Seattle City Council Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan 3/19/2025

Good afternoon, everyone.

The March 19, 2025 special meeting of the Select Committee of the Comprehensive Plan will come to order.

It's 202. I'm Joy Hollingsworth.

I am the chair of the Select Committee.

Clerk, best clerk in the world, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Kettle?

Here.

Council Member Moore?

Here.

Present.

Council Member Rink?

Present.

Council Member Rivera?

Present.

Mr. Strauss?

Present.

Council President Nelson?

Present.

Vice Chair Solomon?

Here.

Chair Hollingsworth?

I'm here.

There are nine members present.

Awesome, we'll now consider the agenda.

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

Hearing and seeing none, the agenda is adopted.

Today, public comment will only be accepted in written public comment.

Please drop off your written public comments in the front chambers or send us your thoughts at comprehensiveplancouncil.seattle.gov.

Just wanna go over a couple of housekeeping things with the rest of my colleagues.

So today, our items of business, We're going to be required to pass House Bill 1110 through interim legislation, which the executive will be briefing us on at our next comprehensive plan meeting, which will be March 28th.

That's a Friday.

We will fully implement House Bill 1110 during the remaining SEPA reviews.

We've made this pivot because there have been six appeals made to the comprehensive plan environmental impact statement.

and we cannot vote on the comprehensive plan until the hearing examiner resolves these challenges of the environmental impact statement.

The intent of today's briefing is to review zoning requirements and the requirements of council for House Bill 1110. Over the next few meetings until May 30th, we will learn about the interim legislation we have to implement by June 30th and come into compliance with state mandate.

House Bill 1110 is state mandated legislation to create missing middle housing, more density in neighborhood residential areas.

And this is why we have our phenomenal, It says wonderful here on my script, but I'm gonna go a step higher than that.

Our phenomenal central staff is here to discuss.

This legislation will be in place until we pass a comprehensive plan and can work on permanent legislation for House Bill 1110. I also wanna mention and thank everyone for coming to the public hearing.

that ended a little early on February 5th due to severe weather.

Our office made a promise to honor the speaking order of those who were not able to speak at the end of that meeting.

It's also important to me because I know a lot of the people that came later were also our young folks and I wanna make sure that our young folks are able to participate in the comprehensive plan and you're able to have public comment.

So we will announce a new public hearing date after the mayor transmits interim legislation.

Public hearing will be prior to May 30th.

We have your names in the order of you signed up.

So I wanna invite those people who signed up, did not get a chance to speak, come down and speak and you will be prioritized.

We have the list, we have alphabetical order.

It was written out and our office went through one by one.

reading through everyone's names and putting those in Excel file.

And so we have those ready for you when you come so we can prioritize you.

So will the clerk read item, I always mix this up, read item one into the agenda.

Agenda item one, missing middle zoning requirements for briefing and discussion.

Presenting today will be Lish Whitson and Ketel Freeman from Council Central Staff.

Again, I wanna thank Kish and Lidl.

Gosh, I mixed up your name.

Lish and Ketel.

Thank you all for being here.

I think you all could start a really cool podcast on zoning in Seattle.

It would be well-received because you all are very smart.

Please introduce yourself for the record, and you can go in and jump into your presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lish Whitson, Council Central Staff.

Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff.

As the chair mentioned, you will have in front of you in this committee over the next couple months legislation to implement House Bill 1110. The briefing today is intended to provide you with a foundation for your decision-making.

We are going to...

Can you pull up the presentation?

Share it, yeah.

Go to the second slide.

We're going to briefly describe what missing middle housing is, talk through Seattle's current regulations for our neighborhood residential areas, which are where the implications of House Bill 1110 will be most felt, talk through what the state is going to require the city to adopt, and then talk about some ways that the House Bill 1110 has been implemented, both through a state model code and then through other cities' responses to House Bill 1110. There's a lot of detail in the presentation that you have.

We are not gonna touch on every single bullet point.

We were all here late last night.

So we're gonna skim through it, but are happy to answer any questions that you have.

And, you know, as detailed as this presentation is, the Land Use Code is much more detailed.

So we're not going to dive into the details, but we're going to try and give you a good foundation for your decisions.

And starting out, just to ground you in what missing middle housing is and It is multifamily housing of a similar scale and form as detached single family houses.

These types of buildings were allowed under older zoning codes in Seattle, but are not currently allowed in Seattle's neighborhood residential zones.

Units and missing middle housing are generally less expensive than single family houses, which is why the state is mandating that all cities allow for it in their zones that allow single family homes.

These pictures are four examples of missing middle houses in current neighborhood residential zones where they otherwise wouldn't be allowed.

I used to live in one of them.

Another one is directly behind my house.

But they're all basically single-family size houses that have multiple units.

And Kittle is going to jump into our current regulations.

All right.

So I'm going to talk a little bit about Our neighborhood residential zones, what they are, where they are, what is allowed in them, what the development standards currently are that are applicable in those zones.

Neighborhood residential zones were relatively recently renamed from single-family zones.

You may sometimes hear people say single-family zones.

They're talking about neighborhood residential zones.

So where are neighborhood residential zones?

There are four flavors of neighborhood residential zones.

They occupy about 65% of the city, At the least intense, there are neighborhood residential one zones and at the most intense, there are residential small lot zones on this map.

The least intense zones are shown in that kind of orangish color, and the most intense are shown in that brownish color.

Where they are and their level of intensity is in part a relic of when the city annexed those areas and the city's growth strategy to date.

So, for example, at the north end of the city, you'll notice that there are some less intense neighborhood residential zones that used to be unincorporated at King County.

Within most of the city, there are zones that are moderately intense for neighborhood residential zones that have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet.

We'll talk about those later.

That's the majority of the yellow that is shown on this map.

And then finally, the residential small lot zones, you'll probably notice that many of those are on the edges of existing urban villages, formerly single-family zoned areas within urban villages were upzoned to RSL as part of the mandatory housing affordability implementation.

So what types of residential uses are allowed in neighborhood residential zones?

In all of the NR zones, single-family houses are allowed, accessory dwelling units, both detached and attached, are allowed.

Floating homes are allowed.

Those are actually regulated through the Shoreline Master Program.

You wouldn't find them on dry land.

And adult family homes are permitted as well.

Within the RSL zones, more intense uses are permitted, including apartments, carriage houses, cottage houses, row houses, and townhouses.

The RSL zone is intended to sort of allow a broader range of more intense approaching low-rise residential uses.

So the densities that are currently permitted in neighborhood residential zones, At the least intense, one unit per 9,600 square feet is the minimum lot size.

On those in those NR1 zones, you can have two accessory dwelling units as well as a principal structure.

The minimum lot size in NR2 zones is 7,200 square feet, so you could have a house on a 7,200 square foot lot and two ADUs in NR2 zones.

