Land Use Committee 3/20/2024

Okay.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I am Tammy Morales.

It is March 20th, 2024, and the regularly scheduled meeting of the Land Use Committee will come to order.

It's 2.03 p.m.

I'm Tammy Morales, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Moore.

Present.

Council Member Rivera.

Present.

Council Member Wu.

Present.

Council or Vice Chair Strauss.

Present.

Chair Morales.

Here.

Five present.

Thank you.

If there is no objection, today's agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.

Okay, we will move into the public comment period.

This will be a general in-person and virtual public comment period.

I'll moderate in the following manner.

Public comment.

Clerk, how many people do we have signed up in person?

have six people signed up for in-person comment.

Okay.

I'm going to give everyone one minute to comment so that we've got a long agenda today.

Two items, but long.

So I'll give everyone one minute, and we will start with in-person commenters, and then we'll move to...

So, Andre, will you please call the first two speakers in person?

Stand by.

Thanks for your patience, everyone.

We have a new committee clerk today.

Welcome, Andra.

Thank you for your grace.

And we are ready.

Ron Horning is the first speaker.

Hello.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

I'm commenting on the memo about unit ownership.

And I kind of talked to...

an architect on how maybe some wording could go into the director's rule on process.

And I got a copy here.

My computer kind of messed up.

So that's a little messed up.

Just some rules maybe that could go in.

So both sides know or all three sides know, you know, who does what and what timelines there are and stuff like that.

So I hope some sort of facts of that type get into the rule.

Thanks.

Appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Kayden Cook.

I apologize if I mispronounced the last name.

Either one or?

Either microphone, sure.

Hello, my name is Kaden Cook.

I use they, he pronouns and I'm a current UW student living in Capitol Hill.

As some of you know, I'm pretty involved in organizing and recently worked with a group of queer renters in the Capitol Hill area to try and pass rent stabilization at the statewide level.

Because that didn't pass, that just kind of, to me, symbolizes why the comp plan is increasingly important, especially with our lack of supply.

I love living in Capitol Hill.

I love living in Seattle, which is the city that I was born.

I love the diversity of queer people who have organized together to protect our community.

And I don't want to be forced out due to a rent increase.

Supply is not this only solution to our housing problem, but it is a more long-term solution than just stabilization.

When supply is low, that's just simply how it works.

And I urge you to fix the mayor's plan.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kayden.

Next, we have Jorge Chavez II.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Jorge Chavez II.

I live at Nicholsville, Northlake.

Nicholsville supports council member Morales' Connected Communities pilot legislation.

We all know that the number one reason of homelessness is the lack of affordable housing.

Low-income families are being pushed out of the city into faraway places where transportation is limited and good-paying jobs are rare.

The problem in Seattle is that we're surrounded by water in all directions, and there is no room to expand but to go up.

We urge you to vote yes on this legislation.

People need more affordable places to live.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alicia Burton.

Good afternoon council members.

My name is Alicia Burton.

I live at Nicholsville Central District.

Nicholsville supports council members Morales Connected Communities pilot legislation.

This legislation would allow for additional height allowable floor area exceptions from floor area calculations and other standard modifications.

It establishes provisions for social housing developments and earmarks 30% of units restricted and affordable to households making below 80% of the area medium income.

We urge you to vote yes on this legislation, please.

People need more affordable places to live.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, David Gloger.

Hello, my name is Dave Gloger and I live in District 5. And though I'm here to speak about the connected communities and it has very admirable goals, but I think there's too many exceptions in this for Seattle policies.

We have a policy for affordable housing, but there's an exemption for this.

So therefore we don't get as much affordable housing as we could get.

The city has a design review process, but are we using that for this?

So the communities that are impacted can let you know If this design fits their needs, there's an exemption for that.

So we have all these exemptions in there.

And then there's an exemption you can build up to five feet of the edge of the property.

So that means there's no room for children to play.

There's no room for trees that we know that provide numerous health benefits.

All this does is provide urban heat islands.

So I ask you to amend this proposal or to reject it.

Thank you.

and Steve Rupstello.

I too am concerned about the proposal.

Strangely enough, with few limitations you have are all taken out.

You're going to be serving largely 80% people, which are people who already can afford some housing in Seattle, not maybe buy a house, but can afford some housing in Seattle.

And again, who's taking it in the shorts, the good old working class, because you're going to continue to push people out because they're going to help pay for very upper end housing, which people ought to be able to afford themselves.

People who are not likely to be on the street and very little for the people on the bottom.

I've not seen an accounting on MHA.

I have not seen an accounting of how much better or worse, I suspect worse it is right now for homelessness in Seattle.

The council declared emergency almost a decade ago and that went on to normal business.

In-person public comment is completed.

Okay, thank you, Andra.

We'll move on to virtual.

Let's see, the first person we have is Nivi Achanta, followed by Martha Baskin.

So as a reminder, please press star six to unmute, and you have one minute.

Nivi Achanta, you are first.

Wait, just one moment.

Hello, can people hear me?

Hello.

Yes.

Hold on one second, please.

Sorry.

Okay.

We're going to set the timer.

Okay.

Okay.

Please begin.

All right.

Well, while you're doing that, I'll just get started.

So I save you time.

My name is Nivi Achanta.

I live in District 4. I live in Fremont.

I freaking love it.

It's awesome.

It's the best place I've ever lived.

And I run an organization called Soapbox Project.

And over the past three weeks, we've been meeting so many younger people like me that live in Seattle that are really afraid of the climate crisis and the housing affordability crisis overlapping.

So I'm here to support the Connected Communities pilot legislation.

I don't think the comp plan is accounting for enough affordable housing.

Everyone deserves to live safely in Seattle.

I'm afraid I will get pushed out of the city, and so I want to take proactive measures to urge you to support the Connected Communities pilot so we can all live and work in the city that we love.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Martha Baskin, followed by Richard Ellison.

Martha, please go ahead.

Yes, hello.

Hello.

Yes, hello, Martha Baskin here.

Hello, good council people.

I'm puzzled by legislation that promotes equitable development, but not equitable climate resilience.

Language in the bill contends that it will quote, not impact sales resiliency or ability to adapt to climate change in a material way.

And while the city recognizes heat islands in frontline communities caused by the lack of tree canopy, bills like this ignore trees power to promote resilience.

As written, there are insufficient setbacks to protect trees or plant new ones.

And as a result, these connected communities will become connected heat islands.

Five-foot setbacks are simply not enough to plant trees on private property and will also eliminate planting street trees, which also cool communities.

So surely the city can encourage equitable development that understands the gravity of the affordable housing crisis and the reality of a rapidly changing climate.

please consider trees in the equation and rewrite the legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, I do have, uh, the next two speakers listed as not present Lisa, Lisa Marcus and Amy Jura visit Cole.

Um, so if you are on, uh, please make sure that you are just a moment, please.

Um, uh, Lisa and Amy, I I'm showing you as not present.

So you may need to call back in.

Uh, next I have Richard Ellison followed by Jennifer Godfrey.

Richard, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Richard Ellison.

I live in Council District 4. One of the four core values of Seattle's comprehensive plan is environmental stewardship.

The Seattle comprehensive plan calls for Seattle to continue to be a national leader in environmental stewardship.

Quote, even as the city becomes increasingly urban, Seattle is dedicated to protecting and restoring the green spaces and water that make our city special.

to design, build, and manage the city's built environment in ways that protect and strive to restore natural resources and natural systems, and to act as a role model in environmentally sustainable practices.

The Connecticut community's proposal allows for only five-foot setbacks.

It will be impossible to save existing large trees on a lot and adjacent street trees.

How do you get this primal justice vote hand in hand?

The solution, build taller, not lot line to lot line.

Save the best healthy trees and build around them.

Get extra height bonuses.

If connected communities be limited experiment, is Seattle clever enough to build affordable housing with open space for families, entries, and habitats for all?

Is Seattle going to be a leader in environmental stewardship or just clear-cut our way to environmental justice?

Thank you.

Hello, this is Jennifer Godfrey.

I live in District 6. Hello?

Yes, please go ahead.

Okay, Jennifer Godfrey, District 6. I'm wanting to comment on the Connected Communities bill.

I have some concerns that the five-foot setbacks will guarantee Seattle will lose more canopy than we are already losing.

This would also guarantee that the people living in these buildings would have no shade trees, which would provide them with free cooling during hotter weather.

Without shade from big trees, this will make them more vulnerable to heat stroke, heat induced health problems or death, not to mention pollution.

King County Public Health recommended increasing trees in frontline communities for these reasons.

Why should people getting so-called affordable housing be required to buy air conditioners to survive in their overheated apartments?

Small ornamental trees will not provide the cooling shade to these buildings.

And that's all that would fit in a five foot setback.

We can build affordable housing and save big trees at the same time.

Our starving and polluted southern resident killer whales will also suffer from this bill as trees retain stormwater, which prevents polluted water from being dumped into their home in times of heavy rain.

Thank you.

Next, we have Jason Walsh, followed by Lois Martin.

Jason, please press star six.

Hello.

