Seattle City Council Land Use Committee - Special Meeting - 9/22/22

September 22 2022 special meeting of the land use committee will come to order it is 202 PM I'm Dan Strauss chair of the committee will the clerk please call the roll.

Your mic's off.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Present.

Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Strauss.

I'm sorry, Chair Strauss.

Present.

Mimi Cora.

We have four present.

Thank you.

We have seven items on today's agenda.

All of these have been heard in committee previously, except for the two appointments to the Design Review Board.

So we have the two appointments to the Design Review Board.

A vote on Council Bill 120400, authorizing SDCI to hold hybrid virtual slash in-person meetings.

A vote on Council Bill 120401, approving Land Use Code Omnibus Bill.

A vote on Council Bill 120405, approving the Crown Hill Neighborhood Design Guidelines.

A vote on Council Bill 12039, for modifying development regulations for townhouses and row houses.

And a vote on Clerk File 3, 4, 3, 1, 4, 4, 4, 7, a proposed contractory zone in the Roosevelt neighborhood.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

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

Clerk, would you please play the video?

We will do in-person public comment and then virtual testimony.

Very good.

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the City of Flowers and the City of Goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

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

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

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At that time, you must press star six.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The public comment period is now open.

and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

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

Thank you, Seattle.

And thank you.

We do have a number of people here present in chambers.

I only have one person signed up at this time, so if others want to sign up, I will pass this back to you, Anthony, to leave out there.

We are going to have two minutes to speak.

Up first is Sarah Watkins.

Welcome.

For those online first is Megan Cruz then Alicia Ruiz followed by David mooring Judy bend it's Barbara Bernard Martha basket and new bringing you are currently not present so if you are planning to join please call in now.

Oh, hang on just a second, we're gonna turn on your microphone.

All right, good, okay, cool.

Here we are.

Hi, thank you for having me today.

My name is Sarah Watkins.

I'm here to talk about CB120400, the tree-friendly amendment, drawing attention to the fact that it's been significant over the last three years.

I've personally lived here 10 years and I haven't seen anything like the hotspots we're currently having, and especially in areas where trees are not consistent anymore.

There's not enough planting or retention throughout our city.

It's becoming increasingly hard to live without AC, especially for multifamily dwellings.

I currently live in a giant apartment complex, and it gets so hot on the sixth floor that we had to go and like stay with friends for a couple nights.

Also can't walk my dog half the days in the summer because the concrete is so hot.

And obviously as everybody knows, this will affect not only my community but major communities of color.

So it's really important that we require mandatory rather than optional tree retention and planting.

and we allow vertical stacking of row house and townhouse dwellings.

It has been successful in other cities.

It's something that we need to think about now.

The problem is right away.

If we don't do something soon, it's going to be a very bad situation and it will affect the people that are the poorest in our society.

And we won't see it directly, but we will also see it in the long term.

So we need to protect our city and serve our people well.

So please keep trees around.

Please keep them for everybody.

It's very important that we do this.

We are the Emerald City for a reason.

All right, thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Sarah.

And just clarifying, you were speaking to the bill about virtual hybrid in-person meetings?

That's 120400?

Yes, yeah.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Perfect.

Okay, cool.

Up next, we have no one else in chambers.

Seeing none, we're gonna move forward.

Megan Cruz, you're up first, followed by Alicia Ruiz, then David Mooring, you're on the bench.

Oh, and sorry, Council Member Nelson did join us from the start of this meeting.

It seems that there was a microphone issue, just highlighting the fact that she is indeed here.

Megan Cruz, I see you there.

Press star six to come off mute.

You're there.

Thank you.

Hi, thanks.

I'm speaking today on CB 120401 and the amendment to ban see the light and glare appeal.

My neighbors and I are engaged in an appeal and we want you to understand the people that legislation impacts and it's questionable origin.

We're stewards of a city landmark that has been a resident since 1915 in 1980 the building was renovated as an affordable alternative to luxury condos and a path to homeownership for middle class people who work downtown.

It kept that character to this day.

We are that elusive Seattle unicorn of a building with mixed ages, incomes, and ethnicities.

We're families with children, retirees, and now many who work from home.

The two-tower project we're appealing inflicts a double punch, one of extreme loss of daylight and a massive light feature shining into our homes at night.

The professional light study we commissioned because the city and developer wouldn't shows that the project will eclipse 90% of the sky and limit 40% of our residences to the amount of light in a dim movie theater.

The hearing examiner not acknowledge that in his decision he stated that we had quote demonstrated a significant impact of loss of light.

He told the city and developer they should have provided studies rather than quote trying to litigate their feet but duty.

But the city rejected that the guy can get the opposite.

They solve the problem by working with developers to quietly sponsor this amendment in the final days of the state Legislature.

Let this again for a moment.

When told they were wronged by a city entity, land use officials worked with developers to eliminate due process rights of citizens, even though the department doesn't review or have light standards.

The amendment is now being used to prevent us from appealing our case further.

Whether you care about light, this is a travesty.

As our elected leaders, we count on you to level the playing field against special interests.

Please require the NEIS and consult independent experts to craft code and review standards that protect all interests.

Thank you.

Thank you, Megan.

Up next, we have Alicia Ruiz followed by David Mourning and then Judy Bendich.

Alicia, I see you there.

Press star six.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Take it away.

Hi.

Hi.

I'll keep this short and sweet.

I know I've spoken to all of you individually, but my name is Alicia Ruiz.

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

And I'm here today to enthusiastically support Council Bill 120394. This is a townhome reform legislation.

