Seattle City Council Land Use Committee Public Hearing 9/14/22

committee will come to order it is 2pm on the dot.

I'm Dan Strauss chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Chair Strauss.

Present.

Vice Chair Morales.

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

for present.

I'm present.

This is Council Member Mosqueda.

You got to call on me as well.

And it looks like Council Member Mosqueda is here as well.

Okay.

Council Member Schultz.

Present.

We meet quorum.

How many present?

Five present.

We meet quorum.

Great, thank you.

We have six items on the agenda today for our public hearings and we are only going to vote on one item.

I'd also like to welcome Naomi Lewis the new clerk of the land use committee this is her first go around so you'll be watching us irons and wrinkles out as we go.

We do have six items on the agenda today, a public hearing on council bill 120405, approving Crown Hill design guidelines, public hearing on CB120394, modifying development regulations for townhouses and row houses, a public hearing on 120401, the land use code omnibus bill, a public hearing on CB12040, authorizing SDCI to hold a hybrid virtual in-person meetings, a vote on resolution 32068, adopting a docket of potential amendments to the comprehensive plan for consideration in 2023. This item was briefed at our last land use committee.

This is the only voting item today.

And a briefing on clerk file 314447, a proposed contract rezone in the Roosevelt neighborhood.

Before we begin, if there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

At this time, we will open the hybrid public comment period for items on today's agenda.

I see that most people have signed up for one of the four public hearings.

So I see that for general public comment, we have Megan Cruz, Alex Zimmerman, and Steve Rubstello.

I can't tell which of you gentlemen signed up first, so looks like...

Thank you, Mr. Zimmerman.

Steve Rubstell will be going first in those lines.

With that, clerk, can you please play the video?

indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to...

We're just going to restart that from...

Hello, Seattle.

There we go.

Thank you.

We are the Emerald City, the city of flowers and the city of goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the Council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and used the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted, and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel Broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused or if the process impedes the council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the city.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in Council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the Council.

The public comment period is now open.

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

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of, you have been unmuted.

Thank you, Seattle.

Thank you.

Up first is Steve Rubstello.

Welcome, Steve.

We're going to have two minutes for public comment today.

Okay, it might work better with the live one.

I'd like to say under the general comment in the comprehensive plan is that I understand there's been a semi-secret survey on land use for the citizens of Seattle.

I believe it's supposed to be only online and I was unable to catch it because the computers at the library don't always go on to the Seattle website.

It's often labeled as unreliable and you can't even bypass and go to it.

I've attended a number of land use meetings.

So it's not like I don't care.

And so it would be nice if we had a wider look at land use by more possible citizens rather than just a few online.

Some people don't believe it, but I say it's hard being a real person in a virtual city.

And we've become far too virtual.

As I look up at the dais here, the number of members of this committee, are not physically present.

And there's certain possibilities of good things happening when people are all together.

They can converse better.

And when you have people isolated, that's how you teach prejudice.

That's how you do magic shows where illusions, where you make it so people can't see what's really going on.

And they see something that's unbelievable and they're absolutely right.

It is unbelievable.

So I would suggest that we take a better look at land use with a much wider number of people because just a few people is not what Seattle needs.

And you shouldn't, we also should make sure they are citizens.

Thank you, Steve.

Always great to see you.

Up next is Alex Zimmerman.

And I noticed we've got some more folks in chambers.

If you are interested in signing up for public comment or one of the public hearings now is the time to do so.

You can start the timer.

Sieg Heil, my dirty damn Nazi fascist bandita imab with part of what is this?

Mafia cartel, democratic mafia cartel.

So first my speech about fundamental principle here.

Park.

Which item are you speaking to?

You told me I can speak about first like a public comment, not exactly two numbers.

You have to be speaking to an item.

No, she told me I can speak about everything plus four times I can speak again.

She told me.

You have to speak to an item on the agenda.

Okay, no problem.

No problem.

So I see this, you know, what does it mean?

Number one, what does you want to change?

This is very interesting for me because I come to this place for, I don't know, almost 20 years every day, more than 3,000 times.

And I like you, you know what it means.

And people before you, Consul, I like you, all of it.

You know what it means.

You are a good professional.

You use political anonymous more than I know everybody around.

And I speak from Tacoma to Seattle to Everett 3,000 times.

You are professional political anonymous.

You're talking and talking and talking, make us live better.

Nothing happened for 20 years.

And right now, what is your house is a number one agenda.

You know what this means?

Nothing will happen for another 20 years.

Why is it going on, guy?

Is this a problem?

You know, right?

Price for rent double.

You know what this means?

More people Start make like a hundred, approximately $1,000 in Seattle.

What is doing when senior citizen like me, who have low income in everything, you know what it means?

Pay $6 for gas?

Why don't ask Amazon guy, you know what it means?

Help us with housing, with condom, with everything.

25,000 apartment empty.

You are doing something now, not 20 years later.

It will be same, yes, 20 years from now.

It's a problem, what I see.

For this, I call you, you are pure 100% honest.

Thank you.

That is the end.

And Mr. Zimmerman, this is your second warning for not speaking to an agenda item.

No, I speak agenda number one.

I'm just letting you know.

No, no, no, no, no.

Second warning.

This has happened in the past.

I'm not here to have an argument.

I'm not having an argument.

Up next is Megan Cruz coming into us on the virtual public hearing.

Megan, I see you're there.

There you are.

You're ready to go.

Yes.

Hi, I'm here to talk about Resolution 32068, Section 2. It talks about developing strategies to accommodate urban freight deliveries.

I'm happy to see this is on the list, and it can't come too soon.

The Department of Construction and Inspections began studying this five years ago and developed a beginning plan, but that has stalled.

In the meantime, in the five years since, Texas A&M ranks Seattle among major cities across the country from 11th to 15th in some lists that we really don't want to be on.

The excess CO2 from trucks, economic costs of trucks circling the streets and congestion.

So we know from our own local University of Washington studies that we have in the urban core trucks circling blocks for up to 18 minutes beyond their regular delivery times, just looking for a place to offload.

I think that right now, before the problem gets worse, we already know that we have a director's rule that talks about getting a loading berth for every tower.

getting garbage off the alleys.

This would allow trucks to be able to move over, park someplace, and then go on about their business.

So I would encourage the two things, that we adopt the alleys loading first and solid waste directors rule that has been delayed without explanation, and that we empower design review to make the decisions that a building not only look good, but function well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Megan.

David, you wanna speak to a public hearing?

That's correct, great.

With that, seeing as we have no additional smoker speakers remotely present for the general public hearing, we will move on to the next agenda item.

D, items of business, item one.

Clerk, will you please read the short title of this first item?

Item 1, Council Bill 120405, Approving Crown Hill Design Guidelines for Briefing and Public Hearing.

Thank you.

And I forgot to mention at the top, we will have a special Land Use Committee meeting next Thursday at 2 p.m.

to vote the balance of these issues out of committee.

Our first item here is public hearing on Council Bill 120405, which would approve neighborhood design guidelines for Crown Hill.

It has been read into the record and we're joined by Katie Hyma from the Office of Planning and Community Development and Yolanda Ho from Council Central staff.

Yolanda, Katie, will you take us away?

I think Katie is well equipped to launch us into this, so I'll hand it off to her.

Thank you so much.

All right, I'm going to share my screen.

I've got a very brief presentation for you.

Can everyone see that?

Yep.

Not yet.

Oh, wait.

All right.

There it comes.

Got it.

I've done this enough.

You'd think I'd have it by now.

So good afternoon.

Thank you so much for having us today to talk about the Crown Hill Neighborhood Design Guidelines.

My name is Katie Hama.

I'm a planner at OBCD.

And I'm going to pass it to my colleague, Ruan, to introduce herself real quick.

Hi, everyone.

I'm Ruan Hassan.

I'm the newest Associate Planner at the Land Use Policy at the Office of Planning and Community Development, and I will be talking about community engagement within the design guidelines.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

All right, we will get started.

So just as a refresher and for a little bit of context, I'll just provide a super quick overview of the Design Review Program.

So the program was established in 1994. It was updated in 2018, and it generally applies to new commercial and multifamily development across the city.

The purpose of the program is to encourage design excellence in site planning, urban design, and architecture, ensuring that new development responds to its context, that it provides flexibility for practice design, and also aids in the communication among developers, communities, and the city.

So there are eight design review boards, as shown on this map.

Crown Hill is under the purview of the Northwest Design Review Board.

And the boards are comprised of volunteers, which are appointed by the mayor and council.

So as I mentioned, design guidelines apply to new commercial and multifamily development across the city.

So the Seattle design guidelines cover all areas of the city, with a couple exceptions.

But they're informally called the Citywide Design Guidelines.

Some neighborhoods also have neighborhood design guidelines, as is shown in blue on the map.

And so these are supplemental.

They complement the citywide design guidelines.

The neighborhood design guidelines provide more specific guidance that is unique to that neighborhood.

There's often geographic or place-based guidelines, or it can reinforce certain themes that the community has either concerns about or sees as opportunities.

So the Crown Hill neighborhood does not currently have neighborhood-specific guidelines.

So in all the areas in the Crown Hill Urban Village were zoned at higher intensities in 2019 as part of mandatory housing affordability or MHA.

The Crown Hill community wanted to ensure that new development would contribute positively to the neighborhood and advocated for a community planning process and design guidelines.

So the proposed guidelines offer additional detail and direction for addressing the community concerns and implementing the community's vision as it relates to the development of new buildings in the neighborhood.

So I was here last fall with the Crown Hill Action Plan, which you may remember, and it really provides the foundation for the design guidelines.

So through this planning process, residents, businesses, and property owners in the neighborhood identified potential strategies, actions, and urban design recommendations to guide the future development of the neighborhood to create a walkable, mixed-use pedestrian environment.

several recommended actions in the plan involve design guidelines or development standards to help achieve those desired outcomes.

To that end, the proposed design guidelines are carrying forward many of the ideas from the action plan that promote new development, that enhances pedestrian comfort and walkability, adds local destinations, and creates a neighborhood commercial and community hub, and also works to balance open space with density and contribute to public life.

I'll pass it over to Ruan for this slide.

In developing these guidelines, the city continued its engagements with the community to ensure that the proposed guidelines reflect the community's vision for new development.

Many of the ideas and concepts were the result of earlier outreach efforts, which included creation of stakeholder groups, convening for community workshops, and for online surveys, knowing that a likely outcome of the planning process would be design guidelines.

In preparing the design guidelines, the city conducted an online survey to confirm previous design input and priorities as well as solicit new ideas.

And we also attended a summer street festival hosted by the Crown Hill Village Association to talk with community members about the guidelines.

Awesome, thank you.

So the current whole neighborhood design guidelines contain contain specific strategies and approaches approaches that address priority design issues for new development within the neighborhood guideline area, which in this case is the urban village.

So some of the priority design issues that we threw out the guidelines are improving pedestrian connectivity and walkability by encouraging mid-block pedestrian pathways, improved sidewalks and public realm conditions, and setbacks for wider planting and sidewalks.

The guidelines work to support community placemaking and public life by balancing growth with open space, designing that open space to enhance the public realm with things like small plazas or courtyards and areas for gathering and events.

And then the guidelines also talk a lot about incorporating trees and landscaping.

