Seattle City Council Land Use & Neighborhoods Committee 8/12/20

Meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee will come to order.

It is 9.32 a.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Mosqueda?

Here.

Councilmember Lewis?

Councilmember Peterson?

Here.

Chair Strauss?

Present.

And I know that Council Member Lewis will be joining us in just a moment.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional land of the first people of Seattle, the Duwamish, Suquamish, Muckleshoot, and Tulalip people, past and present, and honor with gratitude the land itself and the Duwamish, Suquamish, Muckleshoot, and Tulalip tribes.

We have three items on the agenda today, a briefing and public hearing on CB 119827, which rezones land in Rainier Beach for affordable housing.

a discussion and vote on CB-119-831, the Child Care Near You legislation, and a discussion and vote on CB-119-835, the Annual Land Use Omnibus Bill.

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee is on Wednesday, September 9, starting at 9.30 AM.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

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

Before we begin, I ask that everyone be patient as we learn to operate this new system in real time.

While it remains our strong intent to have public comment periods at any point, if we deem that the system is being abused or is unsuitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and in a manner which manner in which we are able to conduct our necessary business, I will moderate the public comment period in the following manner.

The public comment period for this meeting is up to 10 minutes, and each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I will call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

If you have not registered to speak, but would like to, you can sign up before the end of public comment by going to the council's website.

The public comment link is also on today's agenda.

Once I call a speaker's name, the staff will unmute the appropriate mic and the automatic prompt of you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak.

Also for all public, For the public, please note that you need to press star six to unmute yourself as well.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item in which you are addressing.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of the allotted time.

Once the speaker hears the chime, we ask that you begin to wrap up the public comment.

If speakers do not end their comments at the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's mic will be muted after 10 seconds to allow for us to call on the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask you to please disconnect from the line.

And if you plan to continue following this meeting, please do so via Seattle Channel or the listening options listed in the agenda.

Please remember that there are separate public hearings on the agenda for CB 119827, which rezones land in Rainier Beach.

If your comments are about that item, I ask you to please hold them for the public hearing.

And if I hear that you are beginning to speak on it, I will interject just to re-ask the question.

If you want to continue speaking on public comment, I will reset the timer.

Remember, if you are speaking for public comment, you need to press star 6 to unmute yourself.

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

I see Holly Golden, Judith Benditch is listed as not present, Deb Barker, Rizwan Rizwi, and David Moring.

I will continue to call speakers in groups of three as they begin.

Holly Golden, if you are present and have pressed star six to unmute yourself, please begin.

Good morning.

This is Holly Golden.

I'm here to speak about land use omnibus.

I'm a land use attorney and I work on projects throughout Seattle so I spend a lot of my day deep in the land use code.

In particular I want to speak about speak in support of the proposed amendment contained in the substitute version of the bill related to transferable development rights or TDRs in the downtown retail core zone.

This change is aimed at addressing a practical problem.

The current code says that projects in this narrow downtown zone can only obtain TDRs from other sites in this zone.

Unfortunately, the reality is that there are no longer TDRs available on the private market in this area, so projects in the zone are out of luck.

The original omnibus addressed this problem by removing the limitation and treating projects in this narrow downtown zone like projects in other downtown zones.

That fixes the problem for projects going forward.

And the substitute version of the bill includes a small change to fix this problem for projects already in the pipeline.

The change treats these projects like other downtown projects and it continues support for historic preservation through the TDR program.

It's a wonky technical change that's exactly the kind of update intended for the omnibus.

And I wanted to express my support for the revision contained in the substitute version of the bill.

While I've got you, I'd also like to throw my support behind the clarification in the substitute version of the bill for the podium section of the code for South Lake Union.

Again, it's a wonky change that allows the code to be applied in a practical manner.

Thank you for including and supporting these changes.

Thank you, Holly.

Judith Bendich is signed up next, but I see she is not present.

Judith, if you do rejoin, please just let us know.

The next three speakers are Deb Barker, Rizwan Rizwi, David Mori.

Deb, if you are present and ready, please press star six and begin when you are ready.

Deb, are you?

We can't hear you if you need to press star six to unmute yourself.

Not hearing Deb.

Deb, if you are, we will come back to you.

Please let us know if something changes.

Up next is Rizwan Rizwi, David Mooring.

I have not present Katie, no last name provided.

And then Patrick Taylor.

Rizwan, if you are ready, please press star six to unmute yourself and begin.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Rizwan Rizwi.

I'm the executive director of Muslim Housing We're a homeless prevention agency based in Seattle for the last 20 years.

Main reason for my call this morning is regarding CB 119827 and the rezoning for land on Radiant Beach.

We are hoping that with working with Bellwether to move our office location into the building which will require the rezoning and The neighborhood itself, obviously, the development which Bellwether is proposing will also be adding larger units which have traditionally not been available on the low-income housing side.

And it's very critical that this rezone pass for a number of reasons.

One is obviously our agency wants to continue to serve the Seattle and South King County populations that are needing assistance.

And also, the need for larger units for families that have been homeless in the past.

So we're hoping that the city council will vote to allow this amendment to go forward.

And last year we housed over 1,170 people across the county, of which 714 were homeless, 456 were facing eviction.

A lot of them were Seattle residents and South King County residents who came in the city for help.

So we hope that we can continue to operate and provide services to the community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rizwan.

Thank you for your work on behalf of our city.

I also want to note that Council Member Lewis has joined the meeting.

Next three speakers are David Mooring, Katie, no last name provided and listed as not present.

Patrick Taylor, Laura Lowe.

David, if you are present, please press star six to unmute yourself and begin at any time.

Sure.

Hi, this is David Moring with Magnolia Interbay Area and I'm here to talk about the omnibus.

And I just want to appreciate our committee members and I'm impressed in terms of the city council being able to manage all that's on the city's plate at this moment.

With that, I really appreciate the efforts made by the committee council and their staff to amend the omnibus as we see it today, especially removing the unit lot language that potentially could impact 400,000 to 500,000 Seattle residents.

So on that, just to note as this moves forward, if the city has an ultimate goal to convert the diverse option of single family zones into multifamily, then don't be shy and announce that publicly to the people of Seattle, maybe like Minneapolis did.

I recognize that the Sunday bus would have not allowed or limited backyard tattoos from being individually sold, but two things.

One, it did not stop up to two attached accessory drawings to be subdivided and sold.

And two, it did not stop the eventual converting of a garage or open space into a daddoo at a later date.

So thank you for your efforts and just be open with us.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, Dave.

We absolutely will.

Next, I have Katie.

No last name provided, not present.

Katie, if you are here, please unmute yourself by pressing star six.

Not hearing Katie.

Next, we have Patrick Taylor, Laurel O. Bernstein, Don Brubeck.

Patrick, if you are present and ready, please press star six and begin at any time.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

All right.

Yeah, my name is Patrick Taylor.

I am the co-chair of the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board, but today I'm speaking as an individual member and not on behalf of the board.

I'm speaking on the omnibus lane expel and proposed changes to bike parking.

We had written a letter opposing them as originally written, but Council Member Strauss and his legislative aide, Noah Ann, have been very helpful in working with us and other people to make changes in a proposed amendment.

And if that amendment is included with the omnibus land use bill, making most of the exemption contingent on a type one decision, I would feel that the bill is something that I can support.

and represents a very positive compromise between the needs of the biking community and the needs of affordable housing providers.

So I hope you pass the amendment that we discussed and provide the support that everyone needs.

Thank you.

Thank you, Patrick.

And thank you for your service on the Bicycle Advisory Committee board.

and working with Noah.

I do understand that Deb Barker, you are able to unmute yourself.

So I will put you back in front of Laura Lowe.

