Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee - Special Meeting 9/19/2018

I don't think, oh, there we go.

Thanks.

Good morning, everybody.

Thank you for being here for the regularly scheduled Wednesday, September 19th, 2018 Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee.

My name is Rob Johnson.

I'm chair of the committee.

We are starting a little bit early today because we've got several items on the agenda that we intend to vote out today.

And those include, in order of appearance, a public hearing briefing and possible vote on updating our land use code related to pedestrian curb ramps in order to bring it up to code and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A public hearing and possible vote on South Lake Union neighborhood design guidelines.

Discussion and a possible vote on a six-month extension of the current moratorium on certain land uses in the Aurora-Licton Urban Village.

Discussion and votes on the council's process related to preliminary recommendations of the University of Washington's major institution master plan.

And then if time allows, we'll have some time at the end to continue our discussions about major policy threshold questions related to the city's tree ordinance.

We do have a committee that follows us today at noon.

The Finance and Neighborhoods Committee has to be in here at 1145. So we're going to endeavor to get through all of these items, but that last item on trees is not an item that requires any vote today.

So if we are running long, we may have to postpone that discussion until our December conversations.

I want to remind folks we have a requirement here at the city on quasi judicial matters, which is to say that the council in those matters acts like judges and can't receive any public comment associated with those.

So today's action related to the University of Washington major institution master plan, which is items four and five, the clerk file and resolution.

I'm gonna ask the folks who've signed up to give public comment to refrain from making any statements about the University of Washington master plan process.

We are prohibited from receiving any of those statements.

So I'm gonna ask you to please follow the council rules and not talk about the UW MIMP this morning.

So with that, we've got nine folks who've signed up to give public comment this morning.

We'll start with Alex Zimmerman and then Steve Zempke and then Dr. Islam.

Alex, your time has started.

Dear Kyle, my Fuhrer, a lowlife, a human garbage, anti-Semite, tuxucker, and killer.

My name is Alex Zimmerman, and I want to speak about tree.

Can I speak about tree?

I'd be very happy when I can speak about tree.

I think we need cut all tree in Seattle, and wood that we make from this tree, we can build affordable house.

But before, before we were doing this, we need to be very smart, very smart.

And what's happened now, 25% of the empty apartment we have in Seattle.

It's almost 10,000 houses, apartment right now empty.

You're doing nothing about this.

You're talking about plan, about this BS, what is I hear from you, when people, 50%-ish people totally in trouble right now, low income.

our problem.

So what is you talking about this plan, this plan, this plan when life got down and down and down and everything what is we need with 10,000 empty apartment now doing something but no one console doing this.

This totally confused me, because we have a four-brown council, what is supposed to be respect and protect poor people, low-income people, like Gonzalez, Mosquito, or someone, and nothing happened.

10,000 apartments empty right now.

Why don't you give senior citizens, poor people, this apartment?

One smart billionaire, Allen, something talk about this.

Give all building, eight-floor building for free to poor people.

Why council cannot doing nothing?

Why you acting like a freaking idiot?

And everybody know this right now, we need change this chamber totally.

Because it's very simple, give 10,000 empty apartment to people.

Say hi, my Dory Fuhrer.

Thank you very much.

Steve, you're going to be followed by Dr. Islam.

And good morning, council member, everyone.

Good morning, Steve Zemke speaking for the Coalition for a Stronger Tree Ordinance.

I want to thank the Council for working on updating this tree ordinance.

It's a very complex issue and we appreciate the opportunity to give continued input on that process.

One of the things I do want to reference you to is to look at the 2013 Urban Forestry Stewardship Plan, which the City Council had adopted.

It says, priority action, preserve existing trees because it takes decades for most trees to reach their ultimate size.

Trees already growing in Seattle generally provide immediate and ongoing benefits that cannot be matched by small, young replacement trees.

Emphasis especially on evergreen trees because they maintain their focus during the rainy season and all year round.

Emphasize mid-large size trees.

Large trees provide more environmental, cultural, and economic functions and benefits than smaller ones.

And urging the protection of forest, wild lands, and groves of trees, particularly because groves of trees provide significant habitat value for wildlife in the city.

And then also the priority action is to maintain existing trees.

So this is in line with saying having a program to replace trees is not enough.

We need to concentrate on what's already there because they're providing the immediate benefit and it takes decades to bring back their benefits.

Also want a quick comment on the DNS appeal action that this is something if you significantly change the ordinance, you obviously have the option of removing that DNS, what citizens want is the option to be able to appeal in an environmental sense if they feel there's a problem.

So it basically is up to you contacting the mayor, DCI, and say you believe that, you know, you're changing this significantly, that you would like to have a re-evaluation of that document.

Thank you.

Dr. Islam, you're going to be followed by Ryan Doraimo and Kevin Watley.

Honorable Chair and respected City Council members and the honorable guests, my greetings to everybody.

My name is Dr. Aminul Islam.

I am a permanent resident until my death of the University, UD State.

I am facing a great problem with the tree ordinance.

God made the trees.

for the welfare of mankind, but the city formulated an ordinance called Tree Ordinance, which indicated that all taxpayers, we are the taxpayers, are responsible for the welfare of the tree, which contradicts God's decree.

It is up to you now.

I have a problem.

I own a temporary house at 5007 Brooklyn Avenue Northeast.

My next door neighbor, 5001, has a hardwood big tree, 80 feet tall, about a long time ago when it was there.

And it is creating tremendous problems to me. on my property.

In the fall, mosses grow tremendously, and it is hazardous to walk in the ground.

Now, I am an old man, and my tenants are also of the University of Washington.

If they get hurt, it is increasing more and more liabilities to human beings because of the pre-old age.

Now, the city has started this tree as an exceptional tree, which we cannot trim it, although law requires that we can trim the branches.

But the exceptional tree designation was a tremendous problem to me and the owner.

Thank you, Dr. Islam.

Thank you.

My greetings to everybody.

Goodbye.

Thank you, Dr. Islam.

Ryan, you're going to be followed by Kevin Wadley and then Tom Allen.

First, I just want to thank you guys for dedicating time to Aurora.

It's an often forgotten part of the city, and I don't think that you guys get enough positive comments, so thank you guys for taking time to listen to the hearings on that.

But overall, I just wanted to mention that it's an emergency ordinance, and not just in the city, but the county.

King County declared a state of emergency, I believe, back in 2015. And I just want to alert you guys to a letter you should have received from King County Council Member Jean Cole-Wells.

And she supports this moratorium and the rezone of Aurora.

She represents and shares the belief residents and businesses have of a housing-focused stretch of Aurora that is safe, walkable, and vibrant.

As Chair of Health, Housing, and Human Services Committee for King County, she understands the value that this land brings.

If MHA is passed, the full build out of Aurora creates over 8,000 new housing units and would generate over $50 million in MHA affordable housing fees.

Please be reminded again that this is an emergency ordinance and the city is in a housing and homelessness crisis.

Nowhere is this state of emergency more understood than in ALOVE, where our community is welcomed to Licton Springs Tiny House Village, providing temporary housing to the city's most vulnerable populations.

Urban villages should be about housing people and not things.

Again, this stretch of Aurora redevelopment hangs $50 million in the balance.

If this moratorium is not extended, prepare for land use proposals that house nobody and continue the area's employment decline.

Prepare for millions of dollars of lost MHA fees as proposals push to beat your vote this January.

All of you pass this measure in 2017. If the members of this committee believe this is an emergency ordinance, then we must pass it out of committee today, thanks.

Thank you, Ryan.

Kevin, you're going to be followed by Tom Allen and then Eugene Wasserman.

Thank you.

I'd like to thank you again for your time, and thank you for listening to the thoughtful opinions today, and also wanted to remind the council members of the support that we have not only from residents, but also some of our underserved businesses, too.

And I'd also like to mention that ALOVE, when we first started to get together, it was because we boarded five different community councils, and no one was really looking out for our urban village.

In fact, a lot of our people, our neighbors, didn't even realize that we were a residential urban village because it doesn't look like anything in Seattle.

We're a forgotten part of the town.

But because of some proactive, reasonable neighbors and businesses, we're coming together to build an inclusive community.

And I'd like to continue to have the support and the leadership of the council that voted in favor before.

We're going to lose valuable tracts of land if we can't extend this Emergency Order Act and preserve those things to be redeveloped later.

We have a vision for an inclusive Aurora that allows for continued businesses that are already there, but also to have a diversification of businesses to allow for an emerging population and an emerging, dynamic, vibrant urban village that I know we can build together.

And it's not going to be just today, but we're going to have a lot of steps.

We're going to have to take a lot of support from the city council to reimagine Aurora for a little bit more than what we're doing now.

Now, I want to be completely respectful of the diversity of opinions that we have over issues like this.

And I also want to let you know that we're always trying to build a proactive community together and listen to all the diversity of opinions on how to do that.

So again, thank you for your time.

Thank you for your leadership on this issue.

And please, vote to help move our community forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kevin.

Tom, you're going to be followed by Eugene Wasserman and then Steve Robstell.

Thank you for your time this morning for hearing us out and considering this emergency control.

So I actually lived in Alove until three months ago and I moved to Fremont in Councilmember O'Brien's district.

One of the driving reasons behind my moving was the lack of amenities in Alove.

I think later this month it won't even have a coffee shop anymore.

I always found myself walking towards Greenwood rather than towards Alove, even though I didn't live in the Greenwood urban village.

When you look at other urban villages where amenities are there, they're all in the NC zones, and there is very little NC zoning in Alove currently.

I actually went through GIS and cataloged all of the NC zones in Alove, and this is them broken down by parcel square footage.

two-thirds right here, that is all the Oak Tree Village Plaza.

And that plaza is not a private property.

That's owned by SPS.

And I did a public records request earlier this year and got the lease for that lot and this is the termination section.

This says that the lease cannot be terminated by SPS unilaterally unless it's to build a school.

So that land is going to be locked in 1980s land use until 2035. So if If we want amenities in that urban village, the NC zone is the place to do it.

And if all of the NC zone is currently used by 1980s land use and cannot be redeveloped until I'm in my 50s, the city needs to do something.

And adding more NC zoning will help the urban village.

Yeah, and thank you for your time.

Thank you, Tom.

Eugene, you're going to be followed by Steve Rubstello and then Russ Saunders.

Thanks for this opportunity to speak.

I'm here speaking for the Aurora Avenue Merchants Association.

And this is the first time in 35 years I've ever spoken to the council where I'm about to tell you everything that ALOVE has told you is totally wrong and based on their imagination.

It has nothing to do with the reality of Seattle zoning.

As you all know, I'm president of the North Seattle Industrial Association and for years was funded by the city through neighborhood business council work.

Everything they've told you about NC and C-1 zoning is wrong.

I sent you all a paper of four pages that explains is C-1 zoning being developed for large-scale residential all over the city, including where Putts Golf Course and Lincoln Towing is just north of this area.

So the fact that NC3 is a better place to build residential is hogwash.

There are plenty of places of C1 that have coffee shops.

And so this whole notion there's an emergency, there's this huge demand for C1, for C1 businesses to move in is total nonsense.

There's no emergency.

This is all a made up thing.

And I mean, it's really infuriating for me to have to tell you this because I've never had to do this before.

Usually, we work in congestions with community groups.

Through the Office of Economic Development, several weeks ago, we asked if AILOV wanted to sit down and meet with us to discuss this issue.

And they said no.

So all this, oh, we're willing to work with you, so far has been hogwash.

I mean it's really hard for me to explain.

There's no residential development of coffee shops in a love course in that area because the market forces.

It has nothing to do with four or five C1 businesses that seek to improve their operations there.

I mean there's plenty.

I live in northwest Seattle.

and I work in Northwest Seattle, there's plenty of development there, housing, going alongside C1 and C2 notions.

So I find this all totally amazing and against what's really happening in the city.

Thanks, Eugene.

Steve, you're going to be followed by Russ Saunders.

I'll try to be real general today, and what scares me is the general policies of this committee.

I'm looking at MHA says we're going to maintain our moderately priced housing, because there is no cheap housing in Seattle unless you're on a program.

But what you're doing in the north end, I'm seeing, is that smaller buildings, older buildings, lower cost, are being zoned out of existence.

Because we're a highest and best used state, so what happens is when you upzone the property, it becomes uneconomic because the taxes are as if you had the much larger building on it.

And what we're seeing is that if you do get any less than top end priced housing out of it, which you probably won't, it'll probably be somewhere else because we're seeing the cost so low that why should a developer have to deal with lower cost housing, just pay the fee?

And this will probably take two to five years, because oftentimes I see when housing is bought for development, you see the big fence around it, you get the people out, and so it sits there for probably two to five years.

Now, you don't collect your fee.

for, even as meager as it is, for lower-cost housing, of course, probably until you get the occupancy permit, which means we don't start the clock on the development or replacement housing, which you probably won't make, because some of these will have multi-units in them, and your fee will never come anywhere close to the number of less-than-market housing that was there.

So the system does not appear to work.

Thank you, Steve.

Russ, you're going to be followed by Richard Ellison, who's our last speaker this morning.

Hello.

Thank you for hearing me.

I'm Russ with Handy Handy Rental, and I represent my family's business that has been on a roar since 1980. An issue with the way we're rezoning Aurora, I don't think it's safe.

