Seattle City Council Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee 9/22/21

September 22nd, 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?

Councilmember Peterson?

Here.

Councilmember Lewis?

Councilmember Juarez?

Here.

Councilmember McKayda?

Chair Strauss?

Present.

Spree, present.

Thank you.

As always, the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee of the City of Seattle begins our meetings with land acknowledgement.

So we'll take a moment to pause as we acknowledge.

We are on the traditional and ancestral lands of the first people of this region, past and present.

These past and present are represented in a number of tribes and as urban natives, and we honor with gratitude the land itself and the people of this land.

We start with this acknowledgment to recognize that we are guests on this land and need to steward our land as such as guests.

This is not a checklist or a rote behavior, and it doesn't give us a passport to proceed however we desire because we've said these words.

This is a moment for us to stop and reflect and ensure that we steward our work as guests as our time is short.

Take a minute to pause.

We have five items on today's agenda, all of which have public hearings and briefings.

So there will be a, this is a fairly long committee meeting.

We will be following up with another committee meeting this coming Friday.

One of the items today may have a vote if council members are comfortable voting the same day that the public hearing has occurred.

That is, so let me go through the list.

We have council bill 120149, which increases the maximum size limit for sports and recreation uses in industrial general two zones.

Second, we have Council Bill 120154, which makes several annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.

We have third, Council Bill 120155, which also amends the Comprehensive Plan to change the name of single-family areas to neighborhood residential areas.

Fourth, we have Council Bill 120153, which adjusts development standards for small lots in belltown to allow for more modular construction and this is the item which we may vote on today if council members are comfortable since we have already had this bill presented to us in this committee.

lastly and fifth we have council bill 120181 which adopts a regional transferable development rights program with pierce and snohomish county.

Again, the next meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee is this Friday, September 24, starting at 2 PM.

Before we begin, if there is 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.

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

Please keep in mind that these are separate public hearings for each item on today's agenda.

If you are speaking to one of those items, please reserve your comments for the appropriate public hearing while it remains the strong intent to have public comment regularly included.

Let me actually check.

with the clerk, do we need to run through the script if nobody is signed up for public comment?

Council Member Strauss, if you'd like to confirm with IT that there are no public commenters, you may proceed to the next business item.

Thank you.

IT, can you confirm there are no public comment registrants at this time?

There are currently no public comment registrants.

Thank you.

Seeing as we have no speakers signed up nor remotely present, the public comment period is now closed and we will move on to the next agenda item.

I'd like the record to reflect we've been joined by Council Member Lewis.

Good morning, Council Member Lewis.

Good morning, Council Member Strauss.

Good morning.

Our first item of business today is a public hearing and briefing and discussion on Council Bill 120149, which increases the maximum size of sports and recreation uses in industrial general two zones.

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

And item one, Council Bill 120149, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending maximum size of use limits and minimum parking requirements for indoor sports and recreation uses.

Thank you.

For this item, we're going to open the public hearing first, after which we will hear from members of the mayor's office, OPCD, and Council Central staff.

So we are now going to move into the remote public hearing on Council Bill 120149. Before we open the remote public hearing, I would again ask that everyone please be patient as we continue to learn to operate the 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've registered on the council's website.

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

The link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and an automatic prompt if you've been unmuted will be the speaker's cue.

It is your turn to speak.

Please begin speaking by stating your name, the item that you are addressing.

Again, as a reminder, public comment should relate right now to Council Bill 120149. 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 remaining of your allotted time.

Once you hear the chime, we ask you to 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 that you please disconnect from the line, and if you plan to continue following this meeting, please do so via the Seattle Channel or listening options listed on the agenda.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120149 is now open.

And we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

First, I have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 people signed up and one person not present.

I have Virginia Gilder, Sue Bird, Michael Sung, Irene Wall, and Laura Lowe.

Good morning, Jenny.

We have you up.

Good morning.

I am assuming you can hear me.

As you said, I'm Ginny Gilder, and I'm an owner of the Seattle Storm.

Seattle has a long tradition of investing in its professional sports franchises.

Our city has supported T-Mobile Park, Women's Field, and the soon-to-reopen Climate Pledge Arena in myriad ways.

The brand-new crack and practice facility recently opened at Northgate for a brand-new team.

Now the city has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to equity, to step forward and extend that tradition of support to its sole professional women's sports franchise, the Seattle Storm.

The Emerald City has been our home for 21 years, and we have won four WNBA championships in your name.

The Storm provides significant public benefit to our community.

Of course, we offer basketball clinics for youth, but that's just the start.

Our Force for Change initiative focuses on voter education, supporting BIPOC youth and communities, amplifying Black women, and promoting BIPOC businesses.

We have a long history of engagement with the LGBTQ community.

Both our players and owners are never shy about standing up for important causes, whether it's Black Lives Matter, Say Her Name, Planned Parenthood, or to endorse Biden-Harris.

Together with our many corporate partners, we have raised and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars just in the past two years to support our city through a particularly rough time.

Everything we do reflects our community's values of equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Approval of this code amendment will signal our city's alignment with those values.

We ask you, our city government, to extend the tradition of supporting our pro sports franchises to the storm so we can continue to represent you, winning on the court and promoting the power of equity everywhere else.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ginny.

Up next, we have Sue Bird followed by Michael Sung, who is not present.

Michael, if you are here, please call in now.

Good morning, Sue.

Good morning.

Hi, this is Sue Bird.

I have played my entire career here in Seattle since 2002 and have been a part of all four of the championship teams.

The way I see it, you know, my teammates and I, we've always given our best both on and off the court in order to rep the city right and to maintain the status as best WNBA franchise, obviously, in my opinion.

And now we're hoping the city will do its part to pave the way to a successful future for this storm.

As I mentioned, I got drafted in 2002 and so I have a really unique perspective and that I've seen a lot change in this league and there's definitely been a shift recently.

When I look at that changing landscape, the importance of top class facilities to attract free agents and compete with other franchises is crucial.

Last year is a great example, sadly.

The sad part is that we lost some players.

The good part is we won the championship in 2020. But like I said, we lost three of our top seven players to free agency.

Each player had their own reasons, of course.

There's a ton of reasons for players to leave and make that decision.

But facilities in other franchises help tip the scale for them.

In order to win rings and hoist trophies, you need great players, you need great play.

And without a practice facility of our own, we lack the resources that are critical to sustain that championship level.

And that goes for on the court as well as off the court in our community.

The city support will communicate the importance of supporting WNBA players, whether they're drafted here like myself or choose to come here via free agency, but it will also communicate a commitment to women and girls who are not accustomed to seeing women's sports highlighted or put on an equal footing with men.

I mean, I haven't even seen that in my time.

And that could be even more important than, like I said, raising trophies.

I urge you to approve the code amendment, and thank you for your time.

Thank you, Sue.

And good luck on Sunday.

We're honored to have you representing our city, and we're incredibly proud of you.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate that.

Absolutely.

Knock them dead.

Michael Sun, I see that you are not present at this time.

I'm going to move on to Irene Wall and then Laura Lowe.

Michael, if you are listening, please do call in.

Irene, good morning.

Thank you.

My name is Irene Wall.

I strongly urge you to reject this spot rezone disguised as a code amendment.

The disguise is about as transparent as a Groucho Marx mask from Archie McPhee's.

Ask yourself why this code change even surfaced now.

Did the Parks Department ask to put in an indoor sports facility?

No.

Did anyone besides Ginny Gilder ask for this?

No.

Why would you allow this in the Inner Bay Industrial Area when both the Planning Commission and the Mayor's Industrial and Maritime Strategy Council recently said, close the loopholes that have allowed too many non-industrial uses to usurp limited IG zone land.

Instead, the mayor wants to reopen a new loophole.

SCC Insight's story yesterday has clearly spelled out the illegalities and irregularities behind this obvious spot rezone.

Read it before you vote on this.

Instead, insist that this request go through the contract rezone process that any other property owner seeking this change would have to do.

The Seattle Storm can have a practice facility in a commercial zone elsewhere in the city.

And given the stated public benefits of opening the facility to BIPOC kids, placing it in Inner Bay between Queen Anne and Magnolia is a striking contradiction.

If the goal is some parity between men and women's professional sports, then the storm practice field belongs in the stadium district.

Famous basketball fan, Chris Hansen, has a lot of spare property there.

And if you're going to degrade an industrial area land for sports, this is the obvious place to do it, not in Ben Mick.

Thank you.

Thank you, Irene.

Up next, we have Laura Lowe.

Good morning, Laura.

Hello everybody.

My name is Laura and I'm part of an organization called Share the City's Action Fund.

We did a walking tour with our education side this week with 18 folks through the interbank area in the middle of a thunderstorm and had a robust discussion about the future of our industrial lands.

There's a lot of enthusiasm in the community and folks are just learning about the industrial maritime strategy.

When we contrast the process of this storm facility and the decisions that were made around this including a very last minute informing of the Seattle Planning Commission that this was happening.

It seems very obscured and different than other processes I followed on landing.

For example Magnolia including Anne the housing above the grocery store where years of scrutiny endless design review for a handful of cranky neighbors to have their say.

Meanwhile, this practice facility and area the city had supposedly a North Star of prioritizing maritime and industrial middle-wage jobs has gotten a fast pass.

Absolutely love the Storm.

Champion our great women's basketball team.

Proud to have them in our city.

They absolutely deserve a new practice facility.

But as the Land Use Committee looks to how we make our industrial maritime strategy, and our residential zoning changes over the next comprehensive plan update, just think about how this process is in contrast to the housing that we need and the housing crisis and how slow that is and how quickly and seemingly without a lot of public knowledge or even the planning commission understanding what was going on, this has moved forward.

So yeah, just really look into that.

I agree.

with the last speaker in terms of reading that SBC Insight article.

And there's even more that wasn't even mentioned in that article to dig into.

So thank you.

Thank you, Laura.

And I've received information that Michael Sung called into the wrong line.

So I am going to give us just a second to see if we're able to have him join the correct phone line to be able to provide his public comment during this public hearing.

I see Michael is now present.

Good morning, Michael.

Michael son.

I see your morning.

Good morning.

Not a problem.

Glad we got a number of technical difficulties.

My apologies.

My name is Michael song and I live roughly 1000 feet from the nearest property affected by the proposed ordinance.

We have two young and active children.

I hope this committee gives significant weight to the voice of families directed directly impacted by this proposal.

I strongly and vociferously advocate in favor of changes that would make facilities like these possible on the affected lots.

While I would love to say that I'm raising rain resilient children, the fact of the matter is the Pacific Northwest brings inclement weather that makes physical activity and recreational play a real challenge during winter months.

Promoting the creation of spaces like those outlined in the director's report would be a significant boon to this neighborhood's ability to raise healthy families throughout the year.

I think you only need to look at the early success of an exemplary facility, the community iceplex in Northgate.

I signed my son up for the hockey program there and I was astonished at the uses just last night.

Immediately prior to my son's program the ice was filled with 50 racially diverse toddlers learning to skate for the first time.

Immediately afterwards the lobby and dressing rooms were filled with women awaiting their turn to take the ice for a female hockey league.

The main drawback is that my family is required to make the trek from Magnolia to the edge of the city to avail ourselves of this incredible amenity.

So I strongly urge this community to advance this ordinance today as proposed.

so that the residents on the west side of town can see development for the benefit of health and wellness as other parts of the city have enjoyed.

The impact of a reduction in industrial land is negligible given the enormous infrastructure challenges specifically related to ingress and egress of the affected areas.

And so I sincerely hope this committee places a higher priority on the well-being of neighboring families above increasingly unlikely industrial uses.

And I appreciate this committee's time.

Thank you.

where I was on mute.

Thank you, Michael.

IT, can you confirm we have no more public registrants here for this item?

There are no more public hearing registrants for CB120149.

Great, thank you.

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

The public hearing on Council Bill 120149 is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who provided public testimony today.

We are now going to transition to the presentation.

We are joined by representatives from the Mayor's Office, OPCB, and Council Central staff, including Interim Director Rico Quirundango.

Will folks introduce themselves and then kick us off?

Yeah, I'm Adrian Thompson, the policy director for Mayor Dirkhood.

Rigor Kidding-Ngonga, interim director, Office of Planning and Community Development.

Good morning, Jeff Wendland, Office of Planning and Community Developments.

Liz Schwitzen, Council of Central Staff.

Wonderful.

Welcome, everyone.

Adrienne Lish, Rico, Jeff, great to have you here.

Please take us away with the presentation.

Great.

I can go ahead and kick us off.

So again, Adrienne Thompson, Policy Director for Mayor Durkan.

