Seattle City Council Planning, Land Use & Zoning Committee 6/5/19

three conversations, six appointments to the Seattle Design Commission, briefings, public hearings, and possible votes on Council Bills 119505 and 119506, the Ballard and Capitol Hill Design Guidelines, a public hearing and possible vote on Council Bill 119489, which allows for the Seattle Pacific University to apply for an expanded major institution master plan, a public hearing and possible vote on clerk file 314413, an application for a temporary expansion of the North Seattle Precinct, and a discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 119471, clarifying the definition of a vessel.

The next regularly scheduled PLEZ meeting is on Wednesday, June 19, starting at 9.30 a.m.

here in Council Chambers.

Before we begin, is there no objection to today's agenda, which will be adopted?

Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.

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

We have 10 minutes today for public comment.

If you're to comment on any of the agenda items 7 through 10, there are separate public hearings for those items, so please save your comments for those public hearings.

Speakers are lined up for two minutes for public comment.

If a speaker's comment exceeds the two minutes, the microphone will be turned off.

Speakers are asked to begin their comments by identifying themselves and the agenda item they wish to address.

As a reminder, public comment is limited to items that are on the agenda or within the purview of the committee.

First on our list is Mari Moore Shuler.

Thank you, Councilmember Pachinko and committee members.

Hi, Mike.

Good to see you.

Good to see so many familiar faces after all these years.

My name is Maury.

My name is Maury Moore Shuler, and I am the president of the Lake Union Liveaboard Association, also known as LULA, representing the smaller houseboats around Lake Union and the other liveaboards who are members of our organization.

We have for the last dozen years been consumed by trying to help the city recognize, protect, and codify our existence as vessels, as liveaboard vessels.

The state did recognize us in a piece of legislation for our historic and cultural significance and requires us to be moored in marinas.

With this proposal before you today, you are removing our status as vessels and making us strictly structures.

While at the same time, the state law requires us to be in marinas.

This is a disconnect and it is very convoluted for our marina owners and for ourselves.

State Senator Jamie Peterson, who wrote and sponsored our protective legislation, said repeatedly and is adamant still today that there was no intention of denying our vessel status in the legislation.

Yet with this action, you remove the very thing that marinas need for their own protection.

I hope it's not a deliberate wedge between us and the rest of the maritime community.

This also affects many other things that I don't think the staff has considered, our insurance, purchase and sales of our vessels, even whether we are covered by the derelict vessel bill, which requires pollution insurance.

If we're not vessels, do we need pollution insurance?

Maybe not, which is jeopardizing the state's waters.

Just a thought.

Something I think hasn't been considered yet.

Thank you.

We would ask again that you table this measure until such time as the staff can clearly explain why inclusion in the vessel definition would not be a preferable alternative.

Thank you.

Next on our list is Barb Ingram.

Hi.

I've lived in the houseboat community for 14 or 15 years, and I participated very actively in the last go-around with the city during the reroute in trying to change the rules and set up the rules that would protect us.

And so it's really hard to think that we're entering on anything like that again.

And I just wanted to ask, are you really satisfied?

Are you satisfied that there's some urgent need to change the definition of one word right now?

I presume that most of you live on shore.

If the city came to you and said, you know, we're going to change the definition of house, don't worry.

It's not a problem for you.

You know, we just spent four years in a fight to try to protect our right to stay in Seattle.

I understand from the information that I've gotten that one of the reasons it was presented was that there were whole bunches of new houseboats coming in and we needed this clarification to protect Seattle from this influx of houseboats.

Well, the existing rule does that.

You can't be licensed as an FOWR, floating on water residence, if you can't prove that you were in Seattle on the 1st of July 2014. So why would be there a need to change this?

And I'm sitting here and I'm thinking, gosh, hordes of new houseboats coming in, rapists and murderers on the southern border, weapons of mass destruction.

I just don't really like the way this whole thing is playing out.

It sounds like a familiar kind of a tactic to me.

I don't think that there's an urgent need to do this right now.

In two years, we're reviewing the Shoreline Master Plan again.

And that would be an appropriate time to look at this.

I don't think now is an appropriate time, and I think to rush it through on a vote now would be to overlook the possibility of having really critical and important information and important input from the people whose lives are very much affected by this.

Thank you.

Next on our list is John Chaney.

Good morning.

My name is John Chaney.

My partner and I own a verified flower floating on water residence, which is a vessel, since it was designed and used for navigation, yet would not qualify under this proposal as a flower.

I appreciate the uncodified statement proposed by Councilmember Herbold, but the protection of our fleet was intended to cover houseboats such as my own now and in the future.

The legislation as proposed would not allow the verification of my vessel as a flower if implemented.

Yet the twisted city definition of conventional recreational vessel would not include my houseboat.

I am too much a house and not enough a boat.

Or some days, not enough a boat and too much a house.

This legislation will create unintended consequences.

A cursory examination of the SMP finds the proposal would remove house barges from the vessel definition, but would also remove them from being allowed residential use in a marina.

This is going too fast and not making the correct analysis.

SMC 2360A-200 only allows a residential use in marinas of liveaboard vessels and floating on water residences where the house barge is authorized if they are not vessels.

DCI has not addressed the impacts to marinas from this vessel definition change.

What will the impacts in any mitigation actions at Seattle Municipal Code 2360A.158 be when we are declared to not be vessels?

Lula requested that flowers join house barges as exemptions under the vessel definition.

Why is this not acceptable to DCI?

We appreciate the data in the staff report.

We've been requesting this for a long time.

However, it is incomplete.

How many verifications were denied or are pending?

That is not an answered question.

Where is the evidence of the impending avalanche of flower applications?

Why can't the public access the verification applications?

Thank you.

This is a very clouded process.

Thank you.

Next on our list is Nora Boettner.

This is just a general statement, nothing to do with vessels so maybe I signed up on the wrong sheet it's my first time here.

I am a longtime resident of the north gate neighborhood and i'm very concerned with the recent changes and the future changes.

Recently a single-family home on a 6,190 foot square lot was demolished and it's being replaced with eight units.

Another single-family home is up for sale, and it's newly rezoned RSL supports five or six, four to five units.

There's another single-family home that was demolished and completely denuded of all vegetation and old growth vegetation, and it's being divided into lots.

There's another one.

Same thing's happening by the same contractor.

They're putting in six lots on two different single family lots.

And so how does this existing infrastructure support these changes?

Who pays for the upgrades?

Parking, the majority of people will not be giving up their cars.

Will these changes damage the environment and the livability?

I support equity and justice for all.

However, when one unit becomes three or more, this becomes an investment property.

Where is the equity in that?

The City Council is upzoning and rezoning.

It is difficult for the average citizen to follow all the changes you make.

Developers and investors have the time to research and lobby for what works to their advantage.

Please do not rezone for multi-unit buildings beyond the current boundary of North Gateway and 5th Northeast.

As you begin reconsidering changes in the zoning, please be mindful of these concerns.

We, citizens, voted for you to make decisions in our best interest.

Is this a mislaid trust?

Thank you.

Next on our list is M.

Kamal Alkalis.

Thank you good morning, this is I just came in I didn't even know the agenda of today's subject, but I have a.

Property over Magnolia that's 9100 square feet sitting in a single family 5000 zoning.

So, since the city.

You know, we're working on the, you know, smaller lots and the high density.

I wonder if, is there any way to work on the 75-80 rule?

So able to build two houses on a 9,000 square feet, rather than just big mansion on the property.

If city ever concerned to make a modification on 75-80 rule, because when you apply the 75-80 rule, it doesn't work.

75 works, but 80% doesn't.

That's all what I need to say.

Thank you.

Next on our list is Steve Robstello.

It's always nice to speak to such green environmentalists who don't mind mowing down trees for development.

That's a higher calling, as we say, on that.

I think that if you are going to be green, you might as well be consistent, and we should be looking at the heritage and the legacy.

The bigger trees are by far the most important, and the whole idea of looking at canopy.

In other words, if from the moon looking down, a shrub is equal to a heritage tree is just so Seattle City Council and so Mayor Oriel these days.

We have to take a look at, being really green.

If you want to be green, let's take a look at it.

We're seeing less and less bicycle use because the people you are importing, you know, there are a lot of people you're shoving out of the city.

We don't like to count that because we are a welcoming city.

We don't talk about those people that are being forced to leave the city.

And it's time we looked at both.

It's a time that we looked at things in general.

You are not elected to be advocates for small groups like urbanists, which is to the developing community as the Tobacco Institute is to the tobacco companies and the climate deniers are to the coal and petroleum companies.

Let's just take a look and do things for the good of the city, not for the good of small groups, which you seem to be very good at these days.

City is like an iceberg, very little is seen by the public, and much happens beyond the reach of the public, and you need to become more exposed, and you actually need to, I hesitate to use the word, listen to the public.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next on our list is John...

Jessica?

Sorry if I...

Sorry.

That's close enough.

Thank you.

My name is John Geisiger.

I'm a retired maritime lawyer and law professor.

And I'm also a liveaboard person on Lake Union and a member of the Lake Union Liveaboard Association.

I'm not here with a long technical explanation.

I mean, I used to teach law students the definition of a vessel under federal law.

And it's interesting and complete and can easily be found.

And I'm a little baffled by whether that same sort of research has been performed by the development office.

I'd like to speak, though, more personally to this fact.

My wife and I built our houseboat to the specifications the city required 10 years ago.

