>> HERE.
>> VICE-CHAIR SOLOMON?
>> HERE.
>> AND CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> I'M HERE.
>> NINE PRESENT.
>> MY BAD. COUNCILMEMBER
SOLOMON, MY APOLOGIES. I GOT
REALLY EXCITED THERE.
>> NO WORRIES.
>> WE WILL NOW CONSIDER THE
AGENDA AND IF THERE'S NO
OBJECTIONS, THE AGENDA WILL BE
ADOPTED. HEAR NOTHING OBJECTION,
THE AGENDA IS ADOPTED. GOOD
AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. WE ARE
HEARING OUR INTERIM LEGISLATION
FOR HOUSE BILL 1110. IDEALLY
TODAY WE VOTE THIS OUT OF
COMMITTEE TO MEET THE
IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINE JUNE
30th. AS SOON AS WE PASS THE
INTERIM LEGISLATION FOR HOUSE
BILL 1110, WE ARE GOING TO BE
THEN MOVING ON TO OUR PHASE I OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
PERMANENT LEGISLATION FOR HOUSE
BILL 1110. TODAY WE'RE GOING TO
BE FURTHERING THE DISCUSSION AND
THEN VOTING ON AMENDMENTS TO THE
INTERIM BILL AS WELL AS THE
INTERIM BILL ITSELF. SO WE HAVE
TWO SETS, AMENDMENTS AND THE
INTERIM BILL ITSELF. FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT TODAY WE WILL BE
ACCEPTING WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENT. SO PLEASE DROP OFF YOUR
COMMENTS TO THE FRONT OF
CHAMBERS IN THAT LOVELY
DECORATED BLACK BOX IN THE FRONT
OF CHAMBERS OR YOU CAN SEND US
YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
COUNCIL@SEATTLE.GOV AND A LOT OF
YOU KNOW THAT EMAILS BECAUSE
WE'VE BEEN RECEIVING EMAILS
REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN. WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING
HELD MONDAY AND HAVE BEEN HAVING
DIFFERENT MEETINGS AND PUBLIC
COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES AS WELL.
SO REALLY APPRECIATE THE
COMMUNITY'S ENGAGEMENT DURING
THIS TIME AND THEN ALSO, TOO, MY
COLLEAGUES, YOU HAVE GONE OUT IN
COMMUNITY AND MET WITH PEOPLE
AND TALKED WITH PEOPLE AND HAVE
DONE WALKS WITH FOLKS. SO REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR ALL'S ENGAGEMENT
IN THIS AS WELL. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE READ ITEM ONE INTO THE
AGENDA.
>> 120969 RELATING TO ZONING AND
TERM CONTROL TO COMPLY WITH
VARIOUS STATE LAWS ESTABLISHING
FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A WORK
PLAN FOR PERMANENT LEGISLATION
FOR BRIEFING, DISCUSSION, AND
POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU. WE HAVE
PRESENTERS LISH WHITSON AND
KETIL FREEMAN FROM CENTRAL
STAFF. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING
HERE AND ALL YOUR HARD WORK.
BEFORE WE BEGIN OUR DISCUSSION
ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, WE
WILL NEED TO PLACE THE BILL
BEFORE US. SO I'M GOING TO MOVE
THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS
PASSAGE OF COUNCIL BILL 120969.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO RECOMMEND THE
PASSING OF THE BILL. NOW WE CAN
BE ABLE TO BEGIN THE DISCUSSION.
SO HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS
PROCESS IS WE WILL NOW BEGIN THE
DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENTS AS
FOLLOWS. COUNCILMEMBERS WILL
MOVE THEIR AMENDMENTS. AFTER
RECEIVING A SECOND, CENTRAL
STAFF WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW
OF THAT AMENDMENT AND BE ABLE TO
WALK US THROUGH. AFTER CENTRAL
STAFF'S OVERVIEW THE SPONSOR
WILL ADDRESS THE AMENDMENT AND
AFTER THE SPONSOR ADDRESSES
THEIR AMENDMENT WE WILL OPEN IT
UP FOR DISCUSSION. WE CAN MANAGE
THE DISCUSSION EITHER BY PLEASE
RAISE YOUR HAND OR SOMETIMES IF
YOU GIVE ME A NICE WINK, I KNOW
TO CALL ON YOU AS WELL. SO
WHICHEVER WAY IS EASIER, BUT
PLEASE LET'S DO THAT AND THEN
AFTER THESE STEPS WILL BE
REPEATED. THE ORDER OF
AMENDMENTS WILL BUILDING
CONSIDERED IN NUMERICAL ORDER.
AS PART OF THE CHAIR'S PROCESS,
I WANT TO ANNOUNCE PART OF THE
PROCESS -- EXCUSE ME, DOES
ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE PROCESS AT ALL? NONE? OKAY.
AWESOME. AND I ALSO WILL GO
AHEAD AND JUMP IN AND SO FOR THE
RECORD BEFORE WE START AND
RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON,
WILL OUR CENTRAL STAFF SAY YOUR
NAME FOR THE RECORD.
>> LISH WHITSON, COUNSEL L STAF
>> AWESOME. COUNCILMEMBER
SOLOMON, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
>> I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120969 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT
ONE.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
FOR AMENDING COUNCIL BILL 120969
WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE.
COUNCIL STAFF PLEASE PROVIDE AN
OVERVIEW OF THE AMENDMENT.
>> AS YOU MAY REMEMBER, LAST
WEEK YOU ADOPTED THE COUNCIL
BILL INTRODUCED AS COUNCIL BILL
120949 WHICH UPDATED THE CITY'S
REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS IN RESPONSE TO
CHANGES TO STATE LAW. THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD RECONCILE THE
COUNCIL BILL 120969 WHICH IS THE
BILL CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF YOU
WITH THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN
PREVIOUSLY MADE TO THE LAND USE
CODE AND UPDATE SOME OF THE
LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS TO BRING
THEM UP TO DATE. COUNCILMEMBER
SOLOMON, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED TO
TALK ABOUT YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS
AMENDMENT RESPONDS TO THE ADU
LEGISLATION WE PASSED EARLIER
THIS YEAR AND ENSURES THE
INTERIM LEGISLATION IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE ADU
LEGISLATION. AS A REMINDER, THE
ADU LEGISLATION WAS REQUIRED
RESPONSIVE TO STATEHOUSE BILL
1337 WHICH PASSED IN 2023 AND
REQUIRED CITIES TO ENACT LAWS OR
APPROACHES WHICH BETTER ENABLED
DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS. EARLIER THIS
MONTH CITY COUNCIL PASSED 120949
AND IN AMENDMENT WOULD ENSURE
CODE CHANGES RESULTING FROM THE
ADU LEGISLATION ARE REFLECTED IN
THIS INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE
AND I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORTS AND
VOTES FOR THIS IMPORTANT CODE
COMPLIANCE AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SOLOMON. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE?
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR
HOLLINGSWORTH. COLLEAGUES, THERE
IS UNDER 23 TO .34011 UNDER NR1,
NR2, AND NR3 ZONES FUNCTION AND
LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, THERE WAS
AN AMENDMENT MADE TO THAT
SECTION OF THIS LEGISLATION
BEFORE US THAT EXCLUDED LANGUAGE
AS IT RELATES TO "STRUCTURES AND
LOT SIZES COMPATIBLE WITH THE
EXISTING PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT
AND THE CHARACTER OF
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AREAS,"
THAT GOT STRICKEN AND IT NOW
SAYS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
DETACH, ATTACH, AND STACKED
DWELLING UNITS WITHIN A
PREDOMINANTLY THREE-STORY HEIGHT
LIMIT. I WANT TO STATE FOR THE
RECORD I AM LOOKING AT BRINGING
AN AMENDMENT TO THIS PIECE
BECAUSE THERE IS A SEPARATE
SENATE BILL PASSED AS PART OF
THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION SIGNED
BY GOVERNOR FERGUSON WHICH
STATES THAT CITIES ARE
PROHIBITED FROM REGULATING
EXTERIOR SIDING, BUT THERE ARE
SOME EXEMPTIONS IN THAT LAW FOR
STRUCTURES THAT ARE DESIGNATED
AS LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT OR
STRUCTURES LOCATED IN AN AREA
DESIGNATED AS A HISTORIC
DISTRICT ON THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES OR
STRUCTURES DESIGNATED AS A
NATIONAL, STATE OR HISTORIC
LANDMARK. I'M LOOKING AT A
POSSIBLE AMENDMENT SO WE CAN
INCLUDE THAT EXEMPTION LANGUAGE
INTO THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF
THIS PARTICULAR LEGISLATION
BEFORE US. I WILL WORK WITH
COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON'S OFFICE
ON THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
JUST WANTED TO FLAG THAT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. JUST TO REPEAT WHAT YOU
SAID, YOU'RE LOOKING TO AMEND
COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON'S
AMENDMENT --
>> FOR TUESDAY'S FULL COUNCIL
MEETING, NOT TODAY.
>> UNDERSTOOD. OKAY.
>> BUT WANTED TO FLAG THAT I
WILL BE SO FOLKS ARE NOT CAUGHT
OFF GUARD AS WE VOTE BECAUSE I
WILL BE VOTING FOR THIS AND SO
WANTED TO INDICATE THAT I WILL
BE LOOKING AT THAT AS A POSSIBLE
AMENDMENT FOR FULL COUNCIL
TUESDAY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SORRY, I WAS NOT CLEAR ON
THAT PART OF IT. THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. ARE THERE OTHER
QUESTIONS REGARDING
COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON'S
AMENDMENT? ALL RIGHT. AWESOME.
OKAY. WELL, I AM GOING TO --
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CAL THE
ROLL ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 1.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> YES.
>> VICE-CHAIR SOLOMON?
>> AYE.
>> AND CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> NINE IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU, CLERK. AMENDMENT 1
IS ADOPTED. MOVING ON TO
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. I'M GOING
TO MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120969 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT
NUMBER 2, VERSION 4. IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED TO AMEND COUNCIL
BILL 120969 WITH AMENDMENT
NUMBER 2 VERSION 4. COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF, PLEASE PROVIDE AN
OVERVIEW.
