Land Use and Sustainability Committee 9/11/2026

Okay, good morning, everyone.

The September 11th, 2026 Land Use and Sustainability Committee meeting will come to order.

It's 9.33 a.m.

I'm Eddie Lynn, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Vice Chair Strauss?

Here.

Council Member Foster?

Here.

Council Member Rink?

Here.

Chair Lynn?

Here.

Chair of the reform members present?

Okay, and Council President Hollingsworth is excused.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda's adopted.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for coming to this Friday morning meeting to discuss land use.

As always, thank you to our state clerks, Council Central Staff, Mayor's Office, SDCI, and OPCD for helping us prepare.

We'll now open the hybrid public comment.

Wow.

I'm gonna pause just for one second and give a brief comments.

If you're not aware, there was a Growth Management Hearings Board decision that was issued, I believe on Wednesday, that will be affecting, we're still digesting the impacts of this decision.

but it will be affecting some of our work potentially this year and potentially next year as well.

In particular, one of the sub-area plans that we were looking to potentially adopt this year, Downtown Regional Center, is likely not going to be possible based on that Growth Management Hearings Board decision.

The remaining ones are potentially the Greater Duwamish, Ballard-Enter Bay, Ben-Mick, Northgate Regional Center.

Those are still potentially moving forward this year.

We just want people to be aware that there are likely impacts to the Downtown Regional Center.

That's all I'm gonna say for now.

There will be more information coming soon, but again, we are all digesting the impacts of this on our next steps.

Okay, with that, we'll now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comment should relate to items on the agenda or items within the purview of this committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

Currently, we have four in-person and two remote.

OK.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We'll start with in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they're registered.

In-person speakers will be called first, after which we will move to remote speakers until the public comment period is ended.

Speakers will hear a chime in 10 seconds or after their time.

Speakers will be muted if they do not in their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

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

That is Sarah Lapas.

Hi, I'm Sarah with Tree Action Seattle.

I'm just digesting this amendment and I'm thrilled.

And thank you so much, Chair Lynn, for not only retaining but strengthening the tree requirements for parking lots.

That's definitely the direction we absolutely need to be heading.

I would love and would ask you to look at setbacks.

and the 10-foot setback for institutions in the back of lots, we would really like to restore that instead of conforming to what's happening in neighborhood residential where we're actually seeing 99% hardscaped lots.

which of course is terrible for runoff and for urban heat islands.

We'd love for you to look at setbacks there, restore some of the setback waivers, setbacks give waivers for tree retention, have just canopy really tied to that plan because we know that simply removing setbacks results in net tree loss.

So that's our ask, but thank you so much for the parking lots.

We really appreciate that.

Thank you, council.

Next up we have Dave Gloger.

My name is Dave Gloger and thanks for being here.

I was all focused on the parking lot tree issue, so thank you for that amendment.

I really appreciate that.

We need to strengthen our trees and and hopefully we can do that for neighborhood residential as well.

But there's other issues that Sarah pointed out, like the setbacks.

And I know there's a requirement to reduce the height of fencing for these institutions.

And I think anybody would appreciate a fence.

If you had a neighborhood residential property right next to an institution, you would appreciate a fence that's a little higher.

So I'd ask that you restore it back to the six to eight foot height, I think it was, and also for the setbacks.

Instead of trying to conform to the problems we have with neighborhood residential, it would be really nice if we could make it more accommodating for people and stand up for our environment and make it a more livable city.

So thank you for that, and that's all I got.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Cindy Shetler.

Thank you, and I wanna add my thanks to what other people said.

Sorry, this is Sandy Shetler with Tree Action Seattle.

And I wanna add my thanks to what the others said for restoring trees in parking lots.

This is a critical heat sink.

They produce their own ozone.

Seattle, as we know, fifth in the nation for urban heat islands.

So Redmond requires 50% of their parking lots to be shaded within 10 years, so we can do the same, and thank you.

I did want to also bring up setbacks.

I hope that you'll consider restoring that requirement.

In dense multi-family zones, setbacks are the only places on a lot where trees or even greenery can go.

Even trees on streets or adjacent properties will use the setbacks of other properties to spread their canopy.

Right now, small institutions in the multifamily zone do have 10-foot setbacks in the back, and they have overall larger setbacks than what we have in neighborhood residential.

We do need larger setbacks in neighborhood residential that are specifically required to have trees and greenery, but we certainly don't want to lower what's required.

in institutions and multi-family to meet that lower standard.