And frankly, we thought our retirement would be a little less frenetic.

Instead, we have found ourselves at many meetings here and many meetings, outreach meetings, trying to just simply defend our own existence.

And I hope it has not escaped the notice of the City Council, members of the City Council, and thank you for your time today, that most of the members here are no longer young.

And most of us live in dwellings in which we are hoping to have a certain degree of serenity.

And the other thing I'd like to add is this.

I sense, and having litigated many cases over 30 years, that this case, that this situation has gone beyond mere intellectual discussions between grownups and has become one of, I'm afraid, animus between the development office and members of the maritime community here.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next on our list is Cheryl Gruff.

Good morning.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak.

My name is Cheryl Groff and I am a house barge owner and would like also to just speak personally to this issue of the vessel definition.

and looking at that.

We support very much Lula in the fight to postpone this decision.

We feel as homeowners very endangered.

in a sense, and I'm new to Seattle, but have been a House Barge owner for over seven years.

This property was purchased through a real estate agency, partially financed by a financial institution here in Seattle.

It is our home, and I think it, I really want to emphasize that We're not an acronym, the FOWR.

These are people's homes.

On our marina, there are about 70 families currently living, represents single professional people, families with young children in middle school, in high school, and also retired families.

So we are all verified vessels according to the regulations.

And yet again, we see that this issue is being raised.

So I plead with you to please consider our case.

And though we are not many families in the Seattle area, these are our homes.

And we would like that to be respected and housing is of a premium in Seattle.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next on our list is Michelle Diafos.

Michelle?

Good morning.

My name is Michelle Diafos.

I also am a longtime live aboard in Seattle, Washington.

And I wasn't planning to speak, but I'm so happy to be here.

I've been on the water since 91, and I have been in these chambers, not these nice new ones, but these chambers for much of that time in and out.

And I'm just here to say this is getting a little tedious defending our lives, our homes.

And I was born and raised here.

I'm a native and I also plead like the lady before me, Cheryl, that you consider.

I'm now approaching and in retirement years.

And then these are our homes, and please consider that.

And we are responsible citizens, and we are not hurting anyone by being there.

So ask yourselves if you would like to be removed from your home.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone who would like to speak and did not have a chance to sign up?

Seeing that there are no additional speakers, we will move on to the next agenda item.

Noah, will you please read these appointments onto the record for the Seattle Design Commission.

Items one through six, appointments 01360 to 01365. Appointments of Amalia Leighton Cody, Brianna S. Holen, Richard F. Krokalos, Vinita Sindhu, and Elaine Wine as members, Seattle Design Commission, for terms to February 28th, 2021, and the appointment of Benjamin William DeRubertis as chair, Seattle Design Commission, for a term to February 29th, 2020.

Will everyone at the table please introduce themselves?

Vanita Sidhu, I'm a landscape architect practicing in Seattle for the past 20 years.

Elaine Wine, I'm an architect and a development manager with the Seneca Group.

Michael Jenkins, Seattle Design Commission.

Bendy Robertas, I'm an urban designer and architect.

Michael, can you remind us of the Seattle Design Commission?

Yeah, I'd be happy to.

So the Seattle Design Commission was established in 1968 to advise the mayor, the council, and city departments on the design of capital facilities that the city undertakes, as well as projects that seek either long-term or permanent use of a right-of-way.

The ten commissioners that populate the design commission are representatives from the architecture and design communities, and they look at the aesthetic, environmental, and design principles of projects that come before them.

We're here to seek confirmation by the council of five appointments plus a chair.

The chair is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council.

So the three appointments we're seeking today are for Ben DiRoberto as our chair.

And as he told you, he's been a member of the commission and he also is an architect for FLAD and specializes in healthcare facilities.

We're also seeking appointment of Amalia Leighton Cody, who was unable to be here today.

She's traveling for work.

We're seeking her appointment as our transportation planner.

Amalia is the head of TOOL, which is a local or, excuse me, a national transportation planning firm.

She heads up the Seattle office and specializes in transportation planning and infrastructure.

Vanita, we're seeking confirmation of her as our landscape architect, and she's a principal at Site Workshop, a local landscape architecture and urban design firm.

Vanita is a landscape architect that specializes in institutional and open space development, both here in Seattle and in the region.

And then finally, we're seeking confirmation of Elaine Wan as one of our two architects.

Elaine is a development manager at Seneca Group, And most of her work appears to be for Amazon and their local campus.

And she spends a significant amount of time in Denny Triangle working with them to help build and expand the campus here in Seattle.

And we're seeking her confirmation as well.

We're also seeking reappointment of two people, Rick Crachalis, who is seeking a second term.

He's one of our, he's our at-large member.

And Brianna Holen, who we're also seeking reappointment of, and she serves in the urban planning position for the commission.

Well, thank you all for being here today, or this morning.

Would you all like to spend a minute to introduce yourselves and say about your, speak to your interests on serving on the design commission?

I can start.

As I mentioned, I've been practicing landscape architecture in Seattle for the past 20 years, essentially my full professional career.

I've worked on institutions and parks, open space planning, and I bring the wealth of that knowledge to all the projects I work on.

And in seeking this appointment, I look forward to being able to influence the development of capital projects in the city in a positive benefit for everybody, thinking about the larger community and the legacies that we leave behind.

Hi, Elaine Wine.

I'm a licensed architect here in Seattle and started my career as practicing as an architect and eventually moved on to project management with Vulcan, Federal Transit Administration, and now the Seneca Group.

So I bring a fairly diverse background, not just on the design side, but implementation.

Prioritizing design excellence has really been a focus of my career and I've been working in the community for over 25 years.

I've got a passion for community service and I love Seattle and I want Seattle to be a great place.

I've served on the Seattle Landmarks Board, the Ballard Avenue Landmarks Board, which is the community in which I live.

I've been a part of the Alaska Way Viaduct North Portal Working Group, served with AIA Seattle, given architecture tours.

So it's something that's incredibly important to me.

And one of the things that really excites me about the Design Commission is an ability to utilize my skills in enhancing placemaking in Seattle.

And I think it's just an incredible time.

There's a number of capital projects or legacy projects.

You know, the great one that comes to mind is ST3 and how that will really influence the landscape here.

And I'm just very excited to be a part of that and support design excellence and sustainability and equity in design.

So I'd be excited to serve.

Thank you.

I'm Ben DeRobertis.

I've got about 25 years of experience that's as diverse as I could possibly imagine it to be from doing public art projects all the way through doing capital construction projects of $200 million and more in value.

Seeing that whole scale of endeavor I think was good preparation to be on the design commission.

And while it would be really hard to improve on the objectives that Elaine just listed, I think those are really laudable, I might add to it that it's an unbelievably educational process to sit on the design commission with other professionals.

And I think we're able to achieve together something that we really wouldn't be able to achieve as individuals.

I think we can hang our hat on the idea that by doing that, we really are helping to raise Seattle's game and provide the kind of input for elected leadership that only a body this diverse could produce.

So we're very committed to it, very excited about it, and thrilled to get started.

Thank you.

Do my colleagues have any questions?

Council Member O'Brien?

I'm not sure this is probably directed more to Michael or Ben, but the last few years have seen a significant body of work come through the Design Commission, I guess.

You all know what you're getting into, right?

Some of the projects, you know, some of the freeway projects, the convention center was a massive one.

You mentioned ST3, which is a massive set of projects that are coming, although I imagine they're probably still a few years away from coming before the design commission.

So I'm curious, what is on your plate for the next couple of years?

What are some of the types of projects or specific projects?

I think ST3 is going to inform a lot of what the commission does in part.

I think that what we've been seeing Sound Transit do to date is really saying we want to front load in many ways, looking at how, and the city is certainly saying this as well, how do these successfully integrate into our neighborhoods?

And I think that OPCD and city departments are now beginning to tackle that question in earnest.

And I think what we'll be doing on behalf of the city is trying to look at the initial work that they do preparing for the idea of maybe embedding urban design work that the city expects.

in advance of any contracts.

I think they've been very vocal about taking a different approach, possibly proceeding with more design-build contracts.

If that is the case, and I think that it is, the work that the Design Commission does in trying to elevate urban design expectations and embedding that in work becomes more important earlier rather than later.

We've learned a lot about that with the work that we've been undertaking with 520, embedding urban design values in major infrastructure projects that are gonna be design build.

And I think that's where this is going as well.

I think maybe the three lenses that we've been looking at most carefully are equity, certainly with respect to how significant investment is gonna affect neighborhoods.

I think also integration is something that this body has really chosen to focus on.

We've really asked city departments and jurisdictional, where we have jurisdictional overlap, to just make sure that everyone's communicating with each other so that we're getting projects that are more than the sum of the parts, where there's the opportunity to have investment kind of multiply.

And the last one is vision.

It's really important that Seattle and elected leadership sets the vision for some of these significant investments.

And that way, we're not devolving down to the lowest common denominator of what makes for feasibility, but we're really raising that to what makes for great places to live.

Thank you.

I think I really appreciate the work that the Design Commission has done.

I hope that in addition to the body of work that you all have, that there's capacity to be proactive in helping us think through the projects that are coming our way.

And I look at the challenge and opportunity of a second downtown transit tunnel, and specifically the Chinatown International District, second station there, and the threat of construction and disruption to some very fragile ecosystem that is already being squeezed from so many different angles right now.

