This regularly scheduled PLUSC meeting is on Wednesday, June 5th, starting at 9.30 a.m.
here in Council Chambers.
Before we begin, we now have to approve agenda for today's meeting.
If there is no objection to today's agenda, will the agenda be adopted?
Hearing none, 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.
Speakers are limited up to two minutes of 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 that 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.
So, first on our list is Ruth Danner, President of the Save the Market Entrance for Design Review before.
Yes, thank you very much.
Can you hear me okay?
Can you speak into the microphone?
Can you hear me now?
Much better.
Okay, so thank you very much.
My name is Ruth Danner.
As you said, I'm the president of SaveTheMarketEntrance.org, and I'm here today to talk about the need for design review reform, particularly as it relates to the SEPA process.
Right now, our current process puts the cart before the horse.
We consider design, aesthetic design in the design review process before staff has had an opportunity to complete the SEPA checklist, which considers important attributes of the built and natural environment.
and before staff has had an opportunity to review requests for waivers and departures.
To put aesthetic design before functional design is impractical.
It's like planning the foundation or, sorry, picking the paint color as a priority before you plan the foundation.
So, I would like to know when this committee will be considering new reforms for the design review so that I can come and participate at that time.
And thank you for your time.
Oh, and wait.
And also, thank you so much for your participation in this process.
I know it's a big one.
Thank you.
Next on our list is, ooh, Knut Neringen?
Knut.
Knut, sorry.
That's okay.
Thank you very much.
Very briefly, we're challenging a tower at 1516 2nd Avenue, a proposed tower.
It would loom 500 feet above our historic landmark and put it in a 100% shade in the afternoon.
It would overwhelm our alley and create tremendous traffic problems and public hazards by appropriating the alley for public, for its own use as its entrance, and it would make it into an unregulated street.
It is vastly out of proportion to the rest of our neighborhood where there's many historic buildings.
And two years ago, the Design Review Board rejected a proposed building for this site that was half the size of the one that's currently being proposed, and that the design review board unanimously approved.
Our point is that the early outreach, which this was the first project that was required to do, didn't work.
The developer had its way.
During early design review, the review board was totally uninterested in hearing public comments and did not take into account a 75-page documentation of the problems that we submitted to the review board.
Thirdly, the review board approved this, and as a result of it, the project is now vested with the city without having taken into account at all its functional requirements.
This project is way out of scale to the rest of our neighborhood, and it is not scaled to the infrastructure that the neighborhood offers.
Nevertheless, it was approved automatically in the early design review.
Early design review is arbitrary, capricious, and results in unpredictable outcomes.
It has to change.
Thank you.
Next is Steve Gillespie.
Good morning, Steve Gillespie from Foster Pepper here for Seattle Pacific University, the text amendment.
I want to thank the committee for taking up our bill and thank you in particular Mr. Chair for jumping into the deep end of the pool and serving on this committee.
This is a big challenge but I really appreciate you stepping up when the city needed you.
This bill has been more than two years in the making, I think closer to three.
The text amendment that we proposed implements a comprehensive plan change that council approved in December.
And in the run-up to that, it was one of two items that council addressed, comprehensive plan amendment items that council addressed in all of 2018. And in the run-up to that, we worked with elected officials, with staff, With community members, Queen Anne Community Council, industrial lands advocates, North Seattle Industrial Association and others.
In an effort to make sure we address concerns and the consistent message we've gotten given the narrow scope of the amendment that is proposed and the purpose behind it is one of support.
So we have some individuals who spent their entire professional lives advocating for preservation of industrial lands who support our amendment.
And so we're going to ask you to support it as well.
The policy decisions were made during the comprehensive planning process, the amendment process in 2018. And like I said, this text amendment implements those policy decisions.
You're going to hear today that the amendment has two parts.
The first part would allow the university to place institutional uses in newer buildings, newer than 1987, which is the limit right now, within a very limited geographic scope in the short term subject to industrial land zoning.
The second part would allow creation of a major institution overlay, which is the result of a years-long public process, which I think is the most involved public process in the city of Seattle.
So you're going to hear a lot more about it.
I'll be back here talking to you, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next is Megan Cruz.
Great.
Hi.
I'm also here today to talk about design review reform.
We've seen it narrow over the last four years into really basically about aesthetics.
And it's ignoring the public's concerns about light, air, privacy, and functional design.
Does this building have the ability to contain its waste and delivery trucks?
