SPEAKER_17
Okay, good afternoon, everyone.
The September 18th, 2024 Land Use Committee meeting will come to order.
It's 2.04 p.m.
I'm Tammy Morales, chair of the committee.
Will the clerk please call the roll?
SPEAKER_14
Council Member Moore.
Council Member Rivera.
Present.
Council Member Bu.
Present.
Vice Chair Strauss.
Present.
Chair Strauss.
SPEAKER_10
Present.
SPEAKER_14
Chair Morales.
Present.
For president.
SPEAKER_17
Okay, thank you very much.
Council Member Moore is excused.
SPEAKER_99
Thank you.
SPEAKER_17
I'm getting a message to turn on the Zoom panel, everyone, please.
Okay, we have five items on the agenda today.
Council Bill 120833, Briefing, Discussion and Public Hearing on the Living Building Amendment.
Council Bill 120822, Briefing, Discussion and Possible Vote on Congregate Residences.
Council Bill 120823, briefing, discussion, and possible vote on omnibus legislation.
Council Bill 120824, a briefing, discussion, and possible vote on design review exemptions.
And Council Bill 120832, a briefing, discussion, and possible vote on construction code updates.
If there is no objection, today's agenda will be adopted.
Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.
Okay, so we will start with the, are we starting with public comment or the hearing?
Okay, we'll start with a hybrid public comment period.
Comments should relate to items on today's agenda and within purview of the committee.
If you're here for Council Bill 120833, the living building amendments, you're welcome to offer comment now, but if you want your comment part of the public hearing, then we'll ask you to wait until we open the public hearing in just a few moments.
Okay, Naomi, how many folks do we have signed up today?
SPEAKER_14
We have 14 in person and seven online.
SPEAKER_17
Okay, let's go ahead and give everybody one minute, just because we have a very long agenda today.
And I will ask you to go ahead and read the rules.
SPEAKER_14
Speakers will be called on in the order which they registered.
We will start with in-person speakers and switch to remote speakers.
Speakers will hear a chime of 10 seconds.
Will hear a chime in 10 seconds or left other time.
With that, the first public speaker is Steve Zimpke followed by Megan Cruz.
SPEAKER_16
Good morning, Council.
My name is Steve Zemke.
I'm speaking for TREPAC and Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest.
I want to note that there is no recording of the September 4th afternoon public hearing on the agenda page that posts this agenda by the City Council, so I would urge that you put the recording up for public record.
I'm disappointed that the council has chosen not to amend the omnibus bill to address conflicts in the bill, like allowing developers to have the final say in the ability to remove or retain tier two trees by adding language saying basic tree protection area cannot be modified.
When the definition itself says it can, SMC 2511060 says it can, and so does the Pacific Northwest and International Society of Aboricultures.
Tree protection needs, ordinance needs review and I urge you to do this as a priority next year to address problems.
Also consider creating a department of climate and environment independent from SDCAI to remove conflicts.
Climate and trees need their own.
SPEAKER_14
People speaking for them, thank you.
Up next we have Megan Cruz followed by Tom Ames.
SPEAKER_35
Ready?
Good afternoon.
Megan Cruz asking you to not ban design review downtown for three years and standardize unconditional zoning departures for height, bulk, and scale.
In effect, every building design will be negotiable and public accountability zero.
New statewide law requires a one meeting streamlined design review.
That fixes things, but this bill just throws everything out.
It denies 100,000 people participation in a neighborhood development program available to the rest of Seattle and the state.
the council hasn't gotten answers to big questions like will the public continue to see project plans and documents and follow permitting decisions online what happened to last year's design review exemption pilot for projects including affordable housing without public benefit why should market rate projects be exempt is there an amendment to prevent projects in or past design review from walking away and receive unchallenged waivers This bill was written for those who don't want to be bothered with zoning code or public input.
SPEAKER_14
We ask our elected leaders to step up and re- Up next we have Tom Eanes, followed by Tom Graf.
SPEAKER_06
Would you like to wait to the public hearing?
Let me defer to the public hearing on 120833.
SPEAKER_14
Okay.
Up next we have Tom Graf, unless you would like to wait to the public hearing.
SPEAKER_27
Good afternoon, I'm Tom Graf and I'm speaking on behalf of support for Council Bill 120833 and I'd just like to speak now.
I will say as a resident of Belltown, I want more density.
This developer who got turned down by the hearing examiner went and permitted a building according to our zoning code, according to what the Seattle Department of Construction inspections would allow for the 40-foot bonus, and we need to make this correction to allow this building to proceed.
We do need three-bedroom apartments in downtown.
I have a neighbor who has got one small child and a baby on his way.
They own a small business downtown.
He works at Amazon.
They're going to move unless we get more...
desperate lead in Belltown, and I would appreciate you passing this bill.
SPEAKER_14
Up next, we have AP Heard, followed by Julia Babeout.
SPEAKER_18
Thank you.
I'm AP Hurd, and I'm a consultant on housing policy and an author of The Carbon Efficient City.
I'm advocating for additional cost analysis work on the energy code that looks at the energy code recommendations that go beyond the state code.
We would need to understand more about the cost to multifamily housing of implementing these city changes.
I understand SDCI has never measured the cost of their proposals, only the performance.
We've also been told by those who oversee the energy code that they think the cost is negligible.
At the same time, nonprofit housing providers and market rate developers estimate that the cost per unit of the differences in the city code in 2018 were $25,000 to $45,000 a unit, which translates to over $200 in monthly rent.
In a world where housing providers are struggling to meet demand and 43% of market rate renters are cost burdened, in a city that centers equity, we have a duty of care to understand
SPEAKER_17
Thank you.
Your time is up.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_14
Up next, we have Julia Babout, followed by Sandy Shetler.
SPEAKER_11
We caution against doing away with design review or replacing it with technical design review without adequately addressing how community voices can be heard.
This was the primary and often repeated recommendation of the city's design review stakeholder report released earlier this year.
Furthermore, the report found that the primary driver of long permitting processes was not design review, but the complexity of the project and lack of adequate SDCI staffing.
I am a core downtown resident at Third and Pike, a building design professional for 25 plus years, and an urban placemaker for 10. Design review is currently the only means by which I and the other 10,000 core downtown residents like me can comment on significant projects that will impact our neighborhoods for decades, if not centuries, due to the unique size of materials used on these projects.
The permanence of these new buildings in the downtown core behooves us to be more careful and intentional about these projects and more provide.
SPEAKER_14
Next, we have sandy shut layer followed by john quest.
SPEAKER_01
Hi, yes, I'm Sandy Shetler with Tree Action Seattle.
Today you'll vote on the omnibus.
While practical, it's a missed opportunity to revise the tree ordinance.
The bill adds the sentence, all trees may be removed when development is proposed in 36 zones.
One is residential small lot, which has its own special protection on page 17. If it were part of neighborhood residential, as SDCI claims, why even have page 17?
This map shows RSL zones are nearly all in frontline communities, South Park, Othello, Beacon Hill, and Lake City.
SDCI tells us that RSL zones get separate but equal tree protection.
Just as generations past were deeply harmed by that phrase, it is to mask how our tree policies hurt vulnerable communities the most.
I'm helping, oh sorry, I'll tell you later.
SPEAKER_14
Next we have John Quest followed by Johnny Han.
Unless you want to wait for public hearing, John?
SPEAKER_34
Yes, I am here to state my disagreement with passing 120833. While we do need more housing and more density and green, I do not agree with bypassing the checks and balances in the system that this bill would require.
having public review and discussion on all of these should be allowed and it should not just be able or a developer should not be able to go above codes that have been publicly reviewed before.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_14
Up next we have Johnny Han followed by David Glogger.