There's a constraint.

Aurora is from property line to property line 90 feet wide.

That leaves with seven and a half foot for each side for the sidewalk, leaving about 85 feet for a seven lane highway.

It doesn't support putting housing units on Aurora.

It's not pedestrian safe.

As Robert, who spoke here earlier, if you look up his article on the urbanists, his way of solving that pedestrian issue is to take a lane out of each direction of Aurora.

That's not feasible.

We're losing Starbucks in Oak Tree Plaza because we don't have enough density around the plaza itself.

Those housing units should be moved to Stone Avenue and the adjacent properties around Oak Tree.

That would support the Seattle Public Schools system by having better density there.

It's a half a mile from the back of Oak Tree to the new pedestrian crosswalk that will be over the freeway.

That's the thing that's going to drive this area.

Stone Avenue is 36 feet from curb to curb with 10 to 12 foot sidewalks on both sides.

It will support a green pathway north and south connecting this urban village and bringing businesses to that area.

You can go all the way from the tip of 109th all the way down to Green Lake.

and have lighted cross signals on Stone Avenue.

It has the possibility of being a great street and a pedestrian safe area and supporting the businesses that are there and what we already have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russ.

Richard, you're our last speaker this morning.

Good morning, council members.

I'd like to talk to you about considering saving the urban forest, and as part of that, we're missing something, and that is a low-hanging fruit.

That is controlling the invasive non-natives.

The clematis and the ivy in the trees are choking these trees, particularly on steep slopes.

If you were to have, you could have it in whatever steps and stages you want, but in development on lots, there should be control of invasives on the entire lot.

It's cheap, it's easy to do, it would save a lot of big trees.

Homeowners should be responsible, particularly if they're having properties with steep slopes and these big trees.

You see driving down Lake City Way on Aurora, all these places, the trees are terribly choked.

These things could be saved.

In the wintertime, these trees, if they have an ice storm, these branches are going to break.

You have slope failure, it's very expensive to try to fix a broken slope.

Saplings are choked out at the bottom, so I really urge you to control the invasives.

The second thing I'd like to talk to you is to thank you and wish you a best Yom Kippur.

Today is the day of atonement for the Jewish people, and I am a Jewish person.

It's a day that God writes us into the book of life.

And you, as council members, control and decide the living things in the city and the quality of life that they have.

And you also decide whether these exceptional trees, whether these heritage trees will survive in purity.

And part of that is about open space, because when you save a big tree, you're saving a big open space.

So if you need to have square footage of house, build it up.

Give them the variances for that.

But you must save the space on the ground.

This is where we live.

This is where the trees live.

This is where they intercept the rain.

This is where we get underneath them from the rain, underneath them from the heat.

We have smoky fires.

We have crazy storms.

They're going to get worse.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Richard.

That concludes public comments for this morning.

We've, I'm sorry, sir, we've got a very full agenda with several items that we have to vote on this morning and a committee that is intended to be in here at 1145, which is why we had to get started early.

Regrettably, we just don't have the space today to allow for additional public comment, though we've already taken 25 minutes of it.

So we're gonna have to move on to agenda item number one, and I'd ask presenters to please come forward on that while Noah reads that item into the record.

The abbreviated title, please.

Council Bill 119333, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending the Seattle Municipal Code for pedestrian access and circulation and to make corrections.

Good morning, everybody.

Why don't we start with some brief introductions, and we'll move into the presentation.

And after the presentation, we'll do the public hearing associated with this council bill.

Good morning.

Yolanda Ho, Council of Central Staff.

Liz Sheldon, SDOT.

Eric Engman, Department of Construction and Inspection.

Bill Mills, Department of Construction and Inspections.

And I know you guys have a presentation.

It looks like it's taking a second here for us to load.

But while that does load up, why don't we do just a little bit of background about why we're here.

I can start that.

So Liz Sheldon in SDOT.

We have been working closely, as you know, with redoing the Pedestrian Master Plan.

One of the items that we had looked at as part of the Pedestrian Master Plan was to look at the existing land use code requirements for pedestrian accessibility.

And one of the items that we found that was lacking and over the years have found lack of clarity in the land use code regulations was specifically adding curb ramps at corner locations.

That's basically why we're here.

Thank you.

We just wanted to give you a very quick overview of the ordinance, cover the background, the current code language, and the proposed changes.

for the, I think you all know our departments very well, so for the sake of time, we'll move past the purpose lines.

Now on to Liz.

Yeah, a little bit of background about our pedestrian network.

As you know, we have about 25% of the pedestrian network doesn't currently have sidewalks, and even more than that, about 50% of the sidewalk ends don't have existing curb ramps.

And as you know, we are required now to install about 1,200 curb ramps annually.

So the current code requirements, again, they don't specifically require curbs or curb ramps as part of the land use code requirements.

We have in some sections, not specifically the pedestrian access and circulation section, it calls out for curbs and curb ramps, but it's only one of many options, it's not specific.

And then curb ramps, they are part of the pedestrian access And so we want to make sure that they're explicitly included in that code section.

Again, with the Pedestrian Master Plan, one of the major changes in this code section happened just in advance of the first adoption of the Pedestrian Master Plan in 2009. Since then, there haven't been any significant changes to this section, a couple title changes, that kind of thing.

And so looking at the Pedestrian Master Plan, this is one of the sections that we wanted to look at revising and updating.

to be more consistent.

So the ordinance focuses on incorporating the ADA curb ramps as part of the pedestrian access and circulation requirements.

We'll basically hold them to a similar level of importance as sidewalks in the code.

Also, it will mainly affect certain larger residential projects and non-residential developments proposed on corner lots.

Also, within the urban centers and the urban villages, when there are existing ADA ramps and the improvements aren't to the level required in the right-of-way improvement manual, then upgrades to those existing infrastructure will need to be made.

There will also be some additional definitions for accessibility added.

and a couple of other minor cleanup changes to the section.

It's also important to mention that the legislation does not change the list of project types currently exempt from providing these access improvements.

So Eric, is it fair to say that one of the fundamental outcomes of this legislation is that when private development occurs, currently there are, there's some ambiguity as to whether or not they're required to build curb ramps to ADA accessibility.

And this changes the code to effectively require private development within specific locations associated to, close to curb ramps to either upgrade existing curb ramps to ADA accessibility or build curb ramps that don't currently exist today to make them ADA accessible.

Is that fair?

So just the last slide, we always want to talk about the public outreach.

So the last thing I wanted to point out is that SDOT and SDCI conducted public outreach to several pedestrian and accessibility advocacy groups and organizations.

And city staff also met with the Master Builders Association and informed the general public about the proposed amendment through the SDCI newsletter, SDOT and SDCI blogs, and through the SEPA process.

So with that, we're here for any questions you might have.

Anything you'd like to add, Bill?

You've been noticeably silent today.

Well, mostly I'm here to answer any technical questions you all may have.

One of the questions that might come up is why we are deleting the mention of unit lot subdivisions and short plats.

And the reason for that, I think, is that unit lot subdivisions by themselves aren't really a development proposal that the existing language triggers street improvements, including these new accessibility improvements with a development.

I'm not sure what the scope of the requirement for the development is.

I'm curious what the scope of the requirement for the development is.

It is essentially anything along the frontage of the development.

If they are mid-block, this probably doesn't change anything.

If it is a corner lot, they would be doing curb ramps at

many different zoning areas.

If it's a corner lot, they would have to install the curb ramps.

Specifically for urban centers and urban villages, we're requiring that a development, again, that meets the threshold for the pedestrian access and circulation would be required to upgrade to the current right-of-way improvement manual or the Streets Illustrated standards.

So they may be required to replace the sidewalk with a wider width sidewalk.

Got it.

Great.

Yes, please, Council Member.

The requirement for the city to build 1,250 curb ramps annually, does that include the curb ramps that are built by developers?

So can you talk a little bit, do we have any sort of projections about how this new requirement will help us meet that annual requirement?

We did, it's really hard to project how many developments will end up being at corner lots, but we did a little look at 2017 numbers and found that there were about 170 developments that this may apply to.

We didn't get to the specifics of whether they actually met the threshold or not, just that there was a development at a corner lot.

So about 170 or so.

Still a long ways to go.

Yes.

Thanks.

Yolanda, anything you'd like to add?

Nothing in regards to what we've discussed here, yes.

That's good.

So we will now then open up the public hearing associated with this, Council Bill 119333. There are only two individuals who signed up to give public comments, and I hope that they will stick to the topic of curb ramps, because that's what this public hearing is.

Because we only have two individuals and a short amount of time today, I've asked Noah from my office to take our time down to one minute.

So, Alex Zimmerman and Steve Rubsello, you are two commenters for one minute on curb ramps each.

Alex.

Hi, my duty fuhrer.

You are crooked in exactly what is I want to speak about this.

You talk a corporation about something doing good for people.

Why?

What this can change?

People can sleep, make this nice, beautiful stone.

No.

But you're very quiet about some building, nice, beautiful building and corporation.

What is don't do nothing for the people?

And I told you many time before, 25% a shanty apartment is a pure speculation.

It's a unique situation because after 10% every business is supposed to be go out market, bankruptcy.

But this speculator can keep 25% empty apartment, 10,000 houses, not for one particular reason.

So stop thinking about stone, start thinking about people.

Because you crook don't do nothing.

Nine council doing nothing about 10,000 empty apartment.

You hire my dirty fuhrer.

You freaking idiot.

Steve?

This is a tough day for me.

I had to thank the staff for two meetings in a row that the agenda was actually available before the meeting, and this might even be a precedent if they continue.

And this is a good first step towards looking at developer fees, costs that come to the city and to the general public for development.

And I hate to say this, but I am for this.

Many of your actions, I do take different stance.

I think that this is actually logical and reasonable, a standard which I think many of your other actions did not meet.

I think this is a good start.

I am for developer fees, as I have said many, many times.

We have parks, sewers, electric.

We have a whole lot of things that when you put in a large development that consume public costs.

This is merely one of them and it's only a small start but I hope you take the idea further.

Your time is up Steve.

Seeing as how we have no additional speakers I'll now close the public hearing on Council Bill 119333. Council, colleagues, this is one of those issues that Because we're heading into budget process, I would ask for your permission to allow us to suspend the rules today and vote a bill out of committee at the same time that we're doing a public hearing on it.

This one is not controversial and I think is only going to help us meet those goals of producing more curb ramps.

So I'm seeing some assent to that.

So I'd like to move to suspend the rules to vote on Council Bill 119333 in the same day as the public hearing.

Further discussion?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

So the rules are suspended.

That motion passes.

And I would ask, Yolanda, if you would please walk us through a brief substitute associated with this.

Yes, so I, as Bill mentioned, there was some clarification in regards to the excluding unit lot subdivision as he explained.

So the new version of the bill, the substitute version, includes that clarification and also in my process of reviewing it, I made some other minor typographical corrections and there were some inconsistencies with other sections of the So I took that opportunity to clear that up.

And so that's the substitute bill.

So pretty minor.

But just helping to clarify and improve the code.

Any questions about the substitute, colleagues?

Anything to add?

S.D.C.I.?

Okay.

So I'd like to move to amend Council Bill 119333 to substitute version 15 for version 14A.

Further discussion?

All those in favor, please say aye.

None opposed, the motion passes.

So the bill is amended, so I'd move to adopt Council Bill 119333 as amended.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

None opposed, that is adopted.

Thanks for your good work on this.

This will be in front of council on Monday the 24th.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item, Southlake Union Design Guidelines.

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

Council Bill 119332, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending the Seattle Municipal Code to approve the 2018 South Lake Union Neighborhood Design Guidelines.

Thank you.

Back with us again.

Allie Panucci and Jim Holmes.

Allie from our council central staff.

Jim from the Office of Planning and Community Development.

I know we had a pretty lengthy PowerPoint presentation and discussion about this with both of you and other members of the community at our last discussion.

But any overview that either of you would like to give to tee up the discussion today?

I'd be happy to provide just a quick overview of what this is before the public hearing, if that makes sense.

So Council Bill 119332 would adopt revised neighborhood design guidelines for the Southlake Union neighborhood.

The proposed guidelines together with the adopted citywide design guidelines serve as the basis for design review for all multifamily residential and commercial development projects in the Southlake Union neighborhood.

Neighborhood design guidelines for this area were originally adopted in 2005 following its designation as an urban center.

They were reformatted in 2013 to align with the new citywide guidelines, but there were not substantive changes at that time.

In 2013, the council adopted new zoning standards for the area that significantly increased building heights and included new standards to improve livability at the ground level.

These guidelines carry forward many of the ideas that came out of the process that led to that rezone and other changes to the regulatory environment for this area that are all memorialized in the urban design framework.

And the guidelines also respond to, as the city has seen and the community has seen new buildings in the area, these guidelines reflect the type of development they'd like to see moving forward.

So as you mentioned, this is the second committee discussion.

An original discussion was held at the September 5th meeting and today is the public hearing and potential vote.

Jim, anything you'd like to add?

I think that about covers it.

Colleagues, any questions before we do the public hearing on this one?

Okay, so I would like to open the public hearing on Council Bill 119332 related to Southlake Union Design Guidelines.

