>> ALL RIGHT, GOOD MORNING.
THE 1715, 2025, SPECIAL LAND
USE COMMITTEE MEETING WILL NOW
COME TO ORDER.
IT IS 932 A.M. I AM MARK
SOLPEN, CHAIR OF THE
LAND USE COMMITTEE. WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL.
>> VICE CHAIR
STRAUSS.
>>
PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>>
HERE.
>> CHAIR, THERE ARE FOUR MEMBERS
PRESENT.
>> IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION,
THE AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA'S ADOPTED.
THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING
TO THIS MONDAY MORNING SPECIAL
LAND
USE COMMITTEE MEETING, AND
ALWAYS
THANK YOU YOU TO -- GOT TO THANK
MY CLERK.
COME ON, BEST CLERK IN THE
WORLD AND THANK YOU TO CENTRAL
STAFF FOR HELPING US PREPARE FOR
THIS
MORNING. JUST GETTING RIGHT TO
IT, WE WILL NOW OPEN THE HYBRID
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
PUBLIC COMMENTS SHOULD
BE RELATED TO ITEMS ON
TODAY'S AGENDA AND WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF
THIS COMMITTEE.
THE COMMITTEE CANNOT
ACCEPT COMMENT ON ITEMS 1 AND 2
BECAUSE
THEY ARE QUASI- JUDICIAL
DISCUSSIONS -- OR DISCUSSIONS,
RATHER.
CLERK, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO
WE HAVE SIGNED UP
TODAY?
>> WE HAVE ZERO IN PERSON
AND FOUR
REMOTE.
>> ALL RIGHT, WE'LL PROCEED
WITH THE REMOTE SPEAKERS.
EACH PERSON WILL HAVE 2 MINUTES.
CLERK, CAN YOU PLEASE READ THE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE
SPEAKERS?
>> THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD WILL BE MODERATED IN
THE FOLLOWING MANNER.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS
UP TO 20 MINUTES.
SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE
ORDER THEY REGISTERED.
SPEAKERS WILL HEAR A CHIME
AND TEN SECONDS AFTER THEIR
MICS WILL BE MUTED.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS NOW
OPEN AND WE'LL BEGIN WITH
THE FIRST
SPEAKER ON THE LIST AND THAT IS
HOLLY
GOLDEN.
>> BEFORE THAT SPEAKER
PROCEEDS, I WANT IT FOR THE
RECORD
THAT COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA HAS
JOINED US.
SO, SPEAKER, PLEASE
PROCEED.
>> THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, COUNCILMEMBERS.
I'M HOLLY GOLDEN, LAND
USE ATTORNEY AT HILL S CLARK,
MARTIN, AND PETERSON.
I'M SPEAKING OF THE
INTERNAL DESIGNER REVIEW
LEGISLATION
COUNCIL BILL 120148. PART OF MY
JOB IS HELP
APPLICANTS NAVIGATE
TITLEMENTS WHICH MEANS I SPEND A
LOT OF
TIME WITH NAVIGATING
SEATTLE'S DESIGN REVIEW
PROCESS.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY
OTHER ELEMENT OF THE SEATTLE
DESIGN PROCESS THAT ADDS MORE
UNCERTAINTY, TIME, AND
KAUTS TO THE DELIVERY OF
HOUSING.
I'M GLAD THE CITY IS TAKING
THE TIME IT NEEDS TO CREATE A
GOOD,
LONG- TERM ALTERNATIVE TO THE
CURRENT DESIGNER REVIEW
PROGRAM AND TO COME INTO
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.
IN THE INTERIM, I SUPPORT
THE PROPOSED DESIGNER
REVIEW LEGISLATION BEFORE YOU
TODAY.
IT WILL HELP GET MORE HOUSING
BUILT FASTER, WHICH I THINK
IS THE APPROPRIATE LENS
FOR EVALUATING ALL NEW LAND
USE POLICY.
I ALSO WANT TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF COUNCILMEMBER
SOLOMON'S AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1
GIVES PIPELINE AND FUTURE
PROJECTS
OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE
FULL DESIGNER REVIEW PROCESS
THE OPTION OF GOING
THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGNER
VIEW
OR ABR.
THIS IS A FAIRLY
TECHNICAL
CHANGE. ADR IS STILL A TWO- STEP
PROCESS WITH THE SAME
STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT,
DEPARTURE
WHERES, AND DESIGNER VIEW
GUIDELINES, BUT AN APPLICANT --
BUT THIS CHANGE WOULD ALLOW
AN APPLICANT TO WORK THROUGH
THIS PROCESS WITH THEIR ASSIGNED
LAND
USE
PLANNER INSTEAD OF THROUGH THE
VOLUNTEER BOARD.
THIS WILL SAVE TIME
AROUND SCHEDULING AND REDUCE
SOME
OF THE INHERENT UNCERTAINTY IN
THE
PROCESS. IT'S ALSO MORE
CONSISTENT
WITH THE STATE LAW MANDATE
BECAUSE FULL DESIGNER REVIEW
REQUIRES TWO STATE MEETINGS AND
THE
STATE SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE
MORE THAN
ONE. AT ITS CORE THIS AMENDMENT
WILL
STREAMLINE THE PROCESS AND
GET MORE HOUSING BUILT FASTER.
IN CLOSING I URGE THE PASSING OF
THE LEGISLATION ANDAND
AMENDMENT.
THANK
YOU.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE SARAH CLARK.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR SOLOMON
AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND
USE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS SARAH
CLARK, AND
I'M SPEAKING TODAY ON BEHALF OF
THE MORE THAN 2,500 MEMBERS OF
THE SEATTLE METROPOLITAN CHAMBER
OF
COMMERCE IN SUPPORT OF COUNCIL
BILL 121047.
WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK CHAIR
SOLOMON FOR SPONSORING THIS
BILL AND THANK THE CITY'S
OFFICE
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR A
QUICK
RESPONSE TO STAKEHOLDER
FEEDBACK AND PARTNERSHIP WITH
CHAIR SOLOMON TO FIND A
POLICY SOLUTION WITH THIS
LEGISLATION
THAT WILL REDUCE COSTS FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES, ACCELERATE NEW
RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES,
AND SUPPORT SEATTLE'S
ECONOMIC RECOVERY.
THIS LEGISLATION WILL HELP
THE CITY AND BUSINESS
COMMUNITY ADDRESS SOME OF THE
CURRENT
AND MOST PRESSING CHALLENGES WE
FACE LIKE HIGH VACANCY RATES
THAT
CONTINUE TO RISE AND
DWINDLING RETAIL INVESTMENT
THROUGHOUT THE
CITY, WHICH ARE BOTH VERY
MUCH EVIDENT IN THE DOWNTOWN
CORE.
WE ARE ENCOURAGED BY THE
CITY'S COMMITMENT TO REDUCING
TIME
CONSUMING REGULATORY BARRIERS
AND APPRECIATE THIS
POSITIVE STEP FORWARD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
CONSIDERATION.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE HANNAH.
>>
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS HANNAH.
I'M THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT MANAGER AT THE U
DISTRICT
PARTNERSHIP,
THE PROGRAM MANAGE OF THE U
DISTRICT DIA
AND ADVOCATE OF THE BUSINESS
COMMUNITY AND OVERALL HEALTH OF
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
MY COMMENTS PERTAIN TO COUNCIL
BILL 121047.
OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS OUR TEAM
HAS HELPED DISTRIBUTE THE GRANT
TO SUPPORT UP GRADES AND
IMPROVEMENTS ALLOWING MANY OWNER
OPERATED BUSINESSES TO BRING
THEIR VISIONS TO LIFE.