SPEAKER_32
Hi, my name is Johnny Hahn.
I've been a street performer at the Pike Place Public Market for 38 years.
As a member of the market community, I strongly endorse the letter from the Pike Place Market constituency opposing CB 120824. It is shocking to me that anyone in Seattle government in our predominantly democratic, progressive, liberal city would even consider such an ordinance.
It is mind-blowingly undemocratic and constitutes an insult of staggering proportions to the collective civic consciousness of the people of the city.
The first thought that came to my mind when I learned about this proposal was that it sounded like it came directly from the playbook of Donald Trump and Republicans in general who want to privatize everything and eliminate public oversight and participation in the workings of government.
Over the past several decades, it's not like existing design review protocols have gotten in the way of developers and city hall plans to build like crazy at the expense of those of us with modest incomes.
This proposal would send the already existing unrelenting building paradigm into hyperdrive.
Vote no on CV.
SPEAKER_14
Next we have David Glogger followed by Alex Zimmerman.
SPEAKER_31
Good afternoon.
My name is Dave Kloger and I live in District 5. As you've heard, Seattle's tree protection ordinance allows for the removal of all trees on residential small lots.
I would like to show you what that looks like in South Seattle.
I have two pictures here.
One of majestic Douglas fir and here a whole grove of trees on the edge of the property.
Both of them are on an environmentally critical area steep slope.
and they're going to be cut down.
All of them are slated to be cut down.
In actuality, 38 trees will be cut down, as stated in this public tree notice.
And so who's going to protect the houses that are below these ECAs now that the trees are gone?
But I'd like to highlight a few of these trees in this STCI public tree notice.
There's a bigleaf maple 25 inches in diameter.
There's a bigleaf maple 22 inches.
topped off with a western red cedar of 56 inches in diameter.
Do you know how many decades it took for that to grow?
A lot longer than any of us have been on this planet.
SPEAKER_14
Thank you.
Next we have Alex Zimmerman followed by Steve Rubistello.
SPEAKER_07
Yeah, bandit and killer.
My name Alex Zimmerman.
Ma'am, I respect you, but we have right now agenda that is pure business agenda.
And people who here pretend be a business people, yeah, like me, for example.
So one minute is not enough.
It's not surprise me, you know what I mean, because...
When you don't listen to people, something will be changed.
Nothing.
People is a key to everything.
But you right now ignore these people.
And I see this almost in every meeting, this one minute.
So it's by definition absurd.
Why you give people one minute?
This idiot accept this one minute because they are boring like a degenerative.
They idiot.
I cannot accept this.
I'm civilized man.
I post to be held by my constitutional right.
I respect you, but you need something doing for the people, by the people.
You understand?
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER_08
I really wish you'd spend some time on things that people are interested in and not just making very rich developers even richer.
I don't think of anything this year that this committee has handled which is in the general population's interest.
MHA fees, which we all hear you want to have more below market housing.
Well, we have some of the lowest in the world, let alone in the country.
And we can't get that even reviewed to take a look at whether that should be done.
We have a tree preservation ordinance, which is actually a tree disposal ordinance.
You take a look at development and the city recommends usually removal of trees seems to be almost a standard part of the document.
think a little bit about the people who live in the city, and that's not to mention, because I don't have time, design review, which you have gutted and almost completely removed.
SPEAKER_14
Next we have Kayden Cook followed by Lily Hayward.
SPEAKER_04
Hello, Council.
I spoke about Council Bill 120824. I wanted to just reiterate now that it's up for a vote that it's an essential piece of legislation that can be used to combat our housing shortage and crisis.
This bill represents an opportunity to build more housing efficiently by cutting costly red tape.
I know how ridiculous some of these design review project delays can be.
They cause delays or cancellations of projects.
It's really up to Seattle to be a leader on these policies at a national level and make sure that housing is affordable for people of all incomes.
While this bill doesn't go far enough, it is a step in the right direction.
So please pass this bill.
I also just wanted to state that I support the living buildings legislation.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_14
Our final in-person speaker is Lily Hayward.
SPEAKER_33
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair Morales and Land Use Committee members.
My name is Lily Hayward, speaking on behalf of the more than 2,500 members of the Seattle Metro Chamber of Commerce in support of Council Bills 120824 and 120833. The Chamber's semiannual polling of the index has shown that housing affordability is a top priority for Seattle voters, and they overwhelmingly support the building of a wider variety of housing in their own neighborhoods.
Voters also recognize the importance of a thriving downtown, and just this past April, 89% said that it is critical to our region's recovery.
The Seattle business community shares these priorities and advocates for more housing of all kinds across the city so that more people can afford to live and raise families close to where they work.
CB 120833 will ensure that downtown projects can continue to use the three-bedroom and living pilot program incentives and build more family-sized units in our downtown neighborhood.
Additionally, CB 120824 will address the stringent, costly, and lengthy design review processes that discourage development and lead to greater costs for renters and homeowners down the line.
Thank you and please pass.
SPEAKER_14
Switching to online speakers.
First, we have Alex Rasmussen.
Please press star six, Alex.
SPEAKER_17
Can you press star six to unmute?
Okay, let's move on to the next one.
SPEAKER_14
Next, we have Nadine Toole.
Please press star six to unmute yourself, Nadine.
SPEAKER_17
Nadine, we saw you.
There we go.
Go ahead, please.
We have lost a caller.
Hi.
SPEAKER_21
This is Nadine Toll.
SPEAKER_17
Please go ahead.
SPEAKER_21
Can I start?
Thank you.
DD120833 is being presented as a non-project action with little significance.
This is a misrepresentation.
It seems designed to slip it under actual consideration.
Passing this bill removes the key part of DMR zoning, impacting not only 2616 Western, but 24 other Belltown lots that are under 19,000 square feet.
No environmental or sunlight impact studies have been done.
The proposed 200-foot building at 2616 Western is the result of cumulative height increases.
There is a Belltown case study already existing that achieves living building pilot goals without violating zoning.
This bill significantly changes existing Belltown zoning.
Make no mistake, zoning changes, which I fully support, should come through a transparent process that benefits everyone and considers affordable housing.
We've upzoned Belltown, and we can do it again.
SPEAKER_14
Thank you.
Going back to Alex Rasmussen.
Please press star six to unmute yourself, Alex.
Okay, moving on to the final online speaker, Sanders Lotry.
Please press star six to unmute yourself, Sanders.
SPEAKER_03
Hi, my name is Sandra Latour and I live in South Lake Union.
I urge this committee to vote to pass the council bill 120824. Full design review delays projects and adds extraordinary costs to them.
Those costs get passed on to the people living and working in the furnished building.
New construction under this bill would still have to conform to code and would still have to be approved by the SDCI director.
This bill will streamline the road to construction and will let more housing be built in the city sooner rather than having unnecessary delays.
As a current young renter in the city, my housing costs are impacted by the supply of housing in the city.
Young renters help grow the city and design review has hampered those efforts.
Vote to pass the bill.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_14
Going back to Alex Rasmussen one more time.
Please press star six to unmute yourself, Alex.
Okay, you can also send in your comments via email.
That is all the speakers we have remotely or in person.
SPEAKER_10
Thank you, Clerk.
Vice Chair Strauss here stepping in for Chair Morales for just a moment.
Seeing as we have no further public comment, speakers physically or remotely present for public comment, we'll now close the public comment period and I'll pass the agenda back to the Chair.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you very much.
Okay, so public comment is closed.
Naomi, will you please read item one into the record?
SPEAKER_14
Agenda item one, council bill 120833, living building pilot for briefing discussion and public hearing.
