Seattle City Council Land Use & Neighborhoods Committee 9/23/2020

Just, I am not seeing in my inbox the public comment signup sheet.

Standby.

Thank you.

Hey there, this is Council Member Lewis coming in by phone.

Good morning, Council Member Lewis.

We are just waiting for a call.

Sign up sheet being sent over to me and then we'll get going.

Okay, thank you.

Did you not receive that?

I see it.

Good morning.

The September 23rd 2020 meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee will come to order.

It is 933 a.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Peterson?

Here.

Councilmember Lewis?

Present.

Councilmember Juarez?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Present.

Council Member Strass.

Present.

For present.

And I believe we have our alternate.

Or did you call Council Member Lewis and I just missed it?

Yes.

Sorry about that.

Apologies.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional land of the first people of Seattle, Salish people, past and present, and honor with gratitude the land itself and the people who have been here for millennia.

We have three items on the agenda today, a public hearing and vote on CB 119877, which extends allowing for virtual design review and landmarks meetings during the COVID-19 emergency, a discussion and vote on CB 119838, the annual comprehensive plan amendments, and discussion and vote on the 2020-2021 comprehensive plan docket setting resolution.

For Council rules, the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee will not be meeting as the Council considers the 2021 budget.

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee is on Wednesday, December 9th, starting at 9.30 a.m.

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

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

Deb Barker, Megan Cruz, Chris Lehman, thank you for your patience.

I know we were supposed to meet yesterday and I apologize that we had to take up a veto vote.

And so we will be, I'll be reaching out to meet with you as soon as possible.

And Noah has already communicated with me. much of what you have to share.

So thank you for your patience as we navigate these trying times.

While it remains our strong intent to have public comment regularly included on meeting agendas, the city council reserves the right to end or eliminate these 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 in which we are able to conduct our necessary business.

I will moderate the public comment period in the following manner.

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 are registered on the Council's website.

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

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

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

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

Speakers will hear a chime 10 seconds before the allotted time ends.

Once the speaker hears the chime, you have 10 seconds to wrap up and your comments.

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

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask that you 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 on the agenda.

Please remember that there is a separate public hearing on the agenda for item one, CB119877, which extends the virtual design review meetings.

If your comments are about CB119877, I ask that you please hold them for the public hearing.

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

I'm going to read through the names on the list.

I see Deb Barker, Steve Zemke, I don't see that you are present.

Suzanne Schwab, Jim Street, Suzanne Grant, excellent.

Amy Wolfe, I don't see that you are present.

Brian Bellissimo, I don't see that you are present.

Chris Lehman, and then Annie Throw, I don't see that you are present.

So Deb Barker, welcome.

And speaker, as you are unmuted, you also have to press star six.

So speakers press star six and Deb Barker, welcome.

IT, do we have Deb Barker on the line?

Affirmative.

Great.

And has she been unmuted?

Three persons signed up on the listen line should follow the instructions to connect to the public comment meeting.

If you are listening to this meeting now and desire to share your public comment, but have called into the listen line, you need to follow the instructions to connect to the public comment meeting.

IT, I'm not seeing Deb Barker.

Oh, Deb Barker, there you are.

You need to press star six, Deb.

I see Deb Barker.

I am still seeing her muted.

IT, any assistance we can provide here?

Deb Barker, I see her, but she is muted.

The only assistance we can provide is just to tell them to hit star six, and you can move on and then come back to that person later on.

Deb, we're going to come back to you at the end of the list.

So if you are listening, we're going to come back to you.

Steve Zemke, I do not see that you are present.

We are going to move on to Suzanne Schwab, Jim Street, and Suzanne Grant.

Suzanne.

And you need to press star six to unmute.

Did I successfully?

Good morning, yes.

Can you hear me?

Good morning.

All right.

Glad that worked, and thank you all.

I'm Suzanne Schwab, Land Use and Planning Director for Providence St. Joseph Health.

Here again today on behalf of the Mount in West Seattle, we're on the agenda for the comp plan amendment.

As you know, we've been working closely with city staff for inclusion in the hub urban village for West Seattle Junction.

We see ourselves as an important part of the fabric there in West Seattle.

We look forward to being able to contribute to that as an employment center and a long-term care facility.

And this vote today would help us to have some flexibility in our long-term plans.

So I'm online and available if there are any specific questions, but just wanted to say thank you.

And again, glad to be here today.

Thank you, Suzanne.

Up next, we have Council Member Jim Street.

Council Member Street, I see you there, press star six.

You're good to go.

Jim, I see you.

Just need to press star six.

We are still having trouble hearing you, Jim.

Jim, we'll come back to you at the end.

For folks who have signed up, but maybe on the listen line, the council listen line, you do need to follow the instructions to call into a different number, which is the public comment line.

Suzanne Grant, we'll hear from you next.

Hello, this is Suzanne Grant.

Morning.

Hi, good morning.

I'm calling.

Hello, Dan.

I'm calling regarding Resolution 31970. I'm assuming you can hear me just fine.

Is that true?

That's true.

OK.

I'm especially commenting on number C, letter C, trees, of course.

If you know me, you know I'm a tree gal.

And I want to thank you for the tree study amendment.

But I hope that you will amend the comprehensive plan to better support urban tree canopy.

In fact, I was at two native conifers in Ballard yesterday that will be cut down by the homeowner, and one is 25 inches at DBH.

If that tree ordinance that is currently languishing down there at City Hall had already been passed, that western red cedar would be classified as exceptional, and it might be saved.

So in the comprehensive plan, again, you really need to please add the provisions stating no net loss of tree canopy.

It's very important, and you all know all the reasons why.

I don't need to tell you.

Let's follow the science, all right?

Let's be one of those people.

You need to add provisions also for maximizing the retention of existing trees during development, as in Land Use Code SMC23.

I hope you will step up the 30% tree canopy goal that we've been hoping to have and that other cities are ahead of us.

The Emerald City is behind, in case you don't know that.

Anyway, from 2037, that's the goal.

You have it now set at 2037. It needs to be 2030. It's coming.

We have to help meet racial and social justice goals and the climate crisis impacts.

And also, if you were stuck inside during this COVID and you need to go walking outside, you know, trees are gonna help you and be much better for your health.

Finally, and most importantly, since they are the only organization down there, downtown Seattle, that we can depend upon to keep track of and protect our trees, the Urban Forestry Commission must be given an equal role in the tree study amendment.

They have to be partnering along with the Office of Sustainability and the, oh, am I done?

Out of time?

No, you got 10 more seconds.

You can keep going.

Oh, okay.

They just, I just want them to be an equal partner.

So thank you very much.

I hope that all my comments will be well considered and I appreciate your time listening.

Thank you.

Thank you, Suzanne.

I appreciate your comments.

I'm only disappointed that they were not in a punk rock song today.

Maybe next time though.

I thought you would be there to throw one zinger right back at me, but I look forward to chatting with you in the near future, Suzanne.

Thank you for your comments.

Amy Wolfe, Brian Bellissimo, and then Chris Lehman.

Amy.

Hi.

Yeah, this is Amy Wolfe.

Good morning.

I don't understand the punk rock comment.

Anyway, so she's addressed the tree canopy from the point of view of development.

I have a concern about tree canopy as a longtime Seattle resident that I can't get anyone to look at.

All along the roadways, Lake Washington Boulevard, Westlake, smaller parks like Madrona Park, there are trees.

We're losing thousands of trees to invasive ivy and it's being addressed in places like Lincoln Park and Ravenna Park, but it's not being addressed on our roadways.

And I think we're gonna like turn around and go, where did all those trees go?

And I don't frankly know if all of that is public land or private land or it's mixed, but I think there are many, many places in the city where we're losing trees because nobody can be bothered to notice that there's invasive ivy just killing them.

And I'm gonna send all you guys some pictures in case you haven't noticed.

And honestly, the environmental organizations, like from the woman that just spoke, I can't get them to even notice that or talk about it.

And I'm glad they're dealing with development, but somebody needs to deal with the trees used to seeing every day that won't be there and are falling all along roads all over Seattle.

So that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we appreciate hearing from you.

