Land Use Committee Special Meeting 62823

The June 28 2023 meeting the land use committee will come to order it is 2pm I'm Dan Strauss chair of the committee will the clerk Councilmember Mosqueda has been excused will the clerk please call the roll.

Councilmember Nelson.

Oh, present Councilmember Peterson.

Councilmember Morales here.

Chair Strauss present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present, thank you.

Thank you.

We have four items on the agenda today.

Council Bill 120581, a briefing discussion, public hearing and possible vote on design review exemptions for affordable housing projects.

Council Bill 120591, a briefing discussion, public hearing and possible vote on the office of housing omnibus bill.

I believe omnibus is going before design review, is that correct?

If not, I will make an amendment to the agenda at this time.

Council Bill 120592, a briefing discussion on Pioneer Square rooftops, and an informational item 2284, a briefing discussion on a draft resolution for transportation impacts in industrial and maritime areas.

Before we begin, I move to amend the agenda to have Council Bill 120591 first on the agenda, switched with Council Bill 120581. Is there an objection?

Hearing no objection, the agenda is amended.

Before we begin, if there's no objection, the agenda as amended will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

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

We have 22 people signed up remotely.

Clerk, how many people do we have in chambers?

None for public comment.

None for public comment.

Fair enough.

I see that most people here are actually for the public hearing online.

So we will have two minutes.

Let me just take a moment to sort these out.

Eric, is it possible to color code which public hearing each of these public comment registrants would like to speak to?

Sure, give me a second.

There is a combination of people who did sign up for both though, so just keep note of that.

So, okay.

So I'm gonna open the public comment period now.

If public commenters are here to speak about affordable housing, the office of housing omnibus bill or the design review exemptions for affordable housing, it is not appropriate to comment in public comment.

It is appropriate to comment in the public hearing.

And so if folks start to speak about these issues in the incorrect place, I will stop you and then we will move forward.

That way, your record, your testimony is held in the record in the correct, correct place.

So, clerk, and we're going to play this video once today.

It applies to all public hearings.

The main message is please be nice.

Clerk, if you could please play the video.

Eric, could you please make me a panelist?

Hello, Seattle.

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

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

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

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At that time, you must press star six.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The public comment period is now open, and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

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

Thank you, Seattle.

Thank you so public comment is now open the items for public comment are the briefing and discussion on Pioneer Square rooftops and the informational item regarding a draft resolution for transportation impacts in the industrial maritime areas.

For those who have signed up for public comment, I'm going to call you up to the virtual dais.

And I will ask you, because a number of you have indicated the other two bills, even though you're speaking to public comments, I'm going to offer you the opportunity to speak to rooftops and transportation.

If you do not have comments about rooftops and transportation, I ask that you hold your time.

Up first is Kate Rubin, followed by Dennis Sills, followed by Tori Nakamatsu Figueroa, followed by Lois Martin, Nishin Fu, and Christopher Hernandez.

Those are the folks signed up for public comment.

If you are not speaking to transportation or rooftops, I ask that you hold your time.

Kate Rubin, I see you're off mute.

Are you speaking to rooftops or transportation?

No, I'd like to hold my time.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Up next, Dennis Sills.

Same question.

Dennis, I see you here.

Star six to unmute.

And Eric, if you want to bring Bill.

Hi.

Hello, Dennis.

Yes.

Are you here to speak about rooftops or transportation?

I'd like to hold my time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dennis.

Up next, Tori is not present.

Lois?

Hi, Lois.

Star six to unmute.

There you are.

Hi.

I'm so sorry.

I thought I had.

Yes, I am.

And I'd like to hold my time, please.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lois.

Appreciate you.

Nation Fu and then Christopher Hernandez.

nation.

I see you star six.

Hello.

Hello.

Hi.

Are you here to speak for transportation?

No, I will hold.

Thanks.

We'll come right back to you.

Christopher Hernandez.

Last person to check with.

Hi, Christopher.

Chris, I see you're off mute.

Are you here to speak about rooftops or transportation?

Oh, hello.

Hello.

Hello.

Yeah, hi.

I'll still hold my time.

Wonderful.

We'll come right back to you in just a moment.

Seeing as there are no public comment registrants remotely or physically present to- Sorry, you skipped Bill.

Oh, Bill.

Bill Zossel.

Bill Zossel.

I see you, Bill, star six.

There you are, Bill.

Are you here to speak about rooftops or transportation?

No, thank you.

I'm here to speak about design review.

Wonderful.

We'll come right back to you in just a couple of minutes.

Seeing as there are no public comment registrants physically or remotely present, we will move on to the next agenda item.

Our first agenda item today is item to briefing discussion public hearing and possible vote on Council Bill 120591 which is the office of housing omnibus bill clerk will you please read the short title into the record item to Council Bill 120591 office of housing omnibus bill for briefing discussion public hearing and possible vote wonderful How we're gonna do this is we have Office of Housing with us here in chambers.

We'll have a short presentation as a refresher.

This was heard in committee last week.

Last week, time flies when you're having fun.

And then we will open it up for public hearing, and then we will take votes on amendments.

So the purpose of the omnibus bill is to clean up the land use code.

Technical fashions, the revisions included in this legislation simply clarify, they simply simplify, clarify, and improve readability of complex, unclear, or obsolete provisions specific to affordable housing.

And I see we have Emily Lofsted online.

We have Michael, Director Michael Winkler-Chin and Laura Hewitt Walker here in chambers.

With that, I'll pass it over to you, Director.

Thank you very much, council member.

I'm gonna turn it over here to Laura Hewitt Walker and to Emily who's online because this is their presentation, thanks.

Hi, thank you for having us again about this bill.

Just wanted to remind everyone that this is a comprehensive cleanup of the land use code for all provisions that relate to affordable housing of all sorts of affordable housing.

Again, most of this, the changes are technical cleanup on there are a small number of changes that are intended to facilitate the development of low income housing.

And we, you know, as part of the legislation updated defined terms in the land use code to help facilitate.

smooth review, permit review for those types of projects.

Moving through the code, there is an updated definition of low-income housing.

Naomi, you can go one more.

Thank you, yeah.

Updated definition of low-income housing.

It's a flexible definition.

It encompasses projects that might have a broad range of affordability levels, provided there's some minimum threshold of units that are below market rate.

We also have three other definitions that are newly introduced to the land use code that would be relied on for purposes of affordable housing provisions, and those are unit-specific.

So one is low income unit, moderate income unit, and restricted unit.

Next slide, please.

One of the really substantive changes that we did make was to expand the application of the design review exemption and the authorization to request waivers and modifications of a short list of development standards to all low-income housing.

That can be any affordable housing that meets just certain basic requirements in terms of a regulatory agreement with a minimum duration for the affordability term.

And like I said, a minimum threshold of below market units in those projects.

Next slide, please.

Another change we made is to consolidate all of the incentive zoning provisions that are in the code.

This enabled us to actually repeal two whole sections of the land use code, which always feels good.

All references to incentive zoning now point to just a single section, chapter, actually, of the Land Use Code.

It's an existing chapter.

It's Chapter 2358A, and that has been the city's long-term, it's called Incentive Provisions, and covers all of the affordable housing requirements and non-housing requirements for projects that are subject to incentive zoning.

Next slide.

And I think the big outcome we get with this comprehensive legislation is improved consistency, clarity and readability of the land use code provisions.

We are encountering situations now where permit reviews do get bogged down.

with interpretive issues, and we were really trying to avoid that.

So we made changes to make things as clear, straightforward, no ambiguity or need for interpretation by folks that are higher up in SDCI.

And I think that's going to help move a lot of these important projects forward on a faster timeframe.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Laura.

Emily, I see you're present.

Anything to add here?

No, Laura covered it.

Wonderful.

With that, Petal Freeman, I know you are here present.

We are going to hold conversation on amendments until after the public hearing.

But is there anything that you would like to present to us before we move into the public hearing?

No.

I guess one thing to flag perhaps for folks who are here to testify for the public hearing is that there's a discrepancy between this bill, Council Bill 120591, and the next bill on which there'll be a public hearing, 120581. 120581 make some changes on an interim basis to design review and among, among other things, it expands the suite of departures that would otherwise be available to qualifying low-income housing projects.

And I just, so in the interest of orienting folks to sort of where there are changes to make that reconciliation, it's in 120581, not in this bill, Council 120591.

Thank you, Keitel.

With that, Eric, if you could highlight just the public hearing commenters for 120591, which is the Office of Housing Omnibus Bill.

I am worried though that people have gotten confused.

We're gonna go with in-person first.

And we have, so we are gonna do one minute per comment today since we have two public hearings and people are signed up for both and we have 23 plus 31 people signed up today.

So that will amount to about an hour's worth of public comment today.

With that, We are going to end Eric for your reference anyone who is signed up for public comment, I'd like to call them up virtually, just to check to make sure that they have signed up that we haven't skipped them.

With that, we're going to start with the folks in person, Kaylee Baldwin, followed by Tori Naka.

I am so sorry, Tori.

I'm going to thank you, Tori, your blessing.

Tiffany McCoy, followed by Camille Gix, and then Mike Ogritzer.

With that, welcome, Kaylee.

Just for the record, the video has been shared.

Please be nice.

Not that you aren't, but that's the general comments.

My name is Kylia Baldwin, I'm a queer black woman and born and raised Seattleite.

I'm on the board, I'm the board chair of the recently established Seattle social housing developer, and I'm here today in support of amendment one version two that Councilmember Morales brought to the floor today to define social housing under Seattle's legal categorization of low income housing.

Speaking today on behalf of the social housing board and alongside the house our neighbors coalition, who brought the vision of permanently affordable publicly owned cross class and community governed a social housing to our city council members Morales council member Morales is walk on amendment would include social housing and the definition of projects from design review, FAR, and multi-use zoning restrictions, making it easier, faster, and cheaper to build this much needed additional form of affordable housing in our city.

If we are serious about meaningfully and urgently addressing our region's housing crisis, we need to remove these administrative and financial barriers to building more permanently affordable housing, including social housing in our city.

