Seattle City Council Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan 4/16/2025

Seattle Channel, checking on your feed on your end before we begin.

Thank you.

We're good to go.

Awesome.

Thank you, award-winning Seattle Channel.

Good afternoon, everyone.

It is April 16, 2025. Meeting the Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan will come to order.

It is 2.02 PM.

I am Joy Hollingsworth, your favorite council member chair of the select committee.

I know my colleagues would like that, right?

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Council member Kettle.

Here.

And I do agree.

Okay.

Thank you.

Council member Moore.

Present and agree.

Council member Rink.

Present.

Council member Saka.

Here.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Solomon.

Here.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Present and agree.

Seven present.

And three agree.

Thank you.

Okay.

We will now consider the agenda.

Oh, excuse me.

Council Member Rivera and Council President Nelson are excused.

We are going to now consider the agenda.

If there's no objections, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing none, the agenda is adopted.

With that, we're gonna now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comment should be related to items on today's agenda in the purview of this committee.

Clerk, how many speakers do we have signed up?

15 in person and eight remote.

Awesome.

Everyone's going to get one minute today so we can jump into our stuff.

Mr. Zimmerman, not today.

Please do not be disruptive.

Everyone's going to get one minute.

We are required to give people 20 minutes of public comment and we continue to extend it so we can get through our interim legislation and have people public comment.

We're going to do one minute today.

Clerk, will you please read the...

Now I lost my place.

Will you please read the instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

I will call on speakers by name in the order in which they register, both on the council's website and from the sign-up sheet available here in council chambers.

We will start with in-person speakers first.

If you have not registered to speak but would like to, you can sign up before the end of the public comment period.

Just go to the council's website or by signing up on the sign-up sheets near the public comment microphone.

The online link is listed on today's agenda.

When speaking, please begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left at their allotted time.

Speakers do not end their comments.

At the end of the allotted time provided, the speakers' microphones will be muted to allow us to call on the next person.

Awesome, thank you.

All right, I will call people up in three.

We have Morgan Robinson, we have Ruth, and we have Laurent, if I said that correctly, and I apologize if I mess up your name.

Morgan, Ruth, and Laurent.

I understand that you're trying to get the interim legislation through rather quickly so you can move on to the phase one legislation and not get bogged down in the interim legislation.

I think there's a real risk with the interim legislation as it stands.

Specifically, when it comes to steep slopes, the current formulation around ECAs will allow for considerable development in steep slope ECAs of the various kinds.

The problem with that is if you take it away three months later, you're going to have developers who say, hey, you let me do this, and now you're taking it away, and that subjects you to lawsuits and things.

So I urge you to consider the amendment that we've proposed that would block steep slope development in ECAs before you adopt the interim legislation, because otherwise you've opened the gate and corralled it back in.

So good luck getting things through quickly on the interim legislation.

Please consider that amendment before you go to the next phase.

Thank you.

Thank you, Morgan.

Next we have Ruth and then Laurent.

My name is Ruth Dite.

If you could use the microphone, thank you so much.

My name is Ruth Dite, representing Friends of Queen Anne.

I'm a former planner, landscape architect, written EIS as comp plans and business district guidelines.

We're concerned you have insufficient information.

One second.

Can we restart the time?

If you could speak in the mic, just so we can hear.

You'll have to just pull it to you, just so we can hear better.

Okay.

My name is Ruth Dyett, representing Friends of Queen Anne.

I'm a retired land use planner, landscape architect.

I've written the EIS's comp plans and business district guidelines.

We're concerned you have insufficient information to make your decisions.

I'm stunned at how inadequate it is on Upper Queen Anne, which is going to be nearly 1,000 lots up to NR, and 400% expansion of the business district, yet the EIS finds no significant impact.

Then there's the 330 unit zone development capacity.

Nobody understands it.

Planning staff won't explain it.

This is important innovation.

They should know that we all should have and clearly understand after months of reading.

I do understand it.

Please ask staff to explain in clear terms how the zoning was done, including any standard measure to determine the amount of excess zoning needed beyond that growth.

I can help you understand it.

If you don't, thank you.

Thank you, Ruth.

We have Laurent, then next we have Dawn Siller, and then also Susan Federer.

And I apologize if I mess up your last name.

Laurent Berman, District 7, thank you for hearing us out today.

Really appreciate it.

I will be brief.

First, I wanted to reiterate the concerns raised in the prior comment around steep slope development.

The proposed language creates a great deal of ambiguity that creates potentially problems in the future.

Concerns about the proposed interim language around setbacks and what that would do to trees and the neighborhoods that we live in.

generally concerns about the Northwest study that was published, Eco Northwest, bordering on misleading and inaccurate information around the number of lots that need to be developed, the number of homes that it would represent using supply rather than demand numbers.

So I would push us to really not cause the interim legislation to go beyond what is required for HB 1110 and give us the time as citizens to be heard and communicate.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next we have Dawn and then Susan, followed by not Alex Zimmerman, but another Alex, and I can't read the last name.

My name's Zimmerman.

I'm Dawn Seiler.

I live on Queen Anne Hill.

My friends Bob and Betty scraped enough money together to buy a home in Ballard.

It was their largest investment.

hoping that they would cash in for retirement.

They raised their family, they coached Little League, participated in PTA, shared in marriages and funerals with their neighbors.

They've remodeled their house and watched its value grow, and they were proud of their home and their neighborhood.

But then a funny thing happened.

The city upzoned the neighborhood, and their neighborhood added stacked flats, fourplexes, and townhomes.

There was never enough parking space, the greenery became concrete, and the renters no longer were neighbors.

Bob and Betty watched the value of their priced home erode.

OPCD want to apply that same standard to Queen Anne Hill.

Please do not balladize Queen Anne Hill.

So zone the growth that is consistent to the character of the neighborhood so the charm and the cohesiveness of the neighborhood will be maintained.

Is that too much to ask?

Thank you so much.

I don't want to skip this.

OK, sorry.

Next, we have Susan.

Was that Susan?

Right.

Good afternoon.

My name is Susan Fedor.

I grew up here.

I'm currently living in West Seattle by way of Ballard.

With regard to considerations pertaining to the comprehensive plan, I'm here to ask that you consider the very real and harmful impacts of further degrading what's left of our urban forest canopy.

Relying on parks and parking strips will not allow the city to achieve a goal of 30% canopy by 2037. Half of the existing trees are already experiencing climate conditions beyond their limits.

