Land Use Committee 7/30/2025

I'm going to put it in the middle.

I'm going to put it in there.

I'm going to have to do it.

That Councilmember Rivera will be joining us momentarily.

We will acknowledge her when she arrives.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objections, the agenda is adopted.

Again, thank you very much everyone for coming to this Wednesday afternoon meeting to discuss land use.

As always, I want to thank our city clerks, our council central staff, and Seattle Department of Construction Inspections for helping us prepare for today's meeting.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Today's agenda item includes two items and those items will have public hearing where members of the public will be called on to speak to those items when we reach those two items.

This public comment period will only accept comments related to the items within the purview of this committee.

For those registered to speak to items one or two on the agenda, we will accept comments on those items once we reach those items and open the public hearing.

So, Clerk, how many speakers do we have signed up today for public comment?

Chair, we have 20 speakers signed up.

20.

Each person will have up to two minutes to make their comments.

If necessary, we will extend the public comment, period.

Well, first, before we begin, I do want to recognize we have former City Council Member David Della in the House, as well as former State Representative Villanova-Loria.

If either one of you are signed up to speak, you will be able to get to go first, as is the tradition for this body to recognize elected officials to address the body.

So, Clerk, can you please read the instructions for public comment?

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 registered.

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

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within the allotted 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.

Excellent.

First up, we have Rachel Snell.

Can you hear me okay?

Okay.

Hello, members of City Council.

My name is Rachel Snell.

I'm testifying proudly in favor of Councilmember Ring's Routes to Roofs pilot program.

Seattle is facing a severe shortage of affordable housing, and communities of color are severely impacted.

Many people I work with here downtown have been price gouged out of being able to afford rent here in Seattle, causing them to move further away from their work, causing an increase in commute time to and from work.

For too long, when it comes to housing and renters protections, the City Council has been going off the rails on the crazy train.

That's why this piece of legislation is so essential.

Thank you, Council Member Rank.

Next up, we have Ron Cornung.

And afterwards, we have Alex Zimmerman.

Good morning, or good afternoon.

I'm talking about social housing.

I've been following it, and part of their charter is they have to publish the public meetings, and they've got way behind on publishing those.

The council can approve them not to do that, but I haven't heard anything from the council.

So I'd like to know if something has changed.

Is there a different link?

Could you look into changing that?

Okay, thank you.

Next up, we have Alex Zimmerman.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm ready.

Before we don't change, This Nazi pig, who this is his chamber, or Mayor Harrell, you know what it means.

Nothing will be changed.

This idiot who speaks this, and I come here for almost 30 years, you know what it means.

They speak about something that is...

How feel they shoes?

You know what it means?

Nobody understands the 700,000 idiots, an idiot who care.

Before we don't stop in fascism, nothing will be changed.

Look, Consul Boris, for four years, never show one face.

She's a Nazi pig.

Look, Harrell.

Yes, 16 year, four year, no one Q&A.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, I would ask that you have the gentleman not make racial comments to me and cut his mic now.

No.

No.

Now.

No.

Now.

What?

Mr. Chairman, please refrain from personal attacks and racist statements.

Also, again, Mr. Chair, this man has been banned from- Pause.

This man has been banned, calling me a bandita, going after my race, going after my agenda, and attacking me personally.

Sir, you need to be quiet.

Cut his mic.

Again, Mr. Zimmerman, if you cannot be respectful to the members of this body or the members who are in attendance, you will be asked to cease your comments and leave.

Thank you.

Can you abide by the rules we just laid down for you?

If not, you will not get the time back.

Idiot.

Don't understand this.

Look what they come and talking about this.

They talking about their shoes.

Their shoes feel not so good.

This go for 30 years.

30 years fascism is more dangerous fascism as they know.

No one in European fascism, no in South America fascism exists for 30 years.

We have this fascist for 30 years.

It never stopped because it's 700,000.

Idiot.

It's a slap.

Thank you, Mr. Zimmerman.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Chris Larson.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Christopher Larson.

I'm with the Filipino community of Seattle, the director of workforce development.

I'm here to talk on the supporting the Roots to Roots.

One of the things that we see in our communities is that housing is really unaffordable for people in the area.

And so with the senior development housing that we currently have, 96 residents, It allows people to have affordable housing, but also, within that building, we also have the youth development.

And so we kind of have this circle of the youth all the way up to the seniors.

We also have our workforce development program in there.

One of our big projects that we just completed this year was the solar program over there, where we certified up to eight technicians to join the solar industry.

And these are individuals from community that weren't able to get into these tech positions.

Big problem that we have though is that the programs have gotten so big is that we've grown out of our space.

And one of the things that we're focusing at the Filipino community is now is the family dynamics of this.

And so with the new family housing unit, not only do we have housing for families, but we still have a more upscale youth development program, senior services, and also the new workforce development, which is greatly needed to have that space to be able to continue.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Mark Garrett.

Good afternoon.

I'm Dr. Mark Garrett.

I'm chairman of the board of a nonprofit called Anything Helps and a volunteer with Anything Helps.

I've been working directly in homeless camps with homeless people for four and a half years now.

I want to speak in favor of the housing bill sponsored by We need more affordable housing.

The only comment I want to make is that this is aimed specifically at BIPOC and I think we don't need an excuse like that.

Black people are discriminated against in the United States.

My understanding of the statistics is that black people are 4% of the population in King County and 20% of the homeless population.

So we certainly have racial discrimination, and we need to address that, and this measure addresses that directly.

However, Look at the statistics of homelessness in King County.

There are 16,000 people homeless in King County by the last count, and there are 5,000 shelter beds.

So that means we have 10,000 or 11,000 unsheltered homeless people in Seattle and King County.

We need more housing of all kinds.

We need low-income housing, we need affordable housing, we need subsidized housing, we need everything.

This idea that my house is worth a million dollars now and somehow that's my nest egg doesn't make any sense.

I can't move out of it.

I have to have some place to live.

Reduce the value of housing.

Reduce the cost of housing.

Build more housing.

Flood the market.

Next up we have Crystal Ng.

So, good afternoon Council Member.

My name is Crystal and I'm speaking on behalf of Seattle Chinatown International District Preservation Development Authority.

We urge you to support the Roots to Roof Bill.

It presents an opportunity to align growth with community ownership, affordability, and cultural preservation.

These values are a priority in our organization.

This bill also supports equitable development uses like affordable commercial space, cultural space, and community gathering places, which are critical to the fabric of the CID.

Our neighborhood continues to face economical and development pressure that threatens to displace low-income elders and small businesses, cultural and historic preservation.

We have seen properties being acquired by private organizations that are being left vacant and neglected.

That is really harming the neighborhood.

This bill empowers organizations like ours to effectively lead projects.

It offers us additional tool by removing complex barriers that prevent many of these projects from moving forward.

like expensive land, high construction costs, et cetera.

We urge you to pass this bill to ensure that equity becomes a practice and this time-limited pilot will help up to 35 projects to move forward.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Clerk, just one point of clarification.

You said we had 20 in-person and how many remote?

We, at my last check, had 20 total.

20 total, okay.

Yes, the more I've signed up.

Okay, and I was going to say, let's do 10 in person, then go to remote, then come back and finish up with the remainder, depending on how many are...

I mean, if we've got 12 in person, let's just go ahead and get them all done.

Just trying to make it equitable.

We have about 12 in person.

12 in person, okay.

So we'll get through all the in-person commentators first before we move to the remote.

So thank you for that indulgence.

Please continue.

Next we have Tracy Berman.

Hello.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I represent the Seattle Residents for Thoughtful Growth.

We're a coalition of 22 neighborhood centers who've been studying the comp plan.

And we feel strongly that we want affordable housing, which is why I oppose the Roots to Roofs program as it's currently drafted.

This legislation is just really a big gift to developers.

Requiring only 25% of the units to be affordable and at only 80% AMI for a 250% increase in the FAR with no community input or design review.

It really just punishes the neighbors of the existing where these pilots are built by removing their trees, the green space, and overshadowing their homes.

And the affordability requirement only lasts 50 years, so this isn't long-term affordability or even short-term affordability, since 75% of the units will be market rate.

This really doesn't produce the affordable housing that the disadvantaged communities in Seattle deserve.

They deserve the opportunity at the 30% AMI level that they need to be able to live here in Seattle.

And I'm disappointed to see this legislation be promoted by people who think that it will produce affordable housing or sufficient affordable housing for Seattle.

We should do it right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Sandy Shetler.

Hi.

Yes, I'm Sandy Shetler with Tree Action Seattle, and I'm asking you to please amend this bill to include space for trees on each lot, because with 75 percent lot coverage, these projects will have no large shade trees.

Targeting formerly redlined communities with high hardscape projects is just adding insult to injury.

Frontline communities already have less than half the tree canopy of wealthier areas.

Children in neighborhoods without trees have more asthma and slower brain development.

Adults have more heart attacks and cancer.

Planting street trees won't take the place of residential trees by homes.

Last week, SDOT released a study showing that even if we pack every planting strip in Seattle with trees, South Park, for example, would only get 16 percent canopy max, half of what Wedgwood has.

We can't get to 30 percent canopy with all of its health benefits, only with street trees.

Habitat for Humanity told me in a phone call and meeting that they are removing the trees on their South Park project because the City of Seattle cares more about housing than trees.

This needs to change.

It's not either or, it's both and.

And this bill is the place to start.

Thank you.

Next we have Lois Martin.

Good afternoon, council members.

We have two minutes?

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Lois Martin, and I'm a legacy resident of District 3. My family has lived in the Central District for generations, and I'm here to speak in opposition to Council Bill 121011, the Roots to Roots Bonus Pilot Program, formerly known as Connected Communities.

While branded as an equity tool, the underlying structure of this bill still prioritizes developer profit over community protection.

First, it lets developers build up to two and a half times bigger for just 25 percent affordability.

But the affordability levels don't align with what many long-time residents actually need.

There's no guarantee of family-sized units, no priority for those with deep ties to these neighborhoods, and no safety net for nonprofit partners.

Second, a real equity bill would require at least 51 percent affordability split between households earning below 40 percent AMI and those between 40 and 80 percent, with at least half of these units sized for multi-generational families.

