THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
EVERYONE. THE APRIL 17, 2024
REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMITTEE
MEETING OF THE LAND USE
COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER.
IT IS 2:00 P.M. I AM TAMMY
MORALES, CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>> FOUR PRESENT.
>> I BELIEVE VICE CHAIR STRAUSS
IS ON HIS WAY. WHEN HE GETS
HERE, WE WILL ACKNOWLEDGE AND.
OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON,
COLLEAGUES. WE HAVE 27 ITEMS ON
THE AGENDA TODAY. THE FIRST 25
ARE APPOINTMENTS TO THE DESIGN
REVIEW BOARD . AFTER A BRIEFING
AND DISCUSSION, WE WILL HAVE A
VOTE ON THOSE APPOINTMENTS. WE
ALSO HAVE COUNCIL BILL 120749,
WHICH IS A BILL TO ALLOW , TO
AMEND ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR
PROPERTIES WITHIN GEORGETOWN .
AND WE HAVE COUNCIL BILL
120750, WHICH IS THE CONNECTED
COMMUNITIES PILOT WE HAVE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT FOR TWO MONTHS
NOW. IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION,
TODAY'S AGENDA WILL BE
ADOPTED. HEARING NO OBJECTION.
TODAY'S AGENDA IS -- ADOPTED.
WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE
HYBRID PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
NAOMI, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE
HAVE?
>> WE HAVE FOUR REMOTELY
PRESENT . WE HAVE FOUR IN
PERSON AND ONE HERE FOR THE
PUBLIC COMMENT , SORRY, TWO FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT, AND SIX
REMOTELY PRESENT.
>> OKAY. JUST TO LET FOLKS
KNOW, WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE GEORGETOWN BILL
TODAY. IF YOU'RE HERE TO
COMMENT ON THAT LEGISLATION,
PLEASE WAIT UNTIL WE GET TO
THAT PART OF THE AGENDA. WE
WILL FIRST HAVE GENERAL PUBLIC
COMMENT. EACH SPEAKER WILL
HAVE TWO MINUTES. WE WILL START
WITH IN PERSON SPEAKERS, AND
THEN WE WILL MOVE TO REMOTE.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS UP
TO 20 MINUTES . SPEAKERS WILL
BE CALLED IN ORDER IN WHICH
THEY REGISTERED. WE WILL
ALTERNATE BETWEEN IN PERSON AND
REMOTE. AS A REMINDER, WE HEAR
A TIME WHEN YOU HAVE 10 SECONDS
LEFT. SO PLEASE START TO WRAP
UP YOUR COMMENTS AT THAT POINT
SO WE CAN MOVE ONTO THE NEXT
SPEAKER. THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD IS NOW OPEN. OKAY. WE
WILL START WITH RON, FOLLOWED
BY ALICIA . ARE YOU RON? OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALICIA.
>>
I AM HERE TO OFFER MY SUPPORT
FOR THE CONNECTED COMMUNITIES
PILOT. I WORK IN PIONEER SQUARE
AND MUCH OF ITS BEAUTY COMES
FROM IT BEING A FIRST PLACE
FOR SO MANY . IT IS A SPACE
THAT HOUSES, FEEDS AND HEALS
PEOPLE. WHEN I AM IN THERE, I
AM PART OF A COMMUNITY. ANY
ARTIST, COMMUNITY BUILDERS,
CHEFS AND STUDENTS. I HAVE
CONVERSATIONS RANGING FROM
PEOPLE SHARING THEIR
EXPERIENCES WITH HOMELESSNESS
TWO PEOPLE LAMENTING ABOUT THE
ROMANTIC LIFE. COMMUNITY IS THE
SOUL OF A PLACE. APPROVING
THIS LEGISLATION MEANS OUR CITY
WILL HAVE MORE PLACES WHERE
EVERYDAY PEOPLE CAN LIVE, WORK,
PLAY AND SUPPORT EACH OTHER.
PEOPLE THRIVE WHEN THEY ARE
ABLE TO PUT DOWN BOTH ECONOMIC
AND SOCIAL ROOTS. IN A TIME
WHEN MANY OF US ARE ASKING WHAT
SEATTLE'S FUTURE LOOKS LIKE
WITH A BUDGET DEFICIT AND
COST-OF-LIVING CRISIS, WE NEED
TO PUT FORTH LEGISLATION THAT
ENABLES COMMUNITIES TO BETTER
SERVE THEMSELVES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT WE
HAVE DAVE , FOLLOWED BY STEVE.
>> HELLO. I LIVE IN DISTRICT
5. I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT
CONNECTED COMMUNITIES, BUT I
WOULD LIKE TO START WITH
SPEAKING ABOUT THE IRONY OF THE
AGENDA TODAY. WERE STARTING
THIS MEETING WITH HAVING ALL
THIS APPROVAL FOR PEOPLE FOR
THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, AND
THEN YOU WILL TALK ABOUT A
PROJECT THAT DOESN'T HAVE
DESIGN REVIEW. IT SEEMS SORT OF
AN OXYMORON. IT SEEMS LIKE
THERE IS SOMETHING THAT YOU
DON'T WANT TO DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD TO SEE. I GUESS I HAVE AN
IDEA OF WHAT THAT IS, BECAUSE
AT THE LAST MEETING ON THE
SUBJECT YOU SHOWED US A SLIDE
THAT SHOWED AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT
A BUILDING WOULD LOOK LIKE
UNDER THIS PILOT. LOOKS LIKE A
FORTRESS. I DON'T CALL THAT A
CONNECTED COMMUNITY. I CALL IT
CONNECTED BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN
BE TO THE BUILDING AND TOUCH
THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR TO THEM.
LET'S PUT SOME SPACE BETWEEN
THE BUILDINGS. ALSO, AS FAR AS
DESIGN REVIEW, IF YOU'RE DOING
A PILOT PROJECT, LET THE DESIGN
REVIEW BOARD GET INVOLVED. WE
DON'T WANT TO JUST START
HAVING THINGS THAT DON'T GET
REVIEWED. I URGE YOU TO HAVE
THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS.
THERE ARE OTHER EXEMPTIONS IN
THIS. YOU ARE EXEMPT FROM THE
SEATTLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROGRAM. WHY IS THAT? WE HAVE
PROGRAM, AND THEN WE ARE MAKING
EXCEPTIONS FOR A PROGRAM THAT
REALLY PROVIDES VERY LITTLE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT IS ALSO
EXEMPT FROM TREES BECAUSE
THERE'S ONLY A FIVE FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTIES IN
ALL DIRECTIONS. HOW DO YOU
PLANT TREES TO MAKE THIS NOT
TURN INTO ANOTHER HEAT ISLAND?
IT IS EXEMPT FROM PARKING,
EXEMPT FOR SPACES FOR BICYCLES
HOW DOES THIS MAKE A LIVABLE
CITY IF WE HAVE ALL THESE
EXEMPTIONS FOR PROGRAMS THE
CITY HAS? IN SOME WAYS, I WOULD
SAY IT IS EXEMPT FROM
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IN THE LAST
MEETING ONE OF THE
COUNCILMEMBERS ASKED THE CITY
PRESENTER HOW MUCH AFFORDABLE
HOUSING THIS WOULD PROVIDE, AND
HE DIDN'T KNOW. IT SHOULDN'T
BE HARD TO CALCULATE. HE DID
NOT HAVE THAT ANSWER. I WOULD
SAY IT IS PROBABLY VERY LITTLE.
PROVIDING ALL THESE EXEMPTIONS
FOR THIS PROJECT --
>> THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT WE
HAVE STEVE.
>>
>> DEARLY BELOVED, WE ARE
GATHERED HERE TODAY . YOUR
GODS ARE THE BIG DEVELOPERS.
HOW MANY WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE
HAVE TO LEAVE THE CITY?
UNIMPORTANT. THIS IS FOR THEIR
GODS. LET'S SEE WHAT HAS
HAPPENED . LET'S SEE WHAT THE
CITY COUNCIL HAS DONE THE LAST
40 YEARS. WE HAVE REMOVED MOST
OF THE BLACK PEOPLE FROM , IT
WAS ABOUT 80%. OFFICIALLY, THE
CITY AT ONE POINT WAS SAYING
20%. I HAVE BLACK PEOPLE
LAUGHING AT THAT NUMBER. THEY
WERE SAYING IT WAS FAR LESS.
LET'S LOOK AT WHAT REALLY IS
HAPPENING WITH THESE POLICIES.
DEVELOPERS GET RICH. THEY
DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GIVE
ANYTHING TO THE POOR. WE HAVE
MHA, ONE OF THE LEAST COSTLY
ANYWHERE , AND THEY DON'T EVEN
HAVE TO DO THAT. THERE IS
NOTHING EVEN FOR THE BOTTOM.
YOU ARE TAKING WORKING-CLASS
PEOPLE OUT OF THE CITY SLOWLY
BUT EFFECTIVELY. YOU ARE NOT
EVEN SUPPLYING TO THE LOWEST
PEOPLE ON THE END. THIS IS JUST
ANOTHER DROP IN THE WATER
TORTURE, JUST ANOTHER DROP OF
MOVING PEOPLE OUT OF THE CITY
SLOWLY BUT VERY EFFECTIVELY. I
THINK YOU SHOULD TAKE A LOOK
AT WHAT TYPE OF CITY YOU WANT.
WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
COMING UP. I DON'T SEE
ANYTHING FOR LOOKING AT A CITY
WHICH HAS MANY LEVELS OF
INCOME IN IT. PEOPLE WHO ARE
NEEDED IN THE CITY , WE HAVE NO
PLACE FOR THEM. WE ARE HAVING
LESS AND LESS. YOU ARE GOING
TO MAKE IT -- YOU ARE GOING TO
ELIMINATE THE TREES IN THE
PLACES WHERE WE DO HAVE THEM
WITH PLANS LIKE THIS.
>> THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT
IS ALL THE IN PERSON SPEAKERS
WE HAVE ON THE CONNECTED
COMMUNITIES LEGISLATION. NAOMI,
CAN YOU MOVE TO THE REMOTE
FOLKS, PLEASE?
>> YES. FIRST IS JUNE , AND
THEN IS MARTHA. JUNE, PLEASE
UNMUTE YOUR MIC.
>> -- JUNE? IF YOU PRESS
STAR SIX YOU CAN UNMUTE YOUR
MIC.
>> I DON'T SEE HER. LET'S
MOVE ONTO THE NEXT ONE AND COME
BACK.
>> NEXT WE HAVE MARTHA.
>> HELLO? NOW CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES. WE SEE YOU JUNE.
>> SORRY. THANK YOU. I LIVE
IN DISTRICT 2. I URGE THE LAND
USE COMMITTEE TO VOTE NO ON THE
CONNECTED COMMUNITIES PROJECT.
THE CITY IS NOW UNDERTAKING A
PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE
ONE SEATTLE PLAN. I ATTENDED A
MEETING ABOUT IT JUST LAST
NIGHT. THERE IS STILL A LOT OF
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND COMMENTING
TO GO. WHY APPROVE A YEARS LONG
PILOT PROJECT BEFORE THAT
PROCESS IS COMPLETE? THE PILOT
HAS A GREAT SOUNDING NAME AND
USES THE LANGUAGE OF RACIAL AND
ECONOMIC JUSTICE, BUT IT WOULD
HAVE PROFOUND NEGATIVE IMPACTS
ON COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN
THE MOST HARMED BY BAD POLICIES
IN THE PAST, INCLUDING
REDLINING. COMMUNITY RESIDENTS
WILL BEAR THE BRUNT OF
INCREASED HEAT PRODUCING HARD
SCAPE , TALL SON BLOCKING
BUILDINGS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT
WITH NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER,
AND SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF THE
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFITS OF TREES. THESE
PROJECTS WILL BE EXEMPT FROM
SEPA AND EXEMPT FROM DESIGN
REVIEW. THAT IS A BIG PROBLEM.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE
INCREASED DENSITY WILL BENEFIT
COMMUNITIES BY MAKING HOUSING
TRULY AFFORDABLE. THE
DEFINITION OF QUALIFYING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATIONS IS ALSO NOT
CLEAR. THIS LEAVES THE DOOR
OPEN FOR FOR-PROFIT DEVELOPERS
TO EXPLOIT COMMUNITIES FOR
THEIR OWN BENEFIT. PLEASE VOTE
NO ON THIS LEGISLATION.
>> NEXT WE HAVE SANDY.
>>
-- SANDY, PRESS STAR SIX TO
UNMUTE YOUR MIC.
>> IF YOU ARE ON, PLEASE PRESS
STAR SIX TO UNMUTE. OKAY.
LET'S MOVE ON. IS THERE
ANOTHER SPEAKER? --
>> SORRY. IT WOULD NOT LET ME
UNMUTE. I PRESSED IT LIKE 10
TIMES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH COUNCIL MEMBERS . GOOD
AFTERNOON. I AM WITH TREE
ACTION SEATTLE. I AM ASKING YOU
TO PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE
CONNECTED COMMUNITIES BILL.
THIS MORNING I SENT YOU A NEW
ANALYSIS WHICH SHOWS THAT THE
SEATTLE FRONTLINE COMMUNITIES
WILL LOSE OVER 200 ACRES OF
TREES UNDER OUR CURRENT
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND THE
NEW TREE ORDINANCE. THIS BILL
CONTINUES THE OUTDATED PRACTICE
OF BUILDING NEW HOUSING WITH NO
TREES AND NO ROOM TO PLANT
THEM. THE COMMUNITIES IT
TARGETS DESERVE HEALTHY
HOUSING. TO SURVIVE CLIMATE
IMPACTS, PEOPLE NEED TREES
WHERE THEY LIVE, NOT JUST IN
PARKS OR ALONG STREETS. PLEASE
VOTE NO. THANK YOU.
>> NEXT WE HAVE LEWIS.
>>
YOU CAN PRESS STAR SIX TO
UNMUTE. SOUNDS LIKE FOLKS
MIGHT BE HAVING -- THERE WE GO.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM A
LEGACY RESIDENT OF SEATTLE
DISTRICT 4. I'M ASKING YOU NOT
PASS THE CONNECTED COMMUNITY
LEGISLATION OR ANY OF THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. USING THE
LANGUAGE OF JUSTICE TO ADD
DENSITY DISPROPORTIONATELY IS
FURTHER AWAY FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY. OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS CAN BE NEGATIVELY
IMPACTED BY PILOT DEVELOPMENT .