>> AS INTERIM LEGISLATION,
COUNCIL BILL 120969 INCLUDES A
WORK PROGRAM FOR WORK ON THE
PERMANENT LEGISLATION. THIS
AMENDMENT UPDATES SOME OF THE
LANGUAGE AROUND THE WORK PROGRAM
THAT UPDATES THE SCHEDULE BASED
ON THE SCHEDULE LAID OUT FOR THE
SELECT COMMITTEE WITH ACTION BY
THE END OF SEPTEMBER ON
PERMANENT LEGISLATION AND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IT
ATTACHES A NEW LIST OF CITY
COUNCIL TOPICS THAT THE COUNCIL
INTENDS TO CONSIDER IN ITS
REVIEW OF PERMANENT LEGISLATION
AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE CHANGES
SINCE THE INITIAL DRAFT WAS
PRESENTED. WAS THAT JUST LAST
WEEK? NUMBERS 6 AND 7 HAVE BEEN
COMBINED INTO ONE 6 THAT TALKS
ABOUT BOTH SETBACKS AND AMENITY
AREA REGULATIONS AND LANGUAGE
THAT DID TALK ABOUT TRANSIT
SAFETY HAS BEEN UPDATED TO BE
CLEARER AND TALK ABOUT BUFFERS
ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AS
PART OF THAT DISCUSSION AND THEN
TWO NEW ITEMS HAVE BEEN ADDED,
NUMBER 8 TALKS ABOUT SUPPORT FOR
DIVERSITY OF HOUSING OPTIONS
NEAR PUBLIC AMENITIES, GOODS,
AND SERVICES AND NUMBER 9 ADDS
CONSIDERING THE MODIFICATION OF
OFFSTREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
TO SUPPORT CITY GOALS FOR
NEIGHBORHOODS ACCESSIBLE BY
PEDESTRIANS, PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES, BICYCLISTS,
TRANSIT USERS, AND OTHERS WHO DO
NOT DRIVE.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I
WILL RECOGNIZE MYSELF TO GO OVER
THIS. THIS IS MY AMENDMENT. WANT
TO CONVEY -- THANK YOU, CENTRAL
STAFF, FOR ALL YOUR HELP AND,
COLLEAGUES, FOR YOUR WORK. THIS
AMENDMENT ADDS A WORK PLAN TO
INTERIM HOUSE BILL 110
LEGISLATION THAT INDICATES WHAT
WE AS A COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE
MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER FOR
PERMANENT LEGISLATION FOR HOUSE
BILL 1110. I KNOW I'VE WORKED
WITH MANY OF YOU TO ALREADY
IDENTIFY SEVERAL AREAS OF FOCUS
AND REFINE LANGUAGE ON THIS
AMENDMENT. THANK YOU ALL FOR
CONTRIBUTING TO THIS AS WELL,
MAKING SURE THAT WE GOT LANGUAGE
RIGHT ON THIS. I MADE CLARIFYING
CHANGES AS LISH CONVEYED, NUMBER
6, CONSIDER THE ADJUSTMENTS TO
SETBACKS AND AMENITY AREAS SO
THAT ALL HOUSING TYPES CAN HAVE
SOME FLEXIBILITY TO HELP
MAXIMIZE TREE PROTECTION,
SUPPORT FLEXIBILITY IN DESIGN IN
ORDER TO ADDRESS VARIOUS
NEIGHBORHOODS' NEEDS AND LOOK
AT WHERE BUFFERS MAY BE NEEDED
ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES.
THOROUGHFARES REFERS TO ROADS,
STREETS, AND ROUTES THAT CONNECT
OTHER ROADS. EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD
IS DIFFERENT . HOPEFULLY
EVERYONE FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH
THIS AND RIGHT NOW WE'LL OPEN
IT UP TO ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, IS THAT A
NEW HAND?
>> NEW HAND. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AS YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT AND,
CLERK, PLEASE HELP ME IF I NEED
TO MOVE TO AMEND SOMETHING IN
THIS LANGUAGE THAT THE CHAIR WAS
FINE ADDING AND I THINK IT MIGHT
HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT GOT
LEFT OFF. WHEN THE ORIGINAL 6
AND 7 GOT COMBINED, THE
CONSIDERING GENTLEMAN.S TO
SETBACKS AND AMENITY AREA
REGULATIONS TO MAXIMIZE TREE
PROTECTION AND SUPPORT
FLEXIBILITY AND DESIGN TO
ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS AND
PROVIDE BUFFERS ALONG MAJOR
THOROUGHFARES, ORIGINAL LANGUAGE
SAID TO SUPPORT RETENTION OF
EXISTING TREES DURING
DEVELOPMENT. SO I WANTED TO HAVE
THAT LANGUAGE RESTATED IN THIS
VERSION OF THE LEGISLATION.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS A
VERBAL AMENDMENT, CORRECT? SO I
NEED TO SECOND.
>> YEAH. THE CHAIR CAN REQUEST
IT BE IN WRITING AS WELL IF WE
NEED TO TAKE A MINUTE OR WE CAN
DO AN ORAL AMENDMENT IF WE'RE
FINE MOVING FORWARD MAKING AN
ORAL AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE
THAT LANGUAGE INTO ITEM NUMBER
6. CENTRAL STAFF, DO YOU NEED
ANYTHING ELSE FROM US?
>> BECAUSE I CONSIDER IT A SMALL
TECHNICAL CHANGE ON LANGUAGE,
I'M HAPPY WITH DOING IT
VERBALLY. IF ANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT
ON PAPER, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY
TO ACCOMMODATE THAT CHANGE AS
WELL. SORRY, I'M PUTTING MORE
WORK ON STAFF.
>> IF WE NEED A SECOND, WE CAN
BE AT EASE. WE'LL BE AT EASE
FOR A SECOND WHILE WE NAVIGATE
THIS.
>> APOLOGIES, CHAIR, WASN'T
SURE HOW TO BRING THIS FORWARD
WHEN YOU AND I TALKED EARLIER.
>> NO WORRIES AT ALL. WE'RE
JUST AT EASE.
>> LET ME MAKE SURE WE HAVE THIS
CORRECT.
>> THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE HAD
BEEN TO SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF
EXISTING TREES DURING
DEVELOPMENT. I'M TRYING TO ADD
THAT LANGUAGE TO THE NEW VERSION
THAT COMBINED BOTH OF THOSE, THE
ORIGINAL 6 AND 7.
>> SAYING SUPPORT RETENTION OF
EXISTING TREES DURING
DEVELOPMENT.
>> YOU CAN LEAVE BOTH. I WANT TO
NOTE WE'RE SUPPORTING RETENTION
OF EXISTING TREES, BUT MAXIMIZE
TREE PROTECTION SHOULD ALSO BE
THERE. THANK YOU, LISH.
>> AT THIS POINT, IF YOU CAN
MOVE YOUR MOTION AND RECEIVE A
SECOND, WE CAN PROCEED WITH A
VOTE.
>> THANK YOU. I MOVE COLLEAGUES
TO JUST READD THE LANGUAGE THAT
WAS PRIOR IN THIS LEGISLATION TO
INCLUDE IN NUMBER 6 AND SUPPORT
RETENTION OF EXISTING TREES
DURING DEVELOPMENT.
>> SECOND.
>> SECOND. JUST TO CLARIFY,
WE'RE VOTING ON THIS AMENDMENT
TO MY AMENDMENT. OKAY.
UNDERSTOOD. ALL RIGHT. WE SEE IT
BEFORE US, COLLEAGUES. THIS IS
AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT TO
THE WORK PLAN. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE -- OH. LET ME
OPEN IT UP IF THERE'S ANY
COMMENTS RIGHT NOW, I APOLOGIZE.
IF THERE'S ANY COMMENTS, PLEASE
RAISE YOUR HAND. COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE?
>> NO.
>> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MERCEDES RINCK?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> AYE.
>> VICE-CHAIR SOLOMON?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> NINE IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION PASS AND THE
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT WILL
PASS. THANK YOU. ARE THERE OTHER
COMMENTS TO AMENDMENT NUMBER 2?
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WANTED TO
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALL THE WORK
YOU DID ON THIS AND YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH EACH OF
US TRY TO WORK WITH US ON WHAT
OUR CONCERNS AND PRIORITIES
WERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
ADDRESSING TREES AND INCLUDING
MHA AND THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE
TO INVESTIGATE THAT AND
APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT
WENT INTO THIS. I'M LOOKING
FORWARD TO DELVING INTO IT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE. COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER MERCEDES RINCK?
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
WORKING WITH MY OFFICE TO
WORKING FOR MORE OPPOSITES FOR
PARKING AMENDMENTS BY 8 AND 9. I
BELIEVE THIS WORK PLAN REFLECTS
A BALANCE AND I'M VERY MUCH
LOOKING FORWARD TO EXPLORING
THESE TOPICS.
>> THANK YOU FOR ADDING THOSE. I
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR CATCH ON
THAT AND ADDING THAT. IT'S
PERFECT. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA
FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. JUST REALLY
WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP IN CREATING THIS WORK
PLAN AND I RECOGNIZE IT WAS A
LOT OF WORK TO INCORPORATE NINE
MEMBERS' IDEAS INTO HERE,
INCLUDING YOUR OWN, BUT I DO
THINK IT CAPTURES SO MUCH OF
WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM A
COMMUNITY AND I VERY MUCH EVEN
TODAY WHEN I CAUGHT THAT THAT
LANGUAGE WAS NOT IN THERE, BUT
THE RETENTION OF THE EXISTING
TREES IS SO IMPORTANT I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO
LET ME AMEND YOUR AMENDMENT IN
ORDER TO INCLUDE THAT. SO IT
JUST REALLY GOES TO SHOW TO YOUR
LEADERSHIP AND COLLABORATION AS
REGARDS THIS LEGISLATION AS A
WHOLE. I WANTED TO RECOGNIZE YOU
FOR THAT AND THANK YOU PUBLICLY.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> THANK YOU. I, TOO, WANT TO
PILE ON AND THANK YOU AND YOUR
LEADERSHIP FOR PUTTING THIS
TOGETHER AND YOUR WILLINGNESS
AND FLEXIBILITY TO WORK SO
CLOSELY WITH ALL OF OUR
RESPECTIVE COUNCIL OFFICES TO
MAKE SURE OUR IDEAS ARE
INCORPORATING IT INTO THIS WORK
PLAN DOCUMENT. I THINK IT
CAPTURES THE ESSENCE OF
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK, THE
PRIORITIES THAT WE KNOW FOR ALL
THE RESPECTIVE COUNCIL OFFICES
AND ALSO LEAVES FLEXIBILITY AND
CAPTURES EVERYTHING WE KNOW, THE
SITUATION WE KNOW TODAY AND ALSO
LEAVES ROOM FOR FLEXIBILITY TO
MAKE FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS BASED
OFF SITUATIONS WE CAN'T
NECESSARILY ANTICIPATE. SO
NONEXCLUSIVE LIST OF
POSSIBILITIES, BUT LOOK FORWARD
TO DIVING DEEPER INTO THESE
TOPICS ALONGSIDE YOU ALL AND
ESPECIALLY WANT TO CALL OUT AND
SAY THANK YOU FOR THE PORTION
ITEM NUMBER 1 LISTED THERE ON
THE ANTIDISPLACEMENT APPROACH
AND STRATEGIES.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA. I KNOW THAT'S ONE THING
YOU HAVE TALKED AND STRESSED
ABOUT A LOT DURING OUR TIME,
WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GOT THAT
IN THERE. ARE THERE OTHER
COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE? SEEING
NONE, HEARING NONE, WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 AS AMENDED.
