Seattle City Council Land Use Committee Special Meeting - Public Hearing 11/30/22

Special meeting of the Land Use Committee will come to order.

It is 2 p.m.

I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Council Member Nelson?

Present.

Council Member Peterson?

Present.

Vice Chair Morales?

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda's here.

Thank you, Chair Goss.

Present.

I present.

Thank you.

We have four items on the agenda today, a briefing discussion and possible vote on appointment 02416, an appointment to the Equitable Development Initiative Board, a public hearing and briefing on Council Bill 120462, the 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, a briefing on Council Bill 120464, Design Review Exemption for Affordable Housing Projects up to 60% AMI, and a briefing and discussion on the comprehensive plan scoping report.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

And colleagues, as you know, it is my practice to have items before the committee twice before voting them out.

And so today will be the presentations.

Next week, we will have another special meeting of the Land Use Committee where we will vote the items out so that we can vote on everything on the December 13th full council meeting.

We also, this last fall, had an appointment for David Mooring to the Urban Forestry Commission.

That will be taken up at our next meeting.

At this time, we will begin the open hybrid public comment period for items on today's agenda.

As a reminder to public commenters, you must speak to an item on the agenda.

Clerk, will you please play the video?

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the City of Flowers and the City of Goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the Council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and used the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel Broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused.

or if the process impedes the Council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the City.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in Council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the Council.

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

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of, you have been unmuted.

Thank you, Seattle.

Thank you.

And so we, the public comment period is now open.

We will begin with the first speaker on the list.

We will do in-person followed by remote.

We do have a public hearing today.

And so if you are speaking to the public hearing, please make sure to, if we call on you during general public comment and you're here to speak about the public hearing, we will hold your name until the public hearing.

And if you'd like to sign up to speak, it's still open.

Okay, great.

Oh, good to see you.

We have four items on the agenda today.

Alex Zimmerman, you're first.

Welcome.

Remember, you have to speak to an item on the agenda and please do not be offensive.

Thank you very much.

My name is Alex Zimmerman.

I'm president of Stand Up America.

I want to speak about agenda number three, which is talking about review for affordable housing.

I'm sorry, where is my picture?

Is the camera not working?

What's going on?

Why don't I see my face?

Okay, maybe machine broken again.

Okay, so review for affordable housing.

I come to this place for how many, 20?

And I'm talking here from council, affordable housing, affordable housing, affordable housing, affordable housing, affordable housing, affordable housing.

I don't understand what this means.

My English is not enough.

I don't understand what this means, affordable housing.

Homeless die in every year right now.

You know what this mean?

In 10 of thousand people don't have place for living in Seattle right now.

All move out.

Price for last six year almost double for rent.

You know what this mean?

What this mean affordable housing?

I don't know what this mean.

This is go for 20 year and nothing happen.

Nothing will be happen for another 20 year because situation absolutely idiotic.

You have $8 billion budget.

Can country have $16 billion budget?

It's total almost $25 billion budget.

You cannot do nothing affordable housing.

I remember Seattle 35 years ago.

Everybody happy.

Everybody have affordable housing.

One-bedroom apartment, you can rent for $300.

Right now, one-bedroom apartment in Seattle, you can rent for $3,000.

It's not very big difference.

It's mean affordable housing.

when you have $3,000 per month for affordable house.

Stand up 750,000 democratic idiot and clean this dirty chamber in 23 totally together with affordable house.

Thank you.

Thank you, our next speakers will be Jesse Simpson, followed by Brady Nordstrom, and then Jared Axelrod.

Noting, I see Terry Galani has noted that they want to speak to either the public hearing or Council Bill 464, not sure which one, so might be worth checking in there.

Jesse Simpson, welcome, how are you today?

Hey, pretty good, thanks for having me.

I just think that the government relations and policy manager of the housing development for some and speaking in strong support of Council bill one 2 o 4, 6, 4, extending the current exemption from full design review for affordable housing which is set to expire at the end of the year.

They'll definitely need more affordable home.

I know the delays the housing our needs and cost affordable housing project we need to be doing everything we can to remove barriers to building new affordable home.

This legislation is a strong and necessary interim step to extend the successful emergency design review exemption for affordable housing while permanent program changes are considered and studied.

I urge the city to move forward with legislation in 2023 to permanently exempt affordable homes from all design review while full and administrative.

I also support broader reforms in 2023 to make all aspects of design review more efficient, predictable, and inclusive.

I believe it's possible to comprehensively reform and expedite design review without sacrificing quality design and inclusive community engagement.

I applaud the mayor's office, Council Member Strauss, and Council Member Mosqueda for leading this work to reform design review.

Thanks for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Jesse.

Up next is Brady Nordstrom, followed by Jared Axelrod, and then we'll briefly touch base with Terry.

Brady, welcome.

Greetings.

Hi, my name is Brady Nordstrom, and I am here speaking on behalf of Seattle for Everyone about Council Bill 12464. Seattle for Everyone is a broad housing coalition with members who interact directly and indirectly with Seattle's design review program.

First, we want to thank the committee members for your attention on design review, which we believe has a real impact on housing affordability, housing creation, and access.

We believe that Seattle's design review, as it currently functions, is broken and that now is the time to fix it.

So we strongly support this Council Bill 120464, which we really see as a chance to build on the success of some of these COVID-era design review exemptions for affordable housing, while permanent program changes are considered and studied.

So as we have seen, this exemption can reduce costs and expedite urgently needed affordable housing during this ongoing housing crisis that we're in.

And we also believe that this bill is another positive early step to fix design review more comprehensively, just like the recent online meetings bill, but that more will be needed to truly reform this program.

So for example, if design review is exempt with affordable housing, there's still many other projects that have to go through the process.

So we would urge council to consider broader, bolder and more impactful reforms in 2023, that can permanently and systematically make all aspects of design review more efficient, predictable, and inclusive.

And so we applaud City Council for establishing a work plan for permanent legislation.

I think the last thing I'll just note here is that we would urge you to find ways to expedite the timeline wherever possible, possibly moving the effective date from December 31st to excuse me, from December 31st to September 31st.

So we hope to work with you and others to find lasting changes to this interview.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Brady.

Up next is Jared Axelrod, followed by Alicia Ruiz and Kate Smith.

Jared, welcome.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Strauss, members of the committee.

My name is Jared Axelrod.

I'm here with Amazon.

I'm here with you virtually this afternoon to speak in support of item number three on your agenda related to design review exemption for low-income housing.

I'm actually going to keep my remarks today brief.

I'm going to reserve most of my comments for the public hearing on this legislation that's scheduled for December 8th.

But just wanted to say today that Amazon is very supportive of this item.

Building more housing is the most surefire way to address the affordable housing challenges we face as a community.

By exempting multifamily mixed-use projects developed for low-income households from the design review program, developers can create faster and less expensive housing for our neighbors.

Reducing bottlenecks in administrative processes creates a swifter, more efficient system to deliver new housing to the market.

So we're appreciative of Mayor Harrell for advancing this work and express thanks to Council Member Strauss for your leadership and direction on this topic on the council.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jared.

Up next is Alicia Ruiz, followed by Kate Smith.

Alicia, welcome.

Good afternoon.

Chair Strauss and members of the committee.

My name is Alicia Ruiz.

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

I'm here today in support of Council Bill 120464. Master Builders supports this bill that will exempt affordable housing from design review.

As we all know, the current design review program in its current form, unfortunately slows down a lot of development in that it adds a lot of time, thus a lot of money to projects that make projects less affordable.

And so it's important that we look at design review as a whole and make some necessary changes to streamline the program so that we can build affordable homes faster.

And so we are in, we are in support of this bill and hopefully we can extend these changes into other types of development.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alicia.

Up next is Kate Smith, and then we're going to briefly check in with Terri Galaney.

Kate, welcome.

Great, thank you.

Good afternoon.

Before we start your time, you also wanted to speak to the public hearing, is that correct?

No, just number three, please.

Okay, great.

Welcome.

Take it away.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Kate Smith.

I'm a principal at SMR Architects, and I am currently serving on the board of directors of the Housing Development Consortium.

I'd really like to thank the mayor, the mayor's office, yourself, Council Member Strauss, and Council Member Mosqueda for continuing to advocate for affordable housing and really leading the proposed reform 10120464 to eliminate this requirement of design review for affordable housing projects.

In my 16-year career focusing solely on the design and development of affordable housing, I've experienced the significant impacts of design review process on the schedule and the cost of affordable housing in Seattle.

The emergency legislation of 2020 removed barriers so for so many affordable housing projects over the past years.

And I really support this interim step to permanently exempt affordable housing from all design review requirements.

I see this as really the first step in reforming design review for all projects and recognizing the inequity and inefficiency of the current process.

So thank you.

Thank you, Kate.

We're going to check in with both Terry Galani and Steve Zemke, seeing as it looks like they both have 4, 6, 4, and the public hearing.

Can we bring up Terry and check in with Terry?

Hi, this is Terry Gowney.

I apologize.

I must have misregistered for also the general comment.

I am only here to comment on item number 3. Sorry for the confusion on that.

My name is Terry Galany.

We're going to restart your time and then so great.

Take it away.

Welcome, Terry.

Okay, thank you so much.

My name is Terry Galany.

I am the Development Director with the Seattle Housing Authority.

I am also a board member of the Housing Development Consortium.

And I am here to speak in support of the bill regarding a design review.

Sorry as I stumble through this a little bit, a little bit nervous.

Thank you for that.

The affordable housing crisis has only grown in recent years.

And while incomes have grown among the top earners in Seattle, rising tides don't always raise all boats, leaving many families without affordable housing.

