETTERS I HAVE RECEIVED FROM
PEOPLE ASKING US TO BE AS OLD
AS POSSIBLE WITHIN THE
LIMITATIONS.
I THINK IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING
THAT WE HAVE OUR IDEAS INFORMED
BY CONSTITUENTS AND I JUST
WANTED TO REITERATE THAT POINT
TO MAKE SURE FOLKS KNOW THAT WE
ARE CITYWIDE BUT WE STILL HAVE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
COMMUNITY DIRECTLY.
>> OKAY, AGAIN ON A PROCESS
REMINDER VOTING YES ON THIS
AMENDMENT WHICH IS 1-8 INCLUDES
THE ADOPTION OF A LOWRISE TWO
ZONE IN PLACE OF A LOWRISE
THREE ZONE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
BY VOTING YES WE EFFECTIVELY
CHANGE A SINGLE-FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOOD TO A LOWRISE 2
ZONE BY VOTING NO YOU WILL
CHANGE A SINGLE-FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOOD TO A LOWRISE THREE
ZONE.
I THINK WE GOT THAT.
PLEASE SIGNIFY YOUR VOTE BY
SAYING YES BY RAISING YOUR
HAND.
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE
RAISE YOUR HAND.
OPPOSED?
>> NO.
>> 4-4 VOTES AND IT NEEDS WE
HAVE A FAIL.
WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THE
EXECUTIVES PROPOSAL WHICH IS A
LOWRISE THREE ZONE.
THAT CONCLUDES THE INDIVIDUAL
VOTES PULLED OUT FOR DISCUSSION
FROM THE GROUP 1 AMENDMENTS.
THE GROUP 2 AMENDMENTS ARE ALL
SLATED FOR INDIVIDUAL VOTES.
I WOULD ALERT MY COLLEAGUES TO
THE FACT THAT WE PROBABLY HAVE
20 SO VOTES HERE TO CONSIDER. I
WOULD ASK US TO DO OUR BEST TO
BE MINDFUL AND I'M SURE ALL OF
YOU HAVE EVENING APPOINTMENTS
AND THINGS YOU WOULD LIKE TO
GET TO.
LET'S TRY NOT TO REPEAT
OURSELVES AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
THE FIRST COUPLE OF VOTES OUR
TEXT AMENDMENT VOTES AND I
BELIEVE WE WILL START WITH
AMENDMENT A9.
>> THAT IS CORRECT AND I AM
GOING TO RETURN TO THE
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION AND
ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THIS
AMENDMENT IN A WAY THAT IS MORE
UNDERSTANDABLE.
THIS AMENDMENT RELATES TO GREEN
BUILDING STANDARDS, GREEN
BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND
LOWRISE ZONES.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD INCREASE
THE THRESHOLD OF PROJECTS AND
MULTIFAMILY ZONES WOULD HAVE TO
MEET A GREEN BUILDING STANDARD.
UNDER THE EXISTING CODE
PROJECTS AND MULTIFAMILY ZONES
CAN ACHIEVE EXTRA FLOOR AREA BY
MEETING REBUILDING STANDARDS
AND PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
BENEFITS SUCH AS SCREENING,
PARKING OR PROVIDING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
TO USE THE LOWRISE ONE ZONE AS
AN EXAMPLE UNDER EXISTING RULES
AND A LOWRISE ONE ZONE YOU CAN
BUILD TO A .9 F AR WITHOUT
NEEDING A GREEN BUILDING
STANDARD, UP TO 1.1 IF YOU MEET
A GREEN BUILDING STANDARD.
THE IMPORTANT PIECE TO FOLLOW
IS THE PORTION OF MY BASIC
STRUCTURE THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED
IN GREEN.
TO BUILD ABOVE THE GRAY AREA
YOU WOULD NEED A GREEN BUILDING
STANDARD.
IN THE PROPOSAL THERE IS
ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA
INCORPORATED THROUGH THE ZONING
CHANGES. THE ADDITIONAL FLOOR
AREA ADDED BY THE MHA BILL IS
MARKED WITH THE BLUE EXES .
UNDER THE PROPOSAL YOU WOULD
STILL NEED TO MEET A GREEN
BUILDING STANDARD FOR BUILDING
ANYTHING OVER .9 BUT YOU CAN
BUILD UP TO 1.3.
WHERE YOU NEED TO MEET IT
DOESN'T CHANGE BUT MHA IS
APPLIED AS WELL AS THE GREEN
BUILDING STANDARD.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD TAKE WHAT
IS REQUIRED TODAY AND REQUIRE A
GREEN BUILDING STANDARD FOR THE
SAME AMOUNT OF FLOOR AREA THAT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO MEET A
GREEN BUILDING STANDARD TODAY.
YOU COULD BUILD UP TO ONE POINT
ONE FAR WITHOUT HAVING TO MEET
THE GREEN BUILDING STANDARD.
YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE ADDITIONAL
FLOOR AREA ADDED BY THE MHA
BILL AND TO BUILD ABOVE THAT
YOU WOULD HAVE TO BUILD A GREEN
BUILDING AND MEET A GREEN
BUILDING STANDARD.
>> SO THIS ONE WAS PULLED NOT
BECAUSE OF OPPOSITION BUT
BECAUSE OF CONFUSION. HOPEFULLY
THIS WAS LESS CONFUSING THAN
THE LAST TIME AROUND.
I LOOK TO MY COLLEAGUES TO SEE
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
I AM NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS,
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FOR
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT A-9.
MOVED AND SECONDED ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION?
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE
YOUR HAND.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED ? A-9 IS
ADOPTED.
NOW, I FEEL LIKE I AM CALLING A
BINGO GAME.
>> [ INDISCERNIBLE - LOW VOLUME
] WAS AT AN AMENDMENT DISCUSS
AT THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING
AND I BELIEVE THERE COULD BE A
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VERSION OF IT
.
>> AS A MATTER OF FACT I DO.
>> IT DOES NOT MAKE SUBSTANTIVE
CHANGES BUT IT DOES FOR
CONSISTENCY IN SECTION THAT
SECTIONS IT AMENDS.
IT WOULD REQUIRE AT LEAST 5% OF
REVENUE FROM THE AFFORDABILITY
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
PROGRAM BE ALLOCATED FOR
CAPITAL INVESTMENTS INTO
PROJECTS THE MHA AND.
WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN OVER THE
COURSE OF ABOUT 10 YEARS IS
THAN $21 MILLION WOULD BE THE
FLOOR FOR FLAGSHIP INVESTMENT
FROM THE MHA PROGRAM, BOTH
PROGRAMS ARE ESTIMATED TO
GENERATE $225 MILLION IN
PAYMENTS OVER 10 YEARS.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO
THIS AMENDMENT?
>> THIS IS AN AMENDMENT I
WORKED ON WITH THE DIRECTOR OF
THE HOMESTEAD COMMITTEE LAND
TRUST.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN EARMARK AS
FAR AS LEVY FUNDS OF 9% BUT WE
HAVE NO SIMILAR TYPE OF FLOOR
FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP UNITS FOR MHA
FUNDS SO THIS WOULD SET A FLOOR
AND ALLOW THE ORGANIZATIONS LIKE
THE LAND TRUST TO USE THOSE
FUNDS FOR PERMANENT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FOR LOW INCOME FOLKS.
>> ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF OUR
FRAMEWORK LEGISLATION ASKED FOR
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING TO
CONSIDER ANY PAYMENTS OPTIONS
THAT WE RECEIVE FROM DEVELOPERS
TO BE USED TO DEVELOP LIKE THE
STYLE UNITS. FOR EXAMPLE IF A
DEVELOPER OF A CONDO BUILDING
WERE TO CHOOSE TO PAY INSTEAD
OF PERFORM THEN OUR ATTENTION
WOULD BE TO USE THAT PAYMENT TO
CONSTRUCT OR FACILITATE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE
CONDO UNITS.
I SEE THIS AS BEING VERY IN
LINE WITH WHAT WE HAVE ADOPTED
ALREADY AS PART OF OUR
FRAMEWORK LEGISLATION.
CONSIDERING I WOULD GUESS AND
CENTRAL STAFF YOU CAN WAVE YOUR
ARMS IF I AM WRONG BUT
SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF
FIVE-10% OF THE UNITS THAT WILL
BE CONSTRUCTED AS PART AS MHA
WOULD LIKELY BE HOMEOWNERSHIP
UNITS.
>> I HAVE NO IDEA.
NEWNESS WHAT THE MARKET WILL BE
LIKE IN THE FUTURE.
>> AGAIN THIS IS JUST TO CREATE
A FLOOR HERE.
>> QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS?
PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
HERE WE GET TO AGREE AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS.
THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE HERE
IS HOW COME WE COULDN'T WAIT TO
PUT THIS IN THE FINANCE PLAN?
ANY MATTER OF WEEKS WE ARE
GOING TO BE HAVING A
CONVERSATION ABOUT THE FINANCE
PLAN AS IT RELATES TO THE
HOUSING LEVY PLAN AND IT FEELS
LIKE THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT
CONVERSATION TO HAVE WITH
STICKLERS AT THE TABLE TO TALK
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE
MEETING THE RIGHT FUNDING
THRESHOLD.
WE KNOW THERE IS 10% SET-ASIDE
IN THE LEVY AND I'M WONDERING
IF THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY TO
INSTEAD OF PUTTING IT INTO TO
HOLD IT FOR THAT MORE
COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION AROUND
THE PLAN IN JUST A MATTER OF
WEEKS.
>> THE A AND F PLAN RELATES TO
THE PRIORITIES AND EXPENDITURES
OF LEVY FUNDS SO THIS IS
INTENDED TO NOT ADDRESS THAT
SOURCE OF FUNDING BUT ONLY TO
ADDRESS THE SOURCE OF FUNDING
THAT ORIGINATE FROM MHA.
>> MY CONCERN IS THAT THERE IS
A LITTLE BIT OF MIXING OF POTS
OF DOLLARS AND WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THERE IS ADHERENCE TO THE
SAME GOALS AND STANDARDS.
I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED FOR THE
CONVERSATION TO BE HELD IN OUR
COMMITTEE AND I DIDN'T HAVE A
CHANCE TO TALK TO YOU BEFORE
THIS MEETING.
MY INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT
THESE TYPE OF ROBUST
DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE
COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO
MAKING SURE [ INAUDIBLE-STATIC]
OWNERSHIP OPTIONS AS WELL AS
AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS THAT WE
HARMONIZE THE RULES AND INSHORE
THERE IS SYNERGY BETWEEN THE
FUNDING STREAMS WHERE
APPROPRIATE.
I JUST WANT TO FLIGHT WHAT IS
COMING UP IN OUR COMMITTEE.
>> I DON'T SEE THESE ISSUES AS
BEING IN CONFLICT BUT RATHER
USING DIFFERENT REVENUE STREAMS
AND SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT LANGUAGE
ND PRIORITIES WHICH I THINK IS
VERY CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY
THOSE REVENUE STREAMS HAVE BEEN
ADOPTED.
I WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HAVE US TALK THROUGH MORE OF
THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US
WHEN MHA IS ADOPTED AND WE
STARTED HAVE MORE REVENUES
COMING THAT ARE MORE DIVERSE.
>> JUST QUICKLY I AM GOING TO
SUPPORT B-7. I DO THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT FOR US TO CONTINUE
SUPPORT PATHWAYS TO AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP AND I SEE THIS AS
AN ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY
ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCES AND
STREAMS TO BE ABLE TO PROMOTE
THAT STATED VALUE IN THE
HOUSING LEVY CONTEXT.
THAT BEING SAID ASIDE I STILL
THINK THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT
HOW TO OUTLINE THESE TWO
PROBLEMATIC AREAS WHEN THAT
REVENUE IS GENERATED AND I
THINK THAT IS WHAT I AM HEARING
THE COUNCILMEMBER FLAG.
I THINK THAT CONVERSATION
REALLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN
ADDITION TO A CONVERSATION
ABOUT HOW WE ARE MAKING SURE
THAT BOTH LEVY DOLLARS IN ANY
DOLLARS THAT COME FROM MHA ARE
BEING ROBUSTLY AND READILY MADE
AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE WHO MIGHT
WANT TO BUY SOMETHING OTHER
THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
I THINK A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE
GET INTO THE RUT IN THE MINDSET
OF THINKING THAT THE ONLY TYPE
OF HIM THEY CAN EVER PURCHASE
IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND THE
REALITY IS AS WE HAVE SEEN
INCREASED CONSTRUCTION OF
THINGS LIKE TOWNHOMES AND
DUPLEXES AND CONDOS THERE WILL
BE OTHER TYPES OF HOUSING MODELS
THAT CAN BE PURCHASED BY PEOPLE
WHO ARE TRYING TO GET INTO THE
HOUSING OWNERSHIP AREA. I WANT
TO MAKE SURE WHATEVER THE
CONVERSATION IS IN COMMITTEE
THAT WE ALSO INCLUDE A
COMPONENT AROUND HOW WE ARE
GOING TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS
ACCESSIBLE TO MORE THAN JUST
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNERS.
>> I'M SURE TRACY IS LISTENING
IN AND WILL TAKE NOTE OF THOSE
QUESTIONS AND DIRECTIONS.
FURTHER THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS
ON THIS PLEASE?
>> I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU
AGAIN TO THE SPONSOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD, I WILL
BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH YOU AND SEEING HOW WE CAN
GET AS MANY DOLLARS AS
POSSIBLE.
>> WITH YOUR PERMISSION I WILL
MOVE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT B-7.
>> I THINK WE NEED A SUBSTITUTE
WITH US?
>> -- I WILL MOVE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT B-7.
>> SECOND.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
ALL THOSE OPPOSED?
THAT IS ADOPTED.
I BELIEVE WE NOW MOVE ON TO THE
MAP AMENDMENTS AND IF I'M NOT
MISTAKEN WE WILL TAKE THESE IN
A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ORDER THAN
LAST TIME AROUND.
WE WILL START WITH DISTRICT 4
MOVED TO DISTRICT 6 AND THEN
ALSO GO BACK TO DISTRICTS ONE ,
2 , AND 3. I BELIEVE THAT IS
THE SEQUENCE.
ALTHOUGH I AM SURE IF THERE IS
ONE AMENDMENT FOR DISTRICT 5
AND I BELIEVE IT IS PART OF
THIS PACKAGE ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE
PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PACKAGE WE WILL GET TO THAT.
LET'S START WITH AMENDMENTS AND
42A 42B BOTH RELATE TO THE AREA
OF ROOSEVELT HIGH SCHOOL WHICH
WOULD REDUCE THE PROPOSED ZONE
DESIGNATION AREA NORTH NORTH
EAST 70th STREET WITHIN THE
ROOSEVELT URBAN VILLAGE.
B WOULD REDUCE THE PROSPOSED
ZONE DESIGNATION FROM LOWRISE
22 LOWRISE ONE.
>> THESE AMENDMENTS ARE
AVAILABLE IN THE ATTACHMENT
THREE FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE
FOLLOWING ALONG.
I HEARD POSITIVELY FROM FOLKS
IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT THEY
WANT TO WELCOME MORE NEIGHBORS
BUT THEY FEEL LIKE THESE
TRANSITIONS WILL BE MORE
APPROPRIATE WITH WHAT THEY SEE
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WONDER IF THERE ARE FURTHER
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM MY
COLLEAGUE.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
JUST TO BE CONSISTENT I THINK
WE HAVE HEARD THESE COMMENTS
BEFORE.
I WILL CONTINUE TO RAISE
CONCERNS ABOUT REDUCING
CAPACITY TO INCREASE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OR HOUSING IN GENERAL
AN AREA THAT IS NEAR LIGHT RAIL
AND WILL OPEN UP VERY SOON.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE FOLKS CAN
LIVE IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.
I THINK WE SHOULD BE AS YOU CAN
TELL TRYING TO INCREASE AS MUCH
CAPACITY AS POSSIBLE.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
OKAY.
WE HAVE I WILL ASK FOR ADOPTION
OF I WILL MOVE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENTS 42A 42B .
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED
AND SECONDED, ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION?
SORRY I LOST MY PROCESS BRAIN
FOR A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE
YOUR HAND.
OKAY. I THINK SOME FOLKS MAY
WANT TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE.
THREE RUN THAT ONE MADAM CLERK.
SHOULD WE CALL, SHOULD WE DO
ROLL CALL ON THAT ONE?
LET'S TO INDIVIDUAL VOTES FOR
THESE THANK YOU MADAM CLERK.
LET'S REWIND, I WILL ASK FOR
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT 42A .
>> SECOND.
IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND
SECONDED, ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSIONS?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE
RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED . THAT IS A
VERY IN FAVOR THAT IS ADOPTED.
I WILL NOW ASK FOR SUPPORT OF
AMENDMENT 42B .
>> SECONDED.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED, ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSIONS?
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE
SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED.
THAT ALSO PASSES. SHALL WE MOVE
ON?
>> YES.
AMENDMENTS 4-4A AND 4-4B ARE
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAT THEY
YOU WILL EITHER WANT TO
CONSIDER AMENDMENT 44 A OR 44
BE.
4-4A WOULD REDUCE THE PROPOSAL
IN THE AREA MEANT AREAS THAT
OVERLAPS WITH THE EXISTING
URBAN VILLAGE TO LAND LEVEL
INCREASES AND WILL REMOVE FROM
THE PROPOSAL ANY CHANGES FOR
THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WHERE IT
OVERLAPS AT THE PROPOSED URBAN
VILLAGE EXPANSION AREAS.
AMENDMENT 4-4B WOULD REMOVE ALL
AREAS FROM THE PROPOSAL WHERE
WITH THE EXISTING OR PROPOSED
ROOSEVELT URBAN VILLAGE
BOUNDARY.
>> OKAY COLLEAGUES THIS IS ONE
WHERE I THINK IT HAS BEEN
COMPLICATED FOR YOURS TRULY AS
I EVALUATE THE CHOICES IN FRONT
OF US.
THE EXISTING PROPOSAL ALLOWS
FOR MORE DENSITY BY A LIGHT
RAIL STATION WHICH IS A VALUE
WE ALL SUPPORT.
AT THE SAME TIME THERE IS AN
AMENDMENT ON THE TABLE FOR 4-4A
WHICH WOULD REDUCE THOSE
PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES TO A
STRICT LEVEL BUMP AND REZONE
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BY THE LIGHT
RAIL STATION TO A RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT ZONING.
HOWEVER IN THE YEARS SINCE THE
MHA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT WAS RELEASED IN
NOVEMBER 2017 NEIGHBORS IN THIS
COMMUNITY HAVE CIRCULATED A
PETITION AND THEY HAVE BEEN
DESIGNATED AS A HISTORIC
DISTRICT.
GIVEN THAT HISTORIC DISTRICT
DESIGNATION AND GIVEN THE FACT
THAT IN PREVIOUS ZONES IN OTHER
PARTS OF THE CITY WE HAVE NOT
TOUCHED THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT
HAVE HAD A HISTORIC DESIGNATION
, I WILL BE ASKING MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT 4-4B , IT WOULD NOT
APPLY TO MHA INTO THIS HISTORIC
DISTRICT AND IT WOULD ALLOW
FOR THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH TREATING THIS DISTRICT THE
SAME WAY AS IT HAS TREATED
OTHERS THROUGHOUT THE CITYWIDE
ZONING CHANGES PREVIOUSLY
ADOPTED.
IT IS WITH A HEAVY HEART THAT I
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THAT
BECAUSE I RECKON GUYS THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD, MY OWN
NEIGHBORHOOD IS A NEIGHBORHOOD
THAT HAS HIGH ACCESS TO
OPPORTUNITY AND LOW RISK OF
DISPLACEMENT, IT IS A
NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE WE ARE THE
BENEFICIARIES OF A BILLION-
DOLLAR INVESTMENT SLATED TO
OPEN A LIGHT RAIL STATION IN
THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
HISTORIC DESIGNATION ARE UNIQUE
AND THEY ARE NEW SINCE THE WAS
ADOPTED IN NOVEMBER 2017.
THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES PUT ME IN
THE POSITION WHERE I THINK IT
IS MOST PRUDENT FOR US TO ADOPT
AMENDMENT 4-4B AND THAT IS
WHERE I WILL ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT.
>> -- I WILL MOVE ADOPTION FOR
AMENDMENT 4-4B.
>> SECONDED.
>> VOTING YES FOR THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD NOT IMPLEMENT
MHA IN THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT
AND IT WOULD KEEP THE EXISTING
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING AS IS.
I'M LOOKING TO MY COLLEAGUES TO
SEE IF THERE IS ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION.
OKAY.
I'M SEEING NO FURTHER
DISCUSSION I WILL CALL FOR A
VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE
YOUR HAND.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED . THAT
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
AMENDMENTS 414 AND 415 WHICH
RELATE TO ZONING CHANGES IN THE
WALLINGFORD NEIGHBORHOOD . WE
HAVE RECEIVED IN MY OFFICE LOTS
AND LOTS OF QUESTIONS, COMMENTS
AND CONCERNS RELATED TO THOSE
TWO AMENDMENTS.
I WOULD ASK THAT WE NOT
CONSIDER THOSE AMENDMENTS TODAY
[ NO AUDIO ]
>> AMENDMENT 416A WOULD CHANGE
THE NORTH OF NORTH MOTOR PLACE
IN THE WALLINGFORD MOTOR
VILLAGE.
IT WOULD REDUCE THE TWO
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT IN THE
AREAS WEST UP IN THE WALLINGFORD
URBAN VILLAGE.
