Land Use & Neighborhoods Committee Public Hearing 12/8/21

Good morning, the December 8th, 2021 meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee will come to order.

It is 9.31 a.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson.

Here.

Council Member Lewis.

Here.

Council Member Juarez.

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Present.

Chair Strauss.

Present.

Five present.

Thank you.

As always, we begin our Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee of the City of Seattle with a Land Acknowledgement.

And as I say every time, this is a moment for reflection and pause before we endeavor in our business.

And it's important that we don't let these words just become rote behavior or something that we just say to say them and then let us do whatever we want to do because we've said some nice words.

This is a moment where we pause and reflect about land and people, because this is the Land Use Committee.

And so we begin with the City of Seattle Land Use Committee by acknowledging we are on the traditional and ancestral lands of the first people of this region, past and present.

Represented in a number of tribes and as urban natives, and we honor with gratitude the land and the people of this land.

We start with this acknowledgment to recognize the fact that we are guests.

Our time on earth is short.

Our time in these positions of decision making are short.

And we must steward our work as guests so that we can leave to leave because we won't be here forever.

And the actions that we make now will impact the people who come after us.

And that is why it's important to start with acknowledging first people of this region, past and present, because they have set up what we have today.

So again, taking this moment to have reflection before we endeavor in our work on land use to honor the land itself and the people of this land.

Thank you.

Taking that reflection into the six items on the agenda today, We have a public hearing and vote on Council Bill 120206, which establishes an overlay district for manufactured home parks.

We have a discussion and vote on Council Bill 120239, which updates the energy code.

We have a public hearing and vote on Council Bill 120215, which waives some land use requirements for the West Point Treatment Facility.

We have a public hearing and vote on Council Bill 120214, which amends the Seattle Municipal Code to implement the main change to neighborhood residential.

We have a briefing and vote on Council Bill 120235, a landmark ordinance for 802 16th Avenue, and we have a quarterly tree report from SDCI and OSE.

This is the final scheduled meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee before the Council reorganizes in the new year.

This is the end of the biennium, the two-year cycle, and we'll get going.

But before we begin, if there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

At this time, we will open the remote public comment period for items on today's agenda.

If you've called in for a public hearing, this is not the right place.

So if we call on you and you want to speak to a public hearing, but you're in public comment, please just let us know and we'll reorder you.

Before we begin, I ask that everyone please be patient as we learn to operate this new system in real time.

As a reminder, public comment is limited to the items on today's agenda.

While it remains our strong intent to have public comment regularly included on meeting agendas, The City Council reserves the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point if we deem that this system is being abused or is unsuitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and in a manner in which we are able to conduct our necessary business.

I will moderate the public comment in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 10 minutes, and I will give each speaker two minutes to speak.

I will call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

If you've not yet registered and would like to speak, you can go to the council's website before the end of this meeting.

Sorry, I just lost my place.

I want to make sure that we have public comment instructions correct.

The public comment link is listed on today's agenda if you'd like to sign up before the end of public comment.

Once I call on the speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and an automatic prompt if you've been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that is their turn to speak.

When you hear that cue, you have pressed star six, not pound six.

And once I call on the speaker, please begin by speaking by stating your name and item in which you are addressing.

Speakers will hear a chime.

When 10 seconds are left, there'll be a lot of time Once the speaker hears the chime, we ask you please wrap up your public comments.

Speakers do not end their public comments at the end of the allotted time.

Speakers' microphones will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask you please disconnect from the line, and if you plan to continue following this meeting, Please do so via the Seattle Channel or the listing options on the agenda.

Please remember that there are separate public hearings for items 1, 3, and 4 relating to manufactured home parks, the West Point Treatment Facility, and the neighborhood residential name change.

If your comments relate to one of those items, please save them for the appropriate public hearing.

The public comment period is now open and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

For general public comment, I see Holly Towns, Steve Zemke, Suzanne Grant, and David Haynes.

I see Deb Barker for item number four and Richard Ellison also for item number four.

Richard Ellison, I'm seeing that you want to talk about the tree protection ordinance.

Do you also, so we'll probably call on you just to see what's going on there.

First three folks up, Holly Towns, Steve Zemke, Suzanne Grant, Holly, good morning.

See you there.

Press star six.

Not pound six.

Let's bring Steve Zemke up just to keep us moving.

Steve Zemke, you're up.

Press star six and Holly Towns will come back to you at the end.

Oh, I see Holly's finally off mute.

Steve, hang on just a second.

Holly, good morning, take it away.

Holly, you're off mute now, but you might be on mute on your phone.

There we go.

One more time, Holly.

All right, let's move on to Steve Zemke.

Holly, if you come off mute, just hang tight until Steve's done, and then we'll take you up.

Steve Zemke, please, star six.

Having trouble with Holly and Steve.

Maybe promote Suzanne Grant, and let's just...

Suzanne Grant, good morning, star six.

Hello, this is Suzanne.

Good morning, Suzanne.

Take it away.

I'll take it away.

I'm addressing agenda number six.

S-D-C-I, we are wondering why we do not have an ordinance to save our trees.

Your words get old as the trees are sold.

You're making lots of money off developers' fees.

The permits keep on selling, they keep cutting our trees.

Have you no conscience?

How can you sleep at night?

You never look into the future through your children's eyes.

Fires burning hotter, cities without trees.

The climate is changing in our lifetime while you're telling lies.

knowing the trees you're cutting down could be saving lives.

Stop the stall.

End the exemptions.

Implement all Urban Forestry Commission recommendations, please.

Tree requirements on single-family zoned properties, in other words, neighborhood residential properties, restore them to a minimum of two inches of tree caliper for every 1,000 square feet of lot area.

make any mention of tree reduction, any mention of reduction in tree requirements should not, they should not, it should not be, there should always be no tree reductions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Suzanne.

Beautiful, and I'm looking forward to your next album.

Please let me know when it's coming out and I will be there to get it signed.

Holly Towns, good morning.

You want to press star six.

And if you're still having trouble, we can call David Haynes in.

Steve's empty.

I'm seeing you are not present.

So try calling back in if you're having trouble.

Holly, are you able to come off mute?

I don't see Holly coming off mute.

Maybe can you promote David Haynes, Mr. G?

David Haynes, good morning.

Good morning, thank you.

Yeah, good morning.

21st century first world quality housing is what younger generations need.

Originally built classic homes of first world quality, robust brilliance are justified to remodel and preserve.

The house built at 801 16th Avenue on a corner lot with much more traffic since 1909, originally meant for a single family, has been patchwork fixed in 1937 as a duplex for the Catholic Church, God knows what they did in there, and again in 1941 and 1951, all with add-ons that had nothing to do with neoclassical quality, only perceptions of wealth, then remodeled in 1984. This house violates the integrity and shouldn't be preserved.

The building code violations only touch the surface of how flawed the design is to truly be considered a neoclassical mansion.

It's offensive to the taste and reminder of Seattle's notorious embellishment and iconic misinterpretation of first world quality.

Only thing you're doing is a favor for a big bank donor, Associated Speculator and Redfin meddling for historical preservation dollars and looking for federal tax haven for owner at expense of future residents about to be shaken down with low quality living due to perique clapboard housing chopped up into four living areas from one.

Seattle only preserves slums as favor to big bank owners and donors of Democrats, still cheating the people out of any and all 21st century housing choices.

It's another rental and dilapidated, inflated, obsolete, flawed design causing mental crisis, justifying a teardown redevelopment built as one.

Perhaps city council should sue to have Xero taken off the property values since artificially inflated is abusing housing market.

The house sold in 1988 for 194,000.

Now Democrats want to help a speculator secure a value of $2.4 million, artificially suggested price for middlemen oppressing housing market.

Taking Xero off property values would be more reasonable to preserve at $240,000, especially when they are lying about it being a legit neoclassical mansion versus two cheap wooden clapboard pillars to give it a trey chic two-bit Seattle stamp of approval, proving how dishonest Democrats hate.

Thank you, David.

Thank you, David.

Always great to hear from you.

I appreciate hearing from you this morning.

Holly Towns, give it a try one more time.

We'll try it more times, but try another time.

If you're able to press star six, it will take you off of mute, not pound six.

And if you have a headset in, that might have been why we couldn't hear you before.

Ollie?

All right, if we could promote Steve Zemke, I see he was back to present.

Steve Zemke, there you are, star six, great.

Good morning, this is Steve Zemke speaking for TREPAC.

I want to say that hang on real quick.

Um, thanks for resetting the timer.

Uh, Holly, hang tight just a second.

We're going to let Steve speak to for two minutes and then you're going to go.

So, um, I can hear you now.

Yeah.

Um, thanks.

Good morning, Steve.

Uh, we've reset your timer, uh, and please feel free to take it away.

Hey, good morning.

This is Steve Zemke.

I'm chair of TREPAC.

And I want to say that we as an organization are disappointed in the effort so far to update the current tree protection ordinance.

No draft language has been available for public review.

And we question how you can do a determination of non-significance without allowing the public to first review a draft and look at the impacts.

We urge that the draft be available for not two weeks as usual, but eight months, because this is a very complex issue.

We also have concern that we feel that very little outreach was done by SDCI and OSE in reaching people.

For instance, they held listening sessions with 29 people and tried to draw conclusions on some major issues, like whether or not there should be permits to remove significant trees.

Meanwhile, the along with the Northwest Progressive Institute has sent you previously a poll that we did that showed that we did with 617 people with a 4.3% margin of error and a confidence interval of 95% that said that creating a permitting process for removal of significant trees had a two-to-one margin, 57% supporting, 28% opposing, with 15% not sure.

Also increasing protection for significant exceptional trees polled 78% to 13% in opposition.

And adding replacement requirements for significant exceptional trees polled 76% to 13%.

We think the poll shows the public support out there for this effort and that you need to listen to it.

We also want to note that several years ago, two years ago, I guess two and a half years ago, we also did a change.org outreach, which had 5,271 people saying you need to act.

So please listen to the public and create a strong ordinance.

That's not happening now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Steve.

Always appreciate hearing from you.

Holly, good morning.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

We can take it.

Thank you for your patience.

This is Holly Towns.

I'm a member of the 43rd District Democrats Environmental Caucus and an active member of Shift Zero.

And I'm calling, as you know, to support the Energy Code Amendment.

But I'm really calling today to speak to you about the need to move ahead more aggressively on addressing climate change in existing buildings, which contribute far more greenhouse gases than new buildings.

I urge you to start working behind the scenes on how to address the existing buildings.

There's lots of excellent resources and support in our city and people willing to help.

There are other cities who are stepping forward now, and now it's time for Seattle.

You know, as an engineer, this crisis reminds me of a crack in the bridge, for example, in Magnolia.

It is small now and seems insignificant, perhaps.

But if we don't address it quickly, it will propagate and propagate faster, increasing in speed and resulting in the collapse of the bridge and a huge disaster, both economically and health-wise and for the lives of people.

