Seattle City Council Land Use & Neighborhoods Committee

Good morning.

The February 26, 2020 meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee will come to order.

It is now 9.38 a.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, the chair of the committee.

I'm joined by Councilmembers Lewis and Peterson.

It looks like Councilmember Mosqueda will be here shortly.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional land of the first people of Seattle, the Duwamish, Suquamish, Muckleshoot, and Tulalip people, past and present, and honor with gratitude the land itself and the Duwamish, Suquamish, Muckleshoot, and Tulalip tribes and the people of the tribes.

We have five items on the agenda today, a discussion and vote on the reappointment of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Director Nathan Torgelson, votes on two appointments to the Landmarks Preservation Board, and a briefing and votes on two landmarks designating ordinances for UW's Eagleson Hall and Sunset Telephone and Telegraph Building.

The next regularly scheduled land use and neighborhoods meeting is on Wednesday, March 11th, starting at 9.30 a.m.

here in Council Chambers.

Before we begin, If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

At this time, we will take public comment only on the items that appear on today's agenda.

We have 20 minutes for today's public comment, and I look forward to hearing from everyone in the committee chambers today.

First up, we have Steve Zemke, and we will be sticking to two minutes.

For, I see a few people that I've spoken to about this.

I'm being very diligent about how I run public comment and it is not reflective of any items on the agenda or anyone in chambers.

It is just how I will be running public comment from here and throughout my tenure.

So we have Steve Zemke, Tim Parham, Megan Cruz, good to see you, George Danner, Robert Seidman, Alicia Ruiz, Gordon Lagerquist, sorry, Gordon, Colin Morgan-Cross, and Steve Rubistello.

So first up, Steve.

Good morning, Steve.

Good morning.

So my name's Steve Zemke.

I'm speaking today as chair of TREPAC and Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest.

I'm speaking regarding the appointment of Nathan Torrelson.

I think Nathan has shown that he's a dedicated, hardworking guy.

I'm going to be urging that you need to help him in terms of updating the tree ordinance to give him authority to do things that need to be done because there are big lapses in that ordinance.

I would like to note that also a discussion with him in terms of dealing with the current ordinance that it says under SMC 2511-100 enforcement and penalties, the director shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this chapter to issue permits.

impose conditions and establish administrative procedures, guidelines, and conduct inspections and prepare the forms necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter.

Under that, I would say that, among other things, he has the ability right now to require that arborists working in the city are licensed as done by SDOT.

There's no need to come back to the council in terms of an ordinance for that.

In terms of the ordinance itself, I would note that under the SMC 2511, during development, it only addresses exceptional trees being protected.

This is a very big loophole.

It's why you have people out there saying, don't clearcut Seattle, because there is no protection for other trees during development.

Basically, developers can remove any non-exceptional tree in the lot, and they do that.

And then the tree requirements coming under landscaping have this minimal requirement saying that SF single family 5,000, 7,200, 9,600 square feet, that all it needs is a minimum number of cal per inches of tree for on lots 3,000 square feet or larger, at least two cal per inches per 1,000 square feet.

So that means that you can remove a huge number of trees, put back a couple of- Thank you, Steve.

I'm going to pass it over to Tim.

So I'm Tim Parr.

I'm with Plymouth Housing.

Plymouth Housing is a nonprofit that provides housing for those experiencing homelessness in our community.

We have 14 buildings in and around downtown.

And I'm here to testify in support of Nathan Torgelson's reappointment.

We're trying to tackle this homelessness problem in our city and our region by growing faster than we ever have before with five new buildings, over 500 units of housing in the next four years.

We could not do that without Nathan Torgelson at the head of STCI.

Nathan and his team are efficient.

They're professional.

They're always looking to find new ways to support affordable and homeless housing.

I think he does a really good job of reflecting the City's priority for ending homelessness and solving our housing crunch.

I have some examples of that, but one example is the efforts around 2016 and 2017 around streamlined permitting for affordable housing providers.

Nathan is critical to that process and he's made sure that he and his team are responsive to when that system doesn't work and providing permits on time and on schedule so we can provide housing as fast as possible for those that are most needy in our community.

And in fact, I think Nathan is an example to many other city departments, SDOT, City Light, SPU, and others that could do more in streamlining the efficiency for which we bring these projects on.

So can't say enough good things about them.

One specific example is a recent project that city owned that Plymouth is developing at the K site, right across from the Seattle Center.

And we got our permits in record time We have less than 11 months to finish in our underdevelopment now, so thank you to Nathan and urge your support for his reappointment.

Thanks.

Thank you, Tim.

Megan, George, and then Robert.

Megan.

Hi, thank you.

I'm here today to ask for major SDCI reform.

Transparency and public accountability and design review system is at an all-time low.

The public is being cut out of the process systematically.

Early design outreach is a box to be checked by developers and has not resulted in cooperation with community stakeholders.

Director Torgalson received that feedback last May at a PLEZ meeting and said he would report back.

I'd like to know what the findings were for that.

Meanwhile, Acela, which we know is being worked on, continues to be hard for all users and not just the public.

Staff have failed to post key project documents to the portal until months after submissions, leaving the public in the dark about project status and unable to make meaningful, timely comments that would result in positive changes to the community.

Finally, at a time where Seattle streets are crushed by congestion and off-street parking is being converted to bus and bike lanes, SDCI announced a director's rule that would be in place by the end of 2019 requiring that huge mixed-use towers of 1,000 people and more would require a workable loading berth and trash that wouldn't block alleys.

They were poised to act, and then suddenly, without warning, it was taken away.

There's been no new timeline on when that will be enacted or if it will.

I have nothing against Nathan Torgelson.

He's a fine man, and he's working hard.

But when questioned on these matters, he provides little response and no action.

I've read his answers to council questions, and they don't address any of the issues I've raised here.

My question is, how will anything change under his leadership going forward?

Thank you.

Thank you, Megan.

Up next is George Danner, Robert Seidman, and then Alicia Ruiz.

Good morning, George.

Thank you.

My name is George Danner.

I'm a downtown resident.

As you consider Mr. Torgelson's reappointment, I'd like to share what I've learned in the last two and a half years of reviewing around 70 major MUP applications and reading over 1,000 SDCI staff emails.

After my review, I can say that Mr. Torgelson's description of department problems, including permitting delays, staff shortages, Stress and turnover, developer pressure, document upload errors, the Acela debacle, incomplete correction notices, et cetera, are mostly covered in his questionnaire answers.

These years of problems have led to a dysfunctional work environment that's perfectly illustrated by an especially troubling email from a land use planning supervisor who said, quote, there appears to be inconsistency between what the codes require and what zoning reviewers are being asked to do by some supervisors.

Please investigate this and make SDI work not just for the developers, but for the residents.

In his answer to question one, where he says his role is to keep our department functioning at a high level while staying true to our purpose statement of helping people build a safe, livable, and inclusive Seattle, for residents of downtown, SDCI has not been functioning at a high level for years.

Unfortunately, under Mr. Torgelson's watch, residents that try to make projects better, both at design review and MUP review after, have to come to the conclusion that Mr. Torgelson's main job is to keep the developers happy.

Please listen to Seattle's residents.

They provide valuable input and are very frustrated when it is dismissed.

Thank you for your...

Thank you, George.

Robert, then Alicia, and then Gordon.

Morning, Robert.

Morning.

Bob Seidman.

I'm a member of Save the Market Entrance.

We have 88,000 followers.

This organization has reservations about the reappointment of Mr. Toggleson as director of SDCI.

My organization has come to believe that during his tenure, the public process has been encumbered by a design review board made up of only those with self-invested interest.

His failure to manage staff shortages, giving developers what appears to be a blank check in the permit process.

Also, a failure to maintain and update the muni codes, written procedures, and director's rules.

He also has ignored, which is troubling, the U of W's traffic lab and SDDOT issues of delivery and loading studies.

One big, big problem we have is we have to stop putting the cart before the horse, meaning SEPA concerns are on the table before design review blesses a development.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bob.

Up next is Alicia, Gordon, and Colin.

Good morning.

My name is Alicia Ruiz.

I'm here today to represent the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish County.

We represent nearly 300 members, and I'm here today to support the reappointment of Nathan Torgelson.

He may not want our support, but, you know, we don't agree on much, but he's always willing to listen, and we feel that's a, you know, an important trait of a strong leader.

like I said, always comes to the table to listen to several of our members.

And more importantly, he always personally attends certain meetings.

And I think that sends a strong message to staff that housing affordability is a big priority to the city.

And we thank him for that.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Up next is Gordon and Colin and then Steve.

And if anyone else in the audience would like to sign up for public comment, there is a sheet right in front of Gordon.

Can you hear me okay?

I can hear you just fine.

With regard to Nathan's reappointment, I have to read this.

Please.

My name is Gordon Loggerquist.

I am an architect who has designed multifamily buildings in many Seattle neighborhoods.

One thing I have learned is that predictability in the application of codes, ordinances, and guidelines is essential for promoting good design.

This has led me to volunteer to join committees that clarify and improve these codes, ordinances, and guidelines.

How are they being applied today?

Currently, I have observed a disconnect within SDCI departments and between, for example, SDCI and SDOT.

Good design and desirable solutions are lost without good communication.

My goal when designing any project is to keep the developer focused on the intent of the codes, ordinances, and guidelines.

My experience has been that developers often try to play one department off against another.

An example would be a declaration by the developer that SDOT won't allow something, a statement that is not true.

With a steady increase in large developments, the need for clarity has never been more important Our responsibility to the city of neighborhoods dictates that we work together to help each project fit into the fabric of our community.