The bill uses the legacy of racial covenants to justify development bonuses, but where are the guarantees that descendants of displaced families will benefit, that black homeowners will remain rooted, and that nonprofit partners won't be sidelined after unlocking entitlements to developers.

Seattle has a history of turning pilot programs into permanent policy.

Without a cap of five projects per council district and enforceable protections, this will be yet another vehicle for displacement, especially in districts two and three.

This is not equitable development.

It's accelerated market rate growth under the banner of social justice.

We don't need more promises.

We need protections.

We don't...

Thank you very much.

Next up, we have Jackie B.

Hello, my name is Jackie Borges and I wanted to talk about Roots to Roofs.

Roots to Roofs offers major developer entitlements, allowing buildings several times larger than the newly increased far limits in residential zones by literally replacing Seattle's roots, our trees, green space and livability with homes that few people can afford.

In exchange, we lose community oversight and design standards.

It's loosely tethered to the maps of historic redlining, but that connection will eventually become just a checkbox, and it doesn't deliver meaningful benefits to the communities it claims to support, as Lois said previously.

If this policy is so essential to equity in housing production, why is it being rushed through as a standalone workaround rather than as part of the comprehensive plan?

On July 2nd, the council described this as a way to accelerate construction and remove barriers.

And that's exactly what it is, an acceleration of luxury redevelopment under the banner of equity.

Let's be honest about who this really serves.

Thank you.

Next we have Steve Rubstello.

Well, why, oh, why does all the proposals for improving housing be very, very profitable to developers, and yet you still don't have time to review the MHA fees?

That was promised when it started.

It was supposed to be 50-50.

It is not.

And the council has never, ever had the time to do that.

And that has a real good advantage if you raise the MHA fee.

First of all, more people would put more money in.

Now, those that don't and actually provide the housing, the housing would come up at the same time the building came up.

And you wouldn't wait another, oh, two, three, four, five years before the housing appeared.

So I would like to make another pitch to have you do what I was told when MHA was passed.

They thought those low fees would be adequate to have 50-50, but it didn't happen.

They say, don't worry, we'll review it.

We can change it.

Now, the common stroke between people who claim to want housing is developer profit.

And I think that that is what we're seeing too much of here.

We need protection for the nonprofits.

I would like to see again, there was a nice panel that was done last time this came up under a different name.

And the nonprofits explained the predatory nature of the for-profits.

And we have seen, I'm told, times where permits have been gathered and then the transfer of the permit to a for-profit.

So let's just be honest.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our last in-person speaker is Bennett Hasselton.

Thank you, council.

We're figuring it out.

Okay.

Thank you, Council.

I just wanted to come today to speak in support of the Roots to Roofs program.

One of the best known relationships in the country between homelessness and housing prices is, of course, in cities where the rent is higher, there's higher rates of homelessness.

And this is one of those things that everybody knows, but...

Then people see the plight of the homeless population and see the number dealing with mental health issues and drug issues, and they think, oh, that's what causes the higher homelessness rate in this city.

No, if you have a higher homeless rate in cities with high rents, then the delta between the high homeless rate in cities with high rents and the rate in cities with low rents, that has to be caused by rent-related evictions.

It's not drugs.

Because, I mean, if your rent goes up, that's not going to cause you to do more drugs in your own house.

If anything, you should have less money left over for drugs, right?

What happens is if your rent goes up and then you lose your housing, you're more likely to turn to drugs to cope or to exacerbate existing mental illnesses.

So the relationship between rental rates and homelessness rates in cities across the country is very strong and well-known, and I believe that this bill will help with that.

And I do want to address some of the legitimate objections that have been raised in the community, including today.

Not in a particularly controversial way, or not particularly confrontational way, but two things.

I mean, I understand that some of the new units will not necessarily be set aside as below market rate.

Here's the thing, even market rate units can help alleviate the housing crisis, because those people, the people going into those units, are going to have to live somewhere.

You know, we're in that Rainier Square, you know, the giant luxury condo.

You've all seen it.

It's the one with, like, the sloping part at the bottom that looks like a slide.

And that went up in the last couple years, and everybody said, oh, this is where the millionaires are going to live.

Well, if they didn't live there, they'd be living somewhere else, and their millionaire dollars would be competing with you to bid on the existing department.

So every existing bit of housing helps, but this bill focusing on affordable housing will help especially.

Thank you.

Chair, if it's okay, we have two additional in-person comments.

Okay, let's go ahead and proceed with the in-person comments and then move to remote.

Also, let the record reflect that Council Member Rivera has joined us.

Next up, we have Jesse Simpson.

Thanks.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

Thanks for the opportunity to testify today.

Jesse Simpson here on behalf of the Housing Development Consortium.

We represent the nonprofit developers, human service providers, community-based organizations, architects, general contractors, and more.

Working hard to build the affordable homes that Seattle needs.

I'm here today to speak in strong support of the Roots to Roofs pilot program.

Seattle desperately needs more homes of all sorts, especially affordable homes.

We have a deep housing crisis that is a direct result of that housing shortage.

Too many people, working families, seniors, people with disabilities, and many more simply can't afford to live here.

That's because of our housing under production over decades.

We need more affordable homes, and a key part of that is removing all of the barriers we can that stand in the way of building more.

This pilot program does exactly that.

It gives nonprofit, public development authorities, and housing authorities flexibility from zoning rules to maximize the potential of development sites, additional height, floor area, relief from costly requirements like design review and parking mandates to help turn development sites into reality.

A pilot ensures that at least 25% of the homes will be affordable for 50 years, and it opens the door to community-serving spaces like cultural centers, childcare, and affordable commercial spaces.

Importantly, this project is open, again, I want to underscore, to nonprofits, housing authorities, and public development authorities.

These are mission-oriented developers who have deep roots in our communities and a long-term commitment to serving working and low-income families and individuals.

Zoning is one of the biggest barriers we face to building more housing and more affordable housing in Seattle, but it's also basically free for the city to remove, to fix.

This pilot program is a great way for the city to put affordable housing first, let up to 35 affordable developments move forward.

I applaud Councilmember Rink for advancing this program and urge your support.

Thanks.

Our last in-person commenter is Dennis S.

Hello, Council Members.

My name is Dennis Sills.

I work for Plymouth Housing, which is a permanent supportive housing provider.

I also want to say hello to Council Member Juarez.

It's good to see you.

Plymouth supports the pilot program.

for several reasons.

It helps address one of the root causes of homelessness, which is the lack of affordable housing.

We, as a developer or a non-profit, we also provide permanent supportive housing at levels of 30% AMI and below.

And one of the benefits of this pilot program is that not only does it address affordability at the 80% AMI level, but it also is open to developers who may want to Develop housing at the 30% AMI level, and who also may want to develop all of their units at that rate.

The bottom is 25%, but developers like Plymouth provide 100% of our units, often at 30% AMI and below.

And this is a program that we would be able to utilize and other developers would be able to utilize to provide that level of deep, affordable housing.

We also see it as a great opportunity to increase overall housing within the housing spectrum.

We're partners.

We're part of HDC.

And we also work a lot with the other developers in the city.

And we know that there's just simply not enough housing in our region.

And this is another way to help broaden that base and create more housing and really address homelessness at the root cause and make sure that people have places to live at affordable rates and for a very long period of time.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

We'll now move on to our remote commenters, starting with Rich Vogut.

Please press star six to talk.

My name is Rich Vogut and I live in Wallingford, which is in District 4. I beg everyone to please read Abundance by Ezra Klein.

NFE argues that rules and regulations designed to solve the problems of the 70s often prevent urban density and green energy projects that would help solve today's problems.

Laws meant to ensure the government considers the consequences of its actions have made it too difficult for government to act consequentially.

In a nutshell, delays caused by permitting requirements and other red tape make needed projects unaffordable at a time when we desperately need more affordable housing.

Hopefully, roofs to roofs will cut through zoning and permitting regulation to fast-track more community-led affordable housing that benefits those most at risk of displacement.

This bill will authorize a pilot program to give density and height bonuses to projects that qualify.

There would be an additional bonus if the project is located on the lot with a historically racially restrictive covenant.

Also, I'm sad that Jumpstart funds have not been used to build affordable housing and fund Green New Deal projects.

As they were originally intended, but have been used to address the deficit.

Seattle needs more progressive taxes.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Jennifer Godfrey.

Jennifer?

Please play star six, Jennifer.

Oh, sorry.

Hi.

As I greatly appreciate the intention to create affordable housing, and I definitely support affordable housing.

I also support everything that Lois Martin said, who spoke far better than I could.

We do need more than a quarter of these units to be affordable for lower-income community members.

You know, with only 80% AMI, more affordable for the developers then.

So there's populations, and it also removes our free life-saving green infrastructure, like legal tree removals from private properties last year that prevented 5.4 million gallons of stormwater that are no longer providing that service for free.

I also feel it's not humane to remove space for trees and expect low-income populations to purchase and power air conditioners or have to suffer from heat-related illnesses when they don't have the shade of trees.

Ecologically, this is also terrible, taking out our free natural air coolers and free polluted runoff filters and bioretainers, large trees.

Construction runoff mitigations in West Point cannot remove most toxic chemicals, but trees can, and they do it for free while protecting our health.

I know there's a way to build affordable housing without killing our free green infrastructure.

And one of the things, some things that make Seattle unique We are the only major U.S. city to be inside Pacific temperate rainforest or any rainforest in the U.S.

We have the only endangered population of killer whales in the world.

And we are on a semi-enclosed body of water that does not easily disperse pollutants.

So that's all reasons to really think about how we treat our green infrastructure that is cleaning our water and protecting all of us.

Also, how important these things were to Indigenous people.

The trees, salmon, the resident orcas were very beloved.

So please build affordable housing while preserving.

Thank you very much, Jennifer.

Next up, we have Ruby Holland.

I'm Ruby Holland.

Roots to roof will cause homeowner displacement at a time when we are working on an anti-displacement plan to accompany the comp plan.

This project goes against anti-displacement strategies for the CD, such as no further upzoning in formerly redlined communities, including no further height density and no additional upzoning of parcels or streets in former redlined communities.

The CD is already creating affordable housing, such as Africatown Plaza, Midtown Square, the Liberty Bank Building, Bryant Manor, Acer House, Rainier 900, Good Shepherd Affordable Housing, New Hope Family Housing, and Gardner Glovers Project, and more to come.

