Land Use Committee 2/21/2024

the remote polling comments information for them that should be coming in shortly.

Council Member Morales, to clarify, there is an email response sent to public commenters.

And that is where we will be sending that clarification.

Thank you.

So it sounds like we should wait a moment.

And just for IT's clarification as well, it looks like all of those public commenters are signed up for the public hearing and not general public comment.

We do have general public comment from people in the room.

Council Member Morales, you may begin.

Just to note though that Devin will keep you posted on how many are present for the public hearing remotely.

Okay.

This is the Seattle Channel.

You are on the air.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Seattle Channel, we're ready to go.

Are we recording?

Thank you.

The February 21st, 2024 regularly scheduled meeting of the Land Use Committee will come to order.

It is 2.01 PM.

I'm Tami Morales, chair of the committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Moore.

Present.

Council Member Rivera.

Present.

Council Member Wu.

Present.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Present.

Chair Morales.

Here.

I present.

Thank you, if there's no objection, today's agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.

Today's agenda includes a second briefing and a community panel on the connected communities legislation that we've been discussing in this committee, as well as a public hearing on the bill.

So we have, just so everyone understands, if you are here to make general public comment about issues within the purview of the Land Use Committee, you can speak at public comment.

If you're here to speak specifically to the Connected Communities legislation, we'd ask that you wait until the public hearing portion of the agenda.

I am looking online and it seems as though everyone who's virtual is here for the public hearing.

Devin, how many folks do we have in person who are not here for the public hearing?

It looks like we do have three people signed up for general public comment.

Okay, so what I'm going to do then is open general public comment.

Each speaker will have, because we also have the public hearing and it looks like we've got about 25 people, I'm gonna ask everybody to speak for one minute.

So each public commenter will have one minute to speak.

We will do the public comment period first.

You will hear a chime when you have 10 seconds left.

at which point we ask that you wrap up your comments so we can go on to the next speaker.

Once the public comment period is ended, if there's no objection, I'd like to reverse the order of the agenda and move to the public hearing.

Wait, is that how the order it is?

That's agenda item one.

That is agenda item one.

Sorry, we had contemplated reversing it, but so we will, once we close public comment, we will move into the public hearing and then we will invite our community panel up to the table.

So Devin, if you would please begin by calling up the first two public commenters.

So the first, the first, public commenter that we have is is two people a group uh leo holmstrom and oscar heinzel followed by ethan sagat and stephen rubestello okay please go ahead all right i'd just like to thank seattle city council for land use uh for allowing us to speak here today uh my name is oscar heinzel

and I'm Leo Holmstrom, and we are two students from Roosevelt High School who have interest in climate activism and would like to bring up an issue many other students have voiced concerns about.

Outside of our school, there are several empty lots that are currently taking up space with no plan of use in the future.

The plot in particular we'd like to talk about is one located on 6501 14th Avenue Northeast, which is owned by the city of Seattle, stands directly in front of our school, and currently isn't being used for anything.

Frankly, these lots are an eyesore for those visiting the area or attending Roosevelt, and it's our opinion that the city should renovate these areas to be turned into public parks.

Having more trees planted in the area and a place for students and surrounding neighborhoods for anybody to be social, not only to foster a sense of community within our school, but also in the neighborhood.

And it will have a significant impact on the environment.

If the city is committed to planting more trees and remaining carbon neutral, we each asked a number of people within and outside of our school, and they all have full support in turning these empty wastelands into an area that's more eco-friendly, serving the community, and nicer to look at.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here.

Next, we have Ethan Sagat followed by Steve Rustello.

Hello.

I'M NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT LAND USE.

I JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE MYSELF.

I JUST GRADUATED FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, AND I'M LOOKING TO GET INTO DEVELOPMENT.

I GREW UP IN SEATTLE, MAGNOLIA SPECIFICALLY.

I KNOW THAT'S MR. STRAUSS' DISTRICT, SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO ATTENDING MORE COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND MEETING SOME OF YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

NEXT IS STEVE RUBSTELLO.

As I mentioned last time, if you're really concerned about middle housing, you ought to be looking at improving MAJ. When it was passed, it was supposed to be 50-50 on people buying out.

In the North End, the projects I've seen, virtually no one doesn't buy their way out.

The rates are way, way, way too low.

And if you want to have low market housing, How about having it built where the new housing for the little bit richer folks is done?

And I would hope that when we talk about housing, we talk about income levels, not percentage of national averages and things that are changing.

Yes, that should be mentioned, but also what does it mean today?

Are we talking about housing for people who make 150,000, 100,000 or more, 80,000 or more?

Or maybe how about talking about people are making 40, 50,000.

Let's take a look at maybe some real working class housing in the city.

Now, central area has always been the best place to use as an example.

When I was young, it was about 80% people of color, black.

Now it's way less than 20%.

And those people didn't move in the rest of the city.

They were economically pushed out of the city.

Now the rest of the city has experienced exactly the same thing with working class people.

It's just so much easier to look at the central district and to construct and show exactly what's happened.

This is a time where we'll find out whether this is a neoliberal city council, real liberal city council, possibly progressive city council, because so far the last 20 years or 40 years, the city has resisted even having inventory of below market housing.

That's how committed the city has been.

Hopefully we can do better.

Thank you.

Council member or chair, more or less, that is it for in-person speakers.

And it looks like we do have one person online who has a general comment on land use, if you want to move to them.

Is that number 22?

Yes, that's number 22. Okay, so there's one person virtual.

David Haynes, if you would like to unmute, press star six to unmute and you will have two minutes.

Devin, and then I am going to ask to go down to one minute for the hearing.

Okay.

David Haynes.

Hi, my name is David Haynes.

Hi, we need land use for 21st century first world quality homes.

not low level warehouse echo nonprofit housing on the side of the highway, the bus, the train without any noise abated walls that sometimes are located in a commercial zone area, proliferating noise pollution and still denying a proper quality of life.

Acting like doing, acting like you're doing BIPOC folks a favor and we need bigger apartment buildings to incentivize developers to expand the size of the real estate by trading out some of these roads and side streets and basically block the road off with the building.

Um, because it seems that every block you go, every, everywhere you go, there's a road driving through every block and it denies and bothers the residents and the quality of life.

Yeah.

It doesn't seem council really does much about that resulting in so-called affordable housing being built in some of the worst locations to appease homeowners.

like the corner of a stop and go traffic intersection hanging over the sidewalk with the warehouse echo quality building that really is bothering the resident's mental health, or smack dab in a desert of commercial industrial zone areas.

We need land use that trades the road for more residential neighborhoods, and we need to demand affordable housing be built by for-profit developers instead of council encouraging the developers to pay into a fund that only lines the pockets of their reelection apparatus of nonprofits that get access to all of this money, only to result in them building a lower quality standard of housing.

So please, write legislation to force and incentivize the corporate banks to start prioritizing financing homes.

and buildings and more robust floor plans for schools and libraries.

It's 21st century.

Let's get out of the 20th century deregulated.

Thank you.

Any other general commenters?

There are no other people that signed up to do general public comment.

So I'm going to close public comment then.

I do want to give Council Member Rivera a chance to acknowledge her constituents who are here.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

I just wanted to acknowledge the students from Roosevelt High School who came all the way down to City Hall during their midwinter break to do their civic duty on behalf of the district.

And so I want to thank you for that.

Also, thank you to the UW student who's also in the districts for coming down and engaging in your civic duty to tell us how you all feel.

So thank you.

Thank you very much, council member.

Okay, Devin, will you please read item one into the record?

Agenda item one, proposed equitable development zoning phase two, connected communities pilot draft legislation for public hearing, briefing, and discussion.

Thank you.

So we do have a public hearing.

We've got about 20 people signed up thus far.

Before we get to the public hearing, I would like to make a few introductory remarks.

So for those who are just tuning in, this is the second briefing on the connected communities legislation.

This is a pilot that would allow up to 35 parcels throughout the city.

The pilot would allow us to see how we can use development incentives to encourage community partnerships, to build more affordable homes in more places, to build social cohesion through income diverse projects, to repair harms caused by redlining and racial exclusion, and to bring essential goods and services closer to more Seattleites.

The goal really is to see what it takes to support the idea of a 15-minute city.

More specifically, this would create much needed development incentive pilot projects that would address five critical needs.

So I'm gonna run through those quickly and then we'll open it up to the hearing.

The first is it would address the harmful history of redlining and racial exclusion in Seattle by providing substantial incentives for development in areas that are touched by these harmful practices across the city, allowing affordable housing construction in parts of the city where no affordable housing has been built before and in areas of high displacement risk.

Second, it addresses the exclusion of low-income communities and promotes social cohesion by setting a high minimum threshold for inclusionary zoning on these 35 parcels.

It would require a substantial amount of affordable housing in projects that would otherwise likely be 100 percent market rate or higher.

It promotes the building of generational wealth for legacy homeowners in communities of color and low-income communities by providing leverage for homeowners to negotiate the sale of their property at a fair value with a provision for ownership of a home on site at no extra cost.

And that would also allow them to stay rooted in their community.

Fourth, it provides incentive for more established nonprofit, for-profit, or public developers to partner with community organizations seeking to develop housing to curb displacement in the communities that they serve.

And fifth, it brings communities serving small businesses and essential services to more parts of the city through inclusion of ground floor equitable development uses, which allows more people to access culturally relevant essential needs by traveling downstairs from their building, for example, instead of having to get in their car to drive somewhere.

In exchange for these potential uses, developers would receive a proportionate amount of corresponding incentive.

They could receive floor area ratio and height bonuses, standard practice for incentive programs in the city.

They could receive design review waiver, which is applied to many other affordable housing projects in the city.

