Land Use and Sustainability Committee 7/30/2026

Okay, good afternoon.

July 30th, 2026, Land Use and Sustainability Committee will come to order.

It's 2.04 PM.

I'm Eddie Lin, Chair of the Committee.

Will the Committee Clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Foster.

Here.

Council Member Rink?

Here.

Chair Lin?

Here.

And I see Council Member Strauss as an attendee.

I'm promoting him right now.

Okay.

Chair, there are four members present.

Okay.

Council Member Hollingsworth is excused from today's meeting.

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

Hearing no objection.

Chair, just a note.

Just noting I'm present.

Sorry.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Good afternoon.

Thank you all for coming to this Thursday meeting to discuss land use.

Always thank you to our city clerks, council, central staff, mayor's office, SDCI for helping us prepare.

for this meeting.

We just have one item on the agenda today.

And just for clarity, we will have public comment first, and that will just be just in general for items that would come before the Land Use Committee.

Specifically for our bill on the design review, we will have a separate public hearing.

So if you're here to speak about that, please sign up for the public hearing portion of the comment.

So that comes next.

So right now we're just doing general public comment.

So we will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comment should relate to items within the purview of this committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

We have two speakers signed up.

Okay.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We'll start with in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

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

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they 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 two minutes are left of their time, speakers' mics will be muted if they do not, and their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call in the next speaker.

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

Hi, I'm from Pioneer Square, and I'm going to talk about land use regulations.

It's too wasteful for citizens to absorb all the costs of developer greed.

There are so many empty lots and offices downtown that it's clearly a mega investment scheme to manipulate the Seattle and US market, and we won't stand for it.

When good properties are turned down for new construction deals, and there are too many unused lots, empty lots, It's the definition of a wasteland, and this must be avoided by having a robust mixed use of all our spaces downtown.

Just as we want to unimpede people from building housing on these empty lots, we should also fine empty lot holders, and the proceeds of that should go to a concierge that would help them either develop or sell their lot.

People against development say there are no sticks for developers, only carrots.

And I have to agree that large-scale developers seem far too incentivized to monopolize large amounts of land in a type of slumlord redlining scheme.

We want to catch up with meeting housing requirements with the means we have available to us.

We should continue eliminating and mitigating incentives for behaviors that are counter to this.

Along with making the approval process easier for housing, please install a land value tax or fine to stop wasting land downtown.

And I want developers to fill in these spots downtown soon.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Angelo De Jesus.

Hello, I'm Angelo De Jesus from District 7. I guess I want to start with that we should rezone SOTO.

I know a lot of people want to live down there.

There's a lot of empty buildings down there.

I drive around there, you know, and I see, you know, for lease, for lease, for lease.

And I think that's a huge issue.

We need to, you know, build down there.

I mean, I get the whole industrial thing, but That's what Kent and Auburn's for.

That's what happens.

We grow, we push things out, and we develop new ways of living and new ideas.

Also, I would like for you guys to either put an amendment or something like that to not have trees on the sidewalk when they build new things, because in 20, 30 years, we've got to fix all that.

Look at Roanoke.

I don't know if you guys have ever driven around there, you better have an SUV.

Have a good day.

Thank you guys.

Thank you.

That was our last in-person commenter.

We will now move to remote commenters and our only remote commenter is David Haynes.

Hi, thank you, David Haynes.

We need some leadership when it comes to taking away the slum motels and the vacant buildings to expedite tearing them down and having experts come in and cut the footers to create the foundations to rapidly build some much needed housing on a multitude of levels of capacity.

You could have all these emergency hotels that would replace all those evil slum motels.

but we need some leadership to take away the vacant buildings and incentivize through property tax discounts, working with the county and other ideas for some write-offs and convince the banks to write off some of the debt that some of these buildings still owe.

We need some real housing, but preferably not on the side of the road.

All of this land use, you still have to understand We need 21st century, first world quality housing that's pedestrian centric, not car centric in the infrastructure, that's resident friendly, that's green, sustainable, walkable, where you're not walking on the side of the road rage.

You know, somebody's kicking up the toxic suit or the street dust.