They encourage lush, layered landscaping along sidewalks and especially on busy corridors.

So there are a handful of geographic areas that both build upon what is already working in the neighborhood and work to support the community's vision as was articulated in the action plan.

So Holman Grove, which you see in pink, is where the community really wants to grow sort of this neighborhood heart.

So projects in this area are expected to reinforce that as a community gathering space to contribute to a vibrant pedestrian-oriented neighborhood commercial core, excuse me, by including human-skilled design elements, small retail frontages, and spaces that enhance the public realm and really support social interaction.

Along the 15th Avenue and Holman Road corridor, projects should seek to enhance the pedestrian experience with a lot of lush plantings, planting buffers, setbacks or grade that allow for more space along the sidewalk, and locating strategic courtyards and plazas to help activate the public realm and also provide a little bit of relief from the corridor condition.

The guidelines talk a little bit about gateway and community corners as projects where, sorry, as corners where projects are encouraged to create a sensible rival and really enhance the pedestrian activity using distinct architectural forms, plazas, public art.

And then the current whole walking loop is this community desired essentially a very pedestrian friendly walking loop around the neighborhood and so for this area projects are encouraged to provide a lot of landscaping large shade trees, but then also thinking about providing individual unit entries patios balconies all those things that make the streetscape more engaging and provide more opportunities for social interaction.

As part of that there is a 17th Avenue Northwest Greenway as a portion of that loop and the guidelines here really work to encourage onsite green stormwater infrastructure, which is intended to help support our partnerships with SPU as they work with the community to address stormwater in the area.

Excuse me.

And then, so through this process we did endeavor to integrate equity into the design guidelines.

So what an equitable design outcome looks like or what that is depends a lot upon the context and the location of a given project and upon what communities will actually be interacting with and inhabiting the space.

in and around the project, past harms have occurred, what the current community priorities and challenges are.

And so designing for equity means that the process becomes just as important as the outcomes and that the outcomes might actually look very radically different depending on that particular context.

So in that vein, the guidelines encourage project designers to engage with Black, Indigenous, and communities of color in the neighborhood, as well as other underrepresented populations when designing new development, and to authentically reflect their identities, their cultures, and their communities in the design of buildings and open spaces to help foster a sense of belonging and inclusion for all of the community.

So I will wrap it up there.

Thank you so much for your time today.

And we're happy to answer any questions or provide any clarifications.

Thank you Katie, you know, I've been waiting for this for, gosh, I don't know how long, stop counting otherwise I'd have more gray hairs.

I know that we've had this in committee with the action plan, and now with the design guidelines, I plan to vote this out next week at our special committee hearing.

I do want to just check, Council colleagues, do you have any questions for Rowan.

Nice to, I don't know that we've met yet, so pleasure to meet you here in council chambers.

I'm seeing nothing from Council Member Nelson, nothing from the other colleagues.

Well, I think that we are good to go.

Katie, you have educated us very well.

I do what I can.

All right.

Wonderful.

Well, we're going to now transition into the public hearing on this item.

Clerk, will you please play the recording?

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the city of flowers and the city of goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the Council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and used the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused or if the process impedes the council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the city.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in Council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the Council.

The public comment period is now open.

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

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of, you have been unmuted.

Thank you, Seattle.

And the public hearing on Council Bill 120405, Neighborhood Design Guidelines for Crown Hill is now open.

The first and only speaker on the list is Newt Ringen.

Newt, let's see, we are bringing you up I see you're there now press star six, and you have two minutes when you're ready.

Thank you.

Actually, I was going to speak to 124.01.

Can I do that at this time and get it over with?

120, and we're going to restart his time once we get through this.

You want to speak to 120.401?

Yeah.

We'll have to bring you back because these are public hearings.

So we'll just...

Okay.

I've got you.

Sorry.

No, you're totally fine.

Sorry.

You're totally fine.

When you're ready, we'll just restart your two minutes at your convenience.

I am ready.

Great.

Take it away.

My name is Knut Ringen.

I'm a downtown resident in the Fisher Studio building on 3rd Avenue between Pike and Pine.

I want to speak briefly about CB 12401, section 25. We're on 12405. OK.

Are you not here to speak about the Crown House?

I got this wrong.

Newt, we'll bring you back later.

We're on a different agenda item.

I'm not seeing anyone here for 405. So with that, my apologies for making us play the recording.

Being there's not a member of the public present for this public hearing on Council Bill 120405, the public hearing is now closed.

We're gonna move on to our next item, item two, Council Bill 120394, which would modify development regulations for townhouses.

Oh, my apologies.

That's right.

I forgot.

We got we got some in-person sign up sheets.

So the public hearing is not closed yet.

First, we've got Steve Robstello, followed by Alex Zimmerman.

Gentlemen, you have two minutes.

You must speak to this agenda item.

When you're ready.

needs a lot more than what you've got.

The original idea of design review was much, much wider than the limited we have now.

And we should be putting parking, views, everything was on the table.

That was part of a compromise, which brought your urban villages and brought a lot of upzoning.

Then With one hand, the city gives, and with the other hand, later on, the city takes it back to limit the scope of the review.

The other thing is this is not ordinance, and this is not going to, absolutely force the review board to adhere exactly to what is guidelines.

In the past, we've seen the city's word has been their bond with the development community, but not necessarily on the citizen side.

So my hope is that the city will do a better job of staying with the citizen part of the review.

The design review is not just what color of paint goes on.

These are design guidelines.

Yeah.

Well, this is one step.

I assume the design review board has to, is asked to look at them.

Continue.

Am I incorrect?

If I'm incorrect, then you could rule me out of order.

But I suspect that the design review has to look at the design guidelines, don't they?

Or is that their purpose?

Just keep going and we'll take this up.

If I'm incorrect, let me know.

But you need to add more to the scope and you need to also make sure that the citizens get a fair shake on this too, that it's not just for expansion.

Thank you, Steve.

Mr. Zimmerman.

See how I adored the Nazi fascist mob bandit in Saikapa, a pure mafia.

Cartel.

My name is Alexander.

I want to speak about agenda number 405, Neighborhood Design Guadaline.

I have one problem, you know what I mean here.

Everything that I hear right now belongs to the Democrat Mafia.

In every committee, every design, Guadaline belongs to Democrats.

So there are other people in America, in Seattle too, like Republicans or Independents or Free People, you know what I mean.

I never see this, not one.

in committee somebody not a Democrat.

This little bit make me sick because you interrupt me twice, you know, it has been, you make me guilty too.

I want to only explain to you.

So similar situation happened before, you know, you give me 12 trespassers for 1,200 day, but Three years ago, King Country make trick like you.

You know what it mean?

And I see all council in court, King Country Council.

So I only want to explain to you.

So when you, I'm sorry, my warning, because I different man, and I never can come to one committee for 15 years.

Nobody accept me.

And I'm business consultant and professional.

This is exactly what is in this agenda important.

So I want to explain to you, when you give me trespass, I see you all in court, like King Country Council.

See you?

For this, I demand, what is people who go to every committee, what is your appointment, possibly have different opinion.

Because I am in many committee before, dozen, hundred, is all Democrat, all have same opinion, like you.

Apple never fallen far away from tree.

This is exactly what has happened.

For this, we have a problem in Seattle, because when you're thinking like a Nazi, Gestapo, democracy, it's not will be good for everybody, ever for rich people, for poor people, for everybody.

You need stop acting like a Nazi, Gestapo, democracy.

That was our last speaker present at this public hearing.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120405, which will approve neighborhood design guidelines for Crown Hill is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who provided comments today.

We will have this item up before our committee next Thursday at 2 p.m.

for a final vote.

Thank you, Rowan and Katie and Yolanda.

Moving on to our next item, item two, Council Bill 120394. This is a public hearing on Council Bill 120394, which would modify development regulations for townhouses and row houses.

Clerk, will you please read the short title into the record?

Item 2, Council Bill 120394, Modifying Development Regulations for Townhouse and Rural Houses for Briefing and Public Hearing.

Thank you.

And we have Brennan Staley from the Office of Planning and Community Development and Lish Whitson from Council Central.

Staff, Lish, will you please start us off with a brief introduction?

And Brennan, join in at your leisure.

Hi, listen Council central staff and Brennan has a presentation that describes the proposed bill and then we can discuss it after the presentation.

Wonderful.

Brendan, we can see the slide, but were you going to navigate us through this?

Just one second.

There we go, can you hear me now?

Yes, we can.

Thank you, my apologies on that.

Yeah, so I'm gonna walk through the basics of the proposal that's here before you today, the townhouse reforms legislation.

What you have on the screen right now is showing us the current and next slide just for your awareness.

Okay, I'll stop sharing here.

Is that better?

Yeah, that works.

Great.

And hopefully it'll be full screen here in a second.

Are you seeing my full screen or no not at this time.

I apologize, having some computer problems here.

No worries.

And there's always a welcome invitation to anyone in the building to always come down to Chambers.

I'm just going to go ahead and do it like this.

Is that workable?

Works great for me.

Wonderful.

So the background here is that this proposal actually started under the previous administration.

Mayor Durkan put together the Affordable Middle Income Housing Advisory Council, which published their recommendations in January of 2020, included a number of changes, including the proposal to change townhouse regulations.

The project was put on hold during the pandemic, but then was restarted afterwards.

We published SEPA in November 2021, which was appealed.

That appeal was resolved in the city's favor in March of this year, and this legislation was then moved forward.

The reason for this legislation is that we have heard a very high interest in people for owning townhouses.

They are a relatively lower cost home ownership option, especially as housing prices rise.

The average detached home is now over a million dollars in the city of Seattle.

In 2019, we did a survey as part of the housing choices work.

In that survey, 70% of people under the age of 35 ranked townhouses as the number one type of housing that they would like to see more of.

In conversations we had, that was really because it was seen as one of the only affordable ways of homeownership in the city.

At the same time, we've seen reduced production of townhouses.

Applications for new townhouse projects have been decreasing over the last three years.

And we're seeing some townhouse developers are starting to move away from townhouses towards single-family homes and also to apartment construction.

So what we're proposing are a number of fairly small-scale changes that we think will help to start moving code barriers to townhouse construction.

The three, which I'll talk about in more detail, are one, modifying the density limits in low-rise one zones, two, updating requirements for bike parking, And then three making the easement requirements consistent with new fire department standards.

So in low rise one zones are our primary zone in which we get townhouse development and row house development.

In those zones townhouses are subject to a density limit that limits the number of units, you can have per area, but apartments cottage housing and most row houses are not subject to those same so you can actually already do a apartment in these areas at a much higher density, but there is a limit if you decide to do townhouses.

Most developers of these properties make a choice when they're starting, if they're not going to do an apartment, that either they can build larger size townhouses that meet the density limit just for townhouses, or they can subdivide the lot parallel to the street and do row houses in the front, which do not have any density limit, and townhouses in the back, which do.

You can see an example what that means.

Without the subdivision on a 5,000 square foot lot, you might be able to get three units.

With subdivision, you could get four.

The proposal here is because people are already subdividing these parcels, that we would increase the density limit, which is currently one dwelling unit per 1,300 square foot of property, to one dwelling unit per 1,150 square foot of property, which is consistent with what people are already doing today by subdividing.

But at the same time, we'd apply the density limit to row house development on interior lots to get rid of this incentive to subdivide.

