AN ORDINANCE, relating to land use and zoning, amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to reflect changes to the University Community Urban Center goals and policies, as well as the Future Land Use Map, as part of the periodic review and to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2014-2015 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process.
Agenda Item nine Council Bill 118470. Relating to land used in zoning. Amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to reflect changes to the university community, urban center goals and policies, as well as the future land use map as part of the Periodic Review and to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2014 2015 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment Process. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. And there's a divided report on this legislation. So we'll begin with the majority report. Council member O'BRIEN Thank you. So the probably clearest way for folks to track this is to look at the attachment attachment one amendment to the future land use map. And that should give you an overview with the little bubbles that explain all the different changes in the map, where the changes are being proposed in the legislation as it came out of committee . This series of changes is all in anticipation of a neighborhood rezone that we're anticipate receiving from Department of Planning and Development sometime in 2016. It's something that's been discussed for a number of years. For a while, it was anticipated in 2015, but we expect to get that next year. And these are the future land use map changes that would accommodate the range of changes that will be be proposed in that in that rezone. Normally, we might take these concurrently. We know we traditionally do the comprehensive plan changes in March, but because next year we're doing comprehensive plan changes as part of Seattle 2035, and there's going to be a longer process. I anticipate that those changes won't come until much later in the year. And if we don't do these now, that would inhibit our ability to do the university rezone until after that was done, which likely would be too late in the year. Specifically in committee, there are a couple of differences. All that Councilmember Lucado speak to his alternative, but there are a couple of changes that we heard some concerns about. We discussed those. And Councilmember Burgess and I felt felt strongly that the proposal from DPD was solid. Thank you, Councilmember Licata. I will be voting against this legislation because I well, I do recognize that there was a lot of participation by community members as well as our staff over a period of a one or one or two years. Nevertheless, there was a great deal of opposition still remaining in that neighborhood from the community council and particularly from folks in the residential areas that were included in the areas that are proposed for changes. The there was some compromises made in reducing the area. However, people living in that community felt that it did not go far enough. And they're concerned that the nature of the university district will dramatically change, particularly since this will open the door for increased uptake of zoning and therefore probably what they call the towers that will change the. I think the quality and I think the quality of living as far as casting large shadows, increasing of traffic and make it more difficult to provide even more open space in an area that does not have that much open space. They had asked that more time be used to take a look at those concerns. They felt that in particular the community council was not involved enough and that they are concerned about the University Community Urban Center potentially being impacted. So there'd be an increase in displaced residents from the existing available affordable housing as it was torn down for new development and without a plan to see how those individuals would be housed in the future so they could still have access to university without having to move further and further away and therefore contributing to the overall congestion in the university district. That is, plan should at this time be on hold. So I support their efforts on that. Thank you. Any other comments or questions, Councilmember Rasmussen? Thank you. I would like to hear from the majority of the committee how their response to the concerns that Councilmember Lakota raised about what I would describe as loss of neighborhood character, displacement of affordable housing, and what we see now, if you go to the university district, an incredible homogenization of what is a very eclectic community, both with regard to the type of housing income levels who are able to live there are in cultural organizations, longstanding community organizations as well. So this is what I think Councilmember Lakota, you've expressed concern about. And if that is true, then how how can we prevent those risks and those losses from occurring if this legislation goes forward? Is this the last opportunity to prevent those kind of losses? But anyway, I would love to hear from the majority their response to Councilmember Carter's concerns. Councilmember O'BRIEN So the I think a lot of the concerns that Councilmember Alucarda raised. Are probably more directed towards what will likely be part of a discussion around the actual reason for the university district. The you know, if you look at the map on attachment one, the specific changes we're making on this amendment to the comprehensive plan are relatively modest. There were some concerns about in some of the pockets of the neighborhoods where they would be. There's nothing specifically about these amendments that I mean, even without these amendments, there's lots of areas that could be considered for zones and towers throughout throughout the university district. But where and how we do that will be determined in that process, which is to come in 2016. I can speak specifically to, you know, within the urban village there is no single family zoning. It's all multifamily and commercial. There's a couple tiny pockets where we've expanded the urban village. One is around a church that wants to be able to add more ADA accessible accessibility from a parking lot. But they're not allowed to do that because it's in a single family zone. I didn't hear any opposition to that change. There's also a small piece of single family that's going to be incorporated now along Ravenna, and it's going to be turned into commercial mixed use. Again, I had I didn't hear any I don't recall hearing specific concerns about that. There were some folks that wanted to see some area taken out of the urban village. And we took a little bit out and they asked to take more out. And there's an area that is where there currently is a tower that's currently zoned multi-family residential. And the map would allow that to be multi-family, residential or commercial mixed use like an some Seattle mixed zone. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Student Bagshaw. Hi. Gordon. I harrow. I. Licata. No. O'Brien. I. Okamoto. I. Rasmussen. No. And President Burgess high seven in favor to oppose. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the council? We will reconvene at Councilmember O'Brien. What time? Three, ten, three, ten, 3:10. As the Select Committee on Affordable Housing, the council is adjourned.