Land Use Committee Public Hearing 91323

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. G. The September 13th, 2023 meeting of the Land Use Committee will come to order.

It is 2 p.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

We are joined today by Council Member Herbold, who is co-sponsoring Council Bill 120635, which is here for briefing and discussion.

At this time, will the clerk please call the roll.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Vice Chair Morales.

Here.

Chair Strauss?

I am here, want to just double check Council Member Mosqueda is not in the waiting room.

Oh, she is now.

Coming in right now.

Present, thank you Council Member Strauss.

Absolutely.

Five present.

Thank you.

Well, we have a full agenda again today and we are gonna be meeting today and then again on Scrolling down, September 18th, it's a Monday, it's a special meeting, Monday, September 18th at 9.30 a.m.

On today's committee meeting, we have Council Bill 120631, briefing discussion public hearing on increasing flexibility with lodging uses in Belltown as part of the Downtown Activation Plan.

We have Council Bill 120632, briefing discussion public hearing on a Downtown Retail Rezone as part of the Downtown Activation Plan.

We have Council Bill 120622, A briefing discussion and public hearing on the vacant building monitoring program.

We have resolution 32097, briefing and discussion on resolution for transportation impacts in the industrial and maritime zoned areas.

A change from the last time I discussed this, we have a little bit more feedback that we need to walk through and we will vote on it next committee.

So we will briefly just bring it up and close it.

It is important to have it in committee today.

so that the substitute could be attached to the record and in the public domain.

Lastly, maybe most importantly, we will have Council Bill 120 635, a briefing discussion on transportation impact fees.

A month ago or so, I issued a public hearing notice for transportation impact fees with the understanding at that point that the hearing examiner would have reached a final decision by today.

That is not the case.

We have postponed the official public hearing for the impact fees and we will still be receiving public comment today.

Before we begin, I already said that part, so if there's 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, I'll ask you to replay the video in just a second.

With about 40 people signed up right now, we're going to have one minute per commenter, per public comment, and we will do in-person first, followed by online.

If anyone in person decides that they want to speak during the online portion, you can still sign up and we'll take you at the end.

With that, clerk, could you play the video?

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.

Wonderful, thank you for coming.

We have now opened the public comment for today's land use committee meeting.

So again, for this we will be taking comments on the vacant building monitoring program, the transportation resolution and impact fees.

The two items about rezone are held in a public hearing.

So we will get to that in just a moment.

I will be going down this with the folks listed here.

So first up, I have Carolyn Sayer, followed by Reza Marashi, and then Steve Rubstello and Lars Erickson.

That is who I have in.

chambers now, so come on up if you want to line up one after each other so there's not a lot of time in between.

Carolyn, welcome.

It's great to see you today.

Is this the right way?

Yeah.

Hi, my name is Caroline Sayer and I live in Fremont.

Thank you for your service.

I'm here today to ask you to support the concept of transportation impact fees by supporting Council Bill 120635. I moved to Seattle in 1989 and have voted for levies every single time I've had the opportunity, further taxing myself to help support the community I live in.

Having said that, I've had doubts just one time.

And that was in 2015 when the Move Seattle levy was up for vote.

At that time, I was not convinced the city had done enough to bring in enough other resources from the private sector before asking residents to help foot the bill.

Considering transportation needs increased with more new buildings and more employees coming to Seattle to work, it seemed to me only fair that the private sector would take some of the responsibility for growth.

There's plenty of power in Seattle, and I vote for you all.

Caroline?

Caroline?

Thank you.

Yes, it goes quickly.

Please feel free to send in any additional comments.

Reza, great to see you come on up, followed by Steve Rubstello and then Lars Erickson.

Reza.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Raza Mirashi.

I'm Director of Government Affairs for Kilroy Realty Corporation.

I'm here today to urge you to oppose Council Bill 120635, which would introduce a disastrous transportation impact fee program in Seattle.

There are a lot of reasons why transportation impact fees are a bad idea.

One stands out to me above all else.

It will adversely affect both affordable and market rate housing production, thereby further exacerbating the housing shortage that has been repeatedly identified by this council as a top priority to fix.

Private capital and market-based development approaches are necessary to achieve most of the housing beyond the capacity of public funding sources.

Transportation impact fees put all of this at risk, Adding impact fee burdens to new construction will adversely impact the feasibility of those projects.

As you all know, there are local programs that leverage the private market to achieve additional funding for affordable public and non-profit housing development, like the MHA program.

Discouraging or preventing private projects has real consequences.

Thank you.

And when you hear the chime, you've got about 10 seconds left.

Lars, welcome.

Come on up.

Uh, I will quickly then transition onto the online.

We have Pat Foley, Marty Goodman, Ezekiel Lappas is the first three.

Good afternoon, Lars.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lars Erickson on behalf of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.

I ask you to vote yes on council bills one, two, zero, six, three, one.

and 120632. These bills will attract more residents and tourists downtown, making it safer, more affordable, and better able to support increased tourism and population growth in the years ahead.

You are also discussing legislation today that would have the opposite effect.

Council Bill 120635 is the first step in implementing a transportation impact fee program that our city cannot afford.

City data shows that permit applications have dropped dramatically in recent years.

In Q2 of 2020, the city received 5,600 permit applications for residential development.

In Q2 of 2023, they received just 623. Please embrace policies like the Downtown Activation Plan Rezones and reject transportation impact fees.

Now is the time to do everything we can to build more housing of all types in every...

Thank you.

Up next is Pat Foley, followed by Marty Goodman, Ezekiel Lapas, Tejal Pastaki.

You are not present right now.

Natalie Quick, you are not present.

Judy starts with an A, not present.

Pat, I see you're there, and off you take it away at your convenience.

Thanks, Council Member Strauss.

I'm Pat Foley.

My company, Lake Union Partners, is Seattle-based.

We mainly do our neighborhood development.

do a lot of historic preservation, such as the State Hotel at Second Pike.

I'm calling in to speak about opposition to the transportation impact fees.

A couple of reasons, two examples I do like to use.

We've done a large project at 23rd and Union in the central area called Midtown Square.

And I would point you all to an article that was written by Naomi Ishizaka a couple of days ago.

So look that up in Seattle Times.

And what I will tell you is that if the impact fees that are being proposed were in place when we started that project a few years ago, we wouldn't have built that project.

So a social impact project like that would be done with these kind of impact fees.

We just can't take the hit.

There's just no more room.

Secondly, Grand Street Commons was a brownfield type that we cleaned up.

We're bringing in 730 units of mixed income housing.

That would also not be built.

So I appreciate your consideration.

Thank you.

Up next is Marty Goodman, followed by Ezekiel Lopez, Tejal Pustaki.

You're still not present.

Natalie Quick, not present.

Barbara Bernard will be followed and Sarah Jane Siegfried, Steve Zemke.

Well, good afternoon, council members.

My name is Marty Goodman.

I'm a multifamily housing developer with Holland Partner Group.

We've developed hundreds of apartment homes here in Seattle.

We often use the MFTE program.

and we've contributed millions in MHA fees.

I'm speaking today to urge you to oppose Council Member Peterson and Herbold's Transportation Impact Fee Proposal 120635. Given that the council is about to head into budget, this feels very rushed and I would urge the council to take the necessary time to weigh out the policy change to determine potential unexpected consequences.

Our primary concern is the direct impact these high fees will have on abysmal new housing production, and thus, overall affordability.

According to SDCI's housing dashboard, new housing permits are down 93% so far since 2020. Now is not the time to rush into this decision.

I urge you not to support this, and thank you very much for the opportunity.

Thank you.

Up next is Ezekiel Lopez and Mr. G, I believe Judy starts with an A, is listed present on line 24, but not on line seven.

Ezekiel, take it away.

Hi, my name is Ezekiel and I am seven.

Your job is to keep the city healthy.

And here's how you keep the city, um, um, And here is how you keep the city healthy.

Protect trees.

Fantastic.

Ezekiel, I think you have a future in this business.

Come down to City Hall anytime and we'd be happy to give you a tour.

Up next is Natalie Quickknot present, Judy A., followed by Barbara Bernard, Sarah Jane, and then Steve.

Judy, welcome.

There you are, Judy.

Welcome.

Hello.

Hi.

Hi.

Hi, Mr. Strauss.

My name is Judy Apolitis.

I am in support of CB 120635. This only authorizes fees.

And it's really important that council members come together to discuss this.

I am hearing that developers keep talking about affordable housing.

I'm lucky to live in a home, and property taxes keep getting piled on me, and I know developers make tons of money, and they can pay a one-time fee.

This is a draconian thing that so many other cities in Seattle and in Washington state pay, and this seems to be a favor to developers, and this needs to be talked about.

So the least that city council members can do is to support CB12035 so they can have a real debate about this.

We do not have a problem.

Thank you.

Thank you, Judy.

Thank you, Judy.

Up next is Barbara Bernard, followed by Sarah Jane, then Steve Zemke, Richard Ellison.

Reminder, the beep means that you have 10 seconds remaining.

Hi, this is Barbara.

Can you hear me all right?

Yes, we can, Barbara.

Good afternoon.

Great.

I'm calling in support of CB 120635. Seattle's overdue for an impact fee to help us pay for our transportation infrastructure rather than continuing to pile the entire cost burden onto homeowners and renters that are paying property taxes.

It's actually rather odd that Seattle doesn't have a TIF, when we know that 70 other Washington cities do.

And cities across the nation, and all the major cities that I've previously lived in, also collect this important revenue for better infrastructure.

This won't impact growth, because other cities use it, and those cities haven't had any stock in their growth.

Public, non-profit, and low-income housing projects would be exempt from these fees.

So developers' concerns about it impacting the potential for having affordability, that argument is erased if you just make sure that the projects are exempt.

The impact fees could be used to pay for new replacement trees and upgraded rights-of-way in city projects, which is also very important to me.

Thank you, Barbara.

Up next is Sarah Jane Siegfried, Steve Zemke, Richard Ellison, followed by Chris Woodward.

Sarah Jane, welcome.

Hi, thank you, Chair Strauss.

This is Sarah Jane Siegfried, and I'm calling to speak on Council Bill 120635 on transportation impact fees.

The idea of impact fees is that growth pays for growth, and certainly in the case of sidewalks, as you know, I live in District 5 in Lake City.

We have almost no sidewalks.

They've been lacking ever since we were annexed, and anything north of 85th has almost zero walkability.

So when I get off the bus in the winter, in the dark, I'm walking down the street in puddles and mud.

And I'm 74. Imagine if I use a wheelchair, a walker, or I were a mother pushing a stroller.

That's not walkable.

And so the idea of the urban village designation is really an ironic joke.

Very sad.

So we need sidewalks.

I just found that recently.

at developers are not responsible for building any sidewalks in single.

Thank you, Sarah Jane.

Up next is Steve Zemke, followed by Richard Ellison, Megan, sorry, Chris Woodward, and Dan McKisson.

Steve, welcome.

Steve Rubistello, did I skip you?

My goodness, I'm sorry.

Would you like to go right now?

It seems that Steve Zemke is having a moment.

I am sorry.

That was completely my mistake.

For the record and for the public, this is Steve Rubstell, the benevolent leader of Fremont, formerly Greenlink.

Welcome, Steve.

Not leader, but resident of Fremont, one of many.

We have a number of things on the agenda today, and We still don't really remember.

A few years ago, almost a decade ago, you declared an emergency on housing.

So on the first couple items, I think you ought to start looking and making sure that you don't have short term.

Downtown is probably a good place to increase density, but short term housing has been a real enemy of real housing.

And I always suggest that you folks never really want to do is let's take a look at counting the number of lower cost rental units that are being destroyed in the wide development plan you have, because building your way out alone is not working.

Now, when we come to the last item, because my time is going rather rapidly, I think that impact fees are good.

Seattle has resisted them.

Most other cities have not.

Thank you, Mr. Rubstello.

Always a pleasure to see you.

With that, Steve Zemke is up next.

Do we have Steve Zemke with us?

Steve Zemke, I see you are here.

Press star six to unmute.

There you are.

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

Steve Zemke speaking for TREPAC and Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest.

We support Council Bill 120635. As already noted 70 other cities in the state have this transportation impact fee.

This legislation doesn't require it be done but it puts it in as a possibility for future funding.

We believe that growth should pay for growth not put it on existing taxpayers.

Funds can be used for sidewalks to reach public transit schools and other critical destinations, could be used for planting trees to help keep sidewalks and are walkable.

Please, please support this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Zemke.

Up next is Mr. Richard Ellison, followed by Chris Woodward, Dan McKisson, and then Bob.

This is Richard Ellison.

Hi, Richard.

Hello, uh, calling support of CB1.

I've got the plan change and the transportation option for impact fees.

If we're trying to add so much new housing, we need to support the transportation infrastructure.

Now, as building housing, not many years later, new dollars must pay their fair share of supporting transportation improvements needed.

So transportation is not the choking point in our economy and quality of living.

Seattle is long and decades overdue for impact fees to help us pay for our transportation infrastructure.

The impact fees are needed to help fix the potholed streets, lack of sidewalks, bike lanes, et cetera, as we densify the city to support the projected new growth.

Public, non-profit, and low-income housing projects should and would be exempt from these fees.

But why should current renters and homeowners pay for all of the needs of transportation maintenance and improvements rather than new developments contributing their honest proportional share?

Why are scattered developers privileged to pay no impact fees when over 70 other Washington state cities collect this revenue to support the church?

Thank you, Richard.

Up next is Chris Woodward, followed by Dan McKissin, Bobby Tan, Irene Wall, Sandy Shetler.

Chris, good afternoon.

Hey, good afternoon Council Members.

My name is Chris Woodward.

I'm with the Alliance for Pioneer Square providing testimony regarding Council Bill 120635. Based on some brief conversations we've had with stakeholders, we'd like to see the city have more time for community engagement and feedback before this legislation moves forward.

We've heard that this fee may negatively impact development in our district for commercial and residential uses.

We're concerned this legislation would have an inequitable impact on small developers and property owners in Pioneer Square who have less access to capital.

We also understand this funding would be used for new transportation projects, which while critical, fail to address the needs of districts like ours.

Current critical needs in our neighborhood are related to maintenance and upkeep of our aging transportation infrastructure.

So we recommend that this committee further engage the community to better understand how the legislation will affect various neighborhoods and organizations before moving forward with it.

Thank you, Chris.

Up next is Dan McKissin, followed by Bobby Tan, Irene Wall, Sandy Shetler, Jerry Poore, Deb Barker, Suzanne Grant, Nicholas Wilkins, and Julia Shetler is in there as well.

Dan, welcome.

Greetings chairman Strauss and committee members.

I'm Dan McKissick representing LW local 19. And we ask that committee members support resolution 3 to 3 to 0, 9, 7. This resolution complements a recently passed industrial and legislation.

This resolution also recognizes and addresses the unique needs of freight movement in our manufacturing industrial centers have passed this resolution will make freight movement safer for all modes of transportation while also addressing the unique needs of freight moving through our city.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Dan.

Up next is Bobbie Ton, Irene Wall, Sandy Shetler, Jerry Poore, Julia Shetler, Deb Barker, Suzanne Grant, and Nicholas Wilkins.

Welcome, Bobbie.

Hi, this is Bobbie Ton.