Smaller newly planted trees with less established root systems are more susceptible to extreme heat events.

It concerns me that SDCI is approving permits for the removal of more than 350 trees per month, which is more than 4,000 per year, which means our air quality is being degraded.

Health of Puget Sound is really suffering because without trees mitigating millions of gallons of stormwater runoff, all those pollutants have nowhere else to go.

One example is a giant sequoia that's on the chopping block this month in the Green Lake neighborhood, a tree known for their ability to handle drought and pests.

carbon stored during the lifetime of that tree will be released back in the atmosphere at 60,000 pounds.

Ironically, this is so they can install a driveway for a single family.

Thank you.

Next, we have Mr. Alex Zimmerman, followed by David Gloger.

Thank you.

Yeah.

My name is Alex Zimmerman, I support Trump.

a MAGA member, I have 6,000 days of trespass, and you prosecute me five times.

My question about you is very simple.

Sorry, I'm all stupid man, and my English is not enough for 40 years.

What does the word selection?

Selection committee.

From my understanding, in English, you know what it means.

Maybe in German, what does I speak, or Russian, or another language.

The word select, this means when you have 20, you're supposed to be choice five.

But you're not select.

Where is the problem?

It's not a problem.

Why?

Because my President Trump talk about people like you.

Dory, wacky crooks.

Why are you doing this?

Because the 700,000 idiot here.

Super smart idiot.

What are they talking about?

Yeah.

Not care about this.

You know this.

So, viva Trump.

Viva new American revolution.

Stand up, freaking idiot.

Thank you, and for the record, Mr. Zimmerman, all I ask is just respect.

So while we're talking, just no outbursts.

That would be great if you just do me that favor and just show me the same amount of respect that I show you every time you show up to council, okay?

Mr. David Gloger, welcome.

Good afternoon.

My name is Dave Gloger, and I am a resident of Seattle.

As I imagine most of you are aware, six complaints were filed against the final environmental impact statement for the One Seattle Plan.

Now these complaints have been dismissed because of technical issues that have nothing to do with the validity of the issues.

One of these complaints noted that the EIS assumed that there would be 100,000 new housing units built under the One Seattle Plan.

But the One Seattle Plan actually wants to add over 300,000 new units.

How can we possibly know the impact to Seattle if we build three times the number of housing units as studied in the EIS?

There's other issues, like the fact that there's no information in the EIS about killer whales, and there were four other complaints that were all dismissed over technicalities.

The city's attorneys were able to get these issues dismissed, but these are important issues.

So it's up to you council members to address these issues, to build an environmentally stable city that protects our trees and protects our- Thank you so much.

Next up we have Jesse Simpson, followed by Jasmine Smith and Sandy Shetler.

Welcome Mr. Simpson.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm Jesse Simpson with the Housing Development Consortium and co-chair of the Complete Communities Coalition.

Earlier today, we sent you a letter signed by over 60 organizations, including affordable developers, business, labor, and environmental advocates asking you to act with urgency on the Seattle Comprehensive Plan and make specific amendments to strengthen the mayor's proposed One Seattle Plan.

We need to create more flexibility to build homes in Seattle to be able to address our deep housing shortage.

The dismissal of the appeals of the FEIS clears the way for council to make real progress.

And it's time to follow through by approving this interim ordinance and then acting to adopt a bold final comprehensive plan before the summer recess.

Our letter outlines specific actionable amendments to strengthen the plan, like expanding the stacked flat density bonus, expanding the affordable housing density bonus citywide, creating a low rise density bonus, and creating more neighborhood centers in low displacement, high opportunity neighborhoods.

We're ready to work.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Jasmine Smith.

Welcome, followed by Sandy Shetler.

Hi, my name's Jasmine Smith.

I'm with FutureWise and the co-chair of the Complete Communities Coalition.

And as Jesse pointed out, really thrilled to see that we've cleared the way to continue this work on the comprehensive plan and build on what will hopefully be a strong model ordinance for HB 1110 and go into all of the things that are going to make housing more affordable, build in what we need for our communities across the city, and build those connections from Queen Anne to, sorry, from Queen Anne to Columbia City and what's going to be right for all of us.

While we are moving through this process, really appreciate all of the collaboration that's happened across the different levels of city from the legislation and everything between.

Thank you, everyone.

No, you're good.

You still had 10 seconds.

That chime just meant 10 seconds.

You're good.

We can give you back your 10 seconds.

You sure?

All right.

Okay.

I just have to rush and anyway, I'll do the best I can.

Okay, hi everyone.

Thank you council members.

I'm Sandy Shetler with Tree Action Seattle.

Thank you for inviting us today and thanks especially to council central staff for the PowerPoint which notes that this bill fails to address the ongoing loss of Seattle's trees.

Few realize that projects with four units per lot are already being built in neighborhood residential zones under our current setbacks and lot coverage requirements.

This is an example in Wedgwood, which I will email to each of your offices.

Right now, the fourth structure is built as a garage and unheated storage space under our current code.

Once this bill passes, these fourth structures will be converted to homes.

Builders are already showing us that they can meet HB 1110 and work with existing setbacks and tree requirements.

Why cover more land that could grow trees with pavement?

We hope for stacked flats and space for trees in our ultimate vision of the comp plan.

But for now, we seek to...

Thank you, Sandy.

Next, we have Robert Reed, followed by Jackie Borges, and then Chris.

Hello, Robert.

Council members, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you today, and thanks for being here.

Robert, if you could speak into the mic or just pull it to you so we can hear you a little better.

What about now?

Perfecto.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joy.

So I'm back once again to just support the tree canopy in Seattle and remind all the council members about the University of Washington website, Green City's Good Health, and the thought that Seattle could be a forest city.

We're so close in so many neighborhoods.

It's not in every neighborhood.

But the effect that it would have on Seattle as a whole is incredible.

A very simple way to do this would be to amend the One Seattle Plan to change the green factor score from 0.3 to 1.0.

And the effect that that would have on development would be amazing.

Thanks.

You still have 10 seconds.

Just a little reminder, when you hear the ding, it means you have 10 seconds left.

OK.

Thank you, Robert.

Next, we have Jackie followed by Chris.

Hello?

Hello.

Hi.

Does this work?

Yes.

Hi.

My name is Jackie Borges, and I represent part of the people that are friends of Queen Anne.

And I'm here to say that the HB 1110 is enough.

It's enough to foster middle housing in Seattle.