Yes, please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Jason.

He him.

I'm a renter in district two speaking in support of the connected communities pilot program.

Just moving to Seattle.

I've been a graduate student and worked in nonprofit sector.

Neither have provided me with the income necessary to afford permanent home in one of the country's least affordable cities.

I've been constantly rent burdened, spending upwards of 40% of my income on rent and as a bike rider, and just one distracted driver away from major financial hardship and housing jeopardy.

This program will put more housing on the books and crucially more housing for people who are not higher income earners.

It would also bring greater levels of affordable housing to neighborhoods with greater access to services, and it works against the current trend to focus mixed income housing in areas with greater levels of air pollution, higher average summer temperatures, and little to no pedestrian or non-motor vehicular infrastructure.

It will leverage resources greater than what the city currently possesses and bring a community-wide approach to a community-wide issue.

We are not on track to build enough housing.

Thank you.

Next, we have Lois Martin, followed by Alice Lockhart.

Lois, please press star six.

Hello.

Yes, thank you.

My name is Lois Martin and I'm a legacy African American resident of district three.

I'm asking that you not pass the connected community legislation.

Using the language of justice to add density disproportionately in zip codes that are furthest away from environmental equity as opposed to this legislation is problematic.

The content can be included in the comprehensive plan process, not pulled out as a pilot.

Our neighborhoods can be negatively impacted by pilot developments.

Once built, these buildings cannot be taken back.

Blanket policy, similar to this, has increased taxes for many of us whose homes were up zoned, causing property taxes to go with no relief.

It does not support legacy wealth building through home ownership.

It does not have guardrails in place to protect those who do buy to be able to have access to the equity that grows over time.

The intent is commendable, but unintentional consequences can lead to lasting damage.

There are too many loopholes that can end up not meeting.

Thank you, Lois.

Next, we have Alice Lockhart, followed by Judy Akilates.

Alice, are you here?

Hi.

Hello.

Hi, Council.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Please go ahead.

Excellent.

My name is Alice Lockhart, and I'm a D5 resident and a Cathy Moore constituent.

Thanks for this opportunity to speak in favor of both connected communities and a comp plan that allows more housing to be built in all neighborhoods.

My neighborhood, Licton Springs, was partly rezoned by MHA.

We are seeing actual increases in both sidewalks and street trees as multifamily housing we badly need replaces small single-family homes sitting in the middle of lawns.

Council, make no mistakes and please check with staff if you doubt me.

The connected communities pilot buildings are of a size that will require both sidewalks and planting strips, which will on the average in many neighborhoods increase, not decrease, trees.

Before we were rezoned, we were seeing lots of huge single family houses replacing those same little houses with concomitant tree loss, but no compensating street trees or sidewalks.

Please, let's get a comment.

Thank you, Alice.

Please feel free to submit the rest of your comments to city council members.

Next, we have Judy Akulatis, followed by Sandy Shetler.

Hi, my name is Judy Acolytis, and I'm a resident of D4.

I encourage you to vote against the Connected Communities Bill because there's a lack of climate justice in this bill.

Five-foot setbacks will eliminate public street trees, which shade and cool communities, because there's no room for their canopy, and there's no room virtually for any trees at all.

Right now, I will read from Tammy Morales for City Council's social media page, which says, we must keep and add greenery where we build.

80% of residents are now exposed to heat extremes much worse than rural surroundings.

Ms. Morales also says on her Facebook page, climate action and building affordable housing can't wait.

So please put the climate action.

into this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you Judy.

Next we have Sandy Shetler followed by Akeksha Chatterjee.

Hi.

Yes.

Thank you council members.

I'm Sandy Shetler.

This bill allows development with just five foot setbacks on all sides leaving no room for trees on site or even street trees unless they are very thin.

People in these homes won't have access to the cooling, air cleaning, and other health benefits trees provide.

Why are we forcing high hardscape housing onto frontline communities?

These are the places we should be adding trees, not cutting them down.

Tree equity means everyone deserves access to trees.

In contrast, this bill tells marginalized neighborhoods that if they want housing, They have to give up health and trees and live in urban heat islands.

I had hoped this well-intentioned bill would be amended to include trees and healthy design.

In its current state, it perpetuates environmental injustice.

So please vote no.

Thank you.

Okay.

The next speaker is Akeeksha Chatterjee, followed by Woody Wheeler.

Hi, my name is Akisha Chatterjee.

I'm a constituent from District 4, and I'm here to speak in support of the Connected Communities pilot.

I'm a Campaigns Director with 350 Seattle, and as I mentioned in my last comment, a core part of our work is to win Green New Deal solutions to the climate crisis.

Dense and affordable housing is a core part of any Green New Deal and absolutely essential to addressing climate change.

Now more than ever, we need the Connected Communities pilot, especially because Seattle's comprehensive plan in its current state will not meet our housing needs.

It maintains inequitable and exclusionary zoning practices and falls well short of building healthy, well-connected communities that will remain resilient in the face of a worsening climate crisis.

Connected Communities is a much needed step towards building healthy and resilient communities.

City Council to vote yes for this ballot.

And thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next is Woody Wheeler followed by Pat Hanson.

Hello, this is Woody Wheeler.

I'm in District 4. Although the word connected is in the title of connected communities legislation, it represents a major disconnect from climate resiliency, the health and safety of those who would live in the proposed development.

Instead, this bill would create another urban heat island.

It shows a lack of thoughtful planning and concern for the health and well being of the city and its residents.

Nearly half of remaining mature trees in Seattle via private lands.

This is how they continue to be destroyed.

One poorly planned development after another.

Remember the heat dome in June 2021. Seattle temperatures over 100 degrees for three consecutive days.

Dozens of Seattleites died and BIPOC neighborhoods suffered the most because they have fewer trees.

Trees can be the difference between life and death.

I support housing, particularly affordable housing, and have voted for every housing during my 30 plus years living here.

My wife and I sponsored a tiny house for Low Income Housing Institute.

Because we care, we want the best for those living in affordable housing projects.

That includes trees.

Thank you.

Next, we have Pat Hansen followed by Colleen McClure.

And then I do see Lisa Marcus is present.

I still do not see Amy Jira visit goal present.

So Pat and then Colleen.

OK, good afternoon.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Good afternoon, Council and Chair Morales.

My name is Pat Hansen.

I live in District five.

I've lived in Seattle for 60 plus years.

I operated the design firm of woman owned business downtown Seattle for 40 years.

I've always absolutely loved this city for its trees, its mountains, its water, for its people that support and invest protecting those very things.

It's the environmental stewardship and the beauty of our area that makes us shine and makes us who we are.

Regarding connected communities, Bill, I'm finding it very difficult to understand why the city and the council appear to be working against the very goals set out that are increasing tree canopy in coming years.

It's as if there is a complete denial or lack of understanding about the benefits in relation to the heat islands, the health issues.

The green...

Thank you.

Pat, please do feel free to send the rest of your comments into council.

Let's see.

Next, we have Colleen McClure.

And then the last speaker we have is Lisa Marcus.

So Colleen, please go ahead.

Colleen, if you press star six, you can take your one minute.

There we go.

Good afternoon, council members, and thank you.

Residents of Seattle have seen a lot of pilot programs, and here's another one.

We've had MHA pilots, religious exemption pilots, affordable housing ones, in-lieu payments that have never been made, sometimes for projects, and a tree ordinance that has 85% of lot coverage.

So now we have another project for connected communities, which is a great idea, but racial equity is also a very important in the city of Seattle and legislated strongly against any type of discrimination in the past.

UW, in fact, found 46 different neighborhoods across the city had covenants in them that were racially inequality.

So design review is one of those factors that can really create equality.

And not requiring design review in this project is a policy itself of inequality.

Applying good standards for housing units that are supposed to be affordable for 75 years is critical.

But make sure that that's in there.

And finally, the definition of a developer applicant for qualified community development.

Thank you.

Let's see.

Lisa Marcus is the last speaker that we have.

Hi, Council.

My name is Lisa Marcus.

I'm a D6 resident in Support Connected Communities.

I think we should do all that we can to build more affordable housing, address the climate crisis, and fight racism.

I've lived in the Green Lake and Wallingford neighborhoods for 27 years, where sadly we have more and more mega mansions for single families being built to property lines, forcing prices up, displacement of working people, loss of diversity, loss of large trees, and loss of affordable multi-unit housing potential.

This burdens displaced people with long commutes and more time apart from family, burdens those who remain with less diverse communities and rising prices, and adds heavily to transportation pollution exacerbating the climate crisis.

I hope to see connected communities projects in my neighborhood to make homes available to people of all backgrounds and create opportunities for generational wealth to those who've been historically redlined and who can't otherwise afford a beautiful area near parks, with trees, downtown, jobs, and services.

Please vote yes for the connected communities pilot.

Thank you very much Lisa.

That is all the speakers that we have.

So I'm going to go ahead and close public comment and we will move on to our first legislative item.

Andra will you please read item 1 into the record.

Agenda item one, Seattle Planning Commission's role and the 2020 issue briefs on the comprehensive plan will be briefed and discussed today.