And I'm speaking in support of Council Bill 120635. I know this is a bill that's amending the city comprehensive plan to include, not remove anything, but to include a transportation impact fee program that will not only support all modes of transportation and assist owners and renters to help soften their property taxes and can be used to plant new and replacement trees that are needed when streets and neighborhoods are upgraded.

As we all know, our city, our country, our world is overloaded by major threats to our call.

Thank you, Bobby.

And for everyone who has or will be giving public testimony that a minute is not enough time, please do send your comments in by written form to myself and the Land Use Committee.

Up next is Irene Wall, followed by Sandy Shetler, Jerry Poore, Julia Shetler.

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

Take it away at your convenience.

Thank you.

Council members.

I favor this proposed transportation impact fee comp plan amendment as the first step to ensure consideration of this needed funding source with the details of implementation to be worked out in the near future.

Continued reliance on increasing special levies is putting pressure on housing affordability in Seattle as the low and moderate income property owners bear an unfair burden of paying for transportation impacts largely generated by growth.

Arguments against this proposal are crocodile tears shed by those who benefit most from developing million-dollar townhouses that are replacing modest family homes needed by families throughout the city.

When the developers are willing to share the financial pro formas they create for their LLC investors, then we can see who is making the most money from development and how this is impacting housing affordability.

Working out the details should also be done in conjunction with the MFTE program.

Thank you, Irene.

Up next is Sandy Shetler, followed by Jerry Poore, and then Julia Shetler.

Welcome.

Great.

Hi.

Hi.

Hi, Dan and committee members.

Thank you for working on this.

I do support the transportation impact fees.

On July 25th, a Post Alley reporter quoted Seattle developer August Bukowski who said I need to double my money every three years or pass on a project.

Those of us who invest only in our 401Ks have to wait a lot longer than three years to double our money.

Seventy other Washington cities already have these fees and they have not stifled housing development.

Other callers I've heard today have said that these fees will affect affordable housing but all affordable housing is exempt in this bill.

So when developers are doubling their money every three years it's okay to ask for a small percentage to go toward transportation improvements that make Seattle more walkable and accessible.

Thanks.

Thank you Sandy.

And for the public's awareness both Natalie Quick and Ian Warner are not present.

If you know them or if they are having trouble getting in now is the time.

as we only have a few speakers left.

With that, Jerry Poore, followed by Julia Shetler, Deb Barker, Suzanne Grant, and then Nicholas Wilkins is our last speaker.

Welcome, Jerry.

Thank you so much.

Geraldine Poore, Port of Seattle, supporting Resolution 32097. Council Member Strauss, thank you for your leadership on this important companion piece to the industrial lands policy and zoning package.

We appreciate your recognition that freight mobility is a crucial component as the city considers future development in the manufacturing and industrial centers.

It's critical to our industries to ensure that the heavy haul network remains whole.

Thank you, and we urge adoption of Resolution 3297.

097. Thank you.

Up next is Julia Shetler, followed by Deb Barker, Suzanne Grant, and then Nicholas Wilkins.

Julia, I see you're here.

Star 6 to unmute.

see you're unmuted take it away at your convenience.

Hi great thank you.

Transportation impact fees are a pragmatic and progressive way to make Seattle more livable.

Lots of developers today have called in to say that this is an undue burden on developers and will squelch affordable housing.

This could not be farther from the truth.

Firstly capital expenses of building homes such as government fees do not affect the price of housing.

This was proven in the 2021 Seattle Hearing Examiner ruling on the March 2022 tree ordinance.

Secondly even if this were the case low income public and non-profit housing would be exempt from transportation impact fees.

These fees would only affect market rate housing which typically goes for around a million dollars each.

Lastly even if these fees were an issue this bill wouldn't affect it.

This bill is just to amend the comprehensive plan for a future bill to add transportation impact fees to be added.

I urge you to vote in favor of transportation impact fees being added to the comprehensive plan as an amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Julia.

Up next is Deb Barker, Suzanne Grant, and then Nicholas Wilkins.

Deb, I see you're here.

Star six to unmute.

Deb Barker, we're ready for you if you can press star six.

Mr. G, let's bring up Suzanne Grant while we are waiting for Deb.

Suzanne Grant, I see you're here.

Star six to unmute.

Hello, Suzanne Grant here.

City Council members should support not block CB 120635. The cost to provide infrastructure for new real estate development should be borne in part by those new projects.

Growth should pay for growth, rather than piling the entire cost burden on homeowners and renters paying property taxes.

Impact fees do not interfere with growth.

Public, non-profit, and low-income housing projects would be exempt.

Impact fees could be used to help pay for new or replacement trees in upgraded rights-of-way.

Diane Strauss, you promised to amend the tree ordinance after you and Master Builders passed it.

You are the only person now who can enable Bill TMP 9902 to move forward.

Please allow the bill to be on the introduction and referral calendar on Tuesday, September 19th.

Say yes to one of the options this week.

Otherwise, we'll assume that you are feeling satisfied with the number of mature and exceptional trees that have been murdered in our city recently.

Thank you.

Thank you, Suzanne.

Always great to hear from you.

Up next is Nicholas.

Oh, Deb Barker.

Wonderful.

Welcome.

Take it away.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Deb Barker here.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Guess what?

Each developer you've heard from today who was decried those shifts because the sky would fall on them has actually walked into other cities and asked this question.

What are my transportation impact fees?

Just, I haven't done it in Seattle.

So Seattle, here's your chance to take control of transportation costs by implementing traffic impact fees.

Support Council Bill 120635. Why did Seattle get the benefit of transportation impact fees that so many other cities are using?

Adopt transportation impact fees, and you know what?

The sky won't fall on Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you, Deb.

Up next is Nicholas Wilkins.

Please be advised that Nicholas Wilkins has signed up for the public hearing.

Oh Thank you very much.

Mr. G. I'm gonna give it just another minute for Ian Warner and Who else were we waiting for Natalie quick Mr. G. Can you confirm they are not in the waiting room?

Affirmative Public comment registrants marked not present are not present.

OK.

Well, here we go.

That is the end of our public comment registrants, I guess.

With that, we're going to close our public comment for today.

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

Our first item of business today is briefing discussion and public hearing on Council Bill 120631, an increase in flexibility for lodging uses in one area in the Belltown neighborhood.

Clerk, will you please read the item into the record?

Item 1, Council Bill 120631, Beltown Zoning Amendment for Lodging Use Flexibility for Briefing, Discussion, and Public Hearing.

Thank you very much.

This proposed legislation would increase flexibility for lodging uses in the downtown mixed residential zone within the Beltown neighborhood, treating lodging uses in the same way that residential uses are regulated in the zone by exempting lodging from a chargeable floor area.

All other standards, including controlling height, bulk scale of the development, would remain unchanged.

The amendment is a text amendment only, no changes.

The zoning map is required.

This zoning area is, I'll let.

Our team described the area in which this covers.

The legislation is part of the downtown activation plan by Mayor Harrell and will encourage economic development.

Belltown compromises a mix of commercial office, residential and ground floor retail, By expanding hospitality use within the downtown mixed residential zone creates a consistent use within the general intent of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, describing the zone as a predominantly residential area with neighborhoods serving non-residential uses.

Expanding hotel uses in this zone will contribute to an enhanced neighborhood vitality and increased economic recovery.

With that, we have Lish Whitson from Council Central staff, as well as Jeff Wendland.

And Rawan, is this yours?

Yes, Rawan Hassan.

Wonderful.

And Rawan is going to be leading us from Office of Planning and Community Development.

With that, I don't know, Lish or Rawan, whoever wants to take lead.

After this short presentation, we will take questions from colleagues if you choose.

We will then open the public hearing.

Rawan, welcome.

Mayor Harrell released the downtown activation plan this June to support the downtown recovery.

These two legislative items, this like one legislative item is part of many actions that the city has taken to support the downtown activation plan.

These actions include direct funds and programmatic action.

These are, on this slide, are like potential or proposed legislative items that would need council approval, including the built town lodging use flexibility.

This legislation is just a text amendment.

It does not propose any changes to the zoning map and it only applies to the downtown mixed residential slash residential 95 slash 65 zone.

And this legislation would exempt the lodging use from floor area ratio requirements, which is currently have a limit of 1.5.

So it will basically treat the lodging use the same way it treats residential uses like regulation in the zone.

This legislation will have no changes to all other standards like height, bulk, and scale of development in the zone.

And this flexibility is only applicable to new development, so it won't be applicable to convergence from existing residential uses.

Tourism and lodging is doing great in downtown Seattle, especially after the pandemic, compared to other uses like retail and commercial office uses.

This summer, the hotel occupancy rate exceeds 90%, which was amongst the highest in the U.S. cities, and it's expecting to even do better in 2024. So the purpose of this legislation is first to encourage investments, So by this legislation, we would encourage one or more new infill development projects within the area of the legislation.

Second, it would support street activation since hotel visitors usually walk around their place of stay and support local businesses.

And lastly, support the community.

Members of Bealtown community organizations specifically requested this proposed change to encourage and fill development in key sites of the area that the legislation affects.

So this red boundary is the boundaries of the DMR slash R zone, which the legislation would apply to.

And these nine lots are currently parking lots, and these would be affected by this legislation.

Number one lot has a proposed building and with current regulation, this building can only have half of it as hotel and the second half would be residential use.

But with this legislation would allow the entirety of this building to be a hotel.

And that's the end of the presentation.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Rowan.

Something that speaks to me about this piece of legislation is our desire to have more people downtown.

It's no secret to anyone that I really want more residential downtown.

This has been a long, long time desire pre-pandemic, pre-downtown activation plan, been a long time desire, along with the downtown school, for anyone who's listening.

and has an interest in the downtown school.

While a hotel might not assist a downtown school, it will accomplish a very similar goal to having residential units downtown because it creates an after 5 p.m.

crowd, it creates a before 9 a.m.

crowd, and it adds people to our downtown core.

I'm really excited about this legislation.

Wish, do you have thoughts to share on this?

Just wanted to point out sort of an unusual aspect of this proposal.

It proposes to exempt a hotel floor area from our floor area ratio requirements.

The effect of that would be to mean that hotel development in this zone would not need to participate in the downtown incentive zoning program that applies to hotels being built in other parts of downtown Seattle.

The incentive zoning program includes requirements that projects either acquire additional floor area through transfers of development rights from historic landmarks or contribute to the development of child care through the downtown housing and child care bonus programs.

The downtown code does exempt a few other types of uses from the floor area ratio requirements and the incentive zoning program requirements, but they're generally public serving uses.

Child care centers, human services uses, museums, and performing arts theaters are all exempt from the floor area ratio limits.

There is another approach that could be taken, one that's used in a number of other downtown zones, which would be to apply a higher floor area ratio limit to hotels.

For example, in one of the international district mixed zones, hotels are granted six FAR, whereas other types of uses are granted three FAR.

You could use a similar approach in Belltown.

That's very helpful, Lish.

And I realized in my comments, I stole a lot of Rowan's statements.

Sorry for doing that.

I cribbed your notes.

What I didn't crib was the zone.

Can you help me understand exactly how expansive this is?

There we are.

So it seems as if there are really only, do I see 11 properties, nine, nine properties here?

Yeah, nine properties that is like infield does not have development currently are parking lots.

And since this legislation won't apply to convergence, so these are the most affected lots in that zone by this legislation.

Fantastic.

And so this is a very limited scope of a bill.

Jeff, welcome.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

I'd just like to add one thing in response to Lisha's comments, which are correct.

But I just want to make sure this doesn't come across as a characterization that hotel development would not contribute substantially to our city's programs.

So under this proposal, that whole hotel would still contribute under the MHA commercial program, which actually has a slightly higher contribution amount than the residential program.

Lish's statement is still accurate that under this proposal, a hotel development would not contribute towards what's typically done as a contribution towards childcare.

But that amount is much smaller than what the city would be getting from the MHA commercial program.

So I just wanted to clarify that a hotel under this proposal would still contribute substantially under the MHAC program.

Very helpful, Jeff.

Very helpful, Lish.

Rowan, wonderful presentation.

Colleagues, are there any questions at this time?

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm generally supportive of this and certainly want to support the most vital and sensible elements of the Mayor's Downtown Activation Plan.

Thank you for noting that there's support that you heard from people who live in Belltown for this.

It's my understanding there was a State Environmental Policy Act analysis done for this proposal, a SEPA analysis, is that correct?

That's correct.

The reason I ask, a couple of reasons.

That information I don't think is attached to the council bill.

You know, we upload materials in our online legislative system, Legistar, and having those documents would be really helpful because then the public could see that, they could see what the SEPA checklist said.

Sounds like there was a determination of non-significance, which is good for people to know.

And then if there's a comment period for that, they could see what the comments were, that there were no negative comments.

I think it's just.

helpful for transparency purposes to start.

This is more of a global issue that we might want to start attaching some of the basic SIPA documents.

Because it's hard to find them if you're just searching by address or trying to know the project name.

It's hard to find those.

So attaching those SIPA documents would be really helpful.

There's lots of good news here for this one.

Determination of non-significance, no negative comments.

So do we know if there's a hotel or developer already attached to this project?

Like, are we doing this for a specific hotel chain or developer, or it's just to be determined?

There is a project that's partially through the permitting process, which is that site in red indicated here.

It's not clear if that project would continue.

We haven't had direct communication with that applicant necessarily to see how this would affect them, but we know that that's one that's in process.

So could you let us know who that is just for transparency purposes?

Are you able to do that?

Well, it's the image.

Actually, if you flip it around, please.

Jeff, I'm going to give you another option here, which is that this will come back before committee again on the 18th.

All permit information is accessible online.

in the public domain.

So, I'll let the two of you work out how you want to...

Well, I'm...

Chair, I'm asking a question.

If you know the answer, I'd love to hear it, and I'm sure the public would, too, so they don't have to then go search these websites.

I think that's what I'm trying to get at, is we want to get more information about who's potentially benefiting to daylight that.

Sure.

I mean, Councilmember, you also have access to the public data, so if you'd like to look it up and share it with the committee, you're welcome to.

So can we try to get an answer?

OK.

Sure.

So the image that you're looking at is from a design review packet.

And the building in the center here doesn't exist today.

It's one that was in the permitting process when this legislation was drafted.

So that's an image of it.

And I don't know the specifics of the company you know, or the entities behind it.

The information we got was from the permitting documents.

So that's the best I can give you today at this time.

So maybe before we vote on it, it'd be good to know that.

And that's the purpose of my standard operating procedure in this committee, where we have items before the committee twice so that we don't have to put people on the spot.

so that we can always come back and there's always time to have this discussion.

And it's my understanding with the image that's before the committee right now, that under current code, only half of that building would be allowed to be used for hotel.

Under the code change, it could be the entire building.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Yeah.

And if you could slide back, Council Member Peterson, do you have further questions?

I was going to go back to the...

Thank you.

No, no further questions.

You know, a decade ago, I had the distinct opportunity to pop chocolate popcorn at the Cinerama.

And it was at the same time that the parking lot was under development of the Cinerama.

And we had guests coming that were very upset that the parking lot was gone because it was harder for them to find parking to attend the Cinerama.

And what we also found is that as soon as that building turned its lights on and there was ground floor activation there, that the neighborhood became immensely more lively.