Thank you so much, Gordon.

Up next is Colin and Steve.

Good morning.

My name is Colin Morgan-Cross.

I'm the Director of Real Estate Development for Mercy Housing Northwest, and I serve on the city's Housing Levy Oversight Committee.

And I'm here today to support the reappointment of Nathan Tordelson.

Mercy Housing Northwest is a very active developer of affordable housing here in Seattle and across the state.

We have about 2,500 units.

And we have several recent projects in Seattle that we've worked with Nathan and his team on.

And I will say that Nathan's leadership in STCI and with his leadership team and staff to help affordable housing projects move through the permitting process and really come online as quickly as possible to address our affordability crisis in Seattle is exemplary.

On two recent projects, we issued challenges to our design team and really to Nathan's department to permit those projects as quickly as possible.

And on both, the staff worked very quickly and diligently.

We have a project up in the Roosevelt community at the future light rail station there with 254 units.

Again, we issued a challenge to Nathan and his team to move us through our design process so we could bring those online around the same time that the light rail service opens.

On his first review, they actually beat the deadline.

They looked at our first correction cycle in five weeks.

So not only does he exemplify a lot of the city's commitment to affordable housing, but he works with his team to actually make that happen.

And I would urge the council to support the reappointment of Nathan.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Colin.

Up last is Steve Rubistello.

Good morning, Steve.

How are you?

Good morning, yeah.

I had a fun trip on the bus where I learned most of Seattle's youth are all disabled because they were sitting in the seats reserved for people with disabilities, and they certainly weren't seniors.

But that's just part of the new Seattle, and it's not your responsibility.

What I would like to talk about here is more your responsibility and get on with.

I don't see any action towards looking at the 50-50 that was supposed to be in MHA.

MHA was sold as that promise that 50% of those low, low bargain rates that many of the stupid citizens said were too darn low.

And in the north end, or at least the area of town I live in, Fremont, I see very few people actually putting the units below market in the neighborhood.

And I think this is very, very important.

The previous members of this council and this committee which I think I've attended more readings than all of you in land use in probably in the last couple of months combined.

It's very important to take a look at what the promise is and what's being done.

I think many people listed some of the problems with the city and we have many of them in land use.

We're getting gentrification, we're getting, we talked about diversity, it's becoming a lighter shade of pale.

I can't just hold Mr. Torkelson responsible for that because unlike some people who believe the bureaucracy runs the city, I think the elected people run the city.

I have seen many times when the elected people make a decision, departments turn very quickly.

They understand who is in charge.

So for many things, I will more hold the electeds, some of the people before you here, and now you have a chance to improve that situation.

Thank you, Steve.

Would anyone who did not sign up like to speak?

Oh, yeah.

Jan, if you'd like to sign in.

And Noah, are there any additional folks signed up on there?

Great.

Good morning, Jim.

This one on?

Okay.

My name is Jen Lafreniere.

I work for a nonprofit called Facing Homelessness and the Block Project, and I'm here in support of the reappointment appointment of Nathan Torgelson.

Nathan has been an amazing supporter of the work that we do for homeless housing, and I know there is so many facets to his job, and I am just constantly amazed that every interaction I have with him is collaborative, it's genuine, it's purposeful, and yeah, I just can't speak highly enough of him and the support that he has shown to our project specifically.

And our project is putting small detached accessory dwelling units in backyards, which helps the density in Seattle and also our homelessness crisis.

As an architect in Seattle, as well as a principal at Block Architects, I also have lots of small businesses that come to me, a lot of homeowners, and I am constantly sending people down to the SDCI coaching counter and having them email SDCI staff, and they always come back with just, they're very happy because they have seen helpful support, and it's a good experience, and that is, to me, leadership, good leadership, and so it showcases that the small businesses and the homeowners in our city are getting the support and appreciation from the SDCI staff that I would hope they would do.

So, in total support of Nathan.

Thank you, Nathan.

Thank you, Jen.

Anyone else?

Seeing as we have no additional speakers, we'll move on to the next agenda item.

And I'd just like to thank everyone who has come up to testify this morning.

It's clear that we have a lot of people working to create the additional housing units that we need to create the housing for people who have been chronically homeless and need supported living and affordable housing.

We have people who want to keep the things that make Seattle unique be able to be retained as we develop and do a global city.

And Steve, I appreciate, Rubistolo, I appreciate your comments about riding on the bus.

You know, the social contract that we have between us in our city is changing with the increased amount of people and the changes that we've gone through.

And sometimes that means that we're gonna need to stand closer to each other on the bus.

It means that we need to stand to the right on the escalators as we're using them.

So many other things as our city is changing.

Thanks for pointing that out.

So our first item of business today is a briefing and discussion and vote on the reappointment of SDCI Director Nathan Torgelson.

Will presenters please join us at the table as Noah reads the item into the record.

Agenda item one, appointment 01546, reappointment of Nathan G. Torgelson as Director, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections for a term to January 1, 2024.

Thank you, Noah.

We are joined by Deputy Mayor Casey Sixkiller.

Welcome.

And Director Torgelson, Deputy Mayor, would you like to get us started?

I would.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, council members.

Nice to see you.

Again, my name is Casey Sixkiller.

I'm the Deputy Mayor.

On behalf of Mayor Durkan, I'm pleased to present to the committee Nathan Torgelson for his reappointment to serve another four-year term as Director of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.

As Director of STCI, Nathan has done an outstanding job leading the department during four of the busiest permitting years in the city's history.

His accomplishments include overseeing the implementation of the mandatory housing affordability program, development of more flexible permitting for housing solutions for the city's homelessness response, coordinating interdepartmental oversight of major projects such as the Seattle Center Arena, Northgate Mall redevelopment, and the Convention Center expansion.

I think as all of you know, Nathan is no stranger to the halls around here.

He first joined the city in 1990. He's held a variety of positions at the city, including serving in roles at the Department of Planning and Development, the Office of Economic Development as a policy analyst for Mayor Nichols, and serving as a core member of the Waterfront Seattle team for the Department of Parks and Recreation.

His commitment to the city and long tenure here makes him one of the most respected city employees amongst as many colleagues across the city departments and certainly on our cabinet.

Director Torkelson and I look forward to working with all of you on a number of priorities shared by both the mayor and the council in the coming years, such as streamlining our permitting processes to speed development of affordable housing projects, development of new regulations around tree permitting and unreinforced masonry buildings, and updating the city's tree protection ordinance.

While I just joined the city last month, in my time, I've already been impressed by Nathan's passion for his job, his appreciation for his staff, his commitment to the city of Seattle and to public service, and for tolerating me calling him every day.

So with that, I'm pleased to present Nathan to the committee, and I'm happy to answer any additional questions.

Thank you.

Director Torgelson, would you like us to ask questions?

I just want to say I'm humbled that Mayor Durkin has submitted my name for renomination as director of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, and I welcome your questions.

Thank you.

I really appreciate the responses that you provided to our long list of questions.

I know that we had an even longer list that we pared down a little bit, and I think that it speaks to the importance of your role as we transition from the town that we have been into a global city.

Change is never hard.

I've personally been emotionally distraught to watch the neighborhood that I grew up in bulldozed.

And, you know, there's a lot of benefit that comes along with density as well.

We have a much more vibrant Market Street.

and downtown Ballard.

Regarding permitting, in your answers to questions three and four, you mentioned 13 new staff members that SDCI hired to address the backlog of permits and applications.

Have you seen improvements resulting from these additional staff, and do you believe that their length of their terms is sufficient to address these backlogs?

Sure.

So the 13 positions were under contingent budget authority, so they're term-limited positions.

The majority of those positions were in zoning review, where we were seeing the majority of the backlog.

We have definitely seen improvements in the master use permits for smaller and medium-sized projects.

We still have work to do on the more complex projects, but of course, those projects are in the system longer.

So I'm confident that as the new complex master use permit projects come in, that we will see much faster timelines.

The great thing about the Contingent Budget Authority positions is, as we have staff turnover, staff retire, staff take new jobs, the people in those positions are well-positioned to take those permanent positions.

And if, at the end of that three-year Contingent Budget Authority timeline, we find that we still need that extra staff, we can certainly ask the Mayor's Office to hire additional contingent budget authority staff or continue those positions.

And, of course, at any time, we can come to Council for authority to hire new permanent staff.

It's always a bit of caution.

I mean, we've been talking for years about the economy slowing down, but we haven't seen that, so we just have to track the economy carefully.

Thank you.

And I have other questions, and I would like to defer to the other Councilmembers sitting at the table if anyone else would like to jump in.

I do have some questions, Mr. Chair, but I'm OK with waiting until yours are finished.

Go for it.

All right.

Great.

Well, I will jump in.

Well, Director Torgelson, thank you so much for coming here and joining us at the table.

And I appreciate our interactions during my first month and a half in office.

The director and I had an opportunity to go and take a great tour of Seattle Center with a couple of other cabinet officials and some staff from my office.

We had an extensive conversation too early in my tenure just about the priorities of SDCI and the ways that you want to work with the council going forward and I really appreciate your accessibility and the information the department has provided to me.

I have a couple of questions that were forwarded to me by constituents and I've kind of combined them and summarized them.

And the first one, and I did provide these in advance just for the record to Director Torgelson, so the first one regards CEPA review and that stage of review of the projects that go through SDCI for permitting.

And the question from the constituent is, can SDCI assist on early and proactive CEPA review to catch issues early and lead to substantive improvements in projects?

So I would say that even before a master use permit comes in the door at STCI, most major projects are subject to design review and projects going through design review are subject to early community outreach where the project proponent can employ a variety of methods to reach out to the community.

