Land Use Committee and Public Hearing 9/3/2025

Am I muted?

Hello?

Hello?

I don't care.

Plus, I may need him to try to secure another store.

I need to know who his buddies are.

I don't really care.

I need my mic.

Am I on?

Oh, 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 of the Land Use Committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Yes, I'm here, and I'll stop side talking.

Here.

Present.

Present.

Here.

Thank you very much.

I move to adopt the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

It has been moved and second to adopt the agenda.

As chair, I am recommending that item five 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. Hearing no objection, that agenda is adopted.

Now, if there's 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 out to discuss land use issues.

Definitely want to thank our central staff as well as department officials, the clerks, for our meetings.

Now we will open 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.

We will not take comments on item number two because it is a quasi-judicial decision and the council cannot accept public comment on quasi-judicial items.

With that, how many speakers do we have signed up today?

Currently, we have 17 in-person speakers signed up and 21 remote speakers.

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.

But yet allow more time during public hearing if you're here to speak about one of those particular items.

OK?

All right.

So we'll start with the in-person speakers first.

So clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they're registered.

In-person speakers will be called first, after which we'll move to remote speakers until the public comment period is ended.

Speakers will have a chime, and there are 10 seconds left of their time.

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within the time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open, and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

That is Ron Horning.

I'm here to talk about Roots to Roofs.

One of the new amendments has an owner deal.

I talked about this when it was connected communities.

I don't qualify for that, but One person on our block would.

Everyone else wouldn't.

So are we at risk of losing our homes to development and being pushed off of our properties for this legislation?

That's my question to the council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Michelle Osborne.

Hi, my name's 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 and 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 routes to roofs, they remove the affordable housing requirement, I urge this council to review the comments in detail that I submitted at a later date so that...

Thank you, Michelle.

Next up, we have David Moring.

Hello, David Moring, resident of District No. 7, Interbay, and I'm an architect.

Asked by some folks from the District 3 to support their opposition to Ridge to Roof.

You'll be hearing, I think, them call in later.

As a white male, 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 asks is, listen to the increased displacement concerns of people of color residing in these higher and moderately high disadvantaged and priority census tracts.

These have been mapped by the City of Seattle Department of Transportation.

Second ask, learn from the City of Chicago zoning and stop targeting race and social justice tracts like D2, D3, D5, etc.

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 we have Leah Martin.

My name is Leah Martin, and I'm with Allied Aid Architects.

In 2019, CAYA started envisioning how to build affordable homes for sale on their land for their displaced communities.

If they had the capital in the bank in 2019, they could have designed and built that project when interest rates were low and the pandemic hadn't yet skyrocketed the cost of construction.

But CAYA, like most CBOs, didn't have that kind of capital, so they had to raise millions of dollars in order to start the project.

We're seeing one today.

However, contract re-zones require a lot of money and a lot of time.

The pilot can grant CBOs the tools of success because it offers CBOs the same opportunities as market rate developments.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Bilan Aiden.

Good afternoon, council members.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

My name is Bilan Aden, and I serve as the vice president and co-founder of African Community Housing and Development.

We're a CBO that is doing some development work in the city limits.

We're here to be 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 FAR and height for equitable development, it creates real opportunities for CBOs to build affordable housing and community spaces our neighborhoods urgently need.

Roots to Roofs builds on lessons from the earlier Connected Communities pilot with clear improvements.

It applies up to 35 projects over 10 years, 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.

Hey, good afternoon, council members.

I'm Jesse Simpson with the Housing Development Consortium, here today to speak in strong support of two opportunities before you to directly increase affordable housing, land use changes to remove barriers to building the housing we need most, and address Seattle's deep housing shortage.

I'd like to speak first 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 a reality without needing to go through a costly, lengthy, and uncertain contract rezone process, as Mercy Housing is currently undertaking with the Lake City Community Center.

The pilot ensures that at least a quarter of the homes will be affordable to low-income people for 50 years.

It opens the door to community-servant spaces like cultural centers, childcare, and affordable commercial space, and is available to non-profits, housing authorities, and public development authorities.

Housing faces many barriers.

Zoning's a key one and one that's basically free for the city to remove.

I urge you to support this pilot program and thank Council Member Rink for bringing it forward.

Next up, we have Brian McKinster.

Thank you Chair Solomon and committee members.

Ryan McKinster, Habitat for Humanity of Seattle.

In the interest of time, since you have a full schedule, I'll talk about two bills real quick and our support for them.

First of all, the Roots to Roots pilot program.

We're in a housing crisis and we need to use all tools available Before us at this time.

With over 46,000 Cosper and Seattle households and 34,000 lower wage workers sometimes commuting over 25 miles to our city, we do need solutions and this pilot program is one way of doing it.

In addition, it allows organizations like ours to participate, ensuring vulnerable residents not only have a place to live, but the ability for home ownership and more importantly, an opportunity to build generational wealth.

As for the design review ordinance in front of you, we also feel this is important.

It keeps Seattle in compliance with state law while permitting permanent reforms to be developed by you and stakeholders that are involved.

The streamlined processes work.

When we remove bureaucratic barriers, affordable housing production increases, which is especially important because we're already on a thin edge of producing those.

Thank you very much.

Next up, we have Donald King.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm here in support of legislation of Council Bill 121011. Sorry, by the way, my name's Donald King, and I'm a resident of Belltown and Councilmatic District 7. Our city is still challenged by its pre-existing condition of the lack of affordable homes.

And with a previous bill, the ROOP, 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, it's 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 shown to really alleviate the problems 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 Cawthon.

I'm here in a personal capacity today.

I'm here to strongly support CR 121-011, the Roots to Roof initiative.

We need 1.1 million new homes across the state by 2040, and this bill will be a powerful tool to create more affordable housing.

This program is intentional.

Participating developers will be required to set aside Percent of the units for affordable housing for low-income families.

It removes barriers that often hobble affordable housing projects and it allows community organizations finally be able 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 effective rulemaking.

So I'll keep it short.

This is a tool that our city needs right now.

I want to thank Councilmember Rink and also other community members that have take that support.

Thank you so much Clifford.

Next up we have Jasmine Smith.

Thank you, Council Members.

My name is Jasmine Smith, Director of Local Advocacy at FutureWise, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak in strong support of the Roots to Roots initiative.

We're at this critical moment, and this is a critical opportunity to peel back at the disparate housing discrimination that's 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 as a meaningful and intentional step forward to preserve and grow the communities that we love, cherish, and belong in.

This intentionality 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 look at abundant, opportunity-rich communities for all.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Jeff Paul.

Good afternoon, Council.

Thank you so much for hearing me out.

Thank you, Council Member Marenk, for putting this forward.

I'm here to speak in favor of the Roots to Roots legislation.

I'm with How's Our Neighbors, but I'm just speaking as a renter.

When I moved to Seattle, I had to move four times in the first two years that 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 and find out just how shockingly unaffordable it is here.

I'm now an educator and I see kids getting priced out of this city, families getting priced out of this city all the time, pushed out onto the streets.

I know we've got a whole bunch of different I'm really thankful that we're using tools like this, like using land use as a fiscally-responsive 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, so all of us can afford to thrive in this amazing place.

Thank you so much.

Next up we have Jeff Piper.

Good afternoon, council members.

Thanks for having me.

My name is Jeff Piper.

I'm an architect with Five Dot and a resident of District 3 here to speak in support of the Roots to Roof pilot program.

Can we have some volume?

I can't hear a thing that anybody's saying.

Can we restart this time?

Speak real close to that mic.

Point of 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'd ask for some decorum in the chambers.

Absolutely.

Sir, we will take care of the volume.

Thank you.

Okay.

How about this?

The Roots to Roof pilot program is an 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 the 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.

They strengthen local capacity, create long-term affordability, and keep cultural anchors in place.

In addition, I'd like to express my opposition to Amendment 9, which would limit qualifying developments to regional, urban, and neighborhood centers.

Many of these community organizations who would benefit most from this program are located outside of these centers, and in fact, many have been in Seattle far longer than these designations have existed.

The major asset these organizations own 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 their 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, it'll be Garrett, Steve Rubstello, Dave Glogger, Schulte McAfee, and Slyman Apello.

OK.

Hi, my name is Sharon Kosla.

I live and work in the Central Area.

I am in strong favor for the Roots to Roof pilot program.

I am a community advocate and architect that has been working closely with community-based organizations in the Central Area and the South Seattle CAYA, RBAC, Urban Family.

These are organizations that are taking on the housing crisis with enthusiasm and care.

This is not always their lane, but they see the need and they want to be at the front of it.

This program is vital in necessity 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 our goals and neighborhoods, plans created by communities around the city.

Lastly, my house was one of the first pilot programs in 2005. All the lessons from that pilot program, I- Thank you so much, Sharon.

Next up, we have Garrett Johnson.

My name is Garrett Johnson.

I'm the community engagement organizer at the Urban League of 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.

The first would be to require at least 10% of the projects be for 30% or less of the AMI in communities.

The second would be a neighborhood-based income standards instead of a regional AMI.

The third would be tie bigger bonuses to deeper affordability.