This is how the climate is now.

And I know and I appreciate how hard you're working on, have and are working on all the challenges in our city, and there are many.

But I ask you to take the climate crisis much more to heart and start working harder on this issue.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Holly.

And thank you for your patience.

Mr. G, can you confirm we have no further public registrants for public comment?

Is that correct?

Uh, that is correct.

However, I may have made a mistake here.

Um, caller number six, I may have misnamed and he is signed up for public comment again, but now I'm lost on the list here.

Yes.

Yeah.

Well, I, I miss, I may have misnamed the caller on the, oh, so this, this may be, I'm going to, I'm going to unmute this one and see what happens.

Oh, this might've been wildly.

Okay.

Is this Richard?

Hello, yes, this is Richard Ellison, thank you.

Good morning.

Do you want to do public comment and agenda item four?

Oh, lost you there.

Hello?

We're back.

Yes, I'd like to comment.

Your machine's doing weird stuff.

I'd like to comment on both number six and number four.

So how do I do that?

Let hang tight, hang tight.

Number six, uh, go, we're going to give you two minutes now and then we'll call you back for the public hearing.

So you've got two minutes.

Thank you.

Um, my name is Richard Ellison and I'd like to comment on the SCCI report, the quarterly report, which completely ignored official recommendations by the Seattle city council's own urban forest commission's draft tree protection ordinance.

which by the way had about 900 positive comments in support.

FDCI is also ignoring the voting citizens of Seattle who overwhelmingly want greater tree protection of Seattle's trees and tree canopy.

The quarterly report says the city will not require permits to remove exceptional trees.

Few tree protection code items are being considered at this time.

This, in my mind, is the latest scandal of SBCI.

They claim their listening sessions of focal groups found the majority did not want, thumbs down, a simple tree permit removal system.

But SBCI interviewed only 29 people in total.

Yet, in contrast to the 2021 polling by NPI, the National, the Northwest Progressive Institute, of 617 likely voters who overwhelmingly favored policy to protect and expand Seattle's tree canopy.

82% agreed and only 11% disagreed that Seattle tree ordinance should be strengthened.

Asked about a tree permit system, 57% liked the permit system, and only 28% were against permits.

So the majority said thumbs up two to one over thumbs down in favor of a permit system.

So how did FDCI conclude so differently?

They give only vague suggestions of how to increase tree protections, and yet they claim to have an EIS ready for review this month.

Are the trees to be saved?

How are they to be saved?

You can't evaluate environmental impact if you don't know what the exact policies are gonna be followed.

If you really want to keep the tree canopy in Seattle as a big mitigation for 100-degree summer days and record rainfall winters, then put your foot down and tell FDCI to require permits and better tree protection and habitat-creating green factors.

Hire a city forester, lots of arborists, track tree removal and planting and require

Thank you, Richard.

We'll have you back up in just a moment.

Mr. G, double confirming we have no further registrants for public comment.

Is that correct?

Affirmative, there are no other public comment registrants.

I'll get it right one day.

Thank you, Mr. G. Seeing as we have no additional speakers remotely present, we will move on to the next agenda item.

Our first agenda item is Council Bill 120206, which establishes protection for manufactured home parks.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read this item into the record?

Short title, please.

Agenda item 1, Council Bill 120206, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending the Seattle Municipal Code and the official land use map to establish a mobile home park overlay district and requesting that the Office of Housing add the census tract in which the mobile home park overlay district is located to those eligible for the affirmative marketing and community preference policy adopted in the housing funding poll.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Mr. Ahn.

As I shared at our briefing on Friday, this legislation establishes long-term protection for manufactured home parks in Seattle.

This is the second time it is coming before our committee before we pass it.

It has taken us about three years to get us to this point today.

And again, want to recognize Council Member Juarez for her consistent leadership for her residents in D5.

I'm partial to my own district, but really like D5 as well.

So Council Member Juarez, great job leading for your district.

We have a public hearing today for the committee votes on the legislation.

As many of today's agenda items, I will ask that we suspend the rules to vote on the same day as the public hearing to allow these bills to move to full council before this council term ends, recognizing that each of these bills have been in committee twice.

So I just wanna highlight that for my colleagues.

We're gonna ask to suspend the rules on a number of bills today.

We have heard them all twice in committee before passage.

Before we open the public hearing, Mr. Freeman, Council Central staff is with us.

Mr. Freeman, could you provide us a brief refresher on this legislation?

Sure.

Perhaps I'll share my screen here and just concentrate on a few of the slides here that the committee looked at last Friday.

So Council Bill 120206, as Council Member Strassman mentioned, will create a mobile home park overlay district to preserve the city's two remaining mobile home parks.

As the committee is well aware, those two remaining mobile home parks are the Bellabee and the Halcyon.

Both are located adjacent to each other in the Crown Hill, sorry, not Crown Hill, Bitter Lake residential urban village.

In terms of the regulations themselves, the current bill, Council Bill 120206, flows from a settlement agreement with the owner of the Bellevue and makes some changes to the bill that the council was considering back in the summer, Council Bill 120079. The proposed overlay district would limit residential uses to mobile homes, mobile home parks, and low-income housing on sites owned by a government, non-profit, or religious organization.

would require relocation assistance, write a first offer, and rent limitations specific to current residents when low-income housing is developed on a current mobile home park site, allow some commercial uses but limit the size of those uses so that they're less likely to be developed on a mobile home park site, remove some setback density limits and amenity area requirements that were in the prior proposal.

So instead, the current regulations that apply to mobile home parks that are actually on building code would regulate mobile home park Redevelopment from current C155 zoning, which is the zone designation put in place to the city wide up sounds and establish the city's intent to periodically revisit the overlay district and finally provide for expiration of the overlay district and approximately 30 years by January 1st, 2051. So that, in a nutshell, is what Council Bill 120206 would do.

Also, as the committee will recall, on Monday, the full Council voted to extend the current mobile home park, the moratorium on redevelopment of mobile home parks.

That moratorium would expire on the earlier of the effective date of this Council Bill, Council Bill 120206, or six months, whichever is earlier.

So assuming that this bill passes full council on Monday, it would become effective in late January and the mobile home park moratorium, the redevelopment, the moratorium on redevelopment would lift at that time.

So that is a refresher on CB120206.

I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have now or at the end of the public hearing.

Thank you, Mr. Freeman.

I do have a few questions and colleagues.

If you have questions, please come off camera or on camera.

First question, Mr. Freeman, I've heard some questions from the community members about why any non-residential uses would be allowed under the overlay district.

Can you explain why some commercial uses were included?

Sure, and a lot of the structure of the bill, what's allowed in the overlay, what's not allowed, limitations on current uses that might otherwise be allowed absent the overlay, have to do with the contours of land use law.

But essentially, What this bill tries to do is to make mobile home parks a continuing highest and best use of the land.

And it does that by limiting the non-residential uses that could occur on the current zoning to make them less likely to occur.

so that a mobile home park is a preferable use while the overlay district is in place.

So the current zoning, that's kind of a framing description, and not at the specific question about non-residential uses.

Because the current zoning is C-155 and has been commercial prior to the MHA up zone.

We have to allow some commercial uses so that an owner who has some reasonable investment-backed expectation that they could use the site for commercial uses could preserve that, could still try to meet that expectation.

However, it's a lot less likely that a developer, that a current owner or future developer would develop the sites with commercial uses because the intensity of the uses and the range of uses is less than what would otherwise be allowed in the commercial 155 zone.

Absent the overlay, somebody could develop a commercial use on either or both sites to an FAR, so to a sort of a density of 3.5.

So you can imagine approximately a four-story building, lot line to lot line on both sites.

Under the overlay, the allowed floor area ratio is significantly less.

It's just two for commercial uses.

Moreover, there's a maximum size limit for commercial uses of 5,000 square feet.

So that means that somebody seeking to develop a commercial use on the site would be limited to a building with about 5,000 square feet.

And they could not, if they wanted to put multiple 5,000 square foot buildings on the site, they would have to phase that over multiple years.

So there'd be a significant transaction cost involved in that.

Just to be clear, the overlay doesn't preclude somebody redeveloping the sites with commercial uses.

The only way the city could provide a guarantee that that would not happen is if the city actually acquired the sites.

However, it makes it much less likely that commercial uses will be developed.

Thank you.

And so just to, I know that there are some good protections and parameters in this bill to ensure that if the space is redeveloped, that affordable housing is the most prominent option to move forward with.

So put another way about commercial uses in this, if we did not allow for the commercial uses, then affordable housing that built, you know, a tower of affordable housing could not have a coffee shop on the first floor.

Is that correct?

No, somebody could have a coffee shop on the face of it.

Let's say that a site or a portion of one of the mobile home park sites is redeveloped with affordable housing, which wouldn't be allowed under the overlay district.

The primary use would have to be, the principal use would have to be a residential use.

That residential use could be in a mixed use building that has some modest commercial components to it, like a coffee shop that you're describing, or potentially some other institutional use or something like that.

But it would not have, for example, it would be less likely to have, for example, on the ground floor a Walmart or other sort of big box retailer.

Wonderful.

That's very helpful.

And under this legislation, can you share what other safeguards would be in place to prevent a developer from tearing down homes and using the property for a non-residential use or a Walmart?

Yeah, I think sort of the 1 is just a limitation on the types of uses that are allowed.

So the principle uses that are allowed under the overlay district would be mobile home parks, mobile homes and affordable housing developed by a nonprofit or governmental entity.

So that's sort of the primary thing.

Another sort of limitation that tips the scales in favor of continued mobile home park use is the size that commercial use could be developed to.

It wouldn't be able to be developed to the full FAR that's allowed in the underlying zone, and there's a maximum size limit per establishment, essentially.

So that's another safeguard.

A third safeguard has to do with phasing of development.

So somebody could not come in, subdivide the parcel, and have separate 5,000 square foot buildings on multiple subdivided lots within the mobile home park with one permanent activity.

They would have to do it over a series of years if that was their objective, which would add cost and time to the development process, which makes it, again, less likely that that kind of commercial development could occur.

Very helpful.

Very helpful.

Different question here.

There's been some confusion about the median income levels in the legislation.

Can you clarify how AMI works and confirm the AMI levels in the legislation?

They are maximums, correct?

Yeah, they are.

They are maximums.

And the reason the city uses median income as opposed to, say, average income or something like that is that for incomes, particularly averages always skew much higher.

So somebody can have somebody can't make less than zero dollars a year, but somebody can make millions of dollars a year.

And so the reason that the city and.

HUD and other affordable housing developers use median income is to adjust for the fact that averages always skew higher, especially when it comes to income.

The maximum affordability level here is about 60% of AMI.

I don't actually have the city's scaled income charts in front of me right now, but my recollection is that the median income in the city of Seattle is about $100,000 a year for a two-person household, I think, these days.