Thank you.

Colleagues, we have with us Vanessa Murdoch, who is the Director of the Planning Commission, Michaela Daffern, and I believe Radhika Nair is with, there she is.

So thank you all for being here.

I'm gonna hand it over to you in just a moment.

But colleagues, as I mentioned in our council briefing last week, Given that the mayor's draft comprehensive plan was just released, I'm assuming committee members have not had a chance to read it.

I haven't had a chance to review it in full and I know most interested parties haven't either.

So I invited the Planning Commission here today because while they are themselves still reviewing the draft, they've done important work to help community members understand what the comprehensive plan is. how to think about the impact of the comprehensive plan on our city.

And two years ago, two years ago, they laid out some interesting issue briefs for the mayor and the council to consider as part of our analysis to support the critical decisions that we have to make.

So I'm going to hand it over to the panel to introduce themselves, introduce the role of the commission, and they have provided us a summary of the four issue briefs they drafted for our consideration.

Those issue briefs are part of the agenda packet and they are also available online.

So I will hand it over to you, Vanessa, and take it away.

Thank you so much, Chair Morales and committee members.

We really appreciate the opportunity to introduce ourselves and also to give you an overview of those issue briefs you just mentioned.

My name is Vanessa Murdock.

I use she, her pronouns.

I'm executive director of the Seattle Planning Commission.

I will introduce, let my two colleagues introduce themselves, starting with Michaela.

Good afternoon, Michaela Daffrin, she, her pronouns.

I live in Capitol Hill.

For my day job, I work for King County's Department of Community and Human Services on affordable housing policy and planning issues, but I am not here at all in that capacity today.

I'm here today in my capacity as co-chair of the Seattle Planning Commission.

Thank you so much for having me, and I'll pass it to Radhika.

Hi, everyone.

I'm Radhika Nair.

I use she, her pronouns.

I live in Wedgwood.

In my day job, I run a community planning firm called Saver Workshop.

And I'm an urban planner.

And like Michaela said, I'm not here as the principal planner from Civil Workshop at all here.

I'm just as a member of the Seattle Planning Commission.

Thank you both.

Next slide, please.

Just want to give you all a quick overview of the purpose and role of the Seattle planning Commission.

The planning Commission is an advisory body to the city council, the mayor and city departments, it was established in 1946 in is established in the city charter, we have three main areas of work.

The Planning Commission are stewards of the comprehensive plan, which means that we are very involved in the major update that we are currently in for the for the comp plan.

We also review the annual amendments that are proposed as well as regularly check in on the equitable development monitoring reports that are produced by OPCD.

We review a number of programs policies and plans that are developed by city departments and provide feedback.

Are we endeavor to do that as early on in the process as possible, so to have the advice of the Commission be a true value add to the projects and then our third area of work is. proactive work that the Commission takes on themselves to do independent work that we will touch on later and include the issue briefs that count that chair Morales mentioned earlier on.

Next slide, please.

commission has 16 members seven appointed by city council seven appointed by the mayor one get engaged member which is a program run between the mayor's office and the ymca to encourage younger members of our communities to serve on boards and commissions across the city and one of the commission commissioners are appointed by the commission itself all appointments are subject to full city council approval Commissioners serve three-year terms and may seek to be reappointed to a second term.

And the requirements to serve on the commission are to be a resident of Seattle and that we have at least one urban planner and an architect engineer on the commission.

Next slide, please.

In terms of the composition of our current commission, you see their shining faces there on the screen.

We have a diversity of live life experiences and professional backgrounds on the commission, including professional urban planners and designers, both in the public and private sector, transportation planners, both in the public and private sector, architects in the public and private sector, Diane Goldenberg- Commissioners with experience in climate resilience and justice public health affordable housing youth mentoring and play equity and science wetland biologists so.

Diane Goldenberg- Next slide please.

I mentioned earlier that we respond to department programs, policies, and programs.

Those include the Seattle Housing Levy, the Industrial Maritime Strategy, the Seattle Transportation Plan, the Seattle Transportation Department's Vision Zero, The sub area plans that are produced by the office of planning and community development, the mandatory housing affordability program, and the equitable development monitoring program.

These are just examples of the kinds of plans and policies that we provide recommendations on.

Next slide, please.

In terms of the independent work of the Planning Commission, the comp plan briefs that Michaela and Radhika will speak to shortly are our most recent work, completed in 2022. Before that, we developed a report on evolving Seattle's growth strategy.

A report suggesting how Seattle may move towards being towards a racially equitable and resilient recovery.

Our neighborhoods for all report in 2018 called for more housing choices across the city.

Our family sized housing report before that made the case for more family sized units and many years ago, the future of Seattle's industrial land started the conversation around the importance of maintaining Seattle's industrial lands as an economic driver and source of workforce jobs in our city.

For more of our reports, you can see the web link at the bottom of the slide you can also just go to seattle planning commission google that or search that in your preferred search engine and you will come to our web page next slide please michaela and radhika are going to speak to those four comprehensive plan issue briefs these were intended developed by the commission in 2022 in the hopes that these issue briefs would inform the major update to the comprehensive plan that is now out, has been out for two weeks and one day.

And as Council, as Chair Morales mentioned, we are the Planning Commission, among others are really still digging into that plan.

And this will be discussing it over the next five weeks, with the intention to approve a thorough and thoughtful comment letter on both the plan and the draft EIS at the end of April.

With that, I will turn it over to Michaela.

Thank you.

All right.

For obvious reasons, I've been asked to talk about the affordable housing issue brief first, which I think is on the next slide.

And this brief was specifically looking at how the comprehensive plan update could be a tool for specifically increasing meeting the housing needs for the lowest income households in Seattle.

So those are typically households that are at or below, who make at or below 80% of area median income.

The issue brief started out with the frame that Seattle is working really hard to provide affordable housing, but that the need is enormous.

So acknowledging the great work that Seattle is doing, but pointing out some opportunities for Seattle to improve with the comprehensive plan update.

It points out several opportunities for the city that they could have considered during the scoping process, and one of those was that the plan must identify and address barriers and leverage resources to advance affordable housing.

It also encouraged the city to analyze and provide sufficient land capacity to accommodate Seattle share of housing needs that they have been allocated from across the region.

And that includes determining what housing types best support each level of affordability.

Not all level, not all housing types meet the needs of the lowest income households in Seattle.

And so that was really an encouragement to consider what it looks like to plan for and accommodate zero to 80 percent AMI households.

Also, the issue brief asked the city to consider how the growth strategy and housing policies can be altered to better support the production and preservation of subsidized housing for very low income households.

And finally, to assess how current housing options in Seattle are serving the needs of households looking for family sized housing.

intergenerational housing opportunities and housing accommodations, housing with accommodations for the elderly and for people with disabilities.

So a lot of opportunities on the housing front.

On the next slide, the issue brief also provided some data to kind of underscore and underpin the Commission's recommendations.

In particular, it pulled in some information to demonstrate that there are gaps currently in Seattle's housing supply.

The folks who live in Seattle who make the least are those who are paying the most of their income on their housing costs on a monthly basis.

That's what the purple and orange bars are showing on the left hand side here.

You can see that our lowest income households at zero to 30 percent of area median income are either the majority of those households are our housing cost burden.

And as you move up the income ladder, you can see that households making above 100% of our area median income, very few of those households comparatively are cost burdened.

You can also see that while Seattle has made great strides in creating housing, that it is affordable at all income levels, that the supply for the lowest income households is much lower than market rate housing for higher income households.

On the next slide, we also brought in some data to demonstrate that existing policies do not support enough housing for small to medium-sized affordable housing projects or family-sized housing.

The chart on the right is showing that the average number of bedrooms in apartment complexes, the average unit size is one bedroom.

if you are a family with needing two or three bedrooms, you're probably looking at the housing type that is a townhome or a single family home.

And those are not typically the most affordable options in the city.

And so as part of the growth strategy, we were encouraging the city to consider how the growth strategy would really truly facilitate and create more housing options for all households across the city, including giving Seattle households who want to grow families here the opportunity to stay.

And then on the next slide.

As a companion to the affordable housing issue brief, we also did a specific brief on how the city should consider and think about displacement in preparing the comprehensive plan update.

Seattle's had a long history of growth in many different phases, and I think it's well documented that this has been at the expense of black, indigenous and people of color communities, and that the comprehensive plan is not only an opportunity, but it's the city has a responsibility through the comprehensive plan to begin to address and reverse that trend.

The past approach to growth that the city has embraced has facilitated an accelerated displacement and inequitable development that's seen through the skyrocketing home purchase prices and rents And the paper talks about that in a little bit of detail and provide some data on that it talks about housing demand outpacing supply and production.

It speaks to the lack of homeownership opportunities in the city and the disproportionate impact on low income households and bypass households in Seattle.

It encouraged the city to embrace growth by weaving growth and anti-displacement strategies together in the plan and to address anti-displacement policies and incorporate those policies in multiple comprehensive plan elements rather than treat it as its own standalone issue.

