Land Use Committee 9/15/2025

All right.

Good morning.

The September 15, 2025 special land use committee meeting will now come to order.

It is 9 32 AM.

I am Mark Solomon, chair of the land use committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Wars.

Present.

Council Member Rink.

Present.

Council Member Rivera.

Chair Solomon.

Here.

Chair, there are four members present.

Great, thank you.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Thank you all for coming to this Monday morning special land use committee meeting.

And always thank you to, gotta thank my clerk.

I mean, come on, best clerk in the world.

Thank you to central staff.

to helping us prepare for this morning.

So just getting right to it, we will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should be related to items on today's agenda and within the purview of this committee.

The committee cannot accept comments on items one and two because they are quasi-judicial discussions or decisions rather.

Clerk, how many speakers do we have signed up today?

We have zero in person and four remotes.

All right, we'll proceed with the remote speakers.

Each person will have two minutes.

Clerk, can you please read the instructions for the speakers?

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

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

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

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

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

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

The public comment period is now open.

We will begin with the first speaker on the list, and that is Holly Golden.

But before that, the speaker proceeds, I just want to reflect for the record that Councilman Rivera has joined us.

So, speaker, please proceed.

Thank you.

Good morning, council members.

I'm Holly Golden, a land use attorney at Hillis, Clark, Martin and Peterson.

I'm speaking about the interim designer view legislation, Council Bill 121048. Part of my job is to help applicants navigate permitting and entitlements, which means I've spent a lot of time interfacing with Seattle's designer view process.

I've seen the program apply to thousands of market rate and affordable housing units, and I don't think there's any other element of the Seattle process that adds more uncertainty, time, and cost to the delivery of housing.

I'm glad the city's taking the time it needs to create a good long-term alternative to the current designer view program, and to come into compliance with state law.

In the interim, I support the proposed designer view legislation before you today.

It will help get more housing built faster, which I think is the appropriate lens for evaluating all new land use policy.

I also wanna speak in support of Councilmember Solomon's amendments.

Amendment number one gives pipeline and future projects otherwise subject to the full designer view process, the option of going through administrative designer view or ADR.

This is a fairly technical change.

ADR is still a two-step process with the same standards for public comment, departures, and design review guidelines, but this change would allow an applicant to work through this process with their assigned land use planner instead of through the volunteer boards.

This will save time around scheduling and reduce some of the inherent uncertainty in the process.

It's also more consistent with the state law mandate because full design review requires at least two public meetings, and the state law says you can't have more than one.

At its core, this amendment will potentially streamline the process and hopefully get more housing built faster.

In closing, I urge your support of the interim design review legislation and the amendment.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Sarah Clark.

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

My name is Sarah Clark, and I'm speaking today on behalf of the more than 2,500 members of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce in support of Council Bill 121047. We would like to thank Chair Solomon for sponsoring this bill and thank the City's Office of Economic Development for a quick response to stakeholder feedback and partnership with chair solomon to find a policy solution with this legislation that will reduce costs for small businesses accelerate new retail opportunities and support seattle's economic recovery this legislation will help city and business community address some of the current and most pressing challenges we face like high vacancy rates that continue to rise and dwindling retail investments throughout the city which are both very much evident in the downtown core.

We are encouraged by the city's commitment to reducing time consuming regulatory barriers and appreciate this positive step forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Next up, we have Hannah Kibritz.

good morning my name is hannah kibbers i'm the economic development manager at the u district partnership the program manager of the u district bia and an advocate for the small business community and overall health of our neighborhood my comments pertain to agenda item 4 council bill 121047 over the past several years our team has helped distribute a five million dollar grant from the washington state department of commerce to support businesses with equipment upgrades and storefront improvements This funding has been an incredible resource, allowing many owner-operated businesses to bring their vision to life.

However, in the process of distributing these funds, we saw firsthand how existing permitting requirements, especially subalteration triggers, delayed projects, and place disproportionate burdens on small businesses.