So a qualifying household could earn no more than $60,000 a year.

There are a couple of specific protections in here for the current mobile home park residents.

So for those residents who exercise a rider-first offer and choose to come back to an affordable housing development that might be developed at some point in the future on these sites, they would pay no more than 40% of AMI or 30% of their current income.

So if somebody is earning less than 40% of their median income, they would not have to pay up to 40% of AMI.

And then that is a provision that is unique to the current mobile home park residents.

That wouldn't be true of folks who might live in an affordable housing development that's developed on the site in the future who were not residents of the mobile home parks.

Thank you.

Very, very helpful.

And last question here.

Can you elaborate on the height limits proposed in this bill?

Sure, so the underlying zoning is C155.

So the maximum height for commercial development under the current zoning is 55 feet.

So somebody could build an approximately five or six story building on the site.

So.

With the overlay, there are more restrictive development standards.

So the underlying zoning does not apply.

The more restrictive zoning and the overlay would apply to future development.

And for that, there just has to be some physical development standards to guide what development might look like.

As I said earlier, the intent of the bill is to make it more likely that mobile home parks remain the highest and best use of the property.

Mobile home parks are obviously not 30 feet in height, which is the maximum height for residential uses.

We don't know what future innovations there might be in development of structures that meet the definition of a manufactured home and the land use code.

So consequently, we want to apply some kind of limitation there So that in the future, if there is something unanticipated, we'll at least have some way of regulating it.

Hence the 30 foot height limit for residential uses.

The 40 foot height limit for commercial uses, this is again, less than what would otherwise be allowed under current zoning.

And it's also intended to sort of make it less likely that somebody might choose to develop a commercial structure on either the mobile home park sites.

If somebody did choose to do that, there would be a height limit.

That height would be 40 feet, so about 15 feet less than they would otherwise be allowed to develop under current zoning.

Very helpful.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any other questions?

I know we have had this bill back before us so many times.

Council Member Juarez, please.

I just have to clear up a few things based on some of the correspondence and information that I received from our district director, Dean Alsop, who has been meeting with the residents at the at the Bellaby and Halcyon for quite a while.

So, Keela, I know that we know the language and how a lot of this works.

So I'm going to ask you just to slow down a little bit.

There are two things.

Actually, three things.

And I'll just ask you, we got to start with the premise that this is private property.

It's not government property.

So the government just can't tell a private property owner what to do there.

Obviously we have zoning laws and all those other uses.

And what evolved from all of this is an agreement between the property owners so we could ensure that the people that are living there that are elderly or low income can stay there.

And then if they build it up, they can come back.

Some of the confusion with some of our elderly relatives are that they don't quite understand AMI.

And if you could just explain AMI, kind of its origins, and why the state and federal government kind of use that as a yardstick to determine housing.

It's not the perfect yardstick, but it's the one we have, just like the definition for poverty.

It's pretty bad, but it's the one we start with.

Because I think the people that are watching from the residential homes, that's where they're stuck.

And the second part is, why it's not a spot zone, why there are allowed other uses, because if there weren't, then it would be a spot zone, and that would be illegal.

So if we could just kind of clear that up, and maybe in a little more layman terms for our relatives that are listening.

Thank you.

Yeah, maybe I'll start with maybe a definition of what median is.

And I think some people hear median and assume it means average, and they're actually very different things.

So the median is just the midpoint in a range.

and the range of folks of incomes in the city of Seattle.

At the very bottom end, there might be $0, and at the very high end, there might be many millions of dollars.

So a median is the midpoint in that range of incomes in the city.

As I said earlier, the reason the city doesn't use average, and the reason that HUD doesn't use average, the state of Washington doesn't use average, is that average with incomes always skew higher.

So a person can't make less than $0, There are many people out there, especially in Seattle these days, who are making much more than half a million dollars a year.

And so if the city were to use something like average, the qualifying income would inevitably skew higher than the midpoint.

So that's the reason the city uses median.

And HUD promulgates rent levels that the city uses that are based on household size.

So median income is scaled by household size.

So you can imagine, say, a one-person household, there's only one income earner in that household.

A median income for that household is gonna be different than a two-person household or a three-person household or a four-person household.

So there is sort of a scaling of affordability that is based on the household size.

And all that information comes from surveys that are conducted by the federal government and the state, including the census.

So that I think answers, hopefully answers the question about maybe demystifies what median is.

And I'm happy to, I don't think I can, Just on the fly, pull up the Office of Housing link, because I always have to search for it for many minutes.

Otherwise, I would try to do that.

I'm just trying to make sure that our relatives who live there understand, because that's been kind of a point where Dean has tried really hard.

And I know Noah has too, to make sure that they understand how this deal came together.

Is it fair to say that this is, I don't want to go be too dramatic if it's historic, but I don't know where we've had these kind of, where we've had these type of agreements with a manufactured mobile home park in the city of Seattle.

The last one they actually sold, the one in Lake City, they sold and they built housing there.

But this one we saved.

This one, and just to be clear about who the settlement agreement is with, it's not actually with both owners.

It was the settlement agreement was with the Bella Bee owner, but it informs and it informs this current iteration of the bill.

But the settlement agreement was largely about the State Environmental Policy Act appeal.

So while the settlement agreement informs this version of the bill, this is something that is up for consideration and could be modified.

But in terms of the history of mobile home parks in the city, I'm not aware of any other settlement agreements that resulted in a change to regulation.

There is certainly a rich history of the city struggling with how to preserve mobile home parks.

There was the recent redevelopment of the mobile home park that you're talking about that's just off Lake City Way, I think also in your district.

But in the 90s and 80s, there were moratoria like we are, like the city has now on redevelopment of mobile home parks.

And some of those, some of that elevation of the issue from redevelopment, from the threat of redevelopment of mobile home parks led to changes to Title 22, which is the primary regulatory portion of the Seattle Municipal Code when it comes to mobile home parks.

And there are extended notice periods and a requirement of submission of a redevelopment plan, stuff that actually largely mirrors state law, but has some city additions to it as well.

Thank you, Keto, that's very helpful.

Just confirming Council Member Juarez, no further questions.

Seeing none, great.

Colleagues, any other questions?

Not seeing any at this time.

And so I wanna now bring us up to opening the public hearing.

And again, Mr. Freeman, thank you for those clarifications.

The AMI especially, the average versus the median is very helpful.

Before we begin, before we open the remote public hearing I would again ask that everyone please be patient as we continue to learn to operate this new system in real time and navigate through an inevitable growing pains we are continuously looking for ways to fine tune this process and adding new features that allow for additional means of public participation in our council meetings.

I will moderate the public hearing in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I'll be calling one speaker at a time in the order in which you registered on the council's website.

If you have not yet registered and would like to speak, you can sign up before the end of this public hearing by going to the council's website, seattle.gov forward slash council.

The link is also on today's agenda.

Once I call on a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and automatic prompt if you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item that you are addressing as a reminder.

Public comment must relate to Council Bill 120206 regarding manufactured home parks.

If you have comments about something that is not on today's agenda or another public hearing, you can always provide written comments by emailing my office, Dan Strauss at Seattle Lockout.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left.

of the allotted time.

Once you hear the chime, we ask you begin to wrap up your public comment, your comments at the end of the allotted time provided, and the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask you please disconnect from the line, and if you plan to continue, please follow the meeting, please do so via Seattle Channel or the listening options on the agenda.

With that, the public hearing on Council Bill 120206 is now open.

We will begin with the first and only speaker on the list, which is Linda McCoy.

She is not present.

Linda, I want to make sure if you are listening, you received a confirmation email from sign up, which has a different phone number than the listen line.

And so I want to make sure that you have called into the correct phone number and not the listen line.

Shoot.

Had I realized that she was not present, we would have had to do some of this a moment earlier.

And I do believe we heard from Linda McCoy last Friday when this came before our committee in public hearing.

Linda, I know that you have emailed us.

We have received your emails, and we're happy to include those in the record of this public hearing.

I'm going to stall for just another minute to see if Linda is calling into the hearing line.

Shucks.

Linda, unfortunately I am seeing you as listed as not present for the public hearing.

We will include the emails that you have sent in the record of the public hearing.

Mr. G, can you confirm there, Council Member Juarez, would you like me to wait another minute?

Do you want to call Dean and have him call?

Linda, Mr. Chair, thank you so much for being thank you for being sensitive to that.

Yeah, we've been working really closely with Linda and we've been meeting really with her.

I was really hoping that we would hear from her because we're trying to ask some of the questions that had been teed up from her and her concerns.

So if we can just get a text now.

I'm not I'm not seeing and I feel bad because Linda's amazing.

And so is Patty and some of the other elders that we've been working with.

So if we don't have her, then I know that we have her comments and our conversations in her letters and emails.

Oh, we've got Linda McCoy present.

Nice work, Council Member Juarez.

We're magic.

Nice work, Dean.

Linda, hi.

At your convenience, press star six, and you'll come off of mute.

There you are.

We can't hear you, though, so either you might be muted on your own.

Oh, OK.

Oh, we can hear you.

Here you are, Linda.

OK.

Good.

Good morning.

Da, da, da, da, da, da.

Good morning.

I just want to thank you for all your, can you hear me?

Yes, we can, Linda.

Noah, can you reset the timer?

Linda, you've got two minutes.

Take it away whenever you, oh, you went on mute again.

There you are, off mute.

Whenever you want, you can start.

We can hear you, and you can start whenever you want.

OK, great.

Thank you.

So I want to thank the committee for working.

Oh, dear.

That was what I said earlier.

Noah, can you restart the timer?

We don't.

Yeah.

Oh, dear.

Don't worry, Linda.

We're going to be patient with you.

Whenever you are ready, you can go, but don't feel any pressure.

Jump early.

Yeah, we can hear you.

Okay.

Yeah.

I'm so sorry.

This is Linda McCoy.

I'm on now.

Can you hear me?

Yep.

We can hear you.

Someone's saying they can hear me.

Yes.

Okay.

I can hear you.

Okay.

Good.

I'm so sorry.

Okay.

So yes.

Thank you to the committee for working so hard on this.

And I know that there's so many details that I'm going to move over so I'm out of range of my computer because I'm getting feedback.

So I appreciate the explanations of things in the bill.

And I need to move even further away.

There we go.

And I do know that it's been a long time, a long haul.

But I also, I just want to put in a last minute plug for making sure things are consistent.

And if a renegotiation needs to occur, then it will have to occur.

But I also do think that this is better than what we have now, which is no protection.

So in that sense, I do support this passing.

If you find that you really can't figure out a way to make any of the changes that we had suggested, then we do just need to go ahead.

So that's a final comment I wanted to make.

So thank you so much.

And I hope this somehow successfully got entered

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Linda.

We got it all.

And I really appreciate your patience with us with the technological issues.

Okay.

Bye.

Bye.

Have a great day.

Mr. G confirming there are no further public hearing registrants present.