We've been working on this legislation for over three years.

We're excited to finally see it come to committee.

This is basically a bill to streamline the process to make building townhomes faster and less expensive.

And really, this bill does what builders are already doing, but they just have to jump through a lot of expensive hoops that are unnecessary and create more work for city workers.

So I'm hoping today they support this bill.

As far as the amendments, we support Amendment 1, and do not support Amendment 2, which would turn these needed changes into a pilot project.

We don't feel they need to be studied.

And thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Up next, we have David Mooring, followed by Judy Bendich, and then Barbara Bernard.

Then Martha Baskin, followed by Newt Ringen and Logan MacArthur.

Newt Ringen, you are currently not present, so please make sure to call into the line provided in the response email, not the listen line.

David, I see you're off mute.

At your convenience, take it away.

Hi, this is David Murren representing TreePak and promoting more density along with trees.

And I'm telling you about regarding the 120394 townhouse reform that does need amendments so that there's four facts here that we want to go over in the packet that was left over last Wednesday.

Fact number one you know Seattle needs to plant 150,000 trees within the next 15 months to achieve our 20 37 30 percent canopy cover.

That's a thousand acres of trees.

As Seattle densifies the tree canopy cover calculations prove that legislation without private resident trees These only a citywide 12% can be covered.

Fact number 2 of the office of planning community developments 5 benchmark townhouse and row host examples.

Only one tree was retained and 32 trees were removed that told you the trend.

But number 3 of the site and that's the master builders that just mentioned.

What this time was reformed so that what segregation development techniques to circumvent density and to avoid row house development rules don't cost any more time and money.

So let's eliminate this provision that we currently have so that doesn't happen anymore.

Fact number four, there are more condos being created in 2022 than ever before with the ADUs.

So we certainly can do the amendment as discussed on Wednesday, where there'd be townhouses stacked on top of other dwellings.

We all love trees.

That's what I've heard the city council member members talk about last Wednesday.

I also love townhouses too.

I live in one.

Provide the requested amendments to show that our code is where your hearts are.

And we all, we should also note that it takes 400 townhouses be built at market rate at $16 a square foot to get $10 million, 400 to get 10 million.

Thank you, David.

And if you have more comments please do feel free to email them into the committee.

Up next is Judy Bendich followed by Barbara Bernard and then Martha Baskin.

Newt you are still not present at this time.

Judy I see there you are.

You're off mute.

Take it away at your convenience.

Welcome.

Thank you chairperson.

I'm talking about CB 120394 and supporting Amendment 2. And I want to say why.

I actually in fact would just prefer that the committee and the council should reject these zoning changes regarding townhouses until there's a real proposal to assure that these townhouses are truly affordable for middle and low income families.

And that's what we really need in Seattle.

And I was looking at the materials that were provided and noticed that all that is saved by giving this benefit to developers is to add another unit and at a cost that will be removed of $200,000.

My experience around here is that the townhouses are really crammed onto every lot.

They've destroyed trees throughout the city.

They do not have affordable housing.

And we're gonna just talk about huge boondoggle that goes to the developers here, like the master builders.

And I didn't hear a word from them about how these would be affordable, because they won't.

But at the very least, I think you should support Amendment 2, because it's a middle ground that will at least allow the city to go forward on a limited basis to see whether this legislation will really accomplish what needs to be done, which I sincerely doubt, but I will support this because I'm sure you won't reject it altogether.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Judy.

Up next is Barbara Bernard followed by Martha Baskin.

Newt Ringen, you're still not present.

And if you don't become present, we will just move straight on to Logan MacArthur.

Barbara, I see you here and you're off mute.

Take it away at your convenience.

Welcome to the committee.

Thank you.

I'm Barbara Bernard Seattle resident calling about Council Bill 120394 and the lack of tree friendly amendments in the bill.

When we moved to Seattle in 2015 it was really important for us not to buy in an area that was contributing to any gentrification that was causing displacement.

So we made a choice to buy in a multifamily townhouse development that was an infill so there was no displacement.

And it was four star green rated which we thought wow great bonus.

But what we weren't prepared for was that because the inso lot was clear cut to build the townhouses that there was going to be a lack of tree canopy cover and that was going to create an extreme temperature shift inside the townhouse during summer.

Inside our temperatures would go up over 85 degrees.

One side of our unit is completely exposed to the western sun on the slope.

And there's no longer any tree cover since the lot was clear cut in order to build the units.

So reluctantly and unfortunately, we had to have an air conditioner installed three years ago because of this intense heat.

We weren't able to really afford this option.

It's not really an affordable option for most people, but unfortunately, it was a necessary one in order for us to stay in our unit.

So sadly, now our Greentown home that was built to help reduce emissions is actually creating emissions because of the AC and the lack of trees.

So I hope that if you decide to move forward with this bill, that there'll be some amendments that require the retention of trees and additional tree planting in any multifamily or high density projects.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And up next is Martha Baskin.

I do see you, you have called in and you are present and then we'll be followed by Logan MacArthur.

Martha, I see you're off mute.

Welcome to the committee.

Take it away.

Thank you for the welcoming and good afternoon all.

I'm speaking for tree friendly amendments in the bill 120394. Many of us are very, very concerned about the lack of affordable housing and the city's seemingly willful flaunting of tree canopy and the benefits that it provides.

We're in a climate crisis.

Those trees filter air.

They filter air for everyone.

and mature trees need to be retained where they are to get a little bit more equity in our fair city.

If legislation before the City Council of Land Use Committee is approved without tree-friendly amendments, the problem will only get worse.

