Template SEPA and Design Review

City of Seattle Edward B. Murray, Mayor

Department of Construction and Inspections Nathan Torgelson, Director

CITY OF SEATTLE ANALYSIS AND DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS

Application Number: 3021621

Applicant Name: Jon O’Hare, Permit Consultants NW

Address of Proposal: 2014 Fairview Avenue

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION

Land Use Application to allow a 42-story structure containing 437 apartment units and 9,325 sq. ft. of retail space located at ground level. Parking for 272 vehicles to be provided below grade. Existing structure to be demolished. An Addendum to Downtown Height and Density Changes EIS has been prepared.

The following decisions are required:

I. Land Use Code Design Review with Departures (Seattle Municipal Code 23.41) Departures are listed near the end of the Design Review Analysis in this document

II. SEPA A. SEPA Procedural Decisions • Determination of Significance • Adoption of EIS and determination of EIS adequacy

Title of document being adopted: Downtown Height and Density Changes FES

Agency that prepared document being adopted: City of Seattle Date adopted document was prepared: January 6, 2005

B. SEPA Substantive Decisions to approve, condition or deny on the basis of SEPA policies (Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.05)

Pursuant to SEPA substantive authority provided in SMC 25.05.660, the proposal is approved subject to compliance with the conditions identified below.

Application No. 3021621 Page 2

SITE AND VICINITY

Site Zone: Downtown Mixed Commercial (DMC 240/290-400)

Nearby Zones: North: SM-SLU 240/125-400 South: DMC 340/290-400 West: DMC 240/290-400 East: DMC 240/290-400

ECAs: None

Site Size: 24,459 square feet

Public Comment:

The public comment period ended on February 24, 2016. In addition to the comment(s) received through the Design Review process, other comments were received and carefully considered, to the extent that they raised issues within the scope of this review. These areas of public comment related to the potential for historic resources located on site.

I. ANALYSIS – DESIGN REVIEW

CURRENT AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT; NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

The subject site is located on a triangular block bound by Denny Way to the north, Fairview Avenue N to the west, Boren Street along the southwest and Virginia Street to the southeast. The subject lot and lots to the east and west are zoned Downtown Mixed Commercial (DMC 240/290-400). Lots directly south are zoned DMC 340/290-400. To the north, across Denny Way, zoning transitions to Seattle Mixed South Lake Union (SM-SLU 240/125-400). The site contains one parcel with existing early 1-2 story 20th-century commercial structures. To the north, within the South Lake Union Urban Center, is the Mirabella, a 12-story residential building. To the west are two existing City of Seattle Landmark Structures, the Fashioncraft Building/Recovery Café, and the Old Norway Hall. To the southwest is a two-story commercial building. The site is relatively flat with approximately 3 feet in grade change from the north property line to the south corner, the high point of the site.

The surrounding development includes sites proposed for development. To the northwest and southeast are three developments, each proposing two towers (1120 Denny Way, 1901 Minor Avenue and 1200 Stewart). In addition, the Denny Substation is currently under construction one block to the northeast along Denny.

The Denny Triangle area is transitioning from low rise type commercial and residential buildings to residential towers, office development, and hotel uses. Newer development is contemporary in design, with simple forms, large areas of glazing, and permanent materials such as precast concrete. Older development is a mix of building types, ranging from early 20th century masonry and wood frame construction to 1970’s auto-oriented 1 story buildings with large surface parking lots.

Application No. 3021621 Page 3

Fairview Avenue N is a major north/south connector for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles traveling between South Lake Union and Downtown. Boren Avenue is major vehicular corridor between South Lake Union and Capitol Hill. Denny is principal arterial dividing the Denny Triangle from the South Lake Union Neighborhoods. Denny also provides the connection between Downtown and I-5. Virginia Street is a minor arterial street. The area is served by frequent bus transit, as well as bus and light rail transit in the Convention Center station a few blocks to the southeast.

FIRST EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE December 1, 2015

The packet includes materials presented at the meeting, and is available online by entering the project numbers (3021621) at this website: http://www.seattle.gov/SDCI/Planning/Design_Review_Program/Project_Reviews/Reports/default.asp.

The packet is also available to view in the file, by contacting the Public Resource Center at SDCI: Mailing Public Resource Center Address: 700 Fifth Ave., Suite 2000 P.O. Box 34019 Seattle, WA 98124-4019

Email: [email protected]

PUBLIC COMMENT

The following comments, issues and concerns were raised during the public comment portion of the Early Design Guidance meeting:

• Concerned insufficient parking is provided for residential units. • Stated that the Denny Substation sign will be visible along Virginia Avenue to 2nd Avenue. Street trees on Virginia Street should be located to maintain sign visibility. • Mirabella residents would like to meet with development team. • Felt streetscape design should accommodate a large number of pedestrians on each street and rapid ride uses on Fairview Avenue. Additional setbacks may be warranted along Denny Street. • Would like to see the tower located to the south in order to minimize shadow impacts on the Mirabella. • Would like to see the building rotated 45 degrees to increase privacy between proposed units and Mirabella units. • Would like for Mirabella residents to have access to the podium amenity space.

PRIORITIES & BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

After visiting the site, considering the analysis of the site and context provided by the proponents, and hearing public comment, the Design Review Board members provided the following siting and design guidance. The Board identified the Citywide Design Guidelines & Neighborhood specific guidelines (as applicable) of highest priority for this project.

The Neighborhood specific guidelines are summarized below. For the full text please visit the Design Review website.

