>>> THE JUNE 28, 2023 MEETING
WILL COME TO ORDER. I'M DAN
STRAUSS, CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE
COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA HAS BEE
EXCUSED. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> OH, PRESENT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES?
>> HERE.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> PRESENT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WE HAVE FOUR ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA TODAY. COUNCIL BILL
120581. COUNCIL MEMBER SILL BIL
120591, I BELIEVE ON THE BUSES
GOING BEFORE DESIGN REVIEW, IS
THAT CORRECT? IF NOT, I WILL
MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME. 120592,
ON THE PIONEER SQUARE ROOFTOP.
AND ON THE DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS AND THE
INDUSTRIAL AND MIRROR TIME
AREAS. BEFORE WE BEGIN, I MOVE
TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO HAVE
COUNCIL BILL 120591 FIRST ON TH
AGENDA, SWITCH WITH 120581. IS
THERE AN OBJECTION? HEARING NO
OBJECTION, THE AGENDA IS
AMENDED. BEFORE WE BEGIN, IF
THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THE AGEND
AS AMENDED WILL BE ADOPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE AGEND
IS ADOPTED. AT THIS TIME, WE
WILL OPEN THE HYBRID PUBLIC
EXCEPT PERIOD FOR ITEMS ON
TODAY'S AGENDA. WE HAVE 22
PEOPLE SIGNED UP REMOTELY.
CLERK, HOW MANY PEOPLE IN
CHAMBERS?
>> NONE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> FAIR ENOUGH.
>> I SEE THAT MOST PEOPLE HERE
ARE ACTUALLY FOR THE PUBLIC
HEARING ONLINE, SO WE WILL HAVE
TWO MINUTES. LET ME TAKE A
MOMENT TO SORT THESE OUT. ERIC,
IS IT POSSIBLE TO COLOR CODE
WHICH PUBLIC HEARING EACH OF
THESE REGISTRANTS WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK TO?
>> SURE, GIVE ME A SECOND. THER
IS A COMBINATION OF PEOPLE WHO
DID SIGN UP FOR BOTH THOUGH.
JUST KEEP NOTE OF THAT.
>> OKAY.
>> I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD NOW. IF PUBLIC
COMMENTERS ARE HERE TO SPEAK
ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE
OFFICE OF HOUSING ON THE BUS
BILL OR THE DESIGN REVIEW
EXEMPTIONS FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE
TO COMMENT IN PUBLIC COMMENT. I
IS APPROPRIATE TO COMMENT IN TH
PUBLIC HEARING. AND SO IF FOLKS
START TO SPEAK ABOUT THESE
ISSUES IN THE INCORRECT PLACE,
I'LL STOP YOU. AND THEN WE WILL
MOVE FORWARD. THAT WAY YOUR
RECORD, YOUR TESTIMONY IS HELD
IN THE RECORD IN THE CORRECT
PLACE. SO CLERK, WE'RE GOING TO
PLAY THIS VIDEO ONCE TODAY. IT
APPLIES TO ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THE MAIN MESSAGE IS PLEASE BE
NICE. CLERK, IF YOU CAN PLEASE
PLAY THE VIDEO.
>> ERIC, CAN YOU PLEASE MAKE ME
A PANELIST?
>> SURE.
>> HELLO SEATTLE. WE'RE THE
EMERALD CITY. THE CITY OF
FLOWERS AND THE CITY OF
GOODWILL. BUILT ON INDIGENOUS
LAND, THE TRADITIONAL TERRITORY
OF THE PEOPLE. THE SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL WELCOMED REMOTE PUBLIC
COMMENT AND IS EAGER TO HEAR
FROM RESIDENTS OF OUR CITY. IF
YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE A SPEAKER
AND PROVIDE A VERBAL PUBLIC
COMMENT, YOU MAY REGISTER TWO
HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING VIA
THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL
WEBSITE. HERE IS SOME
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PROCEEDINGS. SPEAKERS
ARE CALLED UPON AN ORDER IN
WHICH THEY REGISTERED ON THE
COUNCIL'S WEBSITE. EACH SPEAKER
MUST CALL IN FROM THE PHONE
NUMBER PROVIDED WHEN THEY
REGISTERED ONLINE AND USE THE
MEETING I.D. AND PASS CODE THAT
WAS E-MAILED UPON CONFIRMATION.
IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE AN E-MAI
CONFIRMATION, PLEASE CHECK YOUR
SPAM OR JUNK MAIL FOLDERS. A
REMINDER, THE SPEAKER MEETING
I.D. IS DIFFERENT FROM THE
GENERAL LISTEN LINE MEETING I.D
PROVIDED ON THE AGENDA. ONCE TH
SPEAKER'S NAME IS CALLED, THE
SPEAKER'S MICROPHONE WILL BE
UNMUTED AND AN AUTOMATIC PROMPT
WILL SAY THE HOST WOULD LIKE YO
TO UNMUTE YOUR MICROPHONE. THAT
IS YOUR CUE THAT IT IS YOUR TUR
TO SPEAK. AT THAT TIME, YOU MUS
PRESS STAR SIX. YOU WILL THEN
HEAR A PROMPT OF YOU ARE
UNMUTED. BE SURE YOUR PHONE IS
UNMUTED ON YOUR END, SO THAT YO
WILL BE HEARD. AS A SPEAKER, YO
SHOULD BEGIN BY STATING YOUR
NAME AND THE ITEM THAT YOU ARE
ADDRESSING. A CHIME WILL SOUND
WHEN TEN SECONDS ARE LEFT IN
YOUR ALLOTTED TIME. AS A GENTLE
REMINDER TO WRAP UP YOUR PUBLIC
COMMENTS. AT THE END OF THE
ALLOTTED TIME, YOUR MICROPHONE
WILL BE MUTED. THE NEXT SPEAKER
REGISTERED WILL BE CALLED. ONCE
SPEAKERS HAVE COMPLETED
PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEAS
DISCONNECT FROM THE PUBLIC
COMMENT LINE AND JOIN US BY
FOLLOWING THE MEETING VIA
SEATTLE CHANNEL BROADCAST OR
THROUGH THE LISTEN LINE OPTION
LISTED ON THE AGENDA. THE
COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO
ELIMINATE PUBLIC COMMENT IF THE
SYSTEM IS BEING ABUSED. OR IF
THE PROCESS IMPEDES THE
COUNCIL'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT IT
BUSINESS ON BEHALF OF RESIDENTS
OF THE CITY. ANY OFFENSIVE
LANGUAGE THAT IS DISRUPTIVE TO
THESE PROCEEDINGS OR THAT IS NO
FOCUSED ON THE TOPIC AS
SPECIFIED MAY LEAD TO THE
SPEAKER BEING MUTED BY THE
PRESIDING OFFICER. OUR HOPE IS
TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS THAT WIL
ASSIST OUR ORDERLY CONSIDERATIO
OF ISSUES BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS NO
OPEN. AND WE WILL BEGIN WITH TH
FIRST SPEAKER ON THE LIST.
PLEASE REMEMBER TO PRESS STAR
SIX AFTER YOU HEAR THE PROMPT O
YOU HAVE BEEN UNMUTED. THANK
YOU, SEATTLE.
>> THANK YOU. SO PUBLIC COMMENT
IS NOW OPEN. THE ITEMS FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT ARE THE BRIEFING
AND DISCUSSION ON PIONEER SQUAR
ROOFTOPS AND THE INFORMATIONAL
ITEMS REGARDING A DRAFT
RESOLUTION FOR TRANSPORTATION
TIME AREAS. FOR THOSE WHO HAVE
SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT,
I'M GOING TO CALL YOU UP AND AS
YOU BECAUSE A NUMBER OF YOU HAV
INDICATED THE OTHER TWO BILLS,
EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE SPEAKING,
I'LL OFFER YOU THE OPPORTUNITIE
TO SPEAK TO ROOFTOPS AND
TRANSPORTATION IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT ROOFTOPS AN
TRANSPORTATION, I ASK THAT YOU
HOLD YOUR TIME. UP FIRST IS KAT
RUBEN FOLLOWED BY DENNIS SILLS,
FOLLOWED BY TORREY, FOLLOWED BY
LOIS MARTIN, AND CHRISTOPHER
HERNANDEZ. AND THOSE ARE THE
FOLKS SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT. IF YOU ARE NOT SPEAKIN
TO THE TRANSPORTATION OR
ROOFTOPS, I ASK THAT YOU HOLD
YOUR TIME. KATE RUBEN, I SEE
THAT YOU'RE OFF MUTE. ARE YOU
SPEAKING TO ROOFTOP OR
TRANSPORTATION?
>> AND NO, I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD
MY TIME.
>> WONDERFUL. THANK YOU. UP
NEXT, DENNIS SILLS. SAME
QUESTION. DENNIS, I SEE YOU
HERE. STAR SIX TO UNMUTE. ERIC,
IF YOU WANT TO BRING BILL --
>> HI.
>> HELL ROW, DENNIS. YES, ARE
YOU HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT ROOFTOP
OR TRANSPORTATION?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD MY TIME
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, DENNIS.
>> UP NEXT, TORREY IS NOT
PRESENT. LOIS? STAR SIX TO
UNMUTE. THERE YOU ARE.
>> HI, SO SORRY. I THOUGHT I
HAD. YES, I AM, AND I WOULD LIK
TO HOLD MY TIME, PLEASE, THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOU. I
SEE YOU. STAR SIX.
>> HELLO?
>> HI, ARE YOU HERE TO SPEAK
ABOUT ROOFTOP OR TRANSPORTATION
>> NO, I WILL HOLD.
>> THANK YOU, WE'LL COME RIGHT
BACK TO YOU.
>> CHRISTOPHER HERNANDEZ, LAST
PERSON TO CHECK WITH. HI,
CHRISTOPHER. CHRISTOPHER, I SEE
YOU'RE OFF MUTE. ARE YOU HERE T
SPEAK ABOUT ROOFTOP OR
TRANSPORTATION?
>> HELLO?
>> HELLO.
>> YEAH, HI. I WILL HOLD MY
TIME.
>> WONDERFUL, WE WILL COME RIGH
BACK TO YOU IN A MOMENT. SEEING
THAT THERE ARE NO PUBLIC COMMEN
REGISTRANTS REMOTELY OR
PHYSICALLY PRESENT --
>> SORRY, YOU SKIPPED BILL.
>> BILL.
>> I SEE YOU, BILL. STAR SIX.
>> ARE YOU HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT
ROOFTOPS OR TRANSPORTATION?
>> NO, THANK YOU. I'M HERE TO
SPEAK ABOUT DESIGN REVIEW.
>> WONDERFUL, WE'LL COME RIGHT
BACK TO YOU IN A COUPLE OF
MINUTES. SEEING NO PUBLIC
REGISTRANTS PHYSICALLY OR
REMOTELY PRESENT. WE'LL MOVE ON
TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. OUR
FIRST AGENDA ITEM TODAY -- IS
ITEM 2, A BRIEFING DISCUSSION,
PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE VOT
ON 120591, WHICH IS THE OFFICE
OF HOUSING ON THE BILL. CLERK,
WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE SHORT
TITLE INTO THE RECORD?
>> ITEM 2, COUNCIL BILL 210591,
OFFICE ON THE BUS BILL FOR
BRIEFING DISCUSSION, PUBLIC
HEARING, AND POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> WONDERFUL. HOW WE'RE GOING T
DO THIS. WE HAVE OFFICE OF
HOUSING WITH US HERE IN
CHAMBERS. WE'LL HAVE A SHORT
PRESENTATION AS A REFRESHER.
THIS WAS HEARD IN COMMITTEE LAS
WEEK. TIME FLIES WHEN YOU'RE
HAVING FUN. AND THEN WE'LL OPEN
IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, PUBLI
HEARING. THEN WE WILL TAKE VOTE
ON AMENDMENTS. SO THE PURPOSE I
TO CLEAN UP THE LAND USE CODE.
TECHNICAL FASHIONS, THE
REVISIONS INCLUDED IN THIS
LEGISLATION SIMPLY CLARIFY. AND
SIMPLIFY, CLARIFY, IMPROVE THE
READ ABILITY OF THE COMPLEX,
UNCLEAR, OR OBSOLETE THE
PROVISIONS, SPECIFIC TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I SEE WE
HAVE EMILY HERE ONLINE. WE HAVE
THE DIRECTOR MICHAEL, AND LAURA
HEWITT WALKER HERE IN CHAMBERS.
I'LL PASS IT OVER TO YOU,
DIRECTOR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL
TURN IT OVER HERE TO LAURA
HEWITT WALKER AND TO EMILY WHO
IS ONLINE BECAUSE THIS IS THEIR
PRESENTATION, THANKS.
>> HI, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US
AGAIN ABOUT THIS BILL. JUST
WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT
THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE CLEAN U
OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALL
PROVISIONS THAT RELATE TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OF ALL SORTS
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AGAIN,
MOST OF THE CHANGES ARE
TECHNICAL CLEANUP. THERE ARE A
SMALL NUMBER OF CHANGES INTENDE
TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT O
LOW INCOME HOUSING. AND WE, YOU
KNOW, AS PART OF THE
LEGISLATION, UPDATED DEFINED
TERMS IN THE LAND USE CODE TO
HELP FACILITATE SMOOTH REVIEW,
PERMIT REVIEW FOR THOSE TYPES O
PROJECTS. MOVING THROUGH THE
CODE, THERE IS AN UPDATED
DEFINITION OF LOW INCOME
HOUSING. NAOMI, YOU CAN GO ONE
MORE. THANK YOU. YEAH. UPDATED
DEFINITION OF LOW INCOME
HOUSING. IT'S A FLEXIBLE
DEFINITION. AND IT ENCOMPASSES
BROAD RANGE OF AFFORDABILITY
LEVELS, PROVIDED SOME MINIMUM
THRESHOLD OF UNITS THAT ARE
BELOW MARKET RATE. WE ALSO HAVE
THREE OTHER DEFINITIONS THAT AR
NEWLY INTRODUCED TO THE LAND US
CODE THAT WOULD BE RELIED ON FO
PURPOSE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROVISIONS, AND THOSE ARE UNIT
SPECIFIC. SO ONE IS LOW INCOME
UNIT, MODERATE INCOME UNIT, AND
RESTRICTED UNIT. NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. ONE OF THE REALLY
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES THAT WE DID
MAKE WAS TO EXPAND THE
APPLICATION OF THE DESIGN REVIE
EXEMPTION. AND THE AUTHORIZATIO
TO REQUEST THE WAVERS OF THE
SHORT LIST OF THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS TO ALL LOW INCOME
HOUSING. THAT CAN BE ANY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WILL
MEET THE CERTAIN BASIC
REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF THE
REGULATORY AGREEMENT WITH THE
MINIMUM DURATION OF THE
AFFORDABILITY TERM. LIKE I SAID
A MINIMUM THRESHOLD OF BELOW
MARKET UNITS. IN THOSE PROJECTS
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. ANOTHER
CHANGE IS TO CONSOLIDATE ALL OF
THE INCENTIVE ZONING PROVISIONS
THAT ARE IN THE CODE. ENABLING
US TO ACTUALLY REPEAL TO WHOLE
SECTIONS OF THE LAND USE CODE,
WHICH ALWAYS FEELS GOOD. AND AL
REFERENCES TO INCENTIVE ZONING
WILL POINT TO THE SINGLE CHAPTE
OF THE LAND USE CODE THAT'S AN
EXISTING CHAPPER IT. CHAPTER,
THE CITY'S LONG TERM INCENTIVE
PROVISIONS. AND IT COVERS ALL O
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS AND THE NON-HOUSIN
REQUIREMENTS TO PROJECTS THAT
ARE SUBJECT TO THE INCENTIVE
ZONING. NEXT SLIDE. I THINK THE
BIG OUTCOME THAT WE GET WITH TH
COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION IS
IMPROVING THE CONSISTENCY,
CLARITY, AND THE READ ABILITY O
THE LAND USE CODE PROVISIONS.
WE'RE ENCOUNTERING THE
SITUATIONS NOW WHERE THE PERMIT
REVIEWS DO GET BOGGED DOWN WITH
INTERPRETIVE ISSUES, WHERE WE
WERE TRYING TO AVOID THAT. WE
MADE CHANGES TO MAKE THINGS AS
CLEAR, STRAIGHTFORWARD, NO
AMBIGUITY OR NEED FOR
INTERPRETATION BY FOLKS THAT AR
HIGHER UP. I THINK THAT WILL
HELP MOVE A LOT OF THESE
IMPORTANT PROJECTS FORWARD ON
THE FASTER TIME FRAME.
>> WONDERFUL. THANK YOU, LAURA.
EMILY, I SEE YOU'RE PRESENT.