It is obvious from all of these comments that we all need more time to fully understand the impact of the interim ordinance, especially those parts that have to do with the calculations, the numbers, the setbacks and the height restriction changes that will impact livability and safety.

Environmentally critical areas need to be taken care of as they have in the past to avoid slides.

In closing though, I want to invite all of you to come visit the areas that we're talking about that are so obviously not ready for these kinds of changes in spite of the fact that we are, though, supportive of HB 1110. HB 1110 is enough.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jackie.

Chris, welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

My name is Chris Esch.

I'm a longtime resident of D3 and a longtime aspiring homeowner.

The grays of my beard can help tell that story.

The draft ordinance that is in front of us today is a step in the right direction, but it is only a step.

One thing that I want to highlight are the still onerous parking requirements in this interim bill, in the interim ordinance.

We don't need to imagine a crazy alternative to eliminate parking in the city.

Turns out many of the neighborhoods that were built before the car came to the city have shown that it, in fact, works just fine.

When you start incorporating setbacks, lot coverage, and all the other requirements, We're just setting ourselves up for shrinking the ability to build on available land and keep the trees as we take up more space for parking.

There's plenty of on-street parking in our neighborhood zones, and there's no better way to protect tree canopy than to better utilize the glut of available street parking.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

And I don't see any gray in your beard from here, so you're good.

All right, we're gonna move to online public commenters.

And I do have a list in front of me.

And you will press star six to unmute yourself.

And the first person we have online, it says Susan Ward, followed by Scott Serdyke.

You're up on, so Susan, just star six to unmute yourself.

Good afternoon, Council members.

I'm Susan Ward representing the Thornton Creek Alliance and speaking to the interim proposal for the One Seattle Plan.

Where there are creeks and wetlands, density must be reduced, not in proportion to the percentage of the lot that contains ECAs, but instead in respect to any required buffer zones.

Interim legislation must make it clear that for the health of residents and wildlife, ECAs in every case must be treated as required under SEPA and protected by defined buffer zones.

The interim proposal also puts tree canopy on the back burner.

Required setbacks should be revised immediately, not in a year.

Five- and ten-foot setbacks and the 20-foot uncovered land minimum, which actually allows paving over it, will remove thousands of existing withdrew trees.

Stack flats are popular with a broad cross-section because they create different housing that can be placed so as to preserve large mature trees.

Do more to ensure this result will occur.

We question the wisdom of not counting 80 years towards the maximum that they offer.

Thank you, Susan.

Next up, we have Scott, just star six, unmute yourself.

Hi, this is Scott Serdyke from Community Roots Housing.

I'm speaking in favor of CB120948.

We are in the process of building, we have over 430 units of affordable housing under construction, and we have over 700 units in the planning stages.

Some of those projects have been in the planning stages for almost five years because of the extraordinary challenges that our industry is facing with the construction costs, with the pandemic, and with the interest rates.

So we are in the process, two projects in particular represent 350 units at transit stops in the Rainier Valley.

If we are forced to comply with the 2021 code, right now they're vested under the 2015 code, that will add $6.9 million to the cost of these projects.

We cannot take, we ask you to please move this forward so that we can move forward with our projects and provide more affordable housing for the city of Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you, Scott.

Next up we have Martha Baskin, star six, unmute yourself.

Yes, hello, can you hear me?

Sure can.

All right, hello, good afternoon.

I'd like to bring to your attention a few points from Council Bill 120969, the interim state zoning compliance bill prepared by central council staff because it informs the ordinance relating to the land use and zoning ordinances we're talking about today.

In a section titled Development Standard Impacts on page 26, central council staff say the council may want to consider how CB 120969 proposed increases in maximum lot coverage will impact tree retention and whether it meets the council's tree retention goals.

The section also points out that CB 120969 proposed changes to setbacks, structure, width, and height will impact the flexibility allowed in the current code to retain trees.

and whether to amend any development standards relating to amenity areas.

The city council and city itself are tasked with reaching 30% canopy goals by 2037. As currently written, 1209409 will thwart that goal, leaving a barren city.

Thank you, Martha.

Next up, we have Joshua Morris, just press star six to unmute yourself.

Hi, council members.

My name is Joshua Morris.

I'm the conservation director at Birds Connect Seattle.

Seattle's local bird and urban nature conservation organization with 13,000 local supporters.

If you haven't already, I encourage you to review the letter submitted earlier this month by the Tree Equity Network.

It clearly outlines how proposed rezones and updates to developing standards could increase pressure on tree removal, while also highlighting the urgent need to explicitly plan for preserving and creating sufficiently large, contiguous areas for trees during development, the need that is currently missing from both the interim legislation and the comprehensive plan.

I'll reshare that letter for your convenience.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joshua.

Next we have Sanjay Kotopali.

Just star six to unmute yourself.

Hi.

Hi, I'm Sanjay.

I'm a grad student, a PhD student at UW, a UAW member.

I live in Capitol Hill.

And I would just like to say that I would like to see the comprehensive plan go much further in upzoning and in promoting density within the city of Seattle.

I'd like to say that, you know, I think it's good that parking requirements are being removed within a half mile of transit stops, but I would like to see this go further.

I'd like to also remind everybody that, you know, space for cars and also the unnecessary setbacks that remain in the plan take space away from both housing and also from trees.

And so I would like, you know, just state that in order to build a more livable city, we need to have more housing, we need it to be, and in order for housing to be cheaper, it needs to be more plentiful.

And just to say, you know, people in my generation, the working class, we can't afford these things anymore and we need to have more available.

Thank you, Sanjay.

Next we have David Haynes.

Hi, thank you.

David Hanks.

We need livable amenity space, not roads to drive through neighborhoods, weaponizing tree ordinances to deny better choice in home.

We need a robust build out with less restrictions for higher levels that go beyond HB 1110. We can save trees by building higher.

Is it true that the middle housing is only allowed to go 32 feet high?

That's a telltale sign that there's a sabotage within the efforts to undermine the integrity of the comprehensive plan for the 21st century futures of younger generations, multitudes of us.

We need to get rid of the one Seattle plan that's tainted in racist, woke policies that want to spread district two, low quality, low level, inner city, modern third world buildings and spread it around all the neighborhoods.

We need to go beyond the build out of three to six stores.

We need to have like incentives for the developers instead of paying into MHA fee funds that hires unqualified nonprofits that are undermining.

Thank you, David.

Now we have Megan.

Just press star six to unmute yourself.

Can you hear us, Megan?

Just press star six.

All right, thank you.

My name is Megan McKiernan.