HOWEVER, IN THE PROCESS OF
DISTRIBUTING THESE FUNDS WE
SAW FIRST- HAND HOW THE
STATE PERMITTING
REQUIREMENTS, ESPECIALLY SOME
ALTERATION TRIGGERS DELAYED
PROJECTS
AND PLACED DISPROPORTIONATE
BURDENS ON SMALL BUSINESSES.
IN MANY CASES EVEN MODEST
AND EXTERIOR RENOVATION FOR
ONE TENANT SPACE COULD TRIGGER
COSTLY BUILDING
REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD STALL
IMPROVEMENTS.
ANOTHER CHALLENGE ARISES WHEN
BUSINESSES ATTEMPT TO
LEASE VACANT SPACES,
ALTERVATIONS RULES OFTEN IMPOSE
OVERWHELMING COSTS ON NEW
TENANTS,
DISCOURAGING THEM FROM MOVING
IN AND LEAVING STOREFRONTS
VACANT
EVEN LONGER.
THIS ALSO CREATES RIPPLE
EFFECTS THAT IMPACTS THE
VITALITY OF
THE
ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. SMALL
BUSINESSES ARE ALREADY
NAVIGATING RISING COSTS OF
MATERIAL, LABOR, AND MANY ARE
FORCED TO CLOSE.
THE RESULT IS A PSYCHOOF
VACANCIES THAT UNDERMINES THE
HEALTH OF OUR
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
BY ADOPTING THE CHANGES
PROPOSED IN THIS LEGISLATION THE
COUNCIL WOULD MEANINGFULLY
REDUCE
BARRIERS, SUPPORT SMALL
BUSINESSES, AND HELP ENSURE
OUR NEIGHBORHOODS CONTINUE TO
ADAPT
AND THRIVE. ON BEHALF OF OUR
PARTNER
DISTRICT, I WANT TO THANK
OED AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
AND
CONSIDERATION.
>> NEXT WE HAVE BOBBY
NICKEL.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS BOBBY
NICKEL.
I'M WITH THE NON- PROFIT
TOURISM ORGANIZATION THAT HELPED
BRING 40 MILLION PEOPLE AND $8.
8 BILLION TO OUR REGION LAST
YEAR.
THE CARE AND CREATIVITY THAT
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS PUT
INTO THEIR SPACES ALL OVER
TOWN REFLECT OUR BROADER VALUES
AS A
COMMUNITY.
SENDING SOMEONE WHO'S NEVER
BEEN HERE BEFORE INTO A
SHOP WHERE THEY CAN SEE THE
OWNER'S PERSONAL STORY AND
ATTENTION TO
DETAIL AND FEEL SAFE AND
COMFORTABLE AND WELCOME,
IT'S THAN THE CREDIBLE WAY
TO INTRODUCE A NEWCOMER TO
OUR CITY.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE
BOOSTED.
UNFORTUNATELY, YOUR CURRENT
PERMITTING STRUCTURE
PREVENTS SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS
FROM
MAKING EVEN
BASIC UP GRADES, AND IN SOME
CASES IT PREVENTS THEM
FROM OPENING.
THIS IS A LOSS FOR OUR CITY
AS WE ENDEAVOR TO ACTIVATE
STOREFRONTS AND PUT OUR
BEST FOOT FORWARD FOR THE FIFA
WORLD
CUP, THAT IS NOW JUST
NINE MONTHS AWAY AS OF TODAY.
I URGE YOU TO MOVE FORWARD
SO OUR
SMALL BUSINESSES GET EVERY
POSSIBLE CHANCE TO STRIVE NEXT
SUMMER AND ALWAYS.
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU
FOR EXPLORING THIS OPPORTUNITY
ALONG
WITH COUNCIL AND A BIG THANK
TO THE BIA'S REPRESENTING SMALL
BUSINESS CENTERS
ESPECIALLY BATTLING PERMITTING
HEAD
WINDS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
>> CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES
COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THAT WAS OUR LAST
REGISTERED SPEAKER.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS
CLOSED.
WE'LL NOW MOVE ONTO OUR FIRST
TWO ITEMS OF BUSINESS.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ
ITEMS 1 AND 2 INTO THE
RECORD?
>> ITEM 1, CF-
3145334, APPLICATION OF SCOTT
CARR FOR
A CONTRACT REZONE OF A SITE
LOCATED AT 352 ROY STREET
FROM SEATTLE MIXED UPTOWN WITH A
6- FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
OVERLAY TO SEATTLE MIXED UPTOWN
WITH AN 85- FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT
AND
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
OVERLAY.
AGENDA ITEM 2 COUNCIL BILL
12704 AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO
LAND USE
AND ZONING CONSISTENT WITH WHAT
I JUST SAID FOR AGENDA ITEM
1.
>> OKAY, GREAT.
THE CLERK HAS READ ITEMS 1
AND 2 INTO
THE RECORD. THE
COMMITTEE WILL DISCUSS THESE
ITEMS TOGETHER YET VOTE ON
EACH
SEPARATELY. I SEE OUR
REPRESENTATIVE
FROM CENTRAL STAFF HAS JOINED
US,
SO PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF
WHEN YOU ARE READY AND
BEGIN.
>> THANK YOU.
H.B. HARPER, CENTRAL STAFF.
SO AS MENTIONED THIS IS CONTRACT
REASON FOR TWO DIFFERENT
ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, CLERK FILE
AND THE COUNCIL BILL.
I HAVE THE SLIDES FROM LAST TIME
IN CASE THEY'RE HELPFUL HERE.
BUT AS YOU MAY RECALL THIS IS
A CONTRACT REZONE WHICH IS
A QUASI- JUDICIAL DECISION,
WHICH MEANS THAT THE COUNCIL
DECISIONS
MUST BE MADE ON THE
RECORD ESTABLISHED BY THE
HEARING
EXAMINER.
THIS IS A REZONE OF A SITE
IN THE UPTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD
FROM SEATTLE MIXED UPTOWN 65-
FOOT HEIGHT WITH A MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY SUFFIX OF
"M"
TO SEATTLE MIXED UPTOWN WITH AN
85-FOOT HEIGHT AND CREATING THAT
MANDATORY HOUSING SUFFIX OF "M.
"
SO THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS
SEVERAL OLDER STRUCTURES
AND A
PARKING LOT. THE STRUCTURES ARE
I BELIEVE
RESTAURANTS FOR THE MOST PART.
AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS AN
8- STORY, 215 MIXED USE
PROJECTS WITH APARTMENT AND
RETAIL AND
IS PROPOSING TO MEET MANDATORY
HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS VIA
PERFORMANCE.
SO IN OTHER WORDS,
BUILDING THOSE UNITS.
SO THE HEARING EXAMINER AND
SDCI BOTH RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
WITH CONDITIONS.
AND THOSE CONDITIONS ARE
RELATED TO ENSURING THAT THE
PROJECT
LOOKS THE WAY THAT IT'S BEING
PRESENTED THUS FAR AND
ALSO ENSURING THAT THAT
MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT IS
CARRIED THROUGH.
SO YOU'LL SEE THOSE
CONDITIONS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE
PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AND THE FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS DOCUMENT WE'VE
PREPARED.
IF THE COMMITTEE APPROVES THE
REZONE, WE'LL BE DOING
SOME TIDYING UP OF THE CLERK
FILE.
AND THEN THE BILL, WHICH WAS
INTRODUCED LAST WEEK, WE
WOULD HAVE THE SIGNED PROPERTY
USE
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
ATTACHED TO THAT BILL FOR THE
FULL COUNCIL VOTE.
SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT SIGNATURE
YET, BUT WE ANTICIPATE
GETTING IT SHORTLY.
AND WITH THAT, I'M
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR
PRESENTER FROM THE COMMITTEE?
COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> CARE, THANK YOU.
AND I HAD ALL MY QUESTIONS
ANSWERED AT THE LAST
COMMITTEE
MEETING. I FEEL COMFORTABLE TO
VOTE.
THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT,
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?
ALL RIGHT, WE WILL NOW
CONSIDER EACH ITEM SEPARATELY
STARTING WITH THE CLERK FILE.
I MOVE THE COMMITTEE RECOMMEND
CLERK FILE 314534 BE GRANTED.
IS THERE A
SECOND?
>>
SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED TO GRANT THE CLERK
FILE. COMMITTEE WILL NOW
CONSIDER ADDING THE FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
DECISIONS OF THE COUNCIL AS
PRESENTED IN
THETHE STAFF MEMO.
ALL RIGHT, I MOVE THE CLERK FILE
TO ADD THE FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISIONS.
IS THERE A SECOND ON
THAT?
>>
SECOND.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THAT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
OKAY.
EXCUSE ME.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON
THE AMENDMENT?
>> VICE CHAIR
STRAUSS.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
>>
YES.
>> THE MOTION
CARRIES AND THE FINDINGS AND
DECISIONS OF THE
COUNCIL HAVE BEEN INCLUDED
IN THE RECORD.
ARE THERE ANY FINAL COMMENTS ON
GRANTING THE CLERK FILE AS
CONDITIONED?
ALL RIGHT.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON THE RECOMMENDATION
TO
GRANT THE
CLERK FILE?
>> VICE CHAIR
STRAUSS.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>>
AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK.
>>
AYE.
>> CHAIR
SOLOMON.
>> THERE ARE FIVE VOTES.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND
CLERK FILE WILL BE GRANTED AND
CONDITIONS SENT TO THE COUNCIL.
WE WILL NOW CONSIDER THE RELATED
BILL. I MOVE THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDS PASSAGE OF COUNCIL
BILL 121074.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>>
SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
ANY FINAL COMMENTS?
ALL RIGHT, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON
RECOMMENDATION TO PASS COUNCIL
BILL
121074?
>> VICE CHAIR
STRAUSS.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK.
>> CHAIR, THERE ARE FIVE
VOTES IN FAVOR AND ZERO
OPPOSED.
>> ALL RIGHT, THE MOTION CARRIES
AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
TO PASS COUNCIL BILL 121074 WILL
BE SENT TO THE SEPTEMBER 23rd
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DEPENDING
WHEN
WE RECEIVE THE SIGNED PD FROM
THE DEVELOPER.
CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE
READ ITEM 3 INTO THE
AGENDA?
>> AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAND
USE AND ZONING UPDATING
TIME LINES FOR CITY REVIEW OF
LAND USE
PERMITS.
>> I SEE OUR REPRESENTATIVE
FOR CENTRAL STAFF HAS JOINED US.
PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF
FOR THE RECORD AND BEGIN WHEN
YOU
ARE
READY.
>> LISH WHITSON, COUNCIL
CENTRAL
STAFF. AS YOU MAY REMEMBER THIS
IS
A BILL THAT UPDATES THE
CITY'S TIME PERIODS FOR
PROCESSING LAND
USE PERMITS.
BASED ON REQUIREMENTS UNDER
STATE LAW.
GENERALLY THE STATE
REQUIRES THAT PERMITS THAT DO
NOT
REQUIRE
PUBLIC NOTICE OR A PUBLIC
HEARING BE PROCESSED WITHIN
65 DAYS.
PERMITS THAT REQUIRE PUBLIC
NOTICE BUT NOT A PUBLIC
HEARING BE
CONSIDERED WITHIN -- DECISION
PUBLISHED WITHIN 100 DAYS
AND PERMITS THAT REQUIRE BOTH
A PUBLIC NOTICE AND A
PUBLIC HEARING BE CONSIDERED
WITHIN 170
DAYS.
YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT.
>> YES.
>> DO YOU WANT TO MOVE
THAT BEFORE I DISCUSS IT, OR
SHOULD
I --
>> LET ME -- I WILL MOVE
THE AMENDMENT.
I MOVE THAT THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS -- WAIT,
DON'T I
NEED TO MOVE THE BILL BEFORE THE
AMENDMENT?
OKAY, COOL.
SO I MOVE THAT THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS PASSAGE OF
COUNCIL BILL 1210450.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> OKAY, IT IS MOVED
AND SECONDED TO RECOMMEND
PASSAGE
OF THE BILL.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
121045 AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT 1 ON THE
AGENDA. IS THERE A SECOND?
>>
SECOND.
>> OKAY, THAT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THE
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON
HAS JOINED THE PANEL,
SO IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO THE
AMENDMENT,
PLEASE.
>> SO THIS AMENDMENT MAKES SOME
REVISIONS THROUGHOUT THE BILL.
SO IT'S PRESENTED AS A
SUBSTITUTE TO THE BILL TO
CLARIFY SOME OF THE
PROVISIONS, RESPOND IN MORE
DETAIL TO
THE WAY THAT SDCI PROCESSES OUR
PERMITS, AND TO MAKE OTHER --
AND TO BRING IN SOME OF
THE PROVISIONS OF THE
STATE REGULATIONS THAT WEREN'T
IN
THE BILL AS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED.
IN PARTICULAR IT CLARIFIES
THAT IF THERE WERE MULTIPLE LAND
USE PERMITS FOR A PROJECT,
THE LONGEST TIME PERIOD
APPLIES, ALLOWS ADDITIONAL TIME
FOR PERMITS THAT INCLUDE PUBLIC
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OR WAIVERS
FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
PROVIDES ADDITIONAL TIME FOR
DESIGN REVIEW, STATE
AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
ACT DETERMINATIONS, MAJOR FACE
DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, AND SPECIAL
EXCEPTION PERMIT
DECISIONS, WHICH TYPICALLY HAVE
MORE
PUBLIC PROCESS AND SO REQUIRE
MORE TIME
TO PROCESS.
PROVIDES CLARITY AROUND
SUSPICIONS -- SUSPENSIONS OF
PERMIT REVIEWS WHEN REQUESTED BY
AN APPLICANT.
STATES THAT WHEN AN APPLICATION
HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY
ALTERED BY THE APPLICANT, THE
PERMIT
CLOCKS RESTARTS.
IT EXEMPTS SOME OF THE
BIGGEST MOST COMPLICATED TYPES
OF PERMITS SDCI REVIEWS SUCH AS
SHORELINE EXCEPTIONS, WHICH
REQUIRES STATE APPROVAL,
VARIANCES, AND CONDITIONAL USES
FROM THE TIME PERIODS IN
THE BILL.
CLARIFIES THAT PAYMENT OF
FEES AS A REQUIRED COMPONENT OF
A COMPLETE MASTER USE PERMIT,
AND FINALLY SETS AN
EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THE
LEGISLATION.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR RECOGNIZING ME AND ALLOWING
ME TO SPEAK TO THIS BILL, WHICH
--
WHICH I APPRECIATE YOU HAVING IN
YOUR COMMITTEE.
AND JUST TO SAY A FEW THINGS
ABOUT THE BILL IN GENERAL
AND THEN THE AMENDMENT, IF
THAT'S
POSSIBLE.
>>
YES.
>> OKAY.