>> PERFECT.
>> SHE SAID I'M PERFECT. YOU
ALL HEARD IT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> VICE-CHAIR SOLOMON?
>> YES. CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> NINE IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THAT WOULD BE CALLED VERSION
5 HAS BEEN ADOPTED. THANK YOU
ALL FOR THAT. I WILL MOVE TO
AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120969 AS
SHOWN IN AMENDMENT NUMBER 3
VERSION 2. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
AND TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120969
WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 VERSION
2. CENTRAL STAFF, YOU'RE ON.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 VERSION 2
IS SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE. THE AMENDMENT WOULD
MAINTAIN THE CURRENT LOT
COVERAGE MAXIMUM OF 35% WHEN
SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS
PROPOSED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
WHERE OTHER HOUSING COULD OCCUR.
THERE'S A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE PREVIOUS VERSION.
THIS CLARIFIES WHEN ONE
SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE IS PROPOSED
WITH ONE OR MORE DETACHED
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS THE 50%
LOT COVERAGE INTENDED FOR MIDDLE
HOUSING WOULD APPLY.
>> THANK YOU, CENTRAL STAFF.
THANK YOU, KETIL. COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED TO
ADDRESS YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU. I DON'T THINK
THERE'S MUCH MORE TO ADD.
REALLY THE INTENT WAS JUST TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT
ALLOWING ONE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY
HOME TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SPACE WHEN THE INTENT
OF THAT WAS FOR MIDDLE HOUSING
TO HAVE AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF
FOUR TO SIX UNITS. WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE WE ALSO PROVIDED FOR
ADUs AND DADUs. SO THAT'S ALL.
IT'S JUST FOR A SHORT TIME.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE. WE'LL PAUSE TO SEE IF
THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> NO QUESTIONS. I WANTED TO
PROVIDE A COMMENT I WILL SUPPORT
THIS AMENDMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE
LARGER GOAL OF BUILDING MORE
HOUSING. THE DEVELOPER WAS
LOOKING TO BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY
HOME AND GET 35% LOT COVERAGE,
BUT IF THEY BUILD MULTIPLE
UNITS, THEY WOULD GET 50%. THEY
MIGHT THINK TWICE AND LEAN
TOWARDS BUILDING MULTIPLE UNITS.
FOR THIS REASON, I WILL SUPPORT
THIS AMENDMENT TO BUILD MORE
DENSELY IN SEATTLE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE FOR
CENTRAL STAFF OR THE SPONSOR?
AWESOME. SEEING NONE, WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL FOR
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 VERSION 2.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> VICE-CHAIR SOLOMON?
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> NINE IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> AMENDMENT 3 VERSION 2 IS
ADOPTED. WE'LL MOVE ON TO
AMENDMENT NUMBER 4. OH, I'VE
BEEN MOVING YOUR AMENDMENT. I
APOLOGIZE.
>> CHAIR, THE CLERKS HAVE MADE
SURE I'M READY. I MOVE TO AMEND
COUNCIL BILL 120969 AS PRESENTED
ON AMENDMENT 4.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
THAT WE AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120969 WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER 4.
CENTRAL STAFF, PLEASE PROVIDE
YOUR OVERVIEW.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER 4 SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE WOULD
RETAIN FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS
IN THE CURRENT CODE, 20 FEET OR
THE AVERAGE OF SETBACKS ON
EITHER SIDE WHICHEVER IS LESS
FOR LOTS THAT ABUT LANDMARK
PORTIONS OF QUEEN ANNE
BOULEVARD. THIS JUSTIFIES TO
FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS, DOES
NOT APPLY TO REAR YARD
REQUIREMENTS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, YOU'RE
RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR AND CENTRAL
STAFF TEAM, MR. WHITSON AND MR.
FREEMAN. COLLEAGUES, I HAVE
PASSED TO YOU A PACKET WITH THE
AMENDMENT, BUT ALSO A MAP OF
WHAT THE QUEEN ANNE BOULEVARD
PARK IS WHICH REALLY HIGHLIGHTS
A VERY UNIQUE PIECE WITHIN OUR
CITY. I ALSO HAVE A BACKING
DOCUMENT, SUPPORT DOCUMENT, FROM
COMMUNITY FROM THE QUEEN ANNE
COMMUNITY COUNCIL WRITTEN
SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE
QUEEN ANNE BOULEVARD PARK FOR
YOUR REVIEW. AS I SAID, THIS IS
UNIQUE. THIS IS A HISTORICAL
LOCATION DESIGNED BY MR. OLMSTED
AND MR. DAWSON IN 1906 AND IT
WAS CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN 1911 AND
1916 AND THE PARK, THIS IS WHAT
IT IS, IT'S A UNIQUE PARK. THE
PARK ITSELF IS THE STREET, BUT
IT'S ALSO THE AREAS ABUTTING
THE STREET ON EITHER SIDE. THIS
PARK PROVIDES VISTAS NORTH,
SOUTH, EAST AND WEST IN QUEEN
ANNE ALONG ITS NEARLY FOUR-MILE
ROUTE. THERE'S THE WILCOX WALL,
A HISTORICAL GEM IN ITSELF ON
THE SOUTHWEST SIDE. THE PARK
CONNECTS THROUGHOUT ITS
CIRCUMFERENCE, DIFFERENT PLACES
LIKE MARSHALL PARK, WHAT THE
LOCALS KNOW. IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO
SEE ELLIOTT BAY AND THE
OLYMPICS. IF YOU MOVE TO THE
SOUTHEAST, BRY CRACKY PARK WHICH
GIVES THOSE VIEWS AND AMENITIES,
THAT CONNECTION TO PARK FOR THE
DOWNTOWN AND ALSO FOR THE
CASCADES. IN BETWEEN IS KERRY
PARK AND TOWARDS LAKE UNION THE
BOSTON STREET VIEWPOINTS,
PARTICULARLY A GREAT PLACE TO BE
ON THE FOURTH OF JULY AND
THERE'S MANY OTHER VIEWPOINTS
AS WELL IN. ADDITION TO THAT,
THERE'S WHOLE SEGMENTS OF THE
QUEEN ANNE BOULEVARD PARK WHERE
IT'S LIKE WALKING THROUGH A
TREE CANYON AND AS WE DENSIFY,
OUR COMMUNITY, OUR SOCIETY,
REALLY NEEDS THESE OPPORTUNITIES
TO HAVE THIS KIND OF PARK-LIKE
EXPERIENCE TO ENJOY IN ITSELF,
BUT ALSO AS I MENTIONED THE
VIEWPOINTS. NOT MENTIONED, NOT
REALLY UNDERSTOOD SOMETIMES IS
THIS NEARLY FOUR-MILE PARK HAS
MANY USES. THERE'S SECTIONS
WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY PEDESTRIAN
STREETS LIKE NEAR THE WILCOX
WALL. IT'S FOR PEDESTRIANS,
WALKERS, RUNNERS, BIKERS. I
REMEMBER ONCE THE PANDEMIC HIT,
YOU COULDN'T GO TO THE GYMS.
THIS WAS A GREAT WAY TO GET
EXERCISE. I DID THAT. I SAW ALL
THESE OTHER PEOPLE, NOT JUST
FROM QUEEN ANNE, BUT AROUND THE
CITY, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THIS.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE
ESSENTIALLY A STREETSCAPE FOR
PEDESTRIANS AND THE COMMUNITIES.