In many cases, even modest interior or exterior renovation for one tenant space could trigger costly building-wide requirements that would stall improvement.

Another challenge arises when businesses attempt to leave vacant spaces Current sub-alteration rules often impose overwhelming costs on new tenants, discourage them from moving in and leaving storefronts empty even longer.

These vacancies not only limit opportunities for entrepreneurs, but also create ripple effects that impact the vitality of the entire neighborhood.

Small businesses are already navigating raising costs of materials, labor, and operations.

When layered with onerous permitting rules, many are left unable to renovate, forced to close, or deterred from expanding into available spaces.

The results is a cycle of vacancies that undermines the health or commercial districts.

By adopting the changes proposed in this legislation, the Council would meaningfully reduce barriers, support small businesses and help ensure our neighborhoods continue to adapt and thrive.

On behalf of the U District Partnership, I want to thank OED and the many champions of Council Bill 121047 and thank you for your time and consideration.

Next, we have Bobby Nickel.

Good afternoon, committee members.

My name is Bobby Nickel.

I am the public affairs manager for Visit Seattle, the nonprofit tourism organization which helped bring 40 million people and $8.8 billion in economic impact to our region last year.

One of the best parts of our job is introducing visitors to the small businesses which make Seattle, Seattle.

The care and creativity that small business owners put into their spaces all over town reflect our broader values as a community.

Sending someone who's never been here before into a shop where they can see the owner's personal story and their attention to detail and feel safe and comfortable and welcome.

It's an incredible way to introduce a newcomer to our city.

Seattleites resourcefulness and ability to best use space is legendary and it's something that should be boosted, not stifled.

Unfortunately, our current permitting structure prevents small business owners from making even basic upgrades still, and in some cases, it prevents them from opening.

This is a loss for our city as we endeavor to activate vacant storefronts, pursue economic equity, and put our collective best foot forward during the FIFA World Cup that is now just nine months away as of today.

Accountable 121047 offers logical solutions that urge you to move forward so our small businesses get every possible chance to thrive next summer and always.

I wanna say thank you to SBCI and OED for exploring this opportunity along with council and a big thank you to the BIAs representing small business owners who may not have bandwidth to advocate for themselves, especially while battling permitting headwinds.

Thank you so much for your time.

Chair, that concludes comments.

Thank you very much.

That was our last registered speaker.

The public comment period is closed.

We'll now move on to our first two items of business.

Will the clerk please read items one and two into the record.

Item one, CF 314534, application of Scott Carver, contract reason of a site located at 352 Roy Street from Seattle, mixed uptown with a 65-foot height limit.

Mandatory housing affordability overlay, SMU B65M to Seattle, mixed uptown.

with an 85-foot height limit and mandatory housing affordability overlay, SMUP 85M, project number 3041336-LU type 4, agenda item 2, council bill 121074, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending chapter 23.32 of the SMC at page 100, consistent with what I just said for agenda item 1.

Okay, great.

The clerk has read items one and two into the record.

The committee will discuss these items together, yet vote on each separately.

I see our representative from central staff has joined us.

So please introduce yourself when you're ready and begin.

Thank you, H.P.

Harper, central staff.

So as mentioned, this is a contract reason for two different items on the agenda, clerk file and the council bill.

I have the slides from last time in case they're helpful here.

But as you may recall, this is a contract reason, which is a quasi judicial decision, which means that the council decisions must be made on the record established by the hearing examiner.

This is a rezone of a site in the uptown neighborhood from Seattle mixed uptown 65 foot height with a mandatory housing affordability suffix of M to Seattle mixed uptown with an 85 foot height and continuing that mandatory housing affordability suffix of M.

So the site currently has several older structures and a parking lot.

The structures are, I believe, restaurants for the most part.

And the proposed project is an eight-story, 215 mixed-use projects with apartment and retail and is proposing to meet mandatory housing affordability requirements via performance.

So in other words, building those units.

