Speaker 6: The Report of the Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee Agenda Item 11 Council Bill 118407 relating to land use, zoning and environmental policy.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 9: Thank you. This is what we refer to as the omnibus bill. It comes through the land use committee. Every year, 18 months or so. It's a multiple page document that has a series of clean up pieces of legislation that staff basically accumulates over the course of a year or so. We've had a chance to review this legislation in committee over three different meetings and took public comment on this. At this point, there are three amendments that are on the agenda today to consider. And I want to talk through those in order just to clarify for folks. This omnibus bill is legislation that amends the current law. All three amendments we're talking about today are going to amend the omnibus bill by removing a portion. So these amendments would make the current law stay exactly as it is today. So it's a little confusing because we're amending a bill that amends it to undo it. So the First Amendment, I would like to put forward amendment number one, which I would move and ask for a second. This amendment relates to Wallingford design guidelines. So the omnibus legislation makes changes to the map where Wallingford design design guidelines apply. The Wallingford community had concerns about these changes and had not had a chance to be briefed on it. They raised those concerns in committee. At committee. We asked for an amendment. It wasn't prepared at the last committee meeting, so they brought that after discussion of committee. They brought that amendment to us today. This amendment would remove those map changes so the underlying existing current law would continue to apply. That would give the community time to hear why DPD would like to change that, and those could be considered at a future piece of legislation. I would go ahead and ask for a vote or questions on amendment number one, I guess.
Speaker 0: Questions or comments on the First Amendment. All in favor of approving amendment number one on the Wallingford design guidelines. Vote I. I oppose vote no. The amendment is adopted. Councilmember Harold, do you want to address amendment number two?
Speaker 4: Oh, I will. Amendment number two basically asked that Section eight of the omnibus legislation be removed, which would have been consistent then with what the department actually submitted for approval to the committee. Let me give a little background. If you look at the central staff's preparation of the committee discussions, they make it very clear what the purpose of an omnibus bill is. I'll just read from both memos, General. Generally, the omnibus bill corrects typographical errors, corrects cross-references, clarifies existing regulations, and makes other minor amendments identified by DPD in the course of code administration. The Omnibus Omnibus bill is not intended to be a vehicle for addressing significant policy issues. So I think Councilmember Brian and the committee that approved Section eight had some good intentions in mind about how we protect neighborhoods from developers circumventing the system, using what can be called loopholes and that kind of thing. And certainly we are now having discussions where we want to prohibit, discourage and not have that kind of activity. What we do know, though, is in 2016, the HALA Committee will look at design review and the HALA Committee will recommend that the program be streamlined, streamlined to facilitate quicker review. And so, in essence, what I'm asking for is a striking of Section eight, which basically modifies the design review process. I think it's very appropriate had that discussion and Hala actually looks at through the design review process, we may you, I think, fully understand that we will be asking developers, we're going to look for opportunities to streamline the design review process in certain circumstances. So basically what I am suggesting is that we remove this and be consistent with what DPD originally planned. Make sure that in the HALA process that we look closely at the design review process and then make sure we come up with our policy recommendations. And again, I started this by saying the purpose of an omnibus bill are pretty much typographical errors and technical clean ups. And I think we have to have more conversation when we start looking at the design review process. So I think a striking section in it would be appropriate.
Speaker 0: Do you want to move your amendment?
Speaker 4: So I move my amendment with strikes, section eight. And I asked Councilmember Brown what he gave me, a courtesy second.
Speaker 9: Courtesy second.
Speaker 4: And I'll say everything I just said all over again. So what this basically does is.
Speaker 0: We're not going to allow that.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. We have proposed amendment number two design review in front of us. Councilmember Bagshaw, I.
Speaker 2: Think you have a question actually. This is going to be addressed to the two of you. And help me understand this. My goal is to make sure that neighborhoods have the opportunity to weigh in when we've got development proposed that are on lots that are close. And I agree with what Councilmember Harrell was saying about having a full review, and I'm all in on that. But my understanding of what Councilmember O'Brien is suggesting is that in the interim, that if develop if there's development planned on two adjoining lots, that Councilmember O'Brien's amendment would require design review in the neighborhood before both are given authority to proceed. That's the direction that I want to vote. So I'd like some clarification between the two of you.
Speaker 4: I think your understanding is correct. I mean, it's nothing else. I think you have a correct understanding. You know, when I use the term design review, a full design review is about 18 to 20 month and administrative review is 13 or 14. And the streamline reviews 8 to 9 months. And the OHA is going to look at all the review process and come up with strong recommendations. But you are correct that Councilmember Bryant's amendment addresses the situation you talked about.
Speaker 0: That's a member.
