SPEAKER_10

Good afternoon.

The recessed September 4th, 2024 Land Use Committee meeting will come back to order at its regularly scheduled appointed time.

It's 2 p.m.

It's 2.03 p.m.

I'm Tammy Morales, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

SPEAKER_07

Council Member Moore.

Council Member Rivera.

Council Member Wu.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Present.

Chair Morales.

Here.

Three present.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you very much.

Okay, we will now open the hybrid public hearing period.

To restate from this morning, Council Bill 120833 related to the Living Building Pilot Program will have a public hearing at a later date.

The hearing this afternoon is for the other three bills that we heard in committee this morning.

So when you speak, please clearly indicate which item you're speaking to.

The three bills for public hearing today are Council Bill 120822 related to congregate residences, Council Bill 120823 related to omnibus land use and zoning amendments, and Council Bill 120824 related to design review exemptions.

So please make sure you let us know which of those you're speaking to, and we will get started.

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

SPEAKER_07

We have 21 in person and 18 online.

SPEAKER_10

OK.

We'll go ahead and give everyone two minutes.

And we'll start with in person.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We'll start with 10 here in person, and then we'll alternate to the folks who are online.

When you hear a chime, that means you have 10 seconds left, so please begin to wrap up your comments so that we can move to the next speaker.

The public hearing period is now open, and Naomi, I will hand it to you to start with the first 10 speakers who are present here in chambers.

SPEAKER_07

First up, we have Steve Rubistello, followed by Christian Gunter.

SPEAKER_29

I usually like to speak last, but today I decided to go top of the line because I have other things I might do.

I would suggest that you extend your written comments in your agenda here.

It says, written comments on the legislation will be accepted until noon on Wednesday, September 4th, 2024. Well, that's passed.

And I would hope that you would accept written comments for an extended period of time beyond that.

What I'm more concerned about here is looking at the ominous bill, which is continues to go in the wrong way.

We are, more and more pushing people out of the process.

We are having what the developers have wanted from the absolute beginning, that the city and the developers get together, they make a decision in private, and the citizens live with whatever you come up with.

And you also have some very interesting things.

You've got more than one definition for what a tree protection zone is.

Your tree ordinance is totally ineffective for development areas for citizens, it does apply.

But when it comes to development, it doesn't seem to apply at all.

And it's an excuse on how to get rid of trees.

We had development in Fremont where there were a number of significant trees and the suggested way for the city was to eliminate them all, including the healthiest ones, and one was right near the border of the property, right at the end, and it's time that we bring people back in the process and add housing, not just new housing, because we're seeing too many Older units, which are more affordable, disappearing.

You got to raise those MHA fees if you're really for housing because it's not.

SPEAKER_07

Up next, we have Christian Gunter followed by Rick Yonder.

SPEAKER_17

Thanks for the opportunity to speak today.

My name's Christian Gunter.

I lead the development team for Alexandria Real Estate.

We're the largest owner and operator of mission critical life science projects and ecosystems in the country and in this region just behind Fred Hutch.

So I'm speaking on behalf of Council Bill 120824, in particular the life science holiday for design review in the city center.

I'm also a former DRB member and know the process well, its limitations, its inefficiencies, and many of its problems.

But as it relates to life science, we think that this MORATORIUM OR THE HOLIDAY FOR LIFE SCIENCE IN PARTICULAR IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL IN BRINGING MORE LIFE SCIENCE PROJECTS TO LIFE IN THIS CITY, ESPECIALLY AT THIS CRITICAL TIME IN TERMS OF WHERE THE ECONOMY IS AT.

AT THIS TIME THERE ARE ONLY 10% OF CURES FOR DISEASE TODAY AND TOOLS LIKE THIS MORATORIUM AND THIS HOLIDAY WILL BRING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CRITICAL JOBS TO MARKET.

And we look forward to a conversation around how to continue to strengthen the life science community.

And we know that at the end of the day, anything that can be done to support the life science sector and the scientists therein will be an important tool.

And we'd urge your support for this life science holiday.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Up next, we have Rick Yonder followed by Parker Dawson.

SPEAKER_13

Hi, good afternoon.

I'm Rick Yoder.

We are the owners of the BAM Building in downtown Seattle on the corner of 3rd and Union.

We own and operate the Wild Ginger Restaurant and the Triple Door nightclub.

I'm speaking on behalf of CB Bill 120824 and in support of this.

The downtown needs more residents.

As owners on Third Avenue, I've been at ground zero of what happens and all the challenges surrounding the post-COVID world.

we believe strongly that the solution for a vibrant downtown Seattle is more residents, workers to contribute to the safe, clean, and welcoming space.

As one of the challenges to new housing is the long permitting process.

The city's own report shows that full design review in which most projects were required to undergo in Seattle take 24 months to complete.

With the addition of building permits, it can take over three years from the drawing board to actual construction.

That's too long.

The development community is tied up in red tape.

The health of downtown requires rapid intervention.

The legislation is part of the solution.

Importantly, this legislation does not do away with design review.

It empowers the city staff to work with project architects to ensure good design.

In 2009, we opened a wild ginger restaurant in Bellevue.

That process went through a staff design review that matches what is being proposed in the legislation.

And it resulted in a great design and a flourishing project.

I welcome more neighbors.

I want to see housing, hotels, research institutes like we just heard about on Third Avenue throughout the downtown core.

This legislation helps streamline one of the costly and time-consuming barriers to new construction.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you.

Naomi, before you move on, I do want to acknowledge that Councilmembers Wu and Rivera are here on the dais with us.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Up next, we have Parker Dawson, followed by Sagar Amini.

SPEAKER_03

Good afternoon, everybody.

Parker Dawson here with the Master Builders.

CB 120824 wasn't proposed to spark some battle or debate of opinion between its allies and opponents of the bill, allies and opponents of how growth should be managed downtown.

Rather, it was It was proposed to respond to state requirements, state laws under House Bill 1293 that require us to look critically at how we can more objectively, fairly, and predictably move through the development process and make sure that we get housing online, hotels online, research facilities online.

A response to the well-documented fact by SDCI and other city departments that right now, real people are being denied housing for an average of over 700 days under design review.

Over 700 days is about two years.

The responsibility to address our decade-long housing crisis means to meet solutions like this legislation with the urgency our circumstances demand.