>> FOR MY COLLEAGUES TOGGLING
BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THESE
THIS REPRESENTS A NEIGHBORHOOD
THAT IS IN BETWEEN AURORA AND
STONE WAY AND SEVERAL NEIGHBORS
IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE BEEN
WORKING PROACTIVELY OVER THE
PAST SEVERAL MONTHS ON
EFFECTING A SET OF ZONING
CHANGES IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD
THEY THOUGHT WOULD BE
CONSISTENT WITH ONE OF THE
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR US WHICH
IS TO SAY, HOW DO WE DETERMINE
ZONING CHANGES THAT POTENTIALLY
REDUCE SOME OF THE HOUSING
BEING PROPOSED WHILE OFFSETTING
THAT REDUCTION BY PROPOSED
INCREASES IN OTHER PARTS OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD?
416A AND 416B CORRESPOND WITH
EACH OTHER IN SUCH A WAY THAT
NEIGHBORS HAVE GOTTEN TOGETHER
AND HAVE WORKED ON A PROPOSAL
THAT WOULD INCREASE SOME OF THE
PROPOSED ZONING CAPACITY IN THE
NORTHERN SECTION OF THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD NEARBY STONE WAY
AND 45th, NEARBY THE RIDE LINE
ON AURORA. IN EXCHANGE WE HAVE
ASKED FOR A SMALLER DESIGNATION
IN THE AREAS SOUTH OF 43rd AND
NORTH OF 40th.
THE EFFECT THAT THESE TWO
CHANGES WOULD BE A NET OUT OF
THE ZONING CAPACITY AND THEY
ARE IN CONCERT WITH EACH OTHER
WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS
SUGGESTED A SLIGHT REDUCTION IN
ONE PLACE COULD BE ACHIEVED
THROUGH A SLIGHT INCREASE IN
ANOTHER PART.
GIVEN THE DISCUSSION WE HAD
EARLIER ON PACKAGE AMENDMENTS I
WILL NOT ASK FOR ADOPTION OF
THESE TWO TOGETHER BUT FOR THEM
INDIVIDUALLY AND I LOOK TO MY
COLLEAGUES TO SEE IF THEY HAVE
THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS RELATED
TO THESE TWO AMENDMENTS FOR I
CALL FOR A VOTE.
>> CAN I JUST?
>> YES.
>> I GENERALLY AGAIN WANT TO BE
TRUE TO THE PHILOSOPHY THAT IS
IMPORTANT FOR US TO SEEK OUT
EVERY AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
WE CAN THROUGH THE MHA GIVEN
THE DESPERATE NEED FOR
ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING
THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
I AM REALLY LOOKING AT ALL OF
THESE QUESTIONS THROUGH THE
LENS OF HOW CAN WE MAKE SURE WE
STAY TRUE TO GETTING AS MUCH
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY AS WE CAN?
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE WHERE BASED
ON YOUR REPRESENTATION
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON WHERE I
FEEL LIKE WE HAVE THE ABILITY
TO BE SOMEWHAT MORE FLEXIBLE
WITH THE PROPOSALS AHEAD OF US.
I AM SEEING THERE IS NO NET
EFFECT TO SOME OF THE
ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNITS WE WILL GET AS A RESULT
OF 416A AND 416B.
I FEEL COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING
THESE AMENDMENTS WITH THIS
SINGULAR TOOL THAT IS BEFORE US
RIGHT NOW IN THE SORT OF
PHILOSOPHY THAT IT IS A UNIQUE
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO GRAB AS
MUCH AS WE CAN IN TERMS OF
THOSE HOUSING UNITS.
I APPRECIATE YOUR FLEXIBILITY
WITH LISTENING TO NEIGHBORS IN
THIS PARTICULAR AREA AND I ALSO
APPRECIATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S
WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT
ADDITIONAL DENSITY WITHOUT
LOSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
>> FURTHER THOUGHTS OR
QUESTIONS?
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND I
WILL AGREE WITH M. LORENA
GONZALEZ.
I WOULD THINK IT IS IMPORTANT
TO NOTE THAT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE
IS YOU HAVE UNDERSCORED THAT WE
ARE TRYING TO GET THAT ZERO
IMPACT ON HOW MUCH HOUSING
COULD BE BUILT.
YOU HAVE ALSO MADE SURE THAT AS
THE DENSITY CHANGES THROUGHOUT
THAT ZONE THERE IS STILL EQUAL
ACCESS TO TRANSIT, YOU ARE
ENSURING PEOPLE ARE NOT GETTING
SQUISHED INTO ONE AREA CREATING
HEIGHTENED REGULATION IN A
CERTAIN SECTION AND LOWER
REGULATIONS AND OTHERS.
YOU HAVE CREATED THE ABILITY TO
SORT OF SPREAD OUT THE HOUSING
AND ENSUR PEOPLE HAVE ACTED
ACCESS TO TRANSIT WHICH IS AN
IMPORTANT WAY TO ENSURE ACCESS
TO OPPORTUNITY.
FOR ME THIS DOES MEET THE GOAL.
>> FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ON
AMENDMENTS 416A AND 416B ? I
WILL ASK FOR SUPPORT FOR
AMENDMENT 416A AND 416B
TOGETHER.
MADAM CLERK YOU DON'T LIKE THAT
OKAY.
SHE DOES NOT LIKE THAT.
OKAY.
I WILL ASK FOR THEM
INDIVIDUALLY.
I WILL ASK FOR ADOPTION FIRST
OF AMENDMENT 416A.
>> SECOND.
>> MOVED AND SECONDED.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
ALL THOSE OPPOSED?
AMENDMENT 416A IS ADOPTED.
I WILL ALSO ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT IN MOVING ATOP
AMENDMENT 416B . ANY OPPOSED?
AMENDMENT 416B IS ADOPTED.
417 WE DISCUSSED ANFINSON
AMENDMENT HAS BEEN BEFORE WE
RECEIVED A LOT OF QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS AND RESEARCH RELATED
TO AMENDMENT 419 SO I WILL ASK
THAT WE NOT CONSIDER THAT
AMENDMENT TODAY AND INSTEAD
MOVED TO AMENDMENT 419.
>> AMENDMENT 419 WOULD REMOVE
FROM THE PROPOSAL THE AREA
BETWEEN 16th AVENUE AND 17th
AVENUE NORTHEAST SOUTH OF NORTH
EAST 68th SO IT WOULD NOT EXPAND
THE URBAN VILLAGE BOUNDARY AND
NOT REZONE THAT AREA CURRENTLY
ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY.
>> THIS NECK OF THE WOODS IS
JUST RIGHT AROUND THE 10 MINUTE
WALK FROM THE PROPOSED LIGHT
RAIL STATION. MANY NEIGHBORS
HAVE EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN
SUPPORTING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION OF LOWRISE ZONING
TO THE WEST OF 16th AVENUE BUT
EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE
ZONING CHANGES BETWEEN 16th AND
17th.
IT IS A SMALL NUMBER OF PARCELS
HERE THAT HAVE ASKED TO BE
REMOVED FROM THE URBAN VILLAGE
BOUNDARY EXPANSION.
WE WOULD EXPAND IT BY ONE BLOCK
FEWER THAN WHAT IS BEING
PROPOSED SO I WOULD ASK YOUR
SUPPORT ON AMENDMENT 419 OPEN
IT UP FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
BEFORE WE MOVE FURTHER.
PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU.
IF I UNDERSTAND THE ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL, IT WAS TO REZONE THIS
ONE BLOCK THAT IS BETWEEN 16th
AND 17th JUST BELOW 68th, THE
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE
MODIFIED THE ZONING IN THIS
PARTICULAR BLOCK TO RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> IT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
16th ON THE WEST SIDE OF 16th,
I AM SEEING ON THIS MAP BEFORE
US THERE IS LR TWO IS THAT
CORRECT?
AND THEN NC ?
>> THOSE THAT ARE UNDERLINED IS
WHAT IS PROPOSED IN THE BILL.
>> AND IT IS GOING FROM SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONES TO THESE
PARTICULAR DESIGNATIONS OR FROM
SOMETHING ELSE TO THESE
DESIGNATIONS?
>> SOME OF THE AREAS LIKE NC --
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> THE AREA THAT IS GOING FROM
RSL TO THE WEST IS CURRENTLY
ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY.
I CAN'T SPEAK WITH CONFIDENCE
WITHOUT SEEING THE REST OF THE
MAP WHAT THE REST OF THE ZONE
CURRENTLY IS.
THE AREA PROPOSED FOR RSL
SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENT IS
CURRENTLY ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY.
>> OKAY.
AGAIN I AM GOING TO SIGNAL
CONCERN ABOUT BACKING AWAY FROM
THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL TO MOVE
THIS BLOCK TO RSL.
I THINK IT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE
OF SOME SORT OF GENTLE IF YOU
WILL DENSITY IN THIS PARTICULAR
AREA THAT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE
TO ME IN TERMS OF THE SPIRIT OF
WANTING TO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL
TAPERING IN SOME OF THESE URBAN
VILLAGES THAT LEAD INTO SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONES. ON THE EAST SIDE
OF 17th I AM ASSUMING THOSE ARE
ALL SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> SO AGAIN I AM SORT OF
LOOKING AT ALL OF THESE THROUGH
THE LENS OF MAXIMIZING
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY WHILE AT
THE SAME TIME MAKING SURE AT
LEAST FROM THESE VIEWS OF THESE
MAPS THAT WE ARE STAYING TRUE
TO SOME OF THOSE TAPERING
CONCEPTS WE HAVE DESCRIBED IN
OTHER AREAS SO FOR THAT REASON
I WILL NOT SUPPORT 419.
>> WOULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY THIS
SECTION IS SUBJECT OF THE
AMENDMENT?
WHY NOT GO FURTHER NORTH?
I CAN'T REMEMBER WHY. WHY IS IT
AN ISSUE?
>> I WILL REFER TO THE AMENDED
SPONSOR AND WHY THIS AREA IS
PROPOSED, IN GENERAL THE
PROPOSAL LOOKED AT THE WALL
COULD SHED AREAS AND LOOKED AT
EXPANDING URBAN VILLAGES BASED
ON THAT, THIS IS RIGHT ON THE
EDGE AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON.
>> OUR CURRENT BOUNDARY THE
EXPANSION AREA IS A TWO BLOCK
EXPANSION, SOME NEIGHBORS HAVE
COME AND ASKED FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND A REDUCTION
OF THE EXPANSION FROM TWO
BLOCKS DOWN TO ONE.
THIS AMENDMENT WAS PERFORMED TO
COMPLY WITH A REQUEST IN
REDUCING THE EXPANSION AREA FROM
.
>> HOW MANY UNITS ARE ACTUALLY
GOING TO BE IMPACTED HERE?
I AM REALLY MY HAT AND WHAT SHE
IS SAYING, WE ARE ALL TRYING TO
MAXIMIZE AS MUCH PROPERTY HERE
FOR APPROPRIATE THE SIZE OF
ZONES AS POSSIBLE, I AM NOT
UNDERSTANDING WHY THIS
PARTICULAR BLOCK AND A HALF,
ESPECIALLY AFTER WE HAVE JUST
DECIDED TO TAKE OUT QUITE A
CHUNK AROUND THE HISTORIC
DISTRICT.
>> THE COMBINATION OF
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED THAT EFFECT
THE ROOSEVELT URBAN VILLAGE
RESULTED IN A DECREASE OF SEVEN
ESTIMATED I WOULD JUST REMIND
EVERYONE THAT THIS IS NOT A
PARCEL BY PARCEL LEVEL
DEVELOPMENT.
THE ASSUMPTION IS IF THIS AREA
IS TAKEN OUT MORE DEVELOPMENT
MAY HAPPEN IN OTHER PORTIONS OF
THE URBAN VILLAGE IF THERE IS
CAPACITY AND IDENTIFYING RE-
DEVELOPABLE SITES.
IT IS IN A SORT OF YOU TAKE
THIS ONE PARCEL OUT OF THE
PROPOSAL AND THE ESTIMATE
DROPS, IT IS BASED ON THE
NUMBER OF ASSUMPTIONS AND WHAT
THE EFFECTS ARE OF ANY
INDIVIDUAL PARCEL AMENDMENT OR
EVEN A ONE BLOCK AMENDMENT WILL
BE PRETTY MODERATE IN TERMS OF
THE MODEL RUN. I WOULD AGAIN
JUST TO NOTE THAT THE MODEL IS
BASED ON A SET OF ASSUMPTIONS
AND WHAT LEVEL OF REDEVELOPMENT
ACTUALLY OCCURS IN THE FUTURE
WILL BE HOW MANY UNITS YOU SEE.
EVEN IF THIS AREA IS REZONED IF
NO DEVELOPMENT OCCURS IN THIS
AREA THERE WOULD BE NO
CONTRIBUTIONS TO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND SIMILARLY WHETHER A
PARCEL IS REZONED TO RSL,
LOWRISE ONE OR LOWRISE TWO IF
THAT PARCEL IS REDEVELOPED AND
IS REZONED LR 2 BUT THE
DEVELOPER CHOOSES A SMALLER
DEVELOPMENT IT WILL RESULT IN A
SMALLER CONTRIBUTION THROUGH
THE MHA PROPOSAL.
WE USE THE BEST AVAILABLE
INFORMATION TO TRY TO PROVIDE
SOME INFORMATION TO ESTIMATE
WHAT THIS PROPOSAL COULD DO BUT
WHEN THE BUILDING OCCURS THAT
IS WHEN WE WILL KNOW WHAT IT
ACTUALLY DOES.
>> TO EFFECTUATE THAT CHANGE
SEVERAL OF THE PROPERTIES ABOVE
15th AVENUE BUT RUN TO THE
BACKSIDE OF 16th AVENUE HAVE
BEEN LONG-STANDING PROPERTIES
ZONED BY FAMILY IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS ALLOWED
THOSE BUILDINGS TO BE
DILAPIDATED AND OVERRUN SO TO
HER POINT THE REMOVAL OF THIS
ONE BLOCK MAY RESULT IN MORE
RAPID REDEVELOPMENT OF THOSE
UNDERUTILIZED BOARD OF VACANT
STRUCTURES AND IT MAY HAVE NO
IMPACT WHATSOEVER AND I THINK
WE ARE ALL DOING OUR BEST
GUESSING ABOUT WHAT THIS LOOKS
LIKE.
PEOPLE HAVE MAKE GOOD POINTS
BOTH PRO AND CON AND I DON'T
WANT TO DISCUSS THIS MUCH
LONGER CONSIDERING WE HAVE A
LONG EVENING AHEAD OF US.
I WOULD OPEN IT UP OF COURSE TO
OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS AND
HOPE THAT HER EXAMPLE WAS
SUFFICIENT FOR YOU.
FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
DISCUSSIONS?
>> THANK YOU AND I APPRECIATE
THE ANALYSIS THESE ISSUES CAN
ARISE WHEN WE DECIDE NOT TO
INCLUDE ADDITIONAL ZONING IN
CERTAIN AREAS MAKING THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THESE ZONING
CHANGES WILL RESULT IN GROWTH
ELSEWHERE. SOMETIMES THAT
GROWTH ELSEWHERE IS ALONG AREAS
WHERE THERE IS HIGH AMOUNTS OF
POLLUTION AND NOT AS MUCH
ACCESS TO TRANSIT AND SOME OF
OUR IN SOME OF OUR ASSET RICH
NEIGHBORHOODS.
I JUST WANT TO PUT A FLAG AND
THAT AND I JUST THINK THAT WILL
BE SOMEWHAT OF A BALANCING ACT.
JUST NEED TO IDENTIFY HOW WE CAN
LACE HOUSING AS CLOSE AS
POSSIBLE IN PROXIMITY TO
SCHOOLS AND TRANSIT AND OUR
COMMUNITY ASSETS.
FOR ME AGAIN IN LINE WITH WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER M. LORENA
GONZALEZ SHARED EARLIER I THINK
THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF
WHERE WE DO WANT TO STAY TRUE
TO THAT PRINCIPLE AND I DON'T
WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD
REDUCE THE OVERALL NUMBER.
UNFORTUNATELY I WILL BE VOTING
NO
>> I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM IN
THE MENU OF BROWN LIGHT COLORS
THAT ARE ON THIS MAP AMENDMENT
WE NEED TO PICK DIFFERENT
COLORS SERIOUSLY.
SETTING THAT ISSUE ASIDE THE
LIGHT BROWN COLOR, THOSE ARE
THE URBAN VILLAGE BOUNDARIES
RIGHT AS PROPOSED?
>> YES. THE AREAS WHITE ARE
OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN VILLAGE
AREAS THAT ARE COLORED OR
WITHIN THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY.
>> OKAY.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE
SAYING.
I AM SMIRKING FOR A DIFFERENT
REASON.
AGAIN I THINK WE HAVE TO AS A
CITY WE NEED TO BE COMMITTED
AND TO ME THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF
WHERE WE NEED TO BE COMMITTED
TO THAT URBAN VILLAGE GROWTH
STRATEGY . WE HAVE GONE THROUGH
THE EXERCISE OF IDENTIFYING
WHERE OUR URBAN VILLAGES WILL
BE FOR TARGETING OUR GROWTH IN
THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS. THIS IS
AN EXAMPLE I THINK OF WHERE THE
RSL CAME FROM BECAUSE WE WANTED
TO BE TRUE TO THE CONCEPT
AROUND TAPERING IN A WAY THAT
MAKES SENSE AS WE ARE LOOKING
AT THE BOUNDARIES OF OUR
EXISTING URBAN VILLAGES.
I THINK THE RESIDENTIAL SMALL
LOT APPROACH IS A SMART
APPROACH THAT STILL GETS IS
INCREASED DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF AN
URBAN VILLAGE IN A MANNER THAT
MEETS BOTH INTERVALS RELATED TO
INCREASED DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
TO MEET OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
GOALS BUT ALSO WITH RESPECT TO
MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE STAYING
TRUE TO THE DESIGN DEFOCUS
ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO URBAN
VILLAGES.
I FEEL REALLY STRONGLY THAT WE
NEED TO REJECT 419.
I CAN'T SUPPORT YOU BUT I LOVE
YOU.
>> THE FEELING IS MUTUAL.
AS YOU CAN SEE I'M GLAD WE HAD
A CHANCE TO SWITCH SPOTS THIS
TIME AROUND.
PEOPLE RUN OUT OF ENERGY BY THE
TIME WE GET.
I WOULD LIKE TO CALL FOR A VOTE
ON THIS ONE AND FOR ME TO DO SO
I WOULD LIKE TO OFFICIALLY MOVE
FOR ADOPTION OF AMENDED 419.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS?
ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR?
ALL THOSE OPPOSED?
THE AMENDMENT FAILS ON EIGHT 5-
3 VOTE A 5-3 VOTE.
>> THAT IS PART OF THE PACKAGE
AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT IT
LATER.
>> AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NOT ON
THE AGENDA THAT ARE TO BE ADDED
WILL BE CONSIDERED AFTER WE GET
THROUGH THE INDIVIDUAL THOSE
THAT ARE ON THE AGENDAS?
>> I DEFER TO THE CHAIR.
I DEFER TO THE CHAIR.
>> [ INDISCERNIBLE - LOW VOLUME
]
>> DULY NOTED.
LET'S MOVE ON THEN TO
AMENDMENTS DISCUSSIONS IN CROWN
HILL DISTRICT 6.
>> IS THIS PART OF THE CONSENT
PACKAGE AMONG OTHER THINGS THE
COUNCIL VOTED TO INCREASE THE
HEIGHT OF COMMERCIAL ZONES AT
THE INTERSECTION OF NORTHWEST
AND 85th, THERE IS AN INCREASED
WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT AND
THEY ARE DECREASES FROM LOWRISE
TO RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT.
63 IS AT THE NORTH END
>>> THIS WILL REDUCE THE RISE
TO RSM SIX 4. IT IS ON THE EAST
SIDE. IT WOULD REDUCE THE
PROPOSED RISE TO RSL AND THE
CROWN HILL URBAN VILLAGE.
>>> AND THEN JUMPING OVER HERE
TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE URBAN
VILLAGE, THIS WOULD TRANSITION
BY REDUCING A LOW RISE 2
DESIGNATION TO LOWRISE 1. THIS
IS THE COMPANION PIECE TO THAT
AND THE FURTHER TRANSITION
GOING TO. MOVING 267 -- TO SIX-7
. OR 6-8. WE ARE STILL ON THE
WEST SIDE OF THE URBAN VILLAGE.
JUST BELOW THE 85th STREET
INTERSECTION.
>> THIS IS 69 THE AREA JUST
WEST OF THAT FOR LOW RISE ONE
AND THE M-1 DESIGNATION TO
RSLM.
YOU CAN SEE IT TO THE WEST OF
THIS CHANGE .
>> GO AHEAD TO 15th AVENUE
NORTHWEST, THIS WOULD CHANGE
WHAT WAS PROPOSED TO BE A HIM
ONE -- M-1 DESIGNATION
SOUTHEAST OF THE SAFEWAY IF
THAT HELPS YOU PICTURE WHERE IT
IS. I THINK THAT IS IT.
>> IS THE 618 DIFFERENT?
>> THAT IS A DIFFERENT AREA.
>> THOSE ARE THEM AMENDMENTS
PROPOSED FOR CROWN HILL THAT
ARE NOT PART OF THE CONSENT
PACKAGE.
>> AND THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT
THAT WAS TALLER ZONING IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> AND NORTHWEST 85th AND 15th
AVENUE NORTHWEST THERE WAS A 15
FOOT HEIGHT SCNAN THE CANCEL
HAS VOTED TO AMEND THE BILL TO
HAVE THAT BE 75 FEET IN HEIGHT.
