Good afternoon, everyone.
The August 6th, 2025 Land Use Committee meeting will come to order.
It is 2.03 PM.
I am Mark Solomon, Chair of the Land Use Committee.
I will note that Councilmember Rivera is excused from today's meeting.
Clerk, will you please call the roll.
Vice Chair Strauss.
Present.
Council Member Ruiz.
Present.
Council Member Rink.
Present.
Chair Solomon.
Present.
Chair, there are four members present.
I will also note for the record that Council President Nelson has joined us for a portion of today's meeting.
If there is no objection, Well, actually, change that.
I move to adopt the agenda.
Is there a second?
Second.
Okay.
Thank you.
It's been moved and seconded.
And if there is no objection, the agenda will be amended to hear item five first this afternoon, followed by item four, and then items one, two, and three.
All right, hearing no objection, the agenda is amended to move item five to the first of the agenda, followed by item four.
If there is no agenda, the objection, the agenda as amended will be adopted.
Okay.
Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted as amended.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you all again very much for joining us.
It's always interesting to see folks showing up for a land use committee meeting.
I want to thank central staff as well as our clerks and all of the folks who make land use fun and interesting.
So we will now open the public comment period, the hybrid public comment period.
And again, public comment should relate to items on today's agenda.
For clarification, the Roots to Roofs item has been removed from today's agenda due to staff illness and a little bit more work that needs to be done on the legislation.
We will hear that legislation at our next Land Use Committee meeting, which I believe will be September 3rd.
So if you are here for Roots to Roofs, We will not be hearing about that item today.
So apologies if you did come down here for that.
So with that, let's launch into public comment.
Clerk, can you please read the rules?
Currently we have seven in-person speakers signed up and one remote speaker.
The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.
Alex Simmerman.
And be mindful again that each person will have two minutes.
Please keep your items or your comments to the items on the agenda, please.
Thank you.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
My name Alex Zimmerman.
Pause.
Stop.
I won't speak about agenda number two.
No, cut his mic.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cut the mic.
Mr. Zimmerman, you've been warned more than three times about using language that is derogatory to members of this body, as well as members of the audience that comes here out of their own time to participate in this process.
You continually are disruptive and disrespectful, and as such, you are no longer allowed to speak.
Please remove yourself from the chambers.
You have been told.
You've already been warned.
Your time is done.
Thank you very much.
You may exit the chambers.
Not when you insult the members of this body or the members of this audience.
There is no further discussion.
Thank you.
Remove yourself from the chambers, Mr. Zimmerman.
Next up, next up, we have Aaron, oh, Aaron C. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair Solomon, members of the committee.
I'm Aaron Chiesewski.
I am the president of the Bill Wright Men's Golf and Social Club at the Bill Wright Golf Complex at Jefferson Park.
I'm here to speak in support of the second item on the agenda, which is the netting project.
First, I'd like to express thanks for the professional staff who are advancing this request.
That this was many years in the making is a testament to their thoroughness.
On behalf of the Bill Wright Men's Club and its many members, I ask that you approve the recommended variants and, in doing so, endorse the effort to restore the integrity of this park feature that is so important to Seattle, its golf history, and especially the legacy of Bill Wright, the first man to break the color barrier in professional golf by winning the 1959 United States Golf Association Public Links Amateur Tournament.
Fitting that this is a public golf course.
We are seeking harmony with the community and see this project as a way forward.
So furthermore, I'd like to acknowledge that it is our interest to preserve the original intention of design of the golf course, its setting in the community, And ensure that it has a long-lasting legacy for the City of Seattle.
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have Dawn Blakely.
Good afternoon, Council Members, and welcome back to Council Member Juarez.
It's nice to see you again.
And thank you, Chair Solomon and guest Sarah Nelson.
Thank you for being here tonight.
I am Don Blakeney.
I am the Executive Director of the U District Partnership.
We represent about 550 businesses, 350 of which are ground floor businesses in the U District.
I'm here today to support the legislation that's going to amend some of our land use codes that help small businesses that take on spaces.
We were very fortunate a few years ago to get a grant from the Washington State Department of Commerce where we had a $5 million grant to give out 140 storefront improvements in a very short amount of time, and I became a very quick expert on the challenges of permitting and the struggle between trying to do everything right but also the limited capacity of the city and also some of the rules that might not be helpful when we think about this stuff.
We pulled all that information together, and it really comes down to predictability and kind of having a North Star that we really want our businesses to be open, we want them to be successful, and we want our commercial districts to really thrive.
I want to thank Council Member Nelson for having me and some of the other folks that had kind of stumbled onto these things to the Council to talk last February about this and to hear us out.
Thank you to OED who's brought this forward.
Phillip and Markham have been really key partners in helping listen to some of this, and I think Looking at substantial alterations and looking at change of use and the things that you guys are talking about is going to be a huge benefit to our small business community.
And last but not least, I want to thank our small businesses who are really key in educating me about all of this and our property owners.
So they've been great.
They've been a part of the process.
And thank you all for listening to them today.
Next up, we have Bobby Nichol.
Good afternoon, council members.
My name is Bobbi Nichol.
I am the public affairs manager for Visit Seattle, the nonprofit tourism organization which helped bring 40 million people to Seattle last year.
We are busy now, understatement of the century, preparing for the FIFA World Cup, ensuring that our city puts its best foot forward for an estimated 750,000 visitors and more we expect to come after seeing Seattle on TV.
We care because altogether these visitors pump real dollars into the local economy, $8.8 billion in 2024. Visitors support over 68,000 local jobs and cover $839 million a year in state and local taxes, which go to support critical housing and transportation programs.
We also know from survey data that Seattle visitors value organic local experiences more than the average US traveler.
That's where our small businesses come in.
They are the spaces citywide where visitors get a taste of the real Seattle and what we stand for.
Innovation, diversity, inclusivity, sustainability.
But small businesses face several major challenges, and under our current permitting structure, even minor improvements to small spaces can trigger costly, time-consuming building-wide upgrades.
Especially for small businesses trying to reopen vacant spaces under 7,000 square feet, these requirements are often a deal-breaker.
Council Bill 121047 corrects that, building a permitting system that works with small businesses, not against them, and more realistically invests in the jobs, cultures, and explorable business districts that define our city.
On behalf of Seattle's tourism and economic development communities, I urge you to move this legislation forward.
Thank you for your consideration.
Next up we have Noah.
Aye, Council.
Hi, Council Members.
Thank you.
My name's Noah Williams.
I'm here from Council Member Saka's District, and I live on the sea line.
I'm here today to just encourage you to prioritize the creation of neighborhood centers that are near-frequent transit routes.
I know there was some language that was to be stripped out in amendments regarding that.
And in general, I would just also like to say, after last night's results, you don't have to worry about ticking off the rich NIMBYs, because they are the few.
We are the many.
We will show up for you.