We don't need roots-to-roof displacing legacy homeowners.

I challenge everybody that's in favor of this bill to donate your lot for a Roots to Roots project.

That is a true test of this inequitable and unjust bill that threatens to destroy the only affordable housing that's left in Seattle, which is our homes.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Jeff Paul.

Hello, yes.

My name is Jeff Paul.

Can you all hear me?

Yes.

Perfect.

Yeah, my name is Jeff.

I am a public school teacher in Seattle Public Schools.

I'm a paraeducator.

I am speaking in favor of the Roots to Roots legislation.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rink, for bringing this forward.

In Seattle Public Schools, as many folks are probably aware, we face a pretty serious enrollment issue.

We've seen enrollments continue to go down and a big part of that is because families cannot afford to live in this city.

There's simply not places for them to find housing that is affordable to them in and around desirable places to live.

So I support all efforts to bring not only affordable housing but all forms of housing into Seattle so that our families can find places that work for them and get their kids into our schools.

are much more alive when there are kids running around.

And we're losing that in Seattle.

It's really sad to see.

So I'm really appreciative of this legislation, which recognizes that Seattle has a pretty significant budget deficit right now and is using creative tools to remove restricted zoning that has been in place for years and makes it really difficult to address the affordable housing challenges that we have and build housing at the scale of the crisis.

So I applaud this effort, which is a good A policy change that doesn't require a ton of money to bring a lot more affordable housing and housing of all types to the city.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Sega Detza.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Sega Detza, Program and Housing Director at the Ethiopian Community in Seattle, and I'm in strong support of the Roots to Roofs We all know Seattle faces a deep shortage of affordable housing.

As a mission-driven organization serving immigrants and low-income communities in Rainier Beach, we know how urgent the need is.

Our community members are being priced out and displaced, and we must act now to create more housing that truly serves them.

We've already demonstrated what's possible.

Three years ago, we completed Ethiopian Village, which provides deeply affordable homes for low-income seniors.

Along with space for cultural and community activities.

Now we're in the pre-development stages with Addis Village, a mixed-use development with 70 affordable homes and early learning space on the ground floor.

Roots to roofs would directly help Addis Village.

By allowing more height and floor area and by removing costly barriers like design review and parking mandates, this policy gives us the flexibility to maximize What we can build and serve more families in need.

With Roots to Roots, we can move faster, stretch our limited funding further, and deliver more housing where it's most needed.

I urge you to support and pass this program.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Alberto Alvarez.

Aperto?

Hello.

Hi.

Sorry.

We need more housing today.

And I support the legislation that Councilmember Rank is bringing forth, the Roots to Roof.

NIMBYs are literally missing the forest for the trees.

They can use words like tree canopy until they are green in the face.

But King5 reported that over a half million acres of Washington forests are in a state of mortality.

Keeping people out of the city and pushed into sprawl will cause more forests to be wiped out.

Seattle sits on land 10% the size of the half million acres of forest Washington is losing today.

As a global economic powerhouse, Our city has a responsibility to the state and the entire Pacific Northwest.

Take bold action for housing growth and urban density.

Do not let short-sighted greenwashing and pseudoscience scare you into scaling back for a vibrant and growing Seattle.

Younger families and elders who weren't lucky enough to inherit a million-dollar home are depending on you.

Thank you all and have a good day.

Thank you.

Next up, we have David Glogger.

Hello, my name is Dave Gloger and I live in District 5 and I was in Council Chambers in winter of 2024 when very similar legislation was brought up called Connected Communities brought forward by Council Member Morales and I think the only members left from that committee are Council Member Strauss and Council Member Rivera and I think they'll remember that they barely got a second on this issue because it was determined that This should be addressed in the comprehensive plan.

We should not bypass all these legislative issues that we have just because somebody wanted to get a small amount of affordable housing.

This is probably less affordable housing than we had a year and a half ago in other legislation.

So I'm certainly in favor of affordable housing and we need more density.

But this bill does it at the expense of communities.

We have design reviews because they provide An earlier commenter talked about market rate housing and so Even if it wasn't all market-right housing, these people would have to live somewhere.

They can live somewhere, but they shouldn't get to do it at the benefit of getting rid of all the benefits that we have, like design reviews and parking requirements.

And this is not some kind of green legislation that's going to help any things, because everybody's going to need air conditioning in these units, because there's no trees around there.

There's absolutely no place for green space.

And a previous caller had talked about, oh, we can't We have to cut down the trees on Seattle to stop urban sprawl.

Is that what people in Seattle have to pay?

Cut down our trees to save the rest of the state and turn us into a bunch of heat islands?

Thank you.

Chair, there are two additional commenters that are not present.

Robert, David, are either of you present?

Okay, if they're not present, then if we have no additional speakers, we will call the public commentary period closed.

So thank you very much everyone for providing your feedback.

So at this point, we're going to move on to the first item of business on our agenda.

Clerk, will you please read item one?

Short title.

Agenda item one, Council Bill 121009, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending various sections of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Great.

We do have our presenter who's joining us at the table.

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

Thank you.

H.B.

Harper, analyst here on Central Staff.

Council Bill 121009 amends Seattle Municipal Code Title 23 to delegate decision-making authority on final plots to city departments that currently review subdivision applications such that final action by the City Council would no longer be required.

So as you may know, subdivision regulation is guided by Chapter 5817 of the Revised Code of Washington, which regulates subdivisions of land to promote public health, safety, and general welfare.

Subdivisions occur in two phases, preliminary and final, and many departments review proposed subdivisions.

So during the preliminary stage, departments that have decision-making and others include requirements on the preliminary PLAT approvals.

Those requirements must be confirmed to be met at the stage of final PLAT, And so for those final plats, which is more than 10 lots that go to city council, typically the buildings and infrastructure are already built and the requirements have already been confirmed as being met.

So council's purview is somewhat limited.

Given that council receives an average of over two of these subdivisions per year, in delegating this role to department directors, council would be improving the efficiency of the permitting process without sacrificing any real value as it's a ministerial decision.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great.

Thank you very much.

And Councilman Baric, as the sponsor of this legislation, you're recognized to address it.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, HB, for that overview.

Colleagues, this legislation is related to streamlining subdivision processes.

The state legislature has given us the authority to delegate final approval for subdivisions to the Department of Transportation after the hearing examiner has issued a decision.

While council currently votes to codify these decisions, the hearing examiner's decision is final and we don't have a choice as a body about whether or not to, but we have no choice but to approve it.

This process takes months from drafting legislation to committee hearings to a final vote for it to go into effect.

This bill is a simple yet straightforward effort to promote good governance and shave months off of housing projects.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, as presenting officer, I'm now opening the public hearing on Council Bill 121009 related to amending the city's subdivision regulations.

Clerk, how many are signed up to speak to this particular piece of legislation, 121009?

We have zero in person and two online.

Okay.

Mr. Zimmerman, this is for item one, not item two.

Yes, I know.

Where is my name?

It's on the public hearing one for item two.

Exactly, public hearing.

For item two.

This is item one.

This is item one.

We're going to do one and then two.

Thank you.

I was going to say, we have people signed up for item one, bill ending in 009. Please, let's have those folks give them two minutes each.

Excellent.

Neither of the people who have signed up for item one are present.

Okay.

In that case, if no one has signed up for item one, and today was a briefing and discussion, no vote to be held today on this item.

So does anybody have any questions about item one?

No?

All right, then let's move on to item two.

Clerk, will you please read item two into the record?

Agenda Item 2, Council Bill 121011, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, establishing the Roots to Roots Bonus Pilot Program, and adding new sections 2340-090 through 2340-097 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

By the way, I did neglect to say thank you, HB, for giving an overview of agenda item one.

Now, as we move to agenda item two, do we want to have our presenters come down to give an overview or?

Council Member Rink, an opportunity to speak.

Yes.

Okay.

So, Council Member Rink, as the sponsor of this bill, or the author of the bill, you are recognized to address it.

And I believe we have a public hearing on this today as well.

So I'm going to hold my remarks on the underlying bill until after the public hearing and when we have the presentation.

And we'll also remind everyone we still have a panel today also for folks to be testifying on behalf of the bill.

So we'll proceed with the public hearing with your permission, Chair.

Very good.

So given that, yes, we will proceed with the public hearing on this particular legislation.

We will have our panelists join us after we have the public hearing on this.

So how many folks do we have signed up for public hearing regarding Roots to Roofs?

21. 21. OK.

Given time, and I know that a lot of folks already spoke to this in open public comment, so I will ask those who are signed up to Limit their remarks to one minute regarding this.

Again, since a lot of you already had an opportunity to speak, is that all right?

Cool.

Okay.

So one minute each regarding this.

Start with our in-person folks, and then we will move to our online folks.

So how many in-person do we have?

Okay, we'll do the same thing we did before.

Let's get through all the in-person folks and then we'll move to remote.

And if you could start, as the clerk calls your name, if you could start lining up so that we can expedite the process and make sure it runs smoothly.

The first five speakers will be called on this order.

Ron Horning, Alex Zimmerman, Elena A., Rick P., and Steve R. Again, please keep your comments to the item that we are discussing, which is Roots to Roofs.

Thank you.

May begin.

Yeah, I live in Northwest Green Lake, and on the maps that were shown at the meeting, the last meeting, there's a red and yellow.

And the red is where they've found restricted covenants.

The yellow is where it might be, I guess.

So, and the one in Green Lake, it would affect 78 houses.

that could go as high as 85 feet right on lakefront and would block probably 1,000 houses views if this were to happen.

The reason they gave for it being yellow was they found an ad in the paper that someone was trying to sell property and said it was restricted, but they never found any restricted pieces of property.

So there's probably seven or eight of these yellow areas of Seattle, large areas.

So I would like an answer on, are they going to use these yellow areas or not?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Next we have Alex Zimmerman.

One minute, it's okay.

My name Alex Zimmerman.

I want to speak about zoning.

Zoning is very interesting.

Look what is this idiot talking about.

Everything what is, I hear this, I hear for last story year.

This freaking idiot.

Talking and talking and talking and nothing change.

They cretina don't understand.

We have a fascism government.

Hair.

And you go bigger and bigger.