>> GREAT.
AND COUNCILMEMBER BRIAN
>> COUNCILMEMBER RYAN WANTS TO
THANK EVERYBODY FOR BEING HERE
AND HE WANTS TO ENSURE THE NEW
DEVELOPMENTS. FOR THE LAST YEAR
AND A HALF HE HAS WORKED
CLOSELY WITH PEOPLE IN CROWN
HILL TO UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSED
DENSITY AND PREVENT DISPLACEMENT
. HE APPRECIATES THE
THOUGHTFULNESS AND INTENTION OF
THE CROWN HILL MEMBERS
PARTICULARLY WHEN WORKING WITH
SMART GROWTH. HE BELIEVES HE
HAS TAKEN A HOLISTIC APPROACH
TO UNDERSTANDING THE URBAN
VILLAGE AS A WHOLE. WHILE SOME
PARTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE
CONSENT PACKAGE AS MENTIONED BY
MR. FREEMAN, THIS SUITE OF
AMENDMENTS BETWEEN 6-3 AND 6-10
NUMB LEADS TO A MORE THOUGHTFUL
AT COME.
MEMBERS GENUINELY WANT TO SEE
THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD GROW AND
CHANGE.
>> THEY WORRY ABOUT THEIR
ABILITY TO BE PART OF THE NEW
VISION.
WE CAN HOPEFULLY MOVE FORWARD
TO CREATE NEW HOUSING AND A
EQUITABLE URBAN VILLAGE IN
CROWN HILL. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD
MY SUPPORT FOR THESE AMENDMENTS
BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE CROWN
HILL COMMUNITY HAS COME
TOGETHER FOR THE LAST SEVERAL
YEARS TO DO WHAT THEY NEEDED TO
DO WHEN WE STARTED THIS
PROCESS.
WHEN WE STARTED IN 2016 WITH
FOCUS GROUPS AND URBAN DESIGN
WORKSHOPS, THE CROWN HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD BANDED TOGETHER
AND STARTED WORKING ON A SET OF
PROPOSALS.
RATHER THAN ENTERING INTO
LITIGATION WITH THE CITY OR
úAPPEALS WITH THE CITY, THEY
CONTINUE TO WORK HARD WITH THEIR
COUNCILMEMBER TO PROPOSE A SET
OF AMENDMENTS THEY BELIEVE ARE
MORE CONSISTENT WITH THEIR
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND ALSO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF MHA. WE WILL
GET INTO OTHER EXAMPLES OF THAT
IN WEST SEATTLE BUT IN THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK THE CROWN
HILL NEIGHBORHOOD DESERVES
KUDOS FOR BEING PROACTIVE AND
RECOMMENDING THAT THE WELCOMING
NEW MEMBERS AND IN BALANCING
THE PILLAR DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN
SOME PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES
THAT ARE LOWER THAN WHAT WAS
PROPOSED AND BALANCING THAT
WITH PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES
THAT WERE WHAT -- WHAT WERE
PROPOSED.
WITH THAT FROM COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN AND MYSELF, I HAVE YOU
FIRST.
>> I DO WANT TO CHANNEL
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN. I
BELIEVE THE BOAT ON THIS IS
SIMILAR TO WHAT WE WERE DOING
WITH WALLINGFORD A MOMENT AGO
WHERE WE WERE ALLOWING SOME
AREAS TO GO HIGHER AND SOME WE
AGREED TO REDUCE. I THINK THE
COMMUNITY IS WORKING IN GOOD
FAITH ON THIS ONE TO GO HIGHER
IN SOME AREAS AND LOWER IN
OTHERS AND I WANT TO KEEP THE
PACKAGE TOGETHER AND I WILL
SUPPORT YOU AND COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN ON THIS.
>> CAN I JUST ASK A QUICK
QUESTION OF THE CENTRAL STAFF,
IS THAT ACCURATE AND ARE THERE
ZONES BEING PROPOSED ABOVE THE
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL TO BE COUPLED
WITH THE DOWN ZONES?
I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL REDUCTION
IN ZONING.
>> THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN
ZONING IN THE COMMERCIAL CORE,
MORE OR LESS AT THE
INTERSECTION OF 15th AVENUE
NORTHWEST.
THERE IS AN INCREASE IN HEIGHT
AND DENSITY THERE WHICH IS
SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL IS
VOTING TO APPROVE.
>> PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT
DISTINCTION TO MAKE.
AS IT RELATES TO THE AMENDMENT
THAT COUNCILMAN JOHNSON JUST
WALKED US THROUGH WITH THE
AMENDMENTS WITH THE DENSITY TO
BE SPREAD OVER A FOUR BLOCK
PERIOD BETWEEN STONE WAY AND
AURORA, WE ARE SEEING THE
DENSITY SPREAD OUT. WHAT WE
HAVE JUST HEARD THAT INSTEAD OF
THE DENSITY BEING SPREAD AND
EQUITABLY SHARED, IT WOULD BE
SQUEEZED TO THAT CORRIDOR IT
15th.
I WANT TO START WITH THIS.
NUMBER ONE I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT THE INDIVIDUALS
IN CROWN HILL HAVE REACHED OUT
TO BE PROACTIVE AND THEY HAVE
BEEN COLLABORATIVE AND I WANT
TO A REWARD THAT ENGAGEMENT
WITH COUNSEL. I APPRECIATE THAT
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN HAS BEEN
WORKING TO HEAR THE CONCERNS.
MYSELF, THE OFFICE WENT OUT AND
HAD CONVERSATIONS WHO WAS
WORKING AS LEADER ON THESE
ISSUES AND TALKED DIRECTLY WITH
THE OFFICIALS IN CROWN HILL AND
APPRECIATED THE CONVERSATION
AND I WANTED TO START WITH THAT.
HOWEVER, WHEN WE LOOK AT
NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGES THAT WOULD
SQUISH THE ZONING CHANGES TO AN
AREA ALONG 15th WHICH WE KNOW
IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO BE
AN AREA OF HIGH TRAFFIC WITH
NOISE AND POLLUTION. INSTEAD OF
EQUITABLY SHARING THE
NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT AREA, IT
DOESN'T FEEL LIKE AN EQUITABLE
WAY TO BEST SERVE OUR COMMUNITY
. I WANT TO BE SURE WE LOOK AT
STRATEGIES TO CREATE DIVERSE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE WHO ARE
HOMEOWNERS AND RENTERS. A LOT
OF THE FOLKS IN CROWN HILL THAT
I HAVE TALKED TO OVER THE LAST
YEAR AND A HALF ARE DIVERSE
RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO TAKE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE NOT
JUST ACCESS TO HOUSING ALONG
15th BUT ALSO TO THINK ABOUT
HOW WE EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTE THE
HOUSING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD
. HAD HAD BEEN A PROPOSAL LIKE
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON SUGGESTED
WHERE WE WERE SEEING THE
DENSITY SPREAD OUT OVER BLOCKS
VERSUS CONCENTRATED ALONG THIS
HIGH TRAFFIC CORRIDOR, I MIGHT
BE MORE SUPPORTIVE.
AS IT STANDS NOW, I THINK THIS
PACKAGE, AND I WILL SPEAK TO
ALL AMENDMENTS.
ITEM 63-610. AS A PACKAGE,
REDUCE THE HOUSING WOULD READ
DUES THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE
TOWNHOMES AND APARTMENTS AND THE
TYPE OF HOUSING WE ARE TRYING
TO BUILD WITH THE ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL.
UNFORTUNATELY, I AM NOT ABLE TO
VOTE YES ON THESE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
>> I WANT TO ECHO SOME OF THE
CONCERNS BROUGHT UP BY
COUNCILMEMBER TECO SEVEN.
I WANT TO -- MOSQUEDA AM . I
WANT TO AGAIN REITERATE THAT
THIS IS A CITYWIDE
RESPONSIBILITY TO EQUITABLY
SHARE THE LOAD OF MORE HOUSING
AND DENSITY. I HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT THESE SEVEN AMENDMENTS IN
CROWN HILL ALL IN REDUCTION. I
DO RESPECT THE COUNCILMEMBERS,
ESPECIALLY COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD WHO HAVE STEPPED
FORWARD WITH THE NEEDS OF
THEIR DISTRICT. THIS GOES
BEYOND JUST BELIEVING IN THE
PHILOSOPHY AND I AM GOING TO
JUST DISREGARD WHAT THE
PARTICULAR DISTRICTS NEED OR
WANT. I THINK WE HAVE TO ERR ON
THE SIDE THAT EVERYBODY IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGING AND
CREATING DENSITY BECAUSE THAT'S
WHAT GOT US TO THIS PLACE. I'M
GOING TO NOTE THIS BECAUSE A
LOT OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, OF
COURSE THEY CAN ORGANIZE AND OF
COURSE THEY WILL FIND A WAY TO
OPT OUT OR REDUCE THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY, OR THEIR ROLE,
OR HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE
THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS GROW. I
KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DO
THAT BECAUSE THEN THE BURDEN
SHIFTS TO THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS
THAT WE ARE TRYING TO PROTECT,
PARTICULARLY FROM DISPLACEMENT.
WHEN I LOOK AT ALL SEVEN OF
THESE AMENDMENTS, IT RAISES A
CONCERN TO ME.
I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH EACH
ONE OF THESE.
THESE ARE MY OVERALL COMMENTS
AND I HAVE A HARD TIME
SUPPORTING ALL SEVEN OF THESE.
I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT, THANK
YOU.
>> ANY OTHER COLLEAGUES WHO
WOULD WANT TO OFFER
SUGGESTIONS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, I
APOLOGIZE I DIDN'T HAVE YOU IN
THE QUEUE.
>> THAT'S OKAY . I JUST WANT TO
REITERATE THAT THE LEGISLATION
BEFORE US TODAY IS TO MY
KNOWLEDGE THE BOLDEST
INCLUSIONARY ZONING LEGISLATION
IN THE COUNTRY. NOT ONLY DOES
IT INCLUDE ALL AREAS OF THE
CITY WHERE THERE IS RESIDENTIAL
AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT
IT TAKES THAT STEP IN ONE FELL
SWOOP. MOST COMMUNITIES DEAL
WITH INCLUSIONARY ZONING MUCH
LIKE WE DID WITH INCENTIVE
ZONING.
WE LOOKED AT IT AREA BY AREA
AND THIS IS A BOLD NEW STEP
WITH EVERY COMMUNITY IN URBAN
VILLAGE DOING ITS PART UNDER
THESE PROPOSALS INCLUDING WITH
THE AMENDMENTS.
WITH A RSL ZONING , THERE IS A
MHA REQUIREMENT . I THINK ONE
OF THE HISTORICAL THINGS WE
HAVE TO REMEMBER WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT ELIMINATING SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONING WITHIN -- URBAN VILLAGE
IS SIX MONTHS AGO MOST
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WITHIN
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES WERE ASKING
A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
NOW THERE IS AN EMBRACING OF
THIS NEW ZONING.
I THINK IT IS A HUGE CULTURE
CHANGE FOR THE CITY THAT WILL
PAVE THE WAY FOR US TO CONTINUE
TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT
úSINGLE-FAMILY OUTSIDE OF URBAN
VILLAGES.
AND, I THINK THIS IS A
HISTORICAL REMINDER OF WHAT A
URBAN VILLAGE IS AND WHY WE
HAVE CREATED THEM. THAT'S NOT
TO SAY WE SHOULD NOT LOOK AT
THE IMPACTS OF URBAN VILLAGES.
THEY WERE CREATED MANY YEARS
AGO, BUT THEY WERE CREATED AS A
WAY TO ACCEPT GROWTH. THE URBAN
VILLAGES, WHEN DESIGNATED, WERE
SAYING, WE AGREE WE ARE GOING
TO ACCEPT GROWTH BY MERIT OF
BEING AN URBAN VILLAGE.
AND, THAT'S HOW WE IMPLEMENTED
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN ADOPTED BY THE
STATE LEGISLATURE.
WE ADOPTED THE STRATEGY AT THE
TIME IN 1994.
>> IN THE MID-TO-LATE 1990S,
SOME SEATTLE NEIGHBORHOODS SAID
YES TO PLAYING A ROLE IN
SEATTLE'S GROWTH AND THEY
PARTICIPATED IN THAT STRATEGY
AND DEVELOPS NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS
WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE UPZONE'S
AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT TODAY. WE ALSO HAVE TO
REMEMBER THERE ARE
NEIGHBORHOODS WITHOUT URBAN
VILLAGES WHICH IS WHY WE ARE
NOT TALKING ABOUT THEM TODAY
AND WHY WE DON'T SEE FIGURES
FOR THE IMPACTS OF MHA ARE NOT
IMPLEMENTING MHA IN THOSE
NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE THEY'RE
NOT PART OF THE DISCUSSION . I
FEEL SAD THAT THIS HUGE CHANGE
THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
MAKING TOGETHER AS A CITY, AND
IN COMPROMISING IT IS BEING
CHARACTERIZED AS WATERING DOWN
THIS GREAT NEW BOLD STEP WE ARE
TAKING.>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> THANK YOU.
JUST REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT THE
AMENDMENT THAT TAKES THE ZONING
TO RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT AND
SINGLE-FAMILY. AND, I'M NOT
CLEAR IF THE COUNCILMEMBERS
JUST VOTED FOR THE WALLINGFORD
AMENDMENT AND WHY YOU WOULDN'T
VOTE FOR THESE ONES. I WOULD
LIKE TO SHARE WITH THE PUBLIC
WHY I WILL SUPPORT THESE
AMENDMENTS.
IT IS CLEAR FROM CONVERSATIONS
WITH COUNCILMEMBER TIKI --
O'BRIEN AND ALSO STUDYING THE
ISSUE THAT IT IS A VERY
POSITIVE SITUATION. IT'S A
WORKING CLASS AREA WITH A HIGH
DISPLACEMENT AREA.
WE HAVE SEEN WORKING-CLASS
RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS WORK
TOGETHER AND REALLY BUILD
TOGETHER AND WORK TOWARDS
SOMETHING THAT THEY STRONGLY
FEEL IS GOOD TO REDUCE
DISPLACEMENT AND TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ALSO INCREASE DENSITY.
I'M ALSO ENCOURAGED BY THE
TESTIMONY AND THANK YOU FOR
CLARIFYING THE REASONS YOU ARE
SUPPORTING IT.
AND THAT YOU HAVE A NEED TO
UNDERSTAND WHICH WAY I SHOULD
GO.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS
AMENDMENT.>> COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR . I JUST
WANT TO UNDERSCORE WHY THIS IS
DIFFERENT THAN COUNCILMEMBER
JOHNSON'S AMENDMENTS.
IT'S AN EQUITY ISSUE. WE CAN
ASK THOSE WHO WILL PROBABLY BE
RENTERS AND LOWER INCOME ON THE
SCALE TO BE LIVING ALONG THE
15th AVENUE CORRIDOR AND NOT
CREATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
THE NEIGHBORING BLOCKS, AS
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I AM SUPER
CLEAR ABOUT WHY I THINK THIS IS
A DIFFERENT APPROACH THAN
PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN
DISTRICT 2. I UNDERSTAND ONE IS
INFORMED BY INDIVIDUALS WHO
CAME FORWARD BUT IT DOESN'T
MEET THE EQUITY DEFINITION THAT
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS WE APPLY
ANALYSIS TO EACH AMENDMENT. TO
BE CLEAR, THIS IS AN EQUITY
ISSUE AS TO WHO WILL BE ABLE TO
LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BY
WHAT ASSETS.
>> SO I WAS ORIGINALLY GOING TO
PROPOSE THAT WE DISCUSSED THIS
AS PART OF A PACKAGE.
I'M SORRY, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
>> I'M SORRY, I'M JUST SAYING
THAT I'M SUPPORTING THE
AMENDMENTS.
>> THERE IS CHARACTERISTIC OF
CROWN HILL BEING HIGH
DISPLACEMENT BUT IT IS
>> I'M LOSING TRACK OF TIME
THESE DAYS, BUT THERE WAS A
QUESTION ABOUT THE IMPACT OF
THESE AMENDMENTS IN TERMS OF
THE MODELING AROUND FORECASTIN
THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL MHA
UNITS PRODUCED FROM THIS
PACKAGE OR SUITE OF AMENDMENTS .
NOW WHAT I HAVE BEFORE US
INDICATES THAT AT THE TIME WE
WERE DEBATING THIS THAT THERE
WAS NOT AN ANSWER TO THAT
PARTICULAR QUESTION. THERE WAS
A REPRESENTATION MADE BY
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN THAT THIS
WOULD BE A NET ZERO EFFECT
BECAUSE WE WERE BUMPING UP
ALONG 15th AVENUE WHILE
PROPOSING A REDUCTION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY AND OTHER
AREAS IN THE CROWN HILL AND
URBAN VILLAGE.
NOW I'VE SEEN THE EVALUATION BY
CENTRAL STEP, I'VE SEEN THE
AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN WOULD
RESULT IN A -23 MHA INCOME
RESTRICTED UNITS IN THE CROWN
HILL URBAN VILLAGE. AGAIN, THAT
CREATES CONCERN FOR ME. I
THINK THAT MHA IS ONE SMALL
TOOL FOR US TO USE.
IT WILL PRODUCE REAL UNITS FOR
REAL PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO
MOVE INTO CROWN HILL OR REMAIN
IN THE CROWN HILL URBAN VILLAGE
AREA. I BECOME CONCERNED WHEN
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OVER TWO
DOZEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
THAT WILL BE LOST AS A RESULT
OF THIS PARTICULAR WERE TWO
DOZEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
THAT WOULD BE LOST OR PROJECTED
TO NOT BE PRODUCED AS A RESULT
OF THE PROPOSED REDUCTION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY AS
PROPOSED IN THIS SUITE OF
AMENDMENTS.
>> ONE THING TO ADD
COUNCILMEMBER GONZCEZ . THE
ANALYSIS SHOWS TWO DOZEN AND
YOU'RE CORRECT.
THERE WERE ALSO A COUPLE OF
ADDITIONAL AREAS THAT WOULD BE
DOWN ZONED AND THOSE HAVE BEEN
DROPPED.
IT WOULD BE A SOMEWHAT LOWER
NUMBER, PROBABLY NOT BY MUCH,
BUT SOMEWHAT LOWER.
>> AGAIN, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO
BE CONSISTENT IN MY EVALUATION
OF THESE AMENDMENTS TO SUPPORT
BOTH THE CITIES -- CITY'S
INTENT OF MOVING IN THE URBAN
VILLAGE DIRECTION AND FUNNELING
GROWTH INTO THOSE AREAS.
BECAUSE WERE NOT HAVING A
CONVERSATION ABOUT ANY OTHER
AREAS OF THE CITY, THIS IS THE
ONLY OPTION BEFORE US TO DRIVE
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY IN AN
EQUITABLE WAY WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF DESIGNATED URBAN
VILLAGES.
WHEN WE BEGIN TO STEP AWAY FROM
THAT CONSTRUCT, EVEN IF THERE
HAS BEEN ROBUST, AND THERE HAS
BEEN ROBUST NEIGHBORHOOD
ENGAGEMENT WITH ALL OF THESE
PLANS.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO STAY
COMMITTED TO THE URBAN VILLAGE
GROWTH STRATEGIES AND AGAIN TO
NOT LEAVE ANY POTENTIAL MHA
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON THE
TABLE AS WE CONSIDER THESE
PROPOSALS .
>> FURTHER THOUGHTS,
COLLEAGUES?
I'M NOT SEEING ANY. AS I WAS
ABOUT TO SAY BEFORE I REALIZED
I NEEDED TO RECOGNIZE PEOPLE IN
THE QUEUE.
GIVEN THE CLERK'S CONCERNS
ABOUT PACKAGE RELATED VOTES,
WHY DON'T WE START WITH
AMENDMENT 63. I WILL AT THAT --
ASKED FOR ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT
63.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE
SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE AND
RAISING YOUR HEAD.
THOSE OPPOSED.
WE HAVE A 5-3 VOTE IN FAVOR OF
63. NOW WE WILL REPEAT THE
PROCESS FOR 64.
I CALL FULL APPROVAL ON 64.
>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE AND
RAISE YOUR HAND .
>> OPPOSED?
THAT PASSES ON A 5-3 VOTE.
>> AND I MOVE FOR ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT 6 FIVE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED ?
>> IT IS 5-3 AGAIN IN FAVOR.
DID I JUST DO 66 OR 65?
>> 65.
>> I MOVE FOR THE ADOPTION OF 66
. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT?
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE AND RAISE
YOUR HAND .
>> OPPOSED?
>> IT PASSES 5-3.
>> I MOVE FOR ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT 68.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY
AYE AND RAISE YOUR HAND . THOSE
OPPOSED?
>> THE AMENDMENT PASSES 5-3.
>> I MOVE FOR THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT 69.
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE AND RAISE
YOUR HAND . I'M GOING TO START
THAT ONE OVER. WE ARE STILL ON
AMENDMENT 69. I WILL MOVE FOR
ADOPTION OF ADOPTION 69. IT
HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
ANY DISCUSSION?
ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE AND
RAISE YOUR HAND . ANY OPPOSED?
>> THAT AMENDMENT PASSES 5-3.
>> AND AMENDMENT 6-10. IS
THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT?
ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE AND RAISE
YOUR HAND .
>> OPPOSED?
>> THAT ONE PASSES ON A 5-3 VOTE
. WE ARE CONCLUDED WITH THE
CROWN HILL AMENDMENTS.
MR. FREEMAN.
