City of Seattle Land Use Committee 4/2/2025

All right.

Welcome everyone.

This is the April 2nd, 2025 Land Use Committee and the meeting will come to order.

It is 12, excuse me, 2.06 PM.

I'm Mark Solomon, chair of the committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll.

Council Member Moore.

Council Member Rink.

Present.

Council Member Rivera.

Present.

Chair Salmon.

Present.

Chair, there are three members present.

Thank you very much.

Let it be noted that Council Member Strauss is excused from today's meeting.

If there are no objections, the agenda will be adopted.

Okay.

Hearing no objections, the agenda is adopted.

So thank you very much for coming to this meeting to discuss land use.

Another thank you to our city clerks, our central staff, and Seattle Department of Construction Inspections in helping us prepare for this meeting.

So with that, we will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on today's agenda and within the purview of this committee.

As a reminder, please do not provide comments on items six through nine, which are the Fremont Contract Rezone and the UW Northwest Hospital Master Improvement Major Institution Master Plan, as these are quasi-judicial items, which the council may not accept comments outside of the record before us today.

Clerk, how many speakers do we have signed up today?

We have seven in person and six online.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We'll start with the in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

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

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

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

Speakers will alternate between sets of in-person remote speakers until the public comment period has ended.

Speakers will chime in 10 seconds or left of their time.

Speakers mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within a lot of time to allow us to call in the next speaker.

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

That speaker is Kira Lisekados.

Thank you, Chair Solomon, members of the committee.

My name is Kira Lissacados, and I'm with the Downtown Seattle Association.

The Downtown Seattle Association supports initiatives that enhance downtown's vitality, safety, and economic growth.

We are here today to support two bills being considered by the committee that would do just that.

DSA supports Council Bill 120771 to activate vacant storefronts.

Expanding allowable street level uses to include arts, institutional, and office spaces will invigorate downtown streetscapes, attract pedestrian traffic, and reduce vacancies.

Active storefronts are a key component to thriving downtown, driving foot traffic, and creating a welcoming urban environment.

This aligns with DSA's commitment to economic revitalization and enhancing the urban experience.

DSA also supports Council Bill 120948. Extending building permit timelines for projects vested under previous codes will facilitate the completion of developments stalled due to financing challenges.

This measure is crucial for delivering housing units and generating city revenue.

A vibrant active downtown with occupied storefronts and ongoing development naturally promotes a safer environment for all.

These bills will encourage increased foot traffic and community engagement, which are essential components of public safety and support Seattle's continued revitalization.

Thank you.

Next up is Scott Serdyke.

Thank you.

My name is Scott Serdyke.

I'm a senior development manager with Community Roots Housing.

We provide affordable housing in primarily in central Seattle with new projects in the Rainier Valley and White Center.

First of all, the timing is great on this.

I want to thank you for considering CB120948.

I want to just tell you a little story.

Three weeks ago, we received notice from SDCI that in order for us to extend our permit, we would have to take our project from the vested 2015 code and bring it compliant into 2021. And in order for us to, any exceptions, we had argued we wanted to try to keep our vesting, we would have to argue extraordinary circumstances.

So I prepared a letter to send to our plans examiner.

I'm gonna send that to each one of you.

Let me outline some extraordinary circumstances.

First pandemic and post pandemic.

In less than a five year period, there was more than a 22% Minimum 22% increase in construction cost due to all the things that occurred and pipeline and supply chain.

So that was number one that hit the multifamily industry.

Number two was the more than tripling of interest rates, which rendered 80% of our projects infeasible.

We had investors pull out from our projects in the Rainier Valley.

Opportunity zone investors left the building.

It was not worth their, it was too much risk.

And so, Extraordinary circumstances also led to us doing something extraordinary.

We put projects on hold for the first time, and also this affected employment in development and also in architecture.

The extraordinary Low point, another extraordinary circumstance is the extraordinary low point in the delivery of units.

In 2027, it's estimated that the delivery of units in central Puget Sound will plummet 75% as only 3,700 units will be delivered.

Oops.

These projects are going to add $6.7 million to the cost of our projects.

$6.7 million for us who were trying to build 300 units of affordable housing in the Rainier Valley.

This is a tremendous hit.

Please consider this bill.

This has been an extraordinary time for us.

Thank you.

Next up, we have David Gloger.

Good afternoon.

My name is Dave Gloger, and I'm a resident of Seattle.

In mid-2023, this committee and the full council approved amendments to the tree protection ordinance.

Many of these amendments were opposed by the city's urban forestry commission, but the council and the mayor's office were adamant that this was now protecting 170,000 trees throughout the city.

The data seems to indicate otherwise.

The measure of the effectiveness of a tree protection ordinance would be how many trees are removed and how many were actually protected.

In August 2024, Nathan Torgelson from SDCI sent a letter to counsel showing data on these items.

He claimed that 290 trees had been removed and 957 trees were protected.

However, a study was performed using SDCI data to determine just how many of these trees were actually protected.

The results of this study were detailed in a newspaper article written by Investigate West and published in the Seattle Times in January of this year.

I have a copy of it here.

It shows in this article that STCI is claiming to protect trees on properties where there was no threat to the trees.

For example, my neighbor did a kitchen remodel, and STCI claims they're protecting 15 trees on that property.

This hardly sounds like tree protection ordinance was doing its job.

In summary, less than 3% of the protected trees were really protected by actions of SDCI, or the tree ordinance.

Now, in this last year, 2024, there were over 2,000 trees removed in Seattle.

And for the first quarter of the year, 1,259 trees were removed.

At this rate, over 5,000 trees will be cut down.

And this is all based on SDCI data.

So I'm asking you and begging you to amend this ordinance to really protect our trees so we can save the Emerald City.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Lily Hayward.

Thank you very much and good afternoon Chair Solomon and members of the committee.

My name is Lily Hayward speaking on behalf of the 2,500 members of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and we're happy to support here today Council Bills 120771 and 120948. Flexibility in street-level permitted use, especially in downtown Seattle and the surrounding areas, is essential for downtown activation and regional economic growth, both of which are strong voter priorities.

That's why we support CB120771, which enables vacant storefronts to consider additional tenants who would be precluded from leasing the covered spaces without legislation like this.

This bill will enable more small businesses to capitalize upon vacant commercial space, generating economic activity, and improving the perceptions and reality of public safety in our communities.

Also essential for the growth of our region is CB120948, which ensures that multi-family projects stalled by the pandemic and consequent economic conditions can be completed.

A 24-month hardship extension for building permits is an appropriate response to these realities and aligns our city's growth targets and, of course, voter priorities to build more housing in all areas of our city.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today and for your continued commitment to making our city a more affordable and accessible place to live and do business.

Thanks.

OK.

So just a point of clarification, we lost quorum.

So we're going to have to pause until we regain quorum.

So stand by.

So you give us a beer?

No, I'm not going to give you a beer.

or resume our commentary so we can call the next few speakers in order so they can queue up.

Next we have Alex Zimmerman.

Thank you very much.

Where is my face?

Oh, thank you very much.

Zihai.

Dirty damn Nazi Gestapo fascist.

My name is Alex Zimmerman.

I'm president of Stand Up America.

I support Trump for 10 years.

I am MAGA member, and I have 6,000 days of trespass, but there's nobody having human history yet.

So this is me, Alex Zimmerman.

You Nazi pig gave me 6,000 days of trespass.

Right now, I want to speak about agenda number one.

You choice commissioner.

I try to be a commissioner for last 20 years and make dozen applications.

I don't understand why you don't choice me.

I'm one from best men, but don't have analogy in human history.

6,000 trespasses?

It's a very unique situation, plus you five times prosecute me, so I'm probably best of the best, comparable to Nazi pick who you are.

So why don't you choose me to be a commissioner?

Maybe you need somebody's different opinion.

What if I can speak to the 700 what as I come here for 30 years.

They speak again, and again, and again, and nothing change in city.

Life goes worse, worse, and worse.

I read today, for living in Seattle, need $170,000.

10 years ago, that's only $70,000.

Right now, $170,000.

Look at this idiot who sit here.

Look at the $700,000.

Cretina.

But it's coming talking again and again and again.

And nothing changed.

Choice same Nazi peak.

We have a new American revolution.

We have a MAGA.

We need to stand up, you freaking degenerative idiot.

We need change.

We need to make life better.

Next up we have Ian Morrison.

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee.

Ian Morrison here on behalf of NAOP Washington State, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association.

I join with my friends in the DSA and the Seattle Chamber in support of both the building permit extension legislation and the interim street level use legislation.