I want to thank you, Chair Strauss and members of the committee to present this morning to you an exciting opportunity.

On behalf of Mayor Durkan, we're excited to present Council Bill 120149 to the City Council this morning.

While Director Kieran Dongo and the OPCD team will be going into more of the details, I wanted to provide you all a high-level overview of why the mayor transmitted this legislation.

We as a city have looked for ways on how we can support sports and recreational facilities in the same way we have prioritized the stadium district, home to men's sports teams such as Mariners, Sounders, and Seahawks.

Most recently, as a city, we have celebrated the soon-to-be-open Climate Pledge Arena and the new practice facilities for the latest men's sports team, the Kraken.

Over the past several mayoral administrations, there has been a healthy tension within the maritime and industrial community, residents, housing, and others to determine the future of our industrial lands.

The mayor convened over the past two years through COVID-19 a stakeholder engagement process that produced a set of recommendations that strengthened to protect our industrial lands.

Working directly with stakeholders and city council, OPCD has moved forward on CEPA, will conduct a comprehensive EIS study, and intends to transmit legislation to be taken up by council later this year.

We have also heard from some stakeholders that we as a city need to find more ways to support sports and recreational facilities.

This legislation before you today that you're considering is compatible with both the goal to protect our industrial lands and support an indoor recreational facility to enable sports facilities in very limited industrial uses.

Compared to other uses such as large offices and retail developments, indoor sports and recreation does not create as much of a demand for trips and visits by non-industrial users.

This legislation does not apply to spectator sports facilities.

Indoor sports and recreation structures are similar in physical characteristics to industrial structures.

Further, the limiting criteria contained in the legislation prevents location of an indoor sports and recreation facility anywhere in the bulk of industrial or maritime zone lands.

By passing this legislation, sports teams such as the Seattle Storm, which has not historically had an advocate in City Hall, will have more options available to build local facilities.

I'm going to now turn it over to the presentation to Director Kiryong Dongo.

Thank you, Adrian, so I have my comments will be brief as I want to turn it over to our experts.

Jeff went when I.

Appreciate the audience today.

I appreciate the conversation.

I know that you probably have a number of questions that need to be answered, which I think our presentation today will answer some of them.

So I look forward to discussion thereafter.

I have been very proud to be involved in our industrial maritime strategy work with our stakeholders and what we've lifted up in terms of the 11 strategies that we are now seeing forward legislation this year and our EIS process.

A lot of great work ahead.

And I think that the legislation that we're speaking about today is not inconsistent with that larger body of work.

With that, I want to hand over to Jeff to pull up the very short slide deck that we have to provide some additional information for you to consider.

Thank you Rico.

Do you all see the slides and can you hear me.

Yes, to both.

Great.

So I will be providing you with a very brief overview of the proposed legislation.

So here's a summary of what's contained in the legislation.

The proposal would increase the maximum size of use limit for indoor sports and recreational uses.

in industrial general zones from a current 10,000 square feet maximum to a 50,000 square foot maximum.

Legislation includes several limiting criteria that are intended to minimize any potential adverse impact on our manufacturing and industrial centers.

So those criteria are as follows.

It would have to be located in the Ballard-Interbay North End Manufacturing Industrial Center.

A facility would have to be within 300 feet of an existing neighborhood commercial or Seattle mixed zone.

So that targets potential locations to the edges of industrial areas near mixed use neighborhoods.

The facility would have to be within a quarter mile of a Seattle park with active recreation use.

So this is intended to create functional clusters of recreational facilities.

The facility could not be within 500 feet of a shoreline, and that's to preserve shoreline areas for maritime uses, which are prioritized.

And a facility, a new facility could not be within one mile of another indoor sports and recreation facility.

larger than 25,000 square feet that would be using this provision.

So this would prevent proliferation of too many facilities in one area.

The legislation would also decrease the amount of required parking from one space per 500 square feet to one space per 2,000 square feet.

And this is intended to minimize the amount of expansive surface parking that would be associated with the facility.

The benefits of this proposal are, as has been discussed, creates potential new recreational and training opportunities for athletics and camps.

And the limiting criteria minimize impacts on nearby industrial activities.

And as was mentioned, indoor sports and recreation can be compatible with an industrial context compared to many other potential uses.

Lastly, here is just a map that was included in the director's report.

This shows how limited the potentially eligible areas are.

So the gray shade on this map, and please note that north is to the right of your screen, are the industrial general zones in the BNMC.

The hatched areas are the shoreline buffers where a facility could not be located.

The green indicates parks that have active recreational uses.

And the last, the blue with the yellow outline, shows the remaining eligible areas according to our analysis.

And with that, I will conclude the presentation.

Thank you, Jeff.

I have a few questions.

I'll start.

I've got three questions, and then I'll pass it to colleagues.

Whomever desires can answer.

It's my understanding that sports and recreation facilities are already allowed in Industrial General 2 zones.

Am I correct that this proposal does not change or add new uses to Industrial General 2?

Is that correct?

That is correct.

OK.

And this legislation, I guess, let me focus in.

This legislation, since you just mentioned, is not changing uses.

It's my understanding this legislation simply changes the size of a use that is already allowed.

Is that correct?

That is also correct.

It increases from $10,000 to $50,000.

OK.

And when I was reading your director's report, Was I correct in reading that there are up to 45 parcels that could be affected by this change?

Yes.

OK.

Those are my questions for now.

Colleagues, do you have questions?

Mr. Chair?

Council Member Juarez.

So I don't have any questions yet.

Well, I have a few, but some of them, they're just more technical from the thanking Lish and everybody and OPCD and all the memos that you provided, all the documentation, the ordinance, fiscal note, all that stuff.

Thank you very much.

So do you want us to speak to this now or, cause that's what I was wondering.

I do want to speak to this, but I want to know if the presentation was over, if this is the time you want us to do it, or if this is just for questions.

about the PowerPoint?

This is, I would say both.

So if you have something you'd like to say, take it away.

Well, there's a lot I got to say, but I want to make sure everybody has their say before I say anything more.

If we're going to go to a vote, I don't know if we're doing that.

So I was looking for your leadership, Mr. Chair.

Copy.

We will be voting on this on Friday, not today.

As per usual, I like to have items in my committee at least twice before voting.

So I saw Councilmember Peterson might have questions.

He's got questions, and then we'll come back to you, Councilmember Juarez.

OK.

Thank you.

Councilmember Peterson, take it away.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

And thank you for giving us two chances to consider this legislation today with the public hearing and discussion, and then giving us some time between that to actually vote on it.

And I very much, I want to support the Seattle storm.

I agree with Sue Bird's comments about the need to lift up women's sports in our city.

From an urban planning perspective, this land use legislation seems to be structured well with the limitations and setbacks and other restrictions.

I am concerned, though, about the issues raised by Kevin Schofield on his city council blog, SCC Insight.

So I want to make sure that, you know, we get to Friday, at least for myself, I want to make sure we're doing what's appropriate and not creating any risk to the city, undue risk to the city.

So I will be consulting with the city attorney's office between now and then.

So I really appreciate the time to just double check a couple of things.

So that's, and I guess the question for central staff would be, you know, their memo, thank you for that memo.

It was very helpful.

It doesn't mention the Seattle storm.

So I'm just sort of trying to reconcile Is this about the Seattle storm, or is it just it provides a general change to the code?

I guess that's for Mr. Whitson.

So as you heard in testimony, the idea was raised by the Seattle storm.

But the provisions of the bill would apply to multiple sites, including many properties not owned by the storm ownership.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Lish, can you confirm, has this bill been reviewed by the law department?

All legislation that comes to committee has been reviewed by the law department, yes.

Okay, great, thank you.

Councilmember Juarez.

I should also add it, it was also reviewed by me, so there you go, Councilmember Peterson.

And Lish, again, as usual, thank you for your great memo and your analysis, and we've been working on this legislation or discussing different places.

I just wanted to do a little background on history.

This conversation didn't just pop up.

I don't get my information and my analysis and my research from writers, whether it's Kevin, The Times, Publicola, I don't do that.

So I actually do my own work.

So let me just roll back something quickly, and I'll have more to say Friday when we vote.

And I will say this again.

Ms. Gilder does own the property, so this is private property, and we know that.

And what is wrong if it is about the Seattle Storm?

When we deal with and when we dealt with any of our major sports teams, nobody ever questions that.

That question never comes up, ever.

But I'm gonna take us back in the time machine just for a moment for you all can think about this when we vote on Friday.

Those of us that were here in May of 2016, those of us that voted against a street vacation, Council Member Bagshaw, Council Member Sawant, Council Member Gonzalez, Council Member Herbold and myself, and spent 18 months getting death and rape threats because we did our research and we believed that taxpayers, the public should not have a street taken away from them, a private use for private benefit, and we didn't believe the public benefit was that great.

It was a street vacation.

It was gonna require taxpayer money.

And I could go on and on.

So when people keep bringing up that situation that happened in 16, that's not what we're dealing with today.

We're dealing with a group of people that already own the property to expand a footprint for a use that's already consistent.

We're not talking about thousands of people coming in to watch a spectator sport.

It's a training facility for a team, which we didn't have in 2016, that has won four national championships.

You all know that.

I won't go into there.

There's a difference between shovel-ready, which was said in 16, which was not true, and shovel-hungry.

And what we have here is shovel-ready.

And I don't want to spend too much time belaboring about, oh, yes, it's important that we support women's sports and all of those issues, of course.

And we'll hear probably more from more people Friday.

But this wasn't some nefarious deal behind closed doors.

I'd like to know where these backdoor rooms are, where there's smoke being, cigars being smoked, because I haven't been there.

So it's been pretty straightforward.

We have worked really well with our labor brothers and sisters.

with our friends at the port, with our maritime friends, with stakeholders.

We also, I also sit on Sound Transit, so I understand what Sound Transit's, some of their concerns were about potential issues with light rail, which would be 16 years from now.

We know that there's thousands of parcels that Sound Transit has to look at to make anything happen with eminent domain.

So that we just don't know.

We're at 10% design there.

And I don't want to go down that rabbit hole because I know there's there's more information that will come out and you all have it is it's all on the record.

Anybody wants it from my office and people have already asked for it.

And I'm one of those people where if you ask for something, I give it to you.

You don't need to PR me to death.

Got nothing to hide.

So 1 thing, I just going to say 1 last thing, and I really like, I don't know who the gentleman was, but what he said about when we look at our different districts, and we look at what economic vitality is, and what what particular buildings.

It isn't just the brick and mortar.

It is a sense of place.

It is about what it brings.

The Kraken Iceplex, having light rail, having our John Lewis Bridge, all that coming together does more than just, you know, provide transportation or a place to go watch the Kraken practice or put on ice skates.

It brings a sense of place.

It activates a community.

It does that lifting that we need.

And I don't think anyone here today or anyone watching can not say that the storm has not lifted us, that they have not represented us, that they have not been there for us.

So I don't have a problem saying or questioning, why can't it be for the Seattle storm?

Because we sure as hell tried to do it back in 2016 when we didn't even have a team and we weren't even in the franchise.

We weren't even in the running.

And this team, this city went crazy for a team that left them 14 years ago when we have a team here now.

That's one for national championships.

Now I know I'm probably going to get a lot of hate now, like I got last time, you know, bring on the death threats again.

Great.

So with that being said, um, being a lawyer myself, and I'll just say this boldly and bluntly, um, it's not a spot zone.

So have fun with that.

And I'll just leave it at that.

And hopefully, I was hoping we could go to a vote today and just get this over with.

But if we need to go to Friday, that's fine too.

And I'm gonna encourage those of you who wanna step up and support, not just the Seattle Storm, but really women's sports and doing that.

Because we don't do that.

And we should do that.

And shame on us for not doing that.

And I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez, well said.

And the parcels that could be, Jeff had shared a map of potential parcels, 45 parcels in like three different zones.

Those zones are in District 6 and in District 7. Council Member Lewis, the District Council Member from District 7 is a member of this committee.

Council Member Lewis, take it away.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Unfortunately, appearing by phone today, but definitely happy to be heard out on this.

You know, I.

I first wanted to say at the top, I'm a very big supporter of this change.

And I don't want to get into responding to and litigating any of the armchair lawyering that might have been out in the world on this.

You know, I actually concur with Councilmember Juarez's assessment that this is not a spot zone, and I would stand by that as well and totally agree.