You don't go smaller.

There's a problem.

So when these 700,000 cretina, you know what it means, slave.

And cockroaches, you know what it means.

Wake up and cleanse this government totally because you're like somebody who more fascist than before.

It's very important.

Stand up, freakin' idiota.

You don't understand?

Before we done change, nothing will be changed.

You can repeat this for another Tory year.

Viva Trump!

Viva another revolution, what is we have right now?

Stand up!

Thank you, Mr. Zimmerman.

Next up we have Elena A.

Council members, my name's Elena Arakaki and I'm here representing Friends of Little Saigon.

We are a local community-based nonprofit working to uplift the neighborhood and prevent displacement in Little Saigon.

I'm here today to ask for your support for the Roots to Roof pilot program and create much-needed affordable housing across Seattle.

The Roost to Roofs program is an opportunity to prevent further displacement and right historic wrongs by increasing the amount of housing in places that have had racially restrictive covenants.

When you look at a map of racially restrictive covenants next to a map of affordable housing, you'll see they're complete opposites.

Most affordable housing is in the greater downtown area, including the CID.

In contrast, the racially restrictive covenants were mostly in North Seattle, East Capitol Hill, and Magnolia, which correlates to present-day single-family homes and expensive properties.

In previous letters regarding the comp plan, we have advocated for more density in these areas, which have not taken on their fair share of development.

We are encouraged to see greater density bonuses offered in these areas that have been historically exclusionary, and we urge you to support the Roots to Roots program.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Rick P.

Hi.

Chair Mark Solomon, members of the committee.

I'm Rick Paulin Tan.

I'm the Vice President of the Philippine Community of Seattle.

We're here because we're planning to build a 56-unit affordable family housing right on MLK.

And I see this bill a positive sign that thanks Council Member Rink for moving this forward.

And we look forward to work with you in making this a reality.

So hopefully we can address affordable housing finally.

And thank you.

Next we have Steve R.

Can you have some more?

Reminds me of the old days when they used to refer to Khrushchev as Mr. K. Well, I guess Mr. R. I've been called much, much worse.

What I'd like to suggest is that we ought to have only non-profits and save for 50 years because I see these permits and other programs end up with for-profits.

And we should be also talking about what's the real income that we're providing for.

Are we providing for under $150,000?

Are we providing for under $60,000?

Big difference.

On new buildings, it's always much more expensive.

And I'd like to see in real terms, we're talking about what kind of income level are we really going to provide.

And this console review also should be done on anything over four stories because that way some of the larger and maybe more...

Thank you.

Thank you, Steve.

Next up we have Michael Blimson.

Michael?

Ah, okay.

Thanks.

I was trying to keep this crying to a minimum.

I'll be quick.

I just want to say I've worked and I'm here in support of a lot of the community-based organizations that are asking you to support this bill.

I think at the end of the day, there's going to be some pretty amazing projects that come of this, and I think the city will benefit and we'll all be pretty proud of what the community organizations are able to do with this legislation.

So I'm asking you to support it.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

How old?

Next, we have Benny Royce Royan.

Hello, council members.

My name is Benny Royce Royan, program director at the Filipino Community of Seattle.

I'm here to express my support of the Roots to Roof bonus pilot program.

Like many cities across the country, Seattle is experiencing an unprecedented crisis with regard to affordable housing, disproportionately impacting many communities of color.

While Roots to Roof is not perfect, it is a start.

It is an innovative solution to help address the affordable housing crisis we are all facing.

Through partnership and collaboration, this Roots to Roof will creatively support community-led and community-focused affordable housing projects like our own, the Filipino Community Village 2, and affordable housing for working families in southeast Seattle to be realized.

As a non-profit social service organization, the Filipino community of Seattle is focused on a holistic and well-rounded approach to take care of the well-being of our entire community, including seniors, youth, and families.

And this project will bring these communities closer to our services.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next up, we have Lois Martin.

I'm back again with the 60-second version.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lois Martin.

I'm a resident of Central Area District 3 where my family has lived for generations.

Speaking in opposition of Roots to Roots Connected Communities proposed ordinance as a pilot program being framed as equitable but without the protections or priorities to make that claim meaningful.

The ordinance allows developers to build up to two and a half times bigger in exchange for just 25 But the income thresholds and unit sizes don't reflect what long time residents actually need.

There's no guarantee of family size units, no defined priority for people with deep roots in our neighborhoods, and no safeguards for nonprofit partners trying to serve our communities.

Even more troubling, the bill leverages the legacy of racial housing exclusion through redlining and restricted covenants to justify these incentives.

I urge everyone to read the bill carefully and please do not pass it as written and add some amendments.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Sandy Shetler.

Hi again.

I won't put you through my previous comment because you sat through it once.

Yeah, I am with Tree Action Seattle and we do oppose this bill in its current form.

One thing I did want to ask you as well is when you analyze these comments at the public hearing, please take note of who stands to financially benefit from these partnerships.

It's really an important statement about who's concerned about the bill.

Anyway, what we know is that this bill will result in projects that have absolutely no trees, and it will be targeting formerly redlined communities with high hardscape projects that don't have trees.

My colleague Lois Martin has sent to you, and I'll leave it here again, an analysis because at the last meeting, You asked Ketel Freeman, is it true that these projects won't have trees?

And he said, well, the tree ordinance does apply.

Well, it applies, but at 75% lot coverage, no, no trees.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Tracy Berman.

Hi again.

My name is Tracy Berman and I support a 22 neighborhood coalition.

And I just want to reiterate that the way this bill is currently drafted, it really is just a big gift to developers.

I really care that we have affordable housing in Seattle.

Having lived here for 20 years and raised my kids here, I think everybody deserves that shot.

But only 25% of the units to be affordable for only 50 years, and only at 80% AMI, if you do the math on these neighborhoods, in exchange for a 250% increase in the FAR, it just punishes the neighbors, removing all the trees and green space, and does nothing to produce the actually affordable housing that the disadvantaged communities need, which is at like the 30% AMI and below level.

If I could amend this bill to make it serve those communities, I could support it, but as it's drafted, it's just a developer giveaway.

Thank you.

Last in person is Jackie Borges.

Hello again, and hi to Maritza Rivera.

Thank you for joining.

Since she didn't have a chance to hear me before, I'm gonna go ahead.

Routes to Roofs grants major development entitlements, allowing buildings many times larger than our newly increased far limits by literally replacing Seattle's roots.

Taking away our trees, green space, and livability with homes that few people can afford.

It's loosely connected to maps of historic redlining, but that link will soon just become a checkbox.

And it doesn't actually help the communities it claims to support.

You've heard it from my other colleagues at Seattle Residence for Thoughtful Growth and with Tree Action Seattle.

This isn't equity, it's deregulation wrapped in rhetoric, and Seattle deserves better.

Thank you.

That's our last in-person commenter.

We'll now move on to our virtual commenters, starting with Robin Briggs.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Robin Braves and I'm a member of People for Climate Action.

I'm here today to ask you to approve the Roots to Roots proposal.

We desperately need more housing, particularly housing that will be affordable for most people.

We don't have enough public money to pay for all the housing that we need, therefore we need a plan like this.

Our for-profit developers can partner up with non-profits and build affordable housing and market re-housing under one roof.

It will allow people to continue to live in the city where they choose to live and where they will be closer to the services they need.

In a mixed income community with a smaller carbon footprint.

The fact is we need a way to get private developers to build workforce housing.

It's important for the economy so businesses can afford to hire the help they need.

It is critical for the climate since otherwise people are forced to live far away and commute to their jobs.

It gives us a way to support a diverse community and live up to our values.

I think this program can help many people and we will learn from it better ways to overcome a huge problem we face.

Next we have Irene Wall.

Hello, this is Irene Wall.

I urge you not to approve this ill-conceived approach to achieving equity in housing.

This type of zoning change should only be considered in the context of the comp plan which is underway.

In addition, it's highly unlikely to achieve the intended purpose.

The ownership criteria is far too weak to actually prevent displacement.

The radical height and far allowances for those individual properties with unenforced 100-year-old restrictive covenants is purely punitive and performative.

Imagine a five story building with negligible setbacks next to a one and a half story typical Seattle home.

This is hardly equity or justice for the next door property owners, regardless of their ethnicity.

The proposal eliminates the required upper level setbacks under SMC 2347A014.

Those setbacks were put in place to create harmony, protect the privacy light and airflow between lots in zones of greater and lesser intensity.

If you approve this bill, at least restore those setbacks.

Next up we have Ryan McKinster.

Ryan, please press star six.

Okay.

Ryan, we're going to move on to the next person, but we can come back to you.

The next person who is present is Sean Holland.

Good afternoon.

My name is Sean Holland.

This is the wrong approach to Seattle's housing problem, rewarding some property owners for historic racism.

Their properties will be worth more than properties that never were subject to restrictive covenants.

In 1969, Washington passed the law against discrimination, making all racially restrictive covenants void.

In 2023, the legislature passed the Homeowner Covenant Act.

That law provides purchase assistance to persons living in Washington in 1969 who might have been the targets of racist covenants.

The law also provides assistance to their descendants.

That's the right way to address the historic wrong.

The state law provides direct benefits to the people who were harmed or their descendants.

Roots to roofs would provide a direct benefit to the success of the people who created the racist covenants in the first place.

Our laws create profits in the past.

There should be no development bonus accruing to any property based on it having been subject to a racially restricted covenant in the past.

Thank you.

Ryan, are you here with us?

Ryan, please press star six.

Ryan McKinster.

Nope.

Next up, we will have Stephanie Zhang.

Hi, my name is Stephanie.

I work at Interim CDA.

It's a community development association based in Chinatown International District.

We build culturally relevant low and mixed income housing for immigrants and BIPOC folks, and Councilmember Rink's policy will make it much easier for us to build that housing.

We can't say we live in the city of Seattle while some of y'all get to feel like you're living in the suburbs.

While we can build dense housing in the CID due to its regional center zoning, this kind of density needs to be spread equitably across the city, not just concentrated in areas like the CID.

We want folks to be able to pick where they want to live across the city and feel like it's affordable, not only out of 30 percent AMI, but also from 60 to 80 percent AMI as well.

