AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; adding a new Section 23.71.001, repealing Chapter 23.12, and amending Sections 23.20.008, 23.24.040, 23.34.008, 23.34.072, 23.34.090, 23.34.124, 23.40.020, 23.44.036, 23.47.006, 23.47.007, 23.49.036, 23.49.037, 23.50.015, 23.54.020, 23.54.030, 23.60.060, 23.60.220, 23.67.040, 23.69.002, 23.69.006, 23.69.024, 23.69.030, 23.69.032, 23.69.035, 23.69.036, 23.76.023, 23.76.036, 23.76.050, and 23.79.008 of the Seattle Municipal Code, regarding City Land Use Policies.

WHEREAS, the City of Seattle adopted various land use policies before the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1994; and

WHEREAS, the Council has determined that those policies, contained in SMC 23.12, should be integrated with the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations to avoid multiple policy documents, and to implement the Growth Management Act as interpreted by the Growth Management Hearings Board; and

WHEREAS, Council Resolution 30156 directed preparation of legislation to achieve the desired integration;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. A new Section 23.71.001 is hereby added to the Seattle Municipal Code as follows:

23.71.001 Northgate Comprehensive Plan

Within the boundaries shown on 23.71.004 Map A, the following policies and implementation guidelines from the Northgate Area Comprehensive Plan (1993) shall be considered as appropriate, whenever the Land Use Code or other City code or policies require such consideration. Appropriate policies also shall be considered by the Director in promulgating rules, in issuing interpretations related to the Land Use Code and in recommending changes to the Land Use Code. Some policies are included to describe the basis for existing development regulations and zoning.

A. Policy 2: Implementation Guideline 2.1: Rezones

B. Policy 3: Implementation Guideline 3.2: Commercial-only structures in R/C multifamily zones

C. Policy 4: Implementation Guideline 4.1: Density limits for residential only and mixed use in commercial zones

D. Implementation Guideline 4.4: Create a new Midrise zone with an eighty-five (85) foot eight limit

E. Policy 5: Implementation Guideline 5.1: Setbacks and bulk provisions for lots abutting zone edges

F. Policy 6: Implementation Guideline 6.2: Transportation Management Association Implementation Guideline 6.3: Bicycle facilities

G. Policy 7: Implementation Guideline 7.3: Encourage transit access

H. Policy 8: Implementation Guideline 8.1: Pedestrian circulation system

I. Implementation Guideline 8.2: Designate pedestrian streets

J. Implementation Guideline 8.4: Develop Green Streets

K. Policy 9: Implementation Guideline 9.2: Permit certain exceptions to parking requirements

L. Implementation Guideline 9.3: Control the amount of surface parking

M. Policy 12: Implementation Guideline 12.5: Open Space Fund

N. Implementation Guideline 12.6: Priorities for open space

Section 2. Chapter 23.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code is repealed in its entirety.

Section 3. Section 23.20.008 of the Seattle Municipal Code, as last amended by Ordinance 116262, is amended as follows:

23.20.008 Compliance with state law and Land Use Code.

Every division of land shall comply with the provisions of RCW Chapter 58.17 and the provisions of this subtitle. They shall conform to the Land Use Policies, Subtitle II, and Environmentally Critical Areas Policies , and all land use regulations, Subtitle IV, and SMC Chapter 25.09, Regulations for Environmentally Critical Areas, in effect as provided by SMC 23.76.026 at the time any preliminary plat is approved. Lots shall be of a size and dimension and have access adequate to satisfy the requirements of Subtitle IV of this title.

Section 4. Subsection A of Section 23.24.040 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 119791, is amended as follows:

23.24.040 Criteria for approval.

A. The Director shall, after conferring with appropriate officials, use the following criteria to determine whether to grant, condition or deny a short plat:

1. Conformance to the applicable Land Use Policies and Land Use Code provisions;

2. Adequacy of access for vehicles, utilities and fire protection as provided in Section 23.53.005;

3. Adequacy of drainage, water supply and sanitary sewage disposal;

4. Whether the public use and interests are served by permitting the proposed division of land;

5. Conformance to the applicable provisions of SMC Section 25.09.240, Short subdivisions and subdivisions, in environmentally critical areas;

6. Is designed to maximize the retention of existing trees;

7. Conformance to the provisions of Section 23.24.045, Unit lot subdivisions, when the short subdivision is for the purpose of creating separate lots of record for the construction and/or transfer of title of townhouses, cottage housing, clustered housing, or single-family housing.

* * *

Section 5. Subsection J of Section 23.34.008 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 118408, is repealed as follows:

23.34.008 General rezone criteria.

* * *

J. Land Use Policies. Land use policies contained or referenced in Chapter 23.12 that are applicable to the area shall be considered.))

Section 6. Subsection C of Section 23.34.072 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 117430, is amended as follows:

23.34.072 Designation of commercial zones.

* * *

C. Preferred configuration of commercial zones shall not conflict with the preferred configuration and edge protection of residential zones as established in the Single Family Policies in Sections 23.34.010 and 23.34.011, of the Seattle Municipal Code.

* * *

Section 7. Subsection F of Section 23.34.090 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 117430, is amended as follows:

23.34.090 Designation of industrial zones.

* * *

F. In determining appropriate boundaries with residentially and commercially zoned land, the adopted residential and commercial policies appropriate location and rezone criteria shall be considered.

* * *

Section 8. Subsections B and D of Section 23.34.124 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 117929, are amended as follows:

23.34.124 Designation of Major Institution Overlay (MIO) districts.

A. Public Purpose. The applicant shall submit a statement which documents the reasons the rezone is being requested, including a discussion of the public benefits resulting from the proposed expansion, the way in which the proposed expansion will serve the public purpose mission of the major institution, and the extent to which the proposed expansion may affect the livability of the surrounding neighborhood. Review and comment on the statement shall be requested from the appropriate Advisory Committee as well as relevant state and local regulatory and advisory groups. In considering rezones, the objective shall be to achieve a better relationship between residential or commercial uses and the Major Institution uses, and to reduce or eliminate major land use conflicts in the area.

B. Boundaries Criteria. The following criteria shall be used in the selection of appropriate boundaries for: 1) new Major Institution Overlay districts; 2) additions to existing MIO districts; and 3) modifications to boundaries of existing MIO districts.

1. Establishment or modification of boundaries shall take account of the holding capacity of the existing campus and the potential for new development with and without a boundary expansion.

2. Boundaries for an MIO district shall correspond with the main, contiguous major institution campus. Properties separated by only a street, alley or other public right-of-way shall be considered contiguous.

3. Boundaries shall provide for contiguous areas which are as compact as possible within the constraints of existing development and property ownership.

4. Appropriate provisions of this Chapter The land use policies for the underlying zoning and the surrounding areas shall be considered in the determination of boundaries.

5. Preferred locations for boundaries shall be streets, alleys or other public rights-of-way. Configuration of platted lot lines, size of parcels, block orientation and street layout shall also be considered.

6. Selection of boundaries should emphasize physical features that create natural edges such as topographic changes, shorelines, freeways, arterials, changes in street layout and block orientatio0n, and large public facilities, land areas or open spaces, or greenspaces.

7. New or expanded boundaries shall not be permitted where they would result in the demolition of structures with residential uses or change of use of those structures to non-residential000 major institution uses unless comparable replacement is proposed to maintain the housing stock of the city.

8. Expansion of boundaries generally shall not be justified by the need for development of professional office uses.

9. The establishment or expansion of boundaries shall be in conformance with the provisions of Section 23.69.024, Major Institution Designation.

* * *

D. In addition to the general rezone criteria contained in Section 23.34.008, the following factors shall also be considered

1. Proposed and potential development for the entire campus in relation to the policies contained in Section 23.12.120, Policy 5; and

2. The comments of the Major Institution Master Plan Advisory Committee for the major institution requesting the rezone shall also be considered.

Section 9. Subsection C of Section 23.40.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 118727, is amended as follows:

23.40.020 Variances.

* * *

C. Variances from the provisions or requirements of this Land Use Code shall be authorized when all the facts and conditions listed below are found to exist:

1. Because of unusual conditions applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which were not created by the owner or applicant, the strict application of this Land Use Code would deprive the property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone or vicinity; and

2. The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located; and

3. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or vicinity in which the subject property is located; and

4. The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of this Land Use Code would cause undue hardship or practical difficulties; and

5. The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of the Land Use Code regulations for the area and adopted Land Use Policies or Comprehensive Plan, as applicable.