Application No. 3021621 Page 4

EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE:

1. Tower Form. The Board discussed the tower location and form at length. Ultimately the Board supported the proposed tower location, which creates a strong presence on the corner of Denny and Fairview. The Board agreed that the tower and podium connection needed resolution. a. The Board appreciated the graceful and elegant tower form, which incorporates both geometric and organic shapes. The form includes a spine, which holds the movement, facing downtown. The balconies then swing the tower in two separate directions in order to maximize the sense of movement facing Lake Union (A1.1, A2.1, and B4.1). b. The Board supported the subtly of the balcony movement, stating the design creates a sense of discovery (A1.1, A2.1, B4.1). c. The Board noted the building corners are greater than 90 degrees, and the entire tower form is softened by the decks. The Board felt the softened form must be protected in all parts of the building as the design progresses (A1.1, A2.1, and B4.1). d. The Board would like to see the podium integrated into the graceful curvilinear tower form (A1.1, A2.1, and B4.1). e. The Board agreed the thinnest portion of the decks should be usable by residents. The Board cautioned that once the decks are used they will not appear as pristine as renderings suggest. The applicant may consider adding some opacity to the decks. The Board agreed that a balance of solid and glass would require additional study (A2.1, B4.2).

2. Roof. The Board agreed that the tower form should be continued to the top of the roof. a. The Board expressed support for the roof form presented on page 97 of the Early Design Guidance Packet. The Board agreed the two rings, located further off center, created a lighter finish to the top of the structure while also providing shade for south facing amenity deck (A2.1, B4.1).

3. Ground Floor. The applicant’s aspirations include an open retail amenity space experience on the first 2 floors of the structure. a. The Board agreed that the retail space should be informed by the inspirational experience pictures in packet. The Board would like to better understand how the space will programmed to achieve a successful porous space. The Board noted that both 400 Fairview and Via6 provide good examples of successful open retail (C1.1, C1.2, C1.3, C3.1, and C4.1). b. At the Recommendation Meeting the Board requested additional information on how the retail will function within the podium architecture, which should be informed by the tower form (C1.1, C1.2, C1.3, C3.1, and C4.1). c. The Board cautioned that successful retail would require extensive transparency and thoughtful entry locations. At the Recommendation Meeting the Board requested additional information on how the retail will meet and spill onto the street (C1.1, C1.2, C1.3, C3.1, and C4.1).

4. Streetscape. The Board acknowledged that the building is surrounded by major streets, each with a distinct character. a. At the Recommendation Meeting, the Board requested further detail on the proposed street level landscaping. The Board supported the concept of sinuous landscaping, which will help reinforce the tower architecture, but noted that the landscaping must be well-developed in order for pedestrians experience the gesture D1.1 and D1.2). Application No. 3021621 Page 5

b. The Board agreed the overhead weather protection should reinforce the tower architecture while balancing the needs of the community, incorporating as much overhead weather protection as possible (C5.1). c. At the Recommendation Meeting, the Board requested a study showing the location of the canopy departure request in relationship to the ground floor programming and street tree location (C5.1). d. The Board expressed early support for overhead weather protection on Virginia Street. The Board agreed transparency and overhead weather protection would help create successful retail spaces (C1.1, C1.2, C1.3, C3.1 C5.1, and D1.1). e. The Board suggested the applicant follow up with Mirabella residents, determine the location of the public benefit feature for 1200 Howell Street and determine the location of the proposed SCL sign (C1).

FINAL RECOMMENDATION MEETING: July 12, 2016

DESIGN PRESENTATION

The Recommendation packet includes materials presented at the Recommendation meeting, and is available online by entering the project number (3021621) at this website: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/Design_Review_Program/Project_Reviews/Reports/default.asp.

The Recommendation packet is also available to view in the project file (project number 3021621), by contacting the Public Resource Center at SDCI:

Mailing Public Resource Center Address: 700 Fifth Ave., Suite 2000 P.O. Box 34019 Seattle, WA 98124-4019

Email: [email protected]

PUBLIC COMMENT

The following comments, issues and concerns were raised during the public comment portion of the Recommendation meeting:

• Expressed support for the project and appreciation for the outreach efforts to meet with Mirabella residents. • Felt that the building design is responsive to the public realm. The design incorporates ground floor setbacks at each street corner, public spaces, and provides a human scale podium. • Applauded the design efforts to create an interesting ground level retail experience. • Expressed concerns regarding the traffic impacts with the vehicles entrance located on Virginia Street. • Felt the building will be a good addition to the City of Seattle. • Impressed that the design team has resolved the exposed slab with energy code requirements.

Application No. 3021621 Page 6

PRIORITIES & BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

The Neighborhood specific guidelines are summarized below. For the full text please visit the Design Review website.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Tower Form. The Board expressed support for the evolution of the tower form which evolved from a curve to a sine curve. The Board questioned whether the shingled glass balconies detract from the overall tower form. The Board observed that the balconies create a pixelated form up close and the tower curve would be most visible from far away. The Board discussed and suggested several design modifications to improve the design and included specific conditions of approval. a. The Board noted that the details of the balcony rail were important to the overall success of the tower form. The Board was particularly concerned with the resolution of the curved slab edge and the overlap straight balcony line. The Board expressed concern that the balcony rail creates a gap that will be visible when viewed from the street. The Board recommended a condition that the design integrate the building slab edge and railing so that there is not a gap between the two elements when viewed from below (A2, B4.3). b. The Board noted that the color of the core material must be considered in relationship the balcony material. To achieve an ephemeral building the core must recede rather than draw attention. Therefore, the Board recommended a condition that the material palette be revised to include a lighter core material (A2.1, B4.3). c. The Board also expressed concern regarding the privacy panels competing with the tower form and recommended a condition that the privacy panels shape respond to the architectural composition of the tower (A2.1, B4.3).

2. Roof. The Board discussed the roof form at length. Ultimately, the Board agreed that the tower form should be continued to the top of the roof consistent with the guidance provided at the Early Design Guidance Meeting. The Board noted that the rings at the roof add drama to the structure and unify the form of the building. a. The Board recommended a condition that the tower sculptural form be continued to the top of the roof structure (A2). b. The Board also noted that the amenity spaces on the roof should incorporate ample openings to blend indoor and outdoor spaces (D1.3).