And I would ask again, the two individuals who've signed up to please keep your comments related to the Southlake Union Design Guidelines.

Again, as it's just Alex and Steve, we're gonna have one minute on the clock.

And Alex, your one minute starts now.

Hi, my dirty Fuhrer, and pure cretina.

I want to speak about what is name of this?

Oh, South-like union.

I think something in China happened right now.

A big factory, 100,000 people work like a slave and live in same factory.

Working and live in same factory.

We have right now, too.

I speak to you, Seattle Emerald degenerate idiot, 700,000 idiot.

You want to be like Chinese, live and work and sleep in same place?

It's exactly what has happened now.

This is exactly what this cruel council is doing to us.

Where is Seattle?

Where we bring Seattle back to normal life, but as I see this for 30 plus years, this freaking idiot don't do nothing for the people, only for machine and corporation.

They hire my corporation, they hire my council, when we stop acting like a third world country, when we come back to America.

Thank you.

Steve.

I hope you remember that this neighborhood is also part of the commute and also part of people having general transportation to the city and the city has done a very good job of creating bottlenecks in the city.

We've had many four-lane roads which suddenly turned into two-lane roads.

We've had situations where on one particular former four-lane road, the bus now has to stop in the only lane going with traffic.

So that means not only do the other people, but the other buses stop.

One bus stops if they're reasonably close together.

All buses have to stop.

So let's take a look at this neighborhood as, yes, adjunct to our tech industry, but it's also a part of the rest of the city.

And so we should be taking a look and making it a part of the city that doesn't make the rest of the city worse.

Thank you.

So that closes the public hearing on Council Bill 119332. Colleagues, same rules apply as before.

This is the day of the public hearing on this topic, and we, in order to move this one out, would ask to suspend the rules if there's no objection.

I'd like to suspend the rules to vote on Council Bill 119332 on the same day as the public hearing.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

None opposed.

So that motion is adopted.

Before we actually move to adopt this council bill, I want the record to reflect that at the last council meeting, we had several members of the public show up and testify in favor of these design guidelines.

And for the second year in a row, said a lot of nice things about you, Jim Holmes, both on the uptown, upzone, and here on the South Lake Union design guidelines, you know, we need to take moments and recognize the hard work of city staffers like yourselves who are out in community doing a lot of good planning and design work.

So I want to compliment you on that.

And as usual, Ali Panucci, thank you for helping to shepherd the council through this process.

So without further ado, I'd move to adopt Council Bill 119332. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

None opposed.

That is adopted.

And those guidelines will be in front of council Monday the 24th.

Thanks.

Noah, how about the abbreviated title of item number three?

Council Bill 119342, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, extending a moratorium established by ordinance 125425 for six months on certain uses within the Aurora-Licton Urban Village, declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date for this extension.

And welcome Ketel Freeman of our council central staff.

We have had some legislative history on this colleagues as you know we are nearing the end of the one year current moratorium on certain zoning changes in a love.

We have the public hearing on this at our last meeting but Ketel wanted to walk us through what is up for consideration today.

So I'll just remind the committee a little bit about the legislative history and then describe again what the bill would do.

But as the Committee knows, in October of last year, the Council passed Ordinance 125425, and that placed a temporary moratorium on accepting new applications for certain heavy commercial, auto-oriented, and warehouse uses in Commercial 1, Commercial 2, and Neighborhood Commercial 3 zones in the Aurora-Licton Residential Urban Village.

The list of uses that the moratorium applies to comes from another section of the municipal code.

There is currently an overlay that applies in station areas.

It's sort of a harm reduction overlay, so to speak, and it also prohibits those uses where there is light rail station areas.

At the time, the council found that there was a proliferation of these uses in commercial one and commercial two zones in the Aurora-Licton Urban Village, They were proliferating to the extent that they were excluding other uses preferred by the comprehensive plan.

At the time, the thinking was that permanent controls could be put in place through implementation of the citywide MHA bill.

As the committee knows, there's an ongoing appeal of that bill, which may be, of that proposal, which may be resolved sometime in November.

So what would this new bill do?

Council Bill 119342, it would extend the temporary moratorium for six additional months.

And there are a couple of options here for the council when it comes to putting permanent regulations in place.

One would be through the city-wide MHA process, depending on the outcome of that appeal, through a separate legislative effort.

And then, of course, there's always a no-action option where the council could simply let the temporary moratorium lapse after six months.

So, as my colleagues are undoubtedly aware, we held off a vote on this the last time around because of some differences of opinion during the public hearing, which is generally our process when we've got a unanimous public hearing, or in this case, as we had today, speakers who weren't necessarily talking about the topic related to the public hearing.

We generally have suspended the rules.

But last time, there was some differences of opinion.

I asked my office to go back through and take a look at the kind community concern or community support for this, and they came up with, you know, I think about 80 or so emails in support of extending the moratorium, and only a couple, three or four expressing concern, those three or four I think have been here at council a couple of times.

But I wonder, Ketel, if you could answer a question for me, and then I'm sure my colleagues have some as well, about what process, one of the things that came up during public comment today was the process by which a developer could choose to build a residential building in what is currently a C1 zone.

Is that something that we allow or is that a complicated process that you would then have to go through and get some sort of additional approval from the city to build in a residential building in what is traditionally a commercial zone?

No, residential uses are allowed in Commercial 1 and Commercial 2 zones.

Some of the details are escaping me here, but I think in the more intensive commercial zone, there may be an administrative conditional use process that one would need to go through.

That would be in addition to design review, so it's another discretionary review that a project may be subject to.

But generally speaking, residential uses are allowed in Commercial 1 and Commercial 2 zones.

Other questions that you guys might have, colleagues?

Yeah, please.

So, that issue that residential development is happening in C zones is, I think you've explained sort of the inverse of the problem that we're trying to address with the moratorium.

So, I mean, from the perspective of folks who, you know, want to preserve space for these, you know, more sort of blue-collar-type businesses.

So, I mean, they can make the argument that the property that they could use to expand is being used for residential development, just like folks who are pursuing more residential development are arguing that land that they would like to use for residential development is being taken for for the business use.

So, I mean, it creates a little bit of a dilemma.

And when looked at with the data that you produced following up from the last meeting, that shows under the MHA preferred alternative that there is potentially a 26% reduction of square acreage under the MHA preferred development.

I think, to me, what that points to is I think we need to have some more intensive conversations in the MHA process as we review the preferred alternative to see whether or not We need to address this issue more more more intentfully.

I wholeheartedly agree Councilmember Herbold and as you undoubtedly are aware the city has been facilitating for the last several years a conversation with many folks in the industrial lands community about industrial lands as well as commercial spaces and we look forward to the opportunity to continuing that.

I think the reason why we put an original one-year moratorium on this type of use in this particular neighborhood was because we presumed that we would be completed with the MHA rezones by this point and have had that robust conversation about what we want to allow for in terms of heavier industrial uses and commercial uses and where.

Unfortunately, we haven't had that opportunity yet.

So for me, I think the continuation of a six-month moratorium allows for us to continue that discussion and ideally, allows for us to bring forward some more permanent resolution to the very conflicts that you're describing that exist in the current land use code.

The point that I'd like to underscore, though, is I need to have an intentional conversation with the folks who feel like they haven't been at the table as it relates to this moratorium.

you know, not wait for the industrial lands recommendations because we're probably not going to get those before we take, hopefully take action on MHA, but to really focus those discussions around the preferred alternative in MHA.

I did also, the other thing that I asked Ketel to help me out with is, Two things, one to confirm that this legislation did not impact any current uses and that's been confirmed.

And we know that HandyAndy's project is vested, so their planned expansion will not be impacted.

And then finally, we took, there's been a question of whether or not there has been a problem with the, the development of these projects in property that otherwise would be useful for residential development.

And Quito confirmed that four mups of eight since 2014 were for projects that are potentially inconsistent with the comp plan.

So I think that does point to the need for an extension, but I also, again, think that we need to have more conversation about the longer-term impacts.

Please.

I agree, Council Member Herbold.

I really like that approach.

I think that I support the moratorium.

Remaining kind of open to what the long-term outcome is, but I think in the short term, I think it makes sense to keep this in place.

I think one suggestion would be to reach out to the Office of Planning and Community Development and see if they have capacity to run some sort of mini process to help both engage some of the stakeholders and help us kind of lay out a couple alternatives.

You know, the distinction between we are today and Ketel reinforce the distinction between commercial and non-commercial.

You know, my understanding doesn't prohibit a residential, doesn't prohibit coffee shops, those types of things.

But I think it does have potentially significantly different forms of development, setbacks, parking lots, those types of things.

And so, I think a kind of accelerated and kind of comprehensive look at, what are a couple different neighborhood formats that we could look at.

What does that mean for folks like Handy Andy that may become non-conforming users?

What does it mean for other existing businesses?

What does it mean for the future of that neighborhood?

And there are going to be different opinions.

Those are not going to get resolved.

But I think just to have some clarity for us to make a policy decision, and I think through MHA is the right timeline.

If OPCD says that they do not have capacity, we may want to look for putting a few dollars in the budget to have them hire a consultant to run something relatively quickly.

But I think it's appropriate to get this resolved relatively soon next year, and hopefully concurrent with MHA would be the appropriate time to do that.

I was just taking a peek in the audience to see if anybody from OPCD was here, but unfortunately we don't have anybody that could just run to the microphone and answer the question about where ALOVE might be in the mix for the next round of community-based planning.

But we'll take a look at that after the meeting today and circle back around to your office, Councilmember O'Brien, and certainly with Councilmember Juarez as well, who I'm sure would want to be deeply involved in any discussions around community design workshops or other quick and dirty options we might have in advance of MHA's passage.

And I don't know that there's time or capacity to do a full-on, you know, community plan update, neighborhood plan update.

So what I'm thinking of is something kind of narrowly tailored to a zoning question.

And I think we have a pretty good idea of the fundamental issues that are teed up on this issue.

And so it's just a matter of kind of workshopping a little bit.

Great.

Further questions?

Anything else to add, Mr. Freeman?

No.

Okay.

So I'd like to move to adopt Council Bill 119342. Further discussion?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

None opposed.

The bill is adopted, and that one will be in front of council on Monday the 24th as well.

Thank you very much for being here on this particular topic, Mr. Freeman and members of the audience.

So this is the meatiest of our discussions for today.

We are gonna invite Lish Whitson from our council central staff, and while he joins us at the table, Noah, would you please read items four and five into the record?

Clerk file 314346, application of the University of Washington to prepare a new major institution master plan for the University of Washington Seattle campus at 4000 15th Avenue Northeast.

And resolution 31839, a resolution making a preliminary decision on the University of Washington 2018 Seattle campus master plan.

Okay folks, our intention today is to take up the clerk file and the resolution.

These are both related to the major institution master plan.

Lisha's got a little process PowerPoint he's going to walk us through and we have under consideration 15, I think 15 amendments.

So as a reminder about the process, the intention here is to vote the bill out of committee today, have it go in front of full council on Monday, and have that full council adoption Monday the 24th.

That then kickstarts the back and forth conversation between the city and the various proponents and appellants, including our own Department of Construction and Inspections for feedback.

That will happen during our budget process, and then this will be back in front of us again, potentially in December, as we contemplate the feedback that we get through that process, that official process, and then finalizing any conclusions that we might want to come to through an ordinance.

Likely some time either in December or after the first of the year.

Did I get all that right?

Mr. Woodson?

Yes, great process question councilmember.

Oh, that's question just because this is a unique version of an already unique situation The agenda has a clerk file and a resolution Is it the resolution that we were planning to vote out?

Or do they both go out?

Yes.

So we'll keep the clerk file open until the final council vote on the ordinance.

That'll allow us to put, for example, the letters we get from the University of Washington in that clerk file.

So the bill we're voting out is the resolution.

The hope is to vote that out of committee, which goes to, and then there'll be an ordinance that will come through in a few months probably, and the clerk file will remain there.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks for that process question.

That was a good one.

The other thing that I just want to make the public aware of is that we've got a sheet of proposed amendments that's both in front of you and attached to today's discussion.

And as we contemplate those, I think we're just going to call them by the name that Lisha's got outlined here.

We'll take them in order, A1, B1, B2, et cetera, et cetera, and on down the list.

So just in order to keep things flowing, what I'm going to do is ask the person whose name is listed first as the sponsor if they'd like to speak to the amendment after Lish has given kind of a rundown about the amendment itself.

Then we'll have a discussion about that.

We'll act on that amendment and then move to the next one.

I have another process question.

Please.

Between the time when we receive comment from all the parties of record on the resolution, and the time that we vote on the ordinance that comes after that, is it the executive that develops the ordinance, or is it the council that develops the ordinance, since it's sort of the council that's soliciting the response to the resolution?

Yeah, it'll be a council-generated council bill, and it will look very similar to the resolution you have in front of you.

All right, thank you.

What other base background information would you like to provide us, Lish?

Let's start with the PowerPoint.

Just a reminder that we're working under the City-University Agreement, which provides a framework for the development of 10-year master plans for the growth of the University of Washington.

And the City-University Agreement requires a conceptual master plan and an environmental impact statement.

which were prepared and requires that a long list of items be included in the master plan.