They could be excluded from parking requirements, again, applied to many other affordable housing projects, or they could receive relaxed setback requirements, which are standard practice in incentive programs.

So just to be clear, in Washington state, we can't dictate how private property is used, but we can provide incentives to developers who choose to participate in a program like this one, making the choice to do something of this nature more attractive to them.

That is the point of the incentives.

So this pilot is based off of two current City of Seattle programs that address separate but adjacent needs.

First is the ongoing green building pilot.

Second is the law that provides incentives for development of affordable housing on religious sites.

So those are some of the reasons behind the legislation that we're doing, the reasons behind the incentives that we are offering in exchange for the kind of density that we're hoping for so that we can address our housing crisis across the city.

So with that, I will open up the public hearing portion of the...

of the meeting and the public hearing will be moderated in the same way.

We will call on each speaker.

You will have one minute to provide your comment.

Please, since I think most people are virtual, press star six to unmute.

And when you hear the 10 second chime, we'll ask that you please wrap up your comments so we can move to the next speaker.

Okay, Devin, do you have the list?

There it is.

I found it.

Yes, Chair.

There are 12 people signed up to speak in person, and then there are another 22 signed up to speak virtually.

Okay.

Let's start with the 12 people in person, and then we'll move to the remote speakers.

And again, you will have one minute to speak.

Okay.

First up is John Chaney, followed by Mar Schuller and Cliff Coffin.

Good afternoon.

I'm John Chaney, and I'm here to address middle housing in Seattle.

Thousands of Seattle citizens are housed on the water, not over the water like towers in Madison Park or the condo jutting out over Puget Sound in West Seattle.

Living on the water is a historically and culturally significant part of the Seattle past and should be continued into the future.

We meet a critical housing need.

Whether we live aboard a sailboat, cruiser, yacht, house barge, floating home, or a houseboat, we live floating on the water.

We have few tenancy protections, but we persist and try to thrive.

The city has little data on how citizens live on the water and darn few policies that support our chosen lifestyle.

We are apparently not seen as being a viable part of the Seattle housing stock and have few tenancy...

We are not in the city housing plans.

By virtue of our invisibility, we're excluded from consideration as worthy recipients of community reinvestment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next, we have Mar Schuller followed by Cliff Coffin.

I think you said fear of displacement or impending displacement.

And that's what our community has felt for the last 10 years in Seattle.

And I would urge the city council to become more familiar with our community.

The one John Chaney just mentioned.

I'm the president of the Lake Union Liveaboard Association.

John is the vice president.

And you as a land use committee will be hearing the update of the shoreline master plan or shoreline management plan for the city of Seattle.

So I'm here to invite you to take a boat ride with me on Lake Union and the Ship Canal and Portage Bay to look at our community whenever the sun shines next.

Thank you.

I will remind the rest of the speakers that we are now in the public hearing specifically about the connected communities legislation.

The general public comment period is over.

Can you call the next speaker, please?

Yes.

Up next is Cliff Cawthon, followed by Greg Smith and Ron Horning.

Awesome.

Thank you, Chair Morales and land use committee members for allowing me to speak with you today.

My name is Cliff Cawthon.

I'm the advocacy and policy manager with Habitat for Humanity, Seattle King, Kitas County.

I'm here today in support of Connected Communities Zoning Pilot Program in solidarity with other members of the Complete Communities Coalition.

This policy is a major step forward on housing, racial equity, and sustainability.

Habitat homebuyers like Lila have had a family in Washington State for generations and faced discriminatory policies simply on the basis of the color of their skin.

This prevented them from buying homes in high opportunity areas.

And this program will right that wrong by spurring affordable housing construction in parts of the city where historically affordable housing was intentionally banned by design from being built and in areas of high displacement risk.

Others who were impacted like Lila will benefit from this pilot.

So in...

housing developer, the incentives from this nonprofit, or sorry, incentives for nonprofit developers will allow us to be able to build the affordable housing opportunities that we desperately need.

Thank you very much.

Please support this program.

Thank you.

Up next is Greg Smith, followed by Ron Horning.

Good afternoon.

I'm Greg Smith.

I'm from Capitol Hill.

I'm here to strongly support the Connected Communities pilot project.

Seattle's in a severe housing displacement and homelessness crisis.

The Connected Communities Project would help decrease, would help keep people housed, would decrease displacement, and would keep communities together.

Remember though that displacement is caused by high housing costs all over the city.

So if you really want to do something In the long run, you need to allow more housing all over the city.

So in summary, please fully fund the Connected Communities Pilot Project, and also please allow more housing everywhere.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is Ron Horning.

Then we will welcome back Steve Rubistello, followed by Angela Castaneda.

Hello, Council.

Thanks for listening at the last meeting.

There were some changes on this, and it looks better.

I still have problems with the 600-foot institution.

I can see why you need to get rid of the 600 so you can put two together, but I already live by two institutions within 75 feet, and I don't want a third one next to me.

So maybe there's some way in this that you could change it.

Maybe the director has oversight on that or something like that.

Another thing was a map came up at the last meeting of a bunch of dots around the city for redlining.

And I looked at the dot in my area and there isn't a single redlined house, but there's a dot there.

So someone wanted to do land use for another reason.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is Steve Frubstello, followed by Angela Castaneda.

Well, I disagree on one thing that the chairman said is that you can't force.

Yeah, you can't force develop or you don't force developers, but you can force citizens to leave.

And because you have a right to negotiate is not the same as having the full amount of rights.

And this will allow, or at least in some of the incarnations I have seen, forcing folks to sell their houses.

And I think that's something very, very important, especially people who've lived in the city for a very long time.

The other thing is zone changes.

We're not going through zoning changes, but you're allowing the largest zone as you move further back.

And I think every project ought to be looked at because some of these places at least know of one property where they've really wanted the property for a long time for a parking lot.

And so if they acquire the property, it may be forever.

Thank you.

Up next is Angela Castaneda followed by Katie Ricciuto and following Katie is Jesse Simpson.

Thanks for having me.

I'm here to strongly, I will repeat that, strongly to support the Connected Communities pilot.

I'm ready to help stand this pilot up.

After doing work for the last 13 years supporting small business, Creative community and home business, micro entrepreneurs in Southeast Seattle, working with other community-based organizations.

What I know is our business owners can't afford to live in Seattle where they work.

And our creative community, and there's so much displacement.

So this is a way to move forward in the work that I do, developing relationships with people developers, property owners, legacy homeowners who are in a commercial zone looking for money to retain their asset, but then also look at what sustainability is when the folks are aging.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is Katie Ricciuto followed by Jesse Simpson and then Chris Walter.

Good afternoon council members.

My name is Katie Ricciuto and I work for the U District Partnership in the U District, District 4. We're a community-based organization that focuses on economic development in the neighborhood.

The U District is experiencing significant growth and very much needs more affordable housing.

So we are really happy to see this Connected Communities pilot program and the potential for more affordable housing and social housing throughout the neighborhood and the city.

Our district also has some of the most diverse commercial areas in the city, especially along the Ave.

We have a huge number of businesses that are BIPOC, women-owned and sole proprietorships.

We want to make sure that our unique commercial areas are supported in the face of significant growth and in the face of much needed housing that we're very excited about.

We don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive and we would love to work with anyone here that's interested to make sure that there are sensitive provisions or guidelines and zoning ordinances such as the one proposed to prevent displacement of our commercial areas.

thank you up next is jesse simpson followed by chris walter human service providers contractors architects and more working hard to build the affordable homes our city desperately needs.

For far too long, exclusionary zoning codes have restricted where people can build and live in affordable housing across our city.

We think the Connected Communities pilot is a great step towards establishing more equitable zoning across the entire city, allowing more homes, especially affordable homes, to be built in neighborhoods across Seattle.

The pilot creates land use incentives to encourage the kind of development we want most.

It creates a pathway to leverage the ability of private developers to build affordable housing in partnership with community-based organizations.

And for non-profit developers, it creates a helpful boost to development capacity to maximize the affordable housing potential of future sites.

I urge you to support the program, and thanks for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you.

Up next, we have Chris Walter, followed by Sam Koch and Sharish

My name is Chris Walters.

This is my first time speaking in person, which is super exciting.

And I'm here in support of the Connected Communities pilot.

I'm just super excited.

I want to live in this neighborhood.

I want five foot setbacks.

I want to walk to local neighborhood retail.

I want more neighbors.

I want a Seattle with abundant housing.

And I think this is kind of a vision that kind of gets us, you know, somewhat there.

Like my only critique is like, I don't want to wait till 2029. Like 35 projects is really exciting, but can we move faster?

Can we do more?

So I'd urge you all to support this and let's see what kind of neighborhoods we can build in Seattle that are inclusive, sustainable, and exciting to live in.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is Sam Koch.

followed by sharish pokard and that will be the last people in person hi my name is sam koek i am a green lake resident i am very fortunate to live in a walkable bikeable and transit accessible neighborhood of the city that is not the reality for every part of the city especially a lot of the southern suburbs, you see a lot, it is a lot more sprawling, there is a lot less density and that is some of the many areas that this bill would target.

So I believe that connected communities should pass.

I think it will be a good bill to give walkability and transit accessibility to all areas of the city at an affordable rate.

I believe that it should not be a luxury, it should be a quality of life to live in.

a walkable community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And closing out our in-person public speakers is Shirish Pokhard.

Good afternoon.

I'm Shirish, and I'm a resident of Capitol Hill.

And I'm here in strong support of Connected Communities Pilot Project.

I don't drive, I don't have a car, and I walk for 30 minutes, maybe 25 minutes to little Saigon for my grocery trips every week.

I am in a very accessible neighborhood in that I'm in a walkable distance from all the grocery stores and community stores from various cultures.

