Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan 5/21/2025

Good afternoon, everyone.

The May 21st meeting of the Select Committee of Comprehensive Plan will come to order.

It is 2.04.

I'm Joy Hollingsworth, Chair of the Committee.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Kettle.

Here.

Council Member Moore.

Present.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Here.

Councilmember Strauss.

Present.

Vice Chair Solomon.

Here.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Oh, I said here for someone else.

I'm so sorry.

Vice Chair Solomon.

Here.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

I'm here.

Nine present.

My bad.

Councilmember Solomon, my apologies.

I got...

Real excited there to be at this meeting.

We will now consider the agenda, and if there's no objections, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Good afternoon, everyone.

We are nearing the finish line of our interim legislation for House Bill 1110. Ideally, today, we vote this legislation out of committee to meet the state's implementation.

implementation deadline on June 30th.

As soon as we pass the interim legislation for House Bill 1110, we are going to be then moving on to our phase one of the comprehensive plan and the permanent legislation for House Bill 1110. Today, we're gonna be furthering the discussion and then voting on amendments to the interim bill as well as the interim bill itself.

So we have two sets, we have amendments to the interim bill and then the interim bill itself.

For public comment today, we will be accepting written public comment.

So please drop off your comments to the front of chambers in that lovely decorated black box that's in the front of chambers.

Or you can send us your thoughts on the comprehensive plan to council at seattle.gov.

And a lot of you know that email because we've been receiving emails from a lot of people regarding the comprehensive plan.

I also want to note we had a public hearing held on Monday and have been having different...

meetings and public comment opportunities as well.

So really appreciate the community's engagement during this time.

And then also to my colleagues, you all have gone out in community and met with people and talk with people and have done walks with folks.

And so really appreciate your all's engagement in this as well.

Will the clerk please read item one into the agenda?

Agenda N1, Council Bill 120969, relating to land use and zoning, implementing interim controls to comply with various state laws, establishing findings, and adopting a work plan for permanent legislation for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Awesome.

Thank you.

We have presenters Lish Whitson and Keto Freeman here from central staff.

Thank you all for being here and for all your hard work.

Before we begin our discussion on the proposed amendments, we will need to place the bill before us.

And so I'm going to move that the committee recommends passage of council bill 120969. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, council member Rivera.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend the passing of the bill.

Now we can be able to begin the discussion.

So how we're gonna do this process is we will now begin the discussion on the amendments as follows.

Council members will move their amendments.

After receiving a second, central staff will provide an overview of that amendment and be able to walk us through.

After central staff's overview, the sponsor will address the amendment.

And after the sponsor addresses their amendment, we will open it up for discussion.

We can manage the discussion either by please raise your hand or sometimes if you give me a nice wink, I know to call on you as well.

So whichever way is easier.

but please let's do that.

And then after these steps will be repeated for each proposed amendment.

So we're gonna continue to do this down the line.

The order of amendments will be considered in numerical order.

So those amendments are gonna be in numerical order.

As part of the chair's process, I want to announce, Part of the process, we're gonna, excuse me, does anyone have any questions about the process at all?

None?

Okay, awesome.

And I also will go ahead and jump in.

And so for the record, before we start and recognize Council Member Solomon, will our central staff say your name for the record?

Lish Whitson, Council Central Staff.

Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

So, Council Member Solomon, you are recognized.

I move to amend Council Bill 120969 as presented on Amendment 1.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded for amending Council Bill 120969 with amendment number one.

Council staff, please provide an overview of the amendment.

As you may remember, last week you adopted the Council Bill introduced as Council Bill 120949, which updated the City's regulations for accessory dwelling units in response to changes to state law.

This amendment would reconcile the Council Bill 120969, which is the bill that's currently in front of you, with the changes that have been previously made to the Land Use Code.

and update some of the legislative findings to bring them up to date.

Thank you.

Council Member Solomon, you are recognized in order to, or excuse me, you're recognized to talk about your amendment.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Chair Hollingsworth.

And again, as was stated, this amendment responds to the ADU legislation that we passed earlier this year with Council Bill 120949 and ensures the interim legislation is consistent with the ADU legislation.

As a reminder, the ADU legislation was required to responsive to State House Bill 1337, which passed in 2023 and required cities to enact laws or approaches which better enable development of accessory dwelling units.

To comply with this new state law earlier this month, City Council passed 1201. 949 and this amendment would ensure that code changes resulting from the ADU legislation are reflected in this interim zoning ordinance.

And I ask for your support and votes for this important court compliance amendment.

Thank you.

Council member Solomon.

Are there any comments before the committee?

Council member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth.

Colleagues, there is under 23.34.011 under NR1, NR2, and NR3 zones function and locational criteria.

There was an amendment made to that section of this legislation before us that excluded language as it relates to, quote, structures on lot sizes compatible with the existing pattern of development and the character of neighborhood residential areas.

That got stricken and it now says for the development of detached, attached and stacked dwelling units within a predominantly three story height limit.

I just want to state for the record that I am looking at bringing an amendment to this piece because there is a separate Senate bill that was passed as part of this legislative session and that was signed by Governor Ferguson, which states that cities are prohibited from regulating exterior siding, but there are some exemptions in that law for structures that are designated as local historic district or structures located in an area designated as a historic district on the national register of historic places or structures designated as a local state or national historic landmark.

And so I'm looking as at a possible amendment so that we can include that exemption language into this particular area of this particular legislation before us.

And I will work with council member Solomon's office on that.

Thank you very much.

Just wanted to flag that.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

So just to repeat what you said, you're looking to amend Council Member Solomon's amendment.

For Tuesday's full council meeting, not today.

Understood, okay.

But wanted to flag that I will be, so folks are not caught off guard as we vote, because I will be voting for this.

And so wanted to indicate that I will be looking at that as a possible amendment for full council on Tuesday.

Thank you, council.

Sorry, I was not clear about that part of it.

No, no, no, you're good.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you, council member Rivera.

Are there other questions regarding council member Solomon's amendment?

All right, awesome.

Okay, well, I am going to, will the clerk please call the roll on amendment number one?