* * *

Section 10. Subsection D of Section 23.44.036 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 118672, is amended as follows:

23.44.036 Public facilities.

* * *

D. Sewage Treatment Plants. The expansion or reconfiguration (which term shall include reconstruction, redevelopment, relocation on the site, or intensification of treatment capacity) of existing sewage treatment plants in single-family zones may be permitted if there is no feasible alternative location in a zone where the use is permitted and the conditions imposed under subsections D3 and D4 are met.

1. Applicable Procedures. The decision on an application for the expansion or reconfiguration of a sewage treatment plant shall be a Type IV Council land use decision. If an application for an early determination of feasibility is required to be filed pursuant to subsection D2 of this section, the early determination of feasibility will also be a Council land use decision subject to Sections 23.76.038 through 23.76.056.

2. Need for Feasible Alternative Determination. The proponent shall demonstrate that there is no feasible alternative location in a zone where establishment of the use is permitted.

a. The Council's decision as to the feasibility of alternative location(s) shall be based upon the single-family policies and a full consideration of the environmental, social and economic impacts on the community, and the intent to preserve and to protect the physical character of single family areas, and to protect single family areas from intrusions of non-single family uses.

b. The determination of feasibility may be the subject of a separate application for a Council land use decision prior to submission of an application for a project-specific approval if the Director determines that the expansion or reconfiguration proposal is complex, involves the phasing of programmatic and projectspecific decisions or affects more than one site in a single-family zone.

c. Application for an early determination of feasibility shall include:

(1) The scope and intent of the proposed project in the singlefamily zone and appropriate alternative(s) in zones where establishment of the use is permitted, identified by the applicant or the Director;

(2) The necessary environmental documentation as determined by the Director, including an assessment of the impacts of the proposed project and of the permitted-zone alternative(s), according to the state and local SEPA guidelines;

(3) Information on the overall sewage treatment system which outlines the interrelationship of facilities in single-family zones and in zones where establishment of the use is permitted;

(4) Schematic plans outlining dimensions, elevations, locations on site and similar specifications for the proposed project and for the alternative(s).

d. If a proposal or any portion of a proposal is also subject to a feasible or reasonable alternative location determination under Section 23.60.066 of Title 23, the Plan Shoreline Permit application and the early determination application will be considered in one determination process.

3. Conditions for Approval of Proposal.

a. The project shall be located so that adverse impacts on residential areas shall be minimized;

b. The expansion of a facility shall not result in a concentration of institutions or facilities which would create or appreciably aggravate impacts that are incompatible with single family residences;

bc. A facility management and transportation plan shall be required. The level and kind of detail to be disclosed in the plan shall be based on the probable impacts and/or scale of the proposed facility, and shall at a minimum include discussion of sludge transportation, noise control, and hours of operation. Increased traffic and parking expected to occur with use of the facility shall not create a serious safety problem or a blighting influence on the neighborhood.;

cd. Measures to minimize potential odor emission and airborne pollutants including methane shall meet standards of and be consistent with best available technology as determined in consultation with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA), and shall be incorporated into the design and operation of the facility;

de. Methods of storing and transporting chlorine and other hazardous and potentially hazardous chemicals shall be determined in consultation with the Seattle Fire Department and incorporated into the design and operation of the facility;

ef. Vehicular access suitable for trucks is available or provided from the plant to a designated arterial improved to City standards;

fg. The bulk of facilities shall be compatible with the surrounding community. Public facilities that do not meet bulk requirements may be located in Single Family Residential Areas if there is a public necessity for their location there;

h. Landscaping and screening, separation from less intensive zones, noise, light and glare controls, and other measures to ensure the compatibility of the use with the surrounding area and to mitigate adverse impacts shall be incorporated into the design and operation of the facility;

i. Residential structures, including those modified for nonresidential use, shall not be demolished for facility expansion unless a need has been demonstrated for the services of the institution or facility in the surrounding community.

4. Substantial Conformance. If the application for a projectspecific proposal is submitted after an early determination that location of the sewage treatment plant is not feasible in a zone where establishment of the use is permitted, the proposed project must be in substantial conformance with the feasibility determination.

Substantial conformance shall include, but not be limited to, a determination that:

a. There is no net substantial increase in the environmental impacts of the project-specific proposal as compared to the impacts of the proposal as approved in the feasibility determination.

b. Conditions included in the feasibility determination are met.

* * *

Section 11. Subsection C of Section 23.47.006 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 120374, is amended as follows:

23.47.006 Conditional uses.

* * *

C. The following uses, identified as Council Conditional Uses on Chart A of Section 23.47.004, may be permitted by the Council when the provisions of this subsection and subsection A of this section are met.

1. New bus bases for one hundred and fifty (150) or fewer buses, or existing bus bases which are proposed to be expanded to accommodate additional buses, in C1 or C2 zones.

a. Conditional Use Criteria.

(1) The bus base has vehicular access suitable for use by buses to a designated arterial improved to City standards; and

(2) The lot is of sufficient size so that the bus base includes adequate buffer space from the surrounding area.

b. Mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to:

(1) Noise mitigation measures, such as keeping maintenance building doors closed except when buses are entering or exiting; acoustic barriers; and noise-reducing operating procedures, shall be required when necessary.

(2) An employee ridesharing program established and promoted to reduce the impact of employee vehicles on streets in the vicinity of the bus base.

(3) Landscaping and screening, noise and odor mitigation, vehicular access controls, and other measures may be required to insure the compatibility of the bus base with the surrounding area and to mitigate any adverse impacts.

2. Helistops in NC3, C1 and C2 zones as accessory uses, according to the following standards and criteria:

a. The helistop is to be used for the takeoff and landing of helicopters serving public safety, news gathering or emergency medical care functions; is part of a City and regional transportation plan approved by the City Council and is a public facility; or is part of a City and regional transportation plan approved by the City Council and is not within two thousand (2,000) feet of a residential zone.

b. The helistop is located so as to minimize impacts on surrounding areas.

c. The lot is of sufficient size that the operations of the helistop are buffered from the surrounding area.

d. Open areas and landing pads are hard-surfaced.

e. The helistop meets all federal requirements, including those for safety, glide angles and approach lanes.

3. Work-Release Centers in all Commercial Zones -Conditional Use Criteria.

a. Maximum Number of Residents. No work-release center shall house more than fifty (50) persons, excluding resident staff.

b. If the work-release center is in a single-purpose residential structure, the requirements of Section 23.47.023 shall be followed. If the work-release center is in a mixed-use structure, the requirements for mixed-use structures in Chapter 23.47 shall be followed.

c. Dispersion Criteria.

(1) The lot line of any new or expanding work-release center shall be located six hundred (600) feet or more from any residential zone, any lot line of any special residence, and any lot line of any school.

(2) The lot line of any new or expanding work-release center shall be located one (1) mile or more from any lot line of any other work-release center.

(3) The Director shall determine whether a proposed facility meets the dispersion criteria from maps which shall note the location of current work-release centers and special residences. Any person who disputes the accuracy of the maps may furnish the Director with the new information and, if determined by the Director to be accurate, this information shall be used in processing the application.

d. The Council's decision shall be based on the Commercial Areas Policies and the following criteria:

(1) The extent to which the applicant can demonstrate the need for the new or expanding facility in the City, including a statement describing the public interest in establishing or expanding the facility;

(2) The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated that the facility can be made secure. The applicant shall submit a proposed security plan to the Director, and the Director, in consultation with the Seattle Police Department, shall consider and evaluate the plan. The security plan shall address, but is not limited to, the following:

i. Plans to monitor and control the activities of residents, including methods to verify the presence of residents at jobs or training programs, policies on sign-outs for time periods consistent with the stated purpose of the absence for unescorted trips by residents away from the center, methods of checking the records of persons sponsoring outings for work-release residents, and policies on penalties for drug or alcohol use by residents, and

ii. Staff numbers, level of responsibilities, and scheduling, and

iii. Compliance with the security standards of the American Corrections Association;

(3) The extent to which proposed lighting is located so as to minimize spillover light on surrounding properties while maintaining appropriate intensity and hours of use to ensure that security is maintained;

(4) The extent to which the facility's landscape plan meets the requirements of the zone while allowing visual supervision of the residents of the facility;

(5) The extent to which appropriate measures are taken to minimize noise impacts on surrounding properties. Measures to be used for this purpose may include: landscaping, sound barriers or fences, berms, location of refuse storage areas, and limiting the hours of use of certain areas;

(6) The extent to which the impacts of traffic and parking are mitigated by increasing on-site parking or loading spaces to reduce over-flow vehicles or changing the access to and location of offstreet parking;

(7) The extent to which the facility is well-served by public transportation or to which the facility is committed to a program of encouraging the use of public or private mass transportation;

(8) Verification from the Department of Corrections (DOC), which shall be reviewed by the Police Department, that the proposed workrelease center meets DOC standards for such facilities and that the facility will meet state laws and requirements.

