Seattle City Council Governance, Accountability and Economic Development Committee 2/13/2025

Good afternoon, everyone.

It is Thursday, February 13th, and the Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee will come to order.

It is 2.04.

I'm Sarah Nelson, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Here.

Council Member Kettle.

Here.

Council Member Rivera.

Present.

Council Member Solomon.

Here.

Chair Nelson.

Present.

Five present.

Thank you.

Now, before we start, I want to welcome Council Member Mark Solomon.

to our committee.

We will miss Councilmember Saka as he's now on finance, but Councilmember Solomon, we are very, very happy to have you join us.

And you've got some in-house land use specialties, so this will perhaps come in handy today.

So thank you very much for your presence today, and we look forward to working with you.

Thank you.

All right, so today we're gonna be hearing a round table discussion on steps that the city can take to improve our permitting processes and reduce the challenges that it presents.

And this panel that's here today will include respected and very experienced industry experts on all things permitting because they do that.

That's their bread and butter every day is working with the city departments on how to get projects up and off the ground.

So with that, and I'll provide some more introductory remarks before we actually start into the meat of our discussion today.

But if there's no objection for now, the agenda will be adopted.

Seeing none, the agenda is adopted.

And we will now move right into our public comment period.

How many people are signed up to speak?

Council President, we have three virtual public commenters today.

Okay, we'll give everyone three minutes and, oh, I'm sorry, two minutes, yes, excuse me.

We'll give everybody two minutes and we'll start with the, it looks like if there is an in-person public commenter, we'll start with, let's go ahead and start with our remote public commenters first and then we'll move over to in-person.

I'll call on the speakers in the order they signed up to speak, starting with virtual public commenters.

Speakers will have two minutes, as Council President Nelson mentioned.

When you hear the chime, you will have 10 seconds left.

If you exceed that time, your microphone may be cut off so that we can move on to the next speaker.

And also, if you're offering remote comment, please make sure to press star six to unmute yourself.

And the first virtual commenter we will have today is Emyun Liu.

Feel free to press star six to unmute yourself.

Oh, can we hear you?

Can you hear us?

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

I'm seeing a not present.

Let's go to the next person, please.

Oh, there we go.

No, he is back.

Go ahead with number one.

Mr. Liu, please press star six to unmute yourself.

Please press star six.

Hi, can you hear me now?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

I've been pushing star six.

I don't know why it wasn't working, so.

Hi, my name is Eman Liu.

I'm a small business owner in Seattle.

To give you a quick background, thank you for the time, first of all.

Before the pandemic, I've had eight different businesses.

I had a bar in Chinatown, a bar in Capitol Hill, a coffee shop in Chinatown, multiple boba tea shops throughout the Seattle area, and also in Bellevue.

Renton, Edmonds.

And so I've been in different cities and most of my businesses are in the Seattle area, a donut shop in the central district with a business partner.

So I've been in the Seattle business scene.

My family's been in the Seattle business scene for over 20 years.

I've been doing it full time for over 15 years now.

So I know the complexity of this very, very well, especially in the food industry specifically.

I'm calling because of the, you know, I've heard that this was a topic about permitting.

And I've had, you know, amongst all the other people that have opened business in Seattle, just one challenge after another.

And that has become the normal, normal, the norm to open a business is if you go through the gauntlet and maybe you make it out, you get to open a business.

And I just don't think that is the right way to approach opening business that, Hey, it's going to be hell.

And it's the worst thing possible.

And you may end up losing hundreds of thousand dollars and not getting anything out of it.

But that's just the way Seattle does business.

And unfortunately, I think that has shied away a lot of new talent.

I have a lot of people I know that are chefs and talented people that have just said they're leaving the industry or they're not willing to take the risk of opening a business.

When typically, sort of my age, as I'm aging out of opening new businesses, typically the new generations in their 20s and 30s start to taking risks of that, they're stepping back from that.

A big part of it is the permitting.

Just to give you a quick synopsis, all the permits you need, obviously the major ones, health, building, fire, They also need to have a candle permit, signage permit, dumbbell machine permits, backflow permits, all these different things.

If you call SDIC, most of the time, if you call them, they don't, they're not construction people.

They don't know what they're building.

They never opened a business.

They've never been in food.

They're just reading a manuscript and telling you what the manuscript says.

They can't give you any information exactly of your specific requirements.

And so you're signing a lease before you get a permit.

Next, we got David Haynes.

Please press star six to unmute yourself.

Hi, thank you.

We need a law to take away the restrictions and provide permits for for-profit developers to let them build 12 and 20 stories high on the waterfront, vacant lots, Pioneer Square, and elsewhere to redevelop 21st century first world quality robust.

And you could even have three and four stories of affordable housing within that.

Anyway, I really think that council needs to hold accountable to bad policies that tainted the integrity of government that originated from other council who had to quit because they had mental problems because they kept doing the devil's advocate's bidding.

Because the comprehensive plan, it could be said, is unconstitutional with its racist, tainted priorities and policies.

and the watered-down integrity of the building codes that are putting restrictions on quality livable amenities and allowing these unqualified nonprofits to hire a for-profit to use the MHA fee fund money.

The council's previous council made a law to change the MHA fee fund that no for-profit would get access to it to compete for a better-built affordable housing.

So now all these unqualified over a billion dollars, and we have what seems to be a low-level, low-quality, restricted warehouse echo slum development that undermines the integrity of design and quality builds for future generations, and they're going to spread a bad business plan throughout every neighborhood except Maple Leaf.

I think we need to hold account the King County Regional Homes Authority Because they still have a racist, woke agenda that purposely discriminates against innocent people, while the city council's police reform that's unconstitutional is still prioritizing repeat offending criminals connected to the underworld because low-level drug pushers have been exempted from jail from the police reform that hires the wrong chief to implement unconstitutional police reform.

Thank you.

And then for the one in-person public commenter, Council President, we have Matt Greenup.

Apologies if I mispronounce your last name.

I am a lifetime resident of Seattle and a business owner here for the last 15 years.