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Sacca.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Vice Chair Solomon.

Aye.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

The amendment, amendment one.

Thank you, clerk.

The amendment one is adopted.

Okay, moving on to amendment number two.

I'm going to move to amend council bill 120969 as presented on amendment number two, version four.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to amend council bill 120969 with amendment number two, version four.

Council central staff, please provide an overview.

As interim legislation, Council Bill 120969 includes a work program for work on the permanent legislation.

This amendment updates some of the language around the work program that updates the schedule based on schedule that has been laid out for the Select Committee with action by the end of September on permanent legislation and the comprehensive plan.

And it attaches a new list of City Council topics that the Council intends to consider in its review of permanent legislation and the comprehensive plan.

There have been a couple of changes since the initial draft was presented.

Was that just last week?

Numbers 6 and 7 have been combined into one 6 that talks about both setbacks and amenity area regulations, and language that did talk about Transit safety has been updated to be clearer and talk about buffers along major thoroughfares as part of that discussion.

And then two new items have been added.

Number eight talks about support for a diversity of housing options near public amenities, goods and services.

And number nine adds considering the modification of off street parking requirements to support city goals for neighborhoods accessible by pedestrians, people with disabilities, bicyclists, transit users and others who do not drive.

Awesome, thank you so much.

I will recognize myself to go over this.

This is my amendment.

I wanna convey, and thank you central staff for all your help in this and colleagues for your work as well.

As I conveyed last meeting, this amendment adds a work plan to interim House Bill 110 legislation.

that indicates what we as a committee as the whole might wanna consider for permanent legislation for House Bill 1110. I know I've worked with many of you to already identify several areas of focus and refine language on this amendment.

contributing to this as well, making sure that we got language right on this.

I made clarifying changes as Lish conveyed.

Number six, consider the adjustments to setbacks and amenity areas so that all housing types can have some flexibility to help maximize tree protection.

support flexibility and design in order to address various neighborhoods needs and look at where buffers may be needed along major thoroughfares.

Thoroughfares refers to roads, streets and routes that connect other roads.

Every neighborhood is different and I believe that having flexibility may be key to exploring what works for every and all neighborhoods.

And then we also added other council members, different number and their points that they wanted to add to the work plan as well.

And so hopefully everyone feels comfortable with this.

And right now we'll open it up to any questions or comments people might have.

Councilmember Rivera, is that an old hand or new hand?

New hand.

New hand.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

As you and I talked about, and Clerk, please help me if I need to move to amend something in this language that the Chair was fine adding.

And I think it might have been something that got left off.

When the original six and seven got combined, considering adjustments to setbacks and amenity area regulations to maximize tree protection and support flexibility in design to address neighborhood needs and provide buffers along major thoroughfares, originally language in here said to support retention of existing trees during development.

And so I wanted to have that language read.

stated in this version of the of the legislation.

That is correct.

So that is a verbal amendment, correct?

And so I need to second.

Yeah, the chair can request it to be in writing as well if we need to take a minute for us to see what it would look like in writing, or we can do an oral amendment if we're fine with moving forward with making an oral amendment to incorporate that language into item number six.

Central staff, do you need anything else from us?

And because it's a, I consider it a small technical change on language, I'm happy with doing it verbally, but if any of my colleagues would like to see it on paper, I'm also more than happy to accommodate that change as well.

Sorry, I'm putting more work on staff.

And if we need a second, because I don't want, we can do at ease.

If we can be at ease for a quick second, thank you.

Okay, we're going to be at ease for a second while we navigate this.

Thank you.

Apologies, Chair.

Wasn't sure how to bring this forward when you and I talked earlier.

Okay, I see.

No worries at all.

We're just at ease.

Let me make sure that we have this correct.

Oh, that's all right.

Oh, there you go.

So if I'm understanding correctly, it's adding these two words during development after maximizing tree protection in number six.

No, it's the previous language had been to support the retention of existing trees during development.

So I'm trying to add that language about retention of existing trees during development to the new version that combined both of those, the original six and seven.

Okay, so.

All right, so taking out maximized tree protection and instead saying support retention of existing trees during development.

You can leave both, Lish.

I just wanted to note that we're also working towards supporting retention of existing trees, but maximized tree protection should also be there.

Thank you, Lish.

Okay.

All right.

Okay, at this point, if you can move your motion and if you receive second, then we can proceed with the vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I move colleagues to just re-add the language that was prior in this legislation to include in number six and support retention of existing trees during development.

Second.

And just to clarify, We're voting on this amendment to my amendment.

Okay, understood.

All right.

So we see it before us, colleagues.

This is an amendment to the amendment to the work plan.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Oh, let me open it up.

If there's any comments right now, I apologize.

If there's any comments, please raise your hand.

Council Member Moore.

No, that was, sorry.

No worries.

Anyone else?

Look left and right, okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member DiBetta.

Aye.

Council Member Sacca.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Vice Chair Solomon.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

The motion has passed and the amendment to the amendment will be presented.

Thank you central staff for that change.

Would like to pause here.

Are there other comments to amendment number two?

I see council member Moore.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to take this moment to thank you again for all the work that you did on this and for your willingness to work with each of us to try to address what our concerns and priorities were.

Thank you very much for addressing trees and also very much for including MHA and the ability to continue to investigate that.

And I appreciate all the work that went into this.

I'm looking forward to delving into it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Council Member Rink, you recognize.

Thank you, Chair, and I want to thank you, Chair, for working with my office to add additional language related to more housing options near amenities and related to parking mandates as noted by numbers 8 and 9. I believe this work plan reflects a balance, and I'm very much looking forward to exploring these topics as we take up the permanent legislation.

So thank you.

And thank you, council member Rink for adding those.

It adds so many layers to the amendments and it needed to be added.

So really appreciate your catch on that and adding that.

It's perfect.

Council member Rivera followed by council member Saka.

Thank you, chair.

Just really wanted to thank you for your leadership in creating this work plan.

And really I recognize it was a lot of work to incorporate nine members' ideas into here, including your own, you're the ninth.

