Land Use Committee Special Meeting Session - 5/15/23

2023 special meeting of the land use committee will come to order it is 2pm to a 1pm I'm Dan Strauss chair of the committee.

For the record Councilmember mosquito has been excused will the clerk please call the role.

Councilmember Nelson present.

Councilmember Peterson present.

Vice Chair Morales.

Chair Strauss present or present.

Thank you.

The, we have six items on today's agenda, as usual, because we are taking up the industrial maritime maritime and industrial strategy with our zoning changes.

For the record, these five bills are accounts bill 120520 briefing on.

Sorry, 120567 through 120571, which is the briefing discussion on maritime and industrial lands packages.

120567 is a briefing on making changes to 23.50 a in the SMC comprehensive plan amendments, the new zoning maps and discussion on amending chapter 23.50.

and modifying sound limits.

We also have a briefing and discussion today, no vote on Council Bill 120520, a brief on the land use regulation regarding home occupations known as bringing business home, which was passed during the pandemic.

This will just be a briefing and discussion for today.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

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

We will have two minutes for public comment.

Clerk, will you please play the video?

Hello, Seattle.

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

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

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

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At that time, you must press star six.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Seattle.

Thank you, and we have two members of the public remotely present today, Colleen McClure and Morgan Ariello.

We will open public comment.

First up is Colleen McAleer.

Colleen, I see you're there, star six.

And there you are at your convenience.

Welcome.

Welcome Chair Strauss and City Council members.

Colleen McAleer here for the residents of our Community Council in Seattle.

We support the home business concepts of CB 12520, which can provide opportunities for entrepreneurial ventures.

and some income in the neighborhood residential zones without creating negative impacts on adjacent neighbors.

There's been many successful startups that happened in a garage or home office and many services can be ongoing and provided in the home such as personal therapies, accounting, small child care units, many more.

Looking at the language in section F on the bill, more clarifying language is needed before allowing the category of automotive retail sales and services.

It states that they shall not substantially increase on-street parking congestion or substantially increase traffic within the immediate vicinity.

Section G is more clear, and it prohibits more than three vehicles on the site.

But neither of those sections prohibit a business from dumping, say, half-repaired cars or housing a significant inventory of vehicle sales or rentals, and also in the neighborhood areas.

For example, you might have some car service like a car detailer, where a mobile detailer storages supplies at home but goes off-site to repair the actual, clean the actual vehicle.

So there's no impacts and there's no surplus vehicles.

However, an on-site operator for repair or a detailer performs same services at the home and generates a lot of impacts on the neighbors with extra storage in the streets or cleaning at all hours.

So the same is true for the automotive rental services and sales, because they require large inventories of excess cars, tending to be parked on the streets in the vicinity of the sites, which displaces scarce parking that's available for other small businesses, for example, a childcare, which needs to pick up and drop off and residents.

So the ask is that CB 120.520 needs to be clarified and amended about site-based automotive services and sales so that they don't have impacts on the

Thank you, Colleen.

And please do feel free to send in any additional comments.

Up next, we have Morgan Ariello.

Morgan, you have two minutes.

I see you're here.

Star six to unmute.

There you are.

Good afternoon.

Hi there.

Good afternoon.

Thank you so much, Council.

And thank you, Colleen.

I do want to echo basically what Colleen has talked about.

I did send an email directly to Councilmember Alex and Dan Strauss and just kind of I'll reiterate a little bit of that but basically for Section F and Section G as Colleen was just talking about related to auto definitely needs more clarification and specification.

I can just say from personal experience I live next to somebody that runs a car business out of their home and It you know there's just easy ways for people to kind of bend these bills and rules and stuff like that.

So for instance there's noise at all hours of the day and night 24-7 weekends.

A lot of times too because that's when Seattle City isn't patrolling for issues related to noise and things.

It it's it's impacting my family and my way of life.

There's car traffic that comes and goes at all times of the day and night, which I'm scared that, you know, with that increased congestion, my child is going to be hit by a vehicle, things like that.

So there's sort of like unforeseen consequences, essentially, to not giving more clarification to this.

because there are bad apples out there that essentially will take every scrap they get to make it an unsafe place to live, not favorable place to live.

And it's been very taxing.

So the other thing that's been pretty bad, 10 seconds.

Anyway, exhaust fumes, you name it.

It's noisy, it's loud, and it's unsafe.

Thanks.

Thank you, and we have no further public comment.

And so seeing as we have no additional speakers remotely present, we will move on to the next agenda item.

I will move to amend the agenda to put items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 ahead of item 1 because our focus is the maritime and industrial zoning changes.

And so if there's no objection, we will amend the agenda to put item 1 at the end of the agenda.

Hearing no objection, we will come back to 120520 at the end.

For our primary reason of being here are the next five agenda items on the agenda are briefing and discussion on Council Bills 120567 through 120571, the Maritime and Industrial strategy zoning changes.

We will read these bills into the record together.

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

And I know some of the language is a bit confusing, but just a little briefer on, a little primer, I should say, on each bill's name.

Thank you.

Council Bill 120567, a briefing and discussion on changing Chapter 23.58 in the SMC.

Council Bill 120568, a briefing and discussion on the annual 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

Council Bill 120569, a briefing and discussion on creating a new zoning map.

Council Bill 120570, a briefing and discussion on amending Chapter 23.50.

And council bill 120571, a briefing and discussion on modifying exterior, exterior sound limits within the bend.

Thank you.

This is a continuation of our discussion on the industrial maritime conversation, and I realized I don't have my schedule before me right now, but what I do know.

is that amendments are due this Wednesday, Sintamay, which is May 17th.

So colleagues, please, if you have amendments that you would like to put forward into this legislation, they are due by this week.

Again, amendments at full council will not be welcome.

And At the end of this, I will come back and share the schedule again clerk if you could put that in right now.

I'm going to give us a primer on today's discussion today is a continuation of our discussion on the maritime and industrial legislation.

The last week we heard directly from Office of Planning and Community Development.

This week we will be hearing directly from our central staff and our Planning Commission.

And so today we have Vanessa Murdoch, the Executive Director of the Planning Commission, to provide the Planning Commission's recommendations.

Mikayla Daffern, the Co-Chair of the Planning Commission, was supposed to join us today and unfortunately cannot attend.