IT'S BEEN USED FOR COMMUNITY
RUNS THAT ARE FUNDRAISING FOR
THE QUEEN ANNE HELP LINE AND THE
LIKE AND AGAIN AS WE DENSIFY, WE
HAVE TO HAVE THESE AREAS WHERE
PEOPLE CAN ENJOY THE PARKLIKE
EXPERIENCE. FOR THIS PUBLIC
AMENITY FOR OUR ENTIRE CITY, I
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND VOTE
FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE. I'LL PAUSE FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT
AMENDMENT NUMBER 4.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT
FORWARD. MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THIS AMENDMENT IS A BIT OF A
TECHNICAL ONE. WHILE I DON'T
NECESSARILY SUPPORT SPECIAL
TREATMENT TO ANY SPECIFIC
NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS AMENDMENT
FROM WHAT I CAN TELL IS NOT
THAT. THE LAND THAT BORDERS
QUEEN ANNE BOULEVARD FOR THE
FIRST TEN FEET IS OWNED AND
OPERATED BY THE PARKS
DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, THE
20-FOOT SETBACK ALLOWS FOR A
10-FOOT SETBACK IN TERMS OF A
TOTAL 20-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE
STREET. I WILL SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT TODAY AS IT SERVES AS
A TECHNICAL CHANGE, NOT
NECESSARILY A POLICY ONE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS
AMENDMENT TODAY AND IT'S
LARGELY BECAUSE MY STAFF DID SEE
FOR THEIR OWN EYES THANKS TO
CONSTITUENT AND THANKS TO
COUNCIL KETTLE'S ADVOCACY AND
IT DOES OCCUR TO ME THAT
EXPERIENCE OF ACTUALLY SEEING
WHAT OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE
TELLING US IS REALLY A VALUABLE
EXPERIENCE AND UNFORTUNATELY,
IT'S HARD TO DO THAT ALL OVER
THE CITY. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MY
PREFERENCE TO BE ALREADY
DISCUSSING THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION THAT'S NOT UP TO
OUR CONTROL AT ALL BECAUSE THESE
ARE CHANGES THAT WE'RE MAKING
TO A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT
WILL BE SUPERSEDED BY THE
PERMANENT LEGISLATION. I'M
REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO
GETTING TO THAT, BUT IN THE
MEANTIME I DO APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND I'LL
BE SUPPORTING ALL OF THE
AMENDMENTS OUT OF THAT SPIRIT
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE
UPON A PIECE OF LEGISLATION, BUT
ULTIMATELY THE REALLY BIG WORK
COMES IN A LITTLE BIT LATER.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I
THANK COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD, HIS
COLLABORATION IN ANSWERING MY
PESKY QUESTIONS IN HIS OFFICE
THIS MORNING. HE PULLED OUT TWO
MAPS, GOT REAL DEEP, ROLLED UP
OUR SLEEVES, ALMOST LIKE A
TABLETOP EXERCISE IN THE
MILITARY. THANK YOU FOR
ADDRESSING MY QUESTIONS AND THE
FOLLOW-UP DOCUMENTATION, THE MAP
AND LETTER FROM THE QUEEN ANNE
COMMUNITY COUNCIL. I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS TODAY AS WELL
AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE
MINDFUL OF -- I DON'T KNOW IF A
BLANKET COOKIE CUTTER APPROACH
MAKES SENSE ACROSS THE CITY AND
I'M DEFINITELY HOPING TO
REASONABLE TWEAKS AROUND THE
EDGES AND I THINK THIS DOES
THAT. IT'S GREAT FOR INTERIM
LEGISLATION AND ON AN INTERIM
BASIS I WILL CERTAINLY BE
REVISITING THIS ISSUE DURING THE
PERMANENT LEGISLATION
DELIBERATIONS AND POTENTIALLY
WHERE WE MIGHT LAND WITH THAT IS
MAYBE ADOPTING THE STATE'S
MODEL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS FOR
THE FRONT SETBACKS. WHO KNOWS?
ALL IT IS TO SAY THIS MAKES A
LOT OF SENSE CERTAINLY FOR THE
INTERIM LEGISLATION. THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD TO
ADDRESS THE MOST PRESSING
CONCERNS IN THE NEAR TERM WHILE
ALLOWING OUT OF US MORE TIME TO
BE VERY THOUGHTFUL AND
DELIBERATE AS FOR THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION. PROUD TO SUPPORT IT
TODAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA. I SEE COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON, IS THAT AN OLD HAND?
>> I'M TAKING IT DOWN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WAS
CURIOUS ABOUT HISTORIC
BOULEVARD. SO I ASKED OUR
CENTRAL STAFF TO LOOK INTO
WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER HISTORIC
BOULEVARDS BESIDES THE ONE ON
QUEEN ANNE AND IT TURNS OUT
THERE IS ONLY ONE OTHER AND IT
DOES NOT HAVE ANY RESIDENTIAL
LOTS ABUTTING IT. SO IT REALLY
DID NOT SEEM TO ME TO THE POINT
OF TREATING ONE AREA DIFFERENTLY
THAN ANOTHER. IT SEEMS TO ME
THIS IS THE ONLY DESIGNATED
HISTORIC BOULEVARD IN THE CITY
AND FOR THAT REASON, I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS PARTICULAR
LEGISLATION, THOUGH I WANTED TO
MAKE SURE THERE WEREN'T OTHERS
AND WE WEREN'T INADVERTENTLY
TREATING ONE DIFFERENT FROM
ANOTHER IF THERE HAD BEEN
ANOTHER. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE. THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA. I WOULD
ARGUE I HAVE A BUNCH OF
BOULEVARDS IN MY DISTRICT I
COULD DEAL AS HISTORICAL THAT I
I THINK ARE PHENOMENAL. I'M
JUST KIDDING. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL MUCH.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> AYE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINK?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> VICE-CHAIR SOLOMON?
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> NINE IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU, CLERK. AMENDMENT
NUMBER 4 IS ADOPTED.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, I'LL
RECOGNIZE YOU TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> I MOVE TO MOVE COUNCIL BILL.
>> SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECOND TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
09269. WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER 5,
CENTRAL STAFF. YOU KNOW THE
DRILL. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES WE REGULATE
HOW MUCH BUILDING AREA IS
ALLOWED ON A LOT USING A FLOOR
AREA RATIO LIMIT. SO A RATIO SET
OUT FOR DIFFERENT DENSITIES OF
DEVELOPMENT TO THE LOT AREA. IN
OUR CURRENT CODE WE HAVE A
PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR SMALL
LOTS FOR THERE TO BE AT LEAST
2,500 SQUARE FEET OF RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT. THIS AMENDMENT
RESTORES THAT LANGUAGE TO THE
CODE TO SAY THAT ON ANY
RESIDENTIAL LOT WHERE
DEVELOPMENT IS ALLOWED, YOU CAN
HAVE AT LEAST A 2,500 SQUARE
FOOT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, YOU'RE
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THIS
AMENDMENT IS MEANT TO BE
TECHNICAL AND CLARIFYING TO
RESTORE THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA
ON SMALLER LOTS. THE STANDARDS
IN THE AMENDMENT ARE ALREADY IN
PLACE TODAY AND ARE MEANT TO
MATCH THE EXISTING CODE, NOT
MAKE A POLICY CHANGE. IT IS OUR
UNDERSTANDING THIS CHANGE WAS
SOMEWHAT UNINTENTIONAL. SO WE
ARE WORKING TO REMEDY THIS
THROUGH THIS AMENDMENT AND I ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. I WILL
PAUSE TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
BEFORE WE MOVE TO A VOTE ON
AMENDMENT NUMBER 5.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. CENTRAL
STAFF, IS IT TRUE IT WAS
INADVERTENT WHEN THE EXECUTIVE
SENT THIS LEGISLATION DOWN? I
DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS WOULD
HAVE BEEN CHANGED UNLESS IT WAS
--
>> YEAH. THERE IS A CHANGE TO
THE FLOOR RATIO LIMITS IN THE
BILL. CURRENT BY 0.5 FAR IS
ALLOWED ON A NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL LOT. SO ON A 5,000
SQUARE FOOT LOT YOU COULD BUILD
A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.
UNDER THE COUNCIL BILL 120969
THAT'S BEING INCREASED TO 0.6.
SO ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT
YOU COULD BUILD A 3,000 SQUARE
FOOT BUILDING. I THINK WHEN THEY
WERE DRAFTING THE CODE, THEY
DIDN'T FEEL LIKE KEEPING THIS
PROVISION WAS IMPORTANT, BUT
WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO SAY A 4,000
SQUARE FOOT LOT AND WE HAVE LOTS
OF THOSE IN THE CITY, THEN
YOU'RE STARTING TO CUT INTO THE
SIZE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD
OCCUR AND I DON'T THINK THAT
WAS INTENTIONAL.
>> SO IT'S NOT A TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT. THAT IS TO SAY THEY
INCREASED THE AMOUNT OF SPACE
THAT YOU COULD USE IN THE LOT TO
BUILD THAT HOME. SO FOR THE
SMALL LOTS THEY PROBABLY DIDN'T
INTEND TO MAKE THAT 0.6 BECAUSE
IT'S A SMALLER LOT.
>> I'M NOT SURE THAT THEY
INTENDED TO AND I'M NOT SURE
THAT THEY INTENDED TO GET RID OF
THE PROVISION THAT ALLOWED FOR
AT LEAST 2,500 SQUARE FOOT
BUILDINGS.
>> SO EVEN THOUGH THEY INCREASED
THE FAR FOR THE BIGGER LOTS,
YOU'RE SAYING IN THE SMALLER
LOCALITIES THEY DIDN'T INTEND
TO NOT INCREASE THE BUILDING.
>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. MY
DISCUSSIONS, THEY DO NOT HAVE
CONCERNS WITH THIS AMENDMENT. WE
DIDN'T GET INTO THE WHOLE WHAT
WAS YOUR THINKING WHEN YOU
DRAFTED THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE?
>> COLLEAGUES, IT JUST SEEMS TO
ME MY CONCERN HERE IS FOR THE
SMALLER LOT TO HAVE -- THIS IS
INCREASING THE FAR IN THE BIGGER
LOTS AND TO INCREASE THE FAR FOR
THE SMALLER LOTS MIGHT HAVE AN
IMPACT ON THE ABILITY TO KEEP
THE TREES, PLANT TREES AND
THINGS OF THAT NATURE. I HAVE
THIS CONCERN IN THIS INTERIM
LEGISLATION. COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. IT'S SOMETHING
I'LL CONSIDER FOR THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION, BUT FOR THE
TEMPORARY LEGISLATION I'M GOING
TO KEEP IT AS IT WAS SENT DOWN
TO US AND I WILL DIG INTO WHAT
THE IMPACTS ARE FOR ALLOWING FOR
A BIGGER STRUCTURE ON THE
SMALLER LOT SIZES, BUT THANK
YOU.
>> ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS
REGARDING THIS? COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE YOU
IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER FOLLOWUPS
BEFORE WE VOTE? NO. AWESOME.
I'LL PAUSE HERE. ARE THERE ANY
OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 5.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> VICE-CHAIR SOLOMON?
>> AYE.
>> AND CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> EIGHT IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED.
>> THE AMENDMENT NUMBER 5 IS
ADOPTED. COUNCILMEMBER RINCK,
YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR AMENDMENT
NUMBER 6.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I MOVE TO
AMEND COUNCIL BILL 120969 AS
PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT 6.
>> SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECOND TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120969 WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER 6.
CENTRAL STAFF, PLEASE GO AHEAD
WITH YOUR ADDRESS.
>> ALL RIGHT. SETTLE IN. THIS IS
THE LONGEST OF THE AMENDMENTS
AND IT'S MAINLY TECHNICAL.