But when you have a mixed use, you still have to give the people a reprieve and go higher.

We gotta take the restrictions that the landlords on the city council and their sympathizers and OPCD doing the bidding of speculators who own rundown real estate that are double, triple, quadruple overcharging residents and businesses that are being driven out of business and evicted because they're debt servicing a police state economy of artificially inflated, dilapidated real estate.

And we need that 21st century first world quality redevelopment that invigorates with like doubling the shifts, doubling the shifts, boosting the morale, rebuilding for the people who are working to build the homes instead of a non-profit, unqualified, and the middleman.

Pat.

Thank you.

That concludes our speakers.

Okay.

Thank you all.

As there are no additional registered speakers, we'll now proceed to our item of business.

Item one, will the clerk please read agenda item one.

Agenda item one, council bill 121243, a bill relating to land and zoning adopting temporary regulations previously in ordinance 127309 for six months to 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 full design review, the option of complying with design review pursuant to administrative design review, temporarily suspending mandatory and allowing voluntary design review of proposed development entails 2325 of the Seattle Municipal Code consistent with various chapters of ordinance 127309 and amending sections 234102 and 234104 of Seattle's Municipal Code for public hearing, briefing, discussion and possible vote.

Okay, thank you.

As presiding officer, I'm now opening the public hearing on Council Bill 121243 regarding the interim design review legislation.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up for this public hearing?

We have five speakers signed up, two in person, three remote.

Okay, each speaker will be provided two minutes.

Clerk, I'll hand this over to you to present the instructions.

Speakers will be called in order of registration.

The public hearing registration will remain open until the conclusion of the public hearing.

The same public comment rules apply to this public hearing a 10 second time will be your notice that it's time to wrap up comments.

Speakers and mics will be muted at the end of the allotted time.

Public comment relating to ordinance 121243, the interim design review legislation is only being accepted at this public hearing.

Speakers are asked to begin their comments by stating their name.

Our first speaker will be Bill Zosel.

Good afternoon.

My name is Bill Zozel.

I live in the Central Area, and I'm here to speak on this particular legislation, of course.

I participate with a couple of groups, the Central Area Land Use Review Committee and a broader coalition that is with LIDART sponsoring program tonight, a panel discussion, which I hope everyone in this room can attend.

And I'm here because we think that design review is important.

And we think it's going to be even more important when the comprehensive plan is adopted because there will be more intense development in neighborhoods that have not been used to it.

And so we think that design review can be one tool that can actually make implementation of the building of new housing, which we all need to work more smoothly and actually contribute to neighborhoods.

We all agree that design review needs to be reformed.

This is something that the City Council recognized in 2022, and now it's 2026. So I think one of the points I want to make is this is not the first time that the Department of Construction and Land Use has asked for six more months.

And we fully expect that six more months will be given, and that, of course, will happen.

But in the six months, it's important that the process be opened up to public participation.

The groups that I've worked with have tried several times Get in the door.

Let us talk with you.

Let's participate in the discussion.

And basically, we've been rebuffed.

Our requests have been evaded.

I know that on July 1st, a representative of the Department of Construction and Inspection made a presentation regarding this legislation.

And she said the department wants public participation.

So we want to hear that.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Andrea Vineko.

Hello, I'm Andrea Vineko.

I'm a long-time downtown resident, but I'm here today representing the South Lake Union Community Council, the Design Review Reboot Coalition, and Allied Arts Seattle.

And I just want to say that all of these groups, which I participate in, are very excited about development in the City of Seattle.

And in fact, we, I think, all hope that Seattle will really really set a new benchmark in terms of the global identity of what a great urban environment is.

What that means for us is that we need to escalate investment and our inventory, We need to be a great place for developers to develop, but most importantly, we feel it also requires a quality outcome, and probably most important, to be a world-class city.

And in order to get to that quality outcome, we firmly believe that it's critical to have design review and community input.

That design review, in our minds, there are lots of creative ways that we can look at the review, reshaping it, and it doesn't have to compromise the speed with which projects are implemented.

We feel that that's an excuse.

So, as was previously stated, this discussion has been going on for quite a while.

There's going to be a lot of development in the next couple of years.