We will be then followed by a presentation from Lish Whitson.

Our council central staff will outline issue identification.

Jeff Wetland and Jim Holmes from the Office of Planning and Community Development are here with us today again to assist with answering any questions.

move on first to the Planning Commission.

Up first we have Vanessa Murdock, Executive Director of the Planning Commission.

Welcome, Vanessa.

Before she begins, I want to let you know that the Planning Commission's recommendations are only for the comprehensive plan amendments, which is Council Bill 120568. And without further ado, Vanessa, welcome.

Take it away.

Thank you, Chair Strauss and members of the committee.

Really appreciate the opportunity to share with you the recommendations of the Seattle Planning Commission, a 16-member volunteer body appointed by you and the mayor.

I have a very brief presentation, happy to walk through it.

Just a reminder that one of the roles of the Planning Commission is to review proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan.

This typically takes place on an annual basis.

To that end, we released recommendations on this year's proposed amendments under consideration by this committee on April 24th of this year.

And I'd like to note that the Planning Commission has a continued interest in preserving Seattle's industrial maritime lands, beginning with a report released in 2007 titled The Future of Seattle's Industrial Lands.

And with that, I'll give a brief overview of our recommendations.

First of all, I would like to say that the commission commends the work of OPCD, Office of Planning and Community Development, as well as that of the stakeholders who were involved and have been involved in a multi-year process developing the industrial maritime strategy.

The comp plans that I will speak to today, comp plan amendments, I should say, that I'll speak to today are part of the implementation package for that strategy.

Planning Commission strongly supports the comp plan amendments, in particular, limiting changes in industrial land designation to the comprehensive major update process, which occurs every seven years, or a comprehensive review of all industrial and maritime lands, as opposed to the annual comp plan amendment process.

We support the transition to the three new zones that have been proposed and support the transitions that support healthy communities, reduce adverse environmental impacts and minimize land use conflicts in the UI zone.

also support restricting non-industrial uses, as noted in the comp plan amendments, that removes a few loopholes that were present in the comp plan that allowed for non-industrial uses in our industrial maritime lands, such as surface parking lots, storage units, and big box retailers.

I'm pleased to note that since the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes, the two minor changes that we had proposed have already been made by the and are reflected in the text you have before you.

We had suggested using more definitive language.

noting to limit parking rather than consider limit parking, that has been done.

We also proposed in LU10.8, there is a mistake on the slide, it should not be 6.8, but rather 8, to reword housing that is targeted to workers to housing that is intended for workers, and the proposed language for your consideration today addresses our concerns.

Lastly, I would just like to note that in the planning commission's letter that we released in April 24th of this year, we did note other opportunities within the industrial maritime strategy that could be implemented in other arenas other than this annual amendment cycle.

Those include equity, forwarding equity and environmental justice, addressing some transportation issues that occur in industrial maritime areas that could be addressed perhaps through the upcoming Seattle Transportation Plan, climate change and resiliency, shoreline areas, and cultural resources.

I won't speak to those specifically right now because those are outside of the annual comp plan amendment process.

Happy to answer any questions and thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you.

And on, I believe it was slide four, maybe if we could slip back there.

Thank you, this is very helpful.

Either for you or for Lish, just checking in here, making this change, thank you for understanding, seeing that your change was already made and striking it out, I appreciate that.

My question is about rewording targeted to workers, to intended for workers.

Will this have a substantive change or will this accomplish the same goal?

I think it accomplishes the same goal.

The language in the legislation in front of you just says for workers, which I think addresses their concern.

And so, no further changes would be necessary at this time.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Colleagues, are there other questions for Vanessa?

This was a shorter presentation than we're used to, and I think that's because of the Planning Commission's diligent and focused work on this.

Any questions?

No?

I'm seeing no questions.

Vanessa, you have stunned us into silence, which is rare here at City Council.

Well, thank you.

You're more than welcome to stick around, or if you need to leave, you're welcome to leave.

We love having you here.

Thank you, I will stay for this portion of the agenda and then I will excuse myself from the table, thank you.

Please, thank you.

Well, up next is Lish Whitson with Council Central staff to give us issue identification analysis.

Lish, we are in such good hands with your stewardship here and I'll let you take it away.

Thank you.

All right, so as a reminder, you have five separate bills in front of you.

They are interconnected and interdependent.

We have the 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

Council Bill 120567 is sort of the heart of the legislation, includes land use code text amendments, including a new industrial chapter 2350A, which creates new industrial zones, maritime manufacturing and logistics, industrial innovation and urban industrial.

You have a Bill 120569 that applies those new zones across the city, across the city's industrial areas.

You have a bill related to noise ordinance amendments, and you have another bill that takes the provisions for the industrial commercial zone, which will remain outside of our manufacturing industrial centers and moves them to the new Chapter 2350A.

Following on adoption of this legislation, your work will not be complete.

There will need to be some additional cleanup legislation that comes in the future that will delete the existing Chapter 2350. As a reminder, the proposal in front of you is built on the recommendations of the Industrial and Maritime Council convened by Mayor Durkin and implemented by Mayor Harrell, particularly seven of their recommendations.

Supporting environmental justice and climate action, stronger protections for industrially zoned land, high-density industrial development, particularly near light rail stations in the industrial areas, providing healthier transition areas near urban villages between industrial areas and residential areas, no new or limited residential uses within industrial areas, Um, and that's kind of a core recommendation.

Um, we know that residences near industrial areas can have, uh, poor outcomes for their residents.

Um, particularly low income and black indigenous people of color communities near industrial areas have lower life spans than, um, residents of other parts of the city.

Um, And residents in those areas are on the receiving end of a wide range of negative industrial impacts.

So noise, air pollution, vibrations, dust are all consequences of living near industrial areas that are not experienced by other residents of the city.

We do have to lower income residential communities in and surrounded by residential zoning, Georgetown South Park, and the recommendations include some specific ideas that those neighborhoods lifted up during this process.

And then there are two state owned facilities in the industrial lands that are.

over the medium term going to have new lives, hopefully.

The Waska site near the stadiums and the Interbay Armory site are both up for future master planning processes.

The comprehensive plan amendments reflect those strategies.