ANYTHING TO ADHERE?
>> NO, LAURA COVERED IT.
>> WONDERFUL. WITH THAT, YOU
KNOW, I KNOW YOU'RE HERE
PRESENT. WE'LL HOLD THE
CONVERSATIONS ON THE AMENDMENTS
UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOUL
LIKE TO PRESENT TO US BEFORE WE
MOVE INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> NO. IT'S ONE THING TO FLAG
PERHAPS FOR FOLKS WHO ARE HERE
TO TESTIFY FOR THE PUBLIC
HEARING IS THAT THERE IS A
DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THIS BILL
AND COUNCIL BILL ON THE NEXT
BILL WHERE THERE WILL BE A
PUBLIC BILL TO MAKE SOME CHANGE
ON THE INTERIM BASIS TO THE
DESIGN REVIEW. AMONG OTHER
THINGS, IT EXPANDS THE SUITE OF
DEPARTURES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE
BE AVAILABLE TO QUALIFYING LOW
INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS. AND SO
IN THE INTEREST OF ORIENTING
FOLKS TO SORT OF WHERE THERE AR
CHANGES TO MAKE THAT
RECONCILIATION, IT'S NOT IN THI
BILL 120591.
>> IF YOU COULD HIGHLIGHT THE
PUBLIC HEARING MENTORS FOR
120591, WHICH IS THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING ON THE BUS BILL. I AM
WORRIED THOUGH THAT PEOPLE HAVE
GOTTEN CONFUSED. SO WE WILL DO
ONE MINUTE PER COMMENT TODAY
SINCE PEOPLE ARE SIGNED UP FOR
BOTH AND WE HAVE 23 PLUS 31
PEOPLE SIGNED UP TODAY, SO THAT
WILL AMOUNT TO ABOUT AN HOUR'S
WORTH OF PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY.
WITH THAT, ERIC, FOR YOUR
REFERENCE, ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO
CALL THEM UP VIRTUALLY JUST TO
CHECK TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE
SIGNED UP AND WE HAVE NOT
SKIPPED THEM. WITH THAT WE'LL
START WITH THE FOLKS IN PERSON.
KAYLEIGH BALDWIN FOLLOWED BY
TORI, I'M SO SORRY. TORI, THANK
YOU, YOUR BLESSING. TIFFANY
MCCOY FOLLOWED BY CAMULLE AND
THEN MIKE WITH THAT. AND THE
VIDEO HAS BEEN SHARED. PLEASE B
NICE. NOT THAT YOU AREN'T. BUT
THAT'S THE GENERAL COMMENTS.
>> MY NAME IS KAYLEIGH, AND I'M
ON THE BOARD, I'M THE BOARD
CHAIR OF THE RECENTLY
ESTABLISHED SEATTLE SOCIAL
HOUSING DEVELOPER. I'M HERE
TODAY IN SUPPORT OF VERSION ONE
THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES
BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR TODAY. TO
DEFINE SOCIAL HOUSING UNDER
SEATTLE'S CATEGORIZATION OF LOW
INCOME HOUSING. SPEAKING TODAY
ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIAL HOUSING
BOARD AND ALONGSIDE THE NABBERS
COALITION WHO BROUGHT THE VISIO
OF PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE
PUBLICLY OWNED COMMUNITY GOVERN
HOUSING TO OUR CITY. COUNCIL
MEMBER MORALES' WALK ON THE
AMENDMENT WOULD INCLUDE SOCIAL
HOUSING ON PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM
THE REVIEW AND THE MULTI-USE
ZONING RESTRICTIONS, MAKING IT
EASIER, FASTER, CHEAPER, TO
BUILD THE MUCH NEEDED ZONE OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR CITY.
IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT
ADDRESSING OUR REGIONS ON THE
HOUSING CRISIS, WE NEED TO
REMOVE THESE ADMINISTRATIVE AND
FINANCIAL BARRIERS TO BUILDING
MORE PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING INCLUDING SOCIAL
HOUSING. THANK YOU FOR PUTTING
FORTH THIS BILL.
>> UP NEXT IS TORI FOLLOWED BY
TIFFANY, CAMILLE, AND THEN MIKE
WELCOME.
>> HI. MY NAME IS TORI. I'M A
RANK AND FILE MEMBER. AND AN ML
LABOR DELEGATE. FIRST OF ALL
THANK YOU TO COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES FOR INTRODUCING THIS
AMENDMENT. AND I VOLUNTEERED
WITH MY UNION TO HELP GET THE
SOCIAL HOUSING UNION PASSED,
SUPPORTING AND ENDORSING THE
SOCIAL HOUSING INITIATIVE. I
BELIEVE IT'S A DUTY OF THIS
COUNCIL TO HELP US PROVIDE THIS
RESOURCE TO THE PUBLIC QUICKLY
AND WITHOUT EXTRA EXPENSES FOR
ESTHETIC CHANGES. WHEN I
CANVASSED WITH OUR NEIGHBORS, A
LOT OF FOLKS WERE JAZZED ABOUT
IT. EVEN IF IT'S NOT ON THE
FOREFRONT OF THE PEOPLE'S MINDS
ANYMORE, WE OWE IT TO THEM TO
KEEP TRYING TO REALIZE CHANGE,
COMPASSION, AND GROWTH. DON'T
LET SOCIAL HOUSING BE BOGGED
DOWN. PLEASE APPROVE THIS
AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, TORI. UP NEXT IS
TIFFANY FOLLOWED BY CAMILLE, AN
THEN MIKE.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I'M TIFFANY MCCOY, THE ADVOCACY
DIRECTOR AT REAL CHANGE. I'M
ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT COUNCIL
MEMBER MORALES' AMENDMENT. ONE
VERSION TWO. IT PASSED ON THE
FEBRUARY 14 BALLOT BY 57% OF TH
VOTES. IT PASSED IN EVERY SINGL
COUNCIL DISTRICT. I WANT TO GIV
A QUICK SNAPSHOT OF THE SUPPORT
IN A FEW DISTRICTS AND THANK
JASON FOR PUTTING THIS DATA
TOGETHER. 55.8% VOTED YES.
DISTRICT TWO, 66% VOTED YES.
DISTRICT THREE, 65.1%. DISTRICT
FOUR, 54.8% VOTED YES. THERE IS
UNIVERSAL SUPPORT FOR THIS
HOUSING METHOD. DESIGN REVIEW
AND CONDUCTING HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO THE
PROJECTS FOR THE ESTHETIC
CHANGES. THEY SHOULD NOT MAKE
THE HOUSING AVAILABLE TO SO MAN
WHO WILL NEED IT WHO SUPPORTED
IT. PLEASE PASS THIS AMENDMENT
TODAY WITHOUT DELAY BECAUSE
WE'RE IN A HOUSING CRISIS.
>> THANK YOU, TIFFANY. UP NEXT
IS CAMILLE FOLLOWED BY MIKE.
THEN ONLINE KATE RUBEN, TIERMAN
AND SARASH ARE THE NEXT
TREATMENT WELCOME.
>> HELLO, GOOD AFTERNOON, MY
NAME IS CAMILLE, THE POLICY
ASSOCIATE AT REAL CHANGE,
SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF COUNCIL
MEMBER MORALES' VERSION TWO TO
CB 120591. IT'S NOT NEWS THAT
WE'RE IN A HOUSING AFFORDABILIT
CRISIS. VOTING YES TO APPROVE
BRINGING SOCIAL HOUSING AND
INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE
AFFORDABILITY TO SEATTLE ON THE
GLOBAL SCALE, SOCIAL HOUSING IS
THE MOST SUCCESSFUL MODEL AT
BUILDING THE AMOUNT ABILITY. AN
SINCE THE START OF THEIR SOCIAL
HOUSING PROJECT, MONTGOMERY
COUNTY MARYLAND HAS BEEN ABLE T
BUILD MUCH MORE HOUSES THAN THE
WERE PREVIOUSLY ABLE TO. DESPIT
THE WIDE SUPPORT FOR SOCIAL
HOUSING IN SEATTLE, MORE STEPS
NEED TO BE TAKEN TO ALLOW
SUCCESS. GIVING THEM THE
BENEFITS THAT OUR OTHER
AFFORDABLE ENTITIES HAVE THAT I
KEY TO THIS PROCESS. I URGE YOU
TO VOTE AS SOCIAL HOUSING IS AN
GLOBALLY HAS BEEN A CRITICAL
PART OF THE AFFORDABILITY
LANDSCAPE AND SHOULD ABSOLUTELY
BE EASIER TO BUILD.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WE'RE GOING TO CALL KATE
RUBEN, TIERAN, AND I'LL ALLOW
YOU TO SAY YOUR LAST NAME, SO I
DO NOT MISS PRONOUNCE IT. AND
THEN -- JESSE SIMPSON, PENNY,
NEIL SIMPSON, AIDAN CARROLL,
RYAN DONAHUE IS NOT PRESENT.
NATION FU, ALICIA, THOSE ARE TH
FOLKS. THAT I SEE SIGNED UP. SO
WITH THAT, KATE RUBEN, ARE YOU
HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE OFFICE
OF HOUSING ON THE BUS OR THE
DESIGN REVIEW CHANGES FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
>> I AM HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT --
I'M SORRY, THE TRAIN OF THOUGHT
120591.
>> WONDERFUL.
>> I GOT A LITTLE CONFUSED WHEN
YOU'RE EXPLAINING THE
DIFFERENCES.
>> THIS IS THE TIME. THE FLOOR
IS YOURS.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME
IS KATE RUBEN. I LIVE IN
DISTRICT 2. AND I'M THE
ORGANIZING DIRECTOR OF BE
SEATTLE. I'M CALLING TODAY TO
URGE YOU TO APPROVE COUNCIL
MEMBER MORALES' WALK ON
AMENDMENT TO CB 120591 THAT
WOULD UPDATE THE LAND USE CODE
TO INCLUDE SOCIAL HOUSING AND
THE DEFINITION OF PROJECT DESIG
REVIEW, CERTAIN AREA, RATIO
RESTRICTIONS, AND MULTI-USE
ZONING RESTRICTIONS. SOCIAL
HOUSING IS A WILDLY SUCCESSFUL
MODEL USED INTERNATIONALLY TO
PROVIDE HOUSING AS A PUBLIC
GOOD. OVERWHELMINGLY APPROVE IT
IF WE WANT TO ACTUAL SUCCEED
HERE, WE NEED TO REMOVE THE
FINANCIAL BARRIERS TO CONSTRUCT
IT. AND WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF
THE AFFORDABLE AND HOMELESS
HOUSING CRISIS. PROVIDING
HOUSING TO THOSE IN NEED. PLEAS
TAKE THIS CRUCIAL STEP TOWARDS
MORE EQUITABLE AND ACCESSIBLE
SEATTLE BY VOTING YES ON COUNCI
BILL 120591 AMENDMENT 1, VERSIO
2. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, KATE.
>> UP NEXT IS TIERNAN. WELCOME.
>> MY NAME IS TIERNAN MARTIN, I
LIVE IN DISTRICT TWO. AND I'M
THE PROGRAM MANAGER AT FUTURE
WISE, WHERE I WORK ON LAND USE
POLICY AND PLANNING ACROSS
WASHINGTON STATE. I'M HERE TO
EXPRESS FUTURE WISE'S SUPPORT
FOR COUNCIL BILL 120591. AND FO
THE WALK ON AMENDMENT SPONSORED
BY COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES. THIS
AMENDMENT WILL CLASSIFY SOCIAL
HOUSING PROJECTS AS LOW INCOME
HOUSING, AFFORDING THEM THE SAM
SET OF REGULATORY BENEFITS AS
OTHER TYPES OF LOW INCOME
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS. THESE
BENEFITS WILL ENSURE THAT THE
CITY'S REGULATORY PROCESS DOES
NOT INCOMBER THE HOUSING OF
SOCIAL HOUSING, IMPERATIVE,
GIVEN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR TH
NEW TOOL AND THE DIRE STATE OF
THE CITY'S HOUSING CRISIS. THAN
YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
MEMBERS, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
THOUGHTFUL STEWARDSHIP OF OUR
CITY'S SOCIAL HOUSING
EXPERIENCE. I URGE YOU TO
SUPPORT COUNCIL BILL 120591 AND
AMENDMENT 1. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. UP NEXT IS SURESH
FOLLOWED BY, I THINK WE NEED TO
CHECK IN WITH BILL? NEED TO
CHECK IN WITH LOIS MARTIN.
SURESH, I SEE YOU OFF MUTE. TAK
IT AWAY.
>> HI, MY NAME IS SURESH. I
MOVED TO SEATTLE IN 1999, AND
SPENT THE LAST 24 YEARS WORKING
AS A SOFTWARE ENGINEER WITH THE
CITY. AND A COMMUNITY OF TECH
WORKERS WHO ADVOCATE TO ENSURE
SEATTLE IS AFFORDABLE, AN
EQUITABLE CITY. MY WIFE AND I
HAVE THREE CHILDREN, AND WE'VE
BEEN HOMEOWNERS SINCE 2008 HERE
IN SEATTLE. AND I'M SPEAKING TO
YOU TO URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO
ADOPT AMENDMENT S VERSION 2. TO
UPDATE OUR DEFINITION OF LOW
INCOME HOUSING TO UNCOLLUDE
SOCIAL HOUSING. WE ARE STRONG
SUPPORTERS OF ALL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AS WE CONCEIVED AND
HELPED BELL WEATHER HOUSING
ROUGHLY $5 MILLION IN
INVESTMENTS FOR MEMBERS IN THE
TECH COMMUNITY TO HELP THEM
BUILD 900 UNITS OF HOUSING IN
OUR REGION FOR HOUSEHOLDS
EARNING LESS THAN 50% OF THE
MEDIAN INCOME. WE ARE STRONG
SUPPORTERS OF THE SPECIAL
HOUSING AND HAVE HELPED GATHER
2,000 OF THE SIGNATURES THAT
HOUSED OUR NABBERS' COALITIONS
SUBMITTED. I JUST WANT TO NOTE
THAT AMI IS A DEEPLY FLAWED
METRIC, COMPARING SOMEONE'S
INCOME RELATIVE TO OTHERS.
>> THANK YOU. AND PLEASE DO FEE
FREE TO SEND IN ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS. WE'LL CHECK IN WITH
BILL, LOIS MARTIN. AND THEN
WE'LL MOVE ON TO JESSE SIMPSON,
PENNY, AND DANIEL. BILL, I SEE
YOU THERE. STAR SIX. ARE YOU
HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE OFFICE
OF HOUSING BILL OR THE DESIGN
REVIEW BILL? BILL, I SEE YOU'RE
OFF MUTE.
>> OKAY, SORRY. I AM BILL, A
RESIDENT OF THE SUNFLOWER AREA.
>> BIRX. BUT HELLO. JUST REAL
QUICK, ARE YOU SPEAKING TO THE
DESIGN REVIEW OR OFFICE OF
HOUSING?
>> DESIGN REVIEW.
>> GREAT, WE WILL COME BACK TO
YOU. I JUST WANTED TO CHECK IN
WITH YOU THERE. LOIS MARTIN, I
ALSO WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK IF
YOU ARE HERE FOR OFFICE OF
HOUSING OR DESIGN REVIEW?
>> DESIGN REVIEW, THANK YOU.
>> WONDERFUL. WE WILL COME BACK
TO YOU. UP NEXT IS JESSE
SIMPSON. CHRISTOPHER HERNANDEZ,
AND ONCE JESSE COMES UP ON MY
SCREEN, WE WILL START.
>> HI, THANKS FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY, COUNCIL
MEMBER STRAUSS. I WILL TESTIFY
BOTH ABOUT ON THE BUS BILL AND
THEN LATER THE DESIGN REVIEW
BILL, BUT I WILL SPEAK FIRST
ABOUT THE ON THE BUS BILL. I'M
JESSE SIMPSON, GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS MANAGER FOR THE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM.
WE REPRESENT ALL THE MAJOR
NON-PROFIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPERS, AS WELL AS THE
ASSOCIATED FIRMS FOR THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SECTOR.
SEATTLE DESPERATELY NEEDS MORE
AFFORDABLE HOMES. AND WE NEED T
DO EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO
BUILD NEW AFFORDABLE HOMES. AND
EXPEDITING THE PROJECTS WITHOUT
SACRIFICING THE QUALITY DESIGN.