Finally, the paper laid out some goals for the comprehensive plan related to anti-displacement that included focusing on community-led policy and investments, embracing affordable housing production, as well as other cultural businesses.

And there's another, maybe it was art facilities.

I can't quite remember now.

It's been a while.

As well as housing stabilization and community resilience.

So those were two of our issue briefs.

We, with that, I'm going to pass it over to Radhika to talk about the other two.

Radhika Srinivasan Okay.

Thanks, Michaela.

So in addition to these more topically focused issue briefs, the Planning Commission also looked at the growth strategy.

And the growth strategy, evolving the growth strategy issue brief looked at some of the limitations of the current growth strategy.

in three broad categories of affordability, climate change, and livability.

And it also noted some opportunities to improve in those areas.

And the goal of the issue paper was that this could support the city's efforts to realize an equitable vision in the comp plan itself.

So some of the ideas that were included in that evolving growth strategy issue paper, one of The first one was to ground changes in a genuine and effective community input process, moving from a growth strategy heavily weighted on urban villages and centers to a more polycentric neighborhood-based growth strategy.

And the planning commission talked about the conceptual framework of a 15-minute city where daily needs are within a short walk and replacing long trips with these approximate trips.

And as Michaela mentioned, actively addressing displacement across several of the topics, but most specifically in the growth strategy overall.

Looking at housing, both housing affordability and diversity as a key goal of the growth strategy.

Adding density concurrent with improvements to transportation to embrace the 15-minute city concept.

And also, speaking to the strategy that's heavily weighted on urban villages to move to balance that with need for more housing, so that the need for neighborhood preservation could be balanced with more housing needs.

And then, in addition to the urban village growth strategy, the Commission worked on a more topically focused paper on repurposing the right of way.

And this issue paper was connected to the growth strategy in that the 15-minute neighborhood concept both requires a more polycentric city, but also improving transportation connections, especially around walking and biking.

And the Planning Commission came up with some multiple policy goals that could be improved by taking this approach.

And some of those are around Thinking about the right of way as a limited and really valuable resource and as a public space, especially as the city grows and there's limited space to accommodate both the number of cars and the needs around public space that the city has.

So thinking through land use policies and changes that could use this valuable resource to address multiple planning goals, improving safety, urging the city to go beyond the Vision Zero concept and actually redesign roads and reallocate roads to reduce traffic speeds and create safe spaces.

And lastly, noting that the goal of climate action requires both evolving the growth strategy and also investments In reallocating right of way, as well as increasing tree canopy vegetation and green stormwater infrastructure to meet multiple policy goals.

And that's a brief overview of our issue papers, they are fairly detailed and complex and we've done our best to encapsulate the main points, but we want to thank you for your attention and happy to take any questions.

Thank you all so much.

I would encourage everybody to get your hands on these briefs and review them.

They provide really important context for the comprehensive plan conversation that we'll be having this year and really help set the stage for the direction that we should be moving.

I do have several questions and then I'm happy to hand it over to colleagues if you've got questions too.

I'm gonna start on slide nine, talking about the housing affordability issue.

We had a study in 2021 of Seattle's market rate housing that showed a shortage of about 21,000 rental units available for households at 80% or below.

Can you talk about whether that shortage has increased and how do we reconcile that people who even in the higher income levels between 80 and 100% are still cost burdened, even if not as at greater level as the others.

But I think it speaks to the fact that housing is so expensive here that there are still folks who are dealing with housing struggles.

Lisa, do you want me to take this?

Yes, if you could please, and then I can hop in if there's anything else to say.

Thank you, Michaela.

I have not seen any newly commissioned studies from the city on housing needs.

I think the Burke study that you mentioned is the most recent one that I have seen.

So I can't say for certain.

if the need has increased beyond what that study did find, except to say that I don't think it's any easier for folks to find and secure and maintain housing that they can afford in Seattle.

So anecdotally, I would say there's still a challenge and a crisis that many, many folks in the city are experiencing.

And then, And can you repeat the other question about the above 80% of AMI?

Well, I think what your chart demonstrates is that even folks who are at 100% of AMI are still struggling, not nearly as many, but to me that does speak to the fact that the housing market is so out of whack, to use a technical term.

So, you know, I'm just wondering how we reconcile the fact that there are still folks who are cost burdened even at that level.

Yeah, I mean, I think that suggests a need that Seattle needs more housing units across the board at all income levels and that there's folks across Seattle, no matter what you're making or struggling.

So, yes, agreed, agreed.

And it's something I think we've talked about.

We've had one initial scoping conversation, sort of a study session as a commission.

So we are in the very beginning stages of trying to get our hands around the plan ourselves.

And so we've also been sort of looking at the number of units to see at the city of Seattle is considering planning for what that means for eating our affordable needs.

And then we know that the Office of Housing generally prioritizes funding and preservation of units up to 60%.

And we know that it's difficult to finance buildings with deeply subsidized units.

And we know that employers aren't necessarily paying wages that help keep up with the pace of housing costs.

So can you talk a little bit about how we create more mixed income properties and provide sort of an array of opportunity for folks?

I don't know, Vanessa and Radhika, help me.

Do any of our issue briefs speak to that specifically?

Have we as a commission evaluated that and made any recommendations on that to date?

We have not, I will say that the Commission was briefed on the equitable development zoning that I believe this Committee will be discussing after our presentation and was in support of that.

We have not received a full briefing on the connected communities legislation that is under consideration.

However, we were definitely very supportive of equitable development zoning that addressed the issue that you mentioned, Chair Morales.

And I'll leave it at that.

We have not done that study.

We are interested in following obviously state legislation that will be requiring all jurisdictions to provide Sarah Mastrianni, Data and information on how each jurisdiction will meet each of the income band needs with what kind of housing, so we are eagerly looking forward to the data that the city will be producing in in terms of how they'll address that need across income bands.

And then I have, well, I have a few more questions, but let me ask one more.

And then I see Council Member Moore has a question.

Can you talk about how many family-sized units are projected for development for serving people at or below 80%?

I don't have those numbers at my fingertips.

I don't know if you do, Michaela.

Certainly, that is an important data point as we're looking to the data and then truing up the data to the policies that are proposed in the draft plan that we all are looking at right now where the goals are very strong and looking for will the policies indicated in the draft plan actually, will those goals be achieved?

I, you know, I would, I think a good proxy data point for that would be to reach out to the Office of Housing staff.

Generally in Seattle, units that are affordable at or below 80% of AMI are probably going to have some sort of subsidy in them from the Office of Housing.

And so they might be able to tell you and break it down for you by unit size.

I've seen the data somewhere.

I don't know if it was at a commission presentation from OH staff or where I saw it.

It's not a lot.

And it's a pretty very small number of the units that are getting produced at that size.

And that's just a challenge of funding two plus bedroom units in Seattle.

Great.

Council Member Moore and then I see Council Member Wu also has a question.

Yeah, thank you very much for this presentation.

I just had a couple of questions about your slide relating to eating the towers.

So I'm curious as to, you know, When you talk about 80% of Seattle area median income, what exactly is the income figure you're referencing?

Because that's different than the HUD figure.

Vanessa, or did you unmute yourself?

Go ahead.

no go ahead i was just looking to see if i could find that number at my at my fingertips i don't have it at the top of my head me either um we did do an explainer i remember in the affordable housing issue brief there's a whole like the second or the third page of the report is what is area median income because it's it is such sort of a confusing concept.

It is an area median income, so it does include more than Seattle in terms of geography of where it's pulling its data from, but I can't tell you off the top of my head what that number is right now, nor what it was in 2017 when the 2017 data set when these slides were and that graphic was prepared.

Okay, so yeah, the graphic is also seven years old at this point.

Data lags a lot, so I think it was the most recent data that was available in 2022 when our issue brief was put together.

So if we were to pull the data now, it would also be a couple of years old.

Okay.

And then just to be clear, like the Seattle area median income is significantly different than like the HUD area median income or even a regional area median income, correct?

In essence, the median income that we use for affordable housing programs and kind of what we're talking about, this stuff sort of is a regional area median income because it is doesn't include Snohomish and King County in it.

So.

Right.

But when we're talking about what people are actually bringing home in their paycheck, Seattle is very different than, say, Kent.

Yes, as it is different than, say, Sammamish.

Yes, there is a range, but we use a regional average, which so it does, yes, you're right.

Okay.

And so I'm also interested in when you say cost burden, so that means 30% of someone's income as opposed to severely cost burden of 50%, correct?

Correct, yes.

Okay.

And then would you agree that there's a significant dollar difference between somebody who's making 51% of the AMI versus 81% or even, well, versus 80% of AMI?

Correct so so you if you get grouped into one band, yes, if you're making 51% of area median income versus 79% of very median income, the difference between that could mean a lot for you in terms of your ability to meet your daily essential needs and the concept of living paycheck to paycheck.

But it is one of the ways that we sort of group different income levels, and it does have its drawbacks.

But, yes, that is one of the truths.

And so I think it's important when we're looking at these ranges to be very mindful of the fact That, you know, based on somebody's day to day budget, there's a significant difference between 51% and 80%.

