Happy Friday.
Good morning, everyone.
It is June 13th.
Meeting of the Select Committee of the Comprehensive Plan will come to order.
It is 9.32 AM.
I'm Joy Hollingsworth.
I am the chair of the Select Committee.
Clerk, will you please call the roll?
Council Member Kettle?
Here.
Council Member Moore?
Council President Nelson?
Council Member Rink?
Present.
Councilmember Rivera.
Present.
Councilmember Saka.
Here.
Councilmember Strauss.
Present.
Vice Chair Solomon.
Here.
Chair Hollingsworth.
Here.
There are seven Councilmembers present.
Awesome.
Thank you so much.
And let the record reflect, Councilmember Moore has been excused.
We're now going to consider the agenda.
And if there are no objections, the agenda will be adopted.
Just a reminder today, written public comment will only be accepted.
Please drop off those written public comments in chambers or send us your thoughts at council at seattle.gov.
Again, today's only written public comment.
After that, we will be resuming to in-person and virtual public comment.
And we also have a public hearing coming up as well.
Items of business.
Good morning and happy Friday.
It's a great day to be a council member.
colleagues that is a positive attitude that I've always been taught as a basketball player you always say it's a great day to be whatever you are today so at Arizona we'd always say it's a great day to be a Wildcat it's a great day to be a council member it's an opportunity and it's a blessing so I'll give a couple updates so we can get to the agenda item all the details for public hearing on June 23rd have been published on the clerk's website.
The hearing on the 23rd will cover both pieces of legislation, the comprehensive plan and the permanent legislation for House Bill 1110. The public hearing will be broken into two sessions.
Session one will begin at 930 and will be reserved for remote public comment.
Session two will begin at 3 p.m.
and it will be reserved for in-person commenters.
The first registration window will open at 8.30 and close at 10 a.m.
The second registration window will open at 2.30 and close at 6.30 p.m.
So there are two separate registration windows for each session.
So make sure you check the agenda to ensure you're registered in the appropriate time window.
You may only speak at one registered, you only registered to speak at one of the two sessions.
So please email our office if you have any questions and colleagues.
Please, if you have any items of concern, if you have anything that we need to address before the public hearing, please let our office know we have posted this agenda and we'd like to know ahead of time before if there's any concerns that you might have so we can make adjustments for logistics for the public hearings.
Today's central staff, will be giving us a presentation on policy considerations for the comprehensive plan legislation and permanent House Bill 1110 legislation.
Thank you for conducting such a thorough analysis in such a short timeframe.
I know our central staff have been working on this for years.
and also in the short time that we've had together that with the comprehensive plan and the House Bill 1110 legislation that you all have done a phenomenal job in making sure that we are prepared as a council and informed and have the opportunity to feel confident when we vote on things.
So with that, we're gonna get started with the meeting.
Clerk, will you please read item one into the agenda?
Agenda item one, council bill 120985, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning repealing and replacing the Seattle comprehensive plan pursuant to a major update with new goals, policies and elements and a new future land use map.
Awesome.
Thank you.
And central staff, please go ahead and introduce yourself.
We're so happy that you are here and then you can jump right into it.
Thank you.
Council central staff.
Lish Whitson.
HB Harper.
Awesome, and I don't know if the presentation is up.
We can share a screen here, Council Member.
And I can share my screen as well.
Not scream, screen.
Yeah, we all wanna scream at the legislation.
Wait, screen.
Good morning, Chair Hollingsworth, members of the City Council.
I've met many of you in the halls, but I thought I'd just take a moment to briefly introduce myself.
I'm HB Harper, I'm one of your new central staff, and I'm very pleased to be here with my colleagues to present on a few interrelated pieces of the comprehensive plan.
So on the next slide, we have a brief agenda.
We're going to focus on growth and land use components of this very large package of adoption documents today.
But I wanted to start with a quick overview to make sure that we were all in the same context about this process.
On the next slide, you'll see we have two very long council bills for your consideration.
They were just read in.
Council Bill 120985 contains the goals and policies of the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan update.
So of course it contains more elements beyond those we're discussing today.
So we do anticipate further discussion on those elements.
And then Council Bill 120993 contains implementing regulations related to House Bill 1110, which we've been discussing as phase one.
As you know, you recently passed interim legislation, and so those would be replaced by this legislation.
And then we anticipate a phase two with the remainder of the implementing regulations early next year.
So lots of future discussions to come.
And with that, I'll hand it over to my colleague.
All right, so I'll walk through some of the regional context.
This is sort of in the interest of helping the council members understand what the content of the growth strategy element, a lot of which was gone over last week by Michael Hubner from OPCD, and sort of the range of options that the council can make in thinking about modifications to the growth strategy element.
So I'll provide a little bit of regional context, briefly go through kind of the taxonomy of centers and places that OPCD walked through last week and talk about how they're shown on the future land use map, which is kind of the policy for future zoning decisions that the council may make, and then talk about the types of choices that the council can make in modifying the mayor's proposed growth strategy.
That includes modifications based on transit access and amenities and also modifications based on other factors like critical areas and proximity to infrastructure.
So the regional context on this slide, you see on the right a table that comes from the countywide planning policies.