3. Ground Floor. The Board applauded the unique way in which the podium creates a pedestrian scale while integrating into the tower form. Each level within the podium is a ring that undulates in and out in relationship to the other levels, creating a 1-3 story façade facing each adjacent right-of-way. a. The Board was concerned that the transitions of the rings be well detailed. The Board recommended a condition that the specific details of this complicated material transitions at the corner of Fairview and Denny be provided (B4.3). Application No. 3021621 Page 7

b. The Board was supportive of the open retail/residential ground floor concept. The Board observed that the following items be considered to create a long term viable ground level commercial space. i. Design the commercial storefront system so that it can be separated into separate commercial spaces with street level entries (C1.1, C4.1). ii. Investigate way to make the entry point and vestibules expressions of the tower form (B4.3, C1, C4.1). iii. Review the depth of retail space provided along Denny to remove any choke points at the structural column (C1).

4. Streetscape. The Board was pleased with the development of the streetscape and landscaping design. a. The Board applauded the building setbacks and public open space at each street corner (C1.3, D1.1). b. The Board felt the landscaping provided next to the curved building form was particularly successful (D1.1).

DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES

The priority Citywide and Neighborhood guidelines identified by the Board as Priority Guidelines are summarized below, while all guidelines remain applicable. For the full text please visit the Design Review website.

SITE PLANNING AND MASSING

A1 Respond to the Physical Environment: Develop an architectural concept and compose the building’s massing in response to geographic conditions and patterns of urban form found nearby or beyond the immediate context of the building site. A1.1. Response to Context: Each building site lies within a larger physical context having various and distinct features and characteristics to which the building design should respond. Develop an architectural concept and arrange the building mass in response to one or more of the following, if present: a. a change in street grid alignment that yields a site having nonstandard shape; b. a site having dramatic topography or contrasting edge conditions; c. patterns of urban form, such as nearby buildings that have employed distinctive and effective massing compositions; d. access to direct sunlight—seasonally or at particular times of day; e. views from the site of noteworthy structures or natural features, (i.e.: the Space Needle, Smith Tower, port facilities, Puget Sound, Mount Rainier, the Olympic Mountains); f. views of the site from other parts of the city or region; and g. proximity to a regional transportation corridor (the monorail, light rail, freight rail, major arterial, state highway, ferry routes, bicycle trail, etc.). A1.2. Response to Planning Efforts: Some areas downtown are transitional environments, where existing development patterns are likely to change. In these areas, respond to the urban form goals of current planning efforts, being cognizant that new development will establish the context to which future development will respond.

Application No. 3021621 Page 8

A2 Enhance the Skyline: Design the upper portion of the building to promote visual interest and variety in the downtown skyline. Respect existing landmarks while responding to the skyline’s present and planned profile. A2.1. Desired Architectural Treatments: Use one or more of the following architectural treatments to accomplish this goal: a. sculpt or profile the facades; b. specify and compose a palette of materials with distinctive texture, pattern, or color; c. provide or enhance a specific architectural rooftop element. A2.2. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment: In doing so, enclose and integrate any rooftop mechanical equipment into the design of the building as a whole.

ARCHITECTURAL EXPRESSION

B1 Respond to the neighborhood context: Develop an architectural concept and compose the major building elements to reinforce desirable urban features existing in the surrounding neighborhood. B1.1. Adjacent Features and Networks: Each building site lies within an urban neighborhood context having distinct features and characteristics to which the building design should respond. Arrange the building mass in response to one or more of the following, if present: a. a surrounding district of distinct and noteworthy character; b. an adjacent landmark or noteworthy building; c. a major public amenity or institution nearby; d. neighboring buildings that have employed distinctive and effective massing compositions; e. elements of the pedestrian network nearby, (i.e.: green street, hillclimb, mid-block crossing, through-block passageway); and f. direct access to one or more components of the regional transportation system. B1.2. Land Uses: Also, consider the design implications of the predominant land uses in the area surrounding the site.

B4 Design a Well-Proportioned & Unified Building: Compose the massing and organize the interior and exterior spaces to create a well-proportioned building that exhibits a coherent architectural concept. Design the architectural elements and finish details to create a unified building, so that all components appear integral to the whole. B4.1. Massing: When composing the massing, consider how the following can contribute to create a building that exhibits a coherent architectural concept: a. setbacks, projections, and open space; b. relative sizes and shapes of distinct building volumes; and c. roof heights and forms. B4.2. Coherent Interior/Exterior Design: When organizing the interior and exterior spaces and developing the architectural elements, consider how the following can contribute to create a building that exhibits a coherent architectural concept: d. facade modulation and articulation; e. windows and fenestration patterns; f. corner features; g. streetscape and open space fixtures; h. building and garage entries; and i. building base and top. Application No. 3021621 Page 9

B4.3. Architectural Details: When designing the architectural details, consider how the following can contribute to create a building that exhibits a coherent architectural concept: j. exterior finish materials; k. architectural lighting and signage; l. grilles, railings, and downspouts; m. window and entry trim and moldings; n. shadow patterns; and o. exterior lighting.

THE STREETSCAPE

C1 Promote Pedestrian Interaction: Spaces for street level uses should be designed to engage pedestrians with the activities occurring within them. Sidewalk-related spaces should appear safe, welcoming, and open to the general public. C1.1. Street Level Uses: Provide spaces for street level uses that: a. reinforce existing retail concentrations; b. vary in size, width, and depth; c. enhance main pedestrian links between areas; and d. establish new pedestrian activity where appropriate to meet area objectives. Design for uses that are accessible to the general public, open during established shopping hours, generate walk-in pedestrian clientele, and contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity. C1.2. Retail Orientation: Where appropriate, consider configuring retail space to attract tenants with products or services that will “spill-out” onto the sidewalk (up to six feet where sidewalk is sufficiently wide). C1.3. Street-Level Articulation for Pedestrian Activity: Consider setting portions of the building back slightly to create spaces conducive to pedestrian-oriented activities such as vending, resting, sitting, or dining. Further articulate the street level facade to provide an engaging pedestrian experience via: e. open facades (i.e., arcades and shop fronts); f. multiple building entries; g. windows that encourage pedestrians to look into the building interior; h. merchandising display windows; i. street front open space that features art work, street furniture, and landscaping; j. exterior finish materials having texture, pattern, lending themselves to high quality detailing.