NR3 zones, the most common neighborhood residential zone in the city, The minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet, and you could also have two accessory dwelling units there.

RSL, that somewhat more intense neighborhood residential zone, allows only one ADU, but there's also the suite of other uses that can be allowed there, including apartments and townhouses.

The minimum lot sizes that we currently have in the zones may not bear any relationship to the lots that are in those zones now, so just sort of think about that.

In older parts of the city, that were platted more recently than what used to be unincorporated King County, there are lot sizes that are 3,000 square feet or less.

Those places are mostly zoned, single family or neighborhood residential three.

So what can you build on a neighborhood residential lot?

How big of a building can you build?

Generally, the floor area ratio, so the amount of sort of the volume of space that you can build on a neighborhood residential lot is about 0.5.

So for a 5,000 square foot lot, you could build a 2,500 square foot house.

You can have an accessory dwelling unit of up to 1,000 square feet and other accessory structures like garages and sheds on a neighborhood residential lot, and they're also limited by the square footage.

In RSL, the intensity of development is somewhat higher.

You can meet an FAR of 0.75.

That includes accessory dwelling units in RSL zones.

The maximum size of each unit or smaller units in RSL zones is about 2,200 square feet.

So where can you build an existing neighborhood residential zone?

You may hear people talk about setbacks.

Setbacks are the same as yards in our current neighborhood residential zones.

It's just a different word that's used to describe spaces where you cannot build or you can only build up to a certain amount.

There are generally a 20-foot setback in our existing neighborhood residential zones for the front yard, a 25-foot setback for the rear yard, and 5-foot setbacks for the side yards.

The principal structure can cover up to 35 percent of the lot.

So there is a volume of space that is described by that lot coverage and all of the yard requirements that tells a person where they can build on their site.

I don't know if we cover it here, but the maximum, how we do, the maximum height limit for neighborhood residential zones is 30 feet.

That is actually to, not necessarily to the, don't think of that as being the height to the, to the pitch, to the peak of the roof.

That is the height to the top of the, of the plate essentially.

and pitched roofs and other rooftop features can extend above that height limit.

Parking and affordable housing, did I miss a slide here?

No, okay.

Parking and affordable housing, generally one space per unit is required.

We don't require any parking for accessory dwelling units.

Parking generally must be located, it can be located in a front yard essentially, so it can be located in a garage.

a rear yard or a side yard.

The code prefers access from an alley when there is an improved alley abutting a piece of property.

There's not currently an inclusionary zoning program that applies in neighborhood one, two, and three zones, but there is inclusionary zoning, the mandatory housing affordability program that does apply in residential small lot zones.

The amount that one has to provide there to perform varies depending on where you are in the city, but the percent set aside is between 5% and 7%.

The payment amount there, currently, it also depends on where you are in the city.

It's a high, medium, or low zone, high, medium, or low economic sort of rental area, and it could range between $10 and $30 a square foot under the current MHA program.

Trees in neighborhood residential zones, there are tree protection requirements and also requirements for providing additional trees as part of development.

For lots over 3,000 square feet, there has to be at least two caliper inches of tree, 1,000 square feet of lot area, lots under 3,000 square feet, at least three caliper inches of trees, period.

They may be met through preserving existing trees or planting new trees.

There is a requirement that street trees be planted when one or more principal units are added.

In RSL zones, because there is somewhat more intense development, there's also a little bit of a different regulatory regime when it comes to providing trees with new development.

You have to meet a certain number of tree points per 500 square feet of lot area.

You can do that through a combination of ways, including preserving existing trees and providing smaller trees, and you get a different amount of points depending on whether it's a deciduous or evergreen tree.

Street trees are required when one or more principal units are added in RSL zones as well.

So that's the current standards that apply, and those are the current standards that apply in neighborhood residential and RSL zones, so places where the city is required to implement House Bill 1110. Before I move on here to what House Bill 1110 requires in other state, statutes require any questions.

I see that, well, thank you.

I do see that we do have a couple of questions.

I wanna recognize Council Member Saka.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you Keto and Lish for being here today and sharing these insights with us.

Couple technical questions, I guess this first component of the presentation is very technical, so I suppose that makes sense.

On slides, starting on slides five and the few after that, you kind of broke down the neighborhood residential one through three designation, compare that against the RSLs, and you described the, NR1 is, quote, unquote, the least intense, and then the NR3 is the most intense.

What do you mean by the term intense in this context?

Do you mean like density-wise?

I mean, that's exactly what I mean.

It is density.

There are currently minimum lot size requirements.

So if you were to develop a brand new lot in a neighborhood residential one zone, that lot would have to be 9,600 square feet, so a fairly large lot.

If you were to develop in an RSL zone, on the lot doesn't have to be that big.

It could be much smaller.

So it is essentially density that I'm talking about there.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

That's what I suspected based off of how you broke everything up in the other follow-up helpful slides, but I appreciate the confirmation and clarity.

And then...

And just so I'm clear, what we're talking about right now are current law standards.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

OK.

So eventually we'll go into proposed changes to these, right?

Yeah.

Awesome.

Yes.

OK.

Cool.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

Councilmember Salomon, and then we'll jump into Councilmember Kettle.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Again, technical stuff, looking at slide eight.

Looking at the FAR, it says that 0.5 FAR, or basically no more than 50% of the lot can be covered in FAR.

So in this case, it's FAR different than lot area coverage, or using them the same way?

It is different.

So a lot coverage standard limits how much of a lot you can cover with a structure.

So the basic lot coverage standard for most NR zones is 35%.

So you can only cover 35% of the lot.

The floor area ratio is a measure of how much you can actually build.

So If you have a 5,000-square-foot lot, you could build a 2,500-square-foot house.

So you multiply the lot by the FAR.

If you have a 9,600-square-foot lot, you could build a much larger house because the lot size is larger.

But the FAR itself doesn't limit the lot coverage, but the lot coverage describes where you can put that floor area on your lot.

So basically he's saying, you know, I've got a...

5,000 square foot lot, if I put up a two-story structure, then each story or each level could not exceed 1250. Correct.

OK.

Just wanted to make sure that we're talking about the livable space, not just how much of the footprint of the structure.

Yeah, and these are the fundamental development regulations, and then there are, of course, a lot of detail and exceptions.

And we're not going into the exceptions here today, but portions of a development could be exempt from FAR calculations depending on if it's below grade or if it's not usable space or if it's a garden window or something like that.

There are a host of exceptions in the code.

Okay, cool.

And the last question I have regards page 11 regarding the trees.

When you say street trees are required to be planted, who actually plants those trees?

The property owner or developer does.

It has to be approved by SDOT.

And they have a schedule for the types of trees that are permitted in different areas.

And one of the reasons I wanted to bring this up is because one of the hot issues in my neighborhood are the trees on the Beacon Median, that the root systems have basically disturbed the walking paths.

