Land Use and Sustainability Committee 8/19/2026

All right, good morning.

August 19, 2026, Land Use and Sustainability Committee.

A meeting will come to order.

It's 9.34 a.m.

I'm Eddie Lynn, chair of the committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Council President Hollingsworth?

Present.

Council Member Rink?

Present.

Chair Lynn?

Present.

Chair, there are three members present.

Okay, and Vice Chair Strauss and Council Member Foster are excused from today's meeting.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for coming to this Wednesday morning meeting to discuss land use.

Thank you to city clerks, council central staff, mayor's office, and STCI for helping us prepare.

We'll now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items in the agenda or items within the purview of the committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

We have one in-person, three remote.

Okay.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We'll start with in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

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

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they're registered.

In-person speakers will be called first, after which we'll move to remote speakers until the public comment period is ended.

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

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open and we'll begin with the first speaker on the list, Steve.

Good morning, Steve.

Good morning.

The outcomes in Seattle on land use have not been terribly good.

I would compare it much to our public safety.

As you look at the fact that rents and cost of living in Seattle have gone up, I think, a little better than the national average.

And our policy has been in land use, all carrots, no sticks for developers.

I can only point out the window over here to look at the all carrots, no sticks.

We have a big hole in the ground that's been there for oh, I dare say at least a decade now, and there seems to be no penalties for developers.

Matter of fact, I think their motto is to violate the laws and rules and ask forgiveness because, you see, the penalties are minimal, if at all.

A lot of the things that people care about, this committee has not taken up for years.

Not just this chairman, not just you members, but the committee has seemed to be the province of developers.

We've taken the public out of design review.

Can't have the peasants designing their city, you know.

They will design things for their benefit.

And the rouge that giving the developers everything they want will lower the cost has not worked.

What they have done is put the difference in their pockets because they sell at market price.

And if you can build it for less, you're not going to sell it for less.

And that's how the system seems to work here in Seattle.

I urge you to let the public back into the process and let them at least make their own mistakes, because you've done a fair job of making mistakes.

Thank you, Steve.

We'll now move on to remote speakers, starting with Sandy Shetler.

Oh, good morning.

Hi, this is Sandy Shetler with TreeAction Seattle.

CB 121276, which you're discussing today, reduces or eliminates tree requirements in the neighborhoods that need them most.

Overburdened communities will be hit hardest by this bill because they already have a disproportionate share of smaller nonprofits and the lowest tree canopy.

Parking lots with 20 plus spaces currently must retain or plant one tree for every five spaces.

This bill eliminates that requirement, leaving the decision to the SDCI director, who will have no clear basis to require trees.

Why are we stripping trees from parking lots and making asphalt even hotter?

Second, green factor can already be met without saving or planting a single tree on a site.

Everyone has seen the raised planter boxes with dead plants all over Beacon Hill.

The plants are kept alive just long enough to get permits signed off.

We should be strengthening green factor to include trees, but this bill weakens it further.

Cities like New York and Atlanta are fighting urban heat islands and winning, but Seattle is aggressively making urban heat islands bigger, especially in frontline communities who already have higher asthma and cancer rates.

This bill adds more asphalt, heat and pollution, to overburdened communities and should not be passed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sandy.

Next up we have Steve Zemke.

This is Steve Zemke.

I'm speaking for TREEPAC and Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest.

Regarding Council Bill 121276, I urge that a council member request a director's report on this proposed legislation.

It is significant enough that the public and the council need to know SDCI's position on this legislation.

I do not agree with the supposition because the neighborhood residential legislation is less restrictive on development standards for institutional development.

that denser multifamily development standards should be less restrictive.

Multifamily zones are more dense and need to be addressed as such.

I did not support the removal of the specific provision that a tree be planted for every five parking spaces and lots with 20 or more parking spaces and left up to the director to decide what should be planted or not instead.

Developers have asked for specificity and this is the reverse.

A tree should be required, actually, for every five spaces of parking added across the city.