And when I see this map and I see these other eight parking lots, downtown and belltown, that is immediately the story that comes to mind, that we have the opportunity to either have vacant blank slates of land in our downtown core, or we have the opportunity for a vibrant streetscape.

And I think that that's what this bill gets at.

Councilmember Nelson, any questions today?

Basically, just that I don't know if this is a question, but I'm taking from the comments that were already provided that the Belltown community is in support of this, which would be my first question ever.

But, you know, for me, hotels have always occupied a sort of an in-between category between residential and office.

I mean, the layout is more like residential.

Obviously, people sleep there.

You know, they're subject to higher fees, et cetera, like commercial, and we all know what's happening to commercial vacancy rates.

And so anything to add life to the street and vibrancy to the neighborhood, I'm inclined to support.

Wonderful.

Council Member, Vice Chair Morales, I see you there.

Do you have any questions?

notes are just showing in.

Wonderful.

I love it.

With that, with no further questions on this, I am going to open the public comment.

We've already played the video.

We're not going to play the video again.

The takeaway from the video is please be nice.

At this time, we are going to open the public hearing on Council Bill 120-631 is now open.

We will begin with the first speaker on the list.

I'm going to again do in-person first and then online.

I have benevolent resident Steve Rubstello, followed by Tom Graf, followed by Lars Eriksson, and then we will move online to...

I think that's it.

Everyone else is here for the next one.

May I modify my last comment?

Sure.

Inclined in support, of course, after hearing from the community.

Of course, of course.

Wonderful.

Steve, welcome.

Short-term housing is not, lodging is not going to help with the long-term housing problem in Seattle.

Right now, we're having real problems with transit.

And while you may not like parking lots, many businesses are really dependent upon people being able to get there.

And I suspect as these lots go away, you're going to be then pressed to have a city built structure because people don't all come downtown in our buses right now.

In case you haven't noticed, the buses right now are finding a certain amount of drugs.

We're finding we have a very small police force, even for Seattle, which has never been highly policed.

And it would be a good idea to take a look at what the ramifications will be.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Rubstello.

Up next is Mr. Tom Graf.

Welcome, Tom.

Great to see you, followed by Lars Erickson.

Good afternoon, Tom.

Thank you, Councilman Strauss, and thank you, Councilman, for being present.

It's very nice to see you present and I have been working on this rezone probably for a year.

The vitality of Belltown needs a lift.

I know personally from commercial real estate that hotels actually do more for restaurant and bars than any other use.

They also provide a level of security at night that we don't get in residential buildings.

This part of Belltown is strictly residentially zoned.

There is a small FAR allowed for office and a hotel right now, and we would be doing this rezone to allow for a full building of a hotel.

We have a lot of residential in Belton.

We have 20,000.

We have eight buildings under construction.

We need more hotels to kind of provide more vitality during the day.

The Belton community absolutely supports us across the board, business, residents, and

Thank you, Mr. Graff.

Up next is Lars Erickson.

I do not see Lars with us.

He did share some comments during public comment regarding this.

With that, not double checking that everyone else is here for the next bill.

Nope, nope, nope.

With that, the public hearing is now closed for Council Bill 120631. With that, I just want to check with colleagues.

Any final questions, comments, concerns?

Not at this time.

We'll get your question answered, Council Member Peterson.

Lish, Jeff Rawan, any final thoughts before we move on to the next item?

Wonderful well we will be back with this on September 18th at 9 30 a.m.

for a final vote.

Thank you.

Up next same team agenda item number two which is briefing discussion and public hearing on council bill 120632 which will rezone parts of downtown.

Clerk will you please read the short title onto the record.

Item 2, Council Bill 120632, Downtown Retail Rezone for briefing, discussion, and public hearing.

Thank you.

We're going to use the same process where we will have a brief presentation, questions, comments, concerns from colleagues, and then open the public hearing.

This legislation would rezone 11 parcels generally located along 3rd Avenue.

I'll let the team share the exact locations here.

The purpose of the bill is increase the livability and vitality of blocks that are centrally located within downtown.

Increase the residential units within the center of downtown to draw more tenants, activate street-level retail, bring more livable workable play ability to play, help support the downtown school and and encourage new investment that can upgrade the physical environment.

I'm going to be bringing two amendments to this legislation at the September 18th Special Land Use Committee meeting.

The first amendment is a technical amendment to update the zoning map in the Seattle Municipal Code to reflect the changes in the downtown retail core boundaries included within this bill.

The second amendment will increase the maximum podium height for residential units from 65 feet to 85 feet.

This legislation is also part of the Mayor's Downtown Activation Plan and will encourage economic development in the area.

We've got Lish Whitson from Council Central Staff, Rawan and Jeff from Office of Planning and Community Development.

I'll pass it over to the committee table to take it from here.

Might need to pull the mic a little closer.

This legislative item is also part of the actions that the city has taken to support the downtown activation plan.

The downtown retail core zoning amendment will amend or proposing to amend the zoning map to rezone parts of the downtown retail core along 3rd Avenue to downtown mixed commercial zone.

And it will have a text amendment to apply a 60 feet tower spacing requirement to the proposed zone.

And it will increase the bodium height from 65 to 85 feet and a corresponding 20 feet increase in allowed residential tower height.

And that would be to amplify incentives for school facilities in downtown.

So the area to be rezoned is from the alley between 2nd and 3rd Avenue, from Stewart Street north till Union Street south, and some parcels on the other side of the 3rd Avenue.

So to give you a context, we're talking here north where the Macy's Garage at, the former Abercrombie & Fitch, which is across the street from Westlake Park, and the Milporn Tower in the middle where Walgreen is, and on the far south where Wild Ginger is.

So the purpose of this legislation is to encourage investments.

So currently in the downtown retail core zone, we are not seeing a lot of new development while in the downtown mixed commercial zone, there is numerous residential towers being built.

So this change would encourage a large scale investments and developments on few key sites, and that would improve the physical environment, especially around the Third Avenue area.

Second, it will add residential density to downtown, so hundreds of added residents would bring more presence, support local businesses to downtown, and that's a strategy to soften the commercial office market in the downtown.

And lastly, it will incentivize visibility for downtown school.

So having a downtown school is a policy that the city has and its partners and this legislation would strengthen existing code incentives for a major like new development to like include a custom built school in the downtown.

So in this slide, we are seeing two examples of what kind of development we currently see in the DRC zone compared to the DMC zone.

So on the left, this small building is what typically we see in proposed development in DRC.

So they're typically mid-scale mixed-use buildings with a maximum 170 feet of height and maximum six-floor area ratio.

On the other hand, in the DMC zone, we see typically tall cylinder floor plate residential towers with maximum 440 feet of height, maximum eight commercial floor area ratio, and we see these examples in Biltown and any triangle.

That's the end of the presentation.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Mr. Whitson.

Yeah, just a couple of points.

The downtown retail core zone was set up as a preservation zone to support and enhance the retail core of the city, the area with the largest concentration of large retail stores, for example Nordstrom or the Pacific Place Mall.

And the zoning was set up to do that.

It's an area where a large number of amazing terracotta structures were built in the 1920s.

The code calls out significant facades for a number of different properties in the rezone area.

And the downtown retail...

core zoning requires that those facades be preserved with redevelopment.

The council should consider whether or not to continue to require those facades to be retained even after they are rezoned.

I would like to point out that this is also a key transit and pedestrian node, one of the two major crossroads in the city where multiple transit facilities meet.

And as development occurs in the area, the city needs to be really careful about maintaining a pedestrian environment that's still welcoming to people who need to use transit.

who come to the area to shop because redevelopment will cause impacts to the streetscape in that area and it's a sensitive area and needs people there undertaking positive activities.

Thank you.

I mean, that's a point really well taken, which is I'm looking at slide four with the majority of this rezone happening on the west side of the street and on Pike and Pine, it happens on both.

And so if redevelopment was occurring on both sides of the street at the same time at Pike and Pine, I won't make us almost live joke about is it Pike or is it Pine.

Guess that's the joke, it's not very funny.

But I mean, point well taken is that if both sides of third are under construction, that could create some difficulties.

I know that SDOT has a team that looks specifically at this to make sure that we can avoid these types of implications.

And thank you very much for raising it, because it is a serious consideration.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Lish, for your excellent memo on this proposal.

I would encourage the public to read this.

It's only seven pages, really well done.

Trying to just understand the big picture here of the activation plan.

Some of the elements of the activation plan seem to call for sort of a disruption initially of the construction.

So you've got two to three years of construction happening.

And I'm just a little bit concerned about is that going to have less activation when there's this construction going on.

I am sensitive, since I've got SDOT on my committee, I do hear complaints about when there's construction going on both sides of the street and the sidewalks are closed off both sides of the street.

That happens in the university district a lot.

I appreciate there is somebody at SDOT who tries to coordinate that, so maybe looking at some of the recitals of the bill just to lift up the fact that we want SDOT involved in this in a sensitive way, to be sensitive to pedestrian access, access to businesses that are already there.

consulting with disability rights organizations just to make sure that if there is construction on both sides, which this map is showing, could certainly happen.

I also want to, it sounds like we'll be voting on this at September 18th meeting.

So, similar to my question on the previous item, I would like to know, since there are only about a dozen parcels, it would be good, I think, just for public transparency to know who owns these parcels because it seems like they would be getting substantial financial benefit from this very targeted up zone.

And so, just sort of daylighting who those people are so that we know.

It could be a list just attached to the record.

There's been talk about the incentive for a school.

Is there an actual proposal from Seattle Public Schools for that?

I know there are some schools downtown, but I know there is a desire to have another.

big one downtown, although the school district seems to be consolidating or shrinking their footprint due to budget concerns.

I just didn't know if there was a proposal on the table from Seattle Public Schools.

I didn't want to mislead the public thinking, like, there's imminently going to be a school here because of this.

So I guess that's for staff, department staff.

Would you like an answer to that?

About the schools.

No specific proposal or plan for a downtown a downtown school from public schools at this point.

This would just make it, strengthen the incentive for that to potentially happen sometime in the future.

Okay, thank you.

And last comment, the memo raises about the historic facades of some of the buildings.

And the memo mentions the idea, I think, page six about might there be a way to preserve some of the more significant facades in conjunction with the real estate development.

I'd be interested in exploring that.

I know we don't have much time between now and the 18th, but I can work with central staff and department staff.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

And again, the intent of this bill is to take a vestige from the time where big retail, downtown retail was the way that you activated downtown.

And with the likes of homegrown Amazon and others, online shopping is much more prevalent than it was when these buildings were originally built.

And so being able to make those changes with our land use code as well to reflect the change in a hundred years of how downtown operates.

I could respond to that if you want.

That's your choice.

I mean, I'll also just share with, you know, the downtown school, it has been, gosh, I don't know, 15, maybe 20 years of us trying to work with the Seattle Public Schools to get a downtown school.

It has been a, a desire by many for a very long time and any opportunity.

And I believe that there was some of this contained within the memorandum of understanding with Seattle Center, with the Memorial Stadium and others, as well as there is a site at the Belltown portal, the Battery Street Tunnel portal, where all of this work to as much as we can encourage that downtown school is important.

I'm not here to debate you, Mr. Peterson, but if you'd like to respond, you're more than welcome to.

Thank You chair Strauss, I'm just not sure why these particular blocks are the are the magic blocks And of Seattle Public Schools doesn't have an actual proposal.

I'd rather you know, work with them on an actual site if we're gonna up zone.

So that's why I think it's important to daylight who the owners are of these parcels, who's benefiting, and maybe it'll just be a win-win that they get these up zones and that the area becomes more active, but it'd be good to have that information out there.

Thank you.

Well said, Council Member.

Vice Chair Morales.

Oh, thank you.

Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the questions from council member Peterson.

I do think, as you said, share folks have been asking about a school in downtown for a very long time.

We've also been talking about changing.

Increasing residential house units in downtown for a while, because we know that the nature of downtown's is is changing.

And so, you know, I think there's a lot of elements here that we can be.

Really inspired by and really thoughtful about as we, as we continue to think about what the future of a downtown is, and I think creating more of a residential neighborhood in downtown makes a lot of sense.

So I think a lot of this is is moving in the right direction.

And I do have questions about these particular sites and I'm, I want to refer to the determination of non significance if I might for the folks there and just kind of.

Clarify.

really for the viewing public a few things.

The determination, if I'm reading it correctly, there's an estimate that there would be 600 to 1,200 homes and that most of them it is expected would be new market rate construction.

Is that right?

Correct.

And so presumably then most of these would be available to households at or above 100% AMI?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

So part of what I'm trying to understand is, you know, if that is the case, then we're looking at, you know, generating 2 to 400,000 a year, maybe for affordable housing, given the the.

Restrictions and the intent here in construction.

And I think what I am concerned about.

Is that, you know, we are creating.

More expensive, exclusive housing downtown.

You know, this is going to make.

The downtown area, it's not going to it's not going to do much to help us with the affordability issues that we have in the city.

And so what I fear about that is that, and it's certainly not going to fix some of the issues that we have on.

3rd Avenue around, you know, how it might disrupt the transit corridor.

So, I, you know, my fear is that it's really going to push some of the challenges that we're seeing on 3rd Avenue somewhere else.

Um, and, you know, we have a real opportunity here to turn this into an active, vibrant part of downtown and I would be eager to support a bill that promotes.

Promotes that.

Promotes those goals and those principles, and that is really embracing equitable development.

I will say that I fear these kinds of high end units.

If that's what we are anticipating, there might just be used for speculation and sit vacant.

Instead of actually contributing to housing, we know that that scenario has happened in the city in the past.

It's happened in other parts of the city.

And so I'm really, I'm really just.

I think we should be cautious about creating this.

of the downtown activation even the temporary activation of vacant space, I think is really important.

And I'm glad that we are doing some of that work, um, because we all know that street activation is important to the vibrancy and the safety of having more eyes on the street.

Um, this particular bill though, the way it's crafted right now, I fear that, um, it is not really serving the goals of working people in Seattle.

And I think that needs to be, uh, contemplated as we move forward.

So I'm, I am, uh, Interested in a continued conversation, but, um, uh, look forward to.

How we might craft something a little differently given the short timeframe.

I understand that's a challenge, but really, uh, uh, look forward to working with.

Thank you vice chair.

I might I might take I think important line of questions that you had right there and the affordability in particular because if this I think as if opcd whether you have the information ready for right now I think more important than what councilmember peterson was alluding to to actually know what's built today and what potential redevelopment there could be because I know that There are existing buildings there today, right?

And I know that just because we create a rezone does not require redevelopment.

And so we don't necessarily know how many new units of market rate housing will go in and if those buildings will use MFTE exemptions to have some of those units be lower or if they will use on-site performance for mandatory housing affordability.

And the question that I'm leading you towards here, and if you don't have the information here today, I'm happy to take it next week because I don't like to put people on the spot, which is How much MHA, what is the realm of MHA payments that we would receive here or is it exempt?

It is, development would absolutely contribute to affordable housing through MHA here.

either through payment or performance on site.

Typically downtown we mostly see payment.

We did provide an estimate in the materials of 4.2 to 8.4 million towards affordable housing through MHA.

All of that money would go to fund whole new buildings of affordable housing through the Office of Housing.

And downtown has a very high concentration of supported and affordable housing from those sources.