The hearing examiner in reviewing the master plan found that all of these items were present.

This is our process which started with the university filing a notice of intent to prepare the master plan.

The city university community advisory committee has a formal role in the master plan review process and delivered a report.

after which the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections delivered a report, after which the hearing examiner delivered a report.

All of those recommended approval of the master plan with a number of conditions and changes.

I think almost 60 changes were included in the hearing examiner's recommendation.

At this phase, council is adopting a preliminary recommendation, which then goes out to parties of record for comment and input.

And we'll come back at the end of the year or in January to discuss and vote on that.

Can you remind us, Liz, just what the timeline is?

If we were to act today on the resolution and act on Monday the 24th on the resolution at full council, how long is the clock for everyone to make comments?

So there's a 30-day clock for initial comments and then another 14 days for responses to those initial comments.

So, that's 45 days, that puts us in mid-November and then it'll be a scramble to compile all those comments, brief you guys on what's in there and figure out whether any changes are warranted to the preliminary recommendation.

So, I want to just give a heads up to.

my colleagues and to members of the public that given all of that and given the budget process that we're in, my expectation is that we will spend our December meeting hearing from LISH about issues that have been identified as part of the 45-day comment period, but that we would not take any action on an ordinance at that point.

to allow for us to continue to give feedback and likely take action sometime after the first of the year.

You know, this is subject to change.

Certainly, if what we hear is a universal thumbs up to the actions that we've taken, then we could move relatively quickly out of committee in December and act before the end of the year.

But I want to just reserve the right to say we might take a little more time and have this in front of us and act sometime after the first of the year.

The comment period, it still remains quasi-judicial through all of this.

So we don't take general comments from anybody and all those rules apply.

So the comments are specifically for certain parties and they go to, is it written comments to an email box or is there a testimony somewhere?

It's written comments.

I need to work with our clerk's office to figure out the best way to accept them.

doesn't have quite the same rules in the city-university agreement as the preliminary filings of objections to the hearing examiner's recommendations.

So that will all be laid out in a letter that I will be drafting this week.

Great.

So we will basically just wait, and when it's all done, you will compile it.

We'll have access to all the comments that are provided, and you will also be providing kind of summary notes for us to kind of read through.

Yeah.

Sounds like you got some work ahead of you, Lish.

Yeah.

Thank you.

The reason why I think January adoption timeline is going to be important is because it is just Lish.

Yeah.

So as a reminder, the master plan applies within the University of Washington's boundaries, which are the same as the current boundaries of the university, generally south of 45th.

east of 15th and then south of 41st Avenue Northeast.

The master plan is for the next 10 years of growth between 2018 and 2028. The university plans to add approximately 35,000 students, 1,900 staff, and 840 faculty over that period.

And in order to do that, plan would allow up to 6 million square feet over that 10-year period.

So we have, I think we're down to 14 amendments, and the first one is related to affordable housing.

This is co-sponsored by Council Members O'Brien and Herbold, and it would require the university to provide at least 300 units of housing affordable to household, to staff earning less than 80% of median income.

This slide sort of walks through the math that how we got to 300 units.

U District Alliance testified that approximately half of current staff earn below 80% of area median income, including a sixth of the staff, or one third of those half, that earn less than 50% of area median income.

So that results in about 300 units, or 300, a demand for 300 units, up to 80% of area median income and 150 units up to 60% of area median income.

The resolution in front of you would require that 150 units, amendment A1 would require the 300 units between 50 and 80%.

So amendment A1 would require an additional 300 units on top of the 150 that are currently on?

For a slightly higher income.

I should say before we got all this started, our Deputy Clerk, Amelia Sanchez, has asked me to make sure that at the advance of this, I actually put this bill or the resolution in front of us.

She admonished me a little bit for not taking that action to begin with.

So before we move to amendments, I am required by our Deputy Clerk to say I'd like to move to adopt Resolution 31839. And now that it's been properly seconded, we can discuss those amendments and officially vote on them.

So the way that I'd like to do this is Lish has given an overview of the amendment.

I'd like to turn to the sponsors to have them talk about the amendment.

We'll take up that amendment and then we'll move on to the next and just continue for the next.

13 or 14 amendments.

It was found that the ability to implement my amendment, which would have required the application of MHA for certain University of Washington buildings that were leased for certain non-institutional purposes, and the ability to to impose the MHA requirement is at time of the submission of an intent to build.

And so the ability to know at that time whether or not the property is going to be leased and to whom is an unknowable thing.

And there was also a question of whether or not we would actually need amend MHA to put my version of a housing amendment into practice.

So, for that reason, I have withdrawn my amendment and have signed on to Council Member O'Brien's.

And I appreciate your explanation of that, Council Member Herbold, and I applaud the intent because it certainly feels like there's a possibility, and it's hard to tell how this plays out, but that things that look and act a lot like private development could come through here and be used in a certain way, and then essentially skirt some of the existing rules we have in place.

I haven't seen the evidence that that is what will happen, but it's just this gray area that we don't know, and it'll play out over decades.

And at the same time, we've been using a path where development triggers affordable housing, not uses.

And this is something that's been a challenge, you know, in other places of the code where we have some very strong concerns about types of uses and who's working and what the wages of the workers are going to be.

And trying to tie some related development has been really challenging.

And I think we still need to continue to work on that.

I don't actually know exactly what a resolution is on that.

But I think I support you withdrawing it too because I don't think it makes sense at this time.

But I think it's a challenge we need to continue to work on.

So pivoting to the amendment before us, I'll just speak briefly.

We have a housing crisis, and we need to build a lot more affordable housing.

And we have requirements that new development contribute to the affordable housing stock through the MHA as part of the ways that they mitigate those impacts.

I think we have an opportunity here too to, you know, ask employers who, in this case, the University of Washington, that will be paying wages that likely will not be able to afford housing in the area and will require either very long commutes to distant places where they can't afford it or subsidies that they actually provide that housing as part of it.

And I think that it's part of, for me at least, an overall concept of like, you know, we need to internalize all these costs.

And if the wages are going to be low enough that folks cannot afford housing in this market, then folks should be able to, folks should be required to pay for the housing subsidy, or they can just pay higher wages.

I mean, there's a number of ways to do that.

But in this case, based on the somewhat limited evidence we have in the record, it seems that That is what's happening here.

And so, you know, try to be fairly conservative on the math here based on what we have in the record.

And I think it's reasonable to ask for an additional 300 units of affordable housing at 80% of AMI to match what appears to be the requirement.

Sorry, their intent hire.

So I just want to speak briefly.

I'm going to be voting no on the amendment today.

But you know I share the strong desire for us to be building more affordable housing during this time of housing crisis.

Our reasons are kind of twofold.

One is I think if we're going to be making a requirement like this of a major employer in the city we should be taking that same sort of requirement seriously.

So I don't know what the numbers are, but I would imagine that we have a certain percentage of our city staff that are at 50 to 80 percent of AMI, and if we're going to be asking the university to fund effectively staff housing associated with it, I think we should also be taking that up as a priority for ourselves.

Secondly, I just want to say that, you know, I've heard from the city law department concerns, and I think that those two things lead me to voting no on the amendment, although it looks like I'm going to be in the minority on that.

So we will see if there's any further discussion on this one.

And if there is, please, now's the time.

Perfect.

Thank you.

I just wanted to speak to a couple points that both the hearing examiner and the SDCI director made.

And there are a lot of, I think, relevant points, but just trying to quickly cut to the chase here.

The hearing examiner finds that although the zoning capacity will, can accommodate the number of units, it will not mitigate the affordable housing impacts of the anticipated growth.

And further, the director recommended that, that the master plan be amended to require that the university construct 150 affordable housing units.

And from my perspective, if the recommendations to require the 150 affordable housing units is based on an acknowledgment that the zone capacity addition will not address the needs associated with anticipated growth, I think that argument supports a proposal in addition in the master plan that does a better job of meeting the need.

I think the logic follows that if they approve the idea of 150 being included in the master plan because of the unmet need, then a number included in the master plan that does a better job of meeting the need.

I think it's logically consistent.

Secondly, the other point that the hearing examiner noted in response to the university's position that the master plan did not need to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

I just want to make note that the city and the university argued the opposite of that and the GMA board agreed in a previous case.

And the city and the university and the GMA board all agreed that these types of action is a land use regulation that must be consistent and implement the comprehensive plan.

in those instances that it's required by 23.69.

And then finally, you know, the university makes the point in talking about both the zone capacity and affordability, and this is something that I think has been noted previously that the 641 new faculty and staff would be anticipated to search for housing in the primary and secondary impact zones.

And they go on to say that assuming that all anticipated new staff and faculty reside in the primary and secondary impact zones, if they were to reside in the university district, 321 private rental units would would meet that need, and that's assuming that every one of those new faculty and staff are doubling up.

So again, I think that just helps point to the need here.

Just responding to your comments, Councilmember Johnson, I agree that we We need to be thinking about how all employers address this issue for staff that are paid at a wage level that can't afford this.

And the city of Seattle should make a considered effort to.

The city does participate in hundreds and thousands of units of affordable housing.

It's not directly tied to our employment, but it goes well beyond that.

But we could certainly consider that, and I think you bring up a fair point that we should be thinking about, too.

So thanks for flagging that.

I wish it were hundreds of thousands.

I think it's only tens of thousands.

I was saying hundreds and thousands.

Hundreds like a year, thousands over a decade.

I think our goal is to get to hundreds of thousands.

But hundreds of thousands would be great, yes.

So I look to the two sponsors to make a motion.

I will move this amendment.

I'll second it.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Nay.

Amendment A1 is adopted.

Let's move on to Amendment B-1, Mr. Whitson.

So moving to transportation, the university has a transportation management plan or program in the master plan.

It has a number of key sort of foundational measures that they are using to make sure that there aren't transportation impacts.

One of them is a limit on the number of trips to the university by single occupant vehicle, so people driving alone to either work or go to school at the University of Washington.

And that's measured on an annual basis in their reports to the city on the master plan.

In the 2016 report, the university saw a drop of SOV use from 20% to 17% and identified that as in part being a result of the opening of the University of Washington light rail station.

As you know, the light rail system is set to expand significantly over the 10-year life of this plan, including another light rail station opening to serve the University of Washington.

And so this amendment would reduce the required SOV rate from the 20 percent that is identified in the hearing examiner's recommendation, which is at the bottom of the slide, to 17 percent, which was measured in 2016 and then further reduce the future SOB rates down to a final rate of 12% in 2028 and those drops except for the last one are tied to the openings of light rail stations.

And Council Members O'Brien and Johnson co-sponsored this.

Councilmember O'Brien, would you like to speak to it?

Go for it.

Okay, you know one of the changes that we made I think to this amendment reflects my desire to make sure that the tying of the reductions is related to the opening of the stations themselves not necessarily a date associated with the station because I don't think it would have been fair for us to say by 2023 and then the federal government comes in and strips funding from the Linwood Link project, and that project is delayed.

So the goal here is to ensure that as the light rail system continues to progress and march further north, south, and east, we will continue to ask the University of Washington to reduce its SOV rate commensurate with these figures and be compliant within one year of opening of those extensions as opposed to an opening date certain within the document itself.

I think, you know, it goes without saying that the U-PASS program when it was introduced in 1991 has been thought of as a groundbreaking and landmark way for a university, a major institution to reduce its drive alone rate.

And I think this is a continuation of that, you know, significant moment in history for those of us who think a lot about transit nerd issues.

this is a nice way for, I think, us to continue that legacy.

Please.

I really appreciate that.

And I think the linking it not to a date, but to an action makes a lot of sense.

So I appreciate your clarity on that.

And I know this is an ambitious goal.

And I was down in San Francisco last week for the Global Climate Action Summit.

Local jurisdictions and other nations coming together talking about how we're going to all live up to the Paris Climate Accord.

despite our federal government not doing that.

And in our region, we're now, I think, about two-thirds of our emissions come from transportation.

And so we're going to absolutely have to address it.

Some of that will be addressed as we continue to electrify our transportation fleet, but a lot of it's going to have to come through other changes in how we get around.

And we've seen, frankly, in my lifetime, just in the last few years, just some kind of massive shifts, largely technologically driven.

about how we get around, whether we look at the various bike share systems that are on our streets today, car sharing like, you know, Zipcar, Car2Go, ReachNow.

Obviously, the TNCs are changing how people get around a lot.

And I think there's more changes that are going to come.

And so I don't know exactly what that roadmap looks like to reach this for University of Washington.

But I know that there are a lot of changes in place and more changes coming.

And I'm just looking to the, you know, what have been historically a great transportation team at University of Washington to really be creative and aggressive.

And I think these targets, I actually hope they can exceed these both in timeline and numerically.

So.

A question, in the existing master plan, is there an enforcement mechanism to meet these goals?

Yeah, so there is.

Let me direct you to the memo, which I think I have a copy of.

Yeah so we're on amendment b1 and at the end of at the bottom of page 4 the hearing examiner amended is amending the plan to incorporate that enforcement mechanism.

And she recommended, if the university fails to achieve the applicable SOV rate goal, the university shall take steps to enhance the transportation management program to increase the likelihood that the goal shall be achieved.

