Land Use & Neighborhoods Committee 7/28/21

Meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee will come to order.

It is 9 31 a.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Lewis?

Present.

Council Member Peterson?

Present.

Council Member Juarez?

Here.

Council Member Esqueda?

Present.

Chair Strauss?

Present.

Five present.

Thank you.

The Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee of the City of Seattle, we begin our committees with the land acknowledgement because this is the Land Use Committee.

This is not intended to be a rote behavior or give us permission to do as we please after acknowledging our land and ancestors.

Rather, it is a moment of reflection.

So we'll take a pause and start with our land acknowledgement.

We begin this meeting by acknowledging we are on the traditional and ancestral lands of the first people of this region, past and present.

represented in a number of tribes in his urban natives, and honor with gratitude the land itself and the people of this land.

Again, we start with this acknowledgment to recognize the fact that we are guests on this land and must steward our land as such as guests.

This does, again, not give us a passport to proceed.

However we desire, we must ensure that we are stewarding our land and work as the guests we are, as our time here is short.

Thank you.

We have four items on the agenda today, a public hearing on the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to address, to update the name of single family zones to neighborhood residential.

We have a briefing and discussion on council bill 120121, which will allow for temporary flexibility for downtown storefronts.

And also we'll have a public hearing and vote on council bill 120108, which amends the Yessir Terrace Street Protection Plan to allow for the development of vacant sites.

Finally, we'll have a vote on resolution 32010, which sets a docket for comprehensive plan amendments to be considered in 2022. The next meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee will be on Wednesday, August 11th, starting at 9.30 AM.

Before we begin, if there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

This morning, we are having a public comment and a public hearing.

And so if you have signed up for public comment, you must be addressing an item on today's agenda.

This is not a stance I have been firm with since I first took office.

And so I see a number of people are signed up to discuss issues not on the agenda or in the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee, namely West Green Lakeway North, which many people have already heard my stance, which we need to reopen the road with a two-lane protected bike lane on the lakeside of the road, and this can be done immediately, and we shouldn't be waiting months to do so.

For folks that have signed up for public comment to testify about West Green Lake Way North, while I agree with you, this is not the appropriate place for these public comments.

I will be attending a Finney Neighborhood Association and Green Lake Community Council meeting tonight, where we can, is the appropriate place to discuss these topics.

So at this time, we will begin to open the remote public comment period for the items on today's agenda.

Before we begin, I ask that everyone please be patient as we learn to operate this new system in real time.

While it remains our strong intent to have public comment regularly included on meeting agendas, the city council reserves the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point if we deem that this system is being abused or is unsuitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and in a manner in which we are able to conduct our necessary business.

I'll moderate public comment period in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 10 minutes and each speaker will be given one minute to speak because we have about 30 people signed up for both the public comment and public hearing.

I will call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

If you have not yet registered to speak and would like to, you can sign up before the end of public comment by going to the council's website.

Public comment link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call on the speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone, and then an automatic prompt if you've been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it is your turn to speak.

Please begin by stating your name and the item on the agenda in which you are addressing.

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

Once the speaker hears the chime, we ask you to begin to wrap up your comments.

If a speaker does not end their public comments at the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's microphone will be muted after 10 seconds to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you have completed your public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line, and if you plan to continue following this meeting, please do so via the Seattle Channel or the listening options listed on today's agenda.

Again, there is a separate public hearing for item one, the proposed neighborhood residential name change, and for item three, Council Bill 120108, which amends the Yesler Terrace Tree Protection Plan.

If you wish to speak about those items, please sign up for the appropriate public comment public hearing.

comment period is now open.

Son, can I confirm the folks in yellow are for the public hearing, is that correct?

That is correct.

Great.

I'm going to start with Sylvie Reynolds, Blair Perlman, Shana Kelly.

Again, if you are here to speak about West Green Lake Way North, this is not the appropriate place, so please do keep your comments focused on today's agenda items.

Sylvie, good morning.

That appears to be an error.

Sorry.

Sylvie is not present.

That is correct.

Next is Blair.

Good morning, Blair.

Sorry, that appears to be an error too.

I'm sorry.

OK.

Maybe they are going to talk to you later today.

Sean Kelly, Robert Zook, Sylvia Stewart, Glenn Jarstad, I see you are not present.

Jen Jarstad, I see you are also not present.

Roberta Zook, not present.

Sylvia Stewart, are you with us?

Sylvia Stewart, I'm here.

Hi, Sylvia.

Um, I wasn't originally signed up for Green Lake, but I have some, um, uh, well, I don't agree with.

Changing the, um, zoning from single family to the neighborhood, whatever.

Um, I think we should still have single family areas in the city.

And I realized that we have to let other people, you know, be more dense and stuff like that, but.

I feel like our city is special and we don't have to do it like Chicago, like New York, and we don't have to just upzone and let developers have a heyday and build whatever they want anywhere.

What we should do if we're going to upzone to keep our city beautiful is get some architects to look at each neighborhood in an Olmstead fashion and find out what are the best, keeping the characters of that neighborhood, where are the best places to upstone and how can we do this in a way that we keep our city beautiful for years to come and still save some of the single family areas which have the tree canopy and everything like that.

Do it that way.

Don't do it like everybody, you know, you don't have to do it like other cities do it or create sprawl or whatever.

Do it in a Seattle way.

And that's my comment.

Thank you, Sylvia.

Up next, we have Elizabeth Booz and Rachel Mazur.

I see Elizabeth is here to speak about West Spring Lake Way North again.

This is not the appropriate committee for that comment.

Elizabeth, are you with us?

Yes, I am now.

I'm sorry.

I think I missed what you said, but I think I caught that you don't want us to talk about the RVs taking up parking.

This is not the Select Homelessness Committee or the Transportation Committee or the Parks Committee.

This is the Land Use Committee.

If there's an item on today's agenda which you would like to speak about.

Yeah, the road closure.

The road closure around Green Lake.

This is not the correct committee.

There will be a meeting tonight, though, that I'll be attending.

Oh, OK.

I'm sorry.

Somebody recommended that to me to talk about the use of that road.

OK.

I'll see you tonight.

All right.

Thanks.

Bye.

Clerk or Mr. G, are there no further public comment or signed

As far as I can tell, I believe it is all public hearing.

Great.

Thank you.

Seeing as we have no additional speakers remotely present, we will move on to the next agenda item.

And Mr. Ong, will you please read, or I guess our first item of business today is a public hearing on the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to update the name of single-family zones to neighborhood residential.

Mr. Ong, will you please read the short title of this into the record?

Agenda item one, proposed comprehensive plan amendment for neighborhood residential areas.

We are joined by Lish Whitson of Council Central staff.

Mr. Whitson, can you provide a brief overview of the proposed amendment and the process for considering it before we begin the public hearing?

Sure.

Happy to.

Provide that overview.

Good morning.

The proposed legislation is attached to my memo, which is attached to.

The agenda.

It proposes a number of amendments to the comprehensive plan to shift the name of what are currently called single family residential areas to neighborhood residential areas.

Changes would be made to the land use housing and parks and open space elements, the housing appendix, and 17 neighborhood plans where the term single family residential area Currently shows up and replace those references with neighborhood residential.

The idea is basically to recognize that these are areas that have a broader set of land uses than just single family, detached homes.

There are the places where we have most of our parks and open spaces there where most of our.

Schools are located and they also have multifamily uses in them.

For example, the residential small lot zone, which is classified as a single family residential area, is a zone that allows townhouses and apartments as well as single family detached homes.

So the idea is to better reflect the character of those areas today and to set us up for a conversation about the future use of those areas as part of the next major update to the comprehensive plan.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Whitson.

I'm pleased to be co-sponsoring this amendment with Council Member Mosqueda because I believe that language really does matter, and this name better reflects the reality of our neighborhoods today.

In many of our so-called single-family neighborhoods, they're both traditional single-family homes occupied by more than one family or households that don't represent traditional families, and as well as many examples of multifamily townhomes and apartment buildings that have been legacied in into existing zones.

I know in my neighborhood of Ballard there are many duplexes that are now in single-family zones that could not be built today that reflect the character of our neighborhood and provide for that meaningful density of having more people.

While this is and can you please confirm Mr. Woodson that this is just a name change and we are not adjusting policy today is that correct?

That is correct.

And I realized that I forgot to answer the second question, part of your initial question.

The intent is to introduce legislation after this public hearing, bring it to the committee in September for consideration alongside other comprehensive plan amendments proposed by the mayor.

And it would be followed by potential amendments to the land use code following adoption of comp plan amendments.

Thank you.

And Vice Chairman Mosqueda, do you have anything you'd like to share at this time?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Appreciate the opportunity to work with you and your leadership and co-sponsorship of this legislation.

Thank you, Lish, for the outline and your detailed analysis of the proposal in front of us.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for the words that you use, that you're right, language matters, and that this is truly an update to the name.