I recently signed a lease to refurbish an old restaurant that's been a restaurant for 50 years in the Lower Queen Anne neighborhood.

And signing a lease for a restaurant that seemed pretty straightforward.

We weren't change of views.

We weren't all these big things that were scary.

Unfortunately, the parapet issue that we were not aware of, which I think our landlord might have been, he had a lot of steps in the lease that protected himself against this parapet issue for reinforcement seismically, and it's for the whole building.

So I signed a 30% portion of the building, and now I am responsible for upgrading the entire building, which puts me in a situation where I either go default on the lease or bankrupt personally.

This is a small business owner who's been in the city successfully through COVID for two restaurants, and I worked my butt off to get there, and now I'm in a place where the landlord who took the risk buying this building, knowing that it's a URM building, investing for a long-term investment, is now putting the burden back on me.

And the city, because I pulled a permit for a bathroom, upgrade.

It triggered this response.

They're now holding my permit in perpetuity until this resolution is found for the parapet issue, which is for the whole building.

And another business next to me is 5,000 square feet.

It's an active restaurant.

The liability and long-term exposure of me doing any work to that retail location would be unimaginable for me personally.

And so that I'm asking the city to find a better way for them to find a way for the building owners to then be responsible for the seismic upgrades, rather than triggering it on TI improvements for a tenant.

Is that the last person?

Yeah, Council President, that concludes public comment.

That concludes our public comment period, which is now closed, but I do want to remark that the comments that we just heard, I believe will be addressed in the body of the presentation, according to my advanced read before this meeting.

All right, folks, so let's, before getting into the meat of this discussion today, and while I'm talking, I'm just gonna give some introductory remarks.

So if you would like to sort of filter up there, then that's fine.

Before getting into the actual presentation, I just want to provide some context.

So you've heard me say this before, but one of council's main functions is as the city's oversight body.

Because not only do we pass laws and produce a budget every year, we are also, supposed to oversee the performance of our executive departments.

And so this discussion today is ultimately about good governance and accountability.

The office of the city auditor is the city's accountability watchdog.

And in 2023, at the request of then land use, they published an audit on construction permitting entitled, quote, City's construction permitting needs more customer focus and consistency." And some of the things that you're going to hear today will echo some of the statements that the auditors heard from stakeholders expressed when they were doing their research and informing those recommendations. So some of this stuff will not be new at all and has been put before council when that report was presented. I believe it was, well, it was, I think in the second half of 2023. So of those things that were surfaced in a survey that the auditor conducted amongst stakeholders of permitting processes, they produced findings such as, given the choice between satisfied, neutral, or dissatisfied, 66% said that they were dissatisfied with the process of getting a permit with the city. Now, I understand they sent the survey to 117 people, 38 responded, and so 66% is 25 people. Another finding, 82% of the respondents disagreed with the statement The timeline to get my permits was reasonable. In addition, 61% said it was not clear who to contact in the city if they had a question, and 42% said reviewers did not answer their questions in a timely fashion when they did contact them. So I don't know to what extent Council Member Strauss has been tracking the implementation of the recommendations in that audit, but for today's discussion, I reached out to the auditor to find out the status of some of SDCI's project implementing some of the recommendations. And as of now, they are still on the to-do list. And I want to emphasize that that is not unusual at all. Unfortunately, the recommendations from our city auditor do live on their dashboard for years and years. And so I'm not singling out SDCI as as an aberration here, it is simply our job as the oversight body and as representatives when we're out there engaging with our constituents and stakeholders to back up the work of our accountability partners and help hone in on some of the ongoing issues. So, and just on that note, I'll say that anecdotally, as I'm going out talking to small businesses, Right after a crime, problems with permitting are the number one complaint that I hear before one even thinks about access to capital, et cetera. So this is a very real issue, and so I'm glad that we're talking about this in this committee, which is called the Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee. And one final thought. I did speak with the mayor's office, Marco Lowe, who's the COO of the city, and members of the Office of Innovation to find out what are they doing right now. There is some great work going on to track how long it takes to get certain kinds of permits. I do want to recognize that there is a recognition on the part of the executive that things need some attention and so I want to applaud that great work because as I've said now, this is hurting small businesses. It's impacting the price of housing because time is the greatest driver of cost overruns in a project and so this is designed, improving permitting will help us meet many policy goals at the same time. All right, that's why we're having this discussion. And with that, I would like the presenters to please introduce yourselves and we can go on with your presentation. Take it away. Oh yeah, okay, go ahead. We do have to read this into the record. Please do.

Agenda item number one, round table discussion on improving the building permitting process, briefing and discussion.

Thank you very much.

And I want to note that the main instigator months and months ago of this discussion is not at the table but is joining us remotely.

Okay, please proceed with introductions.

Hi, my name is Ian Butcher, I'm an architect.

My name is Francesca Renoir and I'm a structural engineer.

My name is Michelle Linden and I'm an architect.

Greg Shiffler, also an architect.

And Heather Pogue, also an architect.

Don Blakeney, I'm the executive director of the U District Partnership.

Thank you very much.

And do we have Jim there?

And my name is Jim Graham.

I'm also an architect in the city of Seattle.

Thank you very much for being here today.

I will let the first person who's going to speak go ahead and frame the discussion for us, please.

Thank you.

Again, my name is Jim Graham, and I am an architect in the city of Seattle.

And thank you to the council.

Thank you to Council President Sarah.

The seeds for this started not just months ago, but years ago, as Sarah and I talked about, permitting projects.

Hers from owning small business and me from being an architect, and over 30 years of going through the permit process.

So we're here today with my colleagues at the table to hopefully daylight some of the issues, but some of the positives.

of things that are going on with ideas on how it can be improved.

At the end of the day, permitting is part of the process of economic development.

It is one stage in the process that, as architects, we bring ideas to construction and to built work that then becomes economic engine for the city.

These projects are not limited to storefronts, businesses that are restaurants, shops.

This is residential.

This is even schools.

And the time that it takes to permit projects really reduces their economic viability.

I heard a beep.

Am I up?

And we'd like to keep it as a positive as we can because I think there are some good things going.