But I do think it captures so much of what we've heard from community and I very much, even today when I caught that that language was not in there, but the retention of the existing trees is so important that I really appreciate your willingness to let me amend your amendment.

in order to include that.

So it just really goes to show to your leadership and your collaboration as regards this legislation and comp plan as a whole.

So I really just wanted to recognize you for that and really thank you publicly.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

Councilmember Saka.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I too want to pile on and extend my appreciation for you and your leadership in putting this together and your willingness and flexibility to work so closely with all of our respective council offices to make sure our ideas are incorporating it into this work plan document.

I think it captures the essence of community feedback, the priorities, that we know for all the respective council offices and also leaves flexibility for and captures everything we know, the situation we know today and also leaves room for flexibility to make further adjustments based off of situations that we can't necessarily anticipate.

So non-exclusive list of possibilities, but look forward to diving deeper into these topics alongside you all and especially want to call out and say thank you for the portion item number one listed there on the anti-displacement approach and strategies.

So thank you again.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Sokka.

I know that's one thing that you have talked and stressed about a lot during our time.

So I wanted to make sure we got that in there.

So thank you.

Are there other comments before we vote?

Seeing none, hearing none.

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment number two as amended that we, is that the correct?

I'm perfect.

Amelia said I'm perfect.

You all heard it.

Thank you.

Council member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Sacca.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Vice Chair Solomon.

Aye.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The Amendment 2, version, I guess I'd be called version 5, because we amended it, has been adopted.

So thank you all for that.

I...

We'll move to amend Council Bill 120969 as shown in amendment number three, version two.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded and to amend Council Bill 12069, excuse me, 969 with amendment number three, version two.

Central staff, you're on.

All right.

Amendment number three, version two is sponsored by Council Member Moore.

The amendment would maintain the current lot coverage maximum of 35% when single-family development is proposed in neighborhood residential zones where middle housing could otherwise occur.

There's a slight change between this version and the version that you looked at previously.

This clarifies that when one single-family house is proposed with one or more detached accessory dwelling units, the 50% lot coverage that is intended for middle housing would apply.

Thank you, Central Staff.

Council Member, thank you, Ketel.

I know your name.

Thank you, Ketel.

Council Member Moore, are you recognized to address your amendment?

Oh, thank you very much.

I don't think there's much more to add.

Really, the intent was just to make sure that we are not allowing one single story, one single story, single, sorry.

one story single family home to take advantage of the additional space when the intent of that was for middle housing to have at least a minimum of four to six units.

But we want to make sure we also provided for DADUs and ADUs.

So that's all, and it's just for a short time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

We're going to pause here to see if there are other questions.

Council Member Rink, you're recognized.

Thank you.

No questions for today.

I wanted to provide a comment that I will be supporting this amendment today in support of the larger goal of building more housing.

If a developer was looking to build a single-family home and get 35% law coverage, but if they build multiple units, they would get 50%.

They might think twice and lean towards building multiple units, and for this reason, I will be supporting this amendment to build more densely in Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member Rink.

Are there other questions or comments that we have for central staff or the sponsor?

Awesome, okay, seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll for amendment number three, version two.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Sacca.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

Vice Chair Solomon.

Aye.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

Clerk, amendment three, version two is adopted.

Now we're gonna move on to amendment number four.

I moved to, oh, you have to, I've been moving your amendments.

You need to move, I apologize.

I've been doing all.

Chair?

Chair, the clerks have made sure I'm ready.

So I move to amend Council Bill 120969 as presented on amendment four.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded that we amend Council Bill 120969 with amendment number four.

Central staff, please provide your overview.

Amendment number four sponsored by Council Member Kettle would retain front yard requirements in the current code.

So 20 feet or the average of setbacks on either side.

whichever is less.

For lots that have bought landmark portions of Queen Anne Boulevard, this just applies to front yard requirements, does not apply to rear yard requirements.

Councilmember Kettle, you're recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you also to the central staff team, Mr. Woodson and Mr. Freeman.

Colleagues, I have passed to you a packet with the amendment, but also a map of what the Queen Anne Boulevard Park is, which really highlights a very unique piece within our city.

I also have a backing document, support document from community, from the Queen Anne Community Council written specifically related to the Queen Anne Boulevard Park.

for your review.

As I said, this is unique.

This is a historical location designed by Mr. Olmstead and Mr. Dawson back in 1906. And it was constructed between 1911 and 1916. And the park, and this is what it is, it's a unique park.

The park itself is the street, but it's also the areas abutting the street on either side.

And this park provides vistas, north, south, east, and west in Queen Anne along its nearly four-mile route.

There's the Wilcox Wall.

That's an historical gem in itself on the southwest side.

The park connects throughout its circumstances different places like Marshall Park, which as I mentioned before, is what the locals know as opposed to Cary Park.

It allows people to see Elliott Bay and the Olympics.

And if you move to the southeast, Bry Cracky Park, which gives those views and those amenities, that park, that connection to park for the downtown and also for the Cascades.

And in between is Cary Park.

And then towards Lake Union, you know, the Boston Street, your viewpoints, you know, particularly a great place to be on the 4th of July.

And there's many other viewpoints as well.

And then in addition to that, there's whole segments of the Queen Anne Boulevard Park where it's like walking through a tree canyon.

And as we densify, Our community, our society, really needs these opportunities to have this kind of park-like experience to enjoy in itself, but also, as I mentioned, the viewpoints.

not mentioned, not really understood sometimes is that this nearly four mile park has many uses.

There's sections which are essentially pedestrian streets, like near the Wilcox wall.

It's for pedestrians, walkers, it's for runners, it's for bikers.

I remember once the, and I mentioned this before, once the pandemic hit and you couldn't go to the gyms, this was a great way to get exercise.

And I did that and I saw all these other people, not just from Queen Anne, but around the city, taken advantage of this.

So this is an opportunity to create essentially a streetscape for pedestrians and for the communities.

It's been used for community runs that are fundraising for the Queen Anne helpline and the like.

And again, as we densify, we have to have these areas where people can enjoy that park-like experience.