And our circumstances are dire.

Again, it's a decade-long housing crisis.

I hope that you see this opportunity as a chance to act, not next year with the comp plan, not in 2026 or beyond, but right now, and really help people who need it.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

Up next, we have Sagar Amini, followed by Freya.

Last name starts with a W.

Good afternoon.

SPEAKER_06

My name is Sahar Amini and I am the advocacy and policy manager at Habitat for Humanity.

I am here to express our support for Council Bill 120824 and Council Bill 120833, two bills that are not just about policy but about people and their ability to find a place to call home.

Seattle is in desperate need of common sense housing solutions that allow developers across the continuum to provide more homes for more people.

Streamlining our design review process means we can cut through the red tape that often slows down housing projects and adds unnecessary burdensome costs.

These two bills are great opportunities and are critical for us to get closer to our affordable housing objectives.

Behind these bills are real people, families who need homes, workers who need jobs, and communities that thrive when we have more affordable housing.

Habitat for Humanity urges you to support these bills so we can move forward together in addressing our housing challenges and making Seattle a place where everyone can find a home.

Thank you for your leadership.

SPEAKER_07

Up next we have Freya, last name W, followed by Steve Zimpke.

Sorry, I might be mispronouncing your name.

We'll circle back.

Steve Zimpke.

SPEAKER_28

Good afternoon, Council.

My name's Steve Zemke.

I'm speaking for TREPAC and Friends of the Urban Forest.

This morning, I used a tape measure to show that 24 feet from here is almost to the end of the room.

Measure today afternoon, it's to the back of the room.

So tier two trees are 24 inches and larger and others that are smaller and especially designated.

But that is the basic tree protection area that's in the ordinance.

It's in the omnibus bill, and the problem is that two definitions of tree protection areas makes no sense.

It says the basic tree protection area cannot be modified during development.

That means this whole area, this room for a 24-inch tree, you cannot cut into it.

That's contrary to what the International Society of Aboriculture, the Northwest Society of Aboriculture say.

They say base your tree protection area on included the tree species, the soil, the condition of the tree.

There are a number of things that you can modify it.

The correction you make in this ordinance says that the outer root zone area of the tree can be reduced 33%, but under that basic tree protection area, the director does not have the ability.

That means the director cannot save trees that can't be saved, which makes no sense to have that in our ordinance.

So it seems like you're giving me more time than it says 1.50.

Sorry.

Anyway, you need to remove the basic tree protection definition, that language everywhere in the ordinance because it makes no sense.

It does not allow you to protect trees.

I would say instead it is a developer's dream wish that says that they have the authority to remove trees within that It's no longer a tree protection area.

It's a developer tree removal area.

Unfortunately, it sets up counter to what you tried to set up in the council last year.

And so it needs to be dealt with.

It needs to be modified back to just keep the tree protection areas defined.

Section 11- You speak for two minutes, it's enough.

11- 1125060 gives how the director can modify that tree protection area and that's what you need to use for all trees including in development because all five zones are covered in the ordinance are covered under that basic tree.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Sorry about that.

SPEAKER_07

Going back to Freya Wollet.

And they will be followed by Randy.

SPEAKER_04

Thank you.

My name is Fritz, F-R-I-T-Z, Wollet, W-O-L-L-E-T-T.

I am a homeowner in the Ravenna area in District 4. I've owned a home there since 1988. It's a 1,500-square-foot home with two of the loveliest heritage trees you can imagine.

And you can also imagine, since I've owned this house for so long, that I'm being dive-bombed by developers who would like nothing more than to tear down those trees and build some monstrosity somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet.

So I'm here and I look at this proposed ordinance and I wonder, we're just sort of nickel and diming around the problem.

The problem is, of course, that developers persist in building gigantic homes and we persist in allowing them to do precisely that.

Why aren't we talking about an ordinance that imposes height limits as well as size limits measured by square footage?

Not everybody needs to live in a 1,500 square foot home, obviously, but not everybody needs to live in three, four, and 5,000 square foot homes either.

We've got a problem with affordability.

How does allowing developers to come in and build those big houses help us with affordability?

It doesn't, obviously.

So I'm gonna ask the consulate, take another look at this.

Take another look at what we ought to be talking about in terms of an ordinance and what's reasonable and fair.

And given everything about climate change that we know and how important those trees are for habitat and for shade and all those other things, we need to take another look at this whole thing.

And let's protect our trees better than we have so far and set up the ordinance, whatever it is, let's enforce it.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Up next we have Randy Fierro followed by David Glogger.

SPEAKER_35

My name is Randy Ferrero.

I am a homeowner in Councilmember Morales' district, primarily through luck and circumstance, and homeownership should not be dependent on luck and circumstance.

I'm speaking in favor of 120824, the design review.

Streamlining the review and construction process is how we get the process to work faster.

I would rather push people out of the process than push people out of the city, which is what our overly cumbersome processes have done for decades and continue to do today.

Citizens living with the outcome of decisions made by our elected officials and their designated officers is the very basis of our social contract in this country and is the core of how our government functions.

We elect representatives to make these decisions and we expect and allow them to do their jobs.

That, that is to say voting, is where our voice is meant to be heard.

That, that is to say voting, is how we are free to register our dissatisfaction.

Nothing will ever get solved if everyone needs to be happy with all outcomes.

Nothing will ever get solved if those who already have what they need insist on pulling the ladder up after themselves and preventing their neighbors from acquiring what they need.

Not everyone needs or gets to be consulted on how the city operates, and it is imperative that our city operates more smoothly.

More abundant housing is necessary, more abundant housing is long overdue, and more abundant housing is the only way we enable our beautiful city to welcome all our neighbors and grow it sustainably.

I am for more neighbors, more housing, and extending a warm welcome to anyone and everyone who wants to live in this city that I love so much.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Up next, we have David Glauger followed by Kaden Cook.

SPEAKER_08

Good afternoon, my name is Dave Gloger and I live in District 5 and I will be speaking about omnibus bill 120823 about the tree ordinance.

During the May 23rd, 2023 city council meeting, council member and land use committee chair at that time, Dan Strauss was urging the immediate passage of the draft tree protection ordinance.

He said that this was necessary to protect more trees now.

This was apparently so that we could have more protection for trees on properties without construction.

That is true.

We now know that this exact opposite was the case for properties with construction.