We will show up in force and support of our neighborhood centers near frequent transit.
And if we're not planning on building more of these neighborhood centers, what we're unfortunately doing is handing King County Metro a big bill because service on coverage routes costs a lot of money to operate relative to ridership routes.
Thank you for your opposition to the amendments to decrease the neighborhood centers, and thank you for your time today.
Next up, we have Harper Nolley.
I am working off three hours of sleep, so if I make any mistakes, let's blame that.
I wanted to start out by saying thank you for the increased density proposals on the table.
This is an important step towards our housing needs.
However, I was severely disappointed to see the reductions in several neighborhood centers in several wealthy neighborhoods.
You're making it more difficult to build apartments in large swaths of the city in order to appease the sensibilities of the wealthy homeowners you cannot imagine living next to a poor.
I know that...
See, three hours sleep.
I know trying to decide who can and can't live next to you is a time-honored American tradition, but this one was one I thought we agreed was evil.
The approach to housing taken by many on this council seems to be a weak attempt to house all people who move here somewhere in Seattle, but this is inequitable.
All people of all income levels should have the freedom to live affordably anywhere in the city they wish to.
Prioritizing the feelings of those with money over those without is nothing but Disney villain shit.
Thank you.
Next we have Steve Rubestello.
Yeah, it would be nice if people could live all through the city.
And that's why we should raise the MHA fees.
Because remember that the original goal was 50-50.
50% buyout, 50% of the units are spread among the city.
I understand there are some people who don't want them living next to them.
And that's one of the reasons why we don't raise MHA fees.
Of course, the development community is not much in favor of that.
It would also have the bad byproduct of having more money for people who don't have a lot of money for housing.
And I think that Seattle has shown that there is room for improvement.
If we'd have put even a small portion of the money that has been spent On homelessness and on incentives into actually buying housing, we may be in much better shape than we are now.
We can't go backward, but let's go forward and take a look about doing better than we are right now.
Your RUFST group that is not going on today, It came back.
This innovation looks even worse than the first one because we're not worried about housing for people who make over $100,000 a year.
In Seattle, there are options.
They may not be everyone that they want, but let's take a look at housing for working people.
Let's take a look at housing for people who make far less than that.
And that's where the city is really falling down.
We're not seeing the movement towards a city of many incomes.
We might have what we call a lot of different colored guppies.
That was our last in-person speaker.
We will now move to our remote speakers.
First up, we have Austin Miller.
Austin, please press star six.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Chair Solomon and members of the committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
My name is Austin Miller, the Senior Manager of Local Government Affairs with the Seattle Restaurant Alliance.
And on behalf of our members across the city, I would like to express our support for Council Bill 121047. This common sense proposal will help simplify and streamline the permitting process for small businesses, including restaurants.
It is a critical step towards reactivating retail spaces, reducing the cost of operating in Seattle, and creating a more vibrant, active community for everyone, including business operators, residents, and visitors.
Thank you, Council President Nelson and OED for your work, and please support this proposal.
Chair, that was the last speaker.
Great.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate everyone's comments.
The public comment period is now closed.
Members of the public are encouraged to submit a written public comment or sign up on the cards available on the podium or email the council at council at seattle.gov.
With that, we will move on to the first item of business on the agenda, which is actually item five.
Clerk, can you please read item five into the record?
Council Bill 121045, in ordinance relating to land use and zoning, updating timelines for city review of land use permits, amending sections 237605 and 2376010 to the SMC and amending resolution 3602 to update the city council rules for quasi-judicial proceedings.
Okay, great.
Thank you very much.
And I want to recognize Council President Nelson and ask her to speak to this bill.
When I first came onto this body, one of the things I said was a priority for me was permitting reform.
And I'm glad to see that it is progressing forward.
So Council President, please, you are recognized.
Well, thank you very much, Chair Solomon.
And my thanks go to you for making time In this committee, especially with everything else that's going on right now before us and also for co-sponsoring these two pieces of legislation we'll be talking about today.
And then finally, of course, for meeting the legislation so that we could talk about this first because I have another thing to go to.
But in any case, colleagues, And public people in the room, I can't even begin to express how high the stakes are right now when it comes to permitting reform because permitting problems, slow housing construction, inhibit economic activity, increase cost of projects, and also just the hassles of anybody trying to go through permit review, be that a homeowner to a small business owner to, you know, a developer of multifamily housing.
So thank you very much.
And all of these problems that this legislation is trying to fix are unnecessary just to require some attention.
So just by way of introduction to the two pieces of legislation we'll be talking about today, both of them are the product of a roundtable discussion in the Governance Accountability and Economic Development Committee on February 13th, and that had a panel of really well-respected and experienced architects led by Jim Graham of Graham Baba, and also including one of our public commenters, Don Blakeney, as a representative of small businesses.
And that's why it was in my public, my committee, because the problems with permitting inhibit small businesses from either opening and or sometimes growing their business because they're having problems getting permits for tenant improvements.
So that's a little bit of the background.
The task of this panel of architects in committee was to identify the most onerous systemic problems of our permitting process and then recommend ways to fix it.
And they did provide a list of some of the top problems and then I have no recommendations to fix it.
I forwarded this list to the mayor's office and to the director of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, SDCI, on March 4th, and then nudged them later on, on May 21st.
And now I'm very happy that we're getting down to business here.
So the first piece of legislation, which is Council Bill 121045, Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
And during that time, sometimes financing can go away or be jeopardized because the lenders want to know when you're going to be making a return on the investment of their loan.
And so they get nervous when it goes, stretches on and on and on.
And then the negative impacts cascade.
So the first one will be talking about how our project permit review process should be modified to comply with state law.
And then the second, the second, The last piece of legislation is about substantial alterations.
And to best explain this, I'll just read from the recommendations that were forwarded by Jim Graham of the panel of architects that convened in committee.
Number five on the list of nine was Modify, establish clear guidelines and higher thresholds for substantial alteration requirements.
And it says substantial alteration requirements regularly creep into small projects, making them infeasible, tacking on additional upgrades related to structural and energy code requirements that widen the project scope significantly.
And then goes on to discuss a little bit about what, you know, what is entailed when A small change triggers requirements for much larger or much more expansive changes in the project scope.
So that is, that's on the menu today, but I just want to say that this will go a long way in making housing Less expensive.
I always say that we need to make housing easier and less expensive to build.
And by cutting down the time and the complexity of housing construction itself, we'll go a long way towards solving, not solving necessarily, but addressing our housing affordability crisis, which is on everybody's mind here.
And then finally, the second one, less directly related to timelines, gets to the certainty question.
And our office made a couple of changes to the legislation that was sent down by the executive.
In consultation with SDCI and the Seattle Building Code Compliance Advisory Committee, CCAB, I think it's called shortly.
So that is the background on that legislation as well.
So thank you very much for allowing me to say a couple words.
Thank you very much, Council President.