While there are benefits to the plan, I think Roots to Roof can have more specificity around which neighborhoods require upzoning, because clearly there are neighborhoods where more upzones are going to harm the community.

I also think if this legislation is focused on CDAs and nonprofit developers, y'all should consider increasing the affordability minimum higher than 25 percent of the units.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Richard Ellison.

Hello, this is Richard Ellison.

I didn't get my one two minutes earlier, so my name is Richard Ellison.

I live in Council District 4. I'm a retired adjunct professor of biology, and I wonder, is Seattle going to be an environmental sacrifice zone?

Are we going to clear-cut our way to affordable housing?

And if only 25% of the units are low income and 75% market rate, is this an environmental justice giveaway?

One of the four core values of the Seattle Comprehensive Plant is environmental stewardship.

If Roots to Roots is to be a limited pilot program, is Seattle clever enough to build affordable housing with real open space for families and trees and habitat for all of them?

Is Seattle going to be a leader in environmental stewardship?

We'll just clear cut our way to environmental justice.

The Roots to Roots proposal, it will be impossible to save any existing large or medium-sized tree on a lot.

While we have a terrible need for affordable housing, everyone needs a livable community, including trees and open spaces for families and wildlife.

Without big trees, without real open space, where are the kids going to play?

Next up, we have David Haynes.

Looks like Ryan's unmuted.

Ryan, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Solomon, Member's Committee, and I apologize for that technical difficulty.

For the record, Ryan McKinster, Advocacy and Policy Manager for Habitat for Humanity of Seattle.

I would really like to speak in support of CB 121-011, Roots to Roots Pilot Program.

We applaud the agenda of the bill and want to thank Council Member Rick for bringing it forward.

However, as it's currently written, we do not qualify for the bill.

I believe there is a technical amendment to address this issue, and we fully support that.

Although we do support the underlying bill and we will continue to support it, we can move to enthusiastic support should this change be made.

This will allow us to do our mission as well as your vision to allow a world where everyone has a safe, decent, and affordable place to call home.

Thank you for your time and effort on this issue.

Next up we have David Haynes.

David?

Thank you, David Ames.

Land abuse and misuse of legislation.

As politically connected nonprofits acting like a landlord ripping off 80% AMI working class, forced to pay 30% of their income to greedy nonprofits, while virtue signaling only 25% of the units will be affordable in a crappy building built by unqualified, fraudulent, affordable housing nonprofits, politically connected to the election apparatus, the activist The protesters and the donors, the owners of the modern third world inner city warehouse echo housing contracts on the side of the road, still causing a mental crisis for the BIPOC button pushed by corrupt power mongers who don't have the best interests of community, creating more modern third world warehouse echo housing spread throughout all the districts.

It's like racist all over the places.

You know you're in Seattle.

Why is it City Council won't write legislation to incentivize banks and real developers to produce...

Thank you, David.

Next up, we have Elizabeth Archambault.

Hi, my name is Elizabeth Archambault, and I am a tenant that lives in an affordable housing in the South Lake Union neighborhood.

I'm calling in today to support the Roots to Roots pilot program because it will authorize a pilot program that will give density and height to all the projects that qualify.

The pilot program will help to build 30 affordable housing projects across Seattle and particularly in the North End where we do need more affordable housing so people can choose to live wherever they want.

And so I do support the Roots to Roots program and I'm hoping that you will pass and support it as well.

Thank you very much.

Last we have Edwin Lindo.

Edwin Lindo Hey there, this is Edwin Lindo.

I'm co-founder of Estelitas Library.

I'll speak to the council.

Thank you, Council Member Rink, for reintroducing this bill.

And also to the other commentators that were on the call.

We are a nonprofit, and we are a community developer now that just purchased land through the EDI program in Beacon Hill, and we are planning to build roughly 30 units of 100% affordable housing.

And it's going to be a beautiful building, and it's going to be designed by the community, and it's going to be for our community, and it's going to be for the needs that we have.

And it's going to be large family units from two to four units.

But we need a bill like this to make sure that we can do that so that we can bring more folks back into the community they were gentrified from.

And so I would ask the entire council here to support this.

And if we need to, we will organize the same 3,000 people that emailed for the EDI funding in the past to make sure that this gets passed.

And Estella has something to say as well.

Hi, my name is Estella.

I support this bill because I like seeing housing and I do not like seeing people suffering on the streets.

Thank you.

Okay.

Chair, those are all the commenters.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate everyone providing their input during this public hearing period.

Public hearing on Council Bill 121011 is now closed.

With that now, we have our council, central staff, and our folks from the community please join us at the committee table.

Council Member Rink, do you want to address the legislation at this point or wait for them to make their statements?

I would appreciate it if our central staff could just provide an overview of the bill to reorient us, and then I'll provide some comments.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

That's good.

Once you are seated and ready, please introduce yourselves for the record.

And Keita, we will begin with you to provide us an overview.

Introductions?

Yes, please.

Good afternoon.

David Della, a former council member, and now co-chair of the Filipino Community Village 2 Capital Campaign Committee.

Thank you.

Velma Valoria, former state representative.

I also work with the Filipino community of Seattle.

Thank you.

I'm the co-founder of Allied Aid Architects.

I'm here in a technical capacity.

Should Council have any questions about the technical aspects of the pilot or otherwise technical issues related to executing affordable housing in our city, I can speak to my experience.

Thank you.

Kato Freeman, Council Central Staff.

Please.

So there was a briefing on this earlier in July.

Just by way of reminder, Council Bill 121011 would create a pilot program, Roots to Roofs, and that pilot is intended to encourage partnerships between community-based organizations with limited development experience and more experienced nonprofit or potentially for-profit developers for development of low- and moderate-income housing with So-called equitable development uses that could potentially be part of the development as well.

The pilot is intended as a way to help those projects attract capital by providing additional development capacity.

So the bill would define equitable development uses broadly as activities 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.

So this could be a commercial use.

It could be something like a commercial kitchen.

It could be a community gathering space.

It could be something that looks very much like a coffee shop.

It could be a range of things.

There's some direction in the bill for SDCI to promulgate by rule a firm or regulatory definition that would apply going forward.

It would identify minimum qualifications for program eligibility, including the types of organizations and ownership interests for qualifying development.

It would require that qualifying development provide at least 25 percent of units as affordable to lower-income households, and it would provide additional development capacity, so more floor ratio, more height, some dispensation from physical development standards like setbacks.

There would be a baseline level that would apply to every project that is an eligible project that applies, and then there would be more available for projects that provide equitable development uses.

Those space and those uses would be exempt from FAR calculations and for projects that are located in areas with historical racially restrictive covenants.

There would be some exemptions that would go along with qualifying development.

Projects would be exempt from design review.

They would not be required to provide parking, although they could choose to.

Finally, there is a direction to the directors of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection The Office of Planning and Community Development and the Office of Housing to promulgate some rules to facilitate implementation of the program, including identifying qualifying community development organizations.

That's not something that is in SDCI's wheelhouse, which is the permitting agency.

So there would be some rulemaking work that would follow passage of the bill, assuming that it passes.

Finally, there's a limitation on the number of projects that could be developed.

It would be 35 projects over a period of years.

35, did I say 30?

35 projects over a period of years.

And there's a statement of the Council's intent to revisit the program to check on its effectiveness after a period of time.

So that, at a high level, summarizes what Council Bill 121011 would do.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for that orientation, Ketel.

Really appreciated.

Colleagues, as we've heard in public comment, a version of this legislation came before this body last year.

What we've done here is we've revisited the underlying concepts of that original legislation and taken it a step further.

We've iterated on it from garnering further feedback, and we've Held a number of roundtables with community-based organizations to really refine and really make sure that this pilot program meets need and is able to help projects pencil so we can get more affordable housing online.

In fact, I think we're at our sixth redraft of this.

After this full process.

But I want to note, you know, we have a number of our partners here today to discuss this and we'll be hearing from them shortly.

But we've also worked with stakeholders like the Urban League, Homestead Community Land Trust, Uplift Investment, Ethiopian Community of Seattle, Habitat for Humanity and the Housing Development Consortium and more.

And we have and will continue to encourage stakeholders to reach out to our office to voice their thoughts on the bill.

We're doing whatever we can to work in good faith to make sure that we are addressing concerns as they come up.

And with that in mind, I know we're going to hear directly from some partners shortly, but I want to make a couple of notes about concerns that have been raised just over the past couple of days.

There is a deep desire and a deep need for deeply affordable housing in this city.

I know that's what we're all looking for.

Housing at 30% area median income is a high need.

And unfortunately, it's only built with additional public subsidy.

Study after study have found this, given the state of market conditions, and that's why even our regional partners, like at the Countywide Affordable Housing Committee, have confirmed and set forward as a policy goal That funding and investment for affordable housing should be going towards zero to 30% AMI projects.

And as someone who's worked in homelessness services and housing work countywide, that's why I've been fighting for those investments.

But luckily with the bill that we have here, which again, this bill does not provide a subsidy, it doesn't cost the city anything, but rather will support a number of projects that are in the design phase or maybe upcoming.

As we heard from Plymouth, Plymouth projects would be able to benefit from this program.

There are also projects that may be recipients of housing levy dollars that would be able to benefit from this project and stretch their investments further to build more housing.

So this is adding another tool to our toolbox to be able to bring more housing online.

We know homelessness is a housing problem, and the research from Greg Colburn out of the University of Washington confirms this.

And by being able to bring more housing online, we can address our broader affordability challenges.

And we're learning from our partnering cities around the country.

From 2017 to 2022, Minneapolis increased its housing stock by 12%, and that was able to happen through a series of land use changes.

And with that 12% increase in housing stock, in that same time period, rents grew only by 1%.

And so I think that's important to name in this too.

We're trying to bring online more tools to address the affordability crisis with what we've got.

But what is clear, and I hope is the opinion of this committee, is that we have a need for more community-led affordable housing, especially in areas that have historically excluded communities of color.

And with that being said, I'm happy to be working in partnership with Chair Salomon to ensure that we're acting now.

As I've stated previously, this pilot would give density bonuses to community-led affordable housing projects across our city.

And I know there are a number of amendments.

I know my office has blocked our amendments as well.

And I know there's a few others that will be briefed on today.

But with that, Chair, thank you for allowing me to add those comments.