This makes more sense to help reduce the creation of more urban heat islands, and the city has a goal of trying to reduce parking across the city.

Neighborhood residential development has a green factor of 0.6, yet the bill leaves it at 0.5 in the multifamily institutional zone.

This seems a contradiction of saying you're trying to comply with lesser restrictions or restrictions in the neighborhood residential zone.

And lastly, I would question in the summary and fiscal note regarding climate change impacts.

Resiliency, will this legislation make Seattle more or less able to adapt to climate change?

If it reduces resiliency, explain what can be done to lessen the impact.

It says not applicable.

yet the legislation is proposed seems to be reducing the ability to retain and keep trees and plant trees in the multi-family zone and would urge that this be corrected in the legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Last up we have Jennifer Godfrey.

Hello.

Thank you.

I'm speaking about this bill on the agenda today.

I forget the number.

So the stormwater code peak flow control standards were reduced.

So now they only are required when there's over 5,000 square feet of new and replaced hard surfaces.

It's doubled before protections are required.

So removing that stormwater clause in this new proposed bill for everything under 4,000 square feet has the potential to cause significant adverse impacts to aquatic life.

I've heard people wishing for a pervious pavement ordinance which is actually covered by the stormwater code, governed by the stormwater code.

Where's the pervious pavement requirement for this?

Pervious pavement is also only allowed in slopes under certain grades.

It is not a cure-all.

It is well established by the EPA, USDA, King County DNRP, NOAA that trees and green space help reduce cool and filter stormwater and here We're not only taking that out, but also some language about allowing for stormwater to flow into these areas.

For example, raised planter boxes can't pull stormwater off of a parking lot due to the laws of gravity.

Salmon recovery plans include tree planting and retention.

When you combine this with CB 121093, removing SEPA review for parking lots up to 90 spaces and review for buildings up to 65,000 square feet, downgrading the stormwater code peak flow control requirements for developers' comfort, and all the other pieces of the comp plan, this is a pretty large piece of deregulation that flies directly in the face of the Endangered Species Recovery Plan.

For converting empty existing buildings in the densest part of Seattle would be significantly more eco-friendly for development right now to provide faster, low-cost housing.

The part of Seattle has failed to provide needed and available housing when it has the very best transit.

So please consider.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair, that concludes our speakers.

Okay, thank you.

There are no additional registered speakers.

We'll now proceed to our items of business.

Item one, we'll now move on to our only item of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item one?

Agenda item one, council bill 121276, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending sections 2345-506, 2345-570, and 2351-A004 of the Seattle Municipal Code to modify development standards for institutions and multifamily zones for briefing and discussion.

Morning, Ketel.

Hello, Ketel Freeman, council central staff.

So today is an initial briefing on Council Bill 121276. I'll talk a little bit about some background in legislative history, sort of the purpose of the bill, describe sort of at a high level what the bill will do, walk through some of the changed development standards in the bill, and then talk about next steps, which include a public hearing that'll happen in September.

So first, some background here in legislative history.

Let's see.

So by way of background, I'll answer the question, what is an institution?

This bill is largely geared towards modifying requirements for institutions in multifamily zones.

An institution, the Land Use Code definition of an institution is a structure and related grounds used by organizations for the provision of educational medical, cultural, social, and or recreational services to the community.

Institutions include things like places of worship, childcare centers, community centers, think boys and girls school.

The types of institutions that this bill is geared towards does not include major institutions.

You all are familiar with major institutions.

their colleges and hospitals, which are regulated through a separate process, the major institution master plan process.

In terms of legislative history, in 2000, last year, the council passed Ordinance 127376, which implemented House Bill 1110. That bill relaxed development regulations for institutions in neighborhood residential zones.

In both neighborhood residential zones and multi-family zones, institutions that are not major institutions are regulated as administrative conditional uses, and that means that there is a discretionary review, there's a type 2 permit, a master use permit that can be appealed, that is an application that is a type 2 decision by the SDCI directory, meaning it's a decision that is appealable to the City Hearing Examiner, whereby permission for a use is granted if certain criteria are met.