We really would like to come to a better conclusion about what a smart design review, what the qualifiers are, what the process is, and how the community could really engage earlier in the process so, again, it doesn't have a negative impact.

Thank you.

Those are the last in-person speaker.

We'll now move to our four remote speakers, starting with Megan Kruse.

Good afternoon.

I'm Megan Kruse, speaking on design review, of course.

As the city prepares to renew its moratorium for another six months, there's really been no information on what's being done to update the program, where the process stands, or who is being involved.

Across the city for almost a year has been noted, individuals and community groups such as the Design Review Reboot Coalition and Allied Arts of Seattle have met with city staff and officials asking for a seat at the table as it creates a new and better program.

By convening a forum in real time with community reps, developers, and city planners, we can create a balanced program focused on early communication, responsive design, and efficiency.

It's possible when we work together.

it's time to reset the table and the narrative when it comes to this vital public process.

And as the city embarks on historic growth, standing up a new program should be the priority with all key parties at the table.

And as has been noted, a related panel discussion will be held tonight, moderated by Sally Bagshaw, talking about how to build a better city.

It's being held at 630 at Parkview Event Space in South Lake Union.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Tina Bichun.

Hi there.

Tina Bichun, District 7. Thanks for listening.

When we discuss whether to than the design review moratorium, I believe the more important question is, what do we hope to accomplish during that time?

This transition presents an opportunity to thoughtfully define the next chapter of design review in Seattle.

If approached with intention, it may prove to be one of the most consequential planning decisions we make, not because it delays change, but because it helps ensure we get the next system right.

Seattle is expected to grow substantially over the coming decades.

The buildings approved today will shape our skyline, our neighborhoods, and our daily lives of residents for the next 50 to 100 years.

Decisions with that kind of lasting impact deserve a process that is carefully considered, broadly informed, and built to endure.

An extension should therefore be tied to a clear work plan with defined milestones and measurable outcomes.

It should bring together the full spectrum of stakeholders residents, affordable and market rate housing providers, architects, urban designers, accessibility advocates, environmental organizations, neighborhood organizations, small businesses and others to help define a process that is more predictable, more transparent and more responsive to Seattle's future.

The goal should not be to recreate the old system.

The goal should not be to slow the production of much needed housing.

The goal should be to build a design review process that achieves three things simultaneously.

It supports housing production, creates greater certainty for applicants, and delivers the quality, livability, and public confidence that Seattle's neighborhoods deserve.

If we use this opportunity well, the result won't simply be a new design review process.

It will be a stronger foundation for how Seattle grows for generations to come.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Grace Burke.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Grace, and I am a District 4 homeowner on 36th Avenue speaking today on Bill 121243. I've submitted written public comments via email, and I strongly urge the council to stop continually extending the interim regulations that make the design review voluntary for market rate developments.

I want to be clear I support more housing and specifically truly affordable housing but replacing an 800,000 single-story home on a residential street with three three-story units that will sell for over one million dollars each is not solving our city's affordability crisis it's purely maximizing profit for developers at the expense of existing neighborhoods who are the constituents that you each represent those of us who currently live here raise families pay property taxes deserve consideration to.

And during the recent subdivision public notice period for the development happening on our street, one of four that's currently underway, there were seven separate comments that were submitted because it was literally the only opportunity we had to share our input and concerns.

I've reached out multiple times to Council Member Rank's office requesting a meeting with you to discuss the neighborhood impacts, and I want to invite all of you to come walk our block on 36th Avenue Northeast to see firsthand what happens when four multi-unit developments operate simultaneously on one street with zero design review oversight.

Completely eliminating mandatory design review removes the only formal check to ensure sensible height and setback transitions between single-story homes and towering three-story walls, the protection of mature Tier 2 trees and critical root zones, and designs that respect the streetscape rather than just padding developer profit margins.

Continuing to bypass design reviews doesn't create affordable housing.

It just lets market rate developers build to the absolute maximum footprint with zero accountability.

