HELLO, HELLO.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
I NEED MY MIC.
I'M ON.
NOW I AM ON.
OKAY, GREAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
EVERYONE, FOR BEING HERE.
THE SEPTEMBER 3rd, 2025 LAND USE
COMMITTEE MEETING WILL COME TO
ORDER.
IT IS 2:04 P.M.
I'M MARK SOLOMON, CHAIR LAND
USE COMMITTEE.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
>> YES, I'M HERE.
I'LL STOP SIDE TALKING.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>
HERE.
>> PRESENT.
>>
PRESENT.
>> HERE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I MOVE
TO ADOPT THE AGENDA.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> OKAY.
MOVED AND SECONDED FOR THE
AGENDA.
AS CHAIR, I AM RECOMMENDING THAT
ITEM 5 ON THE AGENDA BE
REMOVED FROM TODAY'S AGENDA
FOR CONSIDERATION AT OUR NEXT
MEETING.
OKAY. IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION,
THE AGENDA WILL BE AMENDED TO
REMOVE ITEM FIVE, COUNCIL BILL
121047.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, THAT
AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
NOW, IF THERE IS NO
OBJECTION, THE AGENDA WILL BE
ADOPTED AS
AMENDED.
OKAY.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE AGENDA
IS ADOPTED AS
AMENDED. AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK
EVERYONE
FOR TAKING THEIR
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON TO COME
OUTOUT
DISCUSS LAND USE ISSUES.
DEFINITELY WANT TO THANK OUR
CENTRAL STAFF AS WELL AS
THE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS,
CLERKS, FOR OUR MEETINGS.
NOW, WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD, HYBRID
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
PUBLIC COMMENTS SHOULD RELATE
TO ITEMS ON
TODAY'S AGENDA, AND WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF THIS
COMMITTEE.
PLEASE TAKE SPECIAL NOTE THAT
FOR THOSE REGISTERED TO SPEAK ON
ITEMS 1, 4, 6 OR 7, ON THE
AGENDA, WE'LL ACCEPT COMMENTS
ON
THOSE
ITEMS ONCE WE REACH THOSE ITEMS
AND OPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
OKAY. WE WILL NOT TAKE COMMENTS
ON
ITEM NUMBER 2, BECAUSE IT IS A
QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISION AND
COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT
PUBLIC COMMENT ON QUASI-
JUDICIAL ITEMS.
OKAY.
WITH THAT, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO
WE HAVE SIGNED UP TODAY?
>> CURRENTLY WE HAVE 17
IN PERSON SPEAKERS SIGNED UP AND
21 REMOTE SPEAKERS.
>> OKAY.
GIVEN THAT WE DO HAVE SO
MANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP AND WE
DO HAVE FOUR PUBLIC HEARING
SESSIONS, WE WILL DO ONE MINUTE
EACH FOR PUBLIC COMMENT,
YET ALLOW MORE TIME DURING
PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU'RE HERE
TO
SPEAK ABOUT ONE OF THOSE
PARTICULAR
ITEMS.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
SO, WE'LL START WITH THE
IN PERSON SPEAKERS FIRST.
SO, CLERK, CAN YOU PLEASE READ
THE PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS?
>> MONITORED IN THE FOLLOWING
MANNER.
SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN
THE ORDER THEY REGISTERED, IN
PERSON
SPEAKERS CALLED FIRST,
REMOTE SPEAKERS UNTIL THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD HAS ENDED.
YOU'LL HEAR A CHIME WHEN THERE
IS TEN SECONDS LEFT IN THE TIME.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS NOW
OPEN AND WILL BEGIN WITH
THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE LIST.
THAT IS RON HORNING.
>> OKAY.
>> I'M HERE TO TALK
ABOUT ROOTS TO ROOFS.
ONE OF THE NEW AMENDMENTS HAS
AN OWNER, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS
WHEN IT WAS CONNECTED TO
COMMUNITIES.
I'M NOT -- I DON'T QUALIFY FOR
THAT.
BUT ONE PERSON ON OUR BLOCK
WOULD.
EVERYONE ELSE WOULDN'T.
SO, ARE WE AT RISK LOSING OUR
HOMES TO DEVELOPMENT AND BEING
PUSHED OFF OF OUR PROPERTIES
FOR NEW -- THIS LEGISLATION OR
--
THAT'S MY QUESTION TO THE
COUNCIL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE MICHELLE
OSBORNE.
>> HI, MY NAME IS MICHELLE
OSBORNE.
AND I AM URGING THIS COMMITTEE
TO REMOVE FROM CONSIDERATION AT
TODAY'S HEARING FOR VOTE
THE ROOTS TO ROOFS PROPOSAL.
NINE AMENDMENTS WERE
DROPPED LAST NIGHT, SEATTLE
VIOLATED
THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
ACT IN THE SEATTLE LAND USE
CODE, WHICH REQUIRES 30 DAYS OF
PUBLIC NOTICE, ATTACHING THESE
DOCUMENTS.
IN ADVANCE OF A PUBLIC
HEARING, WHERE THE PUBLIC HAS
AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND
DIGEST THESE MATERIALS BEFORE
THERE IS ANY VOTE.
BECAUSE THAT DID NOT HAPPEN, AND
THESE ARE NOT
EMERGENCY AMENDMENTS TO
ANYTHING, AND
THEY FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE ROOTS
TO
ROOFS, THEY REMOVE
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
REQUIREMENT,
I URGE THIS COUNCIL TO REVIEW
THE COMMENTS AND DETAILS THAT
I SUBMITTED AT A LATER DATE
SO THAT --
>> THANK YOU, MICHELLE.
NEXT UP WE HAVE DAVID MOORING.
>> HELLO, DAVID MOORING,
RESIDENT OF DISTRICT NUMBER 7.
ASKED BY SOME FOLKS
IN DISTRICT 3 TO SUPPORT THEIR
OPPOSITION
TO ROOTS TO ROOFS AND YOU'LL BE
HEARING, I THINK, THEM CALL IN
LATER.
I'M NOT QUALIFIED TO ASK
FOR MORE DENSITY IN THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OR IN OTHER
RACIAL
AND SOCIAL EQUITY AREAS AS SHOWN
ON
THE CITY MAP.
SO I HAVE FIVE ASKS.
ONE ASK IS LISTEN TO
THE INCREASED DISPLACEMENT
CONCERNS
OF PEOPLE OF COLOR RESIDING
IN THESE HIGHER AND MODERATELY
HIGH DISADVANTAGED TRACTS.
THESE HAVE BEEN PED BY THE
CITY OF SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION. STOP TARGETING
RACE AND
SOCIAL JUSTICE TRACTS LIKE -- D
2, D 3,
D 5, ET CETERA.
LAST YEAR WE VOTED THIS DOWN
AND I HOPE THE COUNCIL DOES THE
SAME THING.
YOU CAN, HOWEVER, PURSUE THESE
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENTS --
>> THANK YOU, DAVID.
>> YOU CAN PLACE THEM IN THE
BOX RIGHT THERE.
>> NEXT UP, LEAH MARTIN.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
-- WE'RE SEEING ONE TODAY.
HOWEVER, CONTRACT
REZONES REQUIRE A LOT OF MONEY
AND A
LOT OF TIME.
THE PILOT CAN ALLOW CBOs THE
TOOLS OF SUCCESS BECAUSE IT
ALLOWS CBOs THE SAME RATES
AS MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENTS.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP, BILAN AIDAN.
>> -- WITH THIS -- YEAH, OKAY.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCILMEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO TESTIFY.
MY NAME IS BILAN AIDAN.
I SERVE AS THE VICE PRESIDENT
AND CO- FOUNDER OF AFRICAN
COMMUNITY HOUSING
AND DEVELOPMENT WHERE CBO THAT
IS DOING SOME DEVELOPMENT
WORK IN THE CITY LIMITS.
THE -- WE'RE HERE TO --
IN SUPPORT OF THE ROOTS TO ROOF
PILOT -- THIS PILOT OFFERS LONG
OVERDUE RELIEF FOR
COMMUNITY-
BASED ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE
FACED
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY BARRIERS
FOR
DECADES BY INCREASING
EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT, IT
CREATES OPPORTUNITIES FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
SPACES
OUR NEIGHBORHOODS URGENTLY NEED.
ROOTS TO ROOFS BUILDS ON LESSEN
S WITH CLEAR IMPROVEMENTS.
IT ENSURES CBOs HOLD A MAJORITY
STAKE IN LAND AND
INCLUDES
AMENDMENTS THAT STRENGTHEN THEIR
ROLE IN DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS ABOUT REMOVING
STRUCTURAL BARRIERS AND
ENABLING TRUSTED COMMUNITY
ROOTED ORGANIZATIONS TO LEAD IN
SHAPING THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS,
PASSING
THIS PILOT WILL MEAN MORE
AFFORDABLE --
>> THANK YOU, BILAN.
NEXT UP WE HAVE JESSE SIMPSON.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON,
COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M JESSE
SIMPSON WITH
THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CONSORTIUM
TO SPEAK IN STRONG SUPPORT
OF TWO OPPORTUNITIES BEFORE YOU
TO DIRECTLY INCREASE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LAND USE
CHANGES
TO REMOVE RIERS TO BUILDING
THE HOUSING WE NEED MOST.
I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF THE ROOTS TO
ROOFS PILOT PROGRAM WHICH GRANTS
NONPROFIT AND PUBLIC
DEVELOPERS FLEXIBILITY FROM
ZONING
RULES, GIVES ADDITIONAL HEIGHT
AND FLOOR AREA TO HELP TURN
PLANNED AFFORDABLE HOMES INTO
REALITY WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A
CONTRACT
REZONE PROCESS
AS MERCY HOUSING IS CURRENTLY
UNDERTAKING WITH
THE LAKE CITY COMMUNITY CENTER.
IT ENSURES A QUARTER OF
THE HOMES WILL BE AFFORDABLE TO
LOW INCOME PEOPLE FOR 50
YEARS, OPENS THE DOOR TO
COMMUNITY SERVANT SPACES LIKE
CULTURAL
CENTERS, CHILD CARE,
AND AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL SPACE,
AND IS AVAILABLE TO
NONPROFITS, HOUSING AUTHORITIES
AND PUBLIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES --
FACES MANY BARRIERS, ZONING IS A
KEY ONE AND ONE THAT IS
BASICALLY FREE FOR THE CITY TO
REMOVE.
I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS PILOT
PROGRAM AND THANK
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK FOR BRINGING
IT FORWARD.
>> NEXT WE HAVE --
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR
SOLOMON AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
RYAN McKINSTER, HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY SEATTLE.
YOU HAVE A FULL SCHEDULE,
TWO BILLS REAL QUICK AND OUR
SUPPORT FOR THEM.
THE ROOTS TO ROOFS PILOT
PROGRAM.
WE'RE IN THE HOUSING CRISIS
AND WE NEED TO USE ALL
TOOLS AVAILABLE BEFORE US AT
THIS
TIME.
WITH OVER 46,000
SEATTLE HOUSEHOLDS AND LOWER
WAGE WORKERS SOMETIMES COMMUTING
OVER 25 MILES TO OUR CITY WE
NEED SOLUTIONS AND THIS PILOT
PROGRAM IS ONE WAY OF DOING IT.
IN ADDITION, IT
ALLOWS ORGANIZATIONS LIKE OURS
TO PARTICIPATE, ENSURING
RESIDENTS NOT ONLY HAVE A PLACE
TO LEAVE,
BUT THE ABILITY
FOR HOME OWNERSHIP AND AN
OPPORTUNITY
TO BUILD GENERATIONAL WEALTH.
AS FOR THE
DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE IN FRONT
OF YOU, WE
FEEL THIS IS IMPORTANT.
IT PERMITS REFORMS TO BE
DEVELOPED BY YOU
AND STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE
INVOLVED.
THE STREAMLINING PROCESSES
WORK WHEN WE REMOVE
BUREAUCRATIC BARRIERS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES INCREASES,
WE'RE ON A THIN EDGE OF
PRODUCING THOSE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE DON KING.
>> THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCILMEMBERS.
I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF
LEGISLATION OF COUNCIL BILL
121011.
SORRY, BY THE WAY, MY NAME IS
DONALD KING AND I'M A RESIDENT
OF BELLTOWNBELLTOWN DISTRICT 7.
OUR CITY IS STILL CHALLENGED
BY ITS PRE- EXISTING
CONDITION OF THE LACK OF
AFFORDABLE HOMES.
AND WITH A PREVIOUS BILL WHICH I
WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN HELPING
GET PASSED THROUGH THE COUNCIL
WE NEEDED SOMETHING ELSE TO DO
THAT FOR OUR NONPROFIT
INSTITUTIONS THAT ALSO HELD LAND
THAT
COULD DEVELOP AFFORDABLE HOMES.
THE ROOTS TO ROOFS HOUSING
LEGISLATION, I CALL IT HOUSING
LEGISLATION, LAND USE
LEGISLATION, BUT IT
HELPS PRODUCE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IN A
MIXED INCOME ENVIRONMENT.
SO, ALLOWING THIS
PARTNERSHIP WITH FOR PROFIT
DEVELOPERS
ALSO PRODUCES MIXED INCOME
WHICH IS -- TO REALLY ALLEVIATE
THE
PROBLEM OF CREATING LOWER
AFFORDABLE GHETTOS.
SO, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO
PASS THIS FOR BOTH THOSE
REASONS.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT UP WE HAVE CLIFFORD
CAWTHORN.
>> HELLO, CHAIR SOLOMON,
AND ESTEEMED MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS CLIFF CAWTHORN,
I'M HERE IN THE PERSONAL
CAPACITY
TODAY, I'M HERE
STRONGLY SUPPORTING CR 121011,
THE
ROOTS
TO ROOF INITIATIVE. WE NEED 1. 1
MILLION
HOMES ACROSS -- NEW HOMES ACROSS
THE STATE BY 2040.
THIS BILL WILL BE A
POWERFUL TOOL TO CREATE MORE
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
THIS PROGRAM IS INTENTIONAL.
PARTICIPATING DEVELOPERS WILL BE
REQUIRED TO SET ASIDE 25% OF
THE UNITS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR
LOW INCOME FAMILIES,
REMOVE BARRIERS THAT HOBBLES
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECTS AND
ALLOWS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
TO
PARTICIPATE AND BUILD
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT OUR
COMMUNITY NEEDS.
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS
BILL HAS PARTS INCLUDED THAT
MAKE SURE THAT THIS WILL BE
AN INTENTIONAL PROCESS AND A
TRANSPARENT PROCESS WITH --
SO I'LL KEEP IT SHORT.
THIS IS A TOOL THAT OUR
CITY NEEDS RIGHT NOW.
AND I WANT TO
THANK COUNCILMEMBER RINCK AND
ALSO
OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS
THAT HAVE SUPPORTED --
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, CLIFFORD.
NEXT UP WE HAVE JASMINE SMITH.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBERS.
MY NAME IS JASMINE SMITH,
DIRECTOR OF LOCAL ADVOCACY AT
FUTURE-WISE AND I APPRECIATE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF THE ROOTS TO
ROOFS
INITIATIVE.
WE'RE AT THIS CRITICAL
MOMENT AND THIS IS A CRITICAL
OPPORTUNITY TO PEEL BACK AT THE
DISPARATE HOUSING
DISCRIMINATION THAT HAS IMPACTED
OUR
COMMUNITIES.
IT REALLY GETS AT TWO
MAIN ISSUES THAT WE'RE
FACING, AFFORDABILITY AND
DISPLACEMENT AND THE IMPACT IT
HAS ON
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR IN SEATTLE.
AS WE LOOK TO THE FUTURE,
AND HOW WE'RE
EXPLICITLY FIGHTING THE
DISPLACEMENT PRESSURES
THAT WE'RE ALL FACING, PROGRAMS
LIKE
ROOTS TO ROOFS PROVES
A MEANINGFUL AND INTENTIONAL
STEP FORWARD TO PRESERVE AND
GROW THE
COMMUNITIES WE LOVE, CHERISH
AND BELONG IN.
THIS IS SO CENTRAL TO WHAT
MAKES THIS PROGRAM POWERFUL
AFTER A
CENTURY OF INTENTIONALLY
RACIST HOUSING POLICIES HAVE
BEEN PUT IN PLACE.
WE HAVE A DUTY TO BE JUST AS
INTENTIONAL IN OUR REPAIR AS WE
ROOK LOOK AT ABUNDANT RICH
COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP, WE HAVE JEFF PAUL.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HEARING
ME OUT.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER RINCK,
FOR PUTTING THIS FORWARD.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN
FAVOR OF THE ROOTS TO ROOFS
LEGISLATION.
I'M WITH HOUSE ZONE
NEIGHBORS, BUT I'M SPEAKING AS
A RENTER.
WHEN I MOVED TO SEATTLE, I
HAD TO MOVE FOUR TIMES IN THE
FIRST TWO YEARS I LIVED HERE.
AND THE FOURTH TIME I MOVED
INTO MY CAR BECAUSE I COULDN'T
AFFORD THE RENT ANYMORE BECAUSE
I DIDN'T GET PAID BY MY BOSS.
SO, YEAH, IT WAS AN
INTERESTING TIME TO COME TO THE
CITY,
FIND OUT JUST HOW SHOCKINGLY
UNAFFORDABLE IT IS HERE.
I'M AN EDUCATOR AND I SEE
KIDS GETTING PRICED OUT OF THE
CITY,
FAMILIES GETTING PRICED OUT OF
THE CITY ALL THE
TIME, PUSHED OUT ON TO THE
STREETS.
WE HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH
OF
DIFFERENT TOOLS THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO USE TO ADDRESS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
I'M THANKFUL WE'RE USING TOOLS
LIKE THIS AS A FISCALLY
RESPONSIBLE WAY TO MAKE SURE WE
CAN GET MORE
HOUSING ON THE MARKET SO
RENTERS HAVE MORE STABILITY, SO
KIDS HAVE PLACES TO LIVE IN THE
CITY
AND SO PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO
THRIVE IN THIS AMAZING PLACE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE JEFF PIPER.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON,
COUNCILMEMBERS.
THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
MY NAME JEFF PIPER,
ARCHITECT WITH FIVE DOT AND
RESIDENT OF
DISTRICT 3.
HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF
THE ROOTS TO ROOFS PILOT
PROGRAM.
>> CAN WE --
>> TURN IT UP.
>> CAN WE
RESTART HIS TIME?
>> YES.
PLEASE.
SPEAK REAL CLOSE.
>> POINTED INFORMATION FOR
THE CHAIR.
SIR, IF YOU ARE
HAVING DIFFICULTY HEARING, WE DO
HAVE HEARING ASSISTANCE HERE.
WOULD YOU LIKE A DEVICE?
SIR, WE'RE JUST GOING
TO OFFER THIS -- THIS IS NOT
A CONVERSATION -- CHAIR, I
WOULD ASK FOR SOME DECORUM IN
THE CHAMBERS.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> NOT RIGHT. DON'T YOU HAVE A
VOLUME
CONTROL SOME PLACE?
>> SIR, WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THE
VOLUME, THANK
YOU.
>> OKAY.
HOW ABOUT THIS?
THE ROOTS TO ROOF PILOT
PROGRAM IS IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY
FOR SEATTLE BECAUSE IT PROVIDES
COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS, EQUAL FOOTING TO
DEVELOP
HOUSING.
THESE ORGANIZATIONS KNOW
THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEIR
CONSTITUENTS, BUT THEY
RARELY HAVE ACCESS TO
THE SAME DEVELOPMENT TOOLS AND
CAPITAL AS
LARGER MARKET DRIVEN ACTORS.
THIS PROGRAM GIVES THE
COMMUNITY GROUPS LEVERAGE THEY
NEED
TO CREATE HOUSING THAT IS
AFFORDABLE, STABLE AND ROOTED
IN COMMUNITY VALUES.
THE BENEFITS FROM THESE
PROGRAMS WOULD EXTEND BEYOND
INDIVIDUAL
PROJECTS, STRENGTHEN LOCAL
CAPACITY, CREATE LONG- TERM
AFFORDABILITY, AND KEEP CULTURAL
ANCHORS IN PLACE.
IN ADDITION, I WOULD LIKE TO
EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO
AMENDMENT NINE WHICH LIMITS
QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENTS TO
REGIONAL, URBAN AND
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS.
MANY OF THESE
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS WHO
WOULD
BENEFIT MOST FROM THIS PROGRAM
ARE
LOOKING TO OUTSIDE OF
THE CENTERS AND MANY HAVE
BEEN IN SEATTLE FAR LONGER THAN
ANY
DESIGNATIONS HAVE
EXISTED. THE MAJOR ASSET IS
THEIR LAND.
EXCLUDING THEM FROM THE PROGRAM
WOULD UNDERMINE THE SPIRIT OF
THE BILL AND DENY THEM
THE CHANCE TO BUILD MUCH
NEEDED HOUSING FOR FOR
COMMUNITIES.
SEATTLE NEEDS MORE HOUSING
AND WE
NEED IT TO BE GUIDED BY THE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT
OUR COMMUNITIES ALREADY TRUST.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
NEXT UP WE HAVE
SHARON. AFTER SHARON, GARRETT,
STEVE, DAVE GLOGER, SHELTY M
cCAFFEY.
>> OKAY.
HI. MY NAME IS SHARON COSLAW, I
LIVE AND WORK IN THE CENTRAL
AREA.
I'M IN STRONG FAVOR OF THE
ROOTS
TO ROOF PROGRAM.
I'M AN ARCHITECT WHO HAS
BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS IN
THE CENTRAL AREA AND THE SOUTH
SEATTLE CAYA, OUR BACK, URBAN
FAMILY. THESE ARE ORGANIZATIONS
TAKING ON THE HOUSING CRISIS
WITH ENTHUSIASM AND CARE.
THIS IS NOT ALWAYS THEIR --
THEY SEE THE NEED AND WANT TO BE
IN FRONT OF IT.
THIS PROGRAM IS VITAL
AND NECESSARY FOR THEIR VISIONS
AND FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOME
OWNERSHIP.
OUR NONPROFIT COMMUNITY-
BASED ORGANIZATIONS ARE ENTITIES
PROTECTING, PERSONIFYING OUR
COMMUNITIES, CULTURES,
LEGACIES AND VALUES AND NOT --
AND NOT
GUIDELINES OR ZONING.
COMMUNITY BASED ORGS ARE
LIVING OUT THE VALUE OF GOALS
AND NEIGHBORHOODS PLANNED
CREATES
BY COMMUNITIES AROUND THE CITY.
LASTLY, MY HOUSE WAS ONE OF
THE FIRST PILOT PROGRAMS IN
2005, ALL THE LESSONS FROM THAT
PILOT PROGRAM II --
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, SHARON.
NEXT UP WE HAVE GARRETT JOHNSON.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> -- METROPOLITAN SEATTLE.
I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE
ROOTS TO ROOF INITIATIVE.
HOWEVER, I WOULD BE REMISS
NOT TO ADD SOME AMENDMENTS TO
HELP INCREASE AFFORDABILITY
AND EXPAND
THE PROGRAM. FIRST WOULD BE TO
REQUIRE
10% OF THE PROJECTS BE FOR 30%
OR
LESS OF THE AMI.
AND COMMUNITIES.
THE SECOND WOULD BE A
NEIGHBORHOOD-BASED
INCOME STANDARDS INSTEAD OF
REGIONAL
AMI.
THIRD WOULD BE TIE
BIGGER BONUSES TO
AFFORDABILITY, THIS HAS BEEN
DONE IN CALIFORNIA,
NEW YORK, LOS ANGELES, AND OTHER
COMMUNITIES, AUSTIN.
ALSO PAIR -- SORRY, ENSURE
UNIFORM STANDARDS AND FAIR
TREATMENT.
THERE SHOULD BE NO
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARKET BASE
AND AFFORDABLE UNITS INCLUDING
WITH MAINTENANCE AND AMENITIES.
WE HAVE SEEN THIS -- IN
MANHATTAN, IN BOSTON, BUT
ALSO PROVIDE RENTER -- RIGHT
TO RETURN FOR DEVELOPMENT ANDAND
DISPLACEMENT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GARRETT.
NEXT UP WE HAVE STEVE.
AFTER STEVE WILL BE DAVE
GLOGER, SHELTY McCAFFEY AND
SLAYMAN
APOLLO, SO SORRY
FOR THE LAST
NAME.
>> A LOT OF MONEY BEHIND THEM,
JUST NEVER GO AWAY.
WE HAVE HAD THIS COME
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE EARLIER
THIS
YEAR.
DIFFERENT NAME, SAME PRODUCT.
AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TO
DO WHAT YOU DID LAST TIME.
PUT IT OFF UNTIL AFTER THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LET'S TAKE
A LOOK AT WHAT OUR BASE ZONING
IS BEFORE YOU START GIVING EVEN
MORE BONUSES.
NOW, I'M WORRIED ABOUT
PEOPLE WHO MAKE 30, 40, 50,
$60,000 A
YEAR.
MY CALCULATING THIS
ISN'T GOING
TO HELP THEM. THIS IS GOING TO
HELP PEOPLE WHO
MAKE MORE LIKE $100,000 A YEAR.
I DON'T SEE THE CITY COMING
UP WITH AN OBSCENE PROFITS TAX.
I DON'T SEE THE CITY ABLE
TO POLICE WHETHER THESE
NONPROFITS
ARE PUT TOGETHER JUST TO GET --
OR NOT.
I THINK IT IS TIME TO HOLD
THIS THING BACK, PLUS I DON'T
SEE THE
LITTLE GRAY BOOK OUT HERE,
SO WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AND SEE
WHAT YOU
GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT
BEFORE YOU VOTE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, STEVE.
THANK YOU, STEVE.
UP NEXT, DAVE GLOGER.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS DAVE GLOGER, I'M A
RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 5. AND I
URGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST
ROOTS TO ROOFZ. S S TO ROOFS.
I WOULD SAY LOOK IN
SEATTLE TIMES.
THERE WAS AN ARTICLE THAT SAYS
WHY ARE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
VACANT?
IT IS BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO
EXPENSIVE.
THEY'RE CLOSE TO MARKET RATE.
THEY TALK ABOUT THINGS IN
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT AND BEACON
HILL, THEY CHARGE $1600
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SO
PEOPLE
GO TO PLACES THAT ARE NICER,
THAT GIVE THEM MORE SPACE, BUT
HERE
WE GO, WE'RE TRYING TO
BUILD MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR
AT LEAST THAT'S THE CLAIM.
SO, READ THE PAPER, I HAVE
A COPY OF IT HERE FOR YOU SO YOU
CAN LOOK AT THE STATISTICS
AND THE DATA IN "THE SEATTLE
TIMES.
" WHY ARE WE MAKING LAND USE
CHANGES WEEKS BEFORE
WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT
OUR COMPREHENSIVE -- WE SHOULD
LOOK AT THAT, TAKE CARE OF IT AT
THE
SAME TIME INSTEAD OF
GIVING WORK AROUNDS AND
GIVEAWAYS TO
DEVELOPERS.
THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN
DISPLACEMENT AND GENTRIFICATION.
>> NEXT WE HAVE SHELTY M
cCAFFEY.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS SHELTY McCAFFEY.
AND I AM THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL AREA YOUTH
ASSOCIATION, BEEN AROUND FOR
A LONG TIME, HAD MANY
GENERATIONS OF FAMILIES COME
THROUGH.
PERSONALLY I'VE BEEN AN
ACTIVIST
FOR HOME OWNERSHIP AND
FOUGHT FOR PEOPLE TO SAVE THEIR
HOMES
ACTUALLY.
AND I AM PROPOSING THAT ROOTS
TO ROOF PASSES.
IT IS REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT.
WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR
THIS SINCE 2019.
AND STILL HASN'T COME TO PASS.
100% OF HOME OWNERSHIP, NOT
RENTAL, IN THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT, IS FLAGSHIP, IT NEVER
HAS
HAPPENED. WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT
THAT.
WE WANT IT TO HAPPEN.
WE WANT SOME OF THE PEOPLE
WHO WERE PUSHED OUT TO THE SOUTH
AND CAN'T RENT IN FEDERAL WAY,
WE
WANT THEM TO COME BACK, OKAY.
SO, MY POINT OF BEING HERE IS TO
FIGHT -- AND THAT'S THE
HEART BEAT OF OUR COMMUNITY.
IT IS GONE, WE WANT TO BRING
THEM BACK.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT UP WE HAVE SLAYMAN.
>> HI.
MY NAME IS SLAYMAN
APADOLO, RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 2,
HERE
TO SUPPORT --
OFFER MY SUPPORT FOR THE
PROPOSED BILL, ROOTS TO
ROOFS. I ALSO OFFER THE
FOLLOWING COMMENTS ON THE
AMENDMENTS.
I URGE THE COUNCIL TO
ADOPT AMENDMENT 1 BECAUSE AS
WRITTEN THE BILL AS IS
DISQUALIFIES THE
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
THAT WERE THE DRIVERS BEHIND
THIS BILL TO BRINGBRING FORWARD.
ALSO, I ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO
REVISE THE LANGUAGE AND
ADD LANGUAGE SO THAT PILOT
PROJECTS COULD BENEFIT FROM ANY
CHANGES THAT COME ALONG IN THE
UPDATES SUCH AS THE PROPERTIES
THAT
DON'T MEET THE 51% REQUIREMENT.
ALSO, RECOMMEND REVISING
AMENDMENT 8 TO ALLOW
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
TO
PROTECT LEVEL TWO TREES.
ADDITIONAL FOR HEIGHT -- HEIGHT
BONUS AND SIGHT.
AND ALSO I OPPOSE
AMENDMENT NUMBER 9, AND
SHOULDN'T --
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE WILL NOW MOVE INTO OUR REMOTE
COMMENTS.
FIRST UP WE HAVE BRADY
NORDSTROM.
>> HI THERE.
MY NAME IS BRADY NORDSTROM.
I'M HERE TO EXPRESS SUPPORT
FOR THE INTERIM DESIGN COUNCIL
BILL.
IT ADDS UNPREDICTABILITY, AND
SINCE 2021, WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING THROUGH THE BROAD BASED
SEATTLE
FOR EVERYONE COALITION FOR
DESIGN REVIEW.
WE CAN CONTROL LOCAL
PERMITTING AND REVIEW.
THIS IS -- THIS BILL IS A
STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
THIS IS -- IT IS GOING TO DO TWO
VERY VALUABLE THINGS
BY ALLOWING -- TO BE OPTIONAL
FOR
PROJECTS, WE CAN KEEP THINGS
MOVING AND THEN BY EXTENDING
A TEMPORARY DESIGN
REVIEW EXEMPTION WE CAN
ALSO INCENTIVIZE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT
OF THIS LEGISLATION.
AND WE LOOK FORWARD
TO SUPPORTING THE FUTURE DESIGN
REVIEW LEGISLATION AS
WELL.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT UP WE HAVE JUNE BLUE
SPRUCE.
>> JUNE BLUE SPRUCE.
>> JUNE?
>> HELLO.
I LIVE IN DISTRICT 2 AND I
URGE YOU TO VOTE NO ON COUNCIL
BILL OR REMOVE IT FROM THE
AGENDA.
ROOTS TO ROOFS IS A DEVELOPER
GIVEAWAY WRAPPED IN EQUITY
LANGUAGE.
IT USES THE HISTORY OF
ANTIBLACK RACISM TO JUSTIFY HUGE
DENSITY
BONUSES WITHOUT BENEFITING
DISPLACED FAMILIES OR
STABILIZING -- RESIDENTS.
IT WOULD
DESTABILIZE NEIGHBORHOODS AND
ALLOWS BUILDINGS TO BE MUCH
TALLER AND
LARGER THAN CURRENT RULES
PERMIT, OR ANY SURROUNDING
BUILDINGS IN EXCHANGE FOR A
THEORETICAL 25% AFFORDABLE
UNITS FOR HOUSE OLDS EARNING 40%
TO
80% OF AMI BEYOND THE REACH OF
MANY, OF MANY BLACK FAMILIES IN
SEATTLE. THAT'S NOT EQUITY OR
JUSTICE.
IT DOESN'T REDRESS PAST WRONGS
OR HELP WORKING FAMILIES.
THE BILL DOES NOT MANDATE ANY --
IN THESE MASSIVE -- IT IS
FULL OF LOOPHOLES THAT
DEVELOPERS CAN
EXPLOIT. IT DOES NOT PROTECT
TREES.
LOTS WILL BE CUT.
AMENDMENT EIGHT WOULD HELP --
>> THANK YOU, JUNE.
NEXT UP WE HAVE LOIS MARTIN.
LOIS, ARE YOU THERE?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
GREGORY.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS LOIS MARTIN.
I'M CALLING IN STRONG
OPPOSITION OF ROOTS TO ROOFS AND
DEMAND ON
BEHALF OF ORGANIZATIONS SUCH
AS DEMOCRATS FOR DIVERSITY AND
INCLUSION, AND MORE FOR UNITED
AGAINST THIS BILL THAT
IT DOES NOT MOVE FORWARD.
IT IS CONNECTED TO COMMUNITIES
2. 0 A FAILED IDEA RECYCLED
IN ANOTHER SET OF POLICIES
DISGUISED AS EQUITY THAT ARE
ANTIBLACK AND DIRECTLY
IMPACT THE DESCENDANTS OF THE
ENSLAVED.
IT REQUIRES NO HOUSING AND
EVEN IF HOUSING IS BUILT, ONLY
25%
MUST BE AFFORDABLE AT LEVELS
FAR TOO HIGH TO PROTECT
THE DESCENDANTS OF THE ENSLAVED
BLACK, BROWN AND WORKING CLASS
FAMILIES ALREADY FACING
DISPLACEMENT.
THAT'S NOT
EQUITY. SEATTLE NEEDS REAL
SOLUTIONS.
ROOTS TO ROOFS DOES NONE OF
THIS.
WE DEMAND YOU STOP THIS
BEFORE IT STARTS.
VOTE NO ON COUNCIL BILL 21011.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT UP WE HAVE CINDY SHELLER.
>> HI. CINDY SHELLER
ON TREE ACTION SEATTLE.
I'M THANKFUL COUNCILMEMBERS
FOR AMENDMENT 8 WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE
THE PROJECT TO RETAIN TIER
TWO TREES AND LOW CANOPY
NEIGHBORHOODS.
BUT WITH THE 75% BUILDING
LOT COVERAGE IN THIS BILL AND
ASSOCIATED UTILITY AREAS,
CLEAR CUTTING ALL TREES WITH
TRUNKS UP
TO TWO FEET IN DIAMETER IS
GUARANTEED. AND THERE WILL BE NO
ROOM FOR
REPLACEMENT. WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW
75% OF
LOT COVERAGE FOR ANY LOW RISE
OR NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND WE
DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT
BE TARGETING PEOPLE OF
MODERATE INCOME WITH HIGH HARD
SCAPE
HOUSING THAT HAS NO SHADE.
SEATTLE IS FIVE IN THE
NATION FOR URBAN HEAT,
SEATTLE RESIDENTS ON AVERAGE
EXPERIENCE
AT LEAST EIGHT DEGREES MORE
HEAT ON A DAILY PACE IS BECAUSE
OF THEIR LOCAL ENVIRONMENT.
AND LOW CANOPY
NEIGHBORHOODS KING COUNTY FOUND
SPOTS 20
DEGREES HOTTER.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH
BIG SHADE TREES, WE CAN AND MUST
DO
THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT UP WE HAVE HOLLY WILLIS.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON,
COUNCILMEMBERS.
MY NAME IS HOLLY WILLIS, THE
MANAGER AT THE COALITION
ON HOMELESSNESS AND I LIVE
IN DISTRICT 5.
I'M HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT
THE PROPOSED REZONE OF THE LAKE
CITY COMMUNITY CENTER TO ALLOW
AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR FAMILIES
IN LAKE CITY.
TOO MANY SEATTLE RESIDENTS
BECOME HOMELESS BECAUSE
THERE ISN'T ENOUGH AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ANYWHERE IN SEATTLE.
PROVIDING OVER 90
AFFORDABLE HOMES LARGE ENOUGH
FOR
FAMILIES IN LAKE CITY WILL HELP
MAKE
SURE MORE --
>> I'M SO SORRY THAT IS A
TOPIC FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
PLEASE REORIENT THAT FOR
OUR LAKE CITY DISCUSSION.
NEXT WE HAVE RUBY HOLLAND.
>> RUBY?
>> PLEASE REJECT THE ROOTS
TO ROOFS PROJECT.
IT IS A BILL THAT RELIES ON
NONPROFITS AT A TIME WHEN
NONPROFITS ARE GOING UNDER
OR STRUGGLING TO SURVIVE.
IT RELIES ON HOMEOWNER LOTS AT A
TIME WHEN WE ARE WORKING ON AN
ANTIDISPLACEMENT PLAN
FOR HOMEOWNERS AND FORMER RED
LINE
COMMUNITIES. IT ASKS A HOMEOWNER
TO GIVE UP
THEIR LOT AND EITHER RENT OR
PURCHASE A UNIT IN EXCHANGE.
EVEN A FIFTH GRADER KNOWS
THAT FUZZY MATH IS INSULTING AND
ITS
VAGUENESS DOES NOTHING FOR
RENTERS.
ONLY 25% OF THE UNITS MAY BE
AFFORDABLE AND AT AN AMI
THAT WON'T ALLOW THE VERY
PEOPLE WHO
GAVE UP THEIR LOTS TO LIVE
THERE.
THE SOUTH END ARE ALREADY --
FOR HIGH DENSITY.
WE HAVE HUMONGOUS
APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND MORE ON
THE WAY.
WE ALSO HAVE MILLION
DOLLAR SKINNY HOMES IN LOTS THAT
BLACKS GAVE UP FOR THE PROMISE
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
DENSITY.
THE ONES WHO COOKED UP
THIS INTENTIONAL BAIT AND SWITCH
DID
A HUGE DISSERVICE TO SEATTLE.
>> THANK YOU, RUBY.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE RICHARD
ELLISON.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS RICHARD ELLISON,
I LIVE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 4.
IN THIS HOLY WAR FOR
HOUSING, ARE ALL EXPENDABLE.
PRIVATE PROPERTY TREES ARE
NOT COMPATIBLE WITH
URBANIZATION,
HE FEELS.
IN HIS HOLY WAR FOR
HOUSING, THE SEATTLE ABASE
SHOWS EVERY MONTH TREES ARE CUT
DOWN.
JUST YESTERDAY IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD, A DEVELOPER
CUT DOWN A 42 INCH DIAMETER
CEDAR.
IN THIS HOLY WAR FOR HOUSING --
SEATTLE'S CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER, AND HE BUTCHERS THE
TREE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW
ALL TREES TO BE CLEARED ON A
LOT WITH DEVELOPMENT.
IN HIS HOLY WAR FOR
HOUSING, IT IS NOT LIKE STAR
TREK'S NEXT
GENERATION WHEN THE CAPTAIN
WOULD SAY, YES, WE NEED
HOUSING, WE ALSO NEED
TREES. IS THERE NOT A -- THAT
WOULD ALLOW BOTH TO CO- EXIST
AND
PROSPER. IN THIS HOLY WAR FOR
HOUSING ARE
WE GOING TO CLEAR CUT OUR WAY
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HAVE
NO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE?
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT UP, WE HAVE LIAM NEHA
STAUB.
LIAM?
>> HELLO.
I'M LIAM FROM DISTRICT
4, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK
IN FAVOR OF THE ROOTS TO ROOFS
PILOT
PROGRAM.
THE TRUTH IS THERE JUST
NOT ENOUGH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
SEATTLE, AND WE NEED TO ACT
ON THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
SO I PREFER NOT TO
WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE PLAN AND
THAT WHOLE
PROCESS.
THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF POINTS
ABOUT AMENDMENTS TO THE ROOTS
TO ROOFS.
AND I THINK SOME OF THEM HOLD A
LOT OF WATER, BUT WE DON'T
WANT TO LET THE PERFECT BE THE
ENEMY
OF THE GOOD AND
TOTALLY KILL THIS OFF.
I WOULD BE PLEASED TO SEE
THE PILOT PROGRAM PASSED SO THAT
MORE HOUSING, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING CAN BE BUILT IN SEATTLE.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE ARETHAARETHA
BASU.
ARETHA?
OKAY.
WE WILL MOVE UP NEXT TO DERRICK
LUM.
>> HI, EVERYBODY.
COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME
TODAY.
MY NAME IS DERRICK COMMENTING
ON COUNCIL BILL 121011.
I WORK AT -- NATIONAL
DISTRICT, LOW AND MIXED INCOME
HOUSING FOR
IMMIGRANTS AND BIPOC FOLKS
AND OTHERS IN OUR COMMUNITY.
WE ARE IN STRONG SUPPORT
OF ROOTS TO
ROOFS. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH
EFFORTS
TO BUILD CULTURALLY RELEVANT
HOUSING FOR OUR COMMUNITY. WE
SEE THIS AS A LOGICAL STEP
TO ENHANCE THAT WORK AND MAKE IT
--
TO MAKE IT MORE WIDELY AVAILABLE
TO VARIOUS OTHER COMMUNITIES.
CUTTING OFF BARRIERS --
OUR COMMUNITIES NEED AND TO MAKE
THE PROJECT POTENTIAL AND WE
APPRECIATE THE ASSISTANCE.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE IRENE WALL.
>> THIS IS IRENE WALL, I LIVE IN
DISTRICT 6.
PLEASE PULL ROOTS TO ROOFS FROM
THE AGENDA TODAY.
THERE ARE SEVERAL VIOLATIONS
OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC
NOTICE GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
THE VERY LATE AMENDMENT.
BY THE WAY, YOU DON'T
NEED ANOTHER PILOT PROGRAM,
THERE
IS NO GOOD REASON NOT TO USE
THE CONTRACT REZONE APPROACH TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
CAPACITY IF A PARTIAL IS NOT
CORRECTLY ZONED.
IF THAT TAKES A LITTLE EXTRA
TIME, IT IS BECAUSE THERE
ARE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS AND
GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST IN ALL
ZONING
DECISIONS.
THE COUNCIL NEEDS THE TIME
TO HEAR FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS
AND MAKE SURE THE PUDA
ACTUALLY PRIES EQUITABLE
BENEFITS.
YOU HEARD A LOT FROM HOUSING
DEVELOPERS TODAY MAKING CLAIMS
THAT THIS IS ABOUT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, BUT THE ACTUAL
LANGUAGE IN THE COUNCIL BILL
DOES NOT
DEFINE OR REQUIRE TRUE
AFFORDABILITY FOR THE
ACTUAL INTENDED RESIDENTS.
IF YOU REALLY INTEND TO
CREATE AFFORDABLE HOME
OWNERSHIP,
YOU NEED A VERY -- AND BY THE
WAY,
READ THE PAPER, SUCH
ESTABLISHED DEVELOPERS AS LEHIGH
AND BELLWETHER ARE SELLING OFF
THEIR BUILDINGS.
THIS IS NOT --
>> THANK YOU, IRENE.
NEXT UP WE HAVE JENNIFER
GODFREE.
JENNIFER?
>> OH, HI, SORRY.
I AM CALLING IN TODAY TO EXPRESS
A NO VOTE ON CB 121011 WHICH
HAS COME BACK WITH A NEW NAME,
BUT I
THINK IT IS GOING TO HARM
THE VERY PEOPLE IT SAYS IT WILL
HELP. I DO SPEAK IN FAVOR
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THIS
IS NOT GOING TO CREATE THAT.
MARKETED AS EQUITABLE, ROOTS
TO ROOFS HAS NO REQUIREMENT
TO BUILD HOUSING.
IT WILL CAUSE CLEAR CUTS,
UPZONING, HIGHER PROPERTY
TAXES, ALL WITHOUT
ENSURING AFFORDABILITY OR
COMMUNITY
BENEFITS.
PRIORITIZING PAVEMENT OVER
CANOPY, IT WILL
ACCELERATE CANOPY LOSS AND LOW
INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS THAT
ALREADY FACE
THE HIGHEST HEAT
RISKS. WE CANNOT FIGHT CLIMATE
CHANGE
WHILE REMOVING OUR COOLING
SHADE TREES.
AND IS IT FAIR TO ASK LOW
INCOME POPULATIONS TO PURCHASE
AND POWER AC WHEN TREES WOULD
HAVE DONE THIS FOR FREE?
DEVELOPER PROFITEERING
HARMS PEOPLE AND AFFORDABILITY.
BUILDING MORE LUXURY
HOMES DOES NOT LOWER HOUSING
COSTS.
I THINK IT NEEDS TOO MUCH WORK
TO BE A SAFE
PILOT.
>> THANK YOU, JENNIFER.
NEXT UP WE HAVE ALBERTO ALVAREZ.
>> HELLO.
RENTALS FOR THE BARISTA, LINE
COOK, WAITRESS, THE BARTENDER,
THE DOG AND CAT SITTER, HOMES
IN THE CITY FOR A YOUNG
COUPLE LOOKING TO START A
FAMILY.
ROOTS TO ROOFS IS
DESIGNEDDESIGNED
ADD DENSITY FOR A VIBRANT CITY
IN AN EVER GROWING STATE.
REMEMBER, THIS IS A
CITYWIDE, PUBLIC COUNCIL.
NOT A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
TO MEET DEMAND IS THE MOST
BASIC PRINCIPLE OF ANY MARKET.
ROOTS TO ROOFS BRINGS SUPPLY TO
AREAS THAT WERE DENIED
INVESTMENT.
CHEAP DENSITY, DO NOT
LET FEARMONGERING CONTROL THE
NEEDS
OF WORKING PEOPLE.
THANK YOU.
>> ARETHA BASU, WE'LL TRY ONE
MORE TIME.
>> HI, COUNCILMEMBERS, CAN
YOU ALL HEAR ME?
>> YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS ARETHA BASU,
HERE ON BEHALF OF -- TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THE ROOTS TO ROOFS
PILOT.
THE CITY HAS MADE IMPORTANT PRO
FWRES
PROGRESS IN THE LAST TEN
YEARS WITH PROGRAMS TO
MAKE SMALL COMMERCIAL SPACES
AFFORDABLE.
HOWEVER, WORKING
FAMILIES ARE STILL BEING PRICED
OUT.
WE NEED TO BUILD
50,000 AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THE
NEXT 20
YEARS AND -- THOUSANDS
OF BUSINESSES IN ORDER
TO PRESERVE THE RICH FACT BRIC
OF OUR CITY.
WE HAVE THE LAND TO DO IT BUT
WE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES.
THE PROGRAM BEGINS TO FIX THAT
CHALLENGE AND COULD BECOME A
FLAGSHIP INITIATIVE THAT GETS
US TO THE NUMBER WHILE
ADDRESSING HARMS OF -- IN THE
PAST.
WE URGE THE COUNCIL TO ADOPT
THIS ORDINANCE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH.
>> CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES OUR
SPEAKERS.
>> I THANK EVERYONE FOR
THEIR PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE WILL NOW ON TO OUR FIRST
ITEM OF BUSINESS.
CLERK, PLEASE READ ITEM ONE INTO
THE AGENDA.
>> AGENDA ITEM ONE, CLERK FILE
314536 COUNCIL
WAIVER MODIFICATION OF
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS TO ALLOW
INSTALLATION OF 31 NETTING POLES
OF
JEFFERSON PARK GOLF COURSE
PROJECT NUMBER
303949- LU, TYPE 5.
>> ALL RIGHT, FOR DISCUSSION AND
BRIEFING AND PUBLIC HEARING.
THIS WILL INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY
AND PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY
AS PRESIDING OFFICER I AM
NOW OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING
ON
CLERK FILE 314536 RELATING
TO AMENDING THE CITY'S
SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS.
CLERK, HOW MANY DO WE
HAVE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC
HEARING
REGARDING 314536?
>> WE HAVE SIX IN PERSON AND
ONE REMOTE.
>> OKAY.
AS MENTIONED BEFORE, EACH PERSON
WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES AND THE
CLERK, I'LL HAND IT OVER TO
YOU TO PRESENT THE
INSTRUCTIONS.
>> SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED
IN ORDER OF REGISTRATION, THE
PUBLIC HEARING REGISTRATION
WILL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL THE
CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
HEARING. SAME RULES APPLY TO
THIS PUBLIC
HEARING.
TEN SECOND NOTICE THAT IT
IS TIME TO WRAP UP COMMENTS.
SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO
BEGIN THEIR COMMENTS BY STATING
THEIR
NAME.
FIRST UP WE HAVE THEODORE HOLT.
>> MY NAME IS THEODORE HOLT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCILMEMBERS.
I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION
TO THE MAIN PROJECT OF THE
BILL WRIGHT GOLF COMPLEX.
I'LL BEGIN WITH THE TROUBLING
PROCESS BY WHICH WE GOT HERE.
PARKS CLAIMS THIS IS
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE IN ORDER TO
CLAIM
AN EXEMPTION FROM SEPA AND ECA
ANALYSIS.