ONCE BUILT, THESE BUILDINGS
CANNOT BE TAKEN BACK. BLANKET
LEGISLATION SIMILAR TO THIS HAS
INCREASED TAXES FOR MANY OF US
WHOSE HOMES WERE UP THE ROAD,
CAUSING PROPERTY TAXES TO GO
UP. THE INTENT WAS COMMENDABLE,
BUT IT MAKES THE LEGISLATION
NO DIFFERENT FROM CURRENT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING
MODELS. AT LEAST THE OWNERSHIP
PIECE WAS NOVEL, EVEN IF THERE
WERE NO BARBELLS IN PLACE TO
PROTECT THE PURCHASER. PLEASE
VOTE NO ON ALL VERSIONS OF THIS
AS THE LANGUAGE AND AMENDMENTS
STICK TO A PIG. THANK YOU.
>> WE CAN TRY MARTHA ONE MORE
TIME. IF YOU PRESS STAR SIX
TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.
>> MARTHA, YOU ARE NOT MUTED
IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> OKAY. WONDERFUL NAME FOR
THIS LEGISLATION, BUT CHANGES
PROPOSED IN THE PILOT PROGRAM
WILL AGAIN FURTHER REDUCE THE
CITY'S TREE CANOPY, WHICH IS
ALREADY DWINDLED, CREATING MORE
HEAT ISLANDS IN LOWER INCOME
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ALREADY HAVE
LESS COVERAGE. REFERRING TO
THE 2020 WINTRY CANOPY REPORT
FROM SEATTLE OFFICE , NET
LOSSES IN TREE CANOPY FROM
REDEVELOP PARCELS OVER THE
YEARS , 2016 THROUGH 2021, 30
3.6% AMID RESIDENTIAL AND 49%
IN MULTIFAMILY ZONES, WHICH IS
A TOTAL LOSS OF 3.6% OF THE
ENTIRE CANOPY IN THOSE YEARS
AND DOUBLED THE DECLINE RATE OF
OTHER LOCATIONS IN SEATTLE.
THIS BILL WILL ADD MORE FUEL TO
THAT LOSS BY ALLOWING MORE LOT
-- LOTS COVERED WITH STUCK
STRUCTURES MADE FROM CONCRETE,
BRICKS AND MORTAR, WITH NO
REQUIREMENT FOR TREES THAT MAKE
FOR LIVING , MAKE IT A
BREATHING AND LIVING CITY. IN
ADDITION, DESIGN REVIEW IS A
POLICY OF EQUITY. THE STANDARDS
FOR HOUSING ARE SUPPOSED TO BE
DEEMED TO APPLY THESE
STANDARDS. THAT MAKES OUR CITY
AFFORDABLE. LOWER-PRICED
HOUSING WILL NOT BE IT IN
ZONING AREAS ALREADY
INCOMPATIBLE IN CHARACTER. I
WOULD SAY AGAIN , GO BACK TO
THE DRAWING BOARD. THANK YOU.
>> THAT WAS THE LAST SPEAKER.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF
THERE ARE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS,
I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. I
WILL ASK NAOMA TO READ AGENDA
ITEMS ONE THROUGH 25. [ AGENDA
ITEMS READ ].
>> WE ARE JOINED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTION. THEY WILL GIVE A
BRIEFING ON THE DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD , AND THEN WE WILL HEAR
FROM ANY APPOINTEES WHO ARE
HERE .
>> THERE SHOULD BE A POWERPOINT
TO PUT UP. YOU SHOULD BE ABLE
TO SHARE YOUR SCREEN.
>> IF YOU COULD SHARE YOUR
SCREEN, WE CAN DO IT THAT WAY.
THANK YOU.
>> I'M SORRY. GIVE ME A SECOND
HERE. OKAY. HOLD ON JUST A
SECOND.
>> COLLEAGUES --
>> I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. I'M
GOING TO GET THIS RIGHT NOW.
MY APOLOGIES. THERE WE GO.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS THERESA NEYLON. I AM A
SENIOR PLANNER IN THE LAND USE
REVIEW TEAM AT SDCI. I'M
STANDING IN FOR SHELLEY
BOLSTER, THE PROGRAM MANAGER,
WHO WAS OUT OF THE OFFICE
TODAY. ERIKA IKSTRUMS, THE
DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM
SPECIALIST, IS JOINING ME. THE
PURPOSE OF SDCI IS HELPING
PEOPLE BUILD A SAFE, LIVABLE
AND INCLUSIVE SEATTLE. OUR
VALUES INCLUDE EQUITY, RESPECT,
QUALITY, INTEGRITY AND SERVICE.
I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A QUICK
OVERVIEW OF THE DESIGN REVIEW
PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM WAS
ESTABLISHED IN 1994 AND UPDATED
IN 2018. THE PURPOSE OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM IS TO
ENCOURAGE DESIGN EXCELLENCE AND
SITE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN AND
ARCHITECTURE TO ENSURE NEW
DEVELOPMENT RESPONSE TO ITS
CONTEXT AND PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY
TO CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR
PROJECT DESIGN. THE PROGRAM
ALSO AIDS IN COMMUNICATION
AMONG DEVELOPERS, THE CITY, AND
THE COMMUNITIES WHERE THE
PROJECTS ARE PROPOSED. THE
DESIGN REVIEW APPLIES TO NEW,
COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY TO
LIMIT ACROSS THE CITY. THERE
ARE THREE TYPES OF DESIGN
REVIEW. FOR SMALLER PROJECTS
THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF DESIGN
REVIEW THAT ARE ADMINISTRATIVE
WHERE REVIEWS ARE DONE BY
STAFF. THE THIRD TYPE OF DESIGN
REVIEW -- REVIEW IS FOR LARGER
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. THESE
PROJECTS GO BEFORE A
NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD FOR REVIEW. THERE ARE
EIGHT NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN
REVIEW BOARDS. THE BOARDS ARE
COMPRISED OF VOLUNTEERS WHO ARE
APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR AND
COUNCIL. THE BOARDMEMBER
POSITIONS ARE APPOINTED FOR
TWO-YEAR TERMS. FIVE BOARD
MEMBERS ARE IN EACH BOARD,
INCLUDING PERSPECTIVE FROM
AQUATECH SURE THAT
ARCHITECTURE, DEVELOPMENT AND
BUSINESS PROFESSIONS, AS A
LOCAL COMMUNITY AND RESIDENTIAL
PERSPECTIVES. BOARD MEMBERS ARE
NOT RESTRICTED TO REPRESENTING
ONLY THE PERSPECTIVE OF THEIR
POSITION. ALL THE MEMBERS ARE
TASKED WITH THE DUTIES OF
SYNTHESIZING COMMUNITY INPUT,
PROVIDING EARLY DESIGN
GUIDANCE, RECOMMENDING
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO
SDCI, IF NEEDED TO MEET DESIGN
GUIDELINES, AND ENSURING FAIR
AND CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF
DESIGN GUIDELINES. TODAY WE
HAVE 23 NEW APPOINTMENTS AND
TWO NEW APPOINTMENTS TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN REVIEW
BOARDS. THE PROGRAM ALSO WORKS
WITH THE YMCA GET ENGAGED
PROGRAM TO PLACE TWO ADDITIONAL
YOUNG ADULTS BOARD MEMBERS WHO
MAY BE PLACED ON ANY OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD BOARDS. THESE
POSITIONS ARE ONE-YEAR TERMS
AND CONSIDER FOR APPOINTMENT
LATER IN THE YEAR. I WOULD NOW
LIKE TO HEAD OVER TO ERIKA
IKSTRUMS TO GIVE MORE
INFORMATION ON THE ROLES OF THE
BOARD MEMBERS.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
ERIKA IKSTRUMS, PROGRAM
SPECIALIST AT SDCI. I WOULD
LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ALL OF OUR
BOARD MEMBERS ARE VOLUNTEERS IN
THIS ROLE . THAT USES MANY
HOURS OF THEIR PERSONAL TIME.
THIS GROUP HAS COLLECTIVELY
DEMONSTRATED TREMENDOUS
KNOWLEDGE, PASSION AND
COMMITMENT TO SERVING THE CITY
OF SEATTLE AND REPRESENTING
THEIR PERSPECTIVE --
RESPECTIVE INTEREST. WE ARE
THRILLED TO HAVE NEW
APPOINTEES, AND WE'RE VERY
MUCH APPRECIATIVE OF THEIR
DEDICATION TO THIS COMMUNITY.
>> THAT IS THE END OF HER
PRESENTATION.
>> OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OF THE
APPOINTEES WHO ARE JOINING US?
IT LOOKS LIKE STEPHEN ALLWINE
IS HERE. OKAY. I CAN'T SEE
HOW MANY FOLKS ARE HERE, BUT
FOR THOSE WHO ARE, I AM HAPPY
TO GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO SHARE
WHAT YOUR INTERESTS ARE IN
JOINING THE BOARD . I WILL
START WITH YOU, STEVE.
>> THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR HAVING ME. MY
NAME IS STEPHEN ALLWINE. I
WOULD LIKE TO THINK THE LAND
USE COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERING
MY CONFIRMATION TO BE ON THE
BOARD FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT.
REAL QUICK, A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
ME. I LIVE IN BALLARD WITH MY
FAMILY IN DISTRICTS EXPECTED
HAVE A MASTERS IN
INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING FROM
COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENT AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON AND
DEGREE IN COMMUNICATIONS FROM
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY.
I WORKED 15 YEARS AT AN
ARCHITECTURAL FIRM GOING
THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS FROM
THE SIDE DEVELOPERS. I WANT TO
BE ABLE TO HELP THE PUBLIC.
HOMEOWNERS, RENTERS, FAMILIES
AND DEVELOPERS. FINALLY, I
RECENTLY FINISHED UP MY
CONTRACT WITH THE U.S. COAST
GUARD DOING SMALL BOAT RESCUES
ATTESTATION SEATTLE. I LOOK
FORWARD TO SERVING IN A NEW
ROLE WITH THE PUBLIC, A VERY
DIFFERENT ROLE. THANK YOU.
>> THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANA ALVAREZ.
>> THANK YOU. I AM JOINING THE
SOUTHWEST BOARD AS THE BUSINESS
AND LANDSCAPE REP. I HAVE A
MASTERS IN SUPPLY-CHAIN
MANAGEMENT FROM THE BUSINESS
SCHOOL HERE . I HAVE BEEN IN
THE CITY FOR EIGHT YEARS. I
LOVE IT. I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT
DESIGN , ARCHITECTURE AND REAL
ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS WHY
I AM INTERESTED IN JOINING THE
BOARD. AM EXCITED TO SEE HOW
THE CITY IS GROWING IN THE NEXT
5 TO 20 YEARS. ANYTHING TO BE
PART OF THAT PROCESS. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT I SEE AKHIL
ARUN.
>> THANK YOU. HI, EVERYONE. I
WILL BE JOINING THE EAST DESIGN
REVIEW BOARD AS THE DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTATIVE. I MOVED TO
SEATTLE FOUR YEARS AGO WITH A
BACKGROUND IN EX ARCHITECTURE.
I MOVED INTO THE WORLD OF REAL
ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND WORKED
WITH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPERS. I HAVE SLOWLY BUT
SURELY FALLEN IN LOVE WITH THE
CITY OF SEATTLE. I HOPE TO
START TO GIVE BACK AND GUIDE
PROJECTS THROUGH THEIR DESIGN
PHASES. I AM EXTREMELY
PASSIONATE ABOUT URBAN DESIGN .
I CONTINUE TO LEARN ABOUT HOW
WE CAN POSITIVELY IMPACT THE
URBAN FABRIC HERE IN SEATTLE.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. I DON'T
SEE BRENDA BAXTER . OKAY.
THAT'S FINE. VANESSA. I WANT
TO THANK THE LAND USE
COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERING MY
APPOINTMENT TODAY. I WILL BE
JOINING AS A LOCAL RESIDENTIAL
REPRESENTATIVE. I FELL IN LOVE
WITH SEATTLE. I'M AN IMMIGRANT
WHO GREW UP IN GERMANY. I AM SO
GRATEFUL TO BE PART OF THIS
COMMUNITY. I CAN GIVE BACK AND
HELP SHAPE SEATTLE AND MAKE IT
MORE INCLUSIVE AND WELCOMING TO
EVERYONE, INCLUDING IMMIGRANTS.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT I HAVE
BENJAMIN DOEHR.
>> I HAVE BEEN IN SEATTLE
ABOUT NINE YEARS OR SO. I AM
JOINING THE NORTHEAST DESIGN
REVIEW BOARD. I HAVEN'T SEEN
A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE
PAST NINE YEARS OR SO. I
DECIDED TO GET INVOLVED IN THE
PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NICK
DUDA.
>> I AM EXCITED TO JOIN THE
EAST DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. I'VE
BEEN A RESIDENT OF SEATTLE FOR
THE LAST 12 YEARS. I'VE A
BACKGROUND IN BUSINESS . I HAVE
PERSONAL INTEREST IN OUR BUILT
ENVIRONMENT. I ALSO HAVE A DEEP
PERSONAL CONNECTION TO SOUTHIE
SEATTLE. I AM LOOKING FORWARD
TO BE A POSITIVE VOICE FOR
DEVELOPMENT GOING FORWARD.
THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.
>> NEXT I SEE CHE FORTALEZA.
ARE YOU HERE? OKAY. STUART,
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> WE CANNOT HEAR YOU. IT
DOESN'T LOOK YOU ARE ON MUTE,
BUT I DON'T HEAR YOU.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
>> BETTER. THANK YOU.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. YES.