C3 Provide Active — Not Blank — Facades: Buildings should not have large blank walls facing the street, especially near sidewalks. C3.1. Desirable Facade Elements: Facades which for unavoidable programmatic reasons may have few entries or windows should receive special design treatment to increase pedestrian safety, comfort, and interest. Enliven these facades by providing: a. small retail spaces (as small as 50 square feet) for food bars, newstands, and other specialized retail tenants; b. visibility into building interiors; c. limited lengths of blank walls; d. a landscaped or raised bed planted with vegetation that will grow up a vertical trellis or frame installed to obscure or screen the wall’s blank surface; Application No. 3021621 Page 10

e. high quality public art in the form of a mosaic, mural, decorative masonry pattern, sculpture, relief, etc., installed over a substantial portion of the blank wall surface; f. small setbacks, indentations, or other architectural means of breaking up the wall surface; g. different textures, colors, or materials that break up the wall’s surface. h. special lighting, a canopy, awning, horizontal trellis, or other pedestrian-oriented feature to reduce the expanse of the blank surface and add visual interest; i. seating ledges or perches (especially on sunny facades and near bus stops); j. merchandising display windows or regularly changing public information display cases.

C4 Reinforce Building Entries: To promote pedestrian comfort, safety, and orientation, reinforce building entries. C4.1. Entry Treatments: Reinforce the building’s entry with one or more of the following architectural treatments: a. extra-height lobby space; b. distinctive doorways; c. decorative lighting; d. distinctive entry canopy; e. projected or recessed entry bay; f. building name and address integrated into the facade or sidewalk; g. artwork integrated into the facade or sidewalk; h. a change in paving material, texture, or color; i. distinctive landscaping, including plants, water features and seating j. ornamental glazing, railings, and balustrades. C4.2. Residential Entries: To make a residential building more approachable and to create a sense of association among neighbors, entries should be clearly identifiable and visible from the street and easily accessible and inviting to pedestrians. The space between the building and the sidewalk should provide security and privacy for residents and encourage social interaction among residents and neighbors. Provide convenient and attractive access to the building’s entry. To ensure comfort and security, entry areas and adjacent open space should be sufficiently lighted and protected from the weather. Opportunities for creating lively, pedestrian-oriented open space should be considered.

C5 Encourage Overhead Weather Protection: Project applicants are encouraged to provide continuous, well-lit, overhead weather protection to improve pedestrian comfort and safety along major pedestrian routes. C5.1. Overhead Weather Protection Design Elements: Overhead weather protection should be designed with consideration given to: a. the overall architectural concept of the building b. uses occurring within the building (such as entries and retail spaces) or in the adjacent streetscape environment (such as bus stops and intersections); c. minimizing gaps in coverage; d. a drainage strategy that keeps rain water off the street-level facade and sidewalk; e. continuity with weather protection provided on nearby buildings; f. relationship to architectural features and elements on adjacent development, especially if abutting a building of historic or noteworthy character; g. the scale of the space defined by the height and depth of the weather protection; Application No. 3021621 Page 11

h. use of translucent or transparent covering material to maintain a pleasant sidewalk environment with plenty of natural light; and i. when opaque material is used, the illumination of light-colored undersides to increase security after dark.

PUBLIC AMENITIES

D1 Provide Inviting & Usable Open Space: Design public open spaces to promote a visually pleasing, safe, and active environment for workers, residents, and visitors. Views and solar access from the principal area of the open space should be especially emphasized. D1.1. Pedestrian Enhancements: Where a commercial or mixed-use building is set back from the sidewalk, pedestrian enhancements should be considered in the resulting street frontage. Downtown the primary function of any open space between commercial buildings and the sidewalk is to provide access into the building and opportunities for outdoor activities such as vending, resting, sitting, or dining. a. All open space elements should enhance a pedestrian oriented, urban environment that has the appearance of stability, quality, and safety. b. Preferable open space locations are to the south and west of tower development, or where the siting of the open space would improve solar access to the sidewalk. c. Orient public open space to receive the maximum direct sunlight possible, using trees, overhangs, and umbrellas to provide shade in the warmest months. Design such spaces to take advantage of views and solar access when available from the site. d. The design of planters, landscaping, walls, and other street elements should allow visibility into and out of the open space. D1.2. Open Space Features: Open spaces can feature art work, street furniture, and landscaping that invite customers or enhance the building’s setting. Examples of desirable features to include are: a. visual and pedestrian access (including barrier- free access) into the site from the public sidewalk; b. walking surfaces of attractive pavers; c. pedestrian-scaled site lighting; d. retail spaces designed for uses that will comfortably “spill out” and enliven the open space; e. areas for vendors in commercial areas; f. landscaping that enhances the space and architecture; g. pedestrian-scaled signage that identifies uses and shops; and h. site furniture, art work, or amenities such as fountains, seating, and kiosks. residential open space D1.3. Residential Open Space: Residential buildings should be sited to maximize opportunities for creating usable, attractive, well-integrated open space. In addition, the following should be considered: i. courtyards that organize architectural elements while providing a common garden; j. entry enhancements such as landscaping along a common pathway; k. decks, balconies and upper level terraces; l. play areas for children; m. individual gardens; and n. location of outdoor spaces to take advantage of sunlight.

Application No. 3021621 Page 12

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD DEPARTURES

The Board’s recommendation on the requested departure(s) will be based upon the departure’s potential to help the project better meet these design guideline priorities and achieve a better overall design than could be achieved without the departure(s). The Board’s recommendation will be reserved until the final Board meeting.