This has been done in California, New York, Los Angeles, and transit-oriented communities, and Austin.

Sorry, ensure uniform standards and fair treatment.

There should be no difference between market-based and affordable units, including with maintenance and amenities.

We've seen this used in Manhattan and in Boston, and also provide renter's right to return for development and displacement.

Thank you very much, Garrett.

Next up we have Steve.

After Steve will be Dave Glogger, Shelty McAfee, and Slayman Apollo.

I'm so sorry for that last name.

Some ideas with a lot of money behind them just never go away.

We've 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 till after the comprehensive plan.

Let's take a look what our base zoning is before you start giving even more bonuses.

Now, I'm worried about people who make $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year.

My rough calculating is that this ain't gonna help them.

This is gonna 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 it or not.

I think it's 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 even talking about before you vote.

Thank you very much, Steve.

Next up, we have Dave Glogger.

Good afternoon.

My name is Dave Glover.

I'm a resident of District 5, and I urge you to vote against Roots to Roots.

If you ask why, I'd say look in Seattle Times.

In Sunday's paper, there was a big article with the headline, Why Are Thousands of Seattle's Affordable Housing Units Vacant?

It's because they're too expensive.

They're a close to market rate.

They talk about things in the Central District and Beacon Hill.

They charge $1,600 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 that's in the Seattle Times.

And like Steve said, why are we making land use changes weeks before we're going to implement our comprehensive plan?

We should look at that, take care of it at the same time instead of giving workarounds and giveaways to developers.

This is nothing more than displacement and gentrification.

Next, Sheltie McAfee.

Good afternoon.

My name is Chetty McAfee, 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's really, really important.

We've been fighting for this since 2019, and it still hasn't come to pass.

100% of home ownership, not rental, in the Central District is a flagship.

It never has happened.

So we're excited about that.

We want it to happen.

We want some of those people who were pushed out to the south end, Kent, Renton, Federal Way, we want them to come back, okay?

So my point of being here is to fight .

And that's the heartbeat of our community.

It's gone.

We want to bring them back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Slamon.

Hi, my name is Sleiman Apodolo, resident of District 2, and I'm here to offer my support for the proposed bill, Roof to Roots.

And 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 bring it forth.

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 comp updates, such as the split zone properties that don't meet the 51% requirement.

I also recommend revising Amendment 8 to allow additional development standards to protect Level 2 trees.

You know additional far height bonus and site and also I oppose amendment number nine and it 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 and I'm here to express support for the Interim Design Review Council Bill 121048. There is abundant evidence that design review adds time, cost, and unpredictability to housing creation, which impacts housing affordability.

And since 2021, HCC has been working through the Broad-Based Seattle for Everyone Coalition to improve design review.

We can't control all the factors that impact housing creation, but we can control local permitting and review.

This bill is a step in the right direction.

It's going to do two very valuable things.

By allowing design review 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.

Hello.

I live in District 2 and I urge you to vote no on Council Bill 121011 or remove it from the agenda.

Roots to Roots is a developer giveaway wrapped in equity language.

It uses the history of anti-Black racism to justify huge density bonuses without benefiting displaced families or stabilizing legacy residents.

It would destabilize neighborhoods.

It allows buildings to be much taller and larger than current rules permit or than any surrounding buildings in exchange for a theoretical 25% affordable units for households earning 40 to 80% of AMI beyond the reach 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 dwelling in these massive loopholes that developers can exploit.

It does not protect trees.

Lots will be clear-cut, losing the health benefits of trees.

Amendment 8 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, and I'm calling in strong opposition of Roots to Roots and Demand on behalf of organizations such as Democrats for Diversity and Inclusion, King County Equity Now, Cannock, and more who are united against this bill that it does not move forward.

It is Connected Communities 2.0, a failed idea recycled as yet another, This set of policies disguised as equity that are in reality anti-Black 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 both at risk of displacement.

That's not equity.

Seattle needs real solutions.

Housing has truly affordable protections against displacement and tree canopy that keeps us safe.

Roots to Roofs does none of this.

We demand you stop this before it starts.

Vote no on Council Bill 121-011.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Sandy Shetler.

Hi.

Yeah, this is Sandy Shetler with Tree Action Seattle, and I'm commenting on Roots to Roofs.

I'm thankful to Council Members Hollingsworth and Rivera for Amendment 8, which would require these projects to retain Tier 2 trees in 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 2 feet in diameter is guaranteed, and there will be no room for replacement.

We should not allow 75 percent lot coverage for any low rise or neighborhood residential lots.

And we definitely should not be targeting people of moderate incomes with high hardscape housing that has no shade.

Seattle's five in the nation for urban heat.

Seattle residents on average experience at least eight degrees more heat on a daily basis because of their local built environment.

In low canopy neighborhoods, King County found spots 20 degrees hotter.

Let's envision affordable housing with big shade trees.

We can and must do better.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Hallie Willis.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Hallie Willis.

I'm the policy manager at the Coalition on Homelessness, and I live in District 5. I'm speaking today to support the proposed rezone of the Lake City Community Center to allow over 90 new affordable homes for families in Lake City.

Too many Seattle residents become homeless because there isn't enough deeply affordable housing anywhere in Seattle.

Adding 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 a public hearing.

Please reorient that for our Lake City discussion.

Next up, we have Ruby Holland.

Ruby?

Please reject the Roots to Roots project.

It is a bill that relies on non-profits at a time when non-profits are going under or struggling to survive.

It relies on homeowner lots at a time when we are working on an anti-displacement plan for homeowners and former redline 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 that 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 CD and South End are already up-zoned for high density.

We have humongous apartment buildings and more on the way.

We all have million dollar skinny homes and lots that blacks gave up for the MHA promise of affordable housing and density.

The ones who cooked up this intentional bait and switch being Mayor Harold Durkin and probably Murray get a huge disservice to Seattle.

Next up we have Richard Ellison.

Hello.

My name is Richard Ellison, and I live in Council District 4. In this holy war for housing, are all big trees expendable?

As Seattle's Strategic Advisor Brendan Staley once said, big private property trees are not compatible with urbanization, he feels.

In this holy war for housing, Seattle's database shows that every month, 345 big trees were cut down.

And just yesterday in my neighborhood, a developer cut down a 42-inch diameter deodorant cedar.

In this holy war for housing, Mayor Harrell promised to save trees, but then appointed the Master Builders Marco Lowe as Seattle's Chief Operating Officer, and he butchered the tree ordinance to allow all trees to be cleared on a lot with development.

In this holy war for housing, it's not like Star Trek's Next Generation, when Captain Picard would say, yes, we need housing.

Yes, we also need trees.

Is there not a third alternative that would allow both to coexist 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, Richard.

Next up, we have Liam Niehaus-Stab.

Liam?

Hello, I'm Liam from District 4, and I'd like to speak in favor of the Roots to Roofs pilot program.

The truth is there's just not enough affordable housing in Seattle, and we need to act on that as soon as possible.

So I'd prefer not to wait until after the comp 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.

So I'd be pleased to see the pilot program pass so that more housing and affordable housing can be built in Seattle.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Aretha Basu.

Okay.

We will move up next to Derek Lum.

Hi, everybody.

Council, thank you for having me today.

My name's Derek, commenting on Council Bill 12101. I work at Incrum CDA, a community development association based in Chinatown and National District.

We build culturally relevant low and mixed income housing for immigrants and BIPOC folks and provide other services to our community.

We are a leader of strong support of Roots to Roots.

In our work, we have gone through a lot of effort to build culturally relevant housing for our community, and we see this as a logical step to enhance that work.

and to make it more widely available to various other communities.

We encounter a lot of barriers, a lot to meet our community's needs, and to make the project pencil.

And so 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 Roof from the agenda today.

There are several violations of requirements for public notice, given the significance of the very late amendments.

And 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 parcel is not correctly zoned.

If that takes a little extra time, it's 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 that the PUDA actually provides equitable benefits.

You've 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 different tool.

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 Godfrey.

Jennifer?

Oh, hi.

Sorry.

I am calling in today to express a no vote on CB 121011, Roots to Roots, which has come back with a new name, yet I believe 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, up-zoning higher property taxes, all without ensuring affordability or community benefits.

Prioritizing pavement over canopy.

It will accelerate canopy loss in low-income neighborhoods that already face the high of heat risks.

We cannot fight climate change while removing our cooling shade trees.

Is it fair to ask low-income populations to purchase and power AC when trees would have done it 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, the grocer, the 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 Roof is designed to add density for a vibrant city in an ever-growing state.

Remember, this is a city-wide public Council, not a homeowners association.

Supply to meet demand is the most basic principle of any market.

Roots to roof brings supply to areas that were denied investment.

Keep density fair.

Do not let fear-mongering NIMBYs control the needs of working people.

Thank you.

Aretha Basu, we're going to try one more time.

Hi, council members.

Can you all hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon.

My name is Aretha Basu.

I'm here on behalf of Puget Soundstage to speak in support of the proposed route to roof pilot.

The city has made important progress in the last 10 years, including the Equitable Development Initiative, the Anti-Displacement Risk Map, and 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 stabilize thousands of small BIPOC-owned businesses in order to preserve the rich fabric of our city.