This legislation constitutes a technical change that recognizes the term single family zoning that's used in Seattle's land use code.

It's actually a misnomer, and it has legacy.

It has roots in exclusionary zoning practices.

We heard about this in your previous committee meeting when we discussed the racial equity toolkit analysis of our existing land use policy.

And again, I want to thank you for having that item on your agenda and your leadership with making sure that that got heard.

Also, the great work of OPCD and their team, along with Puget Sound SAGE and community partners.

I think that that's been well covered document and appreciate the Seattle Times coverage of it just yesterday.

I think what we're trying to do with this legislation here is a very narrow change that recognizes that we need a more inclusive, more accurate name such as neighborhood residential or perhaps neighborhood family residential.

I know we'll hear more from folks today to help recognize that these neighborhoods are already home to diverse housing types, diverse housing types that were built before we increasingly shrunk the area where Seattle could build multifamily structures.

And we want to make sure, as Lish noted, that there's the ability to recognize that there's already diverse housing types around these businesses and schools and parks and services so that we are having a name that truly recognizes our fabric of our city needs to be representative of more than just single family.

The single family only designation does not reflect the current makeup.

We have duplexes and triplexes and row houses in the apartment that I used to live in on 10th Avenue West that is currently zoned for single family only.

So we need a more accurate name than the one that has been with us since 1994. We, I think, are on a path to help make sure that language is actually inclusive and that we are reflecting the diverse makeup of our community and that we begin this conversation over the next few years about how we both address the zoning policies that are needed, along with anti-displacement strategies.

To respond to that racial equity toolkit analysis.

I believe the timing is right for this proposal, just as a reminder, and I'm not sure if folks have had the chance to review back to the 2018 planning commission reports every year.

They have been asking the city to act on the recommendation.

and to change the name of single family only to more appropriately create a title that is more reflective of our zoning.

And they have requested this in anticipation of the comprehensive plan update.

Since 2018, the city council has requested this change to be inclusive of the annual comprehensive amendments proposed by the executive.

And we're drawing from these repeated requests and the support, the broad support from community, both from people who want to address displacement concerns and from people who want to create more affordable housing around our city to make sure that we are moving forward with a name that's more reflective.

So I'm very I'm very proud to be working with you, Mr. Chair, on this legislation, and I want to thank the community organizations who've been asking for something like this, including the community housing roundtables, which we've convened quarterly, meetings with members of, that includes meetings with members who've been working on affordable housing, equity, environmental justice, folks who've been working with and led by BIPOC community members and serving BIPOC community members.

There's a letter of nearly 400 individuals and organizations who are within communities within the 17 neighborhoods whose neighborhood plan.

is currently using the term single family that would potentially be affected, who have written in in support.

And we have had a conversation with folks in the Morgan Junction Community Association last week.

We spoke with members from Highland Park, Morgan Junction, Alki, West Seattle neighborhoods, and we are happy to virtually attend any community meeting and talk more about the proposal to make sure folks understand the narrow scope of this legislation.

the importance from the historical perspective and why it is important to, I think, address both fears about displacement and development.

But we can do that when we have a document that more accurately reflects the fabric of our neighborhood so we can begin a conversation from a more inclusive place.

And Mr. Chair, I'd just like to thank Representative Macri, Representative Fitzgibbon, former Speaker Chopp for their support for this effort, along with the Housing Development Consortium, Seattle Southside Chamber of Commerce, We want to make sure we do the most we can to educate our community about why this narrow piece is

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I really appreciate you highlighting the fact a number of times this is very narrow in scope, that this is a name change only and does not change policy.

And while this is a small step and changing a name will not solve all of our problems, using more inclusive name reflects the reality on the ground and does move us in the right direction.

Colleagues, any other questions before we open to public comment?

Sure, Vice Chair.

I just want to say your team has been tremendous as well, along with Lish.

Thank you so much to Noah and to Aaron House and my office as well.

I know that they've done a tremendous amount of research on this topic, along with you as well, Mr. Chair.

So I wanted to thank them for their work on this.

Thank you.

And we have nearly 30 people signed up for public comment, so we're going to limit comment to one minute.

Before we open the remote public hearing, I would again ask that everyone please be patient as we continue to learn and operate this system, this new system in real time and navigate through the inevitable growing pains.

We are continuously looking for ways to fine tune this process and adding new features that allow for additional means of public participation in our council meetings.

I will moderate the public hearing in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given one minute to speak.

I will call on one speaker at a time and in the order in which you registered on the council's website.

If you have not yet registered and would like to do so, you can sign up before the end of this public hearing by going to the council's website at seattle.gov forward slash council.

The link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call on a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and an automatic prompt of you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it is your turn to speak.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

As a reminder, public comment should relate to the comprehensive plan docketing process.

If you have comments about something that is not on today's agenda, you can always provide written comment by emailing my office, Dan.Strauss at Seattle.gov.

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

Once you hear the chime, we ask you to begin wrapping up your comments.

If speakers do not end their comments by the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you have completed your public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line, and if you plan to continue following the meeting, please do so via the Seattle Channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

The public hearing on the proposed neighborhood residential comprehensive plan amendment is now open.

And we will begin by calling on the speakers on the list.

I have Calvin Jones followed by Mackenzie Chase, Prad Corey, Robin Briggs, Alice Lockhart, Laura Bernstein.

So we will start with Calvin.

Good morning, Calvin.

Good morning.

Hi everybody.

I'm Calvin Jones an organizer with Tech for Housing and a renter in Wallingford.

I'm here today to speak in support of the proposed rename from single family to neighborhood residential.

Today over 70 percent of our city's residential land is exclusively reserved for detached single family homes.

This encourages sprawl entrenches wealth wealth disparities and ensures that our best public amenities disproportionately benefit wealthy white residents.

I think building a sustainable inclusive and equitable city requires us to be more welcoming in our single family zones.

and the rename is a small win towards that vision because language does matter.

I look forward to the name change.

I also look forward to making our city more welcoming and sustainable as part of our 2023 comprehensive plan update.

And I also am hoping to see significantly more progressive taxes to fund affordable housing and community investments.

Thank you, council members Mejia and Strauss for being such strong champions on this issue.

Thank you, Calvin.

Next, we have Mackenzie Chase followed by Brad Corey, Robin Briggs, and Alice Lockhart.

Good morning, Mackenzie.

Good morning.

My name is Mackenzie Chase and I'm here on behalf of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and our 2,500 members.

I'm here to speak in support of changing the name of single-family areas to neighborhood residential areas.

We want to thank Council Member Mosqueda for bringing this forward and Chair Stroud for co-sponsoring.

The name single-family is not reflective of the neighborhoods we have today.

Addies and daddies are now allowed.

Many single-family areas already have multi-family dwellings that were constructed before zoning codes were put in place.

Single-family zones were implemented explicitly and intentionally to segregate communities and reinforce redlining.

Given the problematic and discriminatory history of single-family zones Seattle must take action to not only make this important name change but to address the racist legacy that single-family zones have had on our city.

We stand ready to work with council and the city to ensure that Seattle continues to make changes to promote density so that Seattle has more housing of all types which is vital for the competitive equitable and inclusive economy that the chamber works toward.

Thank you, Mackenzie.

Up next is Brad Corey, followed by Robin Briggs, and then Alice Lockhart.

Good morning, Brad.

Are you with us, Brad?

I see you there.

If you press star 6, not pound 6, star 6, you should come off mute.

All right.

Can you hear me now?

We can.

Good morning, Brad.

Sorry about that technical glitch.

Good morning.

My name is Bradley Corey.

I am a past president of AIA Seattle and an active advocate in the city for urban density issues.

I wanted to speak today in support of the name change of single-family to neighborhood residential.

I believe this will help the city of Seattle begin to address the longstanding issues of equity race and social justice within our current zoning limitations.

I agree with many of the specifics identified in the proposed legislation.

I want to identify a few that allow for a greater range of housing types given the challenges we have today in our city.

I also want to propose that we look beyond this to the future and hope to see fantastic efforts from the council and our community building more efforts towards inclusive communities.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brad.

Up next is Robin Briggs followed by Alice Lockhart and Laura Wernstein.

Good morning, Robin.

Hi, my name is Robin Briggs.

Good morning.

I'm calling in to ask for your support for the name change from single family zone to neighborhood residential.

The new name would more accurately reflect our goals for these areas and is a first step to aligning the zoning more closely with our values of the community.

I look forward to future changes and thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you Robin.

Up next we have Alice Lockhart followed by Laura Lowe Bernstein and then on deck Patience Malaba.

Alice good morning.

Good morning.

I'm Alice Lockhart for 350 Seattle and we wholeheartedly welcome the change to neighborhood residential and the comp plan conversation that will follow.

We have several hopes for this conversation.