So I take it to my table.

Thanks, Jim.

Make sure that your mic is close to you and it's turned on if you see the green light.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Before the pandemic, SDCI, which is the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, operated a free in-person service desk, offering assistance and coaching to the public and design professionals with questions related to building codes and the permitting process.

This provided opportunities for improved working relationships with design professionals and SDCI staff, and it was an important resource for homeowners and small business owners trying to do projects who were not working with a professional.

This contributed to a more equitable process for all.

This in-person service desk was shut down for the pandemic and never reopened.

At this point, the only way to reach SDCI staff is through their online system or by phone, if and only if you happen to know the person you want to speak with.

While the online services have been noticeably incredibly improved since the closure of the service desk, they only really work for those of us familiar with the system.

If you're new to the process of obtaining permits and not working with a design professional, the online services are fairly difficult to navigate.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly for us design professionals, the online Q&A resources don't adequately address nuanced questions about codes and processes.

Many questions require looking at drawings with back and forth conversations.

Often, when we were at the service desk, SDCI staff would take our questions back to their desk discuss it with their colleagues, and in real time provide guidance to us professionals.

With that in mind, reopening the service desk for in-person Q&A and perhaps expanding online services to include video conference coaching where drawings could be shared would go a long way towards improving equitable resources for the community.

As structural engineers and architects, when we work on existing buildings, we rely heavily on any available existing drawings in order to do our job well.

Our primary source for existing drawings is the City of Seattle Microfilm Library.

Prior to the pandemic, when the help desk was still open, we could go to the library in person and request all drawing records for a specific address.

we'd be given a nice tall stack of microfilm cards that we could quickly flip through to identify any relevant drawings to us.

Over the years, we developed a system that allowed us to take high resolution photos of the microfilm cards that gave us a much higher legibility than the city's batch scanned plans.

We found that having these high quality plans allowed us to do our job more accurately, efficiently, and with less surprises during construction.

You'll see here in the slide, there's an example comparison of the high resolution photocopy on the bottom and the typical scanned copy of a microfilm plant.

Oh.

The microfilm library has now been closed to the public for close to five years.

The process to get existing drawings is much more challenging and time intensive.

The way it works now is you have to research up to dozens of previous permit numbers associated with a building and take a guess at which one is associated with the original or major renovation plans that will help us do our job.

We email the staff at the library back and forth until the drawings are found.

I will say that the library staff is fantastic.

They're really quick to respond and very willing to help us find what we need.

But despite that, the process still takes much more time than going in person and results in less quality plans and ultimately more cost to the building owner or the business owner.

We would like to propose that the microfilm library reopen to the public, or if that's not possible, to open it by appointment to design professionals.

Based on our group's shared experiences, SDCI staff who work from home are often unavailable during business hours or can't answer our phone calls.

While we can of course email to get in touch with them, as with online services, not all coordination coordination makes sense over email.

We would hope that an improved response protocol for callbacks should be considered.

Furthermore, it seems that SDCI staff are not required to alert the public when they go on vacation or sabbatical.

Not knowing where your plans reviewer are can cause plans reviewer are working can cause delays of weeks or months, which of course means added costs to our clients, the homeowners and business owners.

SDCI should improve their out-of-office protocols with staff, thus alerting applicants when a plans reviewer is out for an extended period of time, and in some cases, assign a new reviewer to help the project keep moving through the process.

We're finding more and more layers are being added to the process, which is extending every part of our job.

We're finding that more and more reviewers have been added to even small projects, and that when projects are being taken in, that reviewers are requesting information that is not even material to the project.

For example, we've had a homeowner who wanted to remove a non-structural trellis from their house, which does require a permit, and they were asked to provide an energy code checklist.

And this is just a screening issue, and maybe that adds two days to the project, but these kinds of things add up.

Another example is requiring tree review for an interior remodel.

These things are easily cleared up with a phone call or an email, but it's one more desk that the project lands on that it shouldn't have landed on, and these add up and accrue over time.

Similarly, addressing is a separate stop in the review cycle, and it's often the longest review and tends to hold up the show, and there's really no reason.

In the past, these things could be sorted out in person at the service center.

If there was confusion about an address for a project, those things could be sorted out and then not later hold up the show as a separate review cycle.

We also find that permit issuance is frequently delayed because staff are adding additional correction comments while separate review comments are still undergoing review even after the staff approval has been given for previous components.

This results in more corrections and additional time.

We believe that staff review should be thorough and comprehensive and once approved, should be final unless there are fundamental changes to the scope of the project from our side.

Permit review times, correction cycles, documentation requirements have all increased even for small projects due to the expanded number of reviewers that are required.

There used to be three or four reviewers on a small project and now there might be a dozen.

And we find that each one of those just adds a little bit more time, a little bit more money to the projects.

We think that review times could be significantly improved for small commercial and residential projects by minimizing the number of staff that are assigned and streamlining the process, which is the way it used to be.

There used to be that multiple reviewers would be responsible for a single reviewer would be responsible for reviewing multiple aspects of the project on small jobs.

Some examples, we had an interior remodel to a kitchen requiring extensive site plan and zoning research, including documentation of trees and zoning analysis that was unnecessary.

And we would just propose that architects can simply provide supplemental notes to answer these questions rather than having to provide extensive documentation that's unnecessary and immaterial to the project.

We've had a client who wanted to build a house on a steep slope lot that required five rounds of master use plan review corrections.

And on the fourth round, after the geotechnical engineer reviewer and the land use reviewer disagreed and provided conflicting comments, the client finally gave up.

out of frustration and after having spent nearly $20,000 on these reviews.

And when we asked the geotechnical reviewer about this, they remarked that it could have been avoided if we had had a pre-application conference before the project, which we had done.

But because the geotechnical reviewer had been replaced mid-project, he had not read the recorded pre-submittal conference notes, which he had access to.

And so again, it cost the client tens of thousands of dollars, and ultimately the project did not proceed.

So we would simply ask that reviewers from different departments should coordinate with one another internally before requesting additional information that could be in conflict with other reviewers.

