Seattle City Council Planning, Land Use & Zoning Committee 4/17/19

Good morning, everyone.

It is Wednesday, April 17th, 2019, about 9.33 a.m.

Welcome to the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee.

My name is Mike O'Brien.

I am the vice chair of this committee, but acting as chair today in the absence of former council member Rob Johnson.

On our agenda today, we have three items.

We're going to first consider a resolution, which you may vote on, recognizing the work of North Delridge on the North Delridge Action Plan.

Second item is a quasi-judicial matter, which will be a remand of approval granted last year to a project in Finney Ridge.

And finally, we'll hear an ordinance related to monitoring and inspecting vacant buildings and amending our code for that.

I've been joined by my colleagues, Council Members Herbold and Gonzales, and staff today by Noe An.

Thank you all for being here.

Just a quick reminder to folks that agenda item number two is a quasi judicial item So we will not be taking any public comment on that today we will have a Proceeding when we get to that item and the appellants and I forget the legal term of the other side but the appellants and the defendants, I guess, or the applicants, maybe, will each have time to present part of their case.

But anyone else during public comment will not be allowed to testify.

We have four folks signed up for comment, so we'll go ahead and do that.

Folks will have up to two minutes to comment.

Yvette Dinesh is first, followed by Alex Zimmerman, then Michael Taylor Judd, and then Steve Rubstello.

Well, good afternoon.

I know it's not Monday afternoon at two.

However, I found out when I took the People's Academy for Community Engagement that in order to get free land that was recently enacted statewide from governments that are surplus land, that we work through the Land Use Committee.

Is that correct?

You're talking about surplus land for transportation, like Sound Transit?

No, for housing, to donate to non-profits with the stipulation that they have to provide housing with that surplus land.

Am I correct?

My understanding, I believe you're talking about state legislation that requires sound transit when they dispose of surplus land to do that in a way that supports affordable housing.

Almost.

But according to the state law, all municipalities statewide, if their surplus land may be a half block long or whatever, that they have the option of donating it to a non-profit.

to provide affordable housing.

You're right.

And our utilities can do that too.

Okay.

So is this the right subcommittee?

Because that's why I'm here.

Because I want to set up a meeting is what I'm saying.

If there were, there would be a lot of work for a project to be done before it would come to the subcommittee at which we would approve it.

But it's not a place where we would simply grant land.

No, no, not grant.

I mean, could we, would we start a conversation with this committee?

Is this the right subcommittee?

Probably with the executive staff to do that, but we can help connect you with the department.

if you have land that's identified that you'd like to...

No, but we want to start the conversation because we qualify.

My husband and I have a 501c3 non-profit.

Okay.

And we've been working in housing for, you know, you know...

I would suggest working with the Office of Housing would be probably the best place to start.

Okay, so I had incorrect information.

Office of Housing.

Also on agenda item number three about monitoring and expecting vacant buildings.

So the city knows that there's vacant buildings and they're not being maintained.

certain code is that what that is?

Specifically they need to be boarded off so people don't inhabit them and we'll get into the discussion when we get to that.

Okay so just planning to see cannot that somehow lead to affordable housing?

I'm just saying that's all I want to know.

Thank you Yvette.

Alex.

Sieg Heil, my Dory Führer, a Nazi garbage rats from animal farm.

My name is Alex Zeman.

I want to speak about agenda number one, about plan what has come from Dan Bridge neighborhood.

So guys, for 10 years I talking about this.

So every decision was to be made by local people.

This local people was to be controlled every territory what is belong to them and only come to this place for approving or disapproving, but it's a different story.

We don't have this.

You control everything.

It don't have sense because we lose everything for the last many years.

And I'm talking about this for 10 years every day, zero reaction.

Why?

Why council cannot understand very simple point, people who live in this district, in this location, know better what is better for them than you, because you by definition are a crook, and I think you belong to what I call a Nazi social democratic mafia, with Gestapo principle, by definition you are a criminal and all bandit, this exactly.

But, this is exactly another point, what as I talk for 10 years, hundred times, without, without, without every director of department supposed to be report to the people every month their job is normal.

And I talking about this hundred times, nobody listen to me.

No one from this chamber, no one this crook who this is this chamber listen to this.

It's very simple business principle.

So when we have this, if we have community decision, you know what it mean?

We may be more, we'll be happy, maybe 5% but more happy.

Are you freaking idiot, a cretina, don't understand?

It's a simple business principle.

It's good for business, good for people, good for city.

So right now I speak to you, Seattle Emerald, degenerate, super smart, freaking idiot.

Clean this dirty chamber from this cretina, from this Nazi.

Thank you very much.

Michael, you're next.

Good morning, Michael Taylor Judd, former chair of the North Delridge Neighborhood Council and a member of the ACT Committee.

You'll be hearing from some of my fellow committee members shortly about the North Delridge Action Plan.

I'm here to speak in support of the resolution.

I can't believe we're here.

It's been years trying to get to this point.

I'm happy to, you know, recognize the work and support we got from the city.

We lobbied for quite a long time to do more neighborhood planning in North Delridge.

We knew light rail was coming.

We knew, honestly, that gentrification was coming.

We knew a lot of change was coming, and we wanted to get ahead of that and make sure as a very diverse neighborhood with a lot of low-income people, a lot of immigrants, as well as a lot of multi-generation people who've been in that neighborhood since before even Nucor got there, that we wanted to be able to shape what that change would look like.

And as my fellow committee members will be presenting to you, With the help of Department of Neighborhoods, DCI, SDOT, and other city departments, we did a yeoman's effort getting all sorts of folks from every aspect of the neighborhood in different languages, in different venues, whatever was necessary to get as many comments and opinions and find out how people live in the neighborhood, how they get around the neighborhood, what their vision is for the neighborhood, what they love, and what we're missing and what we need to bring there.

And we're hoping that your resolution and support of this action plan will help us continue that planning as we move forward in the future.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, Michael.

Thanks for you and the community's work.

I know that doing that type of planning can require a lot of persistence, and I appreciate that and look forward to the presentation today.

Stephen.

How green you are not.

Let's take a look at the tree ordinance.

Remember the tree ordinance?

Is that going to happen when the last tree falls or are we going to do something before that?

You know it's been over a decade since we've had anything that meant anything and Seattle does proclaim it to be self to be a green city so Let's get some action.

Let's save the heritage trees.

Let's save those really big trees that do a very good job of cleaning up the air and provide shade, I might add, in a lot of cases and actually contribute to a atmosphere that might be a little bit more human than just steel and concrete, which I guess is probably your favorite medium at this point.

It's probably not surprising when we look at, you know, what happened with MHA because we have, we're going to raise the costs because we have plenty of housing in the city.

The trouble is we have a shortage of affordable housing.

In 5 to 20 plus years, much of this housing will become more affordable.

The ghettoizing is I find a particularly egregious part of this because we're not going to really require the housing to be in the neighborhood where you're raising the affordable housing.

And the affordable housing right now is the most likely to go down because it's where you can make the most money and we all know that Even though the city is overzoned and we wouldn't have to raise the zoning to accept a lot more people, this is done to increase the margins of the developers because they need the money.

And we should take a look at the zoning code and actually enforce it.

You know, we're having too much of this gee whiz zoning, zoning that happens because somebody has a beautiful idea.

Is there anyone else who would like to provide public comment on either agenda items one or three today?

Yeah, come on forward.

Please introduce yourself for the record.

Hi, my name is Rudy Pantoja and I live in Crown Hill and just met with the mayor upstairs about a sobering unit for North Seattle.

I'd like to pass this on to you in regards to our issues of concern regarding increased street crime.

Ballard, Fremont, Greenwood, you understand, I don't need to go any farther.

And one of the issues we have is we find people laying down on the sidewalk with no place to go.

And a sobering unit with the heroin injection sites on hold right now would fill a gap necessary north of the ship canal that we currently don't have other than the bus stops, the sidewalks, the storefronts and stuff like that.