Yeah, which leads me to my next question, which is my understanding from county growth.

Management Regional Committee is that they've identified the areas of most in most need of subsidized housing as 0 to 30 and then the 50 to 60 AMI.

Are you familiar with that, those statistics?

I am, yes, because the gap is and the need is the greatest at the lowest income levels.

And basically, once you get below 50% of area median income, it becomes pretty difficult to be able to provide housing for those households without some kind of subsidy in the project, just due to the land costs and the building costs and the cost to operate the buildings.

So market can sort of maybe sometimes, depending upon where you are in King County, provide a unit that doesn't need subsidy at about 80% of AMI.

But as it gets lower, you do need some subsidy in those buildings, which is why you don't see as many units produced at those income levels.

MS. Right.

So anything below 80 percent, you're saying, needs subsidy?

MS. Certainly below 50 percent.

It depends on the jurisdiction and certain local market conditions when you get above 50 percent of AMI.

MS.

Right.

Except that most of what the MSA and Office of Housing is subsidizing is at 60 percent, correct?

MS. Yes.

MS. Yeah.

MS.

And that's the bulk of what's being built as affordable housing outside of the housing levy money, correct?

I don't work in the Office of Housing, so I don't want to speak concretely about that, but they do produce annual reports on their website that I've seen and that I've read.

It could be a good resource for finding that information.

So you are unfamiliar with the information from King County.

that says the bulk of the housing that is needed to subsidize housing that needs to be billed is zero to 30 and 50 to 60.

Oh, no.

I am familiar with that because I do work with that data in my day job.

Yes.

Sorry.

Okay.

Sorry.

I misunderstood.

I thought you were asking if the Office of Housing produces mostly.

I thought you were talking about Office of Housing production numbers.

Right.

I was talking about that earlier question about MHA and most of the funding that's coming for low income 50 to 60 in Seattle comes from the MHA from developments, right?

So, and then I guess the other thing I would ask about is one thing that you, have you contemplated how MFTE works in all of this and MHA?

and trying to generate more affordable housing?

I can take that question.

So the we have been in support of the MFT legislation over the over the past years, as we have also been in support of the housing levy.

And an important point that I think I forgot to make at the top of this presentation is that the all the planning commissioners are volunteers.

and most have a day job.

So one of the reasons why we tapped Michaela for this presentation to speak to the housing is because of her work at King County.

However, she can only reference that work just because that's what she does in her day job.

It's not the work that she does necessarily as a volunteer planning commissioner.

I'm happy to connect to track down information that may be available at the Office of Housing that the commissioners and I don't have at the top of our head and pass that along to Chair Morales and the rest of the committee, if that would be helpful.

I think it's important when we're looking at these cost burden figures to note that people who are making 81 to 100 percent AMI are only a fraction are severely cost burdened and 33 percent are 30 percent cost burdened.

And even at 51 to 80, it's 13 and 42. And again, to my point, there's a significant difference between 51 and 80. So I just think it's important when we're having these discussions to be mindful about the difference that a dollar can make in somebody's ability to support them to be housed.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Thank you.

Council Member Wu.

Thank you.

Thank you for all your work.

I appreciate that you mentioned and talked about how the transportation plan fits in with this, as well as the need for balance and equity, especially the part where you mentioned you acknowledge how difficult these policy choices are.

And it takes time.

This is not a change overnight.

It's gradual.

So I appreciate that.

I also really appreciate that you did put that AMI explainer in here.

I have a question regarding when, you know, you talk about, you say the word affordable, and in your introduction you say affordable housing is defined in a variety of ways, but I get kind of confused sometimes when we're just using it so blase.

So what do you mean specifically when you mention affordable housing?

Is this 80% and under?

Vanessa, did you come off mute or do you?

Sorry.

You go ahead, Michaela.

Thank you.

I don't remember what we were thinking when we were writing that part of the report.

I think affordable, I work in a regional context, and so I know in some jurisdictions in King County, a home that is affordable to a household at, say, if they make 79% of area median income, it doesn't have any subsidy in it, but it's just at market, something that they can afford.

more typically in Seattle when we're using affordable, or we are generally talking about units that have some type of income restriction or covenant placed on the deed to help it maintain its affordability over time.

but I think more specifically in that issue brief, we were trying to talk about how the comprehensive plan could best be tailored to produce and housing units and meet the needs of households at or below 80% of area median income in Seattle.

And I love how short your conclusion is, but I think the takeaway for me was, and what you said in the conclusion was we need to build more affordable housing, but for me looking at this graph, it's zero to 50% where we need to build more units, as well as how do we help people become less cost burdened.

And so I'm also very interested, echoing Councilmember Moore, finding the stats on Seattle AMI.

Because you do use the HUD, which is Tacoma, Seattle figures.

But we'll love to see how that is in context, too.

breaking it up by district as well, because I know district two is very different than all the other districts.

District five has its own unique issues as well.

And so what does that look like district to district?

And I think you've mentioned earlier, it came from the office of housing.

So I would also be interested in seeing that as well.

But overall, thank you for this and thank you for your service.

I know this is a volunteer position and it's It takes up a lot of time and I have no further questions.

Thank you.

I was going to ask one other question related to slides 10 and 11, where you're talking about anti-displacement and you're talking about the growth strategy.

In 2021, OPCD conducted a preliminary racial equity analysis of the urban village strategy.

They conducted a community engagement process.

They worked with a national research firm to analyze the impact of our growth strategy that we've been using for the last 30 years.

And these slides kind of explain some of those findings.

I wanted to talk about Some of the recommendations that they made as a result of that, including ending the prevalence of single-family zoning with a racially inclusive approach, centering housing security and affordability and home ownership for black and brown neighbors, exploring the best combination of financial and regulatory incentives and technical assistance necessary to generate additional housing opportunities for low-income households, particularly a neighborhood zone for single family, which is effectively what the connected communities legislation is.

But these are some of the findings that came out of that.

And I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about what we should expect to see in a draft as it relates to how the racial equity toolkit should be integrated throughout comprehensive plan elements.

I think it's, I very much appreciate and I'm sure many people do the 60 day comment period on the plan.

As you know, it's not just reading the 200 page plan, it is reading the plan in light of recommendations and analyses and data that has been produced such as the ret that you reference we haven't gotten to that level of detail of being able to look at the plan in the context of um past work that has been done by the city by oh by op by the office of housing by the office of planning and community development and that is something that we will be looking forward to

uh as we work through the plan and the ancillary documents that have been produced over the last couple of years okay thank you please go ahead i i wanted to add that while we haven't reviewed the draft plan for it an approach to evaluating the draft plan could be to look at the recommendations that are in those that are in the report and checking to see whether there's policy support for some of those investments or changes in the draft plan and where we might see it.

Or if we don't see it, then we would say that there needs to be more policy support.

Yeah, I think it's just going to be really important to review it through the lens of the racial equity toolkit, the anti-displacement strategies that we are trying to uphold, the race and social justice principles that as a city we have been talking about for a long time.

So thank you for that.

I see a question from Council Member Rivera, and then if there are no further questions, we'll move on to the next agenda item.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

I actually want to thank you all for your service because you are volunteer positions.

And I also understand that you all have your own areas of expertise that aren't necessarily this, but you lend all of it together and you work together to come up with a thoughtful Analysis and so I very much appreciate that.

I actually Vanessa I very much appreciated your statement about truing up data to the policy because I do think that's what what is missing here is the data to really support Approaches that we take to manage the affordable affordable housing Noted that there is some There isn't a clear agreement around what affordable housing is, because it really does depend on where you're talking about.

Just Seattle versus the region is one way.

And then federal government, how they think of AMI versus the region and the city.

So I think the data is really important.

I'm just going to echo the sentiments of my colleagues, Council Member Moore and Council Member Wu, in that we know that, you know, folks that are making less money have less opportunity.

And, you know, to Council Member Morales' point, we do need to take race and social justice into account as we're developing the comp plan.

And so that means that I think, you know, it's even more important to make sure that as we're looking at AMI, we're really looking at, you know, it really is, in my mind, the zero to 30 percent that is what is really needed in terms of lifting folks up.

especially the folks that were testifying here today and what the needs are in community.

So I understand there's community across the board in terms of housing.

There just isn't enough housing period.

And then it is layered by our folks that are making less money are in a more difficult financial situation.

And as a person who grew up very low income, I understand that.

And but I, and I think that the data is really helpful to further paint the picture.

And that is something that, you know, I appreciate the efforts here and we've already noted this isn't, you know, you, you all are volunteers, so you're doing the best you can, but there are, um, things missing here to really adequately paint the full picture.

And I think a lot of that is what council member Moore and council member who were also, um, getting at, um, as I was listening to them and I agree.

So I do thank you for your service.

And then I'm going to caution us all as we are taking in all this information to make sure that we're really looking at the data that are really going to support what strategies we take.

And the last thing I want to say actually is on displacement because there's a lot of talk about displacements, but I didn't displacement, but I didn't see in here.

And I have to say, The things that I have seen are a little light on ideas for how we manage anti-displacement as we are thinking about doing development.