I urge the council to reject CB 121243 and restore meaningful, predictable design standards that consider both housing needs and existing taxing residents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Last up, we have David Haynes.

we still need an investigation of the conflicts of interest with the landlords on the city council who are sabotaging the integrity of the comprehensive plan and all the land use and design reviews where the integrity of oversight is being traded out to water down the design review exclusively for the Housing Development Consortium who got to decide the fate of not allowing for the MHA fee fund to be taken away from actual real developers who should have had the restrictions taken off the comprehensive plan to build higher so then they could put affordable housing units inside the building that nonprofits don't want because they want the access to the financial stream.

And there's a lot of nonprofits that get jumpstart money and city council money and county council money and they're the same ones that are trying to get the MHA fee fund money, but yet they're a bunch of slumlords building warehouse, echo, inner-city, shitty real estate on the side of a loud, obnoxious, transit-oriented highway, and then tanking it all in racism, acting like they're doing just a have and a have-not.

They think they're equalizing.

all while guaranteeing that nothing will be built that better because it's all low-level, low-quality because the non-profits can't build that high.

Even though they have to hire somebody, the non-profits are the only ones giving access to the affordable housing monies.

That wild change because city council was doing their political re-election apparatus a favor that hides within the housing consortium donation cooperation where the council will look the other way on all this watered down warehouse echo inner city slum real estate as long as they don't get protested yet nobody's taken off the restrictions and the comprehensive plan that the city council's landlords put into it that are still undermining the integrity of the 21st century redevelopment of first world.

Thank you, David.

Chair, that concludes the commenters.

Okay, that was our last registered speaker to present to speak at this public hearing.

Public hearing on Council Bill 121243 is now closed.

Will our representative from Council Central staff please join us?

I see you're at the table.

Go ahead and introduce yourself once you're ready.

Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff.

Thank you, Ketel.

And I think it makes sense to go ahead and proceed with the presentation.

Just so that we all have a fresh grounding in what the bill is.

Yeah, so Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff, just briefly go through a presentation, a lot of which recaps what was covered earlier this month.

I'll talk a little bit about what the bill would do, remind the committee about what design review is, talk a little bit about the legislative history of interim controls here, and then talk about program activity under those interim controls, and then run through some preliminary issue identification for the committee to consider.

So, first of all, what would Council Bill 121243 do?

It would suspend mandatory design review.

It would allow low-income housing projects some of the benefits of design review, but exempt them from the design review process.

It would allow projects that are subject to mandatory housing affordability that satisfy the obligations of that program through on-site performance to gain some of the benefits of design review without having to go through the program.

And it would allow all projects with residential uses that would otherwise be subject to full design review to elect to go through administrative design review.

There are a couple things here.

I just want to make sure that you all understand.

I want to distinguish kind of interim controls for the design review program from these exemptions from design review.

And I'll talk a little bit about that in just a second.

And they largely have to do with the delegation and sort of how they comply with design review program purposes.

One functional thing about the bill is that it's not actually extending interim controls, it's reenacting them.

So there were some interim controls that were in place and those controls lapsed back in April.

At the moment, we don't currently have a design review program that complies with 1293, which is a state law that requires us to make some changes to our design review program if we're going to continue to have one.

And also, some of the exemptions from design review that are largely designed for affordable housing production are no longer active.

So the design review program, as you all are familiar with it, it dates back to the 1990s.

It has three purposes.

Under the interim controls there's actually a fourth, but they have to do with encouraging better design, site planning, providing flexibility for developers and application of development standards, and improving communication.

So there's definitely an early project implementation component of design review that's been there since the beginning, and it's designed to sort of encourage interactions between developers and the community.

There are three types of, the fourth, I guess, the fourth, purpose that was added by former Councilmember Salomon, and because the program has lapsed, it's no longer currently part of the program, had to do with SEPTED, so elevating community policing through environmental design as a program purpose.

There are three types of design review, streamlined design review, administrative design review, and full design review.

What distinguishes them primarily is the length of time that they take and also where the delegation, to whom the delegation is made to make decisions about at compliance with or achieving identified design guidelines and getting departures if departures are sought by development.

So about departures.

So one benefit for a developer participating in design review is the potential to get development standard departures.

Those are modifications to development standards based on application of citywide design guidelines that can, in many cases, allow a developer to achieve additional floor area, so more than they might otherwise be able to achieve under the standards of the zone.