So my time is up.

Best behavior today.

I'm out of here.

Back to Ballard.

Thank you.

Good to see you.

All right.

Anyone else?

Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public comment.

and invite presenters for agenda number one forward.

And Noah, do you mind reading agenda item one into the record?

Agenda item one, resolution 31880, a resolution recognizing the efforts of the North Delridge community to prepare an action plan for their community, identifying a work program to implement the North Delridge action plan, and identifying proposed amendments to the Delridge neighborhood plan in the comprehensive plan for consideration in 2020.

Great.

Before we get into introductions, I just want to acknowledge my colleague, Councilmember Herbold, who has been an advocate for this project getting before council, even though it's been a long process at the city's end.

If it's okay, Council Member Herbold, if you want to just lead on the discussion for this, I'll hand it over to you.

And first, I'd like to thank you for agreeing to hear this in this committee that we weren't sure whether or not we needed to schedule or not, given all of the considerations around the chairing of the committee.

So I appreciate that this rose to a high enough priority for you to make time.

And as we heard in public comment, this has been a long time coming.

The working of the action plan and pulling it together took time, but it also has taken time to bring this to council as well.

I want to acknowledge.

Michael Taylor Judd for his vision and making sure that the council actually recognized the plan by resolution, which there was some uncertainty whether or not we needed to do that, and he and other members in the community felt strongly that that was an important step.

that we should take.

The last time the Delridge Neighborhood Plan was updated was in 1999. And as we are recognizing this plan, I know OPCD has identified Delridge as a priority neighborhood for planning in the near future because of the impending decisions around light rail.

As mentioned, the action plan was released last August.

One of the things I did after the action plan was released was to, in the budget process, get some funds in the Parks Department earmarked to address a community planning process to examine enhancements to trail access points on Southwest Brandon.

That is going to be one of the projects I think we'll talk about Today, Parks has said that the engagement process will begin the second quarter of the year.

So we've got that going.

But I think another really important point of the action plan and the adoption or the recognition of it by resolution is to get us all on the same page about what the next steps are.

So that's it.

I thank folks from OPCD and the community for working on this and love to hear more.

So we start with a round of introductions.

Lish Woodson, Council Central staff.

David Goldberg, Office of Planning and Community Development.

Linda Bui, Vietnamese Cultural Center.

David Bestock, Delridge Neighborhoods Development Association.

And Perry Hines, Delridge neighbor.

Great.

And did you want to give us a quick little overview?

Just very briefly, this resolution recognizes the North Delridge Action Plan.

It highlights key strategies from the action plan for implementation over the next one to three years, and adds an update to the Delridge Neighborhood Plan goals and policies for consideration in the comprehensive plan update next year.

And David Goldberg is here, and maybe he can talk a little bit about the planning effort.

Great.

You comfortable doing that, David?

So really happy to give an overview about the plan.

We have community members who can speak to their community, and this really is a process and a plan that speaks to community interests and community priorities.

As you know, neighborhood plans provide a foundation, not just for specific capital projects and programs, but to give context to the efforts that the city makes in a given neighborhood over a period of years.

And we find that these community documents really help to shape projects.

I first want to thank the people who really stuck with us through the process and helped lead the community engagement at the table.

We have Pari and David and Linda.

Each of them was present through the entire process and devoted a tremendous amount of time to this.

In addition, over the course of the planning, there was Nicholas Ames who came from Youngstown Flat, a new apartment complex that was there.

Willard Brown.

an amazing contribution to the community, part of DNDA and a real force in the community.

Renette Eiding, who's been together with Delridge Grocery Crop, has been working to push access to affordable, healthy food in the neighborhood.

Ann Jewett, a resident in the area.

Kim Justice, a Pigeon Point resident.

Amanda Kirk from Highland Park neighborhood.

And Amanda Leonard, also with Michael, a North Delridge Community Council member.

Dorsal Plant.

And then Carol Williams from the Nature Consortium also helped us for a period of time.

And those people really helped provide a community voice at every step of the way at the table.

Nothing really happened without them there.

I also want to thank the community liaisons that helped us to engage, I think, for the first time for this community, deeply into historically underrepresented communities.

And that was Paulina Lopez and Hassan Wadara, Phuong Nguyen, Rich Summers, who engaged the youth, Sokontio, who engaged the Cambodian community, and Thuyet Dao who engaged the Vietnamese community along with Linda's help.

So why did we plan?

We knew that this neighborhood was experiencing growth and change.

We also knew that there was capital projects coming to this neighborhood.

So it was important for us to get ahead of that.

And the big one coming to this neighborhood is going to be the H Line expansion and also Sound Transit 3 which is underway.

That together with the community desire that Michael spoke to really urged the department to plan for this area.

Even though it was one that has not seen a ton of growth, it's an area that we know will experience change.

So through the engagement, we engaged over 400 people in a variety of different forms and came up with six priority areas that are spoken to in the plan.

This includes supporting diverse and engaged communities, developing dynamic neighborhood destinations, improving access to affordable healthy food, creating active transportation choices, nurturing a healthy Longfellow Creek watershed, and leveraging parks and cultural facilities to support the healthy community.

We did the project with an aim, with a lens of health and equity, because this community's assets are largely around the open space and the health and cultural resources, and those serve as an asset-based approach that will help improve health outcomes for this community.

This community, in the broader sense, does not fare as well as some of the richer communities in the area and suffers from some health inequities.

So the plan is organized to address each of these topic areas.

They're largely efforts that would be undertaken in partnership with the community.

There's a number of them that would provide direction to community investments such as Rapid Ride H. There are things that will be done through grants and so forth and council support in the coming years.

It really focuses on bringing the community together.

working from its assets, the community and cultural elements, the open space elements, to knit the community together.

I think a couple things that are worth noting is that Delridge is a very spread out community.

There's really no one place that people consider downtown or where you happen upon one another.

And for a long period of time, there's been a desire to work along Delridge Way to provide those opportunities.

And those opportunities will occur around Andover, where we're likely to see the future, or Genesee, where we're likely to see the future rail station, around Youngstown, around the Brandon Node, where the opportunity to connect with Camp Long, and then parks there, and then down where the Home Depot is, where the Vietnamese Cultural Center is currently located.

So these are the kind of the shining points of the neighborhood that we hope to enhance over time.

That's enough of me talking.

I don't know if, I think, I want to toss it to you guys.

I know I haven't prepared you for anything, but I just wanted to.

Speak from the heart is what I want to say.

If you don't mind, I'll start first.

This is a very interesting process to be a part of, especially for myself and our community in the Southwest area.

A lot of our community members are circulating around what they know and usually generally it's around their churches or their temples.

And for us to be able to provide a cultural center where we could bring in things of our ancestors and to provide, you know, education to our community members and also provide, you know, everybody loves a dragon dance, lion dance, some fireworks every once in a while if you get a permit.

But it's a good place for gathering.

And so over time, our family who's been in the area for 40 plus years, kind of adds to my age here, but allows us to, you know, really reach out because we've always, like everybody in our community, we're worried about the health for our family, our wellness, our happiness, but then the sec part is like, how do you fit into community?

So this is where now we're getting to the part of we're fitting into our community.

And so being able to be part of this process, meet my new neighbors and get to know David and with the city, I found the process to be very, Eye-opening, it opened up other avenues that our organization can, you know, engage into the community.

So what I look forward for this action plan is to see the development, as we've seen over time, changes from the Home Depot, which was formerly a Kmart, formerly we had a food giant.

We all loved the food giant.

And so I look forward to having a food co-op, even though we're surrounded by so many options, like the Trader Joe's and stuff.

But we get to have something that's ours.

So during the progress of this development plan, we want to see some of those things.

I actually live at 35th.

I was a baby, came on to Delridge, and then we lived around the areas.

I went to San Islo.

So, I've been around, so I've seen it, but I've never been in the work process of seeing how development, how this, I mean, 99, that's when I graduated from UW.