Is that correct?

Affirmative.

There are no further public hearing registrants

Thank you.

Glad that I finally got that right.

So with that, the public hearing on Council Bill 120206 is now closed as that was the last speaker remotely present to speak.

Thank you to everyone who provided comments today.

Colleagues, I would like to suspend the rules.

So I'm going to ask us to suspend the rules to allow us to vote on the same day as a public hearing so that we can adopt this legislation by before the end of the year.

I want to double check.

Are there any questions before we vote on suspending the rules?

I'm sure you're going to get to this, Council Member Strauss, but just as a reminder, there is an amendment to sort of, this is actually a good suggestion from Ms. McCoy, to correct an error in the recitals and also sort of true up the legislative history by adding a recital that reflects the Council's recent action on December 6th.

I am very excited to bring the Linda McCoy amendment forward.

We do need to move the bill first, and to move the bill, we have to suspend the rules.

So we are seconds away.

Just want to thank you for that reminder, Mr. Freeman.

Seeing no questions, I move to suspend the rules to allow a vote on Council Bill 120206 on the same day as the public hearing.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to suspend the rules to allow a vote on the same day as a public hearing.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Member Peterson?

Yes.

Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Yes.

Council Member Venditta?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion to suspend the rules to vote on the same day as a public hearing carries.

As Mr. Freeman mentioned, there is one amendment before us today to update recitals to reflect the legislative history.

Before we get to the amendment, I will move the underlying legislation.

So I'd like to move to recommend passage of Council Bill 120206. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, it has been moved and seconded this one amendment before us.

was championed by Council Member Juarez and brought to, suggested by Linda McCoy of the Halcyon Manufactured Home Park Homeowners Association.

It would update a recital that describes the legislative history to reflect that since this bill was initially drafted, the moratorium on the redevelopment of the manufactured home parks has been renewed twice.

I just want to double check, Mr. Freeman, have I missed anything with the amendment?

No, it updates.

You got it, Council Member Strauss.

It correctly reflects the number of times the moratorium has been extended, and it's four additional times.

And it also reflects the council's most recent action on December 6th, which extends the moratorium, assuming that the bill is approved by the mayor for an additional six-month period or the earlier of the effective date of Council Bill 120206.

Great.

So I'd like to, thank you.

I would like to move to amend Council Bill 120206 as shown in Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120206 as shown in Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Clerk Anderson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion to amend Council Bill 120206 as shown in Amendment 1 carries.

We can now move on to vote on the underlying legislation.

I do want to check to see if colleagues have questions or comments.

I will just say that And I shared this last week that my grandparents lived in a manufactured home park where they were able to own the manufactured home but not the land under them.

And it was always very front and center in my family's mind that if that land was sold, the manufactured home would have to be moved.

But the manufactured home was old enough that it would not have survived the move.

So this is an interesting gray area and private property.

And as Mr. Freeman mentioned, there's already a manufactured home park in Lake City that is no longer there.

So just taking this moment to thank Council Member Juarez for your leadership to bring this legislation forward throughout the number of moratoriums and to get us to today and keeping us out of court because you're a lawyer and good at it.

With that, any other thoughts?

Seeing none.

like to now move to vote on the legislation.

So I would like to move to recommend passage of Council Bill 120206 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120206 as amended.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Stroud?

Yes.

Five in favor.

Thank you.

The Council Bill 120206 as amended carries.

The motion carries.

Thank you all.

The legislation will be before the full council on Monday, December 13th for a final vote.

Our next agenda item is Council Bill 120239, which updates the energy code based on some unresolved issues from the energy code update at the start of the year.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Item 2, Council Bill 120239, an ordinance relating to Seattle's construction codes amending the 2018 Seattle Energy Code.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

As the prime sponsor of the legislation, would you like to share anything before we begin?

Yes, thank you, Mr chair appreciated the opportunity to have a public hearing on this legislation.

Last Friday to get this rolling and wrapped up by the end of this year in the interim.

My office did coordinate with Yolanda and your office, Mr. Chair, to set a date certain amendment that we will consider.

So with that, I can hold the rest of my comments until consideration of the bill itself, resting on our discussion from the hearing on Friday.

And I'll have some questions for Yolanda regarding the amendments and then some closing remarks before we do a vote on the legislation.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

We are joined by Yolanda Ho of Council Central staff as well as Dwayne Johnlin and Micah Chappelle of SDCI to answer any questions.

Yolanda, we had a really great briefing last time.

We've got a packed agenda this time, so I will ask for a brief refresher, but I will just highlight that the last meeting we had was very comprehensive, so thank you for that.

Anything that you'd like to share before we vote?

I'm going to pass it over to you.

The city has a standard practice of an amended version of the Washington State Energy Code that requires new multifamily residential buildings taller than three stories and all new commercial buildings to conform to higher standards than those required by the state.

The regulations also applied alterations and or replacement of existing building components.

The 2018 Energy Code included new restrictions on the use of fossil fuels and electric resistance for space and water heating.

Water heating restrictions were limited to multifamily and hotel uses based on their more predictable water usage.

The committee considered amending the 2018 Energy Code in February to extend this restriction to all commercial buildings during the deliberations, but instead requested that the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections conduct additional work on the proposal due to a variety of complicating factors that made it infeasible for the committee to take action on the amendment at that time.

This legislation is the result of that requested work.

It would require that all new commercial buildings use electric heat pump water heaters, with some exceptions that were recommended by the Construction Codes Advisory Board, which is an independent advisory board for the city regarding amendments to the city's construction codes.

Most notably, one exception was made for that it does not apply to upgrades of existing commercial buildings.

And it also included some technical and clarifying amendments to support implementation.

With that brief summary, I will be happy to entertain questions or have my colleagues from the department answer.

Great.

Duane, I see you've come off mute.

Anything you'd like to share?

Nope.

Great.

Colleagues, any questions for Yolanda?

We had a really robust conversation last week.

seeing none and colleagues as you recall that on Friday there were discussions of setting a date certain as councilmember Lewis mentioned for implementation of these new requirements rather than the usual 30 days after the mayor signs the legislation this date certain will allow city departments to conduct outreach and ensure that contractors are aware of the new requirements and give the public a reliable date on which to rely upon, knowing that these new requirements will take effect.

After consulting with SDCI, labor stakeholders, an implementation date of April 1st was agreed upon.

Councilmember Lewis and I have an amendment that would add April 1st to the implementation date.

So we're going to move the base legislation, and then we'll move the amendment.

Council Member Lewis, do you want to?

We'll wait until then.

So if there's no further discussion, I will move the legislation and then the amendment.

So I move to recommend passage of Council Bill 120239. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

I move to amend with, it's been moved and seconded, and now I would like to move to amend Council Bill 120239 as shown in Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120239 as shown in Amendment 1. Council Member Lewis, would you like to speak to this?

Yes, thank you, Chair Strauss.

I think just to, for our due diligence in this discussion of the amendment, and just to talk briefly about the significance of setting a date certain, maybe give Yolanda a chance to kind of do an overview of the practical impact of the amendment, and then I could ask a few follow-up questions based on Yolanda's brief overview of the amendment.

So the amendment, so without the amendment, the legislation would go into effect somewhere in mid-late January, depending on the mayor's process.

Assuming the council passes the legislation on December 13th, and then it gets sent over to the mayor's office for a signature or no signature.

And assuming that the mayor allows it to go into effect, it would.

I estimated somewhere around January 22nd.

So that be quite soon.

The amendment then kind of pushes this effective date out to April 1st, allowing.

the Seattle Department of Constructions and Inspections to conduct outreach as described by the chair and let everyone know that this is happening versus kind of, especially around the timing with the holidays and everything.

So there is more time, it should be ample time to allow for that outreach.

So that is the effect of this amendment.

Thank you.

I think that overview is sufficient to explain the underlying merits of having a date certain sets relative to what the current effective date would be given when we're passing the bill.

So I don't have any other questions about the date certain, but once we amend it and we're looking at final passage, I might ask a few more clarifying things of Yolanda, but I think this satisfies my question on the date certain amendment.

Great, so if there are no further questions, it has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120239 as shown in Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Mr. Onn, can you please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thanks, Amendment 1 to Council Bill 120239 carries, the motion carries.

Council Member Lewis or colleagues, any other questions or comments before we vote on the legislation as amended?

Yes, Mr. Chair, I do actually, I have one question from reviewing the legislation in anticipation of this hearing that I did wanna ask you, Wanda, just cause I don't know if we covered this in our hearing on Friday.

But the practical impact of the significant alterations clause that is in the legislation, and Yolanda, if maybe you could explain a little bit about what the significant alterations clause is, and then also the impact that this particular component would have on new development is an area that I don't think we addressed on Friday.

I might want to turn to my colleague Dwayne to pitch in on this one.

I think we did discuss that this legislation does not impact if there is a replacement of equipment in an existing building.

This applies to new commercial buildings, but I think I'll let Dwayne.

Could you please state exactly what is the the question and what part of the amendment you're referring to?

This is referring, Dwayne, to the underlying bill talking about the significant alterations clause.

So this is something I've received a couple of inquiries about over the last week and just an overview of the implications and the impact of that is something some folks have reached out about.

And you're talking about the underlying code or something in this current amendment that we're making here?

Because I'm still not completely sure what it is that you're asking.

Right, so it's the practical scope of work that would trigger the need for compliance with this new code under the significant alterations clause.

So that is what I'm saying.

Yeah.

Substantial alterations is typically a point in Seattle code where we consider it almost a new building.

This is often a complete gut and remodel of an existing building.

And it's defined typically as substantially extending the physical or economic life of the building.

So it's a very big deal.

And in those situations, we do require that the water heating be brought up to code.

What we've exempted though elsewhere in it is your more typical situation where the water heater's gone out or they just want to replace it and it's a gas water heater.

We're still allowing that for the time being.

Thank you.

I think that that really gets to the crux of some of the concern I've heard from people about how this might influence significant alteration versus new build.

And I think that that's going to go a long way to assuaging some of the concerns that we've heard.

So I appreciate you clarifying that.

Certainly.

Thank you, Dwayne.

And thank you to Joel also for joining us last week, understanding that this is a compromise.

of the legislation.

Colleagues, any other questions before we move forward?

If there is no further discussion on the legislation as amended, I would like to move recommended passage of Council Bill 120239 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120239 as amended.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

Council Bill, the motion carries.

Council Bill 120239, as amended, passes.

Thank you all.

This legislation will be before the full council on Monday, December 13th for a final vote.

Our next agenda item is Council Bill 120215, which allows certain development standards to be waived for the West Point Treatment Facility.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

And item 3, Council Bill 120215, an ordinance relating to land use review decision procedures, amending the Seattle Municipal Code to authorize the director of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to administratively waive development standards for minor expansions of sewage treatment plants to the Department of Ecology Director Board.

Thank you, I took a sip of my coffee just as you finished.