We saw this play out at 3003 Northeast 88th Street in the Wedgwood neighborhood.

On this property is a western redcedar with a diameter of over 50 inches.

This tree came to be known as Astra.

When the permitting for this property began, this exceptional tree was slated to be saved because it was vested under the old ordinance.

However, last winter, an SDCI staff member advised the developer that they should have the project vested under the new ordinance and thus be able to cut the tree down.

This is proof that the new tree ordinance provides less protection for trees.

Now is the time to immediately pass an amendment to protect tier twos like Astra.

Yes, we need more housing, but please not at the expense of our large tier two trees.

They take decades to grow to the size they are and we need their protection now.

And I also ask, why are SDCI employees helping developers to work around our regulations so that they can cut down trees?

I thought that they work for Seattle citizens, thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Up next we have Kaden Cook, followed by Pat Montagnino.

SPEAKER_00

Hello, my name is Caden Cook.

I live in District 3. You know, like many Seattleites, I don't fully agree with a lot that the mayor has to do on a lot of issues.

But, you know, no one agrees on everything.

And that is why it's so important to make your voice heard when you do agree with people just as much as when you disagree.

In this case, Council Bill 120824. is an essential piece of legislation that can be used to combat our housing shortage and crisis.

This bill presents an opportunity to build more housing more efficiently by cutting costly red tape.

As one of those self-described weird people who watch these design review meetings, like in my free time, I know how ridiculous some of these project delays can be.

Non-issues are turned into issues by people who have ill motives.

Things like the shape of a garage door, the color of bricks, the angle of massing on one side of the building, the size of potential bushes and more can cause delays of months to years.

And this prevents us from building new housing that we desperately need.

In the most extreme cases, these delays become so costly that projects can become canceled, leaving us with vacant, useless lots of nothingness.

which is significantly worse than new housing or something people can use.

It doesn't need to be this way, and it shouldn't be.

I, along with a lot of people, watched the DNC and was elated when President Obama called for passing bills just like this one to cut red tape to build more housing to fight the national housing crisis.

These changes take place at the local level, and I urge you to pass this bill.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Would you like to finish in-person speakers first or should we switch to remote?

SPEAKER_10

How many are left in person?

SPEAKER_07

We have 11 left in person.

SPEAKER_10

We can do one more and then let's switch to remote.

SPEAKER_07

Up next we have Pat Montanito.

SPEAKER_09

Thank you very much.

So, excuse me.

This bill, as far as I'm talking about 824, the bill, as far as I understand, is a three-year endeavor to increase housing in California.

And we heard this morning that SDCI is working on rewriting zoning in total without a complete date.

So if they can rewrite the zoning quickly, why do we need a three-year temporary ordinance?

It seems like we should just press SDCI to rewrite the zoning and do away with this need for this ordinance.

I'm in favor of increased housing, but it seems like this is a patchwork of changes to the current ordinances, and I'd like to see something that is over-encompassing.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Switching to online speakers, first we have Richard Ellison, followed by June Bluespruce.

Richard, please press star, yep, you're unmuted.

SPEAKER_18

opportunity to correct at least some of the injustices to tree protection from the failed updated tree ordinance.

Councilperson Morales, last year on May 23rd, 2023, at a city council meeting, you stated, quote, I also agree that this bill is not perfect, which is why I'll be working with my constituents and colleagues over the next year to make sure that this bill addresses some of the concerns, and there are many, unquote.

Trees and housing can coexist.

But the current ordinance allowing developers almost complete control of tree retention is a bleak reminder that big trees are hated by the Master Builders Association, who currently has no checks and balances politically.

The loss of Seattle's tree canopy without regard in this climate change world of record hot dry summers and wet winters is in direct conflict with sustainable building goals, is in direct conflict with the quality of life for Seattle residents, is in direct conflict with rational, environmentally sound urban environmental planning.

This council must make repairs to our charade of a tree ordinance by making the updates recommended by treepack.org, which I have listed in a letter, which I have sent to the council.

Thank you very much for your time.

SPEAKER_07

Up next online, we have June Bluespruce followed by Matt Hutchins.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

June Blue Spruce.

SPEAKER_25

There we go.

Can you hear me.

Hello.

Thank you.

My name is June Blue Spruce and I live in District 2. I urge the council to reject the tree protection portions of the omnibus bill.

As others have said, members of this committee who voted for the so-called tree protection ordinance promised to fix its significant issues.

This bill does not do that.

Over the past 15 months since the ordinance took effect, removals of mature trees have greatly accelerated.

Here's an example.

Near my home in Columbia City, in a residential small lot area, in a census tract with only 22% tree cover, A 10,000 square foot lot was recently sold to a developer.

Four of the five trees on the lot are tier two.

Three of those are over 30 inches diameter at standard height.

The other one is tier three.

The developer has applied to tear down the single family residence on the property, clear cut all the trees and build seven cottages with six parking spaces.

Alternative designs would allow him to build five to seven units and save several of the large trees.

But under the current ordinance, he's not required to consider alternatives to save the trees.

According to the table on page 18 of the omnibus bill, he could either save the smallest tree or plant several much smaller trees.

If SCCI approves the construction permit, the whole neighborhood will be deprived of the environmental and health benefits of those mature trees, a social good loss for private gain We need housing that will be healthy and livable as Seattle heats up with climate change.

The council needs to do its job and pass a real tree protection ordinance.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Matt Hutchins, followed by Stephen Horvath.

I'm not seeing Matt Hutchins here, so we will go to Steve Horvath.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

SPEAKER_22

Good afternoon, this is Steve Horvath.

I'm a resident of Belltown.

Thank you, Chair Morales and Land Use Committee for hearing my comments.

Back from comments this morning to get them on this afternoon's record.

There are numerous responsibilities that our city council can delegate to city departments and agencies, but none of those involve delegating the council's authority to zone our city.

And when a gentleman earlier spoke of cutting the red tape and having less people involved, what you would effectively be doing is providing instead of the council whom we elect to make sure that we have clear-cut processes for public input for things as important as zoning, delegating that to an organization, SDCI, with over 400 employees.

That actually adds more people to the process and cuts out the public at the same time.

It doesn't make any sense.

And I would simply ask you to consider your role as you have in the past.

You up zoned last year, very specifically a portion of downtown.

