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.
Conversation
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 Lee: "If we don't get projects developed, we're not going to see any public benefits." Is concerned about economic feasibility of projects. Wants to know where differences arise between staff's analyses and the developer's economic analyses re: ideal FAR and heights.
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
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