THAT EXEMPTION EXPLICITLY ONLY
APPLIES TO MAINTENANCE,
AND DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THERE
ARE MATERIAL EXPANSIONS OR
CHANGES IN USE.
HERE THE PROJECT REQUIRES NEW
160 FOOT INDUSTRIAL NETTING, ALL
ALONG POLES 11 AND 12. THAT'S
THE HEIGHT OF A 16- STORY
BUILDING.
IT REQUIRES FAA APPROVAL
AND TYPE FIVE COUNCIL
LEGISLATIVE
ACTION.
THAT IS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
BY DEFINITION.
APPROVING ON THAT BASIS WOULD
ESTABLISH A DANGEROUS RESIDENT
OF CITY DEPARTMENTS CAN
INVADE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BY
MISLABELING NEW CONSTRUCTION AS
MAINTENANCE.
AND I -- AND I QUERY IF IT
WOULD PASS JUDICIAL REVIEW.
ON THE POLICY ASPECTS, EVEN
IF THE PROJECT WERE
CONSIDERED PROPERLY IT
WOULD FAIL EVERY TEST FROM WHAT
YOU COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE
TO CONSIDER IN TERMS OF ITS
COMPLIANCE
WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOTH
EXISTING AND PROPOSED SEATTLE
ONE.
IT IS INCAPACITIABLE HEIGHT AND
BULK, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN ONLY ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY
FOR CHURCH SPIRES AND SCHOOLS.
THIS IS NEITHER.
THE LOSS OF PUBLIC ACCESS AND
VIEWS, IT WALLS OFF A HISTORIC
PERIMETER WALKING TRAIL FOR THE
PUBLIC, DEGRADES SKY LINE VIEWS
FROM I- 90, AND ALL THE WAY
OVER TO WEST SEATTLE, PROBABLY
FROM THE FERRIES AS WELL.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
REQUIRES AN -- CANOPY, THIS
REMOVES 20
MATURE TREES AND THAT'S
CONTRARY
TO THE PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS.
FINANCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE, $3
MILLION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
THEODORE.
NEXT UP WE HAVE GARY BRIGHTSON.
>> CAN YOU HEAR
ME?
>> MY NAME IS GARY -- I
DON'T NEED THAT.
MY NAME IS GARY.
50 YEARS AGO I BOUGHT FIVE
LOTS, BUILDABLE LOTS ON THE
11th FAIRWAY OF JEFFERSON GOLF
COURSE.
IN 50 YEARS I'VE NEVER HAD
A GOLF BALL PROBLEM.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU FOLKS
ARE
GETTING YOUR DATA ABOUT THE
NEED FOR US TO HAVE PROTECTION.
I'M RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE.
I'VE BEEN THERE THE LONGEST OF
ANYBODY.
I DON'T NEED PROTECTION.
BUT WHEN I BUILT MY HOUSE
THERE 50 YEARS AGO, THE GOLF
COURSE
WAS BEAUTIFUL.
IT WAS A LOVELY PLACE.
I CAME FROM MAGNOLIA, WHERE I
GREW UP.
AND I WAS HAPPY BECAUSE IT
WAS SO BEAUTIFUL.
NOW IT IS AN UGLY, BLACKBERRY
INFESTED, RAT INFESTED
MESS BECAUSE SOMEONE, I DO NOT
KNOW
WHO, DECIDED QUITE A FEW YEARS
AGO TO STOP TAKING CARE OF THE
PERIMETER OF THE GOLF COURSE.
IT WAS A POLICY.
AND IN SEATTLE, AS YOU
KNOW, WE HAVE LANDSCAPING BY
BLACKBERRY.
CITY PROPERTY, ALL OVER
SEATTLE, IS BEING TAKEN OVER BY
BLACKBERRIES AND THINGS LIKE
BLACKBERRIES.
I'M A TRAVELER.
EUROPE, SOUTHEAST ASIA, ET
CETERA.
SEATTLE IS ONE OF THE
UGLIEST CITIES NOW THAT I CAN
THINK OF.
IF I WERE YOUNGER, I WOULD
LEAVE.
I'M 78.
I WAS BORN HERE.
THE CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO
THINK ABOUT THE AESTHETIC
FEATURES OF
SEATTLE, BUT WE DON'T NEED
THESE NETS, WE NEED YOU TO USE
THAT
MONEY TO CLEAN UP THE GOLF
COURSE.
IT IS AWFUL.
I BROUGHT
PICTURES. I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU'RE INTERESTED IN SEEING
THEM.
IT SHOWS HOW ORIGINALLY THEY
PLANNED AND SPENT MONEY AND
NOW THE TREES ARE COMPLETELY
COVERED
BY BLACKBERRIES.
A WASTE OF MONEY.
YOUR POLES WILL BE A WASTE OF
MONEY.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE ANN TAKAKALA.
>> I HAVE BEEN THE OWNER,
OCCUPANT FOR 38 YEARS OF A HOUSE
ON 24th PLACE SOUTH, ADJACENT
TO THE EAST GATE OF THE BILL
WRIGHT GOLF COURSE.
I LOVE SEATTLE, AND THIS
DIVERSE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.
THE GOLFERS AND THE
GOLF EMPLOYEES HAVE ALSO BEEN
GOOD NEIGHBORS TO US.
BUT TODAY I'M HERE TO TELL
YOU, YOU HAVE BETRAYED ME.
AND YOU HAVE BETRAYED
THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD. TWO THINGS ARE OF
PARTICULAR CONCERN TO ME.
FIRST, BY SKIPPING THE
EIS PROCESS YOU ARE IGNORING THE
MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT.
I'M A LIFE MEMBER OF BIRDS ARE
CONNECT SEATTLE,
FORMERLY SEATTLE AUDUBON.
INSTALLMENT OF THIS STRUCTURE
WILL CAUSE BIRD STRIKES AND
MORTALITY, IN VIOLATION OF
THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT.
AS A RESPONSIBLE
GOVERNMENT ENTITY, YOU MUST
PROVE YOU WILL
NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BIRD
STRIKE.
AND ARE CONDUCTING THE
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING TO PROVE
IT.
SECONDLY, I HAVE BEEN
THINKING MORE AND MORE ABOUT
WHAT WE
ARE LEAVING BEHIND FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS.
AND A HEALTHY EARTH.
WHAT DOES IT SAY WHEN THE
FINAL CHOICE IS TO CONSTRUCT
AN EXCEPTIONALLY TALL BARRIER UP
AGAINST A DIVERSE
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD OF 75
HOUSES,
SOME WITH ADDITIONAL DWELLING
SPACES, FILLED WITH FAMILIES
RAISING
YOUNG CHILDREN, SINGLES,
COUPLES, AND ELDERLY.
INSTEAD OF SELECTING THE OPTION
OF PLACING THE HIGH METAL
BARRIER ALONG BEACON AVENUE,
WHERE THERE ARE NO HOUSES,
IS THIS THE LEGACY THE CITY
WANTS TO LEAVE TO THIS DIVERSE
COMMUNITY?
MY ONE STORY HOUSE IS 15
FEET TALL.
THE BARRIER FENCES IS OVER
160 FEET TALL AT ITS HIGHEST
POINT.
AND IS ADDITIONALLY ON AN
UPSLOPE ABOVE THE HOUSES.
-- THAT EXCEPTIONAL HEIGHT IS
EQUIVALENT TO MORE THAN TEN
ONE- STORY HOUSES LIKE
MINE STACKED ONE ON TOP OF THE
OTHER.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
NEXT UP WE HAVE CHARLES M
cGRADY.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> I LIVE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD ALSO FREQUENT
GOLFER ON
THE COURSE AS WELL.
SO I'M SPEAKING TODAY TO
REQUEST THAT IF THIS PROJECT
MOVES
FORWARD, THERE NEEDS TO
BE A MORE CONCERTED EFFORT TO
OFFSET THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND
COMMUNITY
IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT.
SO DURING BOTH COMMUNITY
MEETINGS, AND EVEN THE BEGINNING
OF THIS YEAR, WE COMMUNICATED
NOT A SINGLE TREE WAS
GOING TO BE REMOVED.
AND THEN WHEN I ACTUALLY
READ THROUGH THE PERMIT
APPLICATION, TURNS OUT 20 TREES
ARE
GOING TO BE DISPLACED, AT LEAST
20 TREES
AND THE NETS ARE SO TALL THEY
NEED FAA
LIGHTING. THIS IS A DIFFERENT
PROJECT
THAN WHAT WAS PROPOSED TO
THE COMMUNITY AND I WANT TO
EMPHASIZE, OUR
COMMUNITY HAS BEEN SAFE FOR THE
LAST TEN YEARS
BECAUSE OF -- THEY CHANGED
THE COURSE
DESIGN. THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO
LENGTHEN
THE GOLF COURSE BACK TO WHERE
IT WAS.
THERE IS NOT AN IMMINENT SAFETY
ISSUE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO GIVEN THE SCALE AND COST
OF THIS PROJECT, IT FEELS FAIR
TO ASK THAT WE ALSO
REINVEST IN THE COMMUNITY AT
THE BASE OF THESE NETS.
SO SPECIFICALLY WE'RE ASKING
THAT PARKS COMPLETE THE
BILL PERIMETER TRAIL ON 24 th
PLACE
SOUTH, REPLANTS THE LINE OF
TREES TREE S LONG THE ENTIRE
PERIMETER
THAT USED TO
PROTECT OUR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
UNTIL THEY DIED AND
WERE NOT REPLANTED, REMOVE
AND ADDRESS THE DANGEROUS
FLOODING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
FROM
THIS SPRING ON HOLE 12.
THESE NETS ARE REALLY
MAJOR INVESTMENT IN THE GOLF
COURSE AS
A GOLFER I'M REALLY EXCITED,
BUT I REALLY URGE THE COMMITTEE
TO ENSURE THAT THIS INVESTMENT
BENEFITS EVERYONE, NOT JUST
GOLFERS.
COMPLETING THE TRAIL
WILL CONNECT ALMOST FIVE MILES
OF TRAILS IN BEACON HILL,
PLANTING A LINE OF TREES WILL
ENSURE THE
NETS AREN'T REQUIRED FOR
REPLACED IN 50 YEARS,
RESTORING THE NATURAL HABITAT AT
THE
BASE OF THE NETS WILL --
REDUCE THE
MAINTENANCE COSTS. SO, I JUST
HOPE THAT WE CARRY
FORWARD THIS VISION AND
DON'T SET THIS PRECEDENT YOU
CAN BUILD
NETS AND NOT DO ANYTHING
IN RESPONSE TO OFFSET THEM.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP GARY McGILL.
>> THANK YOU.
AM I GOOD FOR SOUND HERE?
OKAY.
I'LL MAKE IT BRIEF.
I'M FOR THE NETS.
I LIVE ON 24th AVENUE SOUTH.
RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 11th
HOLE.
I LIVED THERE FOR 25
YEARS. WE HAVE PEOPLE HIT BY
BALLS,
CARS HIT BY WALLS, WINDOWS
BROKEN.
THAT'S WHY IT WAS TRUNCATED.
THAT'S WHY IT WAS STOPPED AND
THAT'S WHY THIS STUDY HAS
BEEN GOING
ON. I THINK THE NETS ON THE
BAFFLE STYLE IS APPROPRIATE.
I THINK IT CAN WORK.
I THINK IT CAN BE A GOOD
SYSTEM OF BOTH SAFETY
AND ALSO OPENING UP THE COURSE
TO ITS
ORIGINAL PAR 70, WHICH ANYBODY
THAT PLAYS
GOLF WILL TELL YOU A 69 AND
70 IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
I'M GLAD WE NAMED IT AFTER BILL
WRIGHT, LONG TIME COMING.
THANKS TO THE
WORK, YOU GOT KIDS LEARNING
ABOUT THEIR HISTORY,
I HAVE A SON THAT WENT TO
FRANKLIN.
HE WAS KIND OF PROUD ABOUT IT.
IT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING,
20 YEARS AGO.
SO,
PUT IT UP.
VOTE FOR IT. MAKE IT WORK.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP WE HAVE AARON
SUSUSKI.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M AARON, PRESIDENT OF THE
BILL WRIGHT MEN'S GOLF AND
SOCIAL
CLUB AT JEFFERSONJEFFERSON PARK.
ON BEHALF OF OUR OVER 250
MEMBERS, I'M HERE TO EXPRESS
OUR STRIDENT SUPPORT FOR THE
NETTING PROJECT.
THE CITY'S DESIGN SOLUTION IS
IMPRESSIVE, AND INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT TO SEEKING
HARMONY BETWEEN THE
COMMUNITY AND MORE THAN 70,000
PEOPLE USING
THE FACILITY EACH YEAR.
MOREOVER, THE POTENTIAL OF
THIS HISTORIC PARK AND GOLF
COURSE
WILL ONLY BE FULLY REALIZED
IF AFTER MORE THAN TEN YEARS IT
IS
ABLE TO BE MADE COMPLETE.
THAT POTENTIAL INCLUDES
HONORING THE LEGACY OF YOUNG
BLACK
MAN FROM SEATTLE, WHO
ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING EVERY
AMERICAN CAN
BE PROUD OF WHEN A 1959 HE BROKE
THE COLOR BARRIER IN GOLF.
PLEASE VOTE TO APPROVE
THIS PROJECT TO
RESTORE THIS IMPORTANT FIXTURE
AND SEATTLE'S
SPORTS, CULTURE AND RACIAL
HISTORY.
THANK YOU.
>> WE WILL NOW MOVE TO
OUR REMOTE SPEAKERS.
ONE REMOTE SPEAKER IS JUDY
OZUNA.
>> HELLO.
THIS IS JUDY OZUNA.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
BE HERE TODAY.
I'M CALLING IN, IN
SUPPORTSUPPORT OF POLE AND
FENCING PROJECT
AT BILL WRIGHT GOLF COMPLEX.
THIS WOULD RESTORE THE GOLF
COURSE TO ITS ORIGINAL
LAYOUT AND RESTORE THE GOLF
CHALLENGES OF HOLES 11 AND 12.
AS PRESIDENT OF THE WOMEN'S
CLUB
AT THE BILL WRIGHT,
WHICH COMPRISES 130 MEMBERS,
I'M
REPRESENTING THEIR
STRONG OPINIONS THAT THESE TWO
HOLES BE
RESTORED.
OUR MEMBERS HAVE
EAGERLY ANTICIPATED THIS FENCING
FOR OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS
AND THEY HAVE BEEN
REPEATEDLY DISAPPOINTED AS
THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DELAYED.
BILL WRIGHT GOLF COMPLEX
SERVES A DIVERSE COMMUNITY, AND
IT IS
A PREMIERE GOLF COURSE WITH
STATE
OF THE ART DRIVING RANGE,
CLUBHOUSE, PRO SHOP
AND EXCELLENT GROUNDS CREW.
I ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL
TO APPROVE
THIS PROJECT TO MAKE BILL WRIGHT
GOLF
COMPLEX THE APPROPRIATE TRIBUTE
TO ITS
NAMESAKE.
THANK YOU.
>> CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES OUR
COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THAT WAS OUR LAST REGISTERED
SPEAKER TO PRESENT TO SPEAK AT
THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE PUBLIC
HEARING ON CLARK FILE
314536 IS NOW CLOSED.
WILL OUR REPRESENTATIVES
FROM CENTRAL STAFF PLEASE JOIN
US
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THATTHAT
COUNCIL MAY HAVE?
AND FOLKS FROM PARKS
DEPARTMENT, PLEASE.
AND ONCE YOU HAVE BEEN
SEATED, PLEASE INTRODUCE
YOURSELF
FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN
BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY.
>> I AM ANDYANDY
SHEFFER, SEATTLE PARKS.
>> SHANNON GLASS WITH SEATTLE
PARKS.
>> DAVID SACHS WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF -- EXCUSE ME,
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTIONS,
SDCI.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
DO ANY OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE
QUESTIONS FOR OUR
PRESENTERS REGARDING THIS
COUNCIL FILE?
OKAY.
>> I'LL BITE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>>
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
GREAT TO SEE YOU AGAIN, BACK
TO PERIMETER TRAILS, MY FAVORITE
TOPIC.
IS THERE ANY WAY TO FINISH
THIS PERIMETER TRAIL?
>> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
WE ARE CURRENTLY CONDUCTING
A STUDY OF THE PERIMETER TRAILS
THROUGHOUT THE GOLF COURSES
AND OUR ESTABLISHING BUDGETS FOR
THOSE TO BE FUNDED
EITHER THROUGH GRANTSGRANTS
FUTURE
CYCLE OF METROPOLITAN PARKS
DISTRICT.
THOSE TRAILS ARE
UNFUNDED. IT IS OF THE HIGHEST
PRIORITY
TO THE GOLF PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN.
>> SO FOR OUR VIEWING PUBLIC
AND÷÷FOR THE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT
WILL BE HERE FOR THE NEXT ROUND
OF THE METROPOLITAN PARKS
FUNDING
CYCLE, IT IS CRITICAL
THAT ENGAGEMENT OCCURS AT THE
NEXT
MPD FUNDING CYCLE TO ENSURE THAT
WE HAVE FUNDING FOR THESE
PERIMETER TRAILS WITH A
CAVEAT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT WALKING LOOPS ARE
THE NUMBER ONE RECREATIONAL
ELEMENT IN PARKS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY.
>> SO YOU'LL BE HEARING FROM
ME ON THIS TOPIC.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK
YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I DO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS AND IT REALLY DOES
COME DOWN TO SOME OF THE
CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED
DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I HAD A CHANCE TO WALK
THE COURSE WITH CHARLIE A
COUPLE WEEKS AGO, LOOKING AT 11
AND 12.
WE LOOKED AT THE BLACKBERRY
SITUATION AS WAS BROUGHT UP AND
WAS WONDERING THE -- ABOUT
THE MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR THOSE
EXISTING
BLACKBERRIES. WE ALSO LOOKED AT
HOW IF
WE -- IF YOU BASICALLY MOVE THE
TEE BOX FOR 11, YOU CAN SEE THE
PAR
4, BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE SOME
BLACKBERRY MAINTENANCE.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO
THAT, THE
MAINTENANCE OF THOSE THINGS?
>> AS PART OF THIS
PROJECT WE HAVE TO ERADICATE THE
BLACKBERRIES. POINT WELL TAKEN,
ABSOLUTELY.
AND WE NEED TO PLANT MORE TREES
AROUND THE PERIMETER.
OUR GOLF COURSES PROVIDE
FUNDAMENTAL,
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES IN THE
TREE
CANOPY. AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO
DOING THAT AS PART OF THIS
PROJECT.
>> OKAY, GREAT.
SO, THAT
GETS TO THE ISSUE OF THE BLACK
-- DID YOU
HAVE MORE?
>> JUST TO MANAGE
EXPECTATIONS, WHEN I SAYSAY WE
PLANT
SMALL TREES THAT WILL
ESTABLISH QUICKLY RATHER THAN
LARGE TREES
THAT TAKE A LONG TIME TO
ESTABLISH, BUT WE WILL ERADICATE
BLACKBERRIES IN THAT -- IN
THE PROJECT LIMITS, ABSOLUTELY.
>> OKAY.
THE NEXT QUESTION ISIS
TREES AND TREE
DISPLACEMENT, LOOKING AT WHERE
THE EXISTING
NAMING IS ON 24th, ON THE
OTHER SIDE, SAW THERE WAS SOME
YOUNG TREES THAT WERE PLANTED.
MY CONCERN IS WHEN THIS
NETTING IS PUT UP, WHEN THOSE
TREES REACH FULL MATURITY, ARE
THEY
GOING TO HAVE A CONFLICT
WITH THE NETTING THAT IS GOING
TO BE
THERE?
>> WE CAN LOOK AT THAT FURTHER.
I WAS ON SITE LAST YEAR WITH
THE PROJECT TEAM AND WE
LOOKED EXTENSIVELY AT THE
LOCATIONS OF THE POLES IN
RELATION TO THE
TREES AND THE DESIGN TEAM MADE
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LOCATIONS
SO THAT WE COULD ENSURE TREE
PRESERVATION.
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS ONLY
ONE TREE WOULD BE IMPACTED.
AND THERE SHOULD BE
CLEARANCE FOR THE TREES THAT ARE
EXISTING BUT WON'T BE -- CREATE
A CONFLICT WITH THE NEW NETTING.
BUT WE CAN LOOK AT THAT
FURTHER AND GET BACK TO YOU IF
YOU
LIKE.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
I GOT A LOT FOR YOU.
THE OTHER THING THAT,
YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, I LIVE A
COUPLE BLOCKS NORTH OF THERE.
AND WE HAVE NEIGHBORS WHO
LIVE RIGHT THERE AS WELL.
THE HEIGHT OF 160 FEET SEEMS
REALLY
HIGH. AND WHEN I THINK ABOUT
THE CURRENT HEIGHT OF THE
NETTING AROUND THE DRIVING
RANGE, HOW
IS THAT A COMPARISON TO THIS 160
FEET THAT IS BEING PROPOSED?
AND DOES IT NEED TO BE 160 FEET?
>> YEAH, TO ANSWER THAT
FIRST, THE HEIGHT OF THE NETTING
IS DIRECTLY CORRELATED TO THE
BALL
TRAJECTORY. WE WANT TO LIMIT THE
HEIGHT AS
MUCH AS WE CAN TO MANAGE OUR
BUDGET, SO IT IS ONLY AT
160 FEET AT THE MAXIMUM BALL
TRAJECTORY FROM THE TEE.
AND THEN SHANNON, HOW DOES
THAT -- HOW DOES THAT 160-
FOOT HEIGHT COMPARE TO THE
NETTING
IN THE DRIVING RANGE?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW THE HEIGHT OF
THE POLES AT THE DRIVING RANGE.
BUT I DO BELIEVE THEY'RE ALL
THE
SAME HEIGHT.
AROUND 130 FEET.
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
YEAH, I WAS JUST CURIOUS
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, I HEARD IT BEEN
SAID,
IF YOU NEED 160 FOOT NET WHEN
DRIVING, YOU'RE A REALLY BAD
GOLFER.
SO, THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING
SOME CLARIFICATION AND,
AGAIN, THINKING ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, THE FOLKS
WHO LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO THE GOLF
COURSE WHO ARE GOING TO BE
SEEING THAT NETTING.
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THE HEIGHT
CAN STAY THE SAME AS AT THE
DRIVING
RANGE, THAT MIGHT BE AN EASIER
SELL.
SO, ANY FURTHER
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FROM THE
MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE?
OKAY.
SEEING NONE,
I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO -- AS
CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE, MOVE TO SUSPEND THE
RULES
TO ALLOW FOR A VOTE ON THIS
ITEM SAME DAY AS THE PUBLIC
HEARING
FOR IT TO ALLOW US TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH A VOTE.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTIONS,
THE RULES WILL BE SUSPENDED TO
ALLOW THE COMMITTEE TO VOTE THE
SAME DAY AS THE PUBLIC HEARING
WAS
HELD.
ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NO OBJECTIONS, THE
RULES ARE SUSPENDED AND THE
COMMITTEE WILL PROCEED WITH A
VOTE.
I MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMEND CLERK FILE
314536 TO BE GRANTED.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>>
SECOND.
>> OKAY.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO GRANT THE CLERK
FILE.
ARE THERE ANY FINAL COMMENTS?
OKAY.
FINAL COMMENT I WOULD HAVE
IS LET'S LOOK AT THAT HEIGHT
AND
LET'S LOOK AT MOVING THE TEE
BOX ON 11 TO GIVE YOU THAT PAR
4.
OKAY.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
JUST US.
SORRY.
OKAY. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON THE RECOMMENDATION
TO GRANT THE CLERK FILE?
>>
STRAUSS.
>>
YES.
>>
JUAREZ.
>> AYE?
RINCK.
>> YES.
>>
RIVERA.
>> YES.
>> THE MOTION
CARRIES AND THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION WILL
BE SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING
HERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE
COMMITTEE, TO THE PUBLIC
FOR YOUR COMMENTARY.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO
THE SECOND ITEM OF BUSINESS,
CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE READ
ITEM TWO INTO THE AGENDA?
>> CLERK FILE 314534,
APPLICATION OF SCOTT CARR FOR
CONTRACT REZONE OF A
SITE LOCATED AT 352 ROY STREET
FROM SEATTLE MIXED UPTOWN WITH
65 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
OVERLAY
TO SEATTLE MIXED UPTOWN WITH
85 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
OVERLAY.
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
REPRESENTATIVE HAS JOINED US.
SO, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF
FOR THE RECORD AND BEGIN WHETHER
YOU'RE READY.
>> THANK YOU, SORRY, FIRST TIME
RUNNING THE SCREEN.