I'd rather just pivot this and talk, since I do represent District 7, more about the unique ecosystem of the business community that is north of Dravis, east of the railway grade, and west of 15th Avenue.

the little slice of Interbay that we're discussing about, because, you know, to agree with Councilmember Juarez again, you know, this isn't just about the storm, but if folks are going to make it about the storm, let's put that front and center and talk not just about the big civic contributions the storm makes to our city, but the contributions that the storm's plans for a parcel in this niche, in this part of the Interbay neighborhood will do for the overall neighborhood.

So, you know, I think that it's really important when we talk about industrial land, because as someone, Council Member Strauss, like you, who grew up in Ballard and grew up in a Ballard that was very much dominated by the maritime industrial community and knows that that community builds strong families, that that community provides good jobs, that it provides upward mobility, that it provides opportunity, that it produces one of the biggest fishing fleets for one of the biggest fisheries in the world out of Salmon Bay and Fisherman's Terminal, that we do want to hang on to that critical industrial core, because once we lose it, it's never coming back.

And I think it is appropriate that we have these discussions when we look at potentially doing different things in places that historically have been dedicated to industrial maritime use, that there be a heightened level of policy scrutiny.

So let's just talk a little bit about the site that's the elephant in the room and talk about what it'll do to change the activation to that site in this neighborhood.

We're not displacing any current industrial use.

This is not a site that is a shipyard.

This is not a site that is employing maritime jobs.

No maritime jobs are going to be lost from the Seattle storm putting a practice facility in the site.

This site is a single storage yard with a bunch of old RVs and boats, pleasure boats for the most part, not boats of industry, that for decades has either been that or it's been a vacant lot, completely unactivated, no interest in a tenant taking on this site.

And if we're talking about creating the dynamic neighborhoods and communities that Council Member Juarez just alluded to, We need to be creative in looking at ways for our code to take advantage of and be adaptive to bring in legacy tenants that are going to undeniably make a big contribution to neighborhoods like this storm practice facility.

You know, this is a neighborhood that's seeing an incredibly large amount of change.

I don't know if anyone has been by the intersection of 15th and Dravis for some time, but There are significant clusters there of new apartment buildings.

There's a business district that has thrived on Dravis for many decades with a number of businesses that cater to the surrounding neighborhood, not just for maritime industrial purposes, but for basic retail, for grocery, and for restaurants.

And it is frankly not the best use for this business district.

to have a static storage yard sitting there not contributing in a broad sense to the activation of the neighborhood, not contributing to the density of job opportunity, not contributing to the density of pedestrian traffic in the business district.

Frankly, not contributing to the sense of public safety by having another activation with eyes on the street.

for potential criminal activity in the neighborhood.

We know that people that work in a neighborhood or live in a neighborhood are the informal guardians of a place and provide an activation.

So I think when we're really looking at what is this going to do for this ecosystem that is, again, north of Dravis, west of 15th, east of the railway grade, this is undeniably going to form a hub right at the center of it that is going to have an extremely positive impact on supporting, catering to, reinforcing the existing businesses and the existing ecosystem.

I would also say, in terms of going back to the legislation more broadly and not focusing on the specific site that has been a matter of public contention, that there are safeguards that protect the most critical of our industrial lands, which are the shoreline littoral industrial spaces.

And I do agree, like that has to be a bright red line in the sand on making sure that we never give up as a city any more of our shoreline industrial space, any of our shipyards, any of our places to dock the fishing fleet and fishermen's terminal.

Once those properties on the water are gone and go to a commercial or a residential use, we never get it back for our legacy maritime industrial economy.

But that's not what we're talking about here.

And to reinforce that value, there is a rule in the legislation that we just heard in our briefing, 500 feet away from a shoreline in order to maintain and really reinforce that value.

I think that this legislation is going to have a positive impact on my district, going to have a positive impact on Interbay, and it is going to enhance and protect these maritime business districts.

It is not going to displace and undermine them.

So, you know, to echo Council Member Ward's sentiments earlier, I did come today prepared to vote on this.

I am totally happy to defer and vote on this and discuss it again on Friday.

I'm totally happy to make space for other committee members to receive professional legal advice from the city attorney's office.

But on Friday, I do intend to vote for this legislation.

I certainly appreciate the community members who have come forward and spoken up for this unique activation in the Interbay neighborhood and look forward to supporting this.

So thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you councilmember Lewis and thank you councilmember Juarez and Peterson for your comments and questions.

I just want to highlight and raise up a few things that I've heard today.

I heard from Sue Bird that the landscape of WNBA has changed, where practice facilities were not as big of a deal many years ago and are a very big deal now, having lost a number of players for different reasons.

In the last few years, we need to make sure that on Sunday when Sue and the entire team is representing Seattle in the playoffs.

For the WNBA representing Seattle is a four time champion winner that.

Our teammates have their minds focused on the game and not thinking about what's gonna happen after the playoff season.

Not thinking about what's gonna happen next year because they know that Seattle's got their back.

That's a very important thing that we need to make sure because as Council Member Juarez stated, we were about to bend over backwards for a team that left us and was not present.

We have a four time winning championship team here.

And I look forward to supporting our team so that they can have their mind on the game and win us some playoff games.

So that's how I'm feeling this morning.

Colleagues, any other questions?

Adrian, Lish, Jeff, Director Kirendongo, any other comments that you want to share today?

Nothing more for me.

Looking forward to the vote on Friday.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And again, thank you for the discussion today.

This legislation will be back before the committee on Friday afternoon for a possible vote.

Our next item of business is Council Bill 120154, which makes annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.

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

Item two, Council Bill 120154, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2021 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process.

Thank you.

We are joined by presenters from OPCD and Council Central staff.

Will you each introduce yourself?

Sorry, we were having some noise.

Let's try that again.

Michael, if you'd like to reintroduce yourself and then go around the table.

Thank you.

Very, very good.

Good morning, council members.

There's an attendance, Michael Hubner with the Office of Planning and Community Development.

Yeah, good morning.

My name is Jim Holmes.

I'm also with the Office of Planning and Community Development.

Lish Whitson, Council Central Staff.

Hi, good morning.

Eric McConaghy, Council Central Staff.

Thank you, and we still have Director Karendongo with us.

If we could take away and go start with the presentation or the conversation.

Great, let me share my screen here.

Let me know when you see the presentation.

We have it up.

Great.

All right, today we are recommending the 2021 annual amendments to the comprehensive plan.

To give you a quick background, in September 2020, City Council adopted a docketing resolution with eight proposed amendments.

OPCD analyzed four of the docketed amendments, did not analyze the remaining four amendments.

We are recommending two amendments for adoption at this time.

One set of amendments related to land is undergoing further study.

One docketed amendment is not recommended.

And then we're here today for you guys to consider the amendments.

So the first amendment we are recommending is an expansion of the University District Urban Center.

It would be a half block on the far north end, about by an alley between University Way Northeast and 15th Avenue Northeast, Northeast 56th Street to the south, and Ravenna Boulevard to the north.

It's currently zoned LR3.

Provides a very marginal increase in potential density for apartments with this change.

It meets their urban center goals for promoting dense, mixed-use, walkable communities.

And it has in close proximity to Frequent Transit.

And actually, depending on how far you like to walk, it's walkable to the soon-to-open Sound Transit Station.

The zoning is LR3.

There is no M suffix.

It is probable at some point in the future that a project proponent will file for a contract rezone to add an M suffix.

The next slide is a future land use map amendment for the 103 station area.

It's approximately 8.4 acres of land directly across the street from the future 130th Street station.

It represents early implementation action of a broader station wide station area planning process underway.

It's informed by the community's vision for the future of the area.

as captured in the draft plan that we released in March.

It demonstrates an early commitment by the city to transit-oriented development of the 2025 opening of the station.

And as I said, there's additional planning underway for potentially broader changes.

So and as you see in this slide the gray area is the station area that we've been focusing on but the the planning effort actually covers this broader yellow area and that process should be complete in the next year to two years and additional recommendations will come at that time.

We had planned to introduce some amendments related to the Industrial Maritime Strategy.

Those will wait until next year.

We are currently in the middle of an EIS and there will be a set of proposed land use policy amendments for industrial land at that time, when that EIS is complete.

Changes will include a new industrial land use framework based on the three new zoning concepts, maritime manufacturing and logistics, which is kind of the core industrial zone, industry and innovation to encourage employment density around future transit stations, and urban industrial to provide a better transition between core industrial areas and non-industrial areas.

There would be a recommendation for a policy that limits future amendments that change the boundaries of a MIC to major updates of the comprehensive plan or following a comprehensive city-led study of industrial lands.

And finally, we anticipate recommending a policy that establishes the city's intent to partner with the state of Washington on a master planning process for any future redevelopment of the Interbay Armory or the Waska site.

And Jim, can you confirm that since we're unable to move this section forward at this time due to the SEPA process and issues, can you confirm we will be bringing an amendment forward on Friday to remove this section of this ordinance?

That is my understanding.

The Substance Abuse Ordinance is an industrial policy.

Thank you.

And then our final slide are other docketed proposals.

We had a proposal to look at some earlier proposed amendments relating to tree protection and canopy, as well as perhaps casting a broader look and working with the Urban Forestry Commission and OSE around looking at potential policies for tree protection and canopy preservation.

That is being deferred to the major update.

Fossil fuels and human health is also being deferred to the 2024 major update.

Evaluating the appropriateness of the South Park urban village designation will also be considered in the major update.

And as you know, the alternative name for single family zones, the council is pursuing that.

And amendments to support transportation impact fees is also an item that the council is pursuing.

And that concludes our presentation.

Thanks, Jim.

I've got one question about 130th.

You can slide back to that slide.

I got to go back in my neighborhood, council member.

Because I'm so excited about it.

I apologize.

I didn't realize my mute button was off last time.

I apologize.

Oh, that's good.

If you're not, I was just, I was mostly interested in the timeline.

There is an interesting on the map that it demonstrates the need for a lid in that area, just by the street, the street grade.

I was just going to point it out, but if you're not able to cycle back, it's totally okay.

Isn't that slide six?

It is.

I highlighted that slide just so you know.

It's OK, Jim, do you have a timeline on on that?

That work is underway and Patrice, can you speak to the timeline on the broader effort?

Yeah, this is Patrice Carroll.

I've been working on this project.

So we're right now we're looking at two timelines.

One would to move forward with some legislation as a separate action and to be completed in 2022 or the other to be completed in 2023. I'm sorry.

The other would be to align it with the comprehensive plan major update and that would the action would be completed by 2024.

Great, thank you.

Just in that area if you're if anyone's ever looking at a map it's interesting to see that Roosevelt Avenue or Roosevelt Way begins at the city border at 145th and Aurora and is a diagonal to that intersection of.

and it's interesting to see how the freeway has disconnected the neighborhood in that real physical way that we can no longer use Roosevelt Way as it was once connected.

This is just one example of many about why we need to reconnect our neighborhoods by letting our freeways.

But I'll save that editorial for another day.

Colleagues, any, Council Member Peterson, take it away.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I wanted to address one of the items in my district, District 4. If we're able to go back to that slide showing that half block.

I want to thank the Office of Planning and Community Development for reaching out to my office to alert us to this proposal with plenty of time to consider it.

Some nearby residents and community leaders did raise concerns about it, and so I want to explain briefly why I will be supporting this particular upzone.

This area is just 25% of the whole block.

It's already multifamily housing.

It's attached to the existing boundary of the urban center.

It's at the intersection of two arterials.

And it's near frequent transit and other necessary infrastructure.

And for these parcels, City Hall will have another crack at reviewing what happens ultimately on these parcels.

So I just wanted to explain my vote in support of this.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any other questions?

Council Member Lewis, any questions?

Council Member Juarez?

No, Mr. Chair.

Just quickly, Patricia, Michael, thank you so much.

You've been working.

I know at PCD, I sit on Sound Transit, and for us to get the 130th street light rail back on the board again, This has been going on since 2016. We're back in the game again.

But one of the things that your office was so great about turning everything around is for me to get the material that you've been working on this area about almost seven years in the planning for me to share with the Sound Transit Board to whip votes to say, This is why we need the one thirtieth infill station here so we can continue with this incredible rich transit spine for three counties.

But more importantly, we focus on holler lake and bitter lake and North gate and the North side in conjunction that it get built with Linwood link.

because it makes no sense to build a go station and then wait 10 years and not finish it.

So you guys were instrumental.

You all came through when we asked you to.

I just I can't thank you enough how helpful and Patrice big thank you to you because you were just you've been up there and I know we've been dealing and working on this since the day I got elected and certainly was an issue that I was working on back in 2015. And to all those community groups up north, particularly Renee Stanton and a lot of those folks, we have just a great community up there that's been really involved and will continue to be involved, but I can't No, I'm not one to go on and on and say thank you to everyone and God, but I really do want to thank you for your hard work.