IT'S REORGANIZING SECTIONS THAT
DISCUSS DENSITY TO IMPROVE
CLARITY AND USABILITY. AS
DRAFTED, THE BILL, FOR EXAMPLE,
FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONE SAYS ON ANY NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL LOT YOU CAN BUILD
ONE UNIT AND THEN TWO PAGES
LATER YOU GET TO PROVISIONS THAT
SAY YOU CAN BUILD FOUR UNITS ON
A LOT OR SIX UNITS ACCORDING TO
THE PROVISIONS OF HOUSE BILL
1110 WHICH WE'VE DISCUSSED A
LOT. THIS AMENDMENT SWITCHES
THINGS AROUND SO THAT IT'S
CLEAR THAT ON ANY RESIDENTIAL
LOT IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES YOU CAN BUILD FOUR UNITS
OR SIX UNITS WHERE THAT'S
ALLOWED PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF HOUSE BILL 1110.
IT DOES NOT CHANGE MINIMUM LOT
SIZE REQUIREMENTS. IT DOES
UPDATE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
PROVISIONS IN THIS CODE TO THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE BILL. SO
JUNE 30th, 2025, RATHER THAN THE
DATE THAT THE LEGISLATION WAS
SENT TO COUNCIL WHICH WAS THE
END OF MARCH. IT CLARIFIES
PROVISIONS THAT IN RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT ZONES YOU CAN HAVE AT
LEAST ONE PRINCIPAL UNIT ON A
2,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, PROVIDE A
MINIMUM OF FOUR OR SIX UNITS ARE
ALLOWED ON LOTS EXISTING AS OF
JUNE 30th, 2025. IT ADJUSTS AND
RESTORES OUR CURRENT THRESHOLDS
FOR ROUNDING IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES. SO IF, FOR
EXAMPLE, A CALCULATION WOULD
RESULT IN 1.9 UNITS BEING
PERMITTED, YOU ROUND UP TO TWO
UNITS RATHER THAN ROUNDING DOWN
TO ONE UNIT. IT CLARIFIES A
PROVISION STATING IF A LOT IS
SUBDIVIDED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ORDINANCE, ON ONE
UNIT IS ALLOWED PER LOT AND THAT
IS INTENDED TO AVOID PEOPLE FROM
GAMING THIS CODE PROVISION
THAT'S BASED ON ALLOWING FOUR
UNITS ON EVERY LOT AND
SUBDIVIDING A LOT INTO TWO LOTS
AND THEN SAYING OH, I CAN NOW
BUILD EIGHT UNITS. IT MAINTAINS
THE REQUIREMENTS THAT FOR
CERTIFYING THE AFFORDABILITY
HOUSING UNITS WILL REMAIN
AFFORDABLE. SO THERE IS ABOUT
TWO PAGES OF REGULATIONS IN THIS
CODE SECTION THAT DESCRIBE THE
PROCESS FOR CERTIFYING WITH THE
CITY'S OFFICE OF HOUSING THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AFFORDABLE
UNITS AND WILL MAINTAIN THOSE
FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS. IT
RESTORES LANGUAGE THAT WAS AN
INADVERTENT DRAFTING ERROR IN
THE LOW RISE ZONE DENSITY UNIT
AND I MISWROTE THIS. IT SHOULD
BE DENSITY LIMITS ONLY APPLY TO
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, TOWN
HOUSES AND SUMMER ROW HOUSES. AS
DRAFTED, THE BILL COULD BE READ
TO STATE THAT STACKED FLATS HAVE
A DENSITY LIMIT. THAT'S NOT THE
CASE TODAY AND WAS NOT THE
EXECUTIVE'S INTENT IN DRAFTING
THE BILL AND FINALLY,
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA
PROVISIONS IN THE BILL REMAIN
UNTOUCHED.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU, LISH.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, YOU'RE
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THIS IS A
COLLECTION OF TECHNICAL TWEAKS
IN A SINGULAR AMENDMENT TO
ENSURE WE'RE MEETING HOUSE BILL
1110 REQUIREMENTS. FOR AN
INSTANCE AS LISH JUST LAID OUT
THE BIT ABOUT IT SAYING IN PLAIN
LANGUAGE YOU CAN HAVE FOUR UNITS
ON EVERY LOT REGARDLESS OF SIZE.
IT CLARIFIES SUBDIVISION RULES
AND LEAVES MANY SECTIONS OF THE
INTERIM LEGISLATION AS IS. THIS
IS MEANT TO SERVE AS A TECHNICAL
AND CLARIFYING AMENDMENT, NOT A
MAJOR CHANGE IN POLICY AND I ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK. I'M GOING TO PAUSE FOR
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY
COLLEAGUES. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I KNOW,
LISH, YOU'VE WALKED ME THROUGH
THIS TWICE, BUT CAN YOU WALK ME
THROUGH THE NUMBER 8, THE
RESTORE LANGUAGE STATING IN
LOWRISE ZONES DENSITY LIMITS
ONLY APPLY BUT NOT TO STACKED
FLATS?
>> YEAH. THIS IS BASICALLY A
VESTIGE OF FACT STAFF WERE
DRAFTING BOTH THE PERMANENT AND
INTERIM LEGISLATION AT THE SAME
TIME. THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION
THAT YOU'LL START CONSIDERING
NEXT MONTH, HOUSING TYPES ARE
SPLIT INTO THREE CATEGORIES,
ATTACHED HOUSING, WHICH IS
TOWNHOUSES AND ROW HOUSES,
DETACHED HOUSING, WHICH IS
SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES OR COTTAGES
, AND STACKED FLATS. THOSE THREE
CATEGORIES OF HOUSING TYPES ARE
NOT DEFINED IN COUNCILMEMBER
120969, THE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU
TODAY, BUT THEY WERE USED IN
THIS CODE SECTION TO DESCRIBE
THE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT THAT
HAS A DENSITY LIMIT THAT
APPLIES. AS A RESULT, THE BILL
THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU COULD BE
READ TO SAY THAT STACKED FLATS
HAVE A DENSITY LIMIT AND THAT
WAS UNINTENTIONAL. SO THIS
AMENDMENT FIXES THAT AND
CONTINUES WITH CURRENT PRACTICE,
WHICH IS THAT WE DO NOT APPLY
DENSITY LIMITS TO STACKED FLAT
BUILDINGS IN MULTIFAMILY ZONES.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S VERY
CLEAR, BUT IT DOESN'T MENTIONS
ANYWHERE IN HERE STACKED FLATS.
>> RIGHT. BECAUSE THE DENSITY
LIMITS ONLY APPLY TO TOWNHOUSES,
ROW HOUSES, SINGLE-FAMILY
HOUSES. SO THEY ARE REFERENCED
IN THEIR ABSENCE.
>> IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE THE
RATHER THAN ATTACHED AND
DETACHED HOUSING? IS THAT WHAT
THAT'S SUPPOSED TO MEAN?
>> ATTACHED AND DETACHED HOUSING
ARE THE TERMS USED IN THE
PERMANENT LEGISLATION FOR ROW
HOUSES, TOWNHOUSES AND
SINGLE-FAMILY FAMILIES. WE'RE
GOING BACK TO THE LANGUAGE
THAT'S USED IN TODAY'S CODE
AND NOT -- BECAUSE THAT'S
DEFINED IN THE CODE RATHER THAN
USING THE TERMS THAT WILL BE
USED IN THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION, WHICH IS THE
ATTACHED, DETACHED.
>> JUST A QUESTION SINCE I'M
VERY DENSE ON THIS, WOULD IT BE
BETTER TO ACTUALLY ARTICULATE
STACKED FLATS, YOU PUT THAT
LANGUAGE IN HERE SO WE'RE
ALWAYS CLEAR?
>> HERE IS HOW IT SHOWS UP IN
THE BILL. MAYBE THAT WILL BE
HELPFUL.
>> OKAY.
IT WILL READ THERE IS NO DENSITY
LIMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN LOWRISE ZONES
EXCEPT FOR THESE FEW TYPES OF
HOUSING IN THE LOWRISE 1 ZONE OR
LOWRISE ZONES WITHOUT A
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
SUFFIX.
>> I GUESS, CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO
BRING AN AMENDMENT TO ACTUALLY
PUT IN THE WORDS STACKED FLATS
UNLESS THERE WOULD BE SOME LEGAL
REASON NOT TO DO SO.
>> OUR CURRENT CODE DOES NOT
DEFINE STACKED FLAT. SO IT HAS
NO CLEAR LEGAL MEANING UNDER
THIS BILL OR THE CURRENT CODE.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND NOT DOING
IT NOW AND WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT
IT'S CLEAR IN THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION ONCE WE HAVE A
DEFINITION FOR STACKED FLAT THAT
WE CAN USE.
>> OKAY. I DON'T KNOW. THIS
PARTICULAR PROVISION MAKES ME
VERY NERVOUS EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE
EXPLAINED IT AND THE INTENT IS
TO MAKE SURE IT'S THE APPLYING
TO STACKED FLATS. I GUESS I'M
GOING TO BE ABSTAINING JUST FOR
THAT REASON, NOT THAT I'M NOT
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. I WOULD
REALLY LIKE TO SEE STACKED FLATS
DEFINED BEFORE WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT DENSITY LIMITS. SO THANK
YOU.
>> I SEE COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANT
TO CONFIRM THAT DOESN'T DO
ANYTHING TO THE HB 1110
ALLOWANCE THAT ATTACHED DWELLING
UNITS AND DETACHED ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS CAN BE COUNTED AS
UNITS. SO IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY
CHANGE TO THAT.
>> CORRECT. THERE'S NO CHANGE
RELATED TO THAT.
>> AND THEN TO COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE'S POINT BECAUSE I
ACTUALLY HAVE A SIMILAR QUESTION
IN TERMS OF THE STACKED FLATS,
SO ARE YOU SAYING FOR THE
INTERIM LEGISLATION WE'RE NOT
GOING TO CONSIDER THE STACKED
FLATS AND IT'S SOMETHING WE'LL
DO ON PERMANENT OR YOU'RE
SAYING THIS LANGUAGE IN A AS IT
IS WRITTEN IS MEANT TO CAPTURE
THE STACKED FLATS BECAUSE WE
DON'T WANT TO USE TERMS THAT
AREN'T IN CURRENTLY IN THE
CODE? SORRY. I NEED FURTHER
EXPLANATION, I GUESS, IS WHAT
I'M SAYING. THANK YOU.