I GUESS I STILL HAVEN'T HAD MY
FIRST TIME RUNNING
THE SCREEN BECAUSE I'M
RECEIVING HELP.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, H.B. HARPER,
CENTRAL STAFF.
SO THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TONIGHT
IS A BRIEFING -- OR
THIS AFTERNOON IS A BRIEFING BUT
I DID WANT TO LET YOU KNOW
WHAT TYPE OFOF ACTION WILL BE
WHEN IT COMES BACK FOR AN ACTION
BECAUSE IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT
THAN SOME OF THE OTHER
THINGS YOU SEE.
QUASI- JUDICIAL ACTION.
SO THAT MEANS THAT THERE CAN
BE NO EX
PARTE COMMUNICATION AND COUNCIL
DECISIONS MUST BE
MADE ON THE RECORD ESTABLISHED
BY
THE HEARING EXAMINER IN YOUR
PACKET.
THIS IS A PROPOSED REZONE OF
A SITE ON ROY STREET FROM
SEATTLE
MIXED UPTOWN WITH A 65
FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
SUFFIX
OF M TO THE SAME DESIGNATION
BUT WITH AN 85 FOOT HEIGHT
LIMIT, AND CONTINUING THAT
MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY SUFFIX OF
M.
SO THIS REZONE WOULD
FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN
EIGHT
STORY, 215 UNIT MIXED
USE BUILDING WITH APARTMENTS AND
RETAIL TO GIVE YOU A SENSE
OF WHERE WE ARE IN SPACE, WE
ARE HERE ON ROY STREET, IN THE
UPTOWN AREA NORTH OF
THE MERCER STREET GARAGE AND
THIS SITE
HAS SEVERAL OLDER STRUCTURES
WITH RESTAURANTS AS WELL AS
PARKING
LOT.
HERE IS A RENDERING OF WHAT THE
PROJECT IS GOING TO LOOK
LIKE, ACCORDING TO THE
APPLICANTS.
AND SO AS YOU MAY HAVE SEEN
IN YOUR PACKET, SDCI
RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
IN JUNE.
THERE WAS AN OPEN RECORD PUBLIC
HEARING AND HEARING
EXAMINER ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION
OF
APPROVAL IN JULY.
SO IT IS NOW BEFORE THE LAND USE
COMMITTEE BEFORE GOING TO THE
FULL COUNCIL.
THE HEARING EXAMINER
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS IN THE
PROPERTY
USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
RELATE TO ON THE ONE HAND
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
AND ENSURING THAT THOSE
REQUIREMENTS
ARE CARRIED THROUGH THE PROJECT.
AND THEN ALSO JUST SORT OF
THE MORE GENERAL MAKING SURE
THE PROJECT LOOKS APPROXIMATELY
THE WAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE
WOULD EXPECT GIVEN WHAT HAS
BEEN SUBMITTED TODAY.
SO, AGAIN, NO ACTION TODAY,
BUT IF THE COMMITTEE APPROVES
THE
REZONE WHEN IT COMES BACK IN
THE FUTURE WE WOULD BE TIDYING
UP THE CLERK FILE TO ADD IN
FINDINGS, CONCLUSION
AND DECISION DOCUMENT WHICH A
DRAFT VERSION OF WHICH IS IN
YOUR
PACKET.
AND THEN INTRODUCING
AND APPROVING A COUNCIL BILL
WITH
ASSIGNED PLANNED PROPERTY
USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,
AGAIN, DRAFTS OF WHICH ARE
IN YOUR PACKET.
THOSE MIGHT BE REFINED
AND TWEAKED BETWEEN NOW AND THEN
TO GET TO THE POINT OF
SIGNATURE.
SO AT THAT POINT THERE WOULD
BE A VOTE AND WITH THAT
I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM
THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
OUR
PRESENTER?
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> GREAT PRESENTATION.
VERY SHORT AND TO THE POINT.
CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND,
I HAVE THE MATERIAL IN FRONT OF
ME, I READ IT, FOR THE PUBLIC
RECORD, SHARE WITH US THE
HEARING EXAMINER'S PROCESS
AND WHAT THEY
CONCLUDED.
>> SURE, THE HEARING
EXAMINER HELD A PUBLIC HEARING
INCLUDING
PUBLIC COMMENT FROM SEVERAL
NEIGHBORS AND CONSIDERED THE
ANALYSIS OF THE SDCI STAFF
AND THEIR RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONS.
THERE WAS QUITE A LONG
STAFF REPORT INCLUDING ANALYSIS
OF
THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE
ZONING,
THE DIFFERENT GOALS AND THE
CITY HAS AND HOW THE ZONING
TODAY OR THE PROPOSED ZONING
WOULD
MEET THOSE GOALS.
I THINK THE INTENTION OF
THE PROJECT IS TO PERFORM -- TO
MEET THE MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY BE A
PERFORMANCE
SO÷÷ RELYING ON PROJECTS LIKE
THIS TO HELP MEET THE
CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS
AND THE
NUMBERS PRODUCED BY AN
ADDITIONAL TWO STORIES OF HEIGHT
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THE
HEARING EXAMINER IS PROCESSING,
BUT IT
IS EXTENSIVE IN TERMS
OF ANALYZING THE TOPOGRAPHY OF
THE AND ADJACENT
DEVELOPMENT, RECENT DEVELOPMENT,
HISTORY OF THE SITE, ALL THAT
GOOD
STUFF.
>> FOR THE RECORD,
THEIR CONCLUSION WAS --
>> APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU.
>> YEAH.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
QUESTIONS?
OKAY.
HEARING NONE, THANK YOU.
THIS ITEM WILL BE COMING
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AGAIN FOR
A VOTE. BUT I THANK H.B. FOR
BEING
HERE TODAY.
NOW OUR THIRD ITEM OF BUSINESS.
CLERK, PLEASE READ THAT
ITEM INTO
THE AGENDA.
>> COUNCIL BILL 121011
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAND
USE AND ZONING ESTABLISHING
THE ROOTS TO
ROOFZ BONUS PILOT PROGRAM AND
ADDING NEW
SECTIONS OF THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL
CODE.
>> THANK YOU. THIS BILL HAS NINE
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS.
I MOVE THE BILL AND AFTER A
SECOND WE WILL CONSIDER THE
AMENDMENTS. CENTRAL STAFF WILL
PROVIDE AN
OVERVIEW OF EACH AMENDMENT.
OF EACH AMENDMENT
SPONSOR RECEIVES A SECOND.
OKAY.
SO, OUR PRESENTER IS SEATED.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE BEFORE WE PROCEED?
ALL RIGHT.
>> ALL RIGHT. I'M JUST TRYING
TO PULL THE
AGENDA PACKET UP HERE SO I
CAN HAVE THE AMENDMENTS UP ON
THE SCREEN
FOR YOU. KETIL
FREEMAN, COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
I MOVE THAT THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS PASSAGE OF
COUNCIL
BILL 121011.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>>
SECOND.
>> OKAY. AND
SECONDED TO RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF
THE
BILL.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO AMENDMENT
ONE?
>> CHAIR,
WOULD I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
OFFER
SOME OPENING REMARKS BEFORE WE
GO
INTO AMENDMENTS?
>> CERTAINLY.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR.
AND AS WE BEGIN TODAY, I WANT TO
GROUND US IN WHAT THIS
BILL GRANTS COMMUNITY LED
NONPROFITS WHO ARE BUILDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REALLY TO
PROVIDE
THEM WITH THE ABILITY TO BUILD
MORE THROUGH A HEIGHT AND
DENSITY
BONUS.
THIS WOULD TAKE PLACE
IN THE FORM OF A PILOT PROGRAM
WITH A TIME CONSTRAINT AND WITH
A MAXIMUM OF 35 PROJECTS
TOTAL, MEANING THIS BILL ISN'T
REZONING AND
WILL ONLY AFFECT THE PROJECT
AFTER THEY'RE APPROVED
BY THE CITY TO USE THE PROGRAM.
WE HAD A NUMBER OF MEETINGS
ON THIS NOW AND APPRECIATE THE
TIME AND THIS COMMITTEE TO
DISCUSS THIS LEGISLATION AND
THIS
LEGISLATION HAS BEEN IN THE
MAKING FOR A FEW YEARS.
IT HAS BEEN THROUGH A NUMBER OF
ITERATIONS. AND COMPARED TO
WHERE LAST YEAR'S LEGISLATION
LEFT OFF,
WE ARRIVED AT A 6-3 DRAFT
REPRESENTING MAJOR CHANGES AND
MY OFFICE DID A NUMBER OF
ROUND TABLES TO ENSURE
VOICES WERE HEARD TO ADDRESS
CONCERNS THAT
WERE RAISED CONCERNS TIME AROUND
AND
I BELIEVE WE MADE SIGNIFICANT
PROGRESS.
AND I WANT TO THANK
THE PARTNERS THAT HAVE WORKED
WITH US ON THIS YOU, CHAIR
SOLOMON, FOR PARTNERING AS A
CO- SPONSOR ON THIS IMPORTANT
BILL. BUT I ALSO WANT TO
ILLUSTRATE THE PROJECTS THAT
COULD BE A
PART OF THIS PROJECT.
ORGANIZATIONS WITH PROJECTS THAT
COULD PENCIL OR ADD MORE UNITS
BECAUSE OF THIS LEGISLATION.
FILIPINO COMMUNITY VILLAGE,
NUMBER TWO, FRIENDS FOR LITTLE
SAIGON LANDMARK PROJECT,
CENTRAL AREA YOUTH ASSOCIATION,
URBAN
FAMILY, BRIGHTON
COMMUNITY, REFUGEE COMMUNITY,
AFRICAN COMMUNITY HOUSING
AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION,
ETHIOPIAN COMMUNITY OF SEATTLE
FOR THE ADDIS VILLAGE
PROJECT, NEHEMIAH INITIATIVE,
BEACON AVENUE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECT, BELLWETHER AND
GREENWOOD, CD COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, McKINNEY
CENTER, WATERSHED COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, LIBRARY SOLIDARITY
HOUSE, BAKER
REDEVELOPMENT, GREATER MOUNT
BAKER BAPTIST
CHURCH, THE THELLO TOD, CENTRAL
BLOCK AND OUR NEW SOCIAL HOUSING
DEVELOPER, WHICH VOTERS
CONTINUE TO OVERWHELMINGLY
SUPPORT
AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM AND
THEIR SUCCESS AS THEY STAND UP
AS AN
ENTITY.
ALTOGETHER, THIS
REPRESENTS THOUSANDS OF HOMES
THAT COULD
COME ONLINE.
A LARGE CHUNK OF THEM WILL BE
AFFORDABLE.
AND WE NEED MORE
HOUSING, WE ÷÷KNOW WE ARE IN A
HOUSING
SHORTAGE, THE DATA IS CLEAR.
WE NEED TO CREATE 112,000
NEW AFFORDABLE HOMES BY 2044 AND
WE KNOW HOMELESSNESS IS A
HOUSING
PROBLEM, THE RESEARCH OUT OF
UW CONFIRMS THIS AND WE SEE WITH
PEER CITIES AROUND THE
COUNTRY THOSE THAT ARE BUILDING
MORE
HOUSING ARE ADDRESSING
RENT STABILIZATION TOO AND BEING
ABLE
TO MANAGE RENTS. WE HAVE SEEN
FROM 2017 TO
2022, MINNEAPOLIS INCREASED
HOUSING STOCK BY 20% AND WAS
ABLE THROUGH A NUMBER OF LAND
USE CHANGES AND IN THE SAME
TIME RENTS GREW BY 1%.
THIS BILL OFFERS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HELP PROJECTS
PENCIL
NOW, CREATING MORE HOUSING
COMMUNITY
OWNERSHIP, AND THE JOBS THAT
COME ALONG WITH IT.
IT ADDS ANOTHER TOOL TO
OUR TOOLBOX IN ADDRESSING
OUR HOUSING CRISIS.
COLLEAGUES, I ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT AS WE MOVE FORWARD
TODAY AND LOOKING FORWARD TO
DISCUSSING THESE AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU FOR THE TIME, CHAIR.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO
READ AMENDMENT ONE INTO THE
RECORD?
>> WE'LL HAVE
YOU HOLD. WANT TO RECOGNIZE
COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
APOLOGIES, I DIDN'T HAVE
MY HAND UP EARLIER.
I WANTED TO MAKE A
GENERAL COMMENT ABOUT THE
LEGISLATION BEFORE WE GO INTO
THE
AMENDMENTS.
SEVERAL OF WHICH I'M SPONSORING
ON BEHALF OF OUR
COLLEAGUE COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH
WHO DOESN'T SIT ON THIS
COMMITTEE.
AND I AGREED TO SERVE AS
SPONSOR OF THOSE AMENDMENTS.
IN GENERAL I WANT TO SAY THAT WE
HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT THIS
LEGISLATION FROM FOLKS IN
COMMUNITY.
INCLUDING, IN JUST A SECOND,
I'M GETTING MY NOTES HERE, THE
BLACK
HOMEOWNERS, THE AFRICAN AMERICAN
VETERANS, THE KING COUNTY EQUITY
NOW ORGANIZATION,
AND THEN IN GENERAL -- IN
OPPOSITION TO AND WE HEARD
CONCERNS FROM
FOLKS LIKE THE URBAN LEAGUE, THE
BLACK
LEGACY HOMEOWNERS, AND SO ALL
OF THAT, I'M AFRAID THAT -- AND
THEN, OF COURSE, WE HEARD
PUBLIC TESTIMONY TODAY.
SO, IT SEEMS TO ME
THIS LEGISLATION IS PITTING
COMMUNITY AGAINST COMMUNITY,
WHICH IS
NOT IN MY MIND THE BEST WAY TO
MOVE FORWARD IN A PIECE OF
LEGISLATION.
AND WHICH IS WHY I PROFFERED ONE
AMENDMENT, I KNOW MY COLLEAGUE
HAS SEVERAL IN GENERAL.
THIS IS THE
SAME LEGISLATION THAT WE TOOK UP
LASTLAST
AND DID NOT MOVE FORWARD
BECAUSE THERE WERE CONCERNS
THEN.
THERE IS EQUAL CONCERN NOW.
AND WE HAVE THE COMP PLAN
WHICH IS MAKING A LOT OF CHANGES
IN
TERMS OF DENSITY ACROSS THE
CITY.
SO, MY TAKE IS THE SAME TAKE
I HAD WHEN THIS CAME BEFORE
US LAST YEAR, WHICH IS
THIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN
LIGHT OF --
AND DURING THE COMP PLAN
PROCESS INSTEAD OF OUTSIDE OF
THE COMP
PLAN PROCESS.
I KNOW SOME OF THOSE GROUPS
HAVE INDICATED THEY WANT MORE
TIME TO
BE ABLE TO PROPERLY WEIGH IN AND
GIVE FEEDBACK
AND PERHAPS FURTHER AMENDMENTS
TO THIS
PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
SO, IN THAT LIGHT I CONTINUE
TO NOT BE SUPPORTIVE OF
THIS LEGISLATION AT THIS TIME.
I REALLY THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE
CONSIDERING IT AS PART OF
THE COMP PLAN WHICH WE'RE IN THE
MIDDLE OF, BUT TO DO IT
OUTSIDE OF THE COMP PLAN IS
NOT HELPFUL HELPFUL CERTAINLY WE
WANT FOLKS
IN COMMUNITY WHO ARE
EXPRESSING EITHER THEIR
OPPOSITION
OR CONCERN TO WEIGH IN BECAUSE
I DO NOT LIKE SPEAKING ON BEHALF
OF PEOPLE IN
THAT WAY. WE SHOULD BE LISTENING
TO THE
COMMUNITIES WHO ARE GOING TO BE
IMPACTED AND INCLUDING
DISPLACEMENT
CONCERNS FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS
WHO WILL BE
IMPACTED.
SO HAVING SAID THAT, WE CAN
MOVE FORWARD WITH CONSIDERING
THESE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
121011 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT
ONE.
>>
OKAY. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE.
IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> OKAY. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND THE BILL AS
MOVED ON
AMENDMENT ONE.
GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF THE
AMENDMENT.
>> SO AMENDMENT ONE SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK
WOULD CLARIFY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, THERE
IS A
TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR THAT
WAS INTRODUCED THAT WOULD
EXCLUDE
NONPROFITS FROM THE
STATUS OF BEING A QUALIFIED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATION.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
CLARIFY THAT CLERICAL ERROR.
IT WOULD ALSO ADDRESS
A SITUATION THAT CAME OUT
IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
FILIPINO COMMUNITY CENTER ABOUT
WHAT
HAPPENS IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THERE
ARE
MULTIPLE QUALIFYING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATIONS THAT WANT
TO PARTNER TOGETHER WITH ONE
OR MORE DEVELOPMENT ENTITIES OR
TOGETHER, WHAT DOES IT HAVE
TO LOOK LIKE AND THAT
CIRCUMSTANCE
IS JUST A SETBACK A LITTLE BIT.
QUALIFYING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION IS
REQUIRED FOR DEVELOPMENT TO
OCCUR UNDER
THE POST PILOT PROGRAM,
QUALIFYING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION CAN
FORM
A DEVELOPMENT ENTITY THAT CAN
DEVELOP A SITE, THAT SITE WOULD
BE -- THAT DEVELOPMENT WOULD
BE A QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENT
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE BILL.
IN ORDER FOR SOMETHING TO BE
A QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENT,
THE QUALIFYING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATION, THE NONPROFIT, THE
PDA, THE ENTITY THAT HAS THE
ABILITY TO ACCESS EXTRA
DEVELOPMENT FLOOR AREA
WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AN OWNERSHIP
OR CONTROLLING STAKE.
THIS CLARIFIES THAT
THAT OWNERSHIP OR CONTROLLING
STAKE COULD APPLYAPPLY
SHARED PARTNERSHIP WITH MULTIPLE
COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, I SEE
YOUR HAND, BUT I WANT TO GIVE
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK A CHANCE
TO SPEAK TO THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I'LL BE BRIEF AND SAY THIS IS
AN
IMPORTANT CLARIFYING
AMENDMENT TO ENSURE WE'RE
ALIGNING
OUR INTENT IN WHAT WE'RE
SEEKING
TO DO IN THE UNDERLYING BILL AND
I ASK FOR FOLKS TO
SUPPORT. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIR, I -- I DON'T
REALLY HAVE A
QUESTION. I DIDN'T GET TO THE
BUTTON
QUICK ENOUGH.
SO, I DON'T REALLY HAVE
A QUESTION ABOUT THE TECHNICAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR.
I HAD A MORE GENERAL QUESTION IF
I CAN ASK THAT AFTER WE VOTE
ON THIS IN REGARDS TO
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, THE
QUESTION SHE RAISED.
I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO DO IT
FUN
FINISHED UP ON HER COMMENTS
ON THIS PARTICULAR BILL AND THE
AMENDMENTS. I'M WONDERING WHEN
THE
PARTICULAR TIME WOULD BE TO DO
THAT, AFTER WE
VOTE FOR THIS OR WOULD YOU LIKE
ME TO
WAIT BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF
MY QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO -- OR
MY DECISIONS ARE GOING TO WEIGH
ON
THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
>> OKAY.
UNDERSTOOD. SINCE WE DID NOT GET
YOUR QUESTION IN PRIOR TO THE
AMENDMENT, I WILL -- AS CHAIR I
WILL ALLOW YOUR -- I WILL ALLOW
IT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
I APPRECIATE
THAT.
>> OKAY.
>> I WANT TO
THAT.
>>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
SHE'S RIGHT, THIS ROOTS TO
ROOFS HAS A LONG
HISTORY FROM WHEN I WAS HERE.
I WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, SHE RAISED
AN IMPORTANT
QUESTION, I DISCUSSED IT
WITH BOTH OF THEM MAYBE OFFLINE.
AND SO I WOULD KINDLY
ASK COUNCILMEMBER RINCK IF SHE
CAN RESPOND BECAUSE IT IS A
GOOD QUESTION TO A REALLY
IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA
RAISED.
ABOUT DOING SOME OF
THESE AMENDMENTS AND SOME OF
THESE ISSUES OUTSIDE OF THE COMP
PLAN.
AND IF YOU -- IF THERE IS
SOME SEMBLANCE OF AN ANSWER
THERE,
I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
I DON'T WANT TO PUT YOU ON THE
SPOT, COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, BUT
GOING FORWARD IN OUR
DISCUSSION, IN OUR ANALYSIS, AND
FOR ME,
OUR OWN CRITICAL THINKING, I
WOULD
LIKE TO KNOW THAT BECAUSE FOR
ME THAT'S ALMOST DISPOSITIVE OF
HOW WE GO FORWARD ON SOME OF THE
AMENDMENTS.
>> CERTAINLY.
APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS AND
THE POINTS ON THIS.
I UNDERSTAND THIS WOULD BE
PART OF WHAT CAME UP IN THE
DISCUSSION DURING
CONSIDERATION OF A DIFFERENT
VERSION OF THIS
TYPE OF LEGISLATION LAST YEAR.
A FEW POINTS ON
THIS. ONE BEING JUST THE MATTER
THAT WE KNOW THAT THE COMP
PLAN CONTINUED TO GET DELAYED,
WE WON'T GET TO FACE TWOTWO
THE MIDDLE OF NEXT YEAR AND
THERE IS
CERTAINLY A -- CERTAINLY A
LOT OF URGENCY TO BE BUILDING
MORE CRITICAL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DURING THIS TIME.
WE KNOW THERE IS A LOT OF
UNCERTAINTY THAT HAS HAPPENED
WHEN IT COMES TO
DEVELOPMENT FROM LOOKING ALSO AT
THE NEW
ELEMENTS WITH THE TRADE WAR
AND THE IMPACT OF TARIFFS ON
CONSTRUCTION.
SO BY BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS
SOME OF THIS NOW I THINK
REALLY SPEAKS TO THE ABILITY
OF SPEAKING TO THE URGENCY OF
THIS
MATTER.
TO MY UNDERSTANDING.
AND I ALSO INVITE KETIL TO
SHARE HIS TAKES ON THIS AROUND
FROM AN
OF COURSE
OBJECTIVE STANDPOINT.
>> MAYBE I'LL JUST
DISTINGUISH HERE, THE WORK THAT
THE
COUNCIL IS DOING THIS YEAR,
WHICH INCLUDES BOTH POLICY WORK
AND IMPLEMENTATION WORK FROM THE
WORK THAT WILL BE HAPPENING
IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS, WHICH IS
LARGELY IMPLEMENT WORK,
SOME POLICY WORK THERE TOO.
THE COMP PLAN DECISION THIS YEAR
WILL BE POLICY DECISIONS ABOUT
WHERE THERE WILL BE INCREASED
POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN
CENTERS AND ALONG CORRIDORS AS
WELL.
THE IMPLEMENTATION STEP
THIS YEAR IS HOUSE BILL, SO IT
IS
SOMETHING THAT APPLIES
TO EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES, DOESN'T APPLY
TO ALL OF THE ZONES THAT ARE
TOUCHED BY THE ROOTS TO ROOFS
PROGRAM, WHICH WOULD TOUCH BOTH
COMMERCIAL, MULTIFAMILY
AND SEATTLE MIXED ZONES.
THAT BODY OF WORK FOR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION HAPPENS TO
A CERTAIN EXTENT IN 2026.
THAT'S THE SCHEDULE FOR
THE PHASE TWO STUFF.
AND ALSO BEYOND THAT,
AND POSSIBLY 2027 OR BEYOND
FOR URBAN CENTERS, THAT WILL
BE PRECEDED BY
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL WORK.
THE INCREASING HEIGHT
AND DENSITY TO ALLOW
MORE DEVELOPMENT IS ESSENTIALLY
AN
IMPLEMENTATION STEP FOR
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO THERE ARE SOME COMPONENTS
THAT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED
THIS YEAR THAT ARE IN THE ROOTS
TO ROOFS PROGRAM.
THERE ARE OTHER COMPONENTS
THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY PHASE TWO
AND PHASE THREE BODIES OF WORK.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, DID YOU
HAVE A FOLLOW-UP?
>> I DID.
I'LL BE VERY BRIEF.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT
YOU CAN DO SOME OF IT AND SOME
NOT OF IT?
I'M UNCLEAR HERE.
SOME CAN BE ASH BSORBED AND WE
CAN
REVISIT THIS BETWEEN. WE HAVE
SEND UNSET, WE HAVE A PILOT
PROGRAM. I GUESS I'M NOT -- IF
IT IS ON
ME, IT IS ON ME.
IF I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING
THE URGENCY
PIECE.