And most of these new towers that are going to hold 1,000 people do not.
I think that it's also become rather a legal forum.
And when you walk into a design review, you've got attorneys for the developer.
And I think that's somewhat an intimidating factor when it comes to people who are volunteers, who are being asked to make a decision.
And if they want to consider one of these aspects that might mitigate the height, bulk, and scale of a project.
is required by the design development guidelines, there's a lawyer there to argue it.
And increasingly, they do get vocal in these meetings.
So I think that we need to put the public back into this process, and I'd like to see that happen pretty soon.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Next is George Danner.
Thank you for your service.
My name is George Danner.
I live at 1415 2nd Avenue.
The cynic, and I'd like to speak about the Design Review Committee, the cynic in me is get rid of the Design Review Board, especially the downtown board.
I personally testified in public at two meetings.
Both of my testimonies were stricken from the report that followed it.
I witnessed the Design Review Board condition a meeting for prior to a recommendation meeting where they asked the developer to supply specific information prior to the REC meeting.
They held the REC meeting.
They not only ignored their own recommendations, but they didn't allow testimony from the public concerning the very important regulations.
I know you can't eliminate the Design Review Board, The current makeup is it's basically a rubber stamp for the developers.
They hold public meetings because they're required and anything that this committee can do to make the public feel like they're being listened to would be well received.
We come here to testify because we have time and we live downtown and we see the effect of the design reviews decisions.
And we see these effects over time.
And so we are the canaries that come back to tell them where they made bad decisions.
And we continue to do this and we continue to be ignored.
And the cost to the city over the next 40 or 50 years is going to be paid by all of us.
And design review needs to step up and recognize that their decisions have long-term impacts and make adjustments in the board members to get other people on there to help make these decisions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Steve Rustello.
Well, we're back to normal here where only the chairman is here.
the public, which is the normal way this committee functions.
The last couple of meetings, I was quite surprised to actually speak to more than just the chairman.
I think that it's time again to mention all the great environmentalists in Seattle.
We still don't have a tree ordinance.
And while you say you are all so green, we see so many things pushed through this committee, which I consider to be probably less important.
We will go forward destroying our heritage trees, which will not be replaceable in my generation, and the city doesn't seem to care.
But we call ourselves a green liberal city.
Design review is something that I remember when it used to mean something.
I mean, more than what color your hardy board is going to be painted.
The importance of design review, when urban villages came around was that we had a wide range of things, including parking, including size of building.
What would really fit on that lot?
What would fit in that neighborhood?
What would be viable?
Now it's reduced to merely the color of things because the amount of bulk, oh, you're entitled.
The parking spaces, not necessary.
And whether does this function fit?
Who cares in the city?
Well, neighborhoods do care.
And I think it's time that the city comes back to making design review a real process that looks at a site, looks how things fit, and makes the building fit the neighborhood instead of the neighborhood accommodate the building.
especially if it makes a bigger profit for the developer.
And thank you for listening.
It's nice to have at least one person here.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else who would like to speak?
Please.
Good morning.
My name is Alicia Ruiz and I'm here today on behalf of the Master Builders Association and we would like to fully support this measure.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else for public comment?
Seeing none, I will be closing public comment.
I will next be moving on to our first item of business, which is discussion and possible votes on nine appointments and 10 reappointments to the Design Review Board.
Noah, would you please read these appointments into the record?
Agenda items one through 19. Appointments 01326 through 01344. Appointments of Hanba, Feebe, Aaron Bogart, Timothy Carter, Alan Granger, Daniel Mayer, Jen Montresor, Garrett Nelly, Lauren Powers, and may so as members design review board for a term to April 3rd, 2021 and reappointments of Melissa Alexander, Katie Hama, Matt Hutchins, Crystal Loya, Patrice Martin, Stephen Douglas Porter, Belinda Bale, Andrew Haas, Alistair Townsend, and Brian Walters as members of Design Review Board for a term to April 3rd, 2021.
Will everyone at the table please introduce themselves?
Hi, my name is Lisa Rutzik.
I work for the Department of Construction and Inspections, and I manage the Design Review Program.
Welcome.
My name is Daniel Mayer.
I'm a mechanical engineer at PAE.
I've been in Seattle for two years.
My name is Garrett Nelly, and I'm a practicing architect at NAC Architecture and the new appointee for the Northwest Design Representative.