Up next is Brian, then Chris, and then Annie Tho, we still see that you are not present.

Steve Zemke, we see that you are not present.

We will go back to Deb Barker, Council Member Street.

So Brian, good morning.

Take it away.

Good morning.

Hi, my name is Brian Belisno.

Sorry, just point of clarification.

Did I hear the comments on the ADR and virtual DRB?

This isn't the venue for right now?

Or is that later?

That is my focus was on public hearing.

Would you like us to just wait and circle back to you in a couple?

Yeah, I can wait.

Yeah, I can wait.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

I appreciate everyone's flexibility as we navigate this virtual world.

Up next is Chris Lehman, followed by Deb Barker, Jim Street, and then Steve Zemke.

Yes, hello?

Good morning, Steve.

Can you hear me okay?

Good morning, Chris.

Hi, yes, thank you.

I'm testifying about Resolution 31970 for Comp Plan docketing.

I've submitted seven amendments, and of course I want them all docketed, but two in particular I think are urgent.

and are neglectfully analyzed by the central staff.

In both cases, important new information has become available.

In the case of the open and participatory government amendment, it is not even accurately described in this resolution.

Please don't act on this resolution today, especially under coronavirus.

You need to give more time because it's been very difficult for the public to to follow this.

And what this calls for is for a plan, plan for open and participatory government.

And the coronavirus crisis shows why we need that.

And there's inconsistency across different agencies and commissions.

There's no advanced planning.

Even one of your other committee amendments is doing some one-off planning action, which should have been planned and coordinated with other ways of doing it across the city.

So please, and I did send an email to you and the other committee members yesterday.

Second, the extra heavy vehicles that are damaging our roads and bridges.

And what is new here is that the West Seattle bridge damage has been found and SDOT has acknowledged that extra heavy transit buses contributed to that.

The city desperately needs to realize when there's in a hole of road and bridge damage, the first step is to stop, you know, stop digging in that hole.

The city council needs to take that step because city vehicles Vector trucks by SBU, solid waste vehicles, and fire engines are damaging roads and bridges, and even more damage is caused by Metro-granted buses without any action by the city to try to encourage Metro to have buses that don't do damage to roads and bridges.

So both of these, We have not been substantively analyzed by the by the central staff and the city council needs to include them for a docketed for study.

So there's reasonable discussion about what to do.

It's just two sentences in one case.

And the other doesn't even necessarily have to be in the comp plan.

The study is for it to do that.

Thank you.

Chris, I'm sorry, your time has expired.

And I know that we will be meeting again soon.

IT, as per the instructions provided in the, that I provided at the beginning of this, 10 seconds after time has expired, please mute the speaker to continue moving on.

Chris, I look forward to connecting soon.

Up next, Annie Thill, we don't see that you are present.

We're going to move next to Deb Barker.

Good morning, Deb.

And you'll need to press star six.

There we are.

I see it.

Hello.

I think I'm here.

You are indeed.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you.

Sometimes at star six, you always have to remember to pause before you frantically hit star six a second and a third and a fourth time.

I'm here speaking.

My name is Deb Barker.

speaking today on Council Bill 119877. I support design review.

I was a design review board member for four years at the Southwest Design Review Board.

I continue to attend design review board meetings in person and virtually.

I want to speak to in-person design review.

That is critical and it should be looked at, I look at it as a positive experience for the project and for the community.

It's wonderful to see when people go in and they have concerns and they can actually talk to somebody.

So I am supportive of design review in person and including design review for low-income projects, for affordable housing projects.

You get community support by having face-to-face conversations.

I just want to cite a business person in my community who attended a virtual design review board meeting and spent the majority of her time listening and then trying to comment.

And by the time and raising her hand, which is always a fun feature to try and figure out how to do on the various systems.

But by the time she had figured out how to raise her hand and how to unmute and all that good stuff, she was cut off, did not make her comments, which were incredibly applicable to this project.

So virtual is great.

It's what we do now.

But when we're done with virtual, everybody deserves in phase design review board meetings.

Thank you so much.

And in case I have a moment and I can't get back to support it, I do support the West Seattle Bridge Amendment for the comprehensive plan resolution 31970. So thank you.

Thanks, Deb.

Appreciate your comments.

Well received.

Up next, we do have Steve Zemke.

I still do not see a Council Member Street present or anytho.

Steve, good morning.

Press star six.

There you are.

Good morning, Steve.

Hi, this is, hello, Steve Zemke.

Good morning.

I'm speaking as chair of TREPAC in support of Council Resolution 31970. Tree PAC supports amending Seattle's 2035 comprehensive plan to, quote, identify opportunities to better support the urban tree canopy.

We also support the provision to consider, quote, impact the amendments to public-owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities and school facilities.

This is long overdue.

A couple of recommendations on the comprehensive plan amendments.

asked that the provision of, quote, no net loss of tree canopy, which was in the previous comprehensive plan, be added back to the current plan.

The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission in 2018 urged that this be added back as part of Seattle's tree regulations.

Another provision to consider adding is maximizing the retention of existing trees during development, as is in Land Use Code 20, SMC 23, This would help to stop unnecessary clear-cutting of lots and a significant loss of existing tree canopy.

And to meet race and social justice goals and climate crisis impacts, and to help implement the Green New Deal, we urge that you step up the 30% tree canopy goal in the comprehensive plan from 2037 to 2030. Waiting another 17 years to get that extra tree canopy is too long with the current crisis out there.

And we ask that you make the Urban Forestry Commission part of the process by adding that OPCD submit to the Urban Forestry Commission any draft language they propose on tree canopy opportunities and ask the Urban Forestry Commission's comments.

And these comments also be submitted to the Seattle City Council.

You need to take into consideration the advice of the experts you have that are serving voluntarily.

on the urban forestry commission to assist you in dealing with the tree canopy.

Thank you.

Thank you, Steve.

Appreciate hearing your comments.

Jim Street, Annie Tho, if you are listening to the listen line, you need to call back into the public comment line, the instructions that were sent to you after signing up.

Jim, I did see you present before, I couldn't get you off mute.

IT, can you confirm whether or not they are here?

Neither users are on the line.

All right.

Well, Jim, Annie, please don't hesitate to reach out to us in the future.

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

Our first item of business today is a public hearing discussion and vote on CB119877, which would extend the allowance for virtual design review and landmarks preservation meetings.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Agenda Item 1, Council Bill 119877, an ordinance relating to land use review decision and meeting procedures, temporarily modifying and suspending procedures in Titles 23 and 25 of the Seattle Municipal Code and amending chapters of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you.

And before we begin the public comments, could you give us a brief refresher on the legislation?

I believe that we have Ketel Freeman, members of OPCD, I see Jim Holmes and others, Mike Bedowsky, I see Sarah Bells, Lisa Rutzik, some really fantastic folks from our city departments.

Ketel, if you could start us off and then anyone else who would like to give us a brief refresher on the legislation and amendments.

Sure.

Ketel Freeman, Council of Central Staff.

So on Wednesday the 9th, the committee had an initial briefing and discussion of Council Bill 119877. That bill extended temporary modifications to land use and historic preservation procedures that were approved through Ordinance 126072, which the Council acted on in the spring.

That ordinance, among other things, authorized SDCI and DON to administratively review certain applications for land use approvals and modifications to historic structures that would otherwise require in-person public meetings.

And, of course, the purpose for the changes made through 126072 was the impossibility of holding in-person meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

That bill also exempted affordable housing projects from design review.

The temporary provisions of that bill expire on October 25th.

So we have this bill to extend some of the modifications, including extending the option for administrative design review through the end of this year.

In your committee packet, you have a memo from me that provides more information about the location and stage of review of some of the design of your projects.

Eric McConaughey helpfully put together a map based on information provided by Lisa Rutzik.

And you also have a couple of amendments proposed by Council Member Strauss.

I can describe those now if you'd like, or we can wait until after the public hearing.

Why don't you take it away right now, Ketel?

Thank you.

So you have two amendments in your packet proposed by Council Member Strauss.

The first amendment would add a new section making findings of fact related to the COVID-19 pandemic to support a procedural emergency exemption from State Environmental Policy Act review.