Thank you Council Member Ramos for putting forth this

Thank you, Kaylee.

Up next is Tori, followed by Tiffany, Camille, and then Mike.

Tori, welcome.

Hi, my name is Tori Nakamatsu-Figueroa.

I'm a rank and file member with UFCW 3000 and an MLK labor delegate.

First of all, thank you to Council Member Morales for introducing this amendment.

I volunteered with my union to help get the social housing initiative passed.

UFCW 3000 supported and endorsed the social housing initiative.

And I believe it's a duty of this council to help us provide this resource to the public quickly and without extra expenses for purely aesthetic changes.

When I canvassed with House Our Neighbors, lots of folks were jazzed about it.

And even if this isn't on the forefront of people's minds anymore, we owe it to them to keep trying to realize change, compassion, and growth.

Don't let social housing be bogged down.

Please approve this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tori.

Up next is Tiffany, followed by Camille, and then Mike.

Thank you, Council Members.

My name is Tiffany McCoy.

I'm the Advocacy Director at Real Change, and I'm asking you to support Council Member Morales' Amendment 1, Version 2. I-135 passed in the February 14th ballot by 57% of the vote.

It passed in every single council district.

I want to give a quick snapshot of the support in a few districts and thank Jason Weil for putting this data together.

In District 6, 55.8% voted yes.

District 2, 66% voted yes.

District 3, 65.1%.

District 4, 54.8% voted yes for I-135.

There is universal support for this housing method.

Design review and FAR can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to projects for purely aesthetic changes.

Aesthetics should not hold up making stylish real housing available to so many who need it and who supported it.

Please pass this amendment today without delay because we're in housing crisis.

Thank you, Tiffany.

Up next is Camille, followed by Mike.

And then online, Kate Rubin, Tiernan, and Suresh are the next three.

So welcome, Camille.

Hello, good afternoon.

My name is Camille.

I'm the policy associate at Real Change, speaking in favor of Council Member Morales' floor amendment version two to CB12059.

It is not news that we are in a housing and affordability crisis, and the people of Seattle overwhelmingly voted yes to approve bringing social housing, an internationally practiced and proven model of affordability to Seattle.

On a global scale, social housing is the most successful model at building to scale the amount of housing for low and moderate income communities that is needed.

Since the start of their social housing program in the 1980s, Montgomery County, Maryland has been able to build much more housing for low income households than they were previously able to.

Despite the wide support for social housing in Seattle, there are more steps that need to be taken to allow it success.

Updating the land use code to give social housing the benefits that our other affordable housing entities already have is key to this process.

I urge you to vote to approve this amendment as social housing is and globally always has been a critical part of the housing affordability landscape and should absolutely be easier to build.

Thank you.

We're going to call Kate Rubin, Tiernan Martin, Suresh.

I am going to allow you to say your last name so that I do not inadvertently mispronounce it.

And then Jesse Simpson, Penny O'Grady, Daniel Heppner, Neil Simpson, Aiden Carroll, Ryan Donahue is not present, Nayshan Fu, Christopher Hernandez, Alicia Ruiz.

Those are the folks.

that I see signed up.

So with that, Kate Rubin, are you here to speak about the Office of Housing Omnibus or the design review changes for affordable housing?

I'm here to speak about the, I'm sorry, I just lost my train of thought.

It's Council Bill 12059.

Wonderful.

I got a little confused when you were explaining the differences.

This is the time.

We'll get the floor is yours.

Okay.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kate Rubin.

I live in district two and I'm the organizing director of the Seattle.

I'm calling today to urge you to approve council member Morales's walk-on amendment to CB 120591 that would update the land use code to include social housing and the definition of project exempt from design review, certain floor area ratio restrictions and multi-use zoning restrictions.

Social housing is a wildly successful model used internationally to provide housing as a public good.

Seattle voters overwhelmingly approved social housing, but if we wanted to actually succeed here, we need to remove the administrative and financial barriers to constructing it.

We're in the middle of an affordable housing and homelessness crisis.

Aesthetics shouldn't delay providing housing to those in need.

Please take this crucial step towards a more equitable and acceptable Seattle by voting yes on Council Bill 120591, Amendment 1, Version 2. Thank you.

Thank you, Kate.

Up next is Tiernan, followed by Suresh.

Tiernan, welcome.

My name is Tiernan Martin.

I live in District 2. I'm the Livable Communities Program Manager at FutureWise, where I work on land use policy and planning across Washington state.

I'm here to express Featurewise's support for Council Bill 120591 and for the walk-on amendment sponsored by Council Member Morales.

This amendment would classify social housing projects as low-income housing, affording them the same set of regulatory benefits as other types of low-income housing developments.

These benefits will ensure that the city's regulatory process does not encumber the development of social housing, an imperative given the public support for this new tool and the dire state of the city's housing crisis.

Thank you for your leadership, council members, and thank you for your thoughtful stewardship of our city's social housing experiment.

I urge you to support Council Bill 120591 and Amendment 1. Thanks.

Thank you, Tiernan.

Up next is Suresh, followed by, I think we need to check in with Bill Zossel.

need to check in with Lois Martin.

Suresh, I see you're off mute, take it away.

Hi, my name is Suresh Chandigam.

I moved to Seattle in 1999 and I've spent the last 24 years working as a software engineer in our city and I volunteer with Tech4Housing, a community of tech workers who advocate to ensure Seattle is an affordable, sustainable and equitable city.

My wife and I have three children and have been homeowners since 2008 here in Seattle.

I'm speaking to you to urge the City Council to adopt Amendment 1, Version 2 to Council Bill 120591 to update our definition of low-income housing to include social housing.

We at Tech for Housing are really strong supporters of all forms of affordable housing.

We recently conceived and helped Bellwether Housing crowdsource roughly $5 million in investments from members of the tech community to help them build 900 units of housing in our region for households earning less than 60% of the area median income.

We are also really strong supporters of social housing and help gather 2,000 signatures that House Our Neighbors Coalition submitted.

I just want to note that AMI is a deeply flawed metric.

It compares someone's income relative to others.

Thank you, Suresh.

Please do feel free to send in any additional comments.

We're going to check in with Bill Zolcil, Lois Martin, And then we'll move on to Jesse Simpson, Penny O'Grady, and Daniel Heppner.

Bill, I see you there, star six.

Are you here to speak about the Office of Housing Bill or the Design Review Bill?

Bill, I see you're off mute.

Oh, okay.

So, sorry.

Um, I'm Bill's also, I am a resident of the central area and, uh, just real quick.

Are you speaking to the designer view or for, or design review or office of housing design review?

Great.

We'll come back to you.

I just wanted to check in with you there.

Lois Martin also wanted to just double check, Lois Martin, if you are here for Office of Housing or Design Review.

Design Review.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

We'll come back to you.

Up next is Jesse Simpson followed by Penny O'Grady, Daniel Heppner, Neil Simpson, Aidan Carroll, Nation Fu, Christopher Hernandez.

And once Jesse comes up on my screen, we will start.

Hey, thanks for the opportunity to testify, Council Member Struss.

I will testify both about the OH Omnibus Bill and then later the SDCI Design Review Bill, but I'll speak first about the OH Omnibus Bill.

I'm Jesse Simpson, Government Relations and Policy Manager for the Housing Development Consortium.

We represent all of the major nonprofit affordable housing developers working in Seattle and King County, as well as the associated firms in the affordable housing sector.

Bill desperately needs more affordable homes.

Design Review delays the housing our community needs and adds cost to affordable housing projects.

We need to be doing everything we can to remove barriers to building new affordable homes.

The current temporary exemptions from Design Review have worked well, expediting projects, saving costs, without sacrificing quality design.

The OH omnibus bill makes those existing exemptions for publicly funded affordable housing permanent, along with various cleanup work.

I'd like to thank the Office of Housing and City Council for your work to bring this common-sense legislation forward.

I applaud you for leading this work to reform design review and urge passage of Council Bill 1205. Thanks.

Thank you, Jesse.

Up next is Penny O'Grady, followed by Daniel Heppner, and then Neil Simpson.

Penny, I see you're off mute.

Take it away.

Hello, Council Members and Council Member Strauss.

I'm Penny O'Grady.

And I urge you to pass CB 120591 with Sam Morales' amendment.

I live in District 6. When I gathered signatures in D6 to put social housing on the ballot, I spoke with many people who were enthusiastic about it.

This would update the land use code to specifically include allowing social housing to qualify for all exemptions that encourage the development of affordable housing in Seattle.

Sam Strauss, I know the vibrancy of the downtown core means a lot to this city and to you.

Social housing will provide affordable homes for a vibrant mix of people throughout Seattle, including our district.

Our teachers, social service workers, artists, retail workers, bus drivers, and many more who are finding it hard or impossible to establish a home base here in Seattle.

My kids who work and want to live in Seattle, the youth of this city who want to live where they grew up, need this housing option.

Your vote for this legislation is a vote for social, racial, economic, and environmental justice.

Thank you, Penny.

Good to hear from you as always.

Daniel Hepner, I see you're already off mute.

Take it away.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm speaking in support of Council Bill 120591. I think it is common sense to remove administrative barriers from building affordable housing in the city.

I mean, we need as much as we can get, so we shouldn't have things like designer view far and multi-use zoning restrictions standing in the way.

But I'm also speaking in favor of Council Member Morales' amendment, Amendment 1, Version 2, to update or to add social housing to the list of housing types that are exempt from these restrictions.

Social housing passed in February 2023 with 57% of the vote.

And if we're serious about addressing the housing crisis, we're going to need all types of housing that we can get.

and design review and FAR can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of a project.

Thank you, Daniel.

Up next is Neil Simpson followed by Aiden Carroll.

Ryan Donohue, you are not present now is the time to call in, followed by Nation Fu, Christopher Hernandez, Alicia Ruiz.

Neil, I see you're here, star six to unmute.

Neal Simpson, star six to unmute.

Let's move forward with Aiden Carroll while we wait for Neal.