And these are truly something that I see as two bookends of the same issue, which is downtown recovery and responding to the housing affordability crisis.

In terms of the permit extension legislation, what you heard from Scott from Community Roots Housing and from others, these are projects that have gone through the master use permit process.

They've gone through the design review process.

They have gone through the approval process and they are sitting here waiting to be able to have the financial ability to proceed forward.

And you have already, as a council, extended the master use permit.

So this is the last thing that needs to be done to keep these projects alive.

And these projects are projects that have now suffered through COVID.

They suffered through tariffs and steel costs.

They've suffered through inflation and shocks to the system.

So this is something that will help keep these projects, which if approved, which these projects all want to go forward, will start construction jobs, they'll pay MHA fees, and they will bring much needed housing and lab space along with office space and other uses to the city.

So that is one thing that we would strongly encourage.

We support council member Solomon's amendment, the technical amendment to clarify the date, and we really applaud the council and the mayor and SDCI for bringing that forward.

In terms of street level use, it's the same thing.

These businesses downtown, these new construction projects that have vacant spaces, they want to have restaurants and retail spaces in there.

But in these times, as we are still recovering, it is necessary to have flexibility to provide a little bit more ability to bring in things like craft shops, like R&D spaces, like labs and other components to this space as a temporary use to bring people downtown.

And I will say one thing for our friends in the lab community, which NAOP helps build those projects, is those are jobs that work not only to solve a health care crisis, but also are in the office every day contributing to downtown vitality.

So for those reasons, we would ask you to support both of those bills with the friendly amendments.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Steve Ribstello.

When MHA was passed, there was a goal of 50% of people taking the payout and having at least 50% in the neighborhoods where the buildings were built.

Seattle has not met that goal.

Now this promise was to citizens, so I assume it's worthless at this point, But this promise was to have a variety of folks in most neighborhoods.

And I originally thought it was just developers not wanting to pay a reasonable development fee, because many of us NIBIs were told that this fee was high, even though it was the lowest that anyone had ever seen anywhere.

And it's not doing the job of spreading people around the city in a reasonable way.

I would like to see that actually happen.

And to do that, you're going to have to raise the MHA fee.

Now, this will have many positive things.

One, it will provide more money for housing for people in the deepest of need.

and two, it will provide housing much quicker because if the building permit is issued and the building is open, that housing is available.

If they pay the fee at that time, then it's gonna be a couple years, maybe five years before housing actually comes out of that fee.

My hope is that we would do it much quicker rather than slower But I'm only a citizen.

I'm not an expert.

I only observe what really happens and not what a theoretical situation.

The other thing is you should be monitoring the number of units on the regular market that are not expensive, that keep getting dropped off.

Thank you.

Next, we're moving to our virtual commenters.

First up will be Scott Koppelman.

Scott, please press.

Oh, you got it.

Yeah, thank you.

My name is Scott Koppelman.

I'm with Amelie Residential.

Amelie is a developer, owner, operator, and long-term holder of apartment home communities in the Seattle area.

And I'm here to speak in support of Council Bill 120948. We have two apartment home projects in Seattle with master use permits, both designed under the 2015 building code.

These two projects combined will someday provide 706 apartment homes, almost 400 million in construction costs that would generate roughly 40 million in total sales tax with a significant portion of that going to the city.

4.4 million in MHA fees.

Also both projects are high-rise construction and will utilize union labor.

We own the land for one of the projects and we have a long-term lease for the other project.

And we are committed to continuing to invest in Seattle.

But we have not been able to move forward with either project due to COVID, a lengthy land use appeal, and now a very challenging capital market conditions Layer on top of that, new trade wars and tariffs, which could affect the price of everything from drywall to aluminum windows to steel.

Those have added additional uncertainty to our ability to finance and break ground in the near future.

In short, while we hope we can break ground in a year or two, we really don't know when we will be able to break ground.

Without this legislation, the time and added cost to redesign our project and the added construction costs apply with new building codes would render our project unfeasible for significantly longer.

So I hope you'll support Council Bill 120948. Thank you.

How many more speakers do we have signed up?

We have three additional speakers.

Okay.

Just want to be mindful that the public commentary period will end in one minute.

So if there's no objection, the public comment period will be extended for an additional six minutes to allow for the remaining speakers to have their opportunity.

Okay.

No objection.

All right, cool.

We're extending the public comment period for another additional six minutes to allow for the commenters to state their piece.

Next we have Steve Shinks.

Hi, good afternoon committee meetings.

Thanks for extending the period and hearing my comments.

My name is Steve Shanks.

I'm the Managing Director with Shorenstein Properties.

I'm here to speak regarding Item 12, Council Bill 120948. We have an existing building permit at 235 9th Avenue in South Lake Union, where we plan to build a seven-story office building.

The pandemic's impact on the office market continues to be felt through increased construction costs, increased interest rates, and decreased leasing demands.

Adding an additional two years for a permanent lifespan will allow more time for the market to improve enough to support the cost of new construction.

Our project will contribute about $1.5 million to the city's MHA program, not to mention hundreds of construction jobs and up to 1,000 permanent employees.

This legislation is very impactful both to our project but also to Seattle's continued post-pandemic recovery, and we ask that you support it.

Thank you.

next up we have jeremy wilkening hi thank you for uh extending the period my name is jeremy wilkening i'm with shelter resources we're an affordable developer based in the puget sound we have a project in beacon hill that was funded by an acquisition loan from the office of housing to build some affordable housing and we purchase it with under the old code.

So it was a developer that decided to sell it and were able to buy something that was already vested in the code.

Since then, we've been applying for additional funds needed to build the building and are continuing to do so.

We haven't been successful yet.

As you all know, there's quite a backlog of affordable projects off the housing pipeline.

The committee's support of Council Bill 120948 will allow us to continue to pursue funding and keep the project vested and appreciate you all considering that action.

Thank you.

Next, we have Alex Inger.

Alex, we cannot hear you.

You might be muted on your phone.

Please press star six.

Alex, we still cannot hear you.

Hi, sorry about that.

Excellent.

Thank you.

My name is Alex Agner, Executive Vice President for Lincoln Property Company.

I'm here to support Council Bill 120771 to encourage flexibility for street-level uses, especially to recruit and retain R&D users.

Lincoln Property Company is an owner and operator of commercial real estate in the Seattle market, and we've invested in the Fifth Avenue R&D corridor, including 222 Fifth, which is a 200,000-square-foot biotech facility, which we delivered last fall.

This total project cost was over $250 million and included $3 million in MHA fees.

As part of the project, we're also investing in a biotech incubator called CoLabs.

The purpose of this CoLabs is to support local biotech startups and their growth in our community.

The biotech industry is an economic driver for the city of Seattle, and These are in office jobs that activate downtown.

222 has street level uses that are currently slated to be retail that we would like to convert for office and tenant uses.

The types of these uses that we would be seeking on the ground floor would not have any safety or noise impacts.

There would be no chemicals located in these locations.

This bill would provide great active street level uses that would support our biotech cluster.

We have an additional project located just south of 2225th at 5th and John.

It's a permitted 200,000 square foot biotech project as well.

As of now, the project is on pause, but this amendment would be helpful to accelerate the project's feasibility.

We applaud the mayor and council for their commitment to downtown biotech sector and encourage this bill to pass.

Thank you.

Next we have David Haynes.

Hi, thank you.

City Council has put restrictions on developers to disincentivize them and then pay into an MHA fee fund.

And then they changed the law that only their politically connected, unqualified nonprofits get access to hundreds of millions of dollars.

And now the city council who should be investigated is conspiring to sabotage the multitudes of working class generations that need 21st century first world quality homes that instead are going to get these low quality, low level warehouse echo slump pieces of real estate that are built by these unqualified nonprofits who are padding the cost with a for profit that they prioritize hiring.

That's based on some racist, unconstitutional skin color priority that misinterprets building higher than six stories so that we can celebrate a multitude of levels with robust floor plans that would provide like, let's say you have a quadplex that has six stories on all four corners, but you connect all four corners to the core value of the community living space.

For one floor, you have the rooftop view that doesn't have a barbecue or toxic gas blowing into somebody's window.

And then you have like a fitness room that you can get fresh air that you got a view on.

And then you got your personal private office space.

And then you got like the, you know, the movie clubhouse room and you don't have a driveway driving through every block where all these crazy, lazy modern wheel 20th century curmudgeons always think that they have the right to drive through your neighborhood and keep your tree up there for them.

the poisoning area while people are sabotaging the integrity of a robust build out to cater to the housing development consortium and all of their nonprofit politically connected operatives who need to be investigated for donating and operating a charade of unqualified developers that are getting in the way.