And that exemption is specific to the ongoing exemption from design review for affordable housing projects.

Prior to ordinance 126072 being passed, affordable housing projects were subject to administrative design review under both the proposed council bill and ordinance 126072, affordable housing projects are exempt from design review.

That amendment would also add a severability clause.

And then there is another amendment proposed by Council Member Strauss, which would shorten the period of time during which Council Bill 119877, if it passes, would be in effect.

So most of the provisions in Council Bill 119877 expire on an identifiable date, but an uncertain date, and that is 180 days after the mayor ends the COVID-19 civil emergency.

Council Member Strauss's amendment would shorten that time period from 180 days to 60 days.

And Ketel, my understanding was that Council Member Lewis was interested in co-sponsoring.

He had brought that up to me.

I wanna just, Council Member Lewis, I believe you're on the line.

Is that still of interest to you?

Yes, I would like to affix as a co-sponsor to that amendment.

Great, and I'd like the record to reflect that Council Member Lewis was an intricate and integral partner in that amendment.

Okay, yes, no, that had been, you guys had communicated that to me, and unfortunately, I did not follow through on that.

Sorry about that.

Not a problem.

You're forgiven, Ketel.

It all worked out.

I do hereby fix my name.

And thank you, Council Member Strauss, for your kind words.

It was great to work with your office on getting that amendment together.

And thank you, Ketel, for putting it together.

Really appreciate it.

So that's all from me.

I don't know if SDCI or DON want to add anything.

If you have questions about the content of the bill, both the current bill and the ordinance that passed back last spring.

I don't have additional questions before the public hearing.

SDCI, Department of Neighborhoods, anyone want to provide a brief overview from your perspective?

This is Mike Podowski from SDCI.

I think Ketel's summary was well done and we're ready to hear comments at the hearing.

Great, thanks.

This is Sarah Bells from DMN.

Same comment, nothing to add.

Thank you both very much, and thank you everyone for your amazing work on this bill.

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

We are continuously looking for ways to fine tune this process, adding new features and allow for 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'll call on one speaker at a time in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

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

The link is also on today's agenda.

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

Again, speakers need to press star six to unmute yourself.

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

As a reminder, public comment should relate to CB 119877. If you have comments about something that is not within this public hearing, you can always provide written comments by emailing my office.

Speakers will hear a chime 10 seconds before the allotted time has ended.

Once you hear the chime, please begin to wrap up your comments.

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

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

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

Again, please press star six to unmute yourself.

Looking, Deb Barker has already presented.

Deb, if you would like to come back, please do so.

I see you are not present.

I see Jacqueline Gruber, Justin Allegro, Patrick Foley, Alicia Ruiz, and Brian Bellissimo.

I apologize for mispronouncing your name, Brian.

Annie Tho.

Jacqueline, I see you are here.

Take it away.

Good morning.

Yes.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Jacqueline Gruber.

I'm the Director of Built Environment for the Downtown Seattle Association.

I'm here today to support Council Bill 119877. I want to thank staff of the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections and the Department of Neighborhoods, as well as Seattle City Council for their thoughtful approach to permitting and project reviews during these challenging times, and for following the lead of City Council by making Design Review Board meetings virtual.

We know that citywide, there's nearly $15 billion of development value currently under review by the city.

And this value represents a significant investment to the local and state economy, as well as the potential to sustain tens of thousands of direct jobs in the construction industry and millions in city tax revenue during these difficult economic times.

An efficient permitting system is important to delivering on our city's goals for affordable and market rate housing.

In downtown Sloan, there are 35,000 residential units that are in planning or development or will be completed this year.

We support virtual design review board meetings as a way to keep projects moving and to remove unnecessary delays for project delivery.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jacqueline.

Up next, we have Justin Allegro, Patrick Foley, Alicia Ruiz, and Brian Bausimo.

Justin, good morning.

I see you are here and unmuted, Justin.

When you are ready, take it away.

Oh, sorry.

Thanks.

I was on mute.

Hi there.

My name is Justin Allegro.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Great.

I am a resident in Queen Anne.

I'm calling on my own volition and on my own behalf, but I'm also a member of the Queen Anne Community Council and the Land Use Review Committee and the Queen Anne Community Council.

I'm calling to support This ordinance, 119187, and the continuation of this ordinance, I think flexibility in the face of the virus is important.

And I also think it's an absolute fact that we need more housing supply today, including affordable housing without any delay.

And I think we've seen that economic recession can stunt housing construction in a real way.

And it has real debilitating human effects from 2012 and 2017, where new units lacked demand post-recession.

And that resulted in an economic displacement and gentrification.

And I think this bill helps assure that virus related barriers to housing approval in the short term won't lead us to repeating our recent history when we bounce back and bounce forward from this economic recession.

And I think that public comment through SIPA and other solicitation is still a strong option during this moment in time.

Generally, I just want to note that I think I'm frustrated by design review generally that we place a design review burden on multifamily housing that's born the burden of our city growth while dozens of my neighbors here in Queen Anne have torn down their detached homes and rebuilt them without any community design consideration.

And I think we uphold our history of race and class oppression by adding these extra barriers to multifamily housing.

Then we ask of our housing and single family zones where we rightfully trust our city staff to enforce and review design codes.

I'll support the Strauss-Lewis amendment to shorten the sunset provision of this legislation.

And finally, thank you all, and particularly Council Member Lewis, for the first veto override yesterday.

Thank you for the time.

I yield the rest of it.

Thank you, Justin.

Up next, we have Patrick Foley.

Hi, Dan.

Can you hear me OK?

Yeah, good morning.

Good morning.

Hi there.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak.

I really appreciate it.

So I'm here really on representing you.

I'm a co-founder of my company, Lake Union Partners.

And then also, I'm a board member of NAOC.

And just as a reminder, NAOP is the state of Washington's Commercial Real Estate Association, has more than 900 members.

And we are, for the most part, what we do is we care about the health of our cities, counties, and states.

And as a NAOP board member and a local developer here in Seattle, I'm here to testify in full support of Ordinance 12602 for design review.

NAOP has been working closely with SDCI and many council members since the pandemic began last spring.

And we really appreciate the willingness to work together on finding a solution that helps keep communities informed about what's happening with new projects and keeps projects moving through the entitlement process in a reasonably efficient manner.

Moving to virtual meetings allows, in many instances, I think, just greater flexibility for public participation.

As neighbors can attend from their homes instead of coming to an evening meeting, I know that's very difficult for many.

So I think it's been actually very helpful.

The virtual process, it also, I think, it streamlines what has become a cumbersome presentation process.

And I think it should help design review board better review and comment on each package.

Additionally, the changes to the historic preservation boards and commissions by the staff was also very effective use of their knowledge and resources.

So again, we support this legislation and thanks so much for allowing me to comment today.

Thank you, Patrick.

Up next is Alicia Ruiz, followed by Brian and I recognize Megan Cruz.

that my scrolling on this chart was incorrect.

So we will then hear from you.

My apologies, Megan.

Up next is Alicia.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Good morning.

Yes, we can.

Hi, my name is Alicia Ruiz.

I'm the Seattle Government Affairs Manager for the Master Builders Association of King and Sonoma County.

So I'm speaking today on behalf of our nearly 3000 members.

in support of council bill 119877. SBCI, the mayor and city council did an amazing job initiating the original change so quickly in response to COVID.

Unfortunately, COVID is still a threat to our collective health and our economy.

The council's decision made sense then and extending it makes sense now.

If we want to move forward and if we want to move more housing in areas where we've planned it, we need to extend the ADR ordinance today.

And so I just wanted to add on to that, you know, it's imperative that we keep these projects going.

Obviously, we're in the middle of a housing crisis.

And, you know, construction is one of the few industries that is able to continue forward and keep people employed and really been a backbone of our economy locally and nationwide.

So I just wanted to express our support and I yield the rest of my time.

Thank you, Alicia.

Up next, we have Brian, followed by Megan Cruz, Deb Barker.

I see you are present.

Annie Tho, we still do not see that you are present.

If you are on the listen line, please follow the instructions to call into this public comment period, this public hearing.

Brian, good morning, and thank you for- Good morning.