So the hearing examiner and SDCI both recommended approval with conditions and those conditions are related to ensuring that the project looks the way that it's been presented thus far and also ensuring that that mandatory housing affordability requirement is carried through.

So you'll see those conditions also reflected in the property use and development agreement and the findings and conclusions document that we've prepared.

So if the committee approves the rezone, we'll be doing some tidying up of the clerk file.

And then the bill which was introduced last week would be, we would have the signed property use and development agreement attached to that bill for the full council vote.

So we don't have that signature yet, but we anticipate getting it shortly.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions for our presenter from the committee?

Vice Chair Strauss.

Chair, thank you.

I had all of my questions answered at the last committee meeting.

I'm feeling comfortable to vote.

Thank you, Chair.

All right.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Any other questions, comments?

All right.

We will now consider each item separately, starting with the clerk file.

I move the committee recommend clerk file 314534 be granted.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to grant the clerk file.

Committee will now consider adding the findings, conclusions, and decisions of the council as presented in the central staff memo.

Okay.

All right.

I move the clerk file to add the findings, conclusions, and decisions.

Is there a second on that?

Second.

Great.

All right, that has been moved and seconded.

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment?

Vice Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Roars?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Solomon?

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

All right.

The most curious and the finest conclusions of the decisions of the council have been included in the record.

Are there any final comments on granting the clerk file as conditioned?

Yes.

All right.

Will the clerk please call roll on the recommendation to grant the clerk file.

Vice Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Royce?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Solomon?

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

Okay.

Motion carries in the committee recommendation that the clerk file be granted as condition will be sent to the full council.

All right.

We will now consider the related bill.

I move that the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 121074. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

It has been moved and seconded.

Any final comments?

All right, will the clerk please call the roll on recommendation to pass Council Bill 121074. Vice Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Royce.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Chair Salmon.

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

All right, the motion carries and the committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 121074 will be sent to the September 23rd City Council meeting, dependent on when we receive the signed PUD8 from the developer.

Right.

Thank you.

Now let's move on to our third item of business.

Clerk, will you please read item three into the agenda?

Agenda item three, Council Bill 121045, in order to land use and zoning, updating timelines for city review and land use permits, amending sections 2376005 and 2376010 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and amending resolution 31602 to update the city council rules for quasi-judicial proceedings.

Okay, great.

I see our representative of central staff has joined us.

Please introduce yourself for the record and begin when you are ready.

Liz Schwitzen, Council Central Staff.

As you may remember, this is a bill that updates the city's time periods for processing land use permits based on requirements under state law.

Generally, the state requires that permits that do not require public notice or a public hearing be processed within 65 days.

Permits that require public notice but not a public hearing be considered within a decision published within 100 days, and permits that require both a public notice and a public hearing be considered within 170 days.

You have an amendment?

Yes.

Do you want to move that before I discuss it, or should I...?

Okay, well, let me...

I will move the amendment.

I move that the committee recommends...

Wait, don't I need to move the bill before the amendment?

Okay, cool.

So...

I move that the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 121045. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

I move to amend Council Bill 121045 as presented on Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Is there a second for, is there a second?

Second.

Okay, that has been moved and seconded.

I want to acknowledge the Council President.

Nelson has joined the panel, so if you can speak to the amendment, please.

So this amendment makes some revisions throughout the bill.

So it's presented as a substitute to the bill.

To clarify some of the provisions, respond in more detail to the way that SDCI processes our permits.

and to bring in some of the provisions of the state regulations that weren't in the bill as originally drafted.

In particular, it clarifies that if there are multiple land use permits for a project, the longest time period applies, allows additional time for permits that include public notice requirements or waivers from development standards, Provides additional time for design review, State Environmental Policy Act determinations, major phase development permits, and special exception permit decisions, which typically have more public process and so require more time to process.

Provides clarity around suspensions of permit reviews when requested by an applicant.

states that when an application has been significantly altered by the applicant, the permit clocks, restarts.