>> THERE IS A POLICY
QUESTION HERE FOR THE COUNCIL.
I DON'T KNOW THERE IS A RIGHT
OR WRONG ANSWER.
IF THE PILOT PROGRAM IS
APPROVED THIS YEAR BY THE
COUNCIL,
THEN ELIGIBLE PROJECTS,
QUALIFYING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATIONS, AFTER THE
RULE MAKING PERIOD IS
CONTEMPLATED BY THE BILL IS OVER
COULD APPLY
FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO
BUILD
SOMETHING WITH
ADDITIONAL CAPACITY RIGHT OF
WAY.
AND MOST OF THAT
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
GOES BEYOND
WHAT IS CURRENTLY
CONTEMPLATED FOR THE PHASE TWO
IMPLEMENTATION NEXT YEAR.
SLIGHTLY HIGHER
HEIGHTS, SLIGHTLY MORE FAR.
SO, THAT BODY OF WORK IS A
BODY OF WORK THAT WILL
HAPPEN AT SOME POINT IN THE
FUTURE, PHASE TWO
IMPLEMENTATION STAFF.
MOST OF THE WORK THAT
THE COUNCIL IS DOING THIS YEAR
HAS
TO DO WITH NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND
CHANGING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES.
THERE ARE MANY SITES THAT
ARE IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES THAT MAY BENEFIT FROM
THE ROOTS TO ROOFS PROGRAM WHEN
IT COMES
TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT .
THAT BODY OF WORK COULD BE
ACCOMPLISHED.
IT WOULD LEAVE THE QUESTION
OF WHETHER OR NOT TO EXTEND IT
TO
MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL ZONES
WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE SOMETHING
THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE
TO
CHOOSE TO TAKE UP AGAIN AT SOME
LATER DATE.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING
FROM COUNCILMEMBER RINCK AND
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THERE
ARE 19
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE WITHIN
PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW.
>> I CAN'T CONFIRM THAT.
>> I CAN SPEAK TO THAT, IF I
MAY, CHAIR.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, THANK YOU
FOR
THAT. THE LIST I READ OFF DURING
MY OPENING REMARKS REPRESENTS
19 ORGANIZATIONS THAT MY
TEAM HAS BEEN IN CONVERSATION
WITH, STAKEHOLDERS ON, THAT
WE'RE AWARE OF AT THIS TIME AND
THAT
WAS SOME OUTREACH TO END
THE COLLECTION THAT WE HAVE DONE
AND NOT IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
CENTRAL STAFF BUT RATHER WORK MY
OFFICE HAS
COLLECTED.
>> I IMAGINE THERE ARE A NUMBER
MORE.
ANYTHING
FURTHER.
>> WOULD YOU MIND IF I ASK
ONE
MORE FOLLOW-UP.
>>
ONE MORE.
>> THEN I'LL STOP, I PROMISE.
>> JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR.
YOU SAY PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT.
I NEED MORE THERE.
ARE THEY ACTUALLY -- THAT'S A
SQUISHY, YOU ANSWER ME.
IS IT ACTUALLY PLANNED OUT,
AND THEY'RE READY TO TURN
DIRT, SHOVEL READY?
I'M TRYING TO GET A SENSE
OF THESE 19 ORGANIZATIONS AND
WHAT PLANNING DEVELOPMENT --
BECAUSE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN STAKEHOLDER BUILDING AND
TALKING TO FOLKS AND DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO SAY HEY WE
HAVE
DEVELOPER LINED UP FOR
NONPROFIT FOR LOW INCOME FOR
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, NEIGHBORHOODS
THAT TARGET AREAS THAT ARE
TRYING
TO RIGHT A HISTORICAL WRONG
REGARDING RED
LINING. THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN
I'VE SPOKEN TO SOME
ORGANIZATIONS THAT MAY BE
INTERESTED IN
THIS AND THIS COULD HELP THEM
OUT.
IT IS OKAY EITHER WAY.
I WANT TO KNOW.
>> I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION.
SO, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, THE
TERM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT IS
A LITTLE BIT SQUISHY.
ALL OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT
I LISTED ARE -- HAVE IDENTIFIED
SOME PROJECT THAT THEY'RE
WORKING ON.
SOME HAVE GONE SO FAR IN
THE DESIGN PROCESS WHERE THEY
HAVE
IDENTIFIED HOW MANY UNITS
ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
SOME ARE STILL IN THE
DESIGN PHASE AND FIGURING OUT --
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS,
AND FIGURING OUT HOW THEIR
FINANCING
PLAN AND SO ON, BUT THEY HAVE
SOME AMOUNT OF CAPITAL AND
THEY'RE AT SOME TAGE IN THAT
PROGRESS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, FOR YOUR
PATIENCE.
>> YES.
VICE- CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> COUNCILMEMBER IVERA HAS HER
HAND
BEFORE ME.
>> THAT'S A NEW HAND?
>> NO, NO WORRIES.
>> I'M HOPEFULLY, FOR THE LAST
TIME, PLAY HISTORIAN FOR
A LITTLE BIT JUST TO ANSWER
SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS,
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
LAST YEAR THIS BILL CAME
BEFORE US AFTER I THINK MAYBE A
YEAR
AND A HALF OF
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES WORKING ON
IT.
WHEN IT CAME TO COMMITTEE
HERE, I WAS READY TO VOTE IN
FAVOR OF
IT, IF A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS
OCCURRED.
WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO TAKE
THOSE UP.
THE BILL DIED.
AT THAT POINT, I UNDERSTOOD
FROM PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT
BELLWETHER
HOUSING WAS READY TO PRESS GO
ON A DEVELOPMENT SHOULD
THESE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS BE IN
PLACE. THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
SO I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK
TO SEE WITH THEM WHERE THEY ARE
IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
BUT I KNOW WHEN THE BLAST BILL
STOPPED MOVING THAT PROJECT
ALSO WAS SCALED BACK BECAUSE OF
THE
BONUS.
THE WAY -- AND ONE OF
THE IMPROVEMENTS I'VE SEEN WITH
THIS BILL OVERALL IS IT IS
MORE ALIGNED WITH THE RELIGIOUS
BONUS BILL THAT WE PASSED A
NUMBER OF
YEARS AGO.
DONALD KING WHO IS HERE DOING
THE PUBLIC COMMENT, HE
WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH US AND
I REMEMBER -- I KNOW YOU WERE
THERE FOR THAT.
WHAT I APPRECIATE ABOUT
THIS BILL COMPARED TO WHAT WE
SAW LAST YEAR IS THAT THIS IS
MORE
AKIN TO THE RELIGIOUS BONUS
BILL AS COMPARED TO A BILL LAST
YEAR
THAT HAD TO -- NEEDED MUCH MORE
AMENDMENT.
SO, THAT WAS MY RUN AT
ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION AS WELL,
JUST
TO PROVIDE THAT CONTEXT BECAUSE
I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER RINCK
YOU WEREN'T HERE LAST YEAR
EITHER.
YEAH. THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU,
CHAIR. LAST YEAR, KETIL, WHEN WE
HAD
THIS CONVERSATION, SOME OF THE
PROJECTS, THERE IS NOTHING
PREVENTING THESE PROJECTS FROM
MOVING FORWARD WITH A
PARTNER, A PRIVATE DEVELOPER
PARTNER OR
NOT FOR PROFIT FOR THAT MATTER
TODAY.
THIS IS JUST ADDITIONAL
BONUS HEIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS.
>> YEAH, I THINK THE INTENT
HERE IS TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
THAT ONLY
QUALIFYING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATIONS CAN ACCESS.
AND THAT MAY MAKE THEM MORE
ATTRACTIVE PARTNER WHEN
IN TRYING TO ATTRACT CAPITAL FOR
DEVELOPMENT.
>> RIGHT.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY,
IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE THESE
ORGANIZATIONS FROM
MOVING FORWARD A AND B, WE HAVE
THIS COMP PLAN WHERE WE WILL BE
CONSIDERING HEIGHT AND
HEIGHT BONUSES AND SO IT SEEMS
LIKE A
BETTER TIMING TO BE TAKING
THIS UP WHEN WE ARE ALREADY
GOING TO BE DOING THIS AS PART
OF COMP
PLAN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
YEAR IN TERMS OF HEIGHT BONUSES
AND SUCH.
>> A NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONE, AMONG THE CHANGES TO CODE
THAT THE COUNCIL
IS CONTEMPLATING HERE AS PART
OF THE COMP PLAN, THERE ARE
CHANGES TO ENCOURAGE INCENTIVES
TO
ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON
SITES ABOVE A CERTAIN SIZE,
COUNCIL CHANGED THOSE
THRESHOLDS.
THERE ARE SOME PROVISIONS
THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF
COMMERCIAL SPACE ON LOTS WHERE
COMMERCIAL SPACE COULDN'T
HAPPEN.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN
THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT
CAPACITY THAT WOULD BE --
>> THANK YOU, KETIL.
THE REASON I RAISED THIS IS
BECAUSE THERE IS A
BIG AFFORDABLE HOUSING PIECE TO
THIS.
AND WE ARE GOING TO BE TAKING
UP ZONING AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE YEAR IN SHORT ORDER AND
THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, THE
VILLAGES, WHICH ARE
ALL DESIGNATED FOR HIGHER
DENSITY. SO THIS IS WHY, TO ME,
LAST
YEAR CERTAINLY AND NOW THAT WE
ARE WORKING ON COMP PLAN AS
OPPOSED
TO LAST YEAR IT MAKES MORE
SENSE TO CONSIDER IN LIGHT OF
THE WORK
WE'RE IN SHORT ORDER GOING TO
BE DOING BECAUSE 2026 SOUNDS
LIKE
A
LONG TIME, EXCEPT WE'RE ALREADY
IN SEPTEMBER OF 2025.
WE'LL BE TAKING UP ZONING
LEGISLATION THAT I THINK THIS --
WE COULD BE HAVING
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS AND
GIVING COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WHO HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR
CONCERNS ABOUT THIS IN
COMMUNITY, THE TIME THEN TO GIVE
FEEDBACK AND WEIGH IN ON
PERHAPS FURTHER AMENDMENTS,
WHICH
IS WHAT I -- WE HAVE GOTTEN
EMAILS ABOUT FROM THOSE
ORGANIZATIONS I
MENTIONED AS TO WHAT WOULD BE
MORE HELPFUL WITHIN THIS
PROPOSED LEGISLATION.
OR EVEN WITHIN THE ZONING WE
WILL BE CONTEMPLATING.
IF THAT MAKES
SENSE.
>> THANK YOU.
SO I WANT TO FOCUS US BACK, WE
DO HAVE AMENDMENT NUMBER
ONE THAT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
WE HAD COMMENTARY.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT ONE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
>>
AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR
SOLOMON.
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR, THERE ARE FIVE
VOTES IN FAVOR AND ZERO
OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND
THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, AMENDMENT
NUMBER
TWO.
>> I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
12011 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT
TWO.
>> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND
SECONDED.
>> KETIL, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO SPEAK TO WHAT THIS -- GIVE US
AN
OVERVIEW OF THIS
AMENDMENT.
>> SO, COUNCILMEMBER 121011 AS
INTRODUCED HAD REQUIREMENTS
THAT WERE MIRRORED A PRIOR
VERSION OF
MULTIFAMILY TAX EXTENSION
PROGRAM.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME OUT
OF THE PRIOR COMMITTEE REVIEW OF
THE CONNECTED COMMUNITIES BILL.
THE MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION
PROGRAM IS CURRENTLY
BEING CONSIDERED CHANGES TO IT,
NEW ITERATION OF IT IS
BEING CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL.
THIS WOULD MODIFY THE
AFFORDABILITY LEVELS TO
WHAT IS -- WHAT IS CALLED
MODERATE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES
OF
THE LAND USE CODE.
MODERATE INCOME IS UNITS
THAT ARE AFFORDABLE TO
HOUSEHOLDS UP
TO 80% OF INCOME FOR RENTAL
AND UP TO 100% OF MEDIAN INCOME
FOR
OWNED, MEDIAN INCOME IN THE
CITY FOR SINGLE PERSON IS ABOUT
$120,000.
ONE BEDROOM UNIT THAT
IS MODERATE INCOME AT 80% OF
AMI, PERSON WITH AN INCOME OF
$88,000 A YEAR, IS ABOUT
$257,000 A
YEAR.
THREE BEDROOM UNIT OR
TWO BEDROOM UNIT, THREE PERSON
HOUSEHOLD, POTENTIALLY IS ABOUT
$228,000 A YEAR.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE AMENDMENT?
>> GIVEN THAT MFTE
IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND IS
UNDER REVIEW
NOW, WE WANTED TO DELINK THE
AMI PERCENTAGES AND THIS ASSURES
CLARITY FOR DIFFERENT UNITS AND
LINKING US TO THE DEFINED
TERM OF MODERATE INCOME.
IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE
COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH AND
I INTRODUED INTRODUCED AN
IDENTICAL VERSION OF THIS
AMENDMENT.
I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT, THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY COMMENTS REGARDING
AMENDMENT
TWO? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, WILL THE
CLERK CALL THE ROLL ON THE
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT
TWO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK.
>>
AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR SOLOMON.
>> YES.
>> AMENDMENT THREE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE PUBLIC'S
AWARENESS, WE'RE
TABLING AMENDMENT THREE TODAY.
WE GOT SOME LAST MINUTE
FEEDBACK FROM LAW AND WE'LL
NEED TO
WORK OUT SOME OF THE SMALL
CHANGES
AND INTEND TO BRING IT
BEFORE
FULL COUNCIL. I WILL BE TABLING
THAT
AMENDMENT FOR TODAY, CHAIR.
>> ALL RIGHT.
UNDERSTOOD.
NUMBER THREE BEING
TABLED.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO SPEAK TO AMENDMENT FOUR?
>> I'D LIKE TO MOVE COUNCIL
TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL CB 121011
AS
PRESENTED IN AMENDMENT
3, VERSION 2.
SORRY.
APOLOGIES.
AMENDMENT 4, VERSION 1.
>> OKAY.
MOTION HAS BEEN MADE, IS THERE
A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> OKAY.
THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND
SECONDED.
KETIL.
>> SURE.
>> YOU'RE ON.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER
FOUR, SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA, BEHALF OF COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH WOULD LIMIT THE
NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR EACH
COUNCIL DISTRICT TO NO MORE
THAN FIVE, TO REMIND FOLKS WHO
MAY
BE WATCHING THE PILOT PROGRAM
IS INTRODUCED WOULD HAVE AN
OVERALL LIMIT WITHIN THE CITY OF
35
UNITS, 35 PROJECTS OR THE END
OF 2035, WHICHEVER EVENT COMES
FIRST.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE
AMENDMENT?
>> I'LL JUST ADD TO WHAT KETIL
SAID, I THINK THE INTENT HERE
IS TO MAKE SURE THAT PROJECTS
ARE SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE
CITY VERSUS CONCENTRATED IN ONE
AREA.
>> YES.
OKAY.
GOOD.
ALL RIGHT, ANY
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE?
>> CHAIR, IF I MAY?
THANK YOU.
>> YES, COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AND THANK YOU TO COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH FOR AUTHORING THIS
AMENDMENT AND
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD
TODAY. I UNDERSTAND IT IS
IMPORTANT
TO KNOW THIS IS A PILOT PROGRAM
AND IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS
THAT
WE ARE NOT CONCENTRATING ALL
THE PILOT PROJECTS IN ONE
DISTRICT, THIS WOULD CREATE SOME
PARAMETERS TO PREVENT THAT
FROM
HAPPENING. I KNOW WE'LL LEARN A
LOT SHOULD
THIS PILOT PROGRAM GO
THROUGH. I WILL BE VOTING YES IN
SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT TODAY.
I'M SEEING AGAIN AS A
PILOT WE'RE TRYING SOMETHING
OUT
AND SO I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT
OF THIS AMENDMENT AND IT IS A
LINE WITH OUR INTENT.
SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT, HEARING NO
FURTHER COMMENT, WILL THE CLERK
CALL THE ROLL ON THE APGS
ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT
FOUR.
>>
STRAUSS.
>>
YES.
>>
RINCK.
>>
YES.
>> JUAREZ.
>>
YES.
>> RIVERA.
>> YEE.
>>
SOLOMON.
>>
AYE.
>> THE
MOTION CARRIES AND THE AMENDMENT
IS ADOPTED.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO
AMENDMENT FIVE?
>> YES.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO
AMEND COUNCIL BILL 121011 AS
PRESENTED IN AMENDMENT FIVE
VERSION 2.
>> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE,
IS THERE A SECOND?
>>
SECOND.
>> OKAY.
MOTION HAS BEEN SECONDED.
MR.
FREEMAN, PLEASE. AMENDMENT
NUMBER FIVE
WOULD CLARIFY THAT ELIGIBLE
FLOOR
AREA AND EQUITABLE
DEVELOPMENT USE WOULD ONLY NEED
TO REMAIN
IN THAT CATEGORY OF USE FOR 50
YEARS.
AND THAT THAT COMMITMENT FOR
EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
USE WOULD BE SECURED THROUGH A
COVENANT
RECORDED AGAINST THE
PROPERTY, STEPPING BACK HERE,
CONTEXT FOR
THE COMMITTEE AND THOSE WHO MAY
BE WATCHING, THE BILL WOULD
DEFINE EQUITABLE
DEVELOPMENT USE AND REQUEST
RULE-MAKING
FROM SDCI RELATED TO THE
USE CATEGORY.
DEFINED AS A USE FOR ALL
COMPONENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS,
HOUSEHOLDS, BUSINESSES OR
INSTITUTIONS THAT COMPRISE
THE CULTURAL POPULATION AT RISK
OF
DISPLACEMENT.
OH, JUST -- AND HOW THAT WOULD
BE OPERATIONALIZED IN TERMS OF
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
CAPACITY FLOOR AREA AND
EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT USE WOULD
BE EXEMPT
FROM FAR CALCULATIONS UP TO A
LIMIT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA,
ANYTHING TO ADD?
>> NO FURTHER COMMENTS.
I THINK KETIL DID A GREAT
JOB EXPLAINING THIS
ONE.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU.
>> ANY COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE? PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON THE
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT FIVE.
>>
STRAUSS.
>>
YES.
>> JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>>
RINCK.
>> YES.
>> REVAR
RIVERA.
>>
AYE.
>> CHAIR
SOLOMON.
>>
AYE.
>> THERE ARE FIVE VOTES.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE --
I WOULD LIKE TO --
>> AMENDMENT FIVE HAS BEEN
ADOPTED.
AND WE WILL NOW MOVE
TO AMENDMENT SIX.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU.
I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND
COUNCIL BILL 121011 AS PRESENTED
IN AMENDMENT SIX
VERSION ONE.
>> SECOND.
>> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND
SECONDED.
SO, AGAIN, KETIL,
PLEASE.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX, IT
WOULD ADD SOME SPECIFICSPECIFIC
TO BE REVIEWED AS PART OF
AN ASSESSMENT OF PILOT.
THE PILOT COUNCIL
BILL CONTEMPLATES REVIEW THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD UNDERTAKE
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO EVALUATE
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PILOT,
THE ADDED LANGUAGE WOULD
INCLUDE THE - - SPECIFY THE
EVALUATION INCLUDE A REVIEW OF
THE
NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS BY
DISTRICT,
AND TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED
AND THE PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE
ASSOCIATED WITH
EACH QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENT.
IT WOULD
INCLUDE RENTS CHARGED FOR
RESIDENTIAL UNITS BY SIZE
AND UNIT TYPE AND FOR EQUITABLE
DEVELOPMENT SPACE.
>> THANK YOU.
NOTHING TO ADD?
OKAY.
ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS REGARDING AMENDMENT
SIX?
OKAY, HEARING NONE, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL.
>>
STRAUSS.
>>
YES.
>>
JUAREZ.
>>
AYE.
>>
RINCK.
>>
YES.
>>
RIVERA.
>>
AYE.
>> CHAIR
SOLOMON.
>>
AYE.
>> THE
MOTION CARRIES AND THE AMENDMENT
IS ADOPTED.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO SPEAK TO AMENDMENT
SEVEN?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO
AMEND COUNCIL BILL 121011 AS
PRESENTED IN AMENDMENT SEVEN
VERSION ONE.
>> OKAY.
THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND
SECONDED.
AGAIN, MR. FREEMAN, PLEASE, GIVE
US THE RUNDOWN.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN,
WOULD MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF
QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENT.
TO STEP BACK HERE A LITTLE BIT.
QUALIFYING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS THAT
HAVE
ACCESS TO EXTRA DEVELOPMENT
CAPACITY, THOSE QUALIFYING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATIONS CAN
PARTNER WITH OTHER ENTITIES TO
BUILD A QUALIFYING
DEVELOPMENT SO THERE IS A
DEVELOPMENT
ENTITY THAT IS CONTEMPLATED THAT
WOULD DO THAT QUALIFYING
DEVELOPMENT IN AN LLC OR
SOMETHING LIKE
THAT. THE BILL CONTEMPLATES THAT
THE
MAJORITY OWNERSHIP OF THE
QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENT,
THAT ENTITY THAT DOES THE
DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATES IT
AFTER THE FACT
WOULD BE THE QUALIFYING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATION THAT HAS TO OWN
51% OF THE PROJECT AT THE END OF
THE DAY, OR THEY WOULD HAVE
TO HAVE A CONTROLLING INTEREST
IN THE
PROJECT, CONTROLLING
AND MANAGING INTEREST.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD MODIFY
THE DEFINITION OF
QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENT FOR BOTH
MAJORITY OWNERSHIP, 51% AND
CONTROLLING ROLE IN THE
CORPORATE ENTITY.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> I'LL JUST ADD ON THIS ONE
THAT THE INTENT BEHIND IT IS
TO ENSURE THAT THE COMMUNITY
HAS THE MAJORITY OWNERSHIP OF
THIS PROJECT VERSUS
A CORPORATE ENTITY OR PARTNER
ENTITY.
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, UNDERSTOOD, THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE?
ALL RIGHT, HEARING NONE,
THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> VICE- CHAIR
STRAUSS.
>>
YES.
>>
JUAREZ.
>>
AYE.
>>
RINCK.
>> YES.
>>
>> RIVERA.
>> YES.
>> SOLOMON.
>>
YES.
>> ADOPTED AND NOW AMENDMENT
EIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
TO AMENDMENT COUNCIL BILL 121011
AS PRESENTED IN AMENDMENT
EIGHT VERSION TWO.
>> SECOND.
>> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND
SECONDED.
MR. FREEMAN, PLEASE.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER
EIGHT, SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA ON BEHALF
OF COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH WOULD LIMIT TIER
TWO TREE
REMOVAL AS HAVING GREATER
RELATIVE TREE LOSS.
THESE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE PRIORITY AREAS
IDENTIFIED
AS PART OF THAT ASSESSMENT.
TIER TWO TREES, FOR
THOSE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO
DON'T
KNOW, ARE TREES THAT
ARE AT LEAST 24 INCHES IN
DIAMETER
OR PART OF A GROVE.
THAT ARE SOME TREES SMALLER
THAN THAT THAT ARE SPECIFIED BY
DEVELOPERS BY DIRECTOR'S
RULE BECAUSE THEY JUST -- THE
SPECIES
ARE SMALLER TREES.
>> GREAT.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, I SEE
YOUR HAND, I WANTED TO
GIVE COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA A
CHANCE
TO SPEAK TO THE AMENDMENT.
>> YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR.
ALL TO SAY THAT WE'RE JUST TO
SAY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO --
I THINK COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH IS TRYING TO AND
I SUPPORT HER IS TO ENSURE THAT
WE'RE PRESERVING AS MANY TIER
TWO TREES AND TIER THREE -- TIER
ONE AS POSSIBLE FOR THAT
MATTER. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
AS THESE
PROJECTS ARE MOVING
FORWARD THAT WE'RE NOT
ELIMINATING OR
REMOVING TIER TWO TREES WHICH
AS YOU KNOW ARE VERY IMPORTANT
TO OUR CANOPY AND OUR CLIMATE
GOALS IN THE CITY.
IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH SUCH A PILOT, WE
REALLY NEED TO BE PRESERVING
TIER
TWO TREES ALONG WITH TIER ONE
AND AS
MANY OF TIER TREES AS WE'RE
ABLE TO AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
VICE- CHAIR STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU.
KETIL, CAN YOU JUST HELP WALK ME
THROUGH THIS.
I'LL ADMIT I GOT SOME CONCERNS
WITH THIS AMENDMENT.
UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS
PROGRAM RUNS FOR TEN YEARS OR
UNTIL 35
APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED
OR AFTER 35 PROJECTS HAVE BEEN
FILED.
SO WE HAVE ABOUT TEN YEARS
OF THIS PLAN, IS THAT CORRECT?
>>
YES.
>> AND WE'RE BASING THE TREE
CANOPY, SO LET'S TAKE
ANOTHER STEP BACK.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD STATE
THAT IF A TIER TWO TREE EXISTS
ON THE
PARCEL WITHIN AN AREA
THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS TV
I'M
PULLING UP THE EXACT LANGUAGE
HERE,
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PRIORITY
AREAS, HOW ARE
THOSE AREAS IDENTIFIED WITHIN
THE
2021 CITY OF SEATTLE TREE CANOPY
ASSESSMENT?
>> YEAH, I'LL HAZARD TO GO
TO THIS LINK HERE AND WE'LL SEE
IF THIS ACTUALLY WORKS.
BUT IT IS -- THE CITY
HAS DESIGNATED ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
PRIORITY AREAS.
THOSE AREAS ARE IDENTIFIED IN
PART BY A
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTIC OF
THOSE
NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT IT IS THE --
THIS WAS SOME -- WITH THE
TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT DONE
THERE WAS AN OVERLAY OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PRIORITY
AREAS.
SO, HERE IS THE RELATIVE
TREE CANOPY CHANGE BETWEEN 2021
AND
WHEN THE TREE CANOPY WAS
PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
PRIORITY AREAS ARE -- INCLUDES
MOST
OF SOUTHEAST SEATTLE, SOUTH
PAR, PARTS OF WEST SEATTLE,
THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT, PARTS
OF THE CENTRAL AREA, AND A
LARGE PART OF D 5, LAKE CITY
AREA.
AND SO THOSE WOULD BE THE
AREAS WHERE THERE WOULD BE
A LIMITATION ON REMOVAL OF
TIER TWO
TREES FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IS
ING IN THE PILOT
PROJECT.
>> SORRY, WE'RE DOING --
YEAH, SO WE'RE JUST KIND OF
DIGGING INTO THIS
INFORMATION. SO I'M HAVING A
LITTLE BIT OF
TROUBLE, WE ARE SEEING
PRIORITY AREAS NOT AS THE
PERCENTAGE OF
TREE CANOPY, RATHER THIS IS
A DEFINITION BASED ON
THE PERCENTAGE OF TREE CANOPY
CHANGE BETWEEN THE TWO
ASSESSMENTS.
>> YES.
>> ONE LAST QUESTION THERE.
CAN YOU STATE FOR ME
WHEN THE OTHER ASSESSMENT WAS
BECAUSE
I KNOW AHEAD OF THAT 2021 TREE
CANOPY ASSESSMENT WE HAD
BEEN USING LIDAR FROM DIFFERENT
TIMES OF THE YEAR WHICH WAS
CREATING DIFFERENT DATA.
>> YEAH.
I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP
OF MY HEAD WHEN THAT
OTHER ASSESSMENT WAS DONE.
2010, BUT THAT MAY NOT BE
RIGHT.
>> THE POINT I'M MAKING IS
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE USING
THE TWO ASSESSMENTS THAT WERE
IDENTICAL.
I ASSUME SINCE IT IS IN
THE REPORT THAT THAT'S WHAT
THEY WERE DOING.
MY CONCERN HERE AND MAYBE
HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS BETTER
IS ARE
WE MAKING THESE PRIORITY AREAS
DEFINED BY THE PERCENTAGE
OF CANOPY CHANGE OR BY
THE PERCENTAGE OF CANOPY
COVERAGE?
>> NO I THINK THAT THEY'RE
DEFINED -- THE DEFINITION
OF THESE PRIORITY AREAS IS NOT
NECESSARILY BASED
ON CHARACTERISTICS OF TREE
CANOPY. THEY ARE IDENTIFIED
AMONG
OTHER THINGS BY DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS, INCLUDING
THINGS LIKE EXPOSURE TO
OTHER KIND OF ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE SORT OF GENERATING LAND
USES
LIKE FOR EXAMPLE THE KING COUNTY
AIRPORT FOR EXAMPLE.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
PRIORITY AREA, I'M NOT
EXACTLY SURE WHAT GOES INTO THE
DESIGNATION, WE CAN COVER
THAT FOR YOU AND GIVE THAT
INFORMATION TO THE
COMMITTEE, BUT THEY ARE MAPPED
AREAS
THAT THE CITY USES
FOR PROGRAMMATIC -- FOR
DELIVERING
PROGRAMS.
>> WITHIN THIS AMENDMENT, IS
THERE ANY -- IT IS JUST A
TIER TWO TREE ANYWHERE ON THE
PARCEL?
>> JUST CAN'T REMOVE THE TIER
TWO TREE.
IF THERE WAS A TREE YOU
COULD BUILD AROUND, IT -- YOU
WOULD STILL BUILD A
QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENT THERE.
BUT YOU JUST CAN'T REMOVE A
TIER
TWO TREE.
>> SO THERE IS TWO TIER
TWO TREES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
LOT, THAT LOT COULD POTENTIALLY
BE
UNBUILDABLE.
>> THAT MIGHT BE A PROBLEM.
YEAH.
>> I JUST ASK THAT SERIES
OF QUESTIONS BECAUSE I HAVE A
SIMILAR AMENDMENT FOR
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ACTUALLY, WHICH IS THE SAME
LANGUAGE, ALMOST VERBATIM,
EXCEPT TO
SAY TIER ONE AND IER TWO
TREES CANNOT BE REMOVED WITHIN
FIVE
FEET OF THE PROPERTY CORNER.
THAT WAS NOT BY ACCIDENT OR
CHANCE.
BECAUSE UNDERSTANDING THAT A
TIER TWO TREE IS
VERY IMPORTANT AND THAT'S WHY I
WANT TO PROTECT
THEM.
AND AT THE SAME TIME, IF WE
PUT A NUMBER OF THEM IN THE
MIDDLE, IF THERE IS A NUMBER OF
THEM
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT, THAT
LOT BECOMES UNBUILDABLE.
THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE
HERE.
I SEE HOUSING OUT HERE AND I
THINK BACK TO THE COPPER
PINES DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY DID
WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY,
WHERE WE DID REDUCE THAT PROJECT
BY --
THAT WAS A HOME
OWNERSHIP PROJECT THAT WE
REDUCED AN
ENTIRE UNIT TO SAVE THESE TREES.
IT WAS -- AND THEN THE TREE
DIED.
AND SO WE DON'T HAVE THE
TREE, NOR DO WE HAVE A HOUSE FOR
A
FAMILY THAT THEY CAN BUILD
EQUITY.
HOME EQUITY, THAT IS.
AND SO THAT -- THE --
ANYWHERE ON THE LOT, I'VE GOT
MORE CONCERNS THAT I WOULD LIKE
TO
DIG INTO WITH THIS, AND THEN THE
SECOND IS THE DEFINITION OF
THE PRIORITY AREA, IF WE'RE
SUCCESSFUL, WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE -- THE 2021 PRIORITY
AREAS
WILL NOT BE ACCURATE
INFORMATION BY 2029, WHICH IS
ONLY
HALFWAY THROUGH THIS PILOT
PROGRAM.
SO I'VE GOT SOME REAL
CONCERNS ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT.
I DON'T HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
THE INTENT BECAUSE I
SEE COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA,
YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT TIER
TWO TREESTREES
UNDERCANOPIED AREAS.
THAT'S WHAT I SEE.
AND I SUPPORT THAT.
BUT THE EXACT LANGUAGE HERE
I'M NOT÷÷ THERE YET
TODAY. THANK YOU.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I WILL SAY THAT FOR THE COMP
PLAN I HAVE A SET OF
AMENDMENTS TO PROTECT TIER TWO
AND TIER ONE
TREE TREES THAT I THINK, YOU
KNOW
IF THOSE DID PASS, THEY WOULD
HAVE AN IMPACT ON THESE PILOTS
AS WELL AND PART OF
THOSE AMENDMENTS IS THE --
GIVING THE
SDCI DIRECTOR THE AUTHORITY
TO WORK WITH A DEVELOPER TO
GET ALTERNATIVE PLANS THAT
WOULD WORK ON THOSE SITES IN
ORDER TO
PRESERVE THAT -- THOSE TIER
TWO TREES AND TIER ONE TREES
FOR THAT MATTER.
BUT IN TERMS OF THIS PARTICULAR
AMENDMENT, I DO THINK THAT
THESETHESE ARE OF THE CITY THAT
LACK
CANOPY AS YOU JUST POINTED OUT,
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS AND,
YOU KNOW, THESE ARE FOLKS THAT
ARE MOSTLY IMPACTED BY CLIMATE
CHANGE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T
HAD THE CANOPY AND I WILL SAY
THAT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THESE
PILOT
PROJECTS ARE THESE ARE
BIGGER, DENSE DEVELOPMENTS AND
AS A KID
WHO GREW UP IN AN APARTMENT
BUILDING, WHERE THERE WAS
NO TREE CANOPY AROUND AND HOW
HOT IT GOT AND WE WERE ON THE
FIFTH
FLOOR, HEAT RISES, AS EVERYONE
KNOWS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO
PRESERVE AS MANY TREES
AROUND THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND,
YOU
KNOW, APARTMENT BUILDINGS AS
POSSIBLE.
THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO DO THAT.
THE PRIORITY AREAS
ARE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE
MOSTLY BEEN IMPACTED BY CLIMATE
CHANGE AND WHERE WE HAVE SEEN A
LACK
OF CANOPY.
SO, AS WE'RE CONTEMPLATING
THESE PROJECTS, AND WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT DOING THIS ON
BEHALF OF
COMMUNITY, BECAUSE WE WANT
TO HELP COMMUNITY AND PROTECT
COMMUNITY, THEN WE ALSO
NEED TO PUT OUR MONEY WHERE OUR
MOUTH
IS SO TO SPEAK AND WE NEED TO
MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF
CONTRIBUTING TO, YOU
KNOW, CLIMATE IMPACTS AS
THESE PROJECTS ARE BEING BUILT.
SO, COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH AND I FELT
STRONGLY ENOUGH THAT
SHE PROFFERED THIS AMENDMENT,
AND I STAND BY IT IN TERMS OF
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
ALSO PROVIDING TREE
COVERAGE AND NOT TAKING AWAY
TREE COVERAGE
IN THESE COMMUNITIES AS
THESE PROJECTS ARE BEING BUILT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK
YOU.
ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER COMMENT
ON AMENDMENT
EIGHT? ALL RIGHT HEARING NONE,
CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> VICE- CHAIR
STRAUSS.
>>
ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK.
>>
ABSTAIN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>>
AYE.
>> CHAIR
SOLOMON.
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR, THERE ARE THREE
VOTES IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED AND
TWO
ABSTENTIONS.
>> MOTION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
ALL RIGHT.
MOVING ON TO OUR FINAL
AMENDMENT, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
121011, AMENDMENT NINE, VERSION
TWO.
>> MOTION MADE, IS THERE
A SECOND IS
THIS.
>>
SECOND.
>> THE MOTION HAS BEEN SECONDED.
MR.
FREEMAN.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER
NINE SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA WOULD LIMIT
THE
LOCATIONS OF QUALIFYING
DEVELOPMENT TO
DESIGNATED CENTERS.
THAT WOULD BE REGIONAL
CENTERS CURRENTLY THAT WOULD BE
--
SORRY URBAN CENTER AND VILLAGES
AND IN THE FUTURE THAT WOULD
BE REGIONAL
CENTERS, URBAN CENTERS AND
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS.
>> OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AND THE POINT HERE IS THAT
IF WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING THIS
OUTSIDE OF THE COMP PLAN
PROCESS, AND THESE DEVELOPMENTS
ARE MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENTS
THAT ARE A MIX OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SPACES
UNDERNEATH, SO
BEING BIGGER DEVELOPMENTS,
THEY -- THE INTENT BEHIND THIS
IS THAT THEY WOULD BE
LOCATED EITHER WITHIN OUR URBAN
VILLAGES
OR REGIONAL CENTERS OR THIS
NEW NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
DESIGNATION WHERE WE ARE
CONTEMPLATING AND
THE WHOLE POINT OF DOING
THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS IS
THESE WOULD BE AREAS WHERE
THERE WOULD BE IES SUCH AS
COMMUNITY SPACES AND GROCERY
STORES
AND SMALL BUSINESSES, AND
THESE PROJECTS ARE CONTEMPLATING
ALL OF THAT IN COMBINATION WITH
HOUSING SO THIS SEEMS TO ME LIKE
THESE PROJECTS WOULD BE
WELL PLACED IN THOSE AREAS
WHERE WE'RE ALREADY CURRENTLY
DESIGNATING AS, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE ALREADY CONTEMPLATING
DOING
THE DENSITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS, REGIONAL CENTERS, URBAN
VILLAGES, WE HAVE THE
REGIONAL CENTERS AND URBAN
VILLAGES
SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS OR OTHER AREAS WHERE I
THINK
THIS TYPE OF PROJECT WOULD
LEND ITSELF BEST RATHER THAN
THE MIDDLE OF A BLOCK, A BIG
HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, AND THIS MIXED USE
WAY.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT
TO THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA FOR
BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT.
AFTER A LITTLE BIT MORE
RESEARCH, I WILL NOT
BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT,
BUT LET ME EXPLAIN WHY.
I KNOW THAT WITH THE AMENDMENTS
THAT ARE HAPPENING AND AND
JUST THE BILL IN GENERAL, I
GUESS
MY CONCERN HERE IS WE'RE
ALREADY --
A CONSERVATION OF THE --
WELL, WE HAVE THIS CONCENTRATION
OF THE PILOT DEVELOPMENT IS
GOING TO BE -- YOU'RE LOOKING
AT
THE PARTICULAR CENTERS THROUGH
THE COMP PLAN AND SO I
GUESS MY CONCERN IS WE ARE
ALREADY
DIRECTING DENSITY WITHIN
THESE PARTICULAR NEIGHBORS --
AREAS DESIGNATED AREAS AS WE
LISTED THE REGIONAL CENTERS,
URBAN
CENTERS, NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS, THAT ALIGN WITH THE
COMP PLAN.
SO I GUESS MY CONCERN IS I FEEL
LIKE THIS WOULD RESTRICT THAT.
I THINK AMENDMENT FOUR
WHICH LIMITS THE PILOT PROGRAM
TO THE
DEVELOPMENT IN FIVE AREAS,
THIS JUST KIND OF RUNS FOR ME
COUNTERINTUITIVE BECAUSE I
THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE -- WE
SHOULD SPREAD OR SPRINKLE ABOUT
THROUGH
THE WHOLE CITY A PILOT
PROGRAM, IF WE DO PASS THIS,
ACROSS
THE CITY EVERYWHERE, NOT JUST
IN THESE DESIGNATED AREAS.
THE COMP PLAN IN THE -- WHAT IS
IT -- WHAT WAS THE STATE PLAN
PASSED, THE GENERAL --
THE BIG -- THE PLAN THAT WE
PASSED 20 YEARS AGO THAT THE
STATE
DID THAT WE'RE BASING
EVERYTHING
OFF OF.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
WHAT IS THE STATE ONE?
>> COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WAS ADOPTED IN 1994 AND THEN
MAYBE AMENDED A FEW YEARS AFTER
THAT.
>> WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL TITLE OF
IT FOR THE STATE LAW?
>> WHAT WAS THE
WHAT?
>> THE TLE FOR THE STATE LAW?
>> THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
ACT.
>> YES, THANK YOU.
GMA, THANK YOU.
KETIL, SMILE WHEN YOU LOOK AT
ME.
YES. THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT.
THOSE OF US, THE CHAIR KNOWS
THIS, WE'RE ON THE SAME AGE, SO
WHEN WE'RE DOING THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT AND
LOOKING
AT AND ENVISIONING BACK,
WE'RE GETTING IN THE TIME
MACHINE
HERE, THE INTENT WAS THE
GROWTH TO MANAGEMENT TO DIRECT
IT TO
TARGET IT TO LOOK AT
WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THE EARLY
OF HOUSING AND I APPRECIATE
WHAT COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA IS
SAYING, BUT MY CONCERN IS I
DON'T WANT
TO CONCENTRATE IF THIS PASSES A
PILOT PROGRAM TO AN AREA ALREADY
TARGETED FOR DENSITY.
I WOULD RATHER SEE IT
SPREAD CITYWIDE AND LIKE TO SEE
MORE NEIGHBORHOODS ABSORB, TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY, AND UNDERSTAND
THIS SHOULD BE ACROSS THE
CITY, NOT JUST SOUTH OF THE SHIP
CANAL.
AND SO THAT'S A POLICY PIECE ON
ME, THAT'S A POSITION
I'VE ALWAYS TAKEN.
I THINK THAT WHEN YOU LOOK
AT THE COMP PLAN OR THE GMA,
WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED JUST
THROUGH THE
YEARS AND THROUGH THE DECADES
IS THAT EVERY CHILD THAT
SHOULD GROW UP SHOULDN'T JUST
LIVE
AND DIE IN THEIR ZIP CODE
AND EVERYTHING IN THEIR ZIP
CODE,
ALL THE GOOD STUFF SHOULD BE
THERE.
WHETHER A LIBRARY, COMMUNITY
CENTER, GROCERIES, YOU NAME
IT, THAT'S THE NUMBER ONE GOAL.
HOWEVER, IT SHOULDN'T JUST BE
TARGETED WHERE WE'RE
JUST BASICALLY TAKING
PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOODS OR
PARTICULAR SOCIAL ECONOMIC FOLKS
AND PUTTING THEM IN ONE PLACE.
SO, FOR ME, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA, I UNDERSTAND WHAT
YOU'RE DOING HERE, BUT I CAN'T
SUPPORT THE
AMENDMENT. FROM A POLICY
PERSPECTIVE,
THIS
IS HOW I SEE THE WORLD. THANK
YOU.
BUT I JUST WANTED --
ALSO THANK YOU I KNOW YOU AND I
HAD
A REALLY GOOD -- I HATE USING
THIS WORD, ROBUST CONVERSATION
ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS, SO I WANT
TO
THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU DID.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT
CLEAR, THIS IS NOT TO LIMIT
THESE
PROJECTS TO ANY SINGLE DISTRICT.
THIS IS THROUGHOUT THE
CITY. WE HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS IN
EVERY DISTRICT AND I WILL
SAY THAT THE DENSEST
NEIGHBORHOOD
IN THIS CITY IS IN THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT WHICH IS IN
THE DISTRICT THAT I REPRESENT.
SO, THIS WAS NOT INTENDED TO
CONCENTRATED IN
ANY ONE AREA. THIS IS TO GO
NORTH OF THE SHIP
CANAL AS WELL.
AND LIKE I
SAID, WE HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS IN EVERY
DISTRICT, INCLUDING
URBAN VILLAGES AND REGIONAL
CENTERS
AND THIS WAS MORE TO MAKE SURE
THAT THESE PROJECTS ARE --
SINCE WE ARE CONTEMPLATING THAT
DENSITY IN THOSE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS AND
REGIONAL CENTERS
THAT WE ALREADY HAVE AND
URBAN VILLAGES WE ALREADY HAVE,
THAT IT MAKES NO SENSE TO
PUT PROJECTS IN THOSE AREAS OF
THE
CITY WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO
ENCOURAGE MORE AMENITIES IN
ONE AREA WHERE PEOPLE ARE LIVING
PARTICULARLY.
THESE ARE APARTMENTS AND
AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS THAT ALL
OF THAT IS WITHIN THAT ZONE
OF EVERY DISTRICT.
SO THIS WAS NOT -- THIS DOESN'T
SAY IT IS GOING SOUTH OF
THE SHIP CANAL OR ANY ONE
PARTICULAR
DISTRICT. THIS IS THROUGHOUT THE
CITY.
AND IT IS JUST THAT
THROUGHOUT THE CITY WE'RE GOING
TO
HAVE THESE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS, THESE ARE THE TYPES OF
PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING
CONTEMPLATED
FOR WHEN WE ARE PASSING
THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS IN THE
COMP PLAN.
SO I DON'T THINK IT IS
INCONGRUOUS WITH THE COMP PLAN,
IT IS IN ALIGNMENT OF WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO AND ENCOURAGE
BY INCLUDING NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS IN THE COMP PLAN.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTARY REGARDING
AMENDMENT NINE?
>> OKAY, I'LL JUST
OFFER THAT WHEN I THINK ABOUT
SOME OF
THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS THAT
ARE IN DISTRICT TWO, AND WHERE
THEY
ACTUALLY OWN PROPERTY,
THEY'RE NOT IN NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS
OR URBAN
CENTERS. THINKING SPECIFICALLY
ABOUT ETHIOPIAN COMMUNITIES,
SOMALI
COMMUNITY, FILIPINO COMMUNITY,
SO, WHEN THEY ALREADY HAVE
STUFF OR WHEN THEY ALREADY HAVE
STUFF
THERE, THIS SEEMS TO
RESTRICT THEIR ABILITY TO BUILD
ON STUFF
THEY ALREADY OWN.
AND THAT'S THE CONCERN I
HAVE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR
AMENDMENT.
SO I UNDERSTAND THE
INTENT BEHIND IT.
BUT THAT'S MY CONCERN ABOUT IT.
SO, JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT --
PUT THAT OUT THERE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTARY?
OKAY.
WE'LL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL.
>> VICE- CHAIR
STRAUSS.
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK.
>>
NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>>
AYE.
>> CHAIR
SOLOMON.
>>
NO.
>> CHAIR, THERE IS ONE VOTE
IN FAVOR AND FOUR OPPOSED.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THE MOTION FAILS AND THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS
ON THE AMENDED BILL BEFORE WE
TAKE A FINAL VOTE?
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
THEN COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
JUST TO REITERATE THAT WHILE
I APPRECIATE WHAT
THIS PILOT PROJECT IS TRYING TO
DO I
STILL MAINTAIN THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT WE SHOULD BE TAKING UP AS
PART OF THE COMP PLAN, NOT
OUTSIDE OF
IT.
I'M ALSO BEING -- I FEEL VERY
RESPONSIBLE TO THE
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO HAVE
REACHED OUT
TO EXPRESS THEIR OPPOSITION
AND/OR CONCERNS ABOUT IT, AND I
WOULD HAVE WANTED MORE TIME AND
THAT'S WHY I THINK COMP PLAN
PROCESS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BEST
TIME
TO ENGAGE WITH THESE
COMMUNITIES LIKE THE BLACK
LEGACY
HOMEOWNERS AND THE URBAN LEAGUE
AND AND
HOMEOWNERS AND
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE
HEARD FROM
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, I WILL
BE VOTING NO ON THE
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION BECAUSE I
REALLY
DO WANT TO SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WHO CAME, WHO WROTE
TO US AND WHO HAVE
EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THIS
PARTICULARLY
BECAUSE THERE ARE FOLKS IN
THOSE COMMUNITIES THAT, YOU
KNOW, WE -- THIS LEGISLATION IS
PURPORTING TO HELP AND SO I
FEEL REALLY STRONGLY THAT WE
SHOULD LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS THAT WE ARE PURPORTING
TO HELP.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK AND SOLOMON FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
KETIL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR -- I
THINK WE'RE GOING ON FOUR YEARS
WORKING ON THIS.
MAYBE THREE.
DEFINITELY THREE.
AS I STATED EARLIER IN THE
HISTORY -- IN MY GOING BACK
IN HISTORY MACHINE, OF SAYING
THERE WERE PROBLEMS THAT I HAD
PERSONALLY WITH THE EXACT
LANGUAGE OF THE BILL BEFORE US
LAST YEAR.
AND THIS BILL, IN MY OPINION,
IS MUCH BETTER.
IT ACCOMPLISHES THE SAME
UNDERLYING GOAL AND PART OF
THAT IS IT IS BASED OFF THE
RELIGIOUS
BONUS BILL WE GOT TO WORK
WITH DONALD KING ON.
REAL LIFE FACTUAL --
ANECDOTAL, BUT WE HAVE ST.
LUKE'S
HOUSING PROJECT THAT HAS 88
UNITS OF
TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW BETTER TO
CALL IT THAT.
TWO AND THREE BEDROOM
APARTMENTS. THESE ARE THE TYPES
OF UNITS THAT ARE -- THAT WE
NEED IN OUR
CITY. AND TO GET THIS PROJECT
UNDER WAY, I STARTED WORKING
WITH ST.
LUKE'S IN THE YEAR 2020.
THEY DIDN'T BREAK GROUND UNTIL
2024.