Deb, are you available by pressing star six to unmute yourself?

We will, Deb, I'm going to come back to you at the very end just so that we can continue moving forward.

Laura Lowe Bernstein, Don Brubeck, Matt Hutchins.

Laura Lowe, if you are ready, please press star six.

Hi, this is Laura.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Great.

I'm calling today to thank the city council for putting forward CB 11931, which acknowledges that every single community needs walkable, abundant access to childcare in our city.

While zoning cannot alone address inequities and scarcity of resources, zoning changes are a key facet to making our city more affordable and climate friendly.

I also want to thank the planning folks for their work on CB 11935, which makes small but key changes to support better land use in our city.

I wanted to take this opportunity to highlight the recent Seattle Planning Commission report for racial equity equitable and resilient recovery.

I strongly agree with the following goals that we need to adopt both within Seattle's Land Use Committee and overall anytime we're talking about planning or housing processes or economic planning across many other committees.

We need to work in collaboration with BIPOC communities to create a planning process that shares power, including participatory budgeting.

We need to advance housing choices and security in response to COVID-19, including increasing funding for land trusts and limited equity cooperatives.

We need to maintain a critical transit network, ensure city rights of way meets safety and open space needs during this critical pandemic time, including pathway streets.

We need to ensure public spaces work for everyone.

Things like the Clean Hands Collective, three community financed DIY hand washing stations must be a priority in our public realms right now.

And we need to make sure our land use looks at how to make more of those happen.

And finally, we need to update our city's racial equity toolkit to include indigenous practices in our project and policy development.

I'm especially concerned that we incorporate indigenous practices and indigenous voices in our industrial land planning that's coming up.

So I just wanted to take that opportunity to thank you for the work you're doing, and thank you for the Lansing Neighborhoods Committee for meeting during time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Laura Lowe.

Next, we have Don Brubeck followed by Matt Hutchins, and then Mary Hodder.

We'll then hear from Deb Barker and Douglas Trum.

You are listed as not present, so if you are present, please let us know.

Same with Judith Benditch and Katie, no last name provided.

Don, if you are, oh, and it has come to my attention that we have reached the end of the initial allotted 10 minutes of public comment.

If there's no objection, public comment will be extended for an additional 10 minutes.

Hearing no objection, the public comment has been extended for an additional 10 minutes.

Don, please unmute yourself and begin when you are ready.

This is Don Brubeck.

Good morning.

I live in West Seattle.

I'm commenting to urge you to vote no on Amendment 1 to Council Bill 119835 regarding deletion of bike parking requirements for low income and certain congregate care housing.

People with low incomes are less likely to own cars, have a harder time with access to transportation, and more in need of bikes for transportation.

Bringing bikes into very small apartments is not a practical thing that people can do.

Providing bike parking requires some planning, but it is space efficient.

Denying secure weather-protected bike parking for people with low incomes is not equitable.

I understand that, I know firsthand that it's a challenge to build affordable low-income housing projects.

but we shouldn't deny transportation needs of people with low income.

Congregate care residences often have a quite high ratio of staffing by people who can make good use of secure and weather-protected bike parking for commuting to work at such residences.

My son-in-law works at a congregate care place, which is a lock-up facility for people with mental health diagnoses.

None of them can ride bikes, but he can certainly ride his bike to work and needs parking for it.

The proposal to remove requirements for bike parking from residential units for low-income people is contrary to city policies and the comprehensive plan goals for race and social justice equity and housing, transportation, and climate action.

Thank you.

Thank you, Don.

And I note the I have received note that Judith has rejoined us.

So next speakers will be Matt Hutchins, followed by Mary Hodder, Deb Barker, and then Judith Bendich.

Douglas Trum, if you want to rejoin, or Katie, if you would like to rejoin, please do so now.

Matt, please unmute yourself and begin.

Hi, my name is Matt Hutchins.

Thank you very much for considering this Land Use Omnibus 119835. As an architect who designs backyard cottages and affordable housing, I'd like to voice my support for the Omnibus Land Use Bill.

Anytime we can iron out wrinkles that get in the way of providing more affordable housing, that add complexity to the creation of housing, It's a good thing that we can eliminate that.

Today, one of the small changes would allow for porches and covered patios and roof decks for DADUs to be in the required rear yard.

This is a really common sense provision.

Imagine having a house, but you can't have a front porch or any sort of cover over your entry if you're coming in off of an alley.

So providing a welcoming porch, usable outdoor space is great for livability and is especially important when you're living in a small house.

With regards to the unit lot subdivision provision, it's a little unclear what this provision would mean, but if indeed it, you know, the potential for smaller lots that could therefore be much more affordable for many more people, I think that that is an incredibly good thing.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Matt.

Up next is Mary Hodder, followed by Douglas Trum, Deb Barker, then Judy Benditch, Judith Benditch.

I also see Ruby Holland has joined.

If you, you're currently listed as not present.

So Ruby, if you are listening, please join the phone line.

Mary, please unmute yourself by pressing star six and take it away.

Mary?

We are not hearing Mary.

Mary, if you...

We will come back to you at the end of the list, Mary.

Douglas, if you are ready, please press star six and begin at any time.

Hi, this is Doug Trump.

Um, and I'm a renter in East Fremont.

Um, apologies if there's noise, they are fire alarm testing in our building today.

Um, but I wanted to urge you to pass, uh, childcare center ordinance, uh, CB 1 1 9 8 3 1. Um, because the cost of childcare in Seattle, it's far too high.

It's making it very hard to even dream of having a family in this city, unless you have a short amount of money.

I appreciate Council Member Stroud bringing it forward.

And I also want to thank Sean Scott for raising the idea on the campaign trail last year.

Adding more childcare centers across the city will improve access for families and lower costs.

I also want to recognize that Portland today is passing zoning reform across the city, making it possible to build four homes on every lot and six if they're affordable.

And I think this would really be a good model for Seattle to emulate, considering how it's sweeping and what the impact could be for affordable housing providers.

Let's build on child care centers, legislation by making it also easy to build affordable housing all over the city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Doug.

Up next, we have Deb Barker, followed by Judith Benditch, Mary Hodder, and then Ruby Holland.

You are still listed as not present, so Ruby, if you'd like to join us, please call in.

Mary, please press star six and begin when you are ready.

Mary, you are still muted.

Mary, we will come back to you.

You are still muted.

Deb Barker will be next.

Deb, please press star six and begin when you are ready.

Deb, I see that you are still muted.

Hello?

Hi, there we are.

Hello.

Good to hear your voice, Deb.

I know.

Thank you for this amazing buildup.

It's like, is she there?

Is she there?

Star mute.

Star six does not work.

universally.

Wow, thank you everybody, Deb Barker, West Seattle resident.

Finally unmuted, I want to thank staff, Noah Ahn, Toby Thaler, Ketel Freeman for their assistance in working through the nuances of Council Bill 119835. And happy retirement to Bill Mills who started this omnibus bill and then left it in in another world, so happy retirement, Bill Mills.

I want to advise council that it would be great to adopt the majority of the omnibus bill, but I urge you to keep it in the minor category and stop putting in things that feel like they're minor.

Not that there's anything like a rezone in here, but that's been done in the past.

Don't add any more complexity to an already complex zoning code.

I echo David Moring's comments about if you want to do something, then do it, say it out loud, do it in a proper forum, and don't try and hide it in an omnibus bill.

I support the landmarks proposed changes as a former six-year member of the Seattle Landmarks Board.

And again, thanks to staff and to all the council members who probably know how to unmute their phone better than I do.

Thank you.

Thank you, Deb.

It was a fun build up this morning.

And we still have two more.

Judith Bendich and Mary Hodder.