Aiden, I see your presence, star six to unmute.

There you are.

Neal, we're gonna- Hi, I am- Yep, hang on.

Aiden, Neal, we're gonna wait for you.

So Aiden, you're gonna go.

I see you're ready, take it away.

I'm calling in support of the social housing Um, both to, uh, fully fund as fast as possible.

It's progressive revenue and revenue to, to scale it up, to meet the size of the crisis and also to allow it, um, exemption from design review.

Um, the design review process in Seattle is so overly, um, Intrusive, it actually causes a lot of the aesthetic issues that homeowners take issue with when they object to development and upzoning, because architects will be deliberately timid and box-like to avoid things that could be objected to, and it's more expensive.

We need all the social housing we can get as fast as we can.

not displacement while there isn't something better.

Thank you, Aiden.

Up next is Neil Simpson.

Take it away, Neil.

Thank you, Council Members.

This is Neil Simpson with Solid Ground speaking in favor of Amendment 1, Version 2 of Council Bill 120591. As you may know, Solid Ground is a community action agency that provides homelessness prevention services for people facing eviction, rapid rehousing for folks who have already become homeless, and permanent supportive housing.

for folks who need a little extra support as they transition out of homelessness.

Our case managers talk all the time with folks experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity, and they will tell you that the number one thing keeping folks from moving beyond homelessness and supportive housing is a staggering shortage of housing that folks can actually afford within their networks of support.

Social housing, while not considered affordable housing by the law now, will help.

fill that need and deserves all the regulatory benefits and exemptions that we give to what the law considers for affordable housing, which is why solid ground urges you to support amendment one version two of Council Bill 120591. Thank you.

Thank you, Neil.

Up next is Ryan Donahue is not present.

So we're going to go to nation for Christopher Hernandez, Alicia Ruiz nation.

Welcome.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Naisheen.

I live in District 6, and I'm an organizer with Tech for Housing and a volunteer with House Our Neighbors.

I'm speaking in favor of CB120591 and the Amendment 1 introduced by Councilmember Morales to add a definition of social housing to the land use code.

This past February, voters clearly demonstrated their desire to add social housing to the tools we have to address their housing crisis, and the social housing developer is now in implementation.

This model is successful around the world, including the United States.

Our land use code should be updated to include this entity.

If CB 120581 passes, as it should, social housing needs to also qualify for the affordable housing exemptions to maximize its benefit for the people.

This simple step will have a powerful effect in making social housing easier, faster, and cheaper to build.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Neyshan.

Ryan, I see Ryan, you are not present.

So we will come back to you, Ryan.

Welcome.

Star six to unmute.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Take it away.

Alrighty.

Hello, Chair Stroud and members of the committee.

My name is Ryan Donahue, and I'm the Chief Advocacy Officer, as you know, here at Habitat for Humanity, Seattle, King, and Kittitas Counties.

Deeply appreciate you bringing this legislation forward and allowing us to show our support for what really is essentially an affordable housing cleanup legislation.

We've seen projects get delayed, significantly grow in cost, and ultimately die because of some of the problems that this legislation is gonna be fixing.

Whether it's our project where we recently, that we recently had to go through designer reproject process, adding roughly eight to 10 months and a quarter of a million dollars to the project, or our other project off of MLK, that would be the largest single building habitat project in the world.

Using existing rules without this, that would risk killing some of these projects, not providing affordable home ownership opportunities that's so desperately needed.

Thank you so much for bringing this, and please support this language very much.

Have a nice day.

Thank you, Ryan.

Up next is Christopher Hernandez, followed by Alicia Ruiz, and that is our final speaker on this public hearing.

Christopher, welcome.

Star six to unmute.

Christopher?

If you want to bring up Alicia Ruiz as well, or Christopher Hernandez, you're welcome to take it away.

Okay.

Yeah.

Hi, Christopher, Anthony, Michael Hernandez.

I'll be great.

I am against these bills.

I made the foolish decision to move into one of these station houses, one of these, um, affordable homes.

And it was my biggest mistake.

Um, and I've been nothing but harmed by these programs financially.

I believe that these programs, if they want to be better, they should have voluntary rehab habilitation treatment for 90 days prior to move in.

And then someone that's business-minded and science-minded, like myself, to facilitate job growth and stability.

That's all I have time for today.

Thank you, bye.

Thank you, Christopher.

Up next is Alicia Ruiz, and that's our final public hearing commenter for this bill.

Alicia, I see you're off mute.

Take it away.

Good afternoon, Chair Strauss and members of the committee.

My name is Alicia Ruiz.

I'm speaking today on behalf of the Seattle members of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties.

We testify in support of Council Bill 120591 and Amendment 1 Version 2. These technical updates are important to expedite the production of all types of much needed housing in our city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alicia.

Seeing as there are no further public registrants for this public hearing, I am going to close, and that was our last speaker present to speak on the public hearing.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120591 is now closed.

Now, colleagues, to consider this bill on the same day as a public hearing, we do need to suspend the rules.

This is the second time that we have had this bill in committee.

Are there any objections?

I'm not seeing any, so I'm gonna read the official language.

If there is no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow the committee to vote on Council Bill 120591 on the same day as the public hearing.

Hearing no objections, the council rule is suspended.

We are moving into amendments.

Council Member Morales, you have an amendment for us today.

You are recognized.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I move Amendment 1, Version 2 as recently distributed.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 1, Version 2. I would like to now turn it over to Ketil Freeman for, unless Council Member Morales, you would like to speak to your amendment?

I will speak to it, but we can have Ketil introduce it first, that's fine.

Wonderful.

So Council Member Morales's amendment, Amendment 1, Version 2 to Council Bill 120591 would add a land use code definition for social housing.

I don't know if this is appearing on the agenda, so perhaps I'll share my screen here so that folks in the audience can see the amendments.

There we go.

So this is Council Member Morales' amendment, which would add a definition of social housing to Council Bill 120591. Social housing would be a category of low-income housing, which affordable units are maintained in perpetuity.

By adding social housing as a category of low-income housing, it means that social housing would be able to enjoy all the benefits, all the regulatory benefits that flow to low-income housing, including things like design review exemptions, FAR exemptions, which might allow a building to be slightly larger and provide more housing, street level use allowances and zones.

Basically, land use code dispensations that currently are only available to low-income housing would only be available to low-income housing under 120591. I'll scroll down here to the definition itself.

There'd be some limitations on what constitutes social housing at least 40% of the dwelling units would have to be affordable to households with incomes no higher than 80%.

of AMI at initial occupancy.

Um, it could only be developed by a qualifying public development authority.

Um, the charter for which specifies that its purpose is to, is to develop housing, um, at a range of affordabilities.

Um, and of course the intent of social housing is that eventually it is that, uh, um, provide housing for a broad range of households, um, zero to 120% of AMI with folks retaining occupancy, even when their incomes are higher than that.

So that is the amendment proposed by Councilmember Morales.

Wonderful Councilmember Morales would you like to speak to your amendment.

Okay, sorry about that.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Ketel.

So I am proposing this amendment.

I will say that we had some conversation with the Office of Housing, and the reason there's a substitute is because I believe these changes address some of the concerns that were raised.

technical changes have been made.

And this is really the intent here is really to put social housing on an even playing field with other forms of affordable housing.

We did review both the previous version and this version with law and got the understanding that this would not cause significant risk to the bill.

I want to thank our social housing developer board as well as House Our Neighbors for your collaboration and support.

The idea here is to offer the city several opportunities.

As the first city in the country to really develop social housing, we want to make sure that it gets started on the right foot.

It aligns social housing with the rest of our affordable housing landscape and provides kind of the same level of land use benefits that are available to other forms of housing.

As Ketel said, it defines social housing in our land use code.

And so really, so there's no more confusion about what social housing is.

And as Ketel also mentioned specifically, it is defined as residential or mixed use structure with at least 40% of the dwelling units affordable to households with incomes at no higher than 80%.

Um, so this reflects some changes that we made.

Councilmember Mosqueda and I made previously in our city's disposition policies.

I do want to thank her and her staff for working with us on that and really provides a definition that helps codify the intent of universal affordability, which allows more people to continue to live in the city.

and reinforces our mission as a city to grow our stock of housing that is affordable to families, to working people, to folks who are currently living unhoused, so that we have as many tools as possible available to us to address our ongoing affordability crisis.

So I do want to thank Office of Housing for bringing this omnibus bill.

I think it's important that we streamline the processes for affordable housing development.

I want to thank Director Weekly Chen for open communication about this process and about this amendment in particular.

And I just want to say finally that regardless of the vote today, I do look forward to working with Office of Housing, with the mayor's office, and with our social housing board and advocates to make sure that we're putting development potential and land use benefits of social housing on the same level as our other forms of affordable housing in the city so we can grow grow our stock overall, make sure folks in the city have a place to call home.

That is all I have, Chair.

Thank you Councilmember Morales and I appreciate you bringing forward this amendment.

I do have concerns not about the content of the amendment I appreciate and agree with what you are saying about creating the definitions within our land use code.

My concerns are as you mentioned there is risk to the bill regarding appeals additional SEPA work.

And what we know is that this bill has already been delayed in getting to our committee, because of the tree ordinance and industrial maritime zoning changes which has taken up quite a bit of our committee time earlier this year.

My concern is that there are projects currently waiting for this bill to be passed.

to benefit from the changes that have been long worked on and awaited.

Council Member Morales, what I offer you is I'm not going to be able to support this amendment today for those reasons and if you would like to bring a separate bill that is disconnected from this bill that accomplishes the same task, I welcome that and I encourage it actually.

I think that would be a good way to go about it.

If there is not substantive differences between what you are proposing today and a final bill, I would consider this as one of the, I always ask for a bill to be heard twice in committee.

If there's no substantive differences between what you propose today and a final bill, I would consider this as the first hearing of that bill so that we can move a little bit more rapidly.

That is where I am at today.

I know I've been reading the different email traffic just today with so much going on.