Three years ago, you chose to pass an ordinance very specifically to allow for different modulations of buildings in Belltown.

Those are great uses of your powers as a council.

They did not delegate your authority to SDCI.

They very clearly provided for specific changes in specific sections of the city.

That's the power that we entrust to you as our elected leaders because we have accountability between you and us.

We don't have that accountability with SDCI.

And I would simply ask you to please not abdicate the responsibility that we entrusted to you when we elected you to have SDCI make decisions that really are vested with the council.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Next we have Maria Berentos followed by Eric Mott.

SPEAKER_25

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, my name is Maria Barney and so speaking to Council Bill 120824. I'm a housing developer and a neighborhood activist engaged in making our urban neighborhoods a good place to live, work and play.

I support this bill because it provides a much needed model for design review reform.

I personally experienced the cost and time impacts associated with this process.

I've served on the West Design Review Board two times and served on several design review policy committees.

I've directly seen the inefficiency of the current design review program, which does not, in my opinion, create better designs.

The city's existing design guidelines achieve that purpose.

And my observation and experience is that they're effectively incorporated to good designs by developers and their design teams.

Having developed over 80 projects with and without a design review requirement, The process does add 9 to 12 months to permit timelines, adding significant time and cost to producing housing.

I have a 325-unit project under construction right now, which is going to deliver 65 units of affordable housing this year.

The cost of the DRD process cost us more than $400,000, plus a 10-month schedule delay.

It's important to separate the perception that reforming design review automatically eliminates public comment.

Providing the opportunity for each neighborhood to provide public comment remains important, and it needs to be decoupled from the technical design review process.

I urge you to support this bill.

We need to work together to remove this barrier to creating easier and faster access to housing.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Going back to Matt Hutchins and then followed by Eric Mott.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

SPEAKER_21

Hi, my name is Matt Hutchins and I'm an architect who works on multifamily and affordable housing projects.

I was and I'm calling in for Bill 120824. I was a Southwest Design Review Board member for three years, and my experience on the Design Review Board is in part what has inspired me to testify today in favor of curtailing design review.

This program has good intentions, and the people who administer it and volunteer all have good intentions, but it doesn't guarantee good design.

It doesn't guarantee that the community is informed or can weigh in on what's happening in the neighborhood.

The only thing that is unequivocally true is that it takes more time and effort to get a building permit And that adds cost.

We've tacitly acknowledged that the design review process is a burden by exempting affordable housing projects from it.

Take, for example, two recent affordable housing projects.

Cedar Crossing, with 254 homes, took 24 months to wind through its approvals with design review.

And the Aries, with 200 homes, exempt from design review, took eight months less.

That's less design, less carrying costs, less risk, and ultimately lower rents.

In fact, the two-bedroom at Aries is $300 less than at Cedar Crossing.

Can you tell the difference in the street which building went through design review?

SPEAKER_24

No.

SPEAKER_21

But residents are happy to have a place to live.

We need more housing now, and design review isn't serving us.

Please support 120824 today.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Up next, we have Eric Mott, followed by Ruth Daner.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

SPEAKER_19

Thank you.

I'm Eric Mott, principal and design director of Perkins and Well, a Seattle architectural firm.

I'm speaking today in support of the Downtown Design Review Holiday, Council Bill 120824. As an architect, I've designed more than 20 downtown towers that have gone through the design review process, including residential, hotel and mixed use, and research facilities.

Patrick Corbett, At Perkinson well we're committed to design excellence that commitment is fundamental our clients demand it whether it's a new research facility for cancer treatment or residential tower in belltown.

Patrick Corbett, Our goal is to contribute positively to the urban fabric of downtown with every project and now our downtown needs more vibrancy and housing.

Patrick Corbett, This design review holiday bill will help speed up the creation of much needed new housing and research space in downtown.

uptown first hill and south lake union by granting an interim three-year design review exemption this does not mean that designer views ended the city's professional staff will still work in concert with project architects to ensure good project design that's similar to the design review system in many of seattle's peer cities we support empowering the city staff to work with architects on design issues the cost and time impacts associated with the lengthy design review programs are significant Mike SanClements, STI zone study chose the permitting with folders on review, which is required for most projects in the downtown takes an average of 739 days.

Mike SanClements, that's more than two years in the permitting process roughly two thirds of that attributed to the time that city staff spend reviewing plans that costs is extensive for downtown projects design review costs can quickly exceed more than half a million dollar.

These added costs get passed on to the rent of future tenants.

The design review holiday is a positive measure to spur new construction and housing in downtown.

And we encourage the city council to adopt council bill one, two.

SPEAKER_07

Up next, we have Ruth Daner followed by Tina Ritval.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

SPEAKER_26

I'm Ruth Danner, president of Save the Market Entrance, an all-volunteer nonprofit community advocacy group.

We're dedicated to increasing affordable housing, but are unwilling to give up design review without understanding how public participation will be accommodated.

Staff needs to focus on developing the objective design criteria we all agree is needed.

Indeed, instead, CB 120.824 opens the door for unlimited subjective design departures, effectively imposing a three-year moratorium on complying with ESHB 1293 for market rate projects in the greater downtown area.

Public comments add value to Seattle's future.

For example, in 2018, during design review, one downtown resident discovered that a developer was proposing to reclaim three feet of the Pike Street sidewalk that had been vacated over a century earlier.

Without public notice and access to public records, which is baked into design review, this error might have gone unnoticed.

The project on First and Pike is the Hahn Building, a landmark structure that predates Seattle's public market.

An appeal is pending that CB120824 could derail.

The public serves as the eyes on the street one Seattle sorely needs.

Please do not pass CB 120824. Allow the new design review improvements of state ESHB 1293 to be uniformly enacted across all of Seattle.

Thank you for this opportunity to participate in our democracy.

SPEAKER_07

Up next, we have Tina Ritval followed by Sanders Lotry.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

SPEAKER_25

Good afternoon.

This is Tina Ritval, architect and principal at GGLO.

I'm speaking today on behalf of GGLO, a multidisciplinary design firm in support of Council Bill 120824. I'm also here as a resident of Seattle, someone who commutes into downtown daily, a business owner, and someone who's concerned about the trajectory of housing development and housing affordability in our city.

We've heard how Council Bill 120824 will help speed up creation of much needed new housing.

We believe this bill is an important step for downtown recovery, especially as it relates to housing creation.