I see all my friends and folks have to take the bus, take the car, drive for 10, 15 minutes just to get a small piece of grocery.

And with Connected Communities Pilot Project, I believe we will all have the opportunity to be within the walkable distance of all our amenities, particularly the underprivileged folks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are we ready to move to virtual?

Okay, I've got the list now, so I will call on Lois Martin, who will be followed by Lisa Longnecker, then Sandy Shetler.

So Lois, please press star six to begin.

You have one minute.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lois Martin.

I'm a light.

We can hear you.

Go ahead, Lois.

Hello.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lois Martin.

I'm the president of Central District 3. And I'm asking that you not pass the connected community legislation using the language of justice to add density disproportionately in zip codes that are furthest away from environmental equity as proposed in this draft legislation is problematic.

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

Our neighborhoods can be negatively impacted by pilot development.

These buildings cannot be taken back.

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

There are no guardrails.

It does not support any wealth building and it doesn't protect to have access to .

The intent is commendable.

The unintentional consequences can lead to lasting damage.

There are too many .

Don't pass it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Lisa Longnecker, followed by Sandy Scheller.

Lisa if you could press star 6 to unmute.

I'm Lisa I'm Lisa Longnecker a native Washingtonian.

My father was an immigrant.

I'm brown.

My husband is disabled.

We've owned a small home in Seattle for 16 years.

The toxic policies of the previous council are forcing my family to choose between foreclosure or homelessness.

Points 2 3 5 6 and 7 in your declaration for the EDZ were caused by your own toxic policies.

Why have you excluded small landlords from your stakeholders?

This proposal is full of bias and it lacks thought diversity.

It reads like a land grab for monopolistic interests.

If this is unintentional, scrap it.

Start over and include small landlords, homeowners, renters, and business owners from the targeted neighborhoods as equal stakeholders from the start.

Everything else is neocolonialism by bringing in everyone from the outside.

Thank you.

Next, we have Sandy Shetler followed by Robin Briggs and then Alice Lockhart.

Sandy, you can press star six to unmute.

Hi, yes, sorry, I was muted by someone else.

Okay, hi, yeah, this is Sandy Shetler.

Thank you.

I'm concerned that these projects have no room for any trees or green space, and with five-foot setbacks, even street trees will have to be very thin.

Why are we targeting frontline communities with high hardscape housing when they already have huge canopy deficits?

Seattle's fifth in the nation for urban heat islands and frontline communities are the hottest.

Portland requires 20% of every multifamily project be set aside for trees and green space for the health of residents and communities.

Without a similar amendment, these projects will perpetuate environmental injustice and are an end run around the comprehensive plan.

Please vote no on this bill.

Thank you.

Next, we have Robin Briggs, followed by Alice Lockhart.

Robin, you can press stars.

Hi.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Robin Briggs.

I'm here today to speak in support of the Connected Communities pilot.

I live on Capitol Hill in a neighborhood that was formerly redlined.

I really like my neighborhood, but one thing I don't like about it is that it doesn't have much diversity or much room, frankly, for people who aren't pretty well off.

We need more affordable housing for that to happen.

Having a way for people to stay in the neighborhood, to keep their lot, but exchange their house for apartments.

That's a huge opportunity for lots of folks who are aging out of their place and also anxious about whether their adult children will be able to afford to live in the city.

I don't want to move.

I just want to live in a community that is more inclusive, one that is more open to people from many different walks of life and provides real opportunities for them to put down roots.

Please take the small start to figuring out how we can get here, get there here in Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Alice Lockhart, followed by Michael Syrath and then Iskra Johnson.

Well, Council, my name is Alice Lockhart, and I'm a Cathy Moore constituent in District 5 up in Lixon Springs, above where the sidewalk's in.

And thank you for this opportunity to speak in favor of connected communities.

My neighborhood needs this kind of housing.

I've been observing how multifamily housing, a little surprisingly, is already improving the character of the neighborhood where zoning has allowed it.

Developers have to add sidewalks and we are seeing sidewalks with three planning strips replacing the general pattern of lawns, driveways and cars that block pedestrian access.

I'd be happy to see connected communities projects in my neighborhood so that some of that housing might be affordable to my kids.

One last note, I vote for the housing levy every time, but we need more policies like connected communities that allow and encourage affordable and social housing to be built.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Michael Syrath, followed by Iskra Johnson, then Akeksha Chatterjee.

Michael.

Good afternoon, Chair Morales and other City Council members on the Seattle Land Use Committee.

My name is Michael Syrath.

I'm the Executive Director of Southeast Effective Development, or SEED.

I'm here testifying in support of the Connected Communities pilot.

For 49 years, SEED has worked in southeast Seattle to fight for resources that go to other communities, including arts and quality affordable housing.

Seattle is in a housing emergency.

The Connected Communities pilot would support diverse nonprofits and other community-based organizations in creating more affordable housing and community-controlled cultural space.

This would fight displacement and help our communities thrive in place.

I urge you to support the Connected Communities pilot.

Thank you.

DIRECTOR HAMPSON Thank you.

Next is Iskra Johnson.

ISKRA JOHNSON Hello.

My name is Iskra.

I support the intention of affordable housing.

This proposal is wildly out of scale with existing neighborhoods.

With requirements for setbacks or yards drastically reduced from current zoning, it encourages the wholesale removal of trees and gardens, which make these neighborhoods livable, desirable, and climate resilient in the first place.

My understanding is that zoning exemptions would allow buildings up to four and six stories tall in neighborhood residential zones completely out of scale.

This kind of project, they can be done small.

They can be done on corners where they do not oust the rest of the other people on the blocks.

Most people, when they are surrounded by buildings that are four to six feet tall and they have a single-family home, they then sell out.

Then we lose all the trees and all the gardens.

This is bad for the climate.

There is no reason to suspend design review because the building is affordable.

Ugly buildings with no setbacks, no trees that don't fit in with existing architecture create more resistance to placing low-income housing in higher-income neighborhoods.

Also, the buildings do need parking.

Many low-income people rely on cars to get to multiple jobs and night shifts.

Thank you.

Next we have Akeksha Chatterjee followed by Martha Baskin and June Bluespruce.

AKEKSHA CHATTERJEE Hello.

My name is Akeksha Chatterjee.

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

I'm a campaigner campaigns director with 350 Seattle and a lot of the work we do at 350 is geared towards winning Green New Deal solutions to the climate crisis.

Adding dense affordable housing that is within walking distance of essential services and built equitably is a core part of any Green New Deal.

This program, which is a result of robust community outreach, would facilitate a slew of social and economic benefits.

It is a step towards building healthy, resilient communities in Seattle.

We know that owning a home here is often essential to ensuring a secure future for our kids and building generational wealth.

Unfortunately, this path is out of reach for far too many communities.

Now we have the opportunity to reverse this trend and build more housing of all types.

So Seattle City Council to vote yes for connected communities.

And thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next, we have Martha Baskin.

Martha, press star six to unmute.

Martha, I see you, but it looks like you are still muted.

Can you press star six?

There we go.

There we go.

Third time was what I needed.

Good afternoon.

So it's very hard to quibble with a project whose name includes connected communities and equitable development.

But equitable development shouldn't mean three to six story high buildings with no land to plant trees because of insufficient setbacks.

In a climate crisis, when heat islands and heavy rainfall are the norm, trees where people live, not in a distant park, but on site, are essential to provide shade and filter polluted air.

What's more, their roots hold back runoff, including toxic copper from worn down brake pads, washing into waterways and salmon streams.

Local government focuses on public parks and urban forests, but it's the on-site residential trees that make a significant difference to a livable environment and home energy costs.

Nor is a pilot project that would provide a portion of housing for those who earn 80% of the area median income the most critical need.

No, instead it's for those who earn less than 50K or those who earn between 50 and 74. And in addition,

Thank you.

Next we have, Martha, you can feel free to send the rest of your comments to the City Council.

We're happy to receive them electronically.

Next we have June Bluespruce, followed by Karen Taylor, and then Lisa Marcus.

June, press star six to unmute.

June I don't see you unmuted yet.

OK.

We will come back to June.

JOLYNN BERGEY- Sorry.

Sorry.

I'm here.

I'm here.

I'm sorry.

I always do this wrong.

My name's June Bluespruce.

I live in District 2 one of the areas that will be affected by this legislation.

I applaud its intent but I fear its impact will be negative.

My concerns are setbacks as others have said will be decreased to 5 feet.

allowing no room for trees on these lots.

And that could endanger trees on the edges of neighbors' properties.

The areas the pilot focuses on have the least tree canopy and the largest heat islands.

People who need the community amenities and affordable housing the pilot promises also need the physical and mental health benefits of trees.

Secondly, 80% of Seattle's median income is $92,000.

That is not affordable.

An income range for pilot project affordable housing of 30 to 60 percent would make it truly affordable particularly for those in communities most affected in the past by redlining.

The mean income for households headed by black people in Seattle is 45 percent of the Seattle median income.

Please.

DIRECTOR HAMPSON- Thank you.

The next we have Karen Taylor followed by Lisa Marcus then Starlos M. Karen, please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Karen Taylor, and I'm speaking today on behalf of the hundreds of members of the Transit Riders Union.

We wholeheartedly support the Connected Communities pilot.

It's very carefully written and creative.

We need to alleviate the housing and small business displacement pressures that can be put on the wonderful cultural communities that make Seattle the vibrant city that it is.

And we need to make the city walkable and rollable for all.

It can be hard to craft thoughtful legislation that meaningfully works towards equity and reducing the harms of historical and current systemic racism.

And this pilot is an excellent example of taking real action in that arena.