My name is Jen Montresser, and I'm a landscape architect at Berger Partnership.
My name is Phoebe Bogert.
I'm a landscape architect and principal with Place Landscape Architecture.
I am an appointee as well for the Northwest Board.
My name is Lauren Powers.
I'm an architect at ARC Architects, and I'm an appointment to the East Board.
My name is Mei So, and I'm an architect at Mathune, and I'm a new appointee on the Southeast Board.
Thank you.
Lisa, will you please refresh us for everyone here what the design review process is and the role of the Design Review Board?
Sure.
So the design review program reviews private development on private property.
It covers the entire city, which is divided into eight districts.
Each district has its own design review board, which is made up of volunteers.
So today we have six of the new nine appointees.
They are volunteers that serve for a two-year term and can serve up to two years.
They are all very passionate and dedicated volunteers who are lending their expertise in the field of design, development, community interests, landscape design, et cetera.
And so before you, we have some excellent new additions to the board, in our opinion, that we've made recommendations to the mayor and council about.
Thank you.
Can everyone at the table please spend a minute or two just to tell us why you're interested in serving on the Design Review Board?
So again, my name is Daniel Mayer.
I'm a mechanical engineer.
I'm a community member of the Southeast District.
That's my position here.
I applied to Design Reboard because I've been working on projects in Seattle for the past two years.
I've been in the industry for about eight years.
I love Seattle.
I love my neighborhood.
I've seen a lot of bad design in DC, where I'm originally from, and I thought that design board tends to have a lot of architects, and I thought I could bring a different perspective and a different set of experiences to the board as an engineer.
So that's why I applied, and I'm excited to be here.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Garrett, and I'm a practicing architect here in Seattle.
I've been living here for the past four years, and have grown a great appreciation for the city and the culture and want to give back to the city that has given so much to me.
As a practitioner in the public realm, I'm very interested in the way that the built environment interfaces with our communities and how we can ensure the growth of Seattle happens in a democratic manner.
I'm honored and inspired to use my services as an architect to elevate the voices of the community and to ensure the democratic growth of the Northwest region.
Thank you.
I'm Jen Montressor and I've lived in Seattle for over 20 years and I've watched it grow and change a lot.
And I'm passionate about the livability of our city and maintaining that and our public realm.
And as a landscape architect, I am particularly interested in all the spaces outside the building envelope and how that can influence the fabric of our urban realm and be democratic space and have a very human scale.
Thank you.
Hello, I'm Phoebe Bogert, again.
Similarly to Garrett and Jen, I consider myself an advocate as a landscape architect, but an advocate for the public realm.
And very often as our city grows and expands, this is the place where private development really intersects and affects the public.
So I think those pieces are very critical of how the site develops and how the building interfaces and creates a truly pedestrian and public experience along the right-of-way is really that piece that we're affecting with the design review.
Additionally, I am a Seattle native and have seen the city grow and grow over time.
And I'm in a relatively new neighborhood, and so I was originally from Central Seattle, and now I'm in the Northwest.
And so I see this as a really great opportunity to become more integral to my new neighborhood.
Thank you.
Again, Lauren Powers.
I think my first interest in serving with the Design Review Board is really having an active role in the shaping of our city.
I am very interested in kind of the relationship between new development and responding and supporting existing character and identities of neighborhoods.
I have experience with and believe strongly in a participatory design process and the ability of that process and architecture to strengthen the livability of neighborhoods and communities and look forward to the opportunity.
Thank you.
Hi, again, May So, and I'm a recent transplant from Vancouver, Canada.
So I feel like I've been really lucky to have lived in some really great urban environments.
And right now I live in Capitol Hill.
And I think that in terms of, you know, having seen Vancouver growing over the last you know, 20, 30 years and some of the growing pains, and having served on a committee there as well, a planning committee, to figure out, you know, how to, you know, really sensitively respond to growth.
I feel like this is a real passion of mine, and so having moved to Seattle last fall, I immediately saw the vibrancy of Seattle, but also some of the opportunities and challenges with this kind of new era of growth, and so, I think for me, serving on the Design Review Board is really where kind of planning kind of, it's like the rubber hits the road, so kind of where the planning touches the ground.
And so I feel like Design Review Board is really a conversation between, you know, the public, the community, people who want to build in the community, and also kind of a more professional opinion of, you know, what would make good urban design.