>> MIGHT BE WORTH LOOKING AT
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1. THE TERM
APARTMENT HAS SOME CURRENCY
CURRENTLY IN THE CODE. THAT IS
THE TERM THAT IS ALIGHTED HERE.
IT'S NOT MENTIONED, BUT
APARTMENTS ARE SORT OF THE TERM
THAT ESSENTIALLY IS THE
EQUIVALENT TO STACKED FLATS AND
THE HOUSE BILL 1110 VERNACULAR.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 OR JUST THE
BILL LOOKING AT DEFINED TERMS
PAGE 82 OF THIS AMENDMENT YOU
CAN SEE WHERE THE DEFINITION
SECTION OF THE LAND USE CODE
WHAT IS DEFINED AS MIDDLE
HOUSING. THE TERM APARTMENT
CONTINUES TO BE THE TERM OF ART
USED TO DESCRIBE WHAT IN THE
FUTURE WILL BE CALLED STACKED
FLATS. I'LL SHOW YOU WHERE THAT
IS.
>> THE TERM APARTMENT IS IN THE
LEGISLATION. COULD WE USE THE
TERM APARTMENT THEN TO MEAN
STACKED FLATS IN THAT SECTION
THAT THIS BILL IS AMENDING?
>> IF YOU WANTED TO ILLUCIDATE
THIS SECTION, ADDING THE TERM
STACKED FLATS MIGHT BE A LITTLE
MORE THAN YOU NEED TO DO. YOU
COULD CLARIFY DENSITY LIMITS
DON'T APPLY TO APARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT. I'M TAKING A LONG
TIME TO SCROLL BECAUSE IT'S A
VERY LONG BILL. THERE MUST BE A
FASTER WAY FOR ME TO DO THIS.
I'M SORRY.
>> NO WORRIES. IT'S A LONG
PIECE OF LEGISLATION. I
APPRECIATE THAT.
>> I JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT
TOOL HERE. IT'S CORRECT STACKED
FLATS WILL IN THE FUTURE BE THE
VERNACULAR USED TO DESCRIBE
APARTMENTS. FOR ONE THING OPCD
WAS STRIVING TO DO WITH THE
INTERIM BILL WAS TO KEEP THE
LANGUAGE WE CURRENTLY USE IN THE
CODE FOR DESCRIBING MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPMENT THE SAME, WHICH IS
WHY YOU WON'T FIND THE TERM
STACKED FLAT IN THE INTERIM
DEVELOPMENT BILL. LOOKING HERE
AT THE DEFINITION OF MIDDLE
HOUSING, IT REFERENCES TYPES OF
HOUSING THAT ARE CURRENTLY
DEFINED IN THE LAND USE CODE AND
THAT INCLUDES APARTMENTS. IF YOU
WERE TO LOOK AT FURTHER
REFINEMENT TO 6, FOR EXAMPLE, IT
WOULD BE ADDING THE TERM
APARTMENT HERE AND SORT OF
CLARIFYING DENSITY LIMITS DON'T
APPLY TO APARTMENTS.
>> BY DOING SO, YOU RUN THE RISK
OF THEN EXCLUDING OTHER TYPES OF
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, FOR
EXAMPLE, ADULT FAMILY HOMES OR
CONGREGANT RESIDENCES OR LOW
INCOME HOUSING, WHICH ARE ALL
TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
THAT ACTUALLY LOOK A LOT LIKE
STACKED FLATS OR APARTMENTS AND
ALSO UNDER TODAY'S CODE DON'T
HAVE DENSITY LIMITS.
>> I ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF
MAKING SURE WE'RE VERY CLEAR.
SO I FEEL THAT NOT INCLUDING
THAT HERE, THE APARTMENT PIECE,
THE STACKED FLATS, BECAUSE
THAT'S THE THING WE'RE REALLY
TALKING ABOUT HERE IS LEAVING IT
OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AND SORT
OF LOOSEY GOOSY. THAT'S NOT A
LEGAL TERM, BUT IT'S THE ONE
I'M USING AND THAT'S THE THING
-- AND I DON'T KNOW,
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, IF YOU AND
I ARE THINKING ABOUT THE SAME
THING, SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE
BECAUSE WE HAD -- YEAH,
QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT HERE.
>> IT'S NOT DEFINED IN THIS
BILL, BUT RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IS A CLEARLY DEFINED
TERM AND IT INCLUDES A BROAD
RANGE OF DIFFERENT HOUSING
TYPES, FAR BEYOND STACKED FLATS
OR TOWNHOUSES, ROW HOUSES, ET
CETERA.
>> SO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS
INTENDED TO INCLUDE ALL THESE
THINGS LISTED?
>> YES.
>> AND THAT'S DEFINED?
>> YES.
>> SO THIS IS CLEARLY INTENDED
TO INCLUDE THE APARTMENTS AND
THESE OTHER PIECES?
>> YES.
>> IS THIS SECTION HERE, LISH,
23.45.512. B? YOU DO HAVE THE
SUBSECTIONS HERE? IS THAT LIST
CONTAINED IN ONE OF THESE TWO
SUBSECTIONS?
>> THOSE SUBSECTIONS ARE
ACTUALLY RIGHT HERE IN THE
FOLLOWING SECTION.
>> FOLLOWING, SORRY.
>> YEAH. THEY REFER TO --
>> ROW HOUSE, TOWNHOUSE,
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, OKAY.
>> YEAH.
>> I GUESS I DON'T HAVE ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I
HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE APPRECIATE THE WORK
FROM COUNCILMEMBER RINCK AND
YOUR OFFICE AND CENTRAL STAFF
FOR PUTTING THIS 17-PAGE
DOCUMENT TOGETHER. I STAYED UP
TILL ABOUT 2:00 IN THE MORNING
TRYING TO CATCH UP AND
FINALIZING MY REVIEW OF A LOT OF
THINGS, INCLUDING THESE VARIOUS
AMENDMENTS. WHEN I GOT TO
AMENDMENT NUMBER 6, I HAD TO
HAVE A SECOND CUP OF COFFEE. I
JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
HARD WORK THAT WENT INTO
CREATING THIS. I HAVE A FEW
QUESTIONS. LISH, AT THE OUTSET
OF YOUR CENTRAL STAFF
PRESENTATION DESCRIPTION OF THIS
I HEARD YOU SAY IT IS DESIGNED
TO "IMPROVE CLARITY AND
USABILITY." SO THREE QUESTIONS
AROUND THAT. IMPROVE CLARITY AND
USABILITY FOR WHOM AND I DON'T
KNOW IF THIS IS FOR THE
AMENDMENT AUTHOR OR CENTRAL
STAFF OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH,
I IMAGINE POSSIBLY BOTH
DEPENDING ON THE QUESTION.
IMPROVING CLARITY AND USABILITY
FOR WHOM? LOVE TO EITHER
UNDERSTAND THE KIND OF RATIONALE
AND THINKING THERE SECONDLY AND
THIRD, WHAT'S THE OVERARCHING
GOAL OR OBJECTIVE WE'RE SEEKING
TO OBTAIN AND ACCOMPLISH BY
VIRTUE OF THIS AMENDMENT?
THERE'S A LOT OF WORK HERE, A
LOT OF ACTIVITY GOING ON. SO 17
PAGES WORTH AND JUST WOULD LOVE
BETTER CLARITY AROUND WHAT IS
THE INTENDED IMPACT, IF YOU
WILL?
>> I CAN START. CLARITY AND
USABILITY FOR PEOPLE WHO
ACTUALLY USE THE LAND USE COLD,
SO AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
INSPECTIONS AND PEOPLE SEEKING
TO DEVELOP ON NEIGHBORHOOD,
RESIDENTIAL OR LOWRISE LOTS
ACROSS THE CITY. IT SEEKS TO DO
THAT BY STATING UP FRONT WHAT
THE PRIMARY DENSITY LIMITS ARE
FOR THE TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES
OF ZONES. SO IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONE IT SAYS UP
FRONT YOU CAN BUILD FOUR UNITS
ON MOST LOTS. YOU CAN BUILD SIX
UNITS ON SOME UNDER CERTAIN
CONDITIONS. UNDER THE BILLS
INTRODUCED IT SAYS YOU CAN BUILD
ONE UNIT ON A LOT AND THEN TWO
PAGES LATER YOU GET TO THE PART
WHERE IT SAYS ACTUALLY ON MOST
LOTS YOU CAN BUILD FOUR UNITS.
SO IT SWITCHES THINGS UP SO THAT
IT'S CLEAR FOR MOST PEOPLE THEY
ARE READING WHAT APPLIES TO THEM
AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE IN THE CODE
SECTION. IF YOU LOOK HERE, FOR
LOWRISE ZONES IT SAYS THERE IS
NO DENSITY LIMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN LOWRISE ZONES
EXCEPT UNDER THESE FEW
CONDITIONS AND SO IT'S INTENDED
TO SAY YOU DON'T HAVE A DENSITY
LIMIT. LOOK HERE. READ THESE FEW
PROVISIONS AND IF THEY DON'T
APPLY TO YOU, THEN YOU CAN STOP.
>> I'LL CHIME IN AS AMENDMENT
SPONSOR FROM THIS POINT. THE
OVERARCHING GOAL OF THIS BEING
IF WE CAN FIND WAYS TO
STREAMLINE, I THINK WE'RE
QUICKLY LEARNING LAND USE IS AN
INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED TOPIC.