And the opportunity to have a multimodal transit hub that serves, you know, frankly the whole Puget Sound region that functions really well for all users including and maybe even first and foremost the folks that have historically lived in that neighborhood.

A lot of ways we can get that wrong.

And I'm not exactly sure how we get it right.

But I've been really impressed with the conversations I've had with design commission members.

And I hope that there's capacity to really help the city and the community probably, just as importantly, navigate the next few years as we think through what's possible in that one neighborhood.

And then we have challenges.

Look at my friends in Ballard.

There's going to be some major disruption in Ballard happening probably a few years later.

But it's coming.

And West Seattle obviously has its own challenges, too.

Anyways, I know you all spend a lot of time on this stuff and I hope that there's time to, I hope we're not, there's not so many projects coming at you that you have time to be really proactive and thoughtful and help influence us as we're making kind of policy decisions that impact the long term.

Thank you.

I want to thank the folks who are coming forward for giving your time, your service, your talents to this body of work.

I do want to once again express some hopes for better representation.

On this body, we only have representation from three of seven districts.

Districts 1, 3, 4, and 7 are not represented on the commission, and I think particularly as it relates to projects that will be coming before the commission that are based in those neighborhoods that don't have representation, it makes it particularly important.

So there aren't going to be any openings until February of next year.

And there's only one.

I'm sorry, there's two that are open February next year.

There's a Get Engaged program that's open later this year.

So I would request that the design commission staffers do two things.

One, come up with a plan for having better representation.

when those openings do come up.

And to work with the commission to figure out along the lines of Council Member O'Brien's request, how to, given that there isn't representation on the commission itself from those neighborhoods where there are some pretty big reviews coming up that y'all are gonna be doing, particularly around Sound Transit, how to make sure that you're really engaged with those communities.

A little extra boost would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Is there any further questions or discussion?

Seeing none, thank you all for being here this morning.

I will be moving now towards a vote.

I move to confirm appointment 01360 to 01365. Those in favor of the appointments, please vote aye.

Sorry, is there a second?

Second.

Those in favor, I got ahead of myself.

All those in favor, the appointments please go to aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed?

Seeing none, the appointments pass.

Thank you all.

Your appointments will be considered by the full council on Monday, June 10th.

There is no need for you to attend, but you're all welcome to.

And thank you again for taking the time to serve on the Design Commission.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next item of business is a briefing public hearing and possible vote on Council Bill 119505, which adopts the Ballard neighborhood design guidelines.

Noah, would you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Agenda item seven, Council Bill 119505, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending the Seattle Municipal Code to remove the Ballard Municipal Center master plan area guidelines and adopt the Ballard neighborhood design guidelines.

Will everyone at the table, once they've been seated, please introduce themselves.

David Goldberg with the Office of Planning and Community Development.

Yolanda Ho, Council Central staff.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you

Yeah, I'd like to begin with a brief overview of what design review does.

I know most of you are familiar with all of this and have been through it, but the public who's listening may also want a little brief overview.

So we'll go over the design review program.

Again, my name is David Goldberg.

I work in the Office of Planning and Community Development.

I had the great pleasure to work with these community representatives as well as many others to develop the Ballard Design Guidelines.

The city design review process was established in 1994. And there have been over 1,500 projects that have been reviewed since that project began.

The design review takes place as part of the master use permitting process for most larger developments before they can apply for construction permits.

Next slide.

The purpose of the design review program is to encourage better design and site planning so that new development fits into the context of the neighborhood, both the existing context and the desired future context.

It provides flexibility in the application of development standards, and it improves communication and collaboration between community developers and the city.

There's several types of design review process.

There's the full design review that applies to larger projects, there's administrative design review for smaller ones, and there's streamlined design review for townhouses.

The design review is administered through a board, and there are different boards throughout the city.

Today we'll be talking about neighborhood design guidelines in the Northwest Board and the Capitol Hill First Hill Board.

Each board consists of volunteers appointed by you and the mayor, and their duties include synthesizing community output, providing design guidance, recommending conditions to the director of Seattle Department of Construction Inspections, and ensuring fair and consistent application of the design guidelines.

In 2013, we took a look at the citywide design guidelines and created a new organization structure that you see here.

The different categories include the context and the site, public life, and the design concept.

There are citywide design guidelines and neighborhood design guidelines for many neighborhoods in the city.

They're both using the same organizational structure.

Neighborhood design guidelines do not repeat but complement and enhance citywide design guidelines.

So under each subcategory that you see here, there are usually three to five specific design guidelines in the citywide document.

Neighborhood-based design guidelines may or may not provide additional guidance under each of these categories.

In neighborhood design guidelines, there's a key at the very beginning that indicates where additional guidance is provided to help people understand that.

For example, in the Ballard Design Guidelines, we'll go into in a bit, there isn't additional guidance on walkability actually.

All of that, although an important topic, all of that's addressed through other parts of the Neighborhood Design Guidelines.

So that's the context of the specific Neighborhood Design Guidelines that we'll now present.

Moving on to Ballard.

The Ballard design guidelines follow a large amount of planning that's gone on in the community since the late 90s, and it's important to kind of reflect on why these neighborhood design guidelines are the way they are.

In 1998, the neighborhood completed their urban village plan.

Subsequent to that, they We've developed recommendations for the creation of the Ballard Civic Center, which is a community city initiative that caused the creation of the Ballard Commons Park, the location of the library, the location of the Neighborhood Service Center, and then the city adopted design guidelines for the area around those facilities.

After a number of years of moderate growth, large-scale growth really began to occur in Ballard around 2008. And the community reacted to that in a number of ways.

One was being very proactive and connecting with the city.

The other is the more general conversation that we do here around the community.

We don't mind the growth as long as there's, it looks good and we have good transit, which is something I think everybody in the city can understand.

So the business owners that are, and community residents that we see around the table, joined together to create the Ballard Partnership for Smart Growth and it's now, the Ballard Alliance, and it really was instrumental in bringing together all sorts of different organizations in the community to talk and meet regularly with us.

In response to that organizational initiative, OPCD and Seattle Department of Transportation collaborated to complete an urban design and transportation framework in 2016. It recorded community direction on development standards, modifications that were adopted in 2016, transportation improvements that SDOT has been updating, and then in the development of the design guidelines that we're talking about today.

We, as I mentioned, we adopted the recommended zoning standards changes in 2016, and then we began the process of developing the design guidelines with a committee.

We completed that work in the fall of 2018. So, and thank you for moving through the slides.

It's working perfectly.

So why update the Ballard Neighborhood Design Guidelines?

I'll just quickly go through the things that were pushing us in that direction.

There was significant growth occurring throughout the urban village.

The existing design guidelines only applied to a small area within the urban village around the Ballard Common Park.

Community recognized and the city recognized that there are many different areas in Ballard that required additional guidance.

And so we wanted to expand the area that the guidelines applied to the entire urban village.

We also realized that with the new types of building that were being constructed, there is additional guidance needed about bulk street level design and detail.

And lastly, as we were completing the work, it became clear that mandatory housing affordability was likely to apply more heightened density to the community.

and they wanted to respond to that.

So, the work that we did involved a tremendous amount of community engagement.

There were 24 committee meetings, and I really want to do a shout out to everybody that stuck with this process and completed a very methodical approach to analyzing how the community is currently constructed today, how they see it growing in the future, and they provided consistent guidance throughout 24 meetings to develop the urban design and transportation plan, as well as the design guidelines.

We had five well-attended open houses.

We had a number of community conversations, but with specific neighborhood organizations, and we completed a SIPA process.

I want to mention the people here around the table.

They were, I believe, at almost every single meeting throughout there.

Catherine and Tom, thank you very much for your your chairing of the committee.

It was wonderful.

And Mike, for your consistent and representation of the Central Ballard residents.

I also want to recognize Julia Park, who worked with us throughout the process.

Unfortunately, she's not here with us today, but she contributed many of her hours over the timeline that we had to develop this process.

And also do a shout out to Aditi Kamboj, who really worked it with SDOT and OPCD to really design and communicate what we were hearing with the community.

So her work for the city was really instrumental in getting this work done.

So the priority design issues.

We wanted to enhance the different character areas that the community identified.

Ballard is blessed by not having one main street, but a number of different areas that are important to the overall character of Ballard.

Improving the street level character of each of those distinct areas, reducing building bulk throughout, and then using high quality detailing and materials.

In the next slide, you can see the character areas indicated by the different colors.

The ones that we focused on are the character core, which surrounds the Ballard Landmark Historic District.

The design guidelines don't apply in there, but that is an important reference for building quality and building character that applies both to Ballard Avenue area as well as Marcus Street.

Then there's the general commercial areas that we see, what we call the in-town residential areas, the high-density residential areas that surrounded the commercial core, and then the civic core, which is an interesting area that is off of the main streets, but it's still a very high-density, walkable area, but it has a much more relaxed feeling.

Okay, next slide.

Thank you, Catherine.

of our areas we provided a summary as well as some specific design directions.

So this is an example of the design guidelines where we addressed, for example, the character areas.

So we listed supplemental design guidelines.

We provided an illustration that shows the building facades and the streetscape.

So we got a really comprehensive look at the entire public realm.

And then we provided specific examples that illustrate the character we would like to see moving forward.

You can see on the upper left, that is the character on Market Street that many community members would like to see continue.