With that, will our presenters please join us at the table?
Do we have anybody?
Oh.
There you are.
Okay.
Can you join us online?
Yes, you can.
All right.
Yes.
Thank you.
Lischwitz and Council Central Staff.
Sorry, I'm not able to be there in person today.
So as mentioned, Council Bill 121045 shortens the statutory permit timelines for SBCI to review land use permits.
Basically, our code sets up a system of five different types of permits.
Type 1 permits are permits that require little discretionary review.
They have no opportunity for an administrative appeal and don't require a public hearing.
Type 2 permits do have a notice requirement And an opportunity for appeal.
They do have a discretionary component.
Things like administrative conditional use are classified as a Type 2 permit.
Type 3 permits are subdivisions.
They include both an appeal and a public hearing.
Type 4 decisions are council conditional uses.
They include appeal, a hearing, and council review.
And finally, type five decisions are legislative actions.
They include requirements for public hearings and broad public outreach component to them.
Under State substitute bill, Senate substitute bill 5290 and endorsed substitute Senate bill 5611. The council or the city has specific limits based on the type of notice and appeal or hearing provisions in our land use approval processes.
So the bill in front of you basically applies those deadlines set out in state law based on that five type of land use permit framework.
So type one approvals would have a 65-day period under which SDCI could review a permit and issue their decision.
Type two Permits would have a 100-day period under which SDCI could issue their decision.
If there is an appeal, that would be on top of the 100 days that SDCI has to make their recommendations.
Type 3 subdivision approvals would have 170 days, which would be split between SDCI's review and the hearing examiner's hearing process.
Liza Rankin.
Type four appeals because they require the city council's review and approval would have the longest amount of time.
And that time period wouldn't change.
So there's Basically, 120 days for SDCI to review the permit, 90 days for the hearing examiner's process where they hold the hearing, and then 90 days for counsel action.
And finally, there's no deadline required for Type 5 actions under state law, and the bill does not apply a deadline.
In addition, the bill Updates council rules.
Currently the rules say that filings to the city clerk need to be made through the mail.
That is not consistent with our current practice where most filings are made electronically.
Allowing electronic filing allows us to shorten some of the timelines that were lengthened for the council's process because we anticipated that filings would be lost in the mail or takes a few extra days to arrive because hard copies were being mailed.
So that should also shorten timelines for council review of type four quasi-judicial actions.
And I'll leave it at that.
All right.
Thank you, Lesh.
Any questions from colleagues regarding this particular item, regarding permanent review?
Council President Nelson.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for that synopsis, Lish.
I wanted to note that I realize that there very well could need to be some adjustments made to some of our timelines to deal with environmentally critical areas.
We are the largest city in the state and we're also extremely hilly.
So we have a lot of ravines and critical areas.
And so I want to recognize that.
I don't know if that will require an amendment or just simply some language in there saying that there needs to be, well, that would be an amendment as well.
I just wanted to note for the record that I welcome and see whatever changes have to be made in this respect as friendly amendment.
Thank you very much, Council President.
Any other comments from colleagues?
Great.
Lish, any last words?
This is up for a public hearing at your next committee meeting.
Okay, great.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate you being here and taking the time.
I know central staff is You're kind of stretched right now because of health issues, so I appreciate you being here today.
So with that, colleagues, again, we will have a public hearing regarding this at our next Land Use Committee meeting.
So with that, let's proceed on to item four on the agenda, which is...
There we go.
Next.
Council Bill 121047, an ordinance relating to Seattle's construction codes limiting the areas for which substantial alterations are required to spaces or buildings greater than 7,000 square feet in gross area amending existing substantial alteration requirements and amending section 311 through the Seattle existing building code adopted by ordinance 127108.
Great.
Thank you very much.
So I see our panel is joining us at the table.
We'll get you set up in just a moment.
And Liza, I see you're joining us for this one as well.
Okay, great.
Thank you.
So please, will the panel introduce themselves for the record?
And once you're ready, please begin.
Kay Lee, interim director of SCCI.
Micah Chappell, technical code development manager for SCCI.
Mark McIntyre, director of the Office of Economic Development.
I'm the manager of the Small Business Navigation Team at OED.
Good afternoon.
I'm really excited to be here.
And the reason for my energy is my team will tell you I get irrationally excited about permit reform.
And so here we are finally on this day.
I want to start with thanks to the OED team, Philip Sitt, Diem Lee, who's in the audience here, and our team, and then our partnership with SDCI.
This was a fairly intense partnership with SDCI and the mayor's office to kind of move this through.
Council President Nelson went through a little bit of the origin story.
We heard from some of the BIAs, from some of the architects and folks that deal in this world, as well as a lot of small businesses really craving permit reform.
Over at OED, we care deeply about our small businesses.
They define our city's character.
They shape our neighborhoods, power our economy, and reflect and enhance our culture.
And yet, as we all know and all hear from our constituents, that they are suffering right now.
It's an inflection point for small business in Seattle.
And so we really have a responsibility to the city to take action to try to do everything we can to help those small businesses thrive.
And so over at OED, we're excited that this legislation is going to help us with three of our economic development goals.
It'll help improve small businesses' access to real estate.
It'll help reduce the cost and complexity of opening a business in Seattle.
And it's going to help fill vacant storefronts.
I think this is a very high-impact, low-cost way that we can help fill those vacant storefronts, improve our neighborhood business districts, and demonstrate support for our small businesses.
So I'm very excited about this legislation.
I hope you approve it.
And with that, I'm going to pass it to my colleague, Kay Lee.
Good afternoon, council members.
Thank you for having us here today.
So the legislation before you is part of Mayor Harrell's recent executive order directing departments to propose permitting reforms to support small businesses and housing production.
It was crafted in close coordination with the Office of Economic Development to respond to the current economic climate and offer regulatory flexibility to support small businesses and fill vacant spaces in Seattle.
Our Small Business and Cultural Permit Advisor, Peter Furbinger, who's in this room today, has worked with many people looking to start a small business here in the city, advising them on any potential issues with the spaces they are considering and helping those who sign a lease without this knowledge navigate the permitting process.
This legislation aims to address one of the more common issues he hears about.
As it stands today, any new business in Seattle seeking to remodel an existing tenant space or fill a vacant building must obtain a construction permit from SCCI, which includes a range of requirements set in the building code or energy code.
In some cases, small businesses can also trigger additional upgrades to a building, which can be costly, including seismic upgrades, insulation, or new windows.
These can be a major financial hit and ultimately impact when or even if the business can open.
With this proposal, we're looking to right-size flexibility to encourage and support small businesses across our city to fill vacant spaces and revitalize commercial districts.
As I said, this is one part of the executive order from Mayor Harrell.
We look forward to working with you to continue this work and enact meaningful change.
Phillip Stitt, OED's Director of Small Business Navigation, will take it from here.
But please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or would like to meet to discuss this further.