Delivering housing much quicker with more efficient use and a more efficient use of scarce housing resources will be the result of implementing this exemption from design review.

This means we can deliver more housing and we can deliver that housing much quicker for families.

The Housing Authority has been fortunate enough to have more than 500 units across five separate projects benefit from the current exemption under the emergency legislation.

This exemption has resulted in several months a reduction in delivering these units and savings of over $2 million across these projects.

Just wanted to thank the Council for Councilor Strauss, Councilor Mosqueda and the Mayor's Office for their work on this.

This is much needed and will benefit the entire community.

Thanks so much.

Thank you Terry and your nerves didn't show you nailed it.

Well, I appreciate you coming before the committee today.

We're going to check in with Steve Zimkey briefly to see if Steve, are you doing general public comment or public hearing today?

Um, I basically will make a general public comment and just make a comment on number two quickly.

Um, I want to thank the, uh, you as the land use committee and the city council as a whole for passing in the budget, the, to the urban forester position.

I think this will help all of us to get a better handle on what's going on in the city and better coordinate moving forward.

So again, thank you council members for your support in that item in the budget.

I do wanna review, I'm speaking for Friends of Seattle's Urban Forest.

We strongly support increasing affordable housing in the city.

We do want to note that the design review provisions do not preclude the compliance with the tree ordinance provisions out there.

We want to make certain that the affordable housing sites that we do build on, that those are livable sites, that those do not create new urban heat island impact areas, but that we also include trees where we can in those designs to help for mental and physical health.

Then briefly want to comment on Item two, rather than going to the public hearing, just that we support the lid proposal over state and federal highways.

We need to look at more ways that we can use our existing lands.

We'd also urge the city to look at putting lids on parking lots and trees in parking lots.

That is one way, again, to address trees in the city and address open area areas.

Those lids could also include potential solar panels over parking lots, I know that's an additional item, but it's something to consider as you move forward.

Then I believe I heard you correct that you would be considering the appointment of David Mooring to be a member of the Urban Forestry Commission at your next meeting, and I strongly support that.

It's long overdue.

He's a well-qualified individual in urban planning.

Thank you.

Thank you, Steve.

Clerk, can you confirm there are no further public comment registrants at this time?

That's correct.

Thank you.

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

Item one, our first agenda item is the appointment to the Equitable Development Initiative Board.

Clerk, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Agenda item one, appointment 02416, appointment of John Rodriguez as a member of the equitable development initiative board for a term to February 28th, 2024 for briefing, discussion and possible vote.

All right, I gotta apologize to Patrice when she came in the room, I didn't recognize her because you're the second person that has come physically in person to committee.

Sit here down at the end.

Well I appreciate it.

We're very excited to have you here and I see both Juan and John as the name of the applicants.

I'll use whichever name you you all prefer.

So I just want to first say thank you Patrice Thomas from Office of Planning and Community Development.

Would you mind just starting us off with a brief overview of the Equitable Development Initiative Advisory Board and then we'll get into our applicant.

Sure.

Thank you for inviting me to sit down.

And it's nice to be in space with you all.

The last time I was actually at this table, we were sitting with the five demonstration projects that helped to spur the EDI initiative itself or the ED initiative itself.

I see Abisha in the room.

So I will briefly introduce the board or give some background for the board.

And then I will pass it to Abisha, our illustrious EDI policy strategist.

And she will introduce Juan.

So our advisory board provides guidance to the city on the implementation of the EDI to ensure that the program furthers the city's race and social justice initiative goals.

The board implements the accountability of the goals found in the equitable development implementation plan, develops funding criteria, and creates recommendations for the allocation of those funds.

The Equitable Development Initiative Advisory Board is representative of the communities and people that the city aspires to serve, and we are excited to introduce yet another potential member recommended for appointment today.

Abisha, I see your name.

I'm tagging you in, boo.

Hi, everyone.

Thank you so much for having me.

My name is Abhishek Sripra with the ADI team.

And I would like to just do a quick background and summary of our applicant today.

John Rodriguez is originally from the Dominican Republic.

His family moved to New York City when he was a teenager.

For the last five years, John has been living in Seattle and fell in love with the Emerald City.

He's a full-time LGBTQ plus community advocate and human rights activist.

He's been advocating for social equity and human rights for the last 15 years.

He has served as the human rights ambassador for the United Nations in the Caribbean.

And John is currently the founder and executive director of the Dominican Association of Washington State, an organization that promotes social justice and equity serving mainly BIPOC and underrepresented communities.

He has also served as executive director of various nonprofit organizations in different countries, as well as has a diverse professional background in business consulting and management, nonprofit development, communication, and marketing.

And for the last couple of years, John has been serving as the co-chair of the Seattle LGBTQ Commission.

And he was leading that as a co-chair from 2019 to 2020. And we believe he brings a wealth of experience and background to support the EDI advisory board.

So thank you so much, and I'd like to shift it over back to you.

Thank you, Abishek.

Anything else, Patricia?

Let's bring John in.

I just wanted to allow John or bring John into the space to share a little bit more about ourselves, anything that we have left out, and why you may be excited about participating on the board.

Well, thank you.

Again, John Rodriguez, he, him, and thank you, Abisha, for the introduction.

I am very excited for this nomination and the opportunity to serve, and especially the Office of Planning and Community Development.

City of Seattle.

And once I heard about the Equitable Development Initiative, I fell in love with this initiative because I see that this is a great tool to break barriers and promote and build equitable development and social justice.

in our city.

This is, I'm a passionate advocate for social justice and I believe that me representing many intersectionalities but especially Afro Latinx can identify and express the segment of our community that is underrepresented within an underrepresented segment already.

So I'm very honored to be here in this nomination and willing to serve as a passionate advocate.

Thank you.

Thank you, John.

I just wish the weather was as good here as it is in your background.

Vice Chair Morales, I know that the Equitable Development Initiative was in your committee under the last biennium.

Is there anything that you'd like to share about the Equitable Development Initiative or questions for John?

I've got one or two questions.

I'll follow you though.

Sure.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Welcome, Juan.

Nice to see you.

Thank you so much for your interest in serving.

You know, I will just say that Patrice and I started working on EDI before either of us were in the positions that we're in right now.

It's very exciting to see that the program is not only being implemented, but it's being really impactful, particularly in our communities of color, among our immigrant and refugee communities who now have access to capital to build the kind of community-led projects that they need to be able to serve their constituencies.

The EDI board plays a really important role in, you know, kind of overseeing the process for identifying projects oversees the, the community engagement process as well to make sure that the folks who, who have been sort of furthest from this sort of economic access and opportunity.

get the chance to take advantage of the resources and take advantage of all that the division and the Office of Planning and Community Development can offer in terms of technical assistance to get these projects done.

So it's an important role that you're stepping into here and I really appreciate your willingness to serve in this capacity and look forward to working with you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

John I see we've got a council member Nelson, who will follow me in just a moment I just reading your resume and appointment packet, I am incredibly impressed and honored to have you as part of this initiative board.

I see a numerous.

places of being an executive director, being a facilitator, and having lived in both the Dominican Republic, New York City, and now here for many years.

What can you share with us about the need for leadership facilitation in a time of divisiveness in our country?

And what do you think Seattle needs to focus on most in this role?

Okay.

Well, that's something that I always think of and, you know, as a major problem, one of the many problems that we face here in Seattle where, you know, that replicates to the nation as well.

But social injustice is the main and, you know, and division and class, social divisions and lack of opportunities.

is the main problem.

We've faced a structural and institutionalized racism for more than 400 years, and still struggle with this.

Whether it's implicitly or whether it's explicitly, we do face this, and especially us, people of color.

As a community leader, we are challenged and also committed to represent our communities, breaking, like I said, those barriers.

And one of those is that lack of opportunities, division, segregation, and, you know, real plans initiatives like this one and many other that we can use here in Seattle to, let's say, make Seattle a light, a beam, an example, a role model to other cities nationwide.

And it's a challenge, but I think it's possible.

We all come together and fight for all these inequities that every day we face and fight.

I appreciate you.

Councilmember Nelson.

Thank you very much.

I read your resume and what caught my eye that you haven't touched on yet is that you taught a course at the Berkley College of music called intro to the music business.

I'm chair of economic development.

That picked up my interest because it seems like there is an an untaken advantage of intersection between music and everything that it seems as though we're trying to do with the equitable development initiative because there's a way for broadening our, I don't know, our music community.

And I just offline at some point, would love to talk to you about how I can take some of your learnings or teachings.

You know, because I also, you know, the music commission is in my bailiwick.

And so what can we do to help our artists in the broader community is what I'm really trying to say.

So.

For the last two years, I've been personally involved with the artistic community here in King County, let's say, and I'm also a music promoter and I'm an artist manager as well.

So, but I, when, as Dominican, you know, coming from this island with a rich culture that is influenced in the whole world right now.

We use music, art as a tool to change and be a change maker and break barriers.

Culture has a powerful force that can be a change maker as well.

But here, our local artistic and music industry needs a lot of that.

So we can somehow um kind of bring and build bridges within this also small community um strengthen and support it so that we can also see changes happening you know because a lot of a lot of these folks especially those um people of color that are in the music or um or want to be in the music industry with a lot of mentoring, I need a lot of support.

I've been involved with Columbia City with a couple of projects that they want to revive and they want to establish.

And I'm personally like involved with them, trying to help them.

Thank you.

That's amazing.

John, we are lucky to have you in our city.

We are lucky to have you involved in this board.

We are just very lucky here.

Colleagues, are there any other questions at this time?

Patrice or Abhishek, anything else?

Wonderful.

Well, we'll round this out.

John, just anything else?

Just doing the last check?

No, thank you.

All right.

With that, we already asked for other questions.