STUART HERRERA-ENZUATE. I AM
GOING TO BE SERVING IN THE
DESIGN REVIEW PROFESSION AS A
DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. I HAVE
BEEN IN SEATTLE OVER 27 YEARS
PRACTICING ARCHITECTURE. I AM
CURRENTLY A CONSULTANT IN
SEATTLE AS WELL. I AM HOPING
TO GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY
WITH MY EXPERIENCE, PROVIDING
POSITIVE FEEDBACK FOR
PROPOSALS BE REVIEWED BY THE
BOARD. I WANT TO ALSO ENSURE
IMPROVEMENT IS IN THE DESIGN
QUALITY OF THE PROJECTS COMING
INTO THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. QUANLIN HU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I HAVE A
BACKGROUND IN URBAN PLANNING
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE
BEEN A BUSINESS OWNER AND
RESIDENT THE PAST SEVEN YEARS,
12 YEARS. PROFESSIONALLY AND
PERSONALLY I WOULD LIKE TO
CONTINUE SERVING WITH BUSINESS
REPRESENTATION TO CONTINUE THE
HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL LEGACY.
BACK IN 2017 I WAS THE PLANNER
TO CREATE . I KNOW HOW
IMPORTANT IT IS FOR THE
COMMUNITY. I WOULD LIKE TO
CONTINUE AND AM LOOKING
FORWARD TO THAT. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS VERY MUCH. ETHAN
KARLINSEY.
>> HELLO. I AM EXCITED TO BE
SERVING , TO BEGIN SERVING AS
THE LOCAL COMMUNITY
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE CENTRAL
AREA. I THINK THE WAY WE
DEVELOP HOUSING IN URBAN SPACES
HAS IMPACTED A LOT OF ISSUES
LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE, SYSTEMATIC
RACISM AND HEALTH AND
WELL-BEING FOR MANY PEOPLE.
I'M EXCITED TO START GETTING A
BIT OF EXPERIENCE AND GETTING
INVOLVED IN HOUSE SEATTLE DOES
URBAN DESIGN.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THERE
ARE SEVERAL OTHER APPOINTEES,
BUT I DON'T SEE ANY OF THEM.
IF YOU ARE AN APPOINTEE AND I
DID NOT CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE
SPEAK UP.
>> I CAN SPEAK UP NOW. MY NAME
IS KESHAV PRATHIVADI. I AM
JOINING THE NORTHWEST DESIGN
REVIEW BOARD AS A COMMUNITY
MEMBER. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK
THE LAND USE COMMITTEE FOR
CONSIDERING ME FOR APPOINTMENT.
I JUST MOVED TO SEATTLE ABOUT A
YEAR AGO IN THE GREENWOOD
NEIGHBORHOOD. I GOT WORK AS AN
AERODYNAMIC ENGINEER. KIND OF
AN OUTSIDER, BUT REALLY GOT
INTO LEARNING ABOUT HOW
HOUSING IS DEVELOPED HERE, HOW
UNIQUE IT IS COMPARED TO OTHER
PLACES. I REALLY FELL IN LOVE
WITH THE CITY IN THE PAST YEAR
I HAVE BEEN HERE. I SEE THE
POTENTIAL OF THAT , ESPECIALLY
WITH A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT
COMING UP IN THE NEXT FEW
YEARS. VERY EXCITED TO HELP BE
A PART OF HOW SEATTLE GROWS. I
CAN'T WAIT TO HELP OUT.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE I
MISSED? LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE A
FEW. GO AHEAD , JESSICA
McCLURG.
>> I AM JOINING THE SOUTHWEST
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AS A LOCAL
COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE. I DO
HAVE A DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.
I AM A REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND
CURRENTLY WORK AS A
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. I HAVE
ALWAYS BEEN PASSIONATE ABOUT
URBAN DESIGN, AND I AM
PASSIONATE ABOUT EQUITY. I'M
VERY EXCITED TO BE PART OF
SHAPING ARE VERY BEAUTIFUL
CITY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. BRITTANY PORT.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM AN
URBAN PLANNER LIVING IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD OF SEATTLE. I BEEN
WORKING AS AN URBAN PLANNER FOR
10 YEARS. DURING THAT TIME,
I'VE WORKED ON BOTH PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AS WELL AS
MUNICIPALITIES THROUGHOUT
WASHINGTON IN BOTH CURRENT AND
LONG-RANGE PLANNING. I HAVE
ENJOYED SERVING MY FIRST TERM
ON THE CENTRAL ANNUAL DESIGN
REVIEW BOARD AS THE DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTATIVE. IS APPOINTED
FOR SECOND TERM, I'M EXCITED
TO CONTINUE TO USE MY SKILLS OF
THE PLANNER TO SERVE MY
COMMUNITY AND CONTINUE THE WORK
IN ENSURING THAT NEW
DEVELOPMENT IS WELL-DESIGNED
AND SENSITIVE TO THE CONTEXT
AND CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD I LIVE IN. THANK
YOU.
>> KIRSTEN WILD.
>> I AM CONSIDERED FOR THE
LOCAL COMMUNITY POSITION IN
SOUTHEAST. I'M A PARTNER AT
ARCHITECTS IN SEATTLE. I HAVE
LIVED IN SEATTLE SINCE 1993
WHEN I CAME HERE FOR GRAD
SCHOOL. I MOVED TO RAINIER
BEACH IN 1998. I HAVE RAISED
TWO KIDS HERE. NOW THAT THEY
ARE MOSTLY GROWN AND FLOWN, I
HAVE SOME TIME TO GIVE BACK. I
AM EXCITED TO SIT ON THE DESIGN
REVIEW BOARD. I HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED WITH DESIGN REVIEW FOR
MANY YEARS AS AN ARCHITECT, BUT
IT WILL BE INTERESTING LOOKING
AT IT FROM THE INSIDE OUT. I
WILL WORK HARD TO REPRESENT THE
VERY DIVERSE NEEDS AND GOALS OF
THE SOUTHEAST DISTRICT.
>> OKAY. I THINK I SAW GAVIN
AS WELL.
>> MY NAME IS GAVIN SHAFFER. I
AM A WITH SEATTLE RESIDENT AND
FATHER TO MY. I HOPE TO
CONTINUE FOR SECOND TERM AS
CHAIR OF THE SOUTHWEST DESIGN
REVIEW BOARD BUT I AM AN
ARCHITECT WITH A BACKGROUND IN
LARGE-SCALE URBAN PROJECTS. I
HAVE AN EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND IN
DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS, DESIGN
STANDARDS AND PROJECT
MANAGEMENT, BOTH IN THE U.S.
AND CANADA. AND CURRENTLY
POSSIBLE ARCHITECT HELPING TO
BUILD OUT THE LIGHT RAIL
EXTENSION. REALLY LOOKING AT
THINGS ON A LARGE-SCALE. THANKS
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> THANKS VERY MUCH. OKAY. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE I MISSED?
OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU
ALL. THANK YOU TO AS CDI FOR
BEING HERE. COLLEAGUES, ANY
QUESTIONS FOR THE CANDIDATES?
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. TO KNOW
QUESTIONS. I JUST WANT TO THANK
YOU ALL FOR YOUR VOLUNTEER
SERVICE TO OUR CITY OF SEATTLE.
A SHOUT OUT TO THE DISTRICT
SIXERS. SOME OF YOU I AM
LOOKING FORWARD TO MEETING YOU
WITH THE REST OF YOU. THANK YOU
ALL. I WILL ALSO SAY I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE WILLINGNESS OF
THESE NEIGHBORS TO SERVE ON
THESE VOLUNTEER BOARDS. WE HAVE
LOTS OF THEM. WE UNDERSTAND THE
WORK YOU PUT IN TO PARTICIPATE
IN THESE PROCESSES. I DO WANT
TO SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND THE
GOAL OF THIS PARTICULAR BOARD
IS TO PROVIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES
AND HELP MAKE SURE WE ARE
CREATING A BEAUTIFUL CITY . I
WANT TO SAY THAT THAT IS
IMPORTANT WORK, BUT WE ALSO
HAVE IMPORTANT WORK TO ACHIEVE
OUR GOALS OF MAKING SURE THAT
PEOPLE ARE HOUSED IN THE CITY.
AND SO, I URGE YOU TO KEEP IN
MIND THAT GOOD DESIGN IS
IMPORTANT, AND WE CAN'T LET
THESE PROCESSES CREATE BARRIERS
TO MEETING THE CRISIS WE FACE
IN THE CITY. I'M SURE WE'VE
ALL HEARD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT
SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WITH
CREATING PROCESSES THAT COULD
SLOW DOWN CONSTRUCTION OF
HOUSING. WE REALLY WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ACHIEVING
BOTH GOALS AT ONCE , CREATING A
BEAUTIFUL CITY, CREATING
BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOODS, AND
ALSO MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE
CREATING SPACE FOR OUR PEOPLE,
OUR RESIDENTS, OUR NEIGHBORS,
OUR SENIORS, OUR FAMILIES, TO
BE ABLE TO FIND PLACES TO LIVE.
I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO SERVE IN THIS
ROLE, AND IF THERE ARE NO OTHER
COMMENTS, I WILL MOVE
RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CONFIRM
APPOINTMENTS ZERO -- IT HAS
BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
RECOMMENDING CONFIRMATION OF
THESE APPOINTMENTS. WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>> FIVE IN FAVOR.
>> THE COMMITTEE MECHANIZATION
APPOINTMENTS WILL BE SENT TO
THE APRIL 23, 2024 CITY COUNCIL
MEETING FOR FINAL ACTION. JUST
SO YOU KNOW, APPOINTEES, YOU DO
NOT NEED TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL
MEETING. WE WANT TO THANK YOU
AGAIN FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO
SERVE ON THIS ADVISORY BOARD.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY. NAOMI,
PLEASE READ THE NEXT AGENDA
ITEM INTO THE RECORD. [ AGENDA
ITEM READ ]
>>
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON. WE ARE JOINED BY
CENTRAL STAFF AND OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT. IF YOU WILL BOTH
PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELVES AND
BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF.
>> I AM THE LAND USE POLICY
MANAGER AT THE CITY OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT.
>> TERRIFIC. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. JUST SO YOU KNOW,
COLLEAGUES, I AM BRINGING IN
AMENDMENT TO THIS BILL THAT WE
HAVE BEEN WORKING ON WITH THE
GEORGETOWN FOLKS WHO BROUGHT
IT. WE WILL NOT BE VOTING ON
THAT TODAY BECAUSE WE HAVE A
PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL BE
DOING THAT AT THE NEXT LAND USE
COMMITTEE MEETING. PLEASE TAKE
IT AWAY.
>> OKAY. JUST A MOMENT.
OKAY. THIS IS A BRIEF OVERVIEW
FOR YOU OF A PROPOSAL FOR A
HEIGHT LIMIT EXEMPTION WHICH
IS A LAND USE CODE AMENDED.
ITALY CHANGES THE TEXT OF THE
CODE. THE OFFICE OF PLANNING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PREPARED
THIS LEGISLATION AND THE MAYOR
IS RECOMMENDING IT FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THIS SLIDE
GIVES YOU A BRIEF SUMMARY OF
WHAT IS IN THE PROPOSAL. THIS
CHANGE WOULD PROVIDE A 10 FOOT
HEIGHT LIMIT EXEMPTION FROM
EXISTING 75 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT
TO A PROPOSED 85 FOOT LIMIT.
IT IS SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT
THAT CAN MAXIMIZE EFFICIENT
WOODFRAME CONSTRUCTION OF UPPER
LEVEL HOUSING WHILE ALSO
ENABLING HIGH CLEARANCE
GROUND-FLOOR SPACES THAT ARE
CONDUCIVE TO LIGHT INDUSTRY AND
ARTS. THIS AMENDMENT ONLY
APPLIES TO A FOCUSED AREA
WITHIN THE GEORGETOWN GENERAL
VICINITY. IT IS 9.7 ACRES OF
CONTIGUOUS LAND CENTERED ON
FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH. IT IS
COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY OTHER
INDUSTRIAL ZONES. IT IS OWED
COMMERCIAL CURRENTLY. ALL OF
THE EXISTING HEIGHT LIMITS
AROUND THIS AREA ARE ALREADY 85
FEET. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
HAVE SEVERAL CRITERIA TO ACCESS
THE HEIGHT LIMIT EXEMPTION. THE
DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE
BUILT TO A GREEN BUILDING
STANDARD , AT LEAST FIVE OF THE
STORIES WOULD HAVE TO BE IN
RESIDENTIAL USE. AT LEAST 20%
OF THE GROUND FLOOR WOULD HAVE
TO BE ACTIVE STREET-LEVEL USES,
AND ALL DWELLING UNITS CREATED
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE SOUND
INSULATING WINDOWS AND AIR
COOLING AND VENTILATION
SYSTEMS. NOT NOTED IN THE
BULLET, PORTION OF THE GROUND
FLOOR WOULD ALSO BE REQUIRED TO
BE A TALL 20 FOOT GROUND TO
CEILING CLEARANCE. THE CITY
CONDUCTED A SEPA REVIEW ON
THIS PROPOSAL AND NO APPEALS
WERE RECEIVED. SO WHY ARE WE
PROPOSING THIS? WHAT IS THE
PURPOSE AND POLICY BASIS?
REALLY, WERE TALKING ABOUT
INCREASING HOUSING SUPPLY HERE.
WE WILL HEAR FROM THE
WATERSHED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, FORMERLY THE
GEORGETOWN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WHO OWNS
A LARGE SHARE OF THE LAND. THEY
WOULD SEEK TO BUILD A ROUGHLY
600 HOMES IN THE AREA , AND
MOST OF THOSE WOULD BE
AFFORDABLE. THEY WOULD ALL BE
AFFORDABLE IN THE 60% AMI
RANGE ACCORDING TO THE
INFORMATION WE HAVE BEEN
PROVIDED. THE PURPOSE IS ALSO
TO RESPOND TO GEORGETOWN'S
UNIQUE CONTEXT OF ARTS AND
LIGHT INDUSTRY. THIS IS
DIFFERENT FOR MANY OTHER PLACES
AROUND THE CITY. IT IS WERE
INTEGRATED WITH AN INDUSTRIAL
AREA. THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A
VERY HIGH NUMBER OF ART
STUDIOS, BUILDING SUPPLY AND
MATERIALS BUSINESSES AND MAKER
SPACES. THIS PROPOSAL RESPONSE
TO THAT. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT
THE GEORGETOWN RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITY NEARBY DURING THE
2023 INDUSTRIAL MARITIME
STRATEGY PROCESS GENERALLY
ADVOCATED FOR MORE COMPLETE
NEIGHBORHOOD, MORE MIXED-USE,
AND THIS IS AN AREA ALREADY
ZONED COMMERCIAL AND ALLOWS
THAT, BUT WOULD DO MORE OF IT.