Ruby Holland, I still see you listed as not present.

Judith, if you are on the line.

I see you are unmuted, Judith.

So take.

Hello, can you hear me?

Can you hear me?

I can.

Now I cannot.

Hello.

Can you hear me.

I can.

Yes we can hear you.

Oh good.

Thank you.

And I would like to echo Deb Barker's words about thanks to Noah and to Toby and to Keto Freeman.

They've been very helpful.

I'd also like to support the substitute language that's been proposed for the unit lot subdivision on the omnibus bill.

It's unfortunate it was there in the first place and it caused a huge amount of confusion from a lot of people.

So I'm glad that that is being proposed and I would urge that all of you vote for that portion of the substitute.

Deb Barker is my guru on the landmark things because she's been on the landmark board.

I do have a concern about that and wanted to share it with you.

Because this has all been couched as minor and not significant, all these changes, which some of us felt a lot of them definitely could be significant, I think that not a lot of people have had the opportunity to read this.

And particularly folks like at the Laurelhurst Community Council, and I sent an email to Eugenia Wu of Historic Seattle.

yesterday and she had never heard of this and I'm just wondering whether that section on the conditional use authorization for landmark sites could be somehow tabled or just put off so that people who were in the know and have concerns about that issue can weigh in on it.

It could be that it's fine, but But as Mr. Freeman said, he didn't know whether there had been outreach regarding this.

And I think that just as a matter of fairness to everybody, that should be done.

Other than that, those are my few words, and thank you very much for your substitute.

Thank you, Judith.

Next, we have Mary Hodder.

And the last two people are listed as not present, Ruby Holland and Katie.

Ruby and Katie, if you plan to join, please call into the line.

Mary Hodder, if you are ready.

Yes.

There you are.

Take it away.

Oh, thank goodness.

After 30 star sixes, it worked.

OK, I'm I am calling in about the unit subdivision piece of the legislation that you're proposing.

I wanted to point out the legislative analysis done on this provision which says, however, the proposed omnibus language introduces ambiguity into the code that could lead to unintended consequences for future development of vacant lots created through the unit lot subdivision process.

I want to point out an additional piece of ambiguity.

There is no minimum lot size requirement for this.

So in your example in the legislative write-up, You show a main house, you show a day-do or cottage detached, and an a-do.

And a developer could come in, purchase the house, put in the a-do, put in the day-do, then subdivide them all up, and then add additional a-dos and day-dos.

Because they could just keep, you know, it's turtles all the way down.

They can just keep subdividing and subdividing because there's no minimum.

That is an additional piece of ambiguity.

My concern about ambiguity is that right now we already see the giant holes for ambiguity that developers drive semi-trucks through in terms of lot height and lot coverage.

There are a bunch of ways to game those systems.

I've figured out what they are and I'm watching developers do this now today.

In fact, Blueprint Capital Services is doing this in the house next door.

They figured out how to get 10 extra height 10 extra feet of height because they've gained the height requirements.

So the other piece that I want to point out is imagine this developers who are in the 1% versus homeowners whose only wealth generally is paper in the value of their home is typically um, will come in and compete with individuals to buy single family homes so that they can put in a dues and a dues multiple of them.

And the problem is, is that they can construct wholesale.

We have reached the end of your comment period.

And I just want to let you know that the piece that you were speaking to has been removed from the bill.

Okay.

The ambiguity about lot size.

Yes.

Okay, well my other concern is that you're basically favoring the 1% and that individual homeowners will get the shaft.

I, I appreciate if you could follow up with written comment, we need to share the two minutes.

Thank you very much.

I did a two minute timer and my two minute timer wasn't up, but, oh, well, sorry about that.

Really appreciate hearing from you this morning, Mary.

Seeing as we have no additional speakers remotely present, double-checking that Ruby and Katie are not present.

IT, if you could confirm for me.

That is correct.

I see that note, thank you.

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

Our first item of business today is a briefing and public hearing for CB 119827, which rezones land in Rainier Beach for affordable housing.

Noah, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Yes.

Agenda item one, Council Bill 119827, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending the Seattle Municipal Code to rezone land in the Rainier Beach neighborhood.

Thank you, Noah.

We are joined by Yolanda Ho of Council Central Staff and Jeff Wendland from Office of Planning and Community Development.

Will you please both introduce yourselves and provide an overview of the proposal?

Thank you.

Yes, Yolanda Ho, Council Central Staff.

Good morning.

Jeff Wendland, Office of Planning and Community Development.

Good morning, Jeff.

Take it away.

Okay, good morning, Chair Strauss and council members.

I'm going to provide brief background for you on Council Bill 119827. I'm gonna share my screen here.

And this is the presentation that's attached to the agenda.

So please let me know if you don't see the presentation.

We can see it, yeah.

Great, thank you.

So this action is, we're calling it the Rainier Beach Area Rezones to Support Affordable Housing.

And I will describe the proposal for you.

These are two clusters or groups of lands in and around Rainier Beach.

And these are part of a cohesive strategy to support 100% rent and income restricted affordable housing in an area that has a wealth of supportive services and amenities for residents.

It's also an area of the city that has a high risk of displacement and the action would support anti-displacement or stabilize communities and not displace any housing.

The actions are also, supported by community-based agencies, and both groups of parcels have partnership with community-based agencies.

And the proposal is brought forward to you at this time because we believe that this grouping of actions can contribute to recovery and help stabilize communities in this time of increased pressure.

So the two clusters of parcels total 2.72 acres.

There's no housing on the sites.

There are vacant and underutilized lands in both areas.

The rezones would allow for more cost-effective construction.

So all the areas are under site control by nonprofit affordable housing developers.

And what's proposed would allow them to essentially increase the amount of housing provided without much additional cost.

The director's report analyzes consistency comprehensive plan and the proposal is consistent with the plan.

The rezones would also meet Seattle Municipal Code criteria and the SEPA review was completed and the comment and appeal period has expired.

So I will refer to these two groups of sites as the South Rose Street cluster and the South Cloverdale Street cluster.

You can see on the map, they are separated by about a quarter mile.

very close to one another.

And they're close to the Ethiopian Community Center, which is between the sites on Rainier Ave.

They're close to the Rainier Beach High School.

They're close to South Lake High and the Rainier Beach Community Center.

So you see there's two groups of sites in relation to each other.

And now we'll look at each group in a little more detail.

Starting at the south, this is the South Cloverdale Street cluster.

You can see that it's just off the shoulder of the Rainier Beach High School sports fields.

The area proposed for change is the hatched area, and the change would increase the height limit from 55 feet to 65 feet.

Base neighborhood commercial zone would not change.

This site is being proposed for affordable housing development and would include on the ground floor of the Rainier Beach Community Food Bank.

also referred to as the Community Food Center that would look and feel a lot like a grocery store and would have all affordable housing for very low income families on the floors above the ground level.

So I'm gonna scroll to the second site, South Rose Street Cluster.

So you can see here that the front of this site faces onto Rainier Avenue South and that it extends to the east within the block.

It is a split zone parcel.

So the front portion facing Rainier Avenue South would be rezoned from low rise three multifamily to a neighborhood commercial two with a 55 foot height limit.

That change would allow more housing.

It would also allow for the location of Muslim housing services, nonprofit offices, you heard from Rizwan in the comment earlier, they proposed to locate all their offices there.

It would also include a childcare center with six classrooms on site.

The back or the rear portion of the site be rezoned from single family, 5,000 to low rise three multifamily.

And the proposal would have a transition from higher density facing Rainier Ave South tapering off to the East.

This proposal would include all family sized housing units of two, three, and even four bedroom.

And it includes a substantial amount of family friendly open space on site.