Are there any final comments before we move on to a roll call vote?

Seeing none, I move to recommend confirmation of appointment 02416. Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend confirmation of appointment 02416. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

Appointment 02416 passes.

Thank you, Patrice, Abisa, and John.

It is so amazing to see you, Patrice.

Oh, thank you for coming down.

And thank you, John, for your willingness to serve on this advisory board.

This appointment and the committee's recommendation will be sent to the full council for a final vote on December 13th, not next Tuesday, December 13th.

And John, you don't need to attend the meeting if you don't want to, and I hope we get some of that good weather soon.

With that, our next item is a public hearing and briefing on Council Bill 120462, which will adopt OPCD's recommended 2022 comprehensive plan amendments.

Clerk, will you please read the short title into the record?

Item 2, Council Bill 120462, an ordinance to amend the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2022 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process for public hearing and briefing.

Thank you.

We are joined by Jim Holmes from OPCD and Lish Whitson from Council Central staff for this discussion, who is sharing screen.

We can also see the next slide.

It's A-OK.

Just want you to be aware of what we're seeing.

Jim.

Yeah, there you go, Jim, take it away.

All right.

So this is this proposal is to adopt one of the docketed annual amendments from twenty twenty two to support lives of our highways to reconnect neighborhoods and create opportunities for affordable housing and open space.

There were a number of proposals that were docketed that we did not analyze for various reasons.

One amendment was to remove the arterial classification from Florentia and West Florentia Street on Queen Anne.

That was inappropriate for the annual amendment process, but SDOT is evaluating that as part of the work on the Seattle Transportation Plan.

There was a docket item about exploring an urban village designation at 130th and I-5 site of a future sound transit station.

And that is being considered as part of the major update to the 2020, 2024 major update to the comprehensive plan.

Fossil fuel facilities and public health also is being deferred to the major update.

And the same with evaluating the appropriateness of the urban village designation for South Park.

And the final amendment that was docketed that we did not analyze was amendments to support transportation impact fees.

And that is a council initiative that would be up to the council to move forward.

And then finally, we are deferring the industrial maritime strategy amendments, which we had hoped to bring to you this year.

We will have that to council late Q1, early Q2 of 2023. So the proposal to amend the comprehensive plan to express the city's support for lids over highways amends two existing policies.

Growth strategy policy 313 has been expanded from encouraging opportunities to reconnect the street grid to knit together neighborhoods, to also support lids and other connections over highways that separate neighborhoods, especially when there's opportunities for affordable housing, open space, or pedestrian and bike connections to transit stations.

And then in the transportation element, Transportation Policy 312, the existing amendment encourages looking for opportunities to reestablish connections across I-5.

We are proposing to expand that to include all state highways and expand the range of potential benefits to include affordable housing and neighborhood cohesion.

And that is the proposal.

Thank you, Jim.

Lish, anything you'd like to add?

Just to mention that the council first asked OPCD to look at this issue as part of the 2021 comprehensive plan docketing process.

So it's been on their plate for just over a year as one of many items that council has asked them to look at.

Thank you.

I know for many colleagues, waiting for the major update for some of these items was not ideal as well as you know I support Councilmember Lewis and his request for Florentia being redesignated away from an arterial, so that we are able to take traffic calming measures that are common sense, quite frankly on that road.

And I think, colleagues, you all know my wholehearted support for LIDS over state or federal highways.

We have seen from Washington, D.C.

to Texas to across the country the ability to create more public space, more office space, more housing, reconnecting neighborhoods.

When the highways and freeways were put in, they oftentimes separated and segregated lower income communities, communities of color.

We see that with Chinatown International District.

And there's some really amazing opportunities for us to reconnect these neighborhoods.

Imagine, if you will, Capitol Hill connecting to South Lake Union or Roosevelt Way, which starts at 145th and Aurora, to actually be able to travel the entire roadway.

Right now it's cut off by I-5.

Think, if you will, the amount of housing that we could put over I-5, increased park space near the 130th Street Station.

And there's just so many other places that this can occur.

So I have incredible amount of support for living of our freeways and highways.

Colleagues, are there any other comments, questions, or statements to make regarding this bill before we open the public hearing?

Seeing none, at this time we will open the public hearing period for Council Bill 120462, the 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

Clerk, will you please play the video?

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the City of Flowers and the City of Goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the Council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and used the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted, and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel Broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused or if the process impedes the council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the city.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in Council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the Council.

The public comment period is now open.

and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of, you have been unmuted.

Thank you, Seattle.

Thank you.

We have two people signed up.

Elliott muting, who is not present.

Elliott, if you're listening, please do check your email, call into the number presented in the email, not the council listen line.

And Liz Dunn, we will start with Liz as you are the only one present.

Okay, thank you.

Can you hear me?

And officially, the public hearing on Council Bill 120462 is now open, and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Welcome, Liz.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, great.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Liz Dunn, and I just wanted to call in and lend my strong support for the proposed amendments to Growth Strategy Policy 3.13 and Transportation Policy 3.12 that anticipate litting portions of the freeways that cut through Seattle.

As some of you know I'm a property owner and a longtime resident on Capitol Hill and I mean I do have a longtime vested interest in this issue.

I volunteer on the advisory committee for the LIT I-5 nonprofit citizen group which which many of you are probably aware of and I was actually involved in previous groups over the many years that people have been trying to tackle the issues created by the freeways.

And I guess I think of myself as one of the majority of Seattleites over the generations since I-5 was built that did not want I-5 to cut through our city in the first place and who polling shows support litting over it to mitigate those impacts.

The LID feasibility study that was completed by OPCD a couple of years ago is an excellent document and I encourage everybody to read at least the executive summary pieces of it.

It did an excellent job of estimating costs and exploring different development scenarios and outlining some concrete next steps that would move us toward a master plan for where we would LID and what we would build on those LIDs.

The study made pretty clear that the benefits that would accrue over time to both the public and private sectors are pretty enormous and hard to calculate.

And it's just essential, as someone said, it could transform the geography of our city to knit these neighborhoods together, but it's essential that we create a mechanism.

Thank you, Liz.

And if you would like to share more comments, please do write in.

We'd love to listen to hear what we're reading what you were ending up there saying Elliot muting I it or clerk Can you confirm Elliot muting is not present at this time.

There are no further public hearing registrants.

Thank you.

At this time I do not have.

Let me go up here.

At this time.

Say again.

You were signed up.

I did not see that on the registration.

Alex Zimmerman, you're, I don't need to argue, Alex, I don't need to argue with you.

You are more than welcome to take the podium and please do not zig hail.

My family had to leave Germany because of the Nazis and I don't wanna see it here.

It's very offensive.

It's incredibly offensive.

I don't even think you understand the impact that you have on me.

If you are signed up, you've got two minutes.

Go.

Thank you very much.

I've asked you to my lovely concept.

Now we're going to start over.

I don't want, I don't want to see the Zika in my face.

Why are you talking about?

Just don't do it.

Okay.

Okay.

I will do it like mosquito recommend me.

Yeah.

Hello.

Hello.

Hello.

My lovely constant is good.

You can start the time.

I want to speak about zoning.

It's very interesting to speak about zoning because I hear about zoning many, many years.

You know what I mean?

The problem is we have one zoning in this zoning named Amazon.

So when we fix this problem with Amazon zoning, you know what I mean?

For example, confiscate everything that Amazon built for the last 10 years.

We have probably fixed all the problems.

This is exactly what's happened.

And I don't understand why you interrupt me all the time, because there's a freedom of speech in America.

You know what I mean?

For example, you never show my face because I think I'm a Jew, and I'm German too.

It's not a point.

But you always show black faces.

I speak right now here.

I don't understand where is problem.

But again, back to zoning.

All problem what we have right now with zoning in the department and everything what we have in the city is Amazon.

Nobody stop in Amazon, no one council for last 10 year talking about stopping Amazon periodically.

I speak right now about stopping Amazon in Bellevue is exactly in every Monday because Amazon is a monster, a killing machine, a dinosaur.

When we not stop in Amazon, Seattle never will become to normal city.

Never.

Not today, not tomorrow, not another 20 or 30 or 50 years, because Amazon jump prices like crazy.

We have right now rent.

double for the last six years.

Salary in Seattle right now jumped for the last six years approximately for $65,000 plus, $220,000.

Amazon guilty of everything.

You're talking about zoning.

Zoning cannot be changed and never will be changed, nothing, before we're not stopping Amazon.

This is exactly what they're talking about.

Even you Germans, and I'm German, you know what I mean, but I'm Jewish, not Jew.

So where is the problem right now?

They're talking about freedom of speech.

Thank you.

Goodbye.

That was our last speaker remotely and physically present to speak at this public hearing.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120462 is now closed.

Thank you, Liz, for providing comment today, and thank you, OPCD and LISH for your work on this bill.

This item will be back before the Land Use Committee on December 8th for a final vote.

Our next item is a briefing on Council Bill 120464, which will extend interim regulations for affordable housing projects.

Clerk, will you please read the short title into the record?

Item 3, Council Bill 120464, an ordinance adopting temporary regulations to exempt affordable housing projects for up to 60% AMI from design review for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

We have Mike Pedowski from Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection and Ketel Freeman from Council Central staff present for this discussion.

Mike and Ketel, who'd like to go first?

Please take it away.

I'll just say a few words here and then turn it over to Mike who has a presentation.

This is an initial briefing on Council Bill 120464. As the chair indicated, the bill would exempt multifamily and mixed-use projects developed for low-income households from the design degree program for up to a year.

This extends some interim controls that were initially put in place to address the pandemic civil emergency.

For those who are following along at home, I just want to call out an error of mine that is in the memo that is posted to the agenda.