SPEAKER_17
Okay, thank you very much.
So as we mentioned at the last committee meeting, the Living Building Pilot Program is intended to promote the public interest by encouraging development of innovative living buildings that reduce environmental impacts, test new technologies, and serve as a model for development throughout the region and the country.
This particular legislation clarifies that projects in the pilot program can use height bonuses, to exceed 145 feet in height, regardless of lot size, in the downtown mixed residential zone.
We were briefed at the last Land Use Committee meeting, and we do have David VanSkyke with SDCI and Asha Venkatraman with Council Central staff to provide a reminder, if Council members, committee members would like a reminder.
But this is a public hearing, and as I mentioned last time, we will be voting on this bill in December, on December 4th.
SPEAKER_10
Would you like to have staff come up to answer questions?
Maybe I could repeat back what I think it is, and if I get it wrong, then you all can correct me, which is that we have two types of bonuses that can be used in the Belltown zone, and because we did not include the correct whereas clauses within the original ordinance, SDCI has had trouble interpreting whether they are able to be added on top of each other or if they're just separate.
I believe that it was the council's intent that they were additive, but now there is an appeal on a building, which is why we're not voting on it.
SPEAKER_17
That's right.
SPEAKER_10
Thumbs up from the team.
All right.
Don't need a briefing.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_17
Very well, then we will open the public hearing on Council Bill 120833. Naomi, I know we did have a few other folks speak to this already.
Do we have anybody else?
Yes.
Yes, okay, please come on up.
SPEAKER_14
Seven in person and five online.
Great, okay.
So we'll start with the in-person speakers, starting with Tom Ines.
SPEAKER_06
My name is Tom Eanes.
I am a retired architect, former member of the Seattle Planning Commission, and a longtime resident of Belltown.
I'm a member of the Belltown Disability Coalition, although I do not live near the project that the BLC opposes at 2616 Western.
The zoning in Belltown is unique to Seattle.
DCI staff do not often understand how that zoning is intended to work and has worked to preserve access to light air and open space in our neighborhood.
Once again, DCI has failed to do its homework and hides behind the DNS for this building, which is only technically a non, this bill, which is only technically a non-project action.
One project is affected.
I have sent this analysis Please don't let this happen.
Please don't let this happen in our neighborhood again.
SPEAKER_14
Our next public speaker is Kirk Kozlowski, followed by Alex Zimmerman.
SPEAKER_12
Hello, council members.
My name is Kurt Kozlowski and I'm a partner at Saratoga Capital.
We are two families that have owned and managed workforce housing in Seattle since 1980. We are developing the 181 multi unit multifamily site at 2616 Western Avenue in Belltown.
This is a long term family hold for us and we are committed to downtown Seattle.
OUR VISION FOR THIS PROJECT IS TO CREATE AS MUCH AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING AS POSSIBLE INSIDE A DEEPLY SUSTAINABLE LIVING BUILDING.
THE APPROVED DESIGN INCLUDES EITHER 13 ON-SITE MHA UNITS OR A $2.5 MILLION MHA FEE AS WELL AS THE 10 THREE-BEDROOM FAMILY-SIZED UNITS.
SDCI'S CODE AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU TODAY CLARIFIES THAT THE THREE-BEDROOM AND LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE used for a project like ours, ensuring these can be used to build this project and by other multifamily builders throughout downtown in the future.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_14
Next we have Alex Zimmerman followed by Ian Morrison.
Next we have Alex Zimmerman followed by Ian Morrison.
SPEAKER_07
I want to speak about this rules what is how.
I like this rules, you know what is mean.
Another two, three floor, it's very good.
Question only what is can happen with people 50% who low income, for example.
We're talking about couple hundred thousand people.
Is this rule good for them?
Exactly not.
This rule good for...
Make a money corporation, exactly.
So where is us portion?
You give them bonus, where is us bonus?
Nothing, you take money from us.
When they build another three floor, price go up in this three floor.
So this when three floor build big price up, every price in Seattle go up.
So where is bonus for poor people like me, citizen, low income?
In another couple hundred thousand dollars.
So make little bit portion, give 10% from this top level corporation to us.
SPEAKER_14
Next we have Ian Morrison followed by Stevie Bustello.
SPEAKER_28
Thank you chair and members of the committee.
Ian Morrison here speaking on behalf of the living building and three bedroom bonus bill.
We ask the council to pass this as soon as possible.
As the chair mentioned, this is always about being able to implement the living building bonus and the three bedroom bonus called for where you provide 10 three bedroom family style units in downtown.
STCI's intent was always for, as we understand it, for these to be able to be stacked.
The Design Review Board of downtown reviewed this over four meetings and approved the design with these incentives.
This project will not only provide $2.5 million in MHA fees, but it will provide 10 three-bedroom units and 42 two-bedroom units.
And we believe, consistent with the comprehensive plan, which has always called for promoting projects with larger unit size in high-density areas like downtown, areas that are also, as OPCD recognizes, low displacement areas and transit-rich zones.
This is not simply about one project.
It's about clarifying for all of Belltown, 25-plus lots, that they could take advantage of these incentives to build sustainable three-bedroom family-style living.
We believe that's the right solution.
SPEAKER_14
and ask for the council to pass it.
Thank you.
Switching to online speakers.
First, we have Steve Horvath followed by Alex Rasmussen.
SPEAKER_29
Yes, good afternoon.
Steve Horvath here.
I'm a resident of Belltown and downtown.
I would like to note I've been on the line the whole time and I would have appreciated my one minute to comment earlier, which I was not afforded and would ask the Chair to consider providing me that minute to comment on the prior bill.
With regard to 120833, I would simply ask that the Council thank you for not taking a vote on this today.
I would ask that you not take any actions that directly relate to decisions of the hearing examiner or any specific project.
We elect you to create governance for the city.
We do not elect you to become the judge, jury, and executioner related to specific building projects.
And so I think it's very wise of you to delay making any decisions that would have an impact on those existing projects, which may or may not have been considered under this bill.
And thank you very much for the time.
SPEAKER_14
Up next, we have Bill Stantucki, followed by Brittany Brost.
SPEAKER_25
Good afternoon.
I urge you to reject this bill 120833 as this bill benefits large developers at the community's expense, cutting sunlight, ignoring sustainability, and fails to address affordable housing.
It negatively impacts solar access and environmental sustainability.
It sets a precedent for future development, ignores community and environmental concerns, and is inconsistent with stated housing goals.
If taller buildings are needed, zoning changes should come through a transparent process that benefits everyone, starting with affordable housing, not luxury unit.
So please stand with Belltown residents and uphold the DMR zoning that equitably balances density and livability.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_14
Next we have Brittany Brost followed by Ruth Diener.
Please press start.
SPEAKER_22
Hello, Council.
My name is Brittany.
I'm a renter in Belltown, and I urge you to approve CV 120833. I know there's a lot of discussion about housing.
We need more housing.
We need more housing for families with children.
I live in a building in Belltown as a renter where the largest floor plan is a two-bedroom.
There are families in there that have two and three children all stuck in a second bedroom or one child living in a family room.
Approving this bill does have some drawbacks, but it's better than cramming families into small apartments or making them move way outside the city.
When we do that, we wind up in a situation with our schools currently have.
Please consider this bill for approval to the full council.
Thank you for your time today.
SPEAKER_14
Next, we have Ruth Daner, and that's our final speaker online.
Please press star six to unmute yourself, Ruth.
SPEAKER_17
Ruth, can you push star six, please?
OK, do we have any other speakers online, Naomi?
SPEAKER_14
That is the final speaker online or in person.
SPEAKER_17
OK.
Ruth, if you want to email your comments, we will be happy to take them and include them.