So it's making ADA access very challenging.

And the solution is to pull those trees out, repave, relocate those trees, place other trees elsewhere.

And that's why I'm concerned about if it's the property owner's responsibility to place those trees, then it also sounds like it's the property owner's responsibility to maintain those trees and then do whatever repairs that those root systems may cause.

Would that be the case as well?

The short answer is yes, and there's a reason that Estet has a schedule of trees that are acceptable street trees.

It's because they want to try to avoid the root situation that you're describing.

For the purposes of if there is some broad corridor-wide improvement that's happening, I know where you're talking about, just south of Columbia Way, it really buckles there.

The adjacent property owners there aren't going to be required to install replacement trees for what SDOT removes.

That'll be the city's responsibility.

Okay, cool.

Again, I just wanted to get clarity on that, so thank you very much.

Awesome.

Council Member Kettle.

Thank you, Chair.

Can we go back to slide, the one with the map?

Yep.

I have it on my slide five.

Thank you both, Mr. Whitson and Mr. Freeman.

Appreciate you being here and your background, which is key, obviously, for us walking through this.

I wanted to bring this slide back up, and I think it's important, you know, when we're having discussions, because there's fact and then there's stereotypes and the like, One thing I wanted to note here is that District 7, you know, and particularly in the northern part, you know, it's often thought of as single-family homes, owners only, and so forth.

And we do have that.

But as you can see, we have the least amount of neighborhood residential than any district.

There's no NR1, NR2.

There's also no RSL.

But I think it's important to note what we're working with in terms of what we have currently, as opposed to stereotypes and the like.

And oftentimes, people don't realize how many renters, for example, that we have in the northern part of District 7, the Magnolia and Queen Anne, particularly, and how that plays out in terms of how we're moving forward with the comprehensive plan.

And it's also an older neighborhood, and I really encourage people to go through the neighborhoods in some ways because we have a lot of middle housing from the earlier generation of zoning.

You know, again, there'll be stacked flats.

There's triplexes.

My last apartment before we found our home was a triplex.

And you'll be going in different areas, like south of Big Howe Park, and there's a stacked flat.

And I think it's helpful to drive around just to get a sense of what may be, because there's the stereotypes on that front, too, in terms of size and so forth, and these are important things to go through.

One other observation related to trees, and this is important in terms of maintaining what we have.

The slide talks about two or three caliper inches, but in these areas we have trees with two or three caliper feet.

And to talking about root systems, because I've done this like with the Queen Anne Boulevard Park, the root systems are talking to each other.

That's how important this idea of moving and these embedded and very important and community assets, we need to be mindful of those pieces.

After those three observations, one question I had, you don't often see it talked to, is alleys.

Throughout the city, particularly D7, alleys play an important role.

Is that discussed?

How is alleys brought up into the discussion in terms of neighborhood residential, this first segment of the briefing?

It comes up in a few different contexts.

One of them has to do with access to parking.

So if there's an improved alley, generally the code prefers that people take access to parking off of that improved alley.

We're going to be talking in a minute about some state law requirements, including requirements for accessory dwelling units and just other things like that.

And what I want to sort of point out in this slide is that there are required yards.

Those, the required yards, the code allows half of the width of an alley to be used to meet some of the development standards, including required yard standards.

And that's true for accessory, for where, it's true for, that affects where ADUs can be placed as well if there is an improved alley.

One of the required changes in state law is that where there is an improved alley, that there would be zero lot line development allowed on that alley for accessory dwelling units.

So that is one way.

Can you explain that?

What's that?

Can you explain that point?

Yeah, so I think it's House Bill 1337 allows or requires jurisdictions that are required to have accessory dwelling units to allow those accessory dwelling units to be located at the alley lot line.

And that is, if you may know, just walking through the alleys in your neighborhood, that to the extent that there are accessory dwelling units now, you'll find many of them on those rear alleys, often situated on top of existing parking structures.

I understand that point, and I also understand how people can't drive into that parking spot, you know, if it's underneath the da-do, and solving one problem that might be creating others in terms of right on the line.

I see it in my own alley.

You know, the challenges of...

Otherwise, it's going to be a scene out of Austin Powers where you're not doing a three-point turn, but a 300-point turn in order to go from...

to get in and get out.

I'm very happy the chair picked up on my cultural reference, so I'll end on that point.

You have great jokes and references.

I think we're, yeah, we're ready to jump into the next piece.

All right, so I'm shifting gears here to what's required by House Bill 1110. Not what's proposed, but what's required.

and what's required by a suite of other state laws that were passed in 2023 and 2024. So it was a pretty busy session.

There are six laws that the city has to implement.

Some the city has implemented already.

Others are still prospective.

And then there are some that are essentially self-implementing, but we'll likely see some legislation related to them later.

So starting here with House Bill 1110, there is just that bill in isolation is not what you should be looking at or folks should be looking at if they're wondering what their requirements are.

You should also look at gross substitute House Bill 2321, which modified House Bill 1110 and made some changes to what was initially implemented.

So what's the legislative intent for House Bill 1110?

The words that you see here on this slide are words from House Bill 1110. So these are the statements, among other things, these are the statements of legislative intent from that House bill.

That bill noted that the state is undergoing a housing crisis.

The state at the time that the bill was adopted had a goal of adding a million additional units statewide by 2044. Increasing housing options that are more affordable to various income levels is one of the intensive House Bill 1110. Note that higher density homes are more affordable in construction costs, largely due to their size.

And reduce household energy and transportation costs.

And noting that the finding, not noting, but finding that the housing shortage requires both public and private investment.

So that's the intent of House Bill 1110. House Bill Evington requires that a jurisdiction allow for at least six of nine different types of middle housing.

And the nine types are shown here, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, courtyard apartments, cottage housing, townhouses, and stacked flats, which is just a new word for apartments.

The House Bill Levington has some density requirements.

So on all residentially zoned lots, we have to allow at least four units per lot.

We can allow up to six units per lot if at least two of those units are affordable, and I'll talk about what affordable means here in just a minute.

And we have to allow at least six units per lot on lots that are within a quarter mile of a major transit stop.

And a major transit stop is a defined term in House Bill Levington, and it includes things like light rail stops, commuter rail stops, sound transit bus stops, Amtrak stops, streetcar stops, monorail stops, these are all city of Seattle-specific, of course, bus rapid transit stops, and trolley bus stops, because trolleys are controlled by an overhead Canton area wire, which we believe means the definition of a guideway under the definition of a major transit stop in House Bill 1110. What does affordability mean for House Bill 1110 for the affordability requirements that are there?

Where six units are allowed and two of those units can be provided as affordable units or have to be provided as affordable units, those units have to be affordable to households with incomes at 60 percent or below of the area median income for rental units.

and 80% of area medium or below for owned units.