The error is that I indicate that an authority for the STCI director to grant waivers is new.

That's actually in the current interim proposals would be extended as well.

Procedural next steps.

This bill will be the subject of a public hearing on December 8th and a potential recommendation to the full council for a vote on the 13th.

So, unless customers have any questions about process I'll turn it over to Mike to describe the concepts.

Yeah, there's short slide deck dish share.

We can see it, Mike.

Yeah, it's working for us.

There we go.

All right, here's a little background.

As some of the people commented upon during the first part of the meeting today and also Ketel's background, the bill before you today would extend some provisions that were put in place by two ordinances that were adopted as part of the COVID emergency ordinance 126072. and 126188 did include the provisions that we're proposing to be extended today.

They do focus on assisting with the productivity of low-income housing projects and mixed-use projects that contain low-income housing, as Kato mentioned, by providing an exemption from design review while also allowing the SDCI director to waive or modify development standards that could help facilitate them moving forward.

The COVID emergency is set to expire, which triggers the expiration of these, these two ordinances, which would occur at the end of December of this year.

And so in light of the continuing homelessness emergency.

That's the rationale for extending these provisions until such time as we can complete some analysis according to a schedule that's called for in this bill so that we could recommend some permanent provisions for your consideration.

So the proposal in short is aimed at facilitating the construction of low-income housing by expediting the permit process and relieving these projects of some of the costs associated with going through the design review program.

So the bill 120464 would again extend exemptions for qualifying projects and a slide coming up here I'll get into what that is.

It would be in place for a period of 12 months without this legislation, you know, the ability for these projects to benefit both from the exemption and the SDCI director's ability to modify standards that would expire, and we don't want to allow that to happen.

The comprehensive goals that I'm highlighting on this slide do support this proposal and underlie the reasons for your adopting it.

In particular, the policy at the bottom does recognize the correlation or the connection, excuse me, between homelessness and providing housing, particularly the type of housing that this bill would apply to that includes supportive services, along with the housing, and that is why this type of housing can also help address our homelessness needs.

housing that would be eligible for the exemption and the flexibility from the SDCI director would substantially consist of units serving households that are below 60% of the average medium income in King County, and that type of housing, again, does often come with the support and services that allow people who are formerly homeless and others to be housed and succeed in being housed into the future.

And we have worked with the city's office of housing to identify projects that could benefit from adopting this ordinance.

There are approximately four to six projects that have made themselves known to us with approximately 450 to 475 housing units that would benefit.

And with that, I would thank you for your attention and see if there are any questions.

Thank you, Mike.

I know that some of my colleagues will have questions and comments.

I'll start us off with just sharing that the link between affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, shelter, and homelessness is all directly interlinked.

There was a UW professor, Greg, Dr. Colburn, earlier this year, along with, I'm looking for his partner's name, Clayton Aldrin, who wrote a book studying the interconnection between housing and homelessness.

One of their conclusions was, the question is posed, does affordable housing solve homelessness completely?

The answer is no.

Does it reduce it fivefold as compared from Chicago to Seattle?

The answer is yes.

When we are able to reduce homelessness fivefold, the crisis is not an emergency anymore.

It becomes manageable.

We also have a subset of the population that has specific needs, whereas right now we have a complete range of needs of people who are living on the street.

I'll just quote from the UW article here.

As Colburn said, we know that there are individual factors that increase the risk of homelessness for individuals, maybe poverty, health issues, or substance use, but those factors alone don't explain the huge problem we have in Seattle, San Francisco, or Los Angeles.

If we continue to blame individuals for particular outcomes, we're going to miss the fundamental driver of this crisis, the housing market dynamics.

We have gross undersupply of housing at all levels and certainly of affordable housing.

Failure to address that gap will guarantee that we will continue to struggle with this crisis in perpetuity.

It goes on to say there are the big eight cities for homelessness in the United States, Boston, New York, DC, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego.

Each of these cities have really high rents and very low vacancies.

While there are people with vulnerabilities in every community around the country, the consequences of the vulnerabilities are far more severe in a place where housing costs are expensive and vacancies are low.

For example, the margin for error in Seattle is very thin.

If you get kicked out of your apartment, or get into a fight with your roommate or lose your job, there is no place to move to.

If there are, it might cost $2,000 a month.

Just sharing from one direction, the other direction is in the work that I've been able to partner with Mayor Harrell's team on addressing homelessness in places like Woodland Park.

What we found were that people wanted to have non-congregate shelter options.

People who are in non congregate shelters.

Now, don't have a place to move into unless permanent supportive housing or affordable housing opens up because we are have such a gross under supply in our market.

When we are able to create more affordable housing, we are able to graduate people out of non-congregate or congregate shelter into a permanent place for them to live.

Some people need more supports, and that's where permanent supportive housing comes in.

And many people are able to live on their own in simply affordable housing, 60% AMI or below.

And if we want to help the person on the street today, that means we need a shelter bed open.

If we want somebody in a shelter bed that is in a shelter bed today, we need a place for them to graduate to.

One example is with the current supply, a tiny home may serve one to two people per year.

If we are able to increase our supply of affordable housing and permanent supportive housing, that same shelter bed could serve three, four or more people.

This is how we get people off the street and into a permanent place to live.

When we address the housing affordability.

crisis more manageable.

The COVID-19 emergency legislation reduced costs and sped affordable housing production.

The bill before us keeps these common sense practices in place and we will continue working on design review to improve the program as we must streamline bureaucratic functions that slow our ability to bring affordable housing online quickly and give community members and developers and architects the tools that they need to make the building specific for our community.

I am proud to have worked with Mayor Harrell and Council Member Mosqueda on this legislation.

Before I turn it over to colleagues, I will turn it over.

Council Member Mosqueda, if you'd like to share any words now or if you'd like to share your comments for our next committee meeting, either is welcome.

I'll hold my comments until after other folks comment here.

Thank you, Councilmember Muscata.

Colleagues, are there any questions right now for either OPCD or CETL?

Councilmember Nelson.

Thank you very much, Chair.

So I'm on the record with my support of making it less expensive and easier to build housing, especially affordable housing.

So I am excited about this legislation and we heard the master builders and Liz and and our affordable housing community all speak in favor.

So I'm just wondering, will this apply to most affordable housing projects that have units that are affordable at or under 60% AMI?

or another way of putting that is, what might be excluded?

Because I would want it to be pretty broad.

And I only ask because the SDCI memo says for certain affordable housing projects, and then the legislation itself says projects substantially consisting of units serving households at or below a, no, that's explaining the above.

No, the legislation says particular population designed to be served.

It's clear that we're, we're, we're mentioning by name permanent supportive housing, but how broad could this be.

I mean, could it cover market.

I mean private development with this, taking advantage of the MFT program for example, the answer is no.

Conceptually does cover permanent supportive housing for those permanent supportive housing projects that might choose to opt into design review, but those projects are already exempt from design review and have a separate permit process outside of 2341 which is the design of your chapter to be eligible for this exemption a project would have to meet the criteria and the code which is at least 40% of the units.

Occupied by household earning no greater than 60% of median income.

There also has to be some city subsidy and a regulatory agreement so this would not this would cover those types of rental housing projects that the city funds, it would not cover ownership projects that the city funds.

Thank you.

Anything further customer Nelson.

Nope.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, and thanks for that question.

That was one of my questions.

So 40% of the units need to be at 60% of AMI or less.

I appreciate that focus on real low-income housing such as that.

I know we share a goal in trying to produce more low-income housing faster in our city.

I'd also like to see the affordable housing portfolio subsidized by our Office of Housing reduce their their vacancy rate, so they serve more people experiencing homelessness right now.

I think my technical question is for central staff.

I've got two questions left.

So regarding the memo.

If this is this was originally done through a covid pandemic related civil emergency, and since that's been declared over by City Hall, through the mayor letting that expire.

Are we able to extend this under that same authority if that emergency is gone or do we need to structure it differently?

Mr. Freeman, I'll take it from here.

Councilmember Peterson, this bill relies on the homelessness state of emergency that was declared many years ago.

What we found during the COVID-19 pandemic was that these exemptions provided us an avenue of getting people off the streets and into housing faster by reducing costs and increasing speed of development.

of affordable housing that was needed to bring people out of shelter, allowing for more people to come off the streets into shelter and thus graduate into permanent supportive or affordable housing.

And so this is the next iteration we are using.

And Mr. Freeman, please do correct me if I'm wrong with any of this.

We are using the homelessness state of emergency to be able to move people off the streets and into permanent and affordable housing faster.

Mr. Freeman, please do correct me if any of that was not correct.

And I'll just, I'll add that there is a section one of the bill contains some findings of fact, and those findings of fact are important for the council to find that there is a SEPA emergency that allows the council to consider this bill without a State Environmental Policy Act threshold determination first being made.

And those findings of fact do point back to the homeless state of emergency from 2015 and builds on some additional findings that the council relied on during COVID as well.

Thank you.

Chair, one more question.

So I believe there was a statement of legislative intent last year seeking a racial equity toolkit for the design review program and it was due back in June.

I'm just wondering what the timing is of that and whether that's, we'll be getting that before we take final action on this bill.

Thank you Councilmember Peterson.

Mike, if you want to share any comments after my comments on this.

We gave additional time for the time needed to spend on RSJI aspects of that statement of legislative intent.

The technical due date is now in March.

I have made multiple requests to bring it forward sooner in January.

I don't believe that those will be before us before we take final act.

The final report will not be before us before we take final action on this bill.

It is my understanding that while connected, these are separated because this is addressing the crisis before us, the crisis of the homelessness emergency that is on our streets and in our communities.

And so we will follow up on that report and take a deeper understanding of design review and the changes that need to be made.