They set the policy basis for new zoning regulations, including the three new zones.

They change the boundaries of the Dwamish manufacturing industrial center and Georgetown and South Park, and remove industrial designations and Judkins Park, and they include a new policy that restricts future changes to industrial areas.

The council has adopted a policy that guides review of proposals to change comprehensive plan policies.

That resolution 31807 includes criteria that the council uses to determine whether or not an amendment proposal is appropriate for consideration and includes timelines for that consideration.

If the policy recommended to restrict future changes to industrial areas is adopted, the council should follow that action up with changes to Resolution 31807 to reflect that new policy.

And you may also want to, in the future, amend the rezone criteria to also reflect this direction.

Thank you, Lish.

It's my understanding that the policy content that we have before us has already been docketed.

With this new need to docket, can you remind me what our schedule for our docketing resolutions is?

Yeah.

We are not having a call for amendments this year or next year because of the major update to the conference plan that's currently underway.

If people have ideas for the conference plan, they should be contacting the Office of Planning Community Development and engaging in the major update work that they are doing.

So we would be looking at next round of potential conference plan docketing consideration in 2025.

Great, and is there a concern with the lapse of time between now and then, or should we be within the four corners of our laws?

It is a voluntary process that the city undertakes.

We do need to review and update our plan at least every 10 years now, or there's a required review every five years under current state law.

It has changed a lot over the last few years.

and every 10 years we are required to do a major review of the plan.

Wonderful.

Thank you for that additional information.

Colleagues, any questions on this issue?

Council Member Peterson.

Just to clarify, the comprehensive plan amendments, these are the annual amendments to the comprehensive plan?

They are the annual amendments, and this year the only annual amendments that are in front of the council are those related to industrial areas.

But we could put additional amendments forward if we wanted to, couldn't we?

Yeah, we try and limit those to things that have been docketed in the past, but there are a number of other amendments that have been docketed that are currently not in front of the council.

Okay, thank you.

Not seeing any other questions.

Lish, please.

The next bill I'd like to talk about are the land use code text amendments.

I have three issues here.

The first is related to the industry and innovation zone.

The II zone includes floor area bonuses for that provide an incentive for the creation of industrial space.

For traditional industrial uses, a building in the II zone can build five square feet of non-industrial space for every square foot of industrial space that they provide.

Bill also proposes that there be an incentive for information computer technology in the zone.

So instead of providing space for traditional industry, warehousing, manufacturing, logistics, a developer could provide information computer technology uses at a rate of one square foot for every four square feet of commercial space in a project.

For traditional industry, you would get five square feet in your building.

For ICT uses, you would get four square feet in your building.

Questions for the council to consider are, does this incentive for ICT space?

computer technology office space predominantly, is it likely to be more attractive to a developer than traditional industrial space?

Do you want to provide that incentive for that sort of high employment, high wage employment as part of this incentive structure?

And secondly, and more technically, space built for traditional industrial uses is given a bigger bonus than space built for ICT businesses.

And the code is unclear about what happens if a space that was originally built for traditional industry is occupied by ICT uses in the future.

So I would recommend clarifying the relationship between the two different bonuses and whether or not ICT uses could move into a space that was originally built for traditional industrial uses.

Questions.

Council Member Nelson.

There's a stakeholder process that went into the development of this.

And so I'm assuming that because it is there, there wasn't significant opposition.

Right.

So the stakeholder process resulted in the broad strategies that you see in front of you, then the executive has taken those broad strategies.

and applied them here.

We're not hearing a lot of comments from the public on this.

Public hearing is next Wednesday.

But at this point, there does seem to be significant support for these proposals.

And Council Member Nelson, that's a really good question.

I can tell you, we were generally looking at the broad strokes during that stakeholder process and that this level of detail, I don't know that we fleshed out so clearly.

So I'll be doing a little bit more research and Lish, I think this is a really important thing to flag for us.

Vice Chair Morales, I see your hand.

Thank you.

Just sort of in line with this question, It is a question of how this conversation came about.

So, you know, I know this has been a longstanding discussion to get us to this point, but if this is something that wasn't specifically part of the conversation in the last couple of years, Liz, can you talk a little bit about what led to the inclusion of this as part of the recommendation?

And Lish, I might pivot that question back to OPCD since they developed the proposal.

Jeff or Jim, are you available right now to jump in?

Jeff, I see your camera on.

Sure, I can start a response and others can add.

This zone is focused at the light rail stations and the stakeholder advisory group discussed employment density in those places.

And there was also general discussion about how industry today is not what it was traditionally.

So a lot of the emerging sectors that we see are, you know, things in aerospace or clean energy, for example, and a lot of the work in those fields is on computers, it doesn't really require movement of, you know, large equipment or that sort of thing.

It often is, you know, looks similar to things, activities that could occur in an office.

So this definition distinguishes between information computer technology type uses from other office type uses like finance or a law firm or something like that.

So we've narrowed with this definition to sort of a future oriented concept of industry.

That's, you know, a lot of our technology and its development, um, would fall under this category.

And, you know, so we, this was a faithful attempt to try to, um, interpret the broad strokes of the advisory committee into how it could be implemented in these areas.

Um, And also the feasibility is an important factor here.

This is something of a new concept in terms of stacked high density industry and employment.

So we got feedback from the development community and property owners that having the ability to do ICT could help generate investment sooner.

So those are some of the factors we looked at.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Any other questions on that?

Anything more to dig into?

Well, it's an interesting question.

I mean, I really support the idea of creating space for, as industry is changing, as the kind of allied Technology and ancillary services are also changing and may be more computer dependent, the idea of creating space to allow for capacity for high density I particularly high wage employment is really appealing.

I can certainly say I would love to see that sort of allowance and and investment and encouragement of development in the south end Rainier Beach could certainly benefit from having high density, high wage employment.

And so I'm really interested in understanding what all of that means better.

And given that what we're talking about this in this particular case, in the context of of industrial lands, I'm still just wondering a little bit what it means for.

for creating what sounds like is basically office space or allowing for more office space in an area that we're trying to protect as industrial land.

So I'm happy to keep talking about this offline.

I'm just sort of thinking out loud about all the impacts that this conversation, this question is having for me and I wanna support it and I have more questions.