I'm highly doubtful that any of the housing, the townhomes that are being proposed will be quote, quote, affordable.

I would really love to see that, but affordable, of course, to someone who works at Dick's Hamburgers or is a special assistant in our school system would probably be something for $100,000, and I doubt that we're going to see that.

So I encourage the good land use council to realize that we've got to integrate mature trees into our development structure, allow vertical stacking of row houses, which would, essentially modify existing development rules to allow stacking townhouses so that it frees up more ground and it frees up space for shade trees that are so critical for people's survival.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Martha.

Up next, we have Knut Ringen, followed by Logan MacArthur.

If anyone else in the chamber is interested in speaking, now's the time to sign up.

Thank you.

My name is Knut Ringen.

I'm speaking to you as a downtown resident, as the president of the Fisher Studio building HOA, and as a public health doctor with 50 years of experience.

Section 2505680H would exempt STCI review decisions concerning loss of light from appeal.

Last weekend, I sent you a lengthy statement on why this should be rejected for both scientific and administrative reasons.

I have since learned that SBCI consider this risk to be trivial and has presented it to city council members in that light.

That's why it's included in this omnibus bill.

That's wrong on three counts.

First, loss of light is not trivial.

Neighbors who lose their light and ability to even see the sky from their apartments because towers are being placed immediately adjacent to them will suffer serious health effects from this.

This has been confirmed by leading international experts, including professors at the University of Washington.

Second, SDCI has not made an environmental assessment to make this determination.

Third, SDCI does not have technical expertise to make this determination and has admitted to this.

If the council adopts this provision, it'll be on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of equity.

It'll sell out longstanding residents with no political clout as a sop to big newbie developers who have no interest in our neighborhoods.

I urge you to reject this provision and remand it for CEPA review and public input.

Thank you.

Thank you, Newt.

Up next is Logan MacArthur.

And Logan is our final speaker today.

Logan, I see you.

Press star six to come off mute.

I see you there.

Welcome.

All right.

That should be better now.

Yep.

I can hear you.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, yes.

I'm Logan.

I'm calling technically about CB 120394. But really, it's mostly just about promoting as much residential density as we can reasonably get in Seattle.

Affordable housing isn't going to be practical when the only dense housing people can get is given up piecemeal at a time.

because developers only create the largest structures they can to maximize the revenue.

But if we spread density around the entire city all at once, smaller developers can build buildings, homeowners can build attachments, and the smaller scale of things will create fewer towers, which people treat as eyesores, and just allow people to free up the competition for housing that the city is currently struggling with.

I guess that's it.

Well, we appreciate you calling in today.

Anthony, can you double-check no one else has signed up?

No one else?

All good.

Looks like it.

With that, seeing as we have no additional speakers remotely or physically present, we will move on to the next agenda item.

Our first two agenda items today are two appointments for the Design Review Board.

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

Item agenda items one and two appointments 2382 and 2383 appointment of Garvey Cadu as a member of design review board for term April 3 2023 and appointment of Brittany Port as a member to the design review board for a term to April 3 2024 for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Excuse me.

Thank you.

We are joined for these appointments by Shelly Bolser of SDCI.

Shelly, will you please share a brief overview of the Design Review Board?

And I know we had that in committee last time.

So also, if you'd like to give each of the appointees a chance to introduce themselves and share why they're interested in serving on the Design Review Board, we welcome that now.

Great, thank you.

Just give a quick reminder of what is the design review program, and then I'll ask Gargi and Brittany to introduce themselves.

So the design review program, the purpose of it is to encourage better site planning and design and ensure that new development fits sensitively into existing neighborhoods, provide flexibility in the application of development standards like the zoning code requirements to better meet the intent of the land use code.

and improve communication and understanding among developers, neighborhoods, and the city.

And the Design Review Boards are integral to this work.

A number of types of Design Review require recommendation by the Design Review Boards, and we have eight Design Review Boards.

There are five volunteer members on each board and also up to two Get Engaged members, which is a program through the YMCA.

The volunteers are appointed by mayor and council, and they review larger development, generally speaking, on private property.

Each board meets up to two times a month in the evenings, and they synthesize community input.

They provide early design guidance.

They recommend conditions of approval if it's necessary to meet the guidelines, and that would be at the final recommendation meeting.

And they ensure fair and consistent application of the design guidelines.

And so today we have Gargi Kadu and Brittany Port.

And Gargi, would you like to introduce yourself?

Hello, everyone.

I'm Gargi Kadu.

I'm an architect and an urban designer, and I work with GGLO.

The reason that I am interested to be on the Design Review Board is I call Seattle my home.

I've been calling Seattle my home for four years now.

So I'm looking forward to serve the city that I love and admire and call home.

So thank you.

Wonderful.

And Gargi, I see on your appointment packet that you are a core team member on multifamily housing and urban design projects.

That's right.

Maybe can you share with me a little bit about how you see the design review board interacting with these types of projects?

Yeah.

So I've been working on both the building and everything in between the building.

So I think my eye for the micro and the macro is going to be very helpful in giving a recommendation to the buildings coming in for the review and everything.

So yeah.

That's wonderful.

Well, we are excited to have you join us.

Thank you.

And up next, I believe is Brittany Port.

Is that correct?

Brittany, hi, welcome.

Hi, thank you.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can.

Brittany Porte, I'm an urban planner with eight years of planning experience and most recently I was employed.

as a project manager in the planning department at a civil engineering firm.

And through that work, I was able to work for both private developers and architect clients, as well as municipal clients in both current and long range planning.