We have the land to do it, but we still don't have the zoning and resources.

The Roots to Roots pilot program begins to fix that challenge and could become a flagship initiative that gets us to that 50,000 member while addressing harms of racist planning in the past.

We urge the council to adopt this proposed ordinance.

Thank you so much.

Chair, that concludes our speakers.

All right, I want to thank everyone for their public comment.

We will now move 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 32 netting poles at Jefferson Park golf course project number 3039491-LU type five, Jefferson Park golf course, of course, Bill Wright golf course now.

All right, so this item is for a briefing discussion and public hearing.

This legislation will help address errant golf balls traveling outside of the golf course, the Bill Wright Golf Complex.

which 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 speaker will have two minutes.

And clerk, I'll now hand it over to you to present the instructions.

Speakers will be called in the order of registration.

The public hearing registration will remain open until the conclusion of the public hearing.

The same public comment rules apply to this public hearing.

A 10 second term will be your notice that this time, that it is time to wrap up comments.

Speakers will be muted at the end of the allotted time.

Public comment related to clerk for all three and four, five, three, six is only being accepted at this public hearing.

Speakers are asked to begin their comments by stating their name.

First up we have Theodore Holt.

Hi, my name is Theodore Holt.

Good afternoon, Councilmembers.

I'm speaking in opposition to the netting project at the Bill Wright Golf Complex, and we'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 holes 11 and 12. That's the height of a 16-story building.

It requires FAA approval and type 5 council legislative action.

That is not routine maintenance by definition.

Approving on that basis would establish a dangerous precedent that city departments can invade Environmental review by mislabeling new construction as maintenance.

And query whether it would pass judicial review.

On the policy aspects, even if the project were considered properly, it would fail every test from what you council members have to consider in terms of its compliance with the comprehensive plan, both existing and proposed Seattle 1. It's an incompatible height and bulk.

It proposes 16-story poles and two-story residential area.

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 skyline views from I-90.

You can see it from I-90 and all the way over to West Seattle, probably from the ferries as well.

The comprehensive plan requires an expansion of canopy.

This removes 20 mature trees, and that's contrary to the public representations.

It's financially irresponsible.

It's $3 million.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Theodore.

Next up, we have Gary Breitstein.

My name's 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 to move to Beacon Hill because it was so beautiful.

Now it's 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 am 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 That Jeff, we don't need these nets.

We need you to use that money to clean up the golf course.

It's awful.

I brought pictures.

I don't know if you're interested in seeing them.

It shows how originally they planted some money and now the trees are completely covered by blackberries.

A waste of money.

Your polls will be a waste of money.

Next up we have Anne Takakawa.

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 am a life member of Birds 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 fence 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 10 one-story houses like mine stacked one on top of the other.

Thank you so much.

Next up we have Charles McGrady.

I live in the neighborhood, also a 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 in the beginning of this year, Parks has communicated that 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 are going to be displaced.

And the nets are so tall, they need FAA lighting.

I think this is a fundamentally different project than what was proposed to the community.

And I just want to emphasize, our community has been safe for the last 10 years because they changed the course design.

So this is a proposal to lengthen the golf course back to where it was.

There's 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 completes the Bill Wright Perimeter Trail on 24th Place South, replants the line of trees along the entire perimeter of Hole 7, 11, and 12 that used to protect our neighborhood until they died and weren't replanted, removes not just cuts back the blackberries at the base of the nets, and addresses the dangerous flooding into the neighborhood from the spring on Hole 12. These nets are a 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.

So completing the Bill Wright Perimeter Trail will connect almost five miles of trails in Beacon Hill.

Planting a line of trees will ensure that these nets aren't required to be replaced in 50 years.

Restoring the natural habitat at the base of the nets will significantly reduce the maintenance costs.

So I just hope that we carry forward this vision and don't set this precedent that you can build these nets and not do anything in response to offset them.

Thank you.

Next up, Gary McNeil.

Am I good for sound here?

Okay.

I'll make it brief.

I'm for the Nets.

I live on 24th Avenue South.

I'm right in the middle of the 11th hole.

I've lived there for 25 years.

We had people hit by balls.

We had cars hit by balls.

We had windows broken.

That's why it was truncated.

That's why it was stopped, and that's why the 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 a 70 is a little bit different.

I'm glad we named it after Bill Wright.

It's a long time coming.

Thanks for the work.

You got kids that are learning about their history.

I have a son that went to Franklin.

He was kind of proud about it, but they didn't teach it at Franklin.

It was kind of interesting just about 20 years ago.

So put it up.

Vote for it.

Make it work.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Aaron Szczewski.

Good afternoon.

I'm Aaron Szczewski, president of the Bill Wright Men's Golf and Social Club at Jefferson 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 10 years it is able to be made complete.

That potential includes honoring the legacy of a young black man from Seattle who accomplished something every American can be proud of when in 1959 he broke the color barrier in golf.

Please vote to approve this project to restore this important fixture in Seattle's sports, cultural, and racial history.

Thank you.

We'll now move to our remote speakers.

Our one remote speaker is Judy Ozuna.

Hello, this is Judy Ozuna, and thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

I'm calling in in support of the pole and fencing project at Bill Wright Golf Complex.

This would restore the golf course to its original layout and thereby restore the golf challenges of holes 11 and 12. As president of the Women's Club at Bill Wright, which comprises 130 members, I am representing There's strong opinion that these two holes be restored.

Our members have eagerly anticipated this fencing for over the last several years and have been repeatedly disappointed as the project has been delayed.

Bill Wright Golf Complex serves a diverse community and is a premier golf course with a state-of-the-art driving range, clubhouse, pro shop and an 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 this public hearing.

The public hearing on Clerk File 314-536 is now closed.

Will our representatives from Council Center staff please join us to answer any questions that 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.

Hi, I'm Andy Schaffer, Seattle Parks.

Hi, I'm Shannon Glass with Seattle Parks.

David Sachs with the Department of, excuse me, Department of Inspection and Construction, SDCI.

Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff.

All right, thank you very much.

Do any of the members of the committee have questions for our presenters regarding this council file?

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Andy, great to see everyone.

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 are establishing budgets for those to be funded.

Either through grants or a future cycle of Metropolitan Parks District.

Currently those trails are unfunded.

It is of highest priority to the golf program for certain.

So for our viewing public and for the council members that will be here for the next round of the Metropolitan Parks District funding cycles, for the public 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'd 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 of weeks ago, looking at 11 and 12. We looked at the BlackBerry situation, as was brought up, and was wondering about the maintenance plan for those existing BlackBerrys.

We also looked at how if you basically move the tee box for 11, you could achieve the par 4. But that would require some blackberry maintenance.

Can you speak to 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 blackberry.

Oh, did you have more to add?

Just to manage expectations, when I say we will plant small trees that we'll establish quickly rather than large trees that take a long time to establish, but we will eradicate blackberries in the project limits, absolutely.

Okay.

The next question is regarding trees and tree displacement.

Looking at where the existing netting is on 24th Avenue side, saw that there were 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's 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.

That won't create a conflict with the new netting.

But we can look at that further and get back to you if you like.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

I got a lot for you.

The other thing that, you know, as you know, I live just 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'm thinking about, you know, the current height of the netting around the driving range, how is that a comparison to this 160 feet that's being proposed?

And does it need to be 160 feet?

Yeah.

So 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's only at 160 feet at the maximum ball trajectory from the tee.

And then, Shannon, how does that 160-foot height compare to the netting and 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 of the same site, same height, around 130 feet.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah, I was just curious about, you know, again, I've heard it been said that, you know, if you need a 106 foot net, you know, when you're driving, you're a really bad golfer.

So thank you for providing some clarification.

And again, thinking about the folks who live right next to the golf course who are going to be seeing that netting.

Just wanted to make sure that if the heights 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 the 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 to seconded to grant the clerk file.

Are there any final comments?

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 four.

No, just us.

Sorry.

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to grant the clerk file.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Chair Solomon.

Aye.

Chair, there are five in favor.

Zero post.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the clerk file be granted will be sent to the City Council.

Thank you very much for being here.

Thank you very much to the community, 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.

Agenda item two, clerk file 314534, application of Scott Carr for a contract rezone of a site located at 352 Roy Street from Seattle mixed uptown with a 65-foot height limit and mandatory housing affordability overlay to Seattle mixed uptown with a 85-foot height limit and mandatory housing affordability overlay.

All right, I see a representative has joined us.

So please introduce yourself for the record and begin when you're ready.

Thank you, sorry, it's my first time running the screen.

Because 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 rather, is a briefing, but I did want to let you know what type of action it will be when it comes back for an action, because it's a little different than some of the other things you see.

It's a 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, which is in your pocket.

So this is a proposed rezone of a site on Roy Street from Seattle mixed uptown with a 65 foot height limit and a mandatory housing affordability suffix of M to the same designation but with an 85 foot height limit.

So it's Seattle mixed uptown 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 for where we are in space, we are here on Roy Street in the Lower Queen and Uptown area, just north of the Mercer Street garage, and the site currently has several older structures with restaurants as well as a parking lot.