So, I'm very happy to see this, but going forward with our own organization, we also want to grow.

So, as Council Member Herbold, she attended to one of our activities this past summer.

Sorry about your car being blocked in.

That was the thing.

So we want to make our space safe so people can come out and visit.

But we also want to grow and shelter ourselves when it's raining.

So we've been very fortunate.

Even this past weekend, we had a function, and we were just praying for good weather.

And it didn't rain until after it ended, so we were very blessed.

But my family has property we'd like to develop.

in order to support ongoing activities of the Cultural Center.

So for our seniors, for our youth.

So we're going through a process, so that's another learning process for us.

So we hope to have a business which helps support, you know, people love to eat, so we want a place to come and gather for that, and that will, in turn, help us support, have an open space for our Cultural Center as well, too.

So, that's what we're looking for to our end, and then continuing our relationships with DNDA and our neighbors.

So, that's where we are.

Sorry, it took so long.

Yeah, I think from, again, David with the Delridge Neighborhoods Development Association, I think on a broader level, I just want to honor David and his work leading us through the process and particularly connecting multiple city departments to the group.

We had presenters coming into the advisory core team meetings a lot to get to know what parks and SDOT and various folks were planning or doing in Delridge.

So I think one thing I'm excited about for the The implementation is continued coordination between city departments and community efforts.

We partner with a lot of city departments already.

We already were doing that.

We have more relationships now through this planning process, both with our neighbors and other cultural institutions and organizations, but also with other folks from city departments.

So sort of to speak to our organization's priorities align a lot with this plan.

Our mission is integrating art, nature, and neighborhood to build and sustain a dynamic Delridge.

And most of these sort of action item categories are things that we are working in.

So we own seven affordable housing properties through Delridge, the Youngstown Cultural Arts Center.

We've done a bunch of work on the Longfellow Creek Watershed.

There's some coordination efforts going on on a watershed level now that I hadn't noticed before, or maybe they're ramping up in terms of the coordinated efforts, and that's really great.

I'm excited to see more support for public events.

We throw our Arts and Nature Festival each summer, and it's a too well-kept secret, because it's an awesome event that brings together a lot of these elements.

We're really excited to work with Sound Transit and with our neighbors.

Of course, this is going to put displacement pressure on Delridge.

We're not sure exactly where yet, but...

kind of working with community members already to make sure that their needs are heard by Sound Transit, by city departments.

Our wetlands project at 23rd and Finley is working with SDOT, SPU, Parks, City Light, and more.

And so, again, just really looking forward to sort of the coordinated efforts of city departments with our organization and with other community organizations to get some of this work done.

I just want to honor sort of the community engagement of youth, of the various cultural communities.

I thought we did a pretty good job, actually, through this process of engaging a diversity of voices and bringing folks to the table.

So I just want to honor that and excited to kind of continue that engagement.

through implementation and through grant making and through funding to, I think, you know, 20 years ago was the plan, the last update.

Things have changed a lot.

Things are about to change a lot more.

So our organization, I think the advisory core team as a whole really took on sort of how can we preserve some affordability and engagement by these communities as things are changing around us.

So excited to continue working with the city on that.

Nice.

I'm Pari Hines, and I've been in Delridge about 18 years.

I moved there because I was working at the Delridge Neighborhoods Development Association back when we were developing Youngstown Cultural Arts Center and Croft Place Townhomes and the home of the West Seattle Food Bank.

So I've seen a lot of change happen in Delridge, both I think good and bad.

I worry a lot about gentrification and some of this development pressure.

So as part of this process, I also do want to honor all the work that people are doing, but I'd like to raise the red flag that, you know, when we put it down on the paper, you know, we need to be prepared to follow through.

And I think many of those steps are in process and there are a lot of departments that are working on it.

But I really worry that, you know, like a city, you know, the process takes a long time, right?

And I, you know, I see all of these townhomes being developed along Delridge Way.

which are really pretty, and they're nice, and wealthy people can live there, and it's bringing density to Delridge and doing a lot of good things that way.

But I worry that we need to find ways soon to make sure that we're preserving affordable housing and building new affordable housing, or we're going to be a you know, it's gonna be a strip of tall townhomes.

So I think some of that zoning work that is in the plan, I know there's a lot of sort of look at, study the zoning, some like affordable housing pieces and the potential changing of zoning to encourage more mixed use, neighborhood commercial, higher density residential, I think those would be a real priority from my point of view, having sort of seen what the development pressure is doing right now.

There's a property that's in the neighborhood commercial area on Delridge that's just been developed as townhomes with live-work units below, right?

which I don't think is really what people had in mind when they zoned it neighborhood commercial, that it would be townhomes.

And they're lovely townhomes and they'll be nice neighbors.

But I think that we have a chance for the health of the city to use this land that's very close to downtown Seattle to be a more dense and equitable community and where people who work in the lesser paid professions that are supported and an important part of our city can live in Seattle and live near downtown so we can house those people.

And then also within Delridge, you know, I, along through this process, saw all of this research about the health impacts.

And I live there, and I don't want those health impacts.

So finding ways to make the community more walkable and to address a lot of that inequity.

I try to do that for myself personally, but I know that neighbors could use a lot of support with that.

And then I would also like to, as a third priority, talk about the Delridge Grocery Co-op specifically.

And I think whatever can be done to support that effort, I think that'll have a tremendous impact.

affect both on providing healthy food options and also becoming a neighborhood hub for a place where people can gather.

There's actually a, not too far from that location, there's a tiny coffee shop that just in the last year, like now it's crazy busy all of a sudden.

It used to be that that area was, you know, empty and dead and no one was ever there.

And now, you know, you see all these young families and kids and there's a line for the coffee.

So it's definitely happening, but I want to make sure that we keep a diversity of backgrounds and of income so that Delridge can continue to be the unique place that it is. and then become better.

So I support the work that is done.

I hope that the vote is in approval of this resolution and that we will continue working and sort of making those actions happen.

Thank you.

Well, as we seriously contemplate what our vote will be on this resolution.

Colleagues, questions or comments?

A couple of comments if I could.

I just want to also uplift the fact, Prairie, you made me Remember that part of this resolution is also recognizing the comp plan amendments that you guys are proposing that the city consider.

And those recommendations are wherein the housing goals and policies are contained.

And just want to highlight what some of those are.

Community with a range of household types, sizes, and incomes, including seniors and families with children.

and encourage the rehabilitation of substandard housing and a community that preserves and enhances the residential character of single family neighborhoods within the Delridge community while also providing a range of housing types to fit the diversity of Delridge neighborhoods.

So those are, I think, important goals to uplift and there will be a comp plan amendment process and I understand that OPCD will be reviewing the amendments that you propose.

I also want to speak to, you know, maybe not All of the things in the work plan itself, or the priority actions themselves, but one of the items referenced about follow through and making sure that the words on paper actually become actions.

I think one of the first recommendations, if we can get to that right away, if maybe there's already been some work done by David and OPCD, I think that will help us.

And that is to have an organizational structure that will steward this plan and help keep my and my colleagues in the executive suite to the fire on the implementation piece.

So I think that's a really important element that will keep us on track for the other parts.

I really appreciate the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of this plan.

And in addition to some of the, or just to highlight some of the things that were mentioned, commitment to addressing racial equity outcomes throughout the work, and there is something that's important.

I appreciate the work to clean up Longfellow Creek with, you know, natural stormwater, both as a way to improve the neighborhood, but also improve water quality, and so.

And I just acknowledge the challenge that there's a lot of, it's a robust plan, and it'll take serious investment, and You know, if we compete for scarce resources, that's going to be a challenge.

But as Council Member Herbold said, I think this community deserves some significant investment.

And obviously, it's exciting to see the H line coming.

Sound Transit will be likely passing through the end of the neighborhood at some point in the near future, relative near future.