Additional measures will be set by the university and may include, but are not limited to, providing a transit pass that covers all transit trips, replicating the U-pass opt-out program that currently applies to students, to the faculty and staff, expanding the U-PASS program to integrate other transportation options, implementing performance-based parking strategies.

or replacing monthly parking permits with a pay-by-use parking payment model.

And then if they don't meet that SOV rate goal for two years, then SDCI would potentially not issue master use permits for future development.

That's what I wanted to hear.

Thank you.

Further questions or thoughts on this?

Seeing none, I'd move adoption of Amendment B1.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Amendment B1 is adopted.

Let's talk about some other legs of the transportation stool.

B2.

B2 is related to another measure that's in the transportation management program, a cap on parking spaces.

And the university has had the same cap of 12,300 spaces since the 1980s.

They currently have fewer parking spaces on campus than that, 10,667 spaces.

And those spaces are currently not being used at the, level expected.

So this map shows where those parking spaces are located.

A large chunk are in the east campus.

And the east campus is where you see the least amount of use of parking.

Currently, peak hour, midday on a weekday when school's in session, approximately 6,700 spaces are being used.

A couple of different types of parking are not included in the cap, and so the first amendment discusses one of those.

Amendment B2 talks about parking associated with residence halls, which are not included in the cap.

There's currently 1858 parking parking spaces or 585 That aren't including the cap including parking associated with residence halls this amendment would include those Parking spaces associated with residence halls in the total cap It would also remove a requirement that the master plan proposes to have related to the amount of parking that needs to be provided with parking associated with residence halls.

So the master plan says that for typical college beds, 4% of parking Beds need to have a parking space associated with them.

And for apartments, one space would need to be built per apartment.

This amendment would strip that requirement and would allow the university to provide the amount of parking that they feel is most appropriate to each dorm.

But those parking spaces would be counted within the total cap.

And the cap would be adjusted to incorporate those.

So we no longer require a minimum associated with either the apartments that the university might build on campus or the dorms that they might build on campus.

So this amendment eliminates that minimum parking requirement.

And then the second thing is it does is it brings some residence halls or all the residence halls rather to the total cap, which they're currently not counted toward the cap.

Please, Council Member Rubel.

So my notes show that the units that currently don't count towards the cap are 1,878.

That's probably better than my memory.

And about 1,100 of those are residential hall parking spots.

What are the other 700 or so?

So they're spots for loading, spots for university vehicles primarily.

And so we're only talking about the 1100?

Yeah.

Okay.

I mean, I think this alongside the next amendment really are intending to get to a use what you've got before you build new goals and objectives associated with parking, as the slide shows so eloquently.

There is good utilization in some parts of campus, but really underutilization in a lot of parts of campus.

So rather than requiring the university to build new parking spaces, or rather than allowing some parking spaces to not be counted towards the cap, this amendment basically says let's see you use the parking spaces that you've got before we require you to build new ones or Before we say these ones that aren't counted towards the cap Do get counting towards the cap further thoughts or questions colleagues?

Okay, so I'd move adoption of amendment be to second all those in favor.

Please say aye aye Motion is adopted.

Let's move on to B3.

So B3, there's some overlap with B2.

It would lower the cap to better reflect the utilization numbers that you see on the slide.

So lower the cap to 9,000 spaces, including both the residence hall spaces and the general campus spaces.

Council Member Braden, you want to speak to this one?

Yep, I will.

Thanks for having that up there.

So, Council Member Johnson, what you said earlier applies to this, and my comments about climate change also apply to this.

I won't repeat them all.

What we see from this parking demand study is, you know, fewer than 7,000 spots are used at any time, and so to have a cap of 12,000 seems like the potential for building a lot more parking.

Lowering it to 9,000 spaces, I understand there may be some challenges, and so I just want to walk through my understanding of how this might play out.

One is that would still leave a couple thousand spots more than are being utilized today, which seems like there should be excess.

Where that is and how accessible it is, I think, is an open question I'm interested in learning more about.

They already have in excess of 9,000 spaces, and so the cap would not require that they, my understanding is the cap would not require that they eliminate those spots.

What I understand it would require would be that if they wanted, if the University of Washington wanted to build, you know, 10 new spots in a residential hall that they were building somewhere, they would need to not come down necessarily to that 9,000 cap, but they couldn't increase the overall amount of it.

So they would need to eliminate 10 potentially under or unutilized spots somewhere else on campus to at least maintain that current level, which we think is, you know, at 10,667 plus maybe the residential ones we just proposed to roll into it.

Is that inaccurate of how this would play out?

I think so.

So the last statement on this slide is what the city-university agreement says should happen if they are at the cap and want to add parking somewhere else on the campus.

So after the sealing of parking spaces set forth in the master plan is reached for an action to be exempt, and that means exempt from needing an amendment to the master plan.

Any new parking spaces must be accompanied by a decrease in parking spaces elsewhere on campus so that the total number of approved parking spaces on campus is not increased.

So I understand that this is a little complex, but I also would urge my colleagues to support it at the moment because we do have this opportunity for further testimony.

in the process we talked about in the coming, you know, 30 days and additional 15 days or 14 days.

And a couple things I'll be interested to hear about is folks' interpretation of this to make sure that it's clear and if there's some vagueness around it, I'd be open to talk, you know, responding to, reacting I should say to testimony we receive in that period.

to make changes.

I also want to just acknowledge that for events, specifically football games, of which there are, what, six or seven a year, there's probably a lot of what I would call underutilized parking that's at capacity in those days, and it likely exceeds this cap.

And so, again, The cap of 9,000 isn't going to require that they eliminate 2,000 or 3,000 units of parking that are maybe pretty underutilized on a normal day, but are very valuable on six or seven days a year.

And I'm interested in hearing if, for some reason, they're intending to build a lot more parking somewhere else, and this would require them to eliminate football parking.

That new parking couldn't be used for football parking.

So the complexities around that I'm sensitive to, and so I hope to hear from the various parties that may be commenting in the next comment period about how this would interact with events.

And I'm certainly open to talking about a separate category of event parking or something like that.

I don't actually know a construct in which I would address that, but we have some time to think about that and hear back from folks on how things are operationalized and what other community members think.

So if you consider the amendment that we just passed, where we're now counting residential hall parking spaces as part of the cap.

That means we now have 11,771 built spaces.

I don't understand why we would have the cap be lower than the number of spaces that are built.

My understanding, the way it plays out is it's just going to be a tight constraint.

Wouldn't it be a tight constraint at 1,200 if we're already at 11,771?

11,771.

We could do that.

I mean, ultimately, I would like to see parking go down.

And so, again, my cap doesn't require that parking go down because I believe our interpretation is that it could be a one-for-one change, but it would keep that tight.

The things that I'm thinking about You know, again, we talked about behavior change and other investments we're making.

You know, in my youth, going to Husky football games, those parking lots were full.

And they probably still are.

But now you have light rail access from the south, which is great.

And that can change a lot of behavior.

And in a couple years, we'll have light rail access from the north, and then we'll have light rail access from the east, all right to the stadium.

And so I think there is opportunity for significant behavior change around events.

And so that's one of the reasons why I'm having that cap lower.

I just don't understand how lowering the cap accomplishes that goal if you don't, you're not requiring the removal of any parking and it just seems like there's some logic that I don't understand in having a cap that's lower than the number of units that are already built.

One way that might play out is so, you know, I believe a lot of the underutilized parking is in the east campus, you know, on the adjacent to the stadium.

There's potential for redevelopment down there, and so it may be that, you know, 500 parking stalls are going to be converted into a development, and they may not replace those 500 parking stalls.

And so then the overall limit would go down.

And it may not be offset by 500 new spots somewhere else, in which case the number of parking spots would be 500 lower.

It'd still be above the cap, but it'd be working towards that cap.

So I agree with you and I would be open to a different number.

I'm kind of interested in this number or a different number today for an opportunity to hear feedback in the next round of discussion.

Yeah, I'm fine with this going forward given that it's a resolution and it's Parking is a very interesting issue in this community because more parking also drives the need for the university to have more space for its other uses, and the community doesn't like that either.

It results in, you know, expanding things like the lease lid, things that the community typically doesn't like.

So I'm willing to support this in interest of continuing this conversation and getting a sense of where the broader community is at at it.

in it, but maybe between now and the after budget when we're talking.

Yeah.

I'm in the same spot.

I want to see the comments.

I would just offer that I find it to be very intellectually consistent.

You know, if we're setting goals as we just have, at least in draft form, to reduce SOV reduction, it would be inconsistent for us to then also allow for a lot more parking spaces to be built by the university.

Those would be inconsistent, and from my perspective, incompatible objectives.

So I think lowering the cap to 9,000 makes some sense.

The way that you talk about it, Council Member O'Brien, is being absorbed over time, allowing for that sort of one-for-one replacement, but then if you're gonna take away 500 spaces, you're not gonna build 500 spaces likely somewhere else.

So that continued reduction towards a goal of a cap of 9,000 makes sense to me, and I'm happy to support it.

So I'd look to the sponsor to make a motion.

I'll move amendment B3.

Second.

Further discussion?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Then oppose.

B3 is adopted.

Four down-ish, 10 to go.

All right.

I think those were the most complicated ones, hopefully, but.

I don't know about that, as we all say under our breath.

Oh, right.

It's complicated.

We'll have a little reprieve here, and then we'll get into zoning.

So the university in their plan recognizes that they Are providing high security parking and showers at some campus locations.

Bike lockers and spacing cages are also available.

But when it talks about improvement, when the plan talks about improvements to bicycle facilities, that lighting, lockers, and shower facilities aren't included.

So the proposed amendment is at the bottom of the slide, and it would basically add lighting lockers and shower facilities for bike, as part of the bike parking facilities that would be provided.

Council Member Bryan.

I think that says it.

Any discussion about this?

Pretty straightforward.

I'll just say the quality of bike facilities matters.

And the university actually has some amazing bike facilities, so they know that, and I just wanted to highlight that.

Would you like to move amendment B-4?

I'll move amendment B-4.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

None opposed, B-4 is adopted.

Let's B-5.

B-5.

So the university has a plan to improve the Berkman trail through the campus.

And it owns the Berkman right away throughout the campus.

They have made some improvements where they've separated bike traffic and pedestrian traffic.

The plan is to do that more and to widen the trail over time.

In their comments on the hearing seminar's recommendation, they acknowledged that separation of bike facilities should occur by 2024, and so they committed to that in their letter.

So the first part of this amendment would be to take their acknowledgement and incorporate that into the plan.

The second part would basically say that when development occurs next to the trail, that the trail should be widened, which is also part of the plan.

O'Brien and Herbold sponsored this.

Councilmember Bratton, this one has some specific dates and locations associated with it.

Do you want to talk a little bit about that?

I would defer to Lish to talk about that.

Lish, can we talk a little bit about that before we talk?

Because you've got a map up here for a reason, because there's some specificity in here about the timing of some of these capital investments.

So separation would happen By 2024, and that's what the university acknowledged, widening of what's called the Garden Reach would happen when this development site just north of the Bird Gilman Trail is built.

And then on the east campus, they are proposing a series of buildings along here, that development may not occur during.

the 10 years of this plan, they're not sort of priority development sites identified in the plan, but if they do develop those sites, then widening of the trail would, along the forest reach would happen during that period.

So we, so just to make sure that I've got that right, forest reach, we don't have a timeline associated with it, but we say, if you're going to develop something on forest reach, we want you to do the Burke-Gilman widening for that section or for the entirety of the-

Just for that section.

When either of those sites develop, there are two that are right adjacent to the trail.

So when either of those sites are developed, that section of the trail would be triggered.

Yeah.

Please, Council Member Ryan.

loose parallel to the legislation we considered earlier today about requiring development to do the the infrastructure improvements in the right-of-way.

And then which I think when the development sites actually on the the east side of Central Campus or they on East Campus?

East side of Central Campus.

Okay, great.

Further discussion on this one?

I just want to thank Councilmember Bryan for bringing this forward.

We hear more and more about conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists.

And I think the more that we can separate those uses, the fewer conflicts we have.

And as I've said to you before, I wish we would do it in other places as well, like sidewalks.

So, and thanks to the university for agreeing to this concept as well.

And I think, you know, as we continue to react to changing behaviors, eventually, you know, the Burke-Gilman may look more like I-5 and the I-5 corridor may look more like the Burke-Gilman.

Has the mode split changed dramatically in our community?

As somebody who commutes a lot on the BRIC walking, I'm cognizant of how the BRIC is the I-5 for bicyclists.

So, you know, I think the more we can continue that separation that exists today on the east side of Central Campus, the better off we are going to be for all users.

So, I look to the sponsor to move the amendment.

I'll move amendment B-5.

Second.

Further discussion on this one, folks?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Hi.

None opposed.

B5 is adopted.

Let's move on to, I think that's it for transportation, right, Lish?

Yes.

Child care?

Child care.

So in the EIS, the university acknowledged that they have a plan to add child care spaces on campus.

This amendment would recognize that commitment, would exempt childcare spaces from the six million square foot cap in order to allow them to provide additional childcare spaces if they have the funding or interest, and encourage the university to partner with the city.

The city does have some funds for childcare and preschool facilities and encourage those sorts of partnerships.

I just want to thank the university for efforts that they've already been undertaking to increase access to child care.