Here's 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 then an open record public hearing and the hearing examiner issued a recommendation of approval in July.

So it's now before the Land Use Committee before going to the full council.

The hearing examiner's recommended conditions in the property use and development agreement relate to, on the one hand, mandatory housing affordability and ensuring that those requirements are, you know, 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's 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 a signed 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'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from the members of the committee for our presenter?

Vice Chair Sorrells.

Thank you, HB.

Great presentation.

Very short to the point.

Can you help us understand?

I have the material in front of me.

I've read it.

But if you could, for the public record, just 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 that 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 That to meet the mandatory housing affordability via performance.

So relying on projects like this to help meet the city's affordable housing goals and the number of units that would be produced by an additional two stories of height.

And so that's what the hearing examiners kind of process, I think, mostly focused on.

But it's pretty extensive in terms of analyzing, you know, the topography of the site and adjacent development, recent development, history of the site, all that good stuff.

And for the record, their conclusion was?

Approval.

Thank you.

Any other comments, questions?

Okay.

Hearing that, I want to thank you.

This item will be coming before the committee again for a vote.

But I thank HB for being here today.

So we will now move on to our third item of business.

Clerk, will you please read that item into the agenda?

Agenda item three, Constable 121011, in order relating to land use and zoning establishing routes to routes bonus pilot program and adding new sections of the Seattle Municipal Guide.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

This bill has nine proposed amendments.

As chair, I will move the bill and after a second, we will then 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.

See, I'm just trying to pull the agenda packet up here so I can have the amendments up on the screen for you.

Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff.

Okay.

Thank you.

I move that the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 121011. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

It has been moved to second to recommend passage of the bill.

Council Member Rink, do you like to speak to Amendment 1?

Do 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 a rezoning and will only affect the project after they're approved by the city to use the program.

And we've had a number of meetings on this now and appreciate the time in this committee to discuss this legislation.

And this legislation has been in the making for a few years.

It's been through a number of iterations.

And compared to where last year's legislation left off, we've arrived at a sixth redraft representing major changes.

And my office hopes did a number of roundtables with stakeholders to ensure that voices were heard to address concerns that were raised last time around.

And I believe we've made significant progress.

And I want to thank the partners that have worked with us on this.

And I want to thank 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 pilot, organizations with projects that could pencil or add more units because of this legislation.

Filipino Community Village, number two.

Friends for Little Saigon's Landmark Project, the Central Area Youth Association, Urban Family, Brighton Community, Cham Refugee Community, African Community Housing and Development Organization, Ethiopian Community of Seattle for their Addis Village Project, Seed Morningside Acres, Nehemiah Initiative, El Centro de la Raza, Beacon Avenue Affordable Housing Project, Bellwether in Greenwood, CD Community Preservation and Development Authority, the McKinney Center, Watershed Community Development, Estelitas Library Solidarity House, Mercy Housing Northwest, Mount Baker Redevelopment, Greater Mount Baker Baptist Church, the Othello TOD Area Faith Development Superblock, and last but not least, 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 from Greg Colburn 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 saw from 2017 to 2022, Minneapolis increased its housing stock by 12% and was able through a number of land use changes.

And in that same time, rents grew by just 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.

So colleagues, I ask for your support as we move forward today, and looking forward to discussing these amendments.

Thank you for the time, Chair.

And would you like to read Amendment 1 into the record?

Oh, I forgot to have you hold.

Yes, I 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 this 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've 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, And then in general, in opposition to, and then we've 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 on 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 last year and did not move forward.

Because there were concerns then, there's 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, and 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, including, I've heard, 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.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 121011 as presented on Amendment 1.

The motion has been made.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 1.

Will you give us an overview of the amendment?

So Amendment 1 sponsored by Council Member Rank would clarify What constitutes a qualifying community development organization?

There was a typographical error in the ordinance that was introduced that, as written, would have excluded 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 up 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 Are development entities or just together, what does the ownership have to look like in that circumstances?

Just to step back a little bit, a qualifying community development organization is required for development to occur under the proposed pilot program.

A 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, so 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 apply.

to share partnership with multiple community development organizations.

Thank you for that.

Council Member Juarez, I do see your hand, but I want to give Council Member Rink a chance to speak to the proposed amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll be brief and just say this is an important clarifying amendment to ensure that we are aligning our intent and what we are seeking to do in the underlying bill, and I ask for folks' support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Juarez.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I don't really have a question.

Maybe 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 that I'm, if I can ask that after we vote on this in regards to Council Member Rivera with the question that she raised.

I didn't get a chance to do it before Council Member Rink finished up on her comments overall in general on this particular bill and the amendments.

And I'm just wondering when the particular time would be to do that.

Is it 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, to one question.

Okay.

Understood.

And 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, and I appreciate it.

I want to thank Council Member Rink for bringing this forward, and she's right.

This Roots to Roof has a long history from even when I was here.

I want to thank Council Member Rivera because I think she raised an important question.

I think I discussed it with both of them maybe offline, and so I would kindly ask Council Member Rink if she can respond because it's a good question.

to a really important issue that Council Member Rivera raised about doing some of these amendments and some of these issues outside of the comp plan.

And if there's some semblance of an answer there, I would really appreciate it.

I don't want to put you on the spot, Council Member Rink.

But I think in going forward in our discussion, in our analysis, and for me, just my own critical thinking, I would like to know that because for me that's almost dispositive of how we go forward on some of these amendments.

I appreciate the questions and the points on this.

I understand this was 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 has continued to get delayed.

We won't get to phase two until the middle of next year and phase three for a couple years now.

And there's certainly a lot of urgency to be building more critical affordable housing during this time.

We know there's a lot of uncertainty.

That has happened to 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'd also invite Ketel to share his takes on this around from a objective standpoint to the considerations we make when it comes to considering this in the comp plan versus this legislation.

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 implementation work.

There may be 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 potentially along transit corridors as well.

The implementation step this year is largely a House Bill 1110 implementation step, so it's something that applies to existing neighborhood residential zones.

It 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, at least that's the schedule for the phase two stuff.

And also beyond that, in possibly 2027 or beyond for urban centers, that'll be preceded by some additional environmental work.

So 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 Roots program.

There are other components that are essentially phase two and phase three bodies of work.

Thank you.

Council Member Roars, did you have a follow-up?

I did, actually.

I'll be very brief.

Thank you, Ketel.

So, are you saying, Ketel, that you can do some of it and some not of it?

I just want to be a little bit clear here.

Like, some of it could be absorbed in the comp plan, and we can certainly revisit this again.

And because I know that we have a sunset, it is a pilot program.

It would end by 2035 or after 35 qualifying projects have applied, whichever is earlier.

So I guess I'm not—if it's on me, it's on me—if I'm not understanding the urgency piece.

No, yes.

I mean, there's sort of a policy question here for the Council.

I don't know if there's a right or wrong answer here.

If the pilot program is approved this year by the Council, then eligible projects, qualifying community development organizations after the rulemaking period that's contemplated by the bill, is over, could apply for additional development to build something with additional development capacity right away.

And most of that additional development capacity goes beyond what at least 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, the Phase II implementation stuff.

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 probably many sites that are in neighborhood residential zones that may benefit from The Roots to Roots program when it comes to future development.

That body of work could be accomplished in the comprehensive plan context, but it would leave essentially the question about 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.

Can I have one more follow-up?

One more, yes.

Okay, thank you.

You make a very good judge.

So my understanding from Councilmember Rink, and correct me if I'm wrong, Councilmember Rink, is that there are 19 organizations that are within planning slash development right now.

I can't confirm that.

I can speak to that, if I may, Chair.

Yes.

Council Member Reyes, thank you for that.

Yes, the list that I read off during my opening remarks represents 19 organizations that my team has actually been in conversation with stakeholders on that we are aware of at this time.

And that was just some outreach and collection that we have done, and not in partnership with central staff, but rather work that my office has collected.

And I imagine there are a number more.

Anything further?

Would you mind if I ask one more follow-up?

One more.

Okay, then I'll stop, I promise.

So, just so we're clear, Council Member Rink, you say planning and development.

I need a little bit more there.

Are they actually, I mean, that's kind of a squishy, is it, will you answer me?

I mean, is it actually planned out and they're ready to turn dirt, they're shovel ready?

I'm trying to just get a sense of these 19 organizations and what planning development, because there's a difference between stakeholder building and talking to folks, and there's a difference between people that say, hey, we have a developer lined up for non-profit, for low income, for affordable housing, in particular neighborhoods that target areas that are trying to right a historical wrong regarding redlining.

That's different than just I've spoken to some organizations that may be interested in this, and this could help them out.

And it's okay either way, actually.

I just want to know.

Yeah, 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 have identified some project that they're working on.

Some have gone so far in the design process where they've identified how many units are associated with it.

Some are still in like the design phase and figuring out Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

And figuring out exactly how their financing plan and so on, but they have some amount of capital.

They're at some stage in that process, but they're not breaking ground tomorrow.

Okay, great.

It's like, help me help you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, for your patience.