SO BASICALLY TO REPEAT A
LITTLE OF WHAT I SAID LAST TIME,
WE HEAR TIME AND TIME AGAIN
THAT PERMITTING PROBLEMS, THEY
SLOW HOUSING CONSTRUCTION,
INHIBIT ECONOMIC GROWTH, AND
JUST INCREASE HASSLE IN BUILDING
ANY KIND OF PROJECT, AND WHETHER
OR
NOT YOU'RE A HOMEOWNER OR A
DEVELOPER TRYING TO GET
THEM UP FOR A MASTER -- FOR A
MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT,
INVARIABLY PEOPLE
ENCOUNTER DELAYS.
AND THESE DELAYS CAN
JEOPARDIZE THE FINANCING OF
PROJECTS BECAUSE BANKS WANT TO
KNOW WHEN
THEY'RE GOING TO GET
THEIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT.
SO THE -- AND THIS BILL
IS A LONG
TIME COMING. THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON
PASSED THREE SEPARATE
PERMITTING RELATED BILLS SINCE
2023, AND
THIS FIRST BILL BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE TODAY WILL BRING
THE CITY INTO ALIGNMENT WITH
THOSE
LAWS BY ADOPTING A
DEFAULT PERMIT REVIEW
TIMELINE SCHEDULE THAT SAID IN
THE RCW FOR
PROJECT PERMITS AND ALSO UPDATES
THE CITY COUNCIL RULES FOR
QUASIJUDICIAL ACTIONS TO BE
BETTER IN LINE WITH ACTUAL
PRACTICESCH AND IT'S REALLY
THE TIME LINES THAT PEOPLE CAN
EXPECT THEIR PROJECT PERMIT
REVIEWS THAT REALLY, REALLY
MAKES A DIFFERENCE.
AND SO I
-- I COMPLETELY ACCEPT AND SEE
AS FRIENDLY
AMENDMENTS THIS -- THE CHANGES
THAT SDCI
THAT IS IDENTIFYING.
THEY GOT TO IT WHEN WE WERE OFF
ON RECESS, AND I WELCOME THE
IMPROVEMENT TO THIS BASELINE
LEGISLATION, SO THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR CARRYING
FORWARD THIS AMENDMENT, AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY HAVING IN YOUR
COMMITTEE
A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THAT IS
--
THAT IS JEOPARDIZING
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION AND ALSO
SLOWING ECONOMIC
GROWTH.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
COUNCIL
PRESIDENT. I RECALL WHEN I FIRST
JOINED THIS BODY I WAS ASKED,
YOU
KNOW, WHAT'S THE ONE THING YOU
WANT
TO ACCOMPLISH IN YOUR TIME, AND
PERMIT REFORM IS ON THE TOP
OF THAT LIST.
THIS AMENDMENT WAS DRAFTED
IN COORDINATION WITH SDCI,
THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT'S OFFICE
TO
ENSURE PERMIT TIMELINES
SET FORTH UNDER THIS
LEGISLATION CREATE ACHIEVABLE
STRETCH GOALS.
HERE IT'S INTENDED TO CREATE
TIMELINES THAT MAKE MEANINGFUL
IMPACTS IN EXPEDITING
THE PERMITTING PROCESS
WHILE ENSURING SDCI IS STILL
ABLE
TO ACHIEVE THE TIMELINES IT
SET FORTH.
I WANT TO THANK DAVID,
CHRISTINA, AND ERIC NEILSON
FOR THEIR HARD WORK IN DRAFTING
THIS IMPORTANT AMENDMENT.
I ALSO WANT TO THANK COUNCIL
PRESIDENT NELSON FOR BRINGING
FORWARD THIS CRUCIAL LEGISLATION
THAT WILL ENSURE SEATTLE
DELIVER CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT
AND ESPECIALLY HOUSING MORE
RAPIDLY
AS SEATTLE LOOKS TO ADDRESS
HOUSING NEEDS.
ARE THERE ANY FINAL
QUESTIONS BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE
ADOPTION
OF
AMENDMENT 1?
OKAY. CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL
ON THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT 1.
>> VICE CHAIR
STRAUZ.
>>
YES.
>>
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
>>
YES.
>> CONSTANT JUAREZ.
>> THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
ANY FINAL COMMENTS REGARDING
THE RECOMMENDATION TO PASS
COUNCIL BILL 121045 AS AMENDED?
HEARING NONE, WILL
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
THE RECOMMENDATION TO PASS
COUNCIL BILL÷÷ 121045.
>> VICE CHAIR
STRAUSS.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
>> CHAIR, THERE ARE FIVE VOTES
IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES
AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO
PASS COUNCIL BILL 121045 WILL BE
SENT
TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
TO SEND THIS BILL TO
TOMORROW'S CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THE
RULES NEED TO BE SUSPENDED
BECAUSE
THE VOTE OCCURRED AFTER THURSDAY
1
P.M. DEADLINE.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION,
RULES WILL BE SUSPENDED TO ALLOW
COUNCIL BILL 121045 TO BE SENT
TO MORROW'S SEPTEMBER
16th COUNCIL
MEETING.
>> CHAIR, NOT SUBMITTING
A FORMAL OBJECTION AT THE
MOMENT.
MONDAY MORNING 9:30
COMMITTEE WE'RE BEING ASKED TO
SEND
THIS TO TUESDAY, TOMORROW'S
COMMITTEECH I KNOW I'M NOT
GOING TO BE THERE BECAUSE I WILL
BE AT
THE TRIBAL SUMMIT.
I KNOW A NUMBER OF OTHERS WON'T.
IS THERE A REASON WE NEED TO
GO TOMORROW AND NOT
NEXT WEEK?
>> PRIMARY REASON IS BASICALLY
THE CALENDER WITH EVERYTHING
THAT WE HAVE COMING UP
WITH BUDGET COMING AND WANTING
TO
GET THIS DONE, WE WANTED
TO EXPEDITE THE
VOTE.
>> MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE
TO TAKE THE STANDARD WEEK, BUT
I'M NOT GOING TO SUBMIT A
FORMAL OBJECTION
TODAY.
>> OKAY, UNDERSTOOD.
SO THERE'S NO FORMAL
OBJECTION TO SUSPENDING THE
RULES?
HEARING NONE, THE RULES
ARE SUSPENDED.
TO ALLOW COUNCIL BILL 121045 TO
BE SENT TO- TERM'S SEPTEMBER
16th CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
THANK YOU.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ONTO OUR
FOURTH ITEM OF BUSINESS.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
READ ITEM 4 INTO THE
AGENDA?
>> AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO
SEATTLE'S CONSTRUCTION
CODES, LIMITING THE AREAS FOR
WHICH SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATIONS
ARE REQUIRED TO SPACES OR
BUILDINGS GREATER THAN 7,000
SQUARE FEET
IN GROSS AREA,
AMENDING EXISTING SUBSTANTIAL
ALTERATION REQUIREMENTS AND
AMENDING SECTION 311 OF THE
SEATTLE EXISTING
BUILDING CODE, ADOPTED BY
ORDINANCE
127108.
>> WE KNOW YOU'LL
INTRODUCE YOURSELF ANYWAY AND
START.
>> LISH WHITSON, COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF.
YOU HEARD ABOUT THIS BILL
AT YOUR LAST MEETING.
IT UPDATES THE SEATTLE
EXISTING BUILDING CODE RELATED
TO
SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATIONS.
SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATIONS ARE
REQUIRED WHEN --
SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATIONS REQUIRE
UP
GRADES WHEN SIGNIFICANT WORK IS
BEING PERFORMED ON A BUILDING,
WHEN
A CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY RESULTS IN
A MORE HADARDOUS OCCUPANCY
AND WHEN A BUILDING HAS BEEN
VACANT FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
EXEMPT SPACES THAT ARE LESS THAN
7,000 SQUARE FEET AND SPACES
THAT
HAVE BEEN VACANT FOR TWO YEARS
FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
SUBSTANTIAL
ALTERATION TO GET A
SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION PERMIT.
OTHER PERMITS WOULD STILL
BE REQUIRED.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS.
>> DO ANY OF THE MEMBER OF
THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
FOR
OUR PRESENTER ON
THIS LEGISLATION?
HEARING NONE, I MOVE THAT
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS PASSAGE
OF COUNCIL BILL 121047.
IS THERE A
SECOND?
>>
SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
FOR THE PASSAGE OF THE BILL.
ARE THERE ANY FINAL COMMENTS?
ALL RIGHT, WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE -- OH, I'M SORRY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON.
>> AGAIN, A THANK YOU TO YOU,
CHAIR, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD.
THIS WHOLE PERMITTING REFORM
EFFORT STARTED IN A
DISCUSSION IN MY COMMITTEE WITH
ARCHITECTS WHO IDENTIFIED THE
SYSTEMATIC, ONGOING AND MOST
PERNICIOUS
PROBLEMS OR OBSTACLES WITH
PERMITTING IN GENERAL.
AND SO THE BILL WE
JUST PASSED -- OR YOU JUST
PASSED
ON TIMELINES AND THIS ONE
THAT REALLY ADDRESSES SOME
PROBLEMS WITH DEFINITIONS AND
CRITERIA
FOR SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATIONS ARE
TWO OF
THE MANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
WERE PUT FORWARD
INCLUDING SIMPLY JUST BRINGING
THE SERVICE
DESK BACK IN, YOU KNOW,
EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK SO PEOPLE
CAN
ACTUALLY ASK QUESTIONS OF HUMAN
BEINGS AND GET ANSWERS TO
SOME PROBLEMS WITH PERMITS.
SO THERE'S A LOT MORE TO BE
DONE IS MY POINT ON PERMITTING,
BUT THESE TWO ARE BIG FIRST
STEPS
TOWARD -- TOWARD GETTING
THERE, AND I THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR
PRIORITIZING THESE BECAUSE
I KNOW THAT YOU'VE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT THIS FOREVER AS
WELL.
SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT.
AGAIN, PERMIT REFORM TOP OF THE
LIST. OKAY.
ANY OTHER FINAL COMMENTS?
CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON THE PASSAGEPASSAGE
COUNCIL
BILL 121047.
>> VICE CHAIR
STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
CHAIR SOLOMON.
CHAIR, THERE ARE FIVE VOTES
IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES ON
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO
PASS COUNCIL BILL 121047 WILL BE
SENT TO THE FULL COUNCIL.
NOW, TO SEND THIS BILL TO
TOMORROW'S CITY COUNCIL
MEETING RULES WOULD NEED TO BE
SUSPENDED BECAUSE THE VOTE
OCCURRED AFTER
THURSDAY 1:00 P.M. DEADLINE.
JUST AS WITH THE
PREVIOUS MATTER WE VOTED UPON,
AGAIN, LOOKING TO
SUSPEND THE RULES TO GET THIS
ACROSS THE FINISH LINE BEFORE
WE GET INTO BUDGET.
SO IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS,
THE RULES WILL BE SUSPENDED
TO ALLOW THE VOTE TO OCCUR FOR
THIS BILL TO BE PRESENTED AT
TOMORROW'S SEPTEMBER 16th
CITY
COUNCIL MEETING. HEARING NO
OBJECTIONS, THE RULES
ARE SUSPENDED TO ALLOW
COUNCIL BILL 121047 TO BE SENT
TO
TOMORROW SEPTEMBER 16th CITY
COUNCIL MEETING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYONE.
NOW, WE WILL NOW MOVE ONTO
THE FIFTH ITEM OF BUSINESS.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ
ITEM 5 INTO
THE AGENDA.
>> COUNCIL BILL
121048 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO
LAND
USE AND ZONING, ADOPTING
TEMPORARY REGULATIONS TO EXEMPT
HOUSING PROJECTS THAT MEET
MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
REQUIREMENTS USING ON-
SITE PERFORMANCE UNITS FROM
DESIGN
REVIEW. CONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER
333,
LAWS OF 203 AND AMENDING SECTION
23.41. 004 OF THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL
CODE.
>> FOR THE RECORD INTRODUCE AND
BEGIN.
>> H.B. HARPER, CENTRAL STAFF.
AS YOU MAY RECALL FROM LAST
MEETING, THE INTERIM DESIGN
REVIEW BILLS RELATED TO
HOUSE BILL 1293 WHICH WAS PASSED
BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE IN
2023 REQUIRING CITIES TO HAVE
DESIGNER REVIEW PROGRAMS THAT
MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS, AND
THOSE STANDARDS ARE TO HAVE
OBJECTIVE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND
HAVE NO MORE THAN ONE
PUBLIC MEETING IN THE PROCESS.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING FROM
THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT IS THAT
SDCI IS WORKING ON
PERMITTING REGULATIONS TO MEET
THESE
REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, IN THE
INTERIM
THEY'RE PROPOSING A SIX- MONTH
TEMPORARY
REGULATIONS THAT MAKE ALL
DESIGN REVIEW OPTIONALCH AND
WHEN I
SAY ALL I'M REFERRING TO THE
THREE LEVELS OF DESIGN REVIEW
THAT EXIST IN THE CODE TODAY --
STREAM LINED DESIGN REVIEW, FULL
DESIGN REVIEW AND
THE LEGISLATION MAKES THOSE
ENTIRELY
OPTIONAL FOR APPLICANTS AND
EXTENDS TEMPORARY OPTIONS
RELATED TO IF A PROJECT
IS MEETING MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY OR A LOW
INCOME PROJECT.
THAT DESIGN WAS ALREADY
OPTIONAL,
AND THIS LEGISLATION WILL EXTEND
THAT EXEMPTION.
SO WE ARE ANTICIPATING PERMANENT
CHANGES THE DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS IN SPRING OF NEXT
YEAR, BOTH PROCESS AND
GUIDELINES.
AND IN THE MEANTIME THE
INTERIM LEGISLATION IS BEFORE
THE COUNCIL.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
ON IT AS WELL AS SPEAK
TO AMENDMENTS ONCE THOSE HAVE
BEEN PUT UP FOR
DISCUSSION.
>> CHAIR, I HAVE A
QUICK QUESTION.
>> YES, COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
>> THANK YOU.
I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION
ON LOOKING AT THE SUMMARY
AND FISCAL NOTE ONLY BECAUSE
I HAVEN'T BEEN HERE ON HOUSE
BILL
1293.
WHEN THEY SAY USING
OBJECTIVE RATHER THAN SUBJECTIVE
GUIDELINES, I CAN'T RECALL IF
YOU ACTUALLY HAVE IN THE
LAW WHERE IT WOULD SAY USE
OBJECTIVE, SO WHAT --
WHAT CHANGED IT TO USING
OBJECTIVE RATHER THAN
SUBJECTIVE?
I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE
ANALYSIS.
>> SO I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE
QUESTION, BUT IF I
DON'T THEN PLEASE RESTATE.
SO CURRENTLY THERE ARE
MANY DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT
WOULD BE
DIFFICULT FOR A DEVELOPER OR
BUILDER TO
KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE
MEETING THAT GUIDELINE.