So that's a very high level overview of those rezone proposals and what they intend to support.

And that concludes my presentation today.

We would be happy council members to answer any follow-up questions you may have for either my office or the office of housing or our partners.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jeff.

I do have a few questions, but want to check in with Yolanda to see Yolanda, do you have anything that you would like to provide at this time?

The only thing I would note is that attachment two to the central staff memo is a proposed substitute version of the bill and just make some technical corrections by striking attachments one and two, which illustrates each of the separate rezone areas and replaces them with a single attachment showing the entire rezone area and amends the language in Council Bill 119827 accordingly.

And it also corrects the South Rose Street rezone area to accurately reflect the existing zoning boundaries which don't quite follow the parcel lines along the southwest portion of the parcel.

And for the western portion of the area, it changes the mandatory housing affordability suffix from NC255 from M1 to M, which is consistent with the scale of the development capacity increases.

Great.

Thank you.

Jeff, if you could share your presentation one more time.

What I appreciate about this proposal is that it seems to take each area bump it up one level and with the Rose Street portion that it is tapered in such a way that it stays within the character of the neighborhood.

Jeff, can you or Yolanda, can you speak to what distinguishes this proposal from a contract rezone process?

Yeah, thank you for the question.

So, as I mentioned, this is really a group collection of sites that constitutes an area-wide action.

It's a cohesive strategy to add housing in a place with supportive services.

It's not an individual proposal.

The council's being asked to take action on the rezone of the land.

being asked to take any action on the specific development proposals, although I provided you some supplemental information, if you will, on partnerships that are underway.

So the short answer is that this is an area-wide proposal in the sense that it's fulfilling a strategy that is linked to the goals in the comprehensive plan and in the Rainier Beach Neighborhood Plan.

And it's different from a very site-specific or one-off action.

Thank you.

That's very helpful.

Can you also let me know if you have heard any or OPC generally have heard any concerns from surrounding community regarding this proposed change?

We have not heard concerns expressed directly.

There's been a lot of support.

The community-based agencies and the nonprofit housing providers have done extensive outreach about both sets of parcels with the neighborhood and received support.

I have not heard any comments through the SEPA process or otherwise opposing the proposal.

Great.

Thank you, Joe.

And do we know how many affordable units are anticipated to be generated in this reason area?

Together, we anticipate that it would be approximately 425 affordable homes, and about 20% of those would be enabled by this action.

Thank you.

Yolanda, do you have anything to add?

Or Council colleagues have any questions?

I don't have anything at this time, Chair.

Great, thank you.

I see Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Peterson, please take it away.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Since this is located in Rainier Beach neighborhood, I just wanted to ask if Uh, the executive had checked with Council member Tammy Morales his office.

It is my understanding that she has been.

Uh, this has been discussed with her, and I will double check before our next committee meeting.

When we vote this out today is simply a public, uh, hearing and briefing.

So good question.

Council member Peterson.

Okay, thanks.

Yeah.

I see Vice Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to emphasize, if I am not at the next meeting, my support for this effort.

I'm really excited about these two projects and the affordable housing that pairs with everything we've always talked about to make sure that there's access to livable, walkable, Healthy communities, so I'm really excited about the child care the job training small biggest business incubation and community space near good transit options as well.

You know, we kind of get lost a little bit sometimes in maps and the.

language that's used in housing and zoning, so I just wanted to lift up that this is such an incredible project that we have, I think, the opportunity and really the privilege to help move forward at this point.

These projects were really, I think, rooted in what community has been asking for for a very long time, so congratulations to the Rainier Beach community in particular for their years of work to advance Food Innovation Center and making sure that the neighborhood had affordable housing while also investing in economic development and good jobs for communities.

So Mr. Chair, because I don't think I'm at the next meeting, I just wanted to emphasize my support for this effort.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Lewis, I saw you turn your camera on briefly, just wanting to double check, no comments.

But I had the same question as Council Member Peterson about consultation with Council Member Morales.

So I think we'll just wait to hear from her offline, I guess.

Thank you.

Great.

Yolanda and Jeff, no further comments?

Nothing.

Seeing none, thank you both for that presentation.

Very helpful.

Before we open the remote public hearing, I would again ask everyone to be patient as we continue to learn to operate this new system in real time and navigate through the inevitable growing pains.

We're continuously looking for ways to fine tune this process and adding new features to allow additional means of public participation in our council meetings.

I'll moderate the public hearing in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I will call on one speaker at a time in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

If you have not registered to speak, But would like to, you can sign up before the end of the public hearing by going to the council's website at seattle.gov slash council.

The link is also in today's agenda.

Once I call the speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone, and an automatic prompt if you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue.

It is their turn to speak.

Also, please note that you need to press star six to unmute yourself.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item you are addressing.

As a reminder, public comment should be related only to CB119827.

If you have comments about something that is not on today's agenda, you can always provide written comments by emailing my office.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of the allotted time.

Once you hear the chime, we ask you to begin to wrap up your public comment.

If the speakers do not end their comments at the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you have completed your public comment, we ask you to please disconnect from the line.

And if you plan to continue following this meeting, please do so via Seattle Channel or the listening options provided in the agenda.

The public hearing on Council Bill 119827 is now open.

We will begin with the first speaker on the list, which is Rizwan Rizwi.

And I had not interjected in our last public comment.

I would welcome you to speak again for an additional two minutes only if you desire to, followed by our only other commenter, which is Connor Hanson.

Rizwan, if you'd like to speak again, please take it away.

Thank you.

And good morning again.

Again, just want to emphasize the importance of this project and the requirement for this amendment to go forward.

As mentioned earlier, 20% of the units would be affected if this was not approved.

And there's such an acute shortage of housing for families within Seattle.

One issue which we face as a homeless provider agency is finding large units in the city of Seattle.

There's been many instances where we have had to move families that were homeless in Seattle to other parts of the county, particularly towards the Federal Way area.

One instance where we had a family of 14 people that were homeless, and they were in two separate homeless shelters because they could not fit in one, and we couldn't find any housing in Seattle where we could house them, so we had to move them out of the city.

So again, this is one of the quite unique projects which is going on right now in the sense that there'll be several units which are three and four bedroom will allow larger families to be housed within the city.

In the past, a lot of the units which have been built have been in the one and two bedroom range.

So it's very critical that this goes forward.

And again, as our agency, we need more space to cater for the community as our services have grown over the years.

and this would be an opportunity for us to have some professional office space within the community that we've served for many years, and just make it more accessible for many people in the community to access those services.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rizwan.

Connor Hanson, please press star six to unmute yourself and begin at any time.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Connor Hanson.

I'm the Director of Real Estate for Mount Baker Housing, and thank you for your time.

I'm speaking in support of the ordinance to rezone these parts of Rainier Beach that we've been discussing.

Mt. Baker Housing, we're a 30-year nonprofit that's been developing and operating affordable housing in the Rainier Valley.

And we're excited.

Our project is the one that Jeff was referring to on the south, Cloverdale project.

We're planning 221 units of affordable housing, and this is located within the Intensify Activity and Development Corridor in the Rainier Beach neighborhood plan update.

In addition to increasing the supply of affordable housing, we're also partnering with the Rainier Valley Food Bank to have their community food center go on the ground floor.

This will be a great community asset that will feel like a grocery store, but function more as a food bank.

This rezone would allow for the project to be more economically feasible for the food bank, but it will also produce another 40 units of housing while decreasing the public funding request of the City's Office of Housing.

I ask that you support this rezone, and it will vastly benefit this great community asset.

Thank you.

Thank you, Connor.

At this time, I do not see anyone else listed to speak.

And that was our last speaker remotely present to speak at this public hearing.