And the benefits are one developers would continue to be able to build the same size house they're doing today, which can be lower cost because smaller size.

For example, on a 5000 square foot lot for units would cost on average, about $80,000 instead of three units which would be over a million dollars a piece.

But at the same time, because they wouldn't have to go through that subdivision process, doing separate permits, it would reduce the cost and the time for developers and for the city, because we wouldn't have to do all as much review.

So that's the proposal for density limits.

Moving on to bike parking in 2018 the city increased the amount of long term bike parking that was required for a variety of projects and added a new requirement for short term bike parking.

That short term bike parking requirement was actually designed for apartments and has been very problematic for townhouses.

The concept is that it that the short term parking would be handled, either in the first floor of the building itself, the common area, or in the right of way in the public right of way.

And for townhouses, neither of those are an option, there is no internal place where it can be, you know, that's, that's common.

And the city almost never allows any bike parking in the right of way because we need that for tree requirements and for staging of solid waste pickup.

So instead what that means is that people have to take the limited open space and convert it.

And you can see on the right one example of how people tend to do that is they take somebody's front yard and they turn it into a short-term bike parking storage area.

And that is not ideal for the residents because that open space is precious both for having some private space but also for the greenery that you can put there.

And so the idea is while we continue the long-term bike parking requirement, so which is again one space for every unit, we would remove that short-term bike parking, the bike parking that is required to be public for anybody, not just for residents of the building.

And at the same time, we would put in place a number of new changes that would allow basically to make it easier to accommodate parking on the site, and those include allowing bike racks and setbacks, allowing bike lockers and spaces between buildings, allowing required bike parking to be inside the first floor of a townhouse, like in a special bike parking stall.

also exempting freestanding bike lockers from counting towards floor area.

Again, removing the requirement for the short-term bike parking just for these townhouse projects, continue to have the long-term bike parking requirements, but then also making it easier to accommodate biking on-site as well.

The third major proposal is to change the easement requirements.

Currently the land use code requires a 20 foot wide easement for any development that has three to nine housing units.

That's in place because the fire department used to have a requirement for that, so they could drive trucks into the middle of these townhouse projects.

they've changed their requirements as they no longer feel it's necessary or they want to drive trucks into the site.

And they reduced it from 20 feet to 10 feet, and so the proposal would be to reduce that land use easement so it's now consistent with these new updated fire department guidelines.

Lastly, there are a number of other small modifications that are included as well.

One would allow minor overhangs over surface parking without counting that surface parking and floor area calculations.

We as a city tend to appreciate those small overhangs because it allows basically less space to be taken up by surface parking, so more space for other things.

We'd also modify an existing provision that allows parking off an alley.

Right now, the first 25 feet can be for parking off an alley.

We'd increase that to 27 feet.

And really the reason why is that on some smaller lots, you need to put aside additional space for a turning radius onto the site.

And so that would kind of continue to allow what we want in the first place.

We'd also change the minimum size of parking spaces and individual garages of the townhouse from large to medium.

There's no other context in residential housing where we require large spaces, this is the only one.

Mostly most spaces actually are small, and so we'd only decrease it to medium.

And the reason being is there's lots of cases in which the large spaces are very long, and often, that means that there's not much space for a room on the first floor or you can't do any park today parking at all in smaller sites, so we're trying to make it easier to have reasonable ground floors and accommodate parking in some cases.

And lastly, adding back in clarification about how development standards such as density limits apply to lots with multiple development types.

It was something that used to be there and was inadvertently removed previously.

So that is the proposal, and I'm happy to take questions or turn it over.

Thank you, Brennan.

I think the committee is familiar with my feelings about townhomes.

I think that many townhomes are very ugly.

And I do appreciate the density that is provided by townhomes.

I think that there is the ability to make them look beautiful.

I have a number of examples just off of Northwest 20th Avenue in Ballard.

There's one surrounding the old Victorian home.

There's one that preserved a tree.

There's one that uses barn wood as its exterior.

These are beautiful buildings when done correctly, and I have seen them done Seeing them ugly as well.

So with that, it is okay to have two separate feelings about townhomes is how I will address this.

I know I had some questions in our meeting before this committee hearing.

I'll follow up with some others after this meeting.

In the interest of time, since we have so many, I'll reserve my questions for those opportunities.

I do want to see colleagues, are there any questions?

I have a comment.

Sure, I see Councilmember Nelson and Vice Chair Morales and then Councilmember Peterson.

Looks like we got a hot topic.

Well, I'll preface it by saying that I've always believed that the city needs to better align our regulatory environment with our policy goals.

And in this case, the policy goal is we need more housing.

And to me, to get that before making housing less expensive and easier to build.

by removing regulatory barriers could get us closer to addressing our housing unaffordability problems.

So, I also believe that townhomes, no matter what one thinks of their aesthetics, do provide They do provide more paths to home ownership.

And so I support this package of changes as it's been explained.

And I did reach out to the Master Builders Association and got some more information because I was a little bit, I just wanted to understand better the density provision here.

And Brendan talked about the fact that by sub-cladding, It adds time and cost.

And what I learned is that, in fact, about 99% of the developers are having to subplot to be able to get four units per lot.

And having two different projects on each plot adds about $8,000 to $10,000 per unit and $6,000 to $8,000, I think you might have said this, months per project, and plus it was noted, it's a lot more work for our staff too.

So for those reasons, I really support this and thank you very much for putting in the work and the outreach to get to this point.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

It speaks to the point, if we're going to redevelop a plot, we might as well get as much housing as we can out of it.

I lost, there we go.

Vice Chair Morales, you're up next, and then we'll hear from Council Member Peterson and Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you.

So I, I had a conversation with list yesterday I had a lot of my questions answered I think but I'm still trying to understand.

I want to make sure that I understand what the outcomes potential outcomes are of this legislation.

I agree with Councilmember Nelson you know we need more housing if we have more home ownership opportunities that's great.

And reducing the cost and the time it takes to produce this housing is important.

I just don't have a good sense of.

you know, how much production would increase if we made these changes?

What kind of changes in density could we expect?

If we're talking about moving from three units to four units, it's important to have that extra unit.

I just don't really have a sense of the scale of impact that we would have you know, how much more homeownership opportunities does that create?

How many of these units that are currently being built are family size?

So I want to make sure that I understand the impact that this would have, because I'm all for reducing costs and reducing the time.

I just want to also make sure we're thinking about, you know, the net positive outcome of this for residents.

which leads me to the one thing that Lisha and I did also discuss yesterday, which is that somewhere in here, it talks about the density, if we are able to add four units, making the townhomes narrower.

And one of the things that I do hear over and over again from constituents is, you know, as attractivists, the idea of a townhome is for some, because the units are narrow already, the stairwell itself takes up a lot of the floor space.

And so I'm a little bit worried that if we're advocating for narrower townhomes, we are potentially impacting the livability of a unit.

So I'm wondering, Brennan or Lish, if you can just kind of address some of those outcome issues as we're talking about this.

Great, thank you.

Yeah, I think, first of all, in terms of the change of the density limit, This is primarily a process change rather than an outcome change.

Developers today already can get the same number of units on these products by subdividing.

And so really the change is not allowing more dense development or narrower development.

It is actually just allowing people to get there through a reduced process.

We do think that reduced process will incrementally result in more townhouses just because more projects will work.

But I don't think it's, we don't see it as a huge increase in the total number of projects.

I will say one of the things that often happens is by subdividing, it actually often creates a much more awkward lot.

And so you often get a couple units will be larger and a couple will smaller or a couple will be very narrow and a couple will be wider.

And I think, again, removing this step will make it a lot easier to get kind of consistent size houses are.

And I think one of the great things about townhouses on the size issue is that they're almost always two bedroom units and sometimes three bedroom units.

we really only see less than being less than two units in very strange situations.

But one of those is often when people subdivide that lot, they get very small ones in the front and bigger ones in the bot.

And this actually, again, will make it easier for people to have four family size instead of two bigger ones and two small ones.

So sorry, that's maybe a little rambling.

But again, the goal here is not that we're allowing units where they're not allowed today.

They're already allowed.

It's a simpler process.

It's more flexibility to make more standard size units on the lot.

Hopefully, all of that will reduce the cost to develop and so we'll get more projects because of that, but not a huge change in the overall scope of things.

Vice Chair, that was an excellent question.

Did that answer your question or do you want to follow up?

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, I'm fine.

Excellent.

Thank you for asking.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I agree with a lot of what's been said here in terms of having more home ownership opportunities, having additional units.

Appreciate Council Member Rouse's questions about the layout of these buildings.

And I'm interested in seeing more condos that are stacked flat so that the ground floor units can be available for people with mobility challenges because I know the townhome is great for the developer because they can just slice off the land up to the top of the building and sell that but I'd like to see more density with the flats so that you have ground floor accessibility as well and would love to see even deeper affordability where we're incentivizing lower income or enabling lower income families to move into these because these brand new town homes are still very expensive.

But I, you know, in looking at this legislation, I, I see what what Brennan is saying in terms of their they're doing it anyway.

It's just taking them a long time to get there.

And it's an administrative I think it is a burden for the city to approve all of these changes and subdivisions.

But they are going to ultimately get there anyway.

They are allowed to do it through this more convoluted way.

I think ultimately that is what is going to affect my decision on this.

I know what one of my questions is what, why wouldn't this be done through the comprehensive planning process so we're sort of looking at it all holistically about what we're trying to do.

Is there any way to get more affordability.

If we're going to make it easier for them, is there any way to get some affordability benefit out of it?

I'll just go ahead and get all my questions.

Does this reduce any fees to Seattle Public Utilities for hookups if we're going to be allowing something different?

you know, just to get the question out about trees and permeable surfaces.

I know there's a benefit to having a permeable surface for drainage and to prevent runoff and enable trees to grow.

Are we going to see a greater loss of trees with this proposal approved?

A lot of great questions there.

I think the first thing is, you know, the comprehensive plan is a huge opportunity for kind of thinking through big changes, but we don't want small changes that could be helpful in the short term to kind of get delayed by that.

So, I think our overall thinking is a like small tweaks that can make that can help us the next couple, you know, two to three years.

We want to try and do now because there's a lot of time that that benefit could be done.

But then the bigger changes, and you brought up a lot of great ones, like how do we get more condos?

And how do we get deeper affordability?

And I think those are all things that, you know, they're deeper questions.

They're true across a wide variety of zones and areas.

And I think that we do want, that's I think the goal of the comp plan is to get into those questions.

So I think it's really about kind of scale.

And we felt this was like a small change that could create benefit today without waiting and didn't need to wait.

But there's a lot of other associated issues that definitely for which the compound is a great tool.

On the hookups question, no, this would not change any of the fees or the hookups or the requirements and kind of solid waste, etc.

And then on trees, you know, obviously that's a really important part of accommodating trees in these properties is a really important part of it.

You know, one, just on the small, the bike parking, I mean, one of the ideas there is that there are so many requirements, the ground floor and that kind of short-term public bike parking is another one that really makes it difficult to accommodate trees or vegetation of any kind.

And so I think that flexibility will be helpful in that small way.

You know, otherwise, we are changing the process around density limits.

But again, we don't think people are going to be getting more dense.

They're just going to get there with less process.

And also, we're not changing any of the setback requirements.