* * *

Section 12. Subsection A of Section 23.47.007 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 117598, is amended as follows:

23.47.007 Major Phased Developments.

A. An applicant may seek approval of a Major Phased Development, as defined in Section 23.84.025. A Major Phased Development proposal is subject to the provisions of the zone in which it is located and shall meet the following thresholds:

1. A minimum site size of five (5) acres, where the site is composed of contiguous parcels or contains a right-of-way within.

2. The project, which at time of application shall be a single, functionally interrelated campus, contains more than one building, with a minimum total gross floor area of two hundred thousand (200,000) square feet.

3. The first phase of the development consists of at least one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet in gross building floor area.

4. At the time of application, the project is consistent with the general character of development anticipated by Land Use Code regulations. supports the land use policies for the zone in which it is proposed.))

* * *

Section 13. Subsection E of Section 23.49.036 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 119484, is amended as follows:

23.49.036 Planned community developments (PCDs).

* * *

E. Evaluation of PCDs. A proposed PCD shall be evaluated on the basis of public benefits provided, possible impacts of the project, and consistency with the standards contained in this subsection.

1. Public Benefits. A proposed PCD shall provide one (1) or more of the following elements: housing, low-income housing, services, employment, increased public revenue, strengthening of neighborhood character, improvements in pedestrian circulation or urban form, and/or other elements which further an adopted City policy and provide a demonstrable public benefit.

2. Potential Impacts. The potential impacts of a proposed PCD shall be evaluated, including, but not necessarily limited to, the impacts on housing, particularly low-income housing, transportation systems, parking, energy, and public services, as well as environmental factors such as noise, air, light, glare, and water quality.

3. The proposed PCD shall be reviewed for consistency with the Land Use Policies, contained in Chapter 23.12, for other compatibility with areas adjacent to Downtown which could be affected by the PCD.

4. When the proposed PCD is located in the Pioneer Square Preservation District or International District Special Review District, the Board of the District(s) in which the PCD is located shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Department of Neighborhoods Director who shall make a recommendation to the Director prior to the Director's recommendation to the Council on the PCD.

* * *

Section 14. Subsection B of Section 23.49.037 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 118012, is amended as follows:

23.49.037 Public parks and planned community developments in Downtown Office Core 1.

* * *

B. Review Process.

1. Review Generally. Approval of a PCD is a "Type IV" land use decision pursuant to Chapter 23.76. Approval of a PCD authorized by this section shall be governed by the procedures for such approval prescribed by Chapter 23.76 and by this section. In the event of a conflict between those procedures, the provisions of this section shall prevail. In addition to the fee prescribed by SMC Chapter 22.901E, a person submitting a notice of intent to apply for approval of a PCD shall pay the direct costs for all work required pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of this subsection, including review by the Department of Parks and Recreation.

2. Beginning Review. A person intending to apply for approval of a PCD begins the review process by submitting a notice of intent to apply to the Director. The notice shall be on a form prescribed by the Director and shall include at least the following information:

a. The location of the proposed PCD;

b. A general description of the proposed PCD, including the proposed uses and the number, height, square footage, footprint and configuration of buildings;

c. A general description of the proposed park, including location within the PCD site, access, topography, possible improvements, and relationship to the remainder of the PCD.

When a complete notice of intent to apply has been received by the Director, the Director shall send a copy of the notice to the Superintendent of the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, who shall then initiate the park planning process described below.

3. Initial Park Planning.

a. The Parks Superintendent shall begin a park planning process by soliciting information and opinions from the public regarding a park to be provided with the PCD. Park alternatives are not limited to the park described in the notice of intent to apply. The Parks Superintendent shall hold a public hearing to solicit public comment or proposals. The Parks Superintendent and the Director shall appoint a Citizen's Project Review committee to advise the Superintendent, Director and City Council regarding the proposed park and PCD, particularly in regard to the design of the park and the PCD.

b. The result of the initial park planning process shall be a report which identifies preliminary goals and design objectives for the park, identifies a preferred location for the park on the PCD site, and contains general standards for park improvements and development. The report shall be submitted by the Director to the potential PCD applicant within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date the Parks Superintendent receives the notice of intent to apply.

c. The purpose of the report is to give the potential project applicant guidance regarding the kind of park which the City may require. The report does not require the applicant to propose the park which is described in the report, and it does not restrict the City's decisions about the park as the PCD review process proceeds.

4. Development Guidelines and Project Review. The Director, in consultation with the Superintendent and the Citizen's Project Review Committee, shall establish development guidelines for the PCD and the public park. The guidelines shall be approved by the Director within one hundred fifty (150) days from the date the report described in subsection B3b is received by the Director. The guidelines shall include recommendations regarding the location of buildings on the site, the footprint of buildings, design compatibility between the park and the PCD, and maintenance and liability for the park and improvements. The guidelines shall also include an estimate of the cost of providing the park which is described in the guidelines.

5. PCD Application. Following approval of development guidelines by the Director, the applicant may submit an application for PCD approval to the Director. The application shall be on a form prescribed by the Director.

6. Director's Report, Hearing Examiner Recommendation, and Council Action. The Director, Hearing Examiner and Council shall review and act upon the PCD application as provided for Type IV Council land use decisions in Chapter 23.76.

7. Review Criteria.

a. The PCD shall have a minimum area of fifty-five thousand (55,000) square feet. The total area of a PCD shall be contiguous. The area of any public right-of-way, or public right-of-way vacated less than five (5) years prior to the date of application for the PCD, within or abutting a proposed PCD, shall not be included in the minimum area calculations, nor shall they be considered a break in contiguity.

b. The park shall comprise no less than one-half (1/2) the area of the PCD site.

c. The park land and improvements shall be dedicated to the City.

d. The PCD, including the proposed park, shall be evaluated on the basis of public benefits, adverse impacts, and consistency with the City's Land Use Policies, the general character of development anticipated in DOC 1 by the Land Use Code, the Director's guidelines for the PCD, and other applicable laws and policies.

e. The design of the PCD shall be compatible with the design and function of the park.

8. Exceptions to Development Standards. Development standards of this chapter may be varied or waived through the PCD process, except that the review criteria of subsection B7 and the following standards shall not be varied or waived:

a. Light and glare; b. Noise; c. Odor; d. Minimum sidewalk widths; e. View corridor; f. Nonconforming uses; g. Nonconforming structures, when the nonconformity is one of the standards listed in this subsection; h. Use provisions except for provisions for principal and accessory parking; i. Transfer of development rights regulations; j. Bonus values assigned to public benefit features.

* * *

Section 15. Subsection A of Section 23.50.015 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 117598, is amended as follows:

23.50.015 Major Phased Development.

A. An applicant may seek approval of a Major Phased Development, as defined in Section 23.84.025. A Major Phased Development proposal is subject to the provisions of the zone in which it is located and shall meet the following thresholds:

1. A minimum site size of five (5) acres, where the site is composed of contiguous parcels or contains a right-of-way within;

2. The project, which at time of application shall be a single, functionally interrelated campus, contains more than one building, with a minimum total gross floor area of two hundred thousand (200,000) square feet;

3. The first phase of the development consists of at least one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet in gross building floor area; and

4. At the time of application, the project is consistent with the general character of development anticipated by Land Use Code regulations.supports the land use policies for the zone in which it is proposed.))

* * *

Section 16. Subsection C of Section 23.54.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 120293, is amended as follows:

23.54.020 Parking quantity exceptions.

* * *

C. Parking Exception for Landmark Structures. The Director may reduce or waive the minimum accessory off-street parking requirements for a use permitted in a Landmark structure, or when a Landmark structure is completely converted to residential use according to Sections 23.42.108 or 23.45.006, or for a use in a Landmark district which is located in a commercial zone as a special exception pursuant to Chapter 23.76, Procedures for Master Use Permits and Council Land Use Decisions.