And I've prepared both private development applications for commercial and mixed use developments, residential developments, subdivisions.

And I've also worked on the other side of the counter for municipalities in reviewing the development applications that would come in and then presenting to hearing examiners, planning commissions, and city councils.

So I'm really excited to serve on the Central Area Design Review Board and contribute to the board's work in ensuring the design standards are met, as well as the design just being sensitive and in the context and existing character of the neighborhood that I personally live in and using my skills as a planner to serve my community.

So thank you.

Wonderful.

Well, we are very excited to have you on board.

I see you've got a lot of different types of projects here.

I guess some of them I'm not going to necessarily call out, but from your experience, what are you looking forward to sharing in your role on the design review board?

Yeah, so I have a passion for sustainability and low impact development.

So I'm really excited to bring that to the design review board.

And then I've also just really enjoyed preparing development applications and reviewing them.

So I think it'll be a really fun opportunity to do that in the neighborhood that I personally live in versus communities throughout Western Washington, where I generally have worked.

Wonderful.

Well, Brittany and Gargi, I have to say thank you, because this is volunteer work that you're not paid for.

And I have to also stress the urgency of the need to build additional housing here in Seattle.

And so please do not allow any unnecessary delays to occur in your role on the Design Review Board, because we are currently under, we don't have enough housing in Seattle, and we need to build it as fast as possible.

So thank you for your work.

Thank you for your volunteer service.

And we look forward to having you at full council next Tuesday.

You don't have to attend.

And we'll vote you in then.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anything?

Oh, I do have some procedural aspects.

Anything else to share, Shelley?

Oops, no, I do not have anything else to share.

I just want to say thank you for moving this through quickly.

And I'm just noting that both of these positions are being appointed outside of our regular cycle because we had two vacancies on the boards that we needed to fill so that we can continue to move these projects through the review process.

Wonderful.

I move to recommend confirmation of appointments 2382 and 2383. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend confirmations of appointments 2382 and 2383. Are there any final comments before we move to a roll call vote?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

One minute, there's a technical issue.

One minute.

We are now at the time where we are going to vote.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, the motion passes.

Appointments to the Design Review Board will be held at full council.

Thank you all for your willingness to serve.

These will be at the full council for a final vote next Tuesday, and you don't need to attend if you don't want to.

We're going to move on to item three.

Our next item is a briefing discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 120400, which would authorize SDCI to hold virtual or in-person meetings for land use decisions like design review boards.

Will the clerk please read the short title into the record?

Item three, Council Bill 120400, an ordinance updating regulations to allow virtual meetings for the design review program and other land use permitting processes.

For briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

We are joined again by Shelly Bolser and Gordon Klarus from Seattle Apartment Construction and Inspection, Ketel Freeman from Council Central staff for this discussion.

Gordon, Shelly, Ketel, we had this item in committee last week.

Is there anything further that you would like to add or council members, do you have further questions about this bill?

Chair Strauss, I'll just remind the committee that there is an amendment that is attached to the agenda that largely squares up an intense statement in the bill with the current factual state of affairs when it comes to the ongoing civil emergency for COVID.

And thank you Mr. Freeman for that technical correction to make this legislation More accurate.

Colleagues, are there any questions on the amendment or the underlying bill?

Gordon, anything else that you'd like to add?

I see you're off mute.

No.

Yeah, I was just interested if you had any questions and follow-up.

Wonderful.

Well, with that, I'm going to move the bill and then move the amendment.

So first, I'll move the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120400. Is there a second?

second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded.

I move.

And at this time, Kito, do you feel like you need to share screen?

I'm happy to share screen.

Yeah.

Maybe if you could just share the screen so that the committee can see the amendment before us.

All right.

Can everybody see that?

Yes, yes we can.

This is amendment one version one to Council Bill 120 400. This moment just modifies the intent statement, as originally transmitted.

The bill assumed that the mayor would have lifted the civil emergency proclaimed by former Mayor Durkin.

on March 3rd, 2020. The civil emergency is ongoing.

So this just provides an additional introductory statement that sets out the council's intent to continue with ongoing compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act.

Thank you, colleagues.

Any questions on this amendment?

The amendment has been moved and seconded.

as addressed or will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment one.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, the amendment passes.

The motion carries, amendment one is adopted.

Are there any further comments on the bill as amended?

Seeing none, the bill has been moved and seconded.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 120400 as amended.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries for Council Bill 120400 as amended.

The committee recommendation for this Council Bill will be sent to the September 27th City Council meeting for final consideration.

Moving on to item four, our next item is a briefing discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 120400, the Land Use Code Omnibus Bill considered every other year.

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

Item four, Council Bill 120401, an ordinance correcting typographical errors, correcting section references, clarifying regulations, and making minor amendments.

For briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

We are joined by Mike Podolsky and Emily Lofsted from Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection.

You were here with us just a week ago.

We also have Ketil Freeman from Council Central staff.

Emily, Mike, Ketil, anything that you'd like to present in committee today?

and colleagues just preparing for your questions.

We're just happy to be here to respond to questions, provide any information.

Fantastic.

Emily, anything to share?

No.

Yeah.

Thanks.

Wonderful.

I know that we had quite a committee last week.

I do see that Councilmember Peterson, you have a question.

Councilmember Peterson, please.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

This question is for, I think for central staff.

We heard during public comment concerns about changes to regarding light and glare, and I believe it also impacts aesthetics.

I think the reference to transportation in there is already just, it was just sort of rearranging where that already existed, but the aesthetics and the light glare are different, but aren't we essentially required to do this to comply with the new state law?