And immediate, you know, less than, I don't know, less than a quarter mile away, there's a very different character in the Civic Core where different types of amenities are provided to provide still a very walkable area.

Next one.

Street level character was really important in the neighborhood, but as I mentioned, it isn't the same everywhere.

What was important was to create, throughout the urban village, welcoming and spacious sidewalks, active residential and retail edges, integrate private and public open space in a way that really creates a nice walking environment, and then making mid-block connections.

Next slide.

So, for example, in the more traditional retail areas, it's necessary for street, to be, for storefronts, active storefronts to be adjacent to the sidewalks.

And a specific character that you see there on the top is the Ballard Avenue character.

There's also a different character with new buildings.

We provided some please don't do examples in our design guidelines.

The bottom one is a please don't do.

You can see that there's still a lot of storefronts there, but they're shadowed and they're not nearly as engaging.

In the, under the PL3, you'll see an example of townhouses, and it was very important that our residential areas also include a very active street front.

Next slide.

One of the next things that we wanted to deal with was building bulk.

And the refrain that we often heard is, please make sure we don't have a canyon on Market Street.

And we knew that buildings, the existing buildings would be dwarfed over time by larger scale development.

And what we wanted, what we did first thing to do was adopt regulations which required upper level setbacks and required building modulation.

The other thing that we wanted to do is acknowledge that A boxy building, a large rectangular building does not have to be bulky.

There are many ways that you can adjust larger development to fit in better with the neighborhood.

So we provide guidance about the units of design, having them reflect the older scale of the development and the details of those designs.

Next one.

Building materials.

A lot of it boils down to the real tactile nature that you feel.

Fremont has more whimsical design, I would say, but for Ballard, it may be reflecting kind of the essence of Scandinavian design that people often refer to.

Permanence and honesty were words that people used to describe the types of materials that they were looking for, selecting ones that conveyed permanence.

And that could be either traditional materials, brick and stone, or modern materials that you see up here.

Next slide.

These are examples of things that people appreciate.

People appreciate both the very tactile nature of the brick, and they really like the Ballard Library.

Both are examples that we refer to in the design guidelines about how to use materials well.

So this is an overview of the different topics that we addressed, some examples of how these show up in the design guidelines, and we're open for questions about this one, and then we'll move into the Capitol Hill design guidelines shortly.

Any questions or comments?

Go for it.

Well, I want to start by saying that my gratitude for the work you all have done.

You obviously care deeply about the community and have put a lot of time into this.

The land use decision we made a few years ago was the least controversial land use decision I've been part of, and I know that's not random.

I think there's some amazing community work done in advance to really build strong consensus in the community.

And it's frankly a model for how we can do that, but it only happens when they're engaged community members like yourselves that are working that process all the way through.

Very appreciative for that.

And I'm looking forward to being able to adopt these new guidelines.

And there's been a lot of development in the neighborhood, obviously.

There's likely to be more development coming, especially as the promise of light rail becomes a reality.

And I think there's an opportunity here to follow in the great work that you and community members have done to really shape what that looks like going forward.

So I'm appreciative of that.

Thank you.

If I could just comment, I'd like to thank both council members for mentioning Sound Transit to the people who are just on the design committee.

As you know, it's the elephant in the room for us right now, as Councilman O'Brien can say, having set up his own subcommittee to look at it.

So thank you.

If I may, a little personal aside is that back in 2012, I started the Central Ballot Residents Association based on two issues that I felt personally.

One was the buildings, and the other was parking.

Well, parking is still a problem, obviously.

But the buildings, that was a real concern.

And what we saw is that between market, between 15th and 17th is the canyon, which has been referred to, or at least I refer to it as that.

And I didn't want to see that happen throughout the rest of Ballard.

And it was with great pleasure to see the changes that have come about.

I don't agree with necessarily all of the suggestions, but I love the concept of the walkability and to work on making sure that the buildings are part of the environment.

And a classic example is the building on 15th and Market on the northwest corner where they have a bus drop off.

And the building is built right up to the sidewalk.

And there's absolutely no room to allow people to congregate waiting for the bus and not avoid the sidewalk, et cetera.

These are the kind of little details that are important and are mentioned in the design guidelines.

I know that some of my members would not be happy about some of the residential issues, for example, row houses.

But, you know, overall, these, we work together for the good of the community.

And I think that we have done as best we can.

And I appreciate the work that, David has done to facilitate it throughout the process and it's nice to move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I want to give special thanks to David because without his persistence on this, this would not have happened.

He was absolutely instrumental in helping us channel the energy of the community and always encouraging us to bring more people to the table.

We probably had 36 people through our committee over the, we would bring people and lose people And so we were able to do that in part in what we were talking about, but we consistently reached out, and David really encouraged us to do that, to make sure we had renters represented, new residents to the neighborhood, long-time residents, and really bringing that together.

I hope that the city can use as a model for other communities and empowering other communities.

We had a new development go in before these guidelines obviously had been adopted that actually used a lot of the principles that we had been gathering with the community.

And the building at the northeast corner of Market and 15th is far superior as far as an asset to the community and providing that space.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And to your point, as a renter myself, a homeowner, homeowners that are here at the table and business owners, I mean, we're all neighbors.

And I think that, thank you for just the 24 committee meetings, community meetings that you all participated in.

Are there any questions?

Not a question, just a comment.

I just want to elevate one of the comments that David made in how important it is that these guidelines distinguish, allow you, allow development to distinguish between all of the different character areas.

I think Ballard is unique in that it has so many different character areas.

I think seven it looks like from this map.

And so that really adds, I think, a lot of complexity to the work that you have to do in order to maintain that uniqueness.

Because together as a whole, it really, I think, helps maintain the character of the entire district.

So thank you for digging in like that.

Well, I will now open public hearing on Council Bill 119505. Speakers are limited to two minutes of public comment.

If the speaker's comments exceeds the two minutes, the microphone will be turned off.

The first is Steve Rubstello.

Mr. Ballard is probably very appropriate for special consideration because I remember many years ago that Ballard was not very well organized and the city looked at it as a free fire zone for rezoning and treated it exactly that way.

And it needs help and has needed it for a very, very long time.

My hope is that you will expand design review to help them even more.

Parking was mentioned.

When the urban villages were first proposed, design review covered far more territory than it does now.

And design review ought to cover the whole project.

That was part of the deal with the neighborhoods.

Of course, deals with the neighborhoods are short term.

The idea of fast and Sure, with the development community, it's forever.

Now, I hope you have a lot more respect for Ballard than you do for Fremont.

In Fremont, the Design Review Committee, out of all the days of the month, always chooses the same meeting night as the Fremont Neighborhood Council, the only really citizen group that represents citizens.

And my hope is that you will show a little more respect for Ballard and that you will add to the authority and not just choose the color of the hardy board and a few items.

Let's look at the whole impact of the building and where does it sit?

Does it fit?

And will it be an asset to the community or just another profit center?

Thank you.

Is there anyone who would like to who did not sign up to speak and would like to speak?

Seeing as we have no additional speakers, I will now close the public hearing on Council Bill 119505. Council rules typically prohibit us from voting on legislation the same day as a public hearing.

However, as we have often done with design guidelines in the past, I would like to ask my colleagues to consider suspending the rules so that we can vote on this today.

If there is no objection to that, I move to suspend the rules to allow for a vote on Council Bill 119505. Is there a second?

All those in favor, please vote aye.

All those opposed, vote no.

Seeing none, the motion passes.

Before we move to vote on the underlying legislation, there is a technical amendment to design guidelines legislation.

Yolanda, can you describe that amendment?

Yes, so there is, there's a couple of amendments to the council bill and the associated attachment, which is the design guideline document.

So to, there's, on our central staff memo, attachment A is amendment one to council bill 119505, and it's a purely technical amendment.

There was, in the cleanup of the legislation, because the Ballard, municipal center master plan area is being removed from the bill.

There were some following maps, including upper Queen Anne commercial areas map that was actually updated in the zoning information, but because that was not addressed in the bill's title, it cannot fall within the scope of this bill.

So what we did was just merely change the title of the map and retain the very old zoning at this point.

That will be updated in, I believe, the omnibus bill later this year.

So, and given with MHA, we already changed the zoning again.

So, it would have needed to be changed regardless.

So, that is the first amendment.

And then the next amendment is to attachment, to the attachment, which is the design guidelines and merely correcting typos and clarifying language.

So, and those are all detailed in the memo.

Are there any questions?

Seeing none, I move to amend Council Bill 119505 as shown in Attachment A to the Central Staff Memo and by substituting Attachment 1 with Attachment B to the Central Staff Memo.

Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor, please vote aye.

Aye.

The amendment passes.

Now I move to adopt Council Bill 119505 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor, please vote by saying aye.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

This legislation will be back before the full council on Monday, June 10th.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold is very excited to get these design guidelines.

We really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Our next item of business today is a briefing, public hearing, and possible vote on Council Bill 119506, which approves the Capitol Hill Design Guidelines.

Noah, would you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Agenda item eight, Council Bill 119506, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending the Seattle Municipal Code to approve the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Design Guidelines 2019. Oh, yeah, sure.

Welcome back, Yolanda.

Yolanda Ho, Council Central Staff.

Patrice Carroll from the Office of Planning and Community Development.

Joel Suslak with Capitol Hill Housing, and I direct the Capitol Hill Eco-District.

Lana Blinderman, a member of the work group and a Capitol Hill resident.