1. In making any such reduction or waiver, the Director shall assess area parking needs. The Director may require a survey of onand off-street parking availability. The Director may take into account the level of transit service in the immediate area; the probably relative importance of walk-in traffic; proposals by the applicant to encourage carpooling or transit use by employees; hours of operation; and any other factor or factors considered relevant in determining parking impact.

2. The Director may also consider the types and scale of uses proposed or practical in the Landmark structure, and the controls imposed by the Landmark designation.

3. For conversion of structures to residential use, the Director shall also determine that there is no feasible way to meet parking requirements on the lot and that the proposal meets the objectives of the Multi-Family Land Use Policies.

* * *

Section 17. Subsection F of Section 23.54.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 119238, is amended as follows:

23.54.030 Parking space standards.

* * *

F. Curbcuts. Curbcut requirements shall be determined by whether the parking served by the curbcut is for residential or nonresidential use, and by the zone in which the use is located. When a curbcut is used for more than one (1) use, the requirements for the use with the largest curbcut requirements shall apply.

1. Residential Uses in Single-family and Multi-family Zones and Single-purpose Residential Uses in All Other Zones.

a. For lots not located on a principal arterial as designated on Exhibit 23.53.015 A, the number of curbcuts permitted shall be according to the following chart:

Street or Easement Frontage of Lot Number of Curbcuts Permitted 0 - 80 feet 1 81 -160 feet 2 161 -240 feet 3 241 -320 feet 4

For lots with frontage in excess of three hundred twenty (320) feet, the pattern established in the chart shall be continued.

b. Curbcuts shall not exceed a maximum width of ten (10) feet except that:

(1) One (1) curbcut greater than ten (10) feet but in no case greater than twenty (20) feet in width may be substituted for each two (2) curbcuts permitted by subsection F1a; and

(2) A greater width may be specifically permitted by the development standards in a zone; and

(3) When subsection D of Section 23.54.030 requires a driveway greater than ten (10) feet in width, the curbcut may be as wide as the required width of the driveway.

c. For lots on principal arterials designated on Exhibit 23.53.015 A, curbcuts of a maximum width of twenty-three (23) feet shall be permitted according to the following chart.

Street Frontage of the Lot Number of Curbcuts Permitted 0 -160 feet 1 161 -320 feet 2 321 -480 feet 3

For lots with street frontage in excess of four hundred eighty (480) feet, the pattern established in the chart shall be continued.

d. There shall be at least thirty (30) feet between any two (2) curbcuts located on a lot.

e. A curbcut may be less than the maximum width permitted but shall be at least as wide as the minimum required width of the driveway it serves.

f. Where two (2) adjoining lots share a common driveway according to the provisions of Section 23.54.030 D1, the combined frontage of the two (2) lots shall be considered one (1) in determining the maximum number of permitted curbcuts.

2. Nonresidential Uses in Single-family and Multifamily Zones, and All Uses, Except Single-purpose Residential Uses, in All Other Zones Except Industrial Zones.

a. Number of Curbcuts.

(1) In RC, NC1, NC2 and NC3 zones and within Major Institution Overlay Districts, the number of two-way curcuts curbcuts permitted shall be according to the following chart:

Street Frontage of the Lot Number of Curbcuts Permitted 0 80 1 81 240 2 241 360 3 361 480 4

For lots with frontage in excess of four hundred eighty (480) feet the pattern established in the chart shall be continued. The Director may allow two (2) one-way curbcuts to be substituted for one (1) two-way curbcut, after determining that there would not be a significant conflict with pedestrian traffic.

(2) In C1 and C2 zones and the SCM zone, the Director shall review and make a recommendation on the number and location of curbcuts.

(3) In downtown zones, a maximum of two (2) curbcuts for one (1) way traffic at least forty (40) feet apart, or one (1) curbcut for two (2) way traffic, shall be permitted on each street front where access is permitted by Section 23.49.018. No curbcut shall be located within forty (40) feet of an intersection. These standards may be modified by the Director on lots with steep slopes or other special conditions, the minimum necessary to provide vehicular and pedestrian safety and facilitate a smooth flow of traffic , in accordance with the Downtown Land Use Policies.

(4) For public schools, the minimum number of curbcuts determined necessary by the Director shall be permitted.

b. Curbcut Widths.

(1) For one (1) way traffic, the minimum width of curbcuts shall be twelve (12) feet, and the maximum width shall be fifteen (15) feet.

(2) For two (2) way traffic, the minimum width of curbcuts shall be twenty-two (22) feet, and the maximum width shall be twenty-five (25) feet, except that the maximum width may be increased to thirty (30) feet when truck and auto access are combined.

(3) For public schools, the maximum width of curbcuts shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Development standards departure may be granted or required pursuant to the procedures and criteria set forth in Chapter 23.79.

(4) When one (1) of the following conditions applies, the Director may require a curbcut of up to thirty (30) feet in width, if it is found that a wider curbcut is necessary for safe access:

i. The abutting street has a single lane on the side which abuts the lot; or

ii. The curb lane abutting the lot is less than eleven (11) feet wide; or

iii. The proposed development is located on an arterial with an average daily traffic volume of over seven thousand (7,000) vehicles; or

iv. Off-street loading space is required according to subsection H of Section 23.54.015.

c. The entrances to all garages accessory to nonresidential uses and the entrances to all principal use parking garages shall be at least six (6) feet nine (9) inches high.

3. All Uses in Industrial Zones.

a. Number and Location of Curbcuts. The number and location of curbcuts shall be determined by the Director.

b. Curbcut Width. Curbcut width in Industrial zones shall be provided as follows:

(1) When the curbcut provides access to a parking area or structure it shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet wide and a maximum of thirty (30) feet wide.

(2) When the curbcut provides access to a loading berth, the maximum width of thirty (30) feet set in subsection F3b(1) may be increased to fifty (50) feet.

(3) Within the minimum and maximum widths established by this subsection, the Director shall determine the size of the curbcuts.

4. Curbcuts for Access Easements.

a. When a lot is crossed by an access easement serving other lots, the curbcut serving the easement may be as wide as the easement roadway.

b. The curbcut serving an access easement shall not be counted against the number or amount of curbcut permitted to a lot if the lot is not itself served by the easement.

5. Curbcut Flare. A flare with a maximum width of two and one-half (21/2) feet shall be permitted on either side of curbcuts in any zone.

6. Replacement of Unused Curbcuts. When a curbcut is no longer needed to provide access to a lot, the curb and any planting strip shall be replaced.

* * *

Section 18. Subsection B of Section 23.60.060 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 118793. is amended as follows:

23.60.060 Procedures for shoreline environment redesignations.

* * *

B. A request for a shoreline environment redesignation is considered a rezone, a Council land use decision subject to the provisions of Chapter 23.76, and shall be evaluated against the following criteria:

1. The Shoreline Management Act. The proposed redesignation shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and with Department of Ecology Guidelines (WAC 173-16).

2. Shorelines of Statewide Significance. If the area is within a shoreline of statewide significance the redesignation shall be consistent with the preferences for shorelines of statewide significance as given in RCW 90.58.020.

3. Comprehensive Plan Shoreline Area Objectives. In order to ensure that the intent of the Seattle Shoreline Master Program is met the proposed redesignation shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Shoreline Area Objectives in which the proposed redesignation is located.

4. Harbor Areas. If the area proposed for a shoreline designation change is within or adjacent to a harbor area, the impact of the redesignation on the purpose and intent of harbor areas as given in Articles XV and XVII of the State Constitution shall be considered.

5. Consistency with Underlying Zoning. The proposed redesignation shall be consistent with the appropriate land use policies rezone evaluation criteria for the underlying zoning, in Chapter 23.34 of the Land Use Code for the area unless overriding shoreline considerations exist.

56. Rezone Evaluation. The proposed redesignation shall comply with the rezone evaluation provisions in Section 23.34.007.

67. General Rezone Criteria. The proposed redesignation shall meet the general rezone standards in Section 23.34.008, subsections B through J.