Yeah, that's correct.

That's both last week and and this week the committee heard testimony from the screws and Mr. Ringen about proposed change in the Amherst bill that would exempt certain projects from appeals.

If those projects have been subject to design review.

on the basis of appeals on the basis of both aesthetics and light and glare.

It's kind of a threshold question which they have posed to the council about whether or not this committee and the council as a whole has discretion to omit those changes from the current omnibus or whether the city is compelled to include those changes because of the recent changes in state law.

And the short answer is that the city does need to make these changes does not have the discretion to exclude them from our own super ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

That's very helpful to remind the viewing public that these are not discretionary changes.

This is just bringing us in line with state law.

Colleagues, any other questions?

Councilmember Nelson, I see you're off mute.

No?

Okay.

Not a problem.

Seeing as we have no further questions, I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120401. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120401. Are there any further comments?

Seeing no further comments, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Aye.

Vice-chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries on Council Bill 120401 in the committee, and this will be sent to the September 27th City Council meeting for final consideration.

Thank you, Emily and Mike for joining us today.

And Ketel, as always.

Item number five, our next item is a briefing discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 120405, which would approve neighborhood design guidelines for Crown Hill.

I've been waiting for this.

Very excited.

Katie Hyma, I'm so excited to have you back before the committee today.

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

Item 5, Council Bill 120405, an ordinance to amend the Seattle Municipal Code to approve the Crown Hill Neighborhood Design Guidelines.

For briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Wonderful.

We are joined by Katie Hyma, Rollin Hassam from the Office of Planning and Community Development, and Yolanda Ho from Council Central staff.

Yolanda, Katie, Rawan, any further comments from last time?

I just, you know, for committee's background, Crown Hill had an up zone.

These design guidelines were a community process over many years.

We passed the action plan last year, and now I'm very excited to pass these design guidelines.

Any further comments, Katie?

No further comments.

I think you summed it up pretty well.

Just here to answer any questions.

You've taught me well, Katie.

Yolanda Ho from Council Central staff, anything to add?

No.

Yeah, I think you got it all.

All right.

Colleagues, any questions, comments, concerns?

Seeing none at this time, I move to recommend passage of Council Bill 120405. Is there a second?

Second.

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

Are there any comments?

Seeing as there are no further comments, will the clerk please call the roll on committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 120405?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that that Council Bill 120405 pass and we will send this to the September 27th City Council meeting for final consideration.

Thank you, Katie, Rowan, and Yolanda.

Very excited for this moment.

You don't need to come on Tuesday and I will be celebrating.

Our next item, item six, is a briefing discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 120394, which would modify development regulations for townhouses and row houses.

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

An ordinance amending the Seattle Municipal Code to implement changes to support the development of townhouses and row houses for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

We are joined by Brennan Staley from the Office of Planning and Community Development and Lish Whitson from Council Central staff.

We have two amendments before us today.

One is from myself and one is from Council Member Peterson.

Lish, Brennan, would you like to take us away?

Good afternoon.

As a reminder, this is a set of minor changes to the City's One Family zoning regulations to facilitate the development of townhouses and remove some impediments to development.

Thank you, colleagues.

Any questions on the underlying bill?

I'm going to move to recommend the bill so that we can bring the amendments before us.

I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 120394. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 1, 2, 0, 3, 9, 4. And I'd like to move to amend Council Bill 1, 2, 0, 3, 9, 4 as presented on Amendment 1 on the agenda.

Second.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

It has been seconded.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 1 as sponsor of the amendment.

I'll ask Council Central staff to describe it, and then I'll provide my remarks.

Lish, can you please describe Amendment 1?

Yeah.

So one of the changes that the bill makes is to allow long term parking to be located in setbacks, and in between residential structures So in setbacks, it's allowed in unenclosed structures and in between buildings, it would be allowed in enclosed structures.

So small bike storage facilities.

The amendment would limit this change to townhouse projects only rather than all multifamily structures.

the discussion last week discussed bike parking as a particular issue for townhouse projects.

It would also allow any bicycles to be parked in the bike parking structures rather than just required bicycles.

Thank you.

And could you share a screen to share this amendment?

And then I'll ask you to do the same for amendment number two.

So colleagues, this is my amendment to allow more flexibility with bike parking by removing a requirement that could be a place where we plant a tree or have other permeable surface.

And rather than making this change for all multifamily buildings, we have narrowed it specifically to townhomes.

Colleagues, are there any questions on this amendment at this time?

Seeing none, will the clerk, it has been moved, it has been seconded, and I will ask that the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment one.

Council member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and amendment one is adopted.

And we will now move on to amendment number two.

Council Member Peterson, I'll let you move your amendment.

Thank you, colleagues.

I move to amend Council Bill 120394 with Amendment 2 that was published on today's agenda.

I'll give you that.

It has been seconded.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 2. Council Member Peterson has sponsored the amendment.

Would you like to address it first or would you like to have Council Central staff describe it and then address it?

Thank you, Chair.

I'll choose to have central staff explain it first, and then I'd love to speak to her.

So this amendment would add to whereas clauses that tie the bill to the adoption of the next update to the comprehensive plan.

and then indicate that the bill is intended to be a pilot project, ask the Office of Planning and Community Development and other city departments to analyze the impacts of the changes included in the bill and sets an expiration date for the bill of either the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update or the end of 2024. Thank you, Lish.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Strauss and thank you, Liz, for the explanation of this amendment number two.