The countywide planning Planning policies allocate to Seattle a target of 112,000 new housing units and about 170,000 new jobs for the planning period 2019 to 2044. The comp plan has an adjusted target because some time has elapsed here since 2019, and that's 80,000 new housing units and 159,000 new jobs.
In the intervening years, the city's added about 42,000 new housing units.
In 2021, Seattle had zoned capacity for approximately 172,000 new housing units and 246,000 new jobs.
So in 2021, Seattle had enough capacity to accommodate anticipated growth.
The mayor's proposed comprehensive plan contemplates a citywide zoned residential development capacity of approximately 300,000 new units.
So what does this mean for you guys?
It means that there are some degrees of freedom in making choices about where growth will go That's subject to some limitations.
I'll be talking about those here towards the end of my portion of this presentation.
But there are choices here that the Council can make, but subject to some limitations.
So the growth strategy, this is mostly a refresher.
The growth strategy element of the comprehensive plan answers the question about where that residential and employment growth will go.
There are several geographies.
They're called place types in the comprehensive plan.
that define where future residential and employment growth will go.
Those are regional centers, urban centers, neighborhood centers, and manufacturing industrial centers, a few of those, and then urban neighborhoods, which is sort of mostly where in our zoning is today.
A few of those centers have significance and meaning for the purposes of the countywide planning policies.
Regional centers, urban centers, and manufacturing industrial centers are all geographies that have designation criteria that come from the countywide planning policies, but there are a few here that are Seattle-specific.
So the proposed neighborhood centers and urban neighborhoods, those are all Seattle-specific geographies that the council can choose to modify.
The council can also choose to modify some of the regional centers, but we'll be talking about limitations to that here in a minute.
So the primary geographies, regional centers, there are seven.
Urban centers, there are 25. Neighborhood centers, there are 30. And then urban neighborhoods, essentially the rest of Seattle is where our neighborhood residential zones are now.
Any questions about this taxonomy?
A little bit about what might happen within these centers.
Regional centers are where you'd see tower development, the most intense development in the city.
urban centers or places where you might see development between, sorry.
Yeah, no worries, Ketel.
There is a, you're good.
There is a question.
And colleagues, please feel free to raise your hand throughout the presentation.
I know it's pretty chunky.
And so we can answer questions.
Council Member Rivera.
Thank you, Chair.
Ketel, would you mind going back to slide three?
Yeah.
So can you, I'm trying to track here.
It says Seattle's adjusted targets for the one Seattle plan are 80,000 new housing units and 159 new jobs.
And then below it says the comp plan contemplates his own residential development capacity for approximately 300,000 new homes.
So can you explain?
at the difference here.
I don't think I'm tracking.
Yeah, so under our current, just under the current conditions today or in 2021, the city had enough zone capacity to accommodate about 172,000 new housing units and 246,000 new jobs.
So the growth strategy contemplates that there will be future up zones based on the taxonomy of places that the mayor has identified for where he would prefer growth to go.
Um, so when, uh, when the growth strategy is implemented, which will happen in a few phases here, um, the city will increase its capacity for new residential development to 300,000.
That's the ability to develop homes, but the targets are actually 80,000.
The creation of, um, and the timeframe is 80,000 new housing units.
It's just that we will have the capacity for 300,000.
my understanding that right lish you're nodding okay yeah so the development capacity is determined by looking at what's allowed under zoning what exists on property today which piece of property are most likely to be redeveloped um over a time span much larger than the 20 years that the comprehensive plan looks at um and so it's it's sort of the entire universe of property that might get redeveloped at some point in the foreseeable future under the zoning that we have today, or under the zoning.
Thank you, Lush.
Can you explain why we would have such a greater number than the target?
Right.
Right.
So it's the universe of all property that could redevelop.
Once you have a development capacity that's close to the amount of growth that you're actually planning for, the cost of that land increases exponentially.
If you provide more space for people to develop across the city, you have more flexibility.
You're not driving development pressure on the small number of places where you can actually build under the zoning.
So it can help with housing affordability and getting projects to market.
Not every property owner who owns a piece of property that is developable is going to actually build or sell their property to be built on, um, within the 20 year time period.
So the, with the idea being that these are our creation growth targets are the 80,000 new units, but that if we expand the ability to, even though that we may not create actually 300,000 more units, but having the ability has an impact on the costs, if you will.
In the memo, there is a link to what's called the Buildable Lands Report, which is something that King County puts out.
And it analyzes across the county sort of what the zone capacity is of each jurisdiction.
There's kind of a market factor that jurisdictions have to have to make sure that they can accommodate more than they're necessarily zoned for.
There's a link to that.
report and the memo and there's a table that summarizes growth capacity across the county.
Seattle's not unusual in having excess development capacity.
We're a little bit unusual in having as much as we do.
Thank you, Ketel.
And I just and thank you for the memo.
I wanted also to state for the record because constituents ask help a lot about it seems what it seems to them to be a discrepancy.
And I just wanted to the record to reflect why we do it this way, if you will.
And then chair, if I may ask one more question, is that okay?
Thank you, chair.
On page four, do we have growth targets for each of these, the regional centers, urban centers, neighborhood centers, are there a growth, actual growth target estimates calculated for each of those?
There are, for the regional centers, there are both residential growth and employment growth targets, but not for any of the other centers.
Got it.
Okay.