That was our last speaker?

That was our last speaker.

Okay, very good.

Thank you very much.

At this time, then, public commentary is closed, and we will proceed on with the rest of our agenda.

Will the clerk please read items one through five into the record?

Agenda items 1 through 5. Appointments 3110 through 3114. Appointment of Aaron D. Clark as a member, Urban Forestry Commission, for term to March 31st, 2026. Appointments and reappointment of Drew Epping, Melanie Ocasio, and Leah Hall as members, Urban Forestry Commission, for terms to March 31st, 2027. Appointment of Lonnie Chang as a member, Urban Forestry Commission, for term to March 31st, 2028.

Okay.

Is Lauren here from the, oh yes, please come forward.

Come join us at the table, introduce yourselves and start.

Hello, Council.

I'm Lauren Ergensen.

I'm the Urban Forestry Policy and Programs Manager at the Office of Sustainability and Environment, and I'm very pleased to introduce Council nominees for the Urban Forestry Commission.

There are five nominees today, and three were able to make it in person, and I will be introducing the two nominees who are not able to make it in person.

The first nominee is Aaron D. Clark for position number one of wildlife biologist.

Aaron is here today, and I'll give a brief introduction.

Aaron, he, him, has over two decades of professional experience working at the interface of ecological restoration and environmental justice.

He is a highly trained in ornithology, ecological science, and biology.

Erin has mostly worked in applied fields, including 11 years with the urban green infrastructure sector in Seattle.

For the last 1.5 years, Erin has worked as ELIP Tilikum Conservancy Director at the Native Women-Led NGO Na'a Elahi Fund, focused on native land return and advocacy for equitable development policy at the city and county level.

Through the Urban Forestry Commission, Aaron hopes to advance environmental justice through urban forestry policy and equitable access to the benefits of trees.

He's excited about the growing body of research showing the very real mental health and economic benefits that healthy urban ecosystems can provide, especially for communities who bear the brunt of environmental degradation in the form of premature death and health impairments.

So that is Aaron.

Would you like me to keep going, or would you like a moment to talk with Aaron?

Keep going.

Yeah, keep going, then we'll do comments.

Q&A at the end.

Q&A at the end, yeah.

Great, thank you.

So our next nominee is Lonnie Chang.

Lonnie was not able to be here today, but I'll go ahead and introduce Lonnie.

Lonnie is the nominee for position number three, which is the natural resource agency or university representative.

Lani Shiher works for the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Regional Office, implementing the wildfire crisis strategy to reduce wildfire risk and enhance forest resilience across Oregon and Washington.

In her role, she collaborates with forests and community partners to ensure equitable wildfire risk reduction.

With a diverse professional background, Lani has remained passionate about working with people to develop solutions that support both community and ecological well-being.

She holds a Master's in Environmental Management and a BA in Environmental Science.

Lani resides in Capitol Hill, and she feels fortunate to live near numerous parks and a thriving urban canopy.

She's excited and grateful for the opportunity to advocate for the equitable distribution of these benefits throughout the city.

I'll move forward and introduce Drew Epping, she, her.

Drew is here with us today.

Drew is the nominee for position number five, which is the arborist position.

Her is an urban forest planner and board-certified master arborist with a decade of experience in the green industry and a passion for tree equity initiatives and workforce development.

Starting her municipal career in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and moving to Seattle in 2020 has given Drew a unique perspective on the ways the urban forest can be managed.

She has a passion for connecting urban forestry professionals and advocates together to work on impactful and equitable urban forestry efforts in our local community.

Drew also works on inclusive workforce development efforts through her position on the Pacific Northwest International Society of Arboriculture chapter board and as an instructor at South Seattle College.

Through all of these roles in the industry, her overarching focus is to expand both the quantity and accessibility of urban green spaces throughout Seattle while deepening the connection between the community and the trees that make up the urban forest.

Next, we have Melanie Ocasio.

Melanie's here with us today.

Melanie is the nominee for position number, let's see here, 11, which is the environmental justice representative.

Melanie is a conservation biologist, BIPOC community advocate, and STEM educator.

She has been working to create inclusive spaces in environmental STEM for the next generation of BIPOC students, researchers, and learners.

Melanie is beginning her professional career with an understanding of the intersection between environmental justice and urban forestry.

In her current role with South Biolab, Melanie connects communities with STEM education offerings and expanding curriculum in environmental science learning and community projects.

Through this work, Melanie aims to expand urban forestry and farming in marginalized communities in South Seattle.

Melanie has also worked on forest restoration and flood mitigation and forest thinning with federal agencies performing environmental conservation projects on our nation's public lands.

And finally, we have Leah Hall, who's a reappointment for position number 13. And Leah is the community neighborhood representative.

Leah Hall was born and raised in Seattle in an extended household of mixed ethnicity, culture, and multiple generations.

After obtaining a graduate degree in New York City, Leah returned to the Emerald City.

Leah resides in Rainier Beach near Kubota Garden with her partner and two young children.

Her husband and business partner run a neon shop, mostly producing neon art and signage for small businesses and artists in and around Seattle and beyond.

Leah has a permaculture landscape design certification through Seattle TELF and is passionate about planting, propagating, and sharing native plants.

Through these networks, her time spent as a yoga instructor and engaged with other families, she committed to listening to various perspectives throughout her community.

Thank you very much.

For the appointee, hopeful appointees that are here, are there any comments that you'd like to offer?

No, good.

Okay.

No, no, really.

Well, let's see.

I don't have any prepared comments, but we just appreciate the consideration.

It's a valuable asset to our city to have this commission to bring forward issues and to guide the council on tree policy as it relates to the city.

There's a really important intersection between trees and public health, and I personally am very passionate about that and excited to bring more trees and more health to all of our communities and do so equitably.

Mr. Okay, great.

Thank you.

Any other commentary?

Yes.

Yeah, just for me, a lot of the work I do is outside of the city of Seattle, but it is my home and where I live.

So I'm really excited to just be able to bring the conversation and expertise I have to serve the city that I live in.

And I'm really excited about that.

Great.

Hi, thank you for listening to us and hearing about the work that we've done in Seattle.

I am fairly new to Seattle, but I'm really passionate about BIPOC communities, specifically in South Seattle, and I really want to emphasize the education that they need down there for community planning, and they really need to you know, have people lead them through environmental justice and hear their voices along the way when it comes to city policies that are being made.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments from the committee?

Okay.

Council Member Rank.

Thank you, Chair Solomon, and thank you three for being here today.

What is clear is there's an abundance of expertise amongst you, and thank you for the work that you've done in your careers, and thank you for signing up to be a part of one of our commissions.

It's certainly appreciated.

I am such a fan and appreciative of all of our commissioners just given You could be doing anything with your time, but you're choosing to serve the city and provide that expertise.

So thank you.

And my one question for you, and apologies if this is a little premature, but I'm curious if there's one thing that you're hoping to achieve on the commission this year, I'd be curious to know what that is.

I'll start since I started and I'm alphabetically at the front.

The...

There's two things.

I mean, I think I would love to see commissions like this have some form of compensation.

As you mentioned, this volunteer service is needed.

We appreciate your appreciation of it.

I don't personally need to be compensated for this.

I would give that back to the city or to the communities.

in order to center equity, we really need to compensate people for their time.

And if we want people who are on the front lines of all of these issues, they're the least able to show up and volunteer that time.

Yeah, for me, between the city and the county and the state and the surrounding cities around Seattle and just seeing how trees and green infrastructure really bleed into everything else we do.

So just kind of finding ways to really strengthen those relationships.

One thing I really hope to see is more representation when it comes to the community coming to these board meetings, especially with POC and BIPOC representatives.

I hope to spread the word and help educate and really empower people to come out here.

And I think it's maybe taboo to say, but I really hope that we spread love.

I think it's a really divisive time, but I think it's really important to really move forward in the commonalities that we have and move forward to progress communities that really need help and support.

Thank you for that.

There's certainly a lot of attacks on environmental justice and divestment from our public lands and our conservation work.

And so I'm certainly grateful that we have an urban forestry commission and the city of Seattle continues to prioritize this work.

So really looking forward to engaging with the commission in the future.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And I'll double your current salary.

So.

Uh, council member Rivera.

Thank you, chair.

Um, I too want to thank our folks that in community that volunteer to take on these commission roles.

They're so important.