Yes, Vice Chair Strauss.

Thank you.

I saw Councilmember Rivera has her hand before me.

Oh, that's a new hand?

Mm-hmm.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay.

No, no worries.

Okay.

But you go ahead.

May I?

Because I, and then...

Thank you.

I'm hopefully going to, for the last time, play historian for a little bit just to answer some of your questions, Council Member Juarez.

Last year this bill came before us after, I think, maybe a year and a half of Council Member 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.

And one of the improvements that I see 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 was here doing the public comment, He worked extensively with us, and I know you were there for that.

So 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 needed much more amendment.

So that was my run at answering your question as well, just to provide that context, because I know, Council Member Rank, you weren't here last year either.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Councilman Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

And last year, Ketel, when we had this conversation, some of these projects, there's nothing preventing these projects from moving forward with a partner or private developer partner or a non-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 a more attractive partner 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've got 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.

Or just height capacity anyway.

Certainly in neighborhood residential zones, among the...

There are 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.

The council may change those size thresholds.

There are also some provisions that would allow for development of commercial space on lots where commercial space couldn't previously happen.

So those are two similar components to sort of what is in the bill.

There's a difference in the amount of development capacity that would be authorized.

Thank you, Ketel.

I mean, the reason I raise this is because there's 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 in the neighborhood centers, the regional centers, the urban 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 this in light of this work that we're in short order going to be doing because 2026 sounds like a long time, except for we're already in September of 2025. So in short order, we will be taking up zoning legislation that I think 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 we've gotten emails about from those organizations I mentioned as to what would be more helpful within this proposed legislation or even within the zoning that we will be contemplating.

If that makes sense.

All right.

Thank you.

So I want to focus this back.

We do have amendment number one that has been moved and seconded.

We've had commentary.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment one?

Yes.

Council Member Wise.

Aye.

Council Member Ink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Yes.

Chair Saltman.

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero votes.

Okay, great.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

Council Member Rink, would you like to speak to Amendment 2?

I move to amend Council Bill 121011 as presented on Amendment 2.

Second.

Okay.

The motion has been made and seconded.

Kito, would you like to speak to what this, give us an overview of this amendment?

Yeah.

So Council Bill 121011, as introduced, had affordability requirements that were essentially near a prior version of the multifamily tax exemption program.

That was actually something that came out of the prior committee review of the Connected Communities Bill.

The multifamily tax exemption program, as you all know, is currently being considered, changes to it, a new iteration of it is being considered by the Council.

This would modify the affordability levels to 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 percent of median income for rental and up to 100 percent of median income for owned.

Median income in the city for a single person is about $120,000.

A one-bedroom unit that is moderate income at 80% of AMI, so that would be a person with an income of about $88,000 a year, is about $2,357 a year.

A two-bedroom unit, so for a three-person household, potentially is about $2,828 a year.

So those would be the maximum under the current regulations.

All right.

Thank you.

Councilman Rick, would you like to speak to the amendment?

Thank you, Chair.

Currently, the AMI numbers are aligned with the MFTE program, but given that MFTE is subject to change and is under review right now, we wanted to de-link these AMI percentages.

And this amendment ensures clarity by simplifying AMI percentages for different units and linking us to the defined term of moderate income.

It's also important to note that Councilmember Hollingsworth and I both introduced an identical version of this amendment since she isn't here with us today.

And I ask for your support.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Any comments regarding Amendment 2?

All right, seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 2. Vice Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Rewards.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Chair Solomon.

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

All right, the motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

Councilman Rui, would you like to speak to Amendment 3?

Yes, Chair, thank you.

For the public's awareness, we are going to be tabling Amendment 3 today.

We got some last-minute feedback from law, and we'll need to work out some of those small changes and intend to bring it before full council.

So I will be tabling that amendment for today, Chair.

All right, understood.

Amendment 3 is being tabled.

Council Member Rivera, would you like to speak to Amendment 4?

I'd like to move Council to amend Council Bill CB121-011 as presented in Amendment 3 Version 2. Oh, sorry.

Apologies.

Amendment 4 Version 1.

Okay, the motion has been made.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, the motion has been made and seconded.

Sure.

You're on.

Amendment number four, sponsored by Councilmember Rivera on behalf of Councilmember Hollingsworth, would limit the number of applications for each council district to no more than five.

Just to remind those folks who may be watching, the pilot program was introduced would have an overall limit within the city of 35 units or 35 projects or the end of 2035, whichever of those events comes first.

Councilmember Rivera, would you like to speak to the amendment?

I'll just add to what Ketel said that I think the Intent here too is to make sure that projects are spread throughout the city versus concentrated in one area.

Yes.

Good, good.

All right.

Any comments, questions from the committee?

Chair, if I may?

Thank you.

Yes.

Council Member Rain.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you to Council Member Hollingsworth for authoring this amendment and Council Member Rivera for bringing this forward today.

I understand it's important to know this is a pilot program, and I know it is the intent of this that we are not concentrating all of the pilot projects in one district.

Understanding the amendment before us 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, this is a pilot.

We're trying something out.

And so I understand the intent of this amendment, and it's aligned with our intent.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Hearing no further comment, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 4?

Vice Chair Strauss?

Aye.

Council Member Rose?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Solomon?

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero post.

All right.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

Council Member Rivera, would you like to speak to Amendment 5?

Yes.

I would like to move to amend Council Bill 121011 as presented in Amendment 5, Version 2.

Okay, the motion has been made.

Is there a second?

Second.

The motion has been seconded.

Mr. Freeman, please.

All right.

Amendment number five, sponsored by Councilmember Rivera on behalf of Councilmember Hollingsworth, would clarify that eligible floor area and so-called equitable development use would only need to remain in that category of use for 50 years, and that commitment for equitable development use would be secured through a covenant recorded against the property.

Just stepping back here from context for the committee and those who may be watching, the bill would define equitable development use but also request rulemaking from SDCI related to that use category.

It would be defined as a use where all components or subcomponents of the use provide mitigation against displacement pressure for individuals, households, businesses, or institutions that comprise a cultural population at risk of displacement.

Oh, just and by sort of how this would, how that would be operationalized in terms of additional development capacity floor area and an equitable development use would be exempt from FAR calculations up to a limit.

Thank you.

Councilman Rivera, anything to add?

No further comments.

I think Ketel did a great job explaining this one.

All right.

Great.

Thank you.

Any comments or questions from members of the committee?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 5?

Vice Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Royce.

Aye.

Council Member Rank.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Chair Solomon.

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

Okay.

All right.

Chair, I'd like to move.

I'd like to amend.

Okay, Amendment 5 has been adopted.

And I will now move to Amendment 6, Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to move to amend Council Bill 121011 as presented in Amendment 6, Version 1.

Okay, the motion has been made and seconded.

So, again.

Sure.

Please.

Amendment number six, sponsored by Councilmember Rivera, again on behalf of Councilmember Hollingsworth, would add some specific elements to be reviewed as part of an assessment of the pilot.

The pilot, the Council Bill contemplates a review that the City Council would undertake in consultation with the Seattle Planning Commission.

to, among other things, evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot.

The added language would include that the-would specify that 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.

For built projects, the review would also include rents charged for residential units by size and unit type and the rents charged for equitable development space and the development with a comparison to market rents for each sub-market in which a qualifying development is located.

Thank you.

Councilman, nothing to add?

Okay, there we go.

Any questions or comments regarding Amendment 6?

Okay, hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 6.

Vice Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Councilman Juarez?

Aye.

Councilman Rink?

Yes.

Councilman Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Solomon?

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

Okay, the motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

Councilman Rivera, we should like to speak to Amendment 7.

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to move to amend Council Bill 121011 as presented in Amendment 7, Version 1.

Okay, the motion has been made and seconded.

Again, Mr. Freeman, please give us the rundown.

Amendment 7, sponsored by Councilmember Rivera for Councilmember Hollingsworth, would modify the definition of qualifying development.

So to step back here a little bit, There are 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 has contemplated that would do that qualifying development in LLC or something like that.

The bill contemplates that the majority ownership of the qualifying development, that entity that does the development and owns and operates it after the fact, Would be the qualifying community development organization that have to own 51 percent 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 to require both majority ownership, at least 51 percent, and controlling our role in the corporate entity.

Thank you.

Anything to add?

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 a partner entity.

All right.

Understood.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from members of the committee?

All right, hearing none, the clerk will please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Roars.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Chair Solomon.

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

Okay, great.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

We're now moving on to Amendment 8. Council Member Rivera.

Chair, I'd like to move to amend Council Bill 121011 as presented in Amendment 8, version 2.

Second.

Okay, the motion has been made and seconded.

Mr. Freeman, please.

Amendment number 8, sponsored by Councilmember Rivera on behalf of Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Would limit Tier 2 tree removal in areas of the city identified with the 2021 City of Seattle tree canopy assessment as having a greater relative tree loss.

These are environmental justice priority areas identified as part of that assessment.

Tier 2 trees, for the committee I'm sure knows this very well, but for those members of the public who don't know, are trees that are at least 24 inches in diameter or are part of a grove.