Thank you, Ketel.
Thank you, Chair.
Awesome.
Thank you, Councilman Rivera.
And let the record reflect.
We're joined in person by Council President Nelson.
Thank you.
So just sort of to refresh your memory about the scale of development that might be allowed in these centers.
In regional centers, you could expect towers essentially.
So the most intense development would occur in regional centers.
In urban centers, development would be between three and eight stories in height, so up to sort of about the maximum of what can be built under wood frame construction with a concrete base.
In neighborhood centers, development would be between Sure.
And neighborhood center's development would be between three and six stories.
And then in urban neighborhoods, development would primarily be about three stories, but along transit corridors.
And for larger lots, there may be somewhat taller buildings in urban neighborhoods.
So the growth strategy is sort of a continuation of the city's existing urban village strategy.
There are a couple of organizing principles there, and one, a primary one, has to do with access to transit.
There are kind of two flavors of transit, one high capacity transit and the other frequent transit.
What's shown here on the right is the frequent transit map from the transportation plan.
This is not the existing frequent transit network.
This is the planned frequent transit network.
So you will see in the mayor, you have seen in the mayor's proposal that there are some proposed expansions based on the location of high capacity transit.
So that includes things like expansions of the urban center and uptown to get within a walk shed of a future light rail station.
And it also includes new neighborhood centers based on proximity to transit, such as a new neighborhood center plan for the Madison Valley at the terminus of the Madison BRT.
Transit is not the only factor.
It's an important factor for the regional designation.
So for regional centers and urban centers, it is an organizing factor.
It is one factor in designation of neighborhood centers, but it's not the sole factor.
Neighborhood centers are also designated based on things like access to shops and services and amenities, which is primarily parks.
So there are a range of options here sort of based on, maybe I'll just refresh your memory also about sort of where transit funding for frequent transit service, not the high capacity transit, which is largely provided through regional partners, but frequent transit service is provided through the city purchases that through the city's transportation benefit district, sales tax revenue that the city is voted on.
It's about one, I think the maximum is a 0.3% sales tax We currently levy a 1.5, 0.15% sales tax, and that will be up again for council consideration in 2027. So, transit, frequent transit is something that is an organizing principle here.
Because we have enough zone capacity, there are some choices here that the council can make based on any number of factors that include frequent transit, but also include other things.
So the council could increase the number of neighborhood centers, reduce the number of neighborhood centers, and also reduce the boundaries that are proposed for some of the expansion areas.
But there's a range of options that the council individually can make and collectively has to decide on.
So critical areas and other limitations.
So this is just to give another flavor for the types of considerations the council can make.
and modifying the proposed growth strategy.
So, Seattle's natural and built environment contains both critical areas and active nonresidential land uses and physical infrastructure that can be incompatible with residential use and development.
The growth strategy contemplates expanding urban centers and adding new urban centers in places that are sometimes partially characterized by critical areas or are adjacent to some of these, some types of infrastructure that are incompatible for residential uses.
I'll give you an example here in a minute.
Because Seattle is fully urbanized, this circumstance exists today, right?
So these are not proposals to newly site residential uses within places that may be difficult to develop or may not be compatible with residential uses.
But there is a choice here that the mayor is proposing for the council to make, and I'll give you sort of an example here.
So on the right is a map from the environmental impact statement.
It's a transportation noise map.
And not surprisingly, it shows some of the noisier parts of the city being around the King County Airport.
Part of the proposal includes a new neighborhood center in Georgetown.
There are existing residential uses in Georgetown, but that is a place where the council could make different choices about whether there should be a residential neighborhood center.
Any questions?
seeing none we'll hold real quick uh let the record reflect uh councilmember solomon will join us uh virtually all right so there are some limitations here on council action um a requirement of the comprehensive plan is that the comprehensive plan be both be internally consistent that it be consistent with the county-wide planning policies and regional plans and that also the development regulations implementing the comprehensive plan are consistent as well.
So policy changes that the council may make about some of the regional boundaries, so the urban centers and regional centers and urban centers would be informed in part by the countywide planning policy designation criteria for those centers.
Another factor, another sort of limiting factor here is whether changes are within the scope of environmental review.
So as always, any changes that the Council may make that could include increasing the number of centers, decreasing the number of centers, or modifying boundaries has to be something that was studied in the final environmental impact statement.
So with that, unless there are any further questions, any other questions about the growth strategy, I'll hand it off to my colleagues.
And those factors also will apply to the bill that I'm going to be talking about, which is Council Bill 120993. It implements Washington State House Bill 1110, which requires the city to permit at least six of nine middle housing types in all zones that allow single-family homes.
The bill does that by providing for development standards that allow flexibility rather than focusing on the nine development types that you see here.
It classifies housing into three new categories.
Detached dwelling units, these are single family homes or colleges that don't share walls with other units.
Stacked dwelling units, units that have units above or below them, apartments or condominiums generally.
We've been calling them stacked flats in our discussions of the interim bill.
They are typically all on one level, but they don't need to be.
A two-story unit on top of or below another unit would also be considered a stacked flat under the proposed zoning.
And finally, attached dwelling units.
Those are units that share walls, like townhouses or row houses.
Looking at these pictures, the courtyard apartments, duplexes, and triplexes would all meet the definition of attached dwelling units.