They help advise the city on, um, these very important issues and, um, everyone I I've said before trees are so important to the district that I represent in particular district for so.

really appreciate your willingness to step up on this volunteer basis to do the very important work that the commission does.

So thank you for being here today, taking time out of your busy lives to come here and to take on this role.

So looking forward to hearing more from the commission as we move forward.

Thank you for being here to present.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you very much.

And again, I also want to, echo my appreciation for you being here, for you volunteering of your time to give back to your community.

It is very much appreciated.

So, you know, jokes about doubling your salary aside, definitely, you know, hear you about some kind of recognition or compensation for folks going forward because, again, you are giving so much of yourselves.

And appreciation was one thing, but finding a way to...

Give you a little extra is another.

So thank you for that.

If there's no further comments or questions, I move that the committee recommend confirmation of appointments 3110 through 3114. Is there a second?

Second.

OK, great.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend the confirmation of the appointments.

Are there any further comments?

OK.

Will the clerk please call a roll on the recommendation to confirm the appointments.

Council member Rink?

Yes.

Council member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Solomon?

Aye.

Chair, there are three votes in favor and none opposed.

Okay, great.

All right, the motion carries and the committee recommendation that the council confirm the appointments will be sent to the April 8th, 2025 City Council meeting.

Thank you very much everyone for being here.

Again, very much appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right, we will now move on to our next items of business.

Will the clerk please read items six and seven into the record?

Agenda item six, clerk file 314491. Application of Encore Architects PLC to rezone in an approximately 34,654 square foot site located at 8601 Fremont Avenue North from single family SF5000 to low rise two with an M mandatory housing affordability suffix.

Agenda item seven.

Council Bill 120962, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page 26 of the official land use map to re-zend the property at 8601 Fremont Avenue North.

All right.

So thank you.

Item six and seven will be addressed together and the committee will vote on each separately.

I see our presenter has joined us.

Thank you very much, Mr. Woodson.

So go ahead and please share your presentation once you are ready.

So you got a briefing on this rezone at your last meeting.

I'm happy to share slides, but I think council member questions were addressed at that time.

So if there are no questions, I'll walk through about the rezone.

I'll walk through the procedure to approve the rezone.

Yes.

Great.

And just as a reminder, it's a 35,000-square-foot site in the Greenwood neighborhood that's being rezoned from neighborhood residential to low-rise 2 with an M1 mandatory housing affordability site to facilitate the development of 53 low-income housing units.

So you have two pieces of legislation in front of you.

The first is a clerk file.

The clerk file is created at the beginning of the process when a rezone is applied for, and at the end of the process, counsel adds findings, conclusions, and decision about the rezone.

Generally, the findings, conclusion, and decision reflects the recommendations of the CL hearing examiner and the draft findings, conclusion, and decision that's attached to my memo.

which we are recommending, um, does reflect the hearing examiner's recommendations.

Um, so for the clerk file, you would add that findings, conclusions, and decision, um, document to the clerk file.

For the council bill, um, that will effectuate the rezone.

In other words, it changes the city zoning map to show the new zoning.

Um, and for that one, um, it's, basically just recommending to the full council to adopt the ordinance.

There's one minor technical amendment to that.

It inadvertently has the mayor's signature line on the council bill.

Contract reasons are a councilmanic action.

The mayor doesn't have a role in it, so I recommend taking the mayor's signature line off that bill.

If the committee votes to recommend approval of the council bill, the applicants will sign the property use and development agreement, which is one of the attachments to the rezone.

And a full council, you will swap out that signed final version of the property use and development agreement for the draft that's currently attached to the bill.

Great.

All right.

Do we have any questions?

Real quick, in terms of swapping out the mayor's signature, does that need to be an amendment?

Yeah.

Okay.

That should be just a verbal amendment.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

So first we need to move the bill, then we move the amendments.

I think they are in front of you.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay, move the clerk filing file.

Okay, great.

All right.

So we will vote on these items separately starting with the clerk file.

I move that the committee recommends that the clerk file 314491 be granted.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

It has been moved and seconded to grant the clerk file.

All right.

Okay, now I move that the...

Okay, do we do the next motion and then vote?

Still new to this.

Okay.

Okay.

I also move that the clerk file be amended to add the findings, conclusions, and decisions of the council.

Is there a second for that?

Second.

Okay.

Moved and seconded.

All right.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the clerk file to add the findings, conclusions, and decisions of the council.

Senator Steph, do you have any more information to share on this document?

No, it's basically standard language that adopts the hearing examiner's findings and recommended conditions.

Okay, great.

Any comments?

Yes, Councilman Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for being here, Lish, our trustee central staffer.

I'm just confirming that the hearing examiner is fine with this proposal.

Yes, the hearing examiner recommended approved.

And then I know that when we, this was a few weeks ago when we first started, talked about this, and I know Council Member Moore, who represents this district, had some questions.

I know she could not be with us today, but I'm wondering, did she get her questions answered?

And I just want to make sure that.

I think there were two questions.

The first was around trees on the site.

There's one tree that would be removed to allow for some surface parking spaces to be provided along the alley at the back side of the site.

The project will include the planting of 56 new trees.

So 56 trees are being planted, one tree is being removed.

What tier tree is that, Cato?

I think she had concerns.

It was permitted under, so they started this application in 2020 under previous tree regulations.

It's not an exceptional tree under those regulations.

Okay.

The second question was basically, why are they moving forward now, given that they acknowledge that The site is recommended to be rezoned as part of the mayor's comprehensive plan update process.

Application work on this project started in 2020. They just got SDCI's recommendation to approve it in the fall of 2024, about when the mayor's recommended zoning proposal came out.

They didn't want to just stop the work that they'd gone so far to sort of get that recommendation.

They wanted to move forward because they know that this is a likely rezone.

The mayor's recommended recommended comp plan changes.

The timeline was uncertain in the fall.

It's still uncertain about exactly when those changes will go forward.

So they did want to move forward with what they knew they had, but they are asking that if the mayor's recommended re-zones go forward, that they be able to apply the higher zoning, LR3, that is part of that draft proposal that was published in the fall.

Thank you, Kittle.

I guess, and I think I had this question then, and I still feel like if the zoning might change, then why not wait till the zoning changes?

Because if they...

get permitted now and they start the project and then all of a sudden the zoning changes, there's some steps they would need to take in reapplying.

There are some steps, but if they get approved on the rezone that's in front of you, they have certainty.

and can move forward.

It's not as difficult to amend the development application in the future if the timing works out, but they have certainty for this project.

And if they happen to complete the project before it gets rezoned, then they'll just keep it at that.

Then we have 53 affordable units.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thanks, Liz.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

Okay.

All right, so this is, okay.

Before we begin on this, is this where we can introduce the oral amendment to?

At this point, we will vote to whether or not to add the findings.

Okay.

And if that's approved, then we'll then move to grant the clerk file as conditioned.

Okay.

Cool.

All right.

Thank you.

So with that, will the clerk please call a roll on the Amendment to add findings, conclusions, and decisions of the council.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Salmon?

Aye.

Chair, there are three votes in favor and zero opposed.

All right.

Motion carries.

And the findings, conclusions, and decisions of the council is added to the clerk file.

Are there any final comments on the recommendation to grant the clerk file as condition before we vote on it?

Okay, hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to grant the clerk file as conditioned.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Salmon?

Aye.

Chair, there are three in favor of zero votes.

All right, great.

Motion carries.

The committee recommendation that the clerk file be granted as conditioned will be sent to the April 15th City Council meeting.

Is this now where we do the thing?

Yes, now we move the bill.

Item number seven.

Okay, we will now consider a vote on item number seven.

I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120962. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, it has been moved and seconded for the recommendation to pass the bill.

Are there any final comments?

Chair, just clarification.

Clerk, this was read into the record.

I didn't hear that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

All right.

Chair, if I may?

Yes.

Just want to express my excitement for this project to move forward.

We're talking about bringing online 53 units of affordable housing.

20 of them are going to be family-sized, two- to three-bedroom.

This is exactly the kind of project that our community needs right now, so I'll be voting yes today.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

All right.

So it's been moved and seconded.

Oh, here's the oral amendment.

Okay.

I move to amend Council Bill 120962 to remove the mayor's signature lines.

Is there a second for that?

Second.

Okay, great.

All right.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the bill to remove the mayor's signature lines.

Will Senator Staff please provide an overview of the amendment?

So the amendment just states that, or removes the mayor's required signature.

Okay, cool.

Because he's not required to sign it.

All right, cool.

Any other comments on this amendment?

All right.