AND THE BILL MAKES THE EXISTING
EXEMPTIONS FOR PUBLICLY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PERMITS ALON
WITH THE VARIOUS CLEANUPS WORK.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
HOUSING AND CITY COUNCIL FOR
YOUR WORK TO BRING THE COMMENTS
OF THE LEGISLATION FORWARD. THE
DESIGN REVIEW, AND THE COUNCIL
BILL 120591. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU, JESSE. PENNY
FOLLOWED BY DANIEL, AND THEN
NEIL SIMPSON. PENNY, I SEE YOU
OFF MUTE, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> HELLO COUNCIL MEMBERS AND
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS. I'M
PENNY O'GRADY. I URGE YOU TO
PASS CB 120591 WITH SAM MORALES
AMENDMENT. I LIVE IN DISTRICT 6
TO PUT SOCIAL HOUSING ON THE
BALLOT, I SPOKE TO MANY PEOPLE
WHO WERE ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT IT.
THIS WOULD UPDATE THE LAND USE
CODE TO INCLUDE ALLOWING SOCIAL
HOUSING TO QUALIFY FOR ALL
EXEMPTIONS INCLUDING THE
ENCOURAGEMENT OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN SEATTLE. SAM STRAUSS
I NOW THE VIBRANCY OF THE
DOWNTOWN CORE MEANS A LOT TO TH
CITY AND TO YOU. SOCIAL HOUSING
WILL PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR A VIBRANT MIX OF PEOPLE
THROUGHOUT SEATTLE INCLUDING OU
DISTRICT. OUR TEACHERS, SOCIAL
SERVICE WORKERS, ARTIST RETAIL
WORKERS, BUS DRIVERS, MANY MORE
WHO ARE FINDING IT HARD TO
ESTABLISH A HOME BASE HERE IN
SEATTLE. AND MY KIDS WANT TO
WORK IN SEATTLE AND THOSE WHO
WANT TO LIVE NEED THIS HOUSING
OPTION. YOUR VOTE FOR THIS
LEGISLATION IS A VOTE FOR
SOCIAL, RACIAL, ECONOMIC, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL --
>> THANK YOU, PENNY. GOOD TO
HEAR FROM YOU AS ALWAYS. DANIEL
I SEE YOU'RE ALREADY OFF MUTE.
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU. YEAH, I'M SPEAKIN
IN SUPPORT OF COUNCIL BILL
120591. I THINK IT'S COMMON
SENSE TO REMOVE ADD MAIN
STRAYTIVE BARRIERS FROM BUILDIN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY.
WE NEED AS MUCH AS WE CAN GET,
SO WE SHOULDN'T HAVE THINGS LIK
DESIGN REVIEW, AND MULTI-USE
ZONING RESTRICTIONS STANDING IN
THE WAY. BUT I'M ALSO SPEAKING
IN FAVOR OF COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES' AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT 1
VERSION 2. TO UPDATE OR TO ADD
SOCIAL HOUSING TO THE LIST OF
HOUSING TYPES THAT ARE EXEMPT
FROM THESE RESTRICTIONS. SOCIAL
HOUSING PASSED IN FEBRUARY OF
2023 WITH 57% OF THE VOTES. IF
WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT ADDRESSING
THE HOUSING CRISIS, WE ARE GOIN
TO NEED ALL TYPES OF HOUSING
THAT WE CAN GET. THE DESIGN
REVIEW AND IT CAN ADD HUNDREDS
OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO THE
COST OF THE PROJECT.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. UP NEXT I
NEIL SIMPSON FOLLOWED BY AIDAN
CARROLL. RYAN DONAHUE, YOU'RE
NOT PRESENT NOW. IT'S TIME TO
CALL IN. NEIL, I SEE YOU'RE
HERE. STAR SIX TO UNMUTE. NEIL
SIMPSON, STAR SIX TO UNMUTE.
LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH AIDAN
CARROLL WHILE WE WAIT FOR NEIL.
STAR SIX TO UNMUTE. THERE YOU
ARE.
>> HI, YEP, HANG ON. NEIL, WE'R
GOING TO WAIT FOR YOU, SO AIDAN
YOU'RE GOING TO GO, TAKE IT
AWAY.
>> I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF
SOCIAL HOUSING BOTH TO FULLY
FUND AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. IT'S
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE AND REVENUE
TO A SCALE THAT OUGHT TO MEET
THE SIZE OF THE CRISIS. AND ALS
TO ALLOW AN EXEMPTION FROM THE
DESIGN REVIEW. THE DESIGN REVIE
PROCESS IN SEATTLE IS SO OVERLY
-- IT ACTUALLY CAUSES A LOT OF
THE ESTHETIC ISSUES THAT
HOMEOWNERS TAKE ISSUE WITH WHEN
THEY OBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT AND
UPZONING BECAUSE THE ARCHITECTS
WILL BE DELIBERATELY TIMID AND
BOX LIKE TO AVOID THINGS THEY
COULD BE OBJECTIVE TO AND IT IS
MORE EXPENSIVE. WE NEED ALL THE
SOCIAL HOUSING WE CAN GET AS
FAST AS WE CAN. AND NOT
DISPLACEMENT WHILE THERE ISN'T
SOMETHING BETTER.
>> THANK YOU. UP NEXT IS NEIL
SIMPSON. TAKE IT AWAY, NEIL.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
THIS IS NEIL SIMPSON WITH SOLID
GROUND SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF
AMENDMENT 1, VERSION 2 OF
COUNCIL BILL 120591. AS YOU MAY
KNOW, SOLID GROUND IS A
COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY THAT
PROVIDES HOMELESSNESS PREVENTIO
SERVICES FOR THOSE FACING
EVICTION, RAPID HOUSING FOR
THOSE WHO HAVE BECOME HOMELESS,
AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSIN
FOR FOLKS WHO NEED A LITTLE
EXTRA SUPPORT AS THEY TRANSITIO
OUT OF HOMELESSNESS. OUR CASE
MANAGERS, THEY TALK ALL THE TIM
WITH FOLKS EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING
INSECURITY. THEY WILL TELL YOU
THAT THE NUMBER ONE THING
KEEPING FOLKS FROM MOVING BEYON
HOMELESSNESS IS A STAGGERING
SHORTAGE OF HOUSING THAT FOLKS
COULD ACTUALLY AFFORD WITHIN
THEIR NETWORK OF SUPPORT. SOCIA
HOUSING, WHILE NOT CONSIDERED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BIT LAW NOW
WILL HELP FILL THAT NEED AND
DESERVES ALL THE REGULATORY
BENEFITS AND EXEMPTIONS THAT WE
GIVE WHAT THE LAW SEES WITH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH IS WH
WE URGE YOU TO SUPPORT AMENDMEN
1 VERSION 2 OF COUNCIL BILL
120591. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, NEIL. UP NEXT IS
RYAN DONAHUE IS NOT PRESENT, SO
WE'RE GOING TO GO TO NATION,
CHRISTOPHER HERNANDEZ, AND
ALICIA. NATION, WELCOME.
>> HI, GOOD AFTERNOON, AND I
LIVE IN DISTRICT SIX, AN
ORGANIZER WITH HOUSING AND A
VOLUNTEER WITH HOUSE OUR
NEIGHBORS. I'M SPEAKING IN FAVO
OF CB120591 AND THE AMENDMENT 1
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES TO ADD A DEFINITION OF
SOCIAL HOUSING TO THE LAND USE
CODE. THIS PAST FEBRUARY, VOTER
CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THEIR
DESIGN TO ADD SOCIAL HOUSING TO
THE TOOLS WE HAVE TO ADDRESS
THEIR HOUSING CRISIS. AND THE
SOCIAL HOUSING DEVELOPERS
NON-IMPLEMENTATION. AND
SUCCESSFUL AROUND THE WORLD
INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES. OU
LAND USE CODE SHOULD BE UPDATED
TO INCLUDE THIS ENTITY. AS CB
120581 PASSES AS IT SHOULD,
SOCIAL HOUSING NEEDS TO QUALIFY
FOR THE AID FORDABLE HOUSING
EXTENSION TO MAXIMIZE FOR THE
PEOPLE. THE SIMPLE STEP WILL
HAVE A POWERFUL AFFECT IN MAKIN
HOUSES CHEAPER AND EASIER TO
BUILD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU. RYAN, I SEE RYAN,
YOU'RE PRESENT. SO WE WILL COME
BACK TO YOU. RYAN, WELCOME. STA
SIX TO UNMUTE.
>> HELLO. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES, WE CAN. TAKE IT AWAY.
>> MY NAME IS RYAN DONAHUE. AS
YOU KNOW, DEEPLY APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THIS LEGISLATION
FORWARD AND ALLOWING US TO SHOW
YOUR SUPPORT FOR WHAT'S
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CLEANUP
LEGISLATION. WE'VE SEEN THE
PROJECTS GET DELAYED
SIGNIFICANTLY AND ULTIMATELY DI
BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE PROBLEMS
THAT THIS LEGISLATION WILL BE
FIXING. WHETHER IT'S OUR PROJEC
WHERE WE RECENTLY GO THROUGH TH
DESIGN PROCESS ADDING U ROUGHLY
8 TO 10 MONTHS. OR THE OTHER
PROJECTS, THE HABITAT FOR THE
WORLD. USING THE EXEMPT RULES.
THAT WILL RISK ALASKA KILLING
SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS, AND
THOSE THAT ARE SO DESPERATELY
NEEDED. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS. PLEASE SUPPORT THIS
LANGUAGE VERY MUCH. HAVE A NICE
DAY.
>> THANK YOU, RYAN. UP NEXT IS
CHRISTOPHER HERNANDEZ FOLLOWED
BY ALICIA AND THAT'S OUR FINAL
SPEAKER ON THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
CHRISTOPHER, WELCOME. STAR SIX
TO UNMUTE. CHRISTOPHER? IF YOU
WANT TO BRING UP ALICIA AS WELL
CHRISTOPHER HERNANDEZ, YOU'RE
UP. TAKE IT AWAY.
>> OKAY. YEAH, HI, CHRISTOPHER
ANTHONY HERNANDEZ. I AM AGAINST
THESE BILLS. I HAVE MADE THE
DECISION TO MOVE IN TO ONE OF
THESE STATION HOUSES, ONE OF
THESE AFFORDABLE HOMES, AND IT
WAS MY BIGGEST MISTAKE. AND I
HAVE BEEN NOTHING, BUT HARMED B
THESE PROGRAMS FINANCIALLY. I
BELIEVE THESE PROGRAMS, IF THEY
WANT TO BE BETTER, THEY SHOULD
HAVE VOLUNTARY REHABILITATION
TREATMENT FOR 90 DAYS PRIOR TO
MOVE IN. AND THEN SOMEONE THAT
IS FUNDED LIKE MYSELF TO
FACILITATE JOB GROWTH AND
STABILITY. THAT'S AL I HAVE FOR
TODAY. THANK YOU. BYE.
>> THANK YOU, CHRISTOPHER. UP
NEXT IS ALICIA RUIZ AND THAT'S
OUR FINAL PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTER FOR THIS BILL. I SEE
YOU OFF MUTE. TAKE IT AWAY.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR STRAUS
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
I'M ALICIA RUIZ. I'M SPEAKING
TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE SEATTLE
MEMBERS OF THE MASTER BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION OF KING AND
SNOHOMISH COUNTIES. WE TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT OF COUNCIL MEMBER
120591. AND AMENDMENT 1, VERSIO
2. THESE TECHNICAL UPDATES ARE
IMPORTANT TO EXPEDITE THE
PRODUCTION OF ALL TYPES OF MUCH
NEEDED HOUSING IN OUR CITY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ALICIA. SEEING
THERE ARE NO FURTHER PUB BE LIC
REGISTRANTS FOR THIS PUBLIC
HEARING, I'M GOING TO CLOSE
THAT. THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER
TO SPEAK ON 120591 IS NOW
CLOSED. COLLEAGUES TO CONSIDER
THIS BILL ON THE SAME DAY AS A
PUBLIC HEAR, WE DO NEED TO
SUSPEND THE RULES. THIS IS THE
SECOND TIME WE'VE HAD THIS BILL
IN COMMITTEE. ARE THERE ANY
OBJECTIONS? I'M NOT SEEING ANY,
SO I'M GOING TO READ THE
OFFICIAL LANGUAGE. IF THERE'S N
OBJECTION, THE COUNCIL RULES
WILL BE SUSPENDED TO ALLOW THE
COMMITTEE TO VOTE ON 120591 ON
THE SAME DAY AS THE PUBLIC
HEARING. HEARING NO OBJECTIONS,
THE COUNCIL RULE IS SUSPENDED.
WE ARE MOVING INTO AMENDMENTS.
COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES, YOU HAV
AN AMENDMENT FOR US TODAY. YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU. CHAIR STRAUSS. I
MOVE AMENDMENT 1, VERSION 2 AS
RECENTLY DISTRIBUTED.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO ADOPT AMENDMENT 1,
VERSION 2. I WOULD LIKE TO NOW
TURN IT OVER TO KETIL FREEMAN
FOR -- UNLESS COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES, YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO
YOUR AMENDMENT?
>> I WILL SPEAK TO IT, BUT WE
CAN HAVE KETIL FREEMAN INTRODUC
IT FIRST. THAT'S FINE.
>> WONDERFUL.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER 120591 WOULD
ADD LAND USE FOR SOCIAL HOUSING
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS
APPEARING ON THE AGENDA, AND
I'LL SHARE MY SCREEN HERE, SO
FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE CAN SEE
THE AMENDMENTS. THIS IS COUNCIL
MEMBER MORALES' AMENDMENT,
ADDING A DEFINITION. THE SOCIAL
HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE UNITS AR
MAINTAINED BY ADDING SOCIAL
HOUSING AS A CATEGORY OF LOW
INCOME HOUSING. IT MEANS THE
SOCIAL HOUSING WOULD BE ABLE TO
ENJOY ALL THE BENEFITS THAT FLO
TO LOW INCOME HOUSING INCLUDING
THINGS LIKE DESIGN REVIEW
EXEMPTIONS, F.A.R. EXEMPTIONS,
ALLOWING THEM TO PROVIDE MORE
HOUSING STREET LEVEL USE,
ALLOWANCES, AND THE ZONES. AND
BASICALLY LAND USE CODE AND
SENSATIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY
ONLY AVAILABLE TO LOW INCOME
HOUSING WOULD BE AVAILABLE UNDE
120591, AND I'LL SCROLL DOWN
HERE TO THE DEFINITION ITSELF.
THIS WILL BE SOME LIMITATIONS O
WHAT NO MORE THAN 80%. IT CAN
ONLY BE DEVELOPED BY A
QUALIFYING PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY TO CHARTER THE
SPECIFICATION TO DEVELOP
HOUSING. OUT OF A RANGE OF
AFFORDABILITIES. AND OF COURSE
THE INTENT OF SOCIAL HOUSING IS
EVENTUALLY IT WILL PROVIDE
HOUSING FOR THE HOUSEHOLDS 0 TO
100 AND 20% OF AMI WITH FOLKS
PERTAINING THE OCCUPANCY EVEN
WHEN THEY ARE HIGHER THAN THAT.
SO THAT'S THE AMENDMENT PROPOSE
BY COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES.
>> WONDERFUL. COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEA
TO YOUR AMENDMENT?
>> NOTE. OKAY, SORRY ABOUT THAT
THANK YOU VERY MUCH CHAIR. THAN
YOU KETIL. SO I AM PROPOSING
THIS AMENDMENT. I WILL SAY WE
HAD SOME CONVERSATION WITH
OFFICE OF HOUSING. AND THE
REASON THERE'S A SUBSTITUTE IS
BECAUSE I BELIEVE THESE CHANGES
ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT WERE RAISED. TECHNICAL
CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE, BUT TO
PUT SOCIAL HOUSING ON AND IN TH
PLAYING FIELD. WE DID REVIEW TH
PREVIOUS VERSION AND THIS
VERSION. AND GOT THE
UNDERSTANDING THIS WOULD NOT
CAUSE SIGNIFICANT RISK TO THE
BILL. I WANT TO THANK OUR SOCIA
HOUSING DEVELOPER AND BOARD AND
AS WELL AS HOUSE OUR NEIGHBORS
FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN SUPPORT
THE IDEA HERE IS TO OFFER THE
CITY SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES. AS
THE AFIRE CITY IN THE COUNTRY T
REALLY DEVELOP SOCIAL HOUSING,
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT GETS
STARTED ON THE RIGHT FOOT. IT
ALIGNS THE -- IT ALIGNS SOCIAL
HOUSING WITH THE REST OF OUR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING LANDSCAPE AN
PROVIDES KIND OF THE SAME LEVEL
OF LAND USE BENEFITS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE TO OTHER FORMS OF
HOUSING. AND AS KETIL FREEMAN
SAYS, IT DEFINES SOCIAL HOUSING
IN OUR LAND USE CODE. AND SO
THERE IS NO MORE CONFUSION ABOU
WHAT SOCIAL HOUSING IS. AND
SPECIFICALLY IT'S DEFINED AS
RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USE
STRUCTURE WITH AT LEAST 40% OF
THE AFFORDABLE UNITS WITH THE
INCOMES AT NO HIGHER THAN 80%.