Sometimes I know I've been a pest.

So thank you so much.

And Lish and Eric, thank you again for the information that you provided, as usual.

Excellent analysis.

And I appreciate that.

Very well said, Council Member Juarez.

And with the slide on the screen now, you can see how Roosevelt Way is disconnected by I-5 right there.

No need to further belabor the point.

Colleagues, I heard Council Member Lewis does not have any questions at this time.

Seeing no further questions, I will open the public hearing unless Lish, Eric, Michael, or Jim, you have additional seeing nos.

We will now move on to the public hearing.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you, Patrice.

Amazing work.

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'll moderate the public hearing in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

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

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

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 i call the 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.

please begin speaking by stating your name and the item in which you are addressing.

as a reminder, public comment needs to relate to council bill 120154 for this public hearing.

if you have comments about something that is not this bill, or not on today's agenda, you can provide written comments by emailing my office or sign up for the appropriate public hearing.

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

The public hearing on Council Bill 120154 is now open, and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

I see two speakers signed up.

One is not present.

Katie Kendall, you are not present.

So please do call in.

It is not a listen line.

It is the line that you receive.

And maybe, IT, if you can confirm, when they sign up, they receive an email.

Is that correct?

Affirmative.

So if you have signed up, please read the email in which you have received.

The two speakers are David Moring and Katie Kendall.

David, good morning.

Great to hear you this morning.

Thank you.

I'd like to just make a small pitch for the comp plan to consider the city's goal to achieve the 30% tree canopy cover by the year 2037 and just be more definitive in terms of how we'll reach that goal.

As you know, street trees accommodate, street trees and public trees accommodate less than one quarter of the tree canopy.

And if we rely on that we will be far challenged to achieve our canopy goal.

We believe that you can have both density and tree canopy cover.

So do consider in your decisions anything you can to improve the tree canopy.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, David.

Up next, we do have Katie Kendall, who I see is present.

Good morning, Katie.

Katie, I see you are off mute on our end.

You may be out.

There you are.

All right.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Thank you.

Technological difficulties on my end, but thank you very much.

Not a problem.

Sorry, we just got that time started a little early.

We'll reset it for you there.

Take it away, Katie.

Good morning.

Good morning, Council Members.

My name is Katie Kendall and I'm commenting today on behalf of Advocate Warren Budigan.

Mr. Budigan has applied for his property at 5615 15th Avenue NE along with the other seven lots on the east side of that block to be included in the university community urban center and this is the first amendment in council bill 120154. As outlined in more detail in the director's report and in the presentation today this amendment meets many existing comprehensive plan goals including establishing boundaries for urban centers that reflect existing development patterns.

Inclusion of this half block in the urban center would better reflect a diverse mix of multi-family housing that is currently provided on this block.

In fact some of the existing buildings on this block are already larger than the existing zoning is currently.

The updated designation would serve the purposes of increased housing supply pedestrian friendly density and transit accessible development.

Goals that are featured prominently in the Seattle Comprehensive Plan the countywide planning policies and Vision 2040. We ask you that ask that you amend the flume to expand the urban center boundary and change the designation from multifamily residential to urban center.

Thank you for your consideration today.

Thank you, Katie.

IT, can you confirm there are no additional public comment registrants for this bill, Council Bill 120154?

There are no more public hearing registrants for CB120154.

Thank you.

Seeing as that was our last speaker remotely present to speak at this public hearing, the public hearing on Council Bill 120154 is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who provided comment today.

This legislation will be back before the committee this Friday afternoon for a possible vote.

We will move on to item three on the agenda.

Next is Council Bill 120155, which will amend the comprehensive plan to change the name of single family areas to neighborhood residential areas.

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

And item three, Council Bill 120155, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending the comprehensive plan to change the name of single family areas to neighborhood residential areas as part of the 2020 to 2021 comprehensive plan amendment process.

Thank you.

This is part two of our annual comprehensive plan amendment.

After appearing on the comprehensive plan docket in 2019, 2020, and 2021, council is moving this forward as an amendment this year.

We've chosen to consider this as separate legislation from the other amendments to reflect that council is leading this amendment and that to keep this discussion separate from the more complex amendments being considered in council bill 120154. This name change was recommended to us by the Seattle Planning Commission and it reflects the reality on the ground today.

What are known as single-family zones already include much more than just single-family homes.

They include households with multiple families, as well as legacy duplexes, row houses, and apartment buildings built before the current zoning rules applied.

I've been happy to co-sponsor this legislation with Councilmember Mosqueda, who's been working towards this moment since at least 2019. We have with us today Lish Whitson of Council Central staff to walk us through the amendment.

Lish, would you like to take us away?

Great.

Thank you.

So this set of amendments is very simple, but it touches a large number of policies and goals throughout and discussion sections.

in the comprehensive plan.

It amends the land use element, housing element, parks and open space element, 17 neighborhood plans, the housing appendix, and the future land use map to change the name of single family areas to neighborhood residential areas.

There's no substantive effect from the bill, but the intent is to better reflect the mix of character and activities that are currently found in what are called single family areas by including a more inclusive name.

You had a public hearing on this to get initial feedback from the community at the end of July.

Today is the official public hearing on the bill.

After the original public hearing, we did hear from one neighborhood, the Morgan Community Association, that has requested an amendment that's attached to the agenda, and that would affect the Morgan Junction neighborhood plan and the Northgate neighborhood plan.

And with that, I will be available for any questions.

Thanks.

I have a few, and then colleagues, if you have questions, we'll take that.

I know you said this.

I'm going to ask these questions to lift up what you've already said.

Can you confirm that this amendment does not change city policy on what is allowed within these zones and that it only changes the name?

Is that correct?

Correct.

And can you confirm that the amendment listed on the agenda improves the readability of some neighborhood plans and, again, does not make any substantive changes?

Is that correct?

Correct.

I understand that if this amendment passes, council may want to take up future legislation to amend the land use code to reflect the name change there as well.

Can you also confirm that understanding that the changes would only be to the name and again, not to zoning policy?

Correct.

So if if this bill passes, then council would consider a bill to amend the land use code, making the same changes throughout the land use code, but not changing any policy or regulation.

Okay, great.

So this is again changing the name to reflect the reality that we have legacy duplexes, row houses and apartment buildings that are built in what is now single family zones that were not necessarily previous when they were built.

And so we are endeavoring to change the name only to reflect the neighborhoods that we live in.

Colleagues, are there any questions on this bill?

I am not seeing, I see Councilmember Peterson.

Please take it away.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I don't have any questions, but I do have some comments because I received some letters and emails from community leaders in the district who had concerns about this, and I wanted to explain why I'm likely to support this.

So I don't have the questions.

Should I save those until Friday?

No, please.

I mean, either or your preference.

OK, thank you.

So, you know, I really appreciate what our central staff analyst said and then what the chair lifted up is that this is this is a name change for what is already the reality on the ground in these geographic areas.

I think the real discussion would be happening, the substantive discussion would be happening at a later time.

You know, there will probably be a robust discussion about certain changes in the future for zoning.

I think what matters to me most in that discussion, at least now, would be in the future would be that I generally do not support blanket up zones unless there's a clear and immediate public benefit, such as on-site, very low-income housing that's built.

When there's additional density, it's ideally near frequent transit and where there's sufficient infrastructure, such as school capacity, and that we put mitigations in place before the actual substantive up zones occur, such as making sure we don't demolish existing naturally occurring affordable housing.

We were mindful of the tree canopy and our desire to preserve that and grow that.

I think we I'm hoping we learned a lot from the mandatory housing affordability program, which had a good intention, some benefits, but also, in my opinion, some shortcomings.

And so I just want to let the folks know who did write to my office with concerns that I'm mindful of those concerns, and that discussion will be taking place at a later time.

and that this name change is not, as our central staff analyst said, it's not substantive at this time.

So thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Any other questions or comments?

Mr. Chair, Council Member Lewis here.

Council Member Lewis, take it away.

Yes, I just want to briefly address this legislation, too.

I will be voting in favor of it today.

Similar to Councilmember Peterson, I have heard a number of potential concerns about the impact of this name change.

And, you know, I guess I just want to speak generally as someone who represents a district that includes some of our most residentially dense districts in the city and Belltown, South Lake Union, Pioneer Square.

downtown, but then also represent some of the least housing-tensive neighborhoods, Magnolia and Queen Anne, that there are, when you take a walk even around Magnolia and Queen Anne, a significant amount of really attractive multi-family residences, be they condos, be they apartments, that exist in parts of the neighborhood that do not feel reflective.

And I've talked to people who live in some of those housing placements about how that fits into the definition of single-family neighborhood and that it's confusing to have fourplexes, triplexes, in some cases, in the middle of residential neighborhoods, the ghosts of old corner stores with two stories on top of them that are now all housing, because those corner stores can no longer really exist, or small businesses can no longer exist in places where they used to flourish and used to serve that surrounding neighborhood.

And I really do think that at the bare minimum, this really is just a conversation of recognizing what already exists.

On Monday, we got the initial ADU report from SDCI indicating in really attractive map form the density and distribution of the proliferation of new accessory dwelling units and detached accessory dwelling units in a lot of these neighborhoods currently zoned to single family.

And I really do think that moving forward, we should just accept what is true here in the identity of these neighborhoods and embrace it, that there is an increasing amount of urban and residential density, and that everybody feel included in that definition of these neighborhoods.

Certainly, as we move forward, you know, I am certainly looking forward to discussions where there can be an increased amount of dynamism and an increased amount of planning around 15-minute communities that is, I believe, a separate conversation from this name change.

And, you know, I don't say that to devalue the name change, but I do say that to indicate that our work isn't done and that this is queuing up a bigger and broader conversation that we can have as a community to fully make all the neighborhoods in the city dynamic, diverse, and interesting places to live.

And with that, Mr. Chair, appreciate your leadership on moving this forward.

And I'm certainly prepared to vote at the chair's pleasure on this.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Juarez, anything on this bill?

Totally okay if not.

Yeah, I'm good.

We're good.

We're cool.

All right.

And I won't make any further comments because you can see that I support it by being a co-sponsor.

So we are going to move into, so again, we previously held a public hearing on this proposal on July 28th to get feedback prior to introducing legislation.

Today, we are holding the additional public hearing on the legislation itself.

And then we will vote on this on Friday with the amendment regarding clarifying language of names.

So that's the process.

We're going to now move into the public hearing.

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 they registered on the council's website.

If you have not yet registered to speak and would like to, you can sign up for 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 I call on a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone with an automatic prompt that you have been unmuted and that will be the speaker's cue that it is your turn to speak.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item in which you are addressing.

Again, as a reminder, this is the public hearing on Council Bill 120155. If you have comments about something that is not this Council Bill or not on today's agenda, you can always provide written comments by emailing my office or signing up for the appropriate public hearing.

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

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

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

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask that 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 120155 is now open and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

I am only seeing, ah, now there we go.

I'm seeing many people on this list.

Currently not present are Judy Bendich, Laura Lowe, David Ward, and Evan Shaw.

I will call a number of names so that you know where you are.

I'll run through the list now so you know where you are on the list.

We have Matt Hutchins, followed by Brady Nordstrom, followed by David Mooring, Suzanne Grant, Ryan Donahue, Vanessa Murdoch, Katzenberger, Judy Bendich, Bonnie Williams, Irene Wall, Laura Lowe, Alicia Ruiz, Colleen McClure, David Ward, Logan Bowers, Evan Shaw.

Again, Judy, Laura, David, Evan, you are not present at this time.

We will begin with Matt, followed by Brady Nordstrom, and then David Moring.

Matt Hutchins, good morning.

How are you today?

Good, good.

How are you all doing?

Doing well.

Let's see.

My name is Matt Hutchins.

I'm an architect, and I represent AIA Seattle.

I am speaking in favor of switching just two words, you know, neighborhood, residential, for single family, and thus making space in the code language to be a little bit more inclusive and flexible.

We currently have a land use code that is stuck in the past that preferences a car-dependent land use pattern, codifies exclusion, and views new housing or diverse housing types.

corner stores, mixed uses, as an assault on neighborhood character rather than part of the very backbone of what makes our neighborhood special.

And when we think about preserving neighborhood character as opposed to embracing the challenge that we have in front of us, we're endorsing really terrible outcomes.

So if we can't switch out these just two words, how are we going to do the much harder work of preparing for all the people that are going to be coming to live here?

If we can't change out these two words, how are we going to do the much harder work of fighting climate change?

And finally, if we can't change out these two words, how are we going to address these past inequalities and build more diverse, welcoming neighborhoods in the future?