All right, kick us off.

Good morning.

So the reason that we're here this morning is to talk about an update to the Capitol Hill design guidelines.

It's been 14 years since council originally adopted the Capitol Hill guidelines.

And as you know, much has changed in Capitol Hill.

There's been over 50 projects that have gone through the design review process.

There's new light rail.

And although the guidelines for station sites were adopted in 2013, the bulk of the other guidelines have not been changed.

So the Office of Planning and Community Development, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, and Capitol Hill Housing decided to partner on this project to assess and update the existing neighborhood design guidelines.

And some of the reasons why we felt that we needed to update these was because, again, there's a new light rail station.

We also have, as Joel mentioned, there's the Capitol Hill Eco District that was established in 2011. And more recently, there was an arts district established.

And so those groups have really given a lot of thought to how this neighborhood is gonna develop in the future.

And that might not have been fully reflected in the existing design guidelines.

We also updated our citywide design guidelines in 2013, so this was an opportunity for us to eliminate any duplication that exists and make these guidelines a little bit leaner and more specific to the neighborhood.

Mandatory housing affordability was something we were also tracking to see eventually what additional height and density would result from those zoning changes.

And then also we felt that this could be a really useful tool for communities as we made changes to the design review program overall to encourage more early community input.

This map shows where the design guidelines will apply within the Capitol Hill Urban Center Neighborhood Village.

And then also I just wanted to point out that there's a few places within that area where these design guidelines will not apply.

There's the Belmont Harvard Historic District, there's a little part of that in within the boundaries.

And again, there are separate guidelines that apply to that area.

We also have two major institutions within the urban center village boundaries, the Seattle Central College and Kaiser Permanente.

And again, those are development in those places have different guidelines that are associated with their major institutional plans.

So we did the core of our community engagement was really working with what we called a working group.

There were 14 members, and we worked with them, again, over a 14-month period to assess the existing design guidelines, look to eliminate that duplication, amplify and add to make these guidelines more specific and more relevant to the Capitol Hill neighborhood, call out particular locations and be more specific.

So over that time, we worked very intensely with the working group.

And then at certain points, we also invited feedback from the broader community.

We had an open house in the fall of 2017. We also had an amazing response to an online survey that we did.

So that was a real learning for us.

It was the first time we had tried kind of a visual preference survey for design guidelines.

And people really, when you show them pictures, people can much more tell you what it is they like and don't like.

about the development in their community.

And then we also had another public meeting where we shared the draft.

And again, we had an open house and an online survey.

And then, of course, we did also gather some additional comments towards the end of the meeting.

of the comment period during the SIPA.

They weren't really about the environmental review, but people still took that as an opportunity to share their thoughts.

And I wanted to ask Joel and Lana to share some of their thoughts about being part of this process.

So I moved to Capitol Hill about seven years ago, and I'm a graphic designer, photographer, and visual artist, and I'm also passionate about architecture and preservation, as well as affordability.

And what I started noticing is that the new buildings coming in did not look good, and they did not fit the neighborhood.

So when this opportunity to get involved presented itself, I felt it would be important for me to contribute whatever I have of the knowledge of the built environment to the discussion.

And I certainly learned a lot through the process because the discussion was not just about how the buildings looked, but about massing and how they live in the surrounding environment, how they enhance small business and public access.

We did have a lot of discussion dedicated to the public realm and tree canopy.

and just in general ways to engage public sort of around the building and make it more user-friendly to all populations, regardless of ability.

And what sort of my takeaway from this was that everyone in the group had different ideas of what a good building looks like, especially when it came to materials.

And that's probably the issue that I was interested in most, is what the building feels like and looks like.

And some of us were traditionalists and we wanted brick and stone and that only, and others were staunch modernists and they wanted buildings that were more sort of, I would say, contemporary Bauhaus.

But what we all agreed on is we wanted the new construction to be well designed.

We felt that a lot of the new buildings coming in did not have any design concept behind them.

And we wanted to have the evidence of the design work that went into those buildings.

We want the buildings to be attractive and to be long-term additions to the neighborhood and not just, you know, club board houses that will have to be rebuilt in 20 years.

And finally, we wanted them to complement existing architectural style.

It doesn't mean that they have to mimic it, but they have to respect and fit within their surroundings.

and use quality materials.

I guess one thing that I wished was also covered in the process is I wished we had more references.

We had a lot of examples from the neighborhood and from Seattle in general, but I wish we also looked at how other cities internationally solve the problems of urban infill.

And there are certainly a lot of examples of how they do it in Helsinki and Amsterdam and Berlin and Moscow.

And I think we could have been less insular and learned more from others.

Thank you.

I guess I would just add a couple of things.

One, I just want to commend Patrice as well as Christina Gan and Aaron Dursey from DCI being very active and engaged partners.

I think the bottom line in terms of what we learned, and often learning is a process of relearning, right?

What we learned in this process is that a good process combined with community ownership and community leadership leads to a good outcome for that community.

And we were really happy to have this opportunity to work on the design guidelines.

Design guidelines are a pretty limited tool, I think we can all agree.

And to be honest, it wasn't the tool we Wanted?

I mean, it's an important tool.

But we, and Diane Sugimura and now Sam Assefa can testify that just about every year, we darken the doors of the OPCD offices and say, we really want a new neighborhood plan.

It's been since 1998. And as Patrice said, the neighborhood has changed a lot.

And Sam's response in this case was, well, we can't do a neighborhood plan, but we do have a little bit of funding to work on a neighborhood guidelines update.

So we were happy to get that opportunity.

And just to comment on that, I would suggest that you have a lot of common cause with a lot of communities throughout the city in your desire for an updated neighborhood plan.

And you might want to consider figuring out how to mobilize and put to use that common cause.

It's something that we hear a lot of all over the city.

Thank you.

Yeah, that's my impression as well.

I know that our interests and needs are not unique.

But what we wanted to bring to the process as much as possible with the design guidelines update is how could we embed and include some of the goals and priorities of the Capital Eco-District and the Arts District into design guidelines.

Again, recognizing that it's a pretty limited tool.

But I think we did pretty well.

There are pieces in there about regenerative design, habitat corridors, reinforcing the architecture that's there that we want to reinforce and provide additional guidance.

We did have many monthly meetings and many community forums and they were very well attended, which I think speaks to the appetite in Capitol Hill, and I think you would agree, to be engaged and to come to the table and work with the city on these things.

In terms of, you know, I'm always, as working with the Eco-District, I'm always asking the question, and I think Council Member O'Brien knows this especially, is like, okay, what's next?

What should we do building on this process, we did identify a lot of things that could be included in the design guidelines and a lot of things that would not be as appropriate to put into that tool.

And one of the things that we've been focused on is really how do we shape the public realm as well with goals that really reflect the community's interests in terms of health and resiliency.

So we have been working with SDOT on a public life study, and we'll be continuing that work through the year.

And I would like to plant the seed of a request for 2020 that SDOT get expanded funding to help implement some of the findings from their public life study that they're doing, not just in Capitol Hill, but in other neighborhoods.

The public realm is where the city has the most agency and where the community wants to be incredibly involved.

So I hope that we'll have more opportunity to help shape the neighborhood.

And short of a new neighborhood plan, I think a public realm plan might be the next good thing that we could do for the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joel and Lana.

So I think Joel and Lana both touched on some of those priority design issues that were uncovered during this process.

And so again, the architectural qualities, walkability, the local values of the Eco District, the Arts District, and the LBGT community.

We want definitely greener, more resilient, and as much attention to the public realm, to that area between the building face and the curb, as to the actual building and the private realm components within the building.

And then also looking for opportunities as the major institutions in those areas consider changes to their plans, what guidance we might give for the areas around those major institutions.

So some of the key things in the context and site changes, again, infusing those ecodistrict values and in how these buildings fit into the broader community, calling out those distinctive streets, and particularly the retail quarters are so important, and Capitol Hill has several important ones.

And also kind of balancing what's there and what's new, And that was really an interesting discussion, is when you have very old and very beloved buildings, but also new architecture.

And actually in Capitol Hill, they really like having this eclectic mix.

That's part of the character of the neighborhood.

So how do you balance those two desires in the design guidelines?

And then also seeking creative opportunities that reflect the local community's culture.

And here's just an example, this is the energy choices section of the guidelines.

And there's a lot of language in here that does come directly from the Eco District and their interest in green buildings and ways that these buildings can actually contribute to the sustainability of the neighborhood.

Public life, so again, this was a big issue and we did spend a lot of time talking about how these buildings help to create and contribute to the public realm.

And some of the key places are the connections between Capitol Hill green spaces and those areas where new development might happen and how they can contribute to some of these corridors.

continuous street walls and ample pedestrian space, particularly along the retail corridors where we want to make sure that there's adequate space for people to gather and to walk.

We also had a lot of discussion about what was happening in that public realm.

So there's really as much interest in this public realm as there was in the actual design of the building.

So I would say it was really like a 50-50 mix in terms of the discussions that we had.

Interestingly, this was also during the bike share pilot program.

So we did spend a fair amount of time talking about bike parking and came up with some good suggestions that will be implemented in the future, hopefully.

Hopefully bike and scooter parking.

Yeah, yes.

And here, again, is just an example from the public life section where we see a lot of those values about access, inclusive neighborhoods.

Interestingly, we spent a lot of time talking about weather protection and how we can still accommodate street trees and still provide that weather protection that is desirable, particularly along those retail corridors.