THE PROJECT IS FINISHING
TOUCHES, HOPEFULLY GOING
TO BE OPEN AT THE END OF THIS
YEAR.
SO, IT IS A FIVE- YEAR RUNWAY
FROM IDEATION TO DOORS OPENING.
THEY WERE ABLE TO UTILIZE
THE RELIGIOUS BONUS BILL TO GET
AN
ADDITIONAL FLOOR.
BY THE TIME THAT THIS PROJECT
OPENS ITS DOOR, THE ZONING IN
BALLARD WILL BE HIGHER THAN
WHAT ST. LUKE'S IS BUILDING.
AND I PUT THAT IN
PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE AS ZONING
CHANGES,
EVERY FIVE TO TEN YEARS, AND
WE GET MORE DENSITY IN OUR CITY,
THE BUILDINGS ARE
LAGGING ANOTHER FIVE YEARS
BEHIND THAT.
AND THESE TYPES OF PILOTS FOR
THE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND
NOW FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATIONS ARE
IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THEM
TO
ACCESS THE SPACE, THE FLOOR AREA
RATIO
AND THE HEIGHT THAT
INEVITABLY WILL BE COMING TO OUR
CITY,
BUT AT AN EARLIER STANDPOINT AND
IT
ALSO THEN GIVES US A GUT
CHECK TO SAY IS THIS AN
APPROPRIATE
HEIGHT, SCALE, DEVELOPMENT OR
NOT?
AND I SAY THIS STORY BECAUSE I
WATCHED ST. LUKE CREATE THIS
PROJECT IN BALLARD AND BY THE
TIME THE DOORS OPEN, IT WILL
BE THREE TO SIX MONTHS BEFORE WE
INCREASE THE ZONING FOR THEM ,
THE POINT BEING BY THE TIME THE
PROPERTIES OPEN, THE ZONING
WILL BE HIGHER THAN WHAT THIS
BONUS
WILL ALLOW.
THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS, THANK
YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK, THANK
YOU FOR REORIENTING THIS BILL,
AND
I'LL LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING
IT TODAY.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO FIRST OF ALL THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA FOR THE
QUESTIONS SHE RAISED
AND
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK FOR
ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS ON
THE DAIS.
I APOLOGIZE.
I'VE BEEN GONE FOR 18 MONTHS.
LITTLE BIT OF CATCH- UP TO DO.
I NORMALLY WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT
MORE CRITICAL AND MORE
CONSERVATIVE.
I APPRECIATED THE QUESTIONS IN
THE WAY THEY WERE ANSWERED,
PARTICULARLY COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK EXPLAINING TO US ABOUT
PHASE
TWO AND PHASE THREE AND THE TIME
CONSTRAINTS.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO POLICY LIKE
THIS, I LIKE TO ERR ON THE
SIDE OF THE TIMES THAT WE WERE
ACTUALLY LIVING IN.
I DON'T KNOW IF I COMPLETELY
AGREE WITH YOUR URGENCY.
I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT
AND POSITION THAT
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK HAS TAKEN.
THE REALITIES OF THE MARKET
PLACE, THE LACK OF HOUSING,
THE TRADE ISSUES THAT WE'RE
LOOKING AT REGIONALLY AND
NATIONALLY,
THE TARIFFS AND THE INTEREST
RATES, AND, OF COURSE, THE
UNDERSCORED HERE THAT HAS
BEEN GOING ON FOR AT LEAST --
SINCE
WE DECLARED HOMELESSNESS AN
ISSUE, TEN YEARS AGO, WE NEED
HOUSING STOCK.
AND IF THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO DO A PILOT TO GIVE A BOOST
TO THOSE FOLKS THAT WANT TO
BUILD
AFFORDABLE LOW INCOME
HOUSING, IT IS A PILOT PROJECT
AND IT
CAN INCREASE ZONING CAPACITY,
IF IT IS ANOTHER TOOL IN
CONJUNCTION WITH AND TO
COMPLEMENT THE COMP
PLAN, I CAN SUPPORT THAT.
ALSO, IF INDEED WE DO HAVE
19 ORGANIZATIONS IN PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT, AND IF THIS CAN
BE A MODEL FOR OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS
TO STEP FORWARD AND TO ENCOURAGE
THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, AND
WE CAN GET
THERE AND ALSO I APPRECIATE IN
THE
LEGISLATION THAT WE ACTUALLY
HAVE A
SUNSET CLAUSE WHERE WE HAD
SOMETHING DEFINITE THAT WE CAN
MEASURE, THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT
IS DELIVERABLE AND THEN WE HAVE
A REPORTING PROCESS THAT
COMES BACK TO US TO LET US KNOW,
HEY, WE DID THIS ZONING, LOOKS
LIKE WE GOT FIVE OPERATIONS UP
AND GOING ACROSS THE CITY AND
IN PARTICULAR DISTRICTS.
AND THAT'S A SUCCESS AND THEN
WE MOVE ON.
I THINK THE BEAUTY OF A
PILOT PROJECT IS FOR THAT VERY
REASON BECAUSE YOU WANT TO PUT
IT OUT THERE AND SEE WHAT WORKS
AND
WHAT DOESN'T.
WE HAVE HEARD ON AND ON, I
HEARD IT THE LAST EIGHT YEARS I
WAS ON
COUNCIL, WE HEAR THE
ALLEGATIONS THAT WE'RE GIVING
THE DEVELOPERS
AND THAT'S ALWAYS AN
INTERESTING COMMENT FOR ME
BECAUSE I
THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE
DO HAVE TO WORK WITH DEVELOPERS
AND THE CITY OF SEATTLE AND
THE YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE HAS
GROWN
OVER
100,000 EXTRA PEOPLE AND WE'RE
ING
HUNDREDS THOUSANDS MORE WHERE
WE NEED MORE JOBS AND MORE
HOUSING.
.
ONE OF MY CONCERNS ABOUT
SEATTLE IS WE THINK WE'RE A
LITTLE TOWN
AND WE'RE NOT.
I THINK WE'RE HOVERING OUND
850 NOW.
WE HAVE TO BE REALISTIC
ABOUT THAT AND ABOUT HOW WE
APPROACH
ZONING, HOW WE DO IT IN THE 21st
CENTURY AND WHAT THAT MEANS.
I KNOW SINGLE FAMILY
ZONING FOLKS DON'T
LIKE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DENSITY
IN THEIR
NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT ISN'T JUST ABOUT CORRECTING
THE WRONGS OF THE PAST.
IT IS ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THAT
THE CITY BELONGS TO ALL OF US
AND WE SHOULD ALL BE ABLE TO
LIVE HERE IN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND IT IS
OUR JOB AS POLICYMAKERS TO MAKE
THAT WORK.
WHAT WILL CONTROL ALL OF
THIS WILL BE THE MARKETPLACE AND
IT
IS VOLUNTARY. IF IT WORKS, IT
WORKS.
IF IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T.
LET'S FOUND OUT IF IT DOES.
FOR THAT REASON, I WILL
BE SUPPORTING THIS LEGISLATION
TODAY.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ. COUNCILMEMBER RINCK AND
THEN
BACK TO YOU COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>> I WAS WONDERING IF I
COULD HAVE CLOSING REMARKS.
>> VERY
WELL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU.
AND THANK YOU COLLEAGUES FOR THE
ROBUST DISCUSSION AROUND THIS.
I'LL SAY A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTION
BONUS BILL IS THAT WE HAVE HAVE
A
LOT OF EITHER OPPOSITION OR
CONCERN WITH THIS PARTICULAR
BILL
FROM THE VERY COMMUNITIES THAT
THIS
BILL IS PURPORTING TO HELP.
AND SO ON THAT SENSE, I SEE
THAT AS A DISTINCTION AND WHILE
IT IS
A PILOT, IT IS A LONG -- IT
IS GOING TO BE MANY YEARS OF
THIS PILOT, SO MANY PROJECTS
THAT THEN CAN'T BE UNDONE.
AND THEN IN TERMS OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, I WILL SAY THAT, YOU
KNOW, WE'RE HAVING ISSUES
AS ANYONE WHO WOULD HAVE
READREAD
SEATTLE TIMES THIS WEEK ABOUT
NOT FOR PROFIT HOUSING
DEVELOPERS WHO HAD TO SHUT DOWN
BUILDINGS. AND WE HAVE VACANT
UNITS AT
THOSE BUILDINGS.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, A LOT
OF THOSE ALSO REPORTED ON
THE SEATTLE TIME, A LOT OF THE
TIMES
THE NOT FOR PROFIT BUILDINGS
HAVE ALSO NOT YIELDED
THE AFFORDABILITY THAT WE
CONTEMPLATED, SO THERE IS A
LOT TO WORK ON THERE AND LEVEL
SET
THERE.
SO, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF
CONCERNS OR ENOUGH CONCERNS
ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR BILL THAT
I FELT LIKE IT WARRANTED WORKING
ON IT THROUGH THAT
COMPREHENSIVECOMPREHENSIVE
PROCESS IN A WAY THAT I
FEEL IS DISTINCT FROM
THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION BONUS
BILL
THAT HAD OVERWHELMING COMMUNITY
SUPPORT.
WANTED TO MAKE SURE I
STATED THAT ALSO FOR THE RECORD.
HAVING HEARD
FROM MANY COMMUNITY
MEMBERS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR
BILL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, RIVERA.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, CLOSING
COMMENTS?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES, FOR
YOUR ROBUST ENGAGEMENT ON THIS
LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU TO COMMISSION
HOLLINGSWORTH FOR YOUR
AMENDMENTS AND YOUR
ENGAGEMENT AND CHAIR SOLOMON FOR
YOUR
CO- SPONSORSHIP AND SUPPORT ON
THIS. I STRONGLY BELIEVE IN THIS
LEGISLATION.
AS WE DISCUSSED, IT IS NOT A
NEW IDEA, BUT A REVISED
VERSION DRIVEN OUT OF
COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS AND
CONCERNS.
WE HAVE AND WE WILL
CONTINUE OUR -- TO ENCOURAGE
STAKEHOLDERS TO REACH OUT TO MY
OFFICE TO
VOICE THEIR THOUGHTS ON THIS
BILL AS WE MOVE TOWARD
HOPEFULLY VOTING ON THIS ON FULL
COUNCIL.
WE'RE DOING WHATEVER WE CAN
TO WORK IN GOOD FAITH TO
MAKE CHANGES THAT ADDRESS
COMMUNITY
CONCERNS.
AND WE NEED MORE HOUSING NOW.
WE NEED MORE COMMUNITY,
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, ESPECIALLY IN AREAS
THAT HAVE
HISTORICALLY EXCLUDED
COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR
AND WE CAN HELP PENCIL NOW WITH
THIS LEGISLATION.
AND LUCKILY THIS PILOT WOULD
COMPLEMENT PROJECTS THAT DO GET
PUBLIC SUBSIDY, SUCH AS THROUGH
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING, E ING
LEVY DOLLARS,
HELPING CREATE DEEPER
AFFORDABILITY THAN
OUTLINED IN THIS BILL
AND IT HELPS WITH MFTE.
I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING
THE PROJECTS COME
ONLINE AND I ASK FOG R YOUR
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU.
AS CO- SPONSOR OF THIS BILL,
I'VE
SAID IT BEFORE, I'LL SAY IT
AGAIN, WE NEED MORE
HOUSING, AND MORE NEIGHBORHOODS,
AT ALL
INCOME LEVELS.
AND I BELIEVE THIS WILL HELP
WHEN WE CAN SEE
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS BUILD
FOR THEIR
COMMUNITY IN THEIR COMMUNITY ON
PROPERTIES THEY ALREADY HAVE, I
GOT TO BE BEHIND THAT.
SO, WITH THAT, CLERK, WILL
YOU CALL THE ROLL ON THE AMENDED
COUNCIL BILL 121011.
>> VICE- CHAIR
STRAUSS.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK.
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>> NO.
>> CHAIR SOLOMON.
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR, FOUR VOTES IN
FAVOR AND ONE OPPOSED.
>> OKAY.
THE MOTION CARRIES.
AND THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
TO PASS COUNCIL BILL 121011
WILL BE SENT TO THE SEATTLE
CITY COUNCIL WHERE THE
RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE PLACED
ON
THE SEPTEMBER 23rd MEETING
AGENDA.
CORRECT?
YES.
ALL RIGHT, GREAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
FREEMAN AND COLLEAGUES FOR YOUR
ROBUST
DISCUSSION.
JUST TO LEVEL SET FOR FOLKS,
I KNOW WE'RE HAVING A LONG
MEETING, BUT WE STILL HAVE A LOT
AGENDA.
SO I ASK FOR YOUR
INDULGENCE, YOUR PATIENCE, AND I
THANK YOU
FOR YOUR PATIENCE FOR
STICKING THROUGH IT SO FAR.
SO, WITH THAT, WE'LL NOW MOVE
ON TO ITEM FOUR.
CLERK.
>> COUNCIL BILL 121045,
ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAND
USE ZONING UPDATING TIMELINESS
OF
CITY REVIEW ON LAND USE PERMITS
AMENDING SECTIONS 23.76. 005
AND OF THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL
CODE AND AMENDING RESOLUTION TO
UPDATE CITY COUNCIL RULES
FOR QUASI- JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.
>> AS PRESIDING OFFICER, I AM
NOW OPENING THE PUBLIC
HEARING ON COUNCIL BILL 121045
RELATED TO AMENDING
THETHE CITY'S SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS.
CLERK, HOW MANY SPEAKERS
DO WE HAVE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC
HEARING?
>> WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED
UP.
>> OKAY.
PLEASE, YOU KNOW,
THE SPEAKER
WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES. PLEASE
READ THE INSTRUCTIONS.
>> SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED
IN THE ORDER OF
REGISTRATION, PUBLIC HEARING
REGISTRATION
WILL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL THE
CONCLUSION
OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE
SAME PUBLIC COMMENT RULES
APPLY TO THIS PUBLIC HEARING,
TIME
WILL BE -- YOU'LL NOTICE IT IS
TIME
TO WRAP UP COMMENTS, SPEAKERS
MICS WILL BE MUTED AT THE END
OF THE ALLOTTED TIME, SPEAKERS
ARE ASKED TO BEGIN THEIR
COMMENTS BY
SAYING THEIR NAME, STEVE, YOU'RE
UP FIRST.
>> ALL RIGHT, GOOD.
>> EACH SPEAKER HAS TWO MINUTES.
SO, PLEASE, PROCEED.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> OKAY.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED FROM
ALL SORTS OF LAND USE THINGS AND
THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY OF
KEEPING US OUT.
WE USED TO HAVE --
[ INAUDIBLE ]
WE USED TO LOOK AT A PROJECT AND
BE ABLE TO TELL IS IT GOING
TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY.
AND NOW WE DON'T DO THAT.
NOW THIS WILL FURTHER YOUR HAND
AND IT WILL TIE THEM TIGHT AND
THE DIRECTOR --
[ INAUDIBLE ]
PEOPLE WHO REMOVE ALL
THE TREES WILL MAKE THE
DECISIONS FOR THE
DEVELOPERS. AND I THINK THAT THE
COUNCIL AND
THE CITIZENS OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO
PARTICIPATE IN --
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> OKAY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THAT IS EVERYONE.
>> OKAY.
THAT WAS OUR LAST REGISTERED
SPEAKER TO PRESENT -- PRESENT TO
SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
COUNCIL BILL 121045 IS NOW
CLOSED.
OUR REPRESENTATIVE HAS JOINED
US AT THE TABLE TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS COUNCIL MAY HAVE.
PLEASE GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE
YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD
AND BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY.
>> LISH WHITSON, CENTRAL
COUNCIL.
I THINK YOU SUMMARIZED THE
BILL FAIRLY
WELL. IT IS ALIGNING OUR PERMIT
TIMELINES WITH STATE LAW TO
THE EXTENT POSSIBLE AND ALIGNS
SOME OTHER REGULATIONS IN OUR
CHAPTER 2376 OF THE LAND USE
CODE,
UPDATES THEM TO REFLECT CHANGES
TO STATE LAW.
ALSO JUDICIAL
RULES FOR ELECTRONIC FILING OF
DOCUMENTS
AND BECAUSE WE EXPECT
MOST DOCUMENTS TO BE FILED
ELECTRONICALLY,
IT REDUCES TIMELINES THAT WERE
ORIGINALLY
SET BASED ON PEOPLE
USING THE MAIL TO TRANSMIT
DOCUMENTS.
[ CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ]
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, I'M GOING
TO WE ARE TWO
DAYS AFTER RECESS AND I DON'T
WANT TO HOLD ANYTHING UP SO WE
WILL JUST KEEP MOVING.
>> WE ARE NOT VOTING ON THIS
TODAY.
>> WONDERFUL, OKAY, WE WILL GET
TO IT NEXT TIME. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? OKAY, THANK YOU. YOU
ARE OFF THE HOOK. ITEM FIVE HAS
BEEN REMOVED, SO WE WILL MOVE ON
TO ITEM SIX. PLEASE READ IT INTO
THE RECORD.
>> AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAND
USE AND ZONING, ADOPTING
TEMPORARY REGULATIONS TO EXEMPT
HOUSING PROJECTS THAT MEET
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
REQUIREMENTS USING ON-SITE
PERFORMANCE UNITS FROM DESIGN
REVIEW, AND ALLOWING PERMIT
APPLICATIONS FOR ALL HOUSING
SUBJECT TO FULL DESIGN REVIEW
THE OPTION OF COMPLYING WITH
DESIGN REVIEW PURSUANT TO
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW,
TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING AND
ALLOWING VOLUNTARY DESIGN REVIEW
OF THE POST DEVELOPMENT ENTITLES
23 AND 25 OF THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE, CONSISTENT WITH
CHAPTER 333, LAWS OF 2023.
>> I'M OPENING UP A PUBLIC
HEARING, RELATED TO AMENDING THE
CITY'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
CLERK, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE
HAVE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC
HEARING REGARDING THIS
LEGISLATION?
>> WE HAVE ONE IN PERSON AND
FIVE REMOTE. BUT NONE OF THEM
ARE PRESENT.
>> UNDERSTOOD, WE WILL BEGIN
WITH OUR IN PERSON SPEAKERS.
COME ON DOWN.
>> URBAN VILLAGES, THAT WAS THE
PROMISE TO THE PUBLIC AND WE
KNOW PROMISES TO THE PUBLIC ARE
NOT AS GOOD AS PROMISES TO
DEVELOPERS BECAUSE CHIP BY CHIP,
IT HAS GONE AWAY, WE USED TO
HAVE PARKING, TREES, VIEWS,
EVERYTHING WAS ON THE TABLE. I
BELIEVE A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO,
MR. STRAUSS DID A TOUR OF HIS
NEIGHBORHOOD AND DISCOVERED
THERE WERE A NUMBER OF BUILDINGS
THAT WERE BUILT THAT DIDN'T
EVEN LOOK LIKE MULTIFAMILY. AND
THEY WERE BUILT BECAUSE,
ACTUALLY THAT WAS BEFORE DESIGN
REVIEW, WENT AHEAD BEFORE THE
FULL COUNCIL AND A FEW NEIGHBORS
SHOWED UP AND THEY DIDN'T GET
THEIR PERMIT SO THEY TOOK CARE
OF PARKING AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
UNDER THE DESIGN REVIEW, WE WERE
SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT
SAME SORT OF THING SO THAT EVEN
THOUGH YOU HAD MUCH BIGGER
BUILDINGS, YOU WOULD AT LEAST
TAKE CARE OF THE MAJOR PROBLEMS,
MAKE IT FIT INTO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. MAKE IT NOT BE A
SORE THUMB. WELL, NOW THE SORE
THUMB IS A BECAUSE THE PUBLIC
DOESN'T GET A CHANCE TO TALK
ABOUT IT, IT'S JUST WHATEVER IS
THE MOST PROFITABLE AND I WILL
TELL YOU , MANY YEARS AGO I
REMEMBER SOMEBODY TELLING ME
THAT THEY COULDN'T DO SOMETHING
BECAUSE THEIR LENDER WOULDN'T
LOAN TO THEM UNLESS THEY MAXED
OUT. AND THAT IS WHAT IS
HAPPENING. WE ARE GETTING MAXED
OUT. AND IN THE NORTH END, I
KNOW YOU ARE TRYING TO EVEN UP
THE TREES WITH THE SOUTH BUT
PLEASE STOP REMOVING OUR TREES
TO MAKE ZERO THE NUMBER OF
DEFAULT.
>> CHAIR, NONE OF THE REMOTE
SPEAKERS ARE PRESENT.
>> AND WE HAVE REACHED THE END
OF THE REGISTERED SPEAKERS TO
SPEAK ON THIS, THE PUBLIC
HEARING ON BILL 121048 IS
CLOSED. OKAY, SO I SEE OUR
REPRESENTATIVES HAVE JOINED US
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT
COUNCIL MAY HAVE, SO ONCE YOU
ARE READY PLEASE INTRODUCE
YOURSELVES AND PROCEED.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU TO ALL THE
MEMBERS OF PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE,
TAKING THE TIME TODAY. MY NAME
IS CRYSTAL SUAREZ AND I'M THE
DESIGN REVIEW MANAGER FOR SDCI ,
DESIGN REVIEW, IT IS MEANT TO
SUPPORT LARGER CITY GOALS IN THE
DIVISION FOR LIVABLE URBAN
ENVIRONMENT, GIVES THE PUBLIC AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN
THEIR COMMUNITIES AND PROVIDE A
MECHANISM FOR FLEX ABILITY FOR
NEW DEVELOPMENT, NOT OTHERWISE
PERMITTED BY THE LAND USE CODE.
TODAY WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT
THE INTERIM LEGISLATION THAT IS
IN FRONT OF YOU, WE WILL ALSO
SPEAK TO THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION THAT WILL COME LATER
ON AND GIVE YOU A QUICK OVERVIEW
OF THAT. HOUSE BILL 1293 HAS
REQUIRED DESIGNING NEW PROGRAMS
IN THE STATE TO IMPLEMENT
REFORMS TO DESIGN REVIEW
PROGRAMS. THOSE REFORMS INCLUDE
CHANGES TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
THEMSELVES AS WELL AS REFORMS TO
THE PROCESS. REGARDING THE
GUIDELINES, THEY NEED TO BECOME
CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE AND LIMITING
DESIGN GUIDELINES TO EXTERIOR
ELEMENTS WHILE BUILDING THE
DESIGN. RELATING TO THE PROCESS
OF DESIGN REVIEW, THOSE REFORMS
INCLUDE LIMITING THE PUBLIC
MEETING TO ONE AND NOT REDUCING
PROJECT DENSITY LOWER THAN WHAT
IS ALLOWED BY ZONING. AND
ALTHOUGH WE HAVE MADE
SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS ON THE
PERMANENT LEGISLATION, FURTHER
OUTREACH IS WARRANTED ON THE
DESIGN GUIDELINES TO ENSURE THAT
STAKEHOLDER INPUT IS FULLY
INTEGRATED INTO THOSE NEW
GUIDELINES AND THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION THAT YOU WILL SEE
LATER ON. TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL
TIME FOR THIS OUTREACH, WE ARE
PROPOSING THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION IN FRONT OF YOU
TODAY. THE GOAL OF THIS INTERIM
LEGISLATION IS TO BRING SEATTLE
INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE.
AGAIN, IT IS GOING TO PROVIDE
THAT CENTRAL MECHANISM FOR
FLEXIBILITY AND DEVELOPMENT AS
WELL AS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
TIME FOR OUTREACH AND THE
FLEXIBILITY AND DEVELOPMENT IS
GOING TO BE PROVIDED THROUGH
ALLOWING PROJECTS TO OPT INTO
DESIGN REVIEW TO SEEK OUT
DEPARTURES AND DEPARTURES ALLOW
DEVIATIONS FROM DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS THAT OTHERWISE WOULD
NOT BE AVAILABLE TO PROJECTS.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT PART OF THIS
INTERIM LEGISLATION IS TO
WITHSTAND THE DESIGN REVIEW
EXEMPTIONS THAT PROVIDE
EXEMPTIONS FOR PROJECTS
PROVIDING ON-SITE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. AND IT ALSO ALLOWS THIS
PROJECT TO SEEK DEPARTURES
THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, SDCI HAS
BEEN WORKING ON THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION IN COLLABORATION
WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND LAW
DEPARTMENT TO DROP OFF UPDATES
TO THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS AND
GUIDELINES. THE GOAL OF THE
LEGISLATION IS GOING TO CREATE A
PROCESS FOR APPLICANTS AND THE
PUBLIC THROUGH IMPROVED
PRINTABLE TIMELINES IMPLICATING
DEVELOPMENT. WE'LL DO THIS BY
SIMPLY TRYING TO PROCESS,
INCREASING THRESHOLDS, UPDATING
LOCATIONS OF APPLICABILITY TO
AREAS WITH THE GREATEST URBAN
IMPACT SUCH AS URBAN VILLAGES
AND URBAN CENTERS. SIMPLIFYING
THE GUIDELINES AND AGAIN, COMING
INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE
STATE'S REQUIREMENT TO LIMIT
DESIGN, THE PUBLIC BEING 2 TO 1.