>> AND MOVING ON TO FREMONT,
THIS IS MAP 618 AND YOU CAN
ACTUALLY SEE THE LITTLE
SQUIGGLE THAT REPRESENTS THE
AREA JUST SOUTH.
IT IS BENEATH THE BRIDGE AND
THE POST AMENDMENT WOULD REDUCE
FROM A M-1 DESIGNATION TO A LOW
RISE M KICK . THERE WAS AN
ADDENDUM ABOUT HISTORIC
RESOURCES IN THIS AREA.
>> I MISSED THE TRAIL OFF, CAN
YOU FINISH THAT ONE AGAIN?
>> I WILL. PART OF THIS IS MY
UNDERSTANDING OF COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN'S THINKING IN
SPONSORING THIS AMENDMENT. THIS
IS AN AREA SOUTH OF THE FREMONT
TROLL. IT IS UNDERNEATH AURORA
AVENUE BRIDGE AND IT WOULD
REDUCE THE PROPOSED ZONE
DESIGNATION FROM LOW RISE 3 M-1
TWO LOW RISE ONE-AM NUMB.
AND IT WOULD GO WITH HISTORIC
RESOURCES THAT IDENTIFY
POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES
HERE. NOT NECESSARILY LANDMARK
RESOURCES, BUT RESOURCES THAT
COULD BE USED FOR LAND MARKET
AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.
>> I BELIEVE THIS IS A SUBSET
OF HOUSES WITH HISTORIC
CHARACTER ASSOCIATED WITH THEM,
I BELIEVE.
KIND OF IN THAT TROLL AVENUE
NORTH AT J SMITH AREA.
A SMALL SET OF PARCELS HERE.
I LOOK FOR MY COLLEAGUES TO SEE
IF THERE IS DISCUSSION ON THIS
ONE. I WILL SUPPORT IT.
IT'S A SMALL SET OF CHANGES IN
THAT NECK OF THE WOODS THAT I
THINK WON'T LIKELY SEE A LOT OF
REDEVELOPMENT. BUT WE HAVE JUST
ADOPTED CHANGES NEARBY WITH THE
CHANGES IN THE WALLINGFORD
NEIGHBORHOOD BETWEEN AURORA AND
STONE WAY. AT THIS POINT I'M
FILIBUSTERING TO SEE IF ANYBODY
WANTS TO CHECK IN. I'M NOT
SEEING ANY.
YES PLEASE.
>> MR. CHAIR, I'M GOING TO
AGAIN VOTE NO. THIS IS
LITERALLY A DENSE AREA THAT I
BELIEVE IS IDEAL FOR ADDITIONAL
HOUSING. I ALSO WANT TO
INDICATE HOW CLOSE IN PROXIMITY
TO HOUSING IS TO INDIVIDUALS
WHO MAY BE WORKING AT GOOGLE
AND TABLEAU AND ADOBE.
THIS IS WHERE FOLKS MOVING TO
THE CITY WILL PROBABLY BE
RENTERS. WE WANT TO CREATE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD SO PEOPLE ARE NOT
DISPLACED IF THEY ARE COMING IN
WITH HIGHER WAGE WORKERS INTO
THE AREA. WE WANT EVERYONE TO
BE ABLE TO WALK TO WORK,
ESPECIALLY FOR THE COMMUNITY
THERE THAT AS DEVELOPMENT
HAPPENS THAT THERE IS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH FUNDS
IN HAND AND THERE ARE
OPPORTUNITIES TO WALK TO PLACES
OF EMPLOYMENT, TRANSIT, GROCERY
STORES AND THERE IS A PUBLIC
LIBRARY.
>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS?
>> I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS
LIKE I WAS ON THE ONE OF 15th
AVENUE NORTHEAST.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY.
CAN YOU BRING FORWARD ONE MORE
TIME FOR ME WHAT IS THE
RATIONALE FOR THAT LITTLE
SQUIGGLE TO BE?
>> YES. THE RATIONALE HAS TO DO
WITH THE LOCATION OF
POTENTIALLY HISTORIC RESOURCES
THERE.
NOT NECESSARILY LANDMARK
RESOURCES, BUT RESOURCE THAT
COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR LAND
MARKING.
A LOT NEEDS TO HAPPEN BEFORE
SOMETHING CAN BE LANDMARKED.
>> THERE IS A DESIGNATION OF
STRUCTURES IN THE AREA.
>> IN THE PAST VOTES AND I KNOW
WITH MOUNT BAKER, IT HAS BEEN
HISTORICALLY LANDMARKED OR
NEWLY LANDMARKED, WHY ARE WE
TRYING TO CARVE OUT SOMETHING
THAT'S POTENTIALLY LANDMARKED.
WHAT'S THE RATIONALE?
>> I'M GOING TO ASK THE SPONSOR
TO CALL IN FROM NOT BEING
PRESENT TODAY. I DON'T EXPECT
YOU TO ANSWER THAT IF YOU DON'T
WANT TO MR. FREEMAN AND
COUNCILMAN O'BRIEN'S ABSENCE.
YOU CAN DO A GOOD O'BRIEN
IMPRESSION.
>> IT IS JUST DECIDING ON
CHANGING THE ZONE DESIGNATION
FOR THE AREA.
BEYOND THAT THERE ARE A WIDE
RANGE OF FACTORS THE COUNCIL
CAN CONSIDER.
>> I DON'T WANT TO PUT YOU ONTO
THE SPOT.
>> I HAVE HEARD IT SAID
>>. THERE MAY BE ACTUALLY MORE
OF A TARGET ON THEM.
IS THAT MORE OR LESS WHAT
YOU'VE BEEN TELLING US?
>> I THINK I AM THE CENTRAL
STAFFER WHO MAY HAVE SAID THAT.
THAT WAS IN A DISCUSSION
BETWEEN REMOVING AN AREA
ENTIRELY THAT HAS EXISTING
LANDMARKS OR MODIFYING THE
PROPOSALS.
LET'S SAY WE TOOK THIS AREA OUT
OF THE PROPOSAL ALTOGETHER, IT
WOULD BE ONE OF THE FEW AREAS
IN THE CITY THAT ARE CURRENTLY
ZONED MULTIFAMILY WHERE MHA
WOULD NOT APPLY . THAT'S ASIDE
FROM AREAS WITH HISTORIC
DISTRICTS WHERE THEY DECIDED
NOT TO APPLY MHA.
I DON'T KNOW THOSE AREAS HAVE
OTHER PROTECTIONS AND PLACING
CONTROLS ON REDEVELOPMENT IF IT
IS A LOCALLY DESIGNATED
DISTRICT . IN THIS SITUATION,
IT IS DECREASING THE PROPOSED
ZONING CHANGES AND IT IS NOT
REMOVING IT ENTIRELY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GONZCEZ .
>> I APOLOGIZE FOR MY DELAYED
REACTION, BUT I'M STRUGGLING.
I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO
WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE.
SO 618 WOULD REDUCE THIS
PARTICULAR AREA FROM A LOW RISE
-- FROM A PROPOSED LOW RISE 3 M-
1 BUMP MULTIFAMILY TO LOW RISE
WITH JUST A M KICK BUMP WHICH
MEANS WE RECEIVE A LOWER
CONTRIBUTION TO MHA CLAN THIS
STRIP . RIGHT?
>> YES.
>> AND I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR,
THIS HAS NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY
RECOGNIZED OR DESIGNATED BY ANY
AGENCY. FOR EITHER HISTORIC
DISTRICT PURPOSES.
>> WITHIN THIS AREA THERE ARE
SOME STRUCTURES THAT HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL
LANDMARKS.
SO, WHETHER THEY WOULD BE
LANDMARKED WOULD BE UP TO THE
REVIEW OF NOMINATIONS OR
STRUCTURES.
THEY HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS
HAVING THE POTENTIAL TO BE A
LANDMARK.
AT LEAST FOR COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN, HE WANTED TO BRING IT
FORWARD FOR CONSIDERATION.
OBVIOUSLY I CAN'T SPEAK FOR HIM
, BUT THAT WAS IN PART THE
RATIONALE FOR PUTTING THIS
AMENDMENT ON THE TABLE.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. I'M NOT
ASKING YOU TO SPEAK FOR
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN . BUT I
AM TRYING TO GET AT THE FACTS
THAT ARE UNDERLYING THE
REPRESENTATION OF HIS POSITION
FOR ADVANCING AMENDMENT 6-18.
WHAT I AM HEARING IS THAT IN THE
FEIS THAT THERE WAS A POTENTIAL
THAT SOMEDAY SOMEONE WOULD
NOMINATE THESE CERTAIN HOUSES
OR OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN THIS
PARTICULAR SWATH OF LAND TO BE
POTENTIALLY DESIGNATED AS A
LANDMARK, BUT THAT HAS NOT YET
OCCURRED AND THERE HAS BEEN NO
NOMINATION?
>> CORRECT.
THERE'S JUST A POTENTIAL FOR
LAND MARKING.
>> OKAY.
IN TERMS OF HISTORIC DISTRICT,
THIS IS NOT CURRENTLY HISTORIC
AND WERE NOT AWARE OF THEIR
HAVING BEEN AN APPLICATION OR
PETITION TO HAVE THIS AREA
DESIGNATED AS A HISTORIC
DISTRICT?
>> I'M NOT PERSONALLY AWARE OF
THAT.
>> I APOLOGIZE FOR CROSS-
EXAMINING YOU.
>> [ LAUGHTER ].
>> NO KIDDING.
>> THAT'S LITERALLY ONE OF MY
FAVORITE THINGS TO DO WHICH IS
WHY I'M DOING IT.
THANK YOU KETIL . [ LAUGHTER ].
SO, I AM ASKING THESE QUESTIONS
BECAUSE I THINK IT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT FOR THIS COUNSEL TO
NOT INADVERTENTLY MOVE POLICIES
IN A DIRECTION THAT I THINK
WILL ESTABLISH A DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT THAT WILL ALLOW
PEOPLE WHO ARE RESISTIVE TO
SEEING GROWTH IN THE URBAN
VILLAGES TO USE THIS ARGUMENT
THAT THERE MIGHT POTENTIALLY
SOMEDAY, IN THEORY,
HYPOTHETICALLY, BE A PETITION
FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A HISTORIC
RESOURCE WITHIN A PARTICULAR
PART OF A URBAN VILLAGE.
I REALLY FEEL THIS IS THE TOP
OF A SLIPPERY SLOPE AND WE WILL
FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION
IN THE FUTURE OF BUTTING UP
AGAINST THIS ARGUMENT THE NEXT
TIME WE WANT TO RECONSIDER, OR
THE NEXT TIME WE WANT TO
CONSIDER MODIFICATIONS TO OUR
ZONING LAWS.
I WANT US TO BE INCREDIBLY
CAREFUL AND JUDICIOUS ABOUT NOT
ESTABLISHING A PRECEDENT WHERE
WE WILL BE FACED WITH THIS
ARGUMENT BY SOME FOLKS IN
COMMUNITY GROUPS WHO ARE VERY
SOPHISTICATED IN LEVERAGING
THESE ARGUMENTS.
SO, I WILL BE VOTING NO FOR 6-
18.
IN LARGE PART BECAUSE I AM
VERY CAUTIOUS AND APPREHENSIVE
OF ESTABLISHING A PRECEDENT
THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO ASSERT,
WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL
DOCUMENTATION OR PROOF, THAT
THIS AREA IS OFFICIALLY A
HISTORIC RESOURCE.
>> SO, AS COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN'S PROXY FOR TODAY, I
WILL CALL FOR ADOPTION OF THIS
TO BE ADOPTED AND I WILL VOTE
AGAINST THE MOTION BECAUSE MANY
OF THE REASONS THAT ARE
OUTLINED BY OUR COLLEAGUES. I
WILL ADD THAT I REPRESENT ABOUT
TWO THIRDS OF THIS DISTRICT AND
I THINK THAT MANY OF THE ISSUES
THAT WERE RAISED BY OUR TWO
CITYWIDE COUNCILMEMBERS ARE
APPLICABLE TO THIS NECK OF THE
WOODS.
I THINK IT IS BETTER SERVED AS
A LOW RISE 3 ZONE THAN WHAT IS
IN THE PROPOSAL.
SO ON THE ONE HAND I CALL FOR
ADOPTION. I MOVE FOR ADOPTION
OF AMENDMENT 6-18 .
>> IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED
AND SECONDED AND I WANT TO MAKE
IT CLEAR I WILL VOTE NO.
BUT I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR WE
CAN GET THIS IN FRONT OF
DISTRICT 1. ALL IN FAVOR OF
AMENDMENT 6-18, PLEASE SIGNIFY
BY SAYING AYE.
THERE SEEMS TO BE NONE.
THOSE OPPOSED, SAY NAY . THE
AMENDMENT FAILS 8-0. SO, I
BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES THE
DISTRICT 6 AMENDMENT SAID NOW
LET'S MOVE TO THE DISTRICT 1
AMENDMENTS.
I THINK WE WILL START IN THE
WEST SEATTLE JUNCTION.
>> SO, THE NEXT FIVE AMENDMENTS
1-2 THROUGH 1-6 ARE IN THE WEST
SEATTLE JUNCTION.
THEY ARE -- SO THE PROPOSAL IS
TO REDUCE ALL ZONES FROM SINGLE-
FAMILY TO RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT.
>> IS THAT IT?>> YEAH, SO -- I
WAS EXPECTING A LITTLE MORE, I
APOLOGIZE, IT WAS MY FAULT.
>> THESE ARE THE FIVE AREAS OF
THE WEST SEATTLE JUNCTION URBAN
VILLAGE. AMENDMENTS 1-2 THROUGH
ONE-6 IN THE URBAN VILLAGE.
>> AND EACH INSTANCE IT'S A
CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL SMALL
LOT?
>> THEY ARE CURRENTLY ZONED
SINGLE-FAMILY AND THERE ARE A
VARIETY OF PROPOSALS FROM LR-1
AND LR-2. THE AMENDMENT
PROPOSES THEY WOULD ONLY GO TO
RSL.
>> BUT IT WILL STILL BE MORE
DENSE THAN IT IS TODAY?
>> THE COMMUNITY IS ISSUING
STRONG SUPPORT FOR DEVELOPMENT
IN THE AREA ONCE A STATION IS
SELECTED. YOU SHOULD HAVE
RECEIVED A LETTER IN YOUR INBOX
LATE LAST NIGHT. THE CHAIR OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS
WORKING HARD TO GET THIS DONE.
SHE'S A NEW MOM AND THIS IS
IMPORTANT TO HER. I WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT ONE SECTION OF THIS
LETTER WHERE SHE SAYS THE
COUNCILMEMBER'S AMENDMENTS
WOULD ALLOW THE COMMUNITY AND
THE OP CD TO UPDATE THAT
REQUIRES THE LIGHT RAIL.
THE SUPPORT OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OFFICES, GREEN SPACE
AND OPTINS CLOSE TO RAIL SPACE
. WE SEE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
BUILT NEAR THE NEW LIGHT RAIL
STATION AS ESSENTIAL TO MAKING
LIGHT RAIL ACCESSIBLE.
THE COMMITMENT FROM THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE
COMMITMENT WE HAVE RECEIVED
FROM THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
DURING THE 2018 BUDGET PROCESS,
THIS COUNCIL ISSUED
LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT THE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WOULD
OUTLINE HOW THEY WOULD
PRIORITIZE COMMUNITY PLANNING
INCLUDING 2018 AND 2019.
THEY ISSUED A REPORT IN JULY
2018 ADDRESSING THE PORTION OF
THEIR WORK PROGRAM DEDICATED TO
NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
IN THAT REPORT, THEY IDENTIFY
FUTURE LIGHT RAIL STATIONS
FOCUS AREAS OUTSIDE THE CENTER
CITY. THE BACKGROUND WORK IN
DETAIL PLANNING AFTER 2019.
AVALON, WEST SEATTLE JUNCTION
IS NAMED AS A PLANNING PRIORITY
FOR OPCD.
THEY SAY THROUGHOUT 2018 AND
2019 WE WILL BE EVALUATING THE
TIME AND THE NEED FOR STATION
AREA PLANNING NEAR THE LIGHT
RAIL STATIONS THAT ARE PLANNED
TO BE OPENED ALONG THE WEST
SEATTLE TO BALLARD LIGHT RAIL
ALIGNMENTS.
OTHER IMPORTANT ITEMS AROUND
THIS IS THAT MOST FOLKS ARE
AWARE THAT THIS SPECIFIC
ALIGNMENT AND NECESSARY
PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS HAVE NOT
YET BEEN DECIDED.
THE ELECTED LEADERS GROUP FOR
SOUND TRANSIT 3 WILL MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS IN MAY AND
SOUND TRANSIT 3 BOARD WILL BE
IDENTIFYING DESIRED ALIGNMENT.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS
FOR DESIRED ALIGNMENT. AS I
MENTIONED, THE COMMUNITY HAS
EXPRESSED STRONG SUPPORT TO
ACCOMMODATE TRANSIT.
THEY HAVE MADE COMMITMENTS TO
ENGAGE IN THAT.
AND UPZONING PROPERTIES THAT
ARE LIKELY TO BE NEEDED FOR
LIGHT RAIL WILL ALSO LIKELY
HAVE THE EFFECT OF INCREASING
THE COST OF SOUND TRANSIT 3.
COSTS THAT WE ARE ENGAGED IN
IDENTIFYING THIRD PARTY FUNDING
. MAYBE FOURTH PARTY OR FIFTH
PARTY FUNDING TO ADDRESS. SO,
THE OTHER IMPORTANT POINT THAT
HAS BEEN MADE. THEY HAVE MADE
AN EFFORT TO FULFILL THE
REQUEST.
THEY WILL BE MAKING ADJUSTMENTS
TO THE MHA UPS ZONES . IF THEY
WERE PROPOSING A SMALLER UPZONE
THAT THEY WOULD IDENTIFY A
LOCATION FOR A LARGER UPZONE.
AND IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO DO SO,
THEY IDENTIFY THE LOCATION
WHERE THEY THOUGHT MAKING UP
FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING --
THE LOCATION WHERE THAT WOULD BE
WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO DO IN
A GOOD PLACE TO HAVE IT.
UNFORTUNATELY THE FEIS
CONSTRAINED THE ALLOTTED AREA
THEY HAD IDENTIFIED.
THAT IS AS IT RELATES TO JUST
ONE PARTICULAR PARCEL.
AS IT RELATES TO THE JUNCTION,
THEY CONSTRAINED THE OPTIONS
AVAILABLE TO US AS IT RELATES
TO THE OTHER PIECES OF PROPERTY
AS WELL. THEY BASICALLY DID NOT
GIVE US WIGGLE ROOM TO DO THE
EXERCISE. THEN, I THINK THE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING EFFORTS
THAT OPCD WILL ENGAGE IN AND
CAN ACTUALLY RESULT IN
ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS BEFORE
US TODAY.
YOU KNOW, AS I HAVE ARGUED AND
HAS OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE
MADE THE POINT, I BELIEVE THIS
IS THE EXIT -- FIRST EXPANDED
USE OF THE RSL ZONE.
AND THIS EFFORT TO CONVERT
SINGLE-FAMILY TO RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT IS SUCCESSFUL, IT
WILL HELP US HAVE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS IN AREAS OUTSIDE
OF URBAN VILLAGES.
IF WE ARE SENDING THE MESSAGE
TO OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE WON'T
CONSIDER COMPROMISE ON THESE
ISSUES, I THINK IT WILL MAKE
THE CONVERSATIONS MORE DIFFICULT
.
>> I WANT TO SIGNAL SUPPORT FOR
THIS SUITE OF AMENDMENTS, AS
YOU MENTIONED. JUST TO
REEMPHASIZE.
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MHA
AROUND THE LIGHT RAIL STATIONS
, I THINK IS CRITICAL. AT THE
SAME TIME I RECOGNIZE THE
LIMITATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT
ON US AS A BODY DUE TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
THAT WE HAVE STUDIED. IN MY OWN
NEIGHBORHOOD, WE JUST SPENT
DISCUSSION TALKING ABOUT THE
ROOSEVELT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE MANY THAT BELIEVE WE
SHOULD BE BUILDING THE TALLER
THAN THE 85 FEET ALLOTTED IN THE
MHA PROPOSAL.
BECAUSE OF THE IMPENDING
DECISION OF THE SOUND TRANSIT 3
ALIGNMENT, AS WELL AS THE
COMMITMENT FROM THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT, IT WOULD BE
IMPRUDENT FOR US NOT TO
IMPLEMENT MHA IN THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD , WHICH IS NOT
WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.
BUT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT WHILE
WE AWAIT THOSE OUTCOMES OF THE
ALIGNMENT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD
PLANNING OUTLOOK COME. THEN USE
THOSE AS SPRINGBOARDS FOR
ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO BE
PROPOSED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE OF
THIS IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE
PROPOSALS THAT WE WILL SEE IN
THE NEAR TERM.>> INSTEAD OF
THOSE CONFLUENCE FACTORS
BETWEEN THE PLANNING PROCESS.
THE WEST SEATTLE JUNCTION WILL
BE BACK WITH CHANGES THAT WILL
BE BACK AND HIGHER THAN WHAT
WAS PROPOSED.
I SEE THIS AS A NECESSARY STEP
AND WE DON'T LOSE OUT ON THE
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY.
I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE
PROPOSAL AS WE GO THROUGH THE
PLANNING PROCESS AFTER THE
REALIGNMENT HAS BEEN SELECTED
OR AT LEAST CHOSEN OR STUDIED.
ONE OF THOSE THINGS.
ALSO IT IS NEXT COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ .
>> I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> YOUR AMENDMENTS FROM 1-2
THROUGH 1-6 REGARDING THE WEST
SEATTLE JUNCTION VILLAGE, ARE
THOSE ALL RELATED TO FUTURE
LIGHT RAIL?
>> THEY ARE.
>> I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK
THIS AFTERNOON. SHE PROVIDED ME
WITH A LETTER FROM SOME OF THE
COMMUNITY GROUPS ABOUT THE
CONCERNS AND THE DENSITY IN THE
NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> IS THAT THE MAIN PURPOSE TO
REDUCE?
>> INDEED IT IS.
>> OKAY, THAT IS DIFFERENT FOR
ME.
>> THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION I HAVE
, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE
ANSWER, MAYBE THE CHAIRMAN DOES.
WOULD WE EVER REVISIT THE AREA
AGAIN?
>>
>> THE BEGINNING OF TRANSIT
ORIENTED PLANNING IS SLIT TO
BEGIN THIS YEAR.>> AND THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE
SEEN IN OTHER AREAS WHERE LIGHT
RAIL IS COMING.
WHAT WE ADOPTED IN 2017 WHERE A
PART OF A PROPOSED SET OF JOAN
-- ZONING CHANGES WERE DONE IN
2011 BECAUSE OF MHA AND THAT
CONCEPT.
IT IS CONSISTENT TO SEE THAT
PLANNING AROUND PLANNING
RESOURCES, MUCH LIKE YOU WOULD
SEE PLANNING RESOURCES.
>> AND NORTHGATE, PEOPLE ARE
LOOKING AT REDUCING DENSITY.
AND IN THESE THEY ARE LOOKING
AT UPZONING.
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THE
OPPOSITE?
IF I'M WRONG, CORRECT ME.
>> IT'S NOT KNOWN.
>> IT'S KNOWN FROM THE MAPPING
WHETHER IT IS UNDERGROUND OR ON
TOP.>>
>> THERE ARE THREE OPTIONS
SPREAD OUT ACROSS DIFFERENT
BLOCKS FROM EAST TO WEST.
>> AGAIN, THIS IS CONVENTIONAL
WISDOM AND CORRECT ME IF I'M
WRONG.
WHATEVER OPTION THEY CHOOSE, IF
YOU KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD,
THAT'S WHAT I'VE EXPERIENCED AT
NORTHGATE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CHANGES MY
OPINION, BUT ENLIGHTEN ME.
>> FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED
IN THOSE PLANNING DISCUSSIONS,
CAN YOU ADD A LITTLE BIT OF
TEXTURE TO THE IMPORTANCE OF
KNOWING WHERE THESE ALIGNMENTS
ARE GOING TO BE TO HOW THAT
INFORMS THE DISCUSSIONS AROUND
PLANNING?
>> I CAN START AND THEN ALEX,
JUMP IN.
>> I JUST WANT TO NOTE FOR
CLARIFICATION WHETHER THE
AMENDMENT PASSES OR THE
PROPOSAL IS ADOPTED, IT IS AN
UPZONE.
ALL OF THESE AREAS WOULD BE AN
UPZONE, BUT IT'S JUST THE
EXTENT TO WHICH IT IS OCCURRING.
>> LOOKING AT THE STATIONARY
PLANNING, OFTEN MORE DENSITY IS
CONCENTRATED IN THE IMMEDIATE
STATION AREA AND IT TEARS DOWN
FROM THERE. DEPENDING ON THE
SIZE OF THE URBAN VILLAGE AND
THE TOPOGRAPHY OF AN AREA, THAT
MIGHT DEPEND ON HOW EXACTLY YOU
GET THE HIGHEST ZONING INCREASE
VERSUS TEARING OUT..
IN THE SPECIFIC.
>> THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL BY
SOUND TRANSIT AFTER THE
PREFERRED ALIGNMENT WAS CHOSEN
WAS TO PUT THE LIGHT RAIL
STATION IMMEDIATELY UNDER THE
FREEWAY.
AS A RESULT OF A LOT OF
NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT, THE
LIGHT RAIL STATION WAS MOVED
SEVERAL BLOCKS TO THE EAST.
AS A RESULT OF THE FINAL
DECISION ABOUT ALIGNMENTS. NOW
ARE IN THE THIRD ITERATION AND
THEY ARE CONTINUING TO GROW THE
DENSITY AND OPTIONS AVAILABLE
TO US IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I
SAY THIS IS AN ATTRACTIVE
PROCESS WITH THE FIRST STEP
HERE TODAY BEING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF MHA IN THE
NEIGHBORHOODS AND STEP TO BEING
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LIGHT
RAIL ALIGNMENT AT THE SOUND
TRANSIT BOARD.
STEPS 2 AND 3 WILL LIKELY BE
SEQUENCED AFTER THE VOTE.
>> IT MAY BE A COUPLE OF YEARS
AWAY, BUT I THINK MY EXPECTATION
WILL BE THAT IT WILL BE BACK BY
THE END OF NEXT YEAR OR EARLY
2021 WITH A SET OF PROPOSALS.
WHICH IS WHY I THINK IN THE
NEAR TERM IMPLEMENTING MHA
MAKES SENSE WHILE WAITING FOR
COMMUNITY PLANNING TO TAKE
PLACE IN AN ADDITIONAL ZONING
CAPACITY WILL RESULT ONCE WE
KNOW WHERE THE STATIONS ARE.
IF YOU ARE DESIGNING A WALK
SHED OF 10 MINUTES, YOU CAN
IMAGINE THE TERMINUS MATTERS A
LOT AS DOES THE TOPOGRAPHY.
I DON'T KNOW SEATTLE AS WELL AS
REST OF MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I
UNDERSTAND THE ELEVATION
BETWEEN THE 41st OPTION IN THE
44th OPTION IS SIGNIFICANT.
THAT WALK SHED WILL CHANGE
BASED ON WHERE IT IS LOCATED.
WHERE WE HAD SELECTED A
PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE, WERE
LIKELY TALKING ABOUT A
DIFFERENT SET OF PROPOSALS.
WE ARE HOPING THAT OPCD WILL
COME UP WITH PROPOSALS. I WILL
GET OFF MY SOAPBOX.
>> I'M COUNTING THE BLOCKS AND
IT IS ACTUALLY NOT 10 BLOCKS,
IS ABOUT SEVEN BLOCKS FROM THE
VARIATION OF CHANGES.
FROM 36th OVER 2/44.
>> WE HAVE COUNCILMEMBER
GONZCEZ NEXT AND THEN
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA NUMB .
>>> I'M IN AN AWKWARD CONVERSE
-- PLACE BECAUSE THIS
CONVERSATION ABOUT LAND USE
ZONING CHANGES IN THIS VENUE
ARE BEING TIED CLOSELY TO
POLICY DECISIONS THAT ARE
RELATED TO THE ELECTED
LEADERSHIP GROUP REGARDING THE
SOUND TRANSIT ALIGNMENT TO THE
WEST SEATTLE JUNCTION
RESIDENTIAL URBAN VILLAGE WHERE
I LIVE. IF ONE OF THE THREE
ALTERNATIVES, AS PROPOSED BY
THE STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP
PASSES, IT MEANS I HAVE A
FINANCIAL DIRECTIVE -- A DIRECT
CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN POLICY
DECISIONS RELATED TO THE WEST
SEATTLE JUNCTION URBAN VILLAGE.
SO, I HAD ORIGINALLY TAKEN THE
MICROPHONE WITH THE INTENT OF
ADVOCATING FOR ONE POSITION
OVER THE OTHER AND GIVEN MY
INABILITY TO HAVE CHECKED IN
WITH SEATTLE
>> SINCE COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
HAS CITED VERY CLOSELY WITH
POLICY DETERMINATIONS THAT ARE
AFOOT IN THE ELECTED LEADERSHIP
GROUP.
FOR STAN TRANSIT WITH I SAID ON
AND IT WILL BE CONVERTED OUT
OF.
SO I WILL BE ABSTAINING.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE
CLARIFICATION.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA, AND
THEN I BELIEVE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT HARRELL.
NO MINE IS JUST A QUESTION AND
MAYBE COMMENT AFTER THE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT BUT DOES THAT APPLY
TO ANYONE ELSE ON COUNCIL, THAT
POSITION THAT COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ IS IN?
>> IF YOU OWN PROPERTY IN AN
AREA THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE
úREZONED UNDER ONE OF THESE
AMENDMENTS YOU SHOULD RECUSE
YOURSELF FROM VOTING ON THAT
AMENDMENT.
GENERALLY, THE PROPOSALS AFFECT
SUCH A BROAD SWATH OF THIS
CITY'S POPULATION THAT IF YOU
OWN LAND IN AN AREA THAT IS
PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED UNDER
THIS PROPOSAL, BUT THERE IS NO
SPECIFIC AMENDMENT RELATED AND
YOU HAVE NOT INFLUENCED THE
PROPOSAL RELATED TO THAT
PARTICULAR SITE, THEN YOU
SHOULD BE FINE.
>> GOOD NEWS I DO NOT OWN ANY
PROPERTY.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
>> I DID NOT.
>> SORRY, I THOUGHT YOU GRABBED
THE MICROPHONE.
COUNCIL NUMBERS YOU HAVE ANY
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS?
>> THINK YOU VERY MUCH MR.
CHAIR.
THERE ARE TWO THINGS I LIKE TO
STAY OFF THE BAT AGREEMENT
REGARDING THESE AMENDMENTS.
I UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITY OF
THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
PENDING SOUND TRANSIT.
MY ARGUMENT WOULD BE IT IS
PRECISELY BECAUSE WE HAVE A NEW
LINE, A NEW STOP FOR SOUND
TRANSIT THAT WOULD WILL BE
COMING TO THIS AREA THAT WE
SHOULD DO EVERYTHING WE CAN
RIGHT NOW TO RAISE THE BAR AND
CREATE AS MUCH AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AS POSSIBLE SO THAT
WHEN SOUND TRANSIT'S DECISION
IS MADE, THAT WOULD BE IN
ADDITION TO THAT BASELINE.
IF WE CAN SEE OURSELVES VOTING
FOR THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE
PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE EIS, THEN
ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO THAT
WITH THATWOULD BE ADDED ON, NO
MATTER THE LOCATION THAT IT
COMES, WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO
THE AREA IN TERMS OF CREATING
ADDITIONAL HOUSING, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
FOLKS TO LIVE THERE.
THAT IS NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO IS, REGARDLESS OF
SOUND TRANSIT COMING, PEOPLE
LOVE WEST SEATTLE.
I LOVE WEST SEATTLE, I HAVE
LIVED THERE TWICE IN MY
ADULTHOOD, I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY.
BUT I HAVE LIVED THERE TWICE, I
WOULD LOVE TO MOVE BACK THERE,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT A
SOUND TRANSIT, IF WE CAN
EXPEDITE IT, GREATER THAN IF
THAT DOES NOT HAVE A GOOD I
KNOW WHAT TO LIVE THERE
TOMORROW, YESTERDAY.
MY DESIRE TO TRY TO MAKE SURE
WE STAY TRUE TO THE ORIGINAL
INTENT THAT WAS TRANSMITTED AND
DISCUSSED IN COMMUNITY WAS TO
ENSURE THAT THE WEST SEATTLE
JUNCTION AND OUR ASSET RICH
AREA THERE IS MADE AVAILABLE TO
MORE RENTERS, TWO MORE FIRST-
TIME HOMEBUYERS.
TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE CAN
HAVE ACCESS TO HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES THERE, EVEN AS
THE CONVERSATION AROUND STAN
TRANSIT EVOLVES.
I WILL SAY THAT AND INDICATE
THAT I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING
THESE AMENDMENTS.
>> FURTHER QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS,
SUGGESTIONS, COLLEAGUES?
>> THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT
YOU HAVE SAID YOU WANTED TO
LIVE IN THE JUNCTION.
SO THIS IS AWESOME.
>> I DO.
>> THAT FRIENDLY DEBATE ASIDE,
I WOULD THEN CALL FOR SUPPORT
OF AMENDMENT 134 MANY OF THE
REASONS OUTLINED.
SO I WILL ASK FOR ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT ONEÃTWO.
SO WE HAVE GOT OFFICIALLY MOVED
AND SECONDED, FOR THE
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS?
SO I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ON
THIS, ALL THOSE IN TAPE FAVOR
PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING I AND
RAISE YOUR HAND.
I. OPPOSE?
>> NO.
>> ABSTENTIONS?
THAT AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED, I
WILL NOW CALL FOR APPROVAL OF
AMENDMENT ONE DASH THREE.
>> SECOND.
>> FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ON
AMENDMENT ONEÃTHREE?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLACE SAY I
AND RAISE YOUR HAND?
NO I. OPPOSE?
NO NO.
>> ABSTENTIONS?
THAT AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
AMENDMENT 14, I WILL MOVE UP
OVAL OF AMENDMENT ONE DASH FOR.
FOR THE DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE
IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY I AND RAISE
YOUR HAND.
>> I.
>> OPPOSED.
>> NO.
>> ABSTENTIONS?
THAT AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
AMENDMENT ONE DASH FIVE.
I MOVE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT
ONE DASH FIVE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLACE SAY I
AND RAISE YOUR HAND?
>> I.
>> OPPOSED?
>> NO.
ABSTENTIONS?
>> AND FINALLY AMENDMENT ONE --
SIX, AND THE DEFINITION OF
AMENDMENT ONE DAY SIX.
FOR THE DISCUSSION, THE LEASE
SAY I AND RAISE YOUR HAND.
>> I.
>> OPPOSED.
>> NO.
>> ABSTENTIONS?
THAT AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES THE
WEST SEATTLE JUNCTION
AMENDMENTS.
DID I GET THAT RIGHT?
OKAY I'M GETTING NODS.
LET'S MOVE ON TO AMENDMENT ONE
-- 10.
>> SO AMENDMENT ONE -- 10 IS NO
WESTWOOD HIGHLAND PARK URBAN
VILLAGE, I BELIEVE 111 IS AS
WELL.
SO 110 IS TO REDUCE THE
DESCRIPTION IS, OF THE AREA
BOUNDED BY SOUTHWEST BARTON,
BARTON PLACE SOUTHWEST AND 21st
AVENUE SOUTH.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO REDUCE THE
DESIGNATION IN THE AREA FROM
LOWRISE MULTI FAMILY TO
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT.
IT IS CURRENTLY A SINGLE FAMILY
AND THE COUNCIL BILL WOODS ON
THIS TO LR ONE.
AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO RSLM.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE FOLKS IN
THAT SOUTHWEST DELRAY TO
NEIGHBORHOOD, SPECIFICALLY THE
SOUTHWEST L COUNTY COMMUNITY
COUNCIL HAS REQUESTED AMENDMENT
ONE -- 10.
THIS IS AN AREA THAT IS ALONG
THE DELRAY JAKARTA DOOR.
GOING SOUTH.
IT PROVIDES A VERY WONDERFUL
VIEW OF MOUNT RAINIER.
IT IS A PUBLIC VIEW THAT FOLKS
IN A LOW INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD IN
AN AREA THAT DOES NOT SEE A LOT
OF CITY INVESTMENT CAN ENJOY,
AND THEY ARE REQUESTING A MORE
GENTLE OF ZONE IN THAT AREA OR
JUST PRESERVE THE PUBLIC VIEW
OF OUR LOVELY MOUNT RAINIER.
>> FURTHER THOUGHTS OR
DISCUSSIONS OR QUESTIONS ON
THIS, COLLEAGUES?
COUNCILMEMBER MISS GAETA.
-- MOSQUEDA.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WISE UP NOW.
SO COUNCIL MEMBERS, I AM
ENCOURAGING A NO VOTE AGAIN ON
THIS, NOT BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT
MORE FOLKS TO HAVE ACCESS TO
THE PARKS AND VIEWS, I THINK
THAT THERE IS REALLY AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE
ADDITIONAL HOUSING AROUND THIS
COMMERCIAL CENTER, GROCERY
STORES, POST OFFICES, MANY
RESTAURANTS, OTHER SMALL
BUSINESSES.
DELRAY JOSH YOU ALL KNOW HAS
PLANNED TO HAVE A RAPID RIDE
BUS IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS
WHICH WILL EVENTUALLY CONNECT
TO THE DELRIDGE WAY WILL STOP.
I THINK THIS MAKES A LOT OF
SENSE FOR US TO BUILD THIS MUCH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AS MUCH
HOUSING IN GENERAL ALONG THIS
CORRIDOR, IT JUST MAKES SENSE.
>> I WILL, I WILL BE SUPPORTING
THIS AMENDMENT, AGAIN THAT
HEIGHT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
LOWRISE ONE AND RSL ARE MINIMAL.
I BELIEVE NOT.
AND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
HERE IS THE NUMBER OF UNITS
THAT CAN BE BUILT, I.E.
THE FLOOR AREA RATIO ASSOCIATED
WITH IT.
IT IS A SMALL SWATH IN THE
LARGER SCHEME OF THINGS.
WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS
AMENDMENT BECAUSE I DO NOT
THINK IT IS GOING TO MAKE A
HUGE IMPACT.
IT HAS BEEN ASKED FOR BY
MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.
>> EXCUSE ME.
>> YES.
>> IS THAT TRUE?
COUNCILMEMBER STAFF?
THERE IS NO HEIGHT DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN LR ONE AND RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT AND THERE IS ZERO
IMPACT AS A RESULT OF THIS
AMENDMENT?
IN TERMS OF FORECASTED POTENTIAL
PRODUCTION OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS?
>> THREE UNITS FOR BOTH
AMENDMENTS.
>> IN TERMS OF FORECAST
PRODUCTION FOR THIS AMENDMENT
AND ALSO I BELIEVE AMENDMENT
1/11, THE IMPACT IS -3 UNITS,
IN TERMS OF HEIGHT, THE MAXIMUM
HEIGHT ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT ZONE IS PROPOSED TO
BE 30 FEET AND THAT IS ALSO
TRUE FOR LOWRISE ONE.
>> QUICK QUESTION.
>> PLEASE, COUNCILMEMBER
JOHNSON.
>> IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE ON
SETBACKS IF THE HEIGHT IS NOT
GOING TO BE IMPACTED?
SO SETBACKS YOU BELIEVE THE
VIEW CORRIDOR IS NO THAT IS THE
ARGUMENT THAT HAS BEEN MADE TO
ME.
>> MS. ENERGY?
>> THERE IS ALSO A DIFFERENCE
IN HOW MUCH THE FLOOR AREA
LIMIT BETWEEN RSL ZONES AND
LOWRISE ZONES SO THE BOOK OF
THE BUILDING IS ALSO, YOU CAN
MAKE A SORT OF FATTER 30 FOOT
BUILDING IN LOWRISE ZONES THAN
YOU CAN IN RSLM ZONE FOR LACK
OF A BETTER TERM.
>> HOW ARE WE FULFILLING THE
DELL RIDGE COMMUNITY COUNCILS
STATED INTENT TO PRESERVE THEIR
VIEW OF MOUNT RAINIER?
>> THE RSL ZONE, WITH A SIMILAR
HEIGHT LIMIT, BUT YOU COULD NOT
BUILD AS MUCH ON THE LOT, SO
IT WOULD BE THE COURT OR SORT
OF IN BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND THE
YARD REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE
GREATER IN THE RSL ZONE THAN IN
THE LOWRISE IS ON.
>> SO THERE WILL STILL BE
BLOCKAGE UNDER THIS PROPOSAL OF
MOUNT RAINIER?
>> WE HAVE NOT DONE A
VISUALIZATION AT ALL.
SO.
>> I'M JUST ASKING MS. BEN DECI
A QUESTION.
>> I'M JUST SAYING THAT I DON'T
KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THERE WILL
BE BLOCKAGE BUT
>> I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION
BECAUSE ONE OF YOUR PRIMARY
ARGUMENTS WAS TO ALLOW FOR
ONGOING ENJOYMENT OF THE VIEW
OF MOUNT RAINIER, SO I WANT TO
GET A SENSE GIVEN THE HEIGHT,
IS GOING TO BE THE SAME, I'M
NOT SEEING THAT AS A PERSUASIVE
ARGUMENT.
UNDER EITHER PROPOSAL.
>> OF THE HEIGHT LIMITS ARE
SIMILAR FRANKLY IN SINGLE-
FAMILY, IN RSL, AND LOWRISE ONE
ZONES.
THE DIFFERENCE IS, IN YARD
REQUIREMENTS OR SETBACKS , AND
HOW MUCH SPACES BETWEEN
BUILDINGS AND THE TOTAL MASSING
OF THE STRUCTURES ALLOWED ON
THE SITE SO YOU CAN FILL UP
MORE OF THE LOT IN A LOWRISE
ONE ZONE THEN YOU CAN IN THE
RSL ZONE.
IN TERMS OF WALKING VIEWS, I
GET IT WOULD REALLY DEPEND ON
EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE STANDING
IN RELATION TO WHERE THE NEW
BUILDING IS PLACED ON THE LOT
AND THOSE SORT OF THINGS.
BUT IN A A RSL ZONE, YOU CANNOT
BUILD OUT AS MUCH OF THE LOT AS
YOU CAN IN LOWRISE ZONES, SO.
>> PLEASE, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
>> SORRY, ARE YOU SAYING THAT,
THERE IS NO HEIGHT DIFFERENCE
BUT IN THE LARGER ZONE, IT IS,
THERE WILL BE MORE UNITS OR
UNITS WILL BE MORE DENSELY
PACKED, AND THEN SOME WILL HAVE
THE VIEW AND SOME WILL NOT?