WATER SHELLED -- WATERSHED HELP
PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND THEY
REPORTED STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE
PROPOSAL. THIS MAP ORIENTS YOU
TO THE AREA. THIS TEXT
AMENDMENT WOULD ONLY APPLY
WITHIN THAT YELLOW LINE. IT IS
CENTERED FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH ,
AS I MENTIONED. YOU CAN SEE IN
THE SLIDE TO THE EAST THERE IS
THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE
GEORGETOWN NEIGHBORHOOD BETWEEN
HOMER STREET AND HIDALGO
STREET. THAT TRIANGULAR AREA IS
GENERALLY THOUGHT OF AS A
CENTER OF GEORGETOWN. . IMAT
IMMEDIATE THE SURROUNDING AREA
IS INDUSTRIALLY DESIGNATED
LANDS. HERE IS THE SAME MAP
WITH THE ZONING DESIGNATIONS.
THIS PROPOSAL ONLY APPLIES TO
THAT AREA IN PINK WITH THE
COMMERCIAL ONE ZONING
DESIGNATION. AGAIN, NO CHANGE
TO THE MAP IS REQUIRED. THIS IS
ONLY A TEXT AMENDMENT. THE
AREAS IN BLUE AROUND IT ARE
INDUSTRIAL ZONES . OVER TO THE
RIGHT WHERE YOU SEE THE AREA
SHADED IN BROWN, THERE IS LOW
RISE TWO MULTIFAMILY ZONING
AND THE CENTER OF THE
GEORGETOWN NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL THREE
ZONE WITH A 55 FOOT HEIGHT
LIMIT THAT ENCOURAGES MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT THERE. THIS IS
JUST A PHOTO FOR YOU OF THE
AREA. THERE IS NOT A LOT OF
LARGE-SCALE DEVELOPMENT TODAY,
AS YOU SEE. GENERALLY ONE AND
TWO STORY COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS. THE
SEATTLE DESIGN CENTER, WHICH
YOU SEE TO THE RIGHT IS IN THE
GENERAL VICINITY. THE AREA IS
SERVED BY TRANSIT. IT IS
ACTUALLY A FREQUENT TRANSIT
NETWORK LINE WITH 132 AND 131
BUSES. IT IS A TRUCK STREET AS
WELL. THIS GRAPHIC SUMMARIZES
FOR YOU WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED
HERE. THE INTENT OF THIS 10
FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT EXCEPTION ,
AS I MENTIONED, IS TO ALLOW FOR
THE FULL SIX STORIES OF WOOD
FRAMED CONSTRUCTION . YOU SEE
IN THE GRAPHIC THOSE SIX
STORIES SHOWN . WITH THIS 10
FOOT EXCEPTION, THE BUILDER
CAN INCLUDE ALL THOSE SIX
STORIES WHILE STILL PROVIDING
THAT HIGH 20 FOOT GROUND
CLEARANCE AT THE STREET LEVEL
. THAT IS REALLY THE INTENT.
WITHOUT THE EXCEPTION , THE
BUILDER WOULD EITHER HAVE TO
NOT INCLUDE THAT TOP FLOOR OF
RESIDENTIAL, OR SIGNIFICANTLY
SHORTEN OR LOWER THE HEIGHTS
CLEARANCE FOR THE GROUND-FLOOR
SPACE. WITH THE CONTEXT AND
CHARACTER OF THE AREA, MANY
AGREE THAT ENCOURAGING MORE
COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL AND ART
SPACE IS IMPORTANT. BUILDERS
WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO
THAT ON THE GROUND FLOOR
WITHOUT HAVING TO LIMIT THE
POTENTIAL FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT ON THE UPPER
FLOORS. WHEN I SAY MAXIMIZE
THE SIX STORIES, THAT IS A
BUILDING CODE KIND OF MAXIMUM
THAT YOU CAN DO IN STICK BUILT
TYPE THREE A CONSTRUCTION.
WANT TO PUT IN THE GROUND FLOOR
AND ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE,
THIS UPPER FLOORS ARE QUITE
EFFICIENT. THE INTENT HERE IS
TO ALLOW FOR THAT TO REALLY BE
MAXIMIZED WITHOUT COMPROMISING
THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE
STRUCTURE. AFFORDABILITY
INFORMATION. THIS IS THE LAST
SLIDE. THEN I WILL CONCLUDE.
THE MHA REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE
REQUIRED IN THE AREA. THAT
WOULD BE 5% OF THE ON-SITE
UNIT AS AFFORDABLE. WATERSHED
CDA DOES INTEND TO PROVIDE
THOSE AFFORDABLE UNITS ON SITE.
WATERSHED CDA REPORTS THAT
THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING BEYOND THE MHA
REQUIREMENTS. IT DOES NOT
CURRENTLY HAVE CITY FUNDING,
BUT IS FUNDED FROM SOME OTHER
SOURCES. IT INTENDS TO PROVIDE
MOST OF THE UNITS AS A 60% AMI
LEVEL, AND SOME OF THE UNITS AT
THE 80% AMI LEVEL. AS WELL,
THEY'RE REPORTING AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE SEATTLE HOUSING
AUTHORITY FOR SOME
THREE-BEDROOM UNITS. THAT
CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
AGAIN, WE ARE RECOMMENDING
THIS PROPOSAL TO MOVE FORWARD .
WE WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS FROM
YOU. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
THINK A THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR US IN THE
GEORGETOWN AREA. I APPRECIATE
HEARING THE COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT THAT HAPPENED .
COLLEAGUES, I DID REACH OUT TO
COUNCILMEMBER , SINCE THIS IS
IN HIS DISTRICT, JUST TO MAKE
SURE HE WAS AWARE. AND SO, AS
FAR AS I KNOW, THERE ARE NO
ISSUES THERE. ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN UP THE
PUBLIC HEARING?
>> REMIND ME AGAIN, THIS AREA
IS ZONED FOR HOUSING?
>> CORRECT. IT IS CURRENTLY A
COMMERCIAL ZONE , WHICH ALLOWS
FOR HOUSING UNITS.
>> DOES NOT INDUSTRIAL
MARITIME?
>> CORRECT . IT IS NOT AN
INDUSTRIAL ZONE.
>> ALSO, IS THERE WATERSHED
NEARBY AS WELL?
>> [ LAUGHTER ] THE WATERSHED
CDA IS THE NAME OF THE
ORGANIZATION. I DON'T KNOW WHY
THEY ARE CALLED THAT. IT IS
PROBABLY A REFERENCE TO THE
WATERSHED. THIS SITE IS PART
OF THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> YOU MENTIONED THE ZONING
AROUND THE BUILDINGS AROUND
THIS PROPOSAL ARE ALREADY ZONED
FOR 85 FEET. SO WHY WAS THIS
NOT PART OF THAT? HOW DID THAT
COME TO BE?
>> -- CAN YOU GIVE SOME
CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND TO THAT,
PLEASE?
>> YEAH, THE HISTORY IS THAT IT
HAS BEEN ZONED COMMERCIAL FOR
MANY DECADES. FOR A LONG TIME
IT WAS OWNED COMMERCIAL WITH A
65 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. THAT WAS
A VERY COMMON HEIGHT LIMIT IN
MANY OF THE COMMERCIAL
CORRIDORS. WHEN MHA WAS
IMPLEMENT A, THE 65 FEET WAS
INCREASED TO 75. THAT IS THE
HISTORY THERE. MANY OF THE
INDUSTRIAL ZONES HAVE KIND OF A
DEFAULT 85 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.
THAT IS WHERE THAT MISMATCH
CAME FROM HISTORICALLY.
>> SO THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS
ARE IN INDUSTRIAL LANDS? BUT
THIS IS NOT, AND THAT'S WHY?
SO WE WANT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT
TO THE REST OF THE SURROUNDING
AREA?
>> YEAH.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. I
WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP
FOR PUBLIC HEARING. I KNOW WE
HAVE TWO SPEAKERS HERE IN
PERSON. WE HAVE ANY FOLKS
ONLINE?
>> WE HAVE ONE PERSON ONLINE.
>> OKAY, GREAT. THIS I'VE LOST
THAT PLACE IN MY SCRIPT, I WILL
SAY THAT WE WILL OPEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING PERIOD. EACH
SPEAKER WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES.
YOU WILL HAVE A 10 SECOND CHIME
. WHEN YOU HEAR THAT, WRAP UP
YOUR COMMENTS. WILL START WITH
THE TWO FOLKS HERE IN PERSON.
FIRST WE HAVE RON AND STEVE.
WELCOME BACK.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. I
LIVE IN THE DISTRICT OF
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. I'M
CURRENTLY THE BOARD CHAIR FOR
WATERSHED, WHICH ALSO GOES BY
GEORGETOWN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. THAT IS
A FORMAL THEY. WE DID GO TO
WATERSHED BECAUSE WE ARE THE
DUWAMISH WATERSHED AND WANTED
TO HONOR SOME OF THAT HISTORY.
I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES FOR SPONSORING THIS
LEGISLATION AND SCHEDULING TIME
BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE. I KNOW
YOUR TIME IS VALUABLE. WE
APPRECIATE IT. TODAY, AS YOU
KNOW, THERE IS VERY LITTLE
HOUSING OF ANY KIND IN
GEORGETOWN. WHAT WE ARE
ATTEMPTING TO DO IS ALLEVIATE
SOME OF THAT JOB HOUSING IN
BALANCE BY CREATING AN
AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE LIVE AND
WORK DISTRICT RIGHT ALONG
FOURTH AVENUE IN THAT SMALL
AREA YOU SAW ON THE DIAGRAM IN
PINK WHERE YOU CAN BUILD
HOUSING . ALL THE AREA AROUND
US IS NO HOUSING PERMITTED ,
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL. WE
ARE DOING THIS, IN PART,
BECAUSE WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF
ARTISTS AT OUR STUDIOS WERE
TRYING TO GET HOUSING NEARBY .
THERE ARE THOUSANDS MORE
EMPLOYEES IN THE GEORGETOWN
AREA WHO WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE
TO WALK TO WORK BUT CAN'T DO
THAT NOW BECAUSE OF THE
IMBALANCE BETWEEN JOBS AND
HOUSING. WE BROUGHT UP ENOUGH
LAND TO BILL 5 MORE TWO-STORY
BUILDINGS. THERE IS
CONSIDERATION YOU ARE DOING TO
INVITE OF -- MODEST HEIGHT
INCREASE TO GET THOSE BUILDINGS
BUILT IN A COUPLE WAYS AS THE
STAFF POINTED OUT. ARTISTS LOVE
20 FOOT CEILINGS IN THEIR
STUDIOS. WE CAN'T ACCOMMODATE
THAT VERY WELL WITHOUT THIS
CHANGE. THAT IS MY TIME, I
GUESS. IF WE GET ALL THIS DONE
THIS YEAR, THAT WOULD BE GREAT,
WE WANT TO INVITE YOU ALL DOWN
TO THE GROUNDBREAKING LATER
THIS YEAR.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I THOUGHT WE HAD A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMING UP,
BUT MORE GOODIES, AS WE SAY. I
COME FROM THE FREMONT AREA OF
MANY YEARS DOING BUSINESS IN
THAT AREA. IT WAS ONCE AN
ARTIST EVEN. AND THEN IT WAS
IDENTIFIED, AND AS I CALL IT,
GENTRIFIED. THAT IS WHAT YOU
FOLKS ARE DOING RATHER THAN
JUST DENSITY. DENSITY IS ALSO
COMING WITH THROWING A LOT OF
PEOPLE OUT. IF YOU'RE REALLY
GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT AN AREA
HERE AND YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE
ROOM FOR ARTISTS, LET'S HAVE
SOME CONTRACTS INVOLVED.
LET'S JUST SAY THAT IF YOU'RE
GOING TO HAVE AT LEAST A
REGIONAL PERCENTAGE AT 60% OR
LESS, THAT IT SHOULD BE IN THE
CONTRACT, BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN
MANY TIMES THE START WHERE YOU
BRING IN THIS GOOD CAUSE , AND
THEN THE INVESTORS LATER WANT
MORE MONEY. SO WHAT DO YOU DO?
YOU CONVERT. YOU COME IN, GOOD,
GIVE THEM A FEW YEARS,
SOMETIMES A LITTLE LESS,
SOMETIMES A LITTLE MORE, AND
THEN YOU MAKE IT PAY. THE
OTHER THING I HAVE CONCERN
ABOUT, I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING
ABOUT HOW THIS GROUND LOOKS.
ARE THERE ANY MAJOR TREES AND
THERE WAS ARE GOING TO BE
REMOVED? I AM UNDERSTANDING
THAT THE SOUTH END HAS A
DEFICIT COMPARED TO THE NORTH
END. ARE WE GOING TO TAKE A
LOOK AT MORE THAN JUST ONE
THING? THAT IS THE REASON WHY
I THINK YOU SHOULD LOOK AT
YOUR DESIGN REVIEW. LET'S GO
BACK TO THE GOOD OLD DAYS WHEN
DESIGN REVIEW WAS DESIGN
REVIEW. YOU LOOKED AT PARKING,
YOU LOOKED AT THE SIZE OF THE
STREETS, HE LOOKED AT WATER AND
POWER . ALL OF THESE THINGS
THAT WE DON'T LOOK AT ANYMORE
FOR DEVELOPER PROFIT . THAT IS
THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY
COUNTS, RIGHT?
>> NAOMI, DO WE HAVE ANY
ONLINE FOLKS?
>> NO.
>> OKAY. RICHARD IS IN PERSON.
IS HE HERE?
>> NO.
>> THAT'S OKAY. OKAY. SEEING
AS WE HAVE NO ADDITIONAL
SPEAKERS STASH
>> SORRY, HE HAS ONLINE.