Another way that we can really reach the community early is through our website called Shaping Seattle.

We started that website several years ago.

We're about to re-debut it in a couple months.

That's a fantastic website.

It's a map of Seattle.

A lot of people don't know a project number or a project address, so they can look at a map and point on a dot, and the design review packet will come up.

It'll show where the project is in the process.

You'll be able to submit comments directly online.

So that's a great interactive way for people who aren't able to come down to City Hall or to the Seattle Municipal Tower or don't have the time or wherewithal to attend public meetings or design review meetings.

So that will be coming back online in a couple months.

So that's another great way to interact.

In addition to design review, people can request public meetings about certain projects to dive more into all the varieties of the environment through SEPA review, not just design issues.

So that's another venue.

Members of the public have the opportunity to meet with staff who are reviewing projects.

So there's a variety of way that people can interact with staff and learn more about a project.

Wonderful.

Do you see opportunities to improve the design review process?

So I'm glad you asked that question.

We're working right now on an ordinance that will hopefully come to council later this year on some what I would call cleanup items.

A lot of them have to do with improving the process for affordable housing projects, but there are some other housekeeping items.

Design review has been in The revised design review legislation that Councilmember Johnson shepherded through council, that's been in the works now for a couple years, and we've learned some lessons, so we have a few items to make that process better.

Wonderful, thank you.

Other councilmembers?

Councilmember Mosqueda.

Thank you, Director.

Good to see you.

And thank you as well for your early onboarding when I was new two years ago as well.

That was very helpful.

And Deputy Mayor, I haven't had the chance to say congratulations yet since being back, so nice to see you at this table on this role.

A few questions, and some of them you spoke to a little bit in your questions.

I want to thank Erin House for submitting a number of these questions as well and your in-depth answers.

One of the things that we're looking for is innovation given how long it takes to get through the inspection process.

So I have three categories of, you know, permitting strategies that I'd love to hear if you have any new innovative strategies that are on the horizon.

One is how can we do a better job of expediting affordable housing and maybe clearing it through the hurdles faster?

So I'll give a little bit of a preview.

Within the next couple weeks, the mayor is going to be issuing an executive order around permitting and making that process more efficient.

And there'll be a lot of focus in that executive order around making the process more streamlined for affordable housing, but also for middle-income housing, so sort of that 80% to 120% median income.

So a little foreshadowing there.

And in that executive order, there'll be directives for all the city departments that work on permitting to work better together and some strategies for how to do that.

So...

Any thoughts about how much time that would reduce?

There will be some goals in that executive order to definitely reduce that.

No specific numbers.

One more thing I wanted to mention is that in the mayor state of the city address last week, a major focus on helping small businesses, again, not housing, but small businesses are the backbone of our city.

and our economy, and the mayor spelled out a goal to reduce permitting time by 25% for small businesses.

And that's a strategy involving our department and also the Office of Economic Development, getting more information out to small businesses before they sign that lease and then learn about what some of the code requirements are.

So addressing the housing issue and small businesses.

That was one of the two other buckets that I had.

I'm aware of those proposed changes, which I support.

I guess the concern that I'm hearing from folks is with vacant spaces that are out there that are the size of your next CVS versus the size of your next Molly Moon's ice cream, what can we do to proactively help?

reduce the cost of the square footage that's being offered so that we have more small square footage retail space that's available, especially for women and minority-owned businesses.

Have you seen other cities take that proactive approach to reach out to building owners to help reduce the square footage being offered in retail on the first and second floors?

So I think that's a collaborative effort with the Office of Economic Development that has the relationships with the Chambers of Commerce and the business associations.

And I'm happy to be part of that effort.

Definitely, it's easier to lease smaller spaces that can go to entrepreneurs.

But again, we're working really hard to help small businesses find spaces.

And I assume that applies to the child care, too, that would need to be potentially altered.

Any space, like the space that we have downstairs, that's the vacant room, you know, to put up a few partitions between the walls.

I know that sometimes that can be cost prohibitive to small business owners who are child care providers.

So is that similar for child care as well?

Correct.

Okay.

Oh, I was just going to add that we've also worked really closely with the Office of Arts and Culture, helping our artists in our city and our artist-oriented businesses find appropriate space in Seattle so they're not forced out.

And then my last question relates to expediting the process for known construction projects that are using union labor.

We've seen this used in Austin, Texas, for example.

I think if Austin, Texas can expedite a process for our brothers and sisters who are working with good safety standards, is there a way for us to expedite the process so that more construction can happen now before an economic downturn happens and before it becomes more costly for folks to build later on?

So I think that's a great question.

Thank you.

In the past history of SDCI and DPD, we did allow applicants to pay staff overtime to expedite permits.

We've actually discontinued that practice because it favored people who were able to afford to pay more.

to expedite those permits.

Again, we can't expedite all permits because no permits would be expedited.

So we have really focused on affordable housing and now looking at middle income housing as far as labor-backed construction projects.

I think that's a discussion that we would need to continue to have with council and with the law department about how that might work.

I'd love to share with you what we've learned from our friends in Austin.

That'd be fantastic.

And any other strategies you have as lessons learned from that past experience with the overtime.

Don't love the concept of paying to get first in line, but do understand that we have a lot of folks who want to expedite that process who have strong safety standards, have been through the process before, but yet are still in the same time frame.

So that's frustrating.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

Excellent questions.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Director.

Thank you Deputy Mayor for being here.

Appreciate your two decades of service to our city and you've been dealing with a huge volume of permits.

Just amazing to try to get through that volume of permits with your limited staff and really heartened to hear the positive testimonials from Plymouth Housing and Mercy Housing in terms of prioritizing affordable housing so far and look forward to additional focus on affordable housing and also appreciate the renewed focus on small businesses.

I also have some questions and concerns I received from constituents.

I'll just ask some of those now.

And I appreciate you answering all the questions you received.

I'm still, frankly, working my way through those answers, so I may need more time to get through those.

But let me just ask a couple of clarifying questions now.

They focus on monitoring and reporting on the mandatory housing affordability, also about economic displacement concerns, and then talking about the tree ordinance.

So on MHA, I know that the policy goal was to have 50% of the units built on site.

benefits there are, you've got the economic integration of the neighborhoods, the constructions, we're bringing those units online faster.

There are also benefits in lieu in terms of leveraging additional dollars, although that happens later, so it's sort of that balancing, which is probably why the previous council settled on that 50-50 split.

What is being done to monitor that?

When developers apply for a permit, don't they indicate whether they're gonna pay in lieu?

That's correct.

So we do annual reporting on MHA.

MHA has not been in effect that long, but we're happy to provide that information to council.

And we have a tally of how many units are being created onsite through performance.

And again, what the dollar amount is that's being funneled into the city's affordable housing levy fund.

I mean, you raise a great point.

It's good to get some of those affordable units onsite in projects, but it's also good to be able to leverage those dollars through the affordable housing levy from a variety of other fund sources.

So it's, I think there are advantages to both.

Do you have the sense, I think, are we getting a report in maybe July about how things are going on a 50-50 split, whether we're actually achieving that?

I think that's correct.

I don't remember the exact deadlines, if it's at the end of the year or mid-year, but I know we do, we are providing information.

We also provide information to the city auditor looking at how we're doing on tracking with MHA.

Because anecdotally, when projects are coming through, at least through my district, every time it's the developer is choosing to pay in lieu.

So I'd be surprised if we were anywhere near the 50% number.

Do you have any early indication or preview for us on that?

I don't have the number off the top of my head, but certainly we're getting more people paying a fee in lieu of.

That could also be because of commercial projects.

Obviously, if you have a commercial or office project, you're not going to be providing affordable housing on site.

So those developers are also paying a fee in lieu of.

I'd be happy to provide that information to council members if you're not already getting it on MHA performance.

That would be great.

And so the positive testimonials about expediting the construction of new low-income housing is really helpful to hear that.

And one of the concerns I've heard, and I see this in the university district, is a concern over displacement of basically the demolition of naturally occurring affordable housing, and that's often replaced by housing that has rents that are higher than the housing that was just demolished.

So you might get a few more units, but they're not at the rents that were the affordable below market rents previously.

How is SGCI sort of tracking the net loss or gain of units that are affordable?

It's difficult for us to track the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing.

We are able to track tenants who are displaced who qualify under our Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance Program, so they have to qualify at 50% of median income.

And the project proponent or developer is required to pay 50%, along with the city, 50% relocation assistance.

We are able to track that.

I will say that through MHA, and especially in the university district and downtown, The number of affordable units that we're able to create through that program will far outstrip the number of units that are lost because of displacement.

If you look at the number of new units that are being created and the MHA payments that are coming in.

But if we don't know what the affordability is of the units that we're losing, how do we know it's, I guess I'm struggling, how do we know it's gonna be more affordable under the new units?

It's maybe the number of units will be higher, but we don't know about whether there'll be more affordable.

You're correct, we don't know for sure.

The naturally occurring affordable housing, we don't.

have a way to know what the rent levels are or what the incomes are of people living in those units.

But we do know that through the MHA dollars that the homes that are being created through that program are going to people who can income qualify and are primarily people at 60% or even 30% of median income or below.

One idea I've heard is with the rental registration and inspection ordinance to ask that on an annual basis we receive a rent roll or list of rents for each of the units in the building.

So when they're complying with rental housing.

registration inspection ordinance, they just provide an annual rent roll, and then we'll know whether those rents are affordable or not.

It's just an idea.

Yeah, you're not the first who has suggested that.

I think there were some legal challenges with that, and I'm happy to revisit that with the law department as far as people providing that information.