It exempts some of the biggest, most complicated types of permits, SDCI reviews, such as shoreline exceptions, which require state approval, variances, and conditional uses from the time periods in the bill.

Clarifies that payment of fees is a required component of a complete master use permit.

And finally, sets a 60-day effective date for the legislation.

Great.

Thank you.

Council President Nelson.

Thank you very much for recognizing me and allowing me to speak to this bill, which I appreciate you having in your committee.

And just to say a few things about the bill in general and then the amendment, if that's possible.

Okay.

So basically, to repeat a little bit of what I said last time, we hear time and time again that permitting problems, they slow housing construction, inhibit economic growth, and just increase hassle in building any kind of project.

And whether or not you're a homeowner or a developer trying to get them up for a multi-family housing project, invariably people encounter delays.

And these delays can jeopardize the financing of projects because banks want to know when they're gonna get the return on their investment.

And this bill is a long time coming.

The state of Washington passed three separate permitting related bills since 2023 and this first bill before the committee today will bring the city into alignment with those laws by adopting a default permit review timeline schedule that's set in the RCW for project permits, and also updates the city council rules for quasi-judicial actions to be better in line with actual practices.

And it's really the timelines that people can expect their project, permit reviews that really, really, really makes a difference.

And so I completely accept and see as friendly amendments the changes that SDCI is identifying.

They got to it when we were off on recess and I welcome the improvement to this baseline legislation.

So thank you very much for carrying forward this amendment and most importantly having in your committee a solution to a problem that is jeopardizing housing construction and also slowing economic growth.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Council President.

I recall when I first joined this body, I was asked, you know, what's the one thing you want to accomplish in your time?

And permit reform is on the top of that list.

This amendment was drafted in coordination with SDCI, Council President's office, to ensure permit timelines set forth under this legislation, create achievable stretch goals.

Here, the intent is to create timelines that make meaningful impacts in expediting the permitting process while ensuring SDCI is still able to achieve the timelines it set forth.

I want to thank David Van Skaik, Christina Postlewaite, Lish Woodson, and Eric Nielsen for their hard work in drafting this important amendment.

I also want to thank Council President Nelson for bringing forward this crucial legislation that will help ensure Seattle delivers critical development and especially housing.

more rapidly as City Council works to address Seattle's diverse housing and development needs.

Are there any final questions before we vote on the adoption of Amendment 1?

Clerk, please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Ruiz.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Chair Salmon.

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero, opposed.

Okay, the motion carries on Amendment 1 is adopted.

Are there any final comments regarding the recommendation to pass Council Bill 121045 as amended?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to pass Council Bill 121045.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Councilman Rewards.

Aye.

Councilman Rink.

Yes.

Councilman Rivera.

Aye.

Chair Solomon.

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

Okay.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 121045 will be sent to the City Council.

To send this bill to tomorrow's City Council meeting, the rules need to be suspended because the vote occurred after the Thursday 1 p.m.

deadline.

If there is no objection, rules will be suspended to allow Council Bill 121045 to be sent to tomorrow's September 16th Council meeting.

Chair.

not submitting a formal objection at the moment.

We're trying to understand.

Monday morning, 9.30 committee, we've got to be asked to send this to Tuesday, tomorrow's committee.

I know I'm not going to be there because I'll be at the tribal summit.

I know a number of others won't.

Is there a reason that we need to go tomorrow and not next week?

The primary reason is basically the calendar with everything that we have coming up, with budget coming up.

and wanting to get this done, we wanted to expedite the vote.

My preference would be to take the standard week, but I'm not going to submit a formal objection today.

OK, understood.

So there is no formal objection to suspending the rules.

Hearing none, the rules are suspended to allow Council Bill 121045 to be sent to tomorrow's September 16th City Council meeting.

Great.

Thank you.

We'll now move on to our fourth item of business.

Will the clerk please read item four into the agenda.