With that, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment to remove the mayor's signature lines.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Chair Salmon.

Aye.

Chair, there are three votes in favor and zero post.

Okay.

Motion carries.

The amendment is adopted.

Are there any final comments on the bill as amended?

All right.

Cool.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to pass Council Bill 120962 as amended.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Chair Salmon.

Aye.

Chair, there are three votes in favor and zero post.

Aye.

Good.

Motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill passed as amended will be sent to the April 15th City Council meeting.

Cool.

We'll now move on to our next items of business.

Thank you very much, Mr. Woodson.

Will the clerk please read items eight and nine into the record.

Agenda item eight, clerk file 314511, application of the University of Washington to prepare a new major institution master plan for the University of Washington Medical Center Northwest Campus located at 1550 North 115th Street.

Agenda item nine, council bill 120963, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning adopting a new major institution master plan for the University of Washington Medical Center Northwest Hospital.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Both will be addressed at one time, and the committee will vote on each item separately.

I see our presenter has joined us at the table, so could you please introduce yourself for the record and begin once you're ready.

Sure.

Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff.

I'll just say a few things to refresh the committee's memory about both the clerk file and the council bill here.

On March 17th, the committee was briefed on the proposed major institution master plan for the University of Washington Medical Center Northwest Hospital.

As the committee knows, that hospital is located kind of at the northwest corner of the Northgate Urban Center adjacent to the Evergreen-West Shaley Cemetery.

Just for the general background here, most large hospitals and post-secondary institutions are subject to regulation as major institution As major institutions, they're subject to an overlay zoning, which allows different development standards and higher heights that would normally be allowed under the underlying zoning.

There are three required components of a major institution master plan, a development standards component, a development program component, so how much they intend to build, and a transportation management component, which usually translates into a single occupancy vehicle reduction goal.

A MIP is prepared.

with participation and review by a development advisory committee that is essentially a citizen's committee that helps inform the master planning process for each institution.

For this particular memp, the development advisory committee was convened, was formed by resolution in 2023, convened 16 public meetings and published a final recommendation and report in July of 2024. So that was the final recommendation and report from the DAC.

In September, SDCI published a recommendation to conditionally approve the Major Institution Master Plan.

The hearing examiner held an open record public hearing in October of 2024, and in December, recommended conditional approval of the Major Institution Master Plan.

We went through some of the conditions yesterday, but they essentially come from three different authorities.

One is just the MEMP approval itself.

Another is authority for rezone, so there's some rezone-specific conditions.

And then there are some specific conditions that are imposed through the city's SIPA authority.

So today, similar process to the one you just went through with Lisch, the committee has proposed findings, conclusions, and decisions, which would reside in the clerk file.

So the clerk file contains the record compiled by the hearing examiner at his open record public hearing, which includes the application from the University of Washington.

And it also would contain an approval document, which is attached to the agenda.

That's the proposed findings, conclusion, and decision.

That proposed findings, conclusion, and decision adopts the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions of law, conditionally approves the proposed major institution and master plan, and also imposes conditions recommended by the hearing examiner.

So the action today by the committee would be to add that to the clerk's file and then move to approve or grant the application.

In addition to what is in the clerk's file, there is an ordinance.

The clerk's file is not sufficient to approve the application by the University of Washington.

There has to be an action to effectuate it.

Council bill at the name 120963 would do that.

It would file the clerk's file and request that the major institution master plan be updated to reflect the conditions that are recommended by the hearing examiner and could be imposed by the council.

And then would also amend the future, not the future land use map, amend the zoning map to change the heights in the major institution overlay to reflect what's in the major institution master plan and also to change the boundaries of the major institution overlay.

Those boundaries don't expand beyond the edges of where they are now.

They're just changed internally to where the existing MIO is.

So unless you have any questions, we can move to action.

Right.

Before I open it up for questions, I do want to reflect for the record that Council Member Moore has joined us remotely.

Okay.

So any questions for...

All right.

So I move that the committee recommends that clerk file 314511 be granted.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

It has been moved and seconded to grant the clerk file.

All right.

Okay.

Also move that the clerk file be amended to include the findings, conclusions, and decisions of the council.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Second.

All right.

Okay.

It is moved and seconded that the clerk file be added to the findings of the council.

Senator Steph, do you have any additional comments or information to share about this document?

I do not.

Okay.

All right.

Are there any comments from members?

Chair, Council Member Moore has a question.

Or has your hand raised.

Ah, Council Member Moore.

Hi, thank you so much, Chair.

Sorry for being late to the meeting.

I just had a quick question or comment, which is I did ask when this first came before committee about what was the plan for the trees, because there are a significant number of trees around the hospital area and was able to hear back from central staff yesterday that the hearing examiner had addressed that to some extent.

But I think that the language that's been included is very broad.

And so I haven't, apologies if not had an opportunity to bring forward an amendment, but I just wanted to flag that I will be bringing forth an amendment at full council.

to provide for a little bit more specificity around being sure to protect the trees to the greatest extent possible.

Thank you.

Of the commentary.

All right.

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment to add the findings, conclusions, and decisions of council.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Chair Salmon.

Aye.

Chair, there are four in favor, zero opposed.

All right.

The motion carries and the findings concludes the decisions of the council is added to the clerk file.

Are there any final comments on the recommendations to grant the clerk file as conditioned before we vote on it?

All right, seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on committee recommendation to grant the clerk file as conditioned.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Chair Salmon.

Aye.

Chair, there are four in favor and zero opposed.

Okay, great.

Motion carries and the committee recommendations that the clerk file be granted as conditioned will be sent to the city council on April 8th.

All right, now we will now consider and vote on item number nine.

So I move that the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120963. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Are there any final comments?

All right, hearing none.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to pass the bill.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council member Rink?

Yes.

Council member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Salmon?

Aye.

Chair, there are four in favor, zero opposed.

Okay, very good.

Most carries on the committee recommendation that the bill pass will be sent to the April 8th City Council meeting.

All right, great.

We will now move on to item, our next item of business.

Will the clerk please read item 10 into the agenda?

Agenda item 10.

Or record, excuse me.

Agenda item 10, Council Bill 120949. An ordinance relating to land use and zoning, expanding housing options by easing barriers to the construction and use of accessory dwelling units as required by state legislation.

All right, great.

All right, thank you to our presenters.

For the record, please introduce yourselves for the record and begin when you're ready.

Lee Schwitsen, Council Central Staff.

Dave VanSkyke, SDCI.

Okay, great.

I'll let you, yeah.

Dave's going to give a presentation and I'll have a few comments.

So I'm here today to present to you the compliance bill for House Bill 1337, which, as you can see from your materials, has to do with ADUs.

I'll try to be brief and preserve time for questions, because I'm sure you'll have some.

Thank you.

I'm not sure if this is set up as though.

There we go.

Nope, not that.

Lish is helping.

Thank you.

You got it.

All right, great.

Ah, there we go.

So where's our slides?

There we go.

Let me always introduce with our purpose, SDCI's purpose is to help people build safe, livable and inclusive Seattle.

Our values, equity, respect, quality, integrity and service, which we always want to remember that.

The purpose of this legislation is to address the House Bill 1337, which its basic intent was to regularize standards for ADUs across all zones where you can have a residential use.

Secondary dwelling units on a lot, that's what we term an ADU.

There are two types, an AADU or a detached ADU, which you usually hear the term DADU.

Most of these in Seattle are located in the NR residential zones, formerly called single family and the low rise.

And over time, we've recognized both statewide and locally that they offer great opportunities for multi-generational living, some first-time ownership, and they provide flexibility for different types of housing.

The bill that came down from the state, House Bill 1337, requires compliance by the middle of this year, June 30th, 2025. As I pointed out, standardizes or regularizes ADU provisions across all zones, and it's, impact is anticipated to be actually fairly modest.

There is an important relationship probably to talk about with another bill that you've been briefed on and heard, I think, a fair bit about, House Bill 1110, which is the middle housing bill.

Middle housing essentially provided or required additional density in residential zones.

Both of these were passed in 2023, intending cities provide wider variety of housing types.

The legislature was clear when they passed both of these bills that both options were intended to bolster middle housing or what we think of things from single family to stacked flats, that whole panoply of different types of residential uses.

This legislation builds on and consolidates just the city's ADU code.

It's separate from the HB 1110 compliance.

although both are necessary in order to meet the state deadlines.

This table is intended to show in the column furthest to the left, sort of all of the provisions of 1337 that need to be included in the compliance bill.