We urge a comp that the comp plan leverage the findings and recommendations of the recently released racial equity analysis of the Seattle 2035 comprehensive plan and urban village strategy and also a racial equity toolkit for this comp plan update.

The urban village strategy led to huge development pressure in our city's BIPOC neighborhoods while preserving exclusionary zoning in the Dreaming Suburbs that we call single family zones.

and has exacerbated wealth inequality rooted in past and present housing policy.

This in turn has led to a huge wave of displacement from the city's historically Black neighborhoods.

The cost plan update must be done in concert with hard work to address these harms.

Secondly we urge everyone involved to think inclusively about the term neighborhood residential.

Let's use it to help us build neighborhoods where all can thrive.

Everyone from the council president to the mayor is on board.

with the term 15-minute neighborhoods, which are transit dense.

Thank you, Alice.

And please feel free to send in any additional comments, unfortunately, because we have so many people signed up.

We have to keep it to a minute.

I'm going to read the next set of names so that you can be ready.

We have Laura Lowe and Patience, followed by Zoe Jenkins, Jamie Strobel, Jasmine Smith, Alex Brennan, Matt Hutchins, and Rick Moeller.

Good morning, Laura Lowe.

Good morning Council.

What happens in Seattle impacts cities across the country.

A small tiny issue like a name change might seem insignificant to many in the face of widespread eviction and homelessness in cities with a housing crunch.

But what it indicates is that we are finally willing to admit that the type of protectionism that has long been the role of land use committees in American cities is shifting.

We are finally realizing that the role of government is to prioritize the needs of people who can attend land use meetings can attend design meetings Don't feel comfortable engaging with government.

Haven't moved to our neighborhoods yet or whose grandparents were forbidden or priced out of our communities.

Listening to status quo incumbent crank community voices is incompatible with affordable and climate friendly cities.

While current landowners are seeing historic profits they want to preserve at all costs for their children's inheritance it is at the expense of renters who are priced and zoned out of our cities.

Please support the neighborhood residential change and also support deep anti-displacement like the Homes Guarantee Pledge from People's Action.

Thank you, and I'm speaking on behalf of Share the City's Action Fund today.

Thank you, Laura.

Up next is Patience Malaba, followed by Zoe Jenkins and Jasmine Jamie Strobel.

Patience, good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I am Patience Malaba with the Housing Development Consortium of Seattle King County.

I am calling to express our strong and enthusiastic support for the name change of single-family zoning to neighborhood residential.

It's clear to us all that the term single-family zoning does not represent our residential neighborhoods.

I am so thrilled that you're moving forward this proposal that does two fundamentally important things that I want to note.

First, it recognizes that the problem with the single-family zoning name goes deeper than being misrepresentative.

Single-family zoning has never been a neutral planning tool.

Its foundation is exclusionary and so are the impacts.

So that recognition is huge and so important.

The sixth that I'm even more excited about is that we are laying the groundwork to create more opportunities for diverse housing in every neighborhood in the city in the upcoming comprehensive plan update.

It's a down payment on a purpose of opportunity for more people.

I thank you for your leadership on this very important issue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next we have Zoe Jenkins followed by Jamie Strobel and then Jasmine Smith.

Zoe, good morning.

I see you there, Zoe.

Press star six, not pound six.

I still see you there, Zoe.

If you press star six, you will unmute yourself.

Give it one more try, and then we'll come back to you, Zoe.

If you are there, press star six.

We're going to come back to Zoe.

Up next, we have Jamie Strobel, followed by Jasmine Smith, Alex Brennan on deck.

Good morning, Jamie.

I see you there.

Yep, you're unmuted.

Yep.

Good morning.

Thank you, Chair Stross and members of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee.

My name is Jamie Strobel, and I am co-chair of the Seattle Planning Commission.

The Seattle Planning Commission appreciates the opportunity to provide public comment in support of the proposal to rename the term single family areas to neighborhood residential areas as part of the comprehensive plan update process.

This change will provide these areas with more accurate with a more accurate title that better reflects the diversity of households now living with them and will provide an important first step towards making these areas more equitable and accessible.

The Planning Commission's 2018 Neighborhoods for All report advised making this change.

This correction to the zoning term will address what is currently a mischaracterization of both the housing available in these areas, as well as the people living there.

Indeed, the term single-family areas has been a misnomer for many years, but especially since 1994, when accessory dwelling or mother-in-law type units were first approved in these locations.

We support the term neighborhood residential, the more accurate description of the housing types currently available in these areas and hope this name change will help pave the way for encouraging more equitable access to diversity of housing types along with parks schools services and transit all throughout Seattle's residential neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Up next we have Jasmine Smith followed by Alex Brennan and then Matt Hutchins.

Jasmine good morning.

I see you there.

Hello.

Good morning.

I hear you.

All right.

Thank you.

My name is Jasmine Smith, and I'm calling in support of the name change to neighborhood residential.

I'm a renter who serves on the Queen Anne Community Council, but speaking for myself today, and I can't wait for the city's zoning names to not only reflect the diversity of housing options that already existed before the city downzones a single family, Then also I can't wait for the comprehensive plan to update zoning down the road and allow the missing middle housing.

Until then the name change is a critical first step.

The comprehensive plan must take into account or must take action to allow policy changes in our zoning system and and strong anti-displacement strategies to show a deep commitment to racial equity.

Per the racial equity report BIPOC communities have suffered from insufficient housing supply choice and affordability.

and I'm someone who has seen this firsthand.

The urban village strategy is perpetuating a historical pattern of exclusionary zoning and so I can't wait for us to change the name and further down the road change the zoning itself.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next we have, is Zoe Jenkins still with us?

Let's give her one more try before we move to Alex.

Zoe, are you with us?

You can press star six to unmute yourself.

There you are.

I see you're unmuted, Zoe.

My apologies, flip phone.

My name is Zoe Jenkins.

My name is Zoe Jenkins.

I am addressing the single family zone item.

I'm a resident.

Rather than change the term single family to neighborhood residential, I would suggest the term single household instead, which is more inclusive language.

Residential neighborhoods that are called, you know, just general residential can lead to a lot of growth of multiplex structures.

These tend to be large three-story flat exterior wall structures.

We already have quite a few.

There's a severe loss of trees and light and space when they occur.

And we don't have a power grid to support a lot of more density, as we already know.

And when everyone flips on their new AC units next summer, we're really going to find that out.

So let's help our small businesses grow.

Let's help our big businesses develop satellites into the neighboring communities.

Let's help our people who need jobs find here and there.

And let's let's let's help everyone in the in the King County region have growth and stability rather than over densify Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you Zoe.

Up next we have Alex Brennan followed by Matt Hutchins and Rick Moeller is on deck.

Good morning, Alex.

I see you there.

You'd like to press.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can.

Good morning.

Great.

Thank you, Chair Strauss and council members.

My name is Alex Brennan.

I'm the executive director of FutureWise.

I'm here to comment in support of the name change to neighborhood residential.

There are two reasons I wanted to highlight.

First, I think this is an important step towards getting the city out of the business of defining who is a family.

For many of us biology and a marriage license are not the only things that hold our families together.

And this would bring Seattle more in line with new state law under Senate Bill 5235. I'm also support in support of this change because I think it sets the stage for a citywide conversation about how our neighborhood residential areas can better meet our city's housing needs and address the history of race and class-based exclusion in these parts of our city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alex.

Up next, we have Matt Hutchins, followed by Rick Mohler, and Ryan Gracie is on deck.

Hello?

Good morning.

I hear you, Matt.

Oh, hi.

Yes, great.

Okay.

My name is Matt Hutchins.

I'm speaking in favor of switching two words, a neighborhood residential for single family, and thus making a little more space in the code language to be more inclusive and flexible.

It's clear that climate change is here.

It's clear that we've been losing ground with regard to providing adequate supply of housing, with housing prices nearly doubling over the last decade.

And with the racial equity analysis, it's clear that our current planning strategies are disadvantaging BIPOC communities, opening up gentrification and creating new cycles of displacement.

We are fueling these phenomena.

Their outcomes are our planning policies.

We have a land use code that is stuck in the past.

that codifies exclusion, that preferences a car dependent land use pattern, and that views new housing or diverse housing types, corner stores, mixed uses as an assault on neighborhood character rather than the very backbone of our neighborhood.

We are asking for these outcomes.

If we can switch out these words, we'll be well on our way to creating more diverse welcoming neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Up next, we have Rick Moller followed by Ryan Gracie and Aaron Cote on deck.

I see Ryan Gracie, you're signed up for resolution 32010. Mr. Ahn, can you confirm that this is the appropriate public hearing for that?

Mr. Ahn.

All right, I will press the mute button.

This would not, that would be for public comment.

I apologize for that, Brian.

We will address that at the end of this public hearing.

Up next, we have Rick Moeller.

If you'd like to begin, Rick, I see you're off mute.