Agenda item four, Council Bill 121047, an ordinance relating to Seattle's construction codes limiting the areas for which substantial alterations are required to spaces or buildings greater than 7,000 square feet in gross area amending existing substantial alteration requirements and amending section 311 of the Seattle existing building code adopted by ordinance 127108. All right.

And I see your clerk is still with us.

We know you, but introduce yourself anyway and start.

Lischwitz and Council Central staff.

You heard about this bill at your last meeting.

It updates the Seattle existing building code related to substantial alterations.

Substantial alterations require upgrades when significant work is being performed on a building.

when a change of occupancy results in a more hazardous occupancy, and when the building has been vacant for more than two years.

Uh, this amendment, um, would exempt spaces that are less than 7,000 square feet and, and spaces that have been vacant for two years, uh, from the requirements of substantial alteration to get a substantial alteration permit.

Other permits would still be required.

Um, happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

Uh, do any of the members of the committee have any questions for our presenter on this legislation?

Hearing none, I move that the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 121047. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

Are there any final comments?

All right, will the clerk please?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Council President Nelson.

Again, a thank you to you, Chair, for bringing this forward.

This whole permitting reform effort started in a discussion in my committee with architects who identified the systematic ongoing and most pernicious problems or obstacles with permitting in general.

And so the bill that we just passed or you just passed on timelines and this one that really addresses some problems with definitions and criteria for substantial alterations are two of the many recommendations that were put forward, including simply just bringing the service desk back in, you know, every day of the week so that people can actually ask questions of human beings and get answers to some problems with permits.

So there's a lot more to be done, is my point, on permitting, but these two are big first steps toward getting there.

And I thank you very much for prioritizing these because I know that you've been talking about this forever as well.

So thank you.

Thank you very much, Council President.

Again, permit reform, top of the list.

Okay.

Any other final comments?

Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 121047. Pressure or stress?

Yes.

Council Member Rice?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Salmon?

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

All right, the motion carries, and the committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 121047 will be sent to the full council.

Now, to send this bill to tomorrow's city council meeting, the rules would need to be suspended because the vote occurred after Thursday 1 p.m.

deadline.

Just as with the previous matter that we voted upon, again, looking to suspend the rules to...

get this across the finish line before we get into budget.

So if there are no objections, the rules will be suspended to allow the vote to occur for this bill to be presented at tomorrow's September 16th City Council meeting.

All right.

Hearing no objections, the rules are suspended to allow Council Bill 121047 to be sent to tomorrow's September 16th City Council meeting.

Thank you very much, everyone.

Now, we will now move on to the fifth item of business.

Will the clerk please read item five into the agenda?

Agenda item five, Constable 121048 in order to enter into land use and zoning adopting temporary regulations exempt housing projects that meet mandatory housing affordability requirements using onsite performance units from design review and allowing permit applicants for all housing subject to the full design review, the option of complying with design review presented to administrative design review temporarily suspending and allowing voluntary design review of proposed development in titles 23 and 25 of the sale municipal code consistent with chapter 33 sorry, 333 laws of 2023 and amending section 2341-004 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Great.

And I see our representative from Central Staff has joined us.

For the record, introduce and begin.

H.B. Harper, Central Staff.

As you may recall from last meeting, the interim design review bill is related to House Bill 1293, which was passed by the state legislature in 2023, requiring cities to have design review programs that meet certain standards.

And those standards are to have objective design guidelines and to have no more than one public meeting in the process.

So my understanding from the executive department is that SDCI is working on permanent regulations to meet these requirements.

However, in the interim, they're proposing six-month temporary regulations that make all design review optional.

And when I say all, I'm referring to the three levels of design review that exist in code today, streamlined design review, administrative design review, and full design review.

So this legislation makes those entirely optional for applicants and also extends temporary regulations related to whether if a project is meeting mandatory housing affordability or is a low income project, that design review is also optional.

And so that was already the case and this legislation will extend that exemption.

So we are anticipating permanent changes to the design review process in spring of next year, both process and guidelines.