Yeah, and if we don't have the tenant's names, that might help with it.

We just have the unit and rent, for example, or it could be somehow aggregated.

So at least we know, on average, was it more affordable or less affordable?

Tree ordinance.

So we look forward to getting a new tree ordinance that we can deliberate on here.

I'm really hopeful that we can get that sooner rather than later.

I mean, getting it before the budget process this year would be ideal.

I don't think that's the current schedule, but I just wanna sort of flag that that would be ideal to get it sooner rather than later, because I know people have been waiting a long time for that.

There have been different iterations of it and previous iterations there were arguments Well, it didn't really protect trees as strongly as it could so we're looking for that Ordinance that really protects the trees under the existing authority though.

Are you able to one of the questions we received?

earlier last night or this morning is If there is an exceptional tree on site Are you able to?

have the real estate developer make accommodations by to save that tree so that you maybe give them additional height so they can redesign and work around that tree so we get the benefits, the climate benefits, the health benefits of retaining that tree.

I know that's something that we were able to do with Councilmember Johnson.

There was the example in the University District with the multifamily site right across from the University Heights Center where we allowed some additional height and they were able to save a tree.

I really appreciate your concern about trees.

It's something our department takes very seriously and we're working very closely with the mayor's office on a new ordinance.

I just want to mention that we've hired two new tree reviewers and we're about to hire a third.

We adopted a new director's rule at the end of 2018. We're doing a much better job on tracking and actually collecting penalties and being able to measure the value of a tree when it's illegally cut down.

So we are making improvements and we really look forward to working with you on a better ordinance.

And one of the issues that was raised by public comment was licensing, requiring the arborists to be licensed that are taking down the trees.

Is there, do you wanna?

That's something we're definitely looking at.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm aware of SDOT's process.

Okay, thank you.

Vice Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So I think what you're hearing from us is a strong desire for innovation and for early heads up on some of the strategies that you may need to both build the housing, affordable housing, create the density, create green space, setbacks.

We have put so many policies into place now and we're really looking to your advice and the community's advice to help advance those policies so that they can be implemented and that we're not just in the policy generating mode which we've been in with MHA for the past few years due to I think some predatory litigation that happened.

But now we get to go ahead.

And so what we're looking forward is for you to help us identify ways to help your department so that we're not mired in long wait times and hearing from constituents about concerns.

It sounds like you hear that from and everything from additional green space to our call for additional ways to expedite affordable housing, and just give us an early heads up on how we can help you.

Absolutely.

One of the things that I'd love to hear more about is the ADU-DADU architect involvement.

There's been some coverage in the media recently about our city, and perhaps this is, if it's more appropriate to do follow-up conversations with the mayor's office, happy to do that.

I'm concerned about uncompensated labor for the architects that are being asked to provide feedback and volunteer their time for ADU model blueprints.

That is not, for example, what the city of Lacey does.

And there's a really good article in the Urbanist recently, I think it was just this month in February, and it talks about how this is a great policy, but it is not a great implementation plan to require architects to volunteer their time.

Can you talk more about any strategies to bring on architects to compensate them for their time?

Sure.

Council Member Mosqueda is referring to the city's desire to promote more detached accessory dwelling units.

And the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections issued a call out to the design community for standard plans.

It's more like a design competition.

I'm aware of that concern from some of the design community, but I will say that we received over 150 submittals, so definitely a desire for the design community to participate in that process.

We're going to have to narrow that down.

I don't know exactly how many will be chosen.

It might be around 10, but the architects that are chosen will be compensated through that process as far as how many times that plan is selected.

All right, thank you.

I also want to add, Council Member Mosqueda, about innovation.

One of my priorities has been to prioritize innovative type housing, tall timber, cross-laminated timber buildings.

We have new state building code council.

regulations that allow those buildings to go up to, I believe it's either 12 or 18 stories.

There is Sustainable Living Innovations, which is the panelized construction.

It can be done much faster and at less cost.

There's the project in the University District that used that method of technology.

It was at 40, I think it was called 42 and 2, or I can't remember what the exact name for it was.

The block project that was mentioned earlier in testimony, and we've really been promoting modular construction as well.

So these are all innovative ways of construction, less expensive, and can be built much faster.

Great.

Council Member Lewis.

Yeah, I have actually just a quick follow-up question on the cross-laminated timber piece, too.

Do the new state, just for clarification, do the new state guidelines require any municipal code changes or building code changes on our end, or is the department good to go?

It's good to go.

we might have to make some slight tweaks to our building code, but because it's been adopted in the state building code, we can process those permits.

Great, just wanted to clarify that.

I do have another question, but I don't want to...

Okay, I haven't even gotten to my questions.

Luckily, folks at the table have, and Council Member Peterson asked my questions about trees.

Vice Chair Mosqueda asked my questions about innovation.

You had some great questions as well.

So I will take one more question from each of you, because I have a couple as well.

Great, okay.

So I'm going to change the topic a little bit to talk about alleys.

So this is a particular concern to a lot of constituents in District 7 who live downtown who are concerned about congestion alleys.

There's a 2018 statement of legislative intent.

asking the department to work with SDOT on strategies to reduce and mitigate congestion in our growing downtown.

I just wonder if you give an update to the committee on where we are with that and what your plans are going forward in your next term to focus on.

mitigating the impact of congestion.

Absolutely.

And this was referred to in the public testimony.

We're a little bit behind, but new regulations and a director's rule is coming.

We've certainly seen in the age of e-commerce a lot more deliveries.

to residential properties.

Historically, we've thought of deliveries to commercial properties, but now we're seeing a lot to both kinds of properties.

We're working closely with SDOT and Seattle Public Utilities, looking at how we can improve access to loading bays and how many loading bays should be required.

We're looking at solid waste storage and access within multifamily buildings.

We have been meeting with both residential groups and with businesses about the requirements.

So look for a director's rule, hopefully in April.

about residential loading downtown and then an ordinance later this year that looks at access space, but also looks at the issue of solid waste access within multifamily buildings.

This is one of those complex issues where some people in the development community have concerns because requiring access to garbage and solid waste on every floor in a multifamily building might take away one unit.

But we know that people are more likely to recycle if they have easier access to those facilities.

So it's a compromise, but look for that director's rule soon and an ordinance.

I have a quick follow-up on that, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate your answer, Director, but it just goes back to you talked about some of the outreach and the feedback the department has been soliciting.

You know, I mean, I've just heard a lot of, you know, I have heard a lot of criticism from some folks, organized residents in the downtown core that are concerned about this that don't think that the department, I don't know if there is a role coming out in April.

I guess my request going forward would be what are some of the strategies over the next four years to make sure those folks feel like they are being consulted, included, part of this process.

that their concerns aren't being taken seriously.

And I just want to make sure that going forward, we're doing everything we can to keep them in the loop on this and legitimately incorporate their feedback into these policies.

I appreciate that comment.

I think when the draft director's rule comes out, there's an opportunity for developers And for residents to comment on that director's rule and we can tweak it as necessary or if we feel that the suggestions will lead to improvements.

So I think the proof is still in the pudding when that director's rule comes out.

Thank you, Director.

And Council Member Lewis, you actually asked one of the questions that I had on deck, so I appreciate that.

And for the record, to reflect the interdepartmental team that created these reports and the statement of legislative intent were both budget provisos and statements of legislative intent that I wrote as the staff to Council Member Bagshaw.

So this is a very important issue to me as well.

Council Member Peterson, I see that you also have one final question.

Thank you.

You had mentioned modular housing.

I was in...

Vancouver BC saw some modular housing there for formerly homeless people.

It looks just like an apartment building and so just wanted to clarify our those rules in place already that we can have modular housing?

Right.

Okay.

Yeah.

I was able to attend a demonstration.

This is a project right off of Aurora in North 96, right south of the cemetery, where we got to see the modular units being lifted and put right into place.

It's pretty amazing.

And that's for apartment buildings?

Correct.

Multifamily, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

And last question is about trees again.

Just wanted to understand, if somebody, if a tree is being taken down, what do residents who might be concerned to just, or they want to confirm that this was authorized, what do citizens do to

They call our department and we respond.

They write letters.

In some cases, it's legal to take down that tree.

In other circumstances, it's not legal.

We had a case in West Seattle last year where an exceptional tree was taken down in the middle of the night and it preceded a future development proposal, and I believe we were able to collect around $11,000 as a penalty.

So that was a pretty egregious example, but that was an exceptional treat.

Thank you.

And Vice Chair Mosqueda, do you have any final questions?

I will keep mine short, especially because my colleagues have asked many of them already.

On page three of your answers to council questions, you addressed vacant building monitoring program changes that council made and specifically referenced emergency demolitions that SDCI has authorized.

Do you know how many emergency demolitions have been authorized and was there a common factor driving in these cases?

The reason that I ask this is also we have a number of either vacant or problematic lots throughout the city that need to have action taken.

I got to work with Councilmember Baggion, condemnation ordinance of a lot here in the city, and happy to hear what you have to say.

Sure.

So first, I really want to thank the council for their support for vacant building monitoring.

We have a much more sophisticated and technologically savvy way to track those vacant buildings now.

We, as a city, meet regularly, police, fire, Seattle Public Utilities, FAS, to look through the vacant building monitoring list and figure out ways that we can work better.

I have, in my term as director for the past four years, I've issued seven emergency demolitions for buildings.

In this case, I have to waive SEPA regulations, typically because of an emergency situation.

It's kind of on a case-by-case basis, but usually the situation is so dire with illegal activity happening, dumping, needles, hazmat issues, that it's really in the public interest to go ahead and allow demolition.