And so I feel like my contribution is really being passionate about design, how I can serve this in terms of making this a better city is listening to all the different voices that are going to be impacted by development and also applying my professional skills in terms of being able to apply some design standards as well and having that be a kind of a flexible response ultimately to the context and making the city a much more livable place.
Thank you, and welcome to Seattle.
Thank you.
Could I add a very important piece that I left out of my introductory remarks, which is what design review is, which is the review of new buildings, looking at the architecture and urban design.
So as you can see from this group of people here, the focus of the program is about the appearance of this new physical development.
And these are all people who work, are very interested and passionate about the field of design and applying that to design review.
And can you also speak to the individuals who are not here today as well?
Sure.
We have three people who couldn't make it today.
Two are out of town and one had a conflict.
Han Bae will be serving on the downtown board as the local residential representative.
He's a licensed architect as well.
He lives downtown and he's done a lot of high-rise buildings internationally, has worked at MG2 and then most recently at Link Design Group.
We also have Tim Carter, who is an architect who lives up in Maple Leaf.
He owns his own small practice that does a lot of mixed-use residential buildings.
And he has lived in Seattle for quite a while.
And then the final person that we have is Alan Granger, who is a retired licensed architect from GGLO.
He was one of the founding principals, who now lives in West Seattle and will be serving on the West Seattle board.
Thank you.
And thank you all for your service to the city, and if I could ever be of service to you, please feel free to reach out to me as well.
With that said, I move to confirm the appointments 01326 to 01344. If there are no...
If there's no objection...
Hearing none.
All those in favor, vote aye.
Aye.
The appointments have passed.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Thanks, Noah.
Thank you.
Our next item of business and discussion are two appointments and one reappointment to the Seattle Planning Commission.
Noah, would you please read these appointments into the record?
agenda items 20 through 22, appointments 01346 to 01348, appointment of Jamie Marie Strobel and Al Levine as members Seattle Planning Commission for a term to April 15, 2022, and reappointment of Amy Schuman as members Seattle Planning Commission for a term to April 15, 2022.
Will everyone at the table please introduce themselves.
certainly.
My name is Vanessa Murdock.
I'm Executive Director of the Seattle Planning Commission.
Hi, I'm Jamie Marie Strobel.
I am one of the Planning Commissioners.
Vanessa, can you please give a brief overview of the Planning Commission?
Certainly.
The Planning Commission is a 16-member volunteer body that is advisory to the mayor and city council and city staff on housing, land use, and transportation policies.
We are not a regulatory body.
We are advisory.
We are also stewards of the Comprehensive Plan, which is the city's sort of master plan that guides growth and development throughout the city.
And can you please state why you're interested in serving on the Planning Commission?
I've had the great privilege of being on the Planning Commission for the last two or three years now.
And I originally came from the nonprofit sector working with primarily immigrant and refugee youth in the Chinatown International District.
And we, I was working with my youth around a lot of our projects with our park redesign.
We worked on a comprehensive plan update.
And I was realizing that a lot of our communities were not really represented at many of the decision-making tables.
And that sparked me getting involved with both housing affordability work and then joining, applying for the planning commission.
I really think that having a strong equity lens and making sure that immigrant and refugee communities are represented at the tables that are actively being involved in decisions of how the city is being shaped is really critical.
Yeah.
Thank you.
And Vanessa, can you please speak to the appointments and reappointments who are not here today?
Certainly.
Mr. Levine is a new appointment, and he is out of the country and unable to be here today.
And Ms. Schuman, who is a reappointment, is unable to be here due to death in her family.
So Mr. Levine comes to us with over 40 years of experience in both the public and private sector development.
He worked 24 years at the Seattle Housing Authority, 13 of which serving as executive director.
He recently stepped away from, retired from the University of Washington, where he was a part-time professor of real estate development, both in the profit and nonprofit sectors.
So we're very pleased to hopefully be bringing him along.
on board, and Amy Schumann is an environmental planner managing the Lead and Toxics Program at King County Health.
She's served on the commission for two years thus far and brings a wealth of experience of how the, how planning can be informed, should be informed by public health concerns and how public health is certainly affected by the decisions we make in the planning, land use, and transportation sectors.
Thank you.
And thank you for your service to our city.
Thank you for joining us.
If there's no objection, I will now move towards a vote.
Seeing none.
I move to confirm appointments 01346 to 01348. Those in favor, please vote aye.
Aye.
I had to leave a little suspense there.