Thank you.
Do we have a PowerPoint deck for this?
Yeah.
I didn't touch anything.
Perfect.
Good.
Rick and furniture over there.
Sure.
So just leading off before I hand it over to Philip, just acknowledging that, again, we've heard from a lot of small businesses.
We convened a group of small businesses and organizations that advocate for small businesses earlier this year.
Known as the Small Business Policy Group.
And they had a series of recommendations that they'd like to take for actions that would support small businesses now into the future.
Part of it was starting by analyzing what are the myriad challenges small businesses face today.
And you can see a lot of them up here on the screen.
So costs going up while revenue is going down.
Insurance rates really skyrocketing up.
Construction costs going up.
And then, of course, as we talked about, commercial vacancies remaining high, and this bill directly addressing some of these barriers and making it easier to fill those vacant spaces.
So with that, I'll hand it over to Philip.
All right, great.
Next slide, please.
So just adding a little bit more texture to kind of the problem statement and the opportunities, our office talks to entrepreneurs every single day, both the folks that are trying to open in Seattle or folks that are looking to move into older spaces.
As mentioned earlier, you know, there's vacancies citywide.
I think in most of our business corridors, there's projects kind of in between redevelopment or reactivation.
So we think that this piece of legislation We'll kind of spur that as a catalyst.
I also want to add a little bit more in terms of, you know, taking over a warm shell or space that was vacated for more than 24 months.
There's a lot of unknowns for entrepreneurs, so we've been doing a lot more public education in partnership with SCCI, all going through some of the nuances of building out a space or reactivating a space.
Which all in as more information that they get in advance will really save time and cost considerations.
We have numerous examples of folks making unintended mistakes when they're not working with us directly just because they make a lot of assumptions on these spaces that has been vacated for quite some time.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.
Liza Rankin.
Thank you.
So for those of you who may not be aware, substantial alteration has been in the Seattle codes for several decades in some form or another.
It is a process that projects need to go through on top of the Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.' Liza Rankin.
Tanya Woo.' We're going to modify some of that.
So the focus areas, again, are reducing costs, filling vacant buildings, and not triggering significant and costly energy upgrades, even though that will impact our net zero building emissions policies for the future.
We may be capturing those elsewhere in, like, our BEPS legislation.
When we get into the actual significant Excuse me, the Substantial Alteration Code change, it looks very minor, but it is very impactful.
Again, the buildings or spaces less than 7,000 square feet will be fully exempted from this requirement.
That doesn't mean that they don't or won't be required to obtain permits.
You still will have to meet other requirements.
If there's accessibility upgrades for change of occupancy or certain structural upgrades for seismic under the existing building code and other sections, you wouldn't have to update the entire building to meet all the current requirements based on this.
In other words, you wouldn't even get into this section of the code if you're less than 7,000 square feet.
The other change, of course, is we are showing that when we're looking through the requirements for substantial alterations, if you're modifying a certain percentage of that building, then you're going to trigger a substantial alteration.
In other words, what's a significant portion?
That's kind of the question that came from the work group.
The 20% exception here is setting a baseline, meaning no matter what, if you're below the 20%, you're not going to trigger substantial alterations.
However, this is the recommendation from CCAB that was moved from another portion of the code, because you could exceed 20% and not trigger sub alt, and that's why it's moved into the exception.
It's a base certain, you're not going to trigger the sub alt, but With the other language in item three, you could do a significant amount of work even going greater than the 20% and still not trigger sub all.
So it kind of gives the flexibility but provides a number certain.
Okay.
If I could just stop you there, I see that Vice Chair Strauss has his hand up.
Vice Chair Strauss.
Thank you.
This is more operational and I could be the problem here.
I'm not seeing this presentation attached to Legistar.
Was it emailed out to committee members ahead of time?
Or are we just flying blind with y'all running the show?
It's uploaded to Legistar.
And this is under 121047?
Yeah.
Correct.
I'm not seeing it on Legistar, but my request here will be if you all could meet with me and brief me on this because that would be very helpful.
Thank you.
Thank you for the question.
Chair.
Please continue.
Okay.
You got Council Member Waters.
Oh, I'm sorry, Council Member Waters.
Did you see my little hand?
I changed it.
This is a little brown hand now.
I have a quick question.
First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Chappell.
Is it Chappell or Chappell?
Chappell, please.
Chappell.
Thank you.
This is why I just had a question.
On number two, it says remodeling or an addition that substantially extends the useful physical or economic life of the building.
What does that mean besides remodeling?
Can you just give me an example what that means, extending the useful physical or economic life of the building or a significant portion of the building?
So if you're doing something besides a base tenant remodel, in other words, you're coming in and you're just putting in a restaurant where there was a business before, if you come in and say, all right, under this, I want to open up and add a bunch of windows to that space or update the installation or update other finishes or update other structural items, You're essentially extending the useful life of that building, which is what we want.
But when you do so, we want to make sure we're capturing all of that under to the current standards so you do appropriately update that and make it, you know, last longer, if that makes any sense.
If I may, Mr. President, or Mr. Chair?
Yes.
So is this new under the, he says, proposed changes in Seattle's existing building code.
So is this number two in the way you're articulating it here today?
Is this like a new thing?
No, this is not a new thing.
This has been the code for quite some time.
Okay.
We're not changing any of the language under item two.
However, What you're not seeing on the screen in the presentation, if you look down at the informative note further down in the legislation, we are specifying that, and this is an existing informative note in the current energy code for Seattle, it is specifying that if you are updating to heat pump, water heating, or space heating systems, and you have to upgrade other supporting systems for that, whether it be structural or electrical or plumbing or something else, That that is not going to trigger sub vault.
We're not going to the substantial alteration.
We're not going to say, okay, since you are upgrading those systems in relation to supporting that heat pump system, it's no longer going to trigger item two of this.
And that's what that informative note is about.
It's specifying that you can upgrade supporting systems for the heat pump, water heating, and space heating, and we're not going to trigger sub vault substantial alterations under item two.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
I'll follow up on one more item here.
One last piece of the legislation is we are fully striking item four of the substantial alteration requirement, which was the reoccupancy or reuse of existing buildings that have been substantially vacant for more than 24 months.
So that's just going away completely.
We're no longer going to look at that as a trigger for substantial alterations.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Colleagues, any further questions for our presenters?
Mr. Chair.
Yes.
Thank you.
Mr. Strauss.
Yeah, I just see, you know, permit reform is something that I'm absolutely committed to.
As you all likely know, we've engaged with the auditor to begin the second section of the permit reform audit regarding issuance of permits because it doesn't matter if you can get Permit through the system.
If you can't occupy the space, it doesn't really matter.
These are all very interesting concepts.
I'm excited to engage with you more, Chair.
I think from this presentation and from the committee work today, I'm left with more questions than with answers.
Understood.