So on these lots, there's a limited FAR because of all the other things like amenities, et cetera.

people are not able to increase the setback by having more units.

It's just more units within the same footprint.

So overall, we don't think this will have a kind of a major impact either way.

You know, it's not going to obviously be like creating a lot more space for trees, but it's also not going to be reducing space for trees either or for other things like stormwater infrastructure.

Thank you, Brendan.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Great questions.

I mean, look, the last thing we want to do is set up short-term bike parking in front of a townhome that somebody lives in and has long-term bike parking in the garage in place of a tree.

Up next is Councilmember Mosqueda, and I hope I'm not in too much trouble for saying that some of these townhomes are less than aesthetic.

Go for it, Councilmember Mosqueda.

As a townhome dweller and first time home owner because of a townhouse, perhaps beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm also very excited about trees being part of this conversation because I just want to lift up, you know, when we can create more dense options within our city.

for those of us, and I know all of us on this committee do love trees.

We can make sure that fewer trees and forest land and farmland is being encroached upon when more people can live in our city.

So that's also beautiful, if you will.

I will get on my questions, Mr. Chair.

One of the things that I'd like to lift up is the long trajectory that this conversation has had.

I'm thankful that folks like the Master Builders Association and others in the community who've been calling for affordable housing and density options and streamlining our systems have been engaged in this for as long as I've been on council.

I know that some folks have been working on this for three plus years.

I'm excited that this is happening.

I also just wanted to see if there is Anything that we can be doing to help bring in some of the concepts that Councilmember Peterson was talking about, which is if we're allowed to create greater density on-site, is there anything that we can be doing to create greater density within these units as well?

Love the concept of flats.

I don't know how that exactly overlaps with the issues that we constantly ran into related to the condo laws at the state, but since there's been some changes at the state level, Is there any synergy here today is for us to be able to create greater density on plots for row houses and townhouses and anything else that we might be able to do around flats or condo like approaches to the units that are being created.

I guess I'll just say to the, you know, for the, the legislation at hand, I'm not sure that they're kind of small tweaks that we could do that would make a big change you know as you, as you mentioned like the major barriers to getting more like townhouse or condo style is the state law which has had some changes.

Yeah, but a lot of other ones are kind of market things I think as part of the comprehensive plan we, that is a key thing that we want to look at, you know, especially as we think about changes in neighborhood residential areas other parts of the city, having kind of that opportunity for the next couple of years to have a conversation with the public with the people who build these also the affordable housing providers, which are more and more looking as that small condo building as a real option.

I think we really want to have kind of like a lot of really detailed conversations on how to crack that nut, so to speak.

But I don't have any good kind of recommendations about maybe how this legislation might move us in that direction.

Mr. Chair, I'll look forward to working with you and the department on those options.

and the near future and excited about the legislation in front of us.

I also will add, I think it does help promote the livability that is so important to our city, as well as creating more affordable options across our city.

But when we talk about livability, it's also the ability to walk places and to be in neighborhood and be around small businesses and do what I do, walk to daycare.

Local parks and so you know as the as we roll this out, I do want to also make want to make sure that we're thinking about.

Some of the park preservation and enhanced tree.

planting that other council members have commented on throughout their time on council as well, because I think it goes hand in glove with this.

If folks don't have a backyard like we don't have, we have a small courtyard, then we want to make sure that we have additional access to parks and that we expand that park space as well, because those are our backyards.

So I think there's a lot of shared priorities on this concept and others that we've talked about, Mr. Chair.

So I totally understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate that this is moving forward.

Thank you and you know something that.

So I lived on Northwest 63rd Street in Ballard for four years and in that time I think there was only about four months of not building happening so there's about, I lived through about four years of construction on the street and watched almost every single family, single detached house turned into townhomes.

And at the time, there was a house across the street that was a three bedroom that rented for $1,300 that was replaced by three $700,000 homes and watching this occur was troubling for me.

And what I have since also realized is that the mandatory housing affordability payments that those buildings made are what allowed me to get the $10 million for family affordable housing, just a few blocks away in Ballard at St. Luke's Episcopal Church where they have three bedroom units that are affordable for families.

And so I raised that because we've got a lot of great organizations like Homestead creating and Habitat for Humanity creating home ownership at an affordable level through townhomes and also for the ones that aren't priced at a rate that allows for affordability for many.

We are still creating affordable housing through those projects.

Just wanted to raise that point because that was an experience that took me a while to realize how that all connected.

With that, any other questions before we open up the public hearing?

We will have this bill back before us again next week.

for our special committee on the uh at 2 p.m next thursday seeing no further questions clerk let's roll the tape

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the City of Flowers and the City of Goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the Council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and used the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel Broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused or if the process impedes the council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the city.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in Council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the Council.

The public comment period is now open.

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

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of, you have been unmuted.

Thank you, Seattle.

speakers present, Alicia Ruiz, Dave Mooring, Richard Ellison, Steve Rubstello, and Alex Zimmerman.

Seeing as we are already, I guess we have enough time.

We'll remain at two minutes.

Gentlemen, I'm just going to let you know that it It's causing some hiccups here for people that are only speaking to one item.

So let's start with Alicia Ruiz, who is virtually present.

And then we'll move to Dave Mooring, who I know is virtually signed in and here in person.

Richard Ellison, who is remote.

Then Steve Rubstello and Alex Zimmerman, who are present.

So Alicia Ruiz.

I see you're there.

You're off mute when you're ready.

Good afternoon.

Hi there.

My name is Alicia Ruiz.

I'm the Seattle Government Affairs Manager for the Master Builders Association.

As you know, most of our members are townhome builders here in this region.

And I'm here today to enthusiastically support Council Bill 120394, otherwise known as the Townhome Reform Legislation.

And as SBCI's data has shown us, townhome permit applications have plummeted in Seattle Count homes are seen as a large part of missing middle housing.

So we need to do everything we can to increase production.

The most important change in this legislation is the density provision that will again allow for builders to build four units on a lot.

Under today's code, in order to make the most out of available land, builders are forced to jump through excessive and expensive loops.

And that's approximately $30,000 in extra costs per project.

So builders have to divide this land into two separate pieces and able to get four units built.

And as you all mentioned in the discussion, this is all unnecessary and creates a lot of work for both the builders and city employees.

The amendments in this bill don't change what can be developed today.

It simply streamlines the process to make permitting more efficient.

But most importantly, it helps build townhomes faster and cheaper.

So thank you again for your support, and we appreciate SDCI and OPCD actually reaching out for feedback.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alicia.

Up next is Dave Mooring.

Dave, at your convenience.

Thank you very much.

Council Bill, and I have a handout that I think I sent an email earlier this morning to everybody.

There's a slip sheet on the top of that handout which you can toss but basically it shows some row houses on my street that are selling for about $820,000.

And they're at that small size that we're proposing here with this legislation on a 797 square foot unit lot so I don't think we're going to see much in affordability.

So I do think this is kind of a low.

low priority for the city council.

If you do look at the 2019 housing choices background report done in 20, again, by the same OPCD, they have about 500 different recommendations including the one that was mentioned about providing flats.

So, if this does go forward.

I would encourage the city council to look at basically several different amendments, which have been included on second page.

And the first amendment, of course, is we always talk about density, which I appreciate, and building more in the city of Seattle, but also with that density, making sure that we meet our canopy goals.

And we just realized that we're just kind of lost a little bit of the canopy in our last five years, looking at the canopy cover in the last five years.

And this is not gonna happen by coincidence.

It has to happen by legislation.

And this is the time to do it.

And OPCD has already verified that they have not looked at what's gonna happen to the trees with this proposal.

So we need to go back and look at that.

There's only a few more seconds left.

So there are some other, like the, Council Member Peterson recommended, I do recommend that we do add flats, Lord, below our row houses and townhouses.

I have a photo example of that also in Kenmore, that we only add this density when there's access to alleys, because without alleys, we're taking out a whole bunch in the middle between these buildings, and some other recommendations as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dave.

Always great to see you.

Appreciate you.

Up next is Richard Ellison joining us virtually, followed by Steve Rubstello and then Alex Zimmerman.

Richard, I see you here.

Press star six.

Hello, thank you.

Hi, Richard.

How are you today?

I'm doing well, and yourself?

I'm doing well, and, oh, clerk, could you reset the timer?

We were just being nice.

All right, Richard, at your convenience, take it away.

Okay, thank you.

With the city council already considering neighborhood residential, aka single-family zoning, to allow for fourplexes and more and more, the current proposal is to allow greater townhouse density There would be no room for trees to grow.

There is no room for trees to be planted.

There's no room for trees to be saved.

Street trees are not enough.

This townhouse proposal leaves little slivers of open space.

This plan requires greater foresight than simply allowing the developers at the urging of desperate housing advocates to cut all the trees down to build more housing.

The city must not cut out on real ground open space, space for people and trees.

We must build taller, not lot line to lot line.

Build up, not out.

Townhomes could be designed with a ground floor unit for people with mobility problems, and upper floor units for the more agile.

Everyone can have a front porch and share a yard.

In a climate changing world with record temperatures, heat domes, urban island heat effects, smoke from fires, and an economic disparity existing between neighborhoods with trees and without, This townhouse proposal supports the future of Seattle becoming increasingly treeless and birdless and sweltering in summers and flooding in winters.

Humans need real living open spaces and a higher density of Seattle means more open spaces.

We need more open spaces and shade, not less and less.

Townhouses need shade, family needs shade yards, habitat needs continuity.

of trees and vegetation.

If kids' activities means only televisions and computer games, then it's a sad future.

Townhouses need open spaces for families and wildlife to live and children to play.

Building taller and requiring a place for a tree to grow big and shared yards for families to interact and enjoy, families need needing only a front porch in the eyes of Brennan Staley, but families need more than a postage size stamped front porch.

Please plan for a vibrant green city, not a blue light Walmart Richard, thank you very much, I will send in my comment, please do appreciate you comment calling in today up next to Steve group still followed by Alex Zimmerman and gentlemen I know we've heard a lot from you today so if you have less than two minutes to say I greatly appreciate it.

You got three points.

What's disappearing fast in this city is large trees and black people.

I think we're at 50 year lows for both of them in the city of Seattle.

And this seems to reward a loophole.

One of the problems in the city is also having housing for families.

And part of the idea is to have a yard.

If you're going to put more of it into housing, then you'll have less opportunities for families in the city.

Overhangs are also going to be going against the whole idea.

You don't need trucks on your lot.

People don't move.

Fires don't happen.

People don't make deliveries.

And, you know, everybody else ought to be able to take that truck blocking the street while they get their delivery or something.

Because, you know, this is Seattle and we worship developer profit more than we do a livable city.

And we should have a livable city and access with the trucks would help that.

Now, if you're going to have overhangs, how about making those overhangs high enough that you can get a truck in there to do the moving, make deliveries, you know, let's make, a city where we don't have to make everybody else pay for our convenience.

And I'll give you a few seconds here.

Thanks, Steve.

Always great to see you.

Alex Zimmerman, please take it away.

Thank you.

Two minutes and must be on topic.

You already have two warnings.

Okay, thank you very much.

My name is Alex Zimmerman.

I want to speak about support development to the house.

in courthouses, yeah, 394. You're very good, and I support you.

It's a very good plan.