The design concept, and again, this is the area where we talk more about the design of the buildings, and we had some quite interesting discussions about what it means to be a building in an arts district, and how can those new developments, how can the design of those new developments contribute to that?

And so again, this idea of having flexibility and adaptability, although the design guidelines do not speak to the uses within the building, we felt that designs that were flexible, again, would help in that particular situation to accommodate a lot of other kinds of, to accommodate a range of uses and hopefully some arts uses.

Also, a lot of discussion about how we can integrate art into the buildings, again, to reflect the community values.

We met with the arts district and we had a lot of conversations about what it means to reflect the LBGT culture and history in the community.

And that it's more than having rainbow crosswalks in the right of way, but yet it has to not be overdone.

And so that was something that we didn't have specific solutions, but we were able to flag that that was definitely a desire in the community.

And again, here is just some of the example language that we've included around ground level open space and residential open space.

Again, a lot of that kind of shared realm was really important in our discussions.

So we'll leave it there.

And if you have any questions, we're happy to talk more about.

Colleagues?

Seeing none.

Moving too fast for me.

Sorry, Council Member Chico.

You know, there's so much going on in this neighborhood and has been and will be for quite a while.

And it's got so many interesting things.

It's not dissimilar from Ballard, but it's obviously very unique.

And I really appreciate the work that you've done, Patrice, and the work for others at OPCD, but the community members that have come together to really be thoughtful about what can be accomplished in a neighborhood.

And so I'm excited to get these implemented.

I'm excited to see how they work going forward.

I think, you know, Capitol Hill has been for such a long time, you know, one of those neighborhoods that's on the kind of the leading edge of what we try in the city.

And so I appreciate that thoughtfulness about how to both retain what's important and grow is gonna be, It's going to be interesting to figure out that balance, and my sense is that community members are generally ready to embrace that challenge.

Not that it's going to be easy, but I'm excited about that.

Well, thank you for such a, I mean, very community-driven process.

I like to spend a lot of my time in District 4, but bakery, the closest bakery to vote to me is in District 3, so I'm there frequently.

So, all that, excuse me.

I'm now going to open public hearing on Council Bill 119-506.

Speakers eliminated two minutes of public comment if a speaker's comment exceeds the two minutes the microphone will be turned off First on our list is Kelly Martin Yes, I did my name is Kelly Martin I live on Capitol Hill I moved here 45 years ago and

I did answer the online survey, by the way, and there were some difficult decisions to make.

But what I'm really here for is to discuss another matter that does take place on Capitol Hill.

Councilman O'Brien, you might want to cover your ears.

We all know the budget constraints that city has right now and the need to prioritize a revenue.

Enough of that.

Enough of the protected bike lanes already.

It seems as of maybe 10 years ago, bicycles started to become more prevalent on the streets of Seattle.

What used to be shared roadways are now slowly being taken over by cyclists demanding more protection for their decisions.

No one is forcing anyone to ride a bicycle.

Anyone riding a bicycle must always realize the dangers they are subjecting themselves to.

Yet the city is taking away parking spaces needed for businesses to conduct business.

There is no excuse for taxpayers to be paying for bike lanes to protect bicyclists.

They can learn the rules of the road and integrate with vehicles the way it has always been in the past, or they should consider alternative means of transportation.

Right now, the Department of Transportation has been asked to remove all parking from the block that I live on.

This is Melrose Avenue between Olive and Denny Way.

This block has approximately 40 parking spaces used by the residents in the three buildings on my block.

Three loading zone spaces used for deliveries, post office, UPS, FedEx, Amazon, waste management, recycling, even the school bus.

Bicyclists have never had a problem with using the street for years and now for some reason it's not adequate enough for them.

Thank you.

Next on our list is Steve Rustello.

Again, you're not thinking big enough.

Design Review ought to really look at the situation and all your pictures of Capitol Hill were during the day.

Capitol Hill is a different place at night.

Capitol Hill is not the same all the time, and parking is a very interesting thing on Capitol Hill.

People have not given up their cars, even if they use a lot of transit, even if they use buses, even if they do other things.

So you're going to or you should consider in design review looking at cumulative impact.

Now I know that that's a dirty word to the city because each project should be looked at totally by itself, as if it was in its own universe.

However, the city is one place, not a series of little universes.

So you must open up the process.

Again, add parking.

Look at bicycles.

Look at the sidewalks.

Do you care at all about pedestrians, you know?

I mean, even fit, able people, as you start putting more and more vehicles on the sidewalks.

And when you're looking at your device and walking on the sidewalk and a bicycle, scooter, or other device, a motorized skateboard comes whizzing by, you know, you don't want to see your life going before you quickly.

What you want to be able to do is go reasonably from where you want to go and do what you want to do.

Design review is only a skeleton of what it should be.

We should be building a city for people, not a city that people want to leave.

Thank you.

Is there anyone who did not sign up that would like to speak?

Seeing as we have no additional speakers, I will now close the public hearing on Council Bill 119506. Just like we did before, I would like to ask my colleagues' permission to suspend the rules to vote on this legislation today.

I move to suspend the rules to allow for a vote on Council Bill 119506 on the same day as a public hearing.

Is there a second?

All those in favor, please vote aye.

The motion passes.

Yolanda, I believe there's a technical amendment to these design guidelines as well.

Correct, so attachment one to council bill 119506, which are the Capitol Hill neighborhood design guidelines.

Just cut some typos and that was basically it.

So those are all listed in the memo.

I move to amend council bill 119506 by substituting attachment one with attachment C to the central staff memo.

Is there a second?

All those in favor of the amendment, please vote aye.

Aye.

Aye.

The amendment passes.

Now I move to adopt Council Bill 119506 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor of the motion, please vote aye.

Aye.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

The legislation will be back before the full Council on Monday, June 10th.

Our ninth agenda item is a public hearing.

Congratulations.

Our ninth agenda item is a public hearing and possible vote on Council Bill 119498, which allows for limited expansions of the major institution master plans into industrial parcels.

Noah, would you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Agenda item 9, Council Bill 119489, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning allowing limited expansion of major institution uses in a portion of industrial zones located near Seattle Pacific University and amending sections of the Seattle Municipal Code.

We are joined by Lish Whitson of Central, Council of Central Staff.

Lish, do you have anything you would like to present before I open the public hearing?

Yeah, I thought I would just remind the committee on what this legislation does.

It is related to Seattle Pacific University, which is located on the south side of the Ship Canal on the north side of Queen Anne Hill.

Seattle Pacific University is one of two major institutions in the city that abut industrial areas.

The other one is University of Washington.

This bill would allow for Seattle Pacific University to consider expanding the campus onto a couple of blocks at the northwest corner of campus in an existing industrial area.

It does that in two different ways.

First, it changes the industrial land use table to state that major institution uses are allowed as of right.

well, are allowed in this particular area shown on the map.

in blue, and it also amends the major institution chapter of the Land Use Code to allow for the expansion of the major institution onto these two blocks.

So the legislation would allow Seattle Pacific University to either amend the major institution master plan or prepare a new major institution master plan that includes these areas, these blocks.

In their campus or separate from the major institution master plan, update process would allow for the major institution to construct buildings in this area.

That's it.

That's it?

Okay.

Are there any questions?

Okay.

Seeing none.

I will now open the public hearing on Council Bill 119489. Speakers are limited to two minutes of public comment.

If a speaker's comment exceeds the two minutes, the microphone will be turned off.

First on our list is Daniel Martin.

Good morning.

My name is Dan Martin.

I serve as the president of Seattle Pacific University, entering my eighth year at the university.

I want to thank the Council for your service on behalf of our community and thank you for your time today.

I would urge the approval of this proposal, which is really the implementation of the Comprehensive Use Permit and Plan from December of 2018 that was before the Council.

This was really a result of community conversations and collaboration between the university, city council staff, elected officials, our community neighbors and concerned citizens, and industrial land use owners within that area.

We're grateful for the conversations that we had in this proposal.

We'll simply extend these conversations as we collectively think about the best use for these particular parcels and how that may benefit broader Seattle.

We've been in this exact location since 1891. And we were founded in 1891. Seattle was simply a city of 40,000 people.

And our founders not only had a great vision for this university, but for the greater Seattle area.

They saw us not just as the city at the edge at the end of the United States, but really a city at the edge of the future.

And we have become that, a world-class city, a world-shaping and a world-defining city.

And we've been a part of that creation and this ability for us to move forward as a community.

We want to continue to do that.

So we look forward to the conversations, to the ways in which we can be involved and stay engaged within the city as we move forward together for good.

Thank you.

Thank you, President Martin.

Next on our list is Steve Gillespie.

Morning, Steve Gillespie, Foster Pepper for Seattle Pacific University.

And I want to thank the committee for taking up our bill.

And I want to thank President Martin for coming and presenting to show how important this is to the university.

It's not easy to find three hours in a university president's schedule in June.

But here he is, along with the vice president of the university.

And we're rooting for this bill.

And we urge you to pass it up to the full council.

As many of you, as you all know, this has been a work in progress for several years now for probably 20 years the community has been encouraging the university to look north into this area to accommodate future growth, and this is the university responding to the to that direction from the community.

We've worked with council and with staff and with the community, as President Martin said.

We very carefully crafted this legislation to minimize any unintended consequences.