And I appreciate you narrowing the scope of this amendment to try to address some of that risk.

And I do believe that there is still enough risk that it makes me pause.

And I don't want to hold up any of these other projects.

That's where I'm at today.

And I, again, appreciate where you're coming from and bringing this forward.

Other colleagues, any questions for Council Member Morales or to Keetle about Amendment 1, Version 2?

Council Member Nelson.

Thank you.

So we first, I first learned about this amendment yesterday in an email that was sent at 1152. That was the first time I saw it and then today we got another one at 1124 am, which I guess is version two but the number is still the same and they both say D one.

And now there's a.

There is an attorney client privileged email that that speaks to some of the issues which I can't really talk about.

So it just seems as though this is, there's all this going on and an omnibus is supposed to be a cleanup so it's, this seems to be making policy if there's this much difference of opinion so.

I can't support that because I don't understand the nature of the differences between the First Amendment and the Second Amendment.

And plus, it seems like it's more policy oriented than cleanup.

But since you, Chair Strauss, just said that you would consider that you consider this the first hearing.

I would ask Director Winkler-Chin for your thoughts, because you were referenced in the comments by Council Member Morales.

Thank you very much, Council Member.

I have not spent time with my staff to really examine what the amendments are.

We will support and work with the City Council on looking at the language for this and think that a separate bill makes the most amount of sense.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any further questions on Amendment 1, Version 2, Council Member Peterson?

Thank you, Travis.

I want to thank Councilmember Morales for always looking for opportunities to make the social housing model work, you know there's lots of legislation moving through here and for that new model, we have to often look for these opportunities to to attach the voter approved stuff, attach it to the fast moving legislation.

And so I appreciate Councilor Morales being a steadfast champion of that so that we can keep trying to do what we can to make that model sustainable.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Morales, closing comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just say I again understand the questions that have come up.

I do believe based on the conversations that we did have with the law department that the risk is very limited.

But understand too that colleagues have more questions.

So as I said before, happy to continue working with with with director Winkler chin and with the mayor's office, and our social housing developer to make sure that we are incorporating these principles and this language into our code.

so that this very important new model of housing that we are trying to do in the city is supported in every way possible through our regulatory code and through every other opportunity that we have.

So, appreciate it.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

With no further comments or questions, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1, Version 2.

Council Member Nelson.

Hey, excuse me name Councilmember Peterson.

Yes.

Vice chair Morales.

Yes.

No.

To in favor to against Emilia Sanchez.

Motion fails.

Thank you.

And I want to, for the folks that attended today I appreciate you coming out, and I appreciate the intent with which this is coming forward and Councilmember Morales I welcome standalone bill Councilmember Nelson.

Yeah, I just wanted to note that I repeat that.

My name is not a vote on the content of this amendment.

When I hear words like risk, that does reinforce the fact that this requires more conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Colleagues, comments, questions on the underlying bill as amended?

Seeing none, I will share closing comments as the sponsor of this bill.

I'm very excited to have this bill passed.

I think that this provides not only more clarity for everyday people using the land use code.

I also just want to thank the Office of Housing for taking a lot of time to simplify The land use code as it comes to housing, and most importantly, providing opportunity additional opportunities for home ownership projects we had Ryan Donahue from habitat for humanity.

Speak to us today they're copper pines project on 28th and 85th provide housing opportunities for families like the one that I grew up in, and the family that I grew up in wouldn't be able to afford to live in Ballard today.

there's nothing more real than that home ownership opportunity on the street that I walked home from middle school back to my house on.

And so it is real and meaningful to me, and I'm excited that this bill will provide a more streamlined process to home ownership opportunities for the family that I grew up in, because the family that I grew up in should be able to afford to live in the Seattle of today and tomorrow.

Colleagues, seeing as there are no other questions or comments, I move to recommend passage of Council Bill 120591. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120591. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice-Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Four in favor.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Council Bill 120591 passes and the bill will be sent to the July 5th, 2023 City Council meeting for a final vote.

Moving on to the next agenda item.

Item number one on the agenda as published.

Thank you, Office of Housing.

Welcome SDCI.

This is again a briefing discussion, public hearing and possible vote on Council Bill 120581, which exempts certain affordable housing projects from design review.

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

Item one, Council Bill 120581, design review exemptions for affordable housing projects for briefing discussion, public hearing and possible vote.

Thank you.

This legislation is a pilot program to allow MHA on-site performance projects to be exempt from design review and gives market rate housing projects an option to choose administrative design review as we pilot improvements to the design review program ahead of taking a top to bottom review on how to improve the program.

What I know to be true are two things.

One is that design review does not provide access to everyday people whether it be language barriers or technical language that is used or the simply accessibility to to attend design review meetings I think that it's easier now in the hybrid fashion but then the second part of that is that everyday people's comments are not necessarily taken into into the final concept and that's a problem.

So on one side that that part is broken design review is broken on the other side which is also used as a way to slow down projects that we need in our city.

And so I know what the problems are and I don't know what the solution is because it is a bit unclear.

And so what we have today is a bit of a test balloon.

It is a just trying out without changing design review programs but attempting to pilot a couple different options that we have when we are eventually taking the top to bottom review of design review.

We were briefed in the Land Use Committee on June 14th by Mike Podolsky, Department of Construction and Inspections.

Mike is here today to provide a refresher and answer any additional questions.

We also have Ketel Freeman from Council Central staff Before we turn it over to Ketel, we'll turn it over to Mike who's here in chambers with us.

Mike, welcome.

Take it away.

Thank you.

Did you want me to reshare the presentation from the 14th meeting?

That would be great.

And, you know, I'd say just hit the highlights since we had a pretty robust conversation last time.

Okay, let's see if this comes up.

All right, as you mentioned, Council Chair Strauss, or Committee Chair Strauss, this is a pilot program.

It's intended to be in place for a temporary amount of time.

And the notion here is to test a couple of ideas to see if we might bring more housing, and it's particularly affordable housing, to the people that need it more quickly and less expensively.

And as you also noted, we are also working on a review of the design review program overall with some equity considerations built in.

and that work would be ongoing and potentially informed by the results of this pilot program.

There's four main changes that would occur if council adopts this bill.

The top two are the main pieces of the bill.

One would provide an exemption for projects that provide housing through the performance option, through the mandatory housing affordability requirement, and the second one would provide an exemption from design review for affordable housing.

Or for any housing rather that excuse me, the 1st, 1 is an exemption.

The 2nd, 1 allows for an option for people that are required to go through full design review for housing to opt for administrative review.

And then, as as part of that, that 1st item, the director would be able to waive or modify certain development standards not only for the performance projects as noted here.

but also affordable rental and homeownership projects as well.

And I think there's an amendment that Keetle will speak to after my presentation that'll go into more details and specifics about that.

Item four listed here just is a note that for projects that opt to go through the administrative design review process rather than full design review would have the ability to opt back into full design review if it ended up being that that was a better option for them at their election.

This is just a basic background on MHA.

There's two ways to meet the mandatory housing affordability requirements.

One is through the performance option, which we're seeking to promote and test through this bill.

And the other one is to contribute to a fund that the offices of housing uses to fund housing.

Based on historical use of the MHA performance option, we're expecting somewhere between 10 to 15 projects.

And if the incentive is a good one, maybe as many as 30 projects to benefit from the results of this bill.

A little background on design review, just to clarify the distinction between the administrative and full design review processes.

They're required of mostly mid and large sized commercial multifamily buildings.

Permanently supported housing is currently exempt.

Just as a note at the bottom of the slide, both types of designer view are decisions that would allow people that think the department aired in its decision making to have an appeal hearing before the city's hearing examiner.

So they're what we call tech two decisions.

The administrative designer view option is intended to test the notion here at the top that administrative designer view can be, um, done more quickly than full designer view.

This might have to do with some outside factors that we would have a chance to test, such as level of complexity of the project.

But we have seen over time that administrative is shorter.

And this slide shows that it's on the order of around three months quicker than full designer view.

And that is something that we want to explore further with the passage of this bill.

And then the effects of the administrative option is portrayed here.

Somewhere between 18 to 27 projects could benefit from this if the permit applicant selected.

We do note here too that for various reasons, some applicants prefer the board review.

And so that would be a factor probably in what we would see in this test.

And that's it for the refresh.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

Colleagues, questions on Mike Podolsky's presentation regarding the design review exemptions for affordable housing.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

I really appreciate this presentation and I appreciate the memo that we got from Ketel on Monday.

And I think most of my questions are about issues that were raised in the memo.

So I first want to just, well, let me just ask first, one of the things identified was the slide response for STCI and recommendations for a process.

Is that, it sounds like the work has been done, but we haven't received the recommendations or the proposal yet.

Do you have a ETA for that?

We're still talking with the mayor's office about the department's recommendations that would flow from the slide response.

We do have a consultant report that did a lot of the legwork behind that, that has been submitted to the committee chair.

And so that milestone has been reached.

And so council member Morales, let me piggyback on that, which is, I think that there's a bit of misunderstanding about SDCI has not been asked, nor do they have.

recommendations on how to change design review.

That question has never been posed to SDCI.

There was the stakeholder work group that was set up for the last year, which took much longer than I desired to.

So the idea was to have that report in hand by January so that we could take up additional review and recommendations from STCI.

I have received the report.

I have not been able, I have not had the time to review it.

I guess, again, in part because of the amount of time that our committee has spent on the tree ordinance and the industrial maritime zoning.

And so originally when the slide was written, the ideal would be to receive that report by the beginning of the year so that we could queue it up appropriately.

That milestone was missed long ago.

And candidly, I've not had time to review the report.

And so we will have that at a future date and time.

I can tell you that our committee is completely full, moving throughout the entire year, which is in part why Councilmember Morales, I offered you the first hearing on your amendment to count towards your bill should you be able to bring that back so that we could move more rapidly.

It's also the reason that we're suspending the rules to have votes on the same days as public hearings.