And let's keep the conversation going and hear from our panel.

Thank you very much, Council Member Rank.

As we do have community here with us, good to see you, friends, and looking forward to hearing from you regarding this.

So again, you've introduced yourself for the record.

I want to give you an opportunity to speak about how this would help y'all.

Thank you Chair Solomon and Council Member Brink who sponsored this legislation and committee members for inviting us to attend and giving us the opportunity to talk about our projects and how it relates to the Roots to Roofs pilot project.

So I'm here to also speak on behalf of The Filipino Community of Seattle's Executive Director, Agnes Navarro, who has participated in some of the roundtables.

And so I'm going to read my statement because she has sent me some information that she wants me to impart, and I don't want to go extemporaneous because I might forget some of that.

So bear with me as I go through this.

So for almost 90 years, the Filipino community of Seattle has been galvanizing force and a cultural touchstone for thousands of Filipinos and other low-income people throughout Seattle, King County, and Washington State.

Starting out as a mutual support social organization, The Filipino community of Seattle has evolved into a full-service nonprofit organization that provides vital community services and also plays an important role as a cultural home for the Filipino community as well as other immigrant, refugees, communities throughout Southeast Seattle.

We have long envisioned creating an intergenerational mixed-use campus or what we characterize as Filipino community village that includes affordable housing, community center, and neighborhood services all in one location.

Starting with and after the completion of our Filipino Community Village One project, a 94-unit affordable housing for seniors, which served 30% to 60% AMI, which included an Innovation Learning Center development project in 2021, we began to visualize a second phase to serve working families on a site next to the community center and the Filipino Community Village One.

With acquisition funding from the City of Seattle, this third piece of the puzzle was secured in the purchase of the pawn shop next to our community center, just north of the community center.

That is the site of our current development project, Filipino Community Village 2, a seven-story intergenerational mixed-use building for residential and community space.

So what this project involves is a seven-story building, five floors of residential units, four one-bedroom, 42 bedrooms, and 12 three-bedroom units, which is a total of 56 residential units in 77,000 square feet.

And we will be serving 60% AMI and below.

which includes some of the concerns that were raised earlier.

The ground floor, which is two levels, development will involve two bays, a total of 7,000 square feet.

One bay is proposed for a health clinic that will be leased by and run by the International Community Health Services Organization.

And other extension of our Innovative Learning Center, similar to the one that we have in our first project.

But it can also be converted into a multipurpose community space for other community activities and programs.

This project will be serving low-income working families at risk of displacements, specifically BIPOC families in Southeast Seattle.

We have also formed a community capital committee to raise funds for the non-residential parts of the new building with the $10 million goal, and I'm one of the co-chairs of that committee.

We will be raising funds from three sources, government, like we did with the first project, private companies, foundations, and others that are willing to give these type of projects, and more important, in the community, with special emphasis of engaging our community members and supporters in raising funds and supporting this project.

We have already raised $5 million towards our goal, but we still have more to raise with the support of everyone that I mentioned here.

Our location in South Seattle is in the most diverse zip code in our city region and also is a disadvantaged census tract with multiple negative indicators.

Challenges such as education, language, foreign-born status, and poverty are significant.

The Filipino community of Seattle is a strong advocate for families and have built our many programs and development projects around this notion.

We understand the housing challenges of people of color surrounding affordability, apartment sizes, access to community amenities, employment, and public transportation.

This development project on this site is meant to address these challenges.

Family housing is especially needed in Rainier Valley due to the ongoing displacement pressure in Seattle.

Filipino Community Village 2 project is dedicated to serving BIPOC working families and others at risk of being displaced by rising housing causes here in Seattle.

This project is not just a housing solution.

It is a lifeline for many families striving to achieve stability and prosperity in our community.

The high cost of living in Seattle has made it increasingly difficult for many to find safe, stable, and affordable homes.

This project aims to address these challenges by providing much needed housing solutions options that are both affordable and accessible.

Both our Filipino Community Village 1 and now our Filipino Community Village 2 projects, developments were driven by the following context.

One, most important, is the need for affordable housing.

In 2023, 70% of low-income households in King County spent more than 30% of their income on housing.

Identified by our city's Office of Planning and Community Development's Race and Social Equity Index as being in the top 20% equity priority tracks in our city.

And in 80% of extremely low-income households, 0% to 30% AMI in King County are the most cost-burdened.

These statistics underscore the urgent need for affordable housing solutions.

The Filipino community of Seattle is committed to creating a supportive and inclusive environment where families can strive.

By developing these projects, we are not only providing homes but also fostering a sense of community and belonging.

The second is impact on the community.

So economic stability.

Affordable housing allows families to allocate resources to other essential needs such as education, healthcare and savings.

Community development.

A stable housing environment fosters stronger community ties and enhances the overall quality of life.

Cultural preservation.

This project will celebrate and preserve the rich cultural heritage of the Filipino community, creating a vibrant and supportive neighborhood as well.

Finally, we support and are excited about the Roots to Roofs pilot project to become a reality, as our experience has shown, and this is an additional development capacity to offer to communities like ours that are focused on developing affordable housing but need the partnerships and support necessary to make this vision a reality.

So we've done that in our first project, and we're also continuing to do what's stated in this legislation in our current project.

By advocating and approving this legislation project, you are investing in the future of our community and other communities by ensuring that working families have the opportunity to build better lives.

We are deeply grateful for your consideration and hopefully support for this legislation.

Thank you for your commitment to creating a more equitable and inclusive Seattle, and we are looking forward to being part of making this a reality.

Thank you, and we're happy to take any questions at the appropriate moment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please, Antti.

Thank you, Chair Solomon.

Council Member Rink, thank you for the legislation or ordinance, I think is what we call it in the city.

And members of the committee, we or the Filipino community is in support of this legislation.

We think that we could make use of it.

We would be able to have partnerships with different nonprofits to make sure that our building, Filipino community village too will become a reality.

As we go in further, into further refinement, I heard from the The folks that testified today, their concern has a lot to do also with the for-profit developers, and I think that we should take a closer look at that.

And then the other part is the environmental justice issue.

I live on Beacon Hill.

We get a lot of air and noise pollution, and I'm also working on the King County International Airport Community Coalition, which is working for health and environmental justice for our nearby airport communities.

So I would also ask that you take a look at that.

But otherwise, everything that David has said is something that I also support and that we hope that the Council will take into consideration and pay attention to it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anything to add?

Yeah, I'd like to add just a few quick comments.

I'm primarily here to answer questions, but given some of the public comment today, I thought it might be helpful to share the amount of affordable housing production that happens year over year in Seattle.

I have some data here starting from 2020, but there's a fantastic dashboard on the Office of Housing website where you can access all of this.

You can find out the exact type of housing that is built, market rate, or affordable, and at what percentage.

So in 2020, 7% of the housing built was considered affordable.

In 2021, it was again 7%.

In 2022, I believe it was 5%, and in 2023, it was 2%.

So there's a troubling downward trend for affordable housing.

Now, this pilot bill that requires at least 25% of a project be affordable is a pretty significant jump when you look at a project per project basis.

So I just wanted to provide that context.

And really, secondly, I do agree that some additional time should be spent on the for-profit component of this bill, but I also want to explain as I've been practicing Architecture in Seattle for a little over 30 years.

And as of late, I've become a developer of affordable home ownership projects that fall within the missing middle, smaller end of the scale.

There are really two very different funding ecosystems for market rate versus affordable projects.

It's going to be very unusual for a market rate developer to come along and desire to partner with a community-based organization.

It does happen in very small quantities even today.

But the language in this bill provides more guardrails for the community-based organizations in those instances.

But overall, the nonprofit developers have access to one pool of funding, while the market rate developers have access to a completely different pool of funding.

And so the two ecosystems do not tend to mesh.

And so more likely than anything, you're going to see Non-profit, larger institutions like Plymouth Housing, Habitat for Humanity, partnering with community-based organizations.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Also want to know for the record that Councilmember Hollingsworth has joined this committee.

Welcome.

Thank you.

So thank you for your presentations.

Thank you for your words.

Colleagues, wanted to open it up for any questions to our panel or any questions regarding the legislation overall.

Let me see.

Council Member Rink.

Chair, thank you.

I just wanted to add one final note because I know we were supposed to have one other panelist for today, and I just wanted the record to reflect that Caleb Jackson with Uplift Investment informed my office that he was unable to attend here today for a personal matter, and I wanted to publicly thank him for working with my office and his willingness to come before us today.

And he played a pivotal role in drafting Amendment 3 that is also before us today.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

All right, Council Member Juarez.

Thank you.

First of all, Mr. Chair, I want to apologize for what occurred to a public comment.

I felt like I came in a little hot there, but I just want the record to reflect for the clerk that when individuals are racist and disruptive and vile, that we make a note of that so we have it on the record.

So if they do it two more times, then it's on the record.

It's three times, and then we can begin.

Discussing having this person or any individual, quite frankly, they do this at Sound Transit in King County, be, well, the correct word is banned.

It could be 30 days or 60. But I just think it's important for the public to see, for all the things that we talk about in this city, about tolerance and inclusivity, that we should not allow people to come here and attack Us and others based on our race, our gender, our ethnicity, and to allow it because we're being polite is just unconscionable.

So I want the record to reflect that.

So that individual now has two more chances, and then we're going to have a problem.

I have a question, and mainly it's more technical, and I want to thank Ketel first for providing me your memo.

Ketel, on July 27th, you prepared a memo, a summary and fiscal note, and I had an opportunity to look at the legislation.

And I know that Council Member Rink, thank you for providing this.

You also had the three amendments that I just got copies of.

So it's not so much technical as right now I understand that we're holding it nine amendments, five of which are Council Member Hollingworth.

Is that correct where we're still at?

There's no more?

Nine?

Yes?

Okay.

That's all I want to correct.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from the committee?

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I'm sorry, I know I do not sit on this committee, but I appreciate all this.

You're always welcome.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Just a quick question.

Is this the time to address our potential amendments?

I don't sit on this committee.

I drafted amendments with our central staff, and I just wanted to speak to those today.

We won't be taking a vote on them today, but if you do want to discuss them.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

I just wanted to be really, really quick and brief.

Thank you so much.

Sorry.

I was a little out of sorts.

I didn't know how.