What does that mean?

Household median income, of course, varies by household size.

For a two-person household that is a renter household, 60% of AMI is about $72,300 a year.

And this year, for a two-bedroom unit, an affordable rent would be about $2,000 a month.

80% of AMI for a four-person household is about $120,000 a year under the 2024 standards promulgated by the Office of Housing.

Affordable units would have to be affordable for at least 50 years, and they'd have to have a restriction that would go along with those units so that when they were transferred to somebody else, in the case of owned units, they'd be transferred to a qualifying household.

As with other requirements in the city code, the units have to be, they can't just be small units.

They have to be comparable in size and number of bedrooms to the rest of the units in the development, and they have to be distributed throughout the project.

So if it's a stacked flat, for example, they can't be first floor units.

They have to be distributed throughout the building.

HB 1110 authorizes the city to extend existing affordable housing programs, and we do have one.

the Mandatory Housing Affordability Residential Program, which is codified in Seattle Municipal Code, Chapter 2358. So there is a choice here for the council about whether or not to extend the Mandatory Housing Affordability Program.

Other standards from House Bill 1110, development regulations for missing middle housing can't be more restrictive than those that apply to single-family housing.

We can exempt parking within half a mile of major transit stops, and the requirements of House Bill 1110 don't apply to or can be excluded from lots that or portions of lots that are subject to environmentally critical areas regulations.

ECAs are not shown on this map, but the area that's approximately a half mile from major transit stops are shown.

So these are the areas where the city could contemplate where we can't require parking.

So those areas are shown in purple.

So that is House Bill 1110. I'm going to move on to 1337, which is the ADU reform bill.

House Bill 1110 is the big show, but there are these other bills that need to be implemented as well.

And I think we'll pause here if there's any quick questions, Ketel, from anyone.

I'll just pause.

I see Councilmember Kettle, but that might be an old hand.

Is that old or new?

Is it new?

Is that old?

It's a new hand.

You just kept it.

Chair, it's actually old, but I will use it as a new one just briefly.

That's a nice technique.

Just leave your hand up first.

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you.

My only observation on this section, gentlemen, is the ECAs.

You know, when the law is put in place, it doesn't necessarily account for local factors.

And ECAs are, like, part of that.

And, you know, oftentimes, at least in our context, slopes.

And that's a major factor.

And, you know, that's something that needs to be accounted for a bit.

And to ensure we don't have slides and all the other things.

And slopes are not flat.

So a half mile walk is actually a half mile climb, at least in our context.

And so I just bring that up, that we should account for local factors.

That's just a general point that I'd like to make.

And no major opposition, but I think at the same time, it's interesting how our state government's becoming local government and local government at the state level doesn't account for these kind of local factors.

Well, you know, it's more broad and that's a bit of a challenge that we need to address.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

I see Council Member Rivera and then Council Member Solomon.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ketel and Lisch for being here and answering our questions and presenting this.

So I really just wanna check my understanding of what you just presented.

So it seems currently most of the, so 65% of the city is zoned with an NR designation, but it looks like most of the NR designation is NR3.

which is at 5,000 square foot plus two ADUs.

So I have that right.

And so then what HB 1110 is saying is, in all the NRs, but given that we are mostly NR3, in either the 5,000 square foot range, we can allow for...

either four or six units if two are affordable on that 5,000 square lot and then on the residential small lot which is 2,000 square foot also the four but six if two are affordable also applies.

Because that's a residential designation as well, or is that a different kind?

It is an RSL.

RSL is a neighborhood residential designation, so it's a formerly single-family zone.

So shifting gears here, obviously, to sort of an interim development control and how are we going to implement House Bill 1110 in the near term.

I'll speak just briefly about sort of what was proposed by the mayor.

So the residential small lot zone under the mayor's proposal would go away entirely, not for interim regulations but for the permanent proposal, at least as it stands now.

And in most of the areas that are currently residential small lot, those areas would become some kind of a multifamily zone, like a low-rise 1 or low-rise 2 zone, with the exception of South Park.

South Park would go from RSL, which is what it is now, to neighborhood residential, so it would actually have a less intense zone designation.

For the interim regulations, the Council will have to grapple with what to do with RSL zones, and the reason the Council will have to grapple with that is because what is required by House Bill 1110 contemplates more development than we even allow in our existing RSL zones.

RSL zones are pretty close to what is contemplated by House Bill 1110, but there is that requirement.

that our single-family zoning can't be more restrictive than whatever we need to do for HB 1110 implementation.

So at least in the short term, the council will have to consider what to do with RSL zones.

And is this presentation going to have something later on about what we can do about that as we pass each Bill 1110 or not?

No, I think that we'll get that with OPCD's presentation about the various proposed interim regulations.

But given that we have to pass 1110 now, what does that do for these residential small lots?

Like, are we then saying we're allowing the four or up to six units in that 2,000 square foot lot?

Yeah, so, I mean, it's a relatively recent zone designation that's been applied, so it's not as if the underlying zoning there has 2,200-square-foot lots.

Most of them were formerly a single-family 5,000 zoned areas, so the lot sizes there could be 5,000 square feet.

It sort of depends on the part of town.

A part of town that I'm familiar with is North Beacon Hill.

It was platted a long time ago, so the lot sizes there tend to be a little bit smaller.

But presumably in that area, the council could either apply some new zone designation, a new multifamily zone designation like low rise, or at least on an interim basis have whatever the neighborhood residential regulations are applied to them.

And if I may interject real quick, my understanding is on, if I can have some clarity, on the 28th of this month, the mayor's office is gonna do a presentation about his proposed, their proposed legislation, which is the interim of House Bill 1110, which might address RSL.

Did I say that right?

Residential small lots.

Thank you, Chair.

And then we can understand how we can move forward from that.

That's the clarity I was seeking.

Thank you, Chair.

I got it.

Now, this isn't like we're looking at a piece of legislation now.

We're just looking at what HB 1110 does and how it impacts the city.

And then when the mayor transmits, the HB 1110 legislation, they will have to deal with a proposal for.

And that's correct.

And that will be on the 28th.

We will get OPCD in the mayor's office to present their interim legislation.

I appreciate that chair.

Thank you for the clarity there.

And I think, but as it stands, that's what HB 1110 does, notwithstanding having to deal with this very unique SRL designation that we happen to have at the city.

but it still stands that on the NR3 for the 5,000 square foot, you can now under HB 1110 have up to six if two are affordable or four if there's, okay, great.

Thanks for the clarification.

Thank you, Chair.

No problem.

And then Council Member Solomon.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

The question I have is regarding application of HB 1110 to neighborhoods that have a neighborhood historical designation, thinking in particular about the Mount Baker neighborhood.

Would those areas actually be exempt from HB 1110, or how would that work with those historical districts?

HB 1110 does not make an exception for historic districts.