And that goes for people within the SDCI and also other departments at the city, like the fire department and utilities and everyone else who's responsible for reviewing projects.

And lastly, related to the pre-application conferences, we think that those are only valuable when the SDCI values that information that's recorded and ensures that current review teams are aware of the history and those meetings, and that those meetings are binding and can be counted on by design professionals.

Before you go on, so you're saying that these pre-application consultations are required.

They're not required.

You can request them and pay to attend them, but the results are not always binding and not always Right.

Noticed.

OK.

And when you say pay, are you paying the cost of a per-hourly reviewer?

Can you speak to that?

Yes, that's right.

I think it's 270-some dollars an hour or something like that.

Yeah, plus any additional hours that they spend it.

But they used to be binding, and now they are usually but not always.

They're most often used when a project is complicated and you have some questions about how the code is going to be applied.

You can request a pre-subminal conference for zoning or for the building code.

The SCCI has been pushing more often for zoning coaching, which is also paid but less binding, which is a bigger struggle for us because then we have less of a leg to stand on later.

And I think we all have examples of being told something at one of these pre-smittal conference meetings, taking it as gospel, and then being told once the project is submitted for review that the reviewer has a different interpretation.

That's happened to all of us multiple times.

And it's extremely frustrating, to say the least.

I can understand that.

Go on.

I'm sorry for the interruption.

Just wanted to make sure I was understanding.

My portion of today's discussion involves permits for existing spaces that trigger significant additional scope for applicants.

There's been increased scrutiny in these simple permit applications that have created a barrier to economic development and a barrier to those that can start brick and mortar businesses as these upgrades extend to the building beyond their interior remodel.

My hope is that we can break down these barriers to boost our communities by business owners who want to risk a lot to open a space we all want to enjoy.

The first slide here is on substantial alterations.

This is a designation that can easily get applied to an existing building permit and require applicants to upgrade seismic structural energy and fire safety measures beyond the scope of that interior work.

Many times that we go to a client to meet for the first time and we're unable to tell them with any level of certainty whether their project will be labeled a substantial alteration.

This can look like a shop tenant who just leased a space and they're being asked to insulate the entire roof of a building on a large building over multiple tenants in a building they do not own.

This permit is stalled until they agree to comply with the required upgrades and they're held liable for this additional scope on this building they do not own.

This creates a situation where applicants can't appropriately budget for their projects, they cannot effectively negotiate their leases, and it gets into legal challenges and makes the permitting process very unpredictable and unapproachable for many people to start businesses in our storefronts that desperately need it.

A solution for this would bring more predictability to projects in the substantial alteration process and make that process more transparent for those business owners so that they can be more successful.

If we leave the language as it is now to extend the economic life of a building, this can apply to almost any project that goes into an existing building.

We are hoping that this can be a more stepped approach with more incremental change rather than these giant upgrades to structural and energy.

The next slide is similar to substantial alteration.

It involves these energy upgrades that are getting aggressively harder to comply with for small business owners leasing these spaces.

Whether it gets applied through the substantial alteration determination or whether it applies because you're just simply trying to do an interior remodel in an existing building, Oftentimes, tenants are being asked to upgrade energy requirements for that whole building once again, outside of that interior space.

An example of this would be a project where an indoor pickleball league wanted to take over an existing empty warehouse space.

SDCI said they needed to insulate the 3,000 square foot building and also condition it.

This pickleball league was not asking for a conditioned space.

They just simply wanted cover from the rain, and the tenant couldn't afford to fully insulate the building.

and the owner wasn't interested in contributing, and therefore the warehouse remains empty and unused.

One suggestion to improve on the energy upgrades would also be an incremental or stepped approach to balance out what we're asking folks to do to their buildings.

So similar to ADA upgrades, there's a cap on the percentage of budget you can use towards ADA upgrades.

We're hoping that cap can be applied to energy upgrades as well so that there's incremental change and that doesn't all fall on small business owners to complete for buildings they don't own.

All right, before I get into the change of use, I thought I would explain it a little bit, because you guys probably are not as familiar with the intricacies of the building code.

But essentially, in the building code, when you're changing the use of a space, you're doing exactly that.

You're changing how you're using the space, whether it is a school or you're using it as a storage facility, into something else, right?

So for business owners, this change of use term can be really scary because it can trigger a lot of things that we just talked about.

But at its most basic, it really is just how are we using the space and how is it changing it?

It does impact the building code because the way spaces, the way different uses have occupancy ratings and the hazard ratings affect the life safety of the building.

So obviously there's going to be different codes and regulations for a school than there would be for an apartment building, for a factory, for a restaurant.

So obviously when a building is changing the use significantly, like when we're converting a school into housing, the life safety concerns are paramount and they must be addressed and it's completely understood that this goes through full building permit review.

However, there are also minor changes of use that can happen within the same occupancy group classification.

So for example, if you wanted to open a coffee shop in a space that used to be a corner market grocer, these are both technically what we would call a B use or a business use.

but you're changing from retail to a restaurant.

So in this case, the business owner might not actually be planning to do any construction at all.

Perhaps they just plan on removing the shelves and then bringing in some tables and chairs.

But as the code is currently enforced, a full building permit review would be required.

This can add considerable time to the process while the business owner is paying rent on a space that they can't use.

Another example would be when a business needs to modify their business plan in order to survive, which could involve changes to their floor plans.

A bar that's currently storing barrels and would like to move that storage offsite so they can increase the number of seats in their space would be changing the use.

As we know, the food and beverage industry has been really hard hit by COVID and other economic changes since then, and so they need to adapt to survive.

In this case, the change of use for just this seating within an existing bar triggered a full review permit.

This full review then triggered the need for an additional restroom and fire sprinklers throughout the entire building, just when they wanted to add some chairs.

If we want to activate our retail and business cores, we need to simplify the process for these minor changes of use.

We don't want businesses to simply ignore the permit process, nor do we want businesses penalized because they're trying to follow the rules.

Businesses should not be scared away from potential spaces due to the worry of long reviews and additional upgrades to a building that they do not own.