Section 19. Subsection C of Section 23.60.220 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 118408, is amended as follows:

23.60.220 Environments established.

* * *

C. The purpose and locational criteria for each shoreline environment designation are described below.

1. Conservancy Navigation (CN) Environment.

a. Purpose. The purpose of the CN Environment is to preserve open water for navigation,

b. Locational Criteria. Submerged lands used as a fairway for vessel navigation,

c. Submerged lands seaward of the Outer Harbor Line, Construction Limit Line or other navigational boundary which are not specifically designated or shown on the Official Land Use Map shall be designated Conservancy Navigation;

2. Conservancy Preservation (CP) Environment.

a. Purpose. The purpose of the CP Environment is to preserve, protect, restore, or enhance certain areas which are particularly biologically or geologically fragile and to encourage the enjoyment of those areas by the public. Protection of such areas is in the public interest.

b. Locational Criteria. Dry or submerged lands owned by a public agency and possessing particularly fragile biological, geological or other natural resources which warrant preservation or restoration;

3. Conservancy Recreation (CR) Environment.

a. Purpose. The purpose of the CR shoreline environment is to protect areas for environmentally related purposes, such as public and private parks, aquaculture areas, residential piers, underwater recreational sites, fishing grounds, and migratory fish routes. While the natural environment is not maintained in a pure state, the activities to be carried on provided minimal adverse impact. The intent of the CR environment is to use the natural ecological system for production of food, for recreation, and to provide access by the public for recreational use of the shorelines. Maximum effort to preserve, enhance or restore the existing natural ecological, biological, or hydrological conditions shall be made in designing, developing, operating and maintaining recreational facilities.

b. Locational Criteria.

(1) Dry or submerged lands generally owned by a public agency and developed as a park, where the shoreline possesses biological, geological or other natural resources that can be maintained by limiting development,

(2) Residentially zoned submerged lands in private or public ownership located adjacent to dry lands designated Urban Residential where the shoreline possesses biological, geological or other natural resources that can be maintained by limiting development;

4. Conservancy Management (CM) Environment.

a. The purpose of the CM shoreline environment is to conserve and manage areas for public purposes, recreational activities and fish migration routes. While the natural environment need not be maintained in a pure state, developments shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts to natural beaches, migratory fish routes and the surrounding community.

b. Locational Criteria.

(1) Dry or submerged land in sensitive areas generally owned by a public agency, developed with a major pubic facility, including navigation locks, sewage treatment plants, ferry terminals and public and private parks containing active recreation areas,

(2) Waterfront lots containing natural beaches or a natural resource such as fish migration routes or fish feeding areas which require management but which are compatible with recreational development;

5. Conservancy Waterway (CW) Environment.

a. Purpose. The purpose of the CW Environment is to preserve the waterways for navigation and commerce, including public access to and from water areas. Since the waterways are public ways for water transport, they are designated CW to provide navigational access to adjacent properties, access to and from land for the loading and unloading of watercraft and temporary moorage.

b. Locational Criteria. Waterways on Lake Union and Portage Bay;

6. Urban Residential (UR) Environment.

a. Purpose. The purpose of the UR environment is to protect residential areas in a manner consistent with the Singlefamily and Multifamily Residential Area Policies.

b. Locational Criteria.

(1) Areas where the underlying zoning is Single-family or Multifamily residential,

(2) Areas where the predominant development is Single-family or Multifamily residential,

(3) Areas where steep slopes, shallow water, poor wave protection, poor vehicular access or limited water access make water-dependent uses impractical,

(4) Areas with sufficient dry land lot area to allow for residential development totally on dry land;

7. Urban Stable (US) Environment.

a. Purpose.

(1) Provide opportunities for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines by encouraging water-dependent recreational uses and by permitting nonwater dependent commercial uses if they provide substantial public access and other public benefits,

(2) Preserve and enhance views of the water from adjacent streets and upland residential areas,

(3) Support water-dependent uses by providing services such as marine-related retail and moorage.

b. Locational Criteria.

(1) Areas where the underlying zoning is Commercial or Industrial,

(2) Areas with small amounts of dry land between the shoreline and the first parallel street, with steep slopes, limited truck and rail access or other features making the area unsuitable for waterdependent or waterrelated industrial uses,

(3) Areas with large amounts of submerged land in relation to dry land and sufficient wave protection for water-dependent recreation,

(4) Areas where the predominant land use is water-dependent recreational or nonwater-dependent commercial;

8. Urban Harborfront (UH) Environment.

a. Purpose. The purpose of the UH Environment is to encourage economically viable water-dependent uses to meet the needs of waterborne commerce, facilitate the revitalization of Downtown's waterfront, provide opportunities for public access and recreational enjoyment of the shoreline, preserve and enhance elements of historic and cultural significance and preserve views of Elliott Bay and the land forms beyond.

b. Locational Criteria.

(1) Areas where the underlying zoning is a Downtown zone,

(2) Areas in or adjacent to a State Harbor Area,

(3) Areas where the water area is developed with finger piers and transit sheds;

9. Urban Maritime (UM) Environment.

a. Purpose. The purpose of the UM environment is to preserve areas for water-dependent and water-related uses while still providing some views of the water from adjacent streets and upland residential streets. Public access shall be second in priority to water-dependent uses unless provided on street ends, parks or other public lands.

b. Locational Criteria.

(1) Areas where the underlying zoning is industrial or Commercial 2,

(2) Areas with sufficient dry land for industrial uses but generally in smaller parcels than in UI environments,

(3) Areas developed predominantly with water-dependent manufacturing or commercial uses or a combination of manufacturingcommercial and recreational water-dependent uses,

(4) Areas with concentrations of state waterways for use by commerce and navigation,

(5) Areas near, but not necessarily adjacent to residential or neighborhood commercial zones which require preservation of views and protection from the impacts of heavy industrialization;

10. Urban General (UG) Environment.

a. Purpose. The purpose of the UG environment is to provide for economic use of commercial and manufacturing areas which are not suited for full use by water-dependent businesses. Public access or viewing areas shall be provided by nonwater-dependent uses where feasible.

b. Locational Criteria.

(1) Areas with little or no water access, which makes the development of water-dependent uses impractical,

(2) Areas where the underlying zoning is Commercial 2 or Industrial,

(3) Areas developed with nonwater-dependent manufacturing, warehouses, or offices;

11. Urban Industrial (UI) Environment.

a. Purpose. The purpose of the Urban Industrial environment is to provide for efficient use of industrial shorelines by major cargo facilities and other water-dependent and water-related industrial uses. Views shall be secondary to industrial development and public access shall be provided mainly on public lands or in conformance with an area-wide Public Access Plan.

b. Locational Criteria.

(1) Areas where the underlying zoning is industrial,

(2) Areas with large amounts of level dry land in large parcels suitable for industrial use,

(3) Areas with good rail and truck access,

(4) Areas adjacent to or part of major industrial centers which provide support services for water-dependent and other industry,

(5) Areas where predominant uses are manufacturing warehousing, major port cargo facilities or other similar uses.

* * *

Section 20. Subsection C of Section 23.67.040 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 116145, is amended as follows:

23.67.040 Southeast Seattle Reinvestment Area -Rezones for boundary changes.

* * *

C. Rezone Criteria for Property Within SESRA. A rezone within the boundaries of the SESRA shall be subject to the general rezone criteria of Chapter 23.34 and the locational criteria for the proposed classifications. In addition, the criteria contained in this section shall also apply. No single location shall be expected to meet all criteria, nor shall the criteria be ranked in order of importance. A balance shall be sought between the intent of the policies for the underlying land use category and this policy. Specific conditions may be established as part of the rezone process to ensure negative impacts on the area and its surroundings are mitigated.

1. The proposed designation shall strengthen and reinforce existing commercial nodes, and encourage the development and retention of businesses while retaining or providing adequate buffers between commercial and residential areas; or

2. The proposed designation shall enhance the vitality of business activity according to the following:

a. Increase and enhance pedestrian activity, thereby increasing property surveillance and public safety, and

b. Enable an established business to expand rather than relocate outside the Rainier Valley or increase employment and job training opportunities for residents of the surrounding area or

c. Increase retail, entertainment, or personal services for residents of the surrounding area, or

d. Encourage development on land which is vacant or contains abated or dilapidated buildings, or

e. Increase recreational opportunities in Southeast Seattle.