We also believe that this bill is a great step toward meeting Seattle House Bill 1293 obligation and can provide a model for required citywide design review reforms.

The cost and time impacts associated with lengthy design review are problems that are not unique to Seattle.

A recent UCLA-authored study estimated that a 25% reduction in permitting timelines would result in a 33% percent increase in housing built.

The faster we can help projects move through permitting, the sooner we can see built new housing.

That's good for the city's housing market and economic development.

SDCI's own study shows that permitting with full design review takes an average of 739 days.

That's more than two years in the permitting process.

The cost and time impacts associated with lengthy design review programs are not unique to Seattle, but the impacts in Seattle are profound.

We're seeing our clients shift to developing elsewhere because the process is easier and less costly.

This is a significant trend we're seeing.

I'd like to see our clients begin to invest in our city again.

In housing development, time is money.

Full design review can cost a 200 unit of

SPEAKER_07

The final speaker in this set is Sanders Lotry.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

SPEAKER_14

Hello?

SPEAKER_07

We can hear you.

SPEAKER_14

Hi, my name is Sanders Lotry.

I'm a renter in South Lake Union and I fully support CD 120824 Member Morales, temporarily eliminate full design review for new housing developments in downtown Seattle and surrounding neighborhoods.

Full design review delays projects and adds extraordinary costs to them.

Those costs eventually get passed on to the people living and working in this building.

As the city is currently struggling through a housing and affordability crisis, it does not make sense to further increase the cost to renters, a group of people who are typically younger, are typically people of color, and typically have less finances.

New construction under the bill would still have to conform to code and would still have to be approved by the SDCI director.

This bill will streamline the road to construction and will let more housing be built in the city sooner rather than having delays due to useless discussions over the proposed building's brick color.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Switching back to in-person speakers, first we have Sandy Shetler followed by Martha Baskin.

SPEAKER_31

Hi, good afternoon.

Thank you, Chair Morales.

I wanted to let you know, I'm Sandy Shetlar with Tree Action Seattle, Dan's district.

I stand by my comment this morning regarding 824, the omnibus bill, regarding the large number of zones which are completely excluded from tree protection.

The fact that residential small lot trees are included separately in SMC 2344, as SDCI noted today, simply confirms that frontline communities have weaker tree protection.

Last month, SDCI approved the removal of the last tree on a South Park block to be replaced by a concrete patio.

When the community spoke up, the developer changed their mind and now will build around the tree.

But community pushback can't save the hundreds of trees SDCI is approving for removal each month.

Frontline communities are losing more trees faster than other neighborhoods.

This bill cements the loopholes into place and should be rejected.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Up next we have Martha Baskin followed by Patrick Foley.

SPEAKER_12

Are we here?

Yes.

Good to spend some time with you.

When the word omnibus is an adjective, as in omnibus bill or omnibus law, it means providing many things at once.

Unfortunately, the 2024 omnibus bill, also known as Council Bill 120823, provides many ways to further undermine the coexistence of trees and housing on lots undergoing development, and further negates recognition that trees are public health allies and warriors in a new climate normal, when their canopies provide relief from heat islands, wildfire smoke, and polluted air, and their roots mitigate landslides and keep toxic runoff from contaminating salmon-bearing streams.

New definitions for tree protection areas and inflated root protection areas are not small-scale amendments, as the Department of Construction and Inspection contends in the omnibus bill, but instead amendments for a city with its head in the sand.

How can a progressive city?

refuse to codify rules for new construction designs that protect trees whenever possible on lots undergoing development?

How can a city that claims it recognizes climate change and the need for tree equity in one city department further cement ways to get rid of them in another?

The tree ordinance passed last year was a punch in the gut to many tree advocates who saw it as a clear giveaway to developers.

At the time, many council members, including some of you here today, Council Member Strauss, for example, said the following in May of 2023, which I quote in part, there were a lot of things that I wanted this bill to do that I didn't get to achieve.

That's why I want to continue working with you to continue this process.

This isn't a one-time deal.

I believe that housing and trees must coexist for public health and climate resilience.

Hope that's the case.

Sadly, it's not evident in the omnibus bill.

SPEAKER_07

Up next, we have Patrick Foley, followed by Alex Zimmerman.

SPEAKER_36

Hi, thank you.

I'm Patrick Foley, a co-founder and managing partner at Lake Union Partners.

We're a development company in Seattle.

We're primarily known for developing in the central area at 23rd and Union, and we're about to complete a very large four-building project in the Rainier Valley just south of I-90 called Grand Street Commons and State Street Lofts.

We cleaned up a very contaminated site there, and we're delivering 940 units, almost half of which are affordable.

So we're delivering 450 units of affordable housing to that area.

I bring that up just because I think private developers, we get a bad name often, which sometimes it's fair, but we are working to bring affordable housing to the city.

So I want to make sure people do realize that.

I'm here in support of Council Bill 120824. Design review in some of our projects has taken two to three years, and there is a cost to that.

Time is cost.

Time is money.

And we've had projects, 23rd and Union, that cost additional design review.

We had three, four, five design review meetings that adds $300,000 to $400,000 in cost.

And oftentimes that gets translated and pushed on to future renters.

We try to keep costs down.

I'd love to lower rent.

But cost is what drives the project.

If we pay more for a project, it has to be recovered somehow.

The cost must.

To the extent that we can reduce the time and still provide quality projects, we should do that.

I agree with Rick Yoder, who's in the audience here, about creating downtown housing.

I think downtown is the best neighborhood right now to be creating more housing.

And so to the extent we can shrink the timelines to create more housing downtown, we should do that.

And it's also going to go a long way in solving a lot of the public safety problems that we have in this city, downtown especially.

If we have people living downtown, they're going to have more security.

People are invested in their own security.

So I would appreciate your support.

SPEAKER_07

Up next, we have Alex Zimmerman, followed by Kathy Kirchhoff.

SPEAKER_32

Zichail, my daughter, damn Nazi.

Gestapo, fascist, hunter, bandito, and killer.

My name, Alex Zimmerman.

I'm against Amendment 22, and I explained to you why.

Yesterday, I see a new movie that is coming to market, only three days, you know what I mean, about Seattle.

In YouTube, everybody can see this.

So we have right now number one, the number one rich city in America, the number one idiotic stupid city in America.