But obviously, there's a lot of other work that needs to be done to really support and maintain the kind of richness in the fabric of the neighborhood as it will almost certainly grow.

So that it's a positive growth that all the residents there today benefit from as opposed to are displaced I have some questions around the housing goals in particular.

So on attachment C which is references D G 8 And it refers, it's the language that Council Member Herbold read out loud, which provides that a community that preserves and enhances the residential character of single family neighborhoods within the Delridge community while providing a range of housing types to fit the diversity of Delridge households.

How does that language and that goal square with the recent actions that the city council has taken around approving the mandatory housing affordability program, including in Delridge?

So I haven't looked at the Delaware zoning map recently, but generally...

What do you mean?

But generally, the MHA proposal did apply a range of different zoning types, from residential small lot, which allows two homes per a single family lot, to multifamily zones that allow much higher density development.

And so, It will be slightly more dense than previously, but it still allows for a range of housing types under a range of different zoning types.

Delridge in the planning area is not an urban village.

Consequently, the MHA provisions that apply to commercial multifamily areas do apply there.

But Delridge began planning back in the 90s as an area that was identified as a distressed area, one that we were seeking to, in a moderate way, stimulate economic development and community growth rather than in our urban village way.

So the amount of growth tilts a little bit more towards recognizing the existing pattern of single-family development.

And within the planning area, which is quite large, it's not actually constrained to areas where, like in an urban village designation, where we would look to grow more housing.

It encompasses a large number of neighborhoods in the area that self-identify as a community rather than being a place where the city has historically tried to focus more growth.

It's an anomaly in our planning.

There's two communities that are like this, Georgetown and Delridge are the two communities like this where we did planning, recognizing that.

doing planning and recognizing that this is not an urban village?

This is not an urban village.

During station area planning, and as we invest in that area, this plan speaks to beginning a more focused look at how we can advance the community's goals in that area and bring opportunity.

For example, this station will serve an area that goes all the way to Waite Center in multiple communities.

So the definition of community changes.

Who has access to the opportunity that area question comes up and housing again will come up as a as an issue to address in this area yeah, and I just want to I want to flag my ongoing interest in concern and not

advancing things that will ultimately have the unintended consequence of reducing the housing diversity within various neighborhoods, regardless of whether it's an urban village or not.

I live very close to Delridge, just up on the hill, and have seen the I think it's important for us to look at how we can make neighborhood change in a way that is not taking into full account, I think, the diversity of housing that is needed in that space.

And that includes the full spectrum, not just affordable to be able to build a community in a neighborhood that is mixed income and it's At its core.

And so I just want to make sure that there aren't items in this plan that are gonna take us backwards as it relates to Promoting those housing diversity options and that are really going to meet the needs as I hear them from folks at the table and also from the executive summary that really the goal is to make sure that there is a you know, an opportunity for people to have housing choice in these types of neighborhoods.

And that's just an important thing for me as somebody who really believes in making sure that we are both addressing the displacement and gentrification issues, but also recognizing that there are pressures that are going to continue to come upon neighborhoods like Delridge and others.

And if I just want to respond, that this attachment is mostly the existing comp plan policies related to Delridge.

So, and the only thing that the community is recommending adding are the underlying and strikeouts.

And so, this language is old language, and in the existing comp plan, that I read out.

And it existed before there was residential small lot.

So I think that's important to recognize.

And I also want to reinforce the fact that OPCD has also committed to begin stationary planning with the community in order to specifically identify those areas that We do want intensified density in order to increase access to housing and access to transportation infrastructure.

So I think everybody's on the same page as wanting that stuff to happen for sure.

I acknowledge that it's not an addition here.

I'm just flagging my ongoing concern as language that you highlighted in your remarks that I worry about whether that type of language, whether it's an amendment here or not, can put us in a position where we might be at odds with the overarching goals of the stationary planning and other types of housing changes that might be required in that neighborhood down the road.

when intense attention becomes to be brought into this corridor.

That's my concern.

So I'm being asked to vote on it as it is, and it's there.

So I have concerns and want to just express my ongoing concerns that I want us to be really careful that we're not promoting language in these documents that would be at odds with the end goal of, as I understand it, described here today.

And these goals and policies will be back for consideration next year for actual adoption.

Right now, they're being sent to the department for study, and David's here listening to those comments.

Yes, this is why I'm making them.

I'll review these with the MHA team that proposed a number of amendments to similar policies throughout the city to make sure they're consistent with the tone, because I think that's a shared objective throughout the city.

Great, thank you.

I appreciate it.

And Council Member Gonzalez, I appreciate you flagging that too.

The role that single family neighborhoods play and single family development, the name itself is even complex because For decades multiple families can live on a single-family lot.

And so it's can be misleading in that ways and certainly Where we were as a city 20 years ago till today We've changed a lot.

And so that's still there and what that means and how we interpret that I think it's gonna be important to think through Thank you Colleagues any other questions or comments

I just want to highlight, and I don't think we need to take it up today, but I might be proposing an amendment for full council.

One of the items in the work plan relate to DNDA's work to build the wetland.

and Agricultural Education Park on the Delridge substation.

And one of the things that I've been hearing from the community is that we need to be doing more to coordinate what efforts with city departments to address both the maintenance and the performance of the bioswales and culverts.

So I'm going to be proposing an amendment at full council that will sort of highlight and call out the need to support that coordination.

I've just kind of came up with this on the fly.

Great.

And then if I can just make a quick remark.

There is some language in this resolution and the attachments related to stationary planning in the context of the sound transit question.

I have a direct conflict of interest in sound transit issues related to to the junction in particular.

This one is a little on the gray side for me in terms of whether or not I'm allowed to take action here.

And so I'm very supportive of the resolution, but in the abundance of caution and probably I'm being way too cautious here, I'm gonna abstain on voting on the resolution, just given some of the advice that I've gotten from our ethics person.

We'll see if we have enough votes to carry this without crossing that line and but I don't want folks from the community or the department to think that I'm not supportive of this plan I just Have a conflict of interest as it relates to this decisions about sound transit and how it impacts The neighborhood so I apologize.

I really appreciate your ongoing transparency about that and obviously the folks that are at the selections and team are very good at keeping an eye on all of us, but you've been very transparent through that, and so.

And then Council Member Herbold, do you think between now and Monday is enough time to work on this?

So great.

So I would, I don't know, would you like to move this?

Yeah, absolutely, thank you.

I'd like to move resolution 31880.

I will second.

And so all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

And any abstaining?

Or recused, I guess.

I guess, yeah.

We'll say you're recusing yourself.

Recusing myself.

And so thank you all so much for your work on this.

I appreciate your persistence.

City processes can be long and drawn out.

Changing of personnel and bodies, sometimes it seems a drag on.

But the dedication and commitment from folks in the neighborhood who have been there for a long time is the only way these things happen.

And so, appreciate you being here.

And obviously, a lot more work to do in the future and roll up our sleeves.

But this will be before the full council on Monday.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Great.

We will roll into agenda item number two.

Noah, do you mind reading that into the record?

And we'll invite Ketil Ford to walk us through how we're going to do this.

Agenda item two, clerk file 314425. Remand of the approval granted through clerk file 314356 for a contract rezone application of 70th and Greenwood Ave LLC to rezone in approximately 12,188 square foot site located at 7009 Greenwood Avenue North from neighborhood commercial two with a 40 foot height limit to neighborhood commercial two with a 55 foot height limit and M, mandatory housing affordability suffix.

Thank you, Noah.

Ketel, do you want to introduce yourself?

Sure.

Ketel Freeman, council central staff.

Thank you.

Just reminding everyone that this is a quasi-judicial matter.

It came through the council last year and the King County Superior Court remanded to us for some action.

And so, Ketel, if you don't mind giving us, maybe just walk us and the public through what's going to happen today, and then I'll let you jump in to kind of bring us up to speed.

Okay.

Sure.