* * *

Section 21. Section 23.69.002 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 117929, is amended as follows:

23.69.002 Purpose and intent.

The purpose of this chapter is to implement the Major Institution policies, contained in Section 23.12.120 by regulating regulate Seattle's major educational and medical institutions in order to:

A. Permit appropriate institutional growth within boundaries while minimizing the adverse impacts associated with development and geographic expansion;

B. Balance a Major Institution's ability to change and the public benefit derived from change with the need to protect the livability and vitality of adjacent neighborhoods; and

C. Encourage the concentration of Major Institution development on existing campuses, or alternatively, the decentralization of such uses to locations more than two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet from campus boundaries;

D. Provide for the coordinated growth of major institutions through major institution conceptual master plans and the establishment of major institutions overlay zones;

E. Discourage the expansion of established major institution boundaries;

F. Encourage significant community involvement in the development, monitoring, implementation and amendment of major institution master plans, including the establishment of citizen's advisory committees containing community and major institution representatives;

G. Locate new institutions in areas where such activities are compatible with the surrounding land uses and where the impacts associated with existing and future development can be appropriately mitigated;

H. Accommodate the changing needs of major institutions, provide flexibility for development and encourage a high quality environment through modifications of use restrictions and parking requirements of the underlying zoning;

I. Make the need for appropriate transition primary considerations in determining setbacks. Also setbacks may be appropriate to achieve proper scale, building modulation, or view corridors;

L. Allow an increase to the number of permitted parking spaces only when it 1) is necessary to reduce parking demand on streets in surrounding areas and 2) is compatible with goals to minimize traffic congestion in the area;

M. Use the TMP to reduce the number of vehicle trips to the major institution, minimize the adverse impacts of traffic on the streets surrounding the institution, minimize demand for parking on nearby streets, especially residential streets, and minimize the adverse impacts of institution-related parking on nearby streets. To meet these objectives seek to reduce the number of SOVs used by employees and students at peak time and destined for the campus;

N. Through the master plan, 1) give clear guidelines and development standards on which the major institutions can rely for long-term planning and development; 2) provide the neighborhood advance notice of the development plans of the major institution; 3) allow the city to anticipate and plan for public capital or programmatic actions that will be needed to accommodate development; and 4) provide the basis for determining appropriate mitigating actions to avoid or reduce adverse impacts from major institution growth; and

O. Encourage the preservation, restoration and reuse of designated historic buildings.

Section 22 Subsection B of Section 23.69.006 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which was last amended by Ordinance 118981, is amended as follows:

23.69.006 Application of Regulations

***

B. For the University of Washington, notwithstanding subsection A of this section above, the following are governed by the 1998 Aagreement, between the City of Seattle and the University of Washington, or its successor, shall govern ; uses on campus; development standards; uses outside the campus boundaries; advisory committee responsibilities; and relations between the City and the University of Washington, the master plan process (formulation, approval and amendment), uses on campus, uses outside the campus boundaries, off-campus land acquisition and leasing, membership responsibilities of CUCAC, transportation policies, coordinated traffic planning for special events, permit acquisition and conditioning, relationship of current and future master plans to the Agreement, zoning and environmental review authority, resolution of disputes, and amendment or termination of the Agreement itself. Within the Major Institution Overlay (MIO) Boundaries for the University of Washington, development standards of the underlying zoning may be modified by an adopted master plan, or by an amendment or replacement of the 1998 Agreement between the City of Seattle and University of Washington.

Section 23. Subsection B of Section 23.69.024 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 115165, is amended as follows:

23.69.024 Major Institution designation.

***

B. New Major Institutions.

1. When a medical or educational institution makes application for new development, or when a medical or educational institution applies for designation as a Major Institution, the Director shall determine whether the institution meets, or would meet upon completion of the proposed development, the definition of a Major Institution in Section 23.84.025. Measurement of an institution's site or gross floor area in order to determine whether it meets minimum standards for Major Institution designation shall be according to the provisions of Section 23.86.036.

2. If the Director determines that Major Institution designation is required, the Director shall not issue any permit that would result in an increase in area of Major Institution uses until the institution is designated a Major Institution, a Major Institution Overlay District is established, and a master plan is prepared according to the provisions of Part 2, Major Institution Master Plan.

3. The Director's determination that an application for a Major Institution designation is required shall be made in the form of an interpretation and shall be subject to the procedures of Section 23.88.020.

4. The procedures for designation of a Major Institution shall be as provided in Chapter 23.76, Procedures for Master Use Permits and Council Land Use Decisions. The Council shall grant or deny the request for Major Institution designation by resolution.

5. When the Council designates a new Major Institution, a Major Institution Overlay District shall be established by ordinance according to the procedures for amendments to the Official Land Use Map (rezones) in Chapter 23.76, Procedures for Master Use Permits and Council Land Use Decisions.

6. A new Major Institution Overlay District shall not be established and a Major Institution Overlay District Boundary shall not be expanded in Single Family or Industrial zones.

7. Boundaries of a Major Institution Overlay District and maximum height limits shall be established or amended in accordance with the rezone criteria contained in Section 23.34.124 the City's Major Institution Policies, and the purpose and intent of this Chapter as described in section 23.69.006, except that acquisition, merger or consolidation involving two (2) Major Institutions shall be governed by the provisions of Section 23.69.023.

C. The MIO district designation, including height limits and master plan provisions when one has been adopted, shall be revoked for an institution which no longer meets the definition of a Major Institution. The applicable zoning provisions shall be the provisions of the existing underlying zoning classification. When an MIO district designation of an institution is to be revoked, the City may consider rezoning the institution campus. Upon determination that an institution no longer meets the definition of a Major Institution, the Director shall notify the Council. The revocation of a Major Institution designation shall be subject to the procedures set forth in Chapter 23.76, Procedures for Master Use Permits and Council Land Use Decisions, for Major Institution designation and revocation.

Section 24. Subsection E of Section 23.69.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 118794, is amended as follows:

23.69.030 Contents of a master plan.

* * *

E. The development program component shall include the following:

1. A description of alternative proposals for physical development including an explanation of the reasons for considering each alternative, but only if an Environmental Impact Statement is not prepared for the master plan; and

2. Density as defined by total maximum developable gross floor area for the MIO District and an overall floor area ratio (FAR) for the MIO District. Limits on total gross floor area and floor area ratios may also be required for sub-areas within the MIO District but only when an MIO District is over four hundred (400) acres in size or when an MIO District has distinct geographical areas; and

3. The maximum number of parking spaces allowed for the MIO District; and

4. A description of existing and planned future physical development on a site plan which shall contain:

a. The height, description, gross floor area and location of existing and planned physical development, and

b. The location of existing open space landscaping and screening, and areas of the MIO District to be designated open space. Designated open space shall be open space within the MIO District that is significant and serves as a focal point for user users of the Major Institution. Changes to the size or location of designated open space will require an amendment pursuant to Section 23.69.035, and

c. Existing public and private street layout, and

d. Existing and planned parking areas and structures; and

5. A site plan showing: property lines and ownership of all properties within the applicable MIO District, or areas proposed to be included in an expanded MIO District, and all structures and properties a Major Institution is leasing or using or owns within two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of the MIO District; and

6. Three (3) dimensional drawings to illustrate the height, bulk and form of existing and planned physical development. Information on architectural detailing such as window placement and color and finish materials shall not be required; and

7. A site plan showing any planned infrastructure improvements and the timing of those improvements; and

8. A description of planned development phases and plans, including development priorities, the probable sequence for such planned development and estimated dates of construction and occupancy; and

9. A description of any planned street or alley vacations or the abandonment of existing rights-of-way; and

10. At the option of the Major Institution, a description of potential uses, development, parking areas and structures, infrastructure improvements or street or alley vacations. Information about potential projects is for the purpose of starting a dialogue with the City and the community about potential development, and changes to this information will not require an amendment to the master plan; and

11. An analysis of the proposed master plan's consistency with the City's Major Institution policies in Section 23.12.120 and in the purpose and intent of this Chapter as described in section 23.69.006 Land Use Element of the City of Seattle's Comprehensive Plan; and

12. A discussion of the Major Institution's facility decentralization plans and/or options, including leasing space or otherwise locating uses off-campus; and

13. A description of the following shall be provided for informational purposes only. The Advisory Committee, pursuant to Section 23.69.032 D1, may comment on the following but may not subject these elements to negotiation nor shall such review delay consideration of the master plan or the final recommendation to Council:

a. A description of the ways in which the institution will address goals and applicable policies under Education and Employability and Health in the Human Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and

b. A statement explaining the purpose of the development proposed in the master plan, including the public benefits resulting from the proposed new development and the way in which the proposed development will serve the public purpose mission of the Major Institution.