I'm very proud of this because for many years I come here and talk stop Seattle fascists with idiotic face.

People who here is all freaking degenerate idiotic.

Because life never go better for last 20 years.

It's worse and worse and worse.

It's moving about.

So, how we can change this?

And I talking about this for many years.

Before we, the people, don't will accept Constitution, First Amendment and freedom of speech, nothing will be changed.

For this I want to open better room in City Hall for three minute, one day per week, so people can talk and speak about everything without your control.

Before you are pure fascist and this exactly what is doing this.

So I right now speak to Consul Tanya Wu because I think she can support this idea and bring Seattle totally change.

You understand what this mean?

So for another hundred year, we can go to better room, speak for three minute without your Nazi, fascist, junta control.

It's make Seattle more smarter.

It's only freaking idiot in this city.

In this, I live for 40 year.

Why a freaking idiot to live together with this 750,000?

I don't know.

So please.

Consul Tanya Wu doing something, but this can be our history.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_07

Up next, we have Kathy Kirchhoff, followed by Lily Hayward.

SPEAKER_27

Hello, my name is Kathy Kirchhoff.

I'm in District 6. I wanted to urge you to REJECT OR AMEND THE CB 120823. We were promised that when the tree ordinance passed that there would be corrections to it.

We're seeing accelerated tree loss.

And so I feel this just cements that in place.

You are creating the world and the city that we will be trying to survive in as climate change worsens.

If you've lived here any amount of time, all you have to do is look at the Olympic Mountains and to say, there's no snow anymore, there's no more glaciers.

In the winter, the mountains look like what they used to look like in the summer.

we're suffering a lot more from pollution.

I find it very disturbing that communities in residential small lots like South Park, All trees may be removed when development is proposed.

South Park has 12% tree canopy compared to Seattle average of 28. I grew up in the South End.

My family has suffered greatly from the pollution that we were exposed to.

The research is showing that trees are important for removing air pollution, which that community suffers from.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Up next, we have Lily Hayward, followed by Paul Lasting, certificate.

SPEAKER_01

Good afternoon, Chair Morales and Land Use Committee members.

My name is Lily Hayward speaking on behalf of the 2,500 members of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce in support of council bills 120824 and 120833. Both of these bills will lead to more housing being built everywhere and lead to more people living downtown, which is critical to revitalizing that neighborhood and meeting our regional affordable and market rate housing goals.

We need more types of housing to be built all over the city faster.

Stringent, costly, and lengthy design review processes discourage development and lead to greater costs for renters and homeowners down the line.

The design review holiday included in Council Bill 120824 is one way that our city can temporarily lower the cost of housing by reducing the barriers to build.

We also need to build more family sized housing so that more people have affordable options close to where they work and they can grow their families right here in Seattle.

Council Bill 120833 will ensure that downtown projects can continue to use the MHA three bedroom incentive and living pilot program incentives and build more family sized units in our downtown neighborhood.

The chamber does voter polling twice a year, and we always ask folks what their top priorities are.

And consistently, your constituents cite housing affordability as one of those top priorities.

They've also said that they want more housing to be built all over the city and in their neighborhoods as well.

So we hope that you pass both of these bills and continue your work to revitalize downtown and create equitable and affordable housing throughout our city.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_07

Up next we have Paul K followed by Camille Z. Paul Kunahome.

SPEAKER_05

Up next we have Camille Z. I'm here to talk about the Omnibus Bill 823. have been getting involved in the tree loss, witnessing what people are going through.

90% of the people that live in this city think all Seattle trees are protected because it's not clear to them that they're not.

They do not know that a developer just has to snap their fingers and they can cut whatever tree they want.

My neighborhood is losing trees like, every day.

I've walked up to two illegal removals.

Nobody came to stop it.

I got harassed sexually by the guy cutting the tree down, told me he would come to my house next with his chainsaw and cut my trees.

I live a block away.

I had to go home, and I was scared.

This is what you are putting us through.

We want our trees.

90% of the people opposing this have financial interests.

I grew up here.

I was born in 63 here in the city.

My great great grandmother watched the great Seattle fire burn from her second grade classroom.

I love this city.

I want you to love it.

And what do you think is going to happen to these communities that don't have trees?

You think we have problems, mental health with youth now?

They're not going to have any nature around them.

My friend's eight-year-old son lives on Roosevelt, heat island, no trees, nothing.

Do you think that's going to help him mentally?

Think about what you guys are doing.

We want to keep our trees.

Why can't you just do it?

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

The final speaker in this set is Ian Morrison.

SPEAKER_02

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

Ian Morrison here, speaking on support of the Downtown Design Review holiday.

I'm gonna center this.

You've heard a lot about the timing issues and how it takes over 24 months to get projects through Downtown Design Review, and that cost is translated to renters or tenants.

I'm also gonna center it on what is important to the city, which is all of those projects, housing, lodging, life science and biotech, pay MHA fees to the city.

And those fees are only paid when you get through the permitting process.

So from a city's perspective, not only does it provide more housing, more lodging, which is one of the core priorities of our economic development strategy, and more life sciences, which you heard is one of the leading economic drivers of our region, and bringing people to work downtown, but it is also something that supports the MHA fund And last year in the city's own MHA report, there is a 15% reduction in the MHA funds that are coming to the office to housing.

That is in part due to the fact that it takes 24 plus months to get through the permitting process because you can only write the check to the city at the end of the process.

So not only is this an economic development strategy to bring housing and life sciences and lodging faster, but it's an ability to bring MHA dollars into the city.

And I'll speak to two things that I heard from the staff presentation this morning from Mr. Freeman.

Number one is why do we do this now?

And you heard that they said, well, we could wait till 2026 or beyond when zoning happens.

It takes two plus years right now to get through the process and then another two years to build.

So the time to address our housing crisis and the 120,000 new homes we need to bring into the city of Seattle in our downtown core being the core area to do that as part of our growth strategy is now, not two years plus the permitting timeline.

And the second thing that I'll say is I heard some talk about delegation.

The city already passed this incentive for affordable housing that said the exact same standard for departures, which is does it for affordable housing.

The standard for these projects in downtown is the exact same standard the council has already done for departures.

There is no delegation.

This is not about zoning.

This is taking the same framework you did for affordable housing and bringing it to these products downtown.