And this is sort of a key thing here, and it has to do with the delegation.

So what the design review program does is it's a delegation of the council's police power authority and that delegation is done through guidance provided by the council through adopted citywide design guidelines and neighborhood specific design guidelines and that delegation is provided to a design review board for larger projects and also to the SDCI director for smaller projects.

So I just want to distinguish that delegation aspect here for design review from the exemptions from design review that are also would be sort of put back on the books by this bill in the case of the exemption for affordable housing and also for MHA performance projects, the delegation there doesn't actually have to do with good design, per se.

It has to do with moreness, so more affordable housing that could be created through additional floor area in projects that could achieve design departures through those exemption processes.

I know that's somewhat arcane, but there's a distinction there.

This is not necessarily just an extension of the design review program interim controls.

This is also an exemption with different delegations involved.

So a little bit about the legislative history here.

And some of this actually goes back prior to 2023. During the pandemic, the Council chose to exempt low-income housing development outright from design review.

So if a development was not seeking departures, they weren't subject to design review at all.

In 2023, there are some choices made by the Council to exempt low-income housing projects from design review but allow them the opportunity of getting departures if they're providing more floor area for affordable housing.

At the same time, the council also exempted performance projects under MHA from design review using a similar theory that would speed delivery of affordable housing through performance.

And also, at the same time, sort of the writing was on the wall for design review back then, allowed most projects that had residential uses to avail themselves of administrative design review, as opposed to going to full design review, so a somewhat faster process.

Also in 2023, the state passed a law which said that if you have a design review program, it has to meet certain standards.

Among them is a limitation on the number of meetings and also a requirement that the program have objective design guidelines.

The current guidelines that the city has, the citywide design guidelines, and neighborhood-specific design guidelines probably don't meet that objective standard.

So there's more legislative history here as well.

There was a statement of legislative intent that the council passed in 2022 that requested a bunch of information.

You have that attached to the agenda today.

That was provided to the council in 2024. Some of that information is still very useful in deciding what a future design review program may look like.

So that's some good news about where the city could be starting from in deciding what a new program may look like.

In 2025, the city extended the exemptions that were initially put in place in 2023 and also suspended mandatory design review, and that's because the program that we currently have likely does not comply with House Bill 1293. So there's sort of a caveat emptor aspect here where if folks want to pursue design review, they can choose to do it, but they're not required to go through design review.

So what has happened since 2023?

Projects have still continued to go through design review and what's not sort of shown here is a distinction between 2023 and 2025. Most of the projects here that you see going through design review were going through design review back in 2023 when the city allowed for administrative design review.

In 2025 when the city made made design review entirely voluntary.

There have been fewer applications, but there still have been applications.

So a few things to note here, if you're looking at MHA performance and low-income housing exempt projects, for example, there's still a lot of evidence that there is an appetite for departures, maybe not necessarily the design review process, but for the types of departures that are only available through design review absent the exemptions that the city put on the books.

So just some preliminary issues here for you all to think about, and there really aren't any good solutions here.

There's an appetite for design review still in the development community.

We don't know what the design review program is going to look like.

We certainly don't have to have a design review program.

But if the city wants to have a design review program in the future, we could continue to have a design review program now.

that may create problems in the future when a permanent design review program is put in place because we don't know what the program parameters will be like for design review in the future, but that's just kind of the nature of interim controls.

There's a question here that distinguished between the design review program changes and the exemptions from design review that are largely around affordable housing production.

A choice here for the council is whether or not to continue those exemptions.

One thing to think about in the context of mandatory housing affordability is that design review is what folks have to go back through if they elect to no longer perform under MHA.

So there is a future where the council may be considering changes to MHA where we'll have to decide administratively what to do with those projects if they are seeking some kind of a reduction or if there's some reduction that's on offer from the city.

Finally, and this is an administrative thing, For full design review, there are eight boards that serve different areas of the city.

Many of the appointees to those boards are living on those boards past their term, and many of those boards have vacancies.

So one thing the council may want to consider, if the council chooses to extend the interim design review interim controls is staffing up those boards so that if somebody elects to do full design review, there'll be continuity of review by those boards.