Colleagues, as central staff explained, this amendment would allow this relaxing on our land use policies to move forward, but it would move forward only as a thoughtful pilot program, a pilot program that would require city departments to study its impacts and a pilot program that would time our decision on whether to make it permanent.

With our consideration of the comprehensive plan.

I believe this bill is big enough.

It's a big enough change to our land use policies that Making it permanent should be considered as part of the comprehensive plan process already underway and after we have put in place a long-delayed strong tree protection ordinance.

If we adopt this bill today as a permanent program immediately, it could soon come into conflict with other city goals as we try to balance more density while protecting existing affordable housing and protecting Seattle's dwindling tree canopy during this climate crisis.

Now, while profit motivated townhome developers have wanted City Hall to relax this policy for them for the past three years, we learned just a few weeks ago that Seattle has lost 255 acres of trees since 2016 when our city policies to increase tree canopy.

With this new information, I believe we should proceed cautiously.

It's been characterized that our existing law requires developers to jump through a bunch of hoops, but that's because existing code was not necessarily envision clear cutting these lots of trees to build for townhomes.

It's happening because townhome developers are taking advantage of The existing code working around it.

It's a time-consuming process, yes, but it's not necessarily what was originally envisioned for the existing code.

That's another reason we should consider this as part of a comprehensive planning process so we can view all these changes holistically.

We have no obligation to make this change.

It does not create low-income housing and $800,000 townhome instead of a $1 million townhome is not low-income housing.

So why not spend our time requiring low income housing instead of giving away development capacity without meaningful public benefits in return.

Let's let developers build higher stacked flats so we can increase density and save trees during the climate crisis.

The state legislature reformed condo construction liability laws to encourage home ownership, and we can also build more rental units.

This bill is originally written, I'm afraid, is greasing the tracks to make it easier for for-profit real estate developers to demolish existing housing and clear cut lots of their existing trees during a climate crisis.

And it's unclear whether this is the outcome that we want.

So let's let it go forward, but test it.

Let's require that we study whether it will increase or decrease affordable housing, whether it will increase or decrease displacement, what it will do to tree canopy, what it will do to the diversity and number of low and moderate income residents in these low rise zones.

Appreciate the opportunity to speak to this and hope for your yes vote on Amendment 2. Thank you.

Thank you Councilmember Peterson I will address of just a number of things that you mentioned, which is that, while these townhomes may not fit into the categorization of affordable housing, the mandatory housing affordability payments that they do make do directly create affordable housing.

I shared it with the committee last week of my experience living on Northwest 64th Street 63rd Street.

where we had four years of development, and the the rates really did change we had a one home that rented for $1,300 a month that turned into three townhomes selling for above $600,000 that, and that didn't directly create affordable housing on the street, it did allow me. to bring $10 million worth of affordable housing dollars into the neighborhood just down the street at St. Luke's Church.

And so while it is hard for us to see the direct impact, it is occurring in the affordable housing areas.

I'll also add that while this is a procedural bill, these the ability for home builders to build four-town homes.

And actually, could you pull up the presentation from last week?

I just want to speak to the slide that shows the delineation within these lots.

This slide?

This one, yeah.

So what we are seeing right now is that And maybe, Lish, could you explain this slide?

Sure.

Under the current zoning, there are row houses are distinct from townhouses because row houses are located along the street with street facing entrances.

They are not permitted to have another building on the lot between the row house and property line.

They also have lower, currently, they have, you're able to build more row houses on a lot than a townhouse based on the density limits.

As a result, developers are choosing to go through the subdivision process, create two separate lots, one for townhouses behind a row house lot.

And the bill is intended to remove the incentive or remove the density incentive that encourages that additional step and instead allow townhouses and row houses to have the same density limit.

Questions?

Yeah, thank you.

I mean, what this slide helps me to understand is that we are creating a procedural step to get to the same outcome.

with or without this bill, we will have the same outcome.

The difference is with this bill, we have a faster, less expensive process to build the housing that we desperately need in our city.

And Council Member Peterson, the last point that I'll share about your amendment, the comments that you made about your amendment are regarding trees.

And I am standing right here with you ready to bring the tree tree ordinance before the committee come December, January, where we will be addressing this as a separate and related issue.

For these reasons, I am not going to be able to support your amendment today, Councilmember Peterson, and I do appreciate the intent that you bring forward with it.

I do see Councilmember Nelson has her hand raised.

Councilmember Nelson.

Thank you very much.

If you look at that picture right there, speaking of trees, this does not seem to change the amount available for trees.

So that is one thing that I'm struggling with.

I don't see that this amendment will necessarily protect trees because it looks like it doesn't change the area.

But my real point is that I don't see this legislation as a relaxing of our land use policies, as Council Member Peterson said.

What I see this as is this legislation removes barriers, it removes impediments to building more housing.

And I said last time that we have to align our regulatory environment with our policy goals.

And if housing is our goal, more housing, and whether it be privately constructed or built by nonprofit providers.

we need more housing.

And so I think that we have to, we can't conflate our affordable housing needs and what this is actually trying to do.

This is also, townhomes are a path to home ownership.

And so this is why it's important for me, we need to make it less expensive and easier to build homes in general.

And this is what it does.

Because as I believe I noted last time, this is all, Developers can already build four units a lot.

It's just a lot more costly.

The current limitations require $8,000 to $10,000 more per unit in terms of the permitting costs and all the rest, the hookups, et cetera.

And it also prolongs the process for getting a permit to build on a lot.

My final point would be I appreciate that this is trying to wrap into the comp plan update, but because this isn't a change in policy, I don't see this as needing to be in the comp plan and builders need to be able to plan.