At the time of the Final Recommendation meeting, the following departures were requested:

1. Overhead Weather Protection (SMC 23.49.018 A1): The Code requires continuous overhead weather protection along the entire street front unless the façade is setback 5 feet from the street property line. The applicant has requested a departure from overhead weather protection on each street front as shown on page 80 of the Recommendation packet. A canopy reduction to 6’ was requested along Denny Way, less than 8’ along Fairview and 5’ along Virginia Street.

The Board unanimously supported the departure request along Denny Way due to the potential conflict with the street tree canopy. However, the Board denied the canopy departure requested along Fairview and Virginia Street. The Board noted that the minimum 8’ canopy projection could be provided along each street frontage while still providing a sinuous canopy form as described by the applicant team. The revised street level design must better meet the intent of Design Guideline C-1 Promote Pedestrian Interaction.

2. Blank Façade (SMC 23.49.056): The Code requires that blank facades be limited to a maximum of 30 feet wide. The applicant has requested a 70’ foot blank façade along Virginia Street.

The Board unanimously supported the departure request. The Board discussed the benefits of having a continuous open retail space the associated centralized back of house activities. Ultimately the Board agreed that the façade, as proposed, provided the cleanest solution for centralized back of house activities on a site with only street property lines. The Board noted that the optional green wall shown on page 55 was a condition of the departure approval. The revised street level design must better meet the intent of Design Guideline C1.3 Street-Level Articulation for Pedestrian Activity.

RECOMMENDATIONS

BOARD DIRECTION

At the conclusion of the Final Recommendation meeting, the Board recommended approval of the project with conditions.

The recommendation summarized above was based on the design review packet dated Tuesday, July 12, 2016, and the materials shown and verbally described by the applicant at the Tuesday, July 12, 2016 Design Recommendation meeting. After considering the site and context, hearing public comment, reconsidering the previously identified design priorities and reviewing the materials, the five Design Review Board members recommended APPROVAL of the subject design with the following conditions:

1. Integrate the building slab edge and railing so that there is not a gap between the two elements when viewed from below (A2, B4.3). 2. Revise the material palette to include a lighter core material (A2.1, B4.3). 3. The privacy panels shape should respond to the architectural composition of the tower (A2.1, B4.3). Application No. 3021621 Page 13

4. The tower sculptural form should be continued to the top of the roof structure (A2). 5. Provide specific details for the complicated material transitions at the corner of Fairview and Denny (B4.3). 6. Incorporate a green wall along the Virginia façade as shown on page 55 (C1.3).

ANALYSIS & DECISION – DESIGN REVIEW

Director’s Analysis

The design review process prescribed in Section 23.41.014.F of the Seattle Municipal Code describing the content of the SDCI Director’s decision reads in part as follows:

The Director’s decision shall consider the recommendation of the Design Review Board, provided that, if four (4) members of the Design Review Board are in agreement in their recommendation to the Director, the Director shall issue a decision which incorporates the full substance of the recommendation of the Design Review Board, unless the Director concludes the Design Review Board: a. Reflects inconsistent application of the design review guidelines; or b. Exceeds the authority of the Design Review Board; or c. Conflicts with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the site; or d. Conflicts with the requirements of state or federal law.

Subject to the recommended conditions, the design of the proposed project was found by the Design Review Board to adequately conform to the applicable Design Guidelines.

At the conclusion of the Recommendation meeting held on July 12, 2016, the Board recommended approval of the project with the conditions described in the summary of the Recommendation meeting above.

Five members of the Downtown Design Review Board were in attendance and provided recommendations (listed above) to the Director and identified elements of the Design Guidelines which are critical to the project’s overall success. The Director must provide additional analysis of the Board’s recommendations and then accept, deny or revise the Board’s recommendations (SMC 23.41.014.F3).

The Director agrees with the Design Review Board’s conclusion that the proposed project and conditions imposed result in a design that best meets the intent of the Design Review Guidelines and accepts the recommendations noted by the Board.

Following the Recommendation meeting, SDCI staff worked with the applicant to update the submitted plans to include the recommendations of the Design Review Board.

Applicant response to Recommended Design Review Condition:

1. The Master Use Plan Set has been updated with Sheet MUP-A4.21 to show the revised building slab edge more closely alighted with the balcony railing so that the gap between the two features will not be visible when viewed from below. The response satisfies the Application No. 3021621 Page 14

recommended condition for the MUP decision. This item shall be shown on the construction plans, and the installation of this item will be confirmed by the Land Use Planner prior to the final Certificate of Occupancy for the new construction, as conditioned below. 2. The Master Use Plan Set has been updated on Sheets MUP-A3.01-A3.02 to demonstrate a lighter core material. An updated material board has also been provided for the project file. The response satisfies the recommended condition for the MUP decision. This item shall be shown on the construction plans, and the installation of this item will be confirmed by the Land Use Planner prior to the final Certificate of Occupancy for the new construction, as conditioned below. 3. The Master Use Plan Set has been updated with Sheet MUP-A3.20 to show the revised privacy panels consistent with the Board’s condition of approval. The response satisfies the recommended condition for the MUP decision. This item shall be shown on the construction plans, and the installation of this item will be confirmed by the Land Use Planner prior to the final Certificate of Occupancy for the new construction, as conditioned below. 4. The Master Use Plan Set has been updated with Sheet MUP-A3.05 and A3.06 to show the revised roof structure which continues the sculptural tower form to the top of the structure. The response satisfies the recommended condition for the MUP decision. This item shall be shown on the construction plans, and the installation of this item will be confirmed by the Land Use Planner prior to the final Certificate of Occupancy for the new construction, as conditioned below 5. The Master Use Plan Set has been updated with Sheet MUP-A4.22 to provide details of the material transition at the corner of Fairview and Denny. The response satisfies the recommended condition for the MUP decision. This item shall be shown on the construction plans, and the installation of this item will be confirmed by the Land Use Planner prior to the final Certificate of Occupancy for the new construction, as conditioned below 6. The Master Use Plan Set has been updated with Sheet MUP-A0.03 and L1.001 to show a green wall along the Virginia façade. The response satisfies the recommended condition for the MUP decision. This item shall be shown on the construction plans, and the installation of this item will be confirmed by the Land Use Planner prior to the final Certificate of Occupancy for the new construction, as conditioned below.