Last week in committee, we heard from the leadership of King County Waste Treatment Division about the importance for allowing this work to move forward.

We are joined again today by Mr. Freeman of Council of Central Staff.

Mr. Freeman, could you provide us a brief refresher on this legislation that will allow for a 55 foot building in a neighborhood residential zone that is a park on a graded slope that no one can see the building from the park?

All right, so just by way of a reminder on Friday, a ruse counselor from king county's wastewater treatment division walked the council through the committee through the background sort of what gives rise to this.

proposed amendments to the land use code.

This bill would modify otherwise applicable land use procedures to create a limited exception for an expansion of King County's West Point Treatment Plant.

Specifically, it would categorize the proposed expansion as minor when that expansion is below current size limits for minor expansions.

That's 10% of site area.

Again, the site here is very large.

We believe the proposed expansion that would accomplish this would be within that size limit.

And a qualification is that the development has to be required by our Department of Ecology order for corrective action.

It would authorize the sales department of construction, the director of to a wave physical development standards here, the likely physical development standard to be where it would be height as a type 1 non appealable decision provided that the waiver is the least necessary to achieve the corrective action identified by King County.

It would require a construction management plan to mitigate any potential construction impacts.

So it's unclear whether there will be any construction impacts from this.

It's possible and perhaps likely that King County will be able to accommodate most of the construction and staging, et cetera, on site.

But as we all know, West Point is located in a public park and so.

the construction management plans intended to mitigate any potential impacts that might flow.

It would make some procedural changes to allow King County to apply for a building permit prior to receiving any waivers from the city.

And finally, it would declare a State Environmental Policy Act emergency to exempt both this council bill, 120215, from review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, and also a project-level review by STCI.

What I should have started with is just a reminder about what the problem is that this legislation seeks to solve.

And Bruce Kessler did a good job describing that yesterday on Friday.

But just by way of a reminder, the purpose here is to facilitate construction of a building to house an online uninterruptible power supply.

So essentially a large building with batteries inside of it to allow facilitate construction of that building sooner than might otherwise be able to occur under typical permit processes that in turn reduces the probability of bypass events because the building could be constructed sooner.

So hopefully that's a good enough refresher.

There's of course the PowerPoint presentation from King County last Friday's committee.

Thank you, Mr. Freeman.

Council Member Peterson, please.

Chair of the Utilities Committee.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

And this is a real good example of different city departments working together, the city working with King County, council committees working together to get this done.

The power sags that have occurred at the wastewater treatment facility there, West Point, have been an ongoing issue.

And Seattle City Light has been working hard with King County Wastewater We want to see a reduction in unnecessary flows that haven't been treated, especially during storm events and electricity outages.

I want to thank the chair for coming up with a solution and being thorough about it.

I want to thank the chair for shepherding it through his committee.

the end of the year and then it's really up to King County to take it from here and to get it done.

So just gratitude all around to serve this basic problem of treating our wastewater before it gets into our waterways.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, Chair of the Utilities Committee, just highlighting the fact that this building that we are providing an exemption for will create an uninterruptible power source to ensure that those power sags don't happen so that we don't dump raw sewage in our beautiful Puget Sound.

Colleagues, any other questions?

I'm seeing none for Linda, since I don't have anyone present, do I need to read the instructions for the public hearing or can I just open and close it?

Council Member Strauss, you should probably read the instructions in case somebody was not there earlier on in the meeting.

Okay.

Thank you.

And Council Member, Vice Chair Mosqueda, I do see you are off mute just as a warning.

Okay.

Would you like to use

Oh, no, go ahead.

Yesterday we didn't have anybody there either.

And I defer to the clerks.

Great, thank you, Vice Chair.

I will moderate the public hearing in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I will call on one speaker at a time, and in the order in which you register on the council's website, if you have not yet registered to speak but would like to, you can sign up before the end of this public hearing by going to the council's website at seattle.gov slash council.

This link is also on today's agenda.

Once I call a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and automatic prompt.

If you have been unmuted, it will be the speaker's cue.

It is their turn to speak.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item that you are addressing as a reminder of public comment.

should relate to Council Bill 120215. If you have comments about something that is not on today's agenda, you can always provide written comments by emailing my office.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left.

It'll be a lot of time.

Once you hear the chime, we ask that you begin to wrap up public comments.

Speakers do not end their comments by At the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's microphone will be muted to let us call on the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask you to please disconnect from the line.

And if you plan to continue following this meeting, please do so via the Seattle Channel or the listening options on the agenda.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120215 is now open, and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Mr. Gee, can you please confirm that there are no public hearing registrants currently present to speak at this public hearing?

Affirmative.

There are no public hearing registrants.

Thank you, Mr. G. At this time, I do not have anyone remotely present to speak.

You've already confirmed that there is not a member of the public in the queue for closing this meeting.

So the public hearing on Council Bill 120215 is now closed.

We are now moving on.

Colleagues, at the beginning of this committee, I noted that I would request that we suspend the rules because we've had these items in committee twice.

So colleagues, I will now ask that we suspend the rules to allow us to vote on the same day as the public hearing so that we can adopt this legislation before the end of the year.

Any questions before we vote?

Seeing none, I move to suspend the rules to allow us to vote on Council Bill 120215 on the same day as the public hearing.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to suspend the rules to allow us to vote on the same day as public hearing.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Pierson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, the motion to suspend the rules to allow a vote on the same day of public hearing carries.

Colleagues, is there any further discussion before we vote on the underlying legislation?

Council Member Peterson, take it away.

Thank you, Chair Estrada.

In my remarks, I wanted to also thank Councilmember Lewis.

This is in his district, and early on, he recognized the need to do this.

I know King County did a lot of outreach in the community about this as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Any other comments?

Seeing as there's no further discussion before we will now vote on the underlying legislation, I move to recommend passage of Council Bill 120215. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120215. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion to pass Council Bill 120215 carries.

The legislation will be before the full council on Monday, December 13th for a final vote.

Moving on to our next agenda item.

Our fourth agenda item is Council Bill 120214, which amends the municipal code to change the name of single-family zones to neighborhood residential zones.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

And item for Council Bill 120214, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, renaming single family zones to neighborhood residential.

Thank you.

This legislation implements the comprehensive plan amendment that we passed earlier this year by reflecting the change from single family to neighborhood residential and municipal code.

Again, this is name change only.

There are no changes to zoning.

We are joined by Lish Whitson of Council Central staff.

Mr. Whitson, can you please share a brief refresher before we open public hearing?

And if you have slides to share, I always appreciate sharing screen in my committee.

Thank you kindly.

So I will try sharing my screen.

Screen.

Can you see that?

Yes, we can.

So this bill is both lengthy and simple.

It changes the names of four zones throughout the Seattle Municipal Code.

Single family residential 9,600 zones would be renamed to neighborhood residential one.

Single family residential 7,200 would be renamed neighborhood residential two.

Single family residential 5,000 would be named neighborhood residential three and the residential small lot zone would be named neighborhood residential small lot.

It amends multiple sections of the municipal code and the official land use map.

Almost all references to the existing single family zones would be changed, except in the shoreline code, which requires a special process, including state approval.

And those amendments will be made alongside other shoreline code amendment updates in the future.

The legislation includes a 180-day effective date to allow SDCI to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to update their materials, the maps, and the code.

And the last slide I have just shows the location of these zones.

It covers about 60% of the city's land area.

Any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Whitson.

We have had this before us multiple times and in multiple and many different fashions.

Looking around, colleagues, do you have any questions?

Seeing no questions, Mr. Whitson, the question I always have for you is, can you confirm this does not change what is allowed or not allowed in any zone in the city?

Correct.

The only change is to change the name of the zones.

Thank you.

That's great.

Councilmember Mosqueda, Vice-Chair Mosqueda, do you have something to share at this time?

Totally okay if not.

Yes, Mr. Chair, is this an appropriate time to make a few comments about the legislation or should I hold off until...

Either now or after the public hearing.

Great, I'll open the public hearing now and we'll keep moving.

Before we open the remote public hearing, I would again ask that everyone please be patient as we continue to learn to operate this new system in real time and navigate through the inevitable growing pains.

We are continuously looking for ways to fine tune this process and adding new features that allow for additional means of public participation in our council meetings.

I will moderate the public hearing in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I will call on one speaker at a time and in the order in which you registered on the council's website.

If you have not registered to speak and would like to, you can sign up before the end of this public hearing by going to the council's website at seattle.gov forward slash council.

The link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once you register, you will get a phone number to call in that is not the listen line.

Once I call on a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone, and an automatic prompt if you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak.

At that point, you will need to press star 6 to unmute yourself, not pound 6. Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item you are addressing.

As a reminder, public comment should relate to Council Bill 120214. If you have comments about something that is not on today's agenda or not Council Bill 120214, you can always provide written comment by emailing my office.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of the allotted time.

Once you hear the chime, we ask you begin to wrap up your public comment.

If speakers do not end their public comments at the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you have completed your public comment we ask you please disconnect from the line and if you plan to continue following this meeting please do so via the Seattle channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120214 is now open, and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

I see two people, three people, no, two people present.

I see Deb Barker and Richard Ellison.

Deb, good morning.

I see you're already off mute.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Take it away at your convenience.

I don't know if I want to say my piece because it's so rare that it actually works.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to comment today.

I'm Deb Barker, a West Seattle resident.

I'm speaking in opposition to Council Bill 120214, the name switch bill, and boy, I sure wish I had a tune to go with that, but maybe I'll think of it by the time I'm done speaking.

In its history, the City Council has adopted strong, principled procedures for evaluating a myriad of existing and proposed regulations, as you are aware.

The comprehensive plan update process is one such respected and acknowledged tool.

I firmly believe that the name switch discussion does not belong in today's vote but should be conducted fully within the guidelines of the pending comprehensive plan update procedures.

The number of impacted properties with associated owners is by far beyond the scope of this bill and unfortunately the perception of hoodwinking truly to taint truly taints today's vote.

Please vote no on Council Bill 124214 and move the name switch discussion to the comprehensive plan update process where it belongs.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Deb.

Always appreciate hearing from you.

And up next is Richard Ellison.

Richard, I see you are here.

Press star six.

There you are.

Thank you, Richard.

Take it away.

Good morning again.

My name is Richard Ellison, and I'd like to talk about the item number six, which is CB120-214.

which serves no function except as a smoke screen to deregulate building codes, allowing more trees to be removed and less open space to remain for the citizens of Seattle, this being done before changes in city council and mayor and basically trying to just railroad it through.

The changing of the name, while the initiative does not change any other aspects of zoning control, is a deliberate action to facilitate the reduction of restrictions in development that have allowed single family to retain 70% of Seattle's tree canopy.

How will the tree canopy be saved?

You say that changing the wording from single-family zone to neighborhood residential is just a linguistic correction, but it's a sham job trying to remove all protections for trees, as low residential, low-rise residential, and multi-family have far less open space and green factory requirements.