Thank you vice chair and I think that the crux of what you're talking about here in the industrial lands, especially is that the first floor is retained for some sort of industrial or employment, job creation, family way job creation, whereas then the office space above is is able to be built because we're preserving that light industrial use on the first floor list did you have anything that you wanted to share here.

No.

All right.

Well, colleagues, if there are no further questions, we'll move on to the next slide.

All right.

As was just discussed, actually, the bill does provide for increases in floor area for commercial uses.

It increases the maximum floor area ratio in both urban industrial and industrial innovation zones.

And the numbers are on that table.

Both are sort of coupled with programs that couple the creation of industrial space with the commercial use.

So you just heard about the industrial innovation zone program.

For the urban industrial area, there is a requirement that there be 20% of a floor area in a industrial use and up to 80% of the building can be in one or more commercial uses related to that industrial use.

It'd be called an ancillary use.

So for both of these zones, we are seeing significant increases in maximum floor area for commercial uses.

And the question I'm raising is should the mandatory housing affordability program applied to commercial floor area in these areas.

OPCD has said in the past that they did not look at MHA.

because of the incentives being focused on the creation of industrial space.

So applying MHA would increase the costs of developing the commercial space and potentially reduce the amount of industrial space that these programs would create.

Thank you, Lish.

Jeff, I'll give you a kind of a 10-second warning.

I'm about to ask you a question, which is, In this, excuse me, in this conversation, where we would have usually used mandatory housing affordability as in a public benefit in return to the changes that we are seeing in this cases, we have chosen different programs to focus on and that's for mass timber and preservation of unreinforced masonry.

Colleagues, you may or may not know industrial zones and other areas throughout our city have a lot of unreinforced masonry which is vulnerable to seismic activities and the cost of reinforcing these buildings is very high and without doing so we are we have a public safety risk in our city and so Jeff I just could you briefly explain why we have chosen these two programs to fund with the with the public benefits of making changes in the industrial lands and then I'm going to ask a follow-up question but Jeff if you could take it away.

Yes um I would add To your list importantly, that the bona fide industrial space and quality employment opportunities that come with that is also considered a.

A public benefit, um, and, uh, you know, investment and upgrading infrastructure.

In these areas where it's lacking, um.

So those I would add, in addition to what you mentioned, there's an additional incentive for.

preservation of unreinforced masonry structures, upgrading them to a safe standard, or the use of mass timber construction, which has sustainability benefits.

So those features are incentivized in the proposal.

Additional reasons why we didn't recommend MHA here are because MHA currently is not applied to industrial zones.

The primary intent of this package is to strengthen and grow our industrial and maritime sectors.

And we don't currently have MHA on industrial development.

So that's sort of a continuation.

Although as Lish notes, this would, in some cases, create more capacity for commercial development as well.

I understand that.

And lastly, OPCD funded a third-party feasibility evaluation that looked at a number of prototypes.

And under today's conditions, most of those prototypes were marginally feasible at best.

Many, you know, several were not feasible under existing conditions.

Our analysis from an outside consultant showed that it's going to take some time for some of these, these development forms to become more viable.

And, uh, you know, adding the cost of MHA on, on top of that would prolong that timeline.

So those are some of the factors we considered.

Jeff, that was really helpful.

I'm going to ask you a follow-up question, kind of plain, um, In plain language, what you just said is you had an outside analyst analyze the prototypes and which could be feasible.

Those prototypes are marginally feasible at best.

I'm going to repeat that in a different way and ask you if what I've said is correct.

Another way to say that is you had outside analysts analyze what types of these buildings could be built with the funding structures that we have right now, so in the plainest language possible, are these building types able to be built today from the market standpoint?

Is that what you were saying?

Yes.

OK, great.

And so just taking that one step further with using these incentives for mass timber and preservation and the retrofitting of unreinforced masonry buildings, those are important.

Programs that we need to fund if we were to.

So what I heard was the building types that are currently being analyzed are are able to be built, but there's a very slim margin for that success.

If we were to add MHA on top of this, that would put it over the line and really determine that this would not be a feasible project to build.

Is that a correct understanding?

Yes, I generally concur with that.

Great.

And I see that even though Council Member Mosqueda was excused, she is showing up.

Welcome, Council Member Mosqueda.

We are always happy to have you.

I have no further questions on this slide anyone else.

Seeing none, wish you please you're rolling right through this.

Right.

Um, the bill is not predominantly a housing strategy, it is a industrial employment strategy but it will allow us for more housing in and near our industrial areas.

Part of the proposal includes noise attenuation requirements for new dwelling units in Georgetown and the new urban industrial zone.

Question for the council is, should those noise attenuation requirements apply more broadly to other commercial areas in the near industrial zones, for example, area in Ballard, west of 24th along Market Street is being rezoned it's, it'll be a block away from industrial zoning should noise attenuation be required in that area as well.

And then are there other requirements that could reduce the environmental impacts of living near industrial uses.

The bill does require street trees and landscaping in the urban industrial and industrial innovation zones.

Should those requirements also apply in the maritime manufacturing and logistics zone.

should residences be required to have air conditioning, which will reduce indoor air pollution in those residences and can be accomplished through heat pumps, which are more and more becoming a heat source in Seattle.

And there are other ways to mitigate environmental impacts listed in my memo.

Wonderful.

This was all very clear to me.

Essentially, you're asking, should we extend the tree ordinance to industrial maritime lands?

My answer is yes.

We'll get to that later.

And then also raising, should the noise mitigations, thicker windows, more insulation be extended and require air conditioning?

I think these are important things.

Colleagues, are there any questions?

Council Member Nelson.

Is this the only opportunity to just to speak to housing in general?

in this meeting or is there going to be?

I think we can bring up general topics at the end.

You can speak to it right now.

I'll bring it up again.

This is a less pressurized meeting than I think we've had in a long time.

So as you like.

Yeah, this is the last slide on this bill.

So the next one is going to go to another topic.

Well, actually a related topic, but there are so many bills.

That's my thing.

I don't know where the best place is to just Go ahead.

I'll wait until you're done with this.

Okay.

So moving on to Council Bill 120571. This bill will allow for higher noise levels near the Ballard Inner Bay North and Manufacturing Industrial Center shoreline.