Thank you very much.
OK, if there are no other speakers.
SPEAKER_08
I believe I was on bottom there.
Some names crossed off above mine.
And maybe somebody got mine.
But there were several crossed off.
Okay, go forward.
Yeah, you don't have your time up there yet, so I figured you.
Okay.
Again, we have a problem in the city.
You feel that boldnesses should be doubled up, even though when you win with a hearing exam, Obviously the paperwork did not back that up because winning with the hearing examiner is not a simple process.
I can guarantee you that.
But the public was promised when MHA was passed that it would be 50-50 approximately of people taking it and people having units spread in the community of diverse incomes.
Well, well, well.
We have never had the time in this committee to review, and I can guarantee you in the north end and probably in the rest of the city, at the bargain prices MHA is, you're not seeing in your community units of diverse income.
In other words, below market cost.
Please do something.
SPEAKER_14
That is the final speaker in person and remotely present.
SPEAKER_17
Okay, let me just make sure nobody else is here to speak about 120833 from the public hearing.
Okay, the public hearing is now closed and we will move on to the next agenda item.
Naomi, will you please read item two into the record?
SPEAKER_14
Item two, council bill 120822, the congregate residences for briefing discussion and possible vote.
SPEAKER_17
Okay, we're joined by Liz Schwitzen from our Council Central staff and Jeff Wendland from OPCD.
And they will provide a brief reminder about this bill.
We have heard all of these bills at least once, but I wanted to make sure that staff is available in case the committee has questions.
So I will hand it to you to give a brief reminder about these bills and then if there are any final questions before we vote, we can take them then.
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, Lischwitz and Council Central staff, as you probably remember, this bill aligns the city's regulations with requirements for co-living housing, or as it's called in Seattle's Land Use Code, congregate housing, residences.
And Jeff, do you want to add anything else?
SPEAKER_26
I don't have a presentation.
We briefed the committee on September 4th, and I'm happy to just be a resource here for you today if you have any questions.
SPEAKER_17
Okay, Council Member Schaafs.
SPEAKER_10
Thank you, and Jeff, I want to apologize for the last meeting.
I was on STCIGIS, but I was looking at the wrong street.
So I had quoted you the zoning on 24th, not on 15th.
I think that might have tripped you up a little bit.
My apologies.
Did want to just ask both you and Lish, can you give a brief overview of how this bill changes what we have today as compared to where we're going in the future?
SPEAKER_26
Yeah, I'll take a cut at that.
SPEAKER_10
And Jeff, if you could pull the microphone close.
SPEAKER_26
Yep.
So this bill would essentially allow for the congregate residence housing type, which is where you have sleeping rooms that are independently rented and lockable with shared kitchen facilities in the building.
So that type of a building would be allowed in more zones across the city.
And that's required by the state legislation that was passed last year.
So currently the city of Seattle already allows that housing type in many zones, the neighborhood commercial three zones and zones that are equal or more than that in intensity.
So this bill would just allow for that congregate residence housing type in all of the city's multifamily zones.
SPEAKER_02
And in addition, it amends bicycle parking requirements to align with the state's requirement that one sleeping room count as, four sleeping rooms counts as one residence, and removes requirements from the land use code related to shared facilities for congregate residences.
SPEAKER_17
And that's also required by state law, some of the changes, right?
So just as a reminder, this is implementing a state law requirement.
And we have the ability to increase more smaller units, but housing at a lower price point for the many people that we know need access to that kind of housing.
Council Member Rivera.
SPEAKER_15
Thank you, Chair.
Just to reiterate, we actually can't go less than the state, so we really do need to pass this bill in order to be in compliance with state law, correct?
That's right.
Correct.
Correct.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_17
Okay.
Well, not seeing any further discussion then.
Naomi, will you please call the roll on Council Bill 120822?
SPEAKER_14
Council Member Rivera?
Aye.
Council Member Wu?
Yes.
Vice Chair Strauss?
SPEAKER_10
Yes.
SPEAKER_14
Chair Morales?
Yes.
Four in favor.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you.
The bill passes and it will be sent to the September 24th City Council meeting for a final vote.
Okay, will you read the next item into the record, please?
SPEAKER_14
Agenda item three, Council Bill 120823, omnibus for briefing discussion and possible vote.
SPEAKER_17
Great, okay, so will the SDCI folks please come on up?
So this is, periodically we update the land use code.
It's an important part of the regulatory process to make sure that we are, Correcting any errors in drafting, any omissions that were left out inadvertently and make sure that city policy is clear.
So we've got, are you here alone?
SPEAKER_99
Yes, I am.
SPEAKER_17
Okay, please go ahead and introduce yourself.
SPEAKER_30
Yeah, I'm Travis Saunders, SDCI in the land use policy and technical team.
SPEAKER_17
Okay.
Do you have a presentation?
Do you want to just go through quickly?
SPEAKER_30
And if there are questions from the council, we can...
Presented last session.
I don't have a presentation pulled up at the moment, but I can certainly give an overview or answer any questions that you may have.
SPEAKER_17
Okay.
While my colleagues are contemplating if they have questions, I do want to, we do have a couple of amendments here.
But before we discuss the amendments, I do want to address a concern that I know we've heard from a lot of folks regarding the tree code.
So there are no changes regarding tree protection that are being proposed to the RSL zones.
Existing tree regulations already apply to those codes in the neighborhood residential zone.
So the intent is to provide clarity of use and implementation of those requirements.
The proposed footnote that is in the bill is intended to clarify that tree protection requirements don't apply in zones that aren't specifically listed, which include neighborhood residential, low-rise, mid-rise, commercial, and Seattle mixed.
And I do want to also acknowledge that when we were having this conversation last year, I know I and maybe a couple of other folks did say that after we pass the code, we would revisit to see if there are any other changes that were needed.
And I will say that I do plan to do this.
The code has been in effect for less than a year.
So I do think we need to allow time.
for the tree code to be in effect so that we can determine what's working and what's not working.
And I will also say that next year we will have the comprehensive plan discussion.
That's another opportunity to make sure that we're increasing tree protections while we continue to assess the effectiveness of the tree code.
I sit on the PSRC Growth Management Policy Board.
We've received a lot of great recommendations on how we can maintain and increase our tree canopy while not impeding on developing the housing that we all know we so desperately need.
For example, they recommend we implement measurable objective goals and allow for flexibility in development standards to protect trees.
So we will have the opportunity to review best practices in other cities and to really talk about what that might look like.
So I just want to reiterate that this particular legislation does not change how the code is administered.
It just provides some clarity.
And we'll have an opportunity next year to talk about that.
Okay, that being said, I do have a couple of amendments to this.
So I'm gonna go ahead and move those amendments and ask Lish to address them.
So I move amendment one regarding single family and cottage basement floor area exemption conditions.
Thank you.
Okay, Lish, can I ask you to give a brief overview of this?
SPEAKER_02
Yeah.
If it's okay, I'll pull up the amendatory language.
Good question.
SPEAKER_15
Chair, sorry, just a technical point.
I thought we had to move the entire bill first before we could move the amendment.
I just don't have issues on the back end.
You are correct.
SPEAKER_17
Yes.
Okay.
I am going to move Council Bill 120823. Is there a second?
Second.
Second.
Thank you very much.
It's been moved and seconded.
And just to cover all our bases, I will also now move Amendment 1. Is there a second?
SPEAKER_09
Second.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you very much.
It's been moved and seconded.
Now, Lish, can I ask you to please discuss this amendment?
Sure.
SPEAKER_02
The bill includes a provision that extends incentives that we currently have in the land use code in our multifamily zones for projects that have daylight basements or where the basement extends above the street level or the site grade by four feet.