I am a native of Seattle, and I realize the subject matter today is the comprehensive plan.

I have a little digression, but beginning with the DEIS, it is stated the city's tree ordinance was updated.

It's anticipated that these updates will decrease the rate of canopy loss associated with residential and commercial development.

In fact, current data collected shows we lost over 2,000 trees last year.

And this year, in the first three months, we have cut down 1,253 trees.

Should this rate continue, Seattle stands to lose 5,000.

Among these trees will very likely be a 100-year-old sequoia in the Green Lake area.

I don't have the time.

Edmonds, Washington is considering interim legislation on April 21st.

Thank you, Megan.

And I don't know, I don't see any other public commenters and I don't think anyone else signed up.

So that will officially close our public comment period.

I wanna thank everyone for coming out for speaking today.

Just a reminder, we're also gonna have more public comment opportunities as we continue with the comprehensive plan.

and then a public hearing that I'll state later on during the time, which we will be here to listen to people's comments as well.

I also want to know and thank the council members.

I know a lot of people have been meeting with folks.

A lot of folks have also been out on, neighborhood walks as well there's also been a ton of people that have had individual meetings as well and so we are extremely accessible and available to talk to people especially one-on-one and connect with folks regarding some of their issues or you know ideas that they might have or whatever it is we i know that our office is really accessible and i know that the other council members and just want to thank them i know that you all have done your due diligence in your districts and and continue to be the front porch of this.

So thank you.

So next, I also wanted to highlight that most of you have also heard that last Friday, the hearing examiner dismissed the remaining two appeals of the comprehensive plan.

And that means that the select committee is able to resume legislation moving forward.

That being said, we're gonna move forward with the passing of the interim legislation and taking on some of these elements with House Bill 1110 so that we can meet the state's deadline, which is June 30th for implementation.

As a reminder, House Bill 1110 is a state-mandated legislation to create missile, I don't even know where that word came from, missing middle housing.

I combine missing and middle together, a new word.

After we pass interim legislation for House Bill 1110, then it's phase one of the comprehensive plan, and that is permanent legislation for House Bill 1110. So there's a lot of different layers that we have to juggle during this process because of the timeline before the state legislation.

I also want our state mandate deadline.

I also want to highlight that we do have a public hearing and that is Monday, May 19th, beginning at 9.30 a.m.

So that is Monday, May 19th, beginning at 9.30 a.m.

We are going to be releasing more information soon on the timing for virtual and in-person public comments on this date.

So please check the clerk's website for this new information as we plan for this.

The topic for this public hearing are the amendments to the interim House Bill 1110 legislation.

So this public hearing will be about the amendments for the interim legislation for House Bill 1110. Every legislation that we have is required to have a public hearing during this process.

We're also mandated to post amendments for 30 days so you all can get those.

And so that's why it is on May 19th.

So we're juggling a lot of things here.

There's a lot of logistics.

There's a lot of different components to this.

After the public hearing that we had early on February 5th, Due to the severe weather, our office made the promise to honor the speaking order of those who were not able to speak at the end of the meeting, and we're going to still uphold that as we have combed through everyone who wrote down their name on the public comment period, or on the sheets and online, and to make sure that we continue that process forward, because I know there were some concerned people and also council members brought that up as well.

And this is due to the severe weather that we had to shorten that time.

So I just wanted to throw that out there.

So today, and you already made your way up to the table, our favorite central staff, reorienting us to the interim legislation today.

We have our wonderful central staff.

They'll be presenting on the policy considerations for interim, for interim legislation for House Bill 1110 as we deliberate on some amendments.

So will the clerk please read item one into the agenda?

Agenda item one, Council Bill 120969 related to land use and zoning implementing interim controls to comply with various state laws, establishing findings and adopting a work plan for permanent legislation for briefing and discussion.

Thank you so much.

So presenters, please, obviously we know who you are, but for the record, please present yourself, introduce yourself, and then you can jump right into your presentation.

Thank you.

Council Central Staff.

Hi, Jennifer LeBrec, Council Central Staff.

Asha Venkatraman, Council Central Staff.

There we go.

All right.

Thank you.

And as the chair mentioned, today we're going to dive into Council Bill 120969, which is the executive's proposed interim legislation to implement a number of different state laws.

House Bill 1110 and a second bill which amended House Bill 1110. House Bill 1293 related to design standards, Senate Bill 6015 related to off-street parking, and House Bill 1287 related to electrical vehicle charging in new development.

Council Bill 120969 is drafted as interim legislation, which means that it will be in effect for one year.

within which time we expect that the Council will be adopting permanent legislation that will completely replace Council Bill 120969. So as you start to look at permanent legislation, it will be a new bill that would be replacing this bill.

This is interim sort of stopgap bill.

The bill implements House Bill 1110, which requires Seattle to allow at least six of nine middle housing types in residential areas.

We've been over these before.

Council Bill 120969 would allow all nine of these housing types.

Sorry.

It includes a definition of middle housing.

that goes beyond the nine housing types that are included in House Bill 1110. It says that structures less than 32 feet tall that have any one of these uses are considered middle housing.

For example, carriage houses, congregate residences, adult family homes, permanent supportive housing are all types of housing that are not included in House Bill 1110, but would be considered middle housing under Council Bill 120 and 969. The only applicability of this definition in the bill is parking.

So within a half mile of a major transit stop, parking would not be required for these middle housing types, and bicycle parking would also not be required for these middle housing types.

Council members have mentioned an interest in supporting stacked flats, basically apartments or condominiums, residential units that are stacked on top of each other.

As of now, a majority of units in Seattle could be considered stacked flats.

But they're typically in much larger buildings, five, six stories, or 40 or 50 stories downtown.

In its analysis of the proposed legislation that the mayor released last fall, which included an incentive for stack flats.

Eco Northwest determined that stack flats are less likely to be built than other middle housing types due to their increased construction costs.

Once you start stacking units on top of each other, you are kicked into the building code rather than the residential code.

And the standards for development under the building code, particularly fire, life safety, are higher.

And then if it's an owner-occupied unit, it requires a designation as a condominium or a co-op.

Currently, insurance costs for construction of condominiums are higher than for other housing types.

And the combination of those increased costs for stack flats and make it less likely that stack flats would be developed under that model code.

However, they also found that if built, stack flats under that code would be less expensive than new single family or townhouse units.

The draft bill that the mayor released last fall, and that probably will be carried forward to the permanent legislation that you'll be considering later this year, included an incentive for stacked flats that had an increased floor area ratio and doubled the density from typical middle housing development.