So higher noise levels in residential and commercial areas in Queen Anne, Magnolia, and Ballard predominantly.

And the question is, would you want to also apply those noise attenuation requirements in new development near those areas?

Should note that many of those areas are multi-family and the code section that would accommodate this change is not part of any of the bills.

So a new title would need to be introduced in order to make this change.

Okay.

It's very helpful.

Colleagues, any questions on this slide?

Seeing none, I think we'll

So as Chair Strass has mentioned, please provide me with lists of any amendments that you would like considered Wednesday by five o'clock.

I'm available to talk at any time through those.

They do not need to be fully fleshed out, but they do need to be things that you will be comfortable making public the following Monday.

This is a complicated set of legislation.

We will need to make sure that the bills are internally consistent.

Amendments to the Land Use Code bill or rezones may require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan bill or vice versa.

Our manufacturing industrial centers, which are most of the industrial areas, are designated at a regional level.

There are regional standards that we must comply with.

And there's a final environmental impact statement that's been published for this study.

Amendments should be within the range of issues studied in that FEIS.

And finally, any rezones should be consistent with the rezone criteria for the zones that are proposed.

And if you're considering a rezone that isn't consistent, we can look at changing those rezone criteria that are being added to the code.

And I think that's it for my presentation.

Wonderful.

And I would like to open this up to colleagues.

Jeff Wetland, I'm going to kind of give you a 10 second warning as well.

Again, we might have questions for you.

I do.

One of the reasons that we have had a continual round of these presentations coming to our committee and providing enough space to get through each conversation is so that if questions come up along the way we have the ability to ask them on the record.

And so I do see Council Member Nelson and then Vice Chair Morales.

Council Member Nelson.

Thanks so last September, after years of process that I'm sure that you're involved in a lot of that OPCD issued the industrial maritime final EIS and the preferred alternative advanced a new land use zone called urban industrial for transition areas like the stadium district.

That would allow a limited amount of housing, and some of it could be affordable, and I dug into the FDIC and the description of the housing component of the preferred alternative reads on page three dash three at.

for Soto Stadium, an additional 644 housing units are added to the sub area under the preferred alternative.

This is within the range of the alternatives in the draft EIS, which looked at a growth of 32 units under alternative 2 and 990 units in alternative 4. And so that's what that document says.

And when I was briefed by the director and his staff, I expressed support because bringing a limited amount of housing to the stadium area would add life.

It would provide a place for the workers who are working in that area to live because much of it would be Workforce, however, that is defined, but I believe it is up to it's either 80 or 90 up to 120, but that can be worked out.

But the point is, the idea was to create a really vibrant arts and light industrial zone.

And so, in March, the Housing Development Consortium, Public Facilities District, the Public Stadium Authority, the Alliance for Pioneer Square, and the Seattle Chinatown and International District Preservation and Development Authority.

The Pioneer Square Residence Council and Historic Downtown all sent a letter to the mayor that the council was copied on saying, we support housing here because our neighborhoods could benefit, roughly speaking.

They say, we hope that you agree there's real opportunity here adopting a proposal put forth by Seattle OPCD would allow the stadium district to become a thriving maker's district and accommodate light manufacturing, et cetera.

So I don't know what changed between March or last September and now but now housing as you know is not included in the stadium overlay district.

I've asked questions about that.

And on May 10, just this past week the Seattle King County Building and Construction Trades Council issued a letter.

In support of the general stadium overlay, let's see, let me read this.

It's in support of the stadium district and specifically it called out the component of housing and it says, the inclusion of workforce housing in the project is another critical element of this proposal.

The cost and scarcity of housing in the Seattle region is a true crisis and this development would be a part of critically needed solutions.

So my question because I read about what how our amendments have to be consistent with the regulatory environment that we're working within is, since housing was part of the FBI yes, and these people that have been involved in this process for a long time are calling for it and must know something about the regulatory environment that we're working within.

Would an amendment calling for putting housing back into the stadium district be consistent or not consistent?

Is that the point?

That is what I'm asking.

As part of the alternatives studied under the FEIS, yes, there is no environmental review impediments to doing that.

I'll need to go back and look at the comprehensive plan policies that are proposed, and it may be that those would need to be amended as well as the zoning regulations in order to do that.

But that's definitely within the range of things we can do and consider.

But it's conceivable that they wouldn't have put it in the FEIS if it was inconsistent.

probably, I'm imagining.

And Lish, I think we need to have Jeff answer this question, just because they're from OPCD and then Council Member Nelson, I'm happy to provide some additional context that I provided at the last meeting as well.

But Jeff, if you want to answer, I don't want to, I know I like to play department staff on TV, but it's really not my job.

Okay, I'll provide a brief response, which is what Lish said.

Yes, the EIS looked at some housing in the stadium area.

So an amendment along those lines would be in the bookends of environmental review.

And OPCD understands some of those goals of the stadium area, and there's some valid points there.

When we were preparing the legislation between the final EIS and today, you know, heard additional input and met with Mayor Harrell and Mayor Harrell decided that ultimately the proposal he wanted to send down would not have the housing in the stadium area.

And the reason for that is giving strong deference to the maritime industrial community who felt that that would be too close to container port terminals.

And because there are big questions that are unresolved currently about Terminal 46 and the future of the Coast Guard, and it would be difficult to make a change along those lines when we have those outstanding questions.

Those are some of the factors we considered there.

Clerk, if you could pull up the presentation from our last meeting and go back to that slide with the Waska site.

Council Member Nelson, I'll share with you what I shared at committee last time.

Can I ask him 1 follow up to what he just said is, are there questions that have arisen on the, um, on that peer that you just mentioned that were not present.

Before are there any problems.

Well, yes, in the sense that, um.

They're seeking to release the peer to a container port operator.

And so there's considerable uncertainty around that.

And we didn't know as much about that.

Jeff, I'm going to stop you here because it's, you don't need to speak on behalf of the port council member Nelson.

I'm going to share with you what I shared at the last committee meeting, which is that the EIS includes the ability to put housing in the stadium district.

And that, and as our clerk is pulling up the, the map right now.

These are the exact same words that I started shared last time, which is that, yes, housing was studied under the environmental impact statement the final one.