And so for this public amenity for our entire city, I ask for your support and vote in support of this amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

I will pause here to see if there are questions or comments about amendment number four.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for bringing this amendment forward, Councilmember Kettle.

My understanding is this amendment is a bit of a technical one.

While I don't necessarily support special treatment to any specific neighborhood, this amendment, from what I can tell, is not that.

The land that borders Queen Anne Boulevard for the first 10 feet is owned and operated by the Parks Department, therefore a 20-foot setback, in essence, allows for a 10-foot setback from the border of the parkland in the form of a 20-foot total setback from the street.

So therefore, I will be supporting this amendment today as it serves as a technical change and not necessarily a policy one.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rank.

Council President Nelson.

I will be supporting this amendment today and it's largely because my staff did go out and see for their very own eyes thanks to constituent and also thanks to Councilmember Kettle's advocacy.

And it does occur to me that there, That experience of actually seeing what our constituents are telling us is really a valuable experience, and unfortunately, it's hard to do that all over the city.

It would have been my preference just to be already discussing the permanent legislation that's not up to our control at all, because...

These are changes that we're making to a piece of legislation that will then be superseded by the permanent legislation.

I'm really looking forward to getting to that.

But in the meantime, I do appreciate you bringing this forward and I'll be supporting all of the amendments today just out of that spirit that we're trying to improve upon a piece of legislation, but ultimately the really big work comes in a little bit later.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President Nelson.

Council Member Saka.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I wanna thank Council Member Kettle for bringing this forward.

I wanna thank him for his collaboration and answering my pesky questions.

in his office this morning.

I think we pulled out, he pulled out two maps.

We got real deep, rolled up our sleeves.

It was almost like a tabletop exercise in the military.

But thank you for addressing my questions.

Thank you for the follow-up documentation.

As you noted, the specific map and then the letter from the Queen Anne Community Council.

I will be supporting this today.

as well.

And I think we need to be mindful of I don't know if a blanket cookie cutter approach makes sense across the city, but, and I'm definitely open to, you know, reasonable tweaks around the edges.

And I think this does that.

And it's great for interim legislation and on an interim basis, we should all, I will certainly be revisiting this issue during the permanent legislation deliberations and, potentially where we might land with that is maybe adopting the state's model ordinance provisions for the front setbacks.

I don't know, who knows.

All that is to say, this makes a lot of sense, certainly for the interim legislation.

Thank you for bringing it forward to address the most pressing concerns in the near term while allowing all of us more time to be very thoughtful and deliberate as for the permanent legislation.

So proud to support it today.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

I see Council President Nelson, is that an old hand?

I'm taking it down.

Okay, awesome.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I was curious about historic boulevards, so I asked our central staff to look into whether there are other historic boulevards besides the one on Queen Anne.

And actually, it turns out that there is only one other, and it does not have any residential lots abutting it, so it really did not seem to meet.

to the point of treating one area differently than another.

It seems to me, it seems to be that this is the only designated historic boulevard in the city.

And for that reason, I will be supporting this particular legislation.

Though I, you know, like I said, I wanted to make sure that they weren't others and we were inadvertently treating one differently from another if there had been another.

So thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Thank you, Chair.

Awesome, thank you, Council Member Rivera.

I would argue that I have a bunch of boulevards in my district that I could deem as historical that I think are phenomenal.

I'm just playing, okay.

Is there anyone else, any other comments?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll for amendment number four?

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Sacca.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

Vice Chair Solomon.

Aye.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Nine in favor and none opposed.

Thank you, Clerk.

Amendment number four is adopted.

Council Member Rank, I'll recognize you to move your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120969 as presented on Amendment 5.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend Council Bill 120969. With Amendment 5, Central Staff, you know the drill.

Thank you so much.

In our neighborhood residential zones, we regulate how much building area is allowed on a lot using a floor area ratio limit.

So a ratio that is set out for different densities of development to the lot area.

In our current code, we have a provision that allows for small lots for there to be at least 2,500 square feet of residential development.

This amendment restores that language to the code to say that on any residential lot where development is allowed, you can have at least 2,500 square foot residential building.

Awesome, thank you.

Council Member Rank, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

This amendment is meant to be technical and clarifying to restore the minimum floor area on smaller lots.

The standards in the amendment are already in place today.

and are meant to match the existing code, not to make a policy change.

It is our understanding this change was somewhat unintentional.

So we are working to remedy this through this amendment and I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, council member rank.

I will pause here to see if there's any other questions or comments before we move to a vote on amendment number five, council member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Central staff, is it true that this was not, it was inadvertent when the executive sent this legislation down?

I don't understand why this would have been changed unless it wasn't, you know.

Yeah, so there is a change to the floor ratio limits in the bill.

Currently, 0.5 FAR is allowed on a neighborhood residential lot.

So on a 5,000-square-foot lot, you could build a 2,500-square-foot building.

Under the Council Bill 120969, that's being increased to 0.6.

So on a 5,000-square-foot lot, you could build a 3,000-square-foot building.

So I think when they were drafting the code, they didn't feel like keeping this provision was important, but when you get down to say a 4,000 square foot lot and we have lots of those in the city, then you're starting to cut into the size of development that could occur.

Um, and I don't think that was intentional.

So it's not a technical amendment.

That is to say that they increase the amount of space that you could use in the lot to build that home.

And so for the smaller lots, they probably didn't intend to make that 0.6 because it's a smaller lot.

Yeah, I'm not sure that they intended to, and I'm not sure that they intended to get rid of the provision that allowed for at least 2,500 square foot buildings.

So even though they increased the FAR for the bigger lots, you're saying in the smaller lots, they didn't intend to not increase the building.

That's my understanding.

My discussion is they do not have concerns with this amendment.

We didn't get into the whole, what was your thinking when you drafted this particular phrase?

Colleagues, it just seems to me my concern here is for the smaller lot to have, this is increasing the FAR in the bigger lots, and to increase the FAR for the smaller lots might have an impact on the ability to keep the trees, plant trees and things of that nature.

So I have this concern in this interim legislation.

So Council Member Rink, I appreciate you bringing this forward.

