AN ORDINANCE, relating to land use and zoning, amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to reflect changes needed as part of the periodic review and to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2014-2015 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process and amending Section 23.52.004 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Agenda Item eight Council Bill 118469. Relating to land used in zoning amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to reflect changes needed as part of the Periodic Review and incorporate incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2014 2015 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment Process and amending Section 23.52.004 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill passes amended. Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien. So this particular amendment is the more we do traditionally the traditional component of the comprehensive plan amendment on an annual basis. There are a number of changes throughout the city. This includes what we heard testimony on about changing the land use map, the zoning around the Church of the Nazarene in West Seattle. But there's a whole host of other changes that have been through committee. I would like to amend this by adding some language around establishing growth estimates in urban villages. I discussed this at briefing, but I'd like to go ahead and read. In my amendment. They would add a Section four which reads The council requests that the Department of Planning and Development or its successor department develop a proposal for Council consideration in 2016 that allocates a share of estimated residential and employment growth outside of urban centers to urban villages. The Council further requests that the alternative include policies or a narrative description of a work program to monitor how growth in urban centers and villages will be tracked in relation to existing and planned infrastructure. Second rate. And so, as I mentioned, under the CPA ordinance and these amendments this year, we will no longer have growth targets anywhere . We will have growth estimates in urban centers, but not in the villages. And what this amendment does is ask DPD to come back to City Council in 2016 with a proposal on how to include growth estimates broken down by urban village. Questions or comments? Councilmember Rasmussen. You're asking for questions relating to the entire bill. On this amendment first place. Councilmember Okamoto. The the latter part of the amendment speaks to. How. A work program to monitor how growth in urban centers and villages will be tracked in relationship to existing and planned infrastructure. Can you speak a bit more what planned infrastructure, what that refers to? I mean, it's intended to be broad. It would include things like transportation, parks, an open space, emergency services, fire stations, all the types of infrastructure utilities. And this puts it back on the department and the executive to come back with a plan as as the city grows that we're tracking the infrastructure investments concurrently you. Other questions or comments all in favor of Councilmember O'Brien's amendment. Vote I. I oppose Vote No. The amendment is unanimously adopted. Any questions or comments about the legislation? Councilmember Rasmussen. Thank you. I just need a clarification from Councilmember O'Brien, if you could help with that. With regard to the Murgon Junction heard the Church of the Nazarene minister speak about that and I'm familiar with the church and the wonderful work that it does. But can you explain that text? Is it the one that says except where as part of a development proposal, a long standing neighborhood institution is maintained? Well, how does that. Relate to the church in its proposals. Is that? Is that the one that I think the minister is if you have a question about that, is if you look if you're on online, if you look under attachment one, be current and propose future land use map Morgan Junction Residential Urban Village that will pull up a map and show an area of the future land use map where we're going to make the. Make the changes to include that property in a multi-family residential area instead of a single family residential area. Do you see that? I see the math. Right. That's where the hash marks. Correct. So you're proposing that it be it go from single family to multifamily in that neighborhood or right around that parcel? Yes, that's accurate. Again, this is this is the future land use map. It's not the actual zoning change, but this is a prerequisite. Right. Happens. And then the church is supportive of that. For what reason? I have heard repeatedly over the past year from both church and community members, frankly, an amazing outpouring for what is a relatively modest change. I believe it's going to allow the church to redevelop their parcel with some housing units, which will provide the financing to amount, allow them to stabilize the church and open space that has been used as a community park for a number of years to do that on into the future. I'm seeing nods, so I think I got it roughly correct. Thank you. Any other questions? Please call the role on the passage of the amended legislation. Sir want bagshot Gordon Harrell, I Licata II O'Brien. Okamoto, I. Rasmussen and President Burgess nine in favor nine opposed the. Bill passes and the chair will sign it. But before we do item nine, I want to alert folks that the Select Committee on Housing Affordability will meet approximately 5 minutes after the council meeting is over. Please read item nine.