AND SO THIS REFLECTS SOME
CHANGES THAT WE MADE, COUNCIL
MEMBER MOSQUEDA MADE PREVIOUSLY
IN OUR CITY'S DISPOSITION
POLICIES, TO THANK THEM FOR
WORKING ON THAT. AND REALLY TO
PROVIDE THE DEFINITION THAT WIL
HELP CODIFY THE INTENT OF
UNIVERSAL AFFORDABILITY THAT
WILL ALLOW PEOPLE TO CONTINUE T
LIVE IN THE CITY. AND TO
REINFORCE OUR MISSION AS A CITY
TO GROW OUR STOCK OF FAMILY TO
WORKING PEOPLE TO FOLKS WHO ARE
CURRENTLY LIVING UNHOUSED, SO
THAT WE HAVE AS MANY TOOLS AS
POSSIBLE FOR US TO ADDRESS OUR
ONGOING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS.
AND SO WE DO WANT TO THANK THE
OFFICE OF HOUSING FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL. I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT WE STREAMLINE TH
PROCESS FOR AFFORDABLE
DEVELOPMENT. I WANT TO THANK
DEVELOPER CHIN FOR OPEN
COMMUNICATION ABOUT THIS PROCES
AND ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT IN
PARTICULAR. AND I WANT TO SAY
FINALLY REGARDLESS OF THE VOTE
TODAY, I DO LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH OFFICE OF HOUSING,
WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, AND
WITH OUR SOCIAL HOUSING BOARD
AND ADVOCATES. TO MAKE SURE
WE'RE PUTTING THE DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL AND THE LAND USE
BENEFITS OF SOCIAL HOUSING ON
THE SAME LEVEL AS OUR OTHER
FORMS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
THE CITY, SO WE CAN GROW OUR
STOCK OVERALL. MAKE SURE FOLKS
IN THE CITY ARE HAVING A PLACE
TO CALL HOME. THAT'S ALL I HAVE
CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES. I APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING FORWARD THIS AMENDMENT
I DO HAVE CONCERNS, NOT ABOUT
THE CONTENT OF THE AMENDMENT. I
APPRECIATE AND AGREE WITH WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT CREATING TH
DEFINITIONS WITHIN OUR LAND USE
CODE. MY CONCERNS ARE AS YOU
MENTIONED, THERE IS RISK TO THE
BILL REGARDING THE APPEALS, THE
ADDITIONAL WORK. AND WHAT WE
KNOW AND THAT THE BILLS, THEY
HAVE BEEN DELAYED IN GETTING TO
OUR COMMITTEE. AND BECAUSE OF
THE TREE ORDINANCE AND THE
MIRROR TIME ZONING CHANGES,
TAKING UP QUITE A BIT OF THE
COMMITTEE TIME EARLIER THIS
YEAR. MY CONCERN IS THAT THERE
ARE PROJECTS CURRENTLY WAITING
FOR THIS BILL TO BE PASSED TO
BENEFIT FROM THE CHANGES THAT
HAVE BEEN WORKED ON AND WAITED.
BUT WHAT I OFFER YOU, I'M NOT
GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THI
AMENDMENT TODAY FOR THOSE
REASONS, AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE
TO BRING A SEPARATE BILL THAT I
DISCONNECTED FROM THE BILL THAT
WILL ACCOMPLISH THE SAME TASK,
WELCOME THAT, I ENCOURAGE IT
ACTUALLY. I THINK THAT WILL BE
GOOD WAY TO GO ABOUT IT. IF
THERE IS NOT SUBSTANTIVE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT YOU'RE
PROPOSING TODAY IN A FINAL BILL
I WOULD CONSIDER THIS AS WHAT I
ALWAYS ASK FOR A BILL TO BE
HEARD TWICE IN COMMITTEE IF
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
WHAT YOU PROPOSE TODAY AND IN A
FINAL BILL, I WOULD CONSIDER
THIS AS A FIRST HEARING OF THAT
BILL. SO WE COULD MOVE A LITTLE
BIT MORE RAPIDLY. AND THAT IS
WHERE I'M AT TODAY, READING THE
DIFFERENT E-MAIL TRAFFIC AND
TODAY WITH SO MUCH GOING ON, AN
I APPRECIATE YOU NARROWING THE
SCOPE OF THIS AMENDMENT TO TRY
TO ADDRESS SOME OF THAT RISK,
WHICH IT MAKES ME PAUSE, AND I
DON'T WANT TO HOLD UP ANY OF
THESE PROJECTS. THAT'S WHERE I'
AT TODAY, AND AGAIN, I
APPRECIATE WHERE YOU'RE COMING
FROM AND BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT AMENDMENT 1
VERSION 2? COUNCIL MEMBER
NELSON?
>> THANK YOU. WHEN I FIRST
LEARNED ABOUT THIS HAD AMENDMEN
IN AN E-MAIL THAT WAS SENT AT
11:52, THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME
SAW IT. TODAY, WE GOT ANOTHER
ONE AT 11:24 A.M., WHICH I GUES
IS VERSION 2. BUT THE NUMBER IS
STILL THE SAME AS THEY BOTH SAY
D1. NOW THERE IS AN
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED
E-MAIL THAT WILL SPEAK TO SOME
OF THE ISSUES, WHICH I CAN'T
TALK ABOUT. BUT IT JUST SEEMS A
THOUGH THIS IS -- THERE'S ALL
THIS GOING ON, AND IT'S SUPPOSE
TO BE A CLEANUP. THIS SEEMS TO
BE MAKING POLICY. AND SO I CAN'
SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE I DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AND THE SECOND
AMENDMENT AND PLUS IT SEEMS LIK
IT IS MORE POLICY ORIENTED THAN
CLEANUP. BUT SINCE CHAIR
STRAUSS, YOU JUST SAID YOU WOUL
CONSIDER THIS THE FIRST HEARING
I WOULD ASK DIRECTOR CHIN FOR
YOUR THOUGHTS BECAUSE YOU WERE
REFERENCED IN THE COMMENTS BY
COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH COUNCIL
MEMBER. I HAVE NOT SPENT TIME
WITH MY STAFF TO EXAMINE WHAT
THE AMENDMENTS ARE. WE WOULD
SUPPORT AND WORK WITH THE CITY
COUNCIL ON LOOKING AT THE
LANGUAGE. THANK YOU.
>> COLLEAGUES, ANY FURTHER
QUESTION ON AMENDMENT 1 VERSION
2, COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
WANT TO THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBE
MORALES FOR ALWAYS LOOKING FOR
OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE THE SOCIA
HOUSING MODEL WORK. AND THERE I
A LOT OF LEGISLATION WORKING
THROUGH HERE AND TO LOOK AT
THESE OPPORTUNITIES TO ATTACH
THE VOTER APPROVED STUFF AND
ATTACH IT TO THE FAST MOVING
LEGISLATION, SO I APPRECIATE
BEING THE STEADFAST CHAMPION IN
THAT TO KEEP TRYING TO DO WHAT
WE CAN TO MAKE THAT MODEL
SUSTAINABLE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES, CLOSING COMMENTS?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'LL
JUST SAY AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND TH
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP. I
DO BELIEVE BASED ON THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE DID HAVE
WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT THAT TH
RISK IS VERY LIMITED. AND
UNDERSTAND TOO THAT COLLEAGUES,
THEY HAVE MORE QUESTIONS. SO AS
I SAID BEFORE AND HAPPY TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH CHIN AND
WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND OUR
SOCIAL HOUSING DEVELOPERRER. AN
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
INCORPORATING THESE PRINCIPLES
AND THIS LANGUAGE INTO OUR CODE
AND THIS NEW MODEL OF HOUSING
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN THIS
CITY IS SUPPORTED IN EVERY WAY
POSSIBLE THROUGH OUR REGULATORY
CODE AND THROUGH EVERY OTHER
OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE.
>> THANK YOU AND NO FURTHER
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> EXCUSE ME, NAY.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> TWO IN FAVOR, TWO AGAINST.
>> AND AMELIA SANCHEZ?
>> THE MOTION FAILS.
>> MOTION FAILS. THANK YOU. AND
FOR THE FOLKS THAT ATTENDED
TODAY, I APPRECIATE YOU COMING
OUT. I APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF
COMING FORWARD AND COUNCIL
MEMBER MORALES. I WELCOME
STANDALONE BILL. COUNCIL MEMBER
NELSON?
>> YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE
THAT I REPEAT THAT MY NAY WAS
NOT A VOTE ON THE CONTENT OF TH
AMENDMENT. WHEN I HEAR WORDS
LIKE RISK, THAT DOES REINFORCE
THE FACT THAT THIS REQUIRES MOR
CONVERSATION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
NELSON.
>> COLLEAGUES, COMMENTS,
QUESTIONS ON THE UNDERLYING BIL
AS AMENDED? SEEING NONE, I'LL
SHARE CLOSING COMMENTS AS THE
SPONSOR OF T THISBILL. I THINK
THIS BILL PROVIDES NOT ONLY MOR
CLARITY FOR EVERYDAY PEOPLE. I
WANT TO THANK THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING FOR TAKING A LOT OF TIM
TO SIMPLIFY THE LAND USE CODE A
IT COMES TO HOUSING. AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY PROVIDING ADDITIONA
OPPORTUNITIES. WE HAD RON
DONAHUE SPEAK TO US TODAY. THEI
COPPER PINES PROJECT ON 28th AN
85th. PROVIDING HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR FAMILIES LIKE
THE ONE I GREW UP IN TO BE ABLE
TO LIVE IN BALLARD TODAY. THERE
IS NOTHING MORE REAL THAN THAT
HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY ON TH
STREET THAT I WALKED HOME FROM
MIDDLE SCHOOL BACK TO MY HOUSE
ON. SO IT IS REAL AND MEANINGFU
TO ME. I'M EXCITED THAT THIS
BILL WILL PROVIDE A MORE
STREAMLINED PROCESS TO
HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES FOR
THE FAMILY I GREW UP IN AND THE
SHOULD BE ABLE TO LIVE WITH
SEATTLE TODAY AND TOMORROW.
120591, IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNCIL
BILL 120591.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> FOUR IN FAVOR.
>> THANK YOU. THE MOTION PASSES
COUNCIL BILL 120591 PASSES AND
THE BILL WILL BE SENT TO THE
JULY 5, 2023 CITY COUNCIL
MEETING FOR A FINAL VOTE. MOVIN
ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, ITE
NUMBER 1 ON THE AGENDA AS
PUBLISHED. THANK YOU OFFICE OF
HOUSING. WELCOME SDCI, OUR --
THIS IS AGAIN A BRIEFING
DISCUSSION PUBLIC HEARING AND
POSSIBLE VOTE ON COUNCIL BILL
120581, WHICH EXEMPTIONS THE
CERTAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECT FROM DESIGN REVIEW.
PLEASE READ THE SHORT TITLE INT
THE RECORD.
>> ITEM 1 COUNCIL BILL 120581
DESIGN REVIEW EXEMPTION FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS FOR
BRIEFING DISCUSSION, PUBLIC
HEARING, AND POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> THANK YOU, THIS IS A PILOT
PROJECT TO GIVE AN OPTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
PROGRAM. AND AHEAD OF TAKING A
TOP TO BOTTOM REVIEW ON HOW TO
IMPROVE THE PROGRAM. WHAT I KNO
TO BE TRUE ARE TWO THINGS. ONE,
THE DESIGN REU VIEW DOES NOT
PROVIDE ACCESS TO EVERYDAY
PEOPLE, WHETHER IT BE LANGUAGE
BARRIERS OR TECHNICAL LANGUAGE
THAT IS USED OR SIMPLY
ACCESSIBILITY TO ATTEND DESIGN
REVIEW MEETING. I THINK IT IS
EASIER NOW IN THE HYBRID
FASHION. BUT THE SECOND PART OF
THAT IS THAT EVERYDAY PEOPLE'S
COMMENTS, THEY ARE NOT
NECESSARILY TAKEN INTO THE FINA
CONCEPT. THAT'S A PROBLEM. SO O
ONE SIDE, THAT PART IS BROKEN.
AND AND THAT IS WHAT THE
PROBLEMS ARE AND THE SOLUTIONS,
AND THAT IT WILL BE A BIT
UNCLEAR. AND WHAT WE HAVE TODAY
IS A BIT OF A TEST BALLOON. AND
WITHOUT CHANGING REVIEW
PROGRAMS. AND ATTEMPTING TO
PILOT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT
OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE WHEN WE AR
GOING TO TAKE THE TOP TO BOTTOM
REVIEW. FROM COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF. MIKE, WELCOME. TAKE IT
AWAY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> DID YOU WANT ME TO SHARE THE
PRESENTATION FROM THE 14th
MEETING?
>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT. WE HAD
ROBUST CONVERSATION LAST TIME.
>> OKAY, LET'S SEE IF THIS COME
UP.
>> AS YOU MENTIONED, COMMITTEE
CHAIR STRAUSS, THIS IS A PILOT
PROGRAM, INTENDED TO BE IN PLAC
FOR AN AMOUNT OF TIME. THE
NOTION HERE IS TO TEST A COUPLE
OF IDEAS TO SEE IF WE MIGHT
BRING MORE HOUSING IN THIS
PARTICULARLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING
TO THE PEOPLE THAT NEED IT MORE
QUICKLY. AS YOU ALSO NOTED, WE
ARE ALSO WORKING ON THE REVIEW
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM
OVERALL WITH SOME EQUITY
CONSIDERATIONS BUILT IN. THAT
WORK WOULD BE ONGOING AND
POTENTIALLY INFORMED BY THE
RESULTS OF THE PILOT PROGRAM. S
THERE ARE FOUR MAIN CHANGES THA
WOULD OCCUR IF COUNCIL ADAPTS
THIS BILL. THE TOP TWO ARE THE
MAIN PIECES OF THE BILL. ONE
WOULD PROVIDE THAT EXEMPTION FO
PROJECTS THAT WILL PROVIDE
HOUSING THROUGH THE PERFORMANCE
OPTION THROUGH THE MANDATORY
AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT. THE
SECOND ONE WOULD PROVIDE AN
EXEMPTION FROM THE DESIGN
REVIEW. FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
OR FOR ANY HOUSING RATHER.
EXCUSE ME. THE FIRST ONE IS AN
EXEMPTION. THE SECOND ONE WILL
ALLOW FOR AN OPTION FOR PEOPLE
THAT ARE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH
THE FULL DESIGN REVIEW FOR
HOUSING TO OPT FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. AND AS A
PART OF THE FIRST ITEM, THE
DIRECTOR WOULD BE ABLE TO WAVE
OR MONITOR THE HOUSING
STANDARDS. NOT ONLY FOR THE
PROJECTS AS NOTED HERE, BUT ALS
AFFORDABLE RENTAL AND
HOMEOWNERSHIP PROJECTS AS WELL.
THERE'S AN AMENDMENT THAT THEY
WILL SPEAK TO AS WE WILL GO INT
DETAILS ABOUT THAT. ITEM 4
LISTED HERE, JUST AS A NOTE FOR
PROJECTS THAT WILL OPT TO GO
THROUGH THE DESIGN REVIEW
PROCESS RATHER THAN FULL DESIGN
REVIEW WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY T
OPT BACK IN TO FULL REVIEW THAT
ENDED UP BEING A BETTER OPTION
FOR THEM AT THEIR ELECTION. AND
THIS IS JUST A BASIC BACKGROUND
AND THAT THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO
MEET THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECT AND ONE IS THROUGH THE
PERFORMANCE OPTION, WHICH WE'RE
SEEKING TO PROMOTE AND TEST THI
BILL AND THAT OTHER ONE IS TO
CONTRIBUTE TO THE FUND THAT THE
USE TO FUND HOUSING. AND BASED
ON HISTORICAL USE AND OF THE
PERFORMANCE OPTIONS, WE'RE
EXPECTING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 10
TO 15 PROJECTS AND IF THAT IS A
GOOD ONE, MAYBE AS MANY AS 30
PROJECTS TO BENEFIT FROM THE
RESULTS OF THE BILL. AND A
LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE DESIGN
REVIEW JUST TO CLARIFY THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE FULL
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESSES AND THA
ARE REQUIRED OF THE MULTI-FAMIL
HOUSING AND CURRENTLY EXEMPT.