So basically in the materials, OPCD communicated that, you know, it's not a surprise that most new construction serves, you know, moderate and high income households.

That also provides the benefit of just increasing our overall housing supply, which we need to do as well.

And that takes pressure off of, price pressure off rents for other housing in the market.

So it's all connected.

There's definitely pros and cons, but the development would certainly contribute directly to affordable housing through MHA.

Thank you, Jeff, and thank you for having that statistic off the top of your head or in your memo.

What is important for me, just doing back of the envelope math with a family affordable housing tower in Ballard, eight stories, about $9 million.

And so just doing back of the envelope math here is to receive full MHA payment.

That means 264 one-bedroom units or 88 three-bedroom units.

And so Councilmember Morales, absolutely hear you on your questions.

I also just raise that market rate does contribute to affordable housing.

Yeah, no, I appreciate that.

And I think the only point I'm trying to make here is that given that 4.2 to 8.4 million would be generated, that's over a 20-year time span.

And so what we're really talking about is about $300,000 or about 20, 30 units over the course of that 30 years from the revenue that's generated.

So it is not nothing, but it's also not a significant contribution.

And that's the point I wanted to make.

And Councilmember, I won't debate you here, but I think that speaks more to the issues regarding mandatory housing affordability as compared to a rezone.

But you and I can keep talking offline.

I appreciate your comments here.

Councilmember Nelson, any thoughts here?

There will be a public hearing, correct?

That's where we're up next.

Do you want to save until after the public hearing?

All right, we'll save Council Member Nelson's comments until after the public hearing.

With that, we will open the public comment, public hearing on Council Bill 120632. That public hearing is now open.

I'm going to do in-person first.

Newt, you're up first.

And then we've got Newt Ringen.

Benevolent resident Steve Rubstello, Lars Erickson already spoke in his earlier comments.

We have Richard Showbill, Sharon Lee, and Rick Yoder online.

We have Megan Cruz, Ed Markand, and Nicholas Wilkins.

Newt, welcome.

Great to see you.

Thank you.

I'm Knut Ringen.

Hang on.

The microphone's doing something weird.

Maybe either pull it closer or...

Does that work?

It's on?

Yeah.

Maybe try pull it a little closer.

Sorry.

Try.

Try this other one.

Try the other microphone.

Sorry about that.

We want to make sure we get your comments, so.

Oh, it's very important.

Yeah.

Does that work?

Hard to tell.

Here, I'll turn it up.

OK, try one more time.

Want to try again?

Still not?

It's not working.

Want to go look to see if the button's pushed or something?

You want to go check to see if the button's pushed?

Is there a button on there?

Does it work now?

Yeah, there we go.

I can hear you.

I'm Knut Ringen, and I thank you for your service.

I'm the president of the Homeowners Association for the Fisher Studio building, a historic landmark on 3rd Avenue between Pike and Pine, and we appreciate your efforts at improving conditions in our part of the city.

It's obviously really important.

We have one concern with this bill only that we've asked the OPCD to work with us on, and they have drafted a technical amendment to the bill to allow for more spacing between historic buildings and new development that is provided in the bill now.

In fact, the spacing that's provided now is much less than is under the existing zoning.

So this amendment would largely restore spacing and strengthen spacing that was that has existed for a long time.

Our building provides affordable housing, and we need this in order to keep our building viable.

So we hope you will support this amendment as you look at this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Newt.

Up next is Mr. Steve Rubstello.

Welcome, Steve.

My first question in this area is, are you going to be losing any less than normal market or less than high priced housing.

Older buildings are acceptable to many people who don't have real sky high incomes and the loss of those I see in this city is a good part of our housing problem.

This area is also a good case for something I have favored for a long time is making sure if you're going to change these buildings you have a place for trucks to load and unload.

Third Avenue is a transit corridor.

If you're going to fill it up with trucks for moving people in and out for Amazon to UPS and all the other people that are coming through, then that's a real way for disaster to come very, very predictably.

So I think looking at are we going to get any loss in less than expensive housing and are we going to make sure

Thank you, Steve.

Always great to see you.

Up next is Richard Schobel, followed by Sharon Lee, and then Rick Yoder.

Welcome, Richard.

Good afternoon, my name is Richard Shovel.

I'm Chief Operating Officer of Retail Opportunity Investments Corp.

ROIC is a leading owner of grocery anchored retail shopping centers focused on the West Coast.

We own 20 properties in the Seattle metro area, including the Crest building at 3rd and Pike.

We're in support of Mayor's proposal and downtown activation plan for 3rd Avenue.

As you know, the Crest building has been vacant since 2020 when IGA vacated the property.

As retail experts, we hear from tenants that more residential activity improves street presence is critical for a retail success.

We're excited to work with the other owners on the block, including Lehigh and Rick Yoder to support more residential density and active streetscape on 3rd Avenue.

We believe the Crest building under this new zoning could support hundreds of new units over a new variety of active and vibrant street related uses.

We're ready to work with the city and our neighbors to implement this vision if the new zoning is adopted.

We encourage the council to adopt the Third Avenue plan, including the clarification

Thank you, Richard.

Council Member Peterson, seems like you've got partial answer right here in the public hearing.

Sharon Lee, you're up next, followed by Rick Yoder, and then we'll move online.

Good afternoon.

I'm Sharon Lee, director of the Low Income Housing Institute, or LEHI.

And we own the Glenn Hotel, which is in this block proposed for the rezone.

And I want to say that our residents have been very fearful and traumatized living on 3rd Avenue.

We have most recently, one of our residents was killed on 3rd Avenue.

We are proposing and supporting a safe place and a vibrant downtown.

and we have a covenant, a low-income housing covenant running with our property and we are going to make sure that if there's a sale of the Glen or replacement or redevelopment that we get low-income housing.

We believe in mixed income housing and we believe that downtown needs to be revitalized.

And we also support the downtown lodging.

provision and we also support your amendment for the podium increase for more affordable housing.

Thank you.

Thank you Sharon.

Vice Chair it sounds like you got partial answer to your question and Council Member Peterson as well.

Up next is Rick Yoder.

Rick welcome.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm Rick Yoder and myself and my wife own and operate the Triple Door and the Wild Ginger Restaurant.

We also own the building on the 3rd and Union.

We've been operating in downtown Seattle for the last 34 years.

I'm here in support of the 3rd Avenue Rezone and encourage the City Council to adopt this proposal to support downtown vibrancy.

The 3rd Avenue Rezone will help downtown and the region.

It will support investment in housing.

It will bring the new residents into downtown to support local businesses.

We also strongly believe that the new development will disrupt the historic street disorder on 3rd Avenue.

I'm asking the City Council to adopt the 3rd Avenue Rezone along with the proposed amendment to increase the podium height for the residential projects to 85 feet.

This podium height will improve greater flexibility, and help in real estate development.

I believe the ReZone is another reason to pass, is a positive step for the city.

Thank you, Rick.

Up next is Megan Cruz, followed by Ed Markand, and then Nicholas Wilkins is the last speaker here.

Megan, I see you're here.

Star six to unmute.

Welcome.

There you are.

Welcome.

Hi.

I'm Megan Cruz, asking the committee today to add OPCD's residential landmark amendment to this bill.

My family has been in the landmark Fisher Studio building on 3rd Avenue for over 40 years.

It's where we and others raise families.

We are not considered high potential for redevelopment, but the parcel next to us is.

The city nominated us for landmark status.

We've become a success story for preservation and more.

It has succeeded in preserving housing that is affordable for people of diverse backgrounds, ages, and income.

We've achieved that elusive goal of inclusive downtown housing.

However, that's in danger without an amendment to this bill.

As stewards of a historic landmark, it's only possible to maintain them if they're considered healthy and thereby financially viable for a new generation of stewards.

OPCD recognized this and thus drafted an amendment.

just 11 parcels, but we will not lift up 3rd Avenue and maintain affordable housing unless all buildings affected by this plan have what they need to succeed.

Thank you, Megan.

Up next is Ed Markand.

Ed, you're here.

Star six to unmute.

Ed, star six to unmute.

And Mr. G, if you could also bring up Nicholas Wilkins.

I see Ed is off mute.

Ed, take it away at your convenience.

All right.

Thank you.

My name's Ed Marquand.

I am here to support Knut and Megan in this request for supporting the amendment that OPCD did to this amendment to allow historic properties like ours to maintain livability.

I've heard a lot today about new residents coming in, but if current residents are moving out because the spaces they live in are unlivable, that's not a net gain.

So I hope that you will support the amendments that OPCD came up with to improve this amendment.

Thanks so much.

Thank you, Ed.

And last speaker remotely or physically present is Nicholas Wilkins.

Nicholas, welcome.

Star six to unmute.

Nicholas Wilkins.

Nicholas Wilkins.

If anyone knows Nicholas and send him a text message, now is the time.

Mr. G, if you could ask Nicholas to unmute.

I don't know if you have that feature with a phone.

I do, and I have been clicking the button.

Nicholas Wilkins going once, Nicholas Wilkins going twice.

Nicholas Wilkins is off mute.

Welcome, Nicholas.

Yes.

Hello.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Nicholas Wilkins.

I'm addressing agenda item CB12.

0632. As a resident and architect living in the Fisher Studio building located at 1519 3rd Avenue, I'm requesting you implement the minor amendment to CB 120632 being proposed by OPCD's Jeffrey Wendlandt.

We support the rezone and the amendment addresses lot line proximity and daylight issues to our landmark building.

Under current zoning DR 85-170, there's a critical 15 foot separation between the building windows for occupant access to daylight fire separation.

Without the amendment to the proposed CB 120632, this would go away and would allow a new structure to incorporate a solid wall at 5 feet away from our building for 8 stories.

Our residents window locations in addition with 40 story towers being possibility, the new ordinance without amendment would remove our buildings access to meaningful.

Thank you, Nicholas.

Do feel free to send in any further written comments with no further.

public comment registrants remotely or physically present.

I'm going to close the public hearing on Council Bill 120632. Council Member Nelson, I'll give you the opportunity if you want to share any thoughts, comments, questions, concerns.

I will simply say that I have not looked at this with as much detail as you have, obviously, and I am interested to know what your amendments are.

So presumably there are ways of improving this proposal that I don't know about.

Maybe there are problems that I'm not seeing, but I can only say that We have to do something.

And I don't know what would happen with these properties or with 3rd Avenue in general if we don't do this.

And that is what I'm responding to.

I mean, GSA had its 3rd Avenue reimagining documents and we passed a resolution endorsing that.

That would require a lot of public investment.

So the status quo just isn't workable.

going forward, and with market conditions the way they are, I don't know if there's been, how much interest there's already been for any kind of development going on here.

So I'm just, that's what I'm leading with, and you mentioned the possibility of participation in the MFTE program to mix some incomes in these locations.

I would, of course, I think that's an opportunity to expand affordable housing.

We have Sharon Lee in the audience saying that she supports this.

So I guess I'm just trying to say that I am proceeding with the desire to help downtown and also fix some of the problems of 3rd Avenue right now and there are And remember, when we talk about workers, we're talking also about the labor that will end up building whatever gets built there.

We're also talking about the frontline workers that support our small businesses throughout downtown, and of course, the small businesses themselves that need more customers.

Very well said, Council Member Nelson.

With that, I am going to move on to our next committee, next item in the committee.

This bill, Council Bill 1206.

Yes.

Sir, could I respond to some of the public comment?

Sure.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sorry, I didn't see your hand.

That's okay.

I just put it up.

I appreciate the public commenters and There was an amendment mentioned about this Fisher building And so I guess it would be helpful to just see if there was a draft something Drafted that could be circulated to the whole committee.

I'm also sensitive to These first two bills are in a district council members district and so I want to reach out to that district council member before the 18th just to make sure He's fine with these proposals, too but would be interested in having that amendment circulated, see if anybody's interested in it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Bill 120632 will be heard next Monday at the September 18th, 2023 Special Land Use Committee meeting for possible vote.

Thank you, Mr. Whitson.

Thank you, Jeff.

Thank you, Rowan.

Wonderful presentations.

Well done.

Our next agenda item is a briefing discussion and public hearing on Council Bill 120622, which will strengthen the standards for vacant building monitoring program.

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

Item three, Council Bill 120622, vacant building monitoring program for briefing discussion and public hearing.

Wonderful.

I will tell you what I said at the council briefing earlier this week, which was I came to SDCI requesting a strengthening of our vacant building monitoring program.

I had a list of items that I wanted to see addressed and They already had a bill in the works and they addressed every single item that I wanted to, so job well done.

I'm very excited about this legislation.

This legislation responds to an increase in public nuisance and health and safety risks associated with vacant structures.

And we do so by raising standards and improving the effectiveness of the vacant building monitoring program, specifically strengthening the standards for securing vacant buildings with solid core doors, stronger deadbolts, polycarbonate rather than plywood, which is transparent, requiring vacant buildings to be kept free of graffiti, requiring any buildings that receive notice of violation, any notice of violation to enter the monitoring program rather than just those that fail to correct a notice of violation by the compliance deadline.

This is something that was really critical to me and I really thank you for including this.

Also simplifying the process for the police department and fire department to refer buildings into the monitoring program and authorizing the department to file a property lien to pay to collect unpaid vacant building monitoring fees and abatement costs because the current situation is that people just choose not to pay.

The proposed legislation will increase economic development, public safety and vibrancy and make our neighborhoods safer.

With that, we are joined by wonderful Quinn Majeski and Michelle Hunter from Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, as well as Mr. Keto Freeman from Council Central staff to provide a briefing on the legislation.

After the briefing, opening questions from our council colleagues, and then we'll open it for a public hearing.

I do not have anyone signed up for a public hearing at this time.

So Quinn, Michelle.

The floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Chair Strauss and members of the committee for having us here.

I am just finalizing our technical.

Yes, I am Quinn Majewski, Policy Analyst with SDCI's Code Compliance Division, and I'm joined today by Michelle Hunter.

I'm the Code Compliance Manager here at the vacant building.

Sorry, I'm the Code Compliance Manager here the vacant building team reports to.

So we always like to lead with SDCI's purpose and values.

I know you get a lot of presentations, so I'm sure you're familiar with these.

We won't belabor them, but want to remind folks that they are here.

A little bit of background before we get into the why and the what of the proposal.

So the Housing and Building Maintenance Code requires that vacant buildings be secured against unauthorized entry, meet building and safety standards, and be kept free of junk and overgrown vegetation.

In late 2018 and codified in 2019, the council also approved legislation establishing a vacant building monitoring program to help the department ensure that vacant buildings are in compliance with those standards.

I don't believe she's here on the call, but I do want to recognize the work of Councilmember Herbold in spearheading that effort.

There are three principal ways that properties can wind up on SCCI's vacant building monitoring program.

The first is the way that Many issues are addressed through our department, which is a complaint-based system.

So a neighbor, they know that there's a vacant property on their block or that they think there's a vacant property on their block.

They see that it is unsecured.

They call us.

We send an inspector out to make sure if the inspector finds that the vacant building standards are not being met, it's unsecured or there are other safety and maintenance standards that are unaddressed.

They will issue a notice of violation.

If the property owner fails to come into compliance by the compliance deadline, that's usually 30 days, then they go on to the vacant building monitoring program or if they receive two notices of violation within a 12-month period.

The second way is redevelopment.