All that to say is that the report has been sent, has not been reviewed, and SDCI does not have recommendations because they have never been asked.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

What I wanted to, I guess, have a little bit more conversation or understanding about is we have some recommendations coming from a consultant that we haven't seen yet.

We also have recommendations coming from a racial equity toolkit that was done.

It sounds like it wasn't a, a complete RET, but nevertheless provided some important guidance for how we review our design review program.

That report indicates, you know, the process itself absolutely needs to be more equitable and so needs to prioritize the voices of those who are most impacted by An inequitable design process, which is to say, predominantly people of color communities of color.

And I think part of the struggle that we have when we're talking about design review in the city is that there's kind of 2 conversations happening.

Right?

So we have.

a full design review that allows community members to be involved in what their neighborhood's going to look like, what construction in their area would look like, which is intended to be a good way to engage our neighbors.

And we know that it has really turned into a way to weaponize the process to stop development from happening.

And this isn't just happening in Seattle, it happens across the country in every major city.

It's used as a way to stop progress, stop us from being able to address the very real housing crisis that we have, and has contributed to our housing crisis here in Seattle.

So that's kind of one conversation.

We're moving towards this discussion of how do we mitigate what we, I think many people, including myself, see as a weaponization of this process.

And it is the only opportunity for people to engage in some kind of review of what's happening in their neighborhood.

And the conversations that I have a lot with people in my district is that even still, there is no place in our design review process in any step along the way of a building going up to talk about what the racial equity impacts of this project are going to be.

There's nowhere that that's allowed.

Every time people want to say this might cause displacement, they're sort of shut down and say, well, that's not for us to talk about.

I have had conversations with STCI about this in the past.

Nathan and I have had many conversations about this.

And that is my understanding, really a conversation precluded by state law.

And so, you know, what we're really trying to figure out, what I'm still trying to figure out is, where do we allow for the conversation about the racial equity impacts of development to happen?

How do we reconcile these two things?

So I guess my question to SDCI is, there is provided in the memo from Ketel, just sort of a table of a work plan.

And You know it references that outreach will be outreaches planned for next year.

It doesn't say to whom.

And I guess what I would like to know is what is the current strategy for doing that outreach because five weeks is not a lot of time.

And it doesn't say anything about who will be included in the outreach for that process to begin the review of our design review process.

And so I guess I'm just asking for whether and how the work plan will incorporate the recommendations from the RET analysis to make sure that as we're looking at this design review process, that those issues are part of the conversation.

I don't have answers for those questions for you right now.

Um, I do, um, want to say that we do value the, uh, information that would come from the racial equity toolkit analysis and do plan on, um, conducting that process and incorporating it into the, um, into the report.

I did participate in the stakeholder group that led to the work that's been done so far, and it has been a robust work and a robust engagement of a broad swath of stakeholders throughout the community and we would look to continue and grow that process as we go forward, and would work with the mayor's office and you on the timeline.

Piggyback on that again, Council Member Morales, your questions and your comments are pretty spot on here, I agree with it.

And why we have the bill before us today is because it is so narrowly tailored so that we're not, because the questions that you asked are good and important and it requires so much more time to be able to address them.

What we do know is that we need to get affordable housing and especially mandatory housing affordability projects that do on-site performance moving faster today.

Even though the bill before us in the presentation demonstrates that it is only a time savings of three months, it is important to test these today while we take the time to ask and answer the questions that you just Described and candidly we had hoped that this process would have started in January of this year.

I think with as we asked more questions Rather than having more answers.

We had more questions.

And so we now have a longer process on that Does that help?

Shape the difference because what you're talking about is the overall design review program Which I totally agree with what you're saying and what we have before us today is a narrow pilot within

not even within that, separately and aside so that we can start testing some of these benefits and drawbacks.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah.

And Mike, just while we have you here, there is public comment opportunities in all of these options.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

So whether it's administrative, full design review, type two decisions, all of these have an opportunity for public comment.

That's right.

And as well as application of and consideration of the design guidelines both citywide and neighborhood specific.

Not actually sure if that's correct.

So, the for the ADR there certainly would be an opportunity for comment there's there's there's public engagement that is required as part of ADR and that would continue.

under the mayor's proposed bill.

For MHAC projects, MHAR projects, I'm sorry, that choose to perform and for affordable housing projects, there's a decision about waivers, departures, things like that would be granted as a type one decision.

And those decisions don't require a public notice or an opportunity for comment.

Practically speaking, most projects that receive city funding have an outreach component that sort of goes along with Um, the receipt of city funds, so there would be sort of an opportunity there outside of design review.

For engagement within your near neighbors, but for those projects that are just the projects, I don't believe under the current bill, there would be an opportunity for public comments.

Also.

The bill doesn't require the STCI director to make a departure decision with reference to design guidelines.

It's just a decision based on whether or not a departure would result in more units.

They don't have to be affordable units, they just have to be more units.

So it may be the case that the STCI director does refer, and it wouldn't be the director, of course, it would be a land use planner at STCI, refers to the design guidelines, perhaps to inform their thinking about something.

If a departure that is requested by somebody results in more units, that departure, I believe, would have to be granted.

Thank you for that, Kilo.

I was really just speaking to the distinction between administrative and full design review, but your point is well made, especially with respect to the process that would unfold for MHA performance and affordable rental and ownership projects.

Thank you, Ketel for jumping in there.

Colleagues, any other questions before we open the public hearing?

I am seeing none.

Council Member Peterson.

You're still on mute.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I just wanted to make a an information request of the department ideally could get that before the full Council, any full Council action on on this legislation.

The section F of the bill, and I wanna thank central staff for their memo too, it's excellent, thank you for that.

Section F of the bill, section F3B talks about projects that have already bested that they would also get to skip the full design review if they wanted to.

Could we get a list of those projects?

This is a request of the department.

Absolutely, I'll work on that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you Councilmember Peterson.

Any further questions before the public hearing?

We will have opportunities after the public hearing for more discussion.

Seeing no other questions right now, we've already played the video.

The takeaways, please be nice and respectful.

Everyone has been, and that is wonderful.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120581 is now open.

We will begin with the first speakers on the list.

I will do in-person first, followed by online commenters.

We have John Fite, Don Blakeney, Katie Ruscito, and Mike Moditzer.

john welcome thank you my name is john fight i'm an architect and chair of the pike pine urban neighborhood council capitol hills land use review committee i'm also a member of the central area lurk and was a member of the design review sli stakeholder committee i support the legislation under the following conditions amend the legislation to exclude projects that have commercial space and focus only on projects that are 100% housing, 100% affordable and meet MHA incentives onsite.

Vibrant commercial space is a key to neighborhood health and residents must have an opportunity to opine on commercial mixed use design and its ability and effects on the health of neighborhood business.

Council must ensure the communities are offered a more meaningful voice administrative design review process by requiring planners better keep interested parties informed on project schedule, guidance given as well as actions both the applicant and the city staff have taken on community comments.

Any full design review should favor administrative review should require developers to dedicate 11% of the project's housing is affordable to current maximum required by MHA.

Thank you, John.

Up next, we have Don Blakeney.

Good afternoon Council Members, I'm Don Blakeney, the Executive Director of the U-District Partnership.

I'm representing the U-District today, the fastest growing neighborhood in Seattle, which is why we are here.

We need more affordable housing, but we also need public and private investments in our community to respond to the unique needs of our commercial district.

The U District is one of the few remaining gems in our city that manages to hold on to small ground floor commercial spaces.

They provide diversity for our customers, vibrancy for our streetscapes, and they offer a pathway to prosperity for people looking to get a foothold in our local economy.

design review is broken, I get it.

But over the past few years, voters of Seattle have endured whiplash as our city leaders have rushed to dismantle parts of our city government without a viable plan or understanding of the unintended consequences of their actions.

I'm here today to encourage you all to take the time you are allocating next year to examine the potential unaccounted consequences of this dismantling design review.

The city should be creating meaningful opportunities for greater diversity of voices, like Council Member Morales said, to shape development and projects on the outside.

Thank you, Don.

Well said.

And hopefully, I don't know, maybe U District and Ballard can do a little growth battle going on there.

U District and Ballard, I think we're in a growth battle.

Who's fastest growing?

Yeah.

That's right.

Katie, welcome.

Thank you.

Hi, thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Katie Rakuto, and I work for the U District Partnership.

We're a community-based nonprofit in the U District.

I work with the U District community to set priorities around the built environment for major developments in the neighborhood.

I attend design review meetings, I make public comments on projects, and I know that the U District has undergone a massive building boom since the 2017 upzone We deeply care about how new buildings impact our public realm and commercial zones engagement with community is important to help applicants and planners understand community context and needs.

I understand the bills intention to create incentives for more affordable residential units however I have significant concerns that the bill does not have clarity around community engagement process.

Administrative design review and type one decisions are really opaque with little opportunity for back and forth community conversations or accountability for decisions.

Council should ensure that this legislation offers a meaningful way for community feedback and modify the legislation to exclude projects in neighborhood commercial zones.

Thank you, Katie.

Up next is Mike Moditzer.

Mike, welcome.

And then online we have, Dennis Sills is not present, Megan Cruz is present, Jeffrey Floor, Bill Zossel, Lois Martin, Dave Mooring, Jesse Simpson, Nation, Fu's not present, Christopher Hernandez not present, Alicia Ruiz not present, and then Rick Klingeli.

Welcome, Mike.

Hi, my name is Mike Mogritzer.

I'm with the Central Area Land Use Review Committee, the LERC, and I have been a fan of design review since its debut.

It's been successful because it's improved the general quality of design, specifically at the urban scale, by giving communities an opportunity to better shape infill projects in their neighborhoods.

My take from 30 years as an architect to housing providers is that this sentiment also applies to affordable housing.

Such products have benefited from design review, perhaps more than market rate projects, because they are a tougher sell to neighbors.

DER has done its job when the design teams are able to turn NIMBYs into supporters and convert growing pains in the city into a livable city.

Based on this history, I oppose any erosion of the scope and breadth of design review.

That said, I understand the main complaint of the design review is the time it takes.

We should fix it without compromising results.

