City Huge Council Meeting Today
posted by on December 17 at 13:34 PM
Today’s city council agenda is absolutely packed, thanks in large part to a pile of last-minute legislation out of retiring council member Peter Steinbrueck’s Urban Development and Planning Committee. Among the stuff I’ll be covering in this week’s paper: Legislation that would limit the size of large new commercial developments in SoDo in an effort to preserve industrial lands for industrial use; and a bill that would in effect give Vulcan free development rights in South Lake Union. Vulcan, as we’ve reported, is supposed to contribute to affordable-housing and childcare funds in exchange for a height increase in South Lake Union, where it’s courting Amazon.com as a tenant. The company wanted a partial exemption from that requirement; Steinbrueck amended the legislation to reduce the size of the exemption.
But there’s a ton of other stuff I won’t be able to cover in-depth in the paper.
The biggest: A new noise ordinance, sponsored by Sally Clark, that would fine clubs $1,000 (increasing to $2,000 for the second and subsequent violations) any time a club or bar plays music that’s audible to “a person of normal hearing” inside a nearby residence. That means that any time a bar plays music that’s audible to someone in a residence upstairs or across the street—even if that person has their windows open, or if it’s 10:15 at night (as opposed to, say, 2 in the morning)—the club could be fined $1,000. The next night, that goes up to $2,000—and the next, and the next. That’s a lot of money for a small club that’s struggling to survive. Clubs can get out of the fine by installing improvements that muffle sound; but those, again, are expensive, and installing improvements is no guarantee that no one will complain—prompting yet another fine. Meanwhile, the ordinance places no burden whatsoever on developers, who frequently build condos on the cheap, without double-paned windows and thick walls that could minimize transmission of noise. A Clark staffer says the city will come up with an objective standard for “audible to a person of normal hearing” that can be measured with a noise meter, eliminating the possibility of arbitrary enforcement; however, that standard will be developed by the city’s Department of Planning and Development, not the council, meaning that there probably won’t be any public hearings on the new definition. Promoter and industry gadfly David Meinert takes the pessimistic view, charging that the ordinance is “biased in favor of shitty condos and irresponsible people who want to leave their windows open but don’t want to hear any noise.”
Also on the agenda:
A resolution, sponsored by Steinbreuck and Nick Licata, directing a city consultant to come up recommendations on a mandatory licensing and inspection program for rental housing. Currently, the city only inspects rental housing when a tenant complains—a setup that discourages inspections, because tenants face potential retaliation from their landlords when they complain about substandard housing. Mandatory inspections would, in theory, ensure a higher standard for rental housing citywide. The study should be finished in early 2008.
A long list of Steinbrueck-sponsored amendments to the city’s comprehensive plan. Among other changes, the amendments would direct the city to do an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in Seattle every three years; adopt a goal of reducing emissions by 30 percent from 1990 levels by 2024, and by 80 percent by 2050 (the city’s current environmental policy calls for seven percent reductions by 2012); and adopt a new transportation policy aimed at reducing vehicle miles traveled in the city.
An ordinance that would set up a new panel to review the city’s public defense system and make recommendations on which firms the city should hire to provide defense to the indigent. The recommendation, sponsored by Licata, comes in the wake of an audit earlier this year that found multiple problems with the city’s public-defense system, including excessive attorney caseloads and inadequate contact with clients, training, performance evaluation, and attorney supervision.
Wouldn't condos with thick walls and double paned windows, as well as more mandtatory improvements in rentals, tend to raise the overall cost of housing? We'd have fewer low-end condos and fewer low-end rental apartments, right?
Easier way to sell this stuff - just sell it as an improvement to the building codes to improve energy conservation. Mandate all new construction in the city have these double-paned windows and be better insulated, etc. It'll save City Light, and it'll cut down outside noise.
Would people on their balconies count?
If we want to reduce the number of cars in the city, what will that mean for 520? Not rebuilding? Keeping at 4 lanes? Or building six lanes of pavement with four wide shoulders that will be converted to GP lanes sometime?
Today’s city council agenda is absolutely packed
Nothing on the pit bulls?
Can you really build anything new with sinle pane windows?
Wouldn't condos with thick walls and double paned windows, as well as more mandtatory improvements in rentals, tend to raise the overall cost of housing? We'd have fewer low-end condos and fewer low-end rental apartments, right?
Only if you believe that the costs of building and maintaining something eventually get rolled into the cost of selling/renting it. Just about everyone believes this, except "affordable housing" advocates.
including double-paned windows during construction (instead of a retro-fit) will not cause that great of a cost difference. and as pointed out, it will save the buyer money monthly.
better built condos are better for the city. besides that, we all need to get along in tight spaces.
That new noise ordinance a la Sally Clark is TOO LOUD. TURN THAT SHIT DOWN. Clark, you owe every citizen of Seattle $1000, and next time it's gonna go up to $2000.
So building an energy efficient and sound proof new condo really only adds nickels and dimes to the costs and would easily pay for itself. But the builders won't do it, because they're eeeeeeeeevil.
Is that plausible? Or is it more plausible that the up front cost of such wonderful amenities prices the units out of the reach of buyers?
Just asking.
man i love the rental inspections, do you realize how many landlords would rather just sell than deal with that bullshit? have fun with your already shrinking rental market getting smaller.