So let's do this and then keep going.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

Up next is Brady Nordstrom, followed by David Mooring and then Suzanne Grant.

Good morning, Brady.

Pauline.

Greetings.

So my name is Brady Nordstrom and I'm here today on behalf of the Seattle for Everyone Coalition.

Seattle for Everyone strongly supports Council Bill 120155 that amends the comprehensive plan to rename single family areas as neighborhood residential areas.

We are a broad coalition of nonprofit affordable housing developers and providers, private developers, labor, business, environmentalists, social justice advocates and neighbors.

And what brings us together is the belief that everyone in our city should have access to a safe, stable, and affordable home.

And land use is the foundation to accomplishing this goal.

We believe it is important to decouple this designation from the past so that we can better assess and address our present and future needs and challenges.

So first of all, single-family zoning is inaccurate, as many have noted, considering the diverse uses and household structures that have evolved in these zones.

So I'm not going to go into depth on that, but I think we shouldn't erase these aspects of our city that in the past were important and continue to be important.

Secondly, single-family zoning has an exclusionary path that doesn't reflect our values as a city.

And this is a path that's done harm that we can see through the racial homeownership gap, divestment in historical communities of color, and the affordability crisis.

There's bountiful research linking single-family zoning to these impacts around the country and not just in Seattle.

So, in short, land use matters and words matter.

We appreciate your commitment to realign our land use designations with our contemporary values and uses, and we hope that this will enable us to have a balanced assessment and discussion about our needs in the future.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Brady.

Up next, we have David Mooring, followed by Suzanne Grant, and then Ryan Donohue.

Good morning, David.

Great to hear you again.

There you are.

Hello, can you hear me?

Oh, yeah.

There you are.

Hi, this is David Warren calling again.

I'm calling for this time from the perspective of a multifamily homeowner in the Interbay Magnolia neighborhood of our current city.

I agree the word family within zoning land use is considered by some as exclusionary, as stated.

as individuals and roommates can live in a house together without being a family.

However, there are three distinct flaws or loopholes of this council bill that require a new draft.

One, I live within a multifamily zone in a townhouse, as I said, and I consider my area as a neighborhood.

So why does this council bill exclude multifamily as being part of a neighborhood?

Two, why is the term multifamily not also considered exclusionary as single family is.

If there are changes to zoning terms, each must be consistent, not to offend all.

This oversight may be resolved by learning from Tacoma, who is looking to rename their SF and LR zones to low density and middle density.

Lastly, and probably more importantly, why are there at least two whereas statements regarding expanding housing types and broader range of uses within this council bill if it is simply just a name change from single family to neighborhood residential.

Please remove all unrelated whereas statements as you're confusing a lot of people with this.

Look at these whereas statements.

We ask that each city council member be honest and declare your individual plans for the city in lieu of balloting Seattle residents for what they might desire for neighbor sales residential choices.

Ask the residents if low-density residential zones should be eliminated.

Thank you very much.

Be consistent with the term family, be honest in the intent to eliminate low-density property, and three, bring broad impact choices to a public development.

Thank you so much, David.

Always great to hear you.

Up next is Suzanne Grant, followed by Ryan Donahue, and then Vanessa Murdoch.

Suzanne, good morning.

Good morning.

This is Suzanne Grant talking about CB 120.155.

I assume you can hear me, right?

You can.

Good morning.

Okay.

With the climate catastrophe that we are facing, everyone is talking about the extreme importance of trees, except Seattle City Council.

In this bill, there's a lot of language about allowing development in neighborhood residential areas, But what is missing is any language that will protect the trees that currently exist in the single family neighborhoods and yards.

You all know that 70 percent of Seattle's tree canopy is currently in single family neighborhoods.

But if Seattle City Council enables SBCI to allow more structures to be built in those neighborhoods without a mandate that existing mature trees in the yards be saved the trees will be renewed removed to make the building easier.

More density is possible and desirable but development needs to be creative and the responsibility is on Seattle City Council to require SBCI to retain what is left of our urban forest.

I disagree with the statement made today that quote there is no substantive effect from the bill.

A name change can have great effect.

Why change it if it doesn't.

The next change will be a change in zoning and more building will become easier with less restrictions and oversight.

I don't feel that we should just, quote, accept it, as CM Lewis stated today.

Please, please insert appropriate language to save trees and amend this legislation before passing it as it is currently written.

Now, if I still have time, at the beginning of the meeting, you always promised to steward our land.

Why do you not follow through with this promise and pass a stronger tree ordinance?

Your words become insincere at best with this egregious omission.

Your assistance that the tree ordinance languishes in the mayor's office is an excuse I hope to hear on Friday that SBCI has agreed to pass the ordinance or that Seattle City Council will place a moratorium on cutting exceptional trees until it does.

Thank you.

Thank you, Suzanne.

Always great to hear from you.

Up next, we have Ryan Donahue, followed by Vanessa Murdoch and then Jay Katzenberger, noting for Laura Lowe, David Ward, you are still not present.

Good morning, Ryan.

Good morning.

Thank you, Chair Strauss and member of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee.

For the record, my name is Ryan Donahue and I'm the Advocacy and Policy Director for Habitat for Humanity, Seattle, King, and Kittitas Counties.

We've been proud to be able to provide homeownership opportunities for low-income families for 35 years here in the Seattle metro area.

I'm here today to strongly urge you to vote in favor of amending the comprehensive plan to change the name of single-family areas to neighborhood residential areas.

While this proposed name change in and of itself won't undo past harms or directly create a more welcoming and inclusive future for housing in Seattle, this change is a key step in assessing your contemporary land use needs and practices with fresh eyes.

single family zoning, which was implemented in 1923, has a history of racial and economic exclusion through racially restrictive covenants and discriminatory redlining.

The effects of those are still felt today.

This name change can help facilitate a more balanced and substantial discussion during the upcoming major comprehensive plan process.

as we consider updating our zoning to better address the challenges we are actively confronting, like racial injustice, climate change, rising housing costs, economic exclusion, and community displacement.

As things stand now, of the 273 homes we have in our pipeline, more than 65% of them fall within the City of Seattle.

That is due in large part to the efforts of the Seattle Office of Housing, the Seattle Housing Levy, and the efforts that you all have made on committees and in council like this.

to allow for things like more density and encouraging permanently portable home ownership.

One example of the kind of change that we could see even more of by passing this proposal is actually our work in the South Park neighborhood.

On October 2nd, we're actually celebrating the completion of our most recent development.

Thanks to zoning flexibility, we were able to turn a single-family home into 13 permanently portable homes.

I would encourage you to reach out to me at ryan.donahue at SKC.org and we'd be happy to pass along an invitation.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Ryan, and thank you for building the family housing that our city desperately needs.

Up next is Vanessa Murdoch, followed by Jay Katzenberger and then Judy Bendich.

Good morning, Vanessa.

Good morning, Chair Strauss and members of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee.

My name is Vanessa Murdoch.

I'm the executive director of the Seattle Planning Commission and I'm offering comment this morning on their behalf.

The commission appreciates the opportunity to support Council Bill 120155 to rename the term single family areas to neighborhood residential areas as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process.

This change will provide these areas with a more accurate title that better reflects the diversity of households now living within them and will provide an important first step toward making these areas more equitable and accessible.

The Planning Commission's 2018 Neighborhoods for All report advised making this change.

This correction to the zoning term will address what is currently a mischaracterization of both the housing available in these areas, as well as the people living there.

Indeed, the term single family areas has been a misnomer for many years, but especially since 1994, when accessory dwelling or mother and Law type units for were first approved in these locations.

The commission supports the term neighborhood residential as a more accurate description of the housing types currently available in these areas and hope this name change will help pave the way for encouraging more equitable access to a diversity of housing types along with parks schools services and transit for all throughout Seattle's residential neighborhoods.

This name change is a modest but important step that accurately frames neighborhood residential areas as having a variety of building types, welcoming a diversity of residents with a broad range of household configuration.

The commission supports this comp plan amendment and thanks council members for their work on this important issue.

Thank you, Vanessa, and thank you for your work on the commission.

Next, we have Jay Katzenberger followed by Judy Bendich and then Bonnie Williams on deck.

Good morning, Jay.

Hi, I'm Jay Kastenberger and regarding the name change from single family to neighborhood residential, I really applaud the more inclusive term, but I want to see a clear statement that it does not change the definition or provisions of the current zoning and that if such changes were to happen, it would have to happen in subsequent legislation.

The way the document reads now, it says it is, quote, not intended to have a substantive effect on the uses permitted in those areas.

I think the ordinance should clearly state that it doesn't, like others on the council said just a few moments ago.

I'll point to that last, next to the last whereas statement.

It clearly states that this is a step toward provisions proposed in the comprehensive plan.

And that's a subset of change.

So I'd like to see that next to the last whereas statement struck, for instance.

I also want to note that these amendments implied that zoning was put in place to create class boundaries rather than to create a gradual change in structure, height, bulk, scale, and open space.

I would like to rescale a vote for this name change if you have to.

In order to revise this proposal to include a very clear statement that zoning requirements and provisions like tree protection and open space does not change.

Because the way it's currently worded, it is not simply a name change.

And I think that's wrong.

Also, regardless of what happens on the sports training facility bill, go storm.

Thank you, Jay.

Good suggestions.

Up next, we have Judy Bindage, followed by Bonnie Williams, and then Irene Wall.

Judy, good morning.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Great to hear your voice.

OK.

Well, thank you.

Thank you, Chairperson Strauss.

And thank you for asking Mr. Blish-Whitson those questions, that this not simply echoing the previous speaker, that this is simply not intended to but actually is no change.

And I actually appreciated the previous speaker saying that.

But that's not and so I don't have any qualms about this language if indeed it is no change because my neighborhood has always had which is one house on one lot has always had mixed use with multi generational families, with subdivisions into apartments in the house.

So we've had at least 20% of my neighborhood, which incidentally was never a redlined neighborhood, has that kind of figuration already.

But what bothers me so much, and this is where I really part ways with the discussion, is what Council Member Mosqueda previously said.

And I've quoted that in my letters to the council and to you.

And she said, I will be working on legislation to start the process to repeal the apartment bans by converting the current SFZ to residential zoning.

So she has made her intent absolutely clear, absolutely clear.

And that's not the way to do it.

And unless she repudiates what she said to say that this actually has no change by adopting this language, then I think that the whole thing should be shoved.

Thank you.

And I have in my letter outlined what really needs to take place, and that is concrete planning to make sure that every neighborhood has affordable housing and plans to absolutely, I completely agree with Susan Grant,

Thank you, Judy, and please thank you for sending in your letters and feel free to send in any further comments.

Up next, we have Bonnie Williams, followed by Irene Wall and then Laura Low.

Laura, you're not present.

David Ward also not present.

So I'm going to run through the next.

I'm going to run through the remainder of the speakers just so everyone knows where they are.

We have Bonnie Williams, Irene Wall, Laura Lowe, Alicia Ruiz, Colleen McClure, David Ward, Logan Bowers, Evan Shaw, Steve Zemke, Ruby Holland.

Ruby, David, Laura are not present at this time.

Please refer to the email you've received.

It is not the call in line.

It's not the listen line on the agenda.

Bonnie, good morning.

You're up.

I hope you're having a great day.

I see you there.

Press star six, not pound six.

There you are.

Hello.

Good morning.

We can hear you.

Good morning.

Okay, good morning.

With all the discussion so far, I'm not convinced that this is just a technical change.

And part of the contradictions that I've been seeing and dealing with is Mesquita's comments in the urban list about how she would proceed if this name change occurs.

So I am against the passage of CB 120155, The name change and the amendments that are included in the specially in the land use section I think that this should be held until the major update for the 2024 comp plan update with a more thorough process the people in support of this are primarily developers the Planning Commission who do mention that in the bill to introduce a future rezones and new housing types.

I think this has not had enough circulation to neighborhoods.

I think they've been skipped over.

I would request that residential and commercial zones need clear distinctions in this bill.

So therefore, remove land use 7.11, which talks about introducing large-scale apartments and giving the council authority to pass that kind of zoning change so that language is ambiguous.

It's open for interpretation.

It's not clear it's not transparent.

I feel there are top down decisions to the neighborhood plans without extensive outreach.

Also I want to I want to clarify that in 2019 single family Uh-oh.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bonnie.

Appreciate it.

And feel free to write.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

OK.

Can I make one quick comment?

One quick one?

Yeah, you stopped at 10 seconds.

So actually, I have to remain consistent.

If you could email in or if you need to chat, we can talk offline.

Thank you, Bonnie.

OK.

All right.