The public hearing on Council Bill 119827 is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who provided comment today.

This legislation will be back before the committee on September 9th for a vote.

Our next item of business today is a discussion and vote on Council Bill 119831, the Child Care Near You proposal.

Noah, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Agenda item two, Council Bill 119831. an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, modifying use and development standards to remove regulatory impediments and allow the setting of child care centers throughout the city and amending the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you, Noah.

We are joined by Lish Whitson of Council Central Staff.

Lish, it has been a busy few weeks for all of us.

Could you provide us a quick refresher on the Child Care Near You proposal, which you provided a briefing at during our last committee meeting about three weeks ago?

Good morning, happy to.

Council Bill 119831 is the Child Care Near You proposal.

It removes impediments to child care centers from the land use code.

It allows child care as a permitted use in all zones, removes requirements that child care centers be at least 600 feet apart from each other, removes regulations that are also included in state licensing requirements, removes maximum size limits In higher density zones, childcare will be exempt from floor area, and incentives to encourage the creation of space for preschools will apply to all ages of childcare.

Any questions?

Thank you, Lish.

Colleagues, any questions on this bill?

I know that we had a robust discussion and briefing on it, as well as a public hearing on this bill previously.

Vice Chair Mosqueda?

And then just a quick note.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a quick note again, say thank you.

I know I've heard from a number of child care providers and provider advocates who appreciate those important first step as part of the bigger picture on how we get more affordable and accessible child care across the city.

So thank you for taking this step and happy to support it.

Thank you, Vice Chair Mosqueda, Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you.

Yeah, I wanted to thank Council Member Mosqueda, who's been talking about child care and the need to expand child care for a really long time.

And Chair Strauss for taking up the mantle to get this legislation through.

And of course, all the staff who worked on it and did the real work at the staff level.

And my issue is that I want to make sure that we have high quality child care when these kiddos are at this is when their brains are d The quality of the child care is really important.

It's one chance that we have to provide that.

And this is just a land use code we're dealing with here.

So I did have discussions with the Department of Education and Early Learning to make sure there would be no impact on quality.

And it's really the theme here is that this is a land use bill, not a child care licensing bill or a child care subsidy bill.

But I just wanted to sort of get on the record that that's one of my concerns, making sure that if the city is enabling childcare, that we also are mindful of the once in a lifetime chance we have to provide that high quality so that those children get off to a really great and strong start.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

That is a great reminder that this is just one aspect of permitting.

That's a secondary aspect of permitting.

There is still a primary permit that child care facilities will need to have approval from.

And then additionally, there is the state regulations and state codes for licensure of these child care facilities.

This is simply changing a conditional aspect of the childcare permit, which is an additional step beyond the primary permit.

Additionally, the work that Council Member Peterson, you've done with your sign behind you with quality preschool, this makes some technical changes to ensure that preschool and childcare are able to receive the same definitions within our code.

Council Member Lewis, just double checking you don't have anything to say.

Well, Mr. Chair, I'm all about it.

This is great.

Thanks for your leadership and looking forward to seeing this pass.

Excellent.

And so before we vote, I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge that this legislation would not have come together without Lish.

Lish Whitson has been enormously helpful every step of the way, and I can't thank you enough, Lish.

With so many big urgent issues facing our city, it would be easy to overlook a land use bill addressing childcare.

And as we all know, childcare touches so many different issues, from affordability in our city, to how equitable our neighborhoods are, to how we support working parents and particularly working moms who disproportionately bear the impact of our childcare shortage.

I started working on this bill in January because addressing childcare shortage is one of my top priorities.

And today, COVID has made child care even more important than it was six months ago.

We know that child care accessibility and affordability are the two main issues that need to be addressed.

And while this bill addresses part of the accessibility, it is just one part of the solution among many additional steps we need to take.

to ensure that childcare is affordable and accessible to everyone.

As I've said before, this bill is not a single solution or a comprehensive solution to our childcare crisis.

With all of the challenges related to childcare, the land use code should not be the additional barrier.

This legislation helps fix that and encourages more childcare in neighborhoods across our city.

Just double checking if there is there any additional discussion before we move this bill.

Seeing none, I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 119831. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

If there are no additional comments, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Noah.

And thank you again to everyone who helped bring this bill together.

This is my first bill as a council member and land use bills take a lot of time because of all of the required public input, which is good.

And so eight months in, I'm very excited to have this bill pass out of committee.

This will be before the full council next Monday, August 17th for final passage.

Congratulations, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

In all of your years in Olympia, I know that, you know, if we were in the state capitol, there would have been some teasing going along with this first bill.

So I'm glad we're here where we are.

And I know that if it wasn't also for everything else going on, we would have done this sooner.

So thank you for your patience in getting this done.

Thank you so much.

You are correct.

If we were in Olympia, there would be a lot of teasing.

Thank you.

And our final item of business today is a discussion and vote on Council Bill 119835, the Land Use Omnibus Legislation.

Noah, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Agenda item three, Council Bill 119835, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, correcting typographical errors, correcting section references, clarifying regulations, and making minor amendments amending sections, and adding a new section to the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you, Noah.

We are joined now by Mike Podolsky from Seattle Department of Construction Inspection and Ketel Freeman of Council Central Staff to provide an overview of this year's omnibus package before opening the public hearing.

Mike, Ketel, will you please get us started?

Sure.

Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff, and just I think you may have been reading from a somewhat dated script there, Jerry Strauss.

The public hearing was held already, so no need for a hearing today on the omnibus bill.

As the committee knows, the council considers a land use code omnibus bill about every other year or so.

It's a bill that collects largely technical corrections to the land use code that have been identified by STCI in the course of code administration.

It's not always just about the land use code.

This time, the bill also includes some other codes that are administered by STCI, including the tenant relocation assistance ordinance.

The committee was briefed on the omnibus bill back in July.

There's a memo that I sent last week describing where the bill departs from some policy choices that have been made by the council in the past, and also identifies some changes in the omnibus bill that are related to the Mercer Mega Block transaction property disposition.

Council Member Strauss has prepared a substitute bill, and I know that there are two other standalone amendments, one prepared for Council Member Strauss related to bicycle parking and another for Council Member Peterson related to landmark structures.

Unless the Council Members have any questions about the content of the bill as proposed by SDCI, we can go right into the substituted amendments.

Thank you, Kito.

Unless there is other questions on the base bill, I think that we should move into the substitute.

Seeing no other questions on the base bill, if you could, Kito, walk us through the five changes proposed in the substitute amendment.

Sure.

So Council Member Strauss is proposing a substitute bill that would make five changes to the land use code, to the omnibus bill as proposed.

It would remove The proposed language that would allow creation of unit lots for accessory uses is the first change.

The second change is to replace a map of the Roosevelt residential urban village in the design review chapter with a more legible map.

That is purely just an editorial change.

It would allow unenclosed decks and roofs over patios for day-dos to extend into required rear yards.

The fourth change is to remove a reference to a height in Seattle mixed South Lake Union above which podium floor limits apply, and that reflects changes to heights that were made through the MHA implementation up zones in South Lake Union and downtown.

So that is a technical change.

And the fifth change is to authorize downtown TDR purchasers to utilize TDR from sending sites that are eligible for purchase and transfer at the time of building permit issuance.

So that's a largely procedural change as well.

Thank you, Ketel.

And I had merged two of my scripts from earlier, wanted to just flag that we have already had the public hearing on the omnibus bill and that Mike Podolsky and Ketel Pringle are here to walk us through the amendments and base bill.

So apologies for any confusion that that may have provided the public.

Thank you, Ketel.

My office has worked to incorporate these changes into the substitute that were raised by several council members.

Would anyone like to speak to the substitute before we take a vote on it?