If a future council wanted to make that change, we would not need to reissue and the is, it would simply need to be a council bill.

The situation where we are at today is that there is wholehearted and full agreement on everything else in this package.

What is not in agreement right now is whether or not there should be housing in the stadium district.

And I can tell you that this is overall a tenuous agreement by all partners.

And just looking at this slide here we have on the upper, I'm not seeing it on the Seattle Channel cameras on it.

And there we go.

Thank you, Seattle, award-winning Seattle Channel.

Just looking at this, we have T-46, which I appreciate, Jeff, you trying to speak for the port.

I believe that the port needs to speak for themselves on this.

We also have the Coast Guard Station just to the left right there that's under expansion.

And then from there, the container facilities just to the left, a little bit out of view.

Right now, there's a lot of tension in the maritime community about even the expansion of the Coast Guard facility, which we know to be a net benefit for our city and our maritime community.

And there's still tension there.

With T-46, there are a lot of programs and projects that we haven't made a final decision on.

The port has not made a final decision on.

And then inside the stadium district overlay is the Waska site there that you see.

With these three large projects, not having final decision being made, and the fact that we have not been able to come to agreement and consensus on housing in the stadium district, while at the same time.

aspects of this package have agreement.

This is why two things are true, which you pointed out very eloquently, which is that yes, in the FEIS, housing is allowed here in the stadium district.

And what I'm saying is we can't wait for the disagreement to reach compromise because the rest of the package is so strong.

And it is my fear that the adding of housing here will undo the tenuous compromise that we have before us.

And so I absolutely hear what you're saying.

I just wanted to share that context today.

Okay, well, I can't really speak to your fears and how tenuous this is.

I'm thinking that this is our opportunity to look at opportunities and we're putting IT development in the industry and innovation zone.

We're putting housing in what is currently an industrial buffer zone in the north end.

And so it seems as though We're council and we look at those issues.

And so if there are issues that you don't want to talk about in public here, I understand.

And perhaps I could be more brought up to speed.

I just think that because the support was so strong leading up to very recently, I thought that I would address it.

Yeah.

And I welcome stakeholders of all walks to join in on the public hearing next Wednesday, May 24th.

With that, Vice Chair Morales, I see you have a question.

And clerk, thank you.

Well, it's not a question so much as an acknowledgement of this, just this tension, right?

And, you know, I've had several meetings with OPCD over the last year or more trying to understand, you know, as we're trying to achieve this goal of maintaining, preserving our industrial land and understanding that we have a housing crisis, where is the balance and what are the other issues to consider?

And one of the things that, this is sort of to Lisha's point of his, on page seven of his memo where he identified some of the other questions around what else we do if we're putting housing somewhere.

So, you know, in many of these new zones, there's, you know, kind of a lack of green space.

I appreciate that, you know, they will be required to put trees and sidewalks, but it really raises a bigger question about, You know, it's not just units of housing that we're interested in, but it's actually creating vibrant, healthy neighborhoods.

And so what else needs to be there?

Can we can we attract grocery stores?

Will there be child care facilities, especially if we're talking about, you know, attracting places where workers can can.

live?

You know, is there going to be health care available nearby?

Are we creating the kind of neighborhoods where people can really walk to the essential goods and services that they need without having to get in a car?

And can they be safe when they do it?

A lot of these areas we're talking about have high fatality, pedestrian fatality incidents.

And so I think, you know, as we're moving through this discussion, there are a lot of other things to keep in mind, to keep sort of at the forefront as we're talking about the kinds of changes we're making, the reason we're making them, the broader goals that we have here, because there's, you know, as I think the chair and I had talked about before, If the goal here is to preserve industrial land and now we are talking about making this a healthy neighborhood and perhaps putting a grocery store in so people can get to the store, that affects the ability of industry to access their space.

Up in the Ballard neighborhood when, I don't remember if it was a Trader Joe's or New Seasons or one of the grocery stores went in, the maritime industry was really frustrated that yet another non maritime related business was going in and affecting their ability to operate.

So this is there's a lot for us to think about, as Lish said, like it's it's complex.

And I think it's good for us to be having these conversations now and to be asking the questions about what is our goal?

What does it mean to make these changes?

If we're trying to attract people to live in some of these areas, what else will they need?

And what is the impact going to be on our other broader goals about achieving high density employment and making sure that our maritime industry is protected as well?

So I know we've got a few more sessions scheduled.

We've got amendments that we'll be considering.

I am interested in some of these amendments around environmental justice issues in particular.

So I'm Just contemplating and thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to really hash out some of these questions that we have now so that we can get them answered in the next couple of weeks.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Other question, Council Member Peterson, two thumbs up.

Council Member Nelson, any other questions from you today?

Colleagues, thank you, Lish, for your robust presentation.

Thank you, Jeff Wetland and Jim Holmes for being here today.

I'm going to Again, go over our schedule.

Last week, we had the initial briefing from Office of Planning and Community Development.

Today, we had the briefing from Council Central Staff and the Planning Commission on their recommendations.

This May 17th, on Wednesday, is when amendments are due to Central Staff, Liz Schwitzen.

They do not have to be fully fleshed out.

You do need to provide an idea of the amendments you are looking into, and these will be published on May 22nd.

Lish, sorry to do this on the record, is it okay for council members to give you amendments that they do not want published on Monday?

Or would you prefer everything to be, moving forward, published?

I think it is helpful to the public as they come to the public hearing to understand the range of issues that council members are considering.

But if a council member wants to keep something private, my duty is to keep things private until the council member feels like it's appropriate to release it.

Thank you wish so again, colleagues, please.

The idea here is to engage in a public discussion so please do.

Understand that by submitting amendments to LISH, we are hoping to present these publicly on May 22nd so that the public can weigh in in a transparent way.

Next Wednesday on May 24th will be a public hearing.

We will have some other items of business in the committee that are not maritime and industrial lands.

On June 8th, we will have a meeting where we vote on the amendments and then vote the bill out of committee as amended.

This is a correction.

We had previously said June 7th.

So again, June 8th is the proper date.

This leads to a final passage from Seattle City Council on June 13th.

In case we run into issues, we have reserved June 14th for a committee meeting, which would put June 20th for final passage.

And this would have cascading implications throughout the committee schedule.