And so I look forward to engaging you because As I have found in this work of permitting, a good idea can lead to bad outcomes if not properly implemented.
And so I just want to make sure that we're minimizing unintended consequences and externalities in that sense.
And so I'm looking forward to digging in.
And I think, you know, Macro picture here is that when spaces are upgraded, you know, whether it's 75%, 25%, 51%, there is a threshold at some point that we need to bring that building up to current code.
And that is prohibitive in some situations.
So we don't want to have that bringing everyone up to the same code as a barrier to the vibrancy of our city.
At all.
And we also understand that the code is set up to create buildings and create system.
I mean, in the 1970s, we didn't have ADA.
And it was not a very accessible place that we built here.
To take it out of the realm of buildings, I just look at curb cuts.
We're currently under a consent decree regarding curb cuts on the streets.
But I'll tell you, when you go out there, there's ten different types of curb cuts because they've Over the course of time changed the requirements for that ADA compliance.
And so now you see the ones with the little orange, the little yellow areas and that is a much better version than just the kind of chopping the curb out.
Similar with buildings.
So my two north stars here are make sure that permitting is not the barrier to vibrancy and making sure that our buildings are built for everyone in our city.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Vice Chair Strauss.
Council President Nelson.
So I just want to not necessarily admit but state that this, the code changes we're talking about here were largely driven by My desire to just get rid of change of use altogether.
Why do you have to have a change of use permit if what you're going to do in that space is already allowed by the underlying zoning?
Well, it turns out that there is no change of use permit.
That is a whole set of different kinds of codes and requirements that exist throughout our land use and building codes.
And so this is one piece of it, but it really will benefit Especially small businesses, because many of them, or at least, let's see, 44% of small businesses that were surveyed, or that this is something that my aide, Eric, found.
He, unfortunately, is not here.
Forty-four or 59% of small businesses fall under 7,000.
The original legislation had 5,000 square feet, and that would, so, exempting businesses or Tenants that occupy spaces less than 5,000 square feet would have benefited 34%.
This will benefit even more.
So that is what we're always trying to do is figure out how to help as many people as possible start, grow and And continue a small business or housing or what have you.
So that's, I'm just trying to explain that.
And then the exception that is in under section one, number three, where it says exception where the area of change of occupancy is less than 20% of the building gross floor area, that is getting at exactly what the The panel of architects were saying was that there has to be a way to carve out small changes that doesn't trigger a substantial alteration of the whole project itself.
So I really do appreciate You, especially your team over there at SVCI, because you really did help define what are the points that maximum benefit could be attained.
So thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Colleagues, any other questions or comments?
Lish, anything you want to weigh in from remotely?
Just noting that changes to the building codes do not require a public hearing, but this will be up back to your committee in September.
Okay, great.
All right.
Thank you very much.
And I do appreciate that clarification regarding public hearing.
We will be having another meeting about this in our September 3rd meeting.
Correct?
Okay, great.
Because at that time I'm hoping that we can have our briefing discussion and vote it out.
Those of you who know me know I have my own stories regarding permitting and trying to get a project permitted and the frustration that I went through just trying to get a shed done in my backyard.
And again, I'm not going to bore people with that story because I could go on for a while.
But just to say that permitting reform is very important to me.
It's very important for anyone who wants to build anything in the city, whether it's a business or a house or a dadu, whatever the case may be, let's not get in our own way with that.
And if we can streamline things to make it happen, let's do it.
You know, even having someone who could provide the, you know, Somebody that I could have called to say, hey, here's what I'm thinking about doing.
Walk me through what I need.
That would have been a big help.
So I want to thank you, Director Lee, Mr. Chappelle.
In relation to the other Chappelle?
Okay, just curious.
They have the same haircut, so I'll just ask them.
Thank you, Mark.
Thank you, Phillip.
It's always good to see you guys.
So any final comments?
If not, I release you to the winds.
Thanks very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Clerk, will you please read item one into the...
Oh, Council President, is it old hand or new hand?
It was a new hand, but I just wanted to say that I promised the panel that I would say that one of their number three requests was to reopen the service desk because they found that really helpful and make the microfilm available to the public.
So perhaps we can talk about that more later.
Yes, that will help.
Thank you.
All right.
Clerk, please read item one into the agenda.
An ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending several sections of the SMC to update subdivision procedures.
Okay.
All right.
And for that, let's see, who do we have on tap for that?
It's me again.
Oh, that's you again, Lish?
Okay.
So this is for briefing discussion and vote.
Okay.
So please proceed.
Yeah.
Council Bill 121009 amends the final subdivision procedures.
Similar to the last two items, this is a permitting improvement piece of legislation.
In this case, it removes authority from the City Council, but it does so in ways that I think we can all appreciate it.
For a subdivision, which is defined as nine or more new lots being created, currently the hearing examiner holds a hearing, makes a recommendation, plans get approved, a project gets built, and then at the end of that process, legislation gets drafted and sent to the City Council to grant final approval To the subdivision.
The project's been built, it's ready to be sold, and it sits waiting to be sold until the council can approve the final legislation, which can add probably three to four months to the process.
This bill applies flexibility that's built into Washington state law.
And removes that council process.
So the council would no longer be in its role of sort of rubber stamping subdivision plans at the very end of the process.
And residential units can get out the door to new residents sooner.
I have to answer any questions.
All right.
Thank you very much, Lish.
Council member Rankin, as the sponsor of the bill, do you want to speak to it?
Certainly.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Lish, for taking us through that legislation.
I know we have discussed this in committee a couple of times, and now I've had a public hearing on it.
Colleagues, this legislation is for streamlining our subdivision processes.
As Lish explained, the state legislature has given the council authority to delegate final approval for subdivisions to the Department of Transportation after the hearing examiner Liza Rankin has issued a decision.
While council currently votes to codify these decisions, the hearing examiner's decision is final.
We don't have any choice but to approve it.
And as Lish explained, this adds, can add three to four months, three to four months to the process for developing new housing.
So this bill is a simple yet straightforward effort to promote some good governance and shave off critical time for housing projects.
And I ask for your support on it today.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Colleagues, any questions or comments regarding this legislation?
Vice Chair Strauss.
Thank you, Chair.
The same comments that I made the last committee meeting where we had this before us, which this was a concept that dates back to when I was Land Use Chair.
So now two years ago when Council Member Juarez was here last.
And, you know, it was one of those things that we looked at doing in the months before and after budget.
The schedule got cramped.
I brought it to the next land use chair.
I'm not sure exactly what happened, whether it was cramped schedule or what have you.
So here we have it before us again.
The council doesn't have a lot of agency in this decision.
It is a straightforward decision that is made elsewhere, and then it is our job to record it.
So I do believe that this cuts time and reduces the amount of work that is going to come before us where we don't actually have discretion.
So I do believe that this to be a good bill, and thank you, Lish, for continuing to work on this.