Council Member Peterson, take it away.

Yeah, I just want to thank Chair Strauss and his office and also our staff, Keitel Freeman, for their Eric Bussis, Applicant OLIVE-MAYORKING.

I appreciate the diligent review of this 118 page bill.

There's a lot going on with the city with various crises and urgent matters.

I just want to make a general comment to express my concern.

The director's report states that Seattle Department of Construction Inspections is responsible for routine maintenance of the land use and other codes.

And these proposed amendments are called omnibus amendments because SDCI packages a collection of amendments for efficiency that are relatively small scale.

Such amendments include relatively minor changes that don't warrant separate legislation, independent legislation, correct typographical errors, et cetera.

I initially took the director's report at its word and assume that everything in the bill was minor.

So I really appreciate the due diligence from the legislative department to really look at this.

And this, I think the substitute is helping to, some additional technical corrections as well as dealing with a couple of policy matters that could be dealt with later.

I'll get to my amendment, which is an additional item about landmark sites.

And I know that the chair has another amendment.

So really just appreciate this process in the legislative department, trying to figure out what's in this bill and what may need to be fixed here.

So thank you for this substitute, which I'll be supporting.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson and Vice Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I did want to highlight a few pieces in the substitute because your office was very diligent in working with our office to include some key components, and so I just wanted to highlight those to also lift up the good work that has been done by our teams and central staff, if I might.

On amendment number three, which is the rear yard, unenclosed decks and patios, this is something I'm really excited about.

It follows up on the conversations that we had last year on an amendment that I sponsored to the add-do-dad-do legislation to enable rooftop patios to be built on add-dos and dad-dos.

As we think about greater density across our city, recognizing that both townhouses and row houses and now add-dos and dad-dos These the rooftops can be a great place for families and individuals to be able to have outdoor space.

These could be our new backyards as we create new density across our city.

And it's really important for the health and livability of our communities.

We're providing an opportunity to create these outdoor spaces so people can have plants and enjoy sitting on their patios and increasing the livability of all housing options for all ages in our city.

We heard from folks from the American Institute of Architects, the Seattle chapter, that there were additional follow-up changes that needed to happen to make it possible or help enable rooftop patios to be included on add-oos and dad-oos, and this offers a minor technical amendment that codifies the intent of what we passed through the adu-dadu legislation last year.

This amendment allows for unenclosed decks and rooftops over patios to extend into rear yards where dadus are more likely to be, in addition to front yards.

And again, I think that this technical amendment makes a great improvement in terms of enabling these spaces, these outdoor spaces for more greenery and more play and live areas for our families of all ages across our city.

I also would love to call out some of the work that was done on Amendment No. 5. Again, this expands the downtown TDR eligibility.

This amendment addresses a small but really important technical fix in the proposed changes to the Transfer of Development Rights, or TDR, section of the omnibus bill.

TDR is a program that enables us to incentivize density in areas where we want to encourage greater density, such as in the downtown core, in exchange for preservation of historic properties, open space, and vulnerable masonry structures through purchase of transfer of development rights.

So let's talk about the weeds for a second.

What this amendment actually does is it looks at a footnote.

There has been a footnote in the code that's cited that the Downtown Retail Corps can only be used for TDRs from another site in the Downtown Retail Corps.

The practical problem here is that TDRs aren't functionally available from any downtown retail core sites.

The omnibus proposal in front of us deletes this footnote so that projects in the downtown retail core are able to obtain transfer of development rights just like any other downtown property project could.

This would apply to all projects in the downtown retail core going forward.

However, vested pipeline projects are still without a solution because they don't have a don't have a bank of transfer development rights sites to pull from.

So this amendment addresses pipeline projects by adding language that land use previously, sorry, that land use provisions apply that are in effect on the date of building permit issuance or vesting.

In other words, these changes would apply to projects that are vested and in the pipeline, but haven't yet obtained transfer development rights.

We want to encourage projects to participate in TDR because we want to encourage density in these areas.

And the trade-off between preservation of historic properties and open space and vulnerable masonry structures through the purchase of transfer of development rights is a win-win.

So thank you for letting me get into the weeds on that and appreciate all of your work on this.

Thank you, Vice Chair Mosqueda.

At this time, hearing no additional comments, I would move to amend Council Bill 119835 by substituting version D2 for D1 as shown in the substitute amendment on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to move the amendment to Council Bill 119835 as shown in the substitute amendment.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Lewis.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Noah.

The motion carries.

Amendment one.

At our last committee discussion, I expressed my intent to work with bike advocates and affordable housing providers to amend the bike parking exemptions that are proposed in this bill.

This amendment is the product of those discussions.

and would narrow the bike parking exemptions to strike a better balance between providing flexibility for housing providers and encouraging biking as a means of transportation.

Noah Ahn in my office did Yeoman's work working with both affordable housing providers, STCI, and bike advocates.

So thank you, Noah.

Specifically, this amendment would modify the blanket exemption for affordable housing and instead would exempt affordable housing projects serving zero to 30 percent of the area meeting income from long-term parking bike parking requirements.

These are mostly permanent supportive housing projects.

This amendment would also allow affordable housing projects for 30 percent to 60 percent of affordable area meeting income to apply for a waiver from the requirements if it increases affordable housing and reasonable alternatives are provided.

So this is that middle ground of affordable housing.

And I think that this amendment is important with this language because it needs to demonstrate two issues, which is one, additional affordable housing is created by this exemption, and there are reasonable alternatives provided.

This would authorize SDCI and SDOT to create a rule defining reasonable alternatives and restore short-term bike parking requirements to all projects.

Short-term bike parking is essentially outdoors or in front or in the lobby, whereas long-term bike parking is typically a room within a building.

This also clarifies that nonprofit senior housing can apply for a similar waiver.

I've heard from many that seniors are not prone to biking and I disagree.

We have many electric bicycles that get people moving I have been beat by people older than me while we are both writing.

electric bikes, and there are even trikes for folks that don't have good balance.

So I think that it is important that a waiver must be applied for.

In addition to these changes related to affordable housing, the amendment also narrows a provision intended to provide flexibility for bike parking access on slope properties.

So thank you to the bike advocates and affordable housing providers who worked with us to develop this compromise.

Patrick Taylor and the Bike Advisory Board, Brock Howell, Seattle Neighborhood Greenways, Patience Malaba at the Housing Development Consortium, and Noah Ahn for coordinating.

Ketel, did I miss anything on that amendment?

No, you did not.

I think that captured it.

Wonderful.

Well, at this time, unless I hear other comments from my colleagues, Council Member Peterson, take it away.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, for identifying this as an issue.

And, you know, my staff have been talking to bike advocates as well.

And I'm glad that you were able to synthesize the different principles we're trying to achieve here.

You know, it's getting people on the bikes, dealing with environmental climate change issues at the same time, trying to balance the desire to build affordable housing and the cost of building affordable housing.

Had a question for keto about the and also for addressing the senior housing as well one of the things we haven't talked about is the had a question for keto about the What this what the underlying bill is doing is it is it relaxing?

bike parking requirements for For-profit market rate developers, and if so, how is it doing that?

It is not, it makes some changes to, that are largely technical changes to the quantity of parking that can be required by market rate developers of bicycle parking, but it does not make significant changes there.

As Council Member Strauss mentioned, one of the changes had to do less with quantity and more with location and access to bicycle parking.

There's a provision that's proposed in the omnibus that would allow off-site, long-term parking for residential uses to be located off-site.

That was something that the council considered a couple of years ago and ultimately rejected, allowing it for commercial uses or non-residential uses but not for residential uses.

So that is a change that is incorporated into the omnibus that has more to do with location and access.