AND SO THE LEGISLATURE,
AND THERE'S ALSO BEEN
COURT DECISIONS ON THIS, SAY
THAT IT
NEEDS TO BE PREDICTABLE OR
THE WORD IS ASCERTAINABLE.
THE WORD HAS APPEARED AS
ASCERTAINABLE. SO THEY NEED TO
KNOW THEY'RE
MEETING A DESIGN
GUIDELINE SIMPLY BY NEEDING TO
READ IT.
IF A FACADE IS REQUIRED TO LOOK
HARMONIOUS, THAT WOULD BE
A SUBJECTIVE GUIDELINE.
BUT IF A FACADE IS REQUIRED
TO MODULATE BY AT LEAST 10 FEET
EVERY 40 FEET, THAT IS
SOMETHING THEY KNOW THEY ARE
DOING.
THE DIFFERENCE OF SUBJECTIVE
AND OBJECTIVE BECAME IMPORTANT
FOR
THE PREDICTABILITY OF THE
DESIGN PROCESS FOR I THINK THE
DESIGN DRAFTERS OF
THAT LEGISLATURE. DOES THAT
ANSWER THE QUESTION?
>> YES.
I GUESS WE WERE DOING
IT SUBJECTIVELY BEFORE.
>> I THINK THERE'S A RANGE,
AND I THINK IT'S QUITE
DIFFICULT
TO REALLY CRAFT VERY
OBJECTIVE DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT
AREN'T
SO PRESCRIPTIVE THEY BECOME
MERE REGULATIONS.
THERE'S A BIT OF ART TO
THAT
SCIENCE.
>> ON THE OBJECTIVE PIECE,
THOUGH, WAS THAT ENCOURAGING ANY
LAWSUITS?
IF THEY WERE USING
SUBJECTIVE GUIDELINES AGAINST
THE
DEVELOPER AND SAYING, YOU KNOW
--
>> RIGHT, I THINK THAT'S THE
RICK, RIGHT, IS THAT IF
A DEVELOPER SAYS I BELIEVE
I'M MEETING THIS DESIGN
GUIDELINE AND THE CITY IS
DENYING NIGH
PERMIT, AND YET I BELIEVE
MY DESIGN IS HARMONIOUS, HOW
DOES
THAT END
UP GETTING LEGISLATED? SO I
THINK SITUATIONS
LIKE THAT HAVE CAUSED THE
STATE LEGISLATURE TO PASS THIS
LAW.
>> THANK
YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, H.B.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT,
IF I'M HEARING CORRECTLY, THE
STATE PASSED -- MADE SOME
CHANGES, AND WE NEED TO ALIGN
WITH THOSE
CHANGES. IN THE INTERIM, SINCE
THAT IS
TAKING A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, NOT
TO SUGGEST THE DEPARTMENT
IS TAKING TOO LONG, BUT
THEY'RE WORKING ON IT.
SO IN THE INTERIM WE'RE PASSING
THIS TEMPORARILY TO BRIDGE
THETHE UNTIL WE GET THE
PERMANENT
LEGISLATION. BUT BASICALLY IT
ALL ALIGNS
WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS --
>> RIGHT.
SO CHANGING THE DESIGN
GUIDELINES IS A PRETTY
BIG PROJECT.
SO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
THEMSELVES IN ADDITION TO THE
PROCESS, THAT WORK I
KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
SEVERAL YEARS ALREADY OF GOOD
WORK BEING PUT INTO THAT.
THEY HAD ACTUALLY BEGUN
THAT BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE
PASSED THIS LAW, AND NOW THEY'RE
WORKING TO MAKE SURE ALL IS
GOING TO ALIGN WITH THE STATE
LAW, AND THEY NEED MORE TIME
TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
>> AND SO THIS PUTS IN
WHAT THE STATE IS REQUIRING AS
TEMPORARY
UNTIL WE FINALIZE THE PERMANENT?
>> I WOULD NOT SAY THIS PUTS
IN WHAT THE STATE IS REQUIRING.
WHAT THIS DOES IS MAKE
ALL DESIGN REVIEW OPTIONAL SO
THAT
WE ARE NOT VIOLATING THE
LAW THAT SAYS DESIGN REVIEW
MUST HAVE ONLY ONE MEETING
BECAUSE CURRENTLY OUR FULL
DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS HAS TWO MEETINGS.
SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE
FULL DESIGN PROCESS RIGHT NOW AS
PART OF ININTERIM LEGISLATION,
WE'RE
SIMPLY MAKING ALL DESIGN REVIEW
OPTIONAL.
>> WHAT IS THE STATE REQUIRING?
WHAT'S THE
PERMANENT?
>> SO THE LAW THAT WAS PASSED
IS ACTUALLY QUITE SHORT.
SO IT SIMPLY SAYS NO DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS MAY CONTAIN
MORE THAN ONE MEETING, AS AN
EXAMPLE OF THE TWO MEETING
PIECE.
NO DESIGN MUST BE
SUBJECTIVE, THEY MUST BE
OBJECTIVE.
THE INTERIM LEGISLATION
DOESN'T REMOVE SUBJECTIVE
STANDARDS,
AND IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ONLY
ONE
MEETING. IT SIMPLY MAKES THE
WHOLE PROGRAM OPTIONAL AS, YOU
KNOW, I
WOULD SAY A BIT OF A BAND- AID
TO
GET US THROUGH THIS INTERIM
PERIOD.
>> WHY DON'T WE JUST DO THE
ONE MEETING, REMOVE THE, YOU
KNOW --
>> WELL, THAT REQUIRES THE
TIME TO PUT IN TO MAKE
THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROGRAM.
I THINK MY PERCEPTION IS
THAT THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
HAD ALREADY PUT A LOT OF TIME
INTO REVAMPING THE DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS AND DIDN'T WANT
TO PRODUCE A VERSION
THAT DIDN'T MEET ALL OF THE
STAKEHOLDER EXPECTATION RELATED
TO
MAKING SURE THAT THE DESIGN
REVIEW
PROGRAM WAS WORKING AS
INTENDED, WHICH IS A MUCH
BROADER
GOAL THAN WHAT THE STATE SORT OF
PUT INTO THE
LAW THERE. DOES THAT
HELP?
>> THAT DOES HELP, AND THIS
IS JUST FOR MHA PROJECTS?
>> NO, THIS IS FOR ALL
PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT
TO DESIGN
REVIEW.
>> BECAUSE IN THE
LEGISLATION DETAILS IT TALKS
ABOUT MHA.
>> YES, SO THERE ARE TWO
SECTIONS OF THE
LEGISLATION, "E" AND "F. "
"E" IS RELATED TO
EXISTING EXEMPTIONS FOR MHA AND
LOW INCOME HOUSING.
"F" THEN APPLIES TO ALL
PROJECTS AND SAYS ALL PROJECTS
WHICH SHALL BE
OPTIONAL.
>> GOT IT.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR
STRAUSS, DID YOU
HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT?
ALL
RIGHT. OKAY.
LET'S SEE, ALL RIGHT, I
MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMEND
PASSAGE -- OKAY. I RECOMMEND THE
COMMITTEE
RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNCIL
BILL 121048 -- OH, YOU HAD
ONE
MORE?
>> SORRY, CHAIR, ONE
LAST QUESTION.
H.B. , WHEN IS THE
PERMANENT LEGISLATION EXPECTED
TO
COME BEFORE COUNCIL THAT SDCI
IS WORKING
ON?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS SPRING
2026.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> OKAY, WITH THAT I MOVE
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMEND PASSAGE
OF COUNCIL BILL 121048.
