>>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. THE DECEMBER 4, 2024 LAND-USE COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER. IT IS 2:00 P.M. I'M TAMMY MORALES, CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLE? >> MOORE? >> PRESENT. TRENT 25 >> PRESENT. >> VICE-CHAIR STRAUSS? >> PRESENT. >> AND CHAIR MORALES? >> YOUR. >> FOUR PRESENT. THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER RINCK 'S EXCUSE UNTIL SHE IS ABLE TO MAKE IT. >> SHE'S A COUPLE STEPS BEHIND YOU. >> GREAT. WE WILL ACKNOWLEDGE HER WHEN SHE GETS HERE. OKAY, COLLEAGUES, WE HAVE TWO AGENDA ITEMS TODAY. ONE IS THE RESOLUTION 32156 FOR BRIEFING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE. DECLARING THE INTENT TO ESTABLISH A NEW SALES TAX AND USE, A NEW SALES AND USE TAX DEFERRAL FOR THE DEFERRAL OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO RESIDENTIAL. AND COUNSEL BILL 120833 FOR BRIEFING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON THE LIVING BUILDING AMENDMENT. AND I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE COUNCILMEMBER RINCK HAS JOINED US. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, TODAY'S AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED. HEARING NO OBJECTION, TODAY'S AGENDA IS ADOPTED. WHEN I OPEN THE HYBRID PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD RELATE TO ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA, AND WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMITTEE. AMELIA, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE SIGNED UP? >> TWO REMOTE AND SIX IN PERSON. >> OKAY. SO WE WILL GIVE EVERYONE, SEVEN IN PERSON. WE'LL GIVE EVERYONE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK, AND WE'LL START, LET'S START WITH IN PERSON FIRST. AND I'LL HAND IT OFF TO YOU. >> EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES. THE SPEAKERS -- CALLED IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY REGISTERED. WE WILL START WITH IN PERSON SPEAKERS, AND AN ALTERNATE TO THE REMOTE SPEAKERS. SPEAKERS WILL HEAR A CHIME 110 SECONDS OR LESS OF THE TIME. SPEAKERS MICS WILL BE MUTED IF THEY DO NOT AND THEIR COMMENTS WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME TO ALLOW US TO CALL IN THE NEXT FIGURE. THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS NOW OPEN. WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE LIST, AND THE FIRST ONE IS MARI, AND JUST GIVE ME A QUICK SECOND. >> WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY COUNCILMEMBER -- >> OH YES. THANK YOU. WE'VE ALSO BEEN DRAWING I COUNCILMEMBER CATTLE, WHO IS JOINING REMOTELY. IN. WELCOME, COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE. OKAY. >> HI, COUNCILMEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR -- >> I'M ASKING YOU TO GET REAL CLOSE TO THE MIC. YEAH. >> IS IT ON? MY NAME IS -- I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE LAKE UNION -- ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING THE LITTLE HOUSEBOATS OF LAKE UNION. AND I'M HERE ONLY TO REMIND YOU THAT THERE ARE MANY RESIDENCES LIKE OURS ON THE WATER THROUGHOUT THE CITY , IN OUR CASE, STILL LITTLE AFFORDABLE HOUSEBOATS. SO WILL YOUR ACTIONS TODAY ON CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS BE APPLIED ALSO TO BUILDINGS THAT ARE ON, NEAR, OR OVER THE WATER, TO CONVERT THOSE TO HOUSING AS WELL? BECAUSE IT COULD REPRESENT THE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS WITHIN THE CITY OF SEATTLE. >> >> WE ARE ALSO LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS COMMITTEE'S, LOOKING INTO THE SNP IN THE NEW YEAR, AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE COUNCIL DURING THAT PROCESS. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. >> WILLIAM? IS THERE A NEXT SPEAKER? >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS BILL LEEDOM. I WORK IN URBAN RENAISSANCE GROUP. I COME BEFORE YOU TODAY TO VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR RESOLUTION 3215, AND URGE ITS SPEEDY ADOPTION BY URBAN RENAISSANCE IS AN OWNER, MANAGER, AND DEVELOPER OF OVER 10 MILLION SQUARE FEET IN THE SEATTLE AREA. MANY OF YOU -- OUR OLDER OFFICE BUILDINGS IN THE SEATTLE CBD, INCLUDING THE BUILDING I WORK AT CALLED THE JOSHUA GREEN BUILDING ON THE CORNER OF FOURTH AND PIKE. TODAY, URG ESTIMATES THAT THE JOSHUA GREEN BUILDING'S VALUE AS AN OFFICE BUILDING IS DOWN 75% TO 80% FROM PEAK PRICING. THERE IS VERY LITTLE TENANT DEMAND FOR OFFICE SUITE IN THE BUILDING, WITH MANY SAYING VACANT FOR YEARS. SINCE THE PANDEMIC, CONVERSION OF MULTIFAMILY HAS BEEN TOO COSTLY TO CONTEMPLATE AT OLDER ASSETS. THE RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU WILL IMPROVE THE FEASIBILITY OF TURNING THE 120-YEAR-OLD JOSHUA GREEN BUILDING AND OTHERS INTO BADLY NEEDED AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AS EXAMPLE, A CONVERTED JOSHUA GREEN BUILDING COULD BRING AS MANY AS 85 TO 95 UNITS TO AN IMPORTANT CORNER OF THE CPD, AND HELP ACTIVATE THE AREA AROUND THE BUILDING WITH NEW RESIDENTS AND RETAIL. FOR LITTLE TO NO COST, THE COUNCIL COULD ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION, WHICH WILL BUILD UPON SOME OF THE RECENT SUCCESSES URG HAS WITNESSED DOWNTOWN DUE TO THE COUNCIL AND MAYOR'S LEADERSHIP ON CPD REVITALIZATION. I AGAIN URGE YOU, SUPPORT RESOLUTION 3215. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND SUPPORT. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS PATRICK SLIGHTLY, THEN FOLLOWED BY TOM GRAFF. >> HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. PATRICK FOLEY WITH THE LAKE UNION PARTNERS. A COFOUNDER AND MANAGING PARTNER OF THE COMPANY SEATTLE-BASED. AND WE DO A LOT OF URBAN INFILL MULTIFAMILY MIXED INCOME DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE'VE ALSO DONE A LOT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS OFFICE TO HOUSING BILL FOR SALES TAX. AND I THINK IT'S SPECIFICALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE I HAVE A PARTICULAR INTEREST IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION. B IN PIONEER SQUARE AND OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS, I THINK THESE BUILDINGS ARE REALLY IDEAL FOR OFFICE TO HOUSING CONVERSION. MANY OF THEM IN PIONEER SQUARE ARE EMPTY RIGHT NOW. NOT EMPTY BUT VERY, VERY VACANT. AND THE COST TO RENOVATE THOSE BUILDINGS IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN NEW CONSTRUCTION. SO THIS BILL WILL REALLY HELP MOVE THESE PROJECTS ALONG AND MAKE THEM MORE FEASIBLE. AND I THINK IT ALSO PLAYS A ROLE IN THE YOU ARE AND ISSUE THAT WE HAVE WITH A LOT OF THESE BUILDINGS THAT NEED TO BE UPGRADED. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ADOPT THIS. THANK YOU. >> WE NEXT HAVE TOM, FOLLOWED BY TOM OB, STEVE MARVA STELLA. >> GOOD MORNING, OR GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M TOM GRAFF. I HAVE LIVED AND WORKED IN BELLTOWN FOR 35 YEARS, AND I CAME TO SPEAK ABOUT THE, THE, THE AMENDMENT FOR COUNSEL BILL 120833. BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I DO WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS OFFICE TO HOUSING PREFERENCE THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT DOING. IT, IT IS, I, I WORK IN REAL ESTATE, AND THIS CONVERSION SOUNDS GREAT ON PAPER. IT DOES NOT WORK UNDER OUR EXISTING ECONOMICS FOR ALMOST EVERY BUILDING. AND I, ICY THE OFFICE MARKET CONTINUING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT IN DOWNTOWN, AND I KNOW THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE HEART OF THE CITY. SO I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THIS INCENTIVE TO HELP WITH THE CONVERSION. IT'S NOT GOING TO SOLVE IT, BUT IT'S GOING TO HELP. ON THE COUNCIL BILL 120833, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO ALSO PASS THAT AMENDMENT. THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS HAVE ALREADY ASSUMED THIS WORKS. THEY INSTRUCT PEOPLE WORKING WITH THE ZONING THAT IT WORKS, AND THERE IS SOME AMENDMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO CORRECT THIS, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO IT. NOT ONLY THE FACT THAT THE CITY ALREADY SAID IT WOULD WORK, BUT SECONDLY, WE NEED FAMILY HOUSING IN BELLTOWN. I KNOW IT'S NEWS TO EVERYBODY, BUT PEOPLE WITH KIDS, SOME OF THEM WANT TO LIVE IN DOWNTOWN. AND YOU CANNOT GROW A THREE BEDROOM UNIT IN THESE TOWERS WITHOUT INCENTIVES. IT DOES NOT WORK. I HAVE THIS BEAUTIFUL COUPLE ON MY FLOOR. HE WORKS FOR AMAZON, THEY CAME FROM NEW YORK, THEY HAVE TWO KIDS. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE UNLESS THEY CAN FIND A THREE BEDROOM, AND THEY DON'T EXIST WITHOUT INCENTIVES. SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO MAKE THIS CORRECTION. >> STEVE, AND THEN FOLLOWED BY STEVE WILL BE MARK. >> THERE HAS TO BE SOME HAPPINESS SPREAD AS WELL. EMPTY BUILDINGS, ARE WE IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY OR NOT? I GUESS NOT. I SUSPECT THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE INCENTIVES, HOW ABOUT INCENTIVES FOR PEOPLE WHO MAKE, SAY, LESS THAN $70,000 A YEAR, LESS THAN $100,000 A YEAR? YOUR INCENTIVES HAVE BEEN MORE FOR PEOPLE WHO MAKE FAR MORE THAN THAT IN SEATTLE. WE'RE SEEING THE WORKING CLASS DISAPPEAR, AND YOU'RE HELPING TO SUBSIDIZE IT BY TAKING AWAY THEIR ENVIRONMENT. YOU ENCOURAGE THE KNOCKDOWN OF OLDER BUILDINGS TO BUILD BIGGER BUILDINGS AND RAISE THE RENTS, AND THE OUTCOME OF THAT IS WE HAVE FEWER PEOPLE IN SEATTLE OF WHAT I WOULD CALL NORMAL INCOME. YOU ALSO HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THE BUILD CLASS HAS BEEN COMING DOWN, AND THEY'RE GOING NOT UP. MANY OF THEM ARE GOING TO THE WORKING CLASS. SO IT MIGHT BE SMART TO PUT SOME RESTRICTIONS ON YOUR VALIANT GIVEAWAYS TO THE DEVELOPERS, BECAUSE IF THEY HAVE EMPTY BUILDINGS, THERE IS A CERTAIN INCENTIVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT PROPERTY, WHICH WILL BRING INCOME. AND WHEN YOU GIVE AWAY TAX GIVEAWAYS, THAT MEANS OTHERS, US TWEETERS, I'M NOT POOR ENOUGH TO GET PROGRAM TO HELP ME, AND I'M NOT RICH ENOUGH TO LIVE WHEREVER I WANT AND DO WHATEVER I WANT. SO US TWEENERS ARE A LITTLE UNHAPPY WITH YOUR GIVEAWAYS. YOU ARE VERY KIND TO THE VERY TOP. YOU GIVE A LITTLE BIT TO THE PEOPLE ON THE BOTTOM. AND YOU TAKE IT FROM US. SO I WOULD PUT THE CHARITY AT THE BOTTOM, NOT AT THE TOP. AND PROTECT AGAINST ALL THESE TAX GIVEAWAYS TO PEOPLE WHO REALLY WANT IT BADLY, BUT DON'T NEED IT. >> WE NOW HAVE MARK, AND THEN FOLLOWING MARK WILL BE COLIN. >> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU TODAY. MY NAME IS MARK ANGELO, AND I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF SEATTLE FOR 32 YEARS. I'M A MANAGING MEMBER OF STREAM REAL ESTATE. VERY SMALL LOCAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER AND COMPANY BASED IN SEATTLE. COMMENTING IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION 32156 CONCERNING OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION, AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE. AS MANY OF YOU ARE AWARE, WE ARE PROPOSING TO CONVERT A LONG VACANT 1980S VINTAGE OFFICE BUILDING TO MUCH-NEEDED RESIDENTIAL AND AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE BILL PROPOSED UNDER RESOLUTION 32156 WILL BE THE TRIGGER TO MAKE OUR PROJECT, AND MANY OTHERS, FEASIBLE SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD FROM DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CONVERTING UNDERUTILIZED COMMERCIAL SPACES TO ACTUALLY STARTING CONSTRUCTION. IN OUR CASE, WE WILL BE USING BOTH AN FTE PROGRAM AND THIS PROGRAM TO MAKE ALMOST ONE THIRD OF OUR PROJECT AFFORDABLE UNITS. THIS IS A GREAT BENEFIT TO THE CITY AND THE COMMUNITY. I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THE NEED TO MOVE THIS BILL ALONG AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, AS WE ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND ANTICIPATION OF IT PASSING, AND WILL BE READY TO START CONSTRUCTION VERY SOON AFTER THE NEW YEAR, BUT CANNOT START UNTIL THIS BILL PASSES, AND WE ARE CONFIRMED AS APPROVED BY BOTH THE CITY AND THE STATE, WHICH IS A LONG, TEDIOUS PROCESS. EVERY DELAY PUTS OUR AND MANY OTHER PROJECTS AT INCREASING RISK. BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> COLIN, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE ONE LAST IN PERSON SPEAKER AFTER THAT. >> NO, YOU'RE FINE. >> DID AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS COLIN GRAY. I WORK WITH SARATOGA P AND WE'RE THE DEVELOPER OF THE WESTERN THEATER'S BUILDING IN BELLTOWN, AND I'M HERE TO ASK YOU TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU THIS AFTERNOON THAT ALLOWS TO CONTINUE WITH THE LIVING BUILDING THREE BEDROOM DESIGN WE'VE INCORPORATED. WE WORKED VERY HARD TO CREATE AN INCREDIBLE BUILDING FOR THE CITY, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INCENTIVES AND APPLYING HOUSING FOR FAMILIES AND NHA FEES AND POTENTIALLY PERFORMANCE ON-SITE NOT ONLY DOES THIS OPEN THE DOOR FOR US TO COMPLETE OUR DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT ALSO OPENS THE DOORS FOR OTHERS TO PURSUE BRINGING NEW RESIDENTS TO BELLTOWN AND CONTINUE TO DO GREAT GROWTH AND BRING FAMILIES INTO DOWNTOWN AND SUPPORT THE RETURN TO BUSINESS HERE. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> WE HAVE JESSE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JESSE SCOTT KENDALL. I'M WITH THE CARPENTERS UNION INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF PILE DRIVERS. I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT TO CONVERT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. YES, WE NEED MORE HOUSES. BUT WE ALSO NEED LABOR STANDARDS, RIGHT? WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE BUILDING THESE FACILITIES, THESE HOUSES CAN LIVE IN THESE HOUSES, RIGHT? WE'RE SEEING A LOT MORE PEOPLE BEING PUSHED OUT OF THE COMMUNITY. WE'RE SEEING A LOT MORE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY. WHAT IS UNDERGROUND ECONOMY? UNDERGROUND ECONOMY IS BASICALLY LABOR BROKERS, PEOPLE BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, WILL NOT BEING, PAYING THE SEATTLE MINIMUM WAGE. WE, WE'RE SEEING THIS ON EVERY CONSTRUCTION JOB. WE JUST WALKED A CONSTRUCTION JOB IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE WHERE THE GUY WAS MAKING NOT EVEN $19 AN HOUR, BUILDING A BUILDING IN SEATTLE. SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE LABOR STANDARDS WHEN WE, WE ARE BUILDING THESE PROJECTS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE ASKING FROM, FROM YOU GUYS. THANK YOU. >> WE'LL NOW MOVE INTO OUR REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS. OUR FIRST ONE IS DAVID, EXCUSE ME, IS NADINE TOOL. PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX. >> HI! THIS IS NADINE TOLD, BELLTOWN RESIDENT, AND I'M HERE TO PRESENT COMMENT ON CB 120833. THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. THIS BILL WAS WRITTEN VERY INTENTIONALLY TO SEEM LIKE A NO-BRAINER AT FIRST GLANCE, BUT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT E CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF INCENTIVES HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED. THE PROJECT IN QUESTION, 303 604 THREE, IN THE DCI PROPOSAL, DOES NOT CAP AT 175 FEET AS STATED. IT'S ACTUALLY NEARLY 200 FEET TALL, WITH NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS OF 125 FEET, YET THERE HAS BEEN NO ANALYSIS OF THE FULL IMPLICATIONS OF THIS. THE LBP PIECE GOALS CAN BE ACHIEVED UNDER CURRENT ZONING, AND THEY HAVE BEEN, WITH A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT COMPLETED AT BATTERY. YET THIS BILL IS FRAMED AS THE ONLY PATH FORWARD. IT ALSO DOES NOT ADDRESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ANY WAY, AS THIS IS A PROPOSED LUXURY RENTAL. THE DMR ZONING IS UNIQUE TO OTHERS ZONING HERE IN SEATTLE. LOT SIZE IS IT JUST A GUIDELINE, IS A CRITICAL ELEMENT IN ENSURING THAT AREAS LIKE BELLTOWN REMAIN LIVABLE. THIS BILL DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE UNIQUE ZONING CRITERIA, AND THIS WILL POTENTIALLY IMPACT MULTIPLE LOTS IN BELLTOWN, AND YET IT WAS WRITTEN WITH A PROJECT IN MIND, AND YET IT'S BEING PRESENTED AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT WITH MINIMAL IMPACT AND A NON-PROJECT ACTION. SUPPORTING DETAILS HAVE BEEN SHARED IN EMAIL, BUT I URGE YOU TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS BILL WITHOUT FULLY SCRUTINIZING THE FACTS VERSUS WHAT WAS PRESENTED. THERE'S TOO MUCH AT STAKE TO TAKE THIS BILL AT FACE VALUE. THANK YOU. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DAVID HAYNES. FOLLOWING DAVID WILL BE JAMES MATSON. >> HI. THANK YOU. DAVID HAYNES. WE NEED TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT WHERE THE INCENTIVE TO BUILD HOUSING COMES WITH A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU PUT TWO SHIFTS ON THE JOB SITE SO WE CAN EXPEDITE SOME HOUSING BUILD OUTS AND CONVERSIONS. AND WE NEED A NOBLE USE OF LAND WITH AN EMPHASIS OF 21ST-CENTURY FIRST WORLD QUALITY HOUSING FLOOR PLANS AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING BUILD OUTS THAT DON'T GET OVERWHELMED BY THE ROADS, THE BUS, THE TRAIN, THE PLANES, OR ALL THE UNSAFE, UNSAVORY CHARACTERS ROAMING AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN AREAS WHERE YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO LIVE. AND IT'S A CONCERN THAT THE EXECUTIVES TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING THAT IT'S SAFER IN LARGER NUMBERS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING TRICKED INTO COMING TO DOWNTOWN, WHERE THERE STILL EXISTS THE DRUG PRESSURES, AND HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES. BUT I'M WONDERING, WHERE ARE THE LAND-USE PLANS FOR ALL THE CAPACITY NEEDED FOR THE PROPER WINTER SHELTER, AND THE AMENITIES WITHIN THAT? AND WHERE ARE THE, LIKE, PLANS TO USE THE LAND WHERE THE UNSAFE SEX TRAFFICKING MOTEL SLUMS ARE THAT SHOULD HAVE ALL OF THEIR DEBTS WRITTEN OFF BY THE BANKS AND HAVE THAT LAND GIVEN OVER TO THE PEOPLE, AND HAVE THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CUT SOME FOLDERS FOR THE FOUNDATION AND BUILD UP SOME EMERGENCY RESPONSE HOUSING? AND, QUITE FRANKLY, WE NEED A 21ST-CENTURY HOUSING BUILD OUT THAT GOES HIGHER THAN THE LEVELS SO THAT YOU HAVE A LIVABLE SPACE WITHIN THE BUILDING, LIKE A ROOFTOP VIEW THAT GIVES YOU A BETTER MENTAL HEALTH AND AN ENJOYABLE LIVING SPACE. IT'S NOT SO CLOSE TO THE ROAD THAT YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO GO THREE LEVELS IF YOU'RE DEALING WITH SOME NONPROFIT THAT HAS TO HIRE A FOR PROFIT -- BUILDOUT -- HOUSE -- SKIM OFF OF. WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE -- YOU ALL SHOULD CHANGE THE LAW THAT YOU ALL CHANGED A COUPLE YEARS AGO, WHERE ONLY NONPROFITS ARE ALLOWED AFFORDABLE HOUSING MONIES FROM THE M.A. JP. BECAUSE SOME OF THESE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT -- >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER'S JAMES. HE'S OUR LAST REGISTERED REMOTE SPEAKER. >> HI. MY NAME IS JAMES MATSON. I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF RESOLUTION 32156. I'M WITH THE FIRM HORTON DEVELOPMENT AND WE'RE BASED IN THE BAY AREA, AND WE'VE RECENTLY MADE A NUMBER OF INVESTMENTS IN SEATTLE REAL ESTATE THIS YEAR, INCLUDING A NUMBER OF DISTRESSED SMART PROPERTIES DOWNTOWN. ONE OF THE PROPERTIES WE PURCHASED WAS THE VANCE AND STERLING BUILDINGS AT THIRD AND UNION, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT INTERSECTIONS IN THE CITY. WE REALLY APPLAUD THE CITY'S EFFORTS SO FAR TO GET THAT AREA CLEANED UP, AND THERE HAS BEEN A NOTICEABLE IMPROVEMENT. HOWEVER, THE PASSAGE OF RESOLUTION 32156 IS REALLY ESSENTIAL TO THE FEASIBILITY OF NEXT STEPS IN REACTIVATING THAT BUILDING. WE ARE LOOKING AT CONVERSION OF THE OFFICE BUILDING INTO RESIDENTIAL. WE WOULD CREATE UP TO 162 UNITS OF NEW HOUSING, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE UNITS AND WE WOULD LANDMARK THE EXISTING HISTORIC BUILDING AND PROTECT IT. AND WE WOULD BE REACTIVATING THAT DIFFICULT CORNER DOWNTOWN WITH NEW USES, NOW THAT OFFICE IS NO LONGER VIABLE. SO WE THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THE RESOLUTION, AND WE STRONGLY SUPPORT ITS PASSAGE. >> THAT'S THE END OF OUR, OUR SPEAKERS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS, EVERYONE, FOR CALLING IN. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEMS. CLERK, COULD YOU PLEASE READ AGENDA ITEM ONE INTO THE RECORD? >> AGENDA ITEM ONE, AND RESOLUTION 32 156, THE SALES AND USE TAX DEFERRAL FOR THE OFFICE OF CONVERSION RESOLUTION -- POSSIBLE VOTE. >> GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE JOINED BY OUR OPCD STAFF AND OUR CENTRAL STAFF. SO WE, SORRY, LET ME GET BACK TO MY NOTES. SO THIS IS A RESOLUTION THAT ESTABLISHES THE CITY'S INTENTION TO AUTHORIZE A SALES AND USE TAX DEFERRAL PROGRAM. AS A REMINDER, WE DID PASS COUNSEL BILL 120761 IN JULY, AND THAT ALLOWED FOR THESE CONVERSIONS TO TAKE PLACE. WITHOUT THIS EXEMPTION FROM SALES TAX, THESE PROJECTS WOULD JUST BE TOO EXPENSIVE TO BUILD, AS WE HEARD FROM PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY. BUT WE ARE JOINED BY OUR OPCD AND CENTRAL STAFF FOR A BRIEFING AND REVIEW OF THIS, AND TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. SO IF I COULD ASK YOU ALL TO INTRODUCE YOURSELVES, WE'LL GET STARTED. >> -- DIRECTOR , OFFICE OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ALSO WIT COMMUNITCE AND CENTRAL STAFF. >> OKAY. PLEASE GO AHEAD. >> SO, COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, AS YOU MENTIONED, IN JULY, YOUR PASSAGE OF THE OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL LEGISLATION SET THE STAGE FOR WHAT WE CAN DO AS A CITY TO BEGIN TO, BEGIN A NEW INVESTMENT IN DEVELOPMENT, PLACE MAKING, AND AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE. THAT LEGISLATION HAS POTENTIAL OF BEING A CATALYST FOR OUR INVESTMENT IN RE-ENVISIONING DOWNTOWN AS A NEIGHBORHOOD AND BUILDING BACK UP OUR TAX BASE. >> RICO, CAN YOU GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MIKE PLEASE? THANK YOU. IT'S OKAY. >> THE RESOLUTION WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY IS RELATED TO STATE BILL 6175, AND ADDRESSING HOW THE CITY OF SEATTLE CAN PROVIDE A CRITICAL SALES TAX DEFERRAL TO DEVELOPMENT TEAMS SEEKING TO MAKE OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION PROJECTS HAPPEN. I THINK IT'S OF NOTE THAT THE CITY OF SEATTLE HAS BEEN ON THE FRONT EDGE OF THIS DISCUSSION. WE WERE PART OF THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTE COLLABORATION RELATED TO REINVESTMENT IN DOWNTOWN, RE-ENVISIONING DOWNTOWN AS NEIGHBORHOODS AND OFFICE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION SPECIFICALLY. I THINK THAT THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADOPT LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS FOR THE SALES TAX REFERRALS WILL REALLY BE AN IMPORTANT NEXT STEP IN AND SHARING THAT DEVELOPMENT TEAMS AND BUILDING OWNERS CAN MAKE THIS CRITICAL CHANGE AND GET MORE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE DOWNTOWN. SO JUST REALLY EXCITED FOR THE MOVEMENT AND THE CONVERSATION. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, RICO. WE HAVE SOME SLIDES HERE FOR YOU TODAY, COUNCIL. THIS GIVES YOU AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT IS IN THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. SO, AS MENTIONED, WE'RE SEEKING TO INCENTIVIZE THE CONVERSION OF OFFICE SPACE TO HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THIS IS A COMPONENT OF MAYOR HARRELL DOWNTOWN ACTIVATION PLAN, AND WE'RE PROPOSING TO ESTABLISH A DEFERRAL OF THE SALES AND USE TAXES ON THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO DO THE CONVERSION. AS WAS MENTIONED, THIS FOLLOWS WASHINGTON STATE SENATE BILL SIX 175 THAT PASSED LAST YEAR. IT AUTHORIZES CITIES TO PROVIDE THIS SALES TAX DEFERRAL. AND IT REQUIRES THAT 10% OF THE HOUSING UNITS IN THE CONVERSION HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE AT THE 80% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME LEVEL IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR THE DEFERRAL. AND IF THAT AFFORDABILITY IS MAINTAINED FOR 10 YEARS, SALES TAXES DO NOT HAVE TO BE REPAID. SO FOR A CITY TO ENACT THIS PROGRAM, WE HAVE TWO STEPS. THE FIRST OF WHICH WE'RE ASKING YOU TO TAKE TODAY, WHICH IS TO PASS A RESOLUTION STATING THE CITY'S INTENT TO ADOPT A PROGRAM. THE RESOLUTION ALSO SETS THE DATE FOR A FUTURE PUBLIC HEARING, AND STEP TWO, THEN, IS TO COME BACK TO YOU WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WITH THE ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE REGULATIONS AND TO CODE EARLY NEXT YEAR. SEATTLE WOULD BE THE FIRST OR THE SECOND CITY STATEWIDE TO IMPLEMENT THIS, AFTER SPOKANE DATE IN SEPTEMBER. SO OTHER SPEAKERS HAVE ALLUDED TO THE GOALS OF THIS ACTION. THIS ADDRESSES AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE'RE ESTIMATING THAT THIS WOULD PRODUCE 1000 TO 2000 UNITS OVER A SEVEN YEAR TIMEFRAME. THIS SUPPORTS DOWNTOWN RECOVERY, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, AND IT ALSO PROMOTES ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY. IT'S ALWAYS SUSTAINABLE TO REUSE STRUCTURES RATHER THAN HAVING TO REBUILD. SO THERE IS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT, AS I MENTIONED. 10% OF THE HOUSING UNITS THAT ARE CREATED IN THE CONVERSION HAVE TO BE PROVIDED AS AFFORDABLE AT THE 80% AMI LEVEL. SO RENTS WOULD BE CAPPED AT THAT LEVEL THAT YOU SEE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ON THIS SLIDE. AND AGAIN, THE DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO MAINTAIN THOSE AS AFFORDABLE FOR 10 YEARS IN ORDER TO KEEP THE EXEMPTION FROM THE SALES TAX. YOU MIGHT ASK, WHAT IS THE SALES AND USE TAX AMOUNT? SO THIS IS JUST A REFRESHER FOR YOU. IN SEATTLE, THE TOTAL SALES TAX PERCENTAGE IS 10.35%, AND THE GRAPHIC ON SCREEN SHOWS YOU THE BREAKDOWN OF WHERE THAT SALES TAX GOES. A LARGE PORTION OF IT GOES TO WASHINGTON STATE. SEATTLE DIRECTLY RECEIVES ONLY 1% OF THE, OVER 10% SALES TAX. AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY COMMENTERS, CONVERSIONS ARE VERY EXPENSIVE. WE'VE TALKED WITH YOU ABOUT THIS BEFORE EARLIER THIS YEAR. THEY'RE SO EXPENSIVE THAT THEY OFTEN EXCEED THE COST OF NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND IT, WHEN YOU'RE THINKING OF REAL ESTATE AS AN INVESTMENT, SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE HAS TO FINANCE, IF A CONVERSION IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN A NEW COTION PRWON'T WON'T SEE THAT HAPPEN. SO WE BELIEVE THAT PUBLIC SUPPORT IS NECESSARY TO MAKE A CONVERSION FEASIBLE, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'RE DOING TODAY, BY PROVIDING THE DEFERRAL, TO BRING DOWN THAT COST SO IT'S ON PAR WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION. TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE AMOUNT OF, OF INCENTIVE THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE FOR YOU OF A 200 HOUSING UNIT CONVERSION OF A 1920S ERA OFFICE BUILDING. THE DEFERRAL WOULD REDUCE THE OVERALL PROJECT COST BY ABOUT 7.1%. OR, IN THIS EXAMPLE, $10 MILLION. SO IT WOULD REDUCE THE TOTAL PROJECT COST FROM APPROXIMATELY $140 MILLION-$130 MILLION. FINANCIAL IMPACTS. FIRST OF ALL , OUR OFFICE OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING TO ADMINISTER THIS PROGRAM WITH EXISTING STAFF. SO THERE REALLY ISN'T MUCH OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE COST TO THE CITY. I DO WANT TO NOTE, TOO, THAT IF THE CONVERSION CEASES TO QUALIFY, SAY, BECAUSE THE UNITS ARE NO LONGER AFFORDABLE, ALL THE BACK SALES AND USE TAXES WOULD BE DUE PLUS INTEREST IMMEDIATELY. SO THAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE. THERE ARE POSITIVE FINANCIAL IMPACTS. WE BELIEVE. SO ADDING RESIDENTS TO DOWNTOWN CAN SUPPORT BUSINESSES IN RECOVERY. AND IF WE SEE A HEALTHY NUMBER OF CONVERSIONS, IT CAN HELP TO STABILIZE DECLINING PROPERTY EVALUATIONS IN DOWNTOWN THAT WE'RE SEEING IN THE OFFICE MARKET. WE BELIEVE THERE ARE LITTLE TO NO DIRECT COSTS OR LOSS OF REVENUE, BECAUSE, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, WE REALLY DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE ANY OR MANY CONVERSIONS WITHOUT INCENTIVES LIKE THIS. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT REALLY LOSING THESE SALES TAXES, BECAUSE THAT CONSTRUCTION WOULDN'T BE HAPPENING WITHOUT THE INCENTIVE. AND JUST WRAPPING UP HERE WITH A FEW IMAGES. THESE ARE POTENTIAL CONVERSION EXAMPLES THAT OUR OFFICE IS AWARE OF , THAT BUILDERS ARE RESEARCHING OR EXPLORING. ON THE LEFT, WE HAVE THE: BUILDING ON FIRST AVENUE. IN THE MIDDLE, WE HAVE THE VANCE BUILDING, WHICH IS AT THIRD AND UNION. AND ON THE RIGHT, WE HAVE THE 201 QUEEN ANNE AVENUE BUILDING. ALL OF THESE ARE IN THE EXPLORATORY STAGE FOR CONVERSION TO RESIDENTIAL. AND THAT'S THE END OF OUR SLIDES TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CONSIDERING MOVING THIS FORWARD. >> THANK YOU, GEOFF AND DIRECTOR -- IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD? >> JUST TO MENTION THAT THIS RESOLUTION JUST SET UP PUBLIC HEARING DATE. ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION'S REQUIRED IN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM THAT WOULD BE ADOPTED AFTER THAT PUBLIC HEARING OCCURS. AND THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS JANUARY 30th. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO, COLLEAGUES, I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS. I DID WANT TO START WITH JUST ONE QUESTION TO CLARIFY. DEVELOPERS ARE ALLOWED TO STACK INCENTIVES HERE. CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT, PLEASE? >> YEAH. THE STATE LAW EXPLICITLY ALLOWED FOR THIS TO BE COMBINED WITH A MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION. SO IN THE MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION, A DEVELOPER IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 20% OF THE UNITS AS AFFORDABLE IN ORDER TO QUALIFY. THIS WOULD, WHAT'S BEFORE YOU WOULD PROVIDE ANOTHER 10% OF UNITS TO QUALIFY FOR THE SALES TAX DEFERRAL. SO THAT BRINGS IT UP TO A TOTAL OF 30%. AS MENTIONED IN PUBLIC COMMENT, ROUGHLY A THIRD OF THE BUILDING COULD VERY WELL BE AFFORDABLE. WITH BOTH INCENTIVES. >> THANK YOU. AND I GUESS, I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO THE POINT YOU MADE ABOUT, THERE MAY NOT REALLY BE AN OPPORTUNITY COST TO ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION, BECAUSE WITHOUT IT, FEW BUILDINGS MIGHT BE BUILT ANYWAY. IT SEEMS TO ME, THOUGH, THAT THERE COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY COST FOR NOT ALLOWING THIS, WHICH IS THAT WE POTENTIALLY HAVE VACANT OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT WILL JUST CONTINUE TO SIT THERE GIVEN THE, THOSE IN ARTICLE JUST EARLIER THIS WEEK ABOUT THE OFFICE VACANCY RATE OF OVER 30%, I THINK. AND SO, AS YOU SAID, THERE MAY NOT BE MANY BUILDINGS THAT WOULD PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM, OR BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT, BUT IF EVEN FOUR OR FIVE COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT, WE'RE NOT ONLY CREATING MORE HOUSING, WE WOULD ALSO BE ADDRESSING VACANT BUILDINGS THAT ARE DOWNTOWN, WHICH I KNOW IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALL INTERESTED IN. OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, PLEASE GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS RELATING TO, I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT, SO YOU SAY THE AFFORDABILITY IS MAINTAINED FOR 10 YEARS AT THE SALES AND USE TAX IS PERMANENTLY WAIVED. IS THAT CORRECT? >> RIGHT. >> SO THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN MFTE, CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. UNDER MFTE , THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES FOR A SET DURATION OF TIME, 12 YEARS, TYPICALLY. BUT THEN AFTER THAT, THEY WOULD. >> OKAY. SO THAT'S A PERMANENT -- AND THEN I'M ALSO CURIOUS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, UNDER MFTE, YOU'VE GOT 20% UNITS, BUT HERE, IF THEY DON'T COMBINE, YOU ONLY HAVE 10%. IS THERE REASON WHY WE HAVE A LOWER NUMBER HERE? BECAUSE I AM NOT SURE EVERY PROJECT IS GOING TO UTILIZE MFTE TO GET TO A 30% LEVEL. >> THE 10% IS WHAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE AUTHORIZED. AND THAT'S, SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHERE THAT NUMBER COMES FROM. >> OKAY. AND I'M UNFAMILIAR WITH THE STATE LEGISLATION, SO DID THEY ALSO CAP IT AT 10 YEAR AFFORDABILITY, AND THAT IS A PERMANENT TAX EXEMPTION? OR DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF TIME IN WHICH AFFORDABILITY HAS TO BE MAINTAINED? >> I DO BELIEVE THAT THE COUNCIL COULD ELECT TO HAVE DEEPER ADDITIONAL AFFORDABILITY THAN WITH THE STATE REQUIRES IS MINIMUM. SO I DO BELIEVE THAT'S AN OPTION. WE'RE PROPOSING TO, TO DO WHAT THEY, BUT THE STATE LEGISLATURE CALLED FOR. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. ONE LAST QUESTION. SO UNDER, AGAIN, I HAVEN'T READ ALL OF THIS, BUT UNDER MFTE, THE UNITS, THE AFFORDABLE UNITS HAVE TO BE OF THE SAME QUALITY AND HAVE THE SAME AMENITIES. IS THAT ALSO THE CASE FOR THIS BILL? I DON'T SEE IT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED. >> IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY REGULATED IN THAT WAY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, CHAIR. >> -- DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? >> HAPPY TO EXPLORE THOSE QUESTIONS FURTHER BEFORE THE ORDINANCE COMES BACK -- >> THANK YOU. >> YEAH. AND JUST AS A REMINDER, IT'S JUST ABOUT SETTING THE HEARING DATE, AND WE WILL HAVE AN ACTUAL ORDINANCE BEFORE US NEXT YEAR. SO, OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, PLEASE GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MORALES. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THE 10 YEAR . THIS PERMANENT, PERMANENTLY WAIVED AFTER THE 10 YEAR. SO AFTER THE 10 YEARS IS MET, THEN WE'VE WAIVED IT, AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT 10% AS AFFORDABLE, OR 80% AMI. >> THAT'S -- >> CORRECT? AND DO WE HAVE, AND WE HAVE THE ABILITY, LISH, TO, TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS ON THAT, BASED ON WHAT THE STATE IS ALLOWING? >> I THINK SO, AND I WILL, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH YOU AND -- DETERMINE WHO'S GOING TO BE STAFFING THIS. SO WE'LL WORK WITH YOUR OFFICE -- >> THANK YOU, LISH. AND THEN DID THIS DATE SET THE 80% AMI LEVEL? IS THAT A -- THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR. >> I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT, AS COUNCILMEMBER MOORE SUGGESTED, LIKE, THE ADDING AN EXPLICIT STATEMENT ABOUT THE MINIMUM QUALITY OF THE UNIT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT COULD BE AMENDED FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE VERSION OF COMPLIANCE. >> OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, IS THAT A NEW HAND? OKAY. OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER -- BUT THAT WAS AN OLD HAND. THANK YOU, CHAIR. >> MAKE SURE I KNOW WHO'S -- OKAY. WELL, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, I MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 32156 , AND THAT THE RESOLUTION BE SENT TO THE DECEMBER 17th CITY COUNCIL MEETING. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION WITH THE DECEMBER 17th CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE. THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROAD? >> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS? >> YES. >> AND CHAIR MORALES? >> YES. >> -- >> THANK YOU. THE MOTION CARRIES, AND THE RESOLUTION WILL BE SENT TO THE DECEMBER 17th CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR A FINAL VOTE. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. OKAY. AMELIA, WILL YOU PLEASE ITEM -- >> IS ABOUT 1208 33, LIVING BUILDING PILOT FOR A BRIEF DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. WE HAVE LISH HERE, AND TRAVIS SAUNDERS WITH SDCI IS ALSO HERE TO DISCUSS THE LIVING BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM. AS A REMINDER, THIS IS INTENDED TO PROMOTE PUBLIC INTEREST BY ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATIVE LIVING BUILDINGS. IN OTHER WORDS, BUILDINGS THAT CAN REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS , THAT CAN TEST NEW TECHNOLOGIES, AND REALLY SERVE AS A MODEL FOR DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT THE REGION. AS A REMINDER, WE WERE BRIEFED ON THIS LEGISLATION IN SEPTEMBER, ON SEPTEMBER 18th BEFORE THE BUDGET STARTED, BUT WE HAVE ASKED SDCI TO JOIN US AGAIN TO REVIEW THE LEGISLATION AND WHAT IT AIMS TO ACHIEVE BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE ON THE BILL. SO I'LL ASK YOU TO PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS TRAVIS SAUNDERS. I'M WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS. >> STILL LISH WOULD LEND. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PLEASE GO AHEAD, TRAVIS. THANK YOU. >> BEAR WITH ME HERE WHILE I GET THIS SET UP. OKAY. ALL SET. SO, HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. AGAIN, TRAVIS SAUNDERS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS REGARDING THE LIVING BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM LEGISLATION. THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT TODAY. JUST, HERE'S A ROAD MAP FOR PRESENTATION. I'LL DO AN INTRODUCTION, FOLLOWED BY A CASE STUDY THAT HAS COME UP AGAINST CHALLENGE IN CODE, AND THEN GO OVER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, DIRECTIVES, AND SOME TIME FOR QUESTIONS. >> TRAVIS, I'LL ASK YOU TO GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MIKE. YEAH. YOU CAN PULL THE WHOLE THING TOWARDS YOU. >> OKAY. SO INTRODUCTION. THE LIVING BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM IN SEATTLE IS AN INCENTIVE INITIATIVE TO ADVANCE SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PRACTICES. THE GOAL IS TO ENCOURAGE INNOVATIVE AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN OPTIONS WITH DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES SUCH AS INCREASED HEIGHT AND ADDITIONAL FLOOR TO AREA RATIO. THE GOAL IS TO TEST AND PILOT SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES SUCH AS -- SOLAR POWER, HIGH-EFFICIENCY SYSTEMS THAT NORMALLY WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY IN THE MARKET, TO BE ABLE TO BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE PROGRAM IS THROUGH 2030, OR 20 PRODUCTS, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. CURRENTLY, THERE ARE FOUR PROJECTS LEFT AVAILABLE IN, IN THE PILOT PROGRAM. THE CODE AMENDMENT IS TO BASICALLY CORRECT A GAP IN THE CURRENT CODE, MAKING IT CLEAR THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHTS MAY BE GRANTED IN THE PROGRAM, REGARDLESS OF THE LOT SIZE. THE CURRENT CODE BASICALLY SAYS IF YOU HAVE A LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 19,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU'RE CAPPED AT 145 FEET. AND CORRECTING THIS LANGUAGE WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ORIGINAL POLICY WOULD BE TO INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT, NOT JUST LOTS OF A CERTAIN SIZE. THIS AMENDMENT ALSO INCLUDES A PROVISION THAT WOULD ALLOW IT TO APPLY TO EXISTING VESTED PROJECTS SO THIS PARTICULAR CASE EXAMPLE BUT I'LL, I'LL GO OVER WOULD QUALIFY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS. WE DO HAVE A PROJECT AT 2616 WESTERN AVENUE THAT HAS BUMPED UP AGAINST THIS CODE LANGUAGE. PROJECT NUMBER 303 604 THREE-LU. IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE ZONING REVIEW BOARD AND APPROVED BY SDCI, WHICH GRANTED THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT UNDER THE BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM. SDCI HAS INTERPRETED THAT THE PILOT PROJECTS CAN RECEIVE DEPARTURES FOR HEIGHT CONSISTENT WITH SIMILAR PROVISIONS IN THE CODE. SDCI'S ALSO INTERPRETED THAT IN THE CODE HEIGHT BONUSES, MAY BE ADDED TOGETHER , IN THIS CASE, ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR A THREE BEDROOM UNIT. SO YOU COULD STACK YOUR INCENTIVES FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, FOR PROVIDING THREE-BEDROOM UNITS, FOR A LIVING BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM, AND ANY OTHER INCENTIVES THAT ARE AVAILABLE. THIS PROJECT AND INTERPRETATION WAS APPEALED TO THE -- EXAMINER. THEY WERE ALLEGED THAT THE SUBJECT LOT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT UNDER THE LIVING BUILDING PROGRAM, AND FOR A THREE-BEDROOM FAMILY SIZE UNITS BECAUSE OF THIS HEIGHT LIMITATION IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE THAT BASICALLY SAYS 19,000 SQUARE FEET LOT OR LESS, YOU'RE CAPPED AT 145 FEET. SO THE OBJECTIVE OF THE AMENDMENT IS TWOFOLD. NUMBER ONE IS TO CLARIFY THAT CITY COUNCIL, IT TENDS TO ALLOW HEIGHT BONUSES IN THE DMR ZONE UNDER THE LIVING BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM , REGARDLESS OF LOT SIZE. AND THEN SECONDLY, IT CLARIFIES AND REAFFIRMS THE CODE INTERPRETATION THAT HEIGHT BONUSES AVAILABLE IN THE CODE MAY BE COMBINED, STACKED THROUGH THE LIVING BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM. AND JUST SOME INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT. IT DOES PROVIDE $2.4 MILLION IN HOUSING AND AFFORDABILITY PAYMENT, OR NHA FEES ARE BEING COLLECTED. THESE ARE MARKET-RATE UNITS, BUT WILL BE OFFSET BY PROVIDING THE NHA PAYMENT. AND THEN ALSO, TO GIVE YOU KIND OF AN IDEA OF THE SCOPE OF THIS OJECT, ITITS, 118 OF THOSE ARE ONE-BEDROOM UNITS, 12 OF THOSE ARE STUDIO UNITS, AND THEN 42 TWO BEDROOM UNITS. AND THEN, IMPORTANTLY, IT'S PROVIDING SO MUCH NEEDED THREE-BEDROOM UNITS, AND THIS IS HOW IT'S ALSO ABLE TO GAIN THAT -- TO OTHER INCENTIVES IN CODE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE, OR IF I CAN CLARIFY ANY FURTHER, I'M HAPPY TO DO SO. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LISH, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD? OKAY. GREAT. WELL, I JUST ANSWERED THE TWO QUESTIONS I HAVE, WHICH IS TO CLARIFY THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE GOING INTO NHA. YOU SAID $2.4 MILLION. GIVEN OUR DIRE NEED IN THE CITY FOR MORE THREE BEDROOMS, I APPRECIATE KNOWING THAT THERE WILL BE 10 MORE FAMILIES THAT WILL BE ABLE TO FIND THREE-BEDROOM UNITS IN THE CITY. I , AS I SAID, WE WERE BRIEFED ON THIS IN SEPTEMBER, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO OPEN IT UP TO MY COLLEAGUES IF THERE'S THINGS FOLKS WANT TO DISCUSS. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. SO I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN A FAIR AMOUNT OF PUBLIC OPPOSITION FROM RESIDENTS IN BELLTOWN TO THIS, AND THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER RULED AGAINST THIS HEIGHT. SO MY QUESTION IS, WHAT HAS BEEN THE PUBLIC PROCESS, BEYOND THE PUBLIC HEARING HERE, ON SEPTEMBER 4th FOR ENGAGEMENT WITH THE RESIDENTS OF BELLTOWN? >> ON THIS, IT FOLLOWS THE, THE TYPICAL LEGISLATION PATHWAY, WITH, WITH PUBLIC NOTICE, AND THEN GOING THROUGH COUNCIL, RELATED TO THE PROJECT ITSELF, WHICH IS A SEPARATE THING THAT WENT THROUGH DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS. SO THERE WAS, SPECIFIC TO THAT PROJECT, NOT THE LEGISLATION, AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON, ON THAT PROPOSAL. AS I HAD MENTIONED, TOO, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WAS APPEALED TO THE HEARING EXAMINER, AND AT THAT STOP, THE HEARING EXAMINER FOUND THAT SDCI'S INTERPRETATION DISAGREED WITH THE INTERPRETATION THAT DEVELOPMENT COULD EXTEND BEYOND 145 FEET, WITH PROVIDING LIVING BUILDING PILOTS AND THREE-BEDROOM. FROM THERE, THE HEARING EXAMINER ALSO FOUND THAT CIBA, THEY DISMISSED THE CIBA APPEAL ON THAT, BECAUSE WITH NEW STATE LEGISLATURE, CIBA NOW EXEMPTS PROJECTS WITH HOUSING UNITS. AND SO BEING THAT THIS PROJECT HAS HOUSING UNITS, HEARING EXAMINER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT AND SAID THE CIBA APPEAL IS -- THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS GOING FORWARD AT SUPERIOR COURT, AND APPEALING THAT UNDERLINING THE PROTECTION ACT. SO, SO THERE ARE POINTS IN, IN EACH STEP OF THE PROCESS FOR, FOR PUBLIC INPUT, BUT RELATED TO THIS LEGISLATION, THE TYPICAL COMMENT PERIOD WAS PROVIDED THROUGH NOTICE IN THE BULLETIN, LAND-USE BULLETIN, AND AN OPPORTUNITY HERE -- LAND-USE COMMITTEE, AND THEN, OBVIOUSLY AGAIN IN CITY COUNCIL. >> OKAY. AND SO DO WE KNOW WHAT, HOW MANY THREE BEDROOMS WOULD BE INCLUDED, AND WHAT, WHAT THE COST OF THOSE THREE BEDROOMS WOULD BE? WHAT, WHAT IS THE COST OF A THREE BEDROOM? >> I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON WHAT THE MARKET RATE WOULD BE FOR, FOR SUCH UNITS. BUT I DO KNOW THAT THEY PROVIDED -- TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT, THAT INCENTIVE IN THE CODE. >> AND WHY ARE WE -- OH, I'M SORRY. WHY ARE WE INVESTING FOR OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVEN'T MADE ANY APPLICATION? >> I'M SORRY, ONCE AGAIN? >> YOU SAY AN APPLICANT MAY ELECT TO USE THIS EXEMPTION EVEN IF THE APPLICATION VESTED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE? WHY ARE WE INVESTING? >> YEAH. SO ANY PROJECT THAT HAD COME IN BEFORE THIS ORDINANCE AND HAD VESTED WOULD BE ABLE TO REACH FORWARD AND UTILIZE THIS CHANGE IN CODE. SO IN THE CASE EXAMPLE THAT I GAVE IS ONE SUCH PROJECT THAT DID VEST, AND SO IT WOULD BE ABLE TO REACH FORWARD. IT WOULD BE ABLE TO REACH FORWARD, SORRY ABOUT THAT, IN THE NEW CODE. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER PROJECTS IN THAT, IN THAT SCENARIO. >> SO BASICALLY THERE'S ONLY ONE PROJECT THAT THIS APPLIES TO AT THE MOMENT. >> THAT I'M AWARE OF, YES. >> OKAY. SO WHY ARE WE INVESTING FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS? >> THAT LANGUAGES -- >> YEAH, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU, LISH. >> SORRY. THAT LANGUAGE IS NECESSARY FOR THAT PROJECT TO BE ABLE TO USE THIS CODE PROVISION. >> OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN THIS PROGRAM EXPIRES IN 2030. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. THE LIVING BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM EXPIRES IN 2030, OR 20 PROJECTS, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. >> OKAY. AND I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE FOR TEEN NOW, SO . >> RIGHT. >> SO THIS PROJECT, SO THE PILOT, THOUGH, COULD BE MADE PERMANENT AFTER 2030, WHICH THEN WOULD MEAN WE'VE MADE A CHANGE OF PERMANENT ZONING CODE CHANGE FOR THE HEIGHT. >> TRUE. >> YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, DID I SEE YOUR HAND UP? >> YES, IT IS. >> PLEASE -- >> THANK YOU. FIRST, THANK YOU FOR THE MEETING. OBVIOUSLY, BOTH TOPICS TODAY ON THE AGENDA ARE VERY D7 CENTRIC , SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY, AS I DON'T SIT ON THE LAND-USE COMMITTEE. SO I RECOGNIZE IT CAME UP BEFORE, BUT I, OBVIOUSLY I'VE BEEN HEARING FROM COMMUNITY, BUT I DID NOT HAVE THE BACKGROUND, AS IT CAME BEFORE COMMITTEE EARLIER. IT'S AN INTERESTING PIECE. I JUST HAVE SOME, SOME BASIC QUESTIONS. ONE IS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE POINTS THAT ARE MADE OFTEN IS THAT BELLTOWN IS UNIQUE, AND HAS THE SMALL LOT SIZE FEATURE. AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS, WHERE DID THE 145 FEET COME FROM, AS THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE FIRST PLACE? WAS THAT SOME ARBITRARY NUMBER, OR WAS NOT CREATED FOR SPECIFIC REASONS? >> YEAH, SO THE 145 FEET IS THE STANDARD HEIGHT MAXIMUM IN THE ZONE. AND SO THE LIVING BUILDING PILOT, OR ANY OTHER INCENTIVE, FOR THAT MATTER, WOULD ALLOW, NORMALLY, FOR THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT TO GO OVER THAT MAXIMUM. SO, SO IT'S A DMR 145 , MEANING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT BEING AT 145. >> AND TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE HISTORY, THE 145 FEET DATE BACK TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS. PRIOR TO THAT, THE HEIGHT LIMIT WAS 125 FEET, AND THAT HEIGHT LIMIT DATES BACK TO THE 1980S, WHEN DOWNTOWN -- WAS CREATED. >> OKAY. AS ALWAYS, LISH, THANK YOU. FOR THAT BACKGROUND. AND I APPRECIATE IT. I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THERE WAS SOMETHING DRIVING, LIKE, PARTICULARLY RELATED TO BELLTOWN AND THE IDEA OF A SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT, IF THAT WAS SOMETHING UNIQUE TO BELLTOWN AS OPPOSED TO OTHER AREAS. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. ONE QUESTION THAT OFTEN COMES UP, TOO, IS THE, THE ADDING ON OF, YOU KNOW, THE BENEFIT, THE OPTIONS. IS THERE A LIMIT? LIKE, I UNDERSTAND NOW THAT IT WOULD BE ALLOWED, BUT IS THERE A LIMIT? LIKE, HOW MANY ADDITIONAL HEIGHT INCREASES CAN BE, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A LIMIT IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT IS DONE? >> NO. NOT NECESSARILY. SDCI AND OTHER MATTERS LOOKS AT THE CODE AS STACKING INCENTIVES TO GAIN ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. SO IF YOU CAN GRAB 10 FEET OF ADDITIONAL HEIGHT UNDER A CERTAIN PROVISION, AND 15 FEET UNDER ANOTHER, IF YOU PROVIDE BOTH OF THOSE, YOU CAN GET BOTH OF THOSE INCENTIVES AND STACK THEM. >> THAT'S TWO STACKING INCENTIVES. IS THERE A LIMIT OF THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX? I MEAN, THERE MAY NOT BE THAT MANY, BUT IS THERE ANY GENERAL KIND OF LIMIT IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF STACKING INCENTIVES? >> IT DOESN'T SPECIFY THAT, AND WE HAVE INTERPRETED THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN STACK THOSE INCENTIVES. SO THIS LEGISLATION WOULD ALSO HELP TO REAFFIRM THAT, THAT POLICY THAT YOU CAN STACK THESE INCENTIVES. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION TOO IS, I RECOGNIZE THIS COULD GO TO SOME TYPE OF ARBITRATION -- BUT THE -- DISPUTE IN TERMS OF, LIKE, YOU STACK THESE HEIGHTS, AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE SAYING THAT FOR THIS PROJECT, THE HEIGHT IS AT THIS LEVEL. BUT IF THE IMMUNITY COMES BACK AND SAYS, WELL, ACTUALLY, BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT THINGS, YOU KNOW, THE IT'S THE, RELATED TO ROOFTOP, OF WHICH I GUESS WOULD BE ANOTHER KIND OF INCENTIVE , THEY'RE ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN THAT. YOU KNOW, I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD FROM COMMUNITY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SAYING ONE NUMBER, BUT THEY'RE SEEING A DIFFERENT NUMBER. HOW IS THAT ADJUDICATED ON SDCI, AND TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE ALL WORKING FROM THE SAME BASELINE? >> YEAH. YEAH. SO IN CODE, THERE ARE ALLOWANCES FOR FEET AND ROOFTOP THEATERS, FOR EXAMPLE. PENTHOUSES, PARAPETS, MECHANICAL UNITS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO THE, YOU KNOW, -- A CERTAIN STANDARD IS GIVEN FOR THE HEIGHT. AND THOSE WE LOOK AT AS ABOVE THE STANDARD BASE HEIGHT, RIGHT? SO LET'S SAY THE ZONE HAD A HEIGHT OF 145. THE CODE ALSO, THEN, TALKS ABOUT ROOFTOP FEATURES, RIGHT, AND ALLOWANCES. SO THOSE WOULD BE STACKED ON TOP OF 145. SO DOES THAT HELP TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> YEAH. >> SO BASICALLY YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE HEIGHT, RIGHT, OF YOUR STRUCTURE. BUT SOME OF THOSE FEATURES WOULD BE ROOFTOP FEATURES, ABOVE THAT BASE HEIGHT. >> I THINK YOU MAY BE ASKING ABOUT, WHEN CAN COMMUNITY MEMBERS FEEL SDCI DECISION? IS THAT CORRECT? >> KIND OF. AND I APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER, AND I RECOGNIZE, BECAUSE THERE'S TONS OF PROJECTS, WHEN YOU SEE THE ROOFTOP FEATURES, PARTICULARLY THE MECHANICAL THAT YOU ARE MENTIONING, AND SO FORTH, OR GET, LIKE, A ROOFTOP KIND OF -- KIND OF OPTION ON AND I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT, KIND OF, TO YOUR, LISH, TO YOUR QUESTION. BUT IT'S ALSO, IT'S LIKE, THE DEVELOPER'S SAYING IT'S THIS HEIGHT, AND IN THE COMMUNITY SAYING, NO, IT'S ACTUALLY THE SITE, BASED ON HOW WE VIEW IT, DOES SDCI, CAN WE, CAN I ASK SDCI TO, YOU KNOW, SAY WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE HEIGHT OF THIS PROJECT, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT'S BELLTOWN. >> YEAH. AND SO CODE IS, IT'S VERY SPECIFIC ON HEIGHT MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES. SO WE LOOK AT THOSE STANDARDS TO ASSURE SETTING WHAT THE BASE LINE IS, AND HOW WE MEASURE TO THAT, THAT MAXIMUM HEIGHT. THEN ONCE WE GET THAT, YOU CAN FOLD IN OTHER ALLOWANCES SUCH AS ROOFTOP FEATURES, INCENTIVES. SO THE CODE'S VERY CLEAR ABOUT ESTABLISHING WHAT THAT BASE HEIGHT MEASUREMENT IS. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE RELY ON. >> YES. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, PARTICULARLY WITH THE SLOPES. THERE'S THOSE KINDS OF FEATURES FOR CONSIDERATIONS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE GET DIFFERING OPINIONS ON WHAT THE PROJECT ACTUALLY IS. AND SO IT'LL BE GOOD TO GET A DEFINITIVE CALL, IF YOU WILL. SO WE CAN, WE, I CAN FOLLOW-UP OFF LINE ON THIS ONE, THAT LAST QUESTION. >> I GUESS WHAT THE -- TO -- WITH A DISAGREEMENT THERE, OBVIOUSLY, WITH PROJECTS, THERE IS AN APPEAL PROCESS, SO IF SOMEBODY DISAGREED WITH THAT, THERE'S OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THAT THROUGH, THROUGH THE APPEAL PROCESS. SO. >> WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THIS BELLTOWN PROJECT HAS HAD A LOT OF ATTENTION AND A LOT OF INPUT, LET'S SAY, SO I APPRECIATE THAT. AND AGAIN, THANK YOU, CHAIR, GIVEN THAT THIS AGENDA PLUS THE PREVIOUS ONE, VERY HELPFUL FOR THE DISTRICT -- REPRESENTATIVE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED WHEN HEIGHT ALLOWANCES ARE SET, PARTICULARLY MAXIMUMS? LIKE, THE THINGS EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, LACK THEREOF, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE GO INTO IT, OR WHAT FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED, IN GENERAL? >> YEAH. SO GENERALLY IT'S JUST AN ADHERENCE TO MEASUREMENT STANDARDS, RIGHT? SO AGAIN, SAYING THAT THAT IS, THAT BASELINE FOR THE PROJECT, IF IT'S ON MY SLOPE, THERE'S METHODOLOGIES ON HOW TO ARRIVE AT THE NUMBER. >> AND WITH THE SETTING THE STANDARDS? I GUESS THAT'S PART OF MY QUESTION TOO. >> >> THE MUNICIPAL CODE SETS THOSE STANDARDS. THEY ARE WRITTEN INTO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE OF STANDARDS, AND THEN THERE ARE METHODOLOGIES WRITTEN IN CODE ON HOW, HOW TO MEASURE THAT. >> AND, AND MORE BROADLY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE 145 HEIGHT HEIGHT LIMIT, IT'S SET MY COUNCIL THROUGH ADOPTING THE LAND USE CODE. AND IS DRIVEN IN PART BY THE POLICIES CONTAINED IN THE CITY'S CONFERENCE OF PLAN. >> LISH, I'LL FOLLOW-UP WITH YOU, BECAUSE I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT THAT SEEMS A LITTLE ARBITRARY TO ME. I MEAN, COUNCIL OR NOT EXPERTS, AND SO WHAT WE CAN SAY, SOMETHING CAN BE A CERTAIN HEIGHT, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT'S, THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS POLICE TO ALLOW FOR THAT. SO I GUESS I'M ASKING MORE IN THE WEEDS, AND WE CAN TAKE IT OFF LINE, BUT. >> RIGHT. >> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND BETTER, RATHER THAN SOMETHING THAT SOUNDS ARBITRARY. AND THEN THERE ARE 15 BUILDINGS. WHERE ARE THESE 15 BUILDINGS LOCATED? ARE THEY THROUGHOUT THE CITY, OR? >> YEAH. SO THE, THE LIVING BUILDING PILOT PROGRAM IS CITYWIDE. SO, YEAH, DISPERSED ACROSS THE CITY. >> ARE THEY MAINLY IN ONE AREA, OR ARE THEY REALLY, TRULY ACROSS THE CITY? >> YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE THE, A DISPERSAL CHART, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CERTAINLY ONCE, YOU KNOW -- DOWNTOWN, AND THE LIKE. SO, YEAH, I DON'T KNOW -- >> I CAN GET THAT ONLINE. AND THAT AFTER THE PILOT, WOULD COUNCIL HAVE TO TAKE ACTION TO MAKE IT PERMANENT, OR TO EXTEND THE PILOT? OR DOES IT AUTOMATICALLY? >> YEAH. THE PILOAUENDS THE PRO IN 2030, OR UPON 20 PROJECTS BEING BUILT. >> AND THEN WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO TAKE ACTION TO MAKE IT PERMANENT. >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR. >> OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? >> THERE'S A NEW HAND. >> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. >> SO TWO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS TO COUNCILMEMBER -- SORRY, [ CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ] COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA'S QUESTION. >> SO THOSE PROJECTS WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED FOR ONES THAT HADN'T BEEN COMPLETED. UNDER CONSTRUCTION MAY BE ABLE TO DO THAT THROUGH A REVISION OF THEIR ACTIVE PERMIT . >> BUT THIS CODE AMENDMENT IS ONLY FOR THE DOWNTOWN MIXED RESIDENTIAL ZONE, SO IT IS ONLY FOR PORTIONS OF BELLTOWN THAT HAVE THAT ZONING. IT IS THE MAYBE 20-BLOCK, 30-BLOCK AREA. >> OKAY. SO IT IS LIMITED. WITH ALL OF THE VARIOUS ADDITIONAL WAYS TO STACK, IS THERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT CAP THAT WE CAN SET? YOU CAN HAVE ALL THESE OTHER ADDITIONAL ROOFTOP EXTRA HEIGHT -- ET CETERA -- BUT WITH ALL OF THAT YOU CANNOT GO ABOVE X AMOUNT OF FEET . >> THERE IS NOTHING IN CODE THAT SETS A STACKING LIMIT, PER SE. THERE WOULD BE ONE CONTROL MAY BE IN THE DOWNTOWN FLIGHT ZONE. SO THERE IS A MAXIM RELATED TO THAT . YOU CAN BUMP UP BEYOND THAT POINT, BUT AS FAR AS THE CODE SETTING, YOU CAN ONLY STACK THREE DIFFERENT THINGS AND THEN YOU ARE COMPLETE. >> THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> YEAH. I THINK TO THAT POINT, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, THAT IS A GREAT CONVERSATION FOR NEXT YEAR TO TALK ABOUT , WHAT ARE THE MENU OF INCENTIVES THAT WE HAVE ? WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS ON DEVELOPMENT, PRICING, DENSITY . I WILL SAY AS A DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD , KNOWING THAT FAMILIES DO HAVE AN INTEREST IN COMING DOWNTOWN, A PROJECT LIKE THIS THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO ACTUALLY CREATE THREE BEDROOMS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THE BLUR INTERESTED IN SEEMS LIKE A GOOD WAY TO GO. I THINK THERE IS AS WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER TODAY A LOT OF MAKING IT EASIER FOR FAMILIES TO COME DOWNTOWN . ADD MORE THAN JUST FAMILIES. IF THERE ARE STUDIOS ONES AND TWOS IN THIS PARTICULAR PRODUCT AS WELL, I CAN IMAGINE THE BELLTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BECOME MORE VIBRANT AND CREATE THE KIND OF NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE WE CAN REALLY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO COULD PURCHASE AT LOCAL RESTAURANTS, LOCAL BUSINESSES, SUPPORTING GROCERY STORE. SUPPORT MORE CHILDCARE DOWNTOWN. I SEE THIS AS A REAL OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO BEGIN TO CREATE THE KIND OF DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THE MAYOR IS TALKING ABOUT AND THAT WE KNOW GIVEN THE VACANCY RATES THAT WE HAVE . IT IS KIND OF ONE MORE TOOL FOR BEING ABLE TO CREATE THE VIBRANCY WE ARE LOOKING FOR DOWNTOWN. DO I SEE ANY OTHER HANDS? I DON'T. NO. OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION , SO I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND -- I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED PASSAGE OF COUNCIL BILL 120833. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> THANK YOU. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION -- I DON'T SEE ANYMORE HANDS -- OKAY, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON PASSAGE OF COUNCIL BILL 120833? >> [ ROLL BEING CALLED ] >> THE MOTION CARRIES. THE BILL WILL BE SENT TO THE DECEMBER 10th, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR A FINAL VOTE. OKAY. THAT IS THE END OF OUR AGENDA . UNLESS THERE IS ANY GOOD -- >> AS YOU KNOW, I WAS EXCUSED FROM THIS MEETING, BUT I CHOSE TO COME TODAY AS YOUR LAST MEETING -- LAND-USE MEETING. I WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR CITY. YOU AND I WERE BOTH ELECTED IN 2020, EIGHT WEEKS BEFORE THE PANDEMIC . FOR COLLEAGUES, YOUR FIRST YEAR HERE -- I MEAN, YOU WERE HERE IN A DIFFERENT ROLE. BUT BEING ELECTED AN OFFICIAL IS A DIFFERENT SPACE. IN OUR FIRST SIX MONTHS TOGETHER , COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, WE FACED A PANDEMIC, RECESSION, CIVIL-RIGHTS RECKONING, AND CIVIL UNREST. I'M SORRY THAT THESE LAST 11 MONTHS HAVE BEEN WORSE THAN THAT. I WAS REALLY EXCITED TO GET UNDERWAY WITH OUR WORK TOGETHER . AS YOUR VICE CHAIR, I STAND READY TO BE HERE FOR A SMOOTH TRANSITION. SORRY. I HAVE SOME NOTES AND I TOTALLY WENT OFF STRIPPED -- SCRIPT. REALLY THE POINT I'M MAKING HERE IS I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH SOME TOUGH TIMES TOGETHER. WE DON'T ALWAYS AGREE. AND THAT'S OKAY. JUST WANTED TO SAY THANKS. I KNOW THAT -- I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEE WHAT YOUR NEXT CHAPTER HAS. JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. >> IN QUEUE, COUNCILMEMBER . I APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY. I THINK WE ARE ADJOURNED . THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE NEXT LAND-USE COMMITTEE MEETING WILL BE A SPECIAL MEETING ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 30th, AT 2:00 P.M. THANKS FOR BEING HERE, EVERYONE. WE ARE ADJOURNED. ♪ ♪