Sorry, going back to the previous one.
The bill includes incentives for stacked flats on lots that are both 6,000 square feet or larger and within frequent transit service areas, a quarter mile from a bus stop with frequent transit.
Stacked flats would be permitted a higher floor area ratio limit, so would be able to be in larger buildings, and increased density limits, so more units on a lot.
Council members may want to consider whether the restrictions on location of stacked plots are appropriate.
Allowing denser stacked flats on smaller lots or in areas without frequent transit service would require some additional review of environmental impacts.
The bill takes two different approaches to measure residential density.
Units per square foot of the lot.
and floor area ratio of buildings based on the density of the project.
This is different from the interim legislation.
Under the interim legislation, no matter the size of the lot, you could only have four or six units in a neighborhood residential zone.
Under the proposed bill, larger lots can have more units, but there will be a uniformity of density across all zones.
with a few exceptions.
Stack flats, existing lots under 5,000 or 7,500 square feet, and affordable housing would be permitted higher densities and would be allowed to have four or six units, even if the lot isn't 5,000 or 7,500 square feet.
In terms of On the next slide, in terms of the floor ratio limit, the size of the buildings on the lot are allowed to be bigger as the unit density increases.
So there's a relationship between the unit density measurement and the floor ratio measurement.
This is intended to ensure that the zoning code doesn't preclude the development of denser middle housing types.
Again, stacked flats on larger lots with frequent transit and low income units are allowed higher density.
In both types of density measurements, accessory dwelling units would count as dwelling units.
So a project with two ADUs is considered to have three units on the lot, and only one additional unit could be built beyond the single-family house and two ADUs.
In terms of density, the presence of ADUs would allow for a higher floor ratio on the lot.
You may want to consider whether to allow ADUs on top of the density limits or exempt them from the flow area ratio limit.
Again, this would require additional environmental review.
If they are to be counted as proposed towards the flow rate ratio and density limits, consider whether it makes sense to allow three ADUs on a lot where four units are allowed.
Rather than limiting it to two ADUs, that may provide a little bit more flexibility for allowing four units on a lot as we're required to under HP 1110. Moving to subdivisions and lot splitting.
Currently, the city has two different ways that it allows for a piece of property to be split into multiple pieces of property normally to have each unit have its own lot.
Subdivisions and unit lot subdivisions.
With a standard subdivision, each lot created through the subdivision process must meet all of the applicable zoning requirements.
With the unit lot subdivision, each lot doesn't need to meet the zoning requirements, but the parent lot does.
So you basically apply the zoning requirements before the subdivision occurs with the unit lot subdivision.
And then there are restrictions in the future on making changes to the project.
The state has created a third way for creating multiple lots out of a single lot.
They've called it lot splitting.
That will need to be in effect by July 20, 27th.
Basically, it would be an administrative process rather than the hearing process that currently occurs for subdivisions and unit lot subdivisions.
And under state law, it would be limited to just splitting a single lot into two lots.
So for example, if you have a large single family, lot, you would be able to split your backyard or front yard, allow development there on a separate lot without having to go through the subdivision process.
We're still waiting for state guidance on how to implement the law that was just passed.
So it's a little premature to adopt regulations in Seattle to implement that at this time.
But council members may want to provide guidance to the executive about how you'd like to see this implemented.
And before we continue, I apologize, interject.
I have to read council.
I have to read item number two into the agenda.
So I apologize.
Just a quick technical thing.
Council bill 120993 in ordinance relating to land use and zoning, implementing a major update of neighborhood residential zones and modifying development standards and other zones to comply with various state laws for briefing and discussion.
Thank you.
Excuse me.
So the phase one legislation proposes a 10 foot front yard setback, which as you know, was an item of some discussion during the interim legislation.
So through amendments, the council chose to require different setbacks based on different densities.
And I wanted you all to be aware that that's an option here as well.
Additionally, the phase one legislation does not include the Queen Anne Boulevard exception, which was also made via amendments.
So those are possibilities for you to consider again.
Amenity areas are a new requirement in the neighborhood residential zones under the phase one legislation.
They're required to be 20% of the lot area, and I've included the list up here of what is allowed and not allowed in them.
So the council may wish to consider refining this list based on your goals and vision for what those areas can be as the neighborhood residential zones develop.
And then tree planting and retention requirements in the neighborhood residential zones are a revamped points-based system.
So tree points can be earned through planting or retention, and higher density development is given a lower number of points that are required to be achieved.
So again, to try to incentivize that middle housing construction that the legislation is oriented towards.
I won't go through all the details of these tables, but I think essentially the question for Council to consider is whether these tree regulations meet the need for urban tree canopy as urban neighborhoods develop.
The bill includes three new design standards for neighborhood residential zones.
These are intended to improve the design of buildings in an objective manner.
The bill would require pedestrian access, pedestrian entries facing the street with weather protection, and transparency along street-facing facades.
In the draft legislation published last fall by the executive, there was a proposal for including design standards related to siting material.
so exterior siting.
That is not part of this bill.
This year, the state legislature passed a law precluding cities from regulating siting, except within historic districts and a few other circumstances that don't really apply here.
Council members could authorize SDCI to the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections to issue director's rules or prepare design guidelines in consultation with the city's historic preservation staff regarding siting in historic districts if you choose.