In that case, the The project proponent is usually waiting for a permit from our department.

It's going through the review process, and they have a vacant building.

In order for us to do that, we have to have a willing building owner or project proponent who does want to demo the building.

When we have a building that is vacant and we have sort of an absent landlord that's not doing anything, it's a little more complicated.

In some cases, we can order the demolition of that building, but it has to go through a fairly complex legal process.

Thank you.

And I appreciate my colleagues asking all the hard questions so I can have the easy role here.

And I will, my last question to you today, just to give you the floor, is what are your major goals for SDCI over the length of this appointment?

Right.

So I would look forward to the mayor's executive order on permitting and helping to implement those actions that are in there.

We need to continue to work on housing production in the city.

The demand for housing is far outstripping the supply that's coming online.

That's a huge priority.

Working with the small business community.

Again, working on a new tree ordinance is a huge priority for the mayor and for our department.

Everything we do is under the umbrella of race and social justice.

We know that not everyone has the wherewithal to come down to the Seattle Municipal Tower or to come to city council chambers or to hire a land use attorney.

One thing I'm really proud of is our department every year sponsors two home fairs out in the community.

This past year we had one at the Filipino Community Center and also at the Meadowbrook Community Center.

We have multiple staff from all facets of our business and other city departments.

Members of the public can come in and ask questions at their leisure.

Those are really great events.

Another priority is unreinforced masonry buildings.

We are now working with council on a joint resolution and a program to move forward on that.

So I'm very excited about that.

That's a huge issue in our city.

And again, I mentioned just figuring out ways to promote innovative housing in our city.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

If you are doing outreach at Meadowbrook Community Center, I also highly suggest also Lake City Community Center, as it's nearby and very different.

We will consider that for next year.

Thank you.

We tend to change locations.

That's fair.

Any further comment?

Deputy Mayor, thank you so much.

At this time, I do appreciate your candor and your answers to all of the questions, both written and oral.

And I would like to move the appointment 01546. I hear a second.

With all those in favor, please vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Seeing three.

Any of those opposed, vote no and raise your hand.

And any abstaining, please.

Abstaining.

Thank you, Councilmember.

I see with three votes in favor and one abstention, this motion passes.

Thank you Deputy Mayor Sixkiller and Director Torgelson for joining us today and taking all of our questions.

I really appreciate the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee support and look forward to working with you in the next four years.

Thank you.

If full council confirms.

Yes, this appointment will be considered by the full council on Monday, March 2nd.

Thank you all.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next two items of business today are the appointments to the Landmarks Preservation Board.

Will our presenters please join us at the table as Noah reads both items into the record.

Agenda item two, appointment 01497. Appointment of Dean E. Barnes as member Landmarks Preservation Board for a term to April 14, 2022. And agenda item three, appointment 01500. Appointment of Lance Neely as member Landmarks Preservation Board for a term to April 14, 2022.

Wonderful.

And will the folks at the table please introduce yourselves.

It's great to see everyone.

I don't feel high enough for me either, so yeah.

Would you like to start with introductions?

Oh, okay.

My name is Dean Barnes, and I'm currently retired.

I've had many years of experience working in human resources for a number of companies.

Primarily, my last 20 years, approximately, have been in the public service environment.

I would like to also thank Erin and her staff for shepherding this interview process, and also to the mayor's office for recommending me for this opportunity.

And so I'm open for any questions you may have.

Wonderful, thank you.

I'm Erin Doherty with the Department of Neighborhoods, and I'll just say that we've also asked the property owners for the two designating ordinances to join us at the table.

I'm going to apologize.

I have lost my voice, but I am the city historic preservation officer.

I work for D.O.N.

Good morning.

I'm Julie Blakeslee, the University of Washington environmental and land use planner.

My name is Richard Rogers.

I'm a small business owner, private developer in Seattle, and I'm here representing the ownership of the Queen Anne Masonic Temple, the Sunset Telephone and Telegraph Exchange on Queen Anne.

And so it does seem that we have all of our presenters for this item and the next item.

So for those who have joined us at the table for the next item on the agenda, please just hang tight and we will get to you in just a minute.

And I understand that Lance Neely was unable to attend.

Would you quickly remind us of his background?

Sure, and I can also give you some additional information about Mr. Barnes unless you'd like to just go to asking him questions directly.

Mr. Neely is a real estate broker with a background in project management and business services.

He holds a Bachelor of Arts in sociology and a Master of Arts in clinical psychology.

He is a proprietor of a residential real estate firm here in Seattle with a focus on historic homes.

Wonderful.

Do my colleagues at the table have questions to get it started?

Yeah.

Council Member Lewis-Peterson, questions?

Dean, do you have further, you made some remarks, do you have anything?

Yeah.

Sure, I can talk a little bit.

Sure, that'd be great.

If you look at my packet, most of my experience has been either in finance and accounting or in human resources.

And so when you look at the Landmarks Commission, that seems a little bit different than someone who might have a construction background or architectural background.

My interest has been is that I'm kind of a historian and that I love to read history, particularly about Seattle and the Seattle community.

And so I've been in Seattle for almost 50 years now.

And so, you know, for example, when I first moved to Seattle, if you look at where the Space Needle is compared to where the Smith Tower is at that time, there was nothing in between.

And to see the massive construction that has occurred over these last 50 years has just been tremendous.

And so one of the things I was always interested in is watching that construction, but at the same time, looking at what is that doing to the city itself?

How is that changing the culture?

We have a number of issues now in terms of homelessness and building housing and such.

And Seattle is a relatively young city, so there's this idea that we just tear this down and build this back up.

But at the same time, what I'd like to see the Landmarks Commission take a look at what can we do to maintain the culture of the city, the character of the city.

And I think that's one thing that's very important.

And particularly when you look at buildings like the Dexter Horton building or some of the other older buildings, they have the architecture and the outside moldings that they have.

I'd just like to see some of that remained.

And so we don't tear all the old buildings down and build the box-like buildings that are coming up now.

And the other part that I'm concerned about is that we also want to make sure that we have those landmarks that are important to the communities of color.

There has been a history of those being torn down first because the quote unquote don't have the voice to back that.

And so I would like to maintain that the commission has that opportunity to take a look at those things and we do maintain those cultural issues as part of the community as well.

Wonderful, Dean.

That's a very great perspective.

And you have a very extensive history working throughout the country in a number of different human resources departments.

I see also that you worked for Seattle Housing Authority.

And what perspective can you bring to the Landmarks Preservation Board that also assists us in developing more affordable housing?

That's a good question.

I was with the Housing Authority just before they started the big project at Yesler Terrace.

And I've actually been there for 10 years.

So we had the Yesler Charis, Rainier Vista, High Point, and the one in the south.

But to also take a look at what you do take a look at, for example, like Yesler Charis, when you have those houses that were there built in the 1930s, and at that time was the first integrated public housing process.

And to say that we're going to take those out, but what do we do to maintain that cultural aspect of it?

Andrew Loftin and Mr. Turney, who were the CEOs at that time, have done a really good job maintaining the character and making sure they make sure the cultural aspect is connected to the international district.

I think those are things that the Landmark Commission can do to be involved in those discussions to maintain those cultural aspects of it as they go through that process.

Wonderful.

And what opportunities for the city do you see for the city to better support historic preservation efforts like this?

I'm sorry, I missed it.

What opportunities, if any, do you see for the city to better support historic preservation efforts?

Well, I think the discussions that are had, that are going on, but also the other part, too, is, you know, which I'm sure Aaron and the staff are already doing, is also you ensure the RSGI issue is part of that discussion.

And also not always look at things in terms of a dollar and cents method, but also what does that do to the culture of that community?

What does that do to change the makeup of the housing?

You know, you mentioned Ballard.

You know, you look at all the constructions going on in Ballard.

You see a lot of the houses that were built in the 1940s, 1950s being torn down.

Then you have these big box houses that look out of character within those communities.

And maybe the Land Works Committee can take a look at making comments or recommendations on how those are being done and working with the previous department, the Department of Construction to talk about, make sure we do take a look at, you know, when we do build these houses, what are they doing to affect the culture of those basic communities as well?

Yeah, because when people are displaced, that changes the fabric of our community.

I am interested in your background on housing.

I think one of the comments that we hear a lot is that these big boxes are displacing individuals who live there.

However, living in a box that is a townhouse and now living in one of four townhouses in a plot that used to have just one house.

One of the things that I think we should try to do in evaluating the benefits of potential construction is thinking about what makes a character of the neighborhood, and that is the people.

And the more people that we get in the neighborhood, the more character and culture that we have.

If there is a way to both do that and help individuals stay in place, live in their community, not get displaced.

I think that's the best of both worlds.

Can you talk a little bit about what your hope is for how to do preservation and also add new housing, whether it's both affordable or mixed income?

and strategies that you'd like to see the Landmarks Preservation Board take on that would potentially preserve facades of buildings, but then allow for greater height and affordability for mixed housing opportunities above it or around it.

Excellent question.

I think one of the issues that, you know, first thing for me when you talk about that, I think about the gentrification of the central area.

which historically has been the black community since I moved here.

And now, when you go there now, a large number of people who were my age moved out south, can't move back in because they can't afford it.

The people who were there when I first came can't afford to stay there because of the housing.

And so when you think about those housings that are being done, what is it that we're building in that place?

And I think the example you used where you take one house that's coming out and you build a fourplex instead.

And I think that fourplex is an opportunity to take a look at providing more equitable housing that might be not as expensive as a single dwelling would be.

And I think if I remember correctly, The central area has one of the highest apartment complex ratios of any place in the city.