That is not included in the draft bill, but the Council could increase the flora ratio and, I think, probably increase the density limit for stacked flats under the interim legislation that's in front of you, which could incentivize the development of some stacked flat projects, although, as Eco Northwest said, it's going to be a challenge.

Probably these units would be larger and more expensive than the types that were analyzed under the ECO Northwest study.

Council members have also asked for strategies to support legacy homeowners staying in their homes, particularly in areas with high risk of displacement.

And wanted to first note that the council did fund work to support homeowner stabilization services in communities at high risk of displacement in the budget process last year.

One model that you may want to look at in terms of incentives for legacy homeowners is our accessory dwelling unit regulations.

that provide flexibility that supports the creation of accessory dwelling units, so additional units on the lot with an existing house.

ADUs are not counted towards the maximum floor ratio on a site, so you can build an ADU on top of maxing out the principal dwelling units density.

They don't require street improvements if you add an ADU.

You can add detached ADUs in what would otherwise be rear yards.

ADUs are not required to provide parking.

And the city has supported the development of pre-approved designs for ADUs so that a property owner can go to the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections with a plan that they know will pass permit review.

In addition to the provisions about middle housing, House Bill 1110 requires that the city increase the density of development allowed on our residential lots.

And density is considered in two different ways.

First is through density limits, which are calculated either by the number of units permitted on a lot or the square feet of lot area permitted per unit.

So under the second, if you have, like, a 5,000 square foot lot, it'll say that you can have four units.

You can have one unit per 1,250 square feet, so you can have four units on that 5,000 square foot lot.

Density of residential development is also managed through floor area ratio limits, which are the ratio of square foot of space within a structure to the lot area.

So a 2,500 square foot building on a 5,000 square foot lot has 0.5 or FAR because it is half of the lot area.

6,000 square foot building on a 5,000 square foot lot has 1.2 FAR.

So that's the range of densities that you are considering under current zoning and Council Bill 120969. Under our current zoning and Council Bill 120969, there is a minimum lot area provided for the different neighborhood residential zones.

It ranges from one unit per 9,600 square feet in our least dense zone up to one unit per 2,000 square feet in the residential small lot zone.

There are provisions that allow for flexibility in areas where you have lot sizes that are smaller than these minimum requirements and that allow development in those areas as well.

Council Bill 120969 includes density limits, limits on the number of units on a lot.

These come from House Bill 1110. You're, I think, all aware of them.

The bill includes exceptions for lots with environmentally critical areas, in particular riparian corridors, wetlands, and wetland buffers, submerged lands and areas within the shoreline setback, and designated no disturbance areas in steep slope areas.

In lots with these environmentally critical areas, you can still build housing, but the number of units you can build is reduced.

And it's reduced by the percentage of the lot area that is in these ECAs.

So if half of your lot is in an environmentally critical area, the number of units you can build is halved.

Under the bill, floor air ratio limits are determined based on how many units, based on the unit density on your lot.

So if you have one unit on a 5,000 square foot lot, a typical single family house under today's zoning, you have a floor air ratio of 0.6, which is a slight increase above the 0.5 that you have today.

If you have four units on that lot, you have a floor ratio of 1.2.

So double the floor area if you have more units on your lot.

Accessory dwelling units are not counted towards these floor ratio unit limits.

So you can build two accessory dwelling units that are 1,000 square feet each on top of these floor ratio limits.

And under the bill, accessory dwelling units are counted towards the maximum density limit.

There's a separate bill that's currently going through the Land Use Committee that would not count ADUs towards the unit density limit.

So there's a little tension between the two bills.

We expect that Council Bill 120949, which is the bill about ADUs, will be adopted before Council Bill 120969. And we'll be coming in with amendments to reconcile the two legislations as amendments to this Council Bill 120969. One issue that you may want to consider is the current code allows a minimum of 2,500 square feet for any development in neighborhood residential zones no matter how small the lot is, provided it meets the minimum requirement for a developable lot.

That provision is not in Council Bill 120969. So take an example of a 3,750 square foot lot in our three zone, which is kind of the smallest lot in that zone.

It's below the one unit per 5,000 square foot limit.

Under today's code, you could build a principal unit 2,500 square feet.

Under the proposed legislation, you could build a unit that is 2,250 square feet.

In either case, you would be allowed to build two accessory dwelling units on top of the lot area or the floor area that you're permitted.

Another thing to consider and maybe consider with permanent legislation, there are different rounding standards.

depending on the zone you're talking about.

This will have an impact on the margins, projects that are just below, for example, 5,000 square feet, or just below 10,000 square feet in our three zone.

would only be able to build one unit, whereas today they might be able to build two using a more standard rounding convention.

And I will hand it over to Asha so you can stop listening to me while we're on.

Good afternoon, council members.

As you can see, I'll be talking to you about development standards that are proposed in Council Bill 120969. The bill does propose to regulate a variety of development standards.

Liz just talked about density and floor area ratio, but this section talks about structure height, setbacks in yards, lot coverage, and structure width in neighborhood residential zones, residential small lot zones, and low rise zones.

In general, these sorts of standards are intended to balance built space with open space and ensure that it is creating a specific aesthetic and environmental characteristic that does allow for light, air, and space both between structures and between structures and the right of way.

Because the requirements of HB 1110 increased density on lots that are currently zoned predominantly for single-family residential use, this council bill does change the development standards to accommodate spaces that now will have a higher density of units.

Next slide, please.

Thanks.

So this first slide talks about the differences in the height limits as compared in in terms of what is in the current code compared to what is in Council Bill 120969 and the model code.

You can see for the most part the current code has a maximum height limit in most zones of 30 feet with some nuances you'll see on the slide in neighborhood residential zones.

Council Bill 120969 would propose to increase that maximum height to 32 feet plus the height of a pitched roof.

The model code primarily applies to the neighborhood residential and residential small lot zones, but recommends a 35-foot maximum height plus the pitched roof.

Next slide, please.

Yard limits in current neighborhood residential and RSL zones You'll see on the next slide they are referred to as setback limits.

That's just a terminology issue.

Yards are primarily referred to in neighborhood residential and RSL zones.

But as you'll see, they're the current limits in NR zones for front, rear, side, and garages differ from both what the code says for RSL zones as well as for what is proposed in Council Bill 120969. They would, in neighborhood residential zones, the front and rear yards requirements would generally be reduced.