Those spaces in apartments, townhouses, and row houses are currently exempt from our floor area ratio limits.
The bill as proposed would extend that provision to all residential structures.
The question that this amendment asks is whether or not for single family and cottage housing projects in our multifamily zones, should the development standards they apply to row houses and townhouses apply or should the development standards for apartments apply?
For row house and townhouse development, we require parking to be behind or beneath a building.
For apartments, we do not have that requirement in order to access the floor area ratio waiver.
The amendment would add single family and cottage housing projects to the list along with row houses and townhouses where parking needs to be behind or beneath a building.
SPEAKER_17
Okay, thank you very much.
So really the intent here is to have the same, similarly to townhouses and row houses as presented in the omnibus bill to create better streetscape throughout the city regardless of the particular housing type that is being developed.
Colleagues, are there any questions about This amendment?
Council Member Strauss?
SPEAKER_10
Chair, I had a pretty in-depth briefing with Lish on this.
I have no further questions at this time.
Okay.
SPEAKER_17
I am just checking to see if Council Member Wu's hand is raised.
Any questions?
Okay.
I, too, spoke with Lish, Chair, so thank you.
SPEAKER_15
Okay.
SPEAKER_17
I don't have further questions.
Okay.
Thank you very much, Lish.
If there are no further comments, will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment 1?
SPEAKER_14
Council Member Rivera?
SPEAKER_17
No.
SPEAKER_14
Council Member Wu?
SPEAKER_17
Abstain.
SPEAKER_14
Vice Chair Strauss?
SPEAKER_17
Yes.
SPEAKER_14
Chair Morales?
SPEAKER_17
Yes.
SPEAKER_14
Two in favor, one against, and one abstention.
SPEAKER_17
Okay, the motion carries, and the amendment will be adopted.
Okay, I'm going to move on to Amendment 2. I move to adopt Amendment 2. Is there a second?
SPEAKER_10
Second.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you, it's been moved and seconded to adopt amendment two.
Will you please address this amendment?
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, this relates to size limits on grocery stores in the neighborhood commercial one and neighborhood commercial two zones.
The proposed bill would allow grocery stores to have additional space for back of house uses, such as offices, storage, loading docks, et cetera.
And this amendment would remove that additional space leniency that would be provided by the bill.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you.
So this amendment, as Lish said, essentially counts back of the house towards the total size limit for groceries.
The intent here is really to simplify the code.
And I will say that there are projects that this may have applied to, but this is really meant to apply prospectively.
to projects moving forward, and that projects that are already vested would not be impacted by this.
So that's the intent, and it really is just about trying to make sure that we are simplifying and not adding particular carve-outs and language to a particular development.
Colleagues, are there any questions?
Council Member Strauss.
SPEAKER_10
Chair, I understand this to be the need that grocery stores are increasing the back of house space from when the code was originally written, just whether it's health concerns or additional restrooms, et cetera, the code.
The interesting thing about the code is that up here at the dais, we decided that developers need to do more things, but then we don't necessarily change the floor area ratio or the allowances there.
I'm inclined to take the bill as transmitted on this one.
I appreciate what you're saying because I think that that's good stewardship of the land use committee, but I'm inclined to allow back of house to be exempt.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_15
Thank you, Chair.
I actually agree with my colleague, Council Member Strauss.
I think that there are uses I have heard of to expand back of the house, even to allow for more space for employees even to, you know, locker rooms and things of that nature.
So I think that is in the best interest to allow for use of that extra space.
as we've been requiring more to Council Member Strauss's point.
So I would not support this amendment and just allow the bill to stand as is.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_17
Okay, I appreciate that.
And I will say part of the intent here is as we are, as a former food systems planner, I think it's really important that we make sure that we have grocery stores in as many different parts of our community as possible in different sizes.
So what I was really trying to avoid is trying to avoid having really large-scale format stores in smaller commercial areas.
So I did speak with Lish and with a few other folks who were worried about this.
I will say that I am not at all trying to prevent additional floor area ratio, additional stories so that we can get as much housing as possible into as many neighborhoods as possible, particularly to support the idea of neighborhood centers and more housing close to services.
So I certainly understand.
I think I will withdraw this amendment because I know that there are, I'm a little conflicted, I will say myself.
So just to be perfectly candid.
So I am withdrawing amendment two.
SPEAKER_10
And chair, I'll just say, I appreciate the conversation and I appreciate, this has actually been quite good.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_17
Any further comments on the omnibus legislation?
Okay.
Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on Council Bill 120823?
SPEAKER_14
Council Member Rivera?
Aye.
Council Member Wu?
Abstain.
Vice Chair Strauss?
Yes.
Chair Morales?
Yes.
Three in favor, one abstention.
SPEAKER_17
Okay, the bill passes and will be sent to full council on September 24th for a final vote.
Thank you very much.
Let's move on to agenda item four.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_14
Agenda item four, council bill 120824, design review exemptions for briefing discussion and possible vote.
SPEAKER_17
Okay, thank you very much.
Okay, this legislation amends the land use code for an interim period of three years to exempt new development proposals from the design review process if they consist of housing, hotels, or research and development facilities.
We do have Ketil Freeman from Central Staff and Gordon Clowers from STCI to provide a quick summary to answer any questions of the committee.
Thank you both for being here.
I'll open it up to you if you have things you want to review.
SPEAKER_05
Sure.
SPEAKER_17
Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff.
SPEAKER_05
Gordon Clowers, SCCI.
I don't have much to add to the chair's description.
This bill would exempt hotel, residential, and research and development laboratory projects in the downtown, South Lake Union, and uptown urban centers and parts of the First Hill Capital Urban Center and the Manufacturing Industrial Center from design review for an interim period.
Projects that are eligible for the exemption could avail themselves of some of the same benefits that come from design review, including favorable vesting and the ability to get waivers and modifications from development standards.
Unlike full design review, those waivers and modification decisions would be made by the STCI director as a type one decision, which is an administrative, non-appealable decision using the criterion that the waiver would provide additional lodging rooms, residential units, or floor area research and development space.
There are a couple of amendments proposed by Councilmember Morales.
SPEAKER_17
Okay.
I move adoption of Council Bill 120824. Is there a second?
SPEAKER_15
Second.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you.
It's been moved and seconded.
Colleagues, any comments or issues before we move to amendments?
SPEAKER_15
Chair, I'll just say broadly that I recognize that this is a bill that is supported and I believe was maybe even initiated by the mayor as part of the downtown activation plan that he's put together to really try to revitalize downtown, something that I've been on the record as very much having an interest in.
For those reasons, really post-COVID especially, we are trying to revitalize downtown.
And I think this is a good tool.
And I will also note that this particular...
design review exemption is for a limited period of time of three years.
So it is not meant to be ongoing.
And I think that also bears another significant piece to daylight as part of the conversation for this particular bill.
And so I am supportive of the bill as it is.
Okay.
SPEAKER_17
Great.
Okay, well, as Kittle said, I do have a couple of amendments to this, so I'm going to go ahead and move them.
I move Amendment 1. Is there a second?
Second.
Thank you.
It's been moved and seconded.
Kittle, can you please review Amendment 1?
Let me share my screen here.
SPEAKER_05
And we are on Council Bill 120824, Amendment 1, sponsored by Council Member Morales.
Shall I just grab the amendment?
Sure.
Sure.
So the committee has, the council has, in recent years, looked at a couple of additional, a couple of other exemptions from design review.
One was exemptions for low-income housing projects.
Another was exemptions available for projects that choose to perform under the mandatory housing affordability program.
Performance, of course, is when units are provided on-site as opposed to paying an in-lieu fee.