Good morning.

Yes, good morning, Chair Strauss and members of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee.

My name is Rick Moeller, and I'm speaking as co-chair of the Seattle Planning Commission following up on comments made by Jamie Strobel earlier.

In addition to Jamie's comments, the Seattle Planning Commission would like to note that while the name change from single family to neighborhood residential is modest, it's an important step that accurately frames the neighborhood residential areas as having a variety of building types, welcoming a diversity of residents with a broad range of household configurations.

The Planning Commission supports this comprehensive plan amendment and thanks council members for their work on this important issue.

Thanks.

And Ryan, if you'd like to speak to this proposed name change, you're more than welcome to, or because I mislabeled you, we can also open the public comment at the end if you'd prefer to speak to resolution 32010. I see you there, Ryan, if you wanna come off mute and let us speak.

Ryan?

You can press star six.

One last call, Ryan, if you want to press star six, not pound six.

We'll move on, Ryan, and we'll come back to you at the end.

Erin Cote, I see you are not present.

The next set is Alicia Ruiz, followed by Deb Barker, although, Deb, you are not present, followed by Doug Trum and James Grace.

James, I also see you are here for Resolution 32010. We'll address that once we get to you.

Alicia, good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Alicia Ruiz.

I'm the Government Affairs Manager for the Master Golders Association of King and Sonoma County.

And I'm here today in full in full support of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment that changes the name of the single family zone to the more inclusive name of the neighborhood residential zone.

It is an important move forward to support more diverse and equitable neighborhoods.

Our city needs desperately needs more housing of every type.

We also believe that this is a critical step forward in

Oh, are you still with us, Alicia?

We have lost the caller.

If you, Alicia, if you want to send in your public comments, please do so.

Dan dot Strauss at Seattle dot gov. Deb Barker, I see you are not present.

I'd like to call in before we end our public hearing.

We will come back to you.

Up next is Doug Trump, followed by James Gracie and then Trayvon Fields.

I see you are not present and also not sure if this is the correct committee for your comments.

We'll get to that when we get to it.

Doug, good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Doug Trum.

I'm Executive Director at the Urbanist and I'm coming out of Neighborhood Residential.

The pace at which satellites can be displaced is lightning quick.

All it takes is a rent hike or a life emergency.

The pace at which we change our zoning and comprehensive plan is achingly slow.

It's been six years since the draft holler report was leaked to the Seattle Times, repeating the last attempt to overhaul single-family zoning.

I applaud Councilmember Mosqueda for restarting this conversation with her renamed proposal and commissioning the racial equity toolkit on the urban village strategy.

The findings of that study were striking and unambiguous.

Setting aside 75% of our residential land for single family homes is not working.

It's accelerating the displacement of black and brown people from our city.

It's not compatible with solutions looking to halt that displacement or create an equitable housing system.

Zoning isn't the only barrier.

We also took a design review times.

But we need to turn a new leaf.

And all the cities are doing it.

Let's follow in their footsteps.

Thank you, James.

Doug, up next we have James Gracie.

James, I see you are signed up for resolution 32010. Do you want to come off mute and let me know if you prefer to speak to the single family name change or if you'd like me to reopen public comment at the end since I accidentally skipped over you previously.

Yeah, I'll preserve everybody's time and speak at the end.

Great, thank you.

Trayvon Fields, I see you are not present.

If you'd like to call back in.

Up next, we have Emily Johnson.

And I think, and Rachel Mazur, you're not present.

So Emily, good morning.

Good morning.

Yes, my name is Emily Johnson, and I'm with 350 Seattle, but speaking for myself.

I'm very lucky to live in Northeast Capitol Hill, where three big parks are within about a half a mile of my house.

I'd like a lot more people to be able to live in this neighborhood, which is well served by transit, has good air quality and shade even on hot days.

I've wanted for years to turn my 800 square foot house into a multifamily because I think having one or two people on a city lot a mile from downtown is ludicrous.

And I know that it's a climate disaster.

Changing the name of these neighborhoods is essential.

They've never been single family zones.

And in my neighborhood, many nice old apartment buildings are smack next to $2 million homes.

Those homes and their value don't seem to suffer as a result.

Instead, the apartments and condos make the neighborhood more vibrant, support local restaurants and other businesses, and support our frequent transit.

The fact that we can't build those apartments and condos now has to change if we want a city by teachers and plumbers and artists, as well as by high-paid tech workers.

Changing the name reorients folks to what matters about a neighborhood, that it is a neighborhood, mostly residential.

The rigidity of single-family zoning serves no one but those who want to preserve zoning that was explicitly racist in the past.

Thank you Emily.

And if you'd like to send any additional comments please do so at Dan.Strauss at SeattleLockedOut.

I'm going to call through the names that are registered yet not present.

Rachel Mazur.

Trayvon Fields.

Deb Barker.

Aaron Cote.

Any of you would like to speak, please call into the line immediately.

Otherwise, we will close public comment, public hearing.

Because I made a mistake at the outset of this meeting and did not call on people during public comment who should have been called on public comment because we have public hearing and public comment, we will reopen that.

Before we do so, I will call that that was our last speaker remotely present to speak at this public hearing.

Public hearing on the proposed neighborhood residential comprehensive plan amendment is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who provided comment today.

Thank you, as this amendment will be considered again when we take up the annual round of comprehensive plan amendments in September, starting with a public hearing of all of the amendments at our meeting on September 8th.

no objection, I will reopen the remote public comment period for today's agenda.

I'm going to read through this quickly since I've already read it twice this morning.

Before we begin, I ask that everyone please be patient as we learn to operate this new system in real time while it remains our strong intent to have public comment regularly.

Included on our meeting agenda is the City Council reserves the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any point if we deem that the system is being used or is unsuitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and in the manner in which we are able to conduct our necessary business.

I will moderate public comment period in the following manner.

The public comment period will be open for five minutes.

Each speaker will be given one minute to speak.

I will call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they've registered on the council's website.

If you have not yet registered to speak and would like to, you can sign up before the end of public comment by going to the council's website.

Public comment link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call on your name, the staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and an automatic prompt if you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue and it is their turn to speak.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item in which you are addressing.

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

Once the speaker hears the chime, we ask that you please begin to wrap up your public comments.

If your speakers do not end their public comments at the end of the allotted time provided, the speaker's microphone will be muted after 10 seconds to allow us to call on the next speaker.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line.

And if you plan to continue following this, please do so via the Seattle Channel or the listing options listed on the agenda there.

So at this time, I will call on the public comment period is now open.

And we will begin with the two people we skipped over earlier this morning, Ryan Gracie and James Gracie.

So Ryan, I see you are here.

You want to press star six and unmute yourself, not pound six.

The floor is yours.

I'm seeing you in our queue.

I am seeing that you are still on mute.

We're going to move on to James Gracie and come back to you, Ryan.

James, I see you present.

If you'd like to press star six to unmute yourself, I see you are off mute.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Stroudson.

Thank you.

Thank you to the council members.

Uh, just in regards to proposed amendment number two and the land use map change of nine to a one and nine to one five third ad, um, with our, our proposed, uh, to change it to, to a multifamily, we feel in alliance with the.

The council's, uh, vision for the city, um, in the, in the major shortage of, of housing.

Um, and we'd love to.

Uh, continue alignment and partnership with mobile, multiple affordable housing outfits to target the, the, uh, 50 and below AMI.

For the area, especially in the Highland park area, where it's a, a very, um, all diverse neighborhood and, um, would, uh, Would align with the align with the council stated vision and goals for the city.

We believe that the council can give a due process and ideas.

From what it constitutes and even it may be too small to make the docket.

I think we could work our way through the current housing crisis with even us as small property as it is.

Um, so we just love to, uh, to encourage the council to help us move this forward so we can, uh, fulfill our.

what we owe to the community and being a 35-year resident and give back as much as we can as we've outgrown the site for ourselves.

Thank you, James.

And one last call for Ryan Gracie.

Ryan, I see you are in our meeting.

If you want to press star six to unmute.

If not, we will move on.

Second calling, Ryan Gracie, star six.

Third and last call, if you want to press star six, Ryan.

Do not seem to be coming off mute.

And so seeing as we have no additional speakers remotely present, the public comment period is now open and we will move on to the next agenda item.

Thank you, colleagues, for your patience.

Our next item of business today is a briefing and discussion of Council Bill 120121, which grants temporary flexibility for downtown storefronts.

Mr. Ong, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Agenda item two, Council Bill 120121, an ordinance related to land use and zoning, adopting interim provisions by amending the Seattle Municipal Code to facilitate occupancy of street-level spaces downtown during the COVID-19 emergency.

Thank you.

We are joined by Interim Director Rico Quirendongo and Magda Hognes of OPCB, Mike Podowski of SDCI, and Keil Freeman of Council Central Staff.

Mr. Freeman, do you have any opening notes before the presentation?