So today, the committee will hear oral argument and discuss a remand from King County Superior Court.

of a contract rezone approval that the council granted last August.

The remand is on kind of a narrow issue.

I'll walk through sort of a chronology of the legislative history here, identify the issue on remand, walk through a couple of draft options that are in the memo I distributed to you all yesterday, and then turn it over to oral argument.

And after that, the committee can discuss options and decide what to do next.

Great.

And oral argument can, well, We're going to hear five minutes of them each side, and it's kind of split in two or three parts.

Five minutes from each side.

The appellants will go first.

The appellants are represented by Jeffrey Eustace there, Irene Wall, and Bob Morgan.

They go first and can reserve up to two minutes of their time for rebuttal testimony.

And of course, the applicants will speak second.

I think both sides have illustrative exhibits that they want to distribute to you prior to oral argument.

Great.

All right, we'll jump in.

So just to remind the committee and the public about how we got to where we are now, in December of 2016, 70th and Greenwood Avenue LLC, which is the applicant for this project, applied for a mass use permit to rezone.

A site located at 7009 Greenwood Avenue North from NC240 to NC255M.

The applicant seeks to develop a mixed-use building at this site.

The site is split zoned.

The area shown in green above that identified with number one is zoned Neighborhood Commercial 240, and that's the portion of the site that would be rezoned.

The areas shown in blue and identified with the numbers 2 and 3 are zoned single family 5,000.

On April 19th, I'm sorry, in April of 2018, the SDCI issued an affirmative rezone recommendation and State Environmental Policy Act decision and design review decision.

The hearing examiner held an open record public hearing in June of 2018. and recommended that the rezone be approved.

On June 5th, I'm sorry, and on June, later that June, the appellants filed an appeal with the city clerk of the hearing examiner's recommendation and the council took up that appeal in June and August.

In August, the council affirmed the hearing examiner's decision and conditionally granted the rezone application and passed an ordinance effectuating that approval which, changed the official land use map and also accepted an executed property use and development agreement from the applicants.

The appellants filed a land use petition in King County Superior Court alleging six errors in August of 2018, and the court issued an order on March 5th and then later amended that order after reconsideration on March 27th.

One thing to note here that there is also a changed circumstance here, which is passage of MHA.

That, of course, occurred earlier at March, and now the commercial corridor here on Greenwood Avenue is zoned in T255M.

So the second page of the memo identifies the issue on appeal.

There were six issues in the land use petition, six errors alleged by the Appellants, five of those six were denied by the King County Superior Court.

So five of those six claims.

And there's one issue that the committee will be deliberating on today and hearing oral argument about.

And I'll just quote from the order from King County Superior Court.

The remand is for the committee to consider the contract rezone approval and property use and development agreement to address compliance with SMC 2334009D2, which requires that a gradual transition in height and scale and level of activity between zones shall be provided unless major physical buffers as described in subsection 2334008E2 are present in the area where the commercial lot and there's a parcel number, shares a rear boundary line with the single-family residential lot identified as addressed at 7010 Pelletine Avenue North.

So for the benefit of the public who may be watching this, we're really talking about a very limited area, which is the intersection, or not the intersection, but the shared property line, not the shared boundary line between one on the right-hand side and three on the left-hand side.

So one on the eastern side of the site 3 on the western side of the site.

So the committee will hear oral argument today.

And the reason because the site that is identified as 2 has already been preserved in the, I think in the Pouda?

Yes, thank you Councilmember Herbold.

To refresh your memory about limitations in the Pouda that the council accepted back in August, the Pouda specified that landscape to open space, and the parcel identified as number two above would be preserved in perpetuity, more or less, as part of the project.

And of the six issues that the appellants identified as errors, you said five.

Five of them the hearing examiner didn't agree, but for one they did.

Is that issue one?

That is issue number one, yes.

So the judge in King County Superior Court remanded That loan issue, issue number one to the council.

So that is the need for a transition and heightened scale between zones.

And again, the reason why it's only identified for the area between one and three is because there is a transition between one and two.

That's my understanding.

We can, of course, ask the applicant, the appellants we have here with us today, Patrick Downs, who represented the city as well in the appeal.

So there are a couple of options that are essentially draft and conceptual options that are available to you to consider.

And these could be modified through committee discussion after you hear an oral argument from the applicant and the appellants.

Option number one would essentially extend the protections that apply to option number two, parcel number two above and that were applied through the property use and development agreement to portions of the site addressed to 7010 Palatine Avenue North, so identified as number three above.

Option two would create a gradual transition between zones by requiring a setback in the project at that transition, so at the boundary between 1 and 3 above.

And then there is, of course, an option here where the council could reject the rezone if the applicant wouldn't agree to any sort of self-imposed limitations on the project.

And option 1 and option 2 aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and there may be other options that the applicant and appellant will identify for us as part of their oral argument.

Thomas, do you have any questions?

I do not.

So I think, colleagues, if it's OK, why don't we proceed with the oral argument.

And we will set the timer here.

And the appellants are going first.

And so they have the option, as Kito mentioned, to reserve up to two minutes of their time for after the applicants speak.

And so we should determine in advance if they plan to do that now.

Are you planning, Mr. Uses, to reserve any of your time for later?

Yes, sir.

One minute.

One minute for later, four minutes now.

So no, we'll set the timer for four minutes.

Very well.

All right, we have the documents you shared with us, and so when you're ready to begin, you may begin.

Thank you.

For the record, Jeffrey Eustace.

I represent Irene Wall and Bob Morgan, who are here in the Council Chambers.

You may recall Bob Morgan.

He worked on Central City staff.

Essentially, the crux of the issue is, can the rear yard of a single-family house serve as the major transition between a five story mixed use development rising right on the property line.

So I draw your attention to the area in question.

This is on 3. So shared roof development is here, rises five stories right on this shared zoning boundary line.

This is the single family property which is referred to as the 7010 Palatine property.

The distance from here, the easterly wall, I apologize for the wiggly laser pointer, from the easterly wall to the zoning boundary line is roughly 39 feet.

There's a deck, a stairway, a walkway, and that reduces it down to, oh, around 25 feet.

The applicant proposes a retaining wall in here, which reduces it down even further.

And the question is, does that provide a major transition between the shared roof property and the single family property?

Those exist as a matter of code.

On the next page of the handout, the first page of the handout, has the judges ruling, the next page has the provisions of code.

And you'll see at the bottom that open space is defined as predominantly undeveloped to serve the purposes of providing a park, recreational opportunities, conserving valuable resources, and structuring urban development and form.

Now, I understand that the applicant has yet a revised set of plans that the applicant will be presenting.

I would note those plans are now presented for the first time.

This committee and the City Council reviews the record as it existed and doesn't sit as a fact-finding body to consider new evidence.

If the applicant wants to change the proposal, The applicant has to go back to SDCI and present its proposal.

The applicant's proposal doesn't cure the problem.

What the applicant would do is essentially incorporate into the Lot 2 the rear yard from the Lot 3, which is the single-family Palatine property.

It's still a rear yard to single family property.

It doesn't disappear because somebody on a piece of paper has drawn green around it.

The crux of the issue is, is the city council going to allow a developer to try to get around the requirement for a major transition by buying adjacent single family property and incorporating the rear yard of that property into the development.

And there's nothing in the current code and there's nothing in the code that was just amended that allows that.

Option one does not comply with code and if it is adopted by the city council, I will assure you that this matter will be back in Superior Court because that judge, the judge who heard the action, already expressed his doubts about whether that provided the major transition.

At that, my four minutes is up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now hear from the applicant, and you will have five minutes.

And are either of these documents the?

The applicant's is the, this guy.

This big one, got it.

So, colleagues, if you're ready, whenever you're ready, you may begin.

Okay.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Katie Kindle.

I'm here on behalf of the applicant.

As a result of the council's rezone action last year, this applicant is ready to construct a project that will provide family-sized units, micro retail, affordable housing, and is ready to contribute funds to affordable housing under MHA.