As Council Member Strauss mentioned, the bill as proposed would have eliminated bicycle parking requirements for affordable projects.

So projects with units affordable to households at 60% of AMI and below if they met certain criteria for continued affordability.

But those are the primary changes to quantity of parking.

And if I may follow up, Chair.

So the residential market rate for profit residential projects, a change in location and access.

I mean, isn't that a benefit, though, that's being given to market rate developers to allow the location of the long-term parking to be off-site?

And isn't it something like, did I read correctly, it's 600 feet, which is basically 300, or three football fields away from the project?

Yes, it is.

It is 600 feet, and it's got language that is somewhat similar to what's currently in the code for non-residential uses, which is that it has to be part of a functionally unrelated campus.

So a couple of years ago, when the council was considering these new bike parking changes, when the council allowed off-site parking for non-residential uses, the council was thinking of things like, say, an Expedia campus or a major institution campus, things like that.

You know, as a practical matter, there just aren't that many sites that are that are very large, where parking could be located 600 feet away.

But for those few that do exist, this would allow a long-term bicycle parking room, for example, to be located on one part of a functionally interrelated campus that includes residential uses.

OK.

Thank you very much.

I also want to thank Vicki Clark for her connecting with our office on this.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

That's a great question, and I appreciate that additional clarification from Ketel, noting that the campus must be interconnected.

So understanding whether it would be UW Medicine and South Lake Union who has connected buildings, or Expedia, that there has to be interconnectivity between the buildings that the bike parking is serving.

It's a very helpful context and answers a question that I also had.

So Council Member Peterson, thanks for asking.

Excellent.

Vice Chair Mosqueda, please take it away.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I got excited when you talked about Expedia's bike parking.

I visited that campus and it is so exciting.

I'm looking forward to seeing the next iteration of how they populate that building because it is so great and it's going to be a really great incentive for people to bike into work.

I just wanted to comment on this amendment.

I just want to thank your office.

I know that this was sent down as part of an omnibus bill and a lot of stakeholders flagged that this was a policy change.

I think that you have really helped to, I think, fix the issues that were generated from The need for additional stakeholdering before it got sent down and you really did tremendous work to bring folks together.

So I want to thank you for that hard work.

I am very supportive of these amendments.

I think that it makes sense.

They tailor to the different types of affordable housing sites.

and you've created a creative solution to make sure that it's not just a one-size-fits-all.

And the amendments really provide flexibility so that we're providing appropriate places for people to include their bikes, whether that's in permanent supportive housing or in senior housing, looking for opportunities for folks to have their bikes on sites and whether that means vertical hooks or on site in units or within the building and other places.

We've continued to try to ensure that this multimodal option is not only sort of relegated to one corner, but really built into the fabric of these buildings and making it a more accessible option for our community, not only helps the livability of those in the region, but also helps our livability as a globe.

It is good for our environment.

Thank you for your hard work on this.

Appreciate your diligence to getting into these details.

Thank you, Vice Chair Mosqueda.

There are no further comments, and thank you for calling that out.

I will give all credit to Noah in my office for moving all of those pieces closer and people closer together to a compromise.

If there are no further comments, I would move to amend Council Bill 119835 as shown on the agenda is Amendment 1. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

It has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 119835 with Amendment 1 as shown on the agenda.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Lewis?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

I. Chair Strauss.

Yes.

For in favor and opposed.

Thank you, colleagues, it has been the motion carries.

It's my understanding that there is an additional walk on amendment and Councilmember Peterson, would you like to speak to that.

Yes, thank you.

And could I ask you to describe it and then I can talk about the intent.

So Council Member, just for context, as flagged in the memo sent last week, the omnibus adds some new language which would make landmark sites, not just landmark structures, eligible for use dispensations in single-family zones through an administrative conditional use process.

An administrative conditional use process is a type two decision in the land use code, meaning that it's a discretionary decision made by the SDCI director that can be appealed to the hearing examiner.

Council Member Peterson's amendment would remove the language proposed in the omnibus that would authorize SDCI through the same conditional use process to permit uses on landmark sites in single-family zones that are not otherwise permitted.

Thank you, Keetle.

So thank you, Chair Strauss.

So this amendment would basically just bring us back to what it is today.

As I mentioned in earlier remarks, I'm concerned with this 118 page bill had some substantive matters in it, some policy matters, not just technical corrections.

We were able to identify some of those and that's why we passed the substitute.

That's why we had the bike amendment.

And now there's this amendment to basically go back to what it is today, which is to allow that authority for landmark structures, but to remove the expansion, the wide expansion to include landmark sites because I think that this is a situation where we don't want to have this legislation undermine the authority of the Landmark Preservation Board, which has its own process.

And if this is something that the Seattle Department of Construction Inspection really wants to do and needs to do for some reason, they can just bring that as a different piece of legislation.

But I feel like it's inappropriate for the omnibus technical corrections.

it's potentially undermining the Landmark Preservation Board's authority and should just be removed.

So that's what this amendment does.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

And Ketel, as I have not, I was not briefed on this amendment in depth before this committee hearing.

I do have, I typically reserve these types of questions for briefings, but as we're having that experience here on the dais today, I want to double check my assumptions from the briefing that you just provided here.

It sounds as if even without Councilmember Peterson's amendment, the process still retains a conditional permitting process that requires public input and the full permitting process that is similar to the child care conditional permit that we just removed from child care.

So this adds a a permitting process to allow different uses on a historical site.

Is that correct?

So, yeah.

So, the current process, the permitting process is already there.

The administrative conditional use process is there for use dispensation for landmark structures.

And the criteria that SDCI uses in granting that use dispensation is whether or not the use is compatible with existing design or construction of the structure.

In the case of structures, getting the use dispensation, which is what's only allowed now.

And the applicant also has to demonstrate that the use won't be detrimental to other properties in the zone or the public interest and that the use, other uses that would otherwise be allowed in the zone and single family zone are impractical to be provided because of the nature of the structure.

So those are the criteria that SDCI applies and making a conditional use decision currently for structures.

Thank you.

I have a few more questions just to follow up and then I'll come back to you.

I was just wondering if a screen could be shared so we could look at it while the question.

Yeah, absolutely.

I can try to share my screen here.

Let's see.

That I my sharing the right thing.

Or if you could enlarge or zoom in to It's very small.

I'm not I Correct amendment.

Correct amendment.

Let's see if I can.

Oh yeah, here we go.

Let's see.

I'll zoom in here.

That allows me to There we go.

Can you all see that amendment to the CB 119835 Okay.

Thank you for answering that last question.

It sounds as if there is a robe even With allowing different uses to be used on a historical site, it has to demonstrate that it will not infringe upon any of the structures there, change the structures, and that there is a robust process.

Are the preservation boards that are associated with overseeing these historic sites, will they be part of this conditional permitting process?

Do they have input or veto power?

So that is a question that I cannot answer right now.

The director is the one authorized to make the administrative conditional use decision here by this code section.

That is the director of the Department of Construction and Land Use.

As a practical matter, of course, the director is whichever land use planner is assigned to the administration, to the ACU permit application.

And there's nothing in here that compels any kind of consultation with the Landmarks Preservation Board.

As a practical matter, the Landmarks Preservation Board would need to weigh in on the use dispensation, but how that is sequenced and how the two decisions inform each other, I can't answer that question right now.

Thank you.

And just confirming, makes no structural changes, makes sure that no detrimental uses of the space would be allowed?

Right, I'm subject to the discretionary decision, so there is some discretion that is afforded to STCI and making that determination.

Thank you and so what we're.

Help me.

I'm just going to kind of put it in plain language and help me if I'm not.

Hitting this on the head.