With bonus benefits we transit riders and pedestrians love.

We owe it to the communities that face erasure when unfettered market pressure alone is all that guides development.

Let's pass this.

Let's do this work at the nitty gritty policymaking level where the rubber meets the road.

and keep Seattle the best and healthiest version of itself, one where a wide variety of beautifully distinct communities can.

Thank you.

We have about 10 more speakers, so I'm going to remind everybody of one minute and we will go with Lisa Marcus, followed by Starlos M. Hi, Council, my name is Lisa Marcus and I'm a D6 resident.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of connected communities.

Green Lake and Wallingford neighborhoods, where I've lived for 27 years, have few affordable multifamily housing units and instead have more and more displacement and mega mansions being built, forcing prices up and working people and diversity out.

This burdens people with long commutes and more time apart from family, in addition to lots more climate pollution.

I hope to see connected communities projects in my neighborhood to make homes available to working people who've been historically redlined and who can't otherwise afford to live in this beautiful area near downtown jobs and services.

This will bring families of all backgrounds together in inclusive community without gentrification and will create opportunities for generational wealth which has been historically purposely reserved for only a few.

Thank you for supporting connected communities pilot.

Thank you.

Next, we have Lisa Marcus followed by Starlos M and then Jess Wallach.

Lisa, you were unmuted and now you're muted.

Oh you spoke already.

I'm sorry.

That was.

Yeah.

Sorry about that.

Yeah.

Thank you.

We had a little delay here.

OK.

So we have Starlos M followed by Jess Wallach and then we have Sleiman Apadolo.

Hello.

Hello.

My name is Starlos and I'm a constituent from District 2 and I am here today in support of the Connected Communities pilot legislation.

We urgently need lasting, equitable, rooted in research solutions like affordable housing and anti-displacement and not inhumane sweeps, which we have seen.

Everyone deserves to have a safe, affordable place to call home.

Connected communities can help us get there and fight racism and the housing crisis at the same time.

Please vote yes for the connected communities pilot.

It can really help everyday Seattleites, including myself.

Thank you.

Next we have Jess Wallach followed by Sleiman Apadolo and then Patrick Taylor.

SPEAKER 3 Good afternoon.

My name is Jess Wallach and I'm a campaign director with 350 Seattle.

Like hundreds of our members I'm a renter who can't afford to buy a house in the city I call home.

Seattle has a housing crisis an affordability crisis and a climate crisis.

We need solutions like connected communities.

This model Green New Deal policy is backed by two years of robust community engagement.

It would ensure that at least one in three units are affordable and that housing is within walking distance of essential services.

By investing in underserved communities who are also hit first and worst by climate chaos and least resource to respond, the Connected Communities pilot is a pathway to climate justice.

When we invest in affordable housing and anti-displacement strategies, our communities can live where we work, study, play, and pray.

Thank you.

It looks like we lost Sleiman Apodolo.

So we'll move to Patrick Taylor followed by Toby Thaler and then Eliana Horn.

Patrick.

Hi my name is Patrick Taylor.

I design housing in Seattle.

I'm a Beacon Hill resident and co-chair of the American Institute of Architects Housing Task Force.

I'm here today to speak in support of Councilmember Morales' Connected Communities pilot project.

Seattle is in an ongoing housing crisis that has led to increased rent displacement and homelessness And this is the kind of creative experiments the City should be doing.

The Council has been far too complacent in the face of rising housing costs and the suffering that ensues.

This modest proposal will provide greater flexibility and development capacity to a limited number of projects that could greatly benefit community-based organizations.

If it is successful as a model of community wealth building and anti-displacement, it could be easily extended.

If it fails to meet its goal, it is limited to a small number of projects and time period and can fade away.

Council Member Morales has spent years on outreach working with community groups on this.

Rather than nitpick this proposal to death, the council should pass it and immediately work on more ideas to solve our housing crisis.

Please support this important legislation.

Thank you all for your work.

Thank you.

Next we have Toby Thaler.

Hello.

Toby Thaler, District 6. I strongly support the intent of the pilot program to respond to and mitigate for displacement and generate truly affordable rental housing and home ownership.

However, I agree with other comments about the pilot's ad hoc non-planning regarding trees, which is an environmental justice issue.

OPCD is currently preparing an EIS for the city's major update to the comp plan.

The EIS and the plan itself are supposed to address the very same subjects as this pilot, including displacement impacts and the possibility of inclusionary housing to mitigate for displacement.

I suggest you not work on a pilot until you know what the executive is proposing along with their evaluation of impacts and mitigation measures.

If you do not do a citywide comprehensive response to the displacement problem, you're likely to make the problem worse.

Please fix MHA first.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So we have four speakers.

Well, we have five speakers.

Leah Hall, you're listed as the last speaker, but you're also listed as not present.

So if you would like to speak, you might want to dial back in.

In the meantime, we will go to Eliana Horn, followed by Travis Close and Tiffany McCoy.

Eliana, please, you are unmuted.

Please go ahead.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Eliana Horn and I am representing Puget Sound Sage.

I also live in District 2 and I'm here to support the Connected Communities pilot and ask that you vote yes on this item.

This pilot program is a crucial step in the right direction for the city to more robustly support equitable development and community led transformative approaches to land and housing.

We're all aware of the displacement crisis Seattle has faced over the last decade and the historic disinvestment in BIPOC communities.

The city has a duty to do all that it can to invest in strategies that will resource BIPOC and other impacted community-led housing and land development and recognize and invest in innovations that increase community ownership and control of land.

This pilot program is a unique approach to incentivize affordable housing development as well as equitable development and protection of legacy homeowners plus social housing.

As a resident in District 2, I'm particularly excited about the potential in my neighborhood.

Thank you, Ileana.

Okay, so we have Travis Close, followed by Tiffany McCoy, and then the last speaker present is Nitin Nanda.

Travis, please go ahead.

Hey, my name is Travis Close.

I'm with the group Seattle Yembe, that's Yes In My Backyard, here to support connected communities because we need affordable homes everywhere in Seattle.

especially the highest resource neighborhoods from which so many of us are excluded.

Building more homes in cities is good for the environment.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has directed cities to allow more compact growth as a critical action within reach of local governments.

We especially need to reduce driving in Seattle, which can be done by building more homes near places where people need to go.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we have Tiffany McCoy.

Good afternoon council members.

This is Tiffany McCoy.

I am the policy and advocacy director for How's Our Neighbors and I live in West Seattle.

I'm calling in favor of the Connected Communities pilot.

I'm also a member of the Complete Communities Coalition which is a diverse coalition which endorsed this legislation yesterday and you all received an email about that.

We need more housing types incentives and ideas.

While there have been very important investments in affordable housing it still isn't enough.

We need more programs like this because housing is a public safety issue, it is a public health issue, and it is a climate issue.

I do ask each of you on the dais to not accept the false dichotomy between trees and density.

There are concerns about trees and heat islands.

I share that.

But one way to mitigate heat islands is density and less reliance on individual vehicles.

Our infrastructure is car-focused, and roads and pavements are a major contributor to heat islands.

In order to reduce this we need more walkable and bikeable communities.

DIRECTOR HAMPSON- Thank you Tiffany.

The last speaker we have present is Nitin Nanda.

NITIN NANDA Hi my name is Nitin Nanda and I'm a resident of Council District 3. I'm here today in strong support of the Connected Communities pilot program.

Affordable housing is a critical issue in our city for people from all walks of life and Connected Communities offers a promising approach.

This pilot goes beyond just construction.

It fosters true community by building services and amenities alongside housing, supporting communities that would lend themselves to decrease emissions once complete.

This pilot program isn't just about housing, it's about justice.

Redlining and racial exclusion have left deep scars in our city.

Connected Communities offers a chance to heal those wounds.

Everyone deserves a safe, affordable place to call home.

Connected Communities is a step towards achieving that goal for all of Seattle.

Please vote yes for the Connected Communities pilot.

It's an investment in our future, and an investment in equity.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

We have no more speakers present.

Before I close comment for public hearing, I do want to add for the public record, as was referred to earlier, in the last two weeks, we've received five organizational letters in support of the proposed legislation from Habitat for Humanity, the tiny house village operator, Nicholsville, homeless shelter operator, Share, as well as the Beacon Hill Council.

We also received a letter from the Complete Communities Coalition, which includes FutureWise, How's Our Neighbors, the Chief Seattle Club, Habitat for Humanity, the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, and commercial real estate developers, as well as the Urbanist and the Housing Development Consortium.

So this is in addition to nearly 40 organizations and community groups that worked on and already support the legislation.

We've received over 300 letters of support from community members across each part of our city.

Collectively, this represents a wide array of people who work, live, and play in Seattle.

from people who are unhoused to people who are building housing for them, renters and homeowners, childcare providers, healthcare providers, and our city's business leaders.

So I am thankful to all of you for being here to show your support and appreciate the comments that other folks have made.

We are absolutely listening and taking those into consideration as well.

So I will go ahead and close the public hearing portion and ask the clerk to read item two into the record.

Agenda item two, community panel on equitable development zoning phase two, connected communities development pilot for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

I'll invite our central staff, Ketel Freeman, please come on up, as well as our community panel.

Please make your way.

While you're coming up, I will say that in our last committee meeting, there were some questions about how this pilot program might actually work.

So I've invited some practitioners here to come talk to us.

talk through some of the pieces to discuss how this work relates to generational wealth building, as well as why this pilot can provide some useful flexibility in incentivizing the kind of partnerships that we'd like to see.

Devin, I'm going to ask you to join the table as well.

Devin is not just my committee clerk, he's also my policy director, has been working closely on this legislation.

I want to apologize to the community panel here.

This is our committee table.