There are some trees that are smaller than that that are specified by developer's rule.

I'm not developer's rule, by director's rule, because those species are just smaller trees.

Great.

Councilmember Charles, I do see your hand, but I wanted to give Councilmember Rivera a chance to speak to the amendments.

Yes.

Thank you, chair.

Um, all to say that, or just to say that, um, we're trying to, and I think a council member Hollingsworth is trying to, and I support her is to ensure that we're preserving as many tier two, tier two trees and tier three, uh, excuse me, tier one, um, as possible for that matter.

And so we want to make sure as these projects are moving forward, that we're not eliminating or removing Tier 2 trees, which, as you know, are very important to our canopy and our climate goals in the city.

So if we're going to move forward with such a pilot, we really need to be preserving Tier 2 trees along with, of course, Tier 1 and as many of Tier 3 as we're able to as well.

So thank you.

All right, thank you.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Thank you.

So, Ketel, can you just help walk me through this?

I'll admit I've got some concerns with this amendment.

Understanding that this program runs for 10 years or until 35 applications have been submitted or after 35 projects have been filed.

So we have about 10 years of this plan, is that correct?

Yeah, that's correct.

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, and 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 the city has designated environmental justice priority areas.

Those areas are identified in part by demographic characteristics of those neighborhoods.

When the tree canopy assessment was done, there was an overlay of those environmental justice priority areas on the tree canopy areas.

Here is the relative tree canopy change between 2021 and when the tree canopy was previously assessed.

Environmental justice priority areas includes most of Southeast Seattle, South Park, parts of West Seattle, The University District, parts of the central area, Yastro Terrace, and a large part of D5, like the Lake City area.

And so those would be the areas where there would be a limitation on removal of Tier 2 trees for development that is participating in the pilot project.

Yeah, so we're just kind of digging into this information.

So I'm having a little bit of trouble.

So 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.

And 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, and I can't remember off the top of my head when that other assessment was done.

I want to say 2010, but that may not be right.

I guess the point that I'm making is that I want to make sure that we're using the two assessments that were identical.

I assume that since it's in the report that that's what they were doing.

I guess 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 about tree canopy.

They are identified, among other things, by demographic characteristics.

Including, you know, other things like exposure to other kind of environmental justice sort of generating land uses.

Like, for example, the King County Airport, for example.

So the environmental justice priority areas, I'm not exactly sure what goes into the designation.

We can discover that for you and give that information to the committee.

But they are mapped areas that the city uses for programmatic, for delivering programs.

And within this amendment, is there any, it is just a tier two tree anywhere on the parcel?

It just can't remove the tier two tree.

So if there was a tier two tree that you could build around, Then you could build a qualifying development there.

But you just can't remove a Tier 2 tree.

So if there's two Tier 2 trees in the middle of the lot, that lot could potentially be unbuildable.

That might be a problem.

I just asked 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 two trees cannot be removed if within five feet of a property corner.

That was not by accident or by chance because understanding that A Tier 2 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's a number of them in the middle of a lot, that entire lot becomes unbuildable.

And that's the concern that I have here.

You know, I see Office of Housing out here, and I think back to the Copper Pines development that the Office of Housing did with Habitat for Humanity, where we did reduce that project by, you know, that was a home ownership project that we reduced An entire unit to save these trees.

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 anywhere on the lot, I've got more concerns that I'd like to dig into with this.

And then the second is The definition of the priority area If we're successful, 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, Council Member Rivera, you're trying to protect Tier 2 trees in under-canopied areas.

That's what I see, and I support that.

But the exact language here, I'm not there yet today.

Thank you.

Understood.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

And I will say that for the comp plan, I have a set of amendments to protect Tier 2 and Tier 1 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 SCCI director, the authority to work with a developer to get alternative plans that would work on those sites in order to preserve those tier two trees and tier one trees for that matter.

But in terms of this particular amendment, I do think that these are areas 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.

And this is an attempt to do that because these communities where this, you know, the priority areas are our communities that have mostly been impacted by climate change.

and where we've seen a lack of canopy.

So as we're contemplating these projects, and we're talking about doing this on behalf of community, then 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 climate impacts.

as these projects are being built.

So Council Member 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 8?

All right, hearing then, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 8. Vice Chair Strauss.

Abstain.

Council Member Rose.

Yes.

Council Member Rink.

Abstain.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Chair Solomon.

Aye.

Chair, there are three votes in favor, zero opposed, and two abstentions.

The motion carries, and the amendment is adopted.

All right.

Moving on to our final amendment, Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 121011 as presented in Amendment 9, Version 2. Okay.

The motion has been made.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

The motion has been seconded.

Mr. Freeman.

Amendment 9, sponsored by Councilmember Rivera, would limit the locations of qualifying development to designated centers.

Currently, that would be urban centers and villages, and in the future, that would be regional centers, urban centers, and neighborhood centers.

Okay.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

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 and so being bigger developments 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 amenities 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, excuse me, we're already contemplating doing the density in the neighborhood centers, regional centers, urban villages.

We already have the regional centers in urban villages.

So the neighborhood centers are other areas where I think this type of project would lend itself best rather than the middle of a block A big housing development in this mixed-use way.

Thank you.

Council Member Juarez.

Thank you.

I want to thank Council Member Rivera for bringing this amendment.

I'm glad we had an opportunity to speak about it offline.

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 also just the bill in general, I guess my concern here is that we're already a concentration of 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 or 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 4, 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 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 and the, what is it, what was the state plan that was passed?

The general, the big, no, the plan that we passed 20 years ago that the state did, that we're basing everything off of.

What's the state one?

I think the first comprehensive plan was adopted in 1994, and there was maybe Amended a few years after that.

What was the actual title of it for the state law?

What was the what?

The actual title of it for the state law?

The Growth Management Act?

Pardon me?

The Growth Management Act?

Yeah, thank you.

The GMAs.

Yeah, I have GMAs.

Thank you.

I just...

He'll smile when you look at me.

Yes, the Growth Management Act.

So those of us, and I know the chair knows this because we're around the same age.

So when we were doing the Growth Management Act and we were looking at it and we were envisioning back with Governor Lowry, Governor Lockett in the day, I know we're getting back in the time machine here.

But the intent was the growth to management, to direct it, to target it, to look at what we've seen in the early aughts of transit-oriented development, housing, you name it, and that's what we're doing.

I appreciate what Councilmember Rivera is saying, but my concern is I don't want to concentrate, if indeed this passes a pilot program, to an area that's already targeted for density.

I would rather see it spread citywide, and I would like to see more neighborhoods absorb Take responsibility and understand that 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've 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 that everything that's in their zip code, all the good stuff should be there, whether it's a library, a community center, a bus stop, transit, childcare, 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, Council Member River, I understand what you're doing here, but I can't support this amendment because from a policy perspective, this is how I see the world.

So thank you.

But I just wanted to just also thank you because I know you and I had a really good, I hate using this word, robust conversation about what this means.

So I really want to thank you for the work that you did.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council Member 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 concentrate it 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 if these are apartments and affordable apartments, that all of that is within that zone of every district.

So this doesn't say it's going south of the Ship Canal or any one particular district.

This is throughout the city.

And it's 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's incongruous with the comp plan.

It's actually in alignment with what we're trying to do and what we are trying to encourage by including neighborhood centers in the comp plan.

Any other commentary regarding Amendment 9?

I will just offer that when I think about some of the community organizations that are in District 2 and where they actually own property, they're not in neighborhood centers or urban centers.

I'm thinking specifically about Ethiopian community, Somali community, or Trian community, Filipino community.

So when they already have stuff, or CHOM community, when they already have stuff there, this seems to restrict their ability to build on stuff they already own.

And that's a concern that 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.

Will the clerk please call the roll on Amendment 9?

Vice Chair Strauss.

No.

Council Member Rice.

No.

Council Member Rank.

No.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Chair Salmon.

No.

Chair, there's one vote in favor and four opposed.

All right.

The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

Are there any final comments on the amended bill before we take a final vote?

Councilmember Rivera.

And then Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Just to reiterate that while I appreciate what this pilot project is trying to do, I still maintain that 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 ComPlan process would have been the best time to engage with these communities like the Black Legacy Homeowners and the Urban League and Black 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 wrote to us and who have expressed concern about this, particularly because there are folks in those communities that 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.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rink and Council Member Solomon for bringing this forward.

Ketel, thank you for your, I think we're going on four years of working on this, maybe three, definitely three.

You know, as I stated earlier in the history, in my going back in the 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's based off of the religious bonus bill that we got to work with Donald King on.

Just a real-life factual, it's anecdotal, but in Ballard we've got a St. Luke's housing project that has got 88 units of two- and three-bedroom I don't know how better to call it that.

A two and three bedroom apartment, right?

These are the types of units that we need in our city.

And to get this project underway, I started working with St. Luke's in the year 2020. They didn't break ground until 2024. The project is...

The finishing touches hopefully going to be open at the end of this year.

So that's 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 share this story because I watched St. Luke's create this incredibly important project in Ballard.

And by the time the doors open, it'll be three to six months before we increase the zoning for them.