And as a result, we have the support of industrial lands advocates, people who have spent their entire professional lives advocating for Seattle public or Seattle industrial lands support this proposal.

I would add only that this is not the end of the conversation, this is the start of a conversation.

The next step will be when the university comes in for a major institution master plan, there will be a very robust public discussion about the proper use, the best use for the public of these lands.

This is how community planning should proceed.

The community talking to a land user, the land user, the institution in this case, responding, engaging, and bringing it to council.

And we really appreciate the collaborative nature of this process and we urge your support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next on our list is Steve Ripsello.

It always starts so sweet.

It always starts with real limitations.

But let's look at the history of the City of Seattle on major institutions.

Once you're in the door, the City shows very little restraint on usage.

And your outreach many times are presentations of what is going to be regardless of what the citizens say.

After one of your outreach meetings in Fremont a couple years ago.

I was talking to an MBA, and they explained to me that I thought this was more of a selling meeting.

They said, yes, this type of meeting is always a selling meeting.

So when you go forward, take a look.

Does this property really belong as part of the major institution?

Because once in the door, We know what's going to happen.

It takes sometimes a short time and sometimes a little longer.

But whatever the needs of the university, that's what that property will be.

And what we say right now has very little relevance to the actual usages which will evolve and sometimes very, very shortly.

Now, when you say nobody told you that, my name is Steve Rupstello.

Nobody.

Thank you.

Is there anyone who did not sign up that would like to speak?

Seeing as we have no additional speakers, I will now close the public hearing on Council Bill 119489. Colleagues, I'm going to ask that we suspend the rules again to vote on this item today, given that we have heard this item in committee three weeks ago, and given that it's implementing a comprehensive plan amendment that this committee already adopted last year, I think it's appropriate to move forward today.

I move to suspend the rules to allow for a vote on Council Bill 119489 on the same day as a public hearing.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

Those in favor, please vote aye.

Aye.

This motion passes.

Is there any further discussion before we vote?

questions.

So just to refresh my memory, when we amended the comprehensive plan last year, that was specifically to take the BIMIC area out of the plan?

Right.

The area shown in blue on the map was removed from the Ballard Inner Bay North End.

The area on the map comes out of the BIMIC area.

We took that action and there was general support from the folks associated with BNMEC for that action at that time.

And this legislation before us today only sets the stage for future possible actions.

Is that more or less correct?

It would allow the university to apply for development permits under the industrial zoning limits in this area, as well as allow them to expand their major institution master plan, which would require either a new plan or significant amendment to the existing master plan, which would be a multi-year process.

So one or both of those things?

Either of those.

Either one of those things in order to basically utilize the authority granted by this bill.

And I should mention that they own some but not all of the property in this area at this point.

Okay, thank you.

Any further?

Having tracked this a little bit through the comp plan process, I've been impressed at the ability of the university, the major institution, to work with the adjoining property owners, including the BIMNIC.

And I've heard, I've only heard support for this plan.

Not an easy task to do, so I don't exactly know how all those conversations work, but I applaud you all.

in bringing that forward.

And similar to what Lish was saying, this is a step in what is likely a very long process, I imagine, for a university that's been there for as long as they are there, thinking about decades to come.

And this is one of the steps they need to take.

And I think it's an appropriate place for them to be at least considering planning for expansion as we go forward.

So I support it.

Well, I move to adopt Council Bill 119489. Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor, please vote aye.

Aye.

This motion passes.

Thank you.

This legislation will be back before the full Council on Monday, June 10th.

Our 10th item of business today is a briefing public hearing and possible vote on Clerk File 314413, which is Council land use action to allow for the temporary expansion of the North Seattle Police Precinct.

No, would you please read this item into the record?

Agenda item 10, Clerk File 314413, Council Land Use Action to Approve a Temporary Expansion of the North Seattle Precinct Located at 10049 College Way North.

Give folks a second.

Once you've had a chance to sit down, will folks please introduce themselves and go into the presentation.

All right.

Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff.

Lindsey King, STCI.

My name is Duncan Thiem.

I'm with SRG Partnership Architects for the project.

Andy Ishizaki with Finance and Administrative Services.

Mark Baird, Chief Operating Officer, Seattle Police Department.

Eric Sano, Captain of the Seattle Police Department, North Precinct.

So I'll say a couple of introductory things to orient the committee, a little bit of legislative history, and then turn it over to STCI and FAS.

But as the council members know, this is a relatively infrequent type of action for the council to take, but occasionally the council has to act on land use approvals for city facilities.

With respect to legislative history, the committee members will recall that about three years ago, the council deferred a decision on a new north precinct.

And as part of that decision making, allocated approximately $11 million to FAS for interim improvements to the current facility and for planning for a future precinct.

The action that you may take today and will hold a public hearing on is a land use approval for the former, for the interim improvements.

So I think that's pretty much all I have to say.

I'll turn it over to Lindsay here to talk about this type of decision and then we'll hear from FAS on the proposed improvements.

And sorry, I don't mean to rush the presentation, but we have a hard stop by about 1140. So if we can move a little bit quicker, a little bit quickly, because we're running a little bit behind.

Thank you for having us.

A type 5 action is required by the land use code when a public facility exceeds a certain size threshold or is unable to meet development standards.

So the proposal you're seeing today triggers both of those.

It exceeds a 10% addition from the existing floor area and will request a waiver of development standards.

The format of the meeting is that Duncan and Andy will give you an overview of the proposal, the site, and how it fits on the site.

And then I'll take you through the review process that STCI does, including the environmental review, and finish with our recommendation.

Great.

Thanks, Lindsay.

The purpose of the project is to provide a short-term solution to accommodate additional officers at the overcrowded precinct.

The facility was built in 1984 and has since gone through numerous renovations to maximize the amount of staff that can fit inside the building.

For example, the community room, which is a popular, which was a popular amenity for the neighborhood, which was also used as a roll call room, was repurposed to fit more lockers.

So essentially every available space has been repurposed to serve critical needs of the precinct.

In addition to that, currently SPD leases over 5,000 square feet of office space in a nearby building.

to accommodate their detectives and the community police team and other support staff.

Separating staff in different buildings is not an ideal situation since it does not promote the spontaneous interactions and sharing of information amongst detectives and patrol officers.

And we've explored options to lease additional space, but again, this was deemed operationally infeasible due to the reasons I just mentioned.

So the proposal allows for additional officers at the North Precinct for the short term, and for planning purposes, we have assumed up to 50 additional officers by 2025 for growth.

Now, this is not a hard number, and it's a very hard number to pin down, but for the sake of our analysis and reports, That's what we've assumed.

And now Duncan Thiem, our project architect, will walk you through the presentation.

Super.

So the site is located in North Seattle, Western Northgate Mall across Interstate 5, just northwest of North Seattle Community College.

I'll go quickly in the interest of time.

It is surrounded primarily to the west and north by a mixture of different types of residential zoning.

It borders directly on the major institutional overlay for North Seattle College to the southeast.

The site itself is zoned SF-7200, a single-family residential zoning designation.

I'm sorry, I would also add that the entire area is in the Northgate overlay zone, and this space directly to the north is in the urban center overlay for Northgate.

The project scope basically includes the addition of the location of three modular buildings on the site to serve three particular needs.

One is for a break room space for the police because our project proposes taking their current break room space and repurposing it as a roll call room.

A storage portable will take care of freeing up space inside the precinct to allow the creation of interview rooms that are badly needed as a place to store their unusual occurrence gear.

And in the front parking lot, the public parking lot, we're proposing a small trailer that will become a community room where the police can engage and meet with the public.

All three of these trailers are currently owned by the City of Seattle.

They were formerly used as temporary fire stations during the fire levy project.

The project also includes expanding parking to provide more location for fleet vehicles primarily, the addition of landscape the preservation as much as we can of existing trees that the neighborhood prizes, and some modest improvements to the existing wetland on the site.

Parking is an important component of the project.

Our project, by locating the temporary trailers, or I should say interim or modular trailers, removes 22 spaces from the available portion.

The parking we are expanding to the south.

We'll add 22. Excuse me.

We'll add 35 spaces for a net add.

I'm sorry And that gain of 13 after we add 35 more my math is better than it seems when I'm talking right now The parking has been tailored to accommodate the requirements that have been put to us through his land use review with SDCI of which called for us to use to characterize the precinct building as an office use, and then to make sure that we provided adequate parking to serve the police's fleet needs.

I can go into that in more detail, it's a complex topic.

But the proposal is to provide 13 more spaces as a part of accommodating the needs of 50 additional officers working from the site.

The project's landscape proposes creating buffer landscape around the new parking areas.

We are preserving trees around the new parking area.

Our initial submissions looked to maximize the parking and would have made it difficult to retain those trees.

We have, working with the community, well, responding to community comments, have pulled back the parking in order to preserve them.

I'll comment that we had an arborist review the site that identified one exceptional tree.

It is located in the wetland.

It is not one of the trees that the neighbors asked us to consider saving.

Part of the work includes providing an area of enhanced planting at the wetland to mitigate for the boundary adjustment we made to the wetland to locate the storage trailer.

So it sounds like the proposal before us is kind of balancing both parking and the preservation of trees.

Yes, that was the intent.

I'll offer some quick, very simple renderings.

This is a view of the front entry of the North Police Precinct from the northeast of the site, from 103rd Street looking south, west across.

That's the existing condition and our proposed location of a modular building for the community room would be at the front near the corner of the site.