We need doing something about this plan.

You know what this mean?

More and more push, push, push for housing, more, more move for town.

Moving is good, but dream is better.

When you dream is good.

Dream come now, today, so you can dream about town halls.

So we'll give to senior citizen for 300 bucks per month, not for $3,000 for one bedroom.

My question to you guys is very simple.

I always love you, you know what I mean?

You're like children playing football, you know, in kindergarten with one ball.

And I look at this and talk, wow, nice circle, you know, nice children, look like a small clown, you know what I mean?

Why we need to build something when we have 25,000 empty apartments in the city?

20,000 housing, townhome, townhouses, 25,000.

And I talk about this for many years, you never touch this problem.

You prefer dream, dream.

Oh, pardon, I forgot, a political anonymous.

So why you don't talk We're talking about 25,000 empty housing now.

This can fix this problem now, today.

Doing something about this, 25,000 year by year staying.

Every Seattle time, make a huge article about this.

Why we need something when we have 25,000?

Give this 25,000 to poor people, to homeless, to people who make less than $30,000.

Talking about 25,000 houses empty now, now, now, now, for three times, now, now, now.

Thank you.

And I see that we have Michael Oxman has signed up, virtually present.

Michael, are you available?

I see you there.

I see you're off mute.

Michael, nice to hear your voice this afternoon.

Howdy, council members.

And this is the first meeting that I've ever seen Sarah Nelson.

So welcome, Sarah.

The other council members are thoroughly familiar with my opinions on trees.

They're fantastic if they're upright, but you are proceeding to cause all trees to be cut down.

And Sarah, you used a quote here, incongruity between policy goals and code requirements.

Well, several people here have talked about trees being a part of this proposal, which was Council Member Mosqueda's quote.

And she also said, enhanced tree planting, a quote from Council Member Mosqueda, neither of those things will be possible because on an 1,100 square foot lot, there is no room for a tree.

So has someone misguided you and told you that there will be a room for a tree?

The green factor allows trees to be credited if they're planted between the sidewalk and the curb, but that is off site.

And I really do miss Council Member Peterson's sign that used to be in his office that said, save Seattle's trees.

Mr. Staley, I'm going to quote him, accommodating trees on these projects.

Well, there are no trees on these projects, Mr. Staley.

And I also wanted to point out that Mr. Staley, during the appeal where I testified, a couple months ago, he failed to consider the canopy cover goal for multifamily, which is 20%.

The multifamily canopy cover goal was addressed a couple years ago in the urban forest management plan, and it did not reduce it.

It had a chance to.

So here we are at absolutely no room for a tree.

So how is it that you guys got the misguided assumption that there will be trees on an 11 square foot lot with a 240 square foot parking space on it and a couple 40 square foot trash can spaces And thank you, Michael.

Thank you, Michael.

Please feel free to send in the remainder of your comments.

Always great to hear your voice at this time.

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

The public hearing on Council Bill 120394, which would modify development regulations for townhouses and row houses is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who commented today.

This will be back before the committee next Thursday.

at 2 p.m.

We're moving on to item 3 of 6. Item 3, our next item, is a public hearing on Council Bill 120401, the Land Use Code Omnibus Bill, considered every other year.

Clerk, will you please read the short title into the record?

Item 3, CB120401, the Land Use Code Omnibus Bill, briefing and public hearing.

Thank you, we are joined by Mike Podolsky and Emily Lofsted from the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections, Ketel Freeman from our Council Central staff.

Ketel, can you start us off and then Emily and Mike take it from there?

Sure, so as Council Member Strauss mentioned, this is an initial briefing and public hearing on Council Bill 120401, the Land Use Code Optimist Bill, which is considered by the Council about every other year.

As the committee knows, the land use code omnibus is primarily a vehicle for correcting cross-references, making minor clarifications, and generally cleaning up the code.

And it's based on SDCI's experience administering the code, and so many of the suggestions come from SDCI.

Inevitably, there are some policy choices that are presented to the council in the omnibus.

Some of them will be highlighted here by SDCI.

I circulated a memo to the committee yesterday.

I don't think it appears on the agenda yet that highlights a few of the policy choices that are also proposed in the omnibus bill.

I'm happy to walk through those after the presentation, but in the interest of time, you may want to move to the next agenda item, in which case I'm happy to answer any questions you have about that memo offline.

So I'll turn it over now to Emily and Mike to provide a brief presentation on the omnibus.

Thank you, Ketel.

Hi, I'm Emily Lofsted.

I work with SDCI in our Land Use Division, and I've got Mike here with me.

I'm going to share our presentation now and minimize my little picture here.

So the omnibus legislation.

Today, we're going to go over what that is and give you a little intro to what Omnibus is, go over some highlights of the legislation, and have time for questions at the end.

So, SDCI's purpose and values, our purpose is to help people build a safe, livable, and inclusive Seattle.

We have many values, equity, respect, quality, integrity, and service.

So the omnibus has been around since the mid 1990s.

We use this as a process to update the land use code, typically keep things updated, correct errors.

It's just good government practice.

It's recommended by the state of Washington for local jurisdictions to update their land use code regularly.

The last omnibus ordinance we adopted was in 2019. A little bit about omnibus.

It's, you know, it's multiple amendments to largely the land use and environmental codes.

We do have the, you know, it's a lot.

It's a lot of minor updates that do not warrant a standalone legislation.

It's really to correct errors and omissions.

We also include some updates in response to some changes in state law, and really just clarifies confusing provisions.

Another highlight about Omnibus is the amendments are identified by city staff, the law department, applicants, neighborhood representatives.

worked a lot with a lot of different city departments this year as well.

So jumping into some highlights, we wanted to highlight the first one is we're clarifying the DADU, some DADU regulations to allow for more use of DADUs, including clarifying allowance of upper story decks, rooftop decks, which was the intent of the original code, and just clarifying the allowance for them to allow for you know, people to enjoy their yard, you know, their backyards as well.

Also, we're clarifying allowing the conversion of existing accessory structures.

We're continuing to allow that.

We're just reducing the barriers that was seen in the code.

Another point of highlight is we're clarifying the vesting rules so vesting is when you know you have to know at the time of application what your land use code you're you're applicable to what version of the land use code and so we're just clarifying that.

removing back a term all in front of master use permit components so that we can provide clarity of type one zoning approvals and when they vest.

Other parts of that section that we're updating include removal of some sections that are expired and no longer applicable.

Another highlight is an addition for underutilized vacant lots, which would allow for projects that are arts and cultural organizations, when they're partnering with the city agency, they would be allowed as a type one decision, you know, an easier process than a conditional use permit.

It's allowing, you know, removing barriers for these kind of equitable development of these small lots.

Another highlight is we're proposing A few changes to the environmental critical areas code to provide clarity of and use of those sections.

Some examples include maintaining The existing tree and vegetation management requirements.

just clarifying the location in the code, updating some of language related to the ECA covenant protection requirements, and then also providing some more clarity about redevelopment of existing structures in critical areas.

Two changes we made to the code include things from state law that are required to be updated.

They're already applicable, but we wanted to update the land use code to make it very clear.

One includes the removal of the limit on a number of unrelated people that may occupy a dwelling unit.

Previously, it was eight.

of people.

Now there's no limit.

This is mirroring the state law.

We never had any requirements for related people, but this is just about unrelated people.

Another change has to do when a project is going through both a SIPA review and design review.

Someone would like to appeal it.

The project is exempt if their appeal is for aesthetics and light and glare.

And this is just mirroring state law, which also applies.

So that is my presentation.

If there's any questions, I'm going to stop sharing this right now.

Thank you.

very helpful.

Mike Podolsky, anything you want to add there?

No.

Any questions?

Mike, did you want to add anything?

I can't hear you.

So this will be the second time I invite anyone who is at SMT or City Hall to the council table for when we're having council committees.

It doesn't seem like Mike's got much to add right now.

Ketel, do you want to run through your information at this time?

Sure.

I'm happy to walk through the memo and I mean, it might be easiest if I just share my screen for this purpose here.

There are five policy choices that FDCI is inviting the council to make here through the omnibus bill.

I'm looking here at the memo that I circulated yesterday.

I'm there are some other choices here this I called out five because they seem like they're slightly more significant something that the committee should be aware of and making a decision about the omnibus.

The first has to do with the term of the living building pilot program.

As the Council knows, the Living Building Pilot Program has been around since 2009. It's a program that is intended to demonstrate highly sustainable buildings in exchange for meeting a very strict standard for sustainability.

Developers can access additional height and density.

When the program was initially established, it had a three-year period and a maximum enrollment of 12 projects.

whenever three years have reached or 12 projects, whichever came first of the program.

was intended to end.

The council has extended the program before, most recently in 2016, and also expanded the number of eligible projects.

There are projects that have been built pursuant to the program, and there are some that are pipelined, some that are under construction, and some that have expressed interest in the pilot.

The question here for the council is, this is a pilot that's been going on for a while.

Should we be extending it for an additional five years?

extended from 2025 to 2030. Emily mentioned the process for arts and cultural organizations.

This is a sort of a minor minor policy choice here for the council.

These types of uses would generally need to go through a conditional use process and a neighborhood residential and low rise zones.

The proposal in the omnibus is to permit them through a type one permit approval process so no opportunity for appeal no discretionary decision making, at least a couple of projects that would benefit or have benefited already from partnering with the city as to lead this library.

I'm sure many of you are familiar with its location.

just north of the intersection of MLK and South Jackson Street.

Deaf Spotlight may also be interested in taking advantage of this amended code provision to site a facility as well.

A non insignificant policy issue here for the Council has to do with major phase development.

Major phase development is a vesting tool that has been on the city's books since about 1995. It's originally intended for large commercial and industrial projects, sort of think Amgen, for example, now the Expedia campus.

Just south of interbay sets for very large projects that are going to be built out in multiple phases.

This is a tool, they can use to lock in development standards for an extended period of time normally master use permit expires in three years but can be extended by applying for a building permit and other processes like that.

The omnibus would extend major phase development vesting to development in mid-rise zones.

Not all development in mid-rise zones, but development in mid-rise zones that meet certain criteria.

Site size, it's at least five acres, development of at least 500 residential units, performance under MHA, and location near an existing or planned light rail facility.

There's at least one site in South Seattle, approximate to the future Graham Street light station light rail.

station that could benefit from this.

That site, I believe, is currently under the control of Bellwether Housing.

Floor area ratio incentives for family-sized units.

As some members of the committee may recall, in 2017, the council created an incentive for family-sized units through up zones in both the University District Urban Center and the Uptown Urban Center.

In the Seattle mixed zones in those urban centers, If you provide 900 square foot unit with at least three bedrooms.

I'm not just one but 10, then you get an FAR bonus of point five.

When originally passed and at least in the university district.

There was an FAR bonus of one that.

could be accessed in exchange for 20 family-sized units.

STCI, the omnibus has a proposal to allow that one FAR bonus, so an increase from 0.5 to one, but without an increase in the number of family-sized units.

Finally, there is a map in the downtown code that identifies where additional floor area Uh, where there's an exemption for 4 year for street activating uses, I'm really located in the downtown retail core.

And the blocks around the downtown retail core.

Um, the omnibus would, um, expand the area where.

The exemption would be available to a half block between Stewart and Virginia streets.