But if they had waited the five years, we still wouldn't have those units until...

Do you see what I'm saying?

We start chasing our tail.

And the point being is by the time these properties open, the zoning is going to be higher than what this bonus will allow.

So those are my comments.

Thank you for your hard work.

Thank you for reorienting this bill.

And I look forward to supporting it today.

Thank you.

Council Member Juarez.

Thank you.

I want to first of all thank Council Member Rivera for the questions that she raised, and Council Member Rink for answering those questions on the dais.

I apologize, but I've been gone for 18 months, so I had a little bit of catch-up to do.

So I normally would be a little bit more critical and a little bit more conservative.

I appreciated the questions and the way that they were answered, particularly Council Member Rink explaining to us about Phase 2 and Phase 3 and the time constraints.

But when it comes to policy like this, I like to err on the side of the times that we are actually living in.

I don't know if I completely agree with your urgency, but I understand the urgency argument and position that Councilman Rink has taken.

But certainly with the realities of the marketplace, the lack of housing, the trade issues that we're looking at regionally and nationally, the tariffs, and of course the interest rates, and of course the underscored here that's been going on for at least Since we declared homelessness an issue 10 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's a pilot project and it can increase zoning capacity.

If it's another tool in conjunction with and to complement the comp plan, then 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 have something definite that we can measure, that we can see what's 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 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.

What do we need to fix?

Is it always perfect?

No, but that's the reason why we keep doing it.

We have heard on and on and I certainly heard it the last eight years I was on Council.

We always hear the allegations that we're giving gifts to 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 the developers and the City of Seattle in the years that I've been here has grown over a hundred thousand extra people and we're anticipating Hundreds, thousands more, where we're going to need more jobs and more housing.

One of my concerns about Seattle is we still think we're a little town, and we're not.

We're becoming a major city.

We're inching towards that 1 million population mark.

I think we're hovering around 850 now.

And so we have to be realistic about that.

And we also have to be realistic about how we approach zoning, how we do it in the 21st century, and what that means.

And I know single-family zoning folks don't like it when we talk about density in their neighborhood.

But my answer to that is it isn't just correcting the wrongs of the past.

It's about understanding that the city belongs to all of us and we should all be able to live here in affordable housing.

And it's our job as policymakers to make that work.

Now, again, what will control all of this will be the marketplace.

And it's voluntary.

If it works, it works.

If it doesn't, it doesn't.

But let's find out if it does.

So for that reason, I will be supporting this legislation today.

All right.

Thank you very much, Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Rink.

And then we'll come back to you, Council Member Rivera.

Actually, Chair, I was wondering if I could have closing remarks, if that's all right.

Closing remarks, very well.

Thank you.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you.

And thank you, colleagues, for the robust discussion around this.

I will say a distinction between the Religious Institution Bonus Bill is that we've seen a lot of either opposition or concern with this particular bill from the very communities that this bill is purporting to help.

And so in that sense, I see that as a distinction.

And while it's a pilot, it's going to be many years of this pilot and many projects that then can't be undone.

And in terms of affordable housing, I will say that we're having issues, as anyone who would have read the Seattle Times this week, Non-for-profit housing developers who have 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 Times.

A lot of the times the non-for-profit buildings have also not yielded the affordability that we contemplated.

So there's a lot to work on there and level set there.

There are a lot of concerns or enough concerns about this particular bill that I felt like it warranted working on it through that comprehensive plan 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 their concerns about this particular bill.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Council Member Rivera.

Council Member Rankin, closing comments.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you, colleagues, for your robust engagement on this legislation.

Thank you to the omniscient Councilmember Hollingsworth for your amendments as well and your engagement.

And thank you, Chair Solomon, for your co-sponsorship and support on this.

I strongly believe in this legislation.

As we've discussed, it's not a new idea, but a revised version driven out of community conversations and concerns.

We have and we will continue to encourage stakeholders to reach out to my office to voice their thoughts on this bill.

As we move towards 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-led affordable housing, especially in areas that have historically excluded communities of color, and we can help affordable housing pencil now with this legislation.

And luckily, this pilot would complement projects that do get public subsidy, such as through the Office of Housing, our housing levy dollars, or even with the State Housing Trust Fund, helping create deeper affordability than outlined in this bill.

And it joins with other tools in our toolbox, like MFTE.

I'm looking forward to seeing these projects come online to serve our current and future residents of Seattle.

And colleagues, I ask for 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 in more neighborhoods at all income levels.

And I believe that 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 please call the roll on the amended Council Bill 121011.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Council Member Ruiz.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

No.

Chair Solomon.

Aye.

Chair, there are four votes in favor and one opposed.

The motion carries and the...

A committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 121011 will be sent to the Seattle City Council with the recommendation that it be placed on the September 23rd meeting agenda.

Is that correct?

Yes.

All right, great.

Thank you very much, Mr. Freeman.

Thank you very much, colleagues, for your robust discussion.

And just to level set for folks, I know we're having a long meeting, but we still have a lot of items on the 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, will you please read item four into the agenda.

Item four, Council Bill 121045 in ordinance relating to land use and zoning updating timelines for city review of land use permits amending various sections of the SMC and amending resolution 31602 to update the city council rules for quasi-judicial proceedings.

Okay.

Thank you.

This legislation will help enact permit reform, support expedited turnarounds on permits, and provide additional predictability in the permitting process.

As presiding officer, I am now opening the public hearing on Council Bill 121045 related to amending the City's subdivision regulations.

Clerk, how many speakers do we have signed up for a public hearing?

We have one speaker signed up.

Okay.

Please, 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 this public hearing.

The same public comment rules apply to this public hearing.

A 10-second time will be your notice that it is time to wrap up comments.

Speakers' mics will be muted at the end of the allotted time.

Public comment related to Council Bill 121045 is only being accepted.

At this public hearing, speakers are asked to begin their comments by stating their names.

Steve, you're up first.

Each speaker will have two minutes, so please proceed.

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 design review, and we used to be able to look at a project and be able to tell, is it going to fit in the community?

Now, we don't do that.

Now, this will further tie your hands.

You will tie them tight.

And the director, the head bus cut people, 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 what happens to this city.

Big thought.

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.

I see our representative has joined us at the table to answer any questions council may have.

So please go ahead and introduce yourself for the record and begin when you are ready.

Lischwitz and council central staff, very briefly in the interest of time, I think you summarized the bill fairly well.

It is aligning our permit timelines with state law to the extent Uh, possible, um, and, uh, aligns some other regulations in our, um, chapter 2376 of the Land Use Code.

Updates them to reflect changes to state law.

Also updates our accounts of quasi-judicial rules to allow 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.

Okay, great.

All right.

So this item is for briefing and discussion.

No vote on this item today, is that correct?

All right, great.

So any questions from the committee regarding this legislation?

Vice Chair Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to abstain from this legislation just because I need to dig into it a little bit more deeply.

It seems like a good idea.

It seems like it aligns with my values and my ideals for permit reform.

It is only but that we had this presented to us two days before recess and here we are two days after recess and there's been a mountain of work and I don't want to hold anything up.

So I'm just going to abstain and we'll keep moving.

Thanks.

We're not voting on it today.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Okay.

We'll get to it next time.

Any other comments, questions from the committee?

All right.

With that, thank you.

Thank you.

You're off the hook.

All right, item five has been removed from today's agenda, so we will now move on to item six.

Clerk, please read it into the record.

Item six, council 1-2-1-0-4-8, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning adopting temporary regulations to exempt housing projects that meet MHA requirements using on-site performance units from design review and allowing permit applicants For all housing subject to full design review, the option of complying with design review presented to administrative design review temporarily suspending and allowing voluntary design review proposed development in various titles of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Great.

Thank you.

This legislation will adopt temporary regulations to make design review voluntary for a period of six months as the city works to advance final design review legislation.

As presiding officer, I'm now opening the public hearing on Council Bill 121048 related to amending the city's subdivisions regulations.

How many speakers do we have signed up for a public hearing regarding this legislation?

We have one in person and five remote.

How many remote?

Five remote, though none of them are present.

Understood, okay?

We will begin with our in-person speakers.

Come on down.

It was part of the deal which brought about urban villages.

But that was a promise to the public, and we know promises to the public are not as good as promises to developers.

Because chip by chip, it's 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 multi-family.

And they were built because under Actually, that was before design review when it had to go before the full console.

And if a few neighbors showed up, they didn't get their permit.

So they took care of parking and everything else.

Under 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'd at least take care of the major problems.

Make it fit into the neighborhood.

Make it not be a sore thumb.

Well, now, sore thumbs are in because the public doesn't get a chance to talk about it.

It's just whatever is the most profitable.

And I'll tell you, many years ago, I remember someone telling me that they couldn't do something because their lender wouldn't loan to them unless they maxed out.

And that's what is happening.

We're getting maxed out.

And in the north end, I know you're trying to even up the trees with the south end, but please stop removing all our trees to make zero the number for both.

Chair, none of our remote speakers are present.

Okay, as none of our remote speakers are present, and we have reached the end of registered speakers to speak on this.

The public hearing on Bill 121048 is now closed.