Thank you.

Bye-bye.

Up next is Irene Wall followed by Laura Lowe.

Laura, you are not present.

If Laura does not become present, we will do Irene and then Alicia.

So we have Irene, Laura Lowe, Alicia Ruiz, Colleen McClure.

Good morning, Irene.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

We can.

My name is Irene Wall.

If you want to change single family zoning, at least be honest about it.

Merely relabeling the SF zone land and policy documents does nothing except to create further confusion since there is no definition of a quote neighborhood residential zone in the land use code or any development standards.

And it is not typical to name a zone after historical non-conforming uses.

Why not act on your own budget proviso and evaluate the benefits and impacts of allowing more density in single-family zones in the ongoing comp plan update.

Also, the tree protections being considered in the update are intimately connected to single-family zoning since most trees are in single-family zones.

Changing the land use patterns affecting thousands of property owners requires a transparent process and solid analysis of the details.

So wait until the comp plan update and the accompanying EIS is available to decide what should be allowed in single family zones and then rename it accordingly.

The proposed neighborhood residential label does not distinguish the single family zone uses from other primarily residential zones in the same neighborhoods.

This further adds to confusion.

Merely renaming the zone does nothing to reduce the cost of housing in Seattle or resolve the homeless crisis.

It does nothing to stop displacement.

The council should allow the comp plan process to proceed and then take the actions to make any zoning changes to accomplish the stated goals.

The zone name will be justified at that point, not now.

Thank you, Irene.

Laura Lowe is next, but not present.

So Laura, if you are listening, please do call back in.

Up next, we have Alicia Ruiz, followed by Colleen McClure.

David Ward, you are also not present, and you would be after Colleen.

So if you don't call in, Logan Bowers will follow Colleen.

Good morning, Alicia.

Good morning.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Alicia Ruiz, and I'm here today to expressed that Master Builders Association of King and Sonomish County fully supports the proposed comprehensive plan amendment that just changes the name of the single family zone to a more inclusive name of neighborhood residential zone.

It is an important move forward to support more diverse and equitable neighborhoods.

Excuse me.

And it also adds the opportunity I'm sorry, I'll end it there.

But yes, we definitely support this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alicia.

Up next is Colleen McClure, followed by Logan Bowers, Evan Shaw, Steve Zemke, Laura Lowe, David Ward, Ruby Holland.

Please, Colleen, if you'd like to testify.

Good morning, Colleen.

Colleen?

I see you're there, press star six, not pound six, star six.

There you are, off mute.

Perfect.

Good, Maura, I can hear your voice.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

This is Colleen McAleer, representing Laura Hearst Community Club.

And we're talking today about 120155. The main change for residential is not offensive at all, and it's actually very inclusive to reflect, as council has noted and central staff, the types of housing diversity that we already have, even in our neighborhood.

I don't think people would be surprised about that, but there's plenty of duplexes, ADUs, there's apartments on the edges, and it's all fine.

It's all part of the neighborhood.

So that's a great thing.

Other speakers have mentioned we have to be careful that this legislation does not embed some unrelated statements.

And I think you made it very clear that it was just a clean bill, just changing the name.

but I think the bill really needs to be scoped through to be sure that we take out anything that's not related to simple name change.

A couple of other things the legislation should the goal is to promote more home ownership and that's a great goal for this change of name.

Secondly the legislation emphasizes the word character neighborhood especially LU7.10 it says reflect the character of the existing low density development through the regulation of the the scale, the sighting, and structure, orientation, and setbacks.

But who polices that?

I think the bigger problem, as all of us have seen it, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections continually gives departures.

The Design Review Board is pretty much made of professionals.

They give departures for everybody and everything.

And even if they're granted, there's no way to police that character.

So I think when legislation comes to be with this change, we do really need to put mechanisms there for protecting that character and how it's going to be done.

And then lastly, the tree canopy is, as we all know in this committee, mostly embedded into the single family, which is the residential areas.

And for the last 20 years, the single family has lost about 10% of their canopy, but multifamily housing went from 18% to only 5%.

And I think that's something that we need to embed hand in hand with the tree protection.

Thank you for your work on this today.

Bye-bye.

Thank you, Colleen.

Always great to hear from you.

Up next, we have Logan Bowers, followed by Evan Shaw and Steve Zemke.

That will complete our list unless Laura Lowe, David Ward, or Ruby Holland does call in.

Logan, good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you, council members, for your time.

My name is Logan Bowers.

I am a small business owner.

My wife and I own the first quarter retail shop in District 7. You will hear you've heard from a lot of other public comments supporting this legislation on livability and equity grounds.

First I just want to say I co-sign all of that.

Completely agree.

I will add my perspective as a local small business owner.

So this is directed at the council members who claim to care about us small businesses.

We need this legislation and we need more.

We need customers.

We need more customers.

We need customers who can walk to our businesses.

We need customers who can bike to our businesses.

We also need employees to be able to afford to live near work and not commute an hour from outside of the city.

This ordinance is a smart first step towards supporting us, placing customers and employees near our businesses.

If you care about us small businesses, you'll support this ordinance and you will support future additions to the housing stock at all income levels.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Council Member, Chair Strauss, for all your hard work on this.

Thank you, Logan.

Always nice to hear your voice.

Up next, Evan Shaw, followed by Steve Zemke, Laura Lowe, David Ward, Ruby Holland.

You are still not present, so please call in if you would like to speak.

Good morning, Evan.

Hello.

Excuse me.

This is Evan Shaw.

First time I've commented on a meeting like this.

I will say, as someone who's working, I had to wait a while to get on here.

But I appreciate the chance to be able to talk.

I agree with People who have talked about making more human focused neighborhoods in Seattle, getting away from a zoning code that locks us into kind of a suburban style car centric development pattern.

I agree with people who have highlighted the racial history of this specific type of zoning designation and how changing that name is, you know, a step towards, you know, perhaps getting back to a better place there.

And then on climate change, obviously, you know, sprawl, commuting, all that's very bad for that.

We've got to do more infill development.

I appreciate the folks who are talking about trees, but, you know, for every tree here that we're protecting, that doesn't help out in the net on the climate change situation if we're bulldozing acres to build new suburbs.

So I'd love to see the trees protected here, but got to think globally when we're talking about climate change.

So all those reasons, I support the main change.

Thank you.

Thank you, Evan.

Last and definitely not least, Mr. Steve Zemke, last call, or I guess second to last call for Laura Lowe, David Ward, and Ruby Holland.

For those three that are not present, please make sure that you have received and are calling in via the email call in line, not the listen line on the agenda.

Take it away, Mr. Zemke.

Good morning to you.

Yeah.

Steve Zemke with 3PAC.

A couple of comments, noticing that it doesn't appear in this that you specifically mention the tree protection ordinance, which has language of single family in it.

And if you're going to not change that, but change other things, I think you really need to look and see if there are other places that you're missing where single family language is, because that will create great confusion and it means that SDCI is going to have to change a lot of their memos and other things that relate to single family just by changing the name, because it's going to create a lot of confusion.

The other point coming up here is that, you know, we're not fooling anybody.

I mean, what you are looking at doing is looking at more density in the city.

And TREPAC is not opposed to that.

We support, you know, more affordable housing in the city.

We also support the need for maintaining trees and increasing our tree canopy up to the level that we propose.

Certainly a lot of that depends on we need a real thorough discussion on how do we do that.

And part of the problem is that we've gone 12 years now without updating the tree ordinance looking at things that could be done to protect more trees which despite or in opposition to what the last person said trees create healthy communities.

And we live in Seattle.

We want to keep Seattle healthy.

The urban heat ion effect is part of what you get when you don't have lots of trees in your city, as we see in the south end, and we need to correct that.

TreePak with Northwest Progressive Institute recently did a poll that came out, and you've probably seen that, that 70 to 80% of the people that were polled, voters that were polled, support stronger tree protection, including things like maximizing the retention of existing trees throughout the whole development process.

So please keep that in mind in terms of moving forward.

We need a thorough discussion of all of our options of housing in the city and how we can maximize trees at the same time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Always great to hear from you, Steve.

Thank you for calling in today.

IT, can you confirm Laura Lowe, David Ward, and Ruby Holland are not present?

There are no more public hearing registrants for CB120155.

Excellent.

Thank you, son.

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

The public hearing on Council Bill 120155 is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who provided comments today.

This legislation will be back before committee on Friday afternoon for a possible vote.

Wanting to alert everyone, that was the third of five items on the agenda today.

We are moving into item four, CB120153, the Belltown small lots.

If my colleagues are comfortable after the public hearing, I would like to suspend the rules to have a vote on the same day as the legislation received a public hearing because we have had this legislation in our committee before us before.

So our next item of business is a briefing on Council Bill 120153, which relates to small lots in Belltown.

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

Addenda item 4, Council Bill 120153, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning.

I'm adding a new section to the Seattle Municipal Code to provide alternative development standards for small lots located in downtown mixed residential zoning.

Thank you, and we received a briefing on this legislation at our August 11th meeting just before council recess.

We are joined today by the amazing Brennan Staley from the Office of Planning and Community Development, and once again, Lish Whitson of our Council Central staff.

Before you begin, just a reminder, council member, colleagues, I'm gonna be asking for a vote after the public hearing, just as a reminder.

Brennan, Lish, can you refresh us on this legislation and provide us a brief overview?

Yes, I'll have a brief PowerPoint to go through.

Should be coming up right now.

Great.

So this legislation called Small Lot Development in Belltown or sometimes Belltown Innovative Construction.

Sorry, it's not going to full screen though for some reason.

Sorry.

There we go.

There we are.

So the purpose of this legislation is to create more appropriate development standards for small lots in limited areas of Belltown in order to create more additional housing and also to support new types of innovative construction such as modular and panelized construction that can help to bring down costs and meet environmental goals.

So the challenge right now is it is very difficult to build housing on small lots, specifically in the downtown mixed residential or DMR zones of Belltown on the north side.

And that's for two reasons.

One, the height limit of 145 feet already requires steel and concrete construction.

Anytime you go above 85 feet, that is the case.

And so it's already difficult.

But then we also have development regulations that require very complicated building shapes, which make that even more impractical.

At the same time, there's a new opportunity that has presented itself in that these new types of innovative construction, such as panelized modular construction, are allowing it to become more easier to build on these kind of difficult sites that go up to 145 feet.

But at the same time, they require a stacking of units.

And so that development standard in particular makes them very challenging to use on these sites.

So the proposal would apply to the DMR zones in Belltown that have a height limit of 145 feet.

You can see on the map on the right, it's those areas shaded in gray.

It is 33 blocks.

Additionally, those sites would have to be less than 14,500 square feet, and the building on them would have to be at least 75% residential.

So also on that map, we've showed in yellow and blue the sites that meet that size threshold and could potentially have this applied to them.

And the yellow ones are single lots, which are about 6,500 square feet in size, and the blue ones are double that size.

In terms of what exists on this, there is no housing on any of these sites today, so we don't expect there to be any displacement risk.

Of these 24 sites that are highlighted, there is one that actually is under development now, that's the 303 Battery site.

Six of them are parking lots, and the remainder are a mix of retail, office, warehouse, and hotel uses.

Almost all are one story, but some are two stories.

The actual change we're proposing on those sites is simply allowing housing development to have a slightly different shape.

And that would be accomplished by two things.

One, right now there are two different points at which setbacks kick in, which cause a kind of stair step.

We're simplifying that down to one.

And then we would allow the upper stories to be slightly larger.

while requiring the lower stories to be slightly smaller.

And that would basically mean the setback would happen closer to the street where it would have more impact visually.

I want to highlight here that this would not increase the size of these buildings.

It does not change the amount of total floor area or the maximum height of these buildings.

The idea again is really just have a different shape that would make it much easier to develop for any type of construction, but especially for innovative construction.

And again, this is a shape that is much more consistent with what we'd see anywhere else in the city.

The existing regulations really are unique to Belltown.

We don't see that anywhere else.

So again, this change would apply to any kind of construction.

It, we think, would be helpful for basically any kind of construction, but especially for the innovative construction approaches that need that more simpler shape to allow stacking of units.

And again, property owners could continue to develop under the existing code that they have today.

So it would not affect anybody who already is planning to take advantage of what we see today.

So on the right we just have an example of what this looks like.

The left are the existing rules and the right is the proposed rules.

This is probably the most extreme example of a change you might see.

It's on sites that are on the north side of the green streets and they have a green street setback.

And you can see how it simply takes two stair steps and turns into one and then reduces the height of that setback.

So it has you see it's more impact when you see from the street but the shape is a lot simpler.