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> RIGHT IF YOU THINK ABOUT A
SET OF BLOCKS THAT ARE
DEVELOPED SORT OF LOT LINE TO
LOT LINE, WITH STRUCTURES LONG,
YOU KNOW ALONG THE ENTIRE BLOCK
, WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY BE
ACHIEVED IN SOME OF THE LOWRISE
ZONES, IN RSL ZONES THERE ARE
YARD REQUIREMENTS AS LOWER AS
THE LOWER FIR UNITS.
THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING IN
RELATIONSHIP TO THE SIZE OF THE
LOT IN RSL ZONES IS SMALLER SO
IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE
EXAMPLES ON THE SCREEN OF THE
BOTTOM IMAGES YOU CAN SEE SORT
OF POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TYPES
WE EXPECT TO SEE IN RSL ZONES.
IF WE FLIP TO THE NEXT SLIDE IN
LOWRISE WHEN YOU CAN SEE THE
BUILDINGS ARE FILLING UP MORE
OF THE LOT.
WAS THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO
MAKE.
SO DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU ARE
STANDING AND EXACTLY HOW TALL
YOUR BUILDING IS MAY DEPEND ON
HOW MUCH EITHER DEVELOPMENT
DOES OR DOES NOT INCREASE THE
BLOCKAGE OF THE VIEW.
>> I THINK TO YOUR OTHER POINT,
IN ALL THREE INSTANCES, WHETHER
IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS SINGLE-
FAMILY OR WHETHER IT IS TO BE
ZONED AS RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT
OR SO AND AS LOWRISE ONE, THEY
ALL HAVE THE SAME HEIGHT.
THE QUESTION IS ABOUT THE
SETBACKS AND THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH IT
AND THEREFORE HOW BULKY THE
BUILDING IS.
BUT YES?
DOES THAT SATISFY YOUR ORIGINAL
QUESTIONS COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALES BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO
COUNSEL MEMBER MOSQUEDA ?
>> IT DOES.
>> OKAY, COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA
>> MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU FOR
SAYING THAT.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS
THAT WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THIS
PACKAGE IS WE HAVE CREATED
ADDITIONAL SETBACKS AND
REQUIREMENTS FOR TREES, WE HAVE
CREATED ADDITIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THERE TO BE
CHILDCARE VILLAGES ON THE FIRST
FLOORS AND SMALL BUSINESSES, SO
IT IS NOT A LOT TO LOT
DEVELOPMENT THAT I THINK FOLKS
MIGHT THINK ABOUT OR FEAR.
WHAT WE ARE REALLY TALKING
ABOUT IS THESE EXAMPLES THAT
ARE ON THE SCREEN, VERSUS THE
ABILITY TO HAVE ONE, OR TWO, OR
POTENTIALLY I GUESS, THREE
BUILDINGS ON A LOT THAT COULD
OTHERWISE HOLD FIVE, SIX, EIGHT
UNITS, FAMILY UNITS, SO IT IS
REALLY ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE
COME AGAIN TO THE POINT THAT
WAS MADE EARLIER.
HOW MANY PEOPLE WE ARE ALLOWING
IT TO LIVE IN THESE ASSET RICH
NEIGHBORHOODS.
YOU KNOW, I WAS HOLDING THIS
BACK BECAUSE I KNOW
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD WE
UNFORTUNATELY STARTED WITH YOUR
DISTRICT LAST TIME, AND THIS IS
NOT ABOUT DISTRICT ONE BY ANY
MEANS, THIS IS A COMMENT ACROSS
THE BOARD.
BUT WE HAVE TALKED A LOT TODAY
ABOUT HOW WE ARE STILL QUOTE OF
ZONING WHEN WE GO FROM LOWRISE
ONE TO RSL, AND HOW THIS IS
SOMEHOW BEING USED AS AN
EXAMPLE OF THE WAYS TO BE MORE
CULTURALLY SENSITIVE.
THE TERM EARLIER WAS USED TO
THAT THERE IS A LOT OF CULTURAL
CHANGE THAT IS HAPPENING THAT
WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT
HISTORICAL, WE HAVE TO HAVE
HISTORICAL REMINDERS OF WHAT WE
ARE TRYING TO DO.
I OFFER THIS TO THE COUNCIL, A
HISTORICAL REMINDER OF WHAT WE
ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO DO
TODAY, AND THAT IS TO WRITE
HISTORIC WRONGS.
WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS SHEET
HERE, IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE
HAVE ACTUALLY DOWN ZONED OVER
THE CENTURY.
OVER THE DECADES.
FROM 1923, TWO 1977, 219 92,
THE 2014, MR. CHAIR, WE HAVE
EXPANDED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE IN SINGLE-
FAMILY AREAS.
SO AS WE THINK ABOUT CULTURAL
CHANGES, WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY
DOING IS TRYING TO BUILD BACK
INTO THE FABRIC OF WHAT SEATTLE
USED TO LOOK LIKE.
BUILD BACK IN THE OPPORTUNITY
FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN AREAS
THAT WERE EXCLUDED FROM LIVING
FROM.
AND THIS IS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR US TO HAVE HISTORICAL
AMNESIA ABOUT WHAT OUR CITY
USED TO LOOK LIKE.
AGAIN, I LIVE IN QUEEN AND, IN
AN APARTMENT, THAT IS FOUR
STORIES TALL.
A BEAUTIFUL BRICK APARTMENT
BUILDING.
THAT IS CURRENTLY CONSIDERED
ILLEGAL IF IT WERE BUILT TODAY
BECAUSE IT IS NOW IN A SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONE.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT RIGHT
THERE ON THE MAP, IN 1923, I
WAS IN A MULTIFAMILY ZONE.
AS THE YEARS CHANGED, I NOW
BECAME IN A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE.
SO WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS
BUILD BACK INTO THE VERY FABRIC
OF OUR CITY TO LIVE MORE AND
MORE DENSE AREAS.
I DON'T THIS IS A HUGE CULTURAL
SHIFT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT
FOR US TO HAVE A CULTURAL
REMINDER IS THIS IS HOW WE WERE
ABLE TO HAVE A MORE INCLUSIVE
CITY.
I OFFER THAT AS A COMMENT
ACROSS THE BOARD MR. CHAIR, NOT
SPECIFIC TO THIS AMENDMENT BUT
OBVIOUSLY I'M TALKING THIS
AMENDMENT.
>> FURTHER THOUGHTS OR
QUESTIONS, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> I WOULD LOVE TO SEE WHAT
THIS MAP WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE
INCLUDED ANOTHER SQUARE.
AND IDENTIFIED ALL THE SINGLE-
FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE
ARE NOW PROPOSING TO MAKE RSL,
I THINK IT WOULD BE A REALLY
GOOD ILLUSTRATION OF THE CHANGE
THAT WE ARE MAKING IN ORDER TO
ADDRESS THE EXCEPTIONS, AND
THE EXCLUSION THAT YOU
IDENTIFIED, COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
I JUST ALSO WANT TO COME BACK
TO THIS PARTICULAR QUEST, THIS
IS A REQUEST OF LOW INCOME
NEIGHBORHOOD, HIGH DISPLACEMENT
RISK AND LOW AXIS II
OPPORTUNITY.
THE TWO AMENDMENTS COMBINED
HAVE AN IMPACT ON, A POTENTIAL
IMPACT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THREE HOUSING UNITS, AND THESE
TUMA AMENDMENTS ARE IMPORTANT
TO THIS COMMUNITY.
>> FURTHER THOUGHTS, PLEASE,
COUNCILMEMBER HARRELL.
>> I AM MADE ARGUMENTS ARE
RIGHT, AND IF I HAD NOT MADE
THAT COMMITMENT TO YOU I WOULD
BE VOTING WITH HER, SO JUST FOR
THE TAKE OF ABOUT COUNTS OR
WHATEVER IT IS WORTH, I FEEL
VERY STRONGLY THAT I AM IN THE
MIDDLE OF THIS ONE.
BUT I AM VOTING WITH
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> WELL, WITHOUT --
>> YOU CAN ALWAYS BE PERSUADED
BY US , COUNCILMEMBER.
>> WITH THAT I WOULD ASK IF ANY
FOR THE DISCUSSION THAT
COLLEAGUES WANT TO HAVE.
YES, PLEASE.
>> I KNOW IT IS GETTING REALLY
LATE AND WE ARE JUST ON
DISTRICT 1. YOU KNOW, I CAN
APPRECIATE THE INTENT BEHIND
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD IS A
PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN ONE DASH
10 AND ONEÃ11.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE SORT OF
THE COMPLEXITIES THAT COME WITH
BEING A DISTRICT BASED
COUNCILMEMBER AND REALLY
WANTING TO BE TRUE TO YOUR
COMMITMENT TO ADVOCATE FOR THE
THINGS THAT CERTAIN
CONSTITUENTS COMMUNICATE TO YOU
AS THEIR DISTRICT
REPRESENTATIVE.
I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
AS A CITYWIDE COUNCILMEMBER, I
DO NOT WANT TO PUT MYSELF IN
THE SORT OF TUNNEL VIEW OF JUST
LOOKING AT, WELL HERE IT IS
JUST A THREE, AND OVER THERE IT
IS JUST TOO, AND OVER THERE IT
IS JUST ONE.
SO THEREFORE IT IS NOT A BIG
DEAL BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE
NUMBERS BEGIN TO ADD UP.
AND AGAIN AS MS. PUCCI HAS
CONTINUED TO REMIND US, THAT
THIS IS A FORECASTING MODEL AND
SHE HAS, I THINK, NO LESS THAN
SIX TIMES ISSUED A VERBAL
INSURANCE POLICY TO US ABOUT
HOW SHE DOES NOT WANT TO BE
HELD TO THOSE NUMBERS SHOULD
THE MODEL FILL HER.
AND YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY IT WILL
FILL YOU IN THE REVERSE WAY
WHERE WE END UP SEEING A LOT
MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
PRODUCED IN THE MHA AS OPPOSED
TO SOME OF THESE NEGATIVE
NUMBERS.
AGAIN FOR ME, IT IS NOT JUST
ABOUT, ABOUT THIS NUMBER OF
THREE, AND THIS PARTICULAR
CONTEXT OF THESE TWO
AMENDMENTS, IT IS ABOUT LOOKING
AT THE WHOLE PACKAGE AND
UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE
CHIPPING AWAY AND WE ARE USING
A MODEL THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE
VERY ACCURATE, OR COULD HAVE
UNDERESTIMATED, OR COULD HAVE
OVERESTIMATED.
AND I JUST AM STRUGGLING WITH
COMMITTING TO LOSS UNITS THAT
COULD BE PRODUCED FROM MHA
ACROSS THE BOARD AS A CITYWIDE
REP.
>> I DEFER TO THE MAKER OF THE
MOTION IF SHE WOULD LIKE TO
MAKE ANY FINAL COMMENTS.
>> I'M GOOD THANKS WITHOUT
FURTHER ADO I WOULD MOVE FOR
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT ONE DASH
10.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
ANY FOR THE DISCUSSION?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE
SIGNIFY BY SAYING I, AND
RAISING YOUR HAND.
>> I.
>> THOSE OPPOSED?
>> NO.
>> THE AMENDMENT FAILS 4-4.
>> WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION
FOR PIZZA.
>> AMENDMENT ONE -- 11.
>> AMENDMENT ONE -- 11 IS ALSO
IN THE WESTWOOD HIGHLAND PARK
URBAN VILLAGE, AND THIS IS A
LONG 26 AVENUE SOUTHWEST
BETWEEN THE SOUTH WITH SPARTAN
AND SOUTH WEST ROXBURY STREET.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE-
FAMILY AND WILL THE COUNCIL
BILL PROPOSES TO UP HIS OWN
THIS TO LR M1, AND THE
AMENDMENT IS FOR THIS TO BE
RSLM AND.
NO COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
>> 26 AVENUE SOUTHWEST IS ONE
OF THE MOST USED ROADS FOR
BUSES IN THE ENTIRE CITY.
THE C LINE AND THE 120 TRAVEL
SO FREQUENTLY THERE, AND THE
BUSES ARE SO HEAVY THAT IT
LITERALLY COME CREATES A MINI
EARTHQUAKE EVERY TIME A BUS
DRIVES DOWN THE ROAD.
THIS WAS ACTUALLY, US.ACTUALLY
STUDIED THIS AND WITH COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WITH VIBRATION
EQUIPMENT.
AND THE POSITION OF THE, THE,,
THE FOLKS DOWN WHO LIVE ALONG
26th AVENUE FEEL REALLY
STRONGLY THAT BEFORE WE INCLUDE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG
THIS CORRIDOR, THE CITY AND
METRO NEED TO PROVIDE MUCH
BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG THE
ROAD.
BASICALLY THE ROAD IS
DISINTEGRATING.
IT IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF
REPAVING IT IT ACTUALLY NEEDS
TO BE REBUILT.
>> SO WHEN WILL THAT OCCUR?
>> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.
WE ARE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF
THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
HAVING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE
MOVE LEVY RESET AND ONE OF THE
POSITIONS I HAVE TAKEN IS THAT
WE HAVE FILLED SEGMENTS OF
ROADS AND THAT I FEEL REALLY
STRONGLY THAT WE SHOULD BE
PRIORITIZING THE REBUILDING OF
úOUR FILLED SEGMENTS ON THE
ARTERIALS, AND THAT IS PART OF
THE DISCUSSION THAT WE ARE
HAVING AS IT RELATES TO THE
MOVE LEVY RESET.
>> YOU I SO ASSUME YOU BELIEVE
YOU WILL BE SUCCESSFUL IN YOUR
ADVOCACY FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF
THIS FIELD SEGMENT?
>> AS YOU DESCRIBED IT.
>> WELL IT REALLY DEPENDS ON
THE FOLKS WHO ARE UP HERE.[
LAUGHTER ]I WOULD LIKE TO THINK
THAT I WILL BE SUCCESSFUL.
I CANNOT LOOK INTO THE, INTO
THE CRYSTAL BALL, I, I JUST I
WANT TO BE FAIR BECAUSE THERE
IS A, AGAIN A LOT OF COMPLEXITY
HERE, BECAUSE THERE ARE
COMPETING NEEDS WITH DISTRICT
1, WITH OTHER DISTRICTS THAT
ALSO HAVE ROAD PAVING NEEDS
THAT ARE ON A LONG BACKLOG.
SO I WILL BE, I WILL BE LOOKING
TO HAVE THOSE TRADE-OFFS AND
DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
>> I SUPPOSE I AM ASKING YOU
THAT LINE OF INQUIRY,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, BECAUSE
OF THE ASSUMPTION IS IS THAT,
YOU WILL BE VIGOROUSLY
ADVOCATING FOR THIS
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT, THEN
I AM NOT AS PERSUADED BY AN
ARGUMENT THAT WE SHOULD NOT
PURSUE ADDITIONAL DENSITY BASED
ON THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
BECAUSE THE EXISTING CONDITION
OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL
HOPEFULLY CHANGE AND IN FACT, I
THINK IT EMBOLDENS AND SUPPORTS
YOUR POSITION TO HAVE THOSE
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS IN
THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF YOUR
DISTRICT IF WE ARE EXPECTING
AND ANTICIPATING ADDITIONAL
DENSITY.
I THINK THAT ACTUALLY BOLSTERS
HER ARGUMENT AS OPPOSED TO
GOING WITH A LOW RISE ONE MULTI
FAMILY TO JUST OURSELVES.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE AN
ARGUMENT THAT I DO NOT FEEL
LIKE I CAN COMMIT TO.
>> THERE IS, WE HAVE, WE ARE
BEHIND IN THE MAKING
INVESTMENTS ON THE MOVE LEVY.
WE HAVE FALLEN BEHIND AND THAT
IS WHY WE ARE HAVING THESE
RESET CONVERSATIONS AND I
REALLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS
GOING TO COME OUT OF THEM.
>> COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW.
>> MAYBE THIS IS PILING ON WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ ASKED
HUMMABLE AND YOUR ARGUMENT NOT
BE STRONGER TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND TO METRO
TO SAY, WE ARE REZONING THIS
FOR A DENSER COMMUNITY FOR ONE
THAT WILL DO THE KINDS OF
THINGS THAT COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH
CHILDCARE ON-SITE TO HAVE THAT
AVAILABLE, AND THEN SAY, THE
TRIAL AND S., WE NEED YOU TO
PUT THAT INTO A HIGHER PRIORITY
QUEUE.
THEN IF WE DO NOT INDICATE THAT
IS IMPORTANT TO US.
>> PERHAPS.
>> COLOR GIVES OTHER THOUGHTS
OR QUESTIONS?
>> ANY ON THIS SIDE OF THE
DICE?
I AM NOT SEEING ANY
MICROPHONES.
SO I'M NOT SEEING ANY FOR THE
DISCUSSION ON THIS SO I WOULD
MOVE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT ONE
DASH 11.
>> SECOND.
>> FOR THE DISCUSSION
COLLEAGUES QUEST? ALL THOSE IN
FIGURE PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING
I AND RAISING HER HAND.
>> OPPOSED?
>> NO.
>> THE NOSE HAVE IT ON THE 5-3
BUT THE AMENDMENT FAILS.
WE HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS LEFT I
BELIEVE, WE HAVE ONE IN
DISTRICT 2, AND THEN DISTRICT 5
AMENDMENT.
DISTRICT 2.
>> ALL RIGHT.
MAP 24 IS AN AREA ON THE WEST
SIDE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.
WAY.
SOUTH, SOUTH OF SOUTH WINTHROP
STREET AND THE MOUNT BAKER
LIGHT RAIL STATION.
THIS IS AN AREA THAT THE CITY
HAS TARGETED FOR A FUTURE PARK.
THERE IS SOME PARK FUNDING
AVAILABLE FOR ACQUISITION OF
PARK LAND.
AT THE NORTH END OF THIS AREA.
THE LEGISLATION WOULD REZONE IT
FROM LOW RISE THREE TO A
SEATTLE MIXED 95 ZONE.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD INSTEAD
REZONE IT TO NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL THREE WITH AND 55
FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
>> JUST SORT OF QUICKLY.
THIS BACK IN 2015 ONE 2016, A
LOT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING
WENT INTO THE VISION OF A PARK
AROUND THIS AREA.
AND THERE IS NO HOUSING THERE
NOW AND THE CITY WAS SUCCESSFUL
AND URGED BY THE COMMUNITY FOR
THIS, IT WAS KNOWN AS A KING
COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES 2016
THAT THEY GOT SUCCESSFUL TO
CREATE THIS PARK.
THE COMMUNITY CAME TOGETHER TO
HAVE THIS VISION IN WHAT IS
CALLED THE MOUNT BAKER
TOWNCENTER.
AND YOU HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT
THIS IN THE PAST.
SO THERE ARE SOME SMALL
BUSINESSES AND NEIGHBORHOOD
GROUPS, I DO NOT KNOW IF YOU
KNOW CAFC IBEX, AND SMALL
STORAGE AROUND THERE, SO THE
COMMUNITY COMPRISED OF MEMORY
IS MEMBERS OF THE REFUGEE
COMMUNITIES, STUDENTS OF
FRANKLIN HIGH SCHOOL, RESIDENCE
ETC., HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR
YEARS FOR THIS PARK SO WHAT
THIS EFFECTIVELY DOES IS KEEP
THE PARK IN PLAY.
THE COST OF THE PARK WILL STILL
BE AROUND, CLOSE TO ABOUT $1
MILLION, MAYBE ABOUT 1 MILLION+.
AGAIN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SIX
SLOTS AND I THINK THIS IS A
MODEST DENT INTO OUR OVERALL
SCHEME OF ACHIEVING
AFFORDABILITY, BUT CERTAINLY
ONE THAT WILL MAKE SENSE IN
TERMS OF OUR NEED FOR OPEN
SPACE AND PARKS IN THIS AREA.
THAT OF COURSE IS RAPIDLY
GROWING, SO I HOPE I WOULD ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
>> OTHER THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS
COLLEAGUES.
COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ.
>> I WILL BE SUPPORTING HIM ON
THIS.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS
SINCE COUNCILMEMBER HARRELL
WAS IN PARKS BUT WE WORKED ON
THIS PARK ISSUE SO I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS PARK AMENDMENT
NO FURTHER THOUGHTS LIFE,
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ?
>> THANK YOU.
I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY SEE WITH
SOME OF THE MOUNT BAKER
COMMUNITY MEMBERS DURING MY, IN
DISTRICT OFFICE HOURS AND
DISTRICT TO, I FELT LIKE IT WAS
AN ATTORNEY THE AGO BUT IT
MIGHT'VE BEEN LAST WEEK.
AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET
A BETTER VIEW OF THE ENTIRE
SPACE.
AND I THINK THAT THIS
PARTICULAR PARCEL OF LAND IS
UNIQUE RELATIVE TO OTHER
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE BEEN
HAVING HERE.
BECAUSE THIS WORK HAS BEEN
ONGOING FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS
THROUGH THE PARKS MIDI
COMMITTEE.
IN TERMS OF WHAT I THINK THE
CITY HAS DONE WHICH IS MAKE A
COMMITMENT TO THIS PARTICULAR
PART OF DISTRICT 2, THAT THEY
CAN EXPECT COOPERATION AND
PARTNERSHIP IN ESTABLISHING A
PARK IN THIS SPACE.
THERE IS A COUPLE OF OTHER
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS I
BELIEVE THAT ARE HAPPENING IN
THE, IN THE AREA.
THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN
DESPERATE NEED OF OPEN SPACE IN
THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IT
IS IN VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO
FRANKLIN HIGH SCHOOL AND THERE
IS A LOT OF STUDENTS WHO COULD
BENEFIT FROM THIS OPEN SPACE IN
THIS PARTICULAR PART OF TOWN.