It's not inherently a time sink.

I see an easy target and long waits for the city to perform its task that should take days and often take weeks and months.

Thank you, Mike.

Appreciate you coming in person as well.

Up next is Actually, we're gonna go, did we need Kate Rubin?

Did she need to come back?

Let's bring Kate Rubin back if she's still present.

Eric, is she present?

Hey, Reuben is not present.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

We will move on to, uh, Dennis Sills is not present.

So we are going to move on to Megan Cruz followed by Jeffrey floor.

Then Bill's also Megan.

I see you're here.

Star six to unmute.

Good afternoon.

I'm Megan Cruz.

Last fall, the city convened a stakeholder group to update design review.

Over half its members were from BIPOC communities.

In January, a group report said that while flawed, design review is a force for good and the only place where community has input.

They warned against cutting it.

This bill tosses their work and dues aside and shuts down public design review for two years.

The bill grants majority market rate in MHA housing, extra benefits, waivers, and modifications, including increases to height, bulk, and scale without fulfilling the other MHA requirements of public engagement and community-informed design.

The bill will not expedite affordable housing projects which are already exempt from design review.

Members of the stakeholder group also found little to substantiate the design review effects of housing affordability.

Please honor the city's commitment, incorporate the stakeholder group's findings before moving forward with this bill.

Fix the design review, but don't throw it out.

Thank you.

Thank you, Megan.

Up next is Jeffrey Flohr followed by Bill Zosel.

Jeffrey, welcome.

There you are.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is Jeffrey Floor, resident of District 3. I've practiced architecture in Seattle for over 30 years and have been a member of the Central Area Design Review Board since inception.

I'm well aware of what the entitlement process looks like from both sides of the table.

I've seen firsthand the direct community benefit a public design review process can provide.

The Central Area Design Guidelines and Design Review Board are both the results of a decades-long effort by neighborhood elders to develop a voice that is responsive to the traditional heart of Seattle's African-American community.

The idea that design review adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of housing or that is unresponsive to community concerns is simply uninformed nonsense.

We should only contemplate changes to such a program where there is a problem needing a solution.

Since most of the MHA projects choose to pay in lieu fees, incentivizing permanent, truly affordable housing on site in the near term, rather than down the road, is a step in the right direction.

I support Amendment 2, Version 1, requiring all of the affordable units to be performed on site.

Thank you, Jeffrey.

Up next is Bill Zossel, followed by Lois Martin.

Bill, welcome.

Bill, I see you, there you are, off mute, star six, take it away.

Okay, thank you.

I'm Bill Zozola, resident of the Central Area and a participant in the Central Area LERC, a group that works to bring developers and neighborhood residents together at an early stage of development to allow all sides to explore ways to achieve the proverbial win-win outcome.

The history and experience of the Central Area Design Guidelines is very different from what you may be hearing elsewhere.

that the guidelines were developed with and through the community, and they specifically are intended to be key parts of a strategy to overcome the impacts of historic racial inequity and to support the preservation of the African and Black American community in the central area.

I don't think you'll find that the process has been weaponized in the central area.

But rather, if you look, you'll see several significant developments that have been made better through the process.

And look at the 23rd Union Midtown Project as a good example.

The 23rd Union Midtown Project is another.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bill.

Up next is Lois Martin, followed by Dave Mooring and Jesse Simpson.

Lois, welcome.

Hi, good afternoon.

First, I just want to clarify, how much time do we have?

I thought it was two minutes.

No?

We have one minute because of the number of speakers and public hearings today.

So when you start, we will start the clock.

OK.

Thank you for that clarification.

In 2016, I represented the 23rd Avenue Action Community Team as one of five central area groups that came together to partner with City of Seattle staff to establish the Central Area Neighborhood Design Guidelines to be utilized within the design review board process.

As I reviewed emails from 2016 to start the process, it reminded me that we really began in 1994 and 1998 before everything was finally passed in 2017. One paragraph read, without neighborhood-specific guidelines, the Central Area is dangerously at risk of uncoordinated individual efforts underpinned by profit rather than by sustainable neighborhood goals.

And that sentiment still holds true today.

While only one year, the proposed changes will have significant impact, three months is not a lot of time when you look at structures that will last for decades.

As outlined in the memo, changing design review alone will not fix the housing crisis.

And it's the only space for community input.

I ask that you vote no until the concerns and the memorandum

Thank you, Lois.

Up next is David Moring, followed by Jesse Simpson, followed by Alicia Ruiz, and then Rick Klingle.

And those are the final speakers remaining.

Dave, welcome.

Oh, hi.

This is David Moring, architect.

And I just want to let you know that over 25 years ago, Chicago tore down its low-income Cabrini Green.

It has since replaced it with mixed housing, that integrates both market rates and affordable housing without a visual difference.

One of the projects seeking to compromise design review, I believe, is the St. Luke's project, which incorporates within Ballard 206 market rate units in one building and 86 affordable units in the building next to it.

Both of these buildings look different, The market rate building features higher finishes on the outside of the building, as well as balconies.

I think we need to have equitable design despite who lives in the building.

We also need to have real incentives for on-site production so that these projects will pencil out.

And it's not clear that design compromising design will do that.

I support the trial on

Thank you, Dave.

And please feel free to send in any additional comments.

Up next is Jesse Simpson followed by Alicia Ruiz and then Rick.

Jesse, welcome back.

Hi, Jesse Simpson again, Government Relations Policy Manager for the Housing Development Consortium.

I'm reiterating my earlier points about the general effective design review on the affordable housing production our city greatly needs.

And I just wanted to highlight some of the elements of Council Bill 120581 that pertain directly to low-income affordable housing.

The current design review exemption only allows affordable housing to seek administrative departures on a limited set of seven design standards outside design review.

So this means that affordable housing developers may still need to go through design review even with that exemption if they find that more significant departures are necessary to make the project pencil to fully utilize the site.

Council Bill 120581 takes the important step to reform design review and expand the scope of affordable housing to receive departures on all of the development standards if we increase the number of homes that can be built.

Thank you, Jesse.

Up next is Alicia Ruiz followed by Rick Klingle.

Alicia, welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Strauss and members of the committee.

My name is Alicia Ruiz.

I speak today on behalf of the Seattle members of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish County.

We testify today in full support of Council Bill 120581. The current design review program is broken, and we can all agree on that.

And it has been for some time.

It causes months or even years of delay to something as inconsequential as brick color.

All these delays directly add to the cost of housing, and this needs to change, and today's bill is the first step.

It is our hope that additional reform to the design review program continues in the future.

We support Amendment 1, Version 2, and strongly oppose Amendment 2. Thank you.

Thank you, Alicia last on our list today is Rick, and I am so sorry I've been pronouncing your name incorrectly I assume Rick you're here star six and then take it away.

Hi.

A study several years ago determined that there's a direct relationship between Seattle land use project results and the level of design review that was applied.

Worst results were found in the projects with no design review, and the best results were found in the projects with full design review.

Design review has added significant value, meaning positive non-cosmetic design differences without disproportional cost impacts.

Please retain and strengthen design review.

Thanks.

Thank you, Rick.

And we actually have one last public comment registering.

Present Nation Fu.

Nation, welcome.

Nation is not present.

Eric, can you just double check?

There are no more public comment registrants remotely present.

Is that correct?

I fear so, yes.

There are or there are not?

There are not.

Thank you very much.

That was our last speaker physically and remotely present for this public hearing.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120581 is now closed.

Again, same procedure.

If there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow the committee to vote on Council Bill 120581 on the same day as the public hearing.

Council Member Nelson.

so there was a um i have a question oh do you have an objection oh no i do not have a no excuse me no hearing no objection the council rule is suspended council member peterson thank you chair straus um i just we are hearing some concerns about the legislation so i just

It seems, can we see how the amendments vary before we decide whether to skip the public or whether we decide to vote on it the same day as the public hearing?

I'm going to call on Amelia Sanchez.

I believe that we have to suspend the rules to take the amendments and then the final vote.

Is that correct, Amelia?

Council Member Strauss, you can vote on amendments.

And then if the committee decides after amendments that they'd like to actually make a final recommendation to the City Council, then you can move to suspend the rules before that vote is made by the committee.

Wonderful.

And while I have you, if there is an objection to suspending the rules, does that mean that we take a vote or that just stands?

If there is an objection to the suspension of the rule, then the next step would be an actual vote, which would be a roll call vote by the committee clerk.

Thank you very much, Amelia, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Seattle, always guiding us through the light.

So Council Member Peterson, we will take amendments first, and then I'll ask for that suspension comment at the end.

Thank you for that clarification.

We have two amendments posted to the agenda.

I will be candid, the amendment that I have contains two different subject matters.

And so Ketil Freeman, why don't you walk through that First, I will share with you, with committee members, if one of these provisions is something that the majority of this committee will support, and one of the provisions is something that the majority of the committee would not support, I have a walk-on amendment that can split these out.

I put them together for efficiency purposes.

But with that, I'll pass it over to Ketil Freeman to speak to amendment one.

I'll walk through amendment one here and maybe I'll also just clarify for those folks for the committee and those folks who may be watching that amendment one would amend would reorganize some of the section numbers in the bill.

And that would effectively change with what is amended by Councilmember Peterson's amendment amendment to his amendment which is currently to f1 would essentially be to a revised, a new section, he three so I'm just putting that on everybody's radar for the purposes of clarity so Amendment one a sponsored by Councilmember stress is largely, it's the, it's the reconciliation that I mentioned earlier between Council 120581 and Council Bill 120591 which which just previously voted on.

I would also make some other clarifications.

and technical edits that we think sort of would result in something that better reflects what the executive proposed potentially.

And then finally, this was the substantive change.

I believe that sort of the subject difference that Council Member Strauss mentioned, it would also extend the term of the bill from 12 months to 24 months.

So maybe I'll walk through the reconciliation and technical things first, and then remind you of the extension.

So, on a temporary basis, customer stresses amendment would allow the full suite of departures that are available through design review to apply for to be available to both rented and owned affordable housing as a type one decision so.