Um, non council members trust except to note that this item will be back in front of this committee on August 11th for a public hearing and possible vote.

Um, in addition to the presentation that O.

P. C. D. And S. D. C. I will go through momentarily.

There's also a memorandum from me, which highlights a few issues for committee consideration.

I'm time permitting at the end of their presentation.

I'm happy to go through.

Thank you, Director Magda.

Mike, take it away.

Good morning, thank you Councilmember Strauss for the time today.

The legislation that we are here to talk about today is in direct response to the terrible impact the pandemic has had on our business community in the downtown core.

As I think most people on this call are aware, we lost over 400 businesses in the core due to the pandemic.

and the need for people to stay at home.

The opportunity that we are seeking at this time is to open up our land use opportunities to create new business opportunities in the core for folks to bring in different types of businesses and uses that previously were not allowed due to the restriction of restaurants and retail in our retail corridors.

I'm going to turn over the mic to Magda here in a moment.

I just want to say that as we look toward recovery, We are looking to bring people back, revitalize our active street activities and really get people back to downtown and signal reopening.

So this temporary legislation is really one of many different vehicles for the city to do that.

And with that, I'll hand over to Magda.

Thank you, Rico.

So as Rico mentioned, this is one piece of an approach that has many related efforts.

And it's really focused in on a pressing focus of the street level ground floor within a specific area of downtown.

Filling vacant storefronts and existing buildings is a shared priority in the immediate term survival and a broader economic recovery.

The latest numbers from DSA, which we received, that show the latest figures from June of this year, show this need.

So this area, which is focused on the proposed legislation that you're seeing today, has seen over 340 businesses close over the past year and a half.

And of that, approximately half have already been filled with new businesses.

And just for a little bit of context, pre-pandemic, the number of closures was usually consistent, was usually less than the number of new openings each time DSA conducted this inventory.

So the number of businesses would always continue to grow.

So what we're looking at here is we know that there's a need for additional help that the market will do on its own.

And that this legislation is, as Rico mentioned, is just one piece of supporting downtown recovery and all of the other related projects, which we will touch on a little bit later on in this presentation.

With that, I will pass.

I've just got one question on this slide before we move on.

Data from the Downtown Seattle Association also shows 2.5% retail vacancy rate downtown in 2020 compared to a 3% to 4% vacancy rate from 2010 to 2020. Can you or do you know how many of these are permanent closures and new openings and how this compares to a pre-pandemic year?

Certainly, I think that that will, I can explain a little bit and we might require some follow up with DSA to go into the specifics on how they collected their information.

But what you're seeing here is the number of businesses that have permanently closed over the past year and a half at the ground level versus and reopening.

So DSA is doing a little bit more of a fine-grained look into this area and how it relates to their vacancy rates overall is something that we'll need to follow up on.

But again, the pre-pandemic we did reach out to them to kind of understand what the difference is and would be in a pre-pandemic in the past.

And the number of closures was always less than the number of new openings.

And so I get the sense that that's also related to new construction, and there might be an additional layer of information there.

And we'll be happy to report back.

Thank you.

And I see Vice Chair Mosqueda, please.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate the clarification on the permanent closures here.

I guess 1 of my questions is, do you have similar data looking at other neighborhood hubs across our city?

West Seattle, central district of North gate.

Are there similar sort of statistics that we could look at?

We, so DSA does collect data from additional neighborhoods, but they are focused in closer to downtown.

So South Lake Union, as well as First Hill, Lower Queen Anne or Uptown are included, but I don't think that the data does include information on West Seattle, but that's something that we can provide more context on as well.

Okay, and Mr chair, just another follow up if I may.

Um, do do we, though, does the city have any data points of its own outside of downtown Seattle associations data that they shared with us to have a better indication of storefront closures across the city?

So we have worked with staff at OED to get a sense of what the changes might be.

And one point of data that we could collect is the business licensing information.

But as a whole, DSA, so what they've done multiple surveys, and I believe that that's how they're collecting this fine grain information, which is a little bit more up to date than business licenses.

Okay.

Thanks so much.

And just while I have you, and Director Kittingdon goes on the line, again, thank you very much, OPCD, for your work on the Racial Equity Toolkit.

The one other thing I would be interested in, I see you, thank you.

One other thing I'd be interested in is any data either from Downtown Seattle Association or from OPCD or Economic Development on childcare closures as well.

I think that we are interested in seeing how we can support more businesses coming downtown and to neighborhood hubs across Seattle.

But we've continued to hear from businesses that one of the things that they need is child care for them as small business owners or for their workers as well.

And so if there's any way to get that data, I would be very interested in that as well.

Thank you, guys.

Mike, did you wanna, or Magda is now passing it to Mike, is I think how I interrupted this just a moment ago.

Mike, feel free to take it away.

Yes, of course.

Next slide, please.

So now we're gonna turn to the proposal, and it's focused on existing buildings, buildings that were built prior to this ordinance taking effect should the council adopt it.

We're making use of some state rules that allow for expeditious adoption of the legislation, and then that would also only allow it to be in place for a temporary amount of time.

We're proposing 12 months.

Even though the legislation would be effective for a limited period, any permits that we would issue for businesses making use of it are standard permits.

The business would be good to operate in perpetuity.

We're focusing on the areas in town where the Land Use Code limits uses, as Director Cuaron-Rongo mentioned, to basically retail uses, restaurants, and entertainment uses, things that seem to be suffering in particular in this area with the loss of convention goers, the office workers that are concentrated in this area, as well as the drop-off in tourists.

So the proposal would apply to a series of mapped streets that really fill the area between the Pike Place Market and the Convention Center, and extends north and south out of downtown along some of the major pathways to the abutting neighborhoods, as well as Pioneer Square.

We noted in the slide here that the Chinatown International District already enjoys a situation that's more flexible that we actually propose to expand into Pioneer Square.

So there are no changes to Chinatown that are proposed in this bill.

as they already enjoy the amount of flexibility we're hoping to impart on the remaining areas shown on the map there.

And as we expand the list of uses, we're moving a little bit away from what most people consider to be the most active uses, but we think there are some ways that we can allow the expanded list of types of businesses to be located here and still provide for the maximum amount of interest that they can.

So we're proposing to promote having the most visual activities at the front of the store where the windows and the doors meet the sidewalk.

As mentioned in the first point here, you know, we're using some special state legislation that allows us to move expeditiously.

That means we'll do our environmental work for the legislation after council adopts it, probably in the late summer or early fall.

Next slide, please.

Sorry, I had one question on that last slide.

Apologies.

Can you speak to why South Lake Union, Uptown and First Hill were not included in this legislation?

Well, as you can see on this map, it's rather extensively mapped downtown.

There's a broad area around what we call the retail core, as well as in Pioneer Square, where we really limit what can happen at street level.

In these other neighborhoods that you mentioned, the mapping is nowhere near as extensive, even though the limited uses are similar.

I forget if Director Quarantango mentioned this in his opening remarks, but this could be a first step.

We're trying to focus on the area that's most acutely affected by the downturn and the conditions that are found here.

Certainly, we could take a look at other neighborhoods as later phases.

Thank you.

And I see Councilmember Lewis.

Please, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

I thought your question might be a good opportunity to flag an amendment I am intending to bring for this legislation when we finally continue it or have that process on voting on it at the next committee meeting to extend these land use changes to the Southlake Union neighborhood.

This is based on extensive stakeholder outreach to my office in that neighborhood thinking these changes would be beneficial to facilitate their recovery as well.

So, you know, I was going to flag my amendments later.

I think that'll be amendment one that I'm pursuing, but I thought this would be a good opportunity based on your question to flag that.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Indeed, I was setting you up to talk about your amendment once we get through the presentation.

Fantastic.

Mike, feel free to continue on.

The next slide focuses on the additional list of uses that we're proposing to allow.

It is drawn largely from the uses that are already allowed in our neighborhood business districts.

This might get at Councilmember Mosqueda's question a little bit here.

This broader range of flexibility in the types of businesses and uses that can be located at street level is already enjoyed in places like Ballard and the West Seattle Junction, parts of Southeast Seattle, as well as the Central District and Capitol Hill.

So we looked at some uses here that could serve a range of needs.

I'll just pull out a couple, for example, at the top left.

You know, people talk about pop-up businesses.

Largely, those tend to be, you know, restaurants like food trucks that will take a brick-and-mortar location.

But art installations have also been a good tool for filling vacant storefronts, you know, during periods such as this.

So we're proposing to expand the ability to do that along these street fronts.

Halfway down on the left, one of the things that's pretty commonly found at street level in the business districts is medical service uses, doctors, dentists, physical therapists.

We think that those kinds of things can generate some more activity and be a good complement to the businesses that we'd like to see downtown.