Okay.

Thank you.

And then Council Member Rivera.

Can I jump to Council Member Moore?

Or you have a follow-up.

Piggyback.

Piggyback.

Okay, sorry.

Council Member Rivera, and then we'll go to Council Member Moore.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

I just have a piggyback to Council Member Solomon down there.

On this historic designation, can the city do something to, as part of legislation that we do, to...

Exempt historic districts to council member Solomon's point down there or not My understanding is that the state law does not provide an exemption So house bill 1110's requirements for at least four units will apply in all of those historic districts Because we can go stronger than the state but not less I just wanted for the record to have that clarity for whoever's watching.

Thank you Thank You council member Rivera council member Moore

Oh, thank you chair and thank you for this presentation.

Um, I'm looking at slide 23, um, tracking, um, housing affordability terms.

And I just a little bit confused, um, or maybe it's 18 and yeah, there we go.

Um, so my understanding is to get the, um, bonus.

receive an affordable housing bonus, which would allow you six units per lot.

Two of those have to be affordable.

And the affordability has to be, so you're basically mandating affordability within the project.

But then it says that the city can use its program like MHA But MHA gives the developer the option of either onsite performance or in lieu of payment.

So I guess I'm a little confused that it seems like the state law allows for us to mandate onsite performance.

Yeah, I think there are two different authorities here.

One is the authority from House Bill 1110, which allows us to mandate on-site performance.

The other is the authority for MHA, which is an RCW 36708540, and that requires that there be a payment option.

And I would just clarify that the provisions you see here are not a mandate.

They are basically what's called a bonus.

So a project that complies with these housing affordability levels is allowed to have more units than it otherwise would.

So it's allowed to have two more units, but this is not a mandate that all projects comply with these housing affordability limits.

Okay, so if the city were to use MHA for say, four units, we'd still have to provide an in-loop option?

That's correct, yeah.

So if there is a, just to piggyback on what Lish is saying, the distinction here, at least the way I think about it, is between an incentive and a requirement.

So HB 1110 provides an incentive, RCW, the Mandatory Housing Affordability Program, which is based on 3678 540, has a requirement.

So if the city were to extend the mandatory housing affordability program, units that would be required under that program would have to have a payment option associated with them.

Okay.

And what if we were to offer, could we offer a, some sort of density bonus?

for an onsite performance requirement for the four units?

Theoretically, I think we could.

It really, it would come down to kind of, there would be whatever the programmatic requirements are under mandatory programs.

And then the bonus would have to be associated with some, some type of development advantage.

So some additional FAR perhaps, or additional height, some other kind of development incentive that somebody could take advantage of to provide those units.

Okay, great, thank you, I appreciate that.

Awesome, and ready for the next section.

Okay, so moving on to another requirement, House Bill 1337. This was an accessory dwelling unit reform bill.

This is another state law that we have to implement on the same time frame with House Bill 1110, which is to say that it needs to be effective by June 30th, so council action would need to happen by about the end of May.

The intent of the ADU reform bill is to open single-family neighborhoods to a wider range of households by allowing for smaller units, providing options for lower-income household seniors and family members.

There are some required changes that the city will need to make under state law.

Sort of a big requirement of House Bill 1337 is something that the city already does, and that is that the city allow up to two accessory dwelling units per lot.

That is currently the case.

in neighborhood residential zones, you can have both an attached accessory dwelling unit and a detached accessory dwelling unit.

So to implement, so that big change is something that the city already does.

But there are some things that we will need to do, which is to allow up to two detached accessory dwelling units, allow ADUs in all zones to be 1,000 square feet.

So there is a limitation on the size of ADUs in residential small lot zones.

and allow conversion of existing structures into ADUs in all zones.

This is functionally something that we do already, but we need to make some changes to accommodate that as well.

And I'll note that there's legislation in front of the Land Use Committee that would be implementing House Bill 1337.

I see Council Member Rivera and then Council President Nelson.

Thank you, Chair Kittle.

What's the current allowance for the adus?

So we currently allow up to two.

You can have a thousand square feet, largely.

You currently allow a thousand.

So that's not really a change.

It's not.

And there are certain things that we exempt as well, which Because it would be a requirement of state laws.

That's not a big change for us to make as well Some of our multifamily zones we have lower size limits.

I think in the RSL zone there may be a lower size limit for so it's it's Tinkering around the edges more than yeah.

Okay, great.

Thank you Thank you chair.

No problem.

Council President Nelson and then Councilmember Kettle

That might have already answered my question.

I wanted to know on page 20 where it says by allowing for smaller units, I was wondering what is the minimum size already?

So you said 1,000 is the...

Yeah, 1,000 is the maximum currently.

Okay.

But there is no existing floor to the size of unit, is there?

No.

There probably is a building code floor below which you can't go, but there's not a zoning code floor.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth.

Quick question on this, and going back to stereotypes, particularly related to Queen Anne, I do believe in ad-dos and dad-dos.

Oftentimes, people don't think that, related to folks from Queen Anne.

My question is, and this was an issue 10 years ago, and it comes back today in the sense of anti-displacement, in terms of encouraging families to be able to stay in their homes or on their properties, and that goes to, like, the ownership piece, you know, parameter of edu-dadus.

Is there anything specific on that that's either required or maybe encouraged, particularly if it's in an anti-displacement kind of?

No, but there are some things that are prohibited.

They probably go in a different direction than what you're imagining.

So 1337, not there, a bunch of things in 1337 that many of which don't have to do with zoning per se, but may have to do with how ADUs are regulated in other contexts.

One is 1337 prohibits a jurisdiction from requiring that one of the units be owner-occupied.

That's not currently a requirement under city law, and it would be precluded.

Can you say that again?

I'm sorry.

What's that?

The last part, that last...

Yeah, so 1337 precludes jurisdictions from requiring that one of the units, either the principal unit or the accessory unit, be occupied by an owner.

And so that's not actually currently a requirement in the city of Seattle, nor is it one that we could actually implement because of 1337.

So there's no way to, I guess, encourage anti-displacement in terms of encouraging a owner and owner of the property overall, and then one of the three options, either the original property or the ADU or DADU option?

Not through regulatory means.

Yeah, another sort of ownership limitation here that is precluded by 1337 is we can't regulate conversion of ADUs into condominiums.

That's another thing that is proscribed by House Bill 1337. Roger, thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for asking that question, Councilmember Kettle.

I had a similar one about anti-displacement opportunities.

Can you help me better understand?

So another priority of mine is to help make sure more folks can age in place as part of this comp plan process.

So beyond DADUs, what are some strategies in this context, I guess, that could be done to potentially help enable that, making sure more folks could age in place?

And I know that Councilmember Moore asked a question earlier about stack flats.

Wasn't clear if, because I had a similar question around whether that bonus for stack flats could be accomplished on lots smaller than the current amount or 6,000 square feet, for example.