And just a quick look at how many we're talking about.

This bill would affect 180 small institutions.

Half of them are in the central district, sorry, 62% of them are in the central district, Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley.

Those are the neighborhoods that need trees.

So I would really appreciate if you would make that additional change.

And thank you so much.

Next up, we have Steve Rubstello.

Well, I can't say you have done anything on trees at all.

And that's good.

But I still think we need to take a look at the older trees, which keep getting chopped down for new development.

And including the street trees, which I see going down in my neighborhood.

You got trees that were planted in the 70s.

that are large, that are good oxygen producers.

And what do you get?

Something that's maybe my height or less, and it don't cut it.

It just don't do it.

So we're going to have to save those.

And I also look at my neighborhood development.

We're not saving the significant trees that can be saved.

The city keeps making recommendations to eliminate trees that have significance, that are not trees that are in need of being removed because of their sicknesses and so forth.

So we need to do much better on trees, but I guess there might even be a start.

No voting today, I understand, but at least a start to the idea.

The other thing is, let's take a look at raising those MHA fees.

We heard when they were put in place that we were foolish to say they were too low.

And many others said that too.

The console could correct that problem quickly if necessary.

Well, it's been a long time and there's been no correction.

And I think we need to raise those fees to supply housing for some of the people that are losing housing because market rate housing is not housing for probably even lower middle class and certainly not working class.

Thank you, Steve.

And I should have said this earlier, just FYI, we will be holding a public hearing next as part of the agenda on ordinance 121268 regarding the sub-area plans legislation.

So if any of the public commenters want to speak to that, it would be better if you could hold that for the public hearing section of the meeting.

So anyway, should have clarified that earlier.

Next up.

That was our last in-person speaker.

We'll now move to remote speakers, starting with June Blue Spruce.

Good morning.

I want to echo other things for this last amendment, which I just received.

The problem isn't just the heat islands, it's a polluted stormwater runoff into the Sound.

and having trees is very different from having green factor.

So I really want the council to remember that going forward.

Green factor does not equal trees and trees are so critical to reducing heat island impact and to filtering stormwater.

However, there are other issues with this legislation.

The city determined that no racial equity toolkit analysis is applicable.

This is wrong.

of, as Sandy noted, of the small institutions in Seattle that this legislation would affect, almost half are located in the Central District, Beacon Hill and the Rainier Valley, which, as we all know, are the neighborhoods in Seattle where large communities of color are located and have rapidly declining tree canopy.

You've solved the tree canopy problem in terms of parking lots, but setbacks as others have pointed out are still an issue we need dedicated space where trees can be planted so a racial equity toolkit analysis should be done on this legislation as well as other legislation that strongly impacts these communities as more and more swaths of Seattle are being are being zoned as low as low rise instead of neighborhood residential we need to maintain environmental protections the bill removes the buffer between noisy and odor producing building features and neighboring homes it removes the dispersion rule instead of one institution for every one to two blocks it would allow them to be adjacent so you know instead of lowering the standards

Thank you, June.

Next up, we have Fritz Wallet.

Thank you.

My name is Fritz Wallet and I'm a retired Assistant City Attorney, long-time resident of Seattle and own a house in the Ravenna area with two lovely heritage trees.

and I'm in the process of putting conservation easements on those trees to make sure they are protected long after I'm not.

I appreciate the Council giving us the opportunity to speak today and I appreciate the changes to the ordinance or proposed bill which apparently have restored some requirements regarding the trees.

That's great.

I would echo Sandy and other comments made before me about preserving setbacks and make sure that institutional buildings have some requirements regarding trees and green space as well.

Also, I think this is particularly important since we've eliminated the environmental review process with a determination of non-significance.

So the notion of 180 small institutions in Seattle who may be affected by this I can envision developers coming to those institutions with cash and trying to purchase the property for development, which is something we don't want to have happen.

This would be a solicitation of some sort.

And we just went through that with the anti-solicitation ordinance successfully passed to protect homeowners.

Let's think about looking in the future and presenting for protecting churches and smaller institutions in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair, that concludes our commenters.

Okay, thank you all.

And to June, if you didn't finish your public comments, please go ahead and send those by email.

or anybody else, if you were not able to complete your public comments, please submit them by email if possible.

As there are no additional registered speakers, we'll now proceed to our items of business, our first item of business.

Can the clerk please read Agenda Item 1?