>> OKAY. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I AM
RICHARD CONLON, SPEAKING IN
SUPPORT OF COUNCIL BILL 120749.
I'M HERE AS PART OF THE
WATERSHED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TEAM THAT IS CREATING A NEW
GEORGETOWN NEIGHBORHOOD THAT
WILL INCLUDE BETWEEN 600 AND
900 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE. WERE
BUILDING A GREEN SPEED ON FIFTH
AVENUE SOUTH, WE INTEND TO
BUILD A NEW PARK, WE HAVE
FUNDING FOR AN EARLY CHILDHOOD
LEARNING CENTER, WE'RE GOING
TO PUT A FOOD HUB IN HERE, AND
WE WILL PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR THE ARTS AND SMALL
BUSINESS. THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS
ARE INTENDED TO TARGET ARTISTS
AND THE 29,000 EMPLOYEES OF THE
SEATTLE INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY
THAT WORK WITHIN A HALF-MILE OF
OUR PROJECT. THAT IS WHY OUR
PROJECT HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE
MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL
COUNCIL. THIS LEGISLATION
ALLOWS US TO BUILD TO THE 85
FOOT HEIGHT PERMITTED IN THE
SURROUNDING ZONING. IT WILL
PERMIT A TALLER PRINT WITH
MORE POSSIBILITY FOR SMALL
BUSINESS AND ARTIST SPACES. IT
WILL PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING
SHIPPING CONTAINERS INSTEAD OF
FIXED WALL
>> ALSO ALLOW ADDITIONAL
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, HIRE
RESIDENTIAL CEILINGS FOR MORE
LIVABLE SPACES, AND WILL REDUCE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS BY
INCREASING UTILITY SPACE. OUR
DEVELOPMENT PARTNER , 158
UNITS, HAS RECEIVED AND IS
READY TO APPLY FOR BUILDING
PERMITS AS SOON AS THE
LEGISLATION IS APPROVED. WE
APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT OF THE
MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES, AND WE ASK COUNCIL
MEMBERS TO VOTE FOR THIS NEXT
AMENDMENT WITH THE MINOR
WORDING CHANGES. THIS WILL BE
IN SUPPORT OF THE MORE LIVABLE
GEORGETOWN COMMUNITY. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY.
IS AT THE FINAL SPEAKER?
>> WE HAVE ONE MORE ONLINE
SPEAKER, DAVID.
>> PLEASE GO AHEAD. PLEASE
PRESS STAR SIX. THERE YOU GO.
>> THANK YOU. WE NEED
21ST-CENTURY FIRST WORLD
QUALITY HOUSING. WE DON'T NEED
WATERED-DOWN DESIGNS WERE OTHER
PEOPLE VIRTUAL SIGNAL THE
BELIEF THAT FORCING PEOPLE TO
LIVE IN A COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
ZONE ON THE SIDE OF A BUSY
HIGHWAY WITHOUT ANY NOISE
ABATEMENT IS SUITABLE . HOW
CLOSE ARE THE CARS COMING TO
THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS? ARE YOU
GOING TO BE LISTENING TO PEOPLE
DELIVERING STUFF IN THE
MORNINGS, WAKING YOU UP BECAUSE
THEY ARE DOWN BELOW? YOU KNOW,
WE REALLY NEED A REPRIEVE FROM
THE ACCOMMODATION TO THE
LAZINESS OF THE MODERN WHEEL
DRIVING THROUGH EVERY
RESIDENTIAL LOCK AND AREA. WE
NEED A REPRIEVE FROM THE
COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT . YOU
HAVE TO HAVE QUALITATIVE WALLS.
NOISE ABATED WALLS. YOU CAN'T
HAVE WAREHOUSE ECHO WHERE YOU
CAN HEAR THE TRAIN SCREECHING
ITS BRAKES ARE RUBBING ITS
METTLE AGAINST EACH OTHER. JUST
TOXIC VEHICLES DRIVING PAST
YOUR RESIDENTIAL UNIT LEAVING
SORT ALL OVER THE BUILDING
WHILE SOMEBODY IS CLAIMING THAT
THERE HELPING THE HOUSING
CRISIS. DENSITY COMES FROM
TAKING OVER THE ROAD, NOT
ALLOWING -- A LOT OF RESIDENTS
DON'T NEED A ROAD DRIVING
THROUGH EVERY BLOCK. IF YOU
TRADE THAT TO THE DEVELOPERS
AND LET THEM BUILD HIGHER THAN
85 FEET , YOU KNOW, WE CAN HAVE
MORE DENSITY WITH PEOPLE
ENJOYING THE VIEW AND GETTING
A REPRIEVE FROM THE GROUND
NOISE, THE STREET NOISE.
LOW-LEVEL, LOW-QUALITY FROM
REALLY NOT NECESSARILY THE MOST
QUALIFIED DEVELOPERS LOOKING TO
FIND THE CHEAPEST LAND. NOBODY
WANTS TO LIVE THERE. VIRTUE
SIGNALING GOD KNOWS HOW MUCH
TAX DOLLARS. WE NEED
21ST-CENTURY HOUSING, AND THE
LEGISLATION TO PRIORITIZE HUGE
JOB CREATION FOR UNION --
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
SPEAKERS FOR THE PUBLIC
HEARING?
>> THERE ARE NO MORE SPEAKERS
REMOTELY PRESENT.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
EVERYONE. AT THIS TIME, I WILL
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL
MOVE ONTO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
THIS LEGISLATION WILL BE BEFORE
THIS LAND-USE COMMITTEE MAY
FIRST. WE WILL SEE YOU THEN.
OKAY. NAOMI, PLEASE READ THE
FINAL ITEM INTO THE RECORD.
>> [ AGENDA ITEM READ ]
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BEFORE
I HANDED OVER TO CENTRAL
STAFF, I DO WANT TO REVIEW A
LITTLE BIT OF HOW WE GOT HERE .
FOR THE BENEFIT OF MY NEW
COLLEAGUES, I WILL SAY THAT
TYPICALLY LEGISLATION RECEIVES
TWO COMMITTEE BRIEFINGS TO
ALLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS TIME
TO HEAR ABOUT THE LEGISLATION
AND PROPOSE ANY NEW AMENDMENTS
, AND SO, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE
THAT OUR NEW COLLEAGUES HAD
PLENTY OF TIME TO READ THE
LEGISLATION AND ASK QUESTIONS.
TO GIVE MYSELF TIME TO ADDRESS
ANY CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED
AND GIVE TIME TO THIS COMMITTEE
TO DRAFT AMENDMENTS IF THEY
CHOSE TO DO SO. THIS IS OUR
FIFTH COMMITTEE MEETING ON THIS
BILL. WE WILL BE VOTING ON IT
TODAY. JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS,
ON APRIL 3 MY OFFICE CONVENED A
WORKGROUP OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS
AND PRACTITIONERS TO DISCUSS
SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE
RAISED BY MY COLLEAGUES, AND
ALSO COMMUNITY DURING PUBLIC
COMMENT. AFTER THAT WORKGROUP,
I ASKED TO INCORPORATE CHANGES
THAT COULD ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND
OF THE WORKGROUP. THAT IS WHAT
IS BEFORE US TODAY AS AMENDMENT
1, SUBSTITUTE BILL BUT THAT
BILL IS A TOOL THAT WILL HELP
THE CITY ACHIEVE ITS GOALS FOR
DEVELOPING MIDDLE HOUSING AND
MORE COMMERCIAL AND CULTURAL
SPACES. IT REDUCES COSTS OF
DEVELOPMENT BY OFFERING DENSITY
BONUSES AND EXEMPTIONS FROM
SOME OF THE THINGS WE KEEP
HEARING CONTRIBUTE TO THE HIGH
COST OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS ANTI-DISPLACEMENT
LEGISLATION . ONE OF THE
REASONS THAT IT EXEMPTS MHA IS
BECAUSE, WHILE THAT PROGRAM
REQUIRES ON-SITE OR PAYMENT IF
YOU'RE NOT PRODUCING ON-SITE,
THE RESTRICTION IS BETWEEN, I
THINK IT IS 2% AND 11%, MAYBE
4% AND 11%, OF ON-SITE
PRODUCTION. THIS BILL REQUIRES
30%. SO THE MHA GUIDELINES
DON'T NECESSARILY APPLY TO
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
IT ALSO INCENTIVIZES
DEVELOPMENT, NOT IN LOW INCOME
NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT IN AREAS
WHERE PEOPLE OF COLOR HAVE
HISTORICALLY BEEN EXCLUDED,
WHICH IS PART OF THE APPROACH
IN TRYING TO ADDRESS THE ACCESS
TO OPPORTUNITY AS WELL. IT IS
NOT ABOUT PRICING PEOPLE OUT OF
NEIGHBORHOODS, IT IS ABOUT
GIVING THEM OPPORTUNITY TO FIND
MORE HOUSING IN MORE PARTS OF
THE CITY. WILL HELP US BUILD
IMPORTANT WORKFORCE HOUSING FOR
RENTERS UP TO 80% AND
OWNERSHIP, INCREASED
HOMEOWNERSHIP FOR FOLKS UP TO
100%. IT HELPS TO CREATE A
PATHWAY TO BUILD GREEN
BUILDINGS. IT HELPS CREATE A
PATHWAY TO SUPPORT RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTIONS, TO SUPPORT
COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS
INTERESTED IN PROVIDING
DEVELOPMENT FOR THEIR
PARTICULAR CONSTITUENCY, BUT
WHO NEED THE ASSISTANCE OF A
MORE EXPERIENCED DEVELOPER.
THE NEXT PHASE IS TO CREATE A
PATHWAY FOR INDIVIDUAL
HOMEOWNERS TO BETTER NAVIGATE
THE BUREAUCRACY AND TRY TO
PROVIDE INCENTIVE FOR THOSE
FOLKS AS WELL. RIGHT NOW,
OPCD, SDCI ARE WORKING WITH
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND
DEVELOPERS TO DEVELOP HOUSING,
BUT WE NEED BETTER SUPPORTS TO
HELP THEM BUILD OUT THE
COMMERCIAL SPACE. THE
GEORGETOWN REZONE WE JUST
TALKED ABOUT IS A PRIME EXAMPLE
OF THE KIND OF PROJECTS WE
CURRENTLY DO, BUT THE GOAL HERE
IS TO TRY TO STREAMLINE THE
PROCESS AND REALLY UNDERSTAND
BETTER WHAT KIND OF INCENTIVES
ARE NEEDED IN ORDER TO
FACILITATE THIS KIND OF
DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS IN A
FUNDING PROGRAM. IT IS AN
INCENTIVE PROGRAM. IT IS A
PILOT SO WE CAN SEE WHAT MENU
OF OPTIONS FACILITATE THAT
KIND OF DEVELOPMENT BETTER. WE
ALL KNOW WE NEED HOUSING,
PARTICULARLY FROM THOSE WHO ARE
AT 30% TO 60% OF AREA MEDIAN
INCOME. WE NEED FAMILY SIZE
HOUSING. WE NEED HOUSING FOR
WORKERS EARNING 60% TO 100%.
THIS PILOT WILL HELP REDUCE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE REDTAPE THAT WE
CURRENTLY HAVE THAT CREATES
THE BOTTLENECK IN DEVELOPING
THE HOUSING WE NEED IN THE
CITY. IT WILL HELP US CREATE A
PROCESS THAT BETTER UTILIZES
THE CITY'S FINITE RESOURCES
AND HELP COMMUNITY GROUPS WHO
ARE ASKING FOR THIS. THOSE ARE
THE ONES ASKING FOR THIS. IT
WILL HELP THEM WORK WITH
DEVELOPERS TO CREATE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, VIBRANT COMMERCIAL
SPACE, NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS,
AND CULTURAL SPACE OR THIRD
PLACES THAT REALLY MAKE OUR
COMMUNITY SAFER AND MORE
VIBRANT. SO I WANT TO THANK MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE COMMITTEE FOR
RAISING CONCERNS OVER THE LAST
COUPLE OF MONTHS. THE
SUBSTITUTE BILL HAS BEEN
REVISED SIGNIFICANTLY TO ENSURE
THAT THE BILL IS CONSISTENT
WITH ADDRESSING THOSE
CONCERNS, WITH MEETING
COMMUNITY NEEDS, AND IS A TOOL
THAT WILL ALIGN WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING EFFORTS.
ULTIMATELY, THIS IS A TOOL THAT
COMMUNITIES NEED SO THEY CAN
NAVIGATE THEIR OWN DEVELOPMENT,
SO THEY CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE
EQUITABLE COMMUNITY WEALTH
BUILDING OPPORTUNITIES THE CITY
IS TRYING TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK
FOR. I WANT TO SAY AGAIN THAT
THIS IS A PILOT. IT SUNSETS,
THE LEGISLATION SUNSETS, IN
2029, OR 135 PROJECTS ARE
COMPLETE, WHICHEVER IS FIRST.
FINALLY, I WANT TO SAY THAT I
HAVE HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT
WANTING TO WAIT FOR A MAJOR
UPDATE TO THE COMPANY HAS A
PLAN BEFORE PASSING THIS
LEGISLATION. I WILL SAY THAT
THAT UPDATE HAPPENS ONCE EVERY
10 YEARS, AND THIS PARTICULAR
PLAN IS ALREADY TWO YEARS LATE.
WE CAN'T WAIT ANY LONGER TO
START TO CREATE THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING WE KNOW WE NEED IN THE
CITY. WE ARE IN A HOUSING
CRISIS, AND THIS LEGISLATION
WILL HELP FILL THE GAP AND GET
US CLOSER TO THE AMOUNT OF
HOUSING WE NEED. SO JUST
PROCEDURALLY, BECAUSE WE DO
HAVE SEVERAL AMENDMENTS, WE
WILL MOVE THE BASE BILL BEFORE
DISCUSSING THE AMENDMENTS, AND
THEN WE WILL VOTE , BEGIN GOING
DOWN THE LINE WITH AMENDMENTS.