I've never sat on a committee that I wasn't in.

So I know I'm not a member today, so I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

Thank you, Council Member Rank for bringing this forward.

I also wanna express my deep gratitude to central staff as well for your tireless work, not only on this legislation, comp plan, other land use bills.

I know that you all are managing a heavy workload and limited capacity, so thank you.

I just wanted to state that for the records.

So some of the amendments that...

I proposed, and I'm not on the committee, so I just drafted them, and I had talked to Councilmember Rivera about potential sponsorship, but wanted to just put them out there because I've met with some community folks and some neighborhoods across the city, and these were specifically from historically excluded communities that have experienced disproportionately levels of development in their neighborhoods.

Even as other areas in the city have been consistently protected.

So I do know that this bill is very different than the last one for connected communities.

And it gives bonuses to communities that had, and help me correct me if I'm wrong, Council Member Rank.

This gives bonuses to communities that formerly had racially covenant So it gives it out, did I say that right?

Go ahead, correct me, please.

The previous version of this legislation had tied an additional bonus to a displacement map, which was primarily located throughout District 2. What we've done here is we've focused in providing an additional density bonus to properties that have had a racially restrictive covenant on the home.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Which was one of my concerns, and that had been addressed, which is great, which is the first one.

But I also had opportunities to sit down with a number of groups, Africatown, King County Equity Now, Urban League, Uplift, Caleb, Case 21, First AME Housing, Parents with Students with Sex, Black Legacy Homeowners, Bird Bar, to talk about the first one were trees particularly in the south end.

So I know it was mentioned here, there's amendment environmental justice issue pertaining to trees that are south of I-90, protecting some of those that are in danger.

So that was one of them.

Also, there's an amendment that we drafted to have five projects per district, and that was for disproportionate development, so it's not all concentrated in just one neighborhood, central district or south end, that it could be throughout the city.

There also needed to be a clearer pathway for home ownership.

I know Council Member Rink brought that, which is great, and that was one thing that was really, really important to us as well.

And then also predatory operational agreements.

I know that this bill has the underlining with 51% ownership, but also the devil's in the details when it comes to the operational agreement for community development partners and whoever's operating that piece as well.

I've seen it happen in the cannabis equity industry, and so that was a red flag for me as well.

And so these are still in draft form.

I wanted just to offer them to the committee, present them, have them out there, so just to get feedback and to figure out a way to move forward that also centers the voices that our communities impact.

I know that's important to Councilmember Rank and everyone up here, He took the time to make sure that we could draft those with Ketel.

I did not draft those, Ketel did.

He took the concepts out of my brain and was able to articulate those to make me look really, really smart.

So I just want to thank you again for your time, committee, and I'll be continuing to working with you all on this.

So thank you.

Thank you very much, Council Member Hallsworth.

I don't think people realize just how much our central staff does for us.

They do make us look smart.

They make our jobs a lot easier.

So, again, thank you for everything you do, because we throw a lot at you, and it's definitely appreciated.

Any other comments from the committee?

Council Member Warris, is that the old hand or new hand?

Well, I'm going to use the old hand and the new hand.

Okay.

Just quickly.

I want to just comment with what Council Member Hollingworth said.

So, and going back to with Kittle from in the way back machine here, when we were looking at areas that were traditionally redlined, red zoned in the day, that it took the United States Supreme Court in 1948 to rule that these were unconstitutional.

You could not divide up a city by government bank by unracial lines, and it took until 1968 with the Fair Housing Act to pass a law of Congress saying you simply can't do that.

And the reason why I'm actually not that smart, but under MHA and HALA, if you remember when we were passing that and going through the community meetings and looking, and if you look at Ketel's footnote, which is what I love about Ketel's writing, on page one, footnote two, when he talks about the racial restrictive covenants project, I actually went and looked at that when I was doing the legal research for HALA and MHA, and it did map out those neighborhoods, and many of them are north of the Ship Canal as well.

So I understand that this is about righting historical wrongs, and I think what we're struggling with as a city, but I don't think we should at this point at least have the honest discussion, is that these racial covenants, out of them sprang the term, and I'm just using one term, so I don't want everyone to go crazy, Like single-family zoning is basically an archaic term from the past that was code for certain things, which basically meant certain people couldn't live there.

There was a time in my neighborhood as a Native American, Latina, and if you were Jewish, you could not live in unincorporated, which is now District 5. And so I think we have to grapple with that history and just be honest about it.

And no one's pointing fingers right now.

We're just saying that This is how our city got divided up.

These are the things that went up to the United States Supreme Court.

This is how Congress passed the law.

And now we are really addressing the housing problem we're having right now in the city of Seattle.

North and south of the Ship Canal, and it's more than incumbent upon us to actually have these tough discussions, and I want to thank Council Member Rink for bringing this forward.

I know Council Member Morales started it, and these were discussions.

And so hearing the comments today from when I was on Council for eight years, just like Council Member Della, and I'm sure former Senator Velma Valoria understands as well from our work together, It's a little disingenuous to always just say, I think it's only for the developers and you're going to tear down every tree.

And, I mean, we've seen a lot of that and some of that is true, but I don't think the intent and the spirit and the humanity that we look at these kind of laws is basically to provide, again, the basic things that we should have in this country and certainly in this city.

And that's housing.

And we've come to the crisis where we need housing, we need units, and we have to make that change.

So I'm just hoping that in the spirit of understanding that, that people don't come here and think that this is just, you know, there's ill will.

We really are struggling as a city to just fix something.

And I just wanted to end on that and thank our former representatives who I worked with shoulder to shoulder in Olympia and City Hall, and Professor Valoria, a mentor of mine as well when I was in Olympia, who pulled me up short when I was out of line, a couple times called me from the House floor, and I appreciated that.

And so I just wanted to end on that note.

So thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Juarez.

You know, it kind of reminds me of something that Councilmember Hollingsworth shared about her own family when I believe it was your grandmother wanted to buy in Madison Park and was told, you can buy here, but you can't live here, right?

Thinking about, you know, how did my family end up on Beacon Hill, where my grandmother wanted to buy in Seward Park?

It's because there was a red line she couldn't cross.

So, you know, the stuff is real, right?

We do need more housing at more income levels and more parts of the city, not just in D3 and D2, but all over the place.

And again, looking at organizations like Filipino Community, like Ethiopian Community, like Africatown, like Uplift, this is not intended to be a giveaway for developers.

So if it comes across like that, we need to address that.

But this is really about those community-based organizations building for folks in their community and facilitating that.

So, Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for being here and describing what sounds like a really, sorry about this, my mic is stuck, I can't move it, a really great project in the Filipino community.

I was here when the different iteration came up and I will say that one of the major reasons why this didn't move forward then is still an issue today for this one and that is just simply at a very basic level that we're in the middle of comp plan and we are grappling with heights which are part of phase two and Council Member Hollingsworth, I really appreciate her leadership on the comprehensive plan.

And we are all working with our respective districts and constituents on neighborhood centers and boundaries and then heights.

And heights are coming and what we've told constituents, because this is true right now, we're looking at the, I mean, for those neighborhood centers.

And then in phase two, we'll look at the heights.

And so I say that to say we are having these conversations with constituents about height.

There's obviously some concerns about that.

The dance that we do to come to compromise on all of that.

And so this seemed better place when we're talking about heights and we're having the holistic conversation about heights rather than now, which is actually very here in short order coming at the beginning of the year.

Once we actually get the comp plan and the permanent HB 1110 legislation passed.

And so to me it's a timing issue because we are telling constituents we're not addressing heights yet.

We're only addressing the neighborhood centers and the Permanent HB 1110, which for some people, you know, was a lot.

It's a lot more than we're allowing currently in the city.

And so we're working with our constituents to, like I said, find points of compromise in many cases on that.

And we've told them, you know, heights are in phase two and the mayor hasn't sent down, obviously, yet the So the concern is we're doing this outside of that conversation.

It seems piecemeal.

And I think you're seeing some reaction to that.

And I always feel really these things are unfortunate in my mind because then it starts to pit people against people.

And Council Member Juarez, I really appreciate what you're saying in terms of we all want the best for our city and our communities.

I'm Latina, too.

I grew up in a mostly black and brown neighborhood in the inner city.

My parents were renters.

I grew up in a rental my whole life.

Now I finally own after all those years.

But many, many years of renting even as a young person on my own.

And anyway, all that to say that I feel like when we do these things as almost like one-offs or outside of the process, it creates this Difficult situation for constituents across the city in a very unfortunate way because I think people start feeling like, well, it's outside of the process and I don't get to engage.

And what does that mean for me?

And you said we were going to do this in phase two.

And so to me, that is what I'm hearing a lot from constituents as a concern and as a...

District Council Member, what we hear a lot, and I know in D5, Council Member Moore heard this a lot too, and there's a lot, a lot of concern around trees, which I know is across the city, because there's, I hear from the south end, a lot of concern about trees and tree canopy because of, you know, climate change, and all of that is real.

And so to me, I would, you know, have preferred to take this up when we were doing phase two in a few months here.

So we are having a holistic conversation.

Rather than have people reacting as you're seeing, like, we're opposed, we're opposed, we're opposed, when really I think the issue is we should talk about this all together at the same time and make decisions about those heights as we are doing this as a holistic plan.

I think that's a better strategy, if you will, for doing this work.

And that is a concern I have for this.

And Chair, I see someone, a former senator.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

So just from our experience in the Filipino community, the first building, the 94 unit that David has been talking about, we worked with our developer and we said, we do not want to overshadow The neighbors across the street.

And you know what?

They told us, okay, let's build half of it on the place where there are no residents that are going to be overshadowed and leave the space where there are other houses on the other side.

So to me also, It is a holistic discussion, but it also has to do with the developers that you're working with and the interaction that the communities have with it.

So that's a key lesson that I really learned.

And then my question is this whole issue about what's the AMI of Seattle?

Because I heard it's gone up, which means that some affordability issues are coming up.

And I really appreciate Council Member Rink for bringing this up for discussion and hopefully.

These conversations are necessary.

And your comments are really appreciated.

I really appreciate what you're saying.

All of that is true.

There are different aspects to this.

And it is true in terms of the developers.

But we need more development.

So it's and, not or.