Speaker 9: O'BRIEN And so thank you, Councilmember Harrell, for bringing this forward. This amendment is an amendment that the committee put in and added to the bill. It wasn't a deputy's request. I think there's always a fair question to ask of what's appropriate for an omnibus bill or not. My intent in bringing this amendment forward, not the amendment we're discussing today, but the one that was already in the bill that's before us was to really honor the intent of the Council in regards to design review and what size projects should be going through that. Councilmember Harrell is correct in saying that there is an ongoing review of the design review process which will likely see recommendations later this year and legislation sometime in 2016. To Councilmember based on his point, my intent with the legislation is it is is that it would go ahead and bring these changes to date recognizing that sometime next year we may modify that when we consider the broader design review package. One just correction. I believe, Councilmember Harrell, that next year this will be taken up probably in the land use committee, not the whole committee. The whole committee will delegate that to the land use committee next year.
Speaker 0: Any other questions or comments. So we're voting on amendment number two related to design review, which deletes section 23.40 1.00, four point a eight and all in.
Speaker 9: Sorry.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think. I think it's good to discuss this.
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry.
Speaker 9: If I could just clarify one thing, Councilmember Gunn. So I will be voting no on this amendment and Councilmember Harrell's amendment to leave the legislation as it was previously amended in committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gordon.
Speaker 8: I was just going to repeat that, that I would also be voting. You know, it does seem to me that it requires more discussion. It seems to take away a portion of design review. It makes it more difficult for neighborhoods. And I think that this that I would like to vote no on this one.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions?
Speaker 4: Councilmember Harrell Yeah, I want to make it crystal clear to that. I think it does warrant more discussion and that's why I am supporting it. And I had a note from central staff that that the holler would be making some rec and a recommendation to pretty much streamline some design review process. I think we all want to protect neighborhoods. I don't think there's any debate, a debate about that. We want to make sure that it's done thoughtful at a time where we're going to try to increase housing. So, again, I don't think it should be put in an omnibus bill. That's really the point. I'm not going to defend the pros and cons of the merits of this legislation. I just think it's a little dangerous to sort of do a one off during an omnibus omnibus legislation. I think that's that's the only point I wanted to make.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments or questions? All right. So this is amendment number two to delete Section eight of 23.40 1.00488. All in favor of the amendment vote. I.
Speaker 4: I. I. I. I.
Speaker 0: Nice try. All opposed vote.
Speaker 4: No, no.
Speaker 0: Sorry Bruce.
Speaker 4: Seven eight. I didn't I didn't complete.
Speaker 0: One in favor. Seven opposed. The amendment fails.
Speaker 2: There's two in.
Speaker 9: There. Were there. John was also.
Speaker 0: Oh I'm sorry. Two. Okay. Two in favor, six opposed, same result. All right, amendment number three, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 9: Thank you. So I will go ahead and move. Amendment number three, relating to citation option. The citation option for noise variance. If I could get a second.
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 9: All right. So this is an amendment that we did not discuss in committee. So I want to just take a second to explain it in the omnibus legislation as proposed by DPD. Let me say first, the current law for a noise ordinance violation on a construction project gives the APD. The only option is to issue a stop work order. The legislation, as proposed by DPD would allow a separate path where they could also issue a citation. The reason I'm proposing this amendment is concern was raised in public comment over this, and I neglected to actually have a chance to discuss that in the committee. And so, without further discussion, my recommendation at this point would go ahead and remove that language. The DPD had proposed to leave the underlying current law, as is, until there's an opportunity to future time to fully discuss that.
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use, zoning, and environmental policy; amending Sections 3.58.070, 3.58.090, 23.22.024, 23.24.020, 23.28.030, 23.34.009, 23.40.060, 23.41.004, 23.41.008, 23.41.010, 23.41.012, 23.42.038, 23.44.010, 23.44.014, 23.44.041, 23.44.051, 23.45.504, 23.45.508, 23.45.510, 23.45.512, 23.45.518, 23.45.526, 23.45.529, 23.45.532, 23.45.536, 23.45.570, 23.46.002, 23.47A.004, 23.47A.012, 23.47A.013, 23.47A.014, 23.47A.016, 23.47A.032, 23.47A.039, 23.48.010, 23.49.008, 23.49.010, 23.49.012, 23.49.013, 23.49.041, 23.49.178, 23.49.242, Map 1I in Chapter 23.49, 23.50.020, 23.53.006, 23.53.015, 23.54.015, 23.54.025, 23.54.030, 23.58A.044, 23.66­.020, 23.67.060, 23.75.140, 23.75.180, 23.76.006, 23.76.012, 23.76.026, 23.76.032, 23.84A.002, 23.84A.008, 23.84A.012, 23.84A.032, 23.84A.038, 23.86.006, 23.86.010, 23.86.012, 23.86.016, 23.88.020, 25.05.164, 25.05.508, 25.05.510, 25.05.610, 25.05.756, 25.05.800, 25.05.920, 25.05.960, 25.06.030, 25.06.050, 25.08.425, 25.08.590, and 25.08.655, and repealing Section 23.40.050 of the Seattle Municipal Code, to correct typographical erro