If there is a property with a development application, it is automatically added to the vacant building monitoring list.

We know vacant buildings that are going through development are going to be vacant for some period of time, so we enroll those automatically.

And then finally, buildings that are referred to us by SPD or SFD that have generated calls for dispatch can be added to our vacant building monitoring program.

For buildings that are in monitoring, they are inspected monthly for compliance with vacant building standards.

After three consecutive inspections with no violations, they are removed from monitoring.

A little bit about why we've brought this legislation before you today.

We're seeing an increase in activity on our vacant building monitoring program.

We've seen between 2021 and 2022, which are the years that we have most recent full annual data.

We've seen a 41% increase in the number of buildings which are unsecured, unsecured vacant buildings.

Obviously, those are the worst.

Those are the ones we don't want to see.

They've been broken into.

We've also seen a 57% increase in buildings that are secured but nonetheless have some sort of maintenance or safety violation.

And I know that doesn't sound quite as bad, but those buildings still are, even if they're not subject to even if people aren't entering them unlawfully, they are still unsafe.

And so we want to make sure that those are being addressed.

And like I said, we don't have the full numbers for 2023 yet.

We're only two-thirds of the way through the year.

Based on what we're seeing, those trend lines, we would be on track to exceed those numbers from 2022 this year.

The other issue that we're seeing is vacant building monitoring fee nonpayment is up.

It's another way of saying collection of those fees is down.

Fee collection has fallen from about 57% in 2019, which is when we launched the program, to about 37% last year.

Some of that can be accounted for through, there's usually a delay in the collection of those fees, so, you know, you know, issue the invoice and there's a delayed period of time.

There are also a small number of instances where we make a mistake and we issue a correction and so those also are factored into that.

But that certainly does not make up the significant nonpayment rate that we're seeing.

And a lot of that is because our current process for collecting on unpaid fees is pretty labor and time and resource intensive.

Right now it requires us work with the city attorney's office to pursue and obtain a court order for a property lien.

Obviously, that takes a lot of time and resources from SCCI, from the city attorney's office, as well as the court system, all of which are experiencing a lot of resource constraints right now.

And then finally, you know, we know as part of this, vacant buildings, especially unsecured vacant buildings, pose an ongoing public safety risk.

That is why we have drafted the legislation, which Council Member Strauss, thank you so much for the summary.

I feel like I almost didn't need to do it, but I will because I'm here.

So the ordinance would make a handful of changes.

It would strengthen the standards for securing vacant buildings.

It would require vacant buildings on monitoring to be kept free of graffiti.

It would change the standard for how complaints and notices of violation add buildings onto monitoring.

Right now, as I mentioned, if a building receives a notice of violation and they come into compliance within that 30 day, typically 30 day deadline, they don't go on to monitoring.

We've heard from a number of council offices that are hearing from constituents that Folks are seeing a building coming into compliance on some of the last few days of that 30-day period, and then winding up with an unsecured or otherwise unsafe vacant building a few days after that compliance period.

This legislation would change it so that if there's a notice of violation, if we send an inspector out and they find that the building is unsecure or otherwise unsafe, it is automatically enrolled regardless of whether or not they come into compliance within that 30-day period.

It would also simplify the process for police and fire to refer vacant buildings for monitoring to us, and then it would authorize SDCI to file property tax liens administratively without having to go through the process of securing a court order.

That slide was intended as a less block of text heavy introduction to the more detailed slide.

So I want to walk through these changes in just a little more depth and then certainly want to have time for questions.

So in terms of strengthening standards for securing vacant buildings, what we're proposing are a couple of things.

We're proposing that doors be, there be a requirement for doors to be solid core rather than single panel or hollow.

Solid corridors are much sturdier, they're harder to remove or destroy.

Similarly, requiring one inch rather than one half inch throw deadbolts, again, more secure.

And then finally, this wouldn't be a requirement for every property, but depending on the circumstances, the ordinance would allow us to require clear polycarbonate rather than plywood to board up buildings.

Reason that we might do this is if we know a building is seeing repeated activity, unlawful entry, potential fire damage, it's likely or at least possible that we're gonna see first responders needing to go there.

Clear polycarbonate allows them to see into that structure so that they can have a better understanding from the outside of what they might be stepping into on the inside.

The next change would be adding a new requirement for vacant building monitoring that those buildings be, as one of the standards, there's a long list of standards for vacant buildings to be, you know, secure and maintained and safe.

This would add a requirement that they be kept free of graffiti.

We know that graffiti is, you know, it's a big target on a vacant building.

If it has graffiti, it's quite likely that it's, you know, likely to be targeted for future activity.

And so adding that to the list will help minimize the visibility and the likelihood that additional vacant building activity will occur at that site.

I do want to be clear that this is not a new requirement that buildings be kept free of graffiti.

The graffiti nuisance code already requires private property owners to keep their properties free of graffiti.

This would simply add graffiti to the list of the sort of checklist for being cleared on vacant building monitoring.

I mentioned the change already about how notices of violation would move buildings onto monitoring.

Again, really responding to what we're hearing and what you all are hearing from folks in the community that a lot of these properties are coming into compliance and then falling out of compliance very quickly.

It's something our inspectors see.

It's something that, you know, we're hearing.

And so trying to address that by automatically moving properties that receive a notice of violation onto monitoring.

The next change, I mentioned simplifying the process for police and fire referrals.

Obviously, those properties are some of the most hazardous and so the ones we really want to pay the closest attention to.

Right now, the code requires that the Seattle Police Department and the Seattle Fire Department maintain a list of properties that they refer to us that have generated calls for dispatch.

rather extensive system for tracking complaints, inspections, it's called a CELA.

And so the list, the requirement that police and fire maintain a list is really redundant.

So what we've proposed here to try to help better streamline our interdepartmental cooperation is simply to require that police and fire maintain, like they remove the requirement that they have sort of this own separate list that exists outside of SCCI's list and just allow them to refer properties that have generated calls for dispatch to us.

And then finally, the last substantive change would be authorizing the department to file property tax liens administratively rather than the process I described previously, which again is quite resource and staff time intensive, so much so that it seldom makes sense for us in the city attorney's office to go through that whole process.

This would allow us to more effectively collect the fees and charges, which we're seeing a major issue with, with non-payment.

And then finally, Citi turned his office and code advisors identified a handful of clarifications and technical corrections to the code, which we've included.

With that, we're happy to take any questions that you have.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Mr. Majeski.

And Michelle, I can't thank you enough and your team of inspectors.

Inspectors often are the bearer of bad news or the conveyor of important information that people don't want to hear.

And as well as the inspectors, we're working throughout the pandemic on the front lines of our city, making sure that vacant buildings were being monitored.

And so I just wanted to take this moment to thank you.

It's really important work.

I was out in Ballard yesterday with motor vessel Albert listing, not yet sinking, but getting close.

And one of SDCI's inspectors who I believe is salaried, so I don't think that there was any overtime for being out there until 10 p.m.

at night.

And they made that choice because they wanted to ensure that the Everything that was getting pumped out of the vessel was actually making it into the vac truck, right?

And this is the dedication that I see through and through with SDCI inspectors.

Just wanted to take that moment to thank you and your team for your work.

Yeah, and Quinn, I mean, you went through those, especially with that table.

It felt like you were giving me a gift, a gift of Quinn's-ness, if I may, with such a wonderful presentation and bill before us because what I have found, at least in my district and maybe others, is, and maybe it might be because I have industrial zones in my district, which is that It would be difficult to get a building onto the monitoring list, and then once it was on, it would be quickly removed because they would change one deadbolt.

but the problem still remained.

And then the next problem would come and they would make one small change.

And it was just very clunky.

And there also wasn't a reason for them to comply because they could just choose not to pay their fee.

And so this is a very well-rounded piece of legislation, a great gift on Quinn's Miss.

With that, Council Member Nelson.

And just for the record, we will have a public hearing.

However, no one signed up.

So Council Member Nelson.

All right, well, thank you.

This, the notice of this legislation that this was forthcoming came out on August 10th and I immediately asked central staff some questions about this and then went, you know, and I've been waiting for answers from SDCI.

And so now that you're here, I'll ask you some questions.

And I'll ask them and then I have some comments.

My first one is why are these properties vacant?

And of the 700 complaints that are referenced in the recital, how many were at buildings that were planned for demolition?

And then what has been the outreach process and the development of this proposal?

Certainly.

So I'm happy to answer that.

About three quarters of the properties that are on monitoring are on monitoring because of the development applications.

So there are properties that are going through redevelopment.

The other ones tend to be a mix of reasons.

Property could be for sale, could be in probate.

Generally, it tends to be kind of that mix of legal sort of transactional issues.

Sometimes there are derelict property owners, but those are typically the reasons that we see.

Okay, you said that some of them are going through development, something like that.

And so that's what I've been trying to get at.

Because it occurs to me, why aren't they just demolished, right?

And so, and I've been asking staff, what are, Why is it so hard to get a demolition permit?

I mean, why can't you just demolish a property and then redevelop it, and then that would seem to solve a problem if the property owner, in fact, wants to redevelop?

Sure.

So there are a handful of regulations around the demolition of housing.

But for other properties, I know I think, and I apologize if we didn't get back to you on this, I think there was a question about commercial properties.

There formerly was a requirement that there be a redevelopment plan in place.

That requirement has since been changed.

So the only things that are necessary for a redevelopment a demolition permit to be issued for a commercial property, a site plan, a rat assessment, and a salvage assessment, and potentially utility capping depending on the situation.

A handful of other requirements if it's in an ECA, but none of that would be a redevelopment plan.

And then finally, obviously there are requirements and regulations around areas in landmark and historic preservation.

Yeah, I understand those ones, but so I'm going to belabor this, okay?

Go for it.

A site plan, a site plan because that would help the city understand the impact of the actual demolition process or so that, okay, the dump truck's going to go here and the track, okay, that sort of thing?

Yes.

Okay, so it's not a site plan for what's going to go there afterwards?

No, just for what activities are taking place and a map of the demolition plan in essence.

Okay.

And I got the answer from Christina today that once the application is received and processed, it's about two weeks, but it seems like there could take some time for there to be an application appointment.

Is that the case?

We can actually get our We are actually able to get our permits out pretty quickly and we're working on a way with a new work group between us and SFD and the mayor's office and the attorney's office to get buildings down even faster.

So we're working with our partners on ways to do that.

But in terms of getting the permits out the door, we're working on having a facilitator actually help people who are having problems getting through that process.

But we don't find that that's usually the case.

The permitting process can go very quickly.

It doesn't have to be two weeks turnaround.

We have been told by our permitting staff that they will help us get those projects through as quickly as possible.

But they do need complete documentation to issue the permit.

the site plan, etc.

You don't have to say what's going to go there afterwards.

No, you don't.

Okay, got it.

Okay, and then to my question about the 700 complaints, were those in buildings that were awaiting demolition?

We don't have that number for you in front of us now, but we could find out.

There are a number that have demolition permits that are just sitting vacant.

And we don't have an impetus to make building owners take those down yet, but we're working on ways to find within the fire code and our code, if there are ways to order them to be demolished in a way that would be a faster process than going through what we have now, which is called the unfit for human habitation process.

It's a very long process to order demolition.

So again, we're looking at ways to order demolition through a faster process that would force an owner to take action when we're not able to do that now.

OK.

And then lastly, what kind of outreach has been conducted in the development of this legislation?

We unfortunately have not done any outreach except for to our partners at SFD and SPD, the mayor's office.

OK.

All right, so I'm asking these questions because I want to make sure that we're not sort of, this isn't a case of adding insult to injury or blaming the victim.

And I'll just say it right now.

Property owners, I recognize that there are bad actors and that aren't taking care of their property, that there is dumping going on.

There's water damage, electricity damage that it can make surrounding buildings in the neighborhood vulnerable.

I get that.

At the same time, nobody wants to prevent damage to an asset probably more than the property owner, I would assume.

Now, if they're going to demolish, let's make that easy for them.

But my point is that it seems as though, you know, if the big problem is trespass, that is, you know, that is something that we can't address because we have, we, you know, there are many properties that are in, that participate in the trespassing program.

There's insufficient SPD staffing to respond to trespassing in a building and bad things going on there.

And it seems like the only thing that we know how to do is to turn around and then put more requirements on the property owners.

You don't want to be in this situation in the first place.

And so I understand that something has to be done.

And I just want to make sure that we, and I have no idea what the process per RCW3521955, which is the notification process for putting a lien on somebody's property.

That seems pretty hardcore.

That's a new thing.

That's an addition to the program.

It's been modified twice in the past 10 or so years, I think.

I don't know how rigorous that is.

I don't know how difficult it is to notify a property owner out of state that they've missed a payment and now that it's going to be a lien on their property.

You mentioned, sir, that these buildings are unsecured because they're broken into.

Again, that is a difficulty with an inability to investigate and arrest for break-ins that we hear about a lot.

I'm not just complaining because there is a better way.

Now, another, some of the negative impacts that we're talking about with dealing with these buildings is to fire.

Our first responders are put at risk all the time when they are responding to fires, which they do frequently.

And there is the fire department does have an acquired structure training program.

And so I talked to Kenny Stewart, who, you know, head of local 27 last night, In fact, I heard about this first when we were talking as the Seven Gables Theater was burning down, which was near my house.

Perhaps there is a way of of allowing these vacant structures to be used for training for the fire department.

Right now, they need training.

I attended the final exam for a cohort of recruits in the fire department when they burned down a house in Fremont and then they did a lot of the exercises.

That is one example of vacant buildings that the fire department needs for training.

But you don't have to burn it down for it to be of use.

There are instructions for how buildings are built.

There is value in simply being able to tear out the walls so that recruits can see, well, where's the conduit, et cetera.

So it seems as though there's a benefit, obviously, for the fire department, which has 31 stations all over the city.

And when those firefighters need to learn something, the only place they can go on a reliable basis is the training center, which is way down south.

So the more buildings they have at their disposal to use for training, the better.

if one is not demolishing or if it can be a building, for example, on 3rd Avenue that can be used over and over and over again for training purposes because it's not being damaged or torn down, that's activation.

And so I would, I'm not saying we don't, implement this, I do want to hear what the input is from property owners about, you know, the liens and some of the additional questions.

But bottom line is, okay, you're going to put right now the requirement is a half-inch bolt, now we're going to require a one-inch bolt, and then next time we renew this, it's going to be one and a half inch.

So it's very difficult for property owners to secure, and I'm just looking for a better way to activate these properties if they can't be demolished faster, and just to have us have a broader range of options at our disposal.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

We are fully supportive of the fire department and other entities using vacant buildings.

That really speaks to your point about how owners get stuck in this process.

They really do have options, which is to either keep the building occupied or to tear it down.

And so that's what we really want to encourage.

If they can keep it occupied in some way or have the fire department or another entity using it, that is absolutely beneficial for us.

And we have had some of those instances.

Okay, thank you.

And so maybe Lish or somebody, can you just, can somebody please walk me through how the notification process for the imposition of a lien would be helpful?

Thanks.

I can tell you what my understanding is, but it's probably the same as yours.

We probably need Michelle or Quinn to chime in here, but there are requirements under state law about notification when that administrative lien is put on a piece of property.

You have to let that property owner know that you intend to file a lien.

Those provisions are there and RCW 3521995, is that the right section?