Those criteria largely have to do with mitigating impacts associated with institutions, including things like parking and traffic impacts, other things that are unique to an institutional use and the hours in which an institutional use may operate.

There's a big one, which is dispersion.

Institutional uses have to be separated from each other.

Now, in neighborhood residential zones, they no longer have to be separated from each other.

This bill would also eliminate that requirement for multifamily zones.

So the purpose, in part, is to have a similar regulatory approach for both neighborhood residential and multi-family zones, and also to help smaller institutions either redevelop on site or find new locations in neighborhood residential zones and multi-family zones.

So that's what the bill would do.

It would enact regulations that are almost identical to those that apply in neighborhood residential zones, would allow institutions to meet development standards that are applicable to multifamily residential development in those zones.

It would have the same or similar green factor in screening and landscaping requirements that apply in neighborhood residential zones that would also apply in multifamily zones, and it would remove the dispersion requirements that are part of the administrative conditional use criteria.

So a look here at the development standards that would change a note about this.

This is not all multi-family zones here.

We're mostly looking at low-rise residential zones here.

The bill would also apply similar standards in mid-rise and high-rise zones.

I've used low-rise residential here because it's the predominant multi-family zone, about 11% of the city's zoned land area.

The current standards are on the left.

The current standards for residential uses are on the left.

The current standards for institutional uses are in the middle, and the proposed standards are on the right.

Generally speaking, for height, bulk, and scale standards that would apply to residential uses, those same height, bulk, and scale standards would apply to multifamily uses.

A green factor is not currently a requirement.

except when trying to modify the structure width in low-rise zones for institutional uses, the bill would make a green factor requirement across the board.

There is a policy choice here about the level of green factor.

Currently, in low-rise, the green factor requirement is 0.6 for multifamily residential uses, and it's 0.5 in high-rise.

and mid-rise zones.

The bill reflects a policy choice of 0.5.

And finally, the dispersion requirements would be removed.

Any questions about those?

So the net effect of these changes, maybe we'll just go back up here.

The net effect is that If you are a new institutional use looking to locate in a multifamily zone, it will be easier for you to find sites because the dispersion requirement is no longer there.

If you are an existing institutional use in a multifamily zone, it'll be easier for you to redevelop your site if you want to do something that has a mixed use concept.

So if you want to retain an institutional use on your site, and have maybe a residential component as part of the new development, it'll be easier for you to develop that use.

Next steps, there's a public hearing that's scheduled for September 16th.

Committee discussion and vote will happen later in September.

OK.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions or comments?

I have a few questions.

Could you repeat what you were saying about the dispersion in neighborhood residential currently?

Yeah.

So in neighborhood residential zones previously, there was a dispersion requirement that applied in both neighborhood residential and multi-family zones.

So institutions couldn't be located within a certain distance of each other.

I believe that distance is 600 feet.

In neighborhood residential zones, that dispersion requirement no longer applies.

So institutional uses are no longer limited by their proximity to other institutional uses in neighborhood residential zones.

That same relaxation of the dispersion requirement would apply if this bill passes in multi-family zones as well.

So if you have a church or a place of worship, if you want to cite a church or a place of worship, for example, and there's already a place of worship that is within 600 feet of a site that you are considering, that would no longer be a limitation on your ability to site an institutional use in that location.

Got it.

So just to confirm, again, there's no dispersion in neighborhood residential.

There is currently a dispersion requirement in multifamily zones.

This would remove that dispersion requirement, so there would be consistency between the multifamily and the neighborhood residential.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all the questions I have for today.

Just one last time, see if there's any other questions or comments.

Okay.

Well, thank you so much.

We'll look forward to the public hearing on September 16th.

Thank you all.

That concludes, unless there's anything else that comes before any other business.

Okay.

Hearing no further business, we are adjourned at 9.53 a.m.

Thank you.