AND JUST AS A NOTE IN THE BOTTO
OF THE SLIDE THAT BOTH TYPES OF
DESIGN REVIEWS ARE DECISIONS
THAT THINK THAT THE DEPARTMENT
AIRED THE DECISION MAKING TO
HAVE AN APPEAL HEARING BEFORE
THE CITY'S EXAMINER, AND SO THE
ARE TYPE TWO DECISIONS.
>> AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIE
OPTION IS INTENDED TO TEST THE
NOTION HERE AT THE TOP THAT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW CAN BE
DONE MORE QUICKLY THAN FULL
DESIGN REVIEW AND THAT IT MIGHT
HAVE TO DO WITH THE OUTSIDE
FACTOR THAT WE MIGHT HAVE A
CHANCE TO TEST SUCH AS THE LEVE
OF COMPLEXITY ON THE PROJECT,
BUT THAT WE WOULD HAVE SEEN THA
THEY ARE SHORTER AND THAT IT IS
ON THE ORDER OF AROUND THREE
MONTHS QUICKER. AND THAT IT IS
SOMETHING THAT WE WILL WANT TO
EXPLORE FURTHER FROM THE PASSAG
OF THIS BILL. AND THE AFFECTS O
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OPTION IS
PORTRAYED HERE. SOMEWHERE
BETWEEN 18 TO 27 PROJECTS THAT
COULD BENEFIT FROM THIS IF THEY
SELECTED. WE DO NOTE THAT HERE
FOR VARIOUS REASONS. SOME
APPLICANTS WILL PRESENT THE
BOARD REVIEW, WHICH COULD BE A
FACTOR PROBABLY IN WHAT WE WOUL
SEE IN THIS TEST AND THAT'S IT
FOR THE REFRESH. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MIKE. COLLEAGUES,
QUESTIONS ON MIKE PODOWSKI'S
REVIEW ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES?
>> THANK YOU. AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE THIS PRESENTATION.
AND I APPRECIATE THE MEMO THAT
WE GOT FROM KETIL ON MONDAY. I
THINK MOST OF MY QUESTIONS ARE
ABOUT ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED I
THE MEMO. LET ME JUST ASK FIRST
THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I
ASKED, THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE PROCESS IS THAT THE WORK HA
BEEN DONE. DO YOU HAVE AN ETA O
THAT?
>> THEY WOULD FLOAT FROM THE
RESPONSE. THAT MILESTONE HAS
BEEN REACHED.
>> AND SO LET ME PIGGYBACK ON
THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ASKED
NOR DO THEY HAVE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO ASK THAT
DESIGN REVIEW. THERE WAS THE
WORK GROUP SET UP FOR @ LAST
YEAR, WHICH TOOK MUCH LONGER
THAN I DESIRED TO. SO THAT WE
COULD TAKE UP THE ADDITIONAL
REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS. I
HAVE RECEIVED THE REPORT. I HAV
NOT HAD THE TIME TO REVIEW IT.
BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME
THEY SPENT ON THE TREE ORDINANC
AND THE INDUSTRIAL MIRROR TIME
ZONING. ORIGINALLY WHEN IT WAS
WRITTEN, SO THAT WE COULD CUE I
UP APPROPRIATELY. AND I HAVE NO
HAD TIME TO REVIEW THE REPORT.
CAN TELL YOU THAT OUR COMMITTEE
IT IS COMPLETELY FULL MOVING
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE YEAR. AND
THAT IS WHY IN PART I OFFER YOU
THE FIRST HEARING ON YOUR
AMENDMENT SHOULD YOU BE ABLE TO
BRING THAT BACK SHOULD WE MOVE
MORE RAPIDLY, THE REASON WHY
WE'RE SUSPENDING THE RULES. AND
ALL THAT TO SAY IS THAT THE
REPORT THAT HAS BEEN SENT HAS
NOT BEEN REVIEWED.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION. I GUESS WHAT I
WANTED TO HAVE IS A LITTLE MORE
CONVERSATION OR UNDERSTANDING
ABOUT, WE HAVE SOME
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WHERE SHE
NOT SEEN YET. THAT WE ALSO HAVE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE COMING
FROM THE RACIAL EQUITY TOOL KIT
THAT WAS DONE AND IT SOUNDS LIK
IT WAS NOT A COMPLETE THING, BU
NEVERTHELESS, PROVIDED SOME
IMPORTANT GUIDANCE FOR HOW WE
REVIEW OUR DESIGN REVIEW
PROGRAM. THAT REPORT INDICATES
THE PROCESS ITSELF WILL NEED TO
BE MORE EQUITABLE AND SO IT
NEEDS TO PRIORITIZE THE VOICES
OF THOSE MOST IMPACTED BY THE
INEQUITABLE DESIGN PROCESS,
WHICH IS TO SAY THAT PEOPLE OF
COLOR. AND I THINK A PART OF TH
STRUGGLE THAT WE HAVE WHEN WE'R
TALKING ABOUT THE DESIGN REVIEW
IN THE CITY IS THAT THERE ARE
TWO CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE
HAPPENING, RIGHT? AND WE HAVE A
FULL DESIGN REVIEW THAT WILL
ALLOW THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO
BE INVOLVED IN WHAT THEIR
NEIGHBORHOODS ARE GOING TO LOOK
LIKE AND WHAT CONSTRUCTION IN
THEIR AREA WOULD LOOK LIKE,
WHICH IS INTENDED TO BE A GOOD
WAY TO ENGAGE OUR NEIGHBORS. AN
WE KNOW THAT IT HAS REALLY
TURNED INTO A WAY TO WEAPONIZE
THE PROCESS TO STOP THE
DEVELOPMENT FROM HAPPENING. IT'
USED AS A WAY TO STOP THE
PROGRESS. STOP US FROM
ADDRESSING THE REAL HOUSING
CRISIS THAT WE HAVE AND TO
CONTRIBUTE TO OUR HOUSING CRISI
HERE IN SEATTLE. THAT'S ONE
CONVERSATION ON HOW TO MITIGATE
WHAT MANY PEOPLE WILL SEE AS A
WEAPONIZATION OF THIS PROCESS.
IT'S THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY FOR
SOME PEOPLE TO ENGAGE IN WHAT'S
HAPPENING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD
AND THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I
HAVE A LOT WITH PEOPLE IN MY
DISTRICT IS THAT EVEN STILL,
THERE IS NO PLACE IN OUR DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS OR ANY STEP ALON
THE WAY OF A BUILDING THAT'S
GOING UP TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE
IMPACTS ARE GOING TO BE AND ANY
TIME THEY WANT TO SAY, THAT IT
IS NOT IT FOR US TO TALK ABOUT
THIS IN THE PAST, AND THAT IT I
MY UNDERSTANDING. REALLY THE
CONVERSATION FOR THOSE, THE
STATE LAWS. AND WE'RE TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT WHERE WE ALLOW THE
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE IMPACTS
TO HAPPEN. I GUESS MY QUESTION
IS WHAT'S PROVIDED IN THAT MEMO
AND SORT OF A TABLE OF THE WORK
PLAN. AND THE REFERENCES THAT
THE OUTREACH, IT WILL BE PLANNE
FOR NEXT YEAR AND I GUESS WHAT
WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS WHAT IS
THE CURRENT STRATEGY FOR DOING
THAT OUTREACH? FIVE WEEKS IS NO
A LOT OF TIME. IT DOESN'T SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT WHO WILL BE
INCLUDED IN THE OUTREACH FOR
THAT PROCESS TO BEGIN THE
REVIEW, AND SO I GUESS I'M JUST
ASKING FOR WHETHER AND HOW THAT
WORK PLAN WILL INCORPORATE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RET
ANALYSIS TO MAKE SURE THAT AS
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS THAT THOSE
ISSUES, THEY ARE A PART OF THE
CONVERSATION.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANSWERS FOR
THOSE QUESTIONS FOR YOU RIGHT
NOW. I WANT TO SAY THAT WE DO
VALUE THE INFORMATION THAT WILL
COME FROM THE TOOL KIT ANALYSIS
AND WE DO PLAN ON CONDUCTING
THAT PROCESS AND INCORPORATING
IT INTO THE REPORT. I DID
PARTICIPATE IN THAT GROUP THAT
LED TO THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN
DONE SO FAR AND IT HAS BEEN
ROBUST WORK AND THAT ENGAGEMENT
OF THE BROAD SWATH OF
STAKEHOLDERS THROUGHOUT THE
COMMUNITY, AND WE WOULD LOOK TO
CONTINUE AND TO GROW THAT
PROCESS AS WE WOULD GO FORWARD
TO WORK WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE
AND THE TIMELINE.
>> I WILL PIGGYBACK ON THAT AS
WELL. IT IS NARROWLY TAILORED.
THE QUESTIONS YOU ASK, THEY'RE
GOOD AND IMPORTANT AND IT WILL
REQUIRE SO MUCH MORE TIME TO BE
ABLE TO ADDRESS THEM. WHAT WE D
KNOW IS THAT WE NEED TO GET
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
ESPECIALLY MANDATORY HOUSING AN
THE PROJECTS THAT WILL DO
ON-SITE PERFORMANCE MOVING
FASTER TODAY. EVEN THOUGH THE
BILL BEFORE US IN THE
PRESENTATION DEMONSTRATES THAT
IT WILL BE ONLY A TIME SAVINGS
OF THREE MONTHS. IT IS IMPORTAN
TO TEST THESE TODAY WHILE WE
TAKE THE TIME TO ASK AND ANSWER
THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU JUST
DESCRIBED. CANDIDLY WE HOPED
THAT THE PROCESS WOULD HAVE
STARTED IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR
I THINK AS WE ASK MORE QUESTION
RATHER THAN HAVING MORE ANSWERS
WE HAD MORE QUESTIONS. WE NOW
HAVE A LONGER PROCESS ON THAT.
DOES THAT HELP SHAPE THE
DIFFERENCE? WHAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT IS THE OVERALL DESIGN
PROGRAM, WHICH I AGREE WITH WHA
YOU'RE SAYING AND WHAT WE HAVE
BEFORE US TODAY IS A NARROW
PILOT WITHIN THE SEPARATE SIDE,
SO WE CAN START TESTING THESE
BENEFITS AND THE DRAWBACKS.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> AND MIKE, JUST WHILE WE HAVE
YOU HERE. THERE IS PUBLIC
COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN ALL OF
THESE OPTIONS. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND SO WHETHER IT'S
ADMINISTRATIVE, FULL DESIGN
REVIEWS, AND ALL OF THESE, THEY
WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. AS WELL AS THE
APPLICATION OF THE CONSIDERATIO
OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES BOTH
SPECIFIC.
>> AND I'M NOT SURE IF THAT IS
CORRECT. THERE WOULD BE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT AND THA
WOULD CONTINUE UNDER THE
MARRIAGE PROPOSED BILL. BUT FOR
THE PROJECTS, I'M SORRY, THAT
THEY WILL CHOOSE TO PERFORM AND
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS
THERE'S ADDITION ABOUT THE
WAIVERS, DEPARTURES, THINGS LIK
THAT, WHICH WOULD BE GRANTED,
AND THOSE DECISIONS, THEY DO NO
REQUIRE THE PUBLIC NOTE OR AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT. AND
PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, MOST
PROJECTS THAT WILL RECEIVE THE
PUBLIC FUNDING, IT WILL GO ALON
WITH THE CITY FUNDS. SORT OF
OUTSIDE THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
BUT FOR THOSE JUST OUTSIDE THE
PROJECTS, I DON'T BELIEVE UNDER
THE CURRENT BILL WOULD BE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
THEY DO NOT REQUIRE THE DIRECTO
TO MAKE A DEPARTURE DECISION
WITH REFERENCE TO THE DESIGN
GUIDELINES. IT'S A DECISION
BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT TH
DEPARTURE WOULD RESULT IN MORE
UNITS. THEY JUST HAVE TO BE MOR
UNITS. THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE
THAT THEY DO REFER TO THEM TO B
THE DIRECTOR AND THE LAND USE.
IT WILL REFER TO THE DESIGN
GUIDE LINES. BUT IF IT IS
REQUESTED BY SOMEBODY AND THOSE
RESULTS IN MORE UNITS, THEN I
BELIEVE THAT DEPARTURE WILL HAV
TO BE GRANTED.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. I WAS
SPEAKING TO THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN ADD MIN VAYTIVE AND FUL
DESIGN REVIEW, BUT YOUR POINT I
WELL MADE, ESPECIALLY WITH
RESPECT TO THE PROCESS THAT
WOULD UNFOLD FOR PERORMANCE AND
AFFORDABLE RENTAL AND OWNERSHIP
PROJECTS.
>> THANK YOU FOR JUMPING IN
THERE. COLLEAGUES, ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING? I AM SEEING
NONE. COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
AND YOU'RE STILL ON MUTE. AND
THE SECTION OF THE BILL. AND IT
IS EXCELLENT THANK YOU FOR THAT
AND SECTION F3B WILL TALK ABOUT
PROJECTS THAT THEY WOULD ALSO
GET TO SKIP THE FULL DESIGN
REVIEW IF THEY HAD WANTED TO.
COULD WE GET A LIST OF THOSE
PROJECTS? THIS IS A REQUEST FOR
THE DEPARTMENT.
>> ABSOLUTELY. I'LL WORK ON
THAT.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN. ANY FURTHER QUESTION
BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING? WE'L
HAVE OPPORTUNITIES AFTER THE
PUBLIC HEARING FOR MORE
DISCUSSION. SEEING NO OTHER
QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW, THE
TAKEAWAYS, PLEASE BE NICE AND
RESPECTFUL. EVERYONE HAS BEEN
AND THAT'S WONDERFUL. PUBLIC
HEARING IS NOW OPEN. WE WILL
BEGIN WITH THE FIRST SPEAKERS O
THE LIST. I WILL DO IN PERSON
FIRST FOLLOWED BY ONLINE
COMMENTERS. WE HAVE JOHN FITE,
DON BLAKENY, KATIE, AND MIKE.
JOHN, WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JOHN,
I'M AN ARCHITECT IN THE COUNCIL
CAPITOL HILL LAND USE COMMITTEE
I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE CENTRA
AIR ALERT AND A MEMBER OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW STAKE HOLDER
COMMITTEE. I SUPPORT THE
LEGISLATION UNDER THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS. AMEND THE
LEGISLATION TO EXCLUDE PROJECTS
THAT HAVE COMMERCIAL SPACE AND
FOCUS ONLY ON PROJECTS THAT ARE
100% HOUSING, 100% AFFORDABLE,
AND MEET MHA INCENTIVES ON SITE
IT'S A KEY TO NEIGHBORHOOD
HEALTH. THE COMMERCIAL MIXED US
DESIGN AND THE ABILITY AND
AFFECTS ON THE HEALTH OF
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS. THE
COUNCIL MUST ENSURE THE
COMMUNITIES ARE OFFERED A MORE
MEANINGFUL VOICE ON THE REVIEW
DESIGN PROCESS TO KEEP THE
INTERESTED PARTIES ON THE
SCHEDULED PARTIES, GUIDANCE
GIVEN, AS WELL AS ACTIONS GIVEN
AND THE APPLICANT AND CITY STAF
HAVE TAKEN ON THE COMMUNITY
COMMENTS. ANY FULL DESIGN REVIE
SHOULD FAVOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW TO REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER
TO DEDICATE THE LEVERAGE ON THE
HOUSING.
>> THANK YOU, JOHN. UP NEXT,
DON.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL
MEMBERS. I'M THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE U DISTRICT
PARTNERSHIP. I'M REPRESENTING
THE U-DISTRICT TODAY AND THE
FASTEST GROWING NEIGHBORHOOD IN
SEATTLE, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE
HERE. WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. WE ALSO NEED PUBLIC AN
PRIVATE INVESTMENTS IN OUR
COMMUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE
UNIQUE NEEDS OF OUR COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT IS ONE O
THE FEW REMAINING GEMS OF OUR
CITY THAT MANAGES TO HOLD ON TO
SMALL GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL
SPACES. THEY PROVIDE DIVERSITY
FOR OUR CUSTOMERS, AND THE
STREET AND THEY OFFER A PATHWAY
FOR PEOPLE LOOKING TO GET A
FOOTHOLD FOR OUR LOCAL ECONOMY.
THE DESIGN REVIEW IS BROKEN, I
GET IT. OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS
VOTERS ARE ENDURED WHIPLASH. I'
HERE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE
THE TIME YOU'RE ALLOCATING NEXT
YEAR TO EXAMINE THE POTENTIAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DESIGN
REVIEW. THE CITY SHOULD BE
CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
GREATER DIVERSITY OF VOICES LIK
COUNCIL MEMBER MORALES SAID TO
SHAPE DEVELOPMENT AND PROJECTS.