And at this time, we need to move forward with this bill.

Mike, if you want to share any more information about the state, I know you and I have gone back and forth about how quickly we can get this report out.

We did work with the Office of Civil Rights and an equity analysis consultant, and we might have some preliminary information that we could bring forward sooner than the March deadline that you granted for us in order to allow us to convene the stakeholder group that's called for in that slide to help us with the overall recommendations related to racial equity.

that can't be ready in time for the vote needed to extend the benefits that would be afforded by adoption of this ordinance, but we're hoping earlier in the year that we could bring you some preliminary information about that part of the slide.

Thank you, Mike.

Council Member Peterson, anything further?

No, thanks, Chair.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Morales.

Thank you.

I central staff address some of the questions that I have already you.

It's never your son.

I just want to make sure I understand a couple of things in it you already covered this I apologize.

That's my understanding is that this does allow the director stci director to waive design standards.

not necessarily affect a requirement to go through SEPA review.

Is that correct?

Yeah, so this actually relates back to the omnibus bill, which I'm sure the Land Use Committee remembers from back in September.

As you recall, the omnibus bill incorporated some changes to the city's SEPA ordinances that came from state law.

I think it was House Bill 5818. And that that state law now now the city law as well, says that if a project has been through design review, then it can be inoculated from SIPA appeals based on aesthetics light and glare and things like that.

Projects that do elect to go through design review have that inoculation from CEPA review.

I think I point this out of the memo, but if somebody opts out of design review, if an affordable housing developer opts out of design review, they don't have that CEPA protection anymore.

So that may be a factor in decision making for some developers about whether or not to opt out.

Okay, then one more question, Chair.

I think you had mentioned somewhere in your presentation already how many projects we know might benefit from this.

Are there any existing projects that would be impacted if we don't do something like this?

We don't believe that there are existing projects.

The four to six that I mentioned have identified themselves to the Office of Housing as being interested in doing it, and they're on the cusp of making a permit application.

And so they would make their election, as as Cato mentioned, in order to qualify under this new ordinance, should you see fit to adopt it.

There have been 19 projects with some 2400 units that have availed themselves of the two previous ordinances.

And, you know, it's been good for them, as the commenters mentioned to you at the opening of this meeting, and we're anticipating some additional people interested in using this.

Great, thank you.

I might have another question or two, but I'll cede the floor for now.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

And this bill will be back before us at our December 8th committee meeting, just for everyone's awareness, because we will be having a public hearing on the same day, I hope, to vote this bill out of committee.

We will need to suspend the rules in order to have the public hearing and vote on the same day.

So please do let me know if you have any concerns with this prior to the December 8th meeting.

and everyone has the opportunity.

The reason that I always have two bills before us twice is so that you have opportunities to connect with central staff and the departments in between the meetings.

At this time, colleagues, are there any further questions?

Council Member Mosqueda, thank you for all your work on this.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

All right, well thanks I really appreciate being able to be a co sponsor with you and partnership with the mayor's office on this legislation that's been a long time coming.

For the first few comments that were made at the beginning of this discussion about how we can do a better job with moving faster.

remove barriers and ensure that more affordable housing gets built.

Well, the council members who voted against the budget missed an opportunity to actually show their support for doing that.

In the budget, there was extra employees that we added through SDCI and FIRE.

These positions will help expedite permits and ensure that we can create more affordable housing and build faster for those who are deeply in need of affordable housing and also housing for workers and entrepreneurs across our city.

I really appreciate that this legislation has been brought forward, I appreciate being able to be a co-sponsor with you, Council Member Strauss, and in partnership with the Mayor's Office yet again.

I think that this legislation shows that every single chance we get to remove barriers, we ought to be able to do so, and do so especially for affordable housing, as those who are on the lowest and middle to low income spectrum are the fastest in terms of losing availability of affordable housing.

We need to do this within our city's code as well as expedite funding for building affordable housing, which yet again, we did in the budget just yesterday.

As has been proven during the course of this pandemic, we can unburden projects that create even more homes and we can unburden them from the lengthy and expensive design process.

And those products, development, produce high quality housing that complements and serves our community.

I've had the chance to go out and see some of these projects in the last year, and it really is an impressive way to build community.

This legislation allows us to build on the success of the COVID-19 design review exemption for affordable housing and continue the work of putting permanent in place to support creating diverse housing faster that was so definitely needed across the city.

I want to thank Aaron House as well as the team within your office Councilman Strauss, as well as the mayor's office for the joint effort on this and I do look forward as those who testified in public comment today, I look forward to building on this approach going forward for more affordable housing and more housing at all times across our city.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you Councilmember Mosqueda.

Vice Chair Morales, I see your hand

Yeah, thank you.

I.

I just want to say, first of all, I'm excited about supporting this.

I'm always excited to support legislation that promote more affordability and really offers opportunity for more mix of incomes and uses and amenities.

I'm sure I've said before that land use policy is a really important tool for building a city that fosters that kind of social well-being.

And as we will have these conversations over the next year, really provide well connected well resourced neighborhoods that can accommodate people of all incomes.

That note, I think now is as good a time as any to share that my office along with the Seattle within reach coalition has been working on connected community bonus pilot that we're calling an affordability partnership.

And we've been working along similar lines here since January.

I think it'll complement this legislation.

And we will be talking a little bit more about that over the next several months.

But the basic idea under the bonus pilot is that developers would have the opportunity to benefit from certain advantages.

including a design review exemption in exchange for production of on-site affordable homes.

I shared previous legislation or drafts of the legislation with the chair this spring and with the mayor's office and OPCD this summer.

And as I said, I think it'll be complimentary and hope to have the support and really be able to work with the executive as well as with the rest of this committee to move that legislation forward.

But just wanted to make a note that similar conversations have been happening and we will continue to work to make sure that we have as much affordability as possible in the city.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any other questions or comments at this time?

This will be back before us on December 8th and we will need to suspend the rules on that day.

After seeing no further comments, thank you, Mike, SDCI, Mayor's Office, Mayor Harrell, Marco, Aaron House, Naomi Lewis, I think even Noah On touched this one.

So appreciate everyone's work on this.

Thank you, Ketel as well.

Our final item on the agenda today is a briefing and discussion on information item 2199, which is a scoping report for the comprehensive plan.

Clerk, will you please read the short title into the record?

Item 4, information item 2199, a briefing and discussion on the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan update environmental impact statements.

Scoping report for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

We are joined by Brennan Staley and Michael Hubner from OPCD and Lish Whitson from Council Central staff.

Gentlemen, I don't know who's going to go first.

Please feel free to take it away.

If I can provide just a couple of comments and on background.

This is one of many briefings the committee has received and will receive on the next major update to the city's comprehensive plan.

You heard a initial briefing on the scope.

of the EIS this past summer.

And this is a briefing on the final scope of the EIS for the comp plan update.

In response to council direction regard that was included in proviso on the 2022 OPCD budget and two resolutions the council has adopted one on climate change and resiliency and the other, the annual comp plan docketing amendments, which you saw a list of the many items that have been folded into the major update process.

And with that, I'll hand it over to OPCD.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Lish, council members.

Brennan, I think you're sharing our slide deck, correct?

Yep, here it comes.

Fantastic.

Why don't you go ahead to slide two?

And we're not seeing the full slide here.

We can see the next slide, Payne.

If you want to address that, I'll start talking.

For the record, I'm Michael Hubner.

I'm the long-range planning manager in the Office of Planning and Community Development, and I'm the project lead for the Comprehensive Plan update.

Thank you, Lish, for teeing us up as to where we are in the process with respect to the EIS.

We're here to report back to the Council community on that topic today.

I just want to ground us at a super high level with a couple of slides on the update itself.

The comprehensive plan is a living document that the city updates about once a decade pursuant to the State Growth Management Act.

And it is a vision and a roadmap for growth over the next 20 years plus the next several decades during which we expect the city to continue to experience substantial growth.

And this is an opportunity for us to take stock of where we are at as a city and to chart a new or revised path going forward.

based on those projections and our core values, which include race and social equity, community, environmental stewardship, and economic opportunity and security.

Next slide, please.

And just for your awareness, we can see your notes in the next slide.

Okay, let's see.

Does that work better?

There we are.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

And then we are very cognizant in taking up this update which is a long process.

Opting a comprehensive plan is a major undertaking.

We began this work last spring.

We undertook scoping for the EIS this past summer, and we're working toward adoption of this plan in 2024. The executive will be transmitting a final plan and a final EIS in spring of 2024, and then That's something that council will be taking up and considering at that time.

Along the way toward that work, now we are drafting the plan and undertaking the environmental review.

And in doing all that work, working toward creating a more equitable, livable and sustainable city, addressing a multiplicity of challenges that the city faces from racial inequities, past and current, displacement, housing costs, climate change and resilience, the investment needs of our communities, and recovery, both short, medium, and long-term from the disruptions of the global pandemic.

So I'm going to turn to Brennan, who is our lead for the environmental impact statement, our CIPRA process, and also the growth strategy development.

Next slide, please, Brennan.

We wrapped up the public comment this last summer.

And as I was last here at the committee to describe concepts that we had introduced to the public, and what we're reporting back to you today is what we heard from the public during the comment period, how we adjusted our proposal based on those comments to describe the EIS and provide a more detailed set of alternatives that are described.

And we are now beginning the draft analysis Brendan, take it away.

Great.

Thank you, Michael.

So just as a little bit of background, obviously, as part of the comprehensive plan update, we are required to conduct an environmental impact statement, which simply is a document for decision makers and the public that identifies the potential impacts of different scenarios and a final proposal so that we have information to make decisions with.