Resetting to this public hearing.

Good morning, and take it away.

Yeah, thank you.

My name's Brian Bellissimo.

local architect and developer in Seattle.

I'm in District 7 on Queen Anne.

I'd also like to thank Council and SBCI for making a pivot, you know, in early spring that really helped to navigate some uncertain times for us in the industry.

And also considering the extension of these protocols.

I think on the front of virtual meetings for public outreach, I think that's very much allowed a more broad group to participate and be informed in these projects.

So I strongly support the extension of that even beyond the COVID times.

I will echo one of the previous comments that our group particularly is frustrated with the DRB process.

I think there's a lot of variation from DRB to DRB.

I think some are great and really willing to work with.

developers that are trying to create housing in the city, and others are very difficult to work with and seem to take on their own agendas.

For the first time in 20 years, it now takes longer to entitle a project than it does to build it, and that really is compounding our housing crisis.

On the front of the DRB process being continued for private development, not for affordable, I'd like to ask Council to really consider that all of these projects now are often including MHA or paying a fee, MFTE or incentive zoning.

So in a way, all these projects are creating affordable housing and also would benefit from a break in the process that would speed up that time that is approaching two years to entitle.

I do support the virtual DRB, however, we did have a project go through the ADR process, and that truly allowed us to streamline it.

Working with the SBCI staff, I think the result of the design is just as good as something that went through a DRB, and it received...

Am I out of time?

Yes, thank you, Brian.

My apologies for mispronouncing your last name.

I now have it down as Bellissimo.

And I'm sure I've got my apologies.

Please do feel free to send us any further written comments that we can reflect in the record.

Annie Tho, I still don't see your present.

Michael Oxman, I saw you sign up, and then you have since disappeared.

Up next is Megan Cruz, then Deb Barker.

And again, Megan, my apologies for missing you at the outset.

Good morning.

I'm, like the others, calling to support virtual design review and ask that the council uphold its original legislation that these market rate projects return from ADR to the new public format.

However, CB 119877 inserts two so-called minor changes that negate the central promise of the ordinance.

These vaguely worded loopholes allow market rate projects to remain in internal review.

Suspending active public participation was originally framed as a temporary measure that would expedite affordable housing and facilitate development in the pipeline.

It did that, prompting more than 70 new market rate permits and only 11 affordable housing projects.

So why continue the market rate through the end of the year, the ADR for market rate?

Yesterday, Council Member Straus' office suggested SCCI felt that if projects don't continue in this track, it will quote unquote, wipe out gains, and they could even have to restart the process.

I'd like to point out nothing of this kind was indicated in the original bill or in the recent reports by city staff.

Each notice for the project ADR states it is temporary, followed by the statement, I understand this project will revert to full design review board.

It couldn't be clearer.

One proposed exemption is based on whether SDCI could provide a virtual meeting for a project, suggesting the calendar was full.

But yesterday's review calendar showed all eight districts have open dates now through October and the end of the year.

If projects are ready to go, why aren't these slots taken?

Three projects are listed as continuing ADR, only filed their notices in August and September after virtual design review was in place.

For projects that still need a design review meeting, there's no good reason to change the game now and continue suspending input from a design review board and project neighbors.

Council members, please hold to your pledge, amend this bill in terms of the notices sent to the public.

Thank you.

Thank you, Megan.

Up next, we have Deb Barker and Anitha.

We don't see you are present still.

Hello again, council members.

My name is Deb Barker.

I am speaking about Council Bill 119877. And since I already had an opportunity to tell you my experience with design review, all I'm going to do is say, Listen again to what Ms. Megan Cruz said, because I completely 100% agree with her comments.

Stand your ground, hold your line, and keep your promises.

Thank you.

Thanks, Deb.

Always wonderful to hear from you.

And I look forward to meeting with you as well.

Annie Tho, are you present?

IT, can you confirm that Annie is not present?

Affirmative, not present.

Thank you.

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

The public hearing on CB 119877 is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who provided comment today.

At this time, I would like to discuss if they're amendment one.

And Kito, you gave us, can you give us a little briefing on this amendment and then we will move the amendment.

Sure.

So just to refresh your memory, this is a procedural amendment in part that clarifies the authority under which the continuing exemption from design review for affordable housing projects would be enacted.

We're part of the authority for procedural purposes.

The amendment adds a new section that makes findings of fact related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

And those findings of fact support a State Environmental Policy Act procedural exemption, so a SEPA emergency exemption for the affordable housing exemption from design review.

And it also includes a severability clause.

So this is an amendment that is specific to the portions of the bill that exempt affordable housing projects from design review.

Thank you, Ketel.

And just this amendment adds a new finding to the bill.

It does not change policy impacts and provides additional background for why this bill is necessary.

Is that a correct understanding?

That's correct, yeah.

Thank you.

Colleagues, do you have questions for Ketel regarding amendment number one?

Wonderful.

If there's no further discussion, I will now move Amendment 1 to CB 119877 as shown in Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 119877 as reflected in Amendment 1. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Pearson?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Cherry Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

And I realize I was remissed.

I need to move also the second amendment for discussion.

So I'd like to move amendment two as shown on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

I was happy to work with Councilmember Lewis on this amendment, which was shortened the sunset date of the legislation from six months after the end of COVID emergency down to two months after the end of the COVID emergency.

I heard from community members that this would make people, that this is more appropriate with the legislation.

And I agree that we understand that the COVID emergency could end at any time, the state of emergency that is, which is a legal procedure.

For us to be able to pass legislation, it will take, and for it to become effective, it will take about two months, which is why we shortened this down to two months.

Six months could be a very applicable amount of time, depending on the different variables in the environment at the end of the COVID emergency.

And two months really is the minimum.

So Council Member Lewis, do you have any comments on this amendment?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

And again, it was good to work with your office on preparing this amendment and good to work with community members who brought this idea forward.

I think it's important for us to remember that this is emergency temporary legislation.

I think there's a lot of people in the community on both sides who want to engage in a broader litigation of design review than just in the context of this emergency legislation.

And I'm not commenting at all on the merits of that debate.

I think that it's certainly worthy to have a debate and discussion about design review and some of the people who call in alluded to some of the policy arguments in favor of streamlining design review or potentially eliminating it entirely.

And we can have that discussion.

But I think for this bill, I'd rather keep it centered to exactly what we're doing, which is emergency legislation to respond to the unique challenges of COVID and adapt for this window our design review practices.

In that spirit, I think this amendment that we've worked on is really good at making sure that we snap back to the old in-person design review meetings as quickly as possible once the COVID matter is over.

I don't see why we have to have such a long buffer period in what is in the current bill to string out how long the new remote process would run.

You know, if the mayor has declared an end to the COVID state of emergency, presumably we are good for a broader reopening of the economy.

Potentially, if the situation is different, we could revisit this.

But I think for right now, it is my preference that we plan on I don't think a six-month extension of the virtual meeting would be practical or desirable.

I'm definitely voting for this amendment.

going to be opposed to this amendment, but I do want to raise a few concerns for the record.

As we know, COVID is continuing to expose new traits and new consequences as people who have survived COVID have ongoing health crises and can continue to get reinfected again.

We are just learning more and more about this disease as time goes on.

So my main concern is just the ongoing uncertainty about the disease in general, the civil emergency, Yes, if it was lifted, I think the question is, is the crisis really over?

COVID, would it be totally gone?

Probably not.

And I think it's really important that we recognize that there is not going to be a snapping back to normal.

As we heard from the directors of public health, Dr. Duchin last week, there is not going to be a returning to normal.

So I think it's really important for us to continue to monitor that Whether or not there's behavior changes in the community at large, whether or not people take this experience of living in a deadly pandemic and actually change their behaviors to limit transmission of any diseases or any type of other COVIDs that come into our community in the future.

But given the ongoing nature of COVID-19, I think it's fair to say that the technically a declared state of emergency might not actually be over even if the emergency is lifted.

I think the implications could be twofold for our community.

If it is harder for us to get volunteers to come back in person, I worry that people might self-select, those who have underlying health conditions, those who might be elderly, are they going to limit their participation in volunteer boardrooms that are often enclosed, can be stuffy, can be long.