The only question here today is whether the open space on the lot three parcel constitutes a major physical buffer under 34-009-D2.

The answer here is emphatically yes.

The court found that the open space in the larger single family parcel, which is lot two here, is a major physical buffer in part because it is preserved in perpetuity under the PUDA.

On a number of occasions, the court in its oral ruling stated that the project would be compliant with 009-D2.

if lot three provides open space that becomes a physical buffer and is also preserved in perpetuity just like lot two in the development site.

And that is what the applicant is proposing that the council would adopt here today and we ask that the council approve the option one findings.

In reviewing the record, lot three was not really discussed at all in terms of compliance with this section.

We're before you to remedy this gap.

First, the open space was always intended to be contiguous, but admittedly, the MUP plans did not do a very good job of demonstrating that.

The space should operate and be considered as one open space.

As the court recommended, the applicant requests that the council amend the PUDA to ensure that the open space at both single family parcels remains in perpetuity.

Second, as the court further suggests, the applicant requests the council require changes to the open space area to ensure that it feels nicely landscaped and open and buffers the project.

I want to direct you to illustrative exhibit number one.

This is actually a red line version of the landscaping plan in the MUT plan set, administrative record 279. What we've done here is illustrate what the plans could look like and the council could require.

This doesn't need to go back to SDCI.

This is something the council could require as part of its findings.

Specifically, some of the elements to remove to make this feel more contiguous would be to remove the deck and the about two foot retaining wall and remove the pathway along the side so it feels more of a contiguous open space and really kind of frames the area so it's much more contiguous.

With this revised open space and the fact that PUDA can preserve this open space in perpetuity, it really presents an opportunity to preserve this and provide the sufficient buffer in compliance with 009D2.

We have just a rendering of kind of what that would look like.

This is just to kind of give you a sense of what that could feel like.

Because of this, we don't believe any additional transitions or setbacks are required, and we ask you to adopt Option 1 findings and reject the Option 2 findings that are before you today.

And to be clear, the Option 2 findings require setbacks that are not required by code for this project as its one development site.

So to select this option would not only result in lost units and result in a really a non-viable project here, It effectively amends the code via the PUDA to make setbacks not departable and removes from the process the design review board to determine what could be an appropriate transition here.

The end result is that the PUDA would be rejected and the site would not be rezoned and there would end up being a gap here in the zoning map itself.

Turning to appellants' arguments quite quickly, they claim the proposed space is really just a backyard.

This is a red herring.

First, this is one development site and no rear yard requirements would even be required here because it's one development site.

Two, the proposed open space on lot three is over 60% larger than what would be required in a 15-foot rear yard requirement itself.

Finally, if this was an actual backyard, it could be fenced and there'd be single family activity along with that.

Under MHA, this project actually has an opportunity, or sorry, because this isn't under MHA and it's under APUDA, this project actually has an opportunity to better transition to the nearby single-family zone and preserve this open space in perpetuity, which would not be something that would have happened under the MHA zoning.

To summarize in 30 seconds, we would like you to adopt the option one findings as amended and amend the PUDA to ensure the open space remains in perpetuity and require SDCI implement the changes that we discussed today.

In the alternative, if the council does not believe the open space is a sufficient physical buffer, we request an alternative option where the council would adopt alternative findings that either require removal of the single family home or rebuilding and movement of the single family home to provide even more open space.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you.

We will now return to the appellant who will have one minute.

Noah, thank you for putting the time up.

As regards to the notion of the rear yard for the 7010 Palatine property being a red herring, it's nothing of the sort.

I would assume that members of this PLUS probably have lived in single-family houses.

There are yard requirements in single-family houses.

The rear yard requirement is something like 25 feet.

The difficulty with accepting the applicant's argument is that this committee, the PLUS, would essentially be setting a precedent Any developer who wants to avoid the requirement for a major transition and avoid the requirement for providing open space would do so by purchasing the adjacent single family property and doing exactly what they're doing, using the rear yard of another property to satisfy the requirements of their development.

And that's contrary to code.

Thank you.

Ketel.

Well, why don't I start?

Colleagues, we have a couple options that have been highlighted by Ketel and then discussed by both the appellant and the applicant.

My intention today would be to proceed to a recommendation to give towards Ketel to draft legislation that would codify essentially what we may or may not agree on.

So, but figuring out that first, can you help frame up what we do next?

We heard from two different lawyers who, not surprisingly, had very different views on what the court said.

And I'm curious if that's for you to try to help clarify or if we should invite Patrick to the table or if that's not really appropriate.

to just ask some questions about what the judge's statement did or did not say.

Well, I think you can, I mean, there are certain questions, for example, the question about a rear yard and a combined lot development, or not combined lot development, but a development like this where there are multiple properties in different zones, I cannot actually answer off of the top of my head.

It is true that single family Houses have a rear yard requirement.

I'm not sure how that would be affected by the Unified Development site here.

If you have questions about what the judge directed, I think we could ask Patrick that.

It probably would also be fair to ask the appellate's and applicant's attorneys if they agree with Patrick's interpretation of the judge's order.

I would be interested in that, colleagues, if that's okay with you all.

Specifically, there was a, Patrick, do you mind coming to the table?

The comment that I heard was whether the judge would allow option one, or it was already spoken that option one before us would, the judge, I heard the appellant say that my interpretation that the judge has already said that option one is not what he or she would like to see.

I heard the applicant say the opposite.

Can you tell us what you see in the judge's remand, what they said about and how that might speak to option one and or option two?

Sure.

Patrick Downs with the city's law department.

I represented the city in this matter in Superior Court.

I'm going to give you a summary of what I heard during the judge's oral ruling and then what was remanded.

The judge had no concerns that 3 was part of this site and there was a single family home as part of this project.

That's crystal clear in my mind.

What's also crystal clear in my mind is the judge had a primary concern that the backyard of 3 wasn't preserved in perpetuity and what came through the initial order and then the revised order is to lay it out for you folks and the council as a whole to determine, should you stagger back a portion of a building or preserve the backyard of three in perpetuity?

That's the takeaway for me.

Great.

So I appreciate that, Patrick.

That helps.

I will respect that different attorneys may have different views on that, and what we heard is, if I understood correctly, was if we choose option one, this will be back in court, which is, someone's right.

If we choose option two, the project is not feasible moving forward.

So, anyways, colleagues, I...

Based on my conversations, I haven't talked to Patrick before, but with Ketel, and I think with the advice of Patrick, my understanding is what Patrick said, and my inclination would be to move forward with option one, and essentially preserve in perpetuity the open space on lot three, similar to what we did in lot two, and to achieve what I understand the judge's objective from King County Superior Court is through that mechanism.

But I'd be curious to hear what you all think.

Yes.

So one of the things that I heard from the applicant is that if we didn't support option one, that they would prefer that we order the building in lot three to be removed, and then look at that preservation of open space, because then apparently it...

By removing the house, the issue of there being a rear lot behind a single family home doesn't exist anymore.

So for me, I question whether or not it makes sense going down that road if the result's the same, if the result is the same that you're still preserving that it seems like the appellant's argument is just based on the fact that there is a structure on lot three.

And that whether, if there wasn't a structure on lot three, there would be no problem because there wouldn't be a requirement for a rear lot.

And so to me it seems like a distinction without a difference.

And I don't know that it would be in our interest to order the removal of the building on Lot 3 to just come back with the same outcome, if that makes sense.

Yeah.

What I think I hear you saying, I mean, for me, when I look at this, to the extent that there's, you know, harm or damage being done by the The lack of setbacks, if you will, on lot one would be to someone who might live in lot three.

Now, the people who own lot three and lot one, and it's all a single parcel, that to me, and clearly they're not saying that they're being harmed, and whoever may choose to live in a building on lot three, would know that that's the condition.

It's not like they bought it under one condition and now it's changed and that's some sort of damage.

And to me to lose the unit of housing seems kind of silly.