It's a challenge, but I also haven't seen this robust conversation.

How are we going to manage that as we keep talking about how many units we need and then we're not having, in my mind, at least I don't have that information.

If someone has it, would love to see it.

on the anti-displacement tools that we're really going to be using.

So thank you.

Thank you very much for your service.

Okay, the last comment on here, I will remind folks that we are in a 60-day public comment period related to the Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS.

So you have until May 6th to go to engage.oneseattleplan.com and make sure your comments are included.

Vanessa, Radhika, Michaela, thank you so much for being here.

Really appreciate your time and all the work that you put into this.

And we will follow up with you.

Thanks so much.

Have a good day.

Okay, will you please read item two into the record, Andra?

Discussion of the EDZ Connected Communities legislation, Council Bill 120750 is an ordinance relating to land use and zoning establishing the Connected Community Development Partnership Bonus Pilot Program.

Invite Lish Whitson from Council Central Staff for briefing and discussion.

Great, thank you so much.

Welcome Lish Whitson from council central staff.

Before I hand it over to Lish, I just wanted to review some of the things that we've discussed.

This is our fourth meeting to discuss the connected communities legislation.

I've asked Lish to come walk us through the memo that he circulated on March 6th, which did identify several issues for consideration.

At our first committee meeting on February 7th, OPCD presented their work plan for 2024. Slides five and 10 included the equitable development zoning phase two legislation, which became connected communities as one of their 2024 priorities for their strategic initiatives work program.

One thing I've heard in the last several weeks is a concern about OPCD being stretched too thin given the comp plan that is underway.

So this is just a reminder that this legislation is already in OPCD's work plan priority list for 2024. Much of the language around access to essential goods and services, vibrant neighborhood commercial areas, for example, is included in this language and in the comp plan draft.

This bill is effectively piloting the comp plan ideas related to mixed use, community-led development in more parts of the city.

After our first committee meeting, there were some questions about how this might actually work.

So our second committee meeting, I invited some practitioners to talk us through some pieces and to discuss how this work relates to generational wealth building, as well as why this pilot can provide some useful flexibility in incentivizing the kind of partnerships we'd like to see.

Our third discussion in early March, we heard from the EDI team about how their work supports the capacity building efforts of community organizations that may not be developers per se, but who have projects that they'd like to see completed.

And to your earlier point, Council Member Rivera, the solution to the anti-displacement challenge is the Equitable Development Initiative.

It is an anti-displacement strategy that the city's been doing for the last 10 years or so and has proven very effective at meeting this goal of having community-led, community-driven projects supporting their ability to do that.

So I've spoken to many of my colleagues and community members to hear their concerns.

At this point, I don't know of any amendments that have been drafted for consideration.

But I have asked Lish here to walk us through the memo that he drafted so that committee members can have additional time to ask questions, to clarify where our shared interests lie, and to clarify what elements committee members might like to see changed.

So I do have several questions myself for Lish, but I will hand it over to you and let you walk us through the memo.

Nope.

Can you hear me?

That's better.

Thanks, Lish.

So I will try and answer all of your questions.

My colleague, Ketil Freeman, who helped to draft this legislation, is at the office this week, so I'll try my best.

Thank you, Lish.

Just briefly, I'm going to summarize the memo that I sent out on March 6th, try to tease out issues that the pilot raises, and answer questions that you may have.

The purpose of the bill, as it states, is to demonstrate the benefits of equitable development that includes both community-serving uses and housing affordable to a spectrum of incomes through incentives for development of housing and equitable development using partnerships between public, private, and community-based organizations.

The idea here is to see if there are ways that a mix of different parties, public, nonprofit, and private, can come together to build projects that support equitable development, potentially even mixed income housing that does not require public subsidies.

So trying to reach that 80% income level without the need for private subsidies through a mix of different development partners.

As I discuss this pilot program, I'm also going to talk about some other zoning programs the city has in place so that you can compare this program to other programs that the city uses.

You heard a little bit at the meeting with the Equitable Development Partners about the Affordable Housing on Religious Organization Property Bill.

And I will also talk briefly about two green building incentive pilot programs that the city has had in place for a little while.

The program would be available to qualified development as defined in the bill and would need to be proposed by a qualified community development organization or QCDO.

Generally, a qualifying community development organization would serve populations like refugees, immigrants, communities of color, and members of the LGBTQIA community, people experiencing homelessness, and people at risk of economic displacement.

Under the bill, community development organizations must have a legally established and ongoing property-related interest in a site.

There must be a community development organization as a partner or a social housing organization as one of the partners, particularly if many in a project.

The property-related interests that the community development organization is required to have to qualify include a range of different options that are intended to provide flexibility for different types of partnerships.

The cleanest is owning more than 50% of the project.

If the community development organization is coming in to a project where they are not providing land, the legislation allows 10% of the ownership of the project to be allows for a community development organization owning 10% of the total project value to be a qualifying community development organization.

Other ways the community development organization could qualify are to have a controlling and active management role in a corporation or partnership that owns a property or have another beneficial interest.

And these property-related interests would be further defined through rulemaking by the Office of Planning and Community Development, Office of Housing, and Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, each of which has expertise in an area related to this bill.

Council.

If you want to target the program or are concerned about how this would potentially leverage a community development organizations too heavily for the interests of a private developer, could remove or add criteria here to support the kinds of partnerships and projects that you are interested in.

In terms of affordability, a project must maintain at least 30% of the dwelling units and 33% of any congregate residence sleeping rooms as moderate income units for 75 years or else qualify as a social housing developer.

Moderate income housing is rental housing at 80% of the area median income.

The area median income is a standard that the city and all cities in the United States use to identify affordable housing levels.

Partly, we use the area median income, which includes Bellevue and Tacoma, so King and Pierce Counties, in order that our programs are consistent with federal programs, because most affordable housing developers are taking multiple sources of subsidy for an affordable housing project, and it's important that those different programs be aligned so that people can actually get enough subsidies to build the project and be successful.

Moderate income also would include ownership units affordable at up to 100% of area median income.

Using these income levels at this higher than low income rate is intended to, again, allow for mixed income projects that don't require public subsidies.

But you could certainly adjust these thresholds.

Reducing the income level would sort of force the projects to seek affordable housing subsidies, either federal, state, or local.

Other city programs either require more units or require a deeper affordability level for the most part.

The affordable housing on religious owned properties legislation required 100% of the units to be affordable and at that 80% of AMI level.

The mandatory housing affordability program for residential development requires between 2 and 11% of units, depending on where they're located, to be affordable, but generally at a lower income level, at 60% of the area median income or low-income housing.

An older program, the Downtown Incentive Zoning Program, does require...

does allow for housing at 80% AMI, 100% for ownership.

And that program requires between 8% and 14% of floor area in the project.

So, well, ask me later if you want to get into the weeds of the downtown zoning program, but it's probably, yeah.

Not as relevant today.

There's another way that a project can qualify for additional density under the legislation.

The program allows for larger buildings if a homeowner who has sold their property to help facilitate the project is guaranteed a housing unit within the project in the future.

The homeowner would have to have an income at or below 120% of area median income.

And then there would be restrictions on not reselling or subletting the property.

The intent of this owner incentive is to help to address displacement directly by making sure that people have a right to return to the area where they sold their house.

Sorry, Lish, can you say a little more about that?

Yeah, so the idea is A homeowner, for example, a legacy homeowner in the Central District is approached by Africatown and Africatown is acquiring property adjacent to their houses for a project that includes space for African-American legacy community development organizations and African-American run businesses and mixed income housing above it.

If that homeowner is guaranteed a unit in that future building, The building would get to be larger.

And the legacy homeowner would then have a sort of permanent right to live in that building.

There are some details that need to be worked out through the rulemaking process.

So we don't really know what that permanent right would look like exactly, but that's the general idea.

But you're saying they would not be able to sublet it or resell it I mean, they're locked in.

For 10 years, yes.

So they're really losing their rights to their land because they're selling their land to get the condo, and they're very restricted for how they use their condo.

Yeah, they could, yeah.

And they would have to negotiate that agreement with the developer.

Yes, I will say there are questions around the ownership piece and the ability of a property owner to negotiate how they would negotiate that partnership agreement with the developer, with the community organization.

This is one of the questions that we are There is not a legislative solution to this because the city is not in the business of negotiating agreements on behalf of partners, but this is a concern that we've heard and so we are trying to figure out what the remedy might be.

It is not a legislative remedy, which is why it's not part of this legislation.

Chair, I just want to point out that Council Member Moore has a question and she does need to leave.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yes, please go ahead, Council Member Moore.

Oh, thank you both very much.

Yeah, I just just to bring home that point that at this point, there is no way to guarantee that there's actually the individual who's selling their home is getting fair market value for the property.

And that it's a comparable value to the unit.

I mean, as you as you know, like that's We don't have necessarily, as it's written now, any enforcement powers or any way to prove that that has happened.

So I just, is that correct?

Yeah, as I've said, this is an issue that we are still trying to find the remedy for because this is not a legislative thing we can do, but we know that there are possible city resources that we can point people to.