* * *

Section 25. Subsections D and E of Section 23.69.032 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 118981, is amended as follows:

23.69.032 Master plan process.

* * *

D. Development of Master Plan.

1. The Advisory Committee shall participate directly in the formulation of the master plan from the time of its preliminary concept so that the concerns of the community and the institution are considered. The primary role of the Advisory Committee is to work with the Major Institution and the City to produce a master plan that meets the intent of Section 23.69.025. Advisory Committee comments shall be focused on identifying and mitigating the potential impacts of institutional development on the surrounding community based on the purpose and intent of this Chapter as described in section 23.69.006, and as prescribed in Chapter 25.05 Environmental Policies and Procedures based upon the objectives listed in the Major Institution policies and Chapter 25.05, SEPA. The Advisory Committee may review and comment on the mission of the institution, the need for the expansion, public benefits resulting from the proposed new development and the way in which the proposed development will serve the public purpose mission of the Major Institution, but these elements are not subject to negotiation nor shall such review delay consideration of the master plan or the final recommendation to Council.

2. The Advisory Committee shall hold open meetings with the institution and City staff to discuss the master plan and resolve differences. The institution shall provide adequate and timely information to the Advisory Committee for its consideration of the content and level of detail of each of the specific elements of the master plan.

3. The threshold determination of need for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) shall be made as required by Chapter 25.05, SEPA Policies and Procedures.

4. If an EIS is required and an institution is the lead agency, it shall initiate a predraft EIS consultation with the Director. The Advisory Committee shall meet to discuss the scope of the document. The Advisory Committee shall submit its comments on the scope of the draft EIS to the lead agency and the Director before the end of the scoping comment period. The lead agency shall prepare a final scope within one (1) week after the end of the scoping period.

5. The institution shall prepare a preliminary draft master plan within seventy (70) days of completion of the final scope of the EIS.

6. If an EIS is required, the institution or DCLU, whichever is lead agency, shall be responsible for the preparation of a preliminary draft EIS within seventy (70) days of the completion of the final scope, or approval of an EIS consultant contract, whichever is later.

7. The Advisory Committee, Seattle Transportation, the Director, and the institution shall submit comments on the preliminary draft master plan and the preliminary draft EIS to the lead agency within three (3) weeks of receipt, or on the environmental checklist and supplemental studies if an EIS is not required. If DCLU is the lead agency, a compiled list of the comments shall be submitted to the institution within ten (10) days of receipt of the comments.

8. Within three (3) weeks of receipt of the compiled comments, the institution shall review the comments and revise the preliminary draft master plan, if necessary, discussing and evaluating in writing the comments of all parties. The lead agency shall review the comments and be responsible for the revision of the preliminary draft EIS if necessary. If no EIS is required, the lead agency shall review the comments and be responsible for the annotation of the environmental checklist and revisions to any supplemental studies if necessary. Within three (3) weeks after receipt of the revised drafts, the Director shall review the revised drafts and may require further documentation or analysis on the part of the institution. Three (3) additional weeks may be spent revising the drafts for publication.

9. The Director shall publish the draft master plan. If an EIS is required, the lead agency shall publish the draft EIS.

10. The Director and the lead agency shall hold a public hearing on the draft master plan and if an EIS is required, on the draft EIS.

11. The Advisory Committee, Seattle Transportation and the Director shall submit comments on the draft master plan and if an EIS is required, on the draft EIS within six (6) weeks after the issuance of the draft master plan and EIS.

12. Within thirteen (13) weeks after receipt of the comments, the institution shall review the comments on the draft master plan and shall prepare the final master plan.

13. If an EIS is required, the lead agency shall be responsible for the preparation of a preliminary final EIS, following the public hearing and within six (6) weeks after receipt of the comments on the draft EIS. Seattle Transportation, the Director, and the institution shall submit comments on the preliminary final EIS.

14. The lead agency shall review the comments on the preliminary final EIS and shall be responsible for the revision of the preliminary final EIS, if necessary. The Director shall review the revised final document and may require further documentation or analysis on the part of the institution.

15. Within seven (7) weeks after preparation of the preliminary final EIS, the Director shall publish the final master plan and, if an EIS is required, the lead agency shall publish the final EIS.

E. Draft Report and Recommendation of the Director.

1. Within five (5) weeks of the publication of the final master plan and EIS, the Director shall prepare a draft report on the application for a master plan as provided in Section 23.76.050, Report of the Director.

2. In the Director's Report, a determination shall be made whether the planned development and changes of the Major Institution are consistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter, and the City's Major Institution policies in Section 23.12.120 and in the Land Use Element of The City of Seattle's Comprehensive Plan, and whether the planned development and changes represent a reasonable balance of the public benefits of development and change with the need to maintain livability and vitality of adjacent neighborhoods. Consideration shall be given to:

a. The reasons for institutional growth and change, the public benefits resulting from the planned new facilities and services, and the way in which the proposed development will serve the public purpose mission of the major institution; and

b. The extent to which the growth and change will significantly harm the livability and vitality of the surrounding neighborhood.

3. In the Director's Report, an assessment shall be made of the extent to which the Major Institution, with its proposed development and changes, will address the goals and applicable policies under Education and Employability and Health in the Human Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan.

4. The Director's analysis and recommendation on the proposed master plan's development program component shall consider the following:

a. The extent to which the Major Institution proposes to lease space or otherwise locate a use at street level in a commercial zone outside of, but within two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of, the MIO District boundary that is not similar to a personal and household retail sales and service use, eating and drinking establishment, customer service office, entertainment use or child care center but is allowed in the zone. To approve such proposal, the Director shall consider the criteria in Section 23.69.035 D3;

b. The extent to which proposed development is phased in a manner which minimizes adverse impacts on the surrounding area. When public improvements are anticipated in the vicinity of proposed Major Institution development or expansion, coordination between the Major Institution development schedule and timing of public improvements shall be required;

c. The extent to which historic structures which are designated on any federal, state or local historic or landmark register are proposed to be restored or reused. Any changes to designated Seattle Landmarks shall comply with the requirements of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance.1 The Major Institution's Advisory Committee shall review any application to demolish a designated Seattle Landmark and shall submit comments to the Landmarks Preservation Board before any certificate of approval is issued;

d. The extent to which the proposed density of Major Institution development will affect vehicular and pedestrian circulation, adequacy of public facilities, capacity of public infrastructure, and amount of open space provided;

e. The extent to which the limit on the number of total parking spaces allowed will minimize the impacts of vehicular circulation, traffic volumes and parking in the area surrounding the MIO District.

5. The Director's analysis and recommendation on the proposed master plan's development standards component shall be based on the following:

a. The extent to which buffers such as topographic features, freeways or large open spaces are present or transitional height limits are proposed to mitigate the difference between the height and scale of existing or proposed Major Institution development and that of adjoining areas. Transition may also be achieved through the provision of increased setbacks, articulation of structure facades, limits on structure height or bulk or increased spacing between structures;

b. The extent to which any structure is permitted to achieve the height limit of the MIO District. The Director shall evaluate the specified limits on structure height in relationship to the amount of MIO District area permitted to be covered by structures, the impact of shadows on surrounding properties, the need for transition between the Major Institution and the surrounding area, and the need to protect views;

c. The extent to which setbacks of Major Institution development at ground level or upper levels of a structure from the boundary of the MIO District or along public rights-of-way are provided for and the extent to which these setbacks provide a transition between Major Institution development and development in adjoining areas;

d. The extent to which allowable lot coverage is consistent with permitted density and allows for adequate setbacks along public rights-of-way or boundaries of the MIO District. Coverage limits should insure that view corridors through Major Institution development are enhanced and that area for landscaping and open space is adequate to minimize the impact of Major Institution development within the MIO District and on the surrounding area;

e. The extent to which landscaping standards have been incorporated for required setbacks, for open space, along public rights-of-way, and for surface parking areas. Landscaping shall meet or exceed the amount of landscaping required by the underlying zoning. Trees shall be required along all public rights-of-way where feasible;

f. The extent to which access to planned parking, loading and service areas is provided from an arterial street;

g. The extent to which the provisions for pedestrian circulation maximize connections between public pedestrian rights-of-way within and adjoining the MIO District in a convenient manner. Pedestrian connections between neighborhoods separated by Major Institution development shall be emphasized and enhanced;

h. The extent to which designated open space maintains the patterns and character of the area in which the Major Institution is located and is desirable in location and access for use by patients, students, visitors and staff of the Major Institution;

i. The extent to which designated open space, though not required to be physically accessible to the public, is visually accessible to the public;

j. The extent to which the proposed development standards provide for the protection of scenic views and/or views of landmark structures. Scenic views and/or views of landmark structures along existing public rights-of-way or those proposed for vacation may be preserved. New view corridors shall be considered where potential enhancement of views through the Major Institution or of scenic amenities may be enhanced. To maintain or provide for view corridors the Director may require, but not be limited to, the alternate spacing or placement of planned structures or grade-level openings in planned structures. The institution shall not be required to reduce the combined gross floor area for the MIO District in order to protect views other than those protected under City laws of general applicability.