It's something I'll consider for the permanent legislation, but for the temporary legislation, I'm going to keep it as it was sent down to us and then I will dig into what the impacts are of allowing for a bigger structure on smaller lot sizes.

But thank you.

Are there other comments regarding this?

And Council Member Rank, I want to recognize you if you have any other follow-ups before we take a vote.

No?

Awesome.

All right.

I'll pause here.

Are there any other comments or questions?

Will the clerk please call the roll for amendment number five?

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member DeVetta.

No.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Vice Chair Solomon.

Aye.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Eight in favor, one opposed.

The bill passed, or the bill, excuse me.

The amendment is, amendment number five is adopted.

Council Member Rink, you were recognized for amendment number six.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120969 as presented on amendment six.

Second.

It's been moved and second to amend Council Bill 120969 with amendment number six.

Central staff, please go ahead with your address.

All right.

Settle in.

This is the longest of the amendments.

And it's mainly technical.

It's reorganizing the sections that discuss density in order to improve clarity and usability.

As drafted, the bill, for example, for neighborhood residential zones says that on any neighborhood residential lot, you can build one unit.

And then two pages later, you get two provisions that say you can build four units on a lot or six units according to the provisions of House Bill 1110, which we've discussed a lot.

This amendment switches things around so that it's clear that on any residential lot and neighborhood residential zones, you can build four units or six units where that's allowed pursuant to the provisions of House Bill 1110. It does not change minimum lot size requirements.

It does update the effective date of provisions in this code to the effective date of the bill, so June 30th, 2025, rather than the date that the legislation was sent to Council, which is at the end of March.

It clarifies provisions that In residential small lot zones, you can have at least one principal unit on a 2,000-square-foot lot, provided a minimum of four or six units are allowed on lots existing as of June 30, 2025. It adjusts and restores our current thresholds for rounding in neighborhood residential zones.

So if, for example, a calculation would result in 1.9 units being permitted, you round up to two units rather than rounding down to one unit.

It clarifies a provision stating that if a lot is subdivided after the effective date of the ordinance, only one unit is allowed per a lot, and that is intended to avoid people from gaming this code provision that's based on allowing four units on every lot.

and subdividing a lot into two lots and then saying, oh, I can now build eight units.

It maintains the requirements for certifying that affordable housing units will remain affordable.

So there's about two pages of regulations in this code section that describe the process for certifying with the city's Office of Housing that you're gonna have affordable units and will maintain those for at least 50 years.

Um, it restores language, uh, that was an inadvertent drafting error, uh, in the low rise zone, uh, density limits, um, that stated that, um, and speaking of drafting errors, I miswrote this.

Um, it should be density limits, um, only apply to single family dwellings, townhouses, and some row houses.

Um, As drafted, the bill could be read to state that stacked flats have a density limit.

That's not the case today, and that was not the executive's intent in drafting the bill.

And finally, environmentally critical area provisions in the bill remain untouched.

Awesome.

Thank you, Lish.

Council Member Rink, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

So as Lish just laid out, this is a collection of technical tweaks in the form of a singular amendment to ensure we're meeting House Bill 1110 requirements.

So for an instance, actually, as Liz just laid out the bit about, it's saying in plain language that you can have four units on every lot regardless of size.

It clarifies subdivision rules and leaves many sections of the interim legislation as is.

So this is meant to serve as a technical and clarifying amendment, not to serve as a major change in policy.

and I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rank.

I'm gonna pause here to see if any of my colleagues have any questions or comments.

Council Member Moore.

Thank you, Chair.

I know, Lish, you've walked me through this now.

I think this is twice.

But can you walk me through this piece again, the number eight, the restore language, stating that in low-rise zones, density limits only apply, but not to stack flats?

Can you explain all that again?

So this is basically a vestige of the fact that staff were drafting both the permanent and interim legislation at the same time.

In the permanent legislation that you'll start considering next month, housing types are split into three categories.

Attached housing, which is townhouses and row houses.

Detached housing, which is single family houses or cottages.

And stacked flats.

Those three categories of housing types are not defined in Council Bill 120969, the bill in front of you today.

But they were used in this code section to describe the types of development that has a density limit that applies.

As a result, the bill that's in front of you could be read to say that stacked flats have a density limit and that was unintentional.

So this amendment fixes that and continues with current practice, which is that we do not apply density limits to stacked flat buildings in multifamily zones.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's very clear, but it doesn't mention anywhere in here stacked flats.

Right, because the density limits only apply to townhouses, row houses, single-family houses.

Only apply.

They are referenced in their absence.

Is that supposed to be the rather than attached and detached housing?

Is that supposed to mean?

So attached and detached housing are the terms that are used in the permanent legislation for row houses, townhouses, and single-family houses.

So we're going back to the language that's used in today's code because that's defined in the code rather than using the terms that will be used in the permanent legislation, which is the attached-detached.

So just a question, since I'm very dense on this, would it be better to actually articulate stacked flats?

You put that language in here so we're always clear.

Here is how it shows up in the bill, and maybe that will be helpful.

Okay.

So the way it will read is that there is no density limit for residential development in low-rise zones except for these few types of housing in the low-rise one zone or low-rise zones without a mandatory housing affordability suffix.

I guess, Chair, I'd like to bring an amendment to actually put in the word stacked flat unless there would be some legal reason not to do so.

Our current code does not define stacked flat, so it has no clear legal meaning under this bill or the current code, so I would recommend not doing it now, and we will make sure that it's clear in the permanent legislation once we have a definition for a stacked flat that we can use.

Okay, I just, I don't know, this particular provision makes me very nervous, even though you've explained it, and the intent is to make sure that it's not applying to stack flats, but I guess I'm going to be abstaining just for that reason, not that I'm not supportive of this, but I just...

I would really like to have seen stacked flats defined before we're talking about restoring language that doesn't apply density limits.

So, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

I see Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

And I just wanna confirm that this doesn't, do anything to the HB 1110 allowance that attached dwelling units and detached accessory dwelling units can be counted as units.

So it doesn't make any change to that.

Correct.

There's no change related to that.