At the bottom on the far right, in addition to the expanded list of uses that we put here, We were also proposing that the SDCI director and Pioneer Square would be the DON director have the ability to consider uses that we didn't put on our list but that could spark more activity and interest in these areas.

And so there's a little bit of an ad hoc thing here to allow us to consider other creative ideas that might come up that we didn't think about.

Thank you.

And Mike, you began to identify for us the differences between this list of uses and those that are already allowed in pedestrian zones and neighborhood commercial districts.

Could you, and maybe we should wait to the next committee.

It would be helpful for me to have a crosswalk to see what is already allowed in those neighborhood commercial districts, what is being brought into this legislation and what is left out.

Or maybe you could start by briefly speaking to it now and then have a crosswalk for us at the next committee.

Absolutely.

For people following along at home, there is such a list in the SDCI Director's Report, but we'll pull out that information to highlight it for the next committee meeting.

So in this list, you'll see at the bottom on the left, this idea has come up that for, you know, certain uses, you know, bike facilities for serving office uses or lobbies, gyms, activity areas that serve hotels and residential towers, it might be good to allow those things to occupy some of these empty storefronts, because that gets people coming and going, and it also might free up space in the building that could serve another, you know, income-producing purpose.

That's not allowed in the neighborhood business districts right now, so that would be unique to here and something that we're trying on for size.

One of the things that's allowed in the business districts that we didn't propose to include here is office uses.

They are limited in the business districts, but the reasoning there is that there's a lot of office use downtown, particularly when they're full.

In the business districts, a lot of what we see on the second and higher floors are housing, and so that's the reason for that distinction.

So those are the two main differences, I would say.

But we'll pull that out in more detail for the next meeting.

Thank you.

Yeah, having a direct crosswalk to reference would be really helpful.

Vice Chair Mosqueda, did I see you had a hand?

I was just going to build on your comment, Mr. Chair, about the additional data that you'd like to see for the other neighborhood business areas.

I appreciate the brief answer that there's already some I think it is more about an equity concern.

When you draw the data for the chair, I would like to see an analysis about what is being left out.

We are looking at the MHA exemptions that we are applying here and how we could be potentially looking at other neighborhood hubs who need similar discretion and exemptions to allow for those smaller business district hubs to flourish.

I guess it is just layering on another request for data when we come back again.

Mr. Podolsky, feel free to continue on, or colleagues, if you have any other, any colleagues that have questions, please just raise your hand.

I think we're gonna segue back over to Magda, and then we'll wrap things up.

There's just a couple slides left.

Council Member Juarez, did I see your hand, or no?

No, I was just waving at you, so.

Oh, hi.

So we're ready for the next slide, Magda?

Great.

And thank you so much for the discussion on the questions related to equity.

That is definitely a piece of this that we are intentionally taking a look at.

And with this work, we are intent to remove barriers experienced by small businesses.

as well as offer supporting programs and business practices that focus on businesses owned by BIPOC and or service industry folks.

And so with this legislation, we've been mindful and making sure that it supports and does not intentionally harm BIPOC owned businesses.

So we've done a few sessions for intentional outreach to see what would be actually helpful for people who are tied into CID and Pioneer Square, focusing there.

And with that, as we mentioned earlier, this is an approach with many pieces and legislation is definitely an important piece, as well as kind of creating opportunities for information gathering and sharing ways to entice additional BIPOC businesses, as well as provide an openness to helping work through any issues that surface within the different permitting requirements or different pieces that it takes to actually produce a business downtown.

And I know that OED is working on many programs within the downtown recovery work that they are doing and we're collaborating closely with them as well.

So with that, I will pass it to Mike to explain a little bit more specifics on some of these pieces that we're taking a look at.

So in addition to the measures that are coming from OED and OPCD, at SDCI, we're looking at ways to help people that would be seeking permits to fill these vacant spaces.

We're exploring ways that we could expedite these permits and then also evaluating options for providing some facilitation for people.

A lot of the permit seekers here will be first-time permit applicants, and that can be difficult for people to navigate.

And in particular, if perhaps English isn't their first language, so, you know, the permit facilitation would be part of our equity approach here to try and make sure that the benefits of increased flexibility can be broadly used and accessed by all people in our community.

And I think we're wrapping up.

we are.

Thank you Mike, Magda, Mr. Freeman.

Colleagues, any other questions?

Councilmember Lewis, I understand that you have amendments to share.

Would you like to speak to those?

Yes, thank you Mr. Chair and I believe that Daniela Suarez on my staff has distributed working drafts of those amendments to the members of the committee and to your staff.

So I'm happy to just jump into them real quick.

One of them, which I alluded to earlier, was to extend the coverage area of these changes to the South Lake Union neighborhood.

South Lake Union neighborhood of course also positioning itself to have a recovery plan based on a more dynamic use of street level space and a lot of the stakeholders in that neighborhood feel like they could take advantage of these unique and innovative opportunities to to get more tenants and get more unique tenants into store-level activated, street-level activated uses.

So look forward to bringing that amendment forward.

I already discussed that a little bit earlier in the committee today.

The second amendment that I am seeking to bring would add to the list of uses that were shown earlier in the presentation, office space and light manufacturing.

So there's been a lot of interest from stakeholders in the Downtown Seattle Association, people who are working in commercial real estate and talking to prospective tenants to activate street-level uses, to use street-level space for additional office space or for some kind of maker space, like a light manufacturing use.

I think that given the situation that we're in, where there's been a considerable amount of businesses over the course of COVID that have shuttered and won't be coming back in the downtown core.

I definitely want to be guided by what our partners you know, in the real estate market are seeing in terms of demand to make innovative use of some of these spaces.

Office space and light manufacturing are not currently on the list that's come from the department.

It is certainly something that our partners would like to see as an opportunity and an option.

So I'll be bringing that amendment to expand slightly to that list of uses that we discussed in that slide earlier in the presentation.

And again, those uses being street-level office space and light manufacturing.

On Amendment 3, This is a sort of technical amendment allowing administrative approval for street-level changes in the Pioneer Square Special Review District.

There are unique rules, as Mr. Chair is well aware, in the Special Review District in terms of how swiftly we can stand up alternative street-level uses.

This would simply allow the planning director, administrative approval to green light some of these street-level changes if buildings within the special review district wanted to incorporate one of these historically non-conforming street-level uses.

And it's just a necessary change to work some of these temporary changes into the framework of the Pioneer Square Special Review District.

So currently those are the three amendments I'm pursuing.

My staff and I are talking to lots of stakeholders in these neighborhoods and it's possible that might lead to some additional amendments for consideration and anticipation of the next committee.

But currently those are the three that I'm working on.

I'm happy to talk between this meeting and the next with any committee members who have any questions on these amendments.

All of them were generated with considerable stakeholdering from our partners who are working on economic development in these neighborhoods and really internalizing what they're hearing from prospective tenants and how they can best work to rebuild their neighborhoods in partnership with us here.

So thank you for giving me an opportunity to preview those.

As I said, they've I'm happy to answer questions over the next few weeks.

Yes, Council Member Strauss.

So these are working drafts is probably the best way I would phrase it.

I don't really know if they're going to materially change all that much in a substantive way based on where they currently are.

But of course, there may be technical tweaks and then whatever in the run up to our next meeting.

Thank you.

Vice Chair.

And also, Thank you very much Mr. Chair.

do have some interest in following up on the permitted uses and seeing if there's any additional way that we can incentivize and support the creation of more childcare facilities downtown as well.

I know we're all painfully aware of some of the state requirements and local requirements for creating childcare facilities.

That also have to accommodate the creation of new buildings.

But let's also remember we just put $5 million in our Seattle rescue plan to help support the capital for capital dollars for the creation of additional child care facilities, specifically to help our smallest businesses be able to have a draw to economic hubs, including downtown, so that more people have safe places for their kiddos to have care.

As we think about recovering and having a reset button here for us to have a more equitable recovery post-COVID, one of the things I'd like to continue to do is to create more incentives for childcare.

Anecdotally, we hear that there's more doggy daycare in downtown Seattle than there is kiddo daycare, and so this has been a big priority for us.

to make sure that our furry friends as well as our babies and kiddos have the care that they need.

So I'm very interested in seeing if there's any possibility there for us to create additional incentives.

And I know that probably the initial reaction is there's so many requirements around childcare that it might be complicated, but I think we're being creative in many ways here.

So I'm hoping that we can be creative around childcare as well.

So I'll be exploring that before the next meeting.

And then to your point, Mr. Chair, as well, I'd still like to see that data about what barriers may exist in other economic regions, economic hubs in regions of our city, to see if this should be more broadly applied.

I appreciate the expansion to South Lake Union.

I don't have any objection to that, but also would like to see how we can support folks in our North End, South End, and out in West Seattle as well.

So those are the two areas that I'll be looking into.

and appreciate the chance for the preview today.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Colleagues, any other questions on this bill at this time?

Oh, yes.

Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

I just want to confirm that when we get the response back, we can look at those questions through that equity lens, especially given the larger number of large businesses downtown versus the smaller businesses around our city and those smaller businesses that may be BIPOC-led and women of color-led.

So I'm just hoping that that equity analysis is going to be possible.

Mike, could you or Magda, could you share?

I would appreciate that we meet the vice chair's expectations with this request.

Well, we'll certainly see what we can do and work closely with Ketel and the rest of the central staff to try and meet that request.

Great, thank you.

I would need to have that.

I would like to meet that expectation that the vice chair just said.

Absolutely.

Colleagues, any other questions at this time?

Seeing none, I just want to thank everyone for being here for this briefing today.

The legislation will be back before the committee on August 11th for a public hearing, at which point I hope to suspend the rules and vote given the timeline of these changes, unless there is intervening data or something that comes up in the meantime.

We still are on track to pass this with urgency.

Thank you.

Our next agenda item is a public hearing and possible vote on Council Bill 120108, which amends the Yesler Terrace Tree Protection Plan.

Mr. Ahn, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Agenda item three, Council Bill 120108, an ordinance relating to redevelopment at the Yesler Terrace Master Plan community, amending sections of the Seattle Municipal Code and the Tree Protection Plan.

Thank you.

We are joined for this item by Executive Director Rod Brandon, Terry Galani, and Rachel, Rochelle, excuse me, Monticello from Seattle Housing Authority, and Allie Panucci of our Council Central staff.

Allie, could you provide a brief refresher on the proposal?

Good morning, Chair Strauss, committee members.

I'm Allie Panucci of your Council Central staff, and I'm happy to provide a brief overview.

So Council Bill 120130 is related to the Yesler Terrace Planned Action Ordinance.

At the time the council passed that ordinance in 2012, the city had not yet approved the future plat, which required the city to make some assumptions about the locations of rights of way, vehicular access, development parcels, pedestrian and bike trails, and pocket parks when they were creating the original tree protection plan.

The city finalized the layout in 2014 and the tree protection plan now needs to be adjusted accordingly.

Additionally, the city has determined that on-site planting of all of the required replacement trees would be difficult to achieve, if not possible, due to space constraints.

So the bill before you today would update maps to reflect existing conditions and correct errors found by staff from the time of adoption to the present.

It would correct the tree inventory to be consistent with the trees shown on the map.

It updates provisions for development proposals that meet the Yesler Terrace planned action ordinance requirements within the master plan community Yesler Terrace zone to have the option to use payment in lieu of replanting if allowed.

by code and off-site replanting and clarify that reporting on tree removal mitigation is to occur after the development contemplated in the Yesler Terrace Planned Action Ordinance is completed.

And that ordinance is in effect until 2032. So that is the legislation before you today.

There are three proposed amendments that I am happy to describe for the committee following discussion and public hearing.

Thank you, Ali.

And we're also joined, as I said, by Director Rod Brandon, Terry, and Rochelle.

Director Brandon or Terry or Rochelle, would you like to add anything before we open the public comment?

And we'll have more time to speak to the bill and the amendments after public comment, public hearing.

Yes, just real briefly.

Thank you very much.

Thank you guys for considering this bill and technical changes as well as the changes to the plan.

So we really appreciate you looking at alternatives for us.

As you know, we have a strong commitment to fulfill our obligation and when we can't, we'll make sure that we make adjustments.

So without that, I think she did a great job in doing the briefing.

We'll be available to answer any questions after you hear any public comments as well.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any other comments before we open up public hearing?

Seeing none, before we open the remote public hearing, I would again ask that everyone please be patient as we continue to learn and operate this new system in real time and navigate through the inevitable growing pains.

We are continuously looking for ways to fine-tune this process and adding new features that allow for additional means of public participation in our council meetings.

I will moderate the public hearing in the following manner.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I will call on one speaker at a time and in the order in which you registered on the council's website.

If you have not yet registered to speak and would like to, you can sign up for the end of the public hearing by going to the council's website, seattle.gov forward slash council.

The link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call on the speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone.

An automatic prompt if you have been unmuted will be your cue that it is your turn to speak.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item in that you are addressing.

As a reminder, public comment should relate to the comprehensive plan docketing process.

If you have comments about something that is not on today's agenda you can always provide written comments by emailing my office dan.straus at seattle.gov speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of the allotted time once you hear the chime we ask you please begin to wrap up your public comment If speakers do not end their comments by the end of the allotted time provided the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to move on to the next speaker.

Once you have completed your public comment we ask that you please disconnect from the line and if you plan to continue following the meeting please do so via the award-winning Seattle channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

I will at this time, the public hearing on council bill 120108 is now open.

And we will call on the speakers on the list.

Mr. G and Mr. Ahn, I am not seeing anyone present for this item.

I do see Jacqueline Armstrong who has listed various.

Possibly caller number 31, we're not sure.

Booze?

No, next one down.

Ah, Rachel Mazur.

That's a very different item.

So there did not appear to be any registrant for this public hearing.

Okay.

Can we promote Rachel and Jacqueline just to ensure that we have not Missed them.

Jacqueline, are you here to speak about the Yesler Tree ordinance?

You can press star six.

There you are.

Good morning.

This is Jacqueline Armstrong.

How are you this morning?

Good.

Are you here to speak about the Yesler Tree ordinance?

Actually, Actually, I wanted to apologize.

I was registering regarding the upzoning conversation.

So I just registered 20 minutes ago.

I apologize.

It wasn't regarding the trees.

So at this point, I'm going to be a listener, but I am concerned about the upzoning and I did register late.

So not to take up time from this important conversation, have we already discussed upzoning?

We have our, you did register after the public hearing was closed on that item.

If you email me with your comment, dan.straus at seattle.gov.

Thank you.

And we are going to continue that conversation on August the 11th.

That's when we're going to thank you very much.

Thank you.

Rachel Missouri, just double checking.

Rachel.

I was planning to give a public comment for agenda item four, but I think I've missed the opportunity to do so.

Just wanted to confirm.

Item four.

That was also already opened and closed.

I think we've tried to call on you a couple of times when it was open.

So please email me.

Okay.

I will.

Dan dot Strauss at Seattle back out.

Will do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Being as there's not a member of the public remotely present for this public hearing, I will move to close the public hearing on, I wanna make sure I've got the council bill correct, council bill 120108. The public hearing on council bill 120108 is now closed.

Thank you for everyone who came.

I would like to now, move on to suspend.

Colleagues, if you are okay with it, I would ask that we suspend the rules to allow for us to vote on this legislation and the three amendments that have been proposed today, given that we did not have any negative public comments during the public hearing, and we have now held two meetings on this topic, and finally, that our next meeting is very busy.

Colleagues, do I see any concerns with this suspension of the rules?

Seeing none, I move to suspend the rules to allow us to vote on the same day as the public hearing.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to suspend the rules to allow a vote on the same day as a public hearing.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Aye.

Thank you.

We can now move on to discuss amendments.

The motion carries.

We can now move on to discuss the amendments.

There are three amendments to consider today, all included on the agenda for this meeting.

The first amendment makes technical corrections to the bill, including several changes, several references to director's rules and fixing a typographical error.

Ali, do you have anything to add?

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I don't have anything to add.

I just wanted to know before we get into the, I'm not sure, so I'd confirm with the clerks if you want to put the bill before the committee before we discuss amendments.

Sounds like a great idea to me.

I move, let me get the right, I move to recommend passage of Council Bill 120108. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120108. And we will now discuss amendments, and we will make that motion again if we include any of the amendments to the bill.

Ali, would you like to speak to Amendment 1?

Thank you.

So Amendment 1, as Chair Strauss described, is proposed by Chair Strauss.

It would make technical and clarifying changes to the bill as described on the screen.

But this really is a technical correction and just clarifying language and correcting references.

Colleagues, any questions on this amendment?

Seeing none, I move to amend Council Bill 120108 as shown in Amendment 1. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120108 as shown in Amendment 1. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Carry Strath.

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

I'm also sponsoring amendment two, which would increase the replacement requirement for the two trees being removed from a one-to-one replacement requirement to a higher three-to-one replacement requirement.

I was glad to work with Seattle Housing Authority on this amendment following the tour of their site, and I'm glad that they're able to meet this higher level tree planting.

Colleagues, we spoke about this amendment at the last meeting.

Do you have any further questions at this time?

Seeing no further questions, I move to amend Council Bill 120108 as shown in Amendment 2. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120108 as shown in Amendment 2. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Rupert Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

And I will clarify for the record the motion on Amendment 1 also carries.

Councilmember Peterson, thank you for bringing this Amendment 3 to our committee and for working with Seattle Housing Authority.

Would you like to speak to your Amendment Number 3?