Further on down the same street, we had just moved to the west.

This is looking out over the existing secured parking lot from 103rd Street looking south.

The proposal would raise the fence line around the secured area from six feet to eight and locates a modular trailer at the middle of the parking area to be used as break room and some storage space for the police officers.

Finally, this is at the south end of the site to the left.

You see the open area south of the precinct where we intend to expand parking This parking would include an eight foot tall chain link security fence, and you can see in the left there the extent of the parking lot.

In the foreground are some of the trees the community asked us to make sure we preserved in the process of designing this project.

Are there any plans for the care and watering of the vegetation surrounding the precinct?

Because my office has heard, has received inquiries about that.

Certainly, the new landscape that we put in place to help screen the parking lot will be maintained by our maintenance staff.

Thanks.

So finally, I'll throw up this slide that shows the one development standard for which we're asking for an exemption.

In a single family or residential zone, parking is ordinarily not allowed in the front yard setback.

This being an unusually shaped lot, that long front, sort of curving front along College Way, is the front yard of the building, and our parking area intrudes slightly into it.

So I'll hand it off to, again, Lindsay.

Thank you.

This is a pertinent slide.

As a part of STCI's review, we're tasked with doing four things.

The first is to identify any waivers of development standards that will be requested through a project proposal.

This is what we're asking for today, is to allow parking in the required front yard.

As a part of the process, we go through a public comment period.

The two other items are to identify any comments from affected city departments or other neighbors public that are submitted.

SDCI did receive comments from neighbors, but not from city departments.

We received comments related to the wetland, lighting impacts, trees, noise, and parking and traffic, and I'll touch on each one of those.

As it relates to the wetland, a wetland biologist report was submitted as a part of our environmental review.

Our wetland biologist reviewed that, including the buffer averaging and the restoration.

It was found to meet code requirements.

No additional mitigation is being proposed.

Trees, Duncan touched on the exceptional tree that is located in the wetland that will be maintained.

In addition, a number of large mature vegetation have been maintained around the perimeter of the site.

A tree protection management plan was submitted as a part of the project proposal and has been recommended as a condition of approval that that be maintained to all future permits.

To address the lighting impacts, a lighting impact analysis was submitted for review.

It demonstrated that there's no additional glare that will be impacting the wetland nor the adjacent residential structure.

So that was found to be in compliance.

As it relates to noise impacts, STCI reviewed the noise protection code which identified that the noise allowance in a single family zone is quite general and broad.

So we recommended a condition of approval that the noise specific to construction be limited to 7 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

As it relates to traffic and parking, that is a complex review.

We had transportation impact analysis as well as parking utilization studies submitted.

What it demonstrated was depending on the time of day, there would be an anticipated 17 to 27 parking vehicles.

spilling onto the street.

The parking utilization study showed that while those additional cars are parking on the street, it would still be below the utilization rate that is accepted by the city.

So the parking utilization is anticipated to be between 63 and 73 percent.

The city has a threshold of 85 percent.

So no additional mitigation was warranted.

Finally, the proponent must demonstrate why there is a need for the public facility in the single-family zone.

This facility exists in the single family zone, and until a new facility is developed, it is anticipated that the needs of the police department are going to continue to grow.

The proposal that you see before you is anticipated to meet those needs while balancing the location of the wetland and the location in the single family zone.

We confirm that there is a public necessity for the addition.

So we recommend approval of the proposal put before you today with conditions for noise as well as the Tree Protection Management Plan.

I just have a clarification question.

Is it accurate to say that the reason you're before us to make this request for the modification to the development standards is just because of that orange area?

If the parking did not go into the orange area, you would not be triggering this requirement?

There's two reasons we're here before you.

One is the waiver of development standards, so the orange area.

But the other is that because you're in a single-family zone, There's a limit on the amount of additional area that you can propose for a use for a public facility.

So the limit is 10% of the existing gross floor area.

The fleet parking is included in that calculation.

So that is the.

And in your public engagement around this, you made reference to receiving public comments along the several highlighted areas from noise to the wetlands and some of the other issues.

Were there actual public meetings that you had or did you just notify the public via notice to the residents and property owners in the affected area?

There was no public meeting held.

The public comments were distributed to an area, I believe it's 200 feet in proximity to the public, to the site, 200 or 300 feet.

So a mailing is sent as well as postings on site, so large white signs.

They have the ability to submit comments all through the review process, so a number of months.

And also, during the design phase, in partnership with the Department of Neighborhoods and also the community police team, we did do outreach by, you know, creating flyers, putting up a website, and also relying on the North Precinct officers to talk to the neighbors and inform them of the project.

And then the central staff memo mentions that the, that there are findings, conclusions that are part of the attachment.

Are those findings and conclusions basically what we've heard here about the recommendations for how to address the various identified impacts?

So attached to the memo is Lindsay's recommendation, which, in written form is what she described to you just now.

And there's also a proposed findings, conclusion, and decision document.

And that is essentially the document that the council would act on if the council chooses to grant conceptual approval of the expansion and modification of the development standard.

And it essentially makes similar findings, the same findings to what Lindsay proposed, and also incorporates the conditions recommended by SDCI.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, I'm now going to open public comment on hearing, or sorry, on clerk file 314413. Speakers are limited to one minute of public comment.

If speaker's comments exceed one minute, the microphone will be turned off.

First on our list is Irene Hetch.

First thing I want to say is one minute is completely inadequate.

But because that's completely inadequate, I'll just simply say this.

I've lived behind the police station for 31 years.

They're basically good neighbors.

I have no problem with the police.

but this expansion doesn't take into consideration the neighborhood and the impact it's gonna have on the neighborhood.

I am part of Belvedere Court Homeowners Association.

On May 26th, we submitted a letter that had nine suggested changes.

I would ask only that you actually read our letter and consider it before you vote.

So please don't just do a pro forma, We've considered everything.

We're going to waive the requirement and vote on this proposal today.

I would request the courtesy for the neighborhood of you actually considering our recommendations, which we believe accommodate both the police's need for additional change and the concerns that the neighborhood has about the police station being built there.

And I'm out of time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is David Haynes.

City Council should reject any more expansion of investments in any more buildings for break rooms for cops.

The police department in Seattle has failed the community and have a policy of coffee outreach to falsely assure law abiding citizens they're safe.

Policing in Seattle has a bunch of lazy breaks built into their union efforts that resulted in harassing citizens with a new catch and release and meet and greet.

Take away the cops' lazy accommodation and demand more effective policing.

If cops think it's appropriate to steal homeless survival gear, by God, take away the lazy accommodation cops are demanding.

Police are getting rich off overtime not fighting crime in Seattle.

Reject this out of principle that cops were hired to jail criminals, not take breaks at work.

Maybe we should put the prolific offenders in a module and break their habit.

Anyway, we need real improvement at the police department.

Thank you.

Next is Steve Ruffalo.

Is the fortress idea still alive?

We still haven't done anything about a very long problem.

This is not new to the police department in the North End.

This problem has gone on for quite a few years.

Is the City waiting until it gets so bad that you must accept the only plan that is still available?

Let's start making a real plan for long term, not something to get us through a few months or a year.

The Police Department has had that building for a very long time.

It has changed.

That building is way too small and you may have to look at two precincts in the north end.

My God, that might give better service.

We couldn't do that, could we?

But the police really need a building that works, but you also have to consider where it is.

So let's take a look and do something.

This is supposed to be a planning committee as well as land use.

Would anyone else who did not sign up to speak like to speak?

And just so that we are able to keep record of it, please be sure to sign in.

Noah?

Okay, my name's Nora Buettner, and I thought, I didn't know this was part of the agenda, but I thought that you had already found a spot on Aurora from what I had read earlier.

And I was really surprised when I went by there recently and saw that they had eliminated a lot of the parking that I used to use when I went to North Seattle a couple of years ago.

And what about the cost?

I mean, if it's just a temporary fix, I mean, is it really worth the cost?

Why don't you just do something permanent and put underground parking, get all these cars off the street?

And I say that for all development.

Thanks.

Bye.

Excuse me.

Did you just sign that?

Well, seeing as we have no additional speakers, I will now close the public hearing on Clerk File 314413. So colleagues, I'm going to turn to you and ask that we table this vote until the following committee meeting.

And so that we have more time just to both respond as well as be able to conclude this meeting on time.

Is there a second?

I don't think we need a second given that otherwise, correct me if I'm wrong, Noah, we were going to consider waiving the rules to vote on this and given that the action that you would need a motion for and a second for and a vote on would be the waiving of the rules if we're not waiving the rules.

Okay, well, thank you Okay, so we will table this decision until the next committee meeting for the plus committee Our 11th final item today, unfortunately, we will not have a chance to get to as well as And I both want to be respectful of both my colleagues' time, but at the time, and I appreciate committee members coming out to speak today, that we table this as well for the following plus committee.

Do we need a motion for that now that we have approved agendas?

Since we have approved agendas, I think we might, yeah.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Yeah, I'll second.

All those in favor, please vote aye.

Aye.

The motion passes.

Thank you to everyone who's been engaged with us on these issues.

This will be back before the next PLEZ meeting on, at the next PLEZ meeting.

This concludes our June 5th, 2019 meeting of the PLEZ committee.

As a reminder, our next regular committee will be on June 19th, starting at 9.30 a.m.

here on Council Chambers, and we will continue where we left off.

Thank you.