Currently, those departures are limited to a specified number and can result in an increase in the size of the building.

This would allow the full suite of departures available through design review to be available to low income housing projects that are both rented and out.

Um, the bill as proposed, um, uh, would allow applicants applicants that elect the performance option under MHA to get the full suite of departures through design review.

There is a small subset of projects that are both subject to, uh, MHA and also sub, but not subject to design review.

So I think small townhouse projects, small apartment buildings.

Um, so the amendment would clarify that the ability to get waivers from development standards that would otherwise be available through design review would only be, um, um, uh, available to those projects that are also otherwise subject to design review.

So, smaller projects that are performing under MHIC would not have the, MHIR would not have the benefit of the full suite of waivers there.

It would also, Um, it would also clarify that the, the performance requirement under MHR, um, uh, uh, would have to be the full performance requirement.

Um, the bill proposed by the executive had some language, which, um, implied that it, that just one unit would be sufficient to get, um, uh, uh, uh, the, um, the design review exemption for MHA performance projects.

And it was the intent of the executive to make it such that, um, that actually be, um, full performance under MHR.

So.

as a clarification to reflect that.

And then finally, just by way of reminder, there's the second sort of subject, which is sort of not a clarification, and that is the extension of the interim regulations from 12 months to 24 months.

Thank you, Ketel.

So colleagues, the technical changes, or the substantive changes, I believe to be technical, it was the executive's intent to have full Perform if you are going to perform that there's full performance.

And I'd like to discuss why I'm recommending changing this from 12 to 24 months.

It is because it takes time for the program to change.

And by the time we get This is a pilot.

This is a, this is an opportunity for us to better understand how these changes impact design review impact design on buildings impact speed on an efficiency and projects.

This is a testing period, and with a 12 month window by the time we're just getting rolling, we end.

Having two years provides us more time.

For me, what I have found in my policy work is it takes four years.

from policy passage to full implementation.

And so this would be half of that when we think about Obamacare.

From the moment Obamacare was passed to the moment where everyone was fully insured as much as the bill presented it to be, it took four years, right?

And so that is why half of that amount of time is what I'm proposing.

I'm not proposing a full four years.

This gives us more time to understand the benefits and drawbacks.

rather than one year, which is why I've settled on two.

Colleagues, are there questions, comments, or concerns on keeping on the amendment?

And are there concerns about having both the substantive, what I believe to be technical changes, and the duration within the same amendment?

Council Member Nelson.

When you were calculating two years or the four years, were you taking into account that hopefully the idea of the changes to design review would lessen the time?

Yes.

The overall changes to design review need to increase efficiency while at the same time increasing community participation.

But as we witnessed even just in the conversation this morning, that's a big ball of wax that's gonna take us some time to unravel.

Thank you.

Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss appreciate you walking us through that and also keto for that explanation.

I certainly relieved that you're fixing that intent about the MHA so that it's fully performing under this and.

Part of my amendment that's coming up is to look for eager to get these reports that we're going to get on how to fix design review.

So I don't feel personally comfortable then removing that or providing that option to the market rate projects for two years.

So I don't know how you want to attempt to bifurcate that or is that what you were thinking about doing?

Yeah, maybe I'll ask the question a little bit more directly.

Are there others than Council Member Peterson who have concerns about having both sections within this one amendment?

Council Member Morales.

Thank you, Chair.

I will say I am feeling rather conflicted as somebody who is interested in making sure that the exemption is there for affordable housing and also having some questions about the market rate.

I suggest we just vote and I think I can support this.

I should maybe just say that I think I'm going to have to abstain on the entire bill because I do have some questions that I would like to have answered, particularly about the plans with the work plan discussion before it gets to full council.

So that will be my plan for today.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

So I'm hearing a majority support for keeping this together.

Council Member Nelson.

Is it okay if you just break them up?

Because I am thinking, I would prefer just breaking it up just so it's easier for me to figure things out.

Nevermind, I withdraw that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions on Amendment 1A?

Seeing none, I move to adopt Amendment 1A.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved in second to adopt Amendment 1A.

Maybe I already did this.

Either way, are there other questions on Amendment 1A?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1A?

Council Member Nelson.

I'm going to have to abstain from this one.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson.

Abstain.

Vice Chair Morales?

Abstain.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Three abstentions, one in favor.

Amelia Sanchez, double checking.

Does that pass?

It does pass.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Amendment 1A is adopted.

Council Member Peterson, Amendment 2, you are, or Amendment 3, I'll, Council Member Peters, floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Strauss I'd like to move amendment to to Council 120581.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Councilmember Peterson's amendment Councilmember Peterson, you are recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you.

And Chair Strauss could I have central staff walk through it and then I can make remarks.

Yeah, keep it free and take it away.

So, amendment to version one to Council 120581 sponsored by Councilmember Peterson.

This would exempt housing projects that meet MHA performance requirements but maintain full design review for those projects that are that could otherwise choose administrative design review.

under Council Bill 120581 by way of reminder, Council Bill 120581 would allow projects subject to administrative design review that are not exempt as MHAR performance projects or affordable housing projects to opt for administrative design review while the bill is in effect so either 12 or 24 months, 24 months.

with the bill as currently amended.

Projects that do opt for ADR could always revert to a full design review if they wanted to.

Projects that are currently vested could also opt to ADR or U-vest under design review if you apply for a mass use permit within a certain period of time after your early design guidance, depending on how many early design guidance meetings you have.

Um, as I mentioned earlier, um, because, uh, council member Strauss's amendment passed, um, there's a little bit of reordering and the bill.

Um, so, uh, the Peterson amendment, um, would effectively be striking.

What is, um, uh, section, uh, E three electing administrative design review, um, uh, from, uh, the Strauss amendment, which just passed.

Thank you.

Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Charles Thank you.

Colleagues, I support a portion of the Council 120581 that provides immediate public benefits which in my opinion are providing the interim relief from full design review for actual low income housing units.

I recall there was even a press release on June 14 that celebrated the benefits of low income housing parts of this council bill.

By adopting my amendment to we can keep this bill targeted to benefit low income housing units, while the executive completes the council mandated review of Seattle's design review program.

including the community outreach, especially to disadvantaged communities.

So while we await the results of the Statement of Legislative Intent, SDCI-004A-001, which requested recommendations for improving Seattle's long-standing design review process, we can still allow today the exemption for affordable housing with my amendment.

But I don't think we should stop the full design review for the two years for for-profit market rate projects until the evaluation reports are complete.

The central staff memo from June 26th daylighted some of the key preliminary findings of one of the consultant's reports.

One of those findings is, and I quote, Design Review is currently the only space for community input.

We caution against doing away with Design Review or replacing it with Technical Design Review without adequately and thoroughly addressing and systematizing We're community members have the opportunity to have their voices heard in the planning permitting building and development process.

I want to thank the people who sent emails to our office urging us to do what we can to make design review work better and faster, and to streamline this bill so it reduces design review just for low income housing.

So as Ketel described, my amendment simply deletes section E3.

And by deleting that section of the amendment, we still allow all affordable housing provisions to move forward.

In addition to being premature and benefiting only for-profit developments, the remnants of what were section F are problematic because they grandfather in certain projects that have already vested prior to the effective date of the proposed ordinance.

I want to thank the department for agreeing to provide a list of those projects we get that full transparency.

Unfortunately, the project subject to the mandatory housing affordability program have constructed only a small percentage of low income housing under the onsite performance option.

Unfortunately, the other section of the bill before us provide a welcome incentive to increase the number of units built quickly onsite.

So we have more inclusive housing projects with low income housing right away.

I don't believe there's a compelling reason now to limit the existing public input on the other for-profit projects by granting a similar exemption from full design review when they will not produce low-income housing units on site.

We're still awaiting that evaluation of design review.

Let's keep this legislation focused on low-income housing units.

Please adopt my amendment too.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Appreciate that.

Council Member Peterson, I appreciate the intent in which you bring the amendment forward today because this is a limited in scope and limited in time pilot to test some of these ideas.

I do think that it is important that we retain the bill as it was transmitted.

So unfortunately I won't be able to support your amendment today and I appreciate the spirit in which you bring it.

Council Member Nelson.

So here's where I'm struggling with this whole thing is today I just became aware that that people representing small businesses are concerned about this, that I heard basically in a nutshell that the director of the university district partnership say that.

Departures could allow for housing on the street level where small businesses add to the vibrancy of the neighborhood so if this, and also the gentleman who I believe was representing the Capitol Hill community said roughly the same thing so now.

I came in here without that concern and now I'm concerned.

So my question is, by requiring full performance, does that mean that it's more likely that projects will end up putting housing on the street level instead of maintaining commercial space?

Mike or Ketel?

Would Council Member Peterson's amendment encourage or discourage street level commercial.

Is that the question I'm not sure that was Councilmember Nelson's question I think she was asking.

I'll get out of the way.

I mean, maybe I misunderstood your question Councilmember Nelson I thought you were asking.

So, I mean, so, with respect to Councilmember Peterson's amendment this essentially maintains the status quo for those projects that are currently subject to full design review so For those projects, they would have public meetings required early public outreach.

If an applicant wanted to locate a residential uses at the street level and that was an available departure, they would have to discuss that with a design review board and the design review board would be reviewing adopted either citywide or neighborhood design guidelines that would make a decision about the departure based on that and incorporating feedback that might include concerns about loss of small business space.

So that process is maintained through Councilmember Peterson's amendment.

If a project is seeking a waiver.

If a project is seeking to perform under MHA.

They wouldn't be subject to designer view at all they'd be completely exempt, and they could.

get any number of waivers otherwise available through design review, including potentially those that have to do with required street level uses and pedestrian designated zones.

To get that departure, the decision by the SDCI director wouldn't be based on design guidelines at all.

It would be based on just solely on the criterion of whether or not additional units, they don't actually have to be affordable units, but just additional residential units, are provided because that waiver was granted.