As part of that process, we're always required to do what we call a scoping period.

where we put forward what we think our general approach is, what the alternatives we're proposing would be, and then allows the public to comment on those.

And so that completed in August.

And so we have now completed the scoping period.

During that, we received over 1,000 comments, including letters representing 36 organizations, including a wide variety of labor, environment, business, development, advocacy, and neighborhood groups.

And so the scoping report which you put out a couple weeks ago.

It really is a summary of what we heard the process we went through and then how we are proposing to move forward, based on that, you know what the updated alternatives are what are updated approach the is is.

And so that's what we're here to talk with you about.

So the scoping report has a very high level summary of what you heard.

We actually have a detailed comment summary, which has a much greater, including a lot of analysis about the keywords and the number of times people talked about the preference for different alternatives, etc.

And we also have dependencies that actually have the raw comments as well, if people want to look at those.

But the highest level, I think the most notable thing is that we heard lots of comments that were supporting increasing the supply, diversity and affordability of housing.

That was really a kind of resounding theme that we need a lot more housing to address the critical issues we have around affordability today.

We also heard many people suggesting that as we do this, we should think especially of focusing development near transit, shops and services and other amenities like parks.

One of the most notable kind of specific changes that we heard is there were a lot of requests to add what people called a sixth alternative.

And people, there wasn't any one thing that that sixth alternative meant to everybody, but in general, it was a stand in for something that was even more aggressive than what we're considering and included things like increasing high rise zoning in existing urban centers and villages, allowing apartments in more areas of the city, and allowing things like townhouses, small apartments across all existing neighborhood residential areas.

Another key thing we heard is there was a lot of desire to look at how we can allow more space for commercial and other non-residential uses across Seattle, including in areas that are currently zoned neighborhood residential.

And then, of course, there's a lot of comments just about the desired investments and amenities that we want, like parks, green streets, biking and walking infrastructure, and trees.

And I see there's a question or hand raised.

Yeah, Council Member Mosqueda, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

Okay.

Thanks so much for bringing up the comments that you heard from community about the desire for additional options to be considered.

Most comments, as I understand it, are absolutely interested in increased supply and diversity of housing, increased availability of affordable housing, and really want to underscore that many of the folks that we have heard from, in addition to what you've heard, are asking for additional opportunities for there to be apartment buildings in neighborhood residential zones.

So I'm wondering what The height limit is currently a 30 foot height limit in a neighborhood residential zone is being contemplated right, but what would it mean to be able to build additional heights in those neighborhoods to accommodate what the significant call from community members lives.

Thank you.

Yeah, so I think some of this we can loop back to a way to show the alternatives, but at a high level, there's one alternative that we call broad that would study a 30 foot height limit across all neighborhood residential areas.

There's another that would look at what we call corridors that would look at potentially even higher height limits within those corridors, which represent about half of neighborhood residential.

So overall, the maximum that is being studied is In current neighborhood residential areas, about half of them would still have that 30-foot height limit, but another half could look at potentially increases beyond that, although there isn't an exact number.

This is meant to be at a high level.

As we move forward, there'll be a lot more detailed conversations about what that right height limit is.

Please.

I could, Mr. Chair.

Thanks.

but why have a height limit of 30 feet?

If this is about responding to the housing crisis that we currently have, if it's about responding to the environmental crisis, and this is a plan for 20 years, I think we need to be visionary over the 20-year period.

It seems a 30-foot height limit creates restrictions that don't reflect what the community is asking for and do not reflect the future-looking plan that we need for 20 years from now.

So is there another type of structure that could be built with a 30 foot height limit that allows for us to create this greater density or are you thinking about removing that cap?

Yeah, thank you.

So maybe first two clarifications, you know, within that 30 foot height limit, we definitely talk about looking for and potentially encouraging a wide variety of different housing types, you know, both attached homes, detached homes, and also stacked flats.

We also have talked about the idea that that 30-foot height limit I talked about was for market rate development.

There could be a height bonus for affordable housing projects beyond that.

But I think that's a great comment there about the importance of increasing our supply and how do we balance those two things.

I think the idea in studying this was that you know, one that we're trying to create a wide variety of zones and throughout the city and, you know, in that half of neighborhood residential zones where we're still studying only a 30 foot height limit, you can still have a lot more density than you have today.

You could still have a wide variety of housing types, but it still, you know, would encourage kind of more ownership models on that kind of like attached and detached homes, you kind of in balance with what kind of, the existing architectural character is in those areas.

But certainly you're hitting on, there's a very difficult balance between both increasing the amount of housing that we want to have, but also figuring out where the right place to put that is and getting the right diversity of housing types that we want.

My last comment, Mr. Chair.

Please.

Yeah, until you're done, take it away.

Thank you so much.

Um, well I'm concerned when, when that type of language is used because the reason that we hear, you know, the character of the neighborhood is because people don't want to see the type of density that we actually mean so.

We've got to remember why we're having these conversations anyways and the limited opportunities that we have once a decade to actually have these discussions.

And we cannot forget about how those current characters were created and the overlay of the racist planning covenants that if you overlay with our existing planning opportunities in the city, still reflect the redlining that perpetuated our planning policies.

40, 50, 60, 70 years ago.

We have an opportunity now to ensure that we can build the housing needed across our city for the current population that doesn't have enough housing.

But if we're actually having a 20-year visionary plan, we need to plan for the folks that are coming.

And so I'm really concerned if what we're talking about is limiting what could be considered as a future design if we're looking at character within existing neighborhoods that were explicitly designed to exclude people from living in there and to exclude density and diversity in terms of housing types and people.

So I appreciate the work that went into the engagement.

I thank you for lifting up the call for Another option to be considered here and I'm excited that our community members, understand and support the call for a bold action, and that they are for us to add an additional option to our discussions here so that we can actually create a diverse housing needs and better self set ourselves up to build the city of the future to meet the future needs as well.

I am concerned that this proposal is not adequately reflecting that bold vision or setting us up for that needed action if we don't consider that additional option.

So I look forward to working with you and the department as we continue to build out these plans.

But this is a once in a 10-year opportunity, and I don't want us to, again, reinforce policies that were inadequate and inequitable.

in the past when we consider how to update our plan now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And maybe with that, Brennan, if you want to take us through the next slides of looking at the options and just for the public's awareness, I know we've said this before, Office of Planning and Community Development is an executive department under the mayor.

We are the legislative branch.

And while we work together in partnership, the executive branch will be transmitting a proposal for us then to adopt as part of what was seen in the timeline on an earlier slide.

So, Brennan, take it away and let's look through these approaches.

Great.

So, one last slide before we get into the alternatives themselves, but just again pointing out that the alternatives we're going to be talking about are options that we are simply analyzing in order to understand the potential impacts and benefits of each of them and the potential mitigating options that could help support those impacts.

The goal, again, was to try and study a broad range of land use and policy options to provide flexibility for decision making at future stages.

And we don't expect that we have to pick one of these options, but rather we can draw from the strategies and options in these alternatives to develop what might be kind of a hybrid approach as a preferred option that would be included in the final plan.

So there are five alternatives.

The first is, as is required, a no-action alternative.

And that would obviously maintain the status quo of focusing most of our housing and jobs within existing urban centers and villages.

For each of these alternatives, there's a map on the right.

Obviously, for this one, you can see in the dark blue is the urban centers.

In the lighter blue is the urban villages.

The light gray represents areas in which there is no change outside of those areas.

And then the darkest gray is our manufacturing and industrial centers.

And so I want to kind of highlight three things before moving into the action alternatives that are kind of true for all of them.

One is that we are not looking at studying any changes to manufacturing industrial centers.

That's because we're just finishing the industrial maritime strategy process in which that work was done.

And so we're essentially incorporating those proposed changes into this comprehensive plan as a kind of a base across all the alternatives.

Secondly, I think all the alternatives build on the existing strategy of urban centers and villages while adding new opportunities for housing across the city.

But they also all look at adding more opportunities for commercial and other non-residential uses across the street, including more retail on artelio streets, but also maybe greater flexibility for home businesses and corner stores in certain areas.

With that said, I'm going to move into the action alternatives.

So alternative two is called focused.

It would create additional areas of focus growth, which we're calling neighborhood anchors that would allow more housing around shops and services.

You can see those representatives, those little circles on the map.

The idea of these neighborhood anchors is that may be similar to existing urban villages, but maybe with a slightly smaller size and intensity, but still kind of built around core of shops and services.

The ones that we've identified that we're studying as part of this proposal come from a number of different sources.

The majority of them actually are places that were identified in the 1994 plan as neighborhood anchors, and they actually went through the work of drafting them, having a community conversation, then adopting them into the plan.

But because there were no zoning changes that followed them, they were removed in 2004. But we also did add a couple more areas that are more recent.

Obviously, that 1994 work is very outdated.

One are places the city has designated as pedestrian overlay districts where we think there's a high level of retail or that exists that we want to build on.

And then we also looked at that and looked at where were there significant gaps in the city?

And we added six more just to fill in some of those.

So we have a good geographic spread to work from.

Obviously these are meant to be at a high level so they're just shown as circles, about 1000 foot radius which again is like three to four blocks depending on where you are.

And the idea in these areas is that you would find a mix of residential and mixed use development, ranging from townhouses up to three to seven story apartments and mixed use buildings.

So a wide variety of your range of kind of scales, I should say, but kind of concentrated, mostly rental apartment development.

And this one is again one of the ones that we think addresses the Council's proviso that we need to study 15 minute neighborhoods as these would kind of allow more housing around these business cores that would allow more people to get their shops and services within a short walk of their their home.

Concept three is called broad.

This would allow a wider range of low scale housing options like triplex and fourplex across all of the neighborhoods currently zoned neighborhood residential.