AND, AND IF THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH
I KNOW THAT THERE IS A
PRESCHOOL THAT WE FUND THROUGH
SEATTLE PRESCHOOL PROGRAM THAT
IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM
THIS AS WELL.
THAT IS ADVOCATING TO US AND IS
VERY INVESTED IN IDENTIFYING
THIS OPEN SPACE THAT WE HAVE,
THE KIDDOS WHO ARE
PARTICIPATING IN OUR SEATTLE
PRESCHOOL PROGRAM ABLE TO
ACCESS THIS OPEN SPACE IN MOUNT
BAKER.
I THINK THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL
OF LAND IN MY VIEW HAS BEEN
ENCUMBERED IN SOME WAYS BY
PRAYER PROMISES BY THE CITY AND
IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO
CONTINUE TO FULFILL THE
COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE OPEN
SPACE TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN A
PART OF DISTRICT TO THAT
DESPERATELY NEEDS OPEN SPACE
AND THAT HAS A LOT OF REALLY
WIDE STREETS THAT ARE QUITE
DANGEROUS
>> THESE SPACES ARE THE
BACKYARD, THE PLAY AREAS, AND
THE COMMUNITIES.
I GUESS I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT I
AM A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE
APPROACH WE ARE TAKING.
WHY NOT JUST DO AN AMENDMENT
THAT WOULD MAKE THIS A PARK
VERSUS COMMERCIAL?
>> BAY PARK IS NOT A ZONING
DESIGNATION.
ALL PARKS HAVE ZONING
UNDERNEATH THEM.
PARK IS BASICALLY DEFINED BY
OWNERSHIP BY THE PARKS
DEPARTMENT AND USE OF THE PARK
RATHER THAN THE ZONING.
>> IN EFFECT, WE ARE
SUPPRESSING THE VALUE OF THE
LAND IN AN EFFORT TO NOT
INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT.
IS THE HOW THIS TOOL IS BEING
USED IN THIS CASE?
>> THE EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT
WOULD BE TO HAVE A LOWER LAND
VALUE LIKELY THAN UNDER THE
EXECUTIVES FOR PROPOSAL.
>> OKAY.
PRESIDENT AND MR. CHAIR, I WANT
TO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I KNOW
THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME IN
THE MAKING.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT WE HAVE
GREATER GREEN SPACES AS WE
CREATE DENSITY.
INITIALLY I WAS SUPER
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS EFFORT
BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE WERE
TRYING TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT
LIMIT AND AN EFFORT TO MAKE THE
ELEMENT MORE AFFORDABLE AND FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMUNITY
TO GET IN ON THAT AFFORDABLE
THE ELEMENT TO CREATE THINGS
LIKE THE RANIER BEACH FOOD
INNOVATION DISTRICT WHICH WE
KNOW HAS BEEN A HUGE PRIORITY
IN THAT AREA.
IT HAS HIT SOME STUMBLING
BLOCKS.
THE QUESTION THAT I HAD RAISED
PREVIOUSLY WAS WAS IT OUR
INTENT TO ONLY HAVE THE
SUPPLIED TO COMMERCIALS VERSUS
MIXED-USE AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY
DESIGNATED. I WOULD LOVE TO
HAVE FIGURED OUT IF THERE WAS A
WAY TO DO A HYBRID OF MIXED-
USE, AFFORDABLE COMMERCIALS SO
WE COULD DO MORE FOOD
INNOVATION DISTRICTS NEXT TO
PARKS.
I REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT THE
VEHICLE IN WHICH WE ARE
DEVALUING THE LAND TO CREATE
THE PARK.
I DO SUPPORT THE CREATION OF
THE PARK.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
ADOPTION.
>> THAT WAS SECONDED TWICE.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE
RAISE YOUR HAND.
>> ANY OPPOSED?
I AM GOING TO CALL THAT
UNANIMOUS ADOPTION.
THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLISHED
AGENDA AMENDMENTS.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE
UNPUBLISHED AGENDA AMENDMENT.
AT LEAST ONE.
>> TURNING TO B6, I BELIEVE.
>> 5-4 I BELIEVE.
>> THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE
REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
PACKAGE HAVE ALREADY BEEN
CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE.
>> WHAT HAPPENED?
>> I THINK WE HAVE ONE
AMENDMENT THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED
IN THE PUBLISHED AGENDA.
THAT IS AMENDMENT A-19.
I BELIEVE THE CLERK HAS COPIES
TO DISTRIBUTE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER DEBORA JUAREZ,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE CENTRAL
STAFF DESCRIBE THIS?
>> I WILL DO IT.
I HAVE BEEN SITTING HERE FOR 18
HOURS.
>> CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO
MOVE AMENDMENT A-18.
I BELIEVE YOU ALL HAVE A COPY
OF THIS.
NORTH HAVEN IS A SENIOR LIVING
COMMUNITY IN THE NORTHGATE
NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS
SUBDIVIDING THEIR PROPERTY AND
BUILDING ADDITIONAL SPACE AND
MORE SPECIFICALLY DEVELOPING A
CENTER FOR ADULT DAY SERVICES
ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
NORTH HAVEN WOULD LIKE TO OFFER
MEDICAL AND DENTAL SERVICES FOR
LOW INCOME SENIORS IN THE NEW
SPACE.
HOWEVER, THEY ARE CURRENTLY
RESTRICTED BY LIMITING THE
SPACE SERVICES TO 4000 SQUARE
FEET.
THIS AMENDMENT ALLOWS THEM TO
SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY AS
PROPOSED AND ALLOWS UP TO
10,000 SQUARE FEET FOR MEDICAL
AND DENTAL SERVICES.
NORTHAVEN IS LOCATED AT
NORTHGATE.
IT IS IN THE NORTHGATE URBAN
CENTER.
A VOTE IN SUPPORT TO ALLOW
NORTHAVEN TO PROVIDE MEDICAL
AND DENTAL SERVICES TO LOW
INCOME ELDERS IN OUR COMMUNITY?
I AM HOPING I HAVE YOUR SUPPORT
HERE TODAY.
I THINK IF THERE IS ANYTHING
ELSE -- DID I MISS ANYTHING
ELSE?
>> THIS IS IN SOME WAYS A
COMPANION PIECE TO THE MAP
AMENDMENT YOU HAVE ALREADY
APPROVED.
THAT WAS AMENDMENT 538 WHICH
ALSO PERTAINS TO THE NORTH
HAVEN SITE.
BOTH OF THEM THAT OPERATE
INDEPENDENTLY BUT THE BIGGEST
PART OF NORTHAVEN INSTALLMENT
PLAN IS --
>> I BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE THE
FIRST OF ITS KIND IN THE
DISTRICT -- MEDICAL AND DENTAL
FOR LOW INCOME SENIORS.
>> COLLEAGUES, QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE
NORTHAVEN ZONING SITE?
>> DID SHE MOVE THAT?
>> YES.
SHE DID NOT SECONDED.
>> I SECOND THAT.
>> IT HAS NOW BEEN PROPERLY
SECONDED.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THAT WAS ALL.
GREAT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS?
>> WE HAVE A LOT OF KNOW VOTES.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS.
>> THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN
PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED.
I AM NOT SEEING ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION ON THIS SO ALL THOSE
IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY YES AND
RAISE YOUR HAND.
>> SAY YES.
>> AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED?
>> THAT AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
COLLEAGUES, DOES ANYONE ELSE
HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
LATEBREAKING THAT WERE NOT
PUBLISHED ON THE AGENDA THAT
THEY WOULD LIKE TO BRING
FORWARD AT THIS TIME?
SEEING NONE, THIS CONCLUDES THE
AMENDMENTS OPPOSED FOR THE
FIRST OF OUR THREE BILLS THAT
WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON TODAY.
HOWEVER, IT DOES REPRESENT THE
MAJORITY OF OUR CONVERSATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO FROM A
PROCEDURAL PERSPECTIVE MOVE
THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMEND
PASSAGE OF COUNSEL BILL 119444
AS AMENDED AND THAT THE
RECOMMENDATION BE SENT TO THE
MARCH 18 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING.
>> I SECOND.
>> THAT WAS PROPERLY MOVED AND
SECONDED.
I WANTED TO SAY IN WRAPPING UP
HOW GRATEFUL I AM TO YOU FOR
YOUR ATTENTION TO DETAIL.
IT HAS BEEN A VERY LONG PROCESS
AND WE ARE SO CLOSE TO THE
FINISH LINE.
WE STILL HAVE TWO BILLS LEFT TO
GO BUT THIS CITYWIDE MHA BILL
REPRESENTS THE LION'S SHARE OF
OUR WORK AND NEXT WE WILL BE
TALKING ABOUT THE PLAN AND THE
NORTHGATE D.O.T.
BILL.
THIS BILL HAS BEEN LITERALLY
YEARS IN THE MAKING.
I AM VERY GRATEFUL TO YOU ALL
FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO DETAIL.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS THAT
FOLKS MIGHT WANT TO HAVE?
>> MADAM CLERK, WE DON'T CALL A
ROLE ON THIS BECAUSE IT IS A
SELECT COMMITTEE.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY YOU HAVE
DONE A GREAT JOB CAPTAINING
THIS SHIP.
MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HERE AT
ALL 40 MEETINGS.
I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND SAY
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU AGAIN.
EARLIER TODAY YOU CHAIRED US
THROUGH A PRESS CONFERENCE ON
THIS ISSUE AND WE HAVE THE
PLEASURE TO STAND WITH
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN
CALLING FOR US TO TAKE ACTION
ON INCLUSIONARY ZONING PROGRAMS
HERE IN SEATTLE MUCH LIKE MANY
OTHER CITIES HAVE ALREADY DONE.
I THINK THAT IT HAS BEEN HERO'S
WORK TO GET TO THIS POINT AND I
WANT TO THANK YOU AND THE STAFF
FOR ALL OF YOUR HOURS MAKING
THIS VOTE TODAY POSSIBLE.
AGAIN, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT
FOR US TO REMEMBER IT HAS
SEEMED PAINFUL TO GET OVER THIS
HURDLE AT POINTS.
WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT 6% OF
THE LAND ACROSS THE CITY.
AS WE CONSIDER THIS BILL AND
THE TWO OTHER BILLS, I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO TRULY SEE THIS AS
JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE
CONVERSATION THAT WE NEED TO
ENGAGE INTO AGAIN CORRECT THE
HISTORIC WRONGS WE HAVE TALKED
ABOUT OVER THE PAST DECADE SO
THAT WE CAN TRULY CREATE A MORE
INCLUSIVE SEATTLE.
I CONTINUE TO BE CONCERNED THAT
SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS WERE
INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE AND
THAT WE ARE GOING TO FALL BELOW
OUR GOAL OF REACHING 6300
AFFORDABLE UNITS IN OUR CITY.
WHAT IS MAYBE MORE IMPORTANT IS
THAT THERE IS POTENTIAL
FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS AND
WORKERS AND SENIORS THAT MIGHT
NOT BE ABLE TO GET THE HOUSING
BUT OVERALL, IF WE CONTINUE TO
WORK ON CREATING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND GREATER
INCLUSIONARY ZONING PROGRAMS
AND LOOK TRULY CITYWIDE,
PERHAPS THIS WAS JUST THE FIRST
STEP AND WE CAN REALIZE NOT
JUST THOSE AFFORDABLE HOMES BUT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGHOUT
THE CITY IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD
SO THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE
TRULY ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE,
AND EQUITABLE.
I WILL BE VOTING YES
ENTHUSIASTICALLY BECAUSE THIS
IS A CRITICAL FIRST STEP. THANK
YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR STEWARDSHIP
THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
>> ANY FINAL REMARKS FROM OTHER
FOLKS?
>> OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF
COUNSEL BILL 119444 AS AMENDED
AND FORWARDING IT TO THE CITY
COUNCIL FOR MARCH 18, PLEASE
VOTE AYE AND RAISE YOUR HAND.
>> AYE .
>> ANY OPPOSED?
ANY ABSTENTIONS?
THAT IS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.
WE WILL MOVE ON NOW TO ITEM
NUMBER TWO.
THIS IS THE COMP PLAN BAIL.
LET'S PLEASE READ THE
ABBREVIATED TITLE INTO THE
RECORD.
>> COUNSEL BILL 11943 RELATED
TO LAND USE.
FOR DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> WE LOOK TO YOUR ABLE
COUNSEL.
>> I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE
LISH WHITSON BUT I WILL NOTE
THERE ARE ONLY A COUPLE OF
AMENDMENT VOTES POTENTIAL FOR
YOU.
WE ARE NEARING THE END.
>> FIRST YOU HAVE A CONSENT
PACKAGE THAT INCORPORATES FOUR
AMENDMENTS.
THE FIRST IS AMENDMENT B LETTER
ONE RELATED TO THE FREMONT
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
THIS WOULD AFFECT THE EFFECTS
AND AREA WITHIN THE LONGFORD
URBAN VILLAGE.
THEIR EXISTING POLICIES SAY THE
SAME THING.
D 2 IS AN IMMINENT TO THE
MORGAN JUNCTION NEIGHBORHOOD
PLAN.
IT AMENDS THE POLICIES THEY ARE
TO BETTER REFLECT THE
COMMUNITY'S DESIRE FOR TARGETED
URBAN PLANNING WHEN THERE IS 25%
OF THE URBAN VILLAGE THAT WOULD
BE AFFECTED BY ZONING CHANGES.
AMENDMENT D3 WOULD AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENT
WITH THE AMENDMENT YOU MADE TO
THE NORTHGATE URBAN CENTER
BOUNDARY UNDER ONE OF THE
PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS, 511.
AND, AMENDMENT D 4 WOULD AMEND
THE BOUNDARY OF THE NORTH
RENIER HUBBARD AND VILLAGE
CONSISTENT WITH AMENDMENT 21
THAT YOU ACTED ON PREVIOUSLY.
I SHOULD MENTION THAT THE
CHANGES TO THE URBAN BILL WILL
REQUIRE SOME CHANGES TO OTHER
MAPS THAT WILL BRING FORWARD
BOTH IN AMENDMENTS TO THE
COUNSEL BILL 119444 AND THIS
BILL AT FULL COUNCIL OR PRIOR
TO THE COUNCIL 'S VOTE TO
UPDATE CITYWIDE MAPS.
THERE WERE 16 POSSIBLE OPTIONS
THAT YOU WOULD HAVE HAD. RATHER
THAN BRINGING 16 VERSIONS OF
THOSE MAPS TO YOU, WE WILL HAVE
THEM FOR YOU FOR A VOTE AT FULL
COUNSEL.
>> COLLEAGUES, WOULD ANY MEMBER
LIKE TO PULL ANY OF THESE ITEMS
FROM THE CONSENT PACKAGE
RELATED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE D 2,
THE MORGAN JUNCTION
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FOR FURTHER
DISCUSSION.
>> OKAY.
>> ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT FOLKS
WOULD LIKE TO PULL?
SEEING NONE, I'M OF ADOPTION OF
THE CONSENT PACKAGE WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF D 2 BE ADOPTED.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE
CONSENT PACKAGE ABSENT D2
PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY
AYE.
ANY OPPOSED?
CONSENT PACKAGE IS ADOPTED.
LET'S START THAN WITH D2
BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE OTHER
INDIVIDUAL VOTES.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THE LANGUAGE FOR D2 IS ON PAGE
185. AND 186.
AL PEFLEY 186 IS THE MORE
RELEVANT --
>> I AM READING OFF OF PAGE
FIVE?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> THERE ARE TWO POLICIES BEING
AMENDED.
THE FIRST ONE IS A POLICY THAT
ENCOURAGES A MIX OF HOUSING
STOCK WITHIN THE URBAN VILLAGE
TO PROMOTE GENERATIONAL WEALTH
CREATION THROUGH THE RETENTION
OR CREATION OF AFFORDABLE ENTRY-
LEVEL FAMILY SIZED HOUSING
UNITS THAT PROVIDE
HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES IN
THE HISTORICALLY SINGLE-FAMILY
HOUSING AREAS OF THE URBAN
VILLAGE.
IN THE SECOND ONE, IT IS A NEW
POLICY THAT ASKS THE CITY TO
USE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TOOLS TO
IDENTIFY SOLUTIONS FOR LAND-USE
AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ISSUES
WHEN MORE THAN 25% OF URBAN
VILLAGE COULD BE AFFECTED BY
PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES.
>> THE POLICY MJ-P1 FOR IS A
POLICY THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT
FORWARD.
AGAIN, THE MORGAN JUNCTION HAS
BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
LAND TRUST TO TALK ABOUT HOW TO
PRESERVE ENTRY-LEVEL FAMILY
SIZED HOUSING UNITS.
AGAIN, THAT DOES NOT MEAN
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES NECESSARILY
BUT USING THE EARLIER POLICY
THAT WE INCLUDED WHERE SOME OF
THE MHA DOLLARS WOULD GO
TOWARDS THE PROMOTION OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES.
THOSE TWO EFFORTS ARE SUPPOSED
TO WORK IN CONJUNCTION.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS MJ-
P23.1 . AGAIN, AS WE HEARD FROM
PUBLIC COMMENTS TODAY, THIS
DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CITY TO DO
ANYTHING, IT JUST AFFIRMATIVELY
STATES THE INTENT TO USE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TOOLS TO
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
FOR LAND-USE AND HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY ISSUES THAT ARISE
WHEN MORE THAN 25% OF THE URBAN
VILLAGE COULD BE AFFECTED BY
PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES.
IT REQUIRES THAT WE TAKE A LOOK
AT WHAT THOSE IMPACTS ARE IF
THERE ARE INDEED IMPACTS.
IT DOES NOT ASSUME THAT THERE
WILL BE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUT IS A
TRIGGER TO HAVE US TAKE A LOOK
AT THAT.
ONE OF THE POINTS THAT HAS BEEN
HIGHLIGHTED TO ME IS THAT THE
COMP PLAN ITSELF IDENTIFIES THE
FACT THAT AS IT RELATES
SPECIFICALLY TO COMP PLAN
POLICIES, THERE IS NOT A ONE
SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH EMBEDDED
WITHIN THE COMP PLAN.
IN THE INTRODUCTION, IT STATES
úTHAT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS HAVE
FOUND COMMON THEMES FOR
IMPROVEMENT AMONG DIFFERENT
COMMUNITIES BUT IT HAS ALSO
HIGHLIGHTED NEEDS THAT WERE
UNIQUE TO EACH OF THESE
NEIGHBORHOODS.
IT FURTHER GOES ON TO SAY THAT
COMMUNITY PLANNING CONTINUES TO
EVOLVE AS THE NEEDS OF
COMMUNITIES, THE CITY, AND THE
REGION CHANGE OVER TIME.
FOR EXAMPLE, RACE AND SOCIAL
JUSTICE HAS BECOME AN IMPORTANT
PART OF PLANNING.
MOVING FORWARD, COMMUNITY
PLANNING WILL BE INTEGRATED AND
EQUITABLE APPROACH TO IDENTIFY
AND IMPLANT A COMMUNITY'S
VISION FOR HOW THEIR
NEIGHBORHOOD WILL GROW.
PLANS WILL AFFECT THE HISTORY,
CHARACTER, AND VISION OF THE
COMMUNITY BUT ALSO REMAIN
CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL
CITYWIDE VISION AND STRATEGY OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
CREATING AND IMPLEMENTING
COMMUNITY PLANS CAN HELP
RESIDENTS APPLY THIS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT A LOCAL
LEVEL AND CAN PROVIDE MORE
SPECIFIC GUIDANCE THAN CITYWIDE
POLICIES DUE FOR AREAS WHERE
GROWTH AND CHANGE ARE OCCURRING
OR DESIRED.
THAT IS A.
>> TERESA MOSQUEDA?
>> THANK YOU.
THANKS AGAIN TO THE SPONSOR FOR
THE EXPLANATION.
A FEW QUESTIONS HERE.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
REGULATIONS FOR THE COMPETENCE
OF PLAN AMENDMENTS INCLUDED
RECOMMENDATION ON THE
SENTIMENTS WHICH RELATED TO THE
MORGAN JUNCTION SPECIFICALLY.
I THINK THEY RAISE SOME
IMPORTANT POINTS.
MJ-P14 EMPHASIZED ENCOURAGING
OWNER OCCUPIED FAMILY SIZED
HOUSING AND HISTORICALLY SINGLE-
FAMILY HOUSING AREAS OF THE
URBAN VILLAGE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT
READS ENCOURAGE A MIX OF
HOUSING STOCK TO PROMOTE
GENERATIONAL WEALTH CREATION
THROUGH THE RETENTION OR
CREATION OF AFFORDABLE ENTRY-
LEVEL FAMILY SIZED HOUSING UNITS
THAT PROVIDE HOMEOWNERSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES IN HISTORICALLY
SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING AREAS OF
THE URBAN VILLAGE.
THE FIRST FEW WORDS ARE
ENCOURAGE A MIX OF HOUSING
STOCK.
>> BOTH OF THESE AMENDMENTS HAVE
BEEN CHANGED AND UPDATED SINCE
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REVIEWED THEM.
>> OKAY.
>> THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A
DISCRETIONARY IMPACT ON RENTERS
-- WILL THERE BE?
>> IT TALKS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT
HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES IN
HISTORICALLY SINGLE-FAMILY
HOUSING AREAS. THAT WILL BE
SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION OVER
PROBABLY DECADES.
>> BUT IT IS COUPLED WITH THE
ZONING DECISIONS THAT WE HAVE
MADE TODAY.