Neighborhood residential, it's so much simpler a name and seemingly so much simpler way to later change and reduce open space and tree protection requirements in all zones.

So what is the cost to update all the maps, the zoning codes, et cetera, for Dakar?

What a waste of time and money for the city to change the name of the zoning, unless it's a prelude to a much bigger changes to come under the cover of new zoning change.

If you want to upzone, get your open space and tree protection act together first.

So any zone has lots of open space and trees.

Do you want kids to play on planting strips or in yards?

Whether it's a backyard in a single family zone or a multiplex row of houses, there must be open space for people and the trees will find that space to grow there.

It's not just street trees.

It's not just density.

It's livability and the zoning change, the smoke screen, the developer walls.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Richard.

And Mr. G, can you confirm there are no further public hearing registrants for council bill 120214?

Affirmative, there are no further public hearing registrants.

Thank you.

That was our last speaker remotely present to speak at this public hearing.

Public hearing on Council Bill 120214 is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who provided comments today.

Colleagues, again, for the final time today, I will ask us to suspend the rules to allow us to vote on the same day as a public hearing because we have had this bill in committee twice so that we can adopt this legislation before the end of the year.

Any questions before we vote?

We will then move the legislation and then Council Member Mosqueda and colleagues will be able to speak.

Council Member Peterson, please.

Oh, not yet.

Great.

Thank you.

So I move to suspend the rules to allow us to vote on Council Bill 120214 on the same day as the public hearing.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to suspend the rules to allow a vote on the same day as the public hearing.

Will the clerk please call the roll on suspending the rules to allow a vote on the same day as the public hearing?

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you the motion to allow vote on the same day as a public hearing for Council Bill 120214 carry the motion carries.

Our next action on this bill will be to vote it vote on it.

And so at this time, colleagues, if you would like to speak.

Please do so.

I know Councilmember Mosqueda, you've been a co-sponsor or prime sponsor over the course of many years on this, so I'll give you the last word.

I do want to see Councilmember Peterson, I saw your hand pop up.

Would you like to say anything?

Please.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

If it's okay with Councilor Muscato, you prefer I go first.

Okay.

So just to address what some of the public commenters were saying and emails we've received of people who do have concerns about this change, I feel that the more substantive discussion will be happening next year, that this is just a name change while, you know, the ultimate goals of a name change might be different for different people at this time.

I think just technically the actual substance will happen next year and so I just want to assure people who are concerned about massive blanket changes to zoning that I will be asking questions about displacement, about preserving trees, about are we doing this for low-income housing or are we doing it for real estate developer profit, you know, to make sure we achieve our goals and the details matter and just, but I'll be voting yes for this bill today because as my colleagues have said, it is technically just a name change at this point.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Lewis or Juarez, any further comments?

Seeing none at this time, Council Member Mosqueda, you will have the last word.

Thank you very much.

And just to follow up on what Council Member Peterson said, I think I, as well as I think the whole council, are interested in having those more robust conversations with every member of the community.

That's what 2022 is dedicated to.

Stakeholder engagement as we lead up to the comprehensive plan.

And I, too, will be making sure to prioritize how we couple policy changes that are driven by community with protecting and investing in more trees and protecting against displacement and promoting new policies to promote displacement as we also think about how to address comprehensive plan updates.

I look forward to those discussions in 2022 with all of you.

I want to thank Councilmember Strauss for sponsoring this legislation that we have in front of us and the legislation that we co-sponsored this summer, amending the comprehensive plan to rename single-family zones, the misnomer, into a more inclusive and accurate neighborhood residential term.

I think this follow-up legislation allows for us to set the ground for good, reflective conversations in the upcoming year that reflect the true character of Seattle's neighborhoods as we embark to understand more about what changes community might desire as it relates to the comprehensive plan major updates which we will work on addressing next year to create policies for really getting at the root of exclusionary zoning that is still making a mark and has a legacy in our land use and zoning policies in this city.

I'm excited about the legislation in front of us.

As I am excited, I also want to recognize and lift up what Councilmember Peterson has noted, what Councilmember Strauss has noted, and what central staff has noted is that this will not update the zoning itself.

We are working towards a more inclusive zoning strategy with policies that will be rooted in community desires as we work through the comprehensive plan major updates it throughout 2022 to consider any policy changes in the year 2023. So the legislation in front of us really contains a technical change recognizing the term single family used in Seattle's Seattle's planning language is a misnomer.

As I said, it has a legacy in exclusionary zoning practices and that we as a city are committed to a more inclusive and accurate name as we think about where policy changes may lead in 2022 and 2023. We have proposed and adopted in the comprehensive plan the more inclusive, accurate name, Neighborhood Residential, recognizing that neighborhoods are already home to diverse housing that was built before the increasingly restrictive zoning policies went into place.

It includes housing, small businesses, parks, trees, schools, and services, as well as diverse housing types that include single family, but not only single family within those designations.

So this legislation in front of us helps to reflect the reality that single family as a name doesn't reflect the current makeup of those neighborhoods.

And again, I just have to mention the four-story brownstone that I used to live in on Queen Anne that had been basically effectively zoned into a single-family area, but all around me were single-family homes as well as duplexes and triplexes and small apartment buildings like mine.

And we want to actually have a name that's truly reflective.

And so it is more accurately reflecting the neighborhood like I lived in and so many across the city.

Further from a purely technical perspective, single family has been a misnomer since 1994. Since 1994, when the ADU legislation, the Accessory Dwelling Unit legislation went into effect, which allowed more than one household to live on a single parcel, we have been operating with a misnomer on the books since 94. So this is a great opportunity to make that technical change.

And again, I wanna thank all of the council and Council Member Peterson, I really appreciate your comments as well.

the full council for your support earlier this year, and Council Member Strauss for your leadership on this issue, along with my staff, Aaron House, who's been really the driving force in our office.

on community engagement and thinking through some of the technical change with you, Lish.

So thank you, Lish, for all of your work with us on this.

And Representatives Macri, Representative Fitzgibbon, Representative Chopp have all been incredibly helpful in thinking through how we create more inclusive language for our zoning conversations.

So I want to thank them, along with the Seattle Housing Development Consortium, Seattle Southside Chamber of Commerce, Sierra Club of Seattle, the AIA chapter, and share our cities along with 350 Seattle.

Because when we create more opportunities for an inclusive Seattle, further people get pushed out of the city, further people are commuting in, and further fewer trees and fewer farmlands and wetlands are encroached upon when we allow for density to occur in our city.

So looking forward to those conversations throughout next year, throughout 2022, and then to develop policy with you all in 2023. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda, well said.

And while it is not related to we are not changing zoning with this bill, I will note that the entire state of California has done away with single family zones.

They are the sixth largest GDP in the world.

So just as by context, I know it's going on throughout the country, and it's important that we're able to retain our neighborhood character and retain the way that our neighborhoods look, feel, and shape while we are able to bring more people into our communities.

With that, I would like to move to recommend passage of 120214, is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120214. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor, no opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries to pass Council Bill 120214. This motion carries.

This legislation will be before the full Council on Monday, December 13th for a final vote.

Our fifth item for today is Council Bill 120235, which enacts landmark protections for 802 16th Avenue North.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

And Item 5, Council Bill 130235, an ordinance relating to historic preservation, imposing controls on 802 16th Avenue, a landmark designation by the Landmarks Preservation Board.

Thank you.

As I took a sip of my water, we are joined for this briefing today by Aaron Doherty from the Department of Neighborhoods, as well as the owner of this landmark.

Will you all please introduce yourselves and please take it away.

Thank you.

Erin Doherty with the Department of Neighborhoods.

And thank you, Amy Hagopian.

I live at 802 16th Avenue.

My mother is the owner of the property.

Thank you.

So can everyone see my screen?

Yes, we can.

Okay, so this ordinance is to codify the controls and incentives agreement that was signed by the property owner and the city historic preservation officer.

The landmark nomination was submitted by the owner, Sue Perry.

So.

There we go.

So we have included in the presentation the six designation standards that the board members consider, and we can come back to these as reference.

In addition to choosing at least one, they need to determine that the property possesses integrity or ability to convey its significance.

So this is the Immaculate Conception Church Convent, previously known as the Considine or Cohen House at 802 16th Avenue in the Central District.

You see it located here, and please note its relationship to the Immaculate Conception Church, just a few blocks to the east.

So this property was designated by the Landmarks Board on March 17th, 2021. They chose standards C, D, and E.

So they recognize C, it's cultural significance to the city, D, it's architectural style, and then E, as an outstanding work of a designer.

So the board designated the site in the exterior of the house, which was built in 1900. I'm going to actually abbreviate my comments.

Normally I talk more about the history.

I'm going to kind of cut it in half.

So if you have questions for Amy that we can focus on that.

So just briefly, this very storied property is an example of neoclassical residential architecture and is the work of Edwin Houghton.

Mr. Houghton had a significant career in Seattle.

from 1890 to 1920 and was a leading theater designer at the turn of the 20th century.

Few of his local buildings have survived, but the Moore Theater and Hotel is familiar to most folks, and this is a city landmark.

The original owner of the house was Thomas Considine.

The second owners were Lou and Ida Cohen.

The Cohens sold the property to the Immaculate Conception Church in 1919, and it was expanded and converted into their convent, which remained in use for over 50 years.

The church is located nearby at 820 18th Avenue, and is also a designated city landmark.

The convent was home to 19 nuns who taught at the Immaculate Conception School beside the church.

In addition to their sleeping quarters, the house had a kitchen, laundry, communal gathering spaces, a chapel, and music classrooms.

The sister's legacy is fondly remembered by former students who gave public comment related to the nomination, and it is known for its significance specifically to the Filipino-American community.

The church sold the property to Anthony Ventura and Norman Glassman in 1978, and they undertook significant restoration of the property and converted it into four separate units.

The house remains a multifamily residence, including the current home and studio of painter Sue Perry, and she and her husband had bought the property in 1988 and have continued the rehabilitation efforts and stewardship.

That's it.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Aaron.

Amy, anything that you'd like to share?

No, just that, you know, anybody who knows the central district and this section of it is well aware that it's undergoing breathtaking changes in a very rapid way.

And I have no objection to density and making properties able to accommodate more and more people as we seek to avoid homelessness in our city.

But this particular piece of property has history that is worth preserving.

Yes, it has been transformed into a fourplex.

So there are four units in this building that was done long ago.

And I think is not inconsistent with naming it as a protected property.

But it would be nice to preserve a little bit of the historic nature of the central district as the boxes rise around us.

Thank you.

Well said, Amy.

I just want to note that your neighbors next door, there are four units on that parcel and They don't retain the old character of the neighborhood, and you have four units in your home, and you retain the character of your neighborhood.

I just highlight this as the importance of four plexus and quad and triplex is.

Aaron, may I try sharing my screen?