Those that today allow primarily detached homes with some provision for accessory dwelling units.

And again, this is where we're talking we're, this is kind of a one size fits all change across all the neighborhood residential areas, it would retain that three story height limit as we were mentioning, but with potentially a height bonus for affordable projects.

And again, it would.

you know, there could be a variety of forms here, probably mostly it would be detached and attached homes, like duplexes and triplexes and fourplexes in a row, but also could include some stack flats like sixplexes on larger lots.

And obviously this one directly addresses the council's proviso that we study changes across all the neighborhood residential areas.

And I just note on the top, you know, you can see that those neighborhood residential areas are shown in light purple.

The gray areas are places that are either zoned commercial, multi-family today, you often see those along arterials, or large parks which would not be changed because they're owned by the city.

The fourth concept is called corridors, and this would allow a wider range of low scale housing options in neighborhood residential zones, but only in corridors, with the idea of allowing higher, more intense changes, but also focusing growth near transit and amenities.

And you can see again in that darker purple is those corridors that we're going to be studying.

For the purpose of this study, we included all areas that are five minute walk from frequent transit stops.

Those are kind of generally those with 15 minute frequency during the week and service on the weekends as well, or large parks generally kind of multi block parks, and it does include about half of the areas that are currently zoned neighborhood residential day when you can remove those large parks.

And the, the idea here in these areas you would see housing ranging from you know those triplex and four plexus we talked about before, but also could be as high as five story apartments.

And so the idea here is that you could see a lot more dense housing, you could see a lot more stacked flats and, you know, more things like condos and apartments, rental apartments that you might see in other areas.

And this is one kind of specifically that was modified to kind of reflect that interest in a in more apartment zones that we heard as part of the six alternative.

Lastly, is alternative five we're calling combined, it would accommodate the greatest supply and diversity of housing across Seattle.

And it essentially is a distribution that combines alternatives two, three, and four, plus add some new ones.

And so, again, you can see in the lightest purple that a broad change across all neighborhood residential zones, combined with increased changes to neighborhood residential zones along the corridors, plus we would have the neighborhood anchors, which would allow even higher changes in those areas.

In addition to those strategies that we already talked about, Alternative 5 would also study some additional ones.

One is expanding the boundary of seven urban centers and villages, so they include at least a 10-minute walk around frequent transit.

Those include some that have new light rail stations that aren't there today, plus some ones that are very small.

Additionally, we would study designating Ballard as an urban center.

One of the benefits of that is that that would allow it to be more eligible for regional transportation fundings.

you know, the zoning on the ground, it's also mostly reflective what already is existing in Ballard, that is a job center that we see, and it would not require any new pre-zones, but it might set the table for, you know, those discussions that we might have as part of future stationary planning.

And then lastly, we'd also consider designating Northeast 130th station area, a new light rail station that's coming online as an urban village, rather than a neighborhood anchor as we considered it in a previous one.

Brennan, Council Member Strauss has his hand up.

Yes.

Yeah, I got it, Michael.

Appreciate it.

Brennan, thank you for noting the designation of Ballard as an urban center.

Can you remind me, are we already meeting the criteria needed to be an urban center, or is there population growth that needs to change?

We are already meeting those criteria.

And so by not designating it as an urban center currently, we are leaving infrastructure dollars on the table for Ballard because we are already in urban, we meet the definitions of an urban center.

Is that correct?

I think I can handle that one, Brennan.

Yes, we meet the criteria.

The current, to be precise on this point, the current zoning in Ballard meets the criteria for the amount of growth and its density that can be accommodated in the future, even above and beyond the growth that's already happened in Ballard.

The growth assumptions that we would make in the plan, should it be adopted as a center, they would have growth targets consistent with regional policy, which would reflect its status as a center and not a village.

Those growth numbers would be slightly higher than some of the numbers that are in our current comprehensive plan for the rate at which of growth assumed for Ballard, but still within its zoning capacity as currently exists.

So not needing a land use change, but we would be anticipating that Ballard would grow healthfully into the future.

And with respect to the transportation dollars, it's not so much leaving dollars on the table as it is providing flexibility that when the city does capture federal transportation dollars that are administered through the Puget Sound Regional Council, we have the option of identifying projects that serve Ballard, especially with the light rail coming online to provide the kind of connectivity and mobility choices that would help to support that future investment.

Thank you, Michael.

Maybe let me say this a different way, which is we already meet the definition in Ballard.

We already meet the definitions of an urban center by not being designated as an urban center.

We cannot apply for federal funds through PSRC.

Is that correct?

For projects that would serve Ballard through the regional competition, it gets a little wonky at that.

But yes, effectively, there's a pot of money.

that this designation would open up the ability of the city to tap for projects in that inbound.

Okay.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any other questions?

Vice Chair Morales.

Thank you, Chair.

I, so I've had lots of conversations with the department I do want to thank you all for the work that you're doing I know these community meetings are important and be pretty.

pretty heated at times.

There's another one tomorrow.

I'll be there at Langston Hughes.

So I'm looking forward to these community engagement opportunities to hear directly about what people are saying.

I think, you know, sort of to Council Member Mosqueda's point earlier, we have a history of planning in the city without consideration for how communities of color will be impacted.

We split the CID when I five went in, there was redlining that kept families from purchasing homes anywhere but the central district.

Then the very founding of our city on unseeded land.

We know that over time, all of this sort of compounds the effects and has a negative impact on people's ability to generate wealth.

And part of the reason for all of that, at least in our recent history, has been the 25 year old urban village growth strategy that we've been following.

Apartments being squeezed into corridors and villages, while most of the city is reserved for single family homes, has really created this dynamic in the city where Wealthy homeowners live in mostly single family neighborhoods and lower income folks are pushed to corridors where multifamily housing is allowed.

Also to Council Member Mosqueda's point, that fear of how we change zoning and what its impact will be is also a fear within communities of color.

There's a lot of fear that changing zoning will result in people of color continuing to get pushed out of the city, being priced out of the market, and homeowners of color being forced to sell.

So clearly, we need to be proactive in creating strategies to stop displacement.

And I'm hoping that throughout this process, these conversations that we have in the next year, the department is actively working to identify what those strategies could be.

Because one thing we know for sure is that Seattle can't keep looking the way it looks today if we're serious about addressing equity.

So, you know, I want to make sure that we are keeping as part of these land use committee conversations as part of our community engagement, incorporating analysis and research and conversation about how anti displacement strategies will be part of every element of the comp plan.

that we are really talking about community-led, community-driven investments.

We're creating more affordable space for housing, but also for small businesses.

Because we know that we've got a crazy real estate market here and it is part of what's driving displacement.

So another thing I think we will need to be talking about is how we take land out of the speculative market and keep it in community land trusts.

We can also take city land off the market and lease it for social housing development, which would keep housing permanently affordable since it would be on city owned land.

And the last thing I want to say is we have to stop building healthy neighborhoods.

The idea that we should build apartments along busy arterials and make low income people live there doesn't promote equity and it doesn't promote public health.

So I really think we need to move from this idea of isolated urban villages to a city of connected neighborhoods with walk sheds that have high capacity transit, frequent reliable buses, safe sidewalks, protected planes.

We have to encourage people to get out of their cars, but as long as they don't have safe, easy alternatives, they'll keep driving.

So we need to make alternatives the easy choice.

So I'm hoping that through these discussions we can keep asking ourselves these really important questions, you know how, what kind of changes are needed.

to be made so that everyone can find housing they can afford?

How do we create a city that is more sustainable and protects both climate and public health?

How do we build a more equitable city with more livable neighborhoods where people of color can afford to stay, own businesses, own their homes, and contribute to building generational wealth for the next generations and their families?

And thank you, Vice Chair Morales.

I may have jumped the buzzer here.

Brennan does have a few more slides.

And so Brennan, I'm going to pass it back to you to answer Vice Chair's question and feel free to move on to your next slides.

Well, I will go on just the next slide is that I think as part of the question, but we want to say that that was very well said.

I think it's really in keeping with what we're thinking and the kind of a major purpose this update is and what we're hearing from the public as well.

Maybe just briefly on that anti-displacement, because it comes with a slide.

I think one of the core purposes of this plan is to figure out how we can do a better job of stopping the displacement that's already happening in our city.

And obviously, part of a core purpose of this plan is trying to increase the supply of housing, which we know is necessary to address the rent and housing price increases that are fundamentally driving displacement.

We also know it's not by any means sufficient by itself.

So, you know, as it relates to the kind of the EIS that we're talking about here, you know, see, one of the key purposes of the EIS is to kind of our to evaluate the different alternatives to understand their impact on displacement.

We also know that the growth strategy has to be crafted, so that it.

puts it especially addresses again the the exclusivity issue that access to neighborhoods issue that we're talking about, but also so that we have higher levels of growth in areas of low displacement risk.

And so all the actual terms that we're studying kind of have that built into it as we would imagine the kind of the final preferred one would.

But also again, as I mentioned, you know, I think a core part of this plan will be go to think beyond the growth strategies we think about displacement and figure out what are all those other things that we need and I think Council Member Morales, you did a great job of kind of queuing up some of them.

We're definitely thinking about kind of requirements and incentives for affordable housing in neighborhood residential areas and others, potentially additional development capacity for affordable housing and equitable development projects so they have more easily compete with the market.

Again, funding for non-profit groups to purchase property, as we were saying, and other things like tenant relocation assistance, supports for existing businesses, institutions.

Obviously, that is the hard work that I think is still to come.

It's not going to be solved by the EIS, but that's obviously a core part of what we're doing.

I don't know if that fully answers what you said eloquently.

We do have one more slide.

Should I do that and then open back up for questions?

Okay.