THEY UNDO SINGLE FAMILY ZONING.
I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT TO
CONSIDER HOW THESE DECISIONS WE
ARE MAKING TODAY WORK TOGETHER.
>> I GUESS JUST TO SUMMARIZE MY
CONCERN HERE, IT DOES NOT
TECHNICALLY UNDO THE OWNER
OCCUPANCY EXISTING
HOMEOWNERSHIP THAT MAY HAVE
OCCURRED IN THESE AREAS.
THAT IS NOT CHANGING.
WHAT I AM CONCERNED WITH IS WE
HAVE NOT ACTUALLY TAKEN IT TO
THE UPPER LIMITS OF WHERE WE
COULD IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS
ALLOWED UNDER THE FEIS TODAY.
IN EFFECT, WE REDUCED THE
NUMBER OF UNITS OR FAMILY
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO
HAVE AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS IN
MUCH OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE TAKEN TODAY.
IF THIS IS EMPHASIZING OR
ENCOURAGING OWNER OCCUPIED
PREFERENCE, I STILL HAVE A
CONCERN.
I ALSO HAVE A CONCERN THAT IT
MAY IMPACT DASHES
UNINTENTIONALLY IT MAY HAVE A
CONFLICT ON WORK WE WANT TO DO
ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND
THE POLICY UPDATES.
WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE AND ROADS
TO REMOVE LANGUAGE FOR ANY
INDICATION OF PREFERENCE OR
REQUIREMENTS THAT THOSE
ENTITIES BE OWNER OCCUPIED.
I REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT THAT
PIECE.
THE SECOND CONCERN THAT I HAVE
-- MJ-P23.1 CALLS FOR A
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS
TO BE TRIGGERED WHEN PROPOSED
CHANGES AFFECT MORE THAN 25% OF
THE URBAN VILLAGE.
HERE IS SOME OF MY CONCERN.
NO OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS HAVE
THIS SPECIFICALLY.
SINCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING
IS RESOURCE INTENSIVE INCLUDING
THE LANGUAGE ONLY FOR THE
MORGAN JUNCTION SEEMS TO ME TO
BE INCONSISTENT OR EVEN
INEQUITABLE WITH SOME OF OUR
OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING
PROCESSES AND I RAISE THAT BOTH
FOR FEEDBACK THE SPONSOR AND
FROM CENTRAL STAFF.
>> SO THE LANGUAGE THAT I READ
FROM THE COMP PLAN IS INTENDED
TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT -- THIS
IS SPEAKING TO MJ-P23.1 . THE
COMP PLAN ITSELF ANTICIPATES
SOME DIFFERENCE OF POLICIES
ACROSS NEIGHBORHOODS AND IN
DIFFERENT URBAN VILLAGES.
THAT IS INHERENT IN THE CONCEPT
OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
INHERENT IN THE CONCEPT OF
HAVING DIFFERENT POLICIES FOR
DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE HAVE DIFFERENT COMP PLAN
POLICIES FOR DIFFERENT
NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT THE
CITY.
AS IT RELATES TO THE FIRST
COMMENT REGARDING THE 10 YEAR,
I JUST WANT TO SAY AGAIN THAT
MY AMENDMENT TO HAVE THE
PROPOSED UP ZONING IN MORGAN
DID NOT PASS -- TO HAVE THE
PROPOSED UP ZONING IN MORGAN TO
THE A SMALLER BUMP THAT DID NOT
PASS.
THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT THE
FORM OR SHAPE OF A PROPERTY, IT
IS ABOUT 10 YEAR AND IT IS --
HOMESTEAD COMMUNITY LAND TRUST,
THEY DO LAND TRUST AND
HOMEOWNERSHIP PROPERTIES IN
STRUCTURES OTHER THAN SINGLE-
FAMILY DWELLINGS.
THEY HAVE COVENANTS ON
HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
WITHIN CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS.
INDIVIDUAL UNITS WITHIN
MULTIUNIT CONDOS ARE HELD IN A
LAND TRUST.
AGAIN, THIS IS ABOUT THE 10
YEAR.
IT IS NOT ABOUT THE DENSITY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER TERESA
MOSQUEDA, WHILE I APPRECIATE
YOUR CONCERN AND ATTENTION TO
DETAIL RELATED TO THIS , MY
INSTINCTS HERE ARE BECAUSE THIS
IS AMENDING INDIVIDUAL POLICIES
WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL
NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN OUR COMPANY
HAS A PLAN AND THEREFORE IS A
SET OF WORDING CHANGES THAT MAY
BE 45 PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL
WATCHING THIS PLUS ANOTHER 15
PEOPLE ACTUALLY HAVE READ.
OF THOSE 60 PEOPLE, MAYBE ONE
THIRD OF THEM ACTUALLY
UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE.
I WOULD WELCOMETHE OPPORTUNITY
TO UNDERSTAND BETTER SOME OF
YOUR CONCERNS BUT MY KNEE-JERK
REACTION AT THIS POINT IS TO DO
WHAT OUR COUNCIL HAS
TRADITIONALLY DONE WHICH IS TO
ALLOW INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOOD
PLAN POLICIES TO BE DETERMINED
BY THE PROCESSES DEVELOPED BY
THOSE INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
WHILE I SHARE YOUR CONCERN THAT
THERE MAY BE A FEELING THAT OUR
FRIENDS AT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MAY SET UP A
PRECEDENT THAT REQUIRES
ADDITIONAL PLANNING WORK TO BE
TRIGGERED IF ZONING CHANGES ARE
PROPOSED IN MORE THAN 25% OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT IT IS THE INTENT
OF THE AMENDMENT AND I TRUST
THE MAKER OF THE MOTIONS
JUDGMENT ON THIS THAT IT IS
REALLY RELATED TO INDIVIDUAL
WORDING CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE
NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SHE
REPRESENTS.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT AND
LOOK TO MY OTHER COLLEAGUES IF
THEY WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN AT
THIS LATE HOUR.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LORENA
GONZCEZ .
>> I WILL BE VERY QUICK.
I SEE THE FIRST AMENDMENT MJ-
P14 IS PRETTY COMMON SENSE BUT
WE -- I THINK WHAT THE
COUNCILMEMBER IS TRYING TO DO
IS SAY NOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO
EXPECT DIFFERENT TYPES OF
HOUSING STOCK, WE EXPECT THAT
SOME OF THOSE WILL BE UP FOR
PURCHASE ON THE MARKET.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE DEPARTMENT AND
THAT THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS A
WHOLE IS FOCUSING ON CREATING
OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AS THE
NEW HOUSING STOCK COMES ONLINE.
PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY
RENTING MAY BE ABLE TO
TRANSITION INTO THESE
HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES BY
LEVERAGING BOTH 5% DEDICATION
OF FUNDS AND ALSO LEVERAGING
HOUSING LEVY DOLLARS THAT ARE
ALSO AVAILABLE TO MULTIFAMILY
HOMEOWNERS.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IF MY
UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT.
>> IT IS.
>> ON THE SECOND ONE, MJ-P23.1,
A QUICK QUESTION.
I NOTE THAT IT REQUIRES THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND
ENGAGEMENT IF MORE THAN 25%
COULD BE AFFECTED BY PROPOSING
ZONING CHANGES.
IS THAT THRESHOLD OF 25%
PRESENT IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD
PLANNING LANGUAGE IN OUR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
>> IT IS NOT.
>> SO WHY ARE WE IMPOSING A
THRESHOLD OF 25%?
IN THIS INSTANCE?
>> IT IS CREATING A BENCHMARK
FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THE DESIRE OF
THE COMMUNITY TO HAVE A
DISCUSSION AND TO TAKE A LOOK
AT WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE
IMPACTS TO AFFORDABILITY AND
OTHER LAND-USE ISSUES WHEN THAT
THRESHOLD IS MET.
OTHER COMMUNITIES COULD ALSO
IDENTIFY THRESHOLDS FOR THAT
CONVERSATION.
AGAIN, IT IS NOT PRESCRIPTIVE.
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE
CITY ENTER INTO ANY PARTICULAR
PROCESS.
IT SIMPLY SAYS USE COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD
PLANNING TOOLS TO IDENTIFY
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS.
>> I GUESS I AM JUST CONCERNED
ABOUT -- I AM STILL NOT HEARING
A RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A 25% BENCHMARK
. I THINK IT IS SIMPLY THAT THE
NOTION THAT 25% OF AN URBAN
VILLAGE HAS PROPOSED LAND USE
CHANGES THAT IT IS A GOOD TIME
TO CHECK IN.
IT IS JUST A QUARTER OF THE
LAND SPACE AND CHANGES OVER
THAT MUCH SPACE IS A GOOD POINT
TO CHECK IN.
>> I GUESS I AM NOT -- I AM
WORRIED ABOUT THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A BENCHMARK WITHOUT
UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE IMPACTS
OF THAT WILL BE AND IN FUTURE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING CONTEXT.
I GUESS I JUST GET A LITTLE
NERVOUS ABOUT SETTING A
BENCHMARK BASED ON A FEELING OR
A SENSE THAT IT SEEMS TO BE THE
RIGHT PLACE TO ENGAGE IN THE
CONVERSATION.
I AM JUST NOT CONVINCED THAT
THAT IS WISE POLICY IN TERMS OF
SAYING WE WILL REVISIT ONLY IF
THERE IS A 25% POTENTIAL IMPACT
ON PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES.
I AM NOT REALLY SURE HOW WE
EVEN QUANTIFY WHAT 25% OF
AFFECTED CHANGES WITHIN AN
URBAN VILLAGE WOULD EVEN BE.
>> CAN YOU HELP US OUT HERE A
LITTLE BIT? MY READ OF THIS
AMENDMENT IS THAT IT APPLIES
MOSTLY JUST TO THE MORGAN
JUNCTION NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE
IT IS A MJ-P23.1 AMENDMENT
THEREFORE IT IS APPLICABLE
ONLY TO THE MORGAN JUDGE PLAN.
>> CORRECT.
THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY IN THE
MORGAN JUNCTION URBAN VILLAGE.
IF THERE ARE OTHER PROPOSALS
BEYOND THE MHA, IT WOULD AFFECT
A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE
URBAN VILLAGE.
SOME SORT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT TOOLS
SHOULD BE USED TO ENGAGE WITH
THE MORGAN JUNCTION
NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> I FEEL LIKE OUR COLLECTIVE
BLOOD SUGAR IS GETTING LOW SO I
AM GOING TO MOVE ALONG.
WHERE IS THAT GUY WITH THE
PIZZA FROM THE OTHER NIGHT?
>> I PUT IN AN ORDER FOR PIZZA
BUT IT NEVER CAME.
>> I THINK IF YOU DON'T SAY THE
WORD PIZZA IT JUST APPEARS.
>> THAT IS HOW MY LIFE WORKS.
>> I LOOK TO OTHERS WHO MIGHT
WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THIS MORGAN
JUNCTION CONFERENCE A PLAN
AMENDMENT.
I AM NOT SEEING ANYONE MOVING A
MICROPHONE FORWARD.
>> I ATE SOMETHING OVER HERE SO
I AM GREAT.
JUST KIDDING.
I WILL BE VERY SHORT.
THIS IS PRECISELY THE POINT
THAT THE COUNCILMEMBER IS
MAKING.
THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DISCUSSION.
I GET THAT IT APPLIES ONLY TO
THIS AREA.
MY CONCERN IS STILL THAT THIS
SEEMS TO BE ALLOWING A
DIFFERENT APPROACH IN ONE AREA
VERSUS THE REST OF THE CITY.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD APPLY
DIFFERENT STANDARDS.
NOTING AS WELL THAT AS THE GOOD
CHAIR MENTIONED, I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THOSE COMMUNITY VOICES
COME FORWARD.
WE STILL HAVE A LOT TO DO TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE VOICES WHO
ARE COMING FORWARD ARE
EQUITABLY REPRESENTING THE
COMMUNITY THAT IS THERE
INCLUDING RENTERS AND THE
COMMUNITY THAT WILL BE MOVING
INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATIONS.
>> FOR THE RECORD, I UNDERSTAND
THAT EACH NEIGHBORHOOD
PARTICULARLY WITHIN OUR COMP
PLAN HAS A UNIQUE SET OF NEEDS
AND THAT IS REPRESENTED IN OUR
VERY EXTENSIVE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
MY QUERY OR PAUSE AROUND THIS
WRENCH MARKING THAT IS
REPRESENTED IN THE LANGUAGE
THAT SAYS WHEN MORE THAN 25% OF
THE URBAN VILLAGE CAN BE
AFFECTED BY PROPOSED ZONING
CHANGES.
I WAS EXPRESSING PAUSE AS IT
RELATES TO THAT BENCHMARK JUST
BECAUSE I WAS NOT QUITE SEEING
WHY THAT TYPE OF A FRAMEWORK
WAS BEING PROPOSED. BECAUSE IT
HAS BEEN PAIRED WITH THE MJ-P14
WHICH I REALLY LIKE , I AM
GOING TO SUPPORT COUNCILMEMBER
'S LISA HERBOLD AMENDMENT.
WE WILL FLIGHT THAT WE NEED TO
MONITOR THIS 25% BENCHMARK
PROPOSAL THAT HAS BEEN INJECTED
HERE THAT I DON'T THINK EXISTS
ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE COMP AND.
>> FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ON
AMENDMENT D2?
I WOULD MOVE ADOPTION.
>> SECOND.
>> FINAL CALL FOR DISCUSSION?
>> I DO FEEL LIKE I NEED TO GET
CLARIFICATION ON THIS.
COULD YOU PLEASE SCROLL UP?
AS COUNCILMEMBER LISA HERBOLD
KNOWS, ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES I
HAVE BEEN CONSTANTLY
CHAMPIONING IS THE DESIRE TO
CREATE MORE AFFORDABLE FIRST
TIME HOMEOWNERSHIP OPTIONS.
HOPEFULLY THE CONDO ACT IN
OLYMPIA GOES THROUGH SO WE CAN
CREATE AFFORDABLE FLATS AND
CONVERT SOME OF OUR APARTMENTS
INTO FIRST TIME HOMEOWNERSHIP
OPTIONS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I AM NOT
MISUNDERSTANDING THE FIRST PART
OF THIS.
IS THIS A PREFERENCE TO
HOMEOWNERS TO OWNER OCCUPIED
FAMILY SIZED HOUSING THAT IS
ALREADY THERE AND OPENING THOSE
UP FOR ADDITIONAL FIRST-TIME
PURCHASES?
WHAT IS THE PREFERENCE?
>> IT IS NOT STATING A
PREFERENCE.
IT IS STATING AN INTENT TO LOOK
AT OPPORTUNITIES FOR
HOMEOWNERSHIP, AFFORDABLE ENTRY-
LEVEL HOMEOWNERSHIP.
>> COULD IT BE A NEW DEVELOP
AND?
>> AND THOSE HOMEOWNERSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES CAN BE IN EITHER
NEW DEVELOPMENTS OR EXISTING
HOUSING STOCK CORRECT?
>> RIGHT.
>> I THINK I AM GOING TO BE A
NO AT THIS POINT BUT I WILL
WORK WITH YOU TO MAKE SURE I
FULLY UNDERSTAND IT IN THE
FINAL-ROUND.
>> THAT WAS FINAL CALL.
IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND
SECONDED.
I WILL NOW CALL FOR A VOTE.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO OFFER
THAT THE CLERK WILL HAVE TO
ADVISE A LITTLE BIT
PROCEDURALLY BUT ONE OPTION
AVAILABLE FOR YOU IT'S TO SPLIT
THIS INTO TWO SEPARATE
AMENDMENTS, TAKE AMENDMENT D2
-A TO AMEND THE POLICY. I CAN'T
READ THE NUMBER YET.
YOU CAN DO D2-A ON MJ-P14 AND
DO BE ON THE SECOND POLICY.
>> I SAY NO .
>> THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A
CONSENSUS ON SUGGESTION.
I AM GOING TO REMOVE THAT FROM
THE CONSENSUS.
>> THANK YOU THOUGH.
>> IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED
AND SECONDED.
WE VOTE ON AMENDMENT D2.
WE HAVE ENDED FURTHER
DISCUSSIONS.
I WILL NOW CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE
SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE AND RAISE
YOUR HAND.
>> ANY OPPOSED?
>> THAT AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED ON
A 6-2 VOTE.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE AMENDMENT
THAT IS NOT PART OF THE CONSENT
AGENDA AND THAT IS RELATED TO
THE ROOSEVELT RESIDENTIAL URBAN
VILLAGE WHICH NOW WE HAVE MADE
A SERIES OF CHOOSE YOUR OWN
ADVENTURE CHOICES.
YOU WILL LEAD US TO ONE ON
WHICH OF THESE AMENDMENTS WE
SHOULD ADOPT TO BE CONSISTENT
WITH THE PREVIOUS VOTES WE HAVE
TAKEN.
>> AMENDMENT D5-A REPRESENTS
THE VOTES HE ORIGINALLY TOOK
ON CHANGES TO THE ROOSEVELT
URBAN VILLAGE BOUNDARY.
I WOULD RECOMMEND MOVING D5-A.
>> COLLEAGUES, ACTION ON D5-A
ENCAPSULATES THE VOTES THAT WE
TOOK ON THE HISTORIC DISTRICT
AS WELL AS THE VOTE WE TOOK ON
THE 16th, 17th AVENUE EXPANSION
OF THE URBAN VILLAGE BOUNDARY.
THIS AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR
MAPPING CHANGES TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THOSE TWO VOTES
THAT WE TOOK.
ONE CASE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE,
ONE CASE IN THE NEGATIVE.
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT?
>> WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I WILL
CALL FOR A VOTE ON AMENDMENT D5-
A AND ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE
SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE AND
RAISING YOUR HAND.
ANY OPPOSED?
AMENDMENT D5-A IS ADOPTED.
I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES OUR
AMENDMENTS.
DO I HAVE THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO THEREFORE
RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMITTEE
ADOPT COUNSEL BILL 119443 AS
AMENDED AND THE RECOMMENDATION
BE SENT TO THE MARCH 18 CITY
COUNCIL MEETING.
>> SECOND.
>> ANY FINAL THOUGHTS FOR FINAL
DISCUSSION?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE
SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE AND
RAISING YOUR HAND.
ANY OPPOSED?
THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
MADAM CLERK, THE FINAL AGENDA
ITEM.
>> AGENDA ITEM THREE.
LAND USE AND ZONING FOR A
DISCUSSION POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> OUR NORTHGATE D.O.T.
BILL?
>> I WILL TURN THIS OVER TO
KETIL FREEMAN.
>> THIS ONE HAS NOT GOTTEN VERY
MUCH DESTRUCTION.
I WILL BRIEFLY DESCRIBE WHAT
THE BILL DOES AND TALK ABOUT
HOW IT IS SOMEWHAT OF AN
ARTIFACT OF A DIFFERENT TIME
AND THEN NOTE SOME TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE
TO THIS AT THE TIME OF THE FULL
COUNSEL VOTE.
THIS BILL WOULD CREATE A NEW
SEATTLE MIXED NORTHGATE ZONE
AND AVAILMENT STANDARDS FOR THE
ZONE.
IT WOULD INCREASE HEIGHT AND
DENSITY IN THE SEATTLE-BASED
NORTHGATE AREA.
IT IS SOUTH OF THE NORTHGATE
MALL.
IT WOULD REMOVE THAT ZONE FROM
THE NORTHGATE OVERLAY.
I THINK AS THE COUNCILMEMBERS
KNOW, THE FACT THAT THIS IS A
SEPARATE BILL IS IN SOME WAYS
AN ARTIFACT OF THE TIME WHEN
THE COUNCIL WANTED TO PRESERVE
FASTER ACTION ON THE NORTHGATE
BILL TO COINCIDE WITH THE
COUNTY RFP. THAT ARE HE WAS
REISSUED LAST YEAR. I THINK THE
ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE COUNTY
ABOUT WHO THE SUCCESSFUL
RESPONDENT MIGHT BE WILL BE
MADE LATER THIS SPRING. THE
FUGITIVE ELEMENT RELIES ON THIS
REZONING OCCURRING.
>> COUNCILMEMBER DEBORA JUAREZ?
>> I'M GOOD.
>> LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT
THE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN AND
DEBORA JUAREZ PASSED.
>> [ LAUGHTER ]
>> I THINK THAT WAS AN
EXCELLENT OVERVIEW.
TO MY COLLEAGUES TO SEE IF ANY
OF THEM HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
RELATED TO THIS SMALL BILL TO
EFFECTUATE CHANGES TO BUILD
MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
>> MY ONLY QUESTION IS MAY WE
VOTE?
>> WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I WOULD
ASK THAT THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNSEL
BILL 119445 AND THE
RECOMMENDATION BE SENT TO THE
MARCH 18 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
>> SECOND.
>> FINAL DISCUSSION?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY
AYE AND RAISE YOUR HAND.
ANY OPPOSED?
THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
COLLEAGUES, THAT CONCLUDES THE
THREE AGENDA ITEMS THAT WE HAVE
IN FRONT OF US.
BECAUSE WE DID NOT TABLE ANY OF
OUR DISCUSSIONS, THERE IS NO
NEED FOR US TO HAVE ANY FURTHER
COMMITTEES ON MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY.
IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE TO
CHARITIES 20 MEETINGS WITH YOU
OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS.
I AM GRATEFUL TO YOU ALL FOR
YOUR DEDICATION.
I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING A
FINAL DISCUSSION ON THIS AT OUR
FULL COUNCIL MEETING ON MARCH
18.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.