One solution would be to allow changes of use within the same occupancy group and therefore the same life safety hazard rating to be reviewed as an over-the-counter permit.

As next steps and hopefully with this committee's support and SCCI's management support, we would love to see a standing work group that can meet and work together to make some of these improvements.

Some of the improvements we talked about, such as opening up microfilm, seem like they could be done sooner than later and may not need group discussion, but we also recognize that some of the changes we discussed, like evaluating how substantial alterations are determined or how we implement the energy code is gonna take some concerted effort from all of us.

We'd love to see SDCI support this work group and assign someone who has decision-making powers to lead it.

We are also sure the staff at SCCI have their own thoughts on how the system could be improved on their end.

We have a couple of other specific items that we think could help improve the process.

One is that we're often told during the review process that there's an internal policy for how something is going to be reviewed.

We'd love to see these internal policies made public even if they're in draft form.

That way we can all be working towards the same goals.

We'd love to see more tip sheets, particularly for areas of review that consistently see multiple rounds of review, like Geotech and Tree.

And then finally, it would be great to have an opportunity to give feedback on the process.

Just like the DMV asks for reviews on your experience once you get your license, perhaps there could be a link for reviews when a permit's issued.

This could allow for more real-time feedback, as well as give us the opportunity to acknowledge when things go well and thank those staff members.

Before I hand it over to Don for some of his experience, we just wanna thank the committee for taking the time to hear our concerns.

As architects and engineers, we're stewards of the built environment, and like you all, we're very invested in the continued success and livability of our city.

And Don.

Thank you.

Again, I'm Don Blakeney.

I'm the executive director of the U District Partnership, and thank you for allowing me to join on today.

You guys have been talking about thresholds and businesses, and you've given a lot of great examples.

I think the pandemic really opened up our eyes as we looked at some of the challenges facing neighborhoods about how a concentration of these issues in a district like U District or in downtown Seattle can play out in a very physical way that everybody in the public can see.

We love businesses coming to our neighborhoods.

We see a lot of these same issues.

We have an amazing opportunity as part of the pandemic to receive a $5 million grant from the Washington State Department of Commerce, where we were able to do 140 storefront improvements with small businesses, some new, some existing.

And bringing that to the city all at once was a learning experience, because what we found is that multiple departments had to weigh in, and the timelines were incredible.

because, I mean, there was also the pandemic provided challenges to the city too.

One of the things I wanted to say, though, during the pandemic, we also saw the city adapt and actually make some really interesting improvements.

So with outdoor dining permits and those structures, they created new teams to figure out how to move that stuff forward quickly so that restaurants could safely serve people outside in a way that met building code and kept people safe in traffic.

We saw this also with our grant.

OPCD put together a special team that focused with us every week to get these 140 permits through.

And it was great.

I mean, it had a huge impact on our neighborhood, 140 improvements over the course of six months.

And I think about that as like, well, if we can do it for that, how can we think about that urgency and that type of collaboration when we're looking at downtown Seattle?

What is it?

527 vacant storefronts right now.

If we could put together a team that just knocked out those permits, took some of your recommendations for lowering these thresholds.

I mean, we were tossing around ideas like, could you have a permit holiday for substantial alteration or a reduced threshold in commercial districts?

Or could we have...

the change of use paused for a few years just to get some of these spaces back up and running.

When you have an old building and you have a tenant that's existing who needs to make improvements, but the landlord's saying, we don't want you to make the improvements because you're going to trigger this whole other thing for our cost.

And so keep your business the way it is.

Don't make those improvements.

It starts to have a cumulative effect on a commercial district.

Lastly, I would just say that you know, we called it quiet crying at the permit counter when people had really challenging experiences and nowhere to vent it.

I think that it would be great if there was a way the city could really hear from people who are going through the process, internalize what they're hearing, and then try to make improvements because every story, you listen to each one of these 140 folks had a really compelling story.

We had somebody who kept losing contractors because the timeline kept getting kicked out.

What you said about the staff going on holiday by surprise, like that was a huge problem.

We had a new person come in and completely rewrite all of the requirements, and then their use was going to expire.

It's just like these things were such surprises that could have been avoided.

So I thank the city for all of the stuff that they were able to do to help us, but also think that there's a lot more work we can do to make this a really great front door to the city and a much better process.

So thanks for letting me share a little bit about our experience.

Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge and your experience and your wisdom.

On that last point, Don, I wanted to note recommendation six of this 2023 audit does say that the mayor's office should lead a coordinated effort to document all recommendations related to the construction permitting process from consultant reports and internal improvement efforts.

department should then evaluate each recommendation to determine whether they intend to implement it and why.

And so elsewhere in this thing that says, we need to take customer feedback.

So that's exactly what you were talking about is create a feedback loop.

Information sharing and a feedback loop because you are all practitioners of our permitting processes and have a lot of on the ground examples that you can contribute.

And so, but doing that on, getting that feedback on a regular basis I think is what this audit is geared at and I would hope that SDCI is taking that and trying to figure out a way how to do that.

So, Jim Graham, I see your hand up.

Sorry for interrupting the flow of the conversation.

I think I would lean in on that same comment that you had, Sarah, about the feedback loop.

We know that these reviewers are trying to do the right thing.

They're trying to follow the codes and the processes put in front of them.

If they knew the impact that any individual steps in that process or corrections rounds that they ask for had on individual business owners, I'm sure that they would be more motivated to find a collaborative effort to speed that up.

The feedback loop could be one of that.

And then I would impress upon the committee that you're charged with economic development and that these issues are at its core an economic development issue.

There are many, any operators potentially that could help change the face of the city and activate storefronts that simply are not coming to Seattle.

They're going to other jurisdictions where it is much easier and that the reputation of Seattle extends beyond the state, that the permitting process is flawed and takes way too long.

And that is sad to hear.

Thank you for that impact.

And was some of what you were saying about a small project triggers bigger renovations?

Is that consistent?

Is that what our public commenter was talking about?

Is that the issue that you're talking about?

Is there a way of saying that that's not an inarticulate sentence that I just uttered.

Yeah.