There's a hotel development proposed between Stuart and Virginia that would benefit from this.

Exempt FAR is not chargeable FAR, so that FOIA exemption would not be charged under other regulatory programs like MHA.

So those are several of the policy changes that are in the omnibus that I want to make sure the committee is aware of in decision-making here.

If you have any questions about that, I'm happy to answer.

Thank you, Ketel.

Before we move to the public hearing council members want to check to see do we have any comments, questions, concerns, Vice Chair Morales, Council Member Peterson.

I have a question.

And then Council Member Nelson, Vice Chair, take it away.

Thank you.

Kito, I really appreciate you outlining each of these policy questions for us.

I do have a lot of questions.

And I think in the interest of time, given we're gonna be having this discussion more robustly maybe next week, I will follow up with you and wait till next week for that discussion.

But I appreciate this and we'll be in touch.

Wonderful, thanks for making that easy Vice Chair.

Next is Council Member Peterson, followed by Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Peterson, take it away.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Yeah, this is a lot to digest and I really appreciate the chair.

Uh, having us hear it today, I'm glad central staff did a memo on this to help us digest this.

And, um, I guess what I'm trying to understand is that the typical scope for the omnibus is pretty limited to technical corrections.

And so I'm, I'm just trying to reconcile that with the, what appears to be the, uh, substantial change.

Um, I think as central staff put it, not insignificant change in terms of the major phase development and mid rise zones.

As often happens we were making these general changes but it.

What I just learned today is that it's impacting an actual property and in South Seattle.

That could benefit bellwether housing so that might change my orientation toward it I'll confer with customer Morales on that, since I think that would be in her district but.

But just to just generally speaking, one to avoid major changes in the bus legislation, I was just worried that that might have sort of crossed over into a more substantial change.

Obviously, there's a change that will impact my district.

So I'm trying to better understand that.

Definitely want to incentivize family size units.

But I'm intrigued by central staff's question of whether we should then incentivize, should we also increase the family size unit obligation?

So I'll follow up with central staff on that.

Yeah, I think those are my only comments right now.

I just wanna say that maybe there'll be an amendment, I just don't know, but I'll work with central staff and then alert the chair as we get closer to next Thursday.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

And that is why we have two meetings, four bills that we pass so that there's time to digest and take action.

Council Member Nelson, you're up next.

Yeah, I love the two-part meeting.

Yes, going back to the living building policy choice.

My question is more, this is, you mentioned that the first building was built in 2009. I think that was the Bullitt Foundation's building.

I worked when I was staffing the land use Chair, I worked on the Brooks running shoes building which is also a living building and I think there's another living building going on, going in across from Dunn lumber so my point, my question is why is this still a pilot project and what.

Perhaps more specifically, what triggers a pilot to be turned into a permanent program?

Are there specific performance metrics that we're looking for to just make this a permanent option for builders?

I think that is sort of a question for the council.

I, I confess that I have not gone back and looked at the 2009 directors report and sort of what went into establishing the pilot and whether or not goals were established in that.

And that through that bill here, but you know that you know they're, I guess the.

There's a question for the council about, you know, if, if this is no longer a pilot, then what I, the council could update its green building standards to include.

some of the more stringent requirements of the International Living Futures Institute.

And along with that, there is the question of how much additional development capacity should be granted for projects that seek to achieve that.

For that, you know, we would need an analysis from SDCI and a recommendation from their green building folks, probably from OPCD as well.

It's sort of returning to customer Peterson's observation about some of these policy choices.

You know the council doesn't necessarily have to reach a policy decision on any of these through the omnibus bill, sort of a threshold question that each of you could consider is just.

Do I want to consider this at the course of the omnibus or do I want to consider this as a standalone piece of legislation?

Um, for something like an extension of the pilot, which will still be going on until 2025 under the current regulations.

Um, that's an option that's available for the committee.

Uh, thank you, Mr Freeman.

Tons were Nelson.

Anything else here?

Nope.

Great.

Well, you know, maybe I'd love to partner with you and turn that pilot into a permanent program, maybe that's something we can work on together.

Colleagues, I'm not seeing any other vice chairman Ross is that a new hand.

It is a new hand.

I think, just quickly, I think I'm sort of.

Giving you a heads up, STCI and KETL, my questions are going to be along those same lines.

What are the goals of these pilots, these incentives?

What were the outcomes of these things?

I'm especially interested to know for the incentives around increasing family size units, how many units did we produce with that?

Did it work?

Because those are the kinds of things I'm going to want to know before asking the next question, which is, okay, well, if it worked, how do we make this permanent?

Or how do we, you know, expand it?

Or what is the next step to make sure that we are able to do that more?

So just framing the kinds of questions or the direction I'll be going is, you know, I wanna know what the outcomes were of these and if they've met our goals.

And if they did, then let's talk about how we continue down that path.

Wonderful.

With that, I think we're going to turn open this public comment.

Clerk, will you please start the video?

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the City of Flowers and the City of Goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the Council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and used the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel Broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused or if the process impedes the council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the city.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in Council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the Council.

The public comment period is now open.

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

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of, you have been unmuted.

Thank you, Seattle.

Thank you.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120401 is now open.

We'll begin with the first speaker, Newt Ringen, followed by Megan Cruz, Steve Rubstello, and then Alex Zimmerman.

I'm just doing a time check.

It is now 3.46 p.m.

We're going to run a little bit over 4 p.m.

We're running about 10 minutes late right now.

So first Newt, then Megan.

And I see you there, Newt.

I see you're off mute.

Clerk, will you please reset the timer?

And at your convenience, Newt.

Welcome.

Thank you.

My name is Knut Ringen.

I'm a resident of the Fisher Studio building on 3rd Avenue between Pike and Pine, and I'm here to speak specifically about section 25-05-680 subsection 3, which deals with the The intent of this legislation is to deny the right to appeal any decisions made on the risks from light and glare from new developments.

This is not a small technical correction.

This is a really big issue because it deals with taking away citizens' right to due process.

And before you do that, it should be thought through carefully, so I hope you will delay action on this provision and review it much further.

First of all, there are two technical errors that need to be corrected.

The director's report says that this is a mandatory inclusion because state law requires it.

In fact, the underlying state law, SB 5818, does not require this.

It encourages municipalities to adopt the provisions that are in that law.

It does not require it.

The second correction is that the state law has a qualification that's missing in the city ordinance.

The state law says that this denial of the right to appeal should only occur if there is a specific standard that can be used to review a project against in terms of the risks that are posed by light and glare.

The City of Seattle does not have a specific standard for those things, nor does SDCI or any part of the city have any subject matter expert in these areas to perform reviews of them.

So that needs to be corrected first.

The real problem here is that the underlying...

Thank you, Knut.

Thank you, Knut.

Please feel free to email any further comments in.

Up next, we have Megan Cruz.

Megan.

Welcome, I see you there, star six.

I see you're off mute at your convenience.

Take it away.

Welcome, Megan.

Thank you.

Yes, I will continue speaking about the same provision, 2505680. It is a policy decision, not something clerical, and it does come with some problems.

It was a controversial last minute addition, promoted for and only testified on behalf of for-profit developers at the state legislature in the final days.

and eliminating the public's right to SEPA appeal based on light and glare if a project undergoes local design review.

But that's the problem.

Seattle's design review does not consider light and glare impacts, and the city has no standards or codes that address them.

This legislation that exempts SEPA appeals hasn't itself even been reviewed by SEPA.

It wasn't part of the omnibus bill when the bill was received.

It received its DNS in 2021. It needs an EIS.

And we're not the only ones that think that.

This bill, the omnibus bill, was postponed for over a year by developers who also thought this bill needed an EIS.

And they did a legal appeal and they said it wasn't properly studied and it would have adverse impacts on the environment and the public.

So once they got what they wanted out of the bill, they dropped that.

So unfortunately, the public doesn't have this avenue.

and its sheer inequity for state and local governments to eliminate a public right without providing standards of safeguard.

Please honor two community requests.

One, separate this amendment from the omnibus bill and give it an EIS study that it deserves.

Two, work with experts and all stakeholders to craft meaningful legislation, metrics, and best practices so that appeals of light and glare aren't necessary.

And I can hear right now, Baylight is not only compatible, but necessary for Dunn City.

If it protects, it is not in conflict with affordable housing, which is already expedited and already exempt from SIPA provisions.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you, Megan.

Up next, we have Steve Rubstell and then Alex Zimmerman.

Gentlemen, we are running a little late, so any extra time you can give us back, greatly appreciated.

Okay, so this is only doing minor things.

I don't know if developer fees would be included for housing for less than market rate because we are, I believe, among the lowest.

I don't know if we are the lowest, but we are among the lowest and our need is not minimal in the city right now.

You can just go right outside and it won't take you very long to figure that out.

The development community has got a lot of goodies in this.

And I think the term miners being overused has been brought up by a number of folks previously, because when you're taking away glare rights, you're taking away some of the things that are part of your, these are fundamental.

These are not mistakes.

You know, most of the stuff is not mistakes that they're getting rid of.

We keep rewarding people for finding loopholes we keep rewarding people for beating the system.

We should be taking a look at making a city that we all want to live in, and it is affordable for us.

Take a look at what's happening.

in the city and the loss of black people is not because of racism, it's because of the fact that the costs are going up so fast.

I hate to tell you this, but it's happening to a lot of white people too.

It's happening to Asians, it's happening to all of us because if you don't make over a hundred grand a year, Seattle is becoming less and less friendly.

And matter of fact, you have done a great job of housing the people who make over a hundred grand a year.

The problem is that the people who don't make over 100 grand a year, that's where the problem is.

Thank you, Steve.

Always great to see you, Alex Zimmerman.

You're up next, please.

Thank you, sir.

Yep.

Sieg Heil, my dear Fuhrer.

Nazi Gestapo, Mafia, Bandita, and Psychopath, a part of Mafia cartel.

My name is Alex Zimmerman and I speak about agenda number 401. about correction error.

Honestly, Guy, you make me very feel happy today.

I'm laughing for a very long time.

I never see this expression, correction error good for government.

I never see like this before in my life.

I live enough long.

situation so stupid, so idiotic, so I cannot understand how this happened.

Maybe only for idiots stupid Seattle in this consul chamber, so totally stupid, and nobody have experience with business.

Every correction of Error for normal business is a ton of money.

It's always problem, it's always pain.

For you it's nothing, it's good for government.

We have a government who happy.

I give you stupid example, Hitler and Stalin for error correction kill people, kill thousands.

Because 1,000 people make a mistake.

It's normal for human beings.

But what are you talking right now?

There's no camera here, so I cannot show at least what we have.

Is this correction what we have?

Probably a couple hundred corrections, you know what I mean.

will cost us probably a million and million dollars.

Who will pay for this?

And who is responsible for this?

And who will be fired for this?

Or re-elect, you know what I mean, for this correction, correction, correction?

What is good for government?

You know what I mean?

Everything that has a correction costs a ton of money.

So a ton of money is people money, it's taxpayer money.

So before you start something, do it, start thinking, because I don't think so you can think.

It's a problem, all nine.

Thank you.

That was our final speaker for the public hearing on council bill 120401, the land use code omnibus bill and public hearing is now closed.

We will bring this bill back before the committee next Thursday for a final vote.

Moving on to item four.