The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all construction documents, details, and specifications are shown and constructed consistent with the approved MUP drawings.

The Director of SDCI has reviewed the decision and recommendations of the Design Review Board made by the five members present at the decision meeting and finds that they are consistent with the City of Seattle Design Review Guidelines. The Director is satisfied that all of the recommendations imposed by the Design Review Board have been met.

DIRECTOR’S DECISION

The Director accepts the Design Review Board’s recommendations and APPROVES the proposed design and the requested departures with the condition summarized at the end of this Decision.

Application No. 3021621 Page 15

II. ANALYSIS – SEPA

A. Procedural SEPA

A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published for the Downtown Height and Density Changes on January 6, 2005. The FEIS evaluated the probable significant environmental impacts that could result from the redevelopment following a change in zoning to allow additional height and density in the Downtown zones. That analysis evaluated the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Preferred Alternative and other alternatives.

The subject site lies within the geographic area analyzed in the FEIS. The proposed development is within the range of actions and impacts that were evaluated in the various alternatives. SDCI determined that it should adopt that FEIS. In addition, an Addendum to that FEIS has been prepared to add more detailed, project-specific information related to potential impacts from the proposed project.

The Addendum adds analysis or information about the proposal and does not substantively change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the EIS. The action produces no probable, significant, adverse environmental impacts that were not already studied in the EIS.

The FEIS Addendum for the proposed project addresses the following areas of environmental impact:

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Construction • Environmental Health • Height, Bulk and Scale • Historic Resources • Light and Glare • Parking • Public Views • Transportation

The Notice of Adoption and Availability of Addendum was published in the City’s Land Use Information Bulletin on February 2, 2017. Notice was sent to parties of record that commented on the EIS. In addition, a copy of the notice was sent to parties of record for this project.

B. Substantive SEPA

Short Term Impacts

The following is a discussion of the impacts identified in each element of the environment, along with indication of any required mitigation for the impacts disclosed. The impacts detailed below were identified and analyzed in the EIS with more specific project-related discussion in the February 2, 2017 Addendum and related documents.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Downtown Height and Density Changes EIS did not identify impacts or mitigation related to Air Quality or Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Application No. 3021621 Page 16

Construction activities including construction worker commutes, truck trips, the operation of construction equipment and machinery, and the manufacture of the construction materials themselves result in increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions which adversely impact air quality and contribute to climate change and global warming. The Addendum noted the site development would adhere to Puget Sound Clean Air Agency’s regulations and the City’s construction best practices regarding demolition activity and fugitive dust emissions.

While these impacts are adverse no further mitigation is warranted pursuant to SMC 25.05.675.A.

Construction Impacts - Parking and Traffic

SMC 25.05.675.B provides policies to minimize or prevent temporary adverse impacts associated with construction activities. The EIS Addendum identified potential construction impacts such as parking and traffic.

Pursuant to SMC 25.05.675.B (Construction Impacts), mitigation is warranted and a Construction Management Plan is required, which will be reviewed by the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). The requirements for a Construction Management Plan include a haul route and a construction parking plan. The submittal information and review process for Construction Management Plans are described on the SDOT website: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/cmp.htm.

Construction Impacts - Noise

The Downtown Height and Density Changes EIS did not identify impacts or mitigation related to Construction Noise Impacts.

SMC 25.05.675.B provides policies to minimize or prevent temporary adverse impacts associated with construction activities. The EIS Addendum identified potential noise impacts from new construction.

The Addendum identified potential mitigation related to Construction impacts, including limiting hours of construction, limiting the use of impact type equipment to specific hours, and identifying truck haul routes. A Construction Management Plan will be required prior to issuance of the first demolition, shoring/excavation, or construction permit, including information in the event of complaints about construction noise, and measures to reduce or prevent noise impacts. The submittal information and review process for Construction Management Plans are described on the SDOT website http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/cmp/htm. The limitations stipulated in the Noise Ordinance and the CMP are expected to be sufficient to mitigate noise impacts and no additional conditioning is necessary to mitigate noise impacts per SMC 25.05.675.B.

The limitations stipulated in the Noise Ordinance and the CMP are sufficient to mitigate noise impacts and no additional SEPA conditioning is necessary to mitigation noise impacts per SMC 25.05.675.B.

Environmental Health

The Downtown Height and Density Changes EIS did not identify impacts or mitigation related to Environmental Health.

Application No. 3021621 Page 17

SMC 25.05.675.F provides policies to minimize impacts to environmental health, including soil and groundwater contamination. The Downtown Height and Density Changes EIS did not include any specific information about soil or groundwater contamination.

The EIS Addendum noted that soil vapor samples and soil samples taken on site did not contain contaminants exceeding MTCA Method A or B standards. There is, however the potential for residual contamination to exist on the site.

If not properly handled, existing contamination could have an adverse impact on environmental health. Mitigation and remediation of contamination is in the jurisdiction of Washington State Department of Ecology (“Ecology”), consistent with the City’s SEPA relationship to Federal, State and Regional regulations described in SMC 25.05.665.E. This State agency program functions to mitigate risks associated with removal and transport of hazardous and toxic materials, and the agency’s regulations provide sufficient impact mitigation for these materials. The City acknowledges that Ecology’s jurisdiction and requirements for remediation will mitigate impacts associated with any contamination.

The Environmental Site Assessment Update and Soil and Groundwater Testing Report prepared by GeoEngineers, Inc dated August 24, 2006 recommends a contingency for the removal, handling and treatment/disposal of potentially contaminated soil be included in the construction budget in the event that localized zones of contamination are encountered during the construction excavation. No specific mitigation was identified for the Denny Centre Development.