For both of those exemptions, the council did not extend favorable vesting provisions that were available under design and through the design review process and then in design review of project vests at early design guidance application provided that they make, which is sort of a pre-permit application phase of design review provided that they apply for a permit within a certain period of time.
So the amendment proposed by Council Member Morales would maintain current vesting provisions applicable to all other projects that are subject to design review and for those types of projects and project vests, which means it's sort of essentially locks in the regulations that apply to that project as of the date that it vests.
So projects that are not subject to design review vest at when a full building permit application is submitted to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, or if a building permit is not required and just a master use permit is required, a master use permit decision, which is typically at the end of a permit review process.
And for type one projects, because some of these projects would only be subject to Type 1 land use approval when that Type 1 decision is ready for issuance.
So that's also at the end of the process.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you, Kido.
So, yes, basically we're just trying to make sure that the vesting process for design review exempted projects are standardized across the board, similar to projects...
for exempting low-income housing, for example.
So are there any questions or comments, Councilmember Strauss?
SPEAKER_10
Chair, I actually appreciated the difference between the two pilot programs.
And one of the reasons that I appreciated the difference is because each of these pilot programs are limited in schedule for a time-limited duration.
And I was just meeting with an architect who had finally caught on to the affordable housing exemption and has just now started getting into those projects, even though we had passed that a year ago.
Sometimes it takes a minute for projects to come online and become developed and get to paper.
As we continue to review the design review program, because it needs to be improved, it needs to have fixes, I think it is helpful for us to have a bit of a differentiation between these pilot programs so that we can see what's working, what's not.
I don't necessarily personally need to have them all standardized.
I find that slight differences could actually be helpful in the long run.
Thank you, Chair.
SPEAKER_15
Council Member Rivera.
Thank you, Chair.
Given the short-term applicability of this particular pilot, I don't feel like it needs to be, though I appreciate your bringing this forward.
I don't think it needs to be standardized to the ongoing pilot that we have.
And to Council Member Strauss' point, we can look at moving, and we, I think, will be, moving forward, we'll be looking at a design review in general and permitting and all of these processes.
So at the moment, though I appreciate you bringing this forward, I will not be supportive of this amendment for those reasons.
Thank you.
Okay.
SPEAKER_17
We will...
Any further comments on this then?
Okay, all right.
I'm gonna go ahead and take a vote on this then.
Naomi, will you please call the roll on amendment?
What am I on?
One.
SPEAKER_14
Council Member Rivera?
No.
Council Member Wu?
No.
Vice Chair Strauss?
No.
Chair Morales?
Yes.
One in favor, three against.
SPEAKER_17
The motion fails, and we will move on.
I move to adopt Amendment 2. Is there a second?
Second.
It's been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 2. This is basically a reporting requirement on exemption outcomes, but I will ask Ketel to go ahead and describe the amendments.
SPEAKER_05
Okay, so Amendment 2, also sponsored by Council Member Morales, would add a new section to the bill, Section 8, and that section would request that STCI both provide a report to the Council and publish on its webpage a report by May 31, 2025, so at the beginning of next summer, and that report would include a map showing the location of projects that have utilized the exemption and identify for each project the waivers or modifications sought by the applicant, the waivers or modifications granted by STCI, any public comment provided to STCI, and the amount of additional floor area in the project that resulted from the waivers or modifications.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you.
So, colleagues, what I'm really trying to do here is to get an understanding, especially as folks have said, we are going to be moving into a broader conversation about design review, you know, so that the public is able to know which projects received departures.
Since this legislation exempts projects from design review, this information wouldn't be public.
available to the public anymore.
So we're just trying to make sure that that still gets or becomes available so that folks can see what kind of projects are being exempt, what kind of departures are being requested, And the amendment would ensure that SDCI publicly publishes which departures are granted.
It's really about just trying to increase transparency about what changes are being made to our processes.
So that's the intent.
Are there questions?
Council Member Rivera.
SPEAKER_15
Thank you, Chair.
I do have a question.
So I'm always in favor of reporting and getting data and information to help inform what we the decisions that we make up here.
So I appreciate you bringing this on reporting.
I do have a question.
Early summer of 2020, there's a three-year program, pilot program.
Summer of 2025 is less than a year from today because it's early summer.
So I wonder if chair would, and I actually procedurally don't know how this works, but if chair would consider extending the timeline a bit because that doesn't seem like a sufficient amount of time for reporting, but I support the amendment if we were to give more time.
SPEAKER_17
Yeah.
Ketel, can you talk a little bit about the challenge that we have with the timeline?
SPEAKER_05
So that date was selected in part because of when the date by which the city will likely need to have legislation effective to pass and grow substitute House Bill 1293. And that is the new state law that requires that the city modify its design review program So if the Council wants information from this proposed exemption to inform what that, how changes to design review may look by the date that we're required to make those changes, we would have to have that information by about at least a month before we're required to make those changes, which would be about the end of June in 2025.
SPEAKER_15
Are those changes ongoing changes, Ketel?
SPEAKER_05
Those would be ongoing changes, yes.
SPEAKER_15
The challenge is if we don't leave enough time to actually get information that's helpful to help us make the decisions, I don't see how...
I mean, we're kind of in a weird spot.
Sure.
I understand the need to get the information to help inform, but if it's not sufficient...
time, we won't have good information to help inform.
SPEAKER_05
There may not be very much information by that date, but to the extent that there is any information and the council needs that information to make a decision about whether or not to extend the interim exemption for downtown or to fold downtown into some broader ESHB 1293 implementation legislation, it'll be just whatever the information is at the time.
SPEAKER_15
I would say, Chair, then I would like to request if we move forward with this reporting mechanism that I just caution us in terms of whatever the data says or doesn't say because there isn't enough time to us be making ongoing decisions based.
We can consider it, but I don't think we should give it a lot of weight if we don't have enough information.
Does that make sense?
Sure.
So if there's a commitment to make sure we're not proverbially putting all our eggs in one basket in terms of how much information we get and that informing the ongoing decisions, I think I'm fine with the report.
SPEAKER_17
Yeah, and I think we won't really know until we're there.
Exactly.
And it'll be a question of time.
Is there sufficient data to draw any conclusions from this or are we going to?
SPEAKER_15
Correct.
And I just want the commitment that we're going to have that conversation and make sure that the data is sufficient to help inform.
So we're not locked in now.
Thank you.
I appreciate that, Chair.
SPEAKER_17
I don't know if that requires an amendment or if we can just state the intent here.
SPEAKER_05
I mean, it'll be the same committee members in May.
SPEAKER_17
We can decide then.
SPEAKER_05
We can decide then.
I'm happy to redraft this in some form for full council if that is in the interest of the committee members.
SPEAKER_15
Okay.
Could we add language today and pass it today, or would we have to bring this back again, Ketel?
SPEAKER_14
It can be made as an oral amendment as well.
SPEAKER_17
I'm sorry I didn't hear that.
We can hold this maybe and then bring it back next week if there's some additional language.
SPEAKER_10
Next week?
SPEAKER_15
Next week.
SPEAKER_17
At full council.
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
SPEAKER_10
Pass it today and then take it to full council.
Yeah.
Okay.
SPEAKER_17
All right, let's do that.
Okay, so I am going to move Amendment 2. Is there...
No, I already did that.
You did that.
We're going to call the roll on Amendment 2. We're going to get through this, everyone.
SPEAKER_14
Council Member Rivera?
Yes.
Council Member Wu?
Yes.
Vice Chair Strauss?
SPEAKER_17
Yes.
SPEAKER_14
Chair Morales?
Yes.
Four in favor?