We would normally be joining you at the committee table, but we are working some technology issues out, so our computers are all up here.

But hopefully by March, we will be able to join you at the committee table.

So I'm going to ask each of you to introduce yourselves.

And then I'm gonna give each of you about 10 minutes or so to share a little bit about the work that your organizations do.

I'm gonna ask my colleagues to hold your questions until the end.

And then after the presentations, we'll open it up for Q&A.

And I will give each of you maybe a two minute signal to let you know when we would like to move on to the next person.

Okay, Ketil, maybe you can start by introducing yourself.

Oh, can we make sure the mics are working?

I think you can get them on that.

There we go.

Ketel Freeman, Council Central staff.

Caleb Jackson, co-founder of Uplift Investment Group and Resource Equity.

Donald King, Nehemiah Initiative Seattle.

Estela Ortega, Executive Director of El Centro de la Raza, the center for people of all races.

Hi, I'm Jared Johnson.

I'm with the Seattle Chinatown International District Preservation and Development Authority.

Devin Silvernail, Policy Director for Chair Morales.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Again, I'm just happy to have all of you here.

As I said before, in the last committee meeting that we had, there were some questions raised and some issues that folks wanted to kind of understand a little bit better.

So I've invited folks here to share.

And Estela, maybe I'll start with you.

El Centro works with different kinds of partnerships, depending on the project that you have.

Right now, for example, you're working with SCIPTA on a ground floor childcare facility.

So can you talk a little bit about the challenge with building the kind of equitable development uses that communities are asking for and maybe also speak to some of the affordability thresholds that we had talked about?

Thank you.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Just a quick about El Centro de la Raza.

We are a 51-year-old organization, and we provide services in the area of children and youth, human and emergency services, education, skill-building programs, housing, economic development, and obviously do a lot of work around advocacy and cultural work.

So the type of partnerships that El Centro has on the ground level, if you will, is that we develop our own housing development and most of the time that will include early childhood development.

We also partner with other nonprofit developers around retail, and currently we have projects in the International District to provide child development services in, let's see, out in the University District, child development services, and then we have two more projects that are coming online at the end of the year with SCIPTA, and also out in the Northgate area in 2026. and that is housing and early childhood development.

We also partner with Mark.

We have a project that we will break ground in late July with a BIPOP market rate developer and there'll be some commercial space there.

We also are partnering with a project in Columbia City.

We're doing early childhood development, but with the church.

And so that's very creative also.

So about five different models we utilize.

And I guess the first thing that I would say around the partnerships that are extremely important is that you need to have a common set of values, relationships that you're trusting each other and, you know, that means setting up memorandums of understanding, starting out, then obviously you go into the documents of developing, you know, your LLC and so forth.

And so it's very important that you be matched together and that it feels right and you trust each other.

So it's...

It's hard work in terms of putting a housing development project together.

I want to use Columbia City as an example.

We have 20 different funding sources on that.

And that is city, that's county, that's state.

There's programs within the city of Seattle, that's grants, that's with bankers and so forth.

And so just a lot of work.

and coordination to do.

So I'm gonna wait on the other things that hopefully those will come through in the questions and turn it over to whomever is next.

Great, thank you.

Let's see, Jared, can you, so we talked a little bit about the childcare project.

That's just one example of, THE KIND OF PROJECTS THAT COMMUNITIES NEED AND ARE ASKING FOR.

CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THESE PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS HELP SUPPORT THE BUILDOUT OF SMALL BUSINESSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD?

SURE.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.

AND APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME HERE AND SPEAK TO YOU ALL.

AGAIN, MY NAME IS JARED JOHNSON.

I'M THE COEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SEAL CHINETOWN International District Preservation Development Authority.

It's a mouthful to say.

Sometimes I get hung up on it.

SEI PDA, we're one of a handful of PDAs across the city that actually do development work.

We're nearly 50 years old now at this point.

We own and operate roughly 450 units of affordable housing in the Chinatown and National District.

We currently have 160 units in development, which will open in August.

And on the ground floor of that project, as has been previously mentioned, is the child care facility with El Centro.

I was asked to come to speak about partnerships in support of this pilot program, of which, to be very clear, SCIPTA and the Chinatown ID really won't see any direct benefit from this program.

None of the developable land within our defined area of operations.

or will be eligible under this program.

But what I'm here to talk about is really just the strength and the power of partnerships and the opportunities that are presented for community-based organizations to get into the development space.

Real estate development isn't rocket science, but it's really complicated and it's hard.

And as Stella mentioned, we deal with funding sources that are in the dozens or 20s.

It can be a complicated and daunting process for community-based organizations that are wanting to break in, wanting to prevent displacement and gentrification of their neighborhoods.

And we have experience doing that.

SCIPTA has not done a ground-up development in nearly 20 years.

Our first one was 13th and Fir as part of the SHA Yesser redevelopment project.

We completed that project late last year and have now leased that project up and then the other project we have in development.

But again, 20 years of trying to identify parcels and projects and gain development expertise, and now we are just getting those opportunities.

And this Connected Communities pilot project is a really great opportunity.

I don't think that it'll change the nature of how the development process works across the city, but we're talking about a small handful of projects, 30, 35 projects in total, And I really see the benefits being twofold.

One, we're gonna gain a lot of affordable housing, hopefully family sized housing in the near term.

And then two, really giving again the opportunity for community based partners to learn and engage in the development process.

And that benefit, the potential for that is so great.

You can change the culture and ability of community-based organizations, service providers to get engaged in that development process.

What I will say, I think there were some concerns during the last hearing about maybe community-based organizations, junior development partners getting taken advantage of in these deals.

There is certainly room for that.

As we prepped for this panel today, one thing I really wanted to key in on was that every community-based partner really should have a development advocate, someone that really deeply understands the process and can walk with that community-based organization from project conception through funding all the way through, if it's a tax credit project, all the way through that compliance period.

There's so much that goes into these projects it's really critical to have someone that advocates strongly for that community-based partner.

That's where I'll end.

I'm sure there'll be some questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So part of that challenge, as you're saying, is around both of you have experience with development.

You've also worked with smaller organizations.

Can you talk a little bit about how you put these agreements together and how you protect the interests of the parties involved?

Sure, maybe I'll go first there, Estella.

I mean, we've had experience doing both, right?

So in our recent development projects, we've been the partner that's had less experience doing developments and where we have been able to partner really successfully with Community Roots Housing as a development partner that has had a lot of experience over the last however many years that they've done.

And they really brought us in and were there to help guide us through that process.

And that's been successful.

And that's because I think they were committed to a mission-based, mission-driven perspective on the project itself.

Now, with our partnership with El Centro, they are a ground floor services partner, right?

And we are the developer on the project.

And I think that that has gone really well.

you know, right from the beginning, as Estella had mentioned, you know, having a mutual understanding of what are the goals?

I mean, this is, we're creating family housing, we have needs for childcare, and we identified early on, you know, who those services partners could be, and El Centro rose to the top because we were developing this project within their service area.

You want to take it from there?

Yeah, I think that the...

Let's see.

This one.

Can you hear me?

Bring it a little closer, Estella.

There you go.

Okay.

I mean, again, it goes back to developing a memorandum of understanding of what you both want and whether you agree with that in terms of the percentage of who's going to own what, the developer fee, just the different services and all of that is agreed on.

And then the reality is that it's sent to an attorney.

and several sort of edits go back and forth, but, you know, obviously, when you're agreeing to things, we need to make sure that they are, that everyone agrees and that they're gonna last, you know, for, say, the first 15 years in terms of if you're working with tax credits, and then with the city of Seattle, it's like 50 years, and so...

There's a lot of back and forth, but it does need to happen.

Another point that I wanted to make around giving nonprofits an opportunity to develop is that if you're smaller nonprofits who have land in their neighborhoods or they're active and the neighborhood is organizing that we need affordable housing, if a nonprofit that's small and goes at it by themselves, they're not going to get it.

They're not going to get it.

We experienced that, you know, where you just cannot compete with somebody who has done a lot of either market rate or affordable housing.

So a partnership with a nonprofit and another larger nonprofit developer or a market rate developer that's when you're gonna win.

I mean, you're both coming together, you both bring certain expertise in terms of how do you work in a community, how do you do outreach, how do you serve that community, and, you know, the bigger nonprofit or the market rate, sort of know the ins and outs, if you will.

So that's probably a good segue to Donald.

Maybe you can talk a little bit about the work that Nehemiah Initiative does and sort of how this, the association, I should say this was based on the religious affordable housing projects that you started.

So can you talk a little bit about that work and how it relates to the generational wealth building effort that this is trying to achieve?

So since the passage of Substitute House Bill 1437, I believe it was in 2019, I began working with the Office of Planning Community Development, City of Seattle.

House Bill 1437 required cities to begin the process of creating an ordinance to allow religious owned property to be developed for affordable homes, to provide greater incentives and bonuses for height, for floor area allowances to build denser and taller buildings that would be financially feasible for these nonprofit developments.

During that time in working with OPCD to be able to craft the language and to be able to test the concept, we did that at the University of Washington College of Built Environments, something we called the Nehemiah Studio.

We tested the concept with looking at what would a development be without the additional incentives and what would it be with them.

So we were able to test that in the financial feasibility and found that some projects would not survive without that additional incentive, without that additional bonus of land use density.

So we were able to inform OPCD then on what kind of language needed to be in the religious organization-owned property ordinance we call the ROOP that came from the Nehemiah Studio at the University of Washington.

And at the same time, thinking that there are other BIPOC institutions, community senators that could benefit from these incentives to provide more land for the development of affordable homes, community spaces and business places on the ground floors.

in areas that one may not have had the density allowances to do a feasible development, or that may not have allowed additional uses on the ground floors of what was essentially an affordable building, affordable housing building.