And I see Councilmember Kettle has a question.
Councilmember Kettle.
Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth.
I just wanted to ask a quick question.
There's been a lot of discussion about front yard setback.
And as you noted, we went with the model code on that.
And then secondly, I've heard different things regarding side yards.
Some people have offered, instead of five and five, make it options for three and seven, four and six, six and four, seven and three, given some flexibility on sides.
My question though is, because it's not been discussed, and then the rear as well has been discussed, but what has not really been discussed is the phrase, no setback required from alley.
I wanted to ask about this, particularly because our alleys are getting crowded, which has huge impacts for first responders, particularly fire, and then also for SPU, for our garbage, recycling, compost, big trucks going down thin alleys.
And I just wanted to have an understanding in terms of what no setback required from alleys, because it is having an impact on those services provided by the city either.
like fire department, public safety generally, and or SPU.
Right, so no setback required from alley does mean that buildings can be built to that line.
Side setbacks are still required, so it would not be the entire extent of the line, but a building could be constructed there.
I believe, from my perception, that this is based on historical development patterns that cities have tended to build right to the alley over time, but I welcome any other comments from my colleagues as well.
If an alley is not built to the standard width, then this provision, I think, doesn't apply or the buildings would need to be set back from.
So if you have a very narrow alley, I think you would still need to set the building back to provide space for a standard width alley.
okay i'm just raising that because clearly we need to be we need some refinement of this you know not just a general note setback from alley we need to be a little bit more detailed otherwise we're going to create a problem and by the way i'm not talking anything major but i'm just saying that you know we have to have that ability to move through the alley we cannot jam it to the point where it impacts you know, again, first responders, or even in a more general way, And so I just want to raise this for my colleagues because it literally has not come up as a single question or really remark.
And it kind of ties in a little bit with the public safety element in terms of what we should be thinking about, what can aid first responders, you know, and what can we avoid in terms of future problems for first responders.
And this is like another example that, granted, this is minor.
I'm not talking anything big, but we have to ensure that we're not jamming, we're not you know, constricting, you know, those services, those public services.
Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.
Let the record reflect.
We're joined by Councilmember Rank in person.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Lish or Kettle.
All right, moving to the next slide.
So as you know, land use and transportation are interrelated.
Many of our street improvements are made during the construction of new development.
The bill updates thresholds for sidewalk requirements with new construction and vehicle access easements.
Sidewalks are required for 10 or more units in neighborhood residential zones and six or more units in multifamily zones.
All projects in regional and urban centers are required to provide sidewalks.
Council members should consider whether to require them in neighborhood centers or near major transit with areas where we are anticipating more trips to be made by people walking, biking, or otherwise not using cars.
In terms of vehicle access easements, these are basically if a property doesn't actually abut a street, they're required to have an easement that allows for vehicle access to their lot.
The code sets a limit based on the number of units.
As I'll get to in just a second, the proposed bill reduces or eliminates parking requirements.
in many areas.
And so the relationship between the number of units on a lot and the number of parking spaces on a lot or the basically need for vehicle access is changing.
And council members should consider whether setting vehicle access easement requirements based on the number of parking spaces would make more sense than on the number of units.
And finally, as required under House Bill 1110, parking will no longer be required in major transit service areas and would be reduced to one space per two units in other areas.
State law will require the city to remove parking requirements from smaller units, any residential unit less than 1,200 square feet.
and a range of different construction types like passive houses and mass timber construction.
And that will need to be in place by January of 2027. You should consider whether you want to implement those changes now or go further as was studied under the EIS and just remove off-street parking requirements generally.
This is one place where changes to the parking regulations may require changes to the comprehensive plan land use element, which does discuss parking goals and policies in detail.
And I believe we have a question, Lish, from Council President Nelson.
Could you please go back to page 17?
Next one.
Yeah, well, the one that was talks about improvements, what kind of improved?
What kind of improvements are we talking about?
Are we talking about a whole block of improvement for a sidewalk when for projects that meet this schedule?
Because again, this is the externalizing of city costs problem.
Property owners are required to generally build sidewalks in front of their property that's being developed.
But not beyond
that line yeah okay thank you and that's all we have oh sorry i didn't mean to jump the gun no no you're good you're good um you're all good i will pause here colleagues um for people with questions and then we um before i jump into mine i see council member solomon question
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
Could you back up to the slides where we're talking about parking spaces?
Nope.
Forward.
There we go, yeah.
So yes, slide 18. No parking required in regional centers, frequent transit service areas, major transit service areas.
How do you distinguish between the frequent transit and the major transit?
So major transit is based on sort of a permanent transit infrastructure.
Light rail is obviously each station is a major transit stop.
But bus rapid ride transit stops where you have sort of permanent infrastructure that has been put in place to support the transit.
and often bus-only lanes are also considered to be major transit stops.
Frequent transit service is based on the frequency that a bus route comes, so 15 minutes on average throughout the day or faster service is considered frequent transit.
And there are distances, so that's what defines frequent transit and major transit.
The frequent transit service areas are within a quarter-mile walking distance of a bus stop with frequent transit service.
and major transit service areas are generally a half mile walking distance.
Okay.
All right.