Yes, please.

I'm sorry, but before our experts leave, I did look up glare in the director's report to find out what To read for myself what it said and at the end of that sentence section It says this change is required recently by recently adopted state substitute Senate bill 5818 and was not optional for jurisdictions to adopt So that sounds to me that it is It might be a technical error.

I mean not a technical amendment simply to comply with state law Oh, yeah.

Yeah, we got no choice in this one, right?

Yep Excellent.

Emily, I see you're off mute.

Do you want to confirm?

Yes, I was going to affirm that.

Thank you.

It's required of state law.

Thank you.

And so we're going to move on to item four.

This is our last public hearing.

We have two bills, one that we've already heard in committee before that we'll be taking a vote on and one simply for a briefing.

Up next is Council Bill 120400, which would authorize SDCI to hold a hybrid virtual slash in-person meeting for land use decisions like design review board meetings.

Clerk, will you please read the short title into the record?

Item four, Council Bill 120400, authorizing SDCI to hold hybrid slash in-person meetings for briefing and public hearing.

Thank you, we are joined by Gordon Clowers and Shelly Bolser from the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections and Ketel Freeman from Council Central staff.

Ketel, will you start us off and then Shelly, Gordon, take us away.

Sure, so initial briefing, public hearing on Council Bill 120400, as Council Member Strauss mentioned, this would modify some provisions in the Land Use Code to authorize SDCI to have virtual, hybrid, or in-person meetings, depending on the situation.

Changes are largely occasioned by modifications to the Open Public Meetings Act, which passed this past spring.

I'll turn it over to Kelly and Gordon to tell us about the details of the bill.

Thank you.

And do you see my presentation on the screen at this time?

Yes, we do.

OK, thank you.

I'll just try to go efficiently through the presentation and reserve time for questions and so on.

So I'll start with relevant pass actions summary that are relevant to this bill.

So back in March 2020, of course, the civil emergency was enacted, and it led to ordinance 126188. And among the changes in that ordinance were temporary changes to allow for public processes to be held in a virtual electronic setting, of course, because we were avoiding in person contact in the public meetings at that time.

And so that ordinance also prescribed that the temporary code changes in that ordinance would expire 60 days after the end of the civil emergency.

So Uh, we are here to, uh, consider, uh, some of the, um, allowances for virtual meetings going forward.

Uh, we would update the code to allow flexibility to hold in-person meetings, uh, or virtual meetings or a combination of both.

And, um, uh, second intent for us is to continue to meet the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act, um, with this proposal.

So, um, I'll describe our primary solution for continuing to meet the OPMA with our public meetings.

As I said, we're prescribing the ability to have meetings virtually or in person or a combination of both.

A way to ensure that we do have a physical place for people to attend a meeting, including a virtual meeting, is to have a venue set up for people to come down and watch if they would like.

And the venue would be equipped with city equipment to facilitate oral and written comments.

In fact, we have already set up that venue in Seattle Municipal Center.

And we have two venues on the 20th floor of SMT and that so we can host two meetings at the same time on a given day.

This is something that happens quite regularly for design review meetings.

So in the future, the person interested in attending a public meeting could have the choice of attending virtually or perhaps at a public venue or coming down to or if the meeting is in fact in person and being held at a particular location.

So What are we changing in this code?

There are a fairly limited number of places in the land use code where the meaning of the language indicates that a meeting would be held in person.

And we need to add some language or add the language to accommodate the possibility that a meeting would be virtual and not in a physical location.

So many times that's just a phrase added if convened in person, and indicating that the location or virtual location of the meeting would, you know, it gives, it clarifies that possibility in the code wording.

Also, we address the noticing requirements for meeting that the notice should include electronic attendance link as the location, as well as a physical location if there is one.

Um, and the, uh, this, uh, a large number of the meetings that this will apply to going forward will be design review meetings.

Um, and that section of the code 23.41, um, had a little bit more specific language in it that, uh, indicated that, uh, the in-person meetings would be required to occur in the evening time and in the same design review district as the proposed development.

So that required a little bit more editing in that section and a little more specificity about our goals, but it does indicate the ability to hold the meetings in person, virtually, or a combination of both.

And just given the range of topics that are addressed in these code sections for amendment, This proposal would affect a variety of kinds of generally land-use and planning-oriented meeting types.

It does not include historic preservation meetings, for example, but things in that are Title 23 land-use code.

That ranges from the design review meetings, a more rare kind of a planned community development public meeting, a public engagement process or meeting for permanent supportive housing.

And for that one, we're indicating that a virtual meeting should be held only if an in-person meeting is not possible.

And then public meetings for appealable land use decisions as well as public hearings for draft EISs and certain hearing examiner meetings.

Again, this is not necessarily indicating that those will only be virtual going forward, but it gives the flexibility for them to be held that way for clarity reasons and flexibility.

So at this point, I'm going to turn it over to Shelly to describe more about the Design Review Program.

Yeah, thank you, Gordon.

So we have been operating these meetings virtually since the emergency order was introduced.

Shortly after that, the Design Review Program put together an ability to hold the Design Review Board meetings virtually so that it would allow project review to move forward since those Design Review meetings are required for many types of development.

Um, so what we've found since we've been operating this way for the last couple of years is that, uh, it has allowed more board members to attend.

Um, we, if we don't have a quorum, at least three board members, that means we have to cancel the meeting.

This allows people to attend, even if they're traveling for business or out of town for that meeting date.

Um, it gives the public more options.

We've seen increased participation as a result of this.

Um, people can watch from home or they can come down to SMT as Gordon mentioned.

if they need help getting technological assistance, and then they can watch the meeting and comment there if they wish.

It helps overcome difficulties for some people who might have trouble getting to a physical venue.

For instance, they might have physical limitations that make it difficult.

They might have financial limitations that make it tough.

Um, when the designer view program was initially introduced and the designer view board meetings were meant to be held in the neighborhoods in the evenings that assumed that, um, you know, at that time, a lot of our population drove cars.

Um, now we have a lot more folks that take transit and it can be hard to, uh, take transit from where your residence is across town to some community center or something.

Um, a lot of our transit system is set up to go.

directly into downtown, but not across town quite so easily.

So we found this just helps a lot of folks that might have trouble getting to that meeting in person.

It also allows people to use assistive computer technology to participate in those meetings.

If they have vision or hearing challenges, for instance, those are things that were not set up in the community centers to provide.

Gordon, can you go next slide, please?

Great, thank you.

And then of course, because people are not having to drive to some other location, it reduces carbon emissions.

And as Gordon mentioned, the physical venue that we have at SMT allows people to watch and participate in those virtual public meetings.

And we continue to meet the state's Open Public Meeting Act.

And also we found another benefit is the virtual meetings can easily be recorded and transcribed.

Something we're looking into is the ability to have a translation either during the meeting, hopefully, or at the very least after the fact with the transcriptions.

And the recordings of the meetings allow people to go back and see the meeting even if they couldn't attend, or if there are questions that come up about what did the board say, those can be referenced very easily.

And then I just wanted to point out as well that SDCI is working on a racial equity toolkit And we will be using that to understand how virtual meetings relate to racial equity.

And as that toolkit is developed and finalized, we're going to use that information to inform any future changes to virtual meetings.

Then we just have a slide for questions.

Thank you, Shelly and Gordon.

Well said.

I know we spent quite a bit of time ahead of this meeting for me to ask my questions and have them answered.

Quite familiar with this work because it has come up before the committee a number of times over the last two and a half years.

Do want to check to see if colleagues, if you have questions at this time.

No, I'm seeing none.

This will be back before the committee next week.

for final passage.

At this time, we will open the remote public hearing and clerk, if you can play the tape.

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the City of Flowers and the City of Goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and used the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused.

or if the process impedes the council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the city.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the council.

The public comment period is now open.

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

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of, you have been unmuted.

Thank you, Seattle.

Thank you.

The public hearing for Council Bill 120400 is now open relating to virtual and in-person meetings.

We have on our list Brady Nordstrom followed by Steve Rubstello and Alex Zimmerman.

We are currently 11 minutes over with two agenda items remaining, so I know.

Steve and Alex, you've commented on every opportunity today.

Appreciate you always.

Do we have Brady Nordstrom ready to go?

I see Brady.

Brady's off mute.

Brady, at your convenience, take it away.

Hi, my name is Brady Nordstrom and I'm here to comment for Seattle for Everyone, which is a broad housing, affordable housing coalition that unites under the belief that everyone should have access to a safe, stable and affordable home.

I'm of course here to comment on Council Bill 120400. We see permitting as a key area that we can control locally to improve housing affordability and inclusion, which is where the interest comes from.

And I think we're particularly interested in the intersection with design review, which is a required part of the permitting process for most housing in the city.

So our coalition has many individuals and organizations that interact with design review both directly and indirectly in this.

includes at least six of the organizations in the city convened stakeholder group.

The council directed to create some recommendations to improve the program.

So while Council Bill 12400 isn't enough alone to reform design review, we think that this is a really critical first step.

And we really applaud council for taking action on this.

And so just to share a little bit about why.

Well, these were kind of mentioned in the synopsis leading into this, but inclusive engagement.

People have family needs, work obligations, transportation issues, and it's not always possible to show up in person, but it is sometimes possible to log in on your computer or tune in and listen in on your phone, like I'm doing now.

And as we've seen through the pandemic, online access can make public processes more inclusive and accessible.

So while the bill isn't specific in this regard, we also urge council to make all design review meetings online.

We think there's been a lot of benefits from that and also accountability and transparency.

We believe that the online design review is more accountable because boards are more visible and recordings can be viewed and available afterwards.

So it's just in general decisions that impact housing affordability and access should be transparent and available for public scrutiny.

Yeah, feel free to send in any additional written comments, Brady.

Appreciate it.

Up next is Steve Roobstel, followed by Alex Zimmerman.

Steve, welcome.

Okay.

Virtual meetings make it harder for citizens to contact decision makers, people in the city government that are not even the elected ones, the people who oftentimes negotiating with the lobbyist, excuse me, governmental representatives.

So constructing the legislation, we no longer, as you see, have a lot of people out here.

We used to have in land use, the developers used to have to come and make their case.

Well, they go to the employees, they build up the thing, and then we get it when the cake is already baked.

And I think that right now, one of the biggest problems I see is you're more and more detaching people from their government.

You're making it harder for things to happen that are weird.

And not acceptable.

So I oppose this and I noticed one little line at the bottom.

You have a little pardon at the bottom.

You're ratifying and confirming certain acts.

Now I don't know what those certain acts are.

I don't know if I would ratify them.

I don't know if I would pardon them, but it's so much goes on below the surface here where the citizens don't get a good chance to see what goes on.

And one of the things that I've noted is that occasionally a council member says, well, I've had discussions about that.

And so it doesn't come up.

in the Land Use Committee.

We don't know what they really had discussions about and what guarantees or assertions were given to them.

I'll give you a couple of seconds back.

Thanks, Steve.

Always appreciate you.

Up next is Alex Zimmerman.

Alex, you've got two minutes.

Any time that you want to give us back is greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much.

Sieg Heil, my dirty damn Nazi pig.

You know what it is?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Nazi, Nazi garbage rats.

You know what it's meaning with your, with your, principle, what is you change America right now.