I don't know that I actually, I don't have the ability to.

Anyways, I'll let it go.

I just think that the visual comparison of Amy's neighbors to her home is very illustrative of the conversation we were just having about quads, duplexes, triplexes, how you can retain the character of your neighborhood and add the people into your neighborhood that you need to.

And I understand that Jimi Hendrix may have practiced here.

Is that correct, Amy?

Yes, there was a Garfield Bulldog, Jimi Hendrix.

Yeah, there were some years when the building was actually vacant because largely of the redlining and people who might have taken it up could not get a loan.

after the church decided to sell and remove the nuns, they couldn't sell because nobody could get a loan in the Central District.

So it was vacant, people roller skated in it, people had ban practices in it.

It was quite a lively abandoned spot for a while.

That's part of the history of the building.

Wow.

Can you expand on that a little bit more?

Can you share how your property was negatively impacted by our history of redlining?

Well, I mean, as we know, the Central District was the target of efforts to restrict access to homeownership by black and brown people.

The banks restricted loans to people of color.

And in this particular area, it was very difficult then to get a loan.

Thank you for sharing that with us.

And thank you for your and your mother's efforts in preservation of this property.

For anyone who is listening, go take a look at Google Maps, that's Street View.

You can have four families living in Amy's house or in the boxes next door.

I'm all for density, and there's good ways of doing density, and this is one of them.

Yes, Aaron, please.

Council Member Staus, just to follow on to the property I think that you're referencing is directly to the north of this home.

And that was, Amy, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that had been the home of jazz legend Burnin' Pops Buford.

And it's the Buford family who has shared this history and recollections of Jimi Hendrix playing there and kids in the neighborhood.

roller skating in the convent.

So.

And there it is.

This was the house that was torn down.

And let's see if I can find a picture of what is currently there.

I may not be able to quickly in my slide deck.

We put together many, many slides for this nomination.

Here's currently the box that's next door.

So again, I'm all for density.

I just want to note that by tearing down that one house, we put in four homes, which is good.

Density is good.

It's sad that we lost a historic home like that.

And just noting that we can preserve the character of the neighborhood while creating density by doing things like that.

And we displaced a family that historically was in the central district for many generations, a black family.

And the four boxes next door were so expensive, they can now only be occupied by tech people who make a lot of money.

Yeah.

Well, with that, Council Member Peterson, I see you have a question or a comment.

Let's keep it to you.

And Council Member Mosqueda, it looks like I lit a firecracker and now we're going.

So Council Member Peterson, take it away.

I just wanted to thank Amy for mentioning that.

That is one of the key challenges we face as we want to increase density and make sure we're not displacing and make sure that there's affordability in those new units so it's not just for higher income people.

So thank you for just providing that anecdote.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Well, since I brought up where I used to live, let me bring up where I currently live.

I live in one of those boxes.

I live in one of four townhouses that's on a piece of property that used to have just one single family home.

And I think it has to be a both and.

So I just don't want to make, I just, I don't want this conversation to sort of trickle into a discussion where we think that all homes that resemble townhouses are a one size fits all.

As Council Member Peterson said, I think we need to make sure that they are affordable.

And I will remind folks that the work that we've done through the housing committee has been to prioritize building affordable housing coupled with a community preference policy and affirmative marketing policy.

And when you couple development with affordable, excuse me, when you couple development period with community preference and affirmative marketing, you can make sure that folks who have the highest risk of displacement, especially those who have the highest risk of displacement among BIPOC communities, African American communities specifically that have the legacy of being the recipient of discriminatory policies, We can address not only displacement, but help to right those historic wrongs and just don't want to have those buildings or that type of building be representative of, you know, the displacement that we all are committed to addressing and look forward to supporting this legislation.

But I just felt that it was imperative to, you know, juxtapose where I used to live with where I currently live.

And the reason why I was able to buy it as a first time homeowner, as a relatively young family, you know, buying a place is very much out of reach.

And most of Seattle being able to purchase a place that was finally made available because of the density offered by creating housing on four housing units where one used to stand.

I think is a good example of where we can create density and inclusivity.

And we have to couple that with anti-displacement strategies, which we talked a lot about with the racial equity toolkit.

So there's a lot of really good lessons learned from that REIT racial equity toolkit from earlier this summer that Mr. Chair, you had in your committee.

So I look forward to working with you all on this both end approach.

Very well said, Vice Chair of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee, Council Member Mosqueda.

Very well, very well said.

Colleagues, any other questions before we move to a vote?

I'm seeing no further questions, so I move to recommend passage of Council Bill 120235. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120235. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Mejia.

Aye.

Mr. Strauss.

Yes.

All in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion to pass Council Bill 120235 carries.

This legislation will be before the full council on Monday, December 13th for a final vote.

Our sixth and final item.

Thank you all.

Yeah.

Oh, sorry.

Yeah.

Sorry, I didn't see the council member, Vice Chair Mosquet, please.

Well, I just wanted to say thank you as well.

It's really good to see Amy Hagopian, Professor Hagopian.

It's good to see you, Aaron.

And I know how much you all have done on public health related issues and housing and creating not just housing, but cultural space and social cohesion opportunities.

That's all public health, right?

So I feel like this dovetails very nicely with the work you you do in your day job as well.

And just wanted to say thanks and good to see you.

Thank you.

I'm actually teaching a class winter quarter on homelessness.

I've got 45 students signed up.

People are very interested.

Yeah.

Thank you for your work.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thanks, everyone.

Sorry for jumping ahead too quickly, Vice-Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you for that nice segue.

Our sixth and final item of business today is a quarterly report on tree protection work.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Item six, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections and Office of Sustainability and Environment quarterly tree report.

Thank you.

Just as by way of background in 2019, shortly before I took office, I worked to pass resolution 31902, which laid the work plan for the adoption of new tree protections and required SDCI and OSD to present to this committee quarterly on their progress.

This is what that report is.

As we've discussed previously, I asked for SDCI put the commitment, I asked the SDCI for the commitment to issuing SEPA on new tree protections.

By this last September of this year, that time has come and gone.

I do understand that there is a commitment to issuing SEPA on new treaty protections before the end of this year, rapidly approaching.

And with the end of the year fast approaching, today is an opportunity to ensure that this timeline sticks, that we don't slip again.

Anyone who has followed this conversation closely knows that I have not been satisfied with the timeline so far.

My hope is that we receive legislation and seek a report this year so that in 2022, the city council can take action on stronger tree protection ordinances.

We are joined by presenters from SDCI and OSC.

Will you all please introduce yourselves?

Director Torkelson, I see you're off mute and I see Shonda Emery here as well.

Should we go ahead?

Yes, please introduce yourselves and take away the presentation.

If you have slides, please do share screen.

Thank you.

Shonda, go ahead.

Shonda Emory, STCI.

Hi, Nathan Torgelson, Director STCI.

Thank you.

Good morning.

STC and OSC are happy to provide this briefing to you today.

Can you see the screen OK?

Yes.

I'm not having the ability to scroll.

Sorry, Shonda, the question being?

I'm not able to advance the slide.

OK.

Mr. Ahn, do you have this presentation ready?

I do, and I can pull it up right now.

Great.

Let's take care of that.

Mr. Ahn, I can see that maybe if you could.

Yep, there you go.

Maybe we'll zoom in one more time.

That looks great.

Either way, that looks great.

Wonderful.

Shonda, please take it away.

Thank you.

I can't see how to scroll here for some reason.

Mr. Ahn will advance.

OK, thank you.

So just say next slide, last slide, however you want.

Great.

Thank you, Shonda.

Thank you.

For today's presentation, I'd like to briefly mention the importance of the citywide urban forestry strategy, the resolution 31902, and then some of the outreach feedback highlights, and then cover the five strategies being explored and then the next steps for this work.

Next slide, please.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

The citywide urban forestry strategy is a holistic strategy that includes many partners, guiding documents, planning, documents, policies.

These all together frame and guide our work.

Goals and policies together with feedback and input provide us guidance.

Next slide, please.

So SDCA and OSD units partners have been working to improve tree protections and explore strategies to increase tree protections as outlined in Resolution 31902. Council requested SDCI and OSC to explore the following strategies to expand the exceptional tree definition and retain exceptional tree definitions, create a significant tree removal permit, require replacement for significant tree removal, simplify the tree planting and replacement requirements, maintain existing tree removal limits, explore a payment-in-lieu option for tree replacement, and then continue to track tree removals and replacement.

Through October, SDCI and OSC worked to obtain feedback on strategies listed in Resolution 31902 from BIPOC and other communities, as well as community organizations, environmental groups, builders, homeowners, tree service providers, and real estate agents.

So that feedback helped us identify and understand community and stakeholder interests and priorities that will help shape and inform our recommendations.

To do this, we used a two-prong approach to the community engagement.

The first approach was to include an interdepartmental partnership with the Department of Neighborhoods Community Liaisons Program to conduct a culturally appropriate engagement in language targeting the needs and input of low-income and low-canopy neighborhoods.

The other approach focused on engaging stakeholders to hear input through online listening sessions.

In order to both collect input and inform recommendations and allow time for more inclusive engagement, SDCI and OSC chose to conduct two phases concurrently.

So this work took place between July and October.

SDCI and OSC prepared a combined summary report of the results.

And so that report was posted on the SDCI website in November.

So this table here shows the summary of the feedback based on the topics that were put to the groups, which were based on the strategies in the resolution.

On the topic of exceptional tree protections, there was broad support for expanding the protections to include more trees.

There was also a caution expressed by many of the groups that they did not want to see a one-size-fits-all approach and that they wanted input incorporated on reflecting that comment.

There is split support for creating a category for significant trees at the time in both the listening sessions and also in the community group work.

Many people felt that their There was maybe not a need for a category, but they also were split on protecting exceptional trees.

They wanted this definition to be expanded further, and then some expressed concern that it might create a burden on homeowners if this new category of larger trees is regulated, while many supported increasing tree protections beyond the exceptional tree category.

So the resolution calls for the exploring of the development of a permit system for trees outside development.

And so this was also discussed with the groups and there was not a support for creating a new tree removal permit in this discussion.

There was a variety of concerns and so this one received the least amount of support of the topics discussed.

Among the groups, the BIPOC groups, and then the online listening sessions, there was a wide support across all groups for the development of a payment-in-lieu option, and also the Tree Service Provider registration.

And then lastly, there was a strong support expressed for updating and increasing enforcement.

Next slide, please.

Oh, sorry, Shonda.

I had some questions on slide five, just specifically about the split support and lack of support for significant tree definitions and the simple permit.

Can you share what Do we know what motivated these concerns?

I would note that we see strong support for updating enforcement and protecting exceptional trees.

And based on my experience, it's been challenging to enforce the current tree protections, including exceptional tree protections, without a requirement for a permit to remove a tree.

I can imagine that sentiment around permits would change if there was an understanding of the challenges we're currently facing for enforcement.