And the two additional columns showing sort of red, green and red are areas where green, we are already compliant.

Our existing ADU regs are largely compliant with many of the provisions of 1337. And then points out some places where we need to make amendments.

So this sort of give you a sense of the scope of the, how heavy the touch is to the underlying code that we're putting forward today.

So currently.

We have there's an important provision and our zones allow for the conversion of nonconforming structures.

This is something that we've actually seen quite a few projects for.

Let's say you have an existing garage in the rear yard behind your single family house are existing.

Regulatory framework lets you convert those and actually has fairly generous provisions for allowing some additional nonconformities.

We didn't have a provision like this in other zones, the low rise zones, mid rise, high rise, the other places where residential is allowed.

So we needed to provide that sort of a conversion provision.

So the alignment between what's allowed in NR is being brought to the other zones such as LR and MR, which is a requirement of 1337. Another key component of 1337 is the gross floor area that's allowed in an ADU.

Right now, our NR zones allow what the state is requiring, which is 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, but the LR zones only allow 650. And in fact, we've seen not as many projects in the LR, maybe partly related to that.

In order for us to be compliant, we need to normalize that across all those zones.

There's another aspect of 1337, which has to do with street improvement requirements.

SDOT generally requires fewer street improvements for projects with under 10 units.

That's just a general framework that's in our code now.

ADUs are not counted towards this requirement currently.

What's needed in order to comply with 1337 is just a clarification of that, which you'll see in the bill.

And this doesn't change any of the requirements that might be imposed when there's damage to the street due to construction.

So when we're talking about street improvements, we're talking about putting in new infrastructure as opposed to restoring existing conditions.

The other and probably biggest moving piece of this legislation is to allow two ADUs per lot outright.

Currently, the NR zone allows a second ADU only certain conditions under only specific certain conditions such as being low income housing or green built.

The LR and RSL zones do not allow that.

So in order to fully comply, we need to provide the same regulatory framework for those other zones such that two ADUs are allowed outright.

A key part of this and part of achieving the density that I think 1337 envisions is to allow ADUs and DADUs in different configurations.

Right now we allow a single DADU or detached unit in the rear yard.

This would allow you to have two DADUs or a combined DADU.

If you want to think of it as a duplex as a DADU in the rear yard behind a single family residence, that would be a fairly typical pattern, but there are others that are allowed.

So the code is, the code provisions we're putting forward would provide full compliance to where this set of regulations applies to all zones where residential is allowed.

Height limits is another key component of 1337. Currently our code limits in the NR zones are 14 to 18, so typically a two-story home.

for a DADU, whereas you could have 30 feet for a single family home.

LR is slightly more generous in terms of ADUs.

They get 20 feet, whereas the principal unit, a townhouse or row house or single family could go 30 to 50 feet, depending on the zone.

In order to comply with 1337, we need to create a height limitation, which is the same for a DADU, an ADU or a single family residence.

So whatever the zone allows now, you'll see in the legislation that you would be allowed the same height for a DADU, which in some zones such as the low rise zones, that could be a DADU of up to 40 feet.

Currently, we have design standards and development standards that apply differently in different zones.

In NR, we have only development standards that really focus on setbacks, you know, height, bulk, those sorts of things with very limited design standards, such as where can the front door be.

What's needed for full compliance with 1337 is to update our code to bring these lot size minimums, entry door requirements, things that are sort of a combination of a design standard and a development standard into line where they're consistent across all zones.

Certainly open for questions if I went too quickly or if there's anything you want to talk about.

All right.

So any questions or comments for our presenters?

Okay.

Council Member Moore.

Thank you, Sarah.

I've got a question about FAR limits.

Will there be FAR limits?

How do they relate to HB 1110?

Yeah, that's a great question.

I know Lish has put something in his...

In his materials, it may touch on that as well, and I can do a follow-up.

But essentially, our current code does not have an FAR limit for ADUs and DADUs.

They are exempt from FAR.

House Bill 1110, as I understand, the prospective compliance legislation and then what's been put forward in the comp plan legislation is a different framework.

And our current approach is intended to have the least amount of change to the underlying code in sort of a stepwise approach where we anticipate there would have to be, based on the strategy of 1110, a different set of regulations that address FAR in that legislation.

But the notion so far has been to keep 1337 compliance as its own stepwise bill that addresses just the underlying code and doesn't make significant changes to the underlying code that aren't already called for in the statute.

Instead of using FAR to regulate the size of ADUs, there's a maximum size limit for each unit.

So in neighborhood residential zones, it's 1,000 square feet.

You can have a 1,000 square foot unit on top of the floor area ratio that applies to the principal building.

So I'm sorry, if I may just clarify.

So I just want to be clear that we're not reducing the floor area ratio available to ADUs.

under HB 1110.

So, uh, the interim legislation related to HB 1110, um, I don't think we'll reduce the floor area, um, for ADUs.

Um, I am sort of working through that right now and we'll have more material for the next, uh, select committee on the comp plan to talk through how exactly that works, because it gets a little complicated.

But yes, and this is an area where the two bills will need to be reconciled.

They are not completely aligned in terms of how floor area limits are applied to projects with ADUs.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I look forward to that additional information.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you both for being here today to discuss this.

A quick question.

Is there a cap on ADUs and MRLR zones, and if so, why?

Under the current regulations or under the proposed?

Proposed.

Under the proposed, it is the same size limitation across all zones.

That's one of the sort of the mandates of 1337. In the past, we have had, we have obviously a thousand square foot limit in the NR, which is what the 1337 calls for.

We had a lower in the low rise, a 650 square foot limitation.

And then mid rise and high rise, the code was silent.

Um, I don't think anyone had really contemplated that when we were drafting the ADU regs, you know, back when that originally happened.

And so how that applied in the, and I only know of one case that that happened where we had somebody propose it.

We went to the default in that particular case of a thousand square feet, because it was clear that that was what was essentially allowed in single family, single family zoning at the time that that happened now NR.

Under these regulations, all ADUs would be given the same standing in terms of their maximum size limitation in floor area.

And then there's another measure, which is the number of ADUs allowed on a lot.

Under current zoning, it's two for neighborhood residential lots, one per principal unit for residential small lot and multifamily zones.

Under the proposed bill, it would be two per lot for all zones, which may result in a reduction in the number of ADUs that could be built on a RSL or low-rise zoned lot.

Thank you both for clarifying that.

And Chair, if I may just add a comment to this legislation simply is bringing us into compliance with state law on ADUs.

And thanks to the forward thinking pro-ADU policies enacted in years past, we've already done most of the job on this.

And we should continue to push forward legislation that allows for more innovative and affordable housing options, such as ADUs.

Allowing for more ADUs is a cost-effective way to promote market rate lowercase affordable homeownership opportunities, whether it be for first-time homebuyers or to support multi-generational living.

We can and should do more to promote their development.

So I will be voting yes on this bill and continue to look forward to the work we can do as a city to build more ADUs for working-class Seattleites.

Thank you, Chair.

Any other comments?

Yes.

If I may, I have just a couple of other comments or things for the committee to consider.

One, there will need to be some reconciliation between this bill and the interim House Bill 1110 legislation.

So I just want to put on the table that once you adopt this bill, we'll need to make some changes to the other bill to reflect the decisions you make on this bill.

And I would recommend that you move the effective date of this bill to June 30th to provide SDCI enough time to actually make sure that's the last possible date that the city can act on this bill.

And that would give SDCI a couple more weeks to train their staff and get ready to implement the bill.

Duly noted.

And I just want to say also the conflict between 1337 and 1110 is apparent.

And so fixing that, again, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around floor area ratio and lot size and lot area coverage and the footprint versus, yeah.

More to be determined, but thank you very much.

Yeah.

Oh, go ahead.

Just welcome to the wonderful, crazy world of land use regulation.

Yes.

Well, I got a guy who loves land use, so he's all on it.

All right.

Again, we are not taking a vote on this today.

Appreciate the discussion.

Appreciate the presentation.

And look forward to moving forward on this and getting it across the finish line.

So thank you very much.

All right.

Okay, so are we at item 11?

All right.

We will now move on to our next item of business.

Will the clerk please read the item into the record?

Agenda item 11, Council Bill 120771, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning adopting interim provisions to facilitate occupancy of street level spaces in the downtown South Lake Union and uptown urban centers.

Great.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate our presenters joining us at the table.

So please introduce yourselves for the record and begin when you're ready.

Keto Freeman, Council Central Staff.

Gordon Clowers, SDCI.

All right.

Great.

Thank you.

All right.

Not sure how much of this you all need.