I imagine there's plenty of people in the city that would love to live there despite a large building be in the backyard, because it's better than not living in a structure.

And so I hate to lose a unit of housing for that sake.

So Council Member Gonzalez.

I think it's pretty, I think this is a pretty straightforward issue.

And I am understanding based on both the arguments and the review of these materials and Patrick's remarks that really it comes down to two issues based on the remand from the Superior Court.

One is that there is a concern that even though the backyard, that could be sufficient in terms of that buffer and that tapering.

There is concern that it could be developed in the future because it's not preserved as open space in perpetuity.

I see that as a potential technical error that should have been included in the PUDA but wasn't.

It clearly to me indicates that the fact that parcel two was in the PUDA in such a fashion is the precedent that I feel like I need in this case to to make a decision that option one is probably the best option in terms of making sure that that open space is preserved without the destruction of an existing housing unit.

Yeah, so there are maybe some technical things to keep in mind here.

There is, to effectuate the rezone, the council needs to pass a findings conclusion and decision document.

There are probably some additional findings and conclusions that need to be made here.

The draft PUDA for option one sets out one potential additional finding, which is that the rear yard of the 7010 Palatine Avenue North is susceptible essentially to the same kind of limitation as the parcel to the south of it.

And there's a national conclusion that supports that as well, well, it supports the notion of a gradual transition between height and scale and the presence of a physical buffer in that.

Is that the landscape to open space in the rear yard of the single family lot at 7010 Palatine Avenue North provides a physical open space buffer between land uses.

and allows for a gradual transition between the height and scale of the neighborhood commercial zone on the east side of the property and the single family zone on the west side of the property.

So essentially the committee here and the council eventually, assuming that the committee moves option one, would be concluding that essentially the 39.4 foot, 39 foot deep buffer provided on lot number three meets the directive of the rezone criterion related to transitions.

Keetil, a technical question on this document that I believe the applicant submitted today.

It discusses removal of a walkway and a deck, and I don't know if that's something that's One, I guess, is this something that's part of the record that we should be looking at or not?

And if it's, and then I guess my second question is, is that, are those removal of those proposals something that we need to contemplate, or was that just something submitted?

So it sort of depends here on what the council ultimately does, but in terms of, you know, this is, what we essentially have here in the illustrative exhibit is argument from the applicant about what they would do to meet the remand directive from King County Superior Court.

Mr. Usa suggested that this would have to go back to STCI.

That's actually not the council's practice.

We sometimes make amendments based on council decision making to contract reasons that have been proposed in front of the council.

So what would, sort of as a practical matter, assuming that the council adopts option, the committee recommends option one here as a practical matter, what would happen would be that I would write a property use and development agreement that rescinds the prior one and includes an additional condition.

And some of those conditions would have to do with improving, have to do with adopting and improving the landscape plan for parcel number three.

And that would be directive essentially to SDCI to not issue the mass use permit until the MUP plans were changed to reflect that.

So colleagues, my suggestion at this moment, if I hear folks correctly, would be to vote to approve option one and give direction to Ketel to proceed as directed.

And are folks okay with that?

Ketel, help me with what I actually, what motion should I be making to give you that direction?

I think if you would, so if you were to move option one, I think you can, to move that and provide some direction to me, to draft a property use and development agreement and also a revised findings conclusion and decision which the council which the which you would substitute at full council when this comes back to full council.

If the applicant doesn't agree to the any changes that the committee recommends, presumably they would not execute a PUDA, in which case the reason would not proceed, but if they are willing to do that then We would need to draft an ordinance that rescinds the prior rezone ordinance and also accepts a new PUDA and changes the official land use map.

Great.

And then...

I was just going to say, so moved.

Thank you.

I will second.

World's longest motion.

Have we...

Kate will remind me, before this comes to full council, will there be an agreement that the PUDA is accepted or does it come to full council and then those discussions happen about the PUDA?

So the ordinance accepts the property use and development agreement, and as a matter of practice, the council only accepts property use and development agreements that have been executed by the applicant.

Got it.

And so I imagine this would take at least a couple weeks for you to draft it and have the back and forth and see if there's exceptions.

Yeah, and probably something that would be at full council in early May.

Okay, great.

So we have a motion and second before us to move forward with option one and give Ketel direction, as Ketel so eloquently stated for the record.

Is there any further discussion on this?

One point related to the legislation that we passed earlier.

We highlighted the need to have a discussion and some clarity around what a development lot is.

I just want to flag that as something I'm still interested in and would love to learn more from SDCI and potentially the law department if you're working on it, where we're at on that.

I think that tentatively is an issue that we'll tee up for the 2019 Land Use Code Omnibus Bill, which should come to us sometime this summer.

I appreciate that, Council Member Ruhl.

This is a unique setup, which is one recipe to end up in court.

And there's been some comments today about precedent setting or not, and I think there is some issues that there isn't clarity on that would be good for us to provide some clarity moving forward.

So all in favor of approving the motion as described by Ketil to adopt option one, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

None opposed, none abstained.

So Ketil, we will look forward to hearing from you.

I will, at the moment at least, continue to be point on this.

We likely will have a new chair of the Land Use Committee at some point, but I may just, if it's okay with the new Land Use Chair, retain.

oversight of this, at least for the purpose of discussion with colleagues, just for continuity's sake.

But obviously, we'll bring whoever's new up to speed, too, and just have that discussion.

Patrick, thank you for stepping in, and I appreciate your work, and I appreciate your advice here.

Great, we're done with that.

Noah, do you mind reading in agenda item number three?

Agenda item three.

Sorry, I should just mention to colleagues and the public that this is still a quasi-judicial matter.

There's a decision that will come before council based on the comments from the appellants.

It seems likely that this will remain in a quasi-judicial matter for months to come.

So just ask folks to continue to honor doctrine of, I forget what it is.

The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine.

Thank you.

That doctrine.

Until we are told otherwise, and it likely may be sometime.

Great.

Agenda Item 3. Sorry, Noah.

No problem.

Agenda Item 3, Council Bill 119497, an ordinance related to monitoring and inspecting vacant buildings for compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Building Maintenance Code, amending Section 22.900F.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and amending Ordinance 125704 and Ordinance 125727 to modify monitoring fees and monitoring program requirements.

Great.

So we do a quick round of introductions.

Cato Freeman, Council Central staff.

Faith Lumsden with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.

Welcome, Faith.

Thank you.

Cato, I don't know, do you have any opening comments you want to make on this before we just jump into where we are?

This is in some ways a piece of planned housekeeping legislation.

I can recite a little bit of the legislative history here and describe what the bill does.

That'd be great.

Okay.

So I think you all are pretty familiar with the legislative history, but for the benefit of those folks who may be watching, and I think it was 2016 or 17, the council amended the Housing and Building Maintenance Code to strengthen standards for maintaining vacant buildings, and that triggered an additional legislative process that culminated in some ways last year during budget.

when the council amended the requirements for securing vacant buildings to make inspections mandatory in certain conditions.

So prior to last November, SDCI had discretion to inspect vacant buildings for compliance with the standards for securing those buildings.

And last November, the council passed ordinance 125727 that amended the vacant building monitoring program to make inspections mandatory for buildings which have received three notices of violation for violating the requirements for securing vacant buildings.

If they were located on a lot for which a development approval was sought, or if they were included on a list maintained by the police and fire department of buildings that have generated calls for dispatch.

And the council also amended the code to sort of establish what the criteria would be for coming off of the inspection list when buildings have been repaired and reoccupied.

and they'd been inspected four consecutive times, so one initial inspection plus three subsequent inspections and found to have no code violations or if they had gotten a permit to be demolished from the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections.

Another key part of the legislative history here is that the council amended the 2019 proposed budget to add additional position authority to STCI and appropriation authority to implement this change in program scope.

And the council also deferred the effective date of the regulatory ordinance that the council passed and changes to the fee ordinance to give STCI time to change administrative practices in anticipation of the changed program.