Or 955?

So, those are all steps that the director would have to take.

You had some questions about.

Demolition the director is actually authorized to compel demolition of structures under certain circumstances.

And Michelle was speaking to the fact that it's not necessarily an easy process because there has to be notification there.

Opportunity for a property remedy, and so it's something that can take a while just stepping back to 2017. The council provided a regulatory give in some ways to the development community by.

Shortening the length of time that a building has to be an occupied when it has a residential structure before it can be demolished.

Previously, it was 12 months.

Now it's 4 months.

So that was intended to facilitate demolition of structures in the course of that were intended for development.

It may be worth thinking sort of looking back and seeing if there was some unintended consequence there where developers are not actually availing themselves of that opportunity and leaving properties.

A vacant that can become nuisances for new neighbors.

That might be a good, interesting retrospective look to see if that had unintended consequences.

Um, I don't know if that answered your question council member Nelson about kind of sort of what's required for notice to the property owners, but.

There are legal requirements under state law and under the city's code for notifying property owners before filing a lien and also before a compelling.

Demolition.

Thank you.

I understand we can't do nothing, right?

Because I understand that the impacts to the community are really negative.

But is there anything between this and something else?

That's the sort of things that I'm asking.

Right now, there's just one guy in SFD that is sort of the point person to the contractors all over town, and so it's kind of a one-off relationship, or it's a volunteer.

If contractors know about this program, they can approach.

There is a website that they can fill out, you know, to offer up their property, but regularizing it or improving its operations would be good.

I think beneficial for the fire department.

Thanks.

And also police, they can do trainings there too as well.

Thank you, Chair.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Vice Chair Morales.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to Council Member Nelson's point about why it takes so long.

So, unfortunately, we've seen this a lot on Rainier Avenue where we have had multiple buildings that were burned and, you know, we had 1 in particular that took months and months for demolition.

I called.

Director total said myself several times to figure out why it was not being torn down when the roof was sloping and starting to fall onto the sidewalk.

And the response was that they were giving the.

Property owner time to negotiate with the insurance company, and I'm not quite sure what that meant.

If there was an adjuster couldn't come out, but I, I do feel like we need to do something about particularly if these buildings are posing an imminent safety risk to our community.

We have to figure this out so that we can get these buildings demolished sooner and make sure that.

That people aren't putting jeopardy, I have a couple of questions that I would like to share.

So we monitor vacant buildings that are in disrepair.

These could be speculative assets.

I think we've all heard stories about some of these, some of this being related to speculation, but they could also just belong to people who can't afford to maintain the property anymore.

So, I'm wondering why the focus on these kinds of buildings and not all vacant properties.

We have a lot of brand new condos, for example, that are sitting vacant.

Uh, and so I'm trying to understand, um.

You know, rather than putting a lien on a property.

So that's 1 question why these particular kinds of properties and then the other question is rather than put a lien on a property.

Um.

If is exploring acquiring some of these properties, because we've got a very real housing crisis in the city, and it seems as though for buildings that are vacant, but not uninhabitable, there's potential there for us to acquire that as a city and use for housing development.

So one of you can address those two things.

Certainly.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

So to your first point about why or sort of the specific vacant buildings that we're looking at here, the intent of the vacant building monitoring program is really to try to ensure that properties are secure against unlawful entry and are maintained to specific safety and maintenance standards so that we don't see the kinds of incidents as you described on Rainier and in other locations across the city.

It's difficult for us to inspect or see or for neighbors to see if a condo is vacant oftentimes.

And additionally, those tend to be more secure given that the buildings are generally secured even if a particular condo unit is vacant.

So that's the structure of the program.

leans it, inclines it towards that way.

In terms of acquiring properties, STCI doesn't have the authority to acquire private property.

I know that Office of Housing has funds for rapid acquisition, and I know, well, sorry, I shouldn't say I know, I also believe that The city through OH or other departments has encouraged nonprofits to help folks who need housing even on a temporary basis for buildings that are slated for demolition to occupy those properties on a temporary basis if they're able to do so.

So I'm not trying to deflect here, but unfortunately our department isn't statutorily equipped to acquire private property.

In addition to that, it would be up to the office of housing to decide if it wanted to acquire properties.

That's the logical city department to engage in those kinds of acquisitions.

They do have, as you know, an opportunity fund, so to speak, that if it looks like there's a good piece of property that might be suitable for development in the future, they can acquire that piece of property.

I suspect that many of the properties that are in the vacant building monitoring program are in parts of town where probably which would prefer not to develop because they're in sort of low density sounds.

So you're not going to get as much bang for your buck with respect to the lean question.

1 thing that we can explore with and the city attorney's office is whether there are other mechanisms to to get cost recovery.

The lean is there for cost recovery purposes.

When it was initially envisioned, the vacant building monitoring program was supposed to be self sustaining and the fees were set at the level where.

the staff needed for the vacant building monitoring program would be paid for by those fees for the most part.

There may be other ways to get cost recovery if about three-quarters of the buildings are in some phase of the development process.

One thing that we can explore with the city attorney's office and SDCI is requiring payment either as a component of a complete building permit application, so some cost recovery there perhaps with some interest if if the payment is lagged or as a condition of issuance of a building permit.

In that circumstance, there has to be a continuity of ownership.

There can't just be somebody who is going to sell a piece of property to a developer, doesn't necessarily have a developer in hand, and isn't securing the building.

It has to be the same person who is applying for the building permit being the one who is responsible for maintaining the property.

But that could be another remedy in addition to liens to get better cost recovery for the program.

Well said, Ketel.

Well said, Quinn, Michelle.

And I really like these questions.

Vice Chair Morales, Council Member Nelson, well said.

I was taking some notes just as you were both speaking because I think it's important.

Vacant buildings that have demolition permits that are not being demolished, the current laws on the books do not incentivize these buildings to be demolished, right?

So they have a demolition permit.

but they're still standing and they're still unsecured.

And there's no real teeth in our current legislation.

And I actually found this out.

So they're not demolishing what?

If they have a permit to demolish?

Correct.

So you brought up, your question was a building has a demolition permit.

It is still standing today.

Can we incentivize them to demolish it?

My question was more, Why aren't they demolishing it?

No, I didn't ask that.

I said, if a property owner wants to demolish, what are the barriers for them to demolish?

Is it difficult to getting the permit?

Right and we've kind of talked about that the two-week turnaround is better than it was a couple of years ago and that was a question that I had for the team here because demolition permits can't be a barrier.

We'll also be receiving an audit on the entire permitting process for all permits very shortly that I think will shed some more light on that but I did hear the question though and maybe I took the words out of your mouth incorrectly but Why would a vacant building that has a demolition permit not be demolished?

And I think Michelle answered the question as to how the director can compel that demolition and it's a cumbersome process.

And this bill here is another incentive to have that demolition permit executed because the current laws on the books don't have teeth.

Okay, I don't remember asking that, but that is a good thing to know.

Maybe it's what outreach is good for too.

Yeah, and where I came, where my journey on this vacant building monitoring program changes came from was my experience with the skills building on 8th Avenue Northwest, not far from your brewery, which was routinely broken into.

We would put it on the vacant building monitoring program One door would be fixed, and then the next, and it would be removed from the vacant building monitoring program.

The next week, a different door would be broken into.

That door would then be fixed, and so on and so, and it was just a very roundabout situation.

That's where, that's where I came to this work with.

Yeah, I can see that.

Yeah, right?

I mean, it's good.

Okay, we'll take this up like that.

Sure.

Yeah.

Just also noting that I believe the training for the fire department also requires a demolition permit to be in place.

Um, and what I've recognized through all of my work with vacant buildings is that people implement the solutions to the code.

So if the code says use plywood or use, it doesn't matter what kind of door you use, they will choose the cheapest door.

And so these clarifying aspects of our code are important to make sure that we're actually using materials that cannot be easily broken into.

Yeah, and the solid core is a lot more expensive, probably because it's solid.

Correct, it's solid.

Yep.

And so, you know, that's the incentive to the property owner.

If they're going to retain that vacant building as vacant, Maybe rather than buying a solid core door, they get a demolition permit if they know that they can get it in two weeks, right?

Like this is where we move these property owners to make the important decisions that improve the vitality of our community.

You know, Vice Chair Morales, you brought up a really good point about vacant buildings and vacant units, just noting that a vacant building is different than a vacant unit.

And I think, you know, a different incentive to achieve the goal that you were alluding to is a vacancy tax, which, you know, I think would be helpful in that way.

And then if we were to use if we were to take a vacant parcel or a vacant building and turn it into housing, it would require condemnation, which requires us to pay fair market value.

And Quinn, you did a nice job trying to stump for office of housing that you don't represent.

But I think the reality is, is that when we look at housing projects, we are looking at what type of public land, religious institution, land, or whatever land can be provided at a, below market value, which is why we don't typically use condemnation.

So just not trying to play a subject matter expert, just sharing my experiences with each of these points that have been made.

And I really appreciate, colleagues, your line of questionings.

This will be back next week on the 18th for final vote.

Any other questions right now before I open and close the public hearing?

Oh, the public hearing or the meeting altogether?

I have one final, I would just like to ask Keeteler or SDCI staff.

So to your point about people not, you know, who have a demolition permit and aren't demolishing, I just need to know the nature of the problem.

Is that the most common issue that we're trying to solve for?

Thanks.

Thank you, Council Member Wohl.

I think we'll have to get back to you on that and maybe a handful of other questions, but look forward to responding to you here very shortly.

Okay, thanks.

Wonderful.

So, yes, just the public comment, the public hearing is going to be open and closed.

Council Member, we do have two more items in committee today.

So, the public hearing on Council Bill 120622 is now open.

We will begin with the first speaker on the list.

At this time, I do not have anyone present to speak.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Mr. Ribstello, please.

I usually don't speak for landowners.

I usually don't speak for people who own buildings.

But I'm going to say there's a problem that's much, much bigger than just the buildings.

We have a security problem in the entire city.

Many people are paying for private security because the city does not respond.

And that's even when people are trying.

So I think that one of the things you could do to help this problem and a whole lot of other security problems in the city is to take a look at what used to be one of the more important things for city government.

It was, oh gee, public safety.

I think that the police force, what are we down, at least 400, probably 500 by now, and they don't come when you call.

And I think that is a good part of this problem.

Now, you can raise the building, but that's not going to stop the problem.

People will not be just in the building.

They will camp out on the building site.

And they've got plenty of time to knock down things.

Thank you, Mr. Rubstell, as always, benevolent resident of Fremont, formerly Green Lake.

Always a pleasure.

With that we have no more public comment registrants virtually or physically present so the public hearing on Council Bill 120622 is now closed.

We will have this bill back at committee on Monday September 18th for a possible vote.

Our next item, thank you, Mr. Majewski.

Thank you.

Michelle, wonderful to see you.

The next item on the agenda, and Alish, thank you for hanging out.

I think we're just going to open and close this item because we are 20 minutes over already.

The next item on the agenda is a briefing discussion on Resolution 32097, which is a resolution to endorse freight transportation in industrial and maritime areas.

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

Item four, resolution 32097, industrial maritime transportation resolution for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

We have attached the substitute to the agenda.

We are also engaging with a little bit more stakeholder outreach before final passage.

We hope to, we will have this bill back before committee and passed on Monday, September 18th.

So closing, this bill will be back on September 18th for a possible vote.

The final item on the agenda is a briefing and discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Whitson.

Briefing and discussion on Council Bill 120635, Transportation Impact Fees.

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

Item 5, Council Bill 120635, Transportation Impact Fees for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

And we have Ketel Freeman here.

As I said at the beginning of the meeting, the hearing examiner is still deciding on the issue, which is why I made the decision to postpone the official public hearing until after the hearing examiner's final determination.

Mr. Freeman, I'm hoping to get a bit of an update from you on that.

On that process I could tell you from public comment today.

I can tell why it's taking a little longer than expected When the 30-day public notice was initially posted I anticipated that we would have reached that final decision today when the public hearing is Scheduled we will provide at least 30 days notice in the papers of record this legislation is sponsored by councilmember Peterson councilmember her bold and So I'll let the two of you speak on the bill before Ketel Freeman with Council Central staff provides his briefing, and we'll take it from there.

And I know Council Member Peterson, you had this bill in the Transportation Committee, you had a briefing in the Transportation Committee.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm happy to hear from Ketel Freeman first, and I think Council Member Herbold's also going to be joining us to lend some comments.

Yes.

And I didn't actually hear the bill itself.

It was just some of the attachments.

Great.

Yeah.

Did you want to have any comments before Ketel's presentation?

No opening comments.

Okay.

Ketel, please take it away.

I'll walk through some of the legislative history here.

Talk a little bit about context and then remind the council members about what council 1, 2, 0, 6, 3, 5 would do.

And, of course, that I'll update you on the hearing examiner process and sort of let, you know, when.

Our, our best guess is about when there might be a decision.

So, share my screen here.

All right, hopefully, everybody can see that.

So this presentation is an expanded presentation of the presentation that we did go to the transportation committee back and.

In March, by way of a reminder here, I just said, if history wise, the council has been at this for about 10 years, at least the most recent consideration of transportation impact fees and other types of impact fees.

In 2014, the council appropriated fund balance to finance general to study impact fees.

Then Mayor Murray made a recommendation to the council to pursue.

Transportation impact fees and parks impact fees.

Uh, that the work on impact fees was tabled while the mandatory housing affordability program was being reviewed by the council, and then was never really taken up again by the Murray administration.

Since about 2017, the council has every year said we want to consider transportation impact fees and through the comprehensive plan policy docket.

In 2018, under Council Member O'Brien, who's then the chair of the Transportation Committee, the council issued a CIPA threshold determination for comprehensive plan amendments for transportation impact fees that was appealed by an unaffiliated coalition of developers called the Seattle Mobility Coalition.

In 2019, the council received an adverse decision from the hearing examiner related to that appeal, and the threshold determination was remanded to the council by the hearing examiner.

More recently in 2020, as part of consideration of proposition 1, which was the sales tax increase for transit.

The council recited its intent to consider transportation impact fees as a progressive revenue source.

And in 2023, Beginning in 2022, really, but sort of culminating in a.

A threshold determination in early 2023 impact fees were put back on the table by council members Peterson and herbal.

We issued a reissue to see the threshold determination consistent with the hearing examiners.

A remand to the council, and that was again appealed by the mobility coalition.

So, just stepping back here for those folks who are watching, and they wonder what transportation impact fees are their fees charged to new development to partially fund the cost of new transportation infrastructure needed to accommodate growth.

Transportation impact fees aren't the only impact fee authorized under the growth management act.

Impact fees can also be charged for parks, schools and fire facilities.

There's a procedure that's prescribed under RCW 8202, which is not the Growth Management Act.

It's actually the portion of the RCW that deals with excise taxes.

So, at least on some levels, impact fees are a tax.

And it prescribes kind of a three-step process.

One is, first, you have to have a rate study.

The rate study establishes the nexus between the new developments and mitigating demands on the system associated with growth.

And you have to amend the comprehensive plan to include a list of transportation improvements or parks or fire facilities to mitigate those impacts.

After that's done, you can develop implementing legislation.

So comprehensive plan amendments are a necessary, but not sufficient step to implement an impact program.