I WILL LET THE COMMITTEE KNOW
THAT AMENDMENT 1 AND 5 ARE
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. AS WE GO
DOWN THE LIST, I WILL ASK
CENTRAL STAFF TO ADDRESS THE
AMENDMENTS. WE WILL HAVE A
DISCUSSION ON EACH ONE BEFORE
WE TAKE THE VOTE. I THINK THAT
IS ALL. ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE
BEGIN? OKAY. VERY GOOD. IN
THAT CASE, I MOVE THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNCIL
BILL 120750. IS THERE A SECOND?
CAN I GET A COURTESY SECOND
FOR THIS BILL PLEASE? OKAY. I
AM THE ONLY ONE ON THIS
COMMITTEE WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT
WE HAVEN'T AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CRISIS. IS THAT MY
UNDERSTANDING?
>> COUNCIL MEMBERS STRAUSS.
THANK YOU. AS I SAID BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT
GETTING MY AMENDMENTS IN ORDER.
THAT IS WHY I WAS NOT
COMFORTABLE VOTING ON THE BILL
TODAY. I AM TAKING COMPLETE
OWNERSHIP OF NOT HAVING MY
AMENDMENTS CORRECT. I WORKED
WITH CENTRAL STAFF, BUT IT IS
NOT THEIR FAULT AT ALL. NOT
HAVING EXCUSES, BUT THE
COMMITTEE MEETING THIS MORNING
WAS A BIG LIFT. I'M CURRENTLY
SELL STAFFING THIS POLICY AREA.
I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO WORK
WITH YOU TO SEE IF I CAN GET MY
AMENDMENTS RIGHT TO A PLACE
WHERE I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE
LANGUAGE IN THE BILL. AS I SAID
IN THE LAST COMMITTEE, I
SUPPORT THE INTENT OF THIS
BILL. I UNDERSTAND TWO AND HALF
YEARS, FIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS,
AND I ALSO WANT TO HONOR THE
FACT THAT YOU ARE DOING THIS
YOURSELF. YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE
TYPICAL SUPPORT OF DEPARTMENTS
OR CENTRAL STAFF DURING THE
INITIAL SECTIONS OF DEVELOPING
THIS BILL. I KNOW THAT FEELS
LIKE AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN. I
AM NOT COMFORTABLE VOTING ON
THIS TODAY. IF I WAS TO VOTE, I
WOULD EITHER ABSTAIN OR VOTE
NO. BUT I WANT TO BE IN A PLACE
WHERE I CAN VOTE YES.
>> OKAY. WELL, I WILL SAY THAT
WE CANNOT DISCUSS THE BILL ANY
FURTHER IF I CAN'T GET IT
MOVED. IS THAT CORRECT, AMELIA?
I'M CALLING ON THE CITY
COUNCIL CLERK.
>> HELLO, COUNCIL MEMBERS. YOU
CAN VOTE ON THE LEGISLATION IF
YOU GET A SECOND AND CONSIDER
THE AMENDMENTS. THEN YOU CAN
HOLD THE BILL. THEREFORE, NOT
TO VOTED OUT OF COMMITTEE TODAY
IF THAT IS A PREFERENCE AS WELL
TOO. YOU CAN PROCEED TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH CONSIDERING THE
AMENDMENTS. IF YOU WERE TO GET
A SECOND AT THIS POINT.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. I WILL ASK
AGAIN IF I CAN HAVE A SECOND SO
WE CAN DISCUSS ANY AMENDMENTS
TO THIS BILL.
>> CHAIR, MAY A FOLLOW-UP BOX
I ALSO UNDERSTAND, AMELIA, WE
COULD READ THIS BILL INTO THE
RECORD AGAIN, AS WE HAVE DONE
MANY TIMES BEFORE, AND DISCUSS
THE AMENDMENTS.
>> YES, CORRECT.
>> WE CAN DISCUSS THE
AMENDMENTS, BUT CAN WE VOTE ON
THEM?
>> THE RULES OF ORDER PROVIDES
IN ORDER TO DEBATE AMENDMENTS,
THAT WOULD MEAN SOMETHING
WOULD NEED TO BE BEFORE YOU. TO
DO THAT WE WOULD NEED THE BASE
BILL BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, AND
IF THE COMMITTEE AGREES TO HAVE
THE BILL BEFORE THEM, THEN THEY
CAN MOVE FORWARD AND PROCEED TO
DISCUSS THE AMENDMENTS. AGAIN,
ONCE THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE
DISCUSSED AND YOU DISPOSE OF
ALL THE AMENDMENT, THEN YOU CAN
CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE
READY TO VOTE THE BILL OUT OF
COMMITTEE, OR YOU CAN POSTPONE
THE VOTE FOR A LATER DATE AS
WELL TOO.
>> BUT WE CAN'T DO ANY OF THAT
IF I DON'T GET A SECOND AND WE
HAVE THE BILL BEFORE US.
>> THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE
COMMITTEE IS MORE THAN WELCOME
TO MOVE FORWARD AND DISCUSS
THEM ONLY.
>> OKAY. WELL, I WILL SAY THAT
WE DON'T YET HAVE THE
AMENDMENT YOU WERE SUGGESTING
BEFORE US. TO HAVE A TIMELINE?
>> I CAN WORK RATHER QUICKLY.
I FEEL LIKE I WOULD BE READY AT
THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING.
>> OKAY. WELL, IT WILL BE
SURPRISING TO NO ONE I'M SURE
TO HEAR THAT THIS IS INCREDIBLY
FRUSTRATING. THIS IS THE FIFTH
COMMITTEE MEETING WE'VE HAD ON
THIS BILL. I HAVEN'T HEARD
ANYTHING ABOUT OBJECTIONS. I
APPRECIATE THE OTHER AMENDMENTS
THAT YOU SUBMITTED. SO
AMELIA, DO YOU HAVE A
SUGGESTION FOR HOW WE PROCEED
IF WE ARE GOING TO CONTEMPLATE
ONE MORE AMENDMENT? IT IS NOT
YET DRAFTED.
>> AS THE CHAIR, WHATEVER YOUR
PREFERENCE MAY BE AS FAR AS
DISCUSSING SCENARIOS, YOU ARE
MORE THAN WELCOME TO DO
ROUND-ROBIN AND WORKSHOP ANY
FURTHER AMENDMENTS AT THIS
POINT. AS FAR AS MOVING THE
AMENDMENTS, AGAIN, THAT WILL BE
UP TO THE COMMITTEE AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL
SECOND THE MOTION TO MOVE THAT
BILL.
>> OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBERS
STRAUSS, COULD YOU PLEASE
DISCUSS THE BILL YOU ARE
CONTEMPLATING?
>> CHAIR, I WILL BRING YOU AN
AMENDMENT. AS I DISCUSSED WITH
YOU BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, I
WILL MEET WITH YOU TO DISCUSS
IT. I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE UP
COMMITTEE TIME IF IT IS NOT
WELCOME. I WOULD OFFER THIS IS
A TIME TO DISCUSS HER
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT. AS I WAS
READING IT, I THOUGHT IT WAS
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I EXPECTED,
IS THE BEST WAY TO SAY . IT IS
NOT BAD, NOT GOOD. IF THAT IS
HOW YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD.
>> OKAY. LISH, I WILL ASK YOU
TO WALK THROUGH THE SUBSTITUTE
BILL . WE CAN AT LEAST GET ON
THE RECORD WHAT I PROPOSED.
>> MAY I ASK A POINT OF
CLARIFICATION? IF WE GET A
SECOND ON THE BILL , DOES THAT
MEAN WE WOULD PROCEED TO
DISCUSS -- I MEAN, I HAVE YOUR
SUBSTITUTE BILL, AND THAT I
HAVE THREE OTHER AMENDMENTS
PROPOSED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS
STRAUSS THAT WE WOULD ADDRESS
THOSE TODAY? AND HAVE
RESOLUTION ON THIS LEGISLATION
TODAY?
>> THE AMENDMENTS DRAFTED WERE
DONE WITH EXCELLENT ABILITY
FROM CENTRAL STAFF. IT WAS MY
ERROR OF NOT MORE CLEARLY
ARTICULATING WHAT I WAS HOPING
TO ACHIEVE. AND SO, THE MEMBERS
I HAVE TODAY ARE NOT DUTCH I AM
NOT READY TO VOTE ON THEM. I
ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE
CENTRAL STAFF DID A VERY GOOD
JOB.
>>
>> THIS IS MY INTENT. I WANT
THIS BILL TO BE RESOLVED TODAY.
I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR TO
THE CHAIR OR THE REST OF THE
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE TO
CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN COMMITTEE
TIME ON THIS ISSUE. I WANT TO
FACILITATE AFFAIR DISCUSSION
AND PRESENTATION AND A VOTE. I
WILL SECOND IT FOR THAT PURPOSE
SO WE WILL TAKE FINAL VOTES ON
EVERYTHING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
TODAY.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. IT HAS
BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. LISH,
WELL, NO. NOW I HAVE TO MOVE
AMENDMENT 1, THE SUBSTITUTE
BILL. CAN I GET A SECOND TO
PUT AMENDMENT 1 BEFORE US?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PLEASE
GO AHEAD, LISH.
>> SO AMENDMENT 1 DOES TWO
THINGS. IT IMMENSELY
AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR
PROJECT PARTICIPATING IN THE
PROGRAM, AND IT DEMANDS THE
DEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR
PROJECTS THAT SEEK TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE PILOT
PROGRAM. REGARDING
AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS , IT
GENERALLY , IT REDUCES THE
AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT FOR
PROJECTS FOR ONE AND
TWO-BEDROOM UNITS FROM 80% OF
AREA MEDIAN INCOME TO 60% OF
AREA MEDIAN INCOME. FOR UNITS
WITH TWO OR MORE BEDROOMS, AND
ALL OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS, THE
EXISTING PROPOSAL WOULD STAY,
SO THAT IS 80% MEDIAN INCOME
FOR TWO-BEDROOM OR MORE UNITS,
AND 100% OR MORE OF AREA MEDIAN
INCOME FOR OWNERSHIP UNITS.
BASED ON DATA FROM THE OFFICE
OF HOUSING AND FROM
CONVERSATIONS WITH DEVELOPERS
WHO ARE PROVIDING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS , THE MARKET IS
NOT PROVIDING UNITS AFFORDABLE
AT 80% OF MEDIAN INCOME THAT
HAVE TWO OR MORE BEDROOMS . IT
IS PROVIDING THOSE UNITS AT
ONE-BEDROOM AND SMALLER. IN
ADDITION, THE SUBSTITUTE
CHANGES TO TERM OF
AFFORDABILITY FROM 75 YEARS TO
50 YEARS . MANY NON-CITY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS
USE A 50 YEAR TERM , SO THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD ALIGN THE BILL
WITH THOSE OTHERS , THE OTHER
SOURCES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND AS COUNCILMEMBER MOREL AS
MENTIONED, THIS PORTION OF THE
BILL IS DIFFERENT FROM THE
AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS
INCLUDED IN COUNCIL MEMBERS
STRAUSS'S AMENDMENT 5. SO IF
THIS PASSES, AMENDMENT 5 AS
DRAFTED COULD NOT PASS. THE
OTHER MAJOR AMENDMENTS TO THE
BILL ARE TO REMOVE THE
OWNERSHIP INCENTIVE
COMPONENTS OF THE BILL. AS YOU
MAY REMEMBER, THERE WAS
ADDITIONAL RATIO ALLOWED FOR
PROJECTS WHERE A MODERATE --
INCOME HOMEOWNER SALES THEIR
LAND TO THE PROJECT AND IS
GUARANTEED A UNIT IN FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE. THOSE
PROVISIONS ARE REMOVED BASED ON
CONVERSATIONS WITH COMMUNITY.
THE BILL SUBSTITUTE CHANGES
SOME OF THE PROVISIONS RELATED
TO QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENT. IT
SIMPLIFIES THOSE PROVISIONS
UNDER THE SUBSTITUTE BILL . A
QUALIFYING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION WOULD
EITHER NEED TO OWN AT LEAST 51%
OF THE PROPERTY OR WOULD NEED
TO HAVE A CONTROLLING AND
ACTIVE MANAGEMENT ROLE IN AN
ORGANIZATION THAT OWNS THE LAND
IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR THE
PROGRAM.
>> LISH, CAN REPEAT THE LAST
PART PLEASE?
>> YEAH. THE QUALIFYING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATION COULD QUALIFY FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES IF
THEY HAVE A CONTROLLING AND
ACTIVE MANAGEMENT ROLE IN THE
ORGANIZATION THAT OWNS THE
PROPERTY BEING DEVELOPED.
>> THANK YOU. ARE YOU DONE?
>> YEAH.
>> OKAY. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR WALKING THROUGH THAT.
I WILL JUST SAY THAT , YOU
KNOW, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, THE
SUBSTITUTE IS REALLY IN
RESPONSE TO CONCERNS I HEARD
FROM MY COLLEAGUES REGARDING
THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE ,
REGARDING THE HOMEOWNERSHIP
PIECE, IN PARTICULAR. THERE WAS
A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT
HOW WE PUT GUARDRAILS AROUND
THE CREATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL
HOMEOWNERS WHO MIGHT BE
INTERESTED AND A DEVELOPER THEY
MIGHT WANT TO PARTNER WITH. AS
PART OF THAT WORKGROUP
CONVERSATION, WE REALIZED THERE
IS A LOT OF WORK HAPPENING
AROUND SUPPORTING LOW INCOME
HOMEOWNERS OR HOMEOWNERS WHO
WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
PROGRAMS , BUT THIS LEGISLATION
ISN'T REALLY THE RIGHT VEHICLE
FOR CREATING MORE OPPORTUNITY
TO BRING THOSE DEVELOPMENT
CONSULTANTS TOGETHER, WHICH IS
WHY WE PULLED THAT OUT OF THIS
LEGISLATION AND WILL BE WORKING
ON A SEPARATE INITIATIVE TO TRY
TO BRING THOSE RESOURCES
TOGETHER. YOU KNOW, THIS IS,
AGAIN, LEGISLATION THAT MEETS
THE GOALS OF THE CURRENT DRAFT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MANY THE
GOALS IN THEIR AROUND
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ROUTE
AFFORDABILITY, ARE THINGS WE
PUT IN JUSTIN LAST YEAR OR SO.