So this...

ORDINANCE, THIS ADDITION AND THROUGH A PILOT PROGRAM WOULD REALLY BE ABLE TO HIGHLIGHT AND TEST THE CONCEPT, TAKING IT FURTHER FROM WHERE WE STARTED WITH THE ROOP.

WE'VE ALREADY GOT PROJECTS UNDERWAY, SO IT'S PROVEN SUCCESS ALREADY.

HOW CAN WE TAKE A LOOK AT THESE PILOT PROJECTS TO EXPAND THIS ADDITIONAL BONUS FOR DEVELOPMENT for other community institutions, other community service centers that have available land to develop for their communities.

These BIPOC communities have suffered from displacement, from gentrification, and we would like to see more advantages empower them to resist the sale of their land to gentrifiers.

So thank you for taking this on, taking the first steps and getting this into an ordinance through a pilot program.

And we look forward to that being successful.

Thank you very much.

Chair, may I, I still haven't been let into the Zoom meeting, so I don't know here what's going on, but here, glad we're in person.

Thank you, yeah, I don't know.

Yeah, we don't have any presentations at least that are coming through, so.

Oh, you're fine.

Yeah, we will make sure that you are in.

Sorry about that.

Oh, no, that was just for the raise hand function.

Is it all right if I say?

Let's let Caleb go and then we will, I'll be happy to open up for questions.

Caleb, hello.

Hi.

So we've been meeting in different capacities over the last couple of years to talk about Black Home Ownership Initiative, about development projects that are underway with the Brighton Group and some other efforts to really start to build the capacity of a Black community developers, financiers, investors.

So can you talk a little bit about your experience that led you to really want to put your energy behind building the capacity of the community to own and operate and develop their own projects Please go ahead.

Yeah, no problem.

Hello, everyone.

So my name's Caleb Jackson.

I'm with an organization called Resource Equity.

And what we do is we provide different housing interventions for people who are at risk of losing their property or displacement.

And I have a little story that kind of just depicts on, you know, the genesis of this of this project, and that was 2018, when my grandfather had passed away.

At that time, I was really into real estate.

I cut my teeth in Seattle as a real estate investor.

As soon as I got out of college, I just wanted to get passive income, so I bought a lot of property.

So I was in love with it, and the community, my dad's a pastor, would always come to me for advice.

This included my uncle, who...

needed to sell the duplex.

This duplex is located on MLK and Othello, like Othello Station, if you're familiar.

And I could throw a rock and hit a light rail from that property.

He asked me for help.

I said, sure, I'm in some spaces now.

I know some developers.

I've sat down and had lunch with them.

Let me go.

find out some information and let's try to partner with them because this is our property.

You own it free and clear.

My grandpa bought that house for $50,000 in 2000 in the seventies or something like that.

So, Let's partner.

When I brought this project to a developer, I sent them the information, and he emailed me back and told me that the property that I knew was worth about a million dollars because the property we shared a fence line with had already sold for a million dollars.

He told me that the property was worth $150,000, right?

because we're in person, I kind of dressed up a little bit, but usually I'm a lot more plain, and I don't really share my expertise that much, and so he thought that I didn't know anything.

I was in Costco at the time.

I called him up.

I was like, hey, maybe you'll understand.

It's still in multifamily.

It's right by the light rail station.

Maybe you misunderstood, and he doubled down and told me that because I didn't have the financial capacity to do the project, because he thought I didn't know anything about real estate and because I didn't have the development know-how that I needed to go with him.

Then he told me that if I went along with his plan and got my uncle to sell the property to him, he would give me $1,500 as a commission, right?

This is my...

This is when the love of real estate, which allowed me to retire at 27, turned into the hate, right?

Because I'm from District 2, I went to school in District 1, District 3, I'm from all around Seattle, and so I got to look around at West Seattle, the Central District, South Bend, where my friends were, and I seen the displacement, and up until that point, I thought it was...

business or it was fair, but then it was like, oh, no, these properties were stolen.

For predatory developers, predatory lenders, that's what happened to my community, right?

And so with that, the villain origin story, I started to work on a project to make sure that my family's trauma wasn't my community's trauma.

And so that was the genesis of resource equity in the capacities that you see me so well.

And so the goal of resource equity is really to arm the community, arm homeowners with the understanding of the value of their land, right?

Because usually when you get in these spaces with people who speak a different language, because that's what this is a lot of time.

You don't know what you don't know.

And so it's important, it's really important to get to people who have who don't want to make a dime from you, they just want to see you prosper, and that's what we come in with.

And so, we do this through a number of different ways.

A lot of the ways we do it is connecting the programs, which is like, you know, some of the ones that Office of Housing has, which is weatherization, foreclosure prevention.

But we also do, oh, you want to develop?

Let's see what the property's value is.

Maybe you can put an ADU underneath.

Maybe you can do...

units or apartments, and just giving them that information and figuring out what's the highest and best value for the homeowner.

And so, that's been my mission the last four years, really at scale the last two years, is just arming homeowners with that information and making sure that they can make wise decisions.

That's so important, thank you.

I think for me, what is critical about the work that you're doing is helping our neighbors, particularly seniors, understand their options because we all have heard stories about folks showing up with a suitcase full of cash, knocking on a door and just asking somebody to buy their home outright.

And if property taxes are going up and your home value is going up, then it's really easy for some to feel like that's a good deal without maybe thinking, if I get a lot of cash for this house, that doesn't necessarily mean that in this Seattle market, I can afford to buy another house.

And so it's important what you're doing, providing that service so that people understand what their options are to be able to stay rooted in their community.

I'm going to open it up to my colleagues, but I do want to say just one more thing about this issue of predatory developing that you talked about, right?

Because I will say in my first term, we regularly heard developers sort of demonized as only being out for profit.

And we certainly know that that is true for some.

Your experience, some of the things that we've heard, we certainly know that that is true for some people.

But what's also true is that as a city, we are not gonna achieve our affordable housing goals or our economic development or our community development goals without developers.

You know, affordable housing isn't going to build itself.

Community projects are not going to build themselves.

And so it's important for us to understand that when we're talking about equity and when we're talking about really trying to address these crises, that we understand that this still requires incentive.

And that's part of what we're trying to do here.

I will say that in the last two years, as we've been working on this project, we get the question a lot like, who's asking for this?

What problem are you trying to solve?

And I will say that for many groups that are working in Seattle to build a pipeline of black and brown developers, investors, finance people, commercial real estate experts, that's who's asking for this, the people who need access to the expertise and the capital and the learning that comes with being able to lead and do these projects themselves rather than having to rely, eventually, hopefully, rather than having to rely on a partnership like this.

So anyway, I just wanted to get that out and to open it up to my colleagues if there are questions.

Did you have a question, Council Member Schultz?

Please go ahead.

Council Member Wu has her hand actually ready.

Okay, okay.

Thank you all for coming.

I'll say it's really great to see you.

We got to work on the religious bonus bill during the pandemic.

And so while we passed the bill twice, technically, but yet we didn't get to work together in person.

Great to see you again.

I'll be honest, Councilmember Morales brought this bill idea to me not so long after we passed that, and I asked, well, didn't we just do this?

And I now see that this is different.

And so thank you, Councilmember Morales, for that.

and for your work on this.

And Estella, your point is so well taken about you have to have somebody that knows what's going on.

Because after the religious bonus bill came out, we've got a program in Ballard, which Caleb, not so different than your experience of watching people come and try and take advantage of others because they didn't realize that the zoning changed and what they could actually get for the property.

That happened in my community too.

Because I'm guessing that we probably grew up about the same time.

I haven't yet retired, so I might look to you for some tricks.

Or tips, I should say.

But it comes back to St. Luke's Church was going through this both affordable housing and market rate housing project.

And had they not had somebody who could help them navigate that space, the development space, they would not have been able to be successful.

I mean, just from, I believe it was SDCI, and no harm, no foul, but this is just kind of the grinding gears of bureaucracy, trying to say that their church was an institution that required a commercial garbage area.

It's a church, right?

I mean, it's not a symphony hall, right?

I mean, it can be on a small scale, right?

But these small designations can completely change the footprint and what you're able to do and if you're able to make that project pencil or not.

And Donald, they used the religious bonus bill.

They got another floor.

And that means, I mean, and so that, in the Ballard that I grew up in, an expense of really expensive house with $300,000, really expensive house, right?

You had a couple of millionaires.

But the family I grew up in couldn't afford to live in the community that I represent today.

And this project, the St. Louis project, provides that opportunity for families like the one that I grew up in to live in the community in which exists today.

And it's incredibly important and powerful.

So I'm just happy to get to share that with you in person today.

Thank you.

But it comes back to what Caleb was saying of if we don't provide a place for our people to be in the information that they need to be successful, they will be either, and I'm not ascribing intention here, but that they won't, they'll either be taken advantage of intentionally or unintentionally, right?

Like if somebody like us didn't know that SDCI could be have a change in that, how the garbage is picked up between a church or, you know, it's just an institution, right?

So I just, I'm reflecting council member Morales.

I'll say, I still need to read up on the bill draft again, since the last, since your last committee meeting, and I'll ask you some questions before our next committee meeting, but just wanted to say thank you for being here and all you do.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Council Member Strauss, I do want to respond to something that you've said.

So when you're putting a project together, you have either a market rate developer or a nonprofit developer and a community-based organization who wants to respond to the needs in the community.

In that scenario, you still need a development consultant to advocate for you as a part of that partnership.

It is so crucial.

I mean, we haven't been doing housing development for a long time.