So tackling that last part, The stacked flat bonus was part of the mayor's proposal this past fall.

It goes beyond what is required of the city under House Bill 1110. So it's not likely to be part of the interim legislation, which is going to stick probably pretty closely to what House Bill 1110 requires of us.

But that question can definitely be taken up when we're looking at permanent legislation.

and what the appropriate minimum length size is for a staff-led bonus.

I don't have a great response to the aging in place question.

I think, you know, I brought this slide up because it shows the different types of housing that could be allowed under House Bill 1110, and at least theoretically, these are types of housing that are conducive to sort of aging in place.

A lot of it is ground-related, so you can easily get in and out your front door.

But, you know, whether or not something is actually conducive to aging place depends on design.

But more than anything else, it depends on access to capital, I think.

So if somebody has a piece of property that they could use as capital to, you know, develop something that they could live in, there may be a solution there for them.

But that's not a land use code regulatory solution necessarily.

It's really just kind of a financial security sort of question for people who may benefit from an up zone.

These regulations will allow something that we already see in some of our multifamily zones, which is someone preserving a single-family house and then building multiple units in the backyard.

So that could be applied in other parts in the neighborhood residential zones where it's not currently allowed.

But again, those are costly to build.

Thank you.

So moving on from 1337 to 1293, design review reform.

So House Bill 1293, which we'll also have to implement on the same time frame as House Bill 1110 and House Bill 1337, is design review reform.

The city will have to significantly revise its design review program to comply with this.

It would require the design guidelines be clear and objective.

Applicants must be able to understand sort of whether or not they would meet those design guidelines without having to go in front of a board to get some sort of a determination.

A program can't result in reductions in density, height, bulk, or scale, and there's a limitation on the number of public meetings that can be associated with a design review program.

Our design review program has a lot of different flavors to it.

It can be for bigger projects.

more complex multiple meetings.

We have an administrative and streamlined design review option that may be closer to what House Bill 1293 contemplates.

We could, as early as tomorrow, get a sense about what the mayor may propose to meet House Bill 1293. I think the CEPA threshold determination is due to be published possibly tomorrow or in the upcoming weeks.

The Council may need to put together some kind of a temporary solution for House Bill 1293, and that could include suspending the design review program if there's a SEPA appeal associated with that.

And that legislation would go through the Land Use Committee.

Any questions about design review?

Thank you for clarifying that list.

All these are going into the land use committee, except House Bill 11. I just want y'all to know.

Thank you.

This is...

Just real quick.

Council Member Solomon?

Yes.

Thank you.

You're good.

Gotta wait to be recognized.

So the discussions we've been having about SEPTED, would this have an impact on getting that codified, 1293?

Yeah, so how the city complies with 1293 sort of remains to be seen, but there's an opportunity there when it comes to objective standards to incorporate some SEPTED principles into those design standards.

So that's one place where SEPTED could find an expression in how we regulate multifamily and commercial development.

Great.

Thank you.

And Councilmember Kettle?

Thank you, Chair.

That's a good reminder for my colleague, Councilmember Solomon Septed.

I'll be up front.

I already have an amendment in the works regarding a public safety element, and SEPTED could definitely be part of that amendment and something to look at.

So I will engage central staff, not you two, one of your colleagues, on that amendment and look to add SEPTED to that process there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So if there are no further questions about design review reform, we'll move on here to 1042, our residential conversion bill.

The good news is this is done.

So House Bill 1042 would require the city to allow for the conversion of commercial buildings into residential buildings.

Last winter, the council passed ordinance 127054, which implemented the state requirement, and also, I believe, passed a bill that allows for sales tax exemptions for conversions as well.

So that one's done.

Check that off your list.

5290, permitting requirements.

So these are changes that are largely procedural changes that the city is already complying with.

By this past January, the city needed to come into compliance with new deadlines for permanent review times, which includes 65 days to review projects with no public notice requirement, 100 days to review projects that require public notice but don't have a hearing, and 170 days to review projects that require both notice and a public hearing.

The type of, whether or not notice is required depends in part on the type of decision that's being made by the Seattle, by the SDCI director or planners at SDCI.

There's the potential here for refund of permit fees if the deadlines aren't met, but just so that you and, so that folks are sort of aware of how these days are calculated, it's more or less like a chess clock.

So these are not the entire days of permit review These are the days, essentially, when permit review is in the city's court.

So these are requirements that SDCI is already required to comply with, and we may see some legislation that codifies these requirements later this year.

Any questions about 5290?

All right.

A residential parking bill.

I think there may actually be an error on this slide.

I'll point it out to you here in just a second.

But this is a bill that requires that the city regulate parking in certain ways.

The first note here, removing parking requirements for middle housing within one-half mile of a major transit stop.

That's actually a requirement of House Bill 1110, not of State Bill 6015. But the type of housing that we require, so what it looks like, where it's situated, is limited by State Bill 6015. So let's say we can no longer require garages or carports.

We don't actually currently, as the only way to meet off-street parking requirements.

We have to allow tandem parking, so tandem parking is when one vehicle when there is a single access point to a parking space, but multiple vehicles can park in that parking space.

So think one car behind another.

And then we have to allow certain types of surface material for required parking spaces, including grass and block pavers.

And in order to meet the June 30th deadline for implementing this legislation, it might be wrapped up into the interim legislation because it's not really big enough to have its own bill at this point, given all of our time constraints.

So those are the codes that we have, not codes, those are the state laws that we have to meet And if you have no further questions about those, we'll turn here to the model code, and Lish can describe what that is and how it's going to inform decision-making here.

Before you jump in, Lish, thank you, Kito.

I think Council Member Solomon has a question.

Council Member Solomon?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Just real quick regarding the idea about parking on particular lots.

I believe there's an existing SDCI code regarding how many vehicles can be parked on a property.

Would this be in conflict with that code?

Basically, it's like, I think it's like a junk storage or no more than three vehicles parked on a parcel.

I don't think so, but I would actually need to check.

I can't remember off the top of my head if there are any limitations in 6015 about that.

With most of these laws, there is an exception for things like what you're describing, which is not necessarily parking as much as it is. sort of storing derelict vehicles in the front of a building or something like that.

So I don't think there will be a conflict, but I can confirm that for you.

I think it is regarding more of the storage vehicles, especially inoperative vehicles.

So that's why I just wanted to make sure that this would not interfere with the city's ability to enforce existing code.

Yeah, we will confirm, but I don't think it does.

I think it's called the Sanford and Son code.

Just kidding.

So old reference.

Okay, thank you.

State model code.

Thank you.

So the state legislature in adopting House Bill 1110 mandated that the Department of Commerce put out a model code that will go into effect if the city doesn't adopt its own code in response to House Bill 1110. Next slide.