AND FINALLY, THIS AMENDMENT
DOES SIMPLIFY THE CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING WHETHER A PROJECT
IS A QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENT,
QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENT AND, AS
LISH SAID, CHANGES THE
OWNERSHIP TO 51% OF THE
PROPERTY OR HAVE AN ACTIVE
MANAGEMENT ROLE IN IT. THOSE
ARE THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE.
I APPRECIATE THE WORK, LISH, OF
ATTENDING THESE CONVERSATIONS,
ATTENDING THE MEETINGS, AND
REALLY HEARING WHAT THE ISSUES
THAT WERE RAISED ARE AND TRYING
TO INCORPORATE THEM ALL INTO
THIS SUBSTITUTE. SO ARE THERE
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR
LISH ON AMENDMENT 1? COUNCIL
MEMBERS STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU,
LISH, FOR ALL THE DRAFTING
WORK. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING
THIS IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE
LIMIT 5, WHICH WAS MY
SUBSTITUTE BILL RECONCILING
WITH RELIGIOUS BONUS BILL. IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION . THE
CODE PROVISIONS RELATED TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON PROPERTY
OWNED BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
HAS A DIFFERENT AFFORDABILITY
LEVEL . FOR THAT PROGRAM, 100%
OF UNITS NEED TO BE AFFORDABLE
AT 80% OR BELOW WITH NO
DIFFERENCES FOR UNIT TYPES OR
OWNERSHIP.
>> IS THAT THE ONLY PLACE THAT
AMENDMENT 5 AND 1 ARE IN
CONFLICT?
>> CORRECT.
>> I BELIEVE YOU WERE ABLE TO
DEVELOP ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT
COULD D CONFLICT THESE, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. I DO HAVE AMENDMENT
5 LETTER A DRAFTED IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO DROP THAT IS THE
APPROPRIATE TIME.
>> WONDERFUL. THANK YOU.
>> POINT OF ORDER. SORRY.
>> ARE YOU DONE, COUNCILMEMBER?
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
>> SORRY. WE HAVE NOT SEEN MMM
5 -- AMENDMENT 5A.
>> THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT
5A INCLUDES THE AFFORDABILITY
INCLUSIONS IN AMENDMENT 1. I
CAN SHOW YOU THAT ON THE SCREEN
RIGHT HERE. AMENDMENT 5A
INCLUDES THIS LANGUAGE RATHER
THAN THE LANGUAGE IN THE
VERSION THAT WAS ATTACHED TO
THE AGENDA.
>> ALSO, AMENDMENT 5A MAKES
MINOR CHANGES TO THE AMOUNT OF
FAR ALLOWED IN DIFFERENT
ZONES. IT MAKES IT CONSISTENT
WITH THE RELIGION INSTITUTIONS
BONUS REGULATIONS.
>> THAT IS TRUE OF BOTH 5 AND
5A.
>> OKAY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER WOO.
>> I HAVE A PROCEDURAL
QUESTION. ARE WE JUST GOING TO
GO THROUGH ALL THE AMENDMENTS
OF THE VOTE? ARE WE GOING TO
VOTE FOR EACH AMENDMENT?
>> WE WILL VOTE ONE BY ONE.
>> OKAY.
>> I WANTED TO MAKE A QUICK
STATEMENT ON WHAT I AM
PLANNING TO VOTE. I APPRECIATE
THE INTENT. I REALLY APPRECIATE
THE GOAL OF THE BILL. THANK
YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOREL IS,
FOR CHANGING AMI AND DIGGING
INTO COMMUNITY. I AM AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER.
IF YOU READ THE BILL AND GO
LINE FOR LINE, I COULD TALK
ABOUT A WHOLE BUNCH OF
UNINTENTIONAL CONSEQUENCES. FOR
INSTANCE, OWNERSHIP IS NOT THE
SAME AS PROJECT OWNERSHIP. THAT
MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE IN
PROJECT CONTROL. ALSO, WE'RE
LOOKING FOR LAND VERSUS THOSE
WHO HAVE LAND. THEIR DIFFERENT
INCENTIVES THERE. BUT I CAN
TALK ABOUT THIS FOR HOURS. I
WILL LIMIT THIS TO A COUPLE OF
POINTS. WHEN A DEVELOPER
INVESTS IN A PROJECT, THEY ARE
CERTAIN TO GET A NOMINAL RETURN
FOR INVESTMENT. WHEN I WAS
REDEVELOPING, THAT PREFERRED
RETURN WAS 50% TO 20%. MOST
DEVELOPERS REQUIRE AT LEAST A
50% INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN.
OUR IRR INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN
WAS AT 6%. WE COULDN'T FIND
AN INVESTOR. IT TOOK US FIVE
YEARS. WE HAVE 100% OWNERSHIP
OF THE LAND. THE PROJECT ONLY
GOT FUNDED BECAUSE A DEVELOPER,
WHICH IS ANOTHER LOCAL FAMILY,
WANTED TO ALSO PROVIDE
WORKFORCE HOUSING WITHIN 40% TO
80% IN THE COMMUNITY. ALSO,
WANT TO ADD IT WAS A HISTORIC
BUILDING AND COST THREE TIMES
MORE THAN BUILT NEW. DEVELOPERS
WHO WANT TO DO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ARE ALREADY DOING IT.
WE HAVE SEVERAL WHO DO THIS
WELL AND ARE ABLE TO KEEP MARY
DOWN IN THE 40s. DEVELOPERS
EXIST TO BRING PROFITS TO THEIR
INVESTORS. THIS BILL
ESSENTIALLY INCENTIVIZES
DEVELOPERS TO DEVELOP
AFFORDABLE UNITS, IT BILLS FOR
HOUSING, BUT IT DOESN'T STOP
DISPLACEMENT OR DID
GENTRIFICATION. SO THESE AREAS
WE HAVE DESIGNATED, THE LAND
THERE IS, YOU KNOW, DESIRABLE.
IS WORKING ON COST-EFFICIENT
BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN TO BE LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES. WE HEAR
ABOUT THIS STELLA, THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD WAS 75%
BLACK IN THE 1970s, TODAY IT IS
15%. THAT IS DECADES OF SLOW
GENTRIFICATION. AND SO, HAVING
THE AMI FOR THIS HOUSING AT 60%
TO 80% IS NOT HELPING BLACK OR
BROWN RESIDENTS, BECAUSE THE
MEDIAN OUTCOME -- INCOME FOR
HOUSEHOLDS HEADED BY A BLACK
PERSON IN SEATTLE IS $42,500.
THIS IS THE AVERAGE MEDIAN
INCOME OF $120,000. PEOPLE ARE
TRYING TO HELP ARE NOT BEING
SERVED WITH 60% TO 80% AMI.
ALSO, THIS DOESN'T REALLY HELP
LEGACY HOMEOWNERS. IF THEY OWN
THE LAND, THERE IS NO INCENTIVE
FOR DEVELOPERS TO WANT TO BE
-- I KNOW THAT IS TAKEN OUT
BECAUSE THE IRR IS NOT THERE,
WHICH IS WHY I SUSPECT THAT WAS
TAKEN OUT. SO THIS MAKES LAND,
NONPROFIT PEOPLE AND LAND, LOOK
ATTRACTIVE TO DEVELOPERS, BUT
NOT VICE VERSA. I'M AFRAID A
NONPROFIT DOESN'T HAVE AN
ADVOCATE AND MIGHT BE TAKEN
ADVANTAGE OF. WE ALSO CAN'T
GUARANTEE THAT A NONPROFIT WILL
GET THE SPACE ON THE FIRST
FLOOR. AND SO, DISPLACEMENT
DOESN'T INVOLVE , YOU KNOW, A
PERSON OF COLOR SELLING THE
LAND. YOU SAID THIS YOURSELF.
THE GOAL OF THE LEGISLATION IS
ADDRESS THE HARMFUL HISTORY OF
REDLINING, EXCLUSION OF LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES , EXCLUSION
AND ZONING. BUILDING
GENERATIONAL WEALTH. INCENTIVE
FOR MORE DEVELOPMENTS, AND TO
BRING COMMUNITY SERVING SMALL
BUSINESSES A GROUND FOR
ECONOMIC USES. AND SO, I WOULD
LIKE TO SEE DONE ON THE
>> THICKET IS A BIT LATE FOR
THIS NOW. THIS BILL ALLOWS FOR
DEVELOPERS TO PARTNER WITH
NONPROFITS TO BUILD HOUSING IN
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR WHERE
PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE.
THE REAL QUESTION HERE IS, YOU
KNOW, THIS ALLOWS -- THIS
DOESN'T HELP END DISPLACEMENT,
BUT HELPS BUILD WAREHOUSING.
HOW DO WE INCENTIVIZE
DEVELOPERS TO BUILD NONPROFITS
, AND IN THIS CASE, IN THIS
BILL, IT IS A VERY SPECIFIC
AREA. WHY ARE WE SPECIFICALLY
TARGETING THESE AREAS? WHY ARE
WE LIMITING IT TO THIS AREA AS
IF IT IS NOT DOING WHAT WE
WANTED TO DO? WHY LIMIT IT? WE
NEED TO BUILD WAREHOUSING FOR
THE WHOLE CITY. I DON'T WANT
TO ROLL THIS -- WHY DON'T WE
INCLUDE THIS IN THE COPPERHEAD
THE PLAN? WE CAN'T GET INTO
THE PLAN , BUT MAKE THIS AN
INSURANCE POLICY SO WE CAN BE
ABLE TO BUILD WAREHOUSING IF
IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR IT. IT
TAKES ABOUT 2 TO 5 YEARS TO
FUND, DESIGN AND PERMIT
HOUSING. REGARDLESS IF WE DO
THIS NOW OR AFTER THE
COPPERHEAD THE PLAN, I DON'T
BELIEVE IT WILL MAKE MUCH OF A
DIFFERENCE. CITYWIDE, WE NEED
TO BUILD MORE HOUSING. LET'S
FIGHT FOR THAT IN THE
COPPERHEAD SUPPLANT, --
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT IS A
GOAL, TO BUILD MORE HOUSING.
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO FIGHT
GENTRIFICATION AND
DISPLACEMENT, HOW TO HELP BLACK
HOMEOWNERS KEEP THEIR HOMES.
THIS BILL, THESE AMENDMENTS,
DON'T DO THE THING WE WANT IT
TO DO. LET'S DO THE OTHER
THING, BUILD WAREHOUSING AND
INCLUDE THAT LATER. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOREL IS, I
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOU
LISTENING TO OUR CONCERNS AND
WORKING TO FURTHER MAKE
AMENDMENTS TO THIS BILL.
HOWEVER, I AGREE WITH
COUNCILMEMBER WOO. THIS
DOESN'T ACCOMPLISH THE THING
THAT I UNDERSTOOD WE WERE
TRYING TO SOLVE FOR . SOLVING
FOR GENERATIONAL WEALTH
BUILDING, THIS DOES NOT
ACCOMPLISH THAT. I WILL SAY I
RECENTLY HEARD A STORY FROM A
FAMILY, A BLACK FAMILY, WHOSE
GREAT-GRANDMOTHER ACTUALLY
OWED WHITE A BIT OF LAND AT A
TIME WHEN THAT WAS UNHEARD OF
IN BLACK COMMUNITIES ,
PARTICULARLY A BLACK WOMAN.
SHE LOST HER LAND. IT IS
UNCLEAR HOW, WHETHER IT WAS
TAKEN OR HOW. BUT IT TOOK THAT
FAMILY ANOTHER TWO GENERATIONS
TO BE ABLE TO BE PROPERTY
OWNERS, TO BUY A HOME AND BE
PROPERTY OWNERS AGAIN. OWNING
PROPERTY IS GENERATIONAL WEALTH
BUILDING. THAT IS WHAT YOU PASS
ON TO YOUR GENERATION. HAVING
THE ABILITY TO HAVE BLACK AND
BROWN HOMEOWNERS KEEP THEIR
LAND AND HOME TO PASS ON TO
THEIR GENERATIONS, THAT IS
GENERATIONAL WEALTH BUILDING.
THIS BILL DOESN'T ACCOMPLISH
THAT. THAT IS TRUE. I WILL
SAY I CONTINUE TO HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT PUTTING FORWARD
LEGISLATION , PUTTING THE
PREVERBAL CART BEFORE THE
HORSE. WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF
OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS
COUNCILMEMBER WOO JUST BOOK
ABOUT . -- SPOKE ABOUT.
INITIALLY I HAD CONCERNS. ONE
OF MY BIG CONCERNS WITH NOT
DOING THIS BEFORE COMPLETION OF
A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MAKING
SURE WE ARE USING THAT PLAN TO
ADDRESS THE GOALS WE ARE TRYING
TO CREATE VIA THIS PARTICULAR
BILL. AFTER THE COMP PLAN,
THEN WE CAN LOOK AT LEGISLATION
AND STRATEGIES AND INCENTIVES
TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THE
GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN. IN TERMS OF HOUSING, THE
CITY JUST PASSED A $1 BILLION
HOUSING LEVY. I AM NOT CLEAR
WHAT, WHEN, HOW ALL THAT
HOUSING WILL BE BUILT. WE'RE
ALSO ADDING IN STANDALONE
LEGISLATION THAT DOESN'T
CONTEMPLATE WHAT THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING WILL BE DOING IN THE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SPACE. I
DON'T THINK THIS BILL IS GOING
TO CREATE HOUSING QUICKLY,
BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW IT TAKES
MANY YEARS TO CREATE HOUSING.
GIVEN THAT THE HOUSING LEVY
JUST PASSED, AND WE ARE NOT
CLEAR AS TO WHAT HOUSING THAT
WILL CREATE AND WHAT THE
STRATEGIES FOR THAT WILL BE,
GIVEN THAT WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE
OF THIS COMP PLAN THAT WE WILL
HAVE TO DO LEGALLY BY THE END
OF THE YEAR, WE HAVE TO
COMPLETE THIS PLAN, I DON'T
THINK THAT THIS IS A BILL THAT
I WOULD SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD
AS IS. AT THE MOMENT. THANK
YOU.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY.
SEE NEW DATA NO FURTHER
COMMENTS, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT NUMBER
ONE.
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>>
TWO IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED.