This is a significant concern.

Child demand is already exceeding supply and staff are experiencing multi-year waits for child care programs.

I also want to recognize and own that this proposal falls far short of what both the alliance and CUCAC were recommending for addressing this issue.

Their recommendations were both to identify a commitment to increase capacity by 350 slots, when 5 million square feet of development is completed or by July 26. And it also was looking for a specific commitment for a partnership with the city on a new university district childcare voucher fund.

And I, you know, I understand that there may be something related to the second one that is in the works.

There are examples of other universities doing that sort of a program.

But this is, I think, as far as we can go with this particular master plan, so.

complicated childcare environments, that this is a hard thing in the neighborhood, too.

Not just related to the University of Washington, but several childcare providers currently lease space in many of our religious institutions in the neighborhood.

Some of those religious institutions, are contemplating zoning changes that would allow for them to redevelop their properties, to allow them to continue to provide services that creates space constraints.

This allows for us to be more creative with the university about those space constraints by exempting them.

So I think it's a good approach.

I hear you on not going as far as I think we would like to, but I think this is an important step nonetheless.

Further discussions on this one?

I'd look to the sponsor then.

I move amendment C1 related to child care space.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

None opposed.

That amendment's adopted.

Let's talk zoning.

All right.

So just to remind you.

Major institution overlay height limits are set on the zoning map, so the resolution has draft amendments to the zoning map as attachment four.

The land use code has a series of criteria that are used to evaluate whether or not heights are appropriate within major institution overlay areas.

And increases to height may be considered where it's desirable to limit district boundary by expansion.

So one of the key reasons why.

Their proposing height limit increases up to 240 feet over much of the campus is to limit their need to expand the boundary.

Height limits at the district boundary shall be compatible with those in the adjacent areas.

Transitional height limits shall be provided wherever feasible when the maximum permitted height within the overlay district is significantly higher.

than permitted in areas adjoining the campus.

Height limits should generally not be lower than existing development to avoid nonconforming structures and obstruction of public scenic or landmark views to, from, or across a major institution campus should be avoided where possible.

There are a couple of sites, areas in the west campus that Council Member Herbold has asked to look at.

They are what's called site W22, which is this area, which is currently zoned for 105 feet and proposed to go up to 240 feet.

And then this area here next to the University Bridge, which is currently zoned for 65 feet and proposed to go up to 160 feet, but the plan would condition that back down to 130 feet.

So doubling of height on that site.

This is the proposed massing of buildings on the site from the master plan.

So W22 is here at the northwest corner of the west campus and W37 is here on the west side of the campus.

The EIS masked out what those would look like under the current zoning and the proposed zoning.

So on the left you see heights under the proposed 130 feet and 240 feet, and on the right under the current 65 feet and 105 feet.

Similarly, a slightly different view from the I-5 bridge.

I'm sorry, I just wanted to pause on that for a second.

Okay, thanks.

And then, so this is, again, site W22.

Matt Fox, in his testimony to you, had a couple of pictures of the site.

So on the left is sort of looking north from East Lake Avenue North.

And on the right is a view of the current use, which is a parking lot.

And then this is sort of the area just east, sorry, just west of site W22.

That landscape triangle is, yeah, so W22 is here.

And this landscape triangle is also part of the campus.

And so Council Member Herbold's amendment would maintain the current height limit of 105 feet for Site W22.

Please speak to the amendment.

Thank you.

And thanks, Lish, for pulling together the visuals.

They're super helpful.

I just want to make note that SDCI recognized that the proposed height was an incompatible height, but they did say that they believe that there are ways to mitigate those impacts.

I think that is really questionable, and I think it's really important to note the long history of the community of identifying this particular site as a gateway to the neighborhood.

Back in the 20, I'm sorry, the 2003 campus master plan, they at that time called that site 30W, and the master plan promised that the UW would develop the site as a gateway to the neighborhood and the university.

It went on to say, while the site may include other permitted uses, the university will consider retaining the entire site as a gateway.

Then, previous to that, in the university community urban center plan of 1998, they identified that there is a long planning history that identifies this site as a critical gateway into the neighborhood.

The other, I think, really important issue is related to the types of buildings that would be built.

when talking about the impacts of a building at this height, does not acknowledge that when comparing a building at this site to residential buildings, the residential buildings are slender towers, whereas a building at this site would have more bulk, more mass, and really serve as you know, kind of a wall instead of a gateway to the university district.

The surrounding area has a range of heights and I think it's really important to provide a reasonable comparison between zone heights.

You have to look at both the upper and the lower height limits of the adjacent neighborhoods.

There are tradeoffs as it relates to preserving the character of the campus.

I think this is a compromise and I think it's, you know, identified as a really high priority of the community because of their desire to, again, preserve that sort of central campus gateway and not just a gateway for the sake of a gateway but to be able to see what, you know, what amenities are beyond that area.

Further questions, comments, thoughts on this?

I have a technical question.

On the W22 site, that site appears to be divided by East Lakeway with that little triangle landscape.

It doesn't show that there'd be a development on that little triangle.

Is that a non-developable site or is it just not proposed?

Yeah, they haven't proposed development for that site, or there's also a triangle just to the north on sort of the south end of this block.

There are two lots that are also within the campus boundary that are not proposed to be developed, so under the plan.

And so, remind me, if they're not proposed, does that mean they can't, or could they change it if it's zoned that way, or what's the?

It would require an amendment to the plan, and I'm not sure whether it's a major amendment, which would require sort of council action, or whether it's a minor amendment, which requires review by the department and CUCAC.

Okay.

So, I just want to speak to these two amendments.

Unfortunately, in opposition, Council Member Herbold, you know, I think both the SDCI and the hearings examiner concurred with each other about the recommendations here, and I won't belabor my colleagues by reading from the hearings examiner's concurrence with STCI's analysis, but generally I think our city responsibilities to build taller buildings by major infrastructure like light rail, and I think the construction of these two properties should maximize zoning within, in one case, about a block and a half of a light rail station, and in the other case, I think there are a lot of good reasons for us to continue to evaluate the concerns that you talked about related to high bulk and scale.

some really good conversations that can continue to happen about both the Gateway site and the W-22 site.

But generally, I'm going to be voting no on those two amendments because I think maximizing development by our light rail stations is a critically important value for us as a community.

And I think that those two sites, particularly W-22 being so close to the station itself, it's going to be important for us to make sure that we're building tall buildings by light rail stations.

Yeah, and I think that that is the case for many of those buildings.

And I think considering there's nothing there now and allowing development up to 105 feet, I think accomplishes that goal.

But I understand that you don't agree.

Further discussion, please.

Council Member Johnson, in your comments, you mentioned some ideas that are put forward by STCI and the hearing examiner.

And I think you said continuing conversations could happen.

Were you specifically referring to in the kind of period between the resolution and the end or what?

What were you thinking about that?

Well, so yes, in particular, SDCI, as was mentioned, has provided recommendations to mitigate heights at the major institution overlay boundary and transitions that are similar buffering conditions aren't present yet.

And so I'm quoting there, again, from the hearings examiner, quoting SDCI.

So I take that to mean that as we continue to contemplate the university district's design guidelines, which are coming to this committee after we contemplate this major institution overlay, that some of those recommendations will likely be included in those design guidelines.

But because I didn't want to create a ton of even more confusion about the consideration of design guidelines concurrent with something that community members can't comment on through the MIMP, we've divorced those two processes from each other.

So, my expectation is that the design guidelines will provide some of those recommendations, but I am open to that sort of back and forth that you talked about if the design guidelines aren't as specific when we get them as community members might like or as STCA might have recommended.

Do the, will design guidelines apply to the major institution?

No, the master plan has its own set of design guidelines that shape development on campus.

Please.

I just have a follow-up.

I think that the reference, the sentence before the sentence that you read relates to the recommendations to mitigate impacts of incompatible heights.

I emphasize the word incompatible.

And correct me if I'm wrong.

They refer to location of existing rights of way and natural features as being a buffer and transition.

So I don't know if that constitutes the mitigation that they're recommending.

You know, I also note that the, that there's language in the record that says the height proposed in the master plan does not preclude incorporation of those elements on site, elements in a development on site W22, and that relates to mitigation.

It's important to note that it doesn't preclude it, but it also doesn't require it.

So I'm inclined to oppose the amendments and support the height as proposed in the underlying.

I do have concerns about our ability to mitigate some of those impacts through some design elements.

And so we're going to run out of time today and this week.

I'm curious what flexibility we would have if we don't do something today to look at design guidelines in two months.

I know that is pretty much off the table if we don't do it now.

I think if some of the parties of record recommend changes to those design guidelines, you could certainly consider that.

My recommendation to you, and you can ignore it, is not to add new items in the final.

But I can also go back and look and see what comments you've already received regarding the design guidelines and whether there are other things you want to pull out.

All right.

I would suggest allowing this to move forward within the context of the resolution might provide an opportunity for some other options to come forward through the continued engagement process.

But.

Let me explore that for a second.

If this amendment moved forward and the heights were adjusted, we would get comments from folks.

We could then unamend it or change the heights or impose guidelines too.

Would that change your recommendation on what to do or not?

I don't want to put you in a tricky spot here, but.

You can consider any height between the 240 that's proposed under the master plan and the 105 feet that is currently zoned.

And any height limit within that range, I think would be an appropriate end point based on sort of the record and your intent for providing transitions and buffers at the edges of the campus.

But beyond the height, I think what will be obvious from this discussion is that I don't have support from my colleagues in the next step for maintaining the height at 105. So I think it's possible that the parties who are requesting that we maintain the height at 105 might have with the knowledge of where the support for this proposal is, might have some other ideas.

And I think it allows us to keep that conversation going.

Right.

And so if those are included in their response to the preliminary recommendation, that would provide other parties an opportunity to respond and comment on those ideas.

And that would, so putting those ideas on paper early would be great.

I mean, I think us generally having the conversation allows for everybody to have a better sense about where I think things are hoping to go.

And, you know, to the point I think that's raised in here by SDCI and the hearings examiner, it's really about, the way that I read it, is about treating a commercial height, bulk, and scale building on a gateway more like a residential height, bulk, and scale in the neighborhood.

And the concern that I have with your amendments, Council Member Herbold, is more about the height element there.

The bulk and scale elements, I think, are certainly well within the realm of us talking about as they relate to the buffer zones.

But as we have seen in other places, when you start to condition down the heights, it results in bulkier buildings that have more of an impact on view corridors and other things.

And so I would hope that we can stick with everything as it is.

I don't think we can, I don't think we'll be able to continue discussing that issue unless we have in our resolution something related to this particular site.

So we won't have, unless we have something in the resolution related to this particular site, I understand that continued discussions about this particular site and how to mitigate the impacts are no longer within our purview to address.

I think the height limits proposed under the rezone will be an issue that will continue through the final ordinance.

So attachment four would, is sort of the draft rezone maps and they would codify, if adopted, it would codify these new heights.

So that's going to be sent out to the parties and they will have the opportunity to comment on them as they have in the past.

So the, an amendment related to the site does not preclude comments on the site, OK.

And also presumably doesn't preclude future action related to the sites again.

So, I actually support the higher heights but I have concerns about bulk and scale and conditions and my, understanding from these conversations is there's intent to have some requirements around it, but we actually do not have a path to put that in at the moment.

And that's what I'm trying to figure out.

This is something that I imagine if I had been tracking this more closely a couple weeks ago, probably could have done in advance of it.

But bringing this up in a couple months, sounds like that would not be advisable.

And the future process for university design guidelines will not apply to these parcels because they're campus.

I will support an amendment to undo that in a couple of part of the record or name parties or whatever that can be commenting on the record in the next, you know, open periods to give some suggestions about how we might allow the height code to go back to the proposed height with some bulk and scale design type guidelines and incorporate them.

If we do that and there's some comment on the record, does that ease your concerns about adding some of that or do you think it's still going to be pretty problematic at this point?

I think if those sorts of issues are addressed in the letters in response to their preliminary recommendation, you've already received comments on those issues and the various reports that you've received up to now.

I think you can continue to consider those issues.

And I will make sure that you have the information about what's currently in the plan and how that applies to this site.

I recognize that the ideal situation would be talking about those standards right now, and then we would get direct comment on that.

And that's unfortunately not where we are.

So what I was going to say, Lish, is my interpretation of what you just said is that the ordinance, when we contemplate it, will likely still have these kinds of issues up for debate because I would anticipate that some of the folks that had a lot to say about the height, bulk, and scale of these two parcels will respond to our draft resolution with additional comments about the height, bulk, and scale of these two parcels.

So the on-the-record elements likely won't change between what we have and what we don't.

And I know what an uncomfortable position it is to watch two colleagues fight over your allegiance.

Council Member O'Brien being stuck in the middle is no fun.

So, you know, I will leave it to the maker of the motion to move these two, and we'll see where you land on this one, Council Member O'Brien, and then we'll have further discussions about this, I'm sure, in December and after the first of the year.

I think what I hear you saying is that the circumstances don't change around our ability to condition this development of this site based on what we put in the resolution.

But I think it does send a signal that, you know, two council members on the PLEZ committee have concerns about this site, perhaps for different reasons.