Take one more slide and then we'll.

Great.

This is the last one.

I'll turn it back to Michael.

Yeah.

I'll just bring us home here.

Just looking ahead, especially with regard to engagement.

I think it was Council Member Morales.

Thank you for highlighting.

We have a series of community meetings that we've had one and we have four that are forthcoming.

The next one is tomorrow.

Yes, we are keeping an eye on the weather, just for council members' interest.

If there's any change in that particular plan, we'll get the word out on that.

But others coming up, the 8th next week, and then another one in December, and then two in January, one in person, and one a virtual event for people who are unable to attend in person or prefer the virtual way of engaging with the city.

The purpose of those meetings is to talk to people about the ideas that we're studying in the EIS, but more over to hear from them really in that face-to-face way and conversation circles with community stakeholders and residents about housing and about complete communities.

Those are the two themes we're stressing in this outreach phase so that it can help inform the draft plan, which will accompany the draft EIS in 2023. sharing that with you.

That's what we're working on right now.

At the same time, the work and thank you for the council support in terms of budget to enable us to contract with community-based organizations and to work with community liaisons to specifically elevate the voices of marginalized communities much more proactively than the last plan update.

The work of those groups is wrapping up now and we're going to be documenting and incorporating that input into the draft plan as well in the coming months.

And with that, that's what we have for you today.

Just want to give you a picture of the process and it's ongoing into next year.

Thank you, Michael.

Thank you, Brennan, Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss, and thanks to everybody at OPCD for this, or SCCI and OPCD for this presentation.

I agree with Council Member Morales' comments about preventing displacement and access to transit, and I think when the 30 urban villages were up-zoned, I'm not sure there were any formal ordinances put in place in advance to prevent displacement, so I'm hoping we can put in place displacement prevention ordinances in advance of any up zones, if there are additional up zones.

As I understand it, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted growth targets for all cities in King County back in 2021 and the growth target for Seattle for 2019 through 2044, it's 112,000 housing units.

Apparently, The 2021 King County Urban Growth Capacity Report on Seattle indicates that as of 2019, we do have capacity for more than 112,000 units.

We have capacity for 172,000 units.

If we have that capacity already for increasing for-profit market rate housing supply, why not focus in on what we really want to address in terms of our needs for low income housing, why not just focus on producing as much low income housing as possible just getting straight to it.

And I just want to make sure that.

from these alternatives, we are able to mix and match different elements.

So you're providing all this menu of alternatives, but the council through its policymaking and the comprehensive planning process can focus and target within that menu.

Because I wanna see if there's a way to also do some more inclusionary zoning so that we are actually requiring low-income housing in exchange for granting additional development capacity, what would that be possible under the menu of alternatives that you have?

Great.

Maybe just briefly, that capacity number is generally correct about we have more capacity than we're needing simply to meet our target.

But a capacity, it tells you whether it's physically possible to get enough units in the city, but it doesn't talk about What are those units like, where are those units, it doesn't talk about, you know, to accept that we're restricting the amount of units, and where they can go, does that, what role does that play in increasing housing costs.

And so I think, you know, for us, simply having enough capacity is not sufficient, it had, we need to make sure that we have it.

in the right places for the right types of housing.

We also need to make sure that we have plenty of it so that artificial restriction is not pushing housing prices forward.

So I think that we're trying to go beyond just kind of getting enough capacity to address those other issues as well.

On the second topic, yeah, I think that trying to figure out you know, how the market rate development can also support and encourage more low income or kind of affordable development is definitely an important part of this as well.

Obviously, we have a framework in place through mandatory housing affordability when there's substantial up zones that mandatory housing affordability is put in place and thus that new market rate development contributes to low income.

And so I think, you know, that certainly is kind of a our position going forward that when there is substantial increases, that should be implied.

Although there's also a lot of questions as you get to the smaller changes as might be happening kind of within zones that stay in neighborhood residential, you know, our neighborhood residential day and stay in neighborhood residential.

There's a lot of questions there about, you know, how much capacity are we giving?

Is it enough to require something like MHA?

Would a requirement prevent the market rate housing from happening?

So I think those are all good questions that are definitely also on our, you know, list of things that we need to really answer as part of this.

And also say we do are working to put together an economic analysis package for the consultant that would help kind of give us those answers.

Like what can we expect to get and, you know, what would the outcomes of that be?

Brendan, if I could add very briefly to that and thank you, that was a nice complete answer.

But with respect to the high level, the capacity number, our growth targets from the Growth Management Planning Council.

That is really, that's a minimum threshold under GMA that at least we're providing sufficient capacity.

And it's an important metric that we look at.

And we certainly take the buildable land studies and that work with the Growth Management Planning Council very seriously.

But we're also looking at other metrics that are telling us, sending, giving us signals about how we are doing with respect to planning for growth.

looking at the amount of job growth that we've experienced as a city compared with housing.

And we have been falling behind in keeping up with our job growth and providing sufficient numbers of housing.

And looking at how the city has grown with respect to growth targets in the past, since the sale of 2035 was adopted, the city has grown on an annual basis.

And we've been through a number of years now, twice as fast as was anticipated in the existing comprehensive plan.

And we're operating with the assumption that if we provide more space, more opportunities for housing development, we won't be as much risk in falling into that situation going forward that we can keep up with the demand for housing without driving up prices.

Michael, you just said something quite important.

In our last major update, we set a metric that we thought we were going, that was appropriate for our city.

And you just said, and maybe you can confirm for me, we have grown twice as fast as what that update suggested.

Is that correct?

It's correct.

And I want to be in full consideration of the question.

There is a 20-year number in Seattle 2035. And you can take that 20 year number and it was 70,000 housing units.

You take that number and divide it by 20 and look at it year by year.

And if you look at all the years since 2015, when that plan was adopted, add them all up, it's twice as fast.

We're well ahead of pace to get to, which indicates that that was really a low ball number when we adopted the last plan.

And that's why we're taking a more expansive view of what we think our housing needs could be.

going forward and planning appropriately and wisely for them.

And it's because for better or for worse, the rest of the nation and world found out that Seattle is indeed the best place on earth.

I see.

That's one of the reasons.

Yeah.

Colleague, Council Member Nelson.

And we're going to try and wrap up briefly.

We are at the two hour mark.

So I know, I see from your timeline here that you're thinking about the releasing the draft EIS in the fourth quarter of next year.

And looking at the anti-displacement strategies, I'm wondering, I don't remember, Chair Strauss, when your report here, the The report coming out of the landlord tenant work group is going to be coming forward.

But are you taking, well, I am concerned about what's happening to the stock of small mom and pop landlord units and the Rio report and things.

The numbers that indicate that we are losing those units and they are being replaced by expensive, oftentimes single family homes.

Will, I guess what I'm asking, the timeline that you've got, are you going to be looking at those numbers as you're thinking about honing going forward into the final EIS?

Brandon, I can field that one.

The short answer is yes, but I want to make sure that the council members, that you all understand the phased approach we're taking to this.

In second quarter of 2023, we'll release the draft plan, the draft EIS, and a preliminary report on growth as it relates to displacement risk.

We will draw upon the best available data that we have during, you know, in the coming months to prepare that report, including if we have, and I don't know the answer to the question on the Rio report, the specific report you referenced, if it's available, we certainly will use that data.

With the final plan, and the final EIS transmitted to Council in 2024, we will bring forward an anti-displacement strategy.

That's our intent, what we're working on.

It's based on that work, and we know it's going to take longer to identify effective and appropriate targeted strategies that meet our expectations for a more robust anti-displacement set of toolbox.

And that will come forward with the final plan.

So when you don't understand what to expect at those two milestones.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any further questions?

Michael Brennan, I know that this is one step in a very long process that will be exceeding another 12 months before we take final action.

And so it is important that we diligently take steps along the way.

This clearly is demonstrating OPCD has done their due diligence and have met the proviso requirements that were put in last year's budget around some of these funds.

I just want to briefly, Lish, can you remind me, are there any further steps required to lift the proviso?

Yes, you will need to submit a letter to the city clerk indicating that they have met the requirements of the proviso.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Clerk, let's make sure to do that this afternoon.

Colleagues, any other questions on this item?

Councilor Mosqueda, I think you might want to say something.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do want to thank the department for all of the work that you have done so far, and I hope that we can continue to work in partnership to push for that sixth option that community is calling for.

Thank you.

for commenting on my comments and Council Member Morales' comments as well, given the urgency of this issue and the limited timeframes that we have to consider comprehensive plans.

Really appreciate the team that is doing the outreach.

We've been able to incorporate in the budgets the last few years additional funding for this more intentional outreach effort.

It is something that I'm glad to see being carried forward in the work from previous budgets into the work that you've done throughout this year and look forward to hearing more about the proposals early next year in partnership with our good chair here who has taken this issue very seriously and has been a strong proponent as well of making sure that we use every opportunity we can through the comprehensive plan to address equity and create density.

I am fascinated, Mr. Chair, that there seems to be an interest or an understanding at least that a proposal will come from the mayor's office and it doesn't mean that we have to adopt it whole cloth.

That seems to be new understanding at this point.

And so I look forward to working with you and potentially other council members who understand that role that we'll be able to play and appreciate the conversation today.

Thank you, Brennan, Michael, Lish, anything further?

Thank you very much.

With that, this will conclude this item on the agenda.

Moving on to item E, adjournment.

This does conclude, I want to, before we adjourn, the next scheduled meeting of the Land Use Committee is next week on December 8th.

It is, it starts at 9.30 a.m.

It is a morning meeting.

And this, without any further business before the committee, this does conclude the Wednesday, November 30th, 2022 meeting of the Land Use Committee.

We stand adjourned.

Thank you.