And it seems like, again, every issue under the sun in these last two weeks, Lish Whitson has been Batten cleanup.
Batten first, second, and third.
So thank you, Mr. Whitson.
Very good.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
Any other comments from colleagues?
With that, I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 121009. Is there a second?
Second.
Okay.
It's been moved and seconded.
Are there any further comments?
Clerk, will you please call a roll on the passage of the bill.
Vice Chair Strauss.
Yes.
Council Member Ruiz.
Aye.
Council Member Rankin.
Yes.
Chair Solomon.
Aye.
Chair, there are four votes in favor and zero opposed.
The motion carries on the committee recommendation that the council pass the bill will be sent to the August 12th, 2025 council meeting.
Thank you.
Now we'll read, Clerk, will you please read item two into the agenda.
Budget Item 2, 314536, Council Waiver Modification of Development Standards to Allow Installation of 32 Netting Pulse at Jefferson Park Golf Course, Project Number 3039491-LU, Type 5. Okay.
This is for briefing and discussion and just for clarification of record.
It is the Bill Wright Golf Complex at Jefferson Park.
Having been part of the community organization that helped get that renaming done, I want to make sure to reflect to the record that it is the Bill Wright Golf Complex at Jefferson Park.
So, disappointed privilege there.
Presenters, will you please join us at the table?
Okay.
And please introduce yourselves for the record and begin when you are ready.
Thank you for this opportunity to brief you on Bill Wright Golf Complex at Jefferson Park.
I'm Andy Schaeffer, Seattle Parks.
Hello, I'm Shannon Glass, Seattle Parks.
And David Sachs, Senior Land News Planner with SDCI.
Thank you.
Great.
The purpose of this briefing is consideration of a waiver for the height limit of poles and netting at Bill Wright Golf Complex outside of holes 11 and 12.
As Mr. Chair, yes, as they're getting the presentation up, I'll filibuster for just a moment to say, I believe that this is the sixth week in a row that we have had golf before a committee at council.
We had the two golf permits for Jefferson and Jackson, and then we had the pitch and putt golf in parks.
And here we are today with land use changes.
It's an exciting time to golf.
And as a footnote, golf is stronger than ever.
We're seeing higher participation than ever before.
We have a sustainable business plan, golf.
There's no city funding supporting golf at the current time.
The agenda covers background information, the project proposal, land use recommendation, and planning and community outreach.
Bill Wright Golf Course Complex, formerly Jefferson Golf, was constructed in 1915. Nine years ago, we had to shorten holes 11 and 12 because there was a massive tree failure that provided buffer to the community.
Those trees were Lombardi poplars.
We're all familiar with Lombardi poplars.
When they go, they go quick.
This was intended to be a temporary solution while we figure out a long-term solution.
We're presenting the long-term solution today.
It's polls and netting.
This, the change, The temporary change incurred significant decrease in desirability of this course because those holes were shortened.
We are looking to bring back the glory of Bill Wright Golf Course.
We're simply asking to restore the course to its original design, you know, allow Our solution to work in preventing pass ball, trespass issues.
We estimate we lose about $300,000 a year in revenue.
That's not the most important thing.
We're losing participation at Jefferson Golf.
It used to be the most popular golf course, and now it's probably around the third most popular course.
This is not, and it's also not a site that can host tournaments or events due to the reduced yardage.
It is important to point out that we are committed to be a good neighbor and be diligent in fixing problems that come up post-projected.
It's time to get this course back to its intended use and show the community that we recognize them and thank them for their patience.
The improvements are shown really clearly, the proposed improvements in these diagrams above that show the graduated poles, which both graduate in height relative to the location of the core of the holes, but also they graduate in diameter.
We want to make as The least intrusive design possible.
The purpose, again, address errant balls.
Balls going off that northeast quadrant, going into the community there.
That's right above Kimball Elementary, if you're familiar.
The installation of the poles range from 20 feet high to 160 feet high.
We're not going in there and installing all poles of uniform maximum height.
We're being very intentional so the poles closest to the location that you're teeing off are lower in height and they're higher where they need to be higher.
And as part of the project, we will be restoring the original T locations.
And the design is totally based on ball trajectory and skill levels, as depicted in these diagrams showing anticipated ball trajectory relative to the actual pole and netting heights.
And those illustrations are related to both of the holes.
I think this is evidence that we've really done our due diligence analyzing ball mitigation.
And I will turn it over to David Sachs, our colleague for land use.
Great.
Thank you, Andy.
I'm going to quickly just add some comments to the bullet points on the screen to sort of make it more succinct to the city's recommendations.
Ultimately, that'll go to council.
Close to the microphone, please.
Chair.
Thank you.
Chair, may we have introductions?
I think we just jumped right into this.
I don't know that we've met before.
I know Andy from many different hats.
Yeah, we have not.
I'm David Sachs with SDCI, a senior land use planner.
Fantastic.
Thank you.
Great.
So based on this, the director is making a recommendation of approval to council for structures to exceed the limits of the airport height overlay district as a special exception pursuant to Chapter 2376. This recommendation of approval to council is based on the analysis provided In the analysis and recommendation decision that the project meets the four conditions listed in SMC 2364-010.
If you have any additional questions on specifics after this, please feel free to ask me.
The director is also making a recommendation of approval to council through a waiver to modify applicable development standards for city facilities to allow the poles and netting to exceed the height limit For the neighborhood residential zone pursuant to SMC 2376064. And the analysis is provided in the analysis and recommendation decision that you have access to.
The fourth one is per FAA requirements outlined in the analysis and recommendation decision.
The recommendation of approval has been conditioned to include solar powered aviation obstruction lights mounted on the top of the poles.
The director is making a recommendation of approval to council through a waiver to modify applicable development standards to city facilities to also allow the polls and netting to exceed the height limit for neighborhood residential zones pursuant to SMC 2344012. The analysis is provided in the analysis and recommendation decision as well.
And then on this, SDCI has issued a recommendation report Which contains an analysis of the proposal and recommends approval of the proposal to exceed height limits subject to the condition listed in that report.
And then a public hearing is scheduled in the Land Use Committee for September 3rd.
And finally, as part of the project review and per SMC 2364018, FAA approval was secured for netting and pools in the overlay zone.
And then finally, just a quick summation of the public outreach starting back in 2020. To today, including public meetings, tabling at events, the SEPA exemption, a lot of back and forth support, questions via email, and we'll be excited to ideally start shortly after the public hearing on September 3rd.
Colleagues.
Any questions?
Yes.
Colleagues, any questions or comments?
Well, I have a few.
First, I want to acknowledge you, Andy, for everything you did helping the Friends of Bell Wright getting the golf course renamed, the work that Parks did on the repairs to the clubhouse after somebody decided to drive through it, the help with getting the signage on the clubhouse changed, although still a little off, but we're working on it, right?
Thanks a lot.
