Staff respond by saying that this LUCA is a first step, and that future Council or State legislative actions can accomplish what the Planning Commission is asking for. Staff supports a second phase of work beyond this one that would look at further steps.
Conversation
Should Council approve what staff has deemed as "Phase 1" tonight, the resolution would be formally adopted in December, and work for Phase 2 (more in line w/ what the Planning Commission wants) would kick off around February.
1
Council comments: CM Barksdale, liaison to the Planning Commission, wants to move the LUCA forward, but notes the PC voted against it in part because "they didn't want us to check the box and think we're done." He wants to provide direction for the '22 Phase 2 work plan.
1
After a question from CM Stokes, staff notes that the EBCC can still use their power to vote this down within their borders.
As I've previously written about though, since this is state law, doing so would be a costly waste of time.
1
1
CM Robertson asks if the state law mandated a 50% density bonus, law just says it "needs to be in line with local needs." Asks if staff looked closely at local needs since EBCC might reject if not, but adds, "If anybody from the EBCC is on the call, don't reject this."
1
She supports moving the LUCA forward and, w/ the amount of planning work to be done, raises the idea that the Commission should meet more often if there's staff capacity to do so. Would also support incentives for properties near high-capacity transit & deeper affordability.
1
Although we have a lot of disagreements, there *are* definitely times when I can agree with ideas CM Robertson puts forward. Devil's in the details of course, but it's nice to be on the same playing field at least some of the time.
1
DM Nieuwenhuis w/ further EBCC questions, 1) how many faith properties are in the jurisdiction, and 2) what were concerns expressed at the courtesy hearing?
1) about 20% of the faith parcels are in EBCC borders, 2) EBCC members didn't want AH *just* put in their neighborhoods.
1
After some confusion from CM Lee, staff note that the developments resulting from this LUCA would be entirely affordable housing no more than 80% AMI. Seems in an ideal world, he would want these density bonuses to apply to market rate housing too. Doesn't have majority support.
1
Council unanimously directs staff to draft a LUCA based on staff's recommendation of a 50% density bonus. Also asks for staff to draft a map of areas that will be reviewed as part of their Phase 2 work and draft a workplan that'll look at incentives for deeper affordability.
1
1
Pushing back against some of the testimony heard this evening, staff is saying that allowing certain things to be decided through a DA will ultimately allow for the development of more affordable housing, so long as Council votes to approve the respective DA.
1
A side-by-side comparison of staff's recommendations to Council vs. stakeholder requests, many of which were heard in public testimony this evening.
1
"We have heard from Wig Properties that high-rise residential development w/ affordable housing is not financially feasible at this time, but this position is not supported by the type of development we're seeing DT as well as the city's economic analysis." Staff w/ the 🔥🔥🔥
2
1
Basic dynamic I'm hearing tonight is that developers are asking for things advantageous to them to be directly incorporated into the LUCA, whereas staff is sticking with the plan to prioritize housing in the LUCA but allow Development Agreements to contain mods to the LUCA.
1
1
Mayor Robinson is going to have Council give their feedback on each staff recommendation individually. Hopefully this is a relatively quick roundrobin, otherwise we'll be here all night.
1
Building heights:
Stokes: staff rec
Lee: staff rec after some waffling
Barksdale: staff rec
Robertson: building height staff rec, minimum housing stakeholder. References another economic study done by the AH Roundtable, staff says they haven't seen it.
1
Staff also note that the DA path would allow for more flexibility should the economic conditions change. CM Robertson notes that she herself has not seen the report she's mentioning, but is apparently basing her reservations of staff's recs on it. Hm.
1
Zahn: staff rec, notes going above 400' would trigger additional SEPA review.
Nieuwenhuis: staff rec for building heights, 30% for minimum housing.
Robinson: staff rec.
Majority of Councilmembers are seeking staff rec for max building height and min housing units.
1
For public amenity:
Lee: stakeholder request
Barksdale: staff rec
Robertson: stakeholder request
Zahn: staff
Nieuwenhuis: stakeholder
Robinson: staff
Stokes: staff
1
For affordable housing fee-in-iieu:
Mayor Robinson suggests a "deed in lieu" program, allowing developers to deed a portion of their land to a nonprofit, who would then build the affordable housing. She intends this to supplement staff's recommendation.
2
Staff says it's an interesting concept, but it would need more study and calibration. It could, for example, be explored as part of a development agreement, but for right now info seems scarce.
1
Seems nearly all CMs are unifying around staff's recommendation in addition for a deed-in-lieu option in a DA. CM Lee again expressing concerns on if a deed-in-lieu option would pencil out economically for a developer. He supports the stakeholder rec.
1
On floorplate size & setback, nearly all CMs are actually supportive of the stakeholder's request. CM Stokes expresses concerns about the lack of air and light to the street that would be provided by such buildings but is open to learning more.
1
Motion to direct staff to draft the LUCA to be given to Council for approval at a later meeting passes unanimously. Moving onto the final item for tonight, which Mayor Robinson notes should mainly be procedural - the LUCA on removing the limit on nonrelated people in a unit.
1