And I think it creates the conditions for perhaps a better solution.

So with that, I will move amendment D1 related to site W22.

And I will second it.

And I'll just reiterate that my intent will be to restore the height, but hopefully with some conditions.

And I'm, like you're suggesting, inviting people to suggest those conditions.

And I just support that.

OK.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Nay.

Amendment D1 is adopted.

D2?

All right.

So just a refresher.

Site W37 is on the west side of the University Bridge.

And the area includes two existing buildings built to the 65-foot current height limit.

The proposal is to allow buildings up to 130 feet, conditioned down from a zoned height limit of 160 feet.

There is a mapped scenic route on the north side of this site.

This is a photograph of a view from the University Bridge across the site.

And these are from the EIS, and unfortunately on the screen, actually, Noah, can you turn down the lights a little bit?

That might help.

Ah, there.

So you can see a building up to 160 feet on the left side of the picture on the left, and you don't see it.

In the picture on the right, this is from the EIS.

This is looking to the south down the University Bridge.

So you can sort of see a form here behind the trees.

That would be the 130 foot height limit.

And it's much lower under the current zoning.

The hearing examiner had an amendment related to the view corridor that goes across site W37, providing more description of what the view is that should be considered when massing of the site is undertaken.

They recommend a change to the view corridor images that are included in the plan.

And that's the information I have about site W37.

So, sorry, the hearing examiner's recommendations were to adopt the heights as proposed in the master plan, but to adjust the view corridor to be clearly from the University Bridge, the west side of the University Bridge, looking towards Lake Union rather than sort of south from Peace Park, which was the original view corridor in the plan.

And are those recommendations part of the underlying legislation?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Council Member Hurdle.

Sure.

City SEPA policies note that it's city policy to protect public views of significant natural and human-made features.

They specifically call out what are referred to as scenic routes, and the plan identifies the view against, across from site W37 as, I'm sorry, they particularly call out view corridors, and the plan identifies the view across site W37 as view corridor 8. The SDCI does determine that the existing views across W37 should be protected, and they refer to doing this within view corridor review of future permits.

I'm not quite sure what certainty that provides.

Further, SDCI notes, as it relates specifically to major institution overlay districts, that obstruction of public scenic or landmark views to, from, or across a major institution campus should be avoided wherever possible.

SDCI goes on to recommend changes to the plan related to the site, but as I see it, none of the three recommendations really do anything to avoid an obstruction.

One of the recommendations relates to requiring a more detailed analysis and asking the university to demonstrate how the proposed development will maintain existing or proposed view corridors.

The other one is about amending the description.

And the final one is about, as Lish said, replacing the graphics.

Although STCI says that obstruction should be avoided, I don't see how any of the three changes that they recommend actually accomplishes that.

And then the other piece relates to consistency with adjacent zoning.

Site 37 is across the street from the shoreline overlay zone to the south, which is a much more limited height.

And it's also abutted to the north by mid-rise zoning with a 65-foot or lower height requirement.

That's all I got.

I'm going to, again, respectfully disagree, Council Member Herbold, you know, the points that I made earlier about the heights by a light rail station.

You know, in that instance, we were less than two blocks away from a future light rail station.

In this instance, we're a little bit further away.

But when I look at the consistent recommendations from the hearings examiner from SDCI with the university concurring about those modifications, I feel like we have adequately addressed concerns that have been brought up, and I'll be voting no on this amendment.

In the spirit of putting the middle child condition once again, I'm going to oppose this amendment.

I agree with Councilmember Johnson, and I think the description of how this will be managed going forward, I think, accounts for some of the concerns.

But similarly, obviously, I invite comment from the public.

in the structured legal way in the next month and a half.

And I'm open to hearing different ways it can be addressed, but my sense is that it seems to be addressed appropriately for me at this point.

50-50.

Yeah, just one other comment.

I mean, I think it's concerning to me that, whereas I agree that we should have both commercial and residential density near transit opportunities, It seems like what we're starting to say that when those opportunities exist that we should ignore other really important land use policies like the gradual step down and transition in zones, like the obligation to preserve public So I think that if that's really the direction that we're moving in, I think we really need to have a conversation about that.

Because I thought we were supposed to sort of balance different objectives, not have one objective trump other important values that we have in our land use code.

So I'm just putting that on the table that I think it's a really important conversation that we need to have.

And I would like to think that several of the recent MHA-related rezones have taken that value and implemented it very strongly in a lot of neighborhoods of the city, including this neighborhood.

So I'd like to think that there's a strong record of us standing on the shoulders of that kind of value.

So I look to the make of the motion.

Given that two folks who are at this committee have already indicated their lack of support, there's no need for me to.

So let's move on to e1 then which all right so priority higher program is has been successful for the city and other public agencies in terms of Contracting processes and bringing people from the lowest income Census tracts into the construction industry, this amendment would recognize and encourage the University of Washington to participate in the priority hire program.

Council Member Bryan.

I have really been amazingly successful because of some really dedicated folks in the, you know, in the building trades and some amazing city staff folks at FAS that manage these programs and really, frankly, transforming some public work projects into creating great jobs we've been doing for a while, but really making them available to communities that often have been historically locked out.

Some of the amazing things that have happened since the city did this program, with one of my former colleagues who's in the audience today, is that we've expanded that King County, Port of Seattle, have adopted at Sound Transit has things, I think, in the works, too.

It would be great to have another major public institution, University of Washington, that will be doing a lot of public works projects and has been to be part of this, too.

And so I think this just is a formal request.

Further comments?

I'm just wondering whether or not it might make sense.

And again, we don't have to do it within the context of this resolution.

We could conceivably.

if Flush says we can, do it in the ordinance.

But it'd be interesting to not just support their consideration of using priority hire, but also ask for some sort of an annual report on whether or not they do move in that direction.

And thank you for bringing this forward.

Yeah, I'm open to any of those things.

I don't know that we'd do that today, but if you have ideas on how to better engage.

This is just one of those awkward things of the, I'm avoiding making eye contact with anyone in the audience even right now.

Because you know in a normal situation we would have collaborative conversations And I think this is the type of thing that's right for collaborative conversation, and so this process doesn't really allow that to happen And so you know this is kind of a sense of let's tee this up and once this process is over and we can start having more conversations talk about what that might look like.

I'll look to the maker of the motion.

Oh, I'll go ahead and move amendment E1.

Further discussion?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

None opposed.

E1's adopted.

F1.

So the plan and the hearing examiner's recommended conditions identify a number of spaces for active street level uses.

You've heard from the university district small business community that they would like opportunities to have small businesses on the University of Washington campus so the university isn't competing with them, but instead is a partner in the development of the business community.

There are two amendments in front of you.

The first one is from Council Member Herbold, and that would exempt space for small businesses from the six million square foot cap so that the university can add those sorts of spaces as appropriate.

Councillor Herbold.

Sure.

Just as some information on the record supporting this amendment, the alliance reply to the UW as relates to this points out the recent university district small business vulnerability study that came out of the discussions around MHA in the university district supported by the council found a risk of small business gentrification displacement because of rising rents.

And 10% of businesses own their commercial space.

65% of the businesses surveyed are women and or minority owned.

And 70% of businesses have minority and or immigrant employees.

So the idea of getting more small spaces available to, that presumably will have, small commercial spaces that presumably will have some more affordable rents I think is consistent with the council's action in this area in the past.

So just as we've done with Amendment C1 and exempting child care space from being part of that six million gross square footage total, this would exempt small scale business commercial space from that same six million square foot cap.

And we define somewhere in the code what small scale commercial space is, Liz.

That's an area where this amendment could probably be improved, and I'm sure that people commenting will have ideas about how best to define that.

Excellent.

Any further comments on this?

I support it.

I look to the maker of the motion.

All right, great.

Thank you.

I move amendment F1 relating to small spaces for small businesses.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

None opposed.

F1 is adopted.

F2?

So you received a lot of testimony regarding the Port of Seattle's successful small business leasing program.

And this amendment would encourage the University of Washington to undertake similar types of programs to bring a diversity of businesses onto campus.

Please, Council Member Hurdle.

We have three sponsors on this.

I don't feel any pressing need to speak to the amendment.

Convince me, Council Member Hurdle.

Yeah, I mean, I just generally think, as Lish said so well, I think the intention here is how do we expand small businesses on campus that are non-franchisees?

Though I'm sure many franchisees do consider themselves to be small businesses.

I would love for us to see more of the small locally owned businesses being placed on campus.

And I think that this does a good job of allowing for that encouragement.

So I also am supportive.

So we'll look again to that.

Thank you.

I'll move amendment F2 related to a small business leasing program.

Second.

Further discussion?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

None opposed.

That amendment's adopted.

G1.

All right, so the university campus has a very complicated stormwater system.

This is the map from the EIS that shows the different stormwater systems that serve the campus.

Some of these systems feed into what are called combined sewer overflows where stormwater and sewage are funneled into the same system.

And in the case of heavy rain flows, those combined sewer overflows overflow and stormwater and sewage can be released into waterways.

The EIS identifies that there are currently no known capacity issues with the storm drainage systems, but that they will be evaluated as new development occurs.

This amendment would just request that if they do identify capacity issues, that they use best management practices to address them.

Yeah, I think the amendment speaks for itself.

I think at the very least, we should make sure that the expansion doesn't increase stormwater runoff.

And this amendment addresses what our expectations if it does.

But I also, even if we're not increasing, or if the university is not increasing stormwater runoff, I do hope that we encourage them to look forward on other types of green practices for stormwater and sewer management to actually reduce the stormwater runoff.

Both of you have a lot more experience in the SPU space than I do.

Is best management practices a commonly understood term or set of terms?

rainwater, rainwise programs.

I don't think there's like a federal document that points to it.

The city has plenty of good examples.

I mean, I know that within the context of the Growth Management Act, for example, we define best available science in some way, shape, or form.

So I was wondering if there's a best management practice.

definition.

They do evolve over time, and it's like best available science in terms of being updated frequently.

I don't think there is a best management practices guidebook for the city of Seattle, but there may be.

But this wouldn't necessarily be an item of dispute about whether or not something is or isn't a best management practice is sort of, I guess, the crux of my question.

I think it's not binding, so this is a suggestion.

And I think some of the best work being done is some of the work being done locally with SPU.

I think some of the science may come out of folks at University of Washington, too.

So I think they have the capacity to do that.

And I would just say, like, hey, as you're redeveloping, Pick up the phone and talk to us and, you know, let's do the best work we can and maybe even pioneer some stuff.

So.

Good.

Okay.

Further discussion or thoughts on this one?

I'll look to the.

I will move Amendment G1.

Second.

Relating to strong best practices.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

None opposed.

Amendment G1 is adopted.

Amendment H1, Lish.

All right.

The city-university agreement which has So it governs the development of this plan.

It was last amended in 2004, a couple years after the last time the council approved a campus master plan.

This amendment from Council Member O'Brien would ask the university to negotiate an update to the City-University Agreement, and just so you have a little context, the City-University Agreement is a regulatory land use document, so it requires a Type 5 council action, and subject to all the requirements of the Growth Management Act.

Is it under the provisions of the City University Agreement, both parties need to participate?

So this basically asks them to start working with us.

Council Member O'Brien.

Yeah, my understanding is the existing agreement will stay in place until both parties agree they want to do it again.

And my request here is just that with this new plan and the fact that 14 years have gone by and there's a lot of change, it seems like it's appropriate to do it.

Obviously, the University of Washington has the right to not do that and keep the existing one in place.

But my hope is that it seems like it's an opportune time to sit down and talk through this.

And it'd be great to work through it.

And if at the end both parties couldn't agree what the new one might look like, then we guess we live with the old one for a while longer.

Vish, can you remind us more about what a type 5 agreement really is?

So, it's a council action, a regulatory approval.

So, when you change the land use code, that's a type 5 action.

It requires a public hearing and is appealable to the Growth Management Hearings Board.

Got it.

Super helpful.

Thanks.

Further discussion about this one, folks?

I'd look to the sponsor.

I'll move amendment h1.

I believe the final amendment of this action second further discussion all those in favor, please say aye aye None opposed amendment h1 is adopted That does conclude the formal amendments However, Lish had one amendment that he asked me to bring forward which basically would allow him Lish Whitson to reconcile and renumber amendments and and incorporate them into the final resolution.

And in order to make sure that we do that, I'd like to move to ask central staff to reconcile amendments, renumber attachments, and make other changes to the resolution as is necessary to incorporate these amendments that we have just adopted.

Second.

Any discussion or questions about that?

OK.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

None opposed to that.

So that concludes the amendments discussion.

Pontificate, colleagues.

I'm pontificated out.

We got in months to pontificate.

Okay, what I would just say briefly is we have had a lot of time and energy on the U District over the last couple years between the upzone process, MHA, the continuation of these discussions about the master plan, the design guidelines that are coming.

In addition, a whole lot of work around transportation investments that are both on the way to the neighborhood and those that have already happened.

It's an exciting time for us to continue to move forward with, I think, collaborative expectations about growth with what is really, I think, thought of as a landmark institution of higher education in the city, which I personally feel really fortunate that we do have.

I think that this is a really good start for us, and I look forward to further discussions between the adoption of the resolution by the full council in consideration of the final ordinance sometime later on this year or after the first of the year.