What we're talking about here is if there's a historical site in a single family zone that a conditional permit process would have to.

Be engaged in it.

to allow things like weddings or bar mitzvahs or...

No, it would not be for things like that, not those kinds of activities necessarily, because those can happen in institutions and single family zones right now.

I think that the problem this is probably seeking to address has to do with accessory uses that might be allowed in a structure.

So if there is, for example, a commercial use that is authorized through the administrative conditional use process, for a structure, an applicant may have difficulty in getting accessory uses located on the site to support that principle use.

I think that is what this is intended to address.

Mike, I don't know if you, Mike Badowski, if you have any further thoughts on this to chime in, that might be helpful.

But I think that is primarily what this is intended to address.

It's unclear why it would apply only in single-family zones.

It seems like as a policy matter, if this was something the council wanted to pursue, it should apply in multifamily and commercial zones as well.

Mike, do you have any thoughts to share?

I would concur with the example that Ketil just provided.

The thing that has been a question of interpretation in our use of these provisions in the past has been, what do we do with things that are not a structure?

accessory parking, which I think it goes to the example that Ketel was speaking to.

We had not intended for this to be a policy change.

We thought that the changes we had proposed would be clarifications.

We understand the questions that have come up with this and the desire potentially on the part of committee members for us to do some more analysis on this and some outreach.

And so, you know, we would be happy reverting to the existing language.

And I would just mention, that as a business practice, we coordinate very closely with the Department of Neighborhoods and Planmark process in use of these provisions.

Thank you.

Very helpful, Mike.

I did see Councilmember Mosqueda, and then back to Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think along the similar line of questions that you had, and having just been in a position where amendments get walked on, I get the position you're in trying to review as you are chairing.

And it's not an easy task, and I will be working on improving that process.

I'm moving forward just so that folks know in the fall.

But Mr. Chair, I appreciate the line of questions that you just had.

To me, that means really when I look at what the language is in front of us and the questions that you just asked, it seems like A site with a landmark status is restricted because of that landmark already, so there should be some flexibility for how the rest of the site is used.

For example, if we want to consider building housing and things like we've been discussing throughout this committee over the last few months, and it's already a conditional use, so it goes through careful site-specific review.

For that, Mr. Chair and to the sponsor, I don't think I'm gonna be able to support this change today.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you.

And I appreciate SDCI recognizing that, you know, they may need to do more outreach and work on this.

And really, this amendment is not making a policy decision.

This amendment is simply enabling the process to occur where there's more robust engagement about what is really a policy change.

And I guess what I'm concerned with a couple things is it's really pitting these two agencies against each other, SGCI and Landmarks.

And I think that needs to be resolved and dealt with offline.

And, you know, so we can hear from Landmarks folks about this change to their realm, their policy area.

And also, I guess it's my understanding this conditional use process, isn't that just a desk review by somebody on SCCI staff who's just reading emails that come in for comment?

It's not an actual robust public discussion about that approval for that.

And so really, I'm just trying to get this to a place where we can have a more robust discussion, more community engagement.

And there are lots of things in this 118 page bill.

And I think all we're doing is just trimming this item that's potentially controversial.

hits a couple of agencies together that we want to resolve that in a more methodical manner.

So it's not making a policy decision, it's just sort of allowing a process to occur outside of this, what's this 118 page bill.

If I could, I would just like to clarify that we did work closely with D.O.N. and the Landmarks staff and that they are supportive of this set of amendments here as they were proposed.

So there has been you know, very robust consideration of their needs.

Thank you, Kito.

Thank you, Mike.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you, Vice Chair Mosqueda.

I am also just struggling with needing a little bit more input from about this because it's seen just on its face as I'm sitting here being briefed on it for the first time, it does seem to me that this simply allows flexibility in what is already a historic designation, which requires a process of creating that historic space.

And then there's a process for allowing uses within the space.

And then this is a conditional permit In addition to that, that would allow a different use that is not allowed in the single family zone.

I'm wondering if the sponsor of this amendment, Council Member Peterson, if you would be willing to hold this until Monday so that we can do a little bit of additional outreach and so that I can better understand the implications of this amendment.

Or if you'd like to take a vote right now, we can do that as well.

Yes, we should just, it's OK.

I know we're going to have a full agenda on Monday, and I appreciate the comments that everybody's made.

I was not aware that Landmarks supported this.

I didn't see any of that information anywhere.

So that's new information to me.

I still think this is a policy change, and it should be done outside of the scope of the omnibus, and I'm willing

You went on mute there.

And willing to vote on it now.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

And I really have to thank you for your detailed analysis of these bills and for bringing this discussion forward.

While I will not be able to support it right now because of my additional questions, I think that you have raised a very important discussion that that should occur and needed to occur.

So I really appreciate you bringing this forward.

Thank you.

So Mr. Chair, I'd like to move Amendment 2 to Council Bill 119835 regarding landmark sites.

I will second that.

It has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 119835 as shown with Amendment 2. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Chair Strass?

No.

Two in favor, two opposed.

And Deputy Clerk Sanchez, can you advise me on the process in which this moves at this time with a split vote and our fifth member not present?

Council Member Strauss, with a tie vote, the motion fails.

Thank you for that.

Your constant and consistent advisement on these issues, I really appreciate it.

Council Members, if I may, Council Member Strauss, you mentioned Monday as a potential vote.

As is often the case with land use bills, we may need to provide an additional comment period here because of some of the changes that were made through the substitute and also in the bike parking amendment, specifically the Growth Management Act has a provision which staff kind of jokingly refers to as the endless loop provision, but that provision requires that when there are changes made that are new to the bill, so something that the public couldn't have reasonably testified about at the public hearing, an additional comment period may be required.

It's likely that's the case here.

Typically, we like to provide about 14 days or so for that comment period.

If one is required here, that probably means a full council vote will not happen until after the council returns from recess in September.

Thank you for that advisement.

And please let let us know whether that is the case.

It does seem that the amendments that have been provided have been consistent with the original bill that was her that received a public hearing.

And overall, I would like to be prudent with our movement.

So I want to Thank all my colleagues for their work on this, in particular Jim Holmes from OPCB Aaron house from Vice Chair Mosqueda his office Toby Taylor from counselor Peterson's office, you know, Freeman from central staff Mike podolski from Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection, Parker Dawson from Councilmember Lewis's office, and Noah Ahn from my office.

This is a large lift, and I appreciate everyone's work on this.

Is there further discussion before we vote on the underlying legislation?

Vice Chair Muscadet?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Appreciate all the work that you did, and thank you for working again with our office and calling out Erin House.

It's her birthday today.

Happy birthday, Erin.

Also, Joe, just wanted to double-check.

Ketel, when you do get the chance to do that analysis, I want to just underscore what the good chair mentioned about how this seems like absolutely for the last 14 days this issue has been out there.

wanting to just make sure that we have a full understanding of whether or not it has to meet that additional time period, given the robust nature in which we discussed this the first time around and the length of which the amendments were available.

So appreciate you flagging that and hoping that we can continue to move forward.

Excellent.

Any further discussion?

and happy birthday to Heron House.

I would move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 119835. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

If there are no additional comments, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Lewis?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Abstained.

And Chair Strass?

Yes.

Three in favor, none opposed, one abstain.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Thank you all for the discussion today and from Council Member Peterson's robust discussion.

Depending on the public noticing requirements as discussed by Keto Freeman, this will be back before full council on either August 17th or September 8th.

If there is no further business, I would like to just take a moment to see if there's any items for the good of the order.

Seeing none, this concludes the August 12th, 2020 meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee.

As a reminder, our next committee meeting will be on September 9th, starting at 9.30 a.m.

Thank you for attending today.

We are adjourned.