The central area down south through the Rainier and Beacon Hill areas.

And so taking a look at what are we doing to do that?

And I think the other part that's on the decline is home ownership.

And what are things that the commission can work with other areas to talk about?

What can we do to ensure that houses that are built are affordable for people to buy as well as to rent?

So I think it's a combination of effort in that process.

Please.

Quick follow-up for sort of the overall with the board.

I hear about the board in the context of more commercial and kind of mixed use.

How much of the board's work is directly related to residential versus commercial work?

I can try to answer that together, but we do have a lot of large affordable housing projects.

One is the Mercy housing project in Sandpoint.

There was also another, Aaron had another project in Northeast Seattle that was converting an existing building into housing.

So we see a lot of that as well as housing that new construction that's built as an addition to existing buildings.

So it's a real mix.

It's not just commercial.

Do you have a breakdown?

Do you have a chart that shows us?

I don't think we do.

We do have a breakdown of projects that have received special tax valuation, and normally that's one of the incentives for historic preservation.

It's usually about 50-50, housing or mixed use and then commercial.

Colleagues, any further questions?

I have one.

One more, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

So one of the things that I would love to do is come and visit you all, and I'm excited for your potential, you know, continuation in this process because I'm sure it's going to be overwhelming support.

But one of the things I'd love to do is come and maybe visit with the Landmarks Board.

I think one of the And I think one of the frustrations that I hear from constituents is that sometimes this process, not always, but sometimes this process can be used as a tool to prevent new kinds of construction that would allow for more people to live in our neighborhoods.

try to create dense living opportunities that allow for people to be closer to community centers and schools and their place of work and not get pushed out of the city.

That's an environmental justice issue.

That's also, I think, a worker justice issue to make sure people can live close to their place of work.

And I just don't want us to inadvertently be allowing this process to be used in some cases to prevent construction when it's supposed to do exactly what you said, look for ways to preserve historical sites, cultural sites, and for us to think about ways to do mixed use sites as buildings are adapted.

So would love to hear, you know, what some strategies are that maybe the board's considering and for you personally, you know, any thoughts about how to help prevent against that unintended consequence or a misuse of the tool when it's before you?

Well, I think that's one of the things I'll be learning.

I do have in my mind what I would like to see done, but in terms of learning about the Commission with, you know, what the authority and what the limitations are.

You know, one thing you mentioned about the mixed-use kind of brought to my mind was at Rainier Vista, you know, sale housing did a number of construction work in that area, but at the same time they also have the community center and the recreational center.

And they're doing the same thing up at Yes Our Terrace.

So I would say the same continuous things about that.

In addition to the Yes Our Terrace work that's been done, they also guaranteed those individuals could come back to their places.

And at the same time, we also had a number of, I should say we, Seattle Housing, had a number of people who had home daycares.

And those were back in there.

So I think the idea of maintaining those aspects are very important.

But I think as we go into the future, look at the I think it's the I'm trying to remember the name of the street out there on Rainier where they have the construction where they have the housing and then the retail on the first floor I think those are things that those are continually part of that process to continue to do those things around those bus stops and community center not only the community center but the bus stops and the train stops where they have a lot of congregation to help people with the community as well.

Mr. Chair, I think that's a great a great segue to some of the work that we've been doing last year and we'll be amplifying this year in our committee on housing as well related to affirmative marketing and community preference so that individuals who were previously somewhere if construction happens they can come back first in line.

You mentioned Yesler Terrace and my understanding from Seattle Housing Authority is they've reached a hundred percent of the residents who used to live there and I've offered them the ability to come back And some of them have created their child care on site again, right?

So I think that's a great example of how we build, you know, housing and in this case mixed use, mixed income housing and have affirmatively worked with the community to make sure that the community that was previously there has a preference for coming back that we help them get in.

So I think it's a both and in that example.

Exactly.

I couldn't agree more.

Erin, would you mind sharing a little bit more background about Lance and why you are supporting his reappointment?

And I don't want to take us away from that, but I just want to remind everyone that you'd asked us to also provide an overview of the whole program.

So we have that as part of our PowerPoint.

You just had an identified it as a specific item on the agenda.

So we can also do that as well.

And my understanding was that was going to be in the next item, item four, as part of...

As a lead-in to the ordinances.

Correct, yes.

Okay, great.

Because I think some of the questions that are coming up are related to the historic districts and not just the landmarks board, because the program's much larger.

So the makeup of the landmarks board, there are 12 volunteer positions, and Mr. Barnes' position is one of the at-large positions.

But Mr. Neely is going to be, we're recommending him for the real estate position, and we've had property developers filled us in the past, but also real estate agents like Mr. Neely.

His background is in project management and business services, but then he did move into the real estate world in 2014, and he worked for Gerard Beatty and Knapp.

He is a real estate developer.

He has just embarked this past year on creating his own firm.

It is called heritage reality.

He focuses primarily on single family homes.

He shared with me that he has acquired his commercial real estate license.

on the board, his perspective would be very interesting in terms of looking at probably not just architectural character of properties, but he's also interested in cultural history.

So we're welcoming that experience as well.

And he may be asked to look at some financial issues that can come up around economics and preservation of properties.

But we also look to the architects on the board for that or other people who may have that experience.

And so we also think that Mr. Barnes may have some experience that's relative to that analysis as well.

But we also recognize his interest in history and think he'll be a wonderful addition to the board as well as Mr. Neely.

Wonderful.

Colleagues, any further questions?

Hearing none, I would like to move to approve appointments 01497 and 01500. Second.

Hearing seconds, those in favor, please vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed, vote no.

Hearing none, the motion passes.

Thank you for being here today, Dean, and your willingness to serve.

These appointments will be considered at full council on Monday, March 2nd.

You are welcome to attend the meeting, and you're not required to, as the case with Mr. Neely as well.

And also, you're free to remain at the table while we go into our next set of presentations, and if you I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

I hope you feel free to excuse yourself.

I appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you.

Mr. Barnes, it is a real pleasure to meet you.

Our final two items of business today are the landmarks designating ordinances for Eagleson Hall and the telephone and telegraph building.

Presenters have joined us at the table.

Agenda item four, Council Bill 119749, an ordinance relating to historic preservation, imposing controls upon the University of Washington Eagleson Hall, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the table of historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

And item five, Council Bill 119748, In ordinance relating to historic preservation, imposing controls upon the Sunset Telephone and Telegraph Exchange, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the table of historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Wonderful, and our presenters have already introduced themselves, and so would you like to just take it away?

Sure, I'm just going to jump in with a pretty high-level overview of the program and the work that we do.

So the Historic Preservation Program is responsible for the landmark nomination and designation process, which results in the designating ordinances that you're seeing today, and that's where council comes in.

We also review certificates of approval for landmarks and historic districts.

So here's some photos of some great landmarks we have in our historic districts.

And essentially, the certificate of approval process is permitting.

And we have code-required deadlines, so we have to review applications within 20 days or less.

We don't have the benefit of delaying that review process at all.

which is good.

And we, for any subsequent follow-up corrections, we have 14 days or less to review those.

And typically, we hit 80% to 90% response of 10 days or less on these permit applications.

So we really try to follow the code and beat the code deadlines.

So a big part of that work is with the Historic Preservation Board and Commission coordination.

And as you saw today, you did a couple of appointments, and so that's where the Council intersects with us.

They're almost all mayoral appointments with Council confirmation.

And we have eight historic districts, and the Landmarks Board is responsible for four of those.

Columbia City, Harvard-Belmont, Fort Lawton, Sandpoint, and the others, the International Special Review District, Pike Place Market, Columbia City, and Ballard, sorry, not Columbia City, and Pioneer Square, all each have their own review committee, or board, or commission that oversees them.

The question on the Pike Place Market review subcommittee?

The commission.

Commission, okay.

When and how does that body take up whether or not cars should still be allowed to drive through there?

You know, I don't know that that's going to be the commission's job, because it's really a traffic management issue, and that would be a stop.

Has the commission, for example, in Pioneer Square ever taken on the question of whether or not there should be traffic cut-throughs, for example, in Pioneer Square?

We obviously don't allow traffic to go through at least two blocks of that neighborhood that's, I believe, being preserved for historic reasons with the brick street covering.

I think it...

Are you talking about Occidental Park?

Yeah.

I would think that it would be similar in Pike Place Market given the historic brick street that's there too.

It's not so much the materiality.

In Occidental Park, it's an unimproved street, so it's not used for traffic.

It's an SDOT.

Yeah, I guess my question.

Or historically.

I guess my question is, how did traffic ultimately get stopped in that area?

And if it wasn't the commission who helped to make that recommendation, it sounds like it was an SDOT decision.

And if folks are interested in stopping traffic through Pike Place Market, which I would be very supportive of, it seems like that question doesn't go through the commission.

It would need to go through SDOT.

My understanding is that it would start with SDOT.

If there are any physical changes that result because of that traffic management change, the Commission would weigh in on that.

Yeah, I assume it would probably be the reverse, right?

That stopping traffic would help preserve the historic street, so.

I wouldn't say that they would be opposed or...

Okay, we'll take it up with that thought.

Mr. Chair, sorry, I just was asking a question about where the decision might lie if folks were interested in removing the traffic corridor element of Pike Place Market.

That is a great question, something that I would support as well as a traffic officer, whether private or public, at the corner of Western, at the four-way stop at Western.

I think just to mention that one of the critical pieces to the market is the ability for farmers and vendors to deliver.

So there would need to always be some sort of traffic through that area.

I think it's important for me to emphasize that.