And then to council member Moore's point, because I actually had this similar question in terms of the stack flats.

So I don't, are you saying that for the interim legislation that we're not gonna consider the stack flats and it's something we'll do impermanent or you're saying that this language in A, as it is written, is meant to capture the stacked flats because we don't want to use terms that aren't currently in the code.

Sorry, I need further explanation, I guess, is what I'm saying.

Thank you.

It might be worth looking at amendment number one.

So the term apartment has some currency currently in the code, and that is the term that sort of is alighted here.

It's not mentioned, but apartments are sort of the term that essentially is equivalent to stacked flats and the House Bill 1110 vernacular.

So if you were to look at amendment number one, for example, or just at the bill on page and looking at sort of defined terms, page 82 of this amendment, you can see sort of where the definition section, the proposed definition modifications, the definition section of land use code, what is defined as mental housing.

And the term apartment continues to be the term of art that is used to describe what in the future will be called stacked flats.

So I'll just show you where that is.

So the term apartment is in the legislation.

Could we use the term apartment then to mean stacked flats in this section that this bill is amending?

If you wanted to elucidate this section, adding the term stacked flats might be a little bit more than you need to do.

You could just clarify that density limits don't apply to apartment development.

I'm taking a long time to scroll here just because it's a very long bill, but this section is, oh, my gosh, there must be a faster way for me to do this.

I'm sorry.

It's hard.

No worries.

It's a long piece of legislation, so that's, I appreciate that.

I just didn't have the right tool here, but the defined, the You all are correct that stacked flats will in the future be the vernacular that is used to describe apartments, but for one thing that OPCD was striving to do here with the interim bill was to try to keep the language that we currently use in the code for describing multifamily development the same, which is why you won't find the term stacked flat in the interim development bill.

But looking here at the definition of middle housing, it references types of housing that are currently defined in the land use code, and that includes apartments.

So if you were to look at a further refinement to six, for example, it would be adding the term apartment here and sort of clarifying that density limits don't apply to apartments.

But by doing so, you run the risk of then excluding other types of residential development, for example, adult family homes or congregate residences or low-income housing, which are all types of residential development that actually look a lot like stacked flats or apartments and also under today's code don't have density limits.

I just, I, I, I always err on the side of making sure we're very clear.

And so I feel that...

not including that here, the apartment piece, the stacked flats, because that's the thing that we're really talking about here is leaving it open to interpretation and sort of loosey goosey.

That's not a legal term, but it's the one I'm using.

And that's the thing that I guess, and I don't know, council member Moore, if that's you and I are thinking about the same thing, but it sounds like we are.

Because we had, yeah, questions about that here.

It's not defined in this bill, but residential development is a clearly defined term.

And it includes a broad range of different housing types, far beyond stack flats or townhouses, row houses, etc.

So residential developments intended to include all those things, all these things listed and that's defined.

Okay.

So this is clearly intended to include the apartments and these other pieces.

And as this section here, Lish 23.4, 5.5, 12. B.

Cause you do have the subsections here.

So is that, is that list contained in one of these two?

subsections um those subsections are actually right here um in oh the following section so following sorry yeah they refer to um row house townhouse yeah single family dwelling okay um

I guess I don't have any other questions, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

Councilmember Sacco.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I just have a few questions.

I'll say I do want to acknowledge and appreciate the work from Councilmember Rankin, your office, and central staff for putting this 17-page document Together, I stayed up till about two in the morning trying to catch up and finalizing my review of a lot of things, including these various amendments.

And when I got to amendment number six, I had to have a second cup of coffee, because I knew I was in for a long night.

But I just want to acknowledge the hard work that went into creating this.

I have a few questions.

Lish, at the outset of your central staff presentation description of this, I heard you say that it is designed to, quote unquote, improve clarity and usability.

So designed to improve clarity and usability.

So three questions around that.

Improved clarity and usability for whom?

And I don't know if this is for the amendment author or central staff or a combination of both.

I imagine potentially a combination of both.

depending on the question.

So improving clarity and usability for whom?

Love to better understand the kind of rationale and thinking there.

Secondly, and then third, what's the overarching goal or objective we're seeking to obtain and accomplish by virtue of this amendment.

There's a lot of work here, a lot of activity going on, and so 17 pages worth, and just would love better clarity around what is the intended impact, if you will.

I can start.

Clarity and usability for people who actually use the land use code.

So permit reviewers at the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections and people seeking to develop on neighborhood residential or low-rise lots across the city.

seeks to do that by stating upfront what the primary density limits are for the two different categories of zones.

So in the neighborhood residential zone, it says upfront, you can build four units on most lots, you can build six units on some under certain conditions.

Under the bill as introduced, it says you can build one unit on a lot And then two pages later, you get to the part where it says, actually, on most slots, you can build four units.

So it switches things up so that it's clear that for most people, they are reading what applies to them as early as possible in the code section.

If you look here, For low-rise zones, it says there is no density limit for residential development in low-rise zones except under these few conditions.

And so it's intended to say, you don't have a density limit.

Look here, read these few provisions, and if they don't apply to you, then you can stop.

And I'll chime in as amendment sponsor from this point.

And thank you for laying that out, Lish, exactly.

So the overarching goal of this, of course, being if we can find ways to streamline.

I think we're all quickly learning that land use is an incredibly complicated topic.

There are certainly experts that work in this space and actively use our code and these materials as they're working on development projects.

But the better that we can author this so it's easier to understand, I think, makes a lot less headaches for everyone involved in the process.

while also ensuring that this amendment, again, brings us into full compliance with House Bill 1110. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rank.

Thank you.

So that's a shared goal, certainly from my perspective, and thank you for the additional clarity there.

And I've learned that whether something an idea or a concept or a proposal constitutes a technical change is really in the eyes of the beholder.

And I would generally agree, most of this is very technical and specific in nature.

A few little more substantive things, features and elements in there, like the number five, adjusting the thresholds there.

And I... I'm going to support this today.

I do have some lingering questions kind of along the lines of some of what our colleagues mentioned a moment ago about the stacked flats.