>> OKAY. THE MOTION FAILS. THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, IT IS
NOT CLEAR IF YOU WANT TO MOVE
YOUR AMENDMENTS.
>> WELL, IF WE'RE GOING TO
VOTE ON THE WHOLE DARN THING
TODAY, LET'S KEEP ON MOVING .
THIS IS THE BEST WE HAVE GOT
FOR TODAY. BUT YOU KNOW, I DO
WANT TO SAY, COUNCILMEMBER
MOREL IS, I DO BELIEVE IN YOUR
BILL AND THE INTENT YOU'RE
BRINGING IT FORWARD WITH. WE
HAVE ALREADY SEEN WITH THE
RELIGIOUS POTUS BILL THE IMPACT
IT HAS HAD ON OUR CITY. YOU MAY
HAVE JUST RECENTLY HEARD
ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT ON CAPITOL
HILL AT THE CATHEDRAL IS
UTILIZING SOME OF THESE
BONUSES. WE DO SEE THAT THIS
TYPE OF POLICY DOES CREATE GOOD
IMPACTS IN THE COMMUNITY. SO
FOR THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE US
TODAY, AND I THINK LISH IS
BRINGING IT UP, --
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED TO MOVE YOUR
BILL.
>> SORRY. I MOVE AMENDMENTS 2 .
>> IT IS MOVED. IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO
CHECK. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU . THIS SIMPLY
CLARIFIES WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO
QUALIFY , MAKING SURE THE
PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES ARE
ABLE TO, AS WELL AS REMOVING
THE STATE OR FEDERAL FUNDING
REQUIREMENT, BECAUSE NOT ALL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS
RECEIVE STATE OR FEDERAL
FUNDING.
>> OKAY. DID YOU WANT CENTRAL
STAFF TO REVIEW AT ALL?
>> SURE.
>> THAT IS A FAIRLY GOOD
SUMMARY. THE ONLY OTHER THING I
WOULD ADD IS THAT IT ALLOWS FOR
A PARTNERSHIP FOR LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY THAT
INCLUDES A COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION OR
ORGANIZATIONS AS THE
CONTROLLING GENERAL PARTNER OR
MANAGING MEMBER TO ALSO
MOLLIFY.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT 2? I AM
NOT SEEING ANY. OKAY. WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT 2?
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>> TWO IN FAVOR, THREE AGAINST.
OKAY. THE MOTION FAILS. WE WILL
MOVE ON TO AMENDMENT 3. PLEASE
GIVE AN OVERVIEW.
>> AMENDMENT 3 REMOVES
EXEMPTIONS OF PROJECTS FROM
THE MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM AND
ZONING PROGRAMS. IN OTHER
WORDS, IT WOULD REQUIRE
PARTICIPATION MHA AND
INCENTIVES ON PROGRAMS. MHA
APPLIES TO ANY UNITS ABOVE 60%
OF MEDIAN INCOME.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS , YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
MOVE AMENDMENT 3 EXPERT I WILL
MOVE AMENDMENT 3 TO COUNCIL
BILL 120750.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED. I WILL
SECOND. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS
THE AMENDMENT?
>> YES, PLEASE. LISH IS DONE A
WONDERFUL JOB. THE REOCCURRING
THEME WITH MY AMENDMENTS IS
MAKING THIS , RECONCILING THIS
WITH THE RELIGIOUS POTUS BILL
BECAUSE MUCH LIKE THIS BILL,
THE RELIGIOUS POTUS BILL HAD A
TOTAL OF 4 TO 6 PUBLIC
MEETINGS . IT WAS VOTED INTO
LAW, AND THEN BROUGHT BACK FOR
A SECOND ROUND BECAUSE CHANGES
WERE NEEDED. MHA WAS A PART OF
THE RELIGIOUS POTUS BILL.
SPECIFICALLY THE INCENTIVE
ZONING -- RELIGIOUS POTUS
BILL. SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT
ALLOWS PUBLIC BENEFITS IN
EXCHANGE. THIS CAN BE
CHILDCARE, SCHOOLS, PUBLIC OPEN
SPACE, ART SPACES OR HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OVERALL TO BRING
THIS TO RECONCILE THE
RELIGIOUS BONUS BILL.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. WILL
THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT 3?
>> [ ROLL CALL ].
>> TWO IN FAVOR, THREE
OPPOSED.
>> MOTION FAILS. PLEASE GIVE
AN OVERVIEW OF AMENDMENT 4.
>> THIS RECOGNIZES CHILDCARE
CENTERS AS AN EQUITABLE
DEVELOPMENT USE. THEY'RE
PROBABLY INCLUDED ALREADY IN
THE DEFINITION, BUT THIS MAKES
IT CLEAR THAT A CHILDCARE
CENTER WOULD BE AN EQUITABLE
DEVELOPMENT USE UNDER THE BILL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, YOUR
RECOGNIZE TO MOVE A MINUTE 4.
>> I MOVE AMENDMENT 4 OF
COUNCIL BILL 120750.
>> I WILL SECOND. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO ADDRESS THE AMENDMENT?
TRAN40 DID A VERY GOOD JOB. WE
ALWAYS LIKE TO CALL OUT
CHILDCARE BECAUSE WE DON'T
HAVE ENOUGH IN THIS DARN CITY.
>> OKAY. THESE PROJECTS ARE
ONLY SUPPORTED BY EDI, BUT I
DON'T OBJECT TO ESPECIALLY
CALLING OUT CHILDCARE. WE NEED
MUCH MORE. I WILL SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT TODAY. ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE . WE
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL?
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>> TWO IN FAVOR, THREE
OPPOSED.
>> OKAY. TRAN40, PLEASE GIVE
AN OVERVIEW OF A MINUTE 5 SINCE
AMENDMENT 1 FAILED. DO INTEND
TO MOVE IT?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE 5A
LANGUAGE.
>> OKAY.
>> IF IT IS OKAY, AMENDMENT 5
AND 5A WERE BOTH DRAFTED
ASSUMING THAT AMENDMENTS 1
THROUGH 4 WOULD PASS. THE
AMENDMENT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF
YOU INCLUDES PROVISIONS THAT
THE COMMITTEE HAS VOTED DOWN
AND CANNOT BE PART OF THE FINAL
BILL. SO IF YOU DO MOVE THEM,
IF YOU DO WANT TO MOVE
AMENDMENT 5, I WOULD RECOMMEND
MOVING IT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
ANY PROVISIONS IN EMMA MITTS 1
THROUGH 4 INCLUDED IN THE
DRAFT. I DON'T HAVE A DRAFT
OF THAT TO SHOW YOU.
UNFORTUNATELY. IS THAT CLEAR?
>> MAYBE I HAVE CONVINCED
COLLEAGUES OF AMENDMENTS 1
THROUGH 4. [ LAUGHTER ]
>> I THINK THE CLERK TELLS US
YOU CANNOT HAVE ANOTHER VOTE ON
THOSE ITEMS WITHOUT THE
PREVAILING SIDE CALLING IT OUT
FOR ANOTHER VOTE.
>> OKAY.
>> OKAY. SO WE CANNOT BRING MMF
EYE.
>> YOU CAN WITH THE VERBAL
AMENDMENT TO EXCLUDE ANYTHING
INCLUDED IN AMENDMENTS 1
THROUGH 4.
>> CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH WHAT
IS LEFT?
>> IS A SOMEBODY ELSE ON THE
COMMITTEE THAT WILL SUPPORT
THIS? IF NOT, I WON'T MOVE IT.
I AM NOT SEEING SO. THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> OKAY. SEEING NO FURTHER
AMENDMENTS . WHERE ARE WE? I
HAVE LOST TRACK. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE
ADOPTION OF THE BASE BILL?
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>> SORRY. I HAVE HANDS UP.
SORRY. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
>> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE VOTE
ON THE DEIS BILL, I WANTED TO
MAKE SOME COMMENTS. I DID WANT
TO THANK CHAIR MORALE IS AND
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS FOR BOTH
OF YOUR THOUGHTFUL WORK ON THE
LEGISLATION . I DO APPRECIATE
THE EFFORT TO ADDRESS THE DIRE
NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I
HAVE GIVEN THIS BILL MANY
HOURS OF CONSIDERATION,
PARTICULARLY WITH THE CHANGES
IN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. BUT
HAVE TO SAY MY RESERVATIONS
REMAIN. AT THIS POINT, THE MAIN
ISSUE FOR ME IS THAT THE
LEGISLATION ALLOTS ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY SOLELY
BASED ON AN OWNERSHIP MODEL .
IT IS A MODEL THAT
INTENTIONALLY AND EXPLICITLY
BESTOWS BENEFITS TO A SELECT
HANDFUL OF ORGANIZATIONS , 35
IN TOTAL, WHOSE ELIGIBILITY FOR
THIS DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
BENEFIT WILL BE BASED UPON
FUTURE CRITERIA DEVELOPED AND
IMPLEMENTED SOLELY BY CITY
DEPARTMENTS WITH NO RECOURSE TO
INDEPENDENT REVIEW OR APPEAL
FROM EXCLUSION. SO WHILE THIS
OWNERSHIP MODEL MAY HAVE BEEN
UNNECESSARY WORK AROUND
RESTRICTIVE ZONING LAWS UNDER
THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
WE NOW HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY,
AS NOTED BY MY COLLEAGUES, TO
RE-ENVISION ZONING UNDER THE
PENDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO
AS SUCH, IN MY OPINION, A MORE
EFFECTIVE APPROACH TO ATTAINING
CITYWIDE NEIGHBORHOOD
AFFORDABILITY IS TO MAKE THE
BENEFIT OF DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
GENERALLY AVAILABLE TO ALL ,
AND TO DO SO THROUGH THE DRAFT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CURRENTLY
BEFORE COUNCIL. FOR THOSE
REASONS I AM VOTING NO. I DO
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING ON
EXPANDING THE BENEFIT OF
AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
TO ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY
THROUGH THE VEHICLE OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CURRENTLY
BEFORE COUNCIL MAC FOR
CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO
ADD TO MY EARLIER COMMENTS
THAT IN TERMS OF HOUSING IN THE
NEED FOR HOUSING, I ECHO, I
THINK IN GENERAL THERE ISN'T A
PERSON CURRENTLY ON THE COUNCIL
MAC THAT DOES NOT AGREE WE NEED
MORE HOUSING OF ALL KINDS,
INCLUDING AFFORDABLE ALL THE
WAY UP TO MARKET RATE HOUSING.
I WANT IT STATED ON THE RECORD
THAT MY OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY
SUPPORT FOR HOUSING. WE
DEFINITELY NEED MORE HOUSING
ACROSS THE CITY. I WANTED THAT
TO BE NOTED. MY OPPOSITION TO
THIS IS FOR THE REASONS I
STATED EARLIER. I WON'T
RESTATE THEM NOW. BUT WE DO
NEED TO DEVELOP MORE HOUSING,
WHICH IS WHY I THINK WE REALLY
NEED TO USE THE COMP PLAN
VEHICLE, AS WELL AS WE NEED TO
HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT
THE RECENTLY PASSED HOUSING
LEVEE AND HOW WE HOPE TO
ACCOMPLISH MORE HOUSING ACROSS
THE CITY WITH THAT VOTER
APPROVED LEVY, WHICH I WAS IN
FULL SUPPORT OF. THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. BUT LIKE I
SAID, I WANTED IT TO BE NOTED
ON THE RECORD THAT I DO SUPPORT
MORE HOUSING. WE NEED MORE
HOUSING. THIS IS NOT THE
VEHICLE I CAN SUPPORT AT THE
MOMENT.
>> ANY FINAL COMMENTS? OKAY. I
WILL TAKE A MOMENT TO MAKE MY
OWN REMARKS. IT IS NOT CLEAR
TO ME HOW WAITING FOR ANOTHER
YEAR FOR THE COMPANY HAS A PLAN
TO PASS AND GET FINALIZED DOES
ANYTHING AT ALL TO CONTRIBUTE
TO THE BUILDING OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING RIGHT NOW. SEATTLE
CAN'T WASTE ANYMORE TIME
FAILING TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING . I WILL SAY THAT WE
WERE ELECTED TO TAKE ACTION.
THIS IS NOT A CONTROVERSIAL
BILL. CUTTING RED TAPE TO LET
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY B█UILD MORE HOMES IS
NOT CONTROVERSIAL. IN THE MIDST
OF THIS HOUSING CRISIS, WE HAVE
TO BE BOLD AND TAKE ACTION. WE
HAVE BEEN HERE FOR FOUR MONTHS,
AND WE HAVE NOT PASSED ANY
SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATION SO FAR.
THIS LEGISLATION IS SUPPORTED
BY AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPERS, BY COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS WERE ASKING FOR
SUPPORT, BY THE MASTER BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION, BY OVER 1000
CONSTITUENTS ACROSS ALL OF OUR
DISTRICTS. I WILL SAY THAT IT
IS DISAPPOINTING, NOT JUST FOR
ME AS THE PERSON WORKING ON
THIS LEGISLATION, BUT FOR THE
35 POTENTIAL PROJECTS WE COULD
HAVE HAD THE COULD HAVE
SUPPORTED THE CREATION OF MORE
HOUSING ACROSS THE INCOME
SPECTRUM IN THE CITY. IF THERE
IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I
WILL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE
FINAL RULE.
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>>
ONE OF FAVOR, ONE ABSTENTION,
THREE OPPOSED.
>> OKAY. THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION WILL BE SENT TO
THE APRIL 23 CITY COUNCIL
MEETING FOR FINAL VOTE. IT
WILL GO AS A RECOMMENDATION
NOT TO PASS.
>> CHAIR, WITH THE DIVIDED
VOTE, I THINK WE GO TO THE
FOLLOWING --
>> OH RIGHT. APRIL 30. OKAY.
BECAUSE IT IS A DIVIDED VOTE,
IT WILL GO NOT TO THE NEXT FULL
COUNCIL MEETING, BUT THE ONE
AFTER THAT. THE COMMITTEE
RECORDATION WILL BE SENT TO THE
APRIL 30 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FOR A FINAL VOTE. WITH NO
FURTHER BUSINESS, THIS
COMMITTEE IS ADJOURNED.