And in the meantime, the interim legislation is before the council.

I'm happy to answer questions on it, as well as speak to amendments once those have been put up for discussion.

Mr. Chair, do you have a quick question?

Yes, Congressman Juarez.

Thank you.

I just have a quick question on looking at the summary and fiscal note.

Only because I haven't been here, on House Bill 1293, when they say using objective rather than subjective guidelines, I can't recall if you actually have in the law where it would say use subjective.

So what changed it to using objective rather than subjective?

I'm not understanding the analysis.

So I think I understand the question, but if I don't, then please restate.

So currently there are many design guidelines that would be difficult for a developer or builder to know whether or not they are meeting that guideline.

And so the legislature, and there's also been court decisions on this, say that it needs to be predictable.

The word is ascertainable.

That's what the word has appeared as ascertainable.

So they need to know whether or not they're meeting a design guideline simply by being able to read it.

So an example would be, you know, if a facade is required to look harmonious, that would be a subjective design guideline.

But if a facade is required to modulate by at least 10 feet every 40 feet, that's something they know whether or not they're doing, right?

So the difference between objective and subjective became important for the predictability of the design process in, I think, the drafters of that bill for the state legislature.

Does that answer the question?

Yes, and thank you.

You restated it much better than me.

I was just thinking, I can't.

I was like, what?

I didn't know we were, well, I guess we were doing it subjectively before.

I think there's a range, and I think it's quite difficult to really craft very objective design guidelines that aren't so prescriptive that they become mere regulations, right?

So design guidelines, there's a bit of an art to that science.

So on the subjective piece, though, was that encouraging any lawsuits?

If they were using subjective guidelines against the developer and saying, you know,

Right, I think that's the risk, right, is that if a developer says, I believe I'm meeting this design guideline and this city is denying my permit, you know, and yet, you know, I believe my design is harmonious, how does that end up getting legislated?

So I think situations like that have caused the state legislature to pass this law.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for being here, HB.

I just want to clarify that, if I'm hearing correctly, The state passed, made some changes, and we need to align with those changes.

In the interim, since that is taking a little bit of time, not to suggest the department is taking too long, but they're working on it.

So in the interim, we're passing this temporarily to bridge the gap until we get the permanent legislation.

But basically, it all aligns with state requirements.

Right, right.

So changing the design guidelines is a pretty big project.

So the design guidelines themselves, in addition to the process, that work, I know there's been a lot of several years already of good work being put into that.

They had actually begun that before the legislature passed this law.

And then now they're working to make sure that it all is going to align with the state law and they need more time to be able to do that.

And so this puts in what the state is requiring as temporary until we finalize the permanent.

I would not say that this puts in what the state is requiring.

What this does is make all design review optional so that we are not violating the law that says design review must only have one meeting because currently our full design review process has two meetings.

So we're not changing the full design review process right now as part of the interim legislation.

We're simply making all design review optional.

What is the state requiring?

What's the permanent?

The state, so the law that was passed is actually quite short.

So it simply says no design review process may contain more than one meeting as an example for the two meeting piece, right?

No standards may be subjective, they must be objective.

So currently our process has subjective standards and it has more than one meeting.

The interim legislation doesn't remove subjective standards and it doesn't require only one meeting.

It simply makes the whole program optional as, you know, I would say a bit of a band-aid to get us through this interim period.

why don't we just do the one meeting remove the subject, you know.

Well, that requires the time to kind of put in to make the improvements to the program.

I think that my perception is that the executive department had already put a lot of time into revamping the design review process and, you know, didn't want to produce a version that didn't meet all of the stakeholder expectation related to making sure that the design review program was working as intended, which, you know, is a much broader goal than what the state sort of put into the law there.

Does that help?

That does help, and this is just for MHA projects.

No, this is for all projects that would be subject to design review.

Because in the legislation details, it talks about MHA.

Yeah, so there are two sections of the legislation, E and F.

E is related to existing exemptions for MHA and for low-income housing.