6. The Director's report shall specify all measures or actions necessary to be taken by the Major Institution to mitigate adverse impacts of Major Institution development that are specified in the proposed master plan.

* * *

Section 26. Subsection H of Section 23.69.035 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 118362, is amended as follows:

23.69.035 Changes to master plan.

* * *

H. Noncontiguous areas that are included in a MIO District as a result of a previously adopted master plan shall be deleted from the MIO District at the time a major amendment is approved unless the noncontiguous area was a former and separate MIO District. The change to the MIO District boundaries shall be in accordance with the procedures for City-initiated amendments to the Official Land Use Map as provided in Chapter 23.76, Procedures for Master Use Permits and Council Land Use Decisions, and shall not be subject to the rezone criteria contained in Section 23.34.124 in the City's Major Institution Policies.

Section 27. Subsection B of Section 23.69.036 of the Seattle Municipal Code, , which Section was last amended by Ordinance 118362, is amended as follows:

23.69.036 Master plan renewal.

* * *

B. Noncontiguous areas which are included in a MIO District as a result of a previously adopted master plan shall be deleted from the MIO District at the time a new master plan development program component is adopted, unless the noncontiguous area was a former and separate MIO District. The change to the MIO District boundaries shall be in accordance with the procedures for Cityinitiated amendments to the Official Land Use Map as provided in Chapter 23.76, Procedures for Master Use Permits and Council Land Use Decisions, and shall not be subject to the rezone criteria contained in Section 23.34.124 in the City's Major Institution Policies.

Section 28. Subsection A of Section 23.76.023 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 118012, is amended as follows:

23.76.023 Report and recommendation of the Director on subdivisions.

A. The Director shall prepare a written report on subdivision applications. The report shall include:

1. The written recommendations or comments of any affected City departments and other governmental agencies having an interest in the application;

2. Responses to written comments submitted by interested citizens;

3. An evaluation of the proposal based on the standards and criteria for subdivisions contained in SMC Chapter 23.22 , its consistency with the applicable goals and objectives of Seattle's land use policies as referenced in SMC Chapter 23.12, the City's SEPA policies and any other applicable official City policies;

4. All environmental documentation, including any checklist, EIS or DNS; and

5. The Director's recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application.

* * *

Section 29. Section 23.76.036 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 120609, is amended as follows:

23.76.036 Council decisions required.

A. The Council shall make the following Type IV Council land use decisions, including any integrated decisions to approve, condition or deny based on SEPA Policies, and any associated Type II decisions listed in Section 23.76.006 C2:

1. Amendments to the Official Land Use Map, including changes in overlay districts and shoreline environment redesignations, except those initiated by the City to implement new land use policies adopted by ordinance, and except boundary adjustments caused by the acquisition, merger or consolidation of two (2) Major Institutions pursuant to Section 23.69.023;

2. Public projects proposed by applicants other than The City of Seattle that require Council approval;

3. Major Institution master plans (supplemental procedures for master plans are established in SMC Chapter 23.69);

4. Council conditional uses; and

5. Downtown planned community developments.

B. Council action shall be required for the following Type V land use decisions:

1. City-initiated amendments to the Official Land Use Map to implement new land use policies;

2. Amendments to the text of SMC Title 23, Land Use Code;

3. Concept approval for the location or expansion of City facilities requiring Council land use approval by SMC Title 23, Land Use Code;

4. Major Institution designations and revocations of Major Institution designations;

5. Waive or modify development standards for City facilities;

6. Planned action ordinances; and

7. Corrections of errors on the Official Land Use Map due to cartographic and clerical mistakes.

Section 30. Subsection A of Section 23.76.050 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 118012, is amended as follows:

23.76.050 Report of the Director.

A. The Director shall prepare a written report on applications for Type IV and V decisions and any associated Type II Master Use Permits listed in Section 23.76.006 C2, provided that in the case of a text amendment sponsored by a member of the City Council, the Director shall prepare a written report only if such report is requested by a member of the City Council. The report shall include:

1. The written recommendations or comments of any affected City departments and other governmental agencies having an interest in the application;

2. Responses to written comments submitted by interested citizens;

3. An evaluation of the proposal based on the standards and criteria for the approval sought and consistency with applicable City policies the applicable goals and objectives of Seattle's land use policies as referenced in SMC Chapter 23.12, and any other applicable official City policies;

4. All environmental documentation, including any checklist, EIS or DNS;

5. The Director's recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposal.

* * *

Section 31. Subsection C of Section 23.79.008 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 112799, is amended as follows:

23.79.008 Advisory committee responsibilities.

* * *

C. It shall recommend the maximum departure which may be allowed for each development standard from which a departure has been requested. Minority reports shall be permitted. The advisory committee may not recommend that a standard be made more restrictive unless the restriction is necessary as a condition to mitigate the impacts of granting a development standard departure.

1. Departures shall be evaluated for consistency with the general objectives and intent of the City's Land Use Policies Code, including the rezone evaluation criteria in Chapter 23.34 of the Seattle Municipal Code, to ensure that the proposed facility is compatible with the character and use of its surroundings. In reaching recommendations, the advisory committee shall consider and balance the interrelationships among the following factors:

a. Relationship to Surrounding Areas. The advisory committee shall evaluate the acceptable or necessary level of departure according to:

(1) Appropriateness in relation to the character and scale of the surrounding area;

(2) Presence of edges (significant setbacks, major arterials, topographic breaks, and similar features) which provide a transition in scale;

(3) Location and design of structures to reduce the appearance of bulk;

(4) Impacts on traffic, noise, circulation and parking in the area; and

(5) Impacts on housing and open space.

More flexibility in the development standards may be allowed if the impacts on the surrounding community are anticipated to be negligible or are reduced by mitigation; whereas, a minimal amount or no departure from development standards may be allowed if the anticipated impacts are significant and cannot be satisfactorily mitigated.

b. Need for Departure. The physical requirements of the specific proposal and the project's relationship to educational needs shall be balanced with the level of impacts on the surrounding area. Greater departure may be allowed for special facilities, such as a gymnasium, which are unique and/or an integral and necessary part of the educational process; whereas, a lesser or no departure may be granted for a facility which can be accommodated within the established development standards.

2. When the departure process is required because of proposed demolition of housing, the desirability of minimizing the effects of demolition must be weighed against the educational objectives to be served in addition to the evaluation required in subsection C1.

3. Following the evaluation set out in subsections C1 or C2, departures may be recommended as set forth in the regulations for the applicable zone and in Chapter 23.54. Recommendations must include consideration of the interrelationship among height, setback and landscaping standards when departures from height or setback are proposed.

* * *

Section 32. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any particular provision shall not affect the validity of any other provision.

Section 33. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its approval by the Mayor, but if not approved and returned by the Mayor within ten (10) days after presentation, it shall take effect as provided by Municipal Code Section 1.04.020.

Passed by the City Council the _____ day of _______________, 2001, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its passage this _____ day of _______________, 2001. ___________________________________ President of the City Council

Approved by me this _____ day of _______________, 2001. __________________________________ Paul Schell, Mayor

Filed by me this _____ day of _______________, 2001. ___________________________________ City Clerk

113381v5.doc 12/12/01 t