>> THANK YOU, DON, WELL SAID.
HOPEFULLY, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE
THEY CAN HAVE A LITTLE GROWTH
BATTLE THERE. WHO IS FASTEST
GROWING THERE. THAT'S RIGHT.
KATIE, WELCOME, THANK YOU.
>> HI, THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. AND I WORK FOR THE U
DISTRICT PARTNERSHIP OR THE
COMMUNITY BASED NON-PROFIT IN
THE U DISTRICT. AND I WORK WITH
THE DISTRICT COMMUNITY TO SET
PRIORITIES FOR THE MAJOR
DEVELOPMENTS AND IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. I ATTEND THE
DESIGN REVIEW MEETINGS AND MAKE
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROJECTS. I
KNOW THEY HAVE UNDERGONE THE
MASSIVE BUILDING BOOM SINCE THE
2017 UPZONE. WE DEEPLY CARE
ABOUT HOW NEW BUILDINGS IMPACT
OUR PUBLIC REALM AND THE
COMMERCIAL ZONES, AND ENGAGEMEN
WITH THE COMMUNITY IS IMPORTANT
TO HELP THE APPLICANTS AND
PLANNERS UNDERSTAND THE
COMMUNITY CONTEXT IN NEEDS. I
UNDERSTAND THE BILL'S INTENTION
TO CREATE MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS
HOWEVER, I HAVE SIGNIFICANT
CONCERNS THAT THE BILL DOES NOT
HAVE CLARITY AROUND THE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS.
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW AR
REALLY SHOWING LITTLE
OPPORTUNITY FOR BACK AND FORTH
COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS OR
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR DECISION.
ENSURING THE LEGISLATION WILL
OFFER A MEANINGFUL WAY FOR
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND MODIFY
THE LEGISLATION TO EXCLUDE
PROJECTS IN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONES.
>> THANK YOU, KATIE. UP NEXT IS
MIKE. WELCOME. THEN ONLINE WE
HAVE DENNIS WHO IS NOT PRESENT,
MEGAN CRUZ IS PRESENT, JEFFREY,
LOIS MARTIN, JESSE SIMPSON,
NATION IS NOT PRESENT. ALICIA I
NOT PRESENT AND THEN RICK.
WELCOME, MIKE.
>> HI. MY NAME IS MIKE. I AM
WITH THE CENTRAL AREA LAND USE
REVIEW COMMITTEE. AND I HAVE
BEEN A FAN OF REVIEW AND SINCE
THEY HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL
BECAUSE THEY IMPROVED THE
GENERAL QUALITY OF REVIEW
SPECIFICALLY AT SCALE BY GIVING
THE COMMUNITIES AN OPPORTUNITY
TO BETTER SHAPE THE PROJECTS IN
THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. I TAKE 30
YEARS AS THE HOUSING PROVIDER
AND THAT THEY ALSO PROVIDE TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BENEFITING
FROM THE DESIGN REVIEW PERHAPS
MORE THAN THE PARK PROJECTS THA
THEY ARE A TOUGHER SALE TO
NEIGHBORS. AND THEY HAVE DONE
THEIR JOB WHEN THEY WERE ABLE T
TURN THEM INTO SUPPORTERS, AND
TO CONVERT THE GROWING PAINS TO
THE CITY AND A LIVABLE CITY. AN
I OPPOSE ANY SCOPE OF THE DESIG
REVIEW. WITH THAT SAID, I
UNDERSTAND THE MAIN COMPLAINT O
THE DESIGN REVIEW IS THE TIME
THAT IT WILL TAKE THAT WE SHOUL
FORCE IT WITHOUT THE
COMPROMISING RESULT. IT'S NOT A
TIME SAKE. I SEE THE EASY TARGE
AND THE LONG WAITS FOR THEM TO
FORM THEIR TASK THAT SHOULD TAK
DAYS AND OFTEN TAKE WEEKS AND
MONTHS.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU COMING IN
PERSON AS WELL.
>> UP NEXT, ACTUALLY, DID WE
NEED KATE? AND DID SHE NEED TO
COME BACK? LET'S BRING HER BACK
IF SHE IS STILL PRESENT. IS SHE
PRESENT?
>> SHE IS NOT PRESENT.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> AND SO WE ARE GOING TO MOVE
ON TO CRUZ AND THEN BILL. I SEE
YOU'RE HERE. STAR 6 TO UNMUTE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M MEGAN
CRUZ. AND LASTFALL THE CITY
CONVENED THE STAKEHOLDERS GROUP
AND THE DESIGN REVIEW. IN
JANUARY, THE REPORT SAID IT WAS
A FORCE FOR GOOD AND THE ONLY
PLACE WHERE THE COMMUNITY HAS
INPUT. AND THIS BILL WILL TOSS
THEIR WORK TO SHUT DOWN THE
PUBLIC DESIGN REVIEW FOR TWO
YEARS. THE BILL WILL GRANT THE
HOUSING WITH THE EXTRA BENEFITS
INCLUDING THE INCREASES WITHOUT
FULL PILLING THE REQUIREMENTS.
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
EXEMPT FROM THE DESIGN REVIEW.
ALSO FOUND LITTLE TO
SUBSTANTIATE THE AFFORDABILITY.
AND PLEASE, HONOR THE CITY'S
COMMITMENT AND INCORPORATE THE
FINDINGS BEFORE MOVING FORWARD
WITH THIS BILL. BUT DON'T THROW
IT OUT.
>> THANK YOU. JEFFREY, WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU. AND FOR SEATTLE
FOR OVER 30 YEARS AND A MEMBER
OF THE CENTRAL AREA AND THE
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WITH THE
EXCEPTION. I'M WELL AWARE OF
WHAT THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS
WILL LOOK LIKE ON BOTH SIDES OF
THE TABLE, SEEING THE BENEFIT O
THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS TO
DEVELOP THE VOICE. AND THE
AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY. THE
IDEA THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW HAS
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR
AND THE COST OF HOUSING. SIMPLY
UNINFORMED NONSENSE. WE SHOULD
ONLY CONTEMPLATE THE CHANGES.
SINCE THEY CHOOSE TO PAY IN THE
FEES AND INCENTIVIZING THE
HOUSING ON SITE IN THE NEAR TER
IS A STEP IN THAT RIGHT
DIRECTION AND REQUIRING ALL OF
THE AFFORDABLE UNITS TO BE
PERFORMED ON SITE.
>> BILL, THERE YOU ARE. TAKE IT
AWAY.
>> AND THE PARTICIPANT IN THE
CENTRAL AREA, THE GROUP THAT
WORKS TOGETHER TO ALLOW ALL
SIDES TO EXPLORE THE WAYS TO
ACHIEVE THE WIN-WIN OUTCOME. TH
HISTORY AND THE EXPERIENCE OF
THE DESIGN GUIDELINE IS VERY
DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU MIGHT B
HEARING ELSEWHERE. BUT THE
GUIDELINES WERE DEVELOPED WITH
THE COMMUNITY AND THEY
SPECIFICALLY ARE INTENDED TO BE
THE KEY PARTS OF THE STRATEGY T
OVERCOME THE IMPACTS OF THE
HISTORIC EQUITY AND THE AFRICAN
AND BLACK AMERICAN COMMUNITY OF
THE CENTRAL AREA. I DON'T THINK
THAT YOU WILL FIND THE PROCESS
HAS BEEN WEAPONIZED IN THE
CENTRAL AREA AND RATHER IF YOU
LOOK, YOU WILL SEE THE
SIGNIFICANT AREA THAT HAS BEEN
MADE BETTER THROUGH THE PROCESS
AND TO LOOK AT THE MIDTOWN
PROJECT THAT WILL HAVE A GOOD
IDEA. THANK YOU.
>> HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE?
>> ONE MINUTE BECAUSE OF THE
NUMBER OF SPEAKERS AND PUBLIC
HEARING TODAY. SO WHEN YOU
START, WE WILL START THE CLOCK.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION. IN 2016 I
REPRESENTED THE 23rd AVENUE
ACTION COMMUNITY TEAM. AND ONE
OF FIVE CENTRAL AREA GROUPS THA
CAME TOGETHER TO PARTNER WITH
THE CITY OF SEATTLE STAFF TO
ESTABLISH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
TO BE UTILIZED WITH THE DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS. BEFORE
EVERYTHING WAS FINALLY PASSED I
2017. RATHER THAN BIT
SUSTAINABLE GOALS. STILL HOLDIN
TRUE TODAY. WHILE ONLY ONE YEAR
THE PROPOSED CHANGES WILL HAVE
THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. THREE
MONTHS IS NOT A LOT OF TIME WHE
YOU WOULD LOOK AT STRUCTURES
THAT WILL LAST FOR DECADES. AS
OUTLINED IN THE MEMO, CHANGING
DESIGN REVIEW WILL FIX THE
HOUSING CRISIS. AND IT'S THE
ONLY SPACE FOR THE COMMUNITY
INPUT. AND THOSE ARE THE FINAL
SPEAKERS REMAINING. DAVE,
WELCOME. ? AND HEY, THIS IS
DAVID, THE ARCHITECT. AND JUST
WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW OVER 25
YEARS AGO, CHICAGO PUT ON THIS
LOW INCOME AGREEMENT. AND THAT
INTEGRATES THE MARKET RATES AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHOUT THE
VISUAL DIFFERENCE. THE ST.
LUKE'S PROJECT THAT LYNN
CORPORATE THE MARKET RATE UNITS
THE ONE BUILDING. AND THEY BOTH
LOOK DIFFERENT AND THE MARKET
RATE BUILDING, OUTSIDE THE
BUILDING. AND I THINK THAT WE
WILL NEED TO HAVE THE DESIGN
WHERE THEY ALSO NEED TO HAVE TH
REAL INCENTIVE ON THE
PRODUCTION. AND THAT IT WILL BE
THE DESIGN REVIEW BUILDING. AND
JESSE, WELCOME BACK.
>> THE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
POLICY MANAGEMENT. AND
REITERATING THE EARLIER POINTS
ABOUT THE GENERAL DESIGN REVIEW
ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PRODUCTION AND THE CITY THAT
WILL NEED IT AND I JUST WANTED
TO HIGHLIGHT THE COUNCIL BILL.
ONLY ALLOW THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TO SEEK THE DEPARTURES
ON THE SET OF THE DESIGN
STANDARD. AND THE DESIGN REVIEW
THAT MEANS THAT AFFORDABLE
DEVELOPER, THEY WILL NEED TO GO
THROUGH THE DESIGN REVIEW. EVEN
WITH THAT EXEMPTION. IF THEY
FIND THAT MORE SIGNIFICANT
DEPARTURES ARE NECESSARY. AND
COUNCIL BILL 120581 WILL TAKE A
IMPORTANT STEP TO REFORM THE
DESIGN REVIEW AND EXPAND THE
SCOPE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO
RECEIVE THE DEPARTURES ON ALL
THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IF WE
WILL INCREASE THE NUMBER OF THE
HOMES THAT COULD BE BUILT.
>> THANK YOU, JESSE. UP NEXT IS
ALICIA RUIZ AND FOLLOWED BY
RICK. WE CAN ALL AGREE ON THAT
AND IT HAS BEEN FOR SOME TIME.
BECAUSE FOR MONTHS OR YEARS OF
DELAY, SOMETHING AS
INCONSEQUENTIAL, ALL THESE
DELAYS DIRECTLY ADD TO THE COST
OF HOUSING AND THIS WILL NEED T
CHANGE. IT WILL BE THE DESIGN
PROGRAM THAT WILL CHANGE, AND W
SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT 1 VERSION
2 AND STRONGLY OPPOSE THE
AMENDMENT 2, THANK YOU. I ASSUM
YOU'RE HERE TAKE IT AWAY.
>> AND THERE IS A DIRECT
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LAND
USE RESULT AND THE DESIGN REVIE
THAT WERE APPLIED. THE DESIGN
REVIEW HAS ADDED THE SIGNIFICAN
VALUE. PLEASE RETAIN AND
STRENGTHEN THE DESIGN REVIEW.
THANKS. AND NATION, WELCOME.
NATION IS NOT PRESENT. ERIC, CA
YOU DOUBLE CHECK? AND THERE IS
NO MORE PRESENT, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> IT APPEARS SO, YES.
>> THERE ARE OR NOT?
>> AND THAT IS OUR LAST SPEAKER
AND IT IS NOW CLOSED. AGAIN, TH
SAME PROCEDURE. IF THERE IS NO
OBJECTION, RULES WILL BE
SUSPENDED TO ALLOW THEM TO VOTE
ON THE BILL ON THE SAME DAY AS
THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCIL
MEMBER NELSON?
>> AND SO THERE WAS -- I HAVE A
QUESTION.
>> AND DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION
>> NO, EXCUSE ME.
>> HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE
COUNCIL RULE IS SUSPENDED.
>> WE ARE HEARING CONCERNS ABOU
THE LEGISLATION. AND SO IT
SEEMS, LIKE WE CAN SEE HOW THEY
WILL FAIR WHETHER THEY DECIDE T
SKIP THE PUBLIC ROAD THAT WE
DECIDED TO SKIP ON?
>> AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO
SUSPEND THE RULES TO TAKE THE
AMENDMENT AND THE FINAL VOTE, I
THAT CORRECT?
>> AND YOU CAN VOTE ON THE
AMENDMENTS.
>> WONDERFUL. AND WHY HAVE YOU
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO
SUSPENDING THE RULES. DOES THAT
MEAN WE'LL TAKE A VOTE OR DOES
THAT JUST STAND?
>> AND IF THERE IS AN OBJECTION
THEN THE NEXT STEP WILL BE IN
THAT ACTUAL VOTE, THE ROLL CALL
VOTE.
>> AND ALWAYS GUIDING US THROUG
THE LIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THE
CLARIFICATION. WE HAVE TWO
AMENDMENTS POSTED TO THE AGENDA
I WILL BE CANDID. THE AMENDMENT
I HAVE WILL CONTAIN TWO
DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTERS. AND
SO KETIL FREEMAN, WHY DON'T YOU
WALK THROUGH THAT FIRST. I'LL
SHARE WITH YOU, COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. IF ONE OF THESE
PROVISIONS IS SOMETHING THAT TH
MAJORITY OF THIS MEMBER WILL
SUPPORT AND ONE OF THE
PROVISIONS IS SOMETHING THAT TH
MAJORITY OF THE COMMITTEE WILL
NOT SUPPORT. AND I PUT THEM
TOGETHER AND MORE EFFICIENCY
PURPOSES. I'LL PASS IT OVER TO
KETIL FREEMAN TO SPEAK TO
AMENDMENT 1. AND FOR THOSE FOLK
WHO MIGHT BE WATCHING. AMENDMEN
1 WOULD AMEND AND REORGANIZE
SOME OF THE SECTION NUMBERS IN
THE BILL. THAT WOULD EFFECTIVEL
CHANGE WHAT IS AMENDED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN'S
AMENDMENT, HIS AMENDMENT WHICH
IS CURRENTLY TO REVISE THE NEW
SECTION E3. AND SO I'M JUST
PUTTING THAT ON EVERYBODY'S
RADAR FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
CLARITY. AND SO AMENDMENT 1A,
SPONSORED BY STRAUSS. AND IT IS
LARGELY THE RECONCILIATION THAT
I MENTIONED EARLIER BETWEEN
COUNCIL BILL 120581 AND 120591,
WHICH WE PREVIOUSLY VOTED ON.
AND I'LL MAKE THE OTHER
CLARIFICATIONS. AND TECHNICAL
EDITS THAT WE THINK WOULD RESUL
IN SOME THINGS WITH THE SUBJECT
DIFFERENCE. IT WOULD EXTEND THE
TERMS OF THE BILLS FROM 12
MONTHS TO 24 MONTHS. MAYBE I'LL
WORK THROUGH THE TECHNICAL
THINGS FIRST, REMINDED YOU OF
THE EXTENSIONS. ON THE TEMPORAR
BASIS, COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS'
AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW THE FULL
SUITE OF DEPARTURES TO BE
AVAILABLE TO BOTH RENTED AND
OWNED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS THE
TYPE ONE DECISION. SO CURRENTLY
THEY ARE LIMITED TO A SPECIFIED
NUMBER TO RESULT IN THE
INCREASED NUMBER. THIS WOULD
ALLOW THE FULL SUITE OF
DEPARTURES TO BE AVAILABLE TO
LOW INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS THA
ARE BOTH RENTED AND OWNED. I
WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANTS TO
ELECT THE PERFORMANCE OPTION TO
GET THE FULL SUITE THROUGH THE
DESIGN REVIEW WITH A SMALL
SUBSET OF PROJECTS, NOT SUBJECT
TO THE REVIEWS AND THE SMALL
APARTMENT BUILDINGS. THE ABILIT
THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE THROUGH
THE DESIGN REVIEW WOULD ONLY BE
AVAILABLE TO THOSE PROJECTS THA
ARE ALSO OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO
DESIGN REVIEW. THE SMALLER
PROJECTS THAT ARE PERFORMING
WOULD NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF
THE FULL SPEED OF WAIVERS THERE
IT WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CLARIFY
THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT
WOULD HAVE TO BE THE FULL
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS. THE
BILLS PROPOSED BY THE EXECUTIVE
HAD SOME LANGUAGE THAT WOULD
IMPLY THAT JUST ONE UNIT WOULD
BE SUFFICIENT TO GET THE DESIGN
REVIEW EXTENSION, AND THE INTEN
OF THE EXECUTIVE TO MAKE IT SUC
THAT IT WILL BE A FULL
PERFORMANCE, THE CLARIFICATION
TO REFLECT THAT. AND THE SECOND
SUBJECT, THE CLARIFICATION AND
THE EXTENSION OF THE REGULATION
FROM 12 MONTHS TO24 MONTHS.