I mean, we did something in 1990, bought some houses, and finished the Plaza Maestas in 2016. What I've learned through that process, you have got to have a development.

consultant working, even though you have somebody else who knows it, but you've got to have that advocate there for you.

Okay.

Agree completely.

Council Member Wu.

Thank you.

So thank you for coming and speaking with us.

And if art development was done by organizations like yours, I believe Seattle would be in a much better place.

And so thank you for all your work.

I'm a huge fan.

I have a couple of questions, but this one's directed towards Devin and Ketel, when we're talking about partnerships and the different partnership combinations in this specific legislation, we're not just talking about nonprofits.

small nonprofits and large nonprofits, we're also talking about for-profits and homeowners, right?

And I know we talked about making sure that development consultant is there to advocate for you, but that's not in this legislation.

So, but before we get to that part, can we talk about what the different partnerships look like?

Ketel Freeman, Council Central staff.

So what's contemplated in the legislation is that there would need to be a qualifying community development organization that is part of the project, that is the applicant.

And that qualifying community development organization could be a nonprofit developer.

It could also be a PDA.

That qualifying community development organization could partner with another nonprofit.

another for-profit, and they could also work with a homeowner who wants to let their land be used for that project.

But to even get in the door, there has to be a qualifying community development organization that would be part of a partnership.

How many organizations exist that are qualifying?

Do you know?

I don't know.

I mean, it's the definition in the current draft is that it has to be a a registered nonprofit, so somebody who's registered with the Washington Secretary of State that has as its mission development of affordable housing, not necessarily that, and or a PDA.

So if the rule, if the bylaws of the organization identify that as its purpose, then it could be a qualifying community development organization.

So if I were to start a nonprofit, would I qualify as well?

Councilmember, it really depends.

So the work that we did over the past couple of years with our community partners, you know, they really put together a list of what they wanted to see as qualifying organizations that we have in here.

And so that would be organizations that serve immigrants and communities of color, people at high risk of displacement, people experiencing homelessness, the LGBTQ community, and those nonprofits that are specifically mission-driven to do that.

So if you were to form a nonprofit to do one of those purposes or one of those many purposes or multiple, then yes, you would be able to participate theoretically.

Great.

May I ask a clarifying question, Council Member Wu?

Thank you.

Did you, sorry, I'm not sure I understood properly.

Whether you're a nonprofit or a for-profit, you have to qualify, and to qualify, you have to do one of these things you just said.

Did I hear that right?

To be a development partner.

That's the qualification for development partner.

For profit also would have to be an organization that does this thing.

Yeah, the point is to have organizations whose mission is to serve these particular...

entities or populations?

On the CBO end, not the developer end.

Correct.

Sorry.

To be a partnering organization.

So for example, I can use a couple of examples of organizations that we worked with on this.

African Community Development, Housing and Development, El Central was part of this, was part of this.

the Filipino Community Center, the East African Community Services, the Somali Community in Seattle.

These are the sort of organizations that we're thinking of when we're talking about development partners.

Is that in this legislation?

Is there some way you could stipulate that?

Because I feel like it's very vague.

I don't know if that's legal.

Can we have a preference?

Sure, I'll just, from the draft, this is sort of the definition of a qualifying community development organization.

It's a nonprofit organization registered with the Washington Secretary of State or a public development authority created under the authority that RCWs provide for those that has as its purpose the creation or preservation of affordable state or federally subsidized housing, social housing, or affordable commercial space, affordable art space, community gathering spaces, or equitable development uses.

So it's a wide range of purposes for which a nonprofit has been created that would qualify that nonprofit.

OK.

Thank you.

And is there a body that verifies this, that they truly are a nonprofit with this mission and purpose versus I can just register myself as a nonprofit with this mission and be able to take advantage of this?

Yeah, it's a good question.

It's an administrative question, ultimately.

Sort of who does the, who establishes for the purposes of SDCI, which would ultimately be saying you qualify and you can access these additional development standards, who qualifies that organization.

The current thinking is that that could be done through a director's role, a process prescribed by a director's role that could be promulgated by the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections, which would implement the regulatory side of this, the Office of Planning and Community Development, which has sort of a grant making function through EDI, potentially the Office of Housing as well.

Yeah, and I'll just clarify for my colleagues.

The question that you're asking, Councilmember Wu, is an implementation question.

Sorry, I can't see you.

Which we can't do through legislation.

So we are setting the policy and then the decisions about how to implement is an executive function that we actually can't legislate.

So as keto mentioned there is conversation happening among the departments about how something like this would be implemented and a directors rule is something being contemplated But that is again something that would happen and be finalized once the legislation is passed and Sharon just chair Morales May I share a story to in in the establishment of the group?

I was asked well if this is for religious organizations, why can't I just start a church and and take advantage of the roof.

And well, first of all, most of our black churches already own land free and clear.

So if you were to start a church, you would have to buy land.

But the objective then would be to build affordable homes on that land for 80% or less of AMI.

Then what's the harm?

The objective has been met.

So there is no advantage here that someone can have to meet that objective, to have the land, to meet the objective of developing affordable homes, business places, and community spaces.

To meet that objective, it doesn't really matter who does it.

Thank you.

My next question, actually, that's a good segue.

I want to talk about BMI, actually, but I see there's other comments.

Yeah, Council Member Wu, I did just want to point you, you had asked where that might be in the legislation, that kind of potential list or that kind of potential criteria.

So that is on page 14 of the most recent draft.

That's draft nine of the legislation.

So I'm quoting verbatim, partnering community development, Organization could include incorporated entities that advocate or provide services for refugees, immigrants, communities of color, members of the LGBTQ community, members of the communities experiencing homelessness, and persons at risk of economic displacement.

I just wanted to make sure that you got that.

That's on page 14.

I also want to add that Section 3 says the council requests these things.

Again, that's how we deal with when our authority has ended.

We can't require that directors do this.

So the way we get around that is to say that we're requesting that you follow this path and then it is up to the executive to implement that.

Great, thank you.

So I have a question for our, I guess, PDAs.

When you are leasing out your units, do you see there is a need for 40%, 50% AMI?

Do you see a law need for 80% AMI?

What is the need out there?

And what is your definition of affordable housing?

Simple answer to your question is yes.

There's a need for housing that is affordable across the spectrum, and I think the legislation outlines that the housing will be built up to 80% of the area median income.

Is that correct?

Again, to answer your question, yes, there is a need.

I think in our most recent experience, especially with the leasing of the building that we're leasing up currently, there is a greater need.

and it's just ever-present for the most affordable of housing, which is 30% of area median income and below.

We have consistently seen that those units get leased up first.

In our current portfolio, those units, which comprise a majority of the units that SKIPTA owns and operates, consistently remain occupied at 99% to 100%.

And I'm sorry, could you repeat the second part of your question?

Oh, like your definition of affordable housing.

We hear that term a lot, but I just wanted to make sure that we're all...

Yeah, so as a community development organization, we believe in a spectrum of affordable housing.

There are other affordable housers who really define affordable housing at 30% or below, but as a community development organization, our perspective is in order to have a vibrant and thriving community, which I think the pilot program is really trying to...

to ensure is that you have available housing on a spectrum so you get a really wide range of incomes and people of different backgrounds, immigration, refugee status, et cetera, that comprise a community and really start to build that social cohesion that makes a neighborhood or a community really worth living in.

Yeah, and I'll just add, you're right, and the question is always affordable to who, right?

Who are we talking about?

And I would say part of the goal here, we've heard, I don't know if it was in your committee or sometime this week, We were hearing, maybe it was at the budget conversation this morning about 80% AMI is something like $92,000 in the city of Seattle, which is crazy.

So when we're talking about affordability, we all know that we need a lot of housing for people who are extremely poor.

And we are doing, you know, we have programs that are set up to make sure that we are building affordable housing for low income folks.

We have permanent supportive housing for folks who are transitioning out of homelessness.

We have the Seattle Housing Authority and King County Housing Authority.

And we know that we have market rate housing going up all over the place.

What we lack is that housing.

When we hear about, you know, kind of missing middle, I think in Olympia, what they're talking about is different housing types.

four plexes and six plexes.

What we mean here, particularly in this legislation is middle income, right?

Because what we hear from our businesses across the city is that their workers can't afford to live here.

And so what we're looking at is how do we make sure that we're also looking at housing that is affordable to middle income people, to our bus drivers and our teachers and our childcare workers, because I have a few friends who own restaurants and they can't get dishwashers because dishwashers can't afford to live in Seattle.

So what we're looking for here is a broader spectrum of affordability for a broader spectrum of our neighbors because so many of our neighbors are leaving and this is impacting our businesses, it's impacting our community vibrancy, it's impacting our ability to have neighborhoods that are, and particularly individual buildings that are more than market rate or, you know, only for folks who are very low income.

So anyway, that was my affordability tangent.

Council member, I'm sorry, council member Wu, did you have any more questions?

Yes, you have two more questions.

I'll try to make this quick, but really quickly, legislation says here that 30% of dwelling units, let's see, Was it 80% AMI in this legislation?

I would like to see a little bit lower than 80% AMI.

I feel like when we say affordable and that missing middle, we're looking at maybe 40% AMI.

I don't know there's a way we could craft that in this legislation.

Because for those who have built housing, don't you think that's...

I don't know if this is a question you want to answer, but...

having a certain percentage of 40, 50, 60, with 30% of that entire project being at those same eyes, I think would be a lot.

helpful, more helpful in terms of housing people.

I also want to look at the ownership aspect and project ownership.

It says here that ownership of at least 51% is by the incorporated owner.

So I assume that's 51% of the land, but it says here 10% of the corporate owner with a partner in an entity provides site control for development.

So I assume that means 51% of the land, they could do a land lease, but here 10% of the project ownership.