NEXT IS THE GUIDELINES NEEDED TO
REFLECT THAT ADDITIONAL OUTREACH
THAT WE WANT TO CONDUCT,
SPECIFICALLY THE GUIDELINES WILL
STRIKE A BETTER BALANCE BETWEEN
SUPPORTING DESIGN EXCELLENCE AND
CONTINUING THE FLEXIBILITY FOR
DEVELOPMENT. EMPHASIZING THE
MOST IMPACTFUL DESIGN GUIDELINES
INCLUDING DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT
HAVE SET PRINCIPLES AS WELL AS
UPDATING THE GUIDELINES TO COME
INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATES
REQUIREMENTS. AT A VERY HIGH
LEVEL, THAT TIMELINE FOR THE
PERMANENT LEGISLATION WOULD LOOK
LIKE OUTREACH TAKING PLACE THIS
FALL, FINALIZING LEGISLATION AND
NEW GUIDELINES OVERWINTER AND
RETURNING TO THE LAND USE
COMMITTEE IN THE SPRING OF 2026.
HOWEVER, BEFORE WE DO THIS, IN
THE INTERIM WE ARE PROPOSING THE
LEGISLATION IN FRONT OF YOU
TODAY. AND AGAIN, THIS
LEGISLATION SEEKS TO SUPPORT THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ELEMENTS OF
THE EXEMPTIONS FOR MHA AS WELL
AS CONTINUING FLEXIBILITY FOR
PROJECTS THAT NEED TO SEEK
DESIGN DEPARTURES WHO OTHERWISE
WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO MAKE
THOSE CODE DEVIATIONS. I WOULD
ALSO LIKE TO STRESS THAT
PROJECTS ALREADY TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THE MHA PERFORMANCE
EXEMPTIONS, THAT WOULD EXPIRE ON
SEPTEMBER 13th SO IT IS CRITICAL
THAT WE KEEP THIS INTERIM PIECE
MOVING IN THE MEANTIME TO ALLOW
THOSE PROJECTS TO CONTINUE TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE DESIGN
REVIEW EXEMPTIONS AS WELL AS
KEEPING PROJECTS AND DEPARTURES
MOVING THROUGH THE PERMIT
PROCESS. AND OF COURSE BRINGING
US CLOSER INTO COMPLIANCE WITH
STATE REQUIREMENTS WHILE WE WORK
THROUGH THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION. THAT IS ALL, I KNOW
YOU HAVE BEEN SITTING FOR A LONG
TIME, BUT LET ME KNOW IF YOU
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PRESENTATION, ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, JUST WANT
TO APPRECIATE THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION COMING TO US TODAY,
IT -- GOING BACK TO MY EXAMPLE
ABOUT THE FAMILY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECT, IT TAKES SO
MANY YEARS FOR EITHER PILOT
PROGRAMS OR JUST THE RIGHT
TIMING FOR PILOT PROGRAMS TO
ACTUALLY WORK, IT TAKES BUILDERS
ALLOWED TO FIGURE OUT IF THESE
ARE REAL AND BUILD A PLAN FROM
THEM, SPECIFICALLY EXTENDING THE
ON-SITE PERFORMANCE IS REALLY
CRITICAL AND I WAS THE SPONSOR
OF THAT BILL, AND THIS IS A BILL
YOU ARE SPONSORING. SO WE DO
NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME WITH
THESE PILOTS, SPECIFICALLY THE
ON-SITE PERFORMANCE PILOT WAS
VERY IMPORTANT AND I THINK THIS
IS A GOOD BILL. THANK YOU FOR
PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, CRYSTAL
AND NICE TO MEET YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ANY
OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? AND THIS CAN BE
DECIDED AND VOTED ON ON THE
15th. SO THIS ITEM WILL BE VOTED
ON IN THE NEXT MEETING, SO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE AND
I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU AT
THAT MEETING. THANK YOU. WE ARE
NOW AT ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
>> THE MOST EXCITING ONE.
>> CLERK, PLEASE READ ITEM SEVEN
INTO THE AGENDA.
>> AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LAND
USE AND ZONING, AMENDING CHAPTER
23.32 OF THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL
CODE AT PAGE EIGHT OF THE
OFFICIAL LAND USE MAP TO REZONE
LAND IN THE LAKE CITY
NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> AS PRESENTING OFFICER, I'M
OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
COUNSEL BILL 121049, RELATED TO
AMENDING THE SEATTLE SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS. HOW MANY SPEAKERS
DO WE HAVE SIGNED UP? WE HAVE
SEVEN SPEAKERS SIGNED UP, TWO IN
PERSON AND FIVE REMOTE.
>> EACH PERSON WILL GET TWO
MINUTES. SO I WILL HAND IT OVER
TO YOU TO READ THE INSTRUCTIONS
FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> THE PUBLIC HEARING
REGISTRATION WILL REMAIN OPEN
UNTIL CONCLUSION, IT IS RELATED
TO THE COUNSEL BILL 121049,
SPEAKERS HAVE TO BEGIN BY
STATING THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> AND IF YOU WANT TO CALL THEM
IN ORDER.
>> MY NAME IS KRISTIN GRAND
STRAND, I'M HERE TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF THE REZONE FOR LAKE
CITY. FAMILY WORKS IS A
NONPROFIT THAT PARTNERS WITH
FAMILIES TO CONNECT THEM WITH
RESOURCES THEY NEED TO STRIVE.
EVERY DAY OUR RESOURCE
NAVIGATORS MEET WITH CAREGIVERS
WHO ARE WORKING HARD TO PROVIDE
FOR THEIR FAMILIES, WITHOUT
QUESTION, THE NUMBER ONE REQUEST
IS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE
KNOW OUR CITY AND REGION ARE
FACING A HOUSING AND
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. FAMILIES
ARE BEING PRICED OUT OF THEIR
HOMES AND MANY WHO WORK AND
CONTRIBUTE ARE STRUGGLING TO
REMAIN A PART OF THE COMMUNITY,
THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY TO
SUPPORT THE PROPOSED REZONE FOR
LAKE CITY. THIS WILL MAKE ROOM
FOR 19 ADDITIONAL UNITS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH THE
POTENTIAL OF EVEN MORE THROUGH
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT. THESE
HOUSING UNITS REPRESENT
STABILITY FOR FAMILIES ALREADY A
PART OF THIS COMMUNITY.
APPROVING THIS REQUEST HELPS
ENSURE THESE FAMILIES CAN
REMAIN. FAMILY WORKS IS PROUD TO
PARTNER WITH MERCY HOUSING IN
THIS EFFORT, FAMILY WORKS WILL
PROVIDE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR
RESIDENTS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS
THAT WILL HELP CONNECT
PARTICIPANTS TO THE RESOURCES
THEY NEED TO HELP NAVIGATE
CHALLENGES AND BUILD LONG-TERM
STABILITY. WHEN HOUSING IS
PAIRED WITH SERVICES, NOT ONLY
TO HOUSES -- FAMILIES FIND
HOUSING, BUT THEY HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO KEEP IT. CHILDREN
WILL DO BETTER IN SCHOOL,
PARENTS HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR EMPLOYMENT AND THE ENTIRE
COMMUNITY THRIVES. I URGE YOU TO
APPROVE THIS ZONING INCREASE
TODAY FOR LAKE CITY AND THIS
APPROVAL IS AN INVESTMENT IN THE
HEALTH, STRENGTH AND FUTURE OF
OUR WORKING FAMILIES. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON
COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M JUST
SIMPSON HERE AGAIN, I'M HERE
TODAY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR ANOTHER
OPPORTUNITY YOU HAVE TO INCREASE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND REMOVE
BARRIERS TO HOUSING PRODUCTION.
THIS IS A REZONE SPEAKING IN
FAVOR OF COUNSEL BILL 121049, A
REZONE OF PARCELS IN LAKE CITY
TO FACILITATE REDEVELOPMENT OF
THE LAKE CITY COMMUNITY CENTER
ADDING OVER 100 AFFORDABLE
HOMES. THIS PROJECT BY MERCY
HOUSING WILL BE ADDING AMENITIES
FOR THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD TO
ENJOY, WITH CHILDCARE
FACILITIES, MULTIPURPOSE ROOMS
AND OUTDOOR PLAY SPACE CONNECTED
TO A PARK. ALONGSIDE NEW
AFFORDABLE FAMILY SIZED HOMES,
OVER TWO THIRDS OF THE HOMES
WILL HAVE TWO OR THREE BEDROOMS.
IT MAXIMIZES THE POTENTIAL FOR
THE SITE, PUTTING SCARCE LAND IN
THE CITY TO ITS BEST USE. THE
NEXT GENERATION OF FAMILIES CAN
RAISE CHILDREN IN THIS CITY AND
CONTRIBUTE TO OUR SOCIETY. I
URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS
CONTRACT REZONE AND HELP BRING
THIS DEPARTMENT ONE STEP CLOSER
TO REALITY. THANKS.
>> NEXT UP, ADRIAN.
>> HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M
ADRIAN, THE VICE PRESIDENT AT
MERCY HOUSING NORTHWEST AND I'M
HERE TO COMMENT IN SUPPORT OF
THE REZONE IN THE LAKE CITY
NEIGHBORHOOD, I WANT TO EXPRESS
OUR DEEP APPRECIATION TO BE
SELECTED AS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY
TO CO-LOCATE, THIS HOUSING IS
FOCUSED ON FAMILIES EARNING 30%
TO 60% OF MEDIAN AREA INCOME AND
TWO THIRDS WILL BE UNITS WITH
TWO, THREE AND FOUR BEDROOMS TO
MEET THIS URGENT NEED. WITH
SUPPORT OF THE ZONING
REALIZATION -- LEGISLATION, WE
CAN HAVE 19 ADDITIONAL UNITS TO
FURTHER RESPOND TO THE DEMAND
FOR FAMILY HOUSING. THE MERCY
HOUSING MODEL WILL MAINTAIN
STABLE HOUSING AND BUILD
PATHWAYS TO OPPORTUNITIES WITH
DEDICATED ON-SITE SPACE, WITH
PARTNERS LIKE FAMILY WORKS, WE
WILL PROVIDE THE FAMILY
RESOURCES, THE SCHOOL AND
WELLNESS PROGRAMS, FAMILIES WILL
PARTICIPATE IN PROGRAMMING AT
THE COMMUNITY CENTER, CHILDREN
WILL GO ON TRIPS TO THE LIBRARY
AND MULTIGENERATIONAL HOUSEHOLDS
WILL HAVE ROOM TO LIVE TOGETHER.
IT IS MORE ABOUT
BRICK-AND-MORTAR AND
STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY , WE ARE
EXCITED TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY
AND OUR NEIGHBORS TO CREATE THIS
SPACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN LIVE,
BELONG, CONTRIBUTE AND DRIVE AND
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THIS ZONING
LEGISLATION IS ESSENTIAL AND IT
WILL ALLOW US TO MAXIMIZE THIS
SITE AND INCREASE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR FAMILIES WHO
NEED IT MOST. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR SOLOMON AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I'M
LOBBYING ON BEHALF OF THE LAKE
CITY REZONING BILL, THIS PUTS IT
INTO CONTEXT, ONE OF THE LARGEST
SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES IN THE
STATE, SERVING MORE THAN 12,000
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EACH YEAR
AND WE ARE VERY PROUDLY LOCATED
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE A
FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER IS
LOCATED. WE RELY ON STRONG
PARTNERSHIPS NOT ONLY WITH THE
FAMILIES WE SERVE BUT OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS WHICH IS WHY WE
FULLY SUPPORT MERCY AND FAMILY
WORKS DEVELOPMENTS IN THE
PROJECT. FAMILY HOUSING WITH THE
COMMUNITY CENTER IS A PROVEN
MODEL FOR MEETING FAMILIES WHERE
THEY ARE WHILE ALSO ADDING TO A
VIBRANT AND INCLUSIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD. THE REZONING YOU
ARE CONSIDERING TODAY WILL
ENABLE US TO MOVE FORWARD AND
MAKE MUCH-NEEDED COMMUNITY SPACE
FOR SERVICES AND RECREATION
AVAILABLE. WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT
THE EMPHASIS ON FAMILY HOUSING
WHERE ROUGHLY TWO THIRDS OF THE
PROJECT WILL BE TWO, THREE AND
FOUR BEDROOM UNITS, THANK YOU
AGAIN FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND
WE URGE YOUR APPROVAL OF THE
LAKE CITY REZONE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, THAT IS
EVERYONE.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND TO COMMENT, THE PUBLIC
HEARING IS CLOSED. THE
REPRESENTATIVES HAVE JOINED US
AT THE TABLE SO PLEASE INTRODUCE
YOURSELVES AND BEGIN WHEN YOU
ARE READY.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON
COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M GEOFFREY
WENTLANDT WITH THE CITY'S
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT.
>> KELLY LARSON WITH THE OFFICE
OF HOUSING.
>> GREAT, AND BEFORE YOU BEGIN,
I WANT TO TURN IT OVER TO
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ TO MAKE
SOME COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU, VERY KIND OF YOU,
THIS IS VERY EXCITING TO COME
BACK AND SEE THIS. I SEE YOUR
BIG SMILE BECAUSE YOU KNOW HOW
LONG WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON
THIS. I HAVE SOME NOTES,
SEMI-SHARED ON AUGUST 6 AT THE
LAST LAND-USE COMMITTEE BUT I
HAVE SOME UPDATES AND I WANT TO
SAY THEM REALLY QUICK ON THE
TALKING POINTS. THIS IS THE
FIRST OF ITS KIND IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE, THEY TOLD US WE
COULDN'T DO IT AND WE SAID WE
COULD, WE COULD PUT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ON TOP, THEY WEREN'T
GOING TO BE ONE BEDROOM CONDOS
FOR FOLKS WHO WORK AT BIG
CORPORATIONS. I'M JUST SAYING
WE NEED TO LOOK AT TWO, THREE
AND FOUR HEADROOM FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, WE WORK CLOSELY WITH
TWO PK CENTERS AND WE ARE HOPING
TO WORK WITH THEM AND CHILDCARE
WITHIN THE COMMUNITY CENTER. I
KNOW THAT SOME OF THE CALLERS
SHARED THIS BUT I KNOW THAT
MERCY HOUSING WAS SELECTED
THROUGH A COMPETITIVE PROCESS.
THE CENTER WILL HAVE A
GYMNASIUM, MULTIPURPOSE ROOM,
CHILDCARE FACILITY, BUT I REALLY
WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO
SEATTLE PARKS AND REC AND THE
FORMER DIRECTOR, JESUS AND THE
FORMER LIBRARIAN WHO WORKED WITH
US ON THIS AND WE ARE JUST SUCH
BIG SUPPORTERS AND LIKE I SAID,
THIS HAS BEEN A DECADE IN THE
MAKING. SO WE KNOW THAT THERE IS
GOING TO BE A LARGE SHARE OF
AFFORDABLE HOMES TO SERVE
FAMILIES, AGAIN, IT'LL BE
BETWEEN 30% AND 60% OF AVERAGE
AFFORDABILITY WHICH IS VERY
EXCITING. I WANT TO SAY THANK
YOU TO MERCY HOUSING, THEY
REALLY STEPPED UP, FAMILY WORKS,
THEY ARE NOW IN THE OLD BANK
BUILDING THAT GOT BOUGHT WITH
THEIR SOCIAL SERVICE GROUPS
INSIDE THAT BUILDING AS WELL AS
NORTH HELPLINE. SO WE ARE
EXPECTED TO BREAK GROUND IN 2027
BUT TO BE HONEST, WE HAVE BEEN
PUSHING REALLY HARD TO GET THIS
DONE SOONER, I WANT TO SEE DIRT
MOVED SOON, I THINK WE CAN DO
IT. IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME IN
THE MAKING AND A HUGE SHOUT OUT,
IN THE EIGHT YEARS I WAS ON CITY
COUNCIL AND BACK AGAIN, I DON'T
THINK I HAVE EVER SHEPHERDED A
PROJECT WHERE I'VE HAD SIX CITY
DEPARTMENTS WORK SO WELL
TOGETHER AND SEATTLE PUBLIC
LIBRARIES, OFFICE OF HOUSING,
SEATTLE PARKS AND REC,
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS,
FAS, IT HAS BEEN AMAZING WORKING
WITH SIX CITY DEPARTMENTS THAT
GOT THIS DONE. SO A BIG SHOUT
OUT. WE ALSO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY
TO RECEIVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT
BUT I WANT TO GIVE A HUGE SHOUT
OUT TO JOE THOMPSON, THE
PRESIDENT OF MERCY HOUSING
NORTHWEST, MARCIO FROM FAMILY
WORKS AND DARCY, THE COED ED AT
HUNGER INTERVENTION PROGRAM AND
OF COURSE WE RECEIVED NUMEROUS
LETTERS, I THINK OVER 16 LETTERS
ON SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS AND I HAVE LIVED IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS
AND WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT AND
LAKE CITY WAY, WE ARE DETERMINED
NOT TO LET LAKE CITY WAY BECOME
A GHOST TOWN, WE HAVE LOST
ECONOMIC ENGINES, WE HAVE LOST A
WALGREENS, WE HAVE LOST BANKS,
WE ARE GOING TO LOSE A FRED
MYERS SOON, WE HAVE LOST A
STARBUCKS AND TWO OR THREE
CULTURAL COMMUNITY ANCHORS THAT
WERE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE
COMMUNITY AND THEY ARE NOW GONE.
THIS IS A MUCH-NEEDED POST --
BOOST, ALTHOUGH WE ARE VERY
BLESSED TO HAVE A FARMERS MARKET
AS I SHARED. WE ALSO HAVE THE
NOOK UP TOWARDS NORTHGATE, WE
ALSO HAVE THE NORTHGATE COMMONS
COMING ONLINE WHERE WE BOUGHT
EIGHT ACRES AND WE ARE GOING TO
PUT OVER 300 ACRES THERE WORKING
WITH HOUSING AUTHORITY. I CANNOT
TELL YOU HOW HARD WE HAVE BEEN
FIGHTING NOT ONLY FOR NORTHGATE,
AURORA BUT LAKE CITY WAY AND
ALSO FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY
MEASURES THAT SHOULD COMPLEMENT
AND FOLLOW THIS TYPE OF GROWTH.
WE TOOK IT TO HEART 10 YEARS AGO
WHEN WE WERE INSTRUCTED BY THE
MAYOR AND SOME OF OUR OTHER
LEADERS AND DEVELOPERS TO REALLY
DRILL DOWN AND WORK WITH LOCAL
DEVELOPERS AT NORTHGATE FOR THE
ICE PLEX, FOR THE JOHN LEWIS
BRIDGE, WHEN WE WORKED WITH
OTHER DEVELOPERS TO PUT IN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING RIGHT NEXT TO
LIGHT RAIL. WE HAVE TWO LIGHT
RAIL STOPS. SO WHAT WE WANT TO
SEE AT LAKE CITY IS WHAT WE HAVE
DONE AT NORTHGATE. I THINK IF
ANYONE IS STUDYING ZONING AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HOW
LAND-USE WORKS IN THE CITY, I
THINK, AND I'M JUST GOING TO
SAY IT, THAT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE
OF WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU HAVE
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS THAT
WORK WITH CITY GOVERNMENT THAT
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX AND SAY WE
CAN BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON
PROPERTY THAT THE CITY OWNS, NOT
JUST A BRICK-AND-MORTAR BUT THE
DIRT UNDERNEATH. IT'S NOT JUST
BUILDING ON THINGS ON WHETHER WE
HAVE A GROUND LEASE. RIGHT NOW
WE ARE HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME,
WE LEARNED LAST WEEK THAT
KROGER, FRED MEYER IS GOING TO
LEAVE LAKE CITY AND THAT SIX
ACRES IS A HUGE AREA WHERE IT
SERVES ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS
AND WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT NOT
HAVING A GROCERY STORE WITHIN
WALKING DISTANCE AND HOPEFULLY
WE CAN HAVE BETTER COMMUNICATION
WITH SOME OF THESE OTHER STORES
TO PERHAPS REPLACE IT AND LOOK
AT OTHER OPTIONS. AND I JUST
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE
WORK YOU'VE DONE, YOU DID A
GREAT POWERPOINT FOR ME, BUT
OTHER THAN THAT, I WAS VERY
HAPPY YOU UPDATED IT FOR ME. YOU
NEVER DO PAGE NUMBERS. WITH
THAT, THANK YOU FOR INDULGING ME
TO CHEER FOR THEM, IT REALLY
MEANS A LOT TO ME AND I HOPE YOU
KNOW AS PUBLIC SERVANTS AND CITY
WORKERS, WE SEE YOU AND WE SEE
THE HARD WORK THAT YOU DO AND IT
REALLY MEANS A LOT TO US. SO
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ. AGAIN,
MINDFUL OF TIME.
>> WE HAD THE CHANCE TO BRIEF
YOU ON THIS IN AUGUST, AND THE
LAND-USE COMPONENT HASN'T
CHANGED SO I DON'T FEEL A GREAT
NEED TO REDO THAT PRESENTATION,
JUST A QUICK REMINDER THAT THE
ACTION BEFORE YOU IN A NUTSHELL
IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO
INCREASE THE HEIGHT LIMIT BY 10
FEET, FROM FOUR PARCELS IN THE
HEART OF LAKE CITY AND AGAIN
THIS ALLOWS FOR MORE EFFICIENT
CONSTRUCTION AND MORE HOUSING.
AND MY COLLEAGUES MAY WISH TO
SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE
EXCITING COMMUNITY CENTER
PROJECT.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO IF YOU
DON'T WANT TO. WE STILL HAVE
CORAM. YOU ARE ONLINE. OKAY.
GOOD. I SEE COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA
HAS HER HAND UP.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR. I JUST
REALLY WANTED TO THANK BOTH
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ , BUT ALSO
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE WHO CARES
DEEPLY ABOUT THIS PROJECT, THIS
WAS A PROJECT SHE WAS VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF AND ONE THAT I
SUPPORT. IT IS A VERY EXCITING
PROJECT AND I'M GLAD TO SEE IT
MOVING FORWARD. SO, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. AND I ALSO WANT TO
ECHO THAT SENTIMENT AND
RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER MOORE
FOR HER WORK ON THIS PROJECT AS
WELL. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
OKAY, HEARING NONE, IF THERE ARE
NO OBJECTIONS, THE RULES WILL BE
SUSPENDED TO ALLOW THE COMMITTEE
TO VOTE TO SIT ON THIS BILL THE
SAME DAY AS THE PUBLIC HEARING
WAS HELD. OKAY, NO OBJECTIONS,
THE RULES ARE SUSPENDED AND THE
COMMITTEE WILL PROCEED WITH A
VOTE. I MOVED THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNSEL
BILL 121049, IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> ANY FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE
PASSAGE OF THIS BILL? HEARING
NONE, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL TO PASS THE COUNSEL
BILL 121049?
>> VICE CHAIR STRAUSS ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK ?
>> ABSOLUTELY YES.
>> ZERO OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION PASSES, THE
COMMITTEE BILL WILL BE SENT TO
THE SEPTEMBER 9th, 2025 COUNCIL
MEETING. THANK YOU. WE HAVE
REACHED THE END OF TODAY'S
MEETING AGENDA. THANK YOU
EVERYONE FOR HANGING IN THERE
FOR ABOUT THREE HOURS NOW. OUR
NEXT MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE IS
SEPTEMBER 15th, 2025 AT 9:30
A.M. ANY FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE
WE ADJOURN?
>> CHAIR, I WANT TO PUBLICLY
THANK YOU FOR HOW YOU HANDLED
TODAY'S MEETING, I LOST TRACK
OF HOW MANY PUBLIC HEARINGS WE
DID BUT I WANTED TO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE
AND INDULGENCE, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
>> AGAIN, MY THANKS TO THE
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO TOOK
TIME TO HANG OUT WITH US FOR THE
PAST SEVERAL HOURS, MUCH
APPRECIATED AND WITH NO FURTHER
BUSINESS, IT IS 5:02 P.M. AND WE
ARE ADJOURNED, THANK YOU VERY