And so if I were a builder thinking about my pipeline of projects, having a and ending would would really make me think about building elsewhere, because that's not a very long timeline and so for all of these reasons I strongly oppose this amendment because we have to, we have to make it easier and less expensive to build homes in Seattle.

And so I will be voting no on this.

Thank you Councilmember Nelson colleagues any further questions and Councilmember Peterson you'll have the last word as the sponsor of the bill, or the amendment.

Seeing as we have no further comments, Council Member Peterson, would you like to make any closing statements?

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I appreciate the comments.

I know we'll be having discussions like this frequently over the next couple of years.

So just having a template for us to have the discussion is helpful.

And I just wanted to sort of clarify that my amendment actually enables the policy to go forward.

So it's really just to require that the department study it.

I feel like we are allowing changes to occur, but then we go ask the departments for information, they haven't quite been tracking it, or it's hard to reconcile what we're seeing versus what they're telling us.

So this would require it to be studied.

And then the certainty would still be there through December 2024, because once the developer vests, I mean, they get to build it.

So even if they vest on December 25th, 2024, they can just take the next two years to build that same project.

And what would likely be the outcome is that we as a council would choose to make the program permanent.

It's just that we would be doing it in a way where we've got data and we're doing it with a holistic lens from the rest of the comprehensive planning effort we're going through.

So, again, this amendment was sort of a yes, but test and yes, but study.

So I'm sorry to hear the comments, but I understand that.

I understand, so thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

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

Council Member Mosqueda.

No.

Council Member Nelson.

Nay.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales.

No.

Chair Strauss.

No.

One in favor, four opposed.

Thank you.

The motion fails and amendment two is not adopted.

Are there any further comments on the amended bill?

Yes, Council Member Mosqueda, take it away.

All you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That was an enthusiastic hand raise on my part.

I want to thank you for your work and the department's work central staff to bring this legislation to us very excited that we are moving forward today, and just want to share my enthusiasm for what this legislation will accomplish and congratulate all who've been calling for this for years since I got on Council five years ago, I've been hearing about the need to address this issue.

I think that a community across the board recognize that this is one one small part of how we can help develop more missing middle housing options like townhomes and row homes and many other forms of missing middle housing that we will need to truly make sure that everyone in Seattle has a place to call home.

This legislation is being layered upon other efforts to create more affordable housing options and more housing options overall across our city.

And I think it's important every time we pass a housing related piece of legislation to really underscore that this alone is not going to solve our enormous housing crisis that's out there.

And we must layer this as we've done with previous efforts.

and efforts to come in the future to make sure that we are truly getting at the root cause of why there is not enough housing across our city.

So I look forward to continuing efforts to make sure that we are growing more housing options and density options across our city like this.

I look forward to working with you to continuing to change our zoning code to allow more housing options to be built around the city.

And I look forward to working with you as a council to make sure that we're investing more money into rental units and home ownership options.

especially first-time homeownership options for folks who've been priced out of the market.

And I want to thank folks who collectively, our entire council, stood with us as we developed the Jump Start Seattle Spend Plan, which included funding for rental units, yes, and first-time homeownership options.

$97 million, for example, just this year alone, going to creating more multifamily structures, And first time home ownership options that we've been able to celebrate the summer.

So this is one component and a broader conversation with a multifaceted approach to make sure that we are developing needed housing.

And I want to underscore that it is true we're not talking exclusively about building affordable housing or low income housing for the lowest wage or.

middle to low income housing households, but it does help create more affordable options around Seattle by increasing the opportunity for folks to have more places to purchase and to live in across our city.

Seattle Times recently reported that the A high amount of people who are moving to this region have higher incomes and thus when they purchase a home, they are pricing out a lot of working families in this region, instead of being priced out and pushed out to the suburbs to purchase a home and that's having to commute hours into Seattle.

When we create more housing of all types, including row houses and townhouses, even if they're not deemed affordable housing, it creates a more affordable option.

The $600,000 townhouses that the chair mentioned are a great example of a more affordable option for working families.

than the median average cost of a new house which is near a million dollars in this region so when we don't create enough housing in general, including market rate housing, it has a downward pressure that it applies on folks who then end up pricing out middle income and low income folks from either being able to have their home first time home ownership opportunities or affordable rental units across our city.

And this was, you know, proven time and time again, we talked about test and study.

The McKinstry study is one that I'm referencing here that looked at that downward pressure over the last few years, including how it has affected middle wage and low wage workers in our region.

So I appreciate that this is one component of a much broader conversation that we need to have about how we create more affordable options for our lowest wage workers, how we create more opportunities for first time home ownership in the city, and how we create greater density and opportunity generally for people to live in the city that they work, retire, live, play, and study.

So thanks for all of the work that's gone into this.

I do think that these efforts are not mutually exclusive and look forward to the future efforts to complement this legislation and our past efforts to build greater density and opportunity for working families in Seattle.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Well said, former Vice Chair, Councilmember Mosqueda I will also clarify my comments from last, last week's committee that townhomes can be beautiful, that oftentimes just comes down to the siting it is not the actual structure itself.

And I actually had an experience this last week on the seventh floor of the multifamily building above the Bartels on 22nd Avenue where I looked out over the area that has been up zoned in the past in Ballard and the townhomes came together in a very nice fabric.

And so there's a way forward.

And I'll share more on my experience later.

Council Member Nelson, I see you have your hand raised.

You're still on mute.

I happen to knock on a lot of townhomes last year, and I can say that many are very beautiful.