>> THANK YOU. SO COLLEAGUES, TH
TECHNICAL CHANGES TO BE
TECHNICAL AND THE EXECUTIVES
INTENT TO HAVE THE FULL
PERFORMANCE. WHY I'M CHANGING
THIS FROM 12 TO 24 MONTHS.
BECAUSE IT TAKES TIME FOR THE
PROGRAM TO CHANGE. BY THE TIME
WE GET THIS. THIS IS A PILOT AN
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US T
BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW THESE
CHANGES IMPACT THE DESIGN REVIE
AND THE IMPACT DESIGN ON THE
BUILDINGS AND THE IMPACTS ON
BEING ON THE PROJECTS. THIS IS
TESTING PERIOD. AND WITH THE
12-MONTH WINDOW BY THE TIME WE
ARE JUST GETTING ROLLING, WE
END. HAVING TWO YEARS WILL
PROVIDE US MORE TIME. FOR ME,
WHAT I FOUND IN MY POLICY WORK
IS IT TAKES FOUR YEARS FROM
POLICY PASSAGE TO FULL
IMPLEMENTATION. SO THIS WILL BE
HALF OF THAT WHEN YOU THINK
ABOUT OBAMA CARE. THE MOMENT
WHERE EVERYONE WAS FULLY ENSURE
AS MUCH AS THE BILL WOULD
PRESENT IT TO BE. IT TOOK FOUR
YEARS. I'M NOT PROPOSING THE
FULL YEARS. GIVING US THE MORE
TIMES ON THE DRAWBACKS RATHER
THAN ONE YEAR. COLLEAGUES,
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS O
KEEPING THE AMENDMENT AND ARE
THERE CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING BOT
THE SUBSTANTIVE TECHNICAL
CHANGES AND THE DURATION ON THE
SAME AMENDMENT?
>> AND COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> AND WERE YOU TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT THAT HOPEFULLY THE IDEA
OF THE CHANGES TO THE DESIGN
REVIEW WOULD LESSEN THE TIME?
>> YES.
>> THE OVERALL CHANGES, THEY
NEED TO INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY
ENTER OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> AND COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS. I
APPRECIATE YOU WALKING US
THROUGH THAT AND KETIL FREEMAN
FOR THAT EXPLANATION. AND I
SURGEONLY AM RELIEVED THAT
YOU'RE FIXING THAT INTENT. A
PART OF MY AMENDMENT THAT'S
COMING UP, EAGER TO GET REPORTS
I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE THAN
REMOVING THAT OR PROVIDING THAT
OPTION TO THE PROJECT FOR TWO
YEARS. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU
WOULD WANT TO ATTEMPT TO
BIFURCATE THAT OR IS THAT WHAT
YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT DOING?
>> YEAH, MAYBE I'LL ASK THE
QUESTION A LITTLE BIT MORE
DIRECTLY. ARE THERE OTHERS THAN
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN WHO HAV
CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING BOTH
SECTIONS WITHIN THIS ONE
AMENDMENT? COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'LL SAY I
AM FEELING RATHER CONFLICTED.
SOMEBODY WHO IS INTERESTED IN
AKING SURE THAT THE EXEMPTION
IS THERE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND ALSO HAVING SOME QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE MARKET RATE. I SUGGES
WE JUST VOTE IN. I THINK I CAN
SUPPORT THIS. I SHOULD MAYBE SA
I THINK I'M GOING TO HAVE TO
ABSTAIN ON THE ENTIRE BILL
BECAUSE I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS
THAT I WOULD LIKE ANSWERED
PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE PLANS
WITH THE WORK DISCUSSION AND
BEFORE IT WILL GET TO FULL
COUNCIL AND SO THAT WILL BE MY
PLAN FOR TODAY.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES. AND SO I'M HEARING
MAJORITY SUPPORT FOR KEEPING
THIS TOGETHER. COUNCIL MEMBER
NELSON?
>> IS IT OKAY IF YOU BREAK THEM
UP? AND I'M THINKING I WOULD
PREFER JUST BREAKING IT UP, JUS
SO IT IS EASIER FOR ME TO FIGUR
THINGS OUT? AND NEVERMIND, I
WITHDRAW THAT.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS ON AMENDMENT 1A?
SEEING NONE. I MOVE TO ADOPT
AMENDMENT 1A AS THEIR SECOND.
MAYBE I DID IT EAT WAY AND ANY
QUESTIONS ON AMENDMENT 1A?
SEEING NONE. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLE?
>> AND COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ABSTAIN
FROM THIS ONE, THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> THREE ALABAMA STATIONS, ONE
ABSTENTIONS, ONE YES.
>> DOES THAT PASS?
>> YES.
>> MOTION PASSES. AMENDMENT 1A
IS ADOPTED. COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN, AMENDMENT 2 OR
AMENDMENT 3. COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS. AN
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE AMENDMENT
TO COUNCIL MEMBER BILL 120581.
>> SECOND.
>> AND IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO ADOPT COUNCIL MEMBE
PEDERSEN'S AMENDMENT. COUNCIL
MEMBER PEDERSEN, YOU'RE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS THE
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU. CHAIR STRAUSS,
COULD I HAVE CENTRAL STAFF WALK
THROUGH IT, AND THEN I COULD
MAKE THE REMARKS?
>> YEAH, KETIL FREEMAN, TAKE IT
AWAY.
>> AND SO AMENDMENT 2 VERSION 1
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN. THIS WOULD EXEMPTION
THE HOUSING PROJECTS AND
MAINTAIN THE FULL DESIGN REVIEW
FOR THOSE PROJECTS THAT COULD
OTHERWISE CHOOSE HAD THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
UNDER COUNCIL MEMBER 120581 BY
WAY OF REMINDER. WOULD ALLOW TH
PROJECT SUBJECT TO ADD MONEY
STRAYTIVE DESIGN REVIEW THAT AR
NOT EXEMPT AS THE PERFORMANCE
PROJECT OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECTS TO OPT FOR DESIGN
REVIEW WHILE THE BILL IS IN
EFFECT. SO EITHER 12 OR 24
MONTHS. AND WITH THAT BILL AS
CURRENTLY AMENDED. ON THE
PROJECTS THAT DO OFFER THE
REVERT TO THE FULL DESIGN REVIE
IF THEY WANTED TO AND PROJECTS
THAT ARE CURRENTLY VESTED COULD
ALSO OPT TO UNDER THE DESIGN
REVIEW AND IF YOU APPLY FOR THA
AND A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME AN
AFTER THE EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE
DEPENDING ON HOW MANY THAT YOU
HAVE. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER
ABASES COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS'
AMENDMENT PASSED, THERE IS A
LITTLE BIT OF REORDERING ON THE
BILL. SO THE AMENDMENTS, THEY
WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE STRIKING
WHAT IS SECTION E3 ELECTING
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
FROM THE STRAUSS AMENDMENT JUST
PASSED.
>> THANK YOU, KETIL. COUNCIL
MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> THANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS AND
THANK YOU KETIL. AND COLLEAGUES
I SUPPORT A PORTION OF THE
COUNCIL MEMBER BILL 120581 THAT
PROVIDES IMMEDIATE PUBLIC
BENEFITS, WHICH IN MY OPINION
ARE PROVIDING THE INTERIM RELIE
FROM FULL DESIGN REVIEW FOR LOW
INCOME HOUSING UNITS. I RECALL
PRESS RELEASE FOR JUNE 14 THAT
CELEBRATES THE BENEFITS OF LOW
INCOME HOUSING PARTS ON THE
COUNCIL BILL AND BY ADOPTING MY
AMENDMENT. WE CAN KEEP THIS BIL
TARGETED TO BENEFIT THE LOW
INCOME HOUSING UNITS WHILE THE
EXECUTIVE COMPLETES THE
COUNCILMAN DATED REVIEW OF
SEATTLE'S DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM
INCLUDING THE COMMUNITY OUTREAC
ESPECIALLY TO DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES. AND SO WHILE WE
AWAIT THE RESULTS OF THE
STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT
AND A001, WHICH REQUESTS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING
THE LONG STANDING DESIGN REVIEW
PROCESS, WE CAN STILL ALLOW
TODAY THE EXEMPTION FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH MY
AMENDMENT. BUT I DON'T THINK WE
SHOULD STOP THAT FULL DESIGN
REVIEW FOR THE TWO YEARS FOR TH
FOR PROFIT MARKET UNTIL THE
EVALUATION MARKET IS COMPLETE,
THE CENTRAL STAFF MEMO FROM JUN
26 DAYLIGHTED SOME OF THE KEY
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF ONE OF
THE CONSULTANTS REPORTS, ONE OF
THOSE FINDINGS IS, AND I QUOTE,
DESIGN REVIEW IS CURRENTLY THE
ONLY SPACE FOR COMMUNITY INPUT.
WE CAUTION AGAINST DOING AWAY
WITH DESIGN REVIEW OR REPLACING
IT WITH TECHNICAL DESIGN REVIEW
WITHOUT ADEQUATELY, THOROUGHLY
ADDRESSING AND WHERE THE
COMMUNITY MEMBERS OF THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEIR VOICE
HEARD AND THE PLANNING
PERMITTING BUILDING, AND THE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. AND
I WANT TO THANK THE PEOPLE WHO
SENT E-MAILS URGING US TO DO
WHAT WE CAN AND TO WORK BETTER
AND FASTER AND TO STREAMLINE
THIS BILL TO REDUCE THE DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS FOR LOW INCOME
HOUSING. AND SO AS KETIL
DESCRIBED THE AMENDMENT, THEY
SIMPLY DELETE THE SECTION E3 AN
BY DELETING THAT SECTION OF THE
AMENDMENT, WE WILL ALLOW ALL
THREE HOUSING AMENDMENTS TO MOV
FORWARD. AND TO BENEFITING ONLY
FOR PROFIT DEVELOPMENTS, AND
PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE THEY
GRANDFATHERED IN CERTAIN
PROJECTS THAT HAVE VESTED PRIOR
TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
PROPOSED ORDINANCE. AND I WANT
TO THANK THEM FOR AGREEING A
LIST OF THOSE PROJECTS.
UNFORTUNATELY THE HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM HAVE
CONSTRUCTED IN A SMALL LOW
INCOME HOUSING. AND UNDER THE
ON-SITE PERFORMANCE OPTION. AND
THE OTHER SECTION OF THE BILL
BEFORE US TODAY PROVIDE A
WELCOME INCENTIVE TO INCREASE
THE NUMBER OF UNITS BUILT
QUICKLY ON SITE, SO WE HAVE MOR
INCLUSIVE HOUSING PROJECTS WITH
LOW INCOME HOUSING RIGHT AWAY.
DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A
COMPELLING LIMIT ON THE EXISTIN
PUBLIC INPUT ON THE OTHER FOR
PROFIT PROJECT BY GRANTING THE
SIMILAR FULL DESIGN REVIEW WHEN
THEY WILL NOT PRODUCE THE LOW
INCOME HOUSING UNITS ON SITE,
AND WE ARE STILL AWAITING THAT
DESIGN REVIEW. SO LET'S KEEP
THIS LEGISLATION FOCUSED ON THE
LOW INCOME HOUSING UNITS, AND
PLEASE ADOPT MY AMENDMENT 2.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN. I APPRECIATE THAT. AN
I APPRECIATE THE INTENT IN WHIC
YOU BRING THE AMENDMENT FORWARD
TODAY BECAUSE THIS IS A LIMITED
IN SCOPE AND LIMITED IN TIME
PILOT TO TEST SOME OF THESE
IDEAS AND THAT I DO THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE WILL RETAIN
THE BILL AS IT WAS TRANSMITTED.
UNFORTUNATELY I WON'T BE ABLE T
SUPPORT YOUR AMENDMENT TODAY.
AND I APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT IN
WHICH YOU BRING IT. COUNCIL
MEMBER NELSON?
>> AND SO HERE IS WHERE I'M
STRUGGLING WITH THIS WHOLE
THING. TODAY, I JUST BECAME
AWARE THAT PEOPLE REPRESENTING
SMALL BUSINESSES ARE CONCERNED.
AND THAT I HEARD BASICALLY IN A
NUTSHELL. AND I ALSO BELIEVE
THEY WERE REPRESENTING THE
CAPITOL HILL COMMUNITY SAID
ROUGHLY THE SAME THING, SO NOW
CAME IN HERE WITHOUT THAT
CONCERN AND NOW I'M CONCERNED.
SO MY QUESTION IS WHEN YOU -- B
REQUIRING FULL PERFORMANCE, DOE
THAT MEAN IT IS MORE LIKE THAT
PROJECTS WILL END UP PUTTING
HOUSING ON THE STREET LEVEL
INSTEAD OF MAINTAINING
COMMERCIAL SPACE?
>> MIKE OR KETIL? COUNCIL MEMBE
PEDERSEN'S AMENDMENT ENCOURAGE
OR DISCOURAGE STREET LEVEL
COMMERCIAL?
>> I'M NOT SURE IF THAT IS
COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON'S
QUESTION. MAYBE I MISUNDERSTAND
YOUR QUESTIONS. I THOUGHT I WAS
ASKING THINGS. AND THIS
ESSENTIALLY MAINTAINS THE STATU
QUO FOR THE FULL DESIGN REVIEW.
FOR THOSE PROJECTS, THEY WOULD
HAVE PUBLIC MEETINGS. AND THEY
WANTED TO LOCATE THE RESIDENTIA
USES AT THE STREET SCHNELL THE
AVAILABLE DEPARTURE THERE. THE
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WOULD BE
REVIEWING AND ADOPTED THE CITY
WIDE GUIDELINES TO MAKE THE
DECISION BASED ON THAT AND
INCORPORATING THE FEEDBACK. AND
THEY MIGHT INCLUDE THE CONCERNS
ABOUT THE LOSS OF SMALL BUSINES
SPACE. AND THE PROCESS IS
MAINTAINED THROUGH COUNCIL
MEMBER PEDERSEN'S AMENDMENT. AN
FOR THE PROJECT, IF THEY ARE
SEEKING THE WAIVER. IF THEY ARE
SEEKING TO PERFORM UNDER THE
MHA, THEY WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT T
THE DESIGN REVIEW AT ALL, THEY
WOULD BE EXEMPT. AND THEY COULD
GET ANY HAD NUMBER OF WAIVERS
OTHERWISE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE
DESIGN REVIEW INCLUDING
POTENTIALLY THOSE THAT WILL NEE
TO DO THE STREET LEVEL USES. AN
THE DESIGNATED ZONES. TO GET
THAT DEPARTURE, THE DECISION BY
THE DIRECTOR WOULDN'T BE BASED
ON THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AT ALL
BUT BASED SOLELY ON THE CRITERI
AND WHETHER OR NOT THE
ADDITIONAL UNITS, AND AFFORDABL
UNITS AND THAT RESIDENTIAL UNIT
ARE PROVIDED AND WAS GRANTED.
AND THE EXEMPTIONS THAT IT WOUL
BE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS
LEGISLATION. AND THE STREET
LEVEL USE THAT MIGHT BE PROVIDE
BY THE PROJECT IN THE ZONE WHER
THE STREET LEVELS ARE REQUIRED.