IS THERE A
SECOND?
>>
SECOND.
>> ALL RIGHT.
OKAY, IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF
THE BILL. I NOW MOVE TO AMEND
COUNCIL
BILL 121048 CONSISTENT WITH
THE LANGUAGE PROVIDED IN
AMENDMENT
1.
IS THERE
A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> OKAY, THAT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO MOVE THE BILL
AS PRESENTED IN AMENDMENT 1.
H.B. , CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE
AMENDMENT?
>> SURE.
SO AMENDMENT 1 WOULD ALLOW
ALL APPLICANTS TO
UTILIZE ADMINISTRATOR REVIEWS.
I WANT TO TOUCH BRIEFLY ON
THE THREE DESIGNER LEVEL EVENTS
SO
YOU UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT
OF THIS AMENDMENT.
STREAM LINED IS THE LOWEST
LEVEL.
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN AT
THE MOMENT WOULD BE APPLICABLE
TO
SMALLER APARTMENT PROJECTS
AND REQUIRES WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENT
AND EARLY DESIGNER
MEETINGS WITH JUST STAFF AND NO
INVOLVEMENT
OF DESIGNER REVIEW BOARDS AND NO
IN-PERSON
PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO THAT MAKES FOR A POTENTIALLY
MORE STREAMLINED PROCESS
FOR
PROJECTS. THE FULL DESIGN REVIEW
PROCESS, WHICH WOULD BE FOR
LARMER
PROJECTS, MIXED USE
PROJECTS AND URBAN CENTERS, THAT
KIND OF
THING, THAT INVOLVES AS
I MENTIONED TWO
PUBLIC MEETINGS. SO THE EARLY
GUIDANCE MEETING
ALSO JUST BEING WITH STAFF
WOULD ALSO INVOLVE THE PUBLIC,
AND THERE'S ALSO A
FINAL RECOMMENDATION IN PART OF
--
AGAIN, WITH THE DESIGN
REVIEW BOARDS.
THEN THERE'S A DESIGN
REVIEW RECOMMENDATION THAT GOES
AGAIN
TO THE DIRECTOR
FOR DECISION. SO THOSE ARE THE
LEVELS
THAT EXISTS TODAY.
AND THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW
PROJECTS THAT WOULD UTILIZE
FULL DESIGNER REVIEW, AND AGAIN
ALL DESIGN REVIEW IS
OPTIONAL. SO THIS IS ONLY IF A
PROJECT CHOOSES TO GO THROUGH
DESIGN
REVIEW,
WHICH PRESUMABLY THEY WOULD DO
FOR A VARIETY OF
REASONS, ONE OF WHICH MAY BE
TO REQUEST A DEPARTURE.
SO THE ONLY REASON TO GET
A DEPARTURE IS GO THROUGH DESIGN
REVIEW. IF WE SET ASIDE THE LOW
INCOME EXEMPTIONS ANY OTHER
PROJECT
CAN ONLY RECEIVE A DEPARTURE
FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUCH
AS
FLOOR AREA RATIO, SETBACKS,
THAT KIND OF THING THROUGH
DESIGN
REVIEW.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S MADE
OPTIONAL THIS IS ONE PROBABLY
CLEAR REASON FOLKS WOULD CHOOSE
TO GO
THROUGH IT.
FOR THOSE FOLKS CHOOSING TO
GO THROUGH DESIGN REVIEW
MEETING THE THRESHOLDS FOR FULL
DESIGN
REVIEW, THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM
TO GO THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE
DESIGN REVIEW, PROVIDING A
QUICKER PATHWAY WITH LESS PUBLIC
INPUT.
>> ALL RIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FROM
COLLEAGUES?
>> YES, JUST A QUICK
ONE.
>> YES.
COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I DON'T KNOW YOUR FIRST
NAME.
>> H.
B.
>> OKAY, JUST H.B. , KIND OF
LIKE
CHER.
I'M STILL GETTING MY FEET UNDER
ME WITH ALL THE LAND USE STUFF.
SO THE FULL DESIGN REVIEW,
LARGE PROJECTS, TWO PUBLIC
MEETINGS.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN
REVIEW, SMALL PROJECTS,
ZERO.
>> NO PUBLIC
MEETINGS.
>> AND THEN THE EDG IS JUST
STAFF, AND THAT MAKES
SENSE.
>>
RIGHT.
>> SO WHERE IS THE MOST -- IS
IT IN THE FULL DESIGN REVIEW
WITH THE TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS?
IS THAT WHERE WE HEAR THE
MOST CONCERN, OBVIOUSLY, FROM
THE
PUBLIC?
OF COURSE WE'RE GOING TO HEAR
IT, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO GET
A SENSE OF I CAN SEE HOW
YOU'RE TRYING TO STREAMLINE IT
PARTICULARLY WITH THE
AMENDMENTS.
IS THAT WHERE WE HEAR --
WELL, THAT'S AT PUBLIC.
I'M GUESSING, DO WE
HEAR ANYTHING BEFORE THAT ON
THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE OF THE
PUBLIC OR CONCERNS
FROM DEVELOPERS OR PEOPLE
WHO OBVIOUSLY KNOW THIS
IS GOING ON, AND IS THAT NOTED?
>> SO WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT IS
ACCEPTED THROUGHOUT, SO
THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE
THE CASE. AND SO FOLKS HAVE THE
ABILITY
TO EXPRESS CONCERNS THROUGHOUT.
I WOULD SAY IF YOU'RE
ASKING ABOUT CONCERNS RELATED TO
THE
TIMELINESS, I WOULD SAY
FULL DESIGNER REVIEW MOST LIKELY
HAS
THE IMPACTS BECAUSE OF THAT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
PARTICIPATION.
ALL OF THESE PROCESSES TAKE TIME
BUT PROCESSES THAT HAVE MORE
PUBLIC
INPUT AND MORE PUBLIC MEETINGS
AND INVOLVE
VOLUNTARY BOARDS ARE GOING TO
TAKE
MORE TIME.
DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION?
>> YEAH, IT DOES.
THANK YOU.
>> YES, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU, H.B. ,
FOR THAT. JUST PIGGYBACKING ON
THAT
THEN, SO IF THEY'RE TRYING TO
GET MORE -- IN MY MIND IT'S
MORE --
THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO
THROUGH FULL DESIGN REVIEW.
IT'S AN OPTION, BUT IF
YOU'RE TRYING TO GET THESE
CERTAIN
THINGS, THEN YOU HAVE
TO GO THROUGH FULL DESIGN REVIEW
AS
IT STANDS WITHOUT
THIS AMENDMENT. THIS AMENDMENT
WITH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE, THOUGH, DOESN'T
PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC HEARING -- A
PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THAT THE MAIN DIFFERENCE?
I MEAN, YOU CAN DO
PUBLIC COMMENT IF YOU KNOW ABOUT
IT, BUT THERE ISN'T THIS
HEARING REQUIREMENT FOR THESE
SUBSET
OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE
MORE.
>> IT'S NOT OFFICIALLY A
HEARING, BUT, THERE'S TWO
PUBLIC MEETINGS WITH IN- PERSON
PUBLIC COMMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD
PARTICIPATION THAT IS A PART
OF FULL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD --
SORRY, FULL DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS HAS NO IN- PERSON
PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND
DOES NOT INCLUDE THE
PARTICIPATION OF
THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARDS.
THAT'S THE MAIN
DISTINCTION.