THERE ARE CERTAINLY EXPERTS THAT
WORK IN THIS SPACE AND ACTIVELY
USE OUR CODE AND MATERIALS. ARE
THE BETTER THAT WE CAN AUTHOR
THIS SO IT'S EASIER TO
UNDERSTAND I THINK MAKES A LOT
LESS HEADACHES FOR EVERYONE
INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS WHILE
ENSURING THIS AMENDMENT BRINGS
US INTO FULL COMPLIANCE WITH
HOUSE HOUSE BILL 1110. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S A SHARED
GOAL AND THANK YOU FOR THE
ADDITIONAL CLARITY THERE. I'VE
LEARNED WHETHER AN IDEA OR
CONCEPT OR PROPOSAL CONSTITUTES
A TECHNICAL CHANGE IS REALLY IN
THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER AND I
WOULD GENERALLY AGREE MOST OF
THIS IS VERY TECHNICAL AND
SPECIFIC IN NATURE. A FEW LITTLE
MORE SUBSTANTIVE THINGS LIKE THE
NUMBER 5 ADJUSTING THE
THRESHOLDS THERE AND I'M GOING
TO SUPPORT THIS TODAY. I DO HAVE
SOME LINGERING QUESTIONS ALONG
THE LINES OF SOME OF WHAT OUR
COLLEAGUES MENTIONED A MOMENT
AGO ABOUT THE STACKED FLATS. I
THINK ALL THINGS CONSIDERED THE
FACT THIS IS AN INTERIM PIECE OF
LEGISLATION AND WE'LL SOON
PIVOT TO THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION WHERE WE CAN ADDRESS
THAT IN MORE FULLSOME DETAIL I
THINK THE RISK IS LOWER IN MY
MIND, POINTING OUT IT IS A VALID
CONCERN AND AREA FOR ADDITIONAL
CLARITY GOING FORWARD. I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS. THANK YOU FOR
PUTTING IT FORWARD. AND ALLOWING
ME TO HAVE AN EXTRA CUP OF
COFFEE AT 12:30 A.M.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS REGARDING AMENDMENT
NUMBER 6? SEEING NONE,
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, DO YOU HAVE
ANY MORE FOLLOW-UPS? NO.
AWESOME. CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL TO AMENDMENT
NUMBER 6.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YUP.
>> VICE-CHAIR SOLOMON?
>> AYE.
>> AND CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED,
TWO ABSTENTIONS. EXCUSE ME, SIX
IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED, TWO
ABSTENTIONS.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU, CLERK.
>> THAT'S STILL INCORRECT. I'M
SORRY. MY MATH IS REALLY WRONG.
SEVEN IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED,
TWO ABSTENTIONS.
>> YES. SEVEN IN FAVOR, TWO
ABSTENTIONS, NONE OPPOSED. THE
AMENDMENT PASSES AND ADOPTED AND
I NOW RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK FOR YOUR AMENDMENT NUMBER
7.
>> I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
120969 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT
7.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECOND
FOR AMENDMENT OF COUNCIL BILL
120969 AMENDMENT 7. LISH AND
KETIL, PLEASE GIVE US YOUR
ANALYSIS.
>> THIS IS A REQUEST TO THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS TO
REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL ON WORK
BEING DONE CURRENTLY AT THE
WASHINGTON STATE BUILDING CODE
COUNCIL TO REVIEW WHAT TYPES OF
DEVELOPMENT ARE SUBJECT TO THE
STATE BUILDING CODE AND WHAT
TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT ARE SUBJECT
TO THE STATE RESIDENTIAL CODE.
AS YOU HEARD I THINK IN MARCH,
DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE STATE
RESIDENTIAL CODE IS GENERALLY
LESS EXPENSIVE THAN DEVELOPMENT
UNDER THE STATE BUILDING CODE.
THE STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL
IS LOOKING AT WHETHER MORE TYPES
OF MIDDLE HOUSING SHOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS AND
THE RESIDENTIAL CODE. THIS IS
ASKING FOR AN UPDATE ON THAT
WORK AND FOR WORK PROGRAM FOR
THE CITY TO IMPLEMENT ANY
CHANGES THAT ARE MADE AT THE
STATE LEVEL.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR AND THANK YOU
FOR THAT OVERVIEW. THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD PROVIDE COUNCIL
WITH THE REPORT HOW TO BETTER
INCORPORATE MIDDLE HOUSING SUCH
AS STACKED FLATS INTO
RESIDENTIAL RATHER THAN
COMMERCIAL CODE TO PROMOTE
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY AND I ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
>> I WILL PAUSE TO SEE IF
THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE ON
AMENDMENT NUMBER 7 VERSION 1.
HOW LONG CAN YOU ALL STAY
SILENT? I'M JUST PLAYING. I
HAVE TO LIGHTEN IT UP A LITTLE
BIT, COLLEAGUES. YOU ALL ARE SO
TENSE TODAY, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
>> COUNCIL KETTLE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> VICE-CHAIR SOLOMON?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> THE AMENDMENT PASSES, NINE IN
FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED. AMENDMENT
NUMBER 7 IS ADOPTED.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> I MOVE COUNCIL BILL 120969 BE
AMENDED AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT 8 VERSION 2.
>> SECOND.
>> SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECOND. CENTRAL STAFF, KETIL AND
LISH, OFF TO YOU.
>> THIS IS AMENDMENT 8 VERSION
2. VERSION 1 WAS ATTACHED TO THE
AGENDA. THIS IS A NEW VERSION OF
THE AMENDMENT. IT WOULD ADOPT
THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE'S MODEL ORDINANCE
FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF HOUSE BILL
1110'S YARD REQUIREMENT IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER OUR CURRENT
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONING
WE REQUIRE AT LEAST A 20-FOOT
SETBACK IN THE FRONT YARD. UNDER
THE BILL PROPOSED, THAT WOULD BE
REDUCED TO TEN FEET. THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD ADOPT THE
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE'S MODEL ORDINANCE
PROVISIONS WHICH STATE THAT FOR
ONE AND TWO-UNIT STRUCTURES YOU
HAVE A 15-FOOT FRONT YARD AND
FOR STRUCTURES WITH MORE UNITS
YOU HAVE A TEN-FOOT SETBACK. SO
THE LAST COLUMN ON THAT TABLE
THERE WOULD BE THE NEW YARD
REQUIREMENTS.
>> THANK YOU, LISH.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, YOU'RE
RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR. I
WANTED TO THANK LISH VERY MUCH
FOR ALL YOUR HELP ON THIS AND
THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT AND THIS
ONE AS WELL. I ALSO WANTED TO
APOLOGIZE TO COLLEAGUES FOR THIS
BEING LAST MINUTE. I HAD
INTENDED TO BRING THIS
ORIGINALLY AND FOR VARIOUS
REASONS DID NOT AND THEN
YESTERDAY 11th HOUR RECEIVED
LEGAL ADVICE. HENCE, THIS IS WHY
WE HAVE THIS BEFORE US TODAY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND
UNDERSTANDING. I AM BRINGING
THIS BECAUSE I THINK AS WE'VE
ALL SAID UP HERE REPEATEDLY, WE
NEED TO BUILD MORE HOUSING AND
PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN SEATTLE'S
URBAN TREE CANOPY. I THINK WE
ARE ALL LOOKING FOR A WAY TO DO
BOTH. THIS IS AN INTERIM MEASURE
WHICH WILL -- THE STATE MODEL
CODE, AS I UNDERSTAND FROM MY
NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
LAW DEPARTMENT NOW, DOES, IN
FACT, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION
THE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS FOR
PARKING AS THEY RELATE TO THE
CITY AT THE SAME TIME AS
ALLOWING FOR SOME ADDITIONAL
AREA IN WHICH TREES OFTEN ARE
GROWING ON A LOT. SO TRYING TO
NAVIGATE THAT GROUND AND LOOKING
AT THREE OR MORE UNITS IT DOES
IN EFFECT BECAME THE SAME AS
WHAT THE MAYOR'S OFFICE HAS
SENT DOWN TO US. SO IN TERMS OF
STANDING IN THE WAY I THINK OF
BRINGING FORTH THE FOUR TO SIX,
IT CLEARLY DOES NOT, BUT IT DOES
GIVE SOME ADDITIONAL PROTECTION
FOR THE TREES WHILE WE ARE
LOOKING AT, WHICH I THINK MANY
OF US HAVE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE
GET TO THE PERMANENT BILL, HOW
DO WE LOOK AT MAYBE FLEXIBLE
SETBACKS WITH A REQUIREMENT FOR
SOME SORT OF TREE PRESERVATION
OR TREE AMENITY AREA, INCREASING
FAR TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE
STACKED FLATS? THERE'S A LOT OF
WORK TO BE DONE TO BRING ALL THE
VARIOUS PIECES TOGETHER IN THE
PERMANENT LEGISLATION. THIS WAS
REALLY AN ATTEMPT TO FIND SOME
MIDDLE GROUND WHILE IN THE NEXT
FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS WE ARE DOING
THE VERY HARD WORK TO COME UP
WITH A MORE PERFECT PACKAGE. I
WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT WE ALL
RECEIVED A LETTER FROM BIRDS
CONNECTS, SEATTLE PARKS, MAKING
CLEAR THEY PREFER TO KEEP THE
CURRENT SETBACKS BUT FOR LEGAL
REASONS WERE NOT ABLE TO DO SO
AND IN THAT INSTANCE THEY WOULD
BE SUPPORTIVE OF ADOPTING THE
MODEL CODE. WE'RE JUST ADOPTING
THE YARD PIECES AT THIS POINT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. I WOULD ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT UNLESS THERE
ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
>> LISH.
>> THERE'S ONE PIECE OF
CLARIFICATION WE'D LIKE TO GET
IF THIS DOES PASS FROM THE
COUNCIL. AMENDMENT 4 RELATED TO
THE QUEEN ANNE 4 FOR
FRONT YARDS IT ADDED A FOOTNOTE
AFTER THESE TEN FEET TO SAY THAT
THERE'S A 20-FOOT FRONT YARD
ALONG QUEEN ANNE BOULEVARD, AS
YOU KNOW. JUST WANT TO CONFIRM
THAT THE COUNCIL'S INTENT IF
THIS DOES PASS THIS WOULD APPLY
TO LOTS WITH ONE AND TWO UNIT
AND THREE OR MORE DWELLING
UNITS. IF THAT'S COUNCIL'S
INTENT, I WOULD ADD THE FOOTNOTE
AFTER BOTH OF THESE LINES WHERE
IT SAYS IN THE FRONT YARD.
>> FOR THE RECORD, LISH, CAN YOU
REPEAT THAT AGAIN, PLEASE.
>> YEAH.
>> SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS.