>> IF I MIGHT JUST ADD TO THAT,
PLEASE. AND IT IS NOT ALLOWED
UNDER THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE
BOARDS FOR THE STAFF IF IT HAS
DONE IT ADMINISTRATIVELY OR
UNDER THE BILL BEFORE YOU FOR
THE PROJECTS THAT ARE SUBJECT T
THE MHA PERFORMANCE AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO DO AWAY
WITH THE USE REQUIREMENTS AND
THE USES OFF THE TABLE FOR THE
DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATION AND
FOR THE DEPARTURES THAT THE
DIRECTOR WILL BE ABLE TO
CONSIDER. AND WILL THEY BE ABLE
TO WAIVE THE STREET LEVEL USE
REQUIREMENTS? THOSE WOULD NEED
TO BE MET? WOULD THEY BE
CONSIDERED AND GRANTED AND
CHANGES TO SOME OF THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUCH AS
HOW MUCH WITH THE BUILDING FACE
THE STREET MIGHT HAVE TO BE
FILLED WITH IT, THAT STREET
LEVEL RETAIL REQUIREMENT? BUT I
WOULD STILL NEED TO HAVE SOME
PRESENCE THERE. SO THERE COULD
BE SOME CHANGES TO IT, BUT IT
WOULDN'T BE ELIMINATED THROUGH
THE BILL.
>> ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT THE
BILL DID NOT REALLY IMPACT OR
REDUCE EITHER THIS AMENDMENT OR
THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION IN
GENERAL? AND IT DOES NOT ON THE
PART DOOR BECAUSE THE DESIGN
REVIEW, HOWEVER, IT'S PERFORMED
I MEAN THE WRONG USE OF WORD.
HOWEVER IT IS COMPLETED DOES NO
ALLOW FOR THAT DECISION?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU COUNCIL
MEMBER NELSON. OTHER QUESTIONS
ON COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN'S
AMENDMENT? COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES?
>> THANK YOU. AND I'M GOING TO
BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT. I
THINK AS COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSE
HAS BEEN SAYING, IT MAKES A LOT
OF SENSE, AND WE HAVE ALREADY A
A CITY DECIDED EXEMPTING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS SOMETHING
WE WANT TO DO TO MAKE SURE THOS
BUILDINGS GET PERMITTED AND
PROCESSED QUICKLY, MORE QUICKLY
TO MEET THE CRISIS THAT WE HAVE
BUT TO DO IT, ESPECIALLY FOR TH
IN LIEU FEE MARKET RATE
APARTMENTS FEELS LIKE WE ARE
SORT OF PUTTING THE CART BEFORE
THE HORSE IF WE ARE IN THE
PROCESS OF REALLY REVIEWING THE
ENTIRE PROGRAM, REALLY
UNDERSTANDING WHAT MAKES SENSE
AND WHAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, AN
WHEN THERE IS A BETTER WAY AND
MORE EQUITABLE WAY FOR US TO
PROVIDE THIS SORT OF OPPORTUNIT
TO COMMUNITY AND TO MAKE SURE W
ARE MOVING THINGS FORWARD. AND
ESPECIALLY THIS ISSUE OF
PROJECTS THAT AREN'T EVEN
PERFORMING AND PROVIDING THAT
EXEMPTION FOR THAT IS IN MY MIN
NOT THE RIGHT STEP TO BE TAKING
SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS
AMENDMENT AND STILL LOOK FORWAR
TO THE WORK PLAN DISCUSSION
THAT'S COMING UP.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
MORALES. ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS ON COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN'S AMENDMENT? BEFORE I
TURN BACK TO PEDERSEN FOR
CLOSING COMMENTS, COUNCIL MEMBE
MORALES, YOUR POINTS ARE WELL
TAKEN. I'LL SHARE THE FASTER
THAT WE BUILD MARKET RATE
HOUSING, THE FASTER WE REDUCE
THE DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON ALL OF
OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
THROUGHOUT THE CITY AS WELL AS
THE IN LIEU FEES ARE EXACTLY
WHAT WE USE WHEN BUILDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGHOUT
THE CITY. I FOUND THIS AS A
PERSONAL BE EXPERIENCE IN THE
PROJECTS MENTIONED EARLIER IN
THOSE APARTMENTS, THAT IT WAS
FUNDED BY THE FEES THAT WERE
PAID FOR BY THE TOWN HOMES UP
THE STREETS. CLOSING COMMENTS?
>> THANK YOU. I WANT TO URGE
THAT WE ARE SO CLOSE TO GETTING
THESE REPORTS ON HOW TO FIX THE
DESIGN REVIEWS TO MAKE IT MORE
INN -- MAKE IT MORE INCLUSIVE
FOR THE OTHER TYPES OF PROJECTS
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
PEDERSEN. COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON
NEW HANDS?
>> AND JUST TO NOTE THAT THE
EXPLANATION ABOUT PRESERVING TH
COMMERCIAL SPACE FOR THE SMALL
BUSINESS AT FLOOR LEVEL DOES,
YOUR AMENDMENT PASSED ALREADY.
WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M LESS
CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR AMENDMENT
AND SO I WOULD HAVE VOTED YES,
KNOWING THAT, BUT IT HAS PASSED
ALREADY, SO FINE. SO I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS ONE AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU. NO FURTHER
COMMENTS. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION O
THE AMENDMENT 2?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR MORALES?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> THREE IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. THE MOTION PASSES
AMENDMENT 2 IS ADOPTED TO
COUNCIL BILL 120581. SEEING THI
COMMITTEE IS GOING LONG, WE
STILL HAVE ANOTHER PRESENTATION
I'M GOING TO HOLD THE FOURTH
PRESENTATION UNTIL NEXT WEEK.
ARE THERE ANY FINAL COMMENTS
BEFORE WE CALL THE ROLL CALL ON
COUNCIL BILL -- OH, WE HAVE TO
GO BACK TO SUSPENDING THE RULES
[ CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ]
>>> NOW, THE BILL PASSES AS
AMENDED.
>> THE BILL PASSES AS AMENDED.
>> THE BILL PASSES. AMENDED
PASSES. THIS BILL WILL BE SENT
TO THE JULY 5th, 2023 CITY
COUNCIL MEETING FOR A FINAL
VOTE. MOVE ONTO AGENDA ITEM
NUMBER 3. THIS IS A BRIEFING
DISCUSSION WHICH AMENDS LAND US
CODE FOR ROOFTOPS IN PIONEER
SQUARE. CLERK, WILL YOU READ TH
SHORT TITLE INTO THE RECORD AND
THEN I WILL PASS IT DIRECTLY TO
LISH AND GORDON TO DESCRIBE THI
BILL FOR US. WE WILL FOLD THE
CONVERSATION ON THE
TRANSPORTATION MARITIME
RESOLUTION FOR NEXT WEEK. CLERK
WILL YOU PLEASE RAZE THE SHORT
TITLE?
>> ITEM 3, COUNCIL BILL 120592.
PIONEER SQUARE ROOFTOPS FOR
BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION.
>> THANK YOU. IN THE INTEREST O
TIME, I WILL HAND IT TO GORDON.
IT IS SCHEDULED TO BE CONSIDERE
AT NEXT WEEK'S MEETING.
>> THANK YOU. CAN YOU SEE THE
PRESENTATION ON THE SCREEN?
>> YES.
>> OKAY, SO WE ARE HERE TODAY T
TALK ABOUT PIONEER SQUARE
ROOFTOP CODE AMENDMENTS AND
THESE ARE GOING NOW. THERE WE
GO. OKAY, HERE IS OUR PURPOSE
AND SLIDE. NOTING THE PURPOSE T
BUILD AN INCLUSIVE SEATTLE. OUR
PROPOSAL GOAL FOR TODAY IS THES
ARE THE OVERALL OBJECTIVES TO
ADD FLEXIBILITY TO THE LAND USE
CODE WHILE REMAINING COMPATIBLE
WE WANT TO TAKE ACTION THAT WIL
SUPPORT NEIGHBORHOOD
REVITALIZATION AND AMENITIES,
PARTICULARLY IN PIONEER SQUARE.
AND WE ARE LOOKING TO CLARIFY,
CORRECT, GUIDANCE ON ROOFTOP
FEATURES, CODES FOR DOWNTOWN AS
WELL AS PIONEER SQUARE IN
PARTICULAR. AND, THIS WILL BE
CLEAR AS I GO THROUGH THE
PRESENTATION. SO LAST YEAR, WE
PASSED ROOFTOP CODE REFORMS
ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY THAT
ALLOWED MORE COVERAGE OF ROOFS
FOR THE MIX OF USES AND
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SO ON
THAT NEED TO BE PRESENT GOING
FORWARD WITH THE ENERGY CODE.
FOR PIONEER SQUARE IN
PARTICULAR, WE DEFINED SOME NEW
KINDS OF ROOFTOP PENTHOUSE USES
AS ALLOWABLE. AND THOSE INCLUDE
LODGING, HOTEL USES, AND EATING
AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS. AN
ALSO, WE ALLOWED FOR THESE KIND
OF ROOFTOP PENTHOUSES TO BE
PLACED ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS
THAT ARE LESS THAN 60 FEET IN
HEIGHT. AND ON SMALLER LOTS.
THIS WAS BROADENING THE
POSSIBILITY FOR PENTHOUSE USES
ON ROOFTOPS. AND WE ALSO ALLOWE
THE RETRO FIT OF NEWER BUILDING
THAT HAD BEEN BUILT SINCE 2008
WITH ROOFTOP RECREATIONAL
AMENITY SPACES. SO, THE
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TODAY ARE
RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND
TWO KINDS OF IMPROVEMENTS AS
CLEANUP TO MAKE THE CODE MORE
CONSISTENT. WE WOULD LIKE TO
STANDARD ICE HEIGHT LIMIT AND
POSSIBILITIES ACROSS THE KINDS
OF BUILDINGS AND USES IN PIONEE
SQUARE. IN PARTICULAR, WE WOULD
RAISE THE HEIGHT LIMIT FROM A
CURRENT 12-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT
FOR ROOFTOP PENTHOUSES FROM 12
FEET UP TO 15 FEET MAXIMUM. AND
THIS WOULD BE FOR HISTORIC
BUILDINGS. ANY RECOMMENDED
PROPOSAL FOR THESE KINDS OF USE
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
RECOMMENDATION BY THE DISTRICT
BOARD. AND JUST TO NOTE THAT
15-FOOT HEIGHT LIMITS ARE
TYPICAL FOR ALL THE ZONES IN
DOWNTOWN AND REALLY MOSTLY
ACROSS THE CITY IN THE ROOFTOP
FEATURES. THE SECOND TIME OF
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED HERE IS TO
ALLOW FOR A MIX OF EATING AND
DRINKING DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT
AND COMMERCIAL USE TO BE PRESEN
ON THE BUILDINGS BUILT SINCE
2008. THAT WOULD PROVIDE MORE
CONSISTENCY FOR THIS KIND OF US
TO BE PRESENT ON BUILDINGS OF
ALL AGES AND TO SUPPORT THAT, W
WOULD INCREASE THE COVERAGE
LIMIT FROM 45% TO 50%. SO TO
EXPAND A LITTLE BIT ON THE
ROOFTOP USES AND NON-HISTORIC
SITES AND BUILDINGS, IT WOULD,
THE AMENDMENT ACTION, THE EFFEC
OF THE AMENDMENT FOR THIS USE I
TO ALLOW THE ROOFTOP COMMERCIAL
USE TO BE PRESENT. CURRENTLY,
THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THI
KIND OF COMMERCIAL USE TO BE
PRESENT ON THESE NEWER
BUILDINGS. AND THAT WAS JUST
SORT OF AN ARTIFACT OF THE CODE
FOR THESE RECREATIONAL SPACES A
IT CAME ALLOWED THE LAST TEN
YEARS. WE WANT TO DECIDE TO
ALLOW THE COMMERCIAL USE ON THE
ROOFTOP USES IN THE NEWER
BUILDINGS. LIKE I SAID, WITH A
MINOR INCREASE IN ROOF COVERAGE
FROM 45% TO 50%, THESE KINDS OF
BUILDINGS ALSO HAVE GREEN
REQUIREMENTS AND AMENITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR TENANTS OF THE
BUILDING. AND THOSE WOULD STILL
HAVE TO BE MET. THE NEW KIND OF
EATING AND DRINKING
ESTABLISHMENT USE WOULD NOT
IMPAIR THE PROVISION OF GREEN A
AMENITY IMPROVEMENTS. SO THESE
ARE THE MAIN KINDS OF CATEGORIE
OF CHANGE IN THIS BILL. AND THI
IS THE AREA THAT WOULD BE
AFFECTED. THE BUILDINGS BUILT
SINCE 2008 ARE SHOWN IN YELLOW
ON THIS MAP. AND THERE ARE FIVE
OF THOSE NON-HISTORIC BUILDINGS
WHICH ARE MAINLY GARAGE
BUILDINGS THAT ARE NOT HISTORIC
ARE SHOWN IN RED. THESE ARE
FUTURE CANDIDATE SITES FOR NEW
DEVELOPMENT. AND THEY WOULD BE
ELIGIBLE TO HAVE THESE KINDS OF
ROOFTOP FEATURES AS WELL. AND
THERE ARE LONG TIME VACANT
PROPERTIES THAT CAN ALSO BE THE
SITE OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT
WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS.
EATING AND DRINKING
ESTABLISHMENT USE ON NEWER
BUILDINGS.
>> THANKS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING
TO ADD? THAT WAS PRETTY
COMPREHENSIVE PRESENTATION.
>> YEAH, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS EITHER TODAY OR BEFOR
NEXT WEEK'S MEETING.
>> WONDERFUL. GORDON, IT WAS A
ROBUST PRESENTATION. THAT WAS
YOUR LONG VERSION. AND I KNOW
THAT TO BE TRUE. COLLEAGUES,
THIS IS EFFECTIVELY CLEANUP
LEGISLATION FROM A BILL WE
PASSED IN 2022 WHICH MADE
ASSUMPTIONS THAT THESE CHANGES
WOULD BE ALLOWED WHEN THE
PARCELS BEFORE US. PEOPLE
WORKING WITHIN GOVERNMENT AND
OTHER PLACES HAVE HAD
CONFUSEMENT ABOUT THE
LEGISLATION WE HAVE PASSED. THA
IS WHY I APPROACH THIS AS
TECHNICAL DIFFICULT. THERE HAS
BEEN CONFUSION, NOW WE ARE
STATING IT OUTRIGHT. AND IT
AFFECTS 11 PARCELS TOTAL.
COLLEAGUES, ARE THERE QUESTIONS
SEEING NO QUESTIONS, GORDON,WE
WILL HAVE YOU BACK WITH US NEXT
THURSDAY ON JULY 6th. ON MY LAT
GRANDMOTHER'S BIRTHDAY. WE WILL
BE EXCITED TO SEE YOU THEN.
ANYTHING TO ADD BEFORE WE CLOSE
THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NONE,
WE WILL MOVE ON. AND AMELIA
SANCHEZ. LY CALL ON YOU SINCE W
ARE TEN MINUTES OVER TIME AND W
ARE GOING TO TAKE UP THE
MARITIME RESOLUTION AT THE NEXT
MEETING DO I NEED TO OPEN IT OR
CAN I JUST CLOSE THE MEETING
SINCE IT IS ATTACHED AND
ITEMIZED ON OUR AGENDA?
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, IF YO
ARE DONE WITH THE DISCUSSION FO
THIS DRAFT RESOLUTION, YOU CAN
ADJOURN THE MEETING.
>> WONDERFUL. AND SO, I AM GOIN
TO JUST COMMENT ON THE DRAFT
RESOLUTION. THIS HAD BEEN
INTENDED TO JOIN THE PACKAGE AT
FULL COUNCIL ON JULY 18th. THER
IS QUITE A BIT MORE WORK TO BE
DONE. WE WANTED TO PRESENT YOU
WITH THE BASE DRAFT TODAY. WE
WILL BE IN THE COMING WEEKS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ATTACHED
TO THIS RESOLUTION. THIS IS
MEANT TO ACCOMPANY THE ZONING
CHANGES. AT THIS RATE, WE WOULD
LIKELY BE PASSING IT IN
SEPTEMBER. WE WILL HEAR IT. YOU
HAVE ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA
TODAY THE BASE VERSION. WE WILL
ATTACH ANOTHER VERSION NEXT
WEEK. WE WILL HAVE CONVERSATION
WITH STAKE HOLDERS IN THE MONTH
OF JULY AND AUGUST AND TAKE
FINAL PASSAGE IN SEPTEMBER. WIT
THAT, IF THERE'S ANYTHING FOR
THE GOOD OF THE ORDER? SEEING
NONE, THIS CONCLUDES THE
WEDNESDAY JUNE 28th, 2023 LAND
USE COMMITTEE MEETING. THE NEXT
MEETING IS A SPECIAL MEETING
JULY 6 AT 9:30 A.M. THANK YOU
FOR ATTENDING, WE ARE ADJOURNED