F then applies to all projects and says all projects that shall be optional.

Got it.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you, Chair.

All right.

Thank you.

Mr. Slaus, did you have a question or comment?

No, I'm fine.

Thank you.

All right.

Okay.

Let's see.

All right.

I move that the committee recommend passage.

Oh, did you?

No.

Okay.

I recommend the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 121048. Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, you had one more?

I'm sorry.

Chair, one last question.

HB, when is the permanent legislation expected to come before Council that SCCI is working on?

My understanding is spring 2026. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay.

With that, I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 121048. Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

Okay, it has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

I now move to amend Council Bill 121048 consistent with the language provided in Amendment 1. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, that has been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented in Amendment 1. HB, can you speak to the amendment?

Sure, so amendment one would allow all applicants to utilize administrative design reviews.

So I wanna touch briefly on the three levels of design review again so you understand the impact of this amendment.

So streamlined design review is kind of the lowest level.

Administrative design review at the moment would be what's applicable to smaller apartment projects and it involves written public comment and early design guidance meeting with just staff and then no involvement of design review boards and no in-person public comment.

And so that makes for potentially a more streamlined process for projects.

The full design review process, which would be for larger projects, mixed use projects in urban centers, that kind of thing, that involves, as I mentioned, two public meetings.

So the early design guidance meeting, instead of just being with staff, would also involve the public.

And there's also a final recommendation meeting on the part of again, with the designer view boards.

And so then there's a designer view board recommendation that goes again to the director for decision.

So those are the levels that exist today.

And this amendment would allow projects that would utilize full designer view.

And again, all designer view is optional.

So this is only if a project chooses to go through designer view.

which presumably they would do for a variety of reasons, one of which may be to request a departure.

So the only way to get a departure is through going through designer view.

If we set aside the mandatory housing affordability and low income exemptions, any other project can only receive a departure from development standards such as floor area ratio, setbacks, that kind of thing, through designer view.

So even though designer view is made optional, this is one probably very clear reason that folks would choose to go through it.

So for those folks choosing to go through designer view who would be meeting the thresholds for full designer view, this amendment allows them to go through administrative designer view, providing a quicker pathway with less public input.

All right.

Any questions from colleagues?

That's it.

Yes, just a quick question.

Yes.

Councilman Morris.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I don't know your first name.

HB.

Oh, it's just HB?

Yeah.

Okay.

Kind of like Cher.

Yeah.

So on the amendment, okay, let me just ask you this.

I'll just be straightforward because I'm a little bit still getting my feet under me on all the land use stuff.

So the full design review, large projects, two public meetings.

The administrative design review, small projects, zero.

No public meetings.

Okay, and then the EDG is just staff, and that makes sense.

Right.

So where is the most, is it in the full design review with the two public meetings?

Is that where we hear the most concern, obviously, from the public?

I mean, of course we're going to hear, but I'm just trying to get a sense of, I can see how you're trying to streamline it, particularly with the amendments.

Is that where we hear, well, that's at public.

So I'm guessing, do we hear anything before that on the administrative side of the public or concerns from developers or people who obviously know this is going on and is that noted?

So written public comment is accepted throughout.

So that's always going to be the case.

And so folks have the ability to express concerns throughout.

I would say if you're asking about concerns related to the timeliness, then I would say full design review likely has the most timeliness impact because of that design review board participation.

All of these processes take time, but processes that have more public input and more public meetings and involve voluntary boards are going to take more time.

Does that answer the question?

Yep, it does.

Thank you.

Yes, Councilman Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, HB, for that.

Just piggybacking on that, then, it's administrative.

So if they're trying to get more, in my mind, it's more, they would have to go through full design review.

It's an option, but if you're trying to get these certain things, then you have to go through full design review as it stands without this amendment.

This amendment with the administrative though, doesn't provide for public hearing, a public hearing.

Is that the main difference?

I mean, you can do public comment if you know about it, but there isn't this hearing requirement for these subset of projects that have more.