It's not the city's, the city isn't in the business of putting parameters in place or structuring a deal, particularly for a project like this where we aren't providing any financing.

So this is one of the questions that is still on the table.

But if I may, Chair, this this is a this is a critical and fundamental flaw of this particular legislation, which is that it is it is it seeks to maintain and advance intergenerational wealth.

And this particular provision, we are not able to ensure that intergenerational wealth is maintained or transferred or continued to be developed.

So I don't know that there's any way around it.

It's worth obviously looking at.

But I think that there isn't any way that we can guarantee in any sort of scenario that that exchange is actually going to do what it purports to do.

And that remains one of my main concerns.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Lish, please go ahead.

This incentive would require that the homeowner have a unit in perpetuity in the building.

What it doesn't allow for is multiple adjacent homeowners.

to also come back.

The incentive only applies if there is to the first homeowner.

For example, on this little map, there's four different lots, four different homeowners.

only one of those homeowners would need to be part of the future building in order for the incentive to apply.

I think there are ways to work around that, and I'm happy to talk about that in more detail.

Okay.

Thank you, Liz.

So the basis of the bill is to provide flexibility under the zoning code in order to support these types of projects.

It would allow taller buildings, larger buildings, and in neighborhood residential zones would allow buildings that cover more of the lot area, smaller yards, higher residential densities, and equitable development and multifamily uses that are otherwise not allowed in neighborhood residential zones.

Probably the simplest of these is height.

projects that comply would be allowed to be taller, between one and six stories, depending on the underlying zoned height.

And that's roughly comparable to the increased height provided through the affordable housing on religious owned property legislation.

The next area where additional development capacity is provided is through increases in the floor area ratio.

As a quick refresher or for those members of the public who are new to the wonderful world of land use, floor ratio is a measure of the size of the building compared to the size of the property that it sits on.

If you take a look at the middle row of this diagram, The one FAR building or one floor area ratio building has as much floor space within the building as the lot it sits on.

So a 10,000 square foot building on a 10,000 square foot lot is one FAR.

10,000 divided by 10,000 is one.

What FAR doesn't do is dictate a particular configuration for the space.

So one FAR building can cover the entire lot or be a two-story building that covers half a lot or a four-story building that covers a quarter of the lot.

The intent is to regulate the amount of development that happens in an area without dictating the form that that development takes.

Chair?

Yes, Council Member Strauss.

I just wanted to note this is one of my favorite slides ever.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

I'm not going to bore you with these next two tables and going through all of these numbers.

I just want to note that the Connected Communities pilot generally would allow higher floor area ratios than the other programs that we have.

In addition to the increased floor area ratio limits, the pilot would exempt some space from the floor area ratio limit altogether.

In other words, that space would be ignored in determining the ratio between floor area and lot area.

Three exemptions would be provided.

First, for larger units in a building.

the second for any equitable development uses in the building, and the third for buildings near frequent transit stops or light rail.

If the first two of these are important, you might consider removing the final one.

We already allow higher densities generally near each of our frequent transit stops.

And so there is already sort of a zoning bonus in those areas.

We have bigger buildings near frequent transit generally under zoning.

So it's just something to consider.

In neighborhood residential zones, which are areas that are historically developed with single family zones, formerly called single family zones, Flexibility is provided for lot coverage and yard requirements.

Land use includes a lot of ratios.

This is a ratio of the amount of space on a lot that buildings cover to the lot area.

In this example, we have a garage and a house, which together are covering 34% of the lot.

The maximum limit under neighborhood residential zoning generally is 35%.

Under the pilot, that would be increased to 50%.

Another constraint on development in neighborhood residential zones is yards.

We require front yards, rear yards, and side yards.

These are required to be open.

There may be a shed or something allowed, fences are allowed, and driveways, decks, low decks, patios are allowed, but generally they are undeveloped portions of property, except for the rear yard where we do allow garages and detached accessory dwelling units.

The proposed pilot allows for much smaller yards, which would provide for flexibility on the site.

It would allow buildings to be located closer to lot lines than are otherwise allowed.

That can actually provide flexibility for preserving trees on a site.

If there's a significant tree on a site, allowing for smaller yards allows for a shifting of a building away from that tree.

But reduced yards also reduce privacy.

One of the reasons why we have yards is to provide for separation between structures and a reduced yard will reduce privacy for future residents potentially.

My apologies, slide 15 is a duplicate.

Going on to slide 16, in the neighborhood residential zones, the number of units on a lot is generally determined by the minimum lot size.

We allow a single principal unit on each lot and up to two accessory dwelling units.

In the neighborhood residential one zone, that's a principal unit for every 9,600 square feet, give or take.

And for the neighborhood residential three zone, that's a principal unit for every 5,000 square feet.

Under the To pilot the density in neighborhood residential zones would be tripled or quintupled or sextupled, and with a density limit of one unit per 1,500 square feet.

The bill would also allow for some uses, equitable development uses, and some multifamily housing types that are typically not allowed in neighborhood residential zones today.

For the environmental review of the proposal, the council contracted with Schemata Workshop to look at what a project in a low-rise three multifamily zone would look like.

The yellow building in the middle of the block is in a low-rise three zone and is taking advantage of all the floor area bonuses and height increases allowed under the zoning, under the program.

Just past that building is a gray building that is built to the current standards.

So you can see that this is a significant increase in the amount of development that can occur under the proposal.

And just want to note that the ground floor in the project is space for an equitable development use.

So that space would be exempt from the floor area ratio limits.

In terms of where the proposal applies, it's basically in all neighborhood residential, almost all multifamily zones except for high-rise zones, all commercial zones, and Seattle mixed zones.

Excluded are downtown and industrial zones.

And this is a map of the zones where it would apply.

The proposal allows for higher densities in a couple of key areas.

Areas identified by the Office of Housing for community preferences.

These are typically areas with a higher risk of displacement.

And areas with racially restrictive covenants that had been placed on property that historically excluded people of color or Jewish people from living in those neighborhoods or those particular properties.

The bill would exempt projects that participate from design review, from parking requirements, from incentive zoning, and from the mandatory housing affordability program.

I want to note that the incentive zoning program only applies in areas where significant height and density increases have been allowed.

For example, when the University District was rezoned in 2017, an incentive zoning program was put in place as part of that rezone.

As you probably have seen, if you've been anywhere near the U District, we now allow towers in the U District that were not allowed previously.

One of the conditions of building those towers is to participate in the incentive zoning program.

It requires provision of public benefits like open space, childcare and schools, historic preservation through block passages.

and other community benefits identified through a community planning process.

And as you are considering this bill, you should consider whether or not the trade-offs, the benefits provided by the pilot are commensurate with the benefits provided through the incentive zoning program or else potentially maintenance of the zoning.

Finally, the bill asks for additional rulemaking.

The rulemaking would provide more information and definitions of qualifying community development organizations.

provide for a process and criteria for determining that the owner's unit's bonus would comply with the pilot provisions, and it would define equitable development use.

Currently, the bill has a delayed implementation date of June 30th.

Given that the bill will not be adopted until April at the earliest, you should consider pushing that date back in order to provide more time for this rulemaking.

And that is it.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, Council Member Wu.

Thank you.

I have a few questions.

I'll try to be brief.

So the comprehensive plan was released a couple of weeks ago.

From my understanding of the comprehensive plan, I have not read it.

I've kind of just skimmed it.

How does, for my knowledge, it doesn't feel like this fits with the comprehensive plan.

It feels like it kind of like butts heads.

But from your perspective, how does Connecticut communities fit with the mayor's comprehensive plan?

So I think that this...

Especially in terms of gentrification displacement, I think that's where the most differences lie.

Yeah, I mean, because there is that partnership required with the community development organization addressing particularly communities at high risk of displacement, you know, I think that there is the opportunity for projects under this pilot to sort of help to craft strategies that address displacement.

and projects that are sort of targeted at addressing displacement.

This proposal allows in the neighborhood residential zones about the same amount of development.

I haven't compared them directly, but about the same amount of development as is contained under the general ideas for what will happen in neighborhood residential zones the difference is that this would allow for those equitable development uses to also be located in neighborhood residential zones moving outside of the neighborhood residential zones this is consistent with policies that call for incentives for affordable housing and projects that address displacement.

I agree with you.

I feel like reading the conference from so far, the Comprehensive Plan, I feel like the spirit is the same, but I feel like the approach is different.

And I don't feel like they're aligned, but I would like for us to dig in more to that and be able to understand it, because I feel like this may not be in line with a comprehensive plan in a way.

So we'll have to learn more about that.

Another thing I wanted to address was, I know this is a wildly hard question, but how many units do you think the city could gain from this pilot project if we were just to estimate based on possible residential properties, like how many would be able to fit, how many additional have been built, minus what could be built?

I know it's going to be a huge range, but I'm just curious.

Like how much more?

And you may not know the answer now, so another question I...

I think it allows about 35 projects over the course of five years.

If all of those were built, you know, an average residential project is about 60 units, give or take, for an apartment building.

So that's about 2,000 units.