And I just don't want us to unintentionally be screening out possible volunteer board members who might not be allowed to come to such a venue because they're going to be self screening themselves out if their health is a problem.

And then second, I worry about whether or not there's trouble filling the board themselves.

If there's people who sit out of the opportunity to participate on these volunteer boards, would SDCI have a problem filling the spots?

And then sort of what happens if there's vacancies all at once piling up?

Are we going to have projects waiting?

I raise these concerns because I just don't want us to be in a situation where we've unintentionally weeded out certain volunteers because of the risk evaluation that they're doing.

and wanted to put that out there as we continue to see the impacts of COVID.

I know Council Member Lewis just mentioned maybe we can reevaluate as we move forward.

And I know we're all working in real time to address this crisis.

None of these concerns mean that I won't be supporting this amendment.

I appreciate that you have extended it to 60 days versus a shorter timeframe and wanted to put those on the record though as we continue to look for healthy opportunities for people to engage in this important work, but also wanting to protect the health and especially not limit who is participating in these boards in the future.

So I'll be supporting the amendment, but just wanted to make sure we raise these and perhaps we can follow up with SCCI as maybe it's closer to looking like the emergency, civil emergency is going to be lifted.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Your comments are very well received and reflect a lot of the things that I have discussed with SDCI.

One of the things that I discussed with SDCI and Mike, feel free to jump in at any time or Lisa, for that matter, is that there is a benefit of virtual meetings for people who can't physically attend.

And then there's also the benefit of in-person meetings so that people can attend in person.

One of the requirements of design review is that it is done in an area, the meetings that are Completed in areas near the project.

And so some of the rooms that are traditionally used for design review may not be set up for the technological needs that are required to do virtual design review.

So there are as we transition into a I hate the term new normal, but as we transition out of this COVID emergency, there will be changes in how we do business.

And so being able to ensure that everyone is able to participate in a meaningful way, virtually and in person, is a policy goal that I hold.

Ketel, could you remind me what would need to take place, whether or not we're making larger changes like in person and in virtual meetings, but just from a baseline policy standpoint, what would need to take place in those 60 days?

So, I think, thank you for that question Councilmember Strauss and a point of clarification on the, the.

There are a couple of different timelines in the bill.

The option to elect administrative design review or to continue to be processed under administrative design review ends earlier.

It ends actually at the end of the year.

The extension beyond the end of the COVID-19 civil emergency for 180 days or 60 days of Council Member Strauss's amendment passes relates to other aspects of the bill.

Administrative review of historic preservation modifications, for example, extend 180 days or 60 days past the end of the civil emergency.

And also, importantly, the design review exemption for affordable housing extends past the end of the civil emergency.

However, the administrative design review option expires sooner than that, and that would be on December 31st.

Your question, so I think you, maybe I'm not sure if, I think, are you asking sort of what would need to happen for the council to consider more permanent modifications to the design review program?

Like sort of what is the timeframe for enacting that kind of legislation?

Is that what you're asking, Council Member Strass?

Yes, and or extending this, what we understand to be a temporary bill that is not necessarily tied to the COVID civil emergency because- Yes, so-

Yeah.

And so again, thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

So the current bill is not being enacted under any kind of emergency.

It's not being, it's not a charter emergency, nor is it being enacted under the authority that the Growth Management Act provides for so-called interim development standards.

Those authorities were invoked with Ordinance 126072, but are not being invoked here.

There is kind of an emergency aspect of this bill, and that has to do with the findings that the committee just recommended approval of.

And that's sort of a procedural emergency for the purposes of SEPA review of one particular component of this bill.

This bill is being enacted under sort of the normal procedures for making any kind of modification to the land use code, which is But SEPA review, if it's required, has to happen.

Most of the bill currently is procedural changes, or the bill that's in front of you is procedural changes.

So SEPA review isn't necessarily required for those.

SEPA threshold determination has to be published if SEPA is required.

And a public hearing has to be noticed for the bill 30 days in advance.

So all that procedural friction is what goes along with any change to the Land Use Code.

And those are the procedures that the council is following for this particular change to the Land Use Code.

If the council wanted to consider more permanent changes to historic preservation procedures or design review procedures, it would follow the same process.

If SEPA review is required, there would need to be a SEPA threshold determination.

After the bill is introduced, there would need to be an opportunity for a public hearing and 30 days notice in advance of that public hearing.

Generally, two months is tight, but it's possible if legislation is, if CPRA review, if it's required, has been done and the legislation is good to go at that future date when the mayor may terminate the COVID civil emergency.

But that's a timeframe usually for council consideration of any land use bill is about two months to three months.

Thank you.

I see Councilman Wilson and Councilman

Just going back on the particular authority we're enacting this ordinance under, this is just a clarification.

Is it because back in the spring we had fewer tools because the governor's order wasn't very broad and so Because I don't want folks to get the impression that we're kind of not responding to unique circumstances, but we have more tools now because of the broader governor order from the spring, which is why we're doing it this way.

I just want to clarify if that's the case.

Yes, there are more tools available to you.

There were prescriptions on what actions could even be considered by a by a legislative body under The governor's orders back in the spring, but also I think a change circumstance here is that there is we know more, I guess, about the coven 19 pandemic and understand the uncertainty that goes along with it.

If the Council were to continue the interim provisions using the Growth Management Act authority, that would be, the Council could not do that indefinitely.

The Council could only do that for six months.

And we don't know how long the COVID-19 civil emergency is going to last.

And so the choice to use this tool, and I think I can let STCI or DON speak to the choice, reflects the uncertainty about when we may be out of the COVID-19 pandemic and can return to normal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilor Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, and I appreciate your putting forward this amendment to shorten the time frame.

Um, I wanted to I can just make my comments on the whole bill at the same time, because I do have a question for Ketel.

Um, So I'll be supporting this amendment, but I do have concerns about the bill as a whole, since I voted against the version that we had originally back in April.

So it would be inconsistent for me to then vote for this one, but I just want to better understand something.

Ketel, in your memo to us, you had written that at the initial briefing, the committee asked for more detail on the number of projects.

And then you put together a map, but Didn't we ask more questions about the details of the projects and have those been answered?

You will have to refresh my memory or I can go back and look at the video.

I think that there were some questions about which projects would benefit from the extension.

Maybe I can share my screen so we can take a look at the map here.

That might help.

And on some of what this go ahead and then just a heads up to your STC or are in a neighborhood just trying to understand I.

I thought that you know they were going to use this time period, the executive is going to use this time period to figure out how they potentially could do this.

Virtually, even though it is difficult with the volume of documents, but that they were going to use this time to actually figure out how to do it and then now they're I just want to better understand are they.

going to figure that out to do it virtually?

Or are they just waiting for the COVID pandemic to end?

What's the sort of plan from the executive here?

But that's just a heads up to them while Ketel shows us a screen on the map.

Sure.

And maybe I'll just pivot to that really quickly before showing you the map.

I think we heard from STCI last week that they are doing it virtually.

So they have the capacity now to have full virtual design review board meetings.

And I think Lisa or Mike can speak to that.

There are some logistical challenges with that.

But let me share the screen here.

So this is a map.

Thanks again to, are you all seeing that?

This is a map that it's a little bit hard to read.

I can zoom out on parts of it that show where the projects are that opted for administrative design review and where they are in the phase of review in the design review program.

So if there is a white circle without a dot in the middle of it, that's a project that's in early design guidance.

If there is a dot in the middle of it, that's a project that has had an initial early design guidance meeting, but has been scheduled for a second early design guidance meeting.

If it's a red dot, yes?

Zoom in just a bit.

Yeah, sure.

Yeah, let me zoom in here.

Sorry, Mr. Chair, we may have this in our inbox.

I just thank you very much.

Yeah, this actually is probably Most of the projects are in the downtown core and in the university district, so this is probably a useful view.

If it's a project that is shown in kind of reddish orange, that's a project that is in the recommendation phase.

And if there's a reddish orange with a dot in it, that means they've had one initial recommendation meeting and have a second recommendation meeting scheduled.

So, and if I'm mischaracterizing any of this Lisa something I'm getting wrong, please do chime in.