How is does the council race cost hundreds of thousand of dollars and yet we get a steady stream of retards voted in.
Energy inefficiency tends to be a hidden cost. Home buyers (and mortgage lenders) tend to look at the up-front cost of the home, without considering the change in affordability associated with the energy efficiency.
man i love the rental inspections, do you realize how many landlords would rather just sell than deal with that bullshit? have fun with your already shrinking rental market getting smaller.
How is does the council race cost hundreds of thousand of dollars and yet we get a steady stream of retards voted in.
@9. no one is saying these corporations are evil. but i suppose we can't have even one reasonable discussion on this issue....
developers build to the requirements they are given. they will do extra if it means they can gain extra. using double-paned windows is not required by law, and it does not have the sale value of, say, a work-out room. so the developer will not do it.
it's that simple. they are not evil, they are using cost benefit analysis. the "pay for itself" is passed to the buyer as a benefit, not the construction company. it's harder to sell a more expensive unit even if it is a smarter buy.
that, after all, is one of the main reasons why so many people rent even though it is more cost-effective to own. the upfront fees are discouraging. you know this stuff, elenchos...
or what 10 said.
But developers don't set the prices for their units. The market does. If the market says the units are worth X if they have single-pane windows and X+Y if they have double, and Y isn't enough to pay for the fancy windows, then you're not going to get the fancy windows, period. This isn't a decision the developer makes, unless his ambition is to become a bankrupt developer.
I support Sally Clark's noise ordinance.
I can hear the acceleration bell on the SLUT from my apartment starting at 6am. Does that count?
So, are they going to fine all the other sources of urban noise pollution as well, or is this specifically targeted at clubs which play music? What about fining buses that sit and idle under residential windows for half an hour at a stretch, with horrendously loud diesels? What about fining impatient asswipes who honk at the person in front of them one nanosecond after the light changes (or the worse asswipes who honk at people on the street to greet them, or harass them)? What about fining the Incessantly Ranting Street Preacher whose importunings of passersby is clearly audible from residential units? Low-flying aircraft? Ferries blowing foghorns? Eternally-barking dogs? Jackhammers and cranes? Sirens?
Singling out one source of noise seems disingenuous to me, and unfair to the clubs. That being said, noise ordinances have every right to limit unnecessary noise during the nighttime hours.
what a headache... can we fine airplanes and trains? the cops that trigger their siren so they don't have to wait at the red light a block from my house? the car parked in front of the club blasting music? etc. etc.
I only scanned it, but the code sounds horribly subjective and discriminatory, why does it matter who is making the noise? what's the db levels of "plainly audible" to a "normal" person?
it's called living in a city, but the venues need to get active and acquainted with the developers as soon as they see the name on the land use posting. I did that once upon a time, and they eventually gave us $50k for sound abatement improvements.
I'd like them to eliminate the (seemingly automatic) exemption for construction noise before 9:00 a.m.
@17 so true, so very true.
Let me add delivery trucks to the list as noise pollutants.
This noise ordinance just re-affirms my belief that certain members of the city council are trying to move all the nightlife out of Ballard, Belltown, Fremont and Capitol Hill (the major areas of town where yuppie condo's are being established).
Probably force them all to move down to the Sodo.
I see alot of live music and I really hope I am wrong about this.
Just my theory though.
@19 oh, i agree with you napoleon. those broadway/john usbank condos were the death of me!
@15 -- yeah, but if you require Y, then the market has to adjust. until then, no Y.
but are you really in favor of this ordinance? Y?
But no sidewalk funding...
A lot of us don't have air conditioning - so in the summer we leave our windows open.
This is gonna be fun!
Are they even going to bother setting different rules for different times of day and night? Or will any neighbor with a grudge be able to complain about noise at 5pm, leading to a fine for a nightclub?
We need a better noise ordinance than we have. One that has some teeth and allows the city to get rid of clubs that make noise that is too loud outside the venue. However, Sally Clark is ignoring input from people who run successful venues and understand how to craft a fair rule. She is only listening to the neighborhood activist crazies. The ordinance she is pushing is real bullshit.
This is another piece of piss poor legislation coming from Clark who refuses to engage the whole community and experts when it comes to these and other issues. It's sad, I had high hopes for Clark, who seems to be a very well intentioned, smart person, but unfortunately horrid law maker.
Do keep in mind Fnarf and others who like this ordinance, that this is, and is so intentionally, an attempt to close music venues. And it will do so successfully. The Croc is just the start of what we'll see closing in Seattle. But at least our council will have less work to do and will be able to make their 9pm bed times.
If you don't like noise, don't move to Pioneer Square or Belltown. That's what West Seattle is for. Obviously these are not old-school Seattlites being priced out of their home. These are people who have money, knew about the noise of clubs, and moved there anyways. There is absolutely no way the city will find on-going funding to cover the cost of nightly complaints.
I guess the clubs can just transition to more boutique wine stores.
elenchos
to answer your question, when we had a substantial addition done to our house we priced single, double, and thicker double paned windows and found a huge range in prices and durability/efficiencies. We opted for the much higher priced, thicker, argon-filled speciality-glass versions (since paid off in spades). The price differential was on the order of five-to-one (5:1) - that's enough of a difference at the contractor level to see why there's all these cheap windows going in everywhere.
The energy efficiency and sound-proofing are awesome, though.
I should add, made locally in Fife.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).