So I wanted to thank you very much for bringing this forward.

I echo what Councilmember Mosqueda said about creating more options, obviously.

And another thing to note is that because these are sometimes the first home that people in our affordable housing that is subsidized or MFTE units that also frees up those units for other people to move into our limited supply.

So thank you very much for bringing this forward.

And I also want to thank the department for the hard work that went into this.

I know that this has been ongoing for about three years.

So it's been a long call.

So thank you.

Wonderful.

Colleagues, any further comments on the bill as amended?

Seeing no further comments, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

No.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Four in favor, one opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

The committee recommendation that Council Bill 120394 passes as amended will be sent to the September 27th City Council meeting for final consideration.

Colleagues, I appreciate the robust conversation.

Our final agenda item today is Clerk File 314447, a briefing on a contract rezone proposal in the Roosevelt neighborhood.

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

Agenda item 7, clerk file 314447, application of Isla Homes to rezone a portion of a split zone site located at 7012 Roosevelt Way Northeast for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

We are joined by Lish Whitson of Council Central Staff.

Lish, would you like to give us a brief refresher?

And Council Member Peterson, I'm going to let you take first and last comments since this is in District 4.

So I'll just pull up the presentation you saw last week to remind you.

And the site is at the southeast corner of 71st and Roosevelt Way Northeast.

It's 1107 Northeast 71st Street is a split zone lot and the proposal is to rezone the low-rise 1M section of the lot to a neighborhood commercial 255 zone with the Roosevelt station area overlay added.

The rezone would facilitate the development of a 91-unit apartment building.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Councilmember Peterson any comments questions.

Thank you, Chair, just to reiterate what I said at the last committee meeting which is that this is a really interesting example of density and trees and development that's occurring, close to high capacity transit and.

You know, you can see you can see the trade offs happening in real time with this with this project, obviously, because it's a contract reason we we just get the clerk file at the end of the process and we have to go through all the information at once.

Here we we've learned that I think it's seven of the units will be built will will be low income units built on site, which is something we want to see developers do more of.

So I want to commend the developer for building it on site.

There is a beautiful tree there that's going to be taken down.

It's not an exceptional tree, but it's really where it's positioned on the site.

It appears that if it's not taken down, then you couldn't build Eric Bussis, Applicant OLIVE & RECOVERY Team, Applicant OLIVE & RECOVERY Team, Applicant I know that Roosevelt did go through a very thorough community engagement process for their up zone a decade ago.

I think that this is right on Roosevelt way.

And it is consistent with the spirit of that that was decided a decade ago.

And now that the light rail is there and you're seeing it in action, I think that this is a trade-off that is worth making in this case.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Other colleagues, any questions, comments, concerns?

Seeing none, I have no further comments.

Councilmember Peterson, no further comments?

Sounds great.

Clerk, will you please call the, actually, I do have a question.

Lish, do we have the property owner development agreement or how does that, can you please lay out the next steps?

Yeah, thank you.

So you have a draft Council findings, conditions, and decision document attached to my memo for this meeting.

And the next step would be to place a clean version of that in the clerk file.

I am working with the applicant to get the property use development agreement.

And I anticipate getting that next week, which would put us in to get a council bill to effectuate the rezone introduced in time for a council vote on October 11th.

The council has until November 1st to act on this.

So if for any reason they aren't able to get me the PUDA next week, the council vote might be delayed by a week, but I anticipate that we will be ready in time for it.

October 11th Council vote.

Okay.

Thank you.

And so, do we need to pass or the grant as conditioned or just grant this recommendation?

Uh first, I think move to add the findings, conclusions, and decision to the clerk file and then vote to grant as conditioned.

Thank you.

I'm

Move to add the findings, conclusions, and decision to the clerk file.

Thank you.

I move to add the findings.

Conclusions.

Conclusions and decisions to this clerk file.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adding the findings, conclusions, and decisions to this clerk file?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

No further questions, comments, concerns about this?

Seeing none, colleagues, I move to the committee recommend the rezone application in clerk file 31447 to be granted as conditioned.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to grant as conditioned the rezone application in clerk file 31447. Are there any further comments?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Vice Chair Morales.

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

The recommendation that the rezone application in Clerk File 31447 be granted as conditioned will be sent to the City Council after the accompanied bill has been introduced and is ready for final action.

Before the committee adjourns, the council rule relating to committee action will need to be suspended considering action taken today was after 12 noon and to allow the agenda items one through six to be sent to the September 27th City Council compared to the October 4th meeting.

Council President has concurred with this request as well.

If there is no objection, the council rule relating to committee action taken afternoon will be suspended.

Hearing...

Chair?

Yeah.

Chair Strauss, just to understand, so the bill where there was a no vote, are you saying that that would go on September 27 because the council president's already concurred?

We can hold that bill if you'd like to hold that bill.

No, I was just trying to understand.

We're suspending the rule just because of the time of day.

Yeah, OK, I get it.

I'm fine with that.

The other thing is separate, I think, so yeah.

All right, we'll make sure to work with the clerks to resolve any of those wrinkles.

We'll iron that out.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

Any objections to the 12 noon rule?

Hearing no objections, the rule is suspended.

The agenda items one through six, caveat, possibly the non-unanimous bill will be sent directly to the September 27th city council meeting for final consideration.

This concludes the Thursday, September 22 2022 meeting of the land use committee as budget deliberations start next week, this will be the last committee meeting before December.

So thank you, colleagues for attending.

I'll see you tomorrow, and we'll have committee in December.

Thank you.

Recording stopped.