It is somewhat more likely, who knows how many projects will choose the MHAR exemption that would be available through this legislation, but it is somewhat more likely that there would be some loss of street-level use that might otherwise be provided by a project in a zone where street-level uses are required.

If I might just add to that, please.

It is not allowed under design review for the boards, for the staff if it's done administratively or under the bill before you for the projects that are subject to the MHA performance and the affordable housing to do away with use requirements.

Use is off the table for design review consideration and for departures that the director would be able to consider.

In no case would the director or the board or the design review staff at SDCI be able to just waive the street level use requirements, those would have to be met.

What would be able to be considered and granted would be changes to some of the development standards, such as how much of the width of the building facing the street might have to be filled with that street level retail requirement, but it would still have to have some presence there.

So there could be some changes to it, but it wouldn't be eliminated through the bill.

Are you implying that this whole bill doesn't really impact or reduce either this amendment or this piece of legislation in general does not open the door for the elimination of street level uses because design review, however it is performed, I mean, wrong use of word, but however it is completed does not allow for that decision?

That's right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you Councilmember Nelson.

Other questions on Councilmember Peterson's amendment?

Councilmember Morales.

Thank you.

I am going to be supporting this amendment.

I think as Council Member Peterson has been saying, it makes a lot of sense.

And we have already as a city decided that exempting affordable housing is something we want to do to make sure that those buildings get permitted and processed quickly, more quickly to meet the crisis we have.

But to do it, especially for the in-lieu fee market rate apartments, feels like we are sort of putting the cart before the horse if we are in the process of really reviewing this entire program, really understanding what makes sense and what doesn't make sense.

and whether there is a better way, a more equitable way for us to provide this sort of opportunity to community and make sure that we are moving things forward, then especially this issue of projects that aren't even performing and providing an exemption for that is, in my mind, is not the right step to be taking.

So I will be supporting this amendment and still look forward to the work plan discussion that's coming up.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Other questions or comments on Council Member Peterson's amendment?

Before I turn it back to Council Member Peterson for closing comments, I will, Council Member Morales, your point's well taken.

I will share that the faster that we build market rate housing, the faster we reduce the pressure, the downward pressure on all of our affordable housing and organically affordable housing throughout the city, as well as the in-lieu fees are exactly what we use when building affordable housing throughout the city.

I found this as a personal experience in the St. Luke's project that Dave mooring mentioned earlier 83 units of three two and three bedroom unit apartments was funded by in lieu fees that were paid by the townhomes up the street.

These are the realities before us today.

Councilmember Peterson, closing comments on your amendment.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, just want to urge.

We're so close to getting these reports on how to fix design review, make it faster, make it better, make it more inclusive.

So I really urge support for my amendment.

This will exempt for affordable housing, the full design review, and then we'll have time to look at the other types of projects.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Nelson, you hand.

Just to note that the explanation about preserving commercial space for small business at the floor level does, your amendment passed already.

I just would like to say that I am less concerned about your amendment.

And so I would have voted yes, knowing that, but it's passed already and so fine.

And so I will be supporting this one as well.

Thank you.

No further comments.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment two.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

No.

Three in favor, one opposed.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Amendment two is adopted to Council Bill 120581. Seeing as committee is going long, we still have another presentation.

I'm gonna hold the fourth presentation until next week.

Are there any final comments before we call the roll call on Council Bill?

Oh, we have to go back to suspending the rules.

If there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow the committee to vote on Council Bill 120581 on the same day as the public hearing.

Hearing no objection the council rules suspended.

Will the clerk please call the roll on Council Bill 120581 as amended.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales.

Abstain.

Chair Strauss.

No.

Two in favor, one opposed, one abstention.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Amendment two is adopted to Council Bill 120581. Now, the bill passes as amended.

Sorry.

The bill passes as amended.

The bill passes.

Council Bill 120581 as amended passes.

This bill will be sent to the July 5th, 2023 City Council meeting for a final vote.

Moving on to the congratulations everyone for your hard work, moving on to the next agenda item, item number three.

This is an agenda item briefing discussion accounts but 120592 which amends amends land use code for rooftops and Pioneer Square.

Clerk, will you read the short title into the record and then I'm going to pass it directly to Lish and Gordon Clowers to discuss this bill before us.

For the viewing public, we are going to hold the conversation on the Transportation Maritime Resolution for the next week.

Clerk, will you please read the short title and then Lish, take it away.

Item 3, Council Bill 120592, Pioneer Square Rooftops for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

And in the interest of time, I'll hand it over to Gordon and mention that I have a memo on this item.

It's scheduled to be considered at next week's meeting.

OK, well, thank you.

Can you see the presentation on the screen?

Yes, OK.

So we're here today to talk about Pioneer Square Rooftop Code amendments, and these are going now.

Oh, there we go.

Okay, here's our purpose and value slide for SDCI, just noting that purpose, helping to build a safe and livable and inclusive Seattle.

Our proposal goal for today is These are the overall objectives to add more flexibility to the land use code while remaining compatible with the preservation district character.

We want to take actions that will support neighborhood revitalization and amenities, particularly in Pioneer Square.

And we're looking to clarify correct and standardized guidance on rooftop features, codes for downtown as well as Pioneer Square in particular.

And this will be clear as I go through the presentation.

So last year we passed rooftop code reforms across the entire city that allowed more coverage of roofs for the mix of uses and mechanical equipment and so on that needs to be present going forward with the energy code.

For Pioneer Square in particular, we defined some new kinds of rooftop penthouse uses as allowable, and those included lodging, hotel uses, and eating and drinking establishments.

And also we allowed for these kinds of rooftop penthouses to be placed on historic buildings that are less than 60 feet in height and on smaller lots.

This was broadening the possibility for penthouse uses on rooftops.

And we also allowed the retrofit of newer buildings that have been built since 2008 with rooftop recreational amenity spaces.

So the amendments proposed today are relatively straightforward and two kinds of improvements and clean up to make the code more consistent.

We would like to standardize rooftop uses and height limit possibilities across the kinds of buildings, kinds of uses in Pioneer Square.

And in particular, we would raise the height limit from a current 12 foot maximum height for rooftop penthouses to from 12 feet up to 15 feet maximum.

And this would be for historic buildings.

Any proposal for these kinds of uses would be subject to recommendation by the district board.

And just to note that 15 foot height limits are typical for all the zones in downtown and really most zones across the city for rooftop features.

The second kind of amendments proposed here is to allow for a mix of eating and drinking establishments as commercial uses to be present on the buildings that have been built since 2008. That would provide more consistency for this kind of use to be present on buildings of all ages in Pioneer Square.

And to support that, we would increase the coverage limit on that kind of building from 45% to 50%.

And that would also bring consistency in the coverage limits for these kinds of uses.

So to expand just a little bit on the rooftop uses on non-historic sites or buildings, It would, the amendment action, the effect of the amendment for this uses to allow the rooftop commercial use to be present.

Currently the code does not allow for this kind of commercial use to be present on these newer buildings.

And the, that's, That was just sort of an artifact of the code for these recreational spaces as it became allowed within the last 10 years.

So we want to consciously decide to allow the commercial use on these rooftop uses in these newer buildings.

And like I say, with a minor increase in roof coverage from 45% to 50%.

These kinds of buildings also have green requirements and amenity requirements for tenants of the building.

And those would still have to be met.

So the new kind of eating and drinking establishment use would not impair the provision of the required provision of green and amenity improvements.

So these are the main kinds of categories of change in this bill.

And this is the areas that would be affected.

The buildings built since 2008 are shown in yellow on this map.

There are five of those non-historic buildings, which are mainly garage.

Buildings that are non-historic are shown in red.

These are future candidate sites for new infill development.

And they would be eligible to have these kinds of rooftop features as well.

Then there are a couple of vacant properties, long-time vacant properties that could also be the site of future development that would be eligible for this eating and drinking establishment use on newer buildings.

That's the short version of our presentation and willing to answer any questions or throw it over to Lish.

Thanks.

Lish, do you have?

Anything to add to Gord?

I mean, that was pretty comprehensive presentation, so yeah, happy to answer any questions either today or before next week's meeting.

Wonderful.

Gordon, it was a robust presentation.

That was your long version, and I know that to be true.

Colleagues, this legislation before us today is effectively cleanup legislation from a bill that we passed in 2022, which made assumptions that these changes would be allowed within the parcels before us, the 11 parcels within the Pioneer Square Historic District.

People who are working within government and other places have had confusion about the legislation that we have passed in 2022, which is why we have the bill today before us to provide that clarification in an outright fashion.

And so that is why I'm approaching this as technical cleanup, because it had been assumed it was included.

There has been confusion.

And so now we are stating it outright.

And it affects 11 parcels total.

Colleagues, are there questions?

Seeing no questions, Gordon, we will have you back with us next Thursday on July 6th, my late grandmother's birthday.

And so we will be excited to see you then.

Gordon or Lish, anything to add before we close this agenda item?

Seeing none, we will move on.

And Amelia Sanchez, I'm going to call on you.

Since we are 10 minutes over time and we are going to take up the Maritime and Industrial Transportation Resolution at the next meeting, do I need to open it or can I just close the meeting since it is attached and itemized on our agenda?

Council Member Strauss, at this time, if you're done with the discussion for this draft resolution, you can adjourn the meeting.

Wonderful, and so I'm gonna just comment on the draft resolution.

This had been intended to join the package at full council on July 18th.

There's quite a bit more work to be done.

We wanted to present you with the base draft today.

We will be within the next week or next or coming weeks, additional information attached to this resolution.

This is intended to accompany the maritime and industrial zoning changes.

And at this rate, we will likely be passing it in September.

And so we will hear it.

You have attached to the agenda today, the base version.

We will attach another version next week.

We will have conversations with stakeholders in the months of July and August, and then we will take final passage in September.

With that, if there's anything for the good of the order.

Seeing none, this concludes the Wednesday, June 28th, 2023 land use committee meeting.

The next land use committee meeting is a special meeting on July 6th at 9 30 AM.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.