So this bill is in many ways kind of a housekeeping bill.

The council intended to revisit some of the changes made back in November.

It modifies fees for inspections for buildings found to meet the requirements of the code to better reflect the cost to SDCI of making that inspection, so it increases that fee slightly from $171 to $261.

It allows for buildings to be enrolled after only one violation if the violation is not remedied by the compliance date established in the notice of violation.

where if the first violation is remedied within the compliance period but a second violation occurs within one year from the date of the first violation.

And it also allows buildings to no longer be enrolled in the program when there have been three as opposed to four inspections, consecutive inspections without violations.

And there's some other clarifying amendments that were recommended by STCI that are reflected in the proposed bill.

So that is my recap of the legislative history.

I think the only thing I would say is counsel may recall we had some concerns about this last fall and I feel very confident that

with these changes and with the work that we've done in the last several months to try to figure out how to restructure our program, that we'll be able to seriously commit to this program and make most of it happen.

And the one piece I just want to acknowledge for the council is that Even with the three new inspectors, and thank you very much for that, this program is designed to pay for those positions.

So even with those inspections, as the program first takes off, it does call for a lot, thousands and thousands of monthly inspections.

So we're going to have to work our way up to the full inspection routine and we will get there.

It may take us some months to really get to doing all of those inspections monthly.

And my recollection is that's one of the changes we made.

It's a change that I have some concerns about because it does give SDCI a lot of flexibility.

I believe we removed the requirement for the monitoring inspections to be monthly and instead they have to, there's a reference to them being sequential.

That's right.

Because you would ask for some flexibility because they may not happen every month, but this is also something that I want to make sure that we're tracking.

We can't call it a monitoring program if it's six months between inspections.

So the expectation of a monthly inspection has actually been removed from the legislation, but it's something that we have to track very carefully.

We are considering it still a monthly inspection program and that's our goal so far as we look at how will we implement it.

We really want to do the monthly inspections and begin to see whether we're finding lots of those vacant buildings will fall off the monthly monitoring list, and then we'll pick up new ones each month, starting probably first with the new ones that are coming into the development process.

We'll also be managing complaints, and last year, again, complaints continue to go up perhaps this year they'll go down with more active monitoring.

So we'll find out.

And we are planning to be able to report back to you early in 2020 with our experiences, how many inspections are we able to complete, what's the record for people paying their monitoring fees, and so on.

And one other point I want to make for the viewing public, whereas it might read as if a change in the ordinance for an enrollment trigger going from what was previously said three violations to one violation, that might look like a big change, but that was a change that was made because YouFaith clarified what your business practices were, which is that if you went back after a previous violation, there would not be another violation issued.

The case is just merely left open.

And so we do require in the ordinance that either there's not compliance with the first violation or If there is compliance after the first violation and you keep the case open, you return two times within one year of the date of the violation.

Right.

So you're correct.

We, to save what is still unfortunately a good deal of paperwork with reissuing notices of violation, typically we'll issue one.

And if we need to keep that open and work under that one, we do plan to be back, we hope monthly, but at least within, you know, maybe a 60 day turnaround time for some of those followup inspections.

So just to make sure I understand, there's a body of work out there that will need to come under this if we pass this.

And so, and the hope would be that through the work we do that a bunch of those properties will come off the list because they'll be compliant and then going forward as we have the normal development flow, It'll probably be easier with the existing folks to get through that work on a regular basis.

But this, you know, the big wave of stuff that's going to come through, you're just asking for some flexibility and recognition that we'd be a little patient there.

Exactly.

And when you say thousands and thousands of inspections, that would imply to me that there are over 1,000 vacant buildings to be monitored right now?

Well, we know that we have over 1,000 demolition permits.

Not all the demolition permit structures are vacant today, but they're going to be vacant before that demolition happens.

And we know that most of the problem vacant buildings tend to be vacant buildings that are in the development process.

And I think there are, if we're doing monthly inspections on those, plus another maybe 400 inspections a year from complaints with monthly inspections, that is thousands of inspections as we move forward.

Can I just make one more addition as it relates specifically to the question that you raised?

There is, and I just want to highlight this because I think it's one of our objectives of this ordinance is to reduce the number of buildings that are habitable in the development process and vacant.

We want to incentivize developers to keep those buildings occupied.

And so there is language in the ordinance that we previously passed that allows for an exemption for the monitoring program if the developer participates with an organization that places a caretaker in the residence.

We've heard from an organization called Weld that works with folks who have recently been released from the criminal justice system.

And that is one such program that is functioning and has relationships with over a dozen developers in town and is working on doing that.

So that hopefully will provide some more of an incentive.

We hope so.

And Faith, I appreciate your ongoing work on this, Council Member Herbold, and organizations like WELD.

WELD in particular really seems to be doing some amazing work.

And it seems to me like this is a win win win.

I can appreciate how a developer who is trying to achieve kind of timing certainty in a world where their permits are take a long time and they don't know when they're going to get.

But as soon as they get it, they likely would want to begin construction and the process of, you know, removing tenants from a property can be time-consuming.

But my understanding is once the kind of long-term tenants have been removed, we provide flexibility on a short-term by working with welds or other mechanisms to have tenants in there temporarily that could be moved with, you know, they move in with the understanding that at some point with very short notice, this will go away.

And I'm curious, are we seeing more and more developers opt into that?

Or do they not really understand that?

Or is it just not part of their business plan?

You know, I don't know that I can really answer that.

I do think more and more developers are in touch with Weld.

I know Weld has made a lot of direct contact with the development community.

I know Mary's Place has done it, but they tend to work on the larger commercial projects and put lots of people into structures.

So we at SDCI have a monthly meeting the Master Builders Group, so I'll be speaking with them in May about the startup of this vacant building monitoring program in June, and we'll be trying to highlight some of the options that they have.

It is a longstanding practice that for a developer who's gone through or started the tenant relocation process, that as long as they are taking care of their existing tenants, if some of those people move out, new tenants can move in and be informed that they may have to move out as soon as the permits are issued.

So that's a longstanding practice, but it is true developers really aren't landlords.

until there's something that really gets their attention, and a monthly monitoring fee may get their attention.

We don't see a lot of people doing that on the smaller projects.

We do.

We do.

They have for sure promoting both the exemption as well as weld.

And I know that their weld themselves are doing a lot with master builders to develop relationships.

Yeah.

And our brochure is pretty high level because we want to know the circumstances before we say you can absolutely do this.

But it says, you know, talk to us.

Do you want to work within relocation?

Do you want to work with a nonprofit?

What's a caretaker?

That kind of stuff.

Well, I hope that, I appreciate the outreach work you're doing and continuing to do, and I appreciate Weld as an advocate.

I know that they've, I know they go out and talk to the master builders and other, to make sure that they're aware of the program.

And so I think anything we can do to uplift that and really create a, you know, an incentive structure to direct folks to that.

Obviously, if a building is uninhabitable, then however we can streamline, you know, demolition just to remove that kind of hazard is great.

But so many buildings are, Habitable and there's so many people in our community who really could use some housing even for you know a few months as a transition and so Well, I know the developers are not landlords.

They're probably also not putting up plywood on a regular basis.

They're not I mean There's just this interim period and like the alternative I know can be a real hassle to them and incur significant costs And so hopefully we'll see more and more of them choosing this program and continue to support welds or other organizations.

All right, any further discussion on this?

I appreciate the work to amend it, or to bring back these changes to it.

Now I'm just trying to find my schedule so I can move it.

I will go ahead and move Council Bill 119497. Second.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

None.

Great, thanks for your work on this, and this should be at full council on Monday.

Colleagues, thank you so much for doing this.

So much fun to be chair of the Land Use Committee.

I want to give like a farewell speech.

This is my last time.

I was Land Use Chair for a couple of years.

Anyways, Noah, thanks for staffing this and we will be adjourned.