Well, when we've looked at other examples from Berlin and Copenhagen and Madrid, they've always clarified in the no through traffic neighborhoods that they've created delivery and merchants.

vehicles are always permitted including for potentially people who might still live in that neighborhood who do have vehicles.

That's very different though from for allowing cars to use it as a cut through.

So I'm happy to have that clarification and just want to make sure that we're clear on our end too.

It would not be to eliminate any delivery or merchant vehicles.

I think it's more a matter of safety given residents like us who frequent Pike Place Market and also our large tourist community.

I support that.

Thank you.

So the next kind of body of work that we have is historic resources survey and inventory, and that's a requirement of the Federal Historic Preservation Act.

And so we maintain our survey and inventory as best that we can with funding available.

And it's online in a database on our website.

And one of the things that I hope to continue is to center race in that work of doing survey and inventory so that we can be better equipped to analyze these resources, as Mr. Barnes had mentioned, to make sure that we are including everybody's history.

And then another big workload that we have is SEPA and NEPA and major project review.

And that's like the work on the waterfront.

ST3 is really big right now.

State Route 520 and then URM work on reinforced masonry.

And then finally, as best as we have the ability to do, the support is education and outreach.

And two new and exciting things are we have a new video that highlights the cultural aspects of why historic preservation is important, and I can forward that around.

And we also have an education video that's a tool that shows the nomination and designation process and how community can participate in that.

And I can forward those both to you.

I love that.

Wonderful.

And I believe you had one further slide in this section.

Yes, and I just wanted to highlight the Louisa Hotel, which I was able to tour while it was under construction.

Not only was historic preservation included in this building, it was also part of rent restrict, it provides rent restricted units.

So individuals can pay only a third of their take home in rent.

The building has above market rate into affordable housing.

And this is just an example and a very good example of how we can build affordable housing in the same building as market rate and above market rate while we're preserving historic buildings.

And on the first floor, our commercial is commercial space.

And I believe that there may even be, and don't quote me on this, even though I'm saying it on the record, but I believe that there is rent restricted units for the commercial space and that there are local, local businesses that are encouraged to be in that space.

And so this is just a really great example of how we can use our resources to keep what's unique about our city and build the resources that we need.

And along those lines, historic preservation really is an economic development tool.

And when you were talking earlier about small commercial space, that's really where a lot of our city's small commercial space is located.

And particularly in Pike Place Market, it's really an incubator for those small businesses.

in Pioneer Square and the International Special Review District, as well as Pike Place Market, we do review use.

We also have restrictions for the square footage of certain businesses and preferred businesses to keep those small spaces available for those tenants.

Wonderful.

This was a very good overview and presentation.

I very much appreciate it.

And Lish, would you like to join us at the table for this next, you don't have to, just always the opportunity.

Yes, Vice Chair, please.

Thank you.

Thank you for the overview as well.

I saw on there the Sandpoint Buildings and had the chance to visit.

I'm forgetting the name of it right now, but the entity that operates a training program for folks who are currently or formerly homeless.

And it was a really great opportunity to see that public space being used in that way.

They also talked about the asbestos and how they had certain rooms that were kind of We have a lot of buildings that are quarantined off so that people didn't go in there.

Does the preservation board look at recommendations for making the places that have been deemed historical landmarks more usable so that we don't have buildings that are preserved but not being used because of things like asbestos?

In terms of a recommendation, I think they would support that.

But in terms of what they're reviewing or weighing in on, that's not really part of their purview.

But if someone were to come to us with a building that has asbestos and they're going through a mitigation process, staff can review that type of work as maintenance and it's not a paid application or anything like that.

But I mean, we certainly show support for adapting buildings and reusing them so that they're occupied because vacant buildings are not a good resource for anyone.

So, yeah.

And just remind me, how does that support get communicated either to council or the mayor's office or the departments that would be carrying out such a recommendation?

One, you could ask for some feedback from the board, certainly.

They have written letters in the past.

And that's usually how it's communicated.

And I look forward to learning more specifically.

So can you remind me of the name of the program that retrains individuals who are currently homeless or formerly homeless in construction trades programs out there on SoundPoint?

I know my team was with me.

They might be sending me messages right now.

It is a program that's out there, and there is, adjacent to the training facility, which is on the second floor, there is a large gymnasium that had previously been used for, you know, recreation, I guess, in some point.

It has been, they have signs that say, do not open this door, do not open this window, because of asbestos.

So it's a large portion of the building that's right next to the training facility that they mentioned.

I'll follow up with your staff and make sure that the DON has that information.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I believe the building that you're referring to is owned by Seattle Parks and Recreation.

So I think the board would be very supportive of renovation work happening there.

I'm sure it's a matter of financing.

But we do hear from community and tenants in that building that they hoped that more of those spaces would be available to the public.

So I'm sure the board would support that.

Thank you, Lish, for your comments, too.

We'll maybe do some follow-up work because it's such a great facility.

And as we talked about before, there's additional affordable housing going out there, really beautiful modular units that are going in.

I think they have more than one bedroom included in some of those modulars.

excited for the work that Representative Frank Chopp did on some of that effort.

So as more people live in that area and access that center, you know, I went there for their play fields to play soccer.

We want this to be a community center and asbestos in one of the buildings that we've preserved is not a great use of it.

So looking forward to chatting with you guys more about that opportunity.

And Mercy Housing Northwest and their work for building nine is really tremendous.

In addition to solid ground, it has many buildings and tenants there in the district.

We're so excited to have people living in the historic district, not just playing and working.

So there is a subcommittee for applications that happen for work in the historic district and that does include, it's a committee of five volunteers and we currently have one resident of the neighborhood within the district itself who is serving on that committee.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Thank you.

And, Chair, may I just?

Oh, yes, of course.

The Parks District is looking at their new six-year funding cycle, so that is a potential source of funding to help address some of these issues.

We've been looking at getting more funding for the Magnus Park Community Center, to just piggyback on what Councilmember Mosqueda has raised, is, you know, we do have 1,000 low-income residents that we've encouraged, invited to be living there, but yet there are environmental issues with some of these buildings and the land.

And so to get resources in there to help, especially with the community center and providing scholarships to kids who live there is really important to me.

Thank you.

Wonderful, I would love to move on to the next part of this these two agenda items Regarding the sunset telephone and telegraph exchange in Eagleson Hall

Great, thank you.

So we included here, just as a brief overview, I won't read them all, but there are six standards that the board considers when they're looking at a new landmark.

A, B, and C here, D, E, and F on the next slide.

The board needs to choose at least one of those when they are making a designation motion.

In addition to that, the historic resource needs to be more than 25 years old in order to qualify for consideration as a landmark.

And in addition to one of the standards, the board needs to determine that the property has integrity or the ability to convey that significance.

So when deliberating on those applications, they have those discussions in great detail.

So, just as a brief overview, the standards relate to association with historic events or historic individuals, cultural history, architectural or engineering history, work of a designer, and then also, last but not least, Standard F, which talks about visual landmarks and about their prominence related to contrasts of siting age or scale.

So I think our slides are in a different order than the ordinances, so I don't know if you would like us to start with Eagleson Hall.

No, it's totally fine to start with the Telephone and Telegraph Exchange.

So we're joined by Rich Rogers, who is the owner of this property, and the board refers to it as the Sunset Telephone and Telegraph Exchange, but it is also formally known as the Queen Anne Masonic Temple or Lodge 242. And Rich, his redevelopment of this property is trying to recall the Masonic history.

So this ordinance is to codify the controls and incentives agreement that was reached between the City Historic Preservation Officer and Mr. Rogers.

This is located at 1608 4th Avenue West.

I think we've got, just give you some context there.

This was designated by the board on June 5th, 2019, choosing standard C, related to its cultural history.

The controlled features are the site and the exterior of the building.

This was built in 1905, originally for the Telephone and Telegraph Company.

It was the first to be constructed on Queen Anne Hill and among the earliest exchanges in the city, along with those in Renton Hill, Fremont, and South Seattle.

The Landmarks Preservation Board recognized the significance of the exchange as an early workplace for women outside of the education and nursing fields.

The position of a telephonist was a very good opportunity, but also challenging with strict protocols and long shifts.

In 1907, Sunset employed more than 400 female operators across eight facilities, including this building, handling an estimated 50,000 calls annually.

The first two decades of the 20th century saw an exponential increase in Seattle's population, nearly tripling in number from about 80,000 to 240,000 residents.

And in response, the increased demand for telephone and telegraph business was completed in 1922. And there's a new building, the Garfield Exchange, which is directly south of the public library.

And both of those two buildings are also city landmarks.

The later exchange, I'm sorry, so when they built the new Garfield Exchange, that's when this building was sold to the Masonic Fraternal Order in 1924, and they altered it to accommodate their lodge room and social hall.

The Masons continued to occupy this building for several decades and then sold to the current owner in 2018.

Wonderful.

Rich, would you like to share any thoughts about this building?

It's a beautiful neoclassical design and clearly it has a lot of historical meaning within our own community and maybe share a little bit about how the Masonic order has utilized this building.

And I believe that your organization is not the Masonic Lodge specifically?

No, we're not.

We're not affiliated with the Masons in any way, no.

Okay, so maybe share a fair amount about this and let us know about how you use the space and anything else you'd like to share.

Well, yeah, currently the building is unoccupied.

Could you pull the mic close to you?

It has to be almost.

Right.

So I became aware of this building just in my interest in real estate and development.

I'm a single family in the city.

I'm not affiliated with the Masons in any way.