It's not officially a hearing, but right, there's two public meetings with in-person public comment and design review board participation that is a part of full design review board, sorry, full design review process.

The administrative design review process has no in-person public comment opportunities and does not include the participation of the design review boards.

That's the main distinction.

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate...

I struggle with, yes, we need to have faster design review, and then I want to make sure folks have the opportunity for those sub-certain projects, set of projects that have more and are asking for more in their projects.

So I think I'm not going to vote for this amendment for those reasons.

I just want to make sure folks have an opportunity, like the design review board, to weigh in for those subset of projects, but I appreciate you bringing this forward because I know that we're all struggling to how to make design review faster so projects get done faster.

Thank you very much for your remarks, Councilmember Rivera.

As we heard from HB, this amendment will help ensure pipeline projects have clear methods to obtain necessary departures through the administrative design review process consistent with state law.

Departures are important as they help projects better respond to the unique characteristics of their surrounding neighborhood and community.

This amendment would help provide for those provisions.

Any further comments on Amendment 1?

All right.

Council Member Strauss.

Council Vice Chair Strauss.

Titles are not a thing.

Vice Chair's roll is just a second, so everyone quit doing my job.

I only got one job here today.

Sorry.

Just to say that I think that this is a good amendment, Chair.

I think that this helps strengthen the bill in really important ways, so happy to support it today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

One job.

Will the clerk please call roll on the adoption of Amendment 1?

Vice Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Rice?

Yes.

Council Member Brink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

No.

Chair Solomon?

Aye.

Chair, there are four votes in favor and one opposed.

All right, the motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

I now move that to amend Council Bill 121048 consistent with the language provided in Amendment 2.

Second.

Okay, it has been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented in Amendment 2. HB, please walk us through it.

This is a technical correction related to the section 2341-004-E.

So we have temporary provisions that are established in this legislation, but there is a section that is not touched by this legislation that will not be subject to the six-month interim deadline, and that is related to an existing exemption for downtown.

And so legal flagged this as an issue because originally as drafted, there was a statement that the provisions of the entirety of subsection E, 2341-004E, shall be in effect for six months from the effective date.

But this failed to account for the fact that there is an E3 already related to downtown that has its own timeline.

So instead, we've simply moved the six-month effective date to be after 2341, 004, E1, and 2. So you see it in two different places now instead of one so that we make sure to only apply the six-month interim deadline to those portions of the law that are being amended by this ordinance and to leave other sections of the chapter intact without creating any confusion related to timelines.

I hope that's helpful.

It is a minor change that's not substantial if that helps to explain it because I know it's a little complicated.

Thanks.

Thank you, HB.

HB noted this member provides technical fixes to the legislation to provide clarity surrounding the effective sunset dates.

With that, are there any comments on Amendment 2?

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 2.

Vice Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Royce?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Solomon?

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

All right.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

And I actually want to speak to both of these amendments.

Design Review provides an important role in Seattle's development process, ensuring developments better adhere to existing surrounding development provides necessary benefits to our community and provides a path for development to seek departures.

These departures when approved by SDCI will allow to better respond to the community needs by modifying typical design standards.

The legislation before us provides interim design review rules for the next six months as our city works on permanent design review legislation that will ensure Seattle complies with new state law and responds to the needs of our city.

Amendment 1 would provide administrative design review path for all projects during the interim period, allowing projects to attain departures within design review public meeting consistent with state requirements.

Amendment 2 provides some technical clarity regarding the sunset date for certain projects in downtown zones.

All right.

With that, will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to pass, well, before I go there, any final comments on this legislation from the committee?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 121048?

Vice Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Royce?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Solomon?

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 121048 as amended will be sent to the September 23rd City Council meeting.

We have reached the end of our agenda, folks.

Is there any further business come before this committee before we adjourn?

Hearing no further business come before the committee.

We are adjourned.

It is 1021 AM.

Thank you very much, everyone.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

Thank you for being here.