With that, colleagues, any final questions on Maritime and Industrial?

Otherwise, we will move on to Home-Based Businesses.

Seeing no further questions, our second, well, technically our first item on the agenda today is a briefing and discussion on Council Bill 120520, which would establish permanent regulations for home occupation businesses.

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

Council Bill 120520, Home-Based Businesses for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

For the majority, I guess Councilmember Nelson, I'm not sure you were here for the 25 times we extended the temporary regulations.

That's an here.

One.

Sorry I was being a little bit flippant maybe not appropriate to say that we've extended the temporary regulations many times, waiting for the final bill, which is here before us today.

These interim regulations for home-based businesses were initially established in March of 2021 during the pandemic.

Those interim regulations allowed for home-based businesses to operate with modified regulations during the COVID civil emergency and really stood as an opportunity to pilot if some changes needed to be made.

This bill will permanently adjust some of the regulations on home-based businesses regarding the number of employees that do not live in the home, the type of customer visits, the type of traffic and parking, and the non-commercial appearances of the home occupations.

We'll get into some of these changes, but just by way of reference, one of the things that had happened during the pandemic was somebody couldn't adjust their garage to look like something other than a garage.

These changes in regulations are needed to allow small business owners to incubate in their garages, in their homes, so that they are able to grow into brick and mortar stores.

The interim regulations did lapse in these permanent regulations while the permanent regulations were being drafted.

And we began hearing the tree legislation at the time that we needed to pass this permanent fix, which is why we're hearing it today.

Now that we have a little bit more time in committee I'm looking forward to permanently establishing these changes for home occupation, home occupation businesses, We will hear the bill today and then we will bring it, because I like to have bill heard twice in committee, we will then bring it back on June 14th for a public hearing and a final vote.

Without further ado, we have Ketel Freeman from our Council Central staff to present on this legislation today.

Mr. Freeman, please introduce yourself and take it away.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, Ketel Freeman, Council Central staff.

I'll share my screen here.

So a lot of what I'll be covering here, Councilmember Strauss covered in his introduction, but this Council Bill 120520 would be permanent regulations to modify our existing regulations for home occupations.

And as you know, those those regulations were modified on a temporary basis during the COVID civil emergency.

I'll talk a little bit about legislative history, touch a little bit on what the bill does, and then talk about next steps here.

So on my just a sec I'm trying to.

Oh.

I can't seem to get my, oh, hold on.

Oh, there we go.

Legislative history.

So, um, and March of 2021, uh, council passed ordinance 1, 2, 6, 2, 9, 3, and those established interim regulations for home occupations.

The intent of those regulations, um, was to allow home-based businesses to continue operating, um, uh, during, um, uh, the COVID civil emergency.

Um, those business might've, those businesses may have previously been operating or intending to operate out of, uh, storefront.

The sort of the incident case leading to development of Ordinance 126293 was Yonder Cider in Finney Ridge, which was operating a cider tasting room and retail operation out of a garage associated with the home of one of Yonder Cider's owners.

Those interim regulations can only last for a year.

So they were extended for an additional six months in March of 2022. And those interim regulations lapsed in November.

And as council members and others will recall, the city's civil emergency related to COVID ended in October of 2022. So what would Council Bill 120520 do?

I'll go into this in a little bit more detail here in a second, but maybe stepping back a little bit to talk about how the city currently regulates home occupations.

A home occupation can be an accessory use to an existing residential use.

You don't need a permit from the city to have a home occupation.

Instead, the city regulates home occupations through performance standards.

So essentially a home occupation can't be, there can't be a lot of Externality is associated with a home occupation and as such the city limits the number of customer visits employees signage things that sort of make it would make make a home occupation, less obvious to our near neighbors.

So walk through some of these performance standards talk about what current regulations do and then what the regulations would do.

These are some of the key modifications, but there are others in the bill and maybe I'll mention a couple of related to automated retail sales and services because we had some testimony from that at the beginning of the meeting.

Customer visits under current regulations, customer visits must be by appointment only.

The proposed regulations would have no limit on customer visits and allow a walk-up customers.

With respect to employees, the current regulations allow no more than two non-resident employees to be in a home occupation.

Those regulations would not have any limit on the number of non-resident employees.

Vehicles associated with home occupations, these have to do with fleet vehicles, not necessarily vehicles that might be associated with an automotive retail sales and service use that's a home occupation.

Current regulations limit that to two.

The proposed regulations would allow one additional vehicle.

Signage, current regulations allow one sign up to 64 square inches.

The proposed regulations would allow one sign up to 720 square inches, that's five square feet.

Commercial deliveries, current regulations allow, there's a limitation on the number of commercial deliveries that could come to a home occupation.

One per day on weekdays, not on the weekends, there'd be no limitation on commercial deliveries and post regulations and then visual evidence of a home occupation.

So other than the signage.

Current regulations allow none from the exterior of the structure.

Those regulations would allow home occupations to occur on portions of a home that are outdoors.

So you could have a part of a home occupation in a side yard or something like that, or a garage.

So those are the highlights of what Council Bill 120520 would do.

There's an existing limitation on noise, dust, vibrations, glare that applies to home occupations, and that limitation would not change under the bill.

And there's also a current limitation on home occupations not being drive-through businesses.

That also would not change under the proposed bill.

Next steps, as council members just mentioned, there'll be issue identification hearing and a possible votes on June 14, assuming that happens the earliest.

This could be a full council would be on June 20. So any questions for me about Council Bill 120520.

Thank you, Q.

I'll pass this over to my colleagues.

I can tell you that these modest modifications that were made during the pandemic did result in businesses being incubated in their homes that were then able to take on brick and mortar spaces, and that we have not received many complaints, or I don't think anyone's really noticed, but I'll check in with colleagues.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

A couple of questions for central staff.

The two public commenters were talking about, I believe, automotive sales on the public streets.

Could you explain what would be changing here?

I think I heard you say that currently people are allowed to sell Eric Bussis, Applicant Olive O'Connor): Two cars and now they can sell three or maybe I misunderstood I I didn't think the purpose I didn't think the intent of this was really to encourage car sales on public streets i'm just trying to understand.

how it would actually work.

Sure.