My wife and I are former Queen Anne residents, and so we're aware of this building.

for quite some time and the Masonic Lodge 242 became aware that their building was a URM structure and figured out the cost associated with upgrading her seismically retrofitted in the building and we're put in a position to want to sell and so that's how I became aware of it and Our interest, our being me and the partners that are involved in the building, is to, as all of us are Queen Anne neighbors, or former Queen Anne neighbors, and our interest was to try to determine whether it could be historically designated.

With our knowledge of the Garfield Exchange, we thought that there was a good likelihood that it would be, and then in so doing, be able to preserve the building.

and then reevaluate the interior of the space for a new use to allow it to have a new life going forward.

So that's basically what we're coming down to.

Wonderful.

And this might be for the table, might be for you, Rich.

How does historic preservation process address landmark buildings that have unreinforced masonry, URM, as you just mentioned?

I think I'll let Erin take that one on.

I'm not sure.

When we do have a URM building, depending on the type of seismic improvements that are proposed, we think of it as maintenance because the goal is to keep the building standing.

We can't preserve the building if we have a major earthquake.

We might have a loss of a lot of buildings in the city.

So we frequently look at this administrative review so that it moves more quickly and that it's not a paid application and doesn't require going to the architecture review committee or to the board.

But if there are features or proposals that are sort of beyond basic level of maintenance that might change the appearance of the building in a major way, then we would ask them to seek approval from the Landmarks board.

In the case of Rich's proposed project, we kind of looked at it all collectively because he had some other alterations that he was making that needed the board review.

One thing I would like to add is one of the incentives is special tax valuation and the work to upgrade the URM would count towards that.

So that's one of the benefits of being a landmark.

Wonderful.

It's a beautiful building.

And Rich, maybe could you speak to any alterations that you're planning or any, how you're planning to retrofit for the unreinforced masonry, or maybe if you're not.

Oh, no, yeah, we definitely are.

The end result, the end goal, is to put a multifamily housing inside.

We're trying to find that balance between it being originally an industrial building of a much larger scope than a single-family style structure, but also that it is in a SF-5000 single-family zone.

And so first things first, let's make the building safe.

historically designating it, first step in the process, but then the next step would be, along with any alterations that we're asking for with Seattle DCI, would be included when that, obviously to seismically retrofit the structure.

So we'll be retrofitting the structure and then are applying to put two townhomes inside the structure, and that would be the end result.

Wonderful.

Will there be any recognition of also just the this as an early occupation for women to be able to have good jobs within our community at a time when there's very gendered roles within our society?

From a construction and development perspective, I'm not sure how we could do that, but I believe that that very special part of the historic nature of the building We were very happy that that was brought up throughout the designation process.

And so that being recorded and included as part of the designation, we're very happy with.

In terms of building two townhomes, I'm not really sure how.

We could do that.

It's originally an industrial building.

It is what it is, a large masonry structure.

And so our steel retrofit system will go along with that.

That's sort of what we've been having to focus on and plan for in terms of the end result of the development of townhomes.

Yes, I couldn't agree with you more.

And it could be as simple as just a plaque out for, you know, as one of those little, you know, libraries that folks share with their books, something not so different in size and scale.

While I was in AmeriCorps, I had the opportunity to live in an RCA radio, This is from the 1920s as well.

These were long range radio signals from across the Pacific.

The industrial scale of that building cannot be overlooked.

I have firsthand knowledge of what it must be like inside.

And so this is absolutely, again, the type of project that we like to see in our community where we are having a multifamily unit that preserves the unique character of our community built by our neighbors and for our neighbors.

I want to make just one other pitch to some of the previous questions.

One of the benefits of being a landmark is you get zoning code relief.

So when you're a landmark in a single family zone, you can put in two units.

Yeah.

Yes, Vice Chair.

Thank you for mentioning that and thank you for your work to convert this into multifamily structure potentially.

Having lived in Queen Anne for about six years, it is so incredible when you walk through the neighborhood to see old apartment buildings like mine that are, you know, beautiful brick buildings.

There was eight units in my apartment.

I'd walk down the street and there was this beautiful old house that had six entrances.

You wouldn't know it from looking at it on the outside.

Four entrances, duplex all over the place.

But then you realize that all of those are quote illegal now because they've been rezoned into single family zones when what we should be doing is thinking about creative ways to create multifamily dwelling units like what you're talking about, fully support the concept and appreciate that reminder as well.

But there's a lot more we can do to make sure that we don't have to go through the sort of rigmarole of navigating these complex opportunities if we were to reevaluate some of our zoning laws.

So I appreciate that reminder, and thank you for the work that you're doing on this beautiful building.

Thank you.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Throughout District 6, there are so many duplexes and triplexes that are now illegal to build.

Any further questions on the telegraph and telephone exchange?

Telephone and telegraph exchange, excuse me.

Seeing none, I'll move on to University of Washington Eagles Hall, and we will vote both of these together at the end of the presentation.

Thank you, Rich.

Wonderful.

And please don't ever hesitate to reach out.

We'd love to help support you in this effort.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

OK, so I'm joined by Julie Blakeslee of the University of Washington.

And this is also to codify an ordinance that the university has agreed to with the city preservation officer.

This is University of Washington Eagleson Hall at 1417 Northeast 42nd Street.

It's located just west of the main campus across the street.

So you can kind of see how it relates to the main central campus.

This was designated by the board on June 19th, 2019, under standards C, D, and F, so cultural and architectural history, as well as its visual distinctness in the neighborhood.

The board has designated the site, the building exterior, and the original main lounge and social room in the building.

This was completed in 1923 by architects Bevan Gould.

This was the Young Men's Christian Association, or the YMCA.

They started a chapter at the University of Washington on the campus in 1888. and were meeting in a building that was one of the school's buildings.

A new interpretation of the Washington State Constitution prohibited religious groups from using campus facilities, so they led a financial campaign to raise money and build their own Y building on this site, and in 1920, completed this building.

I'm sorry, they started in 20 and completed in 1923. So, the architectural language of Eagleson Hall was meant to be compatible with the established collegiate Gothic style in the nearby campus, and this was done in response to University of Washington President Henry Sousilo's recommendation that all the local businesses and owners in 1920 that they start developing their buildings to be consistent and compatible with the character of the campus.

So the YMCA occupied this building until 1963 when they decided to downsize and join the YWCA and completing a new facility in a new location.

And so the university purchased this property in 1965 and remodeled for the School of Social Work that has resided there for over 50 years in addition to the Department of Speech and Hearing Services, Sciences, excuse me.

The firm of Beb and Gould may sound familiar to some folks.

They designed many notable buildings in Seattle, including 28 alone on the University of Washington campus.

And they were also responsible for the 1915 campus master plan, which influenced the design there for the next 40 years.

And the Locks Administration Building.

And the Ballard Locks.

Many notable buildings.

Wonderful.

Julie, would you like to speak to this?

I will also offer, I believe the School of Social Work has since moved down the street to their new building.

Yeah, they're located in both of the buildings, most of the, several of the hearing sciences.

There's a couple classrooms and offices in Eagleson, so they're jointly tied with, they sort of have the whole block there.

That's wonderful.

My father attended the School of Social Work while it was only located within Eagleson Hall.

And so he had a lot to share with me about the importance of this building, so I'm excited to have it before the committee.

That's great.

Do you have anything that you'd like to share about the importance of preserving this historically?

Yeah, we're excited about this.

This is a building that is also a URM building, part of our URM program, and we are in fact underway in design of how we can structurally support this building, and it's been great working with Aaron and Sarah in a collaborative process of how we can come up with some, you know, structural solutions to minimize the effect on this historic structure.

Wonderful.

And are there incentives to the controls that we are applying?

I see that it is both the main lounge, the social room, as well as the exterior.

But are there incentives adjoining this?

So the incentives that could most likely apply here would be building code relief.

I don't think you need to seek zoning code relief because of the campus master plan.

So that's probably like energy code as well.

Preserving historic windows are likely going to be one of the things that we ask SDCI to approve.

I don't suppose you'll be pursuing special tax valuation.

Not as a state institution, no.

No.

But we expect that Rich will likely do that for his property.

Wonderful.

Are there other questions from my colleagues?

I just wanted to flag that I support this.

It's in District 4 and read the reports and appreciate your hard work on this and conferred with others at the University of Washington as well.

So thank you.

And one of the challenges that I've had emotionally experiencing the changing nature of our city is one of my favorite coffee shops in the entire city is Cafe Allegro, based across the street and up the alley.

And before we had a new building on the parking lot site, you could view Eagleson Hall from the patio and the upstairs patio.

And now there's a building there, and that view is no longer available.

It's just one of those changing dynamics, and we now have more space for people to live, work, and play.

Other questions, colleagues?

Wonderful.

If there's no further discussion, I would like to vote on these two ordinances, starting with the Sunset Telephone and Telegraph Exchange.

I move to adopt Council Bill 119748. Second.

Hearing a second, all those in favor, please say aye and raise your hands.

Aye.

Seeing unanimous, this motion passes.

And secondly, I would like to move to adopt Council Bill For Eagleson Hall, Council Bill 119749.

Second.

Seeing a second, those in favor, please vote aye and raise your hands.

Aye.

Seeing a unanimous vote, this motion passes.

Thank you for joining us today and all of your work to preserve the historic nature of our city while also building the resources that we need to become the global city that we are becoming.

These two items will both be on the full council agenda next Monday, March 2nd.

Any items for the good of the order, colleagues?

Seeing none, this concludes our February 26th, 2020 meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee.

As a reminder, our next regularly scheduled committee meeting will be on March 11th, starting at 9.30 a.m.

here in Council Chambers.

Thank you for attending, and we are adjourned.