And I know that specifically Holes 11 and 12, restoring them to their previous glory was also one of the goals of the committee to encourage more usage, you know, getting the PARs back to where they were to make it a more competitive course.
That was a goal of ours because we felt that getting the course back to its former glory would actually honor Bill Wright even more.
From a personal note, thank you very much.
Also, considering I live two blocks north of that golf course, and I know about how if you make a bad slice or a hook, those balls are going into people's yards.
So thank you for that netting.
Appreciate that.
So I'm looking forward to having the public hearing on the 3rd, and my goal is to actually have the hearing, get it voted out, and get it in front of full council so you can proceed with this project because it's a long time in coming.
With that, colleagues, any other comments, questions, thoughts?
Can I just say one more thing?
Yes.
We are engaging with all of our teen life programs to get teens more involved and introduce them to golf as a form of mental wellness.
I'm super excited about that.
I think it's a lot of opportunities.
Great, great.
Again, thank you very much.
Appreciate you all being here and looking forward to having that public hearing on the 3rd.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, clerk will please read item three into the agenda.
Item three, Council Bill 121049 in order relating to land use and zoning amended in chapter 2332 of the SMC at page eight of the official land use map to rezone land in the Lake City neighborhood.
All right.
Yay.
All right, presenters, please join us at the table.
Introduce yourselves and begin when you're ready.
Mr. Chair, this is the best one.
I just want you to know that.
Okay.
It's coming out of D5, so thank you.
I'm very excited.
Hi.
Hello, council members.
Jeff Wentland, land use policy manager in the city's Office of Planning and Community Development.
Hi there.
I'm Maria DeWeese, a policy advisor with the Office of Housing.
Hi, Kelly Larson, director of policy and planning for the Office of Housing.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you.
Okay.
We have a few slides for you today, and we'll just be bringing those up momentarily.
We're bringing to you a rezone proposal for a small area of land in the Lake City neighborhood.
We're going to present That rezone proposal to you, and it's intended to help facilitate future infill development with housing, including on city-owned property, including the Lake City Community Center site, which will be combined with affordable housing, and you'll hear about that from the Office of Housing.
I'm going to speak to you about the zoning component, which we're asking your committee to take action on.
Next slide, please.
So this just orients you to the location.
This is very close to the heart of the Lake City neighborhood, just about a block west of Lake City Way.
Next slide, please.
And we can go to the next one.
Great.
So this is an image of the affected land area.
We're addressing four parcels of land, which total about three acres.
That includes the former Lake City Community Center site, which is just north of the Lake City Library, and this also includes the Bank of America property.
That totals about three acres, and this rezone would increase the height limit by 10 feet from 75 feet to 85 feet.
The Seattle Parks and Recreation Parcel is only affected for the part that would be redeveloped with the new community center, and this zone does not include the Albert Davis Park.
This rezone would provide a clean transition of heights from the east to the west, from 95 feet to 85 feet on these sites, to 75 feet and lower to the west.
And this rezone qualifies as a city-initiated area-wide rezone.
Next slide, please.
This is the rezone map.
This is showing you the details of the current zoning and what is being increased to.
This proposal unifies all of the land within an 85-foot height limit zone.
And the reason that this is a good height limit is because it's very efficient for development.
You'll hear about this from OH.
It allows for an additional story of housing, which brings down the per-unit cost of housing in a mixed-use development.
And with that, I will pass it over to OH to tell you about the specifics of a very interesting project on the site.
Thank you.
Great.
Is that better?
Cool.
This area rezone will enable the redevelopment of the Lake City Community Center with affordable housing above.
Earlier this year, the Office of Housing and Seattle Parks and Recreation selected Mercy Housing through a competitive RFP process as the lead developer for the project.
And this RFP was the first of its kind between OH and SPR, bringing together city resources to this vibrant new community hub.
The development will feature a new community center on the first two floors with a gymnasium, multipurpose rooms, and childcare.
There are approximately 113 new homes going in above the community center, serving households with a mix of incomes, but an average affordability of 50% of the area median income.
And a majority of the homes will have two or more bedrooms to serve families.
Mercy Housing has partnered with Family Works to provide services to residents and community center visitors, and we're really lucky to have them as a partner.
They are also recognized for their resident services programming, including programs tailored to school-age children.
Next slide.
So this is the beautiful new rendering showing the proposed development.
We're really excited about this opportunity to support the restoration and rebuild of the community center along with new affordable housing here.
There has been much engagement with community to get to this point, and the architect is currently collaborating with SPR and a project advisory team of neighborhood residents on the community center design.
This is the overall site plan.
Albert Davis Park is there to the west, and the Library and City Services Center are just to the south.
And the design includes dedicated play space on the west side of the building, and there will also be underground parking for residents and visitors.
The project is currently in pre-development with design and permitting.
OH has committed funding for this development, and the developer is working on securing additional funding.
SPR and the Department of Neighborhoods are collaborating on community engagement opportunities for public input on the design of the community center.
And construction is expected to begin in mid-2027 and be completed by early 2029. So two key steps remain in the rezoning process.
There is a public hearing anticipated on September 3rd and a full council vote tentatively scheduled for September 9th.
Council can expect continued engagement on the Lake City redevelopment next year.
We will need council approval on some future legal agreements, including a ground lease of the site, a purchase and sale agreement, and the condominium documents as well.
Thank you.
And we're happy to hear any questions you might have.
Colleagues.
Councilman Juarez.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So there's a lot I want to say.
First of all, thank you for meeting with us yesterday and bringing this up to date, because you know how excited I am.
I have a lot of words, so I'm going to try to just get it all out, even though we went through the presentation.
I cannot tell you how exciting it is to see an actual picture now.
Let me just give a little background, and I want to, first of all, a huge thank you to six city departments that all work together.
OPCD, SPR Parks, FAS, Office of Housing, Department of Neighborhoods, and the Seattle Public Library.
And when I was chairing this department, I still wanted the library to put in a coffee shop, so I'm not going to let up on that.
So this Lake City Community Center, we have been in discussions with communities since 2015. And it's really smart of you guys what you did to not make it a contract rezone, but instead a legislative area rezone.
And I want to just say something that's really important for people to hear is that this is the first of its kind.
It's never been done, and we're hoping other communities and neighborhoods look at this.
And when I first brought in a huge shout out, he's not here anymore, but the former director of parks, Jesus Agarre, And we worked with housing back then as well.
Said, you know, we've never done it, but why can't we?
And I just said, we need to do it.
And this is like, hopefully will be the model and shape of things to come in this city where you have two floors of community space and then upstairs affordable housing.
My understanding is that it's between 30 and 50 to 60 AMI, which is phenomenal.
That you'll have two bedrooms and three bedrooms, correct?
And 113 units.
And also what we pushed hard for, and it's in there, and I'm so thankful, is the childcare piece.
And that's something, and the community space.
Again, this is going to revitalize the Lake City community because we also have our farmers market there.