No further mitigation is warranted for impacts to environmental health, per SMC 25.05.675.F.

Long Term Impacts

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The 2005 Downtown Height and Density EIS did not identify impacts or mitigation related to Air Quality or Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Operational activities, primarily vehicular trips associated with the project construction and the project’s energy consumption, are expected to result in increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions which adversely impact air quality and contribute to climate change and global warming. The EIS and February 2, 2017 Addendum did not identify potential mitigation related to Greenhouse Gas emissions. Many of the mitigation items have been integrated into the Land Use Code requirements for this zone.

While these impacts are adverse, no further mitigation is warranted pursuant to SMC 25.05.675.A.

Height, Bulk, and Scale

SMC 25.05.675.G provides policies to minimize impacts of height, bulk, and scale from proposed development.

Application No. 3021621 Page 18

The Downtown Height and Density Changes EIS recommended specific strategies to mitigate the impacts of additional height, bulk, and scale for new development that conforms to the new zoning designations. Many of these strategies were integrated into the development standards for the applicable zones in the Land Use Code.

The Addendum notes Section 25.05.675.G.2.c of the Seattle SEPA Ordinance provides the following: “The Citywide Design Guidelines (and any Council-approved, neighborhood design guidelines) are intended to mitigate the same adverse height, bulk, and scale impacts addressed in these policies. A project that is approved pursuant to the Design Review Process is presumed to comply with these Height, Bulk, and Scale policies. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence that height, bulk and scale impacts documented through environmental review have not been adequately mitigated. Any additional mitigation imposed by the decision maker pursuant to these height, bulk, and scale policies on projects that have undergone Design Review shall comply with design guidelines applicable to the project.”

The height, bulk and scale of the proposed development and relationship to nearby context have been addressed during the Design Review process. Per the Overview policies in SMC 25.05.665.D, the existing City Codes and regulations to mitigate impacts to height bulk and scale are presumed to be sufficient, and additional mitigation is not warranted under SMC 25.05.675.G.

Historic Resources

SMC 25.05.675.H provides policies to minimize impacts to designated historic landmarks, historic districts, and sites of archaeological significance.

The Downtown Height and Density Changes EIS notes that existing landmark structures are afforded protection by the current regulations governing preservation of historic resources. The EIS identified that structures not already-designated as landmarks may be designated in the future as landmarks.

The EIS addendum notes that one existing building on site was constructed in 1937. The existing structure was reviewed for the potential to meet historic landmark status. The Department of Neighborhoods reviewed the proposal for compliance with the Landmark Preservation requirements of SMC 25.12 and indicated the structure on site is unlikely to quality for historic landmark status (LPB 382/16).

The project proposal is across the street from two City of Seattle designated landmark structures, the Fashioncraft building/Recovery Café and the Old Norway Hall. The Department of Neighborhoods reviewed the proposal for compliance with the Landmarks Preservation requirements of SMC 25.12 and did not recommend changes to the proposed design.

The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) has reviewed the Cultural Resources Overview for the Denny Centre Project prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants dated April 4, 2017. DAHP has concluded there is a moderate probability for encountering archaeological resources during the excavation of the project. DAHP recommends an archaeological Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan (MIDP) for review prior to ground disturbance.

Application No. 3021621 Page 19

Since the information showed there is probable presence of archaeologically significant resources on site, Section B of Director’s Rule 2-98 applies. The report included further analysis and a mitigation plan prepared by a professional archaeologist, consistent with Section B of the Director’s Rule.

The recommendations include providing an Archaeological Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan for review by DAHP prior to ground disturbance. These recommendations will be required as a condition to be satisfied prior to a demolition, grading, or building permit. The Plan shall be followed during construction.

In addition to the condition to provide an Archaeological Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan, the following conditions are also warranted to mitigate impacts to potential archeological resources, per SMC 25.05.675.H and consistent with Section B of Director’s Rule 2-98:

Prior to Issuance of Demolition, Excavation/Shoring, or Construction Permit

1. The owner and/or responsible parties shall provide SDCI with a statement that the contract documents for their general, excavation, and other subcontractors will include reference to regulations regarding archaeological resources (Chapters 27.34, 27.53, 27.44, 79.01, and 79.90 RCW, and Chapter 25.48 WAC as applicable) and that construction crews will be required to comply with those regulations.

During Construction:

2. If resources of potential archaeological significance are encountered during construction or excavation, the owner and/or responsible parties shall:

• Stop work immediately and notify SDCI (Planner name and phone #) and the Washington State Archaeologist at the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The procedures outlined in Appendix A of Director’s Rule 2-98 for assessment and/or protection of potentially significant archeological resources shall be followed.

• Abide by all regulations pertaining to discovery and excavation of archaeological resources, including but not limited to Chapters 27.34, 27.53, 27.44, 79.01 and 79.90 RCW and Chapter 25.48 WAC, as applicable, or their successors.

Light and Glare

The 2005 Downtown Height and Density EIS did not identify impacts or mitigation related to Light and Glare.

SMC 25.05.675.K provides policies to minimize or prevent hazards and other adverse impacts created by light and glare.

The Addendum to the EIS included a glare analysis that showed east- and west-bound traffic on Denny Way could occasionally experience reflected solar glare from the facades of the proposed building. Such glare would impact motorists but is not expected to be significant. The Addendum notes that building orientation, modulation and material choices would limit the Application No. 3021621 Page 20 impacts and duration of the reflected glare. The actual reflectivity of the building glazing will be dictated by the nature of the glass that is employed. The current glass chosen for the balcony railing has a reflectivity of 11%.

The impacts of glare on motorists is anticipated to minimal and mitigation is not warranted per SMC 25.05.675.Q.

Parking

SMC 25.05.675.M provides policies to mitigate parking impacts.

The EIS analysis considered the impacts of the EIS alternatives as they relate to the overall transportation system and parking demand. The subject site is within the area analyzed in the EIS and the proposed development is within the range of actions and impacts evaluated in the EIS.