The committee has had a public hearing on this back in June, a briefing prior to that, and just a couple weeks ago, we refreshed your memory about the content of the bill.

Just at a very high level, Council Bill 120771 would, on an interim basis for three years after the effective date of the bill, allow additional uses to qualify as required street-level uses in parts of downtown, South Lake Union, and Uptown, so those three contiguous urban centers that are part of the downtown core, and modify otherwise applicable development standards, including density limits, to encourage businesses to locate an unoccupied street level and second-floor commercial spaces.

Again, it's a temporary provision.

It would be in effect for three years, and absent council action to extend it would lapse after three years.

Um, there are, um, a couple of amendments here, one proposed by council member Solomon and another proposed by council member Rivera.

Um, we can go right into those, or if you want more, um, uh, discussion of the bill, we're happy to, um, answer questions.

Uh, why don't we take up the, uh, the discussion of the amendments.

Okay.

Let's see here.

Oh, that's right.

You have a presentation, Gordon, didn't you?

You did.

Oh, yeah.

I'm sorry, Gordon.

It's down about page 8 or 9 there.

One more, I think.

One more.

So, Amendment No. 1, it's shown here.

This is a fancy, handsome presentation of it.

So, sponsored by Councilmember Salomon, Amendment 1 would limit...

I would extend the authority for interim street-level uses for the length of Westlake between Mercer and Denny.

As proposed, the interim use extensions only would have applied to the so-called Mercer blocks, so the area on Mercer Street between Mercer and Valley and on Valley Street between Boren and Westlake.

So the proposed amendment would extend the authorization for interim uses to the length of Westlake that is not included in the mayor's proposal.

Okay.

And Amendment 2. Okay.

So Amendment 2 proposed by Council Member Rivera.

It's a reporting requirement.

It was distributed earlier today.

I think there are paper copies in the public notebook.

This amendment would require semi-annual reporting from SDCI on the number, location, and types of uses permitted as interim street-level uses.

For those members of the public who may be watching and don't have access to it, I'll just read it to you.

It would add a new Section 13 to Council Bill 120771, which would read as follows.

The Council requests that the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections provide a written report by December 31st and June 30th of every year that this ordinance is in effect on the number location, and types of uses that are permitted as interim street-level uses.

For each interim street-level use, the report shall also identify the amount of floor area in the interim street-level use and whether, absent the provisions of this ordinance, the floor area would be chargeable.

The first report requested by this section should be provided by December 31st, 2025. The Council may consider modifications to the interim street-level use requirements if, based on the reporting, over-concentrations of permitted interim street-level uses would preclude future development of pedestrian oriented neighborhood serving uses.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Any of the committee members have any questions about the underlying bill?

And then we'll address the amendments as we go along.

Okay.

Hearing that, I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120771. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

All right, it has been moved and seconded to recommend a passage of Council Bill 120771. Are there any further comments?

Okay.

All right.

Given that, I move to amend Council Bill 120771 as presented on Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 1. Will the Council...

No, I'm sorry.

Will Central Staff please provide an overview of the amendment?

Well, you already did, so we can dispense with that.

Any comments on Amendment 1?

And as the bringer of the amendment, I'll just say that looking at that stretch of real estate with a lot of empty storefronts just makes sense to extend the area by which this exemption could apply.

Any close?

Okay, good.

So given that, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1?

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Solomon?

Aye.

Chair, there are four votes in favor and zero post.

Okay, great.

All right, the motion carries.

Amendment one is adopted.

We now have the amendment by Council Member Rivera, and I move to amend the Council Bill 120771 as presented on the recently distributed Amendment two.

Is there a second?

Second.

Amelia, did I need to move that?

Didn't matter.

Okay, second.

Okay, good.

All right.

It has been moved to second to amend the bill as presented in Amendment 2. Central staff, you've already provided some background and information on this.

Council Member Rivera, as a sponsor, would you like to address this amendment?

I will.

And I also want to say that council member Moore, well, you can say, but you have agreed to co-sponsor this amendment.

So I wanted to recognize that you had told me this earlier today and we didn't get it in time to get your name on here, but we will post facto.

So thank you for that.

This amendment is coming actually out of some questions that council member Moore and I both had at the last time this was presented and really colleagues, as you know, I very much when we take action, I want to make sure that we have a way to have accountability on the actions that we're taking.

And so with this particular limited three year use of the space in this way, this extending the use beyond the original allowance.

We really want to make sure that we have information by which we know whether this three-year program is working.

Are we getting more street-level uses of these extended And then, of course, is there some floor area issue that would have resulted in more MHA funding to, of course, pay for more affordable housing?

So we need all this information by which to make decisions in the future.

I know this sunsets after three years.

And at that time, we should, between now and that time, having this yearly reporting and twice a year reporting will help us tweak if we need to this particular proposal and we need this information in order to know whether we should be making tweaks.

And then also at the end of the three-year period, if it's contemplated to continue a program of this nature, we need the information to make sure that we know how we would propose to do that.

And then equally importantly is making sure that the...

I guess I mentioned earlier, but just the MHA piece, we have that information by which to make decisions in the future by.

I will say, particular to this bill, central staff and I discussed in terms of allowing the R&D uses, and I know, Council Member Moore, you had this question as well, whether we would allow wet labs as part of the street-level use in conversations with central staff.

In these particular areas, areas of the city where we're allowing this, R&D is already happening and can happen at the street level.

So this bill allows what already would be happening on a permanent basis in those areas.

If this were a more expansive beyond these areas, then I think I would have wanted to explore an amendment that would have put some parameters around the wet labs for risk mitigation and things of that purpose.

But given that this is already allowable in these particular areas, I did not think that then it was necessary to have that amendment.

But I did want to say this for the record because I want the public to know that Both Council Member Moore, again, you'll speak next, but we both had concerns about risk mitigation if there are wet labs on street level in these areas of the city.

And just to say that we really are concerned and we wanna make sure we're protecting our residents while we're allowing this needed activation of space that is not currently being activated by its original use that was retail and restaurants, but it's just not.

There isn't the foot traffic to support all that.

And in the meantime, we want to make sure that we are activating the space for many reasons, not the least of which is public safety.

So thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Council Member Moore.

Thank you, Chair.

I did want to say I'd like to be listed as co-sponsor and I wanted to extend my gratitude to Council Member Rivera for following through with bringing forth this amendment and following up on some of our additional questions that she's just discussed about R&D and also wanting to make sure that we have the information we need.

very much we want to activate the space we just want to make sure that we're maximizing the activation and continuing to be mindful of of mha in that context so anyway thank you very much to councilmember rivera for bringing the amendment and i will be voting in favor of it thank you great thank you councilmember rink

Thank you, Chair.

So I, like the public, I'm just getting familiarized with this amendment.

It was just introduced a couple of hours ago.

So I just have a couple of questions to get up to speed with what the amendment and the impacts could mean, particularly for SDCI staff.

And so could you speak a bit more about the current level and kind of reporting that SDCI is regularly providing for council already?

Well, my recollection is that with the previous interim bill we had during the COVID timeframe, there was, I think, an annual reporting of how many businesses took up the offer, and we fulfilled that.

And so this would be similar, and two times a year I think would be fine as a duty to fulfill.

Do you have an estimate on how much staff time it would take to fulfill this request?

Oh, probably only three to five hours.

Right.

And to that end, how common is it to add reporting requirements at this frequency and what kind of information would help council making decisions on this moving forward?

How common?

Well, you know, I think reporting more than once a year is a little bit less common, but in terms of wanting to see how this is being responded to by the market, I think that that is appropriate.

And sorry, the second part of your question was...

what kind of information may be more helpful for a council in making decisions on this particular topic moving forward?

Well, I think that the list is appropriately covering the topics, and we may find that any FAR implication is quite rare if it happens at all.

but it would be interesting to know if it does happen.

So other than that, yes, at this point we're able to track any projects that do come in that would be using this, so it would be appropriate.

I would say it's almost never the case that the executive proposes that they report something.

It's usually something that the council adds after the fact.

The council could always, of course, have SDCI come in and report on something absent a specific request in a bill.

But it is not unusual for the council to request reporting.

There are a couple of reports here that are due to the council in May from prior pieces of legislation proposed by the executive.

The one that comes to mind is there is a change to design review to allow projects performing under MHA to be exempt from design review.

I don't know that report is due in May.

The council's interest at that time was to see, you know, was there any uptake?

Was it, in fact, a good incentive?

So I would say it's not unusual for the council to request reporting.