So I guess with that, I'll just bring it back.

Do we know what motivated these concerns?

Some of the feedback that we received from BIPOC communities was that they did not feel that they wanted more government regulations.

So that was a general sentiment.

And then other groups were split on, they wanted increased protections for exceptional trees.

And there was a split on where that threshold would lie.

Okay, but as far as, and if we need to follow up later, so I guess this is just information that I'm trying to understand more in detail, in a detailed fashion, just the motivations behind this, but this is good for right now.

Let's keep moving and I'll circle back with the after committee.

So SDCA and OSC and its partners have been working to improve tree protections and explore strategies to further protect trees as outlined in Resolution 31902. And feedback and input like you saw on the previous slide has been helping inform and shape our efforts over the past few months.

So we've learned a few things and we're striving for increased tree protections.

In the next few slides in the presentation today, I will cover these five key strategies that together we're exploring to get there.

So this first one here is a tree service provider registration.

and service provider and homeowner self-reporting.

The second one is the expansion of the definition of exceptional tree.

And then third is the defining of a significant tree as a new category and then also adding replacement requirements for significant trees.

And then fourth is to allow for a payment in new option.

And then lastly, we would like to simplify processes and update enforcement.

So this first strategy being explored is the Tree Service Provider Registration Program.

This could increase the quality of work and adds for accountability.

SDCI is looking at business practices and IT support for a new program, which would accomplish several things in the resolution.

The registration requirement could include certified arborists with a tree risk assessment qualifications.

There also could be an acknowledgement requirement, which would be an online submittal and a public notice posting requirement to help neighbors know about tree removals before trees are removed.

The online piece could also include a homeowner self-reporting SDCI provided GIS tool that could be linked to an existing tree tracking system.

This would be an opportunity to help close the information data gap that we've been hearing about when trees are removed outside of development.

So this GIS tool could track tree activity reported by not only homeowners, but also registered tree service providers.

The second strategy being explored is to expand the definition of exceptional trees by lowering the threshold of protections from what it is currently right now at 30 inches in diameter at standard height down to 24 inches in diameter at standard height.

And in doing so, adding protections for both tree groves and heritage trees while maintaining existing protections and definitions for small exceptional trees.

So to break this down further, part of this strategy could be not only to lower that threshold down to include thousands of additional trees, but it would also include all the exceptional trees in our 2008 exceptional tree directors rule, which are 70 or so tree species, some of which do not fall in that 30 to 24 inch range.

Some of those trees are smaller, like six and nine inches in diameter.

Some of these smaller exceptional trees have several ecological functions and benefits that we value and we want to protect as we look at expanding the protections for exceptional trees.

Some of these smaller diameter trees could be included in that expanded definition, even though they are not larger tree species.

So tree species that would be removed from the list are invasive tree species, possibly just a few very small number.

The goal here is to make sure that we're not encouraging planting and preservation of tree species that are listed on the King County, the most current published list of invasive tree species in order to make sure that we are not including tree species that are detrimental to the health of our tree canopy.

The third strategy being explored is to define significant trees as any tree that has a diameter standard height of six inches or greater that is not defined as an exceptional tree.

The current tree code does not provide a definition nor any replacement requirements for significant trees.

The strategy being explored could add a new code requirement that plan reviewers would consider ways to protect this new category of trees clarifying that trees in non-development areas, those are yards and setbacks, are protected.

So this means that plan reviewers would consult SDCI arborists to first look at the significant trees on the site to determine which trees have the greatest ecological functions and which ones are truly the trees with the highest priority for protecting and preserving.

And then those are the trees that we could regulate to protect.

We're also exploring replacement requirements for trees 12 inches and greater.

So the fourth strategy being explored is to allow for an option for payment in lieu of planting when tree replacement is required.

The results from the outreach that OSC and SDCI conducted over the past few months clearly indicated that there is a lot of support for this strategy.

So we know that many times in certain zones, like the low rise zones, there's just not enough physical space on the site to plant new trees that could grow to maturity.

even in the adjacent planting strips and the street right-of-ways.

So this strategy could provide a much-needed flexibility that could also provide funds to existing tree planting programs, like those that are already established in at least two other city departments, including the Seattle Department of Transportation and the Parks Department, to plant these new trees.

It could also potentially include a targeted focus to plant new trees in mapped areas with low canopy cover, many of which are BIPOC communities and or low-income neighborhoods with public health disparities and inequities such as higher rates of asthma due to lower air quality.

So this last strategy is all-encompassing.

We're exploring ways to simplify administration and enforcement of the tree code.

This strategy looks at increasing penalties for illegal tree cutting and removal.

Our tree tracking efforts would support data-driven decisions in the future to monitor a tree canopy and protect trees, and in doing so, improve customer service.

As far as next steps, we're working toward the goal to issue a draft proposal with the SEPA environmental review by the end of the year.

So that concludes our briefing.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Shonda.

If you want to stick on slide 12, I want to just share with you that this is the most in-depth, comprehensive briefing we have received.

I want to take that moment with the strategies listed here.

And noting that the first strategy on slide 7, first of five strategies, I'd like to recognize Councilmember Peterson's work to introduce legislation to this effect, which I was a happy co-sponsor to.

In December, you're noting developing draft recommendations for environmental review for public comment.

Can we expect to see draft legislation attached to SEPA later this month?

Or I guess mainly my question is, will we be expecting the SEPA review for public comment this month?

Yes.

Great.

Thank you.

It will be my, Hanukkah's over, but I can still get New Year's presents.

So that will be my New Year's present.

Colleagues, Council Member Peterson, there, nice.

I knew it.

Council Member Peterson, take it away.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, and thank you for your leadership on this issue.

And I wanna thank SDCI for the presentation.

I do appreciate you as you consider this As you consider this draft legislation, thank you for incorporating the or planning to incorporate the concept of registering the arborist or tree service providers.

I do want to caution about the in-lieu fee.

The devil's in the details there.

We did have the city of Portland appear to tell us about their in-lieu fee program, and they said that it basically was a failure, that it didn't charge enough money, it was easy for the developers to pay for it.

And so I just want to make sure that even as we If the legislation expands the definition of exceptional trees and add significant trees with more clarity, and we do appreciate some of the things in the draft directors rule that has not been finalized, but.

You know, if we, if we expand that, which is good, but then we.

In lieu fee, then it would sort of cancel out that benefit.

So I just want to caution about how the in lieu fee is applied and how much it is.

I would actually be in favor of not having an in lieu fee.

And we can find resources to plant additional trees without an in lieu fee.

I wouldn't want that to be the only reason we're doing the in lieu fee.

The timing, thank you, Chair Strauss, for zeroing in on that.

In terms of getting the decision on SIPA, One, I would think we'd also want to have the draft legislation so that we could then see what you're deciding, how you're making the SEPA determination.

And so I just wanted to clarify, are we also going to be getting legislation this month?

Yes.

Oh, that is good news.

In looking at the slide, I wasn't sure.

So thank you for clarifying that.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, we can have further discussions about the in lieu fee I think that, you know, as you said devils in the details.

If you make it too low, it doesn't create the programs that you need.

avoid paying the fee and avoid the permit.

And at least that's the discussion that I remember from when you had the folks from Portland up to, for that brief moment where you were land use chair in December of 2019. And thank you for inviting me to that committee in December of 2019, now two years ago.

So appreciate that.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

And in the spirit of having additional conversations about in-lieu fees, I'm unfortunately going to continue on that thread just really briefly with a few questions that Council Member Peterson just shook loose from his line of questioning.

But the first question would be, and maybe this is more appropriate for law at some future date, but I do wonder if part of having an in-lieu fee structure is important to avoid some potential vulnerability of implicating a taking potentially, a regulatory taking, and providing alternative methods to perform, hence an in-lieu fee, and whether that's an obstacle that we're concerned about or seeking to navigate in how we craft this policy.

And then sort of in that same spirit, my question would be if there could be a way to potentially design an in-lieu fee in a layered sort of way where a developer would have to demonstrate exhaustion of alternative Uh, methods of mitigating the impact of the tree ordinance, for example.

Uh, you know, not putting in on site parking and maybe some provision that on site parking could be waived to protect trees and facilitate a design to.

to accommodate the full bulk of the development, but maybe at the expense of on-site parking, and then if for some reason that is not possible, then at that point an in-lieu fee could be a method of mitigating.

Just throwing out some of those ideas to see if there might be an answer to some of those concepts now, and certainly looking forward to talking about that more as part of this policy discussion.

great questions councilmember lewis i would say that's let's save those for when we have a draft before us um in early next year i do want to just recognize that because we are able to have this conversation about in blue fees is only due to the fact that shonda has presented a number of different strategies.

We have not gotten to this level of detail in the previous reports that we've received from SDCI.

So thank you, Shonda, for that.

Thank you, Director Torgalson, for keeping this work moving forward.

The NLUFI is going to be, and many of these strategies, are going to be a continued conversation And I think before we start hypothesizing as to what the solutions, drawbacks, or benefits are, we should get the legislation and have a central staff analysis to provide us a base to move off of.

That works.

I guess just consider those comments issue spotting for a central staff memo then.

Well said my friend.

Well said.

Yeah so if central staff is listening those are some things to maybe kick around in the in the analysis of the Ian Luffy discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you Councilmember Lewis.

Colleagues any further questions?

I know that Shonda was on her questions and then contact information slide so And Patricia Baker also contributed to this report, and I want to thank her as well.

Director Torgalson, I see you've come off mute.

Anything you'd like to share to close us out?

I just want to thank council for your patience on this topic.

This really is a complex topic.

We've been working really hard to find the balance between achieving the city's goals in the comprehensive plan and also meeting our climate change goals of which tree canopy is an important part.

It was really important that we did adequate outreach to a lot of different organizations.

about tree protection and that we spent time doing proper policy development.

So we look forward to forwarding the recommendation package and the SEPA determination to you before the end of the year.

And thanks again for your patience.

Thank you, Director Torgalson, for keeping it moving, especially through the pandemic.

Shonda, any final thoughts?

You don't have to.

You shared a lot today.

Seeing none at this time, I want to thank everyone for being here today to provide this update.

I look forward to working with you in the new year to finally adopt the stronger tree protections that are long awaited.

And hopefully I'll be getting that New Year's present.

Looking forward to it.

With that, there is no further business before the committee.

I'll just make a few remarks that I want to thank.

You colleagues, for your time on this committee, this is the last Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee of the year with RE-ORG happening in January.

I would love to be Land Use Chair.

We don't know what will happen.

So I just want to take this moment to recognize that it has been a pleasure to be a guest on this committee.

It has been a pleasure to get to steward this work as a guest.

And thank you all for being here with me.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for your leadership.

I'm seeing waves, thumbs up, and thanks for thanks.

So with that, this concludes the Wednesday, December 8th, 2021 meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee, our final meeting of the year.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.

I'll see you next year.