So you can see where most of these projects are.

These are projects that are primarily in the downtown design review board district, the Magnolia, Queen Anne design review board district, mostly because that covers South Lake Union.

on the Capitol Hill First Hill Review District, that obviously has Capitol Hill and First Hill in it, and the University District.

So there are about 67 projects in total that have opted for administrative design review.

Does that help answer your question, Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

And Lisa and Mike, I don't know if there's anything you want to say about kind of about virtual meetings and how that process is rolling out and whether there are any capacity constraints and if those can be addressed.

Thank you.

This is Lisa.

I manage the design review program for the Department of construction and inspections as said there.

Through the course of the emergency legislation, there were 67 projects that opted into administrative design review.

Um, of those 20 of them were in the early design guidance phase and of those 15 completed their early design guidance.

So, what that means is that those 15 projects would be allowed to stay within the administrative.

design review track with this legislation through the end of this year.

All of the other projects will need to revert back to board review.

We have started conducting virtual board meetings.

Those began on August 1st for all early design guidance projects.

Starting October 1st, we're including all projects in the recommendation phase.

We are fully equipped and running virtual meetings.

And from this point on, there's really no reason we would need to use the virtual meeting.

I'm sorry, to use the administrative design review opt-in, unless for some reason the technology fails us and we lose the ability to do virtual meetings, but I don't anticipate that happening.

Thank you, Lisa.

Council Member Peterson.

That's very helpful.

Do we, and I apologize if this was already provided, do we have a list of those 15 projects that are benefiting, that would be benefiting from this legislation?

I provided that data to KETL last week, and it's, I'm sure it was embedded in the data that informed that map.

It is.

I'm happy to email it.

In fact, I can do that.

I can email it to the committee members right now, just so you have it available to you.

But it's reflected in the map.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any other questions?

And Kito, one thing that I heard in our previous discussions that three months is most optimal for the period of time after the civil emergency, the legal status of the civil emergency ends.

and so two months is cutting it tight and so I would like to I'm letting the record reflect I would like to work with you in advance of the end of the stated civil emergency to have the necessary items in place so that we are able to move quickly if and when that stated civil emergency ends.

Sure that's uh duly noted um and it's like what So teeing up a conversation that will happen this fall.

I think that is what that implies is is a different policy approach to some of the processes that are required in person meetings now.

And so that is that is a work program potentially for STCI and DLN and you may want to consider how you secure resources for their work program going into budget deliberations this fall.

I think one reason why six months was proposed by SDCI is that it provided, NDON, was that it provided maximum flexibility for resolving reviews of projects that were in the permitting pipeline.

That's a pretty broad window, so I'd hence the desire by someone on the council to shorten that window.

Thank you, Ketel, duly noted.

Colleagues, any further discussion on Amendment 2?

Hearing none, I move to amend Council Bill 119877 as shown in Amendment 2 on the agenda.

Do we have a second?

Second.

It has been moved and duly seconded to amend Council Bill 119877 as reflected in Amendment 2. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Peterson?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Clerk.

The motion carries.

Before we take a vote on the underlying bill, is there any further discussion on the underlying bill?

I'm going to go with Vice Chair Mosqueda, and then Quito, please, we'll hear from you.

I just wanted to say before we wrap this bill up, a big note of appreciation for you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for bringing the amendment number one forward and for the answers to the question.

Thank you very much, Council Member Lewis and Council Member Strauss for your explanation of that amendment as well.

I think that the work that you've done here on this bill really makes it explicit, the role and the need for this for COVID response.

especially amendment number one, Mr. Chair, what you've done here is make it more possible for us to bring more affordable housing online as quick as possible to ensure that people are able to follow through with the public health guidelines.

You gotta have a home, stay healthy, and this helps, I think, make sure that more housing gets brought online quicker.

Those who are staying in congregate settings or surviving in the streets are particularly vulnerable.

We know that, so we need to make sure that we're doing everything that we can to create safe homes and housing for folks, and especially in this time of economic crisis that COVID is compounding.

We already know we had an unstable housing situation, so this helps shore up our community's resilience during this time, and it really hinges on affordable housing and affordable housing projects and overall building across the city.

for mixed income projects as well to continue to go forward.

So thank you for your ongoing work, especially retaining the exemption of affordable housing from design review to ensure that our city's own processes aren't inadvertently stalling out during this critical period to respond to a public health crisis and a housing crisis.

Really appreciate the work you've done here, and I'm an enthusiastic yes.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Council Member Peterson, and then we'll, sorry, Q.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Just wanted to reiterate that because I had voted against this similar concept back in the spring, it would be inconsistent for me to then extend it now.

So I'll be voting no on this bill.

However, I do understand the rationale and appreciate the hard work and comments.

And I'll look forward to getting the list to see who benefits and the number of affordable housing projects in there, for example.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Ketel.

So perhaps I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself, but just to remind that committee and that the council rules, I believe, require that you all vote to suspend the rule that militates against making a recommendation on the same day as a public hearing.

Thank you.

And Deputy Clerk Schwinn, is that a correct understanding at this time?

Or Liz Atkinson?

or Lynn, Deputy Clerk Barron.

Council Member, if you could just give us a few minutes and I'll contact Deputy Clerk Schwinn.

Thank you.

Yes, not a problem.

And I'm also seeing from Clerk Ahn that that is correct.

So I'm going to, while Deputy Clerk Schwinn comes to the meeting.

I will make a couple final remarks just saying that this is the second step in a process that will probably have another bill as we move through this pandemic.

Again, legislation is an iterative process and it is important that we are able to update and change the laws as the environment in which we live changes.

I especially want to thank Director Torgelson, Mike Podolsky, Director Mentea, Sarah Bells, Lisa Rutzik, Ketel Freeman, Bush Whitson, Eric McConaghy, Noah Ahn, for all of your work on this.

Again, also thanking folks such as Megan Cruz and community partners and Deb Barker for keeping a close watch on this so that you're able to give us comments that we are then able to put into the legislation as Councilmember Lewis and I have by shortening this duration because that was a pretty straightforward way to make this legislation better.

Vice Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If you're looking for additional comments to filibuster, I just want to say thank you so much to Erin House as well.

She's been really in the weeds on this and working with your office.

So just a quick shout out to Erin House.

We don't get to see each other often, so I just want to send her a quick note of thank you through this committee.

Great.

And Council Member Lewis.

I'll similarly take this opportunity to thank Parker Dawson in my office for working closely with Noah on the amendment that we put forward today that was ultimately adopted.

So I think it's important, especially given the challenging times of working remotely and all the other things we're juggling as a council to recognize our staff and our central staff and the critical work that they're doing.

just wanted to extend that.

And I mean, I would be totally lost without my staff.

So I really appreciate their assistance and contribution.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

And I have received a communication from Senior Deputy Clerk Sanchez.

Thank you, Deputy Clerk Barron and Deputy Clerk Schwinn.

If there is no objection, I move to suspend the rules to allow the committee to vote on the same day as the public hearing for this item.

Oh, no objection.

Hearing no objection, we will move forward with the roll call vote.

Just looking.

I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 119877 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill, is that if there are no additional comments, will the clerk please call the roll?

Peterson?

No.

Lewis?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Three in favor, one opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

This legislation will be back before full council soon.

It is my understanding that there is a bit of time before we need to have this legislation adopted.

So there may be a brief delay before it comes to full council.

Item two, our next item of business today is discussion and vote on CB119838, which is the annual round of comprehensive plan amendments.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read the title into the record?

Agenda item two, Council Bill 119838, in ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2019 to 2020 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process.

Thank you.

We are now joined by Eric McConaghy and Lish Witson of Council Central staff.

Will you please give us a brief refresher on this bill and the new amendment before us?

Hi, good morning.

I'm Eric McConaghy of the Council Central staff and I'll jump right in.

This bill would make two changes to Seattle's comprehensive plan.

The comprehensive plan is, as you know, the core document for the city of Seattle looking to lay out how the city will develop and grow into the future.

The state law allows the city to, in general, make changes once per year to the comprehensive plan.

And so for quite a while now, the city has laid out a process of docketing possible amendments at the beginning of an annual cycle, having those go through consideration with recommendations coming back to council.