Yes.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you.
The motion carries and we can now vote on the bill.
So Naomi, will you please, any final comments or questions, colleagues?
Okay.
Will you please call the roll on the bill as adopted, as amended?
SPEAKER_14
Yes.
Council Member Rivera?
SPEAKER_17
Yes.
SPEAKER_14
Council Member Bu?
Yes.
Vice Chair Strauss?
Yes.
Chair Morales?
Yes.
Four in favor?
SPEAKER_17
Thank you, the legislation passes and will be sent to the September 24, 2024, full council for a final vote, good grief.
Okay, before we move off of this bill, I do wanna say that we know that there is a larger body of work to be done related to design review.
SDCI is already starting that work.
The state is requiring us to change our process.
That means we will be changing to one public meeting, we have to have clear objective standards for design review, so it will be very different.
And while at the same time it is pretty prescriptive, the state is prescriptive in terms of what we will be allowed to do and what we won't be allowed to do, it is still important that through that process, as STCI decides what our final design review process will look like, we still engage communities of color.
And I think that was some of the challenge that we had in the STCI review report that came out.
There was some confusion about whether the intent of the review of the process was really about how design review contributes to escalating costs for projects, and how it impacts communities of color because that is one of the very few opportunities that the public has to talk about the potential displacement impacts of projects on their community.
And so I will say as somebody who has regularly experienced frustration in knowing that there isn't really a place for black and brown communities to ask the question, how is this project going to impact us?
And we hear from people over and over again the fear of density, the fear of development in their communities because they have witnessed displacement as a result of these projects.
And there aren't that many places for people to weigh in on what will happen to their neighborhood.
And these are important decisions.
We are making decisions, we are allowing or disallowing projects that will shape the way a neighborhood looks for generations.
So all that is work that we will be talking about, that SDCI will be working on to make sure that we abide by the new state requirements about what our design review process looks like.
And we have to know and we have to embrace the notion that communities of color still need a place to weigh in on how their neighborhoods will be impacted.
It can't be used as an excuse to say you can't have, we don't want more housing in our neighborhood because we know that that's not really an option given the housing crisis that we have.
But I do think it is important for us to remember that there has to be a public place for people to weigh in on how their neighborhood, how their community, how their day-to-day existence is going to be impacted by the the potential projects coming in.
So end of my soapbox.
I just wanna make sure that folks know there are many things that we will be, the SDCI will be balancing as we move forward with what this new process looks like.
So thank you very much for being here.
Okay, with that, let's move on to agenda item five.
SPEAKER_14
Agenda item five, Council Bill 120832 for briefing discussion and possible votes.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you.
Okay.
Colleagues, it had been my intent to have several briefings because this is a very dense piece of legislation.
We did hear this once already.
So I'm hoping that if there are additional questions, we do have a little bit of time the rest of this meeting to get questions answered.
And so I'm going to ask our panel here to introduce yourselves and and provide a brief overview of, well, to the extent that you can, of the different code changes that are being proposed here.
SPEAKER_24
Great.
Thank you.
Micah Chapelle, Technical Code Development Manager, Department of Construction and Inspections.
I'll give a brief overview once everybody's introduced themselves.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_20
Good afternoon, my name is our dell jala and the building official for Seattle department of construction and inspections and the lead technical policy advisor for construction codes, thank you.
SPEAKER_23
Good afternoon i'm amanda hertzfeld Seattle department of construction inspections and I am the unreinforced masonry urm program manager.
SPEAKER_00
Good afternoon, my name is Kai Kimam, the principal engineer representing Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.
I'm responsible in developing this URM program, supporting Amanda.
SPEAKER_13
And I'm Yolanda Ho, council central staff.
SPEAKER_24
Thank you very much.
Go ahead, Micah.
Fabulous.
This legislation is for the adoption of the 2021 Seattle construction codes consisting of codes from the International Code Council, the National Fire Protection Association, and International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials with Seattle amendments.
These codes without Seattle amendments are also amended and adopted by the state of Washington with state law allowing local jurisdictions to amend certain codes as we do and then requiring local jurisdictions to enforce these codes.
There are many proposed changes for the Seattle 2021 codes.
We have highlighted those significant changes in a previous committee meeting and provided documentation on those significant changes.
Included among our proposed amendments are the code updates that define the minimum voluntary seismic improvements to be recognized as a retrofitted unreinforced masonry building.
Additionally, SDCI has identified items to Chair Morales that staff has identified as errors after creating the attachments that, based on the recommendation from our code reviser in the law department, we're asking the committee to include those in their approval of this legislation.
We're available for questions.
SPEAKER_17
Okay.
Council Member Strauss.
SPEAKER_10
Chair, I will say that I've started digging into this.
I haven't gotten to the point where I usually prefer to be.
I know that it's a different metric because I was the land use chair and I would ask you all many questions over a series of meetings.
I'm fine to vote on it today.
I would appreciate some more time, but I'll follow your lead, Chair.
SPEAKER_17
Council Member Rivera.
SPEAKER_15
Thank you, Chair.
If we voted today, I would have to abstain because I do have a number of questions.
I know a lot about URMs, and I feel comfortable with that portion, but there's some other things.
This is a meaty piece of legislation, and I too, I have some questions and would like to dig deeper on some of these changes so that I always feel If I cannot explain these changes to a constituent, then I'm not doing my homework, and I shouldn't be moving forward voting on a bill that I can't explain to constituents.
So I'd like to take some more time with this before I would vote on it.
Council Member Schell.
SPEAKER_10
I'll just say, having tried to explain the energy code to an everyday person, that's a tall cup of coffee.
SPEAKER_15
I appreciate that, but I think there are ways to simplify.
I think you're being facetious, but just like I can explain URMs or other parts of the code that I just, I don't feel like I have the full information.
And because of that, I would like more time with this before voting on it.
And I appreciate that you had the presentation at that last meeting, and we've had a number of things between then and now.
then and now to consider and so could use the extra time.
Sure.
SPEAKER_17
Council Member Rivera, I wonder if there are any questions you have that could be answered now while we've got folks here and a little bit of time.
SPEAKER_15
Yeah, I understand.
I'm going over the presentation that was part of the packet and there's just there's a lack of information here and I did reach out to SDCI earlier today and I will be having a conversation with Director Torgelson about this.
but I don't have anything for this particular panel at the moment.
SPEAKER_10
And Chair, it could be if we wanted to move it out of the committee and then we could have our briefings to the side before we vote on it full council.
I'm comfortable with that.
SPEAKER_17
Okay.
Okay, let's, well, maybe I should see if that's possible.
Council Member Wu, do you have any questions for our STCI staff?
SPEAKER_19
Not right now, but I also would prefer more time.
SPEAKER_17
and everything regarding this.
Okay, I will just remind colleagues that I've been asking at every briefing and meeting to get briefed.
This is a particularly meaty piece of legislation and I think we presented it first in July.
So it sounds like we will not be able to move it out of committee today.
Is that right, Council Member Wood?
If we both vote yes.
There's four.
Okay.
Okay, very well.
Let's give it a try.
I'm going to move.
SPEAKER_13
Oh, Chair.
Did you want to consider the amendment?
I don't know.
SPEAKER_17
Yeah, let me move the bill, Yolanda, and then we'll talk about that.
I'm going to move Council Bill 120832. Is there a second?
Second.
Second.
Thank you, it's been moved and seconded.
So we do have some additional changes.
Yolanda, will you please, I'm gonna move amendment one, which is some technical corrections.
Is there a second?
SPEAKER_10
Second.
SPEAKER_17
Okay, that's been moved and seconded.
SPEAKER_16
There we go.
SPEAKER_13
Okay, sorry.