That's it.

That's all I got for you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions or comments?

Okay.

Yes, please.

Councilmember Foster.

Thank you so much, Chair, and as always, we really appreciate the presentation.

I just wanted to go back to a couple things.

So, one is that, as is, we're currently out of compliance with 1293, is that correct?

That's correct, yeah.

Okay, and then voting on this bill today or passing this bill as written would bring us back into compliance for the temporary six-month period as contemplated?

It doesn't bring us back into compliance with 1293, but it does provide a design review pathway for people who want to avail themselves of a design review program, even when it's not a 1293 sort of compliant program.

If folks don't want to go through design review, they don't have to.

If they elect to go through design review, they are electing to go through a program that is not 1293 compliant.

Okay, that's helpful, so we need further action there.

And then I just want to go to one of the points that you were kind of closing on there regarding on-site performance and any potential action or changes related to our mandatory housing affordability program.

So my understanding is that council would need to determine a path forward for projects, but this bill would not make any changes to a potential path forward for projects that have already availed themselves of that design review exemption.

Yeah, so the way the law previously was and the way it would be if this bill passes, and it would allow that exemption, but still allow those developers to elect to pay if they want to at the end of the day.

If those developers elect to pay, they have to go back through design review.

So if the council wants to sort of preserve that option, there needs to be some kind of design review program on the books.

if the council, for example, did not extend the interim design review controls, then we'd have to be sort of clear about what would happen with those projects if they wanted to revert from performance to payment.

That's right, and thank you for that.

But as written, if this bill passes, we would be providing that pathway, it would be available, we'd have that clear design review process or pathway, but we would still need to make a determination on any changes if somebody were to want to switch from performance to payment, is that correct?

That's correct, yeah.

Thank you.

Those are my questions.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

And obviously we got a lot of comments about sort of the long-term work on design review, and obviously that's not what you're working on, but, or, you know, it's more other departments, but anything that you're able to share with the public?

I can sort of explain my understanding, and Crystal Torres from SDCI is here, and she may be able to chime in here as well.

But my understanding is that SDCI is very close to having a program they're about to make public towards the end of the Harrell administration.

There has since been, obviously, a transition, a new mayor, and that I believe the current administration has yet to engage on program parameters.

SDCI has funding to begin outreach and that could begin early this year.

It's likely that that outreach will require an additional, will take enough time and that would be, the outreach would be on program design and also a revised citywide design guidelines.

It would take enough time that the council will probably need to consider another extension within that six months from now, which would be in early 2027. But essentially, I think that the funding is in place.

It would actually, the color of money was something that I inquired about.

It's construction inspections fund money, so it's not necessarily something that needs to be funded out of the general fund, which is good news, because they'll be competing priorities for general fund money as part of the 2027 budget deliberations.

And it's really just a question of guidance from the council and the current mayor about what the program should look like and then getting the contracts in place to begin executing them.

Wonderful.

Thank you so much.

Helpful to get that update.

And any other colleagues, any other questions or comments?

Okay, well, colleagues, if there's no objection, I'd like to suspend the rules to allow a vote on the bill on the same day the public hearing is held.

I just wanna see if there's...

Hearing no objection, the rule's suspended, and I'd like to proceed with a committee vote on this bill.

I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 121243. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, it is moved and seconded to recommend passage of the legislation.

Do any of my fellow committee members wish to address the legislation?

I'll just make a quick comment that I do think it's helpful to have, I know this is not the permanent legislation, but I do think this temporary legislation is useful, particularly for folks that need some of the departures.

And so I do think it's helpful to have something in place.

And so I'd like to urge people to vote yes on passage of Council Bill 121243. Will the clerk please call the roll on recommendation?

Vice Chair Strauss.

Aye.

Council Member Foster.

Yes.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Chair Lynn.

Yes.

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

Okay.

The motion carries and committee recommendation the council will pass.

The bill will be sent to August 4th, 2026 city council meeting.

We've reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Is there any further business to come before the committee before we adjourn?

Okay, hearing no further business, we are adjourned at 2.44 p.m.

Thank you everybody.