I think all things being considered, the fact that this is an interim piece of legislation and we will soon pivot to the permanent legislation where we can address that in more fulsome detail.

I think the risk is lower in my mind, but just pointing out that it is a valid concern and area for clarity, additional clarity going forward.

So I will be supporting this.

Thank you for putting it forward and allowing me to have an extra cup of coffee at 1230 AM.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Are there other questions or comments regarding amendment number six?

Seeing none, Council Member Rink, do you have any more follow-ups?

No?

Awesome.

All right.

Clerk, will you please call the roll to amendment number six?

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

Abstain.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Abstain.

Councilmember Sacca.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yep.

Vice Chair Solomon.

Aye.

And Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed, two abstentions.

Excuse me.

Six in favor, none opposed, two abstentions.

awesome thank thank you clerk um that's incorrect i'm sorry my math is really wrong seven in favor none opposed two abstentions yes seven in favor two abstentions none opposed um the amendment passes and adopted and i will now recognize council member rink for your amendment number seven

Last one I promised, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120969 as presented on Amendment 7.

Second.

It's been moved and second for amendment of Council Bill 120969, Amendment 7. Lisch and Ketel, please give us your...

All right.

Analysis.

This is a request to the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections to report back to Council on work that's being done currently at the Washington State Building Code Council to review what types of development are subject to the state building code and what types of development are subject to the state residential code.

As you heard, I think in March, development under the State Residential Code is generally less expensive than development under the State Building Code.

The State Building Code Council is looking at whether more types of middle housing should be subject to the regulations in the Residential Code.

This is asking for an update on that work.

and for a work program for the city to implement any changes that are made at the state level.

Thank you.

Council Member Rank, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for that overview, Lish.

Colleagues, I know we talked about this during our original briefing on this topic.

This amendment would provide council with a report on how to better incorporate middle housing, such as stacked flax, into residential rather than commercial code to promote financial feasibility, and I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rank.

I will pause here to see if there's any other questions or comments before we take a vote on amendment number seven, version one.

How long can y'all stay silent for?

I'm just playing, okay.

I have to lighten it up just a little bit, colleagues.

Y'all are so tense today, but that's okay.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Vice Chair Solomon.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

It's been moved, or excuse me, the amendment passes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

That is amendment number seven is adopted.

Council Member Moore, you are recognized to move your amendment.

Chair, at this time, I move Council Bill 120969 be amended as presented on Amendment 8, Version 2. Second.

Second.

It's been moved in second.

Central Staff Ketel and Lisch.

Off to you.

This is Amendment 8, Version 2. Version 1 was attached to the agenda.

This is a new version of the amendment.

It would...

adopt the Washington State Department of Commerce's model ordinance for implementation of House Bill 1110's yard requirements in our neighborhood residential zones.

For example, under our current neighborhood residential zoning, we require at least a 20-foot setback in the front yard.

Under the bill as proposed, that would be reduced to 10 feet This amendment would adopt the Washington State Department of Commerce's model ordinance provisions, which state that for one and two unit structures, you have a 15-foot front yard, and for structures with more units, you have a 10-foot setback.

So the last column on that table there would be the new yard requirements.

Thank you, Lesh.

Council Member Moore, you're recognized for your amendment.

Thank you very much, Chair.

I wanted to thank Lish very much for all your help on this and the previous amendment and this one as well.

I also wanted just to apologize to colleagues for this being last minute.

I had actually intended to bring this originally and for various reasons did not.

And then yesterday at the 11th hour received legal advice, which you all received regarding version A.

Hence, this is why we have this here before us today.

Thank you for your patience and understanding in that regard.

I am bringing this because I think, as we've all said up here repeatedly, we need to build more housing and we need to preserve and maintain Seattle's urban tree canopy.

I think we are all looking for a way to be able to do both.

This is an interim measure which will, the state model code as I understand from my numerous conversations with the law department now, does in fact take into consideration the need, development needs for parking as they relate to the city.

at the same time as allowing for some additional area in which trees often are growing on a lot.

So trying to navigate that ground and looking at three or more units, it does in effect become the same as what that the mayor's office has sent down to us.

So in terms of standing in the way, I think of bringing forth the four to six, it clearly does not, but it does give some additional protection for the trees.

While we are looking at, which I think many of us have talked about when we get to the permanent bill, how do we look at maybe flexible setbacks with a requirement for some sort of tree preservation or tree amenity area?

looking at increasing FAR, again, trying to incentivize stacked flats.

So there's a lot of work to be done to really bring all the various pieces together in the permanent legislation.

And this was really just an attempt to find some middle ground while we are in the next four or five months doing the very hard work to come up with a more perfect package.

So for those reasons, and I would also note, that we all received a letter from Birds Connect, Seattle Parks Foundation, and the Tree Equity Network, also making clear their position that they preferred to keep the current setbacks, but for legal reasons, we're not able to do so.

And in that instance, they would be supportive of adopting the model code.

And again, we're just adopting the yard pieces at this point.

So thank you for that.

Unless there are any other questions, I would ask for your support.

Lesh.

So there's just one piece of clarification that we'd like to get if this does pass from the Council.

Amendment 4 related to Queen Anne Boulevard, amended Table A for 2344-014 for front yards.

There's a 20-foot front yard along Queen Anne Boulevard, as you know.

Just want to confirm that the council's intent, if this does pass, is that the 20 fleet would apply to both lots with one or two dwelling units and lots with three or more dwelling units.

So I will add, if that's the council's intent, I would add the footnote after both of these lines where it says in the front yard.

And for the record, Lish, can you repeat that again, please?

So everyone understands.

Yeah.

The question is, for this first row on front yards, should the footnote saying that the front yard requirement along Queen Anne Boulevard is 20 feet applied to both lots with one or two dwelling units and lots with three or more dwelling units or just one of those two.

I think the council's intent in adopting amendment four was that it should apply to any size building, but just want to confirm as if this passes, I need to make sure that I'm reflecting your intent.

Council member Moore.

OK, I would like to get this bill passed and then address that issue.