Agenda Item 1, Council Ball 121268, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending the Seattle Conference Plan to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2026 Conference of Plan annual amendment process for public hearing, briefing, and discussion.

As presiding officer, I'm now opening the public hearing on ordinance 121268 regarding the sub area plans legislation.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up for this public hearing?

Currently we have one in person and three remote.

Okay.

Each speaker will be provided two minutes.

Clerk, I will now hand this over to you to present the instructions.

Speakers will be called in the order of registration.

The public hearing registration will remain open until the conclusion of the public hearing.

The same public comment rules apply to this public hearing.

A 10-second chime will be your notice.

It is time to wrap up comments.

Speakers' mics will be muted at the end of the allotted time.

Public comment related to Ordinance 121268, the sub-area plan legislation, is only being accepted at this public hearing.

Speakers are asked to begin their comments by stating their name.

We'll start with Steve Rubstello.

as you're all aware, 9-1-1.

And I think one of the deficiencies in looking at your plans is to look at the public safety factor.

Downtown, and especially along 3rd Avenue, but Pioneer Square, I would say is not a good place to be in after dark.

And I don't see any plans so far to change that.

Now, I'm old.

I've lived in Seattle a long time.

Seattle was never leave it to beaver land, but it's never been as it's been for the last decade or so now.

And maybe the problem is not the people administering at the bottom end, but maybe it's at the top.

we have to start looking at if you're going to have a vibrant city with people walking around, let's make it safe.

Let's give them a reasonable break.

You're never gonna make it absolutely perfect, but we can make it a whole lot better.

We have in the past.

I don't see the will.

The majority working group in this city seems not to care that much about law enforcement.

Now, the other thing I'm taking a look at is freight.

How are we gonna move it around in this city?

As you continue to get rid of the four lane roads and railroads become a little harder to get to some places, you know, Seattle's gonna need to have things moving around and we gotta keep those, some of those dirty jobs, you know?

Some of those people are making decent money.

I mean, they may not be wearing a suit and a tie, but they're doing honest work and work that would be good for the city.

Thank you, Steve.

That concludes our in-person speakers.

We'll now move on to our remote speakers, starting with Fritz Wallet.

Thank you.

I've completed my comments as a Swiss wallet and nothing for you to say.

Thank you.

Thank you, Fritz.

Chair, that's our last present commenter.

Okay.

That was our last registered speaker.

The public hearing on Ordinance 121268 is now closed.

Thank you.

Will our representative from Council Central staff please join us?

to present and answer any questions council might have.

And if you, once ready, if you could introduce yourself.

Thank you to our commenters this morning.

Ketel Freeman, council central staff.

And let me pull up this, share my screen here.

Something.

Alright, make this bigger.

Oh, I think we're going to do the sub-area plan presentation first, I think.

Yeah, that's not me.

Okay.

Come on, Rebecca.

Apologies for the little mix-up there.

We'll get to that shortly, though.

Thank you.

Good morning, Rebecca Maskin, Council Central Staff.

Here to talk about or answer any questions you have on Council Bill 12-12-68.

Okay, wonderful.

Let's see.

So just as mentioned earlier, I think we're gonna be most likely holding.

There's no vote this morning.

We'll likely be holding on the Northgate due to the decision we received in terms of, what's that?

or sorry, yeah, not downtown, my apologies, thank you for the clarification.

But the other three are potentially we can take action this year.

Colleagues just wanna see if you have any questions or comments this morning.

Okay, don't see any hands raised.

So we will have a future briefing and discussion on these.

But thank you for joining us this morning.

Okay, now we can move, let's see.

So now we'll move on to our second item in business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item two.

Okay.

Thank you, Ketel.

Sure.

Again, Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff, here to provide some additional briefing on Council Bill 121276. And let me just get this ready to share here.

It's a little bit small.

doesn't do it.

And colleagues, since I think we have a fairly short agenda, feel free to chime in with questions or comments as we go, just for a more interactive dialogue, if you have.

Okay.

So I'll just take a minute here to refresh the Committee's memory about the content of this Bill 121276, talk a little bit about the procedural posture.

In short, there's a public hearing coming up next Wednesday, and then talk about some additional information here, which is a potential amendment sponsored by Councilmember Len.

So just to refresh your memory, Council Bill 121276 would modify regulations for institutions in multi-family zones to take a consistent approach with modifications that happened last year through the HP 1110 implementation bill that affect institutions in single-family zones.

So there'll be a similar approach in single-family and multi-family should this bill pass.