In the front yards, currently the standard is the lesser of either 20 feet or the average of the adjacent single family structures on each side.

RSL zones currently are limited to 10 feet and the Council Bill 120969 would also require a 10 foot yard limit.

The model code, as you'll see, does refer to a 15-foot limit except for 10 feet with lots of the unit density of three or more.

The memo does go through and provide this comparison, so I won't go through each of the rear side and garages for each of the zones, but you'll see that in general, there is either a decrease in the yard limit or it's staying the same in the RSL zones.

Next slide, please.

In terms of setback limits, this applies in LR zones.

As you'll see in the current code, there are different limits depending on the type of housing.

So for things like cottage housing and townhouses, row houses and apartments, you'll see different requirements for front, rear, and side setbacks.

What Council Bill 120969 would do was standardize each of those, regardless of the type of housing being built.

So it would move to a system in which any front setback would be a seven-foot average with a five-foot minimum.

Any rear setback would be a seven-foot average with a five-foot minimum, if it doesn't abut an alley, with zero-foot minimum if there is an alley.

And then for side setbacks, you'd be at five feet proposed in Council Bill 120969. Next slide, please.

Thank you.

For lot coverage, the existing maximum lot coverage in neighborhood residential zones depends on lot size.

For a lot size that is less than 5,000 square feet, you're looking at a maximum lot coverage of 1,000 square feet plus 15% of the lot area.

And for a lot with 5,000 or more square feet, the standard would be 35%.

What Council Bill 120969 would do would be to increase maximum lot coverage to 50% regardless of the lot size.

In RSL zones, that standard would remain unchanged at 50%.

And I've provided what the model code proposes, which is a slightly varying amount of maximum lot coverage depending on the density.

So a higher lot coverage for lots with six units, slightly lower at 50% for lots with four or five units, and then down to 45% for lots with three or fewer units.

Next slide, please.

For structure width, this is primarily affecting LR zones.

So currently, and this is just a quick correction, what is up on the slide right now applies in LR1 and LR2 zones.

So currently there is no structure width limit for cottage and row housing.

There is a 60-foot maximum width for townhouses, 45-foot maximum width for apartments.

In LR3 zones, it's slightly different.

The current code does not have a limit with four cottage and row houses, similar to the LR1 and LR2 zones, but for townhouses and apartments that are outside urban villages, urban centers, or station area overlay districts, the maximum is 120 feet, and for townhouses and apartments inside those areas, it's 150 feet.

in Council Bill 120969 would change that maximum to 90 feet, regardless of structure type in LR1 and LR2 zones, and would be up to 150 feet in LR3 zones.

So for some of the issues that are laid out on this slide here, the first is about the impact of development standards on middle housing generally.

So in general, the council can consider whether to take actions like adding bonuses to the development standards for certain types of housing that it wants to see more of.

For example, Council Bill 120969 increases maximum height in NR zones from 30 to 32 feet with an allowance for pitched roofs.

The council has the option of instead using something like the maximum height proposed in the model code at 35 feet.

So that increase in allowable height of that additional three feet could be used as a bonus for the types of housing that the council wants to see.

And similarly, that could be the case for any of the development standards we've talked about.

specific to the types of housing that the council wants to see more of.

The second two questions relate to tree retention.

So as we've just discussed, the increases in Council Bill 120969 on maximum lot coverage for structure heights, adjusted rear and yard sizes, setbacks, structure widths, in addition to the density and FAR changes that Liz discussed earlier, all of those changes will alter the footprint of buildings compared to the structures that are currently being built.

And that will change the amount of open space that is available for tree retention.

And so the council may want to think about whether to adjust any of these development standards to account for impacts on tree retention.

The memo discusses the current development incentives that are available for tree retention in the code.

The interim legislation does not make any changes to the tree code as proposed.

And so the changes to the development standards themselves will impact the effectiveness of the waivers or modifications that are currently available for tree retention.

So for something like in LR zones, for example, development standards for lots that are undergoing development can be modified if an applicant chooses to retain a Tier 2 tree that would otherwise be removed.

That means that things like setback requirements can decrease up to 75%.

Structure width can increase up to 30%.

So as we discussed, currently in LR1 zones, the structure width standard is 45 feet.

Council Bill 120969 would increase that to 90 feet.

Obviously, 30% in a change to a width of 45 feet is different from a 30% change to something like 90 feet.

And so those changes will impact what kind of open space is available to retain trees.

And so the questions that are laid out here are about whether Council would want to change any development standards based on how it would impact tree retention goals or whether to add in things like amenity areas or open space.

I'll just note that the interim legislation itself does not propose substantial changes to amenities or open space requirements, but the permanent legislation would propose to make those changes, adding in a requirement for amenity areas in neighborhood residential zones and adjusting the amenity area requirements in LR zones.

I will go ahead and pass this over to Jen.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

All right.

I'm here to talk about the affordable housing provisions in both Council Bill 120969 as well as House Bill 1110. So the interim legislation does include a provision from House Bill 1110 to allow six units per lot in NR zones, even if they are not within a quarter mile walking distance of a major transit stop, if at least two of those units are affordable to low income households.

In this case, low income would be considered 80% AMI, area median income for sale units, and 60% AMI for rental, and units would have to be affordable for at least 50 years.

This is a voluntary bonus program.

It is up to the developer on whether or not they would wanna participate and provide those two affordable, additional and affordable units.

The impacts of this affordability provision are likely to be limited.

While the developer would get two additional units, those two units would be at a sales price or rent level well below the market.

And this is especially true for owner-occupied units where the delta between the affordable sales price and the market price could be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As such, this affordability provision within the interim legislation is most likely to be used by nonprofit home ownership developers.

It is not likely to be used by affordable rental housing developers because their projects need to be at a much larger scale to pencil.

Next slide.

I now wanna move to talking a bit about mandatory housing affordability, which I know you are all familiar with.

It is the city's inclusionary zoning program.

Under this program, where there are changes to zoning to provide additional development capacity, new residential commercial development must provide a percentage of lower income units known as performance or make an in lieu fee payment.

MHA does not apply in most industrial zones and it does not currently apply in neighborhood residential zones.

The exception to that is that MHA does apply in residential small lot or RSL zones, which is a type of NR zoning within urban village boundaries.

Neither the interim nor the mayor's proposed permanent legislation would extend MHA to neighborhood residential zones, although H Bill 1110 does not prohibit jurisdictions from doing so.

So whether or not to extend MHA to NR zones is a policy consideration for council.