And we need to make sure, though, that I think the holistic comprehensive approach is important, particularly when you're trying to get the The neighborhood to buy in, for lack of a better word, to projects in the neighborhoods.

But I think when you start doing one-offs outside of a process, that's when people start reacting and they get concerned.

And what is this going to look like?

And then there's a tree and is there going to be a seven The floor thing next to my, you know, mine and my neighbor's block.

And where is it better placed?

And all of that is important and true.

And I think that that...

And, you know, let's just say we...

You were legislators also for a long time.

Folks don't always trust government.

So I feel like when we start doing these things at a one-off, we put ourselves in a bad situation inadvertently with constituents rather than doing it, like I said, in this holistic approach.

We're going to have to deal with heights in general in a few months here.

So why not do this as part of that?

So no one is feeling like we're trying to pull the wool over their eyes, which we're not.

But you could see how people are feeling like, why are you doing this outside of the process when, in fact, This is in short order.

It's not like it's going to happen years from now.

We've got to address zoning in a few months here.

Yes.

I was hoping to address your comment about thinking about this during the comp plan instead of as a one-off.

As an architect, I work with the Central Area Youth Association and two church organizations, and we have about, amongst those three projects, about 100 affordable homeownership units in the pipeline.

And in some cases, I've been working with those organizations since 2019. They've died and resuscitated multiple times.

The urgency to serve those communities is grave.

And so I think, you know, I was originally asked in 2022 by the Office of Planning and Community Development to sit on the advisory, what did they call it, advisory group or advisory panel to come up with a framework for legislation such as this, where we studied all the barriers for development for community-based organizations and equitable development.

They're significant, and it's why a lot of these projects have languished for as many years as they have.

And I think the benefit of pulling out legislation separate from the Comp Plan is it can specifically address CBOs and equitable development.

The Comp Plan in and of itself will likely not give those organizations what they need to correct errors of the past.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that Community-based organizations, more often than not, are working with the land that they have legacy ownership of.

It's not that common that a CBO will go find their own parcel to develop.

A market rate developer has the benefit and the capital to decide which parcel to purchase so that it is ripe for their development per forma.

But for a community-based organization, they have the land that they have.

It isn't necessarily the best land to develop, but dispensations in the code need to be afforded to them so that that land can be leveraged for their vision to build community centers, affordable housing, whatever it may be.

So I think it's really important to understand that the comp plan in and of itself is not going to address the specific needs of community-based organizations getting these projects over the finish line.

I understand and I get how it's probably, you know, it feels like it's out of sequence and it feels like maybe it's even a waste of time.

But I can assure you with the community-based organizations I'm working with, it is not a waste of time.

It is so, so necessary.

And I think that...

The comp plan, as we've all been watching it, we're already behind schedule.

We had to introduce an interim code because we couldn't meet the deadline.

Now we have a budget coming up in November.

If we can't get this phase two discussion completed by then, We're going to have to push it to January.

And so I think for the community-based organizations that I work with, they're very concerned that the comp plan discussion will be drawn out, number one.

And number two, that it won't actually have their specific needs at heart.

Or not at heart, but it's too big of a project, the broader comp plan project, to squarely face their needs.

The broader comp plan is not, the zoning is in response to the comp plan, so that's why it's phase two, and that's what I'm talking about.

Zoning, we will have to make a determination on how tall, you know, the height.

for those particular areas, not just the neighborhood centers, but the regional centers, and we're going to expand heights in transit areas and things of that nature.

That's why I'm saying this is a better place, because we're already going to be talking about how tall can buildings be in those areas where we're trying to promote density.

So it's not that these projects would be in the comp plan.

Is that we're going to have to address zoning for the heights for the comp plan.

And this is the better conversation.

It's better to have this zone.

This is a zoning height issue.

So it's better to have it during the zoning.

But I hear what you're saying about community-based organizations.

It doesn't preclude having this.

Our phase two zoning height.

That determinations doesn't preclude these kinds of conversations for CBOs or any other things that may come up.

But it is a better place because we will have to start talking about, are we going to do L1 to MR3, et cetera, et cetera?

How tall are we going to do?

What height bonuses are we going to give projects and things of that nature?

Those conversations are going to happen and they will happen.

We will do comp plan.

We are on track for at least comp plan and permanent HB 1110 legislation in the fall.

Like I know that it has been late, but now like rubber is meeting the road because we will lose funding if we don't get this completed.

So I hear what you're saying.

And I will also say, in addition to everything you just said, There is the issue.

I've done this for over 30 years.

I've been working at either a nonprofit or government and a lot of outreach.

And if you want folks to support what you're trying to do, you have to do the outreach.

And OPCD last year did not do the adequate outreach, which just made people more upset.

So here's the deal.

You need to do outreach to people that support you and to people that don't support you because otherwise you're in a space where it's this.

And you want to be in a space where even the people that might not be all supportive in the beginning, you can bring people along.

I have seen that.

Councilmember Della, you're shaking, nodding, because you've seen it too.

Like, again, we've done this a long time.

So you don't get people on board by ramming things, you know, at them.

You really talk to them and include them.

You're not going to get everyone.

That is true.

And that's okay.

And that doesn't mean you don't move forward.

But you have brought them along with the process.

So there's multiple strategies and ways to do something.

And I find Having done this for as long as I have and in community, because most of my work was in Hispanic community, I find if you do the outreach and bring people along, You will have better outcomes in general for community.

I'm sorry.

Thank you for what you were just saying, Council Member Rivera.

The other part of that, too, is that we need to have developers that are sensitive to the needs of the community.

I mean, they can't just, like you said, ramrod their building.

But we were lucky that we had a developer that was really sensitive to our needs and even talked to us about what type of Filipino decorations do you want on this building, right?

So that it becomes more ethnic decoration.

And, you know, that really helped a lot.

And, you know, like you said, people walked in there and they said, oh my God, you've got Filipino shingles, you know.

Or, you know, you've got this tile that's, you know, from the Philippines.

So it's, you know, so it's really, to me, it really has also a lot to do with the developer that you work with.

And how do you create, how do you legislate cultural sensitivity?

You know?

It's hard.

You can't.

And it's true across the board.

There's a project in the district that I represent in D4 where the developer came in and worked with the neighborhood, with the community members to, hey, we're doing this project.

We're going to have a grocery store.

Early on, They knew that if they brought people early on, sure, they're going to have some folks, neighbors, who don't want them there.

But you know what?

A lot of those neighbors got on board, and they're wanting, you know what?

The neighbors are supporting getting their permits, this developer getting their permits from SDCI, and it's taking longer.

So I get emails from constituents, just people that live there, when is this project going to finally get their permits so this can be built?

The sensitivity and the developer in that case is listening and wanting to work with the neighborhood because they know there'll be more successful, better outcomes when you engage early on.

So thank you for saying that, and I agree.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Rivera, for your comments.

Colleagues, I am sensitive to the time.

We've had a long day, and I want to make sure that we have any final or closing comments before we do adjourn our meeting.

Yes, Council Member Juarez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I will be very, very brief.

I just want to make two—and I—Council Member Rivera hit exactly on where I was going.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera, about—I don't know if I'm going to be ready to vote on this on August 6, quite frankly.

And it isn't—because of the comp plan.

And I would politely disagree with you that in the comp plan, we are addressing zoning capacity, new housing, new jobs.

Transit corridors, 10-minute walk sheds, what are we doing with 1Seattle, HB 1110, urban centers, neighborhood centers, urban neighborhoods.

We're working on all that.

I apologize.

I'm hanging up on my grandchild right now.

I just want you to know that.

But I want to get back to what you said, Representative Allure, because I think that some people who are calling in on what we've heard, people make the assumption that people who work with community-based organizations, that when they pick developers, that those developers don't infuse community sensibilities in brick and mortar.

And I've built a lot of stuff in rural communities in Indian Country, and we do, because we live there.

And so people start with the assumption that, oh, we're just going to build these big McMansions and no one's going to care.

We're going to have stacks and stacks of housing.

We live there.

We want it to be livable and walkable.

So I think people need to disabuse themselves with that notion.

And I think we also have to understand and recognize that, as the state legislator has said under 1110, is that we do now have increased zoning capacity, and it would be a waste not to use it.

It just would.

And I will end on that.

And thank you for indulging me, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

Any final comments from my colleagues?

Council Member Ring.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you all.

I also want to thank our panel for coming before us today to share more specificity around this project and really illustrate for us what kind of things we're talking about and what could be made possible under this bill.

So thank you for your time and expertise and your engagement with my office and being in committee today.

Truly appreciated.

And building on that point, colleagues, I understand, you know, There's a policy decision ahead of us, whether we move forward with this bill or work towards trying to incorporate into the comprehensive plan.

I know we've been in conversation with central staff on making sure we can put forward amendments in the comprehensive plan to also align with what we're trying to do here.

But I would say from a policy perspective, the value of doing this is a standalone bill.

speaks to also the urgency behind the housing crisis and us being able to assuredly move forward with some real projects that could benefit from this.

I would state that, you know, that would be something that I just want to make sure is reflected on the record.

The housing crisis is real, it's urgent, and we have the opportunity to move forward and help really great projects pencil in a timely fashion.

And we know that the longer that certain housing projects are waiting in the timeline, whether they're waiting for permits or they're waiting for the final last couple of dollars to come into a project, The added time for a project can just inflate costs.

So us doing our part to help in making projects pencil in a timely manner is tremendously important.

And I want to close also by thanking Council Member Hollingsworth for your engagement in committee today and also for working with community partners and shaping some amendments that I think will improve upon the bill.

I know I'm digesting alongside and figuring out fully What kind of feedback we may have on them, but I want to express my appreciation for your engagement on the bill and bringing together some stakeholder groups to, again, I think we're aligned in the intent here.

We want to try and remedy Historical harms in land use policy.

And so I know we're aligned in intent here and looking forward to working with you on these amendments.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

And again, thank you for everyone for being here, for being here for an extended time.

Thank you to our panel.

Always good to see you.

If there's no further business, come before the committee.

Hearing none, it is 417. The special meeting of the Land Use Committee will come to a close.

Our next meeting will be, regular scheduled meeting will be Wednesday, August 6th.

So with that, 417, we are adjourned.

Thank you very much, everyone.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back.

Good job.