I don't know.

Let's say that's 2,000 units under today's zoning, maybe add another 50% on top of that.

I am just guesstimating at this point.

So maybe 1,000 additional units under the proposal.

Thank you.

And then I had a question of, can you explain to me how generational wealth is gained through this plan?

But I think that question was answered, but a new question arose from that.

Is it possible to go issue by issue, line by line, and talk about what is recommended but not enforceable, but what's in our purview, what's not in our purview, like we were talking about generational wealth, and while we would like to have the person who sold the land be able to have a union on there, but is that enforceable?

It sounds like it's more like a recommendation than something we can actually do.

So I don't want to raise expectations and not be able to deliver.

And with being able to allow for the nonprofit to be in the ground floor space, I mean, They could own the project, but will they be able to open that space?

I guess we don't have control over that either.

So I was just curious, what can we legally do and not do?

And what is the recommendation and what is requirements?

But I think that might be...

Let me attempt to break that down, because I have similar questions, because I assumed that these questions would come up.

In the last several weeks, I've spoken to community members who have made suggestions about how this ownership element might work.

As currently written, the bill contemplates two different kinds of scenarios.

One, where we have the community-based organization, the community development organization, and a developer.

So for example, El Centro is a community organization, Beacon Development Group is a developer.

That's one kind of scenario.

Or we have an individual homeowner or property owner and a nonprofit developer or a PDA.

So Mrs. Jones, individual homeowner and home site.

So those are the two different kinds of situations.

In either case, the partnership agreement is negotiated between those entities and their own attorneys.

So the city doesn't play a role in that.

But I think a big question, and I agree, I have the question too, is what role can the city play in putting some guardrails in place for what those partnership agreements do to ensure the protection of, in scenario two specifically, the case of the individual property owner?

Yeah.

If the answer is we don't have a role, then that's important to know.

Yes.

What the bill would require is that there be a deed restriction or something placed on the property that indicates that that homeowner has a future interest in development on the site.

What it doesn't do is say what that agreement or looks like.

Right.

Part of what the rulemaking request is is to ask the city departments to sort of help to frame that up.

Okay, hold on just a moment, please.

Let me get through my questions and then we'll come back because I think the thing that we're trying to understand is if Mrs. Jones in this case, does she need to become a community organization to qualify or can Homesite be the qualifying community organization?

And in either case, they would still need their own representation to get that agreement done.

They would each need their own representation.

I think the home site is a nonprofit and would qualify probably as a qualifying community development organization, but the homeowner on their own would not qualify.

If she wants to own more than one unit in the project, or let's say she wants to have that as a small business instead of as a dwelling, are those possible?

I don't think in terms of the small business portion, she could negotiate whatever deal she wanted to that was agreeable to home site in terms of one, two, three units, how large those units are, where they're located in the structure, et cetera.

And so I think a big question is, what development consultant resources are available to a community organization or to an individual homeowner?

that could help provide the kind of technical assistance, understanding of the process so that they go into this negotiation with somebody on their side and understanding.

So, you know, kind of step one is making the decision that you wanna try to sell and figuring out what the feasibility analysis is of the project idea that you have.

Step two is figuring out the financing for that.

Step three is maybe design and then getting the permits and beginning construction.

In each of those phases, there is an opt-out theoretically, right?

You've negotiated a deal so that at any point along the path, if it starts to look like it's not gonna work out, you can have an out from the project.

But again, that is something that gets negotiated in that deal.

So I think what I'm saying is this is clearly an area where there is some work to do to make sure that we understand what's possible.

How do we make sure that we're protecting people who are interested in getting into this kind of negotiation?

and or deciding that there is a different alternative to this part of the bill.

So before you cut me off, I was attempting to answer actually your question, which is that there are some legal issues here that Lish is not going to be able to answer for you on the question that you asked.

And the city is going to have some challenges in setting something up by whereby we have any control.

If what you're discussing is giving folks money so they can hire a lawyer, that also has legal implications.

It is a very difficult thing for the city to do broadly to get involved in a negotiation.

I wasn't suggesting that we give them resources to hire their own attorney, but if there are, for example, a list of development consultants who they could engage on their own, that's something we might be able to do.

But it still goes to the ability to actually help the homeowner legally ensure that they have a deal negotiated with the partner that's actually going to be to their benefit, whereby they're preserving their generational wealth asset in that negotiation.

And that's something that we're not going to be able to control, no matter how much technical assistance we provide to the...

to the landowner.

As I've been saying, this is not a piece of the, that is not a role for the city to negotiate that agreement or to provide the technical or legal assistance to do that.

So I think we're saying the same thing.

I have another question.

Council member Wu.

Yes, I'm not done yet.

I promise to be relieved.

So I think my very specific question is what rulemaking is left?

Maybe.

And what's our recommendation, and what can we actually do, and what's the limit of the government in these different aspects of this piece?

So I feel like that's probably a different conversation.

But the other question is, I don't need an answer.

Maybe this is just a statement.

But if we're looking at 80% AMI, I don't understand how this is supposed to help those who are unhoused.

That's not the intent of the bill.

This isn't a homelessness issue.

This bill is intended to help serve folks at a range of incomes and to ensure that we are providing tools for people who want to do mixed income projects, mixed use projects, and to preserve commercial affordability so that we have an opportunity to put some community needed uses on the ground floor.

This bill is not intended to be a homelessness solution.

That is obviously a big problem for the city, but that's not the problem this bill's trying to solve.

Okay, I thought I heard someone say it was supposed to help homeless, but I maybe misheard.

I think perhaps you were thinking about housing affordability, which is something that the bill is intending to address.

Two of the main goals are housing affordability and generational wealth building.

So while it may not address homelessness, the housing affordability piece is at play here and really important when it comes to the AMI piece.

And we just had a very in-depth discussion on AMI.

So I'd like to see that applied here as well, how that fits with Seattle's AMI rates.

Thank you.

Do you have a question, if I may?

And then Council Member Schell, sure.

Great.

Thank you, Chair.

Appreciate that.

I do want to say in terms of the displacement piece and the EDI, I actually disagree that EDI has been a program that has really robustly addressed housing displacement.

I'm not talking about the merits of the projects under the EDI, but I'm looking at Out of 40 projects here, and there are 76 total, but I know of 40 where there are two actual projects that are developing affordable housing, and that's housing under 60% AMI as defined by these EDI standards.

And then there is one project, so that's two out of the 40, and then a third project where the AMI is 80%.

So I don't think that's the type of housing displacement that we were thinking about when we are having this conversation about displacement.

But again, the displacement, anti-displacement conversation seems to be going by way of the AMI conversation because I don't know that there's agreement to what the definition for AMI is in terms of affordability as well as what we mean when we say anti-displacement.

But I want to be very clear that I'm talking about housing anti-displacement because this is what this bill is attempting to address, which is housing affordability and that generational wealth building piece.

So I did want to raise that.

Thank you.

Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Strauss, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

When we first met and talked about this bill, I had a lot of concerns.

I think you remember that conversation probably pretty vividly.

And since then, I have come to the understanding of what this serves.

And so those concerns that I had for you at that time were really, we had just passed the religious bonus bill what was this to do differently?

I now understand that this is looking at those community organizations to do something similar as the religious institutions, as well as the homeowner aspect is very intriguing with me, for me, to me, whatever the right word is there.

Long story short, I understand the difference now between religious institutions bill and this bill, and I support that intent.

I do have, after meeting with Lish this week, I've got a number of amendments that I'd like to walk through with you, Chair, and they are really coming from the place of creating clarity, consistency throughout the land use code, something that I've found is the former chair of the Land Use Committee, especially with the omnibus, is that when we are overly prescriptive with code, it means that we then have to go back and clean it up later to create consistency throughout the chapters.

So I'd love to meet with you and walk through some of those ideas, but I will have a couple amendments to the bill.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, anything else?

Okay.

Thank you very much, Lish.

I appreciate all of your work on the memo and walking us through that.

Colleagues, I do want to say I appreciate hearing the concerns.

We will not be voting on this today.

I do want to make sure that I'm connecting with stakeholders, with community members, and working on revising based on some of the things that we've heard today.

It is important to me that we ensure the bill is consistent with community needs, community concerns, that is where we got the idea to draft this bill.

So I want to be responsive to that and know that we need to make sure we have a tool that aligns with our comprehensive planning efforts.

Ultimately, this is about supporting community needs so they can navigate equitable community wealth building opportunities that we have created as a city within OPCD, the Office of Housing, DON, the Office of Economic Development, I was proud to support the building ownership fund pilot, which is also part of this conversation when it comes to commercial affordability and making sure that our neighborhoods have places where our small businesses can locate affordably.

So this pilot is also part of that effort to help our departments do their work better.

So I will ask again, it sounds like we've got a lot of questions still.

Please let me know, follow up about particular questions.

If you have amendments, thank you Council Member Strauss for letting me know.

Lish is available to work with you to address your concerns so that we can move this legislation to a vote.

Okay, it is 4.06.

If there are no other questions for the committee, we are adjourned.

Thanks very much, everyone.