So we would ask you to support this bill.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Switching back to online speakers.

Up first we have Dave Moring followed by Bradley Kaye.

Please press star six.

SPEAKER_15

Hello, my name is David Moringa.

I'm an architect and past commissioner with the Seattle Urban Forestry Commission.

I'd ask you to fix the council bill 12823, which is an omnibus to correct typos and clarify regulations about the 2023 tree ordinance and other things.

What needs to be clarified?

Isn't it all clarified?

Well, question that has been raised is how many of the council members and city staff know the difference between quote basic tree protection area quote and to find elsewhere quote tree protection area quote we're essentially the same term one has the word basic in front however basic tree protection area is all about tree removal what is the basis of tree removal whereas tree protection area is actually about the tree protection area during construction.

The SD, SDCI has clarified the difference with the urban forestry commission, the last meeting three weeks ago.

And as you know, as, um, the city of Seattle must follow the sale miscible code 3.72.

That includes the land use committee and review recommendations on this on the bus relative to the tree.

Please by listening to the urban forestry commission and their thoughts on this.

So my suggestion is to simply either take this portion out to the omnibus or do the three following things.

One, revise the word or term basic tree protection area and call it basis of tree removal area.

Two, make sure that the two definitions are the same area.

As you know, the basic tree protection area inflates the size of the tree from 250 to 400%.

And three, SMC 2511-070, where tree removal is covered, basically excludes RSL from the list of sites that are considered under development.

This is contrary to SMC 2344.

SPEAKER_07

Up next, we have Bradley Kaye, followed by Patience Malaba.

Looks like you're unmuted, Bradley, if you want to begin.

SPEAKER_24

Hello, can you hear me?

Hello.

OK, sorry.

So I would like to thank Council for looking at meaningful reform in the city's design review process.

Council Bill 120824. Brad Corey I'm an architect with a focus on urban housing i'm also an advocate on code and urban design issues, particularly around housing in our downtown waterfront.

Brad Corey I've been practicing in Seattle since 2001 I teach part time at the University of Washington and I have worked on hundreds of housing projects from townhouses to mid rise projects to all of sales neighborhoods.

Brad Corey I mean firsthand expertise in dealing with the designer view program as a result i've been active in seeking design new reforms since 2014. I would like to acknowledge the critical needs of our downtown, but the council know that I recently relocated my office to Capitol Hill from the storefront in downtown in Pioneer Square, where I was located for 17 years.

This is due in large part to a lack of residents in the downtown Seattle area.

The legislation you are considering proposes to exempt projects from designer view in downtown Uptown, First Hill, and South Lake Union for three years.

I support this bill as it will help create housing more quickly and support the critical recovery that our downtown and immediately adjacent neighborhoods need.

The design review adds significant time to projects and delays the production of housing.

I've personally experienced delays of a year on mid-rise projects in our core neighborhoods.

I agree with this proposal that primarily focuses on residential uses and housing.

Housing is a critical element of downtown recovery.

I agree with the provision that allows for waiver or modification development standards via directed decision and a type one decision.

I agree with the allowance of the mass use permit to continue to have vesting rights consistent with the current program.

I encourage city council and mayor's office to pursue additional design review reform of the city of Seattle to respond to HB 1293 to create a clear objective and predictable process and outcomes for all projects in Seattle.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Up next we have Patience Malaba followed by Cynthia Pearson.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you, Chair Morales.

I am Patience Malaba with the Housing Development Consortium, and I'm here today to speak in support of Council Bill 120824 and Council Bill 120833. Council Bill 120824 is a critical measure to accelerate the creation of much needed housing.

uh in areas like downtown uptown first hill and south lake union uh granting a simple three-year design review exemption this is a bill that you all know will serve as a model for broader design review reform across seattle in aligning your efforts with our state obligation through house bill 1293 We all know in the sector that the lengthy design review process significantly delays housing development and it adds a lot of cost.

In fact, a study by the US, the UCLA does suggest that a 25% reduction in permitting timelines could lead to a 33% increase in housing production.

But as your support of this council bill then council bill 120833 is equally important uh it does amend the code to ensure that residential projects could benefit from the living building pilot program as well as the three bedroom incentives i cannot reiterate how important it is for us to begin to increase the production of family size units particularly in downtown this aligns with our goals for sustainability and equity This is the time for you to address the housing crisis.

In fact, the time to pass policies was yesterday.

The agency to pass the policies is now.

So we hope that you support passing Council Bill 1208, 24 and Council Bill 1208-33.

Thank you.

Next, we have Cynthia Pearson followed by Patrick Taylor.

SPEAKER_07

I'm not seeing Cynthia Pearson, so we will go to Patrick Taylor.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

SPEAKER_16

Hi, my name is Patrick Taylor.

I'm a multifamily housing designer and co-chair of the AIA Housing Task Force.

I'm here today to speak in favor of the design review exemption for downtown.

We're in a local and nationwide housing shortage due in large part due to regulatory barriers to new homes, such as designer view.

It's reached the point that Kamala Harris addressed the need for reform such as this as part of her housing policy platform.

Designer view is a subjective process that's been weaponized against new housing.

The egregious examples from Seattle of how the process has been abused are the main reason why the state has passed a reform law that's severely limited its application.

The FTCI has demonstrated in their stakeholder process and their report that they're hostile to reform Justin Delacruz, City of Boulder, It was up to the Council to fix the process, the proposed law is a great step forward in.

Justin Delacruz, City of Boulder, waning in the process and reducing the regulatory barriers to housing in our city, it will help downtown and housing affordability.

Justin Delacruz, City of Boulder, which is much needed, and I urge you all to prove it, I also urge you to ignore anti housing activists and approve the ominous omnibus cleanup bill as written into the bill to really legalize much needed concrete housing, thank you very much for your time.

SPEAKER_07

Next, we have Suzanne Grant, followed by David Newman.

SPEAKER_25

There's a hole in the sky where the tree wants to run.

Somebody is making money.

Suzanne Grant here urging you to reject or amend 120823. Council members, do you live in a place where you can see trees out your window?

Can you hear birds singing?

If I could see your heads, I assume you would be nodding yes.

Do you want this quality of life for the citizens for whom you are responsible in Seattle?

Why then are you letting Mayor Harrell, Marco Lowe, and SDCI to allow developers to, quote, remove all trees when development is proposed in residential small lot zoning like Southport, where the tree canopy is currently only 12%?