After three years, what is we have them, Nazi, Gestapo, democracy, revolt.

Yeah, and we speak about agenda 400, you know, virtual meeting.

It's a first birds, what is you will approve legally, virtual meeting.

Nobody approved before virtual meeting legally.

In government, a couple of days ago, talk, they say, finish, no more COVID, no more.

Then come back to America, normal.

life.

You know what it means?

You start to legalize this.

It's not surprising.

So this comes from government corruption, this proposition.

You know what it means?

It's a very simple proposition.

Only start to approve one time, legally, virtual meetings.

That's it.

It finishes America forever.

For Seattle, this is normal, because it's Nazi fascist city.

This is exactly what has happened.

I give you classic example.

For five months, I talk 100 times, why you stop show us faces?

I spoke here 15 year before, and always people see my faces.

You can understand who I am, but you very smart, Nazi, dirty piece of garbage.

Exactly who you are, all of it, without exception.

I talk about consul, everybody, all night.

So the situation right now is very simple.

You neutralize it totally.

No faces.

Don't know who's black, who's white, who's yellow.

Brown, you know what this mean?

You neutralize it.

It's good.

Good for you guys.

You're very smart.

Nazi, Nazi garbage rats.

Yeah, you're very smart.

It's good for election, re-election.

I understand.

Come back to America, please.

Stop acting like a bandit, like a Nazi.

You potential are killer.

That's exactly what I speak to you.

See high, my Fuhrer.

Thank you, that was our last speaker present to speak at this public hearing.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120400 is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who provided comments today.

This will be up for a final vote next Thursday.

Item five, this is the only item that we are voting on today in this public, in this committee meeting.

The next agenda item is Resolution 32068, which would adopt a docket of potential amendments to the comprehensive plan for consideration in 2023. Clerk, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Item 5, Resolution 32068, Adopting a Docket of Potential Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for Consideration in 2023, for a vote.

Thank you.

We are again joined by Lish Whitson of Council Central Staff.

Lish, can you refresh us on this legislation?

I know that we had it before the committee, and I know that it was before recess.

Thank you.

And I'm joined by Eric McConaughey, also.

Oh, hi, Eric.

Good to see you.

Good afternoon.

So this is a resolution that responds to proposals to amend the comprehensive plan that Council has received from Council members, departments, and members of the public.

The resolution would ask the Office of Planning and Community Development to fold in many of the amendment proposals into the one Seattle major update to the plan if they're not proposed in 2022 or 2023. And we expect that a couple will be coming at the end of this year and in next year.

It would also ask the Seattle Department of Transportation to consider a couple of the proposals as part of their work on the Seattle Transportation Plan.

And finally, acknowledges that a couple of the amendment proposals that were received are not appropriate as amendments to the comprehensive plan at this time.

And I can go into the amendments in more detail if you'd like.

Thank you.

When you came before committee last time, I remember that the conversation was mostly about how the requests were really guided to the major update to the comprehensive plan.

Council Members, do you need to go through the amendments one by one?

Council Member Morales, Vice Chair Morales, I know that you had amendments in there that were not retained.

Anything that you want to bring up before we go to a vote?

No, I, you know, we understand a lot of the things that we submitted are anticipated to be included or discussed through the comp plan process, I will say that the first issue here around essential daily needs is something that we submitted and is going to be essential to the way we talk about livability.

and access to making sure that everybody has essential goods and services within reach of their home.

So I'm happy to see that in and look forward to subsequent conversations.

Thank you.

Any other colleagues, Council Member Nelson, I saw you did not have any questions at this time.

So with that, I guess, Eric McConaghy, Leish Whitson, anything else to add?

With that, I move to recommend adoption of resolution 32068. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

Are there any final questions or discussions before we vote on this resolution?

Seeing none, I will ask The clerk, sorry, I lost my script as I was moving back before any final.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Schraus?

Yes.

The motion passes with five ayes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Council resolution 32068 passes.

This legislation will be before the full council on Tuesday, August, Tuesday, September 19th.

for a final vote.

Thank you.

Our final agenda item for the day is clerk file 314447, a briefing on a contract reasoning proposal in the Roosevelt neighborhood.

We are joined by Lish Whitson of council central staff.

Lish, can you tell us a bit more about the proposal type of decision and hearing examiner recommendation?

I know that this is in council member Peterson's district, so I will defer to council member Peterson for first set of questions.

Lish, take it away.

Yeah, and I have a presentation that I'll pull up

Just a second.

Here we are.

So this is a contract rezone, which means that a private property owner has requested a rezone of their property.

It's a quasi-judicial decision, which is subject to the appearance of fairness doctrine, which prohibits ex-partite communication discussions with either proponents or opponents of the proposed rezone.

Instead, your decisions must be made based on the record established by the Seattle hearing examiner at their hearing on this rezone.

The proposed rezone would rezone part of a split zone parcel from low-rise 1 multifamily residential with an M1 mandatory housing affordability suffix to neighborhood commercial 255 with an M2 mandatory housing affordability suffix and add the Roosevelt stationary overlay district.

The proposal is in the Roosevelt Urban Village.

The rezone area is approximately 3,000 square feet and is part of a larger development site that's approximately 9,800 square feet.

That larger development site includes a corner property that is already currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial 2 with 55 foot pipe limit.

CL Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on July 6th and recommended approval with conditions on August 3rd.

These are two maps showing the location of the rezone.

On the left, you can see the split zone lot, 1107 Northeast 71st Street, and the corner lot, 7102 Roosevelt Way Northeast, which are proposed to be developed together.

The red portion of the lot on the right, the 1107 property, would be rezoned from low-rise 1 to neighborhood commercial 255. And you see on the right map, that yellow area is the Roosevelt Station area overlay.

That overlay would also be extended to the rezone area.

To provide a little bit of context of where this is, it's at 71st and Roosevelt, about a block west of the Roosevelt Reservoir property, and a couple blocks north and west of Roosevelt High School.

This is the proposed development that the rezoning would facilitate.

91 units, mostly small efficiency dwelling units, mandatory housing affordability requirements of seven units would be provided on site through the performance option.

No car parking is proposed but 87 bicycle parking spaces would be provided.

This is the 71st Street frontage.

You can sort of see on the left of the red dashed line, an outline of the abutting single-family house.

Because of the slope-like condition along 71st, there's approximately four stories on the uphill side of the property and six stories on the downhill side of the property.

The base plane for the development is averaged across the highest and lowest parts of the property.

PB, David Ensign --"At the hearing examiner's hearing, there was one member of the public who testified, the abutting neighbor who expressed concern about the size and density of the proposal. They did not file an appeal of the hearing examiner's recommendation to approve the rezone." So here are the hearing examiner recommended conditions.

Development should be consistent with the plans that have been submitted.

A construction management plan would be required.

Mandatory housing affordability designation of M2 for the rezoned portion of the property.

The rezoned property would be subject to the provisions of the mandatory housing affordability ordinance.

and development should be, again, consistent with the approved plans.

I'll be back at your next meeting on September 22nd with proposed decision documents for your consideration, which would set, and if you vote at that meeting, it would set us up for a possible city council vote as early as October 11th.

The deadline for City Council action on this matter is November 1st.

Any questions?

Excellent, Lish.

Excellent presentation.

I was going to defer and I'm going to defer first to Council Member Peterson for questions.

Again, this will be back before us next week.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Really appreciate that.

Recognizing it's in District 4 and this is a really fascinating project because it's got so much going on.

My office was just at the opening of the cedar crossing property which is the really large low income housing property right on top of Roosevelt station and we're really excited about that transit oriented development and As we know, the Roosevelt neighborhood was one of the earlier up zones that occurred.

There was an extensive community engagement process for that up zone a decade ago, and that was to increase density where there is the light rail station going in there.

There's community desire to pull that light rail station away from I-5 and put it deeper in the community.

And so and it's there now that's beautiful.

And so this project was, you know, not part of that, or that that parcel that adjacent parcel was not part of that up zone, which is what apparently why they're doing this contract rezone.

Because I got some I looked in the clerk file there.

And there's some complaints about well, this wasn't part of the original up zone from from 10 years ago, but, but the The parcel of budding Roosevelt way was and they do have the ability to build up and I'm just I'm really pleased to see that there's going to be MHA housing on site would be great if it more than seven units out of the.

90 or so, but you know that's what the current MHA requirement is and glad they're building it on site instead of writing a check and it getting built down the road.

Years later, so building it now is great.

There is a big Douglas fir tree there in the in the corner.

It's not an exceptional tree.

Apparently the diameter is only 18 inches or so, but it's a 64 foot tree.

So that's going to be removed as part of this development.

So that's too bad.

But then when you look at the layout of this project, I mean, that's where six or seven units would be going.

So there's a direct trade off there.

So it's just a fascinating project.

It's too bad it was we're just hearing about all this stuff in the clerk file.

But there's a lot of interesting elements in there and and trade offs.

And it's not perfect.

And I know some people are upset about it in the district, but then it's right near the light rail station and it's going to have low income housing units on site, which which is what a lot of us been wanting to see more projects that do that.

So I guess, you know, I had some questions but managed to get a lot of them answered.

Today, so I just, I guess it's a it's a hypothetical question to leash is that the department didn't seem to.

It's not clear.

What is their authority to.

have a developer reconfigure a project to save a tree?

I mean, do they have the authority to do that?

And then in a contract rezone like this, do we have the, does the council have the ability to reconfigure a site to save a tree?

I don't think it's possible for this one.

I don't think it's worth trying to tinker with this one, especially since they're building the MHA units on site, but it did just, when you see that tree in the corner, of a lot, it just begs the question, what do we have the ability to do if there were similar projects like this in the future that maybe aren't as close to a light rail station and aren't doing the MHA housing on site?

So your authority or your options for a contract rezone are to approve it, approve it with conditions, or disapprove it or deny it.

We could look at potential conditions on a development if environmental impacts are significant enough to warrant such conditions.

We would need to look at the record and the environmental review that's been done in order to sort of support those additional conditions.

We, I think, have done that in a few cases.

For example, the University of Washington Major Institution Master Plan counsel added conditions to that based on environmental documents and findings in the EIS for that quasi-judicial rezone action.

In this case, I think there isn't a lot in the record to support those conditions, but I could go back and look and see what is possible.

It would require them to change their development plans, and as you know, probably would eliminate some of the units on site.

And so that would be an impact.

Thanks for explaining that process and looking at the site plan, the current site plan and then what they're planning to do.

I just it doesn't seem feasible to to reconfigure stuff there.

So I just want to acknowledge my constituents that, you know, we we talked about it.

We thought about it.

Really happy to see.

I want to reward the good behavior of putting the MHA units on site.

They're so close to the light rail station.

And thanks, Lish, for your work on this.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Lish.

This will be back before committee next week.

Any other questions from colleagues?

Just recognizing that we are 34 minutes over time, I wanna be cognizant of your time.

Our next land use committee will be September 22nd, starting at 2 p.m.

I foresee it being a short meeting because we've gone over the majority of the material today.

If there's no business for the good of the order, This concludes the Wednesday, September 14, 2022 meeting of the Land Use Committee.

If there's no further business, the meeting will be adjourned.

The next meeting of the Land Use Committee is a special meeting on September 22, starting at 2 PM.

Thank you for attending.

Hearing no further business, we are adjourned.