Next slide.

I'm gonna take a few moments to walk you through some recent data about both mandatory housing affordability and also feasibility of middle housing projects.

And I share this with you just for context as you consider the different policies before you.

These next few slides provide several information from several different sources.

One is information from Burke and Heartland's recent MHA evaluation, which was presented at the March 28th Select Committee, Eco-Northwest Middle Housing Feasibility Analysis, which Lisch has already referenced, and some additional information from central staff's research.

Burke and Heartland's MHA evaluation found that for the model scenarios they ran, MHA had a negative impact on townhome feasibility, especially in medium fee areas.

This was true even in 2019 when market conditions were much more favorable for development.

However, because Burke's analysis was run on model scenarios, it should not be construed to mean that townhome development subject to MHA has not occurred.

I feel like that's a double negative.

So let me say it should, that townhome development has occurred that has been subject to MHA.

Central staff's analysis found that there were about 900 projects with 10 units or less that have made an MHA contribution in LR zones since MHA inception.

Most small projects in LR areas are townhomes.

Additionally, there have been 220 projects with 10 units or less that have made an MHA contribution in RSL zones.

The MHA evaluation also looked at some peer cities along with other cities and towns in the Seattle metropolitan region to determine if they have a minimum unit threshold before their inclusionary zoning requirements apply.

Again, sort of applicable to these neighborhood residential up zones where we're likely to see smaller projects happen.

Seattle currently has no unit threshold for residential development in their MHA program.

The majority of comparison jurisdictions in the report had unit thresholds ranging from four to 30 units.

A separate report by Grounded Solutions found that the majority of programs did have a unit threshold, although there was not sort of consensus on the unit threshold size.

Next slide.

I'd like to take a moment here to talk about Eco Northwest feasibility analysis on middle housing.

While not directly related to MHA, it does provide valuable data for understanding the potential economic value provided by neighborhood residential up zones and the overall scale of units that could be provided by these up zones.

The study looked at about 100,000 lots in NR zones across the city.

And it found that middle housing would be feasible on about 19% of those lots or about 19,000, which is an increase from the 3% that would be where development would be feasible under current zoning.

Overall, the up zone could result in a net increase of almost 23,000 units over what is currently possible for a total of 36,000 units.

The feasibility analysis also found that middle housing is sensitive to cost increases.

If costs increased by $18,000 per unit, 25 of those projects that were considered feasible would no longer be feasible, 25%.

And if costs increased by $41,000, then half of the projects may no longer be feasible.

Next slide.

Spend a moment talking about MHA outcomes.

MHA has generated about $300 million in fees since inception.

Over 30% of those fees, or about 108 million, has been from projects with 10 units or less, either in low-rise zones or in those RSL zones.

As noted in the Burke evaluation, there is a marked trend of low rise housing production shifting from neighborhood residential zones to, I'm sorry, shifting from LR zones to neighborhood residential zones following the adoption of MHA and then a couple of years later, a change in ADU regulations.

If the city does implement NR up zones with MHA, that trend could continue, which could have an impact on MHA revenue.

Just a couple notes about MHA outcomes.

It has supported the production of 4,700 units since inception, including through the use of leverage like the low income housing tax credits.

And there have been 400 income and rent restricted units created through the performance option.

Only three projects with 10 units or less have chosen the performance option.

That has largely been an option when used that is selected by larger projects.

Moving on to policy considerations.

Under state law, an inclusionary zoning program can only be implemented at the same time that a development benefit such as a density increase is conveyed.

So for example, if council wanted to extend inclusionary zoning to neighborhood residential zones, not now or during the permanent legislation, but in a couple of years, it would not be able to do so unless additional density was provided at that time.

As a reminder, MHA is not a monolithic policy.

There are a lot of policy levers that can be sort of pulled or a lot of dials that can be turned to craft a program.

Major choices include the fee amount or the performance requirement, but other choices include things like if there should be an owner occupancy, owner occupancy exemption for some projects or some type of owners like legacy homeowners and timing around when the MHA fee is paid.

One option for council to consider could be imposing a small fee in neighborhood residential zones.

As just a illustrative example, it is estimated that there would be, I think the slide says 33,000 new units, that should be 36,000 units in our zones over the next 20 years.

Again, that information is coming from the Eco Northwest report.

If an MHA fee of 5,000 per unit were applied and those units were developed, that could potentially result in 165 million in revenue over the next 20 years.

Development is very challenging and middle housing is sensitive to cost increases.

So it is a note that if council wanted to implement MHA but not harm housing production, there would be need to be serious consideration to that approach.

And finally, if council wanted to apply MHA to neighborhood residential zones, it could do so in either the interim or the permanent legislation.

Waiting for the permanent legislation would allow council to have more information.

If council does intend to consider implementing MHA and NR zones in the permanent legislation, it may be helpful if it stated its policy attention to do so when improving the interim legislation.

Thank you.

And we're getting towards the end.

Talk briefly about parking and pedestrian improvements.

Under current zoning, one off-street parking space is required for each residential unit, with a number of exceptions.

Council Bill 120969 would add an additional exception for a middle housing within a half mile of a major transit stop.

And the definition of major transit stop comes from House Bill 1110. Residential development is required, some residential development is required to provide sidewalks, curbs, and curb ramps with development.

Most sidewalks in the city have been built by the developers of the adjacent property.

development of sidewalks with development of residential and commercial projects is how most sidewalks have been built in the city.

So the thresholds for when sidewalks are required is important in terms of thinking about how the city will fill out its pedestrian networks.

Under our current code and Council Bill 120969, In neighborhood residential zones, sidewalks are required for 10 or more lots or 10 or more units.

In most other zones, it's six or more lots or six or more dwelling units.

I wouldn't recommend making any changes to the Council Bill 120969, but as you're looking at the permanent legislation and what makes sense for neighborhood residential areas, which will be accommodating more housing than they are today, you should consider whether or not those thresholds are appropriate.

The one change in...

Council Bill 120969 is that there's an exemption for the development of a single-family house under current zoning, and that would be amended to, say, one unit.

And that's it for our policy considerations.

Next steps, there will be a briefing the afternoon of April 30th from the executive on some key issues.

Before then, we're hoping to have your close to final list of amendment ideas for Council Bill 120969 by next Monday.

So if you want changes, please talk to us this week or on Monday.

so that we can get that underway, make sure that as multiple council members are considering changes, we're reconciling them, that we have legal review and can publish them all in advance of the meeting on May 7th.