Under state law, you can exempt certain land uses and types of activities from transportation impact fees, low income housing, which is defined and state statute is housing serving households at 80% of very medium income can be exempted.

Early learning facilities can be exempted and then other development activities with a broad public purpose.

So institutions, things like that can also be exempted from transportation impact fees.

Just sort of by way of example, some jurisdictions have identified accessory dwelling units as a use for the broad public purpose that will be exempted from transportation impact fees.

How much revenue could a transportation impact fee program generate?

And the answer to that is it really depends on a lot of factors that would be, you know, would require direction from this council or a future council.

Um, uh, 2 big factors include the fee level set by the city by land use and what exemptions apply and also the rate of future employment and residential growth.

So impact fees are not necessarily, um, they're kind of a lumpy source of revenue.

They're kind of like that way.

You only get the revenue when development is happening.

You don't get the revenue and development is not happening.

Um, just some illustrative examples that we used back in March that are reproduced here.

If the city were to set a base rate similar to Bellingham's, which is kind of on the low end.

I'm over a 10 year period and impact the program gun, given sort of our current growth conditions could generate about 200Million dollars.

If the city were to set a base rate similar to the Western Washington average cost person trip, generate about 400,000 dollars over a 10-year period.

If we were to set something similar to Kent, which has an impact fee program that is relatively on the high end, certainly not the highest, then that could generate approximately 764 million dollars over a 10-year period.

But ultimately, it would depend on what fee level the council sets for impact fees and what exemptions apply.

So, what are the jurisdictions do?

I think you heard testimony today that most Western Washington jurisdictions use transportation impact fees.

This is kind of a comparison.

I'm not of all of those jurisdictions.

This was from.

A slide that fair and peers, the council's consultant on transportation impact fees put together.

For the presentation back in March at the low end.

And set a fee rate that is less than 2000 dollars.

Per person trip at the high end places like Sammamish and North been much higher.

Cost per person trip, and so they have a more expensive, relatively more expensive.

Impact the program.

I should acknowledge here that sort of what fair and put together here is, um, was something that was based on information that was collect is collected annually by.

Transportation planner in Bellingham name, Chris come out, it's published in the municipal research services center.

Uh, a Web page.

So, comparing Seattle now, what Seattle could do to peer jurisdictions, Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, and also Portland.

We have a couple of slides here, single family and multifamily.

This is maybe a little bit hard to read at home, but this sort of this hatched kind of blue box is actually a fee that's not imposed by.

Um, if you have gallery, other jurisdictions, it's the bright water fee that is imposed by concocting it passed through by those jurisdictions, but that's a system development charge.

But as you can see for single family developments, Seattle charges relatively less than Bellevue, Kirkland and Redmond, which.

Not only have parks and school and fire fees in some cases, but also have higher system development charges for wastewater drainage.

And water service.

Looking at a multifamily example here, that'll of course, as there are always variations between jurisdictions.

I'm noticing now that the key here does not include what is the top part of these bar graphs, which is an obligation for affordable housing.

Bellevue, Kirkland and Redmond have what are essentially programs that are like the city's old incentive zoning program where you can access additional floor area if you provide units on site.

So it's not necessarily an apples to apples comparison, but.

And Seattle's current circumstances is an obligation that developers have to pay.

And so is that bright water pass through charge from King county.

But relatively speaking.

Places like Portland and Kirkland.

Charge greater system development system improvement type charges on what we charge now and would charge in the future or could charge in the future.

Would be could be similar to Bellevue and Redmond, depending on future decisions by the council about where to set a fee.

Again, there's not currently a fee proposed.

For the assumptions in these charts, just to be clear about where it's coming from, we're assuming the Western Washington average here just for the sake of simplicity and making order of magnitude comparisons.

So, what does the proposed comprehensive plan amendment bill do?

It's it's pretty simple.

It amends the transportation element of the comprehensive plan and a related appendix to identify deficiencies.

It updates the project list that was essentially the same project list proposed by council member Brian back in 2018 to eliminate some of the, some of the projects that have been completed, or have been abandoned, or have been.

Otherwise changed, and it establishes a policy sort of guidance to this council or a future council about setting rates.

And it says, consider locational discounts for urban centers where there's more of a transit rich environments.

And it also says, consider exemptions for those types of uses that are authorized for exemptions under state law.

So, housing, early learning facilities, and other activities with the public purpose.

Next steps, and this is where I'll talk a little bit about the hearing examiner.

The appeal hearing was last week.

It went 3 days.

Closing briefs are due by the city and the appellants at the end of the month.

I believe it's September 28th.

When will the hearing examiner issue a decision on the appeal?

Your guess is as good as mine, but sort of given how long it takes the time it usually takes, it's probably in kind of a mid October to mid November timeframe.

In November, if there is a favorable hearing examiner decision, then the council could potentially consider comprehensive plan amendments concurrently with the budget.

There's an exception under state law for amendments to the comprehensive plan.

That are related to capital facilities, such as the case for transportation impact fees.

And so that is an option for the council to consider for an additional amendment.

Opportunity this year, so that's the presentation.

I don't know if you have any questions.

I'm happy to answer any that you may have.

I'm going to turn it over to the sponsors here, Councilmember Peterson, and we have Councilmember Herbold with us today.

Councilmember Herbold, it seems that you are off mute.

Take it away.

Thank you so much, and thank you, Chair Strauss, for allowing me to come and join you in your committee today to talk about an issue that I have been working on in some fashion for, as Kito mentioned, a decade now, I think.

I was going to actually read an excerpt from a letter to the editor authored by myself Councilmember Bagshaw and Councilmember O'Brien in 2017. I think maybe A couple sentences, because it's a little ironic about the place that we were at that time and the place that we are today.

That letter to the editor says, here's our path forward.

On Tuesday, August 1st, we will consider a resolution that establishes the 2018 docket of proposed amendments to the city's comprehensive plan.

the document that guides how we grow.

The resolution directs departments to analyze and propose amendments to our comprehension plan and any proposed change to our comp plan must go undergo analysis before the City Council considers it for approval.

You know, that was in 2018. Five years later, we are in much the same place.

As Edel explained, the ComPlan amendment was appealed then.

It's being appealed now.

I really appreciate all the work that And I'm really hoping that the funds spent and the.

The time spent not just by council members and our staff, but also again, who spent many hours in.

In the hearing examiners hearing, not this time, but the prior time as well, trying to represent city's position that we can move forward with this.

small procedural step of amending the comp plan and adding this project list.

So I think the thing, Quito, I'd like to ask, I have two questions.

One, can you just talk a little bit about the nature of the projects on the project list?

And then secondly, I just want to flag an issue.

We've heard a couple times from Seattle for everyone, you know, last time they reached out.

One of the statements that they made is now is not the time to consider adding new fees to housing.

We recommend a broader approach to identify revenue tools for transportation priorities as a complement to the move Seattle transportation levy renewal discussion.

When Seattle for Everyone contacted council with that message several months ago, I said I agreed, but in order to have that conversation, we needed to clear this procedural hurdle.

So again, the plan is not to establish transportation impact fees now.

It's to, as I understand it, to consider them as a complement to the move Seattle transportation levy renewal in the future.

But we cannot have that conversation until the comp plan is amended.

So, again, they wrote on the 12th yesterday.

The email has that same message, but the letter attachment, reading it, I understand a little bit more about the concern.

Everybody's been talking about this is really complex and It's not complex.

The bill is, again, it's a project list and a rate study and some changes to comp plan.

When you, reading the letter, one of the things that they are lifting is the language in the comp plan change, which, goes from consider the use of impact fees to use transportation impact fees.

So the concern, I think, is that the change in the pump plan suggests that a decision has been made to use impact fees.

And that's not how I've been describing it.

I've been describing it as it clears the way to have this list of projects that would be eligible for impact fees, should impact fees be authorized.

But I think this language, to use, changing, I'm wondering if you could speak to that.

My screen here, if I can make this a little bit bigger, unfortunately, it's just kind of.

I can sort of pan through here, but this is a map from, which would be incorporated in the comprehensive plan, but is all, but is also from the rate study, which identifies the projects that would be impact the eligible.

Most of these projects are drawn from the various modal plans.

So already plans that have been adopted by the council by resolution.

So, the pedestrian master plan, the bike master plan, the transit master plan, and the freight master plan, what's shown here on the map is sort of not the universe of projects because that would be too busy, especially if it was pedestrian and bike master plan.

It would just be a map showing every now almost every street in the city in some ways.

What's shown here are most of the big projects that are corridor plans, and some of them are specific to freight, but most of them are complete street projects.

So, projects that benefit all those travel.

But generally speaking, this is, I mean, 1 change here is that there are fewer projects council member in your district, because the Delridge project, which was on the previous list is complete.

That's not on this list, but.

Generally speaking, the project touch most districts and the city and our sort of modal improvements that have been identified in those modal plans also in the move Seattle levy and also in the move Seattle levy vision document, which sort of contemplated projects that.

Might be completed outside of the 10 year timeframe with Seattle levy.

So that's where the projects come from.

The next thing, the.

Reason why we focus on the bike master plan projects and the pedestrian master plan projects and the freight, because those are all.

Types of projects that are linked to growth.

Is that correct?

We can't with impact fees pay for anything that is like in a backlog.

We can only pay for things that are associated with growth and and these types of projects are improvements that we're making to our transportation infrastructure because of growth.

That's right.

And for each of these projects, the consultant essentially did 2 things that identified the portion of the project that is a capacity improvement that is associated with growth.

And and took that amount and subtracted it from the total project cost or subtracted the existing deficiency component, which is largely repaving and things like that.

That's not an impact the eligible expense, but it took that out.

And also for each of these sort of quarter projects.

Identified the number of trips that are associated with with city of Seattle trips, not necessarily pass through trips or trips coming from shoreline and going through Seattle or something like that.

Those are not necessarily impact the eligible trip.

So there was a factor there that was included to reach a cost that would be for each of these projects.

That is a cost associated with a capacity related improvement.

Um, with respect to your question about.

Consider and use and the comprehensive plan amendments.

That language use is actually from 2018. I think 1 thing that's worth thinking about in the context of any comprehensive plan amendment is what.

There's a, there's a preamble and the comprehensive plan.

So it spells this out.

It says.

In front of every policy or goal, the reader should understand that it is the general policy of the city of Seattle to do something.

So.

The fact that it makes it changes something from considered to use does not necessarily compel the city to adopt an impact fee and implementing impact program.

It may make it somewhat more likely, but adding a project list also makes it somewhat more likely.

Um, but generally speaking, it's sort of, it's a reflection of emphasis, but it is not necessarily.

Language that is binding on this, or some future council about implementing a transportation effective program.

Thank you.

I might have some additional questions, but I see Council Member Muscata is in the queue.

So maybe if my other questions come back to me, Mr. Chair can loop back around.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

I do just want to check back.

Okay, great.

Council Member Muscata, please.

Uh, thank you, Mr chair.

I wasn't quite sure what the process was here because I have a handful of questions, questions related to the project list.

Questions related to exemptions questions related to the housing production issues questions related to outreach and implementation.

So, um, do you want me to just do 1 set of questions and then.

I'll wait for what's the best process here to get these questions out there.

I think just asking the questions that you've got is the best way to move forward.

I think.

Okay.

Yep.

Let's just roll through all the questions and get them on the record.

I think it'd be great.

So, thank you for the background here and for the history on this issue.

I.

I'm very interested in having a discussion about this.

I raised yesterday that I think that this requires quite a bit of conversation.

So I appreciate that.

You are teeing it up for today.

On the project list, I don't know if there's a good way to display that for central staff.

Can you help explain how the project list corresponds to future legislation adopting the impact fees?

How does this list inform how the proposed fee schedule is determined?

Yeah, so the project list is used for it serves a couple of purposes.

1 is that.

The list is incorporated into the comprehensive plan, so assuming that the comprehensive plan amendment passes and that the city at some future point.

Establishes the transportation impact the program what that means is that those projects would be eligible for future expenditures from revenue from an impact the program.

So.

It doesn't mean that all of the money that the money is used entirely to fund those projects, or that.

It has to be spread out evenly amongst those projects.

It just means that they are eligible.

So, with every.

Um, every consideration of the budget, for example, when the council is considering the assuming that a transportation impact fee has been developed at some point in the future, the council would make a decision about how to allocate impact the revenue among those projects.

But the council can't allocate impact the revenue to a project that is not on the list.

So it is constraining in that way.

But ultimately, a decision about where you spend transportation impact your revenue if the city does have a program would be a decision that the council makes and that the mayor recommends as part of the budget process.

How was the project list developed?

Are there particular stakeholders that identify this specific list of projects that will be tethered to this?

I mentioned that this is essentially the same list that Council Member O'Brien put together.

There were some stakeholders he was working with then.

I think sort of a question about stakeholdering is really a question for Council Member Herbold and Peterson, and they can speak to who they've engaged with on this.

I can take that.

If I may Chair and Councillor Muscata, I can try.

So as I understand the project list that you're showing there, the list of projects, the reason they're listed is a lot of those are cross-cutting over multiple modal plans.

So you've got some complete streets projects, for example, so you're dealing with transit and pedestrian master plan.

But what we're really incorporating into the comprehensive plan would be all those modal plans.

So all those modal plans have gone through extensive stakeholder to get the transit master plan and the bike master plan and the ped master plan and the freight master plan.

So the revenues could be used for all of those additive projects.

Thank you.

I guess my question is, um.

If the size of the project list determines how big the fees are.

Then what process do we need to undergo to evaluate the.

The list of projects that at this point might be.

Still necessary, but also coming from a list that's 5 or 6 years old.

Yeah, given given.

I guess, given the range of the dollars that could be potentially generated from the impact fees, how has it been decided to put the dollars towards these specific projects?

Like, is there a methodology?

Was there a private prioritization process?

Was there an equity analysis that we can go back to to point to these?

Priorities amongst many priorities in the city.

I agree.

These are important.

But how are these identified among all of the things to see what rose to the top?

What methodology was used.

And, you know, I can, I can speak sort of my experience with the O'Brien office when they were sort of doing some of their stakeholder work, but.

I don't know if that's how relevant that is for you.

No, I think there was a statement that is really important.

Okay, sorry.

No, it's totally fine.

I'm just going to ask that everyone raise hands to maintain decorum within this committee.

So Council Member Mosqueda just asked a question of Ketil Freeman.

Ketil, you had a fair answer, and Council Member Herbold, you would like to add some clarity to it.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you so much.

I just, there was something, and maybe Council Member Mosqueda, you misspoke, but the cost of the projects on the project list, do not drive the impact fee.

Council Member Mosqueda, if you'd like to have that conversation.

That's all I wanted to say.

Or Ketel Freeman, can you help me understand?

What is the intersection of this project list with costs associated with it and our rate setting of an impact fee?

That's how I'll answer that question.

There's this number here, and this is given this particular project list.

This is the portion of all of these projects that are impact be eligible.

So there is some, a summation of all of the portion that is impact the eligible.

Now, you take that and you divide that by assumed future growth and you come up with a cost per person trip and that cost per person trip represents a ceiling.

I'll go to where that is now represents the ceiling.

Above which the city cannot charge impact fees, so it represents kind of the upper limit.

For policy deliberation about where to set a fee at some point in the future.

So if the council goes down the road of setting a fee.