And we have, of course, the library there.
It really goes to the density, the multi-generational neighborhood that this is.
And also, it's incredibly wonderful for me to see coming back and after being on council before for eight years and walking through some of these other structures, the brick and mortar.
We have the Tony Lee House, which is two blocks away, where the bottom floor is pre-K, and we funded that and built that and worked with Lehigh.
In Rewa, big shout out to Rewa on the housing.
It's on a robust transit spine.
So we have the library, we have park, we have transportation, we have a community.
And this to me, and I'm just going to take a little credit here, this is where I really wanted to push when we talk about either transit-oriented development or housing.
This is the kind of neighborhood where you have the good stuff.
Where a child can come, live upstairs, come downstairs, have community, have community space if they have tutors there, if we have childcare, childcare activities.
And I just cannot tell you how excited I am about this because I said we've been working on this since 2015. And seeing the rendition and the pictures, they look great.
And also we were working closely with the Pierre family, the B of A bank folks, the Lake City business community.
And so I'm just really thankful.
I don't think you get enough credit from the public about how hard you all actually work to make stuff happen.
I'm excited that we're gonna have a public meeting on August 15th, I believe.
And then hopefully the ground lease that will be in this committee, I understand, on September 3rd and hopefully will go to full council for a vote on September 9th.
And I just want to end with this.
I think sometimes people don't realize how hard people in government work to take an idea that's just a vision and take that vision into a policy to shoring up the financing So glad you picked Mercy Housing.
Have an architect finally.
Cannot wait till we can, you know, be shovel ready and move forward.
And sometimes we only hear the negative stuff that comes out of our neighborhoods.
So for me, this is incredibly positive.
And what we say in Indian Country, this is completely and wonderful, good medicine.
So thank you, all of you, for all your hard work.
It's been a decade.
And I've been with you through eight of those years now, nine.
And for me, I'm really happy.
And I'm still gonna bother the library about my coffee shop.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Vice Chair Strauss.
Thank you.
I'm just gonna double down and say that the Lake City Community Center represents why our city needs district elections.
Seriously.
Because before Councilmember Juarez was elected in the first round of district elections, it was the state delegation of Senator Frock, Representative Farrell, and Representative Paulette, who were the ones trying to get the city's attention about the need to replace the Lake City Community Center.
And it wasn't until Councilmember Juarez came That there was an internal champion within the city.
And so thank you for bringing this before us.
Thank you for the briefing yesterday.
I'm going to say the same thing that I said to you yesterday, which is how do we reduce the time?
How do we do this faster?
I think that you're seeing from us a pining for it to be completed.
And so as we got into the schedule, you heard me say, well, How do we move faster?
And so as we continue through this process, I will never be a hangup and I will always ask you, how can we move this faster?
Because for the people of Lake City, there are people who really were looking for a new community center who are no longer with us.
There are kids that were hoping to use the community center who are now adults.
There is an entire generation of, do you call them Lake-citians?
Lake-citizens.
De-fivers.
De-fivers or Lake-citizens.
Who don't have this gathering space.
And I'm just going to wax poetic about D5 for a minute.
Because second.
Only because you took Crown Hill.
But just to say that Lake City is so different than Pinehurst, which is only maybe a mile and a half away.
Lake City is so different than Meadowbrook, which is again only a mile or so away.
And it is underserved and it has a lack of resources that other neighborhoods nearby have.
And for so long, the city has said, well, you can go to Meadowbrook or you can go.
I guess I don't even think there is anything.
I mean, you could go to Northgate.
I mean, but again, that's It's not nearby.
Thankfully, the streets have sidewalks now so you don't have to catch a bus with only a painted line as your barrier.
So I just, and again, thank you Council Member Waters for getting us those sidewalks.
Yeah.
But I just demonstrate that because we have no time to waste.
We are already late.
So let's go.
And we wouldn't be at the place that we are today without those six departments, without the three of you, and without everyone who's working with you to support this project.
Thank you for getting us here, and let's go.
All right.
Thank you, Vice Chair Strauss.
Council Member Rink.
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to add on to the positivity about this project.
And I feel like I'm jumping in at the tail end of what is a deep and long history.
And I want to thank Council Member Juarez and all the work from the departments here to getting us to this point.
And I just wanted to lift up, even being in the tail end of this project, I know for the past year, a lot of what has characterized my discussions with Lake City residents has been excitement about this community center.
People are so excited.
And it's going to bring so much vibrance and much needed resource to the Lake City community.
And so I just wanted to uplift that, that I feel like this project is characterizing so many of the discussions I'm having in Lake City right now.
And let's get it going.
Thank you.
So just going to check with my clerk.
Are we doing a public hearing on this on September 3rd?
Yes.
Good.
We can fit it in.
September 3rd is going to be a marathon, people.
Just be prepared for it.
So public hearing on September 3rd, discussion, vote, and then forward to full council.
Yeah.
All right.
Let's go.
Yeah.
Let's go.
All right.
Any other final comments or questions for our presenters?
Final comment.
Yes, Council Member Juarez.
I also, I apologize, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank you for your leadership and also Council Member Moore, who stepped up and ran and sat in this chair, our D5, for 18 months and her continued partnership and making sure that we kept moving this project forward.
I have so much respect for Council Member Moore and the fact that she kept moving this project forward and One other thing, just another little plug for D5.
We have Thornton Creek, the North and the South Fork, and I think it is the only salmon-bearing stream left in the city, which in watershed through Corkique.
And we've been really hard about protecting that.
And Parks has been great with us with working with that.
So thank you for that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Taylor Creek might also be a salmonberry one down in South Seattle that goes into Dead Horse Canyon.
Thank you very much, folks, for your presenters.
All right.
With that, I believe we've reached the end of our agenda.
Are there any final items to come before the committee?
Yes, Council Member Rink.
I do appreciate it, Chair.
I want to thank you and members of the committee today for your flexibility on the scheduled vote for the Roots to Roofs bill for, again, as you stated at the beginning of the meeting and for the public's awareness.
Our lead central staffer on this bill was unable to be here today, but they'll be back soon.
Wishing them good health.
And because of their absence, it was advised that we should wait for their return before we move on with this bill.
So I'm very much looking forward to moving this forward in early September.
And thank you again, Chair, for your support on that.
And in the meantime, my office will continue to meet and work with community members and stakeholders to ensure that we can get this bill across the finish line, address our community needs, and meet our growing need for affordable housing in Seattle.
Thank you, Chair.
Okay.
Thank you very much, Council Member Rankin.
Final comments.
Hearing none, we've reached the end of today's agenda.
Our next meeting, next scheduled meeting will be Wednesday, September 3rd, 2025 at 2 p.m.
Hearing no further business to come before the Council, we are adjourned.
It is 3.31 p.m.
Thank you very much, everyone.
Enjoy the rest of your day.