I'm assuming that these should be that the Queen Anne is an exception, and we should maintain it as an exception, then it would be an exception to what we have now, it would be an exception to the model code should that pass.

That's my understanding and intent, but I'm not speaking for everyone, obviously.

Before I recognize Council Member Rivera, can I recognize, since on this topic, thank you so much.

And do you have any issues to Council Member Rink before, okay, Council Member Kettle.

Chair, I just wanted to note, based on the reference to Amendment 4, that I'm in agreement with what Mr. Whitson said at his summary there.

Yes.

Awesome.

We got that figured.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure we say it on that subject.

Council Member Rivera, followed by Council Member Rink.

Thank you.

I want to thank my colleague Council Member Moore for bringing this forward, and I'd like to be a co-sponsor on this piece of legislation.

Colleagues, we all support housing.

We've talked about this a lot in the time that we've been here.

We also support trees and our tree canopy because we know we have a climate crisis.

I grew up in New York City, the densest city in America, which now has a goal to increase its tree canopy coverage to 30% because of the climate crisis.

When these old large cities were planned and built, they didn't plan for tree canopy, and I don't blame them for that.

We didn't know then what we know now today.

But now we know that we need to act quickly toward addressing our climate crisis that will be soon upon us.

So we do need to plan for, tree canopy and trees that are tall enough to really provide cooling.

I remember I grew up in a five-story walk-up and heat rises, it was very, very hot.

And that's only getting worse again with climate change.

So, you know, developers need to partner with those supporting our climate goals.

I don't think that, I think we all developers, residents, everyone in general needs to be working together toward creating more housing and also meeting our climate growth goals.

As we heard in chambers this week, those two are not, they don't need to be in conflict, but we do need to do something toward those goals.

We can't just talk about it.

We actually need to do something to both support more housing and support tree canopy.

We know that setbacks help protect existing trees and create spaces for additional trees.

What people are worried about is very real, as I said earlier.

And for those reasons, I not only want to...

I not only am going to support this bill, but I want to co-sponsor it and I want to continue to find ways in our permanent zoning legislation to preserve, maintain, and grow tree canopy while we are creating more housing across the city because we need it.

And I know that both work.

Again, I grew up very happy in my apartment building in New York City and I now live in a single family house.

Both can work.

I just feel really strongly that we really need to put not just lip service to we can have both housing and tree canopy.

We need to actually do things toward those goals.

And I want to partner with everyone involved to make sure that we are doing that.

So I support this.

Thank you, Council Member Moore for bringing it forward.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair.

While there's certainly plenty I could say about the subject of setbacks, I will be saving those remarks for when we come to this issue again in the permanent legislation.

And that being said, I will be supporting version two of this amendment for a similar reason as I supported version two of amendment three.

As far as I can tell, this in effect will incentivize greater density by giving better setback flexibility to three plus unit developments.

We need more middle housing in neighborhood residential zones.

And by granting greater flexibility to multi-unit developments from single-family developments, we can build even more.

And so I will be supporting this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Rank.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you, Council Member Moore for sponsoring this amendment.

As I shared with you before the meeting, I will be abstaining today in part because of the number of different versions that we've seen today.

I also wanna clarify, setbacks do not equate to trees.

And that's something that's hard for me because a setback can be paved.

A setback can be used for a whole number of situations, as well as within the tree ordinance, setbacks can be reduced by 50% for saving a tree.

And so when we are looking at a 20-foot setback, that means that it can only be reduced to 10 feet to save that tree.

Granted, if I had the opportunity to change that, I probably would to make it closer to 100% because we need more room for trees.

It's important that we continue this conversation and Council Member Moore, I'm here for it.

So looking forward to the final legislation in the rest of the Select Comprehensive Plan Committee coming to us probably next week.

But for today, I'll be abstaining.

Thanks for everyone's work.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Are there other comments regarding version, wait, Amendment 8, Version 2?

Council Member Moore.

Yeah, I just wanted to say, yes, thank you very much for being willing to co-sponsor this legislation.

To just say, Council Member Rink, for one shining moment there, I was looking at eliminating parking requirements, but that was for another day.

So anyway, thank you all for your comments and support.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Okay, I think we are ready.

I'm gonna be quiet for like five seconds to see if there's any more comments regarding amendment number eight, version two.

Awesome, all right.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

Aye.

Councilmember Sacca.

Aye.

Councilmember Strauss.

Abstain.

Vice Chair Solomon.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed, one abstention.

the bill passes as amend, or sorry, the amendment passes, or no, the bill has been amended to adopt number nine, amendment number nine.

I apologize.

When I wing it, I'm really, oh, eight, eight, there's not nine.

I apologize.

I will repeat that for the record.

The amendment eight is adopted, version two, okay?

Just so we know.

Okay, so now we are gonna take a vote on the bill that has been amended today with all of everyone's amendments.

the work plan, and the thousands of conversations that we've had with each other about the interim legislation and feedback and everything, okay?

So I am, is there any more discussion for the bill as amended?

Okay.

Okay, no final comments.

We can proceed to a final vote on the bill as amended and will the clerk please call the roll on the committee for recommendation that Bill 120969 passes as amended.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Sacca.

Aye.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Vice Chair Solomon.

Aye.

Chair Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries nine in favor, none opposed and the committee recommendation that the bill passes as amended will be sent to the May 27th, 2025 full city council meeting.

With that, thank you everyone.

I wanna thank my colleagues and thank central staff.

You all have done phenomenal, phenomenal work and just thank you all.

And that was only the interim.

So thank you.

We have no other items on the agenda for today.

Do any of my colleagues have any more items of business for today?

Seeing none, this concludes our May 21st meeting.

It is 3.28 p.m.

Our next select committee meeting is Thursday, June 5th, 9.30.

Thursday, June 5th, 9.30.

This is a reminder, just for this meeting, we're only collecting a public comment written for that because we are getting the full briefing of the legislation that has been passed down for that meeting.

And then we'll move on for open public comment periods, moving on after that.

But written public comments for June 5th.

Thank you so much.

No further business.

It's 3.29 p.m.

and this meeting is adjourned.