And we are happy to take questions.

Thank you, Lish, Jen, and Asha for a great presentation.

I know it was a lot for us to absorb and it's been a lot.

So I know it was a lot of information.

So thank you all.

I know that you all have done a lot of work in behind the scenes.

as well with our council offices.

So we really appreciate all the time that you spent with us one-on-one, whether you like it or not, but thank y'all.

I will pause here to see if my colleagues have any questions.

Just go ahead and raise your hand on the Zoom and I will go ahead and happily call on you.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll just share with the public.

I've been able to have pretty extensive conversations with you all.

I'm really appreciative of the time you've spent with me.

I know that I've asked some questions, you've provided me some answers, and I think we'll be going through a couple more rounds before next week.

So just wanted to share that while I don't have any questions today for the record, that we're continuing to work through this.

And I know it's a lot, especially, I know, Lish, we were just talking about a different bill that we're taking up tomorrow in land use.

There's a lot of land use stuff going on this week.

So thank you for all your work and look forward to continuing to meet with you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth, and thank you all for today's presentation.

Certainly want to get the ball rolling and moving forward in this process.

I have a very niche question.

On slide 23, it says, in current code, the setbacks for row houses are zero feet if abutting another or 3.5 feet or five feet if abutting a single-family zone.

but with Council Bill 120969, it says five feet.

Are we adding a five feet side setback for row houses?

And if so, why?

That is a great question that I would be happy to get back to you about.

Awesome, thank you.

And going back to stacked flats, if you can remind us again, the main causes for stacked flat development to be unable to pencil, and does this change with the likely passage of statewide condo liability reform, and what can we do at the city level to change this relating to commercial code?

Yeah, hopefully the state's bill, which I think has passed the legislature related to condo liability reform, should help.

In particular, there are exceptions for projects with 12 or fewer units, which means that they will not be subject to the same liability requirements as larger projects.

And so that should help relieve some of the issues.

It will take probably a few years for the insurance industry to process that and change their processes and rates.

Can I add a quick update to that?

I think my understanding of the current status of the condo liability is that the House and the Senate have each passed a bill, but they are different.

So there needs to be some reconciliation.

And I believe that they both do offer some exemptions.

I'm not sure specifically what for units that are 12 and under, but in the Senate bill, the exemptions don't apply if the units are stacked.

So we'll do a little bit, I think more investigating, but it has made some progress at the state, but it's not yet fully passed.

And then the second part of your question was about, uh, I think building code versus residential code and we'll need to get back to you on what options are available there.

Great.

Thank you all.

And that concludes my questions chair.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Council member rank.

Councilmember Moore.

Thank you chair and thank you very much for the presentation.

So just a question because the proposed interim legislation has less FAR and other provisions and I'm just wondering sort of from a policy position or even from a legal position, is there a drawback to, because I think for stacked flats, obviously we're going to need to have greater FAR than is what's currently being proposed in the interim legislation.

So is there a reason not to include that in the interim legislation?

Let me rephrase that.

If we don't include that in the interim legislation, are we somehow precluding ourselves from then including that in permanent legislation?

No.

The interim legislation is drafted to be fairly sparse.

The permanent legislation will include features that are not in this interim legislation, for example, the corner store proposal, and we anticipate that there will be more development potentially allowed under the permanent legislation particularly on larger lots and in the lowest-density zoning categories.

So the permanent legislation is not going to be bound by your decisions on this bill.

But to the point that somebody made in public comment, if we create something now and development begins under that and we were for some reason to go backwards in permanent legislation, that could be potentially a problem.

I can't provide you legal advice on that question.

But I don't think it should be a problem necessarily.

Okay, thank you.

Awesome, I don't see, and I'll pause here just if there's any other council members that have any questions.

Obviously I know that the timeline that we're under isn't the most ideal and taking on interim legislation isn't the most ideal as well to turn around and take on the permanent legislation, but this is the predicament that we are in.

And so really appreciate everyone Like I said, I will say it till the end, everyone taking the time for us to get this done, because I know it's important for us to meet deadlines.

Also, I want to remind everyone as well, before I forget, just the next steps.

I know that that was on slide 40, but I have it right here in front of me.

So on Wednesday, April 30th, we're going to have a briefing from our executive director, regarding the interim legislation to House Bill 1110, that agenda is currently being formed.

Just wanted to make sure we talked about that.

Wednesday, May 7th, we're gonna discuss possible amendments to House Bill 120969. So colleagues, you heard Lish give a deadline by next Monday that we need to have those in.

I know we've already sent concepts, but we need to have those in to figure out different amendments.

So I know that people are gonna still have meetings with the public and still have conversations and try to get those amendments in so those can be worked with central staff.

We also have a public hearing on May 19th May 19th, public hearing, that's gonna start at 930. We are working out the logistics for the public hearing.

That public hearing is specifically on the interim legislation for House Bill 1110. Again, that public hearing will be about the interim legislation for House Bill 1110 on May 19th, starting at 930. And we're gonna have, we'll send out more information because we wanna make sure it's accessible for people.

So we're gonna have two, two different times.

So please stay posted on us working out those logistics.

Also the committee votes on May 21st.

That is a Wednesday.

So the vote on May 21st on a Wednesday, and then we will have a full council vote on May 27th.

And that is a Tuesday.

So it's a tight timeline during that process and then after we finish the interim legislation and then we will take on the permanent legislation.

Does that make sense to everyone?

You can say no and I'll just repeat myself louder and louder.

Okay, thank you.

You gotta have jokes in a select committee for the land use, okay?

You all are a tough crowd.

Thank you.

All right, so I don't see any more questions.

Oh, I see Council Member Moore.

My apologies, Council Member Moore.

Sorry, thank you for that clarification.

And so what is the plan for taking up the comp plan?

Yeah, so after, great question.

So after we pass the council vote, then we transition to phase one, which is the comprehensive plan and the permanent legislation for House Bill 1110. Is that correct?

I'm looking at central staff.

I wanted to make sure I was correct.

That's correct.

So hopefully this summer, before budget action, and we're working on the schedule.

Yeah.

All right, awesome.

Any other questions, final questions?

Go on once, twice.

Sold to the dais.

All right.

Well, thank you everyone.

With that, we don't have any other items on the agenda, so I wanna thank you all for coming to today.

Seeing none, this is gonna conclude our April 16th meeting on the Select Committee of the Comprehensive Plan, and it is 3.24 p.m.

This committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 30th.