Okay, so I see our representatives from central staff have joined us to answer any questions that council may have.

So once you're ready, please introduce yourselves and proceed.

Great.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

And thank you to all the members of the public who are here taking time today.

My name is Crystal Torres, and I'm the Design Review Manager for SDCI.

Design Review, what is it?

It is meant to support larger city goals in the vision for a livable urban environment, gives the public an opportunity to participate in the development of their communities, and provides a mechanism for flexibility for new development, not otherwise permitted by the Land Use Code.

Today, we are here to talk about the interim legislation that's in front of you.

We'll also speak to the permanent legislation that will come later on and give you a quick overview of that.

House Bill 1293 has required design review 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 of the building 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 though 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's going to provide that essential 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 in to design review to seek out departures.

And departures allow code deviations from development regulations that otherwise would not be available to projects.

Another important part of this interim legislation is to extend the design review exemptions that provide exemptions for projects providing onsite affordable housing.

And it also allows those projects 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 the law department to draft updates to the design review process and the guidelines.

The goal of the legislation is going to create improved process for applicants and the public through improved predictable timelines and maintaining flexibility for development.

We will do this by simplifying the 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 the public meeting to one.

Next steps on the legislation and design guidelines include updating both to reflect the additional outreach that we want to conduct.

Specifically, the new 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 reinforce SEPTED principles, as well as updating the guidelines to come into compliance with the state requirements.

At a very high level, that timeline for the permanent legislation would look like outreach taking place this fall, finalizing legislation and the new guidelines over winter, and returning to Land Use Committee in 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 13. 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 designer view exemptions, as well as keeping projects who need departures moving through the permit process.

And of course, bringing us closer into compliance with the state requirements while we work through the permanent legislation.

That is all.

I know you all have been sitting for a very long time, so try to speed through that.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Any questions or comments from the dais or from the committee?

Vice Chair Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Just want to appreciate this piece of legislation coming to us today.

Going back to my example about St. Luke's 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 a while to figure out that these things are real and then build a plan from there.

Specifically, this extending the on-site performance is really critical.

And I was the sponsor of that bill, and so this is a nice link that you and I have, Chair, with this being a bill that you're sponsoring.

So we do need a little bit more time with these pilots.

Specifically, the on-site performance pilot was very important, and I think that this is a good bill.

So thank you for putting this together, Crystal, and nice to meet you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Vice Chair Charles.

Any other comments from the committee?

Seeing none, and this is going to be decided, our next one, voted on on the 15th.

Correct.

All right.

So, yes, this item will be voted on at our next meeting on September 15th.

So I thank you very much for being here, and I look forward to seeing you at that meeting.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

All right.

Thanks, everyone, for hanging in there.

We're now at item number seven.

Yes.

The most exciting one.

The most exciting one, yes.

Clerk, will you please read item seven into the agenda.

Agenda item seven, Council Bill 121049 in Norton's relating to land use and zoning amending chapter 2332 of the SMC at page eight of the official land use map to rezone land in the Lake City neighborhood.

Thank you.

This legislation will rezone land in Lake City neighborhood to support new development.

As presiding officer, I am now opening the public hearing on Council Bill 121049 related to amending the Seattle subdivision regulations.

Clerk, how many speakers do we have signed up?

We have Seven speakers signed up.

Two in person and five for a month.

All right.

Each speaker will get two minutes.

So please, I hand it over to you to read the instructions for the public hearing.

Yes.

Speakers will be called in the order of registration.

The public hearing registration will remain open until the conclusion of this public hearing.

The same public comment rules apply to this public hearing.

A 10-second chime will be your notice.

It is time to wrap up comments.

Speakers' mics will be muted at the end of the allotted time.

Public comment related to Council Bill 121049 is only being accepted at this public hearing.

Speakers are asked to begin their comments by stating their name.

First up, we have Kirsten Granstern.

And if you want to call a few of them in order.

After Kristen, we have Jesse.

OK.

Hi there, my name is Kristen Grandstrand.

I'm the program director at Family Works, and 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 we hear 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 here are struggling to remain a part of the community.

That's why I'm here today to strongly support the proposed rezone for Lake City.

This approval 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 working 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 onsite 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 do families find housing, but they have the resources they need to keep it.

When families have stable housing, children do better in school, parents have more opportunities for employment, and the entire community thrives.

In closing, 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 city's working families.

Thank you.

Hey, good afternoon, council members.

I'm Jess Simpson here again with the Housing Development Consortium, here today to speak in favor of another opportunity you have to increase affordable housing and remove barriers to housing production.

This is a rezone of speaking in favor of Council Bill 121049. This is a rezone of parcels in Lake City to facilitate redevelopment of the Lake City Community Center, adding over 100 affordable homes above a new community center.

This project by Mercy Housing will be a real gem of the neighborhood, adding amenities for the whole neighborhood to enjoy with a gym, childcare facilities, multipurpose rooms, and outdoor play space connected to the park alongside new affordable family-sized homes.

Over two-thirds of the new homes will have two or three bedrooms.

The rezone maximizes the potential for the site, putting scarce publicly owned land in the city to its best use.

It will create space for the next generation of working Seattle families to raise children in the city and contribute to our society and economy.

I urge you to support this contract rezone and help bring this development one step closer to reality.

Thanks.

Next up, we have Adrian Renz.

Hello.

Good afternoon.

I'm Adrienne Renz, the Vice President of Resident Services at Mercy Housing Northwest, and I'm here to comment in support of the rezone in Lake City neighborhood.

I want to express our deep appreciation for being selected for a unique opportunity to co-locate affordable housing with a community center.

This housing, as it's been mentioned, is focused to serve families earning between 30 and 60 percent of area median income.

And two-thirds of the homes will be family-sized units with two, three, and four bedrooms to meet an urgent and well-documented need.

With supportive zoning legislation, we can add the 19 additional units to further respond to the demand for family and multi-generational housing.

Mercy Housing Service Model ensures residents are supported to maintain stable housing and build pathways to opportunity with dedicated on-site space, partners like FamilyWork, We provide the family resources, youth and school engagement and wellness programs.

And we see this project as integral to part of the neighborhood.

Families will participate in programming at the community center.

Children and homework club will go to trips across the plaza to the library.

And multi-generational households will have room to live together.

The vision is more about brick and mortar and more about strengthening community.

We're excited to partner with the city and our neighbors to create this place where people can live, belong, contribute and thrive.

And again, want to emphasize that zoning legislation is essential and it will allow us to maximize the site and increase housing opportunities for families who need it most.

Thank you.

Next we have Joachim.

Thank you Chair Solomon and members of the committee.

My name is Hale Kim and I'm lobbying today on behalf of Akin to voice our strong support for the Lake City Rezone Council Bill 121049. Just for some context, Akin is one of the largest social service agencies in the state serving more than 12,000 children and families each year and we're very proud to be headquartered in the Lake City neighborhood where Akin's North Seattle Family Resource Center is located.

Relies on strong partnerships, not only with the families we serve, but also with other organizations, which is why we fully support Mercy and Family Works development of the Lake City Community Center project.

Co-locating family housing with a community center is a proven model for meeting families in need where they are, while also adding to a vibrant and inclusive neighborhood.

The rezone you're considering today will enable the project to move forward to address the trauma of housing instability, while also making much-needed community space for services and recreation available.

We're particularly excited about the emphasis on family housing, where roughly two-thirds of the units 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's everyone.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you very much.

That was our last registered speaker to comment on Council Bill 121049. Therefore, the public hearing is closed.

I see our representatives have joined us at the table, so please introduce yourselves and begin when you're ready.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

I'm Jeff Wentland.

I'm the Land Use Policy Manager with the City's Office of Planning and Community Development.

Hi there, I'm Maria Duiz with the Office of Housing.

Kelly Larson with the Office of Housing.

Okay, great.

And before you begin, I want to turn it over to Council Member Juarez to make some comments.

Thank you, Chair.

It's very kind of you.

I know I've been gone for a while, but this is very exciting to come back and see this.

I see your big smile on your face because you know how long we've been working on this.

I have some notes.

Some of it I shared back on August 6th at the last Land Use Committee, but I had some updates and I want to say some thank yous really quickly on some of 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 build a community center and put affordable housing on top.

They weren't going to be one-bedroom condos for folks that work at big corporations, not throwing any shade at Amazon.

I'm just saying we needed to look at two-, three-, and four-bedroom for affordable housing.

We work closely with REWA.

We already have two pre-K centers in D5, and we're hoping to work with them for more pre-K and child care within the community center.

I know that some of the callers shared some of this, but I want to emphasize this, that Mercy Housing was selected through a competitive process.

We have a new two-story community center with 113 affordable homes on the upper floors.

The community center will have a gymnasium, a multipurpose room, a childcare facility, and tot room.

I know I'm taking up some of your talking points.

But I really want to thank Seattle Parks and Rec and the former director, Jesus Agarre, and the former librarian, M.T., who worked with us on this and were just such big supporters.

And like I said, this has been a decade in the making.

And so we know that there's going to be a large share of affordable homes, as I shared, two-, three-, and four-bedrooms to serve families.