>> YEAH. THE QUESTION IS FOR
THIS FIRST ROW ON FRONT YARDS
SHOULD THE FOOTNOTE SAYING THE
FRONT YARD REQUIREMENT ALONG
QUEEN ANNE BOULEVARD IS 20 FEET
APPLY TO BOTH LOTS WITH ONE OR
TWO DWELLING UNITS AND LOTS WITH
THREE OR MORE OR JUST ONE OF
THOSE TWO? I THINK THE
COUNCIL'S INTENT IN ADOPTING
APPEARMENT 4 WAS IT SHOULD
APPLY TO ANY SIZE BUILDING.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS BILL
PASSED AND THEN ADDRESS THAT
ISSUE. I'M ASSUMING THESE
SHOULD BE -- THE QUEEN ANNE IS
AN EXCEPTION.
>> RIGHT.
>> AND WE SHOULD MAINTAIN IT AS
AN EXCEPTION?
>> RIGHT.
>> IT WOULD BE AN EXCEPTION TO
WHAT WE HAVE NOW AND AN
EXCEPTION TO THE MODEL CODE
SHOULD THAT PASS. THAT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT. I'M
NOT SPEAKING FOR EVERYONE
OBVIOUSLY.
>> BEFORE I RECOGNIZE COUNCIL
RIFF, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE?
>> I'M IN AGREEMENT.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU. I JUST
WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE STAYED ON
THAT SUBJECT. COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK?
>> THANK YOU. I THANK
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD AND I'D LIKE TO
BEING A CO-SPONSOR ON THIS PIECE
OF LEGISLATION. COLLEAGUES, WE
ALL SUPPORT HOUSING. WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT IN THE
TIME WE'VE BEEN HERE. WE ALSO
WANT TO SUPPORT TREES IN OUR
TREE CANOPY BECAUSE WE KNOW WE
HAVE A CLIMATE CRISIS. I GREW UP
IN NEW YORK CITY, THE DENSEST
CITY IN AMERICA, WHICH HAS A
GOAL TO INCREASE ITS TREE CANOPY
COVERAGE TO 30% BECAUSE OF THE
CLIMATE CRISIS. WHEN THESE OLD
LARGE CITIES WERE PLANNED AND
BUILT, THEY DIDN'T PLAN FOR
TREE CANOPY AND I DON'T BLAME
THEM. WE DIDN'T KNOW THEN WHAT
WE KNOW TODAY, BUT NOW WE KNOW
THAT WE NEED TO
PLAN FOR TREE CANOPY AND TREES
TALL ENOUGH TO REALLY PROVIDE
COOLING. I GREW UP IN A
FIVE-STORY WALK-UP AND HEAT
RISES. IT WAS VERY, VERY HOT AND
THAT'S ONLY GETTING WORSE AGAIN
WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. DEVELOPERS
NEED TO PARTNER WITH THOSE
SUPPORTING OUR CLIMATE GOALS. I
THINK WE ALL, DEVELOPERS,
RESIDENTS, EVERYONE IN GENERAL
NEEDS TO BE WORKING TOGETHER TO
CREATING MORE HOUSING AND
MEETING OUR CLIMATE GOALS. AS WE
HEARD IN CHAMBER THIS WEEK, THEY
DON'T NEED TO BE IN CONFLICT,
BUT WE DO NEED TO DO SOMETHING
TOWARDS THOSE GOALS. WE CAN'T
JUST TALK ABOUT IT. WE ACTUALLY
NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO BOTH
SUPPORT MORE HOUSING AND SUPPORT
TREE CANOPY. WE KNOW SETBACKS
HELP PROTECT EXISTING TREES AND
CREATE SPACES FOR ADDITIONAL
TREES. WHAT PEOPLE ARE WORRIED
ABOUT IS VERY REAL, AS I SAID
EARLIER. FOR THOSE REASONS I NOT
ONLY WANT TO -- I NOT ONLY AM
GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BILL, BUT
I WANT TO CO-SPONSOR IT AND
CONTINUE TO FIND WAYS IN OUR
PERMANENT ZONING LEGISLATION TO
PRESERVE, MAINTAIN, AND GROW
TREE CANOPY WHILE WE ARE
CREATING MORE HOUSING ACROSS THE
CITY BECAUSE WE NEED IT AND I
KNOW THAT BOTH WORK. AGAIN, I
GREW UP VERY HAPPY IN MY
APARTMENT BUILDING IN NEW YORK
CITY AND I NOW LIVE IN A
SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE. BOTH CAN
WORK. I FEEL REALLY STRONGLY WE
NEED TO PUT NOT JUST LIP
SERVICE, TOO. WE CAN HAVE BOTH
HOUSING AND TREE CANOPY. WE NEED
TO ACTUALLY DO THINGS TOWARDS
THOSE GOALS. I WANT TO PARTNER
WITH EVERYONE INVOLVED TO MAKE
SURE WE ARE DOING THAT. SO I
SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER, MOORE, FOR
BRINGING IT FORWARD. THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. WHILE
THERE'S PLENTY I COULD SAY
ABOUT THIS SUBJECT OF SETBACKS,
I'LL SAVE THOSE REMARKS FOR THE
FEDERAL LEGISLATION. I WILL
SUPPORT VERSION 2 OF THIS
AMENDMENT FOR A SIMILAR REASON
AS IS I WANTED VERSION TWO OF
AMENDMENT 3. AS FAR AS I CAN
TELL, THIS IN EFFECT WILL
INCENTIVIZE GREATER DENSITY BY
GIVING GREATER SETBACK
FLEXIBILITY TO THREE PLUS UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS. WE NEED MORE
MIDDLE HOUSING IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND BY
GRANTING GREATER FLEXIBILITY TO
MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENTS FROM
SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS WE
CAN BUILD EVEN MORE. I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. I WILL BE
BE ABSTAINING BECAUSE OF THE
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT VERSIONS AND
SETBACKS DO NOT EQUATE TO TREES.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S HARD
FOR ME BECAUSE A SETBACK CAN BE
PAVED OR USED FOR A WHOLE NUMBER
OF SITUATIONS AS WELL AS WITHIN
THE TREE ORDINANCE SETBACKS CAN
BE REDUCED BY 50% FOR SAVING A
TREE. SO WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT
A 20-FOOT SETBACK, THAT MEANS IT
CAN ONLY BE REDUCED TO TEN FEET
TO SAVE THAT TREE. GRANTED, IF I
HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE
THAT, I PROBABLY WOULD TO MAKE
IT CLOSER TO 100% BECAUSE WE
NEED MORE ROOM FOR TREES. IT'S
IMPORTANT WE CONTINUE THIS
CONVERSATION. COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE, I'M HERE FOR IT. LOOKING
FORWARD TO THE FINAL LEGISLATION
IN THE REST OF THE SELECT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE.
TODAY I'LL ABSTAIN. THANKS FOR
EVERYONE'S WORKS.
>> ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS
REGARDING AMENDMENT 8 VERSION 2?
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR
BEING WILLING TO CO-SPONSOR THIS
LEGISLATION. COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, FOR ONE STRAINING MOMENT
OF I WAS LOOKING AT ELIMINATING
PARKING REQUIREMENTS, BUT THAT
WAS FOR ANOTHER DAY. THANK YOU
ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND
SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE. I THINK WE ARE READY.
I'M GOING TO BE QUIET FOR FIVE
SECONDS TO SEE IF THERE'S MORE
COMMENTS REGARDING AMENDMENT
NUMBER 8 VERSION 2. AWESOME.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> VICE-CHAIR SOLOMON?
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> ONE ABSTENTION, EIGHT IN
FAVOR.
>> THE AMENDMENT PASSES -- NO,
THE BILL HAS BEEN AMENDED TO
ADOPT NUMBER 9, AMENDMENT NUMBER
9. I APOLOGIZE. WHEN I WING IT
-- OH, 8, 8. THERE'S NOT 9. I
APOLOGIZE. THE I WILL REPEAT
THAT FOR THE RECORD. THE
AMENDMENT 8 IS ADOPTED VERSION
2, OKAY? JUST SO WE KNOW. OKAY.
NOW WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE
ON THE BILL THAT HAS BEEN
AMENDED TODAY WITH ALL OF
EVERYONE'S AMENDMENTS, THE WORK
PLAN AND THE THOUSANDS OF
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD
WITH EACH OTHER ABOUT THE
INTERIM LEGISLATION AND FEEDBACK
AND EVERYTHING, OKAY? ASK THERE
ANY MORE DISCUSSION FOR THE BILL
AS AMENDED? NO FINAL COMMENTS.
WE CAN PROCEED TO A FINAL VOTE
ON THE BILL AS AMENDED. WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
THE COMMITTEE FOR RECOMMENDATION
THAT BILL 120969 PASSES AS
AMENDED.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> VICE-CHAIR SOLOMON?
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> YES.
>> NINE IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. THE MOTION CARRIES
AND THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
THE BILL PASSES AS AMENDED WILL
BE SENT TO THE MAY 27th, 2025,
FULL CITY COUNCIL MEETING. WITH
THAT, THANK YOU, EVERYONE. WANT
TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES AND THANK
CENTRAL STAFF. YOU ALL HAVE DONE
PHENOMENAL, PHENOMENAL WORK AND
THANK YOU ALL. THAT WAS ONLY THE
INTERIM. THANK YOU. WE HAVE NO
OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR
TODAY. DO ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES
HAVE ANY MORE ITEMS OF BUSINESS
FOR TODAY? SEEING NONE, THIS
CONCLUDES OUR MAY 21st MEETING.
IT IS IT 3:28 P.M. OUR NEXT
SELECT COMMITTEE MEETING IS
THURSDAY, JUNE 5th, 9:30,
THURSDAY, JUNE 5th, 9:30. THIS
IS A REMINDER. JUST FOR THIS
MEETING WE'RE ONLY COLLECTING
PUBLIC COMMENT WRITTEN BECAUSE
WE ARE GETTING THE FULL BRIEFING
OF THE LEGISLATION THAT HAS BEEN
PASSED DOWN FOR THAT MEETING AND
THEN WE'LL MOVE ON AFTER OPEN
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS MOVING ON
AFTER THAT, BUT WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENTS FOR JUNE 5th. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. NO FURTHER BUSINESS.
IT'S 3:29 P.M. AND THIS MEETING
IS ADJOURNED.