Council members, clean up the tree ordinance as you promised to do in 2023 since the current bill hurts rather than help Seattle's trees.

We want healthy housing for all.

Housing that includes trees.

Take to heart the testimony today by Sandy Shetler, June Bluespruce, Martha Baskin, Steve Zemke, and others.

Make updates recommended by treepac.org.

Listen to the Urban Forestry Commission.

Correct the definition of tree protection area as recommended by David Moehring.

Remove the artificially inflated root protection formula, which is the go-to provision to justify removing all trees for construction.

And I believe in design review.

Don't give it up.

Do not exempt buildings from design review.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Up next, we have David Newman, and that's the final speaker online.

Please, yep, you're unmuted.

SPEAKER_20

Great, thank you.

Hi, everyone.

I'm David Newman.

I am an architect in Seattle and partner Neiman Taper Architects.

We are experts in micro housing design.

Over the past decade, we've designed over 1,000 units of this kind of housing, over 20 different projects.

We've even developed three projects of our own.

But as leaders in the field, it's still been almost five years since we started a new micro housing project.

That's kind of difficult to come to develop this kind of housing.

Our city needs to get back to doing it.

building this sort of organic, low-cost, affordable housing.

The state passed HB1998 that requires that we do this, and I'm really pleased that the mayor has moved the implementation legislation up way ahead of the state deadline.

I've read the report.

I concur that these proposed changes are all necessary to comply with the state law.

I just want to encourage you to move this legislation forward quickly so we can get back to building housing that people need and that they can afford.

If I'm fully honest, this is not enough to really restart micro housing in a robust way.

We need to do more.

The MFT program that we have is so poorly administered that it's not really working to support workforce housing as it used to.

Our energy codes effectively discourage small unit housing.

Landlord tenant law has become so imbalanced that they've essentially made rent payment optional and broken the basic business model of rental housing.

If we're serious about building our way to lower rents and plentiful housing, there's more to be done.

I encourage you to pass the legislation that's in front of you, and then let's get on with the rest of it and make it happen.

Thank you so much.

SPEAKER_07

That is the final online speaker present.

Switching back to in-person.

Up first, we have Susan Ward, followed by Heather Phil.

SPEAKER_23

Thank you, excuse me, thank you.

My name is Susan Ward and I'm speaking on behalf of Omnibus, regarding Omnibus 120823. Council members, I believe your goals are to reform the Tree Amendment and to fight global warming and climate change.

This new omnibus bill fails to do that.

A better tree code would not allow building on 85 to 100% of a lot, which a developer designed amendment to the code permits.

A better tree code would not allow further reducing the tree canopy in South Park, which already has only 12% tree canopy.

In the five years between 2016 and 2021, 255 acres of trees were lost in Seattle.

This year alone, under the new version of the tree code, over 1,000 have been cut, most of those to development.

The omnibus bill removes tree protections in 22 of 27 land use zones.

It removes the ability of city planners to request design changes to accommodate trees.

It makes trees in environmentally critical areas even more vulnerable to removal than those not in ECAs.

Several speakers have pointed out the more egregiously destructive sections of the omnibus bill and urged for them to be removed.

I urge you to start over.

I urge you to reject this bill.

Instead, increase protection for trees in development.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

Our final speaker is Heather Peel.

SPEAKER_34

Heather Peel, Friends of the Market.

And well, first I wanted to say I only know about this bill to eliminate design review temporarily because of another active citizen.

I don't feel that there was sufficient public notice, and I would ask that you table it.

In particular, though, I'm speaking from Friends of the Market's mission.

Our mission is to protect the market, but also the surrounding community.

That isn't to keep the surrounding community like the market.

It's to protect the market itself, which we are all responsible for.

The market has guidelines that protect noise, views, and natural light and energy control, unlike any of the other historic districts or city landmarks.

And so if there's no design review in the next three years, it means that lots or buildings that may be redeveloped across First Avenue from the market they may shadow the market and take out some of the natural light.

If we don't have notice and the decision can't be appealed, then that really raises a problem for all of us on how to protect the market.

Likewise, across Western Avenue, there are some lower buildings across from the most historic part of the market that if redeveloped or added onto would be exempt from design review, but they would block the view for the public.

So I feel this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I don't mean literally, but this is very comprehensive.

And I believe in more affordable housing as well.

But the market, these are temporary measures that would have permanent changes to the market if somebody gets through that loophole and we have no say whatsoever.

Please join me in protecting the Market Historical District.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Our final in-person speaker is Edward Moore.

SPEAKER_33

Hi, I'm here opposing 12084. There were a whole lot of developers here really excited about this bill.

I really noticed how much they really thought this was a great deal.

And luckily we can always trust developers because YOU KNOW, THEY'VE ALWAYS GOT OUR BEST INTEREST IN HEART AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S BEST INTEREST IN HEART AND THEY'RE ALWAYS JUST TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

SIMILAR TO THE BUILDING AT 2616 WESTERN WHERE THEY CAME IN WITH A DESIGN FOR A 19-STORY BUILDING AND A ZONE FOR 12 STORIES.

AND THEY'VE BEEN WORKING THAT WAY THROUGH THIS HUGE LONG PROCESS AND JUST HAVING PROBLEM AFTER PROBLEM.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT COULD HAVE SLOWED DOWN THEIR DESIGN REVIEW IF MAYBE THEY WOULD HAVE MAYBE built it as zoned rather than trying to build it well beyond what was zoned.

I think the design review process is really important and then it's long is ridiculous.

I actually worked my whole career in efficiency and I look at the southern border and I think that's really inefficient for dealing with migrants.

I think our design review is really inefficient for getting the process through, but just giving waivers to the process isn't a good idea.

I don't think Boeing should do that with their product.

I don't think we should do that with the product that is our city.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_07

That is the final speaker.

We have signed up remotely or in person.

SPEAKER_10

Okay, well, thank you very much, everyone online and those who came down to chambers.

Appreciate hearing from all of you.

We will be hearing most of these bills again in the Land Use Committee on September 18th.

So look forward to seeing you there.

This concludes the September 4th, 2022 Land Use Committee meeting and public hearing.

The next committee meeting is September 18th at two o'clock.

We are adjourned.

Thanks so much for being here, everyone.