So I just want to say thank you to you all for the attention and detail through this process, and thanks to Lish of our central staff for managing through this quasi-judicial matter.

I know that there's been some questions as to whether or not this is a quasi-judicial matter.

We don't get to decide that.

This is a quasi-judicial matter.

And that means, by necessity, Council Member Bryant, it is awkward to not make eye contact with people in the audience.

So thanks for being part of that.

I don't think quasi-judicial prevents eye contact.

It's just communication, but that's my interpretation.

It feels that way suddenly.

Body language matters.

So without further ado, I'd move to adopt Resolution 31839 as amended.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

None opposed.

We'll have this in front of council on the 24th of September.

And if I could just second your thanks to Lish.

You've done an amazing amount of work on this and this really complex thing and made it feasible for us to make some educated decisions here.

So I really appreciate your work.

And we just created a bunch more for you.

So good luck in the next few months.

Thank you.

Colleagues, I look to your guidance here.

We've got about 15 minutes left before we're required to get out of here.

If you assent to that, I'd like to bring Eric McGonigie forward to have 15 minutes of discussion about trees, if that's okay.

Okay, Noah, will you please read that final item into the record?

Draft tree protection ordinance.

And we've got a bunch, we have more than just Eric, I apologize.

Eric, Yolanda, and Maggie.

Sorry, this is one of the things about me not making eye contact with the audience.

So why don't we have a seat and we'll do some introductions and walk people through today's memo.

Yolanda, would you start with introductions?

Oh, yes.

Yolanda Ho, Council of Central Staff.

Maggie Glowacki, Department of Construction and Inspections.

Hi, I'm Eric McConaghy.

Good morning, and I'm on the Council of Central Staff.

So we, as we committed to in the last conversation, colleagues, have brought forth a memo outlining some of the potential actions and considerations for us as we continue the tree ordinance process.

So I'll turn it over to you three to walk us through what some of those concepts and decision points could look like.

Great.

Well, we'll jump right in.

So in the memorandum that we prepared and shared with you all, if you've sort And if folks who are sort of following along and want us to reference that, if we sort of flip to the interior pages, the top of, or sort of the middle of page two is where the issues for consideration start.

And so we'll be working through those items.

The idea here is that council, as you know, has received a lot of comment.

Departments have heard from folks.

There's a lot of concern and attention to the bill that's been proposed.

to move forward to follow through with what the committee has clearly said, which is to go work on this thing and improve it, we've tried to identify some high-level issues, some things that are sort of critical or sort of watershed issues that other things flow from.

So we'll just take our crack at moving through them.

If the committee today has some guidance for us, that's fantastic.

If it's just a chance to cue these questions up and know that we're going to work through them in the future, the coming days and weeks, then that's fine too.

So we don't mean to put you on the spot, but we thought we would raise these questions I think for the things that were included in the Statement that was put out last week.

I think that's some pretty strong Direction on things that we have some agreement on it's that they all those items relate to items that we've discussed in previous Committee meetings on the topic as well Just a thought to expedite the conversation.

Yes, excellent reminder that, you know, we did have a communication out about, particularly as it relates to exceptional trees, with some consensus direction out of the committee.

So maybe rather than starting with canopy coverage goals and mitigation, maybe we start with exceptional trees?

Okay, great.

Yes, so we heard you on the exceptional trees and I think we just want to clarify, take this opportunity to clarify here if we wanted to maintain or modify the existing definition of exceptional trees.

So we've heard some comments on potentially increasing, you know, designating, that certain types of trees, like larger than a certain diameter or standard height, be just automatically included as an exceptional tree, and that would be a change.

And also how we think about exceptional trees in terms of potential removal.

and if what are those protections versus those just for a significant tree.

And so I'm weighing those considerations about because right now there's there's currently no path forward for an exceptional tree to be removed but we know that What's happening is then people are getting them designated as hazardous and then they are removing them.

So if there is a way that we can actually get mitigation for the removal of an exceptional tree, if it has to go for whatever reason, that would at least give people a path forward instead of going this way where no mitigation may be required.

And so, you know, just being really thoughtful about how we treat those trees.

I would offer that the process by which we define an exceptional tree is pretty well outlined.

But I look to colleagues, if you would like some more to give some more direction on the process about how we define an exceptional tree, I think we're all ears.

But to your point Yolanda, I think we could use some additional technical expertise about the definition of hazardous as it relates to exceptional because I do think that we are We we do have anecdotal examples of people gaming the system to take down exceptional trees by mislabeling them as hazardous and right now we are not getting any additional compensation.

Mitigation.

Mitigation.

There is nothing that happens after you take down an exceptional tree.

We just lose that tree.

And I think that that is the worst of all scenarios.

We should be finding ways for us to make sure that there is some outcome that results in additional tree canopy when we take down an exceptional tree, whether it's hazardous or otherwise.

A question about the bill before us.

Don't we, as the bill is currently drafted, isn't there a requirement to get a permit for a hazardous tree?

That's correct.

Yes.

So is that, would that help in that situation of sort of gaming the system?

They're not, they're not arguing this is a hazardous tree after the fact.

They're having to prove it on the front end.

And maybe one of the ways we could get at that is have an additional coefficient associated with it, right?

If you're taking down a hazardous tree that is of a particular size, that could be considered as significant, which would be more expensive than taking down a hazardous tree that is not significant, both of which would still require a permit.

And maybe exceptional would require an additional higher level of mitigation.

So if you're thinking about this as tiers, Exceptional would be an even higher coefficient if it is deemed as hazardous.

Creating a double disincentive.

Double disincentive, yeah.

Yeah, I, like we've all said publicly now, support maintaining the exceptional trees.

I think the current structure is pretty good.

I've heard some folks, I believe it was established through director's rule that essentially the list of species and sizes that would trigger that and I think that's, I've heard some folks say they would like to consider those thresholds again, and so that list has been in place for a while.

So I don't, you know, I'm interested in this next process, and specifically hearing from our commission, the Urban Forestry Commission, on if they think that it's appropriate to revisit that and, you know, what has changed and why we do that.

And so that's something I'm open to.

I do think that, I mean, if we include exceptional trees, if we put exceptional trees back into the legislation so that they stay in place, we still have a permitting requirement for all trees that would include exceptional trees, so that would be in place, and there's mitigation required depending on the size, so that may be good enough.

I do think I would be open to a conversation with the Urban Forestry Commission.

To your point, Councilmember Johnson, that sometimes when we have hard and fast rules with no flexibility, We get some behavior that's maybe not appropriate, and so would we want to set up a mitigation path?

My sense would be that a mitigation path for someone who says, I really, for whatever reason, have a compelling reason to take down an exceptional tree, I'd want that to be fairly tightly construed, and I want the mitigation of, you know, what would be required to replace it be significant.

But again, I'm not the expert on that.

I'd like to hear from the Urban Forestry Commission on if they think that that path would be advisable and what that might look like.

But I think it's a discussion worth having.

Yeah, maybe you would have to go to two different certified tree professionals in order to have a concurrence that that tree really is hazardous, dying, in trouble in some way, shape, or form.

I think that that's an excellent concept.

But that idea of flexibility is something we should explore more with the Urban Forestry Commission.

Other exceptional issues, folks?

Or should we go back?

I would add just one thing to sort of stitch in there.

The current proposal that you've all considered allows for flexibility in development standards to encourage folks that are developing a lot to maintain significant trees.

Those are the trees that are six inches or bigger.

That could, from one point of view, sort of embrace a larger number of trees in town, because exceptional trees is a tighter definition.

So one thing to just sort of bear in mind as we move forward is, where should the bill land in terms of extending that flexibility to design standards?

There's a really interesting and I think important balancing of certain kinds of concerns around setbacks and what happens in the backyard and those sorts of things, what happens where you put the footprint of a new structure, how you maybe bump out something for an addition.

We've got guidelines that are in our code right now about that, that reflect up till now what the city thinks about how we should govern those things against the value of allowing for more trees.

So in the current code, those flexibility sort of standards are triggered for exceptional trees, the bigger, older trees.

In the proposal, we've taken a shot at writing it around significant trees, which may be more trees and smaller trees.

So that's just something to bear in mind as we move forward in talking about stitching exceptional trees back in and where to put those flexibility kind of markers or triggers.

Something to just keep in mind.

Not putting you on the spot today to make a call about that.

No, I think it's an excellent reminder that our intention here is through all different fashions to keep as many trees that exist as possible.

And so defining that flexibility is going to be important going forward.

Should we go backwards in the memo and talk about canopy coverage goals and mitigation?

Yeah, so central to this proposal is to have tree canopy cover be right at the heart of the matter.

And we've heard a lot of useful information about this.

We've had some discussions here.

The idea, just very quickly for the record, is that we have some tree canopy cover goals that are set for different kinds of land uses in town, and that those goals, those percentage of canopy cover per lot, would be extended by this proposal, this bill, into our requirements about how we govern what happens on any particular property.

The Urban Forestry Commission and others that know this topic very well have expressed some concern about how to make that work.

And so there's been a suggestion that perhaps something that's more straightforward dealing with the kind of tree and the tree species and its size might be a way to practically get at maintaining tree canopy cover through something that's easier to understand.

So I flagged that as an item.

Related to that would be where to put those rules.

Should they be codified actually in the code itself?

or expressed through a director's rule from the SDCI director.

And so things to bear in mind as we move forward.

Given the infrequency with which we adopt tree protection standards in the city, you know, I feel like relegating some of this to SDCI for directors rules allows for more regular updates based on conversations with the Urban Forestry Commission and others.

So I would look to my colleagues about whether or not they concur but In answer to question two, as part of this set of policy questions, I think we should find a way for director's rules to establish some guidelines in the code and allow for those director's rules to be updated as the director sees fit, as opposed to codifying them in a way where we may, maybe another decade or longer before we have a council that's adopting new tree protection ordinances, but I'm happy to hear feedback or solicit other thoughts.

Please.

I think there's a path there, Councilmember Johnson, that I could support.

I think there's some skepticism in the public.

I don't know that it's, I don't want to comment on the legitimacy of it, but I think people are skeptical of a director's process being a little bit out of sight and not having the same type of direct accountability they get from us.

And at the same time, I think your point that like, look, we don't dig into this very often, and as things change, we want to have some flexibility.

So a path that had some pretty clear direction on kind of the bounds we want the director to decide and then what decisions they should make as opposed to just go figure it out.

And not that you were implying that, but I think that that.

There's a path there that would make sense, and I'd want to, you know, again, my theme here, continue to discuss with the Urban Forestry Commission, you know, where they would draw the bounds and help weigh in on that.

So when I met with the Urban Forestry Commission last week, their concern was less about what the percentages are for different zones for tree canopy goals, they're more concerned about how we use that in making determinations around this particular policy.

So they don't It's not so much whether or not we let SDCI update this chart.

Their issue is that they don't want us to use this chart as a sort of a unit of measurement for tree replacement requirements.

So I think that's a bigger problem and it's, I don't think that that's a policy issue that we'd want to have decided in a director's rule.

I agree.

The two bullets under this policy question, I was speaking to the second one.

The first one about tree canopy, what I've heard is similar to what I think you're saying, Council Member Herbold.

And my take at the moment is I think we should continue to use tree canopy as our overall measure of success.

Are we moving towards our goals?

And what I've heard folks say is instead of having the individual tree canopy on a lot trigger different decisions, we should just set a goal that we would like all lots to maintain or expand tree canopy, and that would be a triggering decision.

And I think the, I get the impetus of that.

I'm further compelled when they describe the art of measuring tree canopy on a lot versus just walking around and counting the number of trees and measuring the diameter of them.

I think that is probably a lot easier to administer too.

When it gets citywide, to count all the trees in the city is pretty challenging.

So using LIDAR to figure out canopy, I think that makes sense to be measuring our success towards goals.

And there may be triggers that as the city gets more canopied, different regulations would change.

But on the lot by lot development, I'm inclined to support a kind of by tree count and have that be how we manage the permitting system.

That kind of brings into question with their, if we're saying we really want everyone to maintain and if you are going to remove some trees, you got to replace them.

It kind of brings the question of the whole major-minor threshold anymore.

And so, which means the structure of this legislation might change in some ways.

But I do think that the folks, you know, the entire letter that the Urban Forestry Commission sent us, I think, had a lot of really good impact.

And, you know, some of the stuff I don't quite understand that well, and so I'd want to work through it.

But I think there's a lot of good stuff to work from there.

Well, regrettably, that takes us to the end of our time.

So we will have to leave a couple of other items for further discussion.

Although I will say, you know, both of your points definitely relate to the other two options or the other two issues to be discussed here, the major minor issue, and then the permitted mitigation costs.

I mean, permitted mitigation costs related to how we define whether it's a TCMU, Tree Canopy Management Unit, or whether it's a one-for-one count about standard heights or whether it's a canopy coverage set of objectives.

I think all those things are things that we'll want to continue to explore in December and beyond as we continue the process about updating the tree protection ordinance.

Any thoughts that you guys want to make sure to share?

I'm looking at you in particular, Maggie.

Okay.

Any other final good of the order?

Okay.

Thanks for hanging in there with us today, folks.

See you again in December.

We're adjourned.