And so I'm worried that without more percentage, that there would be issues of control or input in how this development looks in terms of generational wealth and also in terms of displacement.

So maybe can you talk about your projects, like what does the project ownership model looks like in your developments, like versus small, big, or what projects?

I can speak to that.

Let's see.

We, you know, the market rate developer that we're breaking ground with in July, we negotiated a 51% for us as the nonprofit and 49% for the market rate developer.

So it was turned around.

And that means everything, the land and the property, the building itself.

because you're both working, you know, on a project.

You both bring something to the table that makes you competitive.

And so that's, you know, a concrete deal there.

And then we're also...

doing a project that I cannot say what it is right now, but it is with a large nonprofit developer, and us, it's 50-50.

So I don't know where the 10% came from that I didn't see, but that's what we're doing.

And Council Member Wu, just to clarify, and for the members of the public, she's talking about THE DEFINITION OF OWNED AND CONTROLLED ON PAGE THREE OF THE DRAFT.

THOSE ARE OR STATEMENTS, THOSE ONE THROUGH FOUR.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ALL OF THEM OR ONE OF THEM OVER ANY OTHER.

THOSE ARE OR STATEMENTS.

I'd like to answer that question.

So in our most recent project, 13th and Fir Family Housing, we are the 51% owner and the senior developer, which was Community Roots Housing, was the 49% owner.

But I think to get to your earlier question, we're talking about AMI levels and what we think you know, is appropriate or not.

And I think, you know, obviously targeting public financing, public funding of affordable housing is important, but I think the Connected Communities pilot program is really a land use incentive for developers, right?

And I don't know if what's being proposed is the right combination of incentives, but that's why it's a pilot program.

So it'd be wonderful to see, you know, fits the right amount of combination between the FAR bonus and the parking and the permitting, you know, expediting of the permitting process.

I think all those are attractive to the development community.

Certainly from a community development perspective as a partner, I mean, we wanna see those, we wanna see our projects get through quicker so that we can build housing faster, provide housing and partner with organizations like El Centro to provide services faster as well.

And I guess one thing that I would add to this is that, you know, when we talk about wealth building, you know, for individuals and homeownership, absolutely.

Well, there is wealth building, asset building that needs to happen with community-based organizations so that they're here for the long term and not just a short term on a project.

I saw Council Member Wu, and then I don't know, oh, and then Council Member Strauss.

No, sorry, Council Member Moore, and then Council Member Strauss.

Oh, you're done, okay.

Council Member Strauss.

Oh, yes.

Council Member Wu, the story you told, and also, I think Council Member Wu's the only one who's developed affordable housing sitting on this side of the dais, if I'm not mistaken, so questions well asked.

The reason I joked a little bit earlier with Donald about having to pass the religious bonus bill twice was because, again, we were in the pandemic world of doing everything via Zoom and telephone calls.

The bill comes up for a final vote at full council, and a council member not sitting at this table walked on an amendment to lower the AMI from 80% down to 60%.

Donald didn't even know, so I don't even think you were able to address it in your public comment.

And then as it's all unfolding, I'm making phone calls and I'll be honest, at first I was like, yeah, okay, that makes sense.

Let's serve a lower economic band of individuals.

And I got on the phone with you, Donald, and you were like, no, this is bad.

Because we want to be able to, and I'll let you share your own words, but the feedback that I received in that moment was, Yes to everything that this other council member was saying about their bill and the importance of 60% AMI.

The flexibility to go up to 80% AMI was what would be able to buoy some of those lower economic span units so that you're essentially buoying.

You had a better story than what I'm saying, but I joked about it earlier because when the bill came out at the end of the day with 60% AMI, the projects weren't able to pencil, which is why we brought it back for another vote where we didn't have walk-on amendments.

This is also, I think you're hearing from me, I hated the walk-on amendments at full council.

It's like that's what committee's for.

Yes, I see.

Donald.

And part of what we were doing with the Nehemiah Initiative and other faith organizations that were partnering with us we're looking at the flexibility of that 60% to 80%.

Not that all the projects are going to be 80%.

As a matter of fact, very few will probably go that high.

But we needed the flexibility for not only the range of types of home, in our case, with the Nehemiah Initiative, it's home buyers, homeowners, to be able to hit that sweet spot to be under 80%, but also have enough income to qualify for a mortgage.

So that may push it up to 65% to 70%.

It may not be at 80%.

From the studies that we know now, most will be at 65% to 70%.

80% is there also for the hedge against the future inflation that we're seeing.

Housing costs now are outstripping income increases.

So an 80%, that middle place in our community for beginning school teachers, for first responders, for our essential workers, is really closer to 80%.

and they still can't afford to live in Seattle.

So if we're talking about also expanding that spectrum and the availability of affordable homes, and that's a real quantifiable number, it's 30% of your household income should not be spent, you should not spend more than that on your living.

There are more people that fall into that category above 60% than just the very low and low income.

There are plenty of programs for them, and I applaud those programs, and we need those, and we need the others as well, up to 80%.

We need that flexibility.

Thank you.

Just to clarify this for this one, I think it's 30% of the total project had to be up to 80%, so we have the other minus 30, that will not be at any percentage.

With the religious-owned property, all of the projects, 100% of the projects can be up to 80%.

So we don't have a limitation on that.

Council Member Rivera, did you have a question?

Yes, I know we're getting to the end of our committee meeting.

I really just wanted to thank you all for being here and for the information and for your experience because it's always helpful to hear the experience of the folks that are doing this type of work.

I will say that the piece of legislation, we do need to review, at least I do more fully I'll say that there are questions about affordability.

We can keep talking about those.

There are questions about other programs at the city that are trying to address affordability because one thing here that is true is that we're adding a pilot program and the truth is the city has yet to add a pilot program that it actually sunsetted.

in I don't know however long.

So this isn't, I don't think of these things as really a pilot program because we've never completed any.

So the truth is, you know, who knows how long this will last.

And also, you know, this has some certain time attached to it.

Like, I thought it was 10 years or something.

Ketel, you can correct me.

But it's quite a length of time by which to complete the projects that come out of this.

So to me, that's a long time that...

that this program would actually be in existence.

And I'll say that we here, or at least those of us new, and I wonder if those of us who've been on the council for a while know all the programs that we're administering across the city that are actually addressing the housing affordability.

And I know that, I mean, just last week, OHA, issued some awards on housing projects that then they couldn't, they could only do some certain number because they had to go back and fund more of those other projects that haven't been completed that now need more funding.

So we're all trying to come up to speed with all of those programs.

And so this is another program on top of the ones that the city does administer that we really need to dig into.

I think there's a level of discomfort to start a whole new project when we are not clear on how well the existing projects and incentives that we're currently doing at the city are doing.

So I want to be transparent and honest about that.

And at the same time, thank you for coming.

And I know we're going to keep having the conversation about this particular proposal.

But I also, out of respect for you all who came here and took time to come here today and who are doing work on the ground, I want to both acknowledge the hard work you all have been doing, as well as just more information that we're going to need.

Thank you.

Yeah, I wanted to respond a little bit to the, you know, whether it's up to 60% or 80%.

Any project is going to pencil if you're going to do the work to do a capital campaign fundraise in that way.

So, I mean, again, on our 60%, Columbia City, 20 different funding sources.

So they will pencil.

You just got to do the work.

I did want to add just to address the percentage, the 30% percentage.

Again, that came through the community process.

That is actually a dramatic jump compared to what a lot of city programs have.

Because instead of thinking about this being an affordable housing building that is taking away units and replacing those with market rate, we're actually talking about projects that would have probably been market rate.

If you're to take advantage of some of the other programs that the city has, you can pay to not have any affordable housing onsite and this would mandate 30%.

That's a dramatic increase to what we have in many of other programs.

So it's really thinking about how we're getting affordable housing into projects that would have otherwise possibly be not affordable to people of multiple incomes in our city.

And I'm glad you raised that because we do have MHA.

I think that's what you're referring to, Devin.

And, you know, we've all said here maybe we need to relook at MHA and those AMI requirements.

But that's my point.

We haven't had the opportunity to look at the programs that currently exist and say, do we need to amend these or are we going to add yet another program?

And what are the implications and long-term consequences of doing that?

because I think we're all on the same page about wanting to do good in community.

Thank you.

So we are almost out of time.

I want to thank all of you for being here.

We really appreciate you taking the time to come share the work you're doing.

Again, I will say that the goal here is really to provide, as Donald was saying, the flexibility for how we create more partnerships.

I think what we're really trying to do here is...

systematize some of the partnership building that is happening in a really ad hoc way right now.

So we wanna provide the incentive for partnerships to get created, provide the support and the ability for you to find projects that serve community and that can also serve the anti-displacement goals, particularly for our small businesses and other commercial projects that we know our community members are asking for.

So thank you to everyone.

I just wanna let folks know, it sounds like we've got potentially some interest in making some changes to the bill.

The next committee meeting is March 6th.

Sorry, I'm trying to find my notes.

Here we go.

Okay, so the next committee meeting is March 6th.

We will be getting a briefing from the Equitable Development Initiative folks at the Office of Planning and Community Development.

A lot of the work that we're talking about here is EDI work, and so I wanna make sure that folks understand how that works.

They'll present the work involved and can really answer questions, some of the questions that came up today related to how we work with commercial projects.

I will also say if community members are considering amendments to the connected communities legislation, please talk to Lish Whitson on central staff by March 8th.

We will be taking up the bill at this point, the plan is to take it up March 21st, the second meeting in March for a committee vote.

So please do talk to Lish if there's something that you are contemplating and he can help you there.

If there is no other business, this meeting is adjourned.

It is 4.01.

Thank you very much for being here, everyone.