>> THANK
YOU, CHAIR. I -- I APPRECIATE --
I
STRUGGLE WITH, YES, WE NEED TO
HAVE FASTER DESIGN REVIEW, AND
THEN I
WANT TO MAKE SURE FOLKS HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE
SUB-CERTAIN PROJECTS THAT
ARE PROJECTS THAT HAVE MORE AND
HAVE ASKING FOR MORE IN THEIR
PROJECTS.
SO I THINK I'M NOT GOING TO
VOTE FOR THIS AMENDMENT FOR
THOSE REASONS.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
FOLKS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY LIKE
THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO WEIGH
IN FOR THOSE SUBSET OF PROJECTS.
BUT I APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THIS FORWARD BECAUSE I
KNOW
THAT WE'RE ALL STRUGGLING WITH
HOW
TO MAKE DESIGN REVIEW FASTER SO
PROJECTS GET DONE FASTER.
>>
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR
REMARKS, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
AS WE HEARD FROM H.B. ,
THIS AMENDMENT WILL HELP ENSURE
PIPELINE PROJECTS HAVE CLEAR
METHODS TO OBTAIN
NECESSARY DEPARTURES THROUGH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS CONSISTENT WITH
STATE LAW.
DEPARTURES ARE IMPORTANT AS
THEY HELP PROJECTS BETTER
RESPOND
TO THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS
OF THEIR SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOOD
AND COMMUNITY.
SO, YOU KNOW, THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD HELP PROVIDE FOR
THOSE
PROVISIONS.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON
AMENDMENT 1?
ALL RIGHT.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS --
VICE CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> TITLES ARE NOT A THING.
VICE CHAIR'S ROLE IS JUST A
SECOND, SO EVERYONE QUIT
DOING MY JOB.
I'VE ONLY GOT ONE JOB HERE.
SORRY. JUST TO SAY I THINK THIS
IS
A GOOD AMENDMENT, CHAIR.
I THINK THIS HELPS STRENGTHEN
THE BILL IN REALLY IMPORTANT
WAYS, SO HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT
TODAY.
>> THANK
YOU.
>>
ONE JOB.
>> WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT 1.
>> VICE CHAIR
STRAUSS.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>>
NO.
>> CHAIR
SOLOMON.
>>
AYE.
>> CHAIR, THERE ARE
FOUR VOTES IN FAVOR AND ONE
OPPOSED.
>> ALL RIGHT, THE MOTION
CARRIES AND THE AMENDMENT IS
ADOPTED. I NOW MOVE TO AMEND
COUNCIL BILL
121048 CONSISTENT WITH THE
LANGUAGE PROVIDED IN AMENDMENT
2.
>>
SECOND.
>> OKAY, IT HAS
BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO AMEND THE BILL AS PRESENTED
IN AMENDMENT 2.
H.B., PLEASE WALK US THROUGH IT.
>> THIS IS TECHNICAL CORRECTION
RELATED TO THE SECTION 2341004E.
SO WE HAVE TEMPORARY PROVISIONS
ESTABLISHED IN THIS
LEGISLATION, BUT THERE IS
A SECTION THAT IS NOT TOUCHED BY
THIS
LEGISLATION THAT WILL NOT BE
SUBJECT TO THE
SIX- MONTH INTERIM DEADLINE,
AND THAT IS RELATED TO AN
EXISTING EXEMPTION FOR DOWNTOWN,
AND
SO LEGAL FLAG THIS
IS AN ISSUE BECAUSE AS
ORIGINALLY AS
DRAFTED THERE WAS A STATEMENT OF
THE ENTIRETY OF SUBSECTION "E,"
2341004E SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FROM
THE DATE BUT THIS FAILED
TO ACCOUNT THERE IS AN E3
ALREADY RELATED TO DOWNTOWN THAT
HAS
ITS OWN TIME LINE.
SO INSTEAD WE SIMPLY MOVED
THE SIX- MONTH EFFECTIVE DATE TO
BE AFTER 2341004E 1 AND 2.
WE MAKE SURE TO ONLY APPLY THE
SIX-MONTH INTERIM DEADLINE
TO THOSE OF THE LAW THAT ARE
BEING AMENDED BY THIS ORDINANCE
AND
TO LEAVE OTHER SECTIONS OF
THE
CHAPTER INTACT WITHOUT CREATING
ANY CONFUSION RELATED
TO
TIMELINES. I HOPE THAT'S
HELPFUL.
IT IS A MINOR CHANGE THAT'S NOT
SUBSTANTIAL, IF THAT HELPS
TO EXPLAIN IT BECAUSE I KNOW
IT'S A
LITTLE
COMPLICATED.
>> THANK YOU, H.B.
H.B. NOTED THIS AMENDMENT
PROVIDES TECHNICAL FIXES
TO PROVIDE CLARITY SURROUNDING
THE
EFFECTIVE
SUNSET DATES. WITH THAT, ARE
THERE
ANY COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT
2? OKAY.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION
OF AMENDMENT 2.
>> VICE CHAIR STRAUSS.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
>>
AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR SOLOMON.
>>
AYE.
>> CHAIR THERE ARE FIVE
VOTES.
>> OKAY, MOTION PASSES AND
ADOPTED. DESIGN REVIEW PROVIDES
IMPORTANT ROLE IN SEATTLE'S
DESIGN
PROCESS ENSURING DEVELOPMENT
BETTER ADHERES TO EXISTING
SURROUNDING
DEVELOPMENT, PROVIDES
NECESSARY BENEFITS TO OUR
COMMUNITY, AND
PROVIDES A PATH
TO DEVELOPMENT -- FOR
DEVELOPMENT TO
SEEK DEPARTURES. THESE
DEPARTURES WHEN
APPROVED BY SDCI WILL ALLOW TO
BETTER
RESPOND TO COMMUNITY NEEDS
BY MODIFYING TYPICAL
DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE LEGISLATION BEFORE
US PROVIDES INTERIM DESIGN
REVIEW RULES FOR THE NEXT SIX
MONTHS
AS OUR CITY WORKS ON
PERMITTED DESIGN REVIEW
LEGISLATION THAT
WILL ENSURE SEATTLE COMPLIES
WITH THE NEW
STATE LAW AND RESPONDS TO THE
NEEDS OF OUR
CITY.
AMENDMENT 1 WOULD
PROVIDE ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN
REVIEW
PATH FOR ALL PROJECTS DURING
THE INTERIM PERIOD,
ALLOWING PROJECTS TO OBTAIN
DEPARTURES WITHIN DESIGN REVIEW
PUBLIC
MEETING CONSISTENT WITH
STATE REQUIREMENTS AND AMENDMENT
2 PROVIDES
SOME TECHNICAL CLARITY REGARDING
THE SUNSET DATE
FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS IN DOWNTOWN
ZONES.
ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WILL THE
CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
THE RECOMMENDATION TO
PASS -- BEFORE I GO THERE, ANY
FINAL
COMMENTS ON THIS LEGISLATION
FROM THE
COMMITTEE?
HEARING NONE, WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
THE PASSAGE OF COUNCIL BILL
121048.
>> VICE
CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK.
>> YES.
>>
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>>
AYE.
>> CHAIR THERE ARE FIVE
SLOETS IN FAVOR AND ZERO
OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO
PASS COUNCIL BILL
121048 AS AMENDED WILL BE SENT
TO THE SEPTEMBER
23rd CITY
COUNCIL MEETING. WE HAVE REACHED
THE END OF OUR
AGENDA, FOLKS.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS TO
COME BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE BEFORE WE ADJOURN?
HEARING NO FURTHER BUSINESS
COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, WE
ARE
ADJOURNED.
IT IS 10:21 A.M.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYONE.
ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR
DAY.