Those opposed, vote no.
The appointments pass.
Thank you again, and if I can again be of service, please feel free to reach out.
Thank you.
And I'd like to thank you very much, Chairman, for moving forward on our council appointments.
This will hopefully bring us up to 13 out of 16, and we look forward to filling those other appointments once the mayor has made her decisions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our final item of business today is a briefing from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections on Council Bill 119498, which allows for eliminated expansions of the major institution master plans into industrial parcels.
Noah, would you please read the abbreviated title into the record?
Agenda item 23, council bill 119489, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, allowing limited expansion of major institution uses in a portion of industrial general one and two zones, and industrial buffer zones located near Seattle Pacific University, and amending sections of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Will the folks at the table please introduce themselves.
Lish Whitson, council central staff.
Eric Ingman, department of construction and inspection.
All right, well, thank you, Councilmember.
We just wanted to give you a quick overview of the ordinance by covering the background, the current code language, and the proposed changes.
Real quick, we just want to go over the SDCI purpose and value slide.
Take a look at it.
So for a little bit of background, Major institutions include uses like hospitals, universities, and colleges.
According to the comprehensive plan, these major institutions create one in six jobs in the city.
Seattle Pacific University is one of these major institutions and is located on the north side of the Queen Anne Hill neighborhood.
The university has limited potential for expansion.
Residential uses, shown in the beige and brown, are located to the south and west of the university.
And industrial and commercial uses, shown in aqua and orange, are found along the thin strip of land to the north and east along the ship canal.
Most of the industrial land is part of the Ballard Interbay North End Manufacturing and Industrial Center, what we know as the BINMEC.
However, in December 2018, a comprehensive plan amendment was adopted that removed roughly three blocks directly north of the university from the BINMEC.
So this land use code amendment is basically a second part of that effort.
So if we look at the current code language, major institution uses can operate within industrial areas, but only within an area located 2,500 feet from the overlay boundaries, and only inside of buildings that were built by October 7th, 1987. This leaves limited opportunities for the types of buildings and environments that are suitable for university facilities.
The major institution overlay section also restricts the overlay expanding into residential and industrial zones.
What defines a major institution as opposed to some of the smaller colleges that are in Seattle?
I'm not sure exactly.
There's a minimum size limit above which a college or university would be classified as a major institution.
It's based on the amount of land area and the amount of square footage in college or university use.
So population size isn't taken in consideration or anything?
No.
I think there's roughly about 16 of them in the city right now I think is what it comes out to be.
So if looking at the proposed changes, specifically what it does, it updates a footnote for industrial zones and a provision for major institution zoning.
It would allow the major institution uses to operate indoors or outdoors in this three block area.
It also allows for an update to the university's major institution master plan and future expansion of that major institution overlay into this limited area.
And like I said, the amendment sets specific geographic boundaries to limit future expansion into industrial areas unless some other amendments take place.
So if you take a look, the map shows the area that would allow for the limited expansion, kind of in that blue color.
The proposed amendment includes the specific area where the university could expand, and this would ensure that the industrial properties that are still part of the BNMIC can be maintained for industrial uses.
But since the properties inside of this area are still zoned industrial, current industrial uses can remain on those properties.
Do we know who the current owner of the parcels is?
There's a variety of them.
Seattle Pacific University owns a good chunk of them already, but there are some other private industrial properties in there owned by different entities.
Thank you.
So really with that, I'm here for any questions that you might have.
Well, do we know how SPU intends to use the additional parcels of land?
Well, I think that's going to be part of the upcoming effort that they're going to do.
I think when she heard from Steve, Gillespie was saying, was that they still would have to go through and figure out, as part of a major institution master plan, larger changes.
But if there's smaller ones in the meantime, they could do that.
But it'd be a larger effort to kind of do the overall changes and figure out what they want to do with it.
The legislation would allow the university to build new buildings in the industrial area before the master plan is updated.
That would require a notice to the major institution community advisory committee and regular permanent review.
Well, thank you.
Thank you for joining us today.
The legislation will be back before the plus committee for a public hearing on Wednesday, June 5th.
Thank you again for spending your time this morning.
This concludes our May 15, 2019, meeting of the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee.
As a reminder, our next regular committee will be scheduled on June 5, 2019, starting at 930 a.m.
here in Council Chambers.
Thank you again for attending.
Thank you all for attending.
We are adjourned.