Sorry for interrupting you there before.
So this is Amendment 1 to Council Bill 120832, and as Micah mentioned, these were identified by SDCI staff, and I did circulate this a little earlier today.
I was informed yesterday.
So these are identified by our code revisor as being needed to be amended by the council.
And so this amendment would make amendments in three of the attachments to the council bill.
the first is attachment b the 2021 seattle building code this would align sections 403.3.2 and 403.3.3 with the 2021 seattle fire code which is going to be separately adopted by deliberated by the public safety committee soon and would also edit language in section 3009.3 to accurately reflect STCI's process for processing elevator inspection reports.
Second attachment that will be amended is attachment C, the 2023 Seattle Electrical Code.
It would include section 700.32 regarding emergency systems that was inadvertently omitted and also amend section 701 regarding an exception for over current protective devices.
And finally, attachment I would be amended, which is the 2021 Seattle Residential Code to require that all townhouse units include fire sprinkler systems, which would be consistent with the 2018 Seattle Residential Code.
SPEAKER_17
Okay, so I, these are clearly dense documents and I know I can imagine that things get overlooked, but it would be helpful just to understand the process here and how you identified that there were additional changes that were needed.
SPEAKER_24
Absolutely.
The first one on the list here is just a coordination issue.
Section 403 in these two items here are similar to Chapter 9 of the Fire Code.
They should be identical.
We overlook that coordination in that section, considering there are two different chapters and two different books.
That would be the first one.
And the GO BACK TO MY LIST.
APOLOGIZE.
THE SECOND ONE IS JUST A PROCESS.
WE NO LONGER MAIL THE REPORTS.
WE UPLOAD THOSE TO OUR SEATTLE SERVICES PORTAL.
JUST A CLARIFICATION AND PROCESS.
I HAD HOPED THAT ONE DIDN'T HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL, BUT IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT.
AND THEN THE OTHER, THE THIRD section 707 hundred point three two of the electrical code it is almost identical to section seven oh one point three two of the electrical code way of course in reviewing these documents thought we had a duplicate and inadvertently omitted that section but we did not have a duplicate it was required to be there in that specific section okay And then the other item in 701.32 is just the coordination of language between 700.32 and 701.32.
So again, just a minor oversight there.
And then the R313 for the sprinkler system, our intent is to maintain the 2018 Seattle code for this item, which does require sprinklers in all townhouses.
The state allows an exception.
that we have not adopted and have never adopted.
And when we combined the 2021 model codes with the Washington state amendments that we pull in and the Seattle amendments, again, this was something that got brought in and was an oversight in our review.
So it's just correcting that error and maintaining the 2018 language as it currently reads.
SPEAKER_17
That's helpful.
Thank you for walking through that.
Colleagues, any questions about this technical amendment?
SPEAKER_10
No questions, but I do mail checks to pay my bills.
SPEAKER_17
Old school.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to go ahead and ask Naomi to please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1.
SPEAKER_14
Council Member Rivera.
I have a quick question.
SPEAKER_17
Yes, Council Member Wu.
I'm sorry.
The voice came out of nowhere, but there you are.
Please go ahead.
SPEAKER_19
So for the amendments, This require all townhouse units to include fire sprinkler systems.
So would it be requiring all townhouses to upgrade their fire sprinkler systems?
And if so, how many townhouses do we think that would affect?
SPEAKER_24
Great question.
We're not requiring townhouses to upgrade their systems.
This code language is for new construction only.
So when new townhomes are constructed, they're required to install their sprinkler systems.
And again, this is a...
current amendment to our Seattle code that is currently enforced and we're just moving it forward into the 2021 codes.
Again, we're not requiring a retroactive sprinkler requirement.
This is for new construction only.
SPEAKER_17
And none of these are retroactive.
Sorry, could you restate that, Council Member?
SPEAKER_19
So the amendment attachment, there are three points that would These are tenant corrections.
So none of these are retroactive.
These Auburn points would be just folding into city code what the state has passed.
SPEAKER_24
I'm not certain on what's being asked.
I apologize.
SPEAKER_17
Sorry, it's a little bit hard to hear you, Councilmember Wu.
Can you ask your question one more time?
I'm sorry.
SPEAKER_19
Oh yeah, so there's one clarification.
So these three points under Amendment 1, Version 1, all three are just adopting state language into the city code.
None of these are retroactive.
SPEAKER_24
We're not adopting state language into the code.
These are just errors that we missed in our amendments, and they are going to be folded into the code, and they apply to new construction.
The electrical code items may apply to existing construction if they get to that point, but all these amendments apply to new construction.
Got it.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_20
We have 10 codes that are 1,000 pages of ordinance.
So we appreciate some grace on our inability to catch everything in that coordination.
We do try and catch it.
All these were identified as potential technical changes that were recommended to take to council versus just putting forward as errors and omissions in the ordinance cleanup.
So that is why you're seeing them today.
SPEAKER_17
Yeah, thank you.
Okay, let's go ahead then.
Naomi, will you please call the roll on adoption of Amendment 1?
SPEAKER_14
Council Member Rivera?
Aye.
Council Member Wu?
Yes.
Vice Chair Strauss?
Yes.
Chair Morales?
SPEAKER_17
Yes.
Four in favor.
Thank you.
The amendment carries.
Okay, is there any further discussion on this bill as amended before I request a roll call?
Council Member Rivera?
SPEAKER_15
Chair, I just want to address what you said earlier about the fact that this came in July and you'd like us to move forward with this.
We need to be thoughtful when we pass legislation.
I have to say, I wasn't clear in rereading this in preparation for this meeting, there was a lack of clarity and there was a confusion for me because we're talking about 2018 codes that were adopted in 2021, then the state passed some codes that then we also have to codify.
So I will say, I don't want us to get into a space where then if some of us need extra time with something, we're feeling like somehow we're not doing our due diligence.
It's because I'm doing my due diligence that I want some extra time with this piece of legislation.
And so to address what you said earlier, I want it on the record.
And because I have constituents that I answer to that I've done my due diligence on this, and I will continue to always do my due diligence.
And if I feel like departments, when they bring these things, are not as clear as they can be, then I reserve the right to take some extra time with a piece of legislation because I always do everything thoughtfully.
Folks that know me know I get in the weeds with things more so than maybe other folks do and so because of that I need extra time with this particular legislation and so I don't want it to be that because we need extra time somehow.
That becomes an issue.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you Council Member Rivera.
Okay let's go ahead and with the understanding that we will get additional briefing and get your questions answered.
Let's go ahead and call the roll on Council Bill 120832, please.
SPEAKER_14
Council Member Rivera.
Abstain.
Council Member Bu.
Abstain.
Vice Chair Strauss.
SPEAKER_17
Yes.
SPEAKER_14
Chair Morales.
Yes.
Two in favor, two abstentions.
SPEAKER_17
Thank you.
The motion carries and the legislation will be sent to the September 24th council meeting for a final vote.
And I do want to say, Council Member Verda, I understand.
I think, you know, when I first became a council member, it was shocking to me how quickly things seemed to move through and given that we legislate year-round.
Not like the legislature where everything has to be crammed into, you know, 130 days or something.
It doesn't make sense to me that we always try to move things through in one or two committee meetings.
So I certainly appreciate what you're saying.
And I will say I share that sentiment.
I feel like there's been a few things lately that have moved a little too quickly for my liking.
So...
fully understand.
Okay.
There being no further business, this concludes the September 18th Land Use Committee meeting and public hearing.
The next meeting of the Land Use Committee is Wednesday, December 4th at 2 p.m.
Thanks for attending, everybody.
We are adjourned.
Thank you.