It would essentially allow institutions and multi-family zones to meet the bulk and scale, high bulk and scale development standards that are applicable to residential uses in those zones, and it would importantly remove a dispersion requirement.

Previously in neighborhood residential zones and currently in multi-family zones, institutions can't be located within 600 feet of each other, so this would make that consistent.

In terms of the procedural posture, as I mentioned, this is just a briefing today.

There is a public hearing that will happen next Wednesday.

There could also be a potential vote next Wednesday if the council wanted to tee this up for full council consideration sometime during budget.

On the amendment, so the amendment sponsored by Councilmember Len would restore some of the landscaping requirements that apply to surface parking and multifamily zones, and it would also modify those standards.

So under the current regulations, there are some specific standards for trees and other landscaping requirements that apply for surface parking for institutions and multifamily zones, those specific standards for surface parking would be maintained and they'd be modified such that they would be more stringent.

I'm currently the landscaping standards kick in when there are more than 20 spaces that are provided for surface parking.

This would reduce that threshold to 12 and it would also increase the tree requirements.

So one tree would be required.

Currently one tree is required for every five parking spaces currently and under the amendment that would be strengthened to one tree per four parking spaces.

So just to give an example, if there was a 20 space parking lot associated with an institution, Under today's regulations, there would need to be four trees.

If the amendment passes and the bill passes, there would need to be five trees.

So that is what the amendment would do.

Any questions for me about that?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

This looks like a really good amendment.

We know that parking lots are heat sinks and we need to cover them up.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

And I'll just add, thank you to the public comments, which helped to prompt us to take a closer look at this.

As Central Staff mentioned, we started down this path because there had been changes in the neighborhood residential zone last year.

We thought it made sense to update multifamily zones to basically kind of match in large part those updates in the neighborhood residential, including around dispersion, dispersion requirements and so on.

But since we were working on it, it was a good idea to take a look at the trees and the parking requirements.

And we're not sort of changing those in all the zones today, but we're proposing to start here.

As you mentioned, Vice Chair, I think parking lots are a great spot for trees or shade for solar.

And so it's definitely something that I'm very interested in working on more broadly across the city.

But again, since we're touching this part of the code potentially this month, this year, it was a good time to at least start somewhere.

So that's the the genesis of this amendment.

And again, not voting on it today, but just introducing it.

And if anybody has any further comments or questions, certainly happy to take feedback, happy to continue to look into other things that we heard this morning, but that's where we are at the moment.

Okay.

Yes.

Council member Foster.

Uh, thank you so much, Chair Lynn.

I appreciate that.

And as always, thank you to, uh, central staff and to our public commenters.

I just wanted to ask a question to make sure I understand the, what will be the difference between LR and NR after this bill, assuming the resolution, or excuse me, assuming the amendment also passes.

Ketel, can you just go over that for us one more time, please?

Yeah.

So, and currently in NR, um, most of the, uh, very specific development standards applicable to parking lots have been replaced by more general standards including standards having to do with the height of screening.

Screening with service parking is largely about screening, you know, headlights from vehicles shining on adjacent properties.

That's largely what that's intended for.

So in neighborhood residential zones, most of those very specific standards have been removed and replaced by a green factor requirement and some sort of more flexible standards.

That would happen if this amendment were to pass.

would be true for the most part, except when it comes to these specific standards related to the number of trees and the threshold above which the requirements would apply.

And I'm just I'm thinking about the comment that we heard that somebody made earlier in terms of green factor not being equivalent to trees.

But I think what I heard in your overview is this would bump from four to five trees based on excuse me, the amendment rather would see us on average have a change from like four to five trees as implemented.

Is that correct?

It would.

There would still be a green factor requirement.

That would presumably be met in part by planting trees for surface parking, but that may not satisfy the requirement entirely, depending on the type of development.

So the green factor requirement does not go away.

It's still a requirement.

But there are specific landscaping tree planting standards for surface parking that would go towards that requirement, but would also be additionally required.

Thank you for that clarification.

Right.

So those trees would count towards the requirement, but it does not remove the requirement.

So it's sort of a, it's encapsulated or encompassed within the green factor.

Correct.

Yep.

Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you.

Council member Foster.

Any other questions or comments?

If not, I think we can have a pretty short meeting this morning.

I think that would wrap it up.

So let's see.

So we've reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

It's 10.03 AM, assuming there's no further business.

We are adjourned.

The next scheduled meeting is September 16th at 9.30 a.m.

Thank you all.