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Yes, I want to thank central staff, particularly Yolanda Ho who is working on this and the Seattle Housing Authority for the back and forth discussion on how to, what we're trying to do here is because there'll be potentially fewer The tree canopy will be impacted here at the Essler Terrace property.

The request before us is to increase the flexibility for them.

The way it was originally worded was enabling them to plant replacing trees off-site anywhere in Seattle, though during the committee meeting, It was clear that the Seattle Housing Authority was was going to be doing everything they can to try to plant those trees on site or close by.

So this amendment simply memorializes that spirit of that by saying.

If you can't plant it on-site, then do it as close to the site as possible.

If you can't do that, then do it at your other Seattle Housing Authority properties where there are low-income residents who can benefit from this additional tree canopy.

And then also going to low-canopy coverage areas throughout the city so that if they are going to plant replacement trees that aren't on the Yesvo Terra site or within a few blocks, it should be in low tree canopy areas.

And we already have an assessment measuring that for the city.

So I would ask my colleagues support this so we can implement the spirit of trying to keep those trees as close as possible to the low income areas.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Well said and welcomed amendment.

I appreciate you working with Seattle Housing Authority on this amendment.

Director Brandon or anyone else from your team, can you confirm that this is an amendment that is workable from your perspective and anything that you'd like to share?

Yes, I'm Rod Brandon.

So yes, it is workable and thank you Council Member Peterson for this amendment.

I think you are absolutely right.

It does speak to the spirit of our conversations and begins to codify those things and put it in an action plan where we can live with it and make it better for both the Yeser community and when we can't, the nearby Yeser community and when we can't, other low-income residents in the Seattle area.

So much appreciated.

Chair, is there anything you want to add to that?

Nope, that was well said.

Thanks, Rod.

Thank you for your time.

Appreciate everyone's work on this.

Colleagues, any further questions on Amendment 3?

Seeing none, I move to amend Council Bill 120108 as shown in Amendment 3. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to amend Council Bill 120108 as shown in Amendment 3. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

And the motion carries.

This now confirms all three amendments.

The motions carry on all three amendments, one, two, and three, to Council Bill 120108. Colleagues, we've now had this in committee twice.

Are there any further?

comments or questions or discussion?

Vice Chair Mosqueda and Council Member Juarez.

No, I'm going to just say thank you now, but go ahead Council Member Mosqueda.

Get it girl.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I did want to thank you, Director Brannon.

I heard amazing things from you from former I also wanted to follow up to see if there was any additional information that this committee can receive about the placement of trees at some point.

You're on the right item.

Okay.

I know that this is not for so backward.

I had to orient myself.

I'm sorry.

I'm still recovering from cold, but I wanted to make sure that for our city family, we do have a chance to talk more about the placement of trees along public right away.

So that we are having a conversation about the placement of those trees and medians and on.

along sidewalks and more within our public parks to make sure that those green spaces have the shade.

Just this morning we were hearing from NPR again continued reporting on the number of individuals especially in low-income communities and BIPOC communities disproportionately that had less access to shade and to tree canopy, higher rates of We are seeing a lot of exposure to extreme heat and death associated.

In addition to the conversation we had about placement of trees as we are creating more housing, I want to reiterate for our city family side, this is not just for SHA, how we are doing, what we are doing to try to place more trees along public right of ways.

I'm increasingly interested in those public right of ways and how we create more tree canopies.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I think that this will probably come up in discussion as we have been long awaited in highly anticipated tree ordinance, which I have said on the record at the last meeting.

I'll say again, I expect the secret process to begin in September so that we can have a robust conversation regarding that.

Mike, I hope you're still on the line to hear that.

Anyhow, moving on to back to the base bill before us.

Is there any further discussion on Council Bill 120108, the Yessler Terrace Tree Ordinance?

I am seeing none.

Council Member Juarez is saying thank you.

And so I will move to recommend passage of Council Bill 120108 as amended.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120108 as amended.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Love the trees.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Aye in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Terry, Rochelle, Director Brandon.

Amazing work.

I can't wait to see what you do there and the ability to put in a long-term hotel for hospital residents and increased medical facilities there.

I know it's going to go a long way.

Yes.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

Thank you all so much.

And this will be before full council for final passage this coming Monday.

Our final agenda item is a discussion and vote on Resolution 32010, which sets the docket of comprehensive plan amendments to be considered in 2022. Mr. Ahn, will you please read the abbreviated item into the record?

And Item 4, Resolution 32010, a resolution identifying proposed comprehensive plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption in 2022 and requesting that the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Planning Commission review and make recommendations about proposed amendments.

Thank you.

We are joined by Lish Whitson and Eric McConaghy of Council Central staff, Lish and Eric, can you provide an overview of the resolution and the process in which we have undertaken?

Sure, happy to kick it off and Eric, please add anything if I've missed it.

So resolution 32010 follows up on your public hearing at your last committee meeting where you accepted comments on potential amendments to the comprehensive plan for consideration in 2022. The resolution reflects the discussion from last week's meeting.

It adds two items to the docket of potential future comprehensive plan amendments.

The first is to consider removing the arterial designation from Florencia Street on the north side of Plein Hill.

And the second is a request from, and that's from a request from Council Member Lewis.

The second is a request from Council Member Strauss to review policies related to lids over highways and the ways that those can support a more livable city.

I just wanted to note that attached to the agenda is a letter from OPCD where they also make recommendations.

They were a little late in getting those recommendations to us, but we now have them and they are consistent with the resolution that's in front of you.

I'm happy to answer any questions, but it's fairly simple at this point.

Sorry, and I have been on mute as I have been talking.

Any other questions here?

Eric, would you like to share anything?

Well, thanks for the recognition.

No, I have nothing to add.

Thank you very much.

OK.

Vice Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you very much.

Lish, I'm just wondering if you can help connect the dots for that conversation we had about the update to the name and how this fits into the comprehensive plan.

I just think, again, it's helpful for people to be oriented to how this ties into the upcoming major changes in 2024, the 2022 changes that you're talking about here with item number four, because I think a lot of people get lost in where we're at in the timeline for how these changes are made and what this change actually means in the bigger picture.

If you don't mind sharing a little bit on that timeline for folks who might be new to this.

Sure.

So under state law, the city is required to do a major update to the plan every eight or so years.

The next update is due June of 2024. And so the Office of Planning and Community Development is kicking off that work with the release of the racial equity toolkit report that you got briefed on last meeting, and then a community engagement plan that you should see towards the end of the year, and a environmental impact statement scoping process that will be around the same timeline.

That will be sort of a holistic look at the plan, its goals and strategies, and reassessment of where we are in the light of new estimates of future growth for the next 20 years.

In between those major updates, the council provides an opportunity for members of the public and council members and city departments to propose minor changes to the plan to address smaller issues.

And those minor issues are collected into what's called the Comprehensive Plan Docket, a resolution of items that we ask the Office of Planning and Community Development, or in some cases, council staff, to review and report back on and propose smaller changes.

So examples of those minor changes include changing the arterial designation of a street or looking at a single policy related to a specific issue like litting of highways.

So this resolution would set the docket for those minor changes that could be considered next year.

It includes Some things that we expect the executive to report back on and other things that have been on the docket for a few years now, and we're still expecting reports back.

Some of those the executive has set are more appropriate for the.

next major update, but we don't want to lose those ideas.

And so we've included them in the resolution just to continue to ask in advance of that.

Thank you, Mr. Whitson.

And in addition to the proposals recommended for docketing we discussed at the last committee meeting, I worked with central staff to add language to the docket to study changes that should be made to the comprehensive plan to encourage and facilitate the litting of highways and restore and expand neighborhoods that have been disconnected by highway construction.

Whether this is at and around our favorite future 130th station in Pinehurst, or whether this is Reconnecting Capitol Hill, First Hill, and the downtown core, we have immense abilities to lid parts of our freeway systems to create open parks and more land for us to build upon.

Places such as Washington, DC, and Dallas have already engaged in this, building new buildings above our freeways.

Colleagues, are there any other comments, questions, or concerns before we vote on the docketing resolution?

I see Council Member Peterson, please take it away.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Some of the proposals that we're not adding were from one of my constituents.

And I just want to thank him for drafting those, sending those in, and hoping we can address some of his concerns in other ways that might not be through amending the comp plan.

But I did want to just acknowledge that one of my constituents had worked hard on a couple of proposals, which did not make it through.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Any other questions, comments, concerns?

Seeing none, I move to recommend passage of Resolution 32010. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Resolution 32010. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Juarez?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor and none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

And this resolution will be back before the full council on Monday, August 2nd.

Thank you to everyone.

And unless there are items for the good of the order, We will conclude this Wednesday, July 28th.

Oh, I see people saying goodbye, not calling for attention.

Okay, great.

So this concludes Wednesday, July 28th, 2021 meeting of the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee.

As a reminder, our next committee meeting will be on August 11th, starting at 9.30 a.m.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned and thank you Council Member Juarez.