At the last meeting, conservative CMs wanted to increase the base non-residential FAR for the site to 3.5 from 2.5, in line with the developer's request. However, that would reduce the amount of potential public benefit available. Staff detailing that now.
Conversation
Compare the potential public benefits available if the base nonresidential FAR were increased to 3.5.
1
Staff took CM & stakeholder feedback to heart and expanded the proposed amenity options. Included CM Barksdale's ask to support more mom & pop shops in East Main as a "special amenity," placed in Tier 2.
1
1
CM Zahn appreciates staff balancing stakeholder asks w/ city's needs. Asks about some concerns on fee in lieu that were raised by the Eastside Housing Roundtable. Staff notes they didn't have time to process the group's concerns b/c they were submitted right before the meeting.
1
DM Nieuwenhuis expresses concerns at the capping of bonusable area for childcare facilities at 10,000 sq ft. Staff notes that larger facilities can be built, but only 10,000 sq ft will apply to bonuses for public amenities. DM suggests raising that to 15,000 sq ft.
1
DM is still supportive of 3.5 nonresidential FAR & wants to move more things into Tier One priorities. Staff have noted that adding additional amenities to Tier One dilutes the pool and might reduce the amount of other priority amenities that end up getting provided.
1
In response to CM Barksdale's question, staff notes that, at 2.5 base FAR, 80% of the necessary public benefit can be provided by creating 4 potential streets (necessary anyway for block size standards) and 40,000 sq ft of open space (necessary for a 10% open space requirement).
1
CM Robertson agrees with DM Nieuwenhuis in adding additional amenities to Tier 1. Also supports 3.5 base FAR, even though staff just provided a presentation on why that's not ideal. Neither CM supporting 3.5 has provided justifications for why their minds have not been changed.
1
CM Stokes, who had expressed support for 3.5 FAR for both (non-)residential, actually supports 2.5 for nonresidential and was confused at the previous meeting. Says the pedestrian bridge would be nice to have, but city will need to look at cost.
1
Another editorialized reminder that we wouldn't need a pedestrian bridge across 112th Ave SE if City Council was willing to prioritize pedestrian signaling in Downtown & East Main and was fine w/ cars waiting for a little bit to ensure pedestrians can cross safely at grade.
1
4
Mayor Robinson trying to get CM Lee to wrap up his testimony, only to have to patientily listen to an additional minute and a half of interjected ramblings, is probably just part of the reason why she's endorsed his opponent.
I wouldn't want to be in meetings w/ the guy either.
1
2
Council votes 5-2 to have base non-residential FAR be 2.5. DM Nieuwenhuis, who had previously said he supported 3.5, both introduced the motion & voted in support. Now moving on to discussion around Tier 1 & Tier 2 amenities.
1
Staff clarifies that Tier 1 amenities for residential developments would only be affordable housing. The discussion of moving amenities to Tier 1 from Tier 2 is only happening for commercial development.
1
CM Stokes again indirectly getting at the core of the issue - by raising the bonusable childcare sq footage from 10k to 15k, you're taking away from other amenities that could potentially be filled instead. He seems opposed to raising the sq ft out of fear of diluting the pool.
1
CM Robertson notes that "if the market size for childcare is 15k or larger and we don't right size the amenity points," we might not get the childcare built at all & developer chooses another public amenity. "This is a no-brainer if we support childcare."
1
CM Zahn has been convinced to increase the childcare sq ft to 15k but wouldn't want it to dilute the other important priorities in Tier 1. I believe her support for increasing size would be predicated on keeping it in Tier 2.
1
Ah, my misunderstanding, it's already in Tier 1, she was just raising concerns about the dilution of other priorities. Council votes to approve the size increase w/ no dissenters, though I don't believe everybody voted.
1
Pedestrian bridge moves to a Tier One amenity on a 4-3 vote. CMs Barksdale, Zahn, and Stokes oppose. Moving performing arts to Tier One passes on 4-3 vote, w/ Zahn, Barksdale, and Robinson dissenting. Moving public art to Tier 1 fails 5-2, w/ Stokes & Robinson voting aye.
1
Mayor Robinson wants affordable housing benefits to be exclusively at 80% AMI for Tier 1, even ownership. That passes 5-2, with Robertson & Lee dissenting. Robertson moves 100% AMI ownership to Tier 2, which passes 7-0 after Stokes changes his vote to yes.
1
There's a final vote about modifications to DA requirements that went 4-3, although I'm unsure on the exact conditions. Conservatives + Robinson supported, progressives dissented. Since I don't know/care much about the aquatic center, I'll end my coverage there. Thanks everybody!
3