Yeah, basically, these are, you know, tenants that are going into an existing space that oftentimes it looks on paper to be simple, like they're going into an existing restaurant.

It's already permitted legally that way.

And they're being asked to now reinforce a masonry parapet or insulate the entire roof of multiple tenants next door to them.

Those are examples of that kind of scrutiny those smaller, simple commercial tenant improvements are now requiring.

Right, and I have heard examples of the city externalizing the costs of, for example, sidewalk repair or installing water meters or better water means when one project is going in, then it triggers work that is beyond the scope of the initial project.

Anyway, I will stop talking and asking questions and open the floor to my colleagues.

Council member Solomon.

Yes, thank you, Madam President.

Permitting reform is something that is very important to me.

I remember having a conversation with someone saying, Seattle doesn't have a housing problem, it has a permitting problem.

And I'm going to tell the shed story, sorry.

I was trying to get a permit to build a 12, probably 16 shed in my backyard.

It took me seven months.

And the reason it only took seven months is because I knew somebody who knew somebody who told somebody to call me.

Had I had someone that I could have talked to upfront, because I'm not a builder, I'm not a developer, I'm not an architect, if I could have had someone who, when I said, here's what I want to do, who could have walked me through the process from the beginning, so I would not have to have gone through seven months of corrections on things that could have easily been handled, you know, from the very beginning.

And then some of the requirements that you just mentioned, and you know, to be clear, I have shared this, you know, these concerns with SDCI myself and, you know, intend to, you know, work with SDCI as well as the executive who's looking at permitting reform to see what we can do to ease the burden.

But when I'm trying to get a shed done, Why was one of the things I had to provide the square footage of each room of my existing residence?

What does that got to do with the shed?

I can understand plotting out where the trees are that might be impacted by the construction of the shed.

And I can understand the floor area calculations or the lot area coverage, but it just seemed to be really information that was being asked where they had no relevance to the project that was trying to be done.

So that's why I'm very interested in simplifying the process, make it easier for somebody to navigate.

So, I mean, again, I knew somebody I could call.

Mrs. Jenkins down the block doesn't have somebody she can call.

How do we make it easier for the regular person to actually get something done on their own property?

How can we make the process less onerous so that we encourage people to want to build in Seattle as it goes to going to unincorporated King County, right?

So I'm with you there.

I understand that.

And like I said, I'm committed to working with you, with Office of Planning and Community Development, with Department of Construction and Inspections, with whoever, to ease the burden so we can make it easier for people to actually build in this city.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Along those lines, I will just add, when I was trying to find a place, when we were trying to find a place to start manufacturing an adult beverage, we located in a place where that was a permitted use.

It was allowed use.

I mean, in that zoning, we could have done that.

But we did not know that we were supposed to obtain a change of use permit and so we had to sort of retroactively produce the drawings, etc.

So definitely it seems like there should be at least some communication or education about that being a central part of the permitting process and then clarity on when certain improvements trigger something bigger.

That would be very helpful as well.

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to thank everyone for coming.

I've heard similar stories from different angles, to include here in the audience, working to revitalize Third Avenue, which is really important.

So just a shout out for Nick.

And I will be meeting another constituent.

My staff has already met him regarding what he had said during public comment.

which is another example, by the way, that we do listen to public comment.

I do it with my committee, the Public Safety Committee, and so my chief of staff has already checked in.

So we'll see what happens with that and what the details are.

But I'm aware of these issues, and we should be engaging on those.

I see what they're saying.

is looking to do, partly, you know, with OED regarding research and early permit coaching, you know, expedited permitting services, but as you noted in your testimony, there's there's some hangups there with specific, you know, pieces of this.

And some of this is, you know, not aided by legacy of the COVID and, you know, work from home and the like.

And so these are things that clearly that we should be working through, highlighting, and then, you know, at some point bring SDCI either here or in land use committee to, you know, walk through these things and do it in a collaborative way, not in a, poke your chest kind of way.

Because in the long run, I think we'll get to a better outcome in a collaborative way in some type of work group or whatever that process may be.

And so I think that's important.

And as my colleagues know, I like to turn everything into a public safety committee meeting.

And I've seen this as well in Queen Anne and other places related to businesses who are dealing with public safety challenges.

And as my new colleague knows very well, the CTAD design features can really help in public safety.

And oftentimes it's the property owner or the property manager that has to make those changes.

And they don't want to because that's a cost, but they don't realize the impact the positive impact of making some slight changes can do to your public safety posture and the safety of those businesses, but also the people that work in those businesses.

You know, this is a major thing.

I know, Mr. Rickley, I know through your colleagues in the BIA world, directly in my previous life, these challenges.

And I think this could be another piece to this, like how can we encourage this in order to increase our profile as it relates to dealing with public safety challenges.

Okay, the Public Safety Committee element of this is over.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Are there any comments from anybody else?

Go ahead, Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you everyone for being here.

And Don Blakeney is a constituent.

Your businesses are constituents up on University District.

I will say, you know, I have been very frustrated by the permitting process and all the issues that particularly the small businesses in the district that I represent have experienced.

And Don, you talked about COVID and a lot of things that happened, public safety related, especially that has necessitated a permit to do things like replace a window, which seems like a very onerous thing for a small business owner who's just trying to operate their business, make a living and provide a service to community.

And it seems to me that we ought not, you know, it's in the public interest to ensure that these permits are done timely.

So these smaller projects can get done because no two projects are the same.

And we do know that some are huge and then some are just these minor things that shouldn't take a very long time.

And council member Kettle, your point is well taken in terms of the property owners and changes that they should make in support of the their tenants, if you will, so that's one issue.

But to me, the other issue that I've seen even more, not that that's not important, that's important in a different conversation, but just this piece about the small businesses not being able to get permits, for very minor things that have huge impacts on a business's ability to stay open.

And so to me, it's really frustrating because we have been hearing about permitting issues for years now.

And I just feel like we haven't, how is it that the city has not gotten to a resolution on this?

So my frustration stems with the constant, you know, churn of identifying issues and not being able to fix these issues for constituents, and constituents include small businesses across our city.