I just wanted to make sure that distinction between the two was clear because, you know, feedback I've heard is people were confused about, well, what's the difference between frequent transit and major transit?
So, all right.
Thank you for that.
Nothing further.
Just to add on here a little bit, so frequent transit means something for parking that is different than frequent transit means for the growth strategy.
There are some regional centers, urban centers, not urban centers, have a definition under the countywide planning policies that discuss frequent transit.
The definition of frequent transit that is used for the purposes of the countywide planning policies is different than our definition of frequent transit, which we use for the purposes of parking exemptions.
Ours is frequent headways for about 12 hours of the day.
The countywide planning policies contemplate 15-minute headways for 16 hours of the day.
So one is a definition for the purposes of the growth strategy element.
Another is a definition for the purposes of parking exemptions.
Awesome.
Thank you for that.
I see Councilmember Rivera, I see you.
Thank you, Chair.
On the same slide, new state laws will require more exemptions in the near future.
Do we have a sense of what those would be?
Yeah.
So those are removing parking requirements from units that are 1,200 square feet or less, any residential unit that's 1,200 square feet or less.
any passive house construction, mass timber construction, modular construction that's on the residential side.
And then there are also parking exemptions that will be required for non-residential spaces, a range of uses like childcare facilities, and commercial spaces in a mixed-use building would not be permitted, or the city couldn't require parking for.
and commercial spaces less than 3,000 square feet, the city wouldn't be able to require parking for.
Lesh, can you remind me, what is this current state requirement?
What can we do?
I mean, is this reduction from one space per dwelling unit to one space per two dwelling units what we have to do?
Correct.
Yes.
We don't get a choice in that.
Correct.
Got it.
Under the new state law that will be required in January of 2027, under House Bill 1110, we're limited to one space per unit.
We're limited to one space per unit?
Yes.
Until 27, and then this kicks in.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Did you have more questions council member?
Oh, sorry.
Yeah, no, no, no, you're good.
You're good.
I just, I wanted it.
No, no, no.
You saw the floor.
You're good.
I just wanted to make sure.
Um, uh, council member Strauss followed by council member rink.
Uh, thank you chair.
And thank you to our land use central staff team.
I have to say, as we endeavor to break into many different sections of what can be commonly referred to as the comprehensive plan, I know that common language is very different than technical language.
The presentation that you provided us today in both bills is really, I've found to be very helpful in focusing us on what we can and cannot do and where to spend our energy and in what sequence.
And so I don't have questions for you right now because this was very in-depth and I look forward to meeting with you for many hours over the next month or so to dig into this.
I just wanted to take a moment to say, I had trouble trying to focus it in and create, you know, you're taking a lot of really technical language out of these pieces of legislation and how is that framed in a common way that is easy for us to focus in on.
Where are those setbacks?
What is going on with parking?
How do we want to engage with design standards?
What can we engage with design standards?
And so just wanted to take this moment to share my appreciation for taking what seems like a really easy job that I know is not so easy after working with you for so many years on the Land Use Committee.
Thank you, Chair.
Awesome.
Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.
Councilmember Rink.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you three for today's presentation.
Something we haven't talked much about because we've been focused on the interim legislation are the constraints presented to us in the EIS.
Could you get into some of the areas in which we may find ourselves constrained due to the EIS, as you mentioned on slide seven?
So I'll give you a few examples here.
There are a range of alternatives in the EIS, and those alternatives contemplate both doing more and less.
So in terms of the constraints that are sort of present in the EIS, there are both constraints, sort of things that were not studied.
And then there are also opportunities, things that were studied but aren't necessarily part of the mayor's proposal.
It's not simply a constraint.
It is also there are also analyses in there that may support different policy choices that the council may make.
But let's take, for example, urban centers.
So urban centers are a geography that are defined by the countywide planning policies.
We have, there are seven urban centers.
I'm always forgetting if it's five or seven.
There are seven regional centers.
I should say regional centers that are currently urban centers now.
If the council wanted to designate a regional center that was someplace other than where they currently are, so Ballard, Downtown, First Hill, Capitol Hill, Northgate, University District, that's not something that was really studied by the EIS.
So there may be a constraint for something, a very large move like that.
There may also be constraints if the council were to add neighborhood centers that weren't necessarily studied by the EIS and concentrate them in one of the different analysis zones that were part of the EIS.
That may present some, that may exceed kind of the level of review that was done and require some additional environmental review.
There is a future here where there will be additional environmental review.
The council approved a supplemental EIS in last year's budget.
that OPCD is scoping now, and that is actually an EIS to study planning efforts for those regional centers.
So there may be some things that the council wants to accomplish this year that could be accomplished in the next few years after that environmental review is done.
I don't know if there's anything else you guys want to add to that.
Generally, allowing more density than is proposed in this bill would be outside on any individual neighborhood residential lot would be outside of the scope of what was studied in the environmental review.
Yeah.
Okay, that's really helpful to understand, especially that particular last point, Lish, that our ability to add additional density beyond what is laid out before us would go beyond the bounds of what was studied in the EIS, if I heard you correctly.
Yes?
I think so, yes.
Okay, thank you.
And can you give a high-level rundown of what we'll be working on in the comprehensive plan itself and the zone one changes?
And could you also go over what differentiates that from phase two and so on?