And on all these slides, the language in bold is directly required by House Bill 1110. Language that's not in bold is not required by House Bill 1110, but it would go into effect in the city if we don't adopt something CL specific.

As we've mentioned, it applies to all lots predominantly zoned for residential use, except for environmentally critical areas.

The city cannot apply stricter requirements to missing middle housing and may require affordable housing through an affordable housing bonus program.

Next slide.

On lots greater than 1,000 square feet, the model code allows four units per lot, six units within a quarter mile major transit stop and six units if two are affordable.

Something that will come up in the council's deliberation on both the ADU bill and the interim legislation is how accessory dwelling units are counted towards these four and six unit limits.

In the state model code, accessory dwelling units are allowed on top of the four or six units.

The state model code would allow all nine missing middle housing types.

It would state that development standards that the city currently has in place apply as long as they're uniform across all building types.

This includes building height, setback, lot coverage, et cetera.

but we would need to adopt legislation to reconcile the model code with our current standards.

Maximum building height limit is 35 feet.

Seattle's current maximum height limit is 30 feet with five foot for a peaked roof.

The number, the floor area ratio, So the amount of floor space within a building under the model code varies depending on the number of units on a lot.

So if you've got six units on a lot, you can have a denser, bigger building than if you only have one unit on a lot.

Setbacks also vary, and lot coverage also varies based on the number of units on a lot.

So this is an example of a three unit lot on our current 5,000 square foot, or three unit project on our current 5,000 square foot lots with 15 foot front and rear yards and 45% maximum lot coverage.

If a project has six units, there's a 55% maximum lot coverage, so bigger.

Projects with more units can cover more of a lot, and the front yard and rear yard shrink.

There are design standards included in the state model code.

The model code says that there should be an administrative design review process to review compliance with these standards.

They require, for example, a pedestrian connection between the street and residential doorways, and that vehicle access be taken from alleys if it's available.

Next one.

There are specific cottage design standards and courtyard apartment standards, and happy to answer questions about them, but they're pretty, And then when it comes to parking, again, consistent with House Bill 1110, no off-street parking would be required within a half mile of a major transit stop.

And in the model code, at least one parking space is required per unit.

On small lots, at least two per unit on lots greater than 6,000 square feet.

And again, our code currently says one parking space per unit in neighborhood residential zones.

Questions about the model code?

I will pause here to look.

Initial comments, I'm excited about House Bill 1110 just because it's the opportunity for missing middle housing.

I know when I have the opportunity to walk my neighborhood and see stuff, you see a lot of people that are trying to figure out how they're aging in place and creating opportunities.

So anyways, I don't see any other hands.

I guess we can jump right into the responses.

Love to see what other cities are doing.

I lied, Council Member Saka.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And with respect to the state model code, on one of the earlier slides, slide 26 to be exact, it mentions that the model code implements HB, this house bill, but also includes zoning requirements outside of the provisions.

What are, that would apply if the city does not act?

What are those provisions that are outside of, or what are those zoning requirements that are outside of the house bill provisions?

So for example,

Under House Bill 1110, it doesn't say anything about minimum building heights, but the model code has a minimum building height of 35 feet.

So the city isn't required to allow buildings that are 35 feet or higher, but if the model code goes into effect, then that will be the minimum height limit in Seattle.

So things that are not in bold on these slides are, on this set of slides, are things that are included in the model code, but not required under House Bill 1110. Thank you.

Other cities.

All right.

So I looked at the 10 largest cities in the state.

One or a couple aren't required yet to implement House Bill 1110. Most of the others are about the same place that Seattle is in terms of right now digging into what they're going to do to implement House Bill 1110. But two cities have adopted regulations in response to the Spokane and Tacoma have regulations that implement House Bill 1110 and go beyond what House Bill 1110 requires.

So jumping to Spokane.

Spokane has gotten rid of its density limit for most residential lots.

So rather than the one unit per lot, four units per lot, Spokane just says, include as many units as you feel is appropriate in your project.

There are also not floor area ratio limits, so buildings can be as big as they want to be as long as they meet the other design standards.

And accessory dwelling units are not counted as separate units.

Spokane allows buildings up to 40 feet.

And next slide.

and has lot coverage limits that vary by zone.

They are higher than the lot coverage limits in the model code, 65% for their residential one zone and 80% for their residential two zone.

They also have 15 foot front and rear yards requirements and three to five feet for side yards.

Spokane does not require parking in its residential areas, prohibits parking within 20 feet of a street, so beyond that front yard area, and limits the amount of front yard space that can be paved.

It has higher lot coverage limits, so beyond the 65 or 80 percent, they can go up to 90 percent in some areas within a half mile of a major transit stop for properties owned by religious organizations and for affordable housing.

Tacoma also, in many ways, goes beyond what the state model code requires.

They include a number of bonuses, and those will play out in the next few slides.

So I thought I would just talk about what gets a bonus in Tacoma.

There are two tiers, projects with at least two affordable units or with 20% of their units being affordable.

or a development retaining an existing building, getting to that aging in place question, are given a tier one bonus, and 100% affordable housing projects get a tier two bonus.

In addition, they have incentives for projects to retain existing trees, to add ADUs, or provide ownership housing.

Next slide.

Their densities go beyond what Seattle would have in most cases if we just allow one unit per or four units per lot.

So they allow one unit per 1,500 square feet up to one unit per 375 square feet for a project in their urban residential zone 3 that are taking advantage of the Tier 2 bonuses.

Next slide.

And they have front and rear yard requirements of 10 to 15 feet, a minimum 25-foot lot width requirement, and minimum lot size requirement of 2,500 square feet.

Height limits in Tacoma are 35 feet with lower heights in the rear yards.

Next slide.

They do require parking as you get into the higher density zones.

The parking requirement goes down.

Access to parking should be from an alley if it exists.

And they have limits on the numbers of driveways per unit.

And they have tree requirements that They call them tree credits.

It's a percentage of the lot that has tree coverage, and credits are determined by the trunk diameter for existing trees and the type of tree species for new trees.

And that is what those two cities are doing.

Any questions?

Oh, I see.

Thank you for that.

It was like super helpful to see what other cities are doing.

I see Council Member Rivera has a question.

Thank you, Chair.

Just quickly on the tree credit, what does that look like?

So, for example, in the UR1 zone there, something equivalent to 30% of the lot should be covered in tree canopy.

but they measure that based on the trunk diameter for an existing tree.

They've got a complex table that, you know, you add up existing trees and new trees that are proposed to be planted, and you need to reach 30% of the lot area, or sort of the equivalent of that.

Is it less of a credit than a requirement?

you are required to have tree credits at these percentage levels.

When I think of credit, I think of giving something.

So this is more of you were required to do this, and you can add up, and at the end.

Yeah.

Yeah.

OK.

Thank you.

Next steps.

Sure.