Usually when the executive cannot accomplish that reporting, they request that the reporting date be changed, which actually was the case with that design review report.

Initially, that was due to the council.

It would have been due to the council already, and there was a request during budget to extend it to May.

Okay.

Cool.

Thank you both.

I ask these questions because I'm mindful of SDCI staff time.

Particularly, I know some of the most prominent feedback I hear from our partners is, again, just the challenges around permitting time and certainly would prefer if SDCI staff were spending time supporting, you know, getting our permitting timelines a bit speedier.

And so I'm mindful of that, but hearing your feedback that perhaps each one of these reports is three to five hours of staff time and hearing that my colleagues think that this is something that they would like to see reporting on just to measure the success of the program, I could be supportive of that.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Council Member Rank.

Any further comments on Amendment 2?

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 2?

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Chair Salmon.

Aye.

Chair, there are four votes in favor and zero opposed.

Very good.

The motion carries and amendment two will be adopted.

Are there any final comments on the bill as amended?

Okay.

Hearing none.

Oh, Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, chair.

I just want to say that I hope this this bill helps us be able to have some uses rather than empty storefronts.

We know that that presents can present public safety challenges.

And it is much better to have a space filled and activated with a use.

And so I really appreciate you chair for bringing this forward.

And I'm hoping that this will you know, help activate these particular areas of the city.

And I look forward to hearing back from you.

And thank you for being here and presenting on this and for being a good partner.

So thank you.

And thank you, Ketel, for being here and helping draft all the pieces, land use, CODE IS REALLY COMPLICATED AND SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU UNLESS WHO WAS HERE EARLIER ALL YOUR HARD WORK ON THESE LAND USE ISSUES SO DID WANT TO RECOGNIZE STAFF BOTH FROM SDCI AND ALSO FROM OUR CENTRAL STAFF AND YOU CHAIR SO THANK YOU ALL RIGHT THANK YOU VERY MUCH SO DID YOU STILL HELP YOU YES

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to comment on the underlying bill.

Just allowing more street-level activation is a step in the right direction at a time where many of our storefronts remain vacant and during a time where many small businesses are facing high inflation, high rents, and high operating costs.

So it's incumbent upon us to provide these businesses with a variety of options to help businesses grow and creating that flexibility to do more with storefronts in an area with notable vacancies.

It just provides a lot of potential to provide these tools to thrive.

So I will be supporting today's bill, and thank you again for bringing this forward.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to pass Council Bill 120771 as amended.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council member Rink.

Yes.

Council member Rivera.

Aye.

Chair Salmon.

Aye.

Chair, there are four votes in favor and zero opposed.

Okay.

The motion carries on the committee recommendation that the council pass council bill 120771 will be sent to the April 8th, 2025 city council meeting.

Thank you very much.

Now, We'll move on to our next item of business and that, let's see.

I think it's our last item of business for the day.

Will the clerk please read item 12 into the record?

Agenda item 12, Council Bill 120948, an ordinance relating to Seattle's construction codes, allowing for the extension of certain projects and building permits.

All right, great.

So I see our presenters have joined us at the table.

Please state your names for the record and begin when you're ready.

Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff.

Ardell Jalla, Building Official for SDCI.

Micah Chappelle, Technical Code Development Manager for SDCI.

Great.

Thank you.

for joining us today.

Again, going through SDCI's vision, purpose, and values.

I do want to highlight, again, our purpose.

It's helping people build a safe, livable, and inclusive Seattle.

I think that this legislation helps achieve is helping people build.

That is our goal.

Next.

This proposal would amend the 21 Seattle Building Code to extend permits for projects vested under the 2015 and the 2018 code.

As we heard in earlier public testimony, this project, pardon me, this would allow projects delayed due to economic conditions to proceed without requiring costly updates to the current 2021 code.

Next.

Go ahead.

So the 21 Seattle Building Code allows 24 months for a construction permit to complete review and approval prior to being issued.

Once permits are issued, they're valid for 18 months and may be renewed for an additional 18 months unless the construction is underway or an extension is granted for causes beyond the applicant's control.

This legislation amends the 21SBC to permit projects vested under the two earlier code cycles, the 2015 and 18 codes, that are experiencing a financial hardship to be extended.

And there's two parts to it.

The first is to provide an additional 24 months to a permit application from the date of the extension request for projects that are still under review.

There are about 1,100 permits that would be able to take advantage of this extension.

Without this extension, they would be subject to cancellation.

The second part is to allow a permit that has been issued to renew for an additional 24 months, again, from the date of the extension request.

Approximately 1,300 issued permits will expire prior to the November 2026 date that's included in the legislation.

About 330 of those have had no activity since the end of 2023. So again, those are permits that are issued, and once they're able to obtain financing, could potentially start construction.

So without this legislation, those permits could expire.

This legislation also has a sunset clause tied to the next construction code updates planned for November 26th.

I do want to note that there was an error in what was transmitted.

It did include November 12, 2024 as the sunset date, and that needs to be amended to November 26. If you want to change next.

So of those 1,100 buildings in review that could take advantage of this extension, we've highlighted on this slide about 15 projects, mostly in downtown.

These are some of our largest projects that have been delayed due to financing.

And also listed is the potential fiscal impacts on the local economy.

So again, without this legislation, these permit applications could be canceled, the projects abandoned, we'd be losing critical housing, tax revenue, and jobs.

Providing the permit extension to these and other SBC permit holders experiencing financial hardship should simulate economic development.

Thank you.

In alignment with national and state building codes, the Seattle series of building codes are updated every three years to incorporate improved safety and efficiency standards and technologies.

The proposed extensions and renewals for projects vested to the 2015 codes would allow those projects to not be in compliance with the current national seismic standard or increased energy efficient systems that meet the council approved modified intent of the Seattle codes to include reduction of carbon emissions.

Additionally, 2015 projects may not be taking advantage of smaller efficiency dwelling unit sizes that could have the potential to increase the number of housing units constructed.

The 2015 projects and those projects vested to the 2018 codes will not be incorporating updated accessibility standards or taking advantage of more broad allowances for the use of mass timber construction or using the greater flexibility energy code for existing buildings provided in the 2021 codes.

While these updated codes are important, we do want to reiterate that buildings vested or constructed under the 2015 and 2018 codes remain safe.

The impact and justification of this legislation aligns with some of the public comment provided today by maintaining feasibility for older projects, aligns with the Downtown Activation Plan, prevents the potential loss of critical housing units and provide certainty to the developers of those units that their project permits can be renewed or extended on a timeline that may allow the projects to move toward completion.

Thank you.

Happy to answer any questions from the committee.

All right.

Any questions from the committee members?

Wow, you're getting off easy.

OK.

OK.

So just want to check on something regarding how we proceed from here, because we've heard testimony in favor of this from several entities.

And thank you all for hanging in there and still being with us today.

I will just say that to me, it makes sense to do the extension.

So, let's see.

Okay.

Ah, okay.

So yeah, just wanna make sure that if we could proceed with vote today, but I'm getting the sense that there's not enough, hasn't been enough engagement with community, or is that a way to put it?

How do we want to say it?

Because I'd like to move this now, but I want to make sure that folks in the community have had a chance to know about this and weigh in.

Like I said, we've had some folks weigh in on that.

So I want to give my colleagues...

So as far as community engagement, we have not done a public outreach relative to this vesting change.

That is correct.

We thought this would be the first meeting that would be introduced and that a vote would come at a later meeting.

We are happy if there is more extensive outreach that the committee would like us to do, we can do that.

But that was our understanding of a path forward for this legislation.

Okay.

Okay, no, that's fine.

Again, just trying to make sure I'm getting it right.

Do you have something to add?

One additional thing to add here, and this is for a future committee consideration, there is the amendment that STCI noted is attached to the agenda today.

for future consideration by the council, so not today.

And what that amendment would do would be to change the date from 2024 to 2026, which is the next expected update.

So that will be ready for committee consideration at the next committee meeting.

Okay, great.

Thank you for that.

Okay.

And thank you, clerk, for the clarification.

Appreciate it.

So if there are no further comments or questions from the committee, I want to thank you for presenting to us, and I look forward to taking this up at our next committee meeting and, again, taking some action on it so we can get these projects some breathing room to actually get done.

So thank you again.

Thank you.

All right.

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

Our next meeting will be April 17th.

Is there any further business to come before the committee before we adjourn?

Nice.

Going to keep it under two hours.

Sweet.

Hearing no further business to come before the committee, we are adjourned.

The time is 3.58.

Thank you very much, everyone.

Thank you, Chair.