And I know this is not unique to the district that I represent, but to all the districts that we represent across the city.

So I thank you for coming here today and talking yet again about something that we've been hearing about for years now from well before I came to the city council.

And I just am looking forward to hearing from the mayor's assessment, the permitting, that hopefully will get to some actual resolve on how to get these permits done quicker.

And I understand that.

To me, there's some things, like I said, that are more complex, will take longer to figure out how to get permitting done quicker or more quickly.

But there's some other permitting things that I think could, I mean, to me, it just seems like a no-brainer that some of this other permitting stuff should take.

not very much time at all.

So how do we get there?

What is needed?

How do we really support these small businesses?

Well, and I think that's why I'd like to reiterate that one of the big asks that we have is that we have a continued working group with professionals and SDCI staff so that we can collaborate and bring transparency and accountability to a lot of this and just have that continual working collaborative model.

It's not going to be perfect, but if we start that, I think that's a great place to begin.

And to second that, also, I think reopening the service center is the same issue.

I've been working as an architect here since we were at the DCLU and had built relationships with people at the city.

And now we're just sort of faceless to one another.

And I think that that has impacts that are really, I feel them, I can't prove them, but I think it's a lot harder for people to help each other and sort of have that mutual respect when they are not face to face with each other day after day and have the opportunity to build those personal relationships.

And so I think reopening the service center is something that could be done in the short term that I think would reestablish those lengths of like all of us working together as human beings who have homes, have problems, have money issues.

Like we can understand each other better when we're not throwing questions over the fence with a chat bot or something.

That stuff is effective sometimes at getting questions answered, but it can only go so far.

So I think we all really feel strongly that if we could reestablish those links, that it would be really helpful.

Agreed.

Well, I just, I mean, my colleagues know since I've got up since I got here in January, I've been talking about, you know, we should be back to work in person, everyone five days a week because we are in service to community and we can't be in service to commute to our residents and community.

if we're not actually in person.

And I understand that COVID taught us that we can do some things in this hybrid fashion or remote fashion.

And we always did that before.

I mean, the truth is that there were some folks working remotely before COVID because they would work that out with a supervisor and there were some folks that one day a week were working remotely, et cetera.

And I'm not saying we can't have those arrangements with supervisors, but in general, we know that this work was better done when we could be in person and people could face to face, as you say, engage in figuring out how to get to these things more quickly.

So I could not agree more.

Thank you.

I wanted to add to that, to what Greg said, And also to address what Council Member Kettle and Solomon said, be at the service desk and wait my turn, I'd often see homeowners come in with questions and the SDCI staff, I went all the way back to DPD.

Um, they, um, they were very helpful and I often would tell clients sometimes you don't want me to go into the city.

They're tough on me as an architect.

I should know better, but a homeowner going in the SDCI staff was wonderfully helpful to walk them through the processes.

and go from, you need to go to this desk, then to this desk, make sure you have all this paperwork.

We don't need that as design professionals, but the public needs that, because they can't all afford to hire us to help them with that.

And they, sorry, I'm going to keep...

Yes, go ahead.

But they can also, and they did often, if you were missing a note or if they wanted you to add a square footage, they could tell you that in person while you had your drawings with you, right?

You could make the note, hand it back, right?

It didn't need to be a months-long process.

They would help advocate for your project while you're there in person.

And I think a lot of that communication, especially for...

small projects for business owners or homeowners who are trying to do something pretty small, they're not going to hire an architect necessarily, they don't necessarily need to, but they need a little bit of guidance and they shouldn't have to go through multiple rounds of corrections to add a note when you could simply be told to add it.

I see Jim's hand up and then, so go ahead Jim and then we'll go to you Dawn.

I'm just going to reinforce one thing relative to getting back into the office, getting back to work, that we see just in our industry is that remote working makes it very difficult for mentoring to take place between older experienced staff and younger staff that are new at it.

That mentoring in person takes place instantly with short conversations, quick questions, and teaches far faster.

Answers are garnered immediately.

And I think that the DCLU, or sorry, the SPD, sorry, SDCI, I go back all the way, staff is suffering from some attrition, particularly to the pandemic, but that the younger staff is not having the opportunity for proper mentorship.

Being back in the office issues as well.

You told me the story one time, Jim, of somebody who basically was trying to implement the building code in a creative way and was having a hard time explaining to the person, whoever they were talking to, that in fact this is in compliance, it's just we're doing this and this.

And then that person, the staffer that that person was talking to, went down the hall or asked somebody else and it was confirmed that everything was fine.

But you're talking about that is the value of mentorship and access to people when you have a question on the spot.

Go on, Don, go ahead, sorry.

No, not at all.

These are all great comments.

And I think that stepping back and looking at the projects that we were looking at, at least in the U District, like having a continuum of care of people who there's some, somebody's kind of guiding you through the process and that there's no surprises.

Like that's the thing is it's just a commitment to no surprises.

You shouldn't get a $100,000 surprise in the middle of the process or at the end for, you know, heaven forbid and that's what keeps happening and so I think that like even if we could just say that shouldn't happen and then work from there back to how do we get that I don't know what the policy recommendation is but there's just should be more predictability on timeline cost um actual things that are required well are there other cities I think what you're talking about is corrections that come up that end up

creating problems, so are there cities that have time limits for certain level of project, and I don't know what is a small business type project, but are there like 100 day permitting rules that some cities have implemented, or once you have the sign off, no more corrections, it's set in stone.

What are some best practices you've seen in other cities?

Go ahead.

I'm not actually sure about the timeline.

I'm sure there are cities that have guidelines for that.

But there are cities like the city of Chicago that let architects self-certify, essentially.

And so you don't, for small projects, things that are a certain size, it doesn't actually have to go through review at the city.

They still get the fees.

You still get the permit, right?

So there's, you know, it's not a loss.

It's not a loss income for SDCI.

But we're able to, because honestly, we're the ones liable in the end anyway.

So if we certify that it is per the code and it meets all the requirements, we can get the permit.

And if a city like Chicago can do it, I would think that Seattle could.