That has happened.

And then after those come back in, there's recommendations from your staff, like me, the planning commission, and also OPCD, And there's a public hearing on September 9, as you know, because you were there, you held the public hearing on this bill.

There were two folks, as I recall that commented both in favor of the changes, and no one opposing the bill itself would do these things, it would amend the boundary of the West Seattle junction hub urban village to include the provenance.

Mount St. Vincent property and it would update the Delridge neighborhood plan goals and policies.

So that's a quick rundown.

I'm happy to answer any questions about that.

And as a reminder, there's one technical amendment for you all to consider before taking action on the bill if you choose to amend it.

Thank you.

Before we get into amendments, are there any questions for Eric and the colleagues?

Seeing none at this time, and before we vote on the legislation, we'll consider amendment described just a moment ago, which updates the map to reflect the correct boundaries for the West Seattle Junction Urban Village.

Any discussion on this amendment before we vote?

Seeing none, I move to amend Council Bill 119838 as reflected in Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 119838 as reflected in Amendment 1. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Pearson?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Do we have further discussion on the base legislation at this time?

Vice Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm hoping to just get a few answers to some questions that we asked at the meeting.

Was it last week?

The last meeting that we had.

We know that there's a lot of interest in the community.

We talked about it at this committee council last week that there be The inclusion of the renaming of single family zones and this year's comprehensive plan as a minor update.

I know that this discussion was shared by members of the planning commission who also joined, and housing advocates, and many community members who've written in.

Given the name single family is antiquated, inaccurate, and as Council Member Juarez accurately pointed out in our last committee, does not reflect the diverse, multi-generational housing that exists in our city.

It's past time to update this language and include a more accurate name, such as neighborhood residential, as has been suggested.

My desire was to include that change in this legislation.

We requested OPCD to study the name change in 2018 in the MHA companion resolution and again during the comprehensive plan annual docketing process in 2019. And we know this change has been recommended by the planning commission as I mentioned.

Unfortunately, this change has not been studied by the executive and therefore we are not able to include it in this year's update.

You'll see that the name change is again docketed for a third time in the next piece of legislation for consideration as an amendment in next year's comp plan update.

Again, this is a minor change that would go far in updating how we talk about housing in Seattle to be more inclusive and equitable.

And I think that this change squarely fits into the minor updates and should not wait until the next major comprehensive update, which would not be until So I'm really disappointed that we are not moving forward with this change this year, but I look forward to having it studied so that we can finally make progress on something that we should have been positioned to do last year.

Those are my comments, but I just want to ask a question on the record.

Why can't we do this this year?

Why isn't it just something that we can put forward?

Lish or Eric, would you like to take that or I can share my understanding?

Good morning, Lishwitson Council Central staff.

Basically, environmental review has not been done on that change.

We're still trying to identify whether environmental review is required, but the necessary analysis and public notice hasn't been provided.

Can I just ask one more question about that?

And it's dangerous to ask questions that I have not asked central staff in advance.

So you're saying that we need an environmental review assessment to change the language that we use and not change the actual zoning requirements that accompany that.

I mean, we know that over the last century, single family zoning has expanded out, out, out.

So many apartments, multifamily structures, are included in single-family zones.

They're just mislabeled or I would say now prohibited in those zones.

We've seen those maps over and over where the size of the single-family home zoning has been broadened out and effectively reducing the areas in which we can have multifamily structures.

We're just talking about more adequately or I'm sorry, more accurately renaming a zone that is not actually reflecting the current fabric of those neighborhoods.

So that requires an environmental study?

So unfortunately, we don't actually have a proposal for what specific changes would be required.

Once we have that proposal, then we would analyze whether or not environmental review was required.

The world of land use is full of process and analysis and opportunities for public input.

And so it is likely that this change could require environmental review, but we don't have a proposal to actually make that determination at this point.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm happy to follow up with you afterwards, Mr. Chair, and with our team from central staff.

I just want to note what I think I heard that in order for a zone that has a very minor impact, I would say, renaming from single family to neighborhood residential, for example.

First would require a proposal, then it would require an analysis of whether or not we need an environmental review analysis.

Then it would require an environmental review.

And then it would have to come back for us to then potentially consider enacting.

Right, including public hearing.

Sure.

And just one last point of clarification, the planning commission itself, do we know if they have put forward any proposal that meets that required first step?

So they have not actually sort of marked up the plan to identify what changes would be required or the necessary code amendments that would flow from any changes to the comp plan.

So we have a concept right now that certainly merits study, but we haven't gotten to the next step of actually developing a proposal that can be analyzed.

Excuse me.

Mr. Chair, may I ask one more question?

That's okay.

Liz, is it your understanding then that it is more complicated than literally striking the word single family and adding the words neighborhood residential?

I think that is all that this proposal has asked for.

But we've been advised by our attorneys that we really need to see what the changes are before we can determine whether or not environmental review is required.

Okay, very disappointing that it's that cumbersome, I think, to make what is, by all intents and purposes, from the common sense perspective, a minor change to the wording.

We talk about this a lot in housing and planning, the way in which our terminology and the alphabet soup that is used sometimes excludes folks.

This is actual wording that is excluding people.

So looking forward to hearing more about the barriers and then As you can tell, a call for us to act with urgency as we.

as we know that this has been studied and demanded for a long time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

And it is also my understanding that such a name change would not have a policy implication, rather it is just simply calling a neighborhood what it truly is, which is neighborhood residential.

I appreciate you raising this and happy to follow up at any time regarding this item.

Any further discussion on the underlying bill?

Seeing none, I move the committee recommend the passage of Council Bill 119838 as amended.

Is there a second?

Second.

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?

Peterson?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Chair Strask?

Yes.

4th Amendment opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Thank you all.

This legislation will be back before Council on Tuesday, September 29th.

We are not having a meeting on Monday and observance of Yom Kippur.

Item number three, our final item of business today is a briefing and public hearing on the 2020-2021 comprehensive plan docket setting resolution.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read the item into the record?

Agenda item three, resolution 31970, a resolution identifying proposed comprehensive plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption in 2021 and requesting that the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Planning Commission review and make recommendations about proposed amendments.

Thank you.

And Lish Whitson and Eric McConaghy of Central Staff are back with us for this item.

Last time we took this item up, the resolution was not yet introduced.

Can you walk us through the resolution and the memo that you have provided?

Yes, thank you.

Resolution 31970 sets the docket for amendments for the comprehensive plan to be considered in 2021. The council provides an opportunity for the public to submit ideas for changes to the conference plan.

And this year the council received 11 proposals from members of the public.

In addition, there are a number of amendments that the council has docketed in recent years, including the single family name change that we just discussed that have not been resolved.

Amendments for docketing have also been proposed by council member Strauss related to trees and the executive related to the light rail station around 130th and I-5 and industrial maritime policies.

Each of these recommended amendments is reviewed against criteria that the council has adopted in resolution 31807, which to determine whether it's appropriate to move forward for more detailed study.

Resolution 31970 sorts the amendments into four categories.

The first are amendments that the council asks OPCD and the planning commission to study for consideration in 2021. These are changes to the boundaries of the university urban center, analysis of impacts of the West Yale bridge closure on the plan, review of policies related to trees, review of the name of single family areas, preliminary changes around the future light rail station at North 130th Street and I-5, and preliminary changes related to the industrial maritime strategy that the mayor is currently working on.

The second section is new to this year's resolution.

It's a set of amendments that the council asked OPCD to review, but that may take more time than completion in 2021. These include review of the status of the South Park Urban Village, final recommendations related to the area around 130th and I-5, final recommendations related to the industrial and maritime strategy, and policies related to fossil fuel production and storage and their impacts on public health.

The third section is also new to this year's resolution.

a set of amendments that the council itself is taking the lead on analyzing.

And this year that is a set of amendments that could lay the groundwork for implementing impact fees.

And the fourth section are the amendments that have been proposed by members of the public that will not be studied for further analysis.

Any questions?

Thank you, Lish.

I have a couple of questions.

I'll start just with one and then I'll open it up to colleagues.

Does the docket as described in this resolution differ from OPCD or the Planning Commission's recommendations?