That will be the upper limit above which a fee cannot be set.

And here is the.

Here is that cost per person trip given that set of given that project list.

So, any fee that said at some point in the future, the fee per person trip, the cost per person trip can't exceed that amount.

Now, there are different land uses have different trip generation characteristics.

So.

Something like a gas station generates a whole lot more trips than a hotel, for example, because people are trying and people are driving to a gas station because I need to get gas.

So it generates a lot of trips.

So there is a, there's this doc, there's this manual called the Institute of transportation engineers trip generation manual that.

That sets out what the trip generation characteristics are for particular land use.

And so you take this fee, and you apply it to the trip and use the trip generation characteristics, and you can come up with what a maximum supportable fee would be.

For each type of land use in the city.

Um, so that's again, a ceiling, it's, you know, there's really just an algorithm here.

You plug in the maximum plug in the maximum portable fee.

It tells you by land use the ceiling above, which you cannot charge.

If you make a different policy decision, or if you make a policy decision that the city should have something like Western Washington fees or something like Burien fees or something like Bellevue fees.

you plug in that cost per person trip, and it spits out sort of what the fee would be by land use.

So that's how some future rate setting would happen.

But the rate study doesn't set the rate.

It just establishes the maximum fee, so the fee above which the city cannot charge.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Mosqueda, do you still have questions?

Yeah, and just this category, and I appreciate this, and this is really the 1st time that I've had the chance to be part of a committee meeting to discuss the concept though.

I know it's been around since I came into office.

This is really the chance.

I think it's council member herbal noted.

Here we are 5 years later, having the same conversation that was teed up in 20. Well, 6 years later, that was teed up in 2018. so I'm, I am still learning.

So.

And I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I thought the answer that just provided.

Pointed back to the fact that the total sum on that list was being generated from the projects identified.

So perhaps.

I didn't understand the answer there, but it's it seemed like that total that you showed us was the total based on the project list that was identified.

So I'm still confused about whether or not the project list that is being put together is actually helping to determine the size of of.

Of the overall.

Ask the fees that we're going to be generating, I guess I'll move on to the next question though.

And I'm happy to continue to talk about that.

Just lastly, in this category, the project lists, I see that these project lists are being defined or listed as system deficiencies.

Are there specific projects that are going to be requested or required to contribute fees to specific infrastructure projects?

Like, so do specific.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Do specific areas then go to specific infrastructure or does it all go into one big pot?

Yeah, so the way this rate study is structured, it would all go into one big pot, and then the council could decide how to allocate those funds.

If there was a different rate study, and so at some point in the future, if the council wanted to do something different, like to have sub areas, then that's another policy decision that the council could make, and it would be a different rate study.

But that's another way that other jurisdictions do it.

The state law allows you to have a service area that is, in fact, the entire city.

So that's what this rate study contemplates.

You know, there are some places in the city where we do charge impact fees.

We don't have an authorized transportation impact fees, but we have based impact fees.

And those are North gate and South Union.

Um, most projects now are categorically exempt from so they're not gonna be paying into those programs, but those and those and those impact programs, there was a specific list of projects and a developer could choose if they wanted to make a pro rata contribution to a project identified in some study for that sub area.

Or if they wanted to pay a fee that the city could use to spend on some project in that sub area.

So that's sort of an example of how, when there's a sub area, you know, there may be a contribution to a specific project that a developer can elect to make.

But that's, you know, that's currently what we, those are currently on the books now.

Those were implemented administratively during the Nichols administration.

Yeah, keep going, Council Member Mosqueda, and then once you're done, I'll take it from there.

Okay, I have a lot.

Mr. Chair, would you like me to hold?

Well, we are at another whole category.

Yeah, we're at 458 PM right now about an hour after we had anticipated committee going and, you know, the robust public comment today, I think, drove.

both the understanding that this is not a clear-cut issue.

Just this presentation alone has raised a number of different questions for me to bring to QTL, even though I've been briefed on this, I believe, once for sure in the last week.

And my clerk has attempted to brief me, I think, 10 times on this in the last week, where I just have more and more questions.

So this has definitely been enlightening.

I mean, I guess I'll pose it to the committee members.

Do we want to continue having this conversation now or should, would you prefer us to take it offline into individual briefings?

I'm just kind of doing a gut check here.

I will defer to the chair.

Okay.

I do have things to.

You've got a, yep.

You heard loud and clear?

But I realized that I was part of the problem because of my questions earlier.

Policy questions on policy before us is never a problem.

I'm going to stand by that one.

Council Member Peterson?

Chair, maybe there could be a hybrid where some additional questions are asked and then the rest are just submitted to Ketel.

Because the information has been out there for a while, and 70 other cities do it.

The methodology was going through, for example, is what the 70 other cities have done.

And so it's just maybe we could ask some questions, and then send written ones later.

My question is about your time.

I can stay here all night.

OK.

One of the few of us.

Councilmember Morales, do you have a preference here?

Councilmember Morales already left.

All right.

Well, what I'm going to say is, let's go for about 10 more minutes, and then I'm going to wrap it up.

I think that's a fair way to go about it.

So, Councilmember Mosqueda, I'm going to give you five more minutes, and then I'm going to give it back to Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Peterson to close this out for five minutes.

I've got a bunch of questions that I've written down in this time, but I'll take that up with Ketel and Naomi to the side.

Okay, thanks, Mr. Chair, and I really don't have a point of reference to where the information has been out.

I've been on the land use committee for the last 4 years.

This is the 1st time we've talked about it here.

I'm not on the transportation committee and this is.

An important conversation to understand the impacts of an impact fee.

So I really don't understand that last comment that was made.

I will, for the record, get all of my questions out there with the hopes that that doesn't take all five minutes and look forward to having a conversation about these.

Specifically about housing and housing production.

Can you talk a little bit about what we are seeing with housing projects in Seattle?

The data we received from today includes both commercial and residential master use permit applications, which show a steep decline since before the pandemic.

So, this goes back to looking at them up intake numbers from 2008 through 2023. We see the numbers declining to intake number of 441 versus a high of 2015 at 975. so I recognize that the reasons for the decline in projects that we are seeing are complex.

I do wonder about what impacts we would have.

If we were going to layer on a new fee, I understand the bar chart that you showed from central staff.

Thank you very much for providing that comparison.

But given that we have that's also layered on here.

I wonder what the impact of layering on a new fee would be to the impact of building additional housing would.

Where are the projections that we can go to to see if there would be any slow down on housing projects?

Yeah, that's a good question and it's 1 that I don't think I can I can't answer today.

I mean, you mentioned the slowdown and and mass use permit activity and I think that's 1 good indication of kind of.

Sort of where the appetite for development, given the current market conditions with high interest rates and things like that.

In the city, there are probably some other things that we should look at as well.

1 thing to think about is the metric that that we could use and sort of looking at current trends and permitting.

Is the value of construction when somebody applies for a building permit, they have to declare the construction value.

That's 1 way city kind of measures development activity in the city.

So, building permit issuance is also kind of an important metric and maybe a little bit, maybe a little bit more accurate than master use permit activity is often the case.

And economic downturns that people apply for master use permits.

To set themselves up for when conditions get better, and then they apply for the building permit.

When conditions get better, so they get the master use permit relatively less expensive permit shop things around for investors, wait for conditions to get right and then.

Apply for a building permit.

Um, this is the what I have on the screen here is the building construction.

So this is the.

Looking at just residential development activity.

In the city, this is a report that puts out.

2022 was essentially a banner year.

It was almost back to 2019, 18, 17 levels in terms of the number of housing units that were going on the market.

Yeah, could you zoom in a little bit?

I think I've seen your handwriting and you have better vision than I think an eagle.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, you're fine.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

1 thing to think about here, and I'm not exactly sure we have the proposal forthcoming from the mayor that may affect this, but we 1 thing to note is that.

For each of these years, so for 2023, for example, for the number of units that have final permits or certificates of occupancy, so so far through June 30th, there are 5735 new units created.

There are a lot of projects that have been permitted, so actually have building permits in hand.

But have not gotten a certificate of occupancy or a final inspection.

So these are projects that they either have not broken ground yet.

Or they are under construction right now, and that is almost 2 years worth of.

Residential permits out there and so that that is probably a lot of those are projects that wanted to vest before the energy code became effective.

And the mayor, we understand that the mayor part of the downtown action plan, the mayor may want to extend the life of mass to use permits, which could allow folks.

To extend the life of the building permits that they potentially have to.

Mr. transportation impact fee is not going to affect any of these projects.

So sorry.

Thank you for attempting to answer the question.

I just want to make sure that the answer was not part of the 5 minutes.

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry.

I didn't mean to go on.

I'm sorry.

No, you're great.

And that last point is important.

So thank you.

And thanks for sharing this chart.

I guess just for the sake of getting the questions out, Mr. Chair, do you want me to list the rest of them?

Yeah, that would be great.

And then I'll turn it over to the sponsors.

OK.

Yeah.

So thank you, Cato, for that initial answer.

I think the concern that I have is wanting to see any real-time analysis of potential impacts on housing production, given the impact of the pandemic on housing production and the slowdown that we've seen and the decrease in rate.

All of these things have been identified as important factors for why we need additional funding, but we also need additional housing.

So I just want to make sure That we don't use old data and that we look at the current market uncertainty and we factor in the current market realities.

And how the housing sector production has already been slowed down and to see if there's any potential impact for this policy to compound that given the housing crisis that we face across Seattle and the state.

I hope we can all agree that we do need to have that real time data.

The 2nd category of questions that I have is about outreach and implementation.

I'm wondering if there is a plan for a phase in a potential impact fees given what we're hearing about concerns.

Over the pace of this discussion, some of which was described by our chair and for members of the public, is there a plan for outreach to help inform the details of future legislation?

Wondering if there's been any equity or analysis done on this proposal?

I understand the comments that were made about how stakeholder is every stakeholder that has informed pedestrian bike transit plan, but.

That does not equal to me and or equity analysis for this specific proposal.

And I've heard this said that this is routine and I want to make sure that the details and the complexity of the proposal, given whether or not there's an argument about how complex they are that we look closely at whether or not there is.

And a disproportionate impact on equity or issues that our city closely monitors and how closely intertwined the steps for implementation are to the phase in or application of impact fees would be ideal to see.

On the piece of legislation and again, I don't know if others have seen a full piece of legislation, or if that is what is tied up with the decision that's coming up in October or November, but I haven't seen a full piece of legislation and I don't know whether or not a full analysis has been done on that legislation for us to have that deliberative discussion.

And if there is a draft of the proposal for the legislation on impact fees, I would like to see that and would want to know how soon we'd be able to see that full proposal.

And then, Mr chair, lastly, related to exemptions.

And happy Cato to forward these off to you as well.

Interested to know what the explanation is for how the legislation relates to exemptions.

Are exemptions identified in this legislation?

Will it be identified in future legislation?

What's the process for looking at which types of projects should be exempt?

We heard a little bit about how affordable housing is permissible to be exempted from the state.

Statute, but I'm also interested in, like, can we apply that to all housing, for example, and projects that include a mix of market rate and affordable units like MFT or MHA performance.

Is there a special consideration for them?

We, and you talked about some of the exemptions for 80 use interested to know what the rationale was for some other cities that have exempted 80 years.

And finally.

For both single and single family and multifamily projects.

I wonder, are all of those included, or how are the fees determined for these different housing types?

And again, overall concern just about the application of this to housing production and the housing production.

issues that I started with.

So thanks again for helping me understand if there is any updated current market analysis of the potential impacts on housing production overall.

I'll send those to you, Ketel.

Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda.

And Ketel, thank you also for not taking the time to answer all of those questions right now.

I think we might be here for a little while.

And I, you know, I have an I also have a list of questions that I'll bring up with you in private, but I think that this demonstrates that Councilmember Herbold, you have been working on this for many years.

It feels like second nature to you.

I think for those of us who have been tracking it, but not at a detailed level, there's a learning curve occurring.

I'm going to pass it back to Councilmember Peterson and Councilmember Herbold.

Councilmember Herbold, I see you have your hand up.

One thought is, I think Council Member Herbold might want to add some information and then I can close this out if that's all right.

I'm going to give you both an opportunity to speak and then I'm not going to have anyone else speak.

So I'm going to give you equal opportunity to close this out and then I will end the meeting right after that.

So Council Member Herbold, I'm going to pass it to you and then to Council Member Peterson.

Thank you.

I just want to reiterate that this legislation does not create transportation impact fee.

And a lot of the questions that I heard today are questions that would be rightly asked in consideration of a future bill, one that isn't before us today.

creating a transportation impact fee.

What we are trying to do is to clear the way to have a future conversation about the policy of a transportation impact fee program.

The bill that we have does not do that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Yeah, thank you, Council Member Herbold, as the co-sponsor for this Council Bill 120635, exactly.

This is just a procedural step needed to enable the City Council to consider a reasonable transportation impact fee program in the future so that City Hall has that tool available as a possible funding source for infrastructure.

Yes, we can exempt low-income housing, we can exempt child care, we can exempt non-profit facilities.

I do want to thank several of the members of the Transportation Committee who demonstrated publicly on September 5 their support for passing this council bill to amend the comp plan to enable the future deliberation.

on an actual impact fee program, really good questions today.

I'm actually excited that these questions are getting out there because it's almost like we're leaning into that process of thinking about the program and the contours of what that could look like.

This council bill is just, it's very brief, it's just that procedural step that's needed.

The support from several of the Transportation Committee members, that's in addition to a recent citywide survey showing 75% support among the general public in Seattle.

That supports in addition to the support from the Transit Riders Union and the Disability Mobility Initiative.

That supports in addition to the fact that reasonable impact fees are utilized in 70 other Washington cities, which makes Seattle an outlier that inequitably keeps the cost burden on property taxes instead.

This, a couple of the bar charts in there already incorporated the MHA fees into the bar chart showing that we would still be competitive with other jurisdictions.

This is an urgent discussion on equitable tax reform because City Hall will need, I believe, this funding source available as an option when the Harrell administration attempts to renew the transportation infrastructure package next year.

I don't think their goal would be to pile everything on the property taxes and renters again.

That's already recently been done on several measures.

It's important to acknowledge that property taxes are also a cost of housing, and property taxes financially impact everyone, homeowners, renters, small businesses.

not just for-profit developers of new projects.

I do want to thank Ketel Freeman and central staff for all the work they've done on this for years.

I think this was initiated by Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, a former chair of the Council's Transportation Committee back in 2014. And so really just hoping we can get this procedural step done.

That would require a 30-day notice for a public hearing.

Hopefully that can be done and timed to get that procedural step in November.

It's great that we're getting these questions out today.

This might be a blessing in disguise to have this in a two-step process so that these questions could get out and get answered.

But I know that just looking positively to the future, we do need this funding for sidewalks and bridges and transit and freight and Vision Zero safety projects.

So I hope we can lean into this and get it done in the next 90 days.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

And thank you, Ketel, for all of your work over a decade, it feels like, and spending.

And I know I tried to meet with you about 10 times last week, and you were busy in your hearing examiner conversation.

So I appreciate all the work that you've been doing for us.

This does conclude the Wednesday, September 13th, 2023 Land Use Committee.

The next Land Use Committee meeting is a special meeting on September 18th, 2023 at 930 a.m.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.