Other cities count the number of meetings you have for a project or opening a business.

And some cities require like 95 touch points and others require 14. And so there's other metrics we could look at, like how many times do you have to come back and get things looked at or how many conversations do you need?

Got it.

I think there's also been an increased culture of if we write something down on paper for a correction cycle, we're allowed to change it at any time.

And that used to not be, it used to be a lot more binding.

When there was a correction cycle, it was looked at more comprehensively and there wasn't that opportunity to comment further.

That's become more of a normal practice.

So I would hope that that can be something that we can go back to that being a more comprehensive look at something.

And then that's the last time you can look at X, Y, or Z on that scope.

Right.

If you think you've got these sign offs and then you need to be able to plan for that for predictability's sake, just cost and time, et cetera.

Well, and I think too, yeah, the inspection process helps that in the field as well, right?

There's that double check of it's not all in the plan reviewer.

There's someone out in the field inspecting the work as well.

Got it.

Go ahead.

Well, CP, I talked a lot about small businesses, but obviously...

homeowners also, you know, people doing small projects to their bungalows.

I mean, Council Member Solomon, you've brought this up in terms of doing a tool shed in the back of your home, and it took, you know, I don't know how long for you to get a permit to do something as minor as that.

So didn't want to, I know I was focused on small businesses, because Don's here, but just homeowners in general.

And again, a lot of these being small projects.

Right, and we are talking about trying to lower the cost of housing.

So you lower the cost of housing in part by lowering the time and the review and correction cycles during permitting, as I said before, because those touch points with SDI staff do cost money as well as the billable hours of the people sitting at this table probably.

I do want to read recommendation number one, which is basically validating what you're saying of this 2023 audit, which says the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection should develop metrics by construction permit type for total review time and tracking process to support meeting those metrics.

The metrics in SDCI's progress on meeting those metrics along with the methodology and notices of any data limitations should be displayed on SDCI's website and updated regularly.

So there's more certainty, more predictability, et cetera.

Ultimately I'm talking about a culture of starting with yes, yes we want more housing, yes we want to to lower the cost of housing by lowering construction timelines and permitting.

Yes, we want to limit displacement, and a lot of these businesses that are struggling to stay in their neighborhoods but need tenant improvements to do so, that's exactly what we wanna do is to keep them here.

Same thing with, I've already talked about housing and anti-displacement, but there are so many empty storefronts that need filling, and if they're, if we created a more encouraging environment through some changes to culture and day-to-day practices, perhaps that Seattle would be a more attractive city for people to locate in if they've heard on the, otherwise that there are some barriers here that they might not encounter elsewhere.

So.

I will let you say the final words if you have any final thoughts, but given that one of your asks is a work group, but are there any other specific changes that you would like to have on the record or have us follow through on or get information on before this discussion closes?

Go ahead, please.

Opening microfiche, opening the front desk.

We talked about the work, to me those don't need a work group, right?

That just needs SDCI to do it.

The how are we doing functionality?

The how are we doing functionality, like the ability for us to give feedback to the process, that also doesn't need a work group.

We would love to see internal policies made public

Potentially also a consideration for commercial districts just as a, as a geographic area where there's maybe, maybe there's a SWAT team that works within the permitting department to try to get these districts more functional and less vacancies.

I think that thinking about the geographic concentration of some of these issues, maybe there's an additional layer of consideration there.

Right, so in certain neighborhoods where there's a lot, several of a particular kind of business that are all going through some of the same permitting issues, that there could be a way of addressing them all at the same time or focusing on those neighborhoods.

And I've heard the CID being mentioned as one of those as well, yeah.

Okay, final thoughts, Mr. Graham or anybody else here?

Well, I'd like to thank the committee here with the council and you, Sarah, and all the council members there present for listening.

This is just one meeting, and I hope all these words are taken to action and anything that we can do as professionals to do so and aid in that we are willing to participate.

Thank you very much for that note, because this is the first, this is just an opening conversation.

And I certainly don't have the bandwidth in my committee to, to take the lead on whatever changes that might require legislation going forward.

But this is a beginning conversation so that the city can benefit from your expertise and, and incorporate your feedback into their ongoing work to act on the recommendations from 2023. and build out the work that is going on now right now with the mayor's office and other people.

Because I think that we all want the same thing.

It's just a question of figuring out how to get it.

And some of these solutions do not require legislation, zoning changes or anything like that.

So hopefully, again, start with yes, how can I help you is always my position.

All right, go ahead.

Chair, can I say one last thing?

Actually, I appreciate all these recommendations, and I do want to acknowledge that some of these do not require legislation.

They're things that the department can do, which means this is something that, and it sounds like you are talking to the executive about as well, because the departments are under the purview of the executive.

We can't tell departments what to do.

We can draft legislation.

We can make sure funds are available to do the work, but we can't actually direct the departments to do the work and how to do it.

So I am encouraged that you're having conversations, Council President, with the mayor's office on this in particular.

I'm hoping that you all are, are having conversations with the mayor's office as well.

So I look forward to hearing more on that piece of it.

Yeah.

And I was really happy to hear that council member Solomon's one of his top priorities is addressing permitting.

So, um, I'm going to defer to you to, to, uh, do what you think is best to, you know, you love it to advance what's been said today.

Uh, and, and really, um, ensure that we're all on the same page in seeing that it happens.

I mean, it's not like we're trying to redo design review for goodness sake, right?

It's not as complicated as that.

So in any case, I really appreciate you coming to the table and spending time helping us help you and the people of Seattle.

So thank you very much to be continued.

Thank you.

Again, so thank you all for listening here.

This does have an economic development and accountability nexus here, but anybody is welcome to continue and advance some of the ideas that were expressed in today's committee meeting.

Let's see, are there any further questions or are there issues that you would like to address before we close today?

No?

All right, our next committee meeting, there is a public hearing on the 24th of February, but that's on the housing in the stadium area.

And then our next regular committee meeting is on February 27th.

And this concludes the February 13th meeting of the Governance Accountability and Economic Development Committee.

It is 317. There's no business.

This meeting is now adjourned.

Thank you.