There's a lot of confusion in the public about what the phased approach means for their concerns.
For instance, the neighborhood centers, my understanding is we're choosing the borders, but not the zoning within them.
Yeah, correct.
So the comprehensive plan, if you can go back a couple of slides to the future land use map.
I mean, you'll be adopting this map with the comprehensive plan.
It shows generally where all of the centers are located and their general boundaries.
You won't be choosing zoning in areas where zoning is going to change in response to these designations.
under the work that we're doing this summer.
So that's phase two will be sort of drawing the specific zoning changes within the center boundaries.
But you will be adopting this map and similar maps into the conference plan that will show where zoning changes are likely to occur.
Right, thank you.
And did you say that setbacks on alleys would need to be above zero feet if the alley is not at a width needed to accommodate emergency response?
What I was trying to say is that if you are on a block with an alley, you're required to make sure that the alley is sufficient width for vehicles to travel through it.
If your alley is currently not that width, you need to sort of provide space for the alley to meet that width, and then that draws your new setback limit, not where the current rear lot line is.
And is it already prohibited for people to leave dumpsters and other things in alleys or rights of way?
And is there a requirement for these dumpsters and other things to have a designated space on the lot as a way to disincentivize them from being in the right of way?
I need to get back to you on the detail of whether or not there's a specific requirement for a solid waste storage.
space okay awesome yeah there is some legislation coming to council member hollingsworth's committee not the select committee but her um standing committee about storage of about solid waste storage i can't remember now if it covers um the entire sort of if it is something that applies zoned to all the zones within the city or if it is specific to certain areas but we'll get back to you on whether or not that um covers say neighborhood residential zones for example
Got it.
Thanks, Ketel.
And my last question, on parking, did I hear you correctly that under the new state law, parking law, we will be limited to 0.5 spaces per unit?
And there's a provision to exempt most apartments from parking entirely dependent on square footage.
Can you speak to that?
Yeah.
So, um, bill just passed by the state legislature, um, I guess in April, um, states that the city, um, Definitely exempts units that are 1,200 square feet or less from any parking requirements.
And I'm second-guessing myself, but I'm pretty sure that it also says that we can only have one space for every two units.
Okay, great.
Thank you for answering my questions, and thank you, Chair.
Appreciate it.
Thank you, Council Member Rink.
I see Council President Nelson.
Getting back to the EIS issue, correct me if I'm wrong, but 41 neighborhood centers were studied in, okay, so presumably one could go up to that as long as the neighborhood centers are still, are within those where they were studied, correct?
Now, and I always wonder, so as not to run afoul of SEPA regulations, if a neighborhood center, if a community wanted to change the shape of a neighborhood center by going longer instead of wider or vice versa, so now we're talking about a change to a neighborhood center that was already studied but different shape, what are the limits of the requirements for a new SEPA analysis?
I don't think that would require, that likely would not rise to the level of a likely significant adverse impact.
We will probably be publishing some sort of SEPA analysis on council member amendments, but I don't think that that would require additional environmental review beyond sort of stating that it's something that we considered.
Thank you.
Awesome.
And I'll pause there to see if others have any questions before I kind of jump in.
Okay.
I'll just jump in.
I like jumping in.
I'm just playing.
Well, first of all, thank you all for the presentation.
I know there's still a lot of questions that we'll be going through each as council members when we do our one-on-one meetings.
and have a more in-depth conversation.
Colleagues, just a couple of things.
Our office has sent a memo regarding the timeline to all this to make sure that we're all on the same page.
And we're gonna be working with central staff as well about the amendment timeline to make sure that we are on track and on point with amendments, because those have to be posted to the public for 30 days.
So they're able to see those as well.
So just wanted to throw that out there that we're gonna be really laser focused and on the timeline for people's amendments.
So we make sure that we have them all together.
The second thing, Just a heads up, we will be having two public hearings.
The first one will be on the 23rd.
That's a Monday.
That is the first public hearing that we'll have for the public to come just give general feedback about the comprehensive plan and about House Bill, the permanent legislation for House Bill.
And so that's our first one.
We will be doing a second one after the amendments are posted and for people to give feedback about those.
The third thing, there will be a chairs package and we'll be presenting that and be working with everyone to put forth the best chairs package as we possibly can with a lot of our shared priorities and some that we've heard from the district and also citywide is prioritizing pedestrians, people without car, When I'm walking at parks, I'm always hearing people talk to me about, hey, we would love if the bus came to the park or we would love if transit also just didn't focus so much on just going downtown, but also to different places of opportunities around the city.
So we've heard that.
We've heard from a lot of people about anti-displacement and making sure that we have anti-displacement, not just statements or not just documents, but actual plan to make sure people can be able to age in place, stay in their home, pass it down, or be able to lot split or add an ADU, a DADU, whatever it might be.
And shout out to council member Solomon who is hosting an anti-displacement fair this weekend, shameless plug, June 14th at Rainier Beach Community Center.
And I believe that's going from 12, I'm gonna scroll down really here really quick, I apologize.
Oh, 11 a.m.
to 2 p.m.
And that is the anti-displacement resource fair that's in Rainier Beach.
Topics, rental assistance, utility programs, home repair, home ownership resources.
There are literally over 15 different community partners and city departments as well who will be there.
So I'm looking forward to that and I will be there as well.