And so the number of cars associated with a home occupation is primarily intended to govern things like fleet vehicles or something like that.

So if you have a van associated with your home occupation, you could only have two under the bill.

You might have three.

There are limitations on sort of the amount of on street parking that could be associated with a home occupation.

Current regulations say there can't be an increase in on-street parking demand associated with a home occupation.

Automotive retail sales and service uses, so somebody operating a garage out of their garage, for example, providing and being a mechanic.

They may store vehicles in the right-of-way for customers whose vehicles are being serviced at that home occupation.

The proposed bill would relax some of the limitations on on on on street parking capacity associated with those types of phone businesses, but they would not change the other sort of limitations that might be associated with something like a mechanic using his or her garage as a home based business.

So there would still be limitations on on noise, glare, odors, things like that.

Thank you, Chairman.

Ask another.

The floor is yours until you're done.

Yeah.

Thank you.

In your memo, you got a table showing the current regulations and the proposed regulations.

I'm interested in knowing, are there any differences between the interim regulations and what's being proposed to be permanent?

And I don't know if you're able to speak to that or add an extra column to the memo.

I would be happy to make that clarification in advance of the meeting on June 14th.

Generally, they are the same regulations.

There are a few places where they differ, and I just hesitate to kind of identify those on the fly like this, because I'm afraid I might get them wrong.

But as a general proposition, most of the regulations that are in the proposed bill are similar to, if not the same, as the regulations that were in effect on an interim basis.

So the track changes that are online when the viewing public goes to our Legistar system and looks up Council 120520, it shows text being lined out and text, underlined text being added.

Is that to the original pre-pandemic regulation?

Correct, that is not to the interim regulations.

Okay, all right, thank you.

I'll follow up later.

That's a really good question, Council Member Peterson, because it was my intent that we would not be making additional changes from the interim regulations.

And so, Ketel, it will be important for us to follow up on that.

And Ketel, you briefly mentioned the restrictions on specifically automotive businesses.

Could you dig into that just a little bit deeper?

Um, as it is now, I, I, I, I think I've touched on most of what what they are sort of the 1 of the ways that their home based business code.

Mitigates against kind of the impacts of somebody having of a use, like an automotive retail sales and service use.

So somebody.

Repairing cars in their garage for sale, or just to.

For just, just as a mechanic just repair vehicles is to is to limit the amount of on street parking that can be associated with that you so that somebody is not storing those vehicles and the right away for very long.

I'm sort of encourage them to turn those vehicles over and so customers, you know, don't park them there for more than the time that is needed for them to be repaired.

That limitation is in the current code.

That limitation is somewhat relaxed in the proposed regulations.

The other primary performance standard for getting at noise and odors and externalities that might be associated with something like automotive retail sales and service is a limitation on you can't you're not supposed to be able to hear things, smell things, see things beyond sort of what is otherwise allowed by code, beyond the property line.

And so that is a current limitation.

that would continue to apply.

One thing to note here about the city's regulatory regime is that we don't require a permit for home occupation.

We don't necessarily know where home occupations are and rely on a complaint-based system for understanding when there may be somebody who is operating a home occupation outside of the four corners of the city's regulations.

There's some pluses and minuses to that, but one minus is that we don't really know where home occupations are.

A plus to that is that there's not necessarily, you know, it is sort of.

It's easier to establish a home occupation.

And it's also, it's, you know, it's, it is in some ways.

Easier for the city to bring home occupations into compliance because it's not associated.

And Quito, thank you for bringing that up because I'd pushed very hard.

I pushed in a very stern manner to have a specific permit for these types of businesses.

And STCI noted for me that by searching the business permit that we would be able to find where these businesses are.

Is that a correct understanding?

No, it gives you a good, you can look at the business license registrations to get a sense about where home-based businesses may be.

But somebody could have a business that is registered to their home, but not be conducting the business outside of their home.

So that is one limitation on the information we have available through our business licensing database.

So it gives a flavor for where things might be, but it doesn't actually give you an accurate picture of where things actually are.

The types of businesses that are registered to homes, most of them are not things like automotive retail sales and service uses.

Most of them are things like real estate services, so a lot of people who are real estate agents operate out of their homes, and things like professional business services, so attorneys and accountants and things like that who may be operating their practice out of their home.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any other questions right now?

Council Member Nelson.

Thank you.

It's rephrasing a little bit the question that Council Member Peterson asked, because I was wondering that too.

Page two of the slides that you put up, current regulations and then proposed regulations.

Current regulations refer to the interim regulations that were passed in March, which I, voted for but that lapsed in 2022, is that correct?

No, current regulations are the pre-pandemic regulations.

So the interim regulations have not been in effect since November and so the bill that we have in front of us modifies the current regulations to put in place a regulatory regime which is similar to what was in place during the pandemic.

Well, I support three columns, current, interim, and then proposed.

Thanks.

I'm happy to provide that to the committee.

Perfect.

Wonderful.

Colleagues, any other questions?

Seeing none.

This legislation will be back before the land use committee on June 14 for a public hearing.

If there are no objections that day I will suspend the rules to vote on this legislation that same meeting, because of the condensed nature of our land use schedule if you are not comfortable with that we will bring it back for a third time without a briefing, we can cross that bridge when we get to it.

With no further ado, and before I conclude this Monday, May 15th Special Land Use Committee meeting, I just came from a lunch regarding gun violence prevention.

That's why I'm wearing orange today.

And one of the people speaking made a statement about their child, speaking to their child about, the father said to the daughter that the daughter's generation was really gonna need to take this up, gun violence prevention.

and get it across the finish line.

And her response to him was, well, you're still alive.

There's a lot that we need to do today to prevent gun violence, because gun violence is preventable.

We know that it doesn't necessarily change.

A criminal act may still occur with or without a gun.

An impulse will still occur with or without a gun.

The difference is that that impulse in that moment with a gun makes a life-altering moment rather than a moment that we can come back from.

Thank you for letting me share those thoughts and feelings with you today, sharing thoughts and prayers with all of you.

This does conclude the Monday, May 15th, 2023 Special Land Use Committee.

The next Land Use Committee meeting is our regularly scheduled meeting on May 24th, 2023 at 2 p.m.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.

Recording stopped.

Wonderful.

Great job, Naomi.