I also have one example which is a much more common one for the lots that are not on a green street or on the south side of a green street and you can see today projects are already allowed to build kind of as a wall on the street that wouldn't change and so for these lots you probably would not notice very much from the street the big change would be that the kind of the interior light well and so under this proposal the light well would be a little smaller but it would go down farther to the bottom units as well.

So for most sites again this would is intending to encourage housing so we might get housing in places we wouldn't get it otherwise but comparing the existing rules to the the proposed rules on most sites it wouldn't make much difference from the street but rather kind of infect that light well.

So that's my proposal or my presentation.

Wonderful last slide.

Thank you.

I love it.

I do have two questions.

Just generally, does this, and I know you mentioned this, I'm just trying to raise it to the top.

Does this legislation increase the development capacity of these sites in Belltown?

It does not.

It does not change the floor area or the maximum height.

Great.

And then so development capacity remains the same.

My office has also heard from some property owners in Belltown interested in the legislation that apply to apply to more properties.

Brennan, can you share why this legislation is just limited to the small lots?

This is really focused on the small lots because that's where housing protection is the most difficult.

On those kind of single lots, we haven't seen any projects that have been able to develop up to that 145 feet on a single lot.

We've seen only one in the recent history on a double lot.

And so these are areas where that our development standards are really making it very difficult for projects to develop.

On larger lots, we are seeing more development already happen because it's a lot easier to do them with the larger floor plate and the larger underground parking floor plate.

And so we really were focusing on places where the development standards are really preventing housing development.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Brennan.

Colleagues, do you have any questions before we move into the public hearing?

I know that this is the second time that we have had this bill before us.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes, thank you, Council Member Strauss, and thank you for the presentation and the materials sent along in advance here.

So am I counting correctly on the map on slide five that this would only impact about 24 lots as is presently constituted in the area where it would be in effect?

That's right, obviously lots could in the future be subdivided, but as they exist today, we found 24 lots that would be that meet the size criteria.

All right, and I have a couple of additional questions and.

Based on some neighborhood concerns that I've heard from residents.

Regarding the potential impact.

That the difference in shape permitted under this ordinance would allow to make this small lot development feasible in terms of concerns about the difference between modular and paneled buildings and traditional concrete and steel buildings in terms of the potential shape to maintain view corridors or access to light.

potentially, if the buildings are sort of bulkier, how would you address those potential concerns?

I mean, we've just had a good conversation about how floor area ratio and height is going to remain consistent.

So I think these are really potential concerns coming from residents regarding the possible change in shape.

And I'm just curious if there's an analysis from the department on whether There could be sort of concerns about building lighting or like or view corridor where the shape makes a meaningful difference in that being an issue.

Yeah, so I guess first, just to clarify, in terms of the type of construction, we don't expect that there would be a difference between steel and concrete construction versus panelized or modular construction in terms of how they would look.

I think that all those different types of construction would tend to have the same form.

And, you know, in terms of the, obviously, one of the intents here is to make it easier to build housing.

So we might, it is possible we might see housing on lots where we might not otherwise see it because of this change.

But in terms of the shape itself, again, on most lots, You're already allowed to build kind of to the street lot line.

And so, on most lots probably the shape wouldn't change that much this is again that example, if there's no green street, you it is possible there could be.

small changes in terms of how close they get to the alley, but in general developers tend to want to have windows abutting those and have reserved things for the light well.

So on most lots you probably wouldn't see a lot of shape differences from the street.

But then obviously on green streets, we are proposing to change the green street setback so that it starts lower to the street, but it's more consistent.

Again, but we are only allowing that on the north side of the green streets.

There definitely would be a visual impact for sure, but it shouldn't have an impact on the amount of light that gets down to those green streets.

So I think, So overall, there definitely would be small changes.

I think we talked to people about these changes.

They would be a little bit wider at the top, which might make them look a little bit bulkier, but also that setback would happen closer to the street.

And so it would feel like a lot more of the building is pushed back from the street if you're walking on a sidewalk, for example.

So there are small differences, but overall they don't seem to be very large visual districts, distinctions, and they really were designed to really not have much impact on light that gets to the street because that's obviously something that's very important in these neighborhoods.

And on the view quarter issue, the legislation does not amend the setback requirements for lots on view quarters.

Thank you for confirming that.

So pivoting to a little bit of the conversation around the potential environmental impact.

And maybe I mentioned this when you were in the committee last time on this.

I don't completely recall, but do you anticipate that this change and the possibility that these 24 lots will be able to benefit from modular construction, which could in turn create more demand for materials like crossman made timber or building practices that we know are more environmentally conscious and less CO2 intensive.

Do we see a connection between this and incentivizing that kind of development on the lots that are sort of uniquely situated here and how we might be making that more viable?

Care to comment on that at all?

Yeah, so obviously one of the intents of this legislation is to try and make it easier for innovative construction approaches to be used.

Obviously we're not trying to kind of prefer them over other types.

This would help basically anybody who wants to develop through any kind of approach, but we do want to make it feasible so people can start piloting and testing those things.

And we do know that from past examples and current building practices that it does panelize and modular construction does tend to use mess materials because it's done in a factory and where they don't have the same kind of waste that they would on when they build on site.

A lot of these sustainable living innovations is one example and they've designed a system that actually has water reuse systems and integrated solar into it so it can create a possibilities for new types of construction there as well.

Cross-laminated timber is something that we're not yet seeing much, but we've recently amended the building code to make it much easier, and we're hopeful over the couple of years that it could be a practice that would be really useful in sites like this.

So we're hoping that it will encourage that as well.

In terms of our environmental analysis, we didn't try to quantify that, because there's obviously a lot of what-ifs and different types of companies that are doing this work.

But certainly, one of the purposes of this is to kind of make that type of construction possible, because it does have a number of environmental benefits, as well as potentially holding the possibility of helping to reduce the cost of construction in the long term.

All right.

Thank you.

I don't have any additional questions, Mr. Chair.

Excellent.

Those are really good questions, Council Member.

Other Council Members seeing no questions, we'll open the remote public hearing and then we'll take some votes on suspending the rules if you're comfortable, and then a vote on the legislation if you're comfortable.

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 the 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 yet registered and would like to speak, you can sign up before the end of public hearing by going to the council's website at seattle.gov forward slash council.

The link is also on today's agenda.

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 it is their turn to speak.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item in which you are addressing.

As a reminder, public comment should relate to council bill 120153. If you have comments about something that is not on today's agenda, you can always provide written comments by emailing my office.

Again, this public hearing is just on Council Bill 120153, the small lot.

downtown small lots.

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

I will thank you as your time concludes.

And once you hear the chime as 10 seconds are left, please begin to wrap up your public comments.

If speakers do not end their comments by 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've completed your 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 on the agenda.

And with that, the public hearing on Council Bill 120153 is now open and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 speakers.

listed Tom Eames, Ken Phillips and Alan Klein, you are not present.

So please refer to the email that you received and call in now.

If you are on the listen line, you are in the wrong place.

So.

I'll run down the list so everyone knows where they are, and then we'll get going.

Megan Cruz, Michael Mann, Howard Anderson, Tom Eanes, Jimmy Blaze, Ken Phillips Jr., Alan Klein.

So with that, and no further ado, good morning, Megan.

How are you today?

Hi, good morning.

Can you hear me?

We can.

OK, great.

Thank you.

Yes, I want to talk about CB120153.

This bill will increase the width of Belltown's small lot building.

and reduce requirements for their upper-level setbacks.

Building widths and setbacks are elements put in the code specifically to protect light and air to adjacent buildings in the street.

As written, this legislation erodes environmental quality and livability in the built environment and expedites modular property development.

It's a trade-off we don't need to make.

Both from environmental and social perspectives, we need to consider that buildings last for generations.

They should be constructed to leave a lasting positive impact.

People need light and air.

They make urban villages and neighborhoods livable and equitable.

It's a mistake to think we can't preserve both public health and the environment and still develop economically.

There's a sustainable architect in Belltown named Tom Eames, I hope he speaks today, who has submitted an analysis and modest amendments to this bill.

that provide for modular construction while maintaining adequate light to neighboring buildings and streets.

We really can and should do both.

Please don't vote on this bill today and break protocol.

When the bill was introduced during council briefing on Monday, it was not brought up as one to be voted on.

Please take time, discuss his amendments, and hopefully adopt them.

Thank you.

Thank you, Megan.

Always great to hear your voice.

Up next is Michael Mann, followed by Howard Anderson, then Tom Eanes.

If you call in, Tom, you are not present at this time.

Michael Mann, take it away.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Strauss and committee members.

My name is Michael Mann, and I'm here today representing Sustainable Living Innovations in support of Council Bill 120153. SLI is a Seattle-based company that has been developing a pre-manufactured building system for over a decade.

The company manufactures walls and floors in its Tacoma factory and then assembles them at the job site.

This innovation and building allows SLI to engineer greater sustainability and affordability into its projects.

Its first building in the university district uses 70% less energy than a typical residential unit.

In June, SLI broke ground on the world's first net zero energy multi-family high-rise in Belltown called 303 Battery.

That project will also include 27 rent-restricted affordable units.

Council Bill 120153 is important to SLI because its pre-manufactured product is essentially limited to a box shape.

Upper floor setbacks are not possible.

What SLI can do with this technology is to build on small lots.

The 303 battery project will have 112 units on a parcel that is just 6,500 square feet.

That may be the most dense housing project in the city.

SLI and its technology can help the city achieve its sustainability and housing affordability goals.

This legislation will provide greater opportunities to achieve those goals in the Belltown neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration and support of the bill.

Thank you, Michael.

Up next, we have Howard Anderson, followed by Tom Eanes, if he calls in, and then Jimmy Blase.

That would bring, following Jimmy is Ken Phillips Jr. and Alan Klein.

All three, Tom, Ken, and Alan are not present at this time.

So if you are, if you'd like to testify, please call in to the line on the email that was sent to you.

Howard Anderson, good morning.

Yes, good morning.

Howard Anderson, long time occupant of offices downtown, former owner of property in Belltown, Constantly involved with what's going on in Belltown.

I'm the chairman of the Denny Trangle Neighborhood Association, very involved.

Belltown is a special residential gym.

However, it has been the 145 zone heights have been very restrictive because the current zoning that's in place.

Brendan's outline overview is a clear picture of what this new zoning opens up.

And with the eight owners and Brian Runberg's architectural firm, the last two years, we have been communicating with his group.

We find that the solutions are based on real effectiveness of giving us a good housing based cost-wise and for layout, better layouts and without impacting the environment.

The zoning that we're working with is applying now to small lots, that's 14,500 or less, that's two lots.

There can be some traditional work in a two lot.

The one problem that our group has, there's eight of our owners They're seeing a couple, three of them have the opportunity to end up with three lots or four lots, and that current zoning will not benefit them.

However, if they broke up those properties and do two separate zone, two separate developments, they could then have a, use this new zoning.

We think that there needs to be further study.

We want to endorse this as it is.

Brandon's group has done a terrific job.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate you calling in and sharing your perspective this morning.

Tom, you have called in.

Thank you.

So we have up next Tom Eanes, followed by Jimmy Blase.

Ken Phillips and Alan Klein are not present.

Please do call in if you would like to speak.

Good morning, Tom.

Please take it away.

Good morning.

My name is Tom Eanes and I'm addressing Council Bill 120153. I want to make it clear that I'm not opposed to this bill.

The alternate lot coverages that are allowed here are not a huge change and allow allow rational design whether the building is modular or conventional.

I've sent you seven pages of written comments about this legislation.

The goals of those comments are to succeed to make this legislation succeed better.

in its goals while preserving the character of our neighborhood, mainly the openness of our green streets.

The green streets are critical to the character and livability of our neighborhood.

The change that's proposed here goes in the right direction, but it does not go far enough.

Now, the green street setback is widely misunderstood in this city.

I've explained it in my written comments.

It's far too lengthy for me to explain now, but basically it's not about the shadows that are cast by tall buildings is about the openness of the street space, the open sky, whether that sky is gray or blue.

The 10-foot uniform setback proposed here will actually impair light to the street.

And I have demonstrated that conclusively in the graphic analysis that I submitted on Monday.

This can be fixed by changing that uniform setback to 14 feet.

that will preserve the openness of the street space to the sky, and it will not impair the development capacity of the lights.

More importantly, it will work on both sides of the street, which the proposed 10-foot setback will not.

So I have additional comments in writing.

I can't look into them today about the role of design review and regulating the standards in this legislation.

So please, I do not vote on this proposal today.

I urge committee and staff to take the time to address the issues raised in my written comments and improve this legislation.