Yes, the OPCD has recommended that the single family areas issue may take more time than adopting it next year.

The Planning Commission and OPCD both recommend against the West Seattle Bridge Amendment.

Thank you.

Colleagues, I do have a few other questions and do want to open it up to you at this time.

Vice Chair.

Thank you so much.

I will say one more time for the record, my sincere interest in making sure that we can continue to advance the conversation around renaming single-family zones.

Per the comments I just made a second ago related to this just comprehensive plan minor update legislation, I want to again thank the Council Chair, Council Member Strauss for including the single family name change in this resolution requesting OPCD to study this change for next year's adoption.

My hope is the third time will be the charm and we will finally be able to work with OPCD and central staff to make sure that we don't let yet another year go by without addressing the name change that would exist within our own planning documents.

This again the term single family is rooted in exclusion and it does not accurately reflect the diverse array of housing arrangements that exist across our city, from multi-generational housing to inclusive group housing to apartments like the one I lived in in Queen Anne, that was located in a single family zone.

And it's important for us to have language that is inclusive and reflective of the different ways in which people live together to support the well-being inclusivity of our city and to truly create community.

Let's get this done and see if we actually need to do this environmental review study or not and then let's move forward to make a more inclusive Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you, vice chair.

Your comments reflected something that I spoke to a landlord from Ballard about where they own a duplex which is now in a single family zone because much of the four single family zoning was made more restrictive.

There are many duplexes and triplexes throughout Ballard and throughout Seattle.

That are now in single family zones and so this landlord was looking to make modest improvements to their building.

However, they were unable to have the permitting done completed because their building was out of.

out of compliance with the zoning.

That is separate from just speaking to the name of the neighborhood, neighborhood residential.

And I do think that both need to be addressed.

So thank you, Vice Chair, for bringing that up.

Any other comments from my colleagues?

And one of my questions that dovetails is maybe Lish, are there any other thoughts that you'd like to share with us to remind us why we are constrained for considering that change this year?

Anything additional that you would like to share with us?

No, thank you.

Thank you.

And can you describe the process that will occur after we pass this resolution and before next year's comprehensive plan amendment process?

Sure.

So OPCD will analyze the amendments.

There may be public outreach that's performed on each of these amendments.

They will develop a package that will go for environmental review.

There will be a determination of whether the proposed amendments are significant in terms of environmental review.

There's an opportunity for members of the public to challenge that determination if it is determined to be non-significant.

And then the executive's recommendations are proposed to be sent, are requested to be sent back to council by the end of March.

at which point the planning commission is given a couple of months to review and make recommendations on the package that the executive has proposed.

Thank you, Lish.

Any other comments before we vote on the underlying bill?

Council Member Lewis and then Peterson.

What are the nature of some of the objections that you mentioned earlier related to the West Seattle Bridge related matters?

You said OPCD was opposed.

I just want to touch on that real quick.

I'm just kind of curious.

Yeah, the proposal that was put forward was really focused on land use issues in West Seattle and the impacts of the bridge closure on land use in West Seattle with the view towards determining whether or not there should be a moratorium on development or other changes in development in West Seattle because of the bridge.

As drafted, the resolution instead is more focused on looking at the transportation element and the maps in the transportation element to make sure that, for example, bus routes and freight routes in that element are appropriate and reflect current developments with how bus and freight are moving through and to and from the West Gale Peninsula with the bridge down.

And I think OPCD is more comfortable with that approach and look then with the original proposal.

So, sorry, now I'm confused a little.

So, are they in favor or against this particular proposal then?

I think they are more comfortable with the language and the resolution than they were with the proposal as it was originally submitted.

Okay.

I appreciate that clarification.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I just wanted to thank you for your addition in the resolution regarding trees.

We did hear comments today from Steve Zemke.

And in rereading what's in the resolution, I feel like that could incorporate much of what he was talking about, although not the specifics.

But I just wanted to thank you for being mindful of trees in this particular piece of legislation.

Also, I heard Chris Lehman talking about the transportation concerns, the vehicles on the roads and the damage to the roads, and we'll be open to looking into that further.

It doesn't necessarily have to be through this particular piece of legislation, but just wanted to let him know that I hear his concerns.

Thank you.

Thank you chair Peterson and I will be reaching out to you and central staff about some of those tree changes to the tree.

Going down the land use, the histories of land use, the Seattle Municipal Archives has a wonderful page dedicated to the annexation of West Seattle, which occurred in 1907, May 25th.

That year, both Ballard and Bryant were also annexed into the city of Seattle.

And that's when the first flurry of development really expanded beyond what the original settlers there had built.

So relevant information.

Check it out on the Seattle Municipal Archives site.

Any further discussion?

Seeing and hearing none, I move that the committee recommend passage of Resolution 31970. Is there a second?

Second.

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

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

Peterson?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries.

This resolution will be back before council on Tuesday, September 29th for a final vote.

Is there any good for the good of the order for this committee.

Hearing and seeing none, Vice Chair Mosqueda, go for it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to note that our colleague, Council Member Juarez, is also not here today.

I'm sending her a note of appreciation and solidarity and support.

I understand that there were folks who were outside her house again last night.

I know that other council members, including Peterson and members of your family, Mr. Chair, have also experienced similar types of protests.

I've also had people come to my door.

What happened at Council Member Juarez's house, as I understand it, is people again using profanity, screaming names at her that are violent in a sexual nature.

And as Representative Ocasio-Cortez said in her comments in D.C., we cannot let people continue to use those terms against any woman, any person.

And we cannot also make a discrepancy between whether or not it's people that we agree with saying those bad words or people that we disagree with.

So from my heart to the world, please stop that type of harassing behavior, especially when we are calling out that type of Intimidation that's being used and sexually violent language.

It is not okay.

Well.

She's not here today I just wanted to send her that note of appreciation because I'm sure she is watching online and following closely, but it just has to stop.

We have to be able to have civil dialogue and including with people that we disagree with, especially in these tough times when we don't get to see people.

These are really important issues that we're working on as a country and especially here in the city.

So I wanted to send my unequivocal condemnation of that type of language, no matter who it's coming from and send a note of appreciation to all of you, because I know many of us have had visitors at our home.

It is potentially a new way to communicate with electives.

We do all have office hours, we all have phone numbers, and we all have opportunities for Zoom.

Encouraging folks to use those appropriate channels and to really be careful of that language that we're using.

It is absolutely inappropriate and it needs to be called out.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair Mosqueda.

Council Member Lewis.

I really appreciate Councilmember Muscada's words and wanted to similarly express my extreme disappointment in some of the tactics being used to communicate disagreement with Councilmember Juarez.

I was recently visited by a number of demonstrators.

We talked, we had a respectful exchange, a respectful discussion that was certainly powerful and was I was never insulted.

I was never attacked.

And, you know, I don't know if it's different groups that are going to Councilmember Juarez's home, but I similarly want to echo Councilmember Esqueda's concerns.

And just to give a...

to I guess give some advice to the groups that are going to Council Member Juarez's house and engaging in those tactics.

It's not going to help you make your case.

It's not going to help you be taken seriously.

It's going to undermine a lot of the movements that we have out here demanding change.

And I would expect the same level of respectability that got extended to me when I was visited.

should get extended to everybody else.

And these intimidating tactics should not be tolerated.

And I wanna say too, in the past it's happened to Council Member Peterson, who's in this committee and on this call too.

And the scribbling on his house and threats made to Council Member Peterson are also unacceptable and these have to be condemned strongly.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you, Vice Chair Mosqueda.

While I am not here to tell anyone how to express themselves or how to protest, I can tell you that the actions have crossed the line for me personally.

and that these actions taken against Councilmember Peterson, Councilmember Juarez, Councilmember Lewis, and other Councilmembers, for me, have crossed the line and have moved me in the opposite direction in which they are intending to.

So that doesn't have much to do with the Land Use Committee.

It does have to do with the members of this committee.

Any further items for the good of the order?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

This concludes the Wednesday, September 23, 2020 meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee.

As a reminder, the next committee will be on December 9, starting at 930 AM.

Thank you for attending.

We are now adjourned.