So thank you, Council Member Solomon for putting that together with Department of Neighborhoods.
Also, we heard about people that wanna build housing, property owners, not just developers, but property owners that wanna be able to build on their house.
I've heard from a lot of people that, I just ran into someone in the central district who is helping their grandfather stay in their home by splitting their lot and to be able to stay in that home and build for them to be able to pass that house down as they're aging in place.
So there's a lot of, different ways that House Bill, that we're looking forward to House Bill 1110. I've also heard from people about tree protections.
We've heard a lot of people about tree protections in green spaces.
And I believe that all these can integrate very nicely together.
It is not one or the other.
And I know we like to pit people against each other and that is not what this is about.
We want to figure out what this unity is and we're gonna find a space, okay?
We're gonna find it, I promise you.
Also, I've heard more and I have meetings scheduled with some school district folks.
I've heard people about building housing around our schools because right now we only have 111,000 kids in our city and that is below 14% of the population.
The average in the country is over 22% of the population for cities.
And we need to have more, we have more dogs in this city than kids.
And so the challenge we have is very expensive to have grow a family in this city and be able to do that.
And so we need to figure out how we are creating more housing around our schools.
So our school district is healthy because they receive money based off of enrollment.
Everyone always asks, like, why is our school district always struggling?
What is going on?
And also the cost to run a school is very different than it is here than it is in eastern Washington.
And so we have to...
figure out how we're gonna continue to design and build for families to be able to afford in the city, to afford to live in the city, to work in the city, to live in the city, affordable housing, and then also for us to have more kids in our city, because the only way that we're gonna have a healthy city is that we have young people here.
We have to have young people, okay?
And that is anyone under 30, okay?
And that means that I am old, okay?
So I just want to throw that out there.
If you are over the age of 30, just plant.
So you're getting up there.
Oh, one year away, Councilmember Rank?
Okay, 35. I got you.
35, I got you.
Thank you, Chair.
You're welcome.
Okay, also what is really important too, which I've heard, we've made a ton of investments for the people that visit Seattle.
So we have our waterfront, we have our downtown, we have these places of excitement, but I also wanna highlight the investments that we made for city residents here.
and preparing for this from our transportation levy past leadership council member Saka last year, the family educations levy that is gonna be before council, the full council that we went out of the committee with council member Rivera.
Also the park developments that we've had, the housing levy that we passed just a couple of years ago, Swedish hospital, Their massive investment right here on First Hill, which is huge.
They are the largest hospital in the state.
They produce the most babies in the state.
6,000 babies come right from here, blocks away.
Swedish Hospital, $2 billion investment for their new North Tower.
We've invested heavily in our rapid rides.
Those are going all over the city.
We just had the new G line.
We have the J line coming to Eastlake.
We have the R line coming down in Rainier Beach also as well.
So we have a ton of investments coming in the city.
Also the business districts that we have, the small business districts, not just downtown, but like the Columbia cities and the Beacon Hills and the Lake cities and the Alki's and all your neighbors, university district.
I wanna give everyone a shout out, but I can't remember everyone.
But those are important because those are investments that we're making for the growth in our city.
And we have to continue to make those if we want to ensure that people can be able to live here and have walkable neighborhoods and be able to go to grocery stores.
Grocery stores are gonna be huge.
I'm gonna be addressing some of those red tapes in our comprehensive plan about grocery stores because those are food access points.
And those are incredibly important for people to be able to access food as well and the farmer markets and all these different things.
So there are a lot of shared values that I've heard you all talk about and what you all want to see in this comprehensive plan and looking forward to working with all of you colleagues during that process.
So that was my little rant that I had to go on.
But I also wanna thank central staff for your engagement and looking forward to the next steps.
So I don't know if there's any other questions from our young or older people on council.
Councilmember Strauss.
Thank you, Chair.
Your comments today just reminded me I should share on the record.
I've been able to walk every single one of the proposed neighborhood centers in my district.
I've met with folks.
I've started receiving feedback, and I know that I'm still expecting some more feedback.
The next step for the District 6 process will be I'll be meeting with small groups of the folks that I walked with around a conference table instead of around the sidewalks and around the trees.
to look at the boundaries of the neighborhood centers, because that's what we're gonna take up first this summer.
So we'll be holding that zoning conversation until we take that up here at council.
And so the next step, just for any resident that was on a walking tour with me, we're gonna be meeting with small groups in the next several weeks so that we're able to meet these amendment deadlines.
Thank you.
Awesome.
Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.
And I will hold there if there's, is there any more questions at all?
Awesome, seeing and hearing none.
Thank you.
Well, thank you central staff, really appreciate y'all.
HB, Lish, and Ketel.
And with that, It's a record meeting time for the comprehensive plan.
Pretty impressive.
So there's no further questions.
Our meeting will come to a close and I wanna thank you everyone.
There's no more items on the agenda today.
So the public hearing, just a reminder is Monday, June 23rd.
Session one remote begins at 9.30 AM.
Session two is in person at 3 PM.
Please reference the published agenda for more details.
Do my colleagues have any more items of business for the select committee?
Awesome.
You all are awesome as well.
And it's always an honor to work with y'all.
So the time is 10 36 AM.
There's no further business.
This meeting is adjourned.
Thank you.