So as Chair Hollingsworth mentioned, the Council will be considering interim zoning regulations to implement House Bill 1110. We should get a flavor for what that looks like here in the upcoming weeks.

But there are a few formal requirements that go along with any kind of interim regulation or zoning control.

And those requirements are set out in RCW 3670A 390. They can't, any kind of interim control that the city, that the council adopts, the council approves, can only be in effect for up to one year.

The baseline is actually six months.

They can last for up to one year as long as they are accompanied by a program and schedule for putting permanent regulations in place.

That one year period can be extended, but the baseline is six months.

And then the next step above that is one year.

The council has to hold a public hearing on interim zoning regulations.

So there's going to be a public hearing requirement on what the mayor sends down.

I mentioned the last one already.

You have to have a plan.

We have to have a plan for putting permanent regulations in place.

And that plan has to be spelled out if the regulations are going to last for longer than six months.

And if we could pause there, I want to recognize Council Member Rink.

Thank you so much, Chair.

And just to take us back for a moment, looking to the slides on what other cities are doing, I'm really intrigued with Spokane's steps on parking.

It's notable.

And I'm wondering if you can explain some of the underpinning arguments towards having no parking requirements and what some of the rationale that they've provided.

I don't know if you all have taken a look into also how they've justified making those policy decisions.

and do we have a sense of what are kind of the results they're seeking from making those kind of policy changes?

I will need to do more work on parts of those.

The city of Seattle itself has been a leader in terms of removing parking requirements, and so I can tell you what our arguments were in removing parking requirements.

We see that, well, first, there's a large share of renter households who just don't own cars.

Building a parking space costs between 30 and $50,000.

The cost of doing that have to sort of accrue to the costs of the units that are being built.

We have seen that developers are fairly savvy about matching the amount of parking that they're providing to their expected tenants.

So a project that is intended to be leased or sold to high-income households or families will generally have parking and may have parking above what we require.

Projects that are intended to be for lower income or moderate income rental households who are less likely to own cars tend to have fewer parking spaces under our provisions where we don't require parking.

So basically, we are reducing development costs by not requiring parking and encouraging, therefore, the development of housing that's more affordable to a wider range of households.

Thank you for that.

So being able to reduce development costs, of course, knowing that the cost of development these days seems to be growing day by day, it seems like that kind of justification for reducing development costs seems to hopefully be yielding results for Spokane.

Thank you.

All right.

And then, can you just go back?

Yeah.

So in terms of committee, next week, at the end of next week, you should be looking at the executive's proposed interim legislation, or at least presentation on what that will include.

We'll be diving into that legislation in detail April 16. We've got some time set aside on April 30 to discuss key issues that are coming up.

Possible amendments will be on the agenda in early May with public hearing, mid-May, and committee vote needs to happen by May 21st in order to allow the council to vote by May 27th to get it adopted and in effect by June 30th.

It's a tight timeline, but I know we can do it with Kish and Lidl, running point guard.

I'm just trying to be coach.

Council President Nelson.

So what will be the order, well I'm assuming the order, what is the relationship between meeting the deadlines of HB 1110 and then the audio legislation?

So the ADU legislation will be permanent legislation that's going through the Land Use Committee.

First briefing is April 2nd with public hearing in mid-April.

Hopefully having a vote first meeting in May of the Land Use Committee.

So I think it's May 7th or right around there.

And then, so we will know what that legislation looks like.

And it will, in part, form the base for the House Bill 1110 legislation.

And I am certain that we will have some amendments coming to this committee to reconcile the two bills before May 21st.

Got it.

I'm glad to know that they're pretty much sort of on the same timeframe and, um, because it seems like they're both so closely related.

We don't want to preclude, um, actions in one bill based on what we've already done in another.

Yeah.

Thank you.

But, but key decisions about ADUs will be made through that permanent legislation, uh, going through the land use committee.

Got it.

Thank you.

And council member rank, is that an old hand or new hand?

Oh, no, no, you're good.

Just wanted to make sure.

Colleagues, our office also sent out an internal memo regarding timelines and deadlines for central staff regarding amendments.

And just for the record, so the public knows, our amendments have to be posted publicly for 30 days.

Did I say that correctly?

Great, I sound smart.

So they have to be posted for 30 days.

During that time, that's when we'll host in between the 30-day posting where we'll have our public hearing regarding the interim legislation where people can come give public comment about those amendments and then we transition into moving forward with the process so I know it's a tight timeline but I do want to thank the mayor's office for pivoting and creating interim legislation for House Bill 1110 so we can meet the deadline as well I know they've been working hard behind the scenes and also with, I don't know why I say Kish and Ketel.

I mess up the K and the L.

Lish and Ketel, Lish Ketel, Lish Ketel.

That is a podcast, Lish and Ketel.

Anyways, so.

I'm just, I apologize.

So definitely want to thank the mayor's office.

We're moving fast as we can, very quickly.

And the legislation, interim legislation has to go through law.

There's a lot of different steps regarding this, how it gets transmitted to council.

And then once we get it, we're able to then move forward with our amendments, analyzing it, reading it, hearing back from, you know, some of our constituents, our neighbors, all that stuff, so we can put forward really great legislation.

I think with House Bill 1110, we have a really great opportunity where people can be able to age in place, build on their property, create duplexes, triplexes, sixplexes, stack flats, all these really cool opportunities, missing metal, cottages, there's so many great opportunities for missing metal.

Housing, for people to be able to stay But in Seattle, especially I know just personally, you know, I have a lot of my parents have a lot of older friends who are trying to figure out their affordability and trying to figure out how they stay in their home.

And they are excited about this opportunity with House Bill 1110 to be able to do that.

So anyways, really excited about that.

I don't know if we have any more questions on the dais.

I know some of you all say dais, but dais, my mother reminds me constantly.

Dais, no?

Okay, awesome.

Alicia Kittle, thank you.

I said it right?

I'm just playing.

I said it right this time.

Awesome, well thank you, colleagues.

There will be more information coming in the next couple weeks.

Just know our next meeting is gonna be the 28th at 9.30 a.m.

Just a heads up, During that time for the proposed interim legislation, we will be doing written public comments so we can get through the meeting and then we'll reopen the public comment where people can come and do the hybrid public comment, but just so everyone knows, on the 28th, so we can get through the proposed interim legislation, and we can all kind of digest that as a council at 9.30 a.m.

on a Friday, we're only accepting written public comment, and then moving forward, we will be opening it up to public comments.

So just so people know, and they're aware.

Thank you all.

If there's no further business, there's none.

Next meeting is March 29th.

Excuse me.

That would be a Saturday.

I wouldn't drag you all in here.

Friday, March 28th at 9.30.

Seeing none, this concludes our March 19th meeting of the Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan.

It is 3.31.

You all have the great rest of your Wednesday.

Thank you.