And I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Tom.

Up next, we have Jimmy Blase.

And then Ken and Alan are still not present.

So gentlemen, if you'd like to speak, please call in now.

Jimmy, good morning.

Take it away.

Good morning, and thank you.

My name is Jimmy Blaise and I represent Romino Properties.

We own a number of lots in the Belltown neighborhood.

I'd like to express my support for the proposed ordinance.

The current code makes building on small lots in the Belltown neighborhood incredibly challenging.

The code calls for a layered cake type design where buildings must continuously step back as the higher it goes.

This drives up construction costs, creates architecturally unappealing buildings, and many times makes it unpractical to build at all.

The proposed ordinance would correct these issues.

Though I support the ordinance, I'd like to respectfully request one amendment.

The last sentence within section B states if the structure is located on the southern side of a green street, the standards of subsection 23.49.166B still apply.

This sentence would require parcels abutting the southern side of a green street to still comply with the overly complex and burdensome design requirements that this ordinance is proposing to change.

Building design and construction challenges do not vary based on the side of the street that the parcel is located on.

The changes in light transmittal that the code amendment here is trying to get back to are minimal between the different building designs that are allowed between the old code and the proposed ordinance.

Meanwhile, the changes are incredibly impactful on the economic viability of future projects.

I respect the request that this sentence be removed from the ordinance and all parcels within the Belton neighborhood be allowed to be built within the same standards.

Thank you for your consideration.

I look forward to this ordinance moving forward today with the requested amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jimmy.

I am confirming with you at this time that there are no further registrants for this public hearing present with us as Ken and Alan are not present.

Is that correct?

All right, there are no more public hearing registrants for CB120153.

Thank you.

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

The public hearing on Council Bill 120153 is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who provided comment today.

Colleagues, because this is the second meeting at which we have been briefed on and discussion of this legislation, I would like to consider suspending the rules to vote on this legislation today, seeing as this is, again, the second meeting with more than a month, about six weeks in between those two meetings.

We've had a long agenda.

We have a long agenda planned for Friday afternoon, which is why I would prefer to vote it out today rather than on Friday, like the rest of the bills, because the rest of the bills, this is their first time in committee.

Colleagues, any feedback on your comfort level suspending the rules and moving forward?

Seeing thumb up.

No objection to suspending the rules, Mr. Chair.

Great, thumbs up and no objection.

So then, any further discussion?

Seeing none, I move to suspend the rules to allow us to vote on Council Bill 120153 on the same day as 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?

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Motion carries.

Is there any further discussion before we vote on this bill?

I know that we have had a quite extensive briefing and information on it.

I am not seeing any, and in fact, I am being urged to move faster.

So I move to recommend passage of Council Bill 120153. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded as recommended passage of Council Bill 120153. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Peterkin?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

Council Bill 120153 carries.

The motion carries.

Thank you all.

This legislation will come before the full council on Monday, September 27th.

Our final item of business today is Council Bill 120181, which adopts regional transferable development rights program.

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

And item five council bill 120181 in ordinance amending the Seattle municipal code to facilitate the transfer of development rights from Pearson to Seattle.

Thank you.

We are joined by Ketel Freeman of council central staff.

Mr. Freeman, will you walk us through this legislation?

Sure.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I'll briefly remind the committee members about the legislative history here, talk about what Council Bill 120181 would do, and then briefly describe next steps.

As you're all aware, there's a public hearing on this bill today.

So a little bit on the legislative history.

Back in 2007, the state authorized a regional TDR program for central Puget Sound.

The authorizing statute is now codified in RCW 43-362.

In 2013, the city and King County took advantage of that authorization and concurrently with up zones to the South Lake Union Urban Center passed three ordinances.

An ordinance that established a local infrastructure project area, and authorized the mayor at the time to execute an interlocal agreement with King County.

That also includes something sort of a TIF-like, a tax increment financing area-like component for South Lake Union and downtown, an ordinance that accepted an allocation of transferable development rights from King County and adopted an infrastructure funding plan primarily for transportation infrastructure in South Lake Union.

and an ordinance that created a local infrastructure project area and amended the land use code to implement a TDR program.

So I bring those up both to remind you of the legislative history, but also to get to the purpose of the bill, which is, which would avoid some of these complicating implementation steps.

Collectively, those ordinance established a TDR program with King County, and that program allows development and receiving areas in South Lake Union and downtown to achieve bonus floor area through the purchase of development rights for agricultural and forest land in rural King County.

The King County program has been pretty successful to date and has preserved approximately 1,500 acres of farmland and about 90,000 acres of forest land.

The tax increment financing-like program that the city participates in, which gives the city an increment of the county's property tax, will generate about $4 million this year for transportation improvements.

So that's the legislative history and background.

What would Council Bill 120181 do?

It's very simple.

It would amend the land use code to adopt by reference a chapter in the Washington Administrative Code, that's WAC 365-198.

Adoption by reference obviates the need for an interlocal agreement with Pearsons and the Homish counties to allow transfer of development rights from sending areas in rural Pearsons and the Homish counties.

Without adoption of the WAC, we would need interlocal agreements with both Pearsons and the Homish counties.

So what does the WAC require?

It prescribes minimum requirements for cities and towns that are participating in the regional TDR program, minimum requirements for counties participating in the regional TDR program, and joint requirements.

Those requirements are largely about administrative processes for determining how development rights are transferred and then extinguished and reporting requirements between participating jurisdictions.

My understanding is that this legislation is not self-executing.

It's a necessary but not sufficient step to implementing TDR programs with both Pierce and Snohomish counties, and there may be some corresponding changes to regulations that have to happen in both of those counties as well.

Today, there's a public hearing on the bill, and a possible vote is scheduled for this coming Friday.

Thank you, Kito.

It's very helpful just to kind of summarize and lift up some of the things that have been said.

This is a program that already exists here in King County.

This bill would expand that to Snohomish and Pierce counties.

This allows for land to be preserved in rural areas and those development right put in in downtown Seattle.

So that means we get more density.

in the city and protect farm and woodland in the suburbs or in the rural areas.

For those of you who remember before Issaquah was developed and you would look east from Seattle, there would be an unabated view straight to the trees and into the mountains with no development.

Today, we look east and see the suburbs before the mountains.

The same thing when we are either on our way up Highway 2 or on our way to Mount Rainier as we travel through Pierce and Snohomish counties.

If we would like to retain our unabated views of Mount Rainier and the North Cascades as trees as we see today, this is the bill that will do that.

With no further ado, Colleagues, any questions?

Seeing no questions, we are going to move on.

I guess I do have one, two questions.

Sorry, Ketel.

Can you remind us of the neighborhoods where TDR credits can be used to increase development?

Yeah, Southlake Union and downtown, so just in those two urban centers.

The city has other transferable development rights programs, but not regional transferable development rights programs where Our rural credits from AG and Forestland and King County are transferred for a bonus floor area downtown.

We have transferable development rights programs that are also related to historic preservation.

And those operate primarily downtown as well.

Thank you.

And just for awareness, Mr. Onan and my team has had conversations with King County about this change.

Is it also your understanding that King County is supportive as well as Pearson and Snohomish counties?

I can't speak for Beirut and Snohomish counties.

I haven't had any direct communications with staff at those counties.

I have spoken with the TDR program manager, Michael Murphy, at King County, and my understanding is that King County is supportive of this change.

Great.

And I know that invitations have been sent out to representatives from those counties for Friday's meeting where the vote would happen.

No further questions, we're going to open the public hearing.

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'll call on one speaker at a time and in the order in which you registered on the council's website if you have not yet registered to speak and would like to you can sign up before the end of public hearing by going to the council's website at seattle.gov forward slash council this link is also on today's agenda 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 please begin by speaking by stating your name And the item that you are addressing as a reminder public comment should relate to Council 120181 regional transfer of development rights.

If you have comments about something that is not on today's agenda or another bill you can always provide written copy written comments to by emailing my office, or the.

link on the council email address that is presented on the screen during public testimony.

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

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

If speakers do not end their public comments by the end of the allotted time, 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 that 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 on the agenda.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120181 is now open and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

We have three people signed up.

The first person is not present.

So Michael Bratton, you are, Nick Bratton, excuse me, you are the first person on the list, but you are not present.

The other two people we have are Michael Murphy and Rebecca Schwartzman.

So Nick, if you're listening, please look up the email that you received when you signed in.

The listen line on the agenda is not the correct phone number.

Michael, good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thanks for having me.

This is Michael Murphy, Chair Strauss, committee members.

I appreciate the time.

Again, Michael Murphy, I run the Transfer of Development Rights Program for King County, and I would like to speak in favor of Council Bill 12081 today.

As was mentioned earlier, the Transfer of Development Rights System achieves multiple goals of protecting forests and farms in the region, preserving that development potential when the land is conserved, and then focusing the growth in urban centers of the region.

We have had a fantastic agreement with the city of Seattle since 2013 that's enabled us to protect over 90,000 acres of forests and farms in King County.

The effect of this legislation, of course, is to open the door to Pearson, Snohomish counties to allow transfers of development rights from those counties into downtown Seattle as well.

Conservation is a regional endeavor.

All of the residents of the region benefit when we conserve forests and farmlands and natural areas in any of the counties that we're talking about here.

The other thing the legislation would do would bring Seattle's code into alignment with the intent of the original legislation from 2011 that set this system up.

So with that, I thank you for your consideration of this, and I urge you to pass this bill when it comes to a vote.

Thanks much.

Thanks, Michael, and we'd love to have you back at committee on Friday if you're interested.

I will be there for sure.

Wonderful.

Up next is Rebecca Schwartzman and Nick Bratton.

We still don't see you present, so please do call in now if you'd like to testify.

Rebecca, good afternoon.

I see you there, and you're off mute, so just make sure that your phone is not muted.

There you are.

You're off mute.

I can't hear you.

Is your phone on mute?

Not the star six, but just your mute button.

Oh, you're off of mute.

Now you're back on mute.

You're off mute.

IT, any suggestions?

We have no suggestions.

Interesting.

Rebecca, if you would like to send in written comments, I'll read your comments at the next council meeting.

If that works.

I'll give you a couple more seconds as Nick Bratton is not present.

IT, can you confirm Nick Bratton is not present?

Affirmative, there are no other public hearing registrants for CB120181.

Thank you.

And Rebecca, one last try, making sure your phone isn't on mute on your own side.

Maybe press star six again.

I see you're off mute currently right now on our public hearing.

Is this working?

There we are.

Rebecca Schwarzman, welcome to the public hearing.

Great.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

Thank you Chair Strauss and committee members.

My name is Rebecca Schwartzman and I'm calling on behalf of FORTERRA.

I'm calling to ask that you please support the ordinance to update the city's regional TDR program as it is drafted.

Along with key partners such as King County and the city FORTERRA was the chief architect of the regional TDR program that Seattle has been using since 2013. The program has exceeded expectations both in terms of the conservation outcomes in King County and in terms of how much new revenue it is generating for public improvements that support growth in the city's urban core.

It's working well and it doesn't need any changes except for one.

The spirit and letter of the state law creating this program is for participating cities to accept TDR credits from Pierce King and Snohomish County.

Unfortunately by only accepting credits from King County Seattle is out of compliance with the statute.

Fortunately the ordinance before you today is a simple technical update that remedies the issue and will open the door to the use of TDR credits from all three counties.

Demand for regional TDR in the city remains robust as new high-rise developments have been proposed that would need to buy TDR credits through the regional program.

By implementing this fix, the city will achieve the regional scale of the program as envisioned and articulated in state law.

It will also set an example for other cities to follow that cross-county movement of TDR credits can play in an important role in the conservation of our farms and forests while funding infrastructure investments that make cities better places to live and also do business.

Thank you for your time and please sign the ordinance as drafted to council.

Thank you, Rebecca, and thank you for your patience.

Since we have signed one last time, can you confirm that Nick Bratton is still not present?

No further public comment registrants?

Affirmative.

Thank you, friend.

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

The public hearing on Council Bill 120181 is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who provided comment today.

This legislation will be back before the committee Friday afternoon for a possible vote.

Thank you, colleagues, for sticking with me through five public hearings.

We are trying to get this rush done before budget.

and we're done for the year.

I want to thank all the central staff and especially Ian, Sun, and Eric on our IT team.

We had five public hearings which took a lot of behind-the-scenes maneuvering and I really appreciate each of your I want you to help today.

So no further business.

This concludes the Wednesday, September 22nd, 2021 meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee.

It is 12, 11 p.m.

As a reminder, our next committee meeting is on Friday, September 24th, starting at 2 p.m.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.

On the go.