Traffic and parking analyses associated with the proposed development were reviewed by SDCI, as described in the Addendum (Transportation Technical Report Denny Centre by Heffron Transportation, dated November 28, 2016).

The proposed development includes 272 parking spaces for 437 residential units. The report found that renter-occupied residences in the site’s neighborhood ranged from 0.53 vehicles per unit to 0.78 vehicles per unit. Therefore, the proposed on-site supply ratio of 0.62 is within the acceptable range to accommodate the residential parking demand. The project would not provide any on-site parking for the commercial spaces. The few retail customers who would drive and park at the site would likely need to use on-street parking in the vicinity.

The number of proposed parking spaces accommodates all the anticipated parking demand, and no additional mitigation is warranted per SMC 25.05.675.M.

Public Views

SMC 25.05.675.P provides policies to minimize impacts to designated public views listed in this section. The Downtown Height and Density Changes EIS discussed potential public view impacts. The EIS identified no significant adverse impacts.

The EIS Addendum described view impacts and included images showing views of the proposed development from nearby designated viewpoints including Volunteer Park, Bhy Kracke Park, Plymouth Pillars Park, Volunteer Park, and views toward adjacent landmarks structures.

As shown in the EIS Addendum, the proposed development would be visible as a continuation of the Downtown skyline of the Denny Triangle neighborhood. No significant view impacts are anticipated.

The impacts to views from designated viewpoints and towards landmarks structures is anticipated to minimal and mitigation is not warranted per SMC 25.05.675.P.

Transportation

SMC 25.05.675.R provides policies to minimize transportation impacts. The EIS analysis considered the impacts of the EIS alternatives as they relate to the overall transportation system and parking demand. The subject site is within the area analyzed in the EIS and the proposed development is within the range of actions and impacts evaluated in the EIS.

Application No. 3021621 Page 21

The EIS Addendum and the Transportation Technical Report Denny Centre by Heffron Transportation, dated November 28, 2016 indicated that the project is expected to generate a net total of 800 daily vehicle trips, with 77 net new PM peak hour trips and 78 AM peak hour trips.

The additional trips would have an impact on the transportation system in the vicinity of the project. In order to mitigate these impacts, the project will be required to mitigate traffic impacts by participating in the City of Seattle transportation mitigation program. The Addendum and Transportation Technical Report described a pro-rata mitigation share of $1,555 for South Lake Union Transportation Plan projects and $6,255 for the Denny Way Active Traffic Management Project.

The requirement for a TMP and the condition to pay a pro rata contribution of $1,555 for South Lake Union and $6,255 contribution to the Denny Way Active Traffic Management Project and are expected to adequately mitigate the adverse impacts from the proposed development, consistent with per SMC 25.05.675.R.

DECISIONS – SEPA

SDCI adopts the Downtown Height and Density Changes FEIS for the proposed project, as supplemented by the FEIS Addendum dated February 2, 2017.

The proposed action is APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.

CONDITIONS – DESIGN REVIEW

For the Life of the Project

1. The building and landscape design shall be substantially consistent with the materials represented at the Recommendation meeting and in the materials submitted after the Recommendation meeting, before the MUP issuance. Any change to the proposed design, including materials, colors, landscaping, and signage shall require prior approval by the Land Use Planner (206.684.9218 or [email protected]).

CONDITIONS – SEPA

Prior to Issuance of Demolition, Excavation/Shoring, or Construction Permit

2. Provide a Construction Management Plan that has been approved by SDOT. The submittal information and review process for Construction Management Plans are described on the SDOT website at: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/cmp.htm.

3. The owner and/or responsible parties shall provide SDCI with an Archaeological Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan reviewed by DAHP.

4. The owner and/or responsible parties shall provide SDCI with a statement that the contract documents for their general, excavation, and other subcontractors will include reference to regulations regarding archaeological resources (Chapters 27.34, 27.53, 27.44, 79.01, and 79.90 RCW, and Chapter 25.48 WAC as applicable) and that construction crews will be required to comply with those regulations.

Application No. 3021621 Page 22

Prior to Issuance of a Construction Permit

5. The applicant shall make a pro rata mitigation payment in the amount of $7,810 ($1,555 for South Lake Union and $6,255 contribution to the Denny Way Active Traffic Management Project) to the City of Seattle.

During Construction

6. If resources of potential archaeological significance are encountered during construction or excavation, the owner and/or responsible parties shall:

• Stop work immediately and notify SDCI (Lindsay King, (206) 684- 9218 or [email protected]) and the Washington State Archaeologist at the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP). The procedures outlined in Appendix A of Director’s Rule 2-98 for assessment and/or protection of potentially significant archeological resources shall be followed.

Lindsay King, Land Use Planner Date: June 12, 2017 Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections

LK:rgc 3021621.docx

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR ISSUANCE OF YOUR MASTER USE PERMIT

Master Use Permit Expiration and Issuance

The appealable land use decision on your Master Use Permit (MUP) application has now been published. At the conclusion of the appeal period, your permit will be considered “approved for issuance”. (If your decision is appealed, your permit will be considered “approved for issuance” on the fourth day following the City Hearing Examiner’s decision.) Projects requiring a Council land use action shall be considered “approved for issuance” following the Council’s decision.

The “approved for issuance” date marks the beginning of the three year life of the MUP approval, whether or not there are outstanding corrections to be made or pre-issuance conditions to be met. The permit must be issued by SDCI within that three years or it will expire and be cancelled (SMC 23-76-028). (Projects with a shoreline component have a two year life. Additional information regarding the effective date of shoreline permits may be found at 23.60.074.)

All outstanding corrections must be made, any pre-issuance conditions met and all outstanding fees paid before the permit is issued. You will be notified when your permit has issued.

Questions regarding the issuance and expiration of your permit may be addressed to the Public Resource Center at [email protected] or to our message line at 206-684-8467.