Option B was guided by Council asks during the previous public hearing to allow a development agreement (DA) tool to be used for increased building heights. This option also expands the amenity options available - all are second-tier amenities though.
Conversation
Wig Properties ask would increase base FAR for non-residential to match residential.
I'm not a planner, but it seems developers are consistently seeking provisions that would reduce the amount of (affordable) housing they would be incentivized to build.
Quote Tweet
Summary of the options available. Option A is what's currently in LUCA, Option B is staff's recommendation, and the stakeholders request is from Wig Properties.
That would see significantly less housing being produced in this area, in a city with a significant housing shortage.
Show this thread
1
1
Wig's also asking for streetscape improvements to be included in tier 1 of public amenities.
As a good urbanist™, I obviously want that too - but I don't want that to be chosen by developers as a public amenity *instead of* affordable housing.
2
1
Mayor Robinson setting ground rules that 1) LUCA would apply to all properties in East Main but DAs could be written to add/remove conditions, 2) city's looking for FAR, amenity, and DA provision options. Asking Councilmembers to orient their feedback around those things.
1
DM Nieuwenhuis appreciates the city adding to the amenities in Option B. Wants to know why pedestrian bridge & streetscape improvements weren't included in Tier 1. Staff says Tier 1 options were reserved for expressed Council priorities.
1
Staff concerns around increasing the maximum FAR from 5.0 to 5.3 seem to be around SEPA review - staff work up to this point has been exclusively operating under a 5.0 scenario. Increasing to 5.3 would add on time to this process for staff to evaluate SEPA implications.
1
Staff notes that they're open to including that opportunity for additional FAR in a DA.
I *think* I'm starting to get this. A lot of these land use discussions are like this - I read agenda items & have no idea, but listening to the meeting, I start to wrap my head around it.
1
CM Zahn: "Predictability is important both for the developers & the public." Supports using DA process to allow for special amenities & increased heights. Implies that "diluting" Tier 1 priorities might be worth it for the pedestrian bridge, given Vision Zero goals.
1
Also has concerns about putting sustainability planning in Tier 2. CM Robertson notes purpose of the upzone is to maximize density to meet city's "bold" growth goals. Has a fair question about critical areas that I don't understand, will come back with another question later
1
CM Stokes - likes Option B. Has questions around how 1st & 2nd amenity tiers were decided. Staff noting that the differentiation was based on Council direction and is subject to changes that Council proposes.
1
CM Barksdale: is it possible to add a 3rd tier instead of just binary 1st/2nd? Staff hasn't done that analysis.
Ability to incorporate mom & pop shops? Getting that in would take some time to understand how to assess that value in the amenity system.
1
Mayor Robinson: likes Option B recs and appreciates ability to bargain additional in DA process. Would like to consolidate the "potential street" & "streetscape amenities, or provide an "either/or" option.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @Deutski1 and @typewriteralley
Kay, 'potential streets' means creation of ROW (all modes) to facilitate smaller block sizes. Mayor asks about consolidating with with streetscape improvements, since it sounds similar. Apparently 'streetscape' means "enhanced sidewalk", like dining amenities and landscaping.
1
DM Nieuwenhuis supports increasing non-residential FAR to 3.5 since this area "will have to compete with" adjacent areas that have that FAR, though he's "not sure how [his] colleagues will feel about that." It seems that would disincentivize this area from being used for housing.
1
CM Zahn notes that MFTE would apply in this area & that both rental & ownership opportunities can exist in this area. Wants provisions that encourage ownership & microhousing. Supports Option B but acknowledges DA can be used to accommodate changing market conditions.
1
CM Robertson agrees with DM, supports base FAR as 3.5 for both (non-)residential. Supports amenities tiering but wants ped bridge to be Tier 1. Wants a higher AMI threshold for ownership-based affordable housing. Says land use code isn't the place to encourage mom & pop shops.
1
1
CM Stokes supports Option B & thinks the DA approach to variations is the way to go. Supports performing arts spaces in this area.
1
CM Lee supports the stakeholder's request & opinions of conservative CMs w/ 3.5 FAR across the board. "We'd all love more public amenities, but the reality is what the developer can do."
1
In my (again) unprofessional opinion, seems the conservative CMs are uniting around "let's make affordable housing a benefit for nonresidential development" instead of "let's incentivize residential development & associated affordable housing," which, not sure that's great, guys.
1
To counter CM Robertson's point, CM Barksdale asks if there's any place where LUC prioritizes use of the space. Staff notes that DT code had certain exemptions, but the difficulty is that that can create longterm vacancies.
1
Barksdale acknowledges but says that since supporting mom & pop shops is a stated econ. development priority, it's important to do work "sooner rather than later," maybe in another form.
Not opposed to 3.5 FAR across the board but is concerned about amenities city might not get.
1
Mayor: "I'm not interested in gifting base 1.0 FAR but I'm interested in incentivizing it." Says she's hearing a desire to evaluate amenity priorities w/o micromanaging staff's work, hoping for an additional meeting. Staff needs time but can accommodate, maybe in 1:1 meetings.
1
Touch of confusion: Mayor corrects CM Robertson on the # of CMs supporting a base 3.5 FAR for both (non-)residential development. Turns out CM Stokes supports Option B but also supports 3.5 for both...? Not sure what's going on there.
1
1
CM Stokes didn't understand that by increasing base FAR, you're decreasing the amount of public benefit that can be extracted to get to maximum FAR.
I don't know if he's being coy, but he's pointing out how a higher base FAR gives more benefit to developer at expense of public.
1
Council foregoes a vote on FAR tonight so that staff can sync with CMs individually to address their concerns, so the meeting is